Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 3.djvu/158

Rh 146 PATTLUS. the Roman arms, the other Britons took advantage of his absence to rise in open rebellion, and led on by Boadicea, the heroic queen of the Iceni, they captured the Roman colony ot Camalodunum and defeated Petilius Cerealis, the legate of the ninth legion. The return of Paulinus, however, soon changed matters ; and he at length finally de- feated Boadicea with great slaughter, though not till Londinium and Verulamium had also fallen into the hands of the Britons. For further details see Boadicea. He returned to Rome in the fol- lowing year, and was succeeded by Petronius Tur- pilianus. (Tac. Ann. xiv. 29 — 37, Agric. 5, 14 —16 ; Dion Cass. Ixii. 1—12 ; Suet, Ner. 39.) In A. D. 66 Seutonius Paulinus was consul with C. Lucius Telesinus (Tac. Ann. xvi. 14 ; Dion Cass. Ixiii. 1.) Paulinus was now looked upon as one of the first generals of the time, and while in Britain he was regarded by the people as the rival of Corbulo in military glory. His services were accordingly called into exercise in the civil wars which followed Nero's death. He was one of Otho's generals and chief military advisers, al- though he was not able to overcome the intrigues and influence of Licinius Proculus, in whom Otho placed most reliance. The German legions, who had proclaimed Vitellius, were advancing into Italy, and Otho set out to meet them in the spring of A. D. 69, taking with him Paulinus and other generals of experience. The plain of the Po was the field of operation ; an account of which is given under Otho, p. 67. As far as respects Pau- linus, it is only necessary to mention here, that he and Marius Celsus defeated Caecina, one of the Vitellian generals, near Cremona ; but as Paulinus would not allow his men to follow up their ad- vantage, he was accused of treachery by his troops, though his conduct was probably the result of prudence. When Valens, the other general of Vitellius, had joined his forces to those of Caecina, Paulinus strongly recommended Otho not to risk a battle ; but his advice was overruled, and the result was the defeat at Bedriacum, and the ruin of Otho's cause. After the battle Paulinus did not venture to return to his own camp. He fell into the hands of Vitellius, and obtained his par- don by pleading, says Tacitus, " the necessary but not honourable excuse," that the defeat of Otho's array was owing to his treachery ; for which self- accusation, however, there was certainly no foun- dation. This is the last time that the name of Suetonius Paulinus occurs. (Tac. HisL i. 87, 90, 23—26,31—41,44,60). PAULPNUS, M. VALE'RIUS, was a native of Forum Julii, where he possessed considerable estates. He was a friend of Vespasian's before his accession ; and having previously served as tribune of the praetorian tribunes, he was able to collect for Vespasian many of the Vitellian troops in Narbonnese Gaul, of which province he was appointed procurator, A. D. 69. He also served in the Jewish war, and was eventually raised to the consulship in the reign of Trajan, a.d. 101. He was a friend and correspondent of the younger Pliny, who has addressed five of his letters to him (Tac. Hist. iii. 42, 43 ; Joseph. B. J. in. (14), 7. § 1 ; Plin. Ep. ii. 2, iv. 16, v. 19, ix. 3, 37.) PAU'LLULUS or PAU'LULUS, an agno- men of Sp. Postumius Albinus, consul B. C. 174. [Albinus, No. 14.] PAULLUS or PAULUS, a Roman cognomen . PAULUS. In many gentes, but best known as the name of a family of the Aemilia gens. [See below.] This surname was no doubt originally given to a mem- ber of the Aemilia gens on account of the smallness of his stature. The name seems to have been originally written with a double /, which is the form found on the republican denarii and in earlier inscriptions ; but on the imperial coins, as in that of Paula [see above], and in later inscriptions, the word occurs with only one l. Paulus is also the form used by the Greek writers. As the name of many persons mentioned below is always written Paulus, and not Paullus, it is thought better for the sake of uniformity to adopt in all cases the former orthography, though in some in- stances the latter would be the preferable form. PAULUS (IlaiJAos), literary and ecclesiastical. 1. Aegineta, a physician. [See below.] 2. Of Alexandria, a Greek writer on astro- logy, who lived in the latter part of the fourth cen- tury. He wrote, according to Suidas (s. v. Tlav- os (piK6(TO(pos), two works, ElcrayurYT} ouTTpoXoyias, Ititroduetio Astrologiae., and 'ATroTee(r/j.aTiKd, Apo- telesmatica. Fabricius suggests the reading r) dirore- KeafxariKo. instead of koI diroTecaiJ.aTLKd, and un- derstands the passage not of two works, but of two titles of one work ; and his correction is rendered probable by the title of the only published work of Paulus, which is entitled Eia-ayuyrj els ti}V dTTOTeXeaiiiaTiKi^v, Rudimerita in Doctrinam deprae- dictis Natalitiis, 4to. Wittenberg, 1586. It was edited by Andreas Schatus or Schato, from a MS. in the library of Count Rantzau. The work appears to have gone through two editions in the author's life-time : for in the printed text, which probably re- presents the second edition, it is preceded by a short preface addressed to the author's son Cronamon (Kpovd/j-wv), who had noticed some errors in the former edition. The time when the author lived is inferred with probability from a passage in the work. In exemplifying a rule given for finding the days of the week, he chooses the year 94 of the era of Diocletian ( = a. D. 378), which is therefore supposed to be the year in which the work was written. If this inference is correct, Paulus must be distinguished from another astrologer of the same name mentioned by Suidas (s. v. ^lovcrriviavos 6 'PivoTfirjros), as having predicted the accession of the emperor Leontius [Leontius II.], and from a third Paulus, an astrologer, whom Ricciolus (apud Fabric. Bihl. Graec. vol. iv. p. 140, note z) states to have written an introduction to Astrology in the ninth century after Christ. The work of Paulus of Alexandria is accompanied by Greek Scholia^ written by a Christian in the year 867 of the era ot Diocletian, = a. D. 1151. Fabricius conjectured that they were by Stephanus of Athens (Fabric. Dibl. Graec. vol. xii. p. 693, ed. vet.), or by the Apomasar (Ahmed Ben Seirim) whose Oneirocri- tica was published by Rigaltus : but the date as- signed to the Scholia is too late for these writers (see Biog. Diet, of U. K. Soc. s. v. Ahmed). If, on the authority of the text of Suidas, two works are ascribed to Paulus, the one published by Schatus will be the former of the two, the Introdudio As- trologiae. (Suidas, II. cc. ; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. ll.cc.) 3. Antiochenus. [No. 17.] 4. Apostolus. The life of the Apostle and his genuine works do not come within our plan, but the following indisputably spurious works require notice. 1. At TiavKov irpd^eis. Acta Pauli, of which cita-