PHAEAX. fliience as far as possible ; in which he so far suc- ceeded, that when he was at length compelled to take an active part in the war between Antigonus and Eumenes (b. c. 317), he obtained by common consent the chief command of all the forces fur- nished by the satrapies east of the Tigris ; and was with difficulty induced to waive his pretensions to the supreme direction of the war. Eumenes, however, by his dexterous management, soothed the irritation of Peucestas, and retained hira firmly in his alliance throughout the two campaigns that followed. The satrap was contented to gratify his pride by feasting the whole of the armies assembled in Persia on a scale of royal magnificence, while Eumenes virtually directed all the operations of the war. But the disaster in the final action near Ga- damarta (b. c. 316) which led to the capture of the baggage, and the surrender of Eumenes by the Argyraspids [Eumenes], appears to have been clearly owing to the misconduct and insubordi- nation of Peucestas, who, according to one account, was himself one of the chief advisers of the dis- graceful treaty. His conduct throughout these campaigns shows that he wanted both the ability to command for himself, and the moderation to fol- low the superior judgment of others. His vain and ambitious character seems to have been appre- ciated at its just value by Antigonus, who, while he deprived him of his satrapy, and led him away a virtual prisoner, elated him with false hopes and specious promises, which, of course, were never fulfilled. (Diod. xix. 14, 15, 17, 21—24, 37, 38, 43,48 ; Plut. Eum. 14—16 ; Polyaen. iv. 6. § 13, 8. §3.) [E.H.B.] PEUCE'TIUS (UevKCTios), one of the sons of Lycaon, is said to have led, in conjunction with his brother Oenotrus, an Arcadian colony into Italy, where they landed near the lapygian pro- montory. (Dionys. Hal. i. 11 ; ApoUod. iii. 8. § 1.) [L. S.] PHACRASES (^^aKpaarjs). Several persons of this name are enumerated by Fabricius {Bibl. Graec. vol. xi. p. 707). Of these the prin- cipal are : — 1. Joannes, logoiheta (clerk of accounts) under the Emperor Andronicus senior, was pro- moted to be magnus logotheta {Cancellarius^ accord- ing to Du Cange, s. v.), under Michael senior Palaeologus. He was a correspondent of Gregory of Cyprus and Maximus Planudes. His praises are celebrated, and allusions to his progress in court distinction contained, in some Greek verses, published in the old edition of Fabricius {^Bihl. Graec. vol. x. p. 542). He lived towards the close of the thirteenth century. 2. Georgius, Protostrator (master of the horse, Marescallus, Ducange) under Joannes Cantacu- zenus, A. D. 1344. 3. Matthaeus, bishop of Serrae, about a. d. 1401. He was a correspondent of Isidonis, me- tropolitan of Thessalonica. [W. M. G.] PH AEA (*oia), the name of the sow of Crom- myon, which ravaged the neighbourhood, and was slain by Theseus. (Plut. T/ies. 9 ; Plat. Lack p. 196, e. ; Eurip.^^o^. 316.) [L. S.] PHAEAX (*oio|), a son of Poseidon and Cer- cyra, from whom the Phaeacians derived their name. (Diod. iv. 72 ; Steph. Byz. s. v. *ota|.) Conon (A'arra^. 3) calls him the father of Alcinous and Locrus. [L. S.] PHAEAX {^aia^), an Athenian orator and PHAEAX. 229 statesman. He was of good family, being the son of Erasistratus. The date of his birth is not known, but he was a contemporary of Nicias and Alcibiades. Plutarch {Alcib. 13) says, that he and Nicias were the only rivals from whom Alci- biades had any thing to fear when he entered upon public life. Phaeax, like Alcibiades, was at the time just rising to distinction. In b. c. 422 Phaeax with two others was sent as an ambassador to Italy and Sicily, to endeavour to induce the allies of the Athenians in that quarter and the other Siceliots to aid the Leontines against the Syracusans. He succeeded with Camarina and Agrigentum, but his failure at Gela led him to abandon the attempt as hopeless. In his way back he did some service to the Athenian cause among the states of Italy. (Thucyd. v. 4, 5.) According to Theophrastus (ap. Plut.) it was Phaeax, and not Nicias, with whom Alcibiades united for the purpose of ostra- cising Hyperbolus. Most authorities, however, affirmed that it was Nicias. (Plut. Ic.Nic. 11, Aristid. 7.) In the Lives of the Ten Orators (Andoc.) there is mention of a contest between Phaeax and Andocides, and a defence of the latter against the former. It is difficult to say to what period this could have referred. Andocides did not come into notice till after the affair of the mutilation of the Hermae. Phaeax was of engaging manners, but had no great abilities as a speaker. According to Eupolis (ap. Plut. Alcih. 13) he was a fluent talker, but quite unable to speak. (Comp. A. Gellius, N.A. i. 15.) Aristophanes gives a description of his style of speaking {Equit. 1377, &c.), from which we also gather that, on one occasion, he was brought to trial for some capital offence {kir avrocpwpcp koivo- fiivos^ Schol.) and acquitted. There has been a good deal of controversy re- specting the speech against Alcibiades, commonly attributed to Andocides, which Taylor maintained to be the production of Phaeax. Plutarch {Alcib. 13), according to the opinion of most editors, speaks of an oration against Alcibiades, reported to be the production of Phaeax. It seems not un- likely that he refers to the very oration which is extant, the passage which he quotes (though not quite accurately) being found in the speech in question, which could not have been written by Andocides, as the author speaks of the rival claim of himself, Nicias, and Alcibiades being decided by ostracism. There are, however, strong reasons for believing that it is the production of some rhe- torician writing in the name of Phaeax. The style does not at all resemble what the notice in Aris- tophanes would lead us to expect ; and the writer betrays himself by various inaccuracies. If then the speech was written as if by Phaeax, and re- liance can be placed on the biographical notices in it (which are in part at least borne out by good authorities), Phaeax was four times put upon his trial for life, and each time was acquitted (§ 8, 36. Comp. Aristoph. I. c), and was sent as ambassador to Thessaly, Macedonia, Molossia, and Thesprotia, besides Sicily and Italy, and had gained various prizes, for evavSpia, with the tragic chorus, in the torch race, &c. (Taylor, Lect Lys. c. 6 ; Valcke- naer, Advers. ap. Sluiter, Lect, Aiidoc. p. 17 — 26 ; Ruhnken, Hist. Grit. Orat. Gr. Opusc. p. 321, &c. ; Becker, Andokides, p. 13, &c., 83 — 108 ; and espe- cially Meier, Comment, de Andocidis quae vtdgo ferlur oratione contra Alcibiadem.) [C. P. M.] Q 3
