Joannes
Ἰωάννης, Latin emperor of Constantinople,the third son of Everard, count of Brienne, and Agnes, countess of Miimpelgard, was born in 1148. He was one of the leaders of the Latins who took Constantinople in 1204, and in 1210 was chosen king of Jerusalem, which was then in the hands of the Turks. In 1218 he commanded the famous Latin expedition against Egypt, and made himself so conspicuous, through his military skill and undaunted courage, that he was looked upon as the greatest hero of his time. It was for this reason that in 1228 the Latins of Constantinople chose him, though he was then merely titular king of Egypt, to govern for the minor emperor, Baldwin II.; and in order to strengthen his authority, they invested him with the title and power of emperor. Although 80 years old, John accepted the offer, but first went to Europe to levy troops, with which he arrived at Constantinople in 1231, where he was crowned with great solemnity, and pleased both the Latins and Greeks by his majestic appearance (he was the tallest man they had ever seen) and his energetic administration. Not only unbroken by age, but still uniting the strength of a powerful man with the agility of a youth, he defended Constantinople with great success against the united armies of Asan, king of Bulgaria, and John Vatatzes, the Greek emperor of Nicaea, as is narrated in the life of the latter. [Joannes III.] Constantinople would have fallen but for him. Marvellous stories are told of his bravery and the power of his arm. After a reign of nine years John of Brienne died in 1237, leaving several sons; but he was succeeded on the throne of Constantinople by Baldwin II. A daughter of John of Brienne was married to the emperor Frederic II. of Germany. [Joannes III.; Balduinus II.] (The sources quoted in the lives of these two emperors; Du Cange, Histoire de Constantinople sous les Empereurs Français, p. 88, &c.) [W.P]
(Ἰωάννης Τζιμισκῆς), emperor of Constantinople (A. D. 969-976), was descended from an illustrious Armenian family. He was the grandson of Theophilus, whose name was conspicuous during the reign of Romanus I. Lecapenus, and the grand-nephew of Curcuas, the brother of Theophilus, who was still more eminent. The surname Zimisces was given to Joannes on account of his diminutive size, that word signifying in the Armenian language a man of very small stature. Zimisces served from his early youth in the Greek armies, and astonished both his friends and foes by the heroic deeds which he performed on the field of battle. During the regency of Theophano, the widow of the emperor Romanus, Nicephorus Phocas became the leader of the empire, and was constantly supported by Zimisces, who saved him from ruin when the eunuch Bringas conspired against his life. Believing that the friendship between Nicephorus and Zimisces was only pretended, Bringas wrote to Zimisces, offering him great reward--perhaps the crown--if he would kill Nicephorus, but Zimisces not only showed the letter to his friend, but urged him to assume the imperial crown. This Nicephorus did in 963, and reigned as colleague of the two minor sons of Romanus and Theophano, Basil II. and Constantine VIII. Nicephorus married the widow Theophano, and appointed Zimisces second commander of the armies, himself being the first. In this capacity Zimisces performed such extraordinary exploits, and gained such decisive victories, that he became the idol of the army, and was acknowledged to be the first general in the East. The Arabs were then masters of all Syria and Cilicia. In the battle at Adana (963) they were routed with great slaughter by Zimisces, and 5000 of their veteran troops having entrenched themselves on a steep hill, refusing to surrender, the gallant commander of the Greeks put himself at the head of a chosen body, stormed the entrenchments, and exterminated the infidels. Henceforth that hill was called the bloodhill. In the following year Zimisces conquered the greater part of Cilicia, crossed Mount Amanus, entered Syria, and spread terror through the valley of the Orontes. Mopsuestia, which was then called Massissa, resisted the protracted siege of Nicephorus, who gave up all hopes of taking it, and was retiring, when Zimisces approached with a few brave troops, and took the town by storm. His eminent services were rewarded with ingratitude. Through the intrigues of the emperor's brother, Leo, he was deprived of his command, and sent into exile. The empress Theophano, however, who was his mistress in secret, contrived that he should be sent to Chalcedon, opposite Constantinople. From Chalcedon Zimisces continued his adulterous intercourse with Theophano, and was received by her in disguise in the very apartments of her husband. They concerted a plan to kill Nicephorus, and to have Zimisces proclaimed emperor. In the night of the 11th to the 12th of December, 969, Zimisces crossed the Bosporus with a few daring followers, and having been wound up, by means of baskets attached to ropes, to the upper story of the imperial palace by some of the servants of the empress, they were led to the bedroom of Nicephorus, who soon fell under their weapons. Before he expired he was exposed to most unmerciful tortures, and, abusing him with the most opprobrious terms, Zimisces broke his jaw-bone with the pommel of his sword.
Being proclaimed emperor, Zimisces imitated the example of his unfortunate predecessor, and reigned as colleague of the two sons of Romanus. His first act was to send his enemy Leo, the brother of Nicephorus, into exile; his second, to obey the summons of Polyeuctes, the patriarch of Constantinople, who urged him to banish Theophano; his third, to divide part of his property among the poor, and spend the rest in building a vast and splendid hospital on the Asiatic shore of the Bosporus. He then sent his general Nicolaus against the Arabs, who were besieging Antioch with the flower of their army; and his general Bardas Sclerus against the Russians, who had overrun and traversed Bulgaria, and laid siege to Adrianople. Both of the generals were successful, and the Greek arms obtained decisive victories in Europe and Asia. The triumph of Zimisces was checked by a rebellion of Bardas Phocas, the son of the exiled Leo, who assumed the imperial title at Caesareia, and was supported by his father and his brother Nicephorus; but the rebellion was soon quelled, and Leo and Nicephorus were taken prisoners, and condemned to death. The emperor, nevertheless, spared their lives, and sent them into exile, till, having rebelled a second time, they were blinded, and kept in confinement. Bardas Phocas having surrendered to Bardas Sclerus, was compelled to assume the monastic habit, and to spend the rest of his life in a convent in Chios. Previous to these events (970), Zimisces, who was then a widower, having lost his wife Maria, the sister of Bardas Sclerus, married Theodora, the daughter of Constantine Porphyrogenneta, and the sister of the late Romanus II., a marriage agreeable to the Greeks, who revered the memory of the learned and mild Constantine. Meanwhile, the Russians had again invaded Bulgaria; and they would have formed lasting settlements in that country but for the valour of Zimisces, who took the command in the field, while a Greek fleet sailed up the Danube, cutting off the retreat of the northern barbarians. Parasthlava, the capital of the Bulgarian kingdom, had been taken by the Russians, and the Bulgarian king, Bosisa, was kept there by the Norman Sventislav (Sviatoslav, Wenceslaus), or Sphendosthlaba, as the Greeks call him, the prince of the Russians of Kiew. Under the walls of Parasthlava the Russians suffered a bloody defeat; a large body of their best troops, who defended the castle, was cut to pieces; and Zimisces once more gave proof of military genius and undaunted courage. Sphendosthlaba made peace, and withdrew to Russia, while Bosisa was generously re-established by Zimisces on his hereditary throne. These events were followed by the marriage of Theophano or Theophania--not the banished empress, but the daughter of the late emperor Romanus II.--with Otho II., Roman emperor and king of Germany. A fresh war with the Arabs called the emperor from his capital to Syria. Zimisces fought with his usual fortune, defeated the Arabs in several pitched battles, and pursued them as far as the confines of Palestine, when they sued for peace. On his return to Europe the emperor beheld with pleasure a large extent of land in Cilicia, covered with beautiful villas and thriving farms; but having been informed that those fine estates belonged to the eunuch Basilius, who was one of the principal officers of his household, " Is it for eunuchs," he cried out, " that brave men fight, and we endure the hardships of so many campaigns! " Basilius was informed of this, but disguised his apprehensions or anger. A few days afterwards, however, Zimisces felt symptoms of a serious illness; he grew worse and worse, and on his arrival in his capital he was on the verge of death. He expired shortly after his return, on the 10th of January, 976, at the age of fifty-one, leaving the memory of one of the most distinguished rulers of the Byzantine empire. His successor was Basil II., who reigned together with his brother Constantine VIII. (Cedren. vol. ii. p. 375-415, ed. Bonn; Zonar. 16.28, &c, 17.1-5; Leo Diaconus, 1. iii.--ix , 10.100.1-12.) [W.P]
[CALO-JOANNES.]
(Ἰωάννης ὁ Βατάτζης), also called Joannes Ducas Vatatzes, because he was descended in the female line from the great family of the Ducas, emperor of Nicaea (A. D. 1222-1255), was one of the most remarkable among the successors of Constantine. He first distinguished himself in the defence of Constantinople against the Latins in 1204, and after its loss fled with Theodore Lascaris to Nicaea. Next to this distinguished prince, Vatatzes was the most active and successful in preventing the whole of the Greek empire from becoming a prey to the Latins, and he was likewise one of those who supported Theodore Lascaris after he had assumed the imperial title, and taken up his residence at Nicaea. In reward for his eminent services in the field as well as in the council, Theodore gave him the hand of his daughter Irene, and appointed him his future successor, because, having no children, he thought Vatatzes more fit and worthy for the crown than either of his four brothers, Alexis, John, Manuel, and Michael. Vatatzes thus succeeded Theodore Lascaris on the imperial throne of Nicaea in 1222. In the same year Theodore Angelus, despot or prince of Epeirus and Aetolia, made himself master of Thessalonica and of nearly the whole of Macedonia, assumed the title of emperor, and was crowned by the bishop of Achrida.
Four emperors now reigned over the remnants of the Eastern empire, Andronicus I. Gidon in Trebizond, Theodore Angelus in Epeirus and Macedonia, Robert of Courtenay in Constantinople, and John Vatatzes in Nicaea; and it is curious that the imperial crown devolved upon three of them in the same year, 1222, while the fourth, Robert of Courtenay, took actual possession of his dominions only in the previous year, 1221. Of these, the emperor in Nicaea was the greatest.
No sooner had Vatatzes ascended the throne than Manuel and Michael Lascaris abandoned him, went to Constantinople, and persuaded Robert to declare war against Vatatzes. Its issue was unfavourable to the Latins. In a pitched battle at Poemanene or Poemanium, in 1224, the Latin troops were completely defeated; and such was the hatred of the Greeks against the foreign intruders, that they neither gave nor accepted quarter : the two Lascaris were taken prisoners, and payed their treason with the loss of their eyes. In consequence of this victory, the greater part of the Latin possessions in Asia fell into the hands of the Greeks. On the sea the Latins were successful; they blockaded the Greek fleet in the port of Lampsacus, and Vatatzes preferred burning his own ships to having them burnt by his enemy. However, Vatatzes had little to lose on the sea, and the Latin emperor was finally compelled to sue for peace, and to leave the greater part of his Asiatic possessions in the hands of Vatatzes. The peace was of short duration. The old John of Brienne, who after the death of Robert, in 1228, exchanged his nominal kingdom of Jerusalem for the real though tottering throne of Constantinople, attacked Vatatzes in 1233, in Asia, but was routed in Bithynia, and hastened back to Thrace. Supported by the fleets of the Venetians, he could, however, renew his inroads whenever he saw a favourable opportunity. Accordingly, Vatatzes conceived the plan of making himself master of the sea, and had he succeeded, the national Greek empire would have been soon restored to its limits of 1204. Samos, Lesbos, Chios, Cos, Rhodes, and many other islands, were conquered by the Greeks, but the main force of the Venetians was in Candia; and though Vatatzes conquered the greater part of that island, his progress was checked by the Venetian governor Marino Sanuti, the historian, who at last forced the Greeks to sail back to Asia. Baffled on the sea, Vatatzes renewed his continental plans, and concluded, in 1234, an alliance with Asan, king of Bulgaria. Their united forces besieged Constantinople in 1235, by land and sea, but the superiority of the Latin mariners over the Greek led to a total defeat of the Greek fleet, and twenty-four Greek gallies fell into the hands of the victors, and were paraded in triumph in the port of Constantinople. Listening to the persuasions of Messire Anseau de Cahieu, who acted as regent in the absence of the emperor Baldwin II., Asan showed symptoms of defection, and forsook his ally in 1237, when they were just besieging Constantinople a second time. By land, however, Vatatzes was more successful, and conquered the rest of the Latin possessions in Asia. The assistance which Baldwin II. obtained in Europe is mentioned in the life of that emperor; but the formidable knights of France and Italy tried in vain to obtain a firm footing in Asia, and Baldwin was reduced to such weakness, that he was unable to prevent Vatatzes from sailing over to Macedonia, and compelling the self-styled emperor, John Comnenus of Epeirus, Aetolia, and Macedonia, to cede him Macedonia, to renounce the imperial title, and to be satisfied with that of despot of Epeirus (1242). In 1243 Vatatzes concluded an alliance with Gaiyáth-ed-dín, the Turkish sultan of Iconium, in order to resist the approaching Mongols; and having thus secured his eastern frontiers, he renewed his attacks upon the Latins in Constantinople. His fame was then so great, that the Roman emperor, Frederic II., one of his greatest admirers, gave him his natural daughter Anne in marriage, in 1244, the first wife of Vatatzes having died in 1240. Never despairing of putting an end to the Latin domination in the East, but obliged to give up the plan of effecting it with the Bulgarian king, Vatatzes undertook to subdue the Bulgarian nation, and to force those warlike barbarians to serve under his banners against the intruders at Constantinople. In 1246 he had already conquered the southwestern portion of Bulgaria, and given its government, together with that of Thessalonica (Macedonia) to his Magnus Domesticus Andronicus Palaeologus, when his progress was checked by a combined attack of the Latins and Michael Comnenus, despot of Epeirus. The issue of a protracted war was favourable to Vatatzes, who took several of the towns of the Latins in Thrace, and made peace with Michael in 1253. The following years were peaceful, and Vatatzes employed his leisure in promoting the happiness of his subjects. He patronised arts and sciences, constructed new roads, distributed the taxes equally, and made himself beloved by every body through his kindness and justice. Michael of Epeirus having threatened a new war, Vatatzes set out against him, but was taken ill in Macedonia, returned to Asia, and died, after long sufferings, at Nymphaeum, on the 30th of October, 1255, at the age of sixty or sixty-two. Vatatzes is justly called one of the greatest emperors of the East; and the merit of having put an end to the Latin empire belongs as much to him as to Michael Palaeologus, who carried out,in 1261, the plan which had been conceived and successfully begun by Vatatzes. The successor of Vatatzes was Theodore Lascaris II. (The sources referred to in Balduinus II., among which Acropolita is the principal.) [W.P]
(Ἰωάννης ὁ Δάσκαρις), emperor of Nicaea (A. D. 1259-1261), was the son of the second emperor of Nicaea, Theodore II., Lascaris, whom he succeeded in 1259, at nine years of age. He first reigned under the guardianship of the patriarch Arsenius and the Magnus Domesticus Muzalon. The latter was slain, with his adherent, in a revolt of the guards, kindled by Michael Palaeologus, who was proclaimed emperor; and after having taken Constantinople from the Latins, in 1261, he deprived the youthful emperor of his eyes, and sent him into exile, where he died in obscurity. [Michael VIII.] [W.P]
(Ἰωάννης ὁ Καντακουζήνος), emperor of Constantinople (A. D. 1342-1355), often called Joannes VI. His full name was Joannes Angelus Comnenus Palaeologus Cantacuzenus. He was the eldest son of Joannes Cantacuzenus, the chief of a great Greek family, and Theodora Palaeologina, and was born early in the beginning of the 14th century. [See the genealogical table of the Cantacuzeni,Vol. I. p. 595.] His history is intimately connected with that of his ward and rival Joannes VI. Palaeologus. John Cantacuzenus, the subject of this article, early distinguished himself in the service of his relative, the emperor Andronicus Palaeologus the elder, who appointed him prefect of the sacred bed-chamber. United, by friendship and harmony of sentiments, to the emperor's grandson, Andronicus the younger, he took the part of the latter in his rebellion against his grandfather; and it was to his valour, wisdom, and exertions, that the younger Andronicus owed his final success and the undisputed crown of Constantinople. In reward for his services, he was appointed magnus domesticus. Aetolia and Lesbos, both in the hands of usurpers, were re-united by him to the empire; and his influence was so great, that he, rather than Andronicus, was the real sovereign of the Greeks. His administration was wise : he enforced the laws with firmness, but also with forbearance; and at a time when every public functionary was a robber of the people, he alone escaped the charge of peculation and fiscal oppression. The emperor bestowed upon him unbounded confidence, and was so fondly attached to him, that he proposed to share the throne with him. This Cantacuzenus refused, from motives both of modesty and prudence. Andronicus, on his deathbed (A. D. 1341), appointed him guardian of his infant son, John, in whose name he was to govern the empire.
No sooner had Cantacuzenus begun to exercise his eminent functions, than he was checked by two ambitious intriguers, the admiral Apocauchus and the patriarch of Constantinople, John of Apri, who aspired to the regency, and for that purpose persuaded the widow of the late emperor, Anna, princess of Savoy, to claim the guardianship of her son, although it was lawfully vested in Cantacuzenus. The conspirators found many adherents ; and from a system of calumny and petty annoyance, proceeded to bold attacks. During a temporary absence from the capital, Cantacuzenus was suddenly charged with high treason; and his enemies being his judges also, he was found guilty, sentenced to death, and deprived of his estates and emoluments. Under such circumstances he had no alternative but rebellion or death : yet he hesitated till his friends showed him that even by submission and imploring the clemency of his adversaries, he could not save his life. Accordingly Cantacuzenus took up arms, not against the infant emperor, but against his powerful councillors, and assumed the title of emperor. On the 21st of March, 1342, he was crowned with great solemnity, together with his wife, Irene, at Adrianople, by Lazarus, patriarch of Jerusalem. His adherents not being numerous, he sought assistance at the court of Stephen Duscham, kral or king of Servia; and having reason to suspect the faith of this prince, he reluctantly concluded an alliance with Umur Bey, the Turkish prince of Aidin (Lydia, Maeonia and Caria). During the transactions which led to this alliance Cantacuzenus was at the Servian court, and his wife was at Didymoticum. Umur Bey sailed over to Greece with a fleet of 380 vessels, and an army of 28,000 men; and after having left a strong garrison at Didymoticun, marched upon Servia. An early and very severe winter compelled him to return to Asia without having had an interview with Cantacuzenus; but the two princes met in the following year, 1343, at Clopa, near Thessalonica, and in their operations against Apocauchus and his party, Greece and Thrace were dreadfully ravaged. Bribed by Apocauchus, Umur Bey ceased assisting Cantacuzenus, who, however, found a more powerful ally in the person of Urkhan, sultan of the Turks Osmanlis, to whom he gave his daughter in marriage. During five years Greece was desolated by a civil war. In 1346, however, Cantacuzenus became the more powerful; and having made a sort of reconciliation with the dowager empress, Anna, he advanced upon Constantinople, after re-enforcing his army by a body of Latin mercenaries. In January, 1347, he took the capital with scarcely any resistance, the gates having been opened by Facciolati, an Italian captain, who was the secret adherent of Cantacuzenus; and Apocauchus was slain in the tumult. Being now sole master, Cantacuzenus consented to acknowledge John Palaeologus as co-emperor, on condition that until the majority of the young prince, who was then fifteen years, and would be of age at twenty-five, according to the Greek law, he should be the sole ruler ; and as a guarantee for the future harmony between the two princes, he married his daughter Helena to his youthful colleague. In the same year Cantacuzenus was crowned a second time in the capital, by Isidorus, patriarch of Constantinople.
The reign of John Cantacuzenus was not blessed with peace. In the year of his accession, the plague made great havoc among the inhabitants of the capital and other towns. The Genoese of Pera, who enjoyed great privileges, despised the imperial authority, took up arms, and laid them down only after having obtained still greater privileges; and during the same time Duscham, the kral of Servia, made an inroad into Thrace, but was fortunately compelled, by severe defeats, to sue for peace. The emperor's relations with the Turks were amicable for several years. In his history (4.16) Cantacuzenus alludes to a project formed by Merjan, an eunuch in the service of sultan Urkhan, to poison his young colleague; but it would seem as if the story had been invented by himself, for the purpose of frightening young Palaeologus, and thus bringing him under a still closer watch. His friendship with Urkhan was, however, not very sincere, for he sent ambassadors to pope Clement VI. promising to bring the Greek church under the papal authority if the holy father would preach a crusade against the Turks; but Clement declined the proposition, knowing that the Greeks and Latins would agree upon religion only so long as the crusaders did upon a common plan of attack, and an equal mode of division in case of success. Meanwhile, dissensions arose between Cantacuzenus and Palaeologus, who grew tired of his inactivity, and listened to the advice of the former party of Apocauchus, although he was kindly treated and allowed full domestic freedom by his father-in-law, which, it would seem, was quite enough for so young a man. Suspecting some treachery, Cantacuzenus sent him to reside at Thessalonica, and employed Anne of Savoy, though in vain, as mediator between her son and him : the young prince emancipated himself from the surveillance of the officers charged with guiding and watching him, and in 1353 raised the standard of rebellion. Defeated in a pitched battle by the united forces of Cantacuzenus and Urkhan, Palaeologus took refuge with the Latins in Tenedos; and in order to exclude him for ever from the throne, the emperor proclaimed his son, Matthaeus, coemperor, and his future successor. However well calculated this step might have been had the emperor enjoyed universal popularity, it proved disastrous under contrary circumstances, as the Greeks felt much more sympathy with the house of the Palaeologi than with the Cantacuzeni, and the emperor soon learned that the people's attachment to a distinguished person is often much less strong than their love of a distinguished family. Numerous bands organised themselves for the support of the son of their late emperor, but the forces upon which the latter could rely with more security were the mercenary band and the ships of Gasteluzzi or Gatteluzzi, a noble Genoese who promised to help him to the crown on condition of obtaining the hand of his sister and the grant of some lands. The descendants of Gasteluzzi became sovereign princes, and were conspicuous in the latter part of Byzantine history. Palaeologus and Gasteluzzi made sail for Constantinople; and pleading distress and want of provisions as pretext for their admission within the Golden Horn, the chain across the entrance of the port was lowered by the watch of the harbour, who were either bribed by Palaeologus, or were not aware that the ships had hostile intentions. The inhabitants of Constantinople now took up arms against Cantacuzenus, who, although he asserts the contrary, was apparently forsaken by most of his adherents, abdicated (January, 1355), and four days after his abdication renounced the world, and assumed the monastic habit. Works
Under the name of Joasaph or Joseph, he spent the remainder of his days in devotion and literary occupation in the convents of Constantinople and Mount Athos; and in his solitude he wrote the history of his times. His wife, Irene, likewise retired to a convent. The time of the death of John Cantacuzenus is uncertain. He was still alive in 1375, for in that year pope Gregory XI. wrote a letter to him; but if he died only in 1411, as has been pretended, and Ducange (Fam. Byzant. p. 260) believes, he would have attained an age of more than one hundred years, because he was a contemporary of, and probably of the same age with, Andronicus Palaeologus the younger. History (Ἱστοριῶν Βιβλία Δ)
His principal work is the History (Ἱστοριῶν Βιβλία Δ), which comprises in four books the reign of Andronicus the younger and his own, and finishes with the year 1357. It is written with elegance and dignity, and shows that the author was a man of superior intelligence, and fully able to understand and judge of the great events of history : but it is far from being written with impartiality ; he throws blame upon his adversaries wherever he can, and praises his party, and especially himself, in a manner which betrays a great deal of vanity and hypocrisy. For the knowledge of the time it is invaluable, especially as the history of Nicephorus Gregoras is a sufficient check upon his ; so that if the two works are compared, a sound and sagacious mind will correct the one by the other.
Gibbon speaks of this history in the following terms, and his judgment is as true as it is expressive : " The name and situation of the emperor John Cantacuzene might inspire the most lively curiosity. His memorials of forty years extend from the revolt of the younger Andronicus to his own abdication of the empire; and it is observed that, like Moses and Caesar, he was the principal actor in the scenes which he describes. But in this elegant work we should vainly seek the sincerity of a hero or a penitent. Retired in a cloister from the vices and passions of the world, he presents not a confession, but an apology, of the life of an ambitious statesman. Instead of unfolding the true counsels and characters of men, he displays the smooth and specious surface of events, highly varnished with his own praises and those of his friends. Their motives are always pure, their ends always legitimate; they conspire and rebel without any views of interest, and the violence which they inflict or suffer is celebrated as the spontaneous effect of reason and virtue." Editions Latin Edition
This work was first made known to the world through Gretserus, who published a Latin translation of it by Jacob Pontanus, with notes and the life of the author by the same, Ingolstadt, 1603, fol. Pontanus perused a MS. which was kept in the Munich library. Greek Editions
The Greek text first appeared, from a Paris MS., in the splendid edition of Pierre Seguier, chancellor of France, Paris, 1645, 3 vols. fol., with the revised translation of Pontanus, his and the editor's notes, and the life of the author by Pontanus. It was badly reprinted in 1729 by the editors of the Venice collection of the Byzantines. The last edition is that of Louis Schopen, 1828-32, 3 vols. in 8vo. in the Bonn collection of the Byzantines, a careful reprint of the Paris edition : the editor, however, had no MS. to peruse. Other Works
The other works of Cantacuzenus are of no great importance. Apologiae (Κατὰ τῆς τῶν Σαρακηνῶν αἱρέσεως Ἀπολογίαι Δ), the principal, are in four books, being a refutation of the religion of Mohammed; and Κατὰ τὸν Μωάμεδ λόγοι Δ, four orations against Mohammed. The author was evidently well acquainted with the Koran; but in refuting Mohammedanism, and proving the truth of the Christian religion, he allowed himself to be guided by the prejudices of his time and all sorts of vulgar stories, legends and fables. Editions
The Greek text and a Latin translation of these works, along with a translation of the Koran, was first published by Rudolphus Gualterus, Basel, 1543, fol.; the translation alone, ib. 1550. Cantacuzenus also wrote a Paraphrasis of the Ethics of Aristotle; six epistles extant in MS. at Oxford; and several smaller treatises, chiefly on religious subjects. Further Information
The chief sources are the works of Cantacuzenus and Nicephorus Gregoras, especially lib. viii--xv. ; Ducas, 100.1, &c.; Phranza, 1.1-14; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. p. 787; Hankius, De Byzantin. Rerum Script. Graec., p. 602, &c.; Pontanus, Vita Joannis Cantacuzeni. [W.P]
(Ἰωάννης ὁ Παλαιολόγος), emperor of Constantinople (A. D. 1355-1391), often called Joannes V., the only son and heir of the emperor Andronicus III. Palaeologus the younger was born in 1332, and nominally succeeded his father in 1341. It has been narrated in the preceding article how the young prince first reigned under the guardianship of Joannes Cantacuzenus, then under the authority of a party headed by the admiral Apocauchus and the empress Anne of Savoy, and at last as a nominal colleague of John Cantacuzenus, who held the title and the power of emperor, till he ceded both to John Palaeologus, in 1355, whose real accession consequently begins with that year. For the same reason he stands in the series of emperors as John VI., although strictly he was the fifth of that name. John VI. was a weak prince. " After his enfranchisement from an oppressive guardian," says Gibbon, " he remained thirty-six years the helpless and, as it should seem, the careless spectator of the public ruin. Love, or rather lust, was his only vigorous passion; and in the embraces of the wives or virgins of the city, the Turkish slave forgot the dishonour of the emperor of the Romans." The reign of this emperor is nevertheless full of the most important events, and nothing affords a better insight into the causes of the final overthrow of the Greek empire than the history of his time. Our space, however, is too confined to give more than a sketch of those events which are most remarkable for ecclesiastical as well as political history. The young emperor was scarcely seated on his throne when the Turks crossed the Bosporus, and by the capture of the fortress of Tzympe, now Chini or Jemenlik, laid the foundation of all their further conquests in Europe. The plan of extending the dominions of the Osmanlis over Europe was formed by Soliman, the son of sultan Urkhan, the governor of Cyzicus, while he was wandering in the silence of a moonlight night through the ruins of that ancient and once splendid town; and having crossed the Bosporus with 10,000 horse, he soon conquered an extensive district near the mouth of the Hebrus. He died in 1358; but his brother Mürad, who succeeded sultan Urkhan in 1359, took up and realized his plans. Neither the arms nor the gold of Palaeologus could stop the victorious career of sultan Mürad : town after town fell into his hands ; and in 1361 he took the noble city of Adrianople, which soon became the capital of the Turkish empire. Thence he directed his march upon Servia, despising the forces of the emperor, who could have fallen upon his rear and cut off his retreat to Asia, but stood trembling within the closed gates of Constantinople. With the fall of Adrianople the fate of the Greek empire was sealed. Pope Urban V. yielding to the entreaties of the Greek emperor, who promised to submit to his spiritual authority, entreated king Louis of Hungary to arm for the defence of both the Servian and Greek Christians, and from that time the protection of the remnants of the Greek empire depended entirely upon the fears or the courage of the kings of Hungary. A united army of Servians and Hungarians, commanded by king Louis, advanced upon Adrianople, but at two days' distance from that town was stopped by Mürad, who obtained a decisive victory over them (1363). After this Mürad took up his permanent residence at Adrianople, and gradually conquered the greater part of the Thracian peninsula; but finding the Servians formidable adversaries, he made peace with John Palaeologus, who paid him a heavy annual tribute. Aware that his turn would come as soon as the Servians should have been brought under the Turkish yoke, Palaeologus resolved to implore the assistance of the Western princes, and with that view made overtures to pope Urban V. to adopt the Roman Catholic religion if he would assist him in his plans. The negotiations being carried on too slowly for his fears and his hopes, he went twice to Rome (1369 and 1370). Urban promised to put 15 galleys, 500 men in armour, and 1500 archers, at his disposal; but this succour never arrived at Constantinople, nor did the pope succeed in his endeavours to arm the Western princes for the defence of the city. The emperor, however, kept his promise to the pope, and in the presence of four cardinals solemnly professed himself a Roman Catholic, and acknowledged the pope as the spiritual head of the Greek church. Disappointed in Rome, Palaeologus went to Venice; but there he not only failed in obtaining assistance, but being short of money, he incurred debts, and was arrested by some Venetian merchants. He sent messengers to his son Andronicus, who, during his absence, governed the empire, which was then reduced to the city of Constantinople, Thessalonica with its district, a few islands, and some districts in the Peloponnesus and northern Greece, and implored him to do his utmost for his delivery should he even be obliged to sell the holy vessels of the churches. Andronicus, in pursuit of some selfish and ambitious plans, remained deaf to the prayers of his father. Manuel, however, the emperor's second son and lord of Thessalonica, was no sooner informed of the misfortune of his father, than he sold his whole property, hastened to Venice, and released his father, who immediately returned to Constantinople (1370), although not without serious apprehensions of vengeance from sultan Mürad. In order to soothe him he sent his third son, Theodore, as a hostage, to Adrianople; whereupon he deprived Andronicus of his supreme authority, and appointed the faithful Manuel coemperor. Andronicus, a man full of ambition and destitute of principles and honour, now sought for revenge; and being acquainted with one of the sons of Mürad, who governed the European provinces during the sultan's absence in Asia, and who was a secret enemy of his father, he had an interview with this prince, and they mutually promised to murder their fathers, and then assist each other in obtaining the supreme power. The name of the Turkish prince was Sauji, but the Greek historians call him Σαβουτρίος and Μώση Τρελέπης (Moses the gentleman), Chalcocondylas being the only one who writes the name nearly correctly, Σιάους. Mürad was soon informed of the conspiracy. He summoned the emperor to appear at his court, and to justify himself, since it was believed that only Sauji, not Andronicus, really intended the alleged crime, and that the whole was but a plot of John Palaeologus : but the deep grief of the emperor at hearing this terrible news soon convinced the sultan of his innocence. They now resolved to unite their efforts in punishing the traitors, who had meanwhile raised troops and pitched their camp near Apricidium, in the neighbourhood of Constantinople. In the dead of night they were roused by the voice of the sultan, who was seen riding fearlessly through the tents of the rebels, summoning them to avoid certain death by returning to their duty, and promising life and liberty to their royal leaders likewise, if they would now surrender and implore his mercy. Most of the rebels, Turks as well as Greeks, immediately availed themselves of the sultan's conditions, and were pardoned, but the two princes fled. Sauji was taken in the town of Didymoticum, blinded, and afterwards put to death : and Andronicus having likewise been made prisoner by the imperial troops, he and his son John were sentenced to be deprived of their sight, but the operation was unskilfully performed with boiling vinegar, and neither father nor son was entirely blinded. The rebellion of the sons of the two Eastern monarchs is differently told by the Byzantine and Turkish historians; but the narratives of the Greeks, Chalcocondylas, Phranza, and Ducas, deserve more credit, because they agree even in details. Phranza indeed says that the rebellion took place previous to the emperor's journeys to Rome in 1369 and 1370, though it really happened in 1385; but chronology is the weak side of Phranza, and here, as in many other cases, he makes an anachronism. Andronicus and his son were confined in the tower of Anemas, a sort of state prison, where forty years previouslsy the admiral Apocauchus was murdered. Some time before this an event took place wnich showed the utter decay of the Greek power.
When prince Manuel was despot of Thessalonica, he waged war on his own account against the Turks, who were then engaged in serious contests with the Servians in Europe, and some Turkoman princes in Asia. His undertaking was rash, and his forces inadequate. Khair-ed-dín Pasha advanced upon Thessalonica, and despairing of defending himself with success, Manuel left the town to its fate, and fled by sea to Constantinople. Trembling for his own safety, his father refused to receive in his palace a son who had incurred the anger of the sultan, and the unfortunate prince sailed to Lesbos, in hopes of finding protection at the court of Gasteluzzi, the Latin prince of that island, but there also the gates were closed at his appearance. Having no other alternative but voluntary exile or death, Manuel, with noble boldness, hastened to Brusa, appeared resolutely in presence of the sultan, confessed himself guilty, and implored his enemy's mercy. After a silence of some minutes, the sultan said to him, " You have been wicked, be better, and if you are good, the condition of the empire over which you are destined to rule will be good too. Return to Constantinople--I will give orders to your father to receive you well." Not till then did the emperor dare to embrace his son. In 1389 sultan Mürad was assassinated by a Servian captive, Milosh Kobilovicz; and his successor, the terrible Báyazíd, soon manifested more hostile intentions than his father. Availing himself of the dissensions in the imperial family, he carried on secret negotiations with Andronicus and his son while they were imprisoned in the tower of Anemas, and with them and the leaders of the Genoese at Pera he concerted the plan of dethroning John. Andronicus having escaped from his prison, with the aid of the Genoese, Báyazíd suddenly surprised John and Manuel in one of their palaces without the gates of Constantinople, and gave them to the custody of Andronicus, who confined them in the same prison whence he had escaped, and treated them with humanity, although the sultan constantly urged him to put them to death. Andronicus was acknowledged as emperor by Báyazíd on condition of paying a heavy tribute ; but the captive emperor having promised to pay the same tribute, to take the oath of allegiance to the sultan, and to assist him in all his wars with 12,000 horse and foot, Báyazíd, after ascertaining that the Greeks preferred Manuel to Andronicus, ordered the latter to restore his father to liberty, and to be satisfied with the conditions which he would make, in order to prevent any further dissensions between him and his father. These conditions were, that John and Manuel should reign over Constantinople and its environs as far as they were subject to the imperial sceptre, and that Andronicus should hold, as a fief of the crown, the towns and districts of Selymbria, Heracleia, Rhaedestus or Rhodosto, Danias and Panidas, on the Propontis, and the fine town of Thessalonica, which, during the time, had alternately been in the hands of the Turks, the Venetians, and the Greeks. The chronology of these events is far from being clear. Báyazíd succeeded in 1389, and John died in 1391. Yet it is said that John was imprisoned through the same sultan, remained in prism during two years. and afterwards reigned again during several years. Was John perhaps arrested by Báyazíd previous to this prince having succeeded his father in 1389 ? If this were the case, the whole matter would be clear. Gibbon pays no attention to the chronology of this period, and it cannot be denied that the account he gives of the last Greek emperors is very short and incomplete. The submission of Manuel to sultan Mürad, and the generous pardon he obtained, are not even alluded to by Gibbon, although he had undoubtedly read it in Chalcocondylas and Phranza : the last three volumes of Ameilhon's continuation of Le Beau's " Histoire du Bas Empire " were not published when Gibbon, in 1787, concluded the last volume of his " Decline and Fall." The writer of this article has endeavoured, but in vain, to clear up the chronology of the events alluded to, by means of "Hammer's History of the Turkish Empire; " and the conjecture he has offered seems to be the only means of solving the difficulty.
When John was once more established on his throne, he sent his son Manuel, then co-emperor, and acknowledged by all parties as his future successor, as a hostage to sultan Báyazíd. Both of them were summoned by the sultan to assist him in reducing the town of Philadelphia, now Allah Shehr, which was the last possession of the Greeks in Asia Minor; and so complete was their dependence, that they followed the summons, and were seen among the foremost of the Turks while the town was stormed, thus compelling their own subjects to submit to the Turkish yoke (1390). Manuel, moved by fear, now secretly proposed to his father to strengthen and increase the fortifications of Constantinople, but the emperor having begun the work, and already constructed several new walls and towers, a peremptory order came from Báyazád to pull down the new fortifications, and leave every thing in its former state. The order was complied with; and it is said that the shame which the old emperor felt at being thus treated as an humble vassal of the Turks, hastened his death, which took place in 1391. Further Information
Chalcocondylas, 1.2, &c.; Phranza, 1.16, &c.; Ducas, 100.5-15 ; Cantacuzenus, 3.4, &c. [W.P]
emperor of Constantinople (A. D. 1425-1448), was born in 1390, and succeeded his father, the emperor Manuel II., in 1425, after having been made co-emperor in 1419. In the year of his accession he concluded a new peace with sultan Mürad II., and the Turks being then engaged in war with Hungary, Servia, Wallachia, Venice, and the Turkomans, in Asia Minor, he enjoyed the quietude of a slave during more than ten years. His empire consisted of the city of Constantinople and its immediate neighbourhood : the other Greek possessions in Greece, on the Propontis and on the Black Sea, were governed with sovereign power by his six brothers, among whom was Constantine, the last emperor of Constantinople. But the peace with Mürad did not include his brothers also, and several of them were deprived by the sultan of their small principalities, and took refuge at Constantinople. Still, hoping that the Greek empire could be restored, through the western princes, he followed the line of policy which had been adopted by so many of his predecessors, and promised to unite the Greek church with the Roman, if the pope would rouse the kings of Europe for his defence. Pope Engene IV. invited him to Rome, alleging that his presence there would do most in his favour. But the imperial finances were exhausted, through the heavy tribute paid to the Turks, and the emperor would have been unable to accept the invitation but for a timely succour of eight papal gallies laden with provisions, and the still more acceptable present of a handsome sum of money, to defray the expenses of his journey. John, accompanied by his brother Demetrius, a host of prelates and priests, among whom was the learned Bessarion, set out from Constantinople in November, 1437, and safely arrived at Venice, where he was received with all the honours due to his rank. After a short stay at Venice, he proceeded to Ferrara, and there also was received with great state by the sovereign of that principality. It was at Ferrara that the council was to assemble. Pope Eugene IV. had preceded him thither. Particular reasons induced the pope to treat the Greek emperor with much more attention, and the Greek prelates with much less pride, than the mightier emperor of Germany, or the arrogant prelates of the West. The council of Ferrara was but a continuation of those of Pisa, Constance, and Basel, in which the supremacy of the popes had met with severe checks, especially in the latter, where the authority of the councils was declared to be superior to that of the popes; and Eugene flattered himself that, through the re-union of the widely-spread church of the Greeks with that of Rome, he would secure for himself and his successors that unlimited authority which was once possessed by pope Gregory VII., and others of the preceding centuries. In the following year the council was transferred to Florence, and there, after long negotiations, carried on with remarkable ability and learning by Bessarion and bishop Marcus, of Ephesus, on the part of the Greeks, the re-union of the two churches was concluded in July, 1439.
The Greek Syropulus has written the history of the councils of Ferrara and Florence; and to his work, of which Robert Creighton published a Latin translation at the Hague, 1660, fol., we refer the reader for particulars. The emperor and his suite returned to Constantinople early in 1440, rather disappointed that the western princes had declined giving any direct promise of restoring the Greek empire to its ancient splendour, and his disappointment was still greater when he went on shore in his capital. The Greek people considered their spiritual union with Rome as the prelude to a second Latin empire in the East; the orthodox and the bigotted thought their souls in danger; the learned were shocked at the idea, that by submitting to the infallible decision of the pope they would henceforth be deprived of all the honours and advantages they derived from either removing or creating religious difficulties; and bishop Marcus of Ephesus, who had constantly opposed a reunion on conditions dictated by the pope, raised the standard of Greek orthodoxy, and confined the doctrine of the united church within the palace of the emperor, and the narrow cells of his chaplains.
The journeys of several of the Greek emperors to Rome were of great importance in the revival of classical learning in Italy, and that of John VII. forms an epoch in the history of literature, the consequences of which we can trace down to the present day. After his return to Constantinople, John was engaged for some time in secret negotiations with the pope, who, moved by the dangers of a Turkish invasion of Italy, rather than by compassion for the independence of the Greeks, roused king Ladislaus of Hungary to break the peace which he had concluded with sultan Mürad, and to invade Turkey. The dreadful rout of the Hungarians, in 1444, at Varna, where king Ladislaus and the cardinal Julian lian were slain, placed John and his capital in jeopardy, but the sultan was bent upon retiring from the throne, and refrained from punishing the emperor. During the Hungarian campaign, the emperor's brother, Constaantine, had enlarged his dominions in Greece so much, that in 1445 he reigned over the whole Peloponnesus and a considerable part of northern Greece. Mürad marched against him with the victors of Varna, stormed the Hexamilion, or the wall which, stretching across the isthmus of Corinth, served as a barrier against an invasion from the north, took and destroyed Corinth and Patras, and was only induced through a second invasion of the Hungarians, in 1447, to allow Constantine the further possession of the Peloponnesus, on condition of paying an annual tribute. The peace between Constantine and the sultan was concluded by the historian Phranza. In the following year, 1448, John died, and was succeeded by his brother Constantine, the last emperor of Constantinople. John was thrice married, 1. to Anna, a Russian princess; 2. to Sophia of Montferrat; and 3. to Maria Comnena, of the imperial family of Trebizond; but by none of them did he leave any issue. Further Information
Phranza, lib. ii.; Ducas, 100.28-33; Syropulus, in the edition of Creighton quoted above. [W.P]
commonly called Joannes of Cappadocia, because he was a native of that country, one of the principal ministers of the emperor Justinian I., was appointed praefectus praetorio of the East in A. D. 530. His services, however, were more in the cabinet than in the field; and in the administration of the provinces subject to his authority he evinced a degree of rapacity and fiscal oppression that filled his own and the emperor's purse, but rendered him odious to the people. Nor had he fewer enemies among the great, for he was constantly busy in ruining his rivals, or other persons of eminence, through all sorts of slander and intrigues. Proud of Justinian's confidence, who, in his turn, was too fond of money not to like a servant of John's description, the praetorian praefect continued his system of peculation and oppression during thirteen years. John opposed sending an expedition against the Vandals in Africa, because he would be unable to appropriate so much of the imperial revenues; but Justinian would not take the advice of his favourite, and in 533 Belisarius set out for the conquest of Carthage. When he arrived off Methone, now Modon, in Greece, where he put some troops on shore, a disease decimated the men, and it was discovered to be the effect of a sultry climate combined with bad food : their bread was not fit to eat; John, who was at the head of the provision department at Constantinople, having given secret orders to bake the bread at the same fires which heated the public baths, whence it became not only very bad, but also increased both in bulk and weight. In this way John robbed the treasury. Belisarius soon remedied the evil, and was much praised by Justinian, but John was not punished. The arrogance of this rapacious man became daily more insupportable, and at last he undertook to ruin the empress Theodora in the egtimation of her husband. Upon this, Theodora and Antonina, the wife of Belisarius, concerted one of those petty plots through which women often succeed in ruining men : they surrounded him with false flatterers, who pointed out to him the possibility of seizing the crown from Justinian, and Antonina, having feigned hostile intentions towards the emperor, persuaded John to an interview with her. Their conversation was heard by spies placed there by Antonina and the empress, and Justinian having been informed of it, deprived him of his office, confiscated his property, and forced him to take the habit of a monk. Soon afterwards, however, he gave him most of his estates back, and John lived in splendour at Cyzicus (541). Four years afterwards he was accused by Theodora of having contrived the death of Eusebius, bishop of Cyzicus, who was slain in a riot, and he was now exiled to Egypt, where he lived in the greatest misery, till after the death of Theodora he was allowed to return to Constantinople. There he led the life of a mendicant monk, and died in obscurity. [Justinianus, 1.] (Procop. Bell. Pers. 1.24, 25, 2.30, Bell. Vand. 1.13, Anecdot. 100.2, 17, 22; Theophanes, p. 160, ed. Paris.) [W.P]
(Ἰωάννης), Literary and Ecclesiastical. The index to the Bibliotheca Graeca of Fabricius contains a list of about two hundred persons by whom this name was borne; and many more are recorded by the Byzantine historians, or noticed in the Bibliotheca Orientalis of Assemani, the Historia Litteraria of Cave, and the catalogues of MSS. by Montfaucon and others. Many of these persons are too obscure to require notice here, and information respecting them must be sought in the works above mentioned : others are better known by their surnames, as Joannes Chrysostomus, Joannes Damascenus, Joannes Xiphilinus, and Joannes Zonaras, and are given elsewhere. [Chrysostomus, Damascenus, &c.] The remainder we give here, with the references to those who are treated of under their surnames : --
1. Actuarius. [Actuarius.]
2. Aegeates (ὁ Αἰγεάτης), a presbyter of Aegae (Αἰγαί), apparently the town so called in Cilicia, between Mopsuestia and Issus. Photius calls him (cod. 55) a Nestorian; but Fabricius, with reason, supposes that this is a slip of the pen, and that he was an Eutychian. He wrote, 1. Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἱστορία, Historia Ecclesiastica, in ten books. Photius had read five of these, which contained the history of the church from the deposition of Nestorius at the council of Ephesus, (the third general council, A. D. 431,) to the deposition of Petrus Fullo (A. D. 477), who had usurped the see of Antioch, in the reign of the emperor Zeno. As the council of Ephesus is the point at which the ecclesiastical history of Socrates leaves off, it is probable that the history of John of Aegae commenced, like that of Evagrius [Evagrius, No. 3], at that point, and consequently that the five books which had been read by Photius were the first five. Photius describes his style as perspicuous and florid ; and says that he was a great admirer of Dioscorus of Alexandria, the successor of Cyril, and extolled the synod of Ephesus (A. D. 449), generally branded with the epithet ἡ λῃστρική, " the synod of robbers" [Flavianus, No. 3], while he attacked the council of Chalcedon. To how late a period the history came down cannot be determined; if known, it might guide us in determining the time when the writer lived. 2. A work which Photius describes as Κατὰ τῆς ἁγίας τετάρτης συνόδου, Adversus Quartam Sanctam Synodum. This must be Photius's description, not the original title of the work ; for a writer against the authority of the council of Chalcedon would hardly have described it as " the fourth sacred council." Photius commends the style in which the work was written. Fabricius identifies John of Aegae with the Joannes ὁ διακρινόμιενος, i. e. " the dissenter," cited by the anonymous writer of the Διαστάσεις σύντομοι χρονικαί, Breves Demonstrationes Chronographicae. given by Combéfis in his Originum CPolitinarum Manipulus (pp. 24, 33); but Combéfis himself (Ibid. p. 59) identifies this Joannes ὁ Διακρινόμενος with Joannes Malalas. The epithet Διακρινόμενος was applied to one who rejected the authority of the council of Chalcedon. Whether John of Aegae is the Joannes ὁ Ρήτωρ, " the Rhetorician," cited by Evagrius Scholasticus (H. E. 1.16, 2.12, 3.10, &c.), is doubtful. Le Quien (Opera S. Joannis Damasceni, vol. i. p. 368, note) identifies them, but Fabricius thinks they were different persons. [See below, No. 105.]
The period at which John of Aegae lived is not determined : Vossius places him under Zeno; Cave thinks he was later. (Photius, Bibl. cod. 41, 55; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. vii. p. 419; Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i. p. 456, ed. Oxford, 1740-43.)
3. Aegyptius, or of Egypt (1). A Christian martyr, who suffered in Palestine in the persecution generally known as that of Diocletian. Eusebius speaks of him as the most illustrious of the sufferers in Palestine, and especially worthy of admiration for his philosophic (i. e. ascetic) life and conversation, and for the wonderful strength of his memory. He suffered the loss of his eyesight, either in the earlier part of Diocletian's persecution, or at some earlier period; but afterwards acted as Anagnostes or reader in the church, supplying the want of sight by his extraordinary power of memory. He could recite correctly, as Eusebius testifies from personal observation, whole books of Scripture, whether from the prophets, the gospels, or the apostolic epistles. In the seventh year of the persecution (A. D. 31 0) he was treated with great cruelty one foot was burnt off, and fire was applied to his sightless eyeballs, for the mere purpose of torture. As he was unable to undergo the toil of the mines or the public works, he and several others (among whom was Silvanus of Gaza), whom age or infirmity had disabled from labour, were confined in a place by themselves. In the eighth year of the persecution, A. D. 311, the whole party, thirtynine in number, were decapitated in one day, by order of Maximin Daza, who then governed the Eastern provinces. (Euseb. de Martyrib. Palaestinae, sometimes subjoined to the eighth book of his Hist. Eccles. 100.13.)
4. Aegyptius (2). [See No. 16.]
5. Aegyptius (3). A monk of the Thebaid, celebrated for his supposed power of foretelling future events. The emperor Theodosius the Great, when preparing for his expedition against Eugenius (A. D. 393 or 394), sent the eunuch Eutropius to fetch Joannes to court, that the emperor might learn from him what would be the result of the expedition. Joannes refused to go with the eunuch ; but sent word to the emperor that he would gain the victory, but would soon after die in Italy. (Sozomen. H. E. 7.22; Theodoret. H. E. 5.24.)
6. Of Alexandria. [See No. 115.]
7. Anagnostes (1). [See No. 3.]
8. Anagnostes (2). [Anagnostes.]
9. Antiochenus, or of Antioch (1). Patriarch of that city in the first half of the fifth century. Cave, we know not on what authority, describes him as having, early in life, studied in the monastery of St. Euprepius, in the suburbs of Antioch, where Nestorius and Theodoret were his fellowdisciples. He succeeded Theodotus as patriarch of Antioch A. D. 427 according to Cave, or 428 or 429 according to Tillemont. In the then rising controversy between Cyril and Nestorius, John of Antioch, with the Eastern bishops, were disposed to favour Nestorius; and John induced Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, and Andreas of Samosata, to charge with the Apollinarian heresy the twelve " capitula," condemnatory of the doctrines of Nestorius, which had been issued by a synod held at Alexandria A. D. 429, under the auspices of Cyril. When the council of Ephesus (the third general council) was called (A. D. 431), John of Antioch was desirous of having no addition made to the confession of Nice, so that the doctrines of Nestorius might not be condemned; but as John was long on the road, he did not reach Ephesus till five days after the commencement of the council, when he found that the vehement Cyril had already procured the condemnation of Nestorius, and his deposition from the patriarchal see of Constantinople. With more zeal than discretion, John assembled the prelates of his partyat his own lodging, and with them issued a retaliatory anathema and deposition against Cyril, for the heretical views embodied in his " capitula," and against Memnon, bishop of Ephesus, for supporting Cyril. John also (according to Cave, who does not cite his authority) took an oath never to be reconciled to Cyril, even if Cyril should consent to the condemnation of his own " capitula." The council being over, John hastened to the emperor Theodosius the younger, to engage him in his cause, and at Chalcedon delivered an exhortation to the people of Constantinople who resorted to hear him, animating them to continue steadfast in adhering to the old confession of Nice. He then hastened homeward, and assembling councils of the prelates of his patriarchate at Tarsus (A. D. 431) and Antioch (A. D. 431 or 432), repeated the declaration of the deposition of Cyril. The emperor, however, supported the decision of the council of Ephesus; and Nestorius did not recover his see, though he was allowed to reside in the monastery of St. Euprepius, where he was treated with kindness and respect. Theodosius was anxious to heal the schism, and his interposition (and, according to Liberatus, his threats of exile in case of contumacy) softened the stubbornness of John, and some explanation by Cyril of his obnoxious " capitula" prepared the way for a reconciliation. After the schism had continued for about a year, John accepted the conditions of an amicable arrangement offered by Cyril, and (A. D. 432) sent Paul of Emesa, one of his bishops, to Alexandria to complete the arrangement. Cyril received Paul with great respect, and pronounced in public the highest eulogium on John. John now joined in the condemnation of Nestorius; and after much trouble and opposition, which he vanquished, partly by persuasion, partly by deposing the pertinacious, succeeded in bringing over the other Eastern bishops to do the same in provincial councils held at Antioch (A. D. 432), Anazarbus (A. D. 433), and Tarsus (A. D. 434). The unhappy Nestorius was banished to the Egyptian Oasis, and it is said (Evagr. H. E. 1.7) to have been at John's instigation that the emperor made his banishment perpetual ; which statement, if true, shows that either John had become exasperated against his former friend, or was anxious by the manifestation of zeal to regain the lost favour of his opponents. In a council held A. D. 438, John refused to condemn the writings and opinions of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and dictated, according to Liberatus, three letters in defence of him, one to Theodosius the emperor, one to Cyril of Alexandria, and one to Proclus, who had succeeded Nestorius in the see of Constantinople. John died in A. D. 441 or 442.
Theodoret dedicated his commentary on the Song of Solomon to John of Antioch. Gennadius speaks of John's power of extemporaneous speaking (" dicitur extempore declamare") as something worthy of notice. Works
John of Antioch wrote,-- 1. Ἐπιστολαί, Epistolae, and Ἀναφοραί, Relationes,
Respecting the Nestorian controversy and the council of Ephesus. Editions
Several of these are contained in the various editions of the Concilia. 2. Ὁμιλία, Homilia
The homily or exhortation already referred to as delivered at Chalcedon, just after the council of Ephesus. Editions
A fragment of this is contained in the Concilia. 3. Περὶ τῶν Μεσαλιανιτῶν, De Messalianis
A letter addressed to Nestorius, and enumerated by Photius (Bibl. cod. 32) among the episcopal and synodical papers against that heretical body, contained in the history or acta of the council of Side, held A. D. 383. 4. Contra eos qui una tantum substantia asscrunt adorandum Christum.
We have no account of the work except from Gennadius, and cannot give the title in Greek. It is probably from this work that the passages are cited which are given by Eulogius (Phot. Bibl. cod. 230, p. 269, ed. Bekker). Further Information
Socrates, H. E. 7.34; Evagrius, H. E. 1.3-7; Gennadius, de Viris Illustribus, 100.93; Liberatus Diaconus, Breviarium, 100.5-8, apud Galland. Bibl. Platrum, vol. xii.; Theophanes, Chronographia, pp. 73-82, ed. Paris, pp. 58-66, ed. Venice, pp. 131-148, ed. Bonn. ; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 412; Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. xiv.; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. x. p. 349, vol. xii. p. 392; Mansi, Concilia, vols. iv. v. passim.
10. Antiochenus (2). On the deposition of Petrus Gnapheus or Fullo (the Fuller) from the patriarchate of Antioch, A. D. 477, the vacant see was occupied by Joannes, surnamed Codonatus (Κωδωνάτος), who had been previously bishop of Apameia : but after holding the patriarchate three months, he was deposed by a synod of Eastern bishops, and succeeded by Stephen. Theophanes incorrectly places the appointment of Joannes after Stephen's death. Both Joannes and his predecessor Petrus had been, at the instigation of Acacius of Constantinople, excommunicated by the pope; yet, after the deposition of Joannes, the same Acacius procured his elevation to the bishopric of Tyre. Theophanes incorrectly ascribes this last appointment to Calendion of Antioch. (Theophanes, Chronog. p. 110, &c. ed. Paris, p. 88, &c. ed. Venice, p. 199, &c. ed. Bonn.; Valesius, Not. ad Eragrii H. E. 3.15, and Observatioes Eccles. ad Evagrium, 2.8.)
11. Antiochenus (3). [See No. 105.]
12. Antiochenus (4). [See No. 108.]
13. Antiochenus (5). [Malalas.]
14. Antiochenus (6). The Excerpta ex Collectaneis Constantini Augusti Porphyrogeniti, περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας, De Virtute et Vitio, edited by Valesius, 4to. Paris, 1634, and frequently cited as the Excerpta Peiresciana, contain extracts from the Ἱστορία Χρονικὴ ʼαπὸ Ἀδάμ, Historia Chronographica ab Adamo, of a writer called Joannes of Antioch, of whom nothing is known beyond what may be gathered from the work. The last extract relates to the emperor Phocas, whose character is described in the past tense, ὁ αὐτὸς Φωκᾶς ὑπῆρχεν αἱμοπότης, " This same Phocas was bloodthirsty :" from which it appears that the work was written after the death of Phocas, A. D. 610, and before the time of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in the tenth century. Cave places Joannes of Antioch in A. D. 620. He is not to be confounded with Joannes Malalas, from whom he is in the Excerpta expressly distinguished. (Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. iii. p. 44, vol. viii. p. 7; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 577.)
15. Antiochenus (7). A discourse, λόγος, on the gift of monasteries and their possessions to lay persons is given in the Ecclesiae Graecae Monumenta of Cotelerius (vol. i. p. 159, &c.). It is in the title described as the work τοῦ ἁγιωτάτον καὶ μακαριωτάτου πιιτριαπχον Ἀντιοχείας κυπίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἐν τῇ Ὀζείᾳ νήσῳ ἀσκήσαντος, Sanctissimi et beatissimi patriarchae Antiochiae, domini Joannis qui in Oxia insular aliquado monachus fuit. From internal evidence, Cotelerius deduces that this patriarch Joannes lived about the middle of the twelfth century. The island of Oxia, in which, before his elevation to the patriarchate, he pursued a monastic life, is in the Propontis. There is (or was) extant in MS., in the imperial library at Vienna, a work described as Eclogae Ascetiae, containing extracts from the Fathers and other ecclesiastical authorities. The inscription subjoined to this work, τέλος τῆς βίβλου τοῦ μακαριωτάτου πατριάρχου Ἀντιοχείας κυρίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἐν τῇ Ὀζείᾳ, Finis libri beatissimi patriarchae Antiochiae domini Joannis qui in Oxia fuit, has led Cotelerius (Ibid. p. 747) with reason to ascribe it to the same writer. From this conclusion Cave dissents, and contends that the Eclogae Asceticae is the work of an earlier Joannes, patriarch of Antioch, who lived, according to William of Tyre (6.23), Ordericus Vitalis (lib. x.), and others, about the close of the eleventh century; but the mention of the island Oxia leads us to identify the writers with each other; and Cave's argument that the latest writer from whom any part of the Eclogae is taken is Michael Psellus, who flourished about A. D. 1050, is insufficient for his purpose. Cotelerins ascribes some other works and citations to this Joannes. (Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. pp. 159. 225 ; Cotelerius, ll. cc.)
16. Archaph, Ἀρχάφ, an Egyptian schismatic, contemporary with Athanasius. Melitius, an Egyptian bishop, and author of a schism among the Egyptian clergy, having been condemned at the council of Nice A. D. 325, was really bent, while apparently submitting to the judgment of the council, on maintaining his party : and just before his death, which occurred shortly after the council broke up, prepared Joannes or John, surnamed Archaph, one of his partisans, and apparently Melitian bishop of Memphis, to assume the leadership of the body. John did so; and the Melitians being supported in their attacks on the orthodox party by the Arians, the schism became as violent as ever. Athanasius, now patriarch of Alexandria, and leader of the orthodox party [Athanasius], was the great object of attack : and John and his followers sought to throw on him the odium of originating the disturbances and of persecuting his opponents; and especially they charged him with the murder of Arsenius, a Melitian bishop, whom they had secreted in order to give colour to the charge. [Athanasius.] Athanasius on his part appealed to the emperor, Constantine the Great, charging John and his followers with unsoundness in the faith, with a desire to alter the decrees of the Nicene council, and with raising tumults and insulting the orthodox; he also objected to them, as being irregularly ordained. He refuted their charges, especially the charge of murder, ascertaining that Arsenius was alive, and obliged them to remain quiet. John professed to repent of his disorderly proceedings, and to be reconciled to Athanasius; and returned with his party into the communion of the orthodox church : but the reconciliation was not sincere or lasting : troubles broke out again, and a fresh separation took place; John and his followers either being ejected from communion by the Athanasian party, or their return opposed. The council of Tyre (A. D. 335), in which the opponents of Athanasius were triumphant, ordered them to be re-admitted; but the emperor deeming John to be a contentious man, or, at least, thinking that his presence was incompatible with the peace of the Egyptian church, banished him (A. D. 336) just after he had banished Athanasius into Gaul. The place of his exile, and his subsequent fate, are not known. (Sozomen, H. E. 2.21, 22, 25, 31; Athanasius, Apol. contra Arianos, 100.65-67, 70, 71; Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. vi. passim, vol. viii. passim.)
17. Argyropulus (Ἀργυροποῦλος), one of the learned Greeks whose flight into Western Europe contributed so powerfully to the revival of learning. Joannes Argyropulus (or Argyropylus, or Argyropolus, or Argyropilus, or Argyrophilus, for the name is variously written) was born at Constantinople of a noble family, and was a presbyter of that city, on the capture of which (A. D. 1453) he is said by Fabricius and Cave to have fled into Italy; but there is every reason to believe that his removal was antecedent to that event. Nicolaus Comnenus Papadopoli (Hist. Gymnas. Patavini) states that he was twice in Italy; that he was sent the first time when above forty years old, by Cardinal Bessarion, and studied Latin at Padua, and that his second removal was after the capture of Constantinople. What truth there is in this statement it is difficult to say : he was at least twice in Italy, probably three, and perhaps even four times ; but that he was forty years of age at his first visit is quite irreconcileable with other statements. A passage cited by Tiraboschi (Storia della Lett. Italiana, vol. vi. p. 198) makes it likely that he was at Padua A. D. 1434, reading and explaining the works of Aristotle on natural philosophy. In A. D. 1439 an Argyropulus was present with the emperor Joannes Palaeologus at the council of Florence (Michael Ducas, Hist. Byzant. 100.31) : it is not clear whether this was Joannes or some other of his name, but it was probably Joannes. In A. D. 1441 he was at Constantinople, as appears from a letter of Francesco Filelfo to Pietro Perleoni (Philelphus, Epistol. 5.3), engaged in public teaching, but it is uncertain how long he had been established there. Probably he had returned some time between A. D. 1434 and 1439, and accompanied Bessarion to and from the council of Florence. Among his pupils at Constantinople was Michael Apostolius. Argyropulus must have left Constantinople not long after the date of the letter of Philelphus, for in 1442 he was rector of the university of Padua (Facciolati, Fasti Gymnasii Patavini); and he was still there A. D. 1444, when Francesco della Rovere, afterwards pope Sixtus IV., took his degree, not, however, as Nic. Comnen. Papadopoli (l.c.) states, as a student (discipulus), but, according to the better authority of Tiraboschi (l.c.), as master of the school of philosophy (philosophiae magister scholaris). That he returned to Constantinople after 444 is improbable, and rests on no better evidence than the assertion, chiefly of later writers, that he fled into Italy on its capture in 1453. During his abode in Italy, after his last removal thither, he was honourably received by Cosmo de' Medici, then the principal person at Florence, for whose assistance in becoming acquainted with the philosophy of Aristotle, some of his Latin versions of that great writer were made. He also assisted the studies of Piero de' Medici, son of Cosmo, and was preceptor to Lorenzo de' Medici, the celebrated son of Piero, whom he instructed in Greek and in the Aristotelian philosophy, especially in ethics. When Lorenzo, who, from his father's ill health, took a leading part in affairs during his life, and succeeded, on his death (A. D. 1469), to his pre-eminence at Florence, established the Greek academy in that city, Argyropulus read and expounded the classical Greek writers to the Florentine youth, and had several among his pupils who afterwards attained to eminence, as Angelo Poliziano (Politianus) and Donato Acciajuoli.
Argyropulus is said to have visited France (A. D. 1456), to ask the assistanceof the French king in procuring the release of some of his kindred who were detained in captivity by the Turks, but he returned to Florence. From Florence he removed to Rome, on account of the plague which had broken out in the former city : the time of his removal is not ascertained, but it was before 1471. At Rome he obtained an ample subsistence, by teaching Greek and philosophy, and especially by publicly expounding the works of Aristotle. He died at the age of seventy, from an autumnal fever, said to have been brought on by eating too freely of melons. But the year of his death is variously stated : all that appears to be certainly known is, that he survived Theodore Gaza, who died A. D. 1478. Fabricius states that he died A. D. 1480; but this date appears from the anecdote of his interview with Reuchlin to be too early.
The attainments of Argyropulus were highly estimated in his own and the succeeding age. The love and reverence of his most eminent pupils, Lorenzo de' Medici, Poliziano, and Acciajuoli, is an honourable testimony to his character. Yet he has been severely censured; and is charged with gluttony, to which his corpulence is ascribed, and with drunkenness, as well as with conceit and jealousy. These last qualities were so likely to be manifested by persons in the situations of these Greek exiles, reverenced and sought as instructors by the men most eminent in Italy for intellect and social position, and yet dependent upon their pupils, and competitors with each other for their patronage, that the charge is credible enough. A letter of introduction or recommendation written by Francesco Filelfo, while speaking highly of his erudition, apologises for his " moroseness and fickleness." The allegation, sufficiently improbable in itself, that it was jealousy which led him to depreciate Cicero's acquaintance with Greek literature (by which depreciation he incurred much reproach), shows the judgment which was formed of his character. Yet Theodore Gaza is said to have esteemed him very highly; and when he found that Argyropulus was engaged in translating some pieces of Aristotle on which he had also been occupied, he burnt his own versions, that he might not, by provoking any unfavorable comparison, stand in the way of his friend's rising reputation.
Reuchlin when in Italy had an interview with Argyropulus at Rome. Argyropulus was explaining Thucydides; and having asked Reuchlin to translate and expound a passage, was so astonished at the extent of his erudition, that in the words of Melancthon, nephew of Reuchlin, who has recorded the anecdote, " gemens exclamat, 'Graecia nostro exilio Alpes transvolavit'" (Melancthon, Oratio de Jo. Capnione, apud Boerner.) This anecdote deserves notice, inasmuch as, if it refers (which is probable) to Reuchlin's visit to Italy in 1482, it shows that the date 1480, assigned by some to Argyropulus's death, is inaccurate.
Argyropulus had several sons. Hody thinks that the Joannes Argyropulus who translated Aristotle's work Περὶ Ἑρμηνείας, and to whose name some subjoin the epithet " junior," was one of his sons, and that he died before his father; but this version was the work of Argyropulus himself, nor does he appear to have had a son Joannes. He had a son Bartolommeo, a youth of great attainments, who was mortally wounded by assassins (A. D. 1467) at Rome, where he was living under the patronage of Cardinal Bessarion. Another son, Isaac, survived his father, and became eminent as a musician. Demetrius Argyropulus, who is mentioned (A. D. 1451) in a letter of Francesco Filelfo, was apparently a brother of Joannes. Works
The works of Argyropulus are as follows :-- I. Original works that have been printed. 1. Περὶ τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐκπορεύσεως, De Processione Spiritus Sancii Editions
printed with a Latin version in the Graecia Orthodoxa of Leo Allatius (vol. i. pp. 400-418). 2. Oratio quarta pro Synodo Florentina
Cited by Nicolaus Comnenus Papadopoli in his Praenotiones Mystagogicae. We do not know if this has been published, or whether it is in Latin or Greek. 3. Commentarii in Ethica Nicomachea
This work comprehends the substance of his expository lectures on the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, taken down from his lips, and published by Donatus Acciaiolus or Donato Acciajuoli, who has already been mentioned as a pupil of Argyropulus, and who dedicated this work to Cosmo de' Medici. Editions
fol. Florence, 1478. 4. Commentarii in Aristotelis Metaphysica Editions
Published with Bessarion's version of that work, fol. Paris, 1515. Works still in MS
The other original works of Argyropulus are scattered in MS. through the libraries of Europe. They are, 5. Consolatio ad Imperatorem Constantinum in morte fratris Joannis Palaeologi extincti, A. D. 1448.
This work is mentioned by Allatius in his book De Synodo Photiana, p. 542. 6. Monodia in obitum Imperatoris Joannis Palaeologi.
7. Comparatio veterum Imperatorum cum hodierno, or Veterum Principum cum Imperatore nunc regnante Comparatio.The title is indefinite, but the comparison instituted in the work is, according to some of our authorities, between the Greek emperors of Constantinople and their Turkish successors. 8. Homilia de Imperio, ad Constantinum Palaeologum
9. Solutiones Quaestionum quae proposuerant Philosophi et Medici quidam ex Cypro insula. 10. Ad Papam Nicolaum V. 11. Poemata Graeca Ecclesiasticaby Argyropulus and others. Other Works
A manuscript in the Bodleian library (Cod. Barocc. lxxxvii., according to the (Catalog. MStorum Angliae et Hiberniae), contains Porphyrii Isagoge cum scholiis nmarginalibus fortè Jo. Argyropuli, et Aristotelis Organon cum scholiis fortè per eundem. It has an effigy of Argyropulus in his study, which is engraved in Hody's work cited below.
Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. vol. iii. p. 479) speaks of his Expositiones in Aristotelis Ethica, Physica, Lib. de Anima et Mechanica ; and distinguishes them from the work published by Acciajuoli, with which we should otherwise have supposed the Expositiones in Ethica to be identical.
Harless, in a note to Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. vol. vi. p. 131), speaks of his Prolegg. in Progymnasm. as contained in a MS. at Heidelberg. Latin Versions
The Latin versions of Argyropulus are chiefly of the works (genuine or reputed) of Aristotle. Works of Aristotle
1. Ethica Nicomachea, Libri X. 2. Categoriae s. Praedicamenta. 3. Physica s. Acroases Physicae s. De Naturali Auscultatione, Libri VIII. 4. De Coelo et Mundo, Libri IV. 5. De Anima, Libri III. 6. Metaphysica, Libri XII. The thirteenth and fourteenth books were not translated by him. 7. De Interpretatione. 8. Analytica Priora. 9. Analytica Posteriora, Libri II. 10. Epistola ad Alexandrum " in qua de libris ad methodum civilium sermonum spectantibus disseritur." The following edition contained versions of the above works of Aristotle by Argyropulus. Editions
There is reason to think that this was printed at Florence about A. D. 1478, in which year the Commentarii taken down by Acciajuoli were printed : it was certainly printed at Rome A. D. 1492, and in the Latin edition of the works of Aristotle published by Gregorius de Gregoriis, 2 vols. fol. Venice, 1496.
Some of his translations are reprinted in the volume of Latin versions which forms a sequel to Bekker's edition of Aristotle. Translations without known print versions
Some of our authorities speak of the following works as having been translated by him, but we have not been able to trace them in print :-- 11. Political, Libri VIII.; and 12. Oeconomica, Libri II Editions
These two works are said to have been published in 8vo. Venice, A. D. 1506, but we doubt the correctness of the statement. 13. De Mundo.
14. Mechanica Problemata Praedicabilia or De quinque Vocibus of PorphyryHe also translated the Praedicabilia or De quinque Vocibus of Porphyry, and the Homiliae S. Basilii in Hexaemeron. Editions
His version of Porphyry was printed with his translations of Aristotle at Venice in 1496, and that of Basil at Rome A. D. 1515. Further Information
Hody, de Graecis Illustribus, pp. 187-210 ; Boerner, de Doctis Hominibus Graecis ; Roscoe, Life of Lorenzo de' Medici, 4th edition, vol. i. pp. 61, 101, vol. ii. pp. 107-110; Wharton apud Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii., Appendix, p. 168; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iii. p. 496, &c., vol. xi. p. 460, &c.; Facciolati, Tiraboschi, Nic. Comnenus Papadopoli, ll. cc.; Bayle, Dictionnaire, s. v. Acciaioli (Donat.) Aygyropyle.
18. Barbucallus. [Barbucallus.]
19. S. Basilii Discipulus, sive Obedientiae Filius. [See No. 28.]
20. Beccus, or Veccus. [Veccus.]
21. Bessarion or Bessario, sometimes Besarion, Bissarion, Bisarion, or Bizarion (Βησσαρίων or Βησαρίων, or Βισσαρίων), in Italian Bessarione. The first name of this eminent ecclesiastic has been the subject of dispute : he is commonly mentioned by the name Bessarion only : some have prefixed the name of Basilius, others (as Panzer, Annales Typog. Indices) that of Nicolaus; but it has been shown by Bandini (Commentarius de Vita Bessarionis, 100.2) upon the authority of the cardinal himself, that his name was Joannes or John. He was born at Trapezus, or Trebizond, A. D. 1395, whether of an obscure or noble, or even royal family, is much disputed. He studied at Constantinople, and attended the school of Georgius Chrysococces [Chrysococces], and had for his fellow-student Francesco Filelfo (Franciscus Philelphus), as appears from a letter of Filelfo dated x. Cal. Feb. 1448. (Philelphus, Epistolae, lib. vi. fol. 84, ed. Basil. 1506.) Having embraced a monastic life in the order of St. Basil, he turned his attention from poetry and oratory, in which he had already become eminent, to theology, which he studied under two of the most learned metropolitans of the Greek church. He also studied the Platonic philosophy under Georgius Pletho or Gemistus [Gemistus], for whom he ever retained the greatest reverence, and under whom he became a zealous Platonist. To study under Gemistus he withdrew (apparently about A. D. 1416 or 1417) into the Morea, and remained 21 years in a monastery there, except when engaged in diplomatic missions for the emperors of Constantinople and Trebizond.
Bessarion was an advocate for the proposed union of the two churches, the Latin and the Greek, and was one of those who urged upon the emperor Joannes Palaeologus the convocation of the general council for the purpose, which met A. D. 1438 at Ferrara, and from thence adjourned to Florence. He had, just before the meeting of the council, been appointed archbishop of Nicaea, and appeared as one of the managers of the conference on the side of the Greeks, Mark, archbishop of Ephesus [M. Eugenicus], being the other. He at first advocated, on the points of difference between the two churches, the opinions generally entertained by the Greeks, but was soon converted to the Latin side, either from honest conviction, as he himself affirmed, or, as his enemies intimated, in the hope of receiving honours and emoluments from the pope. He was possibly influenced by a feeling of jealousy against Mark of Ephesus, his coadjutor. Phranza asserts (2.17) that on the death of Joseph, patriarch of Constantinople [Josephus, No. 7], during the sitting of the council, the emperor Joannes Palaeologus and the council elected Bessarion to succeed him; but Bessarion probably thought that his Latinist predilections, however acceptable to the emperor, would not recommend him to his countrymen in general, and declined the appointment. He did not, however, remain in Italy, as Phranza incorrectly states, but returned to Constantinople soon after the breaking up of the council. He was, however, almost immediately induced to return to Italy by the intelligence that the pope had conferred on him (Dec. 1439) a cardinal's hat. This honour, following so close upon his embracing the side of the Latins, and the fact that the pope had previously granted him an annuity, gave colour to the report that his change had not been wholly disinterested. Hody rejects the story of his election to the patriarchate, but his arguments are not convincing: the facts urged by him only show that the patriarchate was vacant at the dissolution of the council, which it would be in consequence of Bessarion's declining it.
From this time he resided ordinarily at Rome, where his house became the resort and asylum of men of letters. Filelfo (Philelphus), Poggio Fiorentino, Lorenzo or Laurentius Valla, Platina, and others, were among his intimate friends, and he was the patron of the Greek exiles, Theodore Gaza, George of Trebizond, Argyropulus, and others. In A. D. 1449 he was appointed by Nicolas V. bishop of Savina, and shortly afterwards of Frascati, the ancient Tusculum. About the same time he was appointed legate of Bologna: he retained this office about five years, and succeeded, by his prudence and moderation, in restoring the tranquillity of the district. He exerted himself also to revive the former splendour of the university, which had much decayed. On the death of Nicolas V. (A. D. 1455), he returned to Rome, to the great grief of the Bolognese; and would probably have been chosen to the vacant papacy but for jealousy of his Greek origin entertained by a few of the cardinals. Cardinal Alfonso Borgia was therefore chosen, and assumed the name of Callistus or Calixtus III. During the papacy of Callistus, and of his successor, Pius II., Bessarion was very earnest in rousing the princes and states of Italy to defend what remained of the Greek empire after the fall of Constantinople. He visited Naples, where he was honourably received by the king, Alfonso; and attended the congress of Mantua, held A. D. 1458 or 1459, soon after the election of pope Pius II., for the purpose of forming a league against the Turks. He shortly after visited Germany as papal legate, to unite, if possible, the Germans and Hungarians in a league against the same enemy; but his efforts on all these occasions failed of their purpose, and he returned to Rome before the end of 1461. In 1463 he was appointed by the pope bishop of Chalcis, in Negroponte (Euboea), and soon after titular patriarch of Constantinople, in which character he addressed an encyclical letter to the clergy of his patriarchate, in which he exhorted them to union with the Latin church, and submission to the papal authority. It is remarkable that in this letter, according to the version of Arcudio, he styled himself " oecumenical patriarch," notwithstanding the umbrage which that ambitious title had formerly given (See Nos. 27, 28, Joannes Cappadox, 1, 2) to the Roman see, under subjection to which he was now living. During the pontificate of Pius he was made dean of the College of Cardinals. In the same year, 1463, Bessarion was sent as legate to Venice, to prevail on the Venetians to unite in a league with the pope against the Turks. His efforts on this occasion were successful, and lie induced the Venetians to fit out a fleet, in which he returned to Ancona, just in time to attend the dying bed of the pope, Pius II., and the election of his successor, Paul II., A. D. 1464. During the papacy of the latter (1464-1471) Bessarion mingled little in public affairs, and devoted himself to literary pursuits. About the end of 1468 he took part in the solemn reception of the emperor Frederic III. at Rome.
On the death of Paul II., A. D. 1471, Bessarion was again near being elected pope, but jealousy or accident prevented it, and Francesco della Rovere was chosen, and took the title of Sixtus IV. Sixtus, anxious to remove Bessarion from Rome, entrusted to him the legation to Louis XI. of France, that he might effect a reconciliation between Louis and the Duke of Burgundy, and induce them to join the leagueagainst the Turks. Bessarion, who was now far advanced in age, and afflicted with a disease of the bladder, was anxious to decline the appointment, but the pope was pressing; and early in the spring of 1472 he set out for the Netherlands, to confer with the Duke of Burgundy. His making the first application to the Duke excited the jealousy of Louis, and Bessarion failed in his object. Bessarion died at Ravenna 18th Nov. 1472, in the 77th year of his age, on his return from France. His body was conveyed to Rome, and buried there in a tomb which he had prepared in his lifetime, in a chapel of the Basilica of the Twelve Apostles, the pope himself attending his funeral obsequies. The year of Bessarion's death has been variously stated, but the date given above is correct.
Bessarion was held in great respect by his contemporaries, and deservedly so. With the exception of his opportune conversion at Florence, in which, after all, nothing can be urged against him but the suspiciousness which attaches to every conversion occurring at a convenient time, his career was exempt from reproach. He supported, by every exertion that his position allowed, the cause of his falling country, and was a generous patron to his exiled fellow-countrymen. His literary labours and his important services in the revival of classical literature, entitle him to the gratitude of subsequent ages. His valuable library he gave in his lifetime (A. D. 1468) to the library of St. Mark, belonging to the republic of Venice; and it was deposited first in the ducal palace, and then in a building erected for the library, of which the Latin and Greek MSS. of Bessarion are among the most precious treasures. Works
The works of Bessarion are numerous : they comprehend original works and translations from Greek into Latin. Of the original works several exist only in MS. in various libraries, especially in that of St. Mark at Venice. We give only his published works: the others are enumerated by Bandini, Hody, Cave, and Fabricius. I. Theological Works 1. Λόγος
Λόγος, Sermo; a discourse in honour of the Council of Ferrara, delivered at the opening of the council, A. D. 1438 Editions
Printed in the Concilia (vol. xiii. col. 35, &c., ed. Labbe; vol. ix. col. 27, ed. Hardouin; vol. 31, col. 495, &c., ed. Mansi). 2. Δογματικὸς ἢ περὶ ἑνώσεως λόγος (Oratio Dogmatica, sive de Unione
Called also De Compunctione (Panzer, vol. viii. p. 271 ); delivered at the same council (col. 391, &c., Labbe; col. 983, &c., Mansi). 3. Declaratio aliquorum quae in dicta Oratione Dogmatica continentur, quae Graecis notissima, Latinis ignota sunt,
Declaratio aliquorum quae in dicta Oratione Dogmatica continentur, quae Graecis notissima, Latinis ignota sunt, written in Latin and subjoined to the preceding oration. 4. Ad Alexium Lascarim Epistola, de Successu Synodi Florentinae et de Processione Spiritus Sancti. Editions
The Greek original, with two Latin versions, one by Bessarion himself, and one by Pietro Arcudio, was published in the Opuscula Aurea Theologica of the latter, Rome, 1649: a Latin version appears in the Concilia (col. 1227, &c., Labbe). 5. Epistola Catholica sive Encyclica ad Graecos Ecclesiae CPolitanae subjectos de praestanda Romanae Ecclesiae Obedientia, Synodique Florentinae Decretis admittendis, et de sua in Patriarcham CPolitanum Electione.
This letter, noticed in our biographical sketch, was also published by Arcudio with a double version, one by himself, and one by Bessarion. Editions
A Latin version, apparently of this letter, as it is entitled Epistola ad Graecos, was printed with a version of the work on the eucharist mentioned below at Strasburg, 4to. A. D. 1513. (Panzer, vol. vi. p. 62.)
A Latin version also is given by Raynald, Annal. Ecclesiast. ad ann. 1463, c. lviii. &c. 6. Apologia adversus Gregorium Palamam pro Jo. Vecci, Patriarchae CPolitani Libro adversus Responsiones Graecorum de Processione Spiritus Sancti. Editions
This work, with a Latin version, was published by Arcudio. 7. Responsio ad quatuor Argumenta Maximi Planudae de Processione Spiritus Sancti ex solo Patre : Editions
Published, with a Latin version, by Arcudio. 8. Graecorum Confessio de Verbis Consecrationis, et Transubstantiatione. Editions
A Latin version of this, by Niccolo Sagundino, is contained in the Museum Italicum of Mabillon, vol. i. part ii. p. 243, &c. 9. De Sancto Eucharistiae Mysterio, et quod per Verba Domini maxime fiat Consecratio, contra Marcum Ephesium Or, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, et quibus Verbis Christi Corpus conficiatur. Editions
A Latin version of this was published, as we have noticed above, at Strasburg, A. D. 1513; and also at Nuremburg, A. D. 1527. (Panzer, vol. vii. p. 473). One appears in the Bibliotheca Patrum (vol. xxvi. p. 787, &c. ed. Lyon. 1677). 10. De ea Parte Evangelii, ' Si eum volo manere', &c., erudita et valde utilis Disceptatio, Editions
printed with the Dialoge of Salonius, of Vienna, 4to. Haguenau, 1532, Panzer, vol. vii. p. 109. 11. Ad Paulum II. P. M. L Epistola, qua suas de Processione Spiritus Sancti lucubraliones ei affert et dicat; and, 12. Ad Paulum II. P. M. de Errore Paschatis. Editions
These two letters are inserted in the Latina et Italica D. Marci Bibliotheca Codd. MStorum per Titulos Digesta, of Zanetti. Fol. Venice, 1741, pp. 76, 196. II. Philosophical and Miscellaneous Works 13. In Calumniatorem Platonis, Libri V.
A reply in Latin to the Comparationes Philosophorum Platonis et Aristotelis of George of Trebizond. [Georgius, No. 48, Trapezuntius.] Editions
Bessarion's work was first printed at Rome by Sweynheym and Pannartz, A. D. 1469. 14. De Natura et Arte adversus eundem Trapezuntium. Editions
This work, written some time before the preceding, was printed with it as a sixth book. 15. Ad Plethonem de Quatuor Quaestionibus Platonicis Epistola Editions
written in Greek, and printed with a Latin version by Reimar, Leyden, A. D. 1722, from a MS. in the Bodleian Library. 16. Ad Michaelem Apostolium et Andronicum Callistum Epistolae.
In these letters he severely reprehends Apostolius for the violent attack which he had made on Theodore Gaza, and commends Callistus, who had replied in a moderate and decent manner to the attack of Apostolius. Editions
The letters of Bessarion were published by Boivin in his Historia Academiae Regiae Inscriptionum, vol. ii. p. 456. 17. Ad Demetrium et Andronicum Plethonis Filios, Epistola.
This letter was written to the sons of George Gemistus after their fit.ther's death. Editions
It was published by Allatius (Diatriba de Georgiis, p. 392, and De Consensu Ecclesiae, Occident. et Orient., lib. iii. c. iii. p. 937.) 18. Ad Thomae Palaeologi Filiorum Paedagogum Epistola.
Thomas Palaeologus, despot of the Morea, and brother of the last Byzantine Emperor, Constantine XIII., when driven out of the Morea by the Turks, fled with his wife and children to Rome, where he was much indebted to the good offices of Bessarion, who, upon his death, continued his friendly care towards his orphan children. Editions
The letter of Bessarion was printed by Meursius, with the Opuscula of Hesychius of Miletus [Hesychius, No. 9.], Leyden, A. D. 1613. 19. Ad Ducem et Senatum Venetum de Bibliothecae suae Donatione Epistola. Editions
This Latin letter is printed in the Historia Rerum Venetiarum of Justiniani, at the end of the eighth book. 20. Monodia in Obitum Manuelis Palaeologi Imperatoris. Editions
A Latin version of this Monody by Niccolo Perotti is given in the Annales Ecclesiastici of Bzovius, vol. xviii. p. 72, &c. 21. Orationes Quatuor ad Italos.
These orations were designed to rouse the states and princes of Western Europe against the Turks. Editions
Three of these were published at Paris, A. D. 1471, and apparently a second time in A. D. 1500 (Panzer, vol. ii. p. 332), and the whole four in the second volume of the Consultationes atque Orationes Turcicae of Nicolas Reusner. Translation
An Italian version, we know not whether of the three or four, was printed, probably at Venice, A. D. 1471. (Panzer, vol. iii. p. 80.) 22. Ad Ludovieum Francorum Regem de sua Electione in Legatum ad ipsum et Ducem Burgundiae, Editions
published in the Spicilegium of D'Achéry, vol. iv. Paris, 1661. 23. Various Epistolae and Orationes Editions
Including apparently some of those already noticed, in 1 vol. 4to., without note of place or year of publication, but known to have been printed by (Guil. Fitchet, Paris, about 1470 or 1472. (Panzer, vol. ii. p. 271.) Versions into Latin
His versions into Latin were of the following works: 1. Xenophontis de Dictis et Factis Socratis, Libri IV Editions
printed in various editions of Xenophon, and separately in 4to, at Louvain, A. D. 1533. 2. Aristotelis Metaphysicorum Libri XIV Editions
Repeatedly printed. 3. Theophrasti Metaphysica Editions
Repeatedly printed, subjoined to his version of the Metaphysica of Aristotle. 4. Basilii Magni Oratio in illud 'Attende tibi ipsi;' et Homilia in Christi Natalem.
These homilies are extant only in MS. Versions of Aristotle and Theophrastus Editions
The versions of Aristotle and Theophrastus are contained, with the work In Calumniatorem Platonis, in a volume published by Aldus, Venice, 1516. Further Information
Aloysius Bandinius, De Vita et Rebus Gestis Bessarionis Cardinalis Nicaeni Commentarius, 4to, Rome, 1777 ; Hody, De Graecis Illustribus Linguae Graecae, &c. Instauratoribus ; Boerner, De Doctis Hominibus Graecis; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. xi. p. 422, &c.; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. Appendix by Gery and Wharton, pp. 138, 139; Oudin, Commentar. de Scriptor. Eccles. vol. iii. col. 2411, &c.; Niceron, Mémoires, vol. xxi. p. 129; Ducas, Hist. Byzant. c. xxxi.; Phranza, Philelphus Epistolae, Labbe Concilia, Mansi Concilia, ll. cc.; Panzer, Annales Typographici (ll. cc. and vol. ii. p. 411, vol. viii. pp. 363, 434); Laonicus Chalcocondyles, Historia Turcarum, vol. vi. viii. pp. 155, 228, ed. Paris, pp. 121, 178, ed. Venice; Nic. Comnenus Papadopoli, Hist. Gymnas. Patavini, vol. ii. lib. 2. c.8, p. 171.
22. Calecas. [Calecas.]
23. Camaterus. [Camaterus.]
24. Cameniata. [Cameniata.]
25. Cananus. [Cananus.]
26. Cantacuzenus. [Joannes V., emperor See above.]
27. Cappadox, or the Cappadocian (1). John the Cappadocian was made patriarch of Constantinople (he was the second patriarch of the name of John, Chrysostom being John I,) A. D. 517 or 518, a short time before the death of the aged emperor Anastasius. Of his previous history and opinions we have little or no information, except that he was, before his election to the patriarchate, a presbyter and syncellus of Constantinople. Subsequent events rather indicate that his original leaning was to the opponents of the Council of Chalcedon : but he had either too little firmness or too little principle to follow out steadily the inclination of his own mind, but appears to have been in a great degree the tool of others. On the death of Anastasius and the accession of Justin I. the orthodox party among the inhabitants of Constantinople raised a tumult, and compelled John to anathematize Severus of Antioch, and to insert in the diptychs the names of the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, and restore to them those of the patriarchs Euphemius and Macedonius. These diptyehs were two tables of ecclesiastical dignitaries, one containing those who were living, and the other those who had died, in the peace and communion of the church, so that insertion was a virtual declaration of orthodoxy; erasure, of heresy or schism. These measures, extorted in the first instance by popular violence, were afterwards sanctioned by a synod of forty bishops. In A. D. 519 John, at the desire and almost at the command of the emperor Justin, sought a reconciliation with the Western church, from which, during the reign of Anastasius, the Eastern churches had been disunited. John accepted the conditions of pope Hormisdas, and anathematized the opponents of the Council of Chalcedon, erasing from the diptychs the names of Acacius, Euphemius, and Macedonius, three of his predecessors, and inserting those of popes Leo I. and Hormisdas himself. Hormisdas, on this, wrote a congratulatory letter to John, exhorting him to seek to bring about the reconciliation of the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria to the orthodox church. John the Cappadocian died about the beginning or middle of the year 520, as appears by a letter of Hormisdas to his successor, Epiphanius. Works Letters
John the Cappadocian wrote several letters or other papers, a few of which are still extant. Editions
Two short letters (Ἐπιστολαί), one to Joannes or John, patriarch of Jerusalem, and one to Epiphanius, bishop of Tyre, are printed in Greek, with a Latin version, in the Concilia, among the documents relating to the Council of Constantinople in A. D. 536. (Vol. v. col. 185, ed. Labbe, vol. viii. col. 1065-1067, ed. Mansi.)
Four Relationes or Libelli are extant only in a Latin version among the Epistolae of pope Hormisdas in the Concilia. (Vol. iv. col. 1472, 1486, 1491, 1521, ed. Labbe; vol. viii. col. 436, 451, 457, 488, ed. Mansi.) Possible Confusion with another John of Cappadocia
It is remarkable that in the two short Greek letters addressed to Eastern prelates, John takes the title of οἰκουμενικὸς πατριάρχης, oecumenical, or universal patriarch, and is supposed to be the first that assumed this ambitious designation. It is remarkable, however, that in those pieces of his, which were addressed to pope Hormisdas, and which are extant only in the Latin version, the title does not appear; and circumstances are not wanting to lead to the suspicion that its presence in the Greek epistles is owing to the mistake of some transcriber, who has confounded this John the Cappadocian with the subject of the next article. It is certainly remarkable that the title, if assumed, should have incurred no rebuke from the jealousy of the popes, not to speak of the other patriarchs equal in dignity to John; or that. if once assumed, it should have been dropped again, which it must have been, since the employment of it by the younger John of Cappadocia, many years after, was violently opposed by pope Gregory I. as an unauthorized assumption. [Joannes Cappadox, 2.] We may conjecture, perhaps, that it was assumed by the patriarchs of Constantinople without opposition from their fellow-prelates in the East during the schism of the Eastern and Western churches, and quietly dropped on the termination of the schism, that it might not prevent the reestablishment of friendly relations. Further Information
Theophanes, Chronog. pp. 140-142, ed. Paris, pp. 112, 113, ed. Venice, pp. 253-256, ed. Bonn; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 503; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. xi. p. 99.
28. Cappadox, or the Cappadocian (2), patriarch of Constantinople, known by the surname Nesteujta (νηστεύτης), or Jejunator, the Faster. He is Joannes IV. in the list of the patriarchs of Constantinople. He was a deacon of the great church at Constantinople, and succeeded Eutychius [Eutychius] in the patriarchate A. D. 582, in the reign of the emperor Tiberius II. In a council held at Constantinople A. D. 589, for the examination of certain charges against Gregory, patriarch of Antioch [Gregorius, ecclesiastical and literary, No. 5; Evagrius, No. 3], John assumed the title of universal patriarch (οἰκουμενικὸς πατριάρχης), or perhaps resumed it after it had fallen into disuse. [See above, No. 27.] Upon the intelligence of this reaching the pope, Pelagius II., he protested against it most loudly, and annulled the acts of the council as informal. A letter written in the most vehement manner by Pelagius to the Eastern bishops who had been present in the council, appears among his Epistolae in the Concilia (Ep. viii. vol. v. col. 948, ed. Labbe, vol. ix. col. 900, ed. Mansi); but some doubt has been cast on its genuineness. Gregory I., or the Great, who (in A. D. 590) succeeded Pelagius, was equally earnest in his opposition, and wrote to the emperor Maurice and to the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, and to John himself, to protest against it. (Gregorius Papa, Epistolae, lib. iv. ep. 32, 36, 38, 39, apud Concilia, vol. v. col. 1181, &c., ed. Labbe, vol. x. col. 1206, &c., ed. Mansi.) John, however, retained the title probably till his death (about A. D. 596); and far from being odious to the Greek Christians, was and is reverenced by them as a saint. Works
John of Cappadocia wrote: 1. Ἀκολουθία καὶ τάζις ἐπὶ ἐζομολογουμένων συνταγεῖσα, Conse-quentia et Ordo erga eos qui peccata confitentur observanda
called by Cave Libellus Poenitentialis, and by Allatius, Praxis Graecis praescripta in confessione peragenda. This work, there is every reason to conclude, has been much interpolated: and Oudin (De Scriptor. Eccles. vol. i. col. 1473, seq.) affirms is altogether the production of a later age. Editions
It is given by Morinus in the Appendix (pp. 77-90) to his work, Commentarius Historicus de Disciplina in Administratione Sacramenti Poenitentiae, fol. Paris, 1651. 2. Λόγος πρὸς τὸν μέλλοντα ἐξαγορεῦσαι τὺν ἑαυτοῦ πνευματικὸν πατέρα, Ad eos qui Peccatorum Confessionem Patri suo Spirituali edituri sunt Sermo Editions
also given by Morinus (pp. 91-97). But Morinus himself doubts the genuineness of this work, and Oudin (l.c.) denies it altogether. 3. Περὶ μετανοίας καὶ ἐγκρατείας καὶ παρθενίας λόγος, Sermo de Poenitentia, Continentia, et Virginitate.
This discourse is in some MSS. ascribed to Chrysostom. Edition
It is printed in the editions of his works by Morell, vol. i. p. 809, and Savil, vol. vii. p. 641. 4. Λόγος περὶ ψευδοποφητῶν καὶ ψευδοδιδασκάλων καὶ ἀθέων αἱρετικῶν, καὶ περὶ σημείων τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, Sermo de Pseudoprophetis et falsis Doctoribus et impiis Haereticis, et de Signis Consummationis hujus Saeculi.
This discourse is ascribed in some MSS. to Chrysostom but is by Vossius, Petavius, Cave, and Assemani ascribed to John of Cappadocia. Editions
It has been printed in some editions of his works (vol. vii. p. 221, ed. Savil, who, however, regards it as spurious, vol. viii. ed. Montfaucon, in Spuriis, p. 72, or p. 701 in the reprint of Montfaucon's edition, Paris, 1836). 5. De Sacramento Baptismatis ad Leandrum Hispalensem.
This work, mentioned by Isidore of Seville (De Scriptoril. Eccles. 100.26), is lost: it contained only a collection of passages from older writers on the subject of trine immersion. 6. Epistolarum ad diversos Liber.
This work, which is mentioned by Trithemius (De Ecclesiasticis Scriptoribus, 100.224), is also lost. 7. Praecepta ad Monachum quendam
Extant in MS. in the Vatican Library at Rome, and in the King's Library at Paris. 8. Παργγελίαι διάφοροι τοῖς Πιστοῖς, Admonitiones Diversae ad Fideles.
Other possible works Κανονάριον, CanonariumBeside the above writings, there is reason to think that John of Cappadocia is the author of a Κανονάριον, Canonarium, describing the various depraved affections of the mind and the penance suitable to each, given by Morinus (ibid. pp. 101-117). The work is in some MSS. entitled Ἰωάννου μοναχοῦ καὶ διακόνου, μαθήτου τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλείου, οὗτινος ἡ ἐπωνυμία Τέκνον Ὑπακοῆς Κανονάριον, Joannis Monachi et diaconi, discipuli magni Basilii, cui cognomentum est Obedieientiae Filius, Canonarium : and some writers, as Morinus, Allatius, and Fabricius, distinguish this " Joannes, Discipulus Magni Basilii et Obedientiae Filius," from our John, but Assemani has shown that there is every reason to identify them. Epistola ad Caesarium Monachum
Natalis Alexander (Saec. x. and xi. pars iii. p. 571, apud Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. i. p. 699, not. xx.) ascribes to John of Cappadocia the Epistola ad Caesarium Monachum, ascribed by others to Chrysostom, and celebrated for the testimony against transubstantiation contained in it : but his opinion appears to have been approved by few. Further Information
Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 541; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. xi. p. 108,&c.; Morinus, ll. cc. ; Assemani, Biblioth. Juris Orientalis, vol. iii. pp. 479-542.
29. Carpathius. [Carpathius.]
30. Cassianus. [Cassianus.]
31. Charax (Χάραξ), a Greek grammarian of unknown date. Works Treatise on Enclitics (Περὶ τῶν ἐγκλινομένων)
Author of a little treatise on the Enclitics, commonly but erroneously entitled Περὶ τῶν ἐγκλινομένων. Editions
It was first published in the collection of grammatical treatises entitled Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis, printed by Aldus, fol. Venice, 1496. fo. 226, &c.: and was again given among the pieces subjoined to the Dictionarium Graecum, printed by Aldus, fol. Venice, 1524, and among those subjoined to that printed by Melchior Sessa and Petrus de Ravanis, fol. Venice, 1525.
Yet, notwithstanding these three editions, it is described in the catalogue of MSS. in the King's Library at Paris, as "ineditus" ; and was given, as if for the first time, by Iriarte in the Regiae Bibliothecae Matritensis Codices Graeci MSS. vol. i. p. 316, &c. De Othographia
There is another treatise of Joannes Charax, De Othographia, extant in MS. Harles expresses his uncertainty whether the work printed by Aldus was the same as that given by Iriarte; but a comparison of the two shows their identity. Περὶ διαλέκτων
Gesner suspects that the work Περὶ διαλέκτων, printed in the Thesaurus Cornucopiae of Aldus, and usually ascribed to Joannes Philoponus [Philoponus], is by Joannes Charax.
32. Chrysoloras. [Chrysoloras.]
33. Chrysostomus. [Chrysostomus.]
34. Cinnamus. [Cinnamus.]
35. Of Citrus (now Kitro or Kidros), in Macedonia, the ancient Pydna. Joannes was bishop of Citrus about A. D. 1200. He wrote Ἀποκρίεσις πρὸς Κωνσταντῖνον Ἀρχιεπίσκοπον Δ̓υρραχίου τὸν Καβάσιλαν. Response ad Constantinum Cabasilum, Archiepiscopum Dyrrachii, of which sixteen answers, with the questions prefixed, are given with a Latin version in the Jus Graeco-Romanum of Leunclavius (fol. Frankfort, 1596), lib. v. p. 323. A larger portion of the Responsa is given in the Synopsis Juris Graeci of Thomas Diplouaticitus (Diplovatizio). Several MSS. of the Responsa contain twenty-four answers, others thirty-two; and Nic. Comnenus Papadopoli, citing the work in his Praenotiones Mystagogicae, speaks of a hundred. In one MS. Joannes of Citrus has the surname of Dalassinus. Allatius, in his De Consensu, and Contra Hottingerum, quotes a work of Joannes of Citrus, De Consuetudinibus et Dogmatibus Latinorum. (Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. xi. pp. 341, 590; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii.p. 279.)
36. Climaccus. [Climacus.]
37. Cobidas. [Cobidas.]
38. Of Constantinople, 1. [See No. 27.]
39. Of Constantinople, 2. [See below, Joannes, Jurists, No. 3.]
40. Of Constantinople, :. [See No. 28.]
41. Of Constantinople, 4. or Joannes VI. in the list of patriarchs of that city. He was appointed patriarch by the Emperor Philippicus Bardanes, A. D. 712, on account of his agreement with that emperor in his monothelite opinions, and in rejecting the authority of the sixth oecumenical (third Constantinopolitan) council. Cyrus, the predecessor of Joannes, was deposed to make way for him. According to Gave, Joannes was deposed not long after his elevation, in consequence apparently of the deposition of his patron Philippicus, and the elevation of Artemius or Anastasius II. Theophanes does not notice the fate of Joannes, but records the elevation of his successor Germanus, metropolitan of Cyzicus, to the patriarchate of Constantinople, A. D. 715. Works Ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Κωνσταντῖνον τὸν ἁγιώτατον πάπαν Ρώμης ʼαπολογετική, Epistola ad Constantinum Sanctissimum Papam Romanum. Apologetica
Joannes wrote Ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Κωνσταντῖνον τὸν ἁγιώτατον πάπαν Ρώμης ʼαπολογετική, Epistola ad Constantinum Sanctissimum Papam Romanum. Apologetica, in which he defends certain transactions of the reign of Philippicus. Editions
This letter is published in the Concilia (vol. vi. col. 1407, ed. Labbe; vol. xii. col. 196, ed. Mansi). It had previously been published in the Auctarium Novum of Combéfis, vol. ii. p. 211. Further Information
Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. xi. p. 152; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 619.
42. Of Constantinople, 5. [Camaterus.]
43. Of Constantinople, 6. [Calecas.]
44. Of Constantinople, 7. Works Περὶ Πρεσβειῶν, De Legationibus
A Joannes Constantinopolitanus, of whom nothing further is known, was the compiler of the first part of that division of the Collectanea of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, which bears the title Περὶ Πρεσβειῶν, De Legationibus. Editions
This first part was published by Fulvius Ursinus, 4to. Antwerp, 1582, with notes; it was entitled Ἐκ τῶν Πολυβίου τοῦ μεγαλοπολίτου ἐκβολαὶ περὶ πρεσβειῶν with an addition to the title, printed on the back, in Latin, Fragmenta ex Historiis quae non extant Dionysii Halicarnassei, Diodori Siculi, Appiani Alexandrini, Dionysii Cassii Nicaei, de Legationibus; Dionysii Lib. lxxix. et lxxx. imperfectus. Emendationes in Polybium. This copious title enumerates the contents of the work, and indicates their value. Further Information
Ursinus, Praefatio; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. viii. p. 7.
45. Cubidius. [Cobidas.]
46. Cucuzeles (Κουκουζέλης or Κουκουζέλη), a Greek musical composer of the later Byzantine period. Fabricius says he was a bishop of Euchaita or Euchaitae [see No. 58]; but we do not know the authority for this assertion. and doubt its correctness. Various MSS. of his musical compositions are extant, in some of which he is designated simply ὁ μαίδτωρ, magister, in others that designation is prefixed to his name. Part of one of his pieces is given in an engraved plate to Martin Gerbert's work De Cantu et Musica Sacra, vol. i. p. 587 ; and there is a notice of him ill vol. ii. p. 7, of the sale work. Joannes Cucuzeles is to be distinguished from Joasaph Cucuzeles, another Greek musical composer, of less reputation apparently, than Joannes. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iii. p. 653; Gerbert, l.c.)
47. Curopalata. [Scylitzes.]
48. Cyparissiota (Κυπαρισσιώτης), surnamed Sapiens or the Wise, an ecclesiastical writer, who lived in the latter half of the fourteenth century, not in the middle of the twelfth, as erroneously stated by Labbe in his Chronologia Brevis Ecclesiusticorum Scriptorum. Works
From indications in his own works they were, some of them at least, written after the year 1359. Cyparissiota was an opponent of Gregory Palamas [Palamas] and his followers (the believers in the light of Mount Thabor), and his principal publications had reference to that controversy. Treatises
His principal publications compose a series of five treatises; but only the first and fourth books of the first treatise of the series, Palamiticarum Transgressionum Libri IV, have been published. Editions
They appeared, with a Latin version, in the Auctarium Novissimum of Combéfis (Pars ii. pp. 68-105), and the Latin version was given in the Bibliotheca Patrum (vol. xxi. p. 476, &c., ed. Lyon. 1677). title xml:lang="la">Expositio Materiarum eorum quue de Deo a Theologis dicuntur
Cyparissiota wrote also Ἔκθεσις στοιχειώδης ῥήσεων Θεολογικῶν, Expositio Materiarum eorum quue de Deo a Theologis dicuntur. The work is divided into a hundred chapters, which are arranged in ten Decades or portions of ten chapters each, from which arrangement the work is sometimes referred to by the simple title of Decades. Editions Latin Editions
A Latin version of it by Franciscus Turrianus was published at Rome in 4to, 1581; and was reprinted in the Bibliocheca Patrum (vol. 21.377, &c). Further Information
Combéfis, Auctar. Novissim. pars ii. p. 105; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. xi. p. 507; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. Appendix by Gery and Wharton, p. 65; Oudin, De Scriptoribus et Scriptis Ecclesiaslicis, vol. iii. col. 1062.
49. Damascenus. [Damascenus.]
50. Diacrinomenus. [See No. 2.]
51. Diaconus et Rhetor (Διάκονος καὶ Ῥήτωρ), deacon of the great church (St. Sophia) at Constantinople, about the end of the ninth century. Works Λόγος εἰς τὸν βίον τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ ὑμνογράφου, Vita S. Josephi Hymnographi
He wrote Λόγος εἰς τὸν βίον τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ ὑμνογράφου, Vita S. Josephi Hymnographi. Editions
published in the Acta Sanctorum, Aprilis (a. d. iii.), vol. i.; a Latin version being given in the body of the work, with a learned Commentarius Praevius at p. 266, &c., and the original in the Appendix, p. xxxiv. Τίς ὁ δκυπὸς τῷ Θεῷ τῆς πρώτης τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πλάδεως, κ. τ. λ., Quid est Consilium Dei in prima Hominis Formatione, &c.
Allatius (De Psellis c. xxx) cites another work of this writer entitled Τίς ὁ δκυπὸς τῷ Θεῷ τῆς πρώτης τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πλάδεως, κ. τ. λ., Quid est Consilium Dei in prima Hominis Formatione, &c. Several medieva writers named Joannes Diaconus
The designation Joannes Diaconus is common to several mediaeval writers; as Joannes Galenus or Pediasmus, Joannes Hypatus, Joannes deacon of Rome (who comes not within our limits as to time), and Joannes Diaconus, a contemporary and correspondent of George of Trebizond. [Georgius, No. 48.] Further Information
Acta Sanctorum, l.c. : Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. x. p. 264, vol. xi. p. 654; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. Dissertatio I. p. 11; Oudin, De Scriptoribus et Scriptis Ecclesiasticis, vol. ii. col. 335.
52. Doxipator, or Doxopater. [Doxipater.]
53. Drungarius, or Drungarias, or of Drungaria Montfaucon gives the name Ἰωάννης τῆς Δρουγγαρίας, and expressly observes that it is so in the MS.), a contemporary of Cyril of Alexandria [Cyrillus], and probably one of his clergy. At the instigation of Cyril he undertook a commentary on Isaiah, which is extant in MS. The Πρόλογος, Praefatio, is given by Montfaucon in his Nova Collectio Patrum, vol. ii. p. 350, and by Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vol. viii. p. 663. Fabricius, in giving the author's name, omits the article before Δρουγγαρίας. (Montfaucon, Fabricius. ll. cc.)
54. Of Egypt. [See Nos. 3, 5, 16.]
55. Eleemosynarius the Almoner, patriarch of Alexandria early in the seventh century. He was appointed to the patriarchate in A. D. 606, or, according to some of our authorities, in A. D. 609 ; and was dead in or before A. D. 616. Works Epistola ad Caesarium
Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, ascribed to Joannes Eleemosynarius the celebrated Epistola ad Caesarium, which is by most Protestant critics, and by some Roman Catholics, ascribed to Chrysostom; and which is appealed to as containing a clear declaration against the doctrine of transubstantiation. Accounts of his Life Life by Joannes Moschus
The eminence of Joannes is evidenced by the fact that three biographical accounts of him were written; one, not now extant, by Joannes Moschus [Moschus] and Sophronius. Life by Leontius, bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus
A second life is by Leontius, bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus, of which a Latin version, made in the ninth century by Anastasius Bibliothecarius, has been repeatedly printed. Editions
It is given, with a Commentarius Praevius, in the Acta Sanctorum of the Bollandists (Januar. 23. vol. ii. p. 495). Life by Symeon Metaphrastes or by some older Greek writer
The third life is either by Symeon Metaphrastes, or by some older Greek writer. Editions
A Latin version of it, by Gentianus Hervetus, was published by Aloysius Lippomani (De Vitis Sanctorum, a. d. 12 Novemb.), by Surius (De Probatis Sanctorum Vitis, a. d. 23 Januor.), and in the Acta Sanctorum of the Bollandists (ut supra). Further Information
Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. i. p. 699, note xx.; vol. viii. p. 322, vol. x. p. 262.
56. Of EPIPHANEIA in Syria, a Byzantine historian, who flourished toward the close of the sixth century. Evagrius Scholasticus, the ecclesiastical historian (H. E. v. 14, sub fin.), speaks of him as his kinsman and townsman. Vossius, misled by the latter expression of Evagrius, has considered Joannes as a native of Antioch instead of Epiphaneia. Works history of the affairs of the Byzantine Empire
He wrote a history of the affairs of the Byzantine Empire, from the latter part of the reign of Justinian to the restoration of the Persian king Chosroes or Khosru II. by the Byzantine emperor Maurice. Evagrius says the history had not been published at the time his own work was written A. D. 593 or 594 [see Evagrius, No. 3.].
The history of Joannes has never been published; a MS. of it, the only one known, is said to be in the library at Heidelberg. Confusion with Joannes Rhetor
Joannes of Epiphaneia is sometimes improperly confounded with another writer, Joannes Rhetor [See below, No. 105], who wrote a history of the times of Theodosius II., Marcian, Leo, and Zeno, and who is repeatedly quoted by Evagrius. Further Information
Valesius, Not. ad Evagr. H. E. 1.16; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 546; Vossius, De Historicis Graecis, 4.20, sub fin.
57. Epiphanii Discipulus. Works Life of Epiphanius of Constantia
A spurious life of Epiphanius of Constantia (or Salamis), in Cyprus [Epiphanius], professes to be written in great part during the life of Epiphanius, by Joannes, a disciple of the Saint. Joannes, however, is represented as having died before the subject of his memoir, which was finished by another person. The piece was rejected by the Bollandists as worthless. Editions
A Latin version was printed by Aloysius Lipomanus (De Vitis Sanctorum,) and Surius (De Probatis Sanctorum Vitis,) and both the Greek original and a Latin version by Petavius. Further Information
Papebroche, in the Acta Sanctorum, Maii 12, vol. iii. p. 37.
58. Of Euchaita or Euchaitae or Euchania, a city of Heleno-Pontus, which had received not long before (i. e. in the time of the emperor Joannes Zimisces) the name of Theodoropolis; it was not far from Amasia. Joannes was archbishop of Euchaita (Μητροπολίτης Εὐχαΐτων), and lived in the time of the emperor Constantine X. Monomachus (A. D. 1042-1054), but nothing further is known of him. he was surnamed Mauropus, Μαυρόπους, i. e. " Blackfoot." Works
He wrote a number of iambic poems, sermons, and letters. Iambic Poems
A volume of his poems was published by Matthew Bust, 4to., Eton, 1610 : the poems occupy only about 73 pp. small 4to., and were probably written on occasion of the church festivals, as they are commemorative of the incidents of the life of Christ, or of the Saints.
An Officium, or ritual service, composed by him, and containing three Canones or hymns, is given by Nicolaus Rayaeus in his dissertation De Acolouthia Officii Canonici, prefixed to the Acta Sanctorum, Junii, vol. ii. Vita S. Dorothei Junioris
Joannes wrote also Vita S. Dorothei Junioris, given in the Acta Sanctorum, Junii, vol. i. p. 605, &c. Sermons and other works in MSS
Various Sermons for the Church Festivals, and other works of his, are extant in MS. Further Information
Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. viii. pp. 309, 627, &c., vol. x. pp. 221, 226, vol. xi. p. 79; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. p. 139; Oudin, De Scriptor. et Scriptis Eccles. vol. ii. col. 606; Acta Sanctorum, ll. cc.; Bust, Carmina Joannis Euchaitensis.
59. Eugenicus. This name is sometimes given to Joannes the Deacon and Rhetorician. [See above No. 51.]
60. Eugenicus (Εὐγενικός) was deacon and nomophylax of the great church at Constantinople, and brother to the celebrated Marcus or Mark Eugenicus, archbishop of Ephesus, one of the leaders of the Greeks at the councils of Ferrara and Florence (A. D. 1438-39). [Eugenicus, M.] Joannes also attended the council, and embraced the same side as his brother. He attempted to leave Italy during its session, but was brought back. Works Published works
He wrote: 1. An iambic poem of 25 lines, Εἰς εἰκόνα τοῦ μεγάλου Χρυδοδτόμου, In imaginem magni Chrysostomi. 2. An iambic tetrastich, Εἰσπαναγιάριον, In Panagiarium. 3. Προθεωρία, Praefatio, i. e. to the Aethiopica of Heliodorus. [Heliodorus IV., Romance Writer.] Editions
These three pieces were published by Bandini (Catalog. Codd. Laur. Medic. vol. iii. col. 322, &c.) Works extant in MS.
Several other works of Joannes Eugenicus are extant in MS., especially his Antirrheticum adversus Synodum Florentinum, quoted by Allatius in his work De Purgatorio. Further Information
Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. xi. p. 653; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. Appendix by Wharton and Gery, p. 141.
61. Galenus (Γαληνός) or Pediasimus (Πεδιάδιμος); also called Pothus (Πόθος), and Hypatus (s. Princeps) Philosophorum (Γπατος τῶν Φιλοδόφων). He was Chartophylax, keeper of the records of the province of Justiniana Prima, and of all Bulgaria, under the emperor Andronicus Palaeologus the Younger (A. D. 1328-1341). Works
Joannes Galenus was a man of varied accomplishments, as his works show, and the eminence which he attained among his countrymen is evinced by his title of " Chief of the Philosophers." He wrote: 1. Ἐξήγησις εἰς τὴν τοῦ Θεοκρίτου Σύριγγα (Exegesis in Theocriti Syringem.)
Ἐξήγησις εἰς τὴν τοῦ Θεοκρίτου Σύριγγα, Exegesis in Theocriti Syringem. Editions
This was first published by Henry Stephens in his smaller edition of Theocriti aliorumque Poetarum Idyllia, 12mo., Paris, 1579 : it is reprinted in Kiessling's edition of Theocritus, 8vo., Leipzig, 1819. 2. Scholia Graeca in Oppiani Halieuticas. De Piscilus.
Scholia Graeca in Oppiani Halieuticas. De Piscilus. Editions
Harles thinks the scholia published by Conrad Rittershusius with his edition of Oppian, 8vo., Leyden, 1597, are those of Joannes Galenus. 3. Πόθος
Πόθος, Desiderium, a short iambic poem in two parts, respectively entitled Περὶ γυναικὸς κακῆς, De Muliere mala, and Περὶ γυναικὸς ἀγαθῆς, De Muliere bona. Editions
These verses were first published by Lucas Holstenius in his edition of Demophili, &c. Sententiae Morales, 12mo., Rome, 1638.
They were reprinted by Gale in his Opuscula Mythologica, Ethica, Physica, 8vo., Cambr. 1671; and by Fabricius in his Bibl. Gr. vol. xiii. p. 576, ed. vet. It is from the title of these verses that Joannes is thought to derive his surname of Pothus. 4. Περὶ τῶν δώδεκα ἄθλων τοῦ Ἡρακλέους
Περὶ τῶν δώδεκα ἄθλων τοῦ Ἡρακλέους, De Duodecim Labores Herculis. Editions
This piece was printed by Allatius in his Excerpta Varia Graecorum Sophistarum, 8vo., Rome, 1641. He gave it as the work of an anonymous author; but Fabricius thinks it may be a work of Joannes Galenus, "forte Pediasimi" (Bibl. Gr. vol. vi. p. 54). Works still in MS
Joannes' other works are still in MS.: they consist of I. Commentaries and Expositions of the Greek poets, as, 5. Allegoria Anagogica, in quatuor primos versus Lib. IV. Iliados.
Allegoria Anagogica, in quatuor primos versus Lib. IV. Iliados. 6. Εἰς τὴν Ἡσιόδου Θεογονίαν ἀλληγορίαι
Εἰς τὴν Ἡσιόδου Θεογονίαν ἀλληγορίαι, Interpretatio Allegorica in Hesiodi Theogoniam. 7. Τεχνολογία εἰς τὴν τοῦ Ἡσιόδου ἀσπίδα
Τεχνολογία εἰς τὴν τοῦ Ἡσιόδου ἀσπίδα, Commentarius Grammaticus in Hesiodi Scutum. 8. Allegoria Tantali.
Allegoria Tantali. 9. On Allegorical Interpretation
He wrote also a work on the science of allegorical interpretation, De triplici Ratione Allegoriae Fabularum Poeticarum, sc. Physica, Ethica, Theologica. II. Philosophical and Scientific Works. 10. Exegeses in quosdam >Aristotelis libros
Exegeses in quosdam >Aristotelis libros, especially on the Analytica priora. 11. Introductio
Introductio and Scholia to the works of the Astronomer Cleomedes [Cleomedes]. His other scientific works are, 12. Arithmeticarum Quaestionum Expositio.
Arithmeticarum Quaestionum Expositio. 13. In quaedam Arithmetica loca obscura.
In quaedam Arithmetica loca obscura. 14. Γεωμετρία καὶ δύνοψις περὶ μητρήσεως καὶ μερισμοῦ γῆς
Γεωμετρία καὶ δύνοψις περὶ μητρήσεως καὶ μερισμοῦ γῆς, Geometria, el Compendium de Mensuratione et Divisione Terrae. 15. De Cubo Duplicando.
De Cubo Duplicando. 16. Opusculum de Septem Planetis.
Opusculum de Septem Planetis. 17. De Symphoniis Musicis.
De Symphoniis Musicis. III. Miscellaneous.
Two other works of Joannes are also enumerated. 18. De Consanguinitate
De Consanguinitate apparently on canon law. 19. De Novem Musis
De Novem Musis, possibly an allegorical commentary. Further Information
Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. vi. p. 371; vol. xi. p. 648, &c.; Bandini, Catal. Codd. Laur. Medic. vol. ii. col. 95, 162.
62. Abbot of the monastery on Mount Ganus. [See No. 101.]
63. Of Gaza, a Greek writer (grammaticus), of whose date nothing is known, except that he lived after the time of the Christian poet Nonnus [Nonnus], who may be placed in or just before the reign of Justinian I. John of Gaza appears to have imitated the style of Nonnus. Works
He wrote: 1. Ἔκφραδις τοῦ κοδμικοῦ πίνακος τοῦ ἐν Γάζη ἢ ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ, Tabellae Unicersi Ecphrasis
An iambic poem of 701 lines. Editions
Published by Janus Rutgersius in his Variae Lectiones, 4to., Leyden, 1618, pp. 98, &c. 2. Περὶ Ἀρχαιολογίας, De Antiquitatibus
extant in MS., and quoted by Du Cange in his notes to Zonaras. Further Information
Rutgersius, Var. Leet. l.c.; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. viii. p. 610, vol. xi. p. 653.
64. Geometra, the Geometer (Γεωμέτρης), called also Protothronus (Πρωτόθρονος), a Greek writer, of whose date nothing is accurately known.
Combéfis, in the Notitia Scriptorum in the first vol. of his Bibliotheca Concionatoria, places him in the ninth or tenth century. Oudin places him in the eleventh century. He is quoted by Macarius Chrysocephalus [Chrysocephalus Macarius], whom some critics place in the thirteenth, others in the fourteenlth century, in his Catetna in Matthaeum. Works
He wrote,-- 1. Epigramma in S. Crucem Editions
Published by Allatius in his Excerpta Varia Graecorum Sophistarum, 8vo., Rome, 1641. 2. Metaphrasis Canticorum S. Scripturae, or Odaruw (s. Canticorum Ecclesiae Metaphrasis
A paraphrase in iambic verse of nine songs from the O. and N. T. Editions
published by Bandini in his Catal. Codd. Laur. Medic. vol. i. p. 65, &c. 3. Ὕμνοι δ́ εἰς τὴν ὑπεραγίαν Θεοτόκον, Hymni quatuor Elegiaci in S. Virginem
With a short Corollarium or epilogue, in iambic verse. These hymns which, from each distich beginning with the word Χαῖρε, are sometimes referred to by the descriptive term Χαιρετισμοὶ. Editions
They were published by Fed. Morel, with a latin version, 8vo., Paris, 1591, and were reprinted in the Corpus Poetarum Graecorum, fol. Geneva, 1614, vol. ii. p. 746; in the Appendix (or Auetarium) Bibliothecae Patrum of Ducaeus, vol. ii. fol. Paris, 1624; and in the Biblioth. Patrum, vol. xiv. p. 439, &c., Paris, 1654.
In the they are followed by a Hymnus Alphabeticus, the authorship of which is uncertain. 4. Ἐπιγράμματα τετράδτιχα ἠθικὰ ὧν ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ Παράδειδος, Paradisus Tetrastichorum Moralium et Piorum. Editions
These poems, ninety-nine in number, are commonly said to have been first published by Fed. Morel, 8vo., Paris, 1595; but Oudin says they were published at Venice, 4to., 1563. They were reprinted with the Hymni in S. Virginem, in the Appemlia of Ducaeus, and in the Biblioth. Patrum of 1654. Joannes Geometra wrote several sermons and poems extant in MS. Further Information
Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. viii. pp. 625. 676, vol. x. p. 130; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. Diss. 1 ma. p. 10; Oudin, De Scriptor. et Scriptis Eccles. vol. ii. col. 615.
65. Glyces, Glyceus, Glycis, of Glycas. [Glycis.]
66. Grammaticus. [Philoponus.]
67. Hierosolymitanus. [See Nos. 72 to 76.]
68. Hypatus (s. Princeps) Philosophorum. [See No. 61 and No. 78.]
69. Jacobitarum Patriarcha, a Latin version of a letter of Joannes, patriarch of the Egyptian Jacobites, to Pope Eugenius (A. D. 1431 to 1447), in reply to a letter of the Pope to him, is given in the Concilia, vol. xiii. col. 1201, ed. Labbe; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii., Appendix, p. 151.
70. Janopulus. [Janopulus.]
71. Jejunator. [See No. 27.]
72. Of Jerusalem (1), was originally a monk ; but little is known of his history till A. D. 386, when he was elected to succeed Cyril [Cyrillus, St. of Jerusalem] as bishop of Jerusalem. He was then not much more than thirty years of age. (Hieron. Epist. 82.8). Some speak of him as patriarch, but Jerusalem was not elevated to the dignity of a patriarchate until the following century. Joannes was a man of insignificant personal appcarance (Hieron. Lib. contra Joan. 100.10), and Jerome, who was disposed to disparage him, thought him a man of small attainments : he acknowledges, however, that others gave him credit for eloquence, talent, and learning (Hieron. Lib. contra Joan. 100.4); and Theodoret calls him a man worthy of admiration (H. E. 5.35). He was acquainted, at least in some degree, with the Hebrew and Syriac languages, but it is doubtful if he was acquainted with Latin. He is said to have been at one period an Arian, or to have sided with the Arians when they were in the ascendant under the emperor Valens (Hieron. Lib. contra ? Joan. 100.4, 8): Jerome hints that there were other reports current to his discredit, but as he does not state what were the charges against him, there is some difficulty in judging whether they had any other origin than the malice of his opponents.
For eight years after his appointment to the bishopric, he was on friendly terms with Jerome, who was then living a monastic life in Bethlehem or its neighbourhood : but towards the close of that period, strife was stirred up by Epiphanius of Constantia (or Salamis) in Cyprus, who came to Palestine to ascertain the truth of a report which had reached him, that the obnoxious sentiments of Origen were gaining ground under the patronage of Joannes [Epiphanius]. The violence with which Epiphanius preached against Origenism, and, by implication, against Joannes, provoked at first merely contempt for what Joannes regarded as the revilings of a dotard; and Joannes contented himself with sending his archdeacon to advise him to leave off such preaching (Hieron. Lib. contra Joan. 100.14). The matter, however, produced serious results ; for Epiphanius, failing to induce Joannes pointedly to condemn Origenism, roused against him the fierce and intolerant spirit of Jerome and the other solitaries of Bethlehem : and in his ardour procceded to the irregular step of ordaining Paulinianus, the younger brother of Jerome, as deacon and presbyter. The ordination, however, took place, not in the diocese of Jerusalem, but in the adjacent one of Eleutheropolis. This irregular proceeding either roused Joannes, or served him as a pretext for anger, and he exclaimed against Epiphanius, and resorted to severe measures for quelling the contumacious spirit of the monks of Bethlehem ; and even endeavoured to procure the banishment of Jerome. His opponents, however, were not to be daunted; Epiphanius wrote a letter to Joannes (about A. D. 394), which Jerome translated into Latin, affirming that the real cause of the difference was the leaning of Joannes to Origenism, justifying the ordination of Paulinian, and solemnly warning Joannes against that heresy. The letter appears among the Epistolae of Jerome (No. 60 in the older editions, No. 110 in the edit. of Martianay, No. 51 in the edition of Vallarsi). Joannes did not reply to Epiphanius, but addressed an apologetic letter to Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, who, with considerable difficulty, effected a reconciliation between Joannes and Jerome, perhaps about A. D. 400. Rufinus had in this quarrel been the supporter of Joannes, who afterwards requited his services by writing to Pope Anastasius in his behalf, when Rufinus, then in Italy, was accused of heresy. The reply of Anastasius is given in the Concilia (vol. ii. col. 1194, ed. Labbe, vol. iii. col. 943, ed. Mansi).
Whether Joannes really cherished opinions at variance with the orthodoxy of that time, or only exercised toward those who held them a forbearance and liberality which drew suspicion on himself ; he was again involved in squabbles with the supporters of orthodox views. He was charged with favouring Pelagius, who was then in Palestine, and who was accused of heresy in the councils of Jerusalem and Diospolis (A. D. 415), but was in the latter council acquitted of the charge, and restored to the communion of the church. The followers of Pelagius are represented as acting with great violence against Jerome. Jerome applied for the support and countenance of Pope Innocent I. (A. D. 402-417), who accordingly wrote to Joannes (Innocentii Epistol. 3, apud Labbe, Concilia, vol. ii. col. 1316; Mansi, Council. vol. iii. col. 1125), with whom Augnustin also remonstrated (Epistola, 252, ed. vett., 179, ed. Caillau, Paris, 1842) on the favour which he showed to Pelagius. Augustin's letter is, however, respectful and courteous, and he has elsewhere recognised Joannes as connected with himself in the unity of the faith (Contra Litt. Petilliani, 2.117). In the struggle of Joannes of Constantinople, better kuown as Chrysostom, against his enemies, Joannes of Jerusalem had taken his part, and Chrysostom in his exile (A. D. 404) acknowledged his kindness in a letter still extant (Chrysostom, Epist. 88, Opera, vol. iii. p. 640, ed. Bened. lma. p. 771, ed. 2da. Paris, 1838). Joannes died A. D. 416 or 417. (Hieronymus, Epistolae, 60, 61, 62. ed. Vet. 39, 110, ed. Benedictin. 51, 82, and Liber Contra Joan. Ierosolymit. ed. Vallarsi, to which the references in the course of the article have been made; Chrysostom. Augustin. ll. cc.; Socrates, H. E. 5.15; Sozomen. H. E. 7.14; Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. xii. passim; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 281; Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, vol. iv. p. 634. &c.,vol. v. p. 126, 414, &100.447; Baronius, Annales, ad ann. 386, lxvi.; 391, xlv.; 392, xlii.--xlvii.; 393, ii.--xxi.; 399, xxxviii.; 402, xxvi.--xxx.; 415, xix.--xxiv.; 416, xxxi. xxxii. xxxv.; Pagi, Critice in Baron. Annales, ann. 416, xxxv.; Ceillier, Auteurs Sacrés, vol. x. p. 87, &c.; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, vol. iii. col. 161.) Works Adversus Obtrectatores sui Studii Liber,
Joannes wrote, according to Gennadius (De Viris Illustr. c. 30), Adversus Obtrectatores sui Studii Liber, in which he showed that he rather admired the ability than followed the opinion of Origen. Fabricius and Ceillier think, and with apparent reason, that this work, which is lost, was the apologetic letter addressed by Joannes to Theophilus of Alexandria. Vindiciae Editions
No other work of Joannes is noticed by the ancients: but in the seventeenth century two huge volumes appeared, entitled, Joannis Nepotis Sylcani, Hierosolym. Episcopi XLIV. Opera omnia quae hactenus incognita, reperiri potuerunt : in unum collecta, suoque Auctori et Auctoritati tribus Vindiciarum libris asserta, per A. R. P. Petrum Wastelium, fol. Brussels, 1643. The Vindiciae occupied the second volume. The works profess to be translated from the Greek, and are as follows: 1. Liber de Institutione primorum Monachorum, in Lege Veteri exortorum et in Nova perseverantium, ad Caprasium Monachum. Interprete Aymerico Patriarcha Antiocheno.
This work is mentioned by Trithernius (apud Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. x. p. 526) as " Volumen insigne de principio et profectu ordinis Carmelitici," and is ascribed by him to a later Joannes, patriarch of Jerusalem in the eighth century. It is contained in several editions of the Bibliotheca Patrum (in which work indeed it seems to have been first published, vol. ix. Paris, fol. 1589), and in the works of Thomas a Jesu, the Carmelite (vol. i. p. 416, &c. fol. Colon. 1684). Its origin has been repeatedly discussed; and it is generally admitted, except by the Carmelites, to be the production of a Latin writer, and of much later date than our Joannes. 2. In stratagemata Beati Jobi Libri III.
A commentary on the first three chapters of the book of Job, often printed in Latin among the works of Origen, but supposed to belong neither to him nor to Joannes. 3. In S. Matthueum
An imperfect commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, usually printed under the title of Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, among the works of Chrysostom, in the Latin or Graeco-Latin editions of that father; but supposed to be the work of some Arian or Anomoean, about the end of the sixth, or in the seventh century. 4. Fragmenta ex Commentario ad prima Capita XI. S. Marci,
Cited by Thomas Aquinas (Catena Aurea ad Exang.) as a work of Chrysostom. 5. Fragmenta ex Commentario in Lucam, Editions
Extant under the name of Chrysostom, partly in the editions of his works, partly in the Latin version of a Greek Catena in Lucam published by Corderius, fol. Antwerp, 1628; and partly in the Catena Aurea of Thomas Aquinas. 6. Homiliae LXIII.
almost all of them among those published in the works of Chrysostom. There is no good reason for ascribing any of these works to Joannes; nor are they, in fact, ascribed to him, except by the Carmelites. Further Information
Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. ix. p. 299, vol. x. p. 525, &c. ; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 281, &c.; Dupin, Nonxelle Bibliothèque des Auteurs Ecclésiastiques, vol. iii. p. 87, ed. Paris, 1690.
73. Of Jerusalem (2). A synodical letter of Joannes, who was patriarch of Jerusalem early in the sixth century, and his suffragan bishops assembled in a council at Jerusalem A. D. 517 or 518, to Joannes of Constantinople [Joannes Cappadox I. No. 27]. is given in the Concilia (vol. v. col. 187, &c., ed. Labbe, vol. viii. col. 1067, ed. Mansi.)
74. Of Jerusalem (3). Works
Three extant pieces relating to the Iconoclastic controversy bear the name of Joannes of Jerusalem, but it is doubtful how far they may be ascribed to the same author. 1. Ἰωάννου εὐλαβεστάτου τοῦ Ἱεροσολυμίτου μοναχοῦ Διήγησις, Joannis Hierosolymitani reverendissimi Monachi Narratio, a very brief account of the origin of the Iconoclastic movement. Editions
Published by Combéfis among the Scriptores post Theophanem, fol. Paris, 1685, and reprinted at Venice A. D. 1729, as part of the series of Byzantine historians; and is also included in the Bonn edition of that series. It is also printed in the Bibliotheca Patrum of Gallandius, vol. xiii. p. 270. 2. Δτάλογος δτηλιτευτικὸς γενόμενος παρὰ πιδτῶν καὶ ʼορθοδόξων καὶ πόθον καὶ ζῆλον ἐχόντων πρὸς ἔλεγχον τῶν ἐναντίων τῆς πίδτεως καὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας τῶν άγίων καὶ ὀρθοδόξων ἡμῶν πατέρων Disceptatio invectiva quae habita est a Fidelibus et Orthodoxis, Studiumque ac Zelum habentibus ad confutandos adversarios Fidei atque Doctrinae sanctorum orthodoxorumque Patrum nostrorumn Editions
First published by Combéfis in the Scriptores post Theophanem as the work of an anonymous writer, and is contained in the Venetian, but not in the Bonn edition of the Byzantine writers. It is also reprinted by Gallandius (ut sup. p. 352) as written by " Joannes Damascenus," or "Joannes Patriarcha Hierosolymmitanus," some MSS. giving one name and others giving the other. Gallandius considers that he is called Damascenus, from his birth-place. The author of this Invective is to be distinguished from the more celebrated Joannes Damascenus [Damascenus], his contemporary, to whom perhaps the transcribers of the MSS., in prefixing the name Damascenus, intended to ascribe the work. 3. Ιωάννον μοναχοῦ καὶ πρεδβυτέρου τοῦ Δαμαδκηνοῦ λόγος ἀποδεικτικὸς περὶ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ δεπτῶν εἰκόνων, πρὸς πάντας Χριδτιανοὺς καὶ πρὸς τὸν βαδιλέα Κωνδταντῖνον τὸν Καβαλῖνον καὶ πρὸς πάντας αἱρετικούς, Joannis Damasceni Monachi ac Presbyteri Oratio demonstrativa de sacris ac venerandis Imaginibus, ad Christianos omnes, adversusque Imperatorem Constantinum Cabalinum.
The title is given in other MSS. Ἐπιδτολὴ Ἰωάννου Ἱεροδολύμων ἀρχιεπιδκόπου, κ. τ. λ., Epistola Joannis Hierosolymitani Archiepiscopi, &c. Editions
The work was first printed in the Auctarium Novum of Combéfis, vol. ii. fol. Paris, 1648, and was reprinted by Gallandius (ut sup. p. 358, &c.). Questions of Authorship
Fabricius is disposed to identify the authors of Nos. 1 and 3; and treats No. 2 as the work of another and unknown writer; but Gallandius, from internal evidence, endeavours to show that Nos. 2 and 3 are written by one person, but that No. 1. is by a different writer; and this seems to be the preferable opinion. He thinks there is also internal evidence that No. 3 was written in the year 770, and was subsequent to No. 2. (Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. vii. p. 682) Further Information
Gallandius, Bibl. Patrum, vol. xiii. Prolegomena, 100.10, 15.
75. Of Jerusalem (4), patriarch of Jerusalem. Works Life of Joannes Damascenus
He was the author of a life of Joannes Damascenus, Βίος τοῦ ὁδίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ Δαμαδκηνοῦ δυγγραφεὶς παρὰ Ἰωάννου πατριόρχου Ἱεροδολύμων, Vita sancti Patris nostri Joannis Damasceni a Joanne Patriarcha Hierosolymitano conscripta. The life is a translation from the Arabic, or at least founded upon an Arabic biography; and was written a considerable time after the death of Damascenus, which occurred about A. D. 756, or perhaps later [Damascenus Joannes], and after the cessation of the Iconoclastic contest, which may be regarded as having terminated on the death of the emperor Theophilus, A. D. 842. But we have no data for determining how long after these events the author lived. Le Quien identifies him with a Joannes, patriarch of Jerusalem, who was burnt alive by the Saracens in the latter part of the reign (A. D. 963-969) of Nicephorus Phocas, upon suspicion that he had excited that emperor to attack them. (Cedrenus, Compend. p. 661, ed. Paris, vol. ii. p. 374, ed. Bonn.) Editions
The life of Joannes Damascenus was first published at Rome, with the orations of Damascenus, De Sacris Imaginibus, 8vo. Rome, 1553: it was reprinted at Basel with the works of Damascenus A. D. 1575; and in the Acta Sanctorum Maii (a. d. 6), vol. ii. (the Latin version in the body of the work, p. 111, &c., and the original in the Appendix, p. 723, &c.); and in the edition of the works of Damascenus by Le Quien, vol. i. fol. Paris, 1712. The Latin version is given (a. d. vi. Maii) in the Vitae Sanctorum of Lippomani, and the De Probatis Sanctorum Vitis of Surius. Further Information
Le Quien, Jo. Damasceni Opera, note at the beginning of the Vita S. Jo. Damasc. ; and Oriens Christianus, vol. iii. p. 466; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. ix. pp. 686, 689, vol. x. p. 261; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. p. 29.
76. Of Jerusalem (5). Works
There are several works extant in MSS. in different libraries, the authors of which are called Joannes Hierosolymitanus, especially two works apparently by the same writer on the points of controversy between the Greek and Latin churches,
1. Ἰωάννου Πατριάρχου τῶν Ἱεροδολύμων λόγος διαλεκτικὺς μετά τινος Λαρίνου φιλοδόφου ὃν ἐποιήδατο ἐν Ἱεροδολύμοις περὶ τῶν ἀζύμων, Joannis Patriarchae Hierosolymitani Disputatio de Azymis, quam is in urbe Hierosolymitana cum philosopho quodam Latino habuit.
2. Joannes Patriarcha Hierosolymitanus, de Spirit Sancto. Whether the work described as Joannis Patriarchae Hierosolymitani Liber contra Latinos (Catalog. M Storum Angliae et Hiberniae, vol. ii. pars i. p. 358, No. 9121) is one of the foregoing works or a different one we have no means of ascertaining. The date of the writer is uncertain. Oudin fixes him early in the fifteenth century, when the projects of union between the two churches had revived and inflamed the controversies between them. Further Information
Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. Dissert. Prima, p. 11; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. xi. p. 656; Oudin, de Scriptor. et Scriptis Eccles. vol. iii. col. 2366.
77. Josephus. Works Revision of the Septuagint
Theodoret (Dissert. MS. in Prophetas et Editiones, and Quaestio xxiv. in Exod. and Quaestio x. in Josuam) mentions a Joannes Josephus (Ἰωάννης Ἰώσηπος) as having revised the Septuagint. Ὑπομνηστικὸν, Hypomnesticum s. Commonitorium
Hody thinks it probable that he was the same as Josephus, a Christian [Josephus, No. 12], and author of a work extant in MS., entitled Ὑπομνηστικὸν, Hypomnesticum s. Commonitorium, whom Cave (Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 397) places in the year 420. Further Information
Hody, de Biblior. Textibus Originalibus, 4.3.3; Usher, de Edit. LXX. Interpret. c. vii. p. 78; Hottinger, Dissertationum Theologico Philologicarum Fasciculus, Dis. III. 100.60.9; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. iii. p. 715; Cave, l.c.
78. Italus (Ἰταλὸς), philosopher and heresiarch in the reign of Alexis or Alexius I. Comnenus (A. D. 1081-1118) and his predecessors, derived his name from the country of his birth, Italy. He was the son of an Italian, who engaged as an auxiliary in an attempt of the Sicilians to withdraw from their subjection to the Byzantine emperor, and took with him his son, then a child, who thus spent his early years, not in the schools, but the camp. When the Byzantine commander, George Maniaces, revolted against Constantine X. [Georgius, Historical, No. 15], A. D. 1042, the father of Italus fled back to Italy with his son, who after a time found his way to Constantinople. He had already made some attainments, especially in logic. At Constantinople he pursued his studies under several teachers, and last under Michael Psellus the younger; with whom, however, he soon quarrelled, not being able, according to Anna Comnena, to enter into the subtleties of his philosophy, and being remarkable for his arrogance and disputatious temper. He is described as having a commanding figure, being moderately tall and broad-chested, with a large head, a prominent forehead, an open nostril, and wellknit limbs. He knew the Greek language well, but spoke it with a foreign accent. He acquired the favour of the emperor Michael Ducas (A. D. 1071-1078) and his brothers; and the emperor, when he was contemplating the recovery of the Byzantine portion of Italy, counting on the attachment of Italus, and expecting to derive advantage from his knowledge of that country, sent him to Dyrrachium; but having detected him in some acts of treachery, he ordered him to be removed. Italus, aware of this, fled to Rome; from whence, by feigning repentance, he obtained the emperor's permission to return to Constantinople, where he fixed himself in the monastery of Pege. On the banishment of Psellus from the capital (A. D. 1077), and his enforced entrance on a monastic life, Italus obtained the dignity of Γ̔́πατος τῶμ Φιλοδόφων, or principal teacher of philosophy; and filled that office with great appearance of learning ; though he was better skilled in logic and in the Aristotelian philosophy than in other parts of science, and had little acquaintance with grammar and rhetoric. He was passionate, and ride in disputation, not abstaining even from personal violence ; but eager to acknowledge his impetuosity, and ask pardon for it, when the fit was over. His school was crowded with pupils, to whom he expounded the writings of Proclus and Plato, Iamblichus, Porphyry, and Aristotle. His turbulence and arrogance of spirit seem to have been infectious; for Anna Comnena declares that many seditious persons (τυραννούς) arose among his pupils; but their names she could not remember : they were, however, before the accession of Alexis. The disturbances which arose from the teachings of Italus attracted the emperor's attention apparently soon after his accession; and by his order, Italus, after a preliminary examination by Isaac, the sebastocrator, the brother of Alexis, was cited before an ecclesiastical court. Though protected by the patriarch Eustratius, whose favour lie had won, he narrowly escaped death from the violence of the mob of Constantinople; and he was forced publicly and bareheaded to retract and anathematize eleven propositions, embodying the obnoxious sentiments which he was charged with holding. Cave places these transactions in A. D. 1084. He was charged with teaching the transmigration of souls, with holding some erroneous opinions about ideas, and with ridiculing the use of images in worship; and he is said to have succeeded in diffusing his heresies among many of the nobles and officers of the palace, to the great grief of the orthodox emperor. Notwithstanding his enforced retractation, he still continued to inculcate his sentiments, until, after a vain attempt by the emperor to restrain him, he was himself sentenced to be anathematized; but as he professed repentance, the anathema was not pronounced publicly, nor in all its extent. He afterwards fully renounced his errors, and made the sincerity of his renunciation manifest. The above account rests on the authority of Anna Comnena (Alexias. 5.8, 9, pp. 143-149, ed. Paris, pp. 115-119, ed. Venice, vol. i. pp. 256-267, ed. Bonn), whose anxiety to exalt the reputation of her father, and her disposition to disparage the people of Western Europe, prevents our relying implicitly on her statements, which, however, Le Beau (Bas Empire, 54.81.49) has adopted to their full extent. The anathema pronounced on his opinions is published in the Greek ecclesiastical book Τριώδιον, Triodium (Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. Dissertatio Secunda, p. 38), and from this it is inferred by Du Cange (Nota in Annae Comn. Alexiad.), that his views were not dissimilar to those of the western heretic Abailard. Works
Some works of Italus are extant in MS. 1. Ἐκδόσεις εἰς διάφορα Ζητήματα, Expositiones in varias quas varii proposuerunt Quaestiones, Capp. xciii. s. Responsa ad xciii. Quaestiones philosophicas Miscellaneas. The questions were proposed chiefly by the emperor Michael Ducas and his brother Andronicus. 2. Ἕκδοσις εἰς τὰ Τοπικά, Expositio Topicorum Aristotelis. 3. Περὶ διαλεκτικῆς, De Dialectica. 4. Μέθυδος ῥητορικῆς ἐκδυθεῖδα κατὰ δύνοψιν, Methodus Synoptica Rhetoricae, an art of which Anna Comnena says he was altogether ignorant. 5. Epitome Aristotelis de Interpretutione. 6. Orationes. 7. Synopsis quinque vocum Porphyrii. Further Information
Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. iii. pp. 213, 217, vol. vi. p. 131, vol. xi. pp. 646, 652; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. p. 154; Oudin, Commentar. de Scriptorib. et Scriptis Ecclesiasticis, vol. ii. col. 760; Lambecius, Commentar. de Biblioth. Caesar. ed. Kollar. lib. iii. col. 411, seq. note A.
79. Laurentius or Lydus (the Lydian), or of Philadelphia, or more fully Joannes Laurentius Of Philadelphia, the Lydian (Ἰωάννης Λαυρέντιος Φιλαδελφεὺς ὁ Λυδός), a Byzantine writer of the sixth century. He was born at Philadelphia, in the ancient Lydia, and the Roman province of Asia, A. D. 490. His parents appear to have been of a respectable family, and of considerable wealth. At the age of twenty-one (A. D. 511) he went to Constantinople, and after deliberation determined to enter the civil service of the government as a " memorialis; " and either while waiting for a suitable vacancy, or in the intervals of his official duties, studied the Aristotelian, and a little of the Platonic, philosophy, under Agapius, the disciple of Proclus. By the favour of his townsman Zoticus, praefect of the praetorium under the emperor Anastasius I., he was appointed a tachygraphus or notarius, in the office of the pracfect, in which office his cousin Ammianus had already obtained considerable advancement; and though the praefecture of Zoticus lasted little more than a year, he put Joannes in the way of making 1000 aurei, without any transgression of justice or moderation. Joannes gratefully addressed a poetical panegyric to his patron, which obtainled from the latter a reward of an aureus per line. The kindness of some official persons (Joannes calls them " ab actis") to whom Zoticus recommended him, procured for him, without purchase (a most unusual thing) the post of primus chartularius in their office, which he held with several other employments, labouring most assiduously in the fulfilment of his duties. During this period Zoticus, at the suggestion of Joannes' cousin, Ammianus, obtained for him a wife of pre-eminent modesty and considerable wealth. He concluded his official career in the office of matricularius or cornicularius, which was formerly so profitable as to be conferred as the reward of long service in subordinate situations ; but the circumstances of the times and the necessities of the state had diminished the emoluments of the office, so that Joannes was by no means satisfied with the pecuniary results of this long-coveted climax of forty years' service. The disappointment of his hopes in this respect was, however, somewhat alleviated by marks of distinction, and flattering testimonials of his literary attainments. Works
The latter part of Joannes' life seems to have been wholly devoted to literature; and he received two literary appointments from the emperor Justinian I., one to compose and deliver a panegyrical address to the emperor, in the presence of the chief persons of the capital; the other to write a history of the Persian war or campaign, in which the enemy suffered a signal repulse before Dara. The foregoing particulars are gathered from Joannes' own statements (De Magistratibus, 3.26-30; comp. Hase, de Joanne Lydo ejusque Scriptis Commentarius).
Joannes obtained reputation as a poet (De Magistrat. 100.27, 29), but his poetical compositions are all lost. His encomium on Zoticus and his complimentary address to Justinian are also lost; as well as his history of the Persian war, if ever it was finished, which is not certain. His works, of which many parts are extant, were all written in his old age, and are: 1. Περὶ μηνῶν δυγγραφή, De Mensibus Liber
Of which there are two epitomae or summaries and a fragment extant.
The work de Mensibus is an historical commentary on the Roman calendar, with an account of its various festivals, their occasion and mode of celebration, derived from a great number of authorities, most of which have perished. Of the two summaries of this curious work, the larger one is by an unknown hand, the shorter one by Maximus Planudes. Editions
They were both published by Nicolaus Schow (the shorter one inserted in brackets in the course of the larger), 8vo. Leipzig, 1794, with a fragment, Περὶ δειδμῶν, De Terrae Motibus, of the work De Ostentis.
The Epitomae in a revised text, and with the addition of a Latin version and variorum notes, were published by Roether, 8vo. Leipzig and Darmstadt, 1827. 2. Περὶ ἀρχῶν τῆς Ῥωμαίων πολιτείας, or Περὶ ἀρχῶν πολιτικῶν, De Magistratibus Reipublicae Romanae (s. De Magistratibus Politicis) Libri tres.
The work De Magistratibus was thought to have perished, with the exception of a few glosses given anonymously in the Glossarium ad Scriptores Mediae atque Infimae Graecitatis of Du Cange: for an extract, given as if from it, by Lambecius, in his Animadversiones in Codinum (p. 208, ed. Paris), is really from the De Mensibus. But in or about 1785 a MS. (known as the Codex Caseolinus) was discovered by J. B. d'Ansse de Villoison in the suburbs of Constantinople, and obtained by the Le Comte de Choiseul-Gouffier, then French ambassador in that city, containing about nine-tenths of the work De Magistratibus, three-fourths of that De Ostentis, and two leaves, scarcely legible, of the De Mensibus.
From this MS. the De Magistratibus was published at the cost of M. de Choiseul-Gouffier, and under the editorial care of Dominic Fuss, with a Commentarius de Joanne Lydo ejusque Scriptis, by Ch. Benert. Hase, Paris, 1811. The fragments of the De Ostentis, and the fragment of the De Mensibus, were published from the same MS., but with some alterations, with a preface and a Latin version and notes, by C. B. Hase, 8vo. Paris, 1823. 3. Περὶ διοδημειῶν, De Ostentis,)
The last written of his works. Edition
One of the fragments of the De Ostentis, containing a Greek version by Lydus, of the Ἐφήμερος βροντοκοπία of P. Nigidius Figulus, had been published by Rutgersius (Lectiones Variae, lib. iii. p. 246, &c.), and another fragment, as already noticed, by Nic. Schow. Editions
All the extant portion of the works of Joannes Lydus, with a text revised by Imman. Bekker (8vo. Bonn, 1837), form one of the volumes of the reprint of the Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae. Assessment
Photius mentions the three works, πραγματεῖαι, of Lydus; he criticises his style severely, as too stately and elaborate where simplicity was required, and as mean where greater elevation was appropriate. He charges him also with barefaced flattery of the living, and unjust censure on the dead : and intimates that he was a heathen, yet spoke respectfully of Christianity, whether sincerely or not Photius could not determine. Further Information
Photius, Biblioth. Cod. 180 ; Suidas, s. v. Ἰωάννης Φιλαδελφεὺς Λυδός; Hase, l.c.; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iv. p. 155.
80. Lector. [Anagnostes, and above, No. 3.]
81. Of Lydda, of which city he was bishop A. D. 1194. His only extant work is given in the Miscellanea of Baluze. (Lib. ii. p. 242, or vol. iii. p. 90, ed. Mansi.) It is a Latin letter or Latin version of a letter written by him to Michael, dean of Paris and patriarch elect of Jerusalem. (Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. p. 253.)
82. Lydus, the Lydian. [See No. 79.]
83. Malelas or Malalas. [Malalas.]
84. Marcus. A spurious work, Acta et Passio S. Barnabea in Cypro, professing to be written by Joannes Marcus, or John Mark (Acts. 12.12, 25, 13.5, 13, 15.37, 39), is given with a Latin version in the Acta Sanctorum Junii, vol. ii. p. 431, &c.
85. Maro, so called from the monastery of St. Maro on the Orontes, near Antioch, an eminent ecclesiastic among the Maronites of Syria; and according to some authors, Maronite patriarch of Antioch. He is said to have enjoyed the favour of the emperor Heraclius. Works Commentarius in Liturgiam S. Jacobi
He wrote in Syriac Commentarius in Liturgiam S. Jacobi, of which many extracts have been published. Further Information
Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 537.
86. Mauropus. [See No. 58.]
87. Maxentius. [Maxentius.]
88. Monachus. [See No. 106.]
89. Mochus. [Moschus.]
90. Nepos. [See No. 71.]
91. Nesteuta. [See No. 28.]
92. Of Nicaea (1). Joannes, archbishop of Nice before the 11th century. Works Epistola de Natixitale Domini ad Zachariam in Catholicum Armoeniae
He wrote Epistola de Natixitale Domini ad Zachariam in Catholicum Armoeniae. Editions
This was published with a Latin version in the Noxum Auctarium of Combéfis, vol. ii. p. 298. Further Information
Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. x. p. 238; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. Diseertatio Prima. p. 17.
93. Of Nicaea (2). [See No. 21.]
94. Of Nicomedeia. Joannes, presbyter of the church of Nicomedeia in Bithynia, in the time of Constantine the Great. Works Μαρτύριον τοῦ ἁγίου Βαδιλεως ἐπιδκόπου Ἀμαδείας, Acta Martyrii S. Basilei Episcopi Amasiae
He wrote Μαρτύριον τοῦ ἁγίου Βαδιλεως ἐπιδκόπου Ἀμαδείας, Acta Martyrii S. Basilei Episcopi Amasiae, which is given in the Acta Sanctorum of the Bollandists, Aprilis, vol. iii.; the Latin version in the body of the work (p. 417), with a preliminary notice, by Henschen, and the Greek original in the Appendix (p. 50). An extract from the Latin version, containing the history of the female saint Glaphyra, had been given previously in the same work. (Januar. vol. i. p. 771.) The Latin version of the Acta Martyrii S. Basilei had been already published by Aloysius Lippomani (Vitae Sanctor. Patrum, vol. vii.) and by Surius. (De Probatis Sanctorum Vitis, a. d. 26 Aprilis.) Basileus was put to death about the close of the reign of Licinius, A. D. 322 or 323; and Joannes, who was then at Nicomedeia, professes to have conversed with him in prison. Cave thinks that the Acta have been interpolated apparently by Metaphrastes. Further Information
Acta Sanctorum, ll. cc. ; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 185.
95. Obedientiae Filius. [See No. 28.]
96. Pediasimus. [See No. 61.]
97. Of Philadelphia. [See No. 79.]
98. Philoponus. [Philoponus.]
99. Philosophorum Hypatus v. Magister. [See Nos. 61 and 78.]
100. Phocas (Φοκὰς), a Cretan monk, son of Matthaeus, who became a monk in Patmos. Joannes had served in the army of the emperor Manuel Comnenus (who reigned A. D. 1143-1180) in Asia Minor. Works Ἔκφρασις ἐνδυνόψει τῶν ἀπʼ Ἀντιοχείας μέχρις Ἱεροσολύμων κάδτρων καὶ χωρῶν Συρίας καὶ Φοινίκης καὶ τῶν κατὰ Παλαιστίνην ἁγίων τόπων, Compendiaria Descriptio Castrorum et Urbiumsic in Allat. vers. ab Urbe Antiochia usque Hierosolymam; necnon Syriae ac Phoeniciae, et in Palestina Sacrorum Locorum.
He married, and had a son, by whom his work was transcribed; and afterwards became a monk and priest, and visited (A. D. 1185) Syria and Palestine, of which he wrote a short geographical account, entitled Ἔκφρασις ἐνδυνόψει τῶν ἀπʼ Ἀντιοχείας μέχρις Ἱεροσολύμων κάδτρων καὶ χωρῶν Συρίας καὶ Φοινίκης καὶ τῶν κατὰ Παλαιστίνην ἁγίων τόπων, Compendiaria Descriptio Castrorum et Urbiumsic in Allat. vers. ab Urbe Antiochia usque Hierosolymam; necnon Syriae ac Phoeniciae, et in Palestina Sacrorum Locorum. Editions
The work was published by Allatius, with a Latin version, in his Σύμμικτα, vol. i. pp. 1-46. The Latin version is also given in the Acta Sanctorum of the Bollandists, Maii, vol. ii. ad init. Further Information
Allatius, Σύμμικτα, Praefatiuncula ; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. iv. p. 662, vol. viii. p. 99.
101. Phurnes (Φουρνῆς), a monk of the monastery of Mount Ganus in the reign of the emperor Alexis Comnenus. Works Ἀπολογία, Defensio
He was an opponent of the Latin church, and wrote an Ἀπολογία, Defensio, or Διάλεξις, Disceptatio, a discussion with Peter, archbishop of Milan, in the presence of the emperor. If this is the work which Joannes Veccus cites and replies to in his De Unione Ecclesiarum Oratio (apud Allatium, Graecia Orthodoxa, vol. i. p. 179, &c.), it appears that the form of a dialogue was merely assumed for convenience sake, and that it was not the record of a real conference. Editions
According to Fabricius, Allatius published in his work De Consensu (sc. De Ecclesiae Occidetalis et Orientalis Perpetua Consensione), p. 1153awork of Joannes, which is described as Epistola de Ritibus immutatis in Sacra Communione. Works extant in MS.
Other works of Joannes are extant in MS. Further Information
Allatius, Graec. Orthodox. l.c.; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. xi. pp. 648, 650.
102. Plusiadenus. [Josephus, No. 13.]
103. Protospatharius, a writer of uncertain date. Works A Brief Commentary on the Opera et Dies of Hesiod
wrote for the use of his son Ἐξήγησις φυσικὴ τῶν ἡμερῶν Ἡσιόδου, a brief commentary on the Opera et Dies of Hesiod. Editions
We are not aware that it has been published. Further Information
Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. i. p. 576.]
104. Raithuensis, or Raithenus, i. e. of Raithus or Raithu (τοῦ Ῥαϊθοῦ), hegumenos or abbot of a monastery at Elim, or the Seventy Springs, on the western coast of the peninsula of Mount Sinai, lived in the sixth century, and was the friend of Joannes, surnamed Climacus. [Climacus.] Works Ἐπιστολὴ τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἡγουμένου τοῦ Ῥαϊθοῦ, Litterae Joannis Raithuensis
It was at the desire of Raithuensis that Climacus wrote the work Κλίμαξ, Scala Paradisi, from which he derives his name, and to which Raithuensis wrote a Commendatio and Scholia. Editions
The Ἐπιστολὴ τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἡγουμένου τοῦ Ῥαϊθοῦ, Litterae Joannis Raithuensis, addressed to Climacus, requesting him to undertake the work, and the answer of Climacus, are given by Raderus in the original Greek, with a Latin version, in his edition of the works of Climacus, fol. Paris, 1633.
This version of the Litterae of Raithuensis, and a Latin version of his Commendatio and Scholia, are given in various editions of the Bibliotheca Patrum.
The Litterae are given in vol. iii. ed. Paris, 1575.
the Litterae and Commendatio, vol. v. ed. Paris, 1589 and 1654.
the Litterae s. Epistola, Commendatio, and Scholia, in vol. vi. pt. ii. ed. Cologne, 1618; and vol. x. ed. Lyon, 1677. Further Information
Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. ix. pp. 523-524; Ittigius, De Bibliothecis Patrum.
105. Rhetor (Ῥήτωρ), an historian of the earlier Byzantine period, frequently cited by Evagrius. H. E. 1.16, 2.12, 3.10, 28, 4.5.) As most if not all, of the particulars for which Evagrius refers to him relate to Antioch, and some of them imply considerable local knowledge, it is probable that Joannes was a resident in that town, if not a native of it. His history, which is not extant, comprised the period from the beginning of the reign of Theodosius II. to the earthquake and fire by which Antioch was in a great degree destroyed, A. D. 526, with an account of which calamities John "mournfully" closed his history. He must have lived, therefore, about that time, or between that and the time of Evagrius, A. D. 593 or 594. [Evagrius, No. 3.] Joannes Rhetor is not to be confounded with Joannes of Epiphaneia [see No. 56], as he has been by Vossius. (Evagrius, ll. cc., with the notes of Valesius; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 508.)
106. Of St. Saba. Works Ὁ Βίος Βαρλαὰμ καὶ Ἰωασάφ, Barlaami et Joasaphi Vita
There is extant in the various European libraries a religious romance, or, as some have regarded it, a history, Ὁ Βίος Βαρλαὰμ καὶ Ἰωασάφ, Barlaami et Joasaphi Vita, as yet unpublished, except in versions, especially in an ancient Latin version, De Barlaam et Josaphat Historia, to which, in the printed editions, the name of Georgius Trapezuntius is often prefixed, but which is much more ancient than the time in which he lived [Georgius, No. 48], and is ascribed by some to Anastasius Bibliothecarius, a writer of the 8th century. The work professes to contain the account of the conversion of Joasaph or Josaphat, son of Abenner, an idolatrous and sensual Indian king, and a persecutor of the Christian monks of India, because they had induced some of his nobles to forsake a luxurious life, and become solitaries. Joasaph, a youth pursuing his studies, was converted by Barlaam, a Christian, with whom he met, and whose various instructions to him are given at considerable length. Suspicion arising from their frequent conferences, Barlaam was compelled to fly, and Josaphat had to encounter reproaches from his father, and temptations, by which it was hoped to lead him into sin. He succeeded in converting his principal opponents, and at length his father, on whose death he came to the throne, but soon resigned it, retired to solitude, and lived many years with his old friend Barlaam, whom he succeeded in finding. On the death of Barlaam he buried him, and on his own death was buried near him. Authorship
The writer professes to have derived his narrative from some pious men of Aethiopia Interior, "quos Indos vocant;" and is himself described in MSS. as Ἰωάννης μοναχὸς ἀνὴρ τίμιος καὶ ἐνάρετος μονῆς τοῦ ἁγίου Σάβα, "John the Monk, an honourable and virtuous man of the monastery of St. Saba." It is ascribed by some, especially by Billy, who argues the point at some length, to Joannes Damascenus [Damascenus], who was a monk of St. Saba; but Le Quien did not include it in his edition of the works of that father. Others ascribe it to a Joannes Sinaita or Joannes of Mt. Sinai, others to Joannes Climacus. [Climacus.] Editions
The Latin version has been published, however, by other editors among the works of Damascenus, and separately by Billy, 12mo. Antwerp, 1602. There are two more ancient editions, one a small folio in black letter, the other in 4to.: neither of them have any indication of time or place. There are also two ancient editions, one in black letter, printed at Augsburg about A. D. 1470; the other also at Augsburg, perhaps about A. D. 1477. Further Information
Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. viii. p. 144, vol. ix. p. 737; Lambecius, Comment. de Biblioth. Caesarea, lib. viii. col. 14, &c., ed. Kollar; Panzer, Annal. Typograph. vol. iii. p. 30, No. 67, vol. iv. p. 93, No. 158; Denis, Annal. Typog. Maittaire, Supplement, p. 505, Nos. 4331, 4332, p. 593, Nos. 5194, 5195.
107. Sapiens. [See No. 48.]
108. Scholasticus. [See below, Joannes, Jurists, No. 4.]
109. Scholasticus. [See No. 111.]
110. Scylitzes Curopalata. [Scylitzes.]
111. Of Scythopolis, a Greek ecclesiastical writer, apparently of the latter end of the fifth century or the beginning of the sixth. Works Contra desertores Ecclesiae
He wrote a work against the followers of Eutyches and Dioscorus, entitled Κατὰ τῶν ἀποσχιστῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας, Contra desertores Ecclesiae. It was divided into twelve parts, and was undertaken at the suggestion of a certain prelate, one Julianus, in reply to an anonymous Eutychian writer, who had published a book deceitfully entitled Κατὰ Νεστορίον, Adversus Nestorium, and whom Photius supposed to be Basilius, a presbyter of Cilicia. This Basilius wrote a reply to Joannes in very abusive style, charging him, among other things, with being a Manichaean, and with restricting Lent to a period of three weeks, and not abstaining from flesh even in that shortened period. Scholia
Certain Παραθέσεις, Scholia, to the works of the pseudo Dionysius Areopagita, which Usher has observed to be mingled in the printed editions of Dionysius with the Scholia of St. Maximus, have been ascribed to Joannes of Scythopolis. Anastasius Bibliothecarius in the eighth century made a Latin translation of these mingled scholia, not now extant, in which he professed to distinguish those of Maximus from those of Joannes by the mark of a cross. Fabricius identifies the Scholia of Joannes with the Commentarii in Dionysium Arcopagitum cited by Joannes Cyparissiota as by Dionysius of Alexandria. Further Information
Phot. Bibl. cod. 95, 107; Usher, Dissert. de Scriptis Dionys. Areop. suppositis, p. 299, subjoined to his Historia Dogmatica de Scripturis, &c. Vernaculis, 4to. Lond. 1689; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. vii. p. 9, vol. x. pp. 707, 710; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 466.
112. Siculus, or of Sicily, author of a Greek Chronicon, extending from the creation to the end of the reign of Michael III., the son of Theophilus, or to A. D. 866. It was formerly extant in the library of the Elector Palatine, and was used by Sylburgius, as he says in the preface to his Saracenica ; it is probably still extant in the Vatican library at Rome. Mongitore mentions one other copy, if not more. It is probable that he is the author cited by Cedrenus in his Compendium (Prooem.) as ὁ Σικελιώτης, but this is not clear. A Joannes Siculus, apparently the same, is enumerated among the Christian commentators on Hermogenes. (Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. vii. p. 471; Voss. de Historicis Graecis, 4.21; Mongitore, Bibliotheca Sicula,vol. i. p. 313.)
113. Of Sinai. [Climacus, and No. 106.]
114. Sylvanus. [See No. 72.]
115. Talaia, or Talaida, otherwise Tabennisiota (Ταβεννισιώτης), from the monastery of Tabenna, near Alexandria; or of Alexandria, from his patriarchal see; or, from the offices which he had previously held, Oeconomus (οἰκόνομος) and Presbyter. This ecclesiastic was sent by the advice of some of the Alexandrians on a mission to the Emperor Zeno (about A. D. 478-480), that in case of a vacancy in the patriarchate of that city, then held by Timotheus Salophaciolus, a defender of the council of Chalcedon, the clergy and laity of Alexandria might be allowed to choose his successor. According to Evagrius (or rather according to Zacharias Rhetor whom Evagrius cites as his authority) Joannes was detected in intrigues to obtain his own appointment in the event of a vacancy : perhaps his connection with Illus [Illus], whose friendship, according to Liberatus, he cultivated by costly presents, excited the jealousy and apprehensions of the emperor. However this might be, though Zeno granted to the Alexandrians the liberty which they had requested, he bound Joannes by a solemn oath not to seek the succession for himself. Soon after the return of Joannes, Tinothus Salophaciolus died (A. D. 48 1), and Joannes was elected to succeed him, but was almost immediately expelled from his see by order of the emperor. The cause of his expulsion is differently stated. Liberatus says that he was expelled mainly through the jealousy of Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, to whom on different occasions he had failed in paying due attention. According to Evagrius, who quotes Zacharias as his authority, he was detected in having procured his own election by bribery, and thus breaking the oath which the emperor had constrained him to take. The circumstances of the times make it probable that his connection with Illus, then the object of jealousy and suspicion to Zeno, if not actually in rebellion against him [Illus], had much to do with his expulsion, and was perhaps the chief cause of it. Joannes, expelled from Alexandria, first resorted to Illus, then at Antioch; and having through his intervention obtained from the patriarch of Antioch and his suffragans a synodical letter commending him to the Pope (Simplicius), departed to Rome to plead his cause there in person. Simplicius, with the usual papal jealousy of the patriarchs of Constantinople, took the side of Joannes against Acacius and Zeno, the latter of whom replied that Joannes had been expelled for perjury, and for that alone; but neither the exertions of Simplicius nor those of his successor Felix, could obtain the restoration of the banished patriarch. Joannes after a time accepted from Felix the bishopric of Nola in Campania, where he lived many years, and at last died peaceably.
Joannes (whom Theophanes extols for his piety and orthodoxy) wrote a work, Πρὸς Γελάσιον τὸν Ῥώμης ἀπολογία, Ad Gelasium Papam Apologia, in which he anathematized Pelagianism, as well as its defenders Pelagius and Celestius, and their successor Julianus. The work which is noticed by Photius is not extant. (Victor Tununensis, Chronicon ;; Liberatus Diaconus, Breviarium Caussae Nesterianor. et Eutychianor., capp. 16-18 (apud Galland. Biblioth. Patrum, vol. xii. p. 146, &c.) ; Evagrius, H. E. 3.12, 13, 15, 18, 20, cum notis Valesii; Theophanes, Chronographia, pp. 110-113, ed. Paris, pp. 88-90, ed. Venice, pp. 199-204, ed. Bonn; Photius, Biblioth. cod. 54, sub fin. ; Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. xvi.; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 455.)
116. Of Thessalonica (1). Joannes, archbishop of Thessalonica, was a stout defender of the orthodox faith against the Monothelites of the seventh century. He attended as papal legate the third Constantinopolitan (sixth oecumenical) council (A. D. 680), and in that character subscribed the Acta of the council. (Concilia, vol. vi. col. 1058, ed. Labbe; vol. iii. col. 1425, ed. Hardouin; vol. xi. col. 639, ed. Mansi.) The time of his death is altogether uncertain. Works
He wrote: 1. Εἰς τὸς μυροφόρους γυναῖκας, In Mulieres ferentes Unguenta, a discourse or treatise in which his object is to show that there is no contradiction in the several accounts of the resurrection of Christ given by the four Evangelists. This piece appears to have been regarded by some as a work of Chrysostom. Editions
This was first published (but from a mutilated and corrupt text) by Savile in his edition of Chrysostom (vol. v. p. 740, fol. Eton. 1610, &c.), though with an expression of doubt as to its genuineness. It was subsequently printed more correctly in the Novum Auctarium of Combéfis (vol. i. fol. Paris, 1648), and by him assigned to the right author. It is given in a mutilated form in Montfaucon's edition of Chrysostom, among the Spuria, vol. viii. p. 159, fol. Paris, 1718, &c., or vol. viii. p. 816 of the 8vo. reprint, Paris, 1839. It is also given in the Bibliotheca Patrum of Gallandius, vol. xiii. p. 185, &c. A Latin version is given in the Biblioth. Patrum, vol. xii. Lyon, 1677. 2. Λόγος, Oratio,
A considerable extract of this was read by Nicolaus, bishop of Cyzicus at the second Nicene (seventh oecumenical) council. Editions
This is printed in the Concilia (vol. vii. col. 353, ed. Labbe, vol. iv. col. 292, ed. Hardouin, vol. xiii. col. 163, ed. Mansi), and by Gallandius in his Bibliotheca Patrum (vol. xiii. p. 196). Further Information
Gallandius, ll. cc.; Concilia, ll. cc. ; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 597; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. x. p. 250.
117. Of Thessalonica (2), the younger. Works Hymnus ad Deum et ad gloriosum Demetrium cum particulari narratione miraculorum ejus
A fragment of a discourse which was entitled Αἱ τοῦ ἀθλοφόρου Δημητρίου ἐν μερικῖ διηγήσει Θαυματουργίαι, Triumphalis Martyris Demetrü sigillatim nurrata Miracula, or Υ̓́μνος εἰς Θεὸν καὶ εἰς τὸν πανένδοξον ἀθλοφόρον Δημήτριυν ἐν μερικῆ διηγήσει τῶν αὐτοῦ Δαυμάτων, Hymnus ad Deum et ad gloriosum Demetrium cum particulari narratione miraculorum ejus, Confusion with the elder Joannes of Thessalonica
Combéfis describes this as the work of Joannes, archbishop of Thessalonica, whom he apparently confounds with the subject of the preceding article, and erroneously places in the reign of the emperors Justinian I. and Maurice. Combéfis (whom Cave follows) is, however, manifestly in error, for the extract itself refers to the capture of the city " many years before" by " the children of the handmaid, that is, Hagar," "in the reign of Leo." This can hardly be any other capture than that by the Saracens of Tripoli, in the reign of Leo VI. (Sapiens or Philosophus) A. D. 904, and consequently the Joannes of Thessalonica from whom the extract is taken could not have lived earlier than the tenth century, and must therefore be a different person from the author of the preceding article. Editions
Combéfis gives this as the work of the elder Joannes of Thessalonica in the Paris edition of the Byzantine writers, among the Scriptores post Theophanem, p. 314, &c.
Gallandius reprints the extract with the works of the preceding (Bibl. Patrum, vol. xiii. p. 195), but intimates in his Prolegomena, c. iv., that it can hardly be by the same author.
It is not given in the Bonn reprint of the Byzantine writers. It is probable that Combéfis, by confounding the work of Joannes with an anonymous account of a deliverance of Thessalonica, through the miraculous interposition of Demetrius, when besieged by barbarians, probably Avars, in the reign of the emperor Maurice, was led into error. Further Information
Gallandius, ll. cc.; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 597; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. vii. p. 683, vol. x. pp. 218, 219; Allatius, de Symeonum Scriptis, p. 97.
118. Of Thessalonica (3). [Cameniata.]
119. Of Thessalonica (4). [Anagnostes.]
120. Tzetzes. [Tzetzes.]
121. Veccus or Beccus. [Veccus.]
122. Xiphilinus (1). Patriarch of Constantinople. [Xiphilinus, 1.]
123. Xiphilinus (2). [Xiphilinus, 2.]
124. Zonaras. [Zonaras.] [J.C.M]
jurists.
1. Comes Sacrarh, under Theodosius the younger, was one of the nine commissioners appointed by that emperor in A. D. 429 to compile codes of law upon a plan which was subsequently abandoned. He was not, however, afterwards employed in compiling the Theodosian code, of which a great part is still extant. [Diodorus, Vol. I. p. 1018.]
2. Was at the head of the first commission of ten appointed by Justinian in A. D. 528 to compile the Constitutionum Codex. In Const. Haec quae necessario, § 4, and Const. Summa Reipublicae, § 2, he is designated by the title "Vir excellentissimus ex-quaestore sacri palatii, consularis atque patricius." In the subsequent revision of the code he had no part, though a person of the same name was one of the second commission of five.
3. An advocate in the courts of the praefecti praetoriorum at Constantinople, was one of the commission of sixteen, headed by Tribonian, who were employed by Justinian (A. D. 530-533) to compile the Digest. (Const. Tunta, § 9, Const. Δέδωκεν, § 9.) He is a different person from the Joannes who was at the head of the commission appointed to compile the first Constitutionum Codex. Works repetita praelectio codis
It appears from Const. Cordi, § 2, that he was one of the commission of five, headed by Tribonian, who drew up the repetita praelectio codis, which was published in A. D. 534.
4. Antiochenus and Scholasticus, from his native place Antioch, and the profession of advocate, which he once exercised there (ἀπὸ σχολαστικῶν).
At a later period of his life he entered into holy orders, and was ordained priest. He was then named Apocrisiarius, agent or chargé d'affaires of the church of Antioch at the imperial court in Constantinople towards the end of the reign of Justinian. In A. D. 565 he was elevated to the vacant patriarchate of Constantinople, and he died on the 31st of August, A. D. 578, in the 12th year of the reign of Justin the younger. (Theophanes, Chronographia, p. 203, fol. Par. 1655, Assemani, Bibl. Jur. Orient. vol. iii. p. 340-343.) Works Συναγωγὴ κανόνων εἰς ϝ́ τίτλους διηρημένη
Joannes published a collection of canons in 50 titles. Assemani (vol. i. p. 114) thinks that it was published and prescribed by him as a rule to the bishops of the patriarchate, after he was made patriarch. In the preface to the work, however, he himself assumes no higher rank than presbyter.
This collection is entitled Συναγωγὴ κανόνων εἰς ϝ́ τίτλους διηρημένη, and is founded on the basis of a previous collection, which is attributed by some manuscripts to Stephanus Ephesius. It consists chiefly of decrees of early councils, and letters of St. Basil. The Συναγωγή of Joannes (which was one of the earliest compilations of the kind) enjoyed for some centuries great credit in the Oriental church, received from time to time corrections and additions, and was translated into several foreign languages. Assemani (vol. i. p. 60) cites the Syrian translation: Biener (de Collectionibus Canonum), p. 49) treats of the Sclavonic translation; and Beveridge (Synodicon, p. 211) mentions an Egyptian collection of Abnalcassabi in 51 titles, resembling that of Joannes. The Συναγωγή of Joannes is printed in Voelli et Justelli Bibliotheca Jur. Canson. vol. ii. p. 499-602.
A collection of 87 chapters, intended as a supplement to the former Συναγωγή, was published (if we may credit the title to the work) by Joannes, after he was in possession of the metropolitan throne, and after the death of Justinian. It was published, therefore, between A. D. 565 and 578. As the former collection contained the rules of purely ecclesiastical origin (κανόνες), the present was intended to comprehend the enactments of the civil law (νόμοι) relating to the affairs of the church, and was compiled from the Novells of Justinian. Joannes makes abridged extracts from Novells 3, 5, 6, 32, 46, 56, 57, 83, 120, 123, 131, usually employing the words of the original text.
These 87 chapters have in several catalogues of manuscripts been wrongly attributed to Balsamo. Some notices of their contents, and some extracts from them, were given by Assesmani (Bibl. Jur. Orrient. vol. ii. p. 451-459) : and Biener has treated of them wi th his usual sagacity and learning. (Geschichte der Novellen, p. 167-173, p. 584-597.) They were first printed at length by Heimbach in 1840. (Anecdota, vol. ii.) Nomocanon
A Nomocanon (combination of κανόνες and νόμοι) in 50 titles, with a supplement of 21 chapters, was subsequently compiled from the two works of Joannes.
This compilation has been wrongly attributed to Joannes himself. The author of it is uncertain, but it was probably composed by Theodoretus, bishop of Cyrrhus (now Kheros, in Syria). The 87 chapters of Joannes were much referred to by subsequent compilers, as by Arsenius in his Synopsis Canonum.. Editions
printed in Voel. et Justell. Bibl. Jur. Canon. vol. ii. p, 603-672) Further Information
Heimbach, Anecdota, vol. ii. in Prolegomenis; Zachariae, Hist. Jur. Gr. Rom. Delin. § 22; Mortreueil, Histoire du Droit Byzantin, vol. i. p. 201-211, p. 288; Böcking, Institutionen, vol. i. p. 102, 103.
5. Nomophylax. He is commonly called a scholiast on the Basilica, but was rather a jurist, whose Scholia are appended to that work. In the heading of the Scholia taken from Joannes he is called, from his office, Joannes Nomophylax, and sometimes κατ̓ ἐξοχήν. Nomophylax alone. In the Scholia (vol. ii. p 549-648, vol. iii. p. 400, ed. Fabrot.) he appears to cite the text of the Basilica; and Assemani (Bibl. Jur. Orient. vol. ii. p. 415) believes him to have lived about A. D. 1100, under Alexius Comnenus; while Suarez (Notit. Basil. § 42) confounds him with Joannes Antiochenus. In his Scholia appended to the Basilica, he interprets passages in the Digest, the Code, and the Novells. (Schol. Basil. vol. ii. pp. 544, 558, 559, 587, vol. iii. pp. 360, 390, vol. iv. pp. 658, 662.) Constantinus Nicaeus (who, in Basil. vol. iii. p. 208, calls himself a disciple of Stephanus) cites Joannes Nomophylax, with whom he disagrees. ((Basil. vol. ii. p. 549.) Joannes is coupled with Dorotheus in Basil. vol. v. p. 410. In Basil. vol. iii. p. 360, and vol. ii. p. 587, we find him citing Athanasius and Theodorus Hermopolita. From these indications, we believe him to have lived not long after the reign of Justinian, and would explain his apparent citations of the Basilica by supposing that his original citations of the Digest were subsequently adapted to the Basilica--a charge which was frequently made, and which has occasioned much chronological difficulty. Many of the jurists, whose fragments appear appended to the Basilica, have, for this reason, been referred to too late an age. Thus, every circumstance tends to show that Constantinus Nicaeus, who cites Joannes, lived before the compilation of the Basilica, if we except his supposed citations of the Basilica, and of the στοιχείον of Garidas. Further Information
Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. xii. p. 447; Reiz. ad Theophilum, p. 1236; Pohl, ad Suares. Notit. Basil. p. 138. n. B; Heimbach, de Orig. Basil. p. 87. [J.T.G]
a physician of Alexandria, who may be supposed to have lived in the seventh or eighth century after Christ. Works
Under his name are extant some commentaries on two works of the Hippocratic Collection. Commentaries on De Morbis Popularibus
The commentary on the sixth book De Morbis Popularibus is said to have been translated from Greek into Arabic, and from thence into Latin. Editions
A Latin version is to be found, together with Henain Ibn Ishak (commonly called by his Latinised name, Joannitius), and other authors, in the edition of the collection called Articella, printed at Venice, 1483, fol., and in other editions. De Natura Paeri Editions
His commentary on the De Natura Paeri, which is imperfect, was first published in Greek in the second vol. of Dietz's Schol. in Hippocr. et Gal. Regim. Pruss. 8vo. 1834. Further Information
See Fabric. Bibl. Gr vol. xii. pp. (687-88, ed. vet.) [W.A.G]
4. was high-priest B. C. 135-106. He did not assume the title of king, but was to all intents and purposes an independent monarch. His life is given under HYRCANUS. He was succeeded by his son,