ANNO DOMINI DCCCXCI. NICETAS BYZANTINUS. EDITOR'S NOTE.
Concerning the time of Nicetas of Byzantium, those who have chronicled the history of ecclesiastical writers do not entirely agree. D. Cellier thinks he flourished after the middle of the twelfth century; but he wrote that without proper consideration. Allatius, whom Mai follows, asserts that he flourished at the end of the ninth century, and although he does not confirm his opinion with any argument, he nevertheless does not stray from the truth. There remain only two works of Nicetas of Byzantium, which ought to be referred to this age by certain intrinsic marks; so much so that it is surprising that so many sharp-sighted men who have disputed about the age of Nicetas failed to notice them. In his *Refutation of the Epistle of the Prince of Armenia* and his *Apology for the Council of Chalcedon*, he deals with almost the same controversy that Photius treats in his writings to the Armenians. He refutes the epistle of the prince of Armenia, citing its words one by one; I do not recall that this epistle survives elsewhere, but the most learned Serpos narrates that it was written in the histories of Armenia (a). Thus, it is entirely likely that the prince of Armenia whom Nicetas refutes is the very same Ashot or Aschod to whom Photius thought he ought to write (b). This can be gathered from the fact that Basil the Macedonian concluded peace with Ashot, the king of Armenia, whom he called his most beloved son, as John Catholicos, the celebrated historian of Armenia, narrates (c). But Nicetas likewise calls the prince of Armenia, whom he refutes, by the name of "most beloved son," whether he wrote in the name of the emperor of Constantinople or, what is more likely, as a bishop addressed Ashot as a son in Christ. Furthermore, Basil the Macedonian died in the year 886, and Ashot in the year 889. The *Refutation* of Nicetas, therefore, was published before that time. Nor are the little works that Nicetas of Byzantium wrote against the Mohammedans of a more recent date. For although no mark of time appears at the beginning of the book, there occurs below a refutation of the second epistle sent by the Agarenes to the emperor Michael, the son of Theophilus. But this concerns Michael III, who was born in the year 836 and was slaughtered by Basil the Macedonian in the year 867. That second epistle, therefore, was written before the year 867, and was refuted by Nicetas not long afterward, provided that he speaks of it as having been written recently. Moreover, from the beginning he extols with the highest praise the emperor by whose command he declares he is writing that book; these praises seem to agree most with the age of Basil, or with the beginnings of the reign of Leo the Wise, who succeeded his father Basil in the year 886. Therefore, the works of Nicetas would be falsely listed among the writings of the eleventh (d) or twelfth (e) centuries, even if in those ages also the Greeks disputed with the Armenians about the dogmas of the faith; they should have been placed entirely among the monuments of the end of the ninth century—a fact which no one has demonstrated as yet. After Allatius, in his *Graecia Orthodoxa* (f), had asserted that Nicetas of Byzantium was not to be distinguished from Nicetas David, without setting forth the reasons for his opinion, he later affirmed, when he discussed the writings of the Nicetas authors on purpose (g), that they are two distinct authors. Cardinal Mai follows Allatius blindly and candidly, whether he is affirming or denying the identity of the two authors. To us, however, the second opinion appears far more likely, not only because the method of writing of each is different, but also because Nicetas David seems to have originated from Paphlagonia, whereas the philosopher Nicetas seems to have been born in Constantinople. Let this be left to the judgment of the learned. J-B. M.