¹ A. Adler (ed.), Suidae Lexicon (Leipzig, 1928–38; repr. Stuttgart, 1967), 4.505.

² LSJ s.v. ταρσός. The compiler of the Suda has previously defined ταρσός at τ 130.

³ Hdt. 1.179.2: reed matting used to strengthen brickwork in the walls of Babylon; Thuc. 2.76.1: baskets filled with clay used in the construction of a siege mound; Aen. Tact. 32.2: wickerwork screens against missiles. Cf. also Hsch. τ 210 (Cunningham/Latte), where the accusative plural lemma ταρσοὺς καλάμων is clearly cited from Herodotus. The passage of Thucydides is cited three times in the Suda at ε 1282; ει 109; τ 130, whence ps.-Zonar. Lex. 640.26-8, 746.8-10.

⁴ For the compiler's dependence on an older Herodotean glossary see Adler (n. 1), 1.xviii. An extant recension of this glossary (codex Coislinianus 345) is edited under the title Ἡροδότου λέξεις in H. Stein (ed.), Herodoti Historiae (Berlin, 1869–71), 2.441-82; repr. in K. Latte and H. Erbse (edd.), Lexica Graeca minora (Hildesheim, 1965), 191–231.

⁵ While Hdt 1.179.2 employs ταρσοὶ καλάμων in connection with the manufacture of bricks for the walls of Babylon, he applies this phrase not to a drying-rack but to reed matting inserted at regular intervals to bind the brickwork together: καὶ διὰ τριήκοντα δόμων πλίνθου ταρσοὺς καλάμων διαστοιβάζοντες. Given that ταρσοί are more frequently attested as wicker surfaces used for drying diverse items (e.g. Homer, Od. 9.219; Theoc. 11.37; Poll. 1.251; 7.173), it seems that the author of the gloss misconstrued Herodotus’ text and imposed the more common meaning of ταρσοί on to his account of Babylonian brick making.

⁶ According to the received text, Suda τ 134 states that in Herodotus the phrase ταρσοὶ καλάμων refers to ἡ πρασιά, οὗ ἐξήραινον τὴν πλίνθον. Although not impossible, a πρασιά, ‘garden-plot’ or ‘allotment’, is an unlikely place ‘where they used to dry bricks’. The close palaeographical resemblance to τρασιά, a wicker frame or crate commonly used to dry bricks, figs, corn or cheeses (see LSJ s.v. τρασιά) leaves little doubt that the text transmitted in the MSS of the Suda arose from a misreading of ΤΡ- as ΠΡ- in a majuscule ancestor. In fact, the reading τρασιά is found in the same gloss in the Ἡροδότου λέξεις (see n. 4) at 1.48, τ 2: ταρσοὶ δὲ καλάμων. τρασιάν ἐν ᾗ ἐξήραινον τὴν πλίνθον (Stein 452, 470; Latte/Erbse 200, 218). That this was the original reading in the Suda is also confirmed by Gregory of Corinth, De dialectis 4.643 (Schäfer): ταρσοὺς δὲ καλάμων, τὴν τρασιάν, οὗ ἐξήραινον τὴν πλίνθον, which derives from the Suda or a common source.

⁷ T. Gaisford (ed.), Suidae Lexicon, with annotations by G. Bernhardy (Halle/Brunswick, 1853), 2².1037–8, annot. line 12: ‘οἱ δὲ Λαζοὶ] Fragmentum opinor a Prisco repetendum.’

⁸ C.W. and T. Müller (edd.), Fragmenta historicorum graecorum (Paris, 1841–72), vol. 4 (1851), 69–110; vol. 5¹ (1870), 24-6. The excerpt is not found in the previous collection of fragments of Priscus in I. Bekker and B.G. Niebuhr (edd.), Dexippi, Eunapii, Petri Patricii, Prisci, Malchi, Menandri historiarum quae supersunt (CSHB 6) (Bonn, 1829), 139–228.

⁹ L.A. Dindorf (ed.), Historici graeci minores (Leipzig, 1870–1), 1.351–2, ‘Prisci fragmentis incerta coniectura annumerata sunt haec Suidae … [n° 2] Prisco locum tribuit Bernhardy’. The other two excerpts are from Suda θ 389 and τ 635.

¹⁰ Adler (n. 1), 4 (1935), 505, app. font. See also Adler's list of attributions to Priscus at 5.122.

¹¹ F. Bornmann (ed.), Prisci Panitae Fragmenta (Florence, 1979), 124, fr. 67*, with Italian trans. at 200. Bornmann's edition contains an error of accentuation: τάρσοις for ταρσοῖς. At 124 Bornmann notes: ‘67* = Suid. s.v. Ταρσοὶ καλάμων I, 4 pp. 505 s. Adl[er] Prisco attr. Bernhardy. Cfr. Procop. Bell. I 13, 13-14 qui fortasse ex Prisco hausit.’ I can see no direct relevance to this passage of Procopius.

¹² Baldwin, B., ‘Priscus of Panium’, Byzantion 50 (1980), 18–61 Google Scholar, at 60: ‘… it may be tempting to agree with Bernhardy, but Priscus had no monopoly on this sort of thing’.

¹³ R.C. Blockley, The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire, 2 vols. (Liverpool, 1981-3). The fragments of Priscus are at 2.221-400. See the brief discussion of Priscus-derived material in the Suda at 1.118, with n. 42 (167), ‘Thompson … rightly rejects the three Suda articles which Dindorf includes as Priscan’; additional general remarks on the Suda at 2.viii.

¹⁴ Thompson, E.A., ‘Notes on Priscus Panites’, CQ 41 (1947), 61–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 65: ‘Those who read Pr.[iscus] in Dindorf's text should reject all the uncertain fragments printed on pp. 351.24-352.31. They are none of them by Pr.’

¹⁵ P. Carolla (ed.), Priscus. Excerpta et Fragmenta (Bibliotheca Teubneriana) (Berlin, 2008). See the conspectus of ‘fragmenta dubia’ at 83–111, indexed at 132–7 (with Suda-derived material listed at 137). See xxxi, where Carolla indicates: ‘Editio mea ei [sc. Blockley] multum debet, quantum ad fragmenta dubia pertinet’, with following remarks.

¹⁶ To the present author's knowledge, the excerpt has not previously been noted or discussed in historical literature.

¹⁷ See below nn. 58-9, 61 for the possibility that this concluding phrase may be the excerptor's abridgement.

¹⁸ I distinguish here between, on the one hand, concealed pits or trenches designed to ensnare the enemy, and, on the other hand, visible ditches or fieldworks constructed as tactical or strategic barriers to deter enemy attacks, though the distinction is not always clear-cut. For an earlier example of Roman forces employing the former category see Cass. Dio 75.6.3-6 on the battle of Lyons in 197: ‘… having in front of them concealed ditches and pits covered with earth on the surface’ (κρυπτὰς τάφρους ἔχοντες πρὸ αὑτῶν καὶ ὀρύγματα γῇ ἐπιπολαίως κεκαλυμμένα).

¹⁹ Procop. BP 1.4, quoting §§7-8 (τάφρον εἰργάσατο βαθεῖάν τε καὶ εὔρους ἱκανῶς ἔχουσαν … καλάμους τε τῇ τάφρῳ ὕπερθεν ἐπιθεὶς καὶ γῆν ἐπὶ τοὺς καλάμους συναμησάμενος, ταύτῃ ἐπιπολῆς ἔκρυψεν). Procopius was the source for Theophanes, Chron. 122.31-123.11 (de Boor), and thence Cedrenus, Hist. comp. 1.623.1-13 (Bekker). For other accounts of the nature of the obstacle: Łazar P‘arpec‘i, History 155-6 (trans. R.W. Thomson) alludes to a single trench; Agath. 4.27.4 refers to ‘pits and ditches’ (βόθροις καὶ διώρυξιν); Tabarī, Tarikh 1.876-7, 879 (de Goeje) describes a large trench. See also briefer notices without details in ps.-Josh. 11; ps.-Zach. 7.3; Theoph. Byz. fr. 1.3 (FHG 4.270).

²⁰ Greg. Tur. HF 3.7: in campum enim, quo certamen agi debebant, fossas effodiunt, quarum ora operta denso cispete planum adsimilant campum); see B.S. Bachrach, Merovingian Military Organization 481–751 (Minneapolis, 1972), 135–6; id., ‘Animals and warfare in Early Medieval Europe’, in L'uomo di fronte al mondo animale nell'Alto Medioevo (= Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull'Alto Medioevo 31) (Spoleto, 1984), 707–51, at 731.

²¹ Maurice, Strat. 4.3.2–20 (Dennis), quoting lines 3–7 (σκεπάσαντές τε ταύτην [sc. φόσσαν] ξύλοις λεπτοῖς, χόρτῳ τε καὶ χώματι, ὥστε ἡνωμένην καὶ ὁμοίαν τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ ὀρύγματος εἶναι τῇ ἐγγιζούσῃ αὐτῷ γῇ καὶ κατὰ μηδὲν ἐναλλάττειν αὐτῷ, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ τὸ ἐπαρθὲν χῶμα ἐάσαντες παρακεῖσθαι αὐτῷ, ἵνα μὴ ἐμφαίνῃ τινὰ ξενοπρέπειαν). This passage was later reprised by Leo, Tactica 14.39 (Dennis). See also Maurice's later remarks on the importance of thorough reconnaissance for detecting any ‘ditches’ (φόσσαι) and other traps which an unspecified enemy might prepare in front of their battle line: 7.B.12.17-23, 13.11-15, 16.20-4 (cf. 12.B.11.14-16). A detailed commentary will be provided in P. Rance, The Roman Art of War in Late Antiquity: The Strategicon of the Emperor Maurice, a translation with commentary and textual studies (Birmingham Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Monographs) (Aldershot, forthcoming).

²² Maurice, Strat. 4.3.52-72, quoting lines 52–8 (στρογγύλων ὀρυγμάτων τῶν λεγομένων ἱπποκλαστῶν ὀρυσσομένων σποράδην, ἀπὸ ἑνὸς ποδὸς τὸ ἔμφωτον ἐχόντων, καὶ βάθος δύο ἢ τριῶν, καὶ πάλων ὀξέων καταπειρομένων ἐν αὐτοῖς, τούτων δὲ παραλλὰξ ὀρυσσομένων καὶ μὴ ἐπ’ εὐθείας, ἀπὸ τριῶν ποδῶν ἀλλήλων κατὰ τέσσαρα μέρη ἀφεστηκότων … μῆκος δὲ πρὸς τὸ τῆς παρατάξεως διάστημα). This passage was reprised by Leo, Tactica 14.42.

²³ Maurice, Strat. 12.B.22.6: φόσσας μικρὰς ἐχούσας σκόλοπας. Although Maurice does not use the term here, these pits around the encampment appear to be identical to the ‘horse-breakers’ he previously describes at 4.3.52–8. Indeed, the tenth-century Ambrosian paraphrase of the Strategicon substitutes elsewhere: λάκκοι, ποδάγραι ἢ ἱπποκλάσται λεγόμενοι, ‘pits, foot-traps or so-called horse-breakers’; see B. Leoni (ed.), La Parafrasi Ambrosiana dello Strategicon di Maurizio: L'arte della guerra a Bisanzio (Milan, 2003), 417.12–13. Furthermore, other tenth-century Byzantine military authors, independently drawing on the same lost source on castrametation as Maurice used in Strat. 12.B.22, apply the same terminology to these camp defences: De re militari 2.21-6: λάκκοι οἱ λεγόμενοι ποδοκλάσται, ed. G.T. Dennis, Three Byzantine Military Treatises (CFHB 25) (Washington, DC, 1985), 262; Apparatus bellicus 75/76.89-90: φόσσας μικρὰς ἐχούσας ἔνδοθεν σκόλοπας, ποδάγρας ἢ ἱπποκλάστας λεγομένας, in Zuckerman, C. (ed.), ‘Chapitres peu connus de l’Apparatus Bellicus ’, T&MByz 12 (1994), 359–89Google Scholar, at 368; Nicephorus Uranus, Tactica 176: λάκκοι οἱ λεγόμενοι ἱπποκλάσται, in Zuckerman (this note), 381, 12.B.22. Cf. similarly Sylloge tacticorum 22.5, ed. A. Dain (Paris, 1938), which derives from Leo, Tactica 11.13 and 14.42 (= Maurice, Strat. 4.3.52-6).

²⁴ Caes. BGall. 7.73.5-9: … ad occultandas insidias uiminibus ac uirgultis integebatur. See archaeological evidence in M. Reddé and S. von Schnurbein, Alésia. Fouilles et recherches franco-allemandes sur les travaux militaires Romains autour du Mont-Auxois (1991–1997) (Mémoires de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 22) (Paris, 2001), 1.504–6, 539-50. Cf. also Auct. B. Afr. 31: extra uallum stili caeci mirabilem in modum consiti, ‘concealed stakes outside the rampart, marvellously well planted’. At an earlier date, c. 200 b.c., Philo Mech. Parasceuastica 69–70 (84.43-50) may describe a similar contrivance.

²⁵ See P. Bidwell, ‘The system of obstacles on Hadrian's Wall: their extent, date and purpose’, Arbeia Journal 8 (2005), 53–76 citing older literature; Woolliscroft, D.J., ‘Excavations at Garnhall on the line of the Antonine’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 138 (2008), 129–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 142–5, 162–3.

²⁶ In contrast, Baldwin (n. 12), 60 interprets the excerpt as ‘apparently a siege description’.

²⁷ See D. Braund, Georgia in Antiquity: A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia 550 BC–AD 562 (Oxford, 1994), 63–5, 274–6, 278–81, 313–14; E.L. Wheeler, ‘Notitia Dignitatum, Or. 38 and Roman deployment in Colchis: assessing recent views’, in B. Cabouret, A. Groslambert and C. Wolff (edd.), Visions de l'Occident romain. Hommages à Y. le Bohec (Paris, 2012), 2.621–76, at 632–4, with bibliography.

²⁸ For Roman-Sasanian rivalry in the Caucasus in the fifth and sixth centuries see E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire, trans. J.-R. Palanque (Paris, 1949–59), 1.352–3, 357; 2.267-71, 303–4, 492–4, 504–21; Braund (n. 27), 268–314; G. Greatrex, Rome and Persia at War: 502–532 (Leeds, 1998), 124–5, 139–48; G. Greatrex and S.N.C. Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars, Part II AD 363-630 (London, 2002), 56–9, 115–22.

²⁹ See C. Zuckerman, ‘The Early Byzantine strongholds in eastern Pontus’, T&MByz 11 (1991), 527–53, esp. 527-40, and now Wheeler (n. 27), citing extensive bibliography.

³⁰ See the methodology in e.g. Banchich, T.M., ‘An identification in the Suda: Eunapius on the Huns’, CPh 83 (1988), 53 Google Scholar; Favuzzi, A., ‘Su due frammenti storici adespoti della Suda’, AFLB 42 (1999), 119–27Google Scholar, esp. 125-7; id., ‘La storia romana nel lessico della Suda: due nuove acquisizioni’, in P. Desideri, M. Moggi, M. Panni with A. Lazzeretti (edd.), Antidoron. Studi in onore di Barbara Scardigli Forster (Pisa, 2007), 173–84; Rance, P., ‘Hannibal, elephants and turrets in Suda Θ 438 [Polybius Fr. 162^B] – An Unidentified Fragment of Diodorus’, CQ 59 (2009), 76–96 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³¹ The dependence of the Suda on the Excerpta Constantiniana was first observed by H. Valesius (ed.), Polybii, Diodori Siculi … Excerpta ex Collectaneis Constantini Augusti Porphyrogenitae (Paris, 1634), unpag. pref., and known to subsequent commentators, including Bernhardy (n. 7), but the nature and extent of the relationship was demonstrated by C. de Boor, ‘Suidas und die Konstantinische Exzerptsammlung’, BZ [pt. 1] 21 (1912), 381–424; [pt. 2] 23 (1914–19), 1–127, and previously exemplified in ead., ‘Die Chronik des Georgius Monachus als Quelle des Suidas’, Hermes 21 (1886), 1–26 Google Scholar. See also J. Becker, De Suidae Excerptis Historicis (Bonn, 1915); Adler (n. 1), 1.xix–xxi; reiterated in id., ‘Suidas (Lexikograph)’, RE 4A.1 (1932), 675–717 Google Scholar, at 679, 700–706; P. Lemerle, Le Premier Humanisme Byzantin. Notes et remarques sur enseignement et culture à Byzance des origines au Xe siècle (Paris, 1971), 285–7. See more recently G. Zecchini (ed.), Il Lessico Suda e la memoria del passato a Bisanzio. Atti della giornata di studio (Milano 29 aprile 1998) (Bari, 1999), with review article by Roberto, U., ‘Note sulla memoria e sull'uso della storia antica nel Lessico della Suda ’, MedAnt 4.1 (2001), 249–70Google Scholar; also U. Roberto (ed.), Ioannis Antiocheni fragmenta ex Historia chronica (TU 154) (Berlin, 2005), lxxix–ci; A.L. Chávez Reino, ‘Ecos de Theopompo en la Suda’, in G. Vanotti (ed.), Il lessico Suda e gli storici greci in frammenti. Atti dell'incontro internazionale, Vercelli, 6–7 novembre 2008 (Tivoli, 2010), 207–66, esp. 252–9; V. Fromentin, ‘Les fragments de Denys d'Halicarnasse dans la Souda: pour une restitution des Excerpta Constantiniana perdus’, in Vanotti (this note), 429–52.

³² The potential value of the Suda in reconstructing lost volumes of the Excerpta Constantiniana is explored most recently by Chávez Reino (n. 31), 258-9; Fromentin (n. 31), esp. 446-52.

³³ For the cross-references in the extant Excerpta to the lost Περὶ στρατηγημάτων see below, n. 35. For cross-references to the Περὶ ἐκκλησιαστικῶν: EV I 145.18; Περὶ ἀνδραγαθημάτων: EV I 338.7, 354.4; II 120.6; EI 33.8. There are several candidates for the other volume(s) with military content: Περὶ συμβολῆς: EV I 99.9; Περὶ συμβολῆς πολέμων: EI 207.34 (if the last two are indeed different); or Περὶ νίκης: EL II 390.3; Περὶ ἀνακλήσεως ἥττης: EV I 9.20; Περὶ ἥττης: ES 210.15.

³⁴ Accordingly, Adler (n. 1), 4.505 (marg.) marks the source of τ 134 as ‘E’ = ‘Excerpta Constantini Porphyrogenitae quae hodie non exstant’ (cf. Adler 1.xix).

³⁵ The most detailed analysis of the evidence for the Περὶ στρατηγημάτων remains de Boor (n. 31 [1914–19]), esp. 38–43, who argues that this volume comprised material broadly relating to generalship rather than a collection of ‘stratagems’ in a narrower sense. There are eight cross-references to the Περὶ στρατηγημάτων in the Excerpta de legationibus, de uirtutibus et uitiis, de insidiis and de sententiis. In each case, the cross-reference occurs at the end of an excerpt and serves to inform the reader that the text continues as a separate excerpt in the Περὶ στρατηγημάτων, in effect a ‘continued at …’ notice. Unfortunately, only one of these cross-references refers to an extant and independently transmitted text: EL II 379.26 occurs at the end of an excerpt from Zosimus’ Historia noua (5.36.1 to the middle of 5.36.3) and indicates that the subsequent passage, concerning Alaric's march on Rome in 410, is to be found excerpted in the Περὶ στρατηγημάτων. In the other seven cases, however, the extant volume of the Excerpta is itself the sole witness to an excerpt from a fragmentary or lost historical work, and we cannot therefore know what the subsequent passage contained beyond its general historical context: EL I 14.26 (following Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 19.6.3), EL I 62.31 (Polyb. 38.10.13), EV I 335.19 (Nic. Dam. FHG 90 F10.32), EV II 116.19 (Polyb. 9.24.7), EV II 123.26 (Polyb. 10.22.10 = Suda φ 409), EI 222.3 (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 15.4.6) and ES 131.28 (Polyb. 6.2.7). I have argued elsewhere that Suda θ 438 contains a fragment of Diodorus likewise transmitted via the Περὶ στρατηγημάτων; see Rance (n. 30). I hope in a future study to provide a more comprehensive examination of this complex subject.

³⁶ For detailed argumentation see de Boor, C., ‘Zu den Exzerptsammlungen des Konstantin Porphyrogennetos’, Hermes 19 (1884), 123–48Google Scholar; id. (n. 31 [1912]), esp. 408–14; Büttner-Wobst, T., ‘Die Anlage der historischen Encyclopädie des Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos’, BZ 15 (1906), 88–120 Google Scholar, esp. 96–100; summarized in Adler (n. 1), 1.xix–xx. The most convenient summary of the shape and composition of the Excerpta Constantiniana remains P. Lemerle (n. 31), 280–8; recently affirmed and elaborated by B. Flusin, ‘Les Excerpta constantiniens, logique d'une anti-histoire’, in S. Pittia (ed.), Fragments d'historiens grecs autour de Denys d'Halicarnasse (CEFR 298) (Rome, 2002), 537–59; É. Parmentier-Morin, ‘Les fragments de Denys d'Halicarnasse attribués à Nicolas de Damas: recherches sur la composition des Excerpta constantiniens’, in Pittia (this note), 461–79.

³⁷ On the sources used by John of Antioch see most recently Roberto (n. 31 [2005]), cxxv-clvii; S. Mariev, Ioannis Antiocheni fragmenta quae supersunt (CFHB Series Berolinensis 47) (Berlin/New York, 2008), 32*−41*.

³⁸ For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that Menander Protector, fr. 6.1 (Blockley), a long and detailed document-based report on Roman-Persian diplomatic negotiations in 561, contains references to Lazica, where a truce had been in force since 557 (lines 2, 143–7), and to the neighbouring Suani, including retrospective details about their previous relations with the Lazi (lines 241–87, 435–517, 546–603); cf. likewise fr. 9.1 (lines 5–16, 95–119). See Greatrex and Lieu (n. 28), 119 n. 26 for dating and bibliography. In addition, Theophylact Simocatta (Hist. 3.6.6-7.19) briefly describes a campaign in 589 in which the Romans used Lazica as a base of operations for invading Albania (Azerbaijan) in response to Persian attacks on the Suani.

³⁹ Blockley (n. 13), 1.61-2.

⁴⁰ Photius’ Bibliotheca supplies lengthy and detailed summaries of the historical works of Candidus (cod. 79) and Olympiodorus (cod. 80), and more briefly Malchus (cod. 78); there is no suggestion that their contents ever touched upon events in the Caucasus. In the case of Eunapius, at least according to Photius (77), the structure and content of his work are closely replicated in the extant Historia noua of Zosimus, which again never treats this region.

⁴¹ Aside from sources previously cited, see Λαζοί: Gelasius, HE 3.10; Malalas, Chron. 17.9, 18.4; George Syceota, Vita S. Theodori Syceotae 120; Theophanes, Chron. 309.14, 310.21 (de Boor); Vita S. Danielis Stylitae 51 (169.7, 25). Λαζική: Malalas, Chron. 18.26, 147; Theophanes, Chron. 219.15, 315.15, 316.5. I exclude references in later chronographic literature which simply derive from the sources cited here or from Procopius or Agathias.

⁴² For the chronology, form and scope of Priscus’ historical work, citing older literature, see Baldwin (n. 12); Blockley (n. 13), 1.49-52; U. Roberto, ‘Prisco e una fonte romana del V secolo’, Romanobarbarica 18 (2003), 117–59; with summaries in R.C. Blockley, ‘The development of Greek historiography: Priscus, Malchus, Candidus’, in G. Marasco (ed.), Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity (Leiden, 2003), 289–315, at 293-300; W. Treadgold, The Early Byzantine Historians (New York, 2007), 96–102.

⁴³ Priscus, frr. 33.1-2, 44, 51.1 Blockley = exc. 25, 26, 34, 41 Carolla.

⁴⁴ Priscus, frr. 33.2 Blockley = exc. 26 Carolla. See PLRE 2.424, Euphemius¹; 905, Priscus¹; Baldwin (n. 12), 25; Blockley (n. 13), 1.48; 2.337 n. 144.

⁴⁵ For the general character of Priscus’ sources, mostly oral and archival, see Blockley (n. 13), 1.68-9.

⁴⁶ I exclude here an isolated instance of the Lazi raiding Roman territory during the chaotic circumstances of c. 603/4, as uniquely reported by George Syceota, Vita S. Theodori Syceotae 120, who implies that the Lazi withdrew without confronting the Roman army.

⁴⁷ Procop. BP 2.15, 2.17, 28.17-30, 28.29-30, with the critique of Procopius’ presentation of events by Braund (n. 27), 287–98.

⁴⁸ Procop. BP 2.17 with Braund (n. 27), 295–6.

⁴⁹ The date c. 456 pervades the secondary literature, e.g. Stein (n. 28), 1.352–3; C. Toumanoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Washington, DC, 1963), 363; Blockley (n. 13), 1.120, 170 n. 59. This dating depends solely on Mommsen's fanciful restoration of an alleged lacuna in Hydatius, Chron. 177 (s.a. 456): Orientalium naues Hispalim uenientes per Marciani exercitum caes<os Laz>as nuntiant; see T. Mommsen, Chronica minora 2 (MGH AA XI) (Berlin, 1894), 29. The emendation has had far-reaching implications for the wider chronology of the period. In consequence, Euphemius’ tenure as magister officiorum is dated to c. 456; see PLRE 2.424, Euphemius¹, with fasti at 1258. Similarly, the reign of Gobazes I of Lazica traditionally begins in c. 456; see PLRE 2.515, Gobazes (on the authority of Hydatius, Chron. 177). Mommsen's emendation has since been shown to have no historical or textual foundation: see Burgess, R.W., ‘A new reading for Hydatius Chronicle 177 and the defeat of the Huns in Italy’, Phoenix 42.4 (1988), 357–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 358, ‘groundless and unsupportable’. All that can be said with confidence is that the war occurred under Marcian (450–7), in whose reign Priscus, fr. 33.2 (lines 8–10) appears to place the peace negotiations. See below n. 54 for additional chronological considerations. For Priscus’ portrayal of Marcian's reign in general see Brodka, D., ‘Priskos von Panion und Kaiser Marcian. Eine Quellenuntersuchung zu Procop. 3,4,1–11, Evagr. HE 2,1, Theoph. AM 5943 und Nic. Kall. HE 15,1’, Millennium 9 (2012), 145–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁰ For discussion of the evidence see Stein (n. 28), 1.352–3, 357; Toumanoff (n. 49), 362–4; Braund (n. 27), 271–3; Greatrex and Lieu (n. 28), 56–8.

⁵¹ For the derivative character and sources of John of Antioch's Chronicle in general see above, n. 37. The surviving fragments of John's Chronicle suggest that he used Priscus’ work as his principal source for the period between Theodosius II and Leo I. John's debt to Priscus is both historical and stylistic-lexical, to a degree that de Boor (n. 31 [1912]), 400 termed ‘sklavisch’; see a more detailed analysis in A. Köcher, De Ioannis Antiocheni aetate fontibus auctoritate (Bonn, 1871), 34–7; P. Sotiroudis, Untersuchungen zum Geschichtswerke des Johannes von Antiocheia (Thessalonikē, 1989), 135–9; Norman, A.F., ‘An identification in Suidas’, CQ 47 (1953), 171–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Blockley (n. 13), 1.114; Roberto (n. 31 [2005]), cxliv–cxlvi.

⁵² Priscus, fr. 33.1 Blockley = exc. 25 Carolla (= EL I 152.8-20).

⁵³ Priscus, fr. 33.2 Blockley = exc. 26 Carolla (= EL II 584.14–34).

⁵⁴ Priscus, fr. 44 Blockley = exc. 34 Carolla (= EL II 587.15-21). Gobazes’ trip to Constantinople is also reported in Vita S. Danielis Stylitae 51, ed. H. Delehaye, AB 32 (1913), 121–214, at 169–70. The chronology is potentially deceptive: at the end of fr. 33.2 the emperor commands Gobazes to cross over into Roman territory, whereupon Gobazes requests that a former Roman envoy to Lazica, Dionysius (PLRE 2.364, Dionysius⁸), be sent to him to give assurances of his safety. In fr. 44 Gobazes visits Constantinople, accompanied by Dionysius. In fact, a substantial temporal and textual interval must separate the two excerpts: in fr. 33.2 (lines 8-10) Euphemius, magister officiorum, is said to have given wise counsel to Marcian (450–7), while fr. 44 begins: ὅτι μετὰ τὸν ἐμπρησμὸν τῆς πόλεως τὸν ἐπὶ Λέοντος, ‘after the burning of the city in the reign of Leo’, that is, the great fire at Constantinople traditionally dated 2–6 Sept. 465 but now redated to 464. Even if, as Carolla (n. 15) 73.6 plausibly suspects, the wording of this preliminary dating formula belongs to the Constantinian excerptor and not to Priscus, the Vita S. Danielis Stylitae confirms that Gobazes visited the city during the reign of Leo and after the fire. See remarks on chronology by Stein (n. 28), 1.352-3, 357; Toumanoff (n. 49), 363; Baldwin (n. 12), 25; Blockley (n. 13), 1.120-1, 170 nn. 59, 63. In contrast, M. Bíró, ‘On the presence of the Huns in the Caucasus. To the chronology of the “Ovs” raid mentioned in Juanšer's Chronicle’, AOrientHung 50 (1997), 53–60, at 57–9 prefers to compress all these events—the war and subsequent negotiations—into the early 460s, following C.D. Gordon, The Age of Attila (Ann Arbor, 1961), 11.

⁵⁵ Priscus, fr. 51.1 Blockley = exc. 41 Carolla (= EL II 590.11-591.2). The textual difficulties are noted by Blockley (n. 13), 2.359 n. 177, but see Zuckerman (n. 29), 543 nn. 55-6, for criticism of Blockley's editorial method and decisions. D. Braund, ‘Priscus on the Suani’, Phoenix 46.1 (1992), 62–5 offers the most plausible interpretation. Dating: Blockley (n. 13), 122, 171 n. 65 makes a plausible case for 467; Carolla (n. 15), 77 (marg.) prefers 468.

⁵⁶ Priscus, fr. 33.1 Blockley (1–8) = exc. 25 Carolla (65.6-14) (= EL I 152.8-15).

⁵⁷ Blockley (n. 13), 1.50-1 with older bibliography.

⁵⁸ Blockley (n. 13), 1.113. See e.g. fr. 6.1 Blockley = exc. 2 Carolla (= EL II 575.1-13); fr. 31.1 Blockley = exc. 24 Carolla (= EL I 151.17–18). See general remarks on Priscus-derived material in the Suda in Bornmann (n. 11), xxx–xxxii; Baldwin (n. 12), 27, 57–61. On the methodology of the excerptors see recently U. Roberto, ‘Byzantine collections of late antique authors: some remarks on the Excerpta historica Constantiniana’, in M. Wallraff and L. Mecella (edd.), Die Kestoi des Julius Africanus und ihre Überlieferung (TU 165) (Berlin/New York, 2009), 71–84. See also Luciani, A., ‘Manipolazione strumentale e decontestualizzazione della fonte negli Excerpta Historica constantiniani’, RCCM 45 (2003), 143–7Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ The introductory passage to fr. 33.1 exhibits clear linguistic parallels with other fragments of Priscus: e.g. the phrase οἱ ἀμφὶ τὰ βασίλεια, which occurs also in three other Priscan fragments, is unique to Priscus: cf. frr. 91.1(7), 11.2(37–8), 44(3) Blockley = exc. 3.2 (8.11), 8.9 (17.12-13), 34 (73.8) Carolla. See also in fr. 33.1(2–3): ἐς τὰ σφέτερα ἐπανέζευξεν, cf. fr. 47 Blockley (13–14) = exc. 37.2 Carolla (74.23-4): τῆς σφετέρας φρουρᾶς ἐπιμελεῖσθαι, πάλιν ἄπρακτοι ἐπανέζευξαν; fr. 23.1 Blockley (1-2) = exc. 19 Carolla (59.14-15): ἐπὶ τὰ σφέτερα ἀναζεύξας.

⁶⁰ See Zuckerman (n. 29), 535–40 for the routes and points of access open to Roman troops entering Lazica and neighbouring Iberia, with additional archaeological data and insights provided by Wheeler (n. 27), esp. 635–57. Bíró (n. 54), esp. 56–9 seeks to connect the first Roman campaign with events reported in the late eighth-/early ninth-century History of Vaxt’ang Gorgasali ascribed to Juanšer, later incorporated into the so-called Georgian Chronicles. This heroicizing epic briefly mentions a Roman invasion launched south-eastwards from Abkhazia, which took possession of lands from ‘the River Egris as far as the Castle of Goǰi’ (= Archaeopolis; mod. Nokalakevi), apparently for a period of at least five years; see R.W. Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History. The Medieval Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles. The Original Georgian Texts and the Armenian Adaptation (Oxford, 1996), 161–2, 172. Internal evidence dates this invasion to c. 449. The chronology and historicity of this episode remain unclear, but the long-term seizure of a large swathe of territory is not consistent with the allusion to the first Roman campaign in Priscus, fr. 33.1 Blockley = exc. 25 Carolla. For alternative attempts to synchronize the contemporary East Roman and later Georgian sources see Toumanoff (n. 49), 362-4; B. Martin-Hisard, ‘Le roi géorgien Vaxt'ang Gorgasal dans l'histoire et dans légende’, in Temps, mémoire, tradition au Moyen-Âge. Actes du XIIIe Congrès de la Société des historiens médiévistes de l'Enseignement supérior public (Aix-en-Provence, 1983), 205–42, esp. 212–14.

⁶¹ Bernhardy (n. 7), 1037–8 annot. line 12 suspected that the concluding clause of the excerpt (… ἐτροπώσαντο τοὺς Ῥωμαίους) is an abridgement by the compiler of the Suda, on the grounds that this terse phrase fails to explain the operation of the stratagem or the cause of the Roman defeat. The most thorough analysis of Priscus’ style remains J. Kuranc, De Prisco Panita rerum scriptore quaestiones selectae (Lublin, 1958), 65–82, which in this case is of no assistance.

⁶² Baldwin (n. 12), 60: ‘The extract is partly modelled on Herodotus 1.179; it may be suggestive that the Suda actually goes on to adduce Herodotus by name in the next and final sentence of the present notice. The passage also displays verbal effects from Homer, Od. 10, 517; Thuc. 2, 90 and Herodian 1, 13. Clearly a literary flosculus.’

⁶³ For the wider influence of Hdt. 1.179.2 in late antique and Byzantine lexical literature see nn. 3 and 6.

⁶⁴ Suda τ 134: … ὀρύξαντες καὶ δόρατα τοῖς βόθροις ἐγκαταπήξαντες ταρσοῖς καλάμων καὶ ὕλῃ μὴ βεβαίαν ἐχούσῃ βάσιν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ ἐπι φερόμενον ἄχθος ὀλισθαινούσῃ, τὰ στόματα τῶν ὀρυγμάτων ἐκάλυψαν; Hdt. 1.179.1-2: ὀρύσσοντες ἅμα τὴν τάφρον ἐπλίνθεον τὴν γῆν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ ὀρύγματος ἐκ φερομένην , ἑλκύσαντες … ταρσοὺς καλάμων διαστοιβάζοντες.

⁶⁵ Benedicty, R., ‘Die historische Authentizität eines Berichtes des Priskos’, JÖBG 13 (1964), 1–8 Google Scholar; G. Moravcsik, ‘Klassizismus in der byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung’, in P. Wirth (ed.), Polychronion. Festschrift für Franz Dölger zum 75. Geburtstag (Heidelberg, 1966), 366–77, at 374-5; Bornmann, F., ‘Osservazioni sul testo dei frammenti di Prisco’, Maia 26 (1974), 111–20Google Scholar; id., ‘Note a Prisco’, in N. Caffarello (ed.), Archaeologica. Scritti in onore di Aldo Neppi Modona (Florence, 1975), 37–9; Blockley (n. 13), 1.52, 54–5; Blockley (n. 42), 302–5; D. Brodka, ‘Pragmatismus und Klassizismus im historischen Diskurs des Priskos von Panion’, in A. Goltz, H. Leppin, H. Schlange-Schöningen (edd.), Jenseits der Grenzen. Geschichtsschreibung in Spätantike und Frühmittelalter (Berlin/New York, 2009), 11–24. See also Carolla (n. 15), 127–8: index locorum (Herodotus).

⁶⁶ Priscus, fr. 11.2 Blockley (376) = exc. 8 Carolla (32.24-5): τῶν παρ’ ἑκάτερα γυναικῶν. John of Antioch, fr. 307 Roberto (526.6) = fr. 238 Mariev (444.7-8) (= EI 99): ἐν τοῖς παρ’ ἑκάτερα οἰκίσκοις. On Candidus see now U. Roberto, ‘Sulla tradizione storiografica di Candido Isaurico’, MedAnt 3 (2000), 685–727, summarized in Roberto (n. 31 [2005]), cxlvii–cxlix.

⁶⁷ See the, in my view overly harsh, assessment by Blockley (n. 13), 1.60-1, 64–5, 69, partly following the opinion of Thompson. In addition, Blockley ([n. 13], 1.113-14) argues that Jordanes’ description of the battle of the Catalaunian Fields (Getica 191–218), given its quite different characterization of Attila and its obviously Gothic perspective, cannot be derived from Priscus. See, however, D. Brodka, ‘Attila, Tyche und die Schlacht auf den Katalaunischen Feldern. Eine Untersuchung zum Geschichtsdenken des Priskos von Panion’, Hermes 136 (2008), 227–45, esp. 237–42, who identifies likely Priscan elements and considers the possibility that Jordanes’ account ultimately draws on both Priscus’ work and an independent Gothic tradition.

⁶⁸ Stratagems: fr. 49 Blockley = exc. 39 Carolla: Aspar against Huns and Goths; fr. 5 Blockley = exc. 1a Carolla: Valips at Noviodunum c. 434/5–42 (dating in Blockley [n. 13] 2.229 n. 8). See also fr. 6.1 Blockley = exc. 2 Carolla: an allusion to a previously reported Scythian trick, which resulted in heavy Roman casualties and the capture of an unnamed city; see remarks by Blockley (n. 13), 1.113, 2.231 n. 9. More broadly stratagemic, see also fr. 41.3 Blockley = exc. 33 Carolla: a tale of diplomatic trickery, whereby the shah Pērōz reportedly tried to substitute a commoner for a royal princess promised in marriage to the ruler of the Kidarites.