Der Roman Hysmine und Hysminias des Eumathios Makrembolites ist zweifellos einer der meistgelesenen Texte dieser Gattung; die handschriftliche Überlieferung, die über vierzig, sich vom 13. bis ins 18. Jahrhundert erstreckenden Träger zählt, zeugt davon. Auch die moderne Forschung hat diesem Umstand Rechnung getragen: Als einziger der byzantinischen Erzähltexte wurde Hysmine und Hysminias Gegenstand mehrerer eingehender literarischer Analysen. Trotzdem verfügte man bis jetzt über keine moderne Ausgabe dieses Bestsellers der erotischen Literatur. Mit der vorliegenden Edition setzte sich also der bekannte klassische (...) Philologe M. M(arcovich), der sich bereits mit Rhodanthe und Dosikles des Theodoros Prodromos an dem byzantinischen Roman herangewagt hatte, das Ziel, ein dringendes Desideratum der Byzantinistik zu erfüllen. (shrink)

The present article analyzes Photius'Lexiconand Eustathius of Thessalonica'sCommentarii ad Homeri Iliademin order to trace the history and reconstruct the recipe of a dish called kandaulos/kandylos. It was a Greek delicacy, which appears to have been developed in Lydia before the middle of the VI th c. B.C. It is known to have been named after king Candaules, who ruled the Lydian territory in the VII th c. B.C. The dish was (via the Ionians) borrowed by the Helens and established (...) itself in Greece sometime in the V th c. B.C. It became popular in the Hellenistic periodThe testimony provided by Photius and Eustathius of Thessalonica contributes to our better knowledge of two varieties ofkandaulos/kandylos. The first was savoury and consisted of cooked meat, stock, Phrygian cheese, breadcrumbs and dill (or fennel). The other included milk, animal fat, cheese and honey. The dish is reported to have been costly, prestigious and indicated the social status of those who would eat it.Though there is much evidence suggesting its popularity in antiquity, we lack any solid proof thatkandaulos/kandyloswas eaten in Byzantine times. On the other hand, Byzantine authors preserved the most detailed literary data on the delicacy. (shrink)

The paper is concerned with a similar entry of the lexica of Thomas Magister and Ps-Ammonius concerning the semantic difference between συγγρα- φεῖς and ἱστορικοί. The entry is proven to be ultimately descended from the lost lexicon Περὶ τῶν διαφόρως σημαινομένων of Herennius Philon (2nd cent. AD); this lexicon in its lost unabridged form seems to have influenced the distinction συγγραφεῖς / ἱστορικοί in the preface of the historical work of Eustathius on the sack of Thessalonica by the Normans. (...) The paper investigates the possibility of a Hellenistic grammatical substratum in Philon’s distinction; based on the evidence of literary texts and inscriptions, the paper asserts that the distinction (probably received by Philon from a Hellenistic-era grammatical source) was already vanishing in Philon’s days. (shrink)

Faced with an Alexandrian (Arian) anthropology of Neoplatonic inspiration, Eustathius adopts a strong position in several statements that is similar to astoic Aristotelianism of the 4th century. Nevertheless, Eustathius's reflection is more genuinely theological, than it is reflective of any particular philosophical trend. For him, the human body is a dynamic concept which finds its full meaning in light of the history of salvation, wherein the incarnate and glorified Logos, the second Adam, brings to completion the perfection and (...) incorruptibility of the humble body formed from clay in the first Adam, the protoplast. (shrink)

L'âpreté des débats qui eurent lieu, notamment en Cappadoce entre 360 et 378, en pleine crise arienne, autour de la nature et de la personne du Saint-Esprit, ainsi que la diversité des opinions à l'intérieur même des camps opposés sur cette question, rendent délicate l'identification exacte des adversaires combattus par Basile de Césarée en 375 dans son traité Sur le Saint-Esprit, l'un des premiers du genre, d'autant plus que lui-même trouva des contradicteurs dans les rangs de ses propres amis. Dédié (...) à son disciple Amphiloque d'Iconium, le traité vise essentiellement, au-delà d'Aèce, son compatriote Eunome, toujours vivant et virulent, que Basile avait déjà combattu vers 360-363, le théoricien arien radical de la « dissemblance » et de la « subordination » de l'Esprit au Fils et au Père, manifestement visé ici par le vocabulaire de la « connumération » et de la « coordination ». La critique contemporaine avait pensé que le principal adversaire de Basile serait son ancien maître en ascétisme Eustathe évêque de Sébaste, qui tenait sur l'Esprit une doctrine ambiguë, ne voulant le ranger « ni avec Dieu ni avec les créatures ». Sans l'exclure du nombre des adversaires, le vocabulaire et l'argumentation du traité, sans rapport avec ceux de la Lettre 125 de Basile à Eustathe, obligent à abandonner cette interprétation pour rendre la priorité à Eunome. The acrimonious debates that took place concerning the nature and person of the Holy Spirit, especialy during the Arian crisis in Cappadocia from 360 to 378, as well as the diversity of opinions within the opposing camps, makes it difficult to identify the adversaries of Basil of Caesarea in his treatise On the Holy Spirit , unique for his time. The problem is even greater because Basil found himself at odds with his own friends. Dedicated to his disciple Amphilocus of Iconium, the treatise was aimed, essentially, beyond Aëtios, at his virulent compatriot Eunomius. Basil had already engaged him around 360-363. A radical Arian theoretician of the “dissemblance” and of “subordination” of the Spirit to the Son and Father, Eunomius was clearly targeted by the vocabulary of the “connumeration” and “coordination”. Contemporary criticism thought that the principal adversary of Basil could have been his old master in asceticism, Eustathius , who held an ambiguous doctrine about the Spirit, not wishing to place it “either with God or with creatures”. Without excluding him from the number of adversaries, the vocabulary and argumentation of the treatise, which are unconnected to those of Basil's Letter 125 to Eustathius, oblige us to abandon this interpretation and give priority to Eunomius. (shrink)

There is an epigram preserved in two lives of Pindar, that in the scholia Ambrosiana and the rambling biography of the poet by Eustathios. It is perhaps most conveniently accessible in von Christ's larger edition of Pindar, pp. ci and cii, and runs as follows: μλα ρωτμχτε καμητισ λιуφωνιινδρ‘nu; κλατ θуατρεσ πιντα, αρуθεν μoσ κντκμζσ νδoθι κρωσσλειψαν' π' ༀπ ξεινησ θρα πρκαïσ. IIρωτμχη Eustathius. 2. Éκλατα ινδρ θуατρεσ East. et Ambr., corr. Gerhard.

As is well known, the work of Aristarchus on Homer is not preserved by direct tradition. We have instead many fragments preserved mainly in the Homeric scholia, the Byzantine Etymologica and the Homeric commentaries by Eustathius of Thessalonica. These fragments go back to the so-called Viermännerkommentar, the ‘commentary of the four men’, a commentary that is dated to the fifth-sixth century c.e. and collects the works of Aristonicus, Didymus, Nicanor and Herodian. In the first century b.c.e. Aristonicus explained the (...) meaning of Aristarchus’ critical signs in a treatise called Περὶ τῶν σημείων τῶν τῆς ᾿Ιλιάδος καὶ ᾿Οδυσσείας, while in the Περὶ τῆς ᾿Αρισταρχείου διορθώσεως Didymus studied Aristarchus’ Homeric recension. In the second century c.e. two more scholars, Herodian and Nicanor, dealt with Aristarchus while analysing questions of prosody in the Homeric language or the punctuation of the Homeric text. Not all of these four ‘men’ are equally important, however, as sources for Aristarchus. In fact, Herodian and Nicanor had aims that were quite independent of Aristarchus’ enterprise: the former was concerned with problems of prosody, accentuation and aspiration in Homer, whereas the latter had developed a new system of punctuation to elucidate the Homeric text from a syntactic point of view. Although both Herodian and Nicanor did take an interest in Aristarchus, their focus was thus different from that of their Alexandrian predecessor. The goal of Aristonicus and Didymus, on the other hand, was specifically to reconstruct Aristarchus’ work on Homer; it is for this reason that they are considered the most trustworthy witnesses for Aristarchus’ fragments. (shrink)

This article aims to assess Anastasius of Sinai’s usage of ancient Chris-tian sources in the Hexaemeron. Close and thorough examination of his quotations from Justin Martyr, Ireneaus of Lyon, Methodius of Olympus and Eustathius of Antioch reveals that, apart from Methodius, the citations have no analogy to any of their works. On the contrary, the cited opinions appear either to have come from different authors, or to have been faked, in toto or in part, by Anastasius. The reason for (...) such a forgery lies in Anastasius’s attempt to rehabilitate the allegorical interpretation of Gen. 1-3, without being accused of Origenism. Anastasius’s witness to the ancient exegetical tradition is proven to be deliberately misleading, and therefore should not be taken at face value. (shrink)

When Mommsen saw foll. 28r line i–29r line 6 of cod. Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 7530, an eighth-century grammatical miscellany from Monte Cassino, he realised immediately the importance of their contents. He wrote to Bergk about his discovery on 2 November 1844 and Bergk published the material early the next year as being an epitome of a treatise on signs applied to literary texts by Probus and earlier Latin grammarians. There had long been known Diogenes Laertius' account of the χ (...) and other signs placed in the margins of texts of Plato's dialogues, Hephaestion's account of the colometrical παράγραος, κορωνίς, διπλ and στερίσκος placed in texts of lyric and dramatic poetry, the chapter de notis sententiarum in Isidore's Origines, the names of various treatises περσημείων mentioned in the Suda, the references to σημεα in Eustathius' commentary on Homer' and in the marginal scholia to Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes in Byzantine manuscripts, Cicero's allusions to the βελός and the διπλ scattered reports of the signs with which Origen equipped Greek versions of the Old Testament and Jerome's adaptation of Origen's system, and Cassiodorus' account of his own method of noting orthodox and heterodox opinions in ecclesiastical writings. (shrink)

On Aen. 2. 277 DServius notes ‘non sine ratione etiam hoc de crinibus dolet Aeneas, quia illis maxime Hector commendabatur, adeo ut etiam tonsura ab eo nomen acceperit, sicut Graeci poetae docent.’ Fraenkel showed that the reference in Graeci poetae is to Lycophron , the source of the comment being provided by Eustathius 1276. 29, a scholion on Il. 22. 401 f. He adds a caution against supposing that Servius’ source referred not only to Lycophron but also to other (...) Greek poets, ‘e.g. some Attic comedians’. That such allusions were in fact made in Comedy is proved by Pollux. (shrink)

Modern editions read vulgate (nominative). This yields a different syntax: a rapid double change of subject or, equivalently, a parenthesis interrupting the flow of the sentence. This possibility, raised and dismissed by Eustathius, goes unmentioned by modern scholars, who are often in general (unlike their second-century counterpart Nicanor) ill-disposed to Homeric parentheses. A survey of Homeric parentheses shows the phenomenon in general and the specific instance postulated at Od. 24.398 to be unobjectionable. The validity of the terms and for (...) Homeric discourse is also defended. (shrink)

In his article ‘A Nonce-word in the Iliad’ Maurice Pope argues against the usual modern interpretation of παναώριος, a Homeric παξ λεγόμενον applied by Achilles to himself at Il. 24.540, sc. ‘of all-untimely fate’, ‘doomed to die young’, and the like. The same is also the interpretation of the scholium παντελς ωρον ποθανούμενον, whilst Herodian and Eustathius, respectively with κατ πάντα ωρον and πάντ ωρον, do no more than paraphrase the force of παν- in the compound. Pope tries to (...) establish instead the suitability of the meaning ‘out of season’, i.e. in what Achilles does or fails to do in general. His case rests on the ground of what is appropriate to or required by the context, since, as he himself shows, the word in itself can, on the analogy of closely related forms, notably the adjective ωρος, bear the meaning usually attributed to it, provided the context contains sufficient indication of a reference to death. Accordingly, the validity of his argument depends on his assessment of this context. Pope recognises that throughout the last part of the Iliad, at least starting from the conversation between Achilles and his mother at 18.70ff., Achilles is fully aware of the nearness and unavoidability of his own death, and that ‘from this point on Homer exploits the atmosphere of impending doom’. But after citing several passages in which the approach of Achilles' death is mentioned, Pope continues as follows. (shrink)

In his article ‘A Nonce-word in the Iliad’ Maurice Pope argues against the usual modern interpretation of παναώριος, a Homeric παξ λεγόμενον applied by Achilles to himself at Il. 24.540, sc. ‘of all-untimely fate’, ‘doomed to die young’, and the like. The same is also the interpretation of the scholium παντελς ωρον ποθανούμενον, whilst Herodian and Eustathius, respectively with κατ πάντα ωρον and πάντ ωρον, do no more than paraphrase the force of παν- in the compound. Pope tries to (...) establish instead the suitability of the meaning ‘out of season’, i.e. in what Achilles does or fails to do in general. His case rests on the ground of what is appropriate to or required by the context, since, as he himself shows, the word in itself can, on the analogy of closely related forms, notably the adjective ωρος, bear the meaning usually attributed to it, provided the context contains sufficient indication of a reference to death. Accordingly, the validity of his argument depends on his assessment of this context. Pope recognises that throughout the last part of the Iliad, at least starting from the conversation between Achilles and his mother at 18.70ff., Achilles is fully aware of the nearness and unavoidability of his own death, and that ‘from this point on Homer exploits the atmosphere of impending doom’. But after citing several passages in which the approach of Achilles' death is mentioned, Pope continues as follows. (shrink)

Macrobius devotes almost the whole morning of the third day in his Saturnalia to Virgil. Eustathius, in response to a question from Euangelus, examines what Virgil drew from the Greeks and from Homer in particular. In chapter 11 of Book 5, the expositor quotes and comments on some loci similes, judging in favour of the Roman poet. At the start of the chapter, he compares the bee simile in Aeneid 1.430–6 with a passage from Homer, Iliad 2.87–93: Et haec (...) quidem iudicio legentium relinquenda sunt, ut ipsi aestiment quid debeant de utriusque collatione sentire. Si tamen me consulas, non negabo nonnumquam Vergilium in transferendo densius excoluisse, ut in hoc loco:Qualis apes aestate noua per florea ruraexercet sub sole labor, cum gentis adultoseducunt fetos, aut cum liquentia mellastipant et dulces distendunt nectare cellas,aut onera accipiunt uenientum aut agmine factoignauum, fucos, pecus a praesepibus arcent.feruet opus, redolentque thymo fraglantia mella. (shrink)

Faced with an Alexandrian (Arian) anthropology of Neoplatonic inspiration, Eustathius adopts a strong position in several statements that is similar to astoic Aristotelianism of the 4th century. Nevertheless, Eustathius's reflection is more genuinely theological, than it is reflective of any particular philosophical trend. For him, the human body is a dynamic concept which finds its full meaning in light of the history of salvation, wherein the incarnate and glorified Logos, the second Adam, brings to completion the perfection and (...) incorruptibility of the humble body formed from clay in the first Adam, the protoplast. (shrink)

Michael Choniates (c. 1138–c. 1222), a pupil of Eustathius of Thessalonica, who was Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Athens for some 25 years up to that city's capture by Frankish crusaders ina.d.1205, is best known to classical scholars as the possessor of probably the last complete copy of Callimachus'HecaleandAetia. He had brought with him from Constantinople many books of all kinds, and added to his collection when in Athens. Although an immense task, it would be well worth trying to identify (...) all Michael's classical allusions, as an indication of how much ancient Greek literature was still available just before Constantinople too succumbed to the crusaders. (shrink)