xos, or "Hospitum Exceptor," was born at Rome |
of a rich and noble family in the fifth century after
Christ. He studied medicine, not as a profession,
but as a means of being useful to the poor, whom
he attended gratuitously and with great success.
While still young he removed to Constantinople,
where he continued his charitable ministrations by
Converting his house into a hospital for the sick
poor; and where he was ordained priest at about
the age of thirty. Here he became acquainted
with the emperor Justinian, whom he cured of a
painful and obstinate disease; and whom he per-
suaded to build a hospital instead of conferring any
reward upon himself. Sampson did not live long
after this event, but died about the year 530 or
531. Numerous miracles are said to have been
wrought by him after his death, on account of
which he has been canonized by the Romish and
Greek churches. His hospital, which was near the
church of St. Sophia, was twice destroyed by fire,
but was rebuilt, and existed in full usefulness long
after his death. His memory is celebrated on
June 27. There is a long and interesting life of
St. Sampson by Simeon Metaphrastes, which is
inserted in the "Acta Sanctorum" (June, vol. v.
p. 261, &c.). See also Menolog. Graec. June 27,
vol. iii. p. 144; Bzovius, Nomenclator Sanctor.
Professione Medicor. An account of St. Sampson's
hospital may be found in Du Cange's CPolis
Christiana, iv. 9. 9.
[W. A. G.]

[AR

[AR

Philon Byblins. We likewise learn from Eusebius that Porphyrins had made great use of the writings of Sanchuniathon (of course the translation by Philon) in his work against the Christians, which has not come down to us. In that work he called Sanchuniathon a native of Berytus (Euseb. Praep. Ev. i. 6, x. 11). Next comes Eusebius himself, whose attention seems to have been first drawn to Sanchuniathon by the quotations in Porphyrius. It is evident from the language of Eusebius that he had consulted the translation of Philon himself, and that his acquaintance with the writer was not confined to the extracts in Porphyrius, as some modern scholars have asserted. Eusebius also calls Sanchuniathon a native of Berytus, but he says that his Phoenician history was divided into nine (not eight) books by Philon. This is all the independent testimony we possess respecting Sanchuniathon and the Greek translation by Philon, for it is pretty clear that subsequent writers who speak of both borrow their accounts either from Porphyrius or Eusebius. The most important later testimonies are those of Theodoretus and Suidas. The former writer says (de Cur. Graec. Affect. Serm. ii.): "Sanchuniathon, of Berytus, wrote the Theologia (eoλoyía) of the Phoenicians, which was translated into Greek by Philon, not the Hebrew but the Byblian." Theodoretus calls the work of Sanchuniathon a Theologia, on account of the nature of its contents. Suidas (s. v.) describes Sanchuniathon as a Tyrian philosopher, who lived at the time of the Trojan war, and gives the following list of his works: Περὶ τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ φυσιολογίας, ἥτις μεταφράσθη (namely, by Philon). Πάτρια Τυρίων τῇ Φοινίκων διαλέκτῳ, Αἰγυπτιακὴν Θεολογίαν καὶ ἄλλα τινά.

But such an enumeration of different works is of little value from an inaccurate compiler like Suidas. They are probably only different titles of the same work.

This

SANACHARIBUS. [SETHON.] SANATROCES, a king of Parthia. SACES XI.] SANATRUCES, a king of Armenia. SACIDAE, p. 363, a.] SANCHUNIATHON (Σαγχουνιάθων), an ancient Phoenician writer, whose works were translated into Greek by Philon Byblius, who lived in the latter half of the first century of the Christian aera A considerable fragment of the translation of Philon is preserved by Eusebius in the first Now it is quite clear from the preceding account book of his Praeparatio Evangelica. The most that we have no evidence even for the existence of opposite opinions have been held by the learned Sanchuniathon except the testimony of Philon respecting the authenticity and value of the wri- Byblius himself. He is not mentioned by any tings of Sanchuniathon. The scholars of the writer before Philon Byblius, not even by Joseseventeenth century, Scaliger, Grotius, Bochart, phus or by Philon Judaeus, who might have been Selden, and others, regarded them as genuine re- expected to have heard at least of his name. mains of the most remote antiquity, and expended, is suspicious at first sight. The discovery of old or rather wasted, no small amount of learning in books written by an author, of whom no one has attempting to reconcile them with the statements ever heard, and in a language which few can read, in the old Testament. Their views were carried is a kind of imposture known to modern as well as out to the fullest extent by Richard Cumberland, ancient times. The genuineness and authenticity bishop of Peterborough, who translated into En- of the work must rest entirely on the nature of its glish the extracts in Eusebius (London, 1720), contents; and even a superficial perusal of the exwith historical and chronological remarks, in which tracts in Eusebius will convince almost every he asserts that all the antediluvian patriarchs of scholar of the present day that the work was a the Old Testament are to be found in Sanchunia- forgery of Philon. Nor is it difficult to see with thon! Modern scholars, however, take a very what object the forgery was executed. Philon was different view of Sanchuniathon and his writings; evidently one of the many adherents of the docbut before we state their opinions, it will be trine of Euhemerus, that all the gods were originadvisable to see what the ancient writers them- ally men, who had distinguished themselves in selves say respecting him. The first author who their lives as kings, warriors, or benefactors of mentions him is Athenaeus, who speaks (iii. p. man, and became worshipped as divinities after 126) of Suniaethon (of which variation in the their death. This doctrine Philon applied to the name more will be said presently), and Mochus, as religious system of the Oriental nations, and espe writers on Phoenician matters (Powikikά). The cially of the Phoenicians; and in order to gain next writer who mentions him is Porphyrius (de more credit for his statements, he pretended that Abstin. ii. 56, p. 94, ed. Holsten.), who says that they were taken from an ancient Phoenician Sanchuniathon wrote a Phoenician history (Po-writer. This writer he says was a native of BeryKIKT) ioTopia) in the Phoenician language, which tus, lived in the time of Semiramis, and dedicated was translated into Greek in eight books by his work to Abibalus, king of Berytus. Having

thus invented a high antiquity for his Phoenician authority, he pretended that his writer had taken the greatest pains to obtain information, that he had received some of his accounts from Hierombalus, the priest of the god Jevo, and had collected others from inscriptions in the temples and the public records preserved in each city. This is all pure invention, to impose more effectually upon the public. The general nature of the work is in itself sufficient to prove to be a forgery; but in addition to this we find an evident attempt to show that the Greek religion and mythology were derived from the Phoenician, and a confusion between the Phoenician and Hebrew religions, which are of themselves sufficient to convince any one that the work was not of genuine Phoenician origin. But though the work is thus clearly a forgery, the question still remains, whether the name Sanchuniathon was a pure invention of Philon or not. Movers, who has discussed the whole subject with ability, thinks that Philon availed himself of a name already in use, though it was not the name of a person. He supposes that Sanchoniathon was the name of the sacred books of the Phoenicians, and that its original form was San-Chon-iáth, which might be represented in the Hebrew characters by ni D, that is "the entire law of Chon," Chon being the same as Bel, or, as the Greeks called him, the philosopher Heracles, or the Tyrian Heracles. Movers further supposes that Suniaethon (Zovviaíewv), which occurs in the passage of Athenaeus already referred to, is a shortened form of the name, and signifies the whole law, the Chon being omitted. But on these etymologies we offer no opinion.

SANCUS, SANGUS or SEMO SANCUS, a Roman divinity, is said to have been originally a Sabine god, and identical with Hercules and Dius Fidius. (Lactant. i. 15; Ov. Fast. vi. 216; Propert. iv. 9,74; Sil. Ital. viii. 421.) The name which is etymologically the same as Sanctus, and connected with Sancire, seems to justify this be lief, and characterises Sancus as a divinity presiding over oaths. Sancus also had a temple at Rome, on the Quirinal, opposite that of Quirinus, and close by the gate which derived from him the name of Sunqualis porta. This sanctuary was the same as that of Dius Fidius, which had been consecrated in the year B. C. 465 by Sp. Postumius, but was said to have been founded by Tarquinius Superbus (Liv. viii. 20, xxxii. 1; Dionys. ix. 60; Ov. Fast. vi. 213, &c.), and the ancients thoroughly identified their Dius Fidius with Sancus. He is accordingly regarded as the protector of the marriage oath, of the law of nations, and the law of hospitality. (Dionys. iv. 58; Varro, De Ling. Lat. v. 66.) Sancus is said to have been the father of the Sabine hero Sabus. (Dionys. ii. 49; August. de Civ. Dei, xviii. 19; Lactant. l. c.) [L. S.]

SANCTUS, St., is said by C. B. Carpzovius (De Medicis ab Eccles. pro Sanctis halitis), who copies Bzovius (Nomenclator Sanctor. Professione Medicor.), to have been a physician, and a native of Otriculum (or Ocriculum), a city of central Italy, who was put to death with cruel torments in the reign of M. Aurelius Antoninus, and whose memory is celebrated on June 26. Both these writers quote as their authority for this statement," Monimenta Ecclesiae Otriculanae in Sabinis." It seems probable that there is some error or confusion in The fragments of the so-called Sanchuniathon this account, which the writer is not able at prewhich have come down to us have been published sent to clear up quite satisfactorily. In the in a useful edition by J. C. Orelli, under the title of Menologium Graecum (vol. iii. p. 182) St. Sanctus "Sanchoniathonis Berytii, quae feruntur, Frag-(ZάYKTOS) is called a native of Ravenna, and is menta de Cosmogonia et Theologia Phoenicum, Graece versa a Philone Byblio, servata ab Eusebio Caesariensi, Praeparationis Evangelicae Libro I. cap. VI. et VII., &c.," Lips. 1826, 8vo. Besides these extracts from the first book of the Praepa ratio Evangelica, there is another short passage in Eusebius (de Laud. Constant. c. 3), and two in Joannes Lydus (de Mensibus, p. 116 de Magistr. p. 130), which are evidently taken from the pretended translation of Philon Byblius.

Philon Byblius himself has also been made the subject of a forgery. In 1835 a manuscript, purporting to be the entire translation of Philon Byblius, was discovered in a convent in Portugal. Many German scholars, and among others Grotefend, regarded it as the genuine work of Philon. It was first published in a German translation by Fr. Wagenfeld, under the title of " Urgeschichte der Phönizier, in einem Auszuge aus der wieder aufgefundenen Handschrift von Philo's vollstan. Uebersetzung. Mit einem Vorworte von G. F. Grotefend," Hannover, 1836. In the following year the Greek text appeared under the title of Sanchuniathonis Historiarum Phoeniciae Libros novem Graece versos a Philone Byblio, edidit Latinaque versione donavit F. Wagenfeld," Bremae, 1837. It is now, however, so universally agreed that this work is the forgery of a later age that it is unnecessary to make any further remarks upon it. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. i. p. 222, &c.; and especially Movers, Die Phönizier, p. 99, &c. p. 116, &c.)

said to have suffered martyrdom under M. Anto-
ninus. His memory is celebrated on July 26, and
he is not stated to have been a physician. In
Ughelli, Italia Sacra (vol. x. p. 151), no mention
is made of St. Sanctus, but St. Medicus is said to
have been one of the patron saints of Ocriculum.
And in the Acta Sanctorum no mention is made
of St. Sanctus under June 26 or July 26; but
St. Medicus, a native of Otriculum, but not a
physician, whose history is not unlike that
of St. Sanctus in Bzovius and the Menologium
Graecum, is commemorated under the date of
June 25.
[W. A. G.]

SA'NDACUS (Závdakos), a son of Astynous,
and a grandson of Phaethon. He is said to have
migrated from Syria to Cilicia, to have founded
the town of Celenderis, and to have become the
father of Cinyras by Pharnace. (Apollod. iii. 14.
§ 3.)
[L. S.]

SANDO'CES (Σavdêns), a Persian, son of Thamasius, was one of the royal judges under Dareius Hystaspis, and, having given an unjust sentence under the influence of a bribe, was condemned by the king to crucifixion. But after he had been placed on the cross, Dareius called to mind that his services outweighed his offences, and he was accordingly taken down and pardoned. In B. C. 480, he was viceroy of Cume in Aeolis, and, in the invasion of Greece by Xerxes in that year, commanded a squadron of 15 ships, which were detained behind when the main body left Sepias,

semblance to the Hindu name than the common orthography. (Plut. Alex. 62; Justin, xv. 4; Appian, Syr. 55; Strab. xv. pp. 702, 709, 724; Athen. i. p. 18, e. ; Arrian, Anab. v. 6. §2; Plin. H. N. vi. 17.)

Sandrocottus has excited considerable interest among modern scholars, as he appears to be the same as the Chandragupta of the Sanscrit writers. Not only does the great resemblance of name point to an identity of the two, but the circumstances related by the Sanscrit writers respecting the history of Chandragupta bear so great a similarity to those recorded by the Greek authors respecting Sandrocottus, that it is impossible to doubt that they are the same person. The differences between the Greek and Sanscrit writers rather enhance the value of both sets of testimonies, since a perfect agreement would have been suspicious. The Hindu narrative was as follows. At Pataliputra reigned a king named Nanda, who was the son of a woman of the Sudra caste, and was hence, according to the Hindu law, regarded as a Sudra himself. He was a powerful prince, but cruel and avaricious; and hence, as well as by the inferiority of his birth, he provoked the animosity of the Brahmans. He had by one wife eight sons, who with their father were known as the nine Nandas; and, according to the popular tradition, he had by a wife of low extraction another son, called Chandragupta. The last circumstance, however, is not stated in the Puranas, and may therefore be questioned; but it appears certain that Chandragupta was of low origin, and that he was of the same family as Nanda, if he was not his son. whatever was the origin of Chandragupta, he appears to have been made the instrument of the rebellious projects of the Brahmans, who raised him while a youth to the throne, after effecting the destruction of Nanda and his eight sons. this they were aided by a prince in the north of India, to whom an accession of territory was offered as the price of his assistance; but after they had gained their object, the Brahmans not only refused to fulfil their engagement, but appear to have got rid of him by assassination. To revenge his father's death, his son Malayaketu marched with a large army against Chandragupta, and among his forces were Yavanas, whom we may regard as Greeks. Malayaketu was obliged to return to his own country without inflicting his meditated vengeance. Chandragupta reigned twenty-four years, and left the kingdom to his son. The expedition of Malayaketu may perhaps be the same as that of Seleucus, who probably availed himself of the distracted state of the kingdom for the purpose of extending the Greek dominions in India.

But

and, sailing on afterwards to the south by them- | (Σavdpókuπтes), which bears a much greater reselves, were captured by the Greeks off Artemisium. (Herod. vii. 194.) [E. E.] SANDROCOTTUS (ZavdpóкoттOs), an Indian king at the time of Seleucus Nicator, ruled over the powerful nation of the Gangaridae and Prasii on the banks of the Ganges. The Gangaridae, also written Gandaridae, and the Prasii, are probably the same people; the former name signifying the people in the neighbourhood of the Ganges, and the latter being of Hindu origin, and the same as the Prachi, the eastern country of Sanscrit writers. The capital of Sandrocottus was Palibothra, called by the Sanscrit writers Pataliputra, probably in the neighbourhood of the modern Patna. The Greek writers relate that the father of Sandrocottus was a man of low origin, being the son of a barber, whom the queen had married after putting her husband the king to death. He is called by Diodorus Siculus (xvi. 93, 94) Xandrames, and by Q. Curtius (ix. 2) Aggrammes, the latter name being probably only a corruption of the former. This king sent his son Sandrocottus to Alexander the Great, who was then at the Hyphasis, and he is reported to have said that Alexander might easily have conquered the eastern parts of India, since the king was hated on account of his wickedness and the meanness of his birth. Justin likewise relates, that Sandrocottus saw Alexander, and that having offended him, he was ordered to be put to death, and escaped only by flight. Justin says nothing about his being the king's son, but simply relates that he was of obscure origin, and that after he escaped from Alexander he became the leader of a band of robbers, and finally obtained the supreme power. So much seems certain, that in the troubles which followed the death of Alexander, Sandrocottus or his father extended his dominions over the greater part of northern India, and conquered the Macedonians, who had been left by Alexander in the Panjab. After the general peace between the successors of Alexander in B. c. 311, Seleucus was left for ten years in the undisturbed possession of his dominions, and at some period during this time he made an effort to recover the Indian conquests of Alexander. The year in which he undertook the expedition is not stated, but from the account of Justin it would appear to have been only a short time before the war with Antigonus, that is, B.C. 302. It is unknown how far Seleucus penetrated in India; according to some accounts he advanced as far as Palibothra. At all events, he did not succeed in the object of his expedition; for, in the peace concluded between the two monarchs, Seleucus ceded to Sandrocottus not only his conquests in the Panjab, but also the country of the Paropamisus. Seleucus in return received five hundred war elephants, which had then become an object of so much importance as perhaps to be almost an equivalent for the loss of the dominions which he sustained. The peace was cemented by a matrimonial alliance between the Syrian and Indian kings. Megasthenes subsequently resided for many years at the court of Sandrocottus as the ambassador of Seleucus; and to the work which Megasthenes wrote on India, later writers were chiefly indebted for their accounts of the country. [MEGASTHENES.] The name of Sandrocottus is written both by Plutarch and Appian Androcottus without the sibilant, and Athenaeus gives us the form Sandrocuplus

VOL. III.

In

The history of Chandragupta is the subject of a Hindu drama, entitled Mudra Rakshasa, which has been translated from the Sanscrit by Professor Wilson, and published in his "Select Specimens of the Theatre of the Hindus," London, 1835, vol. ii. p. 127, &c. In the preface to the translation, Mr. Wilson has examined at length the question of the identity of Sandrocottus and Chandragupta, and thus sums up the result of his inquiries:"It thus appears that the Greek and Hindu writers concur in the name, in the private history, in the political elevation, and in the nation and capital of an Indian king, nearly, if not exactly, contem