Notice of the Writings of George Kedrenos

EDITOR'S NOTE

George Cedrenus must be reckoned among those writers who do not record their own thoughts, but transcribe the books of others with some degree of discernment. For this reason, he has been attacked by many, as if he brought forth nothing of his own, but had lived purely by theft. Yet, if the matter is weighed fairly, the learned reader will see that Cedrenus gained some merit for himself in the transcription of other authors, and that he can even today serve the studies of the learned, both because some of those ancient authors have perished and exist only in Cedrenus, and also because Cedrenus is cited by many writers of the following age who lacked the books plundered by Cedrenus. Hence it is that, not infrequently, Cedrenus must be consulted in order to grasp their meaning. Let the learned readers to whom we refer—who will soon read Allatius’s sterner judgment and perhaps wonder why we admitted Cedrenus’s History into our Patrology—attend to this. They will also see that Cedrenus was by no means transcribed by his contemporary John Scylitzes, as Fabrotus asserts, but that he transcribed him.

NOTITIA OF THE WRITERS OF GEORGE CEDRENUS

George Cedrenus, deemed by some to be a monk or a priest (partly because he follows a manner of speaking familiar to men of that lot, and partly because he inserts long-winded discussions upon religion, ceremonies, and the monastic life—from which I would not dissent, provided that the title of the book, which they themselves also produce, be not suspect), began a compendium of his history from the very creation of the world and brought it down to the abdication of the Stratioticus. He finished a work stitched together from various histories, not only in its opinions but word for word. If these were to be traced back to their authors, he himself would remain naked, as that crow in the fable. For he transcribed the first part of the history from George Syncellus and another George, Hamartolus, down to Maximian and Maximin; the rest, up to Nicephorus, [he took] from Theophanes, the continuator of Syncellus; concerning Basil the Macedonian, [he took it] from the book of Constantine Porphyrogenitus on the life and deeds of Basil the Macedonian; and [he took] from Nicephorus down to the Stratioticus himself, at which point he ends the history, from John Scylitzes—and I know not with what face he passed it off as his own, so that in such a vast volume one can barely find a single period or two that is properly and legitimately Cedrenus's own. ^A Yet thanks are due to him, because he preserved for us, by his own theft, principal and rare authors when they were not otherwise possessed. But since we now have the writings of George Syncellus, Hamartolus, Theophanes, Constantine, Scylax, and others, by the benefit and diligence of most meticulous men, he who searches for Cedrenus will do so in vain—unless streams of water are found more acceptable than the fountains from which they emanate, which are purer and clearer. ^B This author was edited in Greek and Latin from the translation of William Xylander, who also added annotations and chronological tables, at Basel in 1566, in folio; yet in such a way that it suffers from the lack of whole pages in many places, which will be able to be supplied from manuscripts preserved in the Altempsian and Vatican libraries. It existed also in the library of the Patriarch of Constantinople, as Verderius records, and in the library of Antonius Augustinus, codex 131. This author was once preferred by Wolphius, though with what sound judgment!—to Zonaras. For Zonaras, although he may be more meager in his history after Constantine the Great, and may have traversed only the obvious, yet in those matters which concern the time before Constantine, extending back to the beginnings of the world, he is more diligent and copious. ^C But that which is worthy of praise, and is its highest merit, is that Zonaras composes and narrates affairs from his own resources, does not seek applause through the thefts of others, and does not transcribe entire treatises. Josephus Scaliger, in his notes on the *Chronicon* of Eusebius, has this of Cedrenus: "George Cedrenus had transcribed the entire *Chronography* of Syncellus verbatim, and from that and the writings of other chroniclers, he wove together a huge volume which he called *Synopsis historiōn*. ^D But neither was that able to escape the hands of the abridgers, those most present poisoners of books. I say more: they were not abridgers, but mutilators. For what we have is not an accurate *Synopsis* of his, but..."

rather a corpse, and the scattered limbs of the writer, and excerpts from him of a huge volume without any order of time, or of deeds, or of the selection of those things which were either to be omitted or to be taken up. ^A That this Cedrenus was an unlearned man is shouted by his writings, but those who tore him in such a cruel manner have deserved worse of him and of the whole of chronology. In short, the entire work of Cedrenus is a stable of refuse, and a patchwork stitched together from many rags—sordid, purple, bad, good, whole, and torn. From that hodgepodge we salvage many things of Eusebius, which he had excerpted from Georgius Syncellus, and presents under the aforementioned name of Eusebius; many things also which, although the name of Eusebius is passed over in silence, are manifestly shown to be Eusebian both from Syncellus and from the remains of other fragments. ^B Furthermore, not a few ana-lects of excellent quality remain in the same Cedrenus, of which we do not doubt that part are Eusebius's and part Africanus's; but because we lack the arguments by which we might make faith in our opinion, we have preferred to leave them untouched rather than to offer uncertain things instead of certain. We think, however, that Cedrenus's *Synopsis* was mutilated not long after his death, and thus transmitted to posterity by those butchers of books in the form in which it is published today; indeed, not even those things which the abridgers collected have reached us entirely whole. For the most learned Leunclavius writes in his notes to the *Turkic Annals* that he possessed some leaves of Cedrenus which were missing in the printed editions. ^C We ourselves have found an entire page in Syncellus, and certain other things which will be demonstrated in their own place as not existing in the common edition. Nor are those things read in Vossius, *De historicis Græcis*, Lib. II, cap. 26, dissimilar. Nevertheless, Scaliger’s judgment on Cedrenus is sharp, and the injustice with which he affects an unlearned man, as he supposes, he inflicts upon the highest, most learned men, and the pillars of ecclesiastical history: to wit, Africanus, Eusebius, Syncellus, Theophanes, Hamartolus, Constantine Porphyrogennetus, Scylitza, and others, whom Cedrenus describes verbatim. ^D Scaliger himself admits of some, and others have noted of others, and most especially Dionysius Petavius in his notes on the *Breviarium historicum* of the Patriarch Nicephorus: for he writes nothing of his own which they had not previously handed down in writing. "Eusebius described Africanus; Syncellus translated Eusebius into his own *Chronicon* without any change of words," those are Scaliger's words: "afterwards Theophanes and Hamartolus, and when Syncellus, snatched away by death, had not finished his work, Porphyrogennetus then, with the material supplied by a relative and continuator of Theophanes, takes up the thread from Theophanes, and follows the series of events: from the death of Nicephorus to Isaac Comnenus, the whole of Scylitza is proposed." How will so many and such great men, who have deserved well of Christian history, be a stable of refuse, and sordid and torn rags? Or is it because they treat of the rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church most confidently and truly, that they smell of a stable to Scaliger and taste of it? He should have censured the first authors of such things, not the collector nor the rewriter. Does not Alexander the Macedonian take a beating under the mask of Davus, and does not Scaliger, at his own whim, fashion for himself a man whom he may oppress? Would Church rites be lighter, traditions more contemptible, and would they be able to be refuted more easily if their defender is asserted to be of no worth? But I would have wished that something in the entire history of Cedrenus which is peculiar to Cedrenus had been demonstrated by Scaliger, which would nowhere be demonstrated once the said authors had been read, so that from this we might afterwards be able to judge whether that is worthy of praise or of reprehension. He will say it is "knowing" to be able to bend one's tongue wherever the need arises; but those who have vinegar in their chests will not approve of it at all. Furthermore, Scaliger undeservedly longs for an order of times in these Cedrenic remains. For Cedrenus wrote a *Synopsis of Histories*, not a *Chronography*, to which a distinction of times better applies. It was enough for him to set down kings, and the things also done under their principate, distinguished by no order of years. But look through Cedrenus, I pray you, how distinctly he distributes most matters, how accurately, and especially those things which he borrows from Theophanes, placing them in their proper place. And in the transcription of Scylitza, Scylitza himself had to be followed, who refers actions not to years, but to reigns. Nor did the work of Cedrenus split into two by a more prudent counsel; the one being the huge work which Cedrenus himself had written, compiled from various authors, the other being that which was mutilated by later hands not long after his death, so that it is not even an abridgment of the former volume, but rather a corpse; and that is the very thing which, published in Greek and Latin, is in everyone's hands. For the work of Cedrenus which we have is not an abridgment of the first work composed by Cedrenus—for there was none—but that very thing collected by the same man, and which he himself called *Synopsis* [Σύνοψις], a *Breviary*, which he provided to readers so that things profuse and of immense writing might be delivered in a short circuit of words, and as it were in a compendium: the sentiments and narrations of the authors will be the proof, which he disposes, as they are read in them, not changing them, but in a faithful continuation of words, having neglected matters less opportune. And it is the nature of a *Breviary* to conclude a matter circumscribed by a long series of words with a shorter sentence and with fewer words: which is the opposite of how it stands in Cedrenus. Vossius, however, warns from Gesner that the history of Cedrenus from the death of Nicephorus up to the reign of Isaac Comnenus is also read under the name of John Curopalates (who is the same as Scylitza) with a few exceptions; and that Casaubon in his notes on Book XVII of Strabo refers, when...

13 FABROTI DEDICATION 14

had recovered the history of the Curopalates from a Greek, and had compared it with Cedrenus, he had discovered that the same things were stated by them in the same words, so that one or the other must necessarily be a plagiarist. Casaubon adds: "But although I took it ill that I had been deceived by that Greek, who had made a great deal of money off me, this nevertheless consoled me, that from the collation of both I saw that many things could be rectified in each." For I knew that Cedrenus had been published in such a way that many very base errors were left scattered throughout his writings. Assuredly, Casaubon was not deceived by the Greek, who sold for as much as he could what was indeed the case, but by his own error, as he did not know that Scylitzes had been translated into Cedrenus. Therefore, he complains in vain about that Greek, who exhibited the history of the Curopalates—which he truly professed to possess—as his own; but since he himself bought it for a large sum of money, he ought to have conducted his own business more cautiously; for the price of things increases by the estimation of both the seller and the purchaser. Vossius, in *De historicis Graecis* lib. III, seems to confuse this John of Antioch with the Curopalates, whom he says Syncellus had excerpted, which is, however, false. For this reason, the historical compendium of Cedrenus will be attributed by many in their books to John the Curopalates. It is certain, however, that not the entire history of Cedrenus, but only that part which takes its beginning from Nicephorus Rangabe, is John the Curopalates'. Finally, it is childish to doubt (a) whether Cedrenus received it from the Curopalates, or the latter from Cedrenus. Concerning Cedrenus, see Genebrard in his *Chronicon*, and Bellarmine, *De scriptoribus eccl. saecul. XI*, anno 1070.

(a) Cedrenus does not deny that he follows John the Thracian (who is the same as Scylitzes), and indeed he translated the former part of his work into his own *Synopsis*: but the other edition of Scylitzes, continued up to Alexius Comnenus, that is, to the year 1081 A.D., finally came into men's hands after Cedrenus's *Synopsis*. Nic. Comnenus Papadopoli, in his *Praenotiones mystagogicae*, p. 361, cites Georgius Cedrenus, letter 84, to Euthymius.

FABROT'S DEDICATION.

TO THE MOST EMINENT PRINCE JULIUS MAZARIN, CARDINAL OF THE HOLY ROMAN CHURCH.

The Greek author aptly says, Most Eminent Cardinal, that gifts ought to be dedicated to the temples of the gods, but monuments of genius to illustrious men. For just as by these gifts we testify to our religion towards God, so by this product of our minds do we testify to our devotion and respect towards men of the highest dignity or preeminent learning. However, there is a vast difference between God and men, in that God, as Creator and Lord of all, has no need of the things of which we are the precarious possessors, while the deeds of illustrious men would perish completely unless there were someone to commit them to writing and hand them down to posterity. But just as it is lawful for every humble person to approach the temples of the gods and there offer up his vows, so we see that illustrious souls do not disdain what lesser men dedicate to them. For men of a lofty mind are confident in their own greatness, to the point that they seem, in some sense, to reflect God. When I was turning these things over in my mind, Most Eminent Cardinal, I dared to approach you religiously and to inscribe to you, with this perhaps overly free letter, a book refined by my own labor, in order that I might publicly attest to my devotion toward you, and that all might know that even those who dwell far away dedicate books to you for the sake of venerating you, so that they might seek fame and glory for themselves from your sacred and immortal name, and be gifted with immortality. Yet I fear this: lest I, as one of the crowd, should too boldly interrupt you—placed as you are on the lofty height of human affairs and never at leisure—with my unordered and rough discourse, and hinder you, by whose most extensive musings and counsels the French empire is governed, when your occupations ought rather to be spared for the public good. But great souls do not refuse these literary diversions. Here, however, it occurs to me to marvel with what sagacious counsel the best and greatest prince, when he was passing away—or rather, was being taken up and returning to heaven—imposed upon you, Most Eminent Cardinal, I might almost say, the entire burden of governing, when the mind of his youthful successor was not yet equal to the empire. Thus, when Atlas was withdrawing himself from the burden of the heavens, he is said to have surrendered it to Hercules, as one capable of such a weight: but what a man? One greater than human nature, next to God, finally the son of Jupiter, not of Amphitryon. Certainly, no one other than one born of God could bear the heavens, the seat of the gods, just as no one other than a man of divine mind could sustain the burden of the French empire. You, I say, Most Eminent Cardinal, were admitted without divine influence, by the calling of the most prudent king, to handle the secrets of the realm; a fact which is more well-known from the events themselves—which flow happily and according to prayer—than that anyone, apart from the malicious, could deny it. For when did that plunderer of lands, that candidate for the whole world, realize more surely that he could not possess the world alone, and that he was invading foreign kingdoms with vain hope? When did he think it was going well for him if he did not extend his borders but defended them, unless from the time when he left the soul of our most invincible prince? Why should I mention individual instances? First, with his most powerful army prostrated by stupendous good fortune, then his most heavily fortified towns, by both the nature of the terrain and soldiers who were not cowardly—when meantime he saw his own battle lines inclined and wavering, and his soldiers, as it were, astonished and paralyzed with fear—Flanders trembled. The French enemies had taken courage, since it seemed that the fortune of the Gauls had fallen into reverse.