i. l.) Tertullian (de Pudicit. 10), who had judged it very severely, does not appear to have made any deep impression upon his readers, for the fact of the Pastor being declared an apocryphal work by several synods, does not imply any opinion as to its value or worthlessness, but only shows that they did not regard it as a canonical work.
One of the main reasons why the Pastor was generally held in such high esteem was undoubtedly the belief that its author, Hermas, was the same as the one mentioned by St. Paul, an opinion which has been maintained in modern times by Dodwell, Wake, and others. But although there is no internal evidence to prove that the author of the Pastor was a different person, yet the uncertainty of the early church (see Tertull. l.c.; Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 3.25 seems to show that the author himself had given no clue to ascertain the identity, and perhaps intentionally avoided giving any. Another opinion, which is based on ancient authorities (Carm. c. Marcionem, iii. in fin.; Muratori, Antiq. Ital. mcd. aevi, iii. p. 853, &c.), is that Hermas, the author of the Pastor, was a brother of Pius II., bishop of Rome, who entered upon his office about the middle of the second century after Christ. But in the first place, the authorities on which this opinion is founded are of a very doubtful nature; and secondly, a writer of that time could not have avoided mentioning some of the heresies which were then spreading, but of which there is not a trace in the Pastor. Considering, moreover, that the work already enjoyed considerable reputation in the time of Irenaeus and Clemens of Alexandria, we must suppose that it was written either in the time of the apostles or soon after, and that its author was either the person mentioned by St. Paul, or one who assumed the name of that person for the purpose of acquiring a greater influence upon the minds of his readers.
The first edition of the Pastor is that by J. Faber, Paris, 1513, which was afterwards often reprinted. A better edition is that of Cotelier in his Patres Apostol. Paris, 1672. It is also printed in other collections of the fathers; but a very good separate edition, together with the Epistle of Barnabas, appeared at Oxford, 1685, 12mo. (Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i. p. 20, &c.; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. p. 18, &c.; Mosheim, Comment. de Reb. Christ. ante Constant. p. 106; Neander, Kirchengeschichte, vol. i. p. 1107.) [L. S.]
HERMEIAS or HERMIAS (Ἑρμείας or Ἑρμίας: see concerning the mode of writing this name, Stahr, Aristotelia, vol. i. p. 75). 1. Tyrant or dynast of the cities of Atarneus and Assos, in Mysia, celebrated as the friend and patron of Aristotle. He is said to have been an eunuch, and to have begun life as a slave, but whether he obtained his liberty or not, he appears to have early risen to a confidential position with Eubulus, the ruler of Atarneus and Assos. If, however, Strabo's statement, that he repaired to Athens, and there attended the lectures of both Plato and Aristotle, be correct, we cannot doubt that he had at that time obtained his freedom, though he remained attached to the service of Eubulus, who had raised himself from the situation of a banker to the undisputed government of the two cities already mentioned. In this position Eubulus maintained himself till his death, in defiance, it would appear, of the authority of Persia (see Arist. Pol. 2.4), and on that event Hermias seems to have succeeded to his authority without opposition. The exact period of his accession is unknown, and we know not how long he had held the sovereign power when he invited Aristotle and Xenocrates to his little court, about the year B. C. 347. The long sojourn of Aristotle with him, and the warm attachment which that philosopher formed towards him, are strong arguments in favour of the character of Hermias: yet the relations between them did not escape the most injurious suspicions, for which there was doubtless as little reason as for the obloquy with which Aristotle was loaded when, after the death of Hermias, he married Pythias, the niece, or, according to other accounts, the adopted daughter of his friend and benefactor. (Strab. xiii. p.610; Pseud. Ammon. vit. Aristot.; Aristocles ap. Euseb. Praep. Ev. 15.2; D. L. 5.3.)
Of other occurrences under the rule of Hermias we know nothing; but he appears to have maintained himself in the undisputed sovereignty of his little state, and in avowed independence of Persia, until the year 345, when the Greek general, Mentor, who was sent down by the Persian king to take the command in Asia Minor, decoyed him, by a promise of safe conduct, to a personal interview, at which, in defiance of his pledge, he seized and detained him as a prisoner. After making use of his signet to enforce the submission of the governors left in the cities subject to his rule, Mentor sent him as a captive to the court of Artaxerxes, where he was soon after put to death. (Diod. 16.52; Strab. xiii. p.610, 614; D. L. 5.6.)
Aristotle testified his reverence for the memory of his friend, not only by erecting a statue to him at Delphi, but by celebrating his praises in an ode or hymn, addressed to Virtue, which has fortunately been preserved to the present day. (Athen. 15.696; D. L. 5.6, 7.) Concerning the relations of the philosopher with Hermias, and the injurious imputations to which they gave rise, see the article Aristotle [vol. i. p. 318], and Blakesley's Life of Aristotle, p. 35-44.
2. A Carian by birth, who had raised himself to be the favourite and chief minister of Seleucus Ceraunus, and was left at the head of affairs in Syria by that monarch when he set out on the expedition across the Taurus, in the course of which he met with his death, B. C. 223. That event placed Hermeias in the possession of almost undisputed power, the young king, and his jealous and grasping disposition led him to remove as far as possible all competitors for power. The formidable revolt of Molon and Alexander in the eastern provinces of the kingdom seemed to demand all the attention of Antiochus, but Hermeias persuaded him to confide the conduct of the army sent against the insurgents to his generals, Xenon and Theodotus, while he advanced in person to attack Coele-Syria. Here, however, the king met with a complete repulse, while the army sent against Molon was totally defeated by that general, who made himself master in consequence of several of the provinces bordering on the Tigris. The opinion of Hermeias, who still opposed the march of Antiochus to the East, was now overruled, and the king took the field in person the ensuing spring. But though the favourite had succeeded in removing his chief opponent, Epigenes, by a fabricated charge of conspiracy, his utter incapacity for military
