A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

MOSCHOPULUS. MOSCHOPULUS. 1115
Graec. vol. i. p. 407, note gg, and vol. vi. pp. ] 90, author. Even if genuine, we are disposed to un322, &c.; Saxius, Onomasticon, vol. ii. pp. 387, derstand it as referring to the rupture of the union
445, 591; Montucla, Hist. des Mathem. pt. i. of the churches, A.D. 1282, so that it does not
liv. v. ~ 10, vol. i. p. 333, note b, ed. Paris, 1759; support the date given by Crusius. Another hisor ~ 11, vol. i. p. 346, ed. 1799-180'2; Bandini, torical notice given in the Nova Grammatices EpiCatal. Codd. Graec. Laur. Medic. vol. ii. col. 553; tome (p. 49, ed. Titze), as illustrating the ten cateHarles. Introd. in Hist. Ling. Graec. vol. ii. p. 544.) gories, seems to fix the composition of that work to
Hody (De Graecis Illustribus, p. 314, &c.) was the time (A. D. 1273 to 1282) when Andronicus
disposed to identify the younger Moschopulus with reigned in conjunction with his father; but this
Emanuel Adramyttenus, a Cretan, who was pre- notice has so little connection with the context,
ceptor of the celebrated Joannes Picus, count of that it is, like the preceding, liable to the suspicion
Mirandola, and is mentioned with the highest of being interpolated. It is conjectured that Mospraises for his erudition in the letters of Aldus chopulus the Cretan, who wrote a commentary
Manutius and Angelus Politianus. upon Iesiod, is one of the commentators referred
Of the above scanty account some of the par- to by Georgius Pachymeres (De Andronic. Palaeol.
ticulars are evidently incorrect, others rest on iv. 15, where see Possin's note): this conjecture,
no sure foundation. An ancient Greek MS. of which, however, separately regarded, rests on very
the Sylloge Dictionum Atticarum, quoted by slight ground, would render it probable that PachyDucange (Glossar. Med. et Inf. Graecitatis Notae, meres, who was born in or about A. D. 1240,
col. 29) states it to be a work of Moschopulus studied in his boyhood under Moschopulus. In a
" a Byzantine (or native of Constantinople), nephew MS. ascribed by Montfaucon (Biblioth. Coislin. p.
of the Cretan;" and may be considered as esta- 455) to the fourteenth century, are some'E'7rlr'oAa(,
blishing the facts that there were two Moschopuli, Epistolae, of Manuel Moschopulus, addressed " to
an uncle and a nephew; that the uncle was a Cre- Acropolita the great Logotheta," "to the Logotheta
tan, and a man of such reputation that relationship Metochita," "to his uncle the Cretan" (T4 aEit
to him was a thing to be recorded; and that avTov ip4 Kp'Trrls, perhaps an error for Ar Kp'Ti),
the nephew was a native of Constantinople, and a from which it appears that the nephew was conwriter on grammatical subjects. The date at temporary with Georgius Acropolita (who died
which the elder is said, in the account given above, about A. D. 1282) or his son Constantinus Acropoto have lived, appears to have been derived from a lita, and with Theodorns Metochita, who was Logopassage in the Turco-Graecia of Crusius, who theta in A. D. 1294, and perhaps earlier. (Niceph.
states (in Histor. Politicam. CPoleos Annotat. p. Gregoras, Hist..Byzant. vi. 8.) A work of Geor44) that he had a MS. of the Erotemata s. Quaes- gius Metochita, published in the Graecia Orthodoaa
tiones of Moschopulus, to which the owner had of Allatius,. vol. ii. p. 959, is entitled'AvT'iJp7a7rLS
appended a note that it was given him by the rc, &v avve-ypda'ao Mavov)N oJ To6 Kp74r-qls
priest Clubes, A. D. 1392; and then Crusius states dvcEros, i. e. " A reply to certain writings of Mahis opinion that Moschopulus flourished in the nuel, the nephew of the Cretan." These notices,
reign of the Byzantine emperor Andronicus the together with the existence in manuscript, in the
Elder, about A. D. 1300. A careless reader, con- library of St. Mark at Venice (Fabric. Bibl. Graec.
founding the date of the gift with that of the vol. vi. p. 323, note pp), of a work of Moschopulus,
writer, brought down the reign of Andronicus to Contra Latinos, combine to show that the younger
the latter part of the 14th century; and this gross Moschopulus was contemporary with and was enanachronism appears to have passed unnoticed. If gaged in the religious dissensions occasioned by the
the author of the Quaestiones, whether he was the attempt begun by the emperor Michael Palaeologus
uncle or the nephew, lived in the time of the elder (A. D. 1260), and abandoned by his son the elder
Andronicus, who reigned from A. D. 1282 to Andronicus, a short time after his accession (A. D.
1328, neither of the Moschopuli could have lived 1282), to unite the Greek and Latin churches;
so late as the capture of Constantinople by the and that he survived the appointment to the office
Turks (A. D. 1453), so that the story of the ne- of Logotheta of Theodorus Metochita, who held that
phew's flight into Italy, consequent on that event, office in perhaps A. D. 1294. These dates are consistmust be rejected. Hody's identification of the tutor ent with the supposition that his uncle the Cretan
of Joainnes Picus with the younger Moschopulus was one of -the teachers of Pachymeres, and afford
must, of course, be rejected also: it appears indeed some probability to the conjecture that Pachymer renever to have had any other foundation than the fers to him. These scanty notices have been indus-.
common name of Manuel and the fact of the pre- triously gleaned by Titze in his Diatribe Literarcia
ceptor being a Cretan; which latter circumstance de Moschopulis, which we have chiefly followed.
furnishes an argument, as Hody evidently felt, not The works ascribed to the Moschopuli are
for but against the identity; the nephew, who is numerous; the greater part of them are on gramsaid to have fled into Italy, having been a Con- matical subjects, and are usually ascribed to the
stantinopolitan; to say nothing of the diversity of nephew; but in most cases without evidence. Lasthe surnames Adramyttenus and Moschopulus. caris indeed (Epitome Ling. Graec. lib. iii. Epilog.)
The date assigned by Crusius, A. D. 1300, to the speaks of the grammatical works of Moschopulus,
elder Moschopulus is perhaps a little too late: he as if only one of the name had written upon that
can hardly have long survived the accession of An- subject; and Titze infers from this that they were
dronicus, A. D. 1282, if indeed he lived till then. all written by the uncle, and that the nephew
Crusius founded his calculation on an historical no- wrote only on theology. The MSS. in a few cases
tice given in illustrationof the use of the preposition speak of their respective authors determinately, as
KaTyc in his MS. of the Erotemata; but this notice "the Cretan," " the nephew of the Cretan," or the
does not appear in the printed editions of that work, "Byzantine;" but are in most cases indeterminate,
and was perhaps added by the transcriber of the the author being described as " Moschopulus,"
MS., and if so, it furnishes no clue to the age of the "Manuel Moschopulus," or "Manuel Grarmma