This passage was attributed to Menander Protector by Bernhardy, who, influenced apparently by Men. Prot. fr. 43 , suggested that here the name disguised the of Menander. This explanation, besides interfering with the text without due cause, ignores altogether the name . In fact, the incident occurs a century earlier, in the period A.D. 467–70. Anagastes is then found in Roman service in Thrace during the reign of Leo . Moreover, the name of Anagastes is linked with an easily recognized (...) variant of in Jo. Ant., fr. 205. (shrink)

Suidas’ source for biographical data erroneously listed a treatise περὶ ναυστάθμου (On the ships at anchor) among the works of Nicanor. In the relevant notes on two passages from the Iliad, Nicanor is referring to Aristarchus’ monograph of the same title, not his own.

In this paper I will focus on a crux in two Platonic scholia, where manuscripts have the impossible διονύσιον, but Greene suggests δίκαιον. This amendment was made on the basis of a gloss of Photius’ Lexicon, although the corresponding gloss of Suidas confirms the text of Platonic scholia. However the agreement with Photius is not so important, not only because it is impossible to prove that he reproduces the text of the glossary composed by the Atticist Aelius Dionysius without (...) any modification (it is also the source of Suidas and other Byzantine lexica, and especially of the so called Erweiterte Synagoge, which the Platonic scholia derive from as well), but also because our scholia reveal elsewhere a major affinity with Suidas than with Patriarch’s Lexicon. In the light of a careful review of the loci paralleli I therefore suggest the reading δημόσιον. (shrink)

Suidas tells us that Erinna wrote a poem of 300 lines, in Aeolic and Dorian dialect, called. There happens to be preserved on papyrus part ofa hexameter lament for Erinna's friend Baucis, the subject of two epigramsalso by Erinna, AP 7. 710 and 712. ‘Distaff’ is a strange title for a lament, it would seem, and there have been various attempts both to explain it and to explain it away.

There is preserved in Suidas' Lexicon a story about Polycrates of Samos and the island of Delos. It is offered by the lexicographer as an explanation of the phrase τατ σοι κα πύθια κα δλια , when used in a colloquial sense to mean ‘it's all the same to you’. Polycrates had instituted a festival on Delos and asked the Pythia whether to call it by the one name or the other. The phrase, which was supposed to have been (...) the Pythia's reply, was taken to mean that it was all the same to Polycrates whatever he called it, and the death of Polycrates, coming soon after, was interpreted as the fulfilment of the prophecy. Suidas cites Epicurus and Menander for the phrase itself, which was therefore in familiar use by the end of the fourth century B.C. As for the story about Polycrates, it is quite likely that Suidas' ultimate source was some writer of about that period, such as Demon, περ παροιμιν. It is very much in the manner of his fragments. (shrink)

In describing the Stoic principles, the manuscript tradition of DL 7.134 preserves readings which variously call them σώµατα, ‘bodies’, or ἀσώµατα, ‘incorporeals’; but the Suida quotes this passage with ἀσωµάτους, ‘incorporeal’. This paper shows that the Suida has the best reading. This is not the only, or the clearest, case where the Suida can correct our text: another example considered here concerns DL 7.74.

Most of the traditions about Stesichorus place him in Italy and Sicily. He was said to have been born at Mataurus and to have lived and died at Himera. Only two small and disputed pieces of evidence connect him with the Peloponnese. Suidas s.v. Στηχορος says that he went to Catana when banished from Pallantium in Arcadia, and the Marmor Parium records that in the archonship of Philocrates the poet Stesichorus came to Greece. Both testimonies are embarrassing and both (...) have been subjected to sceptical criticism. Stesichorus' connection with Pallantium has been reduced to a misunderstanding of his mention of it in his Γηρυονσ , and the entry in the Marmor Parium is so flatly in contradiction of the other evidence for his date that it has with some justice been regarded as a mere blunder. And yet it is possible that behind these two disputed testimonies there lies a genuine tradition based on the actual sojourn of Stesichorus in the Peloponnese. Some evidence for this may be found in what we know of his λνη and ρεστεα. (shrink)

It is hardly necessary to recapitulate Rhys Roberts' cumulative and convincing proof that the treatise ‘On the Sublime’ was not written by Cassius Longinus, the tutor of Zenobia, but belongs to the early days of the Empire. Not the least convincing of the arguments for this date is the fact that the treatise is suggested by and put out as a substitute for the Περ ״ϒψоνς of Caecilius of Calacte, who according to Suidas taught rhetoric in Rome in the (...) time of Augustus. Now Caecilius was an intimate friend of Dionysius of Halicarnassus : they were both Atticists and fellow-workers in leading literary Romans back to the best models of Greek prose style. But Dionysius is no candidate for the authorship of the extant treatise, which is not one that he could have written. On the other hand he gives a plain indication by which to identify its writer, which Rhys Roberts mentioned but did not adopt. It is the object of this paper to put this identification seriously forward. (shrink)

Although ancient Greek and Indian philosophers held remarkably similar philosophical positions, the possibility of these two traditions having developed independently cannot be discounted. However, in the fifth century BCE substantial parts of Greece and India were under the Persian rule and belonged to the same political entity. It is very likely that Greeks and Indians sat together in the Persian court where translation services were provided to mitigate the language barrier. In the fourth century BCE there were Greek kingdoms for (...) more than a century in and around northwest frontiers of India paving the way for substantial political and commercial contact. Greeks like Megasthenes, Diogenes Laertius, Suidas, Porphyry, etc. testify that eminent Greek thinkers like Democritus, Pyrrho, etc. visited India and/or that Plato, Plotinus, etc. knew about or admired Indian wisdom. Some of this evidence is relatively late but cannot be dismissed in the absence of specific rebuttal; thus, Indo-Greek scholarly exchange is likely. (shrink)

Our access to reliable information about women thinkers who might be classified as philosophers of ancient Greece is fragmentary at best. Drawing from the texts of Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, Diogenes Laertius, Iamblicus, Clement of Alexandria, Plutarch, Porphyry, Suidas, and many other sources, Gilles Ménage published a History of Women Philosophers in Latin in 1690. His aim was to refute the long‐standing and widely held view that there were not and never had been any women philosophers (or at most only (...) a very few). He attempted to classify (by “school” of thought) and cited by name about twenty Greek women thinkers who lived between about the twelfth century BCE and the death of Aristotle (322 BCE) or shortly afterward. Beatrice H. Zedler has translated Ménage's book into English (1984) and has provided a useful introduction, with helpful notes and appendices. (shrink)

A. F. Norman has recently suggested that a hitherto overlooked passage in Suidas is a fragment from the history of Eunapius of Sardis. He is clearly correct in referring the passage to an incident at the siege of Maiozamalcha during the Persian campaign of the emperor Julian, but I am not so sure that he is right in ascribing it to Eunapius, or in the conclusions he draws from this ascription. I give in parallel columns the accounts of Ammianus (...) Marcellinus, Zosimus, and the passage from Suidas, together with a further version of the incident, unfortunately without names, from the pen of Libanius. (shrink)

A. F. Norman has recently suggested that a hitherto overlooked passage in Suidas is a fragment from the history of Eunapius of Sardis. He is clearly correct in referring the passage to an incident at the siege of Maiozamalcha during the Persian campaign of the emperor Julian, but I am not so sure that he is right in ascribing it to Eunapius, or in the conclusions he draws from this ascription. I give in parallel columns the accounts of Ammianus (...) Marcellinus, Zosimus, and the passage from Suidas, together with a further version of the incident, unfortunately without names, from the pen of Libanius. (shrink)

Wenn man beim Nachschlagen in LSJ wegen des Wortes ϕωτοϕάνεια die Angabe “Anon. apud Suid. s.v.ἐϰπλαγεῖς” liest, denkt man daran, daß es für einen Byzantinisten von gewißem Interesse wäre, diesen “Anonymus” (und eventuell auch andere) zu identifizieren. Im Suidas-Lexikon ist beim Lemma ε 574 Ἐϰπλαγεῖς folgendes (anonymes) Zitat zu lesen: ποιμένες ἀγϱαυλοῦντες ἐϰπλαγοῦς ϕωτοϕανείας ἔτυχον. Die Herkunft dieses Textes war A. Adler bekannt (derer Ausgabe den früheren Redaktoren von LSJ nicht zur Verfügung stand). Letztere teilt im app. font. richtig (...) mit, daß der oben zitierte Text aus dem Weihnachtskanon des Kosmas Hierosolymites (vv. 126–127 = ξ1) stammt. Wie steht es aber mit anderen “interessanten” Wörtern, die der byzantinische Lexikograph aus den Kanones des Kosmas (oder auch anderer Dichter) “geschöpft” und bei denen er eventuell auch wertvolle Zitate beigegeben hat? Hat die Herausgeberin diese auch erkannt? Um darauf zu antworten, schien mir eine Untersuchung des Suidas-Lexikons – zunächst gezielt (mit Hilfe des TLG) – nach seltenen bzw. sprachlich interessanten Wörtern, Komposita usw., die in den Kanones – in erster Linie des Kosmas und des Ioannes von Damaskus – vorkommen, angebracht. (shrink)

Clytaemnestra describes her anxious presentiment of coming evil, but ό π ροστατν Χρθνος bears no obvious meaning. The schol.'s πιενόμεος —corrected to πιινπιγ by Papageorgios from Suidas—is meant to interpret the phrase as merely a periphrasis for the future. So the schol. on Pind. ol. X. 9 glosses πιγν πιγ with ιγενόμε&ngr;ος. Jebb practically agrees, but thinks that strictly ό πρ. Χρόνος is ‘the time which stands in front .’ Kaibel, rightly in my opinion, regards έμο as the necessary (...) complement of προστάτης, but understands the latter as Time personified leading the queen by the hand continuously forward. She does not know her goal, but fears it is death. None of these views is convincing; and if we would seize the metaphor which the words are intended to convey, we shall do better to follow the indication afforded by Aesch. Ag. 976 τιπτε μο τς μπςως |δείμαπ ροατατατηριον| καρδιας τερασκόπον ποτται where the speaker is labouring under the burden of apprehension, whose image hovers over his heart. The future casts its shadow beforehand as a danger to be encountered. So here Clytaemnestra cannot rest for the persistent image which ever obtrudes itself upon her mental vision . Meineke preferred προσ-στατν just as Blaydes conjectured προσ-στατ ριον in the Agamemnon. (shrink)

This passage seems to have escaped identification so far. This is somewhat surprising, since it clearly refers to an incident at the sack of Maiozamalcha during Julian's Persian campaign which has been much discussed by editors ind critics of Ammianus and Zosimus. The reason may well be that in some ilder editions of Suidas the name appears as.

In a recent article, Dr. A. F. Norman has attributed to Eunapius the authorship of a fragment in Suidas , which clearly relates to the siege of Maiozamalcha. His arguments are cogent and must, I think, be accepted. Some slight additional support for the attribution is provided by the fact that it contains the adverb of which, as Vollebregt pointed out, Eunapius was particularly fond. Norman compares this fragment with the relevant passages in Ammianus Marcellinus and Zosimus and points (...) out that if the attribution is correct, ‘now, and for the first time, we have a reference to the same incident of this campaign from the narratives of Ammianus, Eunapius, and Zosimus’. (shrink)

Although ancient Greek and Indian philosophers held remarkably similar philosophical positions, the possibility of these two traditions having developed independently cannot be discounted. However, in the fifth century BCE substantial parts of Greece and India were under the Persian rule and belonged to the same political entity. It is very likely that Greeks and Indians sat together in the Persian court where translation services were provided to mitigate the language barrier. In the fourth century BCE there were Greek kingdoms for (...) more than a century in and around northwest frontiers of India paving the way for substantial political and commercial contact. Greeks like Megasthenes, Diogenes Laertius, Suidas, Porphyry, etc. testify that eminent Greek thinkers like Democritus, Pyrrho, etc. visited India and/or that Plato, Plotinus, etc. knew about or admired Indian wisdom. Some of this evidence is relatively late but cannot be dismissed in the absence of specific rebuttal; thus, Indo-Greek scholarly exchange is likely. (shrink)

Although ancient Greek and Indian philosophers held remarkably similar philosophical positions, the possibility of these two traditions having developed independently cannot be discounted. However, in the fifth century BCE substantial parts of Greece and India were under the Persian rule and belonged to the same political entity. It is very likely that Greeks and Indians sat together in the Persian court where translation services were provided to mitigate the language barrier. In the fourth century BCE there were Greek kingdoms for (...) more than a century in and around northwest frontiers of India paving the way for substantial political and commercial contact. Greeks like Megasthenes, Diogenes Laertius, Suidas, Porphyry, etc. testify that eminent Greek thinkers like Democritus, Pyrrho, etc. visited India and/or that Plato, Plotinus, etc. knew about or admired Indian wisdom. Some of this evidence is relatively late but cannot be dismissed in the absence of specific rebuttal; thus, Indo-Greek scholarly exchange is likely. (shrink)

Although ancient Greek and Indian philosophers held remarkably similar philosophical positions, the possibility of these two traditions having developed independently cannot be discounted. However, in the fifth century BCE substantial parts of Greece and India were under the Persian rule and belonged to the same political entity. It is very likely that Greeks and Indians sat together in the Persian court where translation services were provided to mitigate the language barrier. In the fourth century BCE there were Greek kingdoms for (...) more than a century in and around northwest frontiers of India paving the way for substantial political and commercial contact. Greeks like Megasthenes, Diogenes Laertius, Suidas, Porphyry, etc. testify that eminent Greek thinkers like Democritus, Pyrrho, etc. visited India and/or that Plato, Plotinus, etc. knew about or admired Indian wisdom. Some of this evidence is relatively late but cannot be dismissed in the absence of specific rebuttal; thus, Indo-Greek scholarly exchange is likely. (shrink)

Most of the traditions about Stesichorus place him in Italy and Sicily. He was said to have been born at Mataurus and to have lived and died at Himera. Only two small and disputed pieces of evidence connect him with the Peloponnese. Suidas s.v. Στηχορος says that he went to Catana when banished from Pallantium in Arcadia, and the Marmor Parium records that in the archonship of Philocrates the poet Stesichorus came to Greece. Both testimonies are embarrassing and both (...) have been subjected to sceptical criticism. Stesichorus' connection with Pallantium has been reduced to a misunderstanding of his mention of it in his Γηρυονσ, and the entry in the Marmor Parium is so flatly in contradiction of the other evidence for his date that it has with some justice been regarded as a mere blunder. And yet it is possible that behind these two disputed testimonies there lies a genuine tradition based on the actual sojourn of Stesichorus in the Peloponnese. Some evidence for this may be found in what we know of his λνη and ρεστεα. (shrink)

The tribute of two maidens to the temple of Athena in Ilium was discontinued after the end of the ‘Phocian’ war. We have for this the evidence of the Epitome of Apollodorus 6. 22 χéων δ τν παρελӨντων μετ τν Φωκiκν πλεπoν κτiδας πασαντo πμoντεσ. In Tzetzes' commentary to Lycophron 1. 1141 the same piece of information is given on the authority of Timaeus, but Wilamowitz, among others, showed that Tzetzes arbitrarily transferred the name of Timaeus from the scholium on (...) 1. 1155.3 The information remains valuable without the adornment of an illustrious name. We know from a story of Aelian, which ‘Suidas’ partially preserved in many fragments, that the Locrians were compelled by the Delphic oracle to resume the interrupted practice and submitted the regulation of it to a King Antigonus, δ βασiλες ντγoνoς øεӨν o πρσταξεκλρ δiακρiӨναi This King Antigonus can hardly be identified with Antigonus Doson for two reasons which must, however, be admitted to be not absolutely cogent. First, the interval between interruption and resumption would be one of more than a century, whereas Aelian presupposes a shorter interval. Secondly, the ‘Lokrische Madcheninschrift’ made famous by A. Wilhelm, which is an evident terminus ante quern for the intervention of King Antigonus, can hardly be later than 230–220 B.C. Wilhelm, indeed, had suggested a date c. 270–240 B.C. His date has been affected by recent changes in Delphic chronology; but the balance of probability still favours a date nearer to 250 than to 200 B.C. Thus, the more natural alternative remains between Antigonus Monophthalmus and Antigonus Gonatas. Either agrees well with the interruption after the third Sacred War. (shrink)