Scanned text contains errors.
conjectural emendation, according to which the two titles belong to one and the same work, ^Ovo^aro-A(fyos % nfra£, k. t. A.., which he supposes Suidas to have described as an epitome of Diogenes Laertius, De Vitis Pkilosopkorum. The work is in its general character similar to that of Diogenes; and though a good deal shorter, comprehends much of the same matter. But the differences are too great to allow one to be regarded as the epitome of the other. As the ecclesiastical writers are avowedly omitted by Hesychius, the opinion has been entertained that he was a pagan ; but his belief in Christianity has been satisfactorily shown by several writers, especially by Thorschmidius in a dissertation on the subject, reprinted by Orellius in his Hesychii Opuscula. The work of Hesychius was first published with a Latin version by Hadrianus Junius, 8vo. Antwerp, 1572, and has been reprinted several times. For a long time the standard edition was that of Meursius, in his Hesycliii Opuscula^ 8vo. Leyden, 1613, reprinted in the seventh vol. of the Opera Meursii, fol. Florence. 1741, &c. A late edition of the Opuscula Hesychii, that of Joan. Conrad. Orellius of Zurich, 8vo. Leipzig, 1820, contains much valuable illustrative matter, especially the dissertation of Thorschmidius above mentioned. 2. Jlarpia. KowtTTavTivovTroKews, Res Patnae Constantinopolitanae. It is probable that this work is a fragment of that next mentioned. A considerable part of it is incorporated, word for word, in the Hepl t&v Tlarpiw K<ov(rTa.vTivo\nr6-Aews, De Originibus Constantinopolitanis of Codinus [CoDiN us], which was first printed in a.d. 1596, by George Dousa ; but the work (or fragment) of Hesychius with the author's name, was first published by Meursius in his Hesychii Opuscula^ noticed above, and was reprinted in the Florentine edition of the works of Meursius, and in the Opuscula Hesychii of Orellius. 3. A work described by Photius as "Bi§\iov IcrropiK^v <&s ev avv6ty*i KofffjuKijs icrropias, a synoptical view of universal history, and by Suidas as XpoviKrf ns 'loropia, and by Constantine Porphyrogenitus as Xpovucd. It is described by Photius as divided into six parts (T^^ara), or, as the writer himself called them, Smo-nf/iaTo, by which term they were commonly quoted, e. g. cv r§ e' (sive s') SicKmfricm -nfc hropias. (See Charles Labbe's Veteres Glossae Verborum Juris guaepassim^ in Basilicis reperiuntur9 s. vv. TiaXnartois gkovois (Pahnatiis equis), 4>oAis.) The whole history comprehended a period of 1920 years, and extended from the reign of Belus, the reputed founder of the Assyrian empire, to the death of the Byzantine emperor, Anastasius I., A. d. 518: according to Photius, it was thus distributed among the six parts:— (1) Before the Trojan war. (2) From the taking of Troy to the foundation of Rome. (3) From the foundation of Rome to the abolition of kingly power and the establishment of the consulship in the 68th Olympiad. (4) From the establishment of the consulship in the 68th, to the sole power (/xor-apxia) of Julius Caesar in the 182d Olympiad. (5) From the sole power of Julius Caesar till Byzantium (Constantinople) was raised to greatness, in the 277th Olympiad. (6) From the settlement, of Constantine at Byzantium to the death of Anastasius in the llth year of the indiction. The ttdrpia Kavo-TavTivovTrdXewS) published by Meursius, appears to be the earlier part of the sixth book. 4. A book recording the transactions of the reigri of Justin I. (a. d. 518—527), and the
earlier years of Justinian I., who reigned A. »« 527—566. This work, which was discontinued through domestic affliction, is lost. It was apparently intended as a continuation of the foregoing, and as the work of a contemporary whose high office (for the title "Illustris" was given to the highest officers, the praefecti praetorio, praefecti urbi, &c.) must have implied political knowledge, and have procured access to the best sources of information, it was probably the most valuable part. Photius characterizes the historical style of Hesychius as concise, his language well chosen and expressive, his sentences well constructed and arranged, and his figures as striking and appropriate. Hesychius of Miletus has sometimes been confounded with Hesychius of Alexandria, the author of the Lexicon. (Phot. Bill. Codd. 69 ; Constant. Porphyrog. De Themat. lib. i. th. 2, lib. ii. th. 8 ; Suidas, s. v. 'H<7vxios Mt\rf<nos; Tzetzes, Chil. iii. 877; the notes of Meursius in his Hesychii Opuscula; Cave, Historia Lift. vol. i. p. 518 ; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. vii. pp. 446, 544; Thorschmidius, De HesycMo Milesio Illustri Christiana Commentatio^ ap. Orel-Hum, Hesychii Opera.")
10. Of syria, a monk, apparently of one of the monasteries near Antioch, whose remarkable dream, regarded as prophetic of the fortunes of his contemporary Chrysostom, is recorded by Photius. (BibL Cod. 96.)
11. tachygraphus (o raxvypd$oi). Codinus cites an author by this name in his Tlepl tow Tla-rpicov Keoj>0TewT«'ou7roA€«s (p. 9, ed. Paris). Fa-bricius supposes him to be the same with Hesychius of Miletus (No. 9), but this cannot be, as Codinus speaks of Hesychius Tachygraphus as a contemporary with Constantine the Great. The Tachy-graphi, as the name indicates, were writers employed where speed rather than beauty was required, and were distinguished by the use of abbreviations and other compendious methods. (Fabr. Bibl. Gi\ vol. vii. p. 552.)
Various other Hesychii are noticed by Fabricius and by Thorschmidius in the Commentatio de He- sych. Mileto Illustri Christ, referred to in the course of this article. [ J. C. M.]
HESYCHIUS ('Hcra'x'os), an Alexandrian grammarian, under whose name a large Greek dictionary has come down to us. Respecting his personal history absolutely nothing is known. The dictionary is preceded by a letter addressed by Hesychius to a friend Eulogius, who is as little known as Hesychius himself. In this prefatory letter the author explains the plan and arrangement of his work, and tells us that 'his compilation is based upon a comprehensive lexicon of Diogenia-nus, but that he also availed himself of the lexicographical works of Aristarchus, Apion, Heliodorus, and others, and that he devoted himself to his task with great care and diligence. Valckenaer was the first that raised doubts respecting the genuineness of this letter in his Schediasma de Epistola ad Eu-logium (in Ursinus, Virgil. Collat. p. 150, &c.), and he conceived that it was the production of some later Greek,, who fabricated it with a view to deceive the public and make thena believe that the dictionary was his own work ; but Valckenaer at the same time admits that the groundwork of the lexicon is a genuine ancient production, and only disfigured by a number of later interpolations. But a close examination of the prefatory epistle does not bring forth any thing which is at variance with the