Steven Avery
Administrator
Here's a short, and non-comprehensive study of the titles that Simonides' attributes to himself in his printed works (his forgery defense and propaganda literature).
Note: The ones listed in red below, are under suspicion of retro-dating (i.e. date tampering).
1843 (Barnabas) Doctor of Philosophy
1849 (Symais) Konstantinos Simonides
1850 (Kephallonias) Konstantinos Simonides
1853 (Panselinos) ?????????
1853 (Panegyric of Constantine) Konstantinos Simonides
1853 (Autographa) Doctor and Knight
1853 (Σπουδαϊον Ύπόμνημα) Doctor and Knight
1856 (Ueber die Echtheit des Uranius) Konstantinos Simonides
1857 (Memnon) Doctor of Philosophy etc etc etc
1857 (Horos) Doctor Konstantinos Simonides
1858 (Nicholas of Methone) Doctor of Philosophy
1859 (Four Theological Writings) Doctor of Philosophy
1859 (Biographical Memoir) Doctor of Philosophy
1860 (Dissertation on Hieroglyphic's [English ver.]) Doctor of Philosophy
1860 (Διατριβή [Greek ver.]) Doctor of Philosophy etc etc etc
1861 (Mayerianus) Doctor of Philosophy
1863 (Concerning Horus Of Nilopolis) Doctor of Philosophy etc etc etc
1864 (The Periplus of Hannon) Doctor of Philosophy
My observations.
Note: This is not a comprehensive list. The printed work commonly known as the Panselinos or Ερμηνεία των ζωγράφων of 1853 would be very useful, and probably make it fairly conclusive.
When we exclude the works in red, which are under various degrees of suspicion of date tampering, it seems that up until 1856 that Simonides doesn't use any fake titles in these books.
He is simply "Konstantinos Simonides".
But from 1857, beginning (presumably) with his bitter "Memnon" he gives himself titles like "Doctor", "Doctor of Philosophy", "Knight" adding "etc etc etc" behind some of these.
So, this too, has a bearing on the medal rumor and fake knighthood etc.
It's interesting too, that the works suspected of retro-dating have titles that the books that are not under suspicion of date tampering do not have. As noted above, he was simply "Konstantinos Simonides".
Does this too, add to the evidence of date possible tampering?
Maybe. It's not conclusive, nor comprehensive. But it's interesting nonetheless.