Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: A Bibliographic Guide to the Canon of Greek Authors and Works 9780520388208

Citation preview

The publisher and the University of California Press Foundation gratefully acknowledge the generous support of the Joan Palevsky Imprint in Classical Literature.

Thesaurus Linguae Graecae

Thesaurus Linguae Graecae A Bibliographic Guide to the Canon of Greek Authors and Works

Maria C. Pantelia

University of California Press Oakland, California © 2022 by Maria Pantelia

Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-0-520- 8819-2 (cloth alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-520- 8820-8 (ebook) Manufactured in the United States of America 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1

CONTENTS

Preface The Thesaurus ofthe Greek Language (1372-2022): A BriefHistory ofthe Project Classifications and Conventions: The Canon Standard Acknowledgments Bibliographic Abbreviations Codes and Sigla A BIBLIOGRAPHIC GumE To GREEK AuTHoRs AND WoRKS

Index of TLG Author Numbers

ix xi xxi xxxix xliii xlvii

1

811

PREFACE

Established in 1972 at the University of California, Irvine, the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae® (TLG®) represents the earliest effort to produce a large-scale digital corpus of literary texts in the humanities. The goal of the project has been to identify, assemble, digitize, and make available to scholars and students the entire corpus of Greek literature from antiquity to the present era. In the fifty years of its history, the TLG has created a comprehensive collection of texts that includes more than forty-five hundred authors and more than twenty thousand works from Homer (eighth century B.C.) to the twentieth century. The enormous amount of data that the TLG has gathered over time, known as the TLG Canon of Authors and Works, is stored in an expandable database that includes both biographical and bibliographical information about each author, covering dates, place of birth, literary activity, and a list of their extant works and print publications. The Canon is a constantly evolving scholarly effort and an integral part of the TLG corpus. Its author-identifier system is a well-established standard used by all Greek digital projects to uniformly tag Greek authors and their extant works. A printed version of the Canon was last published in 1990.1 Since then the Canon has grown from approximately eight thousand to more than twenty thousand entries. The present volume is a bibliogaphic guide to the authors and works included in the TLG. It incorporates research conducted by the project since its inception. Given the scope of the effort and the need 1

Luci Berkowitz and Karl A. Squitier, Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Canon of Greek Authors and Works, rd ed. (New ork Oxford University Press, 1990). ix

x

PREFACE

to limit the presentation to one volume, some selection was inevitable. Entries compiled prior to 1996 are marked with an asterisk. They have been reviewed and updated. An obvious question is why a printed guide is needed. The online TLG includes only authors and works represented by texts in the collection at any given time. Therefore, only a subset of the Canon database is searchable online. The printed version contains the full literary-historical and bibliographical research conducted by the TLG, including a large number of text editions of historical importance, information about authors known by name only, works that may have survived only by title, and new works and text editions that will be part of the digital corpus at a later time. A second reason why a printed guide is needed is that digital formats are not always the most accessible. There is a difference between holding a book in one’s hands and being able to browse through hundreds of pages of information, a process similar to browsing the library stacks and pulling out volumes that you did not even know existed, as opposed to querying a database for specific information that you wish to locate quickly. The printed volume was and still is the easiest way to locate the Canon author and work numbers as well as the correct spelling of the Latinized names and TLG-assigned work titles. Finally, the printed version is an important reference work that can be useful to anyone interested in the history of Greek literature regardless of whether they intend to consult the online TLG or not.

THE THESAURUS OF THE GREEK LANGUAGE (1972–2022) A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PROJECT

The creation of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae in 1972 marked the end of a long-standing effort to produce a comprehensive lexicon of Greek. During the sixteenth century, Henri Estienne, a French scholar and printer known as Stephanus, compiled lexica for both Greek and Latin. His Greek lexicon, printed in five volumes and known as the Thesaurus Graecae Linguae,1 became the model for Greek lexicography for more than three hundred years. In the late nineteenth century the discovery of thousands of new papyri in Egypt and the rise of modern textual criticism motivated European scholars to undertake the creation of new lexica for Greek and Latin. The sheer volume of materials (estimated at nine million words for Latin and ninety million for Greek) and the cumbersome methods of gathering data manually presented overwhelming challenges. Based on the experience of the Latin dictionary, which was considered more manageable, Herman Diels famously described the compilation of the Greek lexicon as an attempt to put “νοῦς into chaos.”2 Not surprisingly, the idea of a Greek dictionary was abandoned for many decades. Subsequent efforts, most notably one undertaken in the 1950s by Bruno Snell at the University of Hamburg, were also abandoned until the late 1960s, when Marianne McDonald, a graduate student of Classics at the University of California, Irvine, proposed the creation of a digital Greek thesaurus. Marianne McDonald was motivated by her dissertation research on “terms for happiness.” Being the daughter of Eugene McDonald, founder of the Zenith Corporation, she understood the potential of technology and 1 2

First published in Geneva in 1572. See LSJ Preface 1928, v.

xi

xii

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PROJECT

recognized that computers could do in seconds what years of manual data collection had failed to accomplish. So, it was a young classicist’s search for “terms for happiness” that provided the impetus for the creation of the digital thesaurus, fittingly named Thesaurus Linguae Graecae after its Renaissance predecessor. THE EARLY DAYS The TLG was officially established on October 0, 1972, the date of the first Planning Conference held at the University of California, Irvine. However, the idea behind the project and the discussions about its feasibility had begun much earlier. Prior to the conference, the scope of the project was defined as “a lexicographical work that will collect, sort, and identify every single word extant in ancient Greek literary and non-literary documents.”4 The 1972 conference established many of the principles that governed the project for years to come, such as its chronological scope, the selection of appropriate text editions, and policies to be followed regarding digitization. At the recommendation of David W. Packard,5 it was decided that the TLG would not be a lexicon, as the name “thesaurus” indicates, but a collection of texts that would provide the data for the subsequent creation of dictionaries. This was a critical decision. Had the Planning Committee opted for the creation of a dictionary, the TLG would have been in the same position as many other lexicographical projects that take decades or even centuries to complete.6 The TLG, true to its name, is a “treasure-house” of Greek literature. The chronological scope of the project was initially set to cover texts from Homer to 200 A.D., an arbitrary cut-off date that was adjusted first to A.D. 400 and later to A.D. 600. It was also agreed that the TLG would not contain epigraphical and papyrological works, with the exception of literary works The conference was attended by Winfried Buehler (University of Hamburg), Aubrey Diller (University of Indiana), Wilhelm Ehlers (TLL in Munich), G. M. A. Grube (Trinity College), Albert Henrichs (Harvard University), Charles Murgia (UC Berkeley), Brooks Otis (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), Jaan Puhvel (UCLA), Bruno Snell (University of Hamburg), Stephen Waite (Dartmouth College), Marianne McDonald (UCI), David W. Packard (UCLA), and the Classics faculty at UC Irvine. The undertaking was considered so important that UC Irvine’s first Chancellor, Daniel G. Aldrich, attended the conference. 4 TLG Archives (1972). 5 David W. Packard, son of the cofounder of Hewlett-Packard, received a PhD in Classics from Harvard University and was at the time a professor of Classics at the University of California, Los Angeles. 6 The Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, which was established in Munich in 189 , is still in progress more than one hundred years later.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PROJECT

xiii

preserved on papyri or inscriptions, and that it would not include the critical apparatus of the texts. Theodore F. Brunner, chair of Classics at the time, was named the first TLG director, a position he held for twenty-five years. Marianne McDonald, whose generous gift made this ambitious undertaking possible, insisted on anonymity until her graduation from the University of California at Irvine, and attended the conference as a member of the Classics Department.7 A major factor in the successful implementation of the project was the contribution of David W. Packard and his team, especially William Johnson,8 who together created the Ibycus system, namely the hardware and software originally used to check the spelling and formatting of the digitized texts and to search the TLG corpus. Packard also developed the character and formatting encoding convention for Greek, known as Beta Code. Beta Code assigns an ASCII position to each of the twenty-four Greek letters. Diacritics are indicated by nonalphabetic characters following the accented vowel. Due to its simple structure, Beta Code remains to this day the most practical way to encode polytonic Greek data.9 After considering various options, the project decided that digitization could be done more efficiently and economically via keyboarding, originally in Korea, later in the Philippines, and for the last thirty years in China. Given the volume of digitization and need for accuracy, scanning and optical character recognition would not be financially sustainable options. Today, the texts are shipped to China, where typists, ignorant of Greek, key the characters in Beta code together with the necessary encoding. The digital files are then returned to the United States, where they are checked for errors with special correction software.10 In the early days of the project, digital texts were disseminated on magnetic tapes. In 1985 Packard and William Johnson cofounded the Ibycus Systems Inc. and developed the Ibycus Personal Scholarly Computer (PSC), 7

After her graduation, Marianne McDonald went on to a successful career as professor of Theatre and Classics at the University of California, San Diego. She maintained a close relationship with the TLG. Her role in the creation of the project became known later. In 1999 she was honored by the American Philological Association (now the Society for Classical Studies) with the Distinguished Service Award. 8 William Johnson, an important contributor to the TLG, returned to the TLG in the early 1990s to serve as TLG’s assistant director. He is now Professor of Classics and Dean of Humanities at Duke University. 9 Greek texts contain idiosyncratic characters that cannot be encoded in Unicode. Among other advantages, Beta code can represent such characters. 10 Formatting and spelling check was originally performed by Ibycus. In 1999 a new correction and formatting verification system was developed.

xiv

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PROJECT

the first computer to allow the editing, search, and retrieval of classical texts in a fully integrated desktop package. Designed before the introduction of the Apple Macintosh, this personal computer combined multilingual word processing with a high-speed CD ROM–based delivery system for large text data.11 Packard (assisted by Johnson and Wilkins Poe) also developed the indices and other subsystems that permitted rapid search and retrieval of TLG texts on CD ROM. With their help, the TLG took the first step towards a wider distribution of its digital data, namely the production of the first TLG disk (TLG A), containing twenty-seven million words. In 1988, the TLG released an updated CD ROM (TLG C) with forty-two million words, followed by TLG D with fifty-six million words in 1992. TLG A was the first compact disk ever produced. This disk, which was designed to be read by Ibycus, did not contain any search software. As microcomputers became more popular and readily available in the late 1980s, a number of search programs were developed by independent software developers to search the TLG disk on Macintosh or PC computers. Nevertheless, Ibycus PSC had an important impact on subsequent developments in the field of text processing and was formative in motivating scholars of antiquity to utilize computer resources well ahead of their peers in allied disciplines. In 199 , in the middle of a budget crisis, the University of California offered its faculty incentives for early retirement. Both Brunner and Berkowitz opted to retire but were recalled at 50 percent time to ensure the smooth transition of the project as Brunner's successor was being recruited. This was a critical moment for the project. All options were considered, including the possibility of downsizing the TLG to a small unit that would license CD ROMs. Three years later, I joined the TLG as the second TLG director. MOVING INTO THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY At the beginning of my term, a number of critical choices had to be made. Due to Theodore Brunner’s early retirement and the protracted search for his successor, the project had gone through a period of reduced activity. This would have been a normal development of little consequence under different circumstances, but by 1996 technology was already moving rapidly and web technologies were making huge strides. The TLG was hampered by once revolutionary but now outdated technology. The Project had no technical expertise, no knowledge on how to produce a new compact disk to disseminate 11

Linda W. Helgerson, CD-ROM and Scholarly Research in the Humanities, Computers and the Humanities 22, no. 2 (1988) 111–16, www.jstor.org stable 0200107.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PROJECT

xv

its data, and the Ibycus system could no longer handle the increased volume of texts and bibliographies. The Packard Humanities Institute (PHI) was no longer able to assist in the production of an updated disk. The TLG needed an infrastructure based on contemporary, widely used technologies and qualified research and programming staff capable of performing the complex interdisciplinary tasks dictated by the nature of the project. These included the development of an in-house system to replace Ibycus, capable of checking the formatting and morphology of texts software to produce CD-ROMs and make the TLG data immediately available; and an online search and retrieval system to move TLG dissemination to the Internet. The first priority was to form a team capable of performing these tasks. Nick Nicholas and Nishad Prakash joined the TLG in February 1999. For six months we worked around the clock to update the TLG data and infrastructure. Nicholas undertook the project of developing software to check the formatting and spelling of the digitized texts. Prakash focused his attention on transferring the Canon data to a relational database and on developing a webbased system for cataloguing and editing the bibliographies. By the summer of 1999, we had a new text correction system and a database designed to store the bibliographical data. Migration out of Ibycus was a Herculean task that took months to prepare and execute. Thousands of texts had to be downloaded from a system with limited memory and networking capabilities. For two months, we worked shifts downloading data, one filet at a time. Large files were particularly difficult to download because Ibycus froze whenever a text exceeded its memory capabilities. Some texts were corrupted and had to be manually reconstructed. The Canon file containing thousands of bibliographical records was too large to download and had to be broken into pieces. When it was finally extracted, all formatting was lost and had to be reentered manually. At the end it took weeks of nonstop work, sometimes till early morning hours, to complete all the tasks and meet our deadlines. In September 1999, Ibycus was disconnected and replaced by the new in-house system. With the necessary infrastructure in place, the next task was to produce a new and long-anticipated TLG CD-ROM. Work on TLG E began in the summer of 1999. In the absence of technical documentation, Nicholas decoded the format developed by the Packard team so that the new disk would be compatible with existing search software developed by independent developers. TLG E was the only disk produced in-house by the TLG. It contained all data collected by the project including new data collected between 1992 and 1999. The most important development was that the project had a better understanding of its data and therefore the ability to move forward confidently without relying on outside entities.

xvi

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PROJECT

By 1999 the TLG had a considerable presence in the scholarly community, and there was a need to protect its name and safeguard its international reputation. To this end, we applied for and were granted three trademarks for the name, acronym, and TLG logo. The TLG trademarks were the first ever registered at the University of California, Irvine. In April of 2001 the Project went online, moving away from the earlier CD-ROM format. By then it was clear that the Internet was destined to become the preferred medium for data dissemination. Investing in two different technologies was not a wise use of resources. Additionally, relying on independent developers to maintain search software of TLG data had proven to be risky. By the time TLG E was released, several CD-ROM software packages were no longer supported. Continued maintenance of a TLG-developed search engine involved a serious commitment on our part, but it also ensured that scholars and students of Greek could always count on a constantly updated and well-functioning site. In addition to programming tasks, massive correction of the texts was undertaken during this time. The new verification and correction system (V C) allowed the TLG to check the digitized texts more efficiently. With new tools in place, the corpus was able to undergo expansion on a previously unseen scale. An abridged version of the corpus was established containing a number of authors that have traditionally been used in college-level instruction of Greek, namely Homer and Hesiod, the dramatists, Plato and Aristotle, Xenophon, the Attic orators, and a selection of patristic authors. The abridged version was designed to make the TLG accessible to secondary education and small undergraduate programs. Over time it has served a number of purposes. As text editions are updated, earlier versions are added to the Abridged TLG, which has continued to grow as a smaller open-access corpus. In 2002, thanks to an equipment grant from Sun Microsystems, the online TLG was installed on an UltraSPARC-II server, which was appropriately dubbed “Stephanus.” This server has since been replaced by several generations of servers that can sustain high usage and provide fast access to the TLG data. Today, the TLG collection contains almost three times as many texts as the E disk, with holdings reaching into the twentieth century. Work is underway to fill in remaining gaps and to complete the early modern and modern collection. Existing texts are also updated as new editions and revised readings become available. Concurrently with the expansion of the corpus, the conception of the Canon has been both refined and expanded. In addition to assigning a four-digit number to each author and a three-digit number to each work, the Canon database now includes a complex citation system that describes the structure of each text included in the TLG.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PROJECT

xvii

The original goal of the project was to produce digital copies of critical editions of ancient Greek. This was an extraordinary endeavor in the 1980s. But these goals had been accomplished by the early 1990s, and it was important for the project to move forward and engage in innovative research. In the late 1980s, Ihor Sevcenco, in his role as chair of the APA-appointed advisory committee, advocated for the inclusion of Byzantine texts in the corpus. His efforts met with great resistance. The committee eventually reached a compromise and agreed to include texts of potential interest to classicists, namely late historiographical and lexicographical texts, as well as the Byzantine scholia. In a meeting at Dumbarton Oaks in 2004, Ihor Secvenco told me how he “forced his way” onto the committee to ensure that Byzantine texts would be included. Looking back, this was a decisive moment in the history of the project. When I joined the TLG, I was convinced it should be a corpus containing all of Greek literature, and for the last twenty-five years we have focused our research on the literary production of postclassical periods. Several years on, Byzantine studies are flourishing, in no small part thanks to the availability of Byzantine materials provided by the TLG. Scholarship in earlier periods has likewise benefited enormously from the wealth of information contained in Byzantine texts. The expansion of the corpus into the post-Byzantine era is certain to call attention to hitherto unknown texts and to continue to be a stimulus for new research.12 THE UNICODE INITIATIVE Before the advent of the Internet, a number of fonts had been developed to display Greek characters. These ad hoc font collections made it possible for classicists to enter Greek with their word processing software. However, the lack of compatibility and of a uniform standard among these various fonts prevented the sharing of documents across different platforms. The Unicode Consortium was established to address the needs of world languages and to provide a consistent standard for representing all known language scripts.1 From 2002 to 2004 we undertook the task of collecting and documenting all 12

The TLG originally limited its coverage to literary texts. Documentary papyri and inscriptions were digitized by the Packard Humanities Institute (PHI). This restriction does not apply to works of later periods. Although the focus remains on literary texts, the TLG is now systematically digitizing sub-literary texts. 1 The Unicode Consortium was established to “standardize, extend and promote the Unicode character encoding, a fixed-width, 16-bit character encoding for over 60,000 graphic characters. For the history of Unicode, see http www.unicode.org history summary.html.

xviii

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PROJECT

known Greek characters, alphabetic and nonalphabetic, to be proposed for inclusion in the Unicode Standard. Our research results were presented to the Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) in a series of meetings during this period. Some 215 characters attested in Greek texts—including epigraphical, papyrological, and editorial characters, ancient acrophonic numerals, metrical and numerical sigla, and New Testament editorial symbols—were documented with all their variants and approved for inclusion by the Unicode Consortium and subsequently by the International Standards Organization (ISO), ensuring that polytonic Greek could be uniformly read across all computer platforms and browsers.14 The TLG has continued to provide information to software and font developers and to maintain guides on the use and properties of Greek characters.

LEMMATIZATION AND ONLINE LEXICA Because of the highly inflected nature of Greek and the linguistic and orthographic heterogeneity of the corpus, searching the TLG for individual word-forms can be tedious. In 200 , the TLG embarked on a massive goal the complete lemmatization of its corpus. The first effort to employ computers in the morphological analysis of Greek was undertaken in the early 1970s by David Packard,15 who estimated that approximately 9 to 94 percent of classical Greek texts could be lemmatized automatically. Given the extensive diachronic and dialectical coverage of the TLG corpus, automatic lemmatization proved to be a project of enormous complexity. It required extensive documentation of numerous and often conflicting morphological rules that describe the morphology of the language over a period of three thousand years and the development of a large database of dictionary forms. To this end, the TLG digitized and extracted headwords from a large number of dictionaries of ancient, medieval, and modern Greek. The extraction of headwords was only one step towards increasing automatic recognition. Extensive coding and manual intervention were required to improve form parsing and recognition and to minimize ambiguity. Today the TLG lemmatizer is a powerful system that can automatically recognize 98.4 percent of all Greek word-forms, including Byzantine and modern, thus exceeding all earlier expectations. 14

See TLG Unicode proposals at E-Scholarship Open Access Publications from the University of California, https escholarship.org uc tlg unicode. As of Unicode version 5.1, all characters proposed by the TLG are part of the Unicode Standard. See also the TLG uick Reference Guide www.tlg.uci.edu encoding quickbeta.pdf. 15 David W. Packard, “Computer-Assisted Morphological Analysis of Ancient Greek,” Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Computational Linguistics, vol. 2 (197 ), 4 –55, https doi. org 10. 115 992567.992595.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PROJECT

xix

As part of the lemmatization project, the TLG became active in developing and making available online lexica. The first major effort in this direction was the most ambitious: the digitization of the Liddell-Scott-Jones (LSJ) dictionary first released in 2009. A massive volume comprising twenty-two hundred pages printed in miniscule font, full of abbreviated forms, and organized by an inconsistent structure, LSJ remains the best and most used lexicographical tool in the field. Digitizing, encoding, and correcting LSJ took me five years of intense work to complete. The end result is an accurate and highly functional resource used by millions of students around the globe. The digitization of Cunliffe’s Lexicon of Homeric Greek and Powell’s Lexicon to Herodotus followed in 2012. At the same time, we extracted headwords and meanings from the Bauer-Danker Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG) and G. W. H. Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon. In 201 the TLG and the Austrian Academy of Sciences joined forces to create a digital version of E. Trapp’s Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität (LBG), the premier dictionary for Byzantine Greek. In 2020 the project released a searchable version of Koumanoudes’s Συναγωγή νέων λέξεων. A number of other lexica have been indexed and linked to the texts. These include Kriaras's Epitome of the lexicon of Medieval Greek, Triantafyllides Λεξικό της κοινής νεοελληνικής, both available through the portal of the Center for the Greek Language, the Diccionario Griego–Español (DGE), Slater's Lexicon to Pindar and the Montanari-Perrone Supplementary Lexicon of Ancient Greek (WIP). Digitization of dictionaries will continue as TLG expands its holdings to later periods. In 2015 a completely overhauled web site was released. The new site, still in use as of 2022, provides an extensive search-and-retrieval system that allows for highly sophisticated tasks to be performed. It includes expanded searching of the Canon data and takes advantage of the TLG lemmatizer. Its improved text search interface allows Boolean searches with regular expression capabilities, intertextual searches, statistical analysis, ability to compare texts for similarities and differences, and numerous other features that expand the reach and functionality of the TLG. ear 2022 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the project. The TLG corpus has been available in more than one thousand universities and research centers in seventy-four countries across the world and is used by millions of researchers, educators, and students from a wide range of disciplines including Classics, Byzantine studies, history, art, philosophy, linguistics, and religious studies, to name a few. What started out as a search for “terms of happiness” has become a transformative enterprise with the potential to foster research in Greek studies for years to come.

CLASSIFICATIONS AND CONVENTIONS

THE CANON STANDARD

The Canon of Greek Authors and Works was originally developed as an inhouse catalog of works to be used as a record-keeping aid to the TLG staff. As its data increased, the TLG research team realized that the extensive research required for the compilation of the Canon should be shared widely with the scholarly community in both print and digital format.1 Over time the Canon grew into a comprehensive catalog of Greek authors and their works and a bibliographic guide to their print publications. The importance of this effort goes beyond its end product. Identifying and collecting all authors and works from antiquity to the present era, resolving authorship questions, establishing dates, and ascertaining literary contributions is no trivial task. When the TLG was first established, the expectation was that four to six hundred authors had survived up to A.D. 5. The actual number of extant authors from this period is more than eighteen hundred, while the total number of authors identified by the TLG to date exceeds forty-five hundred. The online version of the Canon provides information about authors and works represented by texts in the corpus. It is structured as an expandable and constantly evolving database organized by fields to facilitate searching of the extensive data developed by the project. This printed version offers much broader coverage of extant authors and is not limited to one text edition per work. It includes information about authors known only by name or title as well as authors whose writings have only partially survived through later testi1

The TLG first published its Canon data in 1977 and 1987, before the formal publication by Oxford University Press in 1990. Digital copies of the Canon were included in TLG CD ROMs.

xxi

xxii

CLASSIFICATIONS

monia. The print version attempts to catalog as many major editions of texts as possible whether or not they are part of the online corpus.2 For practical reasons, research on the Canon has progressed in chronologically structured phases.3 Phase I: Homer to A.D. 200. During this phase, most major classical authors were collected and digitized in accordance with the original mandate of the project. Phase II: A.D. 200 to A.D. 400. This phase represented the first extension of the project beyond its original goal to cover late antiquity. Phase III: A.D. 400 to A.D. 600. This phase was undertaken in the mid- to late ’80s, when the project was expanded to include a selection of early patristic texts. Phase IV: A.D. 600 to A.D. 1453. Between 1988 and 1994 the project was extended to include selected historiographical and lexicographical works from the Byzantine period as well as scholia to classical authors. Systematic work on all genres of this period began in 1998. Phase V: A.D. 1453 to A.D. 1800. This is the most recent phase of the project, focusing on post-Byzantine and early modern Greek literature. A number of authors and works from this period have been added and included in the present volume. From our perspective, no literary period is ever considered complete. The ancient corpus is well represented, but new readings and new critical editions appear regularly, making it necessary for us to constantly update our text editions and bibliographical records. The Byzantine collection is well represented, but a number of manuscripts are yet to be published and a large number of works exist in older, noncritical editions, often based on incomplete compilation of extant manuscripts. The post-fifteenth-century collection is ongoing.

2

The number of authors collected in the TLG exceeds by a factor of two the number of authors currently included in the online version. 3

For a history of the Canon, see Luci Berkowitz, “Ancilla to the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, the TLG Canon,” in Accessing Antiquity: The Computerization of Classical Studies, ed. Jon Solomon (Tucson University of Arizona Press, 199 ), 4–61.

CLASSIFICATIONS

xxiii

CANON CONVENTIONS The conventions that have guided the compilation of the Canon were set in the early days of the project and have, to the extent possible, been used consistently throughout. As the TLG moved into the Byzantine and later periods, some of the Canon conventions had to be refined and expanded. Each Canon entry includes three components: Author, Work, and Print Publication. TLG AUTHOR A permanent four-digit identification number (author ID) is assigned to each author. A four-digit number is sometimes assigned to a commonly recognized collection of works, such as the New Testament, or any collection of works that cannot be attributed to a specific author, such as the lives of saints or the scholia to ancient works.4 Work collections are assigned a date, where possible. Where no specific date can be given, the designation Varia’ is used. The author ID is located in the right-hand margin of the page. Where the TLG has no information about an author’s works, even as a title, the name of the author alone may be listed, with a number assigned to the author. This is done with the assumption that more information about the author may be obtained in the future. Occasionally, the name of an author or work collection has no ID assigned to it. This happens when the author is better known by a different name or his/her entry is located at a different section of the Canon. In such cases, author information includes a cross-reference. For example, ATHENAÏS-EUDOCIA is a cross-reference to EUDOCIA AUGUSTA Poet. (2766). Similarly, Macarius MELISSENUS, the sixteenth-century metropolitan of Monembasia, thought to be the author of the Chronicon Maius, is carried under the name Pseudo-SPHRANTZES ( 14 ), while the VETUS TESTAMENTUM exists under the name assigned to the Greek version of the Old Testament, that is, the SEPTUAGINTA (0527). Authors are identified by name (alternate name(s) may also be listed), by date (indicating the century of the author’s floruit), and by a number of epithets. Epithets indicate the literary activity they engaged in (generic epithet), 4

TLG Author IDs are assigned in ascending order, which provides an indication about the phase they belong to. Early classical authors (Phase I) are found in the 1–2000 range. The 000 range has been used mostly for early Byzantine authors, while the 4000 range is assigned to late Byzantine authors. Hagiographical works are grouped in the 5000–5500 range, and post-sixteenth-century authors are assigned numbers above 9000.

xxiv

CLASSIFICATIONS

the geographic areas where they lived (geographic epithet), and other affiliations (nonstandard generic epithet). Work collections are identified by genre. AUTHOR ORDERING Authors are arranged alphabetically with their names in boldface capital letters.5 As a rule, names of authors and works are rendered in Latin. When a name or title resists Latinization, Greek or alternate names are used. This is particularly common in later periods where the Greek rendering of the name may be preferable. For example, no effort is made to render the Byzantine parody known as SPANOS ( 199) in Latin. Authors with identical names are distinguished by their descriptive epithets. Authors with identical names and descriptive epithets are ordered by TLG Author number. Names with a prefix such as Pseudo- and Protoare alphabetized by the second part of their hyphenated name. For example, Pseudo-Lucianus appears immediately after Lucianus. Earlier authors are typically ordered by their traditionally known names. Thus, APOLLONIUS Rhodius (0001) is alphabetized as Apollonius and not by his geographic affiliation (Rhodius). In cases where author names have survived with praenomen, nomen, and cognomen, the Canon uses the most recognized name. For example, Publius Cornelius SCIPIO is listed under Scipio. Ordering of names becomes considerably more complex in later periods. When the family name (surname patronymic) of the author is known, the author is identified by surname, whereas in cases where the author is commonly recognized by an attributive or descriptive by-name, the first name is used. Thus, Georgius ACROPOLITES ( 141) is listed under his surname, while GEORGIUS Nicomediensis ( 292) is alphabetized under his first name. JOANNES Chrysostomus is alphabetized as JOANNES, as are JOANNES Diaconus and JOANNES Patriarcha II. Generally, it is assumed that surnames were common after A.D. 8. Square brackets are used to question the authenticity of the name or the existence of the author. For example, [HEGESINUS] Epic. (1 95) is bracketed because our only source for the author is Pausanias, who vaguely identifies him as the author of the poem Atthis citing Callippus of Corinth. Only a fragment of the poem has survived and no other testimony about the author exists. Angle brackets are used to question the attribution of a certain work to the author. For example,