ON SAINT JOHN
BISHOP OF GOTHIA.
ABOUT 800.
Historical and Geographical Commentary.
John, Bishop of Gothia (S.)
BY THE AUTHOR C. J.
§. I. The cult, elogium, country, parents of John. The twofold Episcopate of Gothia.
John, who in the 8th century flourished as Bishop of Gothia under the Emperors Constantine Copronymus, Leo Porphyrogenitus, Irene and her son Constantine, Scarcely known to the Latins, would be very obscure and perhaps unknown to the Latins, unless Ferrarius recalled his memory, in the General Catalogue of Saints, who are not in the Roman Martyrology
are. And he recalls it on the 26th day of June with the Greeks, from their (as he himself notes) Menologium; but with words too far removed from the truth, these: At Constantinople, S. John, Bishop of Gothia and Martyr, under Leo the Isaurian. Nor does he add truer things in the Notes, when he asserts that he was afflicted with Martyrdom for the cult of the holy images. For it is established from the Acts that he departed this life not at Constantinople, but at Amastris in Pontus; not by a violent, but a natural death, and that foretold by himself; not under Leo the Isaurian, but under Irene and her son Constantine, or after their departure. He indeed suffered some things, betrayed to the enemy by the perfidy of his own people; but that he suffered these for the cult of images, or was called a Martyr under that title, I nowhere find.
[2] Celebrated by the Greeks on the 26th of June By the Greeks, on the same, as I have said, 26th day of June, his memory is most exceedingly celebrated in the Synaxaries and Menaea, both printed and manuscript, with perhaps one exception (the July one of Cardinal Mazarin) which sets forth his memory with an elogium at the end of May, to be here described by us before the rest, because before the rest it agrees with our Acts, of which it is an accurate synopsis. Yet first let me note, that in the Arabic-Egyptian Martyrology also (which we have translated from the Arabic by the Lord Gratia Simonius, formerly an alumnus in the College of the Maronites at Rome, then Archbishop of Tripoli in Syria) mention is made on the aforesaid 26th day of the holy Father John, Bishop (as it is there) of the Persians; by the error, as I suppose, of the interpreter, for Goths, as it is constantly everywhere set down.
[3] In the Chiffletian Synaxary therefore, on the 31st day of May, as we have said, there is venerated the Memory of our holy Father John, Bishop of Gothia. In the days of the great Emperor Constantine, our father among the saints John flourished in the country of the Goths, having been born as a son of prayer, like Samuel of old. And being instructed from his tender nails in ascesis, he became a dwelling-place of Christ. And going down to Jerusalem, and in three years visiting all the venerable places, he returned home. And the Bishop there having been promoted to Heraclea of Thrace by the great Constantine, this man was taken hold of by the Christ-loving people there, and leading him away into Boρρόιαν (rather Iberia, as the Acts and Menaea have it), having sealed (i.e. consecrated) him Bishop, they came into his homeland. But a sedition having arisen in his country on the part of the Chagan's men, who slew with the sword many innocent persons, and not for the sake of Christ, he fled when he was able; and crossing over to Amastris, he passed a space of four years. And hearing of the death of the Chagan, he said to those with him: I also after forty days depart, to plead my cause with him before Christ. Which also came to pass. For after forty days, while he was teaching the people the things pertaining to the salvation of the soul, he gave up his spirit to the Lord. And immediately his ship arrived there, the Saint having foreordained this also. Then George the most holy Bishop of Amastris, placing him in a coffin, with tapers and incense, the whole city going before, brought him down to the ship. And carrying him across to his monastery, the convent of virgins, they laid him in a holy tomb. And many miracles have been wrought after his death, and until now are wrought and sung by the inhabitants; but also while living he did not a few.
[4] Memory of our holy Father John, Bishop of Gothia. In the times of the great Emperor Constantine (namely Copronymus, whom it pleased the author to honor with the addition of "great," unless thou prefer to believe the compiler of the Synaxary deceived by the homonymy) with a great elogium there flourished our holy Father John in the region of the Goths, obtained by prayers, as Samuel of old; and instructed from his tender nails by pious exercise, he became a dwelling-place of Christ. Having set out to Jerusalem, in the space of three years he went round all the venerable places, and returned home. Meanwhile the Bishop of Gothia had been promoted by the great Constantine to the see of Heraclea of Thrace; when this man of ours, taken hold of by the inhabitants of Gothia, lovers of Christ, and led into Berraea (rather Iberia, as the Acts and Menaea have it), was there ordained Bishop; and an epitome of his deeds. and so returned with them into his homeland. But when in that region a sedition had been stirred up by those who were of the party of the Chagan (Prince of the Chazars), who cut up many innocent men with the sword, yet not for the cause of Christ, John consulted his safety by flight as best he could; and crossed over to Amastris, where he spent four years. Then, the death of the Chagan having been heard, turning to his companions; And I, after forty days, said he, depart hence, to plead my cause with him before Christ: which also was done. For after forty days, teaching the people the things which pertain to the salvation of the soul, he delivered up his spirit to the Lord. And immediately his ship, as he had also foretold, put in there; and the most holy Bishop of Amastris, George, the body placed upon a bier, with tapers and incense, the whole city following, led it to the ship. Hence they conveyed him across to the Parthenon (the Acts read Parthenitae) into his Monastery, and deposited him in the sacred chest. And many miracles, both have been, and until now are, wrought and celebrated by the natives after his death; nay, not a few also he performed while living.
[5] The country of John and the names of his parents, lacking in the foregoing elogium, are distinctly expressed in the Acts: The names of the country and parents, where the country indeed is assigned as Tauroscythia, and in it the city of the Parthenitae: the parents are called Leo and Photina. The paternal grandfather, sprung from Bonostum, a city of Pontus Polemoniacus, is said to have followed the soldiery. Each city, both that which was the birthplace of John, and that of his grandfather, is unknown to the Geographers, Gothia an Episcopal see, yet each is here attributed to its certain province. More known is Gothia, mentioned in the First Council of Nicaea, Theophilus of the Metropolis of Gothia subscribing with the other Bishops to its Acts, as may be seen in Labbe, volume 2 of the Councils. The same Theophilus in the Acts of S. Nicetas the Goth, Martyr, 15 September, is read to have obtained the supreme Pontificate among the Goths, as also his successors in his pontifical see are read to have had Urphilas, Theophilus, Ulphilas, or rather Ulphilas, who with Theophilus had formerly been present at the Synod of Nicaea in the year 325, and had held the same opinions; but afterward sat with the Fathers of the second Synod at Constantinople in the year 331: so that what concerning the green old age and long life of Ulphilas our predecessors formerly recorded in the Commentary on the Acts of S. Sabas the Goth on the 12th day of April, are wonderfully confirmed from the aforesaid Acts of S. Nicetas, which assert that he was present at each Council, distant 56 years one from the other. There succeeded Ulphilas, whose amanuensis he had been, and who retained the Arian doctrines, Sebinas, Sebinas, Bishop of the Goths, according to Sozomen, book 7, chapter 17.
[6] But whether this Gothia, over which the aforesaid Metropolitans seem to have presided, is to be called the same as that seems different from that one, which under Justinian sought a Bishop, over which our John presided as Bishop, I shall not easily define. The mind indeed inclines to think it was not. For those Goths who on this side of the Maeotid marsh had grown strong in the 4th century, by far the greatest part of them, expelled thence by the Huns, gradually declined toward the West; they are distinguished in Procopius from others, who in the same author are surnamed Tetraxitae, situated first on this side of the Cimmerian Bosphorus, and in the 8th century had our John, then translated to the further bank, from which their habitation, when their Bishop had died, in the 21st year of Justinian, they sent legates to Constantinople, to ask for themselves another Prelate from the Emperor, whom they also obtained: and they seem successively to have had others and others up to our John; whose predecessor in the Acts below is read to have appeared in the conventicle of Constantinople as Bishop of Gothia, and, subscribing to its impious dogmas concerning the abolishing of the cult of sacred images, bore the reward of his impiety from the impious Emperor Constantine Copronymus, the metropolis of Heraclea of Thrace, his predecessor having been translated to the See of Heraclea, the church of Gothia being left to a worthier successor, our John, compelled by the votes of his orthodox countrymen to undertake it. We are taught further from the Notices of the Greek Episcopates, which Jacobus Goar lately printed, fuller than once our Jacobus Gretser and Charles a S. Paulo did, after the Offices of Codinus; where in the Order which each church of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate occupies, and which from being Episcopal, arranged by the Emperor Leo the Wise, Gothia is numbered among the Archbishoprics in the thirty-fourth place. But afterward in the Order reformed by Andronicus Palaeologus the elder, then was made Archiepiscopal and Metropolitan. it is reckoned among the Metropolitan churches, in the eighty-third place, with these words: The Metropolitan of Gothia, which, when it was formerly an Archbishopric, had been made a metropolis.
[7] The same our opinion concerning a twofold Gothia can be confirmed from this, The twofold Gothia is confirmed, that the former even then in the 4th century was a Metropolis, but the latter in the 6th century in Procopius, and in the 8th century in the Acts, is read to have been only an Episcopate, which afterward became an Archbishopric and at last a Metropolis. If therefore one Gothia only be admitted; tell me, prithee, who stripped that one of the dignity of a Metropolis? or what was the point of conferring anew upon it the dignity which it formerly possessed? But into the situation of the city of Gothia (for it does not seem that a province or kingdom ought here to be understood by "Gothia") inquiry must be made more closely. Charles a S. Paulo in his Sacred Geography, page 204, opines also from this, that the other is placed in ancient Dacia, that Zarmizegethusa, as it was the royal or civil metropolis of ancient Dacia, afterward settled by the Goths; so also was the ecclesiastical Metropolis or seat of the Goths' Archbishop; moved especially by this argument, that there was only one Bishop, as he says, among the Goths, and the custom had prevailed in the church, that Bishops should have their throne in the chief cities. But since afterward, at page 212, though not rightly. he admits that the metropolis of the Goths was not far distant from the Euxine Pontus, it is hard to grasp how he reconciles this with the situation of Zarmizegethusa, which most place in modern Transylvania, distended from the Pontus by the interjection of all Moldavia and Bessarabia. And these things that author would surely have thought concerning the more ancient Gothia, confirming by his own opinion our opinion concerning a twofold Episcopate of the same name; since the more recent, of which our discourse especially is, must necessarily be placed between the Maeotid marsh and the Euxine Pontus, as we shall now see.
§. II. Gothia, the Episcopate of John, between the Maeotid marsh and the Euxine Pontus.
[8] Stephanus, in his work on cities, says, the Goths, a people, once dwelt below the Maeotis: Stephanus places our Gothia on the northern side of the Pontus, but afterward migrated into the interior of Thrace. Which yet must be so understood, that they left both their name and a portion of their nation in part of their ancient seats. The same Ortelius places in his Geographical Thesaurus on the northern side of the Euxine Pontus. Ortelius, That the Goths reigned in the same place in the 8th century, the Acts of John proclaim, subjecting Tauroscythia his country to the Gothic empire, the Acts of John, and asserting that he was chosen Bishop of Gothia by his countrymen. Under
the same times, by command of Constantine Copronymus, S. Stephen, the Acts of Stephen the Younger, surnamed the Younger, bore an illustrious martyrdom; in whose Acts, accurately described in Surius on the 28th day of November, the places which are toward the rising slope of the Euxine Pontus are said to be immune from the iconoclastic heresy, which had spread most widely through the Empire; that is, of Zicchia and Cherson and Bosporus and Micopsis and Gothia. But what is here called the rising slope of the Pontus, is read in Greek "toward the upper part of the Pontus," and can be explained as the upper part of the Pontus, such as, in respect of Constantinople, can be understood its northern part, likewise the country of John, Tauroscythia. where Cherso (which others call Chersona) and Bosporus, cities known in Procopius in that maritime tract, and also Zecchia a little more eastward than they in the same northern region; in which the remaining two also, as being in the same rising slope, are to be placed. What of the fact, that the birthplace of John alone, Tauroscythia, which lies in the same tract of the Pontus, was then subject to the empire of the Goths, who certainly had their seats not very far removed from those places?
[9] But that these were, by the vicissitude of times, as is wont to happen in like cases, translated from place to place, The Goths Tetraxitae distinguished from others and also enlarged and diminished, is both probable in itself; and is made certain from Procopius, describing the fortune of the Gothic nation, who, others fleeing into the West, retained their seats at the Maeotid marsh, in book 4, chapters 4 and 5, on the Gothic war. He there distinguishes the Goths Tetraxitae from other Goths; the Tetraxitae, he says, once dwelt where the Maeotid marsh begins to pour itself out through the Cimmerian Bosphorus into the Euxine Pontus, namely in the western tract of the Bosphorus: from these and from the Maeotid marsh the remaining Goths receded farther and dwelt more widely toward the West; whom, in succeeding time, a vast multitude of Huns, having crossed the Bosphorus or the Marsh, expelled from their seats, and one part of them, called Cuturguri, settled in the same; the other, the Uturguri, they did not always dwell in one place. seeking again their ancient seats, fell in with the Goths Tetraxitae, whom by terms agreed upon they transferred with them to the eastern bank of the Bosphorus, where they remained at least up to the times of Procopius; although afterward they seem, having grown stronger, to have migrated back to this side of the Bosphorus, or certainly to have extended their empire, as we shall soon see, after we have described the foregoing from their author more fully.
[10] Procopius therefore, having spoken of the places situated at the rising of the Maeotid Marsh and the Cimmerian Bosphorus, The Huns placed beyond the Bosphorus, thus continues his discourse in chapter 5: Those places a vast multitude of Huns once inhabited, who were then called Cimmerians, and all obeyed one King. At some time a certain man presided over them, to whom were two sons; the one named Uturgur, the other Cuturgur. The father being dead, both having divided the kingdom between them, called their subjects after their own name. Hence some even now are called Uturguri, others Cuturguri … They had no commerce with the peoples dwelling beyond the Marsh and its mouth … But when one has passed beyond the Marsh and its passage, on the very shore he straightway enters the ancient seats of the Goths Tetraxitae. Hence, situated farther off, were the Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, and all the other Gothic peoples. In course of time … the Cimmerian Huns, taking up arms, having crossed it, crossing over with all their forces, came out onto the opposite continent, when the Vandals, having gone out thence, dwelt now in Africa, and the Visigoths in Spain. Then the Goths, one part occupies the chief seats of the Goths, who inhabited the plains of that region, attacking unexpectedly, with many slain, drive all the rest into flight … And there the Cuturguri, their children and wives having been summoned, settled: where they dwell even now …
[11] But the Uturguri, returning with their Prince into their homeland, that they might thereafter hold it alone, the other part seeking again their own, when they had come to the Maeotid marsh, fell in with the Goths Tetraxitae. And at first indeed the Goths, fortified with shields, stood against them, to prevent the assault, relying both on their own forces and on the firmness of the place. For of the barbarians who dwell in those parts, they themselves are the bravest: they fall in with the Goths Tetraxitae, and the Maeotis, where it begins to fall into the Pontus (in which place the Tetraxitae then dwelt), making a crescent-shaped gulf, and almost everywhere surrounding them, gave to those coming one and that not very wide approach. Then however, since neither did the Huns wish to waste time there, nor did the Goths hope to withstand the multitude of the enemy, a colloquy being held it was agreed, that mingled together they should cross over, whom they lead with them beyond the Bosphorus, and the Goths, their seats fixed on the opposite continent, at the shore of the channel through which the Marsh flows, where to this day they dwell, should henceforth live as friends and allies of the Uturguri, with equal right with them, forever. Thus therefore these Goths placed their dwellings there: and the Cuturguri, as I have said, being left across the Marsh, the Uturguri alone retained their native shores. Thus far Procopius in chapter 5, after he had in the preceding chapter spoken in this manner.
[12] Their religion Where the channel first opens itself, through which the Maeotid marsh pours out, dwell the Goths, surnamed Tetraxitae, who, although few in number, nevertheless religiously keep the laws and institutions of the Christians … But whether these Goths ever followed the sect of Arius, like the other Gothic nations, or any other, I cannot affirm; since not even they themselves know it: but they now cultivate religion with a very credulous and simple piety. and an embassy to the Emperor Justinian. Not long ago, namely in the 21st year of the empire of Justinian Augustus, they sent four Legates to Byzantium, asking that, their Prelate having recently died, he would give them some Bishop. For they had heard that a Prelate had been destined by the Emperor for the Abasgi. Justinian Augustus, most willingly granting their petition, sent them back. But since these Legates feared the Huns Uturguri, openly indeed, and with many hearing, expounding the cause of their legation, they had made mention to the Emperor only of a Prelate. But in a secret and intimate colloquy they had declared all the advantages which the Roman Empire would gain, if discord were fostered among the barbarians neighboring upon it.
[13] There dwelt then in the eastern region of the Cimmerian Bosphorus both Goths Their habitation beyond the Bosphorus; and Huns Uturguri, as we saw a little before. And since even then enmities were fostered between both nations, there was thereafter no long-lasting concord between them; but the Goths may have sought again their ancient seats or others on this side of the Bosphorus in the Tauric Chersonese. And this perhaps could seem probable from a twofold head; namely, that two centuries later, as we learn from our life, whether they remained there, Tauroscythia was subject to their dominion or certainly tributary: which surely could scarcely have happened, so long as those Goths, in a manner subject to the Uturguri, dwelt beyond the Bosphorus: the same also may have been done, if, wearied of the grievous neighborhood of the Uturguri, from whom they show that there was something to be feared, the Legates sent to Justinian above, they returned to this side of the Bosphorus; and there, increased in strength, extended their dominion as far as the Tauroscythae. Another head for thinking thus Ortelius indicates in his Geographical Thesaurus under the word Taurica Chersonesus; where he says, or whether it was again translated to this side of the Bosphorus? this is called by Antonio Pinet Perocopska and Gazara: but by Marius Niger the same Chersonese is divided into Northern and Southern; and the former indeed is called Gazaria, the latter is called Gothia. Therefore the Goths, who from Procopius are established to have dwelt in the Northern part of the Chersonese at the Maeotid marsh, before they crossed the Bosphorus with the Uturguri; afterward returning thence may have fixed their seats in the southern part, and there enlarged their power in later times, and so left that region named after themselves.
§. III. The twofold Caspian Gates: and their situation.
[14] Now further, the Goths and Gothia being omitted, let us weave another web concerning the people and empire of the Chazars and Chazaria itself; concerning whom frequent mention is made in the Acts; The situation of the Chazars to be defined because by them John was captured, and carried off into Chazaria. In which matter, to me looking around, the situation of Chazaria must be defined differently according to the diversity of times: for that people seems to have been born in eastern Sarmatia, but thence, gradually growing, to have extended itself to the West, and at last to have occupied whatever lies between the Tanais and the Euxine Pontus as far as the Maeotid marsh; nay, to have spread across the marsh as far as the Borysthenes, certainly to have made those peoples tributary to itself. from the situation of the Caspian gates, To investigate their situation, the Caspian gates will open a way for us, through which, in Procopius and Theophanes, the Chazars went forth into the dominions of the Persians and Romans.
[15] Ptolemy, book 6, chapter 2, places the Caspian gates at degree 94 of longitude, but 37 of latitude, which some place between Media and Parthia, where, by a perpetual ridge of mountains, Media is bounded off from Parthia, as may be seen in the tables annexed to Ptolemy; and it is annotated to his text that the barriers of the Caspians are a breach of the mountain, of the length of an eight-mile journey, very narrow, made by hand, through which there is a passage for the Babylonians and Persians to the Caspian sea. Pliny and Solinus are then cited in confirmation of these: whom, before I examine, see how not rightly the Caspian gates are there placed by Ptolemy, or how ineptly the annotation prescribed by its author has been added. To the Geographical table of Ptolemy, which is the fifth of Asia, I call thee. Where, if for the Babylonians, wishing to go to the Caspian sea, the passage is to be made through the gates, as they are there established, the Caspian; they will have to measure out a much longer journey through Susiana and Persis toward the East, to arrive at those gates; than they would have to make through Mesopotamia and Armenia, or through Assyria and Media toward the North to the very Caspian sea.
[16] Pliny reprehending those who place them elsewhere, But what concerning these does the cited Pliny say? He convicts, I confess, in book 6, chapters 11 and 13, of error those who, transferring the Caucasian gates which lead from Iberia into the Sarmatians, wrongly call them Caspian. But in chapter 14 he says that Ecbatana is the capital of Media, and twenty thousand paces distant thence the Caspian gates, which, the ridges being interrupted by a narrow passage, so that scarcely single wagons can pass, lie open for a length of eight thousand paces, the whole work made by hand. The same gates, in the following chapter, he says are held by the Pratitae or Paredoni, and that from another side of them occur the deserts of Parthia and the ridges of Citherrus. He then goes over the journey again, and, Those who have gone out of the gates, he says (namely toward Media), the Caspian nation straightway receives, as far as the shores, which gave the name to the gates and to the sea. And these Pliny's words, to one reading them in passing, it might seem wicked to doubt concerning the situation of the Caspian gates between the Medes and Parthians. Nor do I contend to deny it; yet I shall not fear to weigh Pliny's words more accurately. According to that author, the Pratitae or Paredoni hold the Caspian gates on the side of Media: whose words are weighed, by what manner therefore does the Caspian nation, surely different from the Pratitae, straightway receive those going out of the gates into Media? Then indeed why are those Gates not rather called Pratitic or Paredonic, than Caspian? For if they are to be named from a nation, from which rather than from one nearer and occupying the gates themselves? Nay, since the Caspians (for besides Pliny I find no other who bids them dwell by the sea between the Hyrcanians and the river Cyrus)
are most remote and divided from the Parthians by all of Media, enclosed between the Caspian mountains, the Caspian sea, and the aforesaid Cyrus; it must seem wonderful, how the Caspian nation gave its name to those gates, so far distant, and (what is more wonderful) did not communicate it with the very tract of mountains in which the gates are.
[17] I grant, however, these things notwithstanding, that the passage between the mountains from Media into Parthia described by Pliny was once called the Caspian gates, for whatever cause, moved especially by the authority of Strabo, where he says in book 11; The greatest breadth of Media seems to be from the passage of Sagrus (this is among the western mountains of Media) to the Caspian gates through Sigriana, toward the East and Parthia. But I deny that those alone both were and ought to be called the Caspian gates. The Caspian mountain itself, which is situated, as Strabo testifies, where one crosses over from Colchis to the Caspian sea, but others also are established, called Caspian by a stronger right, had also its own passage, which they called gates after the manner of other similar ones, and Caspian indeed from the Caspian mountain or the neighboring Caspian sea, even of old the most approved authors so named, and that by a stronger right than that by which Pliny so called his near the Parthians.
[18] Pardon also can be given to those whom we said were convicted of error by the same author, because they confused the Caspian gates with the Caucasian. which can be reckoned the same with the Caucasian, For why might not the same gates be called by either name, just as the same tract of mountains often obtains several names: and the Caspian mountain, as it is a part of the Taurus running widely through Asia, so it can be a part of the Caucasus comprehended under the Taurus: or certainly the Caucasus and the Caspian can both terminate at those gates on either side, and both give them their own name. Perhaps too two gates can be distinguished, not far distant from each other, of which the one was called Caucasian, they can also be reckoned diverse, the other Caspian, each from its own mountains. Certainly Procopius distinguishes two, a grave author in this matter, if anywhere else; as one who was given by the Emperor as Counselor to Belisarius, warring against the Persians, and could see many of those things which he wrote.
[19] He begins chapter 3 of book 4 on the Gothic war from a description of the Caucasus mountain, from Procopius, part of which, he says, verges to the South and runs out to the gates, which lead the neighboring Huns into the borders of the Persians and Romans. The one is called Tzur; the other by the old name Caspia. And he continues: That tract, which reaches from the Caucasus mountain to the Caspian gates, the Alani hold, subject to the empire of none, for the most part allies of the Persians, and wont to bear arms against the Romans and their other enemies. Why might not here by the gate Tzur be understood that which by Pliny and others is called Caucasia, traversing the Caucasus itself; from which Procopius expressly removes the Caspian gates, the whole region of the Alanic nation being interjected. The same gates the same Author, on the Persian war, book 1, chapter 10, describing even more accurately; who accurately describes the Caspian gates. Beyond the borders of Iberia, he says, amid the highest narrows a certain path lies open for fifty stadia in length, and is so terminated by a steep and insurmountable mountain, that no exit at all appears forward. There nature has built only a gate, which thou wouldst say was made by art and hand: this by an ancient name we call Caspian. Beyond it dwell almost all the peoples whom the name of Huns embraces; and their seats reach as far as the Maeotis marsh. Who, if through that gate they burst into the Persians and Romans, and defines their situation, they emerge at the borders of Iberia. These borders, moreover, together with the situation of the Gates, he distinctly explains in book 1, chapter 12: The seats of the Iberian Asiani touch the Caspian gates on the North; on the left Lazica from the West; on the right from the East the peoples who obey the Persians.
[20] There are therefore, according to Procopius, the Caspian gates on the Northern side of Iberia: explained here a little more clearly. yet they are not in the Caucasian mountains, but in others, which by the interjection of the Alanic dominion are separated from the Caucasian. But that Procopius reckons these among the Caspian, even from this, that he himself calls the Gates by the name Caspian, seems able to be gathered. And thus is rightly understood what he said above, that the Huns, placed beyond the Caucasus, burst into the borders of the Romans and Persians through two gates. Through the one, namely Tzur, they pass the Caucasus, extended from the East to the West, and thence passing through the seats of the Alani, through the other, which was called Caspian by an ancient name, they go out into the aforesaid borders of the Romans and Persians, namely Iberia, subject to the Persians and Romans according to the testimony of Theophanes, under Heraclius, nay also under Justinian. Although it can also be conceived that the gate Tzur is in the Caucasus mountain, not that which is extended from the East to the West, but that which is extended from the North to the South, so that the Huns, going straight through the Caspian gates into Iberia and the dominion of the Persians toward the South, leave on their right the gate Tzur through the Caucasus mountain, sending forth into the provinces of the Romans and their allies. Certainly that between the Alani and their neighbors to the West, the Abasgi, the Caucasian mountains intervene, and that in them there are Clisurae, as they call them, or a narrow passage, is established from Theophanes at the 1st year of Leo the Isaurian.
[21] That the lately mentioned Theophanes was of the same opinion concerning the situation of the Caspian gates, The same situation is indicated by Theophanes can be gathered from his history, in no way to be reconciled with the gates joining Media and Parthia. At the 16th year of Heraclius he narrates, that he, having set out into Lazica, allured the Eastern Turks, whom they call Chazars, to the alliance of war against the Persians. And that the Chazars, the Caspian gates being broken through, burst into Persis, or the dominion of the Persians; penetrated the Province of Androgea, widely laid waste cities and villages with flames. But meanwhile the Emperor Heraclius, departing from Lazica, met them. At the 15th year of Leo the Isaurian he says, that Masalmas led out an army from the southern part into Turcia; and when he had now reached the Caspian gates, seized with fear, withdrew. But on the contrary, at the 23rd year of the same Emperor, the Turks are said, having gone out of the Caspian gates, very many having been slain through Armenia, to have collected troops of captives, and to have sought again their homes. But in the following year the same Turks made a second irruption into the Caspian gates and Iberia; and a battle being joined with the Arabs or Saracens, on each side fell not a few. And to one considering these things it cannot but be evident, how aptly they confirm our opinion from Procopius.
§. IV. The seats of the Chazars, and some of their Chagans: the distinction of these from other Chagans.
[22] These things being premised, which we said in the foregoing section; an easier investigation will be made into the seats of the Chazars or Eastern Turks. For it is established from those things, The first seats of the Chazars beyond the Caspian gates and Alania. that they must have broken through the Caspian gates, in order to emerge into Iberia and the dominion of the Persians; so it is also certain, that beyond those gates they had their seats. And the land nearest to the gates the Alani inhabited; the Alani toward the West the Bruchi received; the Bruchi the Abasgi; the Abasgi the Apsilii, reaching as far as the Euxine Pontus, nations so named indeed under the empire of Justinian by Procopius on the Gothic war, book 4, chapter 2 at the end, 3 and 4. The same author said above, that beyond the Caspian gates dwell almost all the peoples The Turks a nation of the Huns, but the Chazars of the Turks, whom the name of Huns embraces, and that they reach as far as the Maeotid marsh. But Theophanes, at the 7th year of Justin the Younger, writes: The Huns, whom we call Turks, send a legation through the lands of the Alani to Justin. From which it is gathered, that some nation of the Huns, whom Procopius had said extend themselves widely, become Turks in Theophanes. But since the same Theophanes, at the 16th year of Heraclius, distinguishes some Eastern Turks from others, and says that they are called Chazars; why might not by these very Eastern Turks be understood those Huns, perhaps the same with the white Huns, whom Procopius in book 1 on the Persian war, chapter 3, says are called White, and distinguishes by a more Eastern situation from the other peoples of the Huns; while he asserts that they are conterminous with the dominion of the Persians on the North, where is the city Gorgo; and adds that they were wont to fight with the Persians over their borders: but never burst into the dominion of the Romans, except together with the Medes or Persians.
[23] But if from these opinions of Procopius it be conceived that the city Gorgo is at the rising of the Caspian sea, situated at the northern borders of the Persians: the boundary between the Persians and the white Huns; and these from the setting of the same sea through the Caspian gates joined themselves with those against the Romans; it will have to be said, that all that northern tract of the Caspian sea was occupied by them. But since in succeeding time the appellation of Turks is thought to have adhered to the Chazars, they may have left the same to that region also, and transmitted it to posterity, who call it in Ortelius, in the table of ancient Europe, Turchestan: which also is called ancient Turcia, according to Marius Niger, the same Ortelius says in his ancient Geography at the word Jaxatrae.
[24] With such a situation of the Turks the indicated text of Theophanes also agrees most excellently. which Theophanes also intimates concerning the Chazars, For they themselves are Eastern in respect of others; and by the Emperor, lingering in Lazica, they could conveniently be allured to the alliance of war against the Persians, and could greatly harm the Persians on account of their proximity. The aforesaid Chazars or Turks then proceeded, little by little, toward the West, until they widely occupied all things as far as the Maeotid marsh and the Euxine Pontus. having gradually advanced into the West, The cited Theophanes testifies this at the 10th year of Constantine Pogonatus with these words: A numerous nation of the Chazars burst forth from the inner recess of Berzilia, which is of the first Sarmatia, and, all the provinces across the river Tanais as far as the Pontic sea having been reduced into its power, made the Prince of Bulgaria on this side of the Tanais tributary to itself, and from him receives tribute to this very day (on which Theophanes was writing). And these things make even more for our purpose, if Sarmatia, which is on the Eastern side, must perhaps be called the first. This certainly is established from what has been said, that the Chazars extended themselves in the 7th century to the river Tanais, their royal seat having been established near the Pontus: the Maeotid marsh, and the Euxine Pontus; in whose vicinity their Prince must have had his royal seat; as can be gathered from this, that Justinian Rhinotmetus, exiled at Cherson, fled thence to the Chagan of the Chazars, and, his daughter having been given to him in marriage, withdrew to Phanagoria at the Cimmerian Bosphorus. To the same makes, that afterward the people of Cherson, fearing destruction for themselves from Justinian again Emperor, asked that aid be brought to them by the aforesaid Chagan: and that the same Justinian, seeking back his wife from his father-in-law the Chagan, sent ships to receive her.
[25] All the aforesaid things, which show that the Chagan settled somewhere at the Euxine Pontus, are read more fully in Theophanes: who, when at the 6th year of Tiberius Apsimarus he calls the royal seat of the Chagan, which was not the city of Daras or certainly the place where Justinian met him and married his daughter, Daras, either must be said to have erred in the name, and to have written Daras for Dorus, of which mention is made in our Acts, number 5, and is called a fort, from which John with his men expelled a garrison of the Chazars: or Daras itself must, on account of the foregoing arguments, be placed somewhere on the northern shores of the Pontus, from which Dorus seems also to have been not far distant. For there cannot be understood here Daras, made a city from a village by Justinian the Great Emperor, according to Procopius, near Nisibis in Mesopotamia, which, the Arabs ranging widely, near Nisibis in Mesopotamia, in the reign of Justinian Rhinotmetus, was subject to them; all Armenia and Iberia, as far as appears, being remote from the Chazars. Nor ought anyone be led into error, because about the same time in which Justinian fled to the Chagan, Theophanes makes mention of a certain Chagan or Chaganus, a vigorous soldier, who subdued Mesopotamia and other provinces for Abimelech, and by him was on that account created Duke of Persia. For from this Chaganus the author expressly distinguishes that one by the addition "of the Chazars," which could not befit a Duke of Persia. nor is the Chagan of the Chazars the same with the Chagan of the Arabs, Much less ought he be confused with another Chagan, most known to Historians in the times of Maurice and the following Emperors, whom the Paschal Chronicle calls of the Avars hateful to God, but Constantine Manasses in his Compendium, King of the Northern Scythians. For this one dwelt on this side of the Borysthenes, much less with the Chagan of the Avars. the other beyond the Euxine Pontus at the Caspian sea. This one, instigated by the Persians, besieged Constantinople, at the same time when that one, asked by Heraclius, sent him aid against the same Persians. And these things concerning the distinction of the Chagan of the Chazars from the Chagans of other nations; who lived about the same time.
[26] The Chagans of the Chazars are read to have been It now remains, that we distinguish among themselves the Chagans of the Chazars, whether this was the proper name of their Princes, or common to all, as among the Romans was Caesar; among the Egyptians Ptolemy; among others other names. the first in the year 617, The first Chagan of the Chazars Theophanes mentions at the year (as he himself reckons) of Christ 617; whom Heraclius asked for aid against the Persians. He brings forward a second, the second in the year 696, probably the grandson of the former, in the year 696, who gave to the exile Justinian his daughter Theodora to wife. From this one, moreover, must be distinguished that one, whose daughter the Emperor Leo in the year 724 received as wife for his son Constantine; the third in the year 724; when he had first made her a Christian, and had called her Irene. For it could scarcely have happened, that the same father gave to Justinian one daughter, who soon bore him a son; and 28 years after betrothed another to the youth Constantine, who was surely young. This Chagan also had his son, who in the year 720 harassed Media and Armenia with hostile arms … and, having left a great terror of his name to the Arabs, returned home. who also seems to have held Lazica, But whether to this one too the name Chagan, or another, belonged, is not indicated. Only I note from the aforesaid incursion of the Chazars into Armenia and Media, that they then also extended their empire toward the South, and held the province of Lazica, contiguous to the Euxine Pontus on the East (which is the ancient Colchis, known from the expedition of the Argonauts). Which, that I may say especially and expressly of Lazica, I am moved by the manner of speaking which the Menaea use, calling them Prefects of the Lazi, whom our Acts call of the Chazars. the fourth about the year 800. The aforesaid son of the Chagan, whose name escapes us, himself too seems to have left a son a Chagan, namely that one, who (as is read in the Acts) shut John in prison, and died 40 days before him toward the end of the eighth or the beginning of the ninth century.
[27] After these times, in what state and place the affairs of the Chazars remained, is less clear. Whose descendants, inhabiting the Tauric Chersonese, The Tauric Chersonese, if they had not yet then held it, they seem afterward to have obtained, with the agreement of Ortelius, who in the table of ancient Europe, the aforesaid name being omitted, inscribes it Chazaria; and of Leunclavius, who in the Pandects of Turkish history, page 105, explaining the word Chan, and teaching that it signifies King or Prince, adds, that there is found in Greek and Latin histories the name of the Chagan of the Avars, which is the same with Chan or Chahan. For the homeland of the Avars or Chazars is the Tauric Chersonese, called it Chazaria after themselves: which even today has its own Chagans. Which, that I may admit it rightly said concerning the present homeland of the Chazars in the Chersonese; I ought not to be silent, that here wrongly are taken for the same nation the Avars and Chazars. Each indeed had its own Chagan, and had it at the same time, as we saw above: but they are not therefore one and the same nation. We said the Avars settled with their Chagan on this side of the Borysthenes and the Euxine Pontus, and gradually, widely ravaging toward the West, settled Pannonia and Istria. But the Chazars with their Chagan from the East at last came to the Maeotid marsh and the Cimmerian Bosphorus; which being crossed, having entered the Chersonese, with its rich soil, and a peninsula in a manner defended of itself, they may have chosen for themselves as a lasting seat.
[28] I add also what Ducas, page 74 in my copy, narrates concerning the Emperor Manuel, and perhaps extended the same name more widely with their empire. that, dividing his dominions among his sons, he assigned to Constantine the regions situated at the Pontus, neighboring upon Chazaria. From which it must be gathered, either that the Roman Emperor at that time still possessed some places across the Pontus on either side of the Tauric Chersonese or Chazaria just explained, or that the Chazars then occupied also the western tract of the Pontus across the Ister, if to the Romans in the same tract on this side of the Ister there survived only some places, which, neighboring upon Chazaria, by an enlarged name, could be called such, from which they were divided only by the Ister. Before I finish, it pleases to add to others' conjectures also some conjecture concerning the origin of the name of the Chazars. Pliny, book 6, chapter 17, treating of the Scythians; The Persians, he says, A conjecture concerning the origin of the name. called them in general Sacae from the nearest nation; but the Scythians themselves called the Persians Chorsari. We laid down above, that the Chazars were a Scythian nation, nearest and neighboring to the Persians. From which it is deduced that there was frequent commerce between them, and that the Persians dwelt mingled with the Chazars, and therefore the rest of the Scythians may have called them by the same name by which they called the Persians, the word Chorsari being gradually changed, as happens, into Chazari. But concerning these things, which do not much pertain to our purpose, enough, The Acts, now for the first time in Latin. and more than enough. Let the Acts themselves, which lay hidden too long in darkness, now for the first time dug out thence by us and given a Latin dress, be brought forth into the light. They are written accurately enough, by an author indeed uncertain, but who seems to have lived not long after the Saint; perhaps even his contemporary and Monk. They were described for us from codex 655 of the Vatican library, and bear this title: The Life of our holy Father John, Bishop of Gothia.
THE LIFE
From the Vatican codex, now for the first time turned into Latin.
John, Bishop of Gothia (S.)
FROM A MS.
CHAPTER I.
The birth, sanctity, Episcopate of John, his zeal for images, and for the liberty of his people, his captivity, death, deposition.
[1] This our holy Father John was Bishop of Gothia in the time of the Emperors Constantine and Leo, sprung from the transmarine c land of the Tauroscythae, which is under the country d of the Goths, from a trading-place called Parthenitae, having been born the son of Leo and Photina. Of which Leo the father was from the place called Bonostum, situated by Polemonium of Pontus, and in the theme of the Armeniacs became a Candidatus (standard-bearer). This holy John, being sanctified from infancy like Jeremiah, was, like Samuel, wholly consecrated to God. For Photina, the mother of the holy man, having prayed to God that fruit be given to her, that she might offer him as a minister to the Lord, thus conceived him. And having been born and grown, he drew to himself the ascetic life from his swaddling-clothes, accomplishing every virtue in deed and word. But under the Emperor Constantine, the then Bishop of Gothia, summoned to the synod then gathered against the holy images, having been called and having subscribed, was made by the Emperor Metropolitan of Heraclea of Thrace.
[2] Whence the orthodox of Gothia, not communicating with the innovation of the unlawful synod; but also being without a shepherd, put forward this holy John as Shepherd. Who first, having departed to the holy city, and having completed there a third year (i.e. three years), and having embraced every holy and God-trodden place, returned; and then thus to Iberia those of Gothia sent him to the Catholic Throne; and there having been ordained Bishop, he kept the dogmas of the catholic Church and the right faith unwounded. He writes therefore, through Longinus his Deacon, to the Patriarch of Jerusalem to make a synod, and that a definition of faith be sent to him. Which indeed he did; for from the old and new testament, and from all the approved Fathers, having taken up testimonies, concerning the holy images, and the precious relics, and the intercessions of the Saints, they sent them to the said holy man.
[3] But after the death of the Emperors Constantine and Leo, Irene and her son reigning, he sent the same volume to Paul, the most holy Patriarch of that time; and having received an assurance from Irene the Augusta, he entered into the imperial city; and having spoken freely to all concerning the reception of the holy images in the holy catholic Church, he again returned. But Paul, the most holy Patriarch, being about to die, having the purpose of the holy man, came down from the patriarchate, became a Monk in the monastery of the holy Theotokos of the Floors (Phloros), and adjured the Augusta to undo the error.
[4] But Tarasius the Protoasecretis, being pious and virtuous, having been put forward after the falling-asleep of the blessed Paul the Patriarch, who also was witnessed by him to become Patriarch, did not choose to take up the burden until the Emperors had promised to make the said synod. And sacred letters from the four Thrones of pious men, and sacred letters from the persons of the Patriarchs; the bishops from everywhere having been gathered (the blessed Tarasius having now been ordained), first indeed they sat in the church of the holy Apostles; and as they were proclaiming the dogmas of orthodoxy, the multitude of the Scholarii, coming upon them with swords and clubs, broke up this assembly, having insulted even the Empire; and there are banished, with wives and children, about six thousand, and with them also certain of the
of heretical Bishops. And in the time to come the same Bishops, and those who held the place of the Apostolic Throne, gathering together at Nicaea, set forth the definition of orthodoxy.
[5] But after these things this holy Bishop John, together with his own people, was handed over to the Rulers of the Chazars, because he stood with the very Lord of Gotthia, and with his Rulers, and with all the people, that the aforesaid Chazars might not gain dominion over their country. For the Chagan, sending his men, seized their fortress, which is called Dorus, placing in it appointed guards, whom the aforesaid holy Bishop drove out together with his people, and held the passes. Whence, seeing the High Priest betrayed by one district, they fled to the Chagan; and the Lord of Gotthia he indeed spared, but the Chagan put to torment seventeen innocent slaves. But the Holy man, who was kept under guard, was able to escape by flight and cross over to Amastris, the city that loves Christ; and there, being carried about for a space of four years, when he heard of the death of the Chagan, he said: I too, brethren, after forty days am departing to plead my cause with my persecutor before the Judge and God.
[6] And thus on the fortieth day, teaching the word of God, and exhorting all unto the things that pertain to salvation, he commended his spirit into the hands of God; and straightway his vessel arrived, even as he had foretold; and placing him in a coffin, George, the most holy Bishop of Amastris, and his whole city, with incense and tapers, escorted him as far as the ship; and thus he was carried over to his monastery, which is named that of the holy Apostles, at Parthenitae, and was laid there. Wherein also a miracle came to pass in the swiftness of his passage. For he having fallen asleep on the twenty-sixth of the month of June, and having been borne away on the twenty-seventh, on the twenty-ninth he reached, at the vigil of the holy Apostles, the monastery; which monastery the Holy man, having adorned it with all comeliness of building and with sacred vessels, and with books of every kind, had filled with a multitude of holy Monks.
[1] This our holy Father John was Bishop of Gotthia a, under the reign of Constantine and Leo b; sprung from the land of the Tauroscythians lying farther beyond the Pontus, The birth, native land of John, which is subject to the dominion of the Goths, from the emporium called of the Parthenitae, begotten of Leo and Photina. But the father of this Leo took his origin from Bonosta in the Polemoniac Pontus, and was a Candophorus in the legion of the Armeniacs. his parents, This John therefore, while yet a little infant f, was sanctified after the manner of Jeremiah and Samuel g, and wholly consecrated to God. For Photina his mother, having prayed to God his sanctity, that He would bestow upon her a child whom she might offer as a minister to the Lord, conceived John: who, when he was born and grown strong, followed almost from his cradle the ascetic life, in word and deed gloriously practising every kind of virtue. Then under the Emperor Constantine the Bishop who at that time presided over the Church of Gotthia was summoned to the synod, which was convened under the same h against the sacred images; and being asked, he subscribed to its Acts: wherefore also he was appointed by the Emperor Metropolitan of Heraclea in Thrace.
[2] a journey to Jerusalem, For this cause the orthodox faithful of Gotthia, deeming that they had nothing to do with the vain decrees of the unlawful synod, and being moreover bereft of a Pastor, demanded this holy John as their Bishop. But he, having first set out for the holy City, and with the delay of three years having religiously venerated all the most sacred places and those trodden by the divine feet, a return to his native land, at length returned to his country: and not long after he was sent into Iberia i by his countrymen to the Catholic See; his ordination, and right faith. there he was consecrated Bishop, and kept the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and the right faith, inviolate. He writes therefore by his Deacon Longinus to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, k that he should convoke a synod, and send to him a definition of the faith. And this was done l. For they sent to the aforesaid Saint testimonies excerpted both from the Old and New Testament, and from the writings of all the approved Fathers, concerning the most sacred images, concerning the venerable Relics, He consults the Patriarch of Jerusalem, concerning the intercession of the Saints.
[3] But after Constantine and Leo the Emperors m had departed from among the living; and now Irene with her son was guiding the reins of the Empire; coming to Constantinople he pleads for the images, John sent that very little book of admonitions to Paul, at that time the most holy Patriarch n; and having obtained from Irene Augusta a pledge of safety, he came to Constantinople, where, having freely discoursed to whomsoever he would concerning the laudable use of the sacred images in the holy Catholic Church, he returned to his own people. Paul having died, But the most holy Patriarch Paul, when he foresaw his death, conceived a holy purpose; and descending from the Patriarchal palace, he put on the habit of a Monk in the monastery of Florus o, sacred to the holy Mother of God, binding the Augusta by an oath that she should correct the error. p
[4] But Tarasius q, the chief among the Secretaries, a pious man and endowed with virtue, Tarasius is made Patriarch of Constantinople, was proposed after the death of the Blessed Patriarch Paul, from whom also he had obtained a vote for the Patriarchate. But he was unwilling that this burden should be laid upon him, before the Emperors had pledged that they would assemble the aforesaid synod. To which, when from the four Patriarchal Thrones there had come together men distinguished for piety and for knowledge of the sacred letters, who convenes the Synod, as legates of the Patriarchs themselves, together with the Bishops gathered from every land (the Blessed Tarasius being now consecrated with the sacred rites r), they held their first session in the church of the holy Apostles: and when they were proclaiming the doctrines of the orthodox faith, a multitude of the Scholarii s rushed in with swords and clubs, and broke up the synod, broken up by the violence of the Scholarii, being insolent even to the Imperial Majesty. And therefore there were cast out of them into exile, with their wives and children, about six thousand; and among them also some of the heretical Bishops. Then in the times that followed, and afterward held at Nicaea. the same Bishops, and those who held the place of the Apostolic Throne, coming together at Nicaea t, established the definition of the orthodox faith.
[5] After these things the holy Bishop John with his people was handed over to the Prefects of the Chazars, v because he stood by the very Lord of Gotthia, John, taking thought for his own, by his Prefects and the whole people; not being willing to permit that the aforesaid Chazars should hold dominion in their regions. For the Chagan, sending in his men, seized their fortress, which is called Dorus x, and set over it a military garrison: which thereupon the aforesaid Bishop with his people drove out, and occupied the Elesurae y. Hence, seeing their sacred Prelate betrayed by one region, they fled to the Chagan; he is delivered to the enemy Chagan, who indeed spared the Lord of Gotthia, but slew seventeen innocent slaves. But the holy Bishop, escaping whose custody he comes to Amastris, who had been consigned to custody, found occasion to transfer himself by flight to Amastris, z the city beloved of Christ: and when he had passed there a stay of four years, on hearing of the Chagan's death, he said: I too, my Brethren, after forty days am departing, to plead my cause with my persecutor before God and the Judge.
[6] Thus, even unto the fortieth day teaching the sacred Scripture, where on the foretold day he dies, and exhorting all to whatsoever things are salutary, he gave his spirit into the hands of God: and immediately his ship arrived, even as he had foretold; and the body, placed in a sarcophagus, was accompanied to the ship by George, the most holy Bishop of Amastris, his funeral being accompanied by the whole city, and the whole city, with incense and tapers. And thus he was carried over to Parthenitae to his monastery, which is called of the holy Apostles; and there he was laid. There happened also a certain miracle in the swiftness of the passage. For John, dying on the XXVI of June, and is laid to rest at Parthenitae. was borne away on the XXVII, and arrived on the XXIX, at the vigil of the holy ones, in the monastery, which the holy Man had himself adorned with goodly estates, with sacred vessels, and with books of every kind, and had filled with a multitude of holy Monks.
ANNOTATED BY C. J.
prefixed to the third volume of May, around these times sufficiently obscure. The Patriarch to whom the Saint sent Longinus may have been Theodore, whom we suppose to have been ordained in the year 741 or 742, very likely surviving some years after the conventicle of Constantinople, by which the Episcopal see of Gotthia began to be vacant: into which See John, being chosen, spent three years in his Jerusalem pilgrimage. But then he could have contracted a familiarity with the Patriarch, and, returning to his country and placed upon the Episcopal throne, soon consulted the same concerning the rule of right faith.
p The public one, namely, of the iconoclastic heresy: which Paul himself, in Theophanes, addressing the Patricians, calls Σφάλμα τὸ ὂν ἐν τῇ μέσῃ ἡμῶν, the error prevailing in the midst of us.
q This man was a restorer of the right faith, and merited to be enrolled among the Saints, and to be treated by us with an illustrious Life on the 25th of February.
r The ordination of S. Tarasius took place in the year 784 on the 25th day of December, the feast of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
s The Scholarii are praetorian soldiers, or those assigned to the guard of the palace and the Prince: who on the 17th of August in the year 786 disturbed the scarcely begun Synod of Constantinople.
t This Council was the second of Nicaea, the seventh General one, begun on the 24th of September in the year 787.
v Concerning the Chazars and their origin and progress we have said more in the prefatory Commentary, §. IV: where also concerning the Chagans, the princes of the Chazars.
x It seems to be the same place which Theophanes calls Daras, where Justinian, a fugitive, met the Chagan, and took his daughter to wife. See Theophanes at the 6th year of Tiberius Apsimar.
y The transcript reads Ἐλησούρας. Perhaps it will be read more fittingly Κλεισούρας, which sounds "barriers," or narrow passes between mountains, and is a word usual in such matters in Theophanes.
z In Greek εἰς Ἄμαστριν, the Menaea add τὴν κατὰ Πόντον. It is namely a most famous city, on the southern shore of the Euxine sea.
CHAPTER II.
Certain miracles of the Saint while yet living.
[7] This Holy man was endowed with many gifts through faith and works, by which he revealed and uttered, by divine power, things far remote and things to come. For Longinus his disciple, while returning from the holy city Jerusalem and captured by the Saracens and lifted up high upon a Cross, calling upon the prayer of the Holy man, the Father appeared to him visibly before his eyes; and immediately the Protonotary of the Amir, giving five hundred miliarisia, brought him down and set him free. And again, being seized by others, having recourse to the Holy man and beseeching to be delivered, suddenly, the irons falling from his feet, he was saved. And his disciples also, who were in the same prison in which the Saint himself had been detained by the Chazars and, having escaped by flight, had fled into Romania, being shut up, and presented before the Chagan, and decreed by him to be put to torment, by the prayer of the Holy man were released unharmed; the Chagan saying that these men had no fault. For at that very hour, when they stood before the Chagan, the Holy man at Amastris, having completed the canon of matins, and stretching out his hands outside the church, was praying until the third hour; so that he seemed to be suspended a cubit's height; and being asked by his familiar friend for what cause he had prolonged his prayer, he said: Because at that time, my child, our brethren stood before the Chagan, and the good and merciful God delivered them from death.
[8] A certain Monk, Basil by name, a disciple of the Holy man, being assailed by the thought of leaving him and withdrawing, and not daring to lay open his thought and be dismissed; this man the Saint convicted in this manner. At the emporium of Curasaeta the Holy man was reposing in a church, within which were very many tombs; but he, rising in the nights and praying, conversed with these as though they were living, and a certain one of the Holy man's disciples heard the dead answering with a voice, and speaking together with the Just one. And again on another night, while the Holy man was praying,
turning toward the surrounding tombs: How long, pray, said he, do ye lie and speak not, Brethren? Behold, Basil, my disciple, is dead, and he speaks. Hearing which very thing, he indicates that he knows it, while Basil chanced to be awake; he knew that what he was turning over in his mind had been revealed to his divine Father; and falling at his feet, he disclosed whatever pressed upon his heart and asked pardon.
[9] The holy man was once sitting in the prison at Phuli d; when the Lord of the Phuli themselves, running up, set at his feet his little son, He heals a boy wounded in every part. so wounded with leprosy from the crown of the head even to the sole of the foot, that no human form seemed to remain: whom he, signing with the Cross, baptized; and, embracing him in his arms, straightway cleansed and healed him. Another certain man, A slanderer of the Saint suddenly falls and dies. unjustly accusing the Saint, as though he had been the cause of the betraying to the Chagan of the fortress of Gotthia and of those unjustly slain, while he lifts his foot to mount his horse, in the midst of his slandering, falling headlong to the ground, vomited forth his spirit. Two certain men were contending with one another implacably about a cask In punishment of those contending the wine is curdled. full of wine; who, the Saint having intervened, when they had departed, found the wine, the cause of the contention, curdled in the cask; and cutting it like cheese, cast it out thence.
[10] The Saint wrought also very many other miracles, which the inhabitants of that region, openly relating to all, The Saint's help is invoked against the Iconoclasts. lead their hearers to compunction, and turn them to God. Wherefore, holy Father, and full of the divine Spirit, and conspicuous herald of the orthodox faith, and guardian of the divine and sacred doctrines, be mindful of us unworthy and sinners: for although we have received much good from the divine and inflamed zeal of thy piety, nevertheless strengthen us, that we may be delivered from the harmful fellowship of those who burn sacred things, of the base heretics, and that with thee we may one day become partakers of eternal life: for blessed and glorified is the most holy name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.