Εμφανίζονται 3 τίτλοι με αναζήτηση: Βιογραφίες στην ευρύτερη περιοχή: "ΑΦΡΟΔΙΣΙΑΣ Αρχαία πόλη ΑΪΔΙΝ" .
ΑΦΡΟΔΙΣΙΑΣ (Αρχαία πόλη) ΑΪΔΙΝ
Chariton, of Aphrodisias, a town of Caria, is the name by which one of the Greek erotic
prose writers calls himself; but the name is probably feigned (from charis and
Aphrodite), as the time and position of the author certainly are. He represents
himself as the secretary (hupographeus) of the orator Athenagoras, evidently referring
to the Syracusan orator mentioned by Thucydides (vi. 35, 36) as the political
opponent of Hermocrates. The daughter of Hermocrates is the heroine of Chariton's
work, which is a romance, in eight books, on the Loves of Chaereas and Callirrhoe,
under the following title, Charitonos Aphrodisieos ton peri Chairean kai Kallirroen
erotikon diegematon logoi e. The work begins with the marriage of the heroine,
which is presently followed by her burial. She comes to life again in the tomb,
and is carried off by robbers. After various adventures, she is restored to Chaereas.
The incidents are natural and pleasing, and the style sinple ; but the work as
a whole is reckoned inferior to those of Achilles Tatius. Heliodorus, Longus,
and Xenophon of Ephesus. Nothing is known respecting the real life or the time
of the author. The critics place him variously between the fifth and ninth centuries
after Christ. The general opinion is, that he was the latest of the erotic prose
writers, except perhaps Xenophon of Ephesus.
There is only one known MS. of the work, from which it was printed
by James Philip D'Orville, with a Latin version and notes by Reiske, Amst. 1750.
The commentary of D'Orville is esteemed one of the best on any ancient author.
It was reprinted, with additional notes by Beck, Lips. 1783. A very beautiful
edition of the text was printed at Venice, 1812..
The book has been translated into German by Heyne, Leipz. 1753. and Schneider,
Leipz. 1807; into French by Larcher, Par. 1763 (reprinted in the Bibliotheque
des Romans Grecs, Par. 1797), and Fallet, 1775 and 1784; into Italian by M. A.
Giacomelli, Rom. 1752, and others; into English by Becket and de Hondt, 1764.
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
Alexander Aphrodisiensis (Alexandros Aphrodisieus), 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 Herminus and Aristocles the Messenian, and like them endeavoured to
free the Peripatetic philosophy from the syncretism of Ammonius and others, and
to restore the genuine interpretation of the writings of Aristotle. The title
ho exegetes was the testimony to the extent or the excellence of his commentaries...
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.
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. 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, is "properly and simply
one, the self-existent substance, the author of motion himself unmoved, the great
and good Deity, without beginning and without end": and again he asserts, that
to deprive God of providence is the same thing as depriving honey of sweetness,
fire of warmth, snow of whiteness and coolness, or the soul of motion. The providence
of God, however, is not directed in the same way to the sublunary world and the
rest of the universe : the latter is committed not indeed to fate, but to general
laws, while the concerns of men are the immediate care of God, although he find
not in the government of them the full perfection of his being. He saw no inconsistency,
as perhaps there was none, between these high notions of God and the materialism
with which they were connected. As God was the form of all things, so the human
soul was likewise a form of matter, which it was impossible to conceive as existing
in an independent state. He seems however to have made a distinction between the
powers of reflection and sensation, for he says, that the soul needed not the
body as an instrument to take in objects of thought, but was sufficient of itself;
unless the latter is to be looked upon as an inconsistency into which he has been
led by the desire to harmonize the early Peripateticism with the purer principle
of a later philosophy.
The most important treatise of his which has come down to us, is the
"De Fato," an inquiry into the opinions of Aristotle on the subject of Fate and
Freewill. It is probably one of his latest works, and must have been writtn, between
the years 199-211, because dedicated to the joint emperors Severus and Caracalla.
Here the earlier Stoics are his opponents, who asserted that all things arose
from an eternal and indissoluble chain of causes and effects. The subject is treated
practically rather than speculatively. Universal opinion, the common use of language,
and internal consciousness, are his main arguments. That fate has a real existence,
is proved by the distinction we draw between fate, chance, and possibility, and
between free and necessary actions. It is another word for nature, and its workings
are seen in the tendencies of men and things, for it is an all-pervading cause
of real, but not absolute, power. The fatalism of the Stoics does away with freewill,
and so destroys responsibility: it is at variance with every thought, word, and
deed, of our lives. The Stoics, indeed, attempt to reconcile necessity and freewill;
but, properly speaking, they use freewill in a new sense for the necessary co-operation
of our will in the decrees of nature : moreover, they cannot expect men to carry
into practice the subtle distinction of a will necessarily yet freely acting;
and hence, by destroying the accountableness of man, they destroy the foundation
of morality, religion, and civil government. Supposing their doctrine true in
theory, it is impossible in action. And even speculatively their argument from
the universal chain is a confusion of an order of sequence with a series of causes
and effects. If it be said again, that the gods have certain foreknowledge of
future events, and what is certainly known must necessarily be, it is answered
by denying that in the nature of things there can be any such foreknowledge, as
foreknowledge is proportioned to divine power, and is a knowledge of what divine
power can perform. The Stoical view inevitably leads to the conclusion, that all
the existing ordinances of religion are blasphemous and absurd.
This treatise, which has been edited by Orelli, gives a good idea
of his style and method. Upon the whole, it must be allowed that, although with
Ritter we cannot place him high as an independent thinker, he did much to encourage
the accurate study of Aristotle, and exerted an influence which, according to
Julius Scaliger, was still felt in his day.
The following list of his works is abridged from Harles's Fabricius.
I. Peri eimarmenes kai tou eph hemin, De Falo, deque eo quod in nostra potestate
est : the short treatise mentioned above, dedicated to the emperors Severus and
Caracalla; first printed by the successors of Aldus Manutius, 1534
II. Commentarius ((Upomnema) in primum librum Analyticorum Priorum Aristotelis,
Venet. Aldi, 1520
III. Commentarius in VIII libros Topicorum, Ven. Aldi, 1513
IV. Comment. in Elenchos Sophisticos; Graece, Ven. Aldi, 1520
V. Comment. in Metaphysicorum XII libros; ex versione J. G. Sepulvedae, Rom. 1527,
Paris, 1536, Ven. 1544 and 1561.
VI. In librum de Sensu et iis quae sub sensum cadunt ; the Greek text is printed
at the end of the commentary of Simplicius on the De Anima, Ven. Aldi, 1527
VII. In Aristotelis Meterologica; Ven. Aldi, 1527
VIII. De Mistione ; bound up in the same edition as the preceding.
IX. De Anima libri duo (two distinct works), printed in Greek at the end of Themistius
X. Physica Scholia, dubitationes et solutiones; in Greek, Ven. Trincavelli, 1536
XI. Iatrika Aporemata kai Phusika Problemata, Quaestiones Medicae et Problemata
Physica.
XII. Peri Pureton, Libellus de Febribus. The last two treatises are attributed
by Theodore Gaza and many other writers to Alexander Trallianus. They are spoken
of below.
His commentaries on the Categories, on the latter Analytics (of the last there
was a translation by St. Jerome), on the De Anima and Rhetorical works, and also
on those peri geneseos kai phthoras, together with a work entitled Liber I de
Theologia, probably distinct from the Commentaries on the Metaphysics, are still
extant in Arabic. A Commentary on the prior Analytics, on the De Interpretatione,
a treatise on the Virtues, a work entitled peri daimonon logos, a treatise against
Zenobius the Epicurean, and another on the nature and qualities of Stones, also
a book of Allegories from mythological fables, are all either quoted by others
or referred to by himself.
Besides the works universally attributed to Alexander Aphrodisiensis,
there are extant two others, of which the author is not certainly known, but which
are by some persons supposed to belong to him, and which commonly go under his
name. The first of these is entitled Iatrika Aporemata kai Phusika Problemata,
Quaestiones Medicae et Problemata Physica, which there are strong reasons for
believing to be the work of some other writer. In the first place, it is not mentioned
in the list of his works given by the Arabic author quoted by Casiri (Biblioth.
Arabico-Hisp. Escurial.); secondly, it appears to have been written by a person
who belonged to the medical profession, which was not the case with Alexander
Aphrodisiensis; thirdly, the writer refers to a work by himself, entitled Allegoriai
ton eis Theous Anaplattomenon Pithanon Historion, Allegoriae Hiistoriarum Credibilium
de Diis Fabricatarum, which we do not find mention ed among Alexander's works;
fourthly, he more than once speaks of the soul as immortal, which doctrine Alexander
Aphrodisiensis denied; and fifthly, the style and language of the work seem to
belong to a later age. Several eminent critics suppose it to belong to Alexander
Trallianus, but it does not seem likely that a Christian writer would have composed
the mythological work mentioned above. It consists of two books, and contains
several interesting medical observations along with much that is frivolous and
trifling. It was first published in a Latin translation by George Valla, Venet.
1488, The Greek text is to be found in the Aldine edition of Aristotle's works,
Venet. 1495, and in that by Sylburgius, Francof. 1585; it was published with a
Latin translation by J. Davion, Paris. 1540, 1541.
The other work is a short treatise, Peri Pureton, De Febribus, which
is addressed to a medical pupil whom the author offers to instruct in any other
branch of medicine; it is also omitted in the Arabic list of Alexander's works
mentioned above. For these reasons it does not seem likely to be the work of Alexander
Aphrodisiensis, while the whole of the twelfth book of the great medical work
of Alexander Trallianus (to whom it has also been attributed) is taken up with
the subject of Fever, and he would hardly have written two treatises on the same
disease without making in either the slightest allusion to the other. It may possibly
belong to one of the other numerous physicians of the name of Alexander. It was
first published in a Latin translation by George Valla, Venet. 1498, which was
several times reprinted. The Greek text first appeared in the Cambridge Museum
Criticum, transcribed by Demetrius Schinas from a manuscript at Florence; it was
published, together with Valla's translation, by Franz Passow, Vratislav. 1822,
and also in Passow's Opuscula Academica, Lips. 1835. The Greek text alone is contained
in the first volume of Ideler's Physici et Medici Graeci Minores, Berol. 1841.
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
Herminus (Herminos), a Peripatetic philosopher, a contemporary of Demonax (called by Porphyrius, Vit. Plot. 20, a stoic). He appears to have written commentaries on most of the works of Aristotle. Simplicius (ad Arist. de Caelo, ii. 23, fol. 105) says he was the instructor of Alexander of Aphrodisias. His writings, of which nothing now remains, are frequently referred to by Boethius, who mentions a treatise by him, peri Hermeneias, as also Analytica and Topica.
Λάβετε το καθημερινό newsletter με τα πιο σημαντικά νέα της τουριστικής βιομηχανίας.
Εγγραφείτε τώρα!
