which is of little moment, may ha\ i- 'mated either text of the Bibliotheca was formed on a collation of four
in the mistake of Photius himself, or in some alteration MSS., and was accompanied with nous by the editor; of the divisions by some transcriber. It has been hut there was no Latin version. A I. at in version and doubted whether we have the work entire. An extant scholia, by Andreas Schottus of Antwerp, wen- pub- analysis, by Photius, of the f/isforia Ecclesiastica of lished (ibid. L606, fol.); bul the version is inaccurate. Philostorgius (q. v.), by which alone some knowledge and has been severely criticised. It was. however, re- of the contents of thai important work has been pre- printed, with the Greek text, under the title of $<i>riou Berved to us, is so much fuller than the brief analysis of Mvp(o/3t/3\ov f) Bt/3\iodi)Kn, Photii Myriobiblon sive that work contained in the present text of the Bibli- Bibliotheca (Geneva, 1612, fol., and Rouen, 1653, fol.). <>t In ni, as i o lead to i he supposition that the tatter is im- This last edition is a splendid one, but inconvenient from perfect, "Ii is to be lamented," Bays Valesius (A its size. An edition, with a revised text, formed on a col- Critica, i, 29), " that many such abridgments and col- lation of four MSS. (whether any of them were the same lections of extracts are now lost. If these were extant as those employed by Hceschelius is not mentioned . was in the state in which they were completed by Photius, published by Emmanuel Bekker | Berlin, 1824 25, 2 thin we should grieve less at the Loss of so many ancient vols.4to): it is convenient from its size and the copious- writers." But Leiche has shown {Diatribt in Phot, ness of its index, but has neither version nor notes.
PHOTIUS
169
PHOTIUS
2. 'ETriTOfil) IK TWV tKK\7](TUtGTIKWV 'iffTOptWV $l\o-
(TTopyiov otto (pwvijc, <&wtwv Trarputpxov, Compendium Histories Ecclesiastics L'hilostorgii quod dictavil Pho- tius patriarcha. Cave regards this as a fragment of another work similar to the Bibliotheca, but his con- jecture rests on no solid foundation. The Compendium is of great importance as preserving to us, though very imperfectly, an Arian statement of the ecclesiastical transactions of the busy period of the Arian controversy in the 4th century. It was first published, with a Latin version and copious notes, by Jacobus Gothofredus (Go- defroi) (Geneva, 1643, 4to) ; and was reprinted with the other ancient Greek ecclesiastical historians by Henri- cus Valesius (Henri Yalois) (Paris, 1G73, fol.) and by Reading (Cambridge, 1720, fob).
3. ~No[ioKavwv or ~Ho[ioicavovov, Xomocanon, s. No- mocanonon, s. Nomocanonus, s. Canonum Ecclesiastico- rum et Legum Imperialium de Ecclesictstica Disciplina Conciliatio s. Harmonia. This work-, which bears am- ple testimony to the extraordinary legal attainments of its author, is arranged under fourteen tit\oi, Tituli, and was prefixed to a ^vvraypa twv kgvovwv, Cano- num Syntagma, or collection of the Canones of the apos- tles and of the ecclesiastical councils recognised by the Greek Church, compiled by Photius; from which cir- cumstance it is sometimes called UpoKarwv, Procanon. It has been repeatedly published, with the commenta- ries of Theodore Balsamon, who strongly recommended it, in preference to similar works of an earlier date : it appeared in the Latin version of Gentianus Hervetus (Paris. 1561, fol.), and in another Latin version of Hen- ricus Agylanis (Basle, 1561, fol.), and in the original Greek text with the version of Agylseus, edited by Christophorus Justellus (Paris, 1615, 4to). It was re- printed, with the version of Agylseus, in the Bibliotkeca Juris Canonici, published by Guillelmus Yoellus and Henricus Justellus (Paris, 1661, fol.), ii, 785, etc. The Nomocanon of Photius was epitomized in the kind of verses called politici by Michael Psellus, whose work was published, with one or two other of his pieces, by Franciscus Bosquetus (Paris, 1632, 8vo).
4. Ylipi twv C otKovptviKwv ffvv6So)v, De Septem Conci/iis (Ecumenicis. This piece subjoined, with a Latin version, to the Nomocanon in the Paris editions of 1615 and 1661, and often published elsewhere, is really part of one of the Epislolce of Photius, and is no- ticed in our account of them.
5. 'EnnTToXai, Epistola?. There are extant a con- siderable number of the letters of Photius. The MSS. containing them are enumerated by Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. xi, 1 1). It is much to be regretted that no com- plete collection of them has been published. David Hoeschelius subjoined to his edition of the Bibliotheca (Augsburg, 1601, fob), mentioned above, thirty-five let- ters selected from a MS. collection which had belonged to Maximus Margunius, bishop of Cerigo, who lived about the end of the 16th century. One consolatory letter to the nun Eusebia on her sister's death was pub- lished by Conrad Rittershausius. with a Latin version, with some other pieces (Niirnberg, 1601, 8vo). But the largest collection is that prepared with a Latin ver- sion and notes by Kichard Mountagu (Latinized Mon- tacutius), bishop of Norwich, and published after his death ( Loud. 1651, fob). The Greek text was from a MS. in the Bodleian Library. The collection comprehends two hundred and forty-eight letters translated by the bishop, and a supplement of five letters brought from the East by Christianus Eavius, of which also a Latin version by another person is given. The first letter in Mountagu's collection is addressed to Michael, prince of the Bulgarians, on the question Tt iariv tpyov cip- X°vTog, De Officio Principis: it is very long, and con- tains the account of the seven general councils already mentioned (No. 4), as subjoined to the printed editions of the Nomocanon. This letter to prince Michael was translated into French verse by Bernard, a Theatin monk, dedicated to Louis XV, and published (Paris,