Scanned text contains errors.
in fact, a dactylic hexameter stript of its final catalexis. It must not be supposed that this metre was invented by Choerilus, for the Greek metrical writers never mention it by that name. Perhaps it got its name from the fact of the above-mentioned line, in praise of Choerilus, being the most ancient verse extant in this metre. (See Nake, pp. 257, 263 ; Gaisford's edition of Hephaestion, notes, pp. 353, 354.)
2. .Choerilus, a slave of the comic poet ecphan-tides, whom he was said to assist in the composition of his plays. (Hesych. s. v. 'E/c/ce^o/piAwwe^ and XoipiXov 'E/o^az/ricJos.) This explains the error of Eudocia (p. 437), that the epic poet Choerilus wrote tragedies. (Meineke, Hist. Grit. Com. Graec. pp. 37, .38 ; Gaisford, ad ffepk. p. 96.)
3. Choerilus of Samos, the author of an epic poem on the wars of the Greeks with Xerxes and Dareius. Suidas (s. v.} says, that he was a contemporary of Panyasis and a young man (veaviffKov) at the time of the Persian war, in the 75th Olympiad. But this is next to impossible, for Plutarch (Lys. 18) tells us that, when Lysander was at Samos (b. c. 404), Choerilus was .residing there, and was highly honoured by Lysander, who hoped that the poet would celebrate his exploits. This was 75 years later than the 75th Olympiad : and therefore, if this date has anything to do with Choerilus, it must be the date of his birth (b. c. 479) ; and this agrees with another statement of Suidas, which implies that Choerilus was younger than Herodotus (ovnvos avrov ko\ Tra&iKa yeyo-vevai (paffiv]. We have here perhaps the explanation of the error of Suidas, who, from the connexion of both Panyasis and Choerilus with Herodotus, and from the fact that both were epic poets, may have confounded them, and have said of Choerilus that which can very well be true of Panyasis. Perhaps Choerilus was even younger. Nake places his birth about b. c, 470. Suidas also says, that Choerilus was a slave at Samos, and was distinguished for his beauty; that he ran away and. resided with Herodotus, from whom he acquired a taste for literature; and that he turned his attention to poetry : afterwards he went to the court of Archelaus, king of Macedonia, where he died. His death must therefore have been not later than b. c. 399, which was the last year of Archelaus. Athenaeus (viii. p. 345, e.) states, that Choerilus received from Archelaus four minae a-day, and spent it all upon good living (otyofyayiav). There are other statements of Suidas, which evidently refer to the later poet, who was contemporary with Alexander. (See below.) There is some doubt whether the accounts which made him a native either of lasos or of Halicarnassus belong to this class. Either of them is perfectly consistent with the statement that he was a slave at Samos. (Compare Steph. Byz. s. v. 'laffffos; Hesych. Miles, p. 40, ed. Meurs.; Phot. Lex. s.v. ^a.}j.ia.Kov rpoirov.)
His great work was on the Persian wars, but its exact title is not known: it may have been TIepffiKd. It is remarkable as the earliest attempt to celebrate in epic poetry events which were nearly contemporary with the poet's life. Of its character we may form some conjecture from the connexion between the poet and Herodotus. There are also fragments preserved by Aristotle from the Prooemium (RJieL iii. 14, and SchoL); by Ephorus from the description of Dareius's bridge of boats, in which the Scythians are mentioned (Strab. vii.
p. 303); by Josephus from the catalogue of th<3 nations in the army of Xerxes, among whom were the Jews (c. Apion. i. 22, vol. ii. p. 454, ed. Ha-vercamp, iii. p. 1183, ed. Oberthur; compare Eu-seb. Praep. Evang. ix. 9) ; and other fragments, the place of which is uncertain. (See Nake.) The chief action of the poem appears to have been the battle of Salamis. The high estimation in which Choerilus was held is proved by his reception into the epic canon (Suid. s. v.}, from which, however, he was again expelled by the Alexandrian grammarians, and Antimachus was substituted in his place, on account of a statement, which was made on the authority of Heracleides Ponticus, that Plato very much preferred Antimachus to Choerilus. (Proclus, Comin. in Plat. Tim. p. 28; see also au epigram of Crates in the Greek Anthology, ii. p. 3, eds. Brunck and Jac., with Jacobs's note, Animadv. ii. 1. pp. 7-9.) The great inferiority of Choerilus to Homer in his similes is noticed by Aristotle. (7b-pic. viii. 1. § 24.)
" Gratus Alexandra regi Magno fuit ille
Choerilus, incultis qui versibus et male natis Rettulit acceptos, regale nomisma, Philippos;1* and (Art. Poet. ^57, 358),
" Sic mini, qui multum cessat, fit Choerilus ille,
Quern bis terque bonum cum risu miror," From the former passage it is evident-that we must refer to this Choerilus the statement of Suidas respecting Choerilus of Samos, that he received a gold stater for every verse of his poem. However liberally Alexander may have paid Choerilus for his flattery, he did not conceal his contempt for his poetry, at least if we may believe Acron, who remarks on the second of the above passages, that Alexander used to tell Choerilus that " he would rather be the Thersites of Homer than the Achilles of Choerilus." The same writer adds, that Choerilus bargained with Alexander for a piece of gold for every good verse, and a blow for every bad one; and the bad verses were so numerous, that he was beaten to death. This appears to be merely a joke.
Suidas assigns to Choerilus of Samos a poem entitled Aa,iua«:«, and other poems. But in all probability that poem related to the Lamian war, b. c. 323; and. if so, it must have been the com position of this later Choerilus. To him also Nake assigns the epitaph on Sardanapahis, which is preserved by Strabo (xiv. p. 672), by Athenaeus (viii. p. 336, a., who says, that it was translated by Choerilus from the Chaldee, xii. p. 529, f.; compare Diod. ii. 23 ; Tzetz. Chil. iii. 453), and in the Greek Anthology. (Brunck, Anal. i. p. 185; Jacobs, i. p. 117; see Jacobs, Animadv. vol. i. pt. 1, p. 376.) [P. S.]
CHOEROBOSCUS, GEO'RGIUS (T^pyto^ Xoipo^ocr/cos), a Greek grammarian, who lived probably towards the end of the sixth century of the Christian aera. He is the author of various grammatical and rhetorical works, of which only one has been printed, namely " de Figuris poeticis, oratoriis, et theologicis" (irepi TpoVov tcov Kara 'jTonjTiKrjv Kal freoXoyiKrtv XPVffLV}i published with a Latin translation together with the dissertation of Proclus on divine and poetical instinct, by Mo-rellus, Paris, 1615, 12mo. His other works, the