Sll 



AJUSTARCH0S. 



ARISTBAS. 



318 



halved. And the [real] diameter of the tun ber the MOM proportion 

 to the [re.I] diameter of the moon. The diameter of the ran bean 

 to that of the moon a greater proportion than 19 to S, but a leee 

 proportion thn 43 to , as appear* from what has been found of the 

 ratio of the distance*, the shadow of the earth, and the moon'* *ub- 

 teoding the 15th part of a sign." 



The preceding deduction! follow correctly from the principles laid 

 . and of course partake of their numerical inaccuracy. The 

 mauuer in which they are prored ahow* that the Greek* of tliii period 

 bad no trigonometry whatever ; not even a table of chord*, aud the 

 liiuiu given are not ao eloee as thoee which might hare been obtained 

 from the aatne data by a ruler and oompasse*. There are several pro- 

 poaition* ou the relative bulk* of the three bodice, deduced by common 

 method*. 



There i* a commentary of Pappu* upon the work of Arutarohua, 

 which ha* been given (in part at least) by Wallis in his edition. 



From an obecnre pauage in Plutarch (' Platonic Questions,' 8), in 

 which the report of Archimedee i* corroborated, Delambro infers that 

 ArUtarchu* attributed day and night to the rotation of the earth. It 

 ia hard to ate how he could do otherwise, if he supposed the sun 

 fixed. 



There i* another work attributed to Ariatarchiis, published by 

 Roberral at Paris in 1543, ou the 'System of the World.' But this 

 U generally believed to have, been written by Roberval himself. f 



Vitruviu* speaks highly of Aristarchua, as the inventor of many 

 teful machine*, and in particular of a dial which he terms ' scaphe.' 

 This dial i* described by Martianus Capella (cited by Weidler), from 

 which, and partly from the name, we should infer that it was a part of 

 a concave hemisphere, with a style ending in the centre, so that by 

 drawing the equator, it, inside the hemisphere, the sun's position 

 might bo found by marking the extremity of the shadow. Hontucla 

 deeeribea one, dug out at Tusculuui ill 1741, which, since Cicero des- 

 cribes such an instrument, is conjectured to have belonged to him. 

 (Mont., ' Hist Math.,' L 721 ; a drawing U given.) 



ARISTAKCHUS, the critic, the ion of Aristarchua, was born in the 

 island of Samothrace ; but he abandoned the narrow limits of his own 

 country, in order to settle in the wealthy and populous city of Alex- 

 andria. Tlio time of his birth is not exactly known ; but be is stated 

 to have flourished about B.C. 158. He was preceptor to the son of 

 Ptolemaua Philometor, king of Egypt, who reigned from ii.o. 181 to 145. 

 Ptoleuious Euergetes II., who succeeded, put his nephew, the pupil of 

 Aristarchus, to death. Aristarchus was the disciple of Aristophanes 

 of Byxautium, the celebrated grammarian, who flourished about 

 B.C. 200, and was the first Grecian who laid the principles of philo- 

 logical criticism upon a sound and accurate basis. Aristarchus suc- 

 ceeded his master Aristophanes (for whose opinions he is stated to 

 have entertained great respect), as head of the grammatical and critical 

 school of Alexandria; and obtained in that capacity, by his eminence 

 aa a teacher aud by his various writings, a reputation greater than 

 any other critic of antiquity. Forty grammarians are stated to have 

 proceeded from hi* school, who doubtless contributed to spread his 

 fame over Greece and the neighbouring countries. His name was also 

 highly celebrated among his contemporaries ; and after his death his 

 authority was so much esteemed, that Horace and Cicero used Aris- 

 tarchus as a general name for a great critic, and Sextua Empiricus 

 mentions him with Plato and other such eminent names ; one of the 

 scholiasts to Homer likewise expresses an opinion (which a modern 

 critic ha* applied to other persons), Uiat it is better to err with Aria- 

 tarclius than to be right with Henuapias, a grammarian of little note 

 (Ad IL,' 235.) 



The critical works of Aristarchus appear to have been very volumin- 

 ous but they are now all lost, and are only known from extracts aud 

 citation* preserved in other writer*. His chief work was bis edition 

 of the ' Iliad' and ' Odyssey,' in which, 1, he revised the text, partly 

 by means of the comparison of manuscript*, and partly by conjecture; 

 2, bo divided the two poems into twenty-four parts or book*, each 

 distinguished by a letter of the Greek alphabet, which in the Alex- 

 andrine age contained twenty-four letter* (' Incertu* de Horn. Poeai,' 

 in Erneati * ' Homer,' vol. v. p. 152) ; and 3, he placed certain critical 

 marks before certain line*, some denoting that the verses so marked 

 contained something worthy of notice, and others that they were 



spurious ; the last were merely straight line* thus , in the 



form of a spit or A0.A<fi, whence J0AJf.i in Greek, and 'obelo notare' 

 in Latin, " to mark with an obelus,'' meant to mark a* spurious. The 

 reasons for the change* which be made in the text, and for the marks 

 which he prefixed to the verses, and his explanations of doubtful pas- 

 cage*, be appear* to have given separately in some of his commentaries, 

 of which be is stated to have written more than 800 book*. (Suidns 

 iu T.) Probably these books were very short divisions, but the com- 

 uwntarirs included not only his labours on Homer, but also illustra- 

 tions of Heeiod, Archilochua, Alcseu-, Anacroon, ^Kschylus, Sophocles, 

 Pindar, ArUtophanes, A rut us, and other poets. Of the** latter pro- 

 duction* of Aristarcboa few remnant* have been preserved ; of hi* 

 Homeric criticism* however a large part ia extant iu the Scholia to 

 Homer, from which a tolerably complete notion of his mode of 

 treating ancient Greek poets may be formed. One of the moet remark- 

 able features of his criticism ia the boldneas with which he condemned 

 I a* unworthy of Homer, and a* manifest inter) .elation* 



of a later age. Various opinion* have been formed on these judgments 

 of ArUtarchu* ; some moderns have thought that his method was in 

 the highest degree arbitrary and uncritical, while other* have thought 

 that he exercised a sound and modest discretion. There can be no 

 doubt that Arutarchu* trusted chiefly to hi* own sagacity in discover- 

 ing the trace* of interpolation. Interpolations of the constituent part* 

 of Homer** poems, if any such existed, were doubtless made before 

 the age when the ' Iliad' and ' Odyssey ' were first reduced to writing ; 

 and therefore they could not be detected by the mere comparison of 

 manuscript*. Consequently Aristarcbus ought not to be taxed with 

 rashness for condemning verse* of Homer which might be found in 

 all the manuscripts : he rejected them because he thought them 

 unworthy of Homer, and inconsistent with the general character of 

 his poetry and language. If the existence of any additions to the 

 Homeric poems, of considerably later date than the body of the poem 

 (as the last book of the ' Odyssey'), is ever susceptible of proof, it can 

 only be established by such probable and indirect arguments as those 

 employed by Aristarchus in justification of his obeli 



The division of Homer into books was doubtless made by Aris- 

 tarchus for the purposes of reference, which were important to < 

 such as himself; aud it has been retained on that account ever since 

 his time. Ariatarchus did not confine his criticism to grammatical 

 and metrical questions, but he also gave historical and geographical 

 illustrations of the author's text. His notes on the mythology and 

 geography of Homer, preserved in the Scholia, are very numerous. 

 (Lebrs., ' De Aristarchi Studiis Homericis,' pp. 167-256.) Aristarchus 

 published two editions of his recension of Homer, as appears from 

 numerous passages in the Scholia to Homer, where the differences 

 between the readings of the first and second editions are noticed. 

 (Lehrs., 'De Aristarchi Studiis Homericis,' p. 27). His recension 

 became the established text of the ' Iliad ' and 'Odyssey,' not only 

 among the grammarians of Alexandria, and their disciples ; but among 

 the copyists from whose transcripts the modern versions of Homer 

 have been derived since the invention of printing. In the scholia to 

 the ' Iliad,' moreover, a constant reference is made to the explanations 

 and obeli of Aristarchus, whose opinion is often stated without the 

 lulditipu of his name, as if he was pre-eminently the commentator of 

 Homer. (Wolf, ' ProL ad Horn.,' a. 47.) 



Besides his edition of Homer and his Commentaries, he wrote some 

 short work* addressed to individuals, with other productions, which 

 were considered less accurate and elaborate than his Commentaries 

 (SchoL, 'IL,'ii.lll; Lehrs., ' De Aristarchi Studiis Homericis,' pp. 20-6). 

 He wrote also in defence of analogy in matters of criticism, against 

 Crates the grammarian, who defended the principle of anomaly. (Wolf, 

 ' ProL ad Horn.,' p. 230.) He is likewise stated to have contended at 

 liergamua with Crates, who was a native of that town. Late in hi* 

 life he appears to have retired from Alexandria to Cyprus, where, being 

 afflicted with a dropsy, he died of voluntary starvation at the ago of 

 seventy-two; leaving as his successor in the Alexandrine school his 

 disciple Ammonius. He bad two sons, named Aristarchus and Ariflta- 

 goras, who were both idiots ; the former was sold as a sUve, but 

 having been brought by his master to Athens, he was redeemed by 

 the Athenians, apparently out of respect for his illustrious father. 

 (Suidas in v.) 



AUI'STEAS. Josephus, Epiphanius, and others call him Arittirut, 

 but in the work which bears his name be is called Ariateaa. He seems 

 to have been a Cyprian by birth, and to have held a high place ut the 

 court of Ptolemffiu* Philadelphus, king of Egypt. There is extant a 

 work which is generally entitled ' the History of the Seventy Inter- 

 preters.' It ia a letter in Greek which professes to be written by 

 Ariateaa to hia brother Philocrates. This letter contains an account 

 of a translation which was made of the ' Jewish law,' that is the Pen- 

 tateuch, and not, as is commonly stated, of all the Old Testament, 

 by the command of Ptolenuou* Philadelphus. The following account 

 of Ariateaa is extracted from the letter: "Ptolenueus Philadelphia 

 was forming a vast library at Alexandria (B.C. 273), and he enii 

 the formation of this library to Demetrius Phalereua, Demetrius in 

 a conversation which he held with Ptolemsus in the presence of 

 Aristeas, told the king that ho had hoard that a copy of the Jewish 

 lawa deserved a place in his library, but that it would be requisite to 

 translate them, as they were written in the peculiar language of the 

 Jews, ' which,' said Demetrius, ' is generally considered to be Syriac, 

 but this is a mistake.' The king determined to write to the Jewish 

 high-priest on the subject. But at the suggestion of Aritteas, as a 

 preliminary step, he purchased the freedom of all the Jews in his 

 dominions who had been taken captive by his father or himself. They 

 amounted to more than 100,000, and the king paid six Imn.lrr I 

 and sixty talents altogether. He gave twenty drachma) for each slave 

 to their several masters. He then sent Aristeas and Andreas the 

 commander of the royal body-guard, with magnificent presents, and 

 a letter to Eleazar the Jewish high-priest, in which he requested 

 Eleasar to send to Alexandria seventy-two interpreter*, six elders from 

 each tribe, that their number might give authority to the work. Thu 

 seventy-two elder* were sent. Their names ore given in the letter. 

 They were well versed in both the Hebrew and Greek languages. They 

 brought a copy of the law consisting of 'different parchments, in 

 which the law was written in gold iu thn Jewish letters' (p. 790 D. 

 ed. GaUandiui). The king when be saw the work bent down in 



