Listed 100 (total found 389) sub titles with search on: Biographies for wider area of: "AEGEAN COAST Region TURKEY" .
KOLOFON (Ancient city) TURKEY
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
DENIZLI (Town) TURKEY
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'.
ALAVANDA (Ancient city) TURKEY
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 (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, 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.)
KNIDOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
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
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 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
4th c. B.C. architect of Mausolleion at Halikarnassos; sculptor and author of technical treatise on proportions.
TRALLIS (Ancient city) TURKEY
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
KNIDOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
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.
PERGAMOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
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.)
MILITOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
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
KNIDOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
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
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.
TRALLIS (Ancient city) TURKEY
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
PERGAMOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
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
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., 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. (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. (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, 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 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
The sovereign power that belonged to the descendants of Heracles fell to the family of Croesus, called the Mermnadae
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 (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 (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 (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, (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, (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
EFESSOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
Xenophon of Ephesus, a writer of prose fiction, as to whose date and personality nothing is known. His remaining work is entitled Ephesiaca, or the Loves of Anthia and Abrocomas (Ephesiaka, ta kata Anthian kai Abrokomen). The style of the work is simple, and the story is conducted without confusion, notwithstanding the number of personages introduced; but the adventures are of a very improbable kind. Xenophon was possibly the oldest of the Greek romance writers. Editions of his work are those by Peerlkamp (Haarlem, 1818); and by Passow (Leipzig, 1833). See Novels and Romances.
Andron, of Ephesus, who wrote a work on the Seven Sages of Greece, which seems to have been entitled Tripous. (Diog. Laert. i. 30, 119; Schol. ad Pind. Isth. ii. 17; Clem. Alex. Strom. i.; Suid. and Phot. s. v. Samion ho demos; Euseb. Pracp. Ev. x. 3.)
KARIA (Ancient country) TURKEY
A Carian, sails to Isles of Satyrs.
KNIDOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
Demetrius, of Cnidus, apparently a mythographer, is referred to by the Scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius (i. 1165).
MILITOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
Aristides. The author of a licentious romance, in prose, entitled Milesiaca,
having Miletus for its scene. It was translated into Latin by L. Cornelius Sisenna,
a contemporary of Sulla, and became popular with the Romans. The title of his
work gave rise to the term "Milesian" as applied to works of fiction.
Aristeides, the author of a work entitled Milesiaca (Milesiaka or Milesiakoi logoi), which was probably a romance, having Miletus for its scene. It was written in prose, and was of a licentious character. It extended to six books at the least (Harpocrat. s.. v. dermestes). It was translated into Latin by L. Cornelius Sisenna, a contemporary of Sulla, and it seems to have become popular with the Romans (Plut. Crass. 32; Ovid. Trist. ii. 413, 414, 443, 444; Lucian, Amor. 1). Aristeides is reckoned as the inventor of the Greek romance, and the title of his work is supposed to have given rise to the term Milesian, as applied to works of fiction. Some writers think that his work was imitated by Appuleius in his Metamorphoses, and by Lucian in his Lucius. The age and country of Aristeides are unknown, but the title of his work is thought to favour the conjecture that he was a native of Miletus. Vossius supposes, that he was the same person as the Aristeides of Miletus, whose works on Sicilian, Italian, and Persian history (Sikelika, Italika, Persika) are several times quoted by Plutarch (Parall.), and that the author of the historical work peri Knidou was also the same person (Schol. Pind. Pyth. iii. 14).
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
Novels and Romances. Fiction in its origin is with difficulty separated from myth--myth, however, being unconscious and due to a desire to give concrete form to various beliefs that spring up in the primitive mind; while fiction, as a literary motive, originates in a desire to amuse and occasionally to instruct. Hence, the earliest form of fiction is the Beast Fable, which is found in every quarter of the earth and at every period of history. A papyrus dating from B.C. 1200 gives an Egyptian version of the Aesopic fable of the Lion and Mouse; the inscribed Babylonian bricks afford examples of the same thing, and the Hindus probably originated most of the fables which Aesop, Babrius, and Phaedrus made popular in Europe. Akin to conscious fiction and at the same time allied to myth are the folk-tales of nymphs, satyrs, ghosts, fairies, demons, and vampires which Greeks and Romans alike propagated, but which have nearly all been lost to us because they seemed to the ancients unworthy of preservation in formal literature; so that we have now only here and there tantalizing half-glimpses and vanishing suggestions of the curious and fascinating legends told by the common people. Such bits as remain, however, are quite sufficient to prove the existence of a great unwritten literature, and examples of these may still be found, though no longer preserved in their original simplicity, in the stories of the love of Echo for Narcissus, the legend of Hylas and the Naiads, of Cupid and Psyche, and in the various allusions to the monsters known as the Lamiae, Mormolyce, Incubus, and Empusa, the spectre with the brazen leg and the ass's hoof. Ghosts figure in Greek literature as early as Homer, and are introduced with striking effect in the Odyssey, as also by the Romans Attius and Vergil, and in the famous story preserved by Pliny the Younger. To this informal fiction belong also the tales of the Lares and the Larvae.
The earliest form of literary prose fiction, however, is to be found
in the short stories collected by Herodotus, most of which have their origin in
the East, the home of storytelling. Such are the famous anecdotes of Candaules
(i. 8-12), of Arion and the Dolphin (i. 24), of Rhampsinitus and the Robber (ii.
121), and of Polycrates and the Ring (iii. 39), all being admirable instances
of the short story in its earliest form--brief, simple, and embodying a single
incident.
Of a <b>more formal type are the so-called Milesian Tales (Milesiaka),
a generic term for the short anecdotes which were produced in great numbers in
the luxurious cities of Asia Minor prior to the second century B.C., and first
ascribed to one Aristides,</b> who is said to have written six books of
them. No actual examples are known to exist, though their nature may be judged
of by the short stories found in later writers, especially Petronius, from which
it would appear that they were very much like the stories told in the Decameron
of Boccaccio and the Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles of Louis XI. of France--brief, witty,
and indecent. The choice of subjects in these early novelettes is seen in the
existing collection of Parthenius of Nicaea, who taught Vergil Greek. From him
have come down thirty-six skeleton stories, or rather hints for stories gathered
by Parthenius for the use of Cornelius Gallus, and intended to be treated by him
poetically. They can be found in both Greek and Latin versions in the Didot Collection
(Paris, 1856). Other stories of this sort, written in other cities than Miletus,
were produced by a host of storywriters who gave to their collections the titles
Ephesian, Babylonian, Cyprian, Egyptian, Sybaritic, Naxian, Lydian, Trojan, and
Bithynian Tales, though these do not seem to have differed, except in name, from
those of Miletus. Some of them are preserved in epitome by Photius (q.v.). One
of the most important writers of them after Aristides was Conon , from whom Cervantes
borrowed an episode in his Don Quixote. While the short story was reaching its
full development, it was used philosophically by Plato in the story of Er, and
by Prodicus in his epilogue on the Choice of Heracles.
At about this time fiction underwent a further development as a result
of the contact of the Greeks with the East at the time of the Persian Wars and
of the spirit of adventure resulting from the conquests of Alexander. We now have
instances of the historical romance in the Atlantis of Plato and the Cyropaedia
of Xenophon, which find their echo in modern times in the Utopia of Sir Thomas
More and the New Atlantis of Francis Bacon. The Cyropaedia contains the first
romantic love-story in Greek fiction. These works, however, are partly political,
and are of less literary consequence than the romance of adventure which was afterwards
introduced, and which finds an illustration in the novel entitled Ta Huper Thoulen
Apista (Marvels Beyond Thule), by one Antonius Diogenes, the Munchausen of antiquity.
It relates to the love-adventures of an Arcadian youth, Dinias, [p. 1107] with
a Tyrian girl, Dercyllis, and abounds with most extraordinary incidents. It is,
in reality, nothing more than a collection of short stories or episodes strung
together by a very slender plot. More homogeneous and artistic are the later romances
of Lucius of Patrae of uncertain date called Metamorphoses, drawn upon by Lucian
and Apuleius; of Iamblichus of Syria, who wrote Babulonika, the adventures of
a married pair, Sinonis and Rhodanes, with a double plot; of Xenophon of Ephesus,
author of Ephesiaka, the loves of Abrocomas and Anthia, the ultimate source of
Romeo and Juliet; and especially of Heliodorus of Emesa, in the fourth century
A.D., whose Aithiopika is still in existence, and is regarded as the best of the
novels of adventure produced by the Greeks. It is in ten books, and relates the
adventures of two lovers, Theagenes and Chariclea. It has some quite interesting
episodes, is regularly developed, and contains one curious passage on the influence
of pre-natal conditions upon the unborn child. It was much read in its day, and
again in the seventeenth century, when it was the favourite novel of the French
poet, Racine. See Heliodorus.
Other instances of the romantic novel are those of Achilles Tatius
of Alexandria, entitled Ta kata Leukippen kai Kleitophonta (The Loves of Leucippe
and Clitophon) in eight books; the Chaereas and Callirrhoe of Chariton of Aphrodisias;
and the novelette called Apollonius Tyrius, of unknown authorship, preserved only
in a Latin version, in which it was much read in the Middle Ages, and suggested
a part of Gower's Confessio Amantis (iii. 284 foll.), and probably Shakespeare's
Pericles, Prince of Tyre. Of very late origin are the trashy Greek novels by Theodorus
Prodromus of Constantinople, and the imitation of this by Nicetas Eugenianus (both
in doggerel verse), and last of all the eleven books on the adventures of Hysmine
and Hysminias, perhaps the original source of the story of Don Juan.
Early in the Christian era, fiction was written in the form of letters
by Alciphron, a Greek sophist, of whose imaginary epistles 118 are still preserved
and give valuable pictures of low life in Athens during the second century A.D.
They are very lively and entertaining, and are the best character sketches that
Greek fiction can show us. Other writers of the same class are Aristaenetus of
Nicaea (?), the author of two books of erotic letters written in a cynical spirit;
and Theophilus of Simocatta (A.D. 610), from whom we have 85 letters, rhetorical
and epigrammatic, but of no literary merit.
The prose pastoral was created by Longus (perhaps not the author's
name), whose romance Poimenika ta kata Daphnin kai Chloen, usually called Daphnis
and Chloe, is one of the most original and pleasing things in ancient literature.
Its theme is the growth of the sexual instinct in two children, a boy and a girl,
who have been brought up together in a state of perfect innocence. Its physico-psychological
motive makes it unique in the history of early fiction, and the warmth and beauty
of its descriptions of nature are also very striking. It has been many times translated
into all the modern languages, and is the original of Bernardin de St. Pierre's
Paul et Virginie, of Allan Ramsay's Gentle Shepherd, and of many other less important
works.
The Romans have left us only two specimens of true prose fiction--the
Satiricon of Petronius Arbiter and the Metamorphoses of Apuleius; but these are
in many ways superior to anything of their kind in Greek. The Satiricon, in fact,
though incomplete, is one of the first great novels of our time, and is remarkable
for its modern tone, its subtle touches of character, its wit, its vivid pictures
of life in the Roman provincial towns, and for the grace and elegance of its style.
It also gives us some of the best existing specimens of the sermo plebeius, the
colloquial Latinity of uneducated men. (See Petronius; Sermo Plebeius.) The Metamorphoses
of Apuleius is based upon the Metamorphoses of Lucius of Patrae, and possibly
upon the Loukios e Onos of Lucian, the contemporary of Apuleius; but it is more
likely that both Apuleius and Lucian drew independently from the earlier writer.
The novel of Apuleius, which is in eleven books, tells the story of one Lucius,
who, by a mistake, swallowed a magic potion which turned him into an ass, in which
form he passed through a maze of curious and amusing adventures, until at last
he regained his natural shape. The novel is highly diverting and is told with
much cleverness, though often with a disregard for even an elemental sense of
propriety. Among its episodes is the very famous one giving the story of Cupid
and Psyche, one of the most exquisite things in literature and one that has inspired
innumerable works of art. See Apuleius; Psyche.
In the Middle Ages, when the knowledge of ancient literature and history
became lost to Western Europe, confused recollections of them still existed in
the minds of men, and, together with many Teutonic folk-tales, became blended
into a curious collection of stories known as the Gesta Romanorum, which were
told and retold in many forms by the medi?vals. They mingle together the characters
of antiquity in a most remarkable way, having no chronological or historical accuracy,
but reproducing the legends of the past in a sort of literary mirage. Vergil,
Homer, Alexander the Great, the Roman emperors, and Hercules, Romulus, and Remus,
appear and reappear side by side with knights and wizards and dragons; but the
tales have a certain value in literary history as forming the connecting link
between the fiction of Greece and Rome and the fiction of modern times, which
took its early themes largely from those monkish legends.
The ancient novel is far inferior to the modern, because
(1) it was developed only after literature had entered upon its decline;
(2) because of the difference in the social spirit of antiquity which made impossible
the modern romantic treatment of the relations of men and women; and
(3) because the true fiction of the Greeks was to be found, not in prose, but
in the great epics which more perfectly represented the highest manifestation
of the Hellenic imagination.
Bibliography.--For the general subject of the origin of pure fiction, see Clauston's
Popular Tales and Fictions (London, 1887); Rutherford's introduction to his edition
of Babrius (1883); Rhys-Davids, Buddhist Birth-Stories (1880); Benfey's introduction
to the Panchatantra (1859); Bedier, Les Fabliaux (1893); and Lang, Custom and
Myth (1885). On the Greek and Roman novels, see Dunlop, History of the Novel (last
ed. London, 1887); Salverte, Le Roman dans la Grece Ancienne (Paris, 1893); Chauvin,
Les Romanciers Grecs et Latins (Paris, 1862); Chassang, Histoire du Roman dans
l'Antiquite Grecque et Latine (Paris, 1862); Rohde, Der Griechische Roman (Leipzig,
1876); Warren, History of the Novel (N. Y. 1895). The principal Greek romances
are printed in the Erotici Graeci of the Didot Collection (Paris, 1856); and the
epistolographers in the Epistolographi Graeci of the same collection. For special
texts, translations, etc., see the separate articles in this Dictionary on the
writers named above. The Gesta Romanorum will be found edited by Oesterley (Berlin,
1872); and translated into English by Swan, revised by Hooper (London, 1877).
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited July 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
SARDIS (Ancient city) TURKEY
Editor's Information:
Biography, reports and essays on Aesop can be found at his birthplace ancient Samos . There is also the suggestion that he was native of Phrygia or Sardis.
ERYTHRES (Ancient city) TURKEY
Diognetus. A general of the Erythrean forces which aided Miletus in a war with
the Naxians. Being entrusted with the command of a fort for the annoyance of Naxos,
he fell in love with Polycrita, a Naxian prisoner, and married her. Through her
means the Naxians became masters of the fort in question. At the capture of it
she saved her husband's life, but died herself of joy at the honours heaped on
her by her countrymen. There are other editions of the story, varying slightly
in the details. (Plut. de Mul. Virt. s. v. Polukrite; Polyaen. viii. 36 ; Parthen.
Erot. 9.)
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
EFESSOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
Artemidorus, the Geographer, a native of Ephesus, who travelled about B.C. 100 through the countries bordering on the Mediterranean and part of the Atlantic coast, and wrote a long work on his researches, the Geographoumena, in eleven books, as well as an abstract of the same. Of both works, which were much consulted by later geographers, we have only fragments.
Artemidorus, of Ephesus, a Greek geographer, who lived about B. C. 100. He made voyages round the coasts of the Mediterranean, in the Red Sea, and apparently even in the southern ocean. He also visited Iberia and Gaul, and corrected the accounts of Eratosthenes respecting those countries. We know that in his description of Asia he stated the distances of places from one another, and that the countries beyond the river Tanais were unknown to him. The work in which he gave the results of his investigations, is called by Marcianus of Heracleia, a periplous, and seems to be the same as the one more commonly called called ta geographoumena, or ta tes geographias Biblia. It consisted of eleven books, of which Marcianus afterwards made an abridgement. The original work, which was highly valued by the ancients, and is quoted in innumerable passages by Strabo, Stephanus of Byzantium, Pliny, Isidorus, and others, is lost ; but we possess many small fragments and some larger ones of Marcianus' abridgement, which contain the periplus of the Pontus Euxeinus, and accounts of Bithynia and Paphlagonia. The loss of this important work is to be regretted, not only on account of the geographical information which it contained, but also because the author entered into the description of the manners and costumes of the nations he spoke of. The fragments of Artemidorus were first collected and published by D. Hoschel in his Geographica, Aug. Vindel. 1600.
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
KARYANDA (Ancient city) TURKEY
A man of Caryanda, his navigation of the Indus and the eastern seas.
Scylax, (Skulax). A native of Caryanda, in Caria, who was sent by Darius Hystaspis on a voyage of discovery down the Indus. Setting out from the city of Caspatyrus and the Pactyican district, Scylax reached the sea, and then sailed west through the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea, performing the whole voyage in thirty months (Herod. iv. 44). There is still extant a Periplus bearing the name of Scylax, but which could not have been written by the subject either of this or of the following article. The work is edited by C. Muller in the Geographi Graeci Minores (1861); and by Fabricius (1878).
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
Scylax of Caryanda : Carian sailor in Persian service, made
a reconnaissance expedition along the shores of the Indian Ocean (c.515 BCE).
Scylax is known from a passage in the Histories of the Greek researcher
Herodotus of Halicarnassus. It can be found in a large topographical discourse
in book 4, section 44.
The greater part of Asia was explored by [the Persian king] Darius,
who desired to know more about the river Indus, which is one of the two rivers
in the world to produce crocodiles. He wanted to know where this river runs out
into the sea, and sent with his ships [...] Scylax, a man of Caryanda.
They started from the city of Caspatyrus in the land of Pactyike,
sailed down the river towards the east and to the sea. Sailing westwards over
the sea, they came in the thirtieth month to the place from whence the king of
the Egyptians had sent out the Phoenicians of whom I spoke before, to sail round
Africa.
Pactyike was a part of ancient Gandara (eastern Afghanistan) and Caspatyrus,
which is not mentioned in other sources, has to be somewhere along the river Kabul.
Since Herodotus tells us in the next line that Scylax' expedition was a preliminary
to Darius' conquest of the Indus valley, we can date this voyage after 519 -when
Darius' rule was secure- and before 512, when India seems to have been part of
the Persian empire. Scylax' voyage led him along the Indus, along
the shores of the Indian ocean and those of the Persian gulf. We do not know the
details of this expedition, but we have a later source, the Indike by Arrian of
Nicomedia, which contains an excerpt of the story of Nearchus, the admiral of
Alexander the Great. He made the same voyage and mentions the tides, whales and
the hard living conditions along the Gedrosian coast. When Scylax
reached Harmozeia (modern Minab) in Carmania, one of the largest ports in the
Persian Gulf, he may have paused. Here he could repair his ships and prepare himself
for the expedition to the west. He passed Maka (modern Oman) and circumnavigated
the Arabian peninsula. We may assume that he had a special interest for the Arabian
towns in Yemen, which were famous for the production of incense. After this, he
sailed to the north, through the Red Sea, until he reached Suez.
In the ancient world, Scylax' fame was great. A naval handbook from
the fourth century BCE was published under his name.
Jona Lendering, ed.
This text is cited July 2003 from the Livius Ancient History Website URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks.
KNIDOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
Agatharchides, or Agatharchus (Agatharchos), a Greek grammarian, born at Cnidos.
He was brought up by a man of the name of Cinnaeus; was, as Strabo (xvi) informs
us, attached to the Peripatetic school of philosophy, and wrote several historical
and geographical works. In his youth he held the situation of secretary and reader
to Heraclides Lembus, who (according to Suidas) lived in the reign of Ptolemy
Philometor. This king died B. C. 146. He himself informs us (in his work on the
Erythraean Sea), that he was subsequently guardian to one of the kings of Egypt
during his minority. This was no doubt one of the two sons of Ptolemy Physcon.
Dodwell endeae case with Alexander likewise. Wesseling and Clinton think the elder
brother to be the one meant, as Soter II. was more likely to have been a minvours
to shew that it was the younger son, Alexander, and objects to Soter, that he
reigned conjointly with his mother. This, however, was thor on his accession in
B. C. 117, than Alexander in B. C. 107, ten years after their father's death.
Moreover Dodwell's date would leave too short an interval between the publication
of Agatharchides's work on the Erythraean Sea (about B. C. 113), and the work
of Artemidorus.
An enumeration of the works of Agatharchides is given by Photius (Cod.
213). He wrote a work on Asia, in 10 books, and one on Europe, in 49 books; a
geographical work on the Erythraean Sea, in 5 books, of the first and fifth books
of which Photius gives an abstract; an epitome of the last mentioned work; a treatise
on the Troglodytae, in 5 books; an epitome of the Aude of Antimachus; an epitome
of the works of those who had written peri tes sunagoges thaumasion anemon; an
historical work, from the 12th and 30th books of which Athenaeus quotes (xii.,
vi.); and a treatise on the intercourse of friends. The first three of these only
had been read by Photius. Agatharchides composed his work on the Erythraean Sea,
as he tells us himself, in his old age, in the reign probably of Ptolemy Soter
II. It appears to have contained a great deal of valuable matter. In the first
book was a discussion respecting the origin of the name. In the fifth lie described
the mode of life amongst the Sabaeans in Arabia, and the Ichthyophagi, or fish-eaters,
the way in which elephants were caught by the elephant-eaters, and the mode of
working the gold mines in the mountains of Egypt, near the Red Sea. His account
of the Ichthyophagi and of the mode of working the gold mines, has been copied
by Diodorus (iii. 12-18). Amongst other extraordinary animals he mentions the
camelopard, which was found in the country of the Troglodytae, and the rhinoceros.
Agatharchides wrote in the Attic dialect. His style, according to
Photius, was dignified and perspicuous, and abounded in sententious passages,
which inspired a favourable opinion of his judgment. In the composition of his
speeches he was an imitator of Thucydides, whom he equalled in dignity and excelled
in clearness. His rhetorical talents also are highly praised by Photius. He was
acquainted with the language of the Aethiopians, and appears to have been the
first who discovered the true cause of the yearly inundations of the Nile. (Diod.
i. 41)
An Agatharchides, of Samos, is mentioned by Plutarch, as the author
of a work on Persia, and one peri lithon. Fabricius, However, conjectures that
the true reading is Agathyrsides, not Agatharchides. There is a curious observation
by Agatharchides preserved by Plutarch (Sympos. viii. 9.3), of the species of
worm called Filaria Medinensis, or Guinea Worm, which is the earliest account
of it that is to be met with.
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
Agetharchides of Cnidus, Geographer, (fl.2nd century AD)
Life
Peripatetic philosopher, geographer, historian, traveller and naturalist,
Agatharchides lived in Alexandria
and spent much of his life on expeditions of exploration. He is cited by Athenaeus,
Strabo, Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, Artemidorus, Lucian and Photius.
Work
"Journey around the Red Sea": 5 books (132 BC). These works,
which contain valuable information about Arabia and Ethiopia, were consulted by
Diodorus, Artemidorus, Aelian and Strabo.
"On Europe": 49 books on the geography and history of Asia.
"On Asia": 10 books of geography and history, with a section on Africa
(Ethiopia, the Nile).
"On Africa"
"Compendium of winds": Only fragments of this work survive.
In his writings, Agatharchides provides geographic and ethnographic
information about many countries and describes unusual species of plants and animals
(e.g. ant lions, rhinoceros, giraffes, giant snakes, etc.). He names India and
China as "the places where silk comes from", describes the way of life
of the peoples of Arabia ("fish-eaters") and East Africa, provides information
on the gold mines of Ethiopia,
and explains the phenomenon of the periodic flooding of the Nile.
This text is based on the Greek book "Ancient Greek Scientists", Athens, 1995 and is cited May 2004 from The Technology Museum of Thessaloniki URL below.
MAGNESIA (Ancient city) TURKEY
A celebrated Greek traveller and geographer, a native of Lydia.
He explored Greece, Macedonia, Asia, and Africa; and then, in the second half
of the second century A.D., settled in Rome, where he composed a Periegesis (Periegesis)
or Itinerary of Greece in ten books. Book I. includes Attica and Megaris; II.,
Corinth with Sicyon, Phlius, Argolis, Aegina, and the other neighbouring islands;
III., Laconia; IV., Messenia; V., VI., Elis and Olympia; VII., Achaea; VIII.,
Arcadia; IX., Boeotia; X. , Phocis and Locris. The work is founded on notes, taken
on the spot, from his own observation and inquiry from the natives of the country,
on the subject of the religious cults and the monuments of art and architecture.
Together with these there are topographical and historical notices, in working
up which Pausanias took into consideration the accounts of other authors, especially
of Polemon (A.D. 150), poets as well as prose writers. Although his account is
not without numerous inaccuracies, omissions, and mistakes, it is yet of inestimable
value for our knowledge of ancient Greece, especially with regard to its mythology,
folk-lore, and religious cults, but above all for the history of Greek art. The
composition of his work, especially in the earlier books, shows little skill in
plan, execution, or style, and, while accurate, shows that he did not grasp the
distinction between legend and history.
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
Greek traveller and geographer of the 2nd century A.D., lived in the
times of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. He was probably a native
of Lydia; he was certainly
familiar with the western coast of Asia
Minor, but his travels extended far beyond the limits of Ionia.
Before visiting Greece he
had been to Antioch, Joppa
and Jerusalem, and to the
banks of the river Jordan. In Egypt
he had seen the pyramids, while at the temple of Ammon he had been shown the hymn
once sent to that shrine by Pindar. In Macedonia
he had almost certainly viewed the traditional tomb of Orpheus. Crossing over
to Italy, he had seen something
of the cities of Campania,
and of the wonders of Rome.
His Description of Greece
takes the form of a tour in the Peloponnesus
and in part of northern Greece.
He is constantly describing ceremonial rites or superstitious customs. He frequently
introduces narratives from the domain of history and of legend and folklore; and
it is only rarely that he allows us to see something of the scenery. It is mainly
in the last section that he touches on the products of nature.
He is most at home in describing the religious art and architecture
of Olympia and of Delphi;
but, even in the most secluded regions of Greece,
he is fascinated by all kinds of quaint and primitive images of the gods, by holy
relics and many other sacred and mysterious things. In the topographical part
of his work, he is fond of digressions on the wonders of nature.
While he never doubts the existence of the gods and heroes, he sometimes
criticizes the myths and legends relating to them. His descriptions of the monuments
of art are plain and unadorned; they bear the impress of reality, and their accuracy
is confirmed by the extant remains. He is perfectly frank in his confessions of
ignorance. When he quotes a book at second hand he takes pains to say so.
This extract is cited July 2003 from the Malaspina Great Books URL below.
TEOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
Andron of Teos, the author of a Periplous (Schol. ad Apoll. Rhod. ii. 354), who is probably the same person as the one referred to by Strabo (ix.), Stephanus of Byzantium, and others. He may also have been the same as the author of the Peri Sungeneion (Harpocrat. s. v. Phorbanteion; Schol. ad Apoll. Rhod. ii. 946).
ALIKARNASSOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
Daughter of Lygdamis, queen of Halicarnassus, carved on pillar of Persian Colonnade at Sparta, queen of Halicarnassus, with Xerxes' fleet, fought for Xerxes against Greeks at Salamis, her advice to Xerxes before Salamis.
Artemisia. The daughter of Lygdamis of Halicarnassus,
reigned over Halicarnassus, and also over Cos and other adjacent islands. She
joined the fleet of Xerxes, when he invaded Greece, with five vessels, the best
equipped of the whole fleet after those of the Sidonians; and she displayed so
much valour and skill at the battle of Salamis as to elicit from Xerxes the wellknown
remark that the men had acted like women in the fight and the women like men.
The Athenians, indignant that a woman should appear in arms against them, offered
a reward of 10,000 drachmae to any one who should take her prisoner. She, however,
escaped after the action. If we are to believe Ptolemy Hephaestion, a writer who
mixed up many fables with some truth, Artemisia subsequently conceived an attachment
for a youth of Abydos, named Dardanus; but, not meeting with a return for her
passion, she put out his eyes while he slept, and then threw herself down from
the Lover's Leap at the promontory of Leucate.
Artemisia, a queen of Halicarnassus, Cos, Nisyros, and Calydna, who ruled over these places as a vassal of the Persian empire in the reign of Xerxes I. She was a daughter of Lygdamis, and on the death of her husband, she succeeded him as queen. When Xerxes invaded Greece, she voluntarily joined his fleet with five beautiful ships, and in the battle of Salamis (B. C. 480) she distinguished herself by her prudence, courage, and perseverance, for which she was afterwards highly honoured by the Persian king (Herod. vii. 99, viii. 68, 87, &c., 93, 101, &c.; Polyaen. viii. 53; Paus. iii. 11.3). According to a tradition preserved in Photius, she put an end to her life in a romantic manner. She was in love, it is said, with Dardanus, a youth of Abydos, and as her passion was not returned, she avenged herself by putting his eyes out while he was asleep. This excited the anger of the gods, and an oracle commanded her to go to Leucas, where she threw herself from the rock into the sea. She was succeeded by her son Pisindelis. Respecting the import of the phrase in regard to lovers, "to leap from the Leucadian rock", see Sappho.
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
Mausolus. A king of Caria and eldest son of Hecatomnus. He reigned B.C. 377-353. In 362 he joined in a revolt against Artaxerxes Mnemon, and thereby added to his dominions. In 358 he aided the Rhodians and their allies against Athens, and died in the year 353, leaving no children. He was succeeded by his wife and sister Artemisia, who erected to his memory the costly monument called from him the Mausoleum.
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
Artemisia. Another queen of Caria, not to be confounded with the preceding. She was the daughter of Hecatomnus, king of Caria, and married her brother Mausolus, a species of union sanctioned by the customs of the country. She lost her husband, who was remarkable for personal beauty, B.C. 365, and she became, in consequence, a prey to the deepest affliction. A splendid tomb was erected to his memory, called Mausoleum (Mausoleion, scil. mnemeiion, i. e. "tomb of Mausolus"), and the most noted writers of the day were invited to attend a literary contest, in which ample rewards were to be bestowed on those who should celebrate with most ability the praises of the deceased. Among the individuals who came together on that occasion were, according to Aulus Gellius, Theopompus, Theodectes, Naucrites, and even Isocrates. The prize was won by Theopompus. Valerius Maximus and Aulus Gellius relate a marvellous story concerning the excessive grief of Artemisia. They say that she actually mixed the ashes of her husband with water and drank them off. The grief of Artemisia, poignant though it was, did not cause her to neglect the care of her dominions: she conquered the island of Rhodes, and gained possession of some Greek cities on the mainland; and yet it is said that she died of grief two years after the loss of her husband.
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
Artemisia, the sister, wife, and successor of the Carian prince Mausolus. She was the daughter of Hecatomnus, and after the death of her husband, she reigned for two years, from B. C. 352 to B. C. 350. Her administration was conducted on the same principles as that of her husband, whence she supported the oligarchical party in the island of Rhodes (Diod. xvi. 36, 45; Dem. de Rhod. Libert.). She is renowned in history for her extraordinary grief at the death of her husband Mausolus. She is said to have mixed his ashes in her daily drink, and to have gradually died away in grief during the two years that she survived him. She induced the most eminent Greek rhetoricians to proclaim his praise in their oratory; and to perpetuate his memory she built at Halicarnassus the celebrated monument, Mausoleum, which was regarded as one of the seven wonders of the world, and whose name subsequently became the generic term for any splendid sepulchral monument (Cic. Tusc. iii. 31; Strabo, xiv.; Gellius, x. 18; Plin. H. N. xxv. 36, xxxvi. 4.9; Val. Max. iv. 6. ext. 1; Suid. Harpocr. s. vv. Artemisia and Mausolos). Another celebrated monument was erected by her in the island of Rhodes, to commemorate her success in making herself mistress of the island. The Rhodians, after recovering their liberty, made it inaccessible, whence it was called in later times the Abaton (Vitruv. ii. 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
KARIA (Ancient country) TURKEY
Mausolus, (Mausolos). A king of Caria and eldest son of Hecatomnus. He reigned
B.C. 377-353. In 362 he joined in a revolt against Artaxerxes Mnemon, and thereby
added to his dominions. In 358 he aided the Rhodians and their allies against
Athens, and died in the year 353, leaving no children. He was succeeded by his
wife and sister Artemisia, who erected to his memory the costly monument called
from him the Mausoleum.
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
LYDIA (Ancient country) TURKEY
445 - 395
Persian nobleman, satrap of Lydia.
Tissaphernes belonged to one of the most important Persian families.
His father is not known, but his grandfather was the Hydarnes who had commanded
the elite corps of the Immortals during Xerxes' ill-fated campaign against Greece.
Hydarnes' father had also been called Hydarnes; he had been one of the seven conspirators
who killed the usurper Gaumata and helped Darius the Great become king (522).
Tissaphernes belonged, therefore, to the highest Persian nobility.
His career started before c.415, when he was appointed as satrap of
Lydia and Caria. The region
had been unquiet, because the former satrap, Pissuthnes, had revolted against
king Darius II Nothus (423-404). However, Tissaphernes had been able to incite
a rebellion under Pissuthnes' Greek mercenaries and Pissuthnes had been arrested.
As a reward, Tissaphernes was made satrap. His first task was to mop up the last
rebels, who were commanded by Pissuthnes' son Amorges.
In the following years, the satrap of Lydia and Caria arranged negotiations
between the Greek town Sparta
and king Darius. The Spartans were involved in an intense conflict with the Athenians,
the so-called Peloponnesian war (427-404), and had found out that they were unable
to win, because they had no navy. Persia
offered money, and demanded in return that Sparta would no longer protect the
independent Greek towns in western Turkey, something that Athens had always done.
Tissaphernes was not straightforward in his dealings with Sparta.
During the talks, he opened negotiations with Athens,
hoping to obtain more concessions. The Athenians, however, refused to play this
game. When the deal with Spartans was concluded, Tissaphernes refused to send
the Persian-Phoenician navy to assist the Spartans, although he had promised to
do this. In this way, he continued his policy of keeping the two warring Greek
states in balance.
This strategy was not appreciated by king Darius and queen Parysatis,
who made their second son Cyrus the Younger satrap of Lydia and Cappadocia.
He was to pursue an unconditional pro-Spartan policy. Tissaphernes remained satrap
of Caria.
King Darius died in April 404. Prince Cyrus and Tissaphernes were
present when Artaxerxes II Mmemon (404-359) was inaugurated at Pasargadae, the
religious capital of the Achaemenid empire. Our Greek sources (Ctesias' History
of the Persians, Xenophon's Anabasis and Plutarch of Chaeronea's
Life of Artaxerxes) tell us that Tissaphernes informed the new king that Cyrus
wanted to dethrone him. We do not know whether Tissaphernes spoke the truth: although
Cyrus did eventually revolt, it may be that he was forced to do so precisely because
he was already suspected and felt insecure. However this may be, for now, Cyrus
was pardoned after an intervention by his mother Parysatis. Perhaps
because he had been humiliated, perhaps because he had planned it all along, Cyrus
decided to revolt. He started to recruit an army, saying that he wanted to attack
the Pisidians, a mountain tribe in southern Turkey. Tissaphernes, noting that
the army was too large for this purpose, understood the real aim of the expedition
and informed king Artaxerxes, who started his own preparations. Meanwhile, Cyrus
tried to find political support, which he found in Sparta, which allowed volunteers
to join the expedition. They were commanded by Clearchus. In 401,
Cyrus' army was ready. Meanwhile, Tissaphernes had joined his king. During the
decisive battle at Cunaxa (north of Babylon),
he played an important role and although Cyrus' mercenaries were victorious, the
usurper was killed. Negotiations were opened between the mercenaries and Tissaphernes;
during the talks, Tissaphernes arrested Clearchus and executed him. After this,
the remaining Greeks fought their way back to the Black
Sea, constantly harassed by Tissaphernes. Of the 14,000 mercenaries, 6,000
returned.
As a reward for saving Artaxerxes' throne, Tissaphernes was allowed
to marry the king's daughter and reappointed as satrap of Lydia (400). Tissaphernes
was now on top of his fortunes.
During the next years, he was occupied with a war against the Spartans,
who invaded Asia to liberate the Greek towns that they had negotiated away. A
second reason was that they (understandably) distrusted Tissaphernes. The first
of their attacks was commanded by Thibron, who used the 6,000 mercenaries and
marched along the coast until he reached Ephesus
(399). The aim of this campaign was to force Tissaphernes to open negotiations.
However, he refused, and Thibron was recalled and replaced by Dercylidas. Now
Tissaphernes united with the satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia,
Pharnabazus, and they concluded a truce with the Spartan army (397).
However, the Persian king double-crossed the peace talks. He built
a large navy, and the Spartans understood what was going on. Now it was the turn
of their king Agesilaus, who decisively defeated Tissaphernes in the neighborhood
of Sardes (395).
Now, received news from a courtier named Tithraustes, who invited
him to a town named Colossae;
here, Tissaphernes was killed. It may have been that king Artaxerxes had wanted
to pardon him, but queen-mother Parysatis had persuaded him to execute the man
who had destroyed her son Cyrus. Tissaphernes was one of the most loyal servants
of the Persian king, a true nobleman.
However, during his service, he made two enemies: Sparta and Parysatis.
Ultimately, they overcame him; the king ultimately did nothing to protect the
man to whom he owed his throne.
Jona Lendering, ed.
This text is cited July 2003 from the Livius Ancient History Website URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks.
ALAVANDA (Ancient city) TURKEY
Leo of Alabanda, in Caria, a rhetorical and historical writer of uncertain date. He wrote the following
works, now lost:
1. Karikon Biblia d, De rebus Cariae Libri quatuor;
2. Lukiaka en Bibliois b', De rebus Lyciae, Libri duo;
3. Ho hieros polemos Phokeon kai Boioton, Bellum Sacrum inter Phocenses et Boeotos;
4. Techne, Ars (sc. Rhetorica); and
5. Peri staseon, De Statibus, or De Seditionibus.
In Villoison's edition of Eudocia the last two works are mentioned as one, the
title of which is Techne peri staseon, Ars de Statibus. If the above list of the
works of Leo be correct, we may conjecture that he lived not far from the time
of Alexander the Great, that is, after the close of the Sacred War, of which he
wrote the history and before the local history of Caria and Lycia had lost its
interest by the absorption of those provinces in the Syrian and Pergamenian kingdoms,
and subsequently in the Roman empire. It is to be observed, however, that the
authority of the Sacred War and of the work De Statibus is doubtful, as Suidas
and Eudocia enumerate works under those titles among those of Leo of Byzantium.
Vossius supposes that either Leo of Alabanda or Leo of Byzantium is the writer
referred to by Hyginus (Astron. Poetic. c. 20), as having written a work on the
history of Egypt.
(Suidas, s. v. Deon Alabandeus; Eudocia, Violetum, s. v. Deon Halabandeus; Fabric.
Bibl. Graec. vol. vi. p. 132, vol. vii. p. 713; Voss. de Hist. Graec. Lib. iii.
p. 179).
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
ALIKARNASSOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
Herodotos. A celebrated Greek historian, born at Halicarnassus
in Caria, B.C. 484. He was of Dorian extraction, and of a distinguished family.
His father was named Lyxes, his mother Rhoeo or Dryo. Panyasis, an eminent epic
poet, whom some ranked next to Homer, was his uncle either by the mother's or
father's side. The facts of his life are few and doubtful, except so far as we
can gather them from his own works. Not liking the government of Lydgamis, the
grandson of Queen Artemisia, who was tyrant of Halicarnassus, Herodotus retired
for a season to the island of Samos, where he is said to have cultivated the Ionic
dialect of the Greek, which was the language there prevalent. Before he was thirty
years of age he joined a number of his fellow-exiles in an attempt, which proved
successful, to expel Lygdamis. But the banishment of the tyrant did not give tranquillity
to Halicarnassus, and Herodotus, who himself had become an object of dislike,
again left his native country and visited Athens, where he made the acquaintance
of many of the brilliant writers of the time. Of these, Sophocles became his intimate
friend, and wrote a poem in his honour in B.C. 440, a fragment of which is preserved
by Plutarch. Eusebius states that he received at Athens many public marks of distinction.
As Athenian citizenship was not open to him, he joined, as it is said, a colony
which the Athenians sent to Thurii in Southern Italy, about B.C. 443. He is said
to have died in Thurii, and to have been buried in the market-place.
Herodotus is regarded by many as the father of profane history,
and Cicero calls him historiae patrem; by which, however, nothing more must be
meant than that he is the first profane historian whose work is distinguished
for its finished form, and has come down to us entire. Thus Cicero himself, on
another occasion, speaks of him as the one qui princeps genus hoc (scribendi)
ornavit; while Dionysius of Halicarnassus has given us a list of many historical
writers who preceded him.
Herodotus presents himself to our consideration in two points:
as a traveller and observer, and as an historian. The extent of his travels may
be ascertained pretty clearly from his history; but the order in which he visited
each place, and the time of his visit, cannot be determined. The story of his
reading his work at the Olympic Games, on which occasion he is said to have received
universal applause, and to have had the names of the nine Muses given to the nine
books of his history, has been disproved. The story is founded upon a small piece
by Lucian, entitled "Herodotus or Aetion," which apparently was not
intended by the writer himself as an historical truth; and, in addition to this,
Herodotus was only about twentyeight years old when he is said to have read to
the assembled Greeks at Olympia a work which was the result of most extensive
travelling and research, and which bears in every part of it evident marks of
the hand of a man of mature age. The Olympic recitation is not even alluded to
by Plutarch, in his treatise on the "malignity" of Herodotus. Furthermore,
it is certain that the division of his work into books was not known to Herodotus
himself, but was probably due to the Alexandrian grammarians. It is first mentioned
by Diodorus Siculus. At a later period Herodotus read his history, as we are informed
by Plutarch and Eusebius, at the Panathenaean festival at Athens, and the Athenians
are said to have presented him with the sum of ten talents for the manner in which
he had spoken of the deeds of their nation. The account of this second recitation
may be true.
With a simplicity which characterizes his whole work, Herodotus
makes no display of the great extent of his travels. He frequently avoids saying
in express terms that he was at a place, but he uses words which are as conclusive
as any positive statement. He describes a thing as standing behind the door, or
on the right hand as you enter a temple; or he was told something by a person
in a particular place; or he uses other words equally significant. In Africa he
visited Egypt, from the coast of the Mediterranean to Elephantine, the southern
extremity of the country; and he travelled westward as far as Cyrene, and probably
farther. In Asia he visited Tyre, Babylon, Ecbatana, Nineveh, and probably Susa.
He also travelled to various parts of Asia Minor, and probably went as far as
Colchis. In Europe he visited a large part of the country along the Black Sea,
between the mouths of the Danube and the Crimea, and went some distance into the
interior. He seems to have examined the line of the march of Xerxes from the Hellespont
to Attica, and certainly had seen numerous places on this route. He was well acquainted
with Athens, and also with Delphi, Dodona, Olympia, Delos, and many other places
in Greece. That he had visited some parts of Southern Italy is clear from his
work. The mention of these places is sufficient to show that he must have seen
many more. So wide and varied a field of observation has rarely been presented
to a traveller, and still more rarely to any historian of either ancient or modern
times; and, if we cannot affirm that the author undertook his travels with a view
to collecting materials for his great work, a supposition which is far from improbable,
it is certain that, without such advantages, he could never have written it, and
that his travels must have suggested much inquiry, and supplied many valuable
facts, which afterwards found a place in his history.
The nine books of Herodotus contain a great variety of matter,
the unity of which is not perceived till the whole work has been thoroughly examined;
and for this reason, on a first perusal, the history is seldom well understood.
But the subject of that history was conceived by the author both clearly and comprehensively.
His aim was to combine a general history of the Greeks and the barbarians (i.
e. those not Greeks) with the history of the wars between the Greeks and Persians.
Accordingly, in the execution of his main task, he traces the course of events
from the time when the Lydian kingdom of Croesus fell before the arms of Cyrus,
the founder of the Persian monarchy (B.C. 546), to the capture of Sestus (B.C.
478), an event which completed the triumph of the Greeks over the Persians. The
great subject of his work, which is comprised within the space of sixty-eight
years, advances, with a regular progress and truly dramatic development, from
the first weak and divided efforts of the Greeks to resist Asiatic numbers, to
their union as a nation, and their final triumph in the memorable battles of Thermopylae,
Salamis, Plataea, and Mycale. But with this subject, which has a complete unity,
well maintained from its commencement to its close, the author has interwoven,
conformably to his general purpose, and by way of occasional digression, sketches
of the various people and countries which he had visited in his wide-extended
travels. The more one contemplates the difficulty of thus combining a kind of
universal history with a substantial and distinct narrative, the more one must
admire, not so much the art of the historian, as his happy power of bringing together
and arranging his materials, which was the result of the fulness of his information,
the distinctness of his knowledge, and his clear conception of the subject. These
numerous digressions are among the most valuable parts of his work; and, if they
had been omitted or lost, barren indeed would have been modern investigation in
the field of ancient history, over which the labour of this one great writer now
throws a clear and steady light. The anecdotes, also, that sparkle through his
pages are fascinating in their variety and in the illustrations they afford of
the life and manners of the age that he describes.
The style of Herodotus is simple, pleasing, and highly picturesque;
often, indeed, poetical both in expression and sentiment, and bearing evident
marks of belonging to a period when prose composition had not yet become a finished
art. That he was a close student of Homer is evident in every page of the history,
since his phrases and expressions are everywhere coloured by the Homeric influence.
Hence, Dionysius of Halicarnassus calls him Homerou zelotes, and Longinus monos
Homerikotatos. So graceful and winning was his style that Athenaeus describes
him as ho meligerus. His information is apparently the result of his own experience.
In physical knowledge he was somewhat behind the science of even his own day.
He had, no doubt, reflected on political questions; but he seems to have formed
his opinions mainly from what he himself had observed. To pure philosophical speculations
he had no inclination, and there is not a trace of such in his writings. He had
a strong religious feeling bordering on superstition, though even here he clearly
distinguished the gross and absurd from that which was reasonable. He seems to
have viewed the manners and customs of all nations in a more truly philosophical
way than many so-called philosophers, considering them all as various forms of
social existence under which happiness might be found. He treats with respect
the religious observances of every nation; a decisive proof of his great good
sense. Until lately there was a strong tendency to exaggerate the credulity of
Herodotus; but a fuller knowledge of the countries described by him has justified
many of the statements once regarded as absurd. Moreover, a distinction must be
drawn between the things he tells of his own knowledge and those which he merely
relates as having been told him by other persons. The exquisite lines quoted by
Prof. Merriam in his introduction are wonderfully descriptive of the whole tone
and spirit of Herodotus:
"He was a mild old man and cherished much
The weight dark Egypt on his spirit laid;
And with a sinuous eloquence would touch
Forever at that haven of the dead.
Single romantic words by him were thrown
As types on men and places, with a power
Like that of shifting sunlight after shower
Kindling the cones of hills and journeying on.
He feared the gods and heroes and spake low
That Echo might not hear in her light room."
Plutarch accused Herodotus of partiality, and composed a treatise
on what he termed the "spitefulness" of this writer (Peri tes Herodotou
Kakoetheias), taxing him with injustice towards the Thebans, Corinthians, and
Greeks in general; but the whole monograph is weak and frivolous.
Herodotus had planned to write a work on Assyrian history,
but whether or not he ever carried out his intention is not known. A life of Homer
has been commonly ascribed to Herodotus, and appears in some editions of his history;
but it is now deemed spurious.
Manuscripts.--Of forth-six MSS. containing a whole or a portion
of Herodotus, five, which are of superior age and excellence, form the basis of
the accepted text. These represent two "families," to one of which belong
the Codex Florentinus or Mediceus of the Laurentian Library at Florence, dating
from the tenth century, a Codex Romanus of the eleventh century, and a second
Codex Florentinus, also of the eleventh century. To the other family belong a
Codex Parisinus, beautifully written, of the thirteenth century, and a third Codex
Romanus of the fourteenth century, lacking, however, the Fifth Book. Of this,
also, the text of the First Book has been considerably altered, possibly in order
to adapt the work to the use of schools. An account of the MSS. is given by Stein
in his edition mentioned below. Bibliography.--The editio princeps of Herodotus
is that of Aldus (1502). Standard critical editions are those of Schweighauser.
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
Herodotus, (Herodotos). The earliest Greek historian (in the proper sense of the
term), and the father of history, was according to his own statement, at the beginning
of his work, a native of Ilalicarnassus, a Doric colony in Caria, which at the
time of his birth was governed by Artemisia, a vassal queen of the great king
of Persia. Our information respecting the life of Herodotus is extremely scanty,
for besides the meagre and confused article of Suidas, there is only one or two
passages of ancient writers that contain any direct notice of the life and age
of Herodotus, and the rest must be gleaned from his own work. According to Suidas,
Herodotus was the son of Lyxes and Dryo, and belonged to an illustrious family
of Halicarnassus; he had a brother of the name of Theodorus, and the epic poet
Panyasis was a relation of his, being the brother either of his farther or his
mother. (Suid. s. v. Panuasis) Herodotus (viii. 132) mentions with considerable
emphasis one Herodotus, a son of Basilides of Chios, and the manner in which the
historian directs attention to him almost leads us to suppose that this Chian
Herodotus was connected with him in some way or other, but it is possible that
the mere identity of name induced the historian to notice him in that particular
manner.
The birth year of Herodotus is accurately stated by Pamphila (ap.
Gell. xv. 23), a learned woman of the time of the emperor Nero: Herodotus, she
says, was 53 years old at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war; now as this
war broke out in B. C. 431, it follows that Herodotus was born in B. C. 484, or
six years after the battle of Marathon, and four years before the battles of Thermopylae
and Salamis. He could not, therefore, have had a personal knowledge of the great
struggles which he afterwards described, but he saw and spoke with persons who
had taken an active part in them. (ix. 16). That he survived the beginning of
the Peloponnesian war is attested by Pamphila and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Jud.
de Thuc. 5 ; comp. Diod. ii. 32; Euseb. Chron., who however places Herodotus too
early), as well as by Herodotus's own work, as we shall see hereafter. Respecting
his youth and education we are altogether without information, but we have every
reason for believing that he acquired an early and intimate acquaintance with
Homer and other poems, as well as with the works of the logographers, and the
desire one day to distinguish himself in a similar way may have arisen in him
at an early age.
The successor of Artemisia in the kingdom (or tyrannis) of Halicarnassus
was her son Pisindelis, who was succeeded by Lygdamis, in whose reign Panyasis
was killed. Suidas states, that Herodotus, unable to bear the tyranny of Lygdamis,
emigrated to Samos, where he became acquainted with the Ionic dialect, and there
wrote his history. The former part of this statement may be true, for Herodotus
in manny parts of his work shows an intimate acquaintance with the island of Samos
and its inhabitants, and he takes a delight in recording the part they took in
the events he had to relate; but that his history was written at a much later
period will be shown presently. From Samos he is said to have returned to Halicarnassus,
and to have acted a very prominent part in delivering his native city from the
tyranny of Lygdamis; but during the contentions among the citizens, which followed
their liberation, Herodotus, seeing that he was exposed to the hostile attacks
of the (popular ?) party, withdrew again from his native place, and settled at
Thurii, in Italy, where he spent the remainder of his life. The fact of his settling
at Thurii is attested by the unanimous statement of the ancients; but whether
he went thither with the first colonists in B. C. 445, or whether he followed
afterwards, is a disputed point. There is however a passage in his own work (v.
77) from which we must in all probability infer, that in B. C. 431, the year of
the outbreak of the Peloponnesian war, he was at Athens; for it appears from that
passage that he saw the Propylaea, which were not completed till the year in which
that war began, It further appears that he was well acquainted with, and adopted
the principles of policy followed by Pericles and his party which leads us to
the belief that he witnessed the disputes at Athens between Pericles and his opponents,
and we therefore conclude that Herodotus did not go out with the first settlers
to Thurii, but followed them many years after, perhaps about the time of the death
of Pericles. This account is mainly based upon the confused article of Suidas,
who makes no mention of the travels of Herodotus, which must have occupied a considerable
period of his life; but before we consider this point, we shall endeavour to fix
the time and place where he composed his work. According to Lucian (Herod. s.
Act. 1, &c.) he wrote at Halicarnassus, according to Suidas in Samos, and according
to Pliny (H. N. xii. 4.8) at Thurii. These contradictions are rendered still more
perplexing by the statement of Lucian, that Herodotus read his work to the assembled
Greeks at Olympia, with the greatest applause of his hearers, in consequence of
which the nine books of the work were honoured with the names of the nine muses.
It is further stated that young Thucydides was present at this recitation and
was moved to tears. (Lucian, l. c. ; Suid. s. vv. Thoukudes, organ; Marcellinus,
Vit. Thuc. § 54; Phot. Bibl. Cod. 60., Bekk. ; Tzetz. Chil. i. 19.) It should
be remarked that Lucian is the first writer that relates the story, and that the
others repeat it after him. As Thucydides is called a boy at the time when he
heard the recitation, he cannot have been more than about 15 or 16 years of age;
and further, as it is commonly supposed that the Olympic festival at which Thucydides
heard the recitation was that of B. C. 456 (Ol. 81.), Herodotus himself would
have been no more than 32 years old. Now it seems scarcely credible that Herodotus
should have completed his travels and written his work at so early an age. Some
critics therefore have recourse to the supposition, that what he recited at Olympia
was only a sketch or a portion of the work but this is in direct contradiction
to the statement of Lucian, who asserts that he read the whole of the nine books,
which on that occasion received the names of the muses. The work itself contains
numerous allusions which belong to a much later date than the pretended recitation
at Olympia; of these we need only mention the latest, viz. the revolt of the Medes
against Dareius Nothus and the death of Amyrtaeus, events which belong to the
years B. C. 409 and 408. (Herod. i. 130, iii. 15; comp. Dahlmann, Herodot., and
an extract from his work in the Classical Museum, vol. i.) This difficulty again
is got over by the supposition, that Herodotus, who had written his work before
B. C. 456, afterwards revised it and made additions to it during his stay at Thurii.
But this hypothesis is not supported by the slightest evidence ; no ancient writer
knows anything of a first and second edition of the work. Dahlmann has most ably
shown that the reputed recitation at Olympia is a mere invention of Lucian, and
that there are innumerable external circumstances which render such a recitation
utterly impossible: no man could have read or rather chanted such a work as that
of Herodotus, in the open air and in the burning sun of the month of July, not
to mention that of all the assembled Greeks, only a very small number could have
heard the reader. If the story had been known at all in the time of Plutarch,
this writer surely could not have passed it over in silence, where he tells us
of Herodotus having calumniated all the Greeks except the Athenians, who had bribed
him. Heyse, Baehr, and others labour to maintain the credibility of the story
about the Olympic recitation, but their arguments in favour of it are of no weight.
There is one tradition which mentions that Herodotus read his work at the Panathenaea
at Athens in B. C. 445 or 446, and that there existed at Athens a psephisma granting
to the historian a reward of ten talents from the public treasury. (Plut. de Malign.
Herod. 26, on whose authority it is repeated by Eusebius, Chron. p. 169.) This
tradition is not only in contradiction with the time at which he must have written
his work, but is evidently nothing but part and parcel of the charge which the
author of that contemptible treatise makes against Herodotus, viz. that he was
bribed by the Athenians. The source of all this calumnious scandal is nothing
but the petty vanity of the Thebans which was hurt by the truthful description
of their conduct during the war against Persia. Whether there is any more authority
for the statement that Herodotus read his history to the Corinthians, it is not
easy to say; it is mentioned only by Dion Chrysostomus (Orat. xxxvii., ed. Reiske),
and probably has no more foundation than the story of the Olympic or Athenian
recitation. Had Herodotus really read his history before any such assembly, his
work would surely have been noticed by some of those writers who flourished soon
after his time; but such is not the case, and nearly a century elapses after the
time of Herodotus, before he and his work emerge from their obscurity.
As, therefore, these traditions on the one hand do not enable us to
fix the time in which the father of history wrote his work, and cannot, on the
other, have any negative weight, if we should be led to other conclusions, we
shall endeavour to ascertain from the work itself the time which we must assign
for its composition. The history of the Persian war, which forms the main substance
of the whole work, breaks off with the victorious return of the Greek fleet from
the coast of Asia, and the taking of Sestos by the Athenians in B. C. 479. But
numerous events, which belong to a much later period, are alluded to or mentioned
incidentally (see their list in the Classical Museum, l. c.), and the latest of
them refers, as already remarked, to the year B. C. 408, when Herodotus was at
least 77 years old. Hence it follows that, with Pliny, we must believe that Herodotus
wrote his work in his old age during his stay at Thurii, where, according to Suidas,
he also died and was buried,for no one mentions that he ever returned to Greece,
or that he made two editions of his work, as some modern critics assume, who suppose
that at Thurii he revised his work, and among other things introduced those parts
which refer to later events. The whole work makes the impression of a fresh composition;
there is no trace of labour or revision; it has all the appearance of having been
written by a man at an advanced period of his life. Its abrupt termination, and
the fact that the author does not tell us what in an earlier part of his work
he distinctly promises, (e. g. vii. 213), prove almost beyond a doubt that his
work was the production of the last years of his life, and that death prevented
his completing it. Had he not written it at Thurii, he would scarcely have been
called a Thurian or the Thurian historian, a name by which he is sometimes distinguished
by the ancients (Aristot. Rhet. iii. 9; Plut. de Exil. 13, de Malign. Herod. 35;
Strab. xiv.), and from the first two of the passages here referred to it is even
doubtful whether Herodotus called himself a Thurian or a Halicarnassian. There
are lastly some passages in the work itself which must suggest to every unbiassed
reader the idea that the author wrote somewhere in the south of Italy. (See, e.
g. iv. 15, 99, iii. 131, 137, 138, v. 44. &c. vi. 21, 127).
Having thus established the time and place at which Herodotus must
have written his work, we shall proceed to examine the preparations he made for
it, and which must have occupied a considerable period of his life. The most important
part of these preparations consisted in his travels through Greece and foreign
countries, for the purpose of making himself acquainted with the world and with
man, and his customs and manners. We may safely believe that these preparations
occupied the time from his twentieth or twenty-fifth year until he settled at
Rhegium. His work, however, is not an account of travels, but the mature fruit
of his vast personal experience by land and by sea and of his unwearied inquiries
which he made every where. He in fact no where mentions his travels and adventures
except for the purpose of establishing the truth of what he says, and he is so
free from the ordinary vanity of travellers, that instead of acting a prominent
part in his work, he very seldom appears at all in it. Hence it is impossible
for us to give anything like an accurate chronological succession of his travels.
The minute account which Larcher has made up, is little more than a fiction, and
is devoid of all foundation. In Greece Proper and on the coasts of Asia Minor
there is scarcely any place of importance, with which he is not perfectly familiar
from his own observation, and where he did not make inquiries respecting this
or that particular point; we may mention more especially the oracular places such
as Dodona and Delphi. In many places of Greece, such as Samos, Athens, Corinth
and Thebes, he seems to have made a rather long stay. The places where the great
battles had been fought between the Greeks and barbarians, as Marathon, Thermopylae,
Salamis, and Plataeae, were well known to him, and on the whole route which Xerxes
and his army took on their march from the Hellespont to Athens, there was probably
not a place which he had not seen with his own eyes. He also visited most of the
Greek islands, not only in the Aegean, but even those in the west of Greece, such
as Zacynthus. As for his travels in foreign countries, we know that he sailed
through the Hellespont, the Propontis, and crossed the Euxine in both directions;
with the Palus Maeotis he was but imperfectly acquainted, for he asserts that
it is only a little smaller than the Euxine. He further visited Thrace (ii. 103)
and Scythia (iv. 76, 81). The interior of Asia Minor, especially Lydia, is well
known to him, and so is also Phoenicia. He visited Tyre for the special purpose
of obtaining information respecting the worship of Heracles; previous to this
he had been in Egypt, for it was in Egypt that his curiosity respecting Heracles
had been excited. What Herodotus has done for the history of Egypt, surpasses
in importance every thing that was written in ancient times upon that country,
although his account of it forms only an episode in his work. There is no reason
for supposing that he made himself acquainted with the Egyptian language, which
was in fact scarcely necessary on account of the numerous Greek settlers in Egypt,
as well as on account of that large class of persons who made it their business
to act as interpreters between the Egyptians and Greeks; and it appears that Herodotus
was accompanied by one of those interpreters. He travelled to the south of Egypt
as far as Elephantine, everywhere forming connections with the priests, and gathering
information upon the early history of the country and its relations to Greece.
He saw with his own eyes all the wonders of Egypt, and the accuracy of his observations
and descriptions still excites the astonishment of travellers in that country.
The time at which he visited Egypt may be determined with tolerable accuracy.
He was there shortly after the defeat of Inarus by the Persian general Megabyzus,
which happened in B. C. 456; for he saw the battle field still covered with the
bones and skulls of the slain (iii. 12.), so that his visit to Egypt may be ascribed
to about B. C. 450. From Egypt he appears to have made excursions to the east
into Arabia, and to the west into Libya, at least as far as Cyrene, which is well
known to him. (ii. 96.) It is not impossible that he may have even visited Carthage,
at least he speaks of information which he had received from Carthaginians (iv.
43, 195, 196), though it may be also that he conversed with individual Carthaginians
whom he met on his travels. From Egypt he crossed over by sea to Tyre, and visited
Palaestine; that he saw the rivers Euphrates and Tigris and the city of Babylon,
is quite certain (i. 178, &c., 193). From thence he seems to have travelled northward,
for he saw the town of Ecbatana which reminded him of Athens (i. 98). There can
be little doubt that he visited Susa also, but we cannot trace him further into
the interior of Asia. His desire to increase his knowledge by travelling does
not appear to have subsided even in his old age, for it would seem that during
his residence at Thurii he visited several of the Greek settlements in southern
Italy and Sicily, though his knowledge of the west of Europe was very limited,
for lie strangely calls Sardinia the greatest of all islands (i. 170, v. 106,
vi. 2). From what he had collected and seen during his travels, Herodotus was
led to form his peculiar views about the earth, its form, climates, and inhabitants
; but for discussions on this topic we must refer the reader to some of the works
mentioned at the end of this article. Notwithstanding all the wonders and charms
of foreign countries, the beauties of his own native land and its free institutions
appear never to have been effaced from his mind.
A second source from which Herodotus drew his information was the
literature of his country, especially the poetical portion, for prose had not
yet been cultivated very extensively. With the poems of Homer and Hesiod he was
perfectly familiar, though lie attributed less historical importance to them than
might have been expected. He placed them about 400 years before his own time,
and makes the paradoxical assertion, that they had made the theogony of the Greeks,
which cannot mean anything else than that those poets, and more especially Hesiod,
collected the numerous local traditions about the gods, and arranged them in a
certain order and system, which afterwards became established in Greece as national
traditions. He was also acquainted with the poetry of Alcaeus, Sappho, Simonides.
Aeschylus, and Pindar. He further derived assistance from the Arimaspeia, an epic
poem of Aristeas, and from the works of the logographers who had preceded him,
such as Hecataeus, though he worked with perfect independence of them, and occasionally
corrected mistakes which they had committed; but his main sources, after all,
were his own investigations and observations.
The object of the work of Herodotus is to give an account of the struggles
between the Greeks and Persians, from which the former, with the aid of the gods,
came forth victorious. The subject therefore is a truly national one, but the
discussion of it, especially in the early part, led the author into various digressions
and episodes, as he was sometimes obliged to trace to distant times the causes
of the events he had to relate, or to give a history or description of a nation
or country, with which, according to his view, the reader ought to be made familiar;
and havilng once launched out into such a digression, he usually cannot resist
the temptation of telling the whole tale, so that most of his episodes form each
an interesting and complete whole by itself. He traces the enmity between Europe
and Asia to the mythical times. But he rapidly passes over the mythical ages,
to come to Croesus, king of Lydia, who was known to have committed acts of hostility
against the Greeks. This induces him to give a full history of Croesus and the
kingdom of Lydia. The conquest of Lydia by the Persians under Cyrus then leads
him to relate the rise of the Persian monarchy, and the subjugation of Asia Minor
and Babylon. The nations which are mentioned in the course of this narrative are
again discussed more or less minutely. The history of Cambyses and his expedition
into Egypt induce him to enter into the detail of Egyptian history. The expedition
of Dareius against the Scythians causes him to speak of Scythia and the north
of Europe. The kingdom of Persia now extended from Scythia to Cyrene, and an army
being called in by the Cyrenaeans against the Persians, Herodotus proceeds to
give an account of Cyrene and Libya. In the meantime the revolt of the Ionians
breaks out, which eventually brings the contest between Persia and Greece to an
end. An account of this insurrection and of the rise of Athens after the expulsion
of the Peisistratidae, is followed by what properly constitutes the principal
part of the work, and the history of the Persian war now runs in a regular channel
until the taking of Sestos. In this manner alone it was possible for Herodotus
to give a record of the vast treasures of information which he had collected in
the course of many years. But these digressions and episodes do not impair the
plan and unity of the work, for one thread, as it were, runs through the whole,
and the episodes are only like branches that issue from one and the same tree:
each has its peculiar charms and beauties, and is yet manifestly no more than
a part of one great whole. The whole structure of the work thus bears strong resemblance
to a grand epic poem. We remarked above that the work of Herodotus has an abrupt
termination, and is probably incomplete: this opinion is strengthened on the one
hand by the fact, that in one place the author promises to give the particulars
of an occurrence in another part of his work, though the promise is nowhere fulfilled
(vii. 213); and, on the other, by the story that a favourite of the historian,
of the name of Plesirrhous, who inherited all his property, also edited the work
after the author's death. (Ptolem. Heph. ap. Phot. Bibl. Cod. 190.) The division
of the work into nine books, each bearing the name of a muse, was probably made
by some grammarian, for there is no indication in the whole work of the division
having been made by the author himself.
There are two passages (i. 106, 184) in which Herodotus promises to
write a history of Assyria, which was either to form a part of his great work,
or to be an independent treatise by itself. Whether he ever carried his plan into
effect is a question of considerable doubt; no ancient writer mentions such a
work; but Aristotle, in his History of Animals (viii. 20), not only alludes to
it, but seems to have read it, for he mentions the account of the siege of Nineveh,
which is the very thing that Herodotus (i. 184) promises to treat of in his Assyrian
history. It is true that in most MSS. of Aristotle we there read Hesiod instead
of Herodotus, but the context seems to require Herodotus. The life of Homer in
the Ionie dialect, which was formerly attributed to Herodotus, and is printed
at the end of several editions of his work, is now universally acknowledged to
be a production of a later date, though it was undoubtedly written at a comparatively
early period, and contains some valuable information.
It now remains to add a few remarks on the character of the work of
Herodotus, its importance as an historical authority, and its style and language.
The whole work is pervaded by a profoundly religious idea, which distinguishes
Herodotus from all the other Greek historians. This idea is the strong belief
in a divine power existing apart and independent of man and nature, which assigns
to every being its sphere. This sphere no one is allowed to transgress without
disturbing the order which has existed, from the beginning, in the moral world
no less than in the physical; and by disturbing this order man brings about his
own destruction. This divine power is, in the opinion of Herodotus, the cause
of all external events, although he does not deny the free activity of man, or
establish a blind law of fate or necessity. The divine power with him is rather
the manifestation of eternal justice, which keeps all things in a proper equilibrium,
assigns to each being its path, and keeps it within its bounds. Where it punishes
overweaning haughtiness and insolence, it assumes the character of the divine
Nemesis, and nowhere in history had Nemesis overtaken and chastised the offender
more obviously than in the contest between Greece and Asia. When Herodotus speaks
of the envy of the gods, as he often does, we must understand this divine Nemesis,
who appears sooner or later to pursue or destroy him who, in frivolous insolence
and conceit, raises himself above his proper sphere. Herodotus everywhere shows
the most profound reverence for everything which he conceives as divine, and rarely
ventures to express an opinion on what he considers a sacred or religious mystery,
though now and then he cannot refrain from expressing a doubt in regard to the
correctness of the popular belief of his countrymen, generally owing to the influence
which the Egyptian priests had exercised on his mind; but in general his good
sense and sagacity were too strong to allow him to be misled by vulgar notions
and errors.
There are certain prejudices of which some of the best modern critics
are not quite free : one writer asserts, that Herodotus wrote to amuse his hearers
rather than with the higher objects of an historian, such as Thucydides; another
says that he was inordinately partial towards his own countrymen, without possessing
a proper knowledge of and regard for what had been accomplished by barbarians.
To refute such errors, it is only necessary to read his work with an unbiassed
mind : that his work is more amusing than those of other historians arises from
the simple, unaffected, and childlike mode of narration, features which are peculiar
more or less to all early historians. Herodotus further saw and acknowledged what
was good and noble wherever it appeared; for he nowhere shows any hatred of the
Persians, nor of any among the Greeks : he praises and blames the one as well
as the other, whenever, in his judgment, they deserve it. It would be vain indeed
to deny that Herodotus was to a certain extent credulous, and related things without
putting to himself the question as to whether they were possible at all or not;
his political knowledge, and his acquaintance with the laws of nature, were equally
deficient; and owing to these deficiencies, he frequently does not rise above
the rank of a mere story-teller, a title which Aristotle ( De Animal. Gener. iii.
5) bestows upon him. But notwithstanding all this, it is evident that he had formed
a high notion of the dignity of history; and in order to realise his idea, he
exerted all his powers, and cheerfully went through more difficult and laborious
preparations than any other historian either before or after him. The charge of
his having flattered the Athenians was brought against Herodotus by some of the
ancients, but is totally unfounded; he only does justice to the Athenians by saying
that they were the first who had courage and patriotism enough to face the barbarian
invaders (vi. 112), and that thus they became the deliverers of all Greece; but
he is very far from approving their conduct on every occasion; and throughout
his account of the Persian war, he shows the most upright conduct and the sincerest
love of truth. On the whole, in order to form a fair judgment of the historical
value of the work of Herodotus, we must distinguish between those parts in which
he speaks from his own observation, or gives the results of his own investigations,
from those in which he merely repeats what he was told by priests, interpreters,
guides, and the like. In the latter case he undoubtedly was often deceived; but
lie never intrudes such reports as anything more than they really are; and under
the influence of his natural good sense, he very frequently cautions his readers
by some such remark as " I know this only from hearsay," or " I
have been told so, but do not believe it." The same caution should guide
us in his account of the early history of the Greeks, on which he touches only
in episodes, for he is generally satisfied with some one tradition, without entering
into any critical examination or comparison with other traditions, which he silently
rejects. But wherever he speaks from his own observation, Herodotus is a real
model of truthfulness and accuracy; and the more those countries of which he speaks
have been explored by modern travellers, the more firmly has his authority been
established. There is scarcely a traveller that goes to Egypt, the East, or Greece,
that does not bring back a number of facts which place the accuracy of the accounts
of Herodotus in the most brilliant light : many things which used to be laughed
at as impossible or paradoxical, are found to be strictly in accordance with truth.
The dialect in which Herodotus wrote is the Ionic, intermixed with
epic or poetical expressions, and sometimes even with Attic and Doric forms. This
peculiarity of the language called forth a number of lexicographical works of
learned grammarians, all of which are lost with the exception of a few remnants
in the Homeric glosses ( lexeis ). The excellencies of his style do not consist
in any artistic or melodious structure of his sentences, but in the antique and
epic colouring, the transparent clearness, the lively flow of his narrative, the
natural and unaffected gracefulness, and the occasional signs of carelessness.
There is perhaps no work in the whole range of ancient literature which so closely
resembles a familiar and homely oral narration than that of Herodotus. Its reader
cannot help feeling as though he was listening to an old man who, from the inexhaustible
stores of his knowledge and experience, tells his stories with that single-hearted
simplicity and naivecte which are the marks and indications of a truthful spirit.
"That which charms the readers of Herodotus," says Dahlmann, "is
that childlike simplicity of heart which is ever the companion of an incorruptible
love of truth, and that happy and winning style which cannot be attained by any
art or pathetic excitement, and is found only where manners are true to nature;
for while other pleasing discourses of men roll along like torrents, and noisily
hurry through their short existence, the silver stream of his words flows on without
concern, sure of its immortal source, every where pure and transparent, whether
it be shallow or deep; and the fear of ridicule, which sways the whole world,
affects not the sublime simplicity of his mind." We have already had occasion
to remark that notwithstanding all the merits and excellencies of Herodotus, there
were in antiquity certain writers who attacked Herodotus on very serious points,
both in regard to the form and the substance of his work. Besides Ctesias ( Pers.
i. 57.), Aelius Harpocration, Manetho, and one Pollio, are mentioned as authors
of works against Herodotus; but all of them have perished with the exception of
one bearing the name of Plutarch ( Peri tes Herodotou kakoetheias ), which is
full of the most futile accusations of every kind. It is written in a mean and
malignant spirit, and is probably the work of some young rhetorician or sophist,
who composed it as an exercise in polemics or controversy.
Herodotus was first published in a Latin translation by Laurentius
Valla, Venice, 1474; and the first edition of the Greek original is that of Aldus
Manutius, Venice, 1502, fol. which was followed by two Basle editions, in 1541
and 1557, fol. The text is greatly corrected in the edition of H. Stephens (Paris,
1570 and 1592 fol.), which was followed by that of Jungermann, Frankfort, 1608,
fol. (reprinted at Geneva in 1618, and at London in 1679, fol.). The edition of
James Gronovius (Leiden, 1715) has a peculiar value, from his having made use
of the excellent Medicean MS.; but it was greatly surpassed by the edition of
P. Wesseling and L. C. Valckenaer, Amsterdam, 1763, fol. Both the language and
tile matter are there treated with great care; and the learned apparatus of this
edition, with the exception of the notes of Gronovins., was afterwards incorporated
in the edition of Schweighauser, Argentorati et Paris. 1806, 6 vols. in 12 parts
(reprinted in London, 1818, in 6 vols., and the Lexicon Herodoteum of Schweighauser
separately in 1824 and 1841, 8vo.). The editor had compared several new MSS.,
and was thus enabled to give a text greatly superior to that of his predecessors.
The best edition after this is that of Gaisford (Oxford, 1824, 4 vols. 8vo.),
who incorporated in it nearly all the notes of Wesseling, Valckenaer and Schweighauser,
and also made a collation of some English MSS. A reprint of this edition appeared
at Leipzig in 1824, 4 vols. 8vo. The last great edition, in which the subject-matter
also is considered with reference to modern discoveries, is that of Bahr, Leipzig,
1830, &c. 4 vols. 8vo. Among the school editions, we mention those of A. Matthiae,
Leipzig, 1825, 2 vols. 8vo.; G. Long, London, 1830; and 1. Bekker, Berlin, 1833
and 1837, 8vo. Among all the translations of Herodotus, there is none which surpasses
in excellence and fidelity the German of Fr. Lange, Breslau, 1811, &c., 2 vols.
8vo. The works written on IIerodotus, or particular points of his work, are extremely
numerous: a pretty complete account of the modern literature of Herodotus is given
by Bahr in the Neue Jahrbucher fur Philologie und Paedagogik, vol. xli.; but we
shall confine ourselves to mentioning the principal ones among them, viz., J.
Rennell, The Geographical System of Herodotus, London, 1800, 4to, and 1832, 2
vols. 8vo.; B. G. Niebuhr, in his Kleine Philol. Schriften, vol. i.; Dahlmann,
Herodot, ans seinem Buche sein Leben, Altona, 1823, 8vo., one of the best works
that was ever written ; C. G. L. Heyse, De Herodoti Vita et Itineribus, Berlin,
1826, 8vo.; H. F. Jager, Disputationes Herodoteae, Gottingen, 1828, 8vo.; J. Kenrick,
The Egypt of Herodots, with notes and preliminary dissertations, London, 1841,
8vo.; Bahr, Commentatio de Vita et Scriptis Herodoti, in the fourth Avolume of
his edition.)
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
Herodotus' Histories:
the 28 logoi
The Histories are the account of the researches done by the Greek
author Herodotus of Halicarnassus (c.480-c.429). It is an entertaining work of
great variety, dealing with history, ethnology, topography and morality.
In Antiquity, books consisted of papyrus scrolls. Our division of
Herodotus' Histories in nine 'books' goes back to an edition by scholars of the
third century BCE, working in the great library of Alexandria.
There are strong indications that this is not the original division; probably,
Herodotus thought about his oeuvre as a collection of twenty-eight lectures, in
Greek called 'logoi'.
This overview of the contents of Herodotus' Histories is based on
Silvana Cagnazzi's article 'Tavola dei 28 logoi di Erodoto' in the journal Hermes
103 (1975), page 385-423.
Book one
•first logos: the story of Croesus (1.1-94) text: the story of Arion
•second logos: the rise of Cyrus the Great (1.95-140)
•third logos: affairs in Babylonia and Persia
(1.141-216)
Book two
•fourth logos: geography of Egypt
(2.1-34)
•fifth logos: customs and animals of Egypt (2.35-99)
text: Egyptian customs
text: The hippopotamus
text: Mummification
•sixth logos: history of Egypt (2.100-182)
text: The relief of Sesostris
Book three
•seventh logos: Cambyses' conquest of Egypt (3.1-60)
text: The madness of Cambyses
•eighth logos: the coups of the Magians and Darius (3.61-119, 126-141, 150-160)
text: The gold-digging ants
text: The edges of the earth
•ninth logos: affairs on Samos
(3.39-60, 120-125, 142-149)
Book four
•tenth logos: country and customs of the Scythians (4.1-82)
text: The circumnavigation of Africa
•eleventh logos: Persian campaign against the Scythians (4.83-144)
•twelfth logos: Persian conquest of Libya
(4.145-205)
Book five
•thirteenth logos: Persian conquest of Thrace
(5.1-28)
•fourteenth logos: beginning of the Ionian revolt; affairs in Sparta
(5.28-55)
•fifteenth logos: affairs in Athens
(5.55-96)
•sixteenth logos: Ionian revolt (5.97-126)
Book six
•seventeenth logos: Persian reconquest of Ionia
(6.1-42)
•eighteenth logos: affairs in Greece
(6.43-93)
•nineteenth logos: battle of Marathon
(6.94-140)
Book seven
•twentieth logos: Persian preparations (7.1-55)
text: Xerxes' ancestors
text: Xerxes' canal through the Athos
text: Xerxes in Abydos
twenty-first logos: the Persians cross to Europe (7.56-137)
•twenty-second logos: battle of Thermopylae
(7.138-239)
text: Greek spies at Marathon
Book eight
•twenty-third logos: naval battle off Artemisium
(8.1-39)
•twenty-fourth logos: naval battle off Salamis
(8.40-96)
•twenty-fifth logos: winter (8.97-144)
Book nine
•twenty-sixth logos: battle of Plataea
(9.1-89)
•twenty-seventh logos: liberation of Ionia
(9.90-113)
•twenty-eighth logos: foundation of the Athenian empire (9.114-122)
Jona Lendering, ed.
This extract is cited July 2003 from the Livius Ancient History Website URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks.
Jar with Authors and Muses (It has been suggested the man is the historian Herodotus of Halicarnassus facing his Muse). Collection: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
Editor’s Information
The e-texts of the works by Herodotus are found in Greece (ancient country) under the category Ancient Greek Writings.
Dionysius. Halicarnassensis or Halicarnasseus, an historian and critic,
born at Halicarnassus in the first century B.C. We know nothing of his history
beyond what he has told us himself. He states that he came to Italy at the termination
of the civil war between Augustus and Antony (B.C. 29), and that he spent the
following two-and-twenty years at Rome in learning the Latin language and in collecting
materials for his history. He died at Rome, B.C. 7. The principal work of Dionysius
is his work on Roman antiquities (Rhomaike Archaiologia), which commenced with
the early history of the people of Italy and terminated with the beginning of
the First Punic War, B.C. 265. It originally consisted of twenty books, of which
the first ten remain entire. The eleventh breaks off in the year B.C. 312, but
several fragments of the latter half of the history are preserved in the collection
of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, and to these a valuable addition was made in 1816,
by Mai, from an old MS. Besides, the first three books of Appian were founded
entirely upon Dionysius, and Plutarch's biography of Camillus must also be considered
as a compilation mostly taken from the Antiquitates Romanae, so that perhaps,
upon the whole, we have not lost much of his work. The intention of the author
in writing his history was to give the Greeks a more accurate and favourable idea
than they had hitherto entertained of the Roman people and its civilization, for
it had always fretted the Easterns to have been conquered by a race of mere "barbarians."
The work is founded upon a very careful and thorough study of authorities, and
is one of our chief sources of information upon ancient Roman history in its internal
and external development. Good editions of the Antiquitates are those of Reiske,
6 vols. (Leipzig, 1774-76), Schwartz (Leipzig, 1877), and Jacoby 2 vols. (1885-88).
The first edition in the original Greek was that of R. Stephanus (Paris, 1546).
Dionysius also wrote a treatise on rhetoric (Techne Retorike);
criticisms (Ton Archaion Krisis) on the style of Thucydides, Lysias, Isocrates,
Isaeus, Dinarchus, Plato, and Demosthenes; a treatise on the arrangement of words
(Peri Suntheseos Onomaton); and some other short essays. The first complete edition
of the entire works of Dionysius was that of Sylburg (Frankfort, 1586; reprinted
at Leipzig, 1691). More recent editors of the rhetorical works are Gros (Paris,
1826) and Westermann.
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
Of Halicarnassus, the most celebrated among the ancient writers of the name of
Dionysius. He was the son of one Alexander of Halicarnassus, and was born, according
to the calculation of Dodwell, between B. C. 78 and 54. Strabo (xiv.) calls him
his own contemporary. His death took place soon after B. C. 7, the year in which
he completed and published his great work on the history of Rome. Respecting his
parents and education we know nothing, nor any thing about his position in his
native place before he emigrated to Rome; though some have inferred from his work
on rhetoric, that he enjoyed a great reputation at Halicarnassus. All that we
know for certain is, the information which he himself gives us in the introduction
to his history of Rome (i. 7), and a few more particulars which we may glean from
his other works. According to his own account, he went to Italy immediately after
the termination of the civil wars, about the middle of 0l. 187, that is, B. C.
29. Henceforth he remained at Rome, and the twenty-two years which followed his
arrival at Rome were mainly spent by him in making himself acquainted with the
Latin language and literature, and in collecting materials for his great work
on Roman history, called Archaeologia. We may assume that, like other rhetoricians
of the time, he had commenced his career as a teacher of rhetoric at Halicarnassus;
and his works bear strong evidence of his having been similarly occupied at Rome.
(De Comp. Verb. 20, Rhetor. 10.) There he lived on terms of friendship with many
distinguished men, such as Q. Aelius Tubero, and the rhetorician Caecilius; and
it is not improbable that he may have received the Roman franchise, but his Roman
name is not mentioned anywhere. Respecting the little we know about Dionysius,
see F. Matthai, de Dionysio Halic., Wittenberg, 1779, 4to.; Dodwell, de A elate
Dionys. in Reiske's edition of Dionysius, vol. i.; and more especially C. J. Weismann,
de Dionysii Halic. Vita et Script., Rinteln, 1837, 4to., and Busse, de Dionys.
Hal. Vita et Ingenio, Berlin, 1841, 4to.
All the works of Dionysius, some of which are completely lost, must
be divided into two classes: the first contains his rhetorical and critical treatises,
all of which probably belong to an earlier period of his life--perhaps to the
first years of his residence at Rome--than his historical works, which constitute
the second class.
a. Rhetorical and Critical Works.-- All the productions of this class shew that
Dionysius was not only a rhetorician of the first order, but also a most excellent
critic in the highest and best sense of the term. They abound in the most exquisite
remarks and criticisms on the works of the classical writers of Greece, although,
at the same time, they are not without their faults, among which we may notice
his hypercritical severity. But we have to remember that they were the productions
of an early age, in which the want of a sound philosophy and of a comprehensive
knowledge, and a partiality for or against certain writers led him to express
opinions which at a maturer age he undoubtedly regretted. Still, however this
may be, he always evinces a well-founded contempt for the shallow sophistries
of ordinary rhetoricians, and strives instead to make rhetoric something practically
useful, and by his criticisms to contribute towards elevating and ennobling the
minds of his readers. The following works of this class are still extant: 1. Techne
rhetorike addressed to one Echecrates. The present condition of this work is by
no means calculated to give us a correct idea of his merits and of his views on
the subject of rhetoric. It consists of twelve, or according to another division,
of eleven chapters, which have no internal connexion whatever, and have the appearance
of being put together merely by accident. The treatise is therefore generally
looked upon as a collection of rhetorical essays by different authors, some of
which are genuine productions of Dionysius, who is expressly stated by Quintilian
(iii. 1.16) to have written a manual of rhetoric. Schott, the last learned editor
of this work, divides it into four sections. Chap. 1 to 7, with the exclusion
of the 6th, which is certainly spurious, may be entitled peri panegurikon, and
contains some incoherent comments upon epideictic oratory, which are anything
but in accordance with the known views of Dionysius as developed in other treatises;
in addition to which, Nicostratus, a rhetorician of the age of Aelius Aristeides,
is mentioned in chap. 2. Chapters 8 and 9, peri eochematismenon, treat on the
same subject, and chap. 8 may be the production of Dionysius; whereas the 9th
certainly belongs to a late rhetorician. Chapter 10, peri ton en meletais plemmeloumenon,
is a very valuable treatise, and probably the work of Dionysius. The 11th chapter
is only a further development of the 10th, just as the 9th chapter is of the 8th.
The techne rhetorike is edited separately with very valuable prolegomena and notes
by H. A. Schott, Leipzig, 1804, 8vo. 2. Peri suntheseos onomaton, addressed to
Rufus Melitius, the son of a friend of Dionysius, was probably written in the
first year or years of his residence at Rome, and at all events previous to any
of the other works still extant. It is, however, notwithstanding this, one of
high excellence. In it the author treats of oratorical power, and on the combination
of words according to the different species and styles of oratory. There are two
very good separate editions of this treatise, one by G. H. Schaefer (Leipzig,
1809, 8vo), and the other by F. Goller (Jena, 1815, 8vo), in which the text is
considerably improved from MSS. 3. Peri mimeseos, addressed to a Greek of the
name of Demetrius. Its proper title appears to have been hupounematismoi peri
tms mimeseos. (Dionys. Jud. de Thuc. 1, Epist. ad Pomp. 3.) The work as a whole
is lost, and what we possess under the title of ton archaion kriois is probably
nothing but a sort of epitome containing characteristics of poets, from Homer
down to Euripides, of some historians, such as Herodotus, Thucydides, Philistus,
Xenophon, and Theopompus, and lastly, of some philosophers and orators. This epitome
is printed separately in Frotscher's edition of the tenth book of Quintilian (Leipzig,
1826), who mainly follows the opinions of Dionysius. 4. Peri ton archaion rhetoron
hupomnematismoi, addressed to Ammaeus, contains criticisms on the most eminent
Greek orators and historians, and the author points out their excellences as well
as their defects, with a view to promote a wise imitation of the classic models,
and thus to preserve a pure taste in those branches of literature. The work originally
consisted of six sections, of which we now possess only the first three, on Lysias,
Isocrates, and Isaeus. The other sections treated of Demosthenes, Hyperides, and
Aeschines; but we have only the first part of the fourth section, which treats
of the oratorical power of Demosthenes, and his superiority over other orators.
This part is known under the title peri lektikes Demosthenous deinotetos, which
has become current ever since the time of Sylburg, though it is not found in any
MS. The beginning of the treatise is mutilated, and the concluding part of it
is entirely wanting. Whether Dionysius actually wrote on Hyperides and Aeschines,
is not known; for in these, as in other instances, he may have intended and promised
to write what he could not afterwards fulfil either from want of leisure or inclination.
There is a very excellent German translation of the part relating to Demosthenes,
with a valuable dissertation on Dionysius as an aesthetic critic, by A. G. Becker.
(Wolfenbiittel and Leipzig, 1829, 8vo.) 5. A treatise addressed to Ammaeus, entitled
Hepistole pros Ammaion prote, which title, however, does not occur in MSS., and
instead of prote it ought to be called epistole deutepa. This treatise or epistle,
in which the author shews that most of the orations of Demosthenes had been delivered
before Aristotle wrote his Rhetoric, and that consequently Demosthenes had derived
no instruction from Aristotle, is of great importance for the history and criticism
of the works of Demosthenes. 6. Epistole pros Gnaion Pomteion, was written by
Dionysius with a view to justify the unfavourable opinion which he had expressed
upon Plato, and which Pompeius had censured. The latter part of this treatise
is much mutilated, and did not perhaps originally belong to it. See Vitus Loers,
de Dionys. Hal. judicio de Platonis oratione et genere dicendi, Treves, 1840,
4to. 7. Peri tou Thoukudidou chapaktepos kai ton loipon tou sungrapheos idiomaton,
was written by Dionysius at the request of his friend Q. Aelius Tubero, for the
purpose of explaining more minutely what he had written on Thucydides. As Dionysius
in this work looks at the great historian from his rhetorical point of view, his
judgment is often unjust and incorrect. 8. Peri ton tou Thoukudidou idiomaton,
is addressed to Ammaeus. The last three treatises are printed in a very good edition
by C. G. Kruger under the title Dionysii Historiographica, i. e. Epistolae ad
Cn. Pomp., Q. Ael. Tuber. et Ammaeum, Halle, 1823, 8vo. The last of the writings
of this class still extant is--9. Deinapchos, avery valuable treatise on the life
and orations of Deinarchus. Besides these works Dionysius himself mentions some
others, a few of which are lost, while others were perhaps never written; though
at the time he mentioned them, Dionysius undoubtedly intended to compose them.
Among the former we may mention charakteres ton harmonion (Dionys. de Compos.
Verb. 11), of which a few fragments are still extant, and Pragmateia huper tes
politikms philosophias pros tous katatrechontas autes adikos. (Dionys. Jud. de
Thuc. 2.) A few other works, such as "on the orations unjustly attributed to Lysias"
(Lys. 14), "on the tropical expressions in Plato and Demosthenes " (Dem.
32), and peri tes ekloges ton onomaton (de Comp. Verb. 1), were probably never
written, as no ancient writer besides Dionysius himself makes any mention of them.
The work peri hermeneias, which is extant under the name of Demetrius Phalereus,
is attributed by some to Dionysius of Halicarnassus; but there is no evidence
for this hypothesis, any more than there is for ascribing to him the Bios Homerou
which is printed in Gale's Opuscula Mythologica.
b. Historical Works.--In this class of compositions, to which Dionysius appears
to have devoted his later years, he was less successful than in his critical and
rhetorical essays, inasmuch as we everywhere find the rhetorician gaining the
ascendancy over the historian. The following historical works of his are known:
1. Chronoi or chronika (Clem. Alex. Strom. i.; Suid. s. v. Dionusios; Dionys.
A. R. i. 74.) This work, which is lost, probably contained chronological investigations,
though not concerning Roman history. Photius (Bibl. Cod. 84) mentions an abridgment
(sunopsis) in five books, and Stephanus of Byzantium (s. vv. Arikeia and Korialla)
quotes the same under the name of epitome. This abridgment, in all probability
of the chronoi, was undoubtedly the work of a late grammarian, and not, as some
have thought, of Dionysius himself. The great historical work of Dionysius, of
which we still possess a considerable portion, is -- 2. Hpomaike Archaiologia,
which Photius (Bibl. Cod. 83) styles histopikoi ligoi. It consisted of twenty
books, and contained the history of Rome from the earliest or mythical times down
to the year B. C. 264, in which the history of Polybius begins with the Punic
wars. The first nine books alone are complete; of the tenth and eleventh we have
only the greater part; and of the remaining nine we possess nothing but fragments
and extracts, which were contained in the collections made at the command of the
emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, and were first published by A. Mai from a
MS. in the library of Milan (1816, 4to.), and reprinted at Frankfurt, 1817, 8vo.
Mai at first believed that these extracts were the abridgment of which Photius
(Bibl. Cod. 84) speaks; but this opinion met with such strong opposition from
Ciampi (Biblioth. Ital. viii.), Visconti (Journal des Savans, for June, 1817),
and Struve (Ueber die von Mai aufgefund Stucke des Dionys. von Halic. Konigsberg,
1820, 8vo.), that Mai, when he reprinted the extracts in his Script. Vet. Nova
Collectio (ii., ed. Rome, 1827), felt obliged in his preface to recant his former
opinion, and to agree with his critics in admitting that the extracts were remnants
of the extracts of Constantine Porphyrogenitus from the Hpomaike Archaiologia.
Dionysius treated the early history of Rome with a minuteness which raises a suspicion
as to his judgment on historical and mythical matters, and the eleven books extant
do not carry the history beyond the year B. C. 441, so that the eleventh book
breaks off very soon after the decemviral legislation. This peculiar minuteness
in the early history, however, was in a great measure the consequence of the object
he had proposed to himself, and which, as he himself states. was to remove the
erroneous notions which the Greeks entertained with regard to Rome's greatness
and to shew that Rome had not become great by accident or mere good fortune, but
by the virtue and wisdom of the Romans themselves. With this object in view, he
discusses most carefully everything relating to the constitution, the religion,
the history, laws, and private life of the Romans; and his work is for this reason
one of the greatest importance to the student of Roman history, at least so far
as the substance of his discussions is concerned. But the manner in which he dealt
with his materials cannot always be approved of: he is unable to draw a clear
distinction between a mere mythus and history; and where he perceives inconsistencies
in the former, he attempts, by a rationalistic mode of proceeding, to reduce it
to what appears to him sober history. It is however a groundless assertion, which
some critics have made, that Dionysius invented facts, and thus introduced direct
forgeries into history. He had, moreover, no clear notions about the early constitution
of Rome, and was led astray by the nature of the institutions which he saw in
his own day; and he thus transferred to the early times the notions which he had
derived from the actual state of things--a process by which he became involved
in inextricable difficulties and contradictions. The numerous speeches which he
introduces in his work are indeed written with great artistic skill, but they
nevertheless shew too manifestly that Dionysius was a rhetorician, not an historian,
and still less a statesman. He used all the authors who had written before him
on the early history of Rome, but he did not always exercise a proper discretion
in choosing his guides, and we often find him following authorities of an inferior
class in preference to better and sounder ones. Notwithstanding all this, however,
Dionysius contains an inexhaustible treasure of materials for those who know how
to make use of them. The style of Dionysius is very good, and, with a few exceptions,
his language may be called perfectly pure.
The first work of Dionysius which appeared in print was his Archaeologia,
in a Latin translation by Lapus Biragus (Treviso, 1480), from a very good Roman
MS. New editions of this translation, with corrections by Glareanus, appeared
at Basel, 1532 and 1549; whereupon R. Stephens first edited the Greek original,
Paris, 1546, fol., together with some of the rhetorical works. The first complete
edition of the Archaeologia and the rhetorical works together, is that of Fr.
Sylburg, Frankfurt, 1586, 2 vols. fol. (reprinted at Leipzig, 1691, 2 vols. fol.)
Another reprint, with the introduction of a few alterations, was edited by Hudson,
(Oxford, 1704, 2 vols. fol.) which however is a very inferior performance. A new
and much improved edition, though with many bad and arbitrary emendations, was
made by J. J. Reiske, (Leipzig, 1774, &c.) in 6 vols. 8vo., the last of which
was edited by Morus. All the rhetorical works, with the exception of the techne
rhetorike and the peri suntheseos onomaton, were edited by E. Gros, (Paris, 1826,
&c.) in 3 vols. 8vo. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. iv.; Westermann, Gesch. d. Griech.
Beredts.)
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
Rhetorica. . .In the time of the Empire the rhetorical schools in general flourished, and we possess an extensive rhetorical literature of that age reaching as far as the fifth century A.D. It includes the works of authors who mainly treated of the literary and aesthetic side of rhetoric, especially those of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the champion of Atticism and of refined taste, and the unknown author of the able treatise.
This extract is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Oct 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Andron, of Halicarnassus, a Greek historian, who is mentioned by Plutarch (Thes.c. 25) in conjunction with Hellanicus. (Comp. Tzetzes, ad Lycophr. 894, 1283; Schol. ad Aesch. Pers. 183)
EFESSOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
Alexander Cornelius (Alexandros Kornelios), surnamed Polyhistor (Poluistor), a
Greek writer and contemporary of Sulla. According to Suidas he was a native of
Ephesus and a pupil of Crates, and during the war of Sulla in Greece was made
prisoner and sold as a slave to Cornelius Lentulus, who took him to Rome and made
him the paedagogus of his children. Afterwards Lentulus restored him to freedom.
From Suidas it would seem as if he had received the gentile name Cornelius from
Lentulus, while Servius (ad Aen. x. 388) says, that he received the Roman franchise
from L. Cornelius Sulla. He died at Laurentumin a fire which consumed his house,
and as soon as his wife heard of the calanity, she hung herself. The statement
of Suidas that he was a native of Ephesus is contradicted by Stephanus Byzantius
(s. v. Kotiaeon), who says that he was a native of Cotiaeum in Lesser Phrygia,
and a son of Asclepiades, and who is borne out by the Etymologicum Magnum (s.
vv. dedoika and terirredes), where Alexander is called Kotiaeus. The surname of
Polyhistor was given to him on account of his prodigious learning. He is said
to have written innumerable works, but the greatest and most important among them
was one consisting of 42 books, which Stephanus Byzantius calls Pantodapes Hules
Dogoi. This work appears to have contained historical and geographical accounts
of nearly all countries of the ancient world. Each of the forty books treated
of a separate country, and bore a corresponding title, such as Phrygiaca, Carica,
Lyciaca, &c. But such titles are not always sure indications of a book forming
only a part of the great work; and in some cases it is manifest that particular
countries were treated of in separate works. Thus we find mention of the first
book of a separate work on Crete (Schol. ad Apollon. Rhod. iv. 1492), and of another
on the " Tractus Illyricus" (Val. Max. viii. 13, ext. 7). These geographico-historical
works are referred to in innumerable passages of Stephanus Byzantius and Pliny.
A separate work on the Phrygians musicians is mentioned by Plutarch (De Mus. 5),
and there is every probability that Alexander Polyhistor is also the author of
the work Diadochai Philosophon which seems to be the groundwork of Diogenes Laertius.
A work on the symbols of the Pythagoreans is mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus
(Strom. i.) and Cyrillus (adv. Julian. ix.). He also wrote a history of Judaea,
of which a considerable fragment is preserved in Eusebius. A history of Rome in
five books is mentioned by Suidas, and a few fragments of it are preserved in
Servius. A complete list of all the known titles of the works of Alexander Polyhistor
is given in Vossius, De Hist. Graec.
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
KNIDOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
Aratus (Aratos), of Cnidus, the author of a history of Egypt. (Anonym. Vit. Arat.)
Aretades, of Cnidus, of uncertain date, wrote a work on Macedonian affairs (Makedonika) in three books at least, and another on the history of islands (nesiotika) in two books at least. (Plut. Parall. 11, 27.) It is uncertain whether the Aretades referred to by Porphyry (ap. Euseb. Praep. Ev. x. 3), as the author of a work Peri sunemptoseos, is the same as the above or not.
Ctesias (Ktesias). A Greek historian, born in Cnidus in Caria, and a contemporary of Xenophon. He belonged to the family of the Asclepiadae at Cnidus. In B.C. 416, he went to the Persian court, and became private physician to King Artaxerxes Mnemon. In this capacity he accompanied the king on his expedition against his brother Cyrus, and cured him of the wound which he received in the battle of Cunaxa, B.C. 401. In 399, he returned to his native city, and worked up the valuable material which he had collected during his residence in Persia, partly from his own observation and partly from his study of the royal archives, into a History of Persia (Persika), in twenty-three books. The work was written in the Ionic dialect. The first six books treated the history of Assyria, the remaining ones that of Persia from the earliest times to events within his own experience. Ctesias's work was much used by the ancient historians, though he was censured as untrustworthy and indifferent to truth--a charge which may be due to the fact that he followed Persian authorities, and thus often differed, to the disadvantage of the Greeks, from the version of facts current among his conntrymen. Only fragments and extracts of the book survive, and part of an abridgment in Photius (Cod. 72). The same is true of his Indika, or notices of the researches which he had made in Persia on the geography and productions of India.
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
Ctesias. Greek physician who stayed at the court of the Persian king Artaxerxes
II Mnemon from 404 to 398/397. Ctesias wrote several books about Persia
and India. These books are
now lost but were quoted by ancient authors; consequently, we are able to judge
their value as history (low) and as works of art (entertaining).
Life
The Suda, a tenth century Byzantine dictionary that contains much information
about ancient authors, writes about Ctesias:
He was the son of Ctesiarchus or Ctesiochus, from Cnidus. As a physician, he
cared -in Persia- for Artaxerxes Mnemon, who had ordered him to come. He composed
a History of the Persians in twenty-four books.
All sources agree that Ctesias was born in the Carian town Cnidus,
a town in the extreme southwest of modern Turkey.
In Antiquity, Cnidus was well-known for its doctors, which were called Asclepiads.
It is likely that Ctesias was indeed a physician: he quotes other doctors and
delights in the description of wounds.
It is certain that Ctesias came to Persia as a prisoner of war, but
it is unclear when he was taken captive. Some ancient and modern scholars have
assumed that he took part in the campaign of prince Cyrus the Younger against
his brother, king Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404-359), in 401 BCE. There is something
to be said for this solution of the problem. There were many Greek mercenaries
in Cyrus' company, and although they defeated Artaxerxes' army at Cunaxa near
Babylon, many were taken
captive when Cyrus died. It is certain that Ctesias was present at Cunaxa, but
when we read his narrative of the battle, it is clear that Ctesias was already
Artexerxes' court physician.
Another argument against the theory that Ctesias was taken prisoner
at Cunaxa, is that it forces us to assume that Ctesias stayed only six or seven
years at the Persian court. His History of the Persians breaks off in 398/397,
and Ctesias claims that he had by then served as court physician for seventeen
years. When we accept that Ctesias came to Artaxerxes' court during teh Cunaxa
campaign, we must read 'seven' instead of 'seventeen'; this is not impossible
-exaggeration is one Ctesias' favorite games- but it is poor method.
Fortunately, there is an alternative. In 420, Pissuthnes, the satrap
of Lydia revolted against
king Darius II Nothus (423-404). The Persian commander Tissaphernes was able to
incite a rebellion under Pissuthnes' Greek mercenaries and Pissuthnes was executed.
(Ctesias described this rebellion in book eighteen of the History of the Persians.)
In 414, Pissuthnes' son Amorges rebelled; he was supported by the Carians and
the Athenians. It is plausible that Tissaphernes took Ctesias of Cnidus captive
when Amorges' rebellion was suppressed. (If Ctesias was captured in 414, we may
assume that he was born between 444 and 434.)
Ctesias was a respected physician, but it is uncertain whether he
served at Persepolis immediately
after his capture. The fragments we possess do not show intimate knowledge of
the royal court of Darius II; he may have stayed at Tissaphernes' court. On the
other hand, the discovery of one scrap of papyrus containing a hitherto unknown
chapter of Ctesias' History of the Persians, can change our view. In any case,
it was certainly not uncommon for Greek doctors to become court physician in Persia.
The Greek researcher Herodotus of Halicarnassus
(c.480-c.429) tells us the story of a prisoner of war named Democedes of Croton,
who cured king Darius the Great.
In 412, Ctesias' hometown Cnidus left the Athenian, anti-Persian alliance.
This was an important event, because it offered the Persians a new naval base
in the Aegean sea. It is likely that this incident played a role in Ctesias' life,
but we do not know how. When we assume that he was already present at the Persian
court, the royal physician may have played a role in the negotiations which led
to the defection of Cnidus. When we assume that he served in a lower position,
the Cnidian rebellion enabled him to move upward in the Persian hierarchy.
What is certain, is that Ctesias was already Artaxerxes' personal
physician when the latter became king in the spring of 404. As we have already
seen above, Artaxerxes' brother Cyrus the Younger marched to Babylonia with an
army of Greek mercenaries; Cyrus' men defeated Artaxerxes' army at Cunaxa, but
their master was killed in action (autumn 401). It is certain that Ctesias was
present at Cunaxa and cured his king's wounds. Later, he played a role in the
negotiations between the Greek mercenaries and the Persians.
As we have already seen, Athens had been the leader of an anti-Persian
alliance. In 431, war had broken out between Athens
and a coalition of Greek towns led by Sparta.
After the revolt of Amorges, which Athens had supported, the Persians had started
to pay the Spartans, who built a navy and were able to defeat Athens
in 405. The Persians were unpleasantly surprised when the Spartans turned against
their ally: they supported Cyrus the Younger in 401 and their general Thibron
invaded Asia in 400. Ctesias was to play a crucial role in the Persian counter-offensive.
The satrap of Persia's territories in northwest Turkey,
Pharnabazus, had suffered from Spartan aggression and understood that it was important
to check Spartan power. Euagoras, the king of Salamis
on Cyprus, had his own reasons to fear the Spartan navy. Consequently, he wanted
to build a strong fleet to attack Sparta
at home; he had already found an Athenian admiral, Conon. What was lacking, was
money, which could be obtained in Persia. Ctesias conducted the negotiations in
398/397; Artaxerxes ordered money to be sent and a fleet to be built. In August
394, the Spartans were decisively defeated off Cnidus.
By then, Ctesias had returned to his home town; he may have witnessed
Conon's victory. It is likely that he started to write his History of the Persians
after his return. Other works were the History of India (to which On the Asian
tributes probably was an appendix), and a medical treatise. Three other books
were called Periodos, 'description of the earth'. The existence of two books On
mountains and a publication On rivers is disputed.
It is unknown when Ctesias died, but we can make an educated guess.
We already saw that he was probably captured in 414 (above) and from this, we
deduced a year of birth between 444 and 434. In Antiquity, someone who reached
the age of forty (more or less Ctesias' age in 398), had a fair chance to reach
the age of seventy as well; this results in a year of death between 374 and 364.
History of the Persians
Ctesias' History of the Persians is a strange work. The author claims
that he will correct many of the untrue ideas of the Greeks and blames the Greek
researcher Herodotus of Halicarnassus
(c.480-c.429) for telling many lies. Because Ctesias spent seventeen years in
Persia, was court physician and served as diplomat, we might expect him to be
a position to keep his promises and to write a truly reliable history of the Achaemenid
empire. However, this is not what Ctesias has done. Few ancient authors are so
unreliable as Ctesias.
However, in Antiquity, it was considered an important study. The Athenian
orator Isocrates and the philosopher Plato knew Ctesias' work and the Macedonian
philosopher Aristotle had read his description of the legendary Assyrian king
Sardanapalus. Only when the Christian historian Orosius (fifth century) wrote
his Seven books of history against the pagans, there was an alternative history
of the ancient Near East, and was Ctesias forgotten. We know the History of the
Persians from an ancient reworking (by Diodorus of Sicily)
and a Byzantine excerpt (by the ninth-century patriarch of Constantinople,
Photius).
The History of the Persians starts with three books of Assyrian history.
They follow Herodotus' conception of Near-Eastern history: no distinction is made
between the Assyrian and Babylonian history. Almost all the subject matter of
these books is legendary. Then, we read three books about the history of the Medes.
Again, Ctesias is inspired by Herodotus, who also believed that there had been
a long period in which the Medes ruled a vast Asian empire. What Ctesias has to
tell about the Median monarchy, is entirely fictional.
Books seven, eight and nine deal with the beginning of the reign of
the Persian king Cyrus the Great (559-530 BCE). From what we know of Ctesias'
work, he did not describe Cyrus' greatest deed: the capture of Babylon.
This is unlikely to be a result of the poor transmission of Ctesias' work: Photius'
excerpt may be somewhat unbalanced, but it does not omit important events. The
next three books describe Cyrus' wars against the Indians, and his death in battle.
Here Ctesias is following a tradition that was unknown to Herodotus: in the first
book of his Histories, he writes that Cyrus died during a war against the Massagetes.
Taken together, the five books on Cyrus are a kind of vie romancee, comparable
to the Education of Cyrus by Ctesias' contemporary Xenophon (c.430-c.355). Probably,
Xenophon copied Ctesias, not the other way round.
Both historians agree that Cyrus was succeeded by Cambyses, to whose
reign (530-522) Ctesias devotes the twelfth book. For once, Ctesias seems to offer
reliable information: he writes that Cambyses conquered Egypt
because the Egyptians were betrayed. This is correct, but it is probably a lucky
incident: Ctesias does not even know the name of the traitor or his monarch.
Book thirteen, fourteen and fifteen are dedicated to the coup of the
Magian in 522, to the counter-coup of Darius the Great, to his reign (522-486)
and to the reign of his son Xerxes (486-465). Although Ctesias adds some details
and has changed the names of the actors, his story is essentially that of Herodotus.
This can clearly be seen at the end: he knows the details of the first seven of
eight years of Xerxes' reign -which he could have found in Herodotus- and then
jumps to Xerxes' death. Another remarkable aspect is that Ctesias knows the name
of important eunuchs. It is possible that Ctesias, himself a courtier, based his
History of the Persians on what he heard from courtiers, who were especially interested
in court history.
The next three books are dedicated to the reigns of Artaxerxes I and
Darius II (464-424 and 423-405). It included the stories of the revolt of a general
named Megabyzus and the brief interregnum of Xerxes II and Sogdianus, for which
Ctesias is our only source.
The first years of king Artaxerxes II is the subject of the next three
books. The story focuses on the attempt of Artaxerxes' brother Cyrus the Younger
to seize the Persian throne, which culminated in the battle at Cunaxa (autumn
401). This part of Ctesias' work is relatively well-known, because it is quoted
at great length by the Greek author Plutarch of Chaeronea, who wrote a biography
of Artaxerxes.
The last book tells how Artaxerxes sent Ctesias to the west, where
he had to conduct negotiations. The History of the Persians breaks off in 398/397,
the year in which Ctesias returned to Cnidus.
It is a strange book. Ctesias makes strange mistakes (for example,
he thinks that Nineveh is situated on the boards of the Euphrates). Unfortunately,
he is one of our most important sources for the Achaemenid empire between Xerxes'
expedition to Greece (480-479) and the revenge of the Greeks and the Macedonian
king Alexander the Great (336-323).
History of India
To understand Ctesias' History of India, we must know what he meant
with the word 'history'. This is not history in our sense, but simply means 'research'.
What Ctesias offers is therefore not a story about the past, but the result of
an inquiry. In Persia, he
heard stories from officials who had visited the country along the river Indus
(modern Pakistan); these officials, Ctesias must have interviewed. Therefore:
history.
As far as we can deduce from Photius' summary, there is no system
in Ctesias' book: everything is put together.It is therefore easy to understand
the judgment of the ancient literary critic Dionysus of Halicarnassus, who states
that the works of Ctesias were 'entertaining but badly composed' (On composition
10).
India is pictured as if it is 'the big other': everything is different
from Greece, it is a country without past (therefore: no history in our sense)
and without individuals (at least not in Photius' epitome). Ctesias' India is
just a foreign culture, with the stress on foreign. His information is, not surprisingly,
highly unreliable: when he had heard a strange story, he wrote it down. India
is a fairy tale country, situated on the edges of the earth.
And yet, sometimes it is possible to see beyond Ctesias' strange stories.
Then we can discover to what Indian realities the Greek physician is referring.
Take, for example, the people and wild animals of India - fairy tale beings who
were to become popular in ancient and medieval bestiaries. People with big feet
on a medieval miniature
•Cynoscephalae: a mountain tribe of people with dog's heads. This is probably
a translation of the Indian word svapaka, 'people who live and eat with the dogs',
an indication of people belonging to a very low caste.
•Ctesias mentions people with one big foot: this has to be a misunderstanding
of the practice of certain holy men (sadhu) to stand in unusual poses for a long
time, usually on one foot.
•The righteous Pygmees ('fist-men'), who are 90 centimeters high, have large
genitals and very long beards, which they use as coat: probably a misunderstanding
of the sadhu's.
•The Martichora, a kind of tiger with a human face and three rows of teeth.
This is a common Persian word; in modern Persian, the tiger is called mardomxor.
But these are exceptions. Ctesias' History of India remains a puzzling
text that does indirectly refer to ancient India, but in ways we can not comprehend.
In Antiquity, it was not very popular: after Alexander the Great had visited the
Indus valley, eyewitness accounts became accessible, which superseded Ctesias'
work.
Literature
The fragments of Ctesias were collected by the great German classicist
Felix Jacoby, in his famous Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, in which Ctesias
is Greek historian number 688 (vol. IIIc; 1958). To the best of my knowledge,
the only recent translation of the fragments of Ctesias is: Ctesias. Histoires
de l' Orient, 1991 Paris. It is translated and annotated by Janick Auberger; the
brief but fine introduction is by Charles Malamoud. This edition has been used
throughout this article.
Jona Lendering, ed.
This text is cited July 2003 from the Livius Ancient History Website URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks.
Ctesias (Ktesias), οf Cnidus in Caria, and a son of Ctesiochus or Ctesiarchus
(Suid. s. v. Ktesias; Eudocia; Tzetz. Chil. i. 82). Cnidus was celebrated from
early times as a seat of medical knowledge, and Ctesias, who himself belonged
to the family of the Asclepiadae, was a physician by profession. He was a contemporary
of Xenophon; and if Herodotus lived till B. C. 425, or, according to some, even
till B. C. 408, Ctesias may be called a contemporary of Herodotus. He lived for
a number of years in Persia at the court of king Artaxerxes Mnemon, as private
physician to the king (Strab. xiv.). Diodorus (ii. 32) states, that Ctesias was
made prisoner by the king, and that owing to his great skill in medicine, he was
afterwards drawn to the court, and was highly honoured there. This statement,
which contains nothing to suggest the time when Ctesias was made prisoner, has
been referred by some critics to the war between Artaxerxes and his brother, Cyrus
the Younger, B. C. 401. But, in the first place, Ctesias is already mentioned,
during that war, as accompanying the king (Xen. Anab. i. 8.27). Moreover, if as
Diodorus and Tzetzes state, Ctesias remained seventeen years at the court of Persia,
and returned to his native country in B. C. 398 (Diod. xiv. 46; comp. Plut. Artax.
21), it follows, that he must have gone to Persia long before the battle of Cunaxa,
that is about B. C. 415. The statement, that Ctesias entered Persia as a prisoner
of war, has been doubted; and if we consider the favour with which other Greek
physicians, such as Democedes and Hippocrates were treated and how they were sought
for at the court of Persia, it is not improbable that Ctesias may have been invited
to the court; but the express statement of Diodorus, that he was made a prisoner
cannot be upset by such a mere probability. There are two accounts respecting
his return to Cnidus. It took place at the time when Conon was in Cyprus. Ctesias
himself had simply stated, that he asked Artaxerxes and obtained front him the
permission to return. According to the other account. Conon sent a letter to the
king, in which he gave him advice as to the means of humbling the Lacedaemonians.
Conon requested the bearer to get the letter delivered to the king by some of
the Greeks who were staying at his court. When the letter was given for this purpose
to Ctesias, the latter inserted a passage in which he made Conon desire the king
to send Ctesias to the west, as he would be a very useful person there (Plut.
Artax. 21). The latter account is not recommended by any strong internal probability,
and the simple statement of Ctesias himself seems to be more entitled to credit.
How long Ctesias survived his return to Cnidus is unknown.
During his stay in Persia, Ctesias gathered all the information that
was attainable in that country, and wrote:
1. A great work on the history of Persia (Persika) with the view of giving his
countrymen a more accurate knowledge of that empire than they possessed, and to
refute the errors current in Greece, which had arisen partly from ignorance and
partly from the national vanity of the Greeks. The materials for his history,
so far as he did not describe events of which he had been an eye-witness, he derived,
according to the testimony of Diodorus, from the Persian archives (diphtherai
Basilikai), or the official history of the Persian empire, which was written in
accordance with a law of the country. This important work of Ctesias, which, like
that of Herodotus, was written in the Ionic dialect, consisted of twentythree
books. The first six contained the history of the great Assyrian monarchy down
to the foundation of the kingdom of Persia. It is for this reason that Strabo
(xiv.) speaks of Ctesias as sungrapsas ta Assuriaka kai ta Persika. The next seven
books contained the history of Persia down to the end of the reign of Xerxes,
and the remaining ten carried the history down to the time when Ctesias left Persia,
i. e. to the year B. C. 398 (Diod. xiv. 46). The form and style of this work were
of considerable merit, and its loss may be regarded as one of the most serious
for the history of the East (Dionys. Hal. De Comp. Verb. 10; Demetr. Phal. De
Elocut. 212, 215). All that is now extant of it is a meagre abridgment in Photius
(Cod. 72), and a number of fragments which are preserved in Diodorus, Athenaeus,
Plutarch, and others. Of the first portion, which contained the history of Assyria,
there is no abridgment in Photius, and all we possess of that part is contained
in the second book of Diodorus, which seems to be taken almost entirely from Ctesias.
There we find that the accounts of Ctesias, especially in their chronology, differ
considerably from those of Berosus, who likewise derived his information from
eastern sources. These discrepancies can only be explained by the fact, that the
annals used by the two historians were written in different places and under different
circumstances. The chronicles used by Ctesias were written by official persons,
and those used by Berosus were the work of priests; both therefore were written
from a different point of view, and neither was perhaps strictly true in all its
details. The part of [p. 899] Ctesias's work which contained the history of Persia,
that is, from the sixth book to the end, is somewhat better known from the extracts
which Photius made from it, and which are still extant. Here again Ctesias is
frequently at variance with other Greek writers, especially with Herodotus. To
account for this, we must remember, that he is expressly reported to have written
his work with the intention of correcting the erroneous notions about Persia in
Greece; and if this was the case, the reader must naturally be prepared to find
the accounts of Ctesias differing from those of others. It is moreover not improbable,
that the Persian chronicles were as partial to the Persians, if not more so, as
the accounts written by Greeks were to the Greeks. These considerations sufficiently
account, in our opinion, for the differences existing between the statements of
Ctesias and other writers; and there appears to be no reason for charging him,
as some have done, with wilfully falsifying history. It is at least certain, that
there can be no positive evidence for such a serious charge. The court chronicles
of Persia appear to have contained chiefly the history of the royal family, the
occurrences at the court and the seraglio, the intrigues of the women and eunuchs,
and the insurrections of satraps to make themselves independent of the great monarch.
Suidas (s. v. Pamphila) mentions, that Pamphila made an abridgment of the work
of Ctesias, probably the Persica, in three books.
2. Another work, for which Ctesias also collected his materials during his stay
in Persia, was: a treatise on India (Indika) in one book, of which we likewise
possess an abridgment in Photius, and a great number of fragments preserved in
other writers. The description refers chiefly to the north-western part of India,
and is principally confined to a description of the natural history, the produce
of the soil, and the animals and men of India. In this description truth is to
a great extent mixed up with fables, and it seems to be mainly owing to this work
that Ctesias was looked upon in later times as an author who deserved no credit.
But if his account of India is looked upon from a proper point of view, it does
not in any way deserve to be treated with contempt. Ctesias himself never visited
India, and his work was the first in the Greek language that was written upon
that country: he could do nothing more than lay before his countrymen that which
was known or believed about India among the Persians. His Indica must therefore
be regarded as a picture of India, such as it was conceived by the Persians. Many
things in his description which were formerly looked upon as fabulous, have been
proved by the more recent discoveries in India to be founded on facts.
Ctesias also wrote several other works, of which, however, we know little more
than their titles: they were:
3. Peri Oron, which consisted of at least two books (Plut. de Fluv. 21; Stob.
Froril. C. 18)
4. Periplous Asias (Steph. Byz. s. v. Sigunos), which is perhaps the same as the
Periegesis of which Stephanus Byzantius (s. v. Kosute) quotes the third book.
5. Peri Potamon (Plut. de Fluv. 19), and
6. Peri ton kata ten Asian phoron.
It has been inferred from a passage in Galen, that Ctesias also wrote
on medicine, but no accounts of his medical works have come down to us.
The abridgment which Photius made of the Persica and Indica of Ctesias
were printed separately by II. Stephens, Paris, 1557 and 1594, and were also added
to his edition of Herodotus. After his time it became customary to print the remains
of Ctesias as an appendix to Herodotus. The first separate edition of those abridgments,
together with the fragments preserved in other writers, is that of A. Lion, Gottingen,
1823, with critical notes and a Latin translation. A more complete edition, with
an introductory essay on the life and writings of Ctesias, is that of Buhr, Frankfort,
1824.
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
KYMI (Ancient city) TURKEY
405 - 330
Of Cymae in Aeolis, a celebrated Greek historian, a contemporary
of Philip and Alexander, flourished about B.C. 340. He wrote a universal history
(Historiai), in thirty books, the first that was attempted in Greece. It covers
a period of 750 years, from the return of the Heraclidae to B.C. 341. Of this
history Diodorus Siculus made an extensive use. The work, however, has perished,
with the exception of a few fragments.
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
Ephorus, (Ephoros). Of Cumae, a celebrated Greek historian, was, according to
Suidas, to whom we are indebted for our information respecting his life, a son
either of Demophilus or Antiochus; but as Plutarch (Ei ap. Delph.) mentions only
the former name, and as Ephorus's son was called Demophilus (Athen. vi.), we must
believe that the father of Ephorus was called Demophilus. Ephorus was a contemporary
of Theopompus, and lived about B. C. 408, a date which Marx, one of his editors,
strangely mistakes for the time at which Ephorus was born. Ephorus must have survived
the accession of Alexander the Great, for Clemens of Alexandria (Strom. i.) states
that Ephorus reckoned 735 years from the return of the Heracleidae down to B.
C. 333, or the year in which Alexander went to Asia. The best period of his life
must therefore have fallen in the reign of Philip. Ephorus was a pupil of Isocrates
in rhetoric, at the time when that rhetorician had opened his school in the island
of Chios; but not being very much gifted by nature, like most of his countrymen,
he was found unfit for entering upon life when he returned home, and his father
therefore sent him to school a second time. (Plut. Vit. X Orat.) In order not
to disappoint his father again, Ephorus now zealously devoted himself to the study
of oratory, and his efforts were crowned with success, for he and Theopompus were
the most distinguished among the pupils of Isocrates (Menand. Rhet. Diaires. apodeikt.
ed. Aldus), and from Seneca (de Tranq. Anim. 6) it might almost appear, that Ephorus
began the career of a public orator. Isocrates, however, dissuaded him from that
course, for he well knew that oratory was not the field on which Ephorus could
win laurels, and he exhorted him to devote himself to the study and composition
of history. As Ephorus was of a more quiet and contemplative disposition than
Theopompus, Isocrates advised the former to write the early history of Greece,
and the latter to take up the later and more turbulent periods of history. (Suidas;
Cic. de Orat. iii. 9; Phot. Bibl. Cod. 176, 260.) Plutarch (de Stoic. Repugn.
10) relates that Ephorus was among those who were accused of having conspired
against the life of king Alexander, but that he successfully refuted the charge
when he was summoned before the king.
The above is all that is known respecting the life of Ephorus. The
most celebrated of all his works, none of which have come down to us, was--1.
A History (Historiai) in thirty books. It began with the return of the Heracleidae,
or, according to Suidas, with the Trojan times, and brought the history down to
the siege of Perinthus in B. C. 341. It treated of the history of the barbarians
as well as of that of the Greeks, and was thus the first attempt at writing a
universal history that was ever made in Greece. It embraced a period of 750 years,
and each of the thirty books contained a compact portion of the history, which
formed a complete whole by itself. Each also contained a special preface and might
bear a separate title, which either Ephorus himself or some later grammarian seems
actually to have given to each book, for we know that the fourth book was called
Europe. (Diod. iv. 1, v. 1, xvi. 14, 26; Polyb. v. 33, iv. 3; Strab. vii. ; Clem.
Alex. Strom. i.) Ephorus himself did not live to complete his work. and it was
finished by his son Demophilus. Diyllus began his history at the point at which
the work of Ephorus left off. As the work is unfortunately lost, and we possess
only isolated fragments of it, it is not possible in all cases to determine the
exact contents of each book; but the two collectors and editors of the fragments
of Ephorus have done so, as far as it is feasible. Among the other works of Ephorus
we may mention--2. Peri heurematon, or on inventions, in two books. (Suidas; Athen.
iv., viii., xiv. ; Strab. xiii.) 3. Suntagma epichorion. (Plut. de Vit. et Poes.
Homer. 2.) This work, however, seems to have been nothing but a chapter of the
fifth book of the historiai. 4. Peri lexeos. (Theon, Progymn. 2, 22; comp. Cic.
Orat. 57.) This work, too, like a few others which are mentioned as separate productions,
may have been only a portion of the History. Suidas mentions some more works,
such as Peri agathon kai kakon, and Paradoxon ton hekastachou Biblia, of which,
however, nothing at all is known, and it is not impossible that they may have
been excerpta or abridgments of certain portions of the History, which were made
by late compilers and published tinder his name.
As for the character of Ephorus as an historian, we have ample evidence
that, in accordance with the simplicity and sincerity of his character, he desired
to give a faithful account of the events he had to relate. He shewed his good
sense in not attempting to write a history of the period previous to the return
of the Heracleidae; but the history of the subsequent time is still greatly intermixed
with fables and mythical traditions; and it must be acknowledged that his attempts
to restore a genuine history by divesting the traditions from what he considered
mythical or fabulous, were in most cases highly unsuccessful, and sometimes even
absurd and puerile. He exercised a sort of criticism which is anything but that
of a real historian (Strab. xii.), and in some instances he forced his authorities
to suit his own views. For the early times he seems to have preferred the logographers
to the epic poets, though the latter, too, were not neglected. Even the later
portions of his history, where Ephorus had such guides as Herodotus, Thucydides,
and Xenophon, contained such discrepancies from his great predecessors, and on
points on which they were entitled to credit, that Ephorus, to say the least,
cannot be regarded as a sound and sate guide in the study of history. The severest
critic of Ephorus was Timaeus, who never neglected an opportunity of pointing
out his inaccuracies; several authors also wrote separate books against Ephorus,
such as Alexinus, the pupil of Eubulides (Diog. Laert. ii. 106, 110), and Strato
the Peripatetic. (Diog. Laert. v. 59.) Porphyrius (ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang. x.
2) charges Ephorus with constant plagiarisns; but this accusation is undoubtedly
very much exaggerated, for we not only find no traces of plagiarism in the fragments
extant, but we frequently find Ephorus disputing the statements of his predecessors.
(Joseph. c. Apion. i. 3.) Polybius (xii. 25) praises him for his knowledge of
maritime warfare, but adds that he was utterly ignorant of the mode of warfare
on land; Strabo (viii.) acknowledges his merits, by saying that he separated the
historical from the geographical portions of his work; and, in regard to the latter,
he did not confine himself to mere lists of names, but he introduced investigations
concerning the origin of nations, their constitutions and manners, and many of
the geographical fragments which have come down to us contain lively and beautiful
descriptions. (Polyb. ix. 1; Strab. ix., x.) As regards the style of Ephorus,
it is such as might be expected from a disciple of Isocrates : it is clear, lucid,
and elaborately polished, but at the same time diffuse and deficient in power
and energy, so that Ephorus is by no means equal to his master. (Polyb. xii. 28;
Dionys. de Comp. Verb. 26 ; Demetr. Peri hermen. ; Dion Chrysost. Orat. xviii.,
ed. Morel.; Plut. Pericl. 28; Philostr. Vit. Soph. i. 17; Cic. Orat. 51; Phot.
Bibl. Cod. 176.) The fragments of the works of Ephorus, the number of which might
probably be much increased if Diodorus had always mentioned his authorities, were
first collected by Meier Marx, Carlsruhe, 1815, 8vo., who afterwards published
some additions in Friedemann and Seebode's Miscellan. Crit. ii. 4. They are also
contained in C. and Th. Muller's Fragm. Historicor. Graec., Paris, 1841, 3vo.
Both editors have prefixed to their editions critical dissertations on the life
and writings of Ephorus.
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
Ephorus, a man indisputably noteworthy, a disciple of Isocrates the orator, and the author of the Historyand of the work on Inventions, was from this city; and so was Hesiod the poet, still earlier than Ephorus, for Hesiod himself states that his father Dius left Aeolian Cyme and migrated to Boeotia:And he settled near Helicon in a wretched village, Ascre, which is bad in winter, oppressive in summer, and pleasant at no time. (Perseus Project - Strabo, Geography 13.3.6)
Among historians Demophilus, the son of the chronicler Ephorus, who treated in his work the history of what is known as the Sacred War, which had been passed over by his father, began his account with the capture of the shrine at Delphi and the pillaging of the oracle by Philomelus the Phocian. (Perseus Project - Diodorus Siculus, Library 16.14.3)
Demophilus, (Demophilos). The son of Ephorus, was an historian in the time of
Alexander the Great. He continued his father's history by adding to it the history
of the Sacred War from the taking of Delphi and the plunder of its temple by Philomelus
the Phocian, B. C. 357. (Diod. xvi. 14; Suid. s. v. Ephippos, where Ephoros should
be read for Ephippos; Athen. vi.; Schol. Hom. Il. xiii. 301; Vossius, de Hist.
Graec., ed. Westermann.)
Ephorus. Of Cumae, called the Younger, was likewise an historian, but he is mentioned only by Suidas, according to whom he wrote a history of Galienus in twenty-seven books, a work on Corinth, one on the Alenadae, and a few others. The name Galienus in this account, it should be observed, is only a correction of Volaterranus, for the common reading in Suidas is Galenou. (Comp. Marx, Ephor. Fragm.)
Receive our daily Newsletter with all the latest updates on the Greek Travel industry.
Subscribe now!
