Histos 9 (2015) 67–75

A NEW FRAGMENT FOR NICOLAUS OF

DAMASCUS? A NOTE ON SUDA α 1272

Abstract: This paper deals with Suda α 1272, providing its source, namely Nicolaus of Damas-
cus, abridged by the Constantinian compilers and possibly depending on Xanthus of Lydia.

Keywords: Suda, Excerpta Constantiniana, Alcaeus, Heracles, Nicolaus of Damascus,

Xanthus of Lydia

A
recognised principle in the scholarship on the Suda-Lexicon is that its
compiler (or compilers) did not quote directly all the sources they cited.
In particular, they quoted historical sources through Mittelquellen. Al-
ready in 1912, C. de Boor claimed the dependence on the Excerpta Constantiniana
of the historical lemmata which are not derived from lexica and scholia, and that
important result was to be accepted three years later by J. Becker.1 Ada Adler
summed the matter up clearly in the Prolegomena of her 1928 edition of the Suda:
‘Veri Suidae fontes non ii scriptores sunt, quos prooemium mendax enumerat,
nec ii qui in glossis totiens citantur, sed compilationes quaedam recentiores,
quarum praecipuae nuper detectae sunt.’ She also pointed out that ‘Suidas
nullum librum historicum, sed tantum compilationes recentissimas excerpsit’
and even drew up a list of the historical sources of the Lexicon, transmitted
through the Excerpta Constantiniana.2 The purpose of this paper is to identify the
anonymous source of a lemma, the ultimate one, and its compiled Mittelquelle.
This lemma is α 1272 Ἀλκαῖος and is devoted to a character of Lydian mythical
history. The lemma does not depend on any transmitted scholia or lexical entries.
Consequently, if the compiler(s) of the Lexicon depended for this entry on
some ‘historical’ Excerpta, reporting features of Lydian history or pseudo-his-
tory, we have to look in one of them for its source. In order to find out this
source, a crossed, linguistical analysis of some rare or meaningful iuncturae, at-
tested in the lemma, will help, on the one hand, to rule out, among the authors
who used those iuncturae, both the fully transmitted and the fragmentary ones
who are not supposed to have dealt with the subject and are not classified
among the sources of the Byzantine Excerpta. On the other hand, it will also
help to single out, among the fragmentary ones, the ‘right’ author or authors

1
Cf. de Boor (1912) and (1914–1919). See also Becker (1915) 10–16, at 13.
2
Adler (1928–1938) I.xvi and xix. For a list of the historical sources of the Suda-Lexicon,
cf. xix–xxi. See also Adler (1931) 700–6.

ISSN: 2046-5963 Copyright © 2015 Annalisa Paradiso 27 February 2015

68 Annalisa Paradiso

who possibly dealt with the subject and appear as the sources of the Byzantine
compilations.3

***
The Suda entry α 1272 provides some, very limited, information about the
mythical Alcaeus, ancestor of the Lydian Heraclid dynasty according to He-
rodotus.4 He is introduced as the son of Heracles and Omphale, and also as a
handsome and courageous man:

Ἀλκαῖος· Ὀµφάλης καὶ Ἡρακλέους. ἐγένετο µέγας καὶ ἰσχυρὸς καὶ τὰ

πολέµια γενναῖος.

Alcaeus, son of Omphale and Heracles. He was tall and strong, and
brave in war.

This genealogy seems unique in all the transmitted traditions. The source
of the lemma is the first to attribute to Omphale a son of Heracles, named Alcaeus
(in the early Greek tradition, the name of Amphitryon’s father, and later even
the original name of Heracles himself);5 this tradition was to remain strictly
isolated, unless it has been varied later (see below). In fact, most ancient testi-
monies only know a tradition about a son, who will be the founder of the Lyd-
ian dynasty, born to Heracles by a slave-girl of Iardanus (Alcaeus according to
Herodotus 1.7) or a son by Malis, a slave of Omphale (Acelus in Hellanicus FGrHist
4 F 112 = 28 Ambaglio = 112 Caerols). So, Herodotus and the source of the
lemma are the only ones to link genealogically Heracles and Alcaeus in a fixed
schema, varying the name of Alcaeus’ mother. Later, the name of Heracles’
Anatolian ‘wife’ may still change according to tradition, but so does also the
name of his son, within different genealogical relationships. With the Carian
Barge and her son Bargasus, and the latter’s son Cyardus, Apollonius of Aph-
rodisias gave a rare variant of Heracles’ Anatolian progeniture, nowhere else
attested (BNJ 740 FF 2 and 3a). According to Apollonius himself, Diodorus
4.31.8, and Ovid, Heroides 9.54, Omphale had by Heracles a son, Lamus. Dio-
dorus adds that Heracles fathered a son, named Cleodaeus, with a slave-

For a concrete and fruitful application of this principle, see now Favuzzi (1999), (2004a),
3

(2004b), (2004c), (2005), (2006), (2007a), (2007b), (2007c), (2008a), (2008b), (2009–2010),
(2011–2012a), (2011–2012b), (2013), and (2014); and, recently, the reflections of Schepens
(2010) 10–11. For an analysis of the different sources of the historical lemmata of the Suda-
Lexicon, cf., in a different perspective, Prandi (1999) 9–28.
4
Hdt. 1.7. On Alcaeus, cf. Wentzel (1894) 1498.
5
Cf. Hes. Sc. 26; Pi. O. 6.68; E. HF 2; D.S. 1.24; 4.10.
 A Note on Suda α 1272 69

woman before Omphale set him free and married him. Other names for Om-
phale’s son are Acheles in the scholion T to Ω 616 and Agelaus in Pseudo-Apol-
lodorus, Library 2.7 (165), unless they are, along with Acelus, variants of ‘Al-
caeus’. Pausanias 2.21.3 suggests yet other names, that of Tyrsenus, as son of
Heracles by ‘the Lydian woman’ (Omphale?), and also that of Hegeleus,
Tyrsenus’ son. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 1.28.1 spoke of
Tyrrhenus, the son of Heracles by Omphale, as the supposed founder of the
Etruscan settlements.6
The source of the lemma is anonymous as it does not belong to any fully
transmitted author: nonetheless, it is possible to identify it. The lemma does not
depend on any transmitted scholion or lexicon. Consequently, we have to look
in one of the Byzantine historical Excerpta for its source. A lexical inquiry
reveals that the syntagma τὰ πολέµια γενναῖος is not so common (above all if
compared to the more widespread τὰ πολέµια δεινός), as it is only attested
eighteen times since the first century BC (and never before) until the thirteenth
to fourteenth centuries AD, namely eleven times before the Suda-Lexicon and
twice in the Suda itself. More precisely, before the Suda-Lexicon it is attested
three times in Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Roman Antiquities 3.65.6; 4.17.4;
10.24.3), twice in Nicolaus of Damascus (FGrHist FF 49 and 63, both
transmitted by the Excerpta Constantiniana de virtutibus et vitiis), twice in Arrian
(Alexander’s Anabasis 5.4.4 and 5.25.1), twice in Flavius Philostratus (Heroicus
26.15 and 34.1), perhaps once in Origen (Fragmenta ex commentariis in epistulam ad
Ephesios (in catenis) 33, l. 26: a quite obscure passage), and once in Nicephorus
I, the Christian Byzantine writer and Patriarch of Constantinople of the eighth
to ninth century (Breviarium historicum de rebus gestis post imperium Mauricii (e cod.
Vat. Gr. 977) p. 19, l. 5). Accordingly, the inquiry shows that the only
fragmentary and ‘useful’ authors in whom τὰ πολέµια γενναῖος is attested are
Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Nicolaus of Damascus. Both are in fact totally
or partially known in fragments, and are also ‘useful’ for our research, as they
dealt with the myth-historical subject—Heracles—and above all were known
to the compiler of the Lexicon through the Byzantine Excerpta. The other
authors where the iunctura is attested are instead either fully transmitted
authors or a fragmentary Christian source such as Origen, who is most unlikely
to have dealt with these characters, especially the Lydian genealogy of
Heracles, and who was not directly quoted by the author(s) of the Suda, and so
is not recorded in Adler’s list of the sources of the Lexicon. Of course we
cannot completely rule out the dependence of the entry on other fragmentary
authors read and used by the Suda-compiler(s) as historical sources, such as

6
On Omphale, Queen of Lydia, daughter of Iardanus, widow of King Tmolus and lover
of Heracles, who served her for one year in expiation of the murder of Iphitus, see Schau-
enburg (1960); Boardman (1994); Wulff Alonso (1996); Ruiz de Elvira (2001).
70 Annalisa Paradiso

John of Antioch, even if he seems not to have dealt with Lydian history, at least
in the extant fragments (but he could have done in some lost parts of his work).
In the Antiochene, the iunctura τὰ πολέµια γενναῖος is not attested but could
theoretically have been employed in one or more lost fragments. However,
John of Antioch, who employs eighteen times the adjective γενναῖος in the
extant fragments, nowhere links it to τὰ πολέµια, preferring instead δεινὸς τὰ
πολέµια, at least in F 118 Müller (201 Roberto/142 Mariev), and τὰ πολέµια
δεινῶς ἦν ἠσκηµένος in F 155 Müller (235 Roberto/180 Mariev).
Of the two selected authors, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Nicolaus of
Damascus, the former may be ruled out. In Roman Antiquities 1.28.1, Dionysius
in fact seems to know only a tradition that Tyrrhenus—and not Alcaeus—was
the son of Heracles by Omphale, and also the founder of the Etruscan settle-
ments.7 On the other hand Nicolaus of Damascus, in passages compiled by the
Byzantine Excerpta, employed τὰ πολέµια γενναῖος twice: in FGrHist 90 F 47 §3,
in the portrait of Gyges, and in F 63 §1 in that of Sadyattes, the grandson of
Gyges.8 In F 47 §3, Gyges is introduced as a tall (µεγέθει διαφέρων: cf. µέγας in
Suda α 1272) and handsome man, not only noble at war: ἦν δὲ ὁ Γύγης κάλλει
τε καὶ µεγέθει διαφέρων, τά τε πολέµια γενναῖος καὶ τῶν ἡλίκων µακρῷ τὰ πάντα
ἄριστος, ἵππων τε καὶ ὅπλων χρῆσιν ἤσκει (‘Gyges was very handsome and tall,
brave in war and much better in all fields than the people of the same age, and
practised in the use of horses and weapons’).9 In F 63 §1, Sadyattes is intro-
duced as follows: ὅτι Σαδυάττης ὁ Λυδῶν βασιλεύς, ᾽Αλυάττεω παῖς, ἦν µὲν τὰ
πολέµια γενναῖος, ἄλλως δὲ ἀκόλαστος (‘That Sadyattes, king of the Lydians,
son of Alyattes, was a brave king in war even if without restraint in other re-
spects’). Suda α 1423, devoted to Alyattes and reproducing τὰ πολέµια γενναῖος,
depends on Nicolaus FF 63–5.10 In my opinion, Suda α 1272 can also be plau-
sibly attributed to the compiled Nicolaus of Damascus, not only because it
contains the rare iunctura τὰ πολέµια γενναῖος which is attested in the fragmentary
Nicolaus, but also since the subject suits well Nicolaus’ Lydian history, dealt
with in FGrHist 90 FF 15–18, 22, 44–7, 62–5, and 68 of his Universal History.
Moreover, Nicolaus was well acquainted with the myth of Heracles’ madness
before accomplishing the twelve labours, reported in F 13.
All three statements of τὰ πολέµια γενναῖος, which can be certainly or likely
attributed to Nicolaus of Damascus, involve some characters of Lydian history
(Heracles and Alcaeus for the Heraclid dynasty, presented by Herodotus in

The same genealogy in Hyg. Fab. 274.20. See also Paus. 2.21.3.
7

de Boor (1905) 14; Büttner-Wobst and Roos (1906) 343.

8

9
For similar introductions by Nicolaus, for instance γενναῖον καὶ µεγαλόφρονα told of
Cyrus in F 66 §12, cf. Parmentier-Morin (2001) 94, 98.
10
Cf. Ada Adler in apparatu. For the exegetical problems posed by this lemma, see Paradiso
(2009).
 A Note on Suda α 1272 71

1.7; Gyges and Sadyattes for the Mermnads).11 We can possibly infer that all
of them may go back to Xanthus of Lydia, who was, for Lydian matters, the
only source of Nicolaus of Damascus, at most combined with Herodotus, if
F47 is a contamination of Xanthus’ story of Gyges with Herodotean features.12
11
On these dynasties, see Schubert (1884), at 5–7 on Alcaeus; Radet (1893); Mazzarino
(19892) 167–82, with the important objections put forward by Seel (1956); Talamo (1979), at
38–40 on Alcaeus.
12
Cf. F. Jacoby, Kommentar on FGrHist 90 F 71, p. 253, 38: ‘N.s quelle für alles lydische ist
Xanthos’. See also, for the contamination-hypothesis, Jacoby, Kommentar on FGrHist 90, p.
233, 35–6; F 15, p. 240, 24; FF 44–7, p. 245, 11–12, following Meyer (1892) 167. The relations
between Xanthus and Nicolaus are the object of a debate between those who affirm Nico-
laus’ direct dependence on Xanthus as to the Lydian section of his Universal History (that is
Nicolaus’ FF 15–18, 22, 44–7, 62–5, and perhaps 68) and those who deny it, supposing the
filter of a Hellenistic re-elaboration of Xanthus’ work. Others however deny a passive de-
pendence of Nicolaus on Xanthus, but suggest on the contrary a rewriting by the former.
See, among the first group of scholars, asserting direct dependence, Creuzer (1806) 200;
Pomtow (1886) 15–25, esp. 25; Radet (1893) 254; Seidenstücker (1895) 19–44; Jacoby, Kom-
mentar on FGrHist 90, p. 233, 42–4; Laqueur (1936) 375, 387–90; Pearson (1939) 122–3;
Wacholder (1962) 67, 86; Herter (1967) 1357 and especially 1373; Parke (1984) 218, 226–7;
Mazzarino (19892) 179 and nn. 526–7; Alonso Núñez (1995) 11; Högemann (2002) 604–5. On
the contrary, a first-hand consultation of Xanthus by Nicolaus is excluded by some scholars,
who consider the intermediate role possibly played by an epitome of Xanthus, made by a
certain Menippus (FGrHist 765 T 7), or by the forgeries attributed to Xanthus by Dionysius
Skytobrachion, according to a piece of information provided but also rejected by Ath.
12.515de (FGrHist 765 T 5), or by a Hellenistic revision of the Lydiaka. Cf. Welcker (1844) and
Tietz (1895–1896) 22–40; von Fritz (1967) I.88–98, esp. 97–8, and I/2 348–77 (Exkurs 2: Die
Λυδιακά des Lyders Xanthos); Drews (1973) 101–2 and 193–4 (at 101: ‘Xanthus’ work was epit-
omized by a certain Menippus, and the abbreviator may have done some revision as well’).
Regebogen (1943) 24 thought of Xenophilus FGrHist 767 F 1, depending on Xanthus, as
Nicolaus’ intermediary source. The hypothesis of a Mittelquelle transmitting Xanthus to Ni-
colaus—either Xenophilus or the Hellenistic reviser or even Dionysius Skytobrachion, not
Menippus who, as a compiler, did not add to the text or forge it but only abridged it—
seems to me too complicated, artificial and superfluous, besides being unproven or at least
imprecise and now largely dismissed: cf. Pomtow (1886) 2–7, esp. 6; von Gutschmid (1893)
309; Pearson (1939) 114; Herter (1967) 1356; Rusten (1982) 84. It seems even concretely ex-
cluded as most fragments reveal instead a direct connection with an epichoric source, that
is the original Xanthus: see FGrHist 765 TT 5 and 7 and, for the epichoric motifs, Diller
(1956). Toher (1989) esp. 169 has thought of a rewriting, by Nicolaus, of his sources, among
which also Xanthus. See also Radet (1893) 254; Pearson (1939) 131; Parke (1984) 226–7; and,
for a review of the different interpretations, Dorati (2009) 50 n. 49. These suppositions of
reworking, interpolation, and/or contamination with Herodotus, which may be discussed
in connection with some fragments of Nicolaus, are to be excluded at least for F 22, where
a literally close dependence of Nicolaus on Xanthus is not only much more economical but
seems even proved. Cf. a passage of Athenaeus, mentioning openly Xanthus on the same
subject as Nicolaus (Xanthus FGrHist 765 F 18, quoted in Deipnosophists 10.415cd). Both Ni-
colaus and Athenaeus seem to depend on Xanthus within two different historiographical
projects of selection and compilation from the Lydian’s text: cf. my ‘Commentary on Xanthos
of Lydia BNJ 765 F 18a and b’ and ‘Xanthus of Lydia, Source of Nicolaus of Damascus’
72 Annalisa Paradiso

Herodotus, however, cannot be the source of Nicolaus, as he transmitted, in

1.7, different genealogical information. For the same reason, Hellanicus too
cannot be Nicolaus’ source as to this fragment. In Nicolaus of Damascus
FGrHist 90 F 22, on the other hand, Xanthus named Iardanus (according to
the tradition, the king of Lydia, father of Omphale) as the person probably
responsible for King Camblitas’ poisoning by a drug and possibly his succes-
sor.13 If the Suda entry α 1272 may be attributed to Xanthus (through Nicolaus),
it is worth noting that the Lydian historian shared with Herodotus the record
of the name of Alcaeus, but not his genealogy. In fact, Herodotus and Xanthus
followed two close but different Greek, perhaps Ionian, traditions as to the
Lydian progeniture of Heracles. Xanthus was the first to attribute to Omphale
a son of Heracles, named Alcaeus: this tradition, as we have seen, was to re-
main essentially isolated.
In conclusion, I suggest that Suda α 1272, dealing with Lydian mythical
history, is derived from Nicolaus of Damascus, and probably ultimately from
Xanthus of Lydia.

ANNALISA PARADISO
Università della Basilicata [email protected]

(both in preparation). The reworking- or contamination-hypothesis may be also excluded

for Alcaeus’ genealogy, which cannot have been invented by Nicolaus and does not depend
on Herodotus (see supra). Nicolaus possibly reworked his sources from a literary and rhetor-
ical point of view (see Toher (1989)), without introducing nevertheless important foreign
elements: in his long history of the Lydian dynasty of the Heraclids, he cannot have invented
a different genealogy only for the first ancestor of the royal house, following then Xanthus’
one for his successors. Cf., for instance, Xanthus’ King Kambles (FGrHist 765 F 18), called
Kamblitas by Nicolaus FGrHist 90 F 22.
13
Cf. Nikolaos of Damaskos BNJ 90 F 22 and Xanthos of Lydia BNJ 765 F 18b, both in
preparation.
 A Note on Suda α 1272 73

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adler, A. (1928–1938) Suidae Lexicon, 5 vols. (Lipsiae).

Adler, A. (1931) ‘Suidas 1’, RE IV A 1: 700–6.
Alonso Núñez, J. M. (1995) ‘Die Weltgeschichte des Nikolaos von Damaskos’,
Storia della Storiografia 27: 3–15.
Becker, J. (1915) De Suidae Excerptis Historicis (Diss. Bonn).
Boardman, J. (1994) ‘Omphale’, LIMC VII.1: 45–53.
Büttner-Wobst, T. and A. G. Roos (1906) Excerpta de virtutibus et vitiis, vol. 1
(Berolini).
Creuzer, F. (1806) Historicorum Graecorum Antiquissimorum Fragmenta (Heidelberg).
de Boor, C. (1905) Excerpta de insidiis (Berlin).
—— (1912) ‘Suidas und die Konstantinsche Exzerptsammlung I’, BZ 21: 381–
424.
—— (1914–1919) ‘Suidas und die Konstantinsche Exzerptsammlung II’, BZ
23: 1–127.
Diller, H. (1956) ‘Zwei Erzählungen des Lyders Xanthos’, in Navicula Chi-
loniensis. Studia philologa F. Jacoby octogenario oblata (Leiden) 66–78 [now in H.-
J. Newiger and H. Seyffert, edd. (1971) H. Diller, Kleine Schriften zur antiken
Literatur (Munich) 451–63].
Dorati, M. (2009) ‘La storia lidia di Nicolao di Damasco’, in H.-J. Gehrke and
A. Mastrocinque, edd., Rom und der Osten im 1. Jahrhundert v.Chr. (Akkulturation
oder Kampf der Kulturen?)/Roma e l’Oriente nel I sec. A.C. (Acculturazione o scontro
culturale?) (Cosenza) 35–64.
Drews, R. (1973) The Greek Accounts of Eastern History (Cambridge, Ma.).
Favuzzi, A. (1999) ‘Su due frammenti storici adespoti della Suda’, AFLB 42:
119–27.
—— (2004a) ‘Frammenti di storia romana nella Suda’, AFLB 47: 199–208.
—— (2004b) ‘Un viaggio in Grecia’, in M. Pani, ed., VII.225–32.
—— (2004c) ‘Una nuova testimonianza sul trattato di pace romano-
cartaginese del 201 a.C.’, in M. Pani, ed., VII.233–9.
—— (2005) ‘Osservazioni su alcuni frammenti relativi ai re di Roma con-
servati nella Suda’, AFLB 48: 77–89.
—— (2006) ‘Tre vicende esemplari: nuovi frammenti di storia romana nella
Suda’, in M. Silvestrini, T. Spagnuolo Vigorita and G. Volpe, edd., Studi in
onore di Francesco Grelle (Bari) 109–16.
—— (2007a) ‘Due frammenti su Tito Manlio Torquato tramandati dalla Suda:
riconoscimento e attribuzione’, in M. Pani, ed., VIII.305–8.
—— (2007b) ‘La storia romana nel lessico della Suda: due nuove acquisizioni’,
in P. Desideri, M. Moggi and M. Pani, edd., Antidoron. Studi in onore di Bar-
bara Scardigli Forster (Pisa) 173–84.
74 Annalisa Paradiso

—— (2007c) ‘Il tesoro della Suda. Osservazioni su due frammenti anonimi’,

AFLB 50: 61–5.
—— (2008a) ‘Frammenti di storia assira nella Suda’, AFLB 51: 39–51.
—— (2008b) ‘False attribuzioni e nuovi riconoscimenti nella Suda’, AFLB 51:
53–61.
—— (2009–2010) ‘Notizie dalla Suda: nuove attribuzioni e agnizioni’, AFLB
52–3: 47–58.
—— (2011–2012a) ‘L’ “Eracleide” nascosta della Suda’, AFLB 54–5: 107–20.
—— (2011–2012b) ‘Congetture su due frammenti anonimi della Suda’, AFLB
54–5: 121–30.
—— (2013) ‘Da Xanto alla Suda e oltre’, AncSoc 43: 255–65.
—— (2014) ‘Alessandro e Clito (Suda µ 720 + οι 178 Adler)’, Histos 8: 320–8.
Herter, H. (1967) ‘Xanthos (25) der Lyder’, RE IX A 2: 1353–74.
Högemann, P. (2002) ‘Xanthos der Lyder (3)’, NP XII 2: 604–5.
Laqueur, R. (1936) ‘Nikolaos (20) von Damaskos’, RE XVII 1: 362–424.
Mazzarino, S. (19892) Fra Oriente e Occidente. Ricerche di storia greca arcaica (Milan)
[Florence 1947].
Meyer, E. (1892) Forschungen zur Alten Geschichte, vol. 1 (Halle).
Pani, M. ed. (1983–2007) Epigrafia e territorio. Politica e società. Temi di antichità
romane, 8 vols. (Bari).
Paradiso, A. (2009) ‘Aliatte a Priene?’, RFIC 137: 257–64.
Parke, H. W. (1984) ‘Croesus and Delphi’, GRBS 25: 209–32.
Parmentier-Morin, É. (2001) ‘L’usurpateur vertueux: histoire et propagande
dans l’œuvre de Nicolas de Damas, historien d’Hérode’, in M. Molin, ed.,
Images et représentations du pouvoir et de l’ordre social dans l’Antiquité (Paris) 91–9.
Pearson, L. (1939) Early Ionian Historians (Oxford).
Pomtow, P. (1886) De Xantho et Herodoto rerum lydiarum scriptoribus (Diss. Halis
Saxonum).
Prandi, L. (1999) ‘Tipologia e struttura dei lemmi di argomento greco nella
Suda’, in G. Zecchini, ed., Il lessico Suda e la memoria del passato a Bisanzio. Atti
della giornata di studio (Milano 29 aprile 1998) (Bari) 9–28.
Radet, G. (1893) La Lydie et le monde grec au temps des Mermnades (687–546) (Paris).
Regenbogen, O. (1943) Review of L. Pearson, Early Ionian Historians (1939), Gno-
mon 19: 8–26.
Ruiz de Elvira, A. (2001) ‘Ónfala’, CFC(L), n° extraordinario: 425–56 (=
CFC(L) 14 (1998): 27–55).
Rusten, J. S. (1982) Dionysius Scytobrachion (Opladen).
Schauenberg, K. (1960) ‘Herakles und Omphale’, RhM 103: 57–76.
Schepens, G. (2010) ‘L’incontournable Souda’, in G. Vanotti, ed., Il lessico Suda
e gli storici greci in frammenti (Rome) 1–42.
Schubert, R. (1884) Geschichte der Könige von Lydien (Breslau).
 A Note on Suda α 1272 75

Seel, O. (1956) ‘Herakliden und Mermnaden’, in Navicula Chiloniensis. Studia

philologa F. Jacoby octogenario oblata (Leiden) 37–65.
Seidenstücker, E. (1895) De Xantho Lydo rerum scriptore quaestiones selectae (Diss.
Sondershusae).
Talamo, C. (1979) La Lidia arcaica. Tradizioni genealogiche ed evoluzione istituzionale
(Bologna).
Tietz, P. (1895–1896) De Nicolai Damasceni fontibus quaestiones selectae (Diss.
Marpurgi).
Toher, M. (1989) ‘On the Use of Nicolaus’ Historical Fragments’, Classical An-
tiquity 8: 159–72.
von Fritz, K. (1967) Die Griechische Geschichtsschreibung 1.1: Text: Von den Anfängn
bis Thukydides and 1.2: Anmerkungen (Berlin).
von Gutschmid, A. (1893) ‘Aus Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der
griechischen Historiographie’, in Kleine Schriften, vol. 4 (Leipzig) 279–335.
Wacholder, B. Z. (1962) Nicolaus of Damascus (Berkeley and Los Angeles).
Welcker, F. G. (1844) ‘Über die unächten Lydiaka von Xanthos’, in Kleine
Schriften, vol. 1 (Bonn) 431–50.
Wentzel, G. (1894) ‘Alkaios 3’, RE I 1: 1498.
Wulff Alonso, F. (1996) ‘L’histoire d’Omphale et d’Héraclès’, in C. Jourdain-
Annequin and C. Bonnet, edd., Héraclès, les femmes et le féminin (Brussels and
Rome) 103–20.