Steven Avery
Administrator
Does the Painter’s Manuel show up in the Spyridon library ?
Symais in 1849 and Rangavis response, the letters of credence of Anthimos, Xenophon Pappadatos and Colonel Tzami Karatassos - steampunk & Mustoxydes
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
Notes to pp. 189–193 Robert Rauschenberg, Man Ray and James Rosenquist and was presented in a number of international exhibitions (USA, Italy, Mexico, Greece) curated and compiled by himself in the years 1975–1977. 2. Calas 1942, 200. 3. Simonides 1849, frontpage. 4. The section closes again with the wood print of the signature of Meletios (p. 174) and his testament (175–178) and is followed by the biography of Eulyros written by a certain Nikephoros Daidalou from Corfu (pp. 178–180). 5. Simonides 1849, 3 Fn. 1; 61 (source in Greek). 6. Simonides 1849, 19. 7. For further reading see Van Helden/Dupré/Van Gent 2010, Edgerton 2009 and Willach 2008. 8. Simonides 1849, 93 (source in Greek). 9. This is for example the case in a miniature in a manuscript from the thirteenth century (No. 11040, Burgundy Library Brussels) printed in Beebe 1938, Fig. 6. 10. Busch 1804, 196. 11. For a thorough examination of the Archimedean mirror legend, see Simms 1977, 1–24. 12. To the list of sources mentioned by Busch Diocles should be added; see Toomer 1976. For burning glasses in Greek antiquity in general Knorr 1983 and Acerbi, 2011. 13. The Archimedian invention is discussed in Dutens 1775. Cf. also Donndorf ‘Metallspiegel’, ‘Brennspiegel’, Donndorf, 1818, 76; both could be Simonides’ sources. 14. See Ars magna lucis et umbrae, Rome 1646, 888, Tab. XXXI. 15. Simonides 1849, 104–105. 16. See Simonides 1849, 20 footnote. For more information about Anthemius see Huxley 1959. 17. Niebuhr 1828, Book E, pp. 291–294. 18. Simonides may have known the ‘Fragments’ of Anthemius through the edition of Westermann’s Παραδοξογράφοι [Marvel Writers] whose work may generally have been a source of inspiration for Simonides. Cf. specifically for mirrors and their typology in Anthemius, Westermann 1839, 149–158.
19. Simonides notes in a footnote to this invention: ‘What can one say about this ball of light? Physicists should comment on this’ (p. 23, fn. 1).
20. According to recent research, the painter Panselinos became legendary, so that the question has now been raised if he was ‘man or metaphor’; on that see Milliner 2016.
21. Didron 1845, XXI, XXIII–XXVI and Kakavas 2008, 10. Brockhaus 1891, 160 fn. 3 mentions two manuals he saw in Karyes. Kakavas 2008, 267–301 lists 69 manuscripts of the ‘Painters’ Manual’, four of which he attributes to Simonides. See also Hetherington’s list on pp. 113–115. The publication contains many comments and has a long introduction. It is interesting that Didron dedicated it to the writer Victor Hugo, ‘the immortal author of the Notre Dame de Paris [L’immortel auteur de Notre-Dame de Paris]’, Didron 1845, frontpage. The manual was printed at the expense of the French government, see Unger 1870, 292.
22. See Omont 1888, 367, No. 38 and Kakavas 2008, 11. According to Omont 1888, 367, 38 and 39 and ibid. 1890, 432–433, there were two manuscripts in the Municipal Library in Chartres that came from Paul Durand to the library. Durand No. 827 (in Omont No. 38) is a copy made by Simonides at Athos around 1840 (Pap. 268 fol. P.); Durand 828 (in Omont No. 39) is a copy made by Durand (Pap. 409 fol. P). However, the former was destroyed during a bombing in 1944, see Hetherington 1974, V Fn. 7 and Kakavas 2008, 270–271. The manuscript 243
Notes to pp. 193–195
contained a note written by Durand (Hetherington 1974, v. 7) stating it was purchased from Simonides in 1847. There was a note from Simonides, that he had found it on Mount Athos on 15 March 1840 and copied it (Omont, 1888, 3, 367, no. 38). See also Papadopoulos Kerameus 1909, ε’, footnote 3 and Kakavas 2008, 11 footnote
23. For further headings of the manuscripts related to Simonides see Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1909, ιγ’-ιε’, Fn. 1.
23. Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1909, ε’-η’, ιδ’-κε’ and Kakavas 2008, 11.
24. See Lykourgos 1856, 45ff. Brockhaus 1891: 158–161 deals extensively with the question of the linguistic differences between the manuscripts. Sathas 1868, 99–100, on the other hand, is deceived by Simonides and sees in the modern Greek of the manual an important example for the vernacular of the fifteenth century, its alleged time of writing.
25. For more details on this case see Mitsou and Diamantopoulou in Müller/Diamantopoulou/ Gastgeber/Katsiakiori-Rankl 2017, 71–86 and 27–53.
26. See Kakavas 2008, 12.
27. Simonides dates the life of the inventor of the heliotype Manouil Panselinos to the sixth century and specifically in 518 ad. In the Symais a second painter called Panselinos is mentioned, who acted around 1032–1085. In his work Νικολάου επισκόπου Μεθώνης, Λόγος προς τους Λατίνους [Speech of Nikolaos, bishop of Methoni, to the Latins] (Simonides 1858) he mentions three other painters of the same name.
28. Simonides 1853, § 64, 40–41 (source in Greek).
29. For a detailed discussion of this omission and a comparison of the French and the Simonideian editions, see Rangavis 1851, 554–555.
30. ‘Aτέλειαν του εκγαλλισθέντος χειρογράφου, ή εις κακοβουλίαν του μεταφραστού’ (Simonides, Αμάλθεια Nr. 508, quoted after Rangavis 1851, 554). Rangavis points out the problems of this argument and says that such a ‘malicious concealment’ is a ‘patriotism that transcends that of Curtius, or is incredible stupidity’ (Rangavis 1851, 554).
31. Oikonomos refers to the manuscript as antique (‘χειρόγραφον αρχαίον σώζεται’ Oikonomos 1849, 4, 218, Fn. α) and recognizes in the heliotype a form of iconography which he compares to the daguerrotype. See also Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1909, στ᾽-ζ’, Rangavis 1851, 553 Fn. β and Brockhaus 1891, 160 Fn. 4. Manouil Gedeon names Panselinos as the first inventor of photography: ‘πρώτος εφευρέτης της φωτογραφίας, γράψας μάλιστα, κατά την παράδοσιν, και βιβλίον περί αυτής’, Gedeon 1876, 53–54. See also Vasilaki 1999, 45. 32. The connection of Simonides’ anachronistic technologies with the term ‘steampunk’ was first formulated by Siniosoglou 2016, 315. 33. Simonides 1853, § 64, 43 (source in Greek). In Hero of Alexandrias De Speculis, 22 occurs a similar description: Hero refers to a mirror on the ceiling of a room reflecting the view of the street through a tube that penetrates the wall of a certain building. The resident of this building was able to see, without being seen, the movement of passers-by outside. For further reading on mirrors and reflected images in Hero see Gerolemou and Bur in this volume. 34. For further reading on the camera obscura in art and science see Lefèvre (2007). For the early steps of photography in Greece see Xanthakis 1981. 35. For example, the work of the Russian art collector, amateur archaeologist and photographer Piotr Sevastianov (1811–1867) is well-known. He toured Athos at an early age, around 1851, 1852, and later more extensively from 1857–1860, and not only painted copious icons with several major Russian missions and other treasures, but also made numerous photographs; see Pyatnitsky 2011. 36. According to a theory advocated by the artist David Hockney and the physicist Charles M. Falco, art itself was revolutionized by the use of optical instruments, rather than solely due to 244
19. Simonides notes in a footnote to this invention: ‘What can one say about this ball of light? Physicists should comment on this’ (p. 23, fn. 1).
20. According to recent research, the painter Panselinos became legendary, so that the question has now been raised if he was ‘man or metaphor’; on that see Milliner 2016.
21. Didron 1845, XXI, XXIII–XXVI and Kakavas 2008, 10. Brockhaus 1891, 160 fn. 3 mentions two manuals he saw in Karyes. Kakavas 2008, 267–301 lists 69 manuscripts of the ‘Painters’ Manual’, four of which he attributes to Simonides. See also Hetherington’s list on pp. 113–115. The publication contains many comments and has a long introduction. It is interesting that Didron dedicated it to the writer Victor Hugo, ‘the immortal author of the Notre Dame de Paris [L’immortel auteur de Notre-Dame de Paris]’, Didron 1845, frontpage. The manual was printed at the expense of the French government, see Unger 1870, 292.
22. See Omont 1888, 367, No. 38 and Kakavas 2008, 11. According to Omont 1888, 367, 38 and 39 and ibid. 1890, 432–433, there were two manuscripts in the Municipal Library in Chartres that came from Paul Durand to the library. Durand No. 827 (in Omont No. 38) is a copy made by Simonides at Athos around 1840 (Pap. 268 fol. P.); Durand 828 (in Omont No. 39) is a copy made by Durand (Pap. 409 fol. P). However, the former was destroyed during a bombing in 1944, see Hetherington 1974, V Fn. 7 and Kakavas 2008, 270–271. The manuscript 243
Notes to pp. 193–195
contained a note written by Durand (Hetherington 1974, v. 7) stating it was purchased from Simonides in 1847. There was a note from Simonides, that he had found it on Mount Athos on 15 March 1840 and copied it (Omont, 1888, 3, 367, no. 38). See also Papadopoulos Kerameus 1909, ε’, footnote 3 and Kakavas 2008, 11 footnote
23. For further headings of the manuscripts related to Simonides see Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1909, ιγ’-ιε’, Fn. 1.
23. Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1909, ε’-η’, ιδ’-κε’ and Kakavas 2008, 11.
24. See Lykourgos 1856, 45ff. Brockhaus 1891: 158–161 deals extensively with the question of the linguistic differences between the manuscripts. Sathas 1868, 99–100, on the other hand, is deceived by Simonides and sees in the modern Greek of the manual an important example for the vernacular of the fifteenth century, its alleged time of writing.
25. For more details on this case see Mitsou and Diamantopoulou in Müller/Diamantopoulou/ Gastgeber/Katsiakiori-Rankl 2017, 71–86 and 27–53.
26. See Kakavas 2008, 12.
27. Simonides dates the life of the inventor of the heliotype Manouil Panselinos to the sixth century and specifically in 518 ad. In the Symais a second painter called Panselinos is mentioned, who acted around 1032–1085. In his work Νικολάου επισκόπου Μεθώνης, Λόγος προς τους Λατίνους [Speech of Nikolaos, bishop of Methoni, to the Latins] (Simonides 1858) he mentions three other painters of the same name.
28. Simonides 1853, § 64, 40–41 (source in Greek).
29. For a detailed discussion of this omission and a comparison of the French and the Simonideian editions, see Rangavis 1851, 554–555.
30. ‘Aτέλειαν του εκγαλλισθέντος χειρογράφου, ή εις κακοβουλίαν του μεταφραστού’ (Simonides, Αμάλθεια Nr. 508, quoted after Rangavis 1851, 554). Rangavis points out the problems of this argument and says that such a ‘malicious concealment’ is a ‘patriotism that transcends that of Curtius, or is incredible stupidity’ (Rangavis 1851, 554).
31. Oikonomos refers to the manuscript as antique (‘χειρόγραφον αρχαίον σώζεται’ Oikonomos 1849, 4, 218, Fn. α) and recognizes in the heliotype a form of iconography which he compares to the daguerrotype. See also Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1909, στ᾽-ζ’, Rangavis 1851, 553 Fn. β and Brockhaus 1891, 160 Fn. 4. Manouil Gedeon names Panselinos as the first inventor of photography: ‘πρώτος εφευρέτης της φωτογραφίας, γράψας μάλιστα, κατά την παράδοσιν, και βιβλίον περί αυτής’, Gedeon 1876, 53–54. See also Vasilaki 1999, 45. 32. The connection of Simonides’ anachronistic technologies with the term ‘steampunk’ was first formulated by Siniosoglou 2016, 315. 33. Simonides 1853, § 64, 43 (source in Greek). In Hero of Alexandrias De Speculis, 22 occurs a similar description: Hero refers to a mirror on the ceiling of a room reflecting the view of the street through a tube that penetrates the wall of a certain building. The resident of this building was able to see, without being seen, the movement of passers-by outside. For further reading on mirrors and reflected images in Hero see Gerolemou and Bur in this volume. 34. For further reading on the camera obscura in art and science see Lefèvre (2007). For the early steps of photography in Greece see Xanthakis 1981. 35. For example, the work of the Russian art collector, amateur archaeologist and photographer Piotr Sevastianov (1811–1867) is well-known. He toured Athos at an early age, around 1851, 1852, and later more extensively from 1857–1860, and not only painted copious icons with several major Russian missions and other treasures, but also made numerous photographs; see Pyatnitsky 2011. 36. According to a theory advocated by the artist David Hockney and the physicist Charles M. Falco, art itself was revolutionized by the use of optical instruments, rather than solely due to 244
Steven Avery
Administrator
Mustoxydes
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...simonides-timeline.13239/page-46#post-1502921
CORFU, 27th May 1849.
Most learned Sir,
I have received the letter and the present with which you have favoured me. I return you many thanks for the praise you bestowed upon me, although it exceeds due bounds. [= obsequious groveling] I do not know how better to requite the preference you have shown me than by expressing with absolute sincerity what my opinion is.
Having read the Symaïs, I felt sorry that the prolific imagination of the author, instead of dressing the work in the graceful garb of poetry, had invested it with the majestic robe of history.
The farther any one proceeds with the perusal of the work, the stronger, even to dull-sighted people, becomes the evidence of fabrication.
One must entirely upset all that has been handed down to us by historians up to the present day, one must refuse to follow the progress of the human mind and the advance of art, in order that even a part of what is fabled in your book may be credulously accepted.
And I am reluctantly compelled to say that at every step there are met unmistakable signs either that under the name of Miletius is concealed one of our own time, or that that contemporary of ours [i.e. Simonides himself] has added some fables of his own to those of Miletius.
While then such is my own opinion, and such perforce must be that of every other reader, how can I contribute any aid to spread the reputation of the Symais?
I can almost fancy that I hear the tremendous outcry that would be raised against me ; and I have no wish to be accused of being either absurdly credulous, or accessory to the fiction.
For the honour of our nation and out of my regard for you, I wish the Symais were buried in oblivion, for it seems to me to be a very inauspicious precursor [i.e. "forerunner"] of the other unpublished works in your possession.
In order to prove that a manuscript is genuine, no antiquarian's lens is required, nor any scrutiny of the parchment.
I confess that, although people in Greece have formed a different opinion about me, I have never considered myself a proper judge of such matters; and, if I were weak enough to be influenced by the unfounded opinion of others, and attributed any authority to my judgment which in my conscience I feel that it does not possess, I might not only be justly accused of presumption, but be covered with ridicule, an indignity to which I am unwilling to expose my grey hairs.
Besides, the genuineness of a text is not ascertained by the nature of the paper, or by the shape of the letters, but by its style and the subject it treats of, and by comparison with the examples which antiquity has preserved for us.
But if you have the consciousness that the other manuscripts you have in your possession are not fabricated counterfeits, publish them, and you will reap both profit and honour : but, I repeat, I am sorry the Symais has taken the lead.
Forgive my plain-speaking. "Plato is dear to me, but truth is dearer still."
Have nothing to do with hazardous undertakings which render a man's life still more miserable.
Your abilities and attainments can show you a straighter path and one easier to pursue.
Yours
ANDREAS MUSTOXYDES.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...simonides-timeline.13239/page-46#post-1502921
CORFU, 27th May 1849.
Most learned Sir,
I have received the letter and the present with which you have favoured me. I return you many thanks for the praise you bestowed upon me, although it exceeds due bounds. [= obsequious groveling] I do not know how better to requite the preference you have shown me than by expressing with absolute sincerity what my opinion is.
Having read the Symaïs, I felt sorry that the prolific imagination of the author, instead of dressing the work in the graceful garb of poetry, had invested it with the majestic robe of history.
The farther any one proceeds with the perusal of the work, the stronger, even to dull-sighted people, becomes the evidence of fabrication.
One must entirely upset all that has been handed down to us by historians up to the present day, one must refuse to follow the progress of the human mind and the advance of art, in order that even a part of what is fabled in your book may be credulously accepted.
And I am reluctantly compelled to say that at every step there are met unmistakable signs either that under the name of Miletius is concealed one of our own time, or that that contemporary of ours [i.e. Simonides himself] has added some fables of his own to those of Miletius.
While then such is my own opinion, and such perforce must be that of every other reader, how can I contribute any aid to spread the reputation of the Symais?
I can almost fancy that I hear the tremendous outcry that would be raised against me ; and I have no wish to be accused of being either absurdly credulous, or accessory to the fiction.
For the honour of our nation and out of my regard for you, I wish the Symais were buried in oblivion, for it seems to me to be a very inauspicious precursor [i.e. "forerunner"] of the other unpublished works in your possession.
In order to prove that a manuscript is genuine, no antiquarian's lens is required, nor any scrutiny of the parchment.
I confess that, although people in Greece have formed a different opinion about me, I have never considered myself a proper judge of such matters; and, if I were weak enough to be influenced by the unfounded opinion of others, and attributed any authority to my judgment which in my conscience I feel that it does not possess, I might not only be justly accused of presumption, but be covered with ridicule, an indignity to which I am unwilling to expose my grey hairs.
Besides, the genuineness of a text is not ascertained by the nature of the paper, or by the shape of the letters, but by its style and the subject it treats of, and by comparison with the examples which antiquity has preserved for us.
But if you have the consciousness that the other manuscripts you have in your possession are not fabricated counterfeits, publish them, and you will reap both profit and honour : but, I repeat, I am sorry the Symais has taken the lead.
Forgive my plain-speaking. "Plato is dear to me, but truth is dearer still."
Have nothing to do with hazardous undertakings which render a man's life still more miserable.
Your abilities and attainments can show you a straighter path and one easier to pursue.
Yours
ANDREAS MUSTOXYDES.
Steven Avery
Administrator
- Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline
I have posted old old denunciations of Simonides simply because those old old sources are the only ones available for free on HathiTrust and Internet Archives. I am aware of more recent, expensive, books that mention Simonides. But here is a recent example; a video of a 2015 lecture, titled...
forums.carm.org
Greek text of the letter
Κερκύρα, τη 27 Μαΐου 1849.
Λογιώτατε Κύριε
Λαβὼν τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ὑμῶν καὶ τὸ δῶρον δι' οὗ με ἐφιλοφρονήσατε, ὁμολογῶ πολλὰς χάριτας ἀντὶ τῶν ἐπαίνων δι ̓ ὧν ἐκοσμήσατε τὸ ὄνομά μου, καίτοι υπερβαλλόντων τὸ δίκαιον μέτρον. Οὐδ ̓ ἔχω πως κάλλιον ἀνταποδώσω τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἧς με ἠξιώσατε προτιμήσεως εἰ μὴ ἐκφράζων πρὸς ὑμᾶς μετά πάσης εἰλικρινείας το φρόνημά μου.
Αναγνούς τὴν Συμαΐδα, ἐλυπήθην διότι ἡ γόνιμος τοῦ συγγράφεως φαντασία, ἀντὶ νὰ περιβάλῃ τὸ πόνημα τὸν κομψὸν πέπλον τῆς ποιήσεως, ἐνέδυσε τον σεβάσμιον τῆς της ἱστορίας ἱματισμόν. Οσῳ προχωρεῖ τις εἰς τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν τοῦ βιβλίου, τόσῳ μᾶλλον καὶ εἰς τοὺς μὴ ὀξυδερκείς καταφαίνεται ἡ μυθοποιΐα. Ανάγκη ν' ἀνατρέψῃ τις τὰς μέχρι τοῦδε τῶν συγγραφέων παραδόσεις, ἀνάγκη νὰ μὴ παρακολουθήσῃ τὴν πρόοδον τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου νοός καὶ τῶν τεχνῶν ἵν ̓ ἀποδεχθῇ εὐπίστως μέρος τοὐλάχιστον τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ μεμυθευμένων. Καὶ μετὰ δυσ αρεσκείας λέγω ὅτι καθ' ἕκαστον βῆμα ἀπαντώνται προφανῆ σημεία πείθοντα ἢ ὅτι ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄνομα τοῦ Μελετίου ἐκείνου λανθάνει τις τῶν ἡμετέρων συγχρόνων, ἢ ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ ἡμέτερος σύγχρονος εἰς τοὺς μύθους του Μελετίου προσέθηκεν ἄλλους ιδίους.
Ἐν ᾧ τοιαύτη εἶναι ἡ κρίσις μου, καὶ τοιαύτη θέλει είσθαι ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἡ κρίσις παντὸς ἄλλου αναγνώστου, πῶς ἠδυνάμην νὰ συντελέσω εἰς τὴν διάδοσιν τοῦ Συμαΐδος; Σχεδόν ἀκούω πολλὰ περὶ ἐμὲ τὰ καταβοῶντα στόματα, οὐδ ̓ ἐπιθυμῶ νὰ κατηγορηθῶ ὡς ἄγαν εὔπιστος ἢ ὡς συναίτιος τῶν πεπλασμένων.
Πρὸς τιμὴν τοῦ ἔθνους καὶ διὰ τὴν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἀγάπην ηὐχόμην ἡ λήθη να καλύψῃ τὴν Συμαΐδα, ἥτις φαίνεται εἰς ἐμὲ ἀπαίσιος πρόδρομος τῶν ἄλλων παρ' ὑμῖν ἀνεκδότων.
Πρὸς ἔλεγχον τῆς γνησιό τητος τῶν χειρογράφων οὔτε διόπτραι ἀπαιτοῦνται παλαιογραφίας, οὔτε περγαμηνῶν δοκιμασία. Ομολογῶ ὅτι, ἂν καὶ ἐν Ἑλλάδι ἄλλως ἐδόξασαν περὶ ἐμοῦ, δὲν ἐνόμισα ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐμαυτὸν ἁρμόδιον τῶν τοιούτων κριτήν. Καὶ ἐὰν διαθρυπτόμενος ὑπὸ ἀστηρίκτου τῶν ἄλλων γνώμης, ἀπέδιδον εἰς τὴν ψῆφόν μου κῦρος, ὅπερ ἐν συνειδήσει αἰσθάνομαι ὅτι δὲν ἔχει, ἠδυνάμην ἀξίως ὄχι μόνον νὰ κατηγορηθῶ ἀλαζονείας, ἀλλὰ καὶ περιπέσω εἰς γέλωτα, οὗτινος θέλω νὰ ἀπαλλάξω τὴν πολιάν μου τρίχα.
Αλλως δὲ ἡ γνησιότης κειμένου τινὸς δὲν τεκμηριοῦται ἐκ τοῦ χάρτου καὶ τοῦ σχή ματος τῶν γραμμάτων, ἀλλ ̓ ἐκ τοῦ χαρακτῆρος τοῦ λόγου, ἐκ τῶν πραγμάτων περὶ ὧν διαλαμβάνει, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ παραλληλισμοῦ πρὸς ὅ τι διέσωσεν εἰς ἡμᾶς ἡ ἀρχαιότης.
Ἐὰν δὲ ἔχητε τὴν συνείδησιν ὅτι τὰ ἄλλα παρ' ὑμῖν χειρό γραφα δὲν εἶναι πλαστὰ καὶ ὑποβολιμαῖα, ἐκδώσατε αὐτά, καὶ θέλετε ἀπολάβει ὄφελος καὶ τιμήν. Αλλ' ἐπαναλέγω, μὲ λυπεῖ ὅτι προηγήθη αὐτῶν ἡ Συμαΐς.
Συγχωρήσατε εἰς τὴν ἁπλότητά μου.
“Φίλος Πλάτων, φιλτάτη δ ̓ ἀλήθεια.”
ἐπιχειρεῖτε παράβολα ἔργα, ἐξ ὧν ἔτι μᾶλλον ταλαιπωρείται ὁ βίος. Ἡ εὐφυΐα καὶ αἱ γνώσεις ὑμῶν δύνανται να ὑποδείξωσιν εἰς ὑμᾶς εὐθυτέραν καὶ εὐπορωτέραν ὁδόν.
ὁ ὑμέτερος
Ανδρέας Μουστοξύδης.