A Postscript on Nicolas Cabasilas' "Anti-Zealot" Discourse

Author(s): Ihor Ševčenko

Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 16 (1962), pp. 403-408
Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291169 .
Accessed: 09/10/2013 07:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Dumbarton Oaks Papers.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.188.254.180 on Wed, 9 Oct 2013 07:34:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A POSTSCRIPT ON NICOLAS CABASILAS' "ANTI-ZEALOT" DISCOURSE
IHOR EV6ENKO
I Theocharides kindly incorporated my results
into his narrative.6 This, however, was only
the commentary to the edition of
IN
Nicolas Cabasilas' "Anti-Zealot" Dis- one side of the picture. In a number of other
reviews and articles, my findings, if con-
course (Dumbarton Oaks Papers, II [1957],
sidered at all, were declared to be either
79-171), I made one main point and offered
one main suggestion. The point was that the inconclusive, or completely wrong. G. L.
Discourse had nothing to do with the program Seidler,' the author of a monograph on social
of the Zealots, the famous social revolution- thought in Byzantium, discussed the Zealot
aries of Thessalonica (1342-1349), but was program on the basis of Cabasilas' work
concerned-in addition to other matters ec- without any reference to the fact that the
clesiastical in nature-with the secularization problem had been reopened. V. Hrochov6,8
of monastic property by the Byzantine who had a few kind words to say on my
government for purposes of defense. I even presentation and technique, was of two
stated that Cabasilas' text should be elimi- minds. Onceshe describedmy main contention
nated from the Zealot dossier. as the incontestably positive result of my
The suggestion was that the lay adversaries analysis. In the next sentence, however, she
attacked by Cabasilas were the Loyalist found that by considering Apocaucus as
authorities in Constantinople during the Cabasilas' target, I contradicted myself
forties of the fourteenth century, in particular (presumably since, in her opinion, the Zealots
Alexius Apocaucus (d. July II, 1345). As for were only the most radical of Apocaucus'
the mystic's ecclesiastical adversaries, I supporters). Even if my thesis were accepted,
hesitated between Hyacinthus, Metropolitan the proposition that the Zealot program was
of Thessalonica (?-1346) and Patriarch John social in character was not refuted.9This was
Calecas (1334-1347). On the strength of this fair enough. Others, however, flatly opposed
suggestion, I proposed the year 1344 as the my reinterpretation and proclaimed that
Cabasilas did write specifically against the
probable date of the Discourse.
In his review of DOP, II, J. Gill stated Zealots and their "Zealotic" archbishop.
that my conclusion would "meet with In the course of his refutation, E. Werner'o
general acceptance."' Alas, he was too 6 ToTroypapia KaI 1TOrTilKai iUTOpia Tf 5 eEa0a-
optimistic. True, among reviewers, many NoviKriS KTrr&xTrY I'aIA va (I959) [= 'ET-rtpEia
accepted my findings," though some with MaOKESOVIKG VXTrrov8v, k XEpaOVT'OV
"i8pvu•pE-rETCv
reservations,3 and others reported them Tro0 Alpov, nr. 31], 41-
7 Soziale Ideen in Byzanz (196o) [= Berliner
without comment.4 Among authors of recent
byzantinistische Arbeiten, Band 241, 41-42.
monographs, G. T. Dennis found that I 8 Reviews: Oeskoslovensky Casopis Historick ,
demonstrated my main point "without 7 (1959), 372; Byzantinoslavica, 20 (1959),
leaving the slightest doubt,"5 while G. I. 91-95. Articles: "Povstanf ZelotAi v Soluni a
jeho socialni piedpoklady," 6eskoslovensky
1 Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 24 (1958), Oasopis Historicky, 7 (I959), 405-427; "La
232. r6volte des Z6lotes 'a Salonique et les communes
2
J. M. Hussey in Journal of Theological italiennes," Byzantinoslavica, 22 (i96I), 1-15.
Studies, 10 (1959), 415 and others. 9 20 (i959), 94; cf. Byzan-
Byzantinoslavica,
3 P. Charanis in Speculum, 33 (1958), tinoslavica, 22 (i96i), io-II and note 54.
393-394. 10 "Volkstiimliche Haretiker oder sozial-
4 F. Dblger in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 51 politische Reformer? Probleme der revolutio-
(1958), 190.
6 The
naren Volksbewegung in Thessalonike 1342-
Reign of Manuel II Palaeologus in 1349," Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-
Thessalonica, 1382-1387 (1960) [= Orientalia Marx-Universittit Leipzig, 8 (1958/59), Ge-
Christiana Analecta, i59], 23. sellschafts- und SprachwissenschaftlicheReihe,
26*

This content downloaded from 147.188.254.180 on Wed, 9 Oct 2013 07:34:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 404 IHOR ?EVCENKO
observed that only with class analysis as a tempts to draw such parallels or to interpret
point of departure could one make a just any part of the Discoursein a "Zealotic" sense
appraisal of the Zealot commune. E. Francesn" were based on circular arguments, on mis-
summed up his rebuttal by saying that my translations, and on misunderstood quo-
erroneous thesis followed the method of some tations.14
of my American colleagues who attempt to 3. Precision was not prominently displayed
minimize those movements in the life of in the discussion. Thus one critic'5 (in the
mankind where the masses take destiny into course of a three-page rebuttal) abstained
their own hands and thereby inscribe glorious altogether from stating that I had edited the
pages into the book of history. Discourse and construed my conclusions to
Quite recently a Cypriote scholar sought be that the Zealotic events "did not in fact
to smooth over this dichotomy of views: In mean the revolutionary battle of popular
his article, Mr. K. P. Kyrrhis12proposed a masses." Another critic16reproached me for
compromise solution: Cabasilas, he thought, not juxtaposing Cabasilas' text with other
inveighed against both Apocaucus and the sources bearing on the Zealots and for leaving
Zealots, against both Hyacinthus and John out of consideration the fact that Cabasilas
Calecas. was a scion of a rich Thessalonican family.
After careful perusal of the statements by
authors who continue to connect Cabasilas'
other Byzantine texts, particularly those dealing
Discourse with the Zealots, either in part or with the confiscation of monastic property for
entirely, I wish to state the following: military purposes. I may add, in passing, that
I. Cabasilas' anonymous adversaries secu- even Discourse 6, 2-14, into which Tafrali
larized monastic property (the land or its (Thessalonique au XIVe sihcle [1912], 265 and
note 3) and his followers read the "Zealotic"
revenue) presumably to provide sustenance maxim salus populi suprema lex esto, finds its
for soldiers, to repair walls, and to build
parallel in the phrases of Theodore Metochites,
ships. Not a single piece of bona fide evidence expounding, of all things, the theory of the
was proffered in the discussion to show that aristocratic form of government. Compare
the Zealots did any of these things. All the Discourse, 6, 2-3 and 12-14, XpIval, pacr, Tobs/
statements to the contrary were based on TIpEXT-ra&S -rcOVKOiVCOV Trp6 TI-rKOiVTJUai-rTEkES
Opcwras rTav-raTrolEiv.... 8.E T-roi KOiVOlS
surmises, circularargument (that is, references 7TOVu, OVS Elvat Xpi%vopica Tros &aPXOVras,
imTrTrpo-
KCa
to Cabasilas or to modern authors who relied Kac [l -rToisa Tv 6, rit PE'rtbiOv rt
pouhopEvov
on him), or-I must say the harsh words-on Xpi-ceai, K&V &TTO1TTSCA1V'KEIVOIK&V 68vpcOVTrai,
misleading quotations. Kcxa&rTEp pilKp&7TraifaTiEplopav,with Metochites'
Miscellanea, ed. Miiller-Kiessling (1821), 620-
2. No passage in Cabasilas' Discourse has 621: K&v Ela
TOiS YE TO'riTlKOTS (i.e.
a reasonably close counterpart in any source aristocratic &pa" TOV"rTOS
KatiPia Tl
politicians) sKaUrTOrE
"r
KaT"
expressly referring to the Zealots.13 All at- XpElav &rTavTracalKa-r&T-r TV
rc ov
roXXccVipacia
61 qIIo
Vlt PAhTrov&vE , KC V6pOI o0Tot
Heft I, 45-83, esp. 45-69 and note 8; "Narod- ... -Tar• TC E oVWV
Kparrovat TraVTIr Trp6IT, Ka hK6V'TcOV Ka[i K6r
naja eres' ili dvilenie za social'nopoliti'eskie TCWv 8tapEpov-ra aqi(t Karri T XpEiav
reformy? Problemy revoljucionnogo dvilenija rTh'EicO•rvT'& Kac
a TIlE7PEfS T TOIEIoe0Taal
KCi81'
kvol-rTrE' VOpf3EIV
v Soluni "TE "TO
v 1342-1349 gg.," Vizantijskij Trfv lYESPOVIKi)V1TPOVOpiaV &ptT-riVsTVXaX6v.ras.
Vremennik, 17 (1960), 155-202. The German This parallel does not mean that Cabasilas'
version is the fuller one of the two. H.-G. Beck, adversaries were aristocrats. It means that the
Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 53 (1960), 220-221 Byzantines adored cliches, and that against
tentatively sided with E. Werner's refutation. these their modern interpreters should be on
11 "Rascoala Zelo1ilor din Thessalonic in constant guard.
lumina ultimelor cercetari," Academia Repu- 14 To substantiate the statements made in
blicii Populare Romine, Subsecfia de ?tiinfe points I and 2 would be unprofitable or embar-
Istorice gi Institutul de Istorie din Bucureqti. rassing.
Studii. Revista de Istorie, 12 (I959), 257-266, 15 E. Frances, "Rascoala..." (as in note II
esp. 262-265. supra), and 263.
12 "'0 K?TrpIos&PXIETriKOTrOS 16 E. Werner, "Volkstiimliche Haretiker..."
OeEeaSAOViKTIS
'Y6KxVOOS(1345-6) Kal 6 PXoS -rov
u -r v v-rTlra- (as in note IO supra), 46, note 8. For the first
6Y Cva," KvurplaKaI
XaptTlKb6V 25 (1961),
X~TrouSaf, objection, cf. point 2 supra and DOP II (1957),
89-122, esp. 109-122. 84, 151, I60, 164, 166; for the second, cf.
13
On the contrary, many passages of ibidem, 85 (which Werner even quotes) and
Cabasilas can be meaningfully juxtaposed with 169-170.

This content downloaded from 147.188.254.180 on Wed, 9 Oct 2013 07:34:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CABASILAS' "ANTI-ZEALOT" DISCOURSE 405
In the commentary to the edition of the problem look forward to learning more about
Discourse, I claimed that my main point was Father Dennis' arguments.2'
sufficiently and safely established. As for my
main suggestion (Apocaucusas the adversary, No new source, or valid new interpretation
date: 1344), I was careful to observe that it of a hitherto known source, has been intro-
was based on speculation, that it was probable, duced by those critics who insist on con-
and that it was offered to provoke discussion necting Cabasilas' Discourse with the Zealots.
rather than to end it (pp. 161 and 170). Thus The only two new pieces of evidence which
I anticipated general agreement on the main constitute parallels to Cabasilas' text ap-
point, and expected objections to the dating. peared in the work by Father Dennis. Both
The opposite occurred. The critics, who insist occur in an as yet unpublished homily of
on having the Discourse written between 1342 Isidore, metropolitan of Thessalonica (1380-
and 1349, accepted my problematical dating 1384; 1386-1396). In the first passage the
expressly,17 by implication, or with a slight Metropolitan opposes secularization measures
modification,18 but rejected or qualified my undertaken by Manuel II's officials in order
main point. to provide sustenance for warriors. If this is
One noteworthy objection by E. Francesl9 done, God's help will be withdrawn from the
derives its strength from the dating of the Dis- Byzantines in their distress: 8E KQi -rT
course in 1344. Since young Cabasilas, as Fran- Orrav
-ro KO1VO -rrav-rCAv E8OEpyEou,,
ces quite rightly observes, certainly was in a-rc MEycoT-raTroi Toa•xpaipc~v
o eEoJ tpoaypaqpEvra
Thessalonica in the summer of 1345 and most OTI
OilKOi5,Kal yEVvEa•xi VOPi3COPEV
Io-xupoI
likely stayed there until 1347, it is, I grant, EV KaTE-
paXi4O1s ouyXcopoGlO
quite probable that he was in Thessalonica in Ta"ra
dva8poai, rTroiaS&v T-ri' Trap& 0Eoii
o0iE•v
1344 as well. That he must, therefore, have Ev
poTrTS opiOpi•aiEv E(vavyKaiS; 22
written his Discourse there against the Zealots In the second passage, following closely
is a non sequitur, but such an assumption upon the first, and published long ago by
would be quite plausible, if the text of the Sp. Lampros, Isidore observes that confis-
Discourse warranted it and if we really knew cation of inalienable ecclesiastical property
that this text was written in 1344. in order to provide assistance for oneself by
Only Father Dennis20reacted to the edition offering sustenance to others (meaning the
of the Discoursein accordance with my expec- same &vpES who have been men-
tations. He accepted my main conclusion, but tionedp•dXlpoi
in the first passage) is suicidal action:
very tentatively proposed Manuel II as one El yap &
TrrlpElSV olUiTrpOaTIKE,Ta
of Cabasilas' adversaries, and advanced the ay•ouoar
0Eia ra i advaoellrtara, T-raJTra0irrp
period after 1371 as a possible date for the qaipcApv pOlOqEias,cb~S5,
Oai
XXAAoi
Discourse. This remark coincides with a sug- sei
TrpadrErav TrrapaaKEaU63ES, OTrapa-rA~jloV6
gestion I made in 1960, on different grounds, -ri Tr1EIS,CETr~Ep aV El TI1s cTpbs qpIaKOV,
which will be mentioned in the second part of o Ka TrbvdayaI.EVOV XEIpiKli TOV
this note. All those interested in the Zealot Oavcaroi, TroTO OiKEiaCIS ySuE1tIPEVOV
XEPOIIVEiAjpC's TroTs
KapvoUciv Cbpyev.23 This Isidore is forced to
17 E. Werner, "Volkstiimliche Haretiker... say on account of people who urge the Emperor
(as in note Io supra), 57, note II117. (Manuel II) to lay hands on Church property
18K. P. Kyrrhis,
'"O K'rrrpitos
&pXlEfrroxoroS
...
(as in note 12 supra), Ii0 (date of the Dis- In his review, P. Charanis was quick to
21
course: Cf. ibidem, for an
1346-1347). log, perceive the implications of Dennis' remark,
argument which would surely eliminate the date and said that a later date of the Discourse would
of 1344, if Hyacinthus was one of Cabasilas' "make [better] sense." Cf. Speculum, 36 (1961),
adversaries, if the Discourse was written in
Thessalonica, and if, as seems probable, 476-477-
22 Excerpt taken over from Dennis, The
Hyacinthus arrived in Thessalonicaas late as Reign of Manuel II... (as in note 5 supra),
1345. 89, note 25, where it is quoted from Vaticanus
19 "Rascoala..."
(as in note I supra), Graecus 651, fol. 4oV.
263. 23 Excerpt printed in Sp. Lampros, "'laitSc'po
20 The Reign of Manuel II... (as in note 5 pl-Tpo-rrohirov e)OeaaOoviKIS6KTCO V K-
supra), 90o, 91 and note 30. 1TrOT0'ocAi
8o-ro," NWos'EAAvopvTifpcov,9 (I912), 350.

This content downloaded from 147.188.254.180 on Wed, 9 Oct 2013 07:34:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 406 IHOR SEVCENKO

(PEraTKtVEV "Tr&
Tov iEPcv). The Emperoris II
pious; he indicated that the property of
"Aytos I 'cov belonging to "our" Church In DOP, 14 (I960), 179-201, I discussed
should remain with "us," although many the Parisinus Graecus 1276, a miscellaneous
dignitaries (-rCOvev aiaiS were manuscript written by various hands, that
of a different opinion. The"Trpor3X6vrcov)
Emperor did not once belonged to Arsenius of Monembasia
accomplish his purpose according to his wishes (1465-1535). This manuscript contains an
(thus the secularization did take place ?), earlier and shorter version of the Discourse-
I called it "First Version"-with additions
compelled as he was by the current situation
(the siege of Thessalonica by the Turks).24 (marginal,interlinear, or inserted in a separate
The homily of Isidore from which these quire) by other hands. These additions are
passages have been quoted dates from late incorporated into the main text of the full-
1383 or early 1384. By themselves, the I called it "Third"-version of the Discourse,
passages do not indicate that Cabasilas' known through other manuscripts, such as
Discourse was written about that time. But Parisinus Graecus1213. A routine check with
they do provide a literary parallel, whose the tables of H. Omont26 indicated that
meaning is quite clear, to the attacks of neither the scribe of the main text of the
Cabasilas on his anonymous lay adversaries. First Version (= hand A), nor the author of
Isidore's words are an additional argument the main additions (=hand A2) exhibited a
for identifying these adversaries with govern- ductus especially similar to that of Arsenius.
mental officials secularizing monastic proper- I concluded that Parisinus Graecus1276 was
ty for defense needs.24a a draft of what I called the Second Version of
24This
the Discourse (a version very close to, but not
summary is based on the text in identical with, the full, or Third, version
Lampros (as in the preceeding note), 350-351.
The passage summedup is translatedin Dennis, known through other manuscripts) and that
The Reign of Manuel II... (as in note 5 supra), the chief among the several correctors' hands
89-90. was that of Cabasilas himself.
24' The passagesquotedarenot the
only ones in The First Version (with traces of an even
which Isidore inveighs against those who secu-
larize ecclesiastical property under external earlier stage) is written on paper bearing
pressure.A superficialscanningof the Vaticanus watermarks attested in the last thirty years
Graecus651 revealed two more such passages in of the fourteenth century. I deduced that
the very first homily (On Luke 8:27; date: Cabasilas must have prepared the later
1381-1384). Cf. ibid., fol. 12V: El
lyo0v versions within that time-span and therefore
porli"aolev,rrwro, -r Krr&Xpeidav 681KOUlV•VOIS
0 long after the Zealot revolution. I stated that
1. 1TVa
-mearlKtq eNovs &y&rll Xopiyiooovev,
E, -r6
wrp6s 7r6vpacoitMa vP1O•M
KEXpEooaTTjp1vov
Ov OO Cabasilas may have been reacting to the
aIpacs
Tr&A6-rpta tcaprr&3v av68eUrov governmental secularization of monastic
Tp'o0opev, Eidopev, oOX
mK1TOra81 T r&~CA IEpcOV OIKOV, 8t'& KCaIh TO-O property after the battle of Maritza and that
eovi Kae' fhpcoV -Tr1TEfVETaIKCa of
-r& Tpi-repa
dryotV&KT-T•ltS -
a date later than 1371 for the whole Discourse
8iapwTr&ovtiv Et-roivuv pe0' e v was possible (p. 188).
doEEI•S
qpv rr6vwtcovr& 0Eiocv
para
"rrp6b "rc(v vca•v dvc1a0~-
To0s SEorr6brats 6d~8~EhtKS -rlv EIsOEVOIKEiOO yap
tv. Kae&IrEp
T v 06rr6XEipa,CAN'T0OO
T"roircov
KVT-traoap•v0E1O 'uvatVlpopkvov Vp1V&awrra-ra -r •o-atolcoS
oO7r6v aorb6v
7r
ovyXcop•loopev,
OIKEC( rrWap iv S-r
T"rCov 'v KO0ltojpEOa, roTSi'Coev 6yov T- a'OhaEt T-rp6 XAEITOVp-
Kal &o'E
6 cbpact6-ra-rov KEiVO 8" OtKrjpa, 761V o'E
yiav TCo oi. l
pIeovrtl &qpcootcopba, 0"TCoS 8tc Kal
rrap&8etoov,dwoaro•ly6p8a.
6ysoat
dlTrry6p pot-W6Te T-ra EXet Trlv aO I8oTrlK&
0 IEp&.r7iV
Of
r~-vAiaotv pir'&drTo1- To'yv "6&tv, o08& cnT'v - 8hKiV
nictpopCAv •hi'E1'S, KcrT' &pqo-r9pco1VESpplIK6rES, &XA'q9kovut
TI OV
Sois -r& &pwctayv-ra,Kail TrotaO'
ra ou mycoveTEpa; 'OV po'
Eipiv yap KCrrCToOV 181COrlKO lEp66v,
r6 d8iKTpaKial ov
nw'p6s6i
1 I8ltO'TIKO0 "rooTO-roV CWrEp&?,.
Ka'r& 7Ov IEpo 7'6;p1jpa.
iKCd 70"o"Tn'EOVEKTEiV
6
Srr'rn•avoat, TVX6V - a' ' &1vdyKm0s
O'O "rv o'vyyvcPTlJV 0EoS pot,
Trapgia Ka rrwapaaxeKEvdE
woAroo- T-r& qolliv, Trto'rl&o's,
&vcva•iv Kai -rcv 0roto0-rCov. - Tri AMyeS;
A67raEl8S KCl lv ap1WrrahyiV
T KCI
KcrrEXE1
mlXXqv llj6pWliV
Kal dVdwa1 )s
oIKo0V
S;
E0oraPEav
rrpoo-rtiOvatlcraTi6ESt, oO1Ko6a &v rr6-rE ro0 08Eov0 &pv1)•o'j
&\' T"rjv
Cf. further c7oaJEp ToroTo dp7lTrov, &-rar-WrolTTO
oCrJ K&KE1iVO rracp&vo-
T'rXotpevy E0pEvoS. ibidem, fols. pov. The Vaticanus Graecus 651 deserves
Ti Sai, 67raV closer
14V-15r: Kat TrOv a'vaefp&xrco1v scrutiny.
9&Ttrr-r IEpcGv;-ro0 Eo0Plvvy&p KailT& 25
Fac-similds de manuscrits grecs des X Ve et
T"rCv
-rCv&Acov ~T61 qOdcavvres Acrba-
&rravra,b&S
&8 •E8rj X VIe siedcles... d'aprBs les originaux de la
pEV' ir& OETa94pouov KCT' 'EgaipETOV'XE1 Bibliothdque Nationale (1887), pls. 5-6.
7PreapVr,

This content downloaded from 147.188.254.180 on Wed, 9 Oct 2013 07:34:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CABASILAS' "ANTI-ZEALOT" DISCOURSE 407
However, one apparent difficulty emerged. 3. If hand A of Parisinus Graecus 1276
It was offered in 1961 by M. I. Manousakas'216 were identical with that of Arsenius, it would
excellent edition of the letters of Arsenius of be difficult to explain why he wrote on paper
Monembasia. A facsimile of Arsenius' auto- which, by the time of his writing, must have
graphs, inserted between pages 8 and 9 of the been about one hundred years old. The only
article, showed similarities at least with the reasonable way out of this difficulty would be
hand A2, that of the main marginal and to show that Professor Irigoin's and my own
interlinear corrector of Parisinus Graecus dating of the watermarkson the pages written
1276. In oral communication, the editor kindly by hand A is erroneous.
drew my attention to these similarities. 4. But if hand A were identical with that
Parisinus Graecus1276 did belong to Arsenius of Arsenius, it would be even more difficult to
of Monembasia. Was Arsenius the scribe A2, account for his behavior on fol. 65v of
that is, the author of the main marginal and Parisinus Graecus1276 (in the area of what I
interlinear additions, which he had culled from call the earliest stage). There, scribe A crossed
some manuscript of the Second Version acces- out eight and a half final lines of the main text,
sible to him ? At first I was puzzled, for I knew and continued on fol. 66r (again in the main
that I, for one, was not immune to making text) with twelve lines which are an expanded
an error of a hundred years in dating a late variant of the deleted passage, a variant
Byzantine hand. After some reflection, I virtually identical with what we now read in
decided against attributing the corrections Parisinus Graecus 1213 (cf. DOP, 14 [1960],
by hand A2 (let alone the main text of the 183 and 191). Where would Arsenius have got
First Version by hand A) to Arsenius. I did so his inspiration for the preceeding eight and
for a number of reasons, four of which will a half lines? Fols. 65v-66r of Parisinus
be mentioned here: Graecus 1276 reflect an author's, not a col-
I. The ductus of letters 8, p, qpby hands A2 lator's, changes.
and A in Parisinus Graecus1276 is different I am willing to reconsider these arguments
from that of Arsenius.26a if new evidence is brought forward. For the
2. If hand A2 of Parisinus Graecus1276 is time being, however, I am unable to explain
Arsenius',and if he had a manuscript similar to the situation in Parisinus Graecus1276 on the
Parisinus Graecus1213 (the Third Version of assumption that scribes A or A2 (or both) are
the Discourse) before his eyes while making identical with Arsenius.26bThe only words of
his corrections, how is one to explain the fact the First Version of the Discoursequite likely
that, instead of writing what he saw there, for to have been written by him are those of the
example, T-rv ac'rr$v Tro1rTCOv title on fol. 65r: rrpos TroS AvTra-iS ovciats.
TrpayplrTcov,
T TCOV
h "&laCoEtTalt Kali TrOlEpiTat,, 18iCOV
gVEKa(Discourse, 28, 1-3), he wrote (fol. 75V) In concluding, I wish to sum up my
STrcovi8cov
ie T KOVoV VEKaTarcAaO"rr0v
-rov position in clear terms:
TroTrcov -wpayplacrcov St '& (the rest of the I. The Zealot movement was an important
line is illegible) then interchanged the places social revolt; hence, obviously a part of the
of I T-ravI5iov - iV Ka and -rvT
Oa'rr)v etc., popular masses-say one or two thousand
crossed out i TCrOAV KOlV&ZVvEwCa and replaced strong in Thessalonica alone-took an active
these words by EVeKa alone, thus finally part in it.
obtaining the text which we read in Parisinus 2. Cabasilas' Discourse does not deal with
Graecus 1213 ? These seem to me to be an a specific Zealot program. After the publi-
author's, rather than a collator's, procedures cation of the Discourse's full text, this should
(cf. fig. 3 of my article in DOP, 14 [1960]; for be Kcli"ruph 6 8ijXov. I even contend that the
other examples, cf. ibidem, 183-184). Discoursedoes not deal with the Zealots at all.
3. Exactly when, where, and against whom
26 "'ApaEviou
-ro0'AWrrooar6
MovElppaaciaS irt- the Discourse was written, I do not know.
aoroalcd&VKSOTO1(1521-1534) ...,9" TOi
'ETTET'lplS
MEacaiCOVKOG'ApXEiov, 8/9 (1958/9), but printed s6b On the basis of materials at his disposal,
in 1961. ProfessorAlexanderTuryn pronouncedhimself
26a In particular, Arsenius does not use the against the identificationof Arseniuswith hands
uncial delta,frequentin A and A2. A or A2 (written communication).

This content downloaded from 147.188.254.180 on Wed, 9 Oct 2013 07:34:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
408 IHOR SEVCENKO
Parisinus Graecus 1276 suggests, without 5. Therefore, until the appearance of
making it mandatory, that the Discourse was arguments based either on new sources, or on
written in the last thirty years of the four- hitherto disregarded old ones, I shall abstain
teenth century. from furtherdiscussion, pEyd&Xa XaipEtvEiTsrrcv
4. Requoting and occasionally misunder- to Cabasilas' Discourse.
standing well-known sources and invoking
general sociological laws will not contribute to
30 This Postscript was already in proof when
the solution of the concrete problems posed
I obtained the valuable work by B. T. Gorjanov,
by Cabasilas' Discourse. I heartily agree with Pozdne-vizantijskij /eodalizm (1962). Pages 310o-
Mrs. Hrochov627that our foremost task in the 318 and 331-332 of the book discuss-in part
study of the Zealot movement, and of the benevolently, but more often critically-the
social unrest of the fourteenth century in publication of Cabasilas' Discourse and of
Macrembolites' Dialogue. I thank the author
general,28lies in the continuous search for new for his compliments (pp. 310o, 316); I am sorry
sources. By editing Cabasilas and Macrem- that "scholars of [my] kind" should have created
bolites,29I attempted to fulfill a part of this the impression of engaging in a deliberate falsi-
task.30 fication of history (p. 332). Judging by Mr.
Gorjanov's summaries of my argument, his
27 Ceskoslovensk# Casopis Historickl, 7 (1959), English must have failed him on occasion, for
372; Byzantinoslavica, 22 (1961), 15. I never made several of the points (including
28 In this
connection, I want to draw at- the purportedly main one) which he either
tention to the edition of Isidore of Thessalonica's attributes to me or refutes with great ease and
five Homilies by B. Laourdas, 'lotScbpou &pXtErrt- without the help of source quotations. My
OEEYYaVOViKrlS
OcK6TrroU 6UtiaIt EIS T'~sEopTaS TOO arguments have not shaken the author's belief
&yiou (1954) [ 'EAArlvlKr, -iapap- that Cabasilas' Discourse deals with the Zealot
ATlptI1Tpiou
Homilies four and five (pp. 55-60
-rTIia 5]. movement (p. 314); he therefore uses this docu-
and 60-65) contain numerous allusions to social ment to reconstruct what he calls the socio-
discontent in Thessalonica in 1393. Thus on economic and political reforms of the Zealots
pages 64,38-65,1 and 65,13 we read clear (p. 355ff.). At the present stage of publication
references to the officials' apprehending possible (page proofs) of this Postscript, this is all I can
direct action against them by the dissatisfied say concerning Mr. Gorjanov's position. All is
people. not lost, however, since he promises to return
29 Srpska
Akademija Nauka, Zbornik Radova, to my first two publications on another occasion
65 (I960), 187-228. Cf. the qualified approval (pp. 310, 318). I shall be happy to answer him
by A. P. Ka'dan, Voprosy Istorii (October 1960), at leisure, provided the conditions set up in
193-194: some of my opinions are said to be point five at the end of this Postscript permit
unfounded, but the edition itself is commended. me to do so.

This content downloaded from 147.188.254.180 on Wed, 9 Oct 2013 07:34:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions