A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

HIPPARCH US. HIPPARINTUS. 477:
cumstance that the boundarybetween the discoveries wepl rijs Trs'v ahrAavcov avutidtews Kal roe Kau.aof Hipparchus and those of Ptolemy himself is in o-mpitLyoU Kical eiS To0s dpO7orvs ( da ttploGs?),
several points a question which can only be settled which may be the same as the above.'2. Inpte
from the writings of the latter, if at all. ~eyeOciv Kcal droa71$Acwdvo, mentioned by Pappus
Strabo, Suidas, &c., state that Hipparchus was and Theon. A further account of this work is
of Nicaea, in Bithynia; and Ptolemy (De Adpar. given under PTOLEMAEUS. Kepler had a manuInertant. sub fin.), in a list in which he has expressly script, which Fabricius seems to imply was this
pointed out the localities in which astronomers work, and which was to have been published by.
made their observations, calls him a Bithynian. Hansch, but which did not appear. 3. De duoBut the same Ptolemy (Syntax. lib. v. p. 299, ed. decim Signorum Adscensione, mentioned by Pappus.
Halma) states that Hipparchus himself has noted 4. iepl TIs Kaid 7rAcdTos lYvLtaas ris areAxvls
his own observation of the sun and moon, made at KCLV7aewC, mentioned by Suidas and Eudocia. 5.
Rhodes in the 197th year after the death of Alex- fIepl rvyiailovu Xpdoov, mentioned by Galen. 6.
ander. Hence some have made the Rhodian and IIepl evavalouv,eye'ovs, mentioned by Ptolemy.
the Bithynian to be two different persons, without 7. ncepl'rxis ea7rTWd6oCs rvC 7rpoYIKrctV KIal ia7qany reasonable foundation. There is a passage in Lgeptvcv ar2meowv, mentioned by Ptolemy. 8. Tcuv'
the Syntaxis (lib. iii. p. 160, ed. Halma), from which'Apdrou Kal EiEov 0arouvoelv E'wv elLy014rewv BiAta
Delambre (Astron. Anc. Disc. Prel. xxiv. and vol. i/. This is the comment alluded to in ARATUS.
ii. p. 108) found it difficult to avoid inferring that It has always been received as the undoubted
Ptolemy asserted Hipparchus to have also observed work of Hipparchus, though beyond all question it
at Alexandria, which had been previously asserted, must have been written before any of his great
on the same ground, by Weidler and others. But discoveries had been made. Nevertheless, it may
he afterwards remembered that Ptolemy always be said of this criticism, that it is far superior to
supposes Rhodes and Alexandria to be in the same any thing which had then been written on astrolongitude, and therefore compares times of observ- nomy, or which was written before the time of
ation at the two places without reduction. Ptolemy by any but Hipparchus himself. Delambre
As to the time at which Hipparchus lived, has given a minute account of its contents (Astron.
Suidas places him at from B. c. 160 to B.c. 145, Anc. vol. i. pp. 106-189): he remarks that the
but without naming these epochs as those of his places of the stars, as known to Hipparchus when
birth and death. Of his life and opinions, inde- he wrote it, are not quite so good as those of his,
pendently of the astronomical details in the Syn- subsequent catalogue, which can be recovered from
taxis, we know nothing more than is contained in the Syntaxis; this is equivalent to saying that'
a passage of Pliny (H. N. ii. 26), who states that they are much better than those of his predecessors.
the attention of Hipparchus' was first directed to The comparison of Eudoxus and Aratus, which'
the construction of a catalogue of stars by the ap- runs throughout this work, constitutes the best
pearance of a new star, and a moving one (perhaps knowledge we have of the former. [EuDoxa comet of unusually star-like appearance). Hence us]. We cannot but suppose that the fact of this
he dared, rem Deo improbam, to number the stars, being the only remaining work of Hipparchus must
and assign their places and magnitudes, that his arise from the Syntaxis containing the substance of
successors might detect new appearances, disappear- all the rest: this one, of course, would live as a cri-:
ances, motion, or change of magnitude, coelo in ticism on a work so well known as that of Aratus.'
ihaereditate cunctis relicto. Bayle has a curious It has been twice published: once by P. Victor,'
mistake in the interpretation of a part of this pas- Florence, 1567, folio, and again by Petavius in his:
sage. He tells us that Hipparchus thought the Uranoloyion, Paris, 1630, folio. 9. IlpaJs Tdv
souls of men to be of celestial origin, for which he'EpaToade'vMv iKal rcd'v r rewypacpq aJoTi AEXcites Pliny as follows: "Idem Hipparchus nun- OE'vTa, a criticism censured by Strabo, and ap-:
quam satis laudatus, ut quo nemo magis approba- proved by Pliny. 10. BgAiov WrepI Tsv btd BdpovsI
verit cognationem cum homine siderum, animasque caTrw qEpote'vcoa, cited by Simplicius. 11. Achilles
nostras partem -esse coeli." This means, of course, Tatius says that Hipparchus and others wrote rcepl
that Pliny thought that no one had done more than KcAsiitewv uALou Kacrd' r brd Agatra, from
Hipparchus to show the heavenly origin of the which we cannot infer that this is the title of a
human mind. work. (Ptolem, SAintaeis; Fabric. Bibl. Graec.
The following are a list of writings attributed to vol. iv, p. 26, &c.; Petavius, Uranologion; Weidle;,.
Hipparchus:- -. repl r Ti da7rAkcwVv dva-ypapa[, Hist. Astr(m.; Delambre, Hist. de l'Astronom. anc.'
mentioned.by Ptolemy (lib. vii.). A work was vol. i. pp. 6, 106, &c., D;s6ours. prelhnmin. p. xxi.;
added, under the name of Hipparchus, by P. Vic- Bailly, Hist. -de l'Astronom. modern. vol. i. p. 77;
tor, to his edition of the comment on Aratus, pre- Montucla, Hist. des AlMathemat. vol. i. p. 257, &c.;
sently mentioned, under the title EiTeLrs dcrsepur- Gartz in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclop. s. v.; MarLrPor, which is nothing more than an extract from coz, Astronomie sblaire d'Hipparque soumnise a une
the seventh book of the Syntaxis. Suidas and critique rigoreuse et ensuite rendue a sa vesrite pri,
Eudocia mention a work with the -following title, mordiale, Paris, 1828.) [A. DE M.]
HIPPARI'NUS ('I7nr7apvos). 1. A Syracusan,
* It was a similar circumstance which gave as father of Dion. He is mentioned by Aristotle
remarkable an impulse to the astronomical career (Pol. v. 6) as a man of large fortune, and one
of Tycho Brahe, whose merits, as far as practical of the chief citizens of Syracuse, who, having
astronomy is concerned, much resemble those of squandered his own property in luxury and ex-.
Hipparchus. It is frequently stated that both travagance, lent his support to Dionysius in ob.
were originally led to astronomy by the sight of taining the sovereignty of his native city. Accordnew stars, which is certainly not true of the former, ing to Plutarch (Dion, 3), he was associated
laor have we any reason to infer it from what Pliny with Dionysius in the command as general autosays of the latter.. crator, a statement which is understood by Mitford