Steven Avery
Administrator
Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides - Antonin Kaupstin's 1863 mission to investigate Simonides story
In terms of discussing Simonides and Kallinikos, our #1 priority should be opening up this correspondence for scholarship examination. No, your priority should be, "let me produce some actual EVIDENCE that Simonides wrote this." You've now had 162 years since he published his first claim, and...
forums.carm.org
Then the lead in is Alexandros Sturtzas to the Tzar.
Post the full letter context.
As usual from Farmakidis, it's truncated and a snippet.
This is hilarious: "Konstantinos says" = Simon sez!
Firstly.
Is there some Greek text missing from your OCR'd text?
Look at this picture and the red arrows.
(continues)
Secondly.
Is this the entire letter contents? Or is there context and content omitted?
Thirdly.
What is the precise/exact source and provenance of the Sturdza-Volkonsky letter? (Footnote 318 appears to be intentionally ambiguous without precise source references) Is it from a diary? A biography? A secondary source?
Provide details, otherwise it goes into a suspicious provenance (is it a Simonides fake???) category until the details of it's origin are cleared up.
The OCR text for the Sturdza-Volkonsky letter is inaccurate for a start (compare your screenshot Greek with the Greek in your post = needs fixing). Therefore the translation is wrong and misleading. Fix your errors.
This is minor tweaking of no great significance.
If you want to improve the Greek OCR transcription and/or the English translation, go right ahead.
If there is any English translation or Greek transcription OCR that does not match with a Greek picture, I will happily find and add the Greek pic. Usually I would do between footnotes.
Keep in mind, I am simply working with the book.
Occasionally, if I think something is real important, I try to get additional feedback from Nicolos Farmakidis.
To me, these questions are not that important right now. e.g. There is a lot of material related to Constantius and Anthimus V that I would like to have more background and in one case more clarity. And maybe Nicolas has seen material related to the coffee shop of Hadji John Prodromos. Those types of questions are more significant than asking for every little detail around the Alexandros Stourtza letter.
Why not contact him yourself?
You and I have the exact same information.
Remember, his theory is a little different, involving Sinai-Tischendorf collaboration as his main (non-dogmatic) theory. Thus he might not focus in on the Simonides-Sinaiticus narrative to the degree that we do on this forum.
Where is the Sturdza-Volkonsky letter from?
Is it real? Or a fake?
There's no references to an archive or place where the original (if there is one) is stored which is the normal procedure.
Kevin McGrane let everyone know where the Kaupstin letters and related material can be found in his footnotes etc, but not so the SART Team accusers!
======================
A delusion fabrication mind-reading accusation from:
Mr. Posturing Paranoia.
As I told you before, I only have the book material.
Sometimes I communicate with Nikolaos Farmakidis, on what I consider major issues, such as wondering about John Prodromos and the coffee-shop (he recommended checking with a Constantinople historian.)
He points out he is a civil engineer, interested in the history of Symi, and discusses a bit the interactions with the Rudiger Schaper book and with Luciano Canfora, who helped his book into Italian.
==================
For the record!
Exactly the kind of intentionally ambiguous and evasive reply that we've come to expect from you when you're actually sweeping something (you knew exactly where it was in Farmakidis book to quote it in the first place, and you knew it was addressed to Volkonsky) under the carpet.
The links are there.
You we're asked clear, specific, and easily understandable questions about it's source and provenance.
May God judge between you and me.
You're reply (Mr. Avery) should be something like...
We emailed N. Farmakidis on your behalf and for the sake of being honest and transparent to the public...
It's in the Russian State archives, file number bla bla...see at this website bla blah blah...
We followed up the reference to verify it's authenticity and provenance...
We don't accept hearsay (even from Farmakidis whom I publicly say is wrong on many things) evidence on face value we DOUBLE check everything...
Thatssss...the kind of reply you should be giving!
Instead of poor excuses for not doing your homework.
Issues you clearly want to deliberately avoid because the conspiracy party line and your KJVO agenda override the need to be intellectually honest, transparent, scholarly, and check (ironically) properly the letter's provenance!
Last edited:
can be seen below 