Leo

• the priests of the Persian god Mithras: Leones Mithrae, Tert. adv. Marc. 1, 13.

(Λέων), or Leon, historical.

1. Son of Eurycrates, 14th king of the Agid line at Sparta. In his time the Spartans were worsted in their war with Tegea. His son was Anaxandrides, the contemporary of Croesus (Hdt. 1.65; Paus. 3.3.5). [A.H.C]

2. An Athenian, was sent out with ten ships, in B. C. 412, to act with the squadron under Diomedon, and we find the two commanders associated, both in naval operations and in political movements, down to the declaration of the Athenian army at Samos against the revolutionary government of the Four Hundred, B. C. 411 [Diomedon]. According to the common reading in Xenophon, Leon was one of the ten generals appointed to supersede Alcibiades in B. C. 407, and, as well as Erasinides, was with Conon when Callicratidas chased him into Mytilene (Xen. Hell. 1.5.16, 6. 16). Xenophon, however, in two other passages (Hell. 1.6.30,7.2), omits Leon's name and mentions Lysias instead; and Diodorus has Lysanias ( an error probably of the copyists, for Lysias) in his list of the generals, saying nothing of Leon, and afterwards speaks of Lysias as one of those who returned to Athens after the battle of Arginusae (Diod. 13.74, 101). Schneider, accordingly, would reject the name of Leon, from Xenophon substituting for it that of Lysias, in Hell. 1.5.16, and that of Archestratus, in Hell. 1.6.16 (see Palm. and Wess. ad Diod. 13.74). But these alterations are unnecessary, if we adopt bishop Thirlwall's conjecture (Greece, vol. iv. p. 110, note 2), that Leon was originally elected among the ten, but that he fell into the hands of Callicratidas, in one of the gallies which Conon sent out from Mytilene, and that Lysias was appointed to fill his place (comp. Xen. Hell. 1.6. §§ 19-21).

3. A Spartan, one of the three leaders of the colony founded at Heracleia, in B. C. 426. (Thuc. 3.92; Diod. 12.59.)

4. One of the three ambassadors sent from Sparta to dissuade the Athenians from the alliance with Argos, in B. C. 420. (Thuc. 5.44.) It seems doubtful whether we should identify him with the father of Antalcidas (Plut. Art. 21), and again with the ephor ἐπώνυμος in the fourteenth year of the Peloponnesian war, B. C. 418 (Xen. Hell. 2.3.10), and also with the Leon who was sent out with Antisthenes, in B. C. 412, as ἐπιβάτης (whatever that may mean), and was appointed on the death of Pedaritus to succeed him in the command. (Thuc. 8.39, 61; comp. Arnold and Goeller, ad loc.) The father of Pedaritus (Thuc. 8.28) was probably a different person, though Krueger thinks he was the same with the officer of Antisthenes and was appointed to succeed his son.

5. A native of Salamis and a citizen of Athens, was put to death by the thirty tyrants, who ordered Socrates, with four others, among whom was Meletus, to bring him from Salamis, whither he seems to have retired to escape the cruelty and rapacity of the new government. Socrates would not execute the command, which was, however, carried into effect by the remaining four. From the speech of Theramenes, in Xenophon, we learn that Leon was a man of worth and respectability (ἱκανὸς ἀνήρ), and chargeable with no crime; and Andocides tells us that he was condemned without a trial. (Xen. Hell. 2.3.39; Plat. Apol. p. 32c, d; Stallb. ad loc. ; Lys. c. Erat. p. 125c. Agorat. p. 133; Andoc. de Myst. § 94.)

6. An Athenian, was joined with Timagoras, in B. C. 367, as ambassador to the Persian court, where envoys also from Thebes, Sparta, and other Grecian states presented themselves at the same time. Pelopidas obtained for Thebes, from Artaxerxes, all that he asked, and Leon protested in vain against the article in the royal decree which required the Athenians to lay up their ships. Timagoras, however, had gained the king's favour by taking part with the Thebans, and had studiously separated himself from his colleague during the embassy. For this conduct he was impeached by Leon on their return home, and put to death. (Xen. Hell. 7.1. §§ 33, &c.; Dem. de Fals. Leg. pp. 383, 400, ad fin.; Plut. Pel. 30, Artax. 22 ; V. Max. 6.3, Ext. 2.)

7. An Athenian of the Roman party, who, in B. C. 192, accused Apollodorus of fomenting a revolt from Rome to Antiochus, and caused him to be sent into exile. (Liv. 35.50.) We may perhaps identify him with Leon, son of Icesias, who, in B. C. 189, supported before the Roman senate the prayer of the Aetolians for peace. (Liv. 38.10; Plb. 22.14.) [DAMIS, No. 2.] [E.E]

emperor, succeeded his grandfather, Leo I., in A. D. 474, at four years of age, and died in the same year, after having reigned under the guardianship of his mother, Verina, and his father, Zeno, by whom he was succeeded. [Verina ; Zeno.] [W.P]

surnamed ISAURUS, or the Isaurian, emperor of Constantinople (A. D. 718-741), and one of the most remarkable of the emperors of the East, was a native of Isauria, and the son of a respectable farmer, who settled in Thrace, taking his son with him. Young Conon, which was Leo's original name, obtained the place of a spatharius in the army of the emperor Justinian II. Rhinotmetus, and soon rose to eminence through his military talents. Anastasius II., who reigned from A. D. 713-716, gave him the supreme command in Asia, which he was still holding when Theodosius III. deposed that emperor, and seized the crown in January, 716. Summoned to acknowledge Theodosius, the gallant general called him an usurper, and immediately took up arms against him, alleging that he would restore the deposed Anastasius to the throne, but really intending to make himself master of the empire. Artabazes, the commander of the Armenian legions, supported Leo, who had besides many friends in the army. Leo was then holding the field against the Arabs, who had laid siege to Armorium in Galatia. After outwitting Muslima, the general of the Arabs, he set out for Cappadocia, where he found the inhabitants willing to submit to him, but was closely followed by Muslima. Leo would ere long have been pressed by two enemies, had he not anticipated the attack of theweakerof them, the emperor Theodosius. He accordingly left Cappadocia, and his rapid marches afforded him at once the double advantage of leaving the Arabs far behind him, while he daily came nearer to the imperial troops, who were far from being strong enough to resist him in the field. At Nicomedeia he was stopped by a son of Theodosius, who was defeated and taken prisoner. Leo now marched upon Constantinople; and Theodosius, despairing of success, resigned his crown (March 718), and retired to a convent at Ephesus, where he lived peacefully during more than thirty years. Scarcely had Leo received the homage of the people, when the khalif Soliman appeared before Constantinople with a powerful army and a numerous fleet. He considered the trick played by Leo upon Muslima at Armorium as a personal insult, and now came to take revenge. This siege of Constantinople, the third by the Arabs, and one of the most memorable of all, lasted just two years, from the 15th of August, 718, to the 15th of the same month in 720. Soliman died soon after its commencement, and was succeeded by the khalif Omar, who swore by his beard that he would take revenge upon Leo. But Leo sallied out from the Golden Horn with his galleys, the Greek fire consumed the Arabian ships, and the emperor returned laden with booty and captives. In two other naval engagements the Arabs were beaten with still greater losses; and in the beginning of August, 720, their land forces were routed in a pitched battle, with a loss of 28,000 men. Unable to continue the siege any longer, the khalif raised it on the 15th of August, but only a small portion of his fleet--the third he had built for the conquest of Constantinople--reached the harbours of Syria, the greater portion having been destroyed by a storm. So close was the siege, so enormous the preparations of the Arabs, that even the splendid victories of Leo could not prevent the inhabitants of the provinces from thinking Constantinople was lost, since the very news of those victories could not reach them on account of the watchfulness of the besiegers. The whole empire was in consternation, and in the western kingdoms rumours were afloat that the khalif had ascended the throne of the Byzantine emperors. Among those who believed these rumours was Sergius, governor of Sicily, who took measures to make himself independent, and to that effect proclaimed his lieutenant, Basil, king of Sicily and Calabria. Basil accepted the dignity, and adopted the name of Tiberius; while Sergius took proper steps to secure the crown for himself in case of complete success. Meanwhile, however, Leo had bettered his condition so much that he could despatch his general. Paulus, with a few loyal veterans, to Sicily; and through the exertions of this energetic man, the rebellion was soon quelled. Basil was taken prisoner and lost his head; but Sergius escaped to the Lombards in Italy He was subsequently pardoned, and finally succeeded in obtaining again the same government in Italy, which he intended to wrest from the emperor. Another conspiracy that took place in consequence of the critical position of Leo, was that of the deposed emperor, Anastasius II. The plot was not discovered till 721, after the termination of the siege of Constantinople, and Anastasius paid for his temerity with his head.

In spite of his defeats before Constantinople, the khalif Omar continued the war, and in 726 took Caesareia in Cappadocia, and Neo-Caesareia in Pontus. Leo, however, had not only sufficient forces to make the Arabs feel that he was still more powerful than they, but his authority was so well established, that he undertook to carry out his favourite design, the abolition of the worship of images in the Catholic church. To this effect he issued a general edict, which is one of the most important acts of legislation in the Eastern empire, and perhaps in the whole Christian world. The question of the images was not only a matter of religion, but concerned as much the political state of the empire. The abuse of the images on one side, and the horror in which they were held by the numerous Mohammedans and Jews in the East on the other, gave origin at last to the iconoclasts, or image-breakers. In declaring for them, Leo certainly intended to purify the Catholic creed; but there seems to be no doubt that by removing the images from the churches, he hoped to make the Jews and Mohammedans more favourably inclined to the Christians and a Christian government; and although the adherents of images were very numerous, it cannot be doubted that they would have lost all power if Leo had succeeded in rallying the Iconoclasts, the Jews, the Mohammedans, and the numerous worshippers of fire in Asia, round the throne of an energetic and enlightened emperor. Indeed it seems that the protectors of the Iconoclasts in those earlier times entertained some hope of making them the medium through which the unbelievers would be led to Christ, and the Eastern empire restored to its ancient splendour; and this explains at once the religious and the political importance of the question. In the West the question of the images produced scarcely any effect upon the people, though more upon the Frankish clergy, and still more upon the conduct of the bishops of Rome, who, by declaring in favour of the Iconoclasts, would have been abandoned by the last of their followers. In short, the question of the images, like so many others connected with the domestic history of the Byzantine empire, was at once religious and political; and while, among the modern writers, Le Beau is but too often influenced by religious opinions, and Gibbon treats the history of that empire too much as a philosopher and an orator, we are entitled to hope that time will bring us another historian who, starting from a mere historical and political point of view, will satisfactorily explain the overwhelming influence of religious controversies upon the social development of the Eastern empire.

The edict of Leo through which the images were condemned caused a general revolution throughout the whole empire, and was the immediate cause of the loss of Ravenna, Rome, and several other possessions of the Greeks in Italy, which were taken by the Lombards, and of the final separation of the Latin from the Greek church. Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople, Joannes Damascenus, and the violent Joannes Chrysorrhoas, in the East, and pope Gregory II. in the West, were the principal leaders of those who opposed that edict, either by words, writings, or deeds. The pope became so troublesome, that Paulus, exarch of Ravenna, was ordered to make an expedition against Rome. But the ardour of the Romans, who were assisted by the Lombards of Spoleto and Tuscia, and the failure of a plot to assassinate the pope, compelled Paulus to return to Ravenna, where he had trouble enough to maintain his authorityover the inhabitants who worshipped images. In the East a rebellion broke out in the Peloponnesus and the Cyclades, and the inhabitants besieged Constantinople by sea, but Leo compelled them to sail back and to submit to his government. A revolt in Constantinople was not so easily quelled, till, after much bloodshed, Leo felt himself strong enough to depose and banish the patriarch Germanus, and to appoint the iconoclast Anastasius in his place (730). The majority of the professors in the numerous schools and academies of Constantinople declared for the images, which enraged Leo so much, that it is said he gave orders to burn the library of St. Sophia, hoping thereby to prevent the doctors from strengthening their opinions by historical arguments. But this is decidedly an idle story, invented by some ignorant monk, and repeated by fanatics: the library, which contained 36,000 volumes, became probably the prey of some conflagration. Upon this Gregory III., the successor of Gregory II., assembled in 731 a council at Rome, by which the Iconoclasts were condemned; and now the opposition against the emperor became so great as to induce him to send a powerful expedition against Italy, with a special command to reduce Ravenna (734). The expedition failed, and Ravenna and the exarchate fell into the hands of the Lombards, who, after having lost it and gained it again, kept it till 756, when king Aistulph was compelled by Pipin of France to cede it to pope Stephen II., and ever since that province has continued to belong to the papal states. This check in Italy induced Leo to detach Greece, Illyria, and Macedonia from the spiritual authority of the popes, and to submit them to that of the patriarchs of Constantinople; and this is the real, effective cause of the fatal division of the Latin and Greek churches (734).

During the seven following years the history of Leo offers little more than the horrible details of a protracted war with the Arabs. The khalif Hesham endeavoured to produce an effect upon the minds of the Syrians by supporting an adventurer, who pretended to be Tiberius, the son of Justinianus II., and who was sent by the khalif to Jerusalem, where he made his entrance, in the dress of a Roman emperor. But this was a mere farce. Things were more serious when, in 739, the Arab general Soliman invaded the Roman territories with an army of 90,000 men, who were divided into three separate bodies. The first entered Cappadocia, and ravaged it with fire and sword; the second, commanded by Malek and Batak, penetrated into Phrygia; and the third, under Soliman, covered the rear. Leo, though surprised, had assembled sufficient forces, and his general Acroninus defeated the second body in Phrygia in a pitched battle, in which Malek and Batak were both killed. Soliman withdrew in haste into Syria. In October, 740, an awful earthquake caused great calamities throughout the empire. In Constantinople many of the principal buildings were levelled to the ground; the statues of Constantine the Great, Theodosius the Great, and Arcadius, were thrown from their pedestals; and the wall along the Propontis, together with all its towers, fell at once into the sea. Thrace was covered with ruins. In Bithynia, Nicomedeia and Prenetus were thrown down, and of the entire town of Nicaea, only one building, a church, remained standing. In Egypt several towns disappeared, as it were, with all their inhabitants. On the 18th of June, 741, the emperor Leo died, after long sufferings, and was interred in the church of the Apostles: he was succeeded by his son Constantine V., surnamed Copronymus.

Leo III., the founder of the Isaurian dynasty, may be charged with cruelty and obstinacy, and he had only received a soldier's education; but he was prudent, active, energetic, just, and decidedly the kind of king whom the corrupted Greeks required. Moreover, he acted upon principles, and never abandoned one of them during the whole course of his life. The orthodox writers have outraged his name because he protected the Iconoclasts, but we know too well the degree of impartiality which they can claim. (Theophan. p. 327, &c.; Cedren. p. 450, &c.; Niceph. p. 34, &c.; Glyc., p. 180, &c.; Zonar. vol. ii. p. 101, &c.; Paul. Diacon., De Gest. Long. 6.47, &c.) [W.P]

surnamed CHAZA'RUS, emperor of Constantinople (A. D. 775-780).

He belonged to the Isaurian dynasty, and was the eldest son of the emperor Constantine V. Copronymus, whom he succeeded on the 14th of September, 775. He was born on the 25th of January, 750, and received his surname Chazarus on account of his mother Irene, who was a Chazarian princess. Leo, being in weak health, had his infant son Constantine (VI.) crowned in the year after his accession, and his five brothers, Nicephorus Caesar, Christophorus Caesar, Nicetas, Anthemeus, and Eudoxas, took a sacred oath to acknowledge the young Augustus as their future master. This oath, however, they broke repeatedly, formed conspiracies, and were punished with mutilation and exile. After some fruitless attempts at recovering freedom and power, they finally disappeared from the world at Athens, which was their last place of exile. In 777 Teleric, king of the Bulgarians, fled to Constantinople, in consequence of some domestic commotions, and was well received by Leo, although he had behaved very treacherously against Leo's father. In 778 the Arabs invaded the empire. Leo sent against them an army of 100,000 men, commanded by Lachano Draco, who routed them, after they had gained various successes in Syria, in 780: in this battle Othman, the son of the khalif Mahadi or Modi, lost his life. When the news of this victory arrived at Constantinople the emperor was no more among the living: his death took place on the 8th of September, 780. He was succeeded by his infant son Constantine VI., who reigned under the guardianship of his mother Irene. Leo IV. was an honest man, much better than his profligate father, but weak in body and mind. Further Information

Theophan. p. 378, &c.; Cedren. p. 468, &c.; Const. Manass. p. 89; Zonar. vol. ii. p. 113, &c.; Glycas, 285, in the Paris editions. [W.P]

emperor of Constantinople (A. D. 813-820), succeeded Michael I. Rhangabe, on the 11th of July, 813: he was of noble Armenian descent, and the son of the celebrated Bardas Patricius. Leo enjoyed great renown as a skilful and intrepid general, and was highly esteemed by the emperor Nicephorus I. (802-811), whom he rewarded, however, with treachery. He was punished with exile, from which he was recalled in 811 by his friend Michael I., who succeeded Nicephorus in that year. Michael appointed him dux Orientis, and was served in the same way as his predecessor. The wife of Michael, Procopia, having obtained great influence over her husband, was the cause of a wide-spread disaffection of the army, and Leo availed himself of this circumstance to seize the crown. There is a story of an old woman at Constantinople, a prophetess, who predicted the speedy downfall of Michael and the elevation of Leo, who seems to have turned the superstition of the Greeks to his own advantage. While Leo carried on a successful war against the Arabs in Asia, the emperor fought with great disadvantage against Crum, king of the Bulgarians, who in 812 took Mesembrya, and threatened Constantinople. His defeats obliged Michael to recall Leo from Asia, and in the spring of 813 the emperor and Leo set out from Constantinople, at the head of one of the finest and most numerous armies that the Greeks had ever seen. Michael intended to harass the Bulgarians by manoeuvres, avoiding any decisive conflict. His wise delay was secretly approved of by Leo and his confederates, but they persuaded the army that the emperor was a coward, who followed the advice of his wife rather than that of his generals, and the poor emperor was forsaken before he had any idea how and by whom. The Greeks met the Bulgarians in the environs of Adrianople; but Michael, seeing the strong position of the enemy, declined again to risk a pitched battle. Now Leo and his friends urged him with all their might to attack Crum; and the Greek soldiers showed such violent anger at being again disappointed in coming to close quarters with the barbarians, that on the 22d of June the emperor gave orders for the attack. The conflict took a favourable turn for the Greeks, and every body prognosticated a complete victory, when Leo, with his Cappadocians and Armenians, suddenly took to flight, and caused a total rout of the imperial army. Michael saved himself within the walls of Adrianople, and in the evening Leo arrived with his troops. Nobody ventured to acquaint the emperor with the real cause of Leo's flight; and the remnants of the army being too much disorganised to risk a second battle, he followed the council of the treacherous general, and withdrew to Constantinople. There Joannes Hexabulus, the honest governor of the capital, mentioned to him his suspicions of Leo, but met with disbelief, till Leo appeared with his troops under the walls of Constantinople, and made his entrance into the city, without meeting with any opposition. After the departure of Michael from Adrianople, the friends of Leo induced the soldiers to proclaim as emperor the gallant Armenian, instead of the coward who was still their master; but Leo refused to accept the crown till, with feigned indignation, his friend and subsequent successor, Michael the Stammerer, rushed upon him with his drawn sword, crying with the accents of rage, " With this sword I will open the gates of Constantinople, or plunge it into thy heart, if thou refusest any longer to comply with the just wishes of thy comrades." Upon this Leo threw off the mask, marched upon Constantinople, and seated himself on the throne, from which Michael descended without murmuring, and retired into a convent, where he lived during upwards of thirty years.

No sooner was Leo crowned than Crum appeared before Constantinople. IIe burnt its suburbs, with all its magnificent buildings, withdrew to take Adrianople, and send its inhabitants into slavery, appeared again near the capital, and continued his devastations till Thrace was a desert. Having no army, Leo showed the greatest activity in forming one, and his efforts were already crowned with success, when Crum suddenly died in one of the gardens of Constantinople (814), and was succeeded by king Deucom. Now Leo sallied out. At Mesembrya he brought the Bulgarians to a stand, and took bloody revenge for the calamities they had brought upon Greece: the barbarian army was annihilated. In 815 Deucom appeared again, and met with a similar fate, whereupon Leo invaded Bulgaria, defeated the barbarians wherever he met them, and ravaged the country in a manner still worse than the Bulgarians had done in Thrace. Such was the consternation of the barbarians, that Mortagon, the successor of Deucom, deemed himself fortunate in obtaining a peace for thirty years; and such was the impression made upon the minds of his unruly subjects by the fierce onsets of Leo, that they remained quiet during seventy-four years. Thus Leo crushed the hereditary and most dangerous enemy of the Byzantine empire.

The empire now enjoyed peace, and Leo was active in restoring the happiness of his subjects. He protected the Iconoclasts, and showed himself a firm, though often cruel, opponent of the worshippers of images; hence arose many conspiracies, which he quelled with ease. He reformed the whole system of administration. Before his reign all the civil and military offices were sold to the highest bidder; he, on the contrary, gave them to the worthiest, and punished severely all those that were found guilty of peculation. He often presided in the courts of justice; and woe to those judges who had acted unfairly or unjustly. In his punishments, however, he observed no just proportion; decapitation, mutilation, or banishment, being as often inflicted for slight offences as for capital crimes. Pleasure was unknown to him, but that which arises from the satisfaction of having done one's duty. Day and night he was at work. Most of the provinces he visited, and his occasional visits had a still more beneficial effect, since he always arrived without being announced. His conduct towards the adorers of images, however, created him many enemies; and at last his best friend became the cause of his ruin. Michael the Stammerer, though a staunch adherent of Leo, could not help blaming him for many actions; and being no master of his sharp tongue, his words produced more effect than he intended. This annoyed Leo, who ordered Michael to inspect the troops in Asia, as the best means of getting rid of him at court. Michael refused to comply with the order, and was soon surrounded by a crowd of the secret enemies of Leo, who persuaded him to enter into their plans. The honest Hexabulus was informed of the plot, and Michael was seized, tried, and sentenced to be burnt alive in a furnace It was just Christmas eve 820, and he was to be executed on the same day. Leo left his palace to witness the execution, and the unhappy man, loaded with chains, was dragged along, when the empress besought her husband not to carry out his bloody verdict on that sacred day, but to wait till after Christmas. Leo, moved by her entreaties, ordered Michael to be taken back to his prison. On the following day the emperor and his whole court went in procession to church, and according to a custom established at the Byzantine court, the emperor himself began the sacred chant. This was the signal of his death. During the night the friends of Michael had resolved to risk every thing in order to save his and their own lives; and dressed in the garb of priests, with arms hid under their floating garments, they entered the church without creating any suspicion. At the moment they heard Leo's voice they rushed upon him. He escaped to the altar, and defended himself with the great cross; but in vain-nobody came to his rescue. Exhausted by an heroic resistance, he saw one of his murderers, of gigantic stature, aim a fatal blow at him. " Have mercy ! " cried the fainting emperor. "This is not the hour of mercy," replied the giant, "but the hour of revenge! " and with one blow he felled him to the ground. Michael was now dragged from his prison, and, as Gibbon says, he was snatched from the fiery furnace to the sovereignty of an empire. Leo left four sons, the eldest of whom, Sarbatius or Symbatius, was crowned as his father's future successor shortly after the deposition of Michael Rhangabe. They were all castrated by order of Michael the Stammerer, and confined in a convent. Sarbatius died in consequence of the operation. (Theoph. p. 424, &c.; Theoph. Contin. p. 428, &c.; Cedren. p. 483, &c.; Zonar. vol. ii. p. 127, &c.; Leo Gram. p. 445, &c.; Const. Manass. p. 94; Joel, p. 287; Glycas, p. 287, &c.; Genesius, p. 2, &c.) [W.P]

(Λέων), or Leon, Greek writers.

1. Academicus, called by Justin the historian and Suidas Leonides (Λεωνίδης)

He was apparently a native of Heracleia in Pontus, and a disciple of Plato. He was one of the conspirators who, with their leader, Chion, in the reign of Ochus, king of Persia, B. C. 353, or, according to Orelli, B. C. 351, assassinated Clearchus, tyrant of Heracleia. [Chion, Clearchus.] The greater part of the conspirators were killed on the spot by the tyrant's guards ; others were afterwards taken and put to a cruel death; but which fate befel Leo is not mentioned. Works Alcyon (Ἀλκυών)

Nicias of Nicaea (apud Athen. 11.506, ed. Casaubon), and Favorinus (Diog. Laert.3.37) ascribed to a certain Leo the Academic the dialogue Alcyon (Ἀλκυών). Attributions to other authors

This was, in the time of Athenaeus, by some ascribed to Plato; and has in modern times been printed among the works of Lucian, by whom it was certainly not written; and from the general character of whose writings the subject (the power of God displayed in his works) is altogether alien. Fabricius identifies the author of the Dialogue with the accomplice of Chion; but we know not on what ground. Further Information

Memnon, apud Phot. Bibl. cod. 224, sub init.; Just. 16.5; Suidas, s. v. Κλέαρχος; Athen. l.c. ; Diog. Laert. l.c. ; Lucian, Opera, vol. i. p. 128, ed. Bipont; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. iii. pp. 108, 173, 178.

2. Of Achris (Ἀχρίς, or Achridia (now Okhrida in Albania), was so called because he held the dignity of archbishop of the Greek church among the Bulgarians; and the seat of the archbishopric was commonly fixed at Achris. He joined about A. D. 1053 with Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, in writing a very bitter letter against the pope, which they sent to Joannes, archbishop of Trani in Apulia, to be distributed among the members of the Latin church, prelates, monks, and laity. A translation of this letter is given by Baronius. (Annal. Eccles. ad Ann. 1053, xxii. &c.) The pope, Leo IX., replied in a long letter, which is given in the Concilia, vol. ix. col. 949, &c., ed. Labbe; vol. vi. col. 927, ed. Hardouin ; vol. xix. col. 635, ed. Mansi; and the following year both Cerularius and Leo of Achris were excommunicated by cardinal Humbert, the papal legate. (Baronius, ad Ann. 1054, xxv.) Leo wrote many other letters, which are extant in MS. in various European libraries, and are cited by Allatius in his De Consensu Eccles. Orient. et Occident. ; by Beveridge in his Codex Canonum ; by Alexis Aristenus in his Synopsis Epistolarum Canonicrum; and by Nic. Comnenus Papadopoli in his Praenotiones Mystagogicae. (Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. vii. p. 715; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. p. 138, ed. Oxon, 1740; Oudin, De Scriptorib. et Scriptis Eccles. vol. ii. col. 603.)

3. Aegyptius, or the Egyptian. The early Christian writers, in their controversy with the heathens, refer not unfrequently to a Leo or Leon as having admitted that the deities of the antient gentile world had been originally men, agreeing in this respect with Evemerus [Evemerus], with whom he was contemporary, or perhaps rather earlier. Augustin (De Consensu Evangel. 1.33, and De Civ. Dei, 8.5), who is most explicit in his notice of him, says he was an Egyptian priest of high rank, " magnus antistes, " and expounded the popular mythology to Alexander the Great, in a manner which, though differing from those rationalistic explanations received in Greece, accorded with them in making the gods (including even the dii majorum gentium) to have been originally men. Augustin refers to an account of the statements of Leo contained in a letter of Alexander to his mother. It is to be observed, that although Leon was high in his priestly rank at the time when Alexander was in Egypt (B. C. 332-331), his name is Greek; and Arnobius (Adv. Gentes, 4.29) calls him Leo Pellaeus, Leo of Pella, an epithet which Fabricius does not satisfactorily explain. Worth (Not. ad Tatian. p. 96, ed. Oxford, 1700) would identify our Leo with Leo of Lampsacus, the husband of Themista or Themisto, the female Epicurean (D. L. 10.5. 25). But the husband of Themista was more correctly called Leonteus, while the Egyptian is never called by any other name than Leo. Arnobius speaks in such a way as to lead us to think that in his days the writings of Leon on the human origin of the gods were extant and accessible; but it is possible that he refers, like Augustin, to Alexnnder's letter. The reference to Leon in Clemens Alexandrinus is not more explicit. (Stromata, 1.21.106. p. 139, ed. Sylburg. p. 382, ed. Pott. vol. ii. p. 75, ed. Klotz, 12mo. Lipsiae, 1831.) But Tatian's distinct mention of the γπομνήματα, or Commentaries of Leo, shows that his system had been committed to writing by himself; and Tertullian (De Corona, 100.7) directs his readers to " unrol the writings of Leo the Egyptian." Hyginus (Poeticon Astronomicon, 100.20) refers to Leon in terms which seem to intimate that he wrote a history of Egypt, " Qui res Aegyptiacus scripsit;" and the scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius (4.262) gives a reference here to what Leon had said respecting the antiquity of the Egyptians, " in the first (of the books or letters ?) to his mother." But we suspect the last reference is to the statements of Leon already mentioned, as given by Alexander the Great in his letter to his mother; and perhaps the reference of Hyginus is to the same document, for the subject of it belongs to the mythic period of history. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. pp. 713, 719, vol. xi. p. 664; Voss. De Hist. Graec. lib. iii. p. 179, ed. Amsterdam, 1699.)

4. Of ALABANDA, in Caria, a rhetorical and historical writer of uncertain date. Works

He wrote the following works, now lost: 1. Καρικῶν Βιβλία δ́, De rebus Cariae Libri quatuor 2. Λυκιακὰ ἐν Βιβλίοις βʼ, De rebus Lyciae, Libri duo 3. Ὁ ἱερὸς πόλεμος Φωκέων καὶ Βοιωτῶν, Bellum Sacrum inter Phocenses et Boeotos 4. Τέχνη, Ars (sc. Rhetorica 5. Περὶ στάσεων, De Statibus, or De Seditionibus.

In Villoison's edition of Eudocia the last two works are mentioned as one, the title of which is Τέχνη περὶ στάσεων, Ars de Statibus.

If the above list of the works of Leo be correct, we may conjecture that he lived not far from the time of Alexander the Great, that is, after the close of the Sacred War, of which he wrote the history and before the local history of Caria and Lycia had lost its interest by the absorption of those provinces in the Syrian and Pergamenian kingdoms, and subsequently in the Roman empire. It is to be observed, however, that the authority of the Sacred War and of the work De Statibus is doubtful, as Suidas and Eudocia enumerate works under those titles among those of Leo of Byzantium. [No. 7.] Vossius supposes that either Leo of Alabanda or Leo of Byzantium is the writer referred to by Hyginus (Astron. Poetic. 100.20), as having written a work on the history of Egypt. [See No. 3.] Further Information

Suidas, s. v. Δέων Ἀλαβανδεύς ; Eudocia, Violetum, s. v. Δέων Ἁλαβανδεύς; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. vi. p. 132, vol. vii. p. 713; Voss. de Hist. Graec. Lib. iii. p. 179.

5. Asinus (Ἀσινὺς). [No. 15.]

6. Of Bulgaria. [See No. 2.]

7. Of Byzantium, a rhetorician and historical writer of the age of Philip, and perhaps of Alexander the Great. Philostratus says he was a disciple of Plato; but according to Suidas and Eudocia some statements made him the disciple of Aristotle; and both Suidas and Eudocia call him a Peripatetic. He appears to have occupied a leading position in the Byzantine commonwealth at the time it was attacked by Philip of Macedon. According to Hesychius of Miletus, he was strategos or general of the Byzantines. Philostratus has recorded a curious anecdote in reference to this invasion. Leo sent to demand of Philip the reason of the invasion; and when Philip replied that the beauty of the city had made him fall in love with it, and that he came as a suitor, Leo retorted, that weapons of war were not the usual instruments employed by lovers. The city was almost taken by Philip; but the obstinate resistance of the citizens, and the arrival of succours from Athens, under Chares (B. C. 340), and subsequently under Phocion, compelled him to withdraw. Leo was sent as ambassador to Athens, whether during the siege or at some other time is not clear; and an anecdote recorded by Philostratus and Suidas in connection with this embassy shows the same ready wit as his reply to Philip. The dissensions of the Athenians retarded their movements; and when Leo, on his appearance in their assembly, was received with shouts of laughter, on account of his corpulence, "What do you laugh at, Athenians?" said he; "Is it because I am fat, and of such a size ? I have a wife fatter than myself; yet when we agree the bed will hold us; but when we disagree, the whole house will not." Plutarch (Praecepta Politica. Opera, vol. ix. p. 207, ed. Reisk.) relates the anecdote with a variation, which makes Leo remarkable, not for his corpulence, but for his diminutive stature: and Athenaeus (xii. pp. 550, 551), relates the story of another Byzantine, Pytho, and that professedly on the authority of Leo himself. Toup (see note to Gaisford's Suidas, s. v. Δέων) suspects that the passage in Athenaeus is corrupt. Of the death of Leo there are two accounts. According to Hesychius of Miletus he died during the war, and before the arrival of Chares with the Athenian fleet. According to Suidas, Philip, after his repulse, charged Leo with having offered to betray the city to him for a sum of money; and the Byzantines, believing the charge, assailed the house of Leo, who, fearful of being stoned to death by them, hung himself. Both these accounts are, however, inconsistent with the statement of Suidas himself, that Leo wrote a history of Alexander, at least if by that name we are to understand Alexander the Great; and are hardly consistent with the ascription to him of a history of Philip's attack on Byzantium, unless we suppose this to have been a contemporary record or journal of the events of the siege. The writings of Leo are thus enumerated by Suidas and Eudocia: 1. Τὰ κατὰ Φίλιππον καὶ τὸ Βυζάντιον, Βιβλίοις ζ Res Philippicae et Byantinae, Libris vii.; 2.Τευθρανικόν, Teuthranicum, or Τενθραντικόν, Teuthranticum : a history apparently of Teuthrania, or of Teuthras, king of Mysia; 3. Περὶ Βησάλου, or Βησαίον, De Besalo, or Besaeo, probably on the oracle of Besa; 4. Ὁ ἱερὸς πόλεμος, Bellum Sacrum ; 5. Περὶ στάσεων, which some render De Seditionibus, but others De Statibus, i. e. a rhetorical treatise on the statement of questions or propositions; 6. Τὰ κατʼ Ἀλέξανδρον, Res Gestae Alexandri. These works are not extant, and are known to us only through the authors above mentioned. It has been already observed that Nos. 4 and 5, at least works under the same or nearly the same titles, are also ascribed both by Suidas and Eudocia to Leo of Alabanda. [No. 4.] This leads us to doubt the correctness of the list in other particulars; and if the accounts given above of the death of Leo be correct, No. 6 and probably No. 1 are incorrectly ascribed to him. Plutarch, in his De Fluvüs (de Ismeno), quotes from a work of Leo of Byzantium, which he calls Τὰ Βοιωτιακά, De Rebus Boeoticis; and again, in the same treatise (de Tigride), he quotes from the third book of a work of Leo, Περὶ ποταμῶν, De Fluvüs. Some, with probability, identify Leo (supposing that the name has been corrupted) with the Cleon mentioned by Plutarch (Vita Phocion, 100.14) as an eminent Byzantine at the time of Philip's invasion, who had been a fellow student of Phocion under Plato. Whether Leo of Byzantium was the Leo, father of Melantes and Pancreon, the legatees of Theophrastus (D. L. 5.51, &c. de Theophrasto) is doubtful. (Plut. Opera, vol. x. pp. 714, 801, ed. Reisk.; Suidas, s. v. Δέων; Eudocia, Violetum, s. v. Δέων; Hesych. Miles. Origines (s. Res Patriae) Constantinop. 100.26-28, Opuscula, pp. 66, &c., ed. Orelli; Philostr. Vitae Sophist. 1.2., ed. Kayser; Voss. De Hist. Graec. 1.8.; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. p. 715.)

8. Of Byzantium. [Nos. 28 and 29.]

9. Of Caloe. [No. 13.]

10. Of Caria. [Nos. 4 and 15.]

11. Of Chalcedon. Works Record of a Synod on the Worship of Images

Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. vol. xi. p. 665), inaccurately states that a synodical letter of Leo, who was archbishop of Chalcedon in the time of Alexius I. Comnenus (A. D. 1081-1118), was published by Montfaucon. (Biblioth. Coislin. Catalog. p. 103, &c.) The document, as Fabricius elsewhere more accurately describes it (Bibl. Graec. vol. 7.716), is the record of a synod held to determine some questions relating to the worship of images, on which Leo in a letter (which Montfaucon does not give) had used some heterodox language.

12. Of Constantinople. [Nos. 28 and 29.]

13. Diaconus or the Deacon, a Byzantine historian of the tenth century. What little is known of his personal history is to be gleaned from incidental notices in his principal work, and has been collected by C. B. Hose in the Praefatio to his edition of Leo. Leo was born at Caloe, a town of Asia, beautifully situated on the side or at the foot of Mount Tmolus, near the sources of the Cäystrus, in Asia Minor. He was the son of Basilius, but his father's condition or calling is not known. (Leo Diac. Historiae, 1.1.) The young Leo was at Constantinople, pursuing his studies, A. D. 966, when he was an admiring spectator of the firmness of the emperor, Nicephorus II. Phocas, in the midst of a popular tumult (4.7.) As he describes himself as a youth (μειρόκιον) at the time of this incident, Hase places his birth in or about A. D. 950. He was in Asia about the time of the deposition of Basilius I., patriarch of Constantinople, and the election of his successor Antonius III., A. D. 973 or 974, and relates that at that time he frequently saw two Cappadocians, twins, of thirty years old, whose bodies were united from the armpits to the flanks (10.3). Having been ordained deacon, he accompanied the emperor Basilius II. in his unfortunate campaign against the Bulgarians, A. D. 981; and when the emperor raised the siege of Tralitza or Triaditza (the ancient Sardica), Leo narrowly escaped death or captivity in the headlong flight of his countrymen (10.8). Of his history after this nothing is known; but Hase observes that he must have written his history after A. D. 989, as he adverts to the rebellion and death of Phocas Bardas (10.9), which occurred in that year. Both this event and the Bulgarian campaign are noticed by him by anticipation, in a digression respecting the evils which he supposed were portended by a comet which appeared just before the death of Joannes I. Tzimisces. He must have lived later than Hase has remarked, and at least till A. D. 993, as he notices (10.10) that the emperor Basilius II. restored "in six years" the cupola of the great church (St. Sophia) at Constantinople which had been overthrown by the earthquake (comp. Cedren. Compend. vol. ii. p. 438, ed. Bonn) of A. D. 987. Works

The works of Leo Diaconus comprehend 1. Ἱστορία Βιβλίοις ύ, Historia Libris decem 2. Oratio ad Basilium Imperatorem 3. (unless it be the work of another Leo Diaconus) Homilia in Michaelem Archangelum The two last are extant only in MS. Ἱστορία Βιβλίοις ύ, Historia Libris decem

The history of Leo includes the period from the Cretan expedition of Nicephorus Phocas, in the reign of the emperor Romanus II., A. D. 959, to the death of Joannes I. Tzimisces, A. D. 975. It relates the victories of the emperors Nicephorus and Tzimisces over the Mohammedans in Cilicia and Syria, and the recovery of those countries, or the greater part of them, to the Byzantine empire ; and the wars of the same emperors with the Bulgarians and Russians. The style of Leo is described by Hase as vicious : he employs unusual and inappropriate words (many of them borrowed from Homer, Agathias, the historian, and the Septuagint), in the place of simple and common ones; and abounds in tautological phrases. His knowledge of geography and ancient history is slight; but with these defects his history is a valuable contemporary record of a stirring time, honestly and fearlessly written. Scylitzes, and through him Cedrenus, are much indebted to Leo; and Hase considers Zonaras also to have used his work. Editions

The Historia was first published, at the cost of count Nicolas Romanzof, chancellor of Russia, by Car. Bened. Hase, Paris, 1818. Combéfis had intended to publish it in the Parisian edition of the Corpus Historiae Byzantinae with the Historia of Michael Psellus, but was prevented by death, A. D. 1679. The Latin version which he had prepared was communicated by Montfaucon to Pagi, who inserted some portions in his Critice in Baronium (ad ann. 960, No. ix). The papers of Combéfis were, many years after, committed to Michael Le Quien, that he might publish an edition of Psellus and Leo, and part of the latter author's work was actually printed; but the breaking out of the war of the succession (A. D. 1702) prevented its completion, and Hase could find no trace of the part printed. In the disorders of the French revolution the papers of Combéfis were finally lost or destroyed. Hase in his edition added a Latin version and notes to the text of Leo, and illustrated it by engravings from ancient gems. His edition is, however, scarce and dear, the greater part of the copies having been lost by shipwreck; but his text, preface, version, and notes (not the engravings), have been reprinted in the Bonn edition of the Corpus Historiae Byzantinae. 8vo. 1828. Further Information

Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. p. 684, note 1; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. p. 106; Hase, Praefatio ad Leon. Diacon. Historiam.

14. The Epicurean of Lampsacus [No. 3].

15. Grammaticus, one of the continuators of Byzantine history from the period when Theophanes leaves off. Nothing certain is known of him. A note, subjoined by the transcriber, to the Parisian MS. of Georgius Syncellus, Theophanes, and Leo Grammaticus states that "the chronography of the recent emperors, completed (πληρωθεῖσα) by Leo Grammaticus, was finished on the 8th of the month of July, on the feast of the holy martyr Procopius, in the year 6521 (of the Mundane era of Constantinople), in the 11th Indiction," A. D. 1013 common era; but there can be little doubt that this date refers to the completion, not of the original work, but of the transcript. Cave indeed understands the date as being that of the original work. A postscript to the same MS., but by a different hand, gives to Leo the surname of Tzicandalus (Τζικάνδαλος), and states that he was civil and military governor (πρόεδρος δὲ δούξ) of the Cibyraeans, and one of the household (or perhaps the intimate friend, for the expression οὶκεῖος ἅνθρωπος is ambiguous) of our mighty and supreme (or chief, πρώτου) emperor. Combéfis (Notae ad Leonem Grammat. ad initium) understands the emperor to be Constantine Porphyrogenitus [Constantinus VII.], which is probable; and though there are some difficulties about this inscription, which prevent our giving entire credit to it, we do not participate in the doubt of Combéfis whether it refers to Leo Grammaticus or the anonymous continuator of Theophanes. The town of Cibyra is by Pliny included in Caria, and this furnishes Combéfis with one reason for identifying Leo Grammaticus with Leo the Carian mentioned by Cedrenus. (Compend. Historiae, sub init.) That the two are identical is very probable; but the epithet "Carian" is probably given rather from Leo's birthplace than from his government, which appears to have included not merely the town of Cibyra, but the whole thema of the Cibyraeans or Cibyrrhaeans (θέμα Κιβυρραιωτῶν, Constant. Porphyrog. De Themnatib. i. Th. 14), comprehending all the S.W. part of Asia Minor, and, of course, Caria. Leo Grammaticus is perhaps identical with the Leo Asinus, ὁ Ἀσινός, mentioned by Joannes Scylitza (apud Montfaucon, Biblioth. Coislin, p. 209). Works Χρονογραφία, τὰ τῶν νέων Βασιλέων περιέχονσα, Chronographia Res a Recentioribus Imperatoribus Gestas Complectens

The work of Leo Grammaticus is entitled Χρονογραφία, τὰ τῶν νέων Βασιλέων περιέχονσα, Chronographia Res a Recentioribus Imperatoribus Gestas Complectens, and extends from the accession of Leo V. the Armenian, A. D. 813, to the death of Romanus Lecapenus, A. D. 948 or 949, not, as Cave inaccurately states, to A. D. 1013.

Leo has little in common with the anonymous continuator of Theophanes [Leontius, No. 6] in that part of his work which comprehends the period before Basil the Macedonian; but in the latter part the two authors have many passages either identical or varying but little from each other: but the uncertainty attaching to the date of Leo's work makes it doubtful which was the first written. The anonymous continuation of Theophanes comes down to a later period than the work of Leo, and may therefore be inferred to have been written later. The somewhat abrupt termination of Leo's history soon after the recovery of the sole possession of theimperial power by the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus would lead to the conclusion that the writer lived at that period, and brought down his narrative to the time of its composition, had he not elsewhere (sub init. imperii Constant. Porphyrog. p. 488, ed. Paris, p. 387, ed. Ven.) given a statement of the whole length of Constantine's reign, which shows that he must have written after its close. Possibly he wrote during the reign of his son and successor Romanus II., and broke off where he did in order to avoid the necessity of adverting to Constantine's unhappy death and the parricide of Romanus. Editions

It was prepared for publication by Goar, but actually published with Theophanes, under the care of Combéfis, fol. Paris, 1655, in the Parisian edition of the Corpus Historiae Byzantinae, and was reprinted at Venice, fol. 1729. Verses ascribed to Leo

Some verses, probably by Leo of Thessalonica [No. 29], are in some MSS. ascribed to Leo Grammaticus. (Comp. Cedrenus, p. 641, ed. Paris, vol. ii. p. 337, ed. Bonn.) Letter ascribed to Leo

Cotelerius (Monum. Eccles. Graec., vol. 3.463, &c.) has given a letter on a question of canon law from a presbyter Joannes to " his guide and spiritual father, Leo Grammaticus, archbishop of Calabria," with Leo's answer. But this Leo cannot be the historian, unless we reject the account of the latter being governor of Cibyra, or suppose him to have exchanged his secular for an ecclesiastical life. Further Information

Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. vii. p. 713; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. p. 128; Hankius, De Byzantin. Rerum Scriptorib. pt. ii. c. vii.; Voss. De Hist. Graec. 4.21.

16. Of Lampsacus. [No. 3.]

17. Magentenus (Μαγεντῆνος) or Magentinus (Μαγεντῖνος), a commentator on Aristotle, flourished during the first half of the fourteenth century. His first name, Leo, is frequently omitted in the MSS. of his works. He was a monk, and afterwards archbishop of Mytilene. Works

Leo wrote: 1. Ἐξήγσις εἰς τὸ περὶ ἑρμηνείας Ἀριστοτέλους

Ἐξήγσις εἰς τὸ περὶ ἑρμηνείας Ἀριστοτέλους, Commentarius in Aristotelis De Interpretatione Librum. Editions

This commentary was published by Aldus, fol. Venice, 1503, with the commentary of Ammonius, from which Leo borrowed very largely, and the paraphrase of Psellus on the same book of Aristotle, and the commentary of Ammonius on Aristotle's Categoriae s. Praedicamenta. In the Latin title of this edition the author is called by a misprint, Margentinus. A Latin version of Leo's commentary, by J. B. Rasarius, has been repeatedly printed with the Latin version of Ammonius. Another Latin version by Hieronymus Leustrius has also been printed. 2. Ἐξήγησις εἰς τὰ πρότερα ἀναλυτικὰ τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους

Ἐξήγησις εἰς τὰ πρότερα ἀναλυτικὰ τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους, Commentarius in Priora Analtica Aristotelis. Editions

This was printed with the commentary of Joannes Philoponus on the same work, by Trincavellus, fol. Venice, 1536; and a Latin version of it by Rasarius has been repeatedly printed, either separately, or with other commentaries on Aristotle. Works not yet printed

The following works in MS. are ascribed, but with doubtful correctness, to Leo Magentenus: 3. Commentarius in Categorias Aristotelis,

Commentarius in Categorias Aristotelis, is extant in the King's Library at Paris. 4. Ἀριστοτέλους σοφιστικῶν ἐλέγχων έρμηνεία

Ἀριστοτέλους σοφιστικῶν ἐλέγχων έρμηνεία, Expositio Aristotelis De Sophisticis Elenchis : and 5. Ἀριστοτέλουσπερὶ εὐπορίας προτάσεων

Ἀριστοτέλουσπερὶ εὐπορίας προτάσεων. These two works are mentioned by Montfaucon (Bibl. Coislin. p. 225). The latter is, perhaps, not a distinct work, but a portion of No. 1. In the MS. the author is called Leontius Magentenus. 6. Commentarius in Isagogen. s. Quinque Voces Porphyrii.

Buhle doubts if this work, which is in the Medicean library at Florence (Bandini, Catalog. Codd. Laur. Medic. vol. iii. p. 239), is correctly ascribed to Magentenus. Other commentaries

In the catalogue of the MSS. in the king's library at Paris (vol. ii. pp. 410, 421), two MSS. Nos. mdcccxlv. and mcmxxviii., contain Scholia on the Categoriae, the Analytica Priora et Posteriora, and the Topica of Aristotle, and on the Isagoge of Porphyry, by Magnentius. Buhle conjectures, with probability, that Magnentius is a corruption of Magentenus or Magentinus: if so, and the works are assigned to their real author, we must add the commentaries on the Topica and the Analytica Posteriora to the works already mentioned. Nicolaus Comnenus Papadopoli speaks of many other works of Leo, but his authority is of little value. Further Information

Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iii. pp. 210, 213, 215, 218, 498, 7.717, 8.143, 12.208 ; Montfaucon, l.c. and p. 219; Buhle, Opera Aristotelis, vol. i. pp. 165, 305, 306, ed. Bipont; Catalog. MStor. Biblioth. Regiae, fol. Paris, 1740, l.c.

18. Maleinus (Μαλεΐνος), governor of the towns of Hierax, Stylus and others, in the middle of the twelfth century. A decree of his with a Latin version is given by Montfaucon, Palaeographia Graeca, p. 410, &c.

19. MEDICUS. [No. 29.]

20. Of METAPONTUM. Iamblichus (Pythag. Vit. 100.36) mentions a Pythagorean philosopher of this name and place, but without giving any further particulars, or assigning to him any date. It is conjectured that he is the Leo to whom Alcmaeon of Crotona [Alcmaeon] dedicated his Δόλος Φυσικός, or work on natural philosophy (D. L. 8.83). Fabricius also proposes to identify him with the Leo, son of Neoclis, whose Στοιχεῖα, Elementa sc. Geometrica are mentioned by Proclus (Comment. in Euclid. Lib. 2. c.4. p. 38 of the Latin version of Fr. Barocius, fol. Padua, 1560), and who gave considerably greater accuracy to geometrical science, especially by showing how to distinguish problems which admit of solution from those which cannot be solved. There is, however, a chronological objection to the identification of Leo, the friend of Alcmaeon, who lived in the sixth century B. C., with Leo the Geometrician, who was later than Leodamas of Thasos, and Archytas of Tarentum (Proclus, l.c.), who belonged to the end of the fifth century B. C. : and it is uncertain whether Leo of Metapontum is not different from both. (Fabric. Bibl. Craec. vol. i. p. 850, vol. vii. p. 718.)

21. Of MYTILENE. [No. 17.]

22. Philosophus. [No. 29.]

23. Peripateticus. [No. 17.1

24. Of Pella. [No. 3.]

25. Pythagoricus. [No. 20.]

26. Rhetor. [Nos. 4 and 7.]

27. Sapiens. [Leo VI. emperor.]

28. Stypiota or Styppa (Στυππῆς, or Stypa (Στυπῆς), patriarch of Constantinople in the twelfth century. His patriarchate extended from A. D. 1134 to 1143 (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. p. 721, vol, xi. p. 666). He died just about the time of the accession of the Byzantine emperor Manuel Comnenus, who appointed as Leo's successor Michael Curcuas, a monk of Oxeia, by whom he was himself crowned, (Nicetas Choniat. De Manuele Comneno,1.2.) A decree of Leo on the lawfulness of certain marriages, is given in the Jus Orientale of Bonefidius (Θεσμοὶ Ἀρχιερατικοί, Sanction. Pontific. p. 59) and in the Jus Graeco-Romanum of Leunclavius (Lib. iii. vol. i. p. 217). He is often cited by Nicolaus Comnenus Papadopoli. (Fabric. ll. cc.)

29. Of Thessalonica, an eminent Byzantine philosopher and ecclesiastic of the ninth century. Of the time or place of his birth nothing is known. He was the kinsman of the iconoclast Joannes (or as his enemies called him, on account of his obnoxious sentiments, Jannes), who was of the illustrious family of the Morocharzamii or Morochardanii, tutor of the emperor Theophilus, and patriarch of Constantinople, from about A. D. 832 --842. (Theoph. Contin. 4.26, comp. c. 6; and Symeon Magister, De Michaele et Theodora, c. 2.) Leo was characterized by his devotion to learning: he studied grammar and poetry "while staying (διατρίβων) at Constantinople," an expression which seems to indicate that he was not a native of that city; and rhetoric, philosophy, and arithmetic, under Michael Psellus, in the island of Andros. He visited the monasteries in the adjacent parts of continental Greece, examining and using their libraries, and studying and meditating upon the volumes obtained from them, amid the solitude of the mountains. Having thus acquired a great store of knowledge, not only in the sciences above mentioned, but in geometry, astronomy, including astrology, and music, he again visited Constantinople, and imparted his intellectual stores to those who resorted to him for instruction. (Theophan. Continuat. 4.29; Cedrenus, Compendium, p. 547, &c., ed. Paris, vol. ii. p. 165, &c., ed. Bonn.) Neither his learning, however, nor his connexions sufficed to raise him from obscurity, until he became, by a remarkable accident, known to the emperor Theophilus. A pupil of Leo, whom he had instructed in geometry, accepted the office of secretary to a military officer, during the war between the emperor and the caliph Al-Mamoun; and, falling into the hands of the Moslems, or treacherously deserting to them, at the fall of Amorium (A. D. 839), became known to the caliph, who was a liberal patron of science. The young man, though he excited the admiration of the caliph and his court, by his geometrical attainments, professed himself to be " not a master, but only a learner," and so highly extolled the knowledge of Leo, that he was forthwith despatched to Constantinople, with a letter to him, inviting him to leave that city and resort to Bagdad. Fearful of being suspected of a treasonable correspondence with the enemy, Leo showed the letter to the logothete Theoctistus, by whom the matter was reported to the emperor. Leo was thus made known to Theophilus. The emperor first appointed him public teacher or professor, assigning him the church of the Forty Martyrs as a school, and soon after ordered the patriarch Joannes, who appears hitherto to have neglected his learned kinsman, to ordain him archbishop of Thessalonica (Theoph. Continuat. 4.27 ; comp. Symeon Magister, De Theophilo. c. 18-20; Georg. Monach. De Theophilo. c. 22, 23; Cedrenus, Compendium, l.c.; Zonar. 16.4). After three years, when Theophilus died (A. D. 342), and the government came into the hands of his widow Theodora, as the guardian of her son Michael, the iconoclastic party was overthrown, and Leo and Joannes were deposed from their sees: but Leo, whose worth appears to have secured respect, escaped the sufferings which fell to his kinsman's lot (Theoph. Cont. 4.9, 26; Sym. Mag. De Theoph. 20, De Michaele, c. 1) ; and when the Caesar Bardas, anxious for the revival of learning, established the Mathematical school at the palace of Magnaura, in Constantinople, Leo was placed at its head, with one, if not more of his former pupils for his fellow-teachers. (Theoph. Contin. 4.26; Cedrenus and Zonaras, ll. cc.) Leo was faithful to the interests of Bardas, whom he warned of the insidious designs of Basilius the Macedonian, afterwards emperor (Sym. Mag. De Michaele et Theodora, 40; Georg. Monach. De Mich. et Theodora, c. 25, 26). An anecdote recorded both by Symeon (De Basilio Maced. 5) and George (De Basil. Maced. c. 4), shews that Leo was living in A. D. 869 : how much later is not known.

Symeon (De Mich. et Theodora, c. 46) has described a remarkable method of telegraphic communication, invented by Leo, and practised in the reigns of Theophilus and his son Michael. Fires kindled at certain hours of the day conveyed intelligence of hostile incursions, battles, conflagrations, and the other incidents of war, from the confines of Syria to Constantinople; the hour of kindling indicating the nature of the incident, according to an arranged plan, marked on the dial plate of a clock kept in the castle of Lulus, near Tarsus, and of a corresponding one in the palace at Constantinople. Works Δέοντος τοῦ Φιλοσόφου Καρκῖνοι, Versus Carcini Leonis Philosophi,

Leo Allatius, in his Excerpta Varia Graecor. Sophistarum, has given (p. 398) Δέοντος τοῦ Φιλοσόφου Καρκῖνοι, Versus Carcini Leonis Philosophi, i. e. verses which may be read either backward or forward. They are probably the same which are in some MSS. or catalogues ascribed to Leo Grammaticus [see above, No. 15], but may be more probably ascribed to our Leo, among whose early studies poetry is mentioned. Astrological Works

Several astrological collectanea extant in MS. in different European libraries, contain portions by Leo Philosophus, by which name the subject of the present article, who appears to have practised astrology (Theoph. Contin. 4.28, 5.14), is probably meant (Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vol. iv. p. 148, Graec. De Marci Biblioth. p. 153; Catalog. Codd. MStorum Bibl. Regiae, Paris, fol. 1740, vol. ii. pp. 499, 500). Μέθοδος προγνωστική, Methodus Prognostica

The Μέθοδος προγνωστική, Methodus Prognostica or instructions for divining by the Gospel or the Psalter, by Leo Sapiens, in the Medicean library at Florence ( Bandini, Catalog. Codd. Laur. Medic. vol. iii. p. 339), is perhaps by another Leo. Χρησμοί, Oracula

Combéfis was disposed to claim for Leo of Thessalonica the authorship of the celebrated Χρησμοί, Oracula, which are commonly ascribed to the emperor Leo VI. Sapiens, or the wise, and have been repeatedly published. But Leo of Thessalonica is generally designated in the Byzantine writers the philosopher (Φιλόσοφος), not the wise (σόφος), and if the published Oracula are a part of the series mentioned by Zonaras (15.21), they must be older than either the emperor or Leo of Thessalonica. Further Information

Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iv. pp. 148, 158, vol. vii. p. 697, vol. xi. p. 665; Allatius, De Psellis, c. 3-6; Labbe, De Byzant. Histor. Scriptorib. Προτρεπτικόν, pars secunda, p. 45. [J.C.M]

Latin ecclesiastics.

1. The first of that name who occupied the papal throne, is usually styled the Great. He was a native of Rome, and must have been born towards the close of the fourth century, although the precise year is unknown. Nothing has been recorded concerning his parents, except that his father was called Quintianus, nor with regard to his early training; but when we remark the erudition and polished accuracy displayed in his writings, and the early age at which he rose to offices of high trust, it becomes manifest that his great natural talents must have been cultivated with uncommon assiduity and skill. While yet an acolyte he was despatched, in A. D. 418, to Carthage, for the purpose of conveying to Aurelius and the other African bishops the sentiments of Zosimus concerning the Pelagian doctrines of Coelestius. [Coelestius.] Under Coelestinus [Coelestinus] he discharged the duties of a deacon; and the reputation even then (431) enjoyed by him is clearly indicated by the terms of the epistle prefixed to the seven books, De Incarnatione Christi, of Cassianus, who at his request had undertaken this work against the Nestorian heresy. Having obtained the full confidence of Sixtus III., to whom he rendered much good service, he attracted the notice of Valentinian III., and by the orders of the emperor undertook a mission to Gaul, in order to soothe the formidable dissensions of Aetius and Albinus. [Aetius.] While Leo was engaged in this delicate negotiation, which was conducted with singular prudence and perfect success, the chief pontiff died, and by the unanimous voice of the clergy and laity the absent deacon was chosen to fill the vacant seat, and on his return was solemnly installed, A. D. 440.

From the earliest ages until this epoch no man who combined lofty ambition with commanding intellect and political dexterity had presided over the Roman see: and although its influence had gradually increased, and many popes had sought to extend and confirm that influence, yet they had merely availed themselves of accidental circumstances to augment their own personal authority, without acting upon any distinct and well devised scheme. But Leo, while he sedulously watched over the purity of his own peculiar flock, concentrated all the powers of his energetic mind upon one great design, which he seems to have formed at a very early period, which he kept stedfastly in view during a long and eventful life, and which he followed out with consummate boldness, perseverance, and talent. This was nothing less than to establish the " Apostolic Chair" in acknowledged spiritual supremacy over every branch of the Catholic church, and to appropriate to its occupant exclusively the title of Papa, or father of the whole Christian world. Nor were the evil days amid which his lot was cast unfavourable, as might at first sight be imagined, to such a project. The church, it is true, was every where distracted and torn by the strife of parties, and by innumerable heresies, while the character of its ministers had grievously degenerated. The empire in the West was pressed on every side by hordes of barbarians, who were threatening to pour down upon Italy itself. But in this season of confusion the contending factions among the orthodox clergy, terrified by the rapid progress of Arianism, were well disposed to refer their own minor disputes to arbitration, and to acquiesce in the decision of one pre-eminent in learning and dignity. Leo, who well knew, from the example of his predecessor Innocentits, that the transition is easy from instruction to command, in the numerous and elaborate replies which he addressed to inquiries proceeding from various quarters, while he conveyed the information sought, or resolved the doubts proposed, studiously adopted a tone of absolute infallibility, and assumed the right of enforcing obedience to his dictates as an unquestionable prerogative of his office. On the other hand, the barbarian chiefs whose power was not yet consolidated were eager to propitiate one who possessed such weight with the priesthood, and through them could either calm into submission or excite to rebellion an ignorant and fanatic multitude. Hence these also proved powerful, although unconscious, instruments in forwarding the great enterprise. But even after the minds of men were in some degree prepared and disposed to yield to such domination, it was scarcely to be expected that it could be firmly fixed without exciting jealousy and resistance. Accordingly, a strong opposition was speedily organised both in the West pand in the East, which soon assumed the attitude of open defiance. In the West the contest was brought to an issue by the controversy with Hilarius of Aries concerning the deposition of Chelidonius. [Hilarius Arelatensis. ] The total defeat and severe punishment of the Gaulish bishop filled his supporters with terror, and the edict of Valentinian issued upon this occasion served as a sort of charter, in virtue of which the Roman bishops exercised for centuries undisputed jurisdiction over France, Spain, Germany, and Britain.

In the East the struggle was much more complicated, the result much less satisfactory. The Archimandrite Eutyches [ Eutyches], in his ve-hement denunciation of Nestorius, having been betrayed into errors, very different indeed, but equally dangerous, was anathematised, deposed, and excommunicated, in A. D. 448, by the synod of Constantinople. Against this sentence he sought redress, by soliciting the interference of the bishops of Alexandria and Rome. By the former his cause was eagerly espoused; the latter, although at first disposed to listen favourably to a complaint which he chose to regard as an appeal from an inferior to a higher court, was eventually induced, either by policy or conviction, to reject the application, and drew up an elaborate epistle to the patriarch Flavianus, in which the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation was authoritatively expounded and defined. Meanwhile, a general council was summoned to be held on the 1st of August, 449, at Ephesus, and thither the ambassadors of Leo repaired, for the purpose of reading publicly the above letter. But a great majority of the congregated fathers acting under control of the president, Dioscuros of Alexandria, refused to listen to the document, passed tumultuously a series of resolutions favourable to Eutyches, excommunicated the most zealous of his opponents, and not only treated the Roman envoys with indignity, but even offered violence to their persons. Hence this assembly, whose acts were all subsequently annulled, is known in ecclesiastical history as the Synodus Latrocinalis. The vehement complaints addressed to Theodosius by the orthodox leaders proved fruitless, and the triumph of their opponents was for a time complete, when the sudden death of the emperor in 450 again awakened the hopes and called forth the exertions of Leo. In consequence of the pressing representations of his envoys, Anatolius, the successor of Flavianus, together with all the clergy of Constantinople, were induced to subscribe the Confession of Faith contained in the Epistle to Flavianus, and to transmit it for signature to all the dioceses of the East. Encouraged by this success, Leo solicited the new monarch Marcianus to summon a grand council, for the final adjustment of the questions concerning the nature of Christ, which still proved a source of discord, and strained every nerve to have it held in Italy, where his own adherents would necessarily have preponderated. In this, however, he failed. Nicaea was the place first fixed upon, but it eventually met at Chalcedon in October, 451. Although the Roman legates, whose language was of the most imperious description, did not fail broadly to assert the pretensions put forth by the representative of St. Peter, at first all went smoothly. The Epistle to Flavianus was admitted as a rule of faith for the guidance of the universal church, and no protest was entered against the spirit of arrogant assumption in which it was conceived. But when the whole of the special business was concluded, at the very last sitting, a formal resolution was proposed and passed, to the effect that while the Roman see was, in virtue of its antiquity, entitled to take formal precedence of every other, the see of Constantinople was to stand next in rank, was to be regarded as independent of every other, and to exercise full jurisdiction over the churches of Asia, Thrace, and Pontus. The resistance of Leo was all in vain. The obnoxious canons were fully confirmed, and thus one half of the sovereignty at which he aimed was for ever lost, at the very moment when victory seemed no longer doubtful. Two other events in the active life of this remarkable man must not be passed over in silence. In 452, when Attila was advancing in full career upon Rome, Leo was selected as the chief of an embassy, sent forth in the forlorn hope of propitiating the fierce conqueror. What the arguments employed by the eloquent suppliant may have been history has failed to record. The result is well known. The Hun not only spared the metropolis, but evacuated Italy, and returned with his army to the Danube. Again in 455, when the city lay at the mercy of the Vandals, Genseric was persuaded by the entreaties of Leo to forego his purpose of general conflagration and massacre, and to be content with pillage--a concession which, when we consider the circumstances of the case and the temper of the chief, indicates the influence of the pontiff not less forcibly than his success with Attila.

His last anxiety arose from the tumults excited in the church at Alexandria about 457 by the disorderly proceedings of Timotheus Aelurus. Having united with the emperor of the East and with the patriarch of Constantinople in restoring order and discipline, and having written a congratulatory letter to the clergy of Alexandria upon the happy termination of their troubles, he soon after died, on the 10th of November, 461. Works

The works of Leo consist of discourses delivered on the great festivals of the church or other solemn occasions, and of letters. I. Sermones

Of these we possess ninety-six. There are five De Natali ipsius, preached on anniversaries of his ordination, six De Collectis, nine De Jejunio Decimi Mensis, ten De Nativitate Domini, eight In Epiphania Domini, twelve De Quadragesima, one De Transfiguratione Domini, nineteen De Passione Domini, two De Resurrectione Domini, two De Ascensione Domini, three De Pentecoste, four De Jejunio Pentecostes, one In Natali Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, one In Natali S. Petri Apostoli, one In Octavis Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, one In Natali S. Laurentii Martyris, nine De Jejunio Septimi Mensis, one De Gradibus Ascensionis ad Beatitudinem, one Tractatus contra Haeresim Eutychis. II. Epistolae

These, extending to the number of 173, are addressed to the reigning emperors and their consorts, to synods, to religious communities, to bishops and other dignitaries, and to sundry influential personages connected with the ecclesiastical history of the times. They afford an immense mass of most valuable information on the prevailing heresies, controversies, and doubts, with regard to matters of doctrine, discipline, and church government. Tracts of dubious authenticity

Besides the ninety-six Sermones and 173 Epistolae mentioned above, a considerable number of tracts have from time to time been ascribed to the same author; but their authenticity is either so doubtful, or their spuriousness so evident, that they are now universally set aside. A list of these, and an investigation of their origin, will be found in the edition of the brothers Ballerini, more particularly described below. MSS

In consequence of the reputation deservedly enjoyed by Leo, his writings have always been eagerly studied. But, although a vast number of MSS. are still in existence, none of these exhibit his works in a complete form, and no attempt seems to have been made to bring together any portion of them for many hundred years after his death. The Sermones were dispersed in the Lectionaria or select discourses of distinguished divines, employed in places of public worship until the eleventh century, when they first began to be picked out of these cumbrous storehouses, and transcribed separately, while the Epistolae were gradually gathered into imperfect groups, or remained embodied in the general collections of papal constitutions and canons. Editions

Of the numerous printed editions, which commence with that which issued from the press of Sweynheym and Pannartz (Rom. fol. 1470), under the inspection of Andrew, bishop of Aleria, comprising ninety-two Sermones and five Epistolae, it is unnecessary to give any detailed account, since two are decidedly superior to all others.

The first is that published at Paris in 1675, in two large quarto tomes, by Pasquier Quesnel, who by the aid of a large number of MSS., preserved chiefly in the libraries of France, was enabled to introduce such essential improvements into the text, and by his erudite industry illustrated so clearly the obscurities in which many of the documents were involved, that the works of Leo now for the first time assumed an unmutilated, intelligible, and satisfactory aspect. But the admiration excited by the skill with which the arduous task had been executed soon received a check. Upon attentive perusal, the notes and dissertations were found to contain such free remarks upon many of the opinions and usages of the primitive church, and, above all, to manifest such unequivocal hostility to the despotism of the Roman see, that the volumes fell under the ban of the Inquisition within a year after their publication, and were included in the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum " of 1682. Notwithstanding these denunciations, the book enjoyed great popularity, and was reprinted, without any suppression or modification of the obnoxious passages, at Lyons in 1700. Hence the heads of the Romish church became anxious to supply an antidote to the poison so extensively circulated. This undertaking was first attempted by Peter Cacciari, a Carmelite monk of the Propaganda, whose labours (S. Leonis Magni Opera omnia, Rom. 1753-1755, 2 vols. fol.; Exercitationes in Universa S. Leonis Magni Opera, Rom. fol. 1751), might have attracted attention and praise had they not been, at the very moment when they were brought to a close, entirely thrown into the shade by those of the brothers Peter and Jerome Ballerini, presbyters of Verona, whose edition appeared at Verona in three volumes folio in the course of the years 1755-1757, and is entitled to take the first place both in purity of the text, corrected from a great number of MSS., chiefly Roman, not before collated, in the arrangement of the different parts, and in the notes and disquisitions. A full description of these volumes, as well as of those of Quesnel and Cacciari, is to be found in Schönemann, who has bestowed more than usual care upon this section. Further Information

Maimbourg, Histoire du Pontificat de Léon, Paris, 4to. 1687; the dissertations of Quesnel and the Ballerini; Schönemann, Bibl. Patrum Lat. vol. 2.42; Arendt, Leo der Grosse, Mainz. 8vo. 1835; Bähr, Gesch. der Röm. Literat. Suppl. Band. IIe Abtheil. § 159-162.

2. Distinguished by the epithet Bituricensis, was bishop of Bourges in the middle of the fifth century, and took an active part in various important Gaulish councils, such as those of Angers (C. Andegavense, A. D. 453), and of Tours (C. Turonense, A. D. 461), held about that epoch. Works Epistola ad Episcopos et Presbyteros Ecclesiarum Provinciae Turonicae

We possess a letter written by this prelate in 454, jointly with the bishops Victurius and Eustochius, entitled Epistola ad Episcopos et Presbyteros Ecclesiarum Provinciae Turonicae, which was long ascribed to Leo the Great.

This letter has been inserted in all the earlier editions of the works of Leo the Great, and in various collections of councils, the epithet Turonicae appearing under the corrupt form of Thraciae. Sirmond first detected the real author of the piece, and restored the true title--Provinciae tertiae Lugdunensis s. Turonicae. Editions

It will be found in Labbe, Concil. vol. iii. col. 1420, fol. Par. 1672, and was placed by the brothers Ballerini in the Appendix Epistolarum Leonis Magni, vol. i. col. 1469-72. See also Sirmond, Concil. Gall. vol. i. pp. 119, 599, vol. iv. p. 667. Further Information

Schönemann, Biblioth. Patrum Lat. vol. 2.52. [W.R]

or Leon, jurists.

1. A jurist, who lived about the time of Theodosius II. or shortly afterwards. He is mentioned by Sidonius Apollinaris in the following lines (Narbo, 5.448-551), which are remarkable from showing at how late a period the laws of the twelve tables formed a part of legal instruction:--

" Sive ad doctiloqui Leonis aedes, Quo bis sex tabulas docente juris, Ultro Claudius Appius lateret, Claro obscurior in decemviratu."

2. A praefectus praetorio of the East, under Anastasius. (Cod. 7. tit. 39. s. 6). He was probably the author of the Edictum cited by Theodorus. (Basil. vol. iv. p. 414, ed. Fabrot.) He was different from the praefectus praetorio of Italy, to whom the 143rd Novell was addressed in Latin by Justinian in A. D. 563. (Biener, Geschichte der Novellen, p. 532; C. E. Zachariae, Anecdota, p. 261, n. 43.)

3. A Graeco-Roman jurist, probably contemporary with Justinian. A legal question of Leo is cited in Basil. 29. tit. 1. schol. (vol. iv. p. 610, ed. Fabrot.) In Basil. 21. tit. 2. schol. (vol. ii. p. 633), occurs another legal question of Leo, with the corrupt heading, Λέοντις Ἀναμαρζεὺς (or Ἀναβαρζεὺς) ἐρώτηοις. Leo, in the latter passage, inquires whether a woman, who, while she was a slave, had exercised the trade of prostitution, was infamous after manumission; and Stephanus, who answers in the negative, gives a curious reason for the rule.

A Leo Sebastinus, monk and jurist, is often cited by the untrustworthy Nic. Comnenus Papadopoli, in his Praenotiones Mystagogicae. His Ecthesis Canonum is mentioned, pp. 143,216,219,249,278; and his scholia on Balsamo, p. 325. [J.T.G]

or Leon, a physician, called φιλόδοφος καὶ ἰατρός. Works Σύνοψις τῆς Ἰατρικῆς, Conspectus Medicinae

the author of a short Greek medical work, in seven books, entitled Σύνοψις τῆς Ἰατρικῆς, Conspectus Medicinae, dedicated to a person named Georgius, at whose request it was written. It consists of a very brief account of about two hundred diseases, taken in a great measure from Galen. It is uncertain at what time Leo lived, but it may have been about the eighth or ninth century after Christ. Edition

The work is to be found in Greek and Latin, in F. Z. Ermerins, Anecdota Medica Graeca, 8vo. Lugd. Bat., 1840. [W.A.G]

or Leon, artists.

1. A painter, of unknown date, whose picture of Sappho is mentioned by Pliny (35.11. s. 40.35).

2. One of those statuaries who made "athletas, et armatos, et venatores sacrificantesque." (Plin. Nat. 34.8. s. 19.34.) [P.S]

or Leon (Λέων). (1) Also called Leonĭdes (Λεωνίδης), of Heraclea on the Pontus, a disciple of Plato. He was one of the conspirators who, with their leader, Chion, assassinated Clearchus, tyrant of Heraclea, B.C. 353.

(2) Diacŏnus, or the Deacon, a Byzantine historian of the tenth century. His history, in ten books, includes the period from the Cretan expedition of Nicephorus Phocas, in the reign of the emperor Romanus II. (A.D. 959), to the death of Ioannes I. Zimisces (975). The style of Leo is corrupt; he employs unusual and inappropriate words, many of them borrowed from Homer, Agiathias the historian, and the Septuagint, in the place of common ones; and he abounds in tautological phrases. His history, however, is a valuable contemporary record of a stirring time, honestly and fearlessly written. It is edited by Migne (Paris, 1863).

(3) Grammatĭcus, one of the continuators of Byzantine history from the period when Theophanes leaves off. His work, entitled Chronographia, extends from the accession of Leo V. the Armenian (813) to the death of Romanus Lecapenus (944).

(4) Archbishop of Thessalonica, an eminent Byzantine philosopher and ecclesiastic of the ninth century. His works are lost, but he is frequently mentioned in terms of the highest praise by the Byzantine writers, especially for his knowledge of geometry and astronomy.

(5) Magentēnus, a commentator on Aristotle, flourished during the first half of the fourteenth century. He was a monk, and afterwards archbishop of Mitylené. Several of his commentaries on Aristotle are extant, and have been published.

(6) Leo was also the name of six Byzantine emperors. Of these, Leo VI., “the philosopher,” who reigned 886-911, is celebrated in the history of the later Greek literature. He wrote a treatise on Greek tactics, and several other works, which are still extant. He is also celebrated in the history of legislation. As the Latin language had long ceased to be the official language of the Eastern Empire, Basil, the father of Leo, had formed and partly executed the plan of issuing an authorized Greek version of Iustinian's legislation. This plan was carried out by Leo. The Greek version is known under the title of Βασιλικαὶ Διατάξεις, or shortly, Βασιλικαί; in Latin, Basilica, which means “Imperial Constitutions,” or “Laws.” See basilica.

• Apollod. 3.7.7