Warton (Hist. of English Poetry, vol. 1., p. 129), under the adopted name of Callisthenes, and is no uncommon manuscri, in good libraries. It is entitled Bioç Aλegardpov Tou Makedóvog kai Пpážtıç, De Vita et Rebus Gestis Alexandri Macedonis;' and a long passage from the beginning of the work is quoted by Abr. Berkel in the notes to Stephanus Byzantinus (in v. Boukeдáλtia), and by Fabricius, Biblioth. Gr., tom. xiv., p. 148-150 (ed. Vet.). This fabulous narrative is full (as might be expected) of prodigies and extravagancies, some specimens of which are given by Warton. Of all the romances on the subject of Alexander the Great, this by Simeon Seth was for some centuries the best known and the most esteemed; and it was most probably (says he) very soon af terwards translated from the Greek into Latin, and at length from thence into French, Italian, and German. The Latin translation was printed at Colon. Argentorat., 1489; perhaps before, for in the Bodleian Library there is an edition in 4to., without date, supposed to have been printed at Oxford, by Fred. Corsellis, about the year 1468. It is said to have been made by one Esopus, or by Julius Valerius; supposititious names, which seem to have been forged by the artifice or introduced through the ignorance of scribes and librarians. This Latin translation however is of high ant quity in the middle age of learning; for it is quoted by Gyraldus Cambrensis, who flourished about the year 1190. It was translated into German by John Hartlieb Moller, a German physician, at the command of Albert, duke of Bavaria, and published at August. Vindel., fol., 1478. Scaliger also mentions (Epist. ad Casaubon., 113, 115) a translation from the Latin into Hebrew by one who adopted the name of Joseph Gorionides, called Pseudo Gorionides. SIMEON OF DURHAM, an English historical writer who lived about the beginning of the eleventh century. He was a teacher of mathematics at Oxford, and was afterwards precentor in Durham cathedral. He wrote a his tory of the kings of England from 616 to 1130, for which he was at great pains to collect materials, especially in the North of England, where the Danes had established themselves. The work was continued to 1156 by John, prior of Hexham. Simeon of Durham is supposed to have died soon after 1130, when his history terminates. This work is included in Twysden's Anglican Historiæ Scriptores Decem.' Simeon also wrote a history of Durham cathedral, which was published in 1732: Historia Ecclesiæ Dunhelmensis, cui præmittitur T. R. Disquisitio de Auctore hujus Libelli; edidit T. Bedford,' Lond., 1732, 8vo. (Hassel; Hörschelmann; Kohl, Reise in Süd Russland, 1841.) SI'MIADÆ, the name of a quadrumanous family of mammals. [APE; ATELES; BABOON; CHEIROPODA : CHIMPANZEE; HYLOBATES; LAGOTHRIX; MYCETES; NASALIS; ORANG UTAN; QUADRUMANA; SAKIS; SAPAJOUS; SEMNOPITHECUS, &c.] These animals were known at a very early period. The Kophim of the Scriptures (1 Kings, x. 22; 2 Chron. ix. 21), the Ceph of the Ethiopians, the Keibi and Kubbi of the Persians, the i6o of the Greeks, and Cephi of the Romans, were clearly apes. They are to be traced in some of the earliest paintings of the Egyptians. (Rosellini, &c.) In the garden of the Zoological Society of London, among a great variety of the Simiada, three of the forms which ap proach nearest to the human race may now (Sept., 1841) be studied; for three Chimpanzees (two males and a female) an Orang-Utan, and a Gibbon (Hylobates agilis)-the two latter females-are all living at the menagerie in the Regent's Park. The Cephi exhibited by Pompey (Pliny, Nat. Hist, viii. 19), as well as those shown by Caesar, appear to have been Ethiopian apes; and in the Greek name inscribed near the quadrumanous animals, in the Prænestine pavement, the oriental origin of the word is apparent. It is remarkable that the name Cebus [SAPAJOUS] is applied by modern zoologists to a genus of monkeys which could not have been known to the antients; for the Cebi of our present catalogues are exclusively_American. FOSSIL SIMIADÆ. Remains of Simiada have been discovered and described from the tertiary formations of India, France, England, and Brazil. These fossils are illustrative of four of the existing types of quadrumanous, or rather Simious form. Thus we have Semnopithecus from India; Hylobates from the south of France; Macacus from Suffolk; and Callithrix, peculiar to America, found in Brazil. Nor is it unworthy of remark, that we here have evidence that so high a quadrumanous form as the Gibbon, a genus in which the skull is even more approximated to that of man than it is in the Chimpanzee, was living upon our globe with the Palæothere, Elephants, and other Pachyderms. We say that the skull of the Gibbon comes nearest to that of man; because, though the cranium of the young Chimpanzee approaches that of the human subject, it is far removed from it when the permanent teeth are developed. From these evidences we have also proof that Simiada lived in our island during the Eocene period; whilst the presence of fossil vegetables, abundant in the London clay at Sheppy, and the remains of serpents in the same locality, show the degree of heat that must have prevailed here during that period, when Simiada were co-existent with tropical fruits and Boa Constrictors. But Dr. Lund's observations relating to the extinct quadrumanous form detailed in his View of the Fauna of Brazil,' previous to the last geological revolution, require special notice. He states that it is certain that the family of Stmiadae was in existence in those antient times to which the fossils described by him belong; and he found an animal of that family of gigantic size, a character belonging to the organization of the period which he illustrates. He describes it as considerably exceeding the largest Oran-Utan or Chimpanzee yet seen; from these, as well as from the longarmed apes (Hylobates), he holds it to have been generically distinct. As it equally differs from the Simiada now living in the locality where it was discovered, he proposes a gene e distinction for it under the name of Protopathecus, and the specific appellation of Proton ithecus Brasiliensis. ŠIMFEROPOL, the seat of the Russian government of Taurida, is situated in 45° 12′ N. lat. and 24° 8' E. long., on an elevated plateau on the river Salgir. Simferopol is a modern town. There was indeed on this spot, in the time of the Khans, a place called Akmetschet (the white church), and sometimes called Sultan Serai, but it was of little importance, and now forms a small part of Simferopol, under the name of the Tartar quarter. The antient capital of the Khans was Baktschiserai, but it is confined to a small space in a rocky valley. The Russians, who love everything spacious and open, left that town to the Tartars, and built at Simferopol a capital according to their own taste, with immensely long and broad streets, in which horse-races might be held without interrupting the usual traffic. Being near the centre of the peninsula, it is well calculated for the seat of government. There are many pretty houses, with iron roofs painted green and adorned with many columns, like all the new Russian towns. Besides the government offices there are a Russian church, a pretty German church, one Greek and one Armenian church, four Tartar chapels, a gymna sium, and a seminary for Tartar schoolmasters. The popu- As connected with this discovery, Dr. Lund records a tralation, about 6000 inhabitants, is a medley of Russians, Tar-dition existing very generally over a considerable extent of tars, Armenians, Greeks, and 40 or 50 German families. the interior highlands, especially in the northern and There is here a very good botanic garden, or more properly western portions of the province of S. Paul and the Sertão speaking, a nursery where all kinds of useful plants, shrubs, of S. Francisco. According to this tradition, that district and trees are cultivated, and sent to various parts of the is still inhabited by a very large ape, to which the Indians, empire. The town has no manufactures, and has only an from whom the report comes, have given the name of Coy inconsiderable trade by land, and scarcely any by sea. The pore, or Dweller in the Wood. This Caypore is said to be immediate vicinity of the town does not produce much of man's stature, but with the whole body and part of fruit or culinary vegetables. During the hot season fevers its face covered with long curly hair; its colour brown, are very prevalent, and the water is very indifferent. Use- with the exception of a white mark on the belly immewoloiski (as quoted by Hassel in 1821) makes the number diately above the navel. It is represented as climbing of inhabitants 20,000; we imagine this is a misprint for trees with great facility, but most frequently going on 2000, for Stein in the same year gives 1800, and no sub- the ground, where it walks upright like a man. In youth sequent account that we have seen states it above 6000. it is held to be a quiet inoffensive animal, living upon fruits, on which it feeds with teeth formed like those of the human race; but as it advances in age, its character is denounced as rapacious and blood-thirsty. Then it chooses birds and small quadrupeds; large canine teeth project from its mouth, and it becomes formidable to man. Its skin is supposed to be impenetrable to ball, with the exception of the white mark on the belly. It is an object of dread to the natives, who shun its haunts, which are betrayed by the Caypore's extraordinary footmark ending in a heel both before and behind, so that it is impossible to know in what direction the animal is gone. Upon this tradition Dr. Lund remarks, that it is easy to trace in it the childish embellishments of a savage race; and he finds in the alleged double heel the meaning that the forepart of the foot is not broader than the hind and that the impressions of the toes are not distinguishable. As to the white spot in the belly, he remarks, that all the longhaired apes now found in Brazil have the central part of the belly very thinly covered with hair, so that when the hair is of a dark colour and the skin light, an effect is produced during the act of respiration as if there were a white spot on the stomach. The impenetrability of its hide, he observes, may seem fabulous, but he states that he is acquainted with a species of this family, the Guigo (Mycetes crinicaudus, Lund), which has this property This undescribed animal, he adds (which constitutes a remarkable link between Mycetes and Cebus, inasmuch as it combines the vocal organs of the former with the perfectly hairy tail of the latter), is provided with a skin clothed with such long and felted hair as to be shot proof on the back and sides. It would seem, says Dr. Lund, to be well aware of its shield; for instead of seeking safety in flight, like other Simiada, when danger approaches it rolls itself up in a ball, so as to cover the least protected part, and thus defies the shot of the hunter. Dr. Lund further remarks that he has introduced this tradition, less on account of its zoological interest, than for the striking coincidence it displays in many points with the stories related of the Pongo of Borneo. He asks, if no such animal exists in the district where the tradition is current, whence did it take its origin? Did the Indians receive it from their forefathers? May this tradition be considered one more testimony in favour of the Asiatic origin of the first inhabitants of America? In the Sertão of S. Francisco the tradition is coupled with additions which though, he remarks, they weaken its zoological interest, impart to it another, as betraying the only trace he had met with in that district of a belief in fairy existence. According to the native of Sertão, the Caypore is lord of the wild hogs, and when one of them has been shot, his enraged voice may be heard in the distance, when the hunter quits his game to save himself by flight. The Caypore is said to have been beheld in the centre of a herd of swine riding on the largest, and indeed has been described as an ape above and a hog below. SIMILAR, SIMILAR FIGURES (Geometry). Similarity, resemblance, or likeness, means sameness in some, if not in all, particulars. In geometry, the word refers to a sameness of one particular kind. The two most important notions which the view of a figure will give, are those of size and shape, ideas which have no connection whatsoever with each other. Figures of different sizes may have the same shape, and figures of different shapes may have the same size. In the latter case they are called by Euclid equal, in the former similar (similar figures, ouoia exhuara). The first term [EQUAL; RELATION], in Euclid's first use of it, includes united sameness, both of size and shape; but he soon drops the former notion, and, reserving equal to signify sameness of size only, introduces the word similar to denote sameness of form: so that the equality of the fundamental definition is the subsequent combined equality and imilarity of the sixth book. Similarity of form, or, as we shall now technically say, similarity, is a conception which is better defined by things than by words; being in fact one of our fundamental ideas of figure. A drawing, a map, a model, severally appeal to a known idea of similarity, derived from, it may be, or at least nourished by, the constant occurrence in nature and art of objects which have a general, though not a perfectly mathematical, similarity. The rudest nations understand a picture or a map almost instantly. It is not necessary to do more in the way of definition, and we must proceed to point out the mathematical tests of similarity. We may observe | indeed that errors or monstrosities of size are always more bearable than those of form, so much more do our conceptions of objects depend upon the latter than the former. A painter is even obliged to diminish the size of the minor parts of his picture a little, to give room for the more important objects: but no one ever thought of making a change of form, however slight, in one object, for the sake of its effect on any other. The giant of Rabelais, with whole nations carrying on the business of life inside his mouth, is not so monstrous as it would have been to take the ground on which a nation might dwell, England, France, or Spain, invest it with the intellect and habits of a human being, and make it move, talk, and reason: the more tasteful fiction of Swift is not only bearable and conceivable, but has actually made many a simple person think it was meant to be taken as a true history. Granting then a perfect notion of similarity, we now ask in what way it is to be ascertained whether two figures are similar or not. To simplify the question, let them be plane figures, say two maps of England of different sizes, but made on the same projection. It is obvious, in the first place, that the lines of one figure must not only be related to one another in length in the same manner as in the other, but also in position. Let us drop for the present all the curved lines of the coast, &c., and consider only the dots which represent the towns. Join every such pair of dots by straight lines: then it is plain that similarity of form requires that any two lines in the first should not only be in the same proportion, as to length, with the two corresponding lines in the second, but that the first pair should incline at the same angle to each other as the second. Thus,. if LY be the line which joins London and York, and FC: that which joins Falmouth and Chester, it is requisite that. LY should be to FC in the same proportion in the one map. that it is in the other; and if FC produced meet LY pro duced in O, the angle COY in one map must be the same: as in the other. Hence, if there should be 100 towns, which are therefore joined two and two by 4950 straight lines, giving about 12 millions and a quarter of pairs of lines, it is clear that we must have the means of verifying 124 millions of proportions, and as many angular agreements. But if it be only assumed that similarity is a possible thing, it is easily shown that this large number is reducible to twice 98. For let it be granted that ly on the smaller map is to represent LY on the larger. Lay down fand c in their proper places on the smaller map, each with reference to land y, by comparison with the larger map: then fand c are in their proper places with reference to each other. For if not, one of them at least must be altered, which would disturb the correctness of it with respect to 7 and y. Either then there is no such thing as perfect similarity, or else it may be entirely obtained by comparison with 7 and y only. We have hitherto supposed that both circumstances must be looked to; proper lengths and proper angles; truth of linear proportion and truth of relative direction. But it is one of the first things which the student of geometry learns (in reference to this subject), that the attainment of correctness in either secures that of the other. If the smaller map be made true in all its relative lengths, it must be true in all its directions; if it be made true in all its directions, it must be true in all its relative lengths. The foundation of this simplifying theorem rests on three propositions of the sixth book of Euclid, as follows: 1. The angles of a triangle (any two, of course) alone are enough to determine its form: or, as Euclid would express it, two triangles which have two angles of the one equal to two angles of the other, each to each, have the third angles equal, and all the sides of one in the same proportion to the corresponding sides of the other. 2. The proportions of the sides of a triangle (those of twar of them to the third) are alone enough to determine its form or if two triangles have the ratios of two sides to the third in one, the same as the corresponding ratios in the other, the angles of the one are severally the same as those of the other. 3. One angle and the proportion of the containing sides are sufficient to determine the form of a triangle: or, if two triangles have one angle of the first equal to one of the second, and the sides about those angles proportional, the remaining angles are equal, each to each, and the sides about equal angles are proportional. From these propositions it is easy to show the truth of all that has been asserted about the conditions of similarity, In the triangles BAE and bae, let the angles AEB and EBA be severally equal to aeb and eba. In the triangles ADB and adb let DA: AB:: da: ab, and DB: BA:: db: ba. In the triangles ACB and acb let the angles ABC and abc be equal, and AB BC: ab: bc. These conditions oeing fulfilled, it can be shown that the figures are similar in form. There is no angle in one but is equal to its corresponding angle in the other; no proportion of any two lines in one but is the same as that of the corresponding line in the other. Every conception necessary to the complete notion of similarity is formed, and the one figure, in common language, is the same as the other in figure, but perhaps on a different scale. The number of ways in which the conditions of similarity can be expressed might be varied almost without limit; if there ben points, they are twice (n-2) in number. It would be most natural to take either a sufficient number of ratios, or else of angles: perhaps the latter would be best. Euclid confines himself to neither, in which he is guided by the following consideration :-He uses only salient or convex figures, and his lengths, or sides, are only those lines which form the external contour. The internal lines or diagonals he rarely considers, except in the four-sided figure. He lays it down as the definition of similarity, that all the angles of the one figure (meaning only angles made by the sides of the contour) are equal to those of the other, each to each, and that the sides about those angles are proportional. This gives 2n conditions in an n-sided figure, and consequently four redundancies, two of which are easily detected. In the above pentagons, for instance, if the angles at A, E, D, C, be severally equal to these at a, e, d, c, there is no occasion to say that that at B must be equal to that at b, for it is a necessary consequence: also, if BA: AE :: ba: ae, and so on up to DC: CB: de: cb, there is no occasion to lay it down as a condition that CB: BA :: cb: ba, for it is again a consequence. These points being noted, the definition of Euclid is admirably adapted for his object, which is, in this as in every other case, to proceed straight to the establishment of his propositions, without casting one thought upon the connection of his preliminaries with natural geometry. Let us now suppose two similar curvilinear figures, and to simplify the question, take two arcs AB and ab. Having already detected the test of similarity of position with refer ence to any number of points, it will be easy to settle the conditions under which the arc AB is altogether similar to ab. By hypothesis, A and B are the points corresponding to a and b. Join A, B, and a, b; and in the arc AB take any point P. Make the angle bap equal to BAP, and abp equal to ABP; and let up and bp meet in p. Then, if the curves be similar, p must be on the are ab; for every point on AB is to have a corresponding point on ab. Hence the definition of similarity is as follows:-Two curves are similar when for every polygon which can be inscribed in the first, a similar polygon can be inscribed in the second. It is easily shown that if on two lines, A and a, be described a first pair of polygons, P and p, and a second pair, Q and q, the proportion of the first and second pairs is the same, or P: p::Q: q. The simplest similar polygons are squares; consequently, any similar polygons described on A and a are to one another in the proportion of the squares on A and a. This is also true if for the polygons we substitute similar curves; and it must be proved by the method of exhaustions [GEOMETRY, p. 154], or by the theory of limits applied to the proposition, that any curve may be approached in magnitude by a polygon within any degree of nearness. The theory of similar solids resembles that of similar polygons, but it is necessary to commence with three points instead of two. Let A, B, C, and a, b, c, be two sets of three points each, and let the triangles ABC and abc be similar: let them also be placed so that the sides of one are parallel to those of the other. If then any number of similar pyramids be described on ABC and abc, the vertices of these pyramids will be the corners of similar solids. If P and p be the vertices of one pair, then the pyramids PABC and pabc are similar if the vertices P and p be on the same side of ABC and abc [SYMMETRY], and one of the triangles, say PAB, be similar to its corresponding triangle pab, and so placed that the angle of the planes PAB and CAB is the same as that of the planes pab and cab. The simplest similar solids are cubes; and any similar solids described on two straight lines are in the same proportion as the cubes on those lines. Similar curve surfaces are those which are such that every solid which can be inscribed in one has another similar to it, capable of being inscribed in the other. It is worthy of notice that the great contested point of geometry [PARALLELS] would lose that character if it were agreed that the notion of form being independent of size, is as necessary as that of two straight lines being incapable of enclosing a space; so that whatever form can exist of any one size, a similar form must exist of every other. There can be no question that this universal idea of similarity involves as much as this, and no more; that in the passage from one size to another, all lines alter their lengths in the same proportion, and all angles remain the same. It is the subsequent mathematical treatment of these conditions which first points out that either of them follows from the other. If the whole of this notion be admissible, so in any thing less; that is, the admission implies it to be granted that whatever figure may be described upon any one line, another figure having the same angles may be described upon any other line. If then we take a triangle ABC, and any other line ab, there can be drawn upon ab a triangle having angles equal to those of abc. This can only be done by drawing two lines from a and b, making angles with ab equal to BAC and ABC. These two lines must then meet in some point c, and the angle ach will be equal to ACB. If then two triangles have two angles of one equal to two angles of the other, each to each, the third angle of the one must be equal to the third angle of the other; and this much being established, it is well known that the ordinary theory of parallels follows. The preceding assumption is not without resemblance to that required in the methods of Legendre. [PARALLELS.] SI'MILE is admirably defined by Jolinson to be a comparison by which anything is illustrated or aggrandised,' a definition which has been often neglected by poets. A Metaphor differs from a Simile in expression, inasmuch as a metaphor is a comparison without the words indicating the resemblance, and a simile is a comparison where the objects compared are kept as distinct in expression as in thought. Dr. Thomas Brown has well said, 'The metaphor expresses with rapidity the analogy as it rises in immediate suggestion, and identifies it, as it were, with the object or emotion which it describes; the simile presents not the analogy merely, but the two analogous objects, and traces their resemblances to each other with the formality of regular comparison. The metaphor, therefore, is the figure of pas sion; the simile the figure of calm description.' (Lectures, XXXV.) The metaphor is only a bolder and more elliptical simile. When we speak of the rudeness of a man, and ay Mr. Jones is as rude as a bear,' we use a simile, for the rudeness of the two are kept distinct but likened; when we say that bear Mr. Jones,' we use a metaphor, the points of resemblance being confounded in the identification of rudeness with a bear. So, brave as a lion' is a simile-the lion Achilles' a metaphor. Where the resemblance is obvious, it may be more forcibly and as intelligibly expressed by a simple metaphor; but when the resemblance is not so obvious, it requires fuller elucidation, and then it must be expressed by a simile. Similes therefore, from their tendency to detail, are usually misplaced in passionate poetry. but metaphors constitute the very language of passion; for the mind, when moved, catches at every slight association to express itself, but never dwells on them with the deliberateness of a comparison. 6 Poets should never forget that similes are not used for and renewed the treaties of alliance which Jonathan had their own sake, but for the sake of illustrating or aggran-made with the Romans and Spartans. (1 Macc., xiv., xv.) dising' the object or emotion they would express: hence an In the year 141 B.C., the people met at Jerusalem, and important but overlooked canon of criticism. Metaphors registered a public act recounting the services of the house may be indefinite, for they are themselves the expressions of Mattathias, and recognising Simon and his heirs as perof strong but indefinite emotions; but similes must be uni-petual prince and high-priest of the Jews: and this act was formly definite, clear, and correct, otherwise they are use- afterwards confirmed by Demetrius. (1 Macc., xiv. 35.) less; for the simile is used to illustrate, by a known object, After the capture of Demetrius by the Parthians, his sucone unknown or indescribable: hence the necessity for its cessor Antiochus Sidetes renewed the treaty with Simon, being intelligible. Moreover, images addressed to the eye allowed him to coin money, and declared Jerusalem a free must be such as are visually clear. These rules are conti- and holy city. Soon afterwards however Antiochus not nually violated by minor poets, but there are few cases of only refused to ratify this treaty, but demanded of Simon such violation in the greater poets, and even there the ex- the surrender of several fortified places, including the citadel ceptions prove the rule. on Mount Zion, or the payment of 1000 talents. Simon refused these demands, and Antiochus sent a large army into Palestine, which was soon however driven back by John the next three years the Jews again enjoyed a season of tranquillity, during which Simon occupied himself in inspecting and improving the state of the country. In the course of his tour he visited his son-in-law Ptolemy, at his castle of Doc, where he and his two sons Mattathias and Judas were treacherously put to death by Ptolemy, who aimed at the principality of Judæa (B.C. 135). He was succeeded by his surviving son John Hyrcanus. [HYRCANUS, JOHN; ASMONAEANS; MACCABEES.] (Brown's Lectures on the Philosophy of the Mind; Kames's Elements of Criticism; Bishop Lowth's Lectures on Hebrew Poetry; Hegel's Vorlesungen über die Esthe-Hyrcanus and Judas, the sons of Simon (B.c. 139-8). For tik; Solger's Esthetik.) SIMMENTHAL. [BERN.] SI'MMIAS was a native of Thebes, and is said to have been a disciple of Philolaus. He was a friend of Socrates (Plat., Crito, p. 45, B), and is introduced by Plato as one of the speakers in his 'Phædon.' (Diogenes Laertius (ii. 16, 124) mentions the titles of twenty-three dialogues which were in his time attributed to Simmias (Suidas, v. Eppias), but none of his works have come down to us. A second SIMMIAS, a grammarian, was a native of Rhodes, and probably lived about the year 300 B.C. He is said to have written a work on languages, consisting of three books, and a collection of miscellaneous poems, consisting of four books. (Suidas, v. Eiμμíaç; Strabo, xiv., p. 655.) Some of his poems, which however are of little value, are contained in the Anthologia Græca.' (Compare Athen., vii., p. 327; xi., p. 472 and 491.) A third SIMMIAS, who lived about the commencement of the Olympiads, wrote a work called 'Apxacoλoyia rov Zapiov, of which nothing has come down to us. Suidas confounds this historian with Simmias the grammarian. SIMNEL, LAMBERT. [HENRY VII.] SIMON MACCABAEUS, or MATTHES, surnamed Thasi, was the second son of Mattathias, and brother of Judas Maccabaeus and Jonathan Apphus. Mattathias, when dying, recommended him to his brethren as their counsellor (Macc., ii. 3). He distinguished himself on several occasions during the lives of Judas and Jonathan. (1 Mucc., v. 17; x. 74; 2 Macc., viii. 22; xiv. 17). Under the latter he was made, by Antiochus Theos, governor over the coast of the Mediterranean from Tyre to the frontier of Egypt (1 Macc., xi. 59); and here he took the fortified towns of Bethsur and Joppa, and founded Adida, in the plain of Sephela. (1 Macc., xi. 65; xii. 33, 38.) After the treacherous seizure of Jonathan by Trypho [JONATHAN APPHUS], Simon was chosen by the people as their chief (1 Macc., xiii.); and, according to Josephus (Antiq., xiii. 6, 6), as high-priest also. After putting Jerusalem in a state of defence, he marched out to meet Trypho, who did not venture to give him battle, and who was soon after compelled to retreat into winter-quarters in Gilead, where he murdered Jonathan and his two sons. Simon recovered his brother's corpse, and interred it in his father's sepulchre at Modin, and built over it a magnificent mausoleum, which was standing in the time of Eusebius. About this time (B.C. 143) Trypho had murdered Antiochus, and proclaimed himself king. Simon immediately declared for his competitor, Demetrius Nicator, with whom he made a very favourable treaty, whereby Simon was recognised prince and high-priest of the Jews, all claims upon whom for tribute Demetrius relinquished, and consented to bury in oblivion their offences against him. Thus the Jews became once more free and independent, and they began to reckon from this period (170 Aer. Seleuc.; 143-142, B.C.) a new civil æra, which is used on the coins of Simon as well as by Josephus and the author of the First Book of Maccabees (1 Macc., xiii. 41.). The last remains of their bondage to the Syrians were removed in the next year by the surrender of the Syrian garrison in the citadel of Jerusalem. The succeeding period of peace was employed by Simon in extending and consolidating his power, and improving the condition of his people. He made a harbour at Joppa, established magazines and armouries, improved the laws and administered them with vigour, restored the religious rites, The coinage of Simon is the first of which we have any historical account among the Jews. [SHEKEL.] (Josephus, Antiq.; Prideaux's Connection; Jahn's Hebrew Commonwealth; Winer's Biblisches Realwörterbuch.) SIMON MAGUS, that is, the magician, is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles as having imposed upon the people of Samaria by magical practices. When Philip the Deacon preached the gospel at Samaria, Simon was among those who received baptism at his hands. But when Peter and John came down to Samaria, and Simon perceived that the Holy Ghost was received by those upon whom they laid their hands, he offered them money if they would give him the same power. Peter vehemently rebuked him, and he showed some appearance of penitence (Acts, viii. 9-24); but the early Christian writers represent him as afterwards becoming one of the chief opponents of Christianity. According to them he was the founder of the Gnostic heresy, and was addicted to magical practices and to abominable vices. After travelling through several provinces, endeavouring as he went to spread his errors and to damage Christianity as much as possible, he came to Rome, where it is said that he worked miracles which gained him many followers, and obtained for him the favour of Nero. At last, as he was exhibiting in the emperor's presence the feat of flying through the air in a fiery chariot, which he was enabled to perform by the aid of dæmons, the united prayers of Peter and Paul, who were present on the occasion, prevailed against him, and the dæmons threw him to the ground. There are also other marvellous stories about his life and doctrines. (Calmet's Dictionary; Winer's Biblisches Realwörterbuch; Lardner's Credibility,) SIMON MATTHES. [SIMON MACCABAEUS.] SIMON, RICHARD, was born at Dieppe, in Normandy, May 13, 1638. After he had finished his studies, he entered into the Congregation of the Oratory, and became lecturer on philosophy at the College of Juilly. Being summoned by his superiors to Paris, he applied himself to the study of divinity, and made great progress in oriental learning. There being a valuable collection of oriental manuscripts in the Oratory of Rue St. Honoré, Simon was directed to make a catalogue of them, which he did with great skill. In 1668 he returned to Juilly, and resumed his lectures on philosophy, and two years after published his defence of a Jew whom the parliament of Metz condemned to be burned on the charge of having murdered a Christian child: Factum pour le Juif de Metz,' &c. Paris, 1670. In the following year, with a view to show that the opinions of the Greek church are not materially different from those of the Church of Rome with respect to the Sacrament, he published his Fides Ecclesia Orientalis, Paris, 1671, 8vo., and 1682, 4to. This work, which is a translation of one of the tracts of Gabriel, metropolitan of Philadelphia, with notes, Simon gave as a supplement to the first volume of the Perpetuity of the Faith respecting the Eucharist,' whose authors he accused of having committed many gross errors, and not having sufficiently answered the objections raised by the Protestant minister Jean Claude, in his 'Reponse au Traité |