Scanned text contains errors.
Strabo, Suidas, &c., state that Hipparchus was of Nicaea, in Bithynia ; and Ptolemy (De Adpar. Inert ant, sub fin.), in a list in which he has expressly pointed out the localities in which astronomers made their observations, calls him a Bithynian. But the same Ptolemy (Syntax, lib. v. p. 2.99, ed. Halma) states that Hipparchus himself has noted his own observation of the sun and moon, made at Rhodes in the 197th year after the death of Alexander. Hence some have made the Rhodian and the Bithynian to be two different persons, without any reasonable foundation. There is a passage in the Syntaxis (lib. iii. p. 160, ed. Halma), from which Delambre (Astron. Anc. Disc. PreL xxiv. and vol. ii. p. 108) found it difficult to avoid inferring that Ptolemy asserted Hipparchus to have also observed at Alexandria, which had been previously asserted, on the same ground, by Weidler and others. But he afterwards remembered that Ptolemy alwa}rs supposes Rhodes and Alexandria to be in the same longitude, and therefore compares times of observation at the two places without reduction.
As to the time at which Hipparchus lived, Suidas places him at from b.c. 160 to b.c. 145, but without naming these epochs as those of his birth and death. Of his life and opinions, independently of the astronomical details in the Syntaxis, we know nothing more than is contained in a passage of Pliny (H. N. ii. 26), who states that the attention of Hipparchus* was first directed to the construction of a catalogue of stars by the appearance of a new star, and a moving one (perhaps a comet of unusually star-like appearance). Hence he dared, rem Deo improbam, to number the stars, and assign their places and magnitudes, that his successors might detect new appearances, disappearances, motion, or change of magnitude, coelo in haereditate cunctis relicto. Bayle has a curious mistake in the interpretation of a part of this passage. He_jtells_us that Hipparchus thought the souls of men to be of celestial origin, for which he cites Pliny as follows: ** Idem Hipparchus nun-quam satis laudatus, ut quo nemo magis approba-verit cognationem cum nomine siderum, animasque nostras partem esse coeli." This means, of course, that Pliny thought that no one had done more than Hipparchus to show the heavenly origin of the human mind.
The following are a list of writings attributed to Hipparchus:—1. IIcpl r<av air \avtav dvaypatyal, mentioned .by Ptolemy (lib. vii.). A work was added, under the name of Hipparchus, by P. Victor, to his edition of the comment on Aratus, presently mentioned, under the title e/cflecris darepiff-ju<2»', which is nothing more than an extract from the seventh book of the Syntaxis. Suidas and Eudocia mention a work with the .following title,
* It was a similar circumstance which gave as remarkable an impulse to the astronomical career of Tycho Brahe, whose merits, as far as practical astronomy is concerned, much resemble those of Hipparchus. It is frequently stated that both were originally led to astronomy by the sight of new stars, which is certainly not true of the former, faor have we any reason to infer it from what Pliny says of the latter.
rijs t&v dir\avwv ffvvrd&us Kal tow ffara-v Kal *ls rods dp'urrovs (dffreptffuo^s ?), which maybe the same as the above. 2. Uepl (j.ey€6tov Kal ttTroaTTj/xaTcoj', mentioned by Pappus and Theon. A further account of this work is given under ptolemaeus. Kepler had a manu-. script, which Fabricius seems to imply was this work, and which was to have been published by Hansch, but which did not appear. 3. De duo-decim Signorum Adscensione, mentioned by Pappus. 4. Ilepl rijs Kara irKaros ^f\viaias rtfs fftXyvrjs KLvyvetas, mentioned by Suidas and Eudocia. 5. Tlepl prjviaiov xP°vov-> mentioned by Galen. 6. Tlepl eviavffiov peyeOovs, mentioned by Ptolemy.
7. Ilepl TTJS peratrrCOfffOiS T<01/ rpOTFlKtaV Kttl Iff If]'
fj.€pivwv ffYjuelotv^ mentioned by Ptolemy. 8. 'Aparou Kal Eu8j£ou (^aivo^evwv fj-fiytfffewv j y. This is the comment alluded to in aratus. It has always been received as the undoubted work of Hipparchus, though beyond all question it must have been written before any of his great discoveries had been made. Nevertheless, it may be said of this criticism, that it is far superior to any thing which had then been written on astro nomy, or which was written before the time of Ptolemy by any but Hipparchus himself. Delambre has given a minute account of its contents (Astron. Anc. vol. i. pp. 106—189): he remarks that the places of the stars, as known to Hipparchus when he wrote it, are not quite so good as those of his subsequent catalogue, which can be recovered from the Syntaxis ; this is equivalent to saying that they are much better than those of his predecessors. The comparison of Eudoxus and Aratus, which' runs throughout this work, constitutes the best knowledge we have of the former. [Eimox- usj. We cannot but suppose that the fact of this being the only remaining work of Hipparchus must arise from the Syntaxis containing the substance of ail the rest: this one, of course, would live as a cri ticism on a work so well known as that of Aratus. It has been twice published: once by P. Victor, Florence, 1567, folio, and again by Petavius in his Uranologion, Paris, 1630, folio. 9. Ity<}y rdv 'Eparofftiewriv Kal rd ev rrj T€a>ypa$ic[. avrov Aex- Qcvra, a criticism censured by Strabo, and ap proved by Pliny. 10. Bi€\iov ircpl ru>v 5(d fidpovs Kara ^epo/xerwy, cited by Simplicius. 11. Achilles Tatius says that Hipparchus and others wrote irepl eK\ety<Euv TJAiou Kard t& 4nrd /cAfjuara, from which we cannot infer that this is the title of a work. (Ptolem, Syntaxis; Fabric. Bill. Graec. vol. iv, p. 26, &c.; Petavius, Uranologion; Weidler, Hist. Astnm. ; Delambre, Hist, de I'Astronom. anc. vol. i. pp. 6, 106, &c., Dlscours. prehmin. p. xxi.; Bailly, Hist, de FAstronom. modern* vol. i. p. 77 ; Montucla, Hfet. des Mathemat. vol. i. p. 257» &c.; Gartz in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclop. s. v.; Mar* coz, Astronomic sblaire d^Hipparque soumise a une critique rigoreuse et ensuite rendue a sa verite prir* mordiale, Paris, 1828.) [A.dem.]
HIPPARINUS ('iTTTrapM/os). 1. A Syracusan, father of Dion. He is mentioned by Aristotle (Pol. v. 6) as a man of large fortune, and one of the chief citizens of Syracuse, who, having squandered his own property in luxury and extravagance, lent his support to Dionysius in obtaining the sovereignty of his native city. According to Plutarch (Dion, 3), he was associated with Dionysius in the command as general auto* orator, a statement which is understood by Mitford