The
cardinals
Baronius (Apollod, i.
William Smith - 1844 - Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities - c
verbs, and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
In this edition the editor published an Apologia Some additions to the Scholia on the Canticles, and
pro Origene, which involved him in much trouble, to the Hexaplar readings on the same book, are
and obliged him to defend himself in a new Apo- contained in the Eis ta ouata, Catena in Canticum,
logia, published in A. D. 1522, when his edition was of Procopius of Gaza, published in the Classicorum
reprinted, as it was again in 1530, and perhaps 1536. Auctorum e l'aticanis Codd. editorum of Angelo
The second edition was prepared by Erasmus, who Mai, vol. ix. p. 257, &c. 8vo. Rome, 1837. Two
made the versions, and was published after his death fragments of Origen, one considerable one, Eis TÒ
by Beatus Rhenanus, fol. Basel. 1536. Panzerkata Moukāv, In Evangelium Lucue (pp. 474 482),
(Annules Typ. vol. vii. ) gives the version of Eras- and one of a few lines, Els AevitiKÓV, In Leviticum,
mus as published in 4 vols. fol. Lyon (Lugdunum), appear in vol. X. of the same series. Some Scholia
1536. It was reprinted, with additions, in 1545, of Origen are contained in a collection, Eis tòx
1551, 1557, and 1571. The third and most complete Aanna épunvela. Siapópwv, In Danielem l'ariorum
Latin edition was that of Gilbertus Genebrardus, Commentarii, published in vol. i. pars ii. p. 161, &c.
2 vols. Paris, 1574, reprinted in 1604 and 1619. of the Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio, 10 vols.
The value of these Latin editions is diminished by | 4to. Rome, 1825, &c. of the same learned editur,
the consideration, that some of the works of Origen, On the writings of Origen, see Huet, Origeniara,
for instance, the De Martyrio and De Oratione, are lib. iii. ; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 230, vol. i. p. 112,
not contained in them, and that the versions of ed. Oxford, 1740—43; Tillemont, Mémoires, vol.
Rufinus, which make up a large part of them, are iii. p. 551, &c. , 771, &c. ; Dupin, Nouvelle Biblioth.
notoriously unfaithful. We do not here notice any des Aut
. Ecclés. des I. II. III. Siècles, vol. i. p. 326,
but professedly complete editions of Origen's works. &c. 3d ed. 8vo. Paris, 1698; Fabric. Bibl. Graec.
Of the Graeco-Latin editions the most important vol. iii. p. 708, &c. , vol. vi. p. 199, &c. , vol. vii.
are the following: - Origenis Opera Exegetica, p. 201; Oudin. Comment. de Scriptoribus Eccles.
2 vols. fol. Rouen, 1668, edited by Pierre Daniel vol. i. col. 231, &c. ; Ceillier, Auteurs Sacris,
Huet, afterwards Bp. of Avranches. An ample vol. ii. p. 601, &c. ; Lardner, Credibiluy, &c. part
and valuable dissertation on the life, opinions, and ii. c. 38.
works of Origen, entitled Origeniana, was prefixed Few writers have exercised greater influence by
to this edition. The fragments, collected from the the force of their intellect and the variety of their
Catenae oy Combéfis, were sent to Huet, but were attainments than Origen, or have been the occasion
not inserted by him. Huet intended to publish of longer and more acrimonious disputes. His
the complete works of Origen, but did not execute influence is the more remarkable as he had not the
his purpose. His edition was reprinted at Paris, advantage of high rank and a commanding position
in 1679, and at Cologne, or rather Frankfort, in in the church ; and his freedom in interpreting the
1685. But the standard edition of Origen's works Scriptures, and the general liberality of his views
is that of the French Benedictine, Charles Delarue, were in direct opposition to the current of religious
completed after his death by his nephew, Charles opinion in his own and subsequent times.
Vincent Delarue, a monk of the same order, 4 vols. Of the more distinctive tenets of this father,
fol. Paris, 1733—1759. The first volume contains several bad reference to the foctrine of the
the Miscellaneous, including some of the supposi- Trinity, on which he was charged with distin-
titious works; and the other three the Exegetical guishing the ovvia, substantia, of the Father from
works, including one of the supposititious Commen that of the Son, with affirming the inferiority of the
tarii in Jobum. The fragments of the Hexapla Holy Spirit to the Son, with making both the
and-the Hebraicorum Nominum, &c. Interpretatio, Son and Spirit creatures, and with various other
and a portion of the supposititious works, are not errors either asserted by him, or regarded as
given. To the fourth volume are appended (1) Ru- necessarily flowing from his assertions, which it is
finus' version of the Apologia pro Origene of the not requisite to mention. Others of his opinions
Martyr Pamphilus, with considerable fragments of had reference to the difficult subject of the incar-
the Greek, accompanied by a new Latin version of nation, and to the pre-existence of Christ's human
the fragments. (2) The Epilogus of Rufinus on soul, which, as well as the pre-existence of other
the interpolation of Origen's writings. (3) Eis human souls, he affirmed. He was charged also
Ωριγένην προσφωνητικός και πανηγυρικός λόγος. | with holding the corporeity of angels and with
In Origenem Prosphonetica ac Panegyrica Oratio, other errors as to angels and daemons on which
addressed by Gregorius Thanmaturgus to Origen, his subjects his views appear to have fluctuated. He
preceptor, on leaving him to return to his native land, held the freedom of the human will, and ascribed
with the Latin version of Gerard Vossius. (4) The to man a nature less corrupt and depraved than
Origeniana of Huet: and (5) an extract from was consistent with orthodox riews of the ope-
Bishop Bull's Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, cap. ix. on ration of divine grace. He held the doctrine of
the Consubstantiality of the Son of God. The the universal restoration of the guilty, conceiving
whole works were accompanied by valuable pre- that the devil alone would suffer eternal punish-
faces, “ monita," and notes.
ment. Other points of less moment we do not
The works of Origen, from the edition of Dela- notice here. A full discussion of them is contained
rue, revised by Oberthür, were reprinted without in the Origeniana of Huet (lib. ii. c. 2, 3).
## p. 55 (#71) ##############################################
ORION.
65
ORION.
Origen lived before the limits which separated said to have been called by the Boeotians Cundaon.
orthodoxy and heterodoxy were so determinately (Hom. Od. xi. 309 ; Strab. ix. p. 404 ; Tzetz. ad
and narrowly laid down, as in the following centu- Lyc. 328. ) Once he caine to Chios (Ophiusa), and
ries ; and therefore, though his opinions were ob- fell in love with Aero, or Merope, the daughter of
noxious to many, and en bittered the opposition to Oenopion, by the nymph Helice. He cleared the
him, he was not cast out of the church as a heretic island from wild beasts, and brought the spoils of
in his lifetime, the grounds of his excommunication the chase as presents to his beloved ; but as
relating rather to points of ecclesiastical order and Oenopion constantly deferred the marringe, Orion
regularity, than to questions dogmatic theology. one day being intoxicated forced his way into the
But some time after his death, and especially after chamber of the maiden. Oenopion now implored
the outbreak of the Arian controversy, and the the assistance of Dionysus, who caused Orion to
appeal of the Arians to passages in Origen's works, be thrown into a deep sleep by styrs, in which
the cry of heresy was raised by the orthodox party Oenopion blinded him. Being informed by an
against his writings. The tone, however, of the oracle that he should recover his sight, if he would
earlier orthodox leaders, Athanasius, Basil, and go towards the east and expose his eye-balls to the
Gregory Nazianzen was moderate ; others, as rays of the rising sun, Orion following the sound
Hilary of Poitiers, John of Jerusalem, Didymus, of a Cyclops' hammer, went to Lemnos, where
Gregory Nysseni, Eusebius of Vercellae, Titus of Hephaestus gave to him Cedalion as his guidc.
Bostra, Ambrose, Palladius, Isidore of Pelusium, When afterwards he had recovered his sight, Orion
and even Jerome himself in his earlier life, de returned to Chios to take vengeance, but as Oeno-
fended Origen, though Jerome's change of opinion pion had been concealed by his friends, Orion was
in respect of Origen afterwards led to his famous unable to find him, and then proceeded to Crete,
quarrel with Rufinus. About the close of the where he lived as a hunter with Artemis. (Apollod.
fourth century, Theophilus of Alexandria expelled i 4. § 3; Parthen. Erot. 20 ; Theon, ad Arat. 638 ;
some monks from Egypt on account of their Hygin. Poct. Astr. ii. 34. ) The cause of his death,
Origenism ; but the oppressive deed was not ap which took place either in Crete or Chios, is
proved at Constantinople, where the monks were differently stated. According to some Eos, who
kindly received by the Patriarch Chrysostom and loved Orion for his beauty, carried him off, but as
the Empress Eudoxia. The monks were restored: the gods were angry at this, Artemis killed him
but the conflict of Theophilus and Chrysostom led with an arrow in Ortygia (Hom. Od. v. 121); ac-
to the deposition of the latter, one of the charges cording to others he was beloved by Artemis, and
agninst whom was that of Origenism. The memory Apollo, indignant at his sister's affection for him,
and opinions of Origen were now more decidedly asserted that she was unable to hit with her bow
condemned both in the East and West, yet they a distant point which he showed to her in the sea.
were favourably regarded by some of the more She thereupon took aim, and hit it, but the point
eminent men, among wbom were the ecclesiastical was the head of Orion, who had been swimming
historians Sucrates, Sozomen and Theodoret. In in the sea. (Hygin. I. c. ; Ov. Fust. v. 537. ) A
the reign of Justinian, Origenism revived in the third account states that he harboured an improper
monasteries of Palestine, and the emperor himself love for Artemis, that he challenged her to a game
wrote his Epistola ad Menam (s. Mennam) Pa- of discus, or that he violated Upis, on which ac-
triarcham CPolitanum against the Origenists, who count Artemis shot him, or sent & monstrous
were expelled from their monasteries in Palestine, scorpion which killed him. (Serv. ad Aen. i. 539 ;
and condemned in the fifth oecumenical (second Horat. Carm. ii. 4. 72; Apollod. i. 4. 8 5. ) A fourth
Constantinopolitan), council A. D. 553. The Greeks account, lastly, states that he boasted he would
generally followed the decision of the council, and conquer every animal, and would clear the earth
a new element, the question of the salvation of from all wild beasts ; but the earth sent forth a scor-
Origen, was added to the controversy respecting pion by which he was killed. (Or. Fast. v. 539,
the truth or error of his doctrines. In the West &c. ) Asclepius wanted to recall him to life, but
the dispute was revived with the revival of was slain by Zeus with a flash of lightning.
learning. Merlinus, Erasmus, and Genebrardus, (ASCLEPIUS. ) The accounts of his parentage and
his editors, Joannes Picus of Mirandula, Sixtus of birth-place are varying in the different writers, for
Sena, and the Jesuit Halloix, defended Origen, and some call him a son of Poseidon and Euryale
affirmed his salvation.
The cardinals Baronius (Apollod, i. 4. § 3), and others say that he was
and Bellarmin took the opposite side, as did the born of the earth, or a son of Oenopion. (Sery,
reformers Luther and Beza. Stephen Binet, a ad Aen. i. 539, x. 763. ) He is further called a
Jesuit, published a little book, De Salute Ori Theban, or Tanagraean, but probably because
genis, Paris, 1629, in which he introduces the lead- Hyria, his native place, sometimes belonged to
ing writers on the subject as debating the question Tanagra, and sometimes to Thebes. (Hygin. Pret.
of Origen's salvation, and makes Baronius propose Astr. ii. 34 ; Paus. ix. 20. § 3 ; Strab. ix. p. 404. )
a descent to the infernal regions to ascertain the After his death, Orion was placed among the stars
truth. (Bayle, Dictionnaire, s. v. Origene, note D. ) (Hom. N. xviii. 486, &c. , xxii. 29, Od. v. 274),
A summary of the history of Origenism is given where he appears as a giant with a girdle, sword,
by Huet (Origeniana, lib. ii
. c. 4), and by the Jesuit a lion's skin and a club. As the rising and setting
Doucin, in bis Histoire de l'Origenisme. [J. C. M. ) of the constellation of Orion was believed to be
ORI'GENES, a platonic philosopher, who wrote accompanied by storms and rain, he is often called
a book De Daemonibus. He is not to be confounded imbrifer, nimbosus, or aquosus. His tomb was
with the subject of the foregoing article, as has shown at Tanagra. (Paus. ix. 20. $ 3. ) [L. S. ]
been sometimes done. (Porphyr. Vita Plotin. c. 3.
ORION and ORUS ('plw and 'npos), names
20; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol iii. p. 180. ) (J. C. M. ] of more than one ancient grammarian. The mode
ORI'ON ('Oplwy), a son of 'Hyrieus, of Hyria, in which they are mentioned by the authorities
in Boeotia, a very handsome giant and hunter, and who speak of them is so confused, that it is a matter
•
a
1
## p. 56 (#72) ##############################################
66
ORION.
ORION.
:
a
of the greatest difficulty to distinguish the different against this supposition, that, besides the internal
writers, and to assign to them their respective pro evidence that the articles taken from Orus and
ductions. The subject has been investigated with those taken from Orus the Milesian are really
great care and acuteness by Ritschl, and the follow- taken from one and the same author, all the works
ing are the leading results at which he has arrived. attributed by Suidas to the Alexandrian Orus are
Suidas speaks of two writers of the name of Orion, qnoted as the works of the Milesian Orus in the
and one of the name of Orus. The first Orion he Etymologica. From this, combined with the circum-
makes a native of Thebes in Egypt, the author of stance that the quotations made by Orus exhibit a
an avlondylov in three books, dedicated to Eudo- more extensive acquaintance with ancient and
cia, the wife of the younger Theodosius. The somewhat rare authors than was to be expected in
second Orion he describes as an Alexandrian gram- a Byzantine grammarian of the fourth century, and
marian, the author of, 1. an dvdolbylov ; 2. 'ATTO- that in the passages in the Etymologica no author
KWV négewe ouvaywrh ; 3. A work on etymology ; later than the second century is quoted by Orus,
4. A panegyric on the emperor Hadrian. Orus is Ritschl concludes that there were two grammarians
said by Suidas (as the text stands) to have been a of the name of Orus ; one a Milesian, who lived in
grammarian of Alexandria, who taught at Constan- the second century, and was the author of the
tinople, the author of a treatise #epl Sixpów, a works mentioned by Suidas: the other, an Alexan.
treatise tepl dOviwv, one on orthography, and drine grammarian, who taught at Constantinople
several others. Now Orus and Orion are men- not earlier than the middle of the fourth century
tioned some hundreds of times in the Etymologi- after Christ, and of whose worke, if he was the
cum Magnum, the Etymologicum Gudianum, and author of any, we possess no remains.
the Etymologicum of Zonaras. But they are nei- A comparison of the Etymologicum Magnum
ther of them ever styled Alexandrians, while a and the Etymologicum Gudianum with the lexicou
Milesian Orus is often quoted, here and there a of Orion shows that the various articles of the
Theban Orus is spoken of, and also a Milesian latter have been incorporated in the two former,
Orion : and these quotations apportion the writings though not always in exactly the same form as
referred to not only quite differently from Suidas, that in which they appear in Orion. It is found
but not even uniformiy as regards these etymo- also that in the Etymologicum Magnum a very
logical works as compared with each other and large number of the citations professedly taken
themselves. Both a Theban Orion and a Theban from Orus are also found in Orion. Ritschl has
Orus are quoted as writing on etymology ; a shown that it is impossible to substitute in all
Milesian Orion and Orus nepl dOvikwv; a Milesian these passages the name of Orion, as the Orus
Orus (not an Alexandrian, as Suidas says) on spoken of is sometimes distinctly called ó Mianowos;
orthography. Now in the midst of this confusion and that moreover it is not necessary to attempt it,
it happens fortunately enough that the etymo- for an article in the Etymologicum Magnum, which
logical work of Orion is still extant; and in it he | ends with the words ούτως 'Ωρος αλλά και 'Ωρίων
is distinctly spoken of as a Theban, who taught at kal 'Hpwòlavos repi natwv, renders it all but cer-
Caesarea. The άνθολόγιον προς Ευδοκίαν, in three tain that Orion had borrowed a large number of
books, is likewise extant in manuscript, bearing his articles from Orus without acknowledgment
the name of the same author. The dedication of This is confirmed by a comparison of various
this work to Eudocia fixes the period when the passages. Orion cites the older authorities by
Theban Orion lived to about the middle of the name. Orus he never so quotes; and in this he
fifth century after Christ. This is confirmed by followed the example of various other grammarians,
what Marinus says in his life of Proclus (c. 8), who were rather given to make use of the labours
that the latter studied under a grammarian of the of their more immediate predecessors without ac-
name of Orion, who was descended from the knowledgment. It is of course possible enough
Egyptian priestly class. It would appear from that in a few passages of the Etymologicum Mag-
this, that Orion taught at Alexandria before he num, the name of Orus has been accidentally sub-
went to Caesarea. There is no reason whatever stituted for that of Orion.
for considering these to be distinct persons, as It appears that Orus was the author of the fol-
Fabricius does (vol. vi. p. 374).
lowing works. 1. A commentary on the ortho
The Alexandrian Orion, who is said by Suidas to graphy of Herodianus. 2. A treatise of his own
have written a panegyric on the emperor Hadrian, on orthography, arranged in alphabetical order (Sui-
would probably be a contemporary of that emperor. das s. v. *npos. Zonaras quotes Orus év tņ oikela
It is probably by a mistake that Suidas attributes aŭtoll opboy pamię) The treatises on the diphthongs
to him a work on etymology: of the other works as and th mentioned by Suidas, were probably
assigned to him we know nothing further. portions of this work. 3. Περί εθνικών. 4. Περί
The lexicon of Orion the Theban was first intro- διχρόνων. 5. Περί έγκλιτικών μορίων. Of this we
duced to the notice of philologers by Ruhnken, and know nothing further. 6. Fabricius ( Bibl. Graec.
was published under the editorship of Sturz at vol. vi. p. 374) mentions a treatise Nepà To Avonuar
Leipzig in 1820.
Οι πολυσημάντων λέξεων as extant in manuscript.
In like manner Ritschl distinguishes two gram. Of this likewise nothing further is known. 7. neod
marians of the name of Orus. In many passages tálovs. This is omitted by Suidas, but is quoted
of the Etymologica Orus is quoted and called a in the Etymologica. 8. Λύσεις προτάσεων των
Milesian. In others he is quoted without any 'Hpwdlavoû. An 'Illant a poowdía is attributed
such distinctive epithet. It might seem a tolerably to Orus in the Etymol. Magn. (536, 54); pro-
easy mode of reconciling this with the statement of bably from a confusion with the work of Hero-
Suidas to suppose that the Alexandrian Orus, as dianus on the same subject. Fabricius (vol. vi.
being the more celebrated, is mentioned without p. 374) speaks of an Etymologicum Ori Milesi, on
any distinctiva epithet, while the Milesian is the authority, as he supposes of Fulvius Ursinus,
always thus distinguished. But it is decisive whom Fabricius understands to say that he pos-
## p. 57 (#73) ##############################################
ORION.
on, that, besides the internal
rticles taken from Orus and
sus the Milesian are really
he same author, all the works
to the Alexandrian Orus are
of the Milesian Orus in the
is, combined with the circum-
lons made by Orus exhibit a
aintance with ancient and
than was to be expected in
. n of the fourth century, and
the Etymologica no author
entury is quoted by Oral
,
here were two gramitarian
ne a Milesian, who lived in
d was the author of the
das: the other, an Alexan-
taught at Constantinope
lle of the fourth century
ose works, if he was the
i no remains.
Etymologicum Magnum
udianum with the lexicon
various articles of the
ited in the two former,
actly the same form 28
in Orion. It is found
gicum Magnum a very
tions professedly takes
a
in Orion, Ritschl has
le to substitute in al
of Orion, as the Orus
ctly called ο Μιλήσιος;
necessary to attempt is
gicom Magnum, which
Ωρος αλλά και Ωρίων
renders it all bat oer-
da large number of
pat acknowledgment
mparison of various
lder authorities by
tes; and in this be
- other grammarians
e use of the labours
cessors witbout 20-
se possible enough
tymologicum Mag
accidentally seb
author of the fol
OROETES.
ORONTES.
67
sessed it in manuscript. But Ritschl has shown Herodotus mentions two other motives, not incom-
that the passage of Ursinus does not convey any patible either with one another or with the one
such assertion. The Tivat Tv avtoù, spoken of above suggested ; but certainly the power of the
by Suidas, would indicate that Orus was the Samian tyrant would have been a barrier to any
author of other treatises besides those mentioned, schemes of aggrandizement entertained by Oroetes;
of which we know nothing. The name Orus is and, in fact, Samos, from its position and conse-
sometimes found written HORUS. (Fabric. Bill. quence, would, perhaps, be the natural enemy of
Graec. vol. vi. pp. 193, 374, 601, 603; Ritschl, de any Lydian potentate. Thus, when Amasis, as a
Oro et Orione commentatio, Breslau, 1834 ; and an vassal of Babylon, was compelled to take part with
elaborate article on Orion by Ritschl in Ersch and Croesus against Cyrus, he found it necessary to
Gruber's Encyclopädie. )
(C. P. M. ] abandon his alliance with Polycrates, which, for
ORITHYIA. [OREITHYIA. ]
purposes of commerce, he would, doubtless, have
O'RMENUS (Opuevos). 1. A son of Cerca- I preferred ; and the Lacedaemonians were naturally
phus, grandson of Aeolus and father of Amyntor, urged to their connection with Croesus by their
was believed to have founded the town of Orme- hostility to Polycrates as a tyrant. (Comp. Herod.
nium, in Thessaly. From him Amyntor is some i. 69,70,77, ii. 178, iii. 39,&c. ; Thuc. i. 18 ; Arist.
times called Ormenides, and Astydameia, his Polit. v. 10, ed. Bekk. ) The disturbed state of
grand-daughter, Ormenis. (Hom. N. ii. 734, ix. affairs which followed the death of Cambyses, B. C.
448, x. 266, Od. xv. 413; Ov. Her. ix. 50. ) 521, ſurther encouraged Oroetes to prosecute his
2. The name of two Trojans. (II. viii. 274, xii. designs, and he put to death MITROBATES, viceroy
187.
In this edition the editor published an Apologia Some additions to the Scholia on the Canticles, and
pro Origene, which involved him in much trouble, to the Hexaplar readings on the same book, are
and obliged him to defend himself in a new Apo- contained in the Eis ta ouata, Catena in Canticum,
logia, published in A. D. 1522, when his edition was of Procopius of Gaza, published in the Classicorum
reprinted, as it was again in 1530, and perhaps 1536. Auctorum e l'aticanis Codd. editorum of Angelo
The second edition was prepared by Erasmus, who Mai, vol. ix. p. 257, &c. 8vo. Rome, 1837. Two
made the versions, and was published after his death fragments of Origen, one considerable one, Eis TÒ
by Beatus Rhenanus, fol. Basel. 1536. Panzerkata Moukāv, In Evangelium Lucue (pp. 474 482),
(Annules Typ. vol. vii. ) gives the version of Eras- and one of a few lines, Els AevitiKÓV, In Leviticum,
mus as published in 4 vols. fol. Lyon (Lugdunum), appear in vol. X. of the same series. Some Scholia
1536. It was reprinted, with additions, in 1545, of Origen are contained in a collection, Eis tòx
1551, 1557, and 1571. The third and most complete Aanna épunvela. Siapópwv, In Danielem l'ariorum
Latin edition was that of Gilbertus Genebrardus, Commentarii, published in vol. i. pars ii. p. 161, &c.
2 vols. Paris, 1574, reprinted in 1604 and 1619. of the Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio, 10 vols.
The value of these Latin editions is diminished by | 4to. Rome, 1825, &c. of the same learned editur,
the consideration, that some of the works of Origen, On the writings of Origen, see Huet, Origeniara,
for instance, the De Martyrio and De Oratione, are lib. iii. ; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 230, vol. i. p. 112,
not contained in them, and that the versions of ed. Oxford, 1740—43; Tillemont, Mémoires, vol.
Rufinus, which make up a large part of them, are iii. p. 551, &c. , 771, &c. ; Dupin, Nouvelle Biblioth.
notoriously unfaithful. We do not here notice any des Aut
. Ecclés. des I. II. III. Siècles, vol. i. p. 326,
but professedly complete editions of Origen's works. &c. 3d ed. 8vo. Paris, 1698; Fabric. Bibl. Graec.
Of the Graeco-Latin editions the most important vol. iii. p. 708, &c. , vol. vi. p. 199, &c. , vol. vii.
are the following: - Origenis Opera Exegetica, p. 201; Oudin. Comment. de Scriptoribus Eccles.
2 vols. fol. Rouen, 1668, edited by Pierre Daniel vol. i. col. 231, &c. ; Ceillier, Auteurs Sacris,
Huet, afterwards Bp. of Avranches. An ample vol. ii. p. 601, &c. ; Lardner, Credibiluy, &c. part
and valuable dissertation on the life, opinions, and ii. c. 38.
works of Origen, entitled Origeniana, was prefixed Few writers have exercised greater influence by
to this edition. The fragments, collected from the the force of their intellect and the variety of their
Catenae oy Combéfis, were sent to Huet, but were attainments than Origen, or have been the occasion
not inserted by him. Huet intended to publish of longer and more acrimonious disputes. His
the complete works of Origen, but did not execute influence is the more remarkable as he had not the
his purpose. His edition was reprinted at Paris, advantage of high rank and a commanding position
in 1679, and at Cologne, or rather Frankfort, in in the church ; and his freedom in interpreting the
1685. But the standard edition of Origen's works Scriptures, and the general liberality of his views
is that of the French Benedictine, Charles Delarue, were in direct opposition to the current of religious
completed after his death by his nephew, Charles opinion in his own and subsequent times.
Vincent Delarue, a monk of the same order, 4 vols. Of the more distinctive tenets of this father,
fol. Paris, 1733—1759. The first volume contains several bad reference to the foctrine of the
the Miscellaneous, including some of the supposi- Trinity, on which he was charged with distin-
titious works; and the other three the Exegetical guishing the ovvia, substantia, of the Father from
works, including one of the supposititious Commen that of the Son, with affirming the inferiority of the
tarii in Jobum. The fragments of the Hexapla Holy Spirit to the Son, with making both the
and-the Hebraicorum Nominum, &c. Interpretatio, Son and Spirit creatures, and with various other
and a portion of the supposititious works, are not errors either asserted by him, or regarded as
given. To the fourth volume are appended (1) Ru- necessarily flowing from his assertions, which it is
finus' version of the Apologia pro Origene of the not requisite to mention. Others of his opinions
Martyr Pamphilus, with considerable fragments of had reference to the difficult subject of the incar-
the Greek, accompanied by a new Latin version of nation, and to the pre-existence of Christ's human
the fragments. (2) The Epilogus of Rufinus on soul, which, as well as the pre-existence of other
the interpolation of Origen's writings. (3) Eis human souls, he affirmed. He was charged also
Ωριγένην προσφωνητικός και πανηγυρικός λόγος. | with holding the corporeity of angels and with
In Origenem Prosphonetica ac Panegyrica Oratio, other errors as to angels and daemons on which
addressed by Gregorius Thanmaturgus to Origen, his subjects his views appear to have fluctuated. He
preceptor, on leaving him to return to his native land, held the freedom of the human will, and ascribed
with the Latin version of Gerard Vossius. (4) The to man a nature less corrupt and depraved than
Origeniana of Huet: and (5) an extract from was consistent with orthodox riews of the ope-
Bishop Bull's Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, cap. ix. on ration of divine grace. He held the doctrine of
the Consubstantiality of the Son of God. The the universal restoration of the guilty, conceiving
whole works were accompanied by valuable pre- that the devil alone would suffer eternal punish-
faces, “ monita," and notes.
ment. Other points of less moment we do not
The works of Origen, from the edition of Dela- notice here. A full discussion of them is contained
rue, revised by Oberthür, were reprinted without in the Origeniana of Huet (lib. ii. c. 2, 3).
## p. 55 (#71) ##############################################
ORION.
65
ORION.
Origen lived before the limits which separated said to have been called by the Boeotians Cundaon.
orthodoxy and heterodoxy were so determinately (Hom. Od. xi. 309 ; Strab. ix. p. 404 ; Tzetz. ad
and narrowly laid down, as in the following centu- Lyc. 328. ) Once he caine to Chios (Ophiusa), and
ries ; and therefore, though his opinions were ob- fell in love with Aero, or Merope, the daughter of
noxious to many, and en bittered the opposition to Oenopion, by the nymph Helice. He cleared the
him, he was not cast out of the church as a heretic island from wild beasts, and brought the spoils of
in his lifetime, the grounds of his excommunication the chase as presents to his beloved ; but as
relating rather to points of ecclesiastical order and Oenopion constantly deferred the marringe, Orion
regularity, than to questions dogmatic theology. one day being intoxicated forced his way into the
But some time after his death, and especially after chamber of the maiden. Oenopion now implored
the outbreak of the Arian controversy, and the the assistance of Dionysus, who caused Orion to
appeal of the Arians to passages in Origen's works, be thrown into a deep sleep by styrs, in which
the cry of heresy was raised by the orthodox party Oenopion blinded him. Being informed by an
against his writings. The tone, however, of the oracle that he should recover his sight, if he would
earlier orthodox leaders, Athanasius, Basil, and go towards the east and expose his eye-balls to the
Gregory Nazianzen was moderate ; others, as rays of the rising sun, Orion following the sound
Hilary of Poitiers, John of Jerusalem, Didymus, of a Cyclops' hammer, went to Lemnos, where
Gregory Nysseni, Eusebius of Vercellae, Titus of Hephaestus gave to him Cedalion as his guidc.
Bostra, Ambrose, Palladius, Isidore of Pelusium, When afterwards he had recovered his sight, Orion
and even Jerome himself in his earlier life, de returned to Chios to take vengeance, but as Oeno-
fended Origen, though Jerome's change of opinion pion had been concealed by his friends, Orion was
in respect of Origen afterwards led to his famous unable to find him, and then proceeded to Crete,
quarrel with Rufinus. About the close of the where he lived as a hunter with Artemis. (Apollod.
fourth century, Theophilus of Alexandria expelled i 4. § 3; Parthen. Erot. 20 ; Theon, ad Arat. 638 ;
some monks from Egypt on account of their Hygin. Poct. Astr. ii. 34. ) The cause of his death,
Origenism ; but the oppressive deed was not ap which took place either in Crete or Chios, is
proved at Constantinople, where the monks were differently stated. According to some Eos, who
kindly received by the Patriarch Chrysostom and loved Orion for his beauty, carried him off, but as
the Empress Eudoxia. The monks were restored: the gods were angry at this, Artemis killed him
but the conflict of Theophilus and Chrysostom led with an arrow in Ortygia (Hom. Od. v. 121); ac-
to the deposition of the latter, one of the charges cording to others he was beloved by Artemis, and
agninst whom was that of Origenism. The memory Apollo, indignant at his sister's affection for him,
and opinions of Origen were now more decidedly asserted that she was unable to hit with her bow
condemned both in the East and West, yet they a distant point which he showed to her in the sea.
were favourably regarded by some of the more She thereupon took aim, and hit it, but the point
eminent men, among wbom were the ecclesiastical was the head of Orion, who had been swimming
historians Sucrates, Sozomen and Theodoret. In in the sea. (Hygin. I. c. ; Ov. Fust. v. 537. ) A
the reign of Justinian, Origenism revived in the third account states that he harboured an improper
monasteries of Palestine, and the emperor himself love for Artemis, that he challenged her to a game
wrote his Epistola ad Menam (s. Mennam) Pa- of discus, or that he violated Upis, on which ac-
triarcham CPolitanum against the Origenists, who count Artemis shot him, or sent & monstrous
were expelled from their monasteries in Palestine, scorpion which killed him. (Serv. ad Aen. i. 539 ;
and condemned in the fifth oecumenical (second Horat. Carm. ii. 4. 72; Apollod. i. 4. 8 5. ) A fourth
Constantinopolitan), council A. D. 553. The Greeks account, lastly, states that he boasted he would
generally followed the decision of the council, and conquer every animal, and would clear the earth
a new element, the question of the salvation of from all wild beasts ; but the earth sent forth a scor-
Origen, was added to the controversy respecting pion by which he was killed. (Or. Fast. v. 539,
the truth or error of his doctrines. In the West &c. ) Asclepius wanted to recall him to life, but
the dispute was revived with the revival of was slain by Zeus with a flash of lightning.
learning. Merlinus, Erasmus, and Genebrardus, (ASCLEPIUS. ) The accounts of his parentage and
his editors, Joannes Picus of Mirandula, Sixtus of birth-place are varying in the different writers, for
Sena, and the Jesuit Halloix, defended Origen, and some call him a son of Poseidon and Euryale
affirmed his salvation.
The cardinals Baronius (Apollod, i. 4. § 3), and others say that he was
and Bellarmin took the opposite side, as did the born of the earth, or a son of Oenopion. (Sery,
reformers Luther and Beza. Stephen Binet, a ad Aen. i. 539, x. 763. ) He is further called a
Jesuit, published a little book, De Salute Ori Theban, or Tanagraean, but probably because
genis, Paris, 1629, in which he introduces the lead- Hyria, his native place, sometimes belonged to
ing writers on the subject as debating the question Tanagra, and sometimes to Thebes. (Hygin. Pret.
of Origen's salvation, and makes Baronius propose Astr. ii. 34 ; Paus. ix. 20. § 3 ; Strab. ix. p. 404. )
a descent to the infernal regions to ascertain the After his death, Orion was placed among the stars
truth. (Bayle, Dictionnaire, s. v. Origene, note D. ) (Hom. N. xviii. 486, &c. , xxii. 29, Od. v. 274),
A summary of the history of Origenism is given where he appears as a giant with a girdle, sword,
by Huet (Origeniana, lib. ii
. c. 4), and by the Jesuit a lion's skin and a club. As the rising and setting
Doucin, in bis Histoire de l'Origenisme. [J. C. M. ) of the constellation of Orion was believed to be
ORI'GENES, a platonic philosopher, who wrote accompanied by storms and rain, he is often called
a book De Daemonibus. He is not to be confounded imbrifer, nimbosus, or aquosus. His tomb was
with the subject of the foregoing article, as has shown at Tanagra. (Paus. ix. 20. $ 3. ) [L. S. ]
been sometimes done. (Porphyr. Vita Plotin. c. 3.
ORION and ORUS ('plw and 'npos), names
20; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol iii. p. 180. ) (J. C. M. ] of more than one ancient grammarian. The mode
ORI'ON ('Oplwy), a son of 'Hyrieus, of Hyria, in which they are mentioned by the authorities
in Boeotia, a very handsome giant and hunter, and who speak of them is so confused, that it is a matter
•
a
1
## p. 56 (#72) ##############################################
66
ORION.
ORION.
:
a
of the greatest difficulty to distinguish the different against this supposition, that, besides the internal
writers, and to assign to them their respective pro evidence that the articles taken from Orus and
ductions. The subject has been investigated with those taken from Orus the Milesian are really
great care and acuteness by Ritschl, and the follow- taken from one and the same author, all the works
ing are the leading results at which he has arrived. attributed by Suidas to the Alexandrian Orus are
Suidas speaks of two writers of the name of Orion, qnoted as the works of the Milesian Orus in the
and one of the name of Orus. The first Orion he Etymologica. From this, combined with the circum-
makes a native of Thebes in Egypt, the author of stance that the quotations made by Orus exhibit a
an avlondylov in three books, dedicated to Eudo- more extensive acquaintance with ancient and
cia, the wife of the younger Theodosius. The somewhat rare authors than was to be expected in
second Orion he describes as an Alexandrian gram- a Byzantine grammarian of the fourth century, and
marian, the author of, 1. an dvdolbylov ; 2. 'ATTO- that in the passages in the Etymologica no author
KWV négewe ouvaywrh ; 3. A work on etymology ; later than the second century is quoted by Orus,
4. A panegyric on the emperor Hadrian. Orus is Ritschl concludes that there were two grammarians
said by Suidas (as the text stands) to have been a of the name of Orus ; one a Milesian, who lived in
grammarian of Alexandria, who taught at Constan- the second century, and was the author of the
tinople, the author of a treatise #epl Sixpów, a works mentioned by Suidas: the other, an Alexan.
treatise tepl dOviwv, one on orthography, and drine grammarian, who taught at Constantinople
several others. Now Orus and Orion are men- not earlier than the middle of the fourth century
tioned some hundreds of times in the Etymologi- after Christ, and of whose worke, if he was the
cum Magnum, the Etymologicum Gudianum, and author of any, we possess no remains.
the Etymologicum of Zonaras. But they are nei- A comparison of the Etymologicum Magnum
ther of them ever styled Alexandrians, while a and the Etymologicum Gudianum with the lexicou
Milesian Orus is often quoted, here and there a of Orion shows that the various articles of the
Theban Orus is spoken of, and also a Milesian latter have been incorporated in the two former,
Orion : and these quotations apportion the writings though not always in exactly the same form as
referred to not only quite differently from Suidas, that in which they appear in Orion. It is found
but not even uniformiy as regards these etymo- also that in the Etymologicum Magnum a very
logical works as compared with each other and large number of the citations professedly taken
themselves. Both a Theban Orion and a Theban from Orus are also found in Orion. Ritschl has
Orus are quoted as writing on etymology ; a shown that it is impossible to substitute in all
Milesian Orion and Orus nepl dOvikwv; a Milesian these passages the name of Orion, as the Orus
Orus (not an Alexandrian, as Suidas says) on spoken of is sometimes distinctly called ó Mianowos;
orthography. Now in the midst of this confusion and that moreover it is not necessary to attempt it,
it happens fortunately enough that the etymo- for an article in the Etymologicum Magnum, which
logical work of Orion is still extant; and in it he | ends with the words ούτως 'Ωρος αλλά και 'Ωρίων
is distinctly spoken of as a Theban, who taught at kal 'Hpwòlavos repi natwv, renders it all but cer-
Caesarea. The άνθολόγιον προς Ευδοκίαν, in three tain that Orion had borrowed a large number of
books, is likewise extant in manuscript, bearing his articles from Orus without acknowledgment
the name of the same author. The dedication of This is confirmed by a comparison of various
this work to Eudocia fixes the period when the passages. Orion cites the older authorities by
Theban Orion lived to about the middle of the name. Orus he never so quotes; and in this he
fifth century after Christ. This is confirmed by followed the example of various other grammarians,
what Marinus says in his life of Proclus (c. 8), who were rather given to make use of the labours
that the latter studied under a grammarian of the of their more immediate predecessors without ac-
name of Orion, who was descended from the knowledgment. It is of course possible enough
Egyptian priestly class. It would appear from that in a few passages of the Etymologicum Mag-
this, that Orion taught at Alexandria before he num, the name of Orus has been accidentally sub-
went to Caesarea. There is no reason whatever stituted for that of Orion.
for considering these to be distinct persons, as It appears that Orus was the author of the fol-
Fabricius does (vol. vi. p. 374).
lowing works. 1. A commentary on the ortho
The Alexandrian Orion, who is said by Suidas to graphy of Herodianus. 2. A treatise of his own
have written a panegyric on the emperor Hadrian, on orthography, arranged in alphabetical order (Sui-
would probably be a contemporary of that emperor. das s. v. *npos. Zonaras quotes Orus év tņ oikela
It is probably by a mistake that Suidas attributes aŭtoll opboy pamię) The treatises on the diphthongs
to him a work on etymology: of the other works as and th mentioned by Suidas, were probably
assigned to him we know nothing further. portions of this work. 3. Περί εθνικών. 4. Περί
The lexicon of Orion the Theban was first intro- διχρόνων. 5. Περί έγκλιτικών μορίων. Of this we
duced to the notice of philologers by Ruhnken, and know nothing further. 6. Fabricius ( Bibl. Graec.
was published under the editorship of Sturz at vol. vi. p. 374) mentions a treatise Nepà To Avonuar
Leipzig in 1820.
Οι πολυσημάντων λέξεων as extant in manuscript.
In like manner Ritschl distinguishes two gram. Of this likewise nothing further is known. 7. neod
marians of the name of Orus. In many passages tálovs. This is omitted by Suidas, but is quoted
of the Etymologica Orus is quoted and called a in the Etymologica. 8. Λύσεις προτάσεων των
Milesian. In others he is quoted without any 'Hpwdlavoû. An 'Illant a poowdía is attributed
such distinctive epithet. It might seem a tolerably to Orus in the Etymol. Magn. (536, 54); pro-
easy mode of reconciling this with the statement of bably from a confusion with the work of Hero-
Suidas to suppose that the Alexandrian Orus, as dianus on the same subject. Fabricius (vol. vi.
being the more celebrated, is mentioned without p. 374) speaks of an Etymologicum Ori Milesi, on
any distinctiva epithet, while the Milesian is the authority, as he supposes of Fulvius Ursinus,
always thus distinguished. But it is decisive whom Fabricius understands to say that he pos-
## p. 57 (#73) ##############################################
ORION.
on, that, besides the internal
rticles taken from Orus and
sus the Milesian are really
he same author, all the works
to the Alexandrian Orus are
of the Milesian Orus in the
is, combined with the circum-
lons made by Orus exhibit a
aintance with ancient and
than was to be expected in
. n of the fourth century, and
the Etymologica no author
entury is quoted by Oral
,
here were two gramitarian
ne a Milesian, who lived in
d was the author of the
das: the other, an Alexan-
taught at Constantinope
lle of the fourth century
ose works, if he was the
i no remains.
Etymologicum Magnum
udianum with the lexicon
various articles of the
ited in the two former,
actly the same form 28
in Orion. It is found
gicum Magnum a very
tions professedly takes
a
in Orion, Ritschl has
le to substitute in al
of Orion, as the Orus
ctly called ο Μιλήσιος;
necessary to attempt is
gicom Magnum, which
Ωρος αλλά και Ωρίων
renders it all bat oer-
da large number of
pat acknowledgment
mparison of various
lder authorities by
tes; and in this be
- other grammarians
e use of the labours
cessors witbout 20-
se possible enough
tymologicum Mag
accidentally seb
author of the fol
OROETES.
ORONTES.
67
sessed it in manuscript. But Ritschl has shown Herodotus mentions two other motives, not incom-
that the passage of Ursinus does not convey any patible either with one another or with the one
such assertion. The Tivat Tv avtoù, spoken of above suggested ; but certainly the power of the
by Suidas, would indicate that Orus was the Samian tyrant would have been a barrier to any
author of other treatises besides those mentioned, schemes of aggrandizement entertained by Oroetes;
of which we know nothing. The name Orus is and, in fact, Samos, from its position and conse-
sometimes found written HORUS. (Fabric. Bill. quence, would, perhaps, be the natural enemy of
Graec. vol. vi. pp. 193, 374, 601, 603; Ritschl, de any Lydian potentate. Thus, when Amasis, as a
Oro et Orione commentatio, Breslau, 1834 ; and an vassal of Babylon, was compelled to take part with
elaborate article on Orion by Ritschl in Ersch and Croesus against Cyrus, he found it necessary to
Gruber's Encyclopädie. )
(C. P. M. ] abandon his alliance with Polycrates, which, for
ORITHYIA. [OREITHYIA. ]
purposes of commerce, he would, doubtless, have
O'RMENUS (Opuevos). 1. A son of Cerca- I preferred ; and the Lacedaemonians were naturally
phus, grandson of Aeolus and father of Amyntor, urged to their connection with Croesus by their
was believed to have founded the town of Orme- hostility to Polycrates as a tyrant. (Comp. Herod.
nium, in Thessaly. From him Amyntor is some i. 69,70,77, ii. 178, iii. 39,&c. ; Thuc. i. 18 ; Arist.
times called Ormenides, and Astydameia, his Polit. v. 10, ed. Bekk. ) The disturbed state of
grand-daughter, Ormenis. (Hom. N. ii. 734, ix. affairs which followed the death of Cambyses, B. C.
448, x. 266, Od. xv. 413; Ov. Her. ix. 50. ) 521, ſurther encouraged Oroetes to prosecute his
2. The name of two Trojans. (II. viii. 274, xii. designs, and he put to death MITROBATES, viceroy
187.
