Demetrius

ON ST. DEMETRIUS, MARTYR, AT THESSALONICA IN MACEDONIA,

About the year 306.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Demetrius, M., at Thessalonica in Macedonia. (S.)

BY C. B.

§ I. The manifold writings found concerning St. Demetrius, chiefly Greek, are reviewed.

That this holy Martyr, whom the Greeks call μεγαλομάρτυρα, that is, great martyr, and commonly adorn with many most honourable titles, The Saint's veneration among the Greeks is shown by the manifold to be mentioned below in their place, enjoyed among them a quite signal veneration as well as celebrity of name, is shown more than enough even by the manifold ancient Greek writings of various kinds alone which are found today in the cases of libraries, and have in part also come into our hands, namely sermons or homilies, panegyrical orations or encomia, and other Opuscula, in which either St. Demetrius himself is celebrated, or the martyrdom which he underwent is set forth, or finally the miracles which he wrought in great number are narrated. That this may become plain, and that at the same time I may inform the studious reader, from the very beginning of the Commentary, in which not a few of these will either have to be weighed or will at least be of some use, what and of what kind are the literary monuments of the Saint that survive today, I review in the present § all and each of those writings of which I have been able to acquire any knowledge whatever, intending to set out in the following one which of these are to be published, and to add also what either plainly reveals, or at least makes easy to gather, how much credit or authority each, and above all those which I shall say are to be put into print, possesses. I begin with the Opuscula or compositions in which either the Saint himself or the miracles which he wrought are celebrated.

[2] Leo Allatius, On the writings of the Simeons, at pages 85, 94, 96, 97, 102, 103, 105 and 107, reviews ten different such compositions, writings found concerning him in Greek. These, of which the first has as author Philotheus, patriarch of Constantinople, the second Demetrius Chrysoloras, the third, fourth and seventh the emperor Leo, surnamed the Wise, the fifth an anonymous author, the sixth John Stauracius, chartophylax of Thessalonica, the eighth John, bishop of Thessalonica, the ninth Gregory the deacon, and finally the tenth Nicholas Cabasilas. Fabricius in the Bibliotheca Graeca, to these, also enumerated by himself in the same work, volume 6, page 521 and following, and volume 9, page 71 and following, adds besides four other compositions of the same kind, of which the first was composed by Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonica, the second by Nicetas, likewise archbishop of Thessalonica, and the third and fourth by anonymous authors, in the latter of the two volumes just mentioned, at the page likewise just cited and following. And indeed Leo Allatius and Fabricius agree exactly in assigning authors to the compositions which both review; but both the one which begins Μαριανός

τις

ἀνὴρ

τῶν

ἐν

γένει, the third of the last four compositions which Fabricius alone reviews, and the one which begins Καιρὸς

δὲ

λοιπὸν, the fifth of the first ten compositions which both he and Allatius record, are wrongly ascribed to an anonymous author: for each constitutes only a part of the eighth of the same ten compositions, which begins with these words, Παντὸς

ἔργουτε

καὶ

λόγου, and which has John of Thessalonica as author.

[3] of which one, ascribed to John of Thessalonica in the list of the Mazarin codex, Besides, there will perhaps be someone in whom manuscript MDXVII, which occurs in volume 2 of the manuscript codices of the Royal Library of Paris, published in print in the year 1740, and is wholly about St. Demetrius, will raise a doubt whether the third of the same first ten compositions, which begins with these words, Ἔφη

ὁ

Σωτήριος

λόγος, and which both cited writers attribute to the emperor Leo the Wise, truly has him as author; a parchment codex, as it appears, of the twelfth century, or rather the list of the compositions contained in this codex, formerly Mazarin's, supplied in the same place; for this runs thus: In which (namely the Greek parchment codex, formerly Mazarin's) are contained: 1. The martyrdom of Demetrius. It begins Μαξιμιανὸς,

ὁ

καὶ

Ἑρκούλιος. 2. His Life and miracles, by John, archbishop of Thessalonica. 3. A Homily of the same John, when a church in the palace was consecrated to St. Demetrius. It begins Ἔφη

ὁ

Σωτήριος

λόγος. 4. A history of the miracles wrought by St. Demetrius. It begins: Ἄλλοι

μὲν

ἄλλα

τῶν

τοῦ

μεγαλομάρτυρος. 5. A Homily of John, bishop of Thessalonica, in praise of St. Demetrius. It begins Μνήμην

δικαίον (rather δικαίων)

μετ᾽

ἐγκωμίων. 6. An unpublished Homily of Joseph, archbishop of Thessalonica, in praise of Demetrius. It begins Φαιδρὰ

μὲν

οὖν

ἡ

πανήγυρις. The end is lacking; and thus the said composition, which begins with these words, Ἔφη

ὁ

σωτήριος

λόγος, and is ascribed by Allatius and Fabricius to the emperor Leo, is here expressly attributed to John, archbishop of Thessalonica.

[4] for the reasons adduced here But in the list brought forward there lurks not one error only; and first indeed the composition which in it immediately follows the martyrdom of the Saint, and is mentioned in the second place, is none other than the eighth of the first ten compositions reviewed above; it does not comprise the Life of St. Demetrius together with his miracles, as is indicated in the list, but, together with these, as I learned by turning over the aforesaid codex, formerly Mazarin's, now royal, only a panegyrical oration, which holds in a manner the place of a preface set before the miracles, woven as an elogium in praise of God and of St. Demetrius, with absolutely no particular facts or circumstances brought forward that pertain to his Life or martyrdom; and next, the same composition, which bears at its head the following title, Τοῦ

ἁγίου

Ἰωάννου

ἀρχιεπισκόπου

Θεσσαλονίκης

ὕμνος

εἰς

Θεὸν

καὶ

τὸν

πανένδοξον

ἀθλοφόρον

Δημήτριον

ἐν

μερικῆ

διηγήσει

τῶν

θαυμάτων, Of St. John, archbishop of Thessalonica, a praise of God and of the most glorious victor Demetrius, with a particular narration of the miracles, most certainly does not occupy, contrary to what the said list requires, the whole space which in the cited codex, formerly Mazarin's — from which here and there a leaf or two has been cut out, yet without the series of pages being interrupted, since it happened that these were not numbered before that was done — lies between the martyrdom of St. Demetrius beginning with these words, Μαξιμιανὸς,

ὁ

καὶ

Ἑρκούλιος,

and the Homily mentioned in the third place in the adduced list, and runs from page 12 to page 206; or, what comes to the same thing, it does not extend as far as that Homily.

[5] For, as will become evident to one inspecting the very codex in question, is vindicated for the emperor Leo. from page 135, at which it ends, up to page 206 it has yet two other Opuscula subjoined to it, of which the one, destitute at its head of both title and author's name, sets forth six different miracles of St. Demetrius from page 135 to 205, and the other, destitute not only of title and author's name but also, because a leaf has been cut out after page 205, mutilated at the beginning, comprises from page 205 to page 206 a certain exhortation to celebrate the feast of St. Demetrius with spiritual rather than bodily joy; and only then follows the Homily of whose author we are disputing here. Now, since this is so, and this Homily has prefixed to it the following title, Τοῦ

αὐτοῦ

Ὁμιλία,

ὅτε

τῶ

ἀοιδίμω

τῆς

εὐσεβείας

ἀγωνιστῆ,

καὶ

τὰ

οὐράνια

περιπολοῦντι

ἀνάκτορα

Δημητρίω

ὁ

οἶκος

ἐν

τοῖς

βασιλείοις

ἀνιερώθη, A Homily of the same, when a church in the palace was consecrated to Demetrius, the celebrated champion of piety, who occupies the heavenly court, there was assuredly no reason why he who drew up the list of the Opuscula contained in the said manuscript codex on St. Demetrius should ascribe this little composition, which runs only from page 206 to page 208, to John, archbishop of Thessalonica. Indeed, since the same little composition, as is clear from the title which it bears, already given, was undoubtedly composed by the same author as the Opusculum which immediately precedes it, and nothing at all

stands in the way of this, as being destitute of the author's name in the aforesaid codex according to what has been said, being attributed to Leo the Wise, it appears to me assuredly most probable, not to say beyond doubt, that this too was composed by that illustrious writer to whom it is ascribed by Allatius and Fabricius, so that in the list, already mentioned more than once, it is wrongly marked with the name of John, archbishop of Thessalonica.

[6] But even if this is so, in the same list indeed the Homily, or rather, as it is inscribed in the title which it bears, the Encomium into the open composed in praise of St. Demetrius, which immediately follows another composition of an anonymous author on the miracles of St. Demetrius, beginning with these words Ἄλλοι

μὲν

ἄλλα

and extending from page 208 to page 226, and which runs from page 226 to page 247 verso, is rightly ascribed to John, archbishop of Thessalonica, as is also to Joseph, likewise archbishop of Thessalonica, another encomium of the Saint, which is immediately subjoined to the encomium just mentioned, and which, being mutilated at the end, extends only from page 247 verso to page 253 verso, the last of the codex so very often cited, from which some leaves have here been cut out. And thus at the same time we have from this same codex three other compositions besides, which celebrate either the Saint himself or the miracles wrought by him, and which still remained to be reviewed here, to be added to those enumerated above. Next it is that we now also review the Opuscula in which either the Life or the martyrdom of St. Demetrius is set forth. Allatius, On the Writings of the Simeons, reviews at page 123 and page 126 two different ones, each of which he inscribes the martyrdom of St. Demetrius. The first, which he reports among the Lives of the Saints not written by Metaphrastes, has for its beginning these words Ὅτε

Μαξιμῖνος

ὁ

βασιλεὺς

ἐν

τῇ

Θεσσαλονικέων

διῆγε

πόλει; and the second, which he reckons among the Acts or Lives composed by Metaphrastes, has for its beginning the following, Εἶχε

μὲν

τὰ

Ρωμαίων

σκῆπτρα

Μαξιμιανος

ὁ

Ἑρκούλιος.

[7] are brought forward, And this latter composition indeed, which, first turned into the Latin tongue by Lipomano, was inserted in the sixth volume of the Lives given Latin dress by him, at the 26th day of October, sacred to St. Demetrius among the Greeks, Surius afterwards brought into the collection of Lives which he compiled, with absolutely no change introduced into Lipomano's interpretation, at the 8th day of October, dedicated to the same Saint among the Latins; and our Bollandus, at the request and with the funds of Lorenzo Cocchi, in the year 1635 had it printed in the Meursius press, recensed anew from the Greek Medicean copy of the Library of the Most Christian king, in Greek and Latin together, in a separate Opusculum, of which one copy exists in my possession; and as regards the former, I think this is the very one which, given Latin dress by Anastasius the librarian and then inserted into many manuscript books and others, begins with these words: When the emperor Maximian was staying in the city of the Thessalonians. This opinion holds, because thus the beginning of both is one and the same. Nor does it matter that in Greek in Allatius Μαξιμῖνος, in Latin in Anastasius Maximian, is written. For besides that in Greek Μαξιμῖνος is not seldom found written for Μαξιμιανὸς, or the contrary, Fabricius, in volume 9 of the Bibliotheca Graeca, page 72, cites the Greek copy, existing in manuscript in the Coislin library, of the Life or Passion of St. Demetrius rendered into Latin by Anastasius the librarian, in which not Μαξιμῖνος but Μαξιμιανὸς is uttered. Nor is this name written otherwise in another Greek Passion of Demetrius, presented by Photius in the Bibliotheca, codex 255, which agrees exactly with the Anastasian composition both in substance and in almost all circumstances, although very different from it in words. Besides, in absolutely all the Latin copies of the Life translated by Anastasius which I have been permitted to see, Maximian, not Maximin, is written.

[8] or are reviewed. But enough of this matter already. Besides the two, or rather three, Greek Lives or Passions of the Saint, that one namely being counted which I have just pointed out is presented by Photius, yet another Greek one likewise, beginning with these words, Μαξιμιανὸς

ὁ

καὶ

Ἑρκούλιος

ὑποτάξας

Γοτθούς, is cited by Fabricius in volume 9 of the Bibliotheca Graeca, page 72, who there also reviews the two former already mentioned from Allatius, and the same is presented entire in the codex formerly Mazarin's, cited more than once above, from page 1 to page 10 verso, as also in our codex marked ✠ Ms. 193, from page 38 to page 42. For the rest, so that for brevity's sake I may pass over the more contracted elogia of the Saint, which are to be either transcribed or at least mentioned only in the course of the Commentary, if they contain anything worthy of note, there is yet to be added to the Greek Lives of Demetrius already enumerated a more prolix Latin Life, or rather a paraphrase of the Greek Life which I reviewed in the former place, and of the other which I reviewed in the latter, brought into the Legend of the holy patrons of Poland, Hungary, Bohemia, Moravia, Prussia and Silesia, compiled by Jan Longinus, otherwise Długosz, about the year 1470, as a manuscript note prefixed to it teaches, and printed at Cracow only in the year 1511; and presented in abridgement by Pelbart of Temesvár, who flourished in the Order of Minors as the fifteenth century was growing old, in the Pomerium of Sermons on the Saints, part 2, Sermon 79. And thus I have now reviewed the writings which treat of St. Demetrius, and which I had resolved to review here; what credence each merits, and at the same time which of them are to be published, I shall set out in the following §, beginning with the Lives or Passions.

§ II. Which of the writings reviewed in the preceding § are to be published, and of what credit or authority each is.

[Whatever, as regards the various Lives of the Saint, and namely the Metaphrastic,] The composition reviewed last in the preceding § is assuredly such that, having been originally written only by a more recent author — whether he be meanwhile Długosz himself, or, as I rather think more probable, another distinct from him — and adorned with various circumstances which you would not find elsewhere, or rather with fictions which are grounded in absolutely no sufficiently ancient monument, it is of very slight credit, and therefore, although it will have to be cited from time to time in this Commentary, especially when it furnishes things to be confuted, and partly also to be transcribed, yet it does not merit to be reprinted entire in print, and in fact will not be reprinted: and as regards now the Greek Lives or Passions, the one which is ascribed to Metaphrastes by Allatius in the place cited above, and is in fact the offspring of that writer, is now held in slight esteem by absolutely all those skilled in the critical art, and to it both that which was turned from the Greek tongue into Latin by Anastasius the librarian and the other which is supplied by Photius in the Bibliotheca, at the codex cited, are by far preferred, and assuredly not undeservedly: for besides that it attributes to St. Demetrius and to a certain youth named Nestor, whom it also proposes as a martyr, things altogether contrary to the holiness of the Christian faith, as the disputations below on this argument will clearly prove, it also comprises prodigies which, although indeed you would not deservedly reject them on that ground alone, that they are prodigies, yet do not easily find credence among critics, even less severe ones, unless they are known to have been recorded or drawn from authors or monuments either contemporary or nearly contemporary, which as regards the things narrated in the Metaphrastic Life or Passion of the Saint with which we are here concerned certainly has no place; so that indeed Tillemont, in volume V of the Monuments, page 149, rightly pronounces that improbable facts are intermixed with the Metaphrastic Passion or Acts of the Saint. But does the same author also rightly hold these for fictions which were first fabricated in the tenth century either by Metaphrastes himself or by another writer who went before him?

[10] which from the Life by John, archbishop of Thessalonica, For the matter seems to me otherwise; for as regards Metaphrastes in particular, he did not, as our Predecessors long ago learned by experience, and as we ourselves learn daily by the same teacher, bring new prodigies or circumstances unlike the truth into the Acts of the Saints which he polished with his style, but only transcribed and adopted those which he found already committed to writing by others; and so that it may appear whence too those improbable facts which occur in the Metaphrastic Life of the Saint were fabricated by no other writer of the tenth century, I shall now bring forward: John, archbishop of Thessalonica, who, as I shall teach below, flourished in the seventh century, in the panegyrical oration mentioned above, which he sets before the miracles of St. Demetrius written by himself in the manner of a preface, at page 17 (namely of the codex formerly Mazarin's, so often cited already) speaks thus: Ἀλλὰ

τὸ

μὲν

μνησθῆναι

παντῶν

τῶν

θαυμασίων

αὐτοῦ,

ὧν

ἐποιήσεν,

οὐκ

εὔκολον,

ὅτι

καὶ

ἀδύνατον.

Ἵστε

γὰρ

τὸ

γεγραμμένον

ἐν

τῶ

ὕμνω

τῆς

παμμακαρίστου

αὐτοῦ

ἀθλήσεως,

ὡς

ἑκ

τῶν

λογῶν,

οὐ

μικρῶν

δυνάμεων,

συνθημάτων,

ἱασεώντε

καὶ

Χαρισμάτων

περιβοήτου

γεγενημένης

τῆς

ἐνεργείας

τοῦ

Μάρτυρος.

Οὐκ

ἐκείνα

γοῦν

τὰ

παμπληθῆ

καὶ

παλαιότερα

διηγείσθαι προήρημαι· which words sound thus in Latin: But to remember all the miracles which he (namely St. Demetrius) did is not easy, because it is even impossible. For you know what is written in the praise of the most Blessed one's Passion, since the efficacy of the Martyr, in no mediocre powers, signs, healings and graces, has been made celebrated from discourses. I have therefore not proposed to narrate those very many and older ones.

[11] perhaps formerly held before the eyes, There was therefore, as appears from this text, already from the age of John, archbishop of Thessalonica, or the seventh century, a composition in which not a few miracles wrought by the patronage of St. Demetrius were reviewed. What then if this was that very one whose beginning is Μαξιμιανὸς

ὁ

καὶ

Ἑρκούλιος

ὑποτάξας

Γοτθούς, the Greek Life or Passion of St. Demetrius mentioned above and written by an anonymous author? This assuredly does not appear to me altogether unlike the truth. For this Life or Passion also comprises not a few miracles. Besides, in almost the same words with which, in the text now given, John, archbishop of Thessalonica, speaks of the celebrity of the miracles wrought by St. Demetrius, discourse is also had of it in that one, so that it seems to have lighted the way for John, archbishop of Thessalonica. The very words of the same Life or Passion which bear on this I also transcribe here, with a Latin interpretation added, so that, a comparison of them having been made with the recited words of John of Thessalonica, the studious reader may judge of the matter. They run thus:

Σημείωντε

πολλῶν

καὶ

ἰάσεων

γενομένων

ἐν

τῷ

τόπῳ,

καὶ

θείων

Χαρισμάτων

φοιτούντων

τοῖς

πίστει

προσερχομένοις

ἐν

αὐτῷ

…

περιβοήτου

διὰ

πάσης

Μακεδονίας

καὶ

Θετταλίας

γενομένης

τῆς

τοῦ

Μάρτυρος

θαυματουργοῦ

ἐνεργείας

…

Λεόντιος

…

τὶς

ἀνὴρ

…

νόσῳ

ἀνιάτω

ληφθεὶς

…

εὐθέως

τῆς

ὑγιείας

ἐπέτυχεν. After many signs and healings had been wrought in the place (namely where the Saint had been committed to the earth), and divine graces had been most frequently conferred on those who approached him with faith, … the efficacy of the Martyr, working miracles, through all Macedonia and Thessaly

had been made celebrated, … Leontius … a certain man … seized with an incurable disease … at once obtained health (namely, placed upon the Saint's tomb). Where these Greek words, περιβοήτου

…

γενομένης

τῆς

τοῦ

Μάρτυρος

θαυματουργοῦ

ἐνεργείας, are chiefly to be noted, and compared with the likewise Greek words of John of Thessalonica recited above, to which they correspond.

[12] But if, this comparison having been made, you do not yet think that the aforesaid composition of the anonymous author, of which we speak here, lighted the way for this prelate, to have flowed there will still indeed be reason for it to appear that the Metaphrastic Life of the Saint flowed from it. For since all the prodigies and the facts in any way worthy of note — if, however, you except one, of which presently — which occur in the Opusculum of Metaphrastes occur likewise in the composition of the anonymous author, it can hardly be doubted that either the latter flowed from the former or the former from the latter; and the last seems to be established, as what is now to be said will show. It is narrated toward the end of the Metaphrastic Life of the Saint that a certain Leontius, prefect of Illyricum, when he had been animated to confidence by St. Demetrius appearing to him, crossed unharmed in a chariot the Danube, stirred by a stormy tempest and gone out of its channel, the Flood silently retreating and yielding to nods which do not fall under sight; but in the other, composed by the anonymous author, although indeed the apparition of St. Demetrius offered to Leontius is mentioned at the end, yet no mention at all is made of the flood silently retreating and yielding to nods which do not fall under sight by the author of that writing, who nevertheless, as one quite addicted to narrating prodigies, and omitting absolutely none of the others related by Metaphrastes, would not have failed to record that signal and most memorable prodigy if he had had the composition of this writer before his eyes and had woven his own from it. Nor is there ground for replying that a miracle at least, wrought in the crossing of the Ister by Leontius, is indicated by the anonymous author: for even if this is so, yet nothing is had from it from which you might in any way conclude, as would nevertheless be necessary, that Metaphrastes lighted the way for the anonymous author by his composition, and not the latter for him.

[13] That the matter may become manifest, whatever the anonymous author supplies it seems, that bears on this, I present here in Latin. After, therefore, he has narrated that the Danube, when Leontius came to it, had so gone out of its channel that it could not be crossed even by ships, and that St. Demetrius, appearing to Leontius in sleep, had nevertheless commanded him to cross it without hesitation, he presently subjoins concerning Leontius: In the morning, therefore, having mounted his chariot, holding in his hands the venerable reliquary (in which namely the sacred relics of St. Demetrius were contained), he crossed the river unharmed; by which words assuredly it is by no means indicated that the determinate miracle which Metaphrastes relates was wrought in the crossing of the Ister by Leontius, even though that writer meanwhile most probably drew this out of them. For what if Leontius crossed the Danube unharmed, the waters indeed not withdrawing to right and left, as happened to the Israelites crossing the Red Sea, but only not sinking beneath him, as was done to Christ and Peter in Matthew chapter 14? Indeed, even had it been done so, the miracle would be plainly signal, and perhaps the anonymous author meant nothing else to be indicated. But let us grant for the moment that that very miracle which Metaphrastes narrates is indicated by the anonymous author in the recited words; this writer, as one who clearly sets forth all the other miracles related by Metaphrastes, would certainly not have indicated it only obscurely, had he had the latter lighting his way, but would likewise have set it forth clearly, no otherwise than he did; and since he certainly does not do so, the anonymous author surely did not have Metaphrastes lighting his way, but the latter had the former, as I have said, and from him, understood with freer interpretation, built up the determinate miracle by which he relates that Leontius crossed the Ister.

[14] and another, by Anastasius the Librarian And thus too it follows from what has already been said that Metaphrastes assuredly did not himself fabricate the prodigies and improbable facts which he relates in the Life of the Saint composed by him, but most probably received them from the aforesaid anonymous author, who in the Acts of Demetrius composed by himself reviews all the same things, if you except the one already mentioned. But since this is so, were then all those prodigies and improbable facts first fabricated by this later writer? Before I declare what I think of this matter, some things must yet be set forth first concerning the Greek Life or Passion of the Saint mentioned above, turned into the Latin tongue by Anastasius the Librarian. This, which already existed somewhat contracted in Vincent of Beauvais, book 12 of the Speculum Historiale, chapter 150, and in Mombritius, volume 1 of the Lives, Mabillon at length brought entire, with the Prologue set before it by Anastasius and the miracles added at the end, into volume 1 of the Vetera Analecta; and our manuscript codex, which formerly belonged to Cornelius Dayn and is marked ✠ Ms. 84, also presents the same, as do two manuscripts existing in our collections, of which one is noted as taken from the codex of Rouge-Cloître, the other from the Trier codex of St. Maximin, yet so that the last of these lacks both the miracles and the Prologue or dedication of Anastasius made to the emperor Charles, which the abridgements supplied by Vincent of Beauvais and Mombritius also lack, if you except the miracle which is about Marianus.

[15] rendered in Latin in the ninth century Further, Anastasius the Librarian, concerning whom Mabillon in the aforesaid volume 1 of the Vetera Analecta, page 96, may also be consulted, transmitted the said Life or Passion of the Saint, given Latin dress by himself, to the emperor Charles, as the Prologue prefixed to the same Life gives proof; wherefore, since this does not seem to have been another than that very emperor Charles the Bald, first crowned with the imperial diadem at Rome in the year 875 and taken from among the living in the year 877, to whom the same Anastasius (go to Pagi in the Critica at the year 876, number 12) sent in the year 876 the Life of St. Dionysius the Areopagite rendered into Latin by himself, this composition was most probably turned into the Latin tongue by Anastasius not later than this very year, and certainly, since this writer departed from among the living before the year 882, as Muratori teaches in the Preface set before volume three of the Writers of Italian Affairs, it surpasses in antiquity the Life composed by Metaphrastes, a writer only of the tenth century. Nor does it appear to be doubted that it also surpasses in antiquity the other Life of Demetrius mentioned above which, as I have taught, seems to have lighted the way for Metaphrastes. For not only is that Life which lighted the way for Metaphrastes much briefer, but it also does not comprise the prodigies and improbable facts which occur in this one; and that one of two Lives of one and the same Saint which is distinguished by those two characters is customarily held by all students of antiquity and those skilled in the critical art to be not only more genuine than the other but also older.

[16] [and perhaps written already from the sixth century, what is chiefly worth knowing is set forth,] Further, since this is so, and besides the same order, and also almost all the same phrases with which the martyrdom of Demetrius and its course are set forth in that briefer Life or Passion, written by an anonymous author, are likewise kept in the Life composed by another anonymous author which lighted the way for Metaphrastes, this latter was most probably, not to say undoubtedly, adorned from the former, and that indeed in such a way that the anonymous author by whom this was done explained paraphrastically the facts found by him in the said briefer Life or Passion, inserting here and there the prodigies and improbable facts which he narrates in his, as will become evident from a comparison of the two compositions. And these indeed — that I may at length declare what I think of that writer — if he did not fabricate them himself, he most probably received from the faithless rumour of the vulgar or from popular tradition: I now further set out of how great antiquity that briefer Life of our Saint seems to be. If truly, as has perhaps been made out from what has been said, the more prolix composition of the anonymous author which lighted the way for Metaphrastes likewise lighted the way for John, prelate of Thessalonica in the seventh century, the briefer Life or Passion of the Saint of which we speak here, as being older than it, as I have already taught, was written already from the same seventh century, indeed perhaps already from the sixth century or perhaps still earlier. And indeed, since Anastasius the Librarian, a writer of the ninth century, says in the Prologue that he did not then first compose it, but only translated it, already composed, from the Greek tongue into Latin, nothing assuredly seems to hinder its being determined to have been written so early, and it hardly appears to be doubted that it was committed to writing at least before the ninth century.

[17] This briefer composition of the anonymous author, therefore, and at length which of these which besides, although indeed it does not merit undoubted credence because it is not known to have been drawn from contemporary or nearly contemporary writers or monuments, yet comprises absolutely nothing certainly at odds with the truth or even unlike the truth, I shall reprint at the end of the Commentary in the first place, because it is older both than the Life composed by Metaphrastes and than the other which lighted the way for it, from Mabillon's edition, compared with the Rouge-Cloître manuscript and the other copies of the same composition mentioned above which are at hand, both printed and manuscript, as also with the Photian Life of the Saint, which not only agrees exactly with this in substance and almost all circumstances, as was said above, but also, since Photius, who flourished in the ninth century, hints at the beginning that he did not compose it but brought it, already composed by another, into his Bibliotheca, is perhaps of equal antiquity. Further, to this briefer Life of the Saint written by an anonymous author I shall subjoin, in Greek and Latin together, the two other Passions or Lives of Demetrius already mentioned above, of which one was composed also by an anonymous author, the other by Metaphrastes, both because they are not very prolix, and the one which the anonymous author composed has not hitherto been published in print, and because I think it will not be unwelcome to the studious reader, who will thus be able conveniently to examine what we have taught above about the genesis, so to speak, of both; the former indeed from the Greek manuscript of our codex ✠ Ms. 193, which is noted as taken from codex 821 of the Vatican library, and which I myself turned from the Greek tongue into Latin; the latter from the edition of our Bollandus mentioned above, or rather from the Medicean codex of the library of the Most Christian king, from which this was prepared, compared with the editions of Lipomano and Surius. And thus I have now set out what each of the Lives of the Saint that are found is worth, and which of these are to be subjoined to this Commentary; and although, as I pointed out, I shall reprint from Mabillon's edition the briefer Passion or Life of the Saint, rendered into Latin by Anastasius the Librarian, yet the miracles, although in this edition they are immediately annexed to that Life, I shall add only at the end of the two others, likewise, as I have already said, to be published, and that not from their editor Mabillon or their interpreter Anastasius, but from the very Greek sources from which they originally flowed.

[18] and others, who concerning signal Who these are, I set out. In the codex formerly

Mazarin's, mentioned above very often, there exist three different compositions, likewise mentioned above, on the miracles wrought by St. Demetrius, of which the first was elaborated by John, archbishop of Thessalonica, the second by an anonymous author who continued his composition, and finally the third by another anonymous author, who, as is indicated in the very title which it bears, committed to writing various miracles done by St. Demetrius at various times and places. That the individual miracles which Anastasius the Librarian rendered into Latin, and Mabillon published, were originally drawn from the miracles occurring either in the composition of John of Thessalonica or in that of the former anonymous author hardly appears doubtful, since these are only abridgements of those to which they correspond, and John of Thessalonica and his anonymous continuator excel Anastasius in antiquity, as you will understand from what is to be said below. The miracles supplied, therefore, in Mabillon by Anastasius the Librarian I shall add from those two writers at the end of the three Lives or Passions to be published, intending thus to subjoin their compositions, or rather all the miracles which are contained in these, together with the composition of the anonymous author who, as I have already said, committed to writing various miracles done by St. Demetrius at various times and places, put into print for the first time (for they have not hitherto, so far as I know, been published), in Greek and Latin together: and that I may do this according to our custom, I shall distinguish the whole Work into as many different books as there are compositions, which themselves also are divided into chapters and numbers, and shall illustrate it with annotations too, where I shall judge it fitting and necessary, added at the end of the individual chapters.

[19] the miracles of St. Demetrius, But since, during the brief time in which the codex formerly Mazarin's, cited above very often, was at hand, it was permitted to copy from it, of the miracles which are comprised in those three compositions, only some entire, together with fragments of some others, the rest of the narrative being drawn into an abridgement, it still remains to be set out in what manner I am to prepare that edition. The miracles which we have entire from the Mazarin codex we shall also give entire from it. We shall do the same also as regards the fragments which exist with us copied from the same codex, yet so that I shall inform the reader in the Annotations of what is missing from these out of the rest of the narrative, and which we have in abridgement, as I have already hinted — these being therefore distinguished here and there by the interposition of points, which mark a gap. And as regards the other miracles which are contained in the three compositions mentioned above, I shall publish one of these from Combefis, who presents it in the Writers of Byzantine History after Theophanes, page 314 and the two following, from the Mazarin codex cited above very often, and the rest from our codex marked ✠ Ms. 193, in which, the name of the author, who is John of Thessalonica, being suppressed, they are had partly entire, copied and taken, as is noted, from codex 821 of the Vatican library, partly drawn into an abridgement by John Stauracius through the oration to be cited below, and, as is marked in the margin, received from the manuscripts of Leo Allatius.

[20] Further, that I may now inform the reader of the things which have contributed not a little to my publishing those miracles, held in great esteem by Combefis, Combefis, at page 314 of the Work just cited, in the Preface which he sets before the Narrative of John Cameniates on the destruction of Thessalonica by the Hagarenes in the year 904, after some other things adduced before, speaks in the following manner: There was another thing which occurred to me in Thessalonica, the jewel of the empire in these times and in those before them, a city second in dignity after the ruling one itself; namely that I should bring forth those great things of St. John, archbishop of Thessalonica, under the emperors Justinian the Great and Maurice, on his Demetrius, and then other things produced in following times by another author, by which the city, attacked more than once, sometimes by the Chagan himself, the most formidable enemy of Maurice himself, besieging it with every effort and abundance of forces, was freed by divine rather than human help, by open miracles of the Great Demetrius of such a kind that not even the most obstinate and most incredulous could easily refuse belief; to which matter the industry of the said most holy man, archbishop John, applies itself excellently, although there are not lacking on either side stratagems and deeds of war nobly performed, all of which perhaps will have to be produced by me on another occasion, as also the last capture of the same city, excellently described by John Anagnostes.

[21] But here the bulk of the book must be spared, treat, and by John of Thessalonica, by which I have imposed a law on myself not to run out beyond the bounds in anything, and to give a foretaste of only one chapter from that dense Work (namely the Mazarin manuscript codex cited above, which is wholly about St. Demetrius), which touches at its extreme limit this very History of the destroyed city of Thessalonica. But why Demetrius, his city having formerly been preserved in so many ways from such great enemies, allowed it once and again to be plundered by the enemies of Christ, and at last to come under their right by firm possession, these are the deep judgements of God; from which we too may deservedly fear. It is so: quite excellent, as Combefis here hints, at least for the greater part, are the miracles of St. Demetrius narrated by John, archbishop of Thessalonica, and by the former anonymous writer, already cited by us earlier, who continued his composition, and there occur among them also some which, since they record that St. Demetrius freed his native city of Thessalonica from the siege of the Avars, the Slavs and other barbarians, contribute in some way to illustrating the history of these nations, or the affairs carried on between the Greeks and them; which assuredly alone, even if the other reasons which are sought from the Saint's glory were lacking, would almost have moved me to give those miracles the public light which they have hitherto lacked, although meanwhile they also have some less illustrious ones mixed in. But as regards the titles of Saint and most holy man with which Combefis adorns John, archbishop of Thessalonica, in the place transcribed, I find this prelate inscribed in absolutely no sacred Fasti, nor honoured with ecclesiastical cult either by the Greeks or by the Latins. Wherefore, although I am well aware that by a custom formerly received all bishops, both deceased and those still surviving among the living, were called Saints for honour's sake, or by way of an honorary title, and the John of Thessalonica with whom we are here concerned is himself also given the title of Saint more than once in the titles which are set before his compositions in the codex formerly Mazarin's, yet I should not dare, after the example of Combefis, who does not seem to have regarded that custom in that place, to attribute to John of Thessalonica the title of Saint or of most holy man.

[22] a writer of good mark But although the matter stands so, this writer is nevertheless very much commended by virtue and probity of life, so that assuredly in narrating those things which were done in his age, and which he either saw himself or learned from men worthy of credit to whom they were thoroughly known, he merits entire credence; and thus he had ascertained, if not all, yet most of the miracles which he relates were wrought by the power of St. Demetrius. Hear him speaking opportunely for the present purpose about the miracles which he is about to commit to writing, in the panegyrical Oration mentioned above more than once, which he set before the miracles narrated by himself, in the codex formerly Mazarin's, page 17, immediately after the words recited at number 10.

Ἀλλὰ

καθὼς

ὁ

παρθένος

ἀπόστολος

ἔφησεν,

ἅ

ἀκηκόαμεν,

δῆλον

δὲ

ὅτι

παρὰ

τῶν

πείρᾳ

παρειληφότων,

ἢ

ἀκριβείᾳ

μεμαθηκότων,

καὶ

ἅ

αὐτοι

&ldquogr;ἐωράκαμεν

τοῖς

ὀφθαλμοῖς

ἡμῶν,

ἅ

ἐθεασάμεθα,

καὶ

αἵ

χείρες

ἡμῶν

ἐψηλάφησαν.&rdquogr;

Ταῦτα

διὰ

τῆς

αὐτοῦ

συνάρσεως

ἀπαγγελούμεν ὑμῖν. But, as the virgin Apostle said, "What we have heard," namely from those who had found it by experience, or had learned it by diligent inquiry, and what we ourselves "have seen with our eyes, what we have looked upon, and our hands have handled," these things by his help we shall announce to you.

[23] who flourished in the seventh century, Further, that I may declare not only how much credence John of Thessalonica merits, but also about what age he flourished: in book 1, chapter 5, of the Miracles to be published, he makes mention of Eusebius, archbishop of Thessalonica, who occupied this see under the emperor Maurice, and in the following chapter he affirms that he heard the miracle which he narrates there from the archbishop mentioned before, and therefore from the said Eusebius; wherefore, since Eusebius, archbishop of Thessalonica under the emperor Maurice, is not known to be another than he who occupied that see eighteenth in order, and certainly closed his last day before the year 649, since in that year his successor, Paul the heretic, already administered the church of Thessalonica, as may be seen at this year in Pagi's Critica and in Le Quien's Oriens Sacer, volume 2, column 40, it is altogether necessary that John, himself afterwards also archbishop of Thessalonica, who according to what has been said spoke with this Eusebius and comprised in writing the miracles of St. Demetrius, flourished in the seventh century, and accordingly (for I do not find in that same century two different archbishops of Thessalonica who had the name of John) cannot be other than John, archbishop of Thessalonica, subscribed to the sixth general council, celebrated at Constantinople in the year 681, in the collections of the Councils in Labbe and Hardouin.

[24] and by two of the credit set out here Now some things are to be brought forward concerning the age and at the same time the credit of the anonymous author who, as has been said, continued the composition of John of Thessalonica, and likewise of the other anonymous author who committed to writing various miracles of St. Demetrius done at various times. The former, whose composition, as I have already pointed out, will constitute the second book of the Miracles to be published, narrates in chapter 4 a miracle which, as I shall teach in the Annotations to be subjoined to it, happened toward the end of the eighth century, so that he certainly did not flourish earlier than as this century was growing old. Nor does his age seem to be deferred beyond the ninth century: for the last of the miracles which Anastasius the Librarian — snatched from among the living before the year 882, as I taught above — narrates in Mabillon, volume 1 of the Vetera Analecta, he seems first of all, or at least before Anastasius, to have committed to writing, and he hints that this, which he reviews in the last place of his composition, here mutilated in the codex formerly Mazarin's, was done in his own times. Now since these things are so, and those which he relates in the first three chapters were done in the seventh century, and chiefly in the very age of John, archbishop of Thessalonica, so very often cited already, as he himself teaches, he assuredly does not merit altogether undoubted credence in narrating them, as being too far removed from the time in which he flourished, especially because besides he neither himself declares anywhere from what sources he drew those narratives of his, nor is it ascertained from elsewhere.

[25] As regards now the other anonymous writer, whose Composition, as I said before, and they were written by authors of the age, will constitute the third book of the Miracles to be published, he certainly flourished not earlier than the ninth century, since the miracle published by Combefis in the place cited above, which he relates in chapter 3, happened in the year 904, as I shall teach in the Annotations to be subjoined to it; indeed, since he not obscurely invokes that the destruction of the city of Thessalonica by the Hagarenes in the said year 904 under the emperor Leo was already past by several years when he was writing, he perhaps did not flourish even before the tenth century. Another thing, by which

I might define his age more nearly, does not occur to me; but since, as the title prefixed to his composition teaches, he relates miracles wrought by St. Demetrius at various times, it may indeed not undeservedly be doubted whether he did not live more remotely from some of the miracles which he narrates than to be able to win certain and altogether undoubted credence for his narratives. However that may be, I should not dare to reject undoubtingly, as certainly false and fictitious, any one of those things which he relates. And thus I have now set out also in what esteem each of the three compositions on the miracles of St. Demetrius to be published is to be held.

[26] Further, to the publication of these I shall attach various analecta also, both concerning the prodigious ointment or oil which drips, compositions, at least in part, or certainly once dripped, at Thessalonica from the Saint's tomb, or, as others write, from his body, and concerning some other miracles of St. Demetrius which are absent from the three said compositions, received partly from writers already published by the benefit of print, partly from the not yet published compositions of John Stauracius and Demetrius Chrysoloras. And indeed, if I shall judge that anything is to be noted concerning the writers not yet published by the benefit of print, by which I may teach what credence they merit, I shall do this when it will be needful to adduce their words or testimony. And as regards John Stauracius and Demetrius Chrysoloras, it is pleasing to set out in this place in what esteem the things which these two not yet published writers committed to writing are to be held. John Stauracius composed a very prolix oration on the miracles of St. Demetrius, which exists in our codex ✠ Ms. 193 from page 66 to page 99 verso, taken, as is written in the margin, from a manuscript of Leo Allatius. William Cave, in the History of Ecclesiastical Writers, part 2, in the first of the Dissertations added at its end, page 10, declares that he doubts whether that composition has not been published, most probably led to this because he had read a part of it published by Leo Allatius in the Notes on the History of Acropolites, and remembered the matter only confusedly. Certainly I have not yet found that that Opusculum was published entire in print; which it suffices to have noted here. Its author most probably flourished in the thirteenth century. For not only does he relate almost all the miracles which John, archbishop of Thessalonica, and the two anonymous writers, to be printed as has been said, record, but also some others, so that his aim seems to have been to commit to writing whatever miracles had been done by St. Demetrius up to his own age. Wherefore, since he records absolutely no miracles later than the thirteenth century, it can hardly be doubted that he flourished in this same century and committed what he narrates to writing.

[27] are to be published, Although further, to speak now of the writer's credit, in narrating things that were done very far from his age, he does not by his authority alone merit certain and undoubted credence, especially when, as happens now and then, he is at variance with John, archbishop of Thessalonica, and other older writers, there is nevertheless no reason why credence should be denied him in those things which happened either in his very age or less remotely from it, unless a reason sought from elsewhere urge it, especially if the things he records are of such a kind that they could have been thoroughly perceived by him, as assuredly are those which he relates of the ointment gushing from St. Demetrius's tomb or body. I come now to Demetrius Chrysoloras. This writer, who, as William Cave teaches in the Appendix added to part 1 of the History of Ecclesiastical Writers, page 71, was illustrious about the year 1430, besides the Opuscula partly reviewed by Cave in the same place, also wrote an Oration on St. Demetrius in the Greek idiom. This little composition, which is presented entire in the tenth pluteus of the Medicean Library of San Lorenzo, codex 13, from folio 41, comprises two parts, in one of which the Saint's martyrdom and its circumstances are set forth encomiastically, in the other the prodigious ointment or oil which drips from his tomb is treated. The latter, which supplies nothing other than what the author most probably had best ascertained, and which accordingly merits a place among the Analecta to be published by us, as has been said, we have copied from the said codex of the Medicean Library; but the former not so; nor indeed, since, regarding the age in which the author flourished, it can add absolutely no weight to the things which he records of Demetrius, do we greatly miss it.

[28] and which are not to be published, And thus I have now set out not only which compositions treating of St. Demetrius or his miracles are to be published entire at the end of this Commentary, but also which only in part. It remains that I bring forward still some things concerning some other compositions which will either be of some use in the very course of this Commentary, or certainly are reviewed among the compositions on St. Demetrius from various libraries or authors enumerated above. Of the Oration to be attributed to Leo the Wise, as I taught above, whose beginning is Ἔφη

ὁ

σωτήριος

λόγος, some part, copied from the codex formerly Mazarin's, exists with us, and this, together with the title which that little composition bears, will be of some use in the course of the Commentary, as also the elogium of St. Demetrius beginning with these words, Μνήμην

δικαίων, which John, archbishop of Thessalonica, cited so very often, also composed, of which some Fragments too exist with us, likewise copied from the same codex formerly Mazarin's. Besides, in our codex ✠ Ms. 193 a diffuse encomium of the Saint, which is ascribed to Gregory, deacon and referendary, is presented not only in part but entire, from page 100 to page 106 verso. But this composition can be of absolutely no use, and accordingly does not merit to be published. For besides that it sets forth the Metaphrastic Life or Passion of the Saint only encomiastically, the author at the end invokes St. Demetrius against the Hagarenes, who had devastated Thessalonica, captured by them, and defiled it with the shed blood of its citizens; wherefore, since Thessalonica was captured by the Hagarenes not earlier than the year 904, he most probably flourished in the tenth century, and certainly not earlier; so that whatever he records of St. Demetrius adds absolutely no weight to the Metaphrastic assertions about him.

[29] As regards further the two orations of the emperor Leo on Demetrius, likewise mentioned above, of which one (go to Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, volume 9, page 71 and following) begins with these following words, is declared. Θαυμαστὸς

ὁ

Θεὸς, the other with these, Οὕδεν

οὕτω,

and the compositions of other writers, concerning which I proposed to say a little more here, namely of Philotheus, patriarch of Constantinople, and of the following four archbishops of Thessalonica, Joseph, Gregory Palamas, Nicholas Cabasilas and Nicetas, these Opuscula, being for that very reason so far from to be published, we do not have even in part, nor do I know whether they are much to be desired. For unless perhaps — which meanwhile may easily be otherwise — they supply something either about the Saint's cult or about the prodigious ointment or oil which drips at Thessalonica from his tomb or body, their authors, regarding the age in which they flourished, seem very little fit for illustrating the things which pertain to our Saint. That the matter may become manifest, I subjoin about what time each flourished. Leo the Wise governed the reins of the Eastern empire from the year 870 to the year 911; Philotheus was raised to the see of Constantinople (go to the Chronological History of the patriarchs prefixed to volume 1 of August of our Work) in the year 1354, and departed from among the living about the year 1376. Gregory Palamas and his successor Nicholas Cabasilas occupied the see of Thessalonica in the 14th century, as may be seen in Le Quien in the Oriens Sacer, volume 2, and in Cave in the History of Ecclesiastical Writers. As regards Nicetas, there were two archbishops of Thessalonica distinguished by the name of Nicetas, of whom one, as Le Quien teaches in the place cited, flourished in the twelfth century, the other still later.

§ III. The Saint's undaunted fortitude in preaching the faith of Christ, and what is to be thought of the things narrated about his race, fatherland and condition.

The Saint, who whether, as is narrated, of illustrious That our Saint was sprung of an illustrious and senatorial race is recorded by his Life or Passion to be published in the second place, which has an anonymous author, nor does that which will be published in the third place, composed by Metaphrastes, depart much from it in establishing his distinguished race, as it has thus at the beginning: As regards … his parents, he was distinguished and most illustrious in race, tracing himself to the ancient Macedonians. Further, that Demetrius was sprung of an illustrious and senatorial race his Latin Life, cited at number 8 and composed by Długosz, not only affirms but also gives out the names of the parents by whom he was begotten. The words with which it does so are these: Whose (namely Demetrius's) parents were not only adorned with the Christian dignity, but also nobly sprung from the renowned progeny of the senators; his father was called by the most blessed name of Adrian, and his mother of Theogona. But absolutely all the writers, both Greek and Latin, whom I have been permitted to see thus far, if you except one, who drew what he writes from the Długosz Life, Pelbart of Temesvár in his Pomerium of the Saints, which I cited at number 8, wrap in the deepest silence the names by which Demetrius's parents were called; and since this is so, who would give credence to Długosz, who first gives these out, a writer removed by many centuries from the things he narrates, of whom it is not known whence he drew what he relates and what is absent from older monuments? To me assuredly either he or certainly another writer whom he had lighting his way seems first to have devised those names at his own discretion.

[31] race he was sprung, is doubtful, Nor do I think one should speak in a much more favourable manner about the Saint's illustrious race, which is established not only in his Długosz Life but also in the Metaphrastic, and in the other, composed by an anonymous author, which lighted the way for Metaphrastes. For not even any word occurs either in the Anastasian or in the Photian Life or Passion of Demetrius, or in any other sufficiently ancient monument, which even obscurely hints that he was born of an illustrious or noble race; wherefore, since not only Długosz but also Metaphrastes and the other anonymous biographer who lighted his way, regarding even only the age in which they flourished, are not of a nature to win undoubted credence for their assertions about the Saint, it may assuredly not undeservedly be doubted whether our Saint was truly sprung of an illustrious race, as is established by these without any testimony of a sufficiently ancient writer or monument; indeed it may even be feared that whatever is found recorded about the Saint's illustrious race in his said biographers owes its origin solely to the licence of feigning, to which also, beyond doubt, must be attributed the things which are recorded in the Długosz Life or Passion of the Saint in these following words: And he (namely Demetrius) was … sceptre-bearer of the emperor and duke of Bellademensis (I do not know whether the author Belgradensis, as in Pelbart

has it, did not want it expressed) and of Lacedaemon, and consul of the imperial court.

[32] not at Sirmium in Pannonia, Nor do I think that only these things, which are destitute of absolutely every testimony of antiquity, were born of the desire or licence of devising, but also those which are read about the Saint's birthplace in the same Długosz Life or Passion of his. For they run thus: The most blessed boy Demetrius was born within Pannonia … in the city of Syrmium. But who would think that Długosz is safely to be believed here, who makes Demetrius a Pannonian by nation and a Sirmian by fatherland, without the authority or testimony of an older writer? Assuredly I think that whatever is asserted by him about our Saint's nation or fatherland was originally fabricated by an author who, carried away by a perverse love of his native soil, did not fear to fasten upon it a Saint foreign to it, and this not only because it is grounded in absolutely no ancient monument or writer, but most of all because it manifestly conflicts both with the Metaphrastic Life of the Saint and with the other, written by an anonymous author, both of which most plainly make Demetrius a Thessalonian. Nor is there ground for replying that Metaphrastes and the anonymous biographer of the Saint who lighted his way are, according to what has been said, not to be made so much of that they could by their authority alone make it certain that the Saint was born neither in Pannonia nor at Sirmium. For even if this is so, and the Lives of him presented by Photius and Anastasius the librarian do not note the Saint's fatherland or native soil, yet that the Saint was a Thessalonian by fatherland the anonymous writer who committed to writing book 2 of the Miracles, chapters 1, 2 and 4, not obscurely reveals.

[33] For in the former place, in which he narrates that Thessalonica was prodigiously freed from a siege of the barbarians by the action of St. Demetrius, but born at Thessalonica, he calls the Saint φιλοπατρὶν, that is, lover of his fatherland, designating Thessalonica by this; and in the second and third, in which he reveals that help was likewise brought to Thessalonica by Demetrius, he calls this Saint σωσιπατρὶν, that is, preserver of his fatherland, again surely designating Thessalonica by this. Besides, John, archbishop of Thessalonica, who flourished in the seventh century, and is accordingly much older than Photius and Anastasius the librarian, in the encomium beginning with these words, Μνημὴν δικαίων, which I have mentioned above more than once, not obscurely teaches that St. Demetrius was born at Thessalonica. For in that composition, making discourse about the benefits shown by the Saint to the city of Thessalonica, at page 227 verso of the codex formerly Mazarin's he speaks thus: Ποῦ

τοίνυν

ὁ

λόγος

βαδίσει;

ἐπὶ

τὴν

εὐφημίαν

καὶ

μόνην

τοῦ

Μάρτυρος,

καὶ

πῶς

ἂν

μᾶλλον

ἐγκωμίασαι

τίς

τούτον,

ἢ

τὰς

περὶ

τὴν

πατρίδα

βοηθείας

αὑτοῦ,

καὶ

προνοίας

ἀπαριθμούμενος,

εἴκαι

τῶν

ἀκαταλήπτων

τὸ

ἐπιχείρημα;

αὖται

γὰρ

τῶ

μὲν

ἀριθμῶ

τὰς

οὐρανίους

νιφάδας,

τῆ

δὲ

λαμπρότητι

καὶ

τοῦς

ἀστέρας

ὑπερηκόντισαν.

Τί

γὰρ

ἄν

τις

εἴποι

καὶ

πρῶτον,

ποῖον

δέ

καὶ

παροφθὲν,

οὐ

ζημιώσει

τὰ

μέγιστα·

εἴπω

τὸν

σύνδεσμον

τῆς

ἀγάπης

καὶ

τῆς

ὁμονοίας

τῆς

πόλεως

αὐτοῦ

καὶ

μόνου

πεφοιτηκότα

κατόρθωμα; which Greek words I render into Latin in this manner. Whither then shall the oration turn? To the praise, and that alone, of the Martyr: and in what way could one rather praise him than by enumerating his aids and cares toward his fatherland, even though it be to attempt a thing incomprehensible? For these exceed in number the showers of heaven, and in splendour the stars. For what should one say first, and what, even if neglected, will not detract from the greatest things? Shall I speak of the continual bond of charity and concord of the city, the benefit of him and of him alone? There is added that among the writers, both Latin and Greek, absolutely none is found, distinct from Długosz and Pelbart, who, if he speaks of the Saint's birthplace at all, does not make the Saint a Thessalonian; all which things being weighed, I bring myself to the conclusion that Demetrius was truly born in the city of Thessalonica.

[34] Nor does John, archbishop of Thessalonica, teach this only by the words which I have already given, and was also brought up there; but he relates also by other words, which I subjoin, in the codex formerly Mazarin's, page 227 verso, that the Saint was brought up in the same place. Ἐτράφη, he says, τοίνυν

ὁ

Μάρτυς

παρ᾽

ἡμῖν,

τοἶς

λειπομένοις

τούτου

κατὰ

τὸ

ἄπειρον.

Τόπω

γὰρ

συνετράφημεν

αὐτῶ,

οὐ

κατ᾽

ἐνέργειαν

ὀμοιότητος. Which words I render thus in Latin: The Martyr (namely Demetrius) was therefore brought up among us (namely the Thessalonians), who are as far as heaven from him. For we were brought up with him according to place, not according to the effect of likeness. The three Lives or Passions to be published, and the other which Photius brought into the Bibliotheca, do not indeed declare that the Saint was brought up at Thessalonica; but neither do they mention the place in which it befell him to be brought up: indeed the two older Lives, namely the Photian and the Anastasian, make not even an obscure mention of the very upbringing which the Saint received. Nor ought this to seem strange to anyone, since the anonymous authors of those two little compositions, having narrated the occasion on which Demetrius underwent martyrdom, leap at once to narrating this very thing, omitting even other things which they might have recorded about the Saint. That Demetrius was brought up at Thessalonica, therefore, I believe John of Thessalonica asserting it (go to his words just given), especially because it appears most probable both that this writer learned it from an older monument, and that the Saint was brought up in the place which fell to him as his birthplace, and which, as I have already taught, was Thessalonica.

[35] and although that he was a soldier and consul Długosz, or whoever else it was from whom he took the things which he records of the Saint, seems to have been of the opinion which determines that Demetrius, born at Sirmium, as he will have it, was also brought up at Sirmium, yet so that he believed that he afterwards gave his effort to Dialectic and Rhetoric in the city of Thessalonica. For after he asserted, by the words recited above, that the Saint was born at Sirmium, having interposed only a few words by which he establishes at his own discretion what were the names of his parents, he subjoins: The most glorious … Demetrius was handed over to liberal studies, and, being full of the Holy Spirit, endowed with the knowledge of the human and divine Page, he went to the city of Thessalonica, where he became an acute dialectician and a most eloquent rhetorician. So he: but the things which he relates in these words, besides that they seem partly to oppose John of Thessalonica, rest on absolutely no testimony of antiquity, and hence are to be held in very slight esteem, not to say anything worse, especially since the author is also of slight credit, as is clear from what has already been said. Nor is much more to be valued what Metaphrastes and the anonymous biographer of Demetrius who lighted his way together assert about the effort placed by the Saint, when already come to manly age, in the military art, and about the dignity of proconsul of Greece to which he was afterwards raised by the emperor Maximian, both being too remote from his age to be able to make certain and indubitable either these things or others which they also relate about him without the testimony of an older writer. But, you will say, in book 1 of the Miracles to be published, chapter 3, Demetrius is narrated to have appeared clothed in a mantle, no otherwise than a consul; and in book 2 of the same Miracles, chapter 6, to have given himself to be seen in military dress by Stephen, an African bishop captured by the Slavs, and in the same manner, as things which occur besides in the latter place give proof, he was presented painted in the image which represented him in the Demetrian church at Thessalonica.

[36] is not known for certain, I admit it is so, and there are besides other places in the same Miracles to be published in which Demetrius is likewise either expressly related, or at least in some way hinted, to have appeared in military dress. But the Saints do not always appear in the clothing or dress expressing the office or dignity of which they were when they were among the living, but sometimes also in another, if they see this more suitable to their design. That I may not have to resort to another source to prove this, the Saint's miracles to be published themselves serve. For in book 1, chapter 1 of these, which treats of Marianus, prefect of Illyricum, healed of an incurable disease through the Saint, he is narrated to have given himself to be seen in sleep by Marianus in the guise not of himself but of a friend whom the latter had at Constantinople, joined to him by intimate bond. Since then, as is clear from this, the Saints can appear even under a form or guise different from that in which they were among the living, why could they not also do this in a clothing or dress not expressing the office or dignity of which they were while surviving among the living, and indeed in fact do it from time to time? Besides, that I may say something also in particular against the asserted military condition of Demetrius, Demetrius could from time to time give himself to be seen in military dress not because he in fact served as a soldier for a worldly emperor while surviving among the living, but because he contended strenuously, like a soldier, even with blood shed, for the faith of Christ. Further, as regards now the image which presented the Saint clothed in military dress in the church dedicated to him at Thessalonica, it does indeed in some way show that in the ninth century, in which, as you will understand from the Annotations to be subjoined to the said sixth chapter of the second book of the Miracles, that image existed there, the military condition of Demetrius was believed, but it does not prove that he was in fact a soldier. Whatever, therefore, may be found recorded about the dress either in which the Saint appeared or in which he was painted, all the things nevertheless which are said by Metaphrastes and by the anonymous author who lighted his way, either about the Saint's consular dignity or about the effort placed by him in the military art, are altogether uncertain. But otherwise must one speak about the Saint's undaunted ardour in preaching the faith of Christ, asserted by the same, and the not inconsiderable fruit borne, many being converted to Christ.

[37] For in this matter they have not only the two older Lives or Passions of the Saint, yet that his native city, namely the Photian and the Anastasian, voting with them, but also John, archbishop of Thessalonica, in the encomium of our Saint beginning with these words Μνημὴν δικαίων, which I have already cited more than once. And first indeed the words of the Anastasian Life which bear on this, at number 1, are these: Among whom (the Christians) was blessed Demetrius, making himself manifest without any fear, who from his youth had both done good works and taught others. For he taught how the divine Wisdom had come down to earth from heaven, that He might quicken by His own blood man, who had died by sin. When he preached these and many other things, etc.; and those of the Photian these: This martyr of Christ, Demetrius, herald and teacher of piety, imitated the journeys and contests of the Apostles, and, having led the city of Thessalonica away from the darkness of error by the light of his teaching, brought it to Christ. These two Lives or Passions of the Saint not obscurely, assuredly, favour the assertion about St. Demetrius, of which we speak here, of Metaphrastes and of the anonymous writer who lighted his way, yet so that the latter openly declares, what the former of those Lives does not, that the whole city of Thessalonica was converted to Christ through him. And indeed that Demetrius, if not this whole native city of his, from error to Christ

he did not bring the whole, yet bore much fruit in it, not a few being imbued with the truth of the faith, John of Thessalonica, so very often cited already, at least also not obscurely hints, whose Greek words bearing on the present purpose, however very prolix, are nevertheless still to be copied here, with a Latin version added, because I have decided to publish in print almost all the things which we have copied concerning the Saint from the codex formerly Mazarin's.

[38] as John of Thessalonica himself also In the aforesaid encomium of St. Demetrius, then, at page 227 verso and following of the codex formerly Mazarin's, he has this: Αὐτὸς

δὲ

λαβὼν

τὸ

διδασκαλικὸν

τοῦτο

καὶ

Ἀποστολικὸν

χάρισμα,

ἴδωμεν

τίνα

τὴν

ἀντίδωσιν

προσήνεγκε

τῶ

Θεῶ…

Δείκνυται

χάριτι

Θεοῦ

περὶ

τῆς

διδασκαλίας

αὐτοῦ

τὸ

ἀθόλοτον.

Τὸ

γὰρ

ἰουδαΐκὴν

καὶ

ἑλληνικὴν

καὶ

πᾶσαν

ἄλλην

θεοπόλεμον

αἵρεσιν

ἐκ

πρέμνων

αὐτῶν

ἀνεσπάσθαι

τῆς

θεοφυλάκτου

ταύτης

ποίμνης

τοῦ

Χριστοῦ

τίνος

ἄλλου

κατόρθωμα,

ἢ

μετὰ

Θεὸν

τοῦ

διδασκάλου

τῆς

πόλεως;

…

περὶ

δὲ

τοὺς

χρόνους

τοῦ

Μάρτυρος

σφοδρῶς

τῇ

θεοσεβεία

ὁ

αντικείμενος

πιεζόμενος

σφοδρότερα

καθώπλισε

καὶ

τὰ

Σκάνδαλα·

ἔνθα

λοιπὸν

κηρύσσων

ὅ

θεοπάροχος

οὖτος

τῶν

Θεσσαλονικέων

προστάτης

καὶ

σύντροφος

καὶ

διδάσκαλος

(δεῖ

γἀρ

μοι,

τοῦ

λόγου

πρὸς

τοῦτο

χωρήσαντος,

μνησθῆναι

καὶ

θαυμαστοῦ

διηγήματος,

ὃ

παρὰ

πατέρων

ἀκήκοα)

ἐπλήρου

τὴν

πόλιν

ὀρθοδοξίας,

καὶ

τοὺς

ἀντιδοξούντας

ἐχώννυε…

Τί

δὲ

καὶ

τὸ

διήγημα;

Ἐξητεῖτο

…

παρὰ

τῶν

νουνεχῶς

τὰ

θεία

διακριβούντων,

πόθεν

ἡ

περὶ

τὸν

φιλόπολιν

τοῦτον

καὶ

θεοστεφῆ

Μάρτυρα

φήμη

ἐπὶ

τοσοῦντον

διέδραμεν,

ὥς

καὶ

μεγαλυνομένης

αὐτῆς

τὸ

βάσκανον

οὖς

παροξυνθῆναι

τοῦ

τυραννοῦντος

ἐνταῦθα

τότε

διάγοντος·

καὶ

ἐλέγετο;

ὥς

οὐ

τοσοῦτον

ἐκ

τῶν

διὰ

προσευχῆς

ἰωμένων

σωμάτων,

ὄσον

ἐκ

τῶν

διὰ

διδαχῆς

καθαριζομένων

ψυχῶν.

[39] teaches in the words recited here, Ὥς

γὰρ

ἐξ

ὕπνου

διήγειρε,

καὶ

ὥς

ἐκ

βορβόρου

ἀπέλουε

τὰς

ἐν

τῶ

λάκκω

τῆς

εἰδωλολατρείας

δυσωδία

καὶ

ζόφω

κατεσχομένας

ψυχὰς

τὴν

νοητὴν

καὶ

τὸ

θυμίαμα

τῆς

οὐρανίου

συνθέσεως

Χρίστον,

τὸν

ἀληθινὸν

Θέον

ἡμῶν

ταῖς

καρδίαις

αὐτῶν

εισοικίζων,

τὰ

μὲν

γὰρ

ἰώμενα

σώματἁ

τὴν

τοῦ

Θέου

δωρέαν

ἐνεφάνιζον,

εἰ

καὶ

ὅτι

πρὸς

ἀξίαν

διδόμενα

καὶ

τὰ

τοιαῦτα

χαρίσματα

οὐ

μικρὰν

τῶν

δεχομένων

τὴν

ἐν

ἀρετῆ

προκοπὴν

ἀπαγγέλλουσιν·

αἵ

δὲ

ψυχαὶ

τῶν

ἐπιστροφεμένων

εἰς

θεοσέβειαν

καὶ

τὸ

ἀτρεμὲς

τῆς

διδαχῆς

καὶ

τὸ

ἀκατάπληκτον

τοῦ

ἐπικινδύνου

κηρύγματος

αὐτοῦ

τοὺς

ἰδρώτας

τοῦ

Ἀθλοφόρου

τοὺς

εὐγενεῖς

ἐκκαλύπτουσιν,

οὐκ

ἐν

τῆ

χώρα

μόνον,

ἀλλὰ

καὶ

τοῖς

ἀπανταχοῦ

τὸ

ὑπέρογκον

αὐτοῦ

τῆς

ἀρετῆς

ἐμφανίζουσαι· Here now is the Latin interpretation which I have adapted to these words of John of Thessalonica. But let us see what return he himself (namely St. Demetrius) paid to God for that Apostolic grace, fit for teaching, which he had received… By God's gift the purity of his teaching appears manifest. For that the Jewish, the heathen, and every other heresy hostile to God has been torn up by the roots from this fold of Christ, which is guarded by God, whose benefit is it if not, after God, the city's teacher's (namely Demetrius's)?… For in the Martyr's times the enemy of religion, driven into straits, armed strongly even graver scandals; where at length this man (namely Demetrius), appointed by God as shepherd, patron, fosterling and teacher of the Thessalonians, preaching (for I must, the discourse having come to this, remember a wondrous narrative which I heard from our elders), filled the city with right doctrine, and repressed those who thought the contrary… But what is that narrative?

[40] illumined with the light of orthodox doctrine. It was asked by those … who prudently search into divine things, how the fame of that lover of the city and Martyr crowned by God had spread so widely that envy of it, increased, could stir the ears of him who then held dominion, who was staying there (namely in the city of Thessalonica); and it was answered: Not so much from bodies healed by prayer as from souls cleansed by teaching: for when he roused from sleep, and purged from mud, the souls which were held in the pit of idolatry in stench and darkness, setting in their hearts the spiritual region of the East and the incense of the heavenly sign, Christ, our true God, the healed bodies indeed manifest the gratuitous gift of God, although even graces of this kind, given according to merit, argue no small progress in virtue of those who receive them; but the souls of those converted to piety reveal his unmoved and undaunted mind in teaching and dangerous preaching, and the noble sweats of the glorious Champion himself, making the sublimity of his virtue manifest not here only but everywhere. So John of Thessalonica, in which words assuredly he affirms that the Saint preached the faith of Christ with quite signal fruit borne, even among the Thessalonians themselves, although meanwhile he does not say that all these were converted by him. Nor does John establish only this in the recited words, but also that it came about from this rather than from the miracles, by which he hints that he was also illustrious, that he incurred the indignation of the emperor by whose order he was slain. But of the occasion on which the Saint was put to death it will be more conveniently treated after I shall have examined in the following § the things which are related, in the Life composed by Metaphrastes and in the other by the anonymous author who lighted his way, about Nestor, and about the Saint, who blessed him when about to engage in single combat with the gladiator Lyaeus.

§ IV. What is to be thought of the things related about Nestor by Metaphrastes and by the anonymous biographer of the Saint who lighted his way.

[The things narrated about Nestor and partly also about Demetrius by Metaphrastes,] The narrative supplied by Metaphrastes and by the anonymous biographer of our Saint who lighted his way about a certain Nestor, which comes here to be examined, drawn into an abridgement, comes down roughly to this: There was a gladiator named Lyaeus, a Vandal by nation, who, since he excelled most in strength of body, easily overcame whoever joined hands with him in single combat, and hence was in great love and at the same time esteem with the emperor Maximian. It happened that the latter was exhibiting a spectacle of gladiators at Thessalonica, and when Lyaeus was challenging the other gladiators to combat, and was a terror to all, a certain youth nevertheless, named Nestor, not bearing the pride and arrogance of Lyaeus, resolved to undergo the hazard of a fight with him. Wherefore, that he might accomplish this design of his with happy success, he betakes himself to St. Demetrius, known to him, of whose power in working miracles he had heard, declares what he has proposed, and earnestly asks him to assist him with his prayers. Demetrius, as Metaphrastes says, as if he himself had asked, and not been asked, almost anticipated the petition by fulfilling it, and having quickly imposed upon him the seal which is in Christ, both on the forehead and on the heart, he dismisses him, saying: Thou shalt both conquer Lyaeus, and shalt be a martyr of Christ. Nestor, strengthened by these words of the Saint, at once springs into the stadium and openly offers himself for single combat with Lyaeus, all wondering at his daring.

[42] are presented here in abridgement. The emperor, thinking that the youth had taken that desperate resolve driven by poverty alone, of his own accord offers money to him, summoned to himself, and exhorts him not to commit himself to the danger of a fight with a man to whom he was much inferior in strength. But Nestor, rejecting the money, declared that he pursued solely the glory of overcoming Lyaeus. He enters, therefore, with the emperor's assent, into the fight with Lyaeus, and, having invoked the God of Demetrius, at once strikes him in the heart with a blow and lays him dead on the ground. The emperor, angered and sorrowful at this, and ascribing the thing to magic, questions Nestor about it, and he answers that no Christian uses magic, and that he, helped by the God of Demetrius and of all Christians, had gained the victory over Lyaeus. When the emperor had heard this, he orders Nestor to be put to death with the very sword with which he had killed Lyaeus, and thus, says Metaphrastes, Nestor is sent across to Christ, whom he loved, and from whom he was to receive the crowns of a double victory. Such, presented here now in abridgement, are the things which are reported in the Metaphrastic Life of the Saint, and in the other of the anonymous author, from which this, as appears from what has been adduced above, flowed, about a youth named Nestor, a part in the things narrated being attributed also to St. Demetrius.

[43] These are held by Tillemont for fictions. And indeed, But hear how Tillemont, in volume V of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 639, receives that narrative, also presented by him there in abridgement. It is difficult, he says in French words, rendered here by me into Latin, to find anything more apt to give offence, and more unworthy of a Christian man, than that fabulous narrative, in which, what is most horrible and opposed to the Gospel, is held for Saint. We call it fabulous, because such it is in its circumstances most worthy of note. For Photius and Anastasius speak of the combat of Nestor against Lyaeus; but they carefully abstain from asserting Nestor a Christian, or from mixing St. Demetrius into it (namely into the combat). Indeed they do not even assert that Maximian ordered death to be inflicted on Nestor, but only that he did not give him the rewards promised to victorious gladiators. It is manifest therefore that all the rest was added to the truth, and that probably after the ninth century, by men ignorant of history as well as of Gospel doctrine. So far he, and assuredly not undeservedly: yet what he affirms of the things having at length been added after the ninth century to the truth related by Photius and Anastasius by no means appears certain to me. For all the same things occur also in the Life to be published in the second place, which has an anonymous author, and this, according to what has been said above, is probably older than the ninth century, indeed perhaps even than the eighth or seventh century. Nor is there ground for replying that all these things are not recorded by John of Thessalonica, the seventh-century writer cited above very often and to be cited below: for since he nowhere narrates even the substance of the martyrdom endured by the Saint, it is not surprising that things which could be held only for its circumstances were passed over by him in silence.

[44] whatever also from Petrus de Natalibus, whose words, But however the matter may be, the things which, as regards Nestor, are absent from the narrative of Photius and Anastasius, and which Tillemont therefore rejects as fictions in the recited words, I think are in fact fictions too. And first indeed, that I may now set out why this opinion holds with me, what just cause could Nestor have had for committing himself to single combat against Lyaeus? The design, as they say, of breaking his pride and arrogance. But who would pronounce a deed of this kind, most severely forbidden by the divine law, and one from which the Christians too, as I shall teach below, most shrank, sufficiently excused and immune from guilt on this head alone? Indeed he who first composed the elogium of our Saint which exists in Petrus de Natalibus, book 9, chapter 110, whether he be meanwhile Petrus himself or any other writer whatever, seems to have thought far otherwise. For he alleges a cause of the single combat undertaken by Nestor against Lyaeus which differs much from the one just mentioned. The matter will become evident to one who inspects that elogium, in which Lyaeus is always called Libeus; which, because in this part it is plainly singular

and must be carefully discussed, I transcribe here almost entire, omitting only the things which pertain to the veneration shown to the Saint by Leontius, prefect of Illyricum. It is framed in these following words: Demetrius the martyr suffered at the city of Thessalonica under the emperor Maximian. He, a Christian from his youth and serving God, was a noble citizen of that city of Thessalonica and a strenuous soldier, who nevertheless preached Christ the Lord and converted many to the faith. And the emperor, having entered Thessalonica, hearing of Demetrius, caused him to be seized and put into prison.

[45] Now there was with the emperor a very strong giant, and terrible in aspect, bearing on this, are recited, named Libeus, who, fighting with the Christians by the command of the Augustus, crushing them to himself with his arms, dashed them to the ground, and at once they breathed out their spirit. Many others too were afflicted by the emperor with various punishments. And when Demetrius had been put in prison, he saw near his feet a scorpion striving to strike him with its tail, which, making the sign of the Cross, he at once killed. As he prayed, an angel forthwith appeared to him, and, comforting him in Christ, set a crown upon his head. But while the emperor was planning to try Demetrius with Libeus, a certain Christian, Nestor, offered himself by night to St. Demetrius, saying that he had resolved to take up this combat, asking that the holy Martyr would pray the Lord for him. Strengthened by him, on the following day he presented himself to the emperor, and asserted that he was a Christian, offering to fight with Libeus and to take up the combat on behalf of Demetrius. And when the emperor could not draw him back by entreaties, he promised gifts to the victor. Nestor therefore, entering the duel, laid Libeus on the ground and, having laid him low, killed him. But the emperor, seeing this, and grieving to have lost the giant, the avenger against the Christians, contrary to his promise discharged Nestor from the army and cast him out of the city; and Demetrius too, who had been the cause of his slaying, he ordered to be killed in prison. And the soldiers came to the prison, and plunged a sword into his breast. And thus, praying, he passed with the palm to the Lord; whose body was hidden by the Christians for fear of the pagans, in which place God wrought marvels, where the sicknesses of all were healed.

[46] He who composed this Elogium or encomium of St. Demetrius, therefore, you may plead, yet by the divine law disagreeing besides with his Metaphrastic Life in some other circumstances, which, however, because they do not bear on the present purpose, are not to be examined here, records in the recited words, as will become evident to one who considers them, that Nestor committed himself to single combat against Lyaeus not in order to break his daring or pride, but both to free the Christians from a dangerous enemy, who had already killed many of them in single combat entered upon with them by the emperor's order, and to exempt Demetrius from the necessity of fighting with him. But be it so, even so Nestor could not have committed himself to single combat against Lyaeus without guilt. For that any Christian should kill, or intend to kill, as Nestor undoubtedly did here, either the very tyrants by whom the faithful suffer persecution for the faith's sake, or even only the ministers of their cruelty, is repugnant to the holiness of the Christian Religion, nor does anything occur by which this could be in any way reconciled with the divine law forbidding homicide. Besides, since, Lyaeus being slain, other means by which the emperor might torture the Christians and even put them to death would by no means be lacking, Nestor, by attacking Lyaeus in single combat, must have had as his purpose not so much to free the Christians from an unjust enemy as to take vengeance for the injuries and damages with which he had afflicted them; and that to intend by the death of anyone not so much liberation from evil as vengeance is adverse to the divine law as well as to the holiness of the Christian religion, no one surely will deny. Since the matter stands thus, indeed the deed which Nestor perpetrated by the single combat entered upon against Lyaeus is not rightly proposed as holy and as approved by Demetrius himself, both in his encomium just given and in the two Lives or Passions cited at the beginning of the present §; and how true this is will become still more evident from what I shall now say about the customs of the Christians in the age of Demetrius.

[47] and the horror which the Christians had of the gladiatorial art being regarded, Eusebius, On the Martyrs of Palestine, of the Valesius edition, chapter 7, narrates that three Christians of Palestine, while the Diocletianic persecution was raging, in which also, according to what is to be said, Demetrius fell, were condemned by Urbanus, the most cruel governor of Palestine, to the contests of boxing, that is, to devote themselves to the gladiatorial art; and in the following chapter, having spoken of some confessors of Christ condemned to the mines after various tortures, he sets out what the same three Christians of Palestine did after that sentence was pronounced against them by the governor Urbanus. Nor indeed, he says, did we see these alone (namely the confessors mentioned before in the same place) suffer punishments of this kind; but also those of the Palestinians whom we related a little before had been condemned to the contests of boxing, because namely they would neither endure to receive rations from the prince's treasury, nor to be exercised in the daily preliminary bouts according to the custom of boxers. For which cause, presented not only to the procurators but also to Maximin himself (the emperor namely, then ruling in Syria and Palestine), when they had declared their invincible constancy in the confession of Christ by the endurance of hunger and scourges, they suffered the same things as those of whom we have spoken. Since, then, as is understood from these words of Eusebius, those three Christians of Palestine so shrank from the gladiatorial art, or, if you prefer, from the single contests of boxing, that they preferred to bear hunger, scourges and other extreme punishments rather than give themselves even to the mere preliminary bouts of an art so detestable, or receive the rations appointed for gladiators, who, I ask, would believe either that many Christians at Thessalonica engaged in single combat with Lyaeus, as the narrative of the encomium just transcribed here requires, or that the one which Nestor entered upon against him was approved by St. Demetrius, as is indicated both in the same encomium and in the two Lives or Passions of the Saint just cited?

[48] This indeed does not at all appear probable to me, both these and other things which I brought forward above being weighed, neither the deed perpetrated by Nestor, nor he himself, and accordingly I think that all those things which are superadded to the narrative about Nestor supplied by Photius and Anastasius the Librarian in the Metaphrastic Life of Demetrius, and in the other of the anonymous author from which this seems to have flowed, are to be held, with Tillemont, as I already hinted above, for fictions, however they were perhaps invented earlier than the ninth century (go to number 43). And hence too I should not dare to reckon among the Saints even that Nestor who, as is related in absolutely all the Lives or Passions of Demetrius, killed Lyaeus in single combat, whether meanwhile you will have it that he, when he had slain Lyaeus, was put to death by the emperor's order, as is asserted by Metaphrastes and the anonymous author who lighted his way, and died a martyr, or only, as is reported by Photius and Anastasius, who do not even anywhere call Nestor a Christian, that, the emperor being angry, he did not obtain the rewards promised to victorious gladiators, and, when he had been discharged from the army and cast out of the city, ended his life in peace after the manner of confessors, as he who composed the encomium transcribed here above from Petrus de Natalibus seems to have thought. But indeed, you will say, the Greeks celebrate Nestor, adorned with the title of Μεγαλομάρτυρος, and with an elogium in which he is narrated to have killed Lyaeus, overcome in single combat, at the 27th day of October, with a principal Office of their own, consecrated to him at that time also, and Baronius brought the same at this 8th day of October into the Roman Martyrology, because the things narrated of him are woven into the Passion or Acts of St. Demetrius, then celebrated by the Latins, namely the Metaphrastic ones, citing for his purpose, in the Annotations with which he illustrated it, the Menology of the Greeks, namely Sirleto's, together with Nicephorus Callistus and the said Acts of St. Demetrius.

[49] I admit it is so, and even more sacred Fasti of the Greeks than those already named however inscribed in many sacred fasti, as a Saint reckon Nestor among the Saints at the 27th day of October. But what then? All these, as is now commonly known to the learned, from time to time hold even the unworthy as Saints. And as regards now Nicephorus Callistus, who reviews almost the same things about Nestor as are narrated by Metaphrastes, in book 7, chapter 15 of the Ecclesiastical History composed by him, and Baronius, who, citing Nicephorus for himself, inserted Nestor into the Roman Martyrology, the former of these two writers, Nicephorus, is known not seldom to have adopted fictions and narratives of very slight credit and to have transcribed them into his History; and the latter, Baronius, seems not so much to have considered how greatly the things narrated by Metaphrastes about Nestor and his deed approved by Demetrius are opposed to the holiness of the Christian faith, as to have regarded the credit or authority of the Sirleto Menology, from which he brought not a few Saints into the Roman Martyrology, made by him of more account even than is fair. But if these things displease, what at length will you bring forward by which you may defend Baronius, and the Greeks who venerate Nestor as a Saint, against the authority of the Decalogue forbidding homicide, and against the horror of the Christians who were of St. Demetrius's age for the gladiatorial art and the single contests which were in a manner its exercises and games?

[50] I think is to be held, Will you perhaps have recourse to a singular instinct of the Holy Spirit, and assert that Nestor and Demetrius were likewise impelled by that by which many holy Virgins are read to have been once impelled to inflict death upon themselves, the one to inflict death on Lyaeus by single combat, the other to approve that deed? But even if we should grant gratuitously that a singular instinct of God could have had place here — which nevertheless seems capable of being called in doubt — yet, lest things perpetrated against the law of God should easily be admitted as perpetrated without fault, it seems fair that recourse should not be had either to that, or also, by parity of reason, to the invincible ignorance and good faith of those who committed things which need excuse, except when it is established on every side both concerning the truth of the deed which needs excuse and concerning the holiness of the man to whom it is attributed; and although it is established indeed concerning the holiness of Demetrius, yet concerning the asserted approval by which he ratified the single combat to be entered upon by Nestor against Lyaeus it is by no means established, because this is grounded only in the Metaphrastic acts, of slight credit, as I taught above, and in the others of the anonymous author from which these flowed; as neither concerning the holiness of Nestor, which does not rest on more certain documents.

[51] [although meanwhile some Nestor, who is venerated by the Greeks on 27 October, may in fact perhaps be a Saint.] But if nevertheless, as regards this last point, someone should still think otherwise, from the quite signal cult which, as has been said, Nestor enjoys among the Greeks at the 27th day of October, and should not be moved to change his opinion by what I said above about the ecclesiastical cult from time to time paid among the Greeks even to the unworthy, I should wish him to remember that it can easily happen that some Nestor, distinct from the Nestor who killed Lyaeus in single combat, was anciently venerated by the Greeks, and that

then, since who he was was not sufficiently ascertained, there were in the lapse of time fastened upon him by the Greeks, lovers of fables, and at the same time wishing to explain in some way what Nestor they venerated, the Acts of the gladiator Nestor which are read in the Photian and Anastasian Lives or Passions of St. Demetrius, increased with fictitious circumstances such as are found in the Metaphrastic Life of our Saint and in the other of the anonymous author from which this was composed. Assuredly not a few Saints are to be found, even among the Latins, whose holiness indeed is held as ascertained, but whose Acts are plainly uncertain and sprinkled with fables. Although therefore I should not dare to hold as a Saint the Nestor who, in the Photian and Anastasian Passions of Demetrius, is narrated to have killed Lyaeus, overcome in single combat, yet I do not affirm that the Nestor who is honoured with signal cult by the Greeks at the 27th day of October is certainly to be struck out of the number of the Saints, although meanwhile, the Acts with which he is celebrated there being rejected, I cannot declare who he was.

§ V. Demetrius is seized and afflicted with martyrdom: when this was done, and who was Lupus, who is said to have been his servant.

The Saint, led captive to the emperor Maximian, That St. Demetrius, while he still survived among the living, became illustrious for many miracles, and that it nevertheless came about not so much from these as from the multitude of heathens whom he had brought to the Christian faith that he was hateful to the emperor Maximian, by whose order he was slain, John, archbishop of Thessalonica, not obscurely indicates in the words of the encomium cited there, in which he celebrated Demetrius, transcribed at number 38 and following. And indeed, since Maximian held the Christian Religion in assuredly the highest hatred, anyone will easily bring himself to believe that, whatever meanwhile may be the case with the miracles wrought by the Saint while still living, Demetrius displeased that emperor on no head more than from the signal multitude of heathens brought through him from error to the truth of the faith, as we have taught above. Nor do those who committed to writing the Life or Passion of the Saint supply anything from which you might gather the contrary. I transcribe here the words, bearing in some way on this matter, of the anonymous author rendered into Latin by Anastasius the Librarian alone, which at the same time set out on what occasion Demetrius was seized and brought to Maximian, and are still to be cited below. They run thus: When the emperor Maximian was staying in the city of the Thessalonians, a superstitious man, he persecuted the hearers of the pious religion, and they were put to death by him. Among whom was blessed Demetrius, making himself manifest without any fear, who from his youth had both done good works and taught others. For he taught how the divine Wisdom had come down to earth from heaven, that He might quicken by His own blood man, who had died by sin. When he preached these and many other things, certain ministers of the emperor, who had been deputed to seize the Christians, laying hold of St. Demetrius, presented him to the emperor Maximian.

[53] So far the cited anonymous biographer of the Saint; by his order, not long after, was pierced with spears, but what Maximian first did with Demetrius, when he had been brought captive to him, he does not set out; the Passion or Life of the Saint which exists in Photius, however, does set it out. The words with which it does so are these: And the tyrant (namely Maximian) was going to the spectacle of the gladiators, and the Martyr, bound, is brought by the impious ministers to that stadium, which was near, as a Christian in life and doctrine. He, hastening to the spectacle, ordered the holy Man to be guarded near the stadium, to which a public bath was adjacent, in a vault. In the Metaphrastic Life of the Saint, and in the other of the anonymous author from which it is composed, some words exchanged back and forth between Maximian and St. Demetrius, before the latter was shut in the vault by the former's order, are reported. But both these and other things which occur in those two compositions and are absent from the Anastasian and Photian Lives of the Saint do not merit entire credence, however they may seem neither absurd nor unlike the truth, as being destitute of a sufficiently ancient testimony, which would be required for that end. Further, how at length it came about that the Saint, whom Maximian, as he hastened to the spectacle, had ordered to be shut in a vault for the time, won the palm of martyrdom pierced with lances, is narrated in the Photian Life or Passion of Demetrius in these words: These things said, descending into the arena (namely Nestor) he forthwith laid low and killed him who in the judgement of all bore the first place; but he obtained none of the things which were proposed for the victors; and he filled the tyrant with intolerable grief and wrath, and, rising from his seat, inflamed with anger, the impious man departs thence home. And when certain men reported to him words from Demetrius the martyr, as though drunk with fury and impiety, and at the same time thinking that an unlucky omen had been offered him when the Saint had met him as he hastened to the stadium, he orders him to be killed with spears in the place in which he was shut up.

[54] and in this manner, and indeed, contrary to what here With this narrative of the Photian Life that which the Anastasian supplies agrees well enough, nor does the Metaphrastic Life of the Saint differ much from it, if you except the things narrated about Nestor, discussed above, nor the other of the anonymous author which, as I taught above, seems to have flowed from this. Now, since this is so, and no other ancient monuments are found which conflict with those Lives of the Saint in this matter, we have ascertained the kind of martyrdom which the Saint underwent. But what is to be pronounced about the time at which this happened? If one is to stand by John, archbishop of Thessalonica, cited so very often already, it certainly did not happen before the year 314. I transcribe here, together with an added Latin version, the Greek words of this writer from which I gather this, immediately subjoined to the words of the encomium composed by him recited at number 39, that I may share with the reader whatever we have committed to writing by him. They run thus: Εἰκὸς

μὲν

οὖν

καὶ

ταῦτα

διαβόητον

αὐτὸν

κομιδῆ

καθιστᾶν,

τὸ

δὲ

μᾶλλον

αὐτοῦ

τὴν

φὴμην

ὑψῶσαν,

καὶ

παρὰ

ταῖς

ἄλλαις

πατρίσι

τοῦτο

γεγονέναι

φημίζεται·

ἐπέστησαν

αὑτῶ,

φασὶ,

διδάσκοντι,

ὥς

καὶ

τῶ

κυριῶ

Θεῶ

ἡμῶν

Ιεσοῦ

οἱ

πειρασταὶ

σαδδουκαῖοι,

…

οὕτω

καὶ

τῶ

μαθητῆ

τοῦ

Χρίστου

τῶ

πανενδόξω

Μαρτυρι,

ἔλληνες

ἐξ

ἀθηνῶν,

καὶ

Ἰουδαῖοι

ἐξ

Ἱεροσολύμων,

καὶ

Μανιχαῖοι

ἐκ

Μεσοποταμίας,

καὶ

ἀπὸ

Ἀλεξανδρείας

ἀρειανοὶ

(Πρὸ

πολλοῦ

γὰρ

τῆς

αὐτῶν

καθαιρέσεως

τὴν

οἰκουμένην

ἐτάραττον

καὶ

ἀπλῶς

πάσης

σχεδὸν

αἰρέσεως

παραγεγόνασιν

πρόμαχοι)

…

μαθεῖν

…

θέλοντες

…

μᾶλλον

δε

οὐ

μαθεῖν

(πονηρία

γὰρ

ἀνορηξία

πέφυκεν

ἀγαθοῦ)

ἀλλὰ

πειράσαι

καὶ

διαστρέψαι

τῆς

πίστεως

τὴν

εὐθύτητα.

[55] the words of John of Thessalonica, recited, Καὶ

ὁ

μὲν

ἕλλην

ἠρέμα

πῶς

καὶ

ειρωνευόμενος,

ἅτε

δὴ

ταῖς

συλλογιστικαῖς

ἐπικομπάζων,

καὶ

τὰ

μὴ

ὄντα

ὣς

ὄντα

δεικνῦναι,

καὶ

τὰ

ὄντα

πάλιν,

ὥς

μή

ὑπάρχοντα,

ἠρῶτα

τόν

Μάρτυρα,

ὅπως

περὶ

τοῦ

θείου

δοξάζοι,

τὸν

δὲ

ἀποκρίνασθαι

ἐνα

Θέον

ὁμολογεῖν

ἄκτιστον

καὶ

ἀῒδιον,

ποιητήν

πάντων

ὀρατῶν

καὶ

ἀοράτων

καὶ

διὰ

τοῦτο

καὶ

δεσπότην

καὶ

προνοητὴν·

κἀγὼ,

ἐφὴ

ὁ

ἕλλην,

οὕτω

φρονῶ·

τῆς

γὰρ

Σωκράτους

είμὶ

διατριβῆς,

οὺ

τῆς

Ἐπικούρου

καὶ

τῶν

κατ᾽

αὐτὸν. That these things, therefore, should make him assuredly celebrated, or rather extol his fame, was fitting, and this is narrated to have been done in other regions too. As, they say, the tempters, the Sadducees, rose up against the Lord Jesus, our God, … so also against the disciple of Christ, the most glorious Martyr, there rose up heathens from Athens, and Jews from Jerusalem, and Manichaeans from Mesopotamia, and Arians from Alexandria (for long before they were rooted out these troubled the whole world, and were the champions of almost every heresy) … wishing to learn, … or rather not to learn (for malice disdains the good) but to tempt and to pervert the rectitude of the faith. And the heathen indeed, in a manner dissembling, boasting namely that he could show syllogistically things which are not as if they were, and again things which are as if they were not, asked the Martyr what he thought about God; and when he had answered that he confessed one God, uncreated and eternal, Maker of all things visible and invisible, and therefore both Lord and Provider: I too, said the heathen, think thus; I am a follower of the doctrine of Socrates, not of Epicurus and of those who think with him.

[56] Further, with these words he weaves into the said quite prolix encomium, in which he praises St. Demetrius chiefly for his doctrine, require, certainly before the year 314, very many other things, in which the Saint, in discussions held back and forth with the Heathen, the Manichaean, the Jew and the Arian, confuted each of these heterodox men, and at length compelled them, vanquished, to give him their hands, and at the same time he indicates most clearly, in more than one place, as will become evident to one consulting that encomium, that very many Arians then existed. Now, since these things are so, it is necessary that John, archbishop of Thessalonica, thought that the Arian heresy had already then, when our Saint still survived among the living, arisen and spread abroad, and accordingly that St. Demetrius was not crowned with martyrdom before the year 314, since before this year certainly (go to François Pagi, in the Breviary of the Roman Pontiffs, volume 1, page 75) that impious sect did not take its beginning. But this opinion of that writer can by no means be admitted; for Demetrius, as is agreed among all, underwent martyrdom at Thessalonica; and the whole of Macedonia, and accordingly also Thessalonica situated in it, was already from the year 314, as may be seen in Tillemont in the History of the Roman emperors, volume IV, page 162, in the power of Constantine the Great, under whom assuredly no one would say the Saint was afflicted with martyrdom, and he continued to hold it thereafter until the year 337, the year of his death, to which the martyrdom of Demetrius most certainly cannot be deferred.

[57] Besides, Demetrius, as I shall now teach, underwent martyrdom under an emperor under the emperor Maximian, not Herculius, whose name was Maximian; and no emperor named Maximian ruled at Thessalonica after the year 311, in which Galerius Maximian, as Pagi in the Critica at this year, Tillemont in the History of the emperors, volume 4, page 116, and others commonly teach, closed his last day; so that indeed, all the things which have already been said being considered, John, archbishop of Thessalonica, either was wholly ignorant of the true epoch of the martyrdom endured by Demetrius, or certainly, deceived by the tradition which he alleges, thought it to be deferred later than the truth of the matter allows. But what time at length is to be assigned to this event? That St. Demetrius was seized and slain while the emperor Maximian was staying in the city of Thessalonica, his Life or Passion both the Anastasian and the Photian teaches. With these also agree in this matter the other two Lives of the Saint, namely the Metaphrastic, and the other, composed by an anonymous author, from which this flowed. But these wrongly assert that the Maximian under whom they place the Saint's martyrdom was also called Herculius. For Maximian Herculius, as becomes plain from what Tillemont writes of this emperor in volume IV of the History of the Roman emperors, never ruled at Thessalonica; so that, since the Saint certainly suffered there, this assuredly

did not happen under Maximian Herculius. Nor does the Greek Life of the Saint cited above from Leo Allatius, and beginning with these words: Ὅτε

Μαξιμῖνος

ὁ

βασιλεὺς

ἐν

τῇ

Θεσσαλονικέων

διῆγε

πόλει, better determine that it was done under Maximin, whether we understand the first or the second emperor of this name.

[58] but Galerius, For Maximin, the first of this name, most probably was never at Thessalonica after he had taken up the reins of empire, as you will easily understand from what is found recorded of him; wherefore, since the Saint underwent martyrdom at Thessalonica while he who was emperor was staying in that city, by the testimony of absolutely all the writers who treat of this matter, it indeed cannot have happened under Maximin, the first of this name; and that this should be established is besides hindered by the unanimous opinion of all the learned, which determines that Demetrius won the palm of martyrdom, his blood shed for Christ, later than the year 240, in which Maximin, the first of this name, departed from among the living. And as regards now Maximin, the second of this name, Thessalonica never belonged to him any more than to Maximian Herculius, as is manifest from what is commonly found recorded of him in Tillemont, already cited more than once, in the History of the Roman emperors, volume 4, and in other writers; wherefore our Saint's martyrdom cannot be placed under him either, as you will easily gather from what has already been said. From all these things, further, it now follows, first indeed, that in the Greek Life or Passion of Demetrius cited by Leo Allatius, by an error very common among the Greeks, by which the names of Maximin and Maximian are customarily confused, Μαξιμῖνος is wrongly written for Μαξιμιανὸς, as is also sufficiently clear from what I brought forward at number 7; and then, that the martyrdom of our Saint is to be placed under Maximian Galerius, who, as is now agreed among the learned, acted as emperor from the year 305 up to the year 311, the year of his death, and during that whole time had in his power Macedonia, and accordingly also Thessalonica, which is situated in it. But in what year of Christ?

[59] when he, having conquered the Sarmatians and the Goths, Since Maximian Galerius departed from among the living in the year 311 (go to Pagi in the Critica at this year, number XV), the martyrdom of Demetrius cannot be deferred beyond the same year; indeed, since the same emperor laboured through the whole year 310 with a most grievous disease, and at the time when he ordered the Saint to be killed enjoyed the best of health, it must most probably be placed even before this year; and about how long before, what is now to be said will make in some way probable. In the Metaphrastic Life of the Saint, and in the other of the anonymous author which lighted the way for Metaphrastes, it is not obscurely related that our Saint was afflicted with Martyrdom at the time when Maximian — who nevertheless, as I have already taught, is wrongly called Herculius in those two compositions — having conquered the Goths and Sarmatians, had come to Thessalonica; and although Metaphrastes and the anonymous author from whom he culled his material by no means merit undoubted credence here, as is easy to draw out from what has already been said above, there is nevertheless no reason why what they supply here for determining more nearly the time at which the Saint underwent martyrdom should not be held at least as probable. Since, then, according to them the Saint was crowned with martyrdom at the time when Maximian, having conquered the Goths and Sarmatians, came to Thessalonica, let us examine at what time he conquered the Goths and Sarmatians.

[60] Tillemont, in volume 4 of the History of the emperors, page 89, mentions the war waged by Maximian Galerius against the Sarmatians, with whom the Goths could have been joined, and the victory won by him over them, because he had conquered in the year 305 or the following, the palm of martyrdom and adds that that war, of which no record is found elsewhere than in Zonaras and Ammianus Marcellinus, whom he cites there, is to be fixed either to the year 305 or to the beginning of the following. Now since, besides the war mentioned here by Tillemont, no other war is in fact known by which Galerius Maximian, already namely created emperor — before which time certainly he did not order Demetrius to be killed — conquered the Goths and Sarmatians, and it seems one should stand by that writer as regards the time at which he writes the war he mentions was waged, I think it probable that our Saint won the palm of martyrdom about the year 306, because Metaphrastes, as has already been said, and the anonymous author who lighted his way together clearly indicate that he fell for Christ after the war waged by Galerius Maximian against the Goths and Sarmatians; and hence I wrote that year in the margin above.

[61] Now let us also say a little about the day on which the Saint, his blood shed for the Christian faith, won on the very day perhaps assigned by the Greeks, 26 October, fell a martyr. To the Elogium with which he is adorned in the Menaea at the 26th day of October these following little verses are set before, in which allusion is made to the kind of martyrdom which he underwent, having some likeness to the passion of the side of Christ:

Δημήτριον

νύττουσι

λόγχαι,

Χριστέ

μου,

Ζηλοῦντα

πλευρᾶς

λογχονύκτου

σῆς

πάθους.

Εἰκοστῆ

μελίαι

Δημήτριον

ἕκτη

ἀνεῖλον.

The first two, from the version which I have adapted to them, and the third, from the interpretation adapted to it by Papebroch in the Graeco-Muscovite Ephemerides, sound thus in Latin:

Lances pierce Demetrius, my Christ,

Emulating the Passion of Thy side, pierced by the lance.

On the twentieth and sixth the spear slew Demetrius.

It is asserted in the Menaea, therefore, that the Saint underwent martyrdom on the twenty-sixth day of October; and although the Menaea, as is well enough known, do not merit certain credence in similar matters, yet I should not dare to assert that they are certainly false here. Nor is there ground for replying that Demetrius is celebrated in the Roman Martyrology, both the old and the present, at the 8th day of October, and that this is also done in all the other sacred Fasti of the Latins which have mentioned Demetrius; for although this is so, these, as is held ascertained by all the learned, do not always customarily celebrate the Saints on those days on which they passed by a happy death to the Lord, nor do those of them who commemorate St. Demetrius on the eighth day of October anywhere assert that he was crowned with martyrdom on this day. That the Saint in fact fell for Christ on the 26th day of October, therefore, does not seem to lack all probability, although meanwhile it can by no means be held for certain, because it is not grounded in documents of sufficient antiquity and credit.

[62] For the rest, no other things are available by which I might determine the year and day his servant, named Lupus, surviving him, about whom on which the Saint won the palm of martyrdom. I now proceed to that which still remains to be discussed here. In the Metaphrastic Acts of the Saint, with which the things that the anonymous author, older than Metaphrastes, composed agree, the following are subjoined to the narrative of the martyrdom endured by our Saint: One of the Saint's (namely Demetrius's) servants, standing near him when he underwent that blessed slaughter, when he had collected, as he could, that divine blood in the sacred superhumeral of the Martyr, and had taken the ring which he wore on his hand and dipped it in the Martyr's blood, wrought very many miracles through these. Nor was there any disease, nor evil demon so strong, but that at once, if it had made trial of him, he would overcome it; so that the whole city of the Thessalonians was filled with such fame of miracles. Wherefore it was neither fitting that these things should be hidden from Maximian, nor could he bear the envy; and therefore the servant, the steward of these goods, is at once seized and put to death. The place in which he was killed was the Tribunal; and that excellent servant was called Lupus.

[63] some things are brought forward here. Our Predecessors, at the 23rd day of August, on which St. Lupus or Luppus, martyr, is inscribed in the Roman Martyrology, in the printed Menaea of the Greeks, in the Sirleto Menology, and in other sacred Fasti not only of the Greeks and Latins but also of other nations, inquired whether this holy martyr is one and the same with the Lupus mentioned in the Acts of St. Demetrius in the words just now recited. And it indeed seemed more probable to them that the martyr Lupus, inserted in the sacred Fasti at the said day, is one and the same with Lupus, the servant of St. Demetrius, who is commemorated in his Acts; but since nothing was available by which they might establish this opinion of theirs firmly enough, they referred the matter to this day to be examined more accurately, if meanwhile any light should shine forth. That I might perform, therefore, what they had in a manner promised to do, I carefully discussed the various Acts of St. Demetrius which are at hand, and other monuments from which I thought some light might perhaps shine forth, as also whatever I found consigned anywhere to writing about the martyr Lupus inscribed in the sacred Fasti at the 23rd day of August. But it has befallen me to find absolutely nothing by which I might solidly confirm the opinion which holds the Lupus of the Acts of St. Demetrius and the other, inserted in the sacred Fasti at the 23rd day of August, to be the same; wherefore, especially because the servile or slave condition, the title of martyr, and the name by which they are called are common to both those Saints, and nothing occurs anywhere that urges that they are certainly to be distinguished, I impose an end on this §, content to pronounce that opinion, with our said Predecessors, probable, indeed more probable than the opposite.

§ VI. The Saint's memory in the sacred Fasti, the ecclesiastical cult which he enjoys universally among the Greeks today, and formerly enjoyed.

The Saint, who seems nowhere inserted in the Hieronymian copies, Although indeed not a few Saints who bore the name of Demetrius occur inscribed at various days of the year in the Hieronymian copies, both the greater ones in Fiorentini and the lesser or more contracted ones which were published by him and others, yet there is none among them who is celebrated either at this day, sacred to our Saint among the Latins, or at the 26th of October, dedicated to him among the Greeks, or at least who could safely be determined, from the characters by which he is distinguished, to be one and the same with our Demetrius. But although perhaps, as follows from this, our Saint is nowhere inserted in those sacred Fasti, which are held older than all the rest, yet that he was anciently held as a Saint, and is held so today, is shown even by the manifold sacred Fasti of various nations, distinct from the Hieronymian, in which he is celebrated, both the older, and not yielding much to the Hieronymian in antiquity, and also the less ancient.

[65] And first indeed, to begin with enumerating the sacred Fasti of the Latins, yet in many others, both of the Latins, Demetrius is announced today in the Little or Old Roman Martyrology, which is reckoned of nearly equal antiquity with the Martyrology which circulates under the name of St. Jerome, in these few words: At Thessalonica, of Demetrius the martyr. Further, the Saint, received from this most ancient Martyrology, Ado first, and then from him Usuard and Notker, all reckoned among the ancient martyrologists whom we call Classical, likewise brought into the Martyrologies composed by them at this eighth day of October; which Wandelbert also did, although meanwhile it is not known what determinate guide he used here, celebrating Demetrius today in his metrical Martyrology thus:

On the eighth before the Ides, holy Demetrius, thou art blessed,

Having suffered unjust torturers for the name of Christ.

To the Classical or older Martyrologists, from

whom meanwhile Rabanus, and the Bede, perhaps genuine, who exists with us prefixed to volume 2 of March, pass over Demetrius, no otherwise than the Hieronymian copies, not a few more recent hagiologists of the Latin Church besides have joined themselves, namely Belinus, Maurolico, Galesini, Molanus and others; since it is not worth the effort to enumerate them all here, or even to transcribe the announcements which they supply, passing them over, I transfer here only the words with which the Roman Martyrology also celebrates Demetrius today. They run thus: At Thessalonica, of St. Demetrius the proconsul, who, when he was leading very many to the faith of Christ, by order of the emperor Maximian, pierced with lances, consummated his martyrdom.

[66] As regards now the sacred Fasti of other nations, and in the sacred Fasti of the Greeks and other nations, although on days the memory of our Saint is recalled not only among the Greeks, among whose Hagiologies you would hardly find any that does not mention Demetrius, but also among the Ethiopians, the Russians or Muscovites, the Copts and the Syrians: among the Ethiopians indeed in the Ethiopic Calendar in Job Ludolf; and among the Russians or Muscovites in the Slavo-Russian Menology which the most noble baron of Sparwenfeld, having rendered it into Latin, communicated to us, in the Graeco-Muscovite Ephemerides prefixed to volume 1 of May of our Work, as also in the Ruthenian Calendar in Possevino, and likewise in the Ruthenian Synaxarion which George David, priest of our Society, sent us from Moscow in the year 1688. And as regards the Copts and the Syrians, among the latter indeed the name of our Saint is recorded in the Syriac or Chaldaic Calendar published at Rome in print in the year 1624, which, afterwards rendered into Latin, exists with us in manuscript; and among the former in the manuscript Coptic Calendar which we have, and which we suspect was turned into the Latin Language by Kircher, priest of our Society. And in all those sacred Fasti enumerated, the Ethiopians, the Russians or Muscovites, the Copts and the Syrians celebrate Demetrius not, as the Latins do, at the 8th, but at the 26th day of October, most probably, not to say undoubtedly, imitating the Greeks, who, contrary to what the Latins do, commemorate the Saint likewise at the same 26th day of October in absolutely all the sacred Fasti customarily used among them which mention Demetrius.

[67] different, perhaps for the reason which is given here, is commemorated, But why do the Greeks consign the Saint to one day, the Latins to another, in the sacred Fasti destined for the use of their Church? It not seldom happens among the Latins that Saints are honoured with ecclesiastical veneration not on those days on which they exchanged life for death, but on others which are not hindered by the cult of other Saints. What if, then, the Saint formerly among the Latins was also inscribed by them in the sacred fasti not on the day which had fallen to him as the day of his death, but on another, on which, unhindered by the veneration of another Saint, he was honoured with ecclesiastical cult among them, and it befell that among the Greeks this was done on that very day which had been the day of his death, the 26th of October? Indeed, that it came about from this that the name of Demetrius was inserted in the sacred Fasti on the 8th day of October among the Latins, but on the 26th among the Greeks, does not appear to me altogether unlike the truth, especially since the Greeks in the Menaea, as I taught above, expressly affirm that the Saint won the palm of martyrdom on the 26th day of October, and in fact he perhaps passed to the Lord on that day, as I likewise taught above. However that may be, the Saint is celebrated, as is clear from what has already been said, in the sacred Fasti of the Latins as well as of the Greeks; and since the discourse has now fallen upon the ecclesiastical cult which was paid to him, the argument of the matter admonishes that we now make discourse about it.

[68] and is honoured with an Office by the Greeks even today, and that, as especially That I may do this in more orderly fashion, I shall treat first of the ecclesiastical cult which Demetrius universally enjoys among the Greeks today, and formerly enjoyed; and then of that with which he was honoured in particular both at Thessalonica and at Constantinople, even by the very emperors of the East and their court; and finally I shall end this Commentary with an explanation of the veneration which is either still paid, or certainly was formerly paid, to the Saint elsewhere than among the Greeks. The Greeks perform their own Office of St. Demetrius at the 26th day of October, only with the commemoration of some other Saints added, which they then, as often elsewhere, institute. Anyone will find that the matter is so who inspects the great printed Menaea of the Greeks, the Typicon distinguished with the name of St. Sabas, and the most recent Anthology, which is noted as printed in the year 1738, at the said 26th day of October. But from what time did that ecclesiastical cult begin to be paid to St. Demetrius by the Greeks, who besides adorn him with the most honourable titles of μεγαλομάρτυρος and, for a reason to be stated below, μυροβλύτου? Since in the aforesaid ecclesiastical Office, with which the Saint is celebrated in the Menaea, a commemoration is instituted of the earthquake which happened under Leo the Isaurian, and this emperor died when the eighth century had advanced to about its middle, it assuredly cannot be older than this century as regards that commemoration, and there will perhaps be someone who for this very reason will not attribute greater antiquity to it as regards the rest either. But however this matter may be, it appears most probable to me that the Saint was venerated every year with an ecclesiastical Office universally by the Greeks long even before the eighth century, both from what we shall say below as regards his most ancient cult at Thessalonica as well as at Constantinople, and above all from the singular veneration and at the same time celebrity of name which he enjoyed among the Greeks in that century, indeed even long before; both of which prerogatives of our holy Martyr I now give proved.

[69] St. Theodore the Studite, who flourished as the eighth century was growing old and at the beginning of the following, in Sirmond, Various Works, volume V, page 208, [from the signal veneration, proved here from Theodore the Studite, which in the eighth century] in the letter which he gave to John the Spatharius, writes thus: Hearing of a certain divine deed done by your lordship, we wondered at your truly great faith, man of God. For he who reported it affirms that you employed the sacred image of the great Martyr Demetrius in the place of a sponsor; and thus performed the baptism of your son, guarded by God. And O your confidence! "I have not found so great faith in Israel," I think was said by Christ not only then to the centurion, but now also to you, who contend in faith with him. He therefore found what he sought; and you too have obtained what you hoped. There the divine command for bodily presence: here the bodily image in place of the prototype. For there the great Word was present by words, invisibly accomplishing by His divinity the wondrous work of healing; and here likewise the great Martyr was present in spirit to his image, receiving the infant. But these things indeed, to profane ears and unbelieving minds, seem by no means to be received, as incredible, especially to the iconoclasts; but to your piety manifest arguments and examples have been laid open. For what is there that God cannot grant to those who believe? Or how is he who is represented not seen in the image homonymously, and believed to be in it? Since the honour of the image, as the great Basil says, passes to the prototype. Wherefore it is manifest that it was the Martyr who received the infant through his own image, inasmuch as you so believed. But O your magnificence, who have obtained such and so great a syntecnus, as they call it, not this one or that, a prince, say, or a dynast; or even him who is wreathed with the diadem. For greater and far superior is he whom you have found.

[70] For of the Martyrs the bravest, of the wonder-workers the most illustrious, [enjoyed, from veneration and celebrity of name, it appears that long before this century] a true friend of Christ, a citizen of the Angels: who always could and can do so many and so great things on earth, that the trumpet of his miracles is celebrated in all regions. Blessed in truth are you, most pious man, that you have obtained such a sponsor: thrice blessed too is your son, who was received by one endowed with such great glory and power. But let it be permitted to us to see this son of yours, namesake of St. Demetrius, if you assent: that, embracing him as his son, we may also address him in words fitting to him, as sinners, and may transmit the deed to others too. For it is not fitting that beautiful things be kept silent, but that they be set before others as clear proofs of pious faith. Indeed both the quite singular deed which is praised here, and the words with which this is done by Theodore the Studite, argue a wholly exceptional veneration toward St. Demetrius both of John the Spatharius — who perhaps is one and the same with John the Protospatharius and Bajulus, chosen by Irene and mentioned in Theophanes at the tenth year of this empress — and of Theodore the Studite himself. Besides, since this holy writer, who, as I have already taught, flourished as the eighth century was growing old and at the beginning of the following, affirms through the recited words that Demetrius always could and further can do so many and so great things on earth that the trumpet of his miracles is celebrated in all regions, he assuredly affords ground on which we may not undeservedly judge that our Saint shone among the Greeks with signal celebrity of name, and with the veneration arising from it, long even before the eighth century.

[71] Since this is so, it hardly appears doubtful that he too, no otherwise than other more illustrious Saints, was already then honoured by them with an ecclesiastical Office, especially since it befell that his festal day was celebrated every year at Thessalonica already from the sixth century, and most probably even earlier, [he most probably obtained, and afterwards certainly with a feast partly a holiday,] as I shall show below. Further, Demetrius was honoured among the Greeks not only with an ecclesiastical Office but also with an annual feast, at the time of whose sacred cult, or of the most holy sacrifice of the Mass, it was unlawful to give judgement, if not before the eighth century, certainly before the thirteenth century. This is clear from the Novel given in the year of the world 6674 according to the Greeks, that is, of the Christian era 1166, by the emperor Manuel Comnenus, concerning the days on which the courts were to keep holiday either wholly or in part, that is, to abstain from giving judgement. For in this, which exists in the Graeco-Roman Law published by Leunclavius at Frankfurt in the year 1596, page 160, and in Photius in the Nomocanon, Title seven, page 58 and following, the emperor first speaks thus, in the following words turned from the Greek tongue into Latin by Leunclavius: We sanction that those days be holidays which we shall enumerate by name in the present constitution; and that some of them indeed have holiday in general, so that by no means, during their whole space, can a court be constituted, unless perhaps the emperor by way of dispensation, or from necessity (as often a certain sudden variety of affairs is wont to innovate rather freely), should will to constitute a court on these too; but that others be free from courts in part, so that namely these are exercised from the morning time up to

the time of the sacred worship, or rather (for in Greek λειτουργίας is had) of the sacrifice of the Mass, during which it may be permitted to the judges to be intent both on prayer and on the celebration of the divine Majesty, and, the sacred rite being completed, they may take care of justice, and succour those who have suffered injuries according to the vigour of the laws.

[72] [on which perhaps afterwards the whole day was to be kept as a holiday, he was honoured every year.] But nevertheless those to whom it is permitted in this manner to give judgement after the sacred worship shall, in the notations and instruments drawn up by them, make mention of the time at which they were drawn up. These things being premised, he first enumerates the days wholly holidays, that is, on which the whole day must be free from giving judgement, and then proceeds to those on which the tribunal has vacation only in part, and reckons among these the 26th day of October, because on it a feast is kept to Demetrius, the great, as he says, and gushing with ointments. That Demetrius, therefore, was honoured by the Greeks before the thirteenth century with an annual feast, during some part of which there was to be vacation from giving judgement, is not to be doubted. Further, Baillet, in volume 3 of the Lives, column 115, at the 8th day of October, affirms that during part of that feast there was also abstinence from servile works. And this indeed, although not expressly asserted in the cited Novel of the emperor Manuel Comnenus, appears most probable: but that writer adds besides, in the same place, about that feast, which, compared with the other feasts wholly holidays, was the first feast of only the second class, the following: It became afterwards so celebrated that it was celebrated with ceremonies not less than the feasts of the first class, and it is of precept to be observed through the whole day even today. So he, citing for himself in the margin what Smith's Statutes of the Greek church have at page 12; but since this Work is not at hand, I will let the credit of what he teaches in the recited words rest with him, and I now step to other things which pertain to the Saint's cult.

§ VII. How exceptional a cult was paid to the Saint at Thessalonica, and how ancient indeed it is.

[The Saint was venerated at Thessalonica in the seventh century, indeed even earlier:] That St. Demetrius enjoyed at Thessalonica a quite exceptional veneration and ecclesiastical cult in the age of John, archbishop of this city, already cited very often above and to be cited below, that is, in the seventh century, you might not altogether ineptly conjecture even solely from the most honourable titles with which that writer very frequently adorns him in book 1 of the Miracles to be published, and which are customarily given only to those who are venerated as Saints. But that conjectures alone need not be used in this matter, that very writer also brings about. For he indicates, from the very beginning of the said encomium, that the encomium already cited above more than once, beginning with these two words, Μνημὴν δικαίων, which he spoke to the Thessalonians about St. Demetrius, he spoke at the time when his festal day was being kept, beginning it thus: Μνήμην

δικαίων

μετ᾽

ἐγκωμίων

ποιεῖθαι

Σαλομῶν

συνεβούλευσεν, that is: Solomon counselled that the memory of the Saints be celebrated with encomiums. Besides, he declares that the burning of the Ciborium, or canopy of the altar, which he relates in book 1 of the miracles, chapter 12, happened some space of time before he committed it to writing there, on the very sacred day of St. Demetrius, which was then customarily celebrated every year, as he says, on the 26th day of October, and he adds in the same place things from which it is understood that the Saint's festivity at Thessalonica then lasted not only one day; so that assuredly it is on no ground to be doubted that the Saint was honoured with a quite signal ecclesiastical cult in the age of John of Thessalonica, that is, in the seventh century, indeed even, since the said burning happened in the sixth century or at the beginning of the following, as I shall teach in the Annotations to be subjoined to the chapter just mentioned, in the sixth century.

[74] But did not the Saint begin to be so honoured in his native city even before the sixth century? for long before, a church there, which, Before I declare what my opinion is on this matter, it will help to premise some things more. That a sacred church was built to St. Demetrius at Thessalonica, after his sacred body had lain for some while under the earth, by Leontius, prefect of Illyricum, in that very place in which it had been committed to the earth, the Anastasian and at the same time the Photian Passion of the Saint gives testimony. The words of the latter little composition bearing on this, from which the former does not disagree in substance, are these: But a certain Leontius, a pious man, who afterwards obtained the prefecture with which he administered Illyricum, purifying the place in which the relics of the holy Martyr had rested, and enlarging it, raised a church to the Martyr in that place, a common propitiatory and refuge, not for Thessalonica only, but also for all the neighbouring parts. But in order that we may define at what time this was more probably done: in the Theodosian code, published at Lyons in the year 1665 with the Commentaries of Godefroy, volume 6, page 369, Leontius is mentioned, who was prefect of Illyricum in the year 412 and 413. Wherefore, since no other Leontius, prefect of Illyricum, to whom what is narrated in the recited words of Photius could apply, occurs in the ancient monuments, it assuredly appears probable that the sacred church of which we speak here was erected to our Saint at Thessalonica already from the beginning of the fifth century, although meanwhile, because perhaps in fact a Leontius different from the Leontius of the Theodosian code, and yet mentioned in no ancient monuments, administered Illyricum later with the office of prefect, the matter is not certain on every side. But however it may be, that there existed at Thessalonica a sacred church to Demetrius, and that one which was not a building of small bulk only, as someone perhaps might gather from the Anastasian Life of the Saint, in which it is called only an Oratory, but a quite signal temple, long before the age of John, archbishop of Thessalonica, who, as I taught above, flourished in the seventh century, is beyond doubt from what this writer records.

[75] as from various For in the panegyrical oration which he sets before the miracles narrated by him in the manner of a Preface (go to number 4), concerning the first miracle which he is just about to relate, in the codex formerly Mazarin's, cited above very often, page 17 verso and following, he speaks thus: Ἀκούσωμεν

τοίνυν,

εἰ

δοκεί,

μετὰ

συντονίας

καὶ

κατανύξεως

πρώτου

τοῦδε

τοῦ

θαύματος,

ὅ

καὶ

πολλοὺς

ὑμῶν

πέπεισμαι

μὴ

ἀγνόειν

διὰ

τὸ

περίφαντον

ἐν

ὅλη

τῆ

Μακεδονία

καὶ

τῆ

βασιλευούση

πόλει

γεγονέναι,

καὶ

μέχρι

νῦν

ἄδεσθαι

παρὰ

τοῖς

ἀπάντων

στόμασι,

παίδων

ἐκ

πατέρων

παρειληφότων

τὴν

ἐναργῆ

τοῦ

Μάρτυρος

καὶ

ἀπροσδόκητον

θαυματουργίαν. Which Greek words sound thus in Latin: Let us hear, then, if it please you, with attention of mind and at the same time compunction, that first miracle, which I think many of you are not ignorant of, since it is very well known in all Macedonia and in the ruling city (so the Greek writers commonly call Constantinople), and is celebrated up to the present time in the mouth of all, the evident and unexpected working of a miracle by the Martyr (namely Demetrius) having been heard from the fathers through the sons; and in the narrative of this miracle, which he relates in book 1 of the Miracles to be published, chapter 1, and which he inscribes concerning the prefect of despaired-of health, namely Marianus, in Greek περὶ

τοῦ

ἀπελπισθέντος

ἐπάρχου, he makes mention in more than one place of a quite signal temple which existed at Thessalonica, sacred to St. Demetrius, while the miracle narrated by him was being wrought in the prefect Marianus. Wherefore, since John, archbishop of Thessalonica, most clearly teaches by the words just recited that that miracle happened long before his age, it is a consequence that also long before this, and accordingly before the seventh century, in which according to what has been said this writer flourished, a huge temple which was sacred to St. Demetrius had already been built at Thessalonica.

[76] contrary to what can be argued from Anastasius the Librarian, But indeed, you will say, the miracle wrought in the prefect Marianus by the patronage of St. Demetrius is also narrated by Anastasius the librarian in Mabillon, volume 1 of the Vetera Analecta, page 71 and the two following, and he not obscurely hints that at the time when it happened a signal temple had not yet been built to St. Demetrius at Thessalonica. I admit it is so: For Anastasius writes thus in the place cited: These things said, he (Marianus) is at once seized by sleep for pain and sadness; and when he had fallen asleep, blessed Demetrius appeared to him, saying: Rise and command your servants to carry you into the house of Demetrius: for there, God helping, you will receive health. And when, awaking, he asked of those standing round about the house of Demetrius the martyr, someone said: There is a very mean house near the stadium, in which they say lies Demetrius, who was formerly killed with lances by order of the emperor Maximian. Then he: Carry me thither, for it was said to me in a vision that there I could receive health. Then the servants carried their master where they had been ordered, and he ordered himself to be placed merely on the pavement. And as he lay, he is suddenly seized by sleep, and behold, blessed Demetrius again appeared to him, saying: Through me you can be healed, but I fear lest perhaps after health you entangle yourself in the cares of this world. And Marianus: You know, Lord, that I never did this, nor desire to do it. And he: Christ heals you, who raises up those who are dashed down. And Marianus, awaking, began to narrate the vision, and when he had come to this point, where the martyr said: Christ heals you, who raises up those who are dashed down, he rose whole, giving thanks to God with all who were present there; and since he calls the house of Demetrius the martyr, in which the body of our Saint lay laid up when Marianus, carried to it, recovered his health by its patronage, Very mean, and at that time no other house sacred to St. Demetrius the martyr existed at Thessalonica than that in which his sacred body lay laid up, he indicates sufficiently openly, in the narrative transcribed here, in which besides, long as it is, he supplies absolutely nothing from which you might suspect otherwise, that a signal temple which was sacred to Demetrius had assuredly not yet been built at Thessalonica at that time.

[77] But John, archbishop of Thessalonica himself, the words of John of Thessalonica, who first committed that miracle to writing, in book 1 of the miracles to be published, chapter 1, when he records that the servants carried Marianus, to be restored to health by the patronage of St. Demetrius, who had appeared to him in sleep, into the church of St. Demetrius at Thessalonica, calls it Πανσέπτον ναὸν, the most venerable Temple, and presently subjoins the following words, which, with a Latin interpretation added, I transcribe: ὁ

δὲ

εἰσελθὼν,

καὶ

ἰδών

τὴν

εὐπρέπειαν

τοῦ

οἴκου

καὶ

τὴν

ἐν

αὐτῶ

πνευματικὴν

εὐωδίαν,

τὴν

τρέφουσαν

τὰς

ψυχὰς

τῶν

πιστῶν,

ὠς

ὀ

παράδεισος

τοῦ

Θεοῦ,

εἴπεν

τοῖς

βαστάζουσιν

αὐτὸν

οἰκέταις,

ῥίψατέ

με

πλωτὸν

εἰς

τὸ

ἔδαφος. But he (namely Marianus), when he had entered (the temple of Demetrius), and perceived the adornment of the church, and the spiritual odour of it which, like the paradise of God, nourishes the souls of the faithful, said to the domestics who were carrying him: Lay me down on the bare pavement. Besides, in the church of Demetrius, into which he writes Marianus was carried by his servants to be restored to health, a Ciborium, or (go to Du Cange in the Glossary at this word) a structure raised into a gabled form, under which the body of St. Demetrius laid up

was believed to lie, he writes that a canopy of the altar made of silver existed; but who would think either that in the church at Thessalonica containing the sacred relics of Demetrius, into which Marianus was carried, there would have been an ornament of such a precious kind, or that John of Thessalonica would have spoken of it so magnificently, as according to what has been said he does, if it had been only a mean, indeed a very mean, house, such as is hinted by Anastasius to have existed? Now since these things are so, it is not to be doubted that already at the time when the miracle wrought in Marianus happened, a signal temple sacred to St. Demetrius existed at Thessalonica.

[78] This, further, is in some way confirmed from John Stauracius, Chartophylax of Thessalonica, and from John Stauracius, the interpretation of Anastasius, which here and there when he flourished I have taught above. For he too brought the miracle wrought in Marianus into his composition on the miracles of St. Demetrius, mentioned above, and there, in our codex marked ✠ Ms. 193, he calls the church of St. Demetrius into which Marianus, to be restored to health, was carried, ἀνάκτορον, a royal edifice or basilica. Nor is there reason for the authority of Anastasius the Librarian to move us much here. For the interpretation by which he turned from the Greek tongue into Latin the things which pertain to St. Demetrius in Mabillon, volume 1 of the Vetera Analecta, page 65 and many following, does not seem to be free of absolutely every fault, whether meanwhile this is to be ascribed to the carelessness or unskilfulness of this writer himself, or to the defect of the Greek copy which lighted his way. I give the matter proved by one or another example. The anonymous author who composed the Life or Passion of our Saint, to be published by us in the second place, having narrated the martyrdom of Demetrius, affirms that he was entombed by certain Christians under heaped-up earth, and then subjoins: Οὐδενὶ

δέ

μετὰ

ταῦτα

φροντίς

ἐγένετο

μετενεγκεῖν

τὸ

σῶμα

τοῦ

Ἁγίου,

ἀλλ᾽

ἔμεινεν

ἐπὶ

σχήματος. And to these Greek words the following correspond in Mabillon, at the cited volume of the Vetera Analecta, page 70, in the Life or Passion of our Saint rendered into Latin by Anastasius: But no one afterwards had care to transfer the little body of the Saint, but it remained under the sign. But since it becomes evident from the context of the sense that it is only signified here that the Saint's body, which had been entombed under heaped-up earth, remained buried under it, I think that for the last word which occurs in the recited words of Anastasius the word earth or ground should be substituted. The word σχήματος, indeed, which can perhaps not ineptly be rendered in Latin by the word sign, is placed in the words of the anonymous biographer just recited; but for the cause already mentioned, which is sought from the context of the sense, I think it was wrongly written there, by the carelessness or yawning of copyists, for the word χώματος, which signifies earth or also a Mound; so that, although indeed an error lies here, it must nevertheless be attributed not to Anastasius but to the Greek copyist whom this writer used for preparing his version.

[79] being faulty, rejected, But behold now also a fault occurring in the Latin version which most probably proceeded from no other than him. John, archbishop of Thessalonica, in book 1 of the Miracles to be published, chapter 3, narrates the Vision in which St. Demetrius, about to succour the city of Thessalonica, then most greatly pressed by famine, gave himself to be seen by a certain upright man in the island of Chios, and then subjoins: Ὁ

δὲ

διαναστὰς

καὶ

πορευθεὶς

ἐπὶ

τὸ

μαρτύριον

τοῦ

καλλινίκου

μάρτυρος

ἰσιδώρου,

ὀφείλων

ἄκριβέστερον

καταμαθεῖν

ἀπὸ

τῶν

ἐγχωρίων

τίς

ὅ

Δημήτριος

οὔτος· and to these Greek words the following Anastasian ones correspond in Mabillon, at the volume of the Analecta cited more than once, page 81: He (namely the man to whom St. Demetrius had appeared in the island of Chios), rising, went to the church of Saints Victor and Isidore, wishing to learn from the country people who this Demetrius was, namely who had appeared to him. The church, then, to which the upright man to whom St. Demetrius had appeared in the island of Chios betook himself, in order to understand who the Demetrius was who had appeared to him, was sacred to two Saints, namely Victor and Isidore, according to the interpretation of Anastasius. But the Greek words of John of Thessalonica just recited, from which what is found in Anastasius about that church was originally drawn, reveal that the church to which the upright man to whom St. Demetrius had appeared betook himself was consecrated not to two, but only to one, St. Isidore. For the word Καλλινίκος which occurs in the Greek words of John of Thessalonica just recited is by no means a proper name of a Saint to which, as Anastasius thought, the Latin proper name Victor might correspond, but only an adjective qualifying St. Isidore the martyr, signifying in Greek the same as in Latin adorned with beautiful victories, as is now commonly known to those skilled in the Greek tongue.

[80] Whatever, therefore, Anastasius may establish in the narrative of the miracle by which Marianus was restored to health, is shown, he had a signal temple sacred to his name. Further, of that one it is nevertheless not to be doubted, on account of all the things which I have now brought forward, that already at the time when this was wrought, and therefore long even before the age of John of Thessalonica, a quite signal temple sacred to St. Demetrius existed at Thessalonica. And from this it now flows that it is likewise not to be doubted that the Saint was honoured at Thessalonica with a quite signal cult long even before that time. Indeed, since according to what has been said above he most probably had there also a signal temple consecrated to his name already from the fifth century, it appears most probable that he was venerated in that native city of his with an annual festivity already then, or at least before the sixth century, especially since already from this century he was most probably held by the Thessalonians as their principal patron too, as I shall teach in the Annotations to be subjoined to book 1 of the Miracles, chapter 2. Further, the said Thessalonian temple of the Saint then comprised among its ornaments not only, what I have already mentioned above, a ciborium, or canopy of the altar of gabled form, made of silver, but also perhaps a throne built of the same metal. Certainly that this sacred edifice was enriched with this ornament already from the sixth century, or at least from the beginning of the following, book 1 of the Miracles to be published, chapter 6, gives proof. For there John, archbishop of Thessalonica, supplies a miraculous narrative about St. Demetrius which pertains to the age of Eusebius, archbishop of Thessalonica, snatched from among the living in the year 602 under the emperor Maurice, and makes mention of a silver throne which, while this archbishop was living, existed in the Thessalonian church of Demetrius. And these ornaments indeed, with which the Thessalonians took care to adorn the Saint's church, indeed perhaps, for reasons to be stated below, with one of these, namely the ciborium, also his tomb, give in some way testimony to the quite exceptional veneration in which they anciently held him; and what I now subjoin will show this still more amply.

[81] It happened, as John of Thessalonica relates in the place just cited, [in caring for the adornment, the Thessalonians showed also their veneration toward the Saint,] that the ciborium, or canopy of the altar raised into a gabled form, under which, as was believed by many, the Saint's body lay laid up, was set on fire at night, and the silver of which it was, as I said, made, melted by the vehement heat of the fire, perished for the greatest part. Eusebius, archbishop of Thessalonica, whom I have just cited, struck by the unexpected mishap, thought seriously of building a new ciborium as soon as possible, by which thing assuredly his exceptional veneration toward the Saint shone forth; and when he saw that for this end, no small part of the silver of which the burned ciborium had been made being lost, the necessary material was lacking to him, and he thought the ciborium, which was reckoned to contain the sacred relics of the Saint, a more necessary furnishing than the silver Throne which we have just mentioned, he was meditating destroying that throne and applying the silver taken from it to the structure of the new ciborium. But St. Demetrius himself prevented this from being done, declaring through a priest, to whom he appeared once, twice and a third time, to archbishop Eusebius that it was not his will. Nor indeed was it necessary that the aforesaid Throne be destroyed in order that the new ciborium might be made. For the citizens of Thessalonica, without being admonished, brought silver in abundance to their archbishop so that a new ciborium might be built. The words of John of Thessalonica by which this last thing is set forth in the place cited above, drawn into an abridgement by Anastasius the Librarian, as they exist in Mabillon, volume 1 of the Vetera Analecta, page 77, I present here. They run thus: While they (the priest to whom St. Demetrius had given himself to be seen, and archbishop Eusebius) were still speaking of these things with one another, behold the doorkeeper came, saying: Holy prelate, the very rich Mennas stands before your door desiring to speak with you. He says to him, let him come. The aforesaid Mennas, coming, offered him LXXV pounds of silver in aid of the ciborium. And then came John, namely the Sweetness of the poor, offering him a weight of forty pounds of silver; and the citizens, coming up, offered as they could, that the ciborium might be rebuilt. In such manner the often-named work was rebuilt by the merits of the holy Martyr.

[82] [and no less did they attest it by building a new one in place of that sacred edifice burned] And thus assuredly the Thessalonians, as concurring liberally with gifts offered by themselves for the structure of the ciborium with which the sacred relics of St. Demetrius might be reverently covered, made manifest the quite exceptional veneration with which they shone toward him. And if further anyone, that he may be able to judge of this still better, should perhaps wish to know besides of what sort and how great, of what figure and magnificence that Work was, he will find his desire satisfied by reading through the tenth chapter of the first book of the Miracles to be published. For there, in the narrative of an apparition which happened while the tyrant Phocas, taken from among the living in the year 610, governed the reins of the Eastern empire, the silver ciborium which in the Thessalonian church of St. Demetrius was believed to contain his sacred body is elegantly described, and this, since Phocas presided over the Eastern empire immediately after Maurice, under whom the aforesaid Eusebius, archbishop of Thessalonica, sat, was most probably, not to say undoubtedly, no other than that which we have already seen was built by this very archbishop of Thessalonica. But this Work, which according to what has been said had been substituted for the other one, burned, either as the sixth century was growing old or at the beginning of the seventh, was most probably likewise burned in this latter century. For the anonymous author who continued the composition of John of Thessalonica on the miracles of St. Demetrius relates, in book 2 of the miracles to be published, chapter 3, that the Thessalonian church of St. Demetrius was consumed by flames, and not obscurely hints that this happened not long after the death of John, archbishop of Thessalonica, who most probably died before the year 690. Now since this is so, it does not appear to be doubted that then again the ciborium which Eusebius, archbishop of Thessalonica mentioned above, had built was burned.

[83] by building a new one. This, or certainly the same, collapsed. But although then, that is, as the seventh century was growing old, not only this Work but also, as has already been said, the very Thessalonian temple of our Saint in which it was contained was consumed by flames, yet the Thessalonians did not on that account

seem to have abated anything of their veneration toward him. For, as the same anonymous writer teaches in the place cited, in place of the burned temple they built another, very magnificent, which still existed in his age, St. Demetrius supplying help in a singular manner to his fellow citizens, that is, the Thessalonians. By which thing assuredly they gave testimony to their veneration toward the Saint no less than by adorning his old church. Further, no otherwise than the old one built by Leontius, that new sacred edifice, or another which was substituted for it when it too afterwards collapsed or was destroyed by fire or otherwise, was generally most celebrated as well as most sung among the Greeks, and that chiefly on account of the body of the holy Martyr preserved and venerated in it, from which a liquor, salutary for healing diseases, continually dripped. But of the body of Demetrius, and of the liquor which drips from it and is salutary for healing diseases, I shall treat in the following §; my purpose now is solely to inform the reader further of the things worthy of note which occur, besides those already adduced, concerning the Thessalonian temple of the Saint, and another, also sacred to him, which is not much removed from Thessalonica. And first indeed the Saint's Thessalonian temple, as John Cameniates gives testimony concerning the destruction of Thessalonica, which happened at the beginning of the tenth century, in the Writers of Byzantine History after Theophanes, page 326 and following, shone most of all with the solemnity of the divine Office customarily performed in it before that destruction, and with the celebration of the annual festivity of Demetrius.

[84] Behold here the words bearing on this which that writer supplies in the same place. [another substituted, which also with the annual celebration of the Demetrian feast.] For certain temples, he says, (are seen) very great and munificent, and most beautiful with varied adornment, standing and set forth through the middle of the city (namely of Thessalonica), as common propitiatories of the Divinity; above all, and chief among them, that of the divine and supersubstantial Wisdom of the Word, the maker of all things, and likewise that of the ever Virgin immaculate Mother of God; and also (of which I made mention above) that of the most glorious and illustrious victor, Demetrius the martyr, where he performed divine contests and carried off the palm of victory; these namely, as the solemnities of the feasts recurred through the circle of the year, gathering into themselves the assembly of the whole multitude, brought unspeakable gladness and spiritual joy to those who came together. In each of these the Orders of priests filled the register of the clergy, by whose work the mystical worship and the sacred action is performed; likewise companies of lectors, who have diligence in singing canticles, and ring out verses in alternation, and arrange the sounds of the modulations with motions of the hands, and constitute a great and worthily spectacular choir; now soothing the eyes of the beholders with the shining form of their vestments, now delighting the hearing with the artful lyre of the Psalms. For what was the fabulous Orpheus, if you consider these canticles, or the Homeric muse, or the ravings of the Sirens, arranged with the lies of fictions, so that there is no true reason for praise, but false rumours, seducing the race of mortals and enslaving them to error? In vain, therefore, do the Greeks (or rather, since Ἕλληνες, which word signifies both Heathen and Greek, is had in the Greek, the heathens) boast themselves in these things with rattling cheeks, who lack true knowledge of things, and fight with themselves in vain speeches; but to us both the Divinity is true, and the very thing which we sing and frequent with the homage of praise.

[85] Nor did the Saint's Thessalonian temple shine most of all only with a quite exceptional solemnity of the divine Office, before the destruction, mentioned before, of the city in which it is situated, which is described by John Cameniates, [and with the frequent imploring of the Saint's help at it, as the words of Cameniates] and with the annual celebration of the Demetrian feast, which, as is understood from the words of Cameniates already recited, was performed with the greatest pomp; but this, no otherwise than the old Thessalonian temple of our Saint built by Leontius, which had been consumed by flames (go to the words of the Photian Life recited at number 74), was a common propitiatory and refuge, to which both other faithful and most of all the Thessalonians not seldom had recourse, to implore the Saint's help in their necessities. How true this is, the words alone supplied by John Cameniates are proof, when he records, in the composition cited above which exists in the Writers of Byzantine History after Theophanes, page 335, what the Thessalonians and others did when the Hagarenes in the year 904 were threatening Thessalonica, shortly afterwards stormed and destroyed by them as well; and they are these: But distracted and wavering with various thoughts, through the remaining following days we ourselves now strive for this, which is what remains to the wretched; namely that with vows we might invoke the bowels of divine mercy, which no one can tell, and the patronage of the Saints. For coming to the church of the most glorious martyr Demetrius, mentioned above, most splendid with illustrious beauty, both all the dwellers of the city and strangers from various nations, every dignity and age, a lamentable choir being formed, a cry being raised to the Martyr, we asked that he would be our patron against the death and slaughter threatening from the menacing wrath of the Barbarians. Thou hast shown, we said, generous Martyr, the ready help of thy defence and the ardour of thy mind, not seldom in many dangers which assailed thy city, and, all the snares of the adversaries being dissolved, thou hast preserved it immune from all harm and destruction. Show now too, most merciful one, thy immense care toward us; and let not the barbarous and foreign nations, who know not God, glory against us.

[86] the words of whom are recited here, Nor do thou give over this house, which the whole world holds as a new medical workshop for diseases and a ready refuge, to be profaned by impure and impious men, who mock our faith, and spurn our worship and religion: and charge us with this one crime, the piety with which we are toward God; and threaten untimely death and destruction. For although we are worthy of innumerable punishments for the crimes which we have committed on earth, and are liable to this very devastation and disaster which threatens, yet we know no other God than Him who crowned thee, in whose favour too thou didst perform divine contests, whom thou didst glorify by an emulous passion: by whose gift too thou didst obtain the grace of many miracles, and wast granted to us as a firm wall and unshaken prop and pillar, to whom daily pouring out suppliant prayers for us thou dost beg the things which conduce to our good. Look therefore now too upon the helplessness of counsel and mind of this people and the hopes laid down, and hearing our prayer, stand with free intercession for us thy servants, and snatch us from the expected overthrow, lest the sons of the handmaid Agar glory against us, nor say, Where is their defender? For thou seest thyself too, most kindly one, that we have laid down the sum of the matter not in lances but in thy powerful intercession, who also hope again that we shall be partakers of thy providence and care. Offering these vows with anguish of mind, all suppliantly to the Martyr night and day, and watering the floor of the temple with tears, we passed our time in suspense with the expectation of the enemy, while our sin, no otherwise than a most firm hedge, stood in the way, and rendered the Martyr's intercession vain, lest it win for us the divine kindness by a propitious Divinity.

[87] Further, the city of Thessalonica, when it had been stormed by the Hagarenes in the year 904, and a public one, likewise here as I have already taught, these did not hold in their power for very long; for when, within not yet a whole month, as is understood from John Cameniates, it had been wiped out by the destruction which immediately followed the storming, they thought it should be deserted, and in fact deserted it. And then indeed the most celebrated city at once began to be restored, nor does it appear to be doubted that at once likewise effort was made by the lovers of the Saint that the signal temple of Demetrius, which had been profaned by the barbarians, should be restored to its former beauty. However that may be, that sacred edifice was certainly frequented, no otherwise than before, by the faithful having recourse to the Saint's help. This it is permitted to gather from the public instrument which exists inserted among the Epistles of Innocent III, published at Paris by Étienne Baluze in the year 1682, book 15, epistle 84; which accordingly, since besides it also teaches some other things pertaining to the Saint and his Thessalonian temple, I transcribe here entire. But that the things which are related in it may be more easily understood, a few things are still to be premised before I do so. The Latins, having brought Constantinople into their power at the beginning of the thirteenth century, also subdued Thessalonica; and then the Thessalonian temple of St. Demetrius was granted to the Canons Regular of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem. But between these and the archbishop of Thessalonica, who contended that some right in the church of St. Demetrius and the goods pertaining to it belonged to him, a suit shortly arose, which was at length settled by the conditions expressed in the instrument cited above, which they sent to the Pontiff for approval, and he approved them in the cited epistle 84. Here it is now: To the Most Holy Father and Lord Innocent, by the grace of God supreme Pontiff of the most holy and universal Church, G., by His patience and yours minister, though unworthy, of the Church of Thessalonica, himself at your feet with filial obedience. When, on account of schismatic disobedience, the vengeance of the supreme king had scourged the land of the Greeks with the cord of correction, and out of His secret and inestimable counsel had brought it back into the hands of the Latins, many religious coming from various parts obtained various benefices, both through the Lord Cardinals and through princes and Barons and other faithful.

[88] Among whom the Canons of the most holy sepulchre rejoiced to obtain, in whatever way, the church of St. Demetrius of Thessalonica, recited, which they possessed until my enthronement with many labours, and, to confess the truth, very necessary to that land. Indeed, although the aforesaid church of St. Demetrius is known to pertain to my jurisdiction, nevertheless out of reverence for the Lord's sepulchre, where the redemption of the human race was wrought, and for whose relief the army of the crusaders is said to have acquired the land of Romania, and also lest the said canons be wholly defrauded of their hope and labours, and that every question and controversy such as has arisen between me and them on this matter, which could not easily be defined at the present time by judicial order on account of the perplexity of the cause, may be more easily laid to rest through peace and equity, especially since in the often-said church, adorned with the body of so great a martyr, canons regular of so favoured a church can serve more honourably than seculars, relying on the counsel of prudent men, namely Ar., bishop of Thermopylae, postulated of Sarra, W., elect of Nazareth, postulated of Philippi, and Master R., elect of Citrum, it seemed to me, so far as in me lies, useful and likewise honourable, that the said canons of the Lord's sepulchre, of all possessions, proceeds, fruits, revenues, legacies, and alms pertaining in whatever just manner to the said church of St. Demetrius, as can be lawfully proved by instruments or by suitable witnesses or in another just manner, and moreover of all those things which at any time were bestowed on the Archbishops of Thessalonica in the name of the church of the aforesaid St. Demetrius, or shall be bestowed in future, as, as has been said above, can be lawfully proved, shall receive, for the service of the often-said church, such a portion as the canons of St. Sophia of the metropolis of Thessalonica shall receive from its possessions,

when it shall happen that it is ordained.

[89] the instrument is proof, The houses indeed which the clerics of St. Demetrius had within Thessalonica in the time of the Greeks, the canons of the holy sepulchre shall possess outside the share; the hand offerings also, and whatever shall have been bequeathed to them by name, or in the name of the holy sepulchre, they shall likewise receive outside the share. But those things which shall be offered upon the tomb of St. Demetrius, or shall have been bequeathed by name to the same church, shall be divided according to the aforesaid division. This only being added, that when the said canons shall institute chaplains or clerics in that church for the time, under the same religion of faith by which they themselves shall be bound, they shall enjoin on them that they by no means persuade any in a testament or otherwise to bestow upon the canons themselves rather than upon the church, to the prejudice and damage of the Archbishop. The expenses, as regards the repairs of the roof or the lighting of the church and the just custody of the tomb, to be made in common pro rata. Furthermore, the prior who shall for the time be delegated in the often-said church of St. Demetrius by the Patriarch of Jerusalem and his chapter shall be bound to show obedience and reverence to me and to my successors canonically entering. All our right and liberty in the said church being, moreover, fully reserved to the mother church of Thessalonica and to me and my successors, as also in other churches of this kind. Saving the obedience of the Lord Patriarch of Jerusalem and of his chapter in all things over the prior himself and the canons and other religious dwelling there.

[90] it shone most of all with the concourse, Since, therefore, the ordering of churches which cannot be done by inferior prelates ought to be reserved to the Roman church, which by the Lord's disposition is the mother and mistress of all churches, I thought the said composition or disposition, which I did not presume to make or confirm by myself, should be transmitted to your holiness, beseeching your paternity on the bended knees of the mind attentively and earnestly that, for God's cause and out of reverence for the Lord's sepulchre and by the intervention of my prayers, if it shall seem fitting and honourable to your holiness, you would deign to make it by your authority or to complete it as begun, and, that it may have greater firmness, strengthening the same by the aforesaid authority. Consider now these words in which the said instrument is framed, and you will see that at the time at which it was given, that is, at the beginning of the thirteenth century, the Thessalonian temple of St. Demetrius was not seldom customarily frequented by the access of the faithful to it, who also honoured his tomb with offered gifts. Nor will you learn only this from that charter, but also some other things which pertain either to our Saint himself or to the Thessalonian temple dedicated to him.

[91] For the rest, it is beyond doubt that this temple long still after the thirteenth century was customarily frequented by the Greeks, the schismatic Greeks, although subject to the Turks, in the fifteenth century although schismatics, not seldom also, that they might implore the help of Demetrius in their necessities. And that this was still practised in particular by the Thessalonians in the fifteenth century, by no means doubtful proofs are both the things which John Anagnostes, a contemporary writer and eyewitness of almost all the things which it describes, records at number 10 in his Composition on Thessalonica destroyed by the Turks in the year 1429, inserted in the Symmicta of Leo Allatius, published at Cologne in the year 1653 by Bertold Nihusius, concerning the Thessalonians fleeing to the help of St. Demetrius when they knew the Turks were already threatening their city, and also the things which, as the Analecta to be subjoined to the miracles to be published will teach, Demetrius Chrysoloras, himself also a writer of the fifteenth century, records about the oil or ointment still wondrously gushing in his age from the tomb of St. Demetrius. Nor is there reason why anyone should doubt somewhat whether that most celebrated temple of our Saint in this city did not cease, at least from the year 1429, to be frequented by the Thessalonians and other Greeks, because in that year Thessalonica was stormed and destroyed by the Turks. For then, as John Anagnostes testifies in the cited composition, number 18, only two temples were snatched from the Christians, of which one was sacred to the Mother of God, the other to the Forerunner of the Lord. But indeed, you will ask, did it not happen that about two or three years afterwards the church dedicated to Demetrius was snatched from the Christians by the Turks? This assuredly does not seem to be so. For although then these, by order of Amurath II, their emperor, occupied almost all the temples of the Christians, as the same Anagnostes teaches at number 20, yet four of these were still left to them; and among these the temple of St. Demetrius seems to have been.

[92] For Ducas, grandson of Michael Ducas, sprung from the imperial family of the Ducae, still possessed; and although now, as appears, of that sacred place who also himself flourished in the fifteenth century, and could therefore have the matter best perceived, writes thus in the Byzantine History composed by him, chapter 29: The principal monasteries, whose fame was everywhere celebrated, he (namely Amurath) consecrated as temples to his religion (namely the Mahometan), except the church of the illustrious martyr Demetrius. For although he had entered that temple and immolated a ram with his own hands, and prayed to God, yet he afterwards ordered it to be restored to the Christians. But whatever adornment there was of the sepulchre and of the memorial of the Martyr, of the temple and of the sanctuaries, the Turks stole, leaving only the bare walls; and this writer, lest he should be said to fight with John Anagnostes, who relates, as I have already taught, that only two temples were snatched from the Christians immediately after Thessalonica was stormed, must be understood of the monasteries which, except the sacred church of St. Demetrius, Amurath consecrated as temples to his religion about two or three years after Thessalonica was stormed. Since this is so, it appears certain that neither then was the Thessalonian temple of Demetrius snatched from the Christians; so that accordingly the Thessalonians and others most probably frequented that sacred place thereafter no otherwise than before. But is it open to them to do so even today? That the Thessalonian temple of St. Demetrius is now converted into a mosque, or Turkish shrine, La Martinière teaches in the Geographical Dictionary, relating also in a few words how signal it was, at the name Salonicki, by which Thessalonica is now called, from the historical and geographical Monuments of Coronelli and the Itinerary written by Paul Lucas; nor does anything occur by which this matter might be called into doubt, although meanwhile I do not find when it was done; wherefore it is not to be doubted that the temple formerly built to the Saint at Thessalonica is now assuredly much less visited by the Christians than it formerly was wont to be.

[93] are stripped, they nevertheless still hold Demetrius in veneration. But not all veneration of the Saint has on that account perished among the Thessalonians, as will become evident from what is now to be said. Among the churches snatched from them by the Turks there was also the metropolitan or principal basilica, consecrated to the eternal Wisdom of God, as you will easily understand from the words of John Cameniates given at number 84, and from others contained in the public instrument transcribed here above at number 88; and in its place the Thessalonians, as it seems, built another metropolitan or principal church, and consecrated it to St. Demetrius, which is proof that their veneration toward our Saint has not wholly perished. Certainly that the principal church at Thessalonica is now consecrated under the name of St. Demetrius Le Quien affirms, with whom other writers also agree, in the Oriens Christianus, volume 2, column 27; and that this sacred church is distinct from the old one mentioned above very often, since this, according to what has been said, is now converted into a Turkish shrine, is not to be doubted. For the rest, that I may at length now proceed to another thing which still remains to be mentioned here, out of the singular veneration of the Thessalonians for St. Demetrius there also formerly existed yet another sacred church, not indeed at Thessalonica, but nevertheless not far from this city, as the fourth chapter of the third book of the Miracles to be published gives proof, the time, however, at which it was built not being expressed. And this indeed was built at a fountain, by whose waters those who washed themselves, St. Demetrius being invoked, not seldom recovered lost health (go to the Miracles to be published in the place cited), and it was customarily much frequented by the Christians while these were still masters of affairs at Thessalonica; but whether this pious custom too, that sacred place being perhaps likewise occupied by the Turks, has not now been wholly abrogated, I have not ascertained.

§ VIII. When the prodigious ointment first began to drip from the Saint's tomb or body, and what besides is to be believed concerning this sacred pledge.

The principal authors who the ointment, That a prodigious ointment anciently gushed from the Thessalonian sepulchre of St. Demetrius, by a stupendous miracle ascribed to the merits of St. Demetrius, is not to be doubted. For not a few writers give testimony to it, who, since they either beheld the thing with their own eyes or certainly heard it from witnesses worthy of credit, ought not to be suspect to us here. But from what time that miracle first began is not equally beyond doubt, as neither about when it befell that our Saint's body, at which this prodigy happened, was discovered. These two heads, therefore, I have resolved to examine in the present §, as also some other things which pertain to that sacred pledge and of which it is fitting that the reader be informed. But before I do so, it is pleasing here to bring forward the chief things of the ancient writers who speak of the prodigious ointment of St. Demetrius, salutary for healing diseases, beginning with the older ones. John Cameniates, who flourished in the tenth century, and described the siege, storming and destruction of the city of Thessalonica by the Hagarenes in the year 904, at page 184 of the Cologne edition made in the year 1653, calls St. Demetrius myroblytes, thus not obscurely signifying that ointment, which in Greek is called μυρὸν, gushed, in Greek βλυζεῖν, from his body or at least his tomb.

[95] John Scylitzes, who flourished in the eleventh century, in Michael the Paphlagonian expressly affirms that oil or ointment gushed from the sepulchre of St. Demetrius. salutary for healing diseases, Nor does Anna Comnena, who was illustrious in the twelfth century, and transmitted to posterity the things then done by her father, Alexius Comnenus, in a composition written by her which she entitled the Alexiad, record it less clearly, in book 2 of this Work of hers, page 60, writing thus in that place: In which (namely the city of Thessalonica) an illustrious temple built in the name of the great martyr Demetrius is seen: where also the ointment gushing from his venerable coffin works the greatest cures daily in those who approach with faith. Nicetas Choniates, who exchanged life for death in the year 1205, in the Annals written by him, graphically describing the crimes committed by the Sicilians at Thessalonica when they had stormed this city in the year 1185, at the same time reveals things from which it becomes manifest that then too ointment or oil boiled out in very great abundance from the sepulchre of St. Demetrius. For thus he has in the same work, in Andronicus Comnenus, book 1, number 9: Nor were they moved by the miracles wrought through them, by which Christ rewards those who have shown honour to His members; so that the ointment which boils out from the monument of the most celebrated martyr Demetrius, drawn in jars and cauldrons, they poured into the pans of fish,

greased their shoes with it, and rashly and wickedly abused it for the other services for which oil is of use. But it, as if issuing from an inexhaustible fountain or gushing from an abyss, flowed more copiously, and overflowed in a new manner, so that even the barbarians wondered at this one thing, and were astounded at the grace divinely granted to the Martyr.

[96] John Cantacuzenus, who, having abdicated the fasces of empire in the year 1355, spent his old age in writing the history of the things done by himself and others, from the Saint's tomb anciently in book 1, chapter 53 of this Work composed by him, and likewise in book 3, chapter 9, adorns St. Demetrius, when he makes mention of his Thessalonian temple or tomb, with the title μυροβλύτου, in Latin myroblytes, that is, gushing or dripping oil or ointment. The same is also done, besides John Cameniates already mentioned above, by not a few other Greek writers, yet so that among these there are also some who, although indeed they do not give the Saint the title μυροβλύτου, or myroblytes, nevertheless give him that of μυροβλήτου, which comes to the same thing, or myrobletes, that is, emitting oil or ointment, an appellation derived from the Greek words μυρὸν, oil or ointment, and βαλλεῖν, to send or send forth. For the rest, that I may join to the writers already cited another writer, who spoke most diffusely of all about the ointment or oil which prodigiously dripped from the body or tomb of St. Demetrius: John Anagnostes, a Greek writer of the fifteenth century cited still above, who comprised in writing the destruction of Thessalonica, his fatherland, besieged and stormed by the Turks in the year 1429, in the Opusculum which he composed to describe that mournful event, at which he himself had been present, and which exists published in print in the latter book of the Symmicta of Leo Allatius, page 355 and following, having already earlier in the same Opusculum, at page 329, adorned the Saint with the title μυροβλύτου, that is, myroblytes or dripping ointment, records thus, in the interpretation of Leo Allatius: What further would you say of the myrothecium of our trophy-bearer and martyr (namely Demetrius)?

[97] gushed, the writers who relate it are reviewed. Neither did those who had raged against us like untamed beasts preserve it unmoved or undisturbed, out of the excess of their fury; not, however, for the same cause for which other sepulchres built anciently by us were unsealed and thrown down, and the remains of the corpses lying in them scattered over the earth: for in those the Turks found moneys stored by the citizens, for the cause already narrated, and therefore they unsealed and overturned almost all; but here for a double cause, both on account of the adornment composed about it of no little gold and silver and precious stones and also gems, and on account of the divine ointment which affords health. For some despoiled it only for the sake of the adornment; others, envying us the abundance of the ointments, and desiring to deprive us of the health which follows from it, so that thereafter that medicine would not be available to us when there was need. Wherefore, the marbles laid over it being thrown down, they draw out the ointments with no light effort, and try to bring out the sacred and divine body of the Martyr. For they thought they would attain their purpose, and reduce us to bereavement of the inexhaustible ointments. But the end which their lust had rashly proposed to itself it did not have. For many days, therefore, the ointment was drawn out with both hands, and to some it seemed plainly ridiculous; but those who were wiser than others took care to bring it into their fatherland, and to handle it with reverence and religion. For they had heard from those who had experienced it that for any diseases it was much more efficacious than medicinal drugs themselves. Nevertheless they could neither dry up nor empty the fountain of ointments, although they strove for it rather contentiously and for a long time, and deservedly … for the things which God bestows on the worthy do not equal human things; just as neither are they subject to the same limits.

[98] That prodigy, not already, as the words of John Stauracius, which And these are the chief testimonies of the writers about the ointment or oil which dripped from the Saint's body or tomb which I thought should be brought forward here; and there is no one, so far as I think, who, these being weighed, would in any way doubt the truth of the matter. But, to come now to the things which besides are doubtful here and to be discussed, when did that signal and continuous prodigy of the oil or ointment gushing from the Saint's body or tomb first begin to happen? Since John Cameniates, as I have already taught, flourished in the tenth century, and gives the Saint the title of Myroblytes, it is not to be doubted that already from that same tenth century ointment or oil dripped from the tomb of St. Demetrius; indeed, since that title does not seem to have been attributed to the Saint then for the first time, when that author flourished, I should not with difficulty believe that oil or ointment prodigiously dripped from his body or tomb already from the ninth or even the eighth century. But can the beginning of this miracle be placed even earlier? It assuredly can, and will even have to be, if only John Stauracius is to be believed in his composition on the miracles wrought by St. Demetrius, of what sort it is I have set out above. For that Greek writer, whose words therefore, together with an added Latin version which I have prepared, I transfer here, writes thus in our codex ✠ Ms. 193, page 73:

Μετακαλεῖταὶ

ἡμᾶς

τὰ

περὶ

Ἰουστινιανὸν

τὸν

μέγαν

αὐτοκράτορα.

Οὕτος

ἀφύλακτον

ἅλλως

ἔχειν

τὸ

τῆς

βασιλείας

σκῆπτρον

ὑπελογίζετο,

εἰμὴ

ποῦ

τί

τῶν

Δημητριακῶν

λειψάνων

συστρατηγοῦν

αὐτῷ,

μᾶλλον

δὲ

προμαχοῦν

ἐπιφέροιτο.

[99] Γράμματα

τοίνυν

αὐτοῦ

καὶ

προθέβατα

ἡ

Θεσσαλονικέων

εἶχεν

εἰς

ἐπήκοον, are recited, the words require, μέρός

που

τῆς

μαρτυρικῆς

διαρτίας

τοῦ

σώματος

ἐξαιτούμενα.

Γνωσιμαχοῦσιν

ἡ

πόλις

πᾶσα,

καὶ

τῷ

πράγματι

δυσχεραίνουσι·

κάμπτονται

δὲ

ὅμως

τῇ

αἰτήσει

τοῦ

αὐτοκράτορος

ὡς

ἐκ

πίστεως

ἐληλυθυῖᾳ

εἰλικρινοῦς·

καὶ

δὴ

παρῆσαν

μὲν

οἱ

τὴν

ὀρυγὴν

ἐκ

πλαγίου

τῆς

μαρτυρικῆς

σοροῦ

σκευαζόμενοι·

ἄλλως

γάρ

πως

τῇ

τοσαύτῃ

τῶν

μύρων

πλημμύρᾳ

ὁ

μαρτυρικὸς

θησαυρὸς

ἀνηρεύνητο;

Τοῦ

πράγματος

δὲ

ὅλαις

εἴχοντο

ταῖς

χερσὶ,

δάκτυλόν

που

τυχὸν

ἢ

βραχίονα,

ἢ

ἂλλο

τι

μέρος

τῆς

μαρτυρικῆς

ὁλομελείας

μεθ᾽

ὅσου

τοῦ

τάχους

ἁρπαλέως

τεμαχιζόμενοι,

ὡς

μὴφθάσοι

τούτους

κατακλύσαι

ἡ

τῶν

μύρων

ἐκεῖθεν

τοῦ

μάρτυρος

ἐκπηδίουσα

ἄβυσσος. The emperor Justinian the Great now calls us. He thought that he would not hold the sceptre of empire safely unless he obtained some of the relics of Demetrius, by which he might lead the army with him, or rather that might fight for him. The city of Thessalonica therefore receives from him letters, and mandates which it could hear, demanding some part of the Martyr's body. The whole city resists, and takes the matter ill; yet it is bent by the emperor's petition, as proceeding from sincere faith, and there are present men who set about digging at the left side of the Martyr's coffin; for otherwise how could the Martyr's treasure be searched for, there being so great an abundance of ointments? And they pressed on the thing with all their hands, striving to cut off from some place perhaps a finger or arm, or some other part of the Martyr's body, with as much speed as they could, lest, before they carried out their purpose, they should be overwhelmed by the abundance of ointments dripping thence from the Martyr.

[100] If, therefore, one is to stand by John Stauracius, from the emperor Justinian I, already from the age of the emperor Justinian I, who is adorned by some with the title of Great, and therefore already from the sixth century, in whose 65th year he died, ointment or oil gushed from the tomb, or rather, regarding the words already recited, from the Saint's body, and indeed, as is most clearly related in these words, in huge abundance. But there are things which make it very doubtful, not to say anything worse, whether already then ointment dripped from the body of Demetrius in either small or great abundance. And first indeed John, archbishop of Thessalonica, in book 1 of the miracles, chapter 5, brings forward a letter written to the emperor Maurice, when he too had demanded a part of the relics of St. Demetrius, by Eusebius, archbishop of Thessalonica toward the end of the sixth century, in which he signifies how a part of the relics of St. Demetrius had formerly been demanded by the emperor Justinian I, and yet, a miracle presently to be mentioned standing in the way, had not been obtained, and with a reason sought thence he excuses himself from fulfilling Maurice's demand. But although Eusebius records in the said letter that the ground of the place in which the Saint's body was believed to lie laid up was then dug by some men in order that they might find the sacred pledge, yet he makes mention not even by a word of ointment or oil which then dripped from that place or from the Saint's body. And it appears little probable that he himself would not have made mention of a prodigy of this kind, by which, more than by anything else assuredly, the sepulchre or tomb of Demetrius would have been illustrious, if it had already then had place, in the cited letter, in which he brings forward not a few things about that tomb, or, as he speaks, about the place in which the sacred body of the saint was believed to lie laid up.

[101] as from reasons Besides, the same Eusebius relates in the cited letter that the Men who, seeking the Saint's body, had begun to dig the ground were compelled to desist from the work begun, fire prodigiously bursting forth from the earth against them, and he adds that a part of the ground, which from the fire bursting forth had wonderfully acquired an ineffable fragrance, was sent to Justinian in place of the demanded relics, and that he received it with gladness, no otherwise than the Saint's body itself; but of ointment or oil prodigiously dripping from the Saint's body or tomb, which was likewise then sent to Justinian, he makes no mention, and yet, if that prodigious gushing had already then had place, it seems it would have come about that the ointment, salutary for healing diseases, would equally, or even rather, have been sent to Justinian in place of the demanded relics than the ground, affected miraculously only by a good odour. There is added that the place, certainly, in which the sacred body of St. Demetrius lay in the church dedicated to him at Thessalonica could not but have been very well known if from it, or, if you prefer, from the Saint's body which it comprised, ointment continually dripped in great abundance, and this prodigy was commonly held ascertained, as the words of John Stauracius transcribed here above suggest. But the place in which the Saint lay laid up in his Thessalonian church appears not to have been known in the age of Justinian, that is, when he demanded for himself a part of the relics of St. Demetrius.

[102] brought forward here I so maintain, first indeed, because when Eusebius, archbishop of Thessalonica, narrates in the letter already cited more than once that the ground was tried by some men to seek the body of Demetrius, he affirms that this was done not in the place in which the sacred body of the Saint lay, but in which it was thought to lie; and then because not even in the age of John, archbishop of Thessalonica, cited very often above, who nevertheless flourished after Eusebius, was the determinate place in which the Saint lay known in the church sacred to his name at Thessalonica, as that writer himself gives proof in book 1 of the Miracles, chapter 5. His words, from which at the same time the Saint's tomb

or the place in which he lay laid up in his Thessalonian church was not known even while archbishop Eusebius occupied the see of Thessalonica will become evident more clearly, I transcribe here, made Latin by me from the Greek. They run thus: But since always indeed, and most of all in the time of idolatry, the Christians who inhabited this city beloved of God were careful and most constant lovers of the martyrs, for fear lest the bodies of the Saints crowned with martyrdom should be committed to the fury of the idolaters, they hid them silently and mysteriously in the earth, so that up to the present time, of those who underwent martyrdom in this city, the sacred tomb in which they were deposited is known of absolutely none, except of the most celebrated and most holy virgin Matrona.

[103] Now, since up to the age of John of Thessalonica, adduced, in what determinate place of his church our Saint lay laid up was altogether unknown even at Thessalonica, as the recited words of this writer give proof, by what reasoning can it be learned for certain that either already then, or even before, ointment or oil, salutary for healing diseases, gushed from his tomb or body? Perhaps either from a tradition begun from the very age of John of Thessalonica or even earlier, or from documents, either written or otherwise, transmitted to posterity by those who either themselves had flourished in the same age of John of Thessalonica or earlier, or had heard the matter from their elders? But how could either a tradition or documents, by which it might be held ascertained that ointment dripped from the body of St. Demetrius already from the age of John of Thessalonica, and even earlier, have drawn their origin at that time, if then the determinate place in which that sacred pledge lay laid up was altogether unknown, as John of Thessalonica reveals it to have been? This indeed appears to me very difficult to grasp, and I cannot accordingly bring myself to believe that oil or ointment, salutary for healing diseases, gushed from our Saint's tomb or body either in the age of John of Thessalonica or even before it.

[104] But indeed, you will say, John of Thessalonica in book 1 of the Miracles to be published supplies things also from others which can make for the contrary, from which it appears that oil or ointment gushed from our Saint's body already from the age of this writer, indeed even before it. For there, toward the end of chapter 1, he introduces Marianus, who, as is clear from what has been said above, flourished long before John of Thessalonica, speaking thus to St. Demetrius, or rather imploring his help for recovering health: Τὴν

δεδωρημένην

σοι

χάριν

ὑπ᾽

αὐτοῦ

τῶν

ἰαμάτων

ἔκχεον

εἰς

ἐμὲ·. and a little after: ἔκχεον

ἐπ᾽

ἐμὲ

τὴν

ἐλεεμοσύνην

σου

καὶ

τὰ

οἰκτείρμονα

σου

ἰάματα. Besides, in the same book of the miracles, chapter 4, he writes thus of Demetrius at the beginning: Ὀͅυ

σωμάτων

δὲ

μόνον

ἰάμασιν

ὁ

καλλίνικος

οὐτὸς

ἐναμβλύνεται

Μάρτυς,

ἀλλὰ

καὶ &c.

I admit, John of Thessalonica records these things in the places cited; but from the texts adduced it does not seem to be concluded that ointment or oil, salutary for healing diseases, gushed from the body or tomb of St. Demetrius already from the age of John of Thessalonica or even before it. For since the Greek word ἰαμὰ signifies not only a medicament, but also the effect of a medicament, or healing, the first of the three texts adduced is turned into the Latin tongue in this manner: Pour out upon me the grace of cures given thee by Him; the second thus: Pour out upon me thy mercy, and thy compassionate healings; and finally the third as follows: But not only with healings of bodies does that Martyr, adorned with beautiful victories, abound, but also, etc.

[105] the confutation, it is concluded, first in the age, but the house Nor, even if we should grant for the moment that the Greek word ἰαμὰ signifies in the texts brought forward exactly the same as the Latin word medicamen, or remedy, will it on that account be a consequence that John of Thessalonica certainly meant the miracle of the ointment or oil gushing from the Saint's tomb to be indicated by them. For why could he not have understood by remedies, both in the first two texts and also in the last, the very intercession of St. Demetrius, or rather the succours either to be brought by the Saint's patronage or in fact often brought to the wretched? That the three texts of John of Thessalonica given above are to be explained in one or the other of the ways already assigned, or at least in another by which the prodigy of the ointment gushing from the Saint's body is not established, is clear even from this, that since this writer did not know in what place of his Thessalonian church our Saint lay laid up, he most probably also did not have it ascertained that ointment gushed from his body, and therefore did not make mention of this prodigy in the texts brought forward, indeed could not even make it. And thus, all the things which I have already said being weighed, it appears most probable, not to say beyond doubt, that assuredly not yet in the age of John of Thessalonica, much less before it, did ointment or oil drip from the Saint's tomb or body. But at what time, then, at length shall we determine that this prodigy first began? We saw above that the Thessalonian temple of Demetrius was consumed by flames not long after the death of John of Thessalonica, that is, as the seventh century was growing old, and another built in its place. What if, then, when this new edifice was being erected, and the earth was being dug in various places for this end, the sacred body of Demetrius was first then found or uncovered, and at the same time oil or ointment, salutary for healing diseases, began to gush from it?

[106] [took its beginning either perhaps as the seventh century was growing old or at the beginning of the following,] This assuredly does not appear to me altogether unlike the truth; yet I should not dare to hold it for certain, for this very reason, that the anonymous author who continued the composition of John of Thessalonica on the miracles of Demetrius, and flourished, as I taught above, either as the eighth century was growing old or at the beginning of the ninth, nowhere, in the miracles wrought by the patronage of our Saint which he narrates, makes mention of ointment prodigiously gushing from his tomb or body. He calls the Saint's temple indeed, in book 2 of his composition, or of the Miracles to be published, chapter 3, ἰαματοφόρον; but since the word ἰαμὰ can signify healing as well as remedy, as I have already taught above, assuredly from the epithet ἰαματοφόρος attributed by the cited anonymous writer to the Thessalonian church of St. Demetrius, as one which is apt to signify both that which brings healing and that which brings a medicament or remedy, it cannot be argued that he meant to make even an obscure mention of ointment prodigiously gushing from the Saint's tomb. Since this is so, that oil began to drip prodigiously from the Saint's tomb already from the beginning of the eighth century, or even as the seventh was growing old, is indeed in some way probable, but by no means certain and beyond doubt. Hence further, and at the same time from the other things which I discussed above from John Cameniates, it now flows that certainly already from the ninth century, but perhaps only already from the eighth or the seventh century, ointment or oil, salutary for healing diseases, dripped prodigiously from the body or tomb of St. Demetrius. And let it suffice now to have discussed this great and continuous miracle; now, since mention not infrequent has been made of the body of Demetrius in the present §, it is fitting that some further things which remain to be said of it be dispatched here too, lest things which are in a manner joined be treated separately.

[107] And first indeed that sacred pledge, since the determinate place in which it lay laid up in the Thessalonian church dedicated to the Saint nor was the Saint's body uncovered earlier. had long been unknown, was not uncovered before the seventh century was growing old or the beginning of the following, as is plain even from the testimony alone of John of Thessalonica transcribed here at number 102. But indeed, you will say, according to the Metaphrastic Passion of the Saint, and the other written by the anonymous author who lighted the way for Metaphrastes, Leontius, prefect of Illyricum about the beginning of the fifth century, as appears from what has been said above, when he had already built a church to St. Demetrius in that city and was about to set out from Thessalonica for Sirmium, had resolved to take some part of the sacred body of the holy Martyr, and was drawn away from this purpose by the Saint appearing to him in sleep. I admit it is so: but it cannot be certain from this that the determinate place in which our Saint's sacred body lay was known to Leontius: for besides that that design of Leontius is not recorded in the Anastasian and Photian Acts of the Saint, Leontius could also have had this as his purpose although he did not yet then know the place in which the sacred pledge lay, and only hoped that it would be found by himself, a digging being made. However that may be, one must stand by John of Thessalonica rather than by Metaphrastes and the anonymous biographer of Demetrius from whom the latter took his material, and accordingly I bring myself to believe, whatever these too may write, that the Saint's body was not uncovered before the seventh century was growing old or the beginning of the following. And this was done then indeed only probably, but certainly, as is easy to gather from what has been said above, not later than the ninth century.

[108] But, to proceed now to another matter, did that sacred pledge always thereafter remain in the church sacred to the Saint among the Thessalonians? This, whatever the biographer of St. Lietbert too may write, In the Life of St. Lietbert, bishop of Cambrai and Arras, published in our Work at the 23rd day of June, on which he is venerated, chapter 5, in which the journey of this holy bishop to Jerusalem is described, Radulphus, the author of that little composition, records thus: Having entered Dalmatia (namely Lietbert), and having traversed the places in which Diocletian of old, in building Baths, had inflicted various punishments of death on the martyrs of Christ, he turned his course toward Isauria. Passing by which he came to Corinth, and there, hearing that the body of St. Demetrius, illustrious among the martyrs, rests there, he sought his sepulchre, and with the whole affection of his mind he seeks the divine help by his merits. St. Lietbert, bishop of Cambrai and Arras, flourished in the eleventh century, as having been taken from among the living in the year 1076, as may be seen with us at the said day of June; wherefore, if Radulphus records true things in the recited words, and meant the whole body of St. Demetrius to be understood, it is necessary that it no longer rested at Thessalonica in the eleventh century, but had been translated thence, either in this very century or even earlier, to Corinth, where St. Lietbert visited it. But our Henschenius, in his Annotations on the recited words of Radulphus, suspecting some ignorance of this author about the places indicated in the text transcribed here — who besides records that Diocletian, intent on wearing out the martyrs with labour, built Baths in Dalmatia, assuredly wrongly (for he did this not there but at Rome) — promised that it would be inquired at this 8th day of October whether the body of St. Demetrius had been translated to Corinth from Thessalonica, in which city it was honoured with a great concourse of peoples because a medicinal ointment gushed from it.

[109] nor from Thessalonica to Corinth in the eleventh century That I may therefore redeem the pledge given by him, and at the same time

show how deservedly he doubted, in the Annotations cited above, whether Radulphus was not mistaken in assigning the place in which St. Lietbert visited the body of St. Demetrius, I recall to the reader's memory the public instrument which I transcribed here entire at number 87 and the three following. For in this, which, as I taught there, was undoubtedly given at the beginning of the thirteenth century, it is not obscurely indicated that the body of St. Demetrius was still then, when it was given, preserved at Thessalonica in the church sacred to him: and since this is so, and nothing can be brought by which the credit of the cited instrument may be weakened, no one indeed will say that that sacred pledge entire had been translated from Thessalonica to Corinth already from the eleventh century, in which it was visited by St. Lietbert, unless perhaps he should wish at the same time to establish — which, however, I do not think will happen — that, after it had lain some while at Corinth in the eleventh century and perhaps also in the following, it was carried back thence again to Thessalonica. But indeed, you will say, if the matter is so, it appears not only to be doubted whether Radulphus erred in assigning the place in which St. Lietbert venerated the sacred body of St. Demetrius, but it seems beyond doubt that he was in fact mistaken in this matter. I admit, it altogether appears so, unless perhaps that writer meant to speak not of the entire body of St. Demetrius, as having been visited at Corinth by St. Lietbert, but of a part of it; but that he did not mean to speak only of a part of the sacred body which Lietbert venerated at Corinth, but rather took Corinth for Thessalonica by error, I think more probable for this very reason, that he records that Lietbert, making for Jerusalem, set out from Bulgaria into Dalmatia, thence into Isauria, then to Corinth and finally to Laodicea; whereas he could conveniently have directed his journey from Bulgaria to Thessalonica, and thence from a most suitable port have sailed into Syria to the maritime city of Laodicea, as Henschenius too already observed before me in the Annotations mentioned above.

[110] had been translated, nor to Pola, And hence it is now a consequence that the testimony of the cited Radulphus, who described the Life of St. Lietbert, and in particular his journey to Jerusalem, by no means suffices for us to believe that there existed at Corinth, when that holy bishop was making for Jerusalem, even only a part of the body of St. Demetrius. But was that city at least afterwards enriched with a sacred pledge of this kind? This I, although it can be affirmed from absolutely no document, yet should not dare to deny undoubtingly, especially because it appears from what is now to be said that after the eleventh century, in which St. Lietbert made for Jerusalem, or perhaps even earlier, at least some relics of St. Demetrius were distributed, that is, communicated with other churches. Baillet, in volume 3 of the Lives, column 115, affirms that at Paris, in a small church which is called St.-Denis-du-Pas, and is situated behind the church sacred there to the most holy Mother of God, certain sacred relics are preserved which they contend are those of St. Demetrius, venerated there according to what is to be said below; but since this writer speaks of this matter there only in the manner of one doubting, still less adduces anything by which he may establish it, if you except the cult paid there to Demetrius, I must have recourse to another source in order to make in some way probable that relics of St. Demetrius were communicated with other churches after the eleventh century or even earlier. That the bodies of six Saints, namely of Theodore, Demetrius and George, martyrs, of Florus, Basil and Solomon, king of Hungary, confessors, were found under a particular altar of the cathedral church at Pola in Istria in the year 1653 is proved from authentic documents with us in volume VII of September, in the historical account of Bl. Solomon, from king of Hungary a hermit, page 848, and on the following page a public instrument is also brought forward, from which it becomes beyond doubt that those six bodies were deposited under that altar by Don Michele Orsini, bishop of Pola, in the year 1487.

[111] And since the martyr Demetrius mentioned in those monuments or was ever carried entire to other places different from Thessalonica. is joined with two other most celebrated martyrs, namely Theodore, honoured with ecclesiastical cult on the 7th day of February, and George on the 23rd day of April, and both these, as the things which we discussed about them at those two days show, are customarily held as patrons or champions of the Christians in war, no otherwise than our holy Thessalonian martyr Demetrius, it appears probable enough that discourse is made in the cited monuments of no other holy martyr Demetrius than this one of ours; and since this is so, it likewise seems probable enough that sacred relics of our Saint are preserved at Pola in Istria, or at least were preserved at the time noted in the aforesaid documents. But shall we say that these were the Saint's entire body, or only a part of it? Since it not seldom, indeed most frequently, happens that relics which constitute only a part of the body of some Saint come under the name of body, even in authentic documents, and nothing could be found anywhere which suggests that the entire body of our Saint was ever carried from Thessalonica elsewhere, it seems more probable that those who drew up the documents mentioned above took a part of the body of the St. Demetrius mentioned there, that is, as appears probable from what has been said, of ours, for his entire body. The same, further, seems to be said for a like cause of Gelenius, who in Colonia supplex, Auctarium number 4, page 164, attributes the body of St. Demetrius to the Benedictine monastery of Siegburg, if perhaps the discourse there is of our Saint, as also of any other writers or documents in which the body of our Saint is ascribed to some determinate sacred place.

§ IX. How signal a cult was paid to the Saint at Constantinople, even by the very emperors of the East, and how ancient indeed it is.

To the temple of St. Demetrius, on the day sacred to him, with ceremonies How signal a cult the Saint formerly received at Constantinople, even from the very emperors of the East and in their court, becomes manifest even from the Ceremonies alone of the Byzantine court, written not later, as I shall teach below, than the beginning of the eleventh century, and published at Leipzig in the year 1751. For in book 1 of these, chapter 21, it is set out how the emperors together with their court customarily honoured every year the feast of St. Demetrius, a solemn procession to the church sacred to him being instituted. I therefore transcribe it here entire. It runs thus: On the day before, the lords indicate to the praepositi that the whole senate is to come forth on the following day with allaximi, and in the morning about the second hour they order the praepositi to come in; which being done, with a few cubicularii, the papas (in Greek παπία is had, that is, from Du Cange's Glossary at the word παπίας, the keeper of the palace) and the hetaeriarch go away, and bring the patriarch with the metropolitans and the rest of his office. He, having entered through the portico of the triconch, sits down in the chamber of the golden triclinium, which is next to the pantheon. And the praepositi, having entered, announce his arrival to the emperors, who rise, and, having entered the chamber of St. Theodore, put on their tunics, and, having gone out beyond the curtain of that chamber, stand there. Meanwhile the praepositi bring in the patriarch, whom the lords according to custom kiss, and sit with him a little in the golden triclinium, and, all things being well ordered, the praepositi enter to announce it to the lords, who at once rise with the patriarch, and, going out with the rite solemn to them, passing through the tripeton, the lausiacum, the justinianeum, the scyla and the outer porticoes of Marcian, make for the oratory of St. Peter, which is situated there.

[113] which here It is to be known that, as the lords proceed with the patriarch from the golden triclinium, before its silver doors stand the eunuch aspatarii, and the logothete of the public course, with the protoscriniarius and the first of the notaries, and the ministers of the golden triclinium near the clock. Further, the lords, having gone out from the bronze doors to the lausiacum, are received and accompanied by the manclavitae and all the cubicularii. Within the scyla, that is, in the extreme part of the triclinium of Justinian, the magistri, proconsuls and officials are present, and, falling to the ground, adore the lords as they pass. And these, as was observed above, go away to St. Peter's, where the patriarch enters the sanctuary, and, solemn prayers being performed, the psalts begin the troparion. Then the patriarch proceeds from the sanctuary, holding the holy Gospel in his hand, to the imperial doors of the same oratory, a subdeacon carrying the processional cross before him. The lords receive candles from the praepositi, and, having thrice bent the knee, pray to God, then kiss the Gospel and the cross, and, the deacon incensing, the emperor, leaning on the patriarch, goes out of the temple. It is also to be observed that, as the procession proceeds from St. Peter's, the singers recite the troparion of the Martyr, which Leo, the most wise and best emperor, composed, up to the words: Hidden thou wast born; and as the procession enters the golden triclinium, the troparion of the dedication, namely: Thanks to Thee, Christ God, glory of the Apostles.

[114] are described, the emperors were wont to proceed every year. The emperor, departing thence whither he had gone, goes on through the middle of the chrysotriclinium, and goes out with the procession by the eastern doors, while meanwhile the magistri, proconsuls, patricians and officials stand opposite the temple of St. Demetrius, that is, on the left side, and the cubicularii at the eastern parts of the Solarium, the lords with the Patriarch in the atrium of the temple; and, the solemn rites of the dedication being performed, the entrance is made. The Patriarch enters the sanctuary, the lords, passing through the middle of the church, go out, and stand in the tetraseron which is there, to hear the reading of the Gospel. Afterwards, having proceeded through the silver doors of the Macron, or long portico, they put on their tunics, and, having entered the golden triclinium, sit down according to custom, and shortly after the dismissal is given. And at the banquet on this day they have the patriarch, the metropolitans, and whatever senators they will. Indeed, that the feast of St. Demetrius was customarily celebrated every year at Constantinople with great solemnity by the Constantinopolitan emperors and their court becomes manifest from the ceremonies described here, with which one then proceeded from the golden triclinium, that is, from the place of the emperors' abode in their palace, to the temple of St. Demetrius.

[115] But what was that temple of St. Demetrius? That temple, which, as appears, is the same as the sacred church mentioned here, Codinus, On the Offices of the church and court of Constantinople, chapter 15, writes in this manner: On the memory of the great Demetrius the emperor goes to the venerable monastery of the Palaeologi, which is distinguished with the name of the aforesaid Martyr. The monastery of the Palaeologi, to which the emperors customarily went every year on the 26th day of October, sacred to St. Demetrius, Pachymeres too mentions in volume 2, book 4, chapter 12. I hardly, nay scarcely even hardly, doubt that the temple of this monastery of the Palaeologi is one and the same with the temple mentioned just now in the Ceremonies of the Byzantine court, to which, first built by the Caesar Bardas according to what is to be said, a monastery was afterwards added. The matter will shine out more amply from what is to be said. In Banduri, volume 1 of the Eastern empire, the anonymous writer of the Antiquities, or, as they are called by others, the Origins of Constantinople, who, as the cited Banduri teaches in the Preface set by him before that volume, which comprises chiefly Works previously unpublished, flourished when the twelfth century had advanced to about its middle,

writes thus in part 2 of his Work, number 68: The church of St. Demetrius, which stands above the walls, the Caesar Bardas built, the uncle of Michael, whom Basil killed at St. Mamas, the Caesar himself having already earlier, while he was undertaking an Eastern expedition together with Michael, been cut limb from limb in the sight of Michael, born of his sister. For Bardas was the brother of the Augusta Theodora, who was the mother of Michael. The Caesar Bardas was killed in the year 867 by order of the emperor Michael, the third of this name, so that accordingly the sacred church which the cited anonymous writer teaches in the recited words that he built to St. Demetrius was built when the ninth century had already passed about its middle. And this was undoubtedly done in that very corner of the city of Constantinople in which the Acropolis was situated, toward the Eastern side of the same city, as is understood from Du Cange in Constantinopolis Christiana, book 1, page 44 and following, as is clear even from this, that Ducas, in the History composed by him, chapters 38 and 39, calls that place Μεγαδημήτριον ἀκρόπολιν, or the Acropolis of the Great Demetrius, the name being taken namely from the neighbouring temple of St. Demetrius.

[116] But here there arises a very intricate question, and difficult to solve. from the temple which Cantacuzenus in the palace For Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in Basil the Macedonian, chapter 54, in which he reviews some sacred churches restored by this emperor, also reckons among these a church sacred to St. Demetrius, in the following words: The sacred churches also of St. Anne in the Deuteron, and of the holy martyr of Christ Demetrius, labouring with age, he made new and elegant; and Du Cange, in Constantinopolis Christiana, book 4, page 122, calls into doubt whether this sacred church of St. Demetrius, which Scylitzes too records at page 588 was restored by Basil the Macedonian, is one and the same with that which we mentioned above from the anonymous writer of the antiquities, or Origins, of Constantinople, and assuredly not undeservedly. For, as that writer rightly notes in this place, Cantacuzenus, in the History composed by him, book 3, chapters 6 and 9, also places a church sacred to St. Demetrius in the very palace, or residence, of the Constantinopolitan emperors, in the former place indeed writing thus: Καὶ

πρὸς

τῷ

ναῷ

τοῦ

μεγαλομάρτυρος

γενόμενοι

Δημητρίου,

ὅς

τῶν

βασιλείων

ᾠκοδόμητο

ἐντὸς, and when they were near the temple of the great martyr Demetrius, which had been built in the palace; and in the latter supplying the following words: Καὶ

πρὸς

τὸν

ἐν

βασιλειοις

τοῦ

μυροβλύτου

τοῦ

μάρτυρος

γενόμενος

ναόν, And when he had come to the temple of the Myroblytes martyr, situated in the palace. Now, if the sacred church of our Saint mentioned here by Cantacuzenus was different from the church sacred to him which existed in that very place where the Acropolis was, Du Cange assuredly had reason to call into doubt whether Basil the Macedonian restored this one or that one.

[117] places, for reasons which But let us examine the matter. Anna Comnena, in the Alexiad, book 12, page 361, mentions a sacred church existing in the imperial palace of Constantinople, which, although it was distinguished by many, or rather, as the Greek words sound, by the common people, with the name of the great martyr Demetrius, had nevertheless been erected in the name of the Mother of God; and Scylitzes and Constantine Porphyrogenitus, just cited, the former indeed at the page just cited, the latter in Basil the Macedonian, chapter 55, record that a church sacred to the most holy Mother of God was built by this emperor in the palace; wherefore, unless perhaps someone would have it that two churches dedicated to the same Mother of God existed in the palace, which appears little probable, this must be that very one which, although, as Anna Comnena teaches according to what has been said, it existed in the palace sacred to the Mother of God, was nevertheless distinguished by the common people with the name of Demetrius, and which, unless perhaps someone would have it, contrary to what appears probable, that two churches distinguished by the name of St. Demetrius existed in the palace, must be the same as the sacred church of the Saint which Cantacuzenus places in the palace. Further, the cited Scylitzes and Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who, as I have already taught, relate that a church was built to the Mother of God in the palace by Basil the Macedonian, record also, a little before they do so, that a church sacred to St. Demetrius was restored by this prince; wherefore, since they most manifestly distinguish this one from that one, which was customarily distinguished even by the common people, as I have already taught, by the name of St. Demetrius, it is a consequence from all that has been said that the church sacred to St. Demetrius which they write was restored by Basil the Macedonian was situated outside the palace, and was therefore distinct from the church sacred to St. Demetrius which Cantacuzenus places in the Palace. But indeed, you will say, the title prefixed to the oration or Homily mentioned above more than once, and beginning with these words, Ἕφη ὁ σωτήριος λόγος, which in § I of this Commentary I vindicated for Leo the Wise, emperor of the East, as being framed in the words recited at number 5, gives proof that it was spoken by him at the time when a church to St. Demetrius was being consecrated in the residence, or palace.

[118] into the open Now, since Leo the Wise was the son of Basil the Macedonian, and succeeded this his father in the year 886, by whose will he had been crowned emperor already from the year 870, it appears most probable that the church sacred to St. Demetrius at whose consecration he spoke the mentioned oration or Homily is that very one which Porphyrogenitus and Scylitzes relate, in the places cited above, was restored by his father, Basil the Macedonian, and that this accordingly was none other than that which is placed by Cantacuzenus, in the words recited above, in the palace or residence. Thus it can be argued against the opinion by which, according to what has been said, we placed the sacred church of St. Demetrius restored by Basil the Macedonian outside the palace. But the writer who prefixed the title to the said Homily or Oration in the codex formerly Mazarin's, written, as appears, in the twelfth century, perhaps noted in it that it was spoken at the time when a church was being consecrated to St. Demetrius in the residence, for this reason, that at the time when he was writing the aforesaid codex, that is, in the twelfth century, that sacred edifice was customarily distinguished by the name of St. Demetrius alone. Besides, in order that the writer of the title of which we speak here may be brought into concord with Anna Comnena, who likewise flourished in the twelfth century, and notes that that sacred church, although customarily distinguished by the common people with the name of Demetrius, was dedicated to the most holy Mother of God, it may be that that sacred church was dedicated both to the most holy Mother of God and at the same time to St. Demetrius, and hence the writer of the title, intent solely on transcribing the compositions composed about this our Saint (go to number 3), made mention of it as sacred to St. Demetrius, omitting even the name of the Mother of God, by which he had perceived that that sacred place was then perhaps distinguished only by a few. Whatever therefore can be argued from the title which the cited Oration or Homily bears in the Mazarin codex, it appears beyond doubt that this was pronounced not when the sacred church of St. Demetrius which Scylitzes and Porphyrogenitus relate was restored by Basil the Macedonian, but when the other was being consecrated, which Anna Comnena affirms was built in the palace to the Mother of God and was nevertheless customarily distinguished by the common people by the name of St. Demetrius; and it remains therefore that the sacred church of St. Demetrius which Basil the Macedonian restored was situated outside the palace, and is thus distinct from the church sacred to the Saint which Cantacuzenus places in the palace.

[119] But what at length is the sacred church of St. Demetrius are adduced here, which is both distinguished from the church mentioned by Cantacuzenus and was restored by Basil the Macedonian? No other, as it appears, than that which was built by the Caesar Bardas, as we taught above, in that very place where the Acropolis was. For this, no otherwise than that one, existed outside the palace, as what is now to be said will show. That the church of St. Demetrius to which the emperors, as I taught above, were customarily wont to go every year on the day sacred to him was situated outside the palace is clear even from the words alone, transcribed here above from the book of the Ceremonies of the court of Constantinople, by which their customary approach to that sacred place with great solemnity is described; for by these the emperors are asserted to have customarily gone out through the gates of their palace in order to approach that temple of St. Demetrius; and now, since these, as the same transcribed words give proof, were at the Eastern side of the city, and the church of St. Demetrius built by the Caesar Bardas was also situated at this side, it appears most probable that this sacred place is the same as the church to which the emperors went every year on the 26th day of October with the solemn rite of suppliants, and that it accordingly, no otherwise than this, was situated outside the palace. Besides, since Codinus relates in the words recited above that the emperors of the East were customarily wont to go every year to the monastery distinguished by the name of St. Demetrius on the day sacred to him, that is, the 26th day of October, and the same emperors, as the words transcribed here above from the Ceremonies of the court of Constantinople give proof, customarily proceeded on the same festal day of St. Demetrius with the solemn rite of suppliants to the said temple of this Saint, situated outside the gates of the Palace, it appears almost beyond doubt that discourse is made of the same sacred place both in Codinus and in the said Ceremonies, or rather the book written about them.

[120] seems different; and the monastery joined to it, not by Andronicus, Since this is so, and the temple which the emperors were customarily wont to approach on the Saint's festal day had besides a monastery joined to it, as is understood from the words of Codinus, contrary to what seems to suit a sacred church situated in the palace or its precinct, it must assuredly be said that that sacred place, and accordingly also the church built by the Caesar Bardas, as not distinct from it, as I have already taught, was situated outside the palace. Now, since the Saint's church which Basil the Macedonian restored was likewise situated outside the palace, as I showed above, it appears most probable that no other sacred church of Demetrius was restored by Basil the Macedonian than that which had been built by the Caesar Bardas. Nor is there ground for replying that the churches of St. Demetrius which Basil the Macedonian restored are called ruinous in the edition of Leo Allatius, and labouring with age in the other, which Combefis supplies in the Byzantine Writers after Theophanes; and that these denominations could not have suited the churches of St. Demetrius built by the Caesar Bardas, as having been erected, as I taught above, only about the year 850, in the time of Basil the Macedonian, since he died when not yet fifty years had passed after the same churches were built: for although this is so, yet in the Greek text both of Scylitzes and of Porphyrogenitus, if the Greek words in which it is framed are accurately expounded, it is only had that Basil the Macedonian either made the churches of St. Demetrius new out of old ones, or founded new ones in place of old ones. And these

are the things which I thought should be brought forward in order to show at the same time both which church of St. Demetrius Basil the Macedonian restored, and that this one, customarily approached with solemn rite by the emperors every year on the day sacred to St. Demetrius, is different from the sacred church of St. Demetrius which Cantacuzenus places in the palace. Further, to turn the discourse now elsewhere, Du Cange, in Constantinopolis Christiana, book 4, page 122, seems to incline to think that the monastery which, according to what has been said, was added to the temple built by the Caesar Bardas received its name from Andronicus the Younger, sprung from the stock of the Palaeologi, by whom it was built or restored. For he writes thus of that monastery in the same place: I should believe it perhaps either built or renewed by Andronicus the Younger, who venerated St. Demetrius with the highest veneration even from a boy, on account of the help shown him above all by that Saint in the Thessalonian expedition, as Cantacuzenus narrates, book 1, chapter LIII.

[121] having experienced Demetrius beneficent toward him, This assuredly, which Du Cange affirms here, Cantacuzenus narrates in the place cited; indeed he also adds there that Andronicus was prodigiously healed without delay of an inveterate and dangerous wound which he had received in his foot, when he had resolved to anoint it with the ointment gushing from the tomb of St. Demetrius, recording thus of Andronicus when he had already occupied Thessalonica: Having arranged the things which pertained to the guarding of the citadel (of Thessalonica), the emperor proceeded to the holy tomb of Demetrius, martyr and myroblytes, both to venerate him with prayers (since he honoured him from a boy above the other martyrs, and placed more hope in him than in the rest, and loved him greatly) and to render him thanks for the good fortune offered (namely in occupying Thessalonica). Both being done, since also, wounded in the foot in the conflict with the Persians, he could not be cured for fourteen months, the physicians vainly trying many remedies; but, as it gradually wasted, he was tormented with intolerable pains; loosening his shoe, he prepared to anoint it with the ointment of the Saint, revolving with himself that what human art and study could not do, God could grant to His holy martyrs. When the bandages were taken off and the foot bared, that plucked lint which is put into wounds (O great care and providence of God in honouring His martyrs!) appeared outside the wound; and the foot was so sound that there remained no trace either of wound or of scar, and it was not known whether it had ever been wounded. This miracle being seen, the emperor exulted more than over the acquisition of Thessalonica, and gave more fervent and greater thanks for this benefit; and the whole city, having understood so admirable a work wrought upon him, sang many praises to God and to Demetrius, by whom he had been cured.

[122] So far Cantacuzenus; however, although he relates in the recited words not only the benefit which Du Cange mentions, in the fourteenth century, but was perhaps built earlier, and even earlier, but also another conferred on Andronicus the Younger by St. Demetrius, yet whether the monastery which was called that of the Palaeologi, dedicated to this same Saint of ours, received its name from that emperor, although sprung from the family of the Palaeologi, appears very doubtful to me. For since that prince, from a boy, as the transcribed words of Cantacuzenus give proof, was of greater veneration and at the same time love toward St. Demetrius than toward other martyrs, it can easily happen that this particular affection toward the Saint was instilled in him by his parents, who perhaps had drawn it also from their forebears. Since this is so, it can also easily happen that the monastery of which we are discoursing here, dedicated to our Saint by these — among whom some, as may be seen in Du Cange in the Byzantine Augustan Families, page 230 and following, excelled in wealth and authority — and therefore called that of the Palaeologi, was built long even before the age of Andronicus the Younger, that is, the fourteenth century, although meanwhile it cannot on any foundation be undoubtingly either denied or even affirmed that it was restored by him. However it may be, it is manifest indeed from all that has been said that our Saint was in the greatest veneration among the emperors of the East, and was honoured by them also with a quite signal cult. But from about what time did those princes begin so to honour Demetrius? That the Work on the ceremonies of the Byzantine court which I cited at the beginning of this § above and then further was committed to writing either by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, taken from among the living in the year 959, or, as appears more probable, by another Constantine, grandson of Porphyrogenitus, who laid down by death in the year 1028 the reins of the Eastern empire conferred on him in the year 1025, the arguments adduced in the Preface which it has prefixed to it clearly prove; wherefore it is beyond doubt that certainly not later than either the tenth century or the beginning of the following the custom began to obtain at Constantinople that the emperors venerated St. Demetrius every year, betaking themselves on the 26th day of October to the temple sacred to him in the Acropolitan corner of the city with the ceremonies expressed in the words recited from that Work at number 112 and the two following.

[123] and with much, a signal cult, Besides, that custom, since the aforesaid temple of the Saint was built already from about the middle of the ninth century, as the things which I brought forward above clearly show, perhaps obtained already from the same ninth century. Assuredly that Demetrius was honoured in this very and in the following century, and even earlier, with great veneration, and besides with the cult customarily paid to the Saints, at Constantinople, even by the very emperors of the East, appears almost beyond doubt as well. But I shall treat of this matter after I shall have brought forward some further things which prove the veneration of the Saint among those emperors later than the tenth century. Glycas, in the Annals published at Basel in the year 1572, part 4, writes thus of Michael, emperor of the East, the fourth of this name, when toward the end of his life he was labouring most grievously with ill health: Michael, when he was being troubled worse daily by an evil spirit, sent to every region and island, to each of the priests indeed two gold coins; and to the monks one, though with vain effort, because the evil increased, and the disease of dropsy came on. For which reason the emperor, having set out for Thessalonica, stayed there, and was constantly at the sepulchre of the excellent martyr and victor in contests Demetrius, that he might be freed from that evil. The same is also recorded of the same emperor by Zonaras and Cedrenus, the latter indeed in the Compendium of Histories, page 744, the former in the Annals, volume 2, page 239; and since this emperor, under whom too, or rather while he still held the reins of empire, Cedrenus in the Work cited, page 748, narrates in words to be recited in the Analecta which I shall subjoin to the three books of miracles to be published, that the Thessalonians won a signal victory over the Bulgarians by the help or patronage of St. Demetrius, exchanged life for death in the forty-first year of the eleventh century, assuredly the deed of him, continually having recourse to the help of St. Demetrius that he might be freed from a most grievous disease, is proof that our Saint was in great veneration in that century even among the emperors themselves, or certainly with Michael, the fourth of this name.

[124] which did not abate even with the lapse of time. Nor does it appear probable that anything of it was abated in the three following centuries. And first indeed how true this is as regards the twelfth century, the Novel alone mentioned at number 71, by which Manuel Comnenus, emperor from the year 1180, in the year 1166 decreed that during part of the feast of Demetrius there should be abstinence from giving judgement in veneration of this Saint, is proof. And as regards now the fourteenth century (for nothing occurs which I might say in particular of the thirteenth), that Demetrius was then also honoured by the very emperors of the East is plain both from what was related before of Andronicus the Younger, who ended his life in the year 1341, and from the words of George Codinus transcribed here above, by which this writer of the fourteenth century teaches that the emperors of his age, and accordingly of the fourteenth century, were customarily wont to betake themselves every year, together with their court, with the solemn rite of suppliants, on the 26th day of October, devoted to the cult of our Saint, to the monastery of St. Demetrius, that is, to the church sacred to this Saint, to which the monastery called that of the Palaeologi was joined. I now proceed to the things which show that veneration, customarily paid to the Saints, was shown to the Saint even before the eleventh century. Pellerin, in the Miscellanies of various coins, brought to light at Paris in the year 1765, book 1, at page 222, presents a plate, twelfth in order among various others by which various coins are expressed, whose coin, distinguished by the numeral 13, presents on the obverse indeed the emperor Constantine, and on the reverse St. Demetrius, with his name written not Δημητριος, but, according to the custom then introduced among the Greeks by which Eta was customarily pronounced as Iota, Διμιτρι, and with a spear placed in his right hand, because he consummated his martyrdom pierced with spears; and he adds that there is reason why we should think that the emperor who caused that coin to be struck is none other than Constantine VI, who together with his mother Irene restored the cult of images abrogated by Constantine Copronymus and Leo the Isaurian, his predecessors.

[125] So, as to the substance, that writer in French words; among the emperors of Constantinople, and although the opinion which is expressed in these is by no means certain, as he himself presently admits, yet it appears probable enough, and hence too it becomes in some way probable that already from the eighth century, as it was growing old, in which Constantine VI and his mother Irene flourished, he was in the highest veneration among the emperors of Constantinople, if, however, you except the iconoclasts. And these are the things which I found to be recorded about the veneration which the Saint had among the emperors of Constantinople in the eighth century; and as regards now the next following century, that is, the ninth, that Demetrius was assuredly not then in slight veneration at Constantinople, or among the very emperors of the East, the temple alone built to him there, as I taught above, about the year 850 by the Caesar Bardas, is a very strong proof. I come to the tenth century. That the Saint was held in great esteem and veneration by John Tzimisces, who presided over the Eastern empire from the year 969 to the year 975, appears probable. But before I give this proved, some things are still to be premised, lest anyone perhaps be led into error even as regards the veneration paid to the Saint by that emperor. Cedrenus records in the Compendium of Histories that a victory over the Russians was won by the same emperor, St. Theodore, general and martyr, helping him; the words with which he does this, although not properly pertaining to our Saint, I nevertheless transcribe here, because they conduce to the understanding of the matter to be discussed here, which pertains to the veneration in which Tzimisces held the Saint.

[126] They run thus: *They relate that in that battle by divine power

help was also brought to the Romans: [although meanwhile by John Tzimisces, who routed the Russians, St. Theodore helping,] for a storm arising from the South fell upon the faces of the Scythians, and prevented them from carrying on the matter at their own will. And by the whole army of the Romans a man was seen riding on a white horse, who as leader entered the fight and threw the ranks of the enemy into confusion, known to no one either before or afterwards: they said that he was Theodore, one of the Martyrs who obtained most beautiful victories. Assuredly this emperor was always wont to use them as auspices and standard-bearers against the enemy: and the day on which this battle was fought was the feast of the memory of that Theodore, the leader of armies. But also a certain venerable woman at Constantinople gave proof that this vision was divine. For on the day before that day she had seemed in sleep to stand by the Mother of God, and to hear her saying to a certain soldier: Lord Theodore, my John and yours is in danger; hasten to bring help to him: and at first light she had narrated this dream to her neighbours. Indeed the Scythians are routed in that battle, and when they perceived themselves shut out from the gates by Bardas, they are scattered in flight over the plain, and perish innumerable, partly trampled down by one another, partly cut down by the Romans, almost all wounded. The emperor, rendering thanks to the Martyr Theodore for the help brought, demolished to its foundations the temple in which he was buried, built another most magnificent, and endowed it with estates having ample revenues: the city in which it was he named Theodoropolis instead of Euchaneia. Our Bollandus also recites these words of Cedrenus in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Theodore, general and martyr, at the 7th day of February, on which he is venerated, and then, some things being interposed, subjoins at number 28: What we reported above from Cedrenus, that Tzimisces was always accustomed to use as auspices and standard-bearers against the enemy, προμάχοις καὶ προβόλοις, the holy Martyrs whom they call καλλινίκους, adorned with beautiful victories, from this fact perhaps flowed the rite of the flammula, which Codinus mentions in chapter 6; or, if it is older, it was certainly confirmed by the piety of that most religious emperor.

[127] as auspex of war against the enemy, from the words of Cedrenus "While," says Codinus, "the liturgy is being performed, or even Vespers alone are being sung on Saturday or Sunday, those nobles who are the directors of the attendance carry flammula, or φλάμουλα. And these are: First, the archistrategus, or the image of St. Michael. The second, the octapodion, having many divine images of holy pontiffs, with eight tongues. The third, a cross having the images of the four great martyrs Demetrius, Procopius and both Theodores. The fourth representing St. George as a horseman. The fifth, the Dragon standard. The sixth exhibiting the effigy of the emperor sitting on a horse. And all are in pairs, that is, twelve together." Hence perhaps someone may believe that among the holy martyrs called Καλλινίκους, or adorned with beautiful victories, whom Cedrenus relates that John Tzimisces was always accustomed to use as Auspices and standard-bearers against the enemy, προμάχοις καὶ προβόλοις, St. Demetrius too is reckoned by Bollandus through the recited words; but the matter is otherwise. For Bollandus will have meant to be designated as the holy Martyrs whom Tzimisces used as auspices in war no others than Cedrenus, on whose authority he relies; and the latter records only two holy martyrs Theodore, namely those two more celebrated ones, of whom one is customarily distinguished by the title of Tiro, the other of General, as employed by Tzimisces as auspices and standard-bearers in war. That the matter may become manifest, I transfer here his Greek words which bear on this, and which have not been given Latin dress accurately enough, together with another Latin interpretation prepared by me. They run thus:

Καὶ

τις

ἀνήρ,

ὦπτο

παντὶ

τῷ

στρατοπέδῳ

Ρωμαίων,

ἐφ᾽

ἵππου

λευκοῦ

προαγωνιζόμενος,

καὶ

τὰς

τῶν

πολεμίων

κλονῶν

καὶ

διαταράσσων

φάλαγγας,

μηδενὶ

πρότερον

ἤ

μετὰ

ταῦτα

γενόμενος

γνώριμος,

ὅν

ἕφασκον

ἕνα

εἶναι

τῶν

καλλινίκων

μαρτύρων

Θεοδώρων.

Τούτοις

δὲ

προμάχοις

ἀεὶ

καὶ

προβόλοις

κατὰ

τῶν

πολεμίων

ἐχρῆτο

ὁ

βασιλεὺς·

καὶ

γὰρ

δὴ

καί

συνετυχέ

τόνδε

δὲ

τὸν

ἀγῶνα

κατ᾽

αὐτὴν

συνεχθῆναι

τὴν

ἡμέραν,

καθ᾽

ἥν

εἰώθαμεν

ἑορτάζειν

τὴν

μνὴμην

τοῦ

στρατηλάτου. So far the Greek words of Cedrenus; behold now the strict Latin interpretation which is to be fitted to them.

[128] There was also seen by the whole army of the Romans a certain man, was not held, fighting on a white horse before the front line, and driving and disturbing the ranks of the enemy, known to no one before or after these things, whom they said was one of the martyrs Theodore, adorned with beautiful victories. For these the emperor always used as auspices and standard-bearers against the enemy, and it happened moreover that that battle was joined on that very day on which we are wont to celebrate the festivity of the leader of armies (namely of one of the two Theodores of whom he has just spoken). Consider now these words, and you will easily understand that only the holy martyrs Theodore, whom John Tzimisces was customarily wont to use as auspices and standard-bearers against the enemy, are mentioned by Cedrenus and therefore also by Bollandus. But although this is so, and our holy martyr Demetrius accordingly cannot be numbered, from the recited words of Cedrenus, among those martyrs whom John Tzimisces used as auspices and standard-bearers against the enemy, nor did Bollandus number him among them from these, it nevertheless appears beyond doubt that Demetrius was formerly reckoned among the principal protectors of the Constantinopolitan empire, because among the six flammula, or banners, which on the greater feasts were customarily carried by the nobles before the emperor assisting at the divine service, one also is reckoned which, as the words of Codinus adduced by Bollandus give proof, represented St. Demetrius; and that either from the ninth century, if the use of those flammula or banners was first introduced by John Tzimisces, or even earlier, if it already obtained before the age of this prince and was only confirmed by him. That one or the other assuredly happened, and therefore that Demetrius was in great veneration with John Tzimisces, seems probable to me, as it also seemed to Bollandus.

[129] And I incline to this opinion the more readily from this, he obtained. that the Saint was certainly held, long even before the ninth century, that is, the age of John Tzimisces, emperor of Constantinople, as σύμμαχος, or helper in wars, by the emperors of Constantinople, and was also on this account in great veneration with them, as you may gather even from this, that Maurice, emperor of Constantinople as the sixth century was growing old and at the beginning of the following, demanded from Eusebius, archbishop of Thessalonica, a part of the body of St. Demetrius, in order to experience his help in wars, and that Justinian I, who himself also flourished in the sixth century, likewise did the same before Maurice, as chapter five of the first book of the Miracles to be published gives proof. Nor do we have only these things from this, but also that Justinian, when there had been sent to him (go to number 101) a part of the earth which from the fire bursting forth from the Saint's tomb had wonderfully acquired an ineffable fragrance, in place of the relics demanded, received it with the greatest joy, no otherwise than the Saint's body itself; which is assuredly a by no means doubtful proof that he was in the highest veneration with that emperor.

§ X. Ecclesiastical cult paid to the Saint also among the Latins and other nations from a very long time already.

A temple sacred to St. Demetrius, by Leontius, Metaphrastes, and at the same time the anonymous biographer of our Saint whom he had here lighting his way, record toward the end of the Passions of Demetrius composed by them that Leontius, prefect of Illyricum, probably at the beginning of the fifth century, as I taught above, who, according to what was said before, had built a signal church to St. Demetrius at Thessalonica, having set out from this city to Sirmium, a very celebrated city of Illyricum, indeed from the age of Constantine the Great the metropolis of the whole of Illyricum, before this was divided in two into Eastern and Western Illyricum, and the seat of the praetorian prefect, erected there also another church to the Saint, in which he deposited the relics of the same which he had brought with him from Thessalonica, namely the Chlamys, still marked with the Martyr's blood, and the orarium, or at least a part of it. But can credence safely be given to these two writers in that matter, from which, as it was done, both the one and the other were most probably very far removed? The Photian and Anastasian Acts of the Saint indeed nowhere make mention of the church which Leontius built at Sirmium to St. Demetrius; but neither do they supply anything by which the assertion of Metaphrastes and of the anonymous author who lighted his way on this matter becomes in any way suspect of falsity. Wherefore, since neither does anything occur from elsewhere which urges that credence should be denied here to those two biographers of our Saint, I bring myself to believe that a church was in fact built to our Saint at Sirmium by Leontius, prefect of Illyricum.

[131] prefect of Illyricum, in the very city of Sirmium, And this indeed I do the more readily also from this, that it is held ascertained that at least in the eleventh century a temple sacred to St. Demetrius existed at Sirmium, from John Cinnamus, who flourished in that century, and comprised the things done by John and Manuel, who then governed the reins of the Constantinopolitan empire, in six books of Histories written by himself and published at Paris by the benefit of print in the year 1670. For that writer records thus toward the end of book 5, number 12 of this Work composed by him: The nation of the Hungarians often invaded the borders of the Romans (so all those who were subject to the emperors of the East are commonly called by the Greek historians), and a little before Alexius Comnenus reigned, took Sirmium, and, having stormed many cities beyond the Ister, came as far as Naissus. There, coming upon the coffin of the holy Martyr (namely Procopius), thinking it inhuman, as I judge, to carry off the whole body from there, they withdrew taking only the hand, and, returning to Sirmium, deposited it in the temple of Demetrius the martyr, which he who governed Illyricum as prefect had formerly built. That hand, then, found there (namely at Sirmium), the emperor (namely Manuel Comnenus) took away thence and restored, as we have said, to the rest of the body. Since the emperor Manuel Comnenus, who is here narrated by Cinnamus to have found in that city the hand which the Hungarians had once taken from the body of St. Procopius the martyr and deposited at Sirmium in the temple of St. Demetrius, and to have restored it to the rest of that Saint's body, died in the year 1180, and Alexius Comnenus, the second of this name, then first succeeded him, it is necessary that the Alexius Comnenus, before whose accession to the reins of the Eastern empire the Hungarians are related by the same Cinnamus in the recited words to have taken Sirmium and to have deposited there the hand of St. Procopius the martyr in the church of St. Demetrius, was the emperor first of that name.

[132] Wherefore, since he began to reign already from the year 1080, contrary to what from Du Cange someone perhaps it is a consequence that already from the eleventh century a church sacred to St. Demetrius certainly existed at Sirmium; which assuredly is also some kind of proof that the things which are related by Metaphrastes and by the anonymous biographer of the Saint who lighted his way about the church built to St. Demetrius at Sirmium by Leontius, prefect of Illyricum, are consonant with the truth. Du Cange nevertheless, in his Annotations on the place of Cinnamus transcribed here, as being in them, of the same Sirmian church of the Saint of which Metaphrastes and the anonymous author who lighted his way

speak, as will become evident from what is to be said below, supplies things from which someone perhaps might somewhat doubt whether Leontius ever built at Sirmium a church sacred to St. Demetrius. For he writes thus in the same place: The temple of St. Demetrius which is had here seems to be that from which the town of St. Demetrius, situated on the river Save, took its name, today called S. Demeter, not far from ancient Sirmium. But as to Cinnamus saying that that temple stood in Sirmium, I think that is to be taken for the territory of Sirmium; for Σίρμιον is so said more than once by the same writer. And the town of St. Demetrius is mentioned by Bonfini, Decade V, at the end of book IV. If then one is to assent to Du Cange, the temple of St. Demetrius which Cinnamus mentions in the recited words was situated not in the very city of Sirmium but in the territory adjoining it, and afterwards gave its name to the town which was likewise situated in it, or not far from Sirmium, and is today called S. Demeter. But these things by no means please me: for although Cinnamus, as Du Cange adds in proof of his statements, from time to time employs Σίρμιον to signify only the territory adjoining this city, yet in the transcribed text it does not appear probable that that word is so taken by him in the place where he speaks of the relics of St. Procopius the martyr deposited by the Hungarians, returning to Sirmium, in the sacred church there of St. Demetrius.

[133] For he says in the same text that the Hungarians, a little before Alexius Comnenus took up the reins of the Eastern empire, may argue, besides many cities beyond the Ister subdued by them, also took Sirmium, and there he undoubtedly uses this word to signify not the territory adjoining Sirmium but this city itself; and now, since this is so, and writers are not wont to employ one and the same word to signify things altogether different, no indication at all being supplied by which they reveal it, in so brief a text as is that transcribed here above from Cinnamus, it appears most probable, not to say beyond doubt, that this writer also, in the place in which he makes discourse of the relics of St. Procopius deposited by the Hungarians in the temple of St. Demetrius at Sirmium, uses the word Sirmium to signify not the territory of Sirmium but this city itself. Besides, Cinnamus expressly relates that the church dedicated to St. Demetrius of which he speaks in the text transcribed here above was built by him who governed Illyricum as prefect, and accordingly makes discourse of the same sacred church of St. Demetrius which Metaphrastes and the anonymous biographer of our Saint who lighted his way say Leontius, prefect of Illyricum, built to the Saint; and these two writers place it not in the territory which adjoins Sirmium, but in this city itself. For besides that they clearly reveal that Leontius, when he had come to Sirmium, built a temple there to our holy Martyr, and they are not known ever to call the territory of Sirmium by the name of Sirmium, they teach that that temple was situated near a church sacred to St. Anastasia, and it does not seem probable that in the territory of Sirmium, or in some rustic place, there existed at the same time, in the age of Leontius, prefect of Illyricum, that is, the fifth century, two temples, of which one was consecrated to St. Demetrius, the other to St. Anastasia the martyr. Nor is there ground for replying that a temple sacred to Anastasia the martyr is asserted to have existed at Sirmium only by Metaphrastes and by the anonymous biographer of our Saint who lighted his way; for although this is so, yet that one must assent to these two writers in that matter appears even from this, that the relics of St. Anastasia existed in that city in the fifth century, that is, at the time at which the same two writers relate that a church was built at Sirmium by Leontius to St. Demetrius beside another which was sacred to St. Anastasia, as seems beyond doubt from what Theodore the Lector records in book 2, page 568 of the edition prepared by Valesius.

[134] was built, and there too cult was paid to him already from the fifth century, Further, as regards now Du Cange's Annotations about the town situated not far from ancient Sirmium, which is still today called S. Demeter, and took its name from the temple of St. Demetrius built there, neither do these confirm his opinion about the site of the church of St. Demetrius built by Leontius, prefect of Illyricum, and mentioned by Cinnamus in the words recited above. For why, when first a church sacred to St. Demetrius had already been erected at Sirmium by Leontius, could not another afterwards, likewise sacred to our Saint, have been built in the territory of Sirmium, which gave its name to the place adjacent to it, gradually growing into a town? Assuredly, since a town called S. Demeter, which is situated on the Save, is in fact mentioned by Bonfini in the place cited above by Du Cange, and it undoubtedly still exists today, as being commonly marked in the modern Geographical maps of Hungary and Slavonia, I bring myself to believe that the matter truly happened so. Hence further it now follows that our Saint had in Illyricum, of which Slavonia, now comprising ancient Sirmium and the town called after St. Demetrius, formerly constituted a part, not one only, but two churches consecrated to his name, and accordingly that it is not to be doubted that he enjoyed a quite exceptional ecclesiastical veneration, if not throughout the whole of Illyricum far and wide, at least at Sirmium, where also his sacred relics mentioned above, which Leontius had brought there, were preserved, and in the said town to which he gave his name; and at Sirmium indeed, on account of what has already been said of the church built to him there by Leontius, already from his age, that is, from the beginning of the fifth century; and that this persevered there for a long time is clear even from this, that since Sirmium was overthrown about the year 441, as is agreed among the learned, by Attila, king of the Huns, and a church sacred to St. Demetrius nevertheless still existed at Sirmium in the eleventh century, as I have already taught, it is altogether necessary that the Sirmian church of the Saint, built according to what has been said by Leontius, was restored after that Hunnish disaster, or that in place of the old one, almost wholly destroyed by it, a new one was erected, which then, or certainly another built again in its place, stood until the eleventh century.

[135] Nor did the veneration of our Saint persevere long at Sirmium only, which afterwards to the whole, but also spread itself further thence; for although, as I have already indicated, it was perhaps not propagated throughout the whole of Illyricum far and wide, yet it extended itself in the lapse of time throughout the whole of Hungary, neighbouring Slavonia and Sirmium situated in it. For Demetrius is numbered among the patrons of Hungary by the natives of this kingdom, and every year, as such, he is venerated with an Office of double rite, as I learn from the proper Offices of the holy patrons of the kingdom of Hungary printed at Vienna in Austria in the year 1703, throughout the whole of Hungary far and wide on the 26th day of October, which is sacred to him among the Greeks. And in the canonical Hours which are proposed to be recited of him then, he has three Lessons proper to himself alone, namely the fourth, fifth and sixth, woven for the greatest part from his Metaphrastic Acts, and likewise a proper prayer, framed in these words: O God, who dost glorify blessed Demetrius, Thy martyr, with signs of virtues, absolve us propitiously, we beseech Thee, by his intervention from all guilt, and from the evils which we merit for it. Through our Lord; and in the Mass which is then customarily said of him, and which, with this introit: In Thy strength, O Lord, the just man shall rejoice, etc., is from the common of one Martyr, besides the prayer already recited, two others, namely the secret and the other which is called the postcommunion, altogether different from the prayers of this kind which are customarily said in other Masses from the common of one or many martyrs, are presented to be recited of St. Demetrius, as the Masses of the holy patrons of the kingdom of Hungary, printed at Trnava in the year 1735, teach me. And the former indeed in these words: May our gifts, O Lord, we beseech Thee, be rendered acceptable to Thee by the merits of blessed Demetrius the martyr, and may we ourselves be made a sacrifice pleasing to Thee; and the latter consists of the following: May the partaking of the heavenly table purify us, we beseech Thee, O Lord, and, blessed Demetrius Thy martyr interceding, profit us unto life everlasting.

[136] And thus I have now set out with what cult the Saint is honoured by the Hungarians, by whom he is venerated as patron; and indeed even before the thirteenth century, now it is pleasing to bring forward a few things more about the time at which this began to be done by them. In the Life of Bl. Margaret, Virgin of Hungary, published with us at the 28th day of January, on which she is venerated, St. Demetrius, together with SS. Lawrence and Bartholomew, is narrated to have given himself to be seen in sleep by a certain nun labouring with an acute fever, and to have admonished her to treat with the archbishop of Esztergom about instituting an inquiry into the holiness and miracles of the said Blessed Margaret; wherefore, since from this it seems to have been a care to St. Demetrius that the holiness of this blessed virgin, already departed this life, should become known, it can seem probable that he was honoured with singular veneration by her while still surviving among the living, and accordingly that his cult obtained in Hungary at least from the thirteenth century, in which the same blessed virgin died. Besides, since Sirmium, where it is clear from what has been said above that the Saint was venerated already even from the fifth century, was under the jurisdiction of the Hungarians long before the said thirteenth century, in which Bl. Margaret of Hungary passed to the Lord, it does not appear to me at all unlike the truth that St. Demetrius was honoured with ecclesiastical cult among the Hungarians long even before this. I so maintain because it has not seldom happened that the cult of some Saint which flourished in one city was propagated even in a brief space of time to other cities of the same kingdom, and it does not appear to be doubted that the cult of St. Demetrius was propagated from Sirmium to other cities of Hungary, although meanwhile the time at which this was first done cannot be defined closely enough.

[137] throughout Hungary far and wide, and also, For the Hungarians, although they follow the rites and customs of the Roman or Latin church, nevertheless customarily celebrate Demetrius not on the 8th day of October, which is sacred to this Saint among the Latins, but on the 26th of the same month, which is dedicated to him among the Greeks: and this (for they do not seem to have received the Saint's cult directly from the Greeks) seems capable of being done by them for no better reason than that they received the custom of honouring Demetrius every year with ecclesiastical cult from the people of Sirmium, who, the custom having been propagated to them from Thessalonica by the Greeks, masters of their city long before the Hungarians, were wont to celebrate the Saint's festal day not on the 8th but on the 26th day of October. However these things, which I do not know whether they can be defined with sufficient certainty, may stand, that the Saint's cult was propagated to the whole of Hungary far and wide is indeed beyond doubt from what I have discussed above. Nor ought it to be held less beyond doubt that it likewise flowed to Bulgaria, bordering on Hungary. This from the fact, a quite

singular one, which is related by Nicetas Choniates in Isaac Angelus, book 1, numbers 4, 5 and 6, I give proved. The Bulgarians in the year 1041 had planned to bring Thessalonica into their power, an army of forty thousand soldiers, under the leader Alusianus, having been moved up to attack this city; but, terrified by an unexpected charge of the garrison, the gates of the city being opened, they had been thrown into flight with a huge slaughter of their own, St. Demetrius being openly seen going before the Thessalonians and fighting for the city, as I shall teach from Cedrenus in the Analecta which I shall subjoin to the Saint's miracles to be published.

[138] as from a wholly singular, The Bulgarians, further, this disaster being received, were wholly subdued by Michael, emperor of the East, the fourth of this name, and Bulgaria remained peacefully annexed to the empire of the Greeks from then until the time of Isaac Angelus, who began to reign in the year 1185. But that nation, then relying on the narrow passes and very many castles which it had built upon precipitous rocks, at length openly revolted from the Greeks, whose power too it held of little account. The leaders of the revolt were Peter and Asan, two brothers sprung from the blood of the ancient kings of Bulgaria, as the Deeds of Pope Innocent III teach at page 67. And these indeed, lest they should seem to contrive revolution without cause, approach the emperor Isaac Angelus, then staying at Cypsella, by whom they foresaw that what they were to ask would be refused them, and ask that an estate of small revenue at mount Haemus be assigned to them, and that they be admitted into the legions of the Greeks; and having suffered a refusal, as they had foreseen, they return home, openly revolt from the emperor of the Greeks, and entice their fellow countrymen to do the same; by what wholly singular, indeed outlandish, means they nevertheless achieved this, since they found them not readily enough assenting to their design — most probably still mindful of the disaster formerly received by their forebears near Thessalonica, St. Demetrius bringing help to this his besieged city — although most grievously offended with the Greeks on the occasion of cattle driven off by force and of certain exactions, it is pleasing to set out in the very words supplied by Nicetas Choniates in the book cited.

[139] which is related here in the very words of Choniates, Thus then he has there at number 6: When the Vlachs (namely the confederates of the Bulgarians, or rather a part of them in Moesia), at the beginning, terrified by the difficulty of the matter, shrank from that attempt to which they were being induced by Peter and Asan: the brothers, to take that fear from their fellow countrymen, built a church in the name of the illustrious martyr Demetrius, and gathered into it many demoniacs of both sexes, who with bloodshot and distorted pupils and dishevelled hair expressed exquisitely all the other things which that kind of men has as its own, and they taught them to speak out in frenzy: that it had seemed good to God that the nation of the Bulgarians and the Vlachs, the long yoke being shaken off, should obtain liberty, and for that cause Christ's martyr Demetrius, having left the metropolis of Thessalonica and his church, and the companionship of the Romans, had come to them, to help that work. Therefore those senseless men, having delayed a little, and suddenly gathering greater spirit, again carried away, were agitated, and with a loud voice, as if inspired by a divinity, kept crying out: That there was no longer place for sloth, but that, arms being seized, the Romans must be attacked: and that those taken in war must not be preserved or sold, but slain without mercy, and that, prayer and price being repudiated, they ought to be moved by any entreaty no more than adamant. The whole nation, therefore, stirred up by such prophets, runs together to arms, and as the beginnings of the revolt were auspicious, they believed still more that God favoured their liberty. Nor content with these, they spread themselves into the towns and estates remote from Haemus.

[140] Behold indeed the wholly singular deed, as I have already pointed out, from the deed it is understood, it was propagated to Bulgaria, of the Bulgarian princes Peter and Asan related here by Nicetas! And this indeed, although by no means to be approved, nevertheless shows the exceptional veneration of the Bulgarians toward St. Demetrius, as being men who, impelled by it, came over to the designs of Peter and Asan, as also in how great esteem they held the patronage of this Saint, who, as I have already taught, had formerly been most adverse to their forebears; so that assuredly it does not appear to be doubted that they, enjoying thereafter prosperous fortune against the Greeks, whose yoke they had shaken off, also thereafter paid cult to our holy Martyr, whom, deluded by the arts of Peter and Asan, they believed to have migrated into Bulgaria, having left Thessalonica and the protection of the Greeks, and to be about to patronize them, especially in the church which Peter and Asan had erected to him; indeed, since Peter and Asan thought, in order to draw the Bulgarians, their countrymen, to their side, that they should devise that the help not of any other Saint whatever but of Demetrius would be present to them, it also appears probable that he was in the greatest veneration among the Bulgarians, and obtained cult, even when they had not yet, at the persuasion of Peter and Asan, seized arms against the Greeks to assert themselves into liberty. However that may be, since I have not perceived who or of what sort it was, and thus nothing more occurs by which I might inform the reader on that matter, I now turn the discourse to the ecclesiastical cult paid to our Saint elsewhere besides.

[141] Anastasius the librarian, in the Preface which he set before the Passion of our Saint composed by him, and besides probably indeed at Rome, inscribing this composition of his to Charles the Bald (go to number 14), speaks thus to this prince toward the beginning: The Passion and miracles of blessed Demetrius, martyr of Thessalonica, at the exhortation of the brethren, and especially of the most skilled man John the deacon, very well known to your faith for purity and for clarity of knowledge, I have lately translated from Greek into the Latin tongue; which aforesaid John had indeed in his house an oratory of this Martyr of wonderful antiquity and beauty, yet he did not know of what sort this martyr of Christ was. But I, as I experienced at Thessalonica, where his precious body is fragrant and shines with the splendour of miracles, made it known to him in order. John, mentioned here by Anastasius the Librarian, was a deacon of the Holy Roman Church, and accordingly, as it does not appear to be doubted, dwelt at Rome; wherefore, if the oratory of wonderful antiquity and beauty which he had in his house, as Anastasius testifies in the recited words, was in fact consecrated to our holy Martyr, as this writer indicates that he reckoned, it will be a consequence from the recited words of Anastasius that he too enjoyed at Rome, and indeed before the ninth century, in which the same Anastasius flourished, at least some ecclesiastical cult. But since two Martyrs of Italy too, distinguished by the name of Demetrius, one at Veroli, the other at Ostia, are inscribed in the Roman Martyrology, and Anastasius brings forward nothing from which he gathered that the Demetrius having an oratory in the house of John the deacon is the homonymous Thessalonian martyr, I should not dare to assert for certain, relying solely on the words of Anastasius transcribed here, whether our Demetrius or another homonymous Saint was in fact venerated at Rome in the ninth century and perhaps even earlier, although meanwhile, because this writer was no unskilled man, and seems to have examined diligently enough the things which he committed to writing, the matter can be held in some way probable.

[142] and perhaps also at Novara, For almost a like cause I think it is to be doubted whether Carlo, bishop of Novara, makes discourse of our Saint or of another homonymous one, when he writes thus in the composition prepared by him, which he entitled Novaria, book 1, page 184: There is venerated (namely at Novara) in the same church of St. Julius also Demetrius the martyr on the 11th day of May, and there was an altar dedicated to him in it; of whose translation, however, I have nothing to report; and certainly I should believe that he speaks of another martyr Demetrius than ours, if the people of Novara contend that the entire body of the Demetrius whom they venerate in the church of St. Julius on the 11th of May — perhaps because on this day they formerly received his sacred body — was at some time translated to them, or rather that they possess it entire today, or at least formerly possessed it; the reason why I so think anyone will easily understand from what I discussed at number III concerning the sacred relics or body of our Saint, never carried from Thessalonica elsewhere in all its parts. Further, neither have I better perceived whether the church of the parish distinguished with the name of St. Demetrius in Armorican Britain, which is mentioned at number 27 in the Life of St. Gildas, abbot, published with us at the 29th day of January, on which he is venerated, is consecrated to our Demetrius or to another homonymous martyr. But another church besides, which it is beyond doubt was built and consecrated to our holy Demetrius, now occurs to be mentioned here too.

[143] but certainly in Africa, A certain Cyprian, bishop in Africa, — the see, however, which he occupied being nowhere indicated, — is recorded in book 2 of the Miracles to be published, chapter 6, to have been unhappily captured by the Slavs when he was making for Byzantium on account of some business, and, having thus fallen into hard servitude, to have been restored to liberty by St. Demetrius, who appeared to him and offered himself as guide of the way by which he might flee to Thessalonica. Hence, having returned to Africa, in order to show himself grateful to his holy Preserver, he built a signal temple, the holy Martyr again wonderfully bringing him help, and dedicated it to him. Further, since the miracle which the Saint wrought in favour of the said bishop happened in the ninth century or perhaps even a little earlier, as I shall teach in the Annotations to be subjoined to it, it is altogether certain that the cult of our Demetrius was then also propagated into Africa, which it is permitted to gather took increase there too in the lapse of time even from the following words alone with which the narrative of that miracle, drawn into an abridgement by Anastasius the Librarian, ends in Mabillon, volume 1 of the Vetera Analecta, page 95: Through his (namely St. Demetrius's) prayers, if any sick person shall come devoutly to the same temple (namely built by bishop Cyprian), if he shall be anointed with the oil of his lamp, he will at once be healed.

[144] To this church, further, which the Saint had in Africa, sacred to his name, and obtained in Cappadocia, as also among the Syrians and others, there is still to be joined another, far removed from it, which Demetrius formerly had dedicated to himself in Cappadocia. So chapter five and last of the third book of the Miracles to be published will teach you, from which you will also understand that that sacred place was made illustrious by the frequent concourse to it of the faithful imploring the help of St. Demetrius, and by miracles wrought by his patronage; so that assuredly, unless the anonymous author of the cited book of Miracles strays here from the truth — which, however, I should not dare to assert — it does not appear to be doubted that our Saint enjoyed in Cappadocia too the veneration customarily paid to the Saints. Nor does it appear certain that he was destitute of it among the Russians, the Syrians and the Copts, even from this, that he is inserted in the sacred Fasti of all these, as I taught above, at the 26th day of October, on which he is also venerated by the Greeks. Further, Baillet, in volume 3 of the Lives, column 115, toward the end, writes thus in French words rendered by me into Latin: It is not doubted that it is the cult of Demetrius of Thessalonica that is established at Paris in the small church of St.-Denis-du-Pas, behind the church of the Mother of God, where a chapel is consecrated in his honour, and relics,

which they contend are his, are preserved. So he: and deservedly assuredly; and that it is not doubted that the cult of St. Demetrius established at Paris in the small church mentioned in these words pertains to our Saint, I think the more readily for this very reason, that, since Demetrius at the time of the sacred expeditions into the Holy Land more than once offered himself as helper to the Western Christians against the infidels, as I shall teach in the Analecta which I shall subjoin to the three books of the Miracles to be published, it ought by no means to happen as a wonder if he were honoured with ecclesiastical cult not only at Paris, but also in many other places of the Western church.

[145] But indeed there remains to be mentioned here yet another thing, at which everyone might not undeservedly wonder. and even the Turks themselves. Even among the Turks themselves the Saint is in veneration. So I understand from the book which is entitled The Art of verifying the chronological notes of historical facts, charters, etc. Behold the words bearing on this, which occur in it at page 154, made Latin by me from the French. This saint (namely Demetrius) is called by the Italians S. Dimitri. The Turks designate him by the name Casin-Giuni. They have, says Prince Cantemir, their fabulous Legends about him, and assert that he was a Mussulman; which they also affirm of St. George, who is called among them Hydyrlez. They celebrate the feasts of both these Saints on the same days as the Eastern Christians, namely the 23rd of April and the 26th of October. To these days the Turks order their expeditions. After the 23rd day of April they lead their forces out into the field, and on the 26th of October they put an end to military service. The Work of Prince Cantemir, which is cited in these words by the author of the cited Art, I do not have at hand; wherefore I will let the credit as regards the things he relates here rest with him, and I do not with difficulty believe that the Turks, who, what is assuredly wonderful, ascribe Demetrius to their sect, although he flourished long before it arose, hold him in veneration, inclining also to think that it perhaps came about from the veneration with which they are borne toward him that they at length snatched the most celebrated Thessalonian temple of the Saint (go to number 92) from the Christians and converted it into a shrine of their sect.

FIRST PASSION,

Written by an anonymous author and turned from the Greek tongue into Latin by Anastasius the Librarian,

From Mabillon's edition, compared with various manuscripts and the Photian Passion.

Demetrius, M., at Thessalonica in Macedonia. (S.)

BHL Number: 2122

By an anonymous author.

PROLOGUE.

The author sets out why he rendered the Saint's Passion into Latin, To the most pious lord, the emperor Charles ^a, ever Augustus, Anastasius ^b the least, a crown and a kingdom with Christ. The passion and miracles of blessed Demetrius, martyr of Thessalonica, at the exhortation of the brethren, and especially of the most skilled man John the Deacon ^c, very well known to your faith for purity and for clarity of knowledge, I have lately translated from Greek into the Latin tongue ^d; which aforesaid John had indeed in his house an oratory of this Martyr of wonderful antiquity and beauty, yet he did not know of what sort this Martyr of Christ was.

[2] and sends it to the emperor Charles. But I, as I experienced at Thessalonica, where his precious body, laid up there, is fragrant ^e and shines with the splendour of miracles, made it known to him in order ^f. But because I knew that your empire was defrauded of the knowledge of so great a Champion, I took care opportunely to send this very thing to you also, so that your greatness, with the intercessions of the Saints and friends of God, may be able to obtain grace with God by his prayer too, and may merit to enjoy everlasting glory. May the King of kings and Lord of lords protect your kingdom with His right hand, and transfer you from a temporal to an eternal kingdom.

ANNOTATIONS.

SOLE CHAPTER.

The Saint preaches the faith, is set as a captive before the emperor Maximian as he hastens to a spectacle of gladiators, and by his order is first consigned to custody, and then also slain.

The Saint, while he preaches the faith, When the emperor Maximian was staying in the city of the Thessalonians ^a, a superstitious man, he persecuted the hearers of the pious religion, and they were put to death by him ^b. Among whom was blessed Demetrius, making himself manifest without any fear, who from his youth had both done good works and taught others. For he taught how the divine Wisdom had come down to earth from heaven, that He might quicken by His own blood man, who had died by sin ^c.

[4] When he was preaching these and many other things, certain ministers of the emperor, to the emperor Maximian, a spectacle of gladiators, who had been deputed to seize the Christians, laying hold of St. Demetrius, presented him to the emperor Maximian. For it had happened that the emperor was going to the stadium of the city on account of those who were to engage in single combat. For there a circle was being prepared, fenced round by certain boards, where he was to watch those who would fight one another face to face in theatrical fashion ^d. Because it was a delight to him to behold the shedding of human blood.

[5] at which he was going to see Lyaeus, dear to him, fighting, Nevertheless he held that which was seen to be delightful to him not without care and anxiety. For he burned with desire concerning a certain gladiator named Lyaeus, who had already slain many, abusing his strength and bulk of body, possessing experience in killing by practice and custom. This man, because all feared him, and no one seemed to be able to resist him, Maximian held among the first, and loved him, and gladly looked upon him.

[6] [to the one approaching, he is set as a captive, by his order is consigned to custody,] And he praised and wondered, and gloried in the pride of the man as over a great thing ^e. Further, when he had come near the stadium, then those who had seized him bring to him blessed Demetrius. And the emperor, hearing that he was a Christian, because he had given himself wholly to attending the spectacle, ordered blessed Demetrius to remain there by the stadium, and to be guarded near the public bath. And the Emperor himself, sitting down, Lyaeus being brought in, asked who would enter into single combat with him, promising and proposing gifts ^f.

[7] [and then, when by Nestor, who dared to commit himself to single combat against Lyaeus, the emperor vainly dissuading it,] And a certain youth named Nestor ^g, leaping down from the upper tiers, stood against Lyaeus, desiring to take up single conflict: so that Maximian, astonished, called to himself Nestor, who had leapt down for this, and gave him counsel, saying: I know that want of money has made you rise to so great a fancy, that either, prevailing, you may acquire sudden riches; or, cheated of your wish, you may be rid of troublesome poverty together with life. But I, out of compassion for the age with which you are adorned, will give you worthy and sufficient gifts even for your daring alone, and go, have gifts together with life. But do not expose yourself to Lyaeus, since he has vanquished many more powerful than you.

[8] Lyaeus had been killed, Nestor, hearing these things, neither received the emperor's admonitions nor feared the strength of Lyaeus; but answered the emperor: Not for money, as you asserted, have I come to this contest, but that I may show myself better than Lyaeus ^h. At once, therefore, both the emperor and those who were about him, favouring Lyaeus, rise in anger at the words of Nestor ⁱ, not bearing his boasting: and the emperor encouraged Lyaeus and made him confident. And he hastened to show himself worthy of the imperial judgement. And when the encounter had taken place, Lyaeus received a mortal blow, and at once died, and caused the emperor the utmost confusion.

[9] [he too is slain, and committed to the earth in the very place where this was done] Whence, not recompensing Nestor with any of the agreements and promised moneys ^k, but at once he leapt down from his throne, and returned sad to the palace. And when some suggested to him about Demetrius, at once moved with anger, he ordered him to be pierced with lances in the very place in which he was detained. Thus blessed Demetrius consummated the martyrdom of a good confession. ^l But his body was held of little account by the slayers: but certain religious men came secretly by night, and taking it out of the very dust into which it had been thrown, and earth being carried together, took care to hide it as best they could, lest it suffer injury from any of the fierce and bloody animals. But no one afterwards had care to transfer the little body of the Saint, but it remained under the sign ^m.

[10] Further, that it might be a little celebrated, not a few signal wonders of powers and healings were wrought in the same place for those who invoked him with faith. When the merit of the Martyr had now been spread abroad, a certain Leontius ⁿ, beloved of God, a man adorning the throne of the prefecture of the Illyrians, the house which contained the most holy body of the Martyr, since it was very lowly, and on every side overwhelmed and hemmed in by the porticoes of the public bath and of the stadium, was honoured with a church afterwards built to him there. he cleansed and purged of all harmful things, and enlarged it with ampler grounds ^o, and erected there an oratory [p] in honour of the holy martyr Demetrius,

to the praise of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father and the Holy Spirit is glory, honour and dominion for ages of ages.

ANNOTATIONS.

p. Do not infer from this that the sacred church which Leontius built to St. Demetrius at Thessalonica was a building of only small bulk. See what was disputed in § VII of the preliminary Commentary.

ANOTHER PASSION,

By an anonymous author,

From codex 821 of the Vatican Library,

TRANSLATED BY CORNELIUS BYEUS.

Demetrius, M., at Thessalonica in Macedonia. (S.)

By an anonymous author.

CHAPTER I.

The Saint preaches the faith, is seized, is brought to Maximian, is ordered by him to be guarded, is approached by Nestor, about to fight against Lyaeus, and blesses him.

ΜΑξιμιανὸς,

ὁ

καὶ

Ἑρκούλιος,

ὑποτάξας

Γόθθους,

καὶ

Σαυρωμάτας

τοῖς

Ῥωμαίοις,

κατελθὼν

ἐν

τῆ

Θεσσαλονικαίων

πόλει

διέτριβε,

δυσευδαίμων

καὶ

θεόμαχος

ἄνθρωπος

καὶ

εἰς

βάθος

τῆς

πλάνης

ὀλισθηκὼς.

Ἐφαιδρύνετο

τότε

ἡ

τῶν

εἰδώλων

πλάνη

πανταχοῦ

τιμωμένη,

καὶ

δωρεῶν

μεγίστων

ἀξιουμένη.

Ἐδιώκον

γὰρ

οἱ

τῶν

θεῶν

θεραπευταὶ

τοὺς

Χριστὸν

ὁμολογοῦντας

Θεοῦ

υἵον,

καὶ

ἀκινδύνως

κατέσφαττον

τοὺς

τῆς

ἀληθινῆς

σοφίας

θεραπευτὰς.

Ἐν

οἷς

ἦν

καὶ

ὁ

μακαριώτατος

Δημήτριος,

ἐμφανῆ

ποιῶν

ἑαυτὸν,

καὶ

οὐδένα

φόβον,

ἢ

κίνδυνον

ὑποστελλόμενος.

Βίον

μὲν

καθαρὸν,

καὶ

ἄμεμπτον

ἐκ

νεότητος

ἐπιδειξάμενος

τὸν

σωτήριον

λόγον

ἔχων

ἐν

ἑαυτῷ,

καὶ

μεταδιδοὺς

τοῖς

προστυγχάνουσιν,

καὶ

διδάσκων

μετὰ

προθυμίας,

πείθωντε,

καὶ

διαλεγόμενος

κατὰ

τὸ

ἀποστολικὸν

ἔνταλμα

τοῦ

μακαρίου

Παύλου

πρὸς

τὸν

ἅγιον

Τιμόθεον

γράψαντος,

καὶ

ὑποθέσθαι

καταξιώσαντος

τὸ

ἐπίσθητι

εὐκαίρως,

ἀκαίρως.

[2] Οὕτως,

οὖν

ὁ

μακαριότατος

Δημήτριος

ἐκ

γένους

τῶν

περιδόξων,

καὶ

τῆς

συγκλήτου

βουλῆς

ὑπάρχων,

ἐκσκέπτωρ

τὸ

πρῶτον

στρατευσάμενος,

καὶ

ἀνθύπατος

γεγονώς

ἑλλάδος,

καὶ

ὑπάτου

ὠραιῶνα

ἔλαβεν

ὐπὸ

τοῦ

βασιλέως

Μαξιμιανοῦ.

αὐτος

δὲ

πᾶσαν

γήἳνον

δόξαν

εἰς

οὐδὲν

λογισάμενος,

τοὺς

ζωοποιοὺς

ἐποιήσατο

λόγους,

ἑρμηνεύωντε

καὶ

δεικνὺς,

ὅτι

τὸν

ἀπολολῶτα

ἄνθρωπον,

καὶ

ταῖς

ἰδίαις

ἀνομίαις

τεθανατωμένον·

ἡ

πάνσοφος

τοῦ

Θεοῦ

λόγου

κατὰ

σάρκα

παρουσία,

διέστεισεν

μὲν

ἀπὸ

τῆς

πλάνης,

ἀπεκάθηρεν

δὲ

ἀπὸ

πάσης

ἀνομίας,

καὶ

παντὸς

σκότους,

φῶς

δὲ

ἀνέτειλεν,

καὶ

ἡμέραν

ἐλευθερίας

ἐν

ταῖς

ψυχαῖς

τῶν

δεχομένων

αὐτὴν

ἀπειργάσατο,

δικαιοσύνην,

ἐπιήκειαν,

εἰρήνην,

ἀγάπην,

ἐλπίδα

ζώης

περιποιοῦσαν

αἰωνίου,

τὰ

πρόσκαιρα

μὲν

ἀπορίπτουσαν,

τὸν

δὲ

ἀΐδιον,

καὶ

ἄφθαρτον

ἀῤῥαβῶνα

παρέχουσαν,

τὴν

ἐκ

νεκρῶν

ἀνάστασιν,

καὶ

τὴν

εἰς

παράδεισον

προξενοῦσαν

ἐπανάζευξιν.

[3] Ταῦτα

διδάσκοντος

τοῦ

μακαρίου

μάρτυρος

Δημητρίου

μετὰ

παρουσίας,

καὶ

τὸν

λόγον

τοῦτον

πρακτικῶς

βεβαιοῦντος

διὰ

τῆς

πίστεως.

Πολλῶν

δὲ

αὐτῷ

διὰ

ταῦτα

ἐκ

τῆς

τῶν

ἑλλήνων

πληθύως

προσιόντων,

καὶ

συνευρισκομένων

ἐκ

δυσμῶν

τοῦ

τῆς

πόλεως

μεγαλοφόρου

ἐν

τῇ

ἐκείσε

χαλκεοτικῇ

λεγομένῃ

στοᾷ,

ἔνθα

καὶ

εἰώθη

τὰς

συνόδους

ποιεῖσθαι

ὑπὸ

τὰς

τοῦ

ἐγγὺς

δημοσίου

λουτροῦ

ὑπογαίας

καμὰρας,

μεγαλυνομένησττε

τῆς

περὶ

αὐτὸν

φήμης

καθ᾽

ὅλης

τῆς

πόλεως

καὶ

τῆς

περιχώρου,

οἱ

τὴν

ἀναζήτησιν

τῶν

Χριστιανῶν

στρατιῶται

τοῦ

βασιλέως,

ἅμα

τοῖς

δημοσίοις

προστεταγμένοις

ποιεῖσθαι,

συλλαβόντες

τὸν

μακάριον

Δημήτριον

(οὐδὲ

γὰρ

φεύγων

συνελείφθη,

ἀλλὰ

τὰς

συνήθεις

ἅμα

τοῖς

ἀδελφοῖς

ἱερουργῶν

λατρείας)

τῷ

θεομάχῳ

Μαξιμιανῷ

καθάπερ

τί

μέγιστον

θήραμα

προσήγαγον,

οἰωμενοι

ἑαυτοὺς

μάλιστα

τῷ

βασιλεῖ

παραθεσθαι,

ἢ

τὴν

ἐπιμέλειαν

τοῦ

μηδένα

Χριστιανὸν

λανθάνειν

ἐπιδείξοντο,

τὸ

καὶ

τοὺς

ὑπεροχῇ

ὄντας

καταμηνύοντες.

[4] Καὶ

ὁ

μὲν

ἔτυχεν

ἐπὶ

τὸ

τῆς

πόλεως

θέατρον

τὸ

καλούμενον

στάδιον

ἀνιέναι,

θέας

ἕνεκεν

τῶν

μονομαχεῖν

μελλόντων,

καὶ

τὰ

λοιπὰ

τοῦ

πεντάθλου

θεάματα

ἐπιτελούντων·

ἐκεῖ

γὰρ

αὐτῷ

παρεσκεύαστο

διά

τινων

σανίδων

περιπεφραγμένος

κύκλῳ

ἐν

ὕψει

κρεμάμενος,

ὅ

δέχεσθαι

μέλλων

τοὺς

ἐν

αὐτῷ

εἰσιόντας,

διότι

τέρψις

ἦν

αὐτῷ

τοῦ

βλέπειν

ἀνθρωπίνων

αἱμάτων

ἔκχυσιν:

πλὴν

οὐκ

ἐκτὸς

φροντίδος

ἤ

μερίμνης

εἶχεν

τὸ

ὁρώμενον·

διέκειτο

γὰρ

ὁ

βασιλεὺς

περί

τινα

μονομάχον

Λυαίον

ὀνόματι

ἐκ

τοῦ

ἔθνους

τῶν

Οὐανδάλων

ὑπάρχοντα,

ἰσχύει

καὶ

μεγέθει

σώματος

ἀνεσταλμένον,

ὅς

οὐ

μόνον

ἐν

Ῥώμῃ

πολλοὺς

εἰς

τὸν

λοῦδον

ἀνῃρήκη,

ἀλλὰ

καὶ

ἐν

τῷ

Σερμίῳ

καὶ

ἐν

τῇ

Θεσσαλονικαίων

πόλει:

διέτρεχεν

γὰρ

διάτε

τῶν

σανίδων,

καὶ

τοῦ

μαγγάνου,

ἅτε

διὰ

πολλὴν

ἐμπειρίαν

εἰς

τὸ

φονεύειν

διὰ

μελήτης

καὶ

συνηθείας

κεκτημένος.

[5] Τοῦτον,

ἐπειδήπερ

ἅπαντες

ἐδεδύκησαν

διὰ

τὸ

μηδένα

αὐτοῦ

ἀνταγονιστὴν

ἀναφαίνεσθαι,

ἐν

πρώτοις

εἶχεν

ὁ

βασιλεὺς,

ὅ

καὶ

φιλεῖν

ἐπιδείκνυτο,

καὶ

ἠδέως

ἔβλεπεν

εἰς

αὐτὸν;

ἐπῄνει

δὲ

καὶ

ἐθαύμαζεν

τὴν

ἀκμὴν

τῆς

ἡλικίας

αὐτοῦ,

καὶ

εἰς

τὴν

περιφάνειαν

αὐτοῦ

ἐσεμνύνετο.

Ὅτε

δὲ

πλησίον

ἐγένετο

τοῦ

σταδίου,

κατίοντος

αὐτοῦ

ἐκ

τοῦ

ὀχήματος,

τότε

μηνύσαντες

προσάγουσιν

τῷ

Μαξιμιανῷ

τὸν

μακάριον

οἱ

συνειληφώτες

Δημήτριον.

Πειθόμενος

δὲ

εἰ

ἐπιμένει

τὸν

Χριστόν

προσκυνῶν,

καὶ

μαθὼν

καὶ

ἑτέρους

αὐτὸν

διδάσκειν

τὸν

ἐσταυρωμένον

σέβειν,

ἦχθη

μὲν

πρὸς

αὐτὸν.

[6] Ἱδὼν

δὲ

τὴν

παῤῥησίαν

τοῦ

ἀνδρὸς,

Χριστιανὸν

σεαυτὸν

ἀποκαλοῦντος,

καὶ

πᾶν

ὁτιοῦν

ὑπὲρ

τοῦ

ὀνόματος

τοῦ

κυρίου

ἡμῶν

Ἰησοῦ

Χριστοῦ

ὑπομεῖναι

θαῤῥοῦντος,

εἶτα

καὶ

τὸ

πρόσωπον

αὐτοῦ

πάνυ

ὡραίον

γενόμενον,

καὶ

τῶν

προκειμένων

θεαμάτων

ὅλος

ὢν,

τὸν

μὲν

ἀοίδιμον

Μάρτυρα

ἐκέλευσεν

αὐτὸν

παρὰ

τὸ

στάδιον

δημοσίου

γητνιόντος

βαλανίου

περὶ

τὰς

τῶν

ἐκεῖσε

καμίνων

φρουρεῖσθαι

καμάρας.

Ἔνθα

φυλαττόμενος,

ὡρᾶ

σκορπίον

ἐκ

τῆς

γῆς

ὑπὸ

τοὺς

πόδας

αὐτοῦ

ἀνελθόντα,

πειρᾶσθαι

δὲ

τῷ

κέντρῷ

πλῆξαι

τὸν

Ἅγιον.

Ὁ

δὲ

τὸ

σημεῖον

τοῦ

σταυροῦ

τοῦ

Χριστοῦ

ποιήσας

κατὰ

τοῦ

σκορπίου,

καὶ

προσατρίσας

αὐτὸν

νεκρὸν

ἀπέδειξεν.

Παραχρῆμα

δὲ

ἄγγελος

Κυρίου

ἐλθὼν

στέφανον

ἐπέθηκεν

τῇ

κορυφῇ

τοῦ

Μάρτυρος,

καὶ

εἶπεν

αὐτῷ,

εἰρήνη

σοι,

ἀθλητὰ

τοῦ

Χριστοῦ,

ἴσχυε

καὶ

ἀνδρίζου.

[7] Ὁ

δὲ

βασιλεὺς

εἰσελθὼν

ἐν

τῷ

σταδίῳ

καὶ

προκαθίσας,

τόντε

Λυαῖον

εἰσαγαγὼν

ἐκάλει

διὰ

τῶν

κηρύκων

τὸν

βουλόμενον

μονομαχῆσαι,

προστιθεὶς

μετὰ

τῶν

ἐπάθλων

καὶ

χρήματα

πολλὰ,

καί

τις

ἐκ

τοῦ

δήμου

νεανίσκος

ὡραῖος

πάνυ,

κομιδῆ

νέος

ὤν,

Νέστωρ

ὄνομα,

ἄρτι

τὸν

ἰοῦλον

ἐπανθοῦντα

φέρων,

γνωστὸς

ὑπάρχων

τῷ

πανενδόξῳ

μάρτυρι

Δημητρίῳ

(ἐθεώρει

γὰρ

τὰ

ὑπ᾽

αὐτοῦ

γενόμενα

θαύματα,

πολλύντε

λαὸν

προσττρέχοντα

αὐτῷ,

καὶ

διδασκόμενον

σέβειν,

καὶ

προσκυνεῖν

τὸν

Χριστὸν)

ἐκδραμὼν

ἐν

ᾡ

ἐφυλάττετο

τόπῳ,

καὶ

πεσὼν

είς

τοὺς

πόδας

αὐτοῦ

ἔλεγεν:

δοῦλε

τοῦ

Θεοῦ

Δημήτριε,

βούλομαι

τῷ

Λυαίῳ

ἀλλ᾽

εὔξαι

μοι

τὸν

Χριστὸν

ὀνομάσας.

Ὁ

δὲ

Ἅγιος

ποιήσας

τὴν

τοῦ

Χριστοῦ

σφραγίδα

εἰστε

τὸ

μέτοπον,

καὶ

τὴν

καρδίαν

αὐτοῦ,

ἀπέλυσεν

αὐτὸν

εἰρηκὼς,

καὶ

τὸν

Λυαῖον

νικήσεις,

καὶ

ὑπὲρ

Χριστοῦ

μαρτυρίσεις.

While the Saint, the persecution against the Christians growing hot, Maximian, who is also Herculius ^b, having subdued the Goths and Sauromatae to the Roman empire ^c, returning, was staying in the city of the Thessalonians, an unhappy man and an enemy of God, and fallen into the depth of error. The madness of the idols then flourished, everywhere worshipped and honoured with the greatest gifts; for the ministers of the gods persecuted those who confessed Christ the Son of God, and with impunity killed the worshippers of the true Wisdom, among whom was also the most blessed Demetrius, who, caring for no fear or danger, made himself manifest, and who, having led from his youth a life assuredly pure and irreproachable, had in himself the words of salvation, and handed them on to those he met, with alacrity of mind both teaching and pressing and reproving, according to the Apostolic precept of blessed Paul writing to St. Timothy ^d, and striving to inculcate that "Press on in season, out of season."

[2] Thus, then, the most blessed Demetrius, sprung of an illustrious and senatorial race ^e, preaches the faith of Christ, when he had first served in the office of exceptor ^f, and had then been created proconsul of Greece, received also the consular insignia from the emperor Maximian; but he himself, making nothing of all the glory of the world, spoke words bringing salvation, explaining and showing how the coming according to the flesh of the all-knowing Word of God drew man, lost and dead in his own sins, away from error, purged him from all iniquity and all darkness, made light to rise, and brought forth the day of liberty in the souls of those who receive Him, who offers justice, meekness, peace, charity, the hope of eternal life, casts away temporal things, confers an eternal and incorruptible pledge, and wins resurrection from the dead and entrance into paradise.

[3] When the blessed martyr Demetrius was boldly teaching these things, is seized by those who watched for the apprehension of Christians, and was confirming that word of faith by works; and many on that account from the multitude of the heathen came to him, at the western side of the great forum of the city, in a place situated there which was called the Bronze portico, where also he was wont to hold assemblies under the underground vaults of the adjacent public bath, and his fame was spreading through the whole city and the neighbourhood, the emperor's soldiers together with the public lictors, who had been enjoined to search out the Christians, having seized Demetrius (for he was taken not fleeing, but performing with the brethren the customary ministries of religion), set him before Maximian, the enemy of God, as the greatest prey, thinking that they would prove to the emperor in the highest degree how great diligence they were spending that no Christian should remain hidden, as betraying even those who were of loftier condition.

[4] and to Maximian, going to a spectacle of gladiators, Now it happened that he was going to the theatre of the city, which is called the stadium, to see those who were to contend in single combat and to give the other spectacles of the game of the pentathlon ^g. For there a fence of certain boards, raised on high, which was to receive those entering, had been prepared for him in the manner of a circle ^h; for to behold the shedding of human blood was a delight to him, and yet he could not watch what was given him to be seen without care or anxiety. And the emperor was borne with love toward a certain gladiator named Lyaeus, being of the nation of the Vandals ⁱ, outstanding in strength and greatness of body, who had killed many in duel not only at Rome but also at Sirmium ^k and in the city of the Thessalonians, having acquired by exercise and custom no common skill in killing.

[5] is brought, Him, since he was a terror to all because no one seemed able to engage with him, the emperor held among the first, which he also continually affected to do, and looked upon him with a more placid countenance; and he praised and wondered at the vigour of his age, and gloried in the pride of the man no otherwise than as of a great thing. Further, when he had now come to the stadium, and had descended from his chariot, those who had seized him then bring blessed Demetrius to Maximian, forewarned of the matter. And inquiring whether he persisted in adoring Christ, and being informed that he also by his teaching impelled others to adore the crucified one, he ordered him to be led to him.

[6] is ordered by him to be guarded, And having beheld the constancy of the man, acknowledging himself a Christian and daring to suffer whatever for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his most comely countenance, because he was wholly intent on exhibiting the spectacles, he ordered the venerable Martyr to be consigned to custody near himself, close to the public bath, in the underground vaults existing there ^l. Guarded there, he saw a scorpion coming out of the earth under his feet, which also tried to strike the Saint with its tail. And he, having made the sign of the cross over the scorpion, at once rendered it dead. And at once an angel of the Lord, arriving, set a crown upon the Martyr's head: Peace be with thee, champion of Christ, be strong and take courage. ^m

[7] [is approached by Nestor, about to fight against the gladiator Lyaeus, and blesses him.] Further, when the emperor had entered the stadium and occupied his place, introducing Lyaeus, he called through heralds for whoever would enter into single combat with him, promising, together with the gifts customarily given to those who win the victory, much money too: and a certain youth of the common people, very handsome, who was still very young, named Nestor, bearing only the first down, being known to the most glorious martyr Demetrius (for he saw the miracles wrought by him, and the many people who ran to him venerating both what he taught and adoring Christ), running to the place in which he was guarded, and falling at his feet, said: Servant of God Demetrius, I wish to fight in single combat against Lyaeus, but pray for me, invoking Christ. But the Saint, having formed the sign of Christ both on his forehead and on his heart, dismissed him, saying: Thou shalt both conquer Lyaeus and undergo martyrdom for Christ. ⁿ

ANNOTATIONS.

CHAPTER II.

Maximian, angered by the death inflicted on Lyaeus, orders first Nestor and then also St. Demetrius to be put to death, and he, afterwards becoming illustrious for miracles, is honoured with sacred places built to him.

ἈΠέλθων

οὖν

ἐν

τᾧ

σταδίῳ,

καὶ

διὰ

τῶν

βαθμίδων

καταπηδήσας,

ῥίψας

τὲ

τὸν

χιτῶνα

αὐτοῦ,

ἔστησεν

ἔμπροσθεν

τοῦ

Μαξιμιανοῦ,

ὡς

ἐκπλαγέντα

τὸν

βασιλέα.

Καλέσας

δὲ

πρὸς

ἑαυτὸν

εἰς

τοῦτο

πηδήσαντα,

καὶ

συμβουλεύειν

αὐτῷ

καὶ

λέγειν:

νεανίσκε,

οἶδα,

ὅτι

χρημάτων

σε

σπάνις

ἐπὶ

τοσοῦτον

ἀρθῆναι

φαντασίας

παρεσκεύασεν,

ἴνα

ἢ

περιγενάμενος

πλοῦτον

ἀθρόον

κτήσεις,

ἢ

ἀποτυχὼν

πενίας

ἐνοχλούσης

μετὰ

τοῦ

ζῆν

ἀπαλλαγήση,

ἐγὼ

δὲ

σοι

δι᾽

οἶκτον

τῆς

νεότητος

καὶ

τῆς

ἡλικίας,

ἧς

καὶ

κόσμησαι,

δόσω

καὶ

ὑπέρ

μόνης

τῆς

τόλμης

ἄξια,

καὶ

ἀρκοῦντα

χαρίσματα,

καὶ

ἄπιθι

μετὰ

τοῦ

ζῆν

ἔχων

καὶ

τὰ

χρήματα,

Λυαίῳ

δὲ

σεαυτόν

μὴ

ἀντιστήσης,

ἐπειδὴ

σοῦ

πολλοὺς

ἤδη

δυνατωτέρους

ἀπήλλαξεν.

[9] Ταῦτα

ἀκούσας

ὁ

Νέστωρ,

οὔτε

ἤρπασεν

τήν

τοῦ

βασιλέως

φιλοτιμίαν,

ἀλλ᾽

οὔτε

ἐδειλίασεν

πρὸς

τὸν

ἔπαινον

τοῦ

Λυαίου,

τῷ

δὲ

βασιλεῖ

ἀπεκρίνατο:

οὐ

χρημάτων

φήσας,

ὦ

βασιλεῦ,

οὐ

δὲ

διὰ

τοῦτο

ἐπὶ

τὸν

ἀγῶνα

ἐλήλυθα,

ἀλλ᾽

ἵνα

κρείττονα

Λυαίου

ἐμαυτόν

συστήσω:

μὴ

δὲ

γὰρ

βούλεσθαι

ζῆν,

ἢ

πλουτεῖν

ἥξαντα,

καὶ

ἐκχωρισαντα

τῇ

προλαβούσῃ

τοῦ

Λυαίου

δόξῃ.

Εὐθὺς

οὐν

ὀ

βασιλεὺς

καὶ

οἱ

ὑπὲρ

αὐτὸν

ὀργῆς,

τούτων

λεχθέντων,

ἐπλήσθησαν,

τὴν

ἀλαζωνίαν

τοῦ

Νέστορος

οὐχ

ὑπομείναντες,

καὶ

ὁ

μὲν

βασιλεὺς

προτρεπόμενος

ἐβόα,

καὶ

παρεθάρυνεν

τὸν

Λυαῖον.

[10] Ὁ

δέγε

Νέστωρ

ποιήσας

τὸν

ζωοποιὸν

σταυρὸν

ἐν

τῇ

καρδίᾳ

αὐτοῦ,

ἔλαβεν

τὸν

ἀκινάκην,

καὶ

ἀναβλέψας

εἰς

τὸν

οὐρανὸν,

εἶπεν,

ὁ

Θεὸς

Δημητρίου

τοῦ

δούλου

σου,

καὶ

ὁ

ἠγαπημένος

σου

παῖς

Ἰησοῦς

Χριστὸς,

ὁ

ὑποτάξας

Γολιάθ

τὸν

ἀλλόφυλον

τῷ

πιστῷ

σου

Δαουΐδ,

αὐτὸς

κατάβαλε

τὸ

θράσος

τοῦ

Λυαίου

καὶ

Μαξιμιανοῦ,

τοῦ

τυράννου,

καὶ

εἰσπήδησεν

μέσον

τῶν

μαγγάνων·

γενομένης

δὲ

τῆς

συμπλοκῆς,

κερίαν

λαβὼν

κατὰ

τῆς

καρδίας

ὁ

Λυαῖος,

ἀνηρέθη

παραχρῆμα,

καὶ

τὴν

ἐσχάτην

τῷ

βασιλεῖ

ψυχικὴν

περιεποίησεν

σύγχυσιν·

ὁ

δὲ

Νέστωρ

ἐδόξασεν

τὸν

Θεὸν,

ὅτι

τῇ

εὐχῇ

τοῦ

ἀγίου

Δημητρίου

ἀνηρέθη

ὁ

βάρβαρος.

[11] Μαξιμιανὸς

δὲ

πάραυτικα

τῆς

καθέδρας

αὐτοῦ

ἀπεπήδησεν,

καὶ

στυγνὸς

ἐπὶ

τὰς

βασιλείους

αὐλὰς

ἐπανέρχετο,

λέγων:

μὰ

τοὺς

θεοὺς

γοητεία

τίς

προεχώρησεν:

ἐπεὶ

οὐκ

ἄν

ἐσφάττετο

ὑπὸ

τοῦ

νεανίου

τούτου

ὁ

τοσαύτας

καὶ

τηλικαύτας

ἐπιδειξάμενος

ἀνδραγαθείας·

καλέσας

οὖν

πρὸς

ἐαυτὸν

ὁ

τύραννος

τὸν

Νέστωρα,

ἔφη

πρὸς

αὑτὸν:

εἰπὲ,

νεανίσκε,

ποίᾳ

μαγείᾳ

χρησάμενος,

ἢ

τίνας

ἔχων

συνεργοὺς,

τὸν

Λυαῖον

ἀπέκτεινας;

ὁ

δὲ

Νέστωρ

ἀπεκρίνατο:

Μαγίᾳ

οὐκ

ἐχρηματισεν,

μὴ

γένοιτο,

ἀλλ᾽

οὐ

δὲ

μαγγανίᾳ

τινὶ

ἀνηρέθη:

ἀλλ᾽

θεὸς

Δημητρίου,

ὁ

θεὸς

τῆς

Χριστιανῶν,

αὐτὸς

ἀπέστειλεν

τὸν

ἄγγελον

αὐτοῦ,

ἀπέκτεινεν

ἐν

τῇ

χειρί

μου

τὸν

ἀλάστορα,

καὶ

ὑπερήφανον.

Ὀργισθεὶς

οὖν

ὁ

βασιλεὺς,

ἐκέλευσεν

αὐτὸν

ὡς

Χριστιανὸν

ἀπενεχθῆναι

ἐν

τοῖς

δυτικοῖς

τῆς

πόλεως

μέρεσιν

ἐντῇ

ἑπωνομαζομένῃ

χρυσέᾳ

πύλῃ,

κἀκεῖσε

τῷ

ἰδίῷ

ξίφει

ἀναιρεθῆναι

ὐπὸ

Μηνουκιανοῦ

προτίκτορος

καὶ

οὕτως

τῆς

μαρτυρίας

τὸν

στέφανον

ἀνεδέξατο.

[12] Ὑποβαλλόντων

δὲ

τινῶν

τῶν

ἀρχόντων

τῷ

βασιλεῖ

περὶ

Δημητρίου,

καὶ

ὐποθεμένων

ὡς

αἴτιος

τῆς

τοῦ

Λυαίου

σφαγῆς

γεγένηται,

αὐτίκα

ὑπερζέσας

τῷ

θυμῳ

οἰωνισάμενόστε

ὡς

οὐκ

ἀγαθὸν

τὸ

συνάντημα

αὐτῷ

γεγονέναι

εἰς

τὸ

στάδιον

αὐτῷ

εἰσβάλλοντι,

κελεύει

αὐτὸν

ἐν

αὐτοῖς,

οῖς

ἐφυλάττετο

καμινίοις,

λογχαῖς

κατασφαγῆναι,

καὶ

οὕτως

ἀνηρεθεὶς

ὁ

πανένδοξος

Μάρτυς

τῆς

καλῆς

ὁμολογίας

τὴν

μαρτυρίαν

ἐπλήρωσεν.

Λούππος

δὲ

ὁ

τοῦ

ἁγίου

Δημητρίου

οἰκέτης

παρεστώς

αὐτῷ,

λαβὼν

τὸ

ὁράριον

τοῦ

Ἁγίου,

ἐν

αὐτῷ

ἀνελέξατο

τὸ

αἷμα

αὐτοῦ.

[13] Ἀφελόμενος

δὲ

καὶ

τὸ

βασιλικὸν

δακτύλιον,

ὅν

ἐφόρει

ἐν

τῇ

χειρὶ

αὐτοῦ,

καὶ

αὐτὸν

ἐγκλείσας

ἐν

τῷ

ἁγίῳ

αἵματι,

ἐπετέλει

δι᾽

αὐτοῦ

ἴασεις·

πάντας

γὰρ

τοὺς

κατεχομένους

ποικίλαις

νόσοις,

καὶ

τοὺς

ὑπὸ

ἀκαθάρτων

πνευμάτων

βεβλαμμένους

ἰᾶτο

διὰ

τῆς

εὐχῆς

καὶ

ἐπισκιάσεως

τοῦ

Ἅγίου,

καὶ

τῆς

ἐν

τῷ

δακτυλίῳ

χάριτος,

ὡς

διαδραμεῖν

τὴν

περὶ

τούτουν

φήμην

ἐν

ὅλῃ

τῇ

Θεσσαλονικέων

πόλει.

Μαθὼν

δὲ

ὁ

βασιλεὺς

περὶ

αὐτοῦ,

καὶ

πῶς

ἰᾶται

τοὺς

κάμνοντας,

ἐκέλευσεν

καὶ

αὐτὸν

ἀναιρεθῆναι

ἐν

τῷ

τριβουναρίῳ

τῆς

πόλεως

ἐν

ἡμέρᾳ

τῶν

βουλουμπτάτων *, προκαθημένου

αὐτοῦ,

μετὰ

καὶ

ἄλλων

τινῶν

πεπιστευκότων

τῷ

Χριστῷ.

[14] Τὸ

δὲ

πανάγιον

Δημητρίου

τοῦ

ὁσίου

λείψανον

καταφρονηθὲν

ὑπὸ

τῶν

ἀνῃρηκότων,

οἱ

τῶν

τότε

δὲ

ἀδελφῶν

εὐλαβέστεροι

λαβόντες

νύκτωρ

διὰ

τὸν

φόβον

τοῦ

βασιλέως,

καὶ

ἐν

αὐτοῖς

οἷς

ἔῤῥιπτον

χώμασιν

διανημάμενοι

τῆς

γῆς,

ὅσον

οἷοντε

ἦν,

ἐκρυψαν,

ἴνα

μὴ

παρά

τινος

τῶν

αἱμοβόρων

ζώων

ὑπομείνη

βλάβην·

οὐδενὶ

δὲ

μετὰ

ταῦτα

φροντίς

ἐγένετο

μετανεγκεῖν

τὸ

σῶμα

τοῦ

Ἁγίου,

ἀλλ᾽

ἔμεινεν

ἐπὶ

σχήματος * σημείωντε

πολλῶν,

καὶ

ἰάσεων

γενομένων

ἐν

τῷ

τόπῳ,

καὶ

θείων

χαρισμάτων

φοιτούντων

τοῖς

πίστει

προσερχομένοις

ἐν

αὐτῷ,

καὶ

ὁσημέραι

πάντων

εὐφραινομένων

ἐκείσε,

περιβοήτου

διὰ

πάσης

Μακεδονίας,

καὶ

Θετταλίας

γινομένης

τῆς

τοῦ

Μάρτυρος

θαυματουργοῦ

ἐνεργείας·.

[15] Λοιπὸν

δὲ

καὶ

τῆς

τῶν

εἰδόλων

πλάνης

καθαρθείσης,

τῆς

δὲ

ζωοποιοῦ,

καὶ

ἀμομήτου

τῶν

Χριστιανῶν

ὀρθοδόξου

πίστεως

λαμπρυνομένης,

Λεόντιος

δὲ

τις

ἀνὴρ

τοὺς

ἐπαρχικοὺς

τῶν

Ἰλλυρίων

κατακοσμῶν

θρόνους,

ἀπερχόμενος

ἐν

τῇ

Δακῶν

χώρᾳ

νόσῳ

ἀνιάτῳ

ληφθεὶς

λεκτικίῳ

ὑπὸ

τῶν

οἰκείων

ἐν

τῇ

Θεσσαλονικαίων

ἀπηνέχθη

πόλει,

καὶ

ἀνεκλίθη

ἐν

τῷ

σεβασμίῳ

σηκῷ,

ἔνθα

ἦν

ὑπὸ

γῆν

κείμενον

τοῦ

Ἁγίου

τὸ

λείψανον·

παραχρῆμα

δὲ

τοῦ

κατακλιθῆναι

αὐτὸν

ἐπάνω

τοῦ

ἰαματοφόρου

μνήματος

εὐθέως

τῆς

ὑγίας

ἐπέτυχεν,

ὥστε

θαυμάζειν

αὐτόντε

καὶ

τοὺς

περὶ

αὐτὸν

τὴν

ταχίστην

τοῦ

Μάρτυρος

ἐπισκοπὴν,

καὶ

χάριτας

ὁμολογεῖν

τῷ

Θεῷ,

καὶ

τῷ

πανενδόξῳ

μάρτυρι

Δημητρίῳ·

ὅς

αὐτίκα

κατὰ

τὰς

τῶν

καμίνων

καμάρας,

ἅμα

καὶ

τοῦ

τῶν

θερμῶν

ὑδάτων

οἴκου

καθελὼν

καὶ

περικαθάρας

μετὰ

καὶ

τῶν

ἐκεῖσαι

ὄντων

δημοσίων

ἐμβόλων

καὶ

προπινῶν,

ἀνήγειρεν

πάνσεπτον

οἶκον

τῷ

Μάρτυρι,

δαψίλειᾳ

κατακοσμήσας

χρειῶν

μέσον

τοῦ

δημοσίου

λουτροῦ,

καὶ

τοῦ

σταδίου.

[16] Μέλλων

δὲ

ἀπέρχεσθαι

ἐν

τῷ

ἰλλυρικῷ,

ἠβουλήθη

τινὰ

τῶν

λειψάνων

λαβεῖν

τοῦ

Μάρτυρος

πρὸς

τὸ

κἀκεῖσαι

ναὸν

αὐτῷ

οἰκοδομῆσαι

εἰς

ὄνομα

τοῦ

Ἁγίου·

ᾧ

τινι

ὁ

πανένδοξος

ἀθλοφόρος

τοῦ

Χριστοῦ

Δημήτριος

νυκτὸς

ἐπιστὰς

τοῦτον

προελθεῖν

διεκώλυσεν.

Λαβών

οὖν

τὴν

χλαμύδα

αὐτοῦ

τὴν

ἐκ

τῶν

ἁγίων

αἱμάτων

πεφυραμένην

καὶ

μέρος

τοῦ

ὁραρίου,

καὶ

ποιήσας

γλωσσόκομον

ἀργύρεον,

ἐν

αὐτῷ

ἀπέθετο.

Ὁδοιποροῦντος

δὲ

αὐτοῦ,

καὶ

σφοδροῦ

χειμῶνος

γεγονότος,

καὶ

τοῦ

δανοβίου

ποταμοῦ

κοχλάζοντος

τῷ

ῥεύματι,

ὡς

μηδὲ

ναυσὶ

πόρον

τοῦτον

ὑπάρχειν

ἐπὶ

ἱκανὰς

τε

ἡμέρας

μὴ

ὑπολείποντος

αὐτοῦ,

ἀλλ᾽

εἴργοντος

τὴν

ἐπὶ

τὸ

πρόσω

πορίαν,

ἐν

ἀθυμίᾳ

ἐτύγχανεν

ὁ

ἔπαρχος.

[17] Καὶ

δὴ

ὥρα

τὸν

πανένδοξον

Δημήτριον

λέγοντα

αὐτῷ,

πᾶσαν

ἀπιστίαν

καὶ

ἀθυμίαν

ἁπωσάμενος,

λαβὼν

ὅπερ

ἐπιφέρει,

πάρελθε

τὸν

ποταμὸν

ἀδιστάκτως.

Ἕωθεν

οὖν

ἐπιβὰς

τῷ

ὀχήματι,

ἔχων

ἐν

χερσὶν

τὴν

τιμίαν

σωρὸν,

διῆλθεν

ἀβλαβὴς

τὸν

ποταμὸν,

καὶ

οὕτως

ἀπελθὼν,

ἐν

τῷ

Σερμίῳ

ἀπέθετο

τὴν

ἁγίαν

σωρὸν

μετὰ

τοῦ

ἐν

αὐτῇ

θησαυροῦ

ἐν

τῷ

παρ᾽

αὐτοῦ

κτισθέντι

ἐκείσε

πανσέπτῳ

ναῷ

τοῦ

ἁγίου

μάρτυρος

Δημητρίου,

πλησίον

τοῦ

σεβασμίου

οἴκου

τῆς

καλλινίκου

μάρτυρος

Ἀναστασίας,

πολλάτε

θαύματα,

καὶ

ἱάσεις

ὁ

Κύριος

ἐποίησεν

ἔνθα

διὰ

τῆς

ὁδοῦ

τὸ

ὤχημα

καὶ

τὰ

ζῶα

ἐννεπαύσαντο,

χάριτι

καὶ

οἰκτειρμοῖς

καὶ

φιλανθρωπίᾳ

τοῦ

Κυρίου

ἡμῶν

Ἰησοῦ

Χριστοῦ,

ᾧ

ἡ

δόξα

καὶ

τὸ

κράτος

νῦν

καὶ

ἀεὶ

καὶ

εἰς

τοὺς

αἰῶνας

τῶν

αἰώνων.

Αμὴν.

Nestor, the words given him by Maximian Going, therefore, to the stadium, when he had both leapt down from the tiers and laid aside his tunic, he stood before Maximian, so that the emperor was astonished: and when he had called to himself him who had sprung forth for this, he began to persuade him and to say: Youth, I know that want of riches has driven you to be carried away to so great a vanity, that either, conquering, you may suddenly acquire riches, or, falling from victory, you may lay down at once the poverty which troubles you and your life. But I, out of compassion for your youth and the age in which you flourish, will bestow on you gifts both worthy and sufficient for your daring alone; go away possessing riches together with life, and do not expose yourself to Lyaeus, since he has already killed many stronger than you.

[9] not accepting, the fight with Lyaeus Hearing these things, Nestor neither accepted the emperor's munificence, nor did he conceive fear at the praises of Lyaeus; but answered the emperor, saying: I do not desire riches, emperor, nor have I come to the contest for that, but that I may show myself more excellent than Lyaeus: for he would prefer neither life nor riches to the praise snatched from Lyaeus. At once, therefore, these things said, the emperor and those who were with him were filled with wrath, not bearing Nestor's boasting. And the emperor indeed, rousing Lyaeus, kept shouting, and gave him boldness.

[10] he enters, and kills him. But Nestor, having formed on his breast the sign of the saving cross, took a short sword, and, raising his eyes to heaven, said: O God of Demetrius, Thy servant, and Thy beloved Son Jesus Christ, who didst subject the foreigner Goliath to Thy faithful David, break the confidence of Lyaeus and of Maximian; and he leapt into the middle of the enclosure. And the fight being made, Lyaeus, receiving a blow in the heart, at once died, and brought the utmost confusion upon the emperor. And Nestor praised God that the barbarian had been killed by the prayers of St. Demetrius.

[11] Hence the emperor, angered, first Nestor, But Maximian at once rose from his seat, and returned sad to the palace, saying: By the Gods, some sorcery has been done, since he who performed so many and so great deeds has been killed by this youth. And having summoned Nestor to himself, the tyrant said: Tell me, youth, using what magic art, or having what helpers, did you kill Lyaeus? And Nestor answered: Far be it, he did not fall by magic art, nor was he killed by any incantation, but the God of Demetrius, the God of the Christians, sent His angel, and killed the wicked and proud one by my hand. The emperor, therefore, angered, commanded that he, as being a Christian, be led away to the Western parts of the city, to the place which has the name of the Golden gate, and there be killed with his own sword by Menutianus the protector; and thus he obtained the crown of martyrdom ^a.

[12] Further, when certain of the chief men made mention of Demetrius to the emperor, and suggested that he had been the cause of the death of Lyaeus, at once inflamed with anger, and thinking that every ill had come about because he had met him as he hastened to the stadium, and then he orders St. Demetrius too to be put to death. He, his Servant, he ordered him to be killed with lances in the very vaults in which he was being guarded, and thus the most glorious Martyr, slain, fulfilled his martyrdom with a beautiful confession. And Lupus, the servant of St. Demetrius, who was present with him, taking the Saint's girdle, collected his blood in it ^b.

[13] And when he had also taken away the imperial ring which he wore on his hand ^c, having afterwards obtained a follower of himself even in martyrdom, and had dipped it in the holy blood, he wrought many healings through it. For all who were held by various diseases, or suffered from unclean spirits, he healed by the prayer and patronage of the Saint and by the grace which was in the ring, so that the fame of this thing spread through the whole city of the Thessalonians; and when the emperor had learned of the same thing, and who it was that healed those labouring with ill health, he ordered him, together with certain others believing in Christ, to be killed in the tribunal of the city, on a day of judgements, he himself presiding.

[14] And when the most sacred body of blessed Demetrius was held in contempt by those who had killed him, and having become celebrated for miracles wrought at his tomb, certain of the more religious of the brethren, for fear of the emperor, taking it up by night, hid it in the very pits into which it had been thrown, the earth being dug out as deep as they could, lest it suffer injury from any of the bloody animals. But no one

but it remained under the earth ^d, and when, many signs and healings having been wrought in the place, and divine graces having been most frequently conferred on those who approached him with faith, and joy being felt there, the efficacy of the Martyr, working miracles, had been made celebrated through all Macedonia and Thessaly; ^e.

[15] And when at length the error of the idols had been driven away, by a sacred church at Thessalonica, and the saving and pure orthodox faith of the Christians was shining forth, a certain man, Leontius ^f, who adorned the throne of the prefecture of Illyricum, seized with an incurable disease as he was departing for Dacia, was carried to Thessalonica by his servants on a litter, and placed upon the venerable monument where his sacred relics also exist under the ground; and he recovered health as soon as he was placed upon the monument bringing healings, so that both he himself and those who were with him wondered at the most swift visitation of the Martyr, and gave thanks to God and to the most glorious martyr Demetrius; and he at once, when he had destroyed and cleared away the vaults of the arched works together with the house of hot waters and the public porticoes which were there, built a venerable temple to the holy Martyr between the public bath and the stadium, adorning it with an abundance of gifts.

[16] and by another built at Sirmium, in which some of his relics also And when he was about to depart into Illyricum ^g, he wished to take some part of the Martyr's relics, that he might erect a temple under his name there too; but the most glorious Martyr, standing by him at night, forbade him to carry this out. Having taken, therefore, the chlamys dyed with his blood, and a part of the orarium, he laid them in a silver reliquary made for that end; and when he was making the journey, and the winter was harsh, and the Danube, gone out of its channel for sufficient days, left no way even for ships, and hindered the advance of the journey, the prefect lost heart.

[17] But he saw the most glorious martyr Demetrius himself saying to him: Having laid aside all distrust and faint-heartedness, were deposited, he was honoured. taking what you carry, enter the river without hesitation. In the morning, therefore, having mounted his chariot, carrying the venerable relics in his hand, he crossed the river unharmed ^h, and thus, carried across, at Sirmium ⁱ he deposited the sacred reliquary, with the treasure contained in it, in the church of St. Demetrius, built near the venerable temple of the martyr Anastasia, adorned with beautiful victories; and God wrought many miracles and healings on the way too, when both the chariots and the animals rested, by the grace and longanimity and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and power now and always and for ages of ages. Amen.

ANNOTATIONS.

* Perhaps βουλευμάτων?

* Perhaps χώματος?

THIRD PASSION OF ST. DEMETRIUS, M.

By Simeon Metaphrastes,

From the Greek Medicean copy of the library of the Most Christian king, compared with the editions of Lipomano and Surius.

TRANSLATED BY LIPOMANO.

Demetrius, M., at Thessalonica in Macedonia. (S.)

By Symeon Metaphrastes.

CHAPTER I.

The Saint's fatherland, race, education, dignity, preaching of Christ, apprehension, and casting into prison.

Εἶχε

μὲν

τὰ

Ῥωμαίων

σκῆπτρα

Μαξιμιανὸς

ὅ

Ερκούλιος,

πολὺς

κατὰ

Χριστιανῶν

πνέων

τε

καὶ

φερόμενος·

εἰδωλικῆς

δὲ

πλάνης

τὴν

ὑπουρανὸν

ἅπασαν

ὲκάλυπτε

νέφος,

εἰ

καὶ

λαμπροὶ

καθάπερ

ἀστέρες

ταύτην

διαλαχόντες,

οἱ

διὰ

Χριστὸν

παθόντες,

ἐξέλαμτον.

Ὧν

εἷς

τότε

καὶ

ὁ

θαυμαστὸς

Δημήτριος

ἐγνωρίζετο·

Δημήτριος,

ὁ

καὶ

τὴν

εἰς

Χριστὸν

πίστιν

περίβλεπτος,

καὶ

τοῖς

ἐν

Χριστῷ

θαύμασι

περιβόητος.

Ὃν

ἤνεγκε

μὲν

ἡ

μεγάλη

πόλις

Θεσσαλονίκη.

τόγε

μὴν

εἰς

πατέρας

ἧκαν,

ἐπίσημος

ἦν,

καὶ

τὴν

εἰς

τοὺς

ἄνω

τοῦ

γένους

ἀναφορὰν

τῶν

Μακεδόνων

ἐπιφανέστατος.

[2] Ἀλλ᾽

οὐχ

οὕτω

περιφανείᾳ

προγόνων,

ὡς

οἰκείῳ

κόσμῳ

τῆς

ἀρετῆς

ἐλαμπρύνετο.

Τοσοῦντον

γὰρ

εὐγενείᾳ

ψυχῆς

τοὺς

ἐπὶ

τούτῳ

λαμπροὺς

παρέδραμεν,

ὅσον

ὥρᾳ

σώματος

τοὺς

ἐπὶ

κάλλει

σεμνυνομένους

ὑπερεβάλετο·

φύσις

γὰρ

αὐτῷ

μαθήματα

μὲν

παρελαβεῖν

ἱκανή,

συλλέξαι

δὲ

ἤθη

καὶ

κεράσαι

πρὸς

τὸ

χρηστότερον

ἀγαθή·

τό

τε

τοῦ

προσώπου

λίαν

ἐπίχαρι,

τὴν

τῆς

ψυχῆς

εὐγενείαν

ὑπεδήλου.

Τὸν

μὲν

οὖν

ἐκ

παίδων

εἰς

ἥβην

χρόνον,

πάντων

ὁμοῦ

τῷν

ἡλίκων

ἐκράτει.

καὶ

ἦν

οὐδὲν

τῶν

ἀληθῶς

ἀγαθῶν,

εφ᾽

ᾧ

μὴ

τῶν

ἄλλων

πολλῷ

τῷ

μέσῳ

διέφερεν·

ἀλλὰ

δῆλον

ἦν

ἐξ

ἀρχῆς

τὸ

φυτὸν,

ὅπως

μὲν

γένοιτο

χαριέστατον,

ὅπως

δὲ

πολύν

τε

καὶ

ἀγατὸν

τὸν

καρπὸν

ἐνέγκοι.

[3] Εἰς

ἄνδρας

δὲ

ἤκων,

φύσεως

μὲν

ἰσχὺν

ἐπεδείκνυτο,

ἀνδρίαν

δὲ

ἤσκει

καὶ

ῥώμην,

πρὸς

μάθησίν

τε

τῶν

πολεμικῶν

ἐαυτὸν

ἐξεπόνει,

μετὰ

χρηστοῦ

τοῦ

ἤθους

καὶ

τῆς

ἥδιστον

αὐτῶ

ἐπανθούσης

αἰδοῦς

τε

καὶ

κοσμιότητος·

αὐτό

τε

τὸ

διαβεβοῆσθαι

πρὸς

ἃπαντας,

γνώριμον

τὸν

ἄνδρα

καὶ

βασιλεῖ

καθιστᾷ.

Λαμπρᾶς

οὖν

καὶ

μεγαλογνώμονος

οὕτως

ἔχοντα

φύσεως

ὁ

βασιλεὺς

τὸν

Δημήτριον

ἐννοήσας,

ἐπιπολὺ

δόξης

ἐκ

πρώτης

εὐθὺς

αἴρει,

καὶ

ἀνθύπατον

προβάλλεται

τῆς

ἑλλάδος·

ὡς

καὶ

ὑπατικὸν

ἅμα

περιβαλεῖν

ὁρατίωνα.

Ὁ

δὲ

(ἦν

γὰρ

τὸ

δέον

συνιδεῖν

ἱκανώτατος,

καὶ

τὸ

κρεῖττον

προέλεσθαι

τῶν

ἄλλων

άξιωματικώτατος)

τούτων

μὲν

βραχὺν

ἐποιεῖτο

λόγον,

τῶν

δὲ

πρὸς

θεραπείαν

φερόντων

θεοῦ

διαφερόντως

εἴχετο.

Καὶ

διὰ

τοῦτο

πάντα

μὲν

ἐπίσης

τὰ

ἐνταῦθα

περπνὰ

διώπτυε,

πρὸς

ἒν

δὲ

τοῦτο

μόνον

εῖχεν

ἐρωτικὦς,

τὴν

εὐσέβειαν·

καὶ

τὸν

ὑπὲρ

Χριστοῦ

θάνατον

ἐδίψα,

καὶ

τὴν

ἐκεῖθεν

μακαριότητα.

[4] Ἐκήρυττεν

οὐν

οὒ

φόβῳ

τινὶ

καὶ

ὁποστολῇ,

ἀλλὰ

καὶ

λίαν

εὐπαῤῥησιαστῶς

τὸ

τοῦ

Θεοῦ

σωτήριον

ὄνομα·

καὶ

οὐδὲν

ὅτε

μὴ

Χριστὸς

αὐτῷ

διὰ

στόματος

ἦν.

Τὸν

δὲ

τῆς

ζωῆς

ἄρτον,

ὃν

λόγον

εἶναι

τῆς

ἀληθείας

γινώσκομεν,

πᾶσι

τοῖς

πτωχοῖς

τὴν

εὐσέβειαν

φιλοθέως

διένεμε,

παράγων

ἀπὸ

τῶν

θείων

γραφῶν,

καὶ

διδάσκων

ὅτι

τῆς

μακαρίας

ἐκείνης

ἐν

τῷ

παραδείσῳ

διαγωγῆς

τὸν

ἄνθωρπον

ἐκπεσόντα,

καὶ

δουλωθέντα

τῇ

ἅμαρτίᾳ,

αὑτὸς

ὁ

τῷ

πατρὶ

συνάναρχος

λόγος,

οὔτε

τῆς

θεότητος

ἐκστὰς

καὶ

σάρκα

λαβὼν

ἐκ

παρθένου,

δούλουτε

μορφὴν

ἐκουσίως

ἀναλαβὼν,

θειοτέρας

ἠξίωσε

πολιτείας,

καὶ

τὴν

προτέραν

ἐλευθερίαν

αὐτῷ

ἐχαρίσατο.

Ταῦτα

καὶ

ἕτερα

διδάσκωντε

καὶ

διερμενεύων

αὐτοῖς

ἐξηγεῖτο,

καὶ

οἱονεί

ἀφορμὰς

παρεῖχε

καὶ

σπέρματα

πρὸς

τὸ

τοῦ

καὶ

υἱοὺς

γενέσθαί

τε

καὶ

κληθῆναι

Θεοῦ,

καὶ

τῆς

ἐν

Χριστῷ

κρυπτομένης

ἀξιωθῆναι

ζωῆς.

[5] Ἑντεῦθεν

πολλοὶ

τῆς

ἡδίστης

ἐκεὶνης

διδασκαλίας

τοῦ

μάρτυρος

ἀπολαύοντες,

τοῦ

μέν

πικροῦ

τῆς

ἀπάτης

ἀφίσταντο

σκότους,

τῷ

δὲ

γλυκεῖ

τῆς

ἀληθείας

φωτὶ

προσετίθεντο.

Ἀλλ᾽

ἐκεῖνος

πολὺν

ὠδύνων

τὸν

εἰς

Χριστὸν

ἔρωτα,

καὶ

ἀπλήστως

τῆς

τῶν

ἀντρώπων

ὁρεγόμενος

σωτηρίας,

εἰ

μὴ

πὰντας

τῶν

τοῦ

ἐχθροῦ

χειρῶν

ἐξελέσθαι

δυνατὸς

γένοιτο,

ζημίαν

τοὖτο

πλείστην

ἡγεῖτο,

καὶ

οὐδὲν

ὅλως

κατορθοῦν

ἐνόμιζεν.

Ἐχώρει

τοίνυν

αὐτῷ

κατὰ

γνώμην

τὸ

πρᾶγμα,

καὶ

ἡ

φήμη

πανταχοῦ

τὸν

ἄνδρα

παρέπεμπε

κηρύττοντα

τὴν

Τριάδα,

μὴ

ὅτι

τοῖς

ἀνὰ

τὴν

Ἑλλάδα

τε

καὶ

Θεσσαλονίκην,

ἀλλ᾽

ἤδη

καὶ

οἷς

οὐδέ

λόγος

περὶ

αὐτοῦ

ἀφίκετο

πρότερον.

Ἐν

τούτῳ

δὲ

ὄντος

καὶ

τὸ

καλὸν

ἐκεῖνο

τῆς

διδασκαλίας

νᾶμα

προχέοντος,

ἥκουσί

τινες

παρ᾽

αὐτὸν,

οἷς

ἔργον

Χριστιανοὺς

ἐρευνᾷν,

καὶ

τὴν

εἰς

βασιλέα

οἰκείωσιν

ἑαυτοῖς

διὰ

τῆς

ἐκείνων

προδοσίας

περιποιεῖσθαι.

[6] Δημήτριος

δὲ,

ὡς

ἤδη

φθάσαντες

ἐδηλώσαμεν,

οὐκ

ἐν

γωνίαις

τὰ

Χριστιανῶν

μετιὼν,

οὐδὲ

νυκτερινὸς

ὢν

Χριστοῦ

μαθητὴς,

μᾶλλον

δὲ

τῆς

ἀληθείας

διδάσκαλος,

ἀλλ᾽

ἀνακεκαλυμμένως

καὶ

φανερῶς

ὁμολογῶν

τὴν

εὐσέβειαν

συλλαμβάνεται

παρ᾽

αὐτῶν·

καὶ

δῆλα

τῷ

βασιλεῖ

τὰ

κατ᾽

αὐτὸν

γἰνεται,

ὅτι

τὰ

μὲν

τῶν

Χριστιανῶν

πρεσβεύων

ἐστί,

τὰ

καὶ

τῶν

ἡμετέρων

φησὶ

θεῶν

σαφῆ

γέλωτα

καὶ

μυκτηρισμὸν

τιθέμενος.

Μαξιμιανὸν

δὲ

ἄρα

Θεσσαλονίκη

τότε

παρ᾽

ἑαυτῇ

εἶχε,

μέγαν

μὲν

τῷ

ἐπὶ

Σαυρομάτας

πολέμῳ

καὶ

Σκύθας

γενόμενον,

πολλῶ

δὲ

μείζω

τῇ

κατὰ

τῶν

εὐσεβῶν

ὠμότητι

γνωριζόμενον.

Ὰκούσαντα

τοίνυν

εὐθέως

τὸν

βασιλέα

πάντα

εἶχεν

ὁμοῦ,

ἔκπληξις,

ἀνία,

δέος,

ὀργῄ·

ἐξεπέπληκτο

τῆς

ἀκοῆς

τὴν

καινότητα,

ἠνιᾶτο

τῇ

τοῦ

ἀνδρὸς

ζημίᾳ,

εδεδίει

μὴ

καὶ

ἀλλούς

τοιοῦτος

ὢν

ἑλκύση

πρὸς

θεοσέβειαν,

δι᾽

ὀργῆς

εἶχεν

ὡς

τῆς

παρ᾽

αὐτοῦ

τιμῆς

ἀλογήσαντα.

Πλην

ἀλλὰ

πιστεύειν

ἀκοῇ

τοσοῦτον

οὐκ

ἔχων,

ἅτε

μὴ

δὲ

φέρων

ὅλως

ἄνδρὰ

τοιοῦτον

ζημιωθῆναι

(καὶ

γὰρ

ὅ

μὴ

βούλεταί

τις,

οὐ

δὲ

ῥαδίως

πιστεύειν

δύναται)

ἤθελε

καὶ

ὀφθαλμοὺς

μάρτυρας

τοῦ

ἀκουσθέντος

παραλαβεῖν.

Ἄγειν

οὖν

κελεύει

τὸν

ἄνδρα

παρ᾽

αὐτόν.

[7] Ὅ

δὲ

παραστὰς

οὐκ

ἔφριξε

τό

μέγεθος

τῆς

ἀρχῆς,

οὐ

τὰς

ἐλπιζομένας

ὑπεστάλη

κολάσεις,

οὐ

τὴν

ἀγριότητα

τοῦ

δικάζοντος

ἐδειλίασεν·

ἀλλὰ

τὴν

ὠμότητα

ταύτην,

ὕλην

ἐκεῖνος

τοῦ

φανῆναι

μᾶλλον

τὸν

πρὸς

Θεὸν

αὐτοῦ

πόθον

νομίσας,

λέων

εἰς

ἀγῶνα

εἰσῃει,

μαλακὸν

οὐδὲν

οὐ

βλέπων,

οὐ

λέγων,

ἀλλὰ

πιστούμενος

μᾶλλον

τοῖς

παρ᾽

ἑαυτοῦ

λόγοις

τὰ

τῷ

τυράννῳ

προακουσθέντα,

ὡς

εἴη

μὲν

στρατώτης

Χριστοῦ

καὶ

αὐτοῦ

μόνου

προσκυνητής·

τοὺς

δὲ

παρ᾽

αὐτῶν

λεγομένους

καὶ

σεβομένους

θεοὺς

τοσοῦτον

ἀπέχει

τιμᾷν,

ὅτι

καὶ

μυκτηρίζει

σαφῶς

καὶ

βδελύττεται·

ἃς

δὲ

καὶ

ἀπειλοῦσιν

αὐτοὶ

βασάνους,

τότε

ἀνιαθήσεται

πάσχων,

ὅταν

εἰδῇ

τοὺς

κολαστὰς

ἤ

φιλανθρώπως

αὐτὰς,

ἤ

ἐλάττους

ἐπάγοντας

τῆς

ἐπιθυμίας.

Τιμαὶ

δέ,

φησιν,

αἱ

παρὰ

σοῦ,

βασιλεῦ,

καὶ

ἅπερ

δίδως

τοῖς

πειθομένοις

σοι

ἀγαθὰ,

πῶς

ἃν

θέλξωσι

τὸν

καὶ

αὐτόν

σοι

τὸν

ἐπίφθονον

τῆς

ἀρχῆς,

αὐτὴν

ἐκείνην

ταῖς

βασιλείαν,

σὺν

ἅμα

πλούτοις

καὶ

θησαυροῖς,

ἶσον

καὶ

λεπτῇ

κόνει

περιφρονοῦντάτε

καὶ

ἀτιμάζοντα;

εἰ

δὲ

καὶ

θάνατον

ἔπαγάγοις,

τότε

μοι

τὸ

εὐκταιότατον

ἴσθι

ποιῶν

καὶ

πρὸς

τὴν

αληθῆ

ζωὴν,

καὶ

τὸν

αὐτῆς

πλέον

ἐμοὶ

ποθούμενον

παραπέμπων

Χριστόν.

[8] Τούτων

ἐπειδὴ

Μαξιμιανὸς

ἤκουσε,

μετὰ

φρονήματος

ἀτρέπτου

καὶ

γενναίου

τοῦ

παραστήματος,

ἐλευθέρουτε

στόματος

εἰρημένων,

τὸ

παραυτίκα

τὴν

βάσανον

ἀναβάλλεται,

σοφώτερόν

τι

μᾶλλον

ποιῶν,

οὐ

φιλανθρωπότερον.

Ἠβούλετο

γὰρ

μετάνοιαν

αὐτῷ

ἐμβαλεῖν

καὶ

πάρεσιν

τῆς

θερμῆς

εὐστάσεως

τὸν

μεταξὺ

χρόνον,

καὶ

διὰ

τοῦτο

τόγε

νῦν

ἔχον

αὐτοῦ

που

τὸν

Δημήτριον

δημοσίου

γειτονοῦντος

λουτροῦ

καμάραι

καμίνων

εἰς

φρουρὰν

ἐλάμβανον.

Μαξιμιανὸς

δὲ

τοῦ

θεάτρου

ἐπιβὰς,

ὁ

κατ᾽

ἐκεῖνο

συνεκρότει

τῆς

ὥρας

τοὺς

παγκρατιαστάς

τε

συναγαγὼν,

τὴν

πόλιν

ἐκκλησιάζων

ἦν,

καὶ

τὴν

ἀγωνίαν

διατιθέμενος,

αὐτὸς

ἐπὶ

μετεώρου

τοῦ

βήματος

προκαθήμενος.

[9] Ὁ

Μάρτυρ

δὲ

πρὸς

τὴν

εἰρκτὴν

ἀπαγόμενος

ἥδετότε

ὁμοῦ

καὶ

ἀνιαρῶς

διέκειτο·

ἥδετο

μὲν,

ὅτε

μικρὸν

ὅσον,

οὔπω

τοῦ

μαρτυρίου

ἀξιωθήσεσθαι

ἔμελλε·

ἠννιᾶτο

δὲ

ὅτι

μὴ

καὶ

θαττον

ἐπιόντας

αὐτῷ

τοὺς

κολαστὰς

ἐθεᾶτο,

καὶ

προς

βασάνους

ἤδη

καὶ

τὸν

θάνατον

συνηρπάζετο.

Τοσοῦτος

γὰρ

Δημητρίῳ

τοῦ

διὰ

Χριστὸν

ἀποθανεῖν

ἀγὼν

ἦν,

ὅση

Μαξιμιανῷ

πάλιν

τοῦ

τὸν

ἄνδρα

ἑλεῖν

διὰ

τῶν

χρηστοτέρων

σπουδή.

Τὴν

εἰρκτὴν

τοίνυν

ὁ

Μάρτυρ

κατειληφὼς,

Ο

Θεὸς

ἒλεγεν,

εἰς

τὴν

βοήθειάν

μου

πρόσχες·

Κύριε,

εἰς

τὸ

βοηθῆσαί

μοι

σπεῦσον.

Ὅτι

σὺ

ἡ

ὑπομονή

μου,

Κύριε,

ἡ

ἐλπίς

μου

ἐκ

νεόθητός

μου.

Ἐπὶ

σὲ

ἐπιστηρίχθην

ἀπὸ

γαστρὸς·

ἐκ

κοιλίας

μητρός

μου

σύ

μου

εἶ

σκεπαστής.

Ἐν

σοὶ

ἡ

ὑμνησίς

μου

διαπαντός.

Ψαλῶ

τῷ

Θεῷ

μοῦ,

ἕως

ὑπάρχω.

Διὰ

τοῦτο

ἀγαλλιάσεται

τὰ

χείλη

μου,

ὅταν

ψάλω

σοι,

καὶ

ἡ

γλῶσσά

μου

ὅλην

τὴν

ἡμέραν

μελετήσει

τὴν

δικαιοσύνην

σου.

[10] Καὶ

τῆς

εὐχῆς

αὐτῷ

τελεσθείσης,

ὁρᾷ

σκορπίον

ἕρποντα

κατὰ

γῆς

τὸ

κέντροντὲ

ἠρκότα,

καὶ

αὐτοῦ

τὸν

πόδα

βαλεῖν

μέλλοντα.

Ὅ

δὲ

τῷ

σταυρῳ

σφαγισάμενος,

καὶ

τὸν

ἐπάνω

ὄφεων

καὶ

σκορπίων

τῷ

οἰκείῳ

πλάσματι

δόντα

πατεῖν,

ἐπικαλεσάμενος,

νεκρὸν

ἐκεῖνον

εὐθέως,

μᾶλλον

δὲ

τὸν

ἐν

αὐτῷ

νοητὸν

σκορπίον

ὑποκρυπτόμενον,

ἀπεργάζεται.

Καὶ

παραχρῆμα

θεῖος

ἄγγελος

ἐπιφανεὶς,

στέφανον

αὐτοῦ

τῇ

κορυφῇ

ἐπιτίθησι,

προσειπὼν,

Εἰρήνη

σοι,

ἀθλητὰ

τοῦ

Χριστοῦ,

ἴσχυε

καὶ

ἀνδρίζου.

Οὕτως

ὁ

ταχὺς

εἰς

παράκλησιν

τῶν

φοβουμένων

αὐτὸν

Κύριος,

ἅμα

τῆ

τῆς

εἰρκτῆς

κατακλείσει

καὶ

πρὸς

τὸ

παρὸν

ἡμέρως

ἄγαν

παραμυθεῖται

τὸν

ἀθλητὴν,

καὶ

πρὸς

τὸ

μέλλον

προθυμίας

ἐμπίπλησιν.

Ἀλλὰ

Δημήτριον

μὲν

οὕτως

ἡ

φρουρὰ

εἶχε.

While the Saint, born at Thessalonica in an illustrious station, Maximian Herculius ^a indeed held the sceptres of the Romans, and was borne against the Christians with great onset and spirit, and the cloud of the error of images covered all the earth which is under heaven; even though, like certain bright stars that had obtained it as their lot, they shone forth who suffered for Christ. Of whom one was then recognized, the admirable Demetrius: Demetrius, who was distinguished for faith in Christ, and celebrated for the miracles which he wrought in Christ. Him indeed the great city of Thessalonica bore ^b: and as regards his parents, he was distinguished and most illustrious in race, tracing himself to the ancient Macedonians ^c.

[2] But he was not so illustrious by the splendour of his forebears and imbued with the best morals, as by the ornament of his virtue. For he surpassed by nobility of soul those who were renowned by this name as much as he surpassed by beauty of body those who boasted of their comeliness. For he had a wit sharp enough for grasping disciplines, and apt for forming morals and tempering them with kindness; and the elegant appearance of his countenance signified the nobility of his mind. From boyhood up to puberty he was superior to all his equals in age: nor was there anything among those things which are truly good in which he did not excel others by a long interval, and it was manifest from the beginning how most delightful a tree he was, and how abundant and good fruit he would bear.

[3] And when he had come to manly age, he showed the powers of his wit, and created proconsul of Greece, and exercised strength and fortitude, and laboured at learning the military art, ^d adorned with good morals, and with the modesty and moderation which flourished most sweetly in him: so that the most celebrated talk of all about him made him known to the Emperor. When, therefore, the Emperor had noticed Demetrius endowed with so illustrious and great a wit, from the beginning he raises him to great glory, and creates him Proconsul of Greece ^e: so that he even clothed him with the insignia of the Consulate. But he (for he was most apt to understand what is fitting, and the most excellent of others at choosing what is more excellent) made small account of these things, attending excellently only to those things which pertain to the worship of God. And therefore whatever things here are pleasant he rejected equally: but he was held by the love of one thing alone, namely piety, and he thirsted for death for Christ, and for the beatitude which proceeds from it.

[4] the faith of Christ He preached, therefore, not timidly, nor with any hesitation, but very boldly and freely, the saving name of God; and there was nothing else in his mouth but Christ. And the bread of life, which we know to be the word of truth, he distributed religiously to all who were in need of piety, adducing from the divine Scriptures, and teaching that man, who had fallen from that blessed converse which is in paradise and had been reduced to the servitude of sin, the Word Itself, which together with the Father is without beginning, having neither departed from the Divinity, and having received flesh from the Virgin, and having of Its own accord taken the form of a servant, made worthy of a more divine manner of living, and gave him back his former liberty. Teaching and interpreting these and other things, he set them forth to them, and in a manner offered them the occasion and seeds for this, that they might be and be called sons of God, and might obtain the life which is hidden in Christ.

[5] he preaches at Thessalonica and elsewhere, Hence many, enjoying the most sweet teaching of the Martyr, withdrew from the foul darkness of error, and came to the sweet light of truth. But he, conceiving great love for Christ, and insatiably desiring the salvation of men, if he could not snatch all from the hands of the enemy, thought this the greatest loss, and did not think he was doing anything rightly. The matter therefore succeeded for him according to his wish, and fame carried him into all parts, and he preached the Trinity not only to those who were at Thessalonica and in Greece, but also to those far off who heard of him ^f. And while he was at this, and pouring forth that beautiful stream of doctrine, there come to him certain men whose office it was to search out the Christians, and by their betrayal to acquire for themselves the goodwill of the Emperor.

[6] is summoned by Maximian, And so Demetrius, not exercising Christianity in corners, as we have already signified before, nor a nocturnal disciple of Christ, but rather a master of truth, and openly confessing piety, is seized by them, and is denounced to the emperor, because he held the opinion of the Christians, and openly laughed at and mocked the affairs of the gods. And Maximian was then at Thessalonica, who had indeed become great from the war waged against the Sarmatians and Scythians ^g, but was much more recognized from the cruelty which he exercised against the pious. As soon, therefore, as the emperor had heard these things, he was variously affected. He was astounded, he grieved, he feared, he was angered: he was astounded on account of the novelty of what he heard. He grieved on account of the loss of the man. He feared lest, being such as he was, he should draw others to his religion. He was angered that he had made no account of the honour conferred on him. But since he could not trust his hearing alone, as one who could not bear to suffer the loss of so great a man (for what one does not wish, one cannot easily believe either), he wished also to take his eyes as witnesses of what had been heard. He orders, therefore, the man to be brought to him.

[7] and having freely confessed Christ, And he, set before him, did not fear the greatness of the empire, did not stand in awe of the punishments which were expected, did not dread the savagery of the judge: but, thinking this cruelty matter for showing more openly his love toward God, he came at once like a lion to the contest, not looking softly or effeminately, nor saying anything abject; but rather confirming by his words the things which the tyrant had before heard of him; that he was indeed a soldier of Christ, and the adorer of Him alone: that he was so far from honouring the gods who were spoken of and worshipped by him that he even openly mocked and abominated them: and that he would take it ill to suffer the torments which he threatened only when he should see the torturers inflict them more mildly or more sparingly than he desired. But your honours, he said, O King, and the goods which you give to those who obey you, how could they entice him who despises and holds in contempt the envied crown of your empire, that very empire, I say, with its riches and treasures, equally with fine dust? But if you should even inflict death, then know that you do for me what is most to be desired, as one who sends me across to the true life and to Christ, whom I desire more than life itself.

[8] After Maximian heard these things, which had been spoken with mighty spirit and the highest constancy and the greatest freedom, by order of Maximian he is cast into prison, he then indeed defers the torment, doing this cunningly rather than kindly. For he wished to instil repentance in him, and to bring it about that the interposed time should slacken so vehement a constancy. And therefore for the present he orders that the vaults of the furnaces of the public bath, which was nearby, should receive Demetrius into custody. And Maximian, having entered the theatre, which he was furnishing at that very time, calling together the athletes, and gathering all the people, and instituting the contests, himself sat down on a lofty throne.

[9] And the Martyr, when he was being led away into prison, was at the same time glad and affected with sorrow: in which, glad of the martyrdom at hand for him glad indeed that martyrdom would soon be

he should see the torturers approach him more quickly, and that he was not already being hurried to torments and death. For Demetrius strove as much to die for Christ as Maximian was eager to call him back from better things. When, therefore, the martyr had come into the prison, he said: O God, come to my assistance; O Lord, make haste to help me. For Thou art my patience, O Lord, my hope from my youth. By Thee have I been confirmed from the womb: from my mother's belly Thou art my protector. Of Thee shall my praise be always. I will sing to my God as long as I shall be. Therefore my lips shall rejoice when I shall sing to Thee, and my tongue shall meditate on Thy justice all the day ^h.

[10] And his prayers being finished, he sees a scorpion creeping along the ground, he is also refreshed by an angelic vision. and it was about to sting his foot. But he, fortified by the Cross, having invoked Him who gave to His creature the power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, renders it dead, or rather that scorpion, perceived by the understanding, which lay hidden in it. And at once a divine Angel, appearing to him, sets a crown upon his head, saying: Peace to thee, athlete of Christ. Be strong, and show thyself a man ⁱ. Thus the Lord, who is swift for the consolation of those who fear Him, as soon as he was shut in prison, both consoles the athlete very gently in the present things, and fills him with alacrity of mind for the things to come. And Demetrius indeed was thus in custody.

ANNOTATIONS.

CHAPTER II.

Lyaeus is killed by Nestor; Maximian, angered at this, orders Nestor and Demetrius to be put to death, and he both is illustrious for miracles and is honoured as a Saint.

ΜΑξιμιανῷ

δὲ

τὸ

τῶν

μονομάχων

συνεκροτεῖτο

θέατρον,

καὶ

τ᾽

ἆλλα

ὅσα

τὰ

τοῦ

πενταθλοῦ

συνεπλήρου

θεάματα.

Ὁ

δὲ

ἐκ

περιωπῆς

καθῆστο,

διατριβὴν

ἡδίστην

τὸν

ἀγῶνα

ποιούμενος.

ἥδετο

γὰρ,

ὡς

ἔοικεν,

αἱμάτων

ἀντρωπίνων

ὁρῶν

ἔκχυσιν.

Ἧν

δέ

τις

ἀνὴρ

βαρβαρος

τῶν

ἐπιτηδείων

Μαξιμιανῷ,

πρὸσττε

χεἶα

γενναῖος,

καὶ

πρὸς

πάλην

οὐχ

ἥκιστα

ἀγαθὸς,

μέγεθόσττε

τοῦ

μετρίου

μείζων,

καὶ

παρὰ

τοῦτο

σφόδρα

κεχαρισμένος

αὐτῷ,

καὶ

λόγου

κομιδῇ

πολλοῦ

ἀξιούμενος·

Λυαῖος

ὅνομα

τῷ

ανδρὶ,

πατρὶς

Ουάνδαλα.

[12] Οὗτος

τάγε

εἰς

ῥώμεν

σώματος

πάντων

κρατεῖν

ἀλαζονευόμενος,

ἐπ᾽

ὀκρίβαντος

τότε

στὰς,

ὡς

ἐπίδηλος

εἴη

τῷ

θεάτρῳ

παντὶ,

τὸν

βουλόμενον

εἰς

πάλην

προεκαλεῖτο.

Εἶργαστο

δὲ

ἄρα

τῷ

Μαξιμιανῷ

κύκλος

σανίσι

διειλημμένος

συχναῖς·

ἐφ᾽

ὃν

οἱ

μονομαχεῖν

μέλλοντες

εἰσήεσαν,

καὶ

τὸ

παγκράτιον

ὑπήρχοντο

καὶ

τὴν

πάλην.

Ἐπεὶ

τοίνυν

τῇ

τοῦ

σώματος

ῥῶμῃ

πάντων

ἐκράτει

Λυαῖος,

καὶ

πᾶς

ὅστις

εἰς

χεῖρας

αὐτῷ

ἐρχόμενος,

χάμαι

κείμενος

εὐθὺς

ἐθεᾶτο,

ἢ

καὶ

θάνατον

ἐκ

τοῦ

παραχρῆμα

σπασάμενος,

τοσοῦτον

ἥδεσθαι

τῷ

τυράννῳ

παρεῖχεν,

οὔς

κατέβαλλε

τοὺς

συμπλεκομένους,

ὅσον

οὐ

πολλῷ

ὕστερον

λύτῃ

περιβαλεῖν

αὐτὸν

ἔμελλεν.

[13] Ἀνὴρ

γάρ

τις,

ὄνομα

Νέστωρ,

τὴν

μέν

ἡλικίαν

κομιδῇ

νέος,

ἄρτι

τὸν

ἴουλον

ἐπανθοῦντα

φέρων,

ἰδεῖν

δὲ

ἥδιστος,

καὶ

κάλλει

διαπρεπέστατος,

γνωστὸς

τῷ

περιδόξῳ

μάρτυρι

Δημητρίῳ

τελῶν,

ὁρῶν

οὕτω

Μαξιμιανὸν

περὶ

τὸν

βὰρβαρον

διακείμενον,

καὶ

πολλὰ

πρὸς

τοῖς

μονομαχίας

ἄθλοις

καὶ

χρήματα

προτιθέντα,

τοῦτο

μὲν

τὸ

ὐπερήφανον

Λυαίου

μισήσας,

τοῦτο

δὲ

καὶ

τὰ

ὑπὸ

τοῦ

θείου

Μάρτυρος

γινόμενα

θαύματα

κατιδών,

καὶ

ὅπως

αὐτῷ

πλεῖστοι

προσιόντες

τὴν

εἰς

Χριστόν

θεοσέβειαν

ἐδιδάσκοντο,

ἓν

δὲ

τοῦτο

θελήσας

γενέσθαι

τῶν

Δημητρίου

θαυμάτων

τὸ

ταῖς

εὐχαῖς

ἐκείνου

καθοπλισθέντα

λῦσαί

τέ

Λυαῖου

τὸ

θράσος

καὶ

τὴν

ὀφρῦν

αὐτὸν

τοῦ

βαρβάρου

καταβαλεῖν,

προστρέχει

τῷ

Μάρτυρι,

καὶ

τῶν

ποδῶν

ἐκείνου

τῶν

ἀγίων

προκείμενος,

Δοῦλε

τοῦ

θεοῦ

Δημήτριε,

λέγει,

πρόθυμός

εἰμι

καὶ

ὀργᾷ

μοι

ἔνδον

ἡ

ψυχὴ,

Λυαίῳ

πρὸς

συμπλοκὴν

συνελθεῖν,

εἰ

μόνον

αὐτὸς

ὁπλίσεις

με

ταῖς

εὐχαῖς,

καὶ

ταύταις

τὴν

κραταιάν

χεῖρα

συμμαχοῦσαν

παράσχῃς.

[14] Τί

οὖν

ὁ

θεῖος

Δημήτριος;

Ὥσπερ

αἰτήσας

αὐτός

μᾶλλον

ἢ

αἰτηθεὶς,

μικροῦ

τῇ

θελειώσει

τὴν

αἴτησιν

ἐπιφθάνει·

καὶ

ταχέως

ἐπιβαλὼν

αὐτῷ

τὴν

ἐν

Χριστῷ

σφραγίδα

εἰς

τὸ

μέτωπόντε

καὶ

τὴν

καρδίαν,

ἀφίησιν,

ἐπειπών·

καὶ

τὸν

Λυαῖον

νικείσεις,

καὶ

ὑπέρ

Χριστοῦ

μαρτυρήσεις·

ὅπερ

τ᾽

αὐτὸν

ἦν

εἰπεῖν·

καὶ

τὸν

φανερὸν

ἀντίπαλον

καὶ

τὸν

ἀφανῆ

νικήσεις.

οὕτως

οὐ

μόνον

θάρσος

ἐνῆκεν

αὐτοῦ

τῇ

ψυχῇ,

ἀλλὰ

καὶ

περὶ

τοῦ

μέλλοντος

ἀσφαλέστατα

προσεφθέγξατο.

Αυτίκα

γοῦν

ὁ

Νέστωρ

ἀφικόμενος

εἰς

τὸ

στάδιον

καὶ

διὰ

τῶν

βαθμίδων

καταπηδήσας,

τόντε

χιτῶνα

ἀποτίθεται,

καὶ

ἑαυτὸν

δῆλον

καθίστησι

τῷ

βασιλεῖ

παραστάς.

Μαξιμιανὸς

δὲ

τὴν

πολλὴν

τόλμαν

ἐκείνην

τοῦ

νεανίσκου

καταπλαγεὶς,

καὶ

ἄλλο

τι

εἶναι

ὑπερλαβὼν,

ἢ

ἀνδρίας

ἐπίδειξιν

τὸ

γινόμενον,

ἐγγυτέρω

παραστῆναι

κελεύει,

καὶ

Ω

νεανίσκε,

συμβουλεύων

φησί,

οἶδ᾽

ὅτι

χρημάτων

ἔνδεια

εἰς

τοῦτό

σε

τόλμης

ἠνάγκασεν

ἐπαρθῆναι,

ἱνὰ

ἢ

περιγενόμενος

πλοῦτον

σεαυτῷ

ἀθρόον

περιποιήσῃ·

ἢ

ἀποτυχὼν,

πενίαν

ὡς

ἐχθρὸν

ἄσπονδον

μετὰ

καὶ

ζῆν

ἀποφύγῃς.

Ἐγὼ

δέ

σε

καὶ

τῆς

ἡλικίας,

καὶ

τῆς

καλὸν

ἐπιλαμπούσης

σοι

ὥρας

οἰκτείρων

παρέξω,

καὶ

ὑπὲρ

μόνησγε

τῆς

τόλμης,

ἄξια

καὶ

ἱκανὰ

χρήματα.

[15] Καὶ

λαβὼν

ἄπιθι

μετὰ

τοῦ

ζῆν

ἀπολαύων

καὶ

τῶν

χρημάτων·

Λυαίῳ

δὲ

σεαυτὸν

τὸ

παράπαν

μὴ

ἀντιστήσῃς.

Πολλοὺς

γὰρ

τοῦ

ζῆν

ἀπήλλαξε,

καὶ

τῶν

καταπολὺ

σοῦ

ῥωμαλεωτέρων.

ταῦτα

ὁ

Νέστωρ

ἀκούσας,

οὔτε

ἥρπασε

τὴν

τοῦ

βασιλέως

φιλοτιμίαν,

οὔτε

πάλιν

πρὸς

τὸν

τοῦ

Λυαίου

ἔπαινον

ἐδειλίασε.

τῷ

δὲ

βασιλεῖ,

οὐ

χρημάτων

ἐπιθυμῶ,

ἔφη,

οὐδὲ

παρὰ

τοῦτο

ἐμαυτὸν

εἰς

τόνδε

τὸν

ἀγῶνα

καθῆκα,

ἀλλὰ

δόξης

ἐρῶν

μᾶλλον,

καὶ

Λυαίου

κρείττων

άναφανῆναι

βουλόμενος.

Ἀπώμοτον

γὰρ

ἐμοὶ

μη

ὅτιγε

τὸ

πλουτεῖν,

ἀλλὰ

καὶ

αὐτὸ

τὸ

ζῆν,

δόξης

εἴξαντι

Λυαίῳ,

καὶ

τῶν

πρωτείων

ἐκείνῳ

παραχορήσαντι.

Ταῦτα

οὔτω

λεχθέντα

καὶ

βασιλέα

καὶ

τοὺς

περὶ

αὐτὸν

ἅπαντας

ἠρέθησαν

εἰς

ὀργὴν·

ὅπως

γὰρ

ὡπλίσθη,

καὶ

ἐφ᾽

ᾧ

πεποιθὼς

ἐκεῖνος

οὕτως

ἐφθέγγετο,

αὐτοὶ

ἀγνοοῦντες,

ἀλαζονείας

μόνης

καὶ

κενοῦ

τύφου

τὰ

ῥήματα

ὐπελάμβανον.

Ὁ

μὲν

οὖν

βασιλεὺς

πολὺς

ἦν

εἰς

τὸν

ἀγῶνα

διεγείρων

Λυαῖον

καὶ

τήν

ὀρμῆς

καὶ

θάρσους

ἔμπλεον

παροξύνων

ψυχήν.

[16] Νέστορι

δὲ

τὸ

θάρσος

οἱ

Δημητρίου

λόγοι

καὶ

Χριστὸς

ἦν,

πρὸς

ὃν

ἀνατείνας

τοὺς

ὀφθαλμοὺς,

Ο

Θεὸς,

ἔλεγε,

Δημητρίου,

δὸς

ἐμὲ

τὸν

βραχὺν

τὴν

ἡλικίαν

Δαβὶδ,

Γολιὰθ

ἄλλον

καταισχύναι

Λυαῖον·

σοὶ

γὰρ

πεποιθὼς

τὸν

ἀγῶνα

τοῦτον

ἐν

μέσῳ

πολλῶν

ἠράμεν,

ἱνὰ

τὸ

σὸν

ὄνομα

δοξάσθῃ

τοῦ

μόνου

ἀληθῶς

Θεοῦ,

καὶ

τοῖς

ἐν

σοὶ

δύναμιν

ποιουμένοις

ἐπιπέμποντος

βοήθειαν

ἐξ

ἁγίου.

Οὕτως

ἔφη

καὶ

ἅμα

τὸν

ἀκινάκην

σπασάμενος,

καὶ

τὸ

θέατρον

εἰσπηδήσας,

τῆς

συμπλοκῆς

ἤδη

γενομένης

βάλλει

καιρίως

κατὰ

τῆς

καρδίας

τὸν

βάρβαρον·

καὶ

εὐθὺς

τὸν

μὲν

ἀναιρεῖ,

σχεδὸν

δὲ

καὶ

Μαξιμιανὸν

τῇ

περὶ

αὐτὸν

λύτῃ·

πολλῷ

δὲ

μᾶλλον

εἰπεῖν

καὶ

πλάνην

αὐτὴν,

καὶ

σὺν

ἐκείνῃ

τὸν

ταύτης

αἴτιον,

τὸν

κρυπτόν,

φημι,

μαξιμιανὸν

θανατοῖ.

[17] Μαξιμιανῷ

μέντοι

τῷ

βασιλεῖ

οὐκ

ἦν

ἔτι

ἄνεκτον

ἡ

καθέδρα·

ἀλλὰ

πλήρης

ὀργῆς

καὶ

κατηφείας,

εὐθὺς

ἐξανέστη,

καὶ

πρὸς

τὰς

βασιλείους

αὐλὰς

δεινὰ

στρέφων

καθ᾽

ἑαυτον

ἀποχώρει,

ἐπισκοτῆσαι

τῷ

φέγγει

τῆς

ἀληθείας

ὁ

δυσσεβὴς

βουλόμενος,

Νέστορόσττε

τὴν

νίκην

καὶ

δι᾽

ἐκείνου

τὸ

πρὸς

Χριστὸν

ἀμαυρῶσαι

σέβας,

γοητείαν

ἐκ

πολλῆς

ἀνοίας

τὸ

πρᾶγμα

καλῶν.

Επεὶ

οὐκ

ἄν,

φησι,

παρὰ

τοιοῦδε

τοιαύτας

ἀνδραγαθίας

ἐπιδειξάμενος

ἀνηρεῖτο.

ἀμέλει

καὶ

Νέστορα

τὸν

γενναῖον

μεταπεμψάμενος,

ὡς

ἐπὶ

πράγματι

ὁμολογουμένῳ

καὶ

οὐδεμιᾶς

δεουμένου

ζητήσεως,

Ειπἑ

μοι,

νεανίσκε,

λέγει,

τίσι

μαγείαις

χρησάμενος

ἢ

τίνας

ἔχων

τοὺς

συνεργούς,

Λυαῖον

ἀνήρηκας

τὸν

τοσοῦτον;

πρὸς

ταῦτα

ὁ

Νέστωρ

οὐδὲν

ὐποδειλιάστεις,

ἀλλὰ

θαῤῥήσας

πάντως,

ὅτι

ὁ

δοὺς

ἐκεῖνον

τὸν

ὑπερήφανον

ἀνελεῖν,

αὐτὸς

δώσει

καὶ

προσήκουσαν

τὴν

περὶ

αὐτοῦ

θέσθαι

ἀπωλογίαν,

οὐδὲν,

ἔφη,

βασιλεῦ

τοιοῦτον

οὐδὲ

ἐμοὶ,

οὔτε

ἄλλῳ

Χριστιανῶν·

συνουργός

δέ

μοι

πρὸς

τοῦτο

τῶν

ἀντρώπων

οὐδεὶς,

ὅτι

μὴ

μόνος

ὁ

Δημητρίου

Θεὸς,

ὁ

Θεὸς,

βασιλεῦ,

τῶν

Χριστιανῶν.

[18] Τούτου

φανερὸς

ἄθλος

ὁ

Λυαίου

θάνατος,

ὅς

ἐν

χειρὶ

κραταιᾷ

καὶ

ἐν

βραχίονι

ὑψιλῷ

καὶ

Σηὼν

καὶ

Ωκ

καὶ

μυρίους

ἄλλους

πολλῷ

μᾶλλον

ἢ

Λυαῖος

τὴν

ῥώμην

ἐπιφανεῖς

εὐχερῶς

ἀνεῖλεν,

οὐ

καθ᾽

ἔνα

μόνον,

ἀλλὰ

καὶ

κατὰ

πλῆθος

συνηθροισαμένους.

Τί

μὴ

λέγω

τὰ

ἐκείνου

μόνου

ἀληθῶς

ἄξια,

οὗ

ἔργον

οὐρανὸς

καὶ

γῆ

καὶ

τὰ

ἐν

αὐτοῖς

ἅπαντα.

Οὐκ

ἤνεγκε

τὰ

μεγάλα

ταῦτα

ἡ

φαύλη

Μαξιμιανοῦ

ἀκοὴ,

ἀλλὰ

τῶν

καλῶν

λόγων

μισθοὺς,

καὶ

τῆς

νίκης

αὐτῷ

βραβεῖα

τὸν

διὰ

ξίφους

ἐπάγει

θάνατον.

Νέστωρ

μὲν

οὖν

τοῦ

διὰ

Χριστὸν

μακαρίου

τέλους

ἐπιτυγχάνει,

καὶ

τῷ

ἰδίῳ

ξίφει

δέχεται

τὴν

τομὴν,

οὕτω

μὲν

Μαξιμιανοῦ

κελεύσαντος,

ἱνά

κᾳκείνο

τάχα

μαρτυρικῷ

αἵματι

καταγιασθῇ,

Μινουκιανου

δὲ

Προτίκτωρος

πρὸς

τὴν

σφαγὴν

ὑπουργήσαντος.

Καὶ

οὕτω

πρὸς

Χριστὸν,

ὅν

ἐφίλησε

παραπέμπεται,

παρ᾽

οὗ

καὶ

τῆς

δυπλῆς

νίκης

ἀπολήψεται

τοὺς

στεφάνους.

[19] Εντεῦθεν

ὑποβολαὶ

κατὰ

Δημητρίου

πάλιν

καὶ

διαβολαὶ

πιθανώτεραι,

ὡς

αὐτὸς

εἴ

τοῦ

Λυαίου

σφαγῆς

αἴτιος.

Αὐτίκα

γοῦν

Μαξιμιανὸς

ὀξύτατα

χολωτεὶς,

καὶ

ἅμα

οἰωνισάμενος

ὡς

οὐκ

ἀγαθὸν

αὐτῷ

συνάντημα

Δημήτριος

γένοιτο

πρὸς

τὸ

στάδιον

ἀνίοντι,

κελεύει

τὸν

Μάρτυρα

ἐν

αὐταῖς,

αἷς

ἐφρουρεῖτο

καμίνοις

λόγχαις

ἀναιρεθῆναι.

ὅ

δὲ

καὶ

γίνεται.

Καὶ

ὁ

καλὸς

σὺ

τὰ

πάντα,

Δημήτριος,

ὁ

λίαν

τοῦ

δεσπότου

περιεχόμενος,

ὁμοίως

αὐτῷ

τὴν

πλευρὰν

λογχεύει

καὶ

τοῦτο

ἀφορμὴν

καὶ

ὁδὸν

εὐρίσκεις

τῆς

πρὸς

ἐκεῖνον

ἀφίξεως·

μακάριος

μὲν

τοῦ

βίου,

μακαριώτερος

δὲ

τοῦ

τέλους

καὶ

τῶν

στεφάνων

γενόμενος,

καὶ

τῆς

εἰς

αἰῶνας

αὐτῷ

τῷ

ποθουμένῳ

συγκατοικήσεως.

[20] Εἶχε

μὲν

οὖν

οὕτω

ταῦτα,

καὶ

ὁ

νεκρὸς

τοῦ

Μάρτυρος

κατὰ

γῆς

ἔῤῥιπτο,

καὶ

οὐδεὶς

αὐτοῦ

λόγος

μέχρι

τινός.

Πάντως

δὲ

οὔτε

ὅσιον

ἦν,

οὔτε

Θεοῦ

ὅλως

ἄξιον,

ὑπέρ

οὗ

πέπονθεν

ἐκεῖνο

τὸ

ἱερὸν

σῶμα

οὕτως

αὐτὸ

παριδεῖν.

Οὔκουν

οὐδὲ

παρεῖδεν.

Ἀλλὰ

τῶν

φιλοχρίστων

τινὲς

ὑποβολαῖς

ἐκείνου

νυκτὸς

προσελθόντες,

καὶ

ἁτίμως

κείμενον

τὸ

κομιδῇ

τίμιον

ἀνελόμενοι

εὐλαβῶς

περιστέλλουσιν.

Εἶτα

καὶ

κόνιν

ἐπιβαλόντες

ἐν

αὑτῷ

τῷ

τόπῳ

ἔνθα

δὴ

καὶ

τετελείωτο

θεωφιλῶς

τάπτουσιν·

εἷς

δέ

τις

τῶν

οἰκετῶν

τοῦ

Ἁγίου

παρεστὰς

αὐτῷ

τὴν

μακαρίαν

ὑφισταμένῳ

σφαγὴν,

καὶ

ὡς

οἷόντε

ἦν,

τὸ

θεῖον

ἐκεῖνο

αἷμα

εἰς

τὸ

ἰερὸν

τοῦ

μάρτυρος

ἀνελόμενος

ἐπώμιον,

ἀλλὰ

καὶ

ὃν

ἐφόρει,

κατά

χεῖρα

δακτύλιον

καὶ

αὐτὸν

συλλαβὼν

καὶ

τῷ

μαρτυρικῷ

αἷματι

περιχρίσας

πολύ

τι

χρῆμα

τεραστίων

εἰργάζετο

δι᾽

αὐτοῦ.

[21] Καὶ

οὐδὲν

ἦν

οὔτε

τῶν

νοσημάτων,

οὔτε

τῶν

πονηρῶν

πνευμάτων

οὕτως

ἰσχυρὸν,

ὥς

τε

εἰς

ἐκείνου

πεῖραν

ἐλθὸν;

μὴ

εὐθὺς

ἡττᾶσθαι

καὶ

πρὸς

φυγὴν

τρέπεσθαι·

ὡς

πλήρη

γενέσθαι

τῆς

τοιαύτης

φήμης

τῶν

τεραστίων

τὴν

πόλιν

Θεσσαλονικέων

ἅπασαν.

Ὅθεν

οὐ

δὲ

είκὸς

ἦν

ταῦτα

οὔτε

Μαξιμιανὸν

λαθεῖν,

οὔτε

τὸν

φθόνον

ὑπενεγκεῖν.

Καὶ

διὰ

τοῦτο

χειροῦται

παραχρῆμα

καὶ

ὁ

τῶν

ἀγαθῶν

δὴ

τούτων

ἐπίτροπος

οἰκέτης,

καὶ

ἀναιρεῖται.

Τριβουνάλιον

τὸ

τῆς

ἐκτομῆς

χωρίον,

Λοῦπος

ὁ

καλὸς

οἰκέτης

κατωνομάζετο.

Χρόνου

δὲ

παριόντος

καὶ

τῶν

σημείων

ἐν

ᾧ

τὸ

τοῦ

Μάρτυρος

ἐκρύττετο

σῶμα,

τοῦτο

μὲν

Μακεδονίαν,

τοῦτο

δὲ

καὶ

Θετταλίαν

διατρεχόντων,

ἤδη

δὲ

καὶ

τῆς

εἰδωλικῆς

ἀχλύος

εἰς

ἀκριβῆ

αἰθρίαν

μεταβαλούσης,

Λεόντιός

τις

ἀνὴρ

τήντε

δόξαν

λαμπρὸς,

τήν

τε

πρός

Χριστὸν

πίστιν

μάλα

θερμὸς

τοὺς

μὲν

ἐπαρχικοὺς

τότε

τῶν

Ἰλλυρικῶν

κατακοσμῶν

θρόνους,

εἰς

δὲ

τὴν

Δακῶν

ἀπιὼν,

νόσῳ

βαρυτάτῃ

κάτοχος

γίνεται,

οὕτως

αὐτὸν

πιεζούσῃ,

ὠς

καὶ

σιτίων

ἄγευστον

καὶ

ποτοῦ

ποιεῖν,

τὸν

δὲ

πᾶσι

φευκτὸν

θάνατον,

χρῆμά

τι

νομίζειν

ἐπιεικῶς

ποθείνοτατον,

καὶ

τοῦ

συνεχθέντος

αὐτὸν

δεινοῦ

μόνην

ἐλευθερίαν.

[22] Ἐπεὶ

οὖν

ἰατροὶ

μὲν

τῆς

νόσου

φανερῶς

ἡττῶντο,

φίλων

δέ

παρουσίαι

πρὸς

παραμυθίαν

τοῦ

πάθους

κόπος

κενὸς

ἐνομίζοντο,

ἐλπίσττε

ἦν

ἀπαλλαγῆς

τοῦ

νοσήματος

οὐδεμία,

ἐν

τούτῳ

χαλεπῶ

κλύδωνι

καὶ

ἀφύκτῷ

ἱερὰ

τις

ἄγκυρα

τῷ

ἐπάρχῳ

ἡ

πρὸς

τὸν

θεῖον

τοῦ

Μάρτυρος

ναὸν

καταφυγὴ

γίνεται.

Ἔνθα

δέ

καὶ

κλινοπετὴς

εἰσαχθεὶς

καὶ

κατὰ

τὸν

τόπον,

ἐν

ᾧ

τὸ

ἱερὸν

ἑκεῖνο

ὑπὸ

γὴν

κέκρυπτο

σῶμα,

κατατεθεὶς,

(ὢ

θείας

ἐπισκοπῆς!

ὢ

πράγματος

ἀποῤῥήτου!)

ἤρκει

μὲν

εἰς

δεῖγμα

σαφὲς

τῆς

Δημητρίου

χάριτος

καὶ

δυνάμεως,

καὶ

εἰ

τεθεὶς

καὶ

χρόνον

τινὰ

προσμείνας

καὶ

θερμότατα

δεηθεὶς

ᾔσθετο

τῆς

ἐπικουρίας.

Νῦν

δὲ

τοῦτό

ἐστι

τὸ

καινότατον,

τοῦτο

τῶν

ἐκείνου

θαυμάτων

τὸ

χαριέστατον,

ὅτι

ὁμοῦ

συνέδραμε

πάντα,

ἡ

ἐν

τῷ

ναῷ

τὸ

νοσοῦντος

κατάθεσις,

ἡ

τοῦ

Μάρτυρος

διὰ

τῶν

ἐκείνου

χειλέων

ἀνάκλησις,

καὶ

ἡ

τοῦ

νοσήματος

εὐχερὴς

ἀπόθεσις.

Οὕτω

ταχείας

Λεόντιος

τῆς

θερᾳπείας

τυχὼν,

ταχεῖαν

καὶ

αὐτὸς,

ὡς

εἶχε

τὴ

ἀμοιβὴν

ἀποδίδωσι.

[23] Καὶ

τὸν

μικρὸν

οἰκίσκον,

ὅς

τὸ

ἱερὸν

εἶχε

τοῦ

μάρτυρος

σῶμα,

ἐπιβραχέος

κομιδῇ

καὶ

στενοῦ

τοῦ

σχήματος

ὄντα,

τοῖς

περιβόλοις

τε

τοῦ

λουτροῦ

καὶ

τῷ

σταδίῳ

ἀπειλημμένον

καταστρέψας

αὐτὸς,

ναὸν

ἐν

αὐτῷ

τῷ

ἄστει

Θεσσαλονίκης

ἐξ

αὐτῶν

ἐδείματο

τῶν

κρηπίδων,

ὅς

καὶ

νῦν

ὁρᾶται

μέσος

τοῦ

δημοσίου

λουτροῦ

καὶ

τοῦ

σταδίου

κάλλιστα

διηρμένος,

οὐδενὸς

τῶν

ἄλλων

ὅσοι

πρὸς

θαῦμα

καὶ

ἡδονὴν

ὀφθαλμοὺς

κινοῦσι

κάλλους

ἤ

μεγέθους,

ἀπολειπόμενος.

Μέλλων

δὲ

φιλευσεβὴς

οὗτος

καὶ

πρὸς

τὸ

Ιλλυρικὸν

ἀπιέναι,

καὶ

τινα

τῶν

μερῶν

τοῦ

ἱεροῦ

σώματος

λαβεῖν

βουληθεὶς,

ὥστε

κἀκεῖσε

ναὸν

τῷ

εὐκλέει

Μάρτυρι

ἀναστῆσαι,

οὐκ

ἔσχε

συνευδοκοῦντα

τὸν

Ἅγιον,

ἀλλὰ

νυκτεριναῖς

αὐτὸν

ἐπιφανείαις

εἴρκει

τοῦ

ἀποχειρήματος.

Διὰ

ταῦτα

καὶ

δεύτερον

πλοῦν,

ὅ

λέγεται,

τὴν

χλαμύδα

τοῦ

Μάρτυρος

σεπτοῖς

αἵμασι

τοῖς

ἐκείνου

πεφοινιγμένην,

καὶ

τι

τοῦ

ἐπωμίου

λαβὼν,

ὁ

σύνηθες

ὀράριον

ὀνομάζειν,

καὶ

κιβωτῷ

τιμίᾳ

τὸ

ἀληθῶς

τίμιον

καταθέμενος,

οὕτω

τῷ

Μάρτυρι

μὲν

ἀφοσιοῖ

τὸν

πόθον,

ἑαυτῷ

δὲ

τὴν

μεγίστην

περιποιεῖται

ἀσφάλειαν.

[24] Ἀμέλει

καὶ

τὴν

ἐπὶ

τὸ

Σίρμιον

ὥρᾳ

χειμῶνος

διαβαίνειν

μέλλων,

ἤδη

παρὰ

ταῖς

ὄχθαις

τοῦ

Ιστρου

γενόμενος,

ἐπεὶ

πολὺς

ἦν

ἐκεῖνος,

καὶ

ἐπὶ

μέγα

τὸ

ῥεῖθρον

ἐξαίρων

ἐντεῦθέντε

οὐδενὶ

τῶν

πάντων

διαβατὸς

γινόμενος·

καί

ὁ

μὲν

χρόνος

πολὺς

μεταξὺ

ἦν,

ἔληγε

δὲ

οὐδαμῶς

τὸ

ῥεῖθρον,

ἀλλὰ

καὶ

ἔτι

τοῖς

βουλομένοις

ἀπηγόρευε

τὴν

διάβασιν,

ἐν

ἀθυμίαις

ὀ

ἀνὴρ

ἦν

λογισμοῖς

τε

ἐβάλλετο

καὶ

ἀπορίᾳ

συνείχετο.

Ἐπιφανεὶς

οὖν

ὁ

θεῖος

αὐτῷ

Δημήτριος,

πᾶσαν

ἀθυμίαν,

ἔφη,

καὶ

ἁπιστίαν

ὅτι

πόῤῥῳ

θέμενος

ἀπὸ

τῆς

ψυχῆς,

ὁ

ἐπιφέρη

μετὰ

χεῖρας

ἔχων

διάβηθι

τὸν

ποταμὸν

ἀδιστάκτως.

[25] Πείθεται

τῷ

φανέντι

ὁ

ἔπαρχος,

καὶ

ἔωθεν

τοῦ

ὀχήματος

ἐπιβὰς

ἐχώρει

διὰ

τοῦ

ῥείθρου

μετὰ

χεῖρας

τὴν

σορὸν

ἔχων,

ἄνω

δὲ

τοὺς

ὀφθαλμοὺς

μετὰ

τῆς

ψυχῆς,

ἡσυχῇ

τοῦ

ῥεύματος

ὑποχωροῦντος

αὐτῷ,

καὶ

εἵκοντος

νεύμασιν

άθεάτοις,

ἀξίαν

μὲν

θαύματος,

οὐ

μὲν

ἀναξίαν

καὶ

τῆς

πρὸς

τὸν

Μάρτυρα

πίστεως,

τὴν

διάβασιν

ὑποστάς.

Οὕτως

οὗν

ἀβλαβὴς

διελθὼν,

καὶ

προσωσι

Σιρμίῳ

γενόμενος

τὴν

ἱερὰν

ἐκείνην

σορὸν

μετὰ

τοῦ

ἐν

αὐτῇ

θησαυροῦ,

τῷ

παρ᾽

αὐτοῦ

νεαργηθέντι

ναῶ

τῷ

Μάρτυρι

δίδωσιν,

ἐν

γειτόνων

δὲ

οὗτος

τὸ

τῆς

καλλινίκου

μάρτυρος

Ἀναστασίας

ἵδρυται

σηκῷ·

ἱνὰ

καὶ

μάρτυρες

μάρτυσιν

ἄνω

τε

καὶ

κάτω

ταῖς

σκηναῖς

πλησίαζουσι.

Πολλῶν

μὲν

τῶν

θαυμάτων

δηλαδὴ

καὶ

ἰάσεων,

καὶ

παρ᾽

αὐτήνγε

τὴν

ὁδὸν

πλεῖστοι

τῆς

ἁγιαστικῆς

ἐκείνης

φερομένης

χλαμύδος

ἀπέλαυσαν,

χάριτι

καὶ

δυνάμει

Χριστοῦ

τοῦ

ἀληθινοῦ

Θεοῦ

ἡμων,

ᾧ

πρέπει

πᾶσα

δόξα,

τιμὴ

καὶ

προσκύνησις,

νῦν

καὶ

εἰς

τους

ἀτελευτήτους

αἰῶνας

τῶν

αἰώνων.

The gladiator Lyaeus, who to Maximian, And Maximian was exhibiting a spectacle of gladiators, and all the games of the pentathlon were being fulfilled ^a. And he sat on a lofty watch-place, determining that it was most delightful to be occupied in watching the contest. For he rejoiced, as it seems, seeing the shedding of human blood. And there was a certain barbarian man among Maximian's intimates, strong of hand, and powerful in wrestling, and of a size which exceeded measure: and therefore he was very pleasing to him, and was held in great esteem. His name was Lyaeus: and by fatherland he was a Vandal ^b.

[12] because he surpassed all in skill of fighting, was dear, He, boasting insolently that he conquered all by strength of body, and standing on a platform, that he might be manifest to the whole theatre, challenged the other gladiators to the contest. And then a circus had been made by Maximian, enclosed by many boards, into which had entered those who were to contend in single combat, and they began the pancratium and the wrestling ^c. Since, then, Lyaeus surpassed all in strength of body, and whoever joined hands with him was at once seen laid on the ground, or even meeting death at once from it, he brought the tyrant as great pleasure in laying low those who engaged with him as was the sadness which was not much later to overwhelm him.

[13] by Nestor, a Christian youth, when St. Demetrius For a certain man named Nestor, very young indeed in age, as one who had the down only just grown, but most pleasing in appearance and most excellent in form, who was known to the renowned Martyr Demetrius, when he saw Maximian so affected toward the barbarian and lavishing much money on the contests of gladiators; partly indeed holding in hatred the pride of Lyaeus, partly beholding the miracles which were wrought by the divine Martyr, and that very many, coming to him, were taught piety toward Christ, and desiring that this too should be one of the miracles of Demetrius, that, armed by his prayers, he might break the audacity of Lyaeus and cast down the barbarian's arrogance; runs to the Martyr, and, falling at his holy feet, says: Servant of God Demetrius, I am ready, and my mind swells to engage with Lyaeus, if only you will arm me with prayers, and through them will afford me a strong helping hand.

[14] What then does the divine Demetrius? As if he himself had asked, had blessed him, Maximian vainly and not been asked, he almost anticipated the petition by fulfilling it: and having quickly imposed upon him the seal of Christ both on his forehead and on his heart, he dismisses him, saying: Thou shalt both conquer Lyaeus, and shalt be a Martyr of Christ ^d. Which indeed is as if you should say: Thou shalt both conquer the manifest adversary, and him who is not manifest. Thus he not only put audacity into his mind, but also pronounced most certainly concerning the future. At once, therefore, Nestor, coming into the stadium, when he had leapt down through the tiers, both lays aside his tunic, and, standing by, shows himself to the Emperor. And Maximian, astounded at that audacity of the youth, and thinking it was something other than a display of strength, orders him to be set nearer, and, O youth, he says, counselling him, I know that want of money has driven you to burst out into this audacity, that either, if you conquer, you may procure for yourself much wealth; or, if you are overcome, you may escape an implacable enemy, poverty, together with life. But I, pitying your age and beauty, will furnish you with what is sufficient of money even for your audacity alone.

[15] Having received which, go away enjoying money together with life. striving to call Nestor away from his purpose, by Maximian, But by no means engage with Lyaeus, for he has already deprived many of life, and those far stronger than you. Having heard these things, Nestor neither seized the emperor's liberality nor again was terrified by the praises of Lyaeus. And to the Emperor he said: I do not desire money, nor do I come forth into the contest for that cause: but rather desiring glory, and wishing to appear more excellent than Lyaeus. For I have resolved to cast away not only riches but life itself, if in glory inferior to Lyaeus

I should be, and should yield him the first place. These words so spoken provoked to wrath both the emperor and all who were present about him: who (for he had not yet said how he was armed and on what he relied) thought them only words of arrogance and vainglory. And the emperor indeed vehemently incited Lyaeus to the contest, and rendered his mind, full of onset and audacity, keener.

[16] But the words of Demetrius gave courage to Nestor, being attacked, is killed. and Christ. Raising his eyes to Him, he said: God of Demetrius, grant me that I, who am a David short in age, may afflict Lyaeus, as another Goliath, with shame and ignominy. For relying on Thee I have undertaken this contest in the midst of many, that Thy name may be glorified, who alone art truly God, and sendest help from the holy place to those who do valiantly in Thee ^e. So he spoke, and, his short sword drawn, having entered the theatre and engaged with the barbarian, he deals a sure blow to his heart. And at once he slays him indeed, and almost Maximian himself too with the grief which he received from it: but much more he afflicts with death error itself, and with it its author, the hidden one, I mean, the Maximian.

[17] Maximian, angered at this, and ascribing the thing to magic But the emperor Maximian could no longer sit, but at once rose full of wrath and sadness, and went away into the royal palace, revolving grave things with himself, and, impious, wishing to pour darkness over the splendour of truth, and to obscure the victory of Nestor, and through it the worship of Christ, out of great ignorance calling the thing sorcery. For otherwise, he said, he who had performed such illustrious deeds would not have been slain by him. And so, the noble Nestor being summoned, as though the matter were certain and needed no inquiry: Tell me, he says, youth, using what magic art, or having what helpers, did you kill Lyaeus, so great a man? To whom Nestor, nothing terrified, but wholly confident that He who granted him to remove that proud and insolent man from the midst would Himself also give a fitting answer concerning him, said: Nothing such, O emperor, is of use either to me or to any Christian. And no man was a helper to me in this, but only the God of Demetrius, the God, O emperor, of the Christians.

[18] first Nestor The death of Lyaeus was His manifest contest, who with a strong hand and a high arm easily removed from the midst Sehon and Og, and innumerable others, far more distinguished in strength than Lyaeus, not only singly but even surrounded by a great multitude. But why do I not say the things which are truly worthy of Him alone, whose work is heaven and earth, and all things that are in them? The base ears of Maximian did not bear these great things, but as the reward of beautiful words and the prize of victory he brings him death by the sword. And thus indeed Nestor attained a blessed end for Christ: and received the blow from his own sword, Maximian so ordering, perhaps that it too might be sanctified with martyr's blood. When, therefore, Minutianus the Protector had been the minister of the slaughter, thus Nestor is sent across to Christ, whom he loved, and from whom he was to receive the crowns of a double victory ^f.

[19] and then orders Demetrius too to be killed. Hence frauds again against Demetrius, more plausible accusations are directed, that he himself was the cause of the slaughter of Lyaeus. At once therefore Maximin, vehemently angered, and at the same time divining that it would not be a good omen that Demetrius had met him as he went up into the stadium, to which there was access through the bath , orders the Martyr to be killed with lances in those very furnaces in which he was being guarded. Which is also done. And thy side, Demetrius, who art in every part beautiful and honourable, who diligently followest the Lord and lovest all things of His, is pierced with a lance likewise as was His, and thou findest this occasion and way of thy coming to Him; blessed indeed on account of thy life, but more blessed on account of thy departure and crowns, and on account of thy eternal dwelling with Him whom thou didst desire ^g.

[20] He is buried by the Christians, and by miracles through Lupus, These things indeed were so, and the body of the Martyr lay on the ground, nor for some while was any account had of it. But it was altogether neither holy nor plainly worthy of God, for whom that most sacred body had suffered, so to despise it. Neither, then, did He despise it: but certain of those who loved Christ, at His instinct, coming by night, when they had taken up the precious body lying very shamefully, piously compose it. Then also, dust being cast upon it, they bury it piously and religiously in that very place in which it had been consummated. And a certain one of the Saint's servants, standing near him when he underwent that blessed slaughter, when he had collected, as he could, that divine blood in the sacred superhumeral of the Martyr, and had taken the ring which he wore on his hand, and dipped it in the Martyr's blood, wrought very many miracles through these.

[21] Nor was there any disease, nor evil demon so strong, [who himself also is slain for that reason, by signs wrought through his relics and other] but that at once, if it had made trial of him, it would be overcome and turned to flight: so that the whole city of the Thessalonians was filled with such fame of miracles. Wherefore it was neither fitting that these things should be hidden from Maximian, nor could he bear the envy. And therefore the servant, the steward of these goods, is at once seized and put to death. The place in which he was killed was the Tribunal; and that excellent servant was called Lupus ^h. And as time went on, and signs from the place in which the Martyr's body lay hidden pervaded both Macedonia and Thessaly too, and indeed the darkness of the images was turned into perfect serenity, a certain Leontius, both illustrious in glory and burning with the faith of Christ, who was then prefect of Illyricum, having set out for Thessalonica ⁱ, is attacked by a grave disease, pressing him so that he neither ate nor drank; and he would think death, which is shunned by all, a thing very much to be desired, and the only liberation from the evil which vexed him.

[22] When therefore both the physicians were openly defeated by the disease, and the labour of the friends present to console his pain was reckoned vain by him, already celebrated, by Leontius, whom he had restored to health, and there was no hope that he would be freed from the disease; when, I say, he was tossed by such great waves, and those plainly inevitable, a certain sacred anchor was a refuge to the prefect, to the divine temple of the Martyr. Into which, when he had been brought on his bed and had been laid in the place in which that sacred body had been laid up in the earth (O divine visitation! O ineffable thing!), it would indeed have sufficed to show openly the grace and power of Demetrius if, when he had been laid there and had waited some time, and had prayed most vehemently, he had felt help. But now this is the greatest novelty, this the most delightful of his miracles, that all these things concurred at once, the laying of the sick man in the temple, the invocation of the Martyr through his lips, and the easy expulsion of the disease ^k. Leontius, having obtained so swift a cure, himself also renders, as he could, a swift recompense.

[23] For when he had overturned the little house in which the Martyr's sacred body was deposited, first by a temple at Thessalonica, which was very small and narrow, and cut off by the precinct of the bath and by the stadium, he built a temple in the very city of Thessalonica from its very foundations: which is still seen now, most beautifully raised, midway between the public bath and the stadium ^l: for in beauty and greatness it yields to none of those which move the eyes to admiration and pleasure. And this pious man, being about to depart into Illyricum, when he wished to take some part of the sacred body, that he might raise a temple there too to the glorious Martyr, the Saint did not assent to him, but by nocturnal apparitions keeps him from what he had begun. Therefore, by a second sailing, as it is said, when he had taken the chlamys of the Martyr, which had been stained with his venerable blood, and something from his superhumeral, which they are wont to call the orarium, and had deposited them in a precious chest, which was truly precious, he thus both satisfied the Martyr's desire and acquired for himself the greatest security.

[24] and then, the Ister being prodigiously Certainly when, in winter time, being about to return into Illyricum ^m, he was hastening to Sirmium on account of certain serious business, and had already come to the banks of the Ister, since this had risen, and was raising a great flood, and for that reason could not be crossed by anyone at all, and much time indeed had intervened, but the flood by no means ceased, but forbade passage to those who wished to cross ⁿ; he was affected with great sickness of mind, and was very pensive, and was involved in perplexed doubt. But the divine Demetrius, appearing to him, said: Casting far from your mind all sickness of mind and incredulity, carrying in your hands what you bear with you, cross the river without hesitation.

[25] crossed, he is honoured by another at Sirmium too. The prefect obeys him who had appeared: and when in the morning he had mounted his vehicle, carrying the casket in his hands through the river, and holding his eyes too lifted with his mind, he went on, the flood silently retreating, and yielding to nods which do not fall under sight; undergoing a passage worthy indeed of admiration, but not unworthy of the faith which he had in the Martyr ^o. When, therefore, he had thus crossed unharmed, and had come to Sirmium, he deposits that sacred casket, with the treasure which it kept, in the temple newly built there. And it was near the temple of the glorious martyr Anastasia [p], so that the Martyrs might in a manner have neighbouring tabernacles below as above. And very many obtained many miracles and cures even on the very way, while that sanctifying chlamys was being carried [q], by the grace and power of Christ our true God, to whom all glory is fitting now and always and for ages of ages. Amen.

ANNOTATIONS.

p. That at that time at which Leontius, prefect of Illyricum mentioned above, flourished, that is, at the beginning of the fifth century, a church sacred to St. Anastasia truly existed at Sirmium, is in some way confirmed from what I brought forward at number 133 of the preliminary Commentary.

q. Let the credit as regards these miracles and cures rest with the author, who meanwhile, besides the anonymous biographer of our Saint from whom he took his material, has absolutely no other writer voting with him.

* The things enclosed by these two asterisks are lacking in the Greek.

MIRACLES

Received from two Greek manuscript codices, one of the Vatican library, 821, the other formerly Mazarin's, now royal of Paris, 1517,

TRANSLATED BY CORNELIUS BYEUS.

Demetrius, M., at Thessalonica in Macedonia. (S.)

By John, archbishop of Thessalonica.

BOOK I.

By John, archbishop of Thessalonica,

CHAPTER I.

Of Marianus, prefect of Illyricum, afflicted with a most grievous sickness, and restored to health through St. Demetrius.

ΜΑριανὸς

τὶς

ἀνήρ

τῶν

ἐν

γένει

καὶ

πλούτῳ

λαμπρῶν,

καὶ

εἰς

τῶν

τῆς

συγκλήτου

βουλῆς

παρὰ

βασιλεῦσιν

ὑπάρχων,

ἐκελεύσθη

παρ᾽

αὐτῶν

καὶ

τοὺς

τῶν

ὑπάρχων

θρόνους

κατὰ

τὸ

Ἰλλυρίων

ἔθνος

διέπειν,

καὶ

δὴ

φθάσας

τὴν

θεοφρούρητον

τῶν

Θεσσαλονικαίων

μητρόπολιν,

καὶ

ἀγνῶς

καὶ

εὐσεβῶς

κυβερνῶν

τὰς

τῆς

δίκης

ἠνίας,

καὶ

εὐαρεστῶν

τῷ

θεᾦ,

καὶ

παρὰ

τῶν

δήμων

εὐχαριστούμενος,

ἐφθονήθει

παρά

τοῦ

πᾶσιν

ἀγαθοῖς

βασκαίνοντος

διαβόλου·

καὶ

πρῶτον

μὲν

ὑπεβάλλοντο

αὐτῷ

παρ᾽

ἐκείνου

γαστριμαργίας

λογισμοὶ,

καὶ

φίλοσωμάτων

παθῶν

ἔρωτες

ἀπρεπεῖς,

ἔνδον

σμύχοντες

αὐτοῦ

τὸ

γαληνὸν

καὶ

σῷφρον

τοῦ

νοῦ.

Κᾷντεὐθεν

ὡς

φλόξ

ἐξενύπτετο

πάλιν

ἡ

ῥίζα

τῶν

κακῷν,

ὡς

ὁ

ἀπόστολος

ἔφησεν,

ἡ

φιλαργυρία,

ἧς

οἱ

κλάδοι

τῶν

παθῶν

ὁ

ἐσμὸς,

καὶ

καρπὸς

ὁ

δεύτερος

θάνατος

ὁ

τῶν

εἰς

τὴν

λίμνην

τοῦ

ἀσβέστου

πυρὸς

βαλλομένων.

[2] Ἐπεὶ

οὖν

ὁ

μέγας

ἐκεῖνος

ἀνήρ

τῶν

ἀρετῶν

φίλος

ὢν,

καὶ

τὴν

ἀξίαν

μᾶλλον

κοσμῶν,

ἢ

ταύτῃ

κοσμούμενος,

τῇ

μὲν

ὀλιγωδεΐᾳ

τὴν

σάρκα

χαλιναγωγῶν,

τὰς

ἡδονὰς

αὐτῆς

τέλεον

ἐξηφάνιζεν.

Ἐντεῦθεν

δὲ

πλουτῶν

καὶ

περιττεύων

τῶν

ἐπιτηδείων,

τοὺς

τῆς

φιλαργυρίας

βρόχους,

ὡς

τί

μίασμα

καὶ

ψυχοφθόρον

ἄγγος

ἀπεσείετο.

Κατανοήσας

ὁ

παμπόνηρος

δαίμων

τὰ

τοιαῦτα

τοῦ

ἀνδρός

προτερήματα,

καὶ

εἰδὼς

τὸν

παροιμιαστὴν

εἰρηκότα,

ὅτι

οἱ

δυνάσται

θυμώδεις

εἰσὶν

εἰς

ὀργάς

καὶ

παροξυσμοὺς,

καὶ

παρορμᾶν

αὐτὸν

ἐπειρᾶτο

κατὰ

τῶν

ὑπηκόων,

εἰ

πῶς

ἐντεῦθεν

αὐτὸν

ἀπαρέσκοντα

δείξειεν

τῷ

Θεῷ,

προσεπιβάλλων

αὐτῷ

καὶ

λύπην

ἐκ

τοῦ

μὴ

προβαίνειν

δῆθεν

εἰς

πέρας

τὰ

τῷ

θυμῷ

μελετώμενα.

Ἀποτυχία

γὰρ,

φησὶν,

ἀμύνης

λύπην

γεννᾶ.

[3] Ὡς

δὲ

καὶ

ἀμφοτέρους

τοὺς

βρόχους

τούτους

διέκοψεν

τῇ

πραΰτητι,

καὶ

τῇ

φιλανθρωπίᾳ

διὰ

τοῦ

γινώσκειν

τὴν

ταυτότητα

τοῦ

καθ᾽

ἑαυτὸν,

καὶ

τοῦ

τῶν

ὑπηκόων

φυραμάτος,

τῷ

τῆς

ἀκηδίας

λοιπὸν

ἕκτῳ

τῆς

κακίας

βλαστήματι

καθεστῶτι

τοῦτον

ὁ

ἀλάστωρ

συνέτριβεν

σατανὰς,

καὶ

ὑπέβαλεν

ὡς

οὐδεὶς

ἔσται

τῶν

κόπων

τούτων

μισθὸς,

ὑποσπείρων

τὴν

ἀπιστείαν

τῶν

τοῦ

Σωτῆρος

ἠμῶν

ἐπαγγελιῶν

καὶ

λήθῃ

τῆς

τῶν

ἐπομένων

ἀμηρύτου

δόξης

ἐπιχωννὺς

ὥσπερ

καὶ

θάπτων

τὸν

νοῦν·

ἅμα

δὲ

καὶ

ὑποτίθετο

τοῖς

λογισμοῖς

τοῦ

ἀρίστου

ἐκείνου

ἀνδρὸς,

ὡς

ὁ

τῶν

ἀρετῶν

κάματος

πολὺς,

καὶ

ἱδρὼς

ψυχῆς

οὐκ

ὀλίγος.

Καὶ

τοῦτον

μόνον

μισθὸν,

καὶ

ἀνάπαυλαν

τὴν

έξ

ἀνθρώπων

εὐφημίαν:

ἐντεῦθεν

ἕλκων

αὐτὸν

εἰς

τὸ

σαλπίζειν

τὰς

ἀρετὰς

αὐτοῦ,

καὶ

φανῆ

τὶ

ἂν

τῇ

παρὰ

τοῖς

ὑπηκόοις

εὐδοξίᾳ,

καὶ

τῷ

ἑβδόμῳ

τῶν

παθῶν

δαίμονι,

λέγω

δὴ

τῷ

τῆς

κενοδοξίας,

εὐάλωτον

αὐτὸν

μηχανόμενος

καθιστᾶν.

[4] Ἐπεὶ

δὲ

τῇ

τοῦ

Χριστοῦ

βοηθείᾳ

ἐκεῖνος

οὐτῶν

ὐπηκόων

τοσοῦτον,

ὅσον

ἑαυτοῦ

κρατῶν

άπεδείκνυτο,

καὶ

τῶν

ἐπηγγελμένων

ἀγαθῶν

παρὰ

τοῦ

θεοῦ

τοῖς

ἐν

τῷ

κόσμῳ

τούτῳ

κακοχουμένοις

ἐκουσίως

διὰ

παντὸς

μεμνημἑνος,

καὶ

τῶν

ᾐπειημένων

αἰωνίων

βασάνων

τοῖς

ῥαθύμως

ἐν

τῷ

παρόντι

βίῳ

διαγενομένοις,

ἁδιάλειπτως

ὥσπερ

ποιούμενος

τὴν

μελέτην,

τὴν

μέν

ἀκηδίαν

τῇ

ὑπομονῇ

διὰ

τῆς

σταθερᾶς

πίστεως

ἀπεσόβει,

τὴν

δὲ

κενοδοξίαν

τῷ

φόβῳ

τῆς

γεέννης

μαραίνων,

εἰς

ταπεινοφροσύνην

μετέτρεπεν,

ὡς

λοιπὸν

αὐτοῦ

τοὺς

ἑπτὰ

τῆς

κακίας

ὑπερβάντὸς

λογισμοὺς,

καὶ

τὰς

τούτων

πάγας,

ἀχυρμιᾶς

δίκην

τῇ

Χριστοῦ

βοηθείᾳ

καταπατήσαντος,

τρίζειν

κατ᾽

αὐτοῦ

τοὺς

ὀδόντας

τὸν

ἀντικείμενον,

καὶ

δὴ

τὴν

ἐπ᾽

ὀμφαλοῦ

γαστρὸς

τὸ

δὴ

λεγόμενον

πανοπλίαν

αὐτοῦ

κινεῖ,

τὴν

ἐλέπολιν

τῶν

λογισμῶν,

τὸ

πρωτόφυτον

τῆς

κακίας

βλάστημα,

ᾧ

καὶ

αὑτὸς

ὸ

ἀρχίκακος

ὄφις

πρὸ

πάντων

ἑαυτὸν

τῇ

τῶν

λογισμῶν

διαστροφῇ

περιέπειρεν:

διὸ

καὶ

τῶν

οῦρανῶν

κατέπεσεν

εἰς

γῆν

ῥιφεὶς.

[5] Τὶ

δὲ

τοῦτο

ἐστὶν;

Ἡ

τῆς

ὑπερηφανείας,

ἀγαπητοὶ,

δυσίατος

σηπεδῶν,

ἡ

κορυφὴ,

καὶ

κορωνὶς

τῆς

κακίας,

ἡ

πρώτη

τῆς

λογικῆς

οὐσίας,

καὶ

ἐσχάτη

νόσος:

πρώτη

μὲν

διὰ

τὸ

ταύτῃ

πρῶτον,

ὡς

εἴρηται,

περιπαρῆναι

τὸν

σατανὰν

ἑκόντι·

ἐσχάτη

δὲ,

διὰ

τὸ

μηδὲν

παθος

ὑπερνικῆσαι

ταύτην

τῷ

κακῷ.

Ταύτην

ἐγείρει

τοῖς

λογισμοῖς

τοῦ

ἀνδρὸς

τελευταῖαν

συμπλοκὴν,

καὶ

δυσκαταγώνιστον

ὁ

τῆς

κοινῆς

φύσεως

τῶν

ἀνθρώπων

ἐχθρὸς

ὑποσπείρων

αὐτῷ

τοιᾶς

δέ

δὲ

τινας

ὑπονοίας:

ἰδοὺ

φησὶν

κατηγωνίσω

τῇ

ἐγκρατείᾳ

σου,

καὶ

τῇ

συνέσει

τὰ

πάθη

τῆς

ψυχῆς

καὶ

τοῦ

σώματος,

τῷ

λογιστικῷ

αὐτῆς

μέρει

σοφῶς

καὶ

νουνεχῶς

τὰ

τοῦ

θυμοῦ,

καὶ

τῆς

ἐπιθυμίας

αὐτῆς

ήνιοχήσας

φρυάγματα,

καὶ

τὰς

τῶν

ἀπάντων

δαιμόνων

μηχανὰς

εἰς

ἀέρα

διέλυσας,

παρὰ

σοῦ

ἡ

γαστριμαργία

δεδούλωται,

τὸ

τῆς

σαρκὸς

ἀκρατές

τῆς

φιλαδονίας

πάθος

πεπέδηται,

ἡ

φιλαργυρία

πεπάτηται,

ὁ

θυμὸς

ὑπὸ

τῆς

πραότητος

κατεπόθη,

ἡ

λύπη

τῶν

κοσμικῶν

τῇ

τῆς

ἀφθαρσίας

ἐλπίδι

ἐῤῥάγη,

ἡ

ἀκηδία

τῶν

ἀρετῶν

διὰ

τῆς

πίστεως,

καὶ

τῆς

θύρας

αὐτῆς,

λέγω

δὴ

τῆς

ὑπομονῆς,

ἐνευρώθη·

ἡ

κενοδοξία,

ταυτὸν

δὲ

εἰπεῖν,

φιλοδοξία,

καὶ

ἀνθρωπαρεσκία

τῷ

κρυφίῳ

τῶν

ἀρετῶν

ἐξαπώλολεν.

[6] Τούτων

οὖν

ἀπάντων

ὑπέρτερος

γεγονώς,

μακαριώτατε

ὕπαρχε,

καὶ

ἐνδοξότατε

παρὰ

Θεῷ

καὶ

ἀνθρώποις,

πῶς

οὐκ

ἐγγὺς

εἶ

τῶν

ἁγίων,

τῇ

ἀνδρείᾳ

τῆς

ἑαυτοῦ

ψυχῆς

μεγαλυνθεὶς,

οὖ

γὰρ

δὴ

τῇ

οὐρανόθεν

βοηθείᾳ.

Εἰ

γὰρ

ἐξ

ἄλλου

ἦν

ἡ

ἀντίληψις,

οὐ

δὲ

στέφανός

σοι

ἀπέκειτο.

Ταῦτα

ὁ

μιαρὸς

σύμβουλος

τοῖς

λογισμοῖς

ὑποβάλλων

τοῦ

μνημονευθέντος

μακαριοτάτου

Μαριανοῦ

τοῦ

ἐπάρχου,

εἰς

ἔπαρσιν

προεκαλεῖτο

τὸν

ἄνδρα,

καί

πείθειν

ἐπειράτω,

οἴκοθεν

αὐτὸν

κτήσασθαι

τὰς

ἀρετὰς,

ἅς

προείπομεν,

καὶ

οὐ

τῇ

τοῦ

Θεοῦ

βοηθείᾳ,

ἵνα

εἰ

συνέβη

τοῦτον

συνκαταθέσθαι

τῇ

βουλῇ,

λυπηθεὶς

ὁ

Θεὸς

ὡς

ἀχαριστηθεὶς,

στερήσει

αὐτὸν

τῆς

ἐαυτοῦ

βοηθείας,

καὶ

ἔρημον

αὐτὸν

λαβόμενος

ὁ

παμπόνηρος

κατεργάσηται

ἐν

αὐτῷ

κατὰ

τὸ

γεγραμμένον

πᾶσαν

έπιθυμίαν.

[7] Ὡς

δὲ

καὶ

ἐν

τούτῳ

κατηγονίσθη

διὰ

Χριστοῦ

ὁ

βελίαρ,

τοῦ

μακαριωτάτου

Μαριανοῦ

τὴν

ἐκ

Θεοῦ

βοήθειαν

ἐπικαλουμένου,

καὶ

λέγοντος,

ὅτι

σὺ

εἶ

ὁ

Θεὸς

ὁ

διδάσκων

ἄνθρωπον

γνῶσιν,

ὁ

τῆς

ψυχῆς

ποιητὴς

καὶ

τοῦ

σώματος

πλάστης,

καὶ

τῆς

ἁρμονίας

αὐτῶν

συμπήκτωρ,

καὶ

τῆς

διαζεύξεως

αὐτῶν

πρὸς

τὸ

συμφέρον

οἰκονόμος,

καὶ

πάλιν

τῆς

ἀναπλάσεως

τῆς

ἀναστάσεως

τῆς

ἐν