A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

PHALARIS. PHALARIS. 235
by Diodorus of the manner of his death has every riousness. The proofs of this, derived from the
appearance of a fable, but is probably so far founded glaring anachronisms in which they abound-such
in fact that he perished by a sudden outbreak of as the mention of the cities of Tauromenium,
the popular fury, in which it appears that Tele- Alaesa, and Phintias, which were not built till
machus, the ancestor of Theron, must have borne long after the death of Phalaris - the allusions to
a conspicuous part. (Diod. Exe. Vat. p. 25, 26; tragedies and comedies as things well known and of
Tzetz. Clil. v. 956; Cic. de Of. ii. 7; Schol. ad ordinary occurrence —the introduction of sentiPind. 01. iii. 68.) The statement of Iamblichus, ments and expressions manifestly derived from
who represents him as dethroned by Pythagoras later writers, such as Herodotus, Democritus, and
(De Vit. Pyth. 32. ~ 122. ed. Kiessl.), is wholly even Callimachus-and above all, the dialect of
unworthy of credit. the epistles themselves, which is the later Attic,
No circumstance connected with Phalaris is such as was the current language of the learned in
more celebrated than the brazen bull in which he the latter ages of the Roman empire —would apis said to have burnt alive the victims of his pear so glaring, that it is difficult to conceive how
cruelty, and of which we are told that he made the a body of men of any pretensions to learning could
first experiment upon its inventor Perillus. [PE- be found to maintain their authenticity. Still more
RILLUS.] This latter story has much the air of extraordinary is it, that a writer of so much taste
an invention of later times, and Timaeus even de- and cultivation as Sir William Temple should have
nied altogether the existence of the bull itself. It is spoken in the highest terms of their intrinsic merit,
indeed highly probable, as asserted by that writer, and have pronounced them unquestionably genuine
that the statue extant in later times — which was on this evidence alone. (Essay on Ancient and Modern
carried off from Agrigentum by the Carthaginians, Learning, Works,vol.iii. p.478.) Probablyno reader
and afterwards captured by Scipio at the taking of at the present day will be found to look into them
that city —was not, as pretended, the identical without concurring in the sentence of Bentley, that
bull of Phalaris, but this is evidently no argument they are "a fardle of common-places." The epistle
against its original existence, and it is certain that in which the tyrant professes to give the Athenians
the fame of this celebrated engine of torture was an account of his treatment of Perillus, and the
inseparably associated with the name of Phalaris reasons for it (Ep. v. of Lennep and Schaefer, it is
as early as the time of Pindar. (Pind. Pyth. i. 185; Ep. ccxxii. of the older editions), would seem sufSclol. ad loc.; Died. xiii. 90; Polyb. xii. 25; ficient in itself to betray the sophist. The period
Timaeus, fr. 116 —118. ed. Didot; Callim. fr. 119, at which this forgery was composed cannot now be
194; Plut. Parall. p. 315.) That poet also speaks determined. Politian ascribed the spurious episof Phalaris himself in terms which clearly prove tles in question to Lucian, but there is certainly
that his reputation as a barbarous tyrant was then no ground for this supposition, and they are proalready fully established, and all subsequent writers, bably the work of a much later period. The first
until a very late period, allude to him in terms of author who refers to them is Stobaeus, by whom
similar import. Cicero in particular calls him " cru- they are repeatedly quoted, without any apparent
delissimus omnium tyrannorum" ( in Verr. iv. suspicion (Florileg. tit. 7. ~ 68, 49. ~~ 16, 26,
33), and uses his name as proverbial for a tyrant 86. ~ 17); but Photius alludes to them (Ep. 207),
in the worst sense of the word, as opposed to a mild in terms that clearly intimate that he regarded
and enlightened despot like Peisistratus. (Cic. ad them as spurious. At a later period they are
Att. vii. 20; see also De Of2. ii. 7, iii. 6, De Rep. i. mentioned with the greatest admiration by Suidas
28, and other passages; Polyb. vii. 7; Lucian. (s. v. 4,daapts), who calls them nav/aeoas 7raivu.
Ver. Hist. 23, Bis. Accus. 8; Plut. de ser. num. Tzetzes also has extracted largely from them, and
vind. p. 553.) calls Phalaris himself EicEsos d J 7rdveopos. (Clil. i.
But in the later ages of Greek literature, there 669, &c., v. 839-969.) After the revival of learn —
appears to have existed or arisen a totally different ing also, they appear to have enjoyed considerable
tradition concerning Phalaris, which represented reputation, though rejected as spurious by Politian,
him as a man of a naturally mild and humane dis- Menage, and other eminent scholars. They were
position, and only forced into acts of severity or first given to the world in a Latin translation by
occasional cruelty, by the pressure of circumstances Francesco Accolti of Arezzo, published at Rome in
and the machinations of his enemies. Still more 1470, of which many successive editions appeared
strange is it that he appears at the same time as before the end of the fifteenth century. The orian admirer of literature and philosophy, and the ginal Greek text was not published till 1.498, when
patron of men of letters. Such is the aspect under it was printed at Venice, together with the epistles
which the character of the tyrant of Agrigentum is ascribed to Apollonius of Tyana and M. Brutus.
presented to us in two declamations commonly as- They were afterwards inserted by Aldus in his
cribed to Lucian (though regarded by many writers collection of the Greek writers of epistles (Venet.
as not the work of that author), and still more 1499), and passed through several editions in the
strikingly in the well-known epistles which bear 16th and 17th centuries, but none of any note,
the name of Phalaris himself. Purely fictitious as until that printed at Oxford in 1695, which bore
the latter undoubtedly are, it is difficult to con- the name of Charles Boyle, and gave occasion to
ceive that the sophist who composed them would the famous dissertation of Bentley already referred
have given them a colour and character so entirely to. For the literary history of this controversy, in
opposite to all that tradition had recorded of the which Bentley was opposed not only by Boyle, but
tyrant, if there had rot existed some traces of a by all the learning which Oxford could muster, as
wholly different version of his history. well as by the wit and satire of Swift and AtterThe once celebrated epistles alluded to are now bury, the reader may consult Monk's Life of
remembered chiefly on account of the literary con- Bentley, chaps. 4-6, and Dyce's preface to his edition
troversy to which they gave rise, and the masterly of Bentley's works (8vo. Lond. 1836). Since this
dissertation in which Bentley exposed their spu- period only two editions of the Epistles of Phalaris