ARISTARCHUS, a Greek astronomer of Samos, who lived about 280-264 b.c. He is famous as being the first to maintain that the earth moves round the sun. No mention, indeed, is made of this doctrine in his only surviving work, ∏epι ∕z∈γ<∙0ωv και αποστημάτων, which treats of the Magnitudes and Distances of the Sun and Moan; but Archimedes, in his Arenarius, quotes from a work written by Aristarchus as a refutation of astrology, which renders it certain that the Samian astronomer had clearly anticipated the grand discovery of Copernicus. That the latter was unacquainted with the doctrine of Aristarchus is equally certain from the fact that the editio princeps of Archimedes had not appeared till after Copernicus’s death. The method given by Aristarchus of estimating the relative lunar and solar distances is geometrically correct, though the instrumental means of observation at his command rendered his data erroneous. His work has been published in Latin by G. Valla, Venice, 1498, folio; in Greek and Latin, with the commentary of Pappus, by Wallis, Oxford, 1688; andin a French translation by Fortia d’Urban, Paris, 1823, 8vo. See Delambre, Hist, de V astronomie ancienne.

The first certain appearance of Aristides in history was at the battle of Marathon, 490 b.c., where he was one of the ten generals, and led his own tribe, Antiochis. He is said to have been second in command to Miltiades. According to custom each of the ten generals had supreme command of the whole army for one day; Aristides saw the disadvantages of this system, which totally prevented any fixed plan being carried out, and by his advice and example prevailed on the other generals to relinquish their right in favour of Miltiades. This prudent measure contributed largely to the success of the battle, in which also, according to Plutarch, much was due to the valour of Aristides. He was left with one tribe to collect the spoil from the field of battle, while Miltiades marched to Athens to protect the city from the Persian fleet. He discharged the duty intrusted to him with the most scrupulous honesty. Next year he was made archon eponymus, and his reputation for justice appears to have been increased by the manner in which he performed the duties of his office. But his great rival, Themistocles, who had been meanwhile increasing his own power, grew jealous, and gradually raised a strong feeling against him by representing how dangerous it was for a democracy that any individual should be allowed to gain such influence as that of Aristides. The Athenians, uneasy at this idea, banished him by ostracism in 483. It is said that, on this occasion, an ignorant fellow, who did not know Aristides, came up to him, and, giving him his shell, desired him to write upon it the name of Aristides. The latter asked in surprise if Aristides had done him any wrong. “No,” was the reply, “and I do not even know him, but it irritates me to hear him everywhere called the justP Aristides made no answer, but took the shell and wrote his own name on it

On the night before the battle of Salamis, Aristides, who was still in exile, made a perilous journey through the enemy’s fleet, and reached the tent of Themistocles. He told him that he had come to bury in oblivion their former differences; that he had learned his plan for giving battle to the Persian fleet in the narrow straits of Salamis, and highly approved of it; and that he would assist him to the utmost of his ability. By his influence the other generals were induced to assent to the plans of Themistocles, of whom they were somewhat jealous. On the day of battle, Aristides collected some Athenian volunteers, and made a descent on the little island of Psyttalea, which was filled with the forces of the enemy. These he routed and almost annihilated. After the victory of Salamis he dissuaded Themistocles from his ambitious plan of conquering Asia by destroying the bridge which the Persians had built over the Hellespont, and thereby cutting off their communications.

About this time his sentence of exile appears to have been revoked, for in 479 he was general of the Athenians in the campaign against Mardonius, and shared with Pausanias the glory of the victory-at Plataea. By his prudent counsels before the battle, he settled a dangerous dispute with the Tegetae; and after the victory, when the Athenians and Lacedaem onians were contending as to the right of erecting the trophy, he prevailed on the Athenians to give up their claim. The Lacedaemonians immediately followed this example, and the honours of the day were given to the Plataeans. He also instituted yearly sacrifices and quinquennial games at Plataea, to celebrate the victory over the barbarians and the liberation of Greece. On his return to Athens, Aristides introduced the famous measure by which the archonship was thrown open to all classes of citizens. In 477, he was sent along with Cimon, over whom he had great influence, to take command of the Athenian contingent, under the general command of Pausanias the Lacedaemonian. The haughtiness and oppressive conduct of the Spartans had disgusted the allies, who were completely won over by the mildness and prudence of Aristides and Cimon. In a body the allied Greeks threw off the hegemony of Sparta, and formed a confederation under the Athenians. To Aristides was committed the task of drawing up the laws for this confederacy, and settling the amount of tribute which should be paid by each state. This duty he discharged to the complete satisfaction of the allies, who were delighted to be assessed at only 460 talents. The first instalment of the tax was paid into the national treasury, then situated on the sacred island of Delos, but afterwards transferred to Athens, a measure which Aristides is said to have declared unjust but expedient.

The time and place of his death are uncertain. It is known, at least, that he survived the banishment of Themistocles, for his generous conduct towards his fallen rival is commemorated by Plutarch. He died, probably, about 468 B,c., according to some at Athens, according to others at Pontus. He is said to have died in such poverty that he did not leave enough to defray his funeral expenses, but had a tomb erected to him with funds from the public treasury. This tomb at Phalerum was still to be seen in the time of Plutarch. His daughters received marriage portions from the state, and his son, Lysimachus, was granted a sum of money and a portion of land. Such was the respect of the Athenians for the memory of their great statesman, that even his remote descendants are said to have received assistance from the public treasury.

ARISTIDES, Aelius, surnamed Theodorus, a distinguished Greek rhetorician or sophist, was the son of Eudae-mon, a priest of Zeus, and was born at Adriani, in Mysia. The date of his birth is given by some as 129 a.d., by others, with more probability, as 117. He studied with great assiduity, and early manifested an uncommon aptitude for all that pertained to the art of rhetoric. He travelled extensively through Greece, Italy, Egypt, and Asia, and acquired such renown for eloquence that monuments were erected to him in several of the towns through which he passed. A record of his journeys has been preserved by himself, and his vanity appears to have been increased to an inordinate extent by his success. Shortly after his return to Italy, he was seized with a peculiar illness, which lasted for 13 years, and the nature of which has been the subject of some speculation. It is described very fully in his six Sacred Discourses, along with a mass of details regarding visions, dreams, and wonderful cures. His account of these cures has excited considerable attention, from the similarity between them and the effects produced by Mesmerism or Hypnotism, i.e., nervous sleep. Aristides meanwhile had settled at Smyrna, whither he had gone for the sake of his health. In 178, when the city was partially destroyed by an earthquake, he wrote an eloquent account of the misfortune to the Emperor Aurelius, with whom he was a great favourite, and prevailed on him to give assistance to the citizens. The Smyrnaeans, out of gratitude for this service, called Aristides the founder of their city, and erected a brazen statue to him. He declined the other honours which they would have heaped upon him, and would only accept the office of priest of Aesculapius, which he held till his death, about 189 a.d.

The extant works of Aristides consist of two small and unimportant treatises on rhetoric, and of fifty-five orations or declamations. In several of these he selects the same subjects as had been treated by Demosthenes and Isocrates, and puts himself in direct competition with them. His contemporaries ventured to compare him with Demosthenes, but modern criticism does not confirm this judgment The style of Aristides is good, sometimes terse and elegant, but occasionally laboured, and there is a total want of the vigorous energy of thought and practical skill that give so much power to the orations of Demosthenes. No doubt this is in great measure due to the fact that the subjects selected by Aristides were to him fictitious, and that, consequently, his whole attention must have been concentrated on the diction and manner of treatment; in the cause itself he could have had no living interest. A complete edition of his works was published by Dindorf, Aristidis Opera, 3 vols*., Leipsic, 1829.

ARISTIDES of Thebes, a celebrated Greek painter, was an older contemporary of Apelles, and flourished about 350 b.c. He is said by Pliny to have been the first to express in his paintings character and passion; but this is probably an exaggeration. Several of his paintings are recorded in which there was manifested extraordinary mastery of expression. His colouring is said by Pliny to have been hard.

ARISTIDES, Quintilianus, author of a valuable treatise on music, lived probably in the first century of our era. According to Meibomius, in whose collection (Antiq. Musicce Auc. Septem, 1652) this work is printed, it contains everything on music that is to be found in antiquity.

In the Socratic theory of morals, virtue had appeared as the only human good, and reason as the indispensable condition of right action; but there was at the same time a utilitarian side to this teaching. Ethical virtues had been tested by their consequences; proof of the virtuous quality of an action had been drawn from its tendency to give pleasure; happiness or utility had been, in a certain sense, laid down as the end of action. This one-sided aspect of the Socratic theory was accepted by Aristippus, and by him carried out to its full extent. He refused altogether to consider those speculative elements, which, though in some degree rejected by Socrates himself, were nevertheless inherent in the Socratic system. Logic and Physics he thought unnecessary, for they contained nothing which bore upon the end of action, and for the same reason, as Aristotle tells us, he rejected mathematical study. But although Logic and Physics, as separate disciplines, received no attention from the Cyrenaics, yet they were admitted as supports to their ethical theory. According to Aristippus, knowledge is sensible perception; all that we know of anything is the impression made by it on us. These impressions are motions,—changes in our mental states; and each mental state is a purely subjective phenomenon, from which we can deduce nothing as to the constitution of external reality. Nor can we compare our knowledge with that of others; each one’s sensations are peculiarly his own, and can be known only by himself. General names or conceptions, and, consequently, general propositions or truths, are meaningless and absurd. Individual feeling is the sole criterion of truth. From this it follows at once that such feeling is the only means by which we can determine our actions; feeling becomes the standard both of truth and of action. Now the only difference among feelings, in their relation to action, is their pleasurable or painful quality. The change effected in us by any object is either a violent, a gentle, or a perfectly tranquil motion. The first is painful, the second pleasant, the third in different. The end of life, as is manifest also from experience, is the attainment of pleasure, which must be positive or real, not merely absence of pain, as the Epicureans afterwards held. Further, future pleasure, as a gentle motion not yet effected, and past pleasure, as a gentle motion completed and done, cannot possibly enter into our estimate of happiness. Immediate gratification, the pleasure of the moment (μov άχρονος), is the end of life; real happiness consists of a succession of moments of intense pleasure. The conception of a life in which, on the whole, pain is over-balanced by pleasure, may certainly be formed, but can never furnish a satisfactory end of action. Varieties of pleasure were, of course, admitted by Aristippus, but his decided opinion seems to have been that bodily pleasures and pains are the most potent factors in human happiness or misery. As to the causes of pleasure, the means by which it was to be attained, these are in themselves indifferent; an action which gives pleasure is good, whether or not it be opposed to the religion or laws of the country. The predicates, good and bad, attached to actions independently of their consequences, are merely conventional, and not founded in nature. Yet Aristippus was compelled to admit that some actions which give immediate pleasure entail more than their equivalent of pain. This fact, he thought, was the true ground of the conventional distinction of right and wrong, and in this sense regard ought to be had to custom and law. But there is quite another side of the Cyrenaic doctrine, which appears as strongly in the theory as in the practice of Aristippus. Man must not give up himself as a slave to pleasure; he must be superior to it. True happiness can only be obtained by rational insight, prudence (φρόνησκ), or wisdom. Only through this prudence, which is in truth virtue, can man make a proper use of the good things in his power, and free himself from those superstitions and violent passions that stand in the way of happiness. Through this wisdom we are enabled to preserve the mastery of pleasure, to rise superior to past, future, or even present happiness, and make ourselves independent of circumstances. True freedom of soul, real self-sufficiency, is given by wisdom, by mental cultivation. It is evident that at this point Aristippus approximates more closely to Socrates and the Cynics; and it is a suggestive fact that his followers, who pushed his principles to their logical consequences, landed in a theory of the negation of pleasure, nearly identical with the later Cynic views.

(Wendt, Be Phil. Cyrenaica, 1841; H. v. Stein, Be Phil. Cyren., pt. i., “De Vita Aris.,” 1855; Mullach, Frag. Phil. G⅛∙iεc.,ii. 397-438.)