Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 3.djvu/363

PHOTIUS. Hint, by Murdock, book iii. cent. ix. pt. ii. c. iii. g 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 patri- archate 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, di- vided into, 1, Those hostile to Photius ; and 2. Those more favourable to him. Of the historians of the lower empire, Le Beau {Bas Empire^ liv. Ixx. 38, &c., Ixxi. Ixxii. I — 3) is outrageously partial, in- flaming 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 Fait, c. 53, 60), more favour- able, has two separate, but brief and unsatisfactorj^, notices of the patriarch. The published works of Photius are the follow- ing:— 1. MvpioSiSkov 7} BiSKiodriKr]^ Myriobiblion seu Bibliutheca. This is the most important and valuable of the works of Photius. It may be de- scribed as an extensive review of ancient Greek literature by a scholar of immense erudition and sound judgment. It is an extraordinary monu- ment 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 which Photius had read in his absence. It thus conveys a pleasing im- pression, 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 con- tained 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 alter- ation 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 Biblioilieca^ as to lead to the supposition that the latter is imper- fect. " It is to be lamented," said Valesius {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 (Diutribe in Phot. Biblioth.) that we have no just reason for suspecting that the Bihliotheca is imper- fect ; 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 tlie work has been swelled out to its present size by spurious additions. " Our younger readers, how- ever, who tjike the Myriobiblon 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; PHOTIUS. 'in 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 ex- press testimony of Photius himself, who has men- tioned the number of volumes examined, his judgment is entitled to but little weight. The two hundred and eighty divisions of the BiUiotheca must be understood to express the number of vo- lumes (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 ex- amined are of all classes : the greater number, however, are theologians, writers of ecclesiastical history, and of the biography of eminent church- men ; but several are secular historians, philosophers, and orators, heathen or Christian, of remote or re- cent 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 (codd. 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 en- abling the writer to give a fuller account of them ; so that this circumstance confirms our observation as to the arrangement of the work. Several valu- able works, now lost, are known to us chiefly by the analyses or extracts which Photius has given of them ; among them are the Perxica and Indica of Ctesias [Ctesias] 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 Olym- piodorus [Olympiodorus, No. 3], in cod. 80 ; the Narrationes of Conon [Conon, No. 1], in cod. 186 ; the Nova Historia of Ptolemy Hephaestion [Pto- LEMAEUs], in cod. 190 ; the De Heraclew?. Ron- ticae Rebus of Memnon [Memnon], in cod. 224 ; the Vita Isidori [Isidorus, No. 5, of Gaza] by Damascius [Damascius], 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 DeErythraeo (s. Rubro) Mari of Agatharchides [Agatharchides], in cod. 250; the anonymous Vita Pauli CPolitani and Vita Aihanasii^ in codd. 257 and 258 ; the lost Oratioties, genuine or spu- rious, of Antiphon [Antiphon, No. 1], Isocrates [IsocRATES, No. 1], Lysias [Lvsias], Isaeus [IsAEUs, No. 1], Demosthenes [Demosthenes], Hyperides [Hyperides], Deinarchus [Deinar- CHtJS, No. 1], and Lycurgus [Lycurgus, p. 858], in codd. 259 — 268 ; and of the Chreslomotlieia of Helladius of Antinoopolis [Helladius, No. 2] in Cod. 279 ; besides several theological and ecclesias- tical and some medical works. The above enumera- tion will suffice to show the inestimable value of th«  Bibliotltcca of Photius, especially when we reflect