Listed 14 sub titles with search on: Biographies for wider area of: "NIKEA Ancient city TURKEY" .
NIKEA (Ancient city) TURKEY
190 - 120
Hipparchus, (Hipparchos). A Greek mathematician, the founder
of scientific astronomy. He was born at Nicaea in Bithynia about B.C. 160, lived
chiefly at Rhodes and Alexandria, and died about B.C. 120. He discovered the precession
of the equinoxes, settled more accurately the length of the solar year, as also
of the revolution of the moon, and the magnitude and distances of the heavenly
bodies. He placed mathematical geography on a firmer basis, by teaching the application
of the latitude and longitude of the stars to marking the position of places on
the surface of the earth. He is also regarded as having invented trigonometry.
In plane trigonometry he constructed a table of chords of arcs, which is practically
the same as one of natural sines; and in spherical trigonometry he had some methods
of solving triangles. Of his numerous writings we possess only his commentary
on the Phaenomena of Eudoxus and Aratus and a catalogue of 1026 fixed stars.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Hipparchus, (Hipparchos). We must give a few words to the explanation of our reason
for deferring all such account of Hipparchus as his fame requires to another article.
The first and greatest of Greek astronomers has left no work of his own which
would entitle him to that character: it is entirely to Ptolemy that our knowledge
of him is due. In this respect, the parallel is very close between him and two
others of his race, each one of the three being the first of his order in point
of time. Aesop and Menander would only have been known to us by report or by slight
fragments, if it had not been for Phaedrus and Terence: it would have been the
same with Hipparchus if it had not been for Ptolemy. Had it happened that Hipparchus
had had two names, by the second of which Ptolemy, and Ptolemy only, had referred
to him, we should have had no positive method of identifying the great astronomer
with the writer of the commentary on Aratus. And if by any collateral evidence
a doubt had been raised whether the two were not the same, it would probably have
been urged with success that it was impossible the author of so comparatively
slight a production could have been the sagacious mathematician and diligent observer
who, by uniting those two characters for the first time, raised astronomy to that
rank among the applications of arithmetic and geometry which it has always since
preserved. This is the praise to which the Hipparchus of the Syntaxis is entitled;
and as this can only be gathered from Ptolemy, it will be convenient to refer
the most important part of the account of the former to the life of the latter;
giving, in this place, only as much as can be gathered from other sources. And
such a course is rendered more desirable by the circumstance that the boundary
between the discoveries of Hipparchus and those of Ptolemy himself is in several
points a question which can only be settled from the writings of the latter, if
at all.
Strabo, Suidas, &c., state that Hipparchus was of Nicaea, in Bithynia;
and Ptolemy (De Adpar. Inerrant. sub fin.), in a list in which he has expressly
pointed out the localities in which astronomers made their observations, calls
him a Bithynian. But the same Ptolemy (Syntax. lib. v., ed. Halma) states that
Hipparchus himself has noted his own observation of the sun and moon, made at
Rhodes in the 197th year after the death of Alexander. Hence some have made the
Rhodian and the Bithynian to be two different persons, without any reasonable
foundation. There is a passage in the Syntaxais (lib. iii., ed. Halma), from which
Delambre (Astron. Anc. Disc. Prel. xxiv. and vol. ii.) found it difficult to avoid
inferring that Ptolemy asserted Hipparchus to have also observed at Alexandria,
which had been previously asserted, on the same ground, by Weidler and others.
But he afterwards remembered that Ptolemy always supposes Rhodes and Alexandria
to be in the same longitude, and therefore compares times of observation at the
two places without reduction.
As to the time at which Hipparchus lived, Suidas places him at from
B. C. 160 to B. C. 145, but without naming these epochs as those of his birth
and death. Of his life and opinions, independently of the astronomical details
in the Syntaxis, we know nothing more than is contained in a passage of Pliny
(H.N. ii. 26), who states that the attention of Hipparchus (1)
was first directed to the construction of a catalogue of stars by the appearance
of a new star, and a moving one (perhaps a comet of unusually star-like appearance).
Hence he dared, rem Dco improbam, to number the stars, and assign their places
and magnitudes, that his successors might detect new appearances, disappearances,
motion, or change of magnitude, coelo in haereditate canctis relicto. Bayle has
a curious mistake in the interpretation of a part of this passage. He tells us
that Hipparchus thought the souls of men to be of celestial origin, for which
he cites Pliny as follows: " Idem Hipparchus nunquam satis laudatus, ut quo
nemo magis approbaverit cognationem cum homine siderunli, animasque nostras partem
esse coeli." This means, of course, that Pliny thought that no one had done
more than Hipparchus to show the heavenly origin of the human mind.
The following are a list of writings attributed to Hipparchus:--1.
Peri ton haplanon anagraphai, mentioned by Ptolemy (lib. vii.). A work was added,
under the name of Hipparchus, by P. Victor, to his edition of the comment on Aratus,
presently mentioned, under the title ekthesis asterismon, which is nothing more
than an extract from the seventh book of the Syntaxis. Suidas and Eudocia mention
a work with the following title, peri tes ton aplanon suntaxeos kai tou katasterigmou
kai eis tous aristous (asterismous ?), which may be the same as the above. 2.
Peri megethon kai apostematon, mentioned by Pappus and Theon. Kepler had a manuscript,
which Fabricius seems to imply was this work, and which was to have been published
by Hansch, but which did not appear. 3. De duodecim Signorum Adscensione, mentioned
by Pappus. 4. Peri tes kata platos meniaias tes selenes kineseos, mentioned by
Suidas and Eudocia. 5. Peri meniaiou chronou, mentioned by Galen. 6. Peri eniausiou
megethous, mentioned by Ptolemy. 7. Peri tes metaptoseos ton tropikon kai isemerinon
semeion, mentioned by Ptolemy. 8. Ton Aratou kai Eudoxou phainomenon exegeseon
biblia g. This is the comment alluded to in Aratus. It has always been received
as the undoubted work of Hipparchus, though beyond all question it must have been
written before any of his great discoveries had been made. Nevertheless, it may
be said of this criticism, that it is far superior to any thing which had then
been written on astronomy, or which was written before the time of Ptolemy by
any but Hipparchus himself. Delambre has given a minute account of its contents
(Astron. Anc. vol. i.): he remarks that the places of the stars, as known to Hipparchus
when he wrote it, are not quite so good as those of his subsequent catalogue,
which can be recovered from the Syntaxis; this is equivalent to saying that they
are much better than those of his predecessors. The comparison of Eudoxus and
Aratus, which runs throughout this work, constitutes the best knowledge we have
of the former. We cannot but suppose that the fact of this being the only remaining
work of Hipparchus must arise from the Syntaxis containing the substance of all
the rest: this one, of course, would live as a criticism on a work so well known
as that of Aratus. It has been twice published: once by P. Victor, Florence, 1567,
folio, and again by Petavius in his Uranologion, Paris, 1630, folio. 9. Pros ton
Eratosthenen kai ta en tei Geographiai autou lechthenta, a criticism censured
by Strabo, and approved by Pliny. 10. Biblion peri ton dia barous kato pheromenon,
cited by Simplicius. 11. Achilles Tatius says that Hipparchus and others wrote
peri ekleipseon heliou kata ta hepta klimata, from which we cannot infer that
this is the title of a work. (Ptolem. Syntaxis; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iv;
Petavius, Uranologion; Weidler, Hist. Astron. ; Delambre, Hist. de l'Astronom.
anc. vol. i., Discours. prelimin.; Bailly, Hist. de l'Astronom. modern vol. i.;
Montucla, Hist. de Mathemat. vol. i. Gartz in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclop. s.
v.; Marcoz, Astronomie solaire d'Hipparque soumise a une critique rigoreuse et
ensuite rendue a sa nerite primordiale, Paris, 1828.)
(1) It was a similar circumstance which gave as remarkable an
impulse to the astronomical career of Tycho Brahe, whose merits, as far as practical
astronomy is concerned, much resemble those of Hipparchus. It is frequently stated
that both were originally led to astronomy by the sight of new stars, which is
certainly not true of the former, nor have we any reason to infer it from what
Pliny says of the latter.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Hipparchus, Greek astronomer, mathematician and geographer, born: 190 B.C., Nicaea,
died: 120 B.C., probably the island of Rhodes.
The exact dates of his life are not known for sure, but he is believed to have
observed from 162 to 126 B.C.
Most of what is known about Hipparchus is from Strabo's Geography,
from Pliny Natural sciences and from Ptolemy's Almagest. He probably studied in
Alexandria. His main original
works are lost. His only preserved work is the Commentary on Aratus, a commentary
on a poem by Aratus which describes the constellations and the stars which comprise
them. This work contains many measurements of stellar positions.
For his accession he holds the place of originator and father of scientific
astronomy. He is believed to be the greatest Greek astronomer observer and he
is at the same time entitled the greatest astronomer of ancient times. Hipparchus
had ranked stars after their brightness in six magnitude classes, what we, as
magnitudes, still use today since Ptolemy. He arranged value of 1 to 20 brightest
stars, to weaker ones value of 2 and so forth to the stars with a class of 6,
which can be barely seen. Hipparchus had made a lot of astronomical instruments,
which were used for a long time with naked-eye observations. About 150 B.C. he
made the first astrolabe, which was improved in the 3rd century by Arab astronomers
and brought by them in Europe in 10th century. With astrolabe Hipparchus was able
to measure among the first the geographical latitude and time. Gnomon was changed
during his time. They put it in a metallic hemisphere, which was devided inside
in concentric circles and it used as a portable instrument, named scaphion, for
determination of geographical coordinates from measured solar altitudes.
Hipparchus had proposed to determine the geographical longitudes of
several cities at solar eclipses. It is thought that Hipparchus compiled the first
catalog of stars, and also compiled the first trigonometry tables. Theorem in
plane geometry called Ptolemy's theorem was developed by Hipparchus. Hipparchus
is perhaps most famous for having been the first to measure the precession of
the equinoxes. Hipparchus had used almost the basic astronomical instruments gnomon,
atrolabe, armiral sphere and so.
Hipparchus fully measured the length of winter and spring to be 184
1/2 days, summer and autumn 180 1/2 days. In his geocentrical view, which he preferred,
he explained this fact with the adoption the Earth is not in the centre of Sun's
orbit around it, but it lies eccentrically for 1/24 r. With his estimation of
the length of seasons he tried to determine, as of today, linear eccentricity
of Earth's orbit.
After that he lived from 141 B.C. to 126 B.C. mostly on the island
of Rhodes, again in Alexandria
and in Syracuse and around
130 B.C. in Babylon made
a lot of precise and lasting observations. In his star map Hipparchus drew position
of every star on the basis of its celestial latitude, and its celestial longitude.
This system was also transferred to maps for Earth. Hipparchus described the motion
of the Sun and obtained a value for the eccentricity. Hipparchus also studied
the motion of the moon and obtained more accurate measurements of some periods
of the motion than existed previously, and undertook to find the distances and
sizes of the sun and moon.
This extract is cited July 2003 from the Malaspina Great Books URL below, which contains image.
Cocceianus, son of Cassius Apronianus, a Roman senator, born
A.D. 155, at Nicaea, in Bithynia. His true name was Cassius, but he assumed the
other two names, as being descended on the mother's side from Dion Chrysostom.
Thus, though he was on his mother's side of Greek descent, and though, in his
writings, he adopted the prevailing language--Greek--of his native province, he
must be considered as a Roman. Dio Cassius passed the greater part of his life
in public employments. He was a senator under Commodus and governor of Smyrna
after the death of Septimius Severus; and afterwards consul, as also proconsul
in Africa and Pannonia. Alexander Severus entertained the highest esteem for him,
and made him consul for the second time, with himself, though the Praetorian Guards,
irritated against him on account of his severity, had demanded his life. When
advanced in years (about A.D. 229), he returned to his native country. Dio published
a Roman history, in eighty books, the fruit of his researches and labours for
the space of twenty-two years. It embraced a period of 983 years, extending from
the arrival of Aeneas in Italy, and the subsequent founding of Rome, to A.D. 229.
Down to the time of Iulius Caesar, he only gives a summary of events; after this,
he enters somewhat more into details; and from the time of Commodus he is very
circumstantial in relating what passed under his own eyes. We have fragments remaining
of the first thirty-six books: but there is a considerable portion of the thirtyfifth
book, on the war of Lucullus against Mithridates, and of the thirty-sixth, on
the war with the pirates and the expedition of Pompey against the king of Pontus.
The books that follow, to the fifty-fourth inclusive, are nearly all entire: they
comprehend a period from B.C. 65 to B.C. 12, or from the eastern campaign of Pompey
and the death of Mithridates to the death of Agrippa. The fifty-fifth book has
a considerable gap in it. The fifty-sixth to the sixtieth, both included, which
comprehend the period from A.D. 9 to A.D. 54, are complete, and contain the events
from the defeat of Varus in Germany to the death of Claudius. Of the following
twenty books we have only fragments and the meagre abridgment of Xiphilinus. The
eightieth or last book comprehends the period from A.D. 222 to A.D. 229, in the
reign of Alexander Severus. The abridgment of Xiphilinus, as now extant, commences
with the thirty-fifth and continues to the end of the eightieth book. It is a
very indifferent performance, and was made by order of the emperor Michael VII.,
Parapinaces. The abbreviator, Xiphilinus, was a monk of the eleventh century.
The fragments of the first thirty-six books, as now collected,
are of four kinds: (a) Fragmenta Valesiana, such as were dispersed throughout
various writers, scholiasts, grammarians, lexicographers, etc., and were collected
by Henri de Valois. (b) Fragmenta Peiresciana, comprising large extracts, found
in the section entitled "Of Virtues and Vices," in the great collection
or portative library compiled by order of Constantine VII., Porphyrogenitus. The
manuscript of this belonged to Peiresc. (c) The fragments of the first thirty-four
books, preserved in the second section of the same work of Constantine's, entitled
"Of Embassies." These are known under the name of Fragmenta Ursiniana,
because the manuscript containing them was found in Sicily by Fulvio Orsini. (d)
Excerpta Vaticana, by Mai, which contain fragments of books i.-xxxv. and lxi.-lxxx.
To these are added the fragments of an unknown continuator of Dio, which go down
to the time of Constantine. Other fragments from Dio belonging chiefly to the
first thirtyfive books were found by Mai in two Vatican MSS., which contain a
collection made by Maximus Planudes. The annals of Zonaras also contain numerous
extracts from Dion.
Dio has taken Thucydides for his model; but the imitator is
comparable with his original neither in arrangement and the distribution of materials
nor in soundness of view and just and accurate reasoning. His style is generally
clear, where there appears to be no corruption of the text, though full of Latinisms.
His diligence is unquestionable, and, from his opportunities, he was well acquainted
with the circumstances of the Empire during the period for which he is a contemporary
authority; and, indeed, we may assign a high value to his history of the whole
period from the time of Augustus to his own age. Nor is his work without value
for the earlier periods of Roman history, in which, though he has fallen into
errors, like all the Greek and Roman writers who have handled the same obscure
subject, he still enables us to correct some erroneous statements of Livy and
Dionysius.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Dion Cassius Cocceianus, the celebrated historian of Rome. He probably derived
the gentile name of Cassius from one of his ancestors, who, on receiving the Roman
franchise, had been adopted into the Cassia gens; for his father, Cassius Apronianus,
had already borne it. He appears to have adopted the cognomen of Cocceianus from
Dion Chrysostomus Cocceianus, the orator, who, according to Reimarus, was his
grandfather on his mother's side. Dion Cassius Cocceianus, or as he is more commonly
called Dion Cassius, was born, about A. D. 155, at Nicaea in Bithynia. He was
educated with great care, and was trained in the rhetorical schools of the time,
and in the study of the classical writers of ancient Greece. After the completion
of his literary studies, he appears to have accompanied his father to Cilicia,
of which he had the administration, and after his father's death, about A. D.
180, he went to Rome; so that he arrived there either in the last year of the
reign of M. Aurelius, or in the first of that of Commodus. He had then attained
the senatorial age of twentyfive, and was raised to the rank of a Roman senator
; but he did not obtain any honours under Commodus, except the aedileship and
quaestorship, and it was not till A. D. 193, in the reign of Pertinax, that he
gained the office of praetor. During the thirteen years of the reign of Commodus,
Dion Cassius remained at Rome, and devoted his time partly to pleading in the
courts of justice, and thus assisting his friends, and partly in collecting materials
for a history of Commodus, of whose actions he was a constant eye-witness. After
the fall of this emperor, Dion, with the other senators, voted for the elevation
of Pertinax, A. D. 193, who was his friend, and who immediately promoted him to
the praetorship, which however he did not enter upon till the year following,
the first of the reign of Septimius Severus. During the short reign of Pertinax
Dion Cassius enjoyed the emperor's friendship, and conducted himself on all occasions
as nn upright and virtuous man. The accession of Septimius Severus raised great
hopes in Dion of being further promoted; but these hopes were not realized, notwithstanding
the favour which Severus shewed him in the beginning of his reign. Soon after
the accession of Severus, Dion wrote a work on the dreams and prodigies which
had announced the elevation of this emperor, and which he presented to Severus,
who thanked him for it in a long epistle. The night after he had received this
epistle, Dion was called upon in a dream to write the history of his own time,
which induced him to work out the materials he had already collected for a history
of Commodus. A similar dream or vision afterwards led him to write the history
of Septimius Severus and Caracalla. When the history of Commodus was completed,
Dion read it to the emperor, who received it with so much approbation. that Dion
was encouraged to write a history of Rome from the earliest times, and to insert
in it what he had already written about the reign of Commodus. The next ten years,
therefore, were spent in making the preparatory studies and collecting materials,
and twelve years more, during the greater part of which he lived in quiet retirement
at Capua, were employed in composing the work. It was his intention to carry the
history as far down as possible, and to add an account of the reigns of the emperors
succeeding Severus, so far as he might witness them. Reimarus conceives that Dion
began collecting his materials in A. D. 201, and that after the death of Severus,
in A. D. 211, he commenced the composition of his work, which would thus have
been completed in A. D. 222.
The reason why Severus did not promote Dion is probably owing to the
emperor's change of opinion respecting Commodus; for, during the latter part of
his reign, he admired Commodus as much as he had before detested him; and what
Dion had written about him could not be satisfactory to an admirer of the tyrant.
Dion thus remained in Italy for many years, without any new dignity being conferred
upon him. In the reign of Caracalla it became customary for a select number of
senators to accompany the emperor in his expeditions and travels, and Dion was
one of them. He bitterly complains of having been compelled in consequence to
spend immense sums of money, and not only to witness the tyrant's disgraceful
conduct, but to some extent to be an accomplice in it. In the company of the emperor,
Dion thus visited Nicomedeia; but he does not appear to have gone any further;
for of the subsequent events in Asia and Egypt he does not speak as an eye-witness,
but only appeals to reports. Macrinus, however, appears to have again called him
to Asia, and to have entrusted to him the administration of the free cities of
Pergamus and Smyrna, which had shortly before revolted. Dion went to this post
about A. D. 218, and seems to have remained there for about three years, on account
of the various points which had to be settled. At the expiration of his office,
however, he did not return to Rome, but went to Nicaea in Bithynia. On his arrival
there he was taken ill, but notwithstanding was raised, during his absence, to
the consulship, either A. D. 219 or 220. After this he obtained the proconsulship
of Africa, which, however, cannot have been earlier than A. D. 224. After his
return to Italy, he was sent, in A. D. 226, as legate to Dalmatia, and the year
after to Pannonia. In the latter province he restored strict discipline among
the troops; and on his return to Rome, the praetorians began to fear lest he should
use his influence for the purpose of interfering with their conduct likewise,
and in order to prevent this, they demanded of the emperor Alexander Severus to
put him to death. But the emperor not only disregarded their clamour, but raised
Dion, A. D. 229, to his second consulship, in which Alexander himself was his
colleague. Alexander also conferred other distinctions upon him, and undertook
out of his own purse to defray the expenses which the dignity of consul demanded
of Dion. However, as Dion could not feel safe at Rome under these circumstances,
the emperor requested him to take up his residence somewhere in Italy at a distance
from the city. After the expiration of his consulship, Dion returned to Rome,
and spent some time with the emperor in Campania ; but he appears at length to
have become tired of the precarious life at Rome, and under the pretext of suffering
from a bad foot, he asked and obtained permission to return to his native place,
and there to spend the remainder of his life in quiet retirement. At Nicaea Dion
completed his history, and there he also died. The tine of his death is unknown.
Respecting his family nothing is recorded, except that in two passages he just
mentions his wife and children; and it may be that the Dion Cassius whom we find
consul in A. D. 291 was a grandson of our historian. The account we have here
given of the life of Dion Cassius is derived from scattered passages of his own
work, and from a short article in Suidas.
The following list contains the works which are attributed by the
ancients to Dion Cassius : 1. The work on dreams and prodigies, which we mentioned
above, is lost. Dion had probably written it only to please the emperor, and he
seems afterwards to have regretted its publication; for, although he is otherwise
rather credulous and fond of relating prodigies, yet in his history he mentions
those which have reference to Septimius Severus only very cursorily. 2. The history
of the reign of Commodus, which he afterwards incorporated in his history of Rome.
3. On the reign of the emperor Trajan. This work is mentioned only by Suidas;
and, if it really was a distinct work, the substance of it was incorporated in
his Roman history. 4. A history of Persia is likewise mentioned only by Suidas,
but is probably a mistake, and Suidas confounds Dion with Deinon, who is known
to have written a work on Persia. 5. Enodia, that is, Itineraries, is mentioned
by Suidas ; but it is very doubtful whether it was a work of Dion Cassius, or
of his grandfather, Dion Chrysostomus, whose extensive travels may have led him
to write such a work. 6. A life of Arrian is altogether unknown, except through
the mention of Suidas. 7. Getica is attributed to Dion Cassius by Suidas, Jornandes,
and Freculphus; while from Philostratus (Vit. Soph. i. 7) we might infer, that
Dion Chrysostomus was its author. 8. The History of Rome (Rhomaike historia),
the great work of Dion Cassius, consisted of 80 books, and was further divided
into decads, like Livy's Roman history. It embraced the whole history of Rome
from the earliest times, that is, from the landing of Aeneas in Italy down to
A. D. 229, the year in which Dion quitted Italy and returned to Nicaea. The excerpta,
which A. Mai has published from a Vatican MS., and which belonged to a work containing
the history from the time of Valerian down to the time of Constantine the Great,
bear indeed the name of Dion Cassius, but are in all probability taken from the
work of a Christian writer, who continued the work of Dion, and A. Mai is inclined
to think that this continuation was the work of Joannes Antiochenus. Dion Cassius
himself (lxxii. 18) intimates, that he treated the history of republican Rome
briefly, but that he endeavoured to give a more minute and detailed account of
those events of which he had himself been an eyewitness. Unfortunately, only a
comparatively small portion of this work has come down to us entire. Of the first
thirtyfour books we possess only fragments, and the Excerpta, which Ursinus Valesius,
and A. Mai have successively published from the collections made by the command
of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. A few more fragments have recently been published
by F. Haase (Dionis Cassii librorum deperditorum Fragmenta, Bonn, 1840, 8vo.),
who found them in a Paris MS. It must further be observed, that Zonaras, in his
Annals, chiefly, though not solely, followed the authority of Dion Cassius, so
that, to some extent, his Annals may be regarded as an epitome of Dion Cassius.
There is a considerable fragment commonly considered as a part of the 35th book,
which however more probably belongs to the 36th, and from this book onward to
the 54th the work is extant complete, and embraces the history from the wars of
Lucullus and Cn. Pompey against Mithridates, down to the death of Agrippa, B.
C. 10. The subsequent books, from 55 to 60, have not come to us in their original
form, for there are several passages quoted from these books which are not now
to be found in them; and we therefore have in all probability only an abridment
made by some one either before or after the time of Xiphilinus. From book 61 to
80 we have only the abridgment made by Xiphilinus in the eleventh century, and
some other epitomes which were probably made by the same person who epitomized
the portion front the 55th to the 60th book. A considerable fragment of the 71st
book was found by A. Mai in a Latin translation in the Vatican library, of which
a German version was published anonymously Braunschweig, 1832, 8vo,); but its
genuineness is not quite established. Another important fragment of the 75th book
was discovered by J. Morelli, and printed first at Bassano, and afterwards (1800)
at Paris, in folio, uniform with Reimarus's edition of Dion Cassius.
Notwithstanding these great losses, we possess a sufficient portion
of the work to enable us to form a correct estimate of its value. It contains
an abundance of materials for the later history of the republic and for a considerable
period of the empire, for some portions of which it is our only source of information.
In the first of the fragments published by A. Mai, Dion distinctly states, that
he had read nearly everything which had been written on the history of Rome, and
that he did not, like a mere compiler, put together what he found in other writers,
but that he weighed his authorities, and exercised his judgment in selecting what
he thought fit for a place in his work. This assertion of the author himself is
perfectly justified by the nature and character of his history, for it is manifest
everywhere that he had acquired a thorough knowledge of his subject, and that
his notions of Roman life and Roman institutions were far more correct than those
of some of his predecessors, such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Whenever he is
led into error, it is generally owing to his not having access to authentic sources,
and to his being obliged to satisfy himself with secondary ones. It must also
be borne in mind, as Dion himself observes (liii. 19), that the history of the
empire presented much more difficulties to the historian than that of the republic.
In those parts in which he relates contemporary events, his work forms a sort
of medium between real history and mere memoirs of the emperors. His object was
to give a record as complete and as accurate as possible of all the important
events; but his work is not on that account a dry chronological catalogue of events,
for he endeavours, like Thucydides, Polybius, and Tacitus, to trace the events
to their causes, and to make us see the motives of men's actions. In his endeavours
to make us see the connexions of occurrences he sometimes even neglects the chronological
order, like his great models. But with all these excellences, Dion Cassius is
the equal neither of Thucydides nor of Tacitus, though we may admit that his faults
are to a great extent rather those of his age than of his individual character
as an historian. He had been trained in the schools of the rhetoricians, and the
consequences of it are visible in his history, which is not free from a rhetorical
tinge, especially in the speeches which are introduced in it. They may not be
pure inventions, and may have an historical groundwork, but their form is rhetorical;
though we must own that they are among the best rhetorical productions of the
time. In the formation of his style he appears to have endeavoured to imitate
the classic writers of ancient Greece; but his language is nevertheless full of
peculiarities, barbarisms, and Latinisms, probably the consequence of his long
residence in Italy; and the praise which Photius (Bibl. Cod. 71) bestows upon
him for the clearness of his style, must be greatly modified, for it is often
harsh and heavy, and Dion seems to have written as he spoke, without any attempt
at elegance or refinement.
The work of Dion Cassius was first published in a Latin translation
by N. Leonicenus, Venice, 1526; and the first edition of the Greek original is
that of R. Stephens (Paris, 1548, fol.), which contains front book 35 to 60. H.
Stephens then gave a new edition with a Latin translation by Xylander. (Geneva,
1591, fol.) The epitome of Xiphilinus from book 60 to 80 was first printed in
the edition of Leunclavius. (Frankfurt, 1592, and Hanau, 1606, fol.) After the
fragments and eclogae collected by Ursinus and Valesius had been published, J.
A. Fabricius formed the plan of preparing a complete and comprehensive edition
of Dion Cassius; but his death prevented the completion of his plan, which was
carried out by his son-in-law, H. S. Reimarus, who published his edition at Hamburg,
1750-52, in 2 vols, fol. The Greek text is not much improved is this cdition,
but the commentary and the indexes are of very great value. The Latin translation
which it contains is made up of those of Xylander and Leunclavius. A more recent
edition is that of Sturz, in 9 vols. (Leipzig, 1824, 8vo.), the ninth volume of
which (published in 1843) contains the " Excerpta Vaticana," which had
first been discovered and published by A. Mai. (Script. Vet. Nov. Collect. ii.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Acropolita Georgius (Georgios Akrpolites), the son of the great logotheta Constantinus Acropolita the elder, belonged to a noble Byzantine family which stood in relationship to the imperial family of the Ducas. He was born at Constantinople in 1220, but accompanied his father in his sixteenth year to Nicaea, the residence of the Greek emperor John Vatatzes Ducas. There he continued and finished his studies under Theodorus Exapterigus and Nicephorus Blemmida. The emperor employed him afterwards in diplomatic affairs, and Acropolita shewed himself a very discreet and skilful negociator. In 1255 he commanded the Nicaean army in the war between Michael, despot of Epirus, and the emperor Theodore II. the son and successor of John. But he was made prisoner, and was only delivered in 1260 by the mediation of Michael Palaeologus. Previously to this he had been appointed great logotheta, either by John or by Theodore, whom he had instructed in logic. Meanwhile, Michael Palaeologus was proclaimed emperor of Nicaea in 1260, and in 1261 he expulsed the Latins from Constantinople, and became emperor of the whole East; and from this moment Georgius Acropolita becomes known in the history of the eastern empire as one of the greatest diplomatists. After having discharged the function of ambassador at the court of Constantine, king of the Bulgarians, he retired for some years from public affairs, and made the instruction of youth his sole occupation. But he was soon employed in a very important negociation. Michael, afraid of a new Latin invasion, proposed to pope Clemens IV. to reunite the Greek and the Latin Churches; and negociations ensued which were carried on during the reign of five popes, Clemens IV. Gregory X. John XXI. Nicolaus III. and Martin IV. and the happy result of which was almost entirely owing to the skill of Acropolita. As early as 1273 Acropolita was sent to pope Gregory X. and in 1274, at the Council of Lyons, he confinned by an oath in the emperor's name that that confession of faith which had been previously sent to Constantinople by the pope had been adopted by the Greeks. The reunion of the two churches was afterwards broken off, but not through the fault of Acropolita. In 1282 Acropolita was once more sent to Bulgaria, and shortly after his return he died, in the month of December of the same year, in his 62nd year. Acropolita is the author of several works: the most important of which is a history of the Byzantine empire, under the title Chronikon os en sunopse. ton en husterois, that is, from the taking of Constantinople by the Latins in 1204, down to the year 1261, when Michael Palaeologus delivered the city from the foreign yoke. The MS. of this work was found in the library of Georgius Cantacuzenus at Constantinople, and afterwards brought to Europe. (Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. p. 768.) The first edition of this work, with a Latin translation and notes, was published by Theodorus Douza, Lugd. Batav. 1614, 8vo.; but a more critical one by Leo Allatius, who used a Vatican MS. and divided the text into chapters. It has the title Georgiou tou Akropolitou tou megalou logothetou chronike sungraphe, Georgii Acropolitae, magni Logothetae, Historic, &c. Paris, 1651. fol. This edition is reprinted in the " Corpus Byzantinorum Scriptorum," Venice, 1729, vol. xii. This chronicle contains one of the most remarkable periods of Byzantine history, but it is so short that it seems to be only an abridgment of another work of the same author, which is lost. Acropolita perhaps composed it with the view of giving it as a compendium to those young men whose scientific education he superintended, after his return front his first embassy to Bulgaria. [p. 16] The history of Michael Palaeologus by Pachymeres may be considered as a continuation of the work of Acropolita. Besides this work, Acropolita wrote several orations, which he delivered in his capacity as greatlogotheta, and as director of the negotiations with the pope; but these orations have not been published. Fabricius (vol. vii. p. 471) speaks of a MS. which has the title Peri ton apo ktiseos kosmon eton kai peri ton basileusanton mechri haloseos Konstantinoupoleos. Georgius, or (Gregorius Cyprius, who has written a short encomium of Acropolita, calls him the Plato and the Aristotle of his time. This "encomium" is printed with a Latin translation at the head of the edition of Acropolita by Th. Douza : it contains useful information concerning Acropolita, although it is full of adulation. Further information is contained in Acropolita's history, especially in the latter part of it, and in Pachymeres, iv. 28, vi. 26, 34, seq
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Sep 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Constantinus, surnamed Nicaeus from the place of his abode, by which surname alone he is usually designated in the Basilica, was a Graeco Roman jurist (Basil. iii.). He was posterior to Garidas, who flourished in the latter half of the eleventh century of the Christian aera, for in Basilica, ii, he cites the Stoicheion of Garidas. He was a commentator upon the Novells of Justinian (Bas. iii.), and upon the books of the Basilica. Nic. Comnenus (Praenot. Mystag.) cites his exposition of the Novells. In Bas. iii., he speaks of Stephanus as his teacher (ho didaskalos hemon Stephanos; but by this expression He may have referred to the jurist Stephanus, who was a contemporary of Justinian, as an English lawyer might call Coke his master. Reiz, however (ad Theoph.), thinks it more probable, that he referred to an Antonius Stephanus, judge and magistrate, who is said by Nic. Comnenlus (Papadopoli) (Praenot. Mystag.) to have written scholia on the Ecloga of Leo; but G. E. Heimbach (Anecdota, i.) has in this case clearly exposed the fabrication of Comnenus. In the scholia of Constantinus Nicaeus appended to the Basilica are citations of Cyrillus, Stephanus, and Thalelaeus, of Joannes Nomophylus, with whom he disagrees, of the Institutes, of the Digest, of the Novells of Leo, and of the Basilica.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
240 - 300
A Greek grammarian and rhetorician, of Nicaea in Bithynia, friend of Libanius, who praises him in the highest terms; he was killed in an earthquake at Nicomedia, A.D. 358. His name is erroneously attached to a collection, probably composed in the fifth or sixth century, of erotic Epistles, feeble imitations of Alciphron, loose in tone and declamatory in style. The text and a Latin version are contained in the Didot collection of the Epistolographi Graeci (Paris, 1873).
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Oct 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Aemilianus (Aimilianos), a native of the town of Nicaea, and an epigrammatic poet. Nothing further is known about him. Three of his epigrams have been preserved. (Anthol. Graec. vii. 623, ix. 218, 756.)
Diophanes, a native of Nicaea, in Bithynia, in the first century B. C., who abridged
the agricultural work of Cassius Dionysius for the use of king Deiotarus. (Varr.
De Re Rust. i. 1. 10; Colum. De Re Rust. i. 1. 10; Plin. H. N. Index to lib. viii.)
His work consisted of six books, and was afterwards further abridged by Asinius
Pollio. (Suid. s. v. Polion.) Diophanes is quoted several times in the Collection
of Greek Writers, De Re Rustica.
Isigonus (Isigonos), a Greek writer, who, according to Stephanus Byzantinus (s. v. Nikaia), was a native of Nicaea, and, according to Cyrillus (adv. Julian. 3) of Cittium, though it is not improbable that in the latter passage ho Kittieus may be only a false reading for ho Nikaeus. The time at which he lived is uncertain, though Gellius (ix. 4) calls him an ancient writer of no small authority. Tzetzes (ad Lycoph. 1021) calls him an historian, but the only work he is known to have written bore the title Apista, whence he is regarded as one of the class of writers called paradoxographoi. (Tzetz. Chil. vii. 144.) The fact that Pliny (H. N. vii. 2) and Sotion used the work seems to show that lsigonus lived previous to the beginning of the Christian era. The work of Isigonus is lost, and the few fragments of it which have come down to us are collected in Westermann's Paradoxographoi.
Receive our daily Newsletter with all the latest updates on the Greek Travel industry.
Subscribe now!
