Ste'phanusByzantius or
Ste'phanusByzantinus or
Ste'phanusof Byzantium2. Of Byzantium, the author of the well-known geographical lexicon, entitled
Ἐθνικά, of which unfortunately we only possess an epitome. There
are few ancient writers of any importance of whom we know so little as of Stephanus. All that
can be affirmed of him with certainty is that he was a grammarian at Constantinople, and lived
after the time of Arcadius and Honorius, and before that of Justinian II. The ancient writers,
often as they quote the
Ἐθνικά, give us absolutely no
information about its author, except his name. We learn from them, however, that the work was
reduced to an epitome by a certain Hermolaus, who dedicated his abridgement to the emperor
Justinian. [
HERMOLAUS.] Hence, in turning to the few incidental
pieces of information which the work contains respecting its author, we are met by the
question, whether such passages were written by Stephanus
himself, or by the
epitomator Hermolaus. The most important of these passages is the following, which occurs in
the article
Ἀνακτόριον Καὶ Εὐγένιος δὲ,
ὁ πρὸ ἡμῶν τὰς ἐν τῆ βασιλίδι σχολὰς διακοσμήσας, which
cannot refer to any other Eugenius than the eminent grammarian of Augustopolis in Phrygia,
who, as we learn from Suidas, taught at Constantinople, under the emperor Anastasius, at the
end of the fifth century or the beginning of the sixth. (Suid.
s. v.)
This passage was pointed out by Thomas de Pinedo, the translator 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.
518, his successor 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 argument is, it is far from being conclusive. It evidently 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 presumption 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 very 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 Stephanus 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 explanation 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. Westermann
argues further, that it is unlikely that a person of so little learning and judgment, as the
epitomator of Stephanus 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
Τότθοι, or as
the disquisition on the Aethiopians referred to under
Αἰθίοψ; but, in these cases also, it appears better to rest on the simple
presumption that these passages proceed from the pen of the original author there being no
proof to the contrary. A more important piece of collateral evidence respecting the time of
Stephanus, pointed out by Westermann, is his eulogy of Petrus Patricius (
s.
v.
Ἀκόναι), who died soon after
A. D.
562, and was therefore a contemporary of Stephanus, supposing that the latter
flourished at the time above assigned to him.
Work
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
περὶ πόλεων, which Dindorf has adopted; in the Juntine
περὶ πόλεων καὶ δήμων, which Berkelius also places at the
head of the text, while on his title-page he has
Στεφάνου
Βυζαντίου ἐθνικὰ κατ̓ ἐπιτομήν; and Salmasius prefers the title
Στεφάνου Βυζαντίου περὶ ἐθνικῶν καὶ τοπικῶν. All these
variations are supported more or less by the authority of the MSS. The numerous references,
however, made to the work by ancient writers, especially by Eustathius, make it clear that
the proper title of the original work was
Ἐθνικά, and
that of the epitome
ἐκ τῶν ἐθνικῶν Στεφάνου κατ̓
ἐπιτόμην. 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 : -
Στεφάνου γραμματικοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως περὶ
πόλεων νήσων τε καὶ ἐθνῶν, δήμων τε καὶ τόπων, καὶ ὁμωνυμίας αὐτῶν καὶ
μετωνομασίας καὶ τῶν ἐντεῦθεν παρηγμένων ἐθνικῶν τε καὶ τοπικῶν καὶ κτητικῶν τε
ὀνομάτων.
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 reference to some ancient writer, as an authority for the
name of the place; but in the original, as we see from the extant fragments, there were
considerable quotations 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 compares the extant fragments of the original with the corresponding
articles in the epitome. These fragments, however, are unfortunately very scanty. They
consist of : -- (1) The portion of the work from Δύμη
to the end of Δ, contained.in a MS. of the Seguerian
Library; but, unfortunately, there is a large gap even in this portion; (2) The article
Ἰβηρίαι δύο, which is preserved by Constantinus
Porphyrogennetus (de Admin. Imp. 100.23); (3) An account of Sicily,
quoted by the same author from Stephanus (de Them. 2.10). 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 Σικελία 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 They are particularized by Westermann in his preface.
From a careful examination of the references, it appears that the author of the
Etymologicum Magnum, Eustathius, and others of the grammarians, possessed the
original work of Stephanus. It also seems probable that the work, as it now exists, is not a
fair representation of the epitome of Hermolaus, but that it has been still further abridged
by successive copyists. The former part of the work is pretty full; the portion from
Πάτραι to the middle of
Σ
is little more than a list of names; the articles in
Τ
and
Ψ become fuller again; and those from
Χ to
Ω appear to be copied,
almost without abridgement, from the work of Stephanus.
The work is arranged in alphabetical order; but it was also originally divided into books.
the exact number of which cannot be determined; but they were considerably more numerous than
the letters of the alphabet.
Editions
The following are the chief editions of the Epitome of Stephanus : -- - 1. the Aldine, Venet. 1502, fol.
- 2. the Juntine, Florent. 1521, fol.
- 3. the edition of Xylander, with several emendations in the text, and with Indices,
Basil. 1568, fol.
- 4. that of Thomas de Pinedo, the first with a Latin version. Amst. 1678, fol.
- 5. the text corrected by Salmasius, from a collation of MSS.; various readings
collected by Gronovius from the Codex Perusinus, with notes; a Latin Version and Commentary
by Abr. Berkelius, Lugd. Bat. 1688, fol., reprinted 1694, fol.
- 6. that of the Wetsteins, containing the Greek text, the Latin version and notes of
Thomas de Pinedo, and the various readings of Gronovius, with Indices, Amst. 1725,
fol.
- 7. that of Dindorf, with readings from a newly-found MS., and the notes of L.
Holstenius, A. Berkelius, and Thomas de Pinedo, Lips. 1825, &c., 4 vols. 8vo.
- 8. that of A. Westermann, containing a thoroughly revised text, with a very valuable
preface, Lips. 1839, 8vo.: this is by far the most useful edition for ordinary
reference.
Editions of The Fragment
The chief fragment was published separately, by S. Tennulius, Amst. 1669,
4to.; by A. Berkelius, with the Periplus of Hanno and the
Monumentum Adulitanum of Ptolemy Euergetes, Lugd. Bat. 1674, 8vo., reprinted
in Montfaucon's Catalogus Bibliothecae Coislinianae, pp. 281, &c.,
Paris. 1715, fol.; by Jac. Gronovius, Lugd. Bat. 1681, 4to., and in the
Thesaurus Antiq. Graec. vol. vii. pp. 269, &c.; and it is
contained in all the editions, from that of Thomas de Pinedo downwards.
There is a German translation of the fragment, with an Essay on Stephanus, by S. Ch.
Schirlitz, in the Ephem. Litter. Scholast. Univ. vol. ii. pp. 385-390,
393-399, 1828, 4to.
Further Information
Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iv. pp. 621-661 ; Vossius, de Hist. Graec. pp. 324, 325, ed. Westermann ; Wellauer, de Extrema
Parte Operis Stephaniani de Urbibus, in Friedemann and Seebod's Miscell. Crit. vol. ii. pt. 4, pp. 692, &c.; Westermann, Stephani
Byzantini Ἐθνικῶν quae supersunt, Praef.;
Hoffmann, Lex. Bibl. Script. Graec. s. v.
Other Greek writers named Stephanus
There are several other Greek writers of this name, but not of sufficient importance to
require notice here.
Further Information
See Fabric. Bibl. Graec. Index.
[P.S](author.P.S)]