Biography

We begin with the works attributed to him as the basic starting point. Two paraphrases of Aristotle’s De anima and Parva naturalia, attributed in the manuscripts to the ‘‘very wise Sophonias,’’ form a clear point of departure in establishing his authorship. According to Wendland, the manuscripts of the Parva naturalia can be divided into two classes, one attributing the work to Sophonias, the other to Themistius. The latter attribution is clearly wrong, since the work is based on the later commentary of Michael of Ephesus. Sophonias must have lived long enough after Michael to allow for the text transmission of the latter to become corrupt, since he often agrees with the readings in the inferior group of manuscripts for Michael (cf. Wendland CAG V.6 pp. VI, X-XI).

Sophonias introduces De anima with a preface distinguishing between commentaries and paraphrases. The De anima preface is important both for its description of Sophonias’ method and for the indication of his intention to apply his method first to De anima and then to other treatises (cf. De anima 2,38-3,1). This gives us grounds for attributing to one and the same author the similar, anonymous paraphrases of the Categories, the Prior Analytics I, and the Sophistici elenchi, all edited in vol. 23 of the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. The paraphrase of the Prior Analytics is erroneously attributed in some manuscripts to Themistius but is actually a compilation of the commentaries of Alexander and Philoponus.

Due to their similarities, however, all the treatises in CAG 23 may reasonably be attributed to Sophonias. Thus, we are furnished with more precise arguments as to dating. Given the author’s use of Blemmydes and Leo Magentenos, Ebbesen (1981:333) regards a date after 1250 as very probable for the paraphrase of Sophistici elenchi and is inclined toward dating it after 1275. Apart from the Aristotelian paraphrases, there is also a brief letter from a ‘‘monk Sophonias’’ to Joseph the philosopher; this letter must have been written between 1307 and 1325, the period when Joseph lived in Constantinople (cf. Mercati 1925). There is also a declamation written in the person of ‘‘Paul discoursing in Athens’’ ascribed to the ‘‘very wise monk Sophonias’’ in Codex Marcianus Graecus 266 (cf. Mioni 1981:383-386). From the vocabulary, style, and philosophical content of the declamation, it seems clear that this author was the same as the Aristotelian paraphrast.

There are important references to Sophonias from this period in various other sources. We have, first of all, Pachymeres’ statement that Sophonias the priest-monk (hieromonachos) was sent by Andronikos II Palaeologos to Italy to negotiate the marriage of his son Michael IX to Catherine de Courtenay (Pachymeres, IX,5, ed. Failler 1984-2000: 227,22 ff.). This embassy, corroborated in historical records (cf. Perrat and Longnon 1967; Dolger 1960:18 no. 2156a), ended without success in 1296. Both Sophonias and Manuel Holobolos (c. 1245-1310/14) are described as typifying well-known intellectuals of the preceding generation in a letter directed to Makarios Chrysokephalos, metropolitan of Philadelphia (Walther 1973:229,28-30). The Dominican friar Simon of Constantinople (c. 1235-1325) dedicated the second book of his work De processione Spiritus Sancti etiam ex Filio to Sophonias (using the title hieromonachos). A Latin manuscript in the library of Uppsala University contains a treatise written by Guilelmus Bernardus de Gaillac (Guillaume Bernard) who, in 1307, founded the

Dominican monastery in Pera. On f. 5r of this treatise (Stegmiiller 1953:342), written after he had left Pera, Guillaume reveals that he was personally acquainted with Sophonias the monk, for he informs us that Sophonias the ‘‘kalogerus or monk’’ knew both Greek and Latin and ‘‘had suffered persecution on account of his confession of the true faith as taught by the Roman Church.’’ Sophonias’ connections with the Roman Church may be one reason why the emperor sent him on an embassy to the West. Thus, in the same period in which Sophonias the paraphrast of Aristotle must be assumed to have been working, we also find Sophonias the monk, well versed in the intellectual issues of the day, a Greek equipped with the knowledge of Latin, with ties to Dominicans in Constantinople and Pera (cf. Congourdeau 1987:165-174, 175-181). Most scholars view the paraphrast and the monk as one and the same man. The identification of the paraphrast and the monk provides a coherent historical context and should be regarded as historically certain.

It is pertinent to note yet another letter of some historical importance from one ‘‘Sophronias,’’ a priest-monk, to Charles de Valois, dated 1308, one of five Byzantine supporters in high positions who wrote to Charles, urging him to take the Byzantine throne to save it from the Turks (cf. Congourdeau 1987:181 n. 28; Laiou 1972:216). The name ‘‘Sophronias’’ occurs only once, on the back of the parchment letter, in the bold address to Charles as emperor of the Romans, according to the text edited in Moranville. The name was omitted in the original edition of the letter in Du Cange (1657), and appeared first in print in Omont’s revision (Moranville 1890:86). The salient point here is that the name ‘‘Sophronias’’ is so rare as not to be included in any form in either the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names or the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Since the name appears not to have been in use at all, one may speculate, given the rest of our knowledge about him, that the author of the letter to Charles is our monk Sophonias, and that the name on the back of the page is some kind of error written by someone other than the original sender.