No More Learning

p. 179, ed. anecdote with a variation, which makes Leo re-
Amsterdam, 1699. )
markable, not for his corpulence, but for his dimi-
4. Of ALABANDA, in Caria, a rhetorical and nutive stature: and Athenaeus (xii. pp. 550, 551),
historical writer of uncertain date. He wrote the relates the story of another Byzantine, Pytho,
3


## p. 743 (#759) ############################################

LEO.
713
LEO.
and that professedlý on the authority of Leo him- Fabricius elsewhere more accurately describes it
self. Toup (see note to Gaisford's Suidas, s. v. (Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. 716), is the record of a synod
Méwv) suspects that the passage in Athenaeus is held to determine some questions relating to the
corrupt. Of the death of Leo there are two ac- worship of images, on which Leo in a letter (which
counts. According to Hesychius of Miletus he Montfaucon does not give) had used some hetero-
died during the war, and before the arrival of dox language.
Chares with the Athenian fleet. According to 12. Of CONSTANTINOPLE. (Nos. 28 and 29. )
Suidas, Philip, after his repulse, charged Leo with 13. DIACONUS or the Deacon, a Byzantine
having offered to betray the city to him for a sum historian of the tenth century. What little is
of money ; and the Byzantines, believing the known of his personal history is to be gleaned
charge, assailed the house of Leo, who, fearful of from incidental notices in his principal work, and
being stoned to death by them, hung himself. has been collected by C. B. Hase in the Prarfutio
Both these accounts are, however, inconsistent to his edition of Leo. Leo was born at Caloë, a
with the statement of Suidas himself, that Lco town of Asia, beautifully situated on the side or at
wrote a history of Alexander, at least if by that the foot of Mount Tmolus, near the sources of the
name we are to understand Alexander the Great ; Cäystrus, in Asia Minor. He was the son of Ba-
and are hardly consistent with the ascription to silius, but his father's condition or calling is not
him of a history of Philip's attack on Byzantium, known. (Leo Diac. Histuriue, i. 1. ) The young
unless we suppose this to have been a contemporary Leo was at Constantinople, pursuing his studies,
record or journal of the events of the siege. The A. D. 966, when he was an admiring spectator of
writings of Leo are thus enumerated by Suidas the firmness of the emperor, Nicephorus II. Phocas,
and Eudocia: 1. Ta kata DiALTTOV Kal To Bučáve in the midst of a popular tumult (iv. 7. ) As he
Trov, Bisrious S, Res Philippicae et Byzantinae, describes himself as a youth (uerpákov) at the time
Libris vii. ; 2. Tevo pavikóv, Teuthranicum, or of this incident, Hase places his birth in or about
Tev@paytikov, Teuthranticum: a history apparently A. D. 950. He was in Asia about the time of the
of Teuthrania, or of Teuthras, king of Mysia ; 3. deposition of Basilius I. , patriarch of Constanti-
Tepl Bnoánov, or Bnoalov, De Besalo, or Besaeo, nople, and the election of his successor Antonius III. ,
probably on the oracle of Besa ; 4. 'o iepos Tród A. D. 973 or 974, and relates that at that time he
jos, Bellum Sacrum; 5. Neplotáoew, which some frequently saw two Cappadocians, twins, of thirty
render De Seditionibus, but others De Statibus, i. e. years old, whose bodies were united from the arm-
a rhetorical treatise on the statement of questions or pits to the flanks (x. 3). Having been ordained
propositions ; 6. Td kat 'Anégavāpov, Res Gestae deacon, he accompanied the emperor Basilius II.
Alerandri. These works are not extant, and are in his unfortunate campaign against the Bulgarians,
known to us only through the authors above A. D. 981; and when the emperor raised the siege
mentioned. It has been already observed that of Tralitza or Triaditza (the ancient Sardica), Leo
Nos. 4 and 5, at least works under the same or narrowly escaped death or captivity in the head-
nearly the same titles, are also ascribed both long flight of his countrymen (x. 8). Of his his-
by Suidas and Eudocia to Leo of Alabanda. [No. tory after this nothing known ; but Hase ob
4. ] This leads us to doubt the correctness of the serves that he must have written bis history after
list in other particulars; and if the accounts given A. D. 989, as he adverts to the rebellion and death
above of the death of Leo be correct, No. 6 and of Phocas Bardas (x. 9), which occurred in that
probably No. 1 are incorrectly ascribed to him. year. Both this event and the Bulgarian campaign
Plutarch, in his De Fluviis (de Ismeno), quotes are noticed by him by anticipation, in a digression
from a work of Leo of Byzantium, which he calls •respecting the evils which he supposed were por-
Td Bowtiaká, De Rebus Boeoticis ; and again, in tended by a comet which appeared just before the
the same treatise (de Tigride), he quotes from the death of Joannes I. Tzimisces. He must have
third book of a work of Leo, Tepl totauwv, De lived later than Hase has remarked, and at least
Fluviis. Some, with probability, identify Leo till A. D. 993, as he notices (x. 10) that the em-
(supposing that the name has been corrupted) with peror Basilius II. restored “in six years ” the
the Cleon mentioned by Plutarch (Vita Phocion, cupola of the great church (St. Sophia) at Constan-
c. 14) as an eminent Byzantine at the time of tinople which had been overthrown by the earth-
Philip's invasion, who had been a fellow student quake (comp. Cedren. Compend. vol. ii. p. 438, ed.
of Phocion under Plato. Whether Leo of Byzan- Bonn) of A. D. 987.
tium was the Leo, father of Melantes and Pan- The works of Leo Diaconus comprehend 1. 'Io-
creon, the legatees of Theophrastus (Diog. Laert. v. Topla Bibliois v', Historia Libris decem ; and 2.
51, &c. de Theophrasto) is doubtful. (Plut. Opera, Oratio ad Basilium Imperatorem ; and 3. (unless
vol. x. pp. 714, 801, ed. Reisk. ; Suidas, s. v. Réwv; it be the work of another Leo Diaconus) Homilia
Eudocia, Violetum, 8. v. Néwv; Hesych. Miles. Ori- in Michaelem Archangelum. The two last are ex-
gines (s. Res Patriae) Constantinop. c. 26—28, tant only in MS.
Opuscula, pp. 66, &c. , ed. Orelli; Philostr. Vitae The history of Leo includes the period from the
Sophist. i. 2. , ed. Kayser ; Voss. De Hist. Graec. Cretan expedition of Nicephorus Phocas, in the
i. 8. ; Fabric. Bibl. Graec, vol. vii. p. 715. ) reign of the emperor Romanus II. , A. D. 959, to
8. Of BYZANTIUM. [Nos. 28 and 29. ) the death of Joannes I. Tzimisces, A. D. 975. It
9. Of Calog. (No. 13. )
relates the victories of the emperors Nicephorus
10. Of Caria. (Nos. 4 and 15. ]
and Tzimisces over the Mohammedans in Cilicia
11. Of Chalcedon. Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. and Syria, and the recovery of those countries, or
vol. xi. p. 665), inaccurately states that a synodical the greater part of them, to the Byzantine empire ;
letter of Leo, who was archbishop of Chalcedon in and the wars of the same emperors with the Bul-
the time of Alexius I. Comnenus (A. D. 108]— garians and Russians. The style of Leo is de-
1118), was published by Montfaucon. (Biblioth. scribed by Hase as ricious : he employs unusual
Coislin. Catulog. p. 103, &c. ) The document, as and inappropriate words (many of them borrowed


## p. 744 (#760) ############################################

744
LEO.
LEO.
a
from Homer, Agathias, the historian, and the Sep-Combéfis with one reason for identifying Leo
tuagint), in the place of simple and common ones ; Grammaticus with Leo the Carian mentioned by
and abounds in tautological phrases. His know- Cedrenus. (Compend. Historiae, sub init. ) That
ledge of geography and ancient history is slight; the two are identical is very probable ; but the
but with these defects his history is a valuable epithet “Carian" is probably given rather from Lco's
contemporary record of a stirring time, honestly birthplace than from his government, which appears
and fearlessly written. Scylitzes, and through to have included not merely the town of Cibyra,
him Cedrenus, are much indebted to Leo; and but the whole thema of the Cibyraeans or Cibur.
Hase considers Zonaras also to have used his work. rhaeans (Séua Kabuppa. wtwv, Constant. Porphyrog.
The Historiu was first published, at the cost of De Thematib. i. Th. 14), comprehending all the
count Nicolas Romanzof, chancellor of Russin, by S. W. part of Asia Minor, and, of course, Caria. Leo
Car. Bened. Hase, Paris, 1818.
Combé fis had in- Grammaticus is perhaps identical with the Leo
tended to publish it in the Parisian edition of the Asinus, ó Aowós, mentioned by Joannes Scylitza
Corpus Historiac Byzantinue with the Iristoria of (apud Montfaucon, Billioth. Coislin, p. 209).
Michael Psellus, but was prevented by death, a. D. The work of Leo Grammaticus is entitled Xpo.
1679. The Latin version which he had prepared νογραφία, τα των νέων βασιλέων περιέχουσα, Caro-
was communicated by Montfaucon to Pagi, who nogruphia l’es a Recentioribus Imperatoribus Gestus
inserted some portions in his Criticc in Buronium Complectens, and extends from the accession of Leo
(ad ann. 960, No. ix). The papers of Combéfis V. the Armenian, A. D. 813, to the death of Romanus
were, inany years after, committed to Michael Le Lecapenus, A. D. 948 or 949, not, as Cave inaccu-
Quien, that he might publish an edition of Psellua rately states, to A. D. 1013. It was prepared for
and Leo, and part of the latter author's work was publication by Goar, but actually published with
actually printed ; but the breaking out of the war Theophanes, under the care of Combefis, fol. Paris,
of the succession (A. D. 1702) prevented its com- 1655, in the Parisian edition of the Corpus llis-
pletion, and Hase could find no trace of the part toriae Byzuntinae, and was reprinted at Venice, fol.
printed. In the disorders of the French revolution 1729. Leo has little in common with the anony-
the papers of Combéfis were finally lost or de mous continuator of Theophanes [Leontius, No.
stroyed. Hase in his edition added a Latin version 6] in that part of his work which comprehends the
and notes to the text of Leo, and illustrated it by period before Basil the Macedonian; but in the
engravings from ancient gems. His edition is, latter part the two authors have many passages either
however, scarce and dear, the greater part of the identical or varying but little from each other: but
copies having been lost by shipwreck; but his the uncertainty attaching to the date of Leo's work
text, preface, version, and notes (not the engrav- makes it doubtful which was the first written. The
ings), bave been reprinted in the Bonn edition of anonymous continuation of Theophanes comes down
the Corpus Historiae Byzantinae. 8vo. 1828. (Fabric. to a later period than the work of Leo, and may
Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. p. 684, notel; Cave, Hist. therefore be inferred to have been written later. The
Lill. vol. ii. p. 106; Hase, Praefatio ad Leon. somewhat abrupt termination of Leo's history soon
Diacon. Historiam. )
after the recovery of the sole possession of the imperial
14. The EPICUREAN of Lampsacus (No. 3). power by the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus
15. GRAMMATICUS, one of the continuators of would lead to the conclusion that the writer lived
Byzantine history from the period when Theo- at that period, and brought down his narrative to
phanes leaves off. Nothing certain is known of the time of its composition, had he not elsewhere
him. A note, subjoined by the transcriber, to the (sub init. imperii Constant. Porphyrog. p. 488, ed.
Parisian MS. of Georgius Syncellus, Theophanes, Paris, p. 387, ed. Ven. ) given a statement of the
and Leo Grammaticus states that “the chronography whole length of Constantine's reign, which shows
of the recent emperors, completed (Tampwoeioa) by that he must have written after its close. Possibly
Leo Grammaticus, was finished on the 8th of the he wrote during the reign of his son and successor
month of July, on the feast of the holy martyr Romanus II. , and broke off where he did in order
Procopius, in the year 6521 (of the Mundane era to avoid the necessity of adverting to Constantine's
of Constantinople), in the 1lth Indiction,” A. D. unhappy death and the parricide of Romanus.
1013 common era ; but there can be little doubt Some verses, probably by Leo of Thessalonica
that this date refers to the completion, not of the [No. 29), are in some MSS. ascribed to Leo Gram-
original work, but of the transcript. Cave indeed maticus. (Comp. Cedrenus, p. 641, ed. Paris, vol.
understands the date as being that of the original | ii. p. 337, ed. Bonn. ) Cotelerius (Monum. Eccies.
work. A postscript to the same MS. , but by a Graec. , vol. iii. 463, &c. ) has given a letter on a ques-
different hand, gives to Leo the surname of Tzi- tion of canon law from a presbyter Joannes to * his
candalus (Tcikávbalos), and states that he was guide and spiritual father, Leo Grammaticus, arch-
civil and military governor (apócopos de dout) of bishop of Calabria" with Leo's answer. But this
the Cibyraeans, and one of the household (or per- Leo cannot be the historian, unless we reject the
haps the intimate friend, for the expression oireios account of the latter being governor of Cibyra, or
ăvpwaos is ambiguous) of our mighty and supreme suppose him to have exchanged his secular for an
(or chief, mpátov) emperor. Combéfis (Notae ad ecclesiastical life. (Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. vii. p.
Leonem Grammat. ad initium) understands the 713; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ij. p. 128 ; Hankins,
emperor to be Constantine Porphyrogenitus (Con- De Byzantin. Rerum Scriptorib. pt. ii. c. vii. ; Voss.
STANTINUS VII. ], which is probable; and though De Hist. Graec. iv. 21. )
there are some difficulties about this inscription, 16. Of LAMPSACUS. (No. 3. ]
which prevent our giving entire credit to it, we do 17. MAGENTENUS (Mayevtivos) or Magen-
not participate in the doubt of Combéfis whether it TINUS (Mayevtīvus), a commentator on Aristotle,
refers to Leo Grammaticus or the anonymous con- flourished during the first half of the fourteenth
tinuator of Theophanes. The town of Cibyra is century. His first name, Leo, is frequently omitted
by Pliny included in Caria, and this furnishes in the MSS. of his works. He was a monk, and
9
1


## p. 745 (#761) ############################################

LEO.
745
LEO.
afterwards archbishop of Mytilene. He wrote: 1. 38 of the Latin version of Fr. Barocius, fol. Padua,
Εξήγησις εις το περί ερμηνείας Αριστοτέλους, 1560), and who gave considerably greater accuracy
Commentarius in Aristotelis De Interpretatione Li- to geometrical science, especially by showing how
brum. This commentary was published by Aldus, to distinguish problems which admit of solution
fol. Venice, 1503, with the commentary of Amma from those which cannot be solved. There is,
nius, from which Leo borrowed very largely, and bowever, a chronological objection to the identifi-
the paraphrase of Psellus on the same book of cation of Leo, the friend of Alcmaeon, who lived
Aristotle, and the commentary of Ammonius on in the sixth century B. C. , with Leó the Geo-
Aristotle's Categoriae s. Praedicamenta. In the metrician, who was later than Leodamas of Thasos,
Latin title of this edition the author is called by a and Archytas of Tarentum (Proclus, l. c. ), who
misprint, Margentinus. A Latin version of Leo's belonged to the end of the fifth century B. C. :
commentary, by J. B. Rasarius, has been repeatedly and it is uncertain whether Leo of Metapontum is
printed with the Latin version of Ammonius. not different from both. (Fabric. Bill. Grucc. vol.
Another Latin version by Hieronymus Leustrius i. p. 850, vol. vii. p. 718. )
has also been printed. 2. Εξήγησις εις τα πρότερα 21. Of MYTILENE (No. 17. )
αναλυτικά του Αριστοτέλους, Commentarius in 22. PHILOSUTHUS. [No. 29. )
Priora Analytica Aristotelis. This was printed 23. PERIPATETICUS. (No. 17. )
with the commentary of Joannes Philoponus on the 24. Of Pella. (No. 3. ]
same work, by Trincavellus, fol. Venice, 1536 ; 25. PYTHAGORICUS. [No. 20. ]
and a Latin version of it by Rasarius has been re- 26. RHETOR. [Nos. 4 and 7. ]
peatedly printed, either separately, or with other 27. Sapiens. [LEO VI. emperor. )
coinmentaries on Aristotle. The following works 28. STYPIOTA or STYPPA (ETUTAS), or STYPA
in MS. are ascribed, but with doubtful correctness, (ITunñs), patriarch of Constantinople in the twelfth
to Leo Magentenus: 3. Commentarius in Cate century. His patriarchate extended from A. D. 1134
gorias Aristotelis, is extant in the King's Library to 1143 (Fabric. Bill. Graec. vol. vii. p. 721, rol
at Paris. 4.