No abstract

Herodotus presented the conflicts between Europe and Asia on both the mythological and historical level and made them one of the main structural and ideological components of his work. The idea of war against the Achaemenids interpreted as central to the Greek historical destiny returned time and again in the Greek letters, always blended with the symptomatic feeling of superiority and simplified standard view of the Orientals. (Euripides, Xenophon of Athens, Plato, Isocrates). The efforts to unite the Greeks and Macedonians with the Orientals which were undertaken by Alexander the Great, found little understanding among the Greeks (Plutarch). His myth as a conqueror of Asia became an ideological trap of the Hellenic as well as Roman historical thinking (Cassius Dio). Renewed and unsuccessful efforts to follow Aiexander's steps brought interesting literary testimonies shaped by collective experiences of the insuperable climate, the fear of the epidemics, and confrontation with cunning, cruel and elusive adversaries (Plutarch, Procopius of Caesarea). The Greek literary testimonies had their alter ego in the Eastern prophetic writings, which expressed hostility towards the Greeks and Romans and predicted a final victory for the East over the West (Oracula Sibyllina, The Oracle of the Potter, The Oracle of Hystaspes). In the Wars of Procopius of Caesarea a pessimistic, purely militarist view came to the surface. It said that the loyalty of the Orientals could be secured only through the use of military power. In that period we also observe a factor of religious inspiration in the war propaganda on both sides (Procopius of Caesarea, Georgios Pisides).

In 72-69 B.

In his epitome Justin related Pompeius Trogus’ story, who apparently wanted to convince his readers that Attalos III, who was insane, accused his relatives of poisoning Berenike and Stratonike. Before he died he had bequeathed his kingdom to Rome. Sallust adduced the words of Mithridates VI, who considered Attalos’ testament a Roman forgery. What we know from Justin’s version is the Roman version, which was produced to justify the annexation of a foreign country and the seizure of the Attalids’ immense treasures. Attalos was one of the best educated Hellenistic monarchs, a lover and patron of the arts and sciences, a sculptor and a man of letters. With the slaying of Attalos III and his closest relatives the Roman senators also terminated the last great project of patronage over the Hellenic arts, letters and sciences.

I am going to collect dispersed items of information which clearly refer or seem to be suggestive of the Aeolic, Pergamene or Attalid school of art historians which developed in the first half of the 2 nd century BC and discuss their idiosyncratic methods and original contribution to the Greek intellectual life of the Hellenistic period. Even the fragmentary history of the Attalid art collections which can be reconstructed from the archaeological data and the scarce information in the literary sources shows that the collections grew as a result of various factors: 1. wartime robbery. 2. purchases of artworks. 3. a well-thought out programme of reproducing original Greek artworks. The Attalids must have had professional art historians at their side as consultants. We can identify two of them by name: Antigonus of Karystos and Polemon of Ilion. A number of passages testify to a lively academic debate between them. In the course of their professional polemics they discussed the problems of authorship and authenticity of artworks, they adduced biographical details in their efforts to establish the personal identities of the artists and paid tribute to their heroes with colourful anecdotes. They attributed artworks to alternative authors. They also constructed complicated genealogical trees of schools of painting and sculpture, along the principle of master/pupil relations. Their epigraphic studies must have been inspired and influenced by the editors of the Aeolic Archaic poets.