Semitic Lanrnsses

BrHLIOOsAPBY: The Opera were edited by J. B. Masson,

Paris, 1611; by A. Duchesne, in Historiat Francorum scriptores, ii. 789 844, 5 vols., Paris, 1636 49, whence they went into MPL, exxxix. 201 268; the (Euvres with life, by A. Olleris, Clermont, 1867; the " Letters," with introduction, by J. Havet, Paris, 1889 (best); earlier ed. in Bouquet, Recueil, vols. ix. x.; the Opera mathematiea by N. Bubnov, Berlin, 1899. Bibliographies are to be found in: U. Chevalier, Repertoire des sources historiques du moyea dge, Paris, 1877; F. Cerroti, Bibliografia di Roma, Rome, 1893; and Potthast, Wegweiser, pp. 501­502.

The primary source for a life are his " letters " note eds. above in Opera and (Euvres. Consult. Mann, Popes, v. 1 120 (with a critical list of literature); C. F. Hock, Gerbert oder Papst Sylvester IL, Vienna, 1837 (best); M. M. B6dinger, Ueber Gerberts wiasenachaftliche and politische Stellung, Marburg, 1851; C. Prantl, Geschiehte der Logik im Abendlande, ii. 53 57, Leipsie, 1856; F. Lausser, Ger bert, Etude historique sur le z. silcle, Aurillae, 1866 (uses fresh material); E. de Barth6lemy, Gerbert, Nude sur sa vie et ses ouvrages, Paris, 1868; C. Queant, Gerbert, ou Sglvestre II. R le sikle de fer, Paris, 1868; A. von Reu­mont, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, vol. ii., Berlin, 1868; R. Baxmann, Politik der Papste, vol. ii., Elberfeld, 1869; 111. Sepet, in Revue des questions historiques, vii (1869), 440 523, viii (1870), 122 169; H. Reuter, Geschichte der religiusen Aufkl&rung im Mittelalter, i. 78 84, Berlin, 1875; K. Werner, Gerbert von Aurillac. Die Kirche and Wissenschaft seiner Zeit, Vienna, 1879; H. Weissenbora, Gerbert, Beitrap zur Kenntniss der :llathematik des Alittel­alters, Berlin, 1888; K. Schulthess, Papst Sylvester ll. ass Lehrer and Staatarnann, Hamburg, 1891; idem, Die Sagen fiber Silvester IL, ib. 189:3; R. Allen, in English Historical Review, vii (1892), 625 668 (a prize essay); T. K. Sehloekwerder, Untersuchungen zur Chronologie der Briefe Gerberts, Halle, 1893; F. Gregorovius, Hist. of the City of Rome, iii. 466 sqq., London, 1895; F. J. Pieavet, Gerbert, un gape philosophe, Paris, 1897; J. Lair, Etudes critiques, i. 94 sqq., Paris, 1899; C. P., Les Popes fransais, Tours, 1901; E. Duehesne, Le Domostroi du pope Silvestre, Paris, 1904; Histoire litt&aire de la France, vi. 559 614; Ceillier, Auteurs sacrls, ii. 901 911; Schaff, Christian Church, tv. 777 782; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. iv.; Bower, Popes, iii. 331 333; Milman, Latin Christianity, iii. 202 sqq.

Silvester M.: Antipope 1044 46. See BMNF~ DICT IX.

Silvester IV.: Antipope 1102. See PASCHAL II.

Silvia A nitana

Simeon etaphrastes

SILVIA AQUITANA: The name under which is known a pilgrim of the fourth century to the Holy Land, who has left a record of her travels. The trend toward pilgrimages became almost a craze in the fourth century, against which, e.g., Gregory of Nyssa protested (MPG, xlvi. 1016 24), though Jerome favored it (Epist., xlvi., Eng. transl., in NPNF, 2 ser., vi. 60 65). A sort of guide book made on a journey c. 333 A.D. exists in the Itiner­arium Burdigalense (" The Bordeaux rilgrim "), but it is not a journal of travel like that which exists in the Peregrinatio S. Silvicre, discovered in 1884 by G. F. Gamurrini at Arezzo in Tuscany and consisting of a letter describing her experiences written to the nuns of a cloister at her native place. The manu­script is not complete, lacks both beginning and end, and also a part from the middle of the narra­tive. Fortunately, the omissions are practically supplied by Peter the Deacon, who used the narra­tive, as did Bede. The date may be set between 379 387, with 394 as the latest date possible; in that year the bones of the Apostle Thomas were translated to the chief church at Edessa, which the pilgrim distinguished from the Martyrium which she visited. Recently, however, Meister (see bib­liography) has proposed 533 540 as the date of the pilgrimage, and many have accepted his argu­ments. Gamurrini sought to identify the pilgrim with the traveler named by Palladius in the " Lau­siac History," but Ft6rotin (see bibliography) has with greater probability suggested the Spanish nun Eucheria, and at any rate " St. Silvia of Aquitania " is " a purely mythical personage." That the pil­grim was a person of consequence appears from the attentions which were showered upon her by clerics, monks, and bishops, and even by the military, es­corts being furnished at times. She traveled in com­fort and with a considerable retinue.

Peter the Deacon states that she made Jerusalem her headquarters, visited Bethlehem, Hebron, and the other cities celebrated in patriarchal history; covered all Palestine in her travels Tabor, Carmel, Nazareth, Nain, Tiberias, Capemaum; then went to Egypt and back to Jerusalem, and then to Sinai and other sites in the Mosaic history, where the ex­tant manuscript takes up the story. At Sinai she was shown the sacred sites, the thorn bush and the like, went to Paran and Clysma, Rameses in Goshen, Tanis, and then to Jerusalem by way of Pelusium; then visited Nebo and the grave of Job in the Hauran by Way of Aenon; next to Antioch, Hierapolis, Edessa, and Harran, her farthest point east. Her return led via Constantinople through Asia Minor, and in Seleucia she read the Acts of Thecla, while in Chalcedon she visited the grave of St. Euphemia.

The narrative is interesting, faithful, and sincere. Her notice of the worship of the Jerusalem commu­nity is important, being the only one covering that period; she attended such services as those of Christ­mas, Easter, Ascension Day, and Pentecost, and describes baptism and the instruction leading to it. Far behind this in worth are such books as Euche­rius' De situ Hierosolymitance urbis (a compilation from oral and written Sources), the Breviarius de Hierosolyma of the sixth century, Bede's De locis sanctis, and the work of Peter the Deacon (q.v.).

THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG

414

Of independent worth is Theodosius' De situ terrce sancta (middle of the sixth century); the reports. of the Gallic bishop Arculphus rest upon an Itinerarum of c. 580 and one of Adamnan. (G. KRi)GER.)

BIBLIO(;RAPEY: The editio princepa. by G. F. Gamurrini, the discoverer of the document, was issued at Rome. 1887, 2d ed., 1888, with the account of Peter the deacon and other matter, Italian transl., Milan, 1890. The best ed. is that of P. Geyer, in CSEL, xxxix., Vienna, 1898. Other texts are those of J. Pomialowaky, St. Petersburg. 1889; J. H. Bernard, for Palestine Pilgrims Text Society, with Eng. transl., introduction and notes, London, 1896; E. A. Bechtel, Chicago, 1902; and a fragment by E. von Dobachiits, in TU, 1899, PP. 167 aqq• Consult: L. De­lisle, in Bibliothkque de l'i?cole des charter, xlvii (1877), 342­348: T. Mommaen, in SBA, 1887, pp. 357 364; E. W51ff­lin, in Archiv fur lateinische LexicoOraPh%e and Gram­matik, iv (1887), 259 277: C. Weyman, in TQS. Ixx (1888). 38 50; L. de Saint Aignan, Le P&erinage de S. Sylvie­en 586, Orl6ana, 1889; E. Ebert, Allgemeine Ge­schichte der L%teratur des Mittelalters, i. 345 347, Leipsic, 1889; G. Kriiger, in Preuasische Jahrbiicher, lxvi (1890). 491 505; P. Geyer, Kritische Bemerkungen zu S. Silvite

, peregnnatio, Augsburg, 1890; F. Cabrol, etude eur la Peregrirwtio Silvio. Les tplisea de Ji?rusalem, la dis­cipline et la liturg%e au iv. si,gcle, Paris. 1895; J. von der Vliet, in TSR, xiv (1896). 1 29; M. F6rotin, Le Veritable Auteur de la Pereprinatio SyLv%o:, Paris. 1903; A. Bludau, in Der KathoLik, lxxxiv. 2 (1904), 61 74, 81 98; J. Ang­lade, De lat%nitate l%belli qu% inscriptus est PereArinatio

Paris, 1905; C. Meister, in Rhemiachea Museum, Iziv (1909), 337 392.

SIMEON, aim'e en: Second bishop of Jerusalem

and cousin of Jesus; d. c. 107. His father was

Cleophas or Clopas (see Alxxxus), who, according

to Hegesippus (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III., xi. 2),

was a brother of Joseph. His mother may have

been the Mary mentioned in John xix. 25, who is

designated as the wife of Cleophas. Owing to his

family connections, Simeon was chosen successor of

James the Just in the leadership of the Jerusalem

congregation. He is said to have held his office a

long time, and to have attained an age of 120 years.

As successor of James, Simeon was the head not only

of the congregation of Jerusalem but of all other

congregations in Palestine. Since the congregation

of Jerusalem left the city before the catastrophe of

the year 70 and went to Pella, the seat of the activ­

ity of Simeon must have been there. Tradition also

says that under Emperor Trajan and Governor At­

ticus he was denounced by the Jews as a Davidite

and Christian, a pretender to the crown. At the

order of Atticus he wars for many days tortured and

finally crucified. (H. AcxELls.)

BIBLrOGRAPHY: The sources are Eusebius, Hist eccl., IIL, xi., xxii., xxxii., axxv.. IV., xxii. 4, Eng, transl. in NPNF, vol. i., passim: and the same author's " Chronicle "for the year 107. Consult further: Tillemont, Memoires, ii. 186 sqq.; J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, part IL, i. 15, 21 22, 39, 58, 60, 66, ii. 443 449, London. 1885; E. LSning Gemeindeverjassung des Urchrislentur„a, pp. 107 114, Halle, 1888; A. C. MeGiffert, Apostolic Ape, pp. 564 585, New York, 1897• T. Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, vi. 282 sqq., Leipsie, 1900; R. Knopf, Nachapostolisches Zeitalter, pp, 1 aqq., Tiibingen, 1905; Harnack, Lilteralur, i. 223 eq~l.; DCB, iv. 677 678; KL, xi. 307 308.

SIMEON METAPHRASTES, met a fras'tfa: By 

zantine hagiographer; flourished probably in the second half of the tenth century. Of his life scarcely a detail is known; even the younger Psellos' en­comium and office for Simeon's day, Nov. 28 [now combined with St. Theoktiste's day, Nov. 0] (AfP(:,

418 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Silvis Aquitana

Simeon ri

cxiv. 183 208), gives little information. It would

seem, however, that Simeon was born at Constanti­

nople, where he studied philosophy and rhetoric and

attained high rank, although the only

Life, Date, office which he is expressly said to have

and filled was that of logothete. The one

Writings. concrete statement of Psellos, that

Simeon took part in a naval expedi­

tion, is, however, incorrect. This error is due to the

misunderstanding of a passage in Simeon's revision

of Niketas Magister's life of St. Theoktiste, which

really states that Niketas, not Simeon, served on

the expedition of Himerios against Crete in 902. To

the information thus gained Markos Eugenikos (d.

1443) adds that Simeon held a disputation with a

Persian (Mohammedan?), and that, toward the end

of his life, he became a monk and was buried in the

Church of the Mother of God at Hodigi. Beginning

with the time of Psellos (eleventh century), manu­

scripts of Simeon Metaphrastes are numerous, and

he is mentioned with great frequency. A monastic

record of 1196 ascribes to Simeon the authorship of

a life of St. Paul of Mount Latros (d. Dec. 15, 956).

It would seem, however, that this life was written

soon after the reign of Nikephoros Phokas, or, still

more probably, about 991; and it may well be

doubted whether it really belongs to Simeon, espe­

cially as it is lacking in his collection and is assigned

to him by only a single document. At the same

time, it must be remembered that Simeon may have

written encomiums which he did not include in his

hagiography. It is clear, moreover, that the orig­

inal collection includes the festal sermon of Em­

peror Constantine on the translation of the Edessa

picture of Christ, delivered Aug. 16, 944, and incor­

porated by Simeon almost without change, thus

definitely placing the compilation in the second half

of the tenth century. Again, in the life of St. Sam­

son, evidently written by Simeon, a miracle is re­

corded as happening to the Protospathary Bardas,

the close friend of Romanos II., though the event

in question may perhaps better be referred to the

reign of Romanos' son, Basil (976 1025), while the

life contains other allusions to the reign of John

Tzimiskes (969 976). The theory of many scholars

that the Logothete Simeon Magister to whom is

ascribed a Chronicon (ed. CSHB, xxxi. 1838) is to

be identified with Simeon Metaphrastes would prove

that the author was a close associate of Romanos I.

(920 944), although he wrote in the reign of Nike­

phoros Phokas (963 969); but the problem of the

authorship of the chronicle is too unsettled to per­

mit its use in determining the date of Simeon Meta­

phrastes. To the Logothete Simeon Magister is

also ascribed a collection of canons (ed. MPG, cxiv.

235 292), which form the basis of the commentary

of Alexios Aristenos (about 1130); and it is not im­

possible that this canonist was identical with the

Logothete Simeon Magister who, according to the

Practices of Eustathios Romance (lxiv. 1), was an

elderly member of the imperial court of justice about

1000, and even with the patrician and first secretary

Simeon, who prepared two nomllce of Nikephoros

Phokas in 964 and 967. The Arab historian Yahya

ibn Said of Antioch, who continued the annals of

Eutychius to 1026, sets the activity of " Simon, sec 

retary and logothete who has written the accounts of the saints and their festivals," in the,early part of the reign of Basil II. (976 1025), a statement borne out by the express declaration of Markos Eugenikos that Simeon's official career was during the reigns of Phokas, John (Tzimiskes), and Basil II. Nine letters are also ascribed to Simeon (MPG, cxiv. 227 236), and some others are preserved in manuscript, but none of these contain any data establishing their authorship. He is likewise the putative author of some prayers (MPG, cxiv. 219­224), iambics on the Eucharist (ib.), verses on Christ and the apostles (unedited), a series of " moral al­phabets " (MPG, cxiv. 131 136; penitential prayers in alphabetical form), twenty four " Ethical Dis­courses " excerpted from the writings of Basil the Great (MPG,,xxxii. 1115 1382), 150 chapters on the fifty orations of Macarius the Egyptian (ib., xxxiv. 841 965; see MACARILTI3, 1), and possibly three necrological poems (ed. L. Sternbach, in Eos, v. 7 21). Only a thorough stylistic study, com­bined with the establishment of the manuscript transmission, can determine which of these writings belong to Simeon Metaphrastes, whose name was used to give prestige to many works by other hands, not only for edifying literature in general, begin­ning with the thirteenth century, but also for an anonymous account of the building of St. Sophia (ed. T. Preger, Scriptores origiaum Constantinopoli­tanarum, i. 74 108, Leipsic, 1901). Older scholars ascribed to him a commentary on Luke on the basis of citations in the Catena of Niketas, although these passages are really quoted from his lives of the saints, as well as a work De moribus ecclesia (N. C. Papa­dopoli, Premotationes mystagogirte, Padua, 1697, p. 398), of which nothing more is known.

Simeon Metaphrastes owes his fame to his collec­tion of the legends of the saints, which has won him the deep admiration not only of his own communion, but also of many Roman Catholic theologians. The extent, significance, and value of the work have all been matters of much debate, the

His Hagi  cause being the concentration on in 

ography. dividual texts rather than on the col­

lection as a whole. It had already been

observed by Leo Allatius (in his De Symeonum scrip­

tis diatribes, Paris, 1664) that a certain complex of

lives recurred in many manuscripts, while the trans­

mission of the remaining lives was extremely dis­

crepant. Working along this line, H. Delehaye and

A. Ehrhard have carried the problem much nearer

solution, the latter scholar determining the genuine

lives in the hagiography of Simeon to be 149. These

lives are preserved with remarkable uniformity in

the various manuscripts, while the rest present the

widest divergencies. The most of the genuine lives

still need critical editing, and the Greek text of

twenty four is extant as yet only in manuscript.

Nevertheless, the material already accessible is suf­

ficient for a correct estimate of Simeon's mode of

work, although complete knowledge would involve

acquaintance with all his predecessors. This alone

would serve to determine the independence of Sim­

eon in the choice of his texts, which in calendrical

order diverge sharply from other menologies and are

surprisingly close to the Constantinople Synaxarion.

Simeon xetaphrastes Simler

THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG

It is certain that Simeon created no new legends;

he was, as the epithet given him implies, a meta­

phrast, reproducing the old legends in the style de­

manded by the literary taste of his time, and at the

same time occasionally making alterations in the

matter and connecting traditions which originally

were distinct. The legends which he incorporated

in his collection, and for the credibility of which he

was in no way responsible, were themselves later

revampings of the original acts of martyrs; and

many offenses against good taste must be ascribed

to his sources and to the requirements of his age

rather than to Simeon himself, who was evidently

a man of culture, taste, and talent. It should be

noted, at the same time, that he did not stand en­

tirely alone. A number of his contemporaries were

working in the same spirit; men like Nikephoros

Chumnos followed his example in the style of the

thirteenth century, and in the fourteenth Konstan­

tinos Akropolites gained the title of " the new

Metaphrastes." In comparison with these imita­

tors Simeon distinctly gains, and he was, so far as

a tenth century Byzantine could be, natural and

simple in diction. (E. vorr Dosscllfi'rz.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The collected works are in MPG, cxiv.­cxvi. Cf. also Analeda BoUandiana, viii. 308 316, and Delehaye, in Griffin and Nau's Patrologia orientalis, ii. 4, pp. 546 557, Paris, 1907. Consult: L. Allatius, De Sgmeonum Scriptis diatriba, Paris; 1664; C. Oudin, Com­mentariu8 de acriptoribus ecclesiee antiquis, ii. 1300 83, Frankfort, 1722; Fabricius Harles, Bibliotheca Grieco, viii. 29, x. 180 345, xi. 295 334, Hamburg, 1802 08; E. E. Kunik, in P. Krug's Forschungen in der alteren Ge­achichte Russlanda, ii. 785 807, St. Petersburg, 1848; A. Rambaud, L'Empire grec au x. siMe, pp. 92 104, Paris, 1870; F. Hirsch, Byzantinische Studien, pp. 52 sqq., 303­355, Leipsie, 1876; R. Nicolai, Geschichte der griwhischen Literatur, iii. 70, 100, 104, 107 109, Magdeburg, 1878; H. Delehaye, in Revue des questions historiques, x (1893), 49 85; Analecta Bollandiana, xvi (1897), 312 329, xvii (1898), 448 452; C. de Boor, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, vi (1897), 233 284, x (1901), 70 90; A. Ehrhard, in Festschrift zum elfhundertyahrigen Jubilhum des deutschen Campo Santo in Rom, pp. 4682, Rome, 1897; N. Konda­toff, in ZWT, xlvi (1903), 434 sqq.; Krumbacher, Ge­schichte, pp. 178 eqq., 200 eqq., 358 sqq., 718 719, et passim.

SIMEON THE NEW THEOLOGIAN: Mystic of the Eastern Church; b. in the village of Galate in Paphlagonia c. 965; d. in a monastery not far from Chrysopolis, near Chalcedon in Bithynia, Asia Minor, between 1032 and 1041. He was sent to Constantinople for his education, but showed no interest in the rhetorical and philosophical studies which were to fit him for the service of the State for which he was intended, nor in the life at court which he tasted as a page. Simeon the Studite (q.v.) had already confirmed his desire for a religious life, and became his spiritual guide after he entered the monastery of Studion, where his mystical bent de­veloped. Being expelled for maintaining an exclu­sive friendship with his teacher, a thing forbidden by the rules, he went to the monastery of Mamas, near by, of which he became the head and received priesthood. He raised the monastery out of its demoralized condition and established his fame as theologian by his extensive literary activity. Dur­ing this period Simeon does not seem to have been molested because of his individual views. It was only after he had laid down his office (c. 1017), in

order to live in retirement, that. he was involved in a conflict with the highest spiritual authority. Stephanos, the syncellus of the patriarch, a Canon­ist of fame and an acute dogmatician, attacked Simeon because he had permitted his namesake Simeon the Studite to be adored after his death in the monastery of Mamas. The syncellus demanded the abolition of this worship; since Simeon persist­ently refused to give up the worship of his spiritual father, he was banished from Constantinople by a synodical decree to the neighborhood of Chrysopolis. The adherents of Simeon compelled the patriarch to rehabilitate him formally, but he remained in exile and built a new monastery, where he died.

The theology of Simeon connects itself with a development of practical mysticism which may be traced to the end of the fourth century. Its charac­teristic element was the belief that in certain spe­cially elevated moments there was possible a vision of the divinity as a supernatural light. Simeon was guided and taught by his confessor to consider the vision of the light as the aim of religious struggle. There is nothing novel in the religious experience around which the thoughts of Simeon moved, but the power with which he invested his experiences earned for him the title " new theologian." The vision of the light which was granted to him, Simeon understood as a revelation of God through which he was assured of grace and had personal intercourse with God. These experiences became for him the key for the interpretation of the New Testament, which he read with other eyes since he himself had come in contact with the realities of which the Scriptures testify. As the greatness of the Christian ideal in the New Testament became plainer to him, the more clearly he seemed to see that personal re­lation with divinity is the indispensable condition for an earnest Christian life, since only from a per­sonally experienced grace flows the power for a life in the spirit. Simeon recognized that it is grace alone that elevates and renews man; no Greek has repeated so often and so emphatically the Pauline antithesis from grace, not from works. Such prin­ciples involved a polemic against the spirit of his church; this inevitably raised opposition to him, but the opposition could not prevent the formation of a school around him or the penetration of his principles into monasticism. The Hesychasts (q.v.) stood entirely upon his shoulders. In the line of Greek mysticism that from Clement and Origen, by way of Gregory of Nyssa and Dionysius the Areo­pagite, finally leads to the Hesychasts, Simeon rep­resents the culminating point. (K. HoLL.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The " Works " are in MPG, ex=:., and an edition in modern Greek by Dionysios Zagoraios ap­peared Venice, 1790. A Vita by Simeon's Pupil Nicetas Stethatos is still in manuscript, but its publication by L. Petit is soon to be expected. Consult: K. Holl, En­thusiasmvs and Bussgervalt. Eine Studie zu Symeon dem neuen TheoWen, Leipsic, 1898; Krumbacher, Geschichte, pp. 152 154; Fabrieius Harles, Bibliotheca Gra;ca, xi. 302 sqq., Hamburg, 1808; KL, xi. 1070.