Listed 98 sub titles with search on: Biographies for wider area of: "ALEXANDRIA Airport EGYPT" .
ALEXANDRIA (Ancient city) EGYPT
Bathyllus. Of Alexandria, the freedman and favourite of Maecenas, together with Pylades of
Cilicia and Hylas the pupil of the latter, brought to perfection during the reign
of Augustus the imitative dance or ballet called Pantomimus, which excited boundless
enthusiasm among all classes at Rome, and formed one of the most admired public
amusements until the downfall of the empire. Bathyllus excelled in comic, while
Pylades was preeminent in tragic personifications ; each had a numerous train
of disciples, each was the founder of a school which transmitted his fame to succeeding
generations, and each was considered the head of a party among the citizens, resembling
in its character the factions of the Circus, and the rivalry thus introduced stirred
up angry passions and violent contests, which sometimes ended in open riot and
bloodshed. The nature and peculiarities of these exhibitions are explained in
the Dict. of Ant. s. v. Pantomimus. (Tac. Ann. i. 54; Senec. Quaest. Natur. vii.
32, Controv. v. praef. ; Juv. vi. 63; Suet. Octav. 45; Dion Cass. liv. 17; Plut.
Symp. vii. 8; Macrob. ii. 7; Athen. i.; Zosimus, i. 6; Suid. s. vv. Orchesis and
Athenodoros.)
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
Posidonius. An astronomer and mathematician of Alexandria. He was the disciple of Zeno, and contemporary with, or else a short time posterior to, Eratosthenes. He probably flourished about B.C. 260. He is particularly celebrated on account of his having employed himself in endeavouring to ascertain the measure of the circumference of the earth by means of the altitude of a fixed star.
Sosigenes. The Peripatetic philosopher, was the astronomer employed by Iulius Caesar to superintend the correction of the calendar (B.C. 46).
Herophilus was a Greek physician who became an anatomist in the Museum
at Alexandria. Unfortunately all of his writings have been lost. He dissected
human bodies following death to ascertain the “nature of the fatal malady.”
He was quoted frequently by Galen, Dioscorides, Pliny and Plutarch.
This text is cited July 2003 from the Malaspina Great Books URL below.
Ammonius (Ammonios). A physician of Alexandria, famous from his skill in cutting for the stone--an operation which, according to some, he first introduced. He invented an instrument for crushing the larger calculi while in the bladder. He was accustomed also to make use of caustic applications, especially red arsenic in hemorrhages.
Ammonius (Ammonios) Lithotomus, an eminent surgeon of Alexandria, mentioned by
Celsus (De Med. vii. Praef.), whose exact date is not known, but who probably
lived in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B. C. 283--247, as his name occurs
in Celsus together with those of several other surgeons who lived at that time.
He is chiefly celebrated for having been the tist person who thought of breaking
a stone within the bladder when too large for extraction entire; on which account
he received the cognomen of lithotomos. An account of his mode of operation, as
described by Celsus (De Med. vii. 26), is given in the Dict. of Ant. p. 220. Some
medical preparations used by a physician of the same name occur also in Aetius
and Paulus Aegineta, but whether they all belong to the same person is uncertain.
Agapius (Agapios), an ancient physician of Alexandria, who taught and practised medicine at Byzantium with great success and reputation, and acquired immense riches. Of his date it can only be determined, that he must have lived before the end of the fifth century after Christ, as Damascius (from whom Photius, Biblioth. cod. 242, and Suidas have taken their account of him) lived about that time.
Hicesius, (Hikesios), a physician, who lived probably at the end of the first century B. C., as he is quoted by Crito (ap. Gal. De Compos. Medicam. sec. Gen. v. 3, vol. xiii.), and was shortly anterior to Strabo. He was a follower of Erasistratus, and was at the head of a celebrated medical school established at Smnyrna. (Strab. xii. 8, sub fin.) He is several times quoted by Athenaeus, who says (ii. p. 59) that he was a friend of the physician Menodorus; and also by Pliny, who calls him "a physician of no small authority." (H.N. xxvii. 14.) There are extant two coins, struck in his honour by the people of Smyrna, which are described and illustrated by Mead in his Dissert. de Numis quibusdam a Smyrnaeis in Medicorum Honorem percussis, Lond. 4to. 1724; see also Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. xiii., ed. vet.
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
Appianus. A Greek historian of Alexandria, who lived about the middle of the second century A.D. At first he pursued the calling of an advocate at Rome; in later life, on the recommendation of his friend the rhetorician Fronto, he obtained from Antoninus Pius the post of an imperial procurator in Egypt. He wrote an extensive work on the development of the Roman Empire from the earliest times down to Trajan, consisting of a number of special histories of the several periods and the several lands and peoples till the time when they fell under the Roman dominion. Of the twentyfour books of which it originally consisted, only eleven are preserved complete besides the Preface: Spain (book vi.), Hannibal (vii.), Carthage (viii.), Syria (xi.), Mithridates (xii.), the Roman Civil Wars (xiii.-xvii.), and Illyria (xxiii.), the rest being lost altogether or only surviving in fragments. Appianus's style is plain and bald, even to dryness, and his historical point of view is purely Roman. The book is a mere compilation, and is disfigured by many oversights and blunders, especially in chronology; nevertheless the use made by the writer of lost authorities lends it considerable worth, and for the history of the Civil Wars it is positively invaluable.
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
Appianus (Appianos), a native of Alexandria, lived at Rome during the reigns of
Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius, as we gather from various passages in his
work. We have hardly any particulars of his life, for his autobiography, to which
he refers at the end of the preface to his history, is now lost. In the same passage
he mentions, that he was a man of considerable distinction at Alexandria, and
afterwards removed to Rome, where he was engaged in pleading causes in the courts
of the emperors. He further states, that the emperors considered him worthy to
be entrusted with the management of their affairs (mechri me sphon epitropeuein
exiosan); which Schweighauser and others interpret to mean, that he was appointed
to the office of procurator or praefectus of Egypt. There is, however, no reason
for this supposition. We know, from a letter of Fronto, that it was the office
of procurator which he held (Fronto, Ep. ad Anton. Pium, 9); but whether he had
the management of the emperors' finances at Rome, or went to some province in
this capacity, is quite uncertain.
Appian wrote a Roman history (Pomaika, or Pomaike historia) in twenty-four
books, on a plan different from that of most historians. He did not treat the
history of the Roman empire as a whole in chronological order, following the series
of events; but he gave a separate account of the affairs of each country from
the time that it became connected with the Romans, till it was finally incorporated
in the Roman empire. The first foreign people with whom the Romans came in contact
were the Gauls; and consequently his history, according to his plan, would have
begun with that people. But in order to make the work a complete history of Rome,
he devoted the first three books to an account of the early times and of the various
nations of Italy which Rome subdued.
The subjects of the different books were:
1. The kingly period (Hpomaikon basilike).
2. Italy (Italike).
3. The Samnites (Samnitike).
4. The Gauls or Celts (Keltike).
5. Sicily and the other islands (Sikelike kai Nesiotike).
6. Spain (Iberike).
7. Hannibal's wars (Annibaike).
8. Libya, Carthage, and Numidia (Libuke, Karchesonike kai Nomadike).
9. Macedonia (Makesonike).
10. Greece and the Greek states in Asia Minor (Ellenike kai Ionike).
11. Syria and Parthia (Suriake kai Parthike).
12. The war with Mithridates (Mithrisateios).
13-21. The civil wars (Emphulia), in nine books, from those of Marius and Sulla
to the battle of Actium. The last four books also had the title of ta Aiguptiaka.
22. Hekatontaetia, comprised the history of a hundred years, from the battle of
Actium to the beginning of Vespasian's reign.
23. The wars with Illyria (Illurike or Dakike).
24. Those with Arabia (Arabios).
We possess only eleven of these complete; namely, the sixth, seventh, eighth,
eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth,
and twenty-third. There are also fragments of several of the others. The Parthian
history, which has come down to us as part of the eleventh book, has been proved
by Schweighauser to be no work of Appian, but merely a compilation from Plutarch's
Lives of Antony and Crassus, probably made in the middle ages.
Appian's work is a mere compilation. In the early times he chiefly
followed Dionysius, as far as the latter went, and his work makes up to a considerable
extent for the books of Dionysius, which are lost. In the history of the second
Punic war Fabius seems to have been his chief authority, and subsequently he made
use of Polybius. His style is clear and simple; but he possesses few merits as
an historian, and he frequently makes the most absurd blunders. Thus, for instance,
he places Saguntum on the north of the Iberus (Iber. 7), and states that it takes
only half a day to sail from Spain to Britain (Iber. 1).
Appian's history was first published in a barbarous Latin translation
by Candidus, at Venice, in 1472. A part of the Greek text was first published
by Carolus Stephanus, Paris, 1551; which was followed by an improved Latin version
by Gelenius, which was published after the death of the latter at Basel, 1554.
The Greek text of the Iberike kai Annibaike was published for the first time by
H. Stephanus, Geneva, 1557. Ursinus published some fragments at Antwerp, 1582.
The second edition of the Greek text was edited, with the Latin version of Gelenius,
by H. Stephanus, Geneva, 1592. The twenty-third book of Appian, containing the
wars witl Illyria, was first published by Hoeeschelius, Augsburg, 1599, and some
additional fragments were added by Valesius, Paris, 1634. The third edition of
Appian's work was published at Amsterdam in 1670, and is a mere reprint of the
edition of H. Stephanus. The work bears on the title-page the name of Alexander
Tollius, but he did absolutely nothing for the work, and allowed the typographical
errors of the old edition to remain. The fourth edition, and infinitely
the best, is that of Schweighauser, Leipzig, 1785.
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
SEBENNYTUS (Ancient city) EGYPT
(Manethos or Manethon). An Egyptian, a priest at Heliopolis in the reign of the
first Ptolemy (B.C. 283-246), and who was the first Egyptian to give in Greek
an account of the history and religion of his native country. One work was entitled
Ton Phusikon Epitome, dealing with the theology of the Egyptians and with the
origin of the world; the second was styled Aiguptiake Historia, and in three books
treated of Aegyptian chronology and history. The first book covers the mythical
period prior to the eleventh dynasty; the second, from the eleventh to the twentieth;
the third, from the twentieth dynasty to the reign of Nectanebus, the last native
Egyptian king. The original works of Manetho are lost, but copious extracts remain
preserved by the ecclesiastical writers, especially Iulius Africanus, Eusebius,
and Georgius Syncellus. The sources of Manetho's history were the early archives
and sacred books of Egypt, and in recent years much corroborative evidence of
the truth of what he wrote has been derived by Egyptologists from the hieroglyphics
and other sources. The fragments of Manetho are collected and edited by C. Muller
in his Frag. Hist. Graec. (Paris, 1856). A long astrological poem in six books
and entitled Apotelesmatika, once ascribed to Manetho, is now regarded as written
several centuries later than his time. It is edited by Axt and Rigler (Cologne,
1832), and Kochly (1858).
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
Manetho (Manethos or Manethon), an Egyptian priest of the town of Sebennytus, who lived
in the reign of Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, and probably also in that of his successor,
Ptolemy Philadelphus. He had in antiquity the reputation of having attained the
highest possible degree of wisdom (Syncellus, Chronogr.; Plut. de Is. et Os. 9;
Aelian, H. A. x. 16), and it seems to have been this very reputation which induced
later impostors to fabricate books, and publish them under his name. The fables
arid mystical fancies which thus became current as the productions of the Egyptian
sage, were the reason why Manetho was looked upon even by some of the ancients
themselves as a half mythical personage, like Epimienides of Crete, of whose personal
existence and history no one was able to form any distinct notion. The consequence
has been, that the fragments of his genuine work did not meet, down to the most
recent times, with that degree of attention which they deserved, although the
inscriptions on the Egyptian monuments furnish the most satisfactory confirmation
of some portions of his work that have come down to us. It was a further consequence
of this mythical uncertainty by which his personal existence became surrounded,
that some described him as a native of Diospolis (Thebes), the great centre of
priestly learning among the Egyptians, or as a high priest at Heliopolis (Suid.
s. v. Manethos). There can be no doubt that Manetho belonged to the class of priests,
but whether he was high-priest of Egypt is uncertain, since we read this statement
only in some MSS. of Suidas, and in one of the productions of the Pseudo-Manetho.
Respecting his personal history scarcely anything is known, beyond the fact that
he lived in the reign of the first Ptolemy, with whom he came in contact in consequence
of his wisdom and learning. Plutarch (de Is. et Osir. 28) informs us, that the
king was led by a dream to order a colossal statue of a god to be fetched from
Sinope to Egypt. When the statue arrived, Ptolemy requested his interpreter Timotheus
and Manetho of Sebennytus to inquire which god was represented in the statue.
Their declaration that the god represented was Serapis, the Osiris of the lower
world or Pluto, induced the king to build a temple to him, and establish his worship.
The circumstance to which Manetho owes his great reputation in antiquity
as well as in modern times is, that he was the first Egyptian who gave in the
Greek language an account of the doctrines, wisdom, history, and chronology of
his country, and based his information upon the ancient works of the Egyptians
themselves, and more especially upon their sacred books. The object of his works
was thus of a twofold nature, being at once theological and historical. (Euseb.
Praep. Ev. ii. init.; Theodoret. Serm. II. de Therap.)
The work in which he explained the doctrines of the Egyptians concerning
the gods, the laws of morality, the origin of the gods and the world, seems to
have borne the title of Ton phusikon epitome. (Diog. Laert. Prooem. 10, 11.) Various
statements, which were derived either from this same or a similar work, are preserved
in Plutarch's treatise De Iside et Osiri (cc. 8, 9, 49, 62, 73; comp. Procl. ad
Hesiod. Op. et D. 767), and in some other writers, who confirm the statements
of Plutarch. (Iamblich. de Myster. viii. 3; Aelian, H. A. x. 16; Porphyr. de Abstin.
p. 199.)
Suidas mentions a work on (Cyphi, or the sacred incense of the Egyptians,
its preparation and mixture, as taught in the sacred books of the Egyptians, and
the same work is referred to by Plutarch at the end of his above-mentioned treatise.
In all the passages in which statements from Manetho are preserved concerning
the religious and moral doctrines of the Egyptians, he appears as a man of a sober
and intelligent mind, and of profound knowledge of the religious affairs of his
own country; and the presumption therefore must be, that in his historical works,
too, his honesty was not inferior to his learning, and that he ought not to be
made responsible for the blunders of transcribers and copyists, or the forgeries
of later impostors.
The historical productions of Manetho, although lost, are far better
known than his theological works. Josephus (Ant. Jud. i. 3. 9) mentions the great
work under the title of History of Egypt, and quotes some passages verbatim from
it, which show that it was a pleasing narrative in good Greek (c. Apion. i. 14,
&c.). The same author informs us that Manetho controverted and corrected many
of the statements of Herodotus. But whether this was done in a separate work,
as we are told by some writers, who speak of a treatise Pros Herodoton (Eustath.
ad Hom.; Etym. Magn. s. v. Leontokomos), or whether this treatise was merely an
extract from the work of Manetho, made by later compilers or critics of Herodotus,
is uncertain. The Egyptian history of Manetho was divided into three parts or
books; the first contained the history of the country previous to the thirty dynasties,
or what may be termed the mythology of Egypt, as it gave the dynasties of the
gods, concluding with those of mortal kings, of whom the first eleven dynasties
formed the conclusion of the first book. The second opened with the twelfth and
concluded with the nineteenth dynasty, and the third gave the history of the remaining
eleven dynasties, and concluded with an account of Nectanebus, the last of the
native Egyptian kings. (Syncell. Chronog. p. 97, &c.) These dynasties are preserved
in Julius Africanus and Eusebius (most correct in the Armenian version), who,
however, has introduced various interpolations. A thirty-first dynasty, which
is added under the name of Manetho, and carries the list of kings down to Dareius
Codomannus, is undoubtedly a later fabrication. The duration of the first period
described in the work of Manetho was calculated by him to be 24,900 years, and
the thirty dynasties, beginning with Menes, filled a period of 3555 years. The
lists of the Egyptian kings and the duration of their several reigns were undoubtedly
derived by him from genuine documents, and their correctness, so far as they are
not interpolated, is said to be confirmed by the inscribed monuments which it
has been the privilege of our time to decipher. (Comp. Schell, Gesch. der Griech.
Lit.; Bunsen, Aegypt. Stelle in der Weltgesch.)
There exists an astrological poem, entitled Apotelesmatika, in six
books, which bears the name of Manetho; but it is now generally acknowledged that
this poem, which is mentioned also by Suidas, cannot have been written before
the fifth century of our era. A good edition of it was published some years ago
by C. A. M. Axt and F. A. Rigler, Cologne, 1832, 8vo. Whether this poem was written
with a view to deception, under the name of Manetho, or whether it is actually
the production of a person of that name, is uncertain.
But there is a work which is undoubtedly a forgery, and was made with
a view to harmonise the chronology of the Jews and Christians with that of the
Egyptians. This work is often referred to by Syncellus (Chron. pp. 27, 30), who
says that the author lived in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphs, and wrote a work
on the Dog Star (he Biblos tes sotheos). which he dedicated to the king, whom
he called Sebastos (Syncell. Chron.). The very introduction to this book, which
Syncellus quotes, is so full of extraordinary things and absurdities, that it
clearly betrays its late author, who, under the illustrious name of the Egyptian
historian, hoped to deceive the world.
The work of the genuine Manetho was gradually superseded: first by
epitomisers, by whom the genuine history and chronology were obscured; next by
the hasty work of Eusebius, and the interpolations he made, for the purpose of
supporting his system; afterwards by the impostor who assumed the name of Manetho
of Sebennytus, and mixed truth with falsehood; and lastly by a chronicle, in which
the dynasties of Manetho were arbitrarily arranged according to certain cycles
(Syncell. Chron.). For a more minute account of the manner in which the chronology
of Manetho was gradually corrupted see the excellent work of Bunsen above referred
to, vol. i. p. 256, &c.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
ALEXANDRIA (Ancient city) EGYPT
Cleopatra. The most famous of the name was the daughter of Ptolemy Auletes,
and remarkable for her beauty and personal accomplishments. According to the usage
of the Alexandrian court, she married her young brother, Ptolemy XII., and began
to reign with him in her seventeenth year. Both she and her husband, being minors,
were placed by the will of their father under the guardianship of Rome, an office
which the Senate assigned to Pompey. An insurrection breaking out in the Egyptian
capital soon after the commencement of this reign, Cleopatra was compelled to
yield to the tide of popular fury, and to flee into Syria, where she sought protection
in temporary exile. The flight of this princess, though mainly arising from the
tumult just mentioned, was unquestionably accelerated by the designs of the young
king and his ambitious ministers. Their object became manifest when Cleopatra,
after a few months' residence in Syria, returned towards her native country to
resume her seat on the throne. Ptolemy prepared to oppose her by force of arms,
and a civil war would inevitably have ensued, had not Caesar at that very juncture
sailed to the coast of Egypt in pursuit of Pompey. A curious interview soon took
place between Cleopatra and the Roman general. She placed herself on board a small
skiff, under the protection of Apollodorus, a Sicilian Greek, set sail from the
coast of Syria, reached the harbour of Alexandria in safety, and had herself conveyed
naked into the chamber of the Roman commander in the form of a large package of
goods. The stratagem proved completely successful. Cleopatra was now in her twentieth
year, distinguished by extraordinary personal charms, and surrounded with all
the graces which give to those charms their greatest power. Her voice was extremely
sweet, and she spoke a variety of languages with propriety and ease. She could,
it is said, assume all characters at will, which all alike became her, and the
impression that was made by her beauty was confirmed by the fascinating brilliancy
of her conversation. The day after this singular meeting, Caesar summoned before
him the king, as well as the citizens of Alexandria, and made arrangements for
the restoration of peace, procuring Cleopatra, at the same time, her share of
the throne. Pothinus, however, one of Ptolemy's ministers, in whose intriguing
spirit all the dissensions of the court had originated, soon stirred up a second
revolt, upon which the Alexandrian War commenced, in which Ptolemy was defeated
and lost his life by drowning. Caesar now proclaimed Cleopatra queen of Egypt;
but she was compelled to take her brother, the younger Ptolemy, who was only eleven
years old, as her husband and colleague on the throne. The Roman general continued
for some time at her court, and she bore him a son, called, from the name of his
putative father, Caesarion. During the six years which immediately followed these
events, the reign of Cleopatra seems not to have been disturbed by insurrection,
nor to have been assailed by foreign war. When her brother, at the age of fourteen,
demanded his share in the government, Cleopatra poisoned him, and remained sole
possessor of the regal authority. The dissensions among the rival leaders who
divided the power of Caesar had no doubt nearly involved her in a contest with
both parties; but the decisive issue of the battle of Philippi relieved her from
the hesitation under which some of her measures appear to have been adopted, and
determined her inclinations, as well as her interests, in favour of the conquerors.
To afford her an opportunity of explaining her conduct, Antony summoned her to
attend him in Cilicia, and the meeting which she gave him on the river Cydnus
has employed the pen, not only of the historian, but of the prince of English
dramatists.
The artifices of this fascinating princess, now in her twenty-seventh
year, so far gained upon Antony as not only to divert his thoughts from his original
purpose of subjecting her kingdom to the payment of tribute, but entirely to lull
his ambition to sleep, and make him sacrifice his great stake as a candidate for
the empire of the world. After a fruitless attack upon the territory of Palmyra,
he hastened to forget his disgrace in the society of the Egyptian queen, passing
several months at Alexandria in the wildest and most delirious dissipation. The
death of his wife, and his subsequent marriage with Octavia, delayed for a time
the crisis which his ungoverned passions were preparing for him. But, though he
had thus extricated himself from the snares of Alexandria, his inclinations too
soon returned to that unlucky city; for we find that when he left Rome to proceed
against the Parthians, he despatched in advance his friend Fonteius Capito to
conduct Cleopatra into Syria. On his return from this disgraceful campaign, he
incurred still deeper dishonour by once more willingly submitting to that bondage
which had rendered him contemptible in the eyes of most of his followers.
Passing over events which have been alluded to in the article
Augustus Caesar, we come to the period that followed the battle of Actium, at
which the desertion of Cleopatra with her galleys and the pursuit of her by the
infatuated Antony changed the destiny of the Roman Empire (B.C. 30). When Octavianus
advanced against Egypt, and Antony had been a second time defeated under the walls
of Alexandria, Cleopatra shut herself up with a few at tendants and the most valuable
part of her treasures in a strong building which appears to have been intended
for a royal sepulchre. To prevent intrusion by friend or enemy she caused a report
to be circulated that she had retired into the monument to put herself to death.
Antony resolved to follow her example, and threw himself upon his sword; but being
informed, before he expired, that Cleopatra was still living, he caused himself
to be carried into her presence, and breathed his last in her arms. Octavianus,
after this, succeeded in getting Cleopatra into his power, and the queen at first
hoped to subdue him by her attractions; but finding at last that her efforts were
unavailing, and suspecting that her life was spared only that she might grace
the conqueror's triumph, she ended her days, if the common account is to be credited,
by the bite of an asp; though some ascribed her death to poison administered internally.
A small puncture in the arm was the only mark of violence which could be detected
on the body of Cleopatra, and it was therefore believed that she had procured
death either by the bite of a venomous reptile or by the use of a poisoned bodkin.
She died in her thirty-ninth year, having reigned twenty-two years from the death
of her father. Octavianus, it is said, though deprived by this act of suicide
of the greatest ornament of his approaching triumph, gave orders that she should
have a magnificent funeral, and that her body, as she desired, should be laid
by that of Antony. Her two children by Antony were reared by the neglected wife
Octavia.
The name of Cleopatra has been linked by romance and poetry
with those of the most fascinating women the world has seen--Helen of Troy, Mary
Stuart, and Ninon de Lenclos--and has always exercised a powerful influence upon
the imagination of men. In English literature the genius of Shakespeare and of
Dryden has made her story the theme of dramas; while the resources of art have
been exhausted to produce types that should satisfy the eye and the mind of the
critic.
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
Cleopatra. Third and eldest surviving daughter of Ptolemy Auletes, was born towards
the end of B. C. 69, and was consequently seventeen at the death of her father,
who in his will appointed her heir of his kingdom in conjunction with her younger
brother, Ptolemy, whom she was to marry. The personal charms, for which she was
so famed, shewed themselves in early youth, as we are told by Appian (B. C. v.
8), that she made an impression on the heart of Antony in her fifteenth year,
when he was at Alexandria with Gabinius. Her joint reign did not last long, as
Ptolemy, or rather Pothinus and Achillas, his chief advisers, expelled her from
the throne, about B. C. 49. She retreated into Syria, and there collected an army
with which she designed to force her brother to reinstate her. But an easier way
soon presented itself; for in the following year Caesar arrived in Egypt in pursuit
of Pompey, and took upon himself to arrange matters between Cleopatra and her
brother (Caes. B. C. iii. 103, 107). Being informed of Caesar's amatory disposition,
she resolved to avail herself of it, and, either at his request, according to
Plutarch, or of her own accord, clandestinely effected an entrance into the palace
where he was residing, and by the charms of her person and voice and the fascination
of her manner, obtained such an ascendancy over him, that, in the words of Dion
Cassius (xlii. 35), from being the judge between her and her brother, he became
her advocate. According to Plutarch, she made her entry into Caesar's apartment
in a bale of cloth, which was brought by Apollodorus, her attendant, as a present
to Caesar. However this may be, her plan fully succeeded, and we find her replaced
on the throne, much to the indignation of her brother and the Egyptians, who involved
Caesar in a war in which he ran great personal risk, but which ended in his favour.
In the course of it, young Ptolemy was killed, probably drowned in the Nile (Liv.
Ep. 112; Hirt. B. Alex. 31; Dion Cass. xlii. 43), and Cleopatra obtained the undivided
rule. She was however associated by Caesar with another brother of the same name,
and still quite a child, with a view to conciliate the Egyptians, with whom she
appears to have been very unpopular (Dion Cass. xlii. 34), and she was also nominally
married to him.
While Caesar was in Egypt, Cleopatra lived in undisguised connexion
with him, and would have detained him there longer, or have accompanied him at
once to Rome, but for the war with Pharnaces, which tore him from her arms. She
however joined him in Rome, in company with her nominal husband, and there continued
the same open intercourse with him, living in apartments in his house, much to
the offence of the Romans (Doubts have been thrown on her visit to Rome, but the
evidence of Cicero (ad Att. xiv. 8), of Dion Cassius (xliii. 27), and Suetonius
(Caes. 35), seems to be conclusive). She was loaded with honours and presents
by Caesar, and seems to have stayed at Rome till his death, B. C. 44. She had
a son by him, named Caesarion, who was afterwards put to death by Augustus. Caesar
at least owned him as his son, though the paternity was questioned by some contemporaries;
and the character of Cleopatra perhaps favours the doubt. After the death of Caesar,
she fled to Egypt, and in the troubles which ensued she took the side of the triumvirate,
and assisted Dolabella both by sea and land, resisting the threats of Cassius,
who was preparing to attack her when he was called away by the entreaties of Brutus.
She also sailed in person with a considerable fleet to assist Antony after the
defeat of Dolabella, but was prevented from joining him by a storm and the bad
state of her health. She had however done sufficient to prove her attachment to
Caesar's memory (which seems to have been sincere), and also to furnish her with
arguments to use to Antony, who in the end of the year 41 came into Asia Minor,
and there summoned Cleopatra to attend, on the charge of having failed to co-operate
with the triumvirate against Caesar's murderers. She was now in her twenty-eighth
year, and in the perfection of matured beauty, which in conjunction with her talents
and eloquence, and perhaps the early impression which we have mentioned, completely
won the heart of Antony, who henceforth appears as her devoted lover and slave.
We read in Plutarch elaborate descriptions of her well-known voyage up the Cydnus
in Cilicia to meet Antony, and the magnificent entertainments which she gave,
which were remarkable not less for good taste and variety than splendour and profuse
expense. One of these is also celebrated in Athenaeus (iv. 29). The first use
Cleopatra made of her influence was to procure the death of her younger sister,
ArsinoΓ«, who had once set up a claim to the kingdom (Appian, B. C. v. 8, 9; Dion
Cass. xlviii. 24). Her brother, Ptolemy, she seems to have made away with before
by poison. She also revenged herself on one of her generals, Serapion, who had
assisted Cassius contrary to her orders, and got into her hands a person whom
the people of Aradus had set up to counterfeit the elder of her two brothers,
who perished in Egypt. All these were torn from the sanctuaries of temples; but
Antony, we learn from both Dion and Appian, was so entirely enslaved by Cleopatra's
charms, that he set at nought all ties of religion and humanity (Appian, B. C.
v. 9; Dion Cass. xlviii. 24).
Cleopatra now returned to Egypt, where Antony spent some time in her
company; and we read of the luxury of their mode of living, and the unbounded
empire which she possessed over him. The ambition of her character, however, peeps
out even in these scenes, particularly in the fishing anecdote recorded by Plutarch
(Ant. 29). Her connexion with Antony was interrupted for a short time by his marriage
with Octavia, but was renewed on his return from Italy, and again on his return
from his Parthian expedition, when she went to meet him in Syria with money and
provisions for his army. He then returned to Egypt, and gratified her ambition
by assigning to her children by him many of the conquered provinces (Dion Cass.
xlix. 32). According to Josephus (Ant. xv. 4.2), during Antony's expedition Cleopatra
went into Judaea, part of which Antony had assigned to her and Herod necessarily
ceded, and there attempted to win Herod by her charms, probably with a view to
his ruin, but failed, and was in danger of being put to death by him. The report,
however, of Octavia's having left Rome to join Antony, made Cleopatra tremble
for her influence, and she therefore exerted all her powers of pleasing to endeavour
to retain it, and bewailed her sad lot in being only regarded as his mistress,
and therefore being liable to be deserted at pleasure. She feigned that her health
was suffering -in short, put forth all her powers,and succeeded (Plut. Ant. 53).
From this time Antony appears quite infatuated by his attachment, a nd willing
to humour every caprice of Cleopatra. We find her assuming the title of Isis,
and giving audience in that dress to ambassadors, that of Osiris being adopted
by Antony, and their children called by the title of the sun and the moon, and
declared heirs of unbounded territories (Dion Cass. xlix. 32, 33, 1. 4, 5). She
was saluted by him with the title of Queen of Queens, attended by a Roman guard,
and Artavasdes, the captive king of Armenia, was ordered to do her homage (Dion
Cass. xlix. 39). One can hardly wonder that Augustus should represent Antony to
the Romans as "bewitched by that accursed Egyptian" (Dion Cass. 1. 26); and he
was not slow in availing himself of the disgust which Antony's conduct occasioned
to make a determined effort to crush him. War, however, was declared against Cleopatra,
and not against Antony, as a less invidious way (Dion Cass. 1. 6). Cleopatra insisted
on accompanying Antony in the fleet; and we find them, after visiting Samos and
Athens, where they repeated what Plutarch calls the farce of their public entertainments,
opposed to Augustus at Actium. Cleopatra indeed persuaded Antony to retreat to
Egypt, but the attack of Augustus frustrated this intention, and the famous battle
took place (B. C. 31) in the midst of which, when fortune was wavering between
the two parties, Cleopatra, weary of suspense, and alarmed at the intensity of
the battle (Dion Cass. 1. 33), gave a signal of retreat to her fleet, and herself
led the way. Augustus in vain pursued her, and she [p. 802] made her way to Alexandria,
the harbour of which she entered with her prows crowned and music sounding, as
if victorious, fearing an outbreak in the city. With the same view of retaining
the Alexandrians in their allegiance, she and Antony (who soon joined her) proclaimed
their children, Antyllus and Cleopatra, of age. She then prepared to defend herself
in Alexandria, and also sent embassies to the neighbouring tribes for aid (Dion
Cass. li. 6). She had also a plan of retiring to Spain, or to the Persian gulf;
and either was building ships in the Red Sea, as Dion asserts, or, according to
Plutarch, intended to draw her ships across the isthmus of Suez. Which-ever was
the case, the ships were burnt by the Arabs of Petra, and this hope failed. She
scrupled not to behead Artavasdes, and send his head as a bribe for aid to the
king of Media, who was his enemy. Finding, however, no aid nigh, she prepared
to negotiate with Augustus, and sent him on his approach her sceptre and throne
(unknown to Antony), as thereby resigning her kingdom. His public answer required
her to resign and submit to a trial; but he privately urged her to make away with
Antony, and promised that she should retain her kingdom. On a subsequent occasion,
Thyrsus, Caesar's freedman, brought similar terms, and represented Augustus as
captivated by her, which she seems to have believed, and, seeing Antony's fortunes
desperate, betrayed Pelusium to Augustus, prevented the Alexandrians from going
out against him, and frustrated Antony's plan of escaping to Rome by persuading
the fleet to desert him. She then fled to a mausoleum she had built, where she
had collected her most valuable treasures, and proclaimed her intention of putting
an end to her life, with a view to entice Antony thither, and thus ensure his
capture (This is the account of Dion Cassius, li. 6, 8-11; the same facts for
the most part are recorded by Plutarch, who however represents Cleopatra's perfidy
as less glaring). She then had Antony informed of her death, as though to persuade
him to die with her; and this stratagem, if indeed she had this object, fully
succeeded, and he was drawn up into the unfinished mausoleum, and died in her
arms. She did not however venture to meet Augustus, though his rival was dead,
but remained in the mausoleum, ready if need was to put herself to death, for
which purpose she had asps and other venomous animals in readiness. Augustus contrived
to apprehend her, and had all instruments of death removed, and then requested
an interview (for an account of which see Dion Cass. li. 12, 13, and Plut. Ant.
83). The charms of Cleopatra, however, failed in softening the colder heart of
Augustus. He only "bade her be of good cheer, and fear no violence". Seeing that
her case was desperate, and determined at all events not to be carried captive
to Rome, she resolved on death; but in order to compass this, it was necessary
to disarm the vigilance of her goalers, and she did this by feigning a readiness
to go to Rome, and preparing presents for Livia, the wife of Augustus. This artifice
succeeded, and she was thereby enabled to put an end to her life, either by the
poison of an asp, or by a poisoned comb (Dion Cass. li. 14; Plut. Ant. 85, 86),
the former supposition being adopted by most writers (Suet. Aug. 17; Galen. Tyheriac.
ad Pis.l; Vell. Pat. ii. 87).
Cleopatra died in B. C. 30, in the thirty-ninth year of her age, and
with her ended the dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt. She had three children by
Antony: Alexander and Cleopatra, who were twins, and Ptolemy surnamed Philadelphus.
The leading points of her character were, ambition and voluptuousness. History
presents to us the former as the prevailing motive, the latter being frequently
employed only as the means of gratifying it. In all the stories of her luxury
and lavish expense, there is a splendour and a grandeur that somewhat refines
them (See Plin. H. N. ix. 58). In the days of her prosperity, her arrogance was
unbounded, and she loved to swear by the Capitol, in which she hoped to reign
with Antony. She was avaricious, to supply her extravagance, and cruel, or at
least had no regard for human life when her own objects were concerned -a Caesar
with a woman's caprice. Her talents were great and varied; her knowledge of languages
was peculiarly remarkable (Plut. Ant. 27), of which she had seven at command,
and was the more remarkable from the fact, that her predecessors had not been
able to master even the Egyptian, and some had forgotten their native Macedonian;
and in the midst of the most luxurious scenes we see traces of a love of literature
and critical research. She added the library of Pergamus, presented to her by
Antony, to that of Alexandria. Her ready and versatile wit, her knowledge of human
nature and powerof using it, her attractive manners, and her exquisitely musical
and flexible voice, compared by Plutarch (Ant. 27) to a many-stringed instrument,
are also the subjects of well-attested praise. The higher points in her character
are admirably touched by Horace in the ode (i. 37) on her defeat.
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
, 10 - 75
Heron of Alexandria, is called by Heron the younger a pupil of Ctesibius, and
he lived in the reigns of the Ptolemies Philadelphus and Euergetes (B. C. 284-221).
Of his life nothing is known; on his mechanical inventions we have but some scanty
parts of his own writings, and some scattered notices. The common pneumatic experiment,
called Hero's fountain, in which a jet of water is maintained by condensed air,
has given a certain popular celebrity to his name. This has been increased by
the discovery in his writings of a steam engine, that is, of an engine in which
motion is produced by steam, and which must always be a part of the history of
that agent. This engine acts precisely on the principle of what is called Barker's
Mill : a boiler with arms having lateral orifices is capable of revolving round
a vertical axis; the steam issues from the lateral orifices, and the uncompensated
pressure upon the parts opposite to the orifices turns the boiler in the direction
opposite to that of the issue of the steam. It is nearly the machine afterwards
introduced by Avery, one of which, of six horse power, is, or lately was, at work
near Edinburgh. Heron's engine is described in his pneumatics presently mentioned;
as also a double forcing pump used for a fire engine, and various other applications
of the elasticity of air and steam. It is, however, but recently, that the remarkable
claims of Heron to success in such investigations have received any marked notice.
In the "Origine des Decouvertes attributes aux modernes", (3rd edition, 1796),
by M. Dutens, who tries, with great learning, to make the best possible case for
the ancients, the name of Heron is not even mentioned.
The remaining works, or rather fragments, of Heron of Alexandria, are as follows:
1. Cheiroballistras kataskeue kai summetria, de Construction et Mensura Manubalistae.
First published (Gr.) by Baldi at the end of the third work presently noted. Also
(Gr. Lat.) by Thevenot, Boivin, and Lahire, in the "Veterum mathematicorum
Athenaei, Apollodori, Philonis, Heronis et aliorum Opera", Paris, 1693.
2. Barulcus sive de Oneribus trahendis Libri tres, a treatise brought by J. Golius
from the East in Arabic, not yet translated or published (Ephemerid. Litter. Gotting.
ann. 1785).
3. Belotoiika, Belopoieka, or (Eutoc. in Arch. de Sph. et Cylind.) Belopoietika,
on the manufacture of darts. Edited by Bernardino Baldi (Gr. Lat.) with notes,
and a life of Heron, Augsburg, 1616; also in the Veter. Mathemat. &c. above
mentioned.
4. Pneumatika, or Spiritalia, the most celebrated of his works. Edited by Commandine
(Lat.) with notes, Urbino, 1575, Amsterdam, 1680, and Paris, 1683. It is also
(Gr. Lat.) in the Veter. Mathemat. &c. above mentioned. It first appeared,
however, in an Italian translation by Bernardo Aleotti, Bologna, 1547, Ferrara,
1589; and there is also (Murhard) an Italian translation, by Alessandro Giorgi,
of Urbino, 1592, and by J. B. Porta, Naples, 1605, 4to. There is a German translation
by Agathus Cario, with an appendix by Solomon de Caus, Bamberg, 1687, Frankfort,
1688.
5. Peri automatopoietikon, de Automatorum Fabrica Libri duo. Translated into Italian
by B. Baldi. Venice, 1589, 1601, 1661: also (Gr. Lat.) in the Veter. Mathemat.,
&c. above mentioned. A fragment on dioptrics (Gr.) exists in manuscript, and
two Latin fragments on military machines are given by Baldi at the end of the
work on darts.
The following lost works are mentioned: Ta peri hudroskopeion, by Proclus, Pappus,
and Heron himself; Mechanikai isogogai, by Eutocius, Pappus, and Heron himself;
Peri metrikon, by Eutocius; Peri trochiodion, by Pappus; and a work Peri zugion,
is mentioned by Pappus, and has been supposed to be by Heron.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Numbers
Heron the younger, so called because we have not even an adjective of place to
distinguish him from Heron of Alexandria, is supposed to have lived under Heraclius
(A. D. 610-641). In his own work on Geodesy (a term used in the sense of practical
geometry), he says that in his own time the stars had altered their longitudes
by seven degrees since the time of Ptolemy: from which the above date must have
been framed. But if he spoke, as is likely enough, from Ptolemy's value of the
precession of the equinoxes, without observing the stars himself, he must have
been about two hundred years later. He was a Christian.
The writings attributed to Heron the younger are:
1. De Machinis bellicis, published (Lat.) by Barocius, Venice, 1572. There is
one Greek manuscript at Bologna.
2. Geodaesia, published (Lat.) with the above by Barocius. Montucla notices this
as the first treatise in which the mode of finding the area of a triangle by means
of its sides occurs. Savile, who had a manuscript of this treatise, rejects with
scorn the idea of its having been written by Heron; but we suspect that he supposed
it to be attributed to Heron of Alexandria.
3. De Obsidione repellenda, hopos chre tonn tes poliorkoumenes toleos strategon
pros ten poliorkian antitassesthui, published (Gr.) in the Veter. Mathemat. Opera,
&c. mentioned in the life of Heron of Alexandria.
4. Parekbolai ek ton strategikon parataxeon, &c This exists only in manuscript.
5. Ek ton tou Heronos peri ton tes Geometrias kai Stereometrias onouaton, published
lished (Gr. Lat.) with the first book of Euclid, by Dasypodius, Strasburg, 1571.
6. Excerpta de Mensuris (Gr. Lat.), in the Analecta Graeca of the Benedictines,
vol. i. Paris, 1688.
7. Eisagoge ton geometroumenon, exists only in manuscript.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Hypatia, (Hupatia), a lady of Alexandria, daughter of Theon, by whom she was instructed in philosophy and mathematics. She soon made such immense progress in these branches of knowledge, that she is said to have presided over the Neoplatonician school of Plotinus at Alexandria, where she expounded the principles of his system to a numerous auditory. She appears to have been most graceful, modest, and beautiful, but nevertheless to have been a victim to slander and falsehood. She was accused of too much familiarity with Orestes, prefect of Alexandria, and the charge spread among the clergy, who took up the notion that she interrupted the friendship of Orestes with their archbishop, Cyril. In consequence of this, a number of them, at whose head was a reader named Peter, seized her in the street, and dragged her from her chariot into one of the churches, where they stripped her and tore her to pieces. Theodoret accuses Cyril of sanctioning this proceeding; but Cave (Script. Eccl. Hist. Lit. vol. i.) holds this to be incredible, though on no grounds except his own opinion of Cyril's general character. Philostorgius, the Arian historian, urges her death as a charge against the Ilomoousians. Synesius valued her greatly, and addressed to her several letters, inscribed tei philosophoi, in one of which he calls her mother, sister, mistress, and benefactress. Suidas says that she married Isidorus, and wrote some works on astronomy and other subjects. In Stephanus Baluzius (Concil. i. p. 216) an epistle is extant professing to be Hypatia's addressed to Cyril, in which she advocates the cause of Nestorius, and regrets his banishment; but this must be spurious, if it be true, as Socrates asserts that she was killed A. D. 415, for Nestorius was not banished till A. D. 436. (Socrat. vii. 15; Niceph. xiv. 16; Menage, Hist. Mulierum Philosoph. 49; Suidas, s. v.; J. Ch. Wernsdorf, Dissertat. Acad. IV. de Hypartia, Viteberg. 1747.)
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
Hypatia was the first notable woman in mathematics and philosophy.
Her death brought an end to the position of Alexandria as the centre of scientific
activity in the ancient world.
Hypatia was murdered because her humanistic philosophical ideas were
resented by the Church. Hypatia was the daughter of a mathematician in Alexandria.
She became the head of a Neoplatonist school of philosophy. She wrote commentaries
on the “Arithmetica” of Diophant and on the astronomical works of
Ptolemy. Learning and science was at that time identified by the early Christians
with paganism. Hypatia was murdered by a fanatical mob of monks, which led to
the departure of many scholars from Alexandria.
This text is cited July 2003 from the Hyperhistory Online URL below.
A mathematician of Alexandria, who, according to the most received
opinion, was contemporary with the emperor Julian. This opinion is founded upon
a passage of Abulfaraj, an Arabian author of the thirteenth century. He names,
among the contemporaries of the emperor Julian, Diophantes (for Diophantus) as
the author of a celebrated work on algebra and arithmetic; and he is thought to
have derived his information from an Arabic commentator on Diophantus, Muhammed
al Buziani, who flourished about the end of the eleventh century. The reputation
of Diophantus was so great among the ancients that they ranked him with Pythagoras
and Euclid. From his epitaph in the Anthology the following particulars of his
life have been collected: that he was married when thirty-three years old, and
had a son five years after; that the son died at the age of forty-two, and that
Diophantes did not survive him above four years; whence it appears that Diophantus
was eighty-four years old when he died.
Diophantus wrote a work entitled Arithmetika, in thirteen books,
of which only six remain. It would seem that in the fifteenth, and even at the
beginning of the seventeenth, century all the thirteen books still existed. The
arithmetic of Diophantus is not merely [p. 526] important for the study of the
history of mathematics, but is interesting also to the mathematician himself from
its furnishing him with luminous methods for the resolution of analytical problems.
We find in it, moreover, the first trace of that branch of the exact sciences
called algebra. There exists also a second work of Diophantus, on Polygon Numbers
(Peri Polugonon Arithmon). He himself cites a third, under the title of Porismata,
or Corollaries.
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
Diophantus, (Diophantos), of Alexandria, the only Greek writer on Algebra. His
period is wholly unknown, which is not to be wondered at if we consider that he
stands quite alone as to the subject which he treated. But, looking at the improbability
of all mention of such a writer being omitted by Proclus and Pappus, we feel strongly
inclined to place him towards the end of the fifth century of our era at the earliest.
If the Diophantus, on whose astronomical work (according to Suidas) Hypatia wrote
a commentary, and whose arithmetic Theon mentions in his commentary on the Almagest,
be the subject of our article, he must have lived before the fifth century: but
it would be by no means safe to assume this identity. Abulpharagius, according
to Montucla, places him at A. D. 365. The first writer who mentions him, (if it
be not Theon) is John, patriarch of Jerusalem, in his life of Johannes Damascenus,
written in the eighth century. It matters not much where we place him, as far
as Greek literature is concerned: the question will only become of importance
when we have the means of investigating whether or not he derived his algebra,
or any of it, from an Indian source. Colebrooke, as to this matter, is content
that Diophantus should be placed in the fourth century.
It is singular that, though his date is uncertain to a couple of centuries
at least, we have some reason to suppose that he married at the age of 33, and
that in five years a son was born of this marriage, who died at the age of 42,
four years before his father: so that Diophantus lived to 84. Bachet, his editor,
found a problem proposed in verse, in an unpublished Greek anthology, like some
of those which Diophantus himself proposed in verse, and composed in the manner
of an epitaph. The unknown quantity is the age to which Diophantus lived, and
the simple equation of condition to which it leads gives, when solved, the preceding
information. But it is just as likely as not that the maker of the epigram invented
the dates.
When the manuscripts of Diophantus came to light in the 16th century,
it was said that there were thirteen books of the 'Arithmetica:' but no more than
six have ever been produced with that title; besides which we have one book, 'De
Multangulis Numeris,' on polygonal numbers. These books contain a system of reasoning
on numbers by the aid of general symbols, and with some use of symbols of operation;
so that, though the demonstrations are very much conducted in words at length,
and arranged so as to remind us of Euclid, there is no question that the work
is algebraical: not a treatise on algebra, but an algebraical treatise on the
relations of integer numbers, and on the solution of equations of more than one
variable in integers. Hence such questions obtained the name of Diophantine, and
the modern works on that pecuculiar branch of numerical analysis which is called
the theory of numbers, such as those of Gauss and Legendre, would have been said,
a century ago, to be full of Diophantine analysis. As there are many classical
students who will not see a copy of Diophantus in their lives, it may be desirable
to give one simple proposition from that writer in modern words and symbols, annexing
the algebraical phrases from the original.
Book i. qu. 30. Having given the sum of two numbers (20) and their
product (96), required the numbers. Observe that the square of the half sum should
be greater than the product. Let the difference of the numbers be 2s (ssoi B);
then the sum being 20 (k?) and the half sum 10 (i) the greater number will be
s+10 (tetachtho oun ho meizon sou henos kai mo i) and the less will be 10--s (mo
i leipsei sou henos, which he would often write mo i ps sos a). But the product
is 96 (gs?) which is also 100--s2 (r' leipsei dunameos mias, or r' ps du a). Hence
s=2 (ginetai ho sos mo B?) &c.
A young algebraist of our day might hardly be inclined to give the
name of algebraical notation to the preceding, though he might admit that there
was algebraical reasoning. But if he had consulted the Hindu or Mahommedan writers,
or Cardan, Tartaglia, Stevinus, and the other European algebraists, who preceded
Vieta, he would see that he must either give the name to the notation above exemplified,
or refuse it to everything which preceded the seventeenth century. Diophantus
declines his letters, just as we now speak of m th or (m+ 1 ) th; and mo is an
abbreviation of uonas or monados, as the case may be.
The question whether Diophantus was an original inventor, or whether
he had received a hint from India, the only country we know of which could then
have given one, is of great difficulty. We cannot enter into it at length: the
very great similarity of the Diophantine and Hindu algebra (as far as the former
goes) makes it almost certain that the two must have had a common origin, or have
come one from the other; though it is clear that Diophantus, if a borrower, has
completely recast the subject by the introduction of Euclid's form of demonstration.
On this point we refer to the article of the Penny Cyclopaedia already cited.
There are many paraphrases, so-called translations, and abbreviations
of Diophantus, but very few editions. Joseph Auria prepared an edition (Gr. Lat.)
of the whole, with the Scholia of the monk Maximus Planudes on the first two books
; but it was never printed. The first edition is that of Xylander, Basle, 1575,
folio, in Latin only, with the Scholia and notes. The first Greek edition, with
Latin, (and original notes, the Scholia being rejected as useless,) is that of
Bachet de Meziriac, Paris, 1621, folio. Fermat left materials for the second and
best edition (Gr. Lat.), in which is preserved all that was good in Bachet, and
in particular his Latin version, and most valuable comments and additions of his
own (it being peculiarly his subject). These materials were collected by J. de
Billy, and published by Fermat's son, Toulouse, 1670, folio. An English lady,
the late Miss Abigail Baruch Lousada, whose successful cultivation of mathematics
and close attention to this writer for many years was well known to scientific
persons, left a complete translation of Diophantus, with notes: it has not yet
been published, and we trust, will not be lost.
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
Euclides, (Eukleides). A celebrated mathematician of Alexandria, considered by some to have been a native of that city, though the more received opinion makes the place of his birth to have been unknown. He flourished B.C. 280, in the reign of Ptolemy Lagus, and was professor of mathematics in the capital of Egypt. His scholars were numerous, and among them was Ptolemy himself. It is related that the monarch having inquired of Euclid if there was not some mode of learning mathematics less barbarous and requiring less attention than the ordinary one, Euclid, though otherwise of an affable disposition, dryly answered that there was "no royal road to geometry" (me einai basiliken atrapon pros geometrian). Euclid was the first person who established a mathematical school at Alexandria, and it existed and maintained its reputation till the Mohammedan conquest of Egypt. Many of the fundamental principles of the pure mathematics had been discovered by Thales, Pythagoras, and other predecessors of Euclid; but to him is due the merit of having given a systematic form to the science, especially to that part of it which relates to geometry. He likewise studied the cognate sciences of Astronomy and Optics; and, according to Proclus, he was the author of "Elements" (Stoicheia), "Data" (Dedomena), "An Introduction to Harmony" (Eisagoge Harmonike), "Phaenomena" (Phainomena), "Optics" (Optika), "Catoptrics" (Katoptrika), "On the Division of the Scale" (Katatome Kanonos), and other works now lost. His most valuable work, "The Elements of Geometry," in thirteen books, with two additional books by Hypsicles, has been repeatedly published --the first edition at Venice (1482) in a Latin trans [p. 631] lation from the Arabic. The first Greek text appeared at Basle in 1533. The edition of Peyrard is among the best. It appeared at Paris in 1814- 16-18, in 3 vols. This edition is accompanied with a double translation--one in Latin and the other in French. M. Peyrard consulted a manuscript of the latter part of the ninth century, which had belonged to the Vatican library, and was at that time in the French capital. By the aid of this he was enabled to fill various lacunae, and to reestablish various passages which had been altered in all the other manuscripts and in all the editions anterior to his own.
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
Euclides, (Eukleides) of Alexandria. The length of this article will not be blamed
by any one who considers that, the sacred writers excepted, no Greek has been
so much read or so variously translated as Euclid. To this it may be added, that
there is hardly any book in our language in which the young scholar or the young
mathematician can find all the information about this name which its celebrity
would make him desire to have.
Euclid has almost given his own name to the science of geometry,
in every country in which his writings are studied; and yet all we know of his
private history amounts to very little. He lived, according to Proclus (Comm.
in Eucl. ii. 4), in the time of the first Ptolemy, B. C. 323-283. The forty years
of Ptolemy's reign are probably those of Euclid's age, not of his youth; for had
he been trained in the school of Alexandria formed by Ptolemy, who invited thither
men of note, Proclus would probably have given us the name of his teacher: but
tradition rather makes Euclid the founder of the Alexandrian mathematical school
than its pupil. This point is very material to the foinnation of a just opinion
of Euclid's writings; he was, we see, a younger contemporary of Aristotle (B.
C. 384-322) if we suppose him to have been of mature age when Ptolemy began to
patronise literature. and on this supposition it is not likely that Aristotle's
writings, and his logic in particular, should have been read by Euclid in his
youth, if at all. To us it seems almost certain, from the structure of Euclid's
writings, that he had not read Aristotle: on this supposition, we pass over, as
perfectly natural, things which, on the contrary one, would have seemed to shew
great want of judgment.
Euclid, says Proclus, was younger than Plato, and older than Eratosthenes
and Archimedes, the latter of whom mentions him. He was of the Platonic sect,
and well read in its doctrines. He collected the Elements, put into order much
of what Eudoxus had done, completed many things of Theaetetus, and was the first
who reduced to unobjectionable demonstration the imperfect attempts of his predecessors.
It was his answer to Ptolemy, who asked if geometry could not be made easier,
that there was no royal road (me einai basiliken atrapon pros geometrian).(1)
This piece of wit has had many imitators; " Quel diable" said a French nobleman
to Rohault, his teacher of geometry, "pourrait entendre cela?" to which the answer
was "Ce serait un diable qui aurait de la patience". A story similar to that
of Euclid is related by Seneca (Ep. 91, cited by August) of Alexander.
Pappus (lib. vii. in praef.) states that Euclid was distinguished
by the fairness and kindness of his disposition, particularly towards those who
could do anything to advance the mathematical sciences: but as he is here evidently
making a contrast to Apollonius, of whom he more than insinuates a directly contrary
character, and as he lived more than four centuries after both, it is difficult
to give credence to his means of knowing so much about either. At the same time
we are to remember that he had access to many records which are now lost. On the
same principle, perhaps, the account of Nasir-eddin and other Easterns is not
to be entirely rejected, who state that Euclid was sprung of Greek parents, settled
at Tyre; that he lived, at one time, at Damascus; that his father's name was Naucrates,
and grandfather's Zenarchus (August, who cites Gartz, De Interpr. Eucl. Arab.).
It is against this account that Eutocius of Ascalon never hints at it.
At one time Euclid was universally confounded with Euclid of Megara,
who lived near a century before him, and heard Socrates. Valerius Maximus has
a story (viii. 12) that those who came to Plato about the construction of the
celebrated Delian altar were referred by him to Euclid the geometer. This story,
which must needs be false, since Euclid of Megara, the contemporary of Plato,
was not a geometer, is probably the crigin of the confusion. Harless thinks that
Eudoxus should be read for Euclid in the passage of Valerius.
In the frontispiece to Whiston's translation of Tacquet's Euclid there
is a bust, which is said to be taken from a brass coin in the possession of Christina
of Sweden; but no such coin appears in the published collection of those in the
cabinet of the queen of Sweden. Sidonius Apollinaris says (Epist. xi. 9) that
it was the custom to paint Euclid with the fingers extended (laxatis,) as if in
the act of measurement.
The history of geometry before the time of Euclid is given by Proclus,
in a manner which shews that he is merely making a summary of well known or at
least generally received facts. He begins with the absurd stories so often repeated,
that the Aegyptians were obliged to invent geometry in order to recover the landmarks
which the Nile destroyed year by year, and that the Phoenicians were equally obliged
to invent arithmetic for the wants of their commerce. Thales, he goes on to say,
brought this knowledge into Greece, and added many things, attempting some in
a general manner (katholikoteron) and some in a perceptive or sensible manner
(aisthetikoteron). Proclus clearly refers to physical discovery in geometry, by
measurement of instances. Next is mentioned Ameristus, the brother of Stesichorus
the poet. Then Pythagoras changed it into the form of a liberal science (paideias
eleutheron), took higher views of the subject, and investigated his theorems immaterially
and intellectually (an+los kai noeros): he also wrote on incommensurable quantities
(alogon), and on the mundane figures (the five regular solids).
Barocius, whose Latin edition of Proclus has been generally followed,
singularly enough trans lates aloga bps (quae non exlpicari possunt, and Taylor
follows him with "such things as cannot be explained". It is strange
that two really learned editors of Euclid's commentator should have been ignorant
of one of Euclid's technical terms. Then come Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, and a
little after him Oenopides of Chios; then Hippocrates of Chios, who squared the
lunule, and then Theodorus of Cyrene. Hippocrates is the first writer of elements
who is recorded. Plato then did much for geometry by the mathematical character
of his writings; then Leodamos of Thasus, Archytas of Tarentum, and Theaetetus
of Athens, gave a more scientific basis (epistemonikoteran sustasin) to various
theorenms; Neocleides and his disciple Leon came after the preceding, the latter
of whom increased both the extent and utility of the science, in particular by
finding a test (diorismon) of whether the thing proposed be possible or (2)
impossible. Eudoxus of Cnidus, a little younger than Leon, and the companion of
those about Plato, increased the number of general theorems, added three proportions
to the three already existing, and in the things which concern the section (of
the cone, no doubt) which was started by Plato himself, much increased their number,
aud employed analyses upon them. Amyclas Heracleotes, the companion of Plato,
Menaechmus, the disciple of Eudoxus and of Plato, and his brother Deinostratus,
made geometry more perfect. Theudius of Magnesia generalized many particular propositions.
Cyzicinus of Athens was his contemporary; they took different sides on many common
inquiries. Hermotimus of Colophon added to what had been done by Eudoxus and Theaetetus,
discovered elementary propositions, and wrote something on loci. Philip (ho Metaios,
others read Medmaios, Barocius reads Mendaeus), the follower of Plato, made many
mathematical inquiries connected with his master's philosophy. Those who write
on the history of geo.netry bring the completion of this science thus far. Here
Proclus expressly refers to written history, and in another place he particularly
mentions the history of Eudemus the Peripatetic.
This history of Proclus has been much kept in the background, we should
almost say discredited, by editors, who seem to wish it should be thought that
a finished and unassailable system sprung at once from the brain of Euclid; an
armed Minerva from the head of a Jupiter. But Proclus, as much a worshipper as
any of them, must have had the same bias, and is therefore particularly worthy
of confidence when he cites written history as to what was not done by Euclid.
Make the most we can of his preliminaries, still the thirteen books of the Elements
must have been a tremendous advance, probably even greater than that contained
in the Principia of Newton. But still, to bring the state of our opinion of this
progress down to something short of painful wonder, we are told that demonstration
had been given, that something had been written on proportion, something on incommensurables,
something on loci, something on solids; that analysis had been applied, that the
conic sections had been thought of, that the Elements had been distinguished from
the rest and written on. From what Hippocrates had done, we know that the important
property of the right-angled triangle was known; we rely much more on the lunules
than on the story about Pythagoras. The dispute about the famous Delian problem
had arisen, and some conventional limit to the instruments of geometry must have
been adopted; for on keeping within then, the difficulty of this problem depends.
It will be convenient to speak separately of the Elements of Euclid,
as to their contents; and afterwards to mention them bibliographically, among
the other writings. The book which passes under this name, as given by Robert
Simson, unexceptionable as Elements of Geometry, is not calculated to give the
scholar a proper idea of the elements of Euclid; but it is admirably adapted to
confuse, in the mind of the young student, all those notions of sound criticism
which his other instructors are endeavouring to instil. The idea that Euclid must
be perfect had got possession of the geometrical world; accordingly each editor,
when lie made what he took to be an alteration for the better, assumed that he
was restoring, not aumending the original. If the books of Livy were to be rewritten
upon the basis of Niebuhr, and the result declared to be the real text, then Livy
would no more than share the fate of Euclid; the only difference being, that the
former would undergo a larger quantity of alteration than editors have seen fit
to inflict upon the latter. This is no caricature; e.g., Euclid, says Robert Simson,
gave, without doubt, a definition of compound ratio at the beginniing of the fifth
book, and accordingly he there inserts, not merely a definition, but, he assures
us, the very one which Fuclid gave. Not a single manuscript supports him : how,
then, did he know ? He saw that there ought to have been such a detinition, and
he concluded that, therefore, there had been one. Now we by no means uphold Euclid
as an all-sufficient guide to geometry, though we feel that it is to himself that
we owe the power of amending his writings; and we hope we may protest against
the assumption that he could not have erred, whether by omission or commission.
Some of the characteristics of the Elements are briefly as follows:
First. There is a total absence of distinction between the various
ways in which we know the meaning of terms: certainty, and nothing more, is the
thing sought. The definition of straightness, an idea which it is impossible to
put into simpler words, and which is therefore described by a more difficult circumlocution,
comes under the same heading as the explanation of the word "parallel"
hence disputes about the correctness or incorrectness of many of the definitions.
Secondly. There is no distinction between propositions which require
demonstration, and those which a logician would see to be nothing but different
modes of starting a preceding proposition. When Euclid has proved that everything
which is not A is not B, he does not hold himself entitled to infer that every
B is A, though the two propositions are identically the same. Thus, having shewn
that every point of a circle which is not the centre is not one from which three
equal straight lines can be drawn, he cannot infer that any point from which three
equal straight lines are drawn is the centre, but has need of a new demonstration.
Thus, long before lie wants to use book i. prop. 6, he has proved it again, and
independently.
Thirdly. He has not the smallest notion of admitting any generalized
use of a word, or of parting with any ordinary notion attached to it. Setting
out with the conception of an angle rather as the sharp corner made by the meeting
of two lines than as the magnitude which he afterwards shews how to measure, he
never gets rid of that corner, never admits two right angles to make one angle,
and still less is able to arrive at the idea of an angle greater than two right
angles. And when, in the last proposition of the sixth book, his definition of
proportion absolutely requires that he should reason on angles of even more than
four rifht angles, he takes no notice of this necessity, and no one cantellwhether
it was an overshigt, whether Euclid thought the extension one which the student
could make for himself, or whether (which has sometimes struck us as not unlikely)
the elements were his last work, and he did not live to revise them.
In one solitary case, Euclid seems to have made an omission implying
that he recognized that natural extension of language by which unity is considered
as a number, and Simson has thought it necessary to supply the omission, and has
shewn himself more Euclid tian Euclid upon the point of all others in which Euclid's
philosophy is defective.
Fourthly. There is none of that attention to the forms of accuracy
with which translators have endeavoured to invest the Elements, thereby giving
them that appearance which has made many teachers think it meritorious to insist
upon their pupils remembering the very words of Simson. Theorems are found among
the definitions : assumptions are made which are not formally set down among the
postulates. Things which really ought to have been proved are sometimes passed
over, and whether this is by mistake, or by intention of supposing them self-evident,
cannot now be known: for Euclid never refers to previous propositions by name
or number, but only by simple re-assertion without reference; except that occasionally,
and chiefly when a negative proposition is referred to, such words as "it
has been demonstrated" are employed, without further specification.
Fifthly. Euclid never condescends to hint at the reason why he finds
himself obliged to adopt any particular course. Be the difficulty ever so great,
he removes it without mention of its existence. Accordingly, in many places, the
unassisted student can only see that much trouble is taken, without being able
to guess why.
What, then, it may be asked, is the peculiar merit of the Elements
which has caused them to retain their ground to this day? the answer is, that
the preceding objections refer to matters which can be easily mended, without
any alteration of the main parts of the work, and that no one has ever given so
easy and natural a chain of geometrical consequences. There is a never erring
truth in the results; and, though there may be here and there a self-evident assumption
used in demonstration, but not formally noted, there is never any the smallest
departure from the limitations of construction which geometers had, from the time
of Plato, imposed upon themselves. The strong inclination of editors, already
mentioned, to consider Euclid as perfect, and all negligences as the work of unskilful
commentators or interpolators, is in itself a proof of the approximate truth of
the character they give the work; to which it may be added that editors in general
prefer Euclid as he stands to the alterations of other editors.
The Elements consist of thirteen books written by Euclid, and two
of which it is supposed that Hypsicles is the author. The first four and the sixth
are on plane geometry; the fifth is on the theory of proportion, and applies to
magnitude in general; the seventh, eighth, and ninth, are on arithmetic; the tenth
is on the arithmetical characteristics of the divisions of a straight line; the
eleventh and twelfth are on the elements of solid geometry; the thirteenth (and
also the fourteenth and fifteenth) are on the regular solids, which were so much
studied among the Platonists as to bear the name of Platonic, and which, according
to Proclus, were the objects on which the Elements were really meant to be written.
At the commencement of the first book, under the name of definitions
(horoi, are contained the assumption of such notions as the point, line, &c..
and a number of verbal explanations. Then follow, under the name of postulates
or demands (aitemata), all that it is thought necessary to state as assumed in
geometry. There are six postulates, three of which restrict the amount of construction
granted to the joining two points by a straight line, the indefinite lengthening
of a terminated straight line, and the drawing of a circle with a given centre,
and a given distance measured from that centre as a radius; the other three assume
the equality of all right angles, the much disputed property of two lines, which
meet a third at angles less than two right angles (we mean, of course, much disputed
as to its propriety as an assumption, not as to its truth), and that two straight
lines cannot inclose a space. Lastly, under the name of common notions (koinai
ennoiai) are given, either as conmmin to all men or to all sciences, such assertions
as that-things equal to the same are equal to one another-the whole is greater
than its part-&c. Modern editors have put the last three postulates at the end
of the common notions, and applied the term axiom (which was not used till after
Euclid) to them all. The intention of Euclid seems to have been, to disinguish
between that which his reader must grant, or seek another system, whatever may
be his opinion as to the propriety of the assumption, and that which there is
no question every one will grant. The modern editor merely distinguishes the assumed
problem (or construction) from the assumed theorem. Now there is no such distinction
in Euclid as that of problem and theorem ; the common term protasis, translated
proposition, includes both, and is the only one used. An immense preponderance
of manuscripts, the testimony of Proclus, the Arabic translations, the summary
of Boethius, place the assumptions about right angles and parallels (and most
of them, that about two straight lines) among the postulates; and this seems most
reasonable, for it is certain that the first two assumptions can have no claim
to rank among common notions or to be placed in the same list with "the whole
is greater than its part".
Without describing mintutely the contents of the first book of the
Elements, we may observe that there is an arrangement of the propositions, which
will enable any teacher to divide it into sections. Thus propp. 1-3 extend the
power of construction to the drawing of a circle with any centre and any radius;
4-8 are the basis of the theory of equal triangles; 9-12 increase the power of
construction; 13-15 are solely on relatiolis of angles; 16-21 examine the relations
of parts of one triangle; 22-23 are additional constructios ; 23-26 augment the
doctrine of equal triangles; 27-31 contain the theory of parallels; (3)
32 stands alone, and gives the relation between the angles of a triangle; 33-34
give the first properties of a parallelogram; 35-41 consider parallelograms and
triangles of equal areas, but different forms; 42-46 apply what precedes to augmenting
power of construction; 47-48 give the celebrated property of a right angled triangle
and its converse. The other books are all capable of a similar species of subdivision.
The second book shews those properties of the rectangles contained
by the parts of divided straight lines, which are so closely connected with the
common arithmetical operations of multiplication and division, that a student
or a teacher who is not fully alive to the existence and difficulty of incommensurables
is apt to think that common arithmetic would be as rigorous as geometry. Euclid
knew better.
The third book is devoted to the consideration of the properties of
the circle, and is much cramped in several places by the imperfect idea already
alluded to, which Euclid took of an angle. There are some places in which lie
clearly drew upon experimental knowledge of the form of a circle, and made tacit
assumptions of a kind which are rarely met with in his writings.
The fourth book treats of regular figures. Euclid's original postulates
of construction give him, by this time, the power of drawing them of 3, 4, 5,
and 15 sides, or of double, quadruple, &c., any of these numbers, as 6, 12, 24,
&c., 8, 16;, &c. &c.
The fifth book is on the theory of proportion. It refers to all kinds
of magnitude, and is wholly independent of those which precede. The existence
of incommensurable quantities obliges him to introduce a definition of proportion
which seems at first not only difficult, but uncouth and inelegant; those who
have examined other definitions know that all which are not defective are but
various readings of that of Euclid. The reasons for this difficult definition
are not alluded to, according to his custom; few students therefore understand
the fifth book at first, and many teachers decidedly object to make it a part
of the course. A distinction should be drawn between Euclid's definition and his
manner of applying it. Every one who understands it must see that it is an application
of arithmetic, and that the defective and unwieldy forms of arithmetical expression
which never were banished from Greek science, need not be the necessary accompaniments
of the modern use of the fifth book. For ourselves, we are satisfied that the
only rigorous road to proportion is either through the fifth book, or else through
something much more difficult than the fifth book need be.
The sixth book applies the theory of proportion, and adds to the first
four books the propositions which, for want of it, they could not contain. It
discusses the theory of figures of the same form, technically called similar.
To give an idea of the advance which it makes, we may state that the first book
has for its highest point of constructive power the formation of a rectangle upon
a given base, equal to a given rectilinear figure; that the second book enables
us to turn this rectangle into a square; but the sixth book empowers us to make
a figure of any given rectilinear shape equal to a rectilinear figure of given
size, or briefly, to construct a figure of the form of one given figure, and of
the size of another. It also supplies the geometrical form of the solution of
a quadratic equation.
The seventh, eighth, and ninth books cannot have their subjects usefully
separated. They treat of arithmetic, that is, of the fundamental properties of
numbers, on which the rules of arithmetic must be founded. But Euclid goes further
than is necessary merely to construct a system of computation, about which the
Greeks had little anxiety. Lie is able to succeed in shewing that numbers which
are prime to one another are the least in their ratio, to prove that the number
of primes is infinite, and to point out the rule for constructing what are called
perfect numbers. When the modern systems began to prevail, these books of Euclid
were abandoned to the antiquary: our elementary books of arithmetic, which till
lately were all, and now are mostly, systems of mechanical rules, tell us what
would have become of geometry if the earlier books had shared the same fate.
The tenth book is the development of all the power of the preceding
ones, geometrical and arithmetical. It is one of the most curious of the Greek
speculations: the reader will find a synoptical account of it in the Penny Cyelopacdia,
article, "Irrational Quantities". Euclid has evidently in his mind the
intention of classifying inco'nmmensurable quantities: perhaps the circumference
of the circle, which we know had been an object of inquiry, was suspected of being
incommensurable with its diameter; and hopes were perhaps entertained that a searching
attempt to arrange the incommensurables which ordinary geometry presents might
enable the geometer to say finally to which of them, if any, the circle belongs.
However this may be, Euclid investigates, by isolated methods, and in a manner
which, unless he had a concealed algebra, is more astonishing to us than anything
in the Elements, every possible variety of lines which cant be represented by?
(?a ± ?b), a and b representing two commensurable lines. He divides lines which
can be represented by this formula into 25 species, and he succeeds in detecting
every possible species. He shews that every individual of every species is incommensurable
with all the individuals of every other species; and also that no line of any
species can belong to that species in two different ways, or for two different
sets of values of a and l. He shews how to form other classes of incommensurables,
in number how many soever, no one of which can contain an individual line which
is commensurable with an individual of any other class; and he demonstrates the
incommensurability of a square and its diagonal. This book has a completeiness
which none of the others (not even the fifth) can boast of: and we could almost
suspect that Euclid, having arranged his materials in his own mind, and having
completely elaborated the tenth book, wrote the preceding books after it, and
did not live to revise them thoroughly.
The eleventh and twelfth books contain the elements of solid geosnetry,
as to prisms, pyramids, &c. The duplicate ratio of the diameters is shewn to be
that of two circles, the triplicate ratio that of two spheres. Instances occur
of the method of exhaustions, as it has been called, which in the. hands of Archimedes
became an instrument of discovery, producing results which are now usually referred
to the differential calculus: while in those of Euclid it was only the mode of
proving propositions which must have been seen and believed before they were proved.
The method of these books is clear and elegant, with some striking imperfections,
which have caused many to abandon them, even among those who allow no substitute
for the first six books. The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth books are on
the five regular solids: and even had they all been written by Euclid (the last
two are attributed to Hypsicles), they would but ill bear out the assertion of
Proclus, that the regular solids were the objects with a view to which the Elements
were written: unless indeed we are to suppose that Euclid died before he could
complete his intended structure. Proclus was an enthusiastic Platonist: Euclid
was of that school; and the former accordingly attributes to the latter a particular
regard for what were sometimes called the Platonic bodies. But we think that the
author himself of the Elements could hardly have considered them as a mere introduction
to a favourite speculation : if he were so blind, we have every reason to suppose
that his own contemporaries could have set him right. From various indications,
it can be collected that the fame of the Elements was almost coeval with their
publication; and by the time of Marinus we learn from that writer that Euclid
was called kurios stoicheiotes.
The Data of Euclid should be mentioned in connection with the Elements.
This is a book containing a hundred propositions of a peculiar and limited intent.
Some writers have professed to see in it a key to the geometrical analysis of
the ancients, in which they have greatly the advantage of us. When there is a
problem to solve, it is undoubtedly advantageous to have a rapid perception of
the steps which will reach the result, if they can be successively made. Given
A, B, and C, to find D: one person may be completely at a loss how to proceed;
another may see almost intuitively that when A, B, and C are given, E can be found;
from which it may be that the first person, had he perceived it, would have immediately
found D. The formation of data consequential, as our ancestors would perhaps have
called them, things not absolutely given, but the gift of which is implied in,
and necessarily follows from, that which is given, is the object of the hundred
propositions above mentioned. Thus, when a straight line of given length is intercepted
between two given parallels, one of these propositions shews that the angle it
makes with the parallels is given in magnitude. There is not much more in this
book of Data than an intelligent student picks up from the Elements themselves;
on which account we cannot consider it as a great step in geometrical analysis.
The operations of thought which it requires are indispensable, but they are contained
elsewhere. At the same time we cannot deny that the Data might have fixed in the
mind of a Greek, with greater strength than the Elements themselves, notions upon
consequential data which the moderns acquire from the application of arithmetic
and algebra: perhaps it was the perception of this which dictated the opinion
about the value of the book of Data in analysis.
While on this subject, it may be useful to remind the reader how difficult
it is to judge of the character of Euclid's writings, as far as his own merits
are concerned, ignorant as we are of the precise purpose with which any one was
written. For instance: was he merely shewing his contemporaries that a connected
system of demonstration might be made without taking more than a certain number
of postulates out of a collection, the necessity of each of which had been advocated
by some and denied by others? We then understand why lie placed his six postulates
in the prominent position which they occupy, and we can find no fault with his
tacit admission of many others, the necessity of which had perhaps never been
questioned. But if we are to consider him as meaning to be what his commentators
have taken him to be, a model of the most scrupulous formal rigour, we can then
deny that he has altogether succeeded, though we may admit that he has made the
nearest approach.
The literary history of the writings of Euclid would contain that
of the rise and progress of geometry in every Christian and Mohammedan nation:
our notice, therefore, must be but slight, and various points of it will be confirmed
by the bibliographical account which will follow.
In Greece, including Asia Minor, Alexandria, and the Italian colonies,
the Elements soon became the universal study of geometers. Commentators were not
wanting; Proclus mentions Heron and Pappus, and Aeneas of Hierapolis, who made
an epitome of the whole. Theon the younger (of Alexandria) lived a little before
Proclus (who died about A. D. 485). The latter has made his feeble commentary
on the first book valuable by its historical information, and was something of
a luminary in ages more dark than his own. But Theon was a light of another sort,
and his name has played a conspicuous and singular part in the history of Euclid's
writings. He gave a new edition of Euclid, with some slight additions and alterations:
he tells us so himself, and uses the word ekdosis, as applied to his own edition,
in his commentary on Ptolemy. He also informs us that the part which relates to
the sectors in the last proposition of the sixth book is his own addition: and
it is found in all the manuscripts following the hoper edei deixai with which
Euclid always ends. Alexander Aphrodisiensis (Comment. in priora Analyt. Aristot.)
mentions as the fourth of the tenth book that which is the fifth in all manuscripts.
Again, in several manuscripts the whole work is headed as ek ton Theonos sunousion.
We shall presently see to what this led: but now we must remark that Proclus does
not mention Theon at all; from which, since both were Platonists residing at Alexandria,
and Proclus had probably seen Theon in his younger days, we must either inter
some quarrel between the two, or, which is perhaps more likely, presume that Theon's
alterations were very slight.
The two books of Geometry left by Boethius contain nothing but enunciations
and diagrams from the first four books of Euclid. The assertion of Boethius that
Euclid only arranged, and that the discovery and demonstration were the work of
others, probably contributed to the notions about Then presently described. Until
the restoration of the Elements by translation from the Arabic, this work of Boethius
was the only European treatise on geometry, as far as is known.
The Arabic translations of Euclid began to be made under the caliphs
Haroun al Raschid and Al Mamun; by their time, the very name of Euclid had almost
disappeared from the West. But nearly one hundred and fifty years followed the
capture of Egypt by the Mohammeddans before the latter began to profit by the
knowledge of the Greeks. After this time, the works of the geometers were sedulously
translated, and a great impulse was given by them. Commentaries, and even original
writings, followed; but so few of these are known among us, that it is only from
the Saracen writings on astronomy (a science which always carries its own history
along with it) that we can form a good idea of the very striking progress which
the Mohammedans nade under their Greek teachers. Some writers speak slightingly
of this progress, the results of which they are too apt to compare with those
of our own time: they ought rather to place the Saracens by the side of their
own Gothic ancestors, and, making some allowance for the more advantageous circumstances
under which the first started, they should view the second systematically dispersing
the remains of (Greek civilization, while the first were concentrating the geometry
of Alexandria, the arithmetic and algebra of India, and the astronomy of both,
to form a nucleus for the present state of science.
The Elements of Euclid were restored to Europe by translation
from the Arabic. In connection With this restoration four Eastern editors
may be mentioned. Honein ben Ishak (died A. D. 873) published an edition which
was afterwards corrected by Thabet ben Corrah, a well-known astronomer. After
him, according to D'Herbelot, Othman of Damascus (of uncertain date, but before
the thirteenth century) saw at Rome a Greek manuscript containing many more propositions
than he had been accustomed to find: he had been used to 190 diagrams, and the
manuscript contained 40 more. If these numbers be correct, Honein could only have
had the first six books; and the new translation which Othman immediately made
must have been afterwards augmented. A little after A. D. 1260, the astronomer
Nasireddin gave another edition, which is now accessible, having been printed
in Arabic at Rome in 1594. It is tolerably complete, but yet it is not the edition
from which the earliest European translation was made, as Peyrard found by comparing
the same proposition in the two.
The first European who found Euclid in Arabic, and translated the
Elements into Latin, was Athelard or Adelard, of Bath, who was certainly alive
in 1130. This writer probably obtained his original in Spain: and his translation
is the one which became current in Europe, and is the first which was printed,
though under the name of Campanus. Till very lately, Campanus was supposed to
have been the translator. Tiraboschi takes it to have been Adelard, as a matter
of course; Libri pronounces the same opinion after inquiry; and Scheibel states
that in his copy of Campanus the authorship of Adelard was asserted in a handwriting
as old as the work itself (A. D. 1482). Some of the manuscripts which bear the
name of Adelard have that of Campanus attached to the commentary. There are several
of these manuscripts in existence; and a comparison of any one of them with the
printed book which was attributed to Campanus would settle the question.
The seed thus brought by Adelard into Europe was sown with good effect.
In the next century Roger Bacon quotes Euclid, and when he cites Boethius, it
is not for his geometry. Up to the time of printing, there was at least as much
dispersion of the Elements as of any other book : after this period, Euclid was,
as we shall see, an early and frequent product of the press. Where science flourished,
Euclid was found; and wherever he was found, science flourished more or less according
as more or less attention was paid to his Elements. As to writing another work
on geometry, the middle ages would as soon have thought of composing another New
Testament: not only did Euclid preserve his right to the title of kurios stoicheiotes
down to the end of the seventeenth century, and that in so absolute a manner,
that then, as sometimes now, the young beginner imagined the name of the man to
be a synonyme for the science; but his order of demonstration was thought to be
necessary, and founded in the nature of our minds. Tartaglia, whose bias we might
suppose would have been shaken by his knowledge of Indian arithmetic and algebra,
calls Euclid solo introdultore delle scientie mathematice: and algebra was not
at that time considered as entitled to the name of a science by those who had
been formed on the Greek model; "arte maggiore" was its designation. The
story about Pascal's discovery of geometry in his boyhoud (A. D. 1635) contains
the statement that he had got "as far as the 32nd proposition of the first
book" before he wits detected, the exaggerators (for much exaggerated this
very circumstance shews the truth must have been) not having the slightest idea
that a new invented system could proceed in any other order than that of Euclid.
The vernacular translations of the Elements date from the middle of
the sixteenth century,from which time the history of mathematical science divides
itself into that of the several countries where it flourished. By slow steps,
the continent of Europe has almost entirely abandoned the ancient Elements, and
substituted systems of geometry more in accordance with the tastes which algebra
has introduced : but in England, down to the present time, Euclid has held his
ground. There is not in our country any system of geometry twenty years old, which
has pretensions to anything like currency, but it is either Euclid, or something
so fashioned upon Euclid that the resemblance is as close as that of some of his
professed editors. We cannot here go into the reasons of our opinion; but we have
no doubt that the love of accuracy in mathematical reasoning has declined wherever
Euclid has been abandoned. We are not so much of tile old opinion as to say that
this must necessarily have happened; but, feeling quite sure that all the alterations
have had their origin in the desire for more facility than could be obtained by
rigorous deduction from postulates both true and evident, we see what has happened,
and why, without being at all inclined to dispute that a disposition to depart
from the letter, carrying off the spirit, would have been attended with very different
results. Of the two best foreign books of geometry which we know, and which are
not Euclidean, one demands a right to "imagine" a thing which the writer himself
knew perfectly well was not true; and the other is content to shew that the theorems
are so nearly true that their error, if any, is imperceptible to the senses. It
must be admitted that both these absurdities are committed to avoid the fifth
book, and that English teachers have, of late years, been much inclined to do
something of the same sort, less openly. But here, at least, writers have left
it to teachers to shirk (4) truth, if they like, without being
wilful accomplices before the fact. In an English translation of one of the preceding
works, the means of correcting the error were given: and the original work of
most note, not Euclidean, which has appeared of late years, does not attempt to
get over the difficulty by any false assumption.
At the time of the invention of printing, two errors were current
with respect to Euclid personally. The first was that he was Euclid of Megara,
a totally different person. This confusion has been said to take its rise from
a passage in Plutarch, but we cannot find the reference. Boethius perpetuated
it. The second was that Theon was the demonstrator of all the propositions, and
that Euclid only left the definitions, postulates, &c., with the enunciations
in their present order. So completely was this notion received, that editions
of Euclid, so called, contained only enunciations; all that contained demonstrations
were said to be Euclid with the commentary of Theon, Campanus, Zambertus, or some
other. Also, when the enunciations were given in Greek and Latin, and the demonstrations
in Latin only, this was said to constitute an edition of Euclid in the original
Greek, which has occasioned a host of bibliographical errors. We have already
seen that Theon did edit Euclid, and that manuscripts have described this editorship
in a manner calculated to lead to the mistake: but Proclus, who not only describes
Euclid as ta malakoteron deiknumena tois emprosthen eis anelenktous apodeixeis
anagagon, and comments on the very demonstrations which we now have, as on those
of Euclid, is an unanswerable witness; the order of the propositions themselves,
connected as it is with the mode of demonstration, is another ; and finally, Theon
himself, in stating, as before noted, that a particular part of a certain demonstration
is his own, states as distinctly that the rest is not. Sir Henry Savile (the founder
of the Savilian chairs at Oxford), in the lectures (5) on Euclid
with which he opened his own chair of geometry before he resigned it to Briggs
(who is said to have taken up the course where his founder left off, at book i.
prop. 9), notes that much discussion had taken place on the subject, and gives
three opinions. The first, that of quidam stulti et perridiculi, above discussed:
the second, that of Peter Ramus, who held the whole to be absolutely due to Theon,
propositions as well as demonstrations, false, quis negat? the third, that of
Buteo of Dauphiny, a geometer of merit, who attributes the whole to Euclid, quae
opinio aut vera est, aut veritati certe proxima. It is not useless to remind the
classical student of these things : the middle ages may be called the "ages
of faith " in their views of criticism. Whatever was written was received
without examination ; and the endorsement of an obscure scholiast, which was perhaps
the mere whim of a transcriber, was allowed to rank with the clearest assertions
of the commentators and scholars who had before them more works, now lost, written
by the contemporaries of the author in question, than there were letters in the
stupid sentence which was allowed to overbalance their testimony. From such practices
we are now, it may well be hoped, finally delivered: but the time is not yet come
when refntation of " the scholiast " may be safely abandoned.
Notes:
(1) This celebrated anecdote breaks off in the middle of the
sentence in the Basle edition of Proclus. Barocius, who had better manuscripts,
supplies the Latin of it; and Sir Henry Savile, who had manuscripts of all kinds
in his own library, quotes it as above, with only epi for pros. August, in his
edition of Euclid, has given this chapter of Proclus in Greek, but without saying
from whence he has taken it.
(2) We cannot well understand whether by dunaton proxlus means
geometrically soluble, or possible in the common sense of the word.
(3) See Penni Cyclopaedia, art. "Parallels," for some
account of this well-worn subject.
(4) We must not be understood as objecting to the teacher's right
to make his pupil assume anything he likes, provided only that the latter knows
what he is about. Our contemptuous expression (for such we mean it to be) is directed
against those who substitute assumption for demonstration, or the particular for
the general, and leave the student in ignorance of what has been done.
(5) Praelectiones tresdecim in prineipium elementorum Euclidis;
Oxonu habitae M.DC.XX. Oxoniae, 1621.
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
All the works that have been attributed to Euclid are as follows:
1. Stoicheia, the Elements, in 13 books, with a 14th and 15th added by Hypsicles.
2. Dedomena, the Data, which has a preface by Marines of Naples.
3. Eisagoge, Harmonike, a Treatise on Music ; and 4. Katatome Kanonos, the Division
of the Scale : one of these works, most likely the former, must be rejected. Proclus
says that Euclid wrote kata mousiken stoicheioseiss.
4. ?
5. Phainomena, the Appearances (of the heavens). Pappus mentions them.
6. Optika, on Optics ; and 7. Katoetrika, on Catoptrics. Proclus mentions both.
The preceding works are in existence; the following are either lost,
or do not remain in the original Greek.
8. Peri diaireseon Biblion, On Divisions. Proclus (l. c.) There is a translation
from the Arabic, with the name of Mohammed of Bagdad attached, which has been
suspected of being a translation of the book of Euclid : of this we shall see
more.
9. Konikon Biblia d, Four books on Conic Sections. Pappus (lib. vii. pruef.) affirms
that Euclid wrote four books on conics, which Apollonius enlarged, adding four
others. Archimedes refers to the elements of conic sections in a manner which
shews that he could not be mentioning the new work of his contemporary Apollonius
(which it is most likely he never saw). Euclid may possibly have written on conic
sections; but it is impossible that the first four books of Apollonius (see his
life) can have been those of Euclid.
10. Porismaton Biblia g, Three books of Porisms. These are mentioned by Proclus
and by Pappus (l. c.), the latter of whom gives a description which is so corrupt
as to be unintelligible.
11. Topon Epipedon Biblia B, Two books on Plane Loci. Pappus mentions these, but
not Eutocius, as Fabricius affirms. (Comment. in Apoll. lib. i. lemm.)
12. Topon pros Epiphaneian Biblia B, mentioned by Pappus. What these Topoi pros
Epiphaneian, or Loci ad Superfuiem, were, neither Pappus nor Eutocius inform us;
the latter says they derive their name from their own idiotes, which there is
no reason to doubt. We suspect that the books and the meaning of the title were
as much lost in the time of Eutocius as now.
13. Peri Pseudarion, On Fallacies. On this work Proclus says, " He gave methods
of clear judgment (dioratikes phroneseos) the possession of which enables us to
exercise those who are beginning geometry in the detection of false reasonings,
and to keep them free from delusion. And the book which gives us this preparation
is called Pseudarion, in which he enumerates the species of fallacies, and exercises
the mental faculty on each species by all manner of theorems. He places truth
side by side with falsehood, and connects the confutation of falsehood with experience."
It thus appears that Euclid did not intend his Elements to be studied without
any preparation, but that he had himself prepared a treatise on fallacious reasoning,
to precede, or at least to accompany, the Elements. The loss of this book is much
to be regretted, particularly on account of the explanations of the course adopted
in the Elements which it cannot but have contained.
We now proceed to some bibliographical account of the writings of Euclid. In every
case in which we do not mention the source of information, it is to be presumed
that we take it from the edition itself.
The first, or editio princeps, of the Elements is that printed by
Erhard Ratdolt at Venice in 1482, black letter, folio. It is the Latin of the
fifteen books of the Elements, from Adelard, with the commentary of Campanus following
the demonstrations. It has no title, but, after a short introduction by the printer,
opens thus: "Preclarissimus liber elementorum Euclidis perspicacissimi: in artem
geometrie incipit qua foelicissime: Punctus est cujus ps nn est" &c. Ratdolt states
in the introduction that the difficulty of printing diagrams had prevented books
of geometry from going through the press, but that he had so completely overcome
it, by great pains, that "qua facilitate litterarum elementa imprimuntur, ea etiam
geometrice figure conficerentur". These diagrams are printed on the margin, and
though at first sight they seem to be woodcuts, yet a closer inspection makes
it probable that they are produced from metal lines. The number of propositions
in Euclid (15 books) is 485, of which 18 are wanting here, and 30 appear which
are not in Euclid; so that there are 497 propositions. The preface to the 14th
book, by which it is made almost certain that Euclid did not write it (for Euclid's
books have no prefaces) is omitted. Its Arabic origin is visible in the words
helmuaym and helmuariphe, which are used for a rhombus and a trapezium. This edition
is not very scarce in England; we have seen at least four copies for sale in the
last ten years.
The second edition bears "Vincentiae 1491", Roman letter, folio, and
was printed "per magistrum Leonardum de Basilea et Gulielmum de Papia socios."
It is entirely a reprint, with the introduction omitted (unless indeed it be torn
out in the only copy we ever saw), and is but a poor specimen, both as to letter-press
and diagrams, when compared with the first edition, than which it is very much
scarcer. Both these editions call Euclid Megarensis.
The third edition (also Latin, Roman letter, folio,) containing the
Elements, the Phaenomena, the two Optics (under the names of Specularia and Perspectiva),
and the Data with the preface of Marinus, being the editio princeps of all but
the Elements, has thle title Euclidis Megarensis philosophici Platonici, mathemalicarum
disciplinaru janitoris: habent in hoc voltumine quicuque ad mathematica substantia
aspirat: elemetorum libros, (&c. &c. Zamberto Veneto Interprete. At the end is
Impressum Venetis, &c. in edibus Joannis Tacuini, &c., M. D. V. VIII. Klendas
Novebris -- that is, 1505, often read 1508 by an obvious mistake. Zambertus has
given a long preface and a life of Euclid: he professes to have translated from
a Greek text, and this a very little inspection will show he must have done; but
he does not give any information upon his manuscripts. He states that the propositions
have the exposition of Theon or Hypsicles, by which he probably means that Theon
or Hypsicles gave the demonstrations. The preceding editors, whatever their opinions
may have been, do not expressly state Theon or any other to have been the author
of tile demonstrations: but by 1505 the Greek manuscripts which bear the name
of Theon had probably come to light. For Zambertus Fabricius cites Goetz mem.
bibl. Dresd. ii. p. 213: his edition is beautifully printed, and is rare. lie
exposes the translations from the Arabic with unceasing severity. Fabricius mentions
(from Scheibel) two small works, the four books of the Elements by Ambr. Jocher,
1506, and something called "Geometria Euclidis," which accompanies an edition
of Sacrobosco, Paris, H. Stephens, 1507. Of these we know nothing.
The fourth edition (Latin, black letter, folio, 1509), containing
the Elements only, is the work of the celebrated Lucas Paciolus (de Burgo Sancti
Sepulchri), better known as Lucas di Borgo, the first who printed a work on algebra.
The title is Euclidis Megarensis philosophi aculissimi mathematicorumque omnium
sine controversia principis opera, &c. At the end, Venetus impressum per ... Payaninum
de Payaninis ... anno...MDVIIII... Paciolus adopts the Latin of Adelard, and occasionally
quotes the comment of Campanus, introducing his own additional comments with the
head " Castigator". He opens the fifth book with the account of a lecture which
he gave on that book in a church at Venice, August 11, 1508, giving the names
of those present, and some subsequent laudatory correspondence. This edition is
less loaded with comment than either of those which precede. It is extremely scarce,
and is beautifully printed : the letter is a curious intermediate step between
the old thick black letter and that of the Roman type, and makes the derivation
of the latter from the former very clear.
The fifth edition (Elements, Latin, Roman letter, folio), edited by
Jacobus Faber, and printed by Henry Stephens at Paris in 1516, has the title Contenta
followed by beads of the contents. There are the fifteen books of Euclid, by which
are meant the Enunciations (see the preceding remarks on this subject); the Comment
of Campanus, meaning the demonstrations in Adelard's Latin ; the Comment of Theon
as given by Zambertus, meaning the demonstration in the Latin of Zambertus ; and
the Comment of Hypsicles as given by Zambertus upon the last two books, meaning
the demonstrations of those two books. This edition is fairly printed, and is
moderately scarce. From it we date the time when a list of enunciations merely
was universally called the complete work of Euclid.
With these editions the ancient series, as we may call it, terminates,
meaning the complete Latin editions which preceded the publication of the Greek
text. Thus we see five folio editions of the Elements produced in thirty-four
years.
The first Greek text was published by Simon Gryne, or Grynoeus, Basle, 1533, folio:
(1) containing, ek ton Theonos sunousion (the title-page has
this statement), the fifteen books of the Elements, and the commentary of Proclus
added at the end, so far as it remains; all Greek, without Latin. On Grynoeus
and his reverend (2) care of manuscripts, see Anthony Wood. (Athen.
Oxon. in verb.) The Oxford editor is studiously silent about this Basle edition,
which, though not obtained from many manuscripts, is even now of some value, and
was for a century and three-quarters the only printed Greek text of all the books.
With regard to Greek texts, the student must be on his guard against bibliographers.
For instance, Harless (3) gives, from good catalogues, Eukleidou
Stoicheion Biblia ie, Rome, 1545, 8vo., printed by Antonius Bladus Asulanus, containing
enunciations only, without demonstrations or diagrams, edited by Angelus Cujanus,
and dedicated to Antonius Altovitus. We happen to possess a little volume agreeing
in every particular with this description, except only that it is in Italian,
being "I quindici libri degli element di Euclide, di Greco tradotti in lingua
Thoscana". Here is another instance in which the editor believed he had given
the whole of Euclid in giving the enunciations. From this edition another Greek
text, Florence, 1545, was invented by another mistake. All the Greek and Latin
editions which Fabricius, Murhard, &c., attribute to Dasypodius (Conrad Rauchfuss),
only give the enunciations in Greek. The same may be said of Scheubel's edition
of the first six books (Basle, folio, 1550), which nevertheless professes in the
title-page to give Eutclid, Gr. Lat. There is an anonymous complete Greek and
Latin text, London, printed by William Jones, 1620, which has thirteen books in
the title-page, but contains only six in all copies that we have seen : it is
attributed to the celebrated mathematician Briggs.
The Oxford edition, folio, 1703, published by David Gregory, with
the title Eukleidou ta sozomena, took its rise in the collection of manuscripts
bequeathed by Sir Henry Savile to the University, and was a part of Dr. Edward
Bernard's plan (see his life in the Penny Cyclopaedia) for a large republication
of the Greek geometers. His intention was, that the first four volumes should
contain Euclid, Apollonius, Archimedes, Pappus, and Heron ; and, by an undesigned
coincidence, the University has actually published the first three volumes in
the order intended: we hope Pappus and Heron will be edited in time. In this Oxford
text a large additional supply of manuscripts was consulted, but various readings
are not given. It contains all the reputed works of Euclid, the Latin work of
Mohammed of Bagdad, above mentioned as attributed by some to Euclid, and a Latin
fragment De Levi et Ponderoso, which is wholly unworthy of notice, but which some
had given to Euclid. The Latin of this edition is mostly from Commandine, with
the help of Henry Savile's papers, which seem to have nearly amounted to a complete
version. As an edition of the whole of Euclid's works, this stands alone, there
being no other in Greek. Peyrard, who examined it with every desire to find errors
of the press, produced only at the rate of ten for each book of the Elements.
The Paris edition was produced under singular circumstances. It is
Greek, Latin, and French, in 3 vols. 4to. Paris, 1814-16-18, and it contains fifteen
books of the Elements and the Data; for, though professing to give a complete
edition of Euclid, Peyrard would not admit anything else to be genuine. F. Peyrard
had published a translation of some books of Euclid in 1804, and a complete translation
of Archimedes. It was his intention to publish the texts of Euclid, Apollonius,
and Archimedes; and beginning to examine the manuscripts of Euclid in the Royal
Library at Paris, 23 in number, he found one, marked No. 190, which had the appearance
of being written in the ninth century, and which seemed more complete and trustworthy
than any single known manuscript. This document was part of the plunder sent from
Rome to Paris by Napoleon, and had belonged to the Vatican Library. When restitution
was enforced by the allied armies in 1815, a special permission was given to Peyrard
to retain this manuscript till he had finished the edition on which lie was then
engaged, and of which one volume had already appeared. Peyrard was a worshipper
of this manuscript, No. 190, and had a contempt for all previous editions of Euclid.
He gives at the end of each volume a comparison of the Paris edition with the
Oxford, specifying what has been derived from the Vatican manuscript, and making
a selection from tile various readings of the other 22 manuscripts which were
before him. This edition is therefore very valuable; but it is very incorrectly
printed: and the editor's strictures upon his predecessors seem to us to require
the support of better scholarship thin lie could bring to bear upon the subject.
The Berlin edition, Greek only, one volume in two parts, octavo, Berlin,
1826, is the work of E. F. August, and contains the thirteen books of the Elements,
with various readings from Peyrard, and from three additional manuscripts at Munich
(making altogether about 35 manuscripts consulted by the four editors). To the
scholar who wants one edition of the Elements, we should decidedly recommend this,
as bringing together all that has been done for the text of Euclid's greatest
work.
We mention here, out of its place, The Elments of Euclid with disseritatios,
by James Williamson, B.D. 2 vols. 4to., Oxford, 1781, and London, 1788. This is
an English translation of thirteen books, made in the closest manner from the
Oxford edition, being Euclid word for word, with the additional words required
by the English idiom given in Italics. This edition is valuable, and not very
scarce: the dissertations may be read with profit by a modern algebraist, if it
be true that equal and opposite errors destroy one another.
Camerer and Hauber published the first six books in Greek and Latin,
with good notes, Berlin, 8vo. 1824.
We believe we have mentioned all the Greek texts of the Elements;
the liberal supply with which the bibliographers have furnished the world, and
which Fabricius and others have perpetuated, is, as we have no doubt, a series
of mistakes arising for the most part out of the belief about Euclid the enunciator
and Thcon the demonstrator, which we have described. Of Latin editions, which
must have a slight notice, we have tile six books by Orontius Finoeus, Paris,
1536, folio (Fabr., Murhard) ; the same by Joachim Camerarius, Leipsic, 1549,
8vo (Fabr., Murhard); the fifteen books by Steph. Gracilis, Paris, 1557, 4to.
(Fabr., who calls it Gr. Lat., Murhard); the fifteen books of Franc. de Foix de
Can dale (Flussas Candalla), who adds a sixteenth, Paris, 1566, folio, and promises
a seventeenth and eighteenth, which he gave in a subsequent edition, Paris,. 1578.
folio (Fabr., Murhard); Frederic Commandine's first edition of the fifteen books,
with commentaries, Pisauri, 1572, fol. (Fabr., Murhard); tile fifteen books of
Christopher Clavius, with conmmentary, and Candalla's sixteenth book annexed,
Rome, 1574, fol. (Fabr., Murhard); thirteen books, by Ambrosius Rhodius, Witteberg,
1609, 8vo. (Fabr., Murh.); thirteen books by the Jesuit Claude Richard, Antwerp,
1645, folio (Murh.); twelvebooks by Horsley, Oxford, 1802. We have not thought
it necessary to swell this article with the various reprints of these and the
old Latin editions, nor with editions which, though called Elements of Euclid,
have the demonstrations given in the editor's own manner, as those of Maurolycus,
Barrow, Cotes, &c., &c., nor with the editions contained in ancient courses of
mathematics, such as those of Herigonius, Dechales, Schott, &c., &c., which generally
gave a tolerably complete edition of the Elements. Commandine and Clavius are
tile progenitors of a large school of editors, among whom Robert Simson stands
conspicuous.
We now proceed to English translations. We find in Tanner (Bibl. Brit.
Hib. p. 149) the following short statement: "Candish, Richardus, patria Suffolciensis,
in linguam patriam transtulit Euclidis geometriam, lib. xv. Claruit (4)
A. D. MDLVI. Bal. par. post. p. 111". Richard Candish is mentioned elsewhere as
a translator, but we are confident that his translation was never published. Before
1570, all that had been published in English was Robert Recorde's Pathlway to
Knowledge, 1551, containing enunciations only of the first four books, not in
Euclid's order. Recorde considers demonstration to be the work of Theon. In 1570
appeared Henry Billingsley's translation of the fifteen books, with Candalla's
sixteenth, London, folio. This book has a long preface by John Dee, the magician,
whose picture is at the beginning : so that it has often been taken for Dee's
translation ; but he himself, in a list of his own works, ascribes it to Billingsley.
The latter was a rich citizen, and was mayor (with knighthood) in 1591. We always
had doubts whether he was the real translator, imagining that Dee had done the
drudgery at least. On looking into Anthony Wood's account of Billingsley (Ath.
Oxon. in verb.) we find it stated (and also how the information was obtained)
that he studied three years at Oxford before he was apprenticed to a haberdasher,
and there made acquaintance with all "eminent mathematician" called Whytehead,
an Augustine friar. When the friar was "put to his shifts" by the dissolution
of the monasteries, Billingsley received and maintained him, and learnt mathematics
from him. "When Whytehead died, he gave his scholar all his mathematical observations
that lie had made and collected, together with his notes on Euclid's Elements".
This was the foundation of the translation, on which we have only to say that
it was certainly made from the Greek, and not from any of the Arabico-Latin versions,
and is, for the time, a very good one. It was reprinted, London, folio, 1661.
Billingsley died in 1606, at a great age.
Edmund Scarburgh (Oxford, folio, 1705) translated six books, with
copious annotations. We omit detailed mention of Whiston's translation of Tacquet,
of Keill, Cunn, Stone, and other editors, whose editions have not much to do with
the pro gress of opinion about the Elementts.
Dr. Robert Simson published the first six, and eleventh and twelfth books, in
two separate quarto editions. (Latin, Glasgow, 1756. English, London, 1756.) The
translation of the Data was added to the first octavo edition (called 2nd edition),
Glasgow, 1762: other matters unconnected with Euclid have been added to the numerous
succeeding editions. With the exception of the editorial fancy about the perfect
restoration of Euclid, there is little to object to in this celebrated edition.
It might indeed have been expected that sone notice would have been taken of various
points on which Euclid has evidently fallen short of that formality of rigour
which is tacitly claimed for him. We prefer this edition very much to many which
have been fashioned upon it, particularly to those which have introduced algebraical
symbols into the demonstrations in such a manner as to confuse geometrical demonstration
with algebraical operation. Simson was first translated into German by J. A. Matthias,
Magdeburgh, 1799, 8vo.
Professor John Playfair's Elements of Geometry contains the first six books of Euclid; but the solid geometry is supplied from other sources. The first edition is of Edinburgh, 1795, octavo. This is a valuable edition, and the treatment of the fifth book, in particular, is much simplified by the abandonment of Euclid's notation, though his definition and method are retained.
Eaclid's Elements of Plane Geometry, by John Walker, London, 18127,
is a collection containing very excellent materials and valuable thoughts, but
it is hardly an edition of Euclid.
We ought perhaps to mention W. Halifax, whose English Euclid Schweiger
puts down as printed eight times in London, between 1685 and 1752. But we never
met with it, and cannot find it in any sale (5) catalogue, nor
in any Elglish enumeration of editors. The Diagrams of Euclid's Elements by the
Rev. W. Taylor, York, 1828, 8vo. size (part i. containing the first book; we do
not know of any more), is a collection of lettered diagrams stamped in relief,
for the use of the blind.
The earliest German print of Euclid is an edition by Scheubel or Scheybl,
who published the seventh, eighth, and ninth books, Augsburgh, 1555, 4to. (Fabr.
from his own copy); the first six books by W. Holtzmann, better known as Xylander,
were published at Basle, 1562, folio (Fabr., Murhard, Kastner). In French we have
Errard, nine books, Paris, 1598, 8vo. (Fabr.); fifteen books by Henrion, Paris,
1615 ((Fabr.), 1623 (Murh.), about 1627 (necessary inference from the preface
of the fifth edition, of 1649, in our possession). It is a close translation,
with a comment. In Dutch, six books by J. Petersz Dou, Leyden, 1606 (Fabr.), 1608
(Murh.). Dou was translated into German, Amsterdam, 1634, 8vo. Also an anonymous
translation of Clavius, 1663 (Murh.). In Italian, Tartaglia's edition, Venice,
1543 and 1565. (Murh., Fabr.) In Spanish, by Joseph Saragoza, Valentia 1673, 4to.
(Murh.) In Swedish, the first six books, by Martin Stromer, Upsal, 1753. (Murh.)
The remaining writings of Euclid are of small interest compared with the Elements,
and a shorter account of them will be sufficient.
The first Greek edition of the Dala is Eukleidon dedomena, &c., by Clandius Hardy, Paris, 1625, 4to., Gr. Lat., with the preface of Marinus prefixed. Murhard speaks of a second edition, Paris. 1695, 4to. Dasypodius had previously puilished them in Latin, Strasburg, 1570. (Fabr.) We have already spoken of Zamberti's Latin, and of the Greek of Gregory and Peyrard. There is also Euclidis Dalorum Liber by Horsley, Oxford, 1803, 8vo.
The Phaenomena is an astronomical work, containing 25 geometrical
propositions on the doctrine of the sphere. Pappus (lib. vi. praef.) refers to
the second proposition of this work of Euclid, and the second proposition of the
book which has come down to us contains the matter of the reference. We have referred
to the Latin of Zamberti and the Greek of Gregory. Dasypodius gave an edition
(Gr. Lat., so said; but we suppose with only the enunciations Greek), Strasburg,
1 .571, 4to. (?) (Weidler), and another appeared (Lat.) by Joseph Auria, with
the comment of Maurolycus, Rome, 1591, 4to. (Lalande and Weidler) The book is
also in Mersenne's Synopsis, Paris, 1644, 4to. (Weidler.) Lalande names it (Bibl.
Asttron. p. 188) as part of a very ill-described astronomical collection, in 3
vols. Paris, 1626, 16mo.
Of the two works on music, the Harmonies and the Division of the (Canon
(or scale), it is unlikely that Euclid should have been tile author of both. The
former is a very dry description of the interminable musical nomenclature of the
Greeks, and of their modes. It is called Aristoxenean: it does not contain any
discussion of the proper ultimate authority in musical matters, though it does,
in its wearisome enumeration, adopt some of those intervals which Aristoxenus
retained, and the Pythagoreans rejected. The style and matter of this treatise,
we strongly susspect, belong to a later period than that of Euclid. The second
treatise is an arithmetical description and demonstration of the mode of dividing
the scale. Gregory is inclined to think this treatise cannot be Euclid's, and
one of his reasons is that Ptolemy does not mention it; another, that the theory
followed in it is such as is rarely, if ever, mentioned before the time of Ptolemy.
If Euclid did write either of these treatises, we are satisfied it must have been
the second. Both are contained in Gregory (Gr. Lat.) as already noted; in the
collection of Greek musical authors by Meibomius (Gr. Lat.), Amsterdam, 1652,
4to.; and in a separate edition (also Gr. Lat.) by J. Pena, Paris, 1537, 4to.
(Fabr.), 1557 (Schweiger). Possevinus has also a corrected Latin edition of the
first in his Bibl. Set. Colon. 1657. Forcadel translated one treatise into French,
Paris, 1566, 8vo. (Schweiger.)
The book on Optics treats, in 61 propositions, on the simplest geometrical
characteristics of vision and perspective: the Catoptries have 31 propositions
on the law of reflexion as exemplified in plane and spherical mirrors. We have
referred to the Gr. Lat. of Gregory and the Latin of Zamberti ; there is also
the edition of J. Pena (Gr. Lat.), Paris, 1557, 4to. (Fabr.); that of Dasypodius
(Latin only, we suppose, with Greek enunciations), Strasburg, 1557, 4to. (Fabr.);
a reprint of the Latin of Pena, Leyden, 1599, 4to. (Fabr.) ; and some other reprint,
Leipsic, 1607. (Fabr.) There is a French translation by Rol. Freart Mans, 1663,
4to.; and an Italian one by Egnatic Danti, Florence. 1573, 4to. (Schweiger.)
(Proclus Pappus; August ed cit.; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iv. p. 44, &c.; Gregory,
Pracf. edit. cit.; Murhard, Bibl. Math. ; Zamberti, ed. cit.; Savile, Prelect.
in Eucl.; Heilbronner, Hist. Mathes. Unit. ; Schweiger, Handb. der Classisch.
Bibl. ; Peyrard, ed. cit., &c. &c.: tall editions to which a reference is not
added having been actually consulted.)
Notes:
(1) Fabricius sets down an edition of 1530, by the same editor:
this is a misprint.
(2) " Sure I am, that while he continued there (i. e. at
Oxford), lie visited and studied in most of the libraries, searched after rare
books of the Greek tongue, particularly after some of the books of commentaries
of Proclus Diadoch. Lycius, and having found several, and the owners to be careless
of them, he took some away, and conveyed them with him beyond the seas, as in
an epistle by him written to John the son of Thos. More, he confesseth."
Wood
(3) Schweiger, in his Handbuch (Leipsig, 18130), gives this same
edition as a Greek one, and makes the same mistake with regard to those of Dasypodius,
Scheubel, &c. We have no doubt that the classical bibliographers are trustwrorthy
as to writers with whom a scholar is more conversant than with Euclid. It is much
that a Fabricius should enter upon Euclid or Archimedes at all, and he may well
be excused for simply copying from bibliographical lists. But the mathematical
bibliographers, Heilbronner, Murhard, &c., are inexcusable for copying from,
and perpetuating, the almost unavoidable mistakes of Fabricius.
(4) Hence Schweiger has it that R. Candish published a translation
of Euclid in 1556.
(5) These are the catalogues in which the appearance of a book
is proof of its existence.
Editor’s Information: The e-texts of the works by Euclid are found in Greece (ancient country) under the category Ancient Greek Writings.
,
, 335 - 405
Of Alexandria. One of the last students at the Alexandrian Museum,
born about A.D. 365. He is the author of a commentary on Euclid and on the astronomical
tables of Ptolemaeus. He was the father of the celebrated Hypatia.
,
, 70 - 130
Pappus (Pappos). A geometrician of Alexandria who flourished in the fourth century A.D. A treatise of his on mathematical collections (Mathematikon Sunagogon biblia) is still in existence, and has been edited by Hultsch (Berlin, 1875-78). It was originally in eight books, but the first and part of the second are lost. The work was intended to be a synopsis of Greek mathematics.
, 290 - 350
Chryses (Chruses), of Alexandria, a skilful mechanician, flourished about the middle of the sixth century after Christ. (Procop. de Aedif. Justin. iii. 3)
Ctesibius (Ktesibios), celebrated for his mechanical inventions, was born at Alexandria, and lived probably about B. C. 250, in the reigns of Ptolemy Philadelphus and Euergetes, though Athenaeus (iv.) says, that he flourished in the time of the second Euergetes. His father was a barber, but his own taste led him to devote himself to mechanics. He is said to have invented a clepsydra or water-clock, a hydraulic organ (hudraulis) and other machines, and to have been the first to discover the elastic force of air and apply it as a moving power. Vitruvius (lib. vii. praef.) mentions him as an author, but none of his works remain. He was the teacher, and has been supposed to have been the father, of Hero Alexandrinus, whose treatise called Belopoiika has also sometimes been attributed to him. (Vitruv. ix. 9, x. 12; Plin. H. N. vii. 37; Athen. iv., xi.; Philo Byzant., ap. Vet. Math.)
Alypius (Alupios), the author of a Greek musical treatise entitled eisagoge mousike.
There are no tolerably sure grounds for identifying him with any one of the various
persons who bore the name in the times of the later emperors, and of whose history
anything is known. According to the most plausible conjecture, he was that Alypius
whom Eunapius, in his Life of Iamblichus, celebrates for his acute intellect (ho
dialektikotatos Alupios) and diminutive stature, and who, being a friend of Iamblichus,
probably flourished under Julian and his immediate successors. This Alypius was
a native of Alexandria, and died there at an advanced age, and therefore can hardly
have been the person called by Ammianus Marcellinus Alypius Antiochensis, who
was first prefect of Britain, and afterwards employed by Julian in his attempt
to rebuild the Jewish temple. Julian addresses two epistles (29 and 30) to Alypius
(Ioulianos Alupioi adelphoi Kaisariou), in one of which he thanks him for a geographical
treatise or chart; it would seem more likely that this was the Antiochian than
that he was the Alexandrian Alypius as Meursius supposes, if indeed he was either
one or the other. Iamblichus wrote a life, not now extant, of the Alexandrian.
The work of Alypius consists wholly, with the exception of a short
introduction, of lists of the symbols used (both for voice and instrument) to
denote all the sounds in the forty-five scales produced by taking each of the
fifteen modes in the three genera. (Diatonic, Chromatic, Enharmonic.) It treats,
therefore, in fact, of only one (the fifth, namely) of the seven branches into
which the subject is, as usual, divided in the introduction; and may possibly
be merely a fragment of a larger work. It would have been most valuable if any
considerable number of examples had been left us of the actual use of the system
of notation described in it; unfortunately very few remain, and they seem to belong
to an earlier stage of the science. However, the work serves to throw some light
on the obscure history of the modes. The text, which seemed hopelessly corrupt
to Meursius, its first editor, was restored, apparently with success, by the labours
of the learned and indefatigable Meibomius. (Antiquae Musicae Auctores Septem,
ed. Marc. Meibomius, Amstel. 1652; Aristoxenus, Nicomachus, Alypius, ed. Joh.
Meursilus, Lugd. Bat. 1616.)
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
ALEXANDRIA (Airport) EGYPT
ALEXANDRIA (Ancient city) EGYPT
Timagenes. A rhetorician and an historian, who was a native of Alexandria, from which place he was carried as a prisoner to Rome, where he opened a school of rhetoric, and taught with great success. ( Suid. s. h. v.)
Achilles Tatius (Achilleus tatios), or as Suidas and Eudocia call him Achilles
Statius, an Alexandrine rhetorician, who was formerly believed to have lived in
the second or third century of our aera. But as it is a well-known fact, which
is also acknowledged by Photius, that he imitated Heliodorus of Emesa, he must
have lived after this writer, and therefore belongs either to the latter half
of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century of our aera. Suidas states
that he was originally a Pagan, and that subsequently he was converted to Christianity.
The truth of this assertion, as far as Achilles Tatius, the author of the romance,
is concerned, is not supported by the work of Achilles, which bears no marks of
Christian thoughts, while it would not be difficult to prove from it that he was
a heathen. This romance is a history of the adventures of two lovers, Cleitophon
and Leucippe. It bears the title Ta kata Lenkippen kai Kleitophonta, and consists
of eight books. Notwithstanding all its defects, it is one of the best love-stories
of the Greeks. Cleitophon is represented in it relating to a friend the whole
course of the events from beginning to end, a plan which renders the story rather
tedious, and makes the narrator appear affected and insipid. Achilles, like his
predecessor Heliodorus, disdained having recourse to what is marvellous and improbable
in itself, but the accumulation of adventures and of physical as well as moral
difficulties, which the lovers have to overcome, before they are happily united,
is too great and renders the story improbable, though their arrangement and succession
are skilfully managed by the author. Numerous parts of the work however are written
without taste and judgment, and do not appear connected with the story by any
internal necessity. Besides these, the work has a great many digressions, which,
although interesting in themselves and containing curious information, interrupt
and impede the progress of the narrative. The work is full of imitations of other
writers from the time of Plato to that of Achilles himself, and while he thus
trusts to his books and his learning, he appears ignorant of human nature and
the affairs of real life. The laws of decency and morality are not always paid
due regard to, a defect which is even noticed by Photius. The style of the work,
on which the author seems to have bestowed his principal care, is thoroughly rhetorical:
there is a perpetual striving after elegance and beauty, after images, puns, and
antitheses. These things, however, were just what the age of Achilles required,
and that his novel was much read, is attested by the number of MSS. still extant.
A part of it was first printed in a Latin translation by Annibal della
Croce (Crucejus), Leyden, 1544; a complete translation appeared at Basel in 1554.
The first edition of the Greek original appeared at Heidelberg, 1601, 8vo, printed
together with similar works of Longus and Parthenius. An edition, with a voluminous
though rather careless commentary, was published by Salmasius, Leyden, 1640, 8vo.
The best and most recent edition is by Fr. Jacobs, Leipzig, 1821, in 2 vols. 8vo.
The first volume contains the prolegomena, the text and the Latin translation
by Crucejus, and the second the commentary. There is an English translation of
the work, by A. H. (Anthony Hodges), Oxford, 1638, 8vo.
Suidas ascribes to this same Achilles Tatius, a work on the sphere
(peri sphairas), a fragment of which professing to be an introduction to the Phaenomena
of Aratus (Eisagoge eis ta Aratou Phainomena) is still extant. But as this work
is referred to by Firmicus (Mathes. iv. 10), who lived earlier than the time we
have assigned to Achilles, the author of the work on the Sphere must have lived
before the time of the writer of the romance. The work itself is of no particular
value. It is printed in Petavius, Uranologia, Paris, 1630, and Amsterdam, 1703,
fol. Suidas also mentions a work of Achilles Tatius on Etymology
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
Antiphilus (Antiphilos). A Greek painter born in Egypt in the latter half of the fourth century B.C., a contemporary and rival of Apelles; he probably spent the last part of his life at the court of the first Ptolemy. The ancients praise the lightness and dexterity with which he handled subjects of high art, as well as scenes in daily life. Two of his pictures in the latter kind were especially famous, one of a boy blowing a fire, and another of women dressing wool. From his having painted a man named Gryllus (pig) with playful allusions to the sitter's name, caricatures in general came to be called grylli (Pliny , Pliny H. N.xxxv. 114Pliny H. N., 138).
Antiphilus was by birth an Hellenistic Egyptian, who was already established at Alexandria when Apelles went there. Quintilian calls him facilitate praestantissimus, and his versatility is shown in the subjects of his works: these included large pictures in tempera, genre pictures, such as a boy blowing the fire (probably encaustic), and even caricature. The type of one of his works, a Satyr probably dancing, with a panther-skin, and snapping his fingers (quem aposcopeuonta appellant), is probably reflected in statuary, for example in the bronze Dancing Faun found in the Casa del Fauno at Pompeii
This extract is from: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890) (eds. William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin). Cited July 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Antiphilus of Egypt, a very distinguished painter, was the pupil of Ctesidemus,
and the contemporary and rival of Apelles (Lucian, de Calumn. lix. 1-5). Having
been born in Egypt, he went when young to the court of Macedonia, where he painted
portraits of Philip and Alexander. The latter part of his life was spent in Egypt,
under the patronage of Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, whom he painted hunting. He
flourished, therefore, during the latter half of the 4th century B. C. Concerning
his false accusation against Apelles before Ptolemy, see Apelles.
The quality in which he most excelled is thus described by Quintilian,
who mentions him among the greatest painters of the age of Philip and Alexander
(xii. 10.6): "facilitate Antiphilus, concipiendis visionibus, quas phantasias
vocant". which expressions seem to describe a light and airy elegance. In the
list of his works given by Pliny are some which answer exactly in subject to the
"phantasiai" of Quintilian (Plin. xxxv. 37, 40). Varro (R. R. iii. 2.5, Schn.)
names him with Lysippus.
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
Ctesidemus, a painter celebrated for two pictures, representing the conquest of Oechalia and the story of Laodamia. (Plin. H. N. xxxv. 40.33). He was the master of Antiphilus (Plin. xxxv. 37), a contemporary of Apelles.
Helena, (Helene), the daughter of Timon of Egypt, painted the battle of Issus about the time of its occurrence (B. C. 333). In the reign of Vespasian this picture was placed in the Temple of Peace at Rome. (Ptol. Hephaest. ap. Phot. cod. 190, p. 149, b. 30, ed. Bekker.) It is supposed by some scholars that the well-known mosaic found at Pompeii is a copy of this picture, while others believe it to represent the battle at the Granicus, others that at Arbela. All that can be safely said is, that the mosaic represents one of Alexander's battles, and that in all probability the person in the chariot is Dareius. (Muller, Archaol. d. Kunst, § 163. n. 1, 6.)
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
Aedesta (Aidesia),a female philosopher of the new Platonic school, lived in the fifth century after Christ at Alexandria. She was a relation of Syrianus and the wife of Hermeias, and was equally celebrated for her beauty and her virtues. After the death of her husband, she devoted herself to relieving the wants of the distressed and the education of her children. She accompanied the latter to Athens, where they went to study philosophy, and was received with great distinction by all the philosophers there, and especially by Proclus, to whom she had been betrothed by Syrianus, when she was quite young. She lived to a considerable age, and her funeral oration was pronounced by Damascius, who was then a young man, in hexameter verses. The names of her sons were Ammonius and Heliodorus. (Suidas, s. v.; Damascius, ap. Phot. cod. 242)
A cynic philosopher.
Ammonius. The son of Hermias, so called for distinction's sake from other individuals of the name, was a native of Alexandria, and a disciple of Proclus. He taught philosophy at Alexandria about the beginning of the sixth century. His system was an eclectic one, embracing principles derived from both Aristotle and Plato. He cannot be regarded as an original thinker: he was very strong, however, in mathematics, and in the study of the exact sciences, which rectified his judgment, and preserved him, no doubt, from the extravagances of the New Platonism. Ammonius has left commentaries on the Introduction of Porphyry; on the Categories of Aristotle, together with a life of that philosopher; on his treatise Of Interpretation; and scholia on the first seven books of the Metaphysics. The scholia on the Metaphysics have never been edited.
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
Ammonius (Ammonios), son of Herimeas, studied with his brother Heliodorus at Athens under Proclus (who died A. D. 484), and was the master of Simplicius, Asclepius Trallianus, John Philoponus, and Damascius. His Commentaries (in Greek) on Plato and Ptolemy are lost, as well as many on Aristotle. His extant works are Commentaries on the Isagoge of Porphyry, or the Five Predicables, first published at Venice in 1500, and On the Categories of Aristotle, and De Intterpretatione, first published at Venice in 1503.
Ammonius (Ammonios). Saccas or Saccophorus (so called because in early life he had been a porter), a celebrated philosopher, who flourished about the beginning of the third century. He was born at Alexandria, of Christian parents, and was early instructed in the catechetical schools established in that city. Here, under the Christian preceptors, Athenagoras, Pantoenus, and Clemens Alexandrinus, he acquired a strong propensity towards philosophical studies, and became exceedingly desirous of reconciling the different opinions which at that time subsisted among philosophers. Porphyry relates that Ammonius passed over to the legal establishment-- that is, apostatized to the pagan religion. Eusebius and Jerome, on the contrary, assert that Ammonius continued in the Christian faith until the end of his life. But it is probable that those Christian fathers refer to another Ammonius, who, in the third century, wrote a Harmony of the Gospels, or to some other person of this name, for they refer to the sacred books of Ammonius; whereas Ammonius Saccas, as his pupil Longinus attests, wrote nothing. It is not easy, indeed, to account for the particulars related of this philosopher, but upon the supposition of his having renounced the Christian faith. According to Hierocles, Ammonius was induced to adopt the plan of a distinct eclectic school, by a desire of putting an end to those contentions which had so long distracted the philosophical world. Ammonius had many eminent followers and hearers, both pagan and Christian, who all, doubtless, promised themselves much illumination from a preceptor who undertook to collect into a focus all the rays of ancient wisdom. He taught his select disciples certain sublime doctrines and mystical practices, and was called theodidaktos, "the heaven-taught philosopher." These mysteries were communicated to them under a solemn injunction of secrecy. Porphyry relates that Plotinus, with the rest of the disciples of Ammonius, promised not to divulge certain dogmas which they learned in his school, but to lodge them safely in their purified minds. This circumstance accounts for the fact mentioned on the authority of Longinus that he left nothing in writing. Ammonius probably died about the year 243.
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
Ammonius, called Saccas (Ammonios Sakkas, i. e. Sakkophoros), or sack-carrier, because his official employment was carrying the corn, landed at Alexandria, as a public porter, was born of Christian parents. Porphyry asserts, Eusebius and St. Jerome (Vir. Ill.55) deny, that he apostatized from the faith. At any rate he combined the study of philosophy with Christianity, and is regarded by those who maintain his apostasy as the founder of the later Platonic School. Among his disciples are mentioned Longinus, Herennius, Plotinus (Amm. Marcell. xxii.), both Origens, and St. Heraclas. He died A. D. 243, at the age of more than 80 years. A life of Aristotle, prefixed to the Commentary of his namesake on the Categories, has been ascribed to him, but it is probably the work of John Philoponus. The Pagan disciples of Ammonius held a kind of philosophical theology. Faith was derived by inward perception; God was threefold in escence, intelligence, (viz. in knowledge of himself) and power (viz. in activity), the two latter notions being inferior to the tirst; the care of the world was entrusted to gods of an inferior race, below those again were daemons, good and bad; an ascetic life and theurgy led to the knowledge of the Infinite, who was worshipped by the vulgar, only in their national deities. The Alexandrian physics and psychology were in accordance with these principles. If we are to consider him a Christian, he was, besides his philosophy (which would, of course, then be represented by Origen, and not by the pagan Alexandrian school as above described) noted for his writings (Euseb. H. E. vi. 19), especially on the Scriptures. He composed a Diatessaron, or Harmony of the Gospels, which exists in the Latin version of Victor, bishop of Capua (in the 6th cent., who wrongly ascribed it to Tatian) and of Luscinius. Besides the Harmony, Ammonius wrote De Consensu Moysis et Jesu (Euseb. H. E. vi. 19), which is praised by St. Jerome (Vir. Illustr.55), but is lost.
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
Areius or Arius (Areios), a citizen of Alexandria, a Pythagorean or Stoic philosopher
in the time of Augustus, who esteemed him so highly, that after the conquest of
Alexandria, he declared that he spared the city chiefly for the sake of Areius
(Plut. Ant. 80, Apophth.; Dion Cass. li. 16; Julian. Epist. 51; comp. Strab. xiv.).
Areius as well as his two sons, Dionysius and Nicanor, are said to have instructed
Augustus in philosophy (Suet. Aug. 89). He is frequently mentioned by Themistius,
who says that Augustus valued him not less than Agrippa (Themist. Orat. v. p.
63, d. viii., x., xiii.). From Quintilian (ii. 15.36, iii. 1.16) it appears, that
Areius also taught or wrote on rhetoric (Comp. Senec. consol. ad Marc. 4; Aelian,
V. H. xii. 25; Suid. s. v. Theon.).
Ariston, of Alexandria, likewise a Peripatetic philosopher, was a contemporary of Strabo, and wrote a work on the Nile. (Diog. Laert. vii. 164; Strab. xvii.) Eudorus, a contemporary of his, wrote a book on the same subject, and the two works were so much alike, that the authors charged each other with plagiarism. Who was right is not said, though Strabo seems to be inclined to think that Eudorus was the guilty party.
Aristobulus. An Alexandrine Jew, and a Peripatetic philosopher, who is supposed to have lived under Ptolemy Philometor (began to reign B. C. 180), and to have been the same as the teacher of Ptolemy Evergetes (2 Maccab. i. 10). He is said to have been the author of commentaries upon the books of Moses (Exegeseis tes Mouseos graphes), addressed to Ptolemy Philometor, which are referred to by Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom. i., v.), Eusebius (Praep. Ev. vii. 13, viii. 9, ix. 6, xiii. 12), and other ecclesiastical writers. The object of this work was to prove that the Peripatetic philosophy, and in fact almost all the Greek philosophy, was taken from the books of Moses. It is now, however, admitted that this work was not written by the Aristobulus whose name it bears, but by some later and unknown writer, whose object was to induce the Greeks to pay respect to the Jewish literature. (Valckenaer, Diatribe de Aristobulo, Judaeo, &c. edita post auctoris mortem ab J. Luzacio, Lugd. Bat. 1806.)
Asclepiodotus, of Alexandria, the most distinguished among the disciples of Proclus, and the teacher of Damascius, was one of the most zealous champions of Paganism. He wrote a commentary on the Timaeus of Plato, which however is lost. (Olympiod. Meteorolog. 4; Suidas, s. v. Asklepodotos; Damascius, Vit. Isid. ap. Phot.)
Of Alexandria, was one of the earliest and most eminent leaders of the Gnostics. The time when he lived is not ascertained with certainty, but it was probably about 120 A. D. He professed to have received from Glaucias, a disciple of St. Peter, the esoteric doctrine of that apostle. (Clem. Alex. Strom. vii., ed. Potter.) No other Christian writer makes any mention of Glaucias. Basileides was the disciple of Menander and the fellow-disciple of Saturninus. He is said to have spent some time at Antioch with Saturninus, when the latter was commencing his heretical teaching, and then to have proceeded to Persia, where he sowed the seeds of Gnosticism, which ripened under Manes. Thence he returned to Egypt, and publicly taught his heretical doctrines at Alexandria. He appears to have lived till after the accession of Antoninus Pius in 138 A. D. He made additions to the doctrines of Menander and Saturninus. A complete account of his system of theology and cosmogony is given by Mosheim (Eccles. Hist. bk. i. pt. ii. c. 5.1-13, and de Reb. Christ. ante Constant.), Lardner (History of Heretics, bk. ii. c. 2), and Walch. (Hist. der Ketzer. i. 281-309.) Basileides was the author of Commentaries on the Gospel, in twenty-four books, fragments of which are preserved in Grabe, Spicileg, ii. Origen, Ambrose, and Jerome mention a " gospel of Basileides," which may perhaps mean nothing more than his Commentaries.
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
Hierocles. A New Platonist, who flourished at Alexandria about the middle of the fifth century A.D. He has left a commentary on the Golden Verses of Pythagoras and a treatise on Providence, Destiny, and Free-will. The aim of Hierocles is to show the agreement which exists in respect of these doctrines between Plato and Aristotle and to refute the systems of Epicurus and the Stoics. We have only extracts from this latter work made by Photius and an abridgment by an unknown hand. Stobaeus has preserved for us fragments of a work of Hierocles on the worship of the gods and of several other productions of his. There exists also, under the name of Hierocles, a collection of amusing anecdotes (Asteia, Facetiae), giving an account of the ridiculous actions and sayings of book-learned men and pedants (scholastikoi). Among them are to be found the originals of several professedly modern jokes, and they furnish a model for the innumerable German witticisms at the expense of the typical Herr Professor.
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
Hierocles. A New Platonist, who lived at Alexandria about the middle of the fifth
century, and enjoyed a very great reputation. He is commonly considered to be
the author of a commentary on the golden verses of Pythagoras, which is still
extant, and in which the author endeavours to give an intelligible account of
the philosophy of Pythagoras. The verses of Pythagoras form the basis, but the
commentator endeavours to give a succinct view of the whole philosophy of Pythagoras,
whence his work is of some importance to us, and may serve as a guide in the study
of the Pythagorean philosophy. This commentary was first published in a Latin
translation by J. Aurispa, Padua, 1474, 4to., and afterwards at Rome, 1475, 1493,
1495, 4to., and at Basel, 1543, 8vo. The Greek original with a new Latin version
was first edited by J. Curterius, Paris, 1583, 12mo. A better edition, incorporating
also the fragments of other works of Hierocles, was published by J. Pearson, London,
1654 and 1655, 4to., and with additions and improvements by P. Needham, Cambridge,
1709, 8vo. A still better edition of the commentary alone is that by R. Warren,
London, 1742, 8vo.
Hierocles was further the author of an extensive work entitled Peri
pronoas kai heimarmenes kai tou eph' hemin pros ten Deian hegemonian suntaxeos,
that is, On Providence, Fate, and the reconciliation of man?s free will with the
divine government of the world. The whole consisted of seven books, and was dedicated
to Olympiodorus; but the work is now lost, and all that has come down to us consists
of some extracts from it preserved in Photius (Bibl. Cod. 214, 251). These extracts
are also found separately in some MSS., and were published by F. Morelli at Paris,
1593 and 1597, 8vo. They are also contained in Pearson's and Needham?s editions
of the Commentary on Pythagoras. From these extracts we see that Hierocles endeavored
to show the agreement between Plato and Aristotle against the doctrines of the
Stoics and Epicureans, and to refute those who attempted to deny the Divine Providence.
A third work of an ethical nature is known to us from a number of
extracts in Stobaeus (see the passages referred to above, under No. 3), on justice,
on reverence towards the gods, on the conduct towards parents and relations, towards
one?s country, on marriage, &c. The maxims they inculcate are of a highly estimable
kind. The work to which these extracts belonged probably bore the title Ta philosophoumena
(Suid. s. v. Empodon; Apostol. Prov. ix. 90). These extracts are likewise contained
in Pearson's and Needham's editions of the Commentary. There is another work,
which is referred to under the title of Oikonomikos, but which probably formed
only a part of the Ta philosophoumena.
Lastly, we have to notice that Theosebius, a disciple of Hierocles,
published a commentary on the Gorgias of Plato, which consisted of notes taken
down by the disciple in the lectures of Hierocles. (Phot. Bibl. Cod. 292.)
There is extant a work called Asteia, a collection of ludicrous tales
and anecdotes, droll ideas, and silly speeches of school pedants, &c., which was
formerly ascribed to Hierocles the New Platonist ; but it is obviously the production
of a very insignificant person, who must have lived at a later time than the New
Platonist. It was first published by Marq. Freherus, Ladenburg, 1605, 8vo., and
afterwards by J. A. Schier, Leipzig, 1750, 8vo.; it is also contained in Pearson's
and Needham's editions of the Commentary on Pythagoras, and in J. de Rhoer's Observationes
Philologicae, Groningen, 1768, 8vo.
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
Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher from Alexandria who was educated both in Jewish and Greek tradition. He held that the Jewish God was the basis of all philosophy, and that God was without attributes and so high above everything earthly that intermediate beings had to interact between Man and God. These beings he called logos, and they were to be found in the spiritual world of ideas.
This text is cited Sept 2003 from the In2Greece URL below.
Philon. Called Iudaeus, "the Jew." Born of a priestly family at Alexandria, about B.C. 25, he carefully studied the different branches of Greek culture, and, in particular, acquired a knowledge of the Platonic philosophy, while in no way abandoning the study of the Scriptures or the creed of his nation. In A.D. 39 he went to Rome as an emissary to the emperor Caligula in the interest of his fellow-countrymen, whose religious feelings were offended by a decree ordering them to place the statue of the deified emperor in their synagogues. This embassy, which led to no result, is described by him in a work which is still extant, though in an incomplete form. Philo is the chief representative of the Graeco-Judaic philosophy. He wrote numerous Greek works in a style modelled on that of Plato. These are remarkable for moral earnestness, passionate enthusiasm, and vigour of thought. They include allegorical expositions of portions of the Scriptures, as well as works of ethical, historical, or political purport. Several of his works only survive in Armenian versions. His philosophy, especially his theology, is an endeavour to reconcile Platonism with Judaism.
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
Philo of Alexandria was a Greek-speaking Jewish philosopher who attempted
to synthesize faith and philosophical reason. In his philosophy Philo was prepared
to concede a good deal to Hellenism in his interpretation of the Bible.
He was the first to distinguish between the knowability of God's existence
and the unknowability of his essence.
This text is cited July 2003 from the Hyperhistory Online URL below.
1. An Alexandrian philosopher, who flourished about the year B.C. 430. He is celebrated for his knowledge of the Aristotelian doctrines, and was the master of Proclus, who attended upon his school before he was twenty years of age.
2. A Platonic philosopher, who flourished towards the close of the sixth century. He was the author of commentaries on four of Plato's dialogues--the First Alcibiades, the Phaedon, Gorgias, and Philebus. The first of these contains a life of Plato, in which we meet with certain particulars relative to the philosopher not to be found elsewhere. This Olympiodorus was a native of Alexandria. The title which his commentaries bear appears to indicate by the words apo phones ("from the mouth" of Olympiodorus) that they were copied down by the hearers of the philosopher.
3. A native of Alexandria, a Peripatetic, who flourished during the latter half of the sixth century A.D. He was the author of a commentary on the meteorology of Aristotle, still extant.
Euphrates. A Stoic philosopher and native of Alexandria, who flourished in the second century. He was a friend of the philosopher Apollonius of Tyana, who introduced him to Vespasian. Pliny the Younger (Epist. i. 10) speaks highly of his character. When he found his strength worn out by disease and old age, he voluntarily put a period to his life by drinking hemlock, having first, for some unknown reason, obtained permission from the emperor Hadrian.
Syrianus (Surianos). A Greek philosopher of the Neo-Platonic School. He was a native of Alexandria, and studied at Athens under Plutarchus, whom he succeeded as head of the NeoPlatonic School in the early part of the fifth century A.D. The most distinguished of his disciples was Proclus, who regarded him with the greatest veneration, and gave directions that at his death he should be buried in the same tomb with Syrianus. Syrianus wrote several works, some of which are extant. Of these the most valuable are the commentaries on the Metaphysics of Aristotle.
Sotion. An Alexandrian philosopher of the third century B.C., who wrote a work called Diadochai on the different teachers of the schools of philosophy ( Diog. Laert.v. 86).
Demetrius. Of Alexandria, a Peripatetic philosopher. (Diog. Laert. v. 84.) There is a work entitled peri ermeneias, which has come down to us under the name of Demetrius Phalereus, which however, for various reasons, cannot be his production: writers of a later age are referred to in it, and there are also words and expressions which prove it to be a later work. Most critics are therefore inclined to ascribe it to our Demetrius of Alexandria. It is written with considerable taste, and with reference to the best authors, and is a rich source of information on the main points of oratory. If the work is the production of our Demetrius, who is known to have written on oratory (technai retorikai, Diog. Laert. l. c.), it must have been written in the time of the Antonines. It was first printed in Aldus's Rhetores Graeci, i. Separate modern editions were made by J. G. Schneider, Altenburg, 1779, 8vo., and Fr. Goller, Lips. 1837, 8vo. The best critical text is that in Walz's Rhetor. Graec. vol. ix. init., who has prefixed valuable prolegomena.
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
Demetrius. Of Alexandria, a Cynic philosopher, and a disciple of Theombrotus. (Diog. Laert. v. 95.)
Demetrius, surnamed Chytras, a Cynic philosopher at Alexandria, in the reign of
Constantius, who, suspecting him guilty of forbidden practices, ordered him to
be tortured. The Cynic bore the pain inflicted on him as a true philosopher, and
was afterwards set free again. (Ammian. Marc. xix. 12.) He is probably the same
as the person mentioned by the emperor Julian (Orat. vii.) by the name of Chytron.
(Vales. ad Ammian. Marc. l. c.)
Dion. Of Alexandria, an Academic philosopher and a friend of Antiochus. He was sent by his fellow-citizens as ambassador to Rome, to complain of the conduct of their king, Ptolemy Auletes. On his arrival at Rome he was poisoned by the king's secret agents, and the strongest suspicion of the murder fell upon M. Caelius. (Cic. Acad. iv. 4, pro Cael. 10, 21; Strab. xvii.)
Chaeremon of Alexandria, a Stoic philosopher and grammarian, and an historical
writer, was the chief librarian of the Alexandrian library, or at least of that
part of it which was kept in the temple of Serapis. He is called hierogrammateus,
that is, keeper and expounder of the sacred books (Tzetz. in Hom. Il.; Euseb.
Praep. Erang. v. 10). He was the teacher of Dionysius of Alexandria, who succeeded
him, and and who flourished from the time of Nero to that of Trajan (Suid. s.
v. Dionusios Alexandreus). This fixes his date to the first half of the first
century after Christ; and this is confirmed by the mention of him in connexion
with Cornutus (Suid. s. v. Origenes; Euseb. Hist. Ecc. vi. 1.9). He accompanied
Aelius Gallus in his expedition up Egypt, and made great professions of his astronomical
knowledge, but incurred much ridicule on account of his ignorance (Strab. xvii.):
but the suspicion of Fabricius, that this account refers to a different person,
is perhaps not altogether groundless (Bibl. Graec. iii.). He was afterwards called
to Rome, and became the preceptor of Nero, in conjunction with Alexander of Aegae
(Suid. s. v. Alexandros Aigaios).
His chief work was a history of Egypt, which embraced both its sacred
and profane history. An interesting fragment respecting the Egyptian priests is
preserved by Porphyry (de Abstinent. iv. 6) and Jerome (c. Jovinianum, ii.). He
also wrote, 2. On Hieroglyphics (hierogluphika, Suid. s. v. Hierogluphika and
Chairemon). 3. On Comets (peri kometon, Origen. c. Cels. i. 59: perhaps in Seneca,
Quaest. Nat. vii. 5, we should read Chaeremon for Charimander; but this is not
certain, for Charimander is mentioned by Pappus, lib. vii.). 4. A grammatical
work, peri sundesmon, which is quoted by Apollonius.
As an historian, Chaeremon is charged by Josephus with wilful falsehood
(c. Apion. cc. 32, 33). This charge seems to be not unfounded, for, besides the
proofs of it alleged by Josephus, we are informed by Tzetzes ( Chil. v. 6), that
Chaeremon stated that the phoenix lived 7000 years !
Of his philosophical views we only know that he was a Stoic, and that he was the
leader of that party which explained the Egyptian religious system as a mere allegory
of the worship of nature, as displayed in the visible world (horomenoi kosmoi)
in opposition to the views of Iambrichus. His works were studied by Origen (Suid.
s. v. Origenes; Euseb. Hist. Ecc. vi. 19). Martial (xi. 56) wrote an epigram upon
him.
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
CANOPUS (Ancient city) EGYPT
Antoninus. A new-Platonist, who lived early in the fourth century of our era, was a son of Eustathius and Sosipatra, and had a school at Canopus, near Alexandria in Egypt. He devoted himself wholly to those who sought his instructions, but he never expressed any opinion upon divine things, which he considered beyond man's comprehension. He and his disciples were strongly attached to the heathen religion; but he had acuteness enough to see that its end was near at hand, and he predicted that after his death all the splendid temples of the gods would be changed into tombs. His moral conduct is described as truly exemplary. (Eunapius, Vit. Aedesii)
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
ALEXANDRIA (Airport) EGYPT
,
, 29/04/1863 - 29/04/1933
ALEXANDRIA (Ancient city) EGYPT
Editor's Information: Native of Naucratis, he was born in Alexandria; information, though, concerning the poet are found in ancient Rhodes , where he spent many years of his life; this is why he was surnamed Rhodius.
Aeschylus (Aischulos), of Alexandria, an epic poet, who must have lived previous to the end of the second century of our aera, and whom Athenaeus calls a well-informed man. One of his poems bore the title " Amphitryon," and another " Messeniaca." A fragment of the former is preserved in Athenaeus. (xiii. p. 599.) According to Zenobius (v. 85), he had also written a work on proverbs. (Peri Paroimion)
Claudianus, Claudius, the last of the Latin classic poets, flourished under Theodosius
and his sons Arcadius and Honorius. Our knowledge of his personal history is very
limited. That he was a native of Alexandria seems to be satisfactorily established
from the direct testimony of Suidas, corroborated by an allusion in Sidonius Apollinaris
(Epist. ix. 13), and certain expressions in his own works (e. g. Epist. v. 3,
i. 39, 56). It has been maintained by some that he was a Gaul, and by others that
he was a Spaniard; but neither of these positions is supported by even a shadow
of evidence, while the opinion advanced by Petrarch and Politian, that he was
of Florentine extraction, arose from their confounding the Florentinus addressed
in the introduction to the second book of the Raptus Proserpinae, and who was
praefectus urbi in A. D. 396, with the name of their native city. We are entirely
ignorant of the parentage, education, and early career of Claudian, and of the
circumstances under which he quitted his country. We find him at Rome in 395,
when he composed his panegyric on the consulate of Probinus and Olybrius. He appears
to have cultivated poetry previously, but this was his first essay in Latin verse,
and the success by which it was attended induced him to abandon the Grecian for
the Roman muse (Epist. iv. 13). During the five years which immediately followed
the death of Theodosius, he was absent from Rome, attached, it would appear, to
the retinue of Stilicho (de Cons. Stilich. praef. 23), under whose special protection
he seems to have been received almost immediately after the publication of the
poem noticed above. We say after, because he makes no mention of the name of the
all-powerful Vandal in that composition, where it might have been most naturally
and appropriately introduced in conjunction with the exploits of Theodosius, while
on all subsequent occasions he eagerly avails himself of every pretext for sounding
the praises of his patron, and expressing his own fervent devotion. Nor was he
less indebted to the good offices of Serena than to the influence of her husband.
He owed, it is true, his court favour and preferment to the latter, but by the
interposition of the former he gained his African bride, whose parents, although
they might have turned a deaf ear to the suit of a poor poet, were unable to resist
the solicitations of the niece of Theodosius, the wife of the general who ruled
the ruler of the empire. The following inscription, discovered at Rome in the
fifteenth century, informs us that a statue of Claudian was erected in the Forum
of Trajan by Arcadius and Honorius at the request of the senate, and that he enjoyed
the titles of Notarius and Tribunus, but the nature of the office, whether civil
or military, denoted by the latter appellation we are unable to determine:
CL. CLAUDIANI V. C. CL. CLAUDIANO V. C. TRIBUNO ET NOTARIO INTER CETERAS VIGENTES
ARTES PRAEGLORIOSISSIMO POETARUM LICET AD MEMORIAM SEMPITERNAM CARMINA AB EODEM
SCRIPTA SUFFICIANT ADTAMEN TESTIMONII GRATIA OB JUDICII SUI FIDEM D D. N N. ARCADIUS
ET HONORIUS FILICISSIMI AC DOCTISSIMI IMPERATORES SENATU PETENTE STATUAM IN FORO
DIVI TRAJANI ERIGI COLLOCARIQUE JUSSERUNT.
The close of Claudian's career is enveloped in the same obscurity as its commencement.
The last historical allusion in his writings is to the 6th consulship of Honorius,
which belongs to the year 404. That he may have been involved in the misfortunes
of Stilicho, who was put to death in 408, and may have retired to end his days
in his native country, is a probable conjecture, but nothing more. The idea that
he at this time became exposed to the enmity of the powerful and vindictive Hadrian,
whom he had provoked by the insolence of wit, and who with cruel vigilance had
watched and seized the opportunity of revenge, has been adopted by Gibbon with
less than his usual caution. It rests upon two assumptions alike incapable of
proof--first, that by Pharius, whose indefatigable rapacity is contrasted in an
epigram (xxx.) with the lethargic indolence of Mallius, the poet meant to indicate
the praetorian prefect, who was a native of Egypt; and secondly, that the palinode
which forms the subject of one of his epistles refers to that effusion, and is
addressed to the same person.
The religion of Claudian, as well as that of Appuleius, Ausonius,
and many of the later Latin writers, has been a theme of frequent controversy.
There is, however, little cause for doubt. It is impossible to resist the explicit
testimony of St. Augustin (de Civ. Dei, v. 26), who declares that he was "a Christi
nomine alienus", and of Orosius, who designates him as "Poeta quidem eximius sed
paganus pervicacissimus". The argument for his Christianity derived from an ambiguous
expression, interpreted as an admission of the unity of God (III. Cons. Honor.
96), is manifestly frivolous, and the Greek and Latin hymns appended to most editions
of his works are confessedly spurious. That his conscience may have had all the
pliancy of indifference on religious topics is probable enough, but we have certainly
nothing to adduce against the positive assertions of his Christian contemporaries.
The works of Claudian now extant are the following:
1. Three panegyrics on the third, fourth, and sixth consulships of Honorius respectively.
2. A poem on the nuptials of Honorius and Maria.
3. Four short Fescennine lays on the same subject.
4. A panegyric on the consulship of Probinus and Olybrius, with which is interwoven
a description of the exploits of the emperor Theodosius.
5. The praises of Stilicho, in two books, and a panegyric on his consulship, in
one book.
6. The praises of Serena, the wife of Stilicho: this piece is mutilated or was
left unfinished.
7. A panegyric on the consulship of Flavius Mallius Theodorus.
8. The Epithalamium of Palladius and Celerina.
9. An invective against Rufinus, in two books.
10. An invective against Eutropius, in two books.
11. De Bello Gildonico, the first book of an historical poem on the war in Africa
against Gildo.
12. De Bello Getico, an historical poem on the successful campaign of Stilicho
against Alaric and the Goths, concluding with the battle of Pollentia. 13. Raptus
Proserpinae, three books of an unfinished epic on the rape of Proserpine.
14. Gigantomachia, a fragment extending to a hundred and twenty-eight lines only.
15. Ten lines of a Greek poem on the same subject, perhaps a translation by some
other hand from the former.
16. Five short epistles; the first of these is a sort of prayer, imploring forgiveness
for some petulant attack. It is usually inscribed "Deprecatio ad Hadrianum Praefectum
Praetorio", but from the variations in the manuscripts this title appears to be
merely the guess of some transcriber. The remaining four, which are very brief,
are addressed -to Serena, to Olybrius, to Probinus, to Gennadius.
17. Eidyllia, a collection of seven poems chiefly on subjects connected with natural
history, as may be seen by their titles, Phoenix, Hystrix, Torpedo, Nilus, Magnes,
Aponus, De Piis Fratribus.
18. A collection of short occasional pieces, in Greek as well as Latin, comprehended
under the general title of Epigrammata. The Christian hymns to be found among
these in most editions are, as we have observed above, certainly spurious.
19. Lastly, we have a hundred and thirty-seven lines entitled "Laudes Herculis";
but with the exception of some slight resemblance in style, we have no ground
for attributing them to Claudian.
The measure employed in the greater number of these compositions is
the heroic hexameter. The short prologues prefixed to many of the longer poems
are in elegiacs, and so also are the last four epistles, the last two idylls,
and most of the epigrams. The first of the Fescennines is a system of Alcaic hendecasyllabics;
the second is in a stanza of five lines, of which the first three are iambic dimeters
catalectic, the fourth is a pure choriambic dimeter, and the fifth a trochaic
dimeter brachycatalectic; the third is a system of anapaestic dimeters acatalectic;
and the fourth is a system of choriambic trimeters acatalectic.
It will be at once perceived that the first thirteen articles in the
above catalogue, constituting a very large proportion of the whole works of Claudian,
although some of them differ from the rest and from each other in form, belong
essentially to one class of poems, being such as would be exacted from a laureate
as the price of the patronage he enjoyed. The object in view is the same in all--all
breathe the same spirit, all are declamations in verse devoted either professedly
or virtually to the glorification of the emperor, his connexions and favourites,
and to the degradation of their foes. We must also bear in mind, while we discuss
the merits and defects of our author, and compare him with those who went before,
that although Virgil and Horace were flatterers as well as he, yet their strains
were addressed to very different ears. When they, after entering upon some theme
apparently far removed from any courtly train of thought, by some seemingly natural
although unexpected transition seemed as it were compelled to trace a resemblance
between their royal benefactor and the gods and heroes of the olden time, they
well knew that their skill would be appreciated by their cultivated hearers, and
that the value of the compliment would be enhanced by the dexterous delicacy with
which it was administered. But such refinements were by no means suited to the
"purple-born" despots of the fifth century and their half-barbarous retainers.
Their appetite for praise was craving and coarse. If the adulation was presented
in sufficient quantity, they cared little for the manner in which it was seasoned,
or the form under which it was served up. Hence there is no attempt at concealment;
no veil is thought requisite to shroud the real nature and object of these panegyrics.
All is broad, direct, and palpable. The subject is in each case boldly and fully
proposed at the commencement, and followed out steadily to the end. The determination
to praise everything and the fear lest something should be left unpraised, naturally
lead to a systematic and formal division of the subject; and hence the career
of each individual is commonly traced upwards from the cradle, and in the case
of Stilicho separate sections are allotted to his warlike, his peaceful, and his
magisterial virtues,--the poet warning his readers of the transition from one
subdivision to another with the same care as when an accurate lecturer discriminates
the several heads of his discourse. It can scarcely be argued, however, that the
absence of all reserve rendered the task more easy. The ingenuity of the author
is severely taxed by other considerations, with this disadvantage, that just in
proportion as we might feel disposed to admire his skill in hiding the ugliness
of his idol within the folds of the rich garment with which it is invested, so
are we constrained to loathe his servile hypocrisy and laugh at his unblushing
falsehood. It was indeed hard to be called upon to vaunt the glories of an empire
which was crumbling away day by day from the grasp of its feeble rulers; it was
harder still to be forced to prove a child of nine years old, at which age Honorius
received the title of Augustus, to be a model of wisdom and kingly virtue, and
to blazon the military exploits of a boy of twelve who had never seen an enemy
except in chains; and hardest of all to be constrained to encircle with a halo
of divine perfections a selfish Vandal like Stilicho. To talk of the historical
value of such works as the Bellum Gildonicum and the Bellum Geticum is sheer folly.
Wherever we have access to other sources of information, we discover at once that
many facts have been altogether suppressed, and many others distorted and falsely
coloured; and hence it is impossible to feel any confidence in the fidelity of
the narrator in regard to those incidents not elsewhere recorded.
The simple fact that pieces composed under such circumstances, to
serve such temporary and unworthy purposes, have been read, studied, admired,
and even held up as models, ever since the revival of letters, is in itself no
mean tribute to the powers of their author. Nor can we hesitate to pronounce him
a highly-gifted man. Deeply versed in all the learning of the Egyptian schools,
possessing a most extensive knowledge of the history of man and of the physical
world, of the legends of mythology, and of the moral and theological speculations
of the different philosophical sects, he had the power to light up this mass of
learning by the fire of a brilliant imagination, and to concentrate it upon the
objects of his adulation as it streamed forth in a flashing flood of rhetoric.
The whole host of heaven and every nation and region of the earth are called upon
to aid in extolling his patron, the prince, and their satellites; on the other
hand, an infernal Pantheon of demons and furies with all the horrors of Styx and
Tartarus, are evoked as the allies and tormentors of a Rufinus, and all nature
is ransacked for foul and loathsome images to body forth the mental and corporeal
deformity of the eunuch consul. His diction is highly brilliant, although sometimes
shining with the glitter of tinsel ornaments; his similes and illustrations are
elaborated with great skill, but the marks of toil are frequently too visible.
His versification is highly sonorous, but is deficient in variety; the constant
recurrence of the same cadences, although in themselves melodious, palls upon
the ear. His command of the language is perfect; and although the minute critic
may fancy that he detects some traces of the foreign extraction of the bard, yet
in point of style neither Lucan nor Statius need be ashamed to own him as their
equal. His powers appear to greatest advantage in description. His pictures often
approach perfection, combining the softness and rich glow of the Italian with
the force and reality of the Dutch school.
We have as yet said nothing of the Rape of Proserpine, from which
we might expect to form the most favourable estimate of his genius, for here at
least it had fair and free scope, untrammeled by the fetters which cramped its
energies in panegyric. But, although these causes of embarrassment are removed,
we do not find the result anticipated. If we become familiar with his other works
in the first instance, we rise with a feeling of disappointment from the perusal
of this. We find, it is true, the same animated descriptions and harmonious numbers;
but there is a want of taste in the arrangement of the details, of sustained interest
in the action, and of combination in the different members, which gives a fragmentary
character to the whole, and causes it to be read with much greater pleasure in
extracts than continuously. The subject, although grand in itself, is injudiciously
handled; for, all the characters being gods, it is impossible to invest their
proceedings with the interest which attaches to struggling and suffering humanity.
The impression produced by the commencement is singularly unfortunate. The rage
of the King of Shades that he alone of gods is a stranger to matrimonial bliss,
his determination to war against heaven that he may avenge his wrongs, the mustering
and marshalling of the Titans and all the monsters of the abyss for battle against
Jupiter, are figured forth with great dignity and pomp; but when we find this
terrific tempest at once quelled by the very simple and sensible suggestion of
old Lachesis, that he might probably obtain a wife, if he chose to ask for one,
the whole scene is converted into a burlesque, and the absurdity is if possible
heightened by the blustering harangue of Pluto to the herald, Mercury. Throughout
this poem, as well as in all the other works of Claudian, we lament the absence
not only of true sublimity but of simple nature and of real feeling: our imagination
is often excited, our intellect is often gratified; but our nobler energies are
never awakened; no cord of tenderness is struck, no kindly sympathy is enlisted;
our hearts are never softened.
Of the Idylls we need hardly say anything; little could be expected
from the subjects: they may be regarded as clever essays in versification, and
nothing more. The best is that in which the hot springs of Aponus are described.
The Fescennine verses display considerable lightness and grace; the epigrams,
with the exception of a very few which are neatly and pointedly expressed, are
not worth reading.
The Editio Princeps of Claudian was printed at Vicenza by Jacobus
Dusenius, 1482, under the editorial inspection of Barnabus Celsanus, and appears
to be a faithful representation of the MS. from which it was taken. Several of
the smaller poems are wanting. The second edition was printed at Parma by Angelus
Ugoletus, 1493, superintended by Thadaeus, who made use of several MSS. for emending
the text, especially one obtained from Holland. Here first we find the epigrams,
the Epithalamium of Palladius and Serena, the epistles to Serena and to Hadrian,
the Aponus, and the Gigantomachia. The edition printed at Vienna by Hieronymus
Victor and Joannes Singrenius, 1510, with a text newly revised by Joannes Camers,
is the first which contains the Laudes Herculis, In Sirenas, Laus Christi, and
Minacula Christi. The first truly critical edition was that of Theod. Pulmannus,
printed at Antwerp by Plantinus, 1571, including the notes of Delrio. The second
edition of Caspar Barthius, Francf. and Hamburg. 1650 and 1654, boasts of being
completed with the aid of seventeen MSS., and is accompanied by a voluminous commentary;
but the notes are heavy, and the typography very incorrect. The edition of Gesner,
Lips. 1759, is a useful one; but by far the best which has yet appeared is that
of the younger Burmann, Amst. 1760, forming one of the series of the Dutch Variorum
Classics.
The "Raptus Proserpinae" was published separately, under the title
"Claudiani de Raptu Proserpinae Tragoediae duae", at Utrecht, by Ketelaer and
Leempt, apparently several years before the Editio Princeps of the collected works
noticed above, and three other editions of the same poem belong to the same early
period, although neither the names of the printers nor the precise dates can be
ascertained.
We have a complete metrical translation of the whole works of Claudian
by A. Hawkins, Lond. 1817; and there are also several English translations of
many of the separate pieces, few of which are of any merit.
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
Claudianus (Klaudianos), the author of five epigrams in the Greek Anthology, is commonly
identified with the celebrated Latin poet of the same name; but this seems to
be disproved by the titles and contents of two additional epigrams, ascribed to
him in the Vatican MS., which are addressed "to the Saviour", and which shew that
their author was a Christian. He is probably the poet whom Evagrius (Hist. Eccl.
i. 19) mentions as flourishing under Theodosius II., who reigned A. D. 408-450.
The Gigantomachia, of which a fragment still exists, and which has been ascribed
to the Roman poet, seems rather to belong to this one. He wrote also, according
to the Scholia on the Vatican MS., poems on the history of certain cities of Asia
Minor and Syria, patria Tarsou, Anazarbou, Berutou, Nikaias, whence it has been
inferred that he was a native of that part of Asia. (Jacobs, Anth Graec. xiii.)
Capito (Kapiton), of Alexandria, is called by Athenaeus (x.) an epic poet, and the author of a work Erotika, which consisted of at least two books. In another passage (viii.) he mentions a work of his entitled pros Philopappon apomnemoneumata, from which he quotes a statement. It is not improbable that the Capito of whom there is an epigram in the Greek Anthology may be the same person as the epic poet.
Ezekielus, (Ezekielos), the author of a work in Greek entitled exagoge, which is usually called a tragedy, but which seems rather to havo been a metrical history, in the dramatic form, and in iambic verse, written in imitation of the Greek tragedies. The subject was the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. The author appears to have been a Jew, and to have lived at the court of the Ptolemies, at Alexandria, about the second century B. C. Considerable fragments of the work are preserved by Eusebius (Praep. Evang. ix. 28, 29), Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom. i.), and Eustathius (ad Hexaem.). These fragments were first collected, and printed with a Latin version, by Morell, Par. 1580 and 1590, 8vo., and were reprinted in the Poetae (Chrit. Graec., Par. 1609, 8vo., in Lectius's Corpus Poet. Graec. Trag. et Com., Col. Allobr. 1614, fol., in Bignius's Collect. Poet. Christ., appended to the Biblioth. Patr. Graec., Par. 1624, fol., in the 14th volume of the Bibl. Patr. Graec., Par. 1644-1654, fol., and in a separate form, with a German translation and notes, by L. M. Philippson, Berlin., 1830, 8vo. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. ii.; Weleker, die Griech. Tragod.)
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
Phalaecus, (Phalaikos). A lyric and epigrammatic poet, from whom the hendecasyllabic metre, called Phalaecian, took its name. Five of his epigrams are preserved in the Greek Anthology. His date is uncertain, but he was probably one of the principal Alexandrian poets.
Phanocles (Phanokles). A Greek elegiac poet of the Alexandrine Period. He celebrated in erotic elegies (Erotes e Kaloi) the loves of beautiful boys. A considerable fragment remaining describes the love of Orpheus for Calais, the beautiful son of Boreas, and his death ensuing therefrom at the hands of the Thracian women. The language is simple and spirited, and the versification melodious. The fragments have been edited by Bach (Halle, 1829), and also by Schneidewin in his Delectus Poesis Graecae, p. 158 foll.
C. Hostilius, was sent by the senate to Alexandria in B. C. 168 to interpose as legatus between Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, and Ptolemy Physcon and Cleopatra, the sovereigns of Egypt.
Didymus. Of Alexandria, lived in the fourth century of the Christian era, and must be distinguished from Didymus the monk, who is spoken of by Socrates. (Hist. Eccles. iv. 33.) At the age of four years, and before he had learnt to read, he became blind; but this calamity created in him an invincible thirst after knowledge, and by intense application he succeeded in becoming not only a distinguished grammarian, rhetorician, dialectician, mathematician, musician, astronomer, and philosopher (Socrat. iv. 25; Sozom. iii. 15; Rufin. xi. 7; Theodoret. iv. 29; Nicephor. ix. 17), but also in acquiring a most extensive knowledge of sacred literature. He devoted himself to the service of the church, and was no less distinguished for the exemplary purity of his conduct than for his learning and acquirements. In A. D. 392, when Hieronymus wrote his work on illustrious ecclesiastical authors, Didymns was still alive, and professor of theology at Alexandria. He died in A. D. 396 at the age of eighty-five. As professor of theology he was at the head of the school of the Catechumeni, and the most distinguished personages of that period, such as Hieronymus, Rufinus, Palladius, Ambrosius, Evagrius, and Isidorus, are mentioned among his pupils. Didymus was the author of a great number of theological works, but most of them are lost. The following are still extant :-- 1. " Liber de Spiritu Sancto." The Greek original is lost, but we possess a Latin translation made by Hieronymus, about A. D. 386, which is printed among the works of Hieronymus. Although the author as well as the translator intended it to be one book (Hieronym. Catal. 109), yet Marcianaeus in his edition of Hieronymus has divided it into three books. The work is mentioned by St. Augustin (Quaest. in Exod. ii. 25), and Nicephorus (ix. 17). Separate editions of it were published at Cologne, 1531, 8vo., and a better one by Fuchte, Helmstadt, 1614, 8vo. 2. "Breves Enarrationes in Epistolas Canonicas." This work is likewise extant only in a Latin translation, and was first printed in the Cologne edition of the first work. It is contained also in all the collections of the works of the fathers. The Latin translation is the work of Epiphanius, and was made at the request of Cassiodorus. (Cassiod. de Institut. Divin. 8.) 3. " Liber adversus Manichaeos." This work appears to be incomplete, since Damascenus (Parallel. p. 507) quotes a passage from it which is now not to be found in it. It was first printed in a Latin version by F. Turrianus in Possevin's Apparatus Sanct. ad Calc. Lit. D., Venice, 1603, and at Cologne in 1608. It was reprinted in some of the Collections of the Fathers, until at last Combefisius in his " Auctarium novissimum " (ii.) published the Greek original. (Paris, 1672, fol.) 4. Peri Triados. This work was formerly believed to be lost, but J. A. Mingarelli discovered a MS. of it, and published it with a Latin version at Bologna, 1769, fol. A list of the lost works of Didymus is given by Fabric. Bibl. Graec. ix.; compare Cave, Hist. Lit. i. ; Guericke, de Schola Alexandr. 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
ALEXANDRIA (Airport) EGYPT
ALEXANDRIA (Ancient city) EGYPT
Cosmas (Kosmas), commonly called Indicopleustes (Indian navigator), an Egyptian monk,
who flourished in the reign of Justinian, about A. D. 535. In early life he followed
the employment of a merchant, and was extensively engaged in traffic. He navigated
the Red Sea, advanced to India, visited various nations, Ethiopia, Syria, Arabia,
Persia, and almost all places of the East. Impelled, as it would appear, more
by curiosity than by desire of gain, eager to inspect the habits and manners of
distant people, he carried on a commerce amid dangers sufficient to appal the
most adventurous. There is abundant reason for believing, that he was an attentive
observer of every thing that met his eye, and that he carefully registered his
remarks upon the scenes and objects which presented themselves. But a migratory
life became irksome. After many years spent in this manner, he bade adieu to worldly
occupations, took up his residence in a monastery, and devoted himself to a contemplative
life. Possessed of multifarious knowledge acquired in many lands, and doubtless
learned according to the standard of his times, he began to embody his information
in books. His chief work is his Topographia Christianike, "Topographia Christiana,
sive Christianorum Opinio de Mundo", in twelve books. The last book, as hitherto
published, is imperfect at the end. The object of the treatise is to shew, in
opposition to the universal opinion of astronomers, that the earth is not spherical,
but an extended surface. The arguments adduced in proof of such a position are
drawn from Scripture, reason, testimony, and the authority of the fathers. Weapons
of every kind are employed against the prevailing theory, and the earth is affirmed
to be a vast oblong plain, its length from east to west being more than twice
its breadth, the whole enclosed by the ocean. The only value of the work consists
in the geographical and historical information it contains. Its author describes
in general with great accuracy the situation of countries, the manners of their
people, their modes of commercial intercourse, the nature and properties of plants
and animals, and many other particulars of a like kind, which serve to throw light
on the Scriptures. His illustrations, which are far from being methodically arranged,
touch upon subjects the most diverse. He speaks, for example, of the locality
where the Israelites passed through the Red Sea, their garments in the wilderness,
the terrestrial paradise, the epistle to the Hebrews, the birthday of the Lord,
the rite of baptism, the catholic epistles, Egyptian hieroglyphics, the state
of the Christians in India, their bishops, priests, &c. But the most curious and
interesting piece of antiquarian information relates to that celebrated monument
of antiquity which was placed at the entrance of the city Adulite, consisting
of a royal seat of white marble consecrated to Mars, with the images of Hercules
and Mercury sculptured upon it. On every side of this monument Greek letters were
written, and an ample inscription had been added, as has been generally supposed,
by Ptolemy II. Euergetes (B. C. 247-222). This was copied by Cosmas, and is given,
with notes, in the second book of the Topography. It appears, however, from the
researches of Mr. Salt, that Cosmas has made two different inscriptions into one,
and that while the first part refers to Ptolemy Euergetes, the second relates
to some Ethiopian king, whose conquests are commemorated on the inscription. The
author also inserts in the work, in illustration of his sentiments, astronomical
figures and tables. We meet too with several passages from writings of the fathers
now lost, and fragments of epistles, especially from Athanasius.
Photius (cod. 36) reviewed this production without mentioning the
writer's name, probably because it was not in the copy he had before him. He speaks
of it under the titles of Christianou Biblos, "Christianorum Hber, Expositio in
Octateuchum"; the former, as containing the opinion of Christians concerning the
earth; the latter, because the first part of the work treats of the tabernacle
of Moses and other things described in the Pentateuch. The same writer affirms,
that many of Cosmas's narratives are fabulous. The monk, however, relates events
as they were commonly received and viewed in his own time. His diction is plain
and familiar. So far is it from approaching elegance or elevation, that it is
even below mediocrity. He did not aim at pompous or polished phraseology; and
in several places he modestly acknowledges that his mode of expression is homely
and inelegant.
Manuscripts vary much in the contents of the work. It was composed
at different times. At first it consisted of five books; but in consequence of
various attacks, the author added the remaining seven at different periods, enlarging,
correcting, and curtailing, so as best to meet the arguments of those who still
contended that the earth was spherical. This accounts for the longer and shorter
forms of the production in different manuscript copies. The entire treatise was
first published by Bernard de Montfaucon, from a MS. of the tenth century, in
Greek and Latin, in his Collectio Nova Patrum et Scriptorum Graecorum, fol., Paris,
1706, to which the editor prefixed an able and learned preface. This is the best
edition. It is also printed in the Bibliotheca Vctt. Patirum edited by Gallandi,
Ven. 1765.
We learn from Cosmas himself, that he composed a Universal Cosmography, as also
Astronomical tables, in which the motions of the stars were described. He was
likewise the author of a Commentary on the Canticles and an exposition on the
Psalms. These are now lost. Leo Allatius thinks that he wrote the Chronicon Alexandrinum;
but it is more correct to affirm, with Cave, that the author of the Chronicle
borrowed largely from Cosmas, copying without scruple, and in the same words,
many of his observations.
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
Dion. Of Alexandria, apparently a writer on proverbs, who is mentioned by Zenobius (v. 54) and Apostolius. (xix. 24; comp. Suid. s. v. to Dionos gru; Apostol. xv. 3; Suid. s. v. oude Herakles ; Schneidewin, Corp. Paroemiogr. i.)
Epiphanius, (Epiphanios). Of Alexandria, son of the mathematician Theon, who addresses to him his commentaries on Ptolemy. (Theon, Commentary on Ptolemy, ed. Halma, Paris, 1821-22.) Possibly this Epiphanius is one of the authors of a work peri bronton kai astrapon, by Epiphanius and Andreas, or Andrew, formerly in the library of Dr. George Wheeler, canon of Durhan. ( Catal. MSS. Angliae et Hiberniae, Oxon. 1697.)
Melampus. The author of two short works in Greek on divination, who lived in the third century B.C. at Alexandria. Edition by Franz (Altenburg, 1780).
Receive our daily Newsletter with all the latest updates on the Greek Travel industry.
Subscribe now!
