if not a decisive argument against the priority and
originality of Cedrenus. The title of the work
from which this Prooemium is taken is thus given
by Montfaucon, from the MS., (
Greek characters),
Synopsis Historiarum Scripta a Joanne Scylitze Curopalata et Magno Drungario Vigiliae. On the other
hand Cedrenus is a professed compiler : his work,
which is also called (Greek characters) Synopsis Historiarum, is avowedly described in the title as
(Greek characters), "ex diversis Libris collecta." The Prooemium is so far identical with
that of Scylitzes as to show that one has been
tJiKen from the other, and adapted to the borrower's
purpose. In a passage, however, peculiar to Ce-
drenus, he quotes as one of his chief authorities, a
certain Joannes Protovestiarius, surnamed Thrace-
Bius, whose manner of writing he describes in the
very terms in which Scylitzes, in his Prooemium^
had laid down his own principles of composition.
The point at which Cedrenus describes the history
of this Joannes Thracesius as commencing, is pre-
cisely that at which the history of Scylitzes begins.
There can, therefore, we think, be no reasonable
doubt that Joannes Thracesius and Joannes Scy-
litzes are the same person ; and their identity is
further established by a short piece in the Jus
Graeco-Romanuvi of Leunclavius, mentioned below,
in the title of which Joannes Thracesius is called
Curopolata and Magnus Drungarius Vigiliarum.
It is clear also that he wrote before Cedrenus; and
that the latter borrowed from him; and this is now
the general conclusion of competent judges, includ-
ing Vossius, Hankius, Pontunus, Goar, Labbe,
Lambecius, and Fabricius. It may be observed,
however, that no other discredit than that of being
a mere compiler justly attaches to Cedrenus from
this circumstance : he did not profess to be more
than a compiler, and has fairly owned his obliga-
tions both to Scylitzes, assuming the latter to be
identical with Joannes Thracesius, and to other
writers from whom he borrowed. Had Scylitzes,
who does not mention Cedrenus, borrowed as
largely from the latter and concealed his obliga-
tion, he would have justly incurred the reproach
of endeavouring to deck himself out with stolen
plumage.
The question whether Scylitzes published two editions of his history, though less important, de- serves notice. Vossius,Hankius, and other critics con- tend that he did. Their opinion appears to rest on these circumstances : that, in the Latin translation of Scylitzes by Gabius (of which presently), the his- tory is said in the title-page to extend to the reign of Isiiac Comnenus, "ad imperium Isaaci Comneni : " that Cedrenus, who, in the latter part of his work, transcribes Scylitzes, brings down his work only to A. D. 1057, and that, in speaking of Joannes Thra- cesius, he gives him the title of Protovestiarius, while in the MSS. of Scylitzes' own work he has the titles of Curopalata and Magnus Drungarius Vigiliarum ; and the work itself comes down to about 1080. From these premises it is inferred that Scylitzes first held the office of Protovestiarius, and during that time published a first edition of his work, coming down to a. d. 1057 ; and that afterwards he attained the dignities of Curopalata and Drungarius, and then published a second edition brought down to a later period. But this reasoning is not satisfactory. The title of Gabius's version is a manifest error, for the version itself comes down, as does the printed Greek text, to the reign of Nicephorus Botaniotes. Gabius apparently translated the title of the MS. which he used ; and the name of Isaac Comnenus is probably an error (either of the transcriber of the MS. or of the translator) for Alexius Comnenus, Botaniotes' suc- cessor, to whose accession, as we shall presently see, the history extended in the author's purpose, if not in his performance. The earlier cessation of Cedrenus narrative may be otherwise accounted for. It may be questioned whether he ever finished his work ; or whether, if he did, his work is extant in its entire form (comp. Vossius, de Historicis Graec. lib. ii. c. xxvi. ubi de Cedren.) : the actual conclu- sion is abrupt ; and the point at which it terminates partakes not of the character of an historical epoch. To tliis it may be added that the extant work of Scylitzes, which is assumed to be the second edition, does not make any reference to a former edition, or bear any mark of a continuation having been ap- pended at the place where the supposed first edition concluded. Another consideration which weighs with us is this ; that the title of Protovestiarius was, in the scale of Byzantine rank, above those of Curopalata and Drungarius ; and was, therefore, it is reasonable to suppose, the last attained (comp. Codinus, de Official. Palat. CPolit. c. ii.). We see no reason, then, to suppose that there was more than one edition.
It remains to be considered at what date the history of Scylitzes was written, and to how late a period it extended. The abruptness of the termi- nation of the work, as printed, in the middle of the short reign of Nicephorus Botaniotes, shows that we have it in an incomplete form, whether so left by the author or derived from an imperfect copy. A MS. in the Imperial Library at Vienna, fully described by Kollar {Supplement ad Lamhecii Com- mentar. lib. i. p. 613, &c.), contains a variety of chronological and other tables, probably compiled by Scylitzes (and which we shall presently notice), and a copy of his Synopsis Historiarum, written, as Kollar judges, early in the twelfth century. This MS. is mutilated at the end of Scylitzes' Sy7iopsisy so as to prevent our ascertaining at what point the history concluded. But a list of Byzantine sove- reigns of both sexes, bearing the inscription ol tV r'fjde rrj fiig^cf duayeypaixjxeyoi Paaie7s uaiv cZtoi, Imperatores quorum Res in hoc Libra sunt conscriptae, sunt hi, ends with 'AAe|ios o Ko/jLut^vos, cTTj A^' iJLTJvas 8' -nixepas tS', tJ yvvrj auTov Ei'prjrrj, Alexius Comnenus, annis septem et triginta, men- sibus quaiuor, dicbus quatiiordecim. Uxor ejus Irene. From this passage Kollar inferred that the history included the whole reign of Alexius, and that the author must have written after its close in A. D. 1118. But this inference, so far as it respects the close of the history, is contradicted by the title of the history itself, which describes it as reXev- Twcra Is rrjv duayopevaiu 'AAe^iou rov Konvrjvovj In Alexii Comneni Coronatione desinens. The his- tory then included, or was intended to include, not the whole reign of Alexius, but only its commence- ment ; though the extant, at least the published copies do not reach even this point, thus evidencing their incompleteness. The writer, therefore, must have liYed after the commencement ; and, if he was the author of the table of sovereigns, after the close of the reign of Alexius : but it may be doubted whether that table was not added, or the length of
