Harpokratio ̄n of Argos (160 – 200 CE)
Platonist student of A (P In Tim. 1.305 Diehl), the confidant of some
Roman emperor (Souda A-4011: distinct from Verus’ tutor, SHA Verus 2.5). Two titles are
known: Commentary on Plato (24 books) and Platonic Lexicon (two books). In his commentary on
P’s Timaeus, following P and Atticus, he supports the Peripatetic interpret-
ation that the kosmos “came to be” in Time (Tim. 28b) and is indestructible only by the
Demiurge’s decree (Proklos in Remp. 2.10 Kroll). Harpokratio ̄n accords with N
in distinguishing three gods at Tim. 28c, hence making the Demiurge double (Proklos, In
Tim. 1.304–305 Diehl).
Dillon (1996) 258–262.
GLIM
H ⇒ (1) K; (2) A
H- ⇒ H-
H ⇒ A
He ̄ge ̄sianax of Alexandria Troas (215 – 175 BCE)
The poet He ̄ge ̄sianax was at the court of King Antiokhos III as “friend” (SH 464, heis ton
philo ̄n) because of the quality of his poetical work. He also wrote treatises On the style of
D and On the Poetical Style, as well as the very first Trojan historical work. He
composed an astronomical and mythological poem entitled Phainomena: P quotes
five hexameters of it about the Moon (De facie in orbe lunae 920C–921A = SH 466 – 467);
I H alludes to it regarding the constellations of Engonasin (Astr. 2.6), Ophiuchus
(Astr. 2.14) and Aquarius (Astr. 2.29).
BNP 6 (2005) 49–50, S. Fornaro.
Christophe Cusset
He ̄ge ̄sias of Magnesia on the Sipulos (ca 300 – ca 250 BCE)
Three writers named He ̄ge ̄sias should initially be distinguished: (1) the orator and historian
from Magnesia, well-known for his “Asianic” prose-style, who composed numerous works,
including what appears to be a description of Attica (S 9.1.16; FGrHist 142); (2) the
anethnic paradoxographer cited by V, 8.3.27, and Gellius, 9.4.3, as an authority
on places and waters; he is listed with other prominent Hellenistic authors, and in con-
text seems well-known; (3) the author from Maroneia whose work D C
excerpted for his agricultural florilegium (V, RR 1.1.8–10; cf. C, 1.1.9), and
who is cited by P for his book on large animals (1.ind.8). Radermacher treats (1) and
(2) as the same man, and hints at the identification of (2) and (3). The assimilation of all
three is probably justified; Cassius drew on other historians and paradoxographers for
his work (cf. D K, B S, A A), and
the conflicting ethnics of (1) and (3) can be explained by hypothesizing corruption of
ΜΑΓΝΗΣ or ΜΑΓΝΗΤΟΣ to ΜΑΡΟΝΙΤΗΣ. His appearance in only one of Pliny’s six
books on agriculture – unlike other authors with ethnic whom both he and Varro cite – may
HARPOKRATIO ̄N OF ARGOS