No More Learning

ladies of the empire, notwithstanding she was
The Editio Princeps of the collected works is a already betrothed to a husband, with whom, though
folio volume, without date, and without name of not fully married to him, her union had been con-
place or printer. It contains the commentary of summated. The choice of 60 contaminated a
Calderinus on the Silvae, and must therefore have partner dishonoured the unhappy prince to whom
been published after the year 1475. No really she was given as a wife, and the unbridled lust of
good edition of Statius has yet appeared. That of Nicephorus cast additional contempt on his son by
Hurd, which was a work of great promise, was the seduction about the time of the marriage of
never carried beyond the first volume, which con- two young ladies more beautiful than Theophano,
tains the Silvae only, 8vo. Leips. 1817. The best and who had been selected as competitors with her
for all practical purposes is that which forms one of for the hand of the young emperor. In May
the series of Latin Classics by Lemaire. 4 vols. A. D. 811 Stauracius left Constantinople with his
8vo. Paris, 1825-1830.
father to take the field against the Bulgarians at
The first five books of the Thebaid were trans the head of an army, the number of which struck
lated into English verse by Thomas Stephens, 8vo. terror into the heart of the Bulgarian king and
Lond. 1648, and the whole poem by W. L. Lewis, induced him to sue for peace, which was refused.
2 vols. 8vo. Oxford, 1767 and 1773. The trans. The first encounters, which were favourable to the
lation of the first book by Pope will be found in Greeks, appear to have been directed by Stauracius,
all editions of his works.
for his father ascribed them to his skill and good
The Achilleid was translated into English verse fortune. The Bulgarians again sued for peace and
by Howard. 8vo. Lond. 1660.
again their suit was rejected. In the following
Of translations into other languages, the only fatal battle, in which Nicephorus was killed and
one of any note is the version into Italian of the the Greek army almost annihilated, Stauracius
Thebaid by Cardinal Bentivoglio, 4to. Rom. 1729, received a wound in or near the spine, under the
and 8vo. Milan, 1821.
[W. R. ) torture of which he escaped with difficulty to
STA'TIUS PRISCUS. [PRISCUS. )
Adrianople. Here he was proclaimed autocrator, sole
STA'TIUS PROʻXIMUS. [PROXIMUS. ] emperor, by the officers who surrounded him, and
STA'TIUS QUADRA'TUS. (Quadratus. ] this announcement was received by those who had
STATIUS SEBU'SUS. [Selosus. ]
escaped with him from the slaughter with a delight
STATIUS TRE'BIUS delivered Compsa, a which evidenced his personal popularity. Michael
town of the Hirpini, to Hannibal after the battle the Curopalata, who had married Procopia, daughter
of Cannae, B. c. 216. (Liv. xxiii. 1. )
of Nicephorus, and who had also escaped from the
STA'TIUS VALENS wrote the life of the slaughter, but unwounded, was solicited by some of
emperor Trajan. (Lamprid. Alex. Screr. 48. ) his friends to assume the purple ; but he declined, pro-
STATOR, a Roman surname of Jupiter, de fessedly out of regard to the oaths of fealty which
scribing him as staying the Romans in their flight he had taken to Nicephorus and Stauracius, perhaps
from an enemy, and generally as preserving the ex- from a conviction that the attempt would not suc-
isting order of things. (Liv. i. 12, x. 37 ; Cic
. Cat. i. ceed. Stauracius was conveyed in a litter to Con-
13;
Flor. i. 1; Senec. De Benef. iv. 7; Plin. stantinople, where he was exhorted by the patriarch
H. N. ii. 53; August. De Civ. Dei, iii. 13. ) [L. S. ] | Nicephorus [NICEPHORUS, Byzantine writers,
3 at


## p. 904 (#920) ############################################

904
STELLIO.
STEPHANUS.
a
1
1
No. 9] to seek the Divine mercy and to make | tioned in the Illyrian town of Uscana, which
restitution to those whom his father had oppressed. was compelled to surrender to Perseus. (Liv.
Being,” says Thcophanes “the genuine inheritor xliii. 18, 19. )
of his father's disposition," but perhaps influenced STE'NIUS or STHE'NIUS, a Campanian and
by the exbaustion of the imperial finances through Lucanian name. Stenius was one of the leading
an unfortunate war, he replied, that he could men at Capua, who entertained Hannibal in B. C.
not spare for restitution more than three talents. 216, after the battle of Cannae (Liv. xxiii. 8);
" This,” says the irate historian, " was but a small and Pliny speaks of a Stenius Statilius as a Lu-
part of what he (Nicephorus) had wrongfully canian general. [STATILIUS, No. 1. ]
taken. " The painfulness of his wounds, the STENTOR (ETévtWp), a herald of the Grecks
buggestions of Theophano, who hoped, like Irene, at Troy, whose voice was as loud as that of fifty
to grasp the sceptre, and probably the intrigues of other men together. His name has become pro-
the parties themselves, alienated Stauracius from verbial for any one who screams or shouts with an
his brother-in-law Michael and several of the unusually loud voice. (Hom. II. v. 783 ; Juven.
great officers of the court, and he is said to have Sat. xii. 112. )
(L. S. )
contemplated bequeathing the empire to his wife, STENYCLE'RU'S (EtevúkAmpos), a Messenian
or even restoring the ancient forms of the Roman hero, from whom the Stenyclarian plain was be-
Republic. His courtiers conspired against him, lieved to have derived its name. (Paus. iv. 33.
and Stauracius having proposed to put out the eyes $ 5. )
(L. S. )
of Michael, matters were brought to a crisis ; Mi- STE'PHANUS (Stépavos), historical. 1. One
chael was proclaimed emperor (Oct. 811), and of the two sons of Thucydides, whom Plato men.
Stauracius having put on the habit of a monk, was tions among the instances of those sons of great
deposed, and died soon after his deposition, having men, whom their fathers, though educating them
reigned only two months and six days after his with the utmost care, have been unable to train to
father's death. His widow Theophano embraced excellence (Menon, p. 94, c. d. ). He is mentioned
a monastic life, and employed the wealth which the by Athenaeus (vi. p. 234, e. ) as the scribe of a
humanity or policy of Michael (Michael I. decree of Alcibiades, engraved on a pillar in the
RHANGABE) allowed her, in converting her palace temple of Heracles at Cynosargos.
into a monastery called “Hebraica” (ta 'E païkd) 2. An Athenian orator, son of Menecles of
and by corruption Braca (Ta Bpaxã), and at a later | Acharnae, against whom Demosthenes composed
period Stauraca (Etaupara), because in it the body two orations, which contain scarcely any particulars
of Stauracius, and afterwards that of Theophano, of his life deserving notice here. He is also men-
were buried. According to some writers his tioned by Athenaeus (xiii. p. 593, f. ).
body was deposited in (perhaps transferred to) the 3. 'Epoisons, the husband of Neaera, several
monastery of Satyrus. The character of Stauracius times mentioned by Demosthenes in his Oration
is drawn in the most unfavourable colours by against Neaera.
[P. S. ]
Theophanes, Zonaras, and others : but it was the STEPHANUS, emperor of Constantinople.
misfortune of Nicephorus and his son to come [Romanus I. ; CONSTANTINUS VII. )
between the two sovereigns, Irene and Michael STE'PHANUS (Et épavos), literary. 1. An
Rhangabe, whose services to orthodoxy or profu- Athenian comic poet of the New Comedy, was pro-
sion to the church made them great favourites with bably the son of Antiphanes, some of whose plays
the ecclesiastical annalists of the Byzantine em- he is said to have exhibited. (Anon. de Com. p.
pire ; and their evanescent dynasty was founded xxx. ; Suid, s. v. 'Artıpávns. ) The other state-
by the deposition of one and overthrown to make ment of Suidas (s. v. "Alegus), that he was the son
way for the elevation of the other of these fa- of Alexis, seems to arise merely from a confusion of
vourites of the church. It is reasonable therefore the names of Alexis and Antiphanes. All that
to suppose that their characters have been un- remains of his works is a single fragment, quoted
fairly represented; and, in the case of Stauracius by Athenaeus (xi. p. 469, a. ), from his puodókww,
especially, things harmless or unimportant have a play which was evidently intended to ridicule
been described as evidences of the greatest depra- the imitators of Lacedaemonian manners. (Fabric.
vity. (Theophanes, Chronog. pp. 405—419, ed. Bibl. Graec. vol. ii. p. 496 ; Meineke, Frag. Com.
Paris ; pp. 322—332, ed. Venice ; pp. 745—769, ed. Graec. vol. i. pp. 304, 376, 485, 486, vol. iv. p.
Bonn ; Leo Grammaticus, Chronog. pp. 204-206, 544. )
ed. Bonn ; Cedrenus, Compend. pp. 477–482, ed. 2. Of Byzantium, the author of the well-known
Paris ; vol. ii. pp. 33—43, ed.
Bonn ; Le Beau, geographical lexicon, entitled 'Edviká, of which
Bas Empire, liv. lxvii, ch. x. xxviii-xxxv. ; Gib- unfortunately we only possess an epitome. There
bon, Decline and Fall, ch. xlviii. ) (J. C. M. ] are few ancient writers of any importance of whom
STELLA, ARRU'NTIUS. 1. The person to we know so little as of Stephanus. All that can
whom Nero entrusted the superintendence of the be affirmed of him with certainty is that he was a
games which he exhibited in A. D. 55. (Tac. Ann. grammarian at Constantinople, and lived after the
xiii. 22. )
time of Arcadius and Honorius, and before that of
2. A poet and a friend of Statius, who dedicated Justinian II. The ancient writers, often as they
to him the first book of his Silvae, the second poem quote the 'Edviká, give us absolutely no information
in which celebrates the marriage of Stella and Vio about its author, except his name. We learn from
lantilla. This Stella is also mentioned by Martial them, however, that the work was reduced to an
(vi. 21).
epitome by a certain Hermolaus, who dedicated his
STE’LLIO, C. AFRA'NIUS. 1. Praetor s. c. abridgement to the emperor Justinian. (Herno-
185, and one of the triumviri for founding a colony LAUS. ] Hence, in turning to the few incidental
B. C. 183. (Liv. xxxix. 23, 25).
pieces of information which the work contains re-
2. Son of the preceding, served in B. C. 169 specting its author, we are met by the question,
against Perseus, king of Macedonia, and was sta- | whether such passages were written by Stephanus


## p. 905 (#921) ############################################

STEPHANUS.
905
STEPHANUS.
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 im-
which occurs in the article 'Avaxtoplov. Kal Ev. portant piece of collateral evidence respecting the
γένιος δε, ο προ ημών τας εν τη βασιλίδι σχολάς | time of Stephanus, pointed out by Westermann, is
diakoouhoas, which cannot refer to any other Eu- his eulogy of Petrus Patricius (s. v. 'Axovai), who
genius than the eminent grammarian of August died soon after A. D. 562, and was therefore a con-
opolis in Phrygia, who, as we learn from Suidas, temporary of Stephanus, supposing that the latter
tanght 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 Tepl TÓA Cwv, which Dindorf has
age ; but nearly all the editors of Stephanus, as adopted ; in the Juntine tepl Tóleww xal onuwe,
well as Isanc Vossius and Fabricius, have chosen which Berkelius also places at the head of the text,
to regard it as an insertion made by llermolaus, while on his title-page he has Štepávov Bučavtiou
for the following reason ; if Eugenius flourished Overd kar' éttouny; and Salmasius prefers the
under Annstasius, who died in a. D. 518, his suc-title tepávou Bu Sartiou nepl Ovikwv Kal TOTKY.
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 re-
came 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 Eustathius, 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- l’Edvikó, and that of the epitome x TÔ COVIK@
dently rests part, if not chiefly, on the tacit tepávov xar' dm1Tbuny. 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:-Stepávov ypauuatikoû KwVOTAVTI-
Now we believe that the presumption is just | νουπόλεως περί πόλεων νήσων τε και εθνών, δήμων
the other way ; both on the general principle τε και τόπων, και ομωνυμίας αυτών και μετονομα-
that, in an albridged work, whatever cannot be | σίας και των εντεύθεν παρηγμένων εθνικών τε και
proved to be an interpolation should be referred | τοπικών και κτητικών τε ονομάτων.
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 verbatim, 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 re-
as even to destroy the grammatical coherence of ference to some ancient writer, as an authority for 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 quota-
think, 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 bare
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 com-
and, 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 frag-
nus 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 Aúun 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 'Impiai dúo, which is preserved by Constantinus
dedicated his epitome was Justinian 11. , and that Porphyrogennetus (de Adinin. Imp. 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 Them. 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 Elkenia 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 Tótbou, 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,
Aidíoy ; 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 criginal


## p. 906 (#922) ############################################

906
STEPHANUS.
STEPH.
They are particularized by Westermann in his | ENOIEI (Marini, Inscriz
preface.
and the other on the base
From a careful examination of the references, it in the Villa Ludovisi, M
appears that the author of the Etymologicum Mag. MAOHTHC ENOIEI. |
num, Eustathius, and others of the grammarians, is also mentioned by Pli
possessed the original work of Stephanus. It also $ 10) as the maker of II
becms probable that the work, as it now exists, is of Asinius Pollio ; but
not a fair representation of the epitome of Hermo piades is not very clear.
laus, but that it has been still further abridged by word would appear to
successive copyists. The former part of the work (Thiersch, Epochen, p. 2
is pretty full ; the portion from Nátpat to the 2. A freedman of Livi
middle of 2 is little more than a list of names ; the practised the art of a wo-
articles in T and I become fuller again ; and those from a Latin inscription,
from X to 2 appear to be copied, almost without Aurifex. (Gori, Nos.
abridgement, from the work of Stephanus.
67, No. 220 ; Welcker, F
The work is arranged in alphabetical order ; but | Osann, Kunstblatt, 1830
it was also originally divided into books, the exact Lettre à M. Schorn, p. 40
number of which cannot be determined ; but they STEPHANUS, was
were considerably more numerous than the letters A. D. 253, in the place of
of the alphabet.
tyrdom four years afterwa
The following are the chief editions of the Epi- solely by the dispute w
tome of Stephanus : -(1) the Aldine, Venet. Cyprian upon baptizing
1502, fol. ; (2) the Juntine, Florent. 1521, fol. ; fierce, that Stephanus, i
(3) the edition of Xylander, with several emenda- audience to the deputies
tions in the text, and with Indices, Basil. 1568, prelate, positively forbad
fol. ; (4) that of Thomas de Pinedo, the first with towards them the common
a Latin version, Amst. 1678, fol. ; (5) the text appears to have published
corrected by Salmasius, from a collation of MSS. ; with this controversy.
various readings collected by Gronovius from the 1. Ad Cyprianum. 2.
Codex Perusinus, with notes ; a Latin Version and contra Helenum et Firmil
Commentary by Abr. Berkelius, Lugd. Bat. 1688, has been preserved, but
fol. , reprinted 1694, fol. ; (6) that of the Wet- former is to be found in
steins, containing the Greek text, the Latin version Pompeium (lxxiv. ), and i
and notes of Thomas de Pinedo, and the various Pontificum Romanorum of
readings of Gronovius, with Indices, Amst. 1725, p. 210).
fol. ; (7) that of Dindorf, with readings from a STEPHANUS (ETÉC
newly-found MS. , and the notes of L. Holstenius, veral physicians : -
A. Berkelius, and Thomas de Pinedo, Lips. 1825, 1. Probably a native o
&c. , 4 vols. 8vo. ; (8) that of A. Westermann, con- was the father of Alexa
taining a thoroughly revised text, with a very Trall. iv. 1, p. 198. ) H
valuable preface, Lips. 1839, 8vo. : this is by far Anthemius, Dioscorus, M
the most useful edition for ordinary reference. The who were all eminent in
chief fragment was published separately, by S. (Agath. Hist. F. p. 149. )
Tennulius, Amst. 1669, 4to. ; by A. Berkelius, half of the fifth century a
with the Periplus of Hanno and the Monumentum 2. A native of Edessa,
Adulitanum of Ptolemy Euergetes, Lugd. Bat. 1674, eminent physicians of hi
8vo. , reprinted in Montfaucon's Catalogus Biblio service to Kobádh (or
thecae Coislinianae, pp. 281, &c. , Paris. 1715, fol. ; early in the sixth centur
by Jac. Gronovius, Lugd. Bat. 1681, 4to. , and in he was richly rewarder
the Thesaurus Antiq. Graec. vol. vii. pp. 269, &c. ; Edessa by Cosra (or Cho:
and it is contained in all the editions, from that of A. D. 544, Stephanus wa
Thomas de Pinedo downwards. There is a German fellow-citizens to interced
translation of the fragment, with an Essay on Stepha- and in his address to the
nus, by S. Ch. Schirlitz, in the Ephem. Litter. Scholast. the credit not only of ha
Univ. vol. ii. pp. 385-390, 393-399, 1828, 4to. also of having persuader
(Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iv. pp. 621-661 ; him as his succcessor to 1
Vossius, de Hist. Graec. pp.