« PrethodnaNastavi »
The intensity of this revival of profane studies, and the new prestige which they enjoyed, might be illustrated by the suspicious attitude of u inonk like the Patriarch Ignatius towards secular learning. But the suspicion 'which prevailed in certain ecclesiastical or monastic circles is violently expressed in a venomous attack' upon Leo the Philosopher after his death by one Constantine, a former pupil, who had discovered the wickedness of Hellenic culture. The attack is couched in elegiacs, and he confesses that he owed his ability to write them to the instruction of Lio:
I, Constantine, these verst's wrought with skill,
He accuses his master of apostasy to Hellenism, of rejecting Christ, of worshipping the ancient gods of Greece:
Teacher of countless arts, in worldly lore
Thou a chorus of good Christians is invited to address the
Eucliil vi. def. 5. See J. L. Heiberg, Der by: Mathematiker Leon, in Bibliothecie mathematica, i. 2, 3-4 894. (1887), where attention is also drawn to a note at the end of the Florentine JIS. of the treatise of Archimedes on the Quadrature of the Parabola : ευτυχαίης, Λέον γεωμέτρα, πολλους εις λευκάβαντας τους πολύ φίλτατε Μούσαις. Leo is to be distinguished from Leo Magister, a diplomatist in the reign of Lou VI.; cp. de Boor, B.%. 10, 03.
i l'rinted with tlic works of loco VI. (surnamed ó copús and hence confused with the l’hilosopher) iu lligue, 107,
c. Ixi. 341. The verses are quite good, for the perioil.
? Sec below, f. 141, n. 4. Lco hail two pupils named Constantine-the Slavonic apostle (see above, p. 394) anı the Sicilian. The latter is doubtless the pupil in question. He wrote good Anacrcontics (conveniently accessible in Bergk's Perlue Lyrici Gracci, cd. 4, 318 877.). The woapcov (pWTIKÁV (351 844.) is pleasing. It begins :
ποταμού μέσον κατείδον
apostute who had made Zeus his divinity, in the following strain :
(io to the house of gloom, yea down to hell,
Whoso Muse is queen, in sooth, of all that crew." The satire was circulated, and evoked severe criticism. The author was sharply attacked for impiety towards his master, and some alleged that he was instigated by Leo's enemies to calumniate the memory of the philosopher. Constantine replied to these reproaches in an iambic effusion.' He does not retract or mitigate his harsh judgment on Leo, but complacently describes himself as “the parricide of an impious master-even if the pagans (Hellenes) should burst with spite."" His apology consists in appealing to Christ, als the sole fountain of truth, and imprecating curses on all heretics and unbelievers.
The spirit of the verses directed against Hellenists may be rendered thus :
Foul fare they, who the guls adore
Some squinte hideously (now.
pointed out. The opening lines state 2 και 1Πτολεμαστρονόμους.
that the author was reviled for having 3 This homage to Homer is not accused his master Leo of apostasy. ironical. It is a genuine though We learn fronh l. 14 that Leo was dead ambiguious tribute.
wlien Constantine published his attack. Migne, ib. 660 89. The poem is (I may note that in l. 25
διέμενος here described (after Matrangit, from should be corrected to FCÁMevos). whose ducoiloba Girarca, vol. ii., it is rc. forintol) as an Apology of Leo tlic Philo.
και ο πατροραίστης δυσσεβούς διδασκάλους, sopher, vindicating himself against
καν οι διαρραγείεν "Ελληνες μέσον the calumnicy of Constantine. This
μανέντες εν λόγοισι Τελχίνων μετα.
The sentiment is quite in the vein of the early Fathers of the Church; but it would not have displeased Xenophanes or Plato, and the most enthusiastic Hellenist could afford to smile at a display of such blunt weapons. The interest of
a the episode lies in the illustration which it furnishes of the vitality of secular learning (ý Qúpadev oopía) in the ninth century. Though the charges which the fanatic brings against Leo may be exaggerations, they establish the fact that he was entirely preoccupied by science and philosophy and unconcerned about Christian Logmi. The appearance of a man of this type is in itself significant. If we consider that the study of the (ireck classics was at permanent feature of the Byzantine world and was not generally held to clash with orthodox piety, the circumstance that in this period the apprehensions of fanatical or narrow-minded people were excited against the dangers of profane studies confirms in a striking way our other evidence that there was it genuine revival of higher education and a new birth of enthusiasm for secular knowledge. Woull that it were possible to speak of any real danger, from science and learning, to the prevailing superstitions! Danger there was none. Photius, not Leo, was the typical Byzantine savant, uniting ardent devotion to learning with no less ardent zeal for the orthoclox faith.
Another sign of the revival of secular studies is the impression which some of their chief exponents made on the popular imagination—preserved in the stories that were told of Lxo, of John the l'atriarch, and of Photius. It was said that when Leo' was archbishop of Thessalonica the crops failed and there was a distressing dearth. Leo told the people 1:00 to be discouraged. By making an astronomical calculattion he discovered at what time benignaut and sympathetic influences would descend from the sky to the earth, and directed the husbandmen to sow their seed accordingly. They were amazed and gratified by the plenteousness of the ensuing · harvest. If the chronicler, who tells the tale, perfunctorily olserves that the result was due to prayer and not to the
"That Leo was actually interested bacher, (1.B. 1.. 631) and of a fragment. in the arts of discovering future events ary astrological treatise on Eclipses may be argued from the attribution to (published in llermes, 8, 174 597.,1871), lim of a μέθοδος προγνωστική του αγίου : wlicle is evidently copied from a work ευαγγελίου και του ψαλτηρίον (Krum. dating from the pre-Saracenic period.
vain science of the archbishop, it is clear that he was not unimpressed.
But leo the astrologer escaped morc casily than his kinsman John the Grammarian-the iconoclast l'utriarchwho was believed to be it wicked and powerful magician." His brother, the jutrician Arsaber, had a suburban house on the Bosphorus, near its issue from the Euxine, a large and rich mansion, with porticoes, baths, and cisterns. Here the l'atriarch used constantly to stay, and he constructed a subterranean chamber accessible by a small door and a long staircase. In this “cave of Trophonius" he pursued bis nefarious practices, necromancy, inspection of livers, and other methods of sorcery.
Nuns were his accomplices, perhaps his "mediums” in this den, and scandal said that time was spared for indulgence in forbidden pleasures as well as for the pursuit of forbidden knowledge. An interesting legend concerning his black magic is related.
An enemy, under three ruloubtabile leaders, was molesting and harassing the Empire.Theophilus, unable to repel them, was in despair, when Johın came to the rescue by his magic art. A threeheaded stiltue was made under his direction and placed among the statues of bronze which adorned the euripos in the Hippodrome. Three men of immense physical strength, furnished with huge iron hammers, were stationed by the statue in the dark hours of the night, and instructed, at a given sign, simultaneously to raise their hammers and smite off the heads. John, concealing his identity under the disguise of a layman, recited a magical incantation which translated the vital strength of the three foemen into the statue, and then ordered the men to strike. They struck;
Cp above, p. 60. llis nick lojou transferred to the statue the name Lekanomantis refers to the uso δύναμις of the leaders ή μάλλον (to of a dish in magic practices, anii may Spreak more accurately) any opoar be illustrated by the land rolunula, πρότερον εν τω ανδριάντι [δύναμιν] cx vircrsis metallicis matcriis. fabri. καταβαλών εκ της των στοιχειωσάντων facta,, employed in the operations duvápews (which seems to imply that lcscribed by Amminntis, xxix. 1. 29. the imago had been constructed out of 32. Michael Syr. 114.115 says that an old statu" which had been origin. John worshipped idols and practised ally OroixEWOév). This operation is magic "behind the voil'in tlio illustrated by an occurrenco in the sanctuary."
reign of Romanus I. An astronomer 2 The insuperable enemy is told the Emperor to cut off the head legendary as the rest of the story. of a stiltnie which was above the vault
The Grerk writer (Cont. Th. 156) of the Yerolophos and faced towards explains that John ly liis otolyeiwtikol the west, in order to pirocure the death
two liends fell to the ground; but the third blow was less forceful, and bent the head without severing it. The cvent corresponded to the performance of the rite. The hostile leaders fell out among themselves; two were slain by the third, who was wounded, but survived; and the enemy retreated froin the Roman borders.
That Jolin practised arts of divination, in which all the : world believed, we need no more doubt than that Leo used his i astronomical knowledge for the purpose of reading the secrets of
the future in the stars. It was the inedieval habit to associate scientific learning with supernatural powers and perilous knowledge, and in every man of science to see a magician. But the vulgar mind had some reason for this opinion, as it is probable that the greater number of the few men who devoted themselves to scientific research did not disdain to study occult lore and the arts of prognostication. In the cise of John, his practices, encouraged perhaps by the Einperor's curiosity,' furnished a welcome ground of cnlumny to the image-worshippers who letested him. The learning of Photius also gave rise to legends which were even more damaying and had a far more slender foundation. It was of the Bulgariau Twar Sinicon, airyo which Muluager's lifo cloymended on a γάρ στοιχειώσθαι την τοιαύτην στήλης brand, or that of Delphis on the dayús (Skylitzes =Cedr. ii. 308, cp. Cont. of Sinaitha. Thus we read of a statue Th. 411); Romanus followed his aulvicc which was the otaxrior of one Phidalia and Simeon died instantly. (Ellyvidos, a payan? Pulria, 195). magic process of proxeiwois was reg!!. But we find the best illustration in larly used when statues were erectul. the story about the Emperor Alexander, Légend said that many of the statues, son of Basil I., who believed in soothin Constautinople had been thus ene' sayers, and was told by them. (Cont. chanted by Apollonius of Tyana (who Th. 379) that tho bronzo image of a is called orayewMatixbs in Cedr. i. 316), wild lour in the Hippodrome oto'xelov seo Putrir, 191, 206, 221. He was said autoù eln, which is explained by to have placed three stone images of the corresponiling passage in Simeon storks αντιπροσώπως αλλήλοις όρωντας, (Leo Gr.) 287 το του συναγρού στοιχείον to prevent storks from coming to the σοι και τη ση ζωή προσανάκειται. city (ib. 11). The Tycle of the city in Compare the use of oroixeib in modern the vilion was èo TOXE.Wuévov (ib. 160). 'Circek for spirit, bogey; and I may The l'alladion brought from Rone oint out that στοιχείον του τόπου to Constantinople is called a otocyciov excurs in Digeurs Akritas, vi. 320 (in lib. 174). Diels (Elementum, 54-57), Legrand's “Grotta-Ferrata" ed. 1892), in discussing the history of στοιχείον, in the sense of ghost or genius of the nicntions the use of oroxecw in the place. Mlustrations of magic practices sense of “ bewitch" (and Dieterich, of this kind will be found in Dalzell, Rheinisches Juseum, 56, 77 sqq. 1901, The Darker Superstitions of Scotland, is certainly right in connecting the 328 897. (1834). —Thic destruction of meaning with the use of the letters of the thrce-headed statuc ly Jolin is the alphallet in magic), but has not pictured in the dailrid Skylitzes realised that it means only a special (Beylie, l'llabilation byzantine, 106). kind of bewitching—the sorcery by i Cp. Cont. Th. 121,0.