ページの画像
PDF
ePub

Kλeldov Zroixelwv Bi6xía té, Rome, 1545, 8vo., printed by Antonius Bladus Asulanus, containing enunciations only, without demonstrations or diagrams, edited by Angelus Cujanus, and dedicated to Antonius Altovitus. We happen to possess a little volume agreeing in every particular with this description, except only that it is in Italian, being "I quindici libri degli elementi di Euclide, di Greco tradotti in lingua Thoscana." Here is another instance in which the editor believed he had given the whole of Euclid in giving the enunciations. From this edition another Greek text, Florence, 1545, was invented by another mistake. All the Greek and Latin editions which Fabricius, Murhard, &c., attribute to Dasypodius (Conrad Rauchfuss), only give the enunciations in Greek. The same may be said of Scheubel's edition of the first six books (Basle, folio, 1550), which nevertheless professes in the title-page to give Euclid, Gr. Lat. There is an anonymous complete Greek and Latin text, London, printed by William Jones, 1620, which has thirteen books in the title-page, but contains only six in all copies that we have seen: it is attributed to the celebrated mathematician Briggs.

The Oxford edition, folio, 1703, published by David Gregory, with the title EUKAEĺdov тà σwcóμeva, took its rise in the collection of manuscripts bequeathed by Sir Henry Savile to the University, and was a part of Dr. Edward Bernard's plan (see his life in the Penny Cyclopaedia) for a large republication of the Greek geometers. His intention was, that the first four volumes should contain | Euclid, Apollonius, Archimedes, Pappus, and Heron; and, by an undesigned coincidence, the University has actually published the first three volumes in the order intended: we hope Pappus and Heron will be edited in time. In this Oxford text a large additional supply of manuscripts was consulted, but various readings are not given. It contains all the reputed works of Euclid, the Latin work of Mohammed of Bagdad, above mentioned as attributed by some to Euclid, and a Latin fragment De Levi et Ponderoso, which is wholly unworthy of notice, but which some had given to Euclid. The Latin of this edition is mostly from Commandine, with the help of Henry Savile's papers, which seem to have nearly amounted to a complete version. As an edition of the whole of Euclid's works, this stands alone, there being no other in Greek. Peyrard, who examined it with every desire to find errors of the press, produced only at the rate of ten for each book of the Elements.

The Paris edition was produced under singular circumstances. It is Greek, Latin, and French, in 3 vols. 4to. Paris, 1814-16-18, and it contains fifteen books of the Elements and the Data; for, though professing to give a complete edition of Euclid, Peyrard would not admit anything else to be genuine. F. Peyrard had published a translation of some books of Euclid in 1804, and a com

classical bibliographers are trustworthy as to writers with whom a scholar is more conversant than with Euclid. It is much that a Fabricius should enter upon Euclid or Archimedes at all, and he may well be excused for simply copying from bibliographical lists. But the mathematical bibliographers, Heilbronner, Murhard, &c., are inexcusable for copying from, and perpetuating, the almost unavoidable mistakes of Fabricius.

| plete translation of Archimedes. It was his intention to publish the texts of Euclid, Apollonius, and Archimedes; and beginning to examine the manuscripts of Euclid in the Royal Library at Paris, 23 in number, he found one, marked No. 190, which had the appearance of being written in the ninth century, and which seemed more complete and trustworthy than any single known manuscript. This document was part of the plunder sent from Rome to Paris by Napoleon, and had belonged to the Vatican Library. When restitution was enforced by the allied armies in 1815, a special permission was given to Peyrard to retain this manuscript till he had finished the edition on which he was then engaged, and of which one volume had already appeared. Peyrard was a worshipper of this manuscript, No. 190, and had a contempt for all previous editions of Euclid. He gives at the end of each volume a comparison of the Paris edition with the Oxford, specifying what has been derived from the Vatican manuscript, and making a selection from the various readings of the other 22 manuscripts which were before him. This edition is therefore very valuable; but it is very incorrectly printed: and the editor's strictures upon his predecessors seem to us to require the support of better scholarship than he could bring to bear upon the subject. (See the Dublin Review, No. 22, Nov. 1841, p. 341, &c.)

The Berlin edition, Greek only, one volume in two parts, octavo, Berlin, 1826, is the work of E F. August, and contains the thirteen books of the Elements, with various readings from Peyrard, and from three additional manuscripts at Munich (making altogether about 35 manuscripts consulted by the four editors). To the scholar who wants one edition of the Elements, we should decidedly recommend this, as bringing together all that has been done for the text of Euclid's greatest work.

We mention here, out of its place, The Elements of Euclid with dissertations, by James Williamson, B. D. 2 vols. 4to., Oxford, 1781, and London, 1788. This is an English translation of thirteen books, made in the closest manner from the Oxford edition, being Euclid word for word, with the additional words required by the English idiom given in Italics. This edition is valuable, and not very scarce the dissertations may be read with profit by a modern algebraist, if it be true that equal and opposite errors destroy one another.

Camerer and Hauber published the first six books in Greek and Latin, with good notes, Berlin, 8vo. 1824.

We believe we have mentioned all the Greek texts of the Elements; the liberal supply with which the bibliographers have furnished the world, and which Fabricius and others have perpetuated, is, as we have no doubt, a series of mistakes arising for the most part out of the belief about Euclid the enunciator and Theon the demonstrator, which we have described. Of Latin editions, which must have a slight notice, we have the six books by Orontius Finoeus, Paris, 1536, folio (Fabr., Murhard); the same by Joachim Camerarius, Leipsic, 1549, 8vo (Fabr., Murhard); the fifteen books by Steph. Gracilis, Paris, 1557, 4to. (Fabr., who calls it Gr. Lat., Murhard); the fifteen books of Franc. de Foix de Candale (Flussas Candalla), who adds a sixteenth, Paris, 1566, folio, and promises a seventeenth and eighteenth, which he gave in a subsequent edition, Paris. 1578, folio (Fabr.. Murhard); Frederic

Conmandine's first edition of the fifteen books, with commentaries, Pisauri, 1572, fol. (Fabr., Murhard); the fifteen books of Christopher Clavius, with comnentary, and Candalla's sixteenth book annexed, Rome, 1574, fol. (Fabr., Murhard); thirteen books, by Ambrosius Rhodius, Witteberg, 1609, 8vo. (Fabr., Murh.); thirteen books by the Jesuit Claude Richard, Antwerp, 1645, folio (Murh.); twelve books by Horsley, Oxford, 1802. We have not thought it necessary to swell this article with the various reprints of these and the old Latin editions, nor with editions which, though called Elements of Euclid, have the demonstrations given in the editor's own manner, as those of Maurolycus, Barrow, Cotes, &c., &c., nor with the editions contained in ancient courses of mathematics, such as those of Herigonius, Dechâles, Schott, &c., &c., which generally gave a tolerably complete edition of the Elements. Commandine and Clavius are the progenitors of a large school of editors, among whom Robert Simson stands conspicuous.

66

We now proceed to English translations. We find in Tanner (Bibl. Brit. Hib. p. 149) the following short statement: Candish, Richardus, I patria Suffolciensis, in linguam patriam transtulit Euclidis geometriam, lib. xv. Claruit A. D. MDLVI. - Bal. par. post. p. 111." Richard Candish is mentioned elsewhere as a translator, but we are confident that his translation was never published. Before 1570, all that had been published in EngIlish was Robert Recorde's Pathway to Knowledge, 1551, containing enunciations only of the first four books, not in Euclid's order. Recorde considers demonstration to be the work of Theon. In 1570 I appeared Henry Billingsley's translation of the fif teen books, with Candalla's sixteenth, London, folio. This book has a long preface by John Dee, the magician, whose picture is at the beginning: i so that it has often been taken for Dee's translation; but he himself, in a list of his own works, ascribes it to Billingsley. The latter was a rich citizen, and was mayor (with knighthood) in 1591. We always had doubts whether he was the real translator, imagining that Dee had done the drudgery at least. On looking into Anthony Wood's uccount of Billingsley (Ath. Oxon. in verb.) we find it stated (and also how the information was obtained) that he studied three years at Oxford be1fore he was apprenticed to a haberdasher, and there made acquaintance with an "eminent mathemaitician" called Whytehead, an Augustine friar. When the friar was "put to his shifts" by the dissolution of the monasteries, Billingsley received and maintained him, and learnt mathematics from him. "When Whytehead died, he gave his scholar all his mathematical observations that he had made and collected, together with his notes on Euclid's Elements." This was the foundation of the translation, on which we have only to say that it was certainly made from the Greek, and not from any of the Arabico-Latin versions, and is, for the time, a very good one. It was reprinted, London, folio, 1661. Billingsley died in 1606, at a great age.

Edmund Scarburgh (Oxford, folio, 1705) translated six books, with copious annotations. We Fomit detailed mention of Whiston's translation of Tacquet, of Keill, Cunn, Stone, and other editors,

Hence Schweiger has it that R. Candish pubished a translation of Euclid in 1556.

whose editions have not much to do with the pro gress of opinion about the Elements.

Dr. Robert Simson published the first six, and eleventh and twelfth books, in two separate quarto editions. (Latin, Glasgow, 1756. English, London, 1756.) The translation of the Data was added to the first octavo edition (called 2nd edition), Glasgow, 1762: other matters unconnected with Euclid have been added to the numerous succeeding editions. With the exception of the editorial fancy about the perfect restoration of Euclid, there is little to object to in this celebrated edition. It might indeed have been expected that some notice would have been taken of various points on which Euclid has evidently fallen short of that formality of rigour which is tacitly claimed for him. We prefer this edition very much to many which have been fashioned upon it, particularly to those which have introduced algebraical symbols into the demonstrations in such a manner as to confuse geometrical demonstration with algebraical operation. Simson was first translated into German by J. A. Matthias, Magdeburgh, 1799, 8vo.

The

This

Professor John Playfair's Elements of Geometry contains the first six books of Euclid; but the solid geometry is supplied from other sources. first edition is of Edinburgh, 1795, octavo. is a valuable edition, and the treatment of the fifth book, in particular, is much simplified by the abandonment of Euclid's notation, though his definition and method are retained.

Eaclid's Elements of Plane Geometry, by John Walker, London, 1827, is a collection containing very excellent materials and valuable thoughts, but it is hardly an edition of Euclid.

We ought perhaps to mention W. Halifax, whose English Euclid Schweiger puts down as printed eight times in London, between 1685 and 1752. But we never met with it, and cannot find it in any sale catalogue, nor in any English enumeration of editors. The Diagrams of Euclid's Elements by the Rev. W. Taylor, York, 1828, 8vo. size (part i. containing the first book; we do not know of any more), is a collection of lettered diagrams stamped in relief, for the use of the blind.

The earliest German print of Euclid is an edition by Scheubel or Scheybl, who published the seventh, eighth, and ninth books, Augsburgh, 1555, 4to. (Fabr. from his own copy); the first six books by W. Holtzmann, better known as Xylander, were published at Basle, 1562, folio (Fabr., Murhard, Kästner). In French we have Errard, nine books, Paris, 1598, 8vo. (Fabr.); fifteen books by Henrion, Paris, 1615 ((Fabr.), 1623 (Murh.), about 1627 (necessary inference from the preface of the fifth edition, of 1649, in our possession). It is a close translation, with a comment. In Dutch, six books by J. Petersz Dou, Leyden, 1606 (Fabr.), 1608 (Murh.). Dou was translated into German, Amsterdam, 1634, 8vo. Also an anonymous translation of Clavius, 1663 (Murh.). In Italian, Tartaglia's edition, Venice, 1543 and 1565. (Murh., Fabr.) In Spanish, by Joseph Saragoza, Valentia 1673, 4to. (Murh.) In Swedish, the first six books, by Martin Strömer, Upsal, 1753. (Murh.)

The remaining writings of Euclid are of small interest compared with the Elements, and a shorter account of them will be sufficient.

* These are the catalogues in which the appearance of a book is proof of its existence.

The first Greek edition of the Data is Evrλeídov Sedoμéva, &c., by Claudius Hardy, Paris, 1625, 4to., Gr. Lat., with the preface of Marinus prefixed. Murhard speaks of a second edition, Paris, 1695, 4to. Dasypodius had previously published them in Latin, Strasburg, 1570. (Fabr.) We have already spoken of Zamberti's Latin, and of the Greek of Gregory and Peyrard. There is also Euclidis Datorum Liber by Horsley, Oxford, 1803, 8vo. The Phaenomena is an astronomical work, containing 25 geometrical propositions on the doctrine of the sphere. Pappus (lib. vi. praef.) refers to the second proposition of this work of Euclid, and the second proposition of the book which has come down to us contains the matter of the reference. We have referred to the Latin of Zamberti and the Greek of Gregory. Dasypodius gave an edition (Gr. Lat., so said; but we suppose with only the enunciations Greek), Strasburg, 1571, 4to. (?)| (Weidler), and another appeared (Lat.) by Joseph Auria, with the comment of Maurolycus, Rome, 1591, 4to. (Lalande and Weidler.) The book is also in Mersenne's Synopsis, Paris, 1644, 4to. (Weidler.) Lalande names it (Bibl. Astron. p. 188) as part of a very ill-described astronomical collection, in 3 vols. Paris, 1626, 16mo.

(Proclus; Pappus; August ed cit.; Fabric. Bibl Graec. vol. iv. p. 44, &c.; Gregory, Praef. edit. cit.; Murhard, Bibl. Math.; Zamberti, ed. cit.; Savile, Praelect. in Eucl.; Heilbronner, Hist Mathes. Univ.; Schweiger, Handb. der Classisch Bibl.; Peyrard, ed. cit., &c. &c.: all editions to which a reference is not added having been ac tually consulted.) [A. DE M.] EUCLEIDES (Evêλeldŋs), historical. 1. One of the leaders of the body of colonists from Zancle who founded Himera. (Thucyd. vi. 5.)

2. One of the sons of Hippocrates, tyrant of Gela. It was in suppressing a revolt of the Geloans against Fucleides and his brother, which broke out on the death of Hippocrates, that Gelon managed to get the sovereignty into his own hands, B. C. 491. (Herod. vii. 155.)

3. One of the Thirty Tyrants at Athens. (Xen Hell. ii. 3. § 2.)

4. The archon eponymus for the year B. c. 403. His archonship is memorable for the restoration, with some modifications, of the old laws of Solo and Draco. These were inscribed on the stoa po cile in the so-called Ionian alphabet, which was then first brought into use at Athens for public b documents. (Andoc. de Myst. p. 11; Plut. Arist. 1.) Athenaeus (i. p. 3, a.) mentions an Athenian of this name who was famous as a collector of books Whether he was the same person as the archon, of not, does not appear.

5. The brother of Cleomenes III. king of Sparta He commanded a division of the forces of the lat ter at the battle of Sellasia, B. c. 223, and by his unskilful tactics in a great degree brought about the defeat of the Lacedaemonians. He fell with the whole of the wing which he commanded (Polyb. ii. 65, 67, 68; Plut. Philop. p. 358, Ard p. 1046, Cleom. pp. 809, 818.) [C. P. M.]

tu

T

R

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

th

a

S

[ocr errors]

to

P

Of the two works on music, the Harmonics and the Division of the Canon (or scale), it is unlikely that Euclid should have been the author of both. The former is a very dry description of the interminable musical nomenclature of the Greeks, and of their modes. It is called Aristoxenean [ARISTOXENUS] it does not contain any discussion of the proper ultimate authority in musical matters, though it does, in its wearisome enumeration, adopt some of those intervals which Aristoxenus retained, and the Pythagoreans rejected. The| style and matter of this treatise, we strongly suspect, belong to a later period than that of Euclid. EUCLEIDES (Exλelons), a native of MEGARA, The second treatise is an arithmetical description or, according to some less probable accounts, of and demonstration of the mode of dividing the Gela. He was one of the chief of the disciples d scale. Gregory is inclined to think this treatise Socrates, but before becoming such, he had studied cannot be Euclid's, and one of his reasons is that the doctrines, and especially the dialectics, of the Ptolemy does not mention it; another, that the Eleatics. Socrates on one occasion reproved him S theory followed in it is such as is rarely, if ever, for his fondness for subtle and captious disputes mentioned before the time of Ptolemy. If Euclid (Diog. Laërt. ii. 30.) On the death of Socrates did write either of these treatises, we are satisfied (B. c. 399), Eucleides, with most of the other pupil it must have been the second. Both are contained of that philosopher, took refuge in Megara, and in Gregory (Gr. Lat.) as already noted; in the there established a school which distinguished it 01 collection of Greek musical authors by Meibomius self chiefly by the cultivation of dialectics. The ( (Gr. Lat.), Amsterdam, 1652, 4to.; and in a sepa- doctrines of the Eleatics formed the basis of his rate edition (also Gr. Lat.) by J. Pena, Paris, philosophical system. With these he blended the 1537, 4to. (Fabr.), 1557 (Schweiger). Possevinus ethical and dialectical principles of Socrates. The has also a corrected Latin edition of the first in his Eleatic dogma, that there is one universal, u Bibl. Sel. Colon. 1657. Forcadel translated one changeable existence, he viewed in a moral aspect treatise into French, Paris, 1566, 8vo. (Schweiger.) calling this one existence the Good, but giving t The book on Optics treats, in 61 propositions, on also other names (as Reason, Intelligence, &c the simplest geometrical characteristics of vision perhaps for the purpose of explaining how the real and perspective: the Catoptrics have 31 proposi- though one, appeared to be many. He rejecte tions on the law of reflexion as exemplified in demonstration, attacking not so much the premise plane and spherical mirrors. We have referred to assumed as the conclusions drawn, and also reason the Gr. Lat. of Gregory and the Latin of Zam- ing from analogy. He is said to have been a ma berti; there is also the edition of J. Pena (Gr. of a somewhat indolent and procrastinating disp Lat.), Paris, 1557, 4to. (Fabr.); that of Dasypo-sition. He was the author of six dialogues, non b dius (Latin only, we suppose, with Greek enunciations), Strasburg, 1557, 4to. (Fabr.); a reprint of the Latin of Pena, Leyden, 1599, 4to. (Fabr.); and some other reprint, Leipsic, 1607. (Fabr.) There is a French translation by Rol. Freart Mans, 1663, 4to.; and an Italian one by Egnatic Danti Florence. 1573. 4to. (Schweiger.)

C

[ocr errors]

of which, however, have come down to us.
has frequently been erroneously confounded wit
the mathematician of the same name.
The scho n
which he founded was called sometimes the Meg
ric, sometimes the Dialectic or Eristic.
(Dio af
Laërt. ii. 106-108; Cic. Acad. ii. 42; Plut. of
Fratr. Am. 18.)
[C. P. M. L
sh

EUCLEIDES (Evkλeldŋs). 1. A Greek phy- | sician, to whom is addressed one of the Letters attributed to Theano (Socrat. et Pythag. Epist. p. 61, ed. Orell.), and who therefore may be supposed to have lived in the fifth century B. C.

2. The author of an antidote against venomous animals, &c., the composition of which is preserved by Galen, de Antid. ii. 10, vol. xiv. p. 162. Eucleides must have lived in or before the second century after Christ. [W. A. G.]

EUCLEIDES. 1. Of Athens, a sculptor, made the statues of Pentelic marble, in the temples of Demeter, Aphrodite, and Dionysus, and Eileithuia at Bura in Achaia. (Paus. vii. 25. § 5.) This town, as seen by Pausanias, had been rebuilt after its destruction by an earthquake, in B. c. 37. (Paus. l. c., comp. § 2.) The artist probably flourished, therefore, soon after this date.

2. A medallist, whose name is seen on the coins of Syracuse. (R. Rochette, Lettre à M. le Duc de Lignes, 1831.) [P.S.]

by refusing to become one of the Thirty Tyrants, and was put to death by them. According to Andocides, Eucrates was one of the victims of the popular ferment about the mutilation of the Hermes busts, having been put to death on the information of Diocleides. We have a speech of Lysias, composed in defence of the son of Eucrates on the occasion of a trial as to whether his hereditary property should be confiscated or not. (Lys. de Bonis Niciae frat. c. 2; Andoc. de Myst. c. 11.)

2. A writer mentioned by Hesychius (s. v. λaTpov) as the author of a work entitled 'Podiaká. Athenaeus (iii. p. 111, c.) also mentions a writer of this name. [C. P. M.]

EUCRA TIDES (Evкparlons), king of Bactria, was contemporary with Mithridates I. (Arsaces VI.), king of Parthia, and appears to have been one of the most powerful of the Bactrian kings, and to have greatly extended his dominions; but all the events of his reign are involved in the greatest obscurity and confusion. It seems proEUCLES (Evкλñs). 1. Of Rhodes, a son of Cal- bable that he established his power in Bactria lianax and Callipateira, the daughter of Diagoras, proper, while Demetrius, the son of Euthydemus, belonged to the family of the Eratidae or Diagoridae. still reigned in the Indian provinces south of the He gained a victory, in boxing at Olympia, though Paropamisus [DEMETRIUS]; and, in the course of it is uncertain in what year; and there was a sta- the wars that he carried on against that prince, he tue of him at Olympia, the work of Naucydes. was at one time besieged by him with very superior (Paus. vi. 6. § 1, 7. § 1.) The Scholiast on Pin- forces for a space of near five months, and with dar (Ol. vii. 16) calls him Euclon, and describes difficulty escaped. (Justin, xli. 6.) At a subsehim as a nephew of Callipateira. (Böckh,, Explicat.quent period, and probably after the death of ad Pind. Ol. vii. p. 166, &c.; DIAGORAS, ERATIDAE.)

Demetrius, he made great conquests in northern India, so that he was said to have been lord of a 2. A son of Hippon of Syracuse, was one of the thousand cities. (Strab. xv. p. 686.) Yet in the later three new commanders who were appointed in years of his reign he appears to have suffered heavy B. C. 414. Subsequently he was one of the com- losses in his wars against Mithridates, king of manders of the fleet which the Syracusans sent to Parthia, who wrested from him several of his proMiletus to assist Tissaphernes against the Athe- vinces (Strab. xi. pp. 515, 517), though it seems nians. (Thuc. vi. 103; Xen. Hell. i. 2. § 8.) A impossible to admit the statement of Justin third person of this name is Eucles, who was archon (xli. 6), that the Parthian king conquered at Athens in B. c. 427. (Thuc. iv. 104.) [L. S.] all the dominions of Eucratides, even as far as EUCLOUS (Eйkλous), an ancient Cyprian India. It appears certain at least, from the same soothsayer, who, according to Pausanias (x. 12. author, that Eucratides retained possession of § 6, 14. § 3, 24. § 3), lived before the time of Ho- his Indian dominions up to the time of his death, mer, who, as he predicted, was to spring from and that it was on his return from thence to Cyprus. Pausanias quotes some lines professing Bactria that he was assassinated by his son, whom to be the bard's prophecy of this event. he had associated with himself in the sovereignty. poem called the Cyprian Poem has been errone (Justin, xli. 6.) The statements of ancient authors ously supposed to have been of his composition. concerning the power and greatness of Eucratides (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. i. p. 35.) [C. P. M.] are confirmed by the number of his coins that have been found on both sides of the Paropamisus: on these he bears the title of "the Great." (Wilson's Ariana, p. 235-237.) The date suggested for the commencement of his reign by Bayer, and adopted by Wilson, is 181 B. C.; but authorities differ widely as to its termination, which is placed by Lassen in 160 B. C., while it is extended by Bayer and Wilson to 147 B. C. (See Wilson's Ariana, p. 234-238, where all the points relating to Eucratides are discussed and the authorities referred to.)

The

EU'CRATES (Evkpáтns), the demagogue, according to the Scholiast, alluded to by Aristophanes (Equit. 130), where he speaks of a flax-seller who ruled next but one before Cleon. (Comp. Equit. 254.) He might possibly be the same as the father of Diodotus (Thuc. iii. 41), who spoke against Cleon in the Mytilenaean debate, B. c. 427, but it is not very probable. The Eucrates mentioned in the Lysistrata (103) of Aristophanes as a general in Thrace is a different person, and probably the same as the brother of Nicias spoken of below. [A. H. C.]

EUCRATES (Eɩкpaтns). 1. An Athenian, a 'brother of the noted general Nicias. The few notices we have of him are to be found in the speeches of Andocides and Lysias, and these do not tally with each other. According to Lysias, he was made general by the Athenians, apparently after the last naval defeat of Nicias in the harbour of Syracuse (unless indeed by the last sea fight Lysias means the battle of Aegos Potami), and shewed his attachment to the principles of liberty

EYKPATIA Y

COIN OF EUCRATIDES.

Bayer (Hist. Regn. Graec. Bactriani, p. 95, &c.) has inferred the existence of a second Eucratides, the son of the preceding, to whom he ascribes the murder of his father, and this view has been adopted by M. Raoul Rochette (Journal des Sav. 1835); but it does not seem to be established on any sufficient grounds. Wilson and Mionnet conceive Heliocles to have been the successor of Eucratides. (Wilson's Ariana, p. 237; Mionnet, Suppl. t. 8, p. 470.) [HELIOCLES.] [E. H. B.] EUCTE'MON (EUкThμv), the astronomer. [METON.]

EUCTE'MON (Evктýμwv), a Greek rhetorician who lived in the early part of the Roman empire. He is mentioned only by Seneca, who has preserved a few fragments of his works. (Controv. iii. 19, 20. iv. 25, v. 30, 34.) [L. S.]

EUDAEMON (Evdalμwv). 1. The name of two victors in the Olympian games. One of them was an Egyptian, and won the prize in boxing, but the year is not known. (Philostr. Her. ii. 6.) The other was a native of Alexandria, and gained a victory in the foot-race in Ol. 237, or a. D. 169. (African. ap. Euseb. Chron. p. 44, 2d. edit. Scalig.) 2. A Greek grammarian, and contemporary of Libanius. He was a native of Pelusium in Egypt, and wrote a work on orthography, which is lost, but is often referred to by Suidas, in the Etymologicum, and by Stephanus of Byzantium. (s. vv. Αΐλια, Δασκύλιον, Δοκίμειον, Καπετώλιον, and 'Opeoría; Eudoc. p. 168.) [L.S.]

|

mand of the troops left in India. (Arrian, Anah vi. 27. § 5.) After Alexander's death he made him self master of the territories of the Indian king Porus, and treacherously put that monarch death. He by this means became very powerful and in 317 B. C. brought to the support of Eumene in the war against Antigonus a force of 3500 men and 125 elephants. (Diod. xix. 14.) With these he rendered him active service in the first battle i Gabiene, but seems nevertheless to have been je lous of him, and joined in the conspiracy of Ant genes and Teutamos against him, though he wa afterwards induced to divulge their plans. Afte the surrender of Eumenes, Eudemus was put t death by order of Antigonus, to whom he had always shewn a marked hostility. (Diod. xix. li 27, 44; Plut. Eum. c. 16.)

2. Son of Cratevas and brother of Pithon, was appointed by his brother satrap of Parthia in the stead of Philip, whom he displaced. (Diod. xi 14.) [E. H. B.] 1. An historical writer, a native of either Naxos or Paros, whe lived before the time of the Peloponnesian war (Dionys. Jud. de Thuc. c. 5; Clem. Alex. Strom vi. 2, 26, p. 267; Vossius, de Hist. Gr. p. 440, ed. Westermann.)

ÉUDEMUS (Εύδημος).

2. A writer, apparently on natural history, whe is frequently quoted by Aelian, in his History Animals (iii. 21, iv. 8, 43, 45, 56, ν. 7).

3. A writer on the history of astronomy and geometry, mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinu (Strom. i. p. 130), Diogenes Laërtius (i. 23), and Proclus (in Euclid. i. 4).

4. A rhetorician, who lived probably in the fourth century after Christ. He was the author of a lexicon, περὶ Λέξεων 'Ρητορικῶν, manuscript of which are still extant at Paris, Vienna, and other places. His work appears to have been diligently used by Suidas, and is mentioned with praise by Eudocia. (Suidas, s. v. Evdnuos; Eudocia, p. 165; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. vi. pp. 245, [C. P. M.]

EUDA'MIDAŠ (Evdauídas). 1. A Spartan of some note, who, when the Chalcidians sent to implore aid against Olynthus in B. c. 383, was sent at the head of 2000 men. Before his departure he prevailed on the ephors to commit the next division which should be sent to the command of his brother Phoebidas. The latter, on his march, seized the Cadmea of Thebes; and in consequence of the delay of the main body of the troops thus occasioned, Eudamidas could effect but little. He, however, garrisoned several of the Chalcidian towns; and, making Potidaea his head-632.) quarters, carried on the war without any decisive EUDEMUS (Εύδημος). 1. Of Cyprus, to result. According to Diodorus, he was worsted in whom Aristotle dedicated the dialogue Evonμosi several engagements; and it would appear from πeρ Yʊxns, which is lost, and known to us only Demosthenes (de Falsa Legat. p. 425), who speaks by some fragments preserved in Plutarch (Cor of three commanders having in this war fallen on solat. ad Apollon. p. 115, b.), and a few other the side of the Chalcidians and Lacedaemonians, writers. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iii. pp. 393 that in one of these encounters Eudamidas was 599; Ionsius, De Script. Historiae Philosoph. killed. (Xen. Hell. v. 2. § 24; Diod. xv. 20, 21.) 15. 3; Wyttenbach, ad Plut. l. c. p. 765; and the 2. Two kings of Sparta bore this name. Eu- commentators on Cic. de Divin. 25.) damidas I. was the younger son of Archidamus III. and succeeded his brother Agis III. in B. c. 330. The exact length of his reign is uncertain, but it was probably about 30 years. Plutarch (Apophth. p. 220, 221) records some sayings of Eudamidas, which bespeak his peaceful character and policy, which is also attested by Pausanias (iii. 10. § 5). Eudamidas II. was the son of Archidamus IV. (whom he succeeded) and grandson of Eudamidas I. (Plut. Agis, 3.) He was the father of Agis IV. and Archidamus V. [C. P. M.]

EUDA'MUS (Evdaμos), is mentioned by Aristophanes (Plut. 884) as a contemporary, and lived therefore in the fifth century B. C. The Scholiast informs us that he was by trade either a druggist or a goldsmith, and that he sold rings as antidotes against poisons.

[W. A. G.] EUDE'MUS (Evdnuos). 1. One of Alexander's generals, who was appointed by him to the com

2. Of Rhodes, a contemporary and disciple d Aristotle. We have no particulars of his life; but that he was one of the most important of Aristotle' numerous disciples may be inferred from the anec dote of Gellius (xiii. 5, where Eudemo must b read instead of Menedemo), according to which Eudemus and Theophrastus were the only disciple whom the Peripatetic school esteemed worthy t fill the place of Aristotle after his death. Simpli cius makes mention of a biography of Eudemus. supposed to be the work of one Damas or Damas cius. (Simplic. ad Aristot. Phys. vi. 216,) Eudemu was one of those immediate disciples of Aristotle who closely followed their master, and the prin cipal object of whose works was to correct, amplify and complete his writings and philosophy. It was owing to this circumstance, as we learn from the ancient critics, that Aristotle's writings were s often confounded with those of other author

« 前へ次へ »