Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides - St Catherine's manuscripts Catalogue(s) plural

[Steven Avery]

What threads? Post a list.

Sinaiticus Jeremiah - light page from 1844 Leipzig next to the 'yellow with age' 1859 British Library page
https://forums.carm.org/threads/sin...low-with-age-1859-british-library-page.15655/

Uspensky - Sinaiticus has no gray hair, no wrinkles, not as old as Tischendorf claims
https://forums.carm.org/threads/usp...nkles-not-as-old-as-tischendorf-claims.15707/

Sara Mazzarino - "What I can certainly say is that the conservation conditions of CS are absolutely perfect in is current state"
https://forums.carm.org/threads/sar...absolutely-perfect-in-is-current-state.15801/

"the action of ink upon vellum" - an example of science changing for Sinaiticus
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...ple-of-science-changing-for-sinaiticus.14909/

how did Simonides and Kallinikos know about the colouring of the manuscript?
https://forums.carm.org/threads/how...-about-the-colouring-of-the-manuscript.15790/

Coptic-Arabic miniatures - two-step 1853 and 1859 theft-extraction from St. Catherine's by Tischendorf - similar to Sinaiticus CFA 1844 and 1859
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cop...imilar-to-sinaiticus-cfa-1844-and-1859.14486/

how did Simonides and Kallinikos know about Tischendorf's 1844 manuscript theft of 43 leaves?
https://forums.carm.org/threads/how...rfs-1844-manuscript-theft-of-43-leaves.15795/

Why is the Codex Sinaiticus full New Testament perfectly preserved ?
https://forums.carm.org/threads/why...full-new-testament-perfectly-preserved.13800/

 

[Steven Avery]

Why Simonides' Autographa wasn't written in Moscow and Odessa in 1953 & 1954.

Canfora Il Viaggio

In July 1855 he landed in Leipzig. In Paris he has himself presented to the Count of Marcellus, in Sainte-Beuve, to the conservators of the Bibliothèque Impériale, but it seems to none of them that he has donated this work full of "unpublished" manuscripts and papyri (yet he still wanted to offer Marcellus unpublished manuscripts concerning Nonno di Panopoli, which the count politely rejected). Instead, the Autographa and the 'twin' volume entitled Symmiga Simonidis will take them to Paris in March ten years later (1864): one copy as a gift to the Bibliothèque Impériale and one as a gift to the Library of the Académie des Inscriptions. The most plausible deduction is that in November 1854, when he was in Paris to consult, as Sainte-Beuve wrote recommending him, the Greek manuscripts of the Bibliothèque Impériale, those volumes did not yet exist.

This is an interesting and important issue. It definitely involves the identity of Kallinikos. It seems quite clear to me that this publication was not a product of the Sinaiticus controversies.

Nikolaos Farmakidis in his book on Constantine Simonides on p. 97, translated from the Greek, has:

In 1854 Constantine dedicated a book to his father and wrote to him: "to my philosopher father Simon. In Paris, 1854, Tuesday, August 1854. Constantine Simonides" 246. In the same book he speaks of his father with words of great love and affection, while in "Simaida" (1849) he publishes a certificate dated 19.8.1846, signed by some chieftains of the Revolution. I don't know if the certificate is true, but two things are undeniable: Constantine over-loved and admired his father, and his father was indeed a hero and pioneer of the Revolution. After the Revolution, he took the lead in the political affairs of Symi as a Demogeron and representative of Demogerontia.

The copy of the book with Simonides' dedication to his father is in Rhodes. It must have come from a collection of an unknown person of Constantine's time. Some say that this book ("Autographa") was written by Simonides after 13 Sept. 1862. They say that he falsified the date to support his claim that he was the true author of the "Sinaitic Codex", which he wrote on Mount Athos in 1839. But this copy proves that Constantine was telling the truth. This book was written before the issue of Tissendorf came to light. This subject will be developed below.

And Olivier Masson in the Journal de Savants (1994) tells us that Simonides had the habit of dedicating his books. Masson, referring to Constantine's return to Paris in 1864, writes: In examining Simonides' works in Greek, preserved in the libraries of Paris, I found that many copies have handwritten dedications (in modern Greek). This proves that at the specific date he signs, Simonides is in Paris.

246. "Autographs of the Doctor and Knight Constantine A. F. Simonidos" (Second Edition, in Odessa, 1854), Archives of Ioann. Parai. It probably comes from the archive of Simon, who, as Constantine says, lived in Rhodes.

I'll plan on adding more to this, he seems quite certain that the 1860s date is simply an error, and so far I tend to agree.

The arguments from Canfora were never very strong, and are totally trumped by the Rhodes edition. In fact, I see the Canfora argument as circular to the presupposition that Kallinikos was a chimera. As a real person, that eliminates the need to have Simonides travelling to Moscow and/or Odessa, which was the major argument of Canfora, chronology. (One printers could arrange for editions in two cities.)

Kallinikos helping with the Autographa edition, on top of their manuscript work together in Athos in 1841, helps to substantiate the Kallinikos identity.

 

[cjab]

This is an interesting and important issue. It definitely involves the identity of Kallinikos. It seems quite clear to me that this publication was not a product of the Sinaiticus controversies.

Nikolaos Farmakidis in his book on Constantine Simonides on p. 97, translated from the Greek, has:

Nikolaos Farmakidis is as far as I know not an author who is particularly reliable. He deliberately wrote to try to exonerate Simonides, and seems to be something of an unbeliever, an anti-clerical critic who lambasted Benedikt as being "the killer of Symi" which is surprising because the Revolution was never in his hands. Farmakidis had him as Hegumen of St. Panteleimon in the early1920s, which appears to be incompatible with the facts and the monastic record of St. Panteleimon, although perhaps Benedikt was a deputy under the real abbot for a short while. We await further revelations, but it is clear that afterwards, when he returned to St. Panteleimon in the 1830s, he was not abbot.

There is nothing in what Nikolaos Farmakidis has written above that proves anything, as far as I can see. He writes with a clear bias, and his "proofs" are suspect. Simonides could have sent the book to Rhodes any time he wanted.

I'll plan on adding more to this, he seems quite certain that the 1860s date is simply an error, and so far I tend to agree.

The arguments from Canfora were never very strong, and are totally trumped by the Rhodes edition. In fact, I see the Canfora argument as circular to the presupposition that Kallinikos was a chimera. As a real person, that eliminates the need to have Simonides travelling to Moscow and/or Odessa, which was the major argument of Canfora, chronology. (One printers could arrange for editions in two cities.)

Kallinikos helping with the Autographa edition, on top of their manuscript work together in Athos in 1841, helps to substantiate the Kallinikos identity.

The Orthodox Review had reported in 1862 and again in 1863 that the authenticity of Hieromonk Kallinikos was in question. If anyone was going to know him, it would have been the Orthodox. But it seems he never did substantiate himself, and disappeared from view along with Simonides.

So there is no indication he had an identity other than as Simonides' alter-ego.

 

[Steven Avery]

, and seems to be something of an unbeliever, an anti-clerical critic who lambasted Benedikt as being "the killer of Symi" which is surprising because the Revolution was never in his hands.

This needs a real specific reference.

 

[Steven Avery]

The Orthodox Review had reported in 1862 and again in 1863 that the authenticity of Hieromonk Kallinikos was in question. If anyone was going to know him, it would have been the Orthodox. But it seems he never did substantiate himself, and disappeared from view along with Simonides. So there is no indication he had an identity other than as Simonides' alter-ego.

First things first.
Have you disposed of the claim that the Autographa of Simonides by Kallinikos was published as a Sinaticus-controversy production?

 

[cjab]

This needs a real specific reference.

I noticed an article by your author, ΝΙΚΟΛΟΣ ΦΑΡΜΑΚΙ∆ΗΣ, entitled "Βενέδικτος Ρώσος, ο «σπαχής» της Σύµης (1764-1840)" at pages 512-535 in this journal/book

ΔΩΔΕΚΑΝΗΣΙΑΚΑ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑ ΠΕΡΙΟΔΙΚΗ ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΟΝΙΚΗ ΕΚΔΟΣΗ ΤΟΜΟΣ ΚΗ΄

which in English is the DODECAN CHRONICLES PERIODICAL SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION VOLUME 28. entitled "Benediktos Rossos, the "slaughterer" of Symi.

Can't say I have located this article but it looks interesting.

 

[cjab]

First things first.
Have you disposed of the claim that the Autographa of Simonides by Kallinikos was published as a Sinaticus-controversy production?

No. You haven't proved anything.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Nikolaos Farmakidis in his book on Constantine Simonides on p. 97, translated from the Greek, has:

A modern Greek Simonides supporter and apologist... suprise suprise...no, not really.

BTW, it was known way back in the 1880's that, later on, Simonides father somehow managed to forgive his patricidal son to a degree (he still excluded him from his will when he died and gave the entire inheritance to his brothers).

It's also reported that he (either wittingly or unwittingly) aided and abetted his son by sheltering him temporarily when the locals on his home island wanted his head (metaphorically speaking) and banned him from the island, and after his father learned of Simonides inclinations towards manuscripts, he supplied him with some manuscripts, and gave him information and descriptions (or copies in some cases) of other manuscripts.

Also, none of this negates the fact that Simonides tried to kill his father and mother (or step-father and step-mother).

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

And don't get your knickers in a twist about my wording. I'm paraphrasing in my words the information from the account, which I'll leave to you to discover yourself.

 

[Steven Avery]

Farmakidis had him as Hegumen of St. Panteleimon in the early 1920s,

The spot I see on p. 34 goes like this:

What Schaper writes is an invention. He also attacks Simonides for saying that Benedict was an abbot. But a little research leaves us dumbfounded before the undeniable personality and greatness of his character. As can be seen from dozens of public documents, available to everyone in the General State Archives, in private collections, in books and studies, Benedict is one of the greatest personalities of the Greek Nation.

Nikolos is saying the same thing I shared. That folks like McGrane are stretching a minor point. Benedict was a superb scholar, and had great position in the monastery, e.g. seeing dignitaries.

Nikolos is essentially confirming the high appraisal of Benedict.

 

[Steven Avery]

No. You haven't proved anything.

Do you have a position?
Or, just an agnostic on the question.

Are you accusing Nikolos of lying about the book in Rhodes? (I am funning you, because you constantly use the stupid liar accussation.)

Do you see another vector of transmission for that book with the dedication rather than Simonides c. 1854?

 

[Steven Avery]

I noticed an article by your author, ΝΙΚΟΛΟΣ ΦΑΡΜΑΚΙ∆ΗΣ, entitled "Βενέδικτος Ρώσος, ο «σπαχής» της Σύµης (1764-1840)" at pages 512-535 in this journal/book
ΔΩΔΕΚΑΝΗΣΙΑΚΑ ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑ ΠΕΡΙΟΔΙΚΗ ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΟΝΙΚΗ ΕΚΔΟΣΗ ΤΟΜΟΣ ΚΗ΄ which in English is the DODECAN CHRONICLES PERIODICAL SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION VOLUME 28. entitled "Benediktos Rossos, the "slaughterer" of Symi. Can't say I have located this article but it looks interesting.

Interesting overall, however I don't think you want to stay out on a limb on this one until you have some actual sentences and context .

 

[Steven Avery]

Also, none of this negates the fact that Simonides tried to kill his father and mother (or step-father and step-mother).

You might want to at least read Nikolos Farmakidis before stating this as a supposed fact.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

You might want to at least read Nikolos Farmakidis before stating this as a supposed fact.

Then give us both the Greek text and a translation of what he says.

With the full context.

With nothing omitted.

With the full name of the book, chapter, subheading, page numbers etc.

Just post it up.

Then, "at least" I "can read" what he says... Correct Mr. Avery?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Interesting overall, however I don't think you want to stay out on a limb on this one until you have some actual sentences and context .

Then you better be prepared to do the same.

See post above.

 

[Steven Avery]

Then give us both the Greek text and a translation of what he says.
With the full context.
With nothing omitted.
With the full name of the book, chapter, subheading, page numbers etc.
Just post it up.
Then, "at least" I "can read" what he says... Correct Mr. Avery?

His book, by my estimation, has about five important takeaways.
One was already on the forum from a web page, the excellence of the Benedict scholarship.

Here we are discussing the murder parents accusation.
You never did give your sources with quotes, and you usually equivocated.

I’ll check it out.

 

[Steven Avery]

Here we are discussing the murder parents accusation.
You never did give your sources with quotes, and you usually equivocated.
I’ll check it out.

Nikolos Farmakidis says this comes through Chaviaras Dimosthenis (1849-1922) who he does complement overall. Chaviaras wrote a biography of Constantine in 1889, which was published in a Dictionary of Constantinople (Stauros I. Voutyra, Dictionary of History and Geography volume G, pp. 580-2.)

"This biography shows that his information came from deep hatred or remorse of conscience of Constantine's half-brother. This is Agapitos Simonides, who apparently misleads Haviaras and uses these expressions."

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Nikolos Farmakidis says this comes through Chaviaras Dimosthenis (1849-1922) who he does complement overall. Chaviaras wrote a biography of Constantine in 1889, which was published in a Dictionary of Constantinople (Stauros I. Voutyra, Dictionary of History and Geography volume G, pp. 580-2.)

"This biography shows that his information came from deep hatred or remorse of conscience of Constantine's half-brother. This is Agapitos Simonides, who apparently misleads Haviaras and uses these expressions."

Nikolos Farmakidis' Greek for your "this biography shows" paragraph please.

The full context as well.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

You might want to at least read Nikolos Farmakidis before stating this as a supposed fact.

Your recommendation.

Let's follow it up.

 

[Steven Avery]

Constantine Simonides (2021)
Nikolos Farmakidis
p. 76

Η αρχή έγινε από το Δημοσθένη Χαβιαρά, έναν εξαίρετο και αξιόπιστο συγγραφέα και λόγιο της Σύμης, ο οποίος πείσθηκε από το περιβάλλον του ή πιθανότερα από τον ετεροθαλή αδελφό του Κωνσταντίνου τον Αγαπητό 188 πως ο Κωνσταντίνος ήταν ένας παρ’ ολίγον δολοφόνος και προβληματικός χαρακτήρας. Ο Χαβιαράς δε μπορεί να τον γνώριζε προσωπικά (1849-1922), αφού ο Κωνσταντίνος έφυγε από τη Σύμη το 1835 και πέθανε το 1867, όταν ο Χαβιαράς ήταν 18 χρονών. Ο Χαβιαράς, που το 1862 (στα 13 του) πήγε στη Ρόδο και επέστρεψε το 1867, συνέταξε το 1889 ένα βιογραφικό κείμενο του Κωνσταντίνου, που δημοσιεύτηκε σε Λεξικό της Κωνσταντι-νούπολης 189. Αυτό το βιογραφικό δείχνει ότι οι πληροφορίες του προέρχονται από βαθύ μίσος ή από τύψεις συνείδησης του ετεροθαλή αδελφού τού Κωνσταντίνου. Πρόκειται για τον Αγαπητό Σιμωνίδη, που προφανώς παρασύρει το Χαβιαρά και χρησιμοποιεί αυτές τις εκφράσεις.



Note: I didn’t have time to check the hyphens in making the text version, so I left you the picture. As for the translation of the title, there is a word or two that needs consideration for the best.