EL
Greek Travel Pages

Location information

Listed 100 (total found 984) sub titles with search on: Biographies for wider area of: "TURKEY Country EUROPE" .


Biographies (984)

Admirals

ANTIOCHIA (Ancient city) TURKEY

Diognetus

Diognetus (Diognetos), admiral of Antiochus the Great, was commissioned, in B. C. 222, to convey to Seleuceia, or the Tigris, Laodice. the intended wife of Antiochus and daughter of Mithridates IV., king of Pontus (Polyb. v. 43). He commanded the fleet of Antiochus in his war with Ptolemy IV. (Philopator) for the possession of Coele-Syria, and did him good and effectual service. (Polyb. v. 59 60, 62, 68-70.)


Ancient comedy playwrites

KIOS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Antiphanes


Stefanus, son of Antiphanes


KOLOFON (Ancient city) TURKEY

Margites

Margites, the hero of a comic epic poem, which most of the ancients regarded as a work of Homer. The inhabitants of Colophon, where the Margites must have been written (see the first lines of the poem in Lindemann's Lyra, vol. i. p. 82; Schol. ad Aristoph. Av. 914) believed that Homer was a native of the place (Herod. Vit. Hom. 8), and showed the spot in which he had composed the Margites (Hesiod. et Hom. Certain. in Goettling's edit. of Hes. p. 241). The poem was considered to be a Homeric production by Plato and Aristotle (Plat. Alcib. ii. p. 147, c.; Aristot. Etthic. Nicom. vi. 7, Magn. Moral. ad Eudem. v. 7), and was highly esteemed by Callimachus, and its hero Margites as early as the time of Demosthenes had become proverbial for his extraordinary stupidity. (Harpocrat. s. v. Margites; Phot. Lex. p. 241, ed. Porson; Plut. Demosth. 23; Aeschin. adv. Ctesiph. p. 297.) Suidas does not mention the Margites among the works of Homer, but states that it was the production of the Carian Pigres, a brother of queen Artemisia, who was at the same time the author of the Batrachomyomachia. (Suid. s.v. Pigres; Plut. de Malign. Herod. 43.) The poem, which was composed in hexameters, mixed, though not in any regular succession, with Iambic trimeters (Hephaest. Enchir. p. 16; Mar. Victorin. p. 2524, ed. Putsch.), is lost, but it seems to have enjoyed great popularity, and to have been one of the most successful productions of the Homerids at Colophon. The time at which the Margites was written is uncertain, though it must undoubtedly have been at the time when epic poetry was most flourishing at Colophon, that is, about or before B. C. 700. It is, however, not impossible that afterwards Pigres may have remodelled the poem, and introduced the Iambic trimeters, in order to heighten the conic effect of the poem. The character of the hero, which was highly comic and ludicrous, was that of a conceited but ignorant person, who on all occasions exhibited his ignorance: the gods had not made him fit even for digging or ploughing, or any other ordinary craft. His parents were very wealthy; and the poet undoubtedly intended to represent some ludicrous personage of Colophon. The work seems to have been neither a parody nor a satire; but the author with the most naive humour represented the follies and absurdities of Margites in the most ludicrous light, and with no other object than to excite laughter. (Falbe, de Margite Homerico, 1798; Lindemann, Die Lyra, vol. i. p. 79, &c.; Welcker, der Ep. Cycl. p. 184, &c.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


SINOPI (Ancient city) TURKEY

Diodorus

Diodorus, (Diodoros), of Sinope, an Athenian comic poet of the middle comedy, is mentioned in an inscription (Bockh, i.), which fixes his date at the archonship of Diotimus (B. C. 354 - 353), when he exhibited two plays, entitled Nekros and Mainomenos, Aristomachus being his actor. Suidas (s. v.) quotes Athenaeus as mentioning his Auletris in the tenth book of the Deipnosophistae, and Epikleros and Paneguristai in the twelfth book. The actual quotations made in our copies of Athenaeus are from the Auletris (x.) and a long passage from the Epikleros (vi., not xii.), but of the Paneguristai there is no mention in Athenaeus. A play under that title is ascribed to Baton or to Plato. There is another fragment from Diodorus in Stobaeus. (Serm. lxxii. 1.) In another passage of Stobaeus (Serm. cxxv. 8) the common reading, Dionusios, should be retained. (Meineke, Frag. Com. Graec. i., iii.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Dionysius

Dionysius, (Dionusios), of Sinope, an Athenian comic poet of the middle comedy. (Athen. xi., xiv.; Schol. Horn. Il. xi. 515.) He appears, from indications in the fragments of his plays, to have been younger than Archestratus, tc have flourished about the same time as Nicostratus, the son of Aristophanes, and to have lived till the establishment of the Macedonian supremacy in Greece. We have the titles and some fragments of his Akontizomenos (Ath. xiv.), which appears to have been translated by Naevius, Thesmophoros (a long passage in Athen. ix. p. 404,e.), Homonumoi (Athen. viii., xiv.), Limos (Schol. Hom. Il. xi, 515; Eustath.), Sozousa or Soteira (Athen. xi.; Stob. Serm. cxxv. 8.) Meursius and Fabricius are wrong in assigning the Taxiarchai to Dionysius. It belongs to Eupolis. (Meineke, Frag. Com. Graec. i., iii.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Diphilus

Diphilus (Diphilos). A poet of the new Attic comedy, a native of Sinope, and contemporary of Menander. He is supposed to have written some one hundred pieces, of which we have the titles and fragments of about fifty. The Casina and Rudens of Plautus are modelled on two plays of Diphilus; and Terence has adopted some scenes from one of them (the Sunapothneiskontes) in his Adelphoe. Diphilus took his subjects both from common life and from mythology. Most of the passages that have been preserved relate to matters of cookery, the longest being one of forty-one lines. Both the judgments passed on him in antiquity and his remaining fragments justify us in recognizing him as one of the most gifted poets of his age.

This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Diphilus

Diphilus, one of the principal Athenian comic poets of the new comedy, and a contemporary of Menander and Philemon, was a native of Sinope (Strab. xii.). He was a lover of the courtezan Gnatbaena, and seems sometimes to have attacked her in his comedies, when under the influence of jealousy (Machon and Lynceus Samius, ap. Athen. xiii.). He was not, however, perfectly constant (Alciph. Ep. i. 37). He is said to have exhibited a hundred plays (Anon.), and sometimes to have acted himself (Athen. xiii.).
  Though, in point of time, Diphilus belonged to the new comedy, his poetry seems to have had more of the character of the middle. This is shewn, among other indications, by the frequency with which he chooses mythological subjects for his plays, and by his bringing on the stage the poets Archilochus, Hipponax, and Sappho (Ath. xi., xiii.). His language is simple and elegant, but it contains many departures from Attic purity.
  The following are the plays of Diphilus, of which we have fragments or titles: Agnoia (Ath. ix., xv.), which was also ascribed to Calliades: Adelphoi (Ath. xi.; Poll. x. 72; Stob. Flor. cviii. 9): Aleiptria (Etym. Mag.), which was also the title of a play of Antiphanes, by others ascribed to Alexis: Amastris (Suid. s. v. Athenaias) : Hairesiteiches, of which there was a second edition by Callimachus under the title of Eunouchos or Stratiotes (Ath. xi., xv.; Antiatticista): the principal character in this play seems to have been such as Pyrgopolinices in the Miles Gloriosus of Plautus, which was perhaps taken from the play of Diphilus: Anaguros (Schol. Ven. ad Il. i. 123; corrupted in Etym. Magn., and Eustath.): Anasozomenoi (Ath. xi.; Antiatt.): Aplestos (Ath. ix.): Apobates, (Harpocrat; Antiatt.): Apolipousa, also ascribed to Sosippus, whose name is otherwise unknown (Ath. iv.; Poll. x. 12): Balaneion (Ath. x.; Antiatt.); Boiotios (Ath. x.): Gamos (Ath. vi.; and perhaps in Diog. Laert. ii. 120, Diphilou should be substituted for Sophilou): Danaides (Erot. gloss. Harpoc.): Diamartanousa (Ath. iii.): Enkalountes (Antiatt.): Ekate (Ath. xiv.; and perhaps Poll. x. 72): Helenephorountes (Ath. vi.). Elleborizomenoi (Antiatt.): Emporos (Ath. vi., vii.; Etym. Mag.; Harpocrat.): Enagizontes (Ath. iv.) or Enagismata (Schol. Aristoph. Eq. 960; Photius and Suidas, s. v. Psolos): Epidikazomenos (Poll. x. 137): Epitrope, or more correctly Hepitropeus (Antiatt.): Epikleros (Poll. x. 99): Zographos (Ath. vi., vii.; Stob. Flor. cv. 5): Herakles (Ath. x.): Heros (Ath. ix.): Thesauros (Stob. Flor. xii. 12): Theseus (Ath. vi., x.): Kitharoidos (Poll. x. 38, 62): Kleroumenoi, of which the Casina of Plautus is a translation (Prolog. 31): Leuiniai (Ath. vi., comp. iv.); Mainomenos (Poll x. 18): Mnemation (Ath. iii.): Paiderastai (Ath. x.): Pallake (Etym. Mag.): Parasitos (Ath. vi., x.): Peliades (Ath. iv.): Pithraustes, probably for Tithraustes (Ath. xiii.): Plinthophoros (Antiatt.; and perhaps Eustath. ad Horn.): Polupragmon (Ath. vi.; Phot. s. v. rhagdaios): Purra (Ammon. Diff. Verb.): Sappho (Ath. xi., xiii.): Sikelikos (Poll. ix. 81), which, however, belongs perhaps to Philemon: Schedia (Etym. Mag., corrected by Gaisford): Sunapothneskontes, which was translated by Plautus under the title of Commorientes, and partly followed by Terence in his Adelphi (Terent. Prol. Adelph. 10): Suntrophroi (Harpoc.): Sunoris, of which there were two editions (Ath. vi., xiv.; Phot. s. v. Phimoi Harpocr.): Telesias (Ath. xiv.): Phrear (Stob. Flor. cxvi. 32): Philadelphos or Philadelphoi (Antiatt.): Chrusochoos (Phot. s. v. opaia). There are other fragments, which cannot be assigned to their proper places. The Rudens of Plautus is a translation of a play of Diphilus (Prol. 32), but the title of the Greek play is not known.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Dec 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


SOLI (Ancient city) TURKEY

Philemon, the elder (4th/3rd c. B.C.)

Philemon. A Greek poet of the New Attic Comedy, of Soli in Cilicia, or of Syracuse, born about B.C. 362. He came early to Athens, and first appeared as an author in the year 330. He must have enjoyed remarkable popularity, for he repeatedly won victories over his younger contemporary and rival Menander, whose delicate wit was apparently less to the taste of the Athenians of the time than Philemon's more showy comedy. To later times his successes over Menander were so unintelligible as to be ascribed to the influence of malice and intrigue. Except a short sojourn in Egypt with King Ptolemy Philadelphus, he passed his life at Athens. He there died, nearly a hundred years old, but with mental vigour unimpaired, in the year 262, according to the story, at the moment of his being crowned on the stage. Of his ninety-seven works, fifty-seven are known to us by titles and fragments, and two are preserved in the Latin version of Plautus (Mercator and Trinummus). The remains of Philemon are published in Meineke's collection, and by Bach (Halle, 1829).

This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Philemon. Philemon was, according to Strabo, a native of Soli, though Suidas makes him a Syracusan, probably because he resided some time in Sicily. He began to exhibit about 330 B.C., and died at the age of ninety-seven, some time in the reign of Antigonus the second, though Diodorus tells us he lived to be ninety-nine, and wrote ninety-seven comedies. Various accounts are given in the manner of his death, Lucian stating that he died in a paroxysm of laughter at seeing an ass devouring some figs intended for his own eating. Philemon was considered by his admirers as superior to Menander; and Quintilian, while he denies the correctness of this judgement, is, nevertheless, willing to allow him the second place. We may see a specimen of his favorite plots in the Trinummus of Plautus, which is a translation from his Thesauros or Treasure. His plays, like those of Menander, contained many imitations of Euripides, and he was so ardent an admirer of that poet that he declared he would have hanged himself for the prospect of meeting him in the other world, if he could have been convinced that departed spirits were really capable of recognizing one another.

Alfred Bates, ed.
This text is cited July 2003 from the TheatreHistory URL below.


Philemon, the younger


Archaeologists

ADRIANOUPOLIS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Stefanos Koumanoudis

, , 1818 - 1899

BURSA (Town) TURKEY

Ilhan Aksit

Ilhan Aksit was born in Denizli in 1940. He graduated as an archeologist in 1965, when he was assigned to a post related to the excavation of Aphrodisias. He was director of the Canakkale-Troy Museum between 1968-1976, when the replica of the Trojan Horse we now see on the site was constructed. He directed the excavation of the Chryse Apollo Temple over a period of five years. From 1976 to 1978, the author acted as the director of the Underwater Archeology Museum in Bodrum and was appointed as the Director of National Palaces in 1978. During his directorship, the author was responsible for the restoration and reopening of these palaces to public after a long period of closure. In 1982, he retired from his post to take up a career as an author of popular books on Turkish archeology and tourism. He has nearly four titles to his credit to date, including 'The Story of Troy', 'The Civilizations of Anatolia', 'The Blue Journey', 'Istanbul' and 'The Hititites'.


Architects

ALAVANDA (Ancient city) TURKEY

Hermogenes

Hermogenes. An architect of Alabanda, in Caria, who invented what was called the pseudodipterus, that is, a form of a temple, with apparently two rows of columns, whereby he effected a great saving both of money and labour in the construction of temples. (Vitruv. iii. 2.6, 3.8.) His great object as an architect was to increase the taste for the Ionic form of temples, in preference to Doric temples. (Vitruv. iv. 3.1.) He was further the author of two works which are now lost; the one was a description of the temple of Diana which he had built at Magnesia, a pseudodipterus, and the other a description of a temple of Bacchus, in Teos, a monopterus. (Vitruv. vii. Praef. § 12.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


EFESSOS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Paeonius

Paeonius (Paionios). An architert of Ephesus who, with Demetrius, completed the great temple of Artemis in that city. With Daphnis, a Milesian, he began the so-called Didymaeum or temple of Apollo Didymus at Miletus--a structure, however, which was never finished ( Herod.vi. 19; Pausan. vii. 5, 4).


Demetrius

Demetrius, an architect, who, in conjunction with Paeonius, finished the great temple of Artemis at Ephesus, which Chersiphron had begun about 220 years before. He probably lived about B. C. 340, but his date cannot be fixed with certainty. Vitruvius calls him servus Dianae, that is, a hierodoulos. (Vitruv. vii. Praef. § 16.)


FOKEA (Ancient city) TURKEY

Theodorus of Phocaea, 4th c. B.C.


KNIDOS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Sostratus

Sostratus (Sostratos). The son of Dexiphanes, of Cnidus. He was one of the great architects who flourished during and after the life of Alexander the Great. He built for Ptolemy I. of Egypt the great Pharos or light-house at Alexandria, which was one of the Seven Wonders of the World, and also erected at Cnidus a portico supporting a terrace (Pliny , Pliny H. N.xxxvi. 83).


Sostratus of Cnidus (fl. c. 300 BC). Engineer, Architect
Life
A native of Cnidus, in Caria (Asia Minor), Sostratus was the son of Dexiphanes, the architect of the Tetra Stadium in Alexandria. He is cited by Stobaeus.
Work
His works include:
- The Pharos of Alexandria (280 BC): This great lighthouse was one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world. Inscribed on the tower was the legend "Sostratus son of Dexiphanes of Cnidus to the gods who protect those at sea". This is recorded by Lucian, who also gives an account of how it came to be written there. Originally called simply "the Lighthouse", the Pharos gradually became known by the name of the small island ('Pharos') on which it was built. This island, which today is connected with the shore, lay just off the eastern entrance to the harbour of Alexandria. The base of the lighthouse measured 340 x 340 metres, and had mighty breakwaters on the three seaward sides, with defensive turrets at the corners. The total height of the structure was 140 metres, making it the tallest building in the ancient world after the Great Pyramids of Khufu and Khefre. It had four storeys above the raised base. The first of these was square, with windows all around illuminating rooms for the guards and engineers, while the centre was occupied by the hydraulic hoist used to bring up food and fuel and other supplies. Above this first floor was an octagonal storey with spiral staircases. The third was circular, and was ornamented with pillars. The fourth storey housed the reflecting mechanism. A fire was kept burning continuously, and a system of delicate instruments reflected the light. The beacon was visible for a radius of 300 stades (~54 km). Crowning the tower was a huge statue of Poseidon. Many sources refer to a huge "mirror", through which one could see ships far out to sea that were not visible to the naked eye. This may have been a form of telescope, with magnifying lenses. The sources also describe a number of automated figures: there was, for example, a statue that tracked the course of the sun across the sky with its finger; there was a mechanical figure that played music to mark the hours, and there was one that sounded an alarm to alert the city to the approach of an enemy fleet before it was visible on the horizon. The Pharos served as a model for many other ancient lighthouses. Ptolemy I allocated the huge sum of 800 talents of silver (about 21000 kg) for its construction, but work was not in fact begun until the reign of his successor, Ptolemy II Philadelphus. It took 12 years to complete. In 500 AD Ammonius made extensive repairs to the base and the breakwaters. Earthquakes in 796, 1100 and 1326 all took their toll of the structure. In 1480 Sultan al-Ashraf Qa'it Bay of the Mamluks built a fortress on the foundations of the ancient Pharos. Renovated in the early years of the 19th century, this fort was razed by the English in 1882.
- The Suspended Pleasure Gardens: At Cnidus, in Caria, Asia Minor. This was a vast pleasure palace with a roof garden, similar in construction to the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Described by Pliny and Lucian.
- The Clubhouse of the Cnidians: At Delphi, 285 - 272 BC. This was a large colonnaded room, which served as a place of resort for Cnidians visiting Delphi.
- Diversionary canals on the Nile: At Memphis. Major engineering project to drain the main channel of the river in order to allow Ptolemy II to capture the besieged city. Described by Lucian.

This text is based on the Greek book "Ancient Greek Scientists", Athens, 1995 and is cited Sep 2005 from The Technology Museum of Thessaloniki URL below.


MILITOS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Hippodamus, 5th c. B.C.

   A Greek architect, born at Miletus in the second half of the fifth century B.C. He was the first inventor of a system of laying out towns on geometrical principles, carried out, under his direction, in the laying out of the Piraeus, the harbour-town of Athens, and also at the building of Thurii (B.C. 443) and of Rhodes (408); it was also used in subsequent times in the foundation of new towns.

This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Oct 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Hippodamus, (Hippodamos: the etymological origin of the name is no doubt the same as that of the Homeric word hippodamos, which so frequently occurs as an epithet, and once as a proper name, Il. xi. 335; Aristophanes, however, Equit. 327, uses it with the a, as if it were a Doric form from lppos and demos; but this must be by way of some joke, for we cannot suppose such an absurd compound to have existed as a proper name.) Hippodamus was a most distinguished Greek architect. a native of Miletus, and the son of Euryphon or Eurycoon. His fame rests on his construction, not of single buildings, but of whole cities. His first great work was the town of Peiraeeus, which Themistocles had made a tolerably secure port for Athens, but which was first formed into a regularly-planned town by Hippodamus, under the auspices of Pericles. It has been clearly shown by Miiller (Attika, in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclopadie, vol. vi., and Dorier, vol. ii., 2nd edit.) that this work must be referred to the age of Pericles, not to that of Themistocles. The change which Hippodamus introduced was the substitution of broad straight streets, crossing each other at right angles, for the crooked narrow streets, with angular crossings, which had before prevailed throughout the greater part, if not the whole, of Greece. When the Athenians founded their colony of Thurii, on the site of the ancient Sybaris (B. C. 443), Hippodamus went out with the colonists, and was the architect of the new city. Hence he is often called a Thuother rian. He afterwards built Rhodes (B. C. 408-7). How he came to be connected with a Dorian state, and one so hostile to Athens, we do not know ; but much light would be thrown on this subject, and on the whole of the life of Hippodamus, if we could determine whether the scholiast on Aristophanes (Equit. 327) is right or wrong in identifying him with the father of the Athenian politician and opponent of Cleon, Archeptolemus. This question is admirably discussed by Hermann, but no certain conclusion can be attained. We learn from Aristotle that Hippodamus devoted great attention to the political, as well as the architectural ordering of cities, and that he wished to have the character of knowing all physical science. This circumstance, with a considerable degree of personal affectation, caused him to be ranked among the sophists, and it is very probable that much of the wit of Aristophanes, in his Birds, is aimed at Hippodamus. (Aristot. Polit. ii. 5,and Schneider's note; Hesych. s. v. Hippodamou nemesis; Phot. s. v. Hippodamou nemesis; Harpocr. s. v. Ippodameia ; Diod. xii. 10; Strab. xiv.; C. F. Hermann, Disputatio de Hippodamo Milesio, Marburg. 1841, 4to.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Isidorus

Isidorus of Miletus, the elder and younger, were eminent architects in the reign of Justinian. The elder of them was associated with Anthemius of Tralles, in the rebuilding of the great church of St. Sophia, at Constantinople, before A. D. 537. The younger Isidorus rebuilt the dome of St. Sophia, after it had been destroyed by an earthquake, A. D. 554, and made some additions to the interior of the church. (Procop. i. 1; Agathias, v. 9; Malalas, p. 81; Muller, Archeool. d. Kunst, Β§ 194, n. 4 ; Kugler, Kunstgeschichte, p. 360, &c.)


PRIINI (Ancient city) TURKEY

Pythios of Priene

4th c. B.C. architect of Mausolleion at Halikarnassos; sculptor and author of technical treatise on proportions.


TRALLIS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Anthemius

Anthemius (Anthemios), an eminent mathematician and architect, born at Tralles, in Lydia, in the sixth century after Christ. His father's name was Stephanus, who was a physician (Alex. Trall. iv. 1); one of his brothers was the celebrated Alexander Trallianus; and Agathias mentions (Hist.), that his three other brothers, Dioscorus, Metrodorus, and Olympius, were each eminent in their several professions. He was one of. the architects employed by the emperor Justinian in the building of the church of St. Sophia, A. D. 532, and to him Eutocius dedicated his Commentary on the Conica of Apollonius. A fragment of one of his mathematical works was published at Paris, by M. Dupuy, 1777, with the title "Fragment d'un Ouvrage Grec d'Anthemius sur des 'Paradoxes de Mecanique'; revu et corrige sur quatre Manuscrits, avec une Traduction Francoise et des Notes". It is also to be found in the forty-second volume of the Hist. de l'Acad. des Inscr. 1786, pp. 72, 392-451.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Astronomers

BOZCAADA (Island) TURKEY

Cleosratus of Tenedus, 6th cent. BC

   (Kleostratos). An astronomer of Tenedos, who is said to have introduced the familiar Zodiac signs. He flourished about the year B.C. 500.


KNIDOS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Eudoxus

, , 408 - 355

Eudoxus, (Eudoxos), of Cnidus, the son of Aeschlines, lived about B. C. 366. He was, according to Diogenes Laertius, astronomer, geometer, physician, and legislator. It is only in the first capacity that his fame has descended to our day, and he has ore of it than can be justified by any account of his astronomical science now in existence. As the probable introducer of the sphere into Greece, and perhaps the corrector, upon Egyptian information, of the length of the year, he enjoyed a wide and popular reputation, so that Laertius, who does not even mention Hipparchus, has given the life of Eudoxus in his usual manner, that is, with the omission of all an astronomer would wish to know. According to this writer, Eudoxus went to Athens at the age of twenty-three (he had been the pupil of Archytas in geometry, and heard Plato for some months, struggling at the same time with poverty. Being dismissed by Plato, but for what reason is not stated, his friends raised some money, and he sailed for Egypt, with letters of recommendation to Nectanabis, who in his turn recommended him to the priests. With them he remained sixteen months, with his chin and eyebrows shaved, and there, according to Laertius, he urote the Octaeteris. Several ancient writers attribute to him the invention or introduction of an imiprovement upon the Octaeterides of his predecessors. After a time, lie came back to Athens with a band of pupils, having in the mean time taught philosophy in Cyzicum and the Propontis : he chose Athens, Laertius says, for the purpose of vexing Plato, at one of whose symposia lie introduced the fashion of the guests reclining in a semicircle; and Nicomachus (he adds), the son of Aristotle, reports him to have said that pleasure was a good. So much for Laertius, who also refers to some decree which was made in honour of Eudoxus, names his son and daughters, states him to have written good works on astronomy and geometry, and mentions the curious way in which the bull Apis told his fortune when he was in Egypt. Eudoxus died at the age of fifty-three. Phanocritus wrote a work upon Eudoxus (Athen. vii.), which is lost.
  The fragmentary notices of Eudoxus are numerous. Strabo mentions him frequently, and states (ii., xvii.) that the observatory of Eudoxus at Cnidus was existing in his time, from which he was accustomed to observe the star Canopus. Strabo also says that he remained thirteen years in Egypt, and attributes to him the introduction of the odd quarter of a day into the value of the year. Pliny (H. N. ii. 47) seems to refer to the same thing. Seneca (Qu. Nat. vii. 3) states him to have first brought the motions of the planets (a theory on this subject) from Egypt into Greece. Aristotle (Metaph. xii. 8) states him to have made separate spheres for the stars, sun, moon, and planets. Archimedes (in Arenar.) says he made the dia. meter of the sun nine times as great as that of the moon. Vitruvius (ix. 9) attributes to him the invention of a solar dial, called arachne : and so on.
  But all we positively know of Eudoxus is from the poem of Aratus and the commentary of Hipparchus upon it. From this commentary we learn that Aratus was not himself an observer, but was the versifier of the Phainomena of Eudoxus, of which Hipparchus has preserved fragments for comparison with the version by Aratus. The result is, that though there were by no means so many nor so great errors in Eudoxus as in Aratus, yet the opinion which must be formed of the work of the former is, that it was written in the rudest state of the science by an observer who was not very competent even to the task of looking at the risings and settings of the stars. Delambre (Hist. Astr. Anc. vol. i.) has given a full account of the comparison made by Hipparchus of Aratus with Eudoxus, and of both with his own observations. He cannot bring himself to think that Eudoxus knew anything of geometry, though it is on record that he wrote geometrical works, in spite of the praises of Proclus, Cicero, Ptolemy, Sextus Empiricus (who places him with Hipparchus), &c., &c. Eudoxus, as cited by Hipparchus, neither talks like a geometer, nor like a person who had seen the heavens lie describes: a bad globe, constructed some centuries before his time in Egypt, might, for anything that appears, have been his sole authority. But supposing, which is likely enough, that he was the first who brought any globe at all into Greece, it is not much to be wondered at that his reputation should have been magnified. As to what Proclus says of his geometry.
  Rejecting the Oktaeteris mentioned by Laertius, which was not a writing, but a period of time, and also the fifth book of Euclid, which one manuscript of Euclid attributes to Eudoxus (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iv.), we have the following works, all lost, which he is said to have written :
•Geometroimena, mentioned by Proclus and Laertius, which is not, however, to be taken as the title of a work:
•Organike, mentioned by Plutarch:
•Astronomia di' epon, by Suidas: two books.
•Enoptron or Katoptron and Phainomena mentioned by Hipparchus, and the first by an anonymous biographer of Aratus: Peri Theon kai Kosmou kai ton Meteorologoumenon mentioned by Eudocia:
•Ges Periodos, a work often mentioned by Strabo, and by many others, as to which Harless thinks Semler's opinion probable, that it was written by Eudoxus of Rhodes.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Eudoxus, (Eudoxos). A celebrated astronomer and geometrician of Cnidus, who flourished B.C. 366. He studied at Athens and in Egypt, but probably spent some of his time at his native place, where he had an observatory. He is said to have been the first who taught in Greece the motions of the planets. His works are lost.


, 408 - 355

  Eudoxus, born in the city of Cnidus in southern Asia Minor, in the last years of the Vth century B. C., is one of the great mathematicians of all times, and probably the greatest of ancient Greece's mathematicians. He may have belonged to a family of physicians, because, at the time, Cnidus was famous for its school of medicine, and started his career travelling with fellow-physicians.
  When he was 23, he stayed for two months in Piraeus, going each day to Athens to listen to Plato and other Socratics. Later he went to Egypt, where he learned astronomy from priests of Heliopolis. Back from Egypt, he went to Halicarnassus and then settled for a while in Cyzicus, where he founded a school of astronomy that remained famous long after his death. Then, he came to Athens where he probably worked with Plato at the Academy. Toward the end of his life, he returned to his native city of Cnidus where he was involved in lawmaking.
  Most of his works, which covered many areas including, aside from mathematics, astronomy, geography, music, philosophy and more, are lost and known only through mentions in other works. His works in mathematics are better known and it is likely they were at the root of a large part of Euclid' Elements. Eudoxus, with the method of exhaustion he developed in geometry, is one of the fathers of integral calculus. He is also the inventor in astronomy of a scheme to account for the movement of planets based on concentric spheres turning within one another, a method that was to be complexified later by Aristotle, and he can thus be viewed as the father of scientific astromony. This should give a feel for how developed mathematics, and especially geometry, was in the time of Plato, showing that a large part of what ended up in Euclid's Elements was already known.

Bernard Suzanne (page last updated 1998), ed.
This extract is cited July 2003 from the Plato and his dialogues URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks.


KYZIKOS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Callippus or Calippus

Callipus of Cyzicus (fl. c. 370 BC). Astronomer
Life
Studied in Cyzicus (Asia Minor) with Ptolemarchus, a friend of Eudoxus, whom he succeeded as head of the school. Later he went to Athens, where he studied with Aristotle. One of the craters on the moon has been named "Callippus" in his honour.
Work
Callippus developed and perfected the system of concentric spheres proposed by Eudoxus, adding seven more spheres - one for each of the planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) and one each for the sun and the moon, both then considered planets - for a total of 34. He made detailed observations of the rising and setting of the fixed stars, especially the "dawn-risers" and "evening-setters". His calculation of the duration of the seasons - Spring 94 days, Summer 92, Autumn 89, Winter 90 - was accurate to within 0.08 - 0.44 days. He improved on Meton's 19-year luni-solar calendar, introducing the 76-year (4 x 19) cycle named after him, which skipped one day every 76 years, and gave a year of 365.25 days and a month of 29.53. His sole known work, "On the System of the Planets", is lost.

This text is based on the Greek book "Ancient Greek Scientists", Athens, 1995 and is cited Sep 2005 from The Technology Museum of Thessaloniki URL below.


, 370 - 310

Callippus or Calippus (Kallippos or Kalippos), an astronomer of Cyzicus. He was a disciple of one of Eudoxus' friends, and followed him to Athens, where he became acquainted [p. 575] with Aristotle (who mentions him Metaph. xi. 8), and assisted that philosopher in rectifying and completing the discoveries of Eudoxus (Simplic. in lib. II. de Coel). His observations are frequently referred to by Geminus and Ptolemy in their meteorological calendars, and were probably made at Cyzicus, since Ptolemy says, that Callippus observed at the Hellespont. Such calendars were fixed in public places, for common use, and hence called parapegmata: they record the times of the different risings and settings of the fixed stars, with the episemasiai, or principal changes in the weather supposed to be connected with them, as deduced from the observations of various astronomers. Callippus invented the period or cycle of 76 years, called after him the Callippic. Several attempts had been previously made to discover intervals of time of moderate length, which should be expressible in whole numbers by means of each of the three natural units of time--the solar year, the lunar month, and the solar day: and, in particular, Meton, about a century before, had observed the remarkable approximation to equality between 19 years and 235 months, and had introduced the celebrated cycle of 19 years, which he also assumed to contain 6940 days. This would make the year = 365 5/19 days; and, therefore, Callippus, observing that the difference between this and the more correct value 365 1/4 was 5/19 - 5/20 = 1/4 x 19 = 1/76, proposed to quadruple the Metonic period, and then subtract one day. He supposed, that 76 years = 940 months = 27759 days; both of which suppositions are considerably nearer the truth than Meton's (Geminus, El. Ast. cap. 6, Uranolog.). If we take the mean values of the year and month, in days, to be 365.2422414 and 29.5305887215 respectively, then 76 years =27758d 9h 50m 54s, and 940 months = 27758d 18h 4m 54s nearly; but these numbers would not be strictly accurate in the time of Callippus.
  The Callippic period seems to have been generally adopted by astronomers in assigning the dates of their observations; and the frequent use which Ptolemy makes of it enables us to fix the epoch of the beginning of the first period with considerable certainty. It must have begun near the time of the summer solstice, since Ptolemy refers to an observation of that solstice made at the end of the 50th year (toin hetel legonti) of the first period (meg. suntax. iii. 2); and out of a number of other observations recorded by the same writer, all but two, according to Ideler, indicate the year B. C. 330, whilst four of them require the evening of June 28 for the epoch in question. It is not certain at what time the period came into civil use; it would naturally be employed not to supersede, but to correct from time to time, the Metonic reckoning. The inaccuracy of the latter must have become quite sensible in B. C. 330; and it is evident, from the praise which Diodorus (xii. 36) bestows upon it, that it could not have remained uncorrected down to his time.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


NIKEA (Ancient city) TURKEY

Hipparchus of Rhodes

, , 190 - 120

   Hipparchus, (Hipparchos). A Greek mathematician, the founder of scientific astronomy. He was born at Nicaea in Bithynia about B.C. 160, lived chiefly at Rhodes and Alexandria, and died about B.C. 120. He discovered the precession of the equinoxes, settled more accurately the length of the solar year, as also of the revolution of the moon, and the magnitude and distances of the heavenly bodies. He placed mathematical geography on a firmer basis, by teaching the application of the latitude and longitude of the stars to marking the position of places on the surface of the earth. He is also regarded as having invented trigonometry. In plane trigonometry he constructed a table of chords of arcs, which is practically the same as one of natural sines; and in spherical trigonometry he had some methods of solving triangles. Of his numerous writings we possess only his commentary on the Phaenomena of Eudoxus and Aratus and a catalogue of 1026 fixed stars.

This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Hipparchus

Hipparchus, (Hipparchos). We must give a few words to the explanation of our reason for deferring all such account of Hipparchus as his fame requires to another article. The first and greatest of Greek astronomers has left no work of his own which would entitle him to that character: it is entirely to Ptolemy that our knowledge of him is due. In this respect, the parallel is very close between him and two others of his race, each one of the three being the first of his order in point of time. Aesop and Menander would only have been known to us by report or by slight fragments, if it had not been for Phaedrus and Terence: it would have been the same with Hipparchus if it had not been for Ptolemy. Had it happened that Hipparchus had had two names, by the second of which Ptolemy, and Ptolemy only, had referred to him, we should have had no positive method of identifying the great astronomer with the writer of the commentary on Aratus. And if by any collateral evidence a doubt had been raised whether the two were not the same, it would probably have been urged with success that it was impossible the author of so comparatively slight a production could have been the sagacious mathematician and diligent observer who, by uniting those two characters for the first time, raised astronomy to that rank among the applications of arithmetic and geometry which it has always since preserved. This is the praise to which the Hipparchus of the Syntaxis is entitled; and as this can only be gathered from Ptolemy, it will be convenient to refer the most important part of the account of the former to the life of the latter; giving, in this place, only as much as can be gathered from other sources. And such a course is rendered more desirable by the circumstance that the boundary between the discoveries of Hipparchus and those of Ptolemy himself is in several points a question which can only be settled from the writings of the latter, if at all.
  Strabo, Suidas, &c., state that Hipparchus was of Nicaea, in Bithynia; and Ptolemy (De Adpar. Inerrant. sub fin.), in a list in which he has expressly pointed out the localities in which astronomers made their observations, calls him a Bithynian. But the same Ptolemy (Syntax. lib. v., ed. Halma) states that Hipparchus himself has noted his own observation of the sun and moon, made at Rhodes in the 197th year after the death of Alexander. Hence some have made the Rhodian and the Bithynian to be two different persons, without any reasonable foundation. There is a passage in the Syntaxais (lib. iii., ed. Halma), from which Delambre (Astron. Anc. Disc. Prel. xxiv. and vol. ii.) found it difficult to avoid inferring that Ptolemy asserted Hipparchus to have also observed at Alexandria, which had been previously asserted, on the same ground, by Weidler and others. But he afterwards remembered that Ptolemy always supposes Rhodes and Alexandria to be in the same longitude, and therefore compares times of observation at the two places without reduction.
  As to the time at which Hipparchus lived, Suidas places him at from B. C. 160 to B. C. 145, but without naming these epochs as those of his birth and death. Of his life and opinions, independently of the astronomical details in the Syntaxis, we know nothing more than is contained in a passage of Pliny (H.N. ii. 26), who states that the attention of Hipparchus (1) was first directed to the construction of a catalogue of stars by the appearance of a new star, and a moving one (perhaps a comet of unusually star-like appearance). Hence he dared, rem Dco improbam, to number the stars, and assign their places and magnitudes, that his successors might detect new appearances, disappearances, motion, or change of magnitude, coelo in haereditate canctis relicto. Bayle has a curious mistake in the interpretation of a part of this passage. He tells us that Hipparchus thought the souls of men to be of celestial origin, for which he cites Pliny as follows: " Idem Hipparchus nunquam satis laudatus, ut quo nemo magis approbaverit cognationem cum homine siderunli, animasque nostras partem esse coeli." This means, of course, that Pliny thought that no one had done more than Hipparchus to show the heavenly origin of the human mind.
  The following are a list of writings attributed to Hipparchus:--1. Peri ton haplanon anagraphai, mentioned by Ptolemy (lib. vii.). A work was added, under the name of Hipparchus, by P. Victor, to his edition of the comment on Aratus, presently mentioned, under the title ekthesis asterismon, which is nothing more than an extract from the seventh book of the Syntaxis. Suidas and Eudocia mention a work with the following title, peri tes ton aplanon suntaxeos kai tou katasterigmou kai eis tous aristous (asterismous ?), which may be the same as the above. 2. Peri megethon kai apostematon, mentioned by Pappus and Theon. Kepler had a manuscript, which Fabricius seems to imply was this work, and which was to have been published by Hansch, but which did not appear. 3. De duodecim Signorum Adscensione, mentioned by Pappus. 4. Peri tes kata platos meniaias tes selenes kineseos, mentioned by Suidas and Eudocia. 5. Peri meniaiou chronou, mentioned by Galen. 6. Peri eniausiou megethous, mentioned by Ptolemy. 7. Peri tes metaptoseos ton tropikon kai isemerinon semeion, mentioned by Ptolemy. 8. Ton Aratou kai Eudoxou phainomenon exegeseon biblia g. This is the comment alluded to in Aratus. It has always been received as the undoubted work of Hipparchus, though beyond all question it must have been written before any of his great discoveries had been made. Nevertheless, it may be said of this criticism, that it is far superior to any thing which had then been written on astronomy, or which was written before the time of Ptolemy by any but Hipparchus himself. Delambre has given a minute account of its contents (Astron. Anc. vol. i.): he remarks that the places of the stars, as known to Hipparchus when he wrote it, are not quite so good as those of his subsequent catalogue, which can be recovered from the Syntaxis; this is equivalent to saying that they are much better than those of his predecessors. The comparison of Eudoxus and Aratus, which runs throughout this work, constitutes the best knowledge we have of the former. We cannot but suppose that the fact of this being the only remaining work of Hipparchus must arise from the Syntaxis containing the substance of all the rest: this one, of course, would live as a criticism on a work so well known as that of Aratus. It has been twice published: once by P. Victor, Florence, 1567, folio, and again by Petavius in his Uranologion, Paris, 1630, folio. 9. Pros ton Eratosthenen kai ta en tei Geographiai autou lechthenta, a criticism censured by Strabo, and approved by Pliny. 10. Biblion peri ton dia barous kato pheromenon, cited by Simplicius. 11. Achilles Tatius says that Hipparchus and others wrote peri ekleipseon heliou kata ta hepta klimata, from which we cannot infer that this is the title of a work. (Ptolem. Syntaxis; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iv; Petavius, Uranologion; Weidler, Hist. Astron. ; Delambre, Hist. de l'Astronom. anc. vol. i., Discours. prelimin.; Bailly, Hist. de l'Astronom. modern vol. i.; Montucla, Hist. de Mathemat. vol. i. Gartz in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclop. s. v.; Marcoz, Astronomie solaire d'Hipparque soumise a une critique rigoreuse et ensuite rendue a sa nerite primordiale, Paris, 1828.)
(1) It was a similar circumstance which gave as remarkable an impulse to the astronomical career of Tycho Brahe, whose merits, as far as practical astronomy is concerned, much resemble those of Hipparchus. It is frequently stated that both were originally led to astronomy by the sight of new stars, which is certainly not true of the former, nor have we any reason to infer it from what Pliny says of the latter.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Hipparchus, Greek astronomer, mathematician and geographer, born: 190 B.C., Nicaea, died: 120 B.C., probably the island of Rhodes. The exact dates of his life are not known for sure, but he is believed to have observed from 162 to 126 B.C.
  Most of what is known about Hipparchus is from Strabo's Geography, from Pliny Natural sciences and from Ptolemy's Almagest. He probably studied in Alexandria. His main original works are lost. His only preserved work is the Commentary on Aratus, a commentary on a poem by Aratus which describes the constellations and the stars which comprise them. This work contains many measurements of stellar positions.
  For his accession he holds the place of originator and father of scientific astronomy. He is believed to be the greatest Greek astronomer observer and he is at the same time entitled the greatest astronomer of ancient times. Hipparchus had ranked stars after their brightness in six magnitude classes, what we, as magnitudes, still use today since Ptolemy. He arranged value of 1 to 20 brightest stars, to weaker ones value of 2 and so forth to the stars with a class of 6, which can be barely seen. Hipparchus had made a lot of astronomical instruments, which were used for a long time with naked-eye observations. About 150 B.C. he made the first astrolabe, which was improved in the 3rd century by Arab astronomers and brought by them in Europe in 10th century. With astrolabe Hipparchus was able to measure among the first the geographical latitude and time. Gnomon was changed during his time. They put it in a metallic hemisphere, which was devided inside in concentric circles and it used as a portable instrument, named scaphion, for determination of geographical coordinates from measured solar altitudes.
  Hipparchus had proposed to determine the geographical longitudes of several cities at solar eclipses. It is thought that Hipparchus compiled the first catalog of stars, and also compiled the first trigonometry tables. Theorem in plane geometry called Ptolemy's theorem was developed by Hipparchus. Hipparchus is perhaps most famous for having been the first to measure the precession of the equinoxes. Hipparchus had used almost the basic astronomical instruments gnomon, atrolabe, armiral sphere and so.
  Hipparchus fully measured the length of winter and spring to be 184 1/2 days, summer and autumn 180 1/2 days. In his geocentrical view, which he preferred, he explained this fact with the adoption the Earth is not in the centre of Sun's orbit around it, but it lies eccentrically for 1/24 r. With his estimation of the length of seasons he tried to determine, as of today, linear eccentricity of Earth's orbit.
  After that he lived from 141 B.C. to 126 B.C. mostly on the island of Rhodes, again in Alexandria and in Syracuse and around 130 B.C. in Babylon made a lot of precise and lasting observations. In his star map Hipparchus drew position of every star on the basis of its celestial latitude, and its celestial longitude. This system was also transferred to maps for Earth. Hipparchus described the motion of the Sun and obtained a value for the eccentricity. Hipparchus also studied the motion of the moon and obtained more accurate measurements of some periods of the motion than existed previously, and undertook to find the distances and sizes of the sun and moon.

This extract is cited July 2003 from the Malaspina Great Books URL below, which contains image.


Athletes

PERGAMOS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Glycon

Glycon. Of Pergamus, a celebrated athlete, on whom Antipater of Thessalonica wrote an epitaph. (Brunck, Anal. vol. ii., No. 68; Anth. Palat. x. 124; Horat. Ep. i. 1, 30.)


Courtesans

MILITOS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Aspasia

Aspasia. A celebrated woman, a native of Miletus. She came as an adventuress to Athens, in the time of Pericles, and, by the combined charms of her person, manners, and conversation, completely won the affection and esteem of that distinguished statesman. Her station had freed her from the restraints which custom laid on the education of the Athenian matron, and she had enriched her mind with accomplishments which were rare even among men. Her acquaintance with Pericles seems to have begun while he was still united to a lady of high birth, and we can hardly doubt that it was Aspasia who first disturbed this union, although it is said to have been dissolved by mutual consent. But after parting from his wife, who had borne him two sons, Pericles attached himself to Aspasia by the most intimate relation which the laws permitted him to contract with a foreign woman; and she acquired an ascendency over him which soon became notorious, and furnished the comic poets with an inexhaustible fund of ridicule and his enemies with a ground for serious charges. The Samian War was ascribed to her interposition on behalf of her birthplace, and rumours were set afloat which represented her as ministering to the vices of Pericles by the most odious and degrading of offices. There was, perhaps, as little foundation for this report as for a similar one in which Phidias was implicated ; though among all the imputations brought against Pericles, this is that which it is the most difficult clearly to refute. But we are inclined to believe that it may have arisen from the peculiar nature of Aspasia's private circles, which, with a bold neglect of established usage, were composed not only of the most intelligent and accomplished men to be found at Athens, but also of matrons, who, it is said, were brought by their husbands to listen to her conversation. This must have been highly instructive as well as brilliant, since Plato did not hesitate to describe her as the preceptress of Socrates, and to assert in the Menexenus that she both formed the rhetoric of Pericles and composed one of his most admired harangues, the celebrated funeral oration. The innovation, which drew women of free birth and good standing into her company for such a purpose, must, even where the truth was understood, have surprised and offended many, and it was liable to the grossest misconstruction. And if her female friends were sometimes seen watching the progress of the works of Phidias, it was easy, through his intimacy with Pericles, to connect this fact with a calumny of the same kind.
  There was another rumour still more dangerous, which grew out of the character of the persons who were admitted to the society of Pericles and Aspasia. No persons were more welcome at the house of Pericles than such as were distinguished by philosophical studies, and especially by the profession of new philosophical tenets. The mere presence of Anaxagoras, Zeno, Protagoras, and other celebrated men, who were known to hold doctrines very remote from the religious conceptions of the vulgar, was sufficient to make a circle in which they were familiar pass for a school of impiety. Such were the materials out of which the comic poet Hermippus formed a criminal prosecution against Aspasia. His indictment included two heads: an offence against religion, and that of corrupting Athenian women to gratify the passions of Pericles. The danger was averted; but it seems that Pericles, who pleaded her cause, found need of his most strenuous exertions to save Aspasia, and that he even descended, in her behalf, to tears and entreaties, which no similar emergency of his own could ever draw from him.
  After the death of Pericles, Aspasia attached herself to a young man of obscure birth, named Lysicles, who rose through her influence in moulding his character to some of the highest employments in the Republic. (See Plut. Pericl.; Xen. Mem.ii. 6.)

This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Aspasia. The celebrated Milesian, daughter of Axiochus, came to reside at Athens, and there gained and fixed the affections of Pericles, not more by her beauty than by her high mental accomplishments. With his wife. who was a lady of rank, and by whom he had two sons, he seems to have lived unhappily; and, having parted from her by mutual consent, he attached himself to Aspasia during the rest of his life as closely as was allowed by the law, which forbade marriage with a foreign woman under severe penalties (Plut. Peric. 24; Demosth. c. Neaer.). Nor can there be any doubt that she acquired over him a great ascendancy; though this perhaps comes before us in an exaggerated shape in the statements which ascribe to her influence the war with Samos on behalf of Miletus in B. C. 440, as well as the Peloponnesian war itself (Plut. Peric. l. c.; Aristoph. Acharn. 497; Schol. ad loc.; comp. Aristoph. Pax, 587; Thuc. i. 115). The connexion, indeed, of Pericles with Aspasia appears to have been a favourite subject of attack in Athenian comedy (Aristoph. Acharn. l. c.; Plut. Peric. 24; Schol. ad Plat. Menex.), as also with certain writers of philosophical dialogues, between whom and the comic poets, in respect of their abusive propensities, Athenaeus remarks a strong family likeness (Athen. v. p. 220; Casaub. ad loc.). Nor was their bitterness satisfied with the vent of satire; for it was Hermippus, the comic poet, who brought against Aspasia the double charge of impiety and of infamously pandering to the vices of Pericles; and it required all the personal influence of the latter with the people, and his most earnest entreaties and tears, to procure her acquittal (Plut. Peric. 32; Athen. xiii). The house of Aspasia was the great centre of the highest literary and philosophical society of Athens, nor was the seclusion of the Athenian matrons so strictly preserved, but that many even of them resorted thither with their husbands for the pleasure and improvement of her conversation (Plut. Peric. 24); so that the intellectual influence which she ex ercised was undoubtedly considerable, even though we reject the story of her being the preceptress of Socrates, on the probable ground of the irony of those passages in which such statement is made (Plat. Menex.; Xen. Occon. iii. 14, Memor. ii. 6.36); for Plato certainly was no approver of the administration of Pericles (Gorg), and thought perhaps that the refinement introduced by Aspasia had only added a new temptation to the licentiousness from which it was not disconnected (Athen. xiii). On the death of Pericles, Aspasia is said to have attached herself to one Lysicles, a dealer in cattle, and to have made him by her instructions a first-rate orator (Aesch. ap. Plut. Peric. 24). For an amusing account of a sophistical argument ascribed to her by Aeschines the philosopher, see Cic. de Inxent. i. 31; Quintil. Inst. Orat. v. 11. The son of Pericles by Aspasia was legitimated by a special decree of the people, and took his father's name (Plut. Peric. 37). He was one of the six generals who were put to death after the victory at Arginusae.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited June 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Aspasia
Summary
  Aspasia was the mistress of Pericles, the leader of Athens during the Classical Age. She was a hetaira, a trained and paid companion who accompanied upper-class men to the symposiums. According to some ancient sources she was skilled in rhetoric and took part in the intellectual discussions of the leading men in Athens, including Socrates. As the mistress of Pericles, she suffered attacks from his political enemies. Aspasia and Pericles had one son, who was later legitimized. After the death of Pericles she married Lysicles a man of humble birth who became a successful politician in Athens through her assistance. Factual information about Aspasia is difficult to locate in the ancient sources. Playwrights, biographers and other ancient authors use Aspasia to illustrate their views on philosophy, rhetoric and Pericles.
Family
  Modern scholars agree that the basic facts of Aspasia's life as recorded by Diodoros the Athenian (FGrHist 372 F 40 ), Plutarch (Plut. Per. 24.3 ) and the lexicographers are correct. She was born in the city of Miletus between 460-455 B.C., the daughter of Axiochus. Miletus, part of the Athenian empire, was one of the leading cities in Ionia, an area of Greek settlement located along the coast of Asia Minor.
  It was probably in Ionia, before she left for Athens, that Aspasia was educated. Women in that part of the Greek world were generally given more of an education than women in Athens. As a hetaira she would have been trained in the art of conversation and of musical entertainment including singing, dancing and playing instruments.
Biography
  Arriving in Athens as a free immigrant around 445 B.C., Aspasia worked as a hetaira. In fact Aspasia, which meant "Gladly Welcomed", was probably her professional name. Hetairai were much more than just high-class prostitutes. According to ancient literary sources and scenes from vase paintings, many hetairai were intelligent, beautiful, well-dressed and had fewer restrictions on their lives than the respectable, married women in Athens (Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 583f. ). This description would also apply to Aspasia. As a hetaira, however, she would not have had financial security or any legal or family protection.
  As the paid companion of aristocratic men Aspasia attended symposiums, drinking parties combined with political and philosophical discourse. At the symposiums she met the most influential and powerful men in Athens, including Pericles. Sometime around 445 B.C. Aspasia began to live with Pericles, who at that time was the leader of Athens. He had been divorced from his wife for five years, with whom he had two sons. According to Plutarch, it was an amiable divorce because the marriage was not a happy one (Plut. Per. 24.5).
  Plutarch relates more information about Aspasia than any other ancient author. Unfortunately, Plutarch's Lives are full of distortions and historical inaccuracies. His purpose in the Lives was to exemplify the virtues and vices of great men, not to write history. In respect to Aspasia and Pericles he states that Pericles valued Aspasia's intelligence and political insight, but he emphasizes that Pericles' feelings for her were primarily erotic. This may be an attempt on Plutarch's part to remove the stigma from Pericles of having been overly influenced by a woman.
  Plutarch describes the relationship between Aspasia and Pericles as a very happy one. He states that she was so loved by Pericles that he kissed her everyday when he left the house and again when he returned (Plut. Per. 24). Plutarch portrays Aspasia as the influential courtesan. He writes that Aspasia was trying to emulate Thargelia, a famous Milesian courtesan whose lovers were the most powerful men in Greece. Using her influence over these men Thargelia helped win Thessaly over to the Persians at the time of Xerxes' invasion.
  Plutarch blames Aspasia for Pericles' decision to start the war against Samos, a wealthy and powerful member of the empire. The Milesians and the Samians were involved in a border dispute. The Samians refused to submit the conflict to Athenian arbitration. Supposedly, Aspasia pressured Pericles to take military action against Samos (Plut. Per. 25.1). Although it would have been natural for Aspasia to take the side of her native city, she and Pericles both must have realized that the loss of Samos to the empire would have meant the rapid end of Athenian domination of the Aegean.
  The exact status of Aspasia's relationship with Pericles and her position in Pericles' household is disputed. While some say that she was his a pallake (concubine ), Plutarch (Plut. Per. 24) seems to imply, and Diodorus the Athenian (FGrHist 372 F 40) says, that she was his akoitis. She and Pericles had one son also named Pericles. As the mistress of Pericles' household and hostess to his friends and supporters, Aspasia participated in discussions revolving around politics and philosophy with the leading men of the Athenian empire. According to several ancient authors, Socrates respected her opinions (Plut. Per. 24.3; Xen. Ec. 3.15; Cicero, De Inventione 31.51). As a pallake she would have been outside of the legal, traditional role of an Athenian wife. Freed from the social restraints that tied married women to their homes and restricted their behavior, Aspasia was able to participate more freely in public life.
  Strong evidence that Aspasia's role in Athens went beyond that of mistress to Pericles is given by Plato in the Menexenus. In this dialogue Plato has Socrates recite a funeral oration composed by Aspasia that glorifies the Athenians and their history. The Menexenus is a humorous vehicle for Plato to make a serious, but negative comment on rhetoric and popular opinion in Athens. Everything in Aspasia's speech is selected, arranged and stated by Plato in order to produce the greatest possible irony. By satirizing a speech "written" by Aspasia, Plato acknowledges her role as a leader of rhetoric in the Greek Classical Age.
  In Cicero's book on rhetoric he uses as an example of the Socratic method a dialogue attributed to Aspasia by Aeschines a student of Socrates. In this dialogue Aspasia skillfully proves to a husband and wife that neither one of them will ever be truly happy with the other because they each desire the ideal spouse. Aeschines and another student of Socrates, Antisthenes, both wrote dialogues titled Aspasia. Unfortunately, only fragments of these works survive (Diogenes Laertius, Antisthenes 6.16).
  Several ancient authors state that Aspasia herself operated a house of courtesans and trained young women in the necessary skills (Plut. Per. 24.3). Aristophanes and others refer to "Aspasia's whores" (Aristoph. Ach. 527). Although as Pericles' pallake she was taken care of financially, Aspasia may have been preparing for her future after the death of Pericles. According to Plutarch, she was known in Athens as a teacher of rhetoric. Perhaps these women were her pupils (Plut. Per. 34). Aspasia's hetairai would have had as patrons the elite men of Athens, especially the supporters of Pericles.
  Around 438 B.C. Pericles' political enemies began attacking those close to him in court and eventually brought charges against Pericles himself. Soon Aspasia became a target. She was brought to trial on charges of impiety and of procuring free women. She was acquitted thanks to a passionate and tearful defense by Pericles (Plut. Per. 32.1-3). Although her political wisdom was valuable to Pericles, not having an Athenian citizen as a legal wife, but rather living with a foreign hetaira in an unofficial marriage may have been a political liability for him.
  In the contemporary comedy The Acharnians, Aristophanes parodies the imputations that Aspasia had undue influence on Pericles' political decisions. One of his characters blames the start of the Peloponnesian War in 431 B.C. on the abduction of two of Aspasia's hetairai (Aristoph. Ach. 527-530). The joke worked because the audience knew that Aspasia had some influence on Pericles, but not enough to start a war.
The plague in Athens in 430 B.C. killed both of Pericles' sons by his first wife. This led him to ask for an exemption from the citizenship law, which he himself had enacted, for his illegimate son by Aspasia. The citizenship law decreed that only persons whose father and mother were both Athenians could be legal citizens. The people of Athens agreed to Pericles' request. His son was legitimized and made a citizen of Athens. He later became a general, but was executed in 406 B.C.
  In 429 B.C. Pericles died from the plague. A year later Aspasia became involved with a sheep seller named Lysicles in another unofficial marriage. He was an uneducated man of humble birth who rose to prominence thanks to her guidance. She taught him how to speak in public and gave him the benefit of her valuable insights and personal contacts in Athenian politics (Plut. Per. 24.6; Scholia to Plato, Menexenus 235E). He was one of the new type of political leaders who came to prominence after the death of Pericles. This was probably the same group who had led the earlier attacks against Pericles and his friends, including Aspasia herself. Questions remain regarding Aspasia's decision to marry so quickly after Pericles' death. She might have been in need of a protector from Pericles' enemies. The selection of another politician as her husband might also suggest a desire to remain involved in the politics of Athens.
  There is no information about Aspasia's life after this point. Although the actual extent of her influence on Athenian politics and society during Athens' most glorious period will never be certain, she did become one of the few women in the ancient Greek world to be noted and remembered. She became so famous that Cyrus, a prince of Persia, Athens' most hated enemy, gave the name Aspasia to his favorite concubine. Through the succeeding centuries ancient authors, including playwrights and biographers, used Aspasia as a well-known historical figure to illustrate their views on philosophy, politics, rhetoric, Pericles and Socrates.
  The primary sources give little information about Aspasia. Plutarch relates more than the other ancient authors, but he seems almost wholly dependent on Athenian comedy and stories from the Socratic circle for his information, all of which is difficult to verify. The secondary sources tend to discuss Aspasia in relation to Pericles or Athenian politics and society.

Elizabeth Lynne Beavers, ed.
This text is cited June 2005 from Perseus Project URL bellow, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Doctors

AMIDA (Ancient city) TURKEY

Aetius, writer, 6th ce. AD

Aetius (Aetios), a Greek medical writer, whose name is commonly but incorrectly spelt Aetius. Historians are not agreed about his exact date. He is placed by some writers as early as the fourth century after Christ; but it is plain from his own work that he did not write till the very end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth, as he refers not only to St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, who died A. D. 444, but also to Petrus Archiater, who was physician to Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, and there fore must have lived still later; he is himself quoted by Alexander Trallianus, who lived probably in the middle of the sixth century. He was a native of Amida, a city of Mesopotamia (Photius, cod. 221) and studied at Alexandria, which was the most famous medical school of the age. He was probably a Christian, which may account perhaps for his being confounded with another person of the same name, a famous Arian of Antioch, who lived in the time of the Emperor Julian. In some manuscripts he has the title of komes opsikiou, comes obsequii, which means the chief officer in attendance on the emperor; this title, according to Photius, he attained at Constantinople, where he was practising medicine. Aetius seems to be the first Greek medical writer among the Christians who gives any specimen of the spells and charms so much in vogue with the Egyptians, such as that of St. Blaise in removing a bone which sticks in the throat, and another in relation to a Fistula. The division of his work Biblia Iatrika Ekkaideka, " Sixteen Books on Medicine", into four tetrabibli (tetrabibloi) was not made by himself, but (as Fabricius observes) was the invention of some modern translator, as his way of quoting his own work is according to the numerical series of the books. Although his work does not contain much original matter, it is nevertheless one of the most valuable medical remains of antiquity, as being a very judicious compilation from the writings of many authors whose works have been long since lost.
  The whole of it has never appeared in the original Greek; one half was published at Venice, 1534, fol. "in aed. Aldi," with the title " Aetii Amideni Librorum Medicinalium tomus primus; primi scilicet Libri Octo nunc primum in lucem editi, Graece": the second volume never appeared. Some chapters of the ninth book were published in Greek and Latin, by J. E. Hebenstreit, Lips. 4to. 1757, under the title "Tentamen Philologicum Medicum super Aetii Amideni Synopsis Medicorum Veterum", &c.; and again in the same year, "Aetii Amideni Anekdoton ..... Specimen alterum". Another chapter of the same book was edited in Greek and Latin by J. Maginus a Tengstrom, Aboae, 1817, 4to., with the title "Commentationum in Aetii Amideni Medici Anekdota Specimen Primum", etc. Another extract, also from the ninth book, is inserted by Mustoxydes and Schinas in their "Sulloge Hellenikon Anekdoton", Venet. 1816, 8vo. The twenty-fifth chapter of the ninth book was edited in Greek and Latin by J. C. Horn, Lips. 1654, 4to.; and the chapter (tetrab. i. serm. iii. 164) "De Significationibus Stellarum", is inserted in Greek and Latin by Petavius, in his "Uraxologion". Six books (namely, from the eighth to the thirteenth, inclusive), were published at Basel, 1533, fol., translated into Latin by Janus Cornarius, with the title "Aetii Antiocheni Medici de cognoscendis et curandis Morbis Sermones Sex jam primum in lucem editi". etc. In 1535, the remaining ten books were translated and published at Basel, by J. B. Montanus, in two volumes, so that the three volumes form together a complete and uniform edition of the work. In 1534, 4to., a complete Latin translation was published at Venice by the Juntas. In 1542, Cornarius completed and published a translation of the whole work (Basil. fol.); which was reprinted at Basel, 1549, 8vo.; Venice, 1543, 1544, 8vo. ; Lyons, 1549, fol.; and in H. Stephens's "Medicae Artis Principes", Paris. 1567, fol. Two useful works on Aetius deserve to be mentioned ; one by C. Oroscius (Horozco), entitled "Annotationes in Interpretes Aetii", Basil. 1540, 4to.; the other an academical dissertion by C. Weigel, entitled "Aetianarum Exercitationum Specimen", Lips. 1791, 4to.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Sep 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Aetius, Sicamius

Aetius, Sicamius (Sikamios ho Aetios), sometimes called Aetius Sicanius or Siculus, the author of a treatise Peri Melancholias, De Melancholia, which is commonly printed among the works of Galen. (Vol. xix.) His date is uncertain, but, if he be not the same person as Aetius of Amida, he must have lived after him, as his treatise corresponds exactly with part of the latter's great medical work (tetrab. ii. serm. ii. 9-11): it is compiled from Galen, Rufus, Posidonius, and Marcellus.


ANAZARVOS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Pandanius Dioscorides of Anazarbus

A Greek physician and man of science. He flourished about the middle of the first century A.D., and was the author of a work De Materia Medica (Peri Hules Iatrikes) in five books. For nearly 1700 years this book was the chief authority for students of botany and the science of healing. Two short essays on specifics against vegetable and animal poisons (Alexipharmaca and Theriaca) are appended to it as the sixth and seventh books; but these are probably from the hand of a later Dioscorides of Alexandria. A work on family medicine is also attributed to him, but is not genuine.


   Dioscorides, (Dioskorides). A Greek physician and man of science. He flourished about the middle of the first century A.D., and was the author of a work De Materia Medica (Peri Hules Iatrikes) in five books. For nearly 1700 years this book was the chief authority for students of botany and the science of healing. Two short essays on specifics against vegetable and animal poisons (Alexipharmaca and Theriaca) are appended to it as the sixth and seventh books; but these are probably from the hand of a later Dioscorides of Alexandria. A work on family medicine is also attributed to him, but is not genuine. The Materia Medica has been edited by Sprengel (1829-30).

This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Dioscorides. Pedacius or Pedanius (Pedakios or Pedanios) Dioscorides, the author of the celebrated Treatise on Materia Medica, that bears his name. It is generally supposed, says Dr. Bostock, that he was a native of Anazarba, in Cilicia Campestris, and that he was a physician by profession. It appears pretty evident, that he lived in the first or second century of the Christian era, and as he is not mentioned by Pliny, it has been supposed that he was a little posterior to him. The exact age of Dioscorides has. however, been a question of much critical discussion. and we have nothing but conjecture which can lead us to decide upon it. He has left behind him a Treatise on Materia Medica, Peri Hgles Iatrikes. in five books, a work of great labour and research, and which for many ages was received as a standard production. The greater correctness of modern science, and the new discoveries which have been made, cause it now to be regarded rather as a work of curiosity than of absolute utility; but in drawing up a history of the state and progress of medicine, it affords a most valuable document for our information. His treatise consists of a description of all the articles then used in medicine, with an account of their supposed virtues. The descriptions are brief, and not unfrequently so little characterized as not to enable us to ascertain with any degree of accuracy to what they refer; while the practical part of his work is in a great measure empirical, although his general principles (so far as they can be detected) appear to be those of the Dogmatic sect. The great importance which was for so long a period attached to the works of Dioscorides, has rendered them the subject of almost innumerable commentaries and criticisms, and even some of the most learned of our modern naturalists have not thought it an unworthy task to attempt the illustration of his Materia Medica. Upon the whole, we must attribute to him the merit of great industry and patient research; and it seems but just to ascribe a large portion of the errors and inaccuracies into which he has fallen, more to the imperfect state of science when he wrote, than to any defect in the character and talents of the writer.
  His work has been compared with that of Theophrastus, but this seems to be doing justice to neither party, as the objects of the two authors were totally different, the one writing as a scientific botanist, the other merely as a herbalist; and accordingly we find each of these celebrated men superior to the other in his own department. With respect to the ancient writers on Materia Medica who succeeded Dioscorides, they were generally content to quote his authority without presuming to correct his errors or supply his deficiencies. That part of his work which relates to the plants growing in Greece has been very much illustrated by the late Dr. John Sibthorp, who, when he was elected one of the Radcliffe Travelling Fellows of the University of Oxford, travelled in Greece and the neighbouring parts for the purpose of collecting materials for a " Flora Graeca." This magnificent work was begun after his death, under the direction of the late Sir J. E. Smith (1806), and has been lately finished, in ten volumes folio, by Professor Lindley. With respect to the plants and other productions of the East mentioned by Dioscorides, much still remains to be done towards their illustration, and identification with the articles met with in those countries in the present day. A few specimens of this are given by Dr. Royle, in his " Essay on the Antiquity of Hindoo Medicine" (Lond. 8vo. 1837), and probably no man in England is more fitted to undertake the task than himself.
  Besides the celebrated treatise on Materia Medica, the following works are generally attributed to Dioscorides: Peri Deleterion Pharmakon, De Venenis; Peri Iobolon, De Venenatis Animalibus; Peri Eu'poriston Haplon te kai Suntheton Pharmakon, De facile Parabilibus tam Simplicibus qnam Compositis Medicamentis; and a few smaller works, which are considered spurious. His works first appeared in a Latin translation (supposed to be by Petrus de Abano) in 1478, fol. Colle, in black letter. The first Greek edition was published by Aldus Manutius, Venet. 1499, fol., and is said to be very scarce. Perhaps the most valuable edition is that by J. A. Saracenus, Greek and Latin, Francof. 1598. fol., with a copious and learned commentary. The last edition is that by C. Sprengel, in two vols. 8vo. Lips. 1829, 1830, in Greek and Latin, with a useful commentary, forming the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth vols. of Kuhn's Collection of the Greek Medical Writers. The work of Dioscorides has been translated and published in the Italian, German, Spanish, and French languages; there is also an Arabic Translation, which is still in MS. in several European libraries.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Dioscorides, Pedanius (c.40-90 AD)

  Born in Anazarbus (today's Turkey), this Greek physician wrote a text on botany and pharmacology free from superstition, De Materia Medica (“On Medical Matters”).
  Dioscorides served in Nero's armies as botanist.

This text is cited Sept 2003 from the In2Greece URL below.


ATTALIA (Ancient city) TURKEY

Athenaeus, writer, 1st cent. A.D.

Athenaeus (Athenaios), a celebrated physician, who was the founder of the sect of the Pneumatici. He was born in Cilicia, at Attaleia, according to Galen, or at Tarsus according to Caelius Aurelianus. The exact years of his birth and death are unknown, but as Agathinus was one of his followers, he must have lived in the first century after Christ. He was tutor to Theodorus (Diog. Laert. ii. 104), and appears to have practised at Rome with great success. Some account of his doctrines and those of the Pneumatici is given in the Dict. of Ant. s. v. Pneumatici, but of his personal history no further particulars are known. He appears to have been a voluminous writer, as the twenty-fourth volume of one of his works is quoted by Galen (De Caus. Symptom. ii. 3.), and the twenty-ninth by Oribasius (Coll. Medic. ix. 5.). Nothing, however, remains but the titles, and some fragments preserved by Oribasius.
  There is in the Royal Library at Paris a Greek MS. of the sixteenth century, containing a treatise on Urine, Peri Ouron Sunopsis Akribes, by a person of the name of Athenaeus, but it is not known for certain whether he is the same individual as the founder of the Pneumatici.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


CHALKIDON (Ancient city) TURKEY

Herophilus (4th-3rd cen. BC)

He was the founder of scientific anatomy. He went to Alexandria where he found the opportunity to study the human boby by making systematic incisions in corpses laid in the Museum. He also wrote many medical books.


Herophilus, (Herophilos), one of the most celebrated physicians of antiquity, who is best known on account of his skill in anatomy and physiology, but of whose personal history few details have been preserved. He was a native of Chalcedon in Bithynia (Galen, Introd. vol. xiv.) (1) and was a contemporary of the physician Philotimus, the philosopher Diodorus Cronos, and of Ptolemy Soter, in the fourth and third centuries B. C., though the exact year both of his birth and series, and death is unknown. He was a pupil of Praxagoras (Galen, De Meth. Med. i. 3. vol. x.), and a fellow-pupil of Philotimus (Galen, Ibid.), and settled at Alexandria, which city, though so lately founded, was rapidly rising into eminence under the enlightened government of the first Ptolemy. Here he soon acquired a great reputation, and was one of the first founders of the medical school in that city, which afterwards eclipsed in celebrity all the others, so much so that in the fourth century after Christ the very fact of a physician having studied at alexandria was considered to be a sufficient guarantee of his ability. (Amm. Mare. xxii. 16.) Connected with his residence here an amusing anecdote is told by Sextus Empiricus (Pyrrhon. Instit. ii. 22. 245, ed. Fabric.) of the practical method in which he convinced Diodorus Cronus of the possibility of motion. That hilosopher used to deny the existence of motion, and to support his assertion by the followingl dilemma :-- " If matter moves, it is either in the place where it is, or in the place where it is not; but it cannot move in the place where it is, and certainly not in the place where it is not; therefore it cannot move at all." He happened, however, to dislocate his shoulder, and sent for Herophilus to replace it, who first began by proving by his own argument that is was quite impossible that any luxation could have taken place; upon which Diodorus begged him to leave such quibbling for the present, and to proceed at once to his surgical treatment. He seems to have given his chief attention to anatomy, which he studied not merely from the dissection of animals, but also from that of human bodies, as is expressly asserted by Galen ( De Uieri Dissect. c. 5. vol. ii.). He is even said to have carried his ardor in his anatomical pursuits so far as to have dissected criminals alive,--a well-known accusation, which it seems difficult entirely to disbelieve, though most of his biographers have tried to explain it away, or to throw discredit on it; for (not to lay much stress on the evident exaggeration of Tertullian, who says (De Anima, c. 10) that he dissected as many as six hundred), it is mentioned by Celsus (De Medic. i. praef.), quite as a well-known fact, and without the least suspicion as to its truth; added to which, it should be remembered, that such a proceeding would not be nearly so shocking to men's feelings two thoulsand years ago as it would be at present. He was the author of several medical and anatomical works, of which nothing but the titles and a few fragments remain. These have been collected by C. F. H. Marx, and published in a dissertation entitled " De Herophili Celeberrimi Medici Vita, Scriptis, atque in Medicina Meritis," 4to. Gotting. 1840. Dr. Marx attributes to Herophilus a work Peri Aition, De Causis; but this is considered by a writer in the British and Foreign Medical Review (vol. xv.) to be a mistake, as the treatise in question was probably written by one of his followers named Hegetor. He owes his principal celebrity (as has been already intimated) to his anatomical researches and discoveries, and several of the names which he gave to different parts of the human body remain in common use to this day; as the " Torcular lIerophili," the " Calamus Scriptorius," and the " Duodenum." He was intimately acquainted with the nervous system, and seems to have recognised the division of the nerves into those of sensation (aisthetika), and those of voluntary motion (proairetika), though he included the tendons and ligaments under the common term neuron, and called some at least of the nerves by the name of poroi, meatus. He placed the seat of the soul(to tes psuches hegemonikon) in the ventricles of the brain, and thus probably originated the idea, which was again brought forward, with some modification, towards the end of the last century, by Sommering in his treatise Ueber das Organ der Seele, §§ 26, 28, Konigsberg, 1796, 4to. The opinions of Herophilus on pathology dietetics, diagnosis, therapentics, materia medica, surgery, and midwifery ( as far as they can be collected form the few scattered extracts and allusions found in other authors), are collected by Dr. Marx, but need not be here particularly noticed. Perhaps the weakest point in Herophilus was his pharmaceutical practice, as he seems to have been one of the earliest physicians who administered large doses of hellebore and other drastic purgatives, and who (on the principle that compound diseases require compound medicines) began that strange system of heterogeneous mixtures, some of which have only lately been expelled from our own Pharmacopoeia, and which still keep their place on the Continent. He is the first person who is known to have commented on any of the works of Hippocrates ( see Littre, Ocuxres d'Hippocrate, vol. i.), and wrote an explanation of the words that had become obscure or obsolete. He was the founder of a medical school which produced several eminent physicians, and in the time of Strabo was established at Men-Carus, near Laodiccia, in Phrygia. (Strabo, xii. 3., ed. Tauchn.) Of The physicians who belonged to this school perhaps the following were the most celebrated: Andreas, Apollonius Mus, Aristoxenus, Baccheius, Callianax, Callimachus, Demetrius, Dioscorides Phacas, Gaius or Caius (Cael. Aurel. De Morb. Acut. iii. 14), Heracleides, Mantias, Speusippus, Zeno, and Zeuxis, several of whom wrote accounts of the sect and its opinions.
  A further account of Herophilus may be found in Haller's Biblioth. Anatom., and Biblioth. Medic. Pract.; Le Clerc's and Sprengel's Histories of Medicine; Dr. Marx's dissertation mentioned above, and a review of it (by the writer of the present article) in the British and Foreign Medical review, vol. xv., from which two last works the preceding account has been abridged.
(1) In another passage (De Usu Part. i. 8. vol. iii.) he is called a Carthaginian, but this is merely a mistake (as has been more than once remarked), arising from the similarity of the names Chalkedonios and Karchedorios.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Herophilos. Physician and scientist from Chalcedon, who was active in Alexandria in the 3rd century BC. He had studied medicine on the island of Hippocrates, Kos, and was to become the greatest physician in Alexandria.
  By dissecting animals and human corpses, he learnt a lot about anatomy. He was especially fascinated with the human brain, and concluded that it was the centre for thinking and the nervous system, something Aristotle would have disagreed on.
  Herophilos also found a difference between the veins and the arteries, and said that the pulse is the result of the contractions and expansions of the arteries. He did not, however, see the connection with the heart.
  In order to measure the pulse he invented a clepsydra: a portable water clock. He also named the cornea, retina and the duodenum.

This text is cited Sept 2003 from the In2Greece URL below.


KAPADOKIA (Ancient country) TURKEY

Aretaeus (Apetaios)

Aretaeus (Apetaios). A physician of Cappadocia, born near the close of the second century A.D. He was the author of two works, each in four books, on the causes, symptoms, and cure of acute and chronic pains. He wrote in the Ionic dialect with much elegance and clearness; and his treatises show a correctness of understanding with regard to medicine unusual among the ancient writers on this subject. He discourses with especial acuteness of the nerves, of indigestion, and gives an excellent account of diseases of the throat and tonsils.

This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Oct 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Aretaeus (Aretaios), one of the most celebrated of the ancient Greek physicians, of whose life, however, no particulars are known. There is some uncertainty respecting both his age and country; but it seems probable that he practised in the first century after Christ, in the reign of Nero or Vespasian, and he is generally styled "the Cappadocian" (Kappadox). He wrote in Ionic Greek a general treatise on diseases, which is still extant, and is certainly one of the most valuable reliques of antiquity, displaying great accuracy in the detail of symptoms, and in seizing the diagnostic character of diseases. In his practice he followed for the most part the method of Hippocrates, but he paid less attention to what have been styled "the natural actions" of the system; and, contrary to the practice of the Father of Medicine, he did not hesitate to attempt to counteract them, when they appeared to him to be injurious. The account which he gives of his treatment of various diseases indicates a simple and sagacious system, and one of more energy than that of the professed Methodici. Thus he freely administered active purgatives; he did not object to narcotics; he was much less averse to bleeding; and upon the whole his Materia Medica was both ample and efficient. It may be asserted generally that there are few of the ancient physicians, since the time of Hippocrates, who appear to have been less biassed by attachment to any peculiar set of opinions, and whose account of the phenomena and treatment of disease has better stood the test of subsequent experience. Aretaeus is placed by some writers among the Pneumatici, because he maintained the doctrines which are peculiar to this sect; other systematic writers, however, think that he is better entitled to be placed with the Eclectics.
  His work consists of eight book, of which four are entitled Peri Aition kai Semeion Oxeon kai Chronion Pathon, De Causis et Signis Acutorum et Diuturnorum Morborum ; and the other four, Peri Therapeias Oxeon kai Chronion Pathon, De Curatione Acutorum et Diuturnorum Morborum. They are in a tolerably complete state of preservation, though a few chapters are lost. The work was first published in a Latin translation by J. P. Crassus, Venet. 1552, together with Rufus Ephesius. The first Greek edition is that by J. Goupylus, Paris, 1554, which is more complete than the Latin version of Crassus. In 1723 a magnificent edition in folio was published at the Clarendon press at Oxford, edited by J. Wigan, containing an improved text, a new Latin version, learned dissertations and notes, and a copious index by Maittaire. In 1731, the celebrated Boerhaave brought out a new edition, of which the text and Latin version had been printed before the appearance of Wigan's, and are of less value than his; this edition, however, contains a copious and useful collection of annotations by P. Petit and D. W. Triller. The last and most useful edition is that by C. G. Koehn, Lips. 1828, containing Wigan's text, Latin version, dissertations, &c., together with Petit's Commentary, Triller's Emendations, and Maittaire's Index.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


KIOS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Asclepiades Bithynus

, , 129 - 40

Asclepiades Bithynus, a very celebrated physician of Bithynia, who acquired a considerable degree of popularity at Rome at the beginning of the first century B. C., which he maintained through life, and in a certain degree transmitted to his successors. It is said that he first came to Rome as a teacher of rhetoric (Plin. H. N. xxvi. 7), and that it was in consequence of iris not being successful in this profession, that he turned his attention to that the study of medicine. From what we learn of his [p. 382] history and of his practice, it would appear that he may be fairly characterized as a man of natural talents, acquainted with human nature (or rather with human weakness), possessed of considerable shrewdness and address, but with little science or professional skill. He began (upon the plan which is so generally found successful by those who are conscious of their own ignorance) by vilifying the principles and practice of his predecessors, and by asserting that he had discovered a more compendious and effective mode of treating diseases than had been before known to the world. As he was ignorant of anatomy and pathology, he decried the labours of those who sought to investigate the structure of the body, or to watch the phenomena of disease, and he is said to have directed his attacks more particularly against the writings of Hippocrates. It appears, however, that he had the discretion to refrain from the use of very active and powerful remedies, and to trust principally to the efficacy of diet, exercise, bathing, and other circumstances of this nature. A part of the great popularity which he enjoyed depended upon his prescribing the liberal use of wine to his patients (Plin. H. N. vii. 37, xxiii. 22), and upon his not only attending in all cases, with great assiduity, to everything which contributed to their comfort, but also upon his flattering their prejudices and indulging their inclinations. By the due application of these means, and from the state of the people among whom he practised, we may, without much difficulty, account for the great eminence at which he arrived, and we cannot fail to recognise in Asclepiades the prototype of more than one popular physician of modern times. Justice, however, obliges us to admit, that he seems to have possessed a considerable share of acuteness and discernment, which on some occasions he employed with advantage. It is probable that to him we are indebted, in the first instance, for the arrangement of diseases into the two great classes of Acute and Chronic (Cael. Aurel. De Morb. Chron. iii. 8), a division which has a real foundation in nature, and which still forms an important feature in the most improved modern nosology. In his philosophical principles Asclepiades is said to have been a follower of Epicurus, and to have adopted his doctrine of atoms and pores, on which he attempted to build a new theory of disease, by supposing that all morbid action might be reduced into obstruction of the pores and irregular distribution of the atoms. This theory he accommodated to his division of diseases, the acute being supposed to depend essentially upon a constriction of the pores, or an obstruction of them by a superfluity of atoms; the chronic, upon a relaxation of the pores or a deficiency of the atoms. Nothing remains of his writings but a few fragments, which have been collected and published by Gumpert in the little work mentioned above. There is a poem containing directions respecting health (hugieina parangelmata) which is ascribed to Asclepiades of Bithynia, but a writer in the Rheinisches Museeum has shewn, that this poem could not have been written before the seventh century after Christ.
  The age at which Asclepiades died and the date of his death are unknown; but it is said that he laid a wager with Fortune, engaging to forfeit his character as a physician if he should ever suffer from any disease himself. Pliny, who tells the anecdote (H. N. vii. 37), adds, that he won his wager, for that he reached a great age and died at last from an accident.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Gallus, Aelius

Gallus, Aelius, an ancient writer on pharmacy, frequently quoted by Galen. He is probably the person sometimes called simply Aelius (Gal. De Compos. Medicam. sec. Loc. iv. 7), sometimes Gallus (ibid. iii. 1, iv. 8), and sometimes by both names (De Antid. ii. 1). In one passage (De Compos. Medicam. sec. Gen. vi. 6) Talios Ailios is apparently a mistake for Gallos Ailios. He is quoted by Asclepiades Pharmacion (apud Gal. De Compos. Medicam. sec. Loc. iv. 7.), and Andromachus (apud. Gal. ibid. iii. 1), and must have lived in the first century after Christ, as he is said to have prepared an antidote for one of the emperors, which was also used by Charmis, who lived in the reign of Nero, A. D. 54-68 (Gal. De Antid. ii. 1). Haller (Biblioth. Medic. Pract. and Biblioth. Botan.) supposes that there were two physicians of the name of Aelius Gallus; but this conjecture, in the writer's opinion, is not proved to be correct, nor does it seem to be required.
  Besides this Gallus, there is another physician of the name, M. Gallus, who is sometimes said to have had the cognomen Asclepiades; but this appears to be a mistake, as, in the only passage where he is mentioned (Gal. De Compos. Medicam. sec. Loc. viii. 5), instead of Gallou Markou tou Asklepiadou, we should probably read Gallou Markou tou Asklepiadeiou, i. e. the follower of Asclepiades of Bithynia.


KNIDOS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Euryphon

Euryphon, (Euruphon), a celebrated physician of Cnidos in Caria, who was probably born in the former half of the fifth century B. C., as Soranus (Vita Hippocr. in Hippocr. Opera, vol. iii.) says that he was a contemporary of Hippocrates, but older. The same writer saysthat he and Hippocrates were summoned to the court of Perdiccas, the son of Alexander, king of Macedonia; but this story is considered very doubtful, if not altogether apocryphal. He is mentioned in a corrupt fragment of the comic poet Plato, preserved by Galen (Comment. in Hippocr. "Aphor." vii. 44. vol. xviii. pt. i.), in which, instead of apuos, Meineke reads apugos. He is several times quoted by Galen, who says that he was considered to be the author of the ancient medical work entitled Knidiai gnomsi (Comment. in Hippocr. " De Morb. Vulgar. VI." i. 29. vol. xvii. pt. i., where for idiais we should read Knidiais), and also that some persons attributed to him several works included in the Hippocratic Collection (Comment. in Hippocr. " De Humor." i. prooem. vol. xvi.), viz. those entitled Peri Diaites Hugieines, de Salubri Victus Ratione (Comment. in Hippocr. " De Rat. Vict. in Morb. Acut." i. 17. vol. xv.), and Peri Diaites, de Victus Ratione. (De Aliment. Facult. i. 1. vol. vi.) He may perhaps be the author of the second book Peri Nouson, De Morbis, which forms part of the Hippocratic Collection, but which is generally allowed to be spurious, as a passage in this work (vol. ii.) is quoted by Galen (Comment. in Hippocr. " De Morb. Vulgar. VI." i. 29. vol. xvii. pt. i.), and attributed to Euryphon (see Littre's Hippocr. vol. i.); and in the same manner M. Ermerins (Hippocr. de Rat. Vict. in Morb. Acut.) conjectures that he is the author of the work Peri Gunaikeies Phusios, de Natura Muliebri, as Soranus appears to allude to a passage in that treatise (vol. ii.) while quoting the opinions of Euryphon. (De Arte Obstetr.) From a passage in Caelius Aurelianus (de Morb. Chron. ii. 10) it appears, that Euryphon was aware of the difference between the arteries and the veins, and also considered that the former vessels contained blood. Of his works nothing is now extant except a few fragments, unless he be the author of the treatises in the Hippocratic Collection that have been attributed to him.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


PERGAMOS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Galenus or Galen

, , 129 - 199

Galenus, Claudius, (Klaudios Galenos), commonly called Galen, a very celebrated physician, whose works have had a longer and more extensive influence on the different branches of medical science than those of any other individual either in ancient or modern times.
I. Personal History of Galen.
Little is told us of the personal history of Galen by any ancient author, but this deficiency is abundantly supplied by his own writings, in which are to be found such numerous anecdotes of himself and his contemporaries as to form altogether a tolerably circumstantial account of his life. He was a native of Pergamus in Mysia, and it can be proved from various passages in his works that he was born about the autumn of A. D. 130. His father's name was Nicon (Suid. s. v. Galenos), who was, as Suidas tells us, an architect and geometrician, and whom Galen praises several times, not only for his knowledge of astronomy, grammar, arithmetic, and various other branches of philosophy, but also for his patience, justice, benevolence, and other virtues. His mother, on the other hand, was a passionate and scolding woman, who would sometimes even bite her maids, and used to quarrel with her husband "more than Xantippe with Socrates". He received his first instruction from his father, and in his fifteenth year, A. D. 144-5, began to learn logic and to study philosophy under a pupil of Philopator the Stoic, under Caius the Platonist, (or, more probably, one of his pupils,) under a pupil of Aspasius the Peripatetic, and also under an Epicurean. In his seventeenth year, A. D. 146-7, his father, who had hitherto destined him to be a philosopher, altered his intentions, and, in consequence of a dream, chose for him the profession of Medicine. No expense was spared in his education, and the names of several of his medical tutors have been preserved. His first tutors were probably Aeschrion, and Stratonicus, in his own country. In his twentieth year, A. D. 149-50, he lost his father, and it was probably about the same time that he went to Smyrna for the purpose of studying under Pelops the physician, and Albinus the Platonic philosopher, as he says he was still a youth (meirakion). He also went to Corinth to attend the lectures of Numesianus, and to Alexandria for those of Heraclianus; and studied under Aelianus Meccius, and Iphicianus. It was perhaps at this time that he visited various other countries, of which mention is made in his works, as e. g. Cilicia, Phoenicia, Palestine, Scyros, Crete, and Cyprus. He returned to Pergamus from Alexandria, when he had just entered on his twenty-ninth year, A. D. 158, and was immediately appointed by the high-priest of the city physician to the school of gladiators, an office which he filled with great reputation and success.
  In his thirty-fourth year, A. D. 163-4, Galen quitted his native country on account of some popular commotions, and went to Rome for the first time. Here he stayed about four years, and gained such reputation from his skill in anatomy and medicine that he got acquainted with some of the principal persons at Rome, and was to have been recommended to the emperor, but that he declined that honour. It was during his first visit to Rome that he wrote his work De Hippocratis et Platonis Decretis. the first edition of his work De Anatomicis Administrationibus, and some of his other treatises; and excited so much envy and ill-will among the physicians there by his constant and successful disputing, lecturing, writing, and practising, that he was actually afraid of being poisoned by them. A full account of his first visit to Rome, and of some of his most remarkable cures, is given in the early chapters of his work De Praenotione ad Epigenem, where he mentions that he was at last called, not only paradoxologos, "the wonder speaker", but also paradoxopoios, " the wonder-worker". It is often stated that Galen fled from Rome in order to avoid the danger of a very severe pestilence, which had first broken out in the parts about Antioch, A. D. 166, and, after ravaging various parts of the empire, at last reached the capital; but he does not appear to be justly open to this charge, which the whole of his life and character would incline us to disbelieve. He had been for some time wishing to leave Rome as soon as the tumults at Pergamus should be at an end, and evaded the proposed introduction to the emperor M. Aurelius for fear lest his return to Asia should be thereby hindered. This resolution may have been somewhat hastened by the breaking out of the pestilence at Rome, A. D. 167, and accordingly he left the city privately, and set sail at Brundusium. He reached his native country in his thirtyeighth year, A. D. 167-8 and resumed his ordinary course of life; but had scarcely done so, when there arrived a summons from the emperors M. Aurelius and L. Verus to attend them at Aquileia in Venetia, the chief bulwark of Italy on its north-eastern frontier, whither they had both gone in person to make preparations for the war with the northern tribes, and where they intended to pass the winter. He travelled through Thrace and Macedonia, performing part of the journey on foot, and reached Aquileia towards the end of the year 169, shortly before the pestilence broke out in the camp with redoubled violence. The two emperors, with their court and a few of the soldiers, set off precipitately towards Rome, and while they were on their way Verus died of apoplexy, between Concordia and Altinum in the Venetian territory, in the month of December. Galen followed M. Aurelius to Rome, and, upon the emperor's return, after the apotheosis of L. Verus, to conduct the war on the Danube, with difficulty obtained permission to be left behind at Rome, alleging that such was the will of Aesculapius. Whether he really had a dream to this effect, which he believed to have come from Aesculapius, or whether he merely invented such a story as an excuse for not sharing in the dangers and hardships of the campaign, it is impossible to determine; it is, however, certain that he more than once mentions his receiving (what he conceived to be) divine communications during sleep, in cases where no self-interested motive can be discovered. The emperor about this time lost his son, Annius Verus Caesar, and accordingly on his departure from Rome, he committed to the medical care of Galen his son L. Aurelius Conmmodus, who was then nine years of age, and who afterwards succeeded his father as emperor. It was probably in the same year, A. D. 170, that Galen, on the death of Demetrius, was commissioned by M. Aurelius to prepare for him the celebrated compound medicine called Theriaca, of which the emperor was accustomed to take a small quantity daily; and about thirty years afterwards he was employed to make up the same medicine for the emperor Septimus Severus.
  How long Galen stayed at Rome is not known, but it was probably for some years, during which time he employed himself, as before, in lecturing, writing, and practising, with great success. He finished during this visit at Rome two of his principal treatises, which he had begun when he was at Rome before, viz. that De Usu Partium Corporis Humani, and that De Hippocratis et Platonis Decretis; and among other instances which he records of his medical skill, he gives an account of his attending the emperor M. Aurelius, and his two sons, Commodus and Sextus. Of the events of the rest of his life few particulars are known. On his way back to Pergamus, he visited the island of Lemnos for the second time (having been disappointed on a former occasion), for the purpose of learning the mode of preparing a celebrated medicine called "Terra Lemnia", or "Terra Sigillata"; of which he gives a full account. It does not appear certain that he visited Rome again, and one of his Arabic biographers expressly says he was there only twice; but it certainly seems more natural to suppose that he was at Rome about the end of the second century, when he was employed to compound Theriaca for the emperor Severus. The place of his death is not mentioned by any Greek author, but Abu-l-faraj states that he died in Sicily (Hist. Dynast.). The age at which he died and the date is also somewhat uncertain. Suidas says he died at the age of seventy, which statement is generally followed, and, as he was born in the autumn of the year 130, places his death in the year 200 or 201. He certainly was alive about the year 199, as he mentions his preparing Theriaca for the emperor Severus about that date, and his work De Antidotis, in which the account is given (i. 13. vol. xiv.), was probably written in or before that year, when Caracalla was associated with his father in the empire, as Galen speaks of only one emperor as reigning at the time it was composed. If, however, the work De Theriaca ad Pisonem be genuine, which seems to be at least as probable as the contrary supposition, he must have lived some years later; which would agree with the statements of his Arabic biographers, one of whom says he lived more than eighty years (apud Casiri, l. c.), while Abu-l-faraj says that he died at the age of eighty-eight. Some European authorities place his death at about the same age, and John Tzetzes says that he lived under the emperor Caracalla (Chiliad. xii. hist. 397); so that, upon the whole, there seems to be quite sufficient reason for not implicitly receiving the statement of Suidas.
  Galen's personal character, as it appears in his works, places him among the brightest ornaments of the heathen world. Perhaps his chief faults were too high an opinion of his own merits, and too much bitterness and contempt for some of his adversaries -for each of which failings the circumstances of the times afforded great, if not sufficient, excuse. He was also one of the most learned and accomplished men of his age, as is proved not only by his extant writings, but also by the long list of his works on various branches of philosophy which are now lost. All this may make us the more regret that he was so little brought into contact with Christianity, of which he appears to have known nothing more than might be learned from the popular conversation of the day during a time of persecution: yet in one of his lost works, of which a fragment is quoted by his Arabian biographers (Abu-l-faraj, Casiri, l.c.), he speaks of the Christians in higher terms, and praises their temperance and chastity, their blameless lives, and love of virtue, in which they equalled or surpassed the philosophers of the age. A few absurd errors and fables are connected with his name, which may be seen in Ackermmann's Hist. Liter., but which, as they are neither so amusing in themselves, nor so interesting in a literary point of view as those which concern Hippocrates, need not be here mentioned. If Galen suffered during his lifetime from the jealousy and misrepresentation of his medical contemporaries, his worth seems to have been soon acknowledged after his death; medals were struck in his honour by his native city, Pergamus, and in the course of a few centuries he began to ba called Daumasios Simplie. (Comment. in Aristot. "Phys. Auscult." iv. 3., ed. Ald.), "Medicorum dissertissimus atque doctissinus", (S. Hieron. Comment. in Aoms, c. 5. vol. vi.), and even Deiotatos. (Alex. Trall. De Med. v. 4., ed. Lutet. Par.)
II. General History of Galen's Writings, Commentators, Bibliography, &c;
  The works that are still extant under the name of Galen, as enumerated by Choulant, in the second edition of his Handbuch der Bucherkunde fur die Aeltere Medicin, consist of eighty-three treatises acknowledged to be genuine; nineteen whose genuineness has, with more or less reason, been doubted; forty-five undoubtedly spurious; nineteen fragments; and fifteen commetaries on different works of Hippocrates: and more than fifty short pieces and fragments (many or most of which are probably spurious) are enumerated as still lying unpublished in different European libraries. (Ackermann, Histor. Liter.) Almost all these treat of some branch of medical science, and many of them were composed at the request of his friends, and without any view to publication. Besides these, however, Galen wrote a great number of works, of which nothing but the titles have been preserved; so that altogether the number of his distinct treatises cannot have been less than five hundred. Some of these are very short, and he frequently repeats whole passages, with hardly any variation, in different works; but still, when the number of his writings is considered, their intrinsic excellence, and the variety of the subjects of which he treated (extending not only to every branch of medical science, but also to ethics, logic, grammar, and other departments of philosophy), he has always been justly ranked among the greatest authors that have ever lived. His style is elegant, but diffuse and prolix, and he abounds in allusions and quotations from the ancient Greek poets, philosophers, and historians.
  At the time when Galen began to devote himself to the study of medicine, the profession was divided into several sects, which were constantly disputing with each other. The Dogmatici and Empirici had for several centuries been opposed to each other; in the first century B. had arisen the sect of the Methodici; and shortly before Galen's own time had been founded those of the Eclectici, Pneumatici, and Episynthetici. Galen himself, "nullius addicts jurare in verba magistri", attached himself exclusively to none of these sects, but chose from the tenets of each what he believed to be good and true, and called those persons slaves who designated themselves as followers of Hippocrates, Praxagoras, or any other man. However, "in his general principles", says Dr. Bostock, "he may be considered as belonging to the Dogmatic sect, for his method was to reduce all his knowledge, as acquired by the observation of facts, to general theoretical principles. These principles he indeed professed to deduce from experience and observation, and we have abundant proofs of his diligence in collecting experience, and his accuracy in making observations; but still, in a certain sense at least, he regards individual facts and the detail of experience as of little value, unconnected with the principles which be had down as the basis of all medical reasoning. In this fundamental point, therefore, the method pursued by Galen appears to have been directly the reverse of that which we now consider as the correct method of scientific investigation; and yet, such is the force of natural genius, that in most instances he attained the ultimate object in view, although by an indirect path. He was an admirer of Hippocrates, and always speaks of him with the most profound respect, professing to act upon his principles, and to do little more than to expound his doctrines, and support them by new facts and observations. Yet, in reality, we have few writers whose works, both as to substance and manner, are more different from each other than those of Hippocrates and Galen, the simplicity of the former being strongly contrasted with the abstruseness and refinement of the latter" (Hist. of Med.).
  After Galen's time we hear but little of the old medical sects, which in fact seem to have been all merged in his followers and imitators. To the compilers among the Greeks and Romans of large medical works, like AΓ«tius and Oribasius, his writings formed the basis of their labours; while, as soon as they had been translated into Arabic, in the ninth century after Christ, chiefly by Honain Ben Ishak, they were at once adopted throughout the East as the standard of medical perfection. It was probably in a great measure from the influence exercised even in Europe by the Arabic medical writers during the middle ages that Galen's popularity was derived; for, though his opinions were universally adopted, yet his writings appear to have been but little read, when compared with those of Avicenna and Mesue. Of the value of what was done by the Arabic writers towards the explanation and illustration of Galen's works, it is impossible to judge; as, though numerous translations, commentaries, and abridgements are still extant in different European libraries, none of then have ever been published. If, however, a new and critical edition of Galen's works should ever be undertaken, these ought certainly to be examined, and would probably be found to be of much value; especially as some of his writings (as is specified below), of which the Greek text is lost, are still extant in an Arabic translation. Of the immense number of European writers who have employed themselves in editing, translating, or illustrating Galen's works, a complete list, up to about the middle of the sixteenth century, was made by Conrad Gesner, and prefixed to the edition of Basil. 1561: of those enumerated by him, and of those who have lived since, perhaps the following may be most deserving of mention : Jo. Bapt. Opizo, Andr. Lacuna, Ant. Musa Brassavolus, Aug. Gadaldinus, Conr. Gesner, Hier. Gemusaeus,Jac. Sylvius,Janus Cornarius, Nic. Rheginus, Jo. Bapt. Montanus, John Caius, Jo. Guinterius (Andernacus), Thomas Linacre, Theod. Goulston, Casp. Hofmann, Ren. Chartier, Alb. Haller, and C. G. Koehn.
  Galen's works were first published in a Latin translation, Venet. 1490, fol. 2 vols. ap. Philipp. Pintium de Caneto; it is printed in black letter, and is said to be scarce. The next Latin edition that deserves to be noticed is that published by the Juntas, Venet. 1541, fol., which was reprinted, with additions and improvements, eight (or nine) times within one hundred years. Of these editions, the most valuable are said to be those of the years 1586 (or 1597), 1600, 1609, and 1625, in five vols., with the works divided by J. Bapt. Montanus into classes, according to their subject-matter, and with the copious Index Rerum of Ant. Musa Brassavolus. Another excellent Latin edition was published by Froben, Basil. 1542, fol., and reprinted in 1549 and 1561. It contains all Galen's works, in eight vols., divided into eight classes, and a ninth vol., consisting of the Indices. The reprint of 1561 is considered the most valuable, on account of Conrad Gesner's Prolegomena. The last Latin edition is that published by Vine. Valgrisius, Venet. 1562, fol. in five vols., edited by Jo. Bapt. Rasarius. Altogether (according to Choulant), a Latin version of all Galen's works was published once in the fifteenth century, twenty (or twenty-two) times in the sixteenth, and not once since.
  The Greek text has been published four times; twice alone, and twice with a Latin translation. The first edition was the Aldine, published Venet. 1525, fol., in five vols., edited by Jo. Bapt. Opizo with great care, though containing numerous errors and omissions, as might be expected in so large a work. It is a handsome book, rather scarce, and much valued; and contains the Greek text, without translation, notes, or indices. The next Greek edition was published in 1538, Basil. ap. Andr. Cratandum, fol., in five vols., edited by L. Camerarius, L. Fuchs, and H. Gemusaeus. The text in this edition (which, like the preceding, contains neither Latin translation, notes, nor indices) is improved by the collation of Greek MSS. and the examination of the Latin versions : the only additional work of Galen's published in this edition is a Latin translation of the treatise De Ossibus. It is a handsome book, and frequently to be met with.
  A very useful and neat edition, in thirteen vols. fol., was printed at Paris, and bears the date of 1679. It contains the whole of the works of Hippocrates and Galen, mixed up together, and divided into thirteen classes, according to the subject-matter. This vast work was undertaken by Rene Chartier (Renatus Charterius), a French physician, who published in 1633 (when he had already passed his sixtieth year) a programme, entitled, Index Operum Galeni quae Latinis duntaxat Typis in Lucem edita sunt, &c., begging the loan of such Greek MSS. as he had not an opportunity of examining in the public libraries of Paris. The first volume appeared in 1639; but Chartier, after impoverishing himself, died in 1654, before the work was completed : the last four volumes were published after his death, at the expense of his son-in-law, and the whole work was at length finished in 1679, forty years after it had been commenced. This edition is in every respect superior to those that had preceded it, and in some points to that which has followed it. It contains a Latin translation, and a few notes, and various readings : the text is divided into chapters, and is much improved by the collation of MSS.; it contains several treatises in Greek and Latin not included in the preceding editions (especially De Humoribus, De Ossibus, De Septimestri Partu, De Fasciis, De Clysteribus), several others, much enlarged by the insertion of omitted passages (especially De Usu Partium, Definitiones Medicae, De Comate secundum Hippocraten, De Praenotione), and a large collection of fragments of Galen's lost works, extracted from various Greek and Latin writers. It is, however, very far from what it might and ought to have been, and its critical merits are very lightly esteemed. M. Villiers published a criticism on this edition, entitled, "Lettre sur l'Edition Grecque et Latine des Oeuvres d'Hippocrate et de Galene", Paris, 1776, 4to.
  The latest and most commodious edition is that of C. G. Koehn, who with extraordinary boldness, at the age of sixty-four, and at a time when the old medical authors were more neglected than they are at present, ventured to put forth a specimen and a prospectus of a work so vast, that any one in the prime of life, and strength, and leisure, might well shrink from the undertaking. As this seems to be the most proper place for giving an account of Koehn's collection, it may be stated that he designed to publish no less than a complete edition of all the Greek medical authors whose writings are still extant; a work far too extensive for any single man to have undertaken, and which (as might have been expected) still remains unfinished. Koehn, however, not only found a publisher rich and liberal enough to undertake the risk and expense of such a work, but actually lived to see his collection comprehend the entire works of Galen, Hippocrates, Aretaeus, and Dioscorides, in twentyeight thick 8vo. volumes, consisting each of about eight hundred pages, and of which all but three were edited by himself. But while it is thankfully acknowledged that Koehn did good service to the ancient medical writers by republishing their works in a commodious form, yet at the same tine it must be confessed that the real critical merits of his Collection as a whole are very small. In 1818 he published Galen's little work De Optimo Docendi Genere, Lips. 8vo., Greek and Latin, as a specimen of his projected design, and in 1821 the first volume of his works appeared. The edition consists of twenty 8vo. volumes (divided into twenty-two parts), of which the last contains an Index, made by F. W. Assmann, and was published in 1833. The first volume contains Ackermann's Notitia Literaria Galeni, extracted from the fifth volume of the new edition of Fabricius's Bibliotheca Graeca, and somewhat improved and enlarged by Koehn. For the correction of the Greek text little or nothing has been done except in the case of a few particular treatises, and all Chartier's notes and various readings are omitted. Koehn has likewise left out many of the spurious works contained in Chartier's edition, as also the Fragments, and those books which are extant only in Latin ; but, on the other hand, he has published for the first time the Greek text of the treatise De Musculorum Dissectione, the Synopsis Librorum de Pulsibus, and the commentary on Hippocrates De Humoribus. Upon the whole, the writings of Galen are still in a very corrupt and unsatisfactory state, and it is universally acknowledged that a new and critical edition is much wanted.
  The project of a new edition of Galen's works has been entertained by several persons, particularly by Caspar Hofmann and Theodore Gouistone in the seventeenth century. The latter prepared several of Galen's smaller works for the press, which were published in one volume 4to. Lond. 1640, after his death, by Thom. Gataker. Hofmann made very extensive preparations for his task, and published a copious and valuable commentary on the treatise De Usu Partium. His MS. notes, amounting to twenty-seven volumes in folio, are said to have come into the possession of Dr. Askew; they do not, however, appear in the catalogue of his sale, nor has the writer been able to discover whether they are still in existence; for while the continental physicians universally believe them to be still somewhere in England, no one in this country to whom he has applied knows any thing about them.
  Galen's extant works have been classified in various ways. In the old edition of his Bibliotheca Graeca, Fabricius enumerated them in alphabetical order, which perhaps for convenience of reference is as useful a mode as any. Ackermann in the new edition of Fabricius has mentioned them, as far as possible, in chronological order; which is much less practically useful than the alphabetical arrangement (inasmuch as the difficulty of finding the account of any particular treatise is very much increased), but which, if it could be ascertained completely and certainly, would be a far more natural and interesting one. In most of the editions of his works, the treatises are arranged in classes according to the subject-matter, which, upon the whole, seems to be the mode most suitable for the present work. The number and contents of the different classes vary (as night be expected) according to the judgment of different editors, and the classification which the writer has adopted does not exactly agree with any of the preceding ones. The treatises in each class will, as far as possible, be arranged chronologically, thus combining, in some degree, the advantage of Ackermann's arrangement ; while the number of works contained in each class will not generally be so great as to occasion much inconvenience froom their not being enumerated alphabetically. As Koehn's edition of Galen (which is likely to be the one most in use for many years to come) extends to twenty-one volumes, it has been thought useful to mention in which of these each treatise is to be found:

I. Works on Anatomy and Physiology.

II. Works on Dietetics and Hygiene.
III.Works on Pathology.
IV. Works on Diagnostics and Semeiology.
V. Works on Pharmacy and Materia Medica.
VI. Works on Therapeutics, including Surgery.
VII. Commentaries on Hippocrates, &c.
VII. Philosophical and Miscellaneous Works.

No one has ever set before the medical profession a higher standard of perfection than Galen, and few, if any, have more nearly approached it in their own person. He evidently appears from his works to have been a most accomplished and learned man, and one of his short essays (§ 107) is written to inculcate the necessity of a physician's being acquainted with other branches of knowledge besides merely medicine. Of his numerous philosophical writings the greater part are lost; but his celebrity in logic and metaphysics appears to have been great among the ancients, as he is mentioned in company with Plato and Aristotle by his contemporary, Alexander Aphrodisiensis (Comment. in Aristot. "Topica," viii. 1). Alexander is said by the Arabic historians to have been personally acquainted with Galen, and to have nicknamed him Mule's Head, on account of "the strength of his head in argument and disputation". Galen had profoundly studied the logic of the Stoics and of Aristotle: he wrote a Commentary on the whole of the Organon (except perhaps the Topica), and his other works on Logic amounted to about thirty, of which only one short essay remains, viz. De Sophismatibus penes Dictionem, whose genuineness has been considered doubtful. His logical works appear to have been well known to the Arabic authors, and to have been translated into that language; and it is from Averroes that we learn that the fourth figure of a syllogism was ascribed to Galen; a tradition which is found in no Greek writer, but which, in the absence of any contradictory testimony, has been generally followed, and has caused the figure to be called by his name. It is, however, rejected by Averroes, as less natural than the others; and M. Saint Hilaire (De la Logique d'Aristote) considers that it may possibly have been Galen who gave to this form the name of the fourth figure, but that, considered as an annex to the first (of which it is merely a clumsy and inverted form), it had long been known in the Peripatetic School, and was probably received from Aristotle himself.
  In Philosophy, as in Medicine, he does not appear to have addicted himself to any particular school, but to have studied the doctrines of each; though neither is he to be called an eclectic in the same sense as were Plotinus, Porphyry, lamblichus, and others. IIe was most attached to the Peripatetic School, to which he often accommodates the maxims of the Old Academy. He was far removed from the Neo-Platonists, and with the followers of the New Academy, the Stoics, and the Epicureans he carried on frequent controversies. He did not agree with those advocates of universal scepticism who asserted that no such thing as certainty could be attained in any science, but was content to suspend his judgment on those matters which were not capable of observation, as, for instance, the nature of the human soul, respecting which he confessed he was still in doubt, and had not even been able to attain to a probable opinion. The fullest account of Galen's philosophical opinions is given by Kurt Sprengel in his Beitrage zur Geschichte der Medicin, who thinks he has not hitherto been placed in the rank he deserves to hold: and to this the reader is referred for further particulars.
  A list of the fragments, short spurious works, and lost and unpublished writings of Galen, are given in Kiihn's edition.
  Respecting Galen's personal history, see Phil. Labbei, Eloylium Chrootooicum (Galeni; and, Vita Galeni ex propriis Operibus collecta, Paris, 1660, 8vo.; Ren. Chartier's Life, prefixed to his edition of Galen; Dan. Le Clere, Hist. de la Medecine; J. A. Fabricii Biblioth. Graeca. In the new edition the article was revised and rewritten by J. C. G. Ackermann; and this, with some additions by the editor, is prefixed by Kuhn to his edition of (Galen. Kurt Sprengel, Geschichte der Arzneyhunde, translated into French by Jourdan.
  His writings and opinions are discussed by Jac. Brucker, in his Hist. Crit. Philosopl.; Alb. von Haller, in his Biblioth. Botan., Biblioth. Chirurg., and Biblioth. Medic. Pract.; Le Clerc and Sprengel, in their Histories of Medicine; Sprengel, in his Beitrage zur Geschichte dcr Medicin.
Some of the most useful works for those who are studying Galen's own writings, are: Andr. Lacunae Epitome Galeni, Basil. 1551, fol., and several times reprinted.; Ant. Musa Brassavoli Index, in Opera Galeni, forming one of the volumes of the Juntine editions of Galen (a most valuable work, though unnecessarily prolix); Conr. Gesneri Prolegomenna to Froben's third edition of Galen's works.
  The Commentaries on separate works, or on different classes of his works, are too numerous to be here mentioned. The most complete bibliographical information respecting Galen will be found in Haller's Bibliothecae, Ackermann's Historia Literaria, and Choulant's Handb. der Bucherkunde fur die Aeltere Medicin, and his Biblioth. Medico-Historica.
  Some other physicians that are said to have borne the name of Galen, and who are mentioned by Fabricius (Biblioth. Graec. vol. xiii. p. 166, ed. vet.), seem to be of doubtful authority.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Galen. If the work of Hippocrates can be taken as representing the foundation of Greek medicine, then the work of Galen, who lived six centuries later, is the apex of that tradition. Galen crystallised all the best work of the Greek medical schools which had preceded his own time. It is essentially in the form of Galenism that Greek medicine was transmitted to the Renaissance scholars.
  Galen hailed from Pergamon, an ancient center of civilization, containing, among other cultural institutions, a library second in importance only to Alexandria itself.
  Galen’s training was eclectic and although his chief work was in biology and medicine, he was also known as a philosopher and philologist. Training in philosophy is, in Galen’s view, not merely a pleasant addition to, but an essential part of the training of a doctor. His treatise entitled That the best Doctor is also a Philosopher gives to us a rather surprising ethical reason for the doctor to study philosophy. The profit motive, says Galen, is incompatible with a serious devotion to the art. The doctor must learn to despise money. Galen frequently accuses his colleagues of avarice and it is to defend the profession against this charge that he plays down the motive of financial gain in becoming a doctor.
  Galen’s first professional appointment was as surgeon to the gladiators in Pergamon. In his tenure as surgeon he undoubtedly gained much experience and practical knowledge in anatomy from the combat wounds he was compelled to treat. After four years he immigrated to Rome where he attained a brilliant reputation as a practitioner and a public demonstrator of anatomy. Among his patients were the emperors Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus, Commodus and Septimius Severus.
GALENISM
  
Galen, for all his mistakes, remained the unchallenged authority for over a thousand years. After he died in 203 CE, serious anatomical and physiological research ground to a halt, because everything there was to be said on the subject had been said by Galen, who, it is reported, kept at least 20 scribes on staff to write down his every dictum.
  Although he was not a Christian, Galen’s writings reflect a belief in only one god, and he declared that the body was an instrument of the soul. This made him most acceptable to the fathers of the church and to Arab and Hebrew scholars. Galen’s mistakes perpetuated fundamental errors for nearly fifteen hundred years until Vesalius, the sixteenth century anatomist, although he regarded his predecessor with esteem, began to dispel Galen’s authority.
GALEN ON THE SOUL
  
The fundamental principle of life, in Galenic physiology, was pneuma (air, breath), which took three forms and had three types of action: animal spirit (pneuma physicon) in the brain, center of sensory perceptions and movement; vital spirit (pneuma zoticon) centering on the heart regulated flow of blood and body temperature; natural spirit (pneuma physicon) residing in the liver, center of nutrition and metabolism.
  Galen studied the anatomy of the respiratory system, and of the heart, arteries and veins. But he did not discover the circulation of the blood throughout the body, and believed that blood passed from one side of the heart to the other through invisible pores in the dividing wall. Galen was convinced that the venous and arterial systems were each sealed and separate from each other. William Harvey, discoverer of the circulation of the blood, wondered how Galen, having got so close to the answer, did not himself arrive at the concept of the circulation.
GALEN'S PHYSIOLOGY
  
Galen's genius was evident in experiments conducted on animals for physiological purposes. The work On the use of the parts of the human body comprised seventeen books concerned with this topic. To study the function of the kidneys in producing urine, he tied the ureters and observed the swelling of the kidneys. To study the function of the nerves he cut them, and thereby showed paralysis of the shoulder muscles after division of nerves in the neck and loss of voice after interruption of the recurrent laryngeal nerve.
  Because his knowledge was derived for the most part from animal (principally the Barbary ape) rather than human dissection, Galen made many mistakes, especially concerning the internal organs. For example, he incorrectly assumed that the rete mirabile, a plexus of blood vessels at the base of the brain of ungulate animals, was also present in humans. In spite of Galen's mistakes and misconceptions, the wealth of accurate detail in his writings is astonishing.

This text is cited Sept 2003 from the University of Virginia Historical Collections URL below, which contains images.


TARSOS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Antipater of Tarsus

Antipater (Antipatros). The author of a work Peri Psuches, " On the Soul", of which the second book is quoted by the Scholiast on Homer (II. l. 115. ), in which he said that the soul increased, diminished, and at last perished with the body; and which may very possibly be the work quoted by Diogenes Laertius (vii. 157), and commonly attributed to Antipater of Tarsus. If he be the physician who is said by Galen (De Meth. Med. i. 7) to have belonged to the sect of the Methodici, he must have lived in or after the first century B. C.; and this date will agree very well with the fact of his being quoted by Andromachus, Scribonius Largus, and Caelius Aurelianus. His prescriptions are frequently quoted with approbation by Galen and Aetius, and the second book of his " Epistles" is mentioned by Caelius Aurelianus.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


TRALLIS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Alexander Trallianus (c. 525 - 605 AD)

, , 525 - 605

Alexander, Trallianus (Alexandros ho Trallianos), one of the most eminent of the ancient physicians, was born at Tralles, a city of Lydia, from whence he derives his name. His date may safely be put in the sixth century after Christ, for he mentions Aetius (xii. 8), who probably did not write till the end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century, and he is himself quoted by Paulus Aegineta (iii. 28, 78, vii. 5, 11, 19), who is supposed to have lived in the seventh; besides which, he is mentioned as a contemporaryby Agathias (Hist. v.), who set about writing his History in the beginning of the reign of Justin the younger, about A. D. 565. He had the advantage of being brought up under his father, Stephanus, who was himself a physician (iv. 1), and also under another person, whose name he does not mention, but to whose son Cosmas he dedicates his chief work (xii. i.), which he wrote out of gratitude at his request. He was a man of an extensive practice, of a very long experience, and of great reputation, not only at Rome, but wherever he travelled in Spain, Gaul, and Italy (i. 15), whence he was called by way of eminence "Alexander the Physician". Agathias speaks also with great praise of his four brothers, Anthemius, Dioscorus, Metrodorus, and Olympius, who were all eminent in their several professions. Alexander is not a mere compiler, like Aetius, Oribasius, and others, but is an author of quite a different stamp, and has more the air of an original writer. He wrote his great work in an extreme old age, from the results of his own experience, when he could no longer bear the fatigue of practice. His style in the main, says Freind, is very good, short, clear, and (to use his own term, xii. 1) consisting of common expressions; and though (through a mixture of some foreign words occasioned perhaps by his travels) not always perfectly elegant, yet very expressive and intelligible. Fabricius considers Alexander to have belonged to the sect of the Methodici, but in the opinion of Freind this is not proved sufficiently by the passages adduced. The weakest and most curious part of his practice appears to be his belief in charms and amulets, some of which may be quoted as specimens. For a quotidian ague, "Gather an olive leaf before sun-rise, write on it with common ink ka, roi, a, and hang it round the neck" (xii. 7); for the gout, "Write on a thin plate of gold, during the waning of the moon, mei, Dreu, mor, phor, teux, za, zon, De, lou, chri, ge, ze, on, and wear it round the ankles; pronouncing also iaz, azuph, zuon, Dreux, bain, chook" (xi. 1), or else this verse of Homer (Il. b. 95), Tetrechei d' agore, hupo d' estonachizeto gaia, while the moon is in Libra; but it is much better if she should be in Leo". In exorcising the gout, he says, "I adjure thee by the great name Iao Sabaoth", that is, and a little further on, "I adjure thee by the holy names Iao, Sabaoth, Adonai, Elo+hi", that is; from which he would appear to have been either a Jew or a Christian, and, from his frequently prescribing swine's flesh, it is most probable that he was a Christian. His chief work, entitled Biblia Iatrika Duokaideka, Libri Duodecim de Re Medica, first appeared in an old, barbarous, and imperfect Latin translation, with the title Alexandri Yatros Practica, &c., Lugd. 1504, 4to., which was several times reprinted, and corrected and amended by Albanus Torinus, Basil. 1533, fol. It was first edited in Greek by Jac. Goupylus, Par. 1548, fol., a beautiful and scarce edition, containing also Rhazae de Pestilentia Libellus ex Syrorum Lingua in Graecam translatus...

This extract is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


VYZANTION (Ancient city) TURKEY

Actuarius, Joannes

Actuarius (Aktouarios), the surname by which an ancient Greek physician, whose real name was Joannes, is commonly known. His father's name was Zacharias; he himself practised at Constantinople, and, as it appears, with some degree of credit, as he was honoured with the title of Actuarius, a dignity frequently conferred at that court upon physicians. Very little is known of the events of his life, and his date is rather uncertain, as some persons reckon him to have lived in the eleventh century, and others bring him down as low as the beginning of the fourteenth. He probably lived towards the end of the thirteenth century, as one of his works is dedicated to his tutor, Joseph Racendytes, who lived in the reign of Andronicus II. Palaeologus, A. D. 1281--1328. One of his school-fellows is supposed to have been Apocauchus, whom he describes (though without naming him) as going upon an embassy to the north.
  One of his works is entitled, Peri Energeion kai Pathon tou psuchikou Pneumatos, kai tes kat' auto Diaites--" De Actionibus et Affectibus Spiritus Animalis, ejusque Nutritione." This is a psychological and physiological work in two books, in which all his reasoning, says Freind, seems to be founded upon the principles laid down by Aristotle, Galen, and others, with relation to the same subject. The style of this tract is by no means impure, and has a great mixture of the old Attic in it, which is very rarely to be met with in the later Greek writers. A tolerably full abstract of it is given by Barchusen, Hist. Medic. Dial. 14. p. 338, &c. It was first published, Venet. 1547, 8vo. in a Latin translation by Jul. Alexandrinus de Neustain. The first edition of the original was published, Par. 1557, 8vo. edited, without notes or preface, by Jac. Goupyl. A second Greek edition appeared in 1774, 8vo. Lips., under the care of J. F. Fischer. Ideler has also inserted it in the first volume of his Physici et Medici Gracci Minores, Berol. 8vo. 1841; and the first part of J. S. Bernardi Reliquiae Medico-Criticae, ed. Gruner, Jenae, 1795, 8vo. contains some Greek Scholia on the work.
  Another of his extant works is entitled, Therapeutike Methodos, " De Methodo Medendi," in six books, which have hitherto appeared complete only in a Latin translation, though Dietz had, before his death, collected materials for a Greek edition of this and his other works. In these books, says Freind, though he chiefly follows Galen, and very often Aetius and Paulus Aegineta without naming him, yet he makes use of whatever he finds to his purpose both in the old and modern writers, as well barbarians as Greeks; and indeed we find in him several things that are not to be met with elsewhere. The work was written extempore, and designed for the use of Apocauchus during his embassy to the north. A Latin translation of this work by Corn. H. Mathisius, was first published Venet. 1554, 4to. The first four books appear sometimes to have been considered to form a complete work, of which the first and second have been inserted by ldeler in the second volume of his Phys. et Med. Gr. Min. Berol. 1842, under the title Peri Diagnoseos Pathon, " De Morborum Dignotione," and from which the Greek extracts in H. Stephens's Dictionarium Medicum, Par. 1564, 8vo. are probably taken. The fifth and sixth books have also been taken for a separate work, and were published by themselves, Par. 1539, 8vo. and Basil. 1540, 8vo. in a Latin translation by J. Ruellius, with the title " De Medicamentorum Compositione." An extract from this work is inserted in Fernel's collection of writers De Felribus, Venet. 1576, fol.
  His other extant work is Peri Ouron, " De Uriniis," in seven books. He has treated of this subject very fully and distinctly, and, though he goes upon the plan which Theophilus Protospatharius had marked out, yet he has added a great deal of original matter. It is the most complete and systematic work on the subject that remains from antiquity, so much so that, till the chemical improvements of the last hundred years, he had left hardly anything new to be said by the moderns, many of whom, says Freind, transcribed it almost word for word. This work was first published in a Latin translation by Ambrose Leo, which appeared in 1519, Venet. 4to., and has been several times reprinted; the Greek original has been published for the first time in the second volume of Ideler's work quoted above. Two Latin editions of his collected works are said by Choulant (Handbuch der Bucherkunde fur die Aeltere Medicin, Leipzig, 1841), to have been published in the same year, 1556, one at Paris, and the other at Lyons, both in 8vo, His three works are also inserted in the Medics Artis Principes of H. Stephens, Par. 1567, fol. (Freind's Hiist. of Physic; Sprengel, Hist. de la Med.; Haller, Biblioth. Medic. Pract.; Barchusen, Hist. Medic.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Sep 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Dynasties

ANTIOCHIA (Ancient city) TURKEY

Seleucidae, king of Syria

Seleucidae, king of Syria, so called from their progenitor Seleucus I., the founder of the monarchy. The following Table exhibits their genealogy.


Antiochus

Antiochus (Antiochos), the father of Seleucus Nicator, the king of Syria (the head of the dynasty of Seleucidae), and the grandfather of Antiochus Soter, was one of Philip's generals. (Justin, xv. 4.)


KAPADOKIA (Ancient country) TURKEY

Ariarathes

Ariarathes. There are a great many Persian names beginning with Aria-, Ario-, and Art-, which all contain the root Ar, which is seen in Artaioi, the ancient national name of the Persians (Herod. vii. 61), and Arioi or Areioi, likewise an ancient designation of the inhabitants of the table-land of Persia (Herod. iii. 93, vii. 62). Dr. Rosen, to whom we are indebted for these remarks, also observes that the name Arii is the same with the Sanscrit word Arya, by which in the writings of the Hindus the followers of the Brahmanical law are designated. He shews that Arya signifies in Sanscrit "honourable, entitled to respect", and Arta, in all probability,"honoured, respected". In Aria-rathes, the latter part of the word apparently is the same as the Zend ratu, "great, master", and the name would therefore signify "an honourable master".
  Ariarathes was the name of several kings of Cappadocia, who traced their origin to Anaphas, one of the seven Persian chiefs who slew the Magi.

I. The son of Ariamnes I., was distinguished for his love of his brother Holophernes, whom he sent to assist Ochus in the recovery of Egypt, B. C. 350. After the death of Alexander, Perdiccas appointed Eumenes governor of Cappadocia; but upon Ariarathes refusing to submit to Eumenes, Perdiccas made war upon him. Ariarathes was defeated, taken prisoner, and crucified, together with many of his relations, B. C. 322. Eumenes then obtained possession of Cappadocia. Ariarathes was 82 years of age at the time of his death : he had adopted as his son, Ariarathes, the eldest son of his brother Holophernes (Diod. xxxi. Ed. 3, where it is stated that he fell in battle; Diod. xviii. 16; Arrian, ap. Phot. Cod. 92; Appian, Mithr. 8; Lucian, Macrob. 13; Plut. Eumen. 3; Justin, xiii. 6, whose account is quite erroneous).
II. Son of Holophernes, fled into Armenia after the death of Ariarathes I. After the death of Eumenes, B. C. 315, he recovered Cappadocia with the assistance of Ardoates, the Armenian king, and killed Amyntas, the Macedonian governor. He was succeeded by Ariamnes II., the eldest of his three sons (Diod. xxxi. Ecl. 3).
III. Son of Ariamnes II., and grandson of the preceding, married Stratonice, a daughter of Antiochus II., king of Syria, and obtained a share in the government during the life-time of his father (Diod.).
IV. Son of the preceding, was a child at his accession, and reigned B. C. 220-163, about 57 years (Diod.; Justin. xxix. 1; Polyb. iv. 2). He married Antiochis, the daughter of Antiochus III., king of Syria, and, in consequence of this alliance, assisted Antiochus in his war against the Romans. After the defeat of Antiochus by the Romans, B. C. 190, Ariarathes sued for peace in 188, which he obtained on favourable terms, as his daughter was about that time betrothed to Eumenes, the ally of the Romans. In B. C. 183-179, he assisted Eumenes in his war against Pharnaces. Polybius mentions that a Roman embassy was sent to Ariarathes after the death of Antiochus IV., who died B. C. 164. Antiochis, the wife of Ariarathes, at first bore him no children, and accordingly introduced two supposititious ones, who were called Ariarathes and Holophernes. Subsequently, however, she bore her husband two daughters and a son, Mithridates, afterwards Ariarathes V., and then informed Ariarathes of the deceit she had practised upon him. The other two were in consequence sent away from Cappadocia, one to Rome, the other to Ionia (Liv. xxxvii. 31, xxxviii. 38, 39; Polyb. xxii. 24, xxv. 2, 4, xxvi. 6, xxxi. 12, 13; Appian, Syr. 5, 32, 42; Diod.).
V. Son of the preceding, previously called Mithridates, reigned 33 years, B. C. 163-130. He was surnamed Philopator, and was distinguished by the excellence of his character and his cultivation of philosophy and the liberal arts. According to Livy (xlii. 19), he was educated at Rome; but this account may perhaps refer to the other Ariarathes, one of the supposititious sons of the late king. In consequence of rejecting, at the wish of the Romans, a marriage with the sister of Demetrius Soter, the latter made war upon him, and brought forward Holophernes, one of the supposititious sons of the late king, as a claimant of the throne. Ariarathes was deprived of his kingdom, and fled to Rome about B. C. 158. He was restored by the Romans, who, however, appear to have allowed Holophernes to reign jointly with him, as is expressly stated by Appian (Syr. 47), and implied by Polybius (xxxii. 20). The joint government, however, did not last long; for we find Ariarathes shortly afterwards named as sole king. In B. C. 154, Ariarathes assisted Attalus in his war against Prusias, and sent his son Demetrius in command of his forces. He fell in B. C. 130, in the war of the Romans against Aristonicus of Pergamus. In return for the succours which he had brought the Romans on that occasion, Lycaonia and Cilicia were added to the dominions of his family. By his wife Laodice he had six children; but they were all, with the exception of the youngest, killed by their mother, that she might obtain the government of the kingdom. After she had been put to death by the people on account of her cruelty, her youngest son succeeded to the crown. (Diod. l. c., Exc. xxiv.; Polyb. iii. 5, xxxii. 20, 23, xxxiii. 12; Justin, xxxv. 1, xxxvii. 1).
VI. The youngest son of the preceding, reigned about 34 years, B. C. 130-96. He was a child at his succession. He married Laodice, the sister of Mithridates Eupator, king of Pontus, and was put to death by Mithridates by means of Gordius (Justin, xxxvii. 1, xxxviii. 1; Memnon, ap. Phot. Cod. 224). On his death the kingdom was seized by Nicomedes, king of Bithynia, who married Laodice, the widow of the late king. But Nicomedes was coon expelled by Mithridates, who placed upon the throne,
VII. A son of Ariarathes VI. He was, however, also murdered by Mithridates in a short time, who now took possession of his kingdom (Justin, xxxviii. 1). The Cappadocians rebelled against Mithridates, and placed upon the throne,
VIII. A second son of Ariarathes VI.; but he was speedily driven out of the kingdom by Mithridates, and shortly afterwards died a natural death. By the death of these two sons of Ariarathes VI., the royal family was extinct. Mithridates placed upon the throne one of his own sons, who was only eight years old. Nicomedes sent an embassy to Rome to lay claim to the throne for a youth, who, he pretended, was a third son of Ariarathes VI. and Laodice. Mithridates also, with equal shamelessness, says Justin, sent an embassy to Rome to assert that the youth, whom he had placed upon the throne, was a descendant of Ariarathes V., who fell in the war against Aristonicus. The senate, however, did not assign the kingdom to either, but granted liberty to the Cappadocians. But as the people wished for a king, the Romans allowed them to choose whom they pleased, and their choice fell upon Ariobarzanes (Justin, xxxviii. 1, 2; Strab. xii.).
IX. A son of Ariobarzanes II., and brother of Ariobarzanes III. (Cic. ad Fam. xv. 2), reigned six years, B. C. 42-36. When Caesar had confirmed Ariobarzanes III. in this kingdom, he placed Ariarathes under his brother's government. Ariarathes succeeded to the crown after the battle of Philippi, but was deposed and put to death by Antony, who appointed Archelaus as his successor (Appian, B. C. v. 7; Dion Cass. xlix. 32; Val. Max. ix. 15, ex. 2). Clinton makes this Ariarathes the son of Ariobarzanes III. (whom he calls the second); but as there were three kings of the name of Ariobarzanes, grandfather, son, and grandson, and Strabo (xii.) says that the family became extinct in three generations, it seems most probable, that this Ariarathes was a brother of Ariobarzanes III. Cicero (ad Att. xiii. 2) speaks of an Ariarathes, a son of Ariobarzanes, who came to Rome in B. C. 45; but there seems no reason to believe that he was a different person from the one mentioned above, the son of Ariobarzanes II.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


PERGAMOS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Eumenes I.

Wars against Antigonus, transmits kingdom of Pergamus to Attalus I.


Eumenes I., king, or rather ruler, of Pergamus. He was the son of Eumenes, brother of Philetaerus, and succeeded his uncle in the government of Pergamus (B. C. 263), over which he reigned for two-and-twenty years. Soon after his accession lie obtained a victory near Sardis over Antiochus Soter, and was thus enabled to establish his dominion over the provinces in the neighbourhood of his capital; but no further particulars of his reign are recorded. (Strab. xiii.; Clinton, F. H. iii. According to Athenaeus (x.), his death was occasioned by a fit of drunkenness. He was succeeded by his cousin Attalus, also a nephew of Philetaerus. It appears to be to this Eumenes (though styled by mistake king of Bithynia) that Justin (xxvii. 3) ascribes, without doubt erroneously, the great victory over the Gauls, which was in fact gained by his successor Attalus.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Attalus I., the Soter

Son of Attalus, king of Pergamus, defeats Gauls, called `son of a bull' and `bull-horned' in oracles, ally of Athens, Athenian tribe called after him, his offerings on Acropolis, his chamber at Pergamus.


Attalus I. (Attalos), son of Attalus, the brother of Philetaerus, and Antiochis, daughter of Achaeus (not the cousin of Antiochus the Great). He succeeded his cousin, Eumenes I., in B. C. 241. He was the first of the Asiatic princes who ventured to make head against the Gauls, over whom he gained a decisive victory. After this success, he assumed the title of king (Strab. xiii; Paus. i. 8.1, x. 15.3; Liv. xxxviii. 16; Polyb. xviii. 24), and dedicated a sculptured representation of his victory in the Acropolis at Athens (Paus. i. 25.2). He took advantage of the disputes in the family of the Seleucidae, and in B. C. 229 conquered Antiochus Hierax in several battles. Before the accession of Seleucus Ceraunus (B. C. 226), he had made himself master of the whole of Asia Minor west of mount Taurus. Seleucus immediately attacked him, and by B. C. 221 Achaeus had reduced his dominions to the limits of Pergamus itself (Polyb. iv. 48).
  On the breaking out of the war between the Rhodians and Byzantines (B. C. 220), Attalus took part with the latter, who had done their utmost to bring about a peace between him and Achaeus (Polyb. iv. 49), but he was unable to render them any effective assistance. In B. C. 218, with the aid of a body of Gaulish mercenaries, he recovered several cities in Aeolis and the neighbouring districts, but was stopped in the midst of his successes by an eclipse of the sun, which so alarmed the Gauls, that they refused to proceed (Polyb. v. 77, 78). In B. C. 216, he entered into an alliance with Antiochus the Great against Achaeus (v. 107). In B. C. 211, he joined the alliance of the Romans and Aetolians against Philip and the Achaeans (Liv. xxvi. 24). In 209, he was made praetor of the Aetolians conjointly with Pyrrhias, and in the following year joined Sulpicius with a fleet. After wintering at Aegina, in 207 he overran Peparethus, assisted in the capture of Oreus, and took Opus. While engaged in collecting tribute in the neighbourhood of this town, he narrowly escaped falling into Philip's hands; and hearing that Prusias, king of Bithynia, had invaded Pergamus, he returned to Asia (Liv. xxvii. 29, 30, 33, xxviii. 3-7; Polyb. x. 41, 42).
  In B. C. 205, in obedience to an injunction of the Sibylline books, the Romans sent an embassy to Asia to bring away the Idaean Mother from Pessinus in Phrygia. Attains received them graciously and assisted them in procuring the black stone which was the symbol of the goddess (Liv. xxix. 10, 11). At the general peace brought about in 204, Prusias and Attalus were included, the former as the ally of Philip, the latter as the ally of the Romans (xxix. 12). On the breaking out of hostilities between Philip and the Rhodians, Attalus took part with the latter; and in B. C. 201, Philip invaded and ravaged his territories, but was unable to take the city of Pergamus. A sea-fight ensued, off Chios, between the fleet of Philip and the combined fleets of Attalus and the Rhodians, in which Philip was in fact defeated with considerable loss, though he found a pretext for claiming a victory, because Attalus, having incautiously pursued a Macedonian vessel too far, was compelled to abandon his own, and make his escape by land. After another ineffectual attempt upon Pergamus, Philip retired (Polyb. xvi. 1-8; Liv. xxxii. 33).
  In 200, Attalus, at the invitation of the Athenians, crossed over to Athens, where the most flattering honours were paid him. A new tribe was created and named Attalis after him. At Athens he met a Roman embassy, and war was formally declared against Philip (Polyb. xvi. 25, 26; Liv. xxxi. 14, 15; Paus. i. 5. 5, 8.1). In the same year, Attalus made some ineffectual attempts; to relieve Abydos, which was besieged by Philip (Polyb. xvi. 25, 30-34). In the campaign of 199, he joined the Romans with a fleet and troops. Their combined forces took Oreus in Euboea (Liv. xxxi. 44-47). Attalus then returned to Asia to repel the aggressions of Antiochus III., who had taken the opportunity of his absence to attack Pergamus, but was induced to desist by the remonstrances of the Romans (Liv. xxxi. 45-47, xxxii. 8, 27).
  In 198, Attalus again joined the Romans, and, after the campaign, wintered in Aegina. In the spring of 197, he attended an assembly held at Thebes for the purpose of detaching the Boeotians from the cause of Philip, and in the midst of his speech was struck with apoplexy. He was conveyed to Pergamus, and died the same year, in the seventy-second year of his age, after a reign of forty-four years (Liv. xxxii. 16, 19, 23, 24, 33, xxxiii. 2, 21; Polyb. xvii. 2, 8, 16, xviii. 24, xxii. 2, &c.). As a ruler, his conduct was marked by wisdom and justice; he was a faithful ally, a generous friend, and an affectionate husband and father. He encouraged the arts and sciences (Diog. Laert. iv. 8; Athen. xv.; Plin. H. N. viii. 74, xxxiv. 19.24, xxxv. 49). By his wife, Apollonias or Apollonis, he had four sons: Eumenes, who succeeded him, Attalus, Philetaerus, and Athenaeus.

This is from: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890) (eds. William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Eumenes II

Eumenes II., king of Pergamus, son of Attalus I., whom he succeeded on the throne B. C. 197. (Clinton, F. H. iii. p. 403.) He inherited from his predecessor the friendship and alliance of the Romans, which he took the utmost pains to cultivate, and was included by them in the treaty of peace concluded with Philip, king of Macedonia, in 196, by which he obtained possession of the towns of Oreus and Eretria in Euboea. (Liv. xxxiii. 30, 34.) In the following year he sent a fleet to the assistance of Flamininus in the war against Nabis. (Liv. xxxiv. 26.) His alliance was in vain courted by his powerful neighbour, Antiochus III., who offered him one of his daughters in marriage. (Appian, Syr. 5.) Eumenes plainly saw that it was his interest to adhere to the Romans in the approaching contest; and far from seeking to avert this, he used all his endeavours to urge on the Romans to engage in it. When hostilities had actually commenced, he was active in the service of his allies, both by sending his fleet to support that of the Romans under Livius and Aemilius, and facilitating the important passage of the Hellespont. In the decisive battle of Magnesia (B. C. 190), he commanded in person the troops which he furnished as auxiliaries to the Roman army, and appears to have rendered valuable services. (Liv. xxxv. 13, xxxvi. 43-45, xxxvii, 14, 18, 33, 37, 41; Appian, Syr. 22, 25, 31, 33, 38, 43; Justin, xxxi. 8.) Immediately on the conclusion of peace, lie hastened to Rome, to put forward in person his claims to reward : his pretensions were favourably received by the senate, who granted him the possession of Mysia, Lydia, both Phrygias, and Lycaonia, as well as of Lysimachia, and the Thracian Chersonese. By this means Eumenes found himself raised at once from a state of comparative insignificance to be the sovereign of a powerful monarchy. (Liv. xxxvii. 45, 52-55, xxxviii. 39; Polyb. xxii. 1-4, 7, 27; Appian, Syr. 44.) About the same time, lie married the daughter of Ariarathes, king of Cappadocia, and procured from the Romans favourable terms for that monarch. (Liv. xxxviii. 39.) This alliance was the occasion of involving him in a war with Pharnaces, king of Pontus, who had invaded Cappadocia, but which was ultimately terminated by the intervention of Rome. (Polyb. xxv. 2, 4, 5, 6, xxvi. 4.) He was also engaged in hostilities with Prusias, king of Bithynia, which gave the Romans a pretext for interfering, not only to protect Eumenes, but to compel Prusias to give up Hannibal, who had taken refuge at his court. (Liv. xxxix. 46, 51; Justin. xxxii. 4; Corn. Nep. Hann. 10.)
  During all this period, Eumnenes enjoyed the highest favour at Rome, and certainly was not backward in availing himself of it. He was continually sending embassies thither, partly to cultivate the good understanding with the senate in which he now found himself, but frequently also to complain of the conduct of his neighbours, especially of the Macedonian kings, Philip and his successor, Perseus. In 172, to give more weight to his remonstrances, he a second time visited Rome in person, where lie was received with the utmost distinction. On his return from thence, he visited Delphi, where he narrowly escaped a design against his life formed by the emissaries of Perseus. (Liv. xlii. 11-16; Diod. Exc. Leg., Exc. Vales. p. 577; Appian, Mac. Exc. 9, pp. 519-526, ed. Schweigh.) But though he was thus apparently on terms of the bitterest hostility with. the Macedonian monarch, his conduct during the war that followed was not such as to give satisfaction to the Romans; and he was suspected of corresponding secretly with Perseus, a charge which, accordinig to Polybius, was not altogether unfounded; but his designs extended only to the obtaining from that prince a sum of money for procuring him a peace on favourable terms. (Polyb. Fragm. Vatican.; Liv. xliv. 13, 24, 25; Appian, Mac. Exc. 16.) His overtures were, however, rejected by Perseus, and after the victory of the Romans (B. C. 167), he hastened to send his brother Attalus to the senate with his congratulations. They did not choose to take any public notice of what had passed, and dismissed Attalus with fair words; but when Eumenes, probably alarmed at finding his schemes discovered, determined to proceed to Rome in person, the senate passed a decree to forbid it, and finding that he was already arrived at Brundusium, ordered him to quit Italy without delay. (Polyb. xxx. 17, Fragm. Vatic.; Liv. Epit. xlvi.) Henceforward lie was constantly regarded with suspicion by the Roman senate, and though his brother Attalus, whom he sent to Rome again in B. C. 160, was received with marked favour, this seems to have been for the very purpose of exciting him against Eumenes, who had sent him, and inducing him to set up for himself. (Polyb. xxxii. 5.) The last years of the reign of Eumenes seem to have been disturbed by frequent hostilities on the part of Prusias, king of Bithynia, and the Gauls of Galatia; but he had the good-fortune or dexterity to avoid coming to an open rupture either with Rome or his brother Attalus. (Polyb. xxxi. 9, xxxii. 5; Diod. xxxi. Exc. Vales.) His death, which is not mentioned by any ancient writer, must have taken place in B. C. 159, after a reign of 39 years. (Strab. xiii.; Clinton, F. H. iii.)
  According to Polybius (xxxii. 23), Eumenes was a man of a feeble bodily constitution, but of great vigour and power of mind, which is indeed sufficiently evinced by tile history of his reign: his policy was indeed crafty and temporizing, but indicative of much sagacity; and he raised his kingdom from a petty state to one of the highest consideration. All the arts of peace were assiduously protected by him: Pergamus itself became under his rule a great and flourishing city, which he adorned with splendid buildings, and in which he founded that celebrated library which rose to be a rival even to that of Alexandria. (Strab. xiii.) It would be unjust to Eumenes not to add the circumstance mentioned by Polybius in his praise, that he continued throughout his life on the best terms with all his three brothers, who cheerfully lent their services to support him in his power. One of these, Attalus, was his immediate successor, his son Attalus being yet an infant. (Polyb. xxxii. 23; Strab. xiii.) A detailed account of the reign of Eumenes will be found in Van Cappelle, Commentatio de Regibus et Antiquitatibus Pergamenis, Amstel. 1842.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Attalus II

Attalus II. (Attalos), surnamed Philadelphus, was the second son of Attalus I., and was born in B. C. 200 (Lucian, Macrob. 12; Strab. xiii.). Before his accession to the crown, we frequently find him employed by his brother Eumenes in military operations. In B. C. 190, during the absence of Eumenes, he resisted an invasion of Seleucus, the son of Antiochus, and was afterwards present at the battle of Mount Sipylus (Liv. xxxvii. 18, 43). In B. C. 189, he accompanied the consul Cn. Manlius Vulso in his expedition into Galatia (Liv. xxxviii. 12; Polyb. xxii. 22). In 182, he served his brother in his war with Pharnaces (Polyb. xxv. 4, 6). In 171, with Eumenes and Athenaeus, he joined the consul P. Licinius Crassus in Greece (Liv. xlii. 55, 58, 65). He was several times sent to Rome as ambassador: in B. C. 192, to announce that Antiochus had crossed the Hellespont (Liv. xxxv. 23); in 181, during the war between Eumenes and Pharnaces (Polyb. xxv. 6); in 167, to congratulate the Romans on their victory over Perseus. Eumenes being in ill-favour at Rome at this time, Attalus was encouraged with hopes of getting the kingdom for himself; but was induced, by the remonstrances of a physician named Stratius, to abandon his designs (Liv. xlv. 19, 20; Polyb. xxx. 1-3). In 164 and 160, he was again sent to Rome (Polyb. xxxi. 9, xxxii. 3, 5).
  Attalus succeeded his brother Eumenes in B. C. 159. His first undertaking was the restoration of Ariarathes to his kingdom (Polyb. xxxii. 23). In 156, he was attacked by Prusias, and found himself compelled to call in the assistance of the Romans and his allies, Ariarathes and Mithridates. In B. C. 154, Prusias was compelled by the threats of the Romans to grant peace, and indemnify Attalus for the losses he had sustained (Polyb. iii. 5, xxxii. 25, &c., xxxiii. 1, 6, 10, 11; Appian, Mithr. 3, &c.; Diod. xxxi. Exc.). In 152, he sent some troops to aid Alexander Balas in usurping the throne of Syria (Porphyr. ap. Euseb.; Justin. xxxv. 1), and in 149 he assisted Nicomedes against his father Prusias. He was also engaged in hostilities with, and conquered, Diegylis, a Thracian prince, the father-in-law of Prusias (Diod. xxxiii. Exc.; Strab. xiii.), and sent some auxiliary troops to the Romans, which assisted them in expelling the pseudo-Philip and in taking Corinth (Strab. l. c.; Paus. vii. 16.8). During the latter part of his life, he resigned himself to the guidance of his minister, Philopoemen (Plut. Mor.). He founded Philadelphia in Lydia (Steph. Byz. s.v.) and Attaleia in Pamphylia (Strab. xiv.). He encouraged the arts and sciences, and was himself the inventor of a kind of embroidery (Plin. H. N. vii. 39, xxxv. 36.19, viii. 74; Athen. viii., xiv.). He died B. C. 138, aged eighty-two.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Attalus III.

Attalus III. (Attalos), Surnamed Philometor, was the son of Eumenes II. and Stratonice, daughter of Ariarathes, king of Cappadocia. While yet a boy, he was brought to Rome (B. C. 152), and presented to the senate at the same time with Alexander Balas. He succeeded his uncle Attalus II. B. C. 138. He is known to us chiefly for the extravagance of his conduct and the murder of his relations and friends. At last, seized with remorse, he abandoned all public business, and devoted himself to sculpture, statuary, and gardening, on which he wrote a work. He died B. C. 133 of a fever, with which he was seized in consequence of exposing himself to the sun's rays while engaged in erecting a monument to his mother. In his will, he made the Romans his heirs (Strab. xiii.; Polyb. xxxiii. 16; Justin. xxxvi. 14; Diod. xxxiv. Exc.; Varro, R. R. Praef.; Columell. i. 1.8; Plin. H. N. xviii. 5; Liv. Epit. 58; Plut. Tib. Gracch. 14; Vell. Pat. ii. 4; Florus, ii. 20; Appian. Mithr. 62, Bell. Civ. v. 4). His kingdom was claimed by Aristonicus.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Aristonicus, son of Eumenes II

Aristonicus, a natural son of Eumenes II. of Pergamus, who was succeeded by Attalus III. When the latter died in B. C. 133, and made over his kingdom to the Romans, Aristonicus claimed his father's kingdom as his lawful inheritance. The towns, for fear of the Romans, refused to recognise him, but he compelled them by force of arms; and at last there seemed no doubt of his ultimate success. In B. C. 131, the consul P. Licinius Crassus, who received Asia as his province, marched against him; but he was more intent upon making booty than on combating his enemy, and in an ill-organized battle which was fought about the end of the year, his army was defeated, and he himself made prisoner by Aristonicus. In the year following, B. C. 130, the consul M. Perperna, who succeeded Crassus, acted with more energy, and in the very first engagement conquered Aristonicus and took him prisoner. After the death of Perperna, M. Aquillius completed the conquest of the kingdom of Pergamus, B. C. 129. Aristcnuicus was carried to Rome to adorn the triumph of Aquillius, and was then beheaded. (Justin, xxxvi. 4; Liv. Epit. 59; Vell. Pat. ii. 4; Flor. ii. 20; Oros. v. 10; Sail. Hist. 4; Appian, Mithrid. 12, 62, de Bell. Civ. i. 17; Val. Max. iii. 4.5; Diod. Fragm. lib. 34; Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 33, Philip.xi. 8)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Heracles, son of Alexander the Great

Heracles or Hercules (Herakles), a son of Alexander the Great by Barsine, the daughter of the Persian Artabazus, and widow of the Rhodian Memnon. Though clearly illegitimate, his claims to the throne were put forth in the course of the discussions that arose on the death of Alexander (B. C. 323), according to one account by Nearchus, to another by Meleager. (Curt. x. 6.11; Justin. xi. 10, xiii. 2.) But the proposal was received with general disapprobation, and the young prince, who was at the time at Pergamus, where he had been brought up by Barsine, continued to reside there, under his mother's care, apparently forgotten by all the rival candidates for empire, until the year 310, when he was dragged forth from his retirement, and his claim to the sovereignty once more advanced by Polysperchon. The assassination of Roxana and her son by Cassander in the preceding year (B. C. 311) had left Hercules the only surviving representative of the royal house of Macedonia, and Polysperchon skilfully availed himself of this circumstance to gather round his standard all those hostile to Cassander, or who clung to the last remaining shadow of hereditary right. By these means he assembled an army of 20,000 foot and 1000 horse, with which he advanced towards Macedonia. Cassander met him at Trarmpyae, in the district of Stymphaea, but, alarmed at the disposition which he perceived in his own troops to espouse the cause of a son of Alexander, he would not risk a battle, and entered into secret negotiations with Polysperchon, by which he succeeded in inducing him to put the unhappy youth to death. Polysperchon, accordingly, invited the young prince to a banquet, which he at first declined, as if apprehensive of his fate, but was ultimately induced to accept the invitation, and was strangled immediately after the feast, B. C. 309. (Diod. xx. 20, 28; Justin. xv. 2; Plut. de fals. Pud. 4.; Paus. ix. 7.2; Lycophron. Alex. v. 800-804; and Tzetz. ad loc.) According to Diodorus, he was about seventeen years old when sent for by Polysperchon from Pergamus, and consequently about eighteen at the time of his death: the statement of Justin that lie was only fourteen is certainly erroneous. (See Droysen, Hellenism. vol. i. )

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


SARDIS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Mermnadae, Mermnad

The sovereign power that belonged to the descendants of Heracles fell to the family of Croesus, called the Mermnadae


Candaules ( Myrsilus ), died 708 BC.

Candaules (Kandaules). A monarch of Lydia, the last of the Heraclidae, dethroned by Gyges at the instigation of his own queen, whom he had insulted by showing her when naked to Gyges. (Consult Herod.i. 7 foll.) His true name appears to have been Myrsilus, and the appellation of Candaules to have been assumed by him as a title of honour, this latter being, in the Lydian language, equivalent to Heracles--i. e. the Sun.


Candaules (Kandaules), known also among the Greeks by the name of Myrsilus, was the last Heracleid king of Lydia. According to the account in Herodotus and Justin, he was extremely proud of his wife's beauty, and insisted on exhibiting her unveiled charms, but without her knowledge, to Gyges, his favourite officer. Gyges was seen by the queen as he was stealing from her chamber, and the next day she summoned him before her, intent on vengeance, and bade him choose whether he would undergo the punishment of death himself, or would consent to murder Candaules and receive the kingdom together with her hand. He chose the latter alternative, and became the founder of the dynasty of the Mennnadae, about B. C. 715. In Plato the story, in the form of the well-known fable of the ring of Gyges, serves the purpose of moral allegory. Plutarch, following in one place the story of Herodotus, speaks in another of Gyges as making war against Candaules with the help of some Carian auxiliaries (Herod. i. 7-13; Just. i. 7; Plat. de Repub. ii.; Cic. de Off. iii. 9; Plut. Quaest. Graec. 45, Sympos. i. 5.1) Candaules is mentioned by Pliny in two passages as having given Bularchus, the painter, a large sum of money ("pari rependit auro") for a picture representing a battle of the Magnetes. (Plin. H. N. vii. 38, xxxv. 8)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Gyges

Gyges (Guges). A Lydian, to whom Candaules, king of the country, showed his wife with her person exposed. The latter, having discovered this, was so incensed, although she concealed her anger at the time, that, calling Gyges afterwards into her presence, she gave him his choice either to submit to instant death, or to slay her husband. Gyges chose the latter alternative, married the queen, and ascended the vacant throne, about 680 years before the Christian era. He was the first of the Mermnadae who ruled in Lydia. He reigned thirty-eight years, and distinguished himself by the presents which he made to the oracle of Delphi ( Herod.i. 8 foll.). The wife of Candaules above mentioned was called Nyssia, according to Hephaestion. The story of Rosamund, queen of the Lombards, as related by Gibbon, bears an exact resemblance to this of Candaules. Plato relates a curious legend respecting this Gyges, which differs essentially from the account given by Herodotus. He makes him to have been originally one of the shepherds of Candaules, and to have descended into a chasm, formed by heavy rains and an earthquake in the quarter where he was pasturing his flocks. In this chasm he discovered many wonderful things, and particularly a brazen horse having doors in it, through which he looked, and saw within a corpse of more than mortal size, having a golden ring on its finger. This ring he took off and reascended with it to the surface of the earth. Attending, after this, a meeting of his fellow-shepherds, who used to assemble once a month for the purpose of transmitting an account of their flocks to the king, he accidentally discovered that, when he turned the bezel of the ring inward towards himself, he became invisible, and when he turned it outward, again visible. Upon this, having caused himself to be chosen in the number of those who were sent on this occasion to the king, he murdered the monarch, with the aid of the queen, whom he previously corrupted, and ascended the throne of Lydia.

This text is cited June 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Ardys (680-631 BC)

Ardys (Ardus), king of Lydia, succeeded his father Gyges, and reigned from B. C. 680 to 631. He took Priene and made war against Miletus. During his reign the Cimmerians, who had been driven out of their abodes by the Nomad Scythians, took Sardis, with the exception of the citadel. (Herod. i. 15, 16; Paus. iv. 24.1)


Sadyattes

Sadyattes (Saduattes). A king of Lydia, succeeded his father Ardys, and reigned B.C. 629-617. He carried on war with the Milesians for six years, and at his death bequeathed the war to his son and successor, Alyattes.


Alyattes

Alyattes, (Aluattes). A king of Lydia, who, in B.C. 617, succeeded his father Sadyattes, and was himself succeeded by his son Croesus (Herod. i. 16). The tomb of Alyattes, north of Sardis, near the lake Gygaea, which consisted of a large mound of earth raised upon a foundation of great stones, still exists. It is nearly a mile in circumference.

This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Alyattes (Aluattes), king of Lydia, succeeded his father Sadyattes, B. C. 618. Sadyattes during the last six years of his reign had been engaged in a war with Miletus, which was continued by his son five years longer. In the last of these years Alyattes burnt a temple of Athena, and falling sick shortly afterwards, he sent to Delphi for advice; but the oracle refused to give him an answer till he had rebuilt the temple. This he did, and recovered in consequence, and made peace with Miletus. He subsequently carried on war with Cyaxares, king of Media, drove the Cimmerians out of Asia, took Smyrna, and attacked Clazomenae. The war with Cyaxares, which lasted for five years, from B. C. 590 to 585, arose in consequence of Alyattes receiving under his protection some Scythians who had fled to him after injuring Cyaxares. An eclipse of the sun, which happened while the armies of the two kings were fighting, led to a peace between them, and this was cemented by the marriage of Astyages, the son of Cyaxares, with Aryenis, the daughter of Alyattes. Alyattes died B. C. 561 or 560, after a reign of fifty-seven years, and was succeeded by his son Croesus, who appears to have been previously associated with his father in the government. (Herod. i. 16-22, 25, 73, 74)
  The tomb (sema) of Alyattes is mentioned by Herodotus (i. 93) as one of the wonders of Lydia. It was north of Sardis, near the lake Gygaea, and consisted of a large mound of earth, raised upon a foundation of great stones. It was erected by the tradespeople, mechanics, and courtezans, and on the top of it there were five pillars, which Herodotus saw, and on which were mentioned the different portions raised by each; from this it appeared that courtezans did the greater part. It measured six plethra and two stadia in circumference, and thirteen plethra in breadth. According to some writers, it was called the "tomb of the courtezan," and was erected by a mistress of Gyges. This mound still exists. Mr. Hamilton says that it took him about ten minutes to ride round its chase, which would give it a circumference of nearly a mile; and he also states, that towards the north it consists of the natural rock--a white, horizontally stratified earthy limestone, cut away so as to appear part of the structure. The upper portion, he adds, is sand and gravel, apparently brought from the bed of the Hermus. He found on the top the remains of a foundation nearly eighteen feet square, on the north of which was a huge circular stone ten feet in diameter, with a flat bottom and a raised edge or lip, evidently placed there as an ornament on the apex of the tumulus.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Croesus

Croesus, (Kroisos). The son of Alyattes, king of Lydia, and born about B.C. 590. He was the fifth and last of the Mermnadae, a family which began to reign with Gyges, who dethroned Candaules. According to the account of Herodotus, Croesus was the son of Alyattes by a Carian mother, and had a half-brother, named Pantaleon, the offspring of an Ionian woman. An attempt was made by a private foe of Croesus to hinder his accession to the throne and to place the kingdom in the hands of Pantaleon; but the plot failed, although Stobaeus informs us that Croesus, on coming to the throne, divided the kingdom with his brother. Plutarch states that the second wife of Alyattes, wishing to remove Croesus, gave one of the cooks in the royal household a dose of poison to put into the bread she made for Croesus. The woman informed Croesus, and gave the poisoned bread to the queen's children; and the prince, out of gratitude, consecrated at Delphi a golden image of this cook three cubits high. Croesus ascended the throne on the death of his father, B.C. 560, and immediately undertook the subjugation of the Greek communities of Asia Minor (the Aeolians, Ionians, and Dorians), whose disunited state and almost continual wars with one another rendered his task an easy one. He contented himself, however, after reducing them beneath his sway, with merely imposing an annual tribute, and left their forms of government unaltered. When this conquest was effected, he turned his thoughts to the construction of a fleet, intending to attack the islands, but was dissuaded from his purpose by Bias of Priene. Turning his arms, upon this, against the nations of Asia Minor, he subjected all the country lying west of the river Halys, except Cilicia and Lycia; and then applied himself to the arts of peace, and to the patronage of the sciences and of literature. He became famed for his riches and munificence. Poets and philosophers were invited to his court, and, among others, Solon, the Athenian, is said to have visited his capital, Sardis. Herodotus relates the conversation which took place between the latter and Croesus on the subject of human felicity, in which the Athenian offended the Lydian monarch by the little value which he attached to riches as a means of happiness, and by his saying that no man should be called happy until his death.
    Not long after this, Croesus had the misfortune to lose his son Atys, who was accidentally killed by Adrastus, leaving him with only a dumb child as his heir; but the deep affliction into which this loss plunged him was dispelled in some degree, after two years of mourning, by a feeling of disquiet relative to the movements of Cyrus and the increasing power of the Persians. Wishing to form an alliance with the Greeks of Europe against the danger which threatened him, a step which had been recommended by the oracle at Delphi, he ad Croesus on the Pyre. dressed himself, for this purpose, to the Lacedaemonians, at that time the most powerful of the Grecian communities; and hav ing succeeded in his object, and made magnificent presents to the Delphic shrine, he resolved on open hostilities with the Persians. The art of the crafty priesthood who managed the machinery of the oracle at Delphi is nowhere more clearly shown than in the history of their royal dupe, the monarch of Lydia. He had lavished upon their temple the most splendid gifts--so splendid, in fact, that we should be tempted to suspect Herodotus of exaggeration if his account were not confirmed by other writers--and the recipients of this bounty, in their turn, put him off with an answer of the most studied ambiguity when he consulted their far-famed oracle on the subject of a war with the Persians. The response of Apollo was, that if Croesus made war upon this people "he would destroy a great Empire"; and the answer of Amphiaraus (for his oracle, too, was consulted by the Lydian king) tended to the same effect. The verse itself, containing the response of the oracle, is given by Diodorus, and is as follows: Kroisos, Halun diabas, megalen archen katalusei, "Croesus, on having crossed the Halys, will destroy a great empire"--the river Halys being, as already remarked, the boundary of his dominions to the east. Croesus thought that the empire thus referred to was that of Cyrus; the issue, however, proved it to be his own.
    Having assembled a numerous army, the Lydian monarch crossed the Halys, invaded the territory of Cyrus, and a battle took place in the district of Pteria, but without any decisive result. Croesus, upon this, thinking his forces not sufficiently numerous, marched back to Sardis, disbanded his army, consisting entirely of mercenaries, and sent for succour to Amasis of Egypt and also to the Lacedaemonians, determining to attack the Persians again in the beginning of the next spring. But Cyrus did not allow him time to effect this. Having discovered that it was the intention of the Lydian king to break up his present army, he marched with all speed into Lydia, before a new mercenary force could be assembled, defeated Croesus (who had no force at his command but his Lydian cavalry) in the battle of Thymbra, shut him up in Sardis, and took the city itself after a siege of fourteen days and in the fourteenth year of the reign of the son of Alyattes.
    With Croesus fell the Empire of the Lydians. Herodotus relates two stories connected with this event--one having reference to the dumb son of Croesus, who spoke for the first time when he saw a soldier in the act of killing his father, and, by the exclamation which he uttered, saved his parent's life, the soldier being ignorant of his rank; and the other being as follows: Croesus having been made prisoner, a pile was erected, on which he was placed in order to be burned alive. After keeping silence for a long time, the royal captive heaved a deep sigh, and with a groan thrice pronounced the name of Solon. Cyrus sent to know the reason of this exclamation, and Croesus, after considerable delay, acquainted him with the conversation between himself and Solon. The Persian king, relenting upon this, gave orders for Croesus to be released. But the flames had already begun to ascend on every side of the pile, and all human aid proved ineffectual. In this emergency Croesus prayed earnestly to Apollo, the god on whom he had lavished so many splendid offerings. That deity heard his prayer, and a sudden and heavy fall of rain extinguished the flames. Croesus, after this, is said to have stood high in the favour of Cyrus, who profited by his advice on several important occasions; and Ctesias declares that the Persian monarch assigned him for his residence a city near Ecbatana, and that in his last moments he recommended Croesus to the care of his son and successor Cambyses; and entreated the Lydian, on the other hand, to be an adviser to his son. Croesus discharged this duty with so much fidelity as to give offence to the new monarch, who ordered him to be put to death. Happily for him, those who were charged with this order hesitated to carry it into execution; and Cambyses, soon after, having regretted his precipitation, Croesus was again brought into his presence and restored to his former favour. The rest of his history is unknown. As he was advanced in years, he could not have long survived Cambyses. The wealth of Croesus has passed into a proverb in all languages.

This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Croesus (Kroisos), the last king of Lydia, of the family of the Mermnadae, was the soi of Alvattes; his mother was a Carian. At the age of thirty-five, he succeeded his father in the kingdom of Lydia (B. C. 560). Difficulties have been raised about this date, and there are very strong reasons for believing that Croesus was associated in the kingdom during his father's life, and that the earlier events of his reign, as recorded by Herodotus, belong to this period of joint government. We are expressly told that he was made satrap of Adramyttium and the plain of Thebe about B. C. 574 or 572 (Nicol. Damasc., supposed to be taken from the Lydian history of Xanthus). He made war first on the Ephesians, and afterwards on the other Ionian and Aeolian cities of Asia Minor, all of which he reduced to the payment of tribute. He was meditating an attempt to subdue the insular Greeks also, when either Bias or Pittacus turned him from his purpose by a clever fable (Herod. i. 27); and instead of attacking the islanders he made an alliance with them. Croesus next turned his arms against the peoples of Asia Minor west of the river Halys, all of whom he subdued except the Lycians and Cilicians. His dominions now extended from the northern and western coasts of Asia Minor, to the Halys on the east and the Taurus on the south, and included the Lydians, Phrygians, Mysians, Mariandynians, Chalybes, Paphlagonians, the Thynian and Bithynian Thracians, the Carians, Ionians, Dorians, Aeolians, and Pamphylians. The fame of his power and wealth drew to his court at Sardis all the wise men (sophistai) of Greece, and among them Solon. To him the king exhibited all his treasures, and then asked him who was the happiest man he had ever seen. The reply of Solon, teaching that no man should be deemed happy till he had finished his life in a happy way, may be read in the beautiful narrative of Herodotus. After the departure of Solon, Croesus was visited with a divine retribution for his pride. He had two sons, of whom one was dumb, but the other excelled all his comrades in manly accomplishments. His name was Atys. Croesus had a dream that Atys should perish by an iron-pointed weapon, and in spite of all his precautions, an accident fulfilled the dream. His other son lived to save his father's life by suddenly regaining the power of speech when he saw Croesus in danger at the taking of Sardis. Adrastus, the unfortunate slayer of Atys, killed himself on his tomb, and Croesus gave himself up to grief for two years. At the end of that time the growing power of Cyrus, who had recently subdued the Median kingdom, excited the apprehension of Croesus, and he conceived the idea of putting down the Persians before their empire became firm. Before, however, venturing to attack Cyrus, he looked to the Greeks for aid, and to their oracles for counsel; and in both points he was deceived. In addition to the oracles among the Greeks, he consulted that of Ammon in Lybia; but first he put their truth to the test by sending messengers to inquire of them at a certain time what he was then doing. The replies of the oracle of Amphiaraus and that of the Delphi at Pytho were correct; that of the latter is preserved by Herodotus. To these oracles, and especially to that at Pytho, Croesus sent rich presents and charged the bearers of them to inquire whether he should march against the Persians, and whether there was any people whom he ought to make his allies. The reply of both oracles was, that, if he marched against the Persians, he would overthrow a great empire, and both advised him to make allies of the most powerful among the Greeks. He of course understood the response to refer to the Persian empire, and not, as the priests explained it after the event, to his own; and he sent presents to each of the Delphians, who in return granted to him and his people the privileges of priority in consulting the oracle, exemption from charges, and the chief seat at festivals (promanteien kai ateleien kai proedrien), and that any one of them might at any time obtain certain rights of citizenship (genesthai Delphon). Croesus, having now the most unbounded confidence in the oracle, consulted it for the third time, asking whether his monarchy would last long. The Pythia replied that he should flee along the Hermus, when a mule became king over the Medes. By this mule was signified Cyrus, who was descended of two different nations, his father being a Persian, but his mother a Mede. Croesus, however, thought that a mule would never be king over the Medes, and proceeded confidently to follow the advice of the oracle about making allies of the Greeks. Upon inquiry, he found that the Lacedaemonians and Athenians were the most powerful of the Greeks; but that the Athenians were distracted by the civil dissensions between Peisistratus and the Alcmaeonidae, while the Lacedaemonians had just come off victorious from a long and dangerous war with the people of Tegea. Croesus therefore sent presents to the Lacedaemonians, with a request for their alliance, and his request was granted by the Lacedaemonians, on whom he had previously conferred a favour. All that they did for him, however, was to send a present, which never reached him. Croesus, having now fully determined on the war, in spite of the good advice of a Lydian named Sandanis (Herod. i. 71), and having some time before made a league with Amasis, king of Egypt, and Labynetus, king of the Babylonians, marched across the Halys, which was the boundary betweeen the Medo-Persian empire and his own. The pretext for his aggression was to avenge the wrongs of his brother-in-law Astyages, whom Cyrus had deposed from the throne of Media. He wasted the country of the Cappadocians (whom the Greeks called also Syrians) and took their strongest town, that of the Pterii, near Sinope, in the neighbourhood of which he was met by Cyrus, and they fought an indecisive battle, which was broken off by night (B. C. 546). The following day, as Cyrus did not offer battle, and as his own army was much inferior to the Persian in numbers, Croesus marched back to Sardis, with the intention of summoning his allies and recruiting his own forces, and then renewing the war on the return of spring. Accordingly, he sent heralds to the Aegyptians, Babylonians, and Lacedaemonians, requesting their aid at Sardis in five months, and in the meantime he disbanded all his mercenary troops. Cyrus, however, pursued him with a rapidity which he had not expected, and appeared before Sardis before his approach could be announced. Croesus led out his Lydian cavalry to battle, and was totally defeated. In this battle Cyrus is said to have employed the stratagem of opposing his camels to the enemy's horses, which could not endure the noise or odour of the camels. Croesus, being now shut up in Sardis, sent again to hasten his allies. One of his emissaries, named Eurybatus, betrayed his counsels to Cyrus], and before any help could arrive, Sardis was taken by the boldness of a Mardian, who found an unprotected point in its defences, after Croesus had reigned 14 years, and had been besieged 14 days (Near the end of 546, B. C.). Croesus was taken alive, and devoted to the flames by Cyrus, together with 14 Lydian youths, probably as a thanksgiving sacrifice to the god whom the Persians worship in the symbol of fire. But as Croesus stood in fetters upon the pyre, the warning of Solon came to his mind, and having broken a long silence with a groan, he thrice uttered the name of Solon. Cyrus inquired who it was that he called on, and, upon hearing the story, repented of his purpose, and ordered the fire to be quenched. When this could not be done, Croesus prayed aloud with tears to Apollo, by all the presents he had given him, to save him now, and immediately the fire was quenched by a storm of rain. Believing that Croesus was under a special divine protection, and no doubt also struck by the warning of Solon, Cyrus took Croesus for his friend and counsellor, and gave him for an abode the city of Barene, near Ecbatana. In his expedition against the Massagetae, Cyrus had Croesus with him, and followed his advice about the passage of the Araxes. Before passing the river, however, he sent him back to Persia, with his own son Cambyses, whom he charged to honour Croesus, and Croesus to advise his son. When Cambyses came to the throne, and invaded Egypt, Croesus accompanied him. In the affair of Prexaspes and his son, Croesus at first acted the part of a flattering courtier, though not, as it seems, without a touch of irony (Herod. iii. 34); but, after Cambyses had murdered the youth, Croesus boldly admonished him, and was obliged to fly for his life from the presence of the king. The servants of Cambyses concealed him, thinking that their master would repent of having wished to kill him. And so it happened; but when Cambyses heard that Croesus was alive, he said that he was glad, but he ordered those who had saved him to be put to death for their disobedience. Of the time and circumstances of Croesus's death we know nothing. A few additional, but unimportant incidents in his life, are mentioned by Herodotus. Ctesias's account of the taking of Sardis is somewhat different from that of Herodotus. (Herod. i. 6, 7, 26-94, 130, 155, 207, 208, iii. 14, 34-36, v. 36, vi. 37, 125, viii. 35; Ctesias, Persica, 4, ap. Phot. Cod. 72; Ptol. Hephaest. ap. Phot. Cod. 190; Plut. Sol. 27; Diod. ix. 2, 25-27, 29, 31-34, xvi. 56; Justin i. 7). Xenophon, in his historical romance, gives some further particulars about Croesus which are unsupported by any other testimony and opposed to that of Herodotus, with whom, however, he for the most part agrees (Cyrop i. 5, ii. 1, iv. 1, 2, vi. 2, vii. 1-4, viii. 2).

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Emperors

ADRIANOUPOLIS (Ancient city) TURKEY

Vassilios I

Emperor of Constantinople.


Constantine the Great

   Gaius Flavius Valerius Aurelius Claudius, known as The Great, son of the emperor Constantius Chlorus and Helena, was born A.D. 272, at Naisus, a city of Dacia Mediterranea. When Constantine's father was associated in the government by Diocletian, the son was retained at court as a kind of hostage, but was treated with great kindness at first, and was allowed several opportunities of distinguishing himself. After the abdication of Diocletian, Constantius and Galerius were elevated to the rank of Augusti, while two new Caesars, Severus and Maximin, were appointed to second them. Constantine was not called to the succession. Diocletian, partial to Galerius, his son-in-law, had left the nomination of the two new Caesars to the latter; and the son of Constantius, whose popularity and talents had excited the jealousy of Galerius, and whose departure, although earnestly solicited by his father, was delayed from time to time under the most frivolous pretences, with difficulty at length obtained permission to join his parent in the West, and only escaped the machinations of the emperor by travelling with his utmost speed until he reached the western coast of Gaul. He came just in time to join the Roman legions, which were about to sail under his father's command to Britain, in order to make war upon the Caledonians. Having subdued the northern barbarians, Constantius returned to York (Eboracum), where he died in the month of July, in the year 306. Gale rius, sure of the support of his two creatures, the Caesars, had waited impatiently for the death of his colleague, to unite the whole Roman Empire under his individual sway. But the moderation and justice of Constantius had rendered him the more dear to his soldiers from the contrast of these qualities with the ferocity of his rival. At the moment of his death, the legions stationed at York, as a tribute of gratitude and affection to his memory, and, according to some, at his dying request, saluted his son Constantine with the title of Caesar and decorated him with the purple. Whatever resentment Galerius felt at this, he soon perceived the danger of engaging in a civil war. As the eldest of the emperors, and the representative of Diocletian, he recognized the authority of the colleague imposed upon him by the legions. He assigned to him the administration of Gaul and Britain, but gave him only the fourth rank among the rulers of the Empire with the title of Caesar.
    Under this official appellation Constantine administered the prefecture of Gaul for six years (A.D. 306-312), perhaps the most glorious, and certainly the most virtuous, period of his life. The title and rank of Augustus, which his soldiers had conferred upon Constantine, but which Galerius had not allowed him to retain, the latter gave to Severus, one of his own Caesars. This dignity had been expected by Maxentius, son of the abdicated emperor Maximian, the former colleague of Diocletian. Indignant at his disappointment, Maxentius caused himself to be proclaimed emperor by his army; and, to strengthen his usurpation, he induced his father to leave his retreat and resume the imperial title. A scene of contention followed, scarcely paralleled in the annals of Rome. Severus marched against the two usurpers; but was abandoned by his own troops, surrendered, and was slain. Galerius levied a great army, and marched into Italy against Maximian and Maxentius, who, dreading his power, retired to Gaul and endeavoured to procure the support of Constantine. This politic chief did not consider it expedient to provoke a war at that time and for no better cause; and, Galerius having withdrawn from Italy and returned to the East, Maximian and Maxentius returned to Rome. To aid him in the struggle, Galerius conferred the title of emperor on his friend Licinius; and thus there were at once six pretenders to the sovereignty of the Empire--namely, Galerius and Licinius; Maximian and his son Maxentius; Maximin, who had been nominated Caesar by Galerius; and Constantine, the son and successor of Constantius. Among these rivals Constantine possessed a decided superiority in prudence and abilities, both military and political. The harsh temper of Maximian soon led to a quarrel between him and his son Maxentius. Leaving Rome, he went to Gaul, to Constantine, who had become his son-in-law when he and his son were endeavouring to make head against Galerius. Here also Maximian found himself disappointed of that power which he so greatly longed to possess; and having plotted against Constantine, was detected and put to death. Galerius died not long after (311), leaving his power to be divided between his Caesars, Maximin and Licinius; so that there were now four competitors for the Empire: Constantine, Maxentius, Maximin, and Licinius. Maxentius speedily provoked open hostilities with Constantine, who marched at the head of a powerful army towards Rome.
    It was while Constantine was proceeding on this momentous expedition that he made an open and public declaration in favour of Christianity. Before that time, the persecuting edicts of Diocletian had been much mitigated by the forbearance and leniency of Constantius; and Constantine not only followed his father's example in being merciful to the persecuted Christians, but even showed them some marks of positive favour. Very considerable numbers of them, in consequence, flocked to his standard and swelled the ranks of his army. Their peaceful, orderly, and faithful conduct, contrasting most favourably with the turbulent and dissolute behaviour of those who formed the mass of common armies, won his entire confidence. To what extent this led Constantine to form a favourable opinion of Christianity, or inclined him to view with esteem and respect the tenets which had produced such results, cannot be ascertained. How far, also, his avowed reception of Christianity was influenced by the prudence of the politician, how far by the conviction of the convert, it is impossible to determine. The accounts of his dream and his vision, which united to enforce his trust in Christianity, bear too much the aspect of fiction, or of having been the illusive consequences of mental anxiety, brooding intensely on the possible results of a great religious revolution, to be woven into the narrative of sober history. The story goes, however, that on his march to Rome, either at Autun in Gaul, or near the Rhine, or at Verona in Italy, Constantine beheld in the sky a brilliant cross with the inscription En toutoi nika, "By this conquer!" and that on the night before his decisive battle with Maxentius a vision appeared to him in his sleep, bidding him inscribe the shields of his soldiers with the sacred monogram of the name of Christ. This, at least, is certain, that Constantine caused the Cross to be employed as the imperial standard, and advanced with it to promised victory. After the armies of Maxentius, led by his generals, had sustained two successive defeats, that emperor himself, awakening from his sensual and inactive life at Rome, advanced against his formidable assailant, and met him near the little river Cremera, about nine miles from the city. Maxentius lost the day, after a bloody conflict, and, in endeavouring to enter the city by the Milvian bridge, was precipitated into the Tiber, where he perished (October 27th, 312). Constantine was received at Rome with acclamations; Africa acknowledged him, as well as Italy; and an edict of religious toleration, issued at Milan, extended the advantages, hitherto enjoyed by Gaul alone, to this prefecture also. After a brief stay at Rome, during which he restored to the Senate their authority, disbanded the Praetorian Guard, and destroyed their fortified camp, from which they had so long awed the city and given rulers to the Empire, Constantine proceeded to Illyricum to meet Licinius, with whom he had formed a secret league before marching against Maxentius. The two emperors met at Milan, where their alliance was ratified by the marriage of Licinius to Constantine's sister. During this calm interview, Constantine prevailed upon Licinius to repeal the persecuting edicts of Diocletian, and to issue a new one, by which Christianity was encouraged, its teachers were honoured, and its adherents advanced to places of trust and influence in the State. After the overthrow of Maximin by Licinius, and his death at Nicomedia, Constantine and his brother-in-law were now the only two that remained of the six competitors for the Empire; and the peace between them, which had seemed to be established on so firm a basis, was soon interrupted by a strife for sole supremacy. In the first war (A.D. 315) Constantine wrested Illyricum from his competitor. After an interval of eight years the contest was renewed. Licinius was beaten before Adrianople, the 3d of July, 323, and Constantine the Great was recognized as sole master of the Roman world.
    The seat of empire was now transferred to Byzantium, which took from him the name of Constantinople. Several edicts were issued for the suppression of idolatry; and the churches and property restored to the Christians, of which they had been deprived during the last persecution. A reconstruction of the Empire was effected upon a plan entirely new, and this renovated Empire was pervaded by the worship and the institutions of Christianity. That much of the policy of the statesman was mixed up with this patronage of the new religion can easily be imagined. But still, it would be wrong to make him, as some have done, a mere hypocrite and dissembler. The state of his religious knowledge, so far as we have any means of judging, was certainly very inadequate and imperfect; but he was well aware of the characters of the two conflicting religions, Christianity and Paganism, and the purity of the former could not but have made some impression upon his mind.
    The private character of Constantine has suffered, in the eyes of posterity, from his stern treatment of Crispus, his son by his first wife, whom he had made the partner of his Empire and the commander of his armies. Crispus was at the head of the administration in Gaul, where he gained the hearts of the people. In the wars against Licinius he had displayed singular talents, and had secured victory to the arms of his father. But from that moment a strong and unnatural jealousy stifled every paternal feeling in the bosom of the monarch. He detained Crispus in his palace, surrounded him with spies and informers, and at length, in the month of July, 324, ordered him to be arrested in the midst of a grand festival, to be carried off to Pola in Istria, and there put to death. A cousin of Crispus, the son of Licinius and Constantine's sister, was at the same time sent, without trial, without even an accusation, to the block. His mother implored in vain, and died of grief. It is fair, however, to say that Niebuhr found evidence to support the view that Crispus aimed at supplanting his father. Fausta, the daughter of Maximian, the wife of Constantine, and the mother of the three princes who succeeded him, was shortly after stifled in the bath by order of her husband for infidelity.
    In the following year the celebrated Council of Nicaea was held, at which he opposed the Arians, probably on political grounds only, as being the weaker party; for just before his death he received baptism from an Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia.
    Constantine died at the age of sixty-three, at Nicomedia, July 22d, 337, after a reign of thirtyone years from the death of his father, and of fourteen from the conquest of the Empire. He left three sons, Constantine, Constans, and Constantius, among whom he divided his Empire. The first, who had Gaul, Spain, and Britain for his portion, was conquered by the armies of his brother Constans, and killed in the twenty-fifth year of his age, A.D. 340. Magnentius, the governor of the provinces of Rhaetia, murdered Constans in his bed, after a reign of thirteen years; and Constantius, the only surviving brother, now become the sole emperor, A.D. 353, punished his brother's murderer, and gave way to cruelty and oppression. He visited Rome, where he enjoyed a triumph, and died (361) in his march against Julian, who had been proclaimed emperor by his soldiers at Paris.

This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Oct 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Constantine the Great (280 - 337)

, , 280 - 337

  Constantine the Great brought the moral force of Christianity to revive the spirit of the declining empire and he decided to create a new capital at Byzantium, which was renamed Constantinople.
  Constantine was brought up at the court of Diocletian. After a series of civil wars Constantine became first western emperor (by his time the empire was ruled by two co-emperors) and then sole emperor (324). He ascribed his success to a vision of a Christian cross and began favourable treatment of Christians.
  As the Christian church grew in power disputes arose. The dispute over the question of Trinity threatened to split the church. Constantine called a council of churchmen at Nicaea in Asia Minor in 325. The Nicene creed came out of this council. Constantine was baptized shortly before his death.

This text is cited July 2003 from the Hyperhistory Online URL below.


Constantine I The Great

  Constantine I the Great (Flavius Valerius Constantinus) (272-337), proclaimed Augustus by his troops in 306; ruled parts of the Roman Empire from 307. Constantine is commonly accepted as one of the greatest Roman Emperors who also helped to shape the course of Western civilization.
  He was born at Naissus in Upper Dacia to Constantius 1 Chlorus and an innkeeper's daughter, Helena. Constantine was well educated and served at the court of Diocletian after the appointment of his father as one of the two Caesari, at that time a junior emperor, in the Tetrarchy in 293. Constantine I rebuilt the ancient Greek city of Byzantium and renamed it Constantinople making it the capital of the empire.
  He legalized and strongly supported Christianity beginning around the time he became emperor, but he neither made paganism illegal nor made Christianity the state religion. Though the church prospered under Constantine's patronage, it also fell into the first of many public schisms. He himself called the First Council of Nicaea to settle the problem of Arianism, a dispute about the personhood and godhood of Jesus. He himself was not baptized and chrismated until close to his death. Ironically, Constantine may have favored the losing side of the Arian controversy, as he was baptized by an Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia.
  Constantine's adoption of Christianity seems to have stemmed from both his family (Helena was probably born a Christian) and from a major battle he won in 312 near Rome, the Battle of Milvian Bridge. Constantine credited his victory to the Christian God and converted not long afterwards. That victory made him Western Augustus, or ruler of the entire western half of the empire. In 324, he became sole emperor after winning a power struggle with the eastern ruler, Licinius.
  Although he earned his honorific of “The Great” from Christian historians long after he had died, he could have claimed the title on his military achievements alone. In addition to reuniting the empire under one emperor, Constantine also won major victories over the Marcomanni and Alamanni (306-08), the Vandals and Marcomanni (314-15), the Visigoths in 332 and the Sarmatians two years later. In fact, by 336, Constantine had actually reoccupied most of the long-lost province of Dacia, which Aurelian had been forced to abandon in 273.
  At the time of his death, he was planning a great expedition to put an end to raids on the eastern provinces from Persia by conquering that nation--something no Emperor since Trajan had contemplated. He was succeeded by his three sons, Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans. The last member of his dynasty was his grandson, Julian, who attempted to restore paganism.

This text is cited July 2003 from the Malaspina Great Books URL below, which contains image.


VYZANTION (Ancient city) TURKEY

Constantinus (Constantine) the Great (306-337 AD)

, , 288 - 337

Constantinus I., Flavius Valerius Aurelius, surnamed Magnus or "the Great", Roman emperor, A. D. 306-337, the eldest son of the emperor Constantius Chlorus by his first wife Helena, was born in the month or February, A. D. 272. There are many different opinions respecting his birth-place; but it is most probable, and it is now generally believed, that he was born at Naissus, now Nissa, a well-known town in Dardania or the upper and southern part of Moesia Superior.
  Constantine was distinguished by the choicest gifts of nature, but his education was chiefly military. When his father obtained the supreme command in Gaul, Britain, and Spain, he did not accompany him, but remained with the emperor Diocletian as a kind of hostage for the fidelity of his parent, and he attended that emperor on his celebrated expedition in Egypt. After the capture of Alexandria and the pacification of that country in A. D. 296, Constantine served under Galerius in the Persian war, which resulted in the conquest and final cession to the Romans of Iberia, Armenia, Mesopotamia, and the adjoining countries, for which Diocletian and Maximian celebrated a triumph in Rome in 303. In these wars Constantine distinguished himself so much by personal courage as well as by higher military talents, that he became the favourite of the army, and was as a reward appointed tribunus militum of the first class. But he was not allowed to enjoy quietly the honours which he so justly deserved. In his position as a kind of hostage he was exposed to the machinations of the ambitious, the jealous, and the designing; and the dangers by which he was surrounded increased after the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian and the accession of his father and Galerius as emperors (A. D. 305). He continued to live in the East under the eyes of Galerius, whose jealousy of the superior qualities of Constantine was so great, that he meditated his ruin by exposing him to personal dangers, from which Constantine, however, escaped unhurt. In such circumstances he was compelled to cultivate and improve his natural prudence and sagacity, and to accustom himself to that reserve and discretion to which he afterwards owed a considerable part of his greatness, and which was the moreremarkable in him as he was naturally of a most lively disposition. The jealousy of Galerius became conspicuous when he conferred the dignity of Caesar upon his sons, Severus and Maximin, a dignity to which Constantine seemed to be entitled by his birth and merits, but which was withheld from him by Galerius and not conferred upon him by his father. In this, however, Constantius Chlorus acted wisely, for as his son was still in the hands of Galerius, he would have caused his immediate ruin had he proclaimed him Caesar; so that if Constantine spoke of disappointment he could only feel disappointed at not being in the camp of his father. To bring him thither became now the great object of the policy of both father and son. Negotiations were carried on for that purpose with Galerius, who, aware of the consequences of the departure of Constantine, delayed his consent by every means in his power, till at last his pretexts were exhausted, and he was obliged to ailow him to join his father. Justly afraid of being detained once more, or of being cut off by treachery on his journey, Constantine had no sooner obtained the permission of Galerius than he departed from Nicomedeia, where they both resided, without taking leave of the emperor, and travelled through Thrace, Illyricum, Pannonia, and Gaul with all possible speed, till he reached his father at Boulogne just in time to accompany him to Britain on his expedition against the Picts, and to be present at his death at York (25th of July, 306). Before dying, Constantius declared his son as his successor.
  The moment for seizing the supreme power, or for shrinking back into death or obscurity, had now come for Constantine. He was renowned for his victories in the East, admired by the legions, and beloved by the subjects, both heathen and Christian, of Constantius, who did not hesitate to believe that the son would follow the example of justice, toleration, and energy set by the father. The legions proclaimed him emperor; the barbarian auxiliaries, headed by Crocus, king of the Alemanni, acknowledged him; yet he hesitated to place the fatal diadem on his head. But his hesitation was mere pretence; he was well prepared for the event; and in the quick energy with which he acted, he gave a sample of that marvellous combination of boldness, cunning, and wisdom in which but a few great men have surpassed him. In a conciliatory letter to Galerius, he protested that he had not taken the purple on his own account, but that he had been pressed by the troops to do so, and he solicited to be acknowledged as Augustus. At the same time he made preparations to take the field with all his father's forces, if Galerius should refuse to grant him his request. But Galerius dreaded a struggle with the brave legions of the West, headed by a man like Constantine. He disguised his resentment, and acknowledged Constantine as master of the countries beyond the Alps, but with the title of Caesar only: he conferred the dignity of Augustus upon his own son Severus.
  The peace in the empire was of short duration. The rapacity of Galerius, his absence from the capital of the empire, and probably also the example of Constantine, caused a rebellion in Rome, which resulted in Maxentius, the son of Maximian, seizing the purple; and when Maximian was informed of it, he left his retirement and reassumed the diadem, which he had formerly renounced with his colleague Diocletian. The consequence of their rebellion was a war with Galerius, whose son, Severus Augustus, entered Italy with a powerful force; but he was shut up in Ravenna; and, unable to defend the town or to escape, he surrendered himself up to the besiegers, and was treacherously put to death by order of Maxentius (A. D. 307). Galerius chose C. Valerius Licinianus Licinius as Augustus instead of Severus, and he was forced to acknowledge the claims of Maximin likewise, who had been proclaimed Augustus by the legions under his command, which were stationed in Syria and Egypt. The Roman empire thus obeyed six masters: Galerius, Licinius, and Maximin in the East, and Maximian. Maxentius, and Constantine in the West (308). The union between the masters of the West was cemented by the marriage of Constantine, whose first wife Minervina was dead, with Fausta, the daughter of Maximian, which took place as early as 306; and at the same time Constantine was acknowledged as Augustus by Maximian and Maxentius. But before long serious quarrels broke out between Maxentius and Maximian; the latter was forced by his son to fly from Rome, and finally took refuge with Constantine, by whom he was well received. Maximian once more abdicated the throne; but during the absence of Constantine, who was then on the Rhine, he reassumed the purple, and entered into secret negotiations with his son Maxentius for the purpose of ruining Constantine. He was surprised in his plots by Constantine, who on the news of his rebellion had left the Rhine, and embarking his troops in boats, descended the SaΓ΄ne and RhΓ΄ne, appeared under the walls of Arles, where Maximian then resided, and forced him to take refuge in Marseilles. That town was immediately besieged; the inhabitants gave up Maximian, and Constantine quelled the rebellion by one of those acts of bloody energy which the world hesitates to call murder, since the kings of the world cannot maintain themselves on their thrones without blood. Maximian was put to death (A. D. 309); he had deserved punishment, yet he was the father of Constantille's wife.
  The authority of Constantine was now unrestrained in his dominions. He generally resided at Trier, and was greatly beloved by his subjects on account of his excellent administration. The inroads of the barbarians were punished by him with great severity: the captive chiefs of the Franks were devoured by wild beasts in the circus of Trier, and many robbers or rebels suffered the same barbarous punishment. These occasional cruelties did not prejudice him in the eyes of the people, and among the emperors who then ruled the world Constantine was undoubtedly the most beloved, a circumstance which was of great advantage to him when he began his struggle with his rivals. This struggle commenced with Maxentius, who pretended to feel resentment for the death of his father, insulted Constantine, and from insults proceeded to hostile demonstrations. With a large force assembled in Italy he intended to invade Gaul, but so great was the aversion of his subjects to his cruel and rapacious character, that Roman deputies appeared before Constantine imploring him to deliver them from a tyrant. Constantine was well aware of the dangers to which he exposed himself by attacking Maxentius, who was obeyed by a numerous army, chiefly composed of veterans, who had fought under Diocletian and Maximian. At the same time, the army of Constantine was well disciplined and accustomed to fight with the brave barbarians of Germany, and while his rival was only obeyed by soldiers he met with obedience among both his troops and his subjects. To win the affections of the people he protected the Christians in his own dominions, and he persuaded Galerius and Maximin to put a stop to the persecutions to which they were exposed in the East. This was a measure of prudence, but the Christians in their joy, which increased in proportion as Constantine gave them still more proofs of his conviction, that Christianity had become a moral element in the nations which would give power to him who understood how to wield it, attributed the politic conduct of their master to divine inspiration, and thus the fable became believed, that on his march to Italy, either at Autun in France, or at Verona, or near Audernach on the Rhine in Germany as some pretend, Constantine had a vision, seeing in his sleep a cross with the inscription en toutoi nika. Thus, it is said, he adopted the cross, and in that sign was victorious.
  Constantine crossed the Cottian Alps (Mount Cenis), defeated the vanguard of Maxentius at Turin, entered Milan, and laid seige to Verona, under the walls of which Maxentius suffered a severe defeat. Another battle fought near Rome on the 28th of October, 312, decided the fate of Maxentius : his army was completely routed, and while he tried to escape over the Milvian bridge into Rome, he was driven by the throng of the fugitives into the Tiber and perished in the river. Constantine entered Rome, and displayed great activity in restoring peace to that city, and in removing the causes of the frequent disturbances by which Rome had been shaken during the reign of Maxentius; he disbanded the body of the Praetorians, and in order that the empire might derive some advantage from the existence of the senators, he subjected them and their families to a heavy poll-tax. He also accepted the title of Pontifex Maximus, which shews that at that time he had not the slightest intention of elevating Christianity at the expense of Paganism.
  The fruit of Constantine's victories was the undisputed mastership of the whole western part of the empire, with its ancient capital, Rome, which, however, had then ceased to be the ordinary residence of the emperors. At the same time, important events took place in the East. The emperor Galerius died in A. D. 311, and Licinius, having united his dominions with his own, was involved in a war with Maximin, who, after having taken Byzantium by surprise, was defeated in several battles, and died, on his flight to Egypt, at Tarsus in Cilicia, in 313. Thus Licinius became sole master of the whole East, and the empire had now only two heads. In the following year, 314, a war broke out between Licinius and Constantine. At Cibalis, a town on the junction of the Sau with the Danube, in the southernmost part of Pannonia, Constantine defeated his rival with an inferior force; a second battle, at Mardia in Thrace, was indecisive, but the loss which Licinius sustained was immense, and he sought for peace. This was readily granted him by Constantine, who perhaps felt himself not strong enough to drive his rival to extremities; but, satisfied with the acquisition of Illyricum, Pannonia, and Greece, which Licinius ceded to him, he established a kind of mock friendship between them by giving to Licinius the hand of his sister Constantina. During nine years the peace remained undisturbed, a time which Constantine employed in reforming the administration of the empire by those laws of which we shall speak below, and in defending the northern frontiers against the inroads of the barbarians. Illyricum and Pannonia were the principal theatres of these devastations, and among the various barbarians that dwelt north of the Danube and the Black Sea, the Goths, who had occupied Dacia, were the most dangerous. Constantine chastised them several times in Illyricum, and finally crossed the Danube, entered Dacia, and compelled them to respect the dignity of the Roman empire. His fame as a great monarch, distinguished both by civil and military abilities, increased every year, and the consciousness of his talents and power induced him to make a final struggle for the undivided government of the empire. In 323, he declared war against Licinius, who was then advanced in years and was detested for his cruelties, but whose land forces were equal to those of Constantine, while his navy was more numerous and manned with more experienced sailors. The first battle took place near Adrianople on the 3rd of July, 323. Each of the emperors had above a hundred thousand men under his command; but, after a hard struggle, in which Constantine gave fresh proofs of his skill and personal courage, Licinius was routed with great slaughter, his fortified camp was stormed, and he fled to Byzantium. Constantine followed him thither, and while he laid siege to the town, his eldest son Crispus forced the entrance of the Hellespont, and in a three days' battle defeated Amandus, the admiral of Licinius, who lost one-third of his fleet. Unable to defend Byzantium with success, Licinius went to Bithynia, assembled his troops, and offered a second battle, which was fought at Chrysopolis, now Skutari, opposite Byzantium. Constantine obtained a complete victory, and Licinius fled to Nicomedeia. He surrendered himself on condition of having his life spared, a promise which Constantine made on the intercession of his sister Constantina, the wife of Licinius; but, after spending a short time in false security at Thessalonica, the place of his exile, he was put to death by order of his fortunate rival. We cannot believe that he was killed for forming a conspiracy; the cause of his death was undoubtedly the dangerous importance of his person. Constantine acted towards his memory as, during the restoration in France, the memory of Napoleon was treated by the Bourbons: his reign was considered as an usurpation, his laws were declared void, and infamy was cast upon his name.
  Constantine was now sole master of the empire, and the measures which he adopted to maintain himself in his lofty station were as vigorous, though less bloody, as those by which he succeeded in attaining the great object of his ambition. The West and the East of the empire had gradually become more distinct from each other, and as each of those great divisions had already been governed during a considerable period by different rulers, that distinction became dangerous for the integrity of the whole, in proportion as the people were accustomed to look upon each other as belonging to either of those divisions, rather than to the whole empire. Rome was only a nominal capital, and Italy, corrupted by luxury and vices, had ceased to be the source of Roman grandeur. Constantine felt the necessity of creating a new centre of the empire, and, after some hesitation, chose that city which down to the present day is a gate both to the East and the West. He made Byzantium the capital of the empire and the residence of the emperors, and called it after his own name, Constantinople, or the city of Constantine. The solemn inauguration of Constantinople took place in A. D. 330, according to Idatius and the Chronicon Alexandrinum. The possibility of Rome ceasing to be the capital of the Roman empire, had been already observed by Tacitus, who says (Hist. i. 4), "Evulgato imperii arcano, posse principem alibi quam Romae fieri". Constantinople was enlarged and embellished by Constantine and his successors; but when it is said that it equalled Rome in splendour, the cause must partly be attributed to the fact, that the beauty of Constantinople was ever increasing, while that of Rome was constantly decreasing under the rough hands of her barbarian conquerors. By making Constantinople the residence of the emperors, the centre of the empire was removed Irom the Latin world to the Greek; and although Latin continued to be the official language for several centuries, the influence of Greek civilization soon obtained such an ascendancy over the Latin, that while the Roman empire perished by the barbarians in the West, it was changed into a Greek empire by the Greeks in the East. There was, however, such a prestige of grandeur connected with Rome, that down to the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, in 1453, the rulers of the Eastern empire retained the name of Roman emperors as a title by which they thought that they inherited the government of the world. The same title and the same presumption were assumed by the kings of the German barbarians, seated on the ruins of Rome, and they were the pride of their successors till the downfall of the Holy Roman empire in Germany in 1806.
  The year 324 was signalized by an event which caused the greatest consternation in the empire, and which in the opinion of many writers has thrown indelible disgrace upon Constantine. His accomplished son, Crispus, whose virtues and glory would perhaps have been the joy of a father, but for their rendering him popular with the nation, and producing ambition in the mind of Crispus himself, was accused of high treason, and, during the celebration at Rome of the twentieth anniversary of Constantine's victory over Maxentius, was arrested and sent to Pola in Istria. There he was put to death. Licinius Caesar, the son of the emperor Licinius and Constantina, the sister of Constantine, was accused of the same crime, and suffered the same fate. Many other persons accused of being connected with the conspiracy were likewise punished with death. It is said, that Crispus had been calumniated by his step-mother, Fausta, and that Constantine, repenting the innocent death of his son, and discovering that Fausta lived in criminal intercourse with a slave, commanded her to be suffocated in a warm bath. As our space does not allow us to present more than a short sketch of these complicated events, some additions to which are given in the lives of Priscus and Fausta, we refer the reader to the opinion of Niebuhr, who remarks (History of Rome), "Every one knows the miserable death of Constantine's son, Crispus, who was sent into exile to Pola, and then put to death. If however people will make a tragedy of this event, I must confess that I do not see how it can be proved that Crispus was innocent. When I read of so many insurrections of sons against their fathers, I do not see why Crispus, who was Caesar, and demanded the title of Augustus, which his father refused him, should not have thought - 'Well, if I do not make anything of myself, my father will not, for he will certainly prefer the sons of Fausta to me, the son of a repudiated woman'. Such a thought, if it did occur to Crispus, must have stung him to the quick. That a father should order his own son to be put to death is certainly repulsive to our feelings, but it is rash and inconsiderate to assert that Crispus was innocent. It is to me highly probable that Constantine himself was quite convinced of his son's guilt: I infer this from his conduct towards the three step-brothers of Crispus, whom he always treated with the highest respect, and his unity and harmony with his sons is truly exemplary. It is related that Fausta was suffocated, by Constantine's command, by the steam of a bath; but Gibbon has raised some weighty doubts about this incredible and unaccountable act, and I cannot therefore attach any importance to the story."
  During the latter part of his reign, Constantine enjoyed his power in peace. As early as 315, Arius denied at Alexandria the divinity of Christ. His doctrine, which afterwards gave rise to so many troubles and wars, was condemned by the general council assembled at Nicaea in 325, one of the most important events in ecclesiastical history. Constantine protected the orthodox fathers, though he must be looked upon as still a Pagan, but he did not persecute the Arians; and the dissensions of a church to which he did not belong, did not occupy much of his attention, since the domestic peace of the empire was not yet in danger from them. Notwithstanding the tranquillity of the empire, the evident result of a man of his genius being the sole ruler, Constantine felt that none of his sons was his equal; and by dividing his empire among them, he hoped to remove the causes of troubles like those to which he owed his own accession. He therefore assigned to Constantine, the eldest, the administration of Gaul, Britain, Spain, and Tingitania; to Constantius, the second, Egypt and the Asiatic provinces, except the countries given to Hannibalianus; to Constans, the youngest, Italy, Western Illyricum, and the rest of Africa: they all received the title of Augustus. He conferred the title of Caesar upon his nephew Dalmatius, who obtained the administration of Eastern Illyricum, Macedonia, Thrace, and Greece; and his nephew Hannibalianus, who received the new title of Nobilissimus, was placed over Pontus, Cappadocia, and Armenia Minor, with Caesareia as capital. They were to govern the empire, after his death, as a joint property. Among the three Augusti, Constantine, the eldest, was to be the first in rank, but they were to be equal in authority : the Caesar and the Nobilissimus, though sovereign in their dominions, were inferior in rank, and, with regard to the administration of the whole empire, in authority also to the Augusti. The failure of this plan of Constantine's is related in the lives of his sons.
  In 337, Constantine was going to take the field against Sapor II., king of Persia, who claimed the provinces taken from him by Galerius and Maximian. But his health was bad; and having retired to Nicomedeia for the sake of the air and the waters, he died there, after a short illness, on the 22nd of May, 337. Shortly before his death, he declared his intention of becoming a Christian, and was accordingly baptized. His death was the signal for the massacre of nearly all his kinsmen, which was contrived by his own sons, and subsequently of the violent death of two of his sons, while the second, Constantius, succeeded in becoming sole emperor. The following were the most important ot the laws and regulations of Constantine. He devel oped and brought to perfection the hierarchical system of state dignities established by Diocletian on the model of the Eastern courts, and of which the details are contained in the Notitia Dignitatum. The principal officers were divided into three classes : the Illustres, the Spectabiles, and the Clarissimi; for officers of a lower rank other titles were invented, the pompous sounds of which contrasted strangely with the pettiness of the functions of the bearers. The consulship was a mere title, and so was the dignity of patricius; both of these titles were in later years often conferred upon barbarians. The number of public officers was immense, and they all derived their authority from the supreme chief of the empire, who could thus depend upon a host of men raised by their education above the lower classes, and who, having generally nothing but their appointments, were obliged to do all in their power to prevent revolutions, by which they would have been deprived of their livelihood. A similar artificial system, strengthening the government, is established, in our days, in Prussia, Austria, France, and most of the states of Europe. The dignity and dangerous military power of the praefecti praetorio were abolished. Under Diocletian and Maximian there were four praefecti, but they were only lieutenants of the two Augusti and their two Caesars. Constantine continued the number, and limited their power by making them civil officers : under him there was the Praefectus Orienti over the Asiatic provinces and Thrace; the Praefectus Italiae, over Italy, Rhaetia, Noricum, and Africa between Egypt and Tingitania; the Praefectus Illyrico, who had Illyricum, Pannonia, Macedonia, and Greece; and the Praefectus Galliae, over Gaul, Britain, Spain, and Tingitania or the westernmost part of Africa. Rome and Constantinople had each their separate praefect. Under the praefecti there were thirteen high functionaries, who were civil governors of the thirteen dioceses into which the empire was divided, and who had either the title of comes or count, or of vicarious or vice praefect. Between these officers and the praefecti there were three proconsuls, of Asia, Achaia, and Africa, who however were but governors of provinces, the whole number of which was one hundred and sixteen, and which were governed, besides the proconsuls, by thirty-seven consulares, five correctores, and seventy-one presidentes.
  The military administration was entirely separated from the civil, and as the Praefecti Praetorio were changed into civil officers, as has been mentioned above, the supreme military command was conferred at first upon two, then four, and finally eight Magistri Militum, under whom were the military Comites and Duces. The number of legions was diminished, but the army was nevertheless much increased, especially by barbarian auxiliaries, a dangerous practice, which hastened the overthrow of the Western and shook the Eastern empire to its foundations. The increase of the army rendered various oppressive taxes necessary, which were unequally assessed, and caused many revolts. There were seven high functionaries, who may be compared with some of the great officers of state in our country, viz. the Praepositus Sacri Cubiculi, or Lord Chamberlain the Magister Officiorum, who acted in many concerns as a secretary for home affairs; the Quaestor, or Lord Chancellor and Seal-Keeper; the Comes Sacrarum Largitionum, or Chancellor of the Exchequer for the public revenue; the Comes Rerum Privatarun Divinae Domus for the private property of the emperor; and, finally, two Comites Domesticorum, or simply Domestici, the commanders of the imperial life-guard. For further details we refer to the authorities enumerated at the end of this article, and to Gutherius, "De Officiis Domus Augustae".
  Constantine deserves the name of Great: he rose to the highest pinnacle of power, and owed his fortune to nobody but himself. His birth was a source of dangers to him; his exalted qualities caused jealousy among his enemies, and during the greater part of his reign his life was one continued struggle. He overcame all obstacles through his own exertions; his skill vanquished his enemies; his energy kept the hydra of anarchy headless; his prudence conducted him in safety through conspiracies, rebellions, battles, and murder, to the throne of Rome; his wisdom created a new organization for an empire, which consisted of huge fragments, and which no human hand seemed powerful enough to raise to a solid edifice. Christianity was made by him the religion of the state, but Paganism was not persecuted though discouraged. The Christianity of the emperor himself has been a subject of warm controversy both in ancient and modern times, but the graphic account which Niebuhr gives of Constantine's belief seems to be perfectly just. Speaking of the murder of Licinius and his own son Crispus, Niebuhr remarks (Hist. of Rome), "Many judge of him by too severe a standard, because they look upon him as a Christian; but I cannot regard him in that light. The religion which he had in his head must have been a strange compound indeed. The man who had on his coins the inscription Sol invictus, who worshipped pagan divinities, consulted the haruspices, indulged in a number of pagan superstitions, and, on the other hand, built churches, shut up pagan temples, and interfered with the council of Nicaea, must have been a repulsive phaenomenon, ard was certainly not a Christian. He did not allow himself to be baptized till the last moments of his life, and those who praise him for this do not know what they are doing. He was a superstitious man, and mixed up his Christian religion with all kinds of absurd superstitions and opinions. When, therefore, certain Oriental writers call him isapostolos they do not know what they are saying, and to speak of him as a saint is a profanation of the word".
  The blame which falls upon Constantine for the death of Maximian, Licinius, and Crispus, will fall upon many kings, and we have only fabulous accounts of the mental sufferings which his bloody deeds might have caused him. Constantine was not so great during the latter part of his reign. In proportion as he advanced in years he lost that serene generosity which had distinguished him while he was younger; his temper grew acrimonious, and he gave way to passionate bursts of resentment which he would have suppressed while he was in the bloom of manhood. He felt that the grandenr of Rome could be maintained only in the East, and he founded Constantinople; but the spirit of the East overwhelmed him, and he sacrificed the heroic majesty of a Roman emperor to the showy pomp and the vain ceremonies of an Asiatic court. His life is an example of a great historical lesson: the West may conquer the East, but the conqueror will die on his trophies by the poison of sensuality.
  As Constantine the Great was a successful political reformer, and the protector of a new religion, he has received as much undeserved reproaches as praise; the Christian writers generally deified him, and the Pagan historians have cast infamy on his memory. To judge him fairly was reserved for the historians of later times. (Euseb. Vita Constantini; Eutrop. lib. x.; Sextus Rufus, Brev. 26; Aurel. Vict. Epit. 40, 41, de Caes. 40, &c.; Zosim. lib. ii., Zosimus is a violent antagonist of Constantine; Zonar. lib. xiii.)
  The accounts of, and the opinions on, Constantine given by Eumenius, Nazarius, &c., in the Panegyrics, and by the emperor Julian, in his Caesars as well as in his Orations, are of great importance, but full of partiality: Julian treats Constantine very badly, and the Panegyrics are what their name indicates. Among the ecclesiastical writers, Eusebius, Lactantius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theophanes, &c., are the principal; but it has already been observed that their statements must be perused with great precaution. The Life of Constantine by Praxagoras, which was known to the Byzantines, is lost. Besides these sources, there is scarcely a writer of the time of Constantine and the following centuries, who does not give some account of Constantine; and even in the works of the later Byzantines, such as Constantine Porphyrogenitus and Cedrenus, we find valuable additions to the history of that great emperor. The most complete list of sources, with critical observations, is contained in Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs. See also Manso, Leben Constantins des Grossen.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Fausta, Flavia Maximiana, wife of Constantine

Fausta, Flavia Maximiana, the daughter of Maximianus Herculius and Eutropia, was married in A. D. 307 to Constantine the Great, to whom she bore Constantinus, Constantius, and Constans. She acquired great influence with her husband in consequence of having saved his life by revealing the treacherous schemes of her father, who, driven to despair by his failure, soon after died at Tarsus. But although, on this occasion at least, she appeared in the light of a devoted wife, she at the same time played the part of a most cruel stepmother, for, in consequence of her jealous machinations, Constantine was induced to put his son Crispus to death. When, however, the truth was brought to light by Helena, who grieved deeply for her grandchild, Fausta was shut up in a bath heated far above the common temperature, and was thus suffocated, probably in A. D. 326. Zosimus seems inclined to throw the whole blame in both instances on Constantine, whom he accuses as the hypocritical perpetrator of a double murder, while others assign the promiscuous profligacy of the empress as the true origin of her destruction, but in reality the time, the causes, and the manner of her death are involved in great obscurity in consequence of the vague and contradictory representations of our historical authorities. (Zosim. ii. 10, 29; Julian, Orat. i; Auctor, de Mort. persec. 27; Eutrop. x. 2, 4; Victor. Epit. 40, 41; Philostorg. H. E. ii. 4)


Crispus, Glavius Julius (317-326 AD)

Crispus, Glavius Julius, eldest of the sons of Constantinus Magnus and Minervina, derived his name without doubt from his greatgreat-grandfather Crispus, the brother of Claudius Gothicus. Having been educated, as we are told by St. Jerome, under Lactantius, he was nominated Caesar on the 1st of March, A. D. 317, along with his brother Constantinus and the younger Liciniusand was invested with the consulship the year following. Entering forthwith upon his military career, he distinguished himself in a campaign against the Franks, and soon after, in the war with Licinius, gained a great naval victory in the Hellespont, A. D. 323. But unhappily the glory of these exploits excited the bitter jealousy of his step-mother Fausta, at whose instigation he was put to death by his father in the year A. D. 326.(Euseb. Chron. ad ann. 317; Sozomen. Hist. Eccl. i. 5)


Calocaerus (333-334 AD)

In 333/334 A.D., on the island of Cyprus, the Magister pecoris camelorum Calocaerus revolted and took up the purple. He was defeated by Dalmatius the Censor. The usurper and his accomplices were tried and executed at Tarsus in Cilicia.


Delmatius

Flavius Julius Delmatius, who was educated at Narbonne under the care of the rhetorician Exsuperius; distinguished himself by suppressing the rebellion of Calocerus in Cyprus; was appointed consul A. D. 333; two years afterwards was created Caesar by his uncle, whom he is said to have resembled strongly in disposition; upon the division of the empire received Thrace, Macedonia, together with Achaia, as his portion; and was put to death by the soldiers in A. D. 337, sharing the fate of the brothers, nephews, and chief ministers of Constantine. It must be observed that there is frequently great ditfficulty in distinguishing Delmatius the father from Delmatius the son. Many historians believe the former to have been the consul of A. D. 333, and the conqueror of Calocerus, the date of whose revolt is very uncertain. A few coins of the younger in gold, silver, and small brass, are to to be found in all large collections, and on these his name is conjoined with the title of Caesar and Princeps Juventutis, the orthography being for the most part Delmatius, although Dalmatius also occasionally appears.


Constantius II., Flavius Julius (337-361 AD)

Constantius II., Flavius Julius, Roman emperor, A. D. 337-361, whose name is sometimes written Flavius Claudius Constantius, Flavius Valerius Constantius, and Constantinus Constantius. He was the third son of Constantine the Great, and the second whom he had by his second wife, Fausta; he was born at Sirmium in Pannonia on the 6th of August, A. D. 317, in the consulate of Ovidius Gallicanus and Septimius Bassus. He was educated with and received the same careful education as his brothers, Constantine and Con stans, was less proficient in learned pursuits and fine arts, but surpassed them in gymnastic and military exercises. He was created consul in 326, or perhaps as early as 324, and was employed by his father in the administration of the eastern provinces. At the death of his father in 337, Constantius was in Asia, and immediately hastened to Constantinople, where the garrison had already declared that none should reign but the sons of Constantine, excluding thus the nephews of the late emperor, Dalmatius and Hannibalianus, from the government of those provinces which had been assigned to them by Constantine, who had placed Dalmatius over Greece, Macedonia, Thrace, and part of Illyricum, and Hannibalianus over Pontus, Cappadocia, and Armenia Minor, with Caesareia as the capital. The declaration of the army, whether preconcerted between them and the sons of Constantine or not, was agreeable to Constantius, who was apparently resolved to act in accordance with the same views. In a wholesale murder, where the troops were the executioners, the male descendants of Constantius Chlorus by his second wife perished through the cruel perfidy of Constantius, who spared the lives of only two princes, Flavius Julius Gallus and Flavius Claudius Julianus, the sons of Flavius Julianus Constantius, youngest son of Constantius Chlorus, who himself became a victim of his nephew's ambition. Besides those princes, the patrician Optatus and the praefectus praetorio Ablavius were likewise massacred. It would be difficult to exculpate Constantius from the part which he took in this bloody affair, even if it were true that his crime was not so much that of a murderer as that of a cool spectator of a massacre which he could have prevented.
  After this the three sons of Constantine the Great had an interview at Sirmium in Pannonia, and made a new division of the empire (September, 337), in which Constantine, the eldest, received Gaul, Spain, Britain, and part of Africa; Constantius, the second and the subject of this article, Thrace, Macedonia, Greece, the Asiatic provinces, and Egypt; and Constans, the youngest, Italy, Illyricum, and the rest of Africa. The ancient world was thus governed by three youths of twenty-one, twenty, and seventeen years of age. Immediately after the death of Constantine the Great a war broke out with the Persian king, Sapor II., which was chiefly carried on in Mesopotamia and on the frontiers of Syria, and, with short interruptions, lasted during the whole reign of C(onstantius. This war was to the disadvantage of the Romans (Greeks), who were vanquished in many battles, especially at Singara, in 343, where Constantius commanded in person, and after having carried the day, was routed with great slaughter of his troops in the succeeding night. On the other hand, the Persians sustained great losses in their fruitless attempts to take the strong fortress of Nisibis, the key of Mesopotamia; and as other fortified places in that country as well as in the mountains of Armenia were equally well defended, Sapor gained victories without making any acquisitions.
  Being thus engaged in the east, Constantius was prevented from paying due intention to the west, and he was obliged to be a quiet spectator of the civil war between his brothers, in which Constantine was slain at Aquileia, and Constans got possession of the whole share of Constantine in the division of the empire (A. D. 340). In 350, Constans was murdered by the troops of Magnentius, who assumed the purple and was obeyed as emperor in Britain, Gaul, and Spain; at the same time Vetranio, commander of the legions in the extensive province of Illyricum, was forced by his troops to imitate the example of Magnentius, and he likewise assumed the purple. It was now time for Constantius to prove with his sword that none but a son of the great Constantine should rule over Rome. At the head of his army he marched from the Persian frontier to the West. At Heracleia in Thrace ambassadors of Magnentius waited upon him, proposing that he should acknowledge their master as emperor, and cement their alliance by a marriage of Constantius with the daughter of Magnentius, and of Magnentius with Constantina, eldest sister of Constantius; they threatened him with the consequences of a war should he decline those propositions. Constantius dismissed the ambassadors with a haughty refusal, and, sending one of them back to Magnentius, ordered the others to be put in prison as the agents of a rebel. His conduct towards Vetranio tended to a reconciliation; but while he promised to acknowledge him as co-emperor if he would join him against Magnentius, he secretly planned treachery. Having bribed or persuaded the principal officers of Vetranio to forsake their master if it should suit his plans, he advanced towards Sardica, now Sophia, where he met with Vetranio, both of them being at the head of an army, that of Vetranio, however, being by far the stronger. Had Vetranio, a straightforward veteran, who could disobey but was not made for more refined perfidy, now acted in the spirit of Constantius, he could have seized his rival in the midst of his camp; but the result was very different. On a plain near Sardica a tribune was erected, where the two emperors showed themselves to their troops, who filled the plain apparently for the purpose of being witnesses of a ceremony by which the empire was to have two lawful heads. Constantius first addressed the armed crowd, and artfully turning upon his " legitimate" opinion, that a son of the great Constantine was alone worthy to reign, suddenly met with a thunder of applause from his own troops as well as those of Vetranio, who, either spontaneously or in accordance with the instructions of their officers, declared that they would obey no emperor but Constantius. Vetranio at once perceived his situation : he took off his diadem, knelt down before Constantius, and acknowledged him as his master, himself as his guilty subject. Constantius evinced equal wisdom: he raised Vetranio from the ground, embraced him, and, as he despised a throne, assigned him a pension, and allowed him to spend the rest of his days at Prusa (A. D. 351).
  Constantius now turned his arms against Magnentius, after having appointed his cousin Gallus as Caesar and commander-in-chief of the army against the Persians. At Mursa, now Essek, a town on the river Drave in Hungary, Magnentius was routed (28th of September, A. D. 351) in a bloody battle, in which Constantius evinced more piety than courage; but where the flower of both armies perished. The conquest of Illyricum and Italy was the fruit of that victory, and Magnentius fled into Gaul. There he was attacked in the east by the army under Constantius, and in the west by another army, which, after having conquered Africa and Spain, crossed the Pyrenees and penetrated into Gaul. After another complete defeat at mount Seleucus in the Cossian Alps, and the rebellion of the principal cities in Gaul, Magnentius, reduced to extremity, put an end to his life, and his brother Decentius followed his example (A. D. 353). Constantius became thus master of the whole West. He avenged the murder of his brother Constans, and established his authority by cruel measures, and neither the guilty nor the innocent were exempt from his resentment.
  Once more the immense extent of the Roman empire was ruled by one man. The administration of the government and the public and private life of Constantius, approached more and more those of an Asiatic monarch: eanuchs reigned at the court, and secret murders, dictated by jealousy or suspicion, were committed by order of the emperor, whenever justice disdained or was too weak to assist him in his plans. One of the victims of his malice was his cousin, Gallus Caesar. Guilty of negligence, disobedience, and cruelty in his administration of the East, he deserved punishment; and his guilt became still greater when he put to death the imperial commissioners, Domitian, praefectus praetorio Orientis, and Montius, quaestor palatii, who were sent to his residence, Antioch, to inquire into his conduct, but conducted themselves with the most imprudent haughtines, threatening and defying Gallus, when they ought to have ensnared him with gentle persuasions and intrigues, according to their instructions. They were torn to pieces by the mob excited by Gallus, who after such an atrocious act seemed to have had but one means of saving himself from the emperor's resentment -rebellion. But deceived by new promises from the artful Constantius, he went to meet him at Milan. At Petovio in Pannonia he was arrested, and sent to Pola in Istria, where he was beheaded in a prison (A. D. 354). Julian, the brother of Gallus was likewise arrested; but, after having spent about a year in prison and exile, was pardoned at the intervention of his protectress, the empress Eusebia, and in November, 355, was created Caesar and appointed to the command-in-chief in Gaul, which was suffering from the consequences of the rebellion of Sylvanus, who had assumed the purple, but was ensnared by Ursicinus, by whom he was murdered in the church of St. Severin at Cologne in September, 355.
  In 357, Constantius visited Rome, where he celebrated an undeserved triumph. Imitating the example of Augustus, he ordered the great obelisk which stood before the temple of the Sun at Heliopolis to be carried to Rome, where it was erected in the Circus Maximus. (Having been thrown down, it was placed by order of pope Sixtus V. before the portal of the church of St. John Lateran, and is known as the Lateran obelisk.) From Rome Constantius went to Illyricum, where his generals made a successful campaign against the Quadi and Sarmatians, and thence returned in 359 to Asia to meet the armies of Sapor, who had once more invaded Mesopotamia, and taken Amida, now Diyarbekr, and the minor fortresses of Singara and Bezabde. Before Sapor appeared in the field, Gaul was invaded by the Alemanni and the Franks, but their power was broken in a three years' campaign by Julian, who made Chnodomarius, the king of the Alemanni prisoner; and not only by his martial deeds, but also by his excellent administration, which won him the hearts of the inhabitants, he excited the jealousy of Constantius. Accordingly, orders arrived in Gaul that the legions employed there should march to the defence of the East. The pretext for this command was, that Gaul being tranquil, no great army was required there, but the real motive was the fear that Julian might abuse his popularity, and assume the purple. Instead of preventing tnat event, the iniprudent order caused it. The troops refused to march; and Julian having nevertheless brought thicu into motion, they suddenly proclaimed him emperor (A. D. 360). It is related in the life of Julian how he acted under these circumstances; his protestations of innocence were misconstrued; his ambassadors, who met with Constantius at Caesareia, were dismissed with anger, and war was declared. Constantius, with the greater part of his army, marched to the West, and the empire was on the eve of being shaken by a dreadful civil war, when the sudden death of Constantius at Mopsocrene, near Tarsus in Cilicia (3rd of November, A. D. 361), prevented that calamity, and made Julian the sole master of the empire. By his third wife, Maxima Faustina, Constantius left one daughter, who was afterwards married to the emperor Gratian. (Amm. Marc. lib. xiv.-xxi.; Zosimus, lib. ii. iii.; Agathias, lib. iv.; Euseb. Vita Constantin. lib. iv.; Eutrop. lib. x. 5, &c.; Julian. Oral. i. ii.; Liban. Orat. iii.-x.; Zonar. lib. xiii.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Faustina, Maxima, wife of Contantius II.

Maxima Faustina, the third wile of Constantius, whom he married at Antioch in A. D. 360, a short period before his death. She gave birth to a posthumous daughter, who received the name of Flavia Maxima Constantia, and was eventually united to the emperor Gratian. We know nothing with regard to the family of this Faustina, but she appears again in history along with her child, as one of the supporters of the rebel Procopius, who made good use of the presence of the youthful princess to inflame the zeal of his soldiers by rekindling their enthusiasm for the glories of the house from which she sprung. (Ducange, Fam. Byz.; Amm. Marc. xxi. 6.4, 15.6, xxvi. 7. 10, 9.8)


Julian, the Apostate & Helena (361-363 AD)

Julianus, Flavius Claudius, surnamed Apostata, "the Apostate," Roman emperor, A. D. 361-363, was born at Constantinople on the 17th of November, A. D. 331 (332?). He was the son of Julius Constantius by his second wife, Basilina, the grandson of Constantius Chlorus by his second wife, Theodora, and the nephew of Constantine the Great.
  Julian and his elder brother, Flavius Julius Gallus, who was the son of Julius Constantius by his first wife, Galla, were the only members of the imperial family whose lives were spared by Constantius II., the son of Constantine the Great, when, upon his accession, he ordered the massacre of all the male descendants of Constantine Chlorus and his second wife, Theodora. Both Gallus and Julian were of too tender an age to be dangerous to Constantius, who accordingly spared their lives, but had them educated in strict confinement at different places in Ionia and Bithynia, and afterwards in the castle of Macellum near Caesareia: and we know from Julian's own statement in his epistle to the senate and people of Athens, that, although they were treated with all the honours due to their birth, they felt most unhappy in their royal prison, being surrounded by spies who were to report the least of their words and actions to a jealous and bloodthirsty tyrant. However, they received a careful and learned education, and were brought up in the principles of the Christian religion: their teachers were Nicocles Luco, a grammarian, and Ecebolus, a rhetorician, who acted under the superintendence of the eunuch Mardonius, probably a pagan in secret, and of Eusebius, an Arian, afterwards bishop of Nicomedeia. Gallus was the first who was released from his slavery by being appointed Caesar in A. D. 351, and governor of the East, and it was through his mediation that Julian obtained more liberty. The conduct of Gallus in his government, and his execution by Constantius in A. D. 354, are detailed elsewhere. Julian was now in great danger, and the emperor would probably have sacrificed him to his jealousy but for the circumstance that he had no male issue himself, and that Julian was consequently the only other surviving male of the imperial family. Constantius was satisfied with removing Julian from Asia to Italy, and kept him for some time in close confinement at Milan, where he lived surrounded by spies, and in constant fear of sharing the fate of his brother. Owing to the mediation of the empress Eusebia, an excellent woman, who loved Julian with the tenderness of a sister, the young prince obtained an interview view Constantius, and having succeeded in cahniag the cmperor's suspicions, was allowed to lead a private life at Athens (A. D. 355). Athens was then the centre of Greek learning, and there Julian spent short but delightful period in intercourse with the most celebrated philosophers, scholars, and artists of the time, and in the society of a company of young men who were devoted to the pursuit of knowledge, and among whom was Gregory Nazianzen, who became afterwards so celebrated as a Christian orator. Among those learned men Julian was not the least in renown, and he attracted universal attention both by his talents and his knowledge. The study of Greek literature and philosophy was his principal and favourite pursuit. He had been brought up by Greeks and among Greeks, and his predilection for whatever was Greek was of course very natural ; but he did not neglect Latin literature, and we Jearn from Ammianus Marcellinus (xvi. 5), that he had a fair knowledge of the Latin language, which was then stil spoken at the court of Constantinople. While Julian lived in happy retirement at Athens, the cmperor was bent down by the weight of public affairs, and the empire being exposed to the invasions of the Persians in the east, and of the Germans and Sarmatians in the west and the north, he followed the advice of Eusebia, in opposition to his eunuchs, in conferring the rank of Caesar upon Julian, who was accordingly recalled from Athens and summoned to Milan, where Constantius was residing. Julian obeyed reluctantly : the Greek Minerva had more charms for him than the Roman Jupiter, and he was too well acquainted with the mythology of his ancestors not to know that even the embraces of Jupiter are sometimes fatal. On the 6th of November, A. D. 355, Julian was solemnly proclaimed Caesar, and received, as a guarantee of the emperor's sincerity, the hand of his sister Helena, who was the youngest child of Constantine the Great. At the same time he was invested with the government of the provinces beyond the Alps, but some time elapsed before he set out for Gaul, where he was to reside, and during this time he began to accustom himself to behave with that composure and artihcial dignity which suited a person of his exalted station, but which corresponded so little with his taste and habits. When he first entered upon public life he was timid and clumsy, and he used afterwards to laugh at his own awkwardness on those occasions. The internal peace of Gaul was still suffering from the consequences of the revolt of Sylvanus, and her frontiers were assailed by the Germans, who had crossed the Rhine, burnt Strassburg, Treves, Cologne, and many other flourishing cities, and made devastating inroads into the midland provinces of Gaul. Accustomed to the quiet occupations of a scholar, Julian seemed little fitted for the command in the field, but he found an experienced lieutenant in the person of the veteran general Sallustius, and the wisdom he had learned in the schools of Greece was not merely theoretical philosophy, but virtue : temperate to the extreme, he despised the luxuries of a Roman court, and his food and bed were not better than those of a common soldier. In his administration he was just and forbearing; and never discouraged by adversity nor inflated by success, he showed himself worthy to reign over others, because he could reign over himself.
  Julian arrived in Gaul late in A. D. 355, and, after having stayed the winter at Vienna (Vienne in Dauphine), he set out in the spring of 356 to drive the barbarians back over the Rhine. In this campaign he fought against the Alemanni, the invaders of Southern Gaul. He made their first acquaintance near Rheims, and paid dearly for it : they fell unexpectedly upon his rear, and two legions were cut to pieces. But as he nevertheless advanced towards the Rhine, it seems that the principal disadvantage of his defeat was only a loss of men. In the following spring (357) he intended to cross the Rhine, and to penetrate into the country of the Alemanni; and he would have executed his plan but for the strange conduct of the Roman general Barbation, who was on his march from Italy with an army of 25,000, or perhaps 30,000 men, in order to effect his junction with Julian. A sufficient number of boats was collected at Basel for the purpose of throwing a bridge over the Rhine, and provisions were kept there for supporting his troops, but barbation remained inactive on the left bank, and proved his treacherous designs by burning both the ships and the provisions. In consequence of this, Julian was compelled to adopt the defensive, and the Alemanni, headed by their king Chnodomarius, crossed the Rhine, and took up a position near Strassburg (August, A. D. and took up a position near Strassburg strong : Julian had only 13,000 veterans; but he did not decline the engagement, and, after a terrible conflict, he gained a decisive victory, which was chiefly owing to the personal valour of the young prince. Six thousand of the barbarians remained on the field, perhaps as many were slain in their flight or drowned in the Rhine, and their king Chnodomarius was made prisoner. The loss of the Romans in this memorable battle is stated by Ammianus Marcellinus to have been only 243 privates and four officers; but this is not credible. Chnodomarius was well treated by Julian, who sent him to the court of Constantius.
  Immediately after this victory Julian invaded the territory of the Alemanni on the right bank of the Rhine, but more for the purpose of exhibiting his power than of making any permanent conquests, for he advanced only a few miles, and then returned and led his troops against the Franks, who had conquered the tract between the Seheldt, the Maas, and the Lower Rhine. Some of the Frankish tribes he drove back into Germany, and others he allowed to remain in Gaul, on condition of their submitting to the Roman authority. Upon this he invaded Germany a second time, in 358, and a third time in 359, in order to make the Alemanni desist from all further attempts upon Gaul, and he not only succeeded, but returned with 20,000 Romans, whom the Alemanni had taken, and whom he compelled them to give up.
  The peace of Gaul being now established, Julian exerted himself to rebuild the cities that had been ruined on the frontiers of Germany: among those rebuilt and fortified by him were Bingen, Andernach, Bonn, and Neuss, and, without doubt, Cologne also, as this city had been likewise laid in ashes by the Germans. As the constant inroads of the barbarians had interrupted all agricultural pursuits in those districts, there was a great scarcity of corn, but Julian procured an abundant supply by sending six hundred barges to England, which came back with a sufficient quantity for both grinding and sowing. The minimum of the quantity of corn thus exported from England has been calculated at 120,000 quarters, and it has been justly observed that the state of agriculture in this country must have been in an advanced condition, since so much corn could be exported nearly altogether at the same time. Julian bestowed the same care upon the other provinces of Gaul, and the country evidently recovered under his administration, although the power with which he was invested was by no means extensive enough to check the system of rapacity and oppression which characterises the government of the later Roman emperors. His usual residence was Paris: he caused the large island in the Seine, which is now called l'ile de la Cite, and whereupon stood ancient Paris or Lutetia, to be surrounded by a stone wall and towers, and he built the Thermae Juliani, a palace with baths, the extensive remains of which, "les thermes de Julien", are still visible in the Rue de la Harpe, between the palace of Cluny and the School of Medicine.
  While Julian became more and more popular in the provinces entrusted to his administration, and his fame was spreading all over the empire, Constantius once more gave way to the suggestions of jealousy and distrust, and believed that Julian aimed at popularity in order to gain for himself the supreme authority. It happened that in A. D. 360 the eastern provinces were again threatened by the Persians. Constantius commanded Julian to send to the frontiers of Persia four of his best legions and a number of picked soldiers from his other troops, apparently that he might be able apprehend him, which it was impossible to do while he was surrounded by so many thousands devoted warriors. This order surprised Julian in April 360: to obey it was to expose Gaul to new inroads of the Germans, and Britain to the ravages of the Scots and Picts, whose incursions had assumed such a dangerous character that Julian just despatched Lupicinus to defend the island; but to disobey the order was open revolt. His soldiers also were unwilling to march into Asia; but Julian, notwithstanding the dangers that awaited him, resolved to obey, and endeavoured to persuade his troops to submit quietly to the will of their master. His endeavours were in vain. In the night large bodies of soldiers surprised the palace of Julian, and proclaimed him emperor. He had hid himself in his apartments; but they soon discovered him, dragged him, though respectfully, before the assembled troops, and compelled him to accept the crown. Upon this he despatched Pentadius and Eutherius with a conciliatory message to Constantius, in which, however, he positively demanded to be acknowledged as Augustus, and to be invested with the supreme authority in those provinces over which he had ruled as Caesar, viz. Gaul, Spain, and Britain. The conditions of Julian were haughtily declined; and after a considerable time had elapsed in fruitless negotiations, which Julian employed in making two more expeditions beyond the Rhine against the Franks and the Alemanni, he at last resolved to wage open war, and to march upon Constantinople. His army was numerous and well disciplined, and the frontier along the Rhine in an excellent state of defence: his troops, who had refused leaving Gaul without him, now joyfully left it with him. Meanwhile, Constantius likewise collected a strong army, and gave directions for the defence of his capital from Antioch, from whence he had superintended the Persian war. Informed of his plans, Julian resolved to thwart them by quickness and energy. At Basel on the Rhine he divided his army into two corps: one, commanded by Novitta, was to march through Rhaetia and Noricum; the other, under the orders of Jovius and Jovinus, was to cross the Alps and march through the north-eastern corner of Italy: both divisions were to unite at Sirmium, a town on the Savus, now Save. Julian, at the head of a small but chosen body of 3000 veterans, plunged into the wildernesses of the Marcian, now Black Forest; and for some time the rival of Constantius seemed to be lost in those dark glens whence issue the sources of the Danube. But when Novitta, Jovius and Jovinus arrived at Sirmium, they be held, to their joy and astonishment, the active Julian with his band, who had descended the Danube and had already defeated the extreme outposts of Lucilian, the lieutenant of Constantius in those regions.
  From Sirmium Julian moved upon Constantinople: the officers of Constantius fled before him, but the inhabitants received him with acclamations of joy; and at Athens, Rome, and other important cities, he was either publicly or privately acknowledged as emperor, having previously sent explanatory letters to the authorities of those distant places. Informed of the unexpected appearance of Julian on the Danube, Constantius set out from Syria to defend his capital; and a terrible civil war threatened to desolate Italy and the East, to when Constantius suddenly died at Mopsocrene in Cilicia, on the third of November, A. D. 361, leaving the whole empire to the undisputed posses sion of Julian. On the 11th of December following, Julian made his triumphal entrance into Constantinople. Shortly afterwards the mortal remains of Constantius arrived in the Golden Horn, and had were buried by Julian in the church of the Holy Apostles with great solemnity and magnificence.
  While Julian thus gave a Christian burial to the body of his rival, he had long ceased to be a Christian himself. According to Julian's own statement (Epist. ii.), he was a Christian up to his twentieth year; and the manner in which he praises his tutor, Mardonius, seems to imply that Mardonius and the philosopher Maximus first caused him to love the religion of the ancient Greeks, without, however, precisely estranging him from the Christian religion, which seems to have been the effect of his study of the ancient Greek philosophers. The vile hypocrisy of the base and cruel Constantius, the conviction of Julian that Con stantine the Great had at first protected, and afterwards embraced, Christianity from mere political motives, the persecuting spirit manifested equally by the Orthodox and Arians against one another,-- had also a great share in the conversion of Julian. During ten years he dissembled his apostacy, which was, however, known to many of his friends, and early suspected by his own brother Gallus and it was not till he had succeeded to the throne that he publicly avowed himself a pagan. Our space does not allow us to enter into the details of his apostacy, and we must refer the reader to the sources cited below. His apostasy was no sooner known than the Christians feared a cruel persecution, and the heathens hoped that paganism would be forced upon all who were not heathens; but they were beth disappointed by an edict of [p. 647] Julian, in which lie proclaimed a perfect toleration of all parties. He was not, however, impartial in his conduct towards the Christians, since he preferred pagans as his civil and military officers, forbade the Christians to teach rhetoric and grammar in the schools, and, in order to annoy them, allowed the Jews to rebuild their great temple at Jerusalem 1 and compelled the followers of Jesus to pay money towards the erection of pagan temples, and, in some instances, to assist in building them. Had Julian lived longer he would have seen that his apostacy was not followed by those effects, either religious or political, which he flattered himself would take place: he would have learnt that paganism, as he understood it, was not the religion of the great mass of pagans, and that paganism, as it actually existed, was a rotten institution, destitute of all religious and moral discipline; and he would have witnessed that, however divided the Christians were, there was something better and healthier in Christianity than futile subjects for subtle controversies.
  Soon after his accession Julian set out for Antioch, where he remained some time busy in organising a powerful army for the invasion, and perhaps subjugation, of Persia. The people of Antioch received him coolly: they were Christians, but also the most frivolous and luxurious people in the East, and they despised the straightforward and somewhat rustic manners of an emperor who had formed his character among stern Celts and Germans. At Antioch Julian made the acquaintance of the orator Libanius; but the latter was unable to reconcile the emperor to the sort of life which prevailed in that splendid city. He therefore withdrew to Tarsus in Cilicia, where he took up his winter-quarters. In the following spring (March, 363) he set out for Persia. The different corps of his army met at Hierapolis, where they passed the Euphrates on a bridge of boats, and thence moved to Carrhae, now Ilarran, a town in Mesopotamia about fifty miles E. N. E. from Hierapolis. Julian's plan was to march upon Ctesiphon, but in order to deceive the Persian king, Sapor, he despatched Procopius and Sebastianus with 30,000 men against Nisibis (east of Carrhae), while he himself wheeled suddenly round to the south, following the course of the Euphrates on its left or Mesopotamian side. Procopius and Sebastianus were to join Arsaces Tiranus, king of Armenia, and Julian expected to effect a junction with their united forces in the environs of Ctesiphon ; but the treachery of Arsaces prevented the accomplishment of his plan, as is mentioned below. While Julian marched along the Euphrates in a south-eastern direction, he was accompanied by a fleet of 1100 ships, fifty of which were well-armed galleys, and the rest barges, carrying a vast supply of provisions and military stores. At Circesium, situated on the confluence of the Chaboras, now the Khabur, with the Euphrates, he arrived at the Persian frontier, which rail along the lower part of the Chaboras, and he Fntered the Persian territory on the 7th of April, 363, at the head of an army of 65,000 veterans. The bridge of the Chaboras was broken down behind them by his orders, to convince the soldiers that a retreat was no plan of their master. From Circesium he continued marching along the Euphrates till he came to that narrow neck of land which separates the Euphrates from the Tigris in the latitude of Ctesiphon. This portion of the route lies partly through a dreary desert, where the Romans experienced some trifling losses from the light Persian horse, who hovered round them, and occasionally picked up stragglers or assailed the rear or the van. Previous to crossing the neck of land, Julian besieged, stormed, and burned Perisabor, a large town on the Euphrates; and while crossing that tract, he was delayed some time under the walls of Maogamalcha, which lie likewise took after a short siege and razed to the ground. Julian now accomplished a most difficult and extraordinary task: he conveyed his whole fleet across the above-mentioned neck of land, by an ancient canal called Nahar-Malcha, which, however, he was obliged to deepen before he could trust his ships in such a passage; and, as the canal joined the Tigris below Ctesiphon, he looked for and found an old cut, dug by Trajan, from Colche to a place somewhat above Ctesipllon, which, however, he was likewise compelled to make deeper and broader, so that at last his fleet run safely out into the Tigris. The canal of Nahar-Malcha is now called the canal of Saklawiyeh, or Isa; it joins the Tigris a little below Baghdad, and it still affords a communication between the two rivers. Through a very skilful manoeuvre, he brought over his army on the left bank of the Tigris, -a passage not only extremely difficult on account of the rapid current of the Tigris, but rendered still more so through the stout resistance of a Persian army, which, however, was routed and pursued to the walls of Ctesiphon. The city would have been entered by the Romans together with the fugitive Persians, but for the death of their leader, Victor. Julian was now looking out for the arrival of Procopius and Sebastianus, and the main army of the Armenian king, Arsaces or Tiranus. He was sadly disappointed: his lieutenants did not arrive, and Tiranus arranged for a body of his Armenians to desert which had joined the Romans previously, and which now secretly withdrew from the Roman camp at Ctesiphon. Julian nevertheless began the siege of that vast city, which was defended by the flower of the Persian troops, king Sapor, with the main body of his army, not having yet arrived from the interior of Persia. Unable to take the city, and desirous of dispersing the king's army, Julian imprudently followed the advice of a Persian nobleman of great distinction, who appeared in the Roman camp under the pretext of being persecuted by Sapor, and who recommended the emperor to set out in search of the Persian king. In doing so, Julian would have been compelled to Abandon his fleet on the Tigris to the attacks of a hostile and infuriated populace: this he avoided by setting fire to his ships,--the best thing he could have done, if his march into the interior of Persia had been dictated by absolute necessity; but as he was not obliged to leave the city, even success would not have compensated for the loss of 1200 ships. In proportion as the Romans advanced eastward, the country became more and more barren, and Sapor remained invisible. The treachery of the Persian noble was discovered after his secret flight, and Julian was obliged to retreat. He took the direction of the province of Corduene. The Persians now appeared: swarms of light horse were seen hovering round the army; larger bodies followed, and ere long Sapor, with his main army, came in sight, and harassed fearfully the rear of the Romans. Still the Romans remained victorious in many a bloody engagement, especially at Maronga; but it was in the mouth of June, and the oppressive heat, and the want of water and provisions had a pernicious effect upon the troops. On the 26th of June the Roman rear was suddenly assailed by the Persians, and Julian, who commanded the van, hastened to the relief of the rear without his cuirass, the heat making a heavy armour almost insupportable. The Persians were repulsed, and fled in confusion. Julian was pursuing them with the utmost bravery, when in the middle of the melee he was shot by an arrow, that pierced through his liver. He fell from his horse mortally wounded, and was conveyed to his tent. Feeling his death approaching, he took leave of his friends with touching words, but certainly not with that fine and elegant speech with which Ammianus Marcellinus (xxv. 3) makes him bid farewell to the world.
  Jovian was chosen emperor in his stead, on the field of battle.
  We cannot enter into a long description of Juliain's character. His talents, his principles, and his deeds, were alike extraordinary. His pride was to be called by others and by himself a philosopher, yet many facts prove that he was very superstitious. Most Christian writers abused and calumniated him because he abandoned Christianity: if they had pitied him they would have acted more in accordance with that sublime precept of our religion, which teaches us to forgive our enemies. It must ever be recollected that the bigotry, the hypocrisy, and the uncharitableness, of the majority of the Christians of Julian's time, were some of the principal causes that led to his apostacy. In reading the ancient authorities, the student oughlt to bear in mind that the heathen writers extol Julian far too high, and that the Christians debase him far too low.
  Julian was great as an emperor, unique as a man, and remarkable as an author. He wrote an immense number of works, consisting of orations on various subjects, historical treatises, satires, and letters : most of the latter were intended for public circulation. All these works are very elaborately composed, so much so as to afford a fatiguing and monotonous reading to those who peruse them merely for their merits as specimens of Greek literature but they are at the same time very important sources for the history and the opinions of the age on religion and philosophy. Julian also tried to write poetry, but he was no poet: lie lacks imagination, and his artificial manner of embellishing prose shows that he had no poetical vein. He was a man of reflection and thought, but possessed no creative genius. His style is remarkably pure for his time, and shows that lie had not only studied the classical Greek historians and philosophers, but had so far identified himself with his models, that there is scarcely a page in his works where we do not meet with either reminiscences from the classical writers, or visible efforts to express his ideas in the same way as they did. With this painful imitation of his classical models he often unites the exaggerated and over-elaborate style of his contemporaries, and we trace in his writings the influence of the Platonists no less than that of Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, and so many other writers of the golden age. There is, however, one circumstance which reconciles the reader to many of the author's defects: Julian did not merely write for writing's sake, as so many of his contemporaries did, but he shows that he had his subjects really at heart, and that in literature as well as in business his extraordinary activity arose from the wants of a powerful mind, which desired to improve itself and the world. In this respect Julian excites our sympathy much more, for instance, than the rhetorician Libanius.
  The following are the editions of the entire works of Julian:
Juliani Imperatoris Opera quae exlant, with a Latin translation by P. Martinius and C. Cantoclarus, and the author's life by Martinius, Paris, 1583: Juliani Opera, quae quidem reperiri pottuerunt, omnia, Paris, 1630, by Petavius, with notes and a Latin translation. A better edition than either of the two preceding is: Juliani Impcratoris Opera, quae supersunt omnia, Leipzig, 1696, by Ezechiel Spanheim, who perused an excellent codex, which enabled him to publish a much purer text than Petavius, and he added the notes of Petavius and his translation, which he corrected, as well as an excellent commentary of his own. This edition contains 63 letters of Julian. Spanheim further added to it S. Cyrilli, Aleaandrini Archiepiscopi, contra impium Julianum Libri Decem, which is the more valuable as Cyrillus was one of the most able adversaries of Julian, as is mentioned below. The following is a list of Julian's works, with the principal separate editions of each:
I. Letters. The first collection, published by Aldus, Venice, 1499, contains only 48 letters; Spanheim published 63 in his edition of the works of Julian; others were found in later times, four of which are printed in Fabricius, Biblioth. Graec. ; the last and best edition is by L. H. Heyler, Mainz, 1828; it contains 83 letters, with a Latin translation and a commentary of the editor. There are besides some fragments of lost letters. Among the letters of Julian, there is also one which was written to him by his brother Gallus, in A. D. 353, who advises him to remain faithful to the Christian religion. The authenticity of several letters is contested. They treat on various subjects, and are of great importance for the history of the time. One, which was addressed to the senate and people of Athens, and in which the author explains the motives of his having taken up arms against the emperor Constantius, is an interesting and most important historical document.
II. Orations. 1. Elkomion pros autokratora Konstantion, with a Latin translation by Petavius, Paris, 1614: an encomium of the emperor Constantius, in which Julian is not consisteit with his usual feelings of contempt and hatred towards that emperor. In general Julian speaks very badly of the whole imperial family, and even Constantine the Great does not escape his severe censure. Wyttenbach, in the work quoted below, has written some excellent observations on this work. 2. Peri ton Autokpatoros Tpraxeon, e tepi Basileias, two orations on the deeds and tile reign of the emperor Constantius, which are of great importance for the knowledge of the time: in the complete editions. Julian wrote these orations in Gaul, and betray in many a passage his preference of paganism to Christianity, as well as his enthusiastic love of the new Platonic philosophy. 3. Eusebias tes basilidos Elkomion, an encomiurnon the empress Eusebia, tile patroness of Julian: ed. Petavius, Paris, 1614. 4. Eis ton basilea Helion, an oration on the worship of the sun, addressed to Sallustius, his old military councillor and friend, first in Gaul and afterwards in Germany: ed. by Theodorus Marcilius, Paris, 1583; by Vincentius Marinerius, Madrid, 1625. 5. Eis ten metera ton theon, an oration on the mother of gods (Cybele): Julian visited the temple of Cybele at Pessinus, and restored her worship. 6. Eis tous ataideutous Kunas; and 7. Pros Herakleion Kunikon, peri tou pos Kunisteun, kai ei prepei toi Kuni muthous, prattein two orations on true and false Cynicism, the latter addressed to the Cynic Heracleius. 8. Epi te exudoi tou alathotatou ealloudtion taramuthetikos,a letter to the aforesaid Sallustius, in which he consoles himself and his friends on the recal of Sallustius, by the emperor Constantius, from Gaul to the East. 9. A letter, or more correctly dissertation, addressed to his former tutor, the philosopher Themistius, on the difficulty the author thinks he would experience in showing himself so perfect an emperor as Themistis expected.
III. Otler Works. 1. Kaisapes e Sumtosion, the "Caesars or the Banquet," a satirical composition, which Gibbon justly calls one of the most agreeable and instructive productions of ancient wit. Julian describes the Roman emperors approaching one after the other to take their seat round a table placed in the heavens; and as they come up, their faults, vices, and crimes, are censured with a sort of bitter mirth by old Silenus, whereupon each Caesar defends himself as well as he can, that is, as well as Julian allows him to do; but in this Julian shows much partiality, especially towards Constantine the Great and other members of the imperial family. Alexander the Great also appears. He and other great heroes at last acknowledge that a royal philosopher is greater than a royal hero, and the piece finishes with a great deal of praise bestowed upon Julian by himself. There are many editions and translations of this remarkable production. Of these, the most important are the text with a Latin translation by C. Cantoclarus, Paris, 1577, the Editio Princeps; the same Ibid. 1583; the same, corrected by Frederic Sylburg, in the third volume of his Romanae Hisitoriae Scriptores Minorcs, and separately, Frankfort, 1590; by Petrus Cunaeas, with an elegant Latin translation, Leyden, 1632; the same with the notes of Cellarius, Leipzig, 1693, 1735. The best editions are by J. M. Heusinger, Gotha, 1736, 1741, and by Harless, the editor of Fabricius, Bibl. Graeca, Erlangen, 1785. An English translation of the Caesares, the Misopogon, and several other productions of Julian, is contained in "Select Works of the Emperor Julian, and some Pieces of the Sophist Libanius, &c., with Notes from Petav, La Bleterie, Gibbon, &c., and a translation of La Bleterie's Vie de Jovien, by John Duncombe", London, 1784. Several French, German, Italian, and Dutch translations are mentioned by Fabricius.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


Helena, Flavia Julia, daughter of Constantine the Great and Fausta, was given in marriage by her brother Constantius to her cousin Julian the Apostate, when the latter was nominated Caesar, towards the end of A. D. 355. She survived the union for five years only, until A. D. 360, having borne one child, a boy, which died immediately after its birth. Her sterility, as well as the fate of this solitary infant, were ascribed, as we learn from Ammianus Marcellinus, to the guilty arts of her sister-in-law, the empress Eusebia. (Amm. Marc. xv. 8.18, xvi. 10.18, xxi. 1.5)


Jovianus (363-364 AD)

Jovianus, Flavius Claudius, Roman emperor (A. D. 363-364), was the son of the Comes Varronianus, one of the most distinguished generals of his time, who had retired from public life when the accession of his son took place. Jovianus was primus ordinis domesticorum, or captain of the lifeguards of the emperor Julian, and accompanied him on his unhappy campaign against the Persians. Julian having been slain on the field of battle, on the 26th of June, A. D. 363, and the election of another emperor being urgent, on account of the danger in which the Roman army was placed, the choice of the leaders fell first upon their veteran brother Sallustius Secundus, who, however, dedined the honour, and proposed Jovian. The merits of his father more than his own induced the Roman generals to follow the advice of their colleague, and Jovian was proclaimed emperor on the day after the death of Julian. He immediately professed himself to be a Christian. The principal and most difficult task of the new emperor was to lead his army back into the old Roman territories. No sooner had he begun his retreat, than Sapor, the Persian king, who had been informed of the death of Julian, made a general attack upon the Romans. Jovian won the day, continued his retreat under constant attacks, and at last reached the Tigris, but was unable with all his efforts to cross that broad, deep, and rapid river in presence of the Persian army. In this extremity he listened to the propositions of Sapor, who was afraid to rouse the despair of the Romans. After four days' negotiations he purchased the safety of his army by giving up to the Persian king the five provinces, or rather districts, beyond the Tigris, which Galerius had united to the Roman empire in A. D. 297, viz. Arzanene, Moxoene, Zabdicene, Rehimene and Corduene, as well as Nisibis and several other fortresses in Mesopotamia. Great blame has been thrown upon Jovian for having made such a disgraceful peace; but the circumstances in which he was placed rendered it necessary, and he was, moreover, anxious to secure his crown, and establish his authority in the western provinces. He had no sooner crossed the Tigris than he despatched officers to the West, investing his father-in-law Lucillianus with the supreme command in Italy, and Malaricus with that in Gaul. On the western banks of the Tigris he was joined by Procopius with the troops stationed in Mesopotamia, and being now out of danger, he devoted some time to administrative and legislative business. His chief measure was the celebrated edict, by which he placed tile Christian religion on a legal basis, and thus put an end to the persecutions to which the Christians had been exposed during the short reign of Julian. The heathens were, however, equally protected, and no superiority was allowed to the one over the other. The different sectaries assailed him with petitions to help them against each other, but he declined interfering, and referred then to the decision of a general council ; and the Arians showing themselves most troublesome, he gave them to understand that impartiality was the first duty of an emperor. His friend Athanasins was restored to his see at Alexandria. After having abandoned Nisibis to tile Persians, he marched through Edessa, Antioch, Tarsus, and Tyana in Cappadocia, where he learnt that Malaricus having declined the command of Gaul, Lucillianus had hastened thither from Italy, and had been slain in a riot by the soldiers, but that the army had been restored to obedience by Jovinus. From Tyana Jovian pursued his march to Constantinople, in spite of an unusually severe winter. On the 1st of January, 364, he celebrated at Ancyra his promotion to the consulship, taking as colleague his infant son Varronianus, whom he called nobilissimus on the occasion. Having arrived at Dadastana, a small town in Galatia, on the borders of Bithynia, he indulged in a hearty supper and copious libations of wine, and endeavoured to obtain sound repose in an apartment which had lately been whitewashed, by ordering burning charcoals to be placed in the damp room. On the following morning (17th of February, 364) he was found dead in his bed. His death is ascribed to various causes -to intemperance, the coal-gas, and the poison of an assassin. It is possible, though not probable, that he died a violent death, to which Ammianus Marcellinus (xxv. 10) seems to allude when he compares his death with that of Aemilianus Scipio.
(Amm. Marc. xxv. 5-10; Eutrop. x. 17, 18; Zosim. iii.; Zonar.; Oros. vii. 31; Sozomen. vi. 3; Philostorg. viii. 5; Agathias, iv.; Themistius dwells upon the history of Jovian in several orations, especially Or. 5 and 7, and bestows all the praise on him which we might expect from a panegyrist; De la Bleterie, Histoire de Jovien, Amsterd. 1740, the best work on the subject.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


You are able to search for more information in greater and/or surrounding areas by choosing one of the titles below and clicking on "more".

Ferry Departures
From

Copyright 1999-2019 International Publications Ltd.