The Ancient Library

Scanned text contains errors.

On this page: Alexander – Alexander Aphrodisiensis



Arius and his9 i. e. an Address to the Priests and Deacons, desiring their concurrence therein (ap. S. Athanas. vol. i. Ps. 1. p. 396, Paris, 1698 ; see Galland. /. c. p. 455). Two fragments more, apud Galland. (1. c. p. 456.) St. Athanasius also gives the second epistle. (/. c. p. 397.) [A. J. C.]

ALEXANDER ('AAe|ai/fyos), commander of the horse in the army of antigonus doson dur­ ing the war against Cleomenes III. of Sparta. (Polyb. ii. 66.) He fought against Philopoemen, then a young man, whose prudence and valour forced him to a disadvantageous engagement at Sellasia. (ii. 68.) This Alexander is probably the same person as the one whom Antigonus, as the guardian of Philip, had appointed commander of Philip's body-guard, and who was calumniated by Apelles. (iv. 87.) Subsequently he was sent by Philip as ambassador to Thebes, to persecute Me- galeas. (v. 28.) Polybius states, that at all times he manifested a most extraordinary attachment to his king. (vii. 12.) [L. S.]

ALEXANDER ('AAe|a^pos), of antiochia, a friend of M. Antonius, who being acquainted with the Syriac language, acted twice as interpreter between Antonius and one Mithridates, who be­trayed to him the plans of the Parthians, to save the Romans. This happened in b. c. 36. (Pseudo-Appian, Partli. pp. 93, 96, ed. Schweigh.) [L. S.]

ALEXANDER ('AAe^az/Spos), son of anto­ nius, the triumvir, and Cleopatra, queen of Egypt. He and his twin-sister Cleopatra were born 11. c. 40. Antonius bestowed on him the titles of " He­ lios," and " King of Kings," and called his sister " Selene." He also destined for him, as an inde­ pendent kingdom, Armenia, and such countries as might yet be conquered between the- Euphrates and Indus, and wrote to the senate to have his grants confirmed; but his letter was not suffered to be read in public. (b. c. 34.) After the con­ quest of Armenia Antonius betrothed Jotape, the daughter of the Median king Artavasdes, to his son Alexander. When Octavianus made himself master of Alexandria, he spared Alexander, but took him and his sister to Rome, to adorn his triumph. They were generously received by Oc- tavia, the wife of Antonius, who educated them with her own children. (Dion Cassius, xlix. 32, 40, 41, 44, 1. 25, Ii. 21 ; Plut. Anton. 36, 54, 87; Liv. Epit. 131,132.) [C. P. M.]

ALEXANDER (5AXe'£c«/fyos), bishop of apa- mea, sent with his namesake of Hierapolis by John of Antioch to the Council of Ephesus. A letter by him is extant in Latin in the Nova Col- lectio Condliontm a Stephan. Baluzio, p. 834. c. 132. fol, Paris, 1683. [A. J. C.]

ALEXANDER APHRODISIENSIS ('AA<%-avSpos 'A^pofocneus), a native of Aphrodisias in Caria, who lived at the end of the second and the beginning of the third century after Christ, the most celebrated of the commentators on Aristotle. He was the disciple of Hermimis and Aristocles the Messenian, and like them endeavoured to free the Peripatetic philosophy from the syncretism of Am­monias and others, and to restore the genuine in­terpretation of the writings of Aristotle. The title o e&ynT'TjS was the testimony to the extent or the excellence of his commentaries. About half his voluminous works were edited and translated into Latin at the revival of literature; there are a few more extant in the original Greek, which have never been printed, and an Arabic version is pre-


served of several others, whose titles may be seen in the Bibliotheca of Casiri. (Vol. i. p. 243.)

If we view him as a philosopher, his merit can­not be rated highly. His excellencies and defects are all on the model of his great master; there is the same perspicuity and power of analysis, united with almost more than Aristotelian plainness of style ; everywhere "a flat surface," with nothing to interrupt or strike the attention. In a mind so thoroughly imbued with Aristotle, it cannot be ex­pected there should be much place for original thought. His only endeavour is to adapt the works of his master to the spirit and language of his own age; but in doing so he is constantly re­called to the earlier philosophy, and attacks by­gone opinions, as though they had the same living power as when the writings of Aristotle were di­rected against them. (Ritter, Gesckichte der Pliila-sophie, vol. iv. p. 255.)

The Platonists and earlier Stoics are his chief opponents, for he regarded the Epicureans as too sensual and unphilosophical to be worth a serious answer. Against the notion of the first, that the world, although created, might yet by the will of God be made imperishable, he urged that God could not alter the nature of things, and quoted the Platonist doctrine of the necessary coexistence of evil in all corruptible things. (Ritter, p. 262.) God himself, he said, was the very form of things. Yet, however difficult it may be to enter into this abstract notion of God, it would be unjust, as some have done, to charge him with atheism, as in many passages he attributes mind and intelligence to the divine Being. This is one of the points in which he has brought out the views of Aristotle more clearly, from his living in the light of a later age. God, he says (in Meia-phys. ix. p. 320), is "properly and simply one, the self-existent substance, the author of motion him­self unmoved, the great and good Deity, withoui beginning and without end:" and again (InMeiapli xii. p. 381) he asserts, that to deprive God of pro­vidence is the same thing as depriving honey o sweetness, fire of warmth, snow of whiteness anc coolness, or the soul of motion. The providence o God, however, is not directed in the same way t< the sublunary world and the rest of the universe


the latter is committed not indeed to fate, but t< general laws, while the concerns of men are th immediate care of God, although he find not ii the government of them the full perfection of hi being. (Quaint. Nat. i. 25, ii. 21.) He saw no incor sistency, as perhaps there was none, between thes high notions of God and the materialism wit which they were connected. As God was th form of all things, so the human soul was likewis a form of matter, which it was impossible to cor ceive as existing in an independent state. H seems however to have made a distinction betwee the powers of reflection and sensation, for he saj (deAnima, i. p. 138), that the soul needed not th body as an instrument to take in objects of though but was sufficient of itself; unless the latter is 1 be looked upon as an inconsistency into which r has been led by the desire to harmonize the ear] Peripateticism with the purer principle of a lat< philosophy. (Brucker, vol. ii. p. 481.)

The most important treatise of his which h; come down to us, is the "De Fato," an inquii into the opinions of Aristotle on the subject Fate and Freewill. It is probably one of his late

About | First



page #  
Search this site
All non-public domain material, including introductions, markup, and OCR © 2005 Tim Spalding.
Ancient Library was developed and hosted by Tim Spalding of