though it cannot act as a positive force. All the potential forces inhering within matter are awakened, and have been eternally influenced by the sight of perfection; and the order and harmony of the world issues from their effort to reach it. The Deity of the Lycæum is thus a Final Cause;—not a Providence. Motion and change, and every effort here below, arise without action on His part: nay, according to Aristotle, he has no cognizance of the world;—absorbed in contemplation of himself—for there is nothing higher—he is in everlasting happiness and repose, knowing nothing of strife or evil. A doctrine of strange sound! Yet, apart from the light thrown on this mighty problem by man's moral activity and freedom—such is the best solution that could be furnished by the ancient world. Observe, too, its singular practical influence! Another proof that speculative error never availed to sully the Stagyrite. Although able to discern the Everlasting God, only as a Final Cause;—that Final Cause is All-perfection. The unity, harmony, and beauty of terrene things arise from an universal struggle to attain that perfection; it is only where the eye has wavered, and the quest is lost, that disorder reigns.
Our portrait of Aristotle is finished. There is not a work he ever wrote which may not nourish and inspire every student; and there are many of them, such as the Organon, wholly above reach of cavil; which are possessions for all sects and all men, as well as for all time. He was one of the greatest glories of Greece.—If we have freely dissented from him, his own words are ample apology: "It is best to examine theories carefully and narrowly, even though philosophers who are very dear to us have espoused them. It is best also to put aside personal feelings, and to think only of the truth. Both are dear, nevertheless it is a sacred duty to give preference to the defence of truth."—J. P. N.
ARISTOXENUS, a peripatetic philosopher, who devoted himself especially to music. He was born between the third and fourth centuries before the christian era, at Tarentum (district of Calabria), and first studied music under his father Spintharus, or, as he is named by some, Mnesias of Mantinea. From his instruction, he passed successively under that of Lamprus of Erythræ and of Xenophilus, and finally settled in Athens as a disciple of Aristotle. He is said to have written four hundred and fifty-three works, of which, however, but very few have been preserved. Of these, the most important is his treatise on the "Elements of Harmony," in three books, which is the earliest complete work upon the subject that has come down to us. Ancient manuscripts of this treatise are to be found in many of the principal libraries of Europe; but while these all agree, they still appear to have been transcribed from a corrupt original, as the insertion of the introduction to the entire work in the middle of the second book, and another important and obvious transposition, to say nothing of several incongruities in the text, sufficiently prove. These discrepancies have led some learned critics to suppose the copies to be all spurious, but there is ample evidence to the contrary, in the references to, and citations from the work by Euclid, Cicero, and Ptolemy. It was first printed by Meursius, and subsequently included by Meibomius, in his edition of seven Greek authors upon music. The term harmony is not employed in this work, as meaning the combination, but a succession of sounds, or, more extensively, the just fitness and perfect symmetry in all things, of which music is the symbol. It maintains the platonic principle, that music affects, for good and for ill, the moral nature of man. It expounds what is called the Greater System, consisting, in modern terminology, of a scale of two octaves, and a fourth, beginning with the A we write in the first space of the bass clef, which comprises five tetrachords. It rejects the two last modes as being duplications of others, reducing the number to thirteen, though, on the same ground, the thirteenth might as reasonably have been rejected, since it is a reduplication of the first. Its important feature is, however, its opposition to the theory of Pythagoras, who insisted upon a mathematical division of the musical degrees, whereas Aristoxenes professes that the ear must be the sole arbiter of their just proportions, the one referring everything to the sense, the other to the reason; though the latter affirmed that the sense must be cultivated before it can be capable of discrimination, while the former pretended that man is born with the intuitive capacity for what is true, which he will at all times appreciate whenever it may be presented. We may trace in this theory of Aristoxenus an incipient foreboding of the exquisite distinction of the interval of the major tone from the minor, that gives its especial beauty to our modern scale, which is derived from the harmonic system of nature, whereas that of the Greeks was produced entirely according to artificial calculations; and thus Aristoxenus has been called the Father of Temperament. This important point in his theory, however, like all, and perhaps more than all, that concerns Greek music, can only have a speculative interpretation in our times, since his division of the interval of a tone into four equal parts is so inappreciable by modern ears, and so irreconcilable with the acoustical system of harmonics, upon which the modern principles of music are founded, that we can no more guess at the effect, than reason upon the propriety of any theory based upon this foundation. The musical system of Aristoxenus obtained many adherents, and the supporters of the rival Pythagorean and Aristoxenean systems, who called themselves respectively canonici and harmonici, maintained their opposition with such warmth, as has not been exceeded by the most violent musical disputes of later days. Besides this complete work of Aristoxenus, there exist some fragments of his upon the elements of rhythm, a dissertation upon flutes, and the principle of boring them, and another upon flute-playing, both of which bear upon the principles of intonation that he disputed with the Pythagoreans, and he is said to have written a copious history of music and musicians, down to his own time. Cicero appears in some of his writings to ridicule the general philosophy of Aristoxenus, implying that it was sufficient for him to discuss music without entering upon subjects he could not understand; but in other passages he speaks of him in terms of great respect.—(Hawkins, Burney, Donkin, Schilling, Fètis.)—G. A. M.
ARISTOXENUS, a Greek physician of the first century. Galen has preserved to us his theory of the pulse.
ARISTUS, one of the historians of Alexander the Great; cited by Strabo, Arrian, and Athenæus. Another Aristus was the friend of Cicero, and teacher of Brutus.
ARIU, Emilio, a Venetian sculptor of the fifteenth century.
ARIUS, the founder of Arianism, was a native of Africa, and the son of Ammonius. He is generally supposed to have been a scholar of Lucian of Antioch. He was first a deacon in Alexandria, and afterwards he was ordained presbyter a.d. 313 by Achillas, bishop of Alexandria, with the charge of a church in that city called Baucalis. The peculiar notions of Arius were first brought prominently forward in a dispute which arose between him and Alexander, the successor of Achillas, a.d. 318. It would appear that Arius had for some time before this been spreading his opinions with regard to the Trinity, and in consequence of the strictness of his life, and his modest and pleasing manners, had inoculated many with his doctrines. Alexander, according to one account, wavered in his judgment of these doctrines; but ultimately he attacked them in a public assembly of presbyters, and excluded Arius and his followers from church-fellowship. Notwithstanding this, the views of Arius found favour with some of the Eastern clergy, and a considerable party, headed by Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, while disagreeing with Arius on several points, maintained that there was no important doctrine involved, and that Arius had been too harshly dealt with. The followers of Arius so increased in numbers, and the contests became so serious, that the Emperor Constantine, after several vain attempts to conciliate the contending parties, called a council at Nicæa, a.d. 325, where the anti-Arians were completely victorious. They most probably owed their victory to the support of the emperor, as the Eusebian party were far more numerous than the anti-Arians. They proposed a creed of their own composing, which all signed except Arius and two others, who were banished to Illyricum in consequence of their refusal. The opinions of Arius were still making progress; and the emperor, having become an antagonist of Arianism only from expediency, was induced to look favourably on the condemned doctrines. Arius was recalled from Illyricum, and being favoured with two interviews with the emperor, satisfied him of his orthodoxy. The sentence of excommunication that had been passed against him was revoked by a synod at Jerusalem, and he was now permitted to return to Alexandria. On landing at that city disturbances arose. For Athanasius, who, when deacon, stood forth as the most powerful antagonist of Arianism in the council of Nicæa, had been bishop of Alexandria for some time, and though he was now an exile at Treves, the impression against Arianism which he had produced on the minds of his flock still remained. Arius was recalled by Constantine, and as there was now no obstacle
