Chapter VI Constantinople
When Constantine, in the year 328, removed to Byzantium the capital of the Empire, he doubtless took with him from Rome, or was followed by, a large proportion of the leaders of the social and intellectual life of the city. It is said also that Greek scholars from Magna Græcia, and from other parts of the Empire, foreseeing the probable revival of interest in Greek learning, speedily gathered themselves at Constantinople, and through their presence hastened the replacing of the Latin tongue by their own vernacular.
For a century or more, however, after the establishment of Constantinople, literary production appears to have been slight and unimportant. There is some evidence of collections being made of copies of the great classics, collections which later, unfortunately, in large part perished at the hands first of Crusaders and afterwards of Turks, and it is probable that a certain number of scribes were kept employed in the production of such copies. Of new works or of new editions of importance there is no record, while there is also no evidence as to the existence of any bookselling machinery for keeping the public supplied with the old classics.
The first revival of literary productiveness appears to have come from the Court. About 440 A.D. the Empress Eudocia published a poetical paraphrase of the first eight books of the Old Testament and of the prophecies of Daniel and Zechariah. This was followed by a cento of the verses of Homer, applied to the life of Christ; by a version of the legend of St. Cyprian; and by a panegyric on the Persian victories of her husband Theodosius.
An imperial author needed, of course, no bookselling machinery to bring her writings to the attention of the public. The members of the Court circles doubtless made for their presentation copies a full return in the shape of loyal appreciation, while politic priests could be depended upon to interest themselves in the reproduction and distribution of books devoted to such sacred subjects, and emanating from so high an authority.
After this literary outburst from the Court, there is a long period during which there is no record of any original work of importance being produced in Constantinople. I must not omit, however, to make reference to the great undertaking carried out by Ulfilas (sixty years or more before the time of Eudocia’s labors) in the translation of the Bible into Gothic.
Ulfilas was a Goth by birth, but had been educated (as a hostage) in Constantinople. He was made Bishop of Gothia, and the work of his translation was probably completed in Dacia. For the preparation, however, of the transcripts of his text he was apparently obliged to resort to the scribes of the capital, and the “publication” of the work may, therefore, be credited to Constantinople. A magnificent manuscript of this Gothic version of the Gospels, a manuscript known, on account of its beautiful silver text, as the codex argenteus, and which dates from the sixth century, is now preserved in the library of the University of Upsala in Sweden, one of the earliest homes of the Gothic peoples. The wide circulation of these Gothic Scriptures had a great influence in bringing the Gothic tribes into the Christian fold, and exercised, therefore, an important effect on the history of Europe.
The greatest of the earlier authors of the Eastern Empire was the historian Procopius. His History of My Own Times, which was published about 560 A.D., during the reign of Justinian, is devoted more particularly to an account of the wars carried on by the Empire. Procopius had held various offices, and, during 562, was Prefect of Constantinople. After this post had been taken from him, he wrote a volume called Anecdota, or “secret history,” in which Justinian and his empress, Theodora, are very severely handled. A third and earlier production is a description of the edifices erected by Justinian throughout the Empire.
By the beginning of the seventh century, says Oman, the use of the Latin language in Constantinople had practically ceased. Oman speaks of the seventh and eighth centuries as being the “dark age in Byzantine literary history,” but, as far as we can judge from the records, the “luminous” or productive periods must have been very fitful and fragmentary.
After the extinction of the schools of Alexandria and Athens, “the studies of the Greeks” (says Gibbon) “retired to the monasteries, and above all to the royal college of Constantinople, which was burned in the reign of Leo the Isaurian, about 750 A.D.” The head of the foundation was named “the sun of science,” and the twelve professors, the twelve signs of the zodiac. The library comprised over 36,000 volumes. It included the famous Homeric manuscript, before referred to, written on a parchment roll 120 feet long.
Between 886 and 963 A.D. Constantinople was ruled by the group of so-called “literary emperors,” during whose reigns literature became the fashion of the Court. The chief achievements of Leo the Wise and of his son and successor Constantine Porphyrogenitus were their books. The writings of Leo consist of a manuscript on the Art of War, some theological treatises, and a book of prophecies. The former, says Oman, contains some exceedingly valuable information, while the prophecies have been the puzzle of commentators.295 The works of Constantine comprise a treatise on the administration of the Themes or provincial districts, a biography of his grandfather, and a comprehensive manual of the etiquette and ceremonies of the Court. Towards the close of the eighth century or at the beginning of the ninth appeared the commonplace books of Stobæus, one series entitled An Anthology of Extracts, Sentences, and Precepts, one grouped together under the name of Physical, Dialectic, and Moral Selections, and a third entitled simply Discourses. The extracts are drawn from more than five hundred authors, whose works have in great measure perished. They include, says Heeren (who, in 1792, published an edition of Stobæus), passages from many of the ancient comic writers. The exact date of the life or of the work of Stobæus is not known. Photius says that his commonplace books were prepared as an educational guide for his son Septimius.
By the ninth century there are indications of the existence of a literary class, and there is evidence of the work of a few first-class writers such as the patriarch Photius, 857-69, whose library catalogue is the envy of modern scholars.296 This catalogue, composed while its author was an exile in Bagdad, comprises a review or analysis of the works of two hundred and eight writers. Gibbon points out, in connection with this catalogue of Photius, that the students and writers of that period enjoyed the use of many works of Greek literature which have since perished in whole or in part. He cites, among other authors, Theopompus, Menander, Alcæus, Hyperides, and Sappho.
In 867, under the direction of Basil II., were written the Basilics, or code of laws. The Emperor himself was the author of a comprehensive history of Greece and Rome, of which but fragments have been preserved.
Early in the tenth century, the exact date is uncertain, Suidas compiled his famous lexicon. According to Gibbon, Suidas was also the author of some fifty plays, some of which were based upon Aristophanes. In the latter part of the eleventh century Eudocia (wife of Romanus and the second literary empress of the name), having been imprisoned in a convent by her son, wrote, while in confinement, a treatise on the genealogies of the gods and heroes.
During the first years of the twelfth century Anna Comnena, daughter of Alexius Comnenus I., wrote, in fifteen books, under the title of Alexias, a life of her father. Gibbon speaks of the style of the history as being turgid and inflated, but says that it contains some interesting accounts of the first Crusaders.
In the twelfth century, a name of distinction is that of Eustathius I., Archbishop of Thessalonica, who published, about 1150, commentaries on Homer and on Dionysius the Geographer. Gibbon says that in the former he refers to no less than four hundred authors. At about the same time appeared the Chiliads of Tsetzes.
Oman is of opinion that the most interesting development of Byzantine literature were the Epics or Romances of Chivalry, written at the close of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh centuries. He names as one of the best representatives of these romances, the epic of Diogenes Akritas, a mighty hunter, a slayer of dragons, and a persistent and successful lover.
I have referred to the work of but a few of the more representative of the Byzantine writers. It would be foreign to the purposes of this sketch to undertake to present any comprehensive bibliography of Byzantine literature, even if I had available the material for such a bibliography. Of many of the authors whose names have been preserved, very little except their names is known, while of the entire literature of the Byzantine period it may, I judge, fairly be said that it possesses but slight interest or value for later generations. The fact that literary undertakings of importance at the time and of interest for the readers of the day continued from generation to generation to be presented to the public, undertakings which in not a few cases must have involved the labor of many years, gives us the right to conclude that some means or machinery must have existed for reaching this public. As far, however, as my present information goes, there are absolutely no data concerning the existence in Constantinople of any publishing or bookselling trade, and we have no means of knowing by what means the books of Byzantium were manifolded and distributed.
It is to be noted that a very large number of the writers named belonged to the Court, or held high official station. The fact that so many books were the work of the emperors themselves and of the members of the imperial families, is exceptional both in the history of literature and in the history of royalty. It is probable that for the transcribing of these books and for the books of officials generally, the services of official scribes were utilized. Authors outside of official circles may have gone to the convent, or may also have employed private scribes. It is fair to assume, notwithstanding the absence of any specific mention of such establishments, that some organization of scribes, or of work-rooms for the manifolding of books, existed in the city.
In closing this chapter, I venture to recall to my readers the well-known summary by Gibbon of the literature of the Byzantine Empire.
“The Empire of the Cæsars undoubtedly checked the activity and the progress of the human mind. Its magnitude might indeed allow some scope for domestic competition; but when it was gradually reduced, at first to the East, and at last to Greece and Constantinople, the Byzantine subjects were degraded to an abject and languid temper, the natural effect of their solitary and insulated state. Alone in the universe, the self-satisfied pride of the Greeks was not disturbed by the comparison of foreign merit.... Their prose is soaring to the vicious affectation of poetry; their poetry is sinking below the flatness and insipidity of prose. The tragic, epic, and lyric muses were silent and inglorious. The bards of Constantinople seldom rose above a riddle or an epigram, a panegyric or a tale. They forgot even the rules of prosody, and with the melody of Homer still ringing in their ears, they confound all measures of feet and syllables in the impotent strains which have received the name of ‘political’ or city verses.”
The change first comes when there is a break in the insulation. Gibbon continues: “The nations of Europe and Asia were mingled by the expeditions to the Holy Land, and it is under the Comnenian dynasty that a faint emulation of knowledge and of military virtue was rekindled in the Byzantine Empire.”
The opinion of Lecky is still more emphatic. He says: “The universal verdict of history is that the Byzantine State constituted the most base and despicable form that civilization ever assumed, and there has been no other enduring civilization so absolutely destitute of all the forms of true greatness, none to which the epithet mean may so emphatically be applied.”297 Is it surprising that in a State thus demoralized there is no record of the existence of a publisher?
It is only proper to add that the historian Oman, a much sounder authority on the subject than Mr. Lecky, and writing with information before him that was not available for Gibbon, contends that the talk about the exceptional demoralization of the Byzantines is largely rubbish, and points out that if the State were really as corrupt as it is painted by Gibbon and by Lecky, it would have fallen to pieces of its own rottenness within two or three generations, instead of enduring as the bulwark of Europe for over a thousand years.
The fall of Constantinople in 1453, and the introduction into Europe of the Turks, was unquestionably a great injury to Europe and to civilization, and the destruction of the collections of manuscripts existing in the capital itself and in monasteries and libraries in other cities of the Empire, was an irreparable loss for literature. For the educational interests and the literary development of Europe there were, however, considerations to offset this serious disaster. Great as was the destruction of manuscripts, a number were preserved by individual scholars and in the hidden recesses of certain convents and monasteries. Many of these were at once taken to Italy, Germany, and France by the scholars flying from the barbarous conquerors of their land, and the works were thus brought to the knowledge and made available for the use of European students. Other manuscripts were secured from their hiding-places years after the capture of the city, by Greek scholars sent back for the purpose on behalf of the publishers of Italy and France, or of the universities of Bologna, Padua, and Paris, while some few valuable parchments were hidden so safely that they have been forgotten for centuries and are only to-day being brought to light from the vaults and attics of old monasteries, so as again to be included in literature accessible for the world.
In addition to the service done to the literary development of Europe by the distribution westward of the texts of the almost forgotten classics of the great Greek writers, there was the further important gain for the scholarship of the continent in securing, for university chairs, for tutorial positions, and for editorial work, the services of hundreds of Greek scholars whose homes had been destroyed, or who were unwilling to live under the rule of the hated Turk. Men of the highest rank in scholarly accomplishments and possessing a thorough knowledge of the literature of their race, either on the ground of impecuniosity or in some instances apparently from an unselfish devotion to the cause of scholarship, found their way to chairs in Bologna, Padua, Paris, Oxford, and other educational centres, and to the Court circles of the more intellectual of the princes and nobles of Italy, and spread in hundreds of channels a knowledge of the Greek language and an enthusiasm for the Greek literature. Mohammed II., the conqueror of Constantinople, had therefore played a part by no means unimportant in furthering one phase at least of the Renaissance of the intellectual life of Europe.
It was fortunate for the continued vitality and progress of the movement that the Greek literature thus reintroduced into Europe found already perfected the new art of printing, by means of which the manuscripts that the refugees from the Bosphorus had brought with them could be made generally available for students. It was fortunate also that, within a few years after the teaching of Greek had been entered upon in the principal educational centres, public-spirited and scholarly publishers were found prepared to take upon themselves the very serious business risk involved in the casting of Greek fonts of type and in the printing of editions of the Greek texts.
The first and most important of these publishers, the man who, on the ground of high ideals and of great things accomplished, is properly to be honored as facile princeps in the long list of the great publishers of Europe, was Aldus Manutius of Venice, a worthy successor to Atticus, the friend of Cicero, who, 1550 years earlier, had done his part in introducing to Italy and to the Roman world the classics of Greece.
It is in Venice, with the record of the service rendered by Aldus and his successors in connection with the second introduction into Italy and the world beyond Italy of the treasures of Greek literature; in Bologna and Paris, with some account of the connection of the great universities with the earlier publishing undertakings of Europe; and in Mayence, Frankfort, and Nuremberg, with the story of Gutenberg and his printing-press, that the history of the relations of authors with their public must be continued.
It is my hope to be able in a later volume to trace the development of property in literature from the time of the invention of printing down to the present day. It was, of course, only after the general application of printing to the production of books that authors were placed in a position to enforce any property control over their productions, while for a long period this control was conceded for but brief terms and was restricted to but limited territories. More than four centuries of further development in national morality have been required before the civilization of the world has brought itself to the recognition of the rights of literary producers according to the standard of to-day, a standard which is expressed by the term International Copyright.
Footnotes
1 Story of Chaldea, 260.
2 Revue Archæol., 1857.
3 Rawnsley, Notes for the Nile. London and New York, 1892.
4 Ancient Egypt, American edition, i., 106, 107.
5 Karpeles, Gesch. der Litt. des Orient., i., 10.
6 Karpeles, i., 11.
7 Middle Kingdom, i., p. 603.
8 Encyclopædia Britannica, article “China.”
9 Karpeles, i., 12.
10 Karpeles, i., 12.
11 Middle Kingdom, i., 600.
12 Middle Kingdom, i., 574.
13 Middle Kingdom, i., 526.
14 Karpeles, i., 23.
15 Prof. J. P. Peters, Journal of the Exegetical Society, 1887, 116, 117.
16 Renouard, Traité des Droits d’Auteurs, i., 15.
17 Sanhedrim, c. xiv., 5.
18 Étude sur la Propriété Littéraire chez les Grecs et chez les Romains, par Paul Clement, Grenoble, 1867.
19 Du Droit de Perpétuité de la Propriété Intellectuelle, par Adolphe Breulier.
20 Schriftsteller und Buchhändler in Athen, und im übrigen Griechenland, von Wilhelm Schmitz, Heidelberg, 1876.
21 Essai sur les Livres dans l’Antiquité, par H. Géraud, Paris, 1840.
22 Jevons, Hist. Greek Lit., 42 et seq.
23 Evans found in Crete, in 1893, examples of script, believed to be the work of scribes of Greek stock, of a much earlier date.
24 Herod., vi., 27.
25 Jevons, Greek Lit., p. 45.
26 Greek Literature, 51. The word is by some authorities derived from ῥάβδος a staff,—just as we have a stave in music. Rhapsodists would thus mean men of the stave; ῥάβδος also (according to Liddell and Scott, edited by Drisler) means grammatically a line or a verse and ῥαψῳδία would mean a division of a poem for recitation.
27 Plato, Phædo.
28 Ritschl. Philolog. Schriften, Bd. 1.
29 Social Greece, 10.
30 Social Greece, 14.
31 Le Droit des Auteurs, 16.
32 Rozoir, Dictionnaire de la Conversation, Art. “Plagiaire.”
33 The Frogs, v. 939 et seq.
34 Scholia ad Equites, v. 528 et 1291.
35 Bayle, Dicty., Art. “Theopompus.”
36 Attic Nights, Book iii., Chap. 17.
37 Dict. de la Convers., art. “Plagiaire.”
38 De Archit., liv. vii. Preface.
39 Oeuvres, ii., Part 2, p. 518.
40 From the Latin version of Breulier, Clement, II.
41 Travels of Anacharsis the Younger, vi., 91.
42 Pseudo-Plutarch, Vitæ dec. Orat.-Isocrates, c. viii.
43 Phædrus, 274.
44 Diogenes Laërtius, iii., 6, and Bergk. Griech. Literatur Gesch., 218.
45 Ad Att., xiii., 21.
46 Poet., xv., and Poli., viii., 541.
47 Stahr, Aristotle, 67.
48 Gellius, N. A., xx. 5. Plutarch, Alexander, c. vii.
49 Zeller, Philos. d. Griechen, ii., 112, 119.
50 Bruns, Die Testamente der Griech. Philos., cited by Birt, 437.
51 Lucian, Herodotus, c. i. and ii.
52 Plutarch, Herodotus, c. 26.
53 D. Chrysost., op. xxxvii., t. ii., 103.
54 Plutarch, i., c. 31.
55 History of Federal Government, i., 37.
56 Einleitung zu Herodot., 13 ff.
57 Thucydides, I, c. 22.
58 Marcellinus, 43.
59 Diog. Laërtius, ii., 57.
60 Birt, 475.
61 Athenæus, i., 4.
62 Gellius, vii., c. 17.
63 Plut., Vit., Antonius, c. 58.
64 Stahr, Aristotle, 45.
65 Athenæus, i., 4.
66 Stahr, Aristotle, 70.
67 Memnon, reported by Photius, 322.
68 Aristophanes, Frogs, v., 944, 1408.
69 Boeckh, Gespräche des Sokratikers Simon, 226.
70 Diog. Laërt., iii., 9.
71 Gellius, iii., c. 17.
72 Müller, Lustspiele des Aristophanes, 1041 ff.
73 Athenæus, iv., 57.
74 Aristotle, Poet., v., 5.
75 Athenæus, xii., II.
76 Boeckh, Staatsh., p. 68.
77 Buchsenschutz, Besitz und Erwerb im Griech. Alterthum, 572.
78 Schmitz, Schriftsteller in Athen, 68.
79 Hermann, Staats Alterthum, 466.
80 Plutarch, Nicias.
81 Ibid.
82 Plato, De Republica, viii., 568.
83 Aristotle, Poet., xiii.
84 Athenæus, xii., 53. Cited by Schmitz, 39.
85 Lucian, Adv. Indoct., c. 19.
86 Anabasis, vii., c. 5.
87 Meineke, Fragm. Comic., ii., 2732; Pollux, vii., 211.
88 Meineke, ii., 2821; Zonaras, Lex., 388.
89 Meineke, ii., 2852.
90 Meineke, iii., 114; Pollux, vii., 21; and Meineke, iii., 88; Pollux, vii., 201.
91 Meineke, iii., 378; Pollux, vii., 211.
92 Diog. Laërt., ii., 105.
93 Schol. to Demosth., Olynth., ii., 19. Cited by Schmitz, 44.
94 Xenophon, The Banquet of Philosophers, iii., 5.
95 Schaefer, Demosthenes und seine Zeit., i., 322.
96 Isocrates, Letters to Philip, ii.
97 Plutarch, Philip, 17.
98 Birt, 435.
99 Plutarch, Alexander, c. 8.
100 Diog. Laërt., vii., 31.
101 Dionysius Hal., De Isocrate, 18.
102 Diog. Laërt., viii., 36.
103 Diog. Laërt., vii., 2.
104 Diog. Laërt., v., 73.
105 Plutarch, Lucullus, c. 42.
106 See on page 90 another version of the same story.
107 Ritter, Hist. Ancient Philos., iii., 24.
108 Drumann, v., 66, quoting Cicero, Epist. ad Atticum.
109 Plin., Hist. Nat., vii., 85.
110 Diog Laërt., ix., 52.
111 Strabo, xiii., c. 54.
112 Lucian, c. iv., as quoted by Schmitz, 55.
113 Lucian, Adv. Ind., 4, quoted by Schmitz, 56.
114 Schmitz, 57.
115 Greek Life and Thought, 195.
116 Birt, 486.
117 Hist. Lit. Gr., iii., 186.
118 Moore’s Lectures, 55.
119 Géraud, 106.
120 Mahaffy, Social Life, 209.
121 Mahaffy, 209.
122 Birt, 439.
123 Athenæus, 72.
124 Birt, 443.
125 Birt, 501.
126 This division was, however, probably not made by the author.
127 Isaiah, xix., 7.
128 Ragozin, Chaldea, 112 et seq.
129 Plin., xiii., 68.
130 Birt, 55.
131 Diog. Laërt., x., 26.
132 Birt, Das Antike Buchwesen, 439.
133 Herod., ii., 38.
134 Johnson’s Cyclo., 300.
135 Ritschl, Die Alexandrin. Bibliothek.
136 Plato, Com., ii., 684. Meineke.
137 Plutarch, Cæsar, 60; Galen, i., 79.
138 2 John, 12.
139 Simcox, History Latin Lit., i., 31.
140 Tusc., i., 5.
141 Simcox, 32 et seq.
142 Simcox, 34.
143 Simcox, 46.
144 But six have been preserved. Ritschl, Op. 3, 257.
145 Epistles, ii., 2, 5.
146 Seneca, Epist., 27.
147 Cod. Just., vi., 43.
148 Strabo, L. xiii., 419.
149 Plutarch, Crassus, 2.
150 Haenny, pp. 31, 32.
151 Sauppe, Epist. Crit., p. 49.
152 Harpocration, pp. 19, 24, 32, 15.
153 Daremberg, Commentaire, Paris, 1848, p. 12.
154 Haenny, 33.
155 Anecd., i., 24.
156 Ad Atticum, xii., xv., xvi.
157 Ad Atticum, xiii., 12, 2.
158 Ad Atticum, ii., 4.
159 Simcox, i., 174.
160 Ad Att., xvi., 11, 1.
161 Ad Atticum, xii., 5, 3; xiii., 21, 3; xvi., 2, 6.
162 Ad Atticum, xii., 6, 3.
163 Ad Atticum, xiii., 13.
164 Ad Atticum xiii., 25, 3, quoted by Birt, p. 353.
165 Ad Atticum, xiii., 13.
166 Birt, 354.
167 Martial, xi., 3, 6.
168 Ad Atticum, xii., 41; i., 45.
169 Birt, 284.
170 Ibid., 357.
171 Recherches, p. 27.
172 Orationes, vi., 3, 3.
173 N. A., i., 7. 1.
174 Benef., vii., 6.
175 Birt, 358, n. 2.
176 Géraud, 171.
177 Ad Quintum, III, 5, 6.
178 Catullus, ed. Vossius, 14.
179 Epist., 2, 2, 49.
180 Simcox, i., 287.
181 Art. Poet., 345.
182 Epist., i., 19, 19.
183 Lines placed on the doorway to the Palace of Augustus, quoted in P. Virgilii Maronis Vita, (author unknown) Paris, 1780.
184 Epist., i., 19.
185 Plagius is from πλάγιος.
186 Lat. Lit., i., 349.
187 Simcox, i., 249.
188 Trist., iv., 1, 3.
189 Ep., i., 1.
190 Ep., i., 2.
191 L. i., ep. 118.
192 L. i., ep. 30.
193 L. iv., ep. 72.
194 xii., 1.
195 vii., 80.
196 iv., 82.
197 vi., 85.
198 v., 16, 10.
199 xi., 25.
200 Gesch. der Denk-und Glaubensfreiheit im ersten Jahrhundert der Kaiserherrschaft, p. 138.
201 Ep., xiii., 3.
202 iv., 88, 1.
203 v., 16, 10.
204 xi., 3.
205 i., 113.
206 Ep., i., 2.
207 Schmidt, p. 143; Martial, vii., 17.
208 ii., 1, 5.
209 vii., 11 and 17.
210 Haenny, p. 39.
211 Simcox, p. 249.
212 De Bibliopolis Romanorum, 10-12.
213 Gallus (Deutsche Ausgabe), ii., 450.
214 P. 354.
215 x. 74.
216 De Gramm., Reiff., p. 106, 12.
217 P. 355.
218 xii., 46.
219 v., 56.
220 i., 76.
221 v., 16.
222 xiii., 11.
223 Simcox, p. 250.
224 Juvenal, Sat., vii., 39-47.
225 Juvenal, v., 82-94.
226 Cap. ix.
227 Birt, 347.
228 Catullus, 95, quoted by Birt, 345.
229 Birt, 345.
230 Epist., i., 8, 3.
231 Fronto, Epist. ad Verum, ii., 9.
232 Birt, 357; see also Cicero, Philipp., ii., 4.
233 Ep., i., 4, 118.
234 Martial, Ep., i., 117.
235 Lucian, 58, 4.
236 Gell., 9, 4, 1.
237 Plin., Ep., 9, 11.
238 Martial, 7, 88.
239 Horace, Ep., 20, 13.
240 Birt, 363.
241 Birt, 359.
242 Birt, 348.
243 Quint., Epist. ad Tryphon.
244 Mart., xiii., 3.
245 Seneca, De Beneficiis, vii., 6, 1. Quoted by Birt, p. 358.
246 Renouard, i., 15.
247 Sueton., Domitian, c. 10.
248 Aulus Gellius, 19, 5, 4, 9; 14, 3.
249 Epist., i., 8, 2.
250 Bursian, Geog. Griechenlands, p. 290.
251 Strabo, p. 646.
252 Ad Quintum, iii., 4.
253 Juvenal, iii., 206.
254 Sueton., Domitian, 20.
255 Birt, p. 361.
256 De Fin., ii., 7.
257 Epist., iii., 7.
258 48, 4.
259 Birt, 361.
260 Suidas, Lexicon.
261 Capitolinus, Gordianus, 18, 2.
262 Martial, 14, 190.
263 Simcox, ii., 49.
264 Simcox, ii., p. 77.
265 Tac., Ann., iii., 49.
266 Simcox, ii., p. 77.
267 Martial, vi., 12.
268 Martial, iv., 72. Simcox, p. 107.
269 Simcox, ii., p. 142.
270 Simcox, ii., p. 236.
271 Birt.
272 Pliny, Epist., iv., 7.
273 Birt, 352.
274 Pliny, xxxv., II (trans. from Birt’s version).
275 Ritschl, Ramsay, and other scholars take the view that Pliny was referring to actual portraits which Varro had prepared by an admirable invention of his own.
276 Simcox, i., p. 206.
277 Simcox, ii., 243.
278 Birt, 367.
279 Diog. Laërt., ix., 52.
280 Sueton., Octavius, 31.
281 Sueton., Caligula, 34.
282 Sueton., Tiberius, 61.
283 Sueton., Domitian, 10.
284 Tacitus, Agric., 2. Plin., Ep., vii., 19.
285 Burckhardt, Constant., p. 151.
286 Burckhardt, 341.
287 Codex, ix., 36, “De Famosis Libellis.”
288 Renouard, 17.
289 Klostermann, p. 37.
290 Just. 34, Inst. l. c. Cited by Klostermann, 37.
291 Plinius, xiii., 83.
292 Euseb., Hist. Eccles., vi., 13.
293 Birt, 375.
294 Theodoric the Goth, pp. 263-276.
295 Oman, The Byzantine Empire, p. 280.
296 Gibbon’s Rome, Am. ed., v., 525.
297 Hist. Europ. Morals, Amer. ed., p. 13.