Sextus

• a Roman proper name.—
• • • 1 Sex. Roscius Amerinus, Cic. Rosc. Am. 6, 15.—
    • 2 Sex. Pompeius, Cic. Att. 12, 37, 4.—In a play upon 1. sextus, Quint. 6, 3, 86; v. annalis fin.

(Σέξτος), Greek writers.

1. Africanus or Libycus (Λίβυς), a philosopher mentioned by Suidas and Eudocia (s. v.), who ascribe to him Σκεπτικὰ ἐν βιβλίοις ί, Sceptica in Libris decem, καὶ πυρρ́ώνεια, Pyrrhonia, thus evidently confounding him with Sextus Empiricus; or, which is more probable, speaking altogether of Empiricus, but under an unusual and probably inaccurate name. [Sextus Empiricus.]

2. Africanus. [Africanus, Sextus Julius.]

3. Of Chaeroneia, a Stoic philosopher, nephew of Plutarch, and one of the instructors of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (Jul. Capitolin. Vita M. Antonin. Philos. ; Suid. s. v. Μάρκος; comp. Antonin. De Rebus suis, 1.9).

According to Suidas it was during the reign, and indeed in the latter part of the reign of Marcus, and when Sextus was teaching at Rome, that the emperor attended his instructions. He is perhaps the " Sextus the Philosopher," mentioned by Syncellus as flourishing under the reign of Hadrian. Confusion of Sextus of Chaeroneia with Sextus Empiricus

Suidas (s. v. Σέξτος Χαιρωνεὺς) confounds the nephew of Plutarch with a contemporary or nearly contemporary philosopher, Sextus Empiricus [Sextus Empiricus : and this confusion, into which several modern critics have also fallen, makes it difficult to determine to which of the two the particulars mentioned by him in the article are to be referred. When he states that Sextus was the disciple of Herodotus of Philadelphia, and was so high in the favour of the emperor Marcus Aurelius, that he was invited to share with him the judgment-seat, it is probable that our Sextus is spoken of. To him also we may suppose the account to refer, that an impostor, who resembled him in features, attempted to personate him, and thus to obtain possession of his honours and property. The impostor is said to have been discovered, through his ignorance of Greek learning, by the emperor Pertinax. Works Ἠθικά, Ethica, and Ἐπισκεπτικά, βιβλία δέκα, Episceptica

Suidas ascribes to our Sextus two works, Ἠθικά, Ethica, and Ἐπισκεπτικά, βιβλία δέκα, Episceptica (for which some propose to read Σκεπτικά, Sceptica, or ἔτι Σκεπτικά), Libris decem. Menage (vid. Kuster, Not. in Suid.) suspects that the mention of the second work has been inserted by some transcriber, who confounded the two Sexti above mentioned; but the mistake (if such it be) is probably to be attributed to Suidas himself or the authority from whom he took it, for we find it also in the Ionia of the empress Eudocia. Διαλέξεις, Dissertationes

But it is not impossible that one, perhaps both of these titles, were intended to apply to certain Διαλέξεις, Dissertationes, written in the Doric dialect, and which Fabricius describes as Dissertationes Antiscepticae. They are five in number, and very short. The subjects are :-- 1. Περὶ ἀγαθοῦ καὶ κακοῦ, De Bono et Malo. 2. Περὶ καλοῦ καὶ αἰσχροῦ, De Honesto et Turpi. 3. Περὶ δικαίου καὶ ἀδικοῦ, De Justo et Injusto. 4. Περὶ ἀληθείας καὶ ψ̓εύδους, De Veritate et Falsitate. 5. An Virtus et Sapientia doceri possint. Editions

These were published by Hen. Stephanus (Henri Etienne), among the Fragmenta Pythagoraeorum, without an author's name; and appeared, still anonymously, but with a Latin version and notes, by John North, in the Opuscula Mythologica, Physica, Ethica, of Gale, 8vo. Cambridge, 1670, and Amst. 1688. John North, in his first note, asserts that the author's name was Mimas, founding his assertion on a passage in the fourth Dissertatio, of which the reading has since been corrected. They were again printed, with North's version, but without his notes, by Fabricius (Biblioth. Graec. vol. xii. p. 617, ed. vet.). Authorship

These dissertations, it has been conjectured, were written by Sextus of Chaeroneia : but whether the conjecture is well founded, and if so, whether they are the Ἠθικά or the Ἐπισκέπτικά of Suidas, is altogether uncertain. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. v. p. 528, note b., ed. Harles ; Idem, Notae in Testimonia praefixa Operibus Sex. Empirici.)

4. Christianus, a Christian writer of the reign of Severus who wrote a work Περὶ ἀναστάσεως, De Resurrectione, which has long been lost. (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 5.27; Hieron. De Viris Illustrib. 100.50; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. vi. p. 746, ed. Harles, and vol. xii. p. 615, ed. vet.)

5. Empiricus. [See below, Sextus Empiricus.]

6. Grammaticus, a Greek grammarian, otherwise unknown, cited by the scholiast on Homer, II. λ. 155, p. 270, ed. Villoison.

7. Julius Africanus. [Africanus, Sex. Julius.]

8. Libycus. [No. 1; and Sextus Empiricus, below.]

9. Medicus. [See below, Sextus Empiricus.]

10. Platonicus. [Placitus.]

11. Pythagoraeus; otherwise Sextius, Sixtus, or Xystus. There is extant a little book of moral and religious aphorisms, translated by Rufinus into Latin, and probably interpolated by the translator, who is known to have been sufficiently unscrupulous in such matters, and who has admitted, in his preface to the work, that he had made certain additions from the advice of a religious father to his son, "electa quaedam religiosi parentis ad filium." The author is called by Rufinus in the preface, Sixtus; and Rufinus adds that he was identified by some persons with Sixtus, bishop of Rome and martyr; but it is to be observed that Rufinus does not express any opinion of his own as to their identity. Whether he meant Sixtus I., who was bishop early in the second century, and whose martyrdom is doubtful, or Sixtus II., who lived about the middle of the third century, and was certainly a martyr, is not clear. Origen, however, twice (Contra Celsum, lib. 8. c.30, and In Matt. torn. 15.3, vol. i. p. 763, vol. iii. p. 654, ed. Delarue) cites the Gnomae s. Sententiae of Sextus (Γνῶμαι Σέχγου), as a work well known among Christians; but he does not mention either the episcopal rank or the martyrdom of the writer, whom, therefore, we can hardly identify with Sixtus I. And as Origen makes no reference to his being a contemporary writer, and speaks of his book as already in extensive circulation, it is difficult to suppose him to have been Sixtus II., whose elevation to the episcopate and martyrdom were a few years subsequent to Origen's own death. It is not clear whether Origen regarded Sextus as a Christian. Jerome cites the Sententiae of Xystus (as he writes the name, Adv. Jovinian. lib. 1. c.49, and In Ezekiel. c. xviii. vs. 5, 6, seq.), enumerating him in one place among writers, all the rest of whom are heathens, and in the other place he expressly calls him a Pythagorean. In two other places he charges Rufinus with prefixing the name of a martyr and bishop to the productions of "a Christ-less and heathenish" (absque Christo et ethnici), and in another place, a "most heathenish " (gentilissimi) man (Hieron. In Jerem. c. xxii. vs. 24, 25, &c., and Ad Ctesiphont. 100.3, Epist. 43, ed. Benedict., 133, ed. Vallars.). Augustin, who had at first admitted the identity of the author of the Sententiae with one of the Sixti, bishops of Rome, afterwards retracted his opinion (comp. De Natura et Gratia, 100.77, and Retractat. lib. 2. c.42). Pelagius (apud August. Retractat. l.c.) appears to have admitted the identity, and a Syriac version, perhaps made from the Latin of Rufinus, which appears to have been extant in the time of Ebed-Jesu, A.D. 1300 (Assemani, Bibl. Orient. vol. i. p. 429), still bears the name of "Mar Xystus Episcopus Romae." Maximus the Confessor, in the seventh century (Schol. ad Dionys. Areop. Mysticam Theologiam, cap. 5, apud Opp. Dionys. vol. ii. p. 55, ed. Antwerp, 1634), applies to our Sextus the epithet ἐκκλησιαστικὸς φιλόσοφος, "Ecclesiasticus Philosophus ;" and Damascenus, in the eighth century (Sacra Parallela, Opera, vol. ii. p. 362, ed. Lequien), calls him Ζέζτου Ῥωμ., Zestus of Rome. Gennadius (De Viris Illustrib. 100.17) merely calls the work "Xysti Sententiae." In the Decretum ascribed to Pope Gelasius the work is mentioned as reputed to be by Saint Xystus, but is declared to be spurious, and to have been written by heretics. In the anonymous Appendix to the De Scriptorib. Ecclesiasticis of Ildefonsus of Toledo, it is ascribed to Sixtus of Rome without hesitation. The testimony of the ancients as to the authorship is thus doubtful. An opinion mentioned by, and therefore older than, Rufinus (who was unjustly charged with fraud in the matter by his bitter enemy Jerome, and the charge has been repeated from age to age), ascribed it to Pope Sixtus, and the opinion was held by some persons, perhaps by most, in subsequent ages. Jerome appears to have first ascribed it to a heathen author; and Jerome's opinion, which would have had more weight but for his eagerness to fasten a charge of fraud upon Rufinus, was taken, perhaps without examination, by Augustin. Modern critics have been divided ; some (e. g. Siberus) retain the opinion which identifies the author with Pope Sixtus II.; others (e. g. Lequien, Not. ad Damascen. l.c.) regard the author as at any rate a Christian : but Gale, Mosheim, Brucker (Hist. Philos. period ii. pars i. lib. i. cap. ii. rect. 2.34), Fontanini (Hist. Litt. Aquileiensis, p. 302, &c.), to whom we have been much indebted, and Fabricius, identify the author with the elder Quintus Sextius (Quinti Sextii Patris), a Roman philosopher, mentioned with great encomiums by Seneca (Epistol. 64, 100.2). Seneca delighted much in a work of this Sextius, the title of which he does not give, but which he praises as written with great power. Quantus in illo, Dii boni, vigor est, quantum animi! Hoc non in omnibus philosophis invenies. Quorumdam scripta clarum habent tantum nomen, caetera exsanguia sunt. Instituunt, disputant, cavillantur, non faciunt animum quia non habent. Quum legeris Sextium dices, Vivit, viget, liber est, supra hominem est; dimittit me plenum ingentis fiduciae. In quacunque positione mentis sim, quum hunc lego, fatebor tibi, libet omnes casus provocare, libet exclamare, Quid cessas, Fortuna ? congredere ! paratum vides (ibid.). It is observable that Seneca speaks of Sextius as a Stoic in reality but not in name. From other Epistles of Seneca (59.6, 63.11, 13, 98.13, 108.17, and from his De Ira, 2.36, 3.36) we learn that Sextius, though born of an illustrious family, had declined the dignity of senator when offered him by Julius Caesar ; that he abstained from animal food, though for different reasons than those ascribed to Pythagoras ; that he subjected himself to a scrupulous self-ex-amination at the close of each day; and that his philosophy, though expressed in the Greek language, was of Roman severity : --" Sextium ecce ... virum acrem, Graecis verbis, Romanis moribus, philosophantem." It appears that Sextius attempted, but in vain, to found a school of philosophy combining some features of the Pythagoreans with others of the Stoics; and which was consequently classed sometimes with one, and sometimes with the other of those sects. Seneca (Natur. Quaest. 7.32) says, "Sextiorum nova et Romani roboris secta, inter initia sua, quum magno impetu coepisset, exstincta est." " Xystus Pythagoricus philosophus" is recorded in Jerome's version of the Chronicon of Eusebius as flourishing at the time of Christ's birth. He is also mentioned by Plutarch (De Profect. Virtut. Sentent. Opp. vol. vi. p. 288, ed. Reiske), and by the elder Pliny (H. Nat. 18.68, alibi). Works Sententiae

The contents of the Sententiae harmonize, on the whole, sufficiently well with this supposition of their authorship; the portions which seem to approximate most closely to the morality of the Christian religion, may perhaps have been interpolated or altered by Rufinus. The question of authorship, however, cannot be regarded as settled. There is difficulty in believing that a work once established in reputation as the work of a heathen writer, could have come to be so generally regarded as of Christian origin; though perhaps the difficulty would be somewhat diminished by the suggestion, that the work in its present form is not an original work of Sextius, but a selection of apophthegms culled from his writings, and that possibly by a Christian. The MSS. of the work vary very much both in the number and order of the aphorisms. Editions

The first edition of the Sententiae is that of Symphorianus Champerius, 4to. Lyon, 1507, under the title of Enchiridion Sixti Philosophi Pythagorici. The volume contains various pieces, of which the first is the work of Champerius, de Quadruplici Vita. This edition is incorrectly described by Fabricius as entitled Sixti s. Xysti Annulus. The title Annalus was given to the work by Rufinus, as equivalent to the Greek Enchiridion (Hand-book), because it should be always "in manibus," in (or on) the hands. The text of Champerius is said by Fontanini to be from one of the best MSS. The Sententiae were again printed at Wittenberg, 4to. 1514, with the Aurea Carmina of Pythagoras; and again with various other pieces, by Beatus Rhenanus, 4to. Basil. 1516, under the title of Xysti Pythagorici Sententiae.

Various editions followed, but they omitted Rufinus's Prologue. The work was also comprehended in the various editions of De la Bigne's Bibliotheca Patrum, where it appears as the work of Pope Sixtus, down to the Lyon edition of 1677. It was included, still without the Prologue, in the Opuscula Mythologica, Ethica, et Physica of Gale, 12mo. Cambridge, 1670, 8vo. Amsterdam, 1688. The text of Rhenanus was reprinted, with Observationes, designed to vindicate the title of Pope Sixtus II. to the authorship, by Urbanus Godofredus Siberus, 4to. Lipsiae, 1725.

The original Greek of some of the Sententiae has been traced in Origen, Nilus, Maximus, in the Sententiae of Demophilus and Democrates, and in Stobaeus. Translations

An edition of the Latin text with a French version was published, 12mo. Paris, 1843, by Le Comte C. P. de Lastayrie, with the view of showing that as pure and elevated morality was to be found elsewhere as in the Christian Scriptures : the editor seems to have forgotten that the unsettled authorship of the work, and the interpolations of Rufinus rendered the work unsuitable for his purpose. Further Information

Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vol. i. p. 870, &c.; Fontanini, Brucker, ll. cc. ; Gale, Praefat. ad Opusc. Mytholoqica, &c. [J.C.M]

was a physician, and received his name Empiricus from belonging to the school of Empirici. He was a pupil of Herodotus of Tarsus (Diog. Laert. ix.; Timon), who was a physician, and apparently a contemporary of Galen. Sextus may, therefore, have lived in the first half of the third century of the Christian aera. Nothing is known of his life. He belonged to the Sceptici. Works

Two works of Sextus are extant. The two works are a great repository of doubts; the language is as clear and perspicuous as the subject will allow. Doctrines of the Sceptics (Πυρρώνιαι Ὑποτύπωσεις ἢ σκεπτικὰ ὑπομνήματα)

The Πυρρώνιαι Ὑποτύπωσεις ἢ σκεπτικὰ ὑπομνήματα, contains the doctrines of the Sceptici, in three books. Against the Mathematici (Πρὸς τοὺς μαθηματικοὺς ἀντιρρητικοί)

The second work, entitled, Πρὸς τοὺς μαθηματικοὺς ἀντιρρητικοί, against the Mathematici, in eleven books, is an attack upon all positive philosophy. The first six books are a refutation of the six sciences of grammatic, rhetoric, geometry, arithmetic, astrology, and music. The remaining five books are directed against logicians, physical philosophers, and ethical writers, and form, in fact, a distinct work, which may be viewed as belonging to the Ὑποτυπώσεις. Lost Medical Works

None of the medical works of Sextus are extant, though it appears from his own writings that he did write on medical subjects. Editions Latin Editions

H. Stephens published the first Latin translation of the Hypotyposes, in 1562, 8vo. The first Latin translation of the work against the Mathematici is by G. Hervet, Antwerp and Paris, 1569, 1601, fol. Greek Editions

The first edition of the Greek text of both works was that of Paris, 1621, fol.; but Geneva is often stated to be the place of publication : it is probable that some copies were printed with Paris on the title page, and others with Geneva. The second edition was that of J. A. Fabricius, Leipzig, 1718, fol. which contains the Latin version and some emendations; but the text has not yet been revised with sufficient care. The edition of J. G. Mund is a reprint of the text of Fabricius, with a commentary ; but only one part has appeared, which contains the text of the Hypotyposes, Halle, 1796, 4to. Translations

Buhle translated the Hypotyposes, Lemgo, 1801, 8vo. There is a French translation of the Hypotyposes, in 1725, 12mo., which was probably published at Amsterdam. The anonymous translator is said to be the Sieur Huart, a teacher of mathematics; but the translation is not highly spoken of. Thought

Sextus is the only Greek sceptic whose complete works we possess; and we may probably assume that he has collected all that could be said against the Dogmatici, and all that the Sceptici had to say for themselves. He does not present what he says as his own, but as the exposition of the sceptical school. Ritter (Gesch. der Philosophie, vol. iv. p. 299. &c.) has a long dissertation on Sextus, which as usual is not favourable. His philosophy of negations is certainly not satisfactory, nor is Ritter's judgment on Sextus. Much that he finds fault with, is precisely that which some thinkers will set a value on. The chief objection that Ritter makes against him is, that he does not keep his exposition of Scepticism free from such assertions as destroy Scepticism itself. He "denies that there is any general moral rule of life which can be prescribed (Adv. Math. 11.203), because every man must order his life according to chance and circumstances, whereas, however, this general rule of life is excepted, that a man must direct himself according to circumstances." But it seems no contradiction to say that there is no general rule to guide us in all circumstances, and yet to say that we must do as well as we can without such a rule. Sextus maintains that scepticism alone can make a man happy, because it teaches that nothing is naturally (φύσει) good or bad (Adv. Math. 11.208). The meaning of the proposition depends on the meaning that is to be given to Nature, that much abused word. Nature is nothing more tlan the constitution of all things by the will of God and the notion of good and bad, which is a notion of limited practical application, is not applicable to the general constitution of all things. Such contradictions as these, however, though in truth they do not necessarily involve contradictions, Ritter observes, are only in part to be attributed to the unskilfulness of Sextus : the greater part are to be attributed to the direction that Greek scepticism in general took, or to its tendency particularly among the later Sceptici.

Ritter considers that the old sceptical objections were mainly designed to oppose the reasons founded on the intellect to the purely sensuous view of things. But the objections of the Sceptici, as they appear in Sextus, are solely directed against philosophical systems : the Sceptici are disposed to consider phaenomena as true for practical purposes, but to reject all scientific investigation of them as idle inquiries. Accordingly, they assume a kind of practical art, which is based on experience; and admit that a useful art of life may be derived from the observation of many particular cases. (Adv. Math. 8.8.)

It is an exemplification of the nature of the sceptical doctrines, as exhibited by Sextus, that the objections to mathematical science are not directed against reckoning by number and against mensuration, but against the scientific form of mathematics, and mainly against its fundamental notions; against the admissibility of proof, and against axioms, against the notion of body, divisibility into equal parts, and the like. The object of the modern scepticism thus appears to be to stop all progress in science which has not utility for its object, and to treat it as a pestilent luxury ; in which view there is both wisdom and folly ; wisdom, inasmuch as some purpose of utility is the end of all science, and folly, inasmuch as utility is not always best attained by proceeding directly towards it. The Sceptici did not go so far as to deny that much useful knowledge was traditional, and might be communicated by speech and writing ; for no man's sole experience is sufficient to give him all useful knowledge.

Ritter admits that the Sceptici have urged many things that are well worthy of consideration, both against the form and the matter of the sciences ; and this is true. Their notion of the relation of cause and effect was connected with their notion of the being of God, whom they acknowledged to be the supreme activity (Pyrrh. Hyp. 3.2, δραστικώτατον αἴτιον). They showed clearly the contradictions which existed in all attempts to define the nature of God after the measure of human notions : that passions and motives are attributed to him, which passions and motives imply some change in the patient, and this is inconsistent with the nature of God. Even the attributing of particular virtuous qualities to God is an inconsistency, inasmuch as God, a perfect being, cannot be said to exercise virtues which in themselves imply the possibility of vice. The sun of their objections, properly viewed, is this, that God is incomprehensible.

It is difficult to form a just estimate of the value of what Sextus has collected. A good translation and a careful analysis of the work would be worth a man's labour. The sceptical arguments were directed against proof; but there is evidence which is not demonstration, and yet is sufficient, not only for practical purposes, but for a philosophical conviction. All conviction is not and cannot be founded on demonstration. The ultimate truths do not, in their nature, admit of demonstration, for there is nothing from which the demonstration can proceed. If a man, then, cannot have a conviction of these ultimate truths, he must reject them, or live in doubt. [G.L]

Onuphrius Panvinius published at Frankfort in 1558, along with his work on the Roman Republic. a tract bearing the name of Sextus Rufus, and entitled De Regionibus Urbis Romae, which he professed to have found in an ancient MS. It corresponds closely with the catalogue of Publius Victor [Victor], but is less complete, and is much mutilated. The MS. of Panvinius has disappeared, and no codex containing either of these productions is known to exist of a date earlier than the fifteenth century. They are believed by the best topographers to have been compiled at a late period, are not regarded as documents of authority, and have even been stigmatised as modern forgeries. Biondo Flavio, in his Roma Instaurata (Veron. 1482), quotes from an old description of Rome by Sextus Ruffus Vir Consularis, a copy of which he had seen in the library attached to the monastery of Monte Casino. There can be little doubt that the piece thus described is the same with that printed by Panvinius; but there are no grounds whatever for establishing a connection between this personage, whoever he may have been, and Sextus Rufus the historian.

The De Regionibus will be found in Graevius, Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romanurum, vol. iii. p. 25, and was published separately with notes by Münnich, 8vo. Hannov. 1815. Further Information

See the remarks on the Regionarii appended to Mr. Bunbury's paper on the Topography of Rome, in the tenth number of the Classical Museum, p. 373 [W.R]

The name prefixed to an abridgment of Roman History, entitled Sexti Rufi Breviarium de Victoriis el Provinciis Populi Romani, executed by command of the emperor Valens, to whom it is dedicated. The prince had instructed the author to be brief (brevem fieri Clementia tua praecepit), and the injunction was most scrupulously obeyed, for the events of more than eleven hundred years, from the foundation of the city until the death of Jovianus, are compressed within the limits of twenty-eight short chapters, couched in plain and unpretending language. A more lofty exposition, however, of contemporary achievements is promised in the concluding sentence, " Quam magno deinceps ore tua, O princeps invicte, facta inclita sunt personanda ? quibus me, licet imparem dicendi nisu, et aevo gravior, praeparabo ;" but whether this project was ever carried into effect we have no means of discovering, since nothing is known with regard to the personal history of the writer. Editions

The Breviarium was first printed by Sixtus Ruesinger at Rome, about 1470, and many editions appeared before the close of the fifteenth century. The text was established upon a satisfactory basis by Cuspinianus, who collated many MSS. and published it with annotations in his Commentaria de cousulibus Romanis, fol. Francf. 1601. Since that time it has generally been included in the larger editions of Eutropius, and of the minor Roman historians. A new recension, by Raffaello Mecenate. from the Vatican and other MSS., was published at Rome, 8vo. 1819. [W.R]