<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:H.hypsicles_1</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:H.hypsicles_1</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:base="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><body xml:lang="eng" n="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><div type="textpart" subtype="alphabetic_letter" n="H"><div type="textpart" subtype="entry" xml:id="hypsicles-bio-1" n="hypsicles_1"><head><persName xml:lang="la" xml:id="tlg-0717"><surname full="yes">Hypsicles</surname></persName></head><p>(<label xml:lang="grc">Ὑψικλῆς</label>), was of Alexandria, or, as the Arabic writers
      say, of Ascalon. Both may be right, for to say that a Greek mathematician or astronomer was of
      Alexandria, fixes his place of birth or general residence about as much as we do when we name
      an Englishman of the same stamp as of Oxford or Cambridge. The time at which he lived will
      require some discussion, inasmuch as we intend to differ from the account generally received,
      and our theory on the matter involves the period at which Diophantus wrote, which is of
      somewhat more importance.</p><p>It is generally stated that Hypsicles lived A. D. 160, on the authority of Suidas, who
      states that his teacher, Isidore the philosopher, <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐφιλοσόφησε ὑπο
       τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς</foreign>; hence, says Fabricius, he lived <hi rend="ital">sub Divis
       Fratribus,</hi> and the Divi Fratres are Antoninus and Verus. [<hi rend="smallcaps">ANTONINUS</hi>
      <hi rend="smallcaps">PIUS.</hi>] But Fabricius (or Harless) adds a note to the effect that it
      is possible this Isidore may be stated to have studied under <hi rend="ital">his own</hi>
      brothers, and that he may be the Isidore whose life was written by <hi rend="smallcaps">DAMASCIUS.</hi> August, the editor of Euclid, assumes, without an allusion to any other
      opinion, that Isidore was Isidore of Miletus, Justiniasn's architect, and the preceptor of <hi rend="smallcaps">EUTOCIUS.</hi> Whether this last supposition be true or not, it is certain
      that the former one must be correct, for Suidas, at the word <hi rend="ital">Syrianus,</hi>
      mentions Isidore "the philosopher" again, and cites Damascius by name for his information. Now
      Photius, who has given a long commentary on the life of Isidore by Damascius, repeats again
      and again that Isidore was the successor of Marinus, the successor of Proclus, and that
      Damascius was his fellow pupil. This brings Isidore fairly into the reign of Justinian; and if
      we look at the strong feeling of admiration which Eutocius and Hypsicles both express for
      their teachers (Hypsicles calls his the <hi rend="ital">great</hi>), we cannot suppose that
      these two Isidores were two different persons. Again, the Isidore of Damascius was a
      Christian, and Suidas calls him <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐπιμελὴς ἐν ἱεροῖς</foreign>.
      If an editor of Archimedes in the second century had been a Christian, the fact must have been
      noted in many forms, and probably he would have been one of the <hi rend="ital">saint</hi>
      Isidores from whom Suidas always distinguishes him by the title of the philosopher.</p><p>There are other strong presumptions against Hypsicles having lived in the second century.
      Neither Pappus, Proclus, nor Eutocius, mentions his name. Now Proclus names the commentators
      on Euclid: it is unlikely he would have forgotten the editor who added two whole books to the
      Elements. Moreover, he specifies it as the ultimate object of the Elements to investigate the
      properties of regular solids: it is very unlikely that he should have suppressed the fact of
      two books on those very solids having been written as an appendix to Euclid. Again, Marinus,
      in his preface to the <title>Data,</title> states the Elements to consist of thirteen books,
      which is a presumption against the additional books of Hypsicles having been added before his
      time. Putting all these things together, we feel that we may confidently assert Hypsicles to
      have written not earlier than <date when-custom="550">A. D. 550</date>.</p><p>Diophantus mentions Hypsicles in the work on polygonal numbers (prop. viii.), and seems to
      attribute to him the notion and definition of polygonal numbers. We must accordingly place
      Diophantus at least something later than Hypsicles, perhaps at the beginning of the seventh
      century. Achilles Tatius also mentions Hypsicles (<hi rend="ital">Isag. in Phaenom.
      Arati</hi>) as one of those who wrote on the harmony of the planetary motions, <foreign xml:lang="grc">περὶ τῆς ἐναρμυνίου κινήσεως</foreign>: and thus the date of Achilles
      Tatius is considerably altered. <note anchored="true" place="margin">* The date of Achilles Tatius is
       supposed to be settled by a passage of Julius Firmicus (4.10), in which he announces his
       intention to defer certain <hi rend="ital">astrological</hi> topics till he treats of the
       barbarian sphere, <hi rend="ital">quae dixinus ille Abranm et prudlentissimus Achilles
        xerissimis conati sunt rationibus invenire et otis tradere.</hi> But Achilles Tatiuss does
       not show the least symptom of astrology; and we are inclined to suppose, with Fabricius,
       Wiedler, &amp;c., that the Achilles mentioned by Firmicus is another person. And moreover, in
       looking at the above quotation, it seems as likely as not that Firmicus only means to say
       that his two friends, Abraam and Achilles, had endeavoured to supply him, and not the public,
       with some information.</note>
      <pb n="542"/></p><div><head>Works</head><div><head>The <title xml:lang="la">liber anaphoricus</title></head><p>Casiri makes mention, from Arabic writers, of a work of Hypsicles on the magnitudes and
        distances of the heavenly bodies. But the only astronomical work of his remaining is
         <foreign xml:lang="grc">περὶ τῆς τῶν ζωδίων ἀναφορας</foreign>.</p><p>This <title xml:lang="la">liber anaphoricus</title> exists in Arabic, edited by Costha ben
        Luca, and emendated by Alchindus. It was one of those which were read preparatory to the
        study of the Syntaxis, a distinction which it also preserved among the Saracens. Delambre
        wonders that a book containing matter which is as easily and more correctly treated in the
        Syntaxis itself should have gained such a position: but the date of it may remove the cause
        of surprise.</p><div><head>Editions</head><p>The <title xml:lang="la">liber anaphoricus</title> was <bibl>published (Gr. Lat.) with
          the Optics of Heliodorus by Erasmus Bartholinus. (Paris, 1567, 4to.)</bibl></p></div></div><div><head>The two books of the <title>Elements</title></head><p>With respect to the two books of the Elements above mentioned, it is clear enough that <hi rend="smallcaps">EUCLID</hi> did not write them, because they begin with a preface, a thing
        which is not found even at the commencement of the Elements; because that preface makes
        mention of Apollonius <note anchored="true" place="margin">* This mention of Apollonius is supposed to
         account for the Arabic story, which is, that <hi rend="ital">Apollonius the carpentor</hi>
         was the first who wrote Elements, and that Euclid was employed by Ptolemy to amend and
         enlarge them.</note>, who came after Euclid ; and because the author states himself to be
        the pupil of Isidore, as above noted. The Arabic writers, according to Casiri, represent
        Hypsicles as only emendating these books; and the early translations of the Elements from
        the Arabic do not mention his name. The direct evidence for his connection with these books
        seems to be the occurrence of his name on the manuscripts as the author, unsupported by the
        testimony of any writer of authority: but this, from the date, they could not have had. It
        is in favour of it, however, that different species of manuscripts, of every order of
        authority, unite in one testimony. Those, for instance, from which Zamberti translated,
        though they make the fourteenth book only an addition to the thirteenth, and turn the
        fifteenth into the fourteenth, give both the addition and the so-called fourteenth book as
        the work of Hypsicles.</p></div></div><div><head>Further Information</head><p>Suidas; Fabric. <hi rend="ital">Bibl. Graec.</hi> vol. iv. pp. 20, 213; Gartz, de <hi rend="ital">Interpret. Euclid. Arabic.</hi></p></div><byline>[<ref target="author.A.DE.M">A. De M.</ref>]</byline></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>