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

760 SCYLITZES. SCYLITZES.
if not a decisive argument against the priority and version is a manifest error, for the version itself
originality of Cedrenus. The title of the work comes down, as does the printed Greek text, to the
from which this Prioemiu7n is taken is thus given reign of Nicephorus Botaniotes. Gabius apparently
by Montfaucon, from the MS.,:v'ovts — rTOpLCWY translated the title of the MS. which he used; and
avuyypacpezo ra 7rapd'Iwavov Kovuporad'arov Kai' the name of Isaac Comnenus is probably an error
xe'ydoov 5povy'yap ou Tris BiyAas'roO ZcArtvr7j, (either of the transcriber of the MS. or of the
Synopsis Historiarumn Scripta a Joanne Scylitze Cs- translator) for Alexius Comnenus, Botaniotes' sucropalata et Mayno DrunZgaS-io Vigiliae. On the other cessor, to whose accession, as we shall presently see,
hand Cedrenus is a professed compiler: his work, the history extended in the author's purpose, if not in
which is also called vvoios r lsropIc;v, Synopsis his performance. The earlier cessation of Cedrenus
Historiaruzm, is avowedly described in the title as narrative may be otherwise accounted for. It may
avAXE'yeGa &Ec taqdpwv 8Biws, ","ex diversisLibris be questioned whether he ever finished his work;
collecta." The Prsoeiniu7n is so far identical with or whether, if he did, his work is extant in its
that of Scylitzes as to show that one has been entire form (comp. Vossius, de Historicis Graec.
taken from the other, and adapted to the borrower's lib. ii. c. xxvi. ubi de Cedren.): the actual conclupurpose. In a passage, however, peculiar to Ce- sion is abrupt; and the point at which it terminates
drenus, he quotes as one of his chief authorities, a partakes not of the character of an historical epoch.
certain Joannes Protovestiarius, surnamed Thrace- To this it may be added that the extant work of
sius, whose manner of writing he describes in the Scylitzes, which is assumed to be the second edition,
very terms in which Scylitzes, in his Prioemium, does not make any reference to a former edition, or
had laid down his own principles of composition. bear any mark of a continuation having been apThe point at which Cedrenus describes the history pended at the place where the supposed first edition
of this Joannes Thracesius as commencing, is pre- concluded. Another consideration which weighs
cisely that at which the history of Scylitzes begins. with us is this; that the title of Protovestiarius
There can, therefore, we think, be no reasonable was, in the scale of Byzantine rank. above those of
doubt that Joannes Thracesius and Joannes Scy- Curopalata and Drungarius; and was, therefore, it
litzes are the same person; and their identity is is reasonable to suppose, the last attained (comp.
further established by a short piece in the Jols Codinus, de Official. Palat. CPolit. c. ii.). We
Graeco-Romanum of Leunclavius, mentioned below, see no reason, then, to suppose that there was more
in the title of which Joannes Thracesius is called than one edition.
Curopolata and Magnus Drungarius Vigiliarumrn. It remains to be considered at what date the
It is clear also that he wrote before Cedrenus; and history of Scylitzes was written, and to how late a
that the latter borrowed froln him; and this is now period it extended. The abruptness of the termithe general conclusion of competent judges, includ- nation of the work, as printed, in the middle of the
ing Vossius, Hankins, Pontunus, Goar, Labbe, short reign of Nicephorus Botaniotes, shows that
Lambecius, and Fabricius. It may be observed, we have it in an incomplete form, whether so left
however, that no other discredit than that of being by the author or derived from an imperfect copy.
a mere compiler justly attaches to Cedrenus from A MS. in the Imperial Library at Vienna, fully
this circumstance: he did not profess to be more described by Kollar (Supplement ad Lanmbecii Conmthan a compiler, and has fairly owned his obliga- nzentar. lib. i. p. 613, &c.), contains a variety of
tions both to Scylitzes, assuming the latter to be chronological and other tables, probably compiled
identical with Joannes Thracesius, and to other by Scylitzes (and which we shall presently notice),
writers from whom he borrowed. Had Scylitzes, and a copy of his Synopsis Historiarum, written, as
who does not mention Cedrenus, borrowed as Kollar judges, early in the twelfth century. This
largely from the latter and concealed his obliga- MS. is mutilated at the end of Scylitzes' Synopsis,
tion, he would have justly incurred the reproach so as to prevent our ascertaining at what point the
of endeavouring to deck himself out with stolen history concluded. But a list of Byzantine soveplumage. reigns of both sexes, bearing the inscription ou C'P
The question whether Scylitzes published two T-re!f $iA:.4 dvayEsypalnueU'sot facTeAfE Eo't~,
editions of his history, though less important, de- eT'roi, snperatores quorum Res in hoc Libro sunt
serves notice. Vossius,Hankius, and other critics con- conscriptae, sunt hi, ends with'AxElos o Kotmv7'uis,
tend that he did. Their opinion appears to rest on em' A' "vias 1' -tyuipas mi', a ysvv a'nroi Eiprav7l,
these circumstances: that, in the Latin translation Alexius Comnenus, annis septema et trigiznta, omenof Scylitzes by Gabius (of which presently), the his- sibus quatuor, diebus quatuordecim. Uxor ejus
tory is said in the title-page to extend to the reign of Irene. From this passage Kollar inferred that the
Isaac ComnenIus, "ad imperium Isaaci Comneni:" history included the whole reign of Alexius, and
that Cedrenus, who, in the latter part of his work, that the author must have written after its close in
transcribes Scylitzes, brings down his work only to A. D. 1118. But this inference, so far as it respects
A. D. 1057, and that, in speaking of Joannes Thra- the close of the history, is contradicted by the title
cesius, he gives him the title of Protovestiarius, of the history itself, which describes it as reAevwhile in the MSS. of Scylitzes' own work he has aea es 7-)p avayodpE'PVV''AAkeo v U ov Koekvav/U,
the titles of Curopalata and Magnus Drungarius In Alexii Comneni Corontatiose desinens. The hisVigiliarum; and the work itself comes down to tory then included, or was intended to include, not
about 1080. From these premises it is inferred the whole reign of Alexius, but only its commencethat Scylitzes first held the office of Protovestiarius, ment; though the extant, at least the published
and during that time published a first edition of copies do not reach even thiis point, thus evidencing
his work, coming down to A. D. 1057; and that their incompleteness. The writer, therefore, must
afterwards he attained the dignities of Curopalata have lived after the commencement; and, if he
and Drungarius, and then published a second was the author of the table of sovereigns, after the
edition brought down to a later period. But this close of the reign of Alexius: but it may be doubted
reasoning is-not satisfactory. The title of Gabius's whether that table was not added, or the length of