The Ancient Library

Scanned text contains errors.

On this page: Antiochus – Antiochus I


scribing Ascalon, mentions his birth there as a mark of distinction for the city (Strab. xiv. p. 759), and Cicero frequently speaks of him in affectionate and respectful terms as the best and wisest of the Academics, and the most polished and acute philo­sopher of his age. (Cic. Acad. ii. 35, Brut. 91.)

He studied under the stoic Mnesarchus, but his principal teacher was Philo, who succeeded Plato, Arcesilas, and Carneades,as the founder of the fourth Academy. He is, however, better known as the adversary than the disciple of Philo ; and Cicero mentions a treatise called Sosus (Cic. A cad. iv. 4), written by him against his master, in which he refutes the scepticism of the Academics. Another of his works, called " Canonica," is quoted by Sextus Empiricus, and appears to have been a treatise on logic. (Sext. Emp. vii. 201, see not. in loc.)

The sceptical tendency of the Academic philoso­phy before Antiochus, probably had its origin in Plato's successful attempts to lead his disciples to abstract reasoning as the right method of discover­ing truth, and not to trust too much to the impres­sions of the senses. Cicero even ranks Plato him­self with those philosophers who held, that there was no such thing as certainty in any kind of knowledge (Acad. ii. 23) ; as if his depreciation of the senses as trustworthy organs of perception, and of the kind of knowledge which they convey, invalidated also the conclusions of the reason.

There is, however, no doubt that later philosophers,

either by insisting too exclusively on the uncer­tainty of the senses (in order like Arcesilas to ex­aggerate by comparison the value of speculative .truth), or like Carneades and Philo, by extending ni!e same fallibility to the reason likewise, had radually fallen into a degree of scepticism that eemed to strike at the root of all truth, theoretical nd practical. It was, therefore, the chief object of Antiochus, besides inculcating particular doc-;rines in moral philosoph}^ to examine the grounds )f our knowledge, and our capacities for disco ver-ng truth ; though no complete judgment can be brined of his success, as the book in which Cicero fave the fullest representation of his opinions has )een lost. (Cic. ad Fam. ix. 8.)

He professed to be reviving the doctrines of the >ld Academy, or of Plato's school, when he main-ained, in opposition to Philo and Carneades, that he intellect had in itself a test by which it could istinguish truth from falsehood ; or in the lan-uage of the Academics, discern between the nages arising from actual objects and those con-sptions that had no corresponding reality. (Cic. (cad. ii. 18.) For the argument of the sceptics '•as, that if two notions were so exactly similar as lat they could not be distinguished, neither of lem could be said to be known with more cer-; linty than the other; and that every true notion ras liable to have a false one of this kind attached ) it: therefore nothing could be certainly known. Id. 13.) This reasoning was obviously over-irown by the assertion, that the mind contained ithin itself the standard of truth and falsehood; id was also met more generally by the argument tat all such reasoning refutes itself, since it pro-seds upon principles assumed to be true, and then >ncludes that there can be no certain ground for ly assumption at all. (Id. 34.) In like manner ntiochus seems to have taken the side of the ;oics in defending the senses from the charge of



utter fallaciousness brought against them by the Academics. (Id. 32.)

It is evident that in such discussions the same questions were examined which had formerly been more thoroughly sifted by Plato and Aristotle, in analyzing the nature of science and treating of the different kinds of truth, according as they were objects of pure intellectual apprehension, or only of probable and uncertain knowledge (to eiricrr^Toy and to So^affrov}: and as the result was an attempt to revive the dialectic art which the Academics despised, so the notices extant of Antiochus' moral teaching seem to shew, that without yielding to the paradoxes of the Stoics, or the latitudinarian- ism of the Academics, he held in the main doc­ trines nearly coinciding with those of Aristotle : as, that happiness consists essentially in a virtuous life, yet is not independent of external things. (Id. 42, de Fin. v. 25? Tusc. Quaest. v. 8.) So he denied the Stoic doctrine, that all crimes were equal (Acad. ii. 43), but agreed with them in holding, that all the emotions ought to be sup­ pressed. On the whole, therefore, though Cicero inclines to rank him among the Stoics (id. 43), it appears that he considered himself an eclectic phi­ losopher, and attempted to unite the doctrines of the Stoics and Peripatetics, so as to revive the old Academy. (Sext. Empir. i. 235.) [C. E. P.]

ANTIOCHUS ('ai/tioxos), an astronomer of rincertain date, whose work >A7roTeA€o>icmKc£ still exists in MS. in various libraries, and has not yet been printed. (Fabr. Bibl, Gr.iv. p. 151.) There is an introduction to the Tetrabiblus of Ptolemaeus, of which the original text with a Latin translation by II. Wolf was published at Basel, 1559, fol., as the work of an anonymous writer. T. Gale (ad Iambi, de MysL p. 364) claims this introduction as the work of Antiochus, whose name, however, occurs in the work itself. (P. 194.) [L. S.]

ANTIOCHUS fAi/rfoxos), an athenian, was left by Alcibiades at Notium in command of the Athenian fleet, b. c. 407, with strict injunctions not to fight with Lysander. Antiochus was the master of Alcibiades' own ship, and his personal friend; he was a skilful seaman, but arrogant and heedless of consequences. His intimacy with Alci­biades had first arisen upon an occasion mentioned by Plutarch (Alcib. 10), who tells us, that Alcibiades in one of his first appearances in the popular assem­bly allowed a tame quail to escape from under his cloak, which occurrence suspended the business of the assembly, till it was caught by Antiochus and given to Alcibiades.

Antiochus gave no heed to the injunctions of Alcibiades, and provoked Lysander to an engage­ment, in which fifteen Athenian ships were lost, and Antiochus himself was slain. This defeat was one of the main causes that led to the second banishment of Alcibiades. (Xen. Hell. i. 5. § 11, &c.; Diod. xiii. 71; Plut. Alcib. 35.)

ANTIOCHUS I. ('Aim'oxos), king of com-magene, a small country between the Euphrates and mount Taurus, the capital of which was Samo-sata. It formerly formed part of the Syrian king­dom of the Seleucidae, but probably became an independent principality during the civil wars of Antiochus Grypus and his brother. It has been supposed by some, that Antiochus Asiaticus, the last king of Syria, is the same as Antiochus, the first king of Commagene; but there are no good reasons for this opinion. (Clinton, F. H. iii. p. 343.)


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