Steven Avery
Administrator
WIP
collating the info on Charles Stewart not a phantom and the Benedict timing for Christopher de Hamel comment
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
CARM has a note from earlier that mentions his Uncle.
Steven Avery
Administrator
Genius
p. 88 - Anna Mykoniati
p. 144
p. 177
p. 196
p. 307
AND MORE
p. 88 - Anna Mykoniati
p. 144
p. 177
p. 196
p. 307
AND MORE
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Is this Fotiadis?
Steven Avery
Administrator
Feb 12, 2024
Hi Christopher de Hamel,
Thanks!
One addition for now:
Christopher de Hamel:
"In the Memoir, Simonides now seemed to remember that the abbot on Athos was his Uncle Benedict, that the manuscripts had been part of a library brought from Constantinople or Egypt by Saint Paul of Xeropotamou, son of the emperor Michael Kuropalatos (a real person, emperor 811–13), and that they had been hidden by the Orthodox monks beneath the ruins of a monastery on Mount Athos to save them from the Latinizers, or Roman Church, during the time of the Crusades."
At the time of the Athos- Simonides-Sinaiticus controversies, it was falsely claimed that there was no Benedict as a high official at the Panteleimon (Russico) monastery! See the claim of Nicolaides in Elliott p. 73-74.
Whatever the extent of a hidden library, in addition to the information supplied by Simonides in his 1859 biography and the letter of 1862 to the Journals, it should be mentioned that Benedict (who Simonides more precisely called the uncle of his mother) is a well-known Athos monastery official, linguist and scholar. Simonides pegged the Sinaiticus production as essentially his work. More details of his life can be found in:
1) the recent Greek book by Nikolaos Farmakidis on Constantine Simonides (2017)
www.facebook.com
2) biographical timeline given by Lilia Diamantopoulou in:
Konstantinos Simonides: Leben und Werk. Ein tabellarischer Überblick p. 305-326
in
Science deceived. A Genius Fools Europe (2015)
Die getäuschte Wissenschaft: Ein Genie betrügt Europa
3) Who Faked the "World's Oldest Bible"? by David W. Daniels (2021)
In addition, see on p. 73 of Elliott the reference to the letter in the Telegraph of the Bosphorus of the 8th of December, 1851, written in a context that includes opposition to Simonides. Along with the secret library and the high position of and respect for Benedict! And on p. 168 is a corroborating reference to his uncle and he manuscripts he discovered.
Thus there was nothing at all surprising that Benedict was the center-figure in 1859 and 1862.
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
Edited to fix pronoun and line
Hi Christopher de Hamel,
Thanks!
One addition for now:
Christopher de Hamel:
"In the Memoir, Simonides now seemed to remember that the abbot on Athos was his Uncle Benedict, that the manuscripts had been part of a library brought from Constantinople or Egypt by Saint Paul of Xeropotamou, son of the emperor Michael Kuropalatos (a real person, emperor 811–13), and that they had been hidden by the Orthodox monks beneath the ruins of a monastery on Mount Athos to save them from the Latinizers, or Roman Church, during the time of the Crusades."
At the time of the Athos- Simonides-Sinaiticus controversies, it was falsely claimed that there was no Benedict as a high official at the Panteleimon (Russico) monastery! See the claim of Nicolaides in Elliott p. 73-74.
Whatever the extent of a hidden library, in addition to the information supplied by Simonides in his 1859 biography and the letter of 1862 to the Journals, it should be mentioned that Benedict (who Simonides more precisely called the uncle of his mother) is a well-known Athos monastery official, linguist and scholar. Simonides pegged the Sinaiticus production as essentially his work. More details of his life can be found in:
1) the recent Greek book by Nikolaos Farmakidis on Constantine Simonides (2017)
Nikolos Farmakidis
Ένα βιβλίο για τη ζωή του Συμιακού Κωνσταντίνου Σιμωνίδη, γραμμένο από το Νικολό Φαρμακίδη. Ο Κωνσταντίνος Σιμωνίδης γεννήθηκε στη Σύμη πριν δύο αιώνες και πέθανε στην Αλεξάνδρεια. Εξειδικεύτηκε...
www.facebook.com
2) biographical timeline given by Lilia Diamantopoulou in:
Konstantinos Simonides: Leben und Werk. Ein tabellarischer Überblick p. 305-326
in
Science deceived. A Genius Fools Europe (2015)
Die getäuschte Wissenschaft: Ein Genie betrügt Europa
3) Who Faked the "World's Oldest Bible"? by David W. Daniels (2021)
In addition, see on p. 73 of Elliott the reference to the letter in the Telegraph of the Bosphorus of the 8th of December, 1851, written in a context that includes opposition to Simonides. Along with the secret library and the high position of and respect for Benedict! And on p. 168 is a corroborating reference to his uncle and he manuscripts he discovered.
Thus there was nothing at all surprising that Benedict was the center-figure in 1859 and 1862.
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
Edited to fix pronoun and line
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Feb 12, 2024
Hi Christopher de Hamel,
Thanks!
One addition for now, about Benedict,
Christopher de Hamel:
"In the Memoir, Simonides now seemed to remember that the abbot on Athos was his Uncle Benedict, that the manuscripts had been part of a library brought from Constantinople or Egypt by Saint Paul of Xeropotamou, son of the emperor Michael Kuropalatos (a real person, emperor 811–13), and that they had been hidden by the Orthodox monks beneath the ruins of a monastery on Mount Athos to save them from the Latinizers, or Roman Church, during the time of the Crusades."
At the time of the Athos- Simonides-Sinaiticus controversies, it was falsely claimed that there was no Benedict as a high official at the Panteleimon (Russico) monastery! See the claim of Nicolaides in Elliott p. 73-74.
Whatever the extent of the hidden library, in addition to the information supplied by
Simonides in his 1859 biography and the letter of 1862 to the Journals, it should be mentioned that Benedict (who Simonides more precisely called the uncle of his mother) is a well-known Athos monastery official, linguist and scholar. Simonides pegged the Sinaiticus production as essentially a labour of decades by Benedict.
More details of his life can be found in:
1) the recent Greek book by Nikolaos Farmakidis on Constantine Simonides (2017)
www.facebook.com
2) biographical timeline given by Lilia Diamantopoulou in:
Konstantinos Simonides: Leben und Werk. Ein tabellarischer Überblick p. 305-326
in
Science deceived. A Genius Fools Europe (2015)
Die getäuschte Wissenschaft: Ein Genie betrügt Europa
3) Who Faked the "World's Oldest Bible"? by David W. Daniels (2021)
In addition, see on p. 73 of Elliott the reference to the letter in the Telegraph of the Bosphorus of the 8th of December, 1851, written in a context that includes opposition to Simonides, long with the secret library and the high position of and respect for Benedict! And on p. 168 is a corroborating reference to his uncle and he manuscripts he
discovered.
Thus there was nothing at all surprising that Benedict was the center-figure of the Simonides accounts in 1859 and 1862.
Good to see you researching an important history!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
Hi Christopher de Hamel,
Thanks!
One addition for now, about Benedict,
Christopher de Hamel:
"In the Memoir, Simonides now seemed to remember that the abbot on Athos was his Uncle Benedict, that the manuscripts had been part of a library brought from Constantinople or Egypt by Saint Paul of Xeropotamou, son of the emperor Michael Kuropalatos (a real person, emperor 811–13), and that they had been hidden by the Orthodox monks beneath the ruins of a monastery on Mount Athos to save them from the Latinizers, or Roman Church, during the time of the Crusades."
At the time of the Athos- Simonides-Sinaiticus controversies, it was falsely claimed that there was no Benedict as a high official at the Panteleimon (Russico) monastery! See the claim of Nicolaides in Elliott p. 73-74.
Whatever the extent of the hidden library, in addition to the information supplied by
Simonides in his 1859 biography and the letter of 1862 to the Journals, it should be mentioned that Benedict (who Simonides more precisely called the uncle of his mother) is a well-known Athos monastery official, linguist and scholar. Simonides pegged the Sinaiticus production as essentially a labour of decades by Benedict.
More details of his life can be found in:
1) the recent Greek book by Nikolaos Farmakidis on Constantine Simonides (2017)
Nikolos Farmakidis
Ένα βιβλίο για τη ζωή του Συμιακού Κωνσταντίνου Σιμωνίδη, γραμμένο από το Νικολό Φαρμακίδη. Ο Κωνσταντίνος Σιμωνίδης γεννήθηκε στη Σύμη πριν δύο αιώνες και πέθανε στην Αλεξάνδρεια. Εξειδικεύτηκε...
www.facebook.com
2) biographical timeline given by Lilia Diamantopoulou in:
Konstantinos Simonides: Leben und Werk. Ein tabellarischer Überblick p. 305-326
in
Science deceived. A Genius Fools Europe (2015)
Die getäuschte Wissenschaft: Ein Genie betrügt Europa
3) Who Faked the "World's Oldest Bible"? by David W. Daniels (2021)
In addition, see on p. 73 of Elliott the reference to the letter in the Telegraph of the Bosphorus of the 8th of December, 1851, written in a context that includes opposition to Simonides, long with the secret library and the high position of and respect for Benedict! And on p. 168 is a corroborating reference to his uncle and he manuscripts he
discovered.
Thus there was nothing at all surprising that Benedict was the center-figure of the Simonides accounts in 1859 and 1862.
Good to see you researching an important history!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
Steven Avery
Administrator
“Is That a First Edition of The Iliad?” Meet One of History’s Great Manuscript Forgers
In the summer of 1854, a purposeful and unusual-looking traveler arrived in Broadway in Worcestershire in west central England, with an overnight bag full of manuscripts. He was Constantine Simonid…
lithub.com
Steven Avery
Administrator
Hi Christopher,
Now let's tweak a bit more, switching from Benedict to Charles Stewart.
Christopher de Hamel
". In 1859 a strange little book appeared by one Charles Stewart, A Biographical Memoir of Constantine Simonides, Dr. ph., of Stageira, with a Brief Defence of the Authenticity of His Manuscripts, published in London, printed in Brighton. The author is not clearly identifiable and the name was probably fictitious, but it may not be coincidence that it is a homonym of the Young Pretender and shares the initials of Constantine Simonides."
Charles Stewart is clearly identified through a variety of sources.
Elliott does point out that we can not be sure of the letters from Simonides to Stewart, since they only appeared in 1863, and Elliott also quotes some skepticism from Tregelles on p. 176.
The most important Recently we found that he was most certainly a scientist in London, who wrote for the Microscopial Journal and later was present of the Microscopial Society (remember some Simonides works were subject to microscope examinations). And Stewart corresponded on Simonides with another scientist, Henry Deane, 1847-1824 (who also corresponded with Hodgkin). Those letters are in Australia waiting for an adverturess Aussie to go to the State Library of Victoria.
==============================
Journal of Sacred Literature (1863)
John Eliot Hodgkin
https://books.google.com/books?id=gnstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA483
“It is now just three years since Simonides first committed to writing in England (in a letter to Mr. Charles Stewart, dated 4th (16th) January, 1860) his version of the history of the Codex Sinaiticus."
Eliot p. 39-40
More on p. 45 46 55
p. 175-176
==============================
Elliott p. 46 has from John Eliot Hodgkin
"This was written by Simonides at the time to Mr. C. Stewart. And the letter, which contains (besides the passage quoted) also the account of the writing the pseudo Sinaitic Codex, is still in Mr. Stewart's possesion. And his receipt of it was acknowledged in a letter to Simonides, which the latter still preserves."
Also in the letter purporting to have been sent to Stewart in 1860 (but not released until The Guardian published it on 26th August, 1863) the following postscript occurs:
==============================
Scrivener
"This copy has been in the possession of Mr Steuart of Brighton (now 41 Great Percy Street Pentonville) for nine years."
Literary Churchman, March 12, 1864, "The Sinaitic Manuscript". Much of this (not the first section) is by John Elliot Hodgkin (1829-1912).
==============================
Recently we found that he was most certainly a scientist in London, who wrote for the Microscopial Journal and later was present of the Microscopial Society (remember some Simonides works were subject to microscope examinations). And Stewart corresponded on Simonides with another scientist, Henry Deane, 1847-1824 (who also corresponded with Hodgkin). Those letters are in Australia waiting for an adverturess Aussie to go to the State Library of Victoria.
===============================
Chris Pinto
https://shop.worldviewweekend.com/n...cus-asking-questions-does-not-make-conspiracy
In a letter written to his friend, Charles Stewart in 1860, Simonides described the manuscripts that were chosen by Benedict as the textual basis for the codex:
“… the learned Benedict taking in his hands a copy of the Moscow edition of the Old and New Testament … collated it … with three only of the ancient copies, which he had long before annotated and corrected for another purpose and cleared their text by this collation from remarkable clerical errors, and again collated them with the edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, printed with uncial letters, and still further with another very old Syriac Codex …” (Letter of C. Simonides to Mr. Charles Stewart, as published in the Guardian, August 26, 1863, see Elliott, pp. 54-56*)
===============================
1862 February 1 - Charles Stewart wrote of Simonides’ manuscript collection;
Now let's tweak a bit more, switching from Benedict to Charles Stewart.
Christopher de Hamel
". In 1859 a strange little book appeared by one Charles Stewart, A Biographical Memoir of Constantine Simonides, Dr. ph., of Stageira, with a Brief Defence of the Authenticity of His Manuscripts, published in London, printed in Brighton. The author is not clearly identifiable and the name was probably fictitious, but it may not be coincidence that it is a homonym of the Young Pretender and shares the initials of Constantine Simonides."
Charles Stewart is clearly identified through a variety of sources.
Elliott does point out that we can not be sure of the letters from Simonides to Stewart, since they only appeared in 1863, and Elliott also quotes some skepticism from Tregelles on p. 176.
The most important Recently we found that he was most certainly a scientist in London, who wrote for the Microscopial Journal and later was present of the Microscopial Society (remember some Simonides works were subject to microscope examinations). And Stewart corresponded on Simonides with another scientist, Henry Deane, 1847-1824 (who also corresponded with Hodgkin). Those letters are in Australia waiting for an adverturess Aussie to go to the State Library of Victoria.
==============================
Journal of Sacred Literature (1863)
John Eliot Hodgkin
https://books.google.com/books?id=gnstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA483
“It is now just three years since Simonides first committed to writing in England (in a letter to Mr. Charles Stewart, dated 4th (16th) January, 1860) his version of the history of the Codex Sinaiticus."
Eliot p. 39-40
More on p. 45 46 55
p. 175-176
==============================
Elliott p. 46 has from John Eliot Hodgkin
"This was written by Simonides at the time to Mr. C. Stewart. And the letter, which contains (besides the passage quoted) also the account of the writing the pseudo Sinaitic Codex, is still in Mr. Stewart's possesion. And his receipt of it was acknowledged in a letter to Simonides, which the latter still preserves."
Also in the letter purporting to have been sent to Stewart in 1860 (but not released until The Guardian published it on 26th August, 1863) the following postscript occurs:
==============================
Scrivener
"This copy has been in the possession of Mr Steuart of Brighton (now 41 Great Percy Street Pentonville) for nine years."
Literary Churchman, March 12, 1864, "The Sinaitic Manuscript". Much of this (not the first section) is by John Elliot Hodgkin (1829-1912).
==============================
Recently we found that he was most certainly a scientist in London, who wrote for the Microscopial Journal and later was present of the Microscopial Society (remember some Simonides works were subject to microscope examinations). And Stewart corresponded on Simonides with another scientist, Henry Deane, 1847-1824 (who also corresponded with Hodgkin). Those letters are in Australia waiting for an adverturess Aussie to go to the State Library of Victoria.
===============================
Chris Pinto
https://shop.worldviewweekend.com/n...cus-asking-questions-does-not-make-conspiracy
In a letter written to his friend, Charles Stewart in 1860, Simonides described the manuscripts that were chosen by Benedict as the textual basis for the codex:
“… the learned Benedict taking in his hands a copy of the Moscow edition of the Old and New Testament … collated it … with three only of the ancient copies, which he had long before annotated and corrected for another purpose and cleared their text by this collation from remarkable clerical errors, and again collated them with the edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, printed with uncial letters, and still further with another very old Syriac Codex …” (Letter of C. Simonides to Mr. Charles Stewart, as published in the Guardian, August 26, 1863, see Elliott, pp. 54-56*)
===============================
| 1863 Cont. | March 11 - Hodgkin quoted Simonides' letter to Stewart about his messed-up dates; March 16 - Simonides wrote about the Stewart family there in London; |
1862 February 1 - Charles Stewart wrote of Simonides’ manuscript collection;
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Christopher de Hamel:
"Simonides is said to have darkened it (the Homer ms.) with tobacco juice to create an effect of antiquity, the “brown spots” inspected by Phillipps, but even still it does not look to modern eyes to be older than the nineteenth century. Phillipps wilfully considered it probably the most precious of all his manuscripts."
Christopher, can you be more specific here?
What features specifically helped you to make this date determination?
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
"Simonides is said to have darkened it (the Homer ms.) with tobacco juice to create an effect of antiquity, the “brown spots” inspected by Phillipps, but even still it does not look to modern eyes to be older than the nineteenth century. Phillipps wilfully considered it probably the most precious of all his manuscripts."
Christopher, can you be more specific here?
What features specifically helped you to make this date determination?
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA