cording to the account
generally
current among
Fabric.
Fabric.
William Smith - 1844 - Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities - b
Kaúuevos), he was not much more successful.
thing is known of the writer's personal history, nor
(Ran. 151; comp. Equit. 401, Pax, 776, with can it be determined with certainty whether he is
the scholia on those passages. ) Frigidity seems to the same person as either of the physicians men-
have been the predominant characteristic of his tioned below. The work is composed in the form
poetry. (Suidas, s. 19. ; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. ii. of question and answer, and is an interesting little
p. 311 ; Meineke, Fragmenta Com. Graec. vol. ii. book, containing much useful and valuable matter.
part ii. p. 659. )
(C. P. M. ] It is supposed to have been written originally in
MOʻRYCH US (Mópuxos), a tragic poct, a con- Latin, and to have been translated into Greek by
temporary of Aristophanes, rioted especially for his some late author: this Greek text is all that now
gluttony and effeminacy. (Aristoph. Acharn. 887, remains. It was first published in Casp. Wolf's
Vesp. 504, 1137, Par, 1008, with the note of the Collection of Writers on Female Diseases, Basil.
scholiast. ) There was a proverb: Mopúxou eún. 1566, 4to. , and in the two subsequent editions of
l'égtepos, More foolish than Morychus ; but whe-that work. These editions contain eleven chapters
ther it had reference to the tragic poet of that at the end which are supposed to be spurious, and
name, or not, we do not know. (Fabric. Bill. omit the author's preface. Probably the latest
Gruec. vol. ii. p. 311; Bode, Gesch. der IIcllen. and best edition is that by F. 0. Dewez, ivo.
Dichtkunst, vol. iii. part i. p. 548. ) (C. P. M. ] Vienn. 1793, Greek and Latin. (See Fabric.
MORZES, or, according to Polybius, MO'R- Bibl. Gr. vol. xii. p. 702, ed. vet. ; Choulant,
ZIAS (Mopfias), a king of Paplılagonia, who | Handb. der Bücherkunde für die Aeltere Medicin. )
fought against the Romans in the Gallo-Graecian 2. A physician quoted by Soranus (ap. Gal.
war, B. c. 189. Morzes had been conquered by De Compos. Medicam. sec. Loc. i. 2, vol. xii.
Pharnaces, king of Pontus, and was indemnified p. 416), Andromachus (ilu. vii. 2, vol. xiii.
in the treaty of peace imposed on the latter princep. 30), and Asclepiades Pharmacion (ap. Gal. De
by Eumenes II. king of Pergamus, in B. c. 189— Compos. Medicam. sec. Gen. iii. 9, vol. xiii. p. 646),
188. (Polyb. xxvi. 6. § 9; Liv. xxxviii. 26; and who lived, therefore, in or before the first cen-
Strab. xii. p. 562. )
(W. B. D. ] tury after Christ. He may perhaps be the same
MOSCHAMPAR, GEOʻRGIUS (rewpyíos ó person who was called Aloptwrns, Corrector, be-
Mooxáutap), chartophylax magnae ecclesiae at cause, though he was one of the followers of
Constantinople, was a friend and contemporary of Asclepiades of Bithynia, he ventured to controvert
George of Cyprus, patriarch of Constantinople his opinions on some points. (Galen, De Differ.
A. D. 1283—1289 [Georgius, literary, No. 20). Puls. iv. 16, vol. viii. p. 758).
He took a leading part in opposition to the doctrine A physician of the same name is mentioned
of the Latin church on the procession of the Holy also by Soranus (De Arte Obstetr. p. 184), Plu-
Spirit, and to the distinguished advocate of that tarch (Sympos. iii. 10. $ 2), Alexander Trallianus
church, Joannes Beccus or Veccus. He seems, (i. 15, p. 156), Aëtius (iv. 3, § 13, p. 755), Pliny
however, to have had little weight even with his (H. N. xix, 26, § 4), and Tertullian (De Anima,
own party. He published several treatises in op. c. 15).
(W. A. G. )
position to Veccus, to which the latter ably replied ; MOSCHION (Mooxlwv), the son of Adamas,
but neither the attacks of the one nor the answers an Athenian sculptor, made, in conjunction with
of the other seem to be preserved. There is a his brothers Dionysodorus and Ladamas, a statne
letter of Moschampar to his friend George of of Isis in the island of Delos. The names of the
Cyprus, printed in the life of the latter, which was artists are preserved by an inscription on the statue,
published by J. F. Bernard de Rubeis, Venice, which is now at Venice. (Winckelmann, Gesche
1753. (Pachymer. Hist. i. 8 ; Allatius, Graec. d. Kunst, bk. ix. c. 2. $ 10. )
[P. S. ]
Orthodox. vol. ii
. pp. 3, 9, 10 ; Fabric. Bibl. Gruec. MOSCHOPU'LUS, MANUEL or EMAN-
vol. xii. pp. 46, 47, comp. vol. viii. pp. 53, 54. ) UEL (Μανουήλ s. 'Εμανουήλ Μοσχόπουλος), και
MOSCHION (Μοσχίων). 1. A tragic and Greek grammarian of the later period of the
comic poet, mentioned more than once by Stobaeus, Byzantine empire. There are few writers whose
who has preserved the names of three of his plays. works have had extensive a circulation
1. OEULOTOKAñs. 2. Týdepos. 3. Depaioi. (Sto whose time and history are so uncertain. Ac-
baeus, Ed. Phys. i. 38 ; Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. p.
cording to the account generally current among
Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. ii. p. 311. )
the historians of literature, there were two Mos-
2. A Greek writer, who drew up an account of chopuli, both bearing the name of Manuel, uncle
the construction of the enormous ship which was and nephew ; the uncle, a native of Crete, who
built by command of Hieron, under the direction lived in the time of the emperor Andronicus
of the celebrated Archimedes. [HIERON ; Archi- Palaeologus the Elder, about A. D. 139:2; the
MEDES. ] Moschion's account is quoted at length nephew, a native of Constantinople, who, on the
by Athenaeus (v. p. 206, d, 209, e).
capture of that city by the Turks, A. D. 1453, fied
3. A celebrated cook, who was purchased by into Italy. Of his fortunes, connections, or place
Demetrius Phalereus, and speedily realised a large of residence in that country, nothing appears to
fortune from the perquisites allowed him by his have been known, nor do we find any record or
extravagant master. (Athen. xii. p. 542. ) A para notice of his death. (Comp. Walder. Praef. ad
site of the same name seems to have enjoyed suffi- | Moschopuli Grammat. Artis Method. , A. D. 1540;
cient notoriety to be mentioned in more than one Burton, Ling. Graec. Historia, p. 57, 12mo. Lond.
passage quoted by Athenaeus (vi. p. 246, b, c, ix. 1657 ; Scherpezeelius, Praef. od Moschopuli Scholia
p. 382, d).
[C. P. M. ] uil liud. Hardwick, a. D. 1702; Fübric. Bill
Bates
44)
toses
appet
pnes
&
Teine
Elde
foun
tie
ana
the
.
An
13.
SO
Tu
PL
80
of
623 ;
## p. 1115 (#1131) ##########################################
MOSCHOPULUS.
1115
MOSCHOPULUS.
"
Graec. vol. i. p. 407, note 99, and vol. vi. pp. 190, author. Even if genuine, we are disposed to un-
322, &c. ; Saxius, Onomasticon, vol. ii. pp. 387, derstand it as referring to the rupture of the union
445, 591 ; Montucla, Hist. des Mathem. pt. i. of the churches, A. D. 1202, 80 that it does not
liv. v. & 10, vol. i. p. 333, note b, ed. Paris, 1759; support the date given by Crusius. Another his-
or $ 11, vol. i. p. 346, ed. 1799–1802; Bandini, torical notice given in the Noru Grammatives Epi-
Cuial. Codd. Griec. Laur. Medic. vol. ii. col. 553 ; tome (p. 19, ed. Titze), as illustrating the ten cate-
Harles. Introd. in Hist. Liny. Graec. vol. ii. p. 544. )gories, seems to fix the composition of that work to
.
Hody (De Graecis Illustribus, p. 314, &c. ) was the time (A. D. 1273 to 1282) when Andronicus
disposed to identify the younger Moschopulus with reigned in conjunction with his father ; but this
Emanuel Adramyttenus, a Cretan, who was pre- notice has so little connection with the context,
ceptor of the celebrated Joannes Picus, count of that it is, like the preceding, liable to the suspicion
Mirandola, and is mentioned with the highest of being interpolated. It is conjectured that Mos-
praises for his erudition in the letters of Aldus chopulus the Cretan, who wrote a commentary
Manutius and Angelus Politianus.
upon }lesiod, is one of the commentators referred
Of the above sennty account some of the par- to by Georgius Pachymeres (De duronic. Pulucol.
ticulars are cvidently incorrect, others rest on iv. 15, where see Possin's note): this conjecture,
no sure foundation. An ancient Greek MS. of which, however, separately regarded, rests on very
the Sylloge Dictionum Atticurum, quoted by slight ground, would render it probable that Pachy-
Ducange (Glossar. Mel. et Inf. Graecitatis Notae, meres, who was born in or about A. D. 1210,
col. 29) states it to be a work of Moschopulus studied in his boyhood under Moschopulus. In a
“ a Byzantine (or native of Constantinople), nephew MS. ascribed by Montfaucon (Billivih. Coislin. p.
of the Cretan;" and may be considered as esta- | 455) to the fourteenth century, are some 'Emiotolai,
blishing the facts that there were two Moschopuli, Epistolae, of Manuel Moschopulus, addressed to
an uncle and a nephew; that the uncle was a Cre Acropolita the great Logotheta," " * to the Logotheta
tan, and a man of such reputation that relationship Metochita," " to his uncle the Cretan” (@ Seių
to him was a thing to be recorded ; and that autoŮ TY Kpútns, perhaps an error for To Kpnti),
the nephew was a native of Constantinople, and a from which it appears that the nephew was con-
writer on grammatical subjects. The date at temporary with Georgius Acropolita (who died
which the elder is said, in the account given above, about A. D. 1282) or his son Constantinus Acropo-
to have lived, appears to have been derived from a lita, and with Theodorus Metochita, who was Logo-
passage in the Turco-Graecia of Crusius, who theta in A. D. 1294, and perhaps earlier. (Niceph.
states (in Histor. Politicam. CPoleos Annotat. p. Gregoras, Hist. Byzant. vi. 8. ) A work of Geor-
44) that he had a MS. of the Erotemata s. Quaes- gius Metochita, published in the Graecia Orthodona
tiones of Moschopulus, to which the owner had of Allatius, vol. ii. p. 959, is entitled 'Artipinois
appended a note that it was given him by the των ων συνεγράψατο Μανουήλ και του Κρήτης
priest Clubes, A. D. 1392; and then Crusius states aveyros, i. e. "A reply to certain writings of Ma-
his opinion that Moechopulus flourished in the nuel, the nephew of the Cretan. ” These notices,
reign of the Byzantine emperor Andronicus the together with the existence in manuscript, in the
Elder, about A. D. 1300. A careless reader, con- library of St. Mark at Venice (Fabric. Bill. Graec.
founding the date of the gift with that of the vol. vi. p. 323, note pp), of a work of Moschopulus,
writer, brought down the reign of Andronicus to Contra Latinos, combine to show that the younger
the latter part of the 14th century; and this gross Moschopulus was contemporary with and was en-
anachronism appears to have passed unnoticed. If gaged in the religious dissensions occasioned by the
the author of the Quaestiones, whether he was the attempt begun by the emperor Michael Palaeologus
uncle or the nephew, lived in the time of the elder (A. D. 1260), and abandoned by his son the elder
Andronicus, who reigned from A. D. 1282 to Andronicus, a short time after his accession (A. D.
1328, neither of the Moschopuli could have lived 1282), to unite the Greek and Latin churches ;
so late as the capture of Constantinople by the and that he survived the appointment to the office
Turks (A. D. 1453), so that the story of the ne- of Logotheta of Theodorus Metochita, who held that
phew's flight into Italy, consequent on that event, office in perhaps a. D. 1294. These dates are consist-
must be rejected. Hody's identification of the tutor ent with the supposition that his uncle the Cretan
of Joannes Picus with the younger Moschopulus was one of the teachers of Pachymeres, and afford
must, of course, be rejected also: it appears indeed some probability to the conjecture that Pachymer re-
never to have had any other foundation than the fers to him. These scanty notices have been indus-
common name of Manuel and the fact of the pre triously gleaned by Titze in his Diatribe Literuria
ceptor being a Cretan ; which latter circumstance de Moschopulis, which we have chiefly followed.
furnishes an argument, as Hody evidently felt, not The works ascribed to the Moschopuli are
for but against the identity; the nephew, who is numerous ; the greater part of them are on gram-
said to have fled into Italy, having been a Con- matical subjects, and are usually ascribed to the
stantinopolitan ; to say nothing of the diversity of nephew ; but in most cases without evidence. Las-
the surnames Adramyttenus and Moschopulus. caris indeed (Epitome Ling. Graec. lib. iii. Epilog. )
The date assigned by Crusius, A. D. 1300, to the speaks of the grammatical works of Moschopulus,
elder Moschopulus is perhaps a little too late : he as if only one of the name had written upon that
can hardly have long survived the accession of An- subject ; and Titze infers from this that they were
dronicus, A. D. 1282, if indeed he lived till then. all written by the uncle, and that the nephew
Crusius founded his calculation on an historical no- wrote only on theology. The MSS. in a few cases
tice given in illustration of the use of the preposition speak of their respective authors determinately, as
kată in his MS. of the Erotemata ; but this notice " the Cretan,"
," " the nephew of the Cretan," or the
does not appear in the printed editions of that work, “ Byzantine ;" but are in most cases indeterminate,
and was perhaps added by the transcriber of the the author being described as “ Moschopulus,"
MS. , and if so, it furnishes no clue to the age of the 1 - Manuel Moschopulus,” or “ Manuel Gramma-
a
3
## p. 1116 (#1132) ##########################################
1116
MOSCHOPULUS.
MOSCHUS.
canonarchus in
ATES A D. 620
nating a large
Egypt and it
cser position of
bres of the m
Heraclius.
Sararonas, hi
kim on bis to
arch of Jerus
or Αειμωνάρι
togs it is į
speaks of it
ventions tha
isto a larger
Mosches did
sats of his
the labours
moratives
marvellous
ticus. " We believe that it is in most cases vain to | in Agapetum, given by Fabricius, Bill. Graec. vol
attempt to assign them to one or the other, and xii.
(Ran. 151; comp. Equit. 401, Pax, 776, with can it be determined with certainty whether he is
the scholia on those passages. ) Frigidity seems to the same person as either of the physicians men-
have been the predominant characteristic of his tioned below. The work is composed in the form
poetry. (Suidas, s. 19. ; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. ii. of question and answer, and is an interesting little
p. 311 ; Meineke, Fragmenta Com. Graec. vol. ii. book, containing much useful and valuable matter.
part ii. p. 659. )
(C. P. M. ] It is supposed to have been written originally in
MOʻRYCH US (Mópuxos), a tragic poct, a con- Latin, and to have been translated into Greek by
temporary of Aristophanes, rioted especially for his some late author: this Greek text is all that now
gluttony and effeminacy. (Aristoph. Acharn. 887, remains. It was first published in Casp. Wolf's
Vesp. 504, 1137, Par, 1008, with the note of the Collection of Writers on Female Diseases, Basil.
scholiast. ) There was a proverb: Mopúxou eún. 1566, 4to. , and in the two subsequent editions of
l'égtepos, More foolish than Morychus ; but whe-that work. These editions contain eleven chapters
ther it had reference to the tragic poet of that at the end which are supposed to be spurious, and
name, or not, we do not know. (Fabric. Bill. omit the author's preface. Probably the latest
Gruec. vol. ii. p. 311; Bode, Gesch. der IIcllen. and best edition is that by F. 0. Dewez, ivo.
Dichtkunst, vol. iii. part i. p. 548. ) (C. P. M. ] Vienn. 1793, Greek and Latin. (See Fabric.
MORZES, or, according to Polybius, MO'R- Bibl. Gr. vol. xii. p. 702, ed. vet. ; Choulant,
ZIAS (Mopfias), a king of Paplılagonia, who | Handb. der Bücherkunde für die Aeltere Medicin. )
fought against the Romans in the Gallo-Graecian 2. A physician quoted by Soranus (ap. Gal.
war, B. c. 189. Morzes had been conquered by De Compos. Medicam. sec. Loc. i. 2, vol. xii.
Pharnaces, king of Pontus, and was indemnified p. 416), Andromachus (ilu. vii. 2, vol. xiii.
in the treaty of peace imposed on the latter princep. 30), and Asclepiades Pharmacion (ap. Gal. De
by Eumenes II. king of Pergamus, in B. c. 189— Compos. Medicam. sec. Gen. iii. 9, vol. xiii. p. 646),
188. (Polyb. xxvi. 6. § 9; Liv. xxxviii. 26; and who lived, therefore, in or before the first cen-
Strab. xii. p. 562. )
(W. B. D. ] tury after Christ. He may perhaps be the same
MOSCHAMPAR, GEOʻRGIUS (rewpyíos ó person who was called Aloptwrns, Corrector, be-
Mooxáutap), chartophylax magnae ecclesiae at cause, though he was one of the followers of
Constantinople, was a friend and contemporary of Asclepiades of Bithynia, he ventured to controvert
George of Cyprus, patriarch of Constantinople his opinions on some points. (Galen, De Differ.
A. D. 1283—1289 [Georgius, literary, No. 20). Puls. iv. 16, vol. viii. p. 758).
He took a leading part in opposition to the doctrine A physician of the same name is mentioned
of the Latin church on the procession of the Holy also by Soranus (De Arte Obstetr. p. 184), Plu-
Spirit, and to the distinguished advocate of that tarch (Sympos. iii. 10. $ 2), Alexander Trallianus
church, Joannes Beccus or Veccus. He seems, (i. 15, p. 156), Aëtius (iv. 3, § 13, p. 755), Pliny
however, to have had little weight even with his (H. N. xix, 26, § 4), and Tertullian (De Anima,
own party. He published several treatises in op. c. 15).
(W. A. G. )
position to Veccus, to which the latter ably replied ; MOSCHION (Mooxlwv), the son of Adamas,
but neither the attacks of the one nor the answers an Athenian sculptor, made, in conjunction with
of the other seem to be preserved. There is a his brothers Dionysodorus and Ladamas, a statne
letter of Moschampar to his friend George of of Isis in the island of Delos. The names of the
Cyprus, printed in the life of the latter, which was artists are preserved by an inscription on the statue,
published by J. F. Bernard de Rubeis, Venice, which is now at Venice. (Winckelmann, Gesche
1753. (Pachymer. Hist. i. 8 ; Allatius, Graec. d. Kunst, bk. ix. c. 2. $ 10. )
[P. S. ]
Orthodox. vol. ii
. pp. 3, 9, 10 ; Fabric. Bibl. Gruec. MOSCHOPU'LUS, MANUEL or EMAN-
vol. xii. pp. 46, 47, comp. vol. viii. pp. 53, 54. ) UEL (Μανουήλ s. 'Εμανουήλ Μοσχόπουλος), και
MOSCHION (Μοσχίων). 1. A tragic and Greek grammarian of the later period of the
comic poet, mentioned more than once by Stobaeus, Byzantine empire. There are few writers whose
who has preserved the names of three of his plays. works have had extensive a circulation
1. OEULOTOKAñs. 2. Týdepos. 3. Depaioi. (Sto whose time and history are so uncertain. Ac-
baeus, Ed. Phys. i. 38 ; Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. p.
cording to the account generally current among
Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. ii. p. 311. )
the historians of literature, there were two Mos-
2. A Greek writer, who drew up an account of chopuli, both bearing the name of Manuel, uncle
the construction of the enormous ship which was and nephew ; the uncle, a native of Crete, who
built by command of Hieron, under the direction lived in the time of the emperor Andronicus
of the celebrated Archimedes. [HIERON ; Archi- Palaeologus the Elder, about A. D. 139:2; the
MEDES. ] Moschion's account is quoted at length nephew, a native of Constantinople, who, on the
by Athenaeus (v. p. 206, d, 209, e).
capture of that city by the Turks, A. D. 1453, fied
3. A celebrated cook, who was purchased by into Italy. Of his fortunes, connections, or place
Demetrius Phalereus, and speedily realised a large of residence in that country, nothing appears to
fortune from the perquisites allowed him by his have been known, nor do we find any record or
extravagant master. (Athen. xii. p. 542. ) A para notice of his death. (Comp. Walder. Praef. ad
site of the same name seems to have enjoyed suffi- | Moschopuli Grammat. Artis Method. , A. D. 1540;
cient notoriety to be mentioned in more than one Burton, Ling. Graec. Historia, p. 57, 12mo. Lond.
passage quoted by Athenaeus (vi. p. 246, b, c, ix. 1657 ; Scherpezeelius, Praef. od Moschopuli Scholia
p. 382, d).
[C. P. M. ] uil liud. Hardwick, a. D. 1702; Fübric. Bill
Bates
44)
toses
appet
pnes
&
Teine
Elde
foun
tie
ana
the
.
An
13.
SO
Tu
PL
80
of
623 ;
## p. 1115 (#1131) ##########################################
MOSCHOPULUS.
1115
MOSCHOPULUS.
"
Graec. vol. i. p. 407, note 99, and vol. vi. pp. 190, author. Even if genuine, we are disposed to un-
322, &c. ; Saxius, Onomasticon, vol. ii. pp. 387, derstand it as referring to the rupture of the union
445, 591 ; Montucla, Hist. des Mathem. pt. i. of the churches, A. D. 1202, 80 that it does not
liv. v. & 10, vol. i. p. 333, note b, ed. Paris, 1759; support the date given by Crusius. Another his-
or $ 11, vol. i. p. 346, ed. 1799–1802; Bandini, torical notice given in the Noru Grammatives Epi-
Cuial. Codd. Griec. Laur. Medic. vol. ii. col. 553 ; tome (p. 19, ed. Titze), as illustrating the ten cate-
Harles. Introd. in Hist. Liny. Graec. vol. ii. p. 544. )gories, seems to fix the composition of that work to
.
Hody (De Graecis Illustribus, p. 314, &c. ) was the time (A. D. 1273 to 1282) when Andronicus
disposed to identify the younger Moschopulus with reigned in conjunction with his father ; but this
Emanuel Adramyttenus, a Cretan, who was pre- notice has so little connection with the context,
ceptor of the celebrated Joannes Picus, count of that it is, like the preceding, liable to the suspicion
Mirandola, and is mentioned with the highest of being interpolated. It is conjectured that Mos-
praises for his erudition in the letters of Aldus chopulus the Cretan, who wrote a commentary
Manutius and Angelus Politianus.
upon }lesiod, is one of the commentators referred
Of the above sennty account some of the par- to by Georgius Pachymeres (De duronic. Pulucol.
ticulars are cvidently incorrect, others rest on iv. 15, where see Possin's note): this conjecture,
no sure foundation. An ancient Greek MS. of which, however, separately regarded, rests on very
the Sylloge Dictionum Atticurum, quoted by slight ground, would render it probable that Pachy-
Ducange (Glossar. Mel. et Inf. Graecitatis Notae, meres, who was born in or about A. D. 1210,
col. 29) states it to be a work of Moschopulus studied in his boyhood under Moschopulus. In a
“ a Byzantine (or native of Constantinople), nephew MS. ascribed by Montfaucon (Billivih. Coislin. p.
of the Cretan;" and may be considered as esta- | 455) to the fourteenth century, are some 'Emiotolai,
blishing the facts that there were two Moschopuli, Epistolae, of Manuel Moschopulus, addressed to
an uncle and a nephew; that the uncle was a Cre Acropolita the great Logotheta," " * to the Logotheta
tan, and a man of such reputation that relationship Metochita," " to his uncle the Cretan” (@ Seių
to him was a thing to be recorded ; and that autoŮ TY Kpútns, perhaps an error for To Kpnti),
the nephew was a native of Constantinople, and a from which it appears that the nephew was con-
writer on grammatical subjects. The date at temporary with Georgius Acropolita (who died
which the elder is said, in the account given above, about A. D. 1282) or his son Constantinus Acropo-
to have lived, appears to have been derived from a lita, and with Theodorus Metochita, who was Logo-
passage in the Turco-Graecia of Crusius, who theta in A. D. 1294, and perhaps earlier. (Niceph.
states (in Histor. Politicam. CPoleos Annotat. p. Gregoras, Hist. Byzant. vi. 8. ) A work of Geor-
44) that he had a MS. of the Erotemata s. Quaes- gius Metochita, published in the Graecia Orthodona
tiones of Moschopulus, to which the owner had of Allatius, vol. ii. p. 959, is entitled 'Artipinois
appended a note that it was given him by the των ων συνεγράψατο Μανουήλ και του Κρήτης
priest Clubes, A. D. 1392; and then Crusius states aveyros, i. e. "A reply to certain writings of Ma-
his opinion that Moechopulus flourished in the nuel, the nephew of the Cretan. ” These notices,
reign of the Byzantine emperor Andronicus the together with the existence in manuscript, in the
Elder, about A. D. 1300. A careless reader, con- library of St. Mark at Venice (Fabric. Bill. Graec.
founding the date of the gift with that of the vol. vi. p. 323, note pp), of a work of Moschopulus,
writer, brought down the reign of Andronicus to Contra Latinos, combine to show that the younger
the latter part of the 14th century; and this gross Moschopulus was contemporary with and was en-
anachronism appears to have passed unnoticed. If gaged in the religious dissensions occasioned by the
the author of the Quaestiones, whether he was the attempt begun by the emperor Michael Palaeologus
uncle or the nephew, lived in the time of the elder (A. D. 1260), and abandoned by his son the elder
Andronicus, who reigned from A. D. 1282 to Andronicus, a short time after his accession (A. D.
1328, neither of the Moschopuli could have lived 1282), to unite the Greek and Latin churches ;
so late as the capture of Constantinople by the and that he survived the appointment to the office
Turks (A. D. 1453), so that the story of the ne- of Logotheta of Theodorus Metochita, who held that
phew's flight into Italy, consequent on that event, office in perhaps a. D. 1294. These dates are consist-
must be rejected. Hody's identification of the tutor ent with the supposition that his uncle the Cretan
of Joannes Picus with the younger Moschopulus was one of the teachers of Pachymeres, and afford
must, of course, be rejected also: it appears indeed some probability to the conjecture that Pachymer re-
never to have had any other foundation than the fers to him. These scanty notices have been indus-
common name of Manuel and the fact of the pre triously gleaned by Titze in his Diatribe Literuria
ceptor being a Cretan ; which latter circumstance de Moschopulis, which we have chiefly followed.
furnishes an argument, as Hody evidently felt, not The works ascribed to the Moschopuli are
for but against the identity; the nephew, who is numerous ; the greater part of them are on gram-
said to have fled into Italy, having been a Con- matical subjects, and are usually ascribed to the
stantinopolitan ; to say nothing of the diversity of nephew ; but in most cases without evidence. Las-
the surnames Adramyttenus and Moschopulus. caris indeed (Epitome Ling. Graec. lib. iii. Epilog. )
The date assigned by Crusius, A. D. 1300, to the speaks of the grammatical works of Moschopulus,
elder Moschopulus is perhaps a little too late : he as if only one of the name had written upon that
can hardly have long survived the accession of An- subject ; and Titze infers from this that they were
dronicus, A. D. 1282, if indeed he lived till then. all written by the uncle, and that the nephew
Crusius founded his calculation on an historical no- wrote only on theology. The MSS. in a few cases
tice given in illustration of the use of the preposition speak of their respective authors determinately, as
kată in his MS. of the Erotemata ; but this notice " the Cretan,"
," " the nephew of the Cretan," or the
does not appear in the printed editions of that work, “ Byzantine ;" but are in most cases indeterminate,
and was perhaps added by the transcriber of the the author being described as “ Moschopulus,"
MS. , and if so, it furnishes no clue to the age of the 1 - Manuel Moschopulus,” or “ Manuel Gramma-
a
3
## p. 1116 (#1132) ##########################################
1116
MOSCHOPULUS.
MOSCHUS.
canonarchus in
ATES A D. 620
nating a large
Egypt and it
cser position of
bres of the m
Heraclius.
Sararonas, hi
kim on bis to
arch of Jerus
or Αειμωνάρι
togs it is į
speaks of it
ventions tha
isto a larger
Mosches did
sats of his
the labours
moratives
marvellous
ticus. " We believe that it is in most cases vain to | in Agapetum, given by Fabricius, Bill. Graec. vol
attempt to assign them to one or the other, and xii.
