Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 1.djvu/828

Rh 810 CODIXUS. Sp. Lartius and T. Herminius against the whole Etruscan army under Porsena, while the Romans broke down the bridge behind them. When the work was nearly finished, Horatius sent back his two companions, and withstood alone the attacks of the foe, till the crash of the falling timbers and the shouts of the Romans announced that the bridge was destroyed. Then he prayed to father Tiberinus to take him and his arms in charge, and forthwith plunged into the stream and swam across to the city in safety amid the arrows of the enemy. The state raised a statue to his honour, which was placed in the comitium, and allowed him as much land as he could plough round in one day. The citizens, too, when the famine was raging, deprived themselves of food to support him. This statue was afterwards struck by light- ning, and the Etruscan haruspices, who had been consulted respecting the prodig)"", envious of the glory of Rome, caused it to be placed on a lower spot, where the sun never shone upon it. But their treachery was discovered ; they were put to death, and the statue was placed in a higher spot on the Vulcanal above the Comitium, which brought good fortune to the state. This story is related by A. Gellius (iv. 5), and explains the fact why some writers speak of the statue being in the Comi- tium, and others in the Vulcanal. The statue still existed in the time of Pliny {H.N. xxxiv. 5. s. 1 1) — an irrefragable proof of the truth of the story ! Few legends in Roman story were more celebrated than this gallant deed of Horatius, and ahuost all Roman writers tell us, " How well Horatius kept the bridge In the brave days of old." (Liv. ii. 10 ; Dionvs. v. 24, 25 ; Val. Max. iii. 2. § 1 ; Flor. i. 10 ; AureL Vict de Vir. III. 11 ; Plot. Poplic. 16 ; Sencc. Ep. 120, &c.) Polybius relates (vi. 35) the legend differently. According to his description, Horatius defended the bridge alone, and perished in the river. Mr. Macauley observes {Lays of Ancient liome^ p. 43), with much probability, that it is likely that there were two old Roman lays about the defence of the bridge ; and that, while the story which Livy has transmitted to us was preferred by the multitude, the other, which ascribed the whole glory to Hora- tius alone, may have been the favourite of the Horatian house. (Compare Niebuhr, i. p. 542.) The annexed coin, which bears on it the name of Codes, was doubtless struck by some member of the Horatian house, but at what time is uncertain. The obverse represents the head of Pallas, the re%-erse the Dioscuri. A facsimile of this coin, with the addition of the legend Imp. Caes. Traian. AvG. Gkr. Dac. p. p. Rest., that is, Imperator Cuesiir Trajanus Augustus Germanicus Dacicus rater Patriae restiiuit, was struck in the time of Tnijan, CODI'NUS, GEO'RGIUS, sumamed CURO- PALA'TES (Feoipyios KcaSivos 6 Kypo7raAaT7/s), a Greek compiler, who held the office of curopa- 00 DIN US. lates, lived during the latter period of the Byzan- tine empire, and died probably after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. He has compiled two works, which, although written in most bar- barous Greek, are of considerable importance, inas- much as one of them treats of the various public offices in the church and in the administration of the empire, and another on the antiquities of Con- stantinople. The principal works from which Codinus has taken his accounts, and which he has copied in many instances to a considerable extent, are those of Hesychius Milesius, Glycas, Julius Pol- lux, the Chronicon Aiexandrinum,&c.; his accounts of the statues and buildings of Constantinople are chiefly taken from Phurnutus, Joannes Lydus of Philadelphia, and from the Antiquities of Con- stantinople, written by an anonymous author, who in his turn has plundered Theodorus Lector, Papia, Eusebius, Socrates, Marcellus Lector, and others. The works of Codinus are — I. Uipi tu,v d(pv<TTavTivovTt6kiws KoX rdv 6(p(piKlcDV T7JS fieydx-ns 'EkkAtj^tjos, " De Officiali- bus Palatii Constaiitinopolitani et de Officiis Magnae Ecclesiae." Editions: 1. by Nadabus Agraonius, 1580 ; 2. the same reprinted by Junius, who was also the editor of the first edition, but for some foolish motive adopted that pseudonym. Both these editions are of little value ; the editor, a man of great vanity and equivocal learning, had carelessly perused bad MSS., and though he was aware of all the errors and negligences he had committed in the first edition, he did not take the trouble to correct tliem when the public curi- osity required a second. Junius confounded this work with another of tlie same author on the antiquities of Constantinople. 3. By Gretsenis, Ingolstadt, 1620: the editor peioised good MSS. with his usual care, and added a Latin translation and an excellent commentary ; still this edition is not without several defects, since the editor did not understand the meaning of many barbarous words employed by Codinus, and of which the glossary of Meursius likewise gives either an im- perfect account or none at all. 4. By Goar, Paris, 1 648, fol., in the Paris collection of the Byzantines. Goar revised both the text and the translation, and added the commentary of Gretserus, which he corrected in many passages, and to which he added his own observations. 5. By Immanuel Bekker, Bonn, 1839, 8vo., in the Bonn collection of the Byzantines. This is a revised reprint of the Paris edition ; the editor gives no preface. This work of Codinus, although but a dry catalogue, is of great importance for the undersuinding of Byzan- tine history, since it explains the numerous civil and ecclesiastical titles and offices of the later Greeks, as the " Notitiae Dignitatum" does for the earlier period of the Eastern empire. II. IlapeK§oat ck rrjs fi{§ov rov xP'"'^fow irepl tGiv Trarpiuv KuuffTauTLVoviroKeuSy " Ex- cerpta ex Libro Chronico de Originibus Constanti- nopolitanis." Editions : I. By George Dousa, 1596, 8vo., the Greek text with a Latin transla- tion. 2. The same, with notes by John Meursius, 1609, 8vo. 3. By Petrus Lambecius, Paris, 1655, fol., in the Paris collection, and afterwards re- printed in the Venice collection of the Byzantines. Larabeck, a native of Hamburg, perused the best MSS. in France, revised the text, and added a new Latin translation and an extensive commen- tary : he dedicated his work to the celebrated