Scanned text contains errors.
attempting to write a history of the period previous to the return of the Heracleidae; but the history of the subsequent time is still greatly intermixed with fables and mythical traditions; and it must be acknowledged that his attempts to restore a genuine history by divesting the traditions from what he considered mythical or fabulous, were in most cases highly unsuccessful, and sometimes even absurd and puerile. He exercised a sort of criticism which is anything but that of a real historian (Strab. xii. p. 550), and in some instances he forced his authorities to suit his own views. For the early times he seems to have preferred the logographers to the epic poets, though the latter, too, were not neglected. Even the later portions of his history, where Ephorus had such guides as Herodotus, Thucydides, _and Xenophon, contained such discrepancies from his great predecessors, and on points on which they were entitled to credit, that Ephorus, to say the least, cannot be regarded as a sound and safe guide in the study of history. The severest critic of Ephorus was Timaeus, who never neglected an opportunity of pointing out his inaccuracies ; several authors also wrote separate books against Ephorus, such as Alexinus, the pupil of Eubulides (Diog. Laert. ii. 106,110), and Strato the Peripatetic. (Diog. Laert. v. 59.) Porphyrius (ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang. x. 2) charges Ephorus with constant plagiarisms; but this accusation is undoubtedly very much exaggerated, for we not only find no traces of plagiarism in the fragments extant, but we frequently find Ephorus disputing the statements of his predecessors. (Joseph, c. Apion. i. 3.) Polybius (xii. 25) praises him for his knowledge of maritime warfare, but adds that he was utterly ignorant of the mode of warfare on land; Strabo (viii. p. 332) acknowledges his merits, by saying that he separated the historical from the geographical portions of his work; and, in regard to the latter, he did not confine himself to mere lists of names, but he introduced investigations concerning the origin of nations, their constitutions and manners, and many of the geographical fragments which have come down to us contain lively and beautiful descriptions. (Polyb. ix. 1; Strab. ix. p. 400, &c., x. pp. 465,479, &c.) As regards the style of Ephorus, it is such as might be expected from a disciple of Isocrates: it is clear, lucid, and elaborately polished, but at the same time diffuse and deficient in power and energy, so that Ephorus is by no means equal to his master. (Polyb. xii. 28; Dionys. de Comp. Verb. 26 ; Demetr. Ilepl epjjaiv. § 68 ; Dion Chrysost. Orat. xviii. p. 256, ed. Morel.; Plut. Pericl. 28 ; Phi-lostr. Vit. Soph. i. 17; Cic. Orat. 51; Phot. Bill. Cod. 176.) The fragments of the works of Ephorus, the number of which might probably be much increased if Diodorus had always mentioned his authorities, were first collected by Meier Marx, Carlsruhe, 1815, 8vo., who afterwards published some additions in Friedemann and Seebode's Mis-cellan. Grit., ii. 4, p. 754, &c. They are also contained in C. and Th. M'tiller's Fragm. Historicor. Graec. pp. 234—277, Paris, 1841, 8vo. Both editors have prefixed to their editions critical dissertations on the life and writings of Ephorus.
2. Of Cumae, called the Younger, was likewise an historian, but he is mentioned only by Suidas, according to whom he wrote a history of Galienus in twenty-seven books, a work on Corinth, one on the Aleuadae, and a few others. The name
Galienus in this account, it should be observed, is only a correction of Volaterranus, for the common reading in Suidas is ra\r)vov. (Comp. Marx, Ephor. Fragm. p. 7.) [L, S.]
EPHORUS, an Ephesian painter, and teacher of apelles. (Suid. s. v. 'A-TrcAAijs.) [P. S.]
1. ephremus. To a writer so called, and to whose name no distinctive epithet can be attached, is ascribed the account of Saints Abram and Mary (Ada SS. Abramii et Mariae) in the Ada Sanctorum Martii, vol. ii. p. 436, &c. Papebroche, in his introduction to the account, conjectures that the writer lived about the middle of the sixth century. The account, of which he is the author, is sometimes ascribed (as in the Catalogue of the King's Library at Paris a. d. 1740) but incorrectly to Ephraem the Syrian. It has also been ascribed, but incorrectly, to Ephrem of Caria and Ephrem of Mylasa. [Nos. 3 and 7 below.]
2. ephraimius (E^pafyuos), or, as Theophanes writes the name, euphraimius (Eitypafyuos), patriarch of antioch, or, as it was then called, Theopolis. If the designation given him by Theophanes (6 'A/u&os) indicates the place of his birth, he was a native of Amida in Armenia, near the source of the Tigris. His first employments were civil: and in the reign of the emperor Justin I. he attained to the high dignity of Count of the East. While in this office he-received, according to a curious story, recorded in the Aeipuvdpios, or Pratum Spirituale, written by Joannes Moschus, but erroneously ascribed, by ancient as well as modern writers, to Sophronius patriarch of Jerusalem, an intimation of the ecclesiastical dignity to which he was destined to attain. In the years 525 and 526, Antioch was nearly destroyed by successive shocks of an earthquake, and by a fire which had been occasioned by the overthrow of the buildings. Among the sufferers was Euphrasius the patriarch, who was buried in the ruins of the falling edifices ; and the people, grateful for the compassionate care which Ephraimius manifested for them in their distress, chose him successor to the deceased prelate. His elevation to the patriarchate is generally placed in the year 526, but perhaps did not take place till the year following. His conduct as patriarch is highly eulogized by ecclesiastical writers, who speak .especially of his charity to the poor, and of , the zeal and firmness with which he opposed heresy. His zeal against heretics was manifested in a curious encounter with an heretical stylite, or pillar-saint, in which the heretic is said to have been converted by the miraculous passing of the patriarch's robes, unconsumed, through the ordeal of fire. He condemned, in a synod at Antioch, those who attempted to revive the obnoxious sentiments of Origen; and wrote various treatises against the Nestorians, Eutychians, Severians, and Acephali, and in defence of the Council of Chalcedon. But, toward the close of his life, he was obliged by the Emperor Justinian, under a threat of deposition, to subscribe the condemnation of three of the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, which he had hitherto so earnestly supported, Facundus of Hermia, the strenuous advocate of the condemned