Listed 25 sub titles with search on: Biographies for destination: "PERGAMOS Ancient city TURKEY".
Aristocles, of Pergamus, a sophist and rhetorician, who lived in the time of the emperors Trajan and Hadrian. He spent the early part of his life upon the study of the Peripatetic philosophy, and during this period he completely neglected his outward appearance. But afterwards he was seized by the desire of becoming a rhetorician, and went to Rome, where he enrolled himself among the pupils of Herodes Atticus. After his return to Pergamus, he made a complete change in his mode of life, and appears to have enjoyed a great reputation as a teacher of rhetoric. His declamations are praised for their perspicuity and for the purity of the Attic Greek; but they were wanting in passion and animation, and resembled philosophical discussions. Suidas ascribes to him a work on rhetoric (techne rhetorike), letters, declamations, &c. (Philostr. Vit. Soph. ii. 3; Suidas, s. v. Aristokles; Eudoc.)
This text 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
Aedesius (Aidesios), a Cappadocian, called a Platonic or perhaps more correctly an Eclectic philosopher, who lived in the fourth century, the friend and most distinguished disciple of lamblichus. After the death of his master the school of Syria was dispersed, and Aedesius fearing the real or fancied hostility of the Christian emperor Constantine to philosophy, took refuge in divination. An oracle in hexameter verse represented a pastoral life as his only retreat, but his disciples, perhaps calming his fears by a metaphorical interpretation, compelled him to resume his instructions. He settled at Pergamus, where he numbered among his pupils the emperor Julian. After the accession of the latter to the imperial purple he invited Aedesius to continue his instructions, but the declining strength of the sage being unequal to the task, two of his most learned disciples, Chrysanthes and Eusebius, were by his own desire appointed to supply his place. (Eunap. Vit. Aedes.)
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
Hegesinous, (Egesinous), of Pergamum, an Academic philosopher, the successor of Evander and the immediate predecessor of Carneades in the chair of the academy. He flourished about B. C. 185. (Diog. Laert. iv. 60; Cic. Acad. ii. 6.)
Arrianus (Arrianos), a Greek poet who, according to Suidas (s. v.), made a Greek translation in hexameter verse of Virgil's Georgies, and wrote an epic poem on the exploits of Alexander the Great (Alexandrias), in twenty-four rhapsodies, and a poem on Attalus of Pergamus. This last statement is, as some critics think, not without difficulties, for, it is said, it is not clear how a poet, who lived after the time of Virgil, could write a poem on Attalus of Pergamus, unless it was some of the later descendants of the family of the Attali. But it might as well be said, that no man can write a poem upon another unless he be his contemporary. It is, however, not improbable that Suidas may have confounded two poets of the same name, or the two poets Adrianus and Arrianus, the former of whom is known to have written an Alexandrias.
Apollodorus of Pergamus, a Greek rhetorician, was the author of a school of rhetoric called after him Apollodoreios hairesis, which was subsequently opposed by the school established bv Theodorus of Gadara (Theodoreios hairesis). In his advanced age Apollodorus taught rhetoric at Apollonia, and here young Octavianus (Augustus) was one of his pupils and became his friend (Strab. xiii.; Sueton. Aug. 89). Strabo ascribes to him scientific works (technas) on rhetoric, but Quintilian (iii. 1.18, conmp.1) on the authority of Apollodorus himself declares only one of the works ascribed to him as genuine, and this he calls Ars (techne) edita ad Matium, in which the author treated on oratory only in so far as speaking in the courts of justice was concerned. Apollodorus himself wrote little, and his whole theory could be gathered only from the works of his disciples, C. Valgius and Atticus (Comp. Quintil. ii. 11.2, 15.12, iv. 1.50; Tacit. De clar. Orat. 19; Seneca, Controv. i. 2, ii. 9; Sext. Emapir. Adv. Math. ii. 79). Lucian (Macrob. 23) states, that Apollodorus died at the age of 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
Callicrates, a Greek orator who seems to have lived about the time of Demosthenes, and to whom tile tables of Pergamus ascribed the oration kata Demosthenous paranomon, which was usually considered the work of Deinarchus. (Dionys. Deinarch. 11.) But no work of Callicrates was known even as early as the time of Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
Dionysius, of Pergamus, surnamed Atticus, a rhetorician, who is characterized
by Strabo (xiii.) as a clever sophist, an historian, and logographer, that is,
a writer of orations. He was a pupil of Apollodorus, the rhetorician, who is mentioned
among the teachers of Augustus. (Comp. Senec. Controv. i. 1.) Weiske (ad Longin.)
considers him to be the author of the work peri hupsous commonly attributed to
Longinus; but there is very little, if anything, to support this view. (Westermann,
Gesch. d. Griech. Beredts.)
Isidorus of Pergamus, a rhetorician, of whom nothing more is known than the mention of him by Diogenes Laertius (vii. 34), and a single quotation from him by Rutilius Lupus. (De Fig. Sent. et Eloc. ii. 16.)
Artemon, of Pergamus, a Greek rhetorician, who wrote a history of Sicily, which is now lost, but is often mentioned by the grammarians. (Schol. ad Pind. Pyth i. 1, 32, iii. 48; Ol. ii. 16, v. 1; Isth. ii. Argum.; Schol. ad Lycophr. 177.)
Charax, of Pergamus, an historian and priest, who wrote two large works, the one, in forty books, called Hellenika, the other named Chronika, of which the sixteenth book is quoted by Stephanus Byzantinus (s. v. Oreos). In the former he mentions Augutstus Caesar and Nero, which is our only authority for his date. Suidas quotes an epigram, beginning
eimi Charax hiereus gerares apo Pergamou akres,
which gives his country and profession. He is frequently referred to by Stephanus Byzantinus. He is mentioned by Euagrius (Hist. Eccl. v. extr.) among those historians who mixed fable with history, and this is confirmed by the anonymous writer of the " De Rebus Incredibilibus" (cc. 15, 16).
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.
Antigonus a Greek Sculptor, and an eminent writer upon his art, was one of the
artists who represented the battles of Attails and Eumenes against the Gauls (Plin.
xxxiv. 19.24). He lived, therefore, about 239 B. C., when Attalus I., king of
Pergamus, conquered the Gauls. A little further on, Pliny (26) says, "Antigonus
et perixyomenon, tyrannicidasque supra dictos," where one of the best MSS. has
"Antignotus et luctatores, perixyomenon," &c.
Falto, M. Valerius, one of the envoys sent by the senate, B. C. 205, to Attalus I. king of Pergamus. Their mission was to fetch the Idaean mother to Italy, according to an injunction of the Sibylline Books. Falto was of quaestorian rank at this time, but the date of his quaestorian is not known. On the return of the envoys to Rome Falto was sent forward to announce the message of the Delphic oracle, which they had consulted on their journey, to the senate: "The best man in the state must welcome the goddess or her representative on her landing". (Liv. xxix. 11). Falto was one of the curule aediles, B. C. 203, when a supply of Spanish grain enabled those magistrates to sell corn to the poor at a sesterce the bushel. (xxx. 26.) Falto was praetor B. C. 201. His province was Bruttium, and two legions were allotted to him. (xxx. 40, 41.)
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.)
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
Receive our daily Newsletter with all the latest updates on the Greek Travel industry.
Subscribe now!
