Hist. Litteraria, ii. 350.; Ersch und Gruber, Allgemeine Encyclopädie, sub voc. "Anastasius; " Jöcher, Allgemeines Gelehrten-Lexicon, sub voc. " Anastasius.") W. P.

ANASTASIUS I. (POPE), by birth a Roman, the son of one Maximus, succeeded Siricius in the see of Rome, A. D. 398. This was only one year after the death of Ambrose. Chrysostom, Augustine and Jerome flourished during his pontificate, and some important councils and synods were held at Carthage, Constantinople, Ephesus and Toledo, in which the Roman bishop took little or no part. The only important act of Anastasius was to heal a schism which had divided for about seventeen years the churches of Rome and Antioch. An embassy from Flavianus, of Antioch, respecting whose ordination a dispute had originated, arrived at Rome during the last hours of Siricius, and thus the honour of the reconciliation devolved on his successor. Among the letters ascribed to this pope, two are decided forgeries: the former, addressed to the German bishops, in which it is ordained, that the people shall hear the Gospel standing; that no converts shall receive ordination except on the recommendation of five bishops; that the Manichæans expelled from Rome shall not be received in Germany: the latter, an epistle of consolation to one Nerenianus, - the one bears a date prior to the accession of Anastasius; the other, a date posterior to his death. This event is fixed by Semler on December 14th, 401, but more correctly by Baronius, on April 27th, 402. In the controversy then prevailing about the doctrines of Origen [RUFFINUS], Anastasius expressed his opposition to them with sufficient decision. Two of his epistles are published in the "Epistolæ Romanorum Pontificum," by Coutant, and some quotations may be found in Basnage, tom. iii. ann. 401. (Theodoret, lib. v. c. 23.; Basnage, tom. iii. A. D. 398.)

G. W.

ANASTA'SIUS II. (POPE), also a Roman, is supposed to have taken possession of the see of Rome on December 25th, A. D. 496, the day on which Clovis was baptized; at least in the year following he thus addressed that prince: “We rejoice, most honoured son, that thy admission to the Christian faith was contemporary with the beginning of our pontificate." His rule was extremely short, as we find that he was buried in St. Peter's on November 18th, A. D. 498; and it was passed in vain endeavours to compose the differences which had again arisen between the Eastern and the Western churches. The question then was. whether the name of Acacius, the recently deceased patriarch of Constantinople, whom the Romans accused of Eutychianism, and who had certainly been guilty of a bold independent opposition to the demands and pretensions of Rome, should be retained on the diptychs or not. The pope, in the first instance, insisted on its erasure, and he sent

a fruitless embassy to the emperor (also Anastasius) with that object; but being of a mild and pacific character, he appears afterwards to have relaxed somewhat of that rigour, so as to alarm the fears and provoke the jealousy of the more violent among his own clergy. Thus passed, between foreign dissension and domestic sedition, his disturbed pontificate, and it was followed by a schism which rent the Roman church for about sixteen years. Besides his letter to Clovis, there remains another, addressed to the emperor, and published by Labbe; and also a fragment relating to the schism in the East, which is published by Baluzius. (Labbe, Concilia, tom. iv. p. 1275.; Baluzius, Nova Collecta Conciliorum, p. 1457.; Baronius, A. D. 496.)

G. W.

ANASTA'SIUS (ANTIPOPE), cardinal of St. Marcellus, was protected by the emperors Lothaire and Louis, in 855-6, in his opposition to Benedict III. He was even placed by military force on the pontifical throne, and the bishops were summoned by the imperial officers to consecrate him; but they firmly refused obedience, and were so well supported by the clergy and people of Rome, that Anastasius was withdrawn by his patrons from the hopeless contest. (Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, lib. xlix. c. 26.)

G. W.

ANASTA'SIUS III. (POPE), a Roman, the son of one Lucian, succeeded Sergius III. in the see of Rome in the year 911, and held it for two years and about two months. We find nothing recorded respecting him, except some general mention of the mildness of his government.

G. W.

ANASTA'SIUS IV. (POPE), Conrad, bishop of Sabina, a canon, regular, and native of Rome, was elected as successor to Eugenius III. on July 9th, 1153. He is described as possessing great virtue and experience in the usages of the Roman court; but the only act of any importance related of him is the patronage which he bestowed on the order of St. John at Jerusalem, the Knights of the Hospital. Some of the privileges which he conferred on them were, however, contested by the patriarch of Jerusalem, and great discords arose in consequence. deed is extant, and may be found, as well as some letters of this pope, in Labbe's collection. He was at a very advanced age when he obtained the see, and he held it only one year and some months. (Otho Frisingensis, lib. ii. Ap.; Labbe, Concilia, tom. x. p. 1132, et seq.) G. W.

The

ANASTA'SIUS SINAITA is the name of several ecclesiastical writers who were monks in one of the convents on Mount Sinai. The most remarkable of them are

I. ANASTA'SIUS SINAI'TA the elder, bishop, or rather patriarch, of Antioch, from A. D. 561. He was a zealous adherent and afterwards protector of the orthodox Catholic faith. His accession to the see of Antioch took place during the latter years of the reign of Justinian, who towards the end of his life abandoned the religious principles of his youth, and transgressed the limits even of temperate heresy. He publicly professed the fantastic opinion of the Aphthardoceti, who believed that the body of Christ was incorruptible before his ascension, and that his manhood was never subject to any wants and infirmities. Anastasius, having attacked this principle of the Aphthardoceti, had in his turn to suffer from the intrigues and hostility of Justinian. The successor of Justinian, Justin II., though his reign is distinguished by a rare tranquillity in the ecclesiastical history of the East, expelled Anastasius from his see in 570. The fate of Anastasius during the period from 570 to 593 is unknown, although it is said that he continued to show himself a zealous defender of the orthodox faith by several public disputations which he held with heterodox priests at Antioch, at Cæsarea, and especially at Alexandria. In 593 he was restored to the see of Antioch by the Emperor Maurice, and he died on the 21st of April, 599, at a very advanced age. Anastasius is generally supposed to be the author of - 1. " Sermones V. de orthodoxa Fide." 2. "Sermones II. in Annunciationem B. Virginis Mariæ." 3. " Sermo in Transfigurationem J. Christi." 4. "Exposito compendiaria orthodoxæ Fidei." 5. "Tractatus de Sanctis tribus quadragesimis." These works were all written in Greek; a Latin translation of them is contained in the "Bibliotheca Patrum," ix. 923, &c. (Evagrius, 1. iv. c.39-41. 1. v. c. 3.; Cave, Script. Eccles. Hist. Litteraria, ii. 186, 187.; Jöcher, Allgem. Gelehrten-Lexicon, sub voc. "Anastasius I. Sinaita;" Ersch und Gruber, Allgemeine Encyclopädie, sub voc. "Anastasius Sinaita I.;" Gibbon, Decline and Fall, viii. 331, &c. ed. 1815.) W. P. II. ANASTA'SIUS SINAITA the younger, the saint or the martyr, was the successor of Anastasius Sinaita the elder in the see of Antioch (A. D. 599). He showed great zeal in the conversion of the Jews, by whom he was put to death with cruel torture, in a revolt on the 21st of December, 608. It is not quite certain that he had been a monk on Mount Sinai. He is often confounded with Anasta

sius Sinaita the elder, for instance by Nicephorus (xviii. 44.). He is generally believed to be the Greek translator of the work of Gregory the Great, "De cura Pastorali." It is also said that he is the author of a Greek treatise on Faith which is contained in a Latin translation in the fifteenth volume of the "Bibliotheca Patrum," and which is attributed by others to Anastasius Sinaita the Elder. (Cave, Historia Litteraria, i. 437.; Baronius, Martyrologium Romanum, 21st of December; Ersch und Gruber, Allgemeine Encyclopädie; Jöcher,

Allgem. Gelehrten-Lexicon, and Adelung's Supplement.)

W. P.

III. ANASTA'SIUS SINAITA, flourished in the seventh century, but whether he died about 620, as some assert, or sixty years later, is disputed. It is certain, however, that he was a different person from the patriarch of Antioch, with whom he has been constantly confounded, and even by Gretser. He was a monk of Mount Sinai, and a zealot for the orthodox faith, and contended against the heretics of Egypt and Syria, especially the Acephali, a sect of Monophysites. Many of his works are extant: -1. The Hodegos, or Guide, chiefly against the Eutychians, of various denominations, in twenty-four chapters. It was published by Gretser in Greek and Latin. Ingolstadt, 1606. 2. "Anagogicæ Contemplationes in Hexemeron," a long and fanciful dissertation on the creation. A Latin translation of eleven books may be found in the "Bibliotheca Vet. Patr." Cologne, 1618. The twelfth book was published in Greek and Latin by Allix, London, 1682. 3. Five orations or sermons on various points of doctrine. 4. One hundred and fifty-four Questions and Answers. This is in a great measure a compilation from the fathers and other ecclesiastical writers, and it treats on some moral as well as theological matters. Translations of all these works are contained in the "Bibliotheca Vet. Patr." tom. vi. pars i. p. 580-800. G. W.

IV. ANASTA'SIUS SINAITA, a patriarch of Antioch, who lived in the former part of the seventh century. He declared himself against the council of Chalcedon, and was a passionate adherent of the heretical doctrines of the Jacobites. In 629 the Emperor Heraclius promised to promote him to the see of Antioch if he would adhere to the council of Chalcedon, and recognise two natures in Jesus Christ. Anastasius abandoned his errors, but not in a fair way, professing that he believed a "natura deivirilis" (godly-human) of Christ, by which words the emperor was deceived. Anastasius died as patriarch of Antioch in 649. Theophanes calls him a man as hypocritical and dangerous as all the other Syrians, from which we may conclude that Anastasius was born in Syria. This Anastasius is probably the author of the Greek work "On Heresies," which is now in the imperial library at Vienna. (Theophanes, p. 274. ed. Paris; Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici, ad an. 629; Jöcher, Allgem. Gelehrten-Lexicon, and Adelung's Supplement.)

W. P.

ANASTASY BRATANOVSKY. [BRATANOVSKY.]

ANATOLIUS ( ̓Ανατόλιος), a contemporary and friend of Porphyry (A. D. 233A. D. 304), who reckons him among the New Platonists, and calls him a teacher of Iamblichus. The "Homeric Questions” (Ζητήματα Ομηρικά) of Porphyry, still extant, are dediname a fragment of a work, which was entitled Περὶ συμπαθειῶν καὶ ἀντιπαθειῶν (“ On Sympathies and Antipathies"). It is printed with notes and a Latin translation by F. Rendtorf, in the old edition of Fabricius, "Bibliotheca Græca," iv. 295. Some writers, such as H. Valesius, entertained the opinion that this Anatolius was the same as Anatolius of Alexandria; but, though the time at which they lived might support the opinion, there is sufficient reason for distinguishing the two, the former being a pagan, and the latter a Christian bishop. Others have been inclined to regard this Anatolius as the same person with the one to whom many of the letters of Libanius are addressed, and who was a friend of Iamblichus the younger, but this latter Anatolius, who was prefect of Illyricum (Wolf, ad Libanii Epist. 463.; Ammian. Marcellin. p. 223. and 272. ed. H. Valesius), certainly belongs to a later date. (Fabricius, Biblioth. Græc. v. 759.)

L. S.

ANATOLIUS ( ̓Ανατόλιος), a jurist who lived during the first half of the sixth century of the Christian æra. He was a native of Berytus, and belonged to a celebrated family of jurists, for his father, Leontius, and his grandfather, Eudoxius, are mentioned by the Emperor Justinian as men of great merit in jurisprudence; but whether this refers to their writings, or to their distinguished character as teachers in the celebrated school of jurisprudence at Berytus, is uncertain. Anatolius himself taught jurisprudence as antecessor at Berytus, from whence he was invited, about A. D. 530, to Constantinople, to assist Tribonian and others in compiling the Digest or Pandects. After the completion of this task, he received successively the offices of Advocatus præfecti prætorio, Advocatus fisci, and "communis omnium judex." At last he was raised to the dignity of consular and the office of Comes rerum privatarum to the Emperor Justinian. He lost his life during an earthquake, a piece of stone having struck him on the head. This accident is said to have given much pleasure in many quarters, for he had many enemies on account of his avarice and selfish conduct. Anatolius wrote a commentary on the "Digest," and one on the "Codex Justinianeus," both of which are cited in the "Basilica," but are now lost. Blastares, a writer of the fourteenth century, ascribes to Anatolius a Greek translation or rather abridgment of the "Codex Justinianeus;" but no part of this work is extant, and some critics think that this statement of Blastares arose only from a confusion of Anatolius with Anastasius. (Justinian, De Confirmatione Digestorum, §9.; Novella, lxxxii. 1.; Agathias, Hist. v. 3.; Bach, Historia Jurisprudentiæ Romanæ, iv. 1. § 10.; Zimmern, Geschichte des Röm. Privatrechts, § 109.)

L. S.

ANATOLIUS ( ̓Ανατόλιος), a native of

the third century after Christ, and was, according to Eusebius, the most distinguished among the philosophers of his time. In arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, physics, dialectic, and rhetoric, he was far above all his contemporaries, and his fellow-citizens persuaded him to establish at Alexandria a school for the purpose of teaching and propagating the philosophy of Aristotle. Anatolius complied with their request, and was thus the first Christian who taught the philosophy of Aristotle. After having for some time enjoyed the highest honours and distinctions at Alexandria, he left his native city and went to Syria, where Theotechnus, bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, gave him episcopal ordination, and promised him the succession in the see of Cæsarea. With this prospect in view, he stopped for some time at Cæsarea, and assisted Theotechnus on various occasions in his episcopal functions, but about the year A. D. 269 he had to travel to Antioch, and on his way thither he passed through Laodicea. Eusebius, the bishop of this place, had recently died, and the Laodiceans entreated him to remain among them as their bishop. Anatolius accepted the offer, and thus became bishop of Laodicea, an office which he seems to have held from A. D. 270 to about A. D. 282. (Georg. Syncellus, p. 723. ed. Dindorf.) Respecting his subsequent life, nothing is known, though some writers state that he suffered martyrdom. Anatolius is mentioned as the author of the following works: - 1. “Canon Paschalis," that is, on the festival of Easter, and the season at which it should be celebrated. Eusebius has preserved a considerable fragment of the beginning of it, but the whole work now exists only in a bad Latin translation, which is usually ascribed to Rufinus, and is printed, together with the "Canon Paschalis" of Victorius, in A. Bucher's "Doctrina Temporum," p. 435, &c. 2. A work on arithmetic, in ten books, which is now lost, with the exception of some fragments preserved in the "Theologumena Arithmetices" (Θεολογούμενα τῆς ἀριθμητικῆς). 3. An introductory work on the study of mathematics. Fragments of it, consisting of questions and answers connected with mathematics, astronomy, and geography, are still extant in MS., but have never been printed, except by Fabricius in his "Bibliotheca Græca." (Cave, Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia Literaria, p. 99. ed. London, 1688; Fabricius, Biblioth. Græc. iii. 461, &c.; Fantanini, Historia Literaria Aquileiæ, v. 15.)

L. S.

ANATOLIUS ( ̓Ανατόλιος), sometimes called ANATOLIUS VINDANIUS, or simply Vindanius, was a native of Berytus, and if, as some writers believe, he is the same as the Anatolius mentioned by Eunapius in his Life of Proæresius, he was surnamed Azutrion, and died about A. D. 360. But the supposed identity of the two persons is exceedingly doubtful. The one of whom Eunapius speaks was a great orator and jurist, who went from Berytus to Rome, and found so much favour there that he was at last appointed Præfectus of Illyricum, and became one of the most powerful men of the age. Notwithstanding his exalted position, his vanity and ambition induced him to go to Athens for the purpose of contending with the most celebrated sophists of the day. Eunapius gives an amusing account of the manner in which the degraded Greeks of that time received this great man. They were, says he, struck with as much awe at his arrival as their ancestors had been at the arrival of the Persian hosts, and some declared that he must needs be a god. [PROÆRESIUS.] But whatever may be thought of the identity of the two persons of the name of Anatolius, we know from Photius (Biblioth. 163.) that Anatolius Vindanius wrote a work on agriculture in twelve books, under the title of “Συγγραφὴ Γεωργικῶν.” It was a compilation from earlier works on the same subject, such as those of Democritus, Africanus, Tarantinus, Apuleius, Florentius, and others. The entire work is now lost, but Cassianus Bassus, who, at the command of the emperor Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, made a collection of extracts from the different writers on agriculture, incorporated in it many parts from the work of Anatolius, from which it is evident that he must have been a man of considerable practical knowledge. This collection made by Cassianus Bassus is still extant under the name of "Geoponica" (“ Γεωπονικά”), in twenty books.

(Ammian. Marcell. xix. 11. with the note of Valesius; F. N. Niclas, introduction to his edition of the Geoponica, Leipzig, 1781, 4 vols. 8νο.)

Suidas mentions an ANATOLIUS, whom he calls a teacher of the Emperor Theodosius, and who is otherwise unknown.

There is another ANATOLIUS, who was bishop of Constantinople from A. D. 449 to A. D. 458, and of whom we still possess a letter addressed to the Emperor Leo on the council of Chalcedon. (Cave, Scriptorum Ecclesiast. Historia Literaria, p. 355. ed. London.)

L. S.

ANAXAGORAS ( ̓Αναξαγόρας), a native of Clazomenæ, was born, according to Apollodorus, in the seventieth Olympiad (B. c. 500 -497). As he was twenty years old at the time of the expedition of Xerxes into Greece, he was born in B. c. 500. He lived to be seventy-two years of age, and consequently till в. с. 428.

He is stated by several ancient writers to have been a pupil of Anaximenes. If this be true, it would assist in determining the time of Anaximenes, which is not certain. But the difference between the doctrines of Anaximenes and Anaxagoras throws some

suspicion on this statement; and the succession of some of these ancient philosophers, as given by later writers, is very far from being trustworthy. Though Anaxagoras was of a rich and distinguished family, he took no part in political affairs, and he gave up his property to his relations, considering that the true object of life was the contemplation of nature. He came to Athens in B. c. 480, and stayed there thirty years. Among his pupils are mentioned, on good authority, Pericles, Euripides the dramatist, and Archelaus; and, on less certain evidence, Thucydides the historian, Democritus, Socrates, and others. If the time of his residence at Athens is rightly stated, we must suppose that he left Athens in B. c. 450, and afterwards visited it again; for in B. c. 432, he was prosecuted at Athens on a charge of irreligion. Various and inconsistent accounts of his trial are quoted by Diogenes Laertius. His pupil Pericles assisted in his defence. He escaped at least with his life, for he died at Lampsacus, B. c. 428, and his memory was honoured there by an annual celebration.

Anaxagoras wrote a treatise, in the Ionic dialect, on Nature, which was highly valued. Several fragments of it have been preserved by ancient writers, especially by Simplicius. He denied that there was either generation or destruction; there was only union and separation of things already existing, so that generation ought to be called union or mixture of things, and destruction ought to be called separation. He began his treatise by representing all things as originally in a state of mixture or confusion, till Nous gave them order. These elemental things were infinite in number and minuteness, and as all things were mixed, no thing was perceptible owing to its minuteness. As he supposed the primal elements to be infinitely small, he did not adopt an atomic theory; for, as Bayle has correctly said, the atomic theory, though it supposes the whole number of atoms to be infinite, involves the supposition of the number being finite in any given body. He denied that there was chance or accident; these were only names for unknown causes. Yet he did not assume a fate or necessity. He maintained that there was a moving power, and he called it Nous. Nous was conceived as the cause of the union and separation of things; it has given order to all that has been, and is, and will give order to all that is to be. He conceived matter to be infinite in quantity, quality, and minuteness, and Nous as arranging it in order, and so producing the beautiful and the good. Thus he distinguished between the moved and the moving power, which itself had no motion, and thus he established two independent principles in opposition to the sole principle of Anaximander. His general doctrine as to Nous is expressed with sufficient clearness in a passage preserved by Simplicius: "Nous is infinite, self-potent, and unmixed with any thing. It exists by itself. For, if it did not, but were mixed with any thing else, it would have a part in all things by being mixed with any one; for in all there is a portion of all." He adds that "Nous is the most subtle and the purest of all things, and has all knowledge about all things, and infinite power (ἰσχύει μέγιστον).” He may have conceived Nous as diffused through all things, but not mixed with any thing; and this will seem a probable exposition of his meaning when we come to explain his notion of life.

It cannot be admitted with Ritter that the infinite, as conceived by Anaxagoras, is not to be taken in its strict sense because he speaks of æther and air as infinite, which, according to his system, are formed out of the infinite particles of matter. It was one of his merits, so far as we can understand his system, to have seen that different orders of infinity may co-exist; that the whole of things, conceived as independent of quality, must be infinite; that, conceived as possessing qualities, the number of qualities may be conceived as infinite; and that the things of like qualities may also consistently be conceived as infinite in number. It was objected to his system of old, that his infinite Nous was limited in its power. The mass of matter existed independently of it; Nous merely ordered or arranged. The notion of Nous did not involve the notion of all existence. It was merely an instrument, not an original cause. Nous also only worked partially. At first it moved only a few particles of the infinite number; and what it moved, that it separated and arranged; that which was put in motion remained in motion and propagated its motion; and Nous was, and is still, employed in giving the primary movement to other particles of the infinite. Nous, therefore, gave motion to matter, which continued to move according to the nature of the motion impressed upon it.

Ritter justly remarks that Aristotle's conclusion, that Anaxagoras viewed Nous as having begun to create motion, is a too literal exposition of the words of Anaxagoras. According to Aristotle's exposition, Anaxagoras must have viewed the universe as having a beginning. But the essence of Nous is to produce motion and order, and if it begun to operate, it must have existed in an inactive state; and that is contradictory to its notion. Accordingly, when Anaxagoras speaks of Nous beginning to give motion, we must consider this only a mode of expression adopted to explain how the universe was created; for language admits of no other form of expression when we attempt to explain a system in operation. The opinion, that by establishing an eternally existing matter, and Nous as merely giving motion to it, he established two eternal principles, and so destroyed the unity which is essential to the conception of

a first cause, is perhaps not a well founded objection. As he explained the formation of things by speaking of Nous as beginning to operate, so it was necessary to assume something to operate upon. We can conceive creation so far as it is the forming of material bodies; but we cannot conceive the creation of particles of matter, or of any thing that has not form and parts. The system of Anaxagoras then may not be liable to objection on this head.

Anaxagoras maintained that the first separation of things was into the dense and moist, and cold and dark, and that these were arranged where the earth now is. The rare and dry occupied a higher position. These were the first things separated, and they gave birth to other things, as water and earth; and earth, under the contracting influence of cold, produced stones. When the elements were formed, the earth occupied the lowest place, the fire (aether) the highest, and between them were the water and air.

But the four elements were not pure. The doctrine of Anaxagoras was, that all was in all, and there was nothing which did not contain a portion of all. Every object, then, was merely determined to be what it is, or what we take it to be, by the preponderance of certain component parts. Objects were not formed of the four elements, for the elements were less pure than many other elementary things, as flesh and bone for instance. As the primal elements were infinite in number and in kind, and no one kind was like another, there was, according to his theory, room for an endless production of different things, according to the predominance of the principal elements. He could not pretend to determine all the kinds of infinite primal elements, but he mentioned some, such as colour, cold, heat, and the like; also the component parts of particular things, as flesh, blood, gold, lead, and so forth. As in the original mixture, no quality of things was perceptible; so in the several things which resulted from separation, these original principles or like parts (ὁμοιομέρειαι) became perceptible. These like parts must also have been infinite; but, as opposed to other like parts, the like parts had no resemblance to one another. Among his homoiomereiai, organic components of animals are mentioned. As all things result merely from the union of the particles of matter, it was a consequence that there must be such particles as composed individual organised animals. The food of animals nourishes the hair, veins, bones, and other parts; whence it follows that all these are in the food. Thus the contemplation of individual organised beings confirmed his general theory.

Aristotle complains that Anaxagoras is not clear as to the difference of Nous and Psyche (ψυχή), and that he sometimes views them as the same, and considers Nous to be