ページの画像
PDF

Hist, by Murdock, book iii. cent. ix. pt. ii. c. iii. § 27–32), and in the works cited at the close of this article. Fabricius has given a list of the councils held to determine questions arising out of the struggle of Ignatius and Photius for the patriarchate or out of the contests of the Eastern and Western Churches with regard to Photius. He has also given a list of writers respecting Photius, divided into, l. Those hostile to Photius; and 2. Those more favourable to him. Of the historians of the lower empire, Le Beau (Bas Empire, liv. lxx. 38, &c., lxxi. lxxii. 1–3) is outrageously partial, inflaming the crimes of Photius, and rejecting as untrue, or passing over without notice, the record of those incidents which are honourable to him. Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. 53,60), more favourable, has two separate, but brief and unsatisfactory, notices of the patriarch. The published works of Photius are the following:–1. MuptéétéAov i BiéA100 firm, Myriobiblion sea Bibliotheca. This is the most important and valuable of the works of Photius. It may be described as an extensive review of ancient Greek literature by a scholar of immense erudition and sound judgment. It is an extraordinary monument of literary energy, for it was written while the author was engaged in his embassy to Assyria, at the request of Photius' brother Tarasius, who was much grieved at the separation, and desired an account of the books whieh Photius had read in his absence. It thus conveys a pleasing impression, not only of the literary acquirements and extraordinary industry, but of the fraternal affection of the writer. It opens with a prefatory address to Tarasius, recapitulating the circumstances in which it was composed, and stating that it contained a notice of two hundred and seventy-nine volumes. The extant copies contain a notice of two hundred and eighty: the discrepancy, which is of little moment, may have originated either in the mistake of Photius himself, or in some alteration of the divisions by some transcriber. It has been doubted whether we have the work entire. An extant analysis, by Photius, of the Historia Ecclesiastica of Philostorgius [PhilosTorgius], by which alone some knowledge of the contents of that important work has been preserved to us, is so much fuller than the brief analysis of that work contained in the present text of the Billiotheca, as to lead to the supposition that the latter is imperfeet. “It is to be lamented,” said Walesius (De Critica, i. 29), “that many such abridgments and collections of extracts are now lost. If these were extant in the state in which they were completed by Photius, we should grieve less at the loss of so many ancient writers.” But Leiche has shown (Diatrile in Phot. Biblioth.) that we have no just reason for suspecting that the Bibliotheca is impersect; and that the fuller analysis of Philostorgius Probably never formed part of it; but was made at a later period. A hasty and supercilious writer in the Edinburgh Review (vol. xxi. p. 329, &c.), whose harsh and unjust censure of Photius we have already noticed, affirms on the other hand that the work has been swelled out to its present size by spurious additions. “Our younger readers, however, who take the Myriolillon in hand, are not to suppose that the book which at present goes under that name, is really the production of Photius; we believe that not more than half of it can be safely attributed to that learned and turbulent bishop;

and we think it would not be very difficult to discriminate between the genuine and supposititious parts of that voluminous production.” As the reviewer has not attempted to support his assertion by evidence, and as it is contradicted by the express testimony of Photius himself, who has mentioned the number of volumes examined, his judgment is entitled to but little weight. The two hundred and eighty divisions of the Bibliothea must be understood to express the number of volumes (codices) or manuscripts, and not of writers or of works: the works of some writers, e.g. of Philon Judaeus (codd. 103–105), occupy several divisions; and on the other hand, one division (e. g. cod. 125, Justini Martyris Scripta Varia), sometimes comprehends a notice of several different works written in one codex. The writers examined are of all classes: the greater number, however, are theologians, writers of ecclesiastical history, and of the biography of eminent churchmen; but several are secular historians, philosophers, and orators, heathen or Christian, of remote or recent times, lexicographers, and medical writers; only one or two are poets, and those on religious subjects, and there are also one or two writers of romances or love tales. There is no formal classification of these various writers; though a series of writers or writings of the same class frequently occurs, e.g. the Acta of various councils (codd. 15–20); the writers on the Resurrection o: 21–23); and the secular historians of the Byzantine empire (codd. 62–67). In fact the works appear to be arranged in the order in which they were read. The notices of the writers vary much in length: those in the earlier part are very briefly noticed, the later ones more fully ; their recent perusal apparently enabling the writer to give a fuller account of them ; so that this circumstance confirms our observation as to the arrangement of the work. Several valuable works, now lost, are known to us chiefly by the analyses or extracts which Photius has given of them; among them are the Persica and Indica of Ctesias [CTEsi As] in cod. 72; the De Rebus post Alexandrum Magnum gestis, and the Parthica and the Bithynica of Arrian [ARRIANUs, No. 4], in codd. 58, 92, and 93; the Historiae of Olympiodorus [OLYMPIoDoRUs, No. 3], in cod. 80; the Narrationes of Conon [Conon, No. 1], in cod. 186; the Nova Historia of Ptolemy Hephaestion [PtoLEMAEus], in cod. 190; the De Heracleae Ponticae Rebus of Memnon [MEMNoN], in cod. 224; the Vita Isidori [Isidorus, No. 5, of Gaza] by Damascius [DAMAscIt's], in cod. 242; the lost Declamationes of Himerius [HIMERIUs, No. 1], in cod. 243; the lost books of the Bibliotheca of Diodorus Siculus [Diodorus, No. 12], in cod. 244; the De Erythraeo (s. Rubro) Mari of Agatharchides [AGATHARchid Es], in cod. 250; the anonymous Vita Pauli CPolitani and Vita Athanasii, in codd. 257 and 258; the lost Orationes, genuine or spurious, of Antiphon [ANTIPHoN, No. 1], Isocrates [lsockATEs, No. 1], Lysias [Lys1As], Isaeus [ISAEUS, No. 1], Demosthenes [DEMosTHENEs], Hyperides [HyPERIDEs], Deinarchus [DEINARchus, No. 1], and Lycurgus [Lycurgus, p. 858]. in codd. 259—268; and of the Chrestomatheia of Helladius of Antinoopolis [HELLADIUs, No. 2] in Cod. 279; besides several theological and ecclesiastical and some medical works. The above enumeration will suffice to show the inestimable value of the Bibliotheca of Photius, especially when we reflect how much the value of his notices is enhanced by the soundness of his judgment. The first edition of the Bibliotheca was published by David Hoeschelius, under the title of BiéAtobjkm too partov, Librorum quos legit Photius Patriarcha Ercerpta et Censurae, fol. Augsburg, 1601. Some of the Epistolae of Photius were subjoined. The text of the Bibliotheca was formed on a collation of four MSS., and was accompanied with notes by the editor; but there was no Latin version. A Latin version and scholia, by Andreas Schottus of Antwerp, were published, fol. Augsburg, 1606; but the version is inaccurate, and has been severely criticised. It was however reprinted, with the Greek text, under the title of barriou MvpuéétéAov h BišAuo&#ncm. Photii Myriobihlon sive Bibliotheca, fol. Geneva, 1612, and fol. Rouen, 1653. This last edition is a very splendid one, but inconvenient from its size. An edition, with a revised text, formed on a collation of four MSS. (whether any of them were the same as those employed by Hoeschelius is not mentioned) was published by Immanuel Bekker, 2 thin vols. 4to. Berlin, 1824–1825: it is convenient from its size and the copiousness of its index, but has neither version nor notes. 2. "Emirou) ék Töv čkkAmataotixów iorropov +ixoa Topylov dró (pwwfis dowríov tratpidpxov, Compendium. Historiae Ecclesiasticae Philostorgii quod dictavit Photius patriarcha. Cave regards this as a fragment of another work similar to the Bibliotheca ; but his conjecture rests on no solid foundation. The Compendium is of great importance as preserving to us, though very imperfectly, an Arian statement of the ecclesiastical transactions of the busy period of the Arian controversy in the fourth century. It was first published, with a Latin version and copious notes, by Jacobus Gothofredus (Godefroi), 4to, Geneva, 1643; and was reprinted with the other ancient Greek ecclesiastical historians by Henricus Walesius (Henri Valois), folio, Paris, 1673, and by Reading, fol. Cambridge, 1720. 3. Nouokava v or Nowokávovov, Nomocanon, s. M , s. N s. C Ecclesiasticorum et Legum Imperialium de Ecclesiastica Disciplina Conciliatio s. Harmonia. This work, which bears ample testimony to the extraordinary legal attainments of its author, is arranged under fourteen tiraol, Tituli, and was prefixed to a XuvTayua Tóv kavávov, Canonum Syntagma, or collection of the Canones of the Apostles and of the ecclesiastical councils recognised by the Greek Church, compiled by Photius; from which circumstance it is sometimes called IIpokávov, Procanon. It has been repeatedly published, with the commentaries of Theodore Balsamon, who strongly recommended it, in preference to similar works of an earlier date: it appeared in the Latin version of Gentianus Hervetus, fol. Paris, 1561, and in another Latin version of Henricus Agylaeus, fol. Basel. 1561, and in the original Greek text with the version of Agylaeus, edited by Christophorus Justellus, 4to. Paris, 1615. It was reprinted, with the version of Agylaeus, in the Bibliotheca Juris Canonici, published by Guillelmus Voellus and Henricus Justellus, vol. ii. p. 785, &c. fol. Paris, 1661. The Nomocanon of Photius was epitomised in the kind of verses called politici [see Philippus, No. 27, note] by Michael Psellus, whose work was published, with one or two other of his pieces, by Franciscus Bosquetus, 8vo. Paris, 1632.

4. IIepl rôv : oikovuevików avvööwy, De S.p. tem. Conciliis Oecumenicis. This piece subjoined, with a Latin version, to the Nomocanon in the Paris editions of 1615 and 1661, and often published elsewhere, is really part of one of the Epis: of Photius, and is noticed in our account of them.

5. "Emigroxas, Epistolae. There are extant a considerable number of the letters of Photius. The MSS. containing them are enumerated by Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vol. xi. p. 11. It is much to be regretted that no complete collection of them has been published. David Hoeschelius subjoined to his edition of the Bibliotheca (fol. Augsburg, 1601) mentioned above, thirty-five letters selected from a MS. collection which had belonged to Maximus Margunius, bishop of Cerigo, who lived about the end of the sixteenth century. One consolatory letter to the mun Eusebia on her sister's death, was published by Conrad Rittershausius, with a Latin version, with some other pieces, 8vo. Nürnberg, 1601. But the largest collection is that prepared with a Latin version and notes by Richard Mountagu bishop of Norwich, and published after his death, fol. London, 1651. The Greek text was from a MS. in the Bodleian library. The collection comprehends two hundred and forty-eight letters translated by the bishop, and a supplement of five letters brought from the East by Christianus Ravius, of which also a Latin version by another person is given. The first letter in Mountagu's collection is addressed to Michael, prince of the Bulgarians, on the question Ti éotiv pyov dipxovros, De Officio Principis : it is very long, and contains the account of the seven general councils already mentioned (No. 4), as subjoined to the printed editions of the Nomocanon. This letter to Prince Michael was translated into French verse by Bernard, a Theatin monk, dedicated to Louis XV. and published, 4to. Paris, 1718. The second letter, also of considerable length, is an encyclical letter on various disputed topics, especially on that of the procession of the Holy Spirit, the leading theological question in dispute between the Eastern and Western Churches. Mountagu's version has been severely criticized by Combéfis, (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. i. p. 701 note f f f.) Several important letters are not included in the collection, especially two to Pope Nicolaus I., and one to the archbishop or patriarch of Aquileia, on the procession of the Holy Spirit, of all which Baronius had given a Latin version in his Annales Ecclesiastic (ad ann. 859, lxi. &c., 861, xxxiv. &c., and 883, v. &c.). Fragments of the Greek text of the letters to Pope Nicolaus were cited by Allatius in different parts of his works; the original of the letter to the archbishop of Aquileia was published in the Auctarium Novissimum of Combéfis, pars i. p. 527, &c. (fol. Paris, 1672), with a new Latin version and notes by the editor; and the original of all the three letters, together with a previously unpublished letter, Ad Oeconomum Ecclesiae A*tiochiae, and the encyclical letter on the procession of the Holy Spirit (included in Mountagu's collec: tion), the Acta of the eighth oecumenical council (that held in 879, at which the second appointment of Photius to the patriarchate was ratified), and some other pieces, with notes by Dositheus, patriarch of Jerusalem, were published by Anthimus “Episcopus Remnicus," i.e. bishop of Rimnik, in Walachia, in

(Latinized Montacutius), his Tóuos xapás. Fol. Rimnik, 1705. A letter. Ad Theophanem Monachum, i.e. to Theophanes. Cerameus, with a Latin version by Sirmond, was published by the Jesuit Franciscus Scorsus, in his Prooemium Secundum, $ 3, to the Homiliate of Cerameus, fol. Paris, 1644 [CERAMEUS, THEoPHANEs), and another letter, Stauracio Spatharo-candidato, Praefecto insulae Cypri, was included in the Ecclesiae Graecae Monumenta of Cotelerius, vol. ii. p. 104, together with a short piece, IIepi tow um 3eivrpós td v 73 Big Aumpà émigrpéped bat, Quod non oporteat ad praesentis vitae molestias attendere, which, though not bearing the form of a letter (perhaps it is a fragment of one), is in the MS. classed with the Epistolae. A Latin version, from the Armenian, of some fragments of an Epistola Photii ad Zachariam Armeniae Patriarcham, in support of the doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon, is given in the Conciliatio Ecclesiae Armeniae cum Romana of Galanus, fol. Rom. 1650. To all these we may add the Epistola Tarasio Fratri, usually subjoined to the Bibliotheca. The Epistola ad Zachariam, just mentioned, and another letter, Ad Principein Armenium Asutium, are extant in MS. in an Armenian version. (Comp. Mai, Scriptor. Peterum Nov. Collectio. Proleg. in vol. i. 4to, Rom. 1825.) 6. Aéfewv rvvaywysis. Aeëtrów, Lericon. Marquardus Gudius of Hamburg had an anonymous MS. lexicon, which he believed and asserted to be that of Photius ; but the correctness of his opinion was first doubted by some, and is now given up by most scholars; and another lexicon, much shorter, and which is in the MSS. ascribed to Photius, is now admitted to be the genuine work of that eminent man. A writer in the Classical Joxrnal (No. 54, p. 358) has indeed expressed his conviction that, “in the composition of it the patriarch never stirred a finger,” and that it received his name merely from having been in his possession ; but we are not aware that his opinion has found any supporters. Of this Lexicon there exist several MSS., but that known as the Codex Galeanus, because given by Thomas Gale to the library of Trinity College, Cambridge, is considered to be the archetype from which the others have been transcribed; but this MS. is itself very imperfect, containing in fact not much more than half the original work. Nearly the whole of the Lea icon, known as the Lexicon Sangermanense, a portion of which was published in the Anecdota Graeca of Immanuel Bekker, vol. i. p. 319, &c. 8vo. Berlin, 1814, appears to have been incorporated in the Lericon of Photius, of which, when entire, it is estimated to have formed a third part (Praefat. to Porson's edition). The Learicon of Photius was first published, from Continental MSS., by Gothofredus Hermannus, 4to Leipzig, 1808. It formed the third volume of a set, of which the two first volumes contained the Lericon ascribed to Joannes Zonaras (Zos ARAs, JoANNEs]. The publication of the Lexicon was followed by that of a Libellus Animadversionum ad Photii Lericon, 4to. Leipzig, 1810, and Curae Norissimae sire Appendir Notarum * Emendationum in Photii Lexicon, 4to. Leipzig, 1812, both by Jo. Frid. Schleusner. But the edition of Hermann having failed to satisfy the wants of the learned, an edition from a transcript of the Codex Galeanus, made by Porson, was published oster the death of that eminent scholar, 4to. and

[graphic][graphic]

* London, 1822. (Comp. Edinb. Rev. vol. xxi. WOL. III.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

l. c. 7 'AubiXóxia, Amphilochia. This work, which Allatius, not a friendly censor, declared to be “a work filled with vast and varied learning, and very needful for theologians and expositors of Scripture,” is in the form of answers to certain questions, and is addressed to Amphilochus, archbishop of Cyzicus. The title is thus given in full by Montfaucon (Biblioth. Coislin, fol. Paris, 1715, p. 326): Tà 'Aubuwóxia i A6% ww iepāv kal ontmadrav sepoxo7tal trpos 'Appussytow Tov čawāratov untpomox{tny Kvoirov čv to Kaspop tav repaguáv, ortmuárwv 8tabópov eis doibuov Tpiakoriav avvrevövtwv éríavaiv airma duevov, Amphilochia s. Sermones et Quaestiones Sacrae ad Amphilochium Metropolitam Cyzicenum in Tempore Tentationum ; Quaestiones Variae sunt Numero trecentae. The answers are said in one MS. (apud Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. xi. p. 26) to be two hundred and ninetyseven in number; but Montfaucon (l.c.) published an index of three hundred and eight, and a Vatican MS., according to Mai (Script. Wet. Nora Collectio, vol. i. proleg. p. xxxix.), contains three hundred and thirteen. Of these more than two hundred and twenty have been published, but in various fragmentary portions (Mai, l.c.). The first portion which appeared in print was in the Lectiones Antiquae of Canisius (4to. Ingolstadt, 1604, &c. vol. v. p. 188, &c.), who gave a Latin version by Franciscus Turriamus, of six of the Quaestiones; but the work to which they belonged was not mentioned. In the subsequent edition of the Lectiones by Basnage (4to. Amsterdam, 1725, vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 420, &c.), the Greek text of five of the six was added (the original of the sixth seems never to have been discovered), as well as the Greek text of a seventh Quaestio, “De Christi Voluntatibus Gnomicis,” of which a Latin version by Turrianus had been published in the Auctarium Antiquarum Canisii Lectionum of the Jesuit Petrus Stewartius, 4to. Ingolstadt, 1616 ; also without notice that it was from the Amphilochia. Further additions were made by Combéfis, in his SS. Patrum Amphilochii, &c. Opera, 2 vols. fol. Paris, 1644 (by a strange error he ascribed the work not to Photius, but to Amphilochius of Iconium, a much older writer, from whose works he supposed Photius had made a selection), and in his Norum Auctarium, 2 vols. fol. Paris, 1648; by Montfaucon, in his Bibliotheca Cossliniana, fol. Paris, 1715; and by Jo. Justus Spier, in Wittenbergischen Anmerkungen ueller theologische, philosophische, historische, philologische, und kritische Materien, part i. 8vo. Wittenberg, 1738 (Harles, Introd. in Historiam Linguae Graec. Supplem. vol. ii. p. 47). But the principal addition was made by Jo. Chr. Wolff, of forty-six Quaestiones, published, with a Latin version, in his Curae Philologicae, vol. v. ad fin. 4to. Hamb. 1735: these were reprinted in the Bibliotheca Patrum of Galland, vol. xiii. sol. Venice, 1779. A further portion of eighteen Quaestiones, under the title 'Ek Töv batsov 'Auspiaoxtov twa, E. Photii Amphilochiis quaedam, was published, with a Latin version, by Angelus Antonius Schottus, 4to. Naples, 1817; and some further portions, one of twenty Quaestiones, with a Latin version by Mai, in his Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio, vol. i. pp. 193, &c., and another of a hundred and thirty Quaestiones, in vol. ix. p. 1, &c. As many of the Quaestiones were mere extracts from the Epistolae and other published works of

A. A

[ocr errors][merged small]

Photius, Mai considers that with these and with the portions published by him, the whole of the Amphi. sochia has now been published. He thinks (Scriptor. Vet. Nora Collect. vol. i. proleg. p. xi.) that the patriarch, toward the close of his life, compiled the work from his own letters, homilies, commentaries, &c., and addressed it to his friend Amphilochius, as a mark of respect, and not because the questions which were solved had actually been proposed to him by that prelate ; and he thus accounts for the identity of many passages with those in the author's other works. 8. Adversus Mamichaeos s. Paulicianos Libri Quatuor. No Greek title of the whole work occurs, but the four books are respectively thus described: 1. Apsyma is trepi Tàs Mavoxatov duaëAagrijgews, .Narratio de Munichaeis recens repullulantibus. 2. 'Atropiat kal Ağreis Tów Mavixatov, Dulia et Solutiones Manichaeorum. 3. Too owtíov Adoyos T, Photii Sermo III. 4. Kard. Tis Táv Mavixatwu dpriquous r^avns, 'Apaevso dysatàto uovax6 Tperévrépe Kai joyovuévo tow iepāv, Contra repullulantem Manichaeorum Errorem ad Arsenium Monachum Sanctissimum Presbyterum et Praefectum Sacrorum. The title of the second book is considered by Wolff to apply to the second, third, and fourth books, which formed the argumentative part of the work, and to which the first book formed an historical introduction. The second book is intended to show that the same God who created spiritual intelligences, also created the bodies with which they are united, and the material world generally ; the third vindicates the divine original of the Old Testament; and the fourth reiterates some points of the second and third books, and answers the objections of the Paulicians. The first book has several points in common with the historical work of Petrus Siculus [PETR Us, No. 7] on the same subject, so as to make it probable that one writer used the work of the other, and it is most likely Photius availed himself of that of Petrus. This important work of Photius was designed for publication by several scholars (vid. Wolff, Praefat, in Anecdot. Graec. vol. i. and Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. vol. vii. p. 329, vol. xi. p. 18), but they were prevented by death from fulfilling their purpose. Montfaucom published the first book, with a Latin version, in his Bibliotheca Coisliniana, p. 349, &c.; and the whole work was given by Jo. Christoph. Wolff, with a Latin version and notes, in his Anecdota Graeca, vols. i. ii. 12mo. Hamb. 1722, from which it was reprinted in vol. xiii. of the Bibliotheca Patrum of Galland, fol. Venice, 1779. A sort of epitome of this work of Photius is found in the Panoplia of Euthymius Zigabenus. Oudin contended that the work of Metrophanes of Smyrna, on the Manichaeans and on the Holy Spirit, was identical with this work of Photius; but this opinion, which is countenanced in a foregoing article [METRoPH AN Es].. is erroneous. 9. Kard tav Tijs taxatas Paums ori or IIarpós Hävov čkropečera Tó IIvesota Tô dytov dax' otoxi kal ěk Too Tios, Adrersus Latinos de Processione Spiritus Sancti. This work is incorporated in the Greek text of the Panoplia of Euthymius Zigabenus (fol. Tergovist. 1710, fol. 112, 113), of which it constitutes the thirteenth T(TAos or section. It is omitted in the Latin versions of Euthymius. The work of Photius contains several syllogistic propositions, which are quoted and answered seriatim, in the De Unione Ecclesiarum Oratio I. of

Joannes Veccus [Veccus], published in the Graccia Orthodora of Allatius, vol. i. p. 154, &c. 4to. Rome, 1652. It is apparently the work entitled by Cave Disputatio Compendiaria de Processione Spiritus Sancti a solo Patre. 10. OutMia!, Homiliae. Several of these have been published :—1. ‘Expparis Tàs y Tois BariAetols véas ext:Amasas Tūs ūrepayias Qeotókov to Bagińesou Too Make36Vos oikočounteiams, Descriptio Novae Sanctissimae Dei Genitricis Ecclesiae, in Pasatio a Basilio Macedone eastructae; a discourse delivered on the day of the dedication of the church described. It was first printed by Lambecius, in his notes to the work of Georgius Codinus, De (originibus CPolitanis, p. 187, fol. Paris, 1655, and is contained, with a Latin version, in the Bonn reprint of Codinus, 8vo. 1839. It is also contained in the Originum CPolitanarum Manipulus of Combefis, 4to. Paris, 1664, p. 296, with a Latin version and notes; and in the Imperium Orientale of Bandurius, pars iii. p. 117, fol. Paris, 1711. 2. Eis 70 yewégiov Tijs wrepayias Óeotékov, Homilia in Sanctissimae Dei Genitricis Natalem Diem, published by Combéfis, in his Auctarium Norum, vol. i. col. 1583, fol. Paris, 1648, and in a Latin version, in his Bibliotheca Patrum concionatoria, fol. Paris, 1662, &c. Both text and version are reprinted in the Billiotheca Patrum of Galland. 3. In Spalturam Domini, a fragment, probably from this, is given by Mai (Scriptor. Wet. Nora Collect. proleg. in vol. i. p. xli). 4. IIepi too us) Sesv opes 1 a év tá, 8to Avrmpá čTiatpépeatai, Quod non oport at ad praesentis Vitae Molestias attendere. This piece, which is perhaps not a homily, but the fragment of a letter, was published in the Ecclesiae Graecae Monumenta of Cotelerius, and has been already noticed in speaking of the Epistolae of Photius. 11. ‘EpwTijuara Séka cov trais Tais droxyaegi, Interrogationes decem cum totidem Responsionibus, s. Xvrayaoyal kal diročeiše is doptée is avveAeyuéval ék Töv avvoãuków kai iaTopków Ypatov trepi émigrón ww ral untporoxitév kai Aoûtwo otépov divaykatov on Tmuatav, Collectiones accurataeque Demonstrationes de Episcopis et Metropolitis et reliquis aliis necessariis Quaestionibus ea Synodiris et Historicis Monumentis eacerptae. This piece was published, with a Latin version and notes, by Francesco Fontani, in the first volume of his Norte Eruditorum Deliciac, 12mo, Florence, 1785. The notes were such as to give considerable offence to the stricter Romanists. (Mai, Scriptor. Peter. Not. Collect. Proleg. ad vol. i. p. xliv.) 12. Eis Töv Aovkāv ćpumvetal. In Lucam Erpositiones. Some brief Scholia on the gospel of Luke from MSS. Catenae, are given, with a Latin version, in vol. i. of the Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio of Mai, p. 189, &c., but from which of Photius's works they are taken does not appear. 13. Canonica Itesponsa, addressed to Leo, archbishop of Calabria; also published, with a Latin version, by Mai (ibid. p. 362), from a Palimpsest in the Vatican library. Many works of this great writer still remain in MS. 1. Commentarius in 1). Pauli Epistolas, a mutilated copy of which is (or was, according to Cave) in the public library at Cambridge. It is largely cited by Oecumenius. 2. Catema in Psalmos, formerly in the Coislinian library, of which, according to Montfaucon (Bibl. Coislin. pp.58,59), Photius appears to have been the compiler. But the Cour mentary on the Prophets, Prophelarum Liller, ascribed to him by Cave, Fabricius, and others, appears to have no real existence ; the supposition of its existence was founded on the misapprehension of a passage in Possevino's Apparatus Secer. (Mai, Prolegom, ut sup. p. 1.) 3. Homiliae XI. V., extant in MS. at Moscow, of the subjects of which alist is given in the Auctarium Norissimum (ad calc. vol. i.) of Combéfis, in the De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis of Oudin (col. 210, &c.), and in the Bibliotheca Graeca (vol. xi. p. 30, &c.) of Fabricius. To these may be added two other homilies. De Ascensione, and In Festo Epiphaniae, and an Encouvium Proto-Martyris Theclue (Fabric, ibid.). 4. Odae. Nine are or were extant in a MS. formerly belonging to the college of Clermont, at Paris; and three in an ancient Barberini M.S. at Rome. The latter are described by Mai (Proleg. p. xliv.) as of moderate length, and written in pleasing verse. Some Epigrammata of Photius are said to be extant (Montfaucon, Bibl. Coislin. p. 520); but the XTxmpów, In Methodium CPol., said to be given in the Acta Sanctorum, Junii, vol. ii. p. 969, is not to be found there. 5. "Emirou) Tây Tpaktuków Tøv érrá oikovuevuków auwöðav, Epitome Actorum Concillorum septem Generalium. This is described by Cave and Fabricius as a different work from the published piece (No. 4, above]. Some critics have doubted whether it is different from the similar work ascribed to Photius of Tyre [No. 3] : but as this prelate lived in the time of the third or fourth councils, he could not have epitomised the Acta of the fifth, sixth, and seventh. So that the Epitome cannot be by Photius of Tyre, whatever doubt there may be as to its being the work of our Photius. 6. The Syntagma Canonum has been already mentioned in speaking of the Nomocanon. 7. IIepi riis toū āytov IIvečuatos uvaTaywyías, De Spiritus Sancti Disciplina Arcana, s. IIepi 100 dolov kai (alomotoi, Kai Tpoorvum Tov Tveisuaros, Liber de Spiritu Sancto, addressed to a bishop Bedas, and different from the published work, No. 9. It is described by Mai, who

[graphic]

given some extracts (Proleg. p. xlv.), as “liber luculentus, varius, atque prolixus.” It is ascribed in one MS., but by an obvious error, to Metrophanes of Smyrna. 8. Tà trapā tīs KKAmcías Tav Aattvav airtouata uépiká, Adversus Latinorum Ecclesiam Criminationes Particulares. 9. Contra Francos et Latinos (Mai, Proleg. p. xlviii.); a very short piece. Various other pieces are mentioned by Cave, Lambecius, Fabricius, and Mai, as extant in MS.; but some of these are only fragments of the published writings (Mai, Proleg. p. 1) enumerated by mistake as separate works. The work In Categorias Aristotelis, now or formerly extant in Vienna and Paris, is apparently a part of the Amphilochia (Mai, Proleg. p. xxxvi.). The works De Episcopis et Metropolitis, and the Annolatio de Patriarchis sede sua injuste pulsis, mentioned by Cave and Fabricius, appear to be either the Interrogationes decem published by Fontani, or a part of that work. (See No. 1 i of the published works.) The Symbolum Fidei mentioned by Lambecius, Cave, and Harles (Fabric. Bill. Graec. vol. xi. p. 30), is part of one of the letters to Pope Nicolaus: and the Liber de Pulsione Imatii ac Restitutone mentioned by Montfaucon (Bill. Bibliothecarun, p. 123), is also part of a letter of Pope Nicolaus; and the fragment De decem Oratoribus, mentioned by Vossius and others, and extant in MS. in the

King's Library at Paris, is probably from the Billiotheca (Mai, Proleg. p. 1.). Some works have perished, as that against the heretic Leontius of Antioch, mentioned by Suidas (s. v. Aeëvrtos). Photius wrote also against the emperor Julian (Phot. Epist. 187, ed. Montac.), and in defence of the use of images. Some writings, or fragments of writings of his on this subject (Adversus Iconomachos et Paulicianos, and De Differentia inter sacras Imagines atque Idola) are extant in the Imperial Library at Vienna, but whether in distinct works, or under what title, does not appear to be known. In the Synodicon of Bishop Beveridge (vol. ii. ad fin. part i.) a short piece is given, of which the running title is Balsamon in Photii Interrogationes quorumdam Monachorum ; but the insertion of the name of Photius is altogether incorrect; the work belongs to the time of the emperor Alexius I. Commenus. The Erogesis, or Commentary of Elias Cretensis [ELIAs, No. 5) on the Scala Paradisi of Joannes Climacus, is, in a MS. of the Coislinian library (Montfaucon, Bill. Coislin. p. 141), improperly ascribed to Photius. Two learned Romanists, Joannes Andresius and Jacobus Morellius, have in recent times contemplated the publication of a complete edition of the works of Photius; the latter proceeded so far as to draw up a Conspectus of his proposed edition (Mai, Proleg. p. xliv.). But unfortunately the design has never been completed ; and the works of the greatest genius of his age have yet to be sought in the various volumes and collections, older or more recent, in which they have appeared. (Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. p. 47, &c. ed. Oxford, 1740–1743 : Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. vol. i. p. 701, vol. vi. p. 603, voi. vii. p. 803, vol. x. p. 670, to vol. xi. p. 37, vol.xii. pp. 185, 210, 216, 348; Oudin, Comment. de Scriptorib. et Scriptis Eccles. vol. ii. col. 200, &c.; Hankius, De Rerum Byzantin. Scriptorib. pars i. c. 18; Dupin, Nouvelle Bibliothèque des Auteurs Eccles. IXme Siècle, p. 346, 2me edit. 1698; Ceillier, Auteurs Sacrés, vol. xix. p. 426, &c.; Ittigius, De Bibliothecis Patrum, passim ; Gallandius, Biblioth. Patrum, prolegom. in vol. xiii.; Fontani, De Photio Novae Romae Episcopo ejusque Scriptis Dissertatio, prefixed to vol. i. of the Novae Eruditorum Deliciae; Mai, Scriptor. Wet. Nova Collectio, proleg. in vol. i. ; Assemani, Bibliotheca Juris Orientalis, lib. i. c. 2, 7, 8, 9; Vossius, De Historicis Graecis, lib. ii. c. 25.) 3. Of TYRE. On the deposition of Irenaeus, bishop of Tyre, in A. D. 448, Photius was appointed his successor. Evagrius (H. E. i. 10) makes the deposition of Irenaeus one of the acts of the notorious Council of Ephesus, held in A. D. 449, and known as the “Concilium Latrocinale: ” but Tillemont more correctly considers that the council only confirmed the previous deposition. (Mémoires, vol. xv. p. 268.) Photius of Tyre was one of the judges appointed by the emperor Theodosius II., in conjunction with Eustathius, bishop of Berytus and Uranius, bishop of Himerae in Osrhoëne, to hear the charges against Ibas, bishop of Edessa. Photius, Eustathius, and Uranius, met at Berytus, and Photius and Eustathius again met at Tyre, in the year 448 or 449, heard the charges, acquitted Ibas, and brought about a reconciliation between him and his accusers, who were presbyters of his own church at Edessa. (Concil. vol. iv. col. 627, &c., ed. Labbe, vol. ii. col. 503. &c., ed. IIardouin.) There is a considerable difficulty as

« 前へ次へ »