A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

STEPHANUS. STEPHANUS. 905
himself, or by the epitomator Hermolaus. The sages proceed from the pen of the original author.
most important of these passages is the following, there being no proof to the contrary. A more imwhich occurs in the article'Avawcrtpiov' Kal Eb- portant piece of collateral evidence respecting the
yevios a', 6 7rpb s 4'Y'r,'. LBaoAit orXohas time of Stephanus, pointed out by Westermann, is
itaioE'tooasm, which cannot refer to any other Eu- his eulogy of Petrus Patricius (s. v.'AKdai), who
genius than the eminent grammarian of August- died soon after A. D. 562, and was therefore a conopolis in Phrygia, who, as we learn from Suidas, temporary of Stephanus, supposing that the latter
taught at Constantinople, under the emperor Ana- flourished at the time above assigned to him.
stasius, at the end of the fifth century or the be- The literary history of the work of Stephanus
ginning of the sixth. (Suid. s. v.) This passage is also involved in much obscurity. Even the title
was pointed out by Thomas de Pinedo, the trans- has been a subject of dispute. In the Aldine
lator of Stephanus, as an indication of the author's edition it is entitled 7repi 7ro'Aewv, which Dindorf has
age; but nearly all the editors of Stephanus, as adopted; in the Juntine 7repl 7rdXwcov Kal oCuwov,
well as Isaac Vossius and Fabricius, have chosen which Berkelius also places at the head of the text,
to regard it as an insertion made by Hermolaus, while on his title-page he has'repdavou Bv'aST'iou
for the following reason; if Eugenius flourished OvtK& var"' s7r,o1tslv; and Salmasius prefers the
under Anastasius, who died in A. D. 518, his suc- title Tepa'vovU BtavTi'ou Prepl e'OVIKiv Kal TO7rK'S,.
cessor in the presidency of the schools would in all All these variations are supported more or less by
probability be in office under Justinian I., who the authority of the MSS. The numerous recame to the throne in A. D. 527, which agrees with ferences, however, made to the work by ancient
the statement of Suidas, that Hermolaus dedicated writers, especially by Eustathitus, make it clear
his epitome to Justinian. Plausible as this argu- that the proper title of the original work was
ment is, it is far from being conclusive. It evi-'Evtacd, and that of the epitome deK T-wv,Ovl1CW
dently rests in part, if not chiefly, on the tacit ae~pavov KaT' E'rTiSdxqv. The title prefixed to the
assumption that, when a personal reference is made important fragment of the original work, which is
in an abridged work to the author, without any preserved in the Codex Seguerianus, deserves notice
thing to show whether the writer of the passage is on account of its full explanation of the design of the
the original author or the epitomator, the presump- work, although it has of course been added by a
tion is, that it has been inserted by the latter. grammarian: -Telcpdvovo ypa/.taTrc1KoV KwvoeravT1Now we believe that the presumption is just Povrirhetos 7rfpl 7rdoAewv j;rcwV TOe Kal e0vwdvs, Gaicwv
the other way; both on the general principle Te Kal TOdrCOw, Kal MwevvILtas aVTWV Kail yTwvoyuathat, in an abridged work, whatever cannot be oalas teKal TWr,'rTeEE 7raplpy7uEVwv deOv0ticwv e Kal
proved to be an interpolation should be referred To7rKW teal Ktal KriW't E TE O'OYaTwV.
to the original author, and also on account of the According to the title. the chief object of the work
well-known habit of compilers and epitomators of was to specify the gentile names derived from the
the later period of Greek literature to copy their several names of places and countries in the ancient
author almost verbatiml, so far as they follow him at world. But, while this is done in every article, the
all, and to make their abridgement by the simple amount of information given went far beyond this.
omission of whole passages, often in such a manner Nearly every article in the epitome contains a reas even to destroy the grammatical coherence of ference to some ancientwriter, as an authorityfor the
what is left, as is frequently the case in this very name of the place; but in the original, as we see from
epitome of Stephanus. On this presumption, we the extant fragments, there were considerable quotathink, the question mainly turns. It would be tions from the ancient authors, besides a number of
rash to regard it as decided; but it may be safely very interesting particulars, topographical, historical,
said that the passage should probably be referred to mythological, and others. Thus the work was not
Stephanus, unless some positive and decisive proof merely what it professed to be, a lexicon of a
be produced that it was inserted by Hermolaus. special branch of technical grammar, but a valuable
The chronological argument stated above is not such dictionary of geography. How great would have
a proof; for Suidas does not say to which of the been its value to us, if it had come down to us
two Justinians Hermolaus dedicated his epitome; unmutilated, may be seen by any one who comand, even if it was to Justinian I., there is nothing pares the extant fragments of the original with the
to prevent our supposing that the work of Stepha- corresponding articles in the epitome. These fragnus was composed under Justin or in the early ments, however, are unfortunately very scanty.
part of the reign of Justinian, and that the epitome They consist of: - (1 ) The portion of the work
was made very soon afterwards; but, considering from Atriu1 to the end of A, contained in a MS. of
how little Suidas troubles himself about minute the Seguerian Library; but, unfortunately, there is
distinctions, it is perhaps better to keep to the ex- a large gap even in this portion; (2) The article
planation that the Justinian to whom Hermolaus'IC7pigat ao, which is preserved by Constantinus
dedicated his epitome was Justinian II., and that Porphyrogennetus (de Admrsin. Imnp. c. 23); (3)
Stephanus himself flourished under Justinian I., in An account of Sicily, quoted by the same author
the former part of the sixth century. Wester- from Stephanus (de Themn. ii. 10). The first two
mann argues further, that it is unlikely that a of these fragments are inserted by Westermann
person of so little learning and judgment, as the in the text, in place of the corresponding articles of
epitomator of Stephanus appears by his work to the epitome, which he transfers to his preface;
have possessed, would have been placed at the the third differs so thoroughly from the article
head of the imperial schools of Constantinople, or tZKceXa in the epitome, that Westermann does
would have written such a work as the Byzantine not venture to insert it in the text, but prints it in
history quoted in the article T'OWo, or as the dis- his preface. There are also some other quotations
quisition on the Aethiopians referred to under in the ancient writers, which, from their general,
AiG[o*; but, in these cases also, it appears better but not exact, resemblance to the articles in the
to rest on the simple presumption that these pas- epitome, are presumed to be taken from the original.