Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 3.djvu/917

STEPHANUS. himself, or by the epitomator Ilermolans. The most important of these passages is the following, which occurs in the article 'AvaKrdpiov • Kai Eu- ycuios 8e, 6 -nph r^fxHv ras iv tt? fiaoriAidi (xxo^as iiaKo<TfJiT)(Tas, which cannot refer to any other Eu- genius than the eminent grammarian of August- opolis in Phrygia, who, as we learn from Suidas, taught at Constantinople, under the emperor Ana- stasius, at the end of the fifth century or the be- ginning of the sixth. (Suid. s. v.) This passage was pointed out by Thomas de Pinedo, the trans- lator of Stephanus, as an indication of the author's age ; but nearly all the editors of Stephanus, as well as Isaac Vossius and Fabricius, have chosen to regard it as an insertion made by Hermolaus, for the following reason ; if Eugenius flourished under Anastasius, who died in A. D. 51 8, his suc- cessor in the presidency of the schools would in all probability be in office under Justinian I,, who came to the throne in A. D. 527, which agrees with the statement of Suidas, that Hermolaus dedicated his epitome to Justinian. Plausible as this argu- ment is, it is far from being conclusive. It evi- dently rests in part, if not chiefly, on the tacit assumption that, when a personal reference is made in an abridged work to the author, without any thing to show whether the writer of the passage is the original author or the epitomator, the presump- tion is, that it has been inserted by the latter. Now we believe that the presumption is just the other way ; both on the general principle that, in an abridged work, whatever cannot be proved to be an interpolation should be referred to the original author, and also on account of the well-known habit of compilers and epitomators of the later period of Greek literature to copy their author almost verbatim, so far as they follow him at all, and to make their abridgement by the simple omission of whole passages, often in such a manner as even to destroy the grammatical coherence of what is left, as is frequently the case in this verj' epitome of Stephanus. On this presumption, we think, the question mainly turns. It would be rash to regard it as decided ; but it may be safely said that the passage should probably be referred to Stephanus, unless some positive and decisive proof be produced that it was inserted by Hermolaus. The chronological argument stated above is not such a proof ; for Suidas does not say to which of the two Justinians Hermolaus dedicated his epitome ; and, even if it was to Justinian I., there is nothing to prevent our supposing that the work of Stepha- nus was composed under Justin or in the early part of the reign of Justinian, and that the epitome was made very soon afterwards ; but, considering how little Suidas troubles himself about minute distinctions, it is perhaps better to keep to the ex- planation that the Justinian to whom Hermolaus dedicated his epitome was Justinian II., and that Stephanus himself flourished under Justinian I., in the former part of the sixth century. Wester- mann argues further, that it is unlikely that a person of so little learning and judgment, as the epitomator of Stephaims appears by his work to have possessed, would have been placed at the head of the imperial schools of Constantinople, or would have written such a work as the Byzantine history quoted in the article T6t9oi, or as the dis- quisition on the Aethiopians referred to under AiQioip ; but, in these cases also, it appears better to rest on the simple presumption that these pas- STEPHANUS. 905 sages proceed from the pen of the original author, there being no proof to the contrary. A more im- portant piece of collateral evidence respecting the time of Stephanus, pointed out by Westermann, is his eulogy of Petrus Patricius (s. v. 'Awdj/ot), who died soon after A. d. 562, and was therefore a con- temporary of Stephanus, supposing that the latter flourished at the time above assigned to him. The literary history of the work of Stephanus is also involved in much obscurity. Even the title has been a subject of dispute. In the Aldine edition it is entitled Trepl irSKe^wv, which Dindorf has adopted ; in the Juntine irepX irdXctau koL hi]ixu}v, which Berkelius also places at the head of the text, while on his title-page he has '2,Te<pdvov Bv^ayriov iQviKb. Kar iiriTo/xijv ; and Salmasius prefers the title ^Tecpdvov Bv^avriov irepl idyiKuv Koi tottikwu. All these variations are supported more or less by the authority of the MSS. The numerous re- ferences, however, made to the work by ancient writers, especially by Eustathius, make it clear that the proper title of the original work was 'E^j/t/ca, and that of the epitome 6K twv iOi/iKwu 'Zrecpduov kut iTriTS/j.rjv. The title prefixed to the important fragment of the original work, which is preserved in the Codex Seguerianus, deserves notice on account of its full explanation of the design of the work, although it has of course been added by a grammarian: — ^T€<pdvov ypap-ixariKov KcovaravTi- Povw6eci}S ire pi ir6€wv vi]a(av re Kol eQvwv, S-f)/j.uu T€ Koi r6Trwv, Kai SfMcavv/xias avTWV Koi /jLeTwvo/xa- aias Kol rwv ivTevQev irapT^yfiivuv idviKwp t€ Kai TOiriKUV KoX KTtlTtKUV T6 OVOfiaTWU. According to the title, the chief object of the work was to specify the gentile names derived from the several names of places and countries in the ancient world. But, while this is done in every article, the amount of information given went far beyond this. Nearly every article in the epitome contains a re- ference to some ancient Avriter, as an authority for the name of the place ; but in the original, as we see from the extant fragments, there were considerable quota- tions from the ancient authors, besides a number of very interesting particulars, topographical, historical, mythological, and others. Thus the work was not merely what it professed to be, a lexicon of a special branch of technical grammar, but a valuable dictionary of geography. How great would have been its value to us, if it had come down to us unmutilated, may be seen by any one who com- pares the extant fragments of the original with the corresponding articles in the epitome. These frag- ments, however, are unfortunately very scanty. They consist of: — (1) The portion of the work from Avfiri to the end of A, contained in a MS. of the Seguerian Library ; but, unfortunately, there is a large gap even in this portion ; (2) The article 'l§7]plai dvo, which is preserved by ConstvOntinus Porphyrogennetus (de Admin. Imp. c. 23) ; (3) An account of Sicily, quoted by the same author from Stephanus {de Them. ii. 1 0). The first two of these fragments are inserted by Westermann in the text, in place of the corresponding articles of the epitome, which he transfers to his preface ; the third differs so thoroughly from the article ^iK€(a in the epitome, that Westermann does not venture to insert it in the text, but prints it in his preface. There are also some other quotations in the ancient writers, which, from their general, but not exact, resemblance to the articles in the epitome, are presumed to be taken from the originaL