1 Wolska-Conus, W., ‘Stéphanos d’Athènes et Stephanos d’Alexandrie. Essai d’identification et de biographie’, REB 47 (1989) 5–89 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Papathanassiou, M., ‘Stephanus of Alexandria: a famous Byzantine scholar, alchemist and astrologer’ in Magdalino, P. and Mavroudi, M. (eds.), The Occult Sciences in Byzantium, (Geneva 2006) 163–203 Google Scholar.

3 Usener, H., ‘De Stephano Alexandrino’, in Kleine Schriften 3 (Leipzig 1914) 247–322 Google Scholar.

4 H. Usener, ‘De Stephano Alexandrino’, 247-51.

5 Ibid., 289-95. Stephanus’ authorship of this work is highly questionable. The work is anonymous in the majority of manuscripts that preserve it, but in two 15th century manuscripts, both copies made by Joannes Chortasmenos, portions of the text are attributed to ‘Stephanus the great philosopher of Alexandria’. Only one of these refers to him as katholikos didaskalos. See note 17, below. For a fuller (but ultimately inconclusive) discussion of the manuscript tradition of this work, see Tihon, A., ‘Le calcul de la date de Pâques de Stéphanos-Héraclius’ in Janssens, B., Roosen, B. and Van Deun, P. (eds.), Philomathestatos. Studies in Greek Patristic and Byzantine Texts presented to Jacques Noret for his sixty-fifth Birthday (Louvain 2004) 626-31Google Scholar. She concludes: ‘Cet examen superficiel de la tradition manuscrite montre qu’une grande incertitude régnait à propos de l’auteur de ce traité.’

6 W. Wolska-Conus, ‘Stephanos d’Athènes’, 69-82.

7 Pseudo-Elias (Pseudo-David), Lectures on Porphyry’s Isagoge, ed. Westerink, L. G., (Amsterdam 1967)Google Scholar. See also the recent French translation and notes to Ps. Elias: Mueller-Jourdain, P., Une initiation à la Philosophie de l’Antiquité tardive - Les leçons du Pseudo-Elias, (Fribourg 2007) xxv–xxvi Google Scholar. Mueller-Jourdain considers that there is nothing in the evidence put forward by Wolska-Conus that compels us to identify Ps. Elias with Stephanus but that her arguments had established a point of contact between the two.

8 Pseudo-Elias, xiii.

9 Irrelevant as evidence is the Dialogue between Philosophy and History that stands at the head of Theophylact Simocatta’s History. Although Usener considered that it corroborated his hypothesis, this text makes no mention of Stephanus or an oikoumenikos didaskalos or any educational institution. It suggests to me nothing more than the rhetorical topos of an intellectually enlightened emperor replacing an ignorant tyrant. See The History of Theophylact Simocatta, M. and Whitby, M. (trans.), (Oxford 1986) 3–5 and n.7Google Scholar.

10 Wolska-Conus, ‘Stéphanos d’Athènes’, 15.

11 See Beck, H.-G., ‘Bildung und Theologie im frühmittelalterlichen Byzanz’ in Polychronion, Festschrift Franz Dölger (Heidelberg 1966) 72-3Google Scholar; Lumpe, A., ‘Stephanus von Alexandria und Kaiser Herakleios’ in Classica Mediaevalia Dissertationes 9 (1973) 150-9Google Scholar; Lemerle, P., Le premier humanisme Byzantin, (Paris 1971) 79–96 Google Scholar and especially 85-8; and The Letters of Ignatios the Deacon, ed. Mango, C., (Washington, D.C. 1997) 7, 15 and nn. 32 and 65Google Scholar.

12 Usener, ‘De Stephano Alexandrino’, 248-51.

13 Bühler, W. and Theodoridis, Chr., ‘Johannes von Damaskus terminus post quern für Choiroboskos’, BZ 69 (1976) 397–405 Google Scholar and Theodoridis, Chr., ‘Der Hymnograph Klemens terminus post quem für Choiroboskos’, BZ 73 (1980) 341-5Google Scholar.

14 It survives in two manuscripts of the 10th century. See Hunger, H., Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, II (Munich 1978) 45-6Google Scholar.

15 Theophanes Continuatus, ed. Niebuhr, B.G., (Bonn 1838) 143.11-12Google Scholar.

16 Beck, ‘Bildung und Theologie’, 73.

17 Usener, ‘De Stephano Alexandrino’, 318. This text is a fuller version of the same eclipse calculation given in Usener’s edition of the handbook on the use of Ptolemy’s Handy Tables (Ibid., 305.35-310.22). On the manuscript and its copyist, see Hunger, H., Johannes Chortasmenos - Briefe, Gedichte und kleine Schriften, (Vienna 1969) 25-6Google Scholar; and Tihon, “Le calcul’, 630-1.

18 Usener, ‘De Stephano Alexandrino’, 248-9.

19 See most recently, Cacouros, M., ‘Survie culturelle et rémanence textuelle du Néoplatonisme à Byzance. Éléments généraux, éléments portant sur la logique’, in D’Ancona, C. (ed.), The Libraries of the Neoplatonists, (Leiden 2007) 189-90 and nn. 44-9Google Scholar.

20 On fol. 151ro of Paris, gr. 1846: Ίω(άνν)ου τοΰ Χορτ(ασμένου) καί καθολ(ικ)οΰ διδασκάλ(ου). Cf. Cacouros, M., ‘Jean Chortasmenos katholikos didaskalos . Contribution à l’histoire de l’enseignement à Byzance’, in Criscuolo, U. et Malsano, R. (eds.), Synodia. Studia humanitatis Antonio Garzya septuagenario de amicis atque discipulis dicata, (Naples 1997), 89 Google Scholar.

21 So, Joannes Chortasmenos in cod. Mutin, gr. 142, where he says of his teacher, Michael Balsamon: διδάσκαλος έκρίθη καθολικος τών τε έλληνικών μαθημάτων καί τών εκκλησίας δογμάτων, οσα θεωρίας εχεται μείζονος και τελεωτέρας. (Translation suggested by Sten Ebbeson in a personal communication.) Cf. Hunger, Johannes Chortasmenos 15, n. 20. It is not clear on what grounds he considered that Stephanus was a teacher of ‘teachings of the Church’.

22 Wolska-Conus, ‘Stéphanos d’Athènes’, 74–80. Her argument is also accompanied by the observation of certain personal details common to her unitary Stephanus and Ps. Elias, as revealed in the latter’s works. The ones most significant to her discussion are that both appear to have taught in Constantinople and both had an interest in medicine. As these features are hardly likely to be unique to one person, and neither feature is present in the extant philosophical texts attributed to Stephanus (his citation of Galen’s definition of ονομα at In de Interpretatione 12.1-3 is clearly to a logical, and not medical, work), that aspect of her argument cannot be considered decisive.

23 Roueché, M., ‘The definitions of philosophy and a new fragment of Stephanus the Philosopher’, JOB 40 (1990) 124-5Google Scholar; and ‘Why the monad is not a number: John Philoponus and In De Anima 3’,JOB 52 (2002) 96-9. In this I follow L. G. Westerink. See his Stephanus of Athens. Commentary on Hippocrates’ Aphorisms Sections I–11, ed. Westerink, L. G. (Berlin 1985), 22 Google Scholar and n.3 for what he called ‘warning examples’ of erroneous attributions based on apparent similarities and parallels.

24 For a detailed analysis of the contents of the Prolegomena Philosophiae, see Westerink, L. G., ‘The Alexandrian commentators and the introductions to their commentaries’ in Sorabji, R. (ed.), Aristotle transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence, (London 1990) 344-8Google Scholar.

25 Ammonius in Porphyrii Isagogen sive V voces, ed. Busse, A., Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 4, 3, (Berlin 1891) 81.16–82.4 Google Scholar.

26 Eliae in Porphyrii Isagogen et Aristotelis Categorias Commentaria, ed., Busse, A., Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 18, 1, (Berlin 1900), 67.23–68.18 Google Scholar.

27 Davidis Prolegomena et in Porphyrii Isagogen Commentarium, ed. Busse, A., Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 18, 2, (Berlin 1904) 65.11–68.2 Google Scholar.

28 Definitions and Divisions of Philosophy by David the Invincible Philosopher, tr. Kendall, B. and Thomson, R.W., (Chico, California 1983) 135-41Google Scholar.

29 Pseudo-Elias, 20.1-34 (Prolegomena Philosophiae) and 35.28-41 (Commentary on Porphyry).

30 Ammonius in Aristotelis De Interpretatione Commentarius, ed. Busse, A., CAG 4,5, (Berlin 1897) 15.16-28Google Scholar.

31 Stephani in librum Aristotelis De Interpretatione commentarium, ed. Hayduck, M., CAG 18,3, (Berlin 1885)4.11-35Google Scholar.

32 Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos I, ed. Kotter, B., (Berlin 1968) 64-9Google Scholar. For an analysis of the chapter on diairesis and its sources, see Richter, G., Die Dialektik des Johannes von Damaskos. Eine Untersuchung des Textes nach seinen Quellen und seiner Bedeutung, (Ettal 1964) 92-9Google Scholar.

33 Grammatici Graeci, Pars 1, Vol.3, Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam, ed. Hilgard, A., (Leipzig 1901) 131.35-135.2.Google Scholar A very similar discussion is found in Theodosius (‘Byzantius, ut videtur’), On Prosody, in Theodosii Alexandrini Grammatica, ed. Goettling, K.W. (Leipzig 1822) 205.3-22Google Scholar.

34 Ibn al-Tayyib’s Commentary on Porphyry’s Eisagoge, ed. Gyekye, K. (Beirut 1975) 24.3–25.5 Google Scholar (Arabic text) and Dunlop, D. M., ‘The existence and definition of philosophy, from an Arabic text ascribed to al-Farabi’, Irâq 13/2 (1951) 91 (English translation)Google Scholar.

35 Baumstark, A., Aristoteles bei den Syrern vom 5. bis 8. Jahrhundert, (Leipzig 1900), 195.12–197.14 Google Scholar.

36 The numbers here and in subsequent lists refer to the order in which the tropoi of division are presented by each author and are not found in the Greek text.

37 It is significant that, even at this late date (late-sixth or early seventh century), Ps. Elias is still stressing the distinction between sophists and philosophers. And notwithstanding his efforts to show off his medical knowledge, Ps. Elias also makes it clear that he considers himself a philosopher and not a physician (Prol. Phil. 17.13).

38 Ammonius, in his commentary on De Interpretatione (upon which Stephanus’ commentary appears to have been based, at least in part) and in his Commentary on Porphyry, gives the same three tropoi (In de Int., 15.16-28 and In Porph., 81.16-83.22). Compare John Philoponus, the pupil of Ammonius, who adds a fourth to these, “from species to individuals” (De Aeternitate Mundi, ed. Rabe, H. (Leipzig 1899) 437.8-17)Google Scholar.

39 Baumstark, Aristoteles bei den Syrern, 181-210.

40 The numbers here refer to the order in which David and Ps. Elias present their tropoi, which is clearly different.

41 Witold Witakowski (in a private communication) has observed that Severus’ Syriac text here contains little transliterated Greek; therefore, Baumstark’s Greek retro-translations should be seen as his own composition and not a direct reflection of Severus’ Greek source.

42 This raises the possibility that other parts of the Dialectica’s section on diairesis may preserve extracts from Stephanus’ Prolegomena, or a common source.

43 So too, Wolska-Conus, ‘Stéphanos d’Athènes’, 80.

44 Ibid., 79-80.

45 Scholia in Dionysii Tbracis, 133.11-17: ...διότι πάντα τα άπο ολων είς μέρη όμοιομερή διαιρούμενα ού μόνον τοΰ ολαυ τον όρισμον καί το ονομα έπιδέχονται άλλά καί άλλήλων• ...διότι τά άνομοιομερή οϋτε άλλήλοις οΰτε τω ολφ όμωνύμως λέγονται, άλλ’ ούδέ τον όρισμον έπιδέχονται τοΰ ολου.

... because everything divided from whole into similar parts not only receives the definition and the name of the whole but also of one another... because the dissimilar parts are not individually spoken of homony-mously with each other nor with the whole, nor do they partake of the definition of the whole.

46 John Damascene, Dialectica, 6.58-71: Kai όμοιομερές μέν έστιν, οταν τα τμήματα καί το ονομα καί τον ocov τοΰ τε ολου καί αλλήλων δέχωνται, οΐον ή σαρξ διαιρεΐται είς πολλας σάρκας, καί εκαστον μερος της σαρκος σαρξ λέγεται καί τον όρισμον της σαρκος έπιδέχεται. Άνομοιομερές δέ έστι το άνάπαλιν, οταν то τμηθέν μή έπιδέξηται μήτε το ονομα μήτε то v όρισμον μήτε τοΰ ολου μήτε άλλήλων, ώς ‘iva διελης τον Σωκράτην είς χειρας καί πόδας κοί κεφαλήν.

‘And of similar parts is when the parts individually partake of both the name and the definition of the whole and of each other, as, for example, flesh is divided into many pieces of flesh, and each part of the flesh is called flesh and partakes of the definition of flesh. And of dissimilar parts is the opposite, when that which is divided does not partake of the name or the definition either of the whole or of each other, as when Socrates is divided into hands and feet and head.’

47 See text in note 46, above.

48 The fact that John Damascene gives the same examples as Stephanus and Severus is consistent with the possibility that parts of the section on diairesis in the Dialectica may also preserve extracts from Stephanus’ Prolegomena.

49 Wolska-Conus, ‘Stéphanos d’Athènes’, 77 (“exemplaires différents”) and 80 (“une version autre”).

50 This also calls into question the suggestion that the ‘Collection Philosophique’, a library of certain philosophical and scientific manuscripts, may have travelled to Constantinople from Alexandria in the baggage of Stephanus when he was summoned by Heraclius. This was first advanced by Westerink, L. G. in Damascius, Traité des premiers principes, vol. I, (Paris 1986) lxxvii Google Scholar, and further Developed most recently by Rashed, Marwan, ‘Nicolas d’Ottante, Guillaume de Moerbeke et la “Collection Philosophique” ’ in Studi Medievali III, Ser. 43 (2002) 713-7Google Scholar.

51 Cf. notes 5 and 17, above. I examine some of the evidence for this in “Stephanus the Alexandrian Philosopher, the kanon and a seventh century millennium”, in journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 74 (2011) 1-30.

52 See most recently, Lempire, Jean, ‘D’Alexandrie à Constantinople: Le Commentaire Astronomique de Stéphanos,’ B81 (2011) 241-66Google Scholar, who reports that he is preparing a critical edition of the handbook on the Handy Tables attributed to Stéphanos. It will be seen from the present paper and the one cited in note 51 (above) that I do not agree with all of his conclusions.