that these mimes were not acted, is to divest them of their essential feature, the exhibition by mimetic gestures, to which the words were entirely subordinate; and it is hardly credible that the Greeks of that age, who lived in public, and who could witness the masterpieces of the old Doric and the mew Attic drama in their theatres, would be content to sit down and pore over so dull a jest book as the mimes of Sophron must have been when the action was left out. To these arguments from the nature of the case may be added the express statement of Solinus (Polyhist. 5), that in Sicily “cavillatio mimica in scena stetit.” The dialect of Sophron is the old Doric, interspersed with Sicilian peculiarities; and it appears to have been chiefly as a specimen of the Doric dialect that the ancient grammarians made his works a particular object of study. Apollodorus, for example, wrote commentaries on Sophron, consisting of at least four books, the fragments of which are preserved in Heyne's edition. The fragments of Sophron frequently exhibit anomalous forms, which are evidently imitations of vulgar provincialisms or personal peculiarities of speech (see an example in the Etym. Mag. s. v. Jyväs). There are also many words coined in jest, such as oids olórepov (Fr. 96). Further information on the dialect of Sophron will be found in the work of Ahrens, who has collected the Fragments. (Ahrens, de Graecae Linguae Dialectis, lib. ii., de Dialecto Dorica, vol. ii. pp. 464, &c.) With regard to the substance of these compositions, their character, so far as it can be ascertained, appears, as we have said above, to have been ethical; that is, the scenes represented were those of ordinary life, and the language employed was intended to bring out more clearly the characters of the persons exhibited in those scenes, not only for the amusement, but also for the instruction of the spectators. There must have been something of sound philosophy in his works to have inspired Plato with that profound admiration for their author which will presently be mentioned ; something, probably, of that same sound practical wisdom which, in Aristophanes, produced the same effect on Plato's mind. Unfortunately, however, we know nothing of the philosophical complexion of Sophron's mimes, except that they abounded in the most pithy proverbs, thrown together often two or three at a time, and worked into the composition with an exuberance of fancy and wit which the ancients compared with the spirit of the Attic Comedy. (Demetr. de Eloc. 156, 127, 128.) In fact, we think it would not be far wrong to speak of the mimes of Sophron as being, among the Dorians, a closely kindred fruit of the same intellectual impulse which, among the Athenians, produced the Old Comedy ; although we do not mean to place the two on any thing like the same footing as to their degrees of excellence. The serious purpose which was aimed at in the works of Sophron was always, as in the Attic Comedy, clothed under a sportive form ; and it can easily be imagined that sometimes the latter element prevailed, even to the extent of obscenity, as the extant fragments and the parallel of the Attic Comedy combine to prove. Hence the division, which the ancients made of these compositions, into usuo grovãaioi and yeaolol, though most of Sophron's works were of the former character (Ulpian. ad Demosth. Ol. p. 30) Plutarch distin

guishes the mimes which existed in his time into two classes, in a manner which throws an important light both on the character and the form of these compositions. (Quaest. Conviv. vii. 8. § 4.) He calls the two classes of mimes droëégets and traiyvia, and considers neither species suitable for performance at a banquet; the former on account of their length and the difficulty of commanding the proper scenic apparatus (tò 8voxoprotov, another proof, by the way, that they were intended for public performance, and not for private reading), the latter on account of their scurrility and obscenity. Although neither here, nor in the description given by Xenophon of a very licentious mime (l.c.), is the name of Sophron mentioned, yet it would be too much to assume that his compositions were all of the better kind. Lastly, Aristotle ranks Sophron as among those who are to be considered poets, on account of their subject and style, in spite of the absence of metre. (Poèt. i. 8, and more fully in his repl rooms&v, ap. Ath. xi. p. 505, c.) It has been asserted that Sophron was an imitator of Epicharmus ; but there is no proof of the fact, although it can hardly be doubted that the elder poet had some considerable influence on his later fellow-countryman. It is, however, certain that Sophron was closely imitated by Theocritus, and that the Idyls of the latter were, in many respects, developments of the mimes of the former. . (Argum. ad Theocr. Id. ii. xv.) The admiration of Plato for Sophron has been already referred to. The philosopher is said to have been the first who made the mimes known at Athens, to have been largely indebted to them in his delineations of character, and to have had them so constantly at hand, that he slept with them under his pillow, and actually had his head resting upon them at the moment of his death (Suid. s. v.; Diog. iii. 8 ; Quintil. i. 10. 17.) The fragments of Sophron have been collected by Blomfield, in the Classical Journal for 1811, No. 8, pp. 380–390, and more fully in the Museum Criticum, vol. ii. pp. 340–558, 559, 560, Camb. 1826; and by Ahrens, as above quoted. The titles will also be found in Fabricius. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. ii. pp. 493—495; Müller, Dorier, bk. iv. c. 7. § 5; Hermann and Ritter, ad Aristot. Poet. i. 8 ; Grysar, de Sophrone Mimographo, Colon. 1838; Bernhardy, Grundriss d. Griech. Lit. vol. ii. pp. 908—911.) [P. S.] SOPHRONISCUS (Xadpovsakos), of Athens, the father of the celebrated Socrates, is described by the ancient Greek writers as A160upyös, Auto$60s, Attoyatopos, épuoyatsopos, terms which undoubtedly signify a sculptor in marble, and not, as Hemsterhusius and others have supposed, merely a mason. (Diog. Laërt. ii. 18; Lucian, Somn. 12, vol. i. p. 18; comp. Hemsterh. ad loc.; Schol, ad Aristoph. Nub. 773; Wal. Max. iii. 4, ext. l ; Thiersch, Epochen, p. 125.) He must have flourished about B. c. 470, and have belonged to the old Attic school, which preceded that of Pheidias, and to a family of Athenian artists, for Socrates is . frequently represented, both by Xenophon and Plato, as tracing his descent from Daedalus. (Comp. SockATEs, p. 847, b, p. 856, a ; DAEDALUs, p. 928, b.) No works of Sophroniscus are mentioned. [P. S.] SOPHRO'NIUS (Xanopóvuos). Among the numerous ecclesiastical writers of this name, treated

of by Fabricius (Bill. Graec. bk. v. c. xvi. § 7), there are only two that require any notice here. 1. A contemporary and friend of St. Jerome, who gives him a section in his treatise De Viris Illustribus (c. 134), where he informs us that “Sophronius, a man of distinguished learning, wrote the Praises of Bethlehem (Laudes Bethlehem) while yet a boy, and lately composed an excellent work. Ile Subrersione Serapis ;” that is, on the destruction of the temple of Serapis at Rome, in A. D. 389 or 390 (see Clinton, Fast. Rom. s. a. 389): “he translated into Greek, in an elegant style, my works, De Virginitate ad Eustochium and Vita Hilarionis monachi; also the Psalter and the Prophets, which we translated from Hebrew into Latin.” Now, since the Catalogue of Jerome was written in A. D. 392, the date of Sophronius is clearly determined by this passage. We have no information respecting his country or condition in life. In the year 1539, Erasmus published at Basel, from what he calls an ancient and corrected MS., a Greek version of the Catalogue of Jerome, purporting to be made by Sophronius. This publication has ever since been a literary stumbling-block. Soon after its appearance there were not wanting persons who accused Erasmus of fabricating the version from motives of vanity. Isaac Vossius (ad S. Ignati: Epist. ad Smyrn. p. 257), while professing to reject this imputation, but solely on the faith of Erasmus's veracity (“nisi Erasmus haec diceret, multum de ejus fide dubitarem"), strongly contends, on the ground of the badness of the Greek, and on other internal evidence, that Erasmus had been imposed upon by a modern forgery. Stephanus le Moyne (ad War. Sac. p. 418) replies to the charge against Erasmus by asserting that there are MSS. older than the one used by him, and that the version is quoted by earlier writers; but he does not say where these MSS. and quotations are to be found. Fabricius and Cave defend the genuineness of the version, chiefly on the following ground, which appears decisive, that many articles of Suidas are in the very words of this Greek version. It is true that Suidas does not quote Sophronius by name, any more than he does Jerome ; but, if the antiquity of the version be established, there is no reason to ascribe it to any other person than Sophronius. The somewhat remarkable circumstance, that Clinton mentions the translation as the work of Sophronius, without intimating, either in his account of the Catalogue of Jerome, or in his notice of Sophronius, that its genuineness has been questioned, may be taken, we presume, as a proof of its decided genuineness, in the opinion of that great scholar (Fast. Rom. s. aa. 392,393), Besides the separate edition of it by Erasmus, the version of Sophronius is contained in the Paris (1623) and Frankfort (1684) editions of the works of Jerome; and in the Bihliotheca Ecclesiastica of Fabricius (Hamb. 1718) it is printed with Jerome's original, and the passages of Eusebius, which were Jerome's chief authorities, in parallel columns. To this same Sophronius Fabricius and others ascribe the work “in defence of Basil against Eunomius” (drop Barixelov kara Eijvouíov), which is very briefly noticed by Photius (Bibl. Cod. v.). There is another small work ascribed to him by Erasmus, which professes to be a Greek version of Jerome's Epistola ad Paulam et Eustochium de Adsumtione Mariae Virginis, but it is most probable

that both the Latin epistle and the Greek version belong to an age later than that of Jerome and Sophronius. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. ix. pp. 158–161; Cave, Script. Eccles. Hist. Litt. s.a., 390, p. 285, ed. Basil. ; Vossius, de Hist. Graec. p. 306, ed. Westermann.) 2. Patriarch of Jerusalem, A. D. 629-638, was a native of Damascus, and at first a sophist, afterwards a monk, and in A. D. 629 he succeeded Modestus as patriarch of Jerusalem. He distinguished himself as a defender of orthodoxy; and at the Council of Alexandria, in A. D. 633, he openly charged Cyrus with introducing heresy into the church under pretence of peace, and renounced all communion with him. When Jerusalem was taken by Omar, in A. D. 636, he obtained for the Christians the free exercise of their worship. He died, according to some, in the same year; according to others, two years later, in A. D. 638. There are extant in MS. numerous epistles, discourses, commentaries, and other treatises, by Sophronius, full lists of which are given by Fabricius and Cave. He also wrote hymns and other poems. An Anacreontic poem by him, on the subject of Simeon taking Christ into his arms, was published by Leo Allatius, in his Diatriba de Simeonibus, pp. 5, foll. Three epigrams in the Greek Anthology are ascribed to him. (Fabric. Bill. Graec. vol. ix. pp. 162–169; Cave, Script. Eccles. Hist. Litt. s. a. 629, p. 579 ; Vossius, de Hist. Graec. pp. 333, 334, ed. Westermann ; Brunck, Anal. vol. iii. p. 125; Jacob's, Anth. Graec. vol. iv. p. 95. vol. xiii. pp. 619, 954, 955.) [P. S.] SOPHUS, P. SEMPRO’NIUS, is mentioned by Pomponius (Dig. 1. tit.2 s. 2. § 37) after App. Claudius Caecus, as one who owed his name o Sophus or Wise to his great merits. He was Tribunus Plebis in B. c. 310, and attempted to compel the censor Appius Claudius to conform to the Lex Aemilia which limited the censor's functions to eighteen months. (Liv. ix. 33.) He was consul B. c. 304 with P. Sulpicius Severus (Liv. ix. 45). The two consuls defeated the Aequi, and had a triumph. He was the first plebeian consul pontifex (Liv. x. 9) B. c. 300, and in the next year a lustrum was celebrated by him and his former colleague, as censors; and two tribes were added. He seems to be the same person who took the praetorship at a time when Rome was alarmed by a rumour of a Gallic war (Livy, x. 21). Pomponius says that no one after him bore the name of Sophus, but a P. Sempronius Sophus was consul in B. c. 268 (Fasti) and censor in B. c. 252 (Liv. Epit. 18; Fast. Capitol.), and he is called the son of Publius, who may have been the consul of B. c. 304. There is a story of one P. Sempronius Sophus, who divorced his wife, because she had been bold enough to see the public games without his consent; but those who believe the story of Carvilius divorcing his wife suppose that this Sophus must have lived later than the consul of B. c. 304. [G. L.] SO'POLIS (2&toxis), son of Hermodorus, commanded the Amphipolitan cavalry in the army of Alexander the Great, in the battle against the Triballians on the banks of the river Lyginus, B. c. 335. He is mentioned again as commanding a troop of horse, probably the contingent from Amphipolis, at the battle of Arbela in B. c. 33 l ; and we may perhaps identify him with the father of Hermolaus, the youthful conspirator against Alexander's life [HERMolaus]." (Arr. Anab. i. 2, iii. 11, iv. 13; Curt. viii. 7.) [E. E.] SO/POLIS, a distinguished painter, who flourished at Rome in the middle of the first century B. c., is mentioned with Dionysius by Pliny, who says, that their works filled the picture galleries. (H. N. xxxv. 11. s. 40. § 43.) In some MSS. of this passage the name is written Sopylus. From a passage of Cicero (ad Att. iv. 16), which has been first pointed out by R. Rochette (Lettre à M. Schorn, pp. 315, 404, 2d ed.), we learn that Sopolis was at the head of a school of painters. [P. S.] SO/POLIS (X&moxus) a physician who instructed Aëtius (the heretic, not the physician) in medicine, in the former half of the fourth century after Christ. A high character is given him by Philostorgius, who says he was inferior to none of his contemporaries (Hist. Eccles. iii. 15, p. 52); St. Gregory of Nyssa, on the other hand, without naming Sopolis, says that Aëtius became servant to a quack doctor (dysprus), from whom he picked up his knowledge of physic. (Cont. Eunom. i. p 293.) [W. A. G.] SOPYLUS. [Sopolis.] SORA'NUS, a Sabine divinity of the lower world. Mount Soracte, which probably derived its name from him, was, according to Servius (ad Aen. xi. 785), sacred to the infernal gods, especially to Diespiter; and it is related that during a sacrifice offered to Soranus, wolves snatched away the entrails of the victims from the altar, and that the shepherds pursuing the wolves came to a cave, the poisonous vapours of which caused a pestilence among them. An oracle then ordered them to live, like wolves, on prey, and hence those people are called Hirpini, from the Sabine word hirpus, a wolf, which was joined to that of Soranus, so that their full name was Hirpini Sorani. It was a custom observed down to a comparatively late period that the Hirpi or Hirpini (probably some ancient Sabine families) at the festival on mount Soracte, walked with bare feet upon the glowing coals of fir-wood, carrying about the entrails of the victims (Serv. ad Aen. xi. 784, &c.; Plin. H. N. vii. 2; Sil. Ital. v. 174; Strab. v. p. 226). Strabo connects this ceremony with the worship of Feronia, and this circumstance, as well as the proximity of the sanctuary of the two divinities, shows, that Soranus and Feronia probably belonged to the same religion. Roman poets sometimes identified Soranus with the Greek Apollo. (Virg. Aen. xi. 786; comp. Müller, Etrusk, vol. ii. p. 67, &c.; Hartung, Die Religion der Römer, vol. ii. p. 19.1, &c.) [L. S.] SORA'NUS (Xapaves), the name of several physicians, whom it is difficult (if not impossible) to distinguish with certainty. The following are enumerated by Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. vol.xii. p. 684, ed. vet. See also vol. xiii. p. 426.) 1. A native of Cos, who appears to have written an account of Hippocrates, and is said to have examined the libraries and official records at Cos, in search of materials. His date is unknown, but he may perhaps have lived in the third or second century B.C. He is quoted by Soranus, the author of the Life of Hippocrates. (§ 1.) 2. A native of Mallus in Cilicia", whose date is


* Haller seems to consider this Soranus to be the same as one of the following (Bill. Medic.

unknown, but wno is mentioned by Suidas as one of the “more ancient” physicians (rpersörepot). He appears to have been eminent in his profession; and as he lived after the time of Hippocrates, he may perhaps be placed in the fourth or third century B. c. (Suid. s. v. Xapavés.) 3. A native of Ephesus, whose father's name was Menander, and his mother's Phoebe. He first practised his profession at Alexandria, and afterwards at Rome, in the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian, A. D. 98–138. Suidas (who gives the above account of him) adds that he composed several excellent works. 4. Another native of Ephesus, who lived later, and who (according to Suidas) wrote Tuvaikeiww BiéAta Tégorapa, Bíovs 'Iarpov, kal Aioégeis, kal >vvráyuata, BiéAía 3éka, and other works. Now it is quite possible that Suidas may be correct in stating that there were two physicians of the name of Soranus, both of whom were natives of Ephesus; but at any rate those modern writers who have attempted to distinguish them by assigning to each his proper writings, have decidedly failed, as is evident since the publication of the treatise IIepl Tuvaikeswu IIa.0óv, in 1838. For instance, Fabricius considers that the elder Soranus (No. 3) is the physician belonging to the sect of the Methodici who is frequently quoted by Caelius Aurelianus, and who wrote a work, “De Coenotetis,” consisting of at least two books; and he thinks that the younger Soranus (No. 4) is the author who is frequently quoted by Aëtius, to whom belongs the short fragment IIepl Múrpas kal Tuvalketov Aibosov, which is still extant. It is, however, now quite clear, first, that the fragment in question forms part of the published treatise “De Morbis Mulierum ;” 2. that the writer of this work belonged to the sect of the Methodici (see Dietz's Notes at pp. 4, 21); 3. that this is the work frequently quoted by Aëtius; and 4. that the writer of this work was also the author of a work IIepl Koivotirov, consisting of at least two books. Upon the whole, therefore, it seems more probable that Dietz (note to Sor. p. 23) and Dr. Ermerins (Observ. Crit. in Sor, appended to his ed. of Hippocr. De Vict. Rat. in Morb. Acut. p. 372) are correct in supposing that the two physicians of the name of Soranus, mentioned by Suidas as being natives of Ephesus, were, in fact, one and the same individual. The only objection to this hypothesis, of which the writer is aware, arises from the fact that in the treatise “De Morbis Mulierum" the names of several physicians occur who lived later than the time of Soranus; and this difficulty would of course be insuperable if the text in these passages were genuine and correct. But the text of the whole treatise is at present in a very unsatisfactory state, and contains many words, &c., that are undoubtedly spurious; so that (until the whole question has been thoroughly examined by some future editor of Soranus) we are quite justified in believing the passages in question to be interpolations. (See Ermerins, l.c. p. 371, &c.) If therefore, we suppose that there was only one physician of the name of Soranus who was born at Ephesus, the date assigned by Suidas to the son of Menander will agree tolerably well with that which we gather from other sources; he is quoted by Caelius

Pract. vol. i. p. 207), but probably without sufficient reason.

[ocr errors]

Aurelianus rather as a predecessor than as a contemporary; he lived at least as early as Archigenes, who used one of his medicines (ap. Aët. ii. 2. 55, p.277); he was tutor to Attalus [ATTAlus, Vol. I. p. 412]; and he was dead when Galen wrote his work “De Methodo Medemdi,” i.e. about A. D. 178. (Gal. De Meth. Med. i. 7. vol. x. p. 53.) But, after all, it must be confessed that the exact chronology of Soranus is not quite satisfactorily made out. He belonged to the sect of the Methodici (Pseudo-Gal. Introd. c. 4, vol. xiv. p. 684), and was one of the most eminent physicians of that school. Besides the few particulars mentioned above, nothing is known of the events of his life, except that he passed some time in Aquitania for the purpose of treating some skin diseases which were very prevalent there at that time. (Marcell. Empir. De Medicam. c. 19, p. 321.) The following medical works are still extant under the name of Soranus: — 1. IIepl Tuvaukeiww IIabov, De Arte Olstetricia Morbisque Mullerum; 2. Ilepi Mritpas kal Tuvalkesov Aičotov, De Utero et Pudendo Mu

[ocr errors]

Fracturarum; 4. IIepl 'Emièéopav, De Fasciis; 5. Bíos ‘Immokpátovs, Vila Hippocratis; 6. In Artem Medendi Isagoge. The treatise IIepl Tuvalkeiwy IIa8&v was first published in Greek in 1838. Regim. Pruss. 8vo. It was partly prepared for the press by F. R. Dietz, and finished after his death by J. F. Lobeck. It is a valuable and interesting work, consisting of one hundred and twenty-two chapters, with a few lines of the hundred and twenty-third, and the titles of thirty-eight more." As has been intimated above, the text is at present in a very corrupt state, and contains numerous interpolations. Dr. Ermerins has published some valuable “Observationes Criticae in Sor. Eph. De Arte Obstetr. Morbisque Mul.” at the end of his edition of Hippocr. De Vict. Rut. in Morb. Acut. Lugd. Bat. 8vo. 1841; and a new edition of the work is at this present time (1848) being prepared by Dr. Bell of Paris. With respect to the medical contents of the work the reader may consult a dissertation by H. Häser, “De Sorano Ephesio, ejusque IIepi Tuv. IIatav Libro nuper reperto,” Jenae, 1840, 4to.; another by J. Pinoff, entitled “Artis Obstetriciae Sor. Eph. Doctrina ad ejus Librum IIepi Tuv. IIasov nuper repertum exposita,” Vratisl. 1840, 8vo.; and four interesting articles by the same Dr. Pinoff in the first and second volumes of Henschel's “Janus,” Breslau, 1846, 1847, 8vo.

. The short piece IIepi Mātpas kal Tuvaucetov Aióotov is, in fact, merely an extract from the preceding work (of which it forms the fourth and fifth chapters), containing one of the best anatomical descriptions of the female organs of generation that have come down to is from antiquity. It has been preserved by Oribasius (Coll. Medic. xxiv. 31, 33), and is to be found in Greek in Goupyl's edition of Rufus Ephesius, Paris, 1554, 8vo., and in the first volume of Ideler's “Physici et Medici Graeci Minores,” Berol. 1841, 8vo. There is a Latin translation in different editions of Oribasius, in that of TheoPhilus De Corp. Hum. Fabr. Paris, 1556, 8vo., and in F. Paulini “Universa Antiquorum Anatome,” Venet. 1604. fol.

* The chapters are not numbered regularly in the Greek text. See Dr. Pinoff in Henschel's “Janus,” vol. i. p. 708, foll.

The fragment IIept Xmuelov Katayuárov was published with a Latin translation by Cocchi in his collection of “Graecorum Chirurgici Libri,” Florent. 1754, fol. ; and the Greek text is inserted in Ideler's Phys. et Med. Gr. Min. The short piece IIepl’Erlöéruwy is to be found in Greek and Latin in the twelfth volume of Chartier's edition of Hippocrates and Galen, Paris, 1679, fol. The Bíos ‘Ittokpátovs is of little value in itself, but is interesting as being the only ancient account of that great physician that remains, except what is told us by Suidas and John Tzetzes. It may perhaps have formed part of the collection of medical biographies mentioned by Suidas as being written by the younger Soranus. It is published in several editions of the works of Hippocrates; and is inserted also in the old edition of Fabric. Bibl. Gr. (vol. xii. p. 675), in Ideler's Phys. et Med. Gr. Min... and in A. Westermann’s “Vitarum Scriptores Graeci Minores,” Brunsv. 1845, 8vo. The treatise entitled “ In Artem Medendi Isagoge" is extant only in Latin, and is generally considered to be spurious. The author is called “Soranus Ephesius, insignis Peripateticus et vetustissimus Archiater.” The only writers quoted in the work are Homer (c. 16), Hippocrates (c. 3, 4, 23), Frasistratus (c. 1), and Galen (c. 13); and it has been supposed to be rather an original Latin treatise than a translation from the Greek (see Cagnati, War. Observ. iv. 2). It is to be found in the collection of medical authors published by Albanus Torinus, Basil. 1528, fol. ; and also in the Aldine Collection, Venet. 1547 fol. Besides these works (if they were all written by the same person), Soranus was the author of several others, of which only the titles and some fragments have been preserved. Galen mentions two works on Pharmacy, from which he quotes some passages (De Compos. Medicam, sec. Loc. i. 2, vi. 7, 8, vii. 2, vol. xii. pp. 414, 956, 987, xiii. 42); one, consisting of at least four books, entitled IIepl ‘Papuaketas, and the other Movče,6Aos Papuakewtukás. Caelius Aurelianus quotes “De Adjutoriis,” “De Febribus,” “Libri Causarum, quos Aituoxo7ovuévous appellavit,” and the second book “De Coenotetis" (De Morb. Acut. ii. 29, 33; De Morb. Chron. i. 3, iv. 1, pp. 143, 153, 289, 494), and says that part of his own work was merely a translation of one by Soranus (De Morb. Acut. ii. 1. p. 75). Soranus himself refers to his works entitled IIepl >mépuatos (De Arte Obst, p. 10), IIepl Zwo-yovías (p. 11), Tiepl row trapd figu (p. 20), IIepi KoivoTotov (p. 23), Tô Tytesvow (p. 27), slept Noamuárav (p. 106), and Tiepl 'Ośwu (p. 106). Tertullian quotes a work by Soranus “De Anima,” in four books (19e Anima, cc. 8, 15, 25, 44), in which he divided the soul into seven p rts (ibid. c. 14), and denied its immortality (ibul. c. 6). He is quoted by Paulus Aegineta (iv. 59), as being one of the earliest Greek medical writers, who had described the species of worm called Filaria Medimensis, or Guinea Worm (see J. Weihe, De Filar. Medin. Comment. Berol. 1832, 8vo.); and he appears to have enjoyed a great reputation among the ancients, as St. Augustine calls him “Medicinae auctor nobilissimus" (Cont. Julian. v. 51, vol. x. p. 654, ed Bened.), and Tertullian, “Methodicae Medicinae instructissimus auctor” (De Anima; c. 6). See also St. Cyprian, Epist. 76, p. 156, ed. Paris, 1726.) [W. A. G.]

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

may very possibly, as Meyer conjectures, have been contained in the work spoken of by Pliny (H. N. Praef.) as having been entitled 'Ewortiàov, while the fragment adduced in the treatise of Varro De Lingua Latina (vii. 31, comp. 65, x. 70), as an example of the word adagio, is probably extracted from a different piece. It is evident, from the passage in Cicero referred to above, that Soranus must have been a contemporary of Antonius the orator, and therefore flourished about B. c. 100. (See Anthol. Lat. ed. Meyer, praef. p. x.). The mythographer of Mai calls him Serranus, which is clearly a blunder, perhaps due to the copyist, and in no way must he be confounded with the Serranus of Juvenal (Sat. vii. 80), who lived under Nero. (Compare Plin. H.N. iii. 5; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 61 ; Gerlach's ed. of Lucilius, 8vo. Turic. 1846. p. xxxi.) [W. R.] SORO'RIA, a surname of Juno, under which an altar is said to have been erected to her in common with Janus Curiatius, when Horatius, on his return home, had slain his sister, and had been purified of the murder. (Liv. i. 26; Fest. p. 297, ed. Müller.) [L. S.] SOSANDER (Xajoravöpos). 1. A foster-brother of king Attalus. He distinguished himself in the war between the latter and Prusias by his defence of Elaea (Polyb. xxxii. 25). 2. A navigator referred to in the epitome of Artemidorus of Ephesus (p. 63), as the author of a work on India. (Vossius, de Hist. Graecis. p. 500, ed. Westermann.) [C. P. M]. SOSANDER (X&oravöpos), the seventeenth in descent from Aesculapius, who lived in the fifth and fourth centuries B. c. He was the son of Heraclides and brother of Hippocrates II., the most famous of that name. (Le Clerc, Hist, de la Méd.) A physician of the same name (who must have lived some time before the first century after Christ, and who may possibly be the same person), is quoted by Asclepiades Pharmacion (ap. Galen, De Compos. Medicam. sec. Loc. iv. 7. vol. xii. p. 733), who has preserved one of his medical formulae. See also Aëtius (ii. 3.78. p. 332.) [W. A. G.] SOSIA GALLA. [GALLA.] SOSIA'NUS, ANTISTIUS, was tribune of the plebs, A. D. 56, and praetor, A. D. 62. In the latter year he was banished for having written libellous verses against Nero, but was recalled to Rome in A. D. 66, in consequence of his having brought an accusation against Anteius. He was, however, again banished at the commencement of Nero's reign as one of the informers under the tyrant. (Tac. Ann. xiii. 28, xiv. 48, xvi. 14, Hist. iv. 44.) SOSIA'NUS, a surname of Apollo at Rome, derived from the quaestor C. Sosius bringing his statue from Seleucia to Rome. (Cic, ad Att. viii. 6; Plin. H. N. xiii. 5, xxxvi. 4.) [L. S.]

SO'SIAS (Xolotas), a vase-painter, whose name is inscribed on a beautiful cylia, which was discovered at Vulci, in 1828, and is now in the Royal Museum at Berlin (No. 1030). This work is one of the finest extant specimens of Greco-Etruscan vase-painting. Writers on ancient art have compared it to the productions of Polygnotus, on account of the character visible in the figures, or to those of Dionysius on account of its minute and elaborate finish. At all events it belongs to one of the best periods of Grecian art, and from the manner in which the figures are adapted to the shape of the vessel, as well as from the whole style of the composition, it is pronounced by the best judges to be manifestly an original work and not a mere copy from some greater artist. The subject represented on the inner side of the vase is taken from the mythical adventures of Achilles and Patroclus. Achilles, who had been instructed by Cheiron in the healing art, is binding up a wound which Patroclus has received, as is supposed, in the battle against the Mysian Telephus, which was the first great victory gained by the two heroes. The meaning of the composition on the outer side is more doubtful. It consists chiefly of figures of divinities, and has been variously interpreted as the marriage of Peleus and Thetis, or some other marriage subject, or, in connection with the other side of the vase, as a group of divinities assisting as spectators of the exploits of Achilles and his friend. The vase is supposed to have been a bridal present. It is engraved in the Monumenti Inediti of the Archaeological Institute of Rome, vol i. pl. ; and in Gerhard's Trinkschalen des Kön. Mus. pl. 6. Respecting the artist we have no further information, but the critics have of course indulged in sundry conjectures. Raoul-Rochette supposes that he may have been a Sicilian, from the frequency with which names beginning in Sos are found among the Greeks of Sicily ; a point of some importance in connection with the theory formerly advanced by him, that the painters of Etruscan vases were generally Sicilian Greeks; but that theory he now renounces. Others have seen a connection between the medicinal subject of the inner side of the vase and the root-meaning of the artist's name. (Muller, Archäol. d. Kunst. § 143, n. 3; R. Rochette, Lettre à M. Schorn, pp. 59,60, 2d. ed. ; Nagler, Künstler Learicon, s. v.) [P. S.] SOSI'BIUS (Xavorišios), historical. 1. A Tarentine, one of the captains of the body-guards of Ptolemy Philadelphus. (Joseph. Ant. xii. 2, § 2.) It is not improbable he may have been the father of the minister of Ptolemy Philopator. 2. The chief minister of Ptolemy Philopator, king of Egypt. Nothing is known of his origin or parentage, though he may have been a son of No. 1 ; nor have we any account of the means by which he rose to power; but we find him immediately after the accession of Ptolemy (B. c. 222), exercising the greatest influence over the young king, and virtually holding the chief direction of affairs. He soon proved himself, as he is termed by Polybius, a ready and dexterous instrument of tyranny: it was by his ministration, if not at his instigation. that Ptolemy put to death in succession his uncle Lysimachus, his brother Magas, and his mother Berenice. Not long after, Cleomenes, of whose influence with the mercenary troops Sosibius had at

this time dexterously availed himself, shared the

« 前へ次へ »