Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 1.djvu/131

Rh works, and must have been written 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 (c. 6), 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. (c. 12-20.) 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. (Brucker, vol. ii. p. 480.)

The following list of his works is abridged from Harles's Fabricius. (Vol. v. p. 650.) I. Περὶ εἰμαρμένης καὶ τοῦ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν, De Fato, 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, folio, at the end of the works of Themistius: translated into Latin by Grotius in the collection entitled "Veterum Philos. Sententiae de Fato," Paris, 1648, 4to., Lond. 1688, 12mo., and edited by Orelli, Zurich, 1824, 8vo., with a fragment of Alexander Aphrodis. De Fortuna, and treatises of Ammonius, Plotinus, &c. on the same subject.

II. Commentarius (Ὑπόμνημα) in primum librum Analyticorum Priorum Aristotelis, Venet. Aldi, 1520, fol.; Floren. 1521, 4to., with a Latin translation by J. Bap. Felicianus.

III. Commentarius in VIII libros Topicorum, Ven. Aldi, 1513; with a Latin version by G. Dorotheus, Ven. 1526 and 1541, and Paris, 1542, folio; and another by Rasarius, Ven. 1563, 1573, folio.`

IV. Comment. in Elenchos Sophisticos; Graecè, Ven. Aldi, 1520, fol.; Flor. 1520, fol.: translated into Latin by J. B. Rasarius.

V. Comment. in Metaphysicorum XII libros; ex versione J. G. Sepulvedae, Rom. 1527, Paris, 1536, Ven. 1544 and 1561. The Greek text has never been printed, although it exists in the Paris library and several others.

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 Animâ, Ven. Aldi, 1527, folio; there is also a Latin version by Lucilius Philothaeus, Ven. 1544, 1549, 1554, 1559, 1573.

VII. In Aristotelis Meterologica; Ven. Aldi, 1527; supposed by some not to be the work of Alexander Aphrod.

VIII. De Mistione; bound up in the same edition as the preceding.

IX. De Animâ libri duo (two distinct works), printed in Greek at the end of Themistius: there is a Latin version by Hieronymus Donatus, Ven. 1502, 1514, folio.

X. Physica Scholia, dubitationes et solutiones; in Greek, Ven. Trincavelli, 1536, folio; in Latin, by Hieronymus Bagolinus, Ven. 1541, 1549, 1555, 1559, 1563.

XI. Ἰατρικὰ Ἀπορήματα καὶ Φυσικὰ Προβλήματα, Quaestiones Medicae et Problemata Physica.

XII. Περὶ Πυρετῶν, Libellus de Febribus. The last two treatises (XI. and XII.) 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 Animâ and Rhetorical works, and also on those περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς, together with a work entitled Liber I de Theologiâ, 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 περὶ δαιμόνων λόγος, 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 work attributed to Alexander is entitled Ἰατρικὰ Ἀπορήματα καὶ Φυσικὰ Προβλήματα, 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. vol. i. p. 243); secondly, it appears to have been written by a person who belonged to the medical profession (ii. praef. et § 11), which was not the case with Alexander Aphrodisiensis; thirdly, the writer refers (i.87) to a work by himself, entitled Ἀλληγοριαὶ τῶν εἰς Θεοὺς ᾿Ἀναπλαττομένων Πιθανῶν Ἱστοριῶν, Allegoriae Historiarum 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 (ii. praef. et § 63, 67), 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