ENCYLOPEDIA OF ANCIENT NATURAL SCIENTISTS

P:01

P:02

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ANCIENT NATURAL SCIENTISTSThe Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists is the ﬁrst comprehensive English-language workto provide a survey of ancient natural science, from its beginnings through to the end oflate antiquity. A team of over 100 of the world’s experts in the ﬁeld have compiled thisEncyclopedia, including entries which are not mentioned in any other reference work –resulting in a unique and hugely ambitious resource which will prove indispensable foranyone seeking the details of the history of ancient science. Additional features include a Glossary, Gazetteer, and Time-Line. The Glossary explains manyGreek (or Latin) terms diﬃcult to translate, whilst the Gazetteer describes the many localesfrom which scientists came. The Time-Line shows the rapid rise in the practice of science inthe 5th century  and rapid decline after Hadrian, due to the centralization of Romanpower, with consequent loss of a context within which science could ﬂourish.Paul T. Keyser’s publications include work on gravitational physics, computer science,stylometry, Greek tragedy, and ancient science. Formerly a teacher of Classics, he is cur-rently crafting Java for IBM’s Watson Research Center.Georgia L. Irby-Massie is Assistant Professor at the College of William and Mary. Herresearch investigates reﬂections of science in literature and society, and includes publicationson astrology, geography, natural philosophy in tragedy, and women scientists.

P:04

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ANCIENT NATURAL SCIENTISTS The Greek tradition and its many heirsEdited by Paul T. Keyser and Georgia L. Irby-Massie

P:05

First published 2008 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2008.“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”© 2008 Paul T. Keyser and Georgia L. Irby-Massie for selection and editorial matter; individual chapters, their contributors All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN 0-203-46273-4 Master e-book ISBN ISBN13: 978–0–415–34020–5 (hbk) ISBN13: 978–0–203–46273–7 (ebk)

P:06

“. . . the person who is used to inquiry tries every possible pathway as heconducts his search and turns in every direction, and, so far from giving upthe inquiry in the space of a day, does not cease his search throughout hislife: directing his attention to one thing after another that is relevant towhat is being investigated, he presses on until he attains his goal.” Erasistratos of Ioulis, Paralysis book 2 (in Gale¯n, Habits §1, CMG S.3 [1941] 12; trans. by G.E.R. Lloyd, Greek Science After Aristotle [1973] 86, altered)

P:08

CONTENTSList of Illustrations ix Q 716Introduction R 718Note to Users 1S 722A 27 T 772B 29 U 821C (also see K) 185 V 822D 201 W 834E 222 X 835F 280 Y 842G 327 Z 843H 334I (and J)K 354 Gazetteer 855LM 429 Glossary 911N Time-Line 937OP 460 Topics 991 500 Indices 1021 (by ethnicity, women scientists, 517 monotheists, poets, rulers, 567 emendations, new in EANS, ancient people not in EANS ) 586 Index of Plants 1039 602 vii

P:10

I L L U S T R AT I O N SAmbrose Reproduced with kind permission of the Parrocchia di 63 S.Ambrogio, Milan 75 77Anaximandros © Rheinisches Landesmuseum Trier 84Andreas © Österreichische Nationalbibliothek 95Annaeus Seneca Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz/Art Resource, NY 111Antiokhos VIII Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society 123Apollo¯ nios “Mus” © Österreichische Nationalbibliothek 132Aratos Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society 142Aristarkhos of Samos: distances and sizes of Sun and Moon © Mendell 155Aristotle © Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna 183Aristoxenos: the Great Perfect System © Rocconi 255Autolukos: On Risings and Settings © Mendell 271Diokle¯s’ Cissoid © Lehoux and Massie 284Dioskouride¯s of Anazarbos © Österreichische Nationalbibliothek 287Ennius © Rheinisches Landesmuseum TrierEpicurus © Roma, Musei Capitolini, Archivo Fotograﬁco dei Musei Capitolini 298Eratosthene¯s’ mechanical method of ﬁnding two mean 301 305 proportionals between magnitudes A and D © Jones 311One of Erukinos’ (?) paradoxes © Bernard 312Euclid’s geometric algebra (1. prop. 2) © Mueller 335Eudoxos of Knidos Portrait © Budapest Museum 370Eudoxos of Knidos: Hippopede © Mendell 372Gale¯n © Österreichische NationalbibliothekHe¯rakleide¯s of Taras © Österreichische Nationalbibliothek 373He¯rakleitos’ neusis in a given square A∆ © Bernard 375He¯rakleitos of Ephesos © Reproduced by kind permission of the Archaelogical 382 Museum of He¯rakleion 385Hermarkhos © Budapest MuseumHe¯rodotos of Halikarnassos © Biblioteca Nazionale “Vittorio Emanuele III”, 399 402 Naples, Italy. Reproduced with permission of the Ministero per i Beni e le Attività CulturaliHe¯ro¯ n of Alexandria: the baroulkos © Reproduced from Drachmann (1963) 90Ptolemy’s version of Hipparkhos’ model for solar motion © Lehoux and MassieHippokrates of Khios, 1 © Muellerix

P:11

I L L U S T R AT I O N SHippokrate¯s of Khios, 2 © Mueller 402Hippokrate¯s of Khios, 3a © Mueller 402Hippokrate¯s of Khios, 3b © Mueller 403Hippokrate¯s of Khios, 4 © Mueller 403Plan view of Clauicula and plan view of Coxa © Grillone 427Iouba II © Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society 441C. Iulius Caesar Courtesy of the Vatican Museums 451Kallimakhos of Kure¯ne¯ Photo: Ole Haupt, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 463Karneade¯s © Antikenmuseum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig 467Kleopatra VII © Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society 482Krate¯s of Mallos: the four inhabited oikoumenai Reproduced with kind 490 permission from Thames & Hudson, O.A.W. Dilke, Greek and Roman Maps 491Krateuas © Österreichische Nationalbibliothek“Lion Horoscope” Reproduced from K. Humann and O. Puchstein, Reisen in 509 526 Kleinasien und Nordsyrren (1890)Mantias © Österreichische Nationalbibliothek 546Ptolemy’s version of part of the theorem of Menelaus © Lehoux and 555 Massie 573Me¯trodo¯ ros of Lampsakos Reproduced with kind permission of the National 580 606 Archaeological Museum, Athens 655Nikandros © Österreichische Nationalbibliothek 668Nikome¯de¯s’ “ﬁrst” conchoid © Lehoux and Massie 707Pamphilos of Alexandria © Österreichische Nationalbibliothek 720Philo¯ n of Buzantion © Bayerische StaatsBibliothek 739Plato © Fitzwilliam Museum, CambridgePtolemy’s model for the motion of Mars © Jones 796Rufus of Ephesos © Österreichische Nationalbibliothek 808Sextius Niger © Österreichische NationalbibliothekTheo¯ n of Smurna Roma, Musei Capitolini, Archivo Fotograﬁco dei Musei 818 825 Capitolini 832Thucydide¯s of Athens © Holkham Hall 837M. Tullius Cicero Reproduced with permission of the Soprintendenza 913 913 speciale per il Polo Museale ﬁorentino 913Vergilius Reproduced with permission, Musée national du Bardo 918Analemma (geometry of sundial construction) from Vitr. 9.7.1–7 © Howe 924Xenokrate¯s of Aphrodisias © Österreichische Nationalbibliothek 931Ammi, Mount AthosAmmo¯ niakon, Mount Athos 938Amo¯ mon, Mount Athos 939Euphorbia, Mount AthosMalabathron, Mount AthosSagape¯non, Mount AthosNumber of scientists (with “narrow” date-ranges) per generation © P. T. KeyserNumber of scientists (with “wide” date-ranges) per century © P. T. Keyserx

P:12

I N T RO D U C T I O NThis work provides a synoptic survey of all “ancient,” i.e., Greek and Greek-based, naturalscience, broadly deﬁned, from its beginnings through the end of late antiquity, for thebeneﬁt of anyone interested in the history of science. Greek science is a central ﬁeld for theunderstanding of antiquity – more of Greek science survives than does any other categoryof ancient Greek literature, and yet much of that is obscure even to classicists. It is proper to describe the work of the people included herein as “science,” with no morerisk of anachronism than in using any modern term to refer to a corresponding ancientpractice, because the ancient models of nature, whether correct or not, were indeedattempts at models. That is, they were created and debated as abstracted descriptions ofphenomena, intended to give a naturalistic and self-consistent causal account, of a worldviewed as regular or constant in its behavior. Their methods and aims were scientiﬁc, evenwhen their theoretical entities or intellectual achievements are ones we now perceive asinadequate. Histories of science must be comprehensive, including all abandoned paths,since roads not taken seem evitable only in hindsight.I. Scope. Natural science is a conceptual territory which cannot be precisely distinguishedfrom other intellectual activities, and which resembles but is distinct from magic, philosophy,technology, and theology. Science borders on philosophy (we exclude metaphysics, ethics,and epistemology), lies near technology (we exclude writers who only record technologicalachievements, such as lists of manmade wonders or non-medical cookbooks), has aﬃnitywith magic (we exclude theurgy and all incantations, but we include astrology and alchemy),and touches on theology (we exclude divine cosmogonies and the theology of the soul). Weprefer to err on the side of inclusion, so that readers working in or near the area of ancientscience will be able to consult the work with proﬁt, and thus we include writers and workswhose topics lie on our margins, so long as it seems likely that they wrote on relevant topics.Most of the results and theories of ancient science would no longer pass muster as scientiﬁc(humoral medicine no more than astrology), but our principle of inclusion is to ask whetherthe endeavor was to understand or model some aspect of the natural world on the basis ofinvestigation and reason, without recourse to hypotheses about purposive agents, and with-out reliance on tradition per se. Texts of ancient writers often survive by accident or despite the ever-changing tastes ofcopyists and their patrons. Textual remains rarely represent what contemporaries wouldhave agreed were the most important works: Strabo¯n for example seems almost unknown tohis contemporaries, who cite and use works now lost. Many lost works, known to have beenwidely read and very inﬂuential during antiquity, perished only later. Thus, to present only 1

P:13

I N T RO D U C T I O Nor even primarily what is now extant or canonical is to distort. As a result, we include theobvious major authors, but also all the lost, fragmentary, obscure, and anonymous scientiﬁcwriters whom we can. However, we include only authors known to have made some writtenor conceptual contribution, but not practitioners, such as architects and physicians, howeverfamous or accomplished. Likewise, teachers, however important they may have been totheir students, or for the transmission of ideas, we include only if they themselves made acontribution. Despite the plausible presumption that most of the adherents of the schools ofPlato, Aristotle, Ze¯no¯n, or Epicurus who made any contribution would also have madesome contribution to natural science, we include only those who are explicitly attested tohave done so. Anonymous and pseudonymous works receive a separate entry, in order togive them their due prominence – for example, the Hippokratic and Aristotelian corporaare each divided into about a dozen entries, whereas many other anonymi each receiveindividual entries. We begin with He¯siod and Homer and Thale¯s, who represent key parts of the originof Greek scientiﬁc thought, even if we can no longer or not yet assert with conﬁdenceany theory of that origin. (It may be that we should go further back: Arnott 1996.) Theencyclopedia extends to ca 650 , rather than (say) to 529 (closing of the Academy), 410(sack of Rome), or even 313 (edict of Milan), on the grounds that the whole “late antique”period represents a gradual transition from Mediterranean antiquity to the medieval orByzantine periods. (Moreover, the century 650–750  is remarkably weak in science,whereas adequately to study science after 650  requires great familiarity with manylanguages, such as Arabic, Aramaic, Armenian, Coptic, etc., which the editors alas do notpossess.) We include the authors of the “early Byzantine” period (330–650 ) in order toensure that the encyclopedia oﬀer a synoptic view of ancient Greek science. Preferringerrors of inclusion to those of exclusion, we also include authors of unknown or uncertaindate, so long as there is a reasonable chance that they are prior to our terminal date. Although nearly all of the entries concern works written in Greek, we include around 200entries on authors or works in other languages, that in each case are based upon the Greekscientiﬁc tradition; we thus exclude the copious works of Chinese science, as well as mostBabylonian, or Egyptian, or Sanskrit works. Classicists and historians are familiar with theLatin reception and transformation of Greek science; less familiar but of equal interest area number of other scientiﬁc traditions also inﬂuenced by the Greek. Readers should consultthe relevant indices for works whose language or author was Armenian, Celtic, Gothic,Egyptian, Persian, Sanskrit, or one of the Semitic languages (Arabic, Aramaic includingMandaic and Syriac, Babylonian, Hebrew, or Punic), as well as the index of well over ahundred Latin authors and works.II. Names. Because the book primarily contains Greek scientists, Greek names are trans-literated without prior Latinization. Moreover, names of other traditions (including Latin)are also directly transliterated, all according to the conventions of scholarship in those ﬁelds.Direct transliteration is no more arbitrary than any other system, more accurately preservespronunciation and etymology, and more clearly signals culture. Of course, no system iswholly consistent: the standard “Anglo-Latinate” rendering of Greek names has Plato andHero for Plato¯n and He¯ro¯n, but Theon (not Theo) and Cleon (not Cleo), and oscillates overDio or Dion; ﬁnally, even in that system, Nike¯ is never Nice. Even in Latin, if one writes“Pompey” and “Pliny” and “Livy” and “Antony”, why then does one not also write “Tully”(as indeed in 18th c. English) or even “Porcy”? Moreover, even in English, we do not write 2

P:14

I N T RO D U C T I O N“Cafca” for the Czech novelist or “Cant” for the Prussian philosopher. The direct transliter-ation of certain very familiar Greek and Latin names might confuse the casual or novicereader, though surely not a classicist. Therefore, we use traditional Anglicized Latinizedspellings for the two names “Alexander” and “Gregory” and for these 14 people: Aristotle,Chrysippus, Epicurus, Euclid, Gale¯n, He¯siod, Homer, Plato, Pliny, Plutarch, Ptolemy,Pythagoras, Thucydide¯s, and Ze¯no¯ of Elea (note macrons); a similar set of 19 exceptions forlocations (many of which, like “Alexander,” are names in common use in English) includesAlexandria, Antioch, Athens, Babylo¯n, Carthage, Corinth, Crete, Cyprus, Egypt, Ethiopia,Italy, Jerusalem, Libya, Macedon, Oxyrhynchos, Rhodes, Rome, Sicily, Spain, and Tyre.There is no reason to make this exception for unfamiliar names, whether of people or places,since they lack any obtrusive “familiar” transliteration. For names of ancient mythologicalpeople and places, we adopt a similar plan, thus, e.g., Achilles, Apollo, Athena, Atropos,Bacchant, Dionysus, Hade¯s, Horus, Kronos, Lachesis, Muses, Odysseus, O¯ rio¯n, Osiris, Ozy-mandias, Pando¯ra, Poseido¯n, Prome¯theus, Sykeus, Thyestes, and Troy. Historical Greek andByzantine ﬁgures outside the scope of the encyclopedia, but frequently cited or mentionedwithin (such as the historian Dio Cassius or the emperor Justinian or the theologian Clementof Alexandria), are listed with brief identiﬁcations in an index of 33 names (pp. 1037–8). Transliteration and polyonomy dictate the need for cross-references. All binomial Latinnames (e.g. “Tullius Cicero”) are cross-referenced from cognomen to nomen. Late imperialLatin names also require cross-references, from the alternate name(s) to the diacriticalname. Most of the Greek transliterations that are more direct (e¯ for eta and o¯ for omega, ﬁnal-os not -us, and ﬁnal -o¯n rather than just -o) do not require any cross-reference, whereas thetransliteration of omicron-upsilon as “ou” rather than as -u (so Euboulos etc.), and thetransliteration of upsilon always as “u” rather than as -y, plus the transliteration of epsilon-iota as “ei” rather than as -i, does slightly aﬀect the order of the entries in a few cases, all ofwhich are handled with cross-references. The use of K rather than the Latin C, just as (inLatin names) the use of I rather than the medieval J (increasingly favored even by conserva-tive Anglophone scholarship), does noticeably aﬀect the order, which again is handled bycross-references. As Roman rule absorbed Greek culture, some Romans took Greek cognomina, and someGreeks upon receiving Roman citizenship assumed Latin names; the earliest certain casesappear to be late Republican (1st c. ); cf. Salway 1994. Nearly all such bicultural names inthis work appear to belong to Greek writers and are hence ﬁled under their Greek name(without assertion as to a primary culture of their bearer), with their Latin name(s) given as anepithet (Dionusios Cassius, Krito¯n Statilius, etc.), and cross-referenced. The few Greekwriters who possess no known Greek name are simply ﬁled under their Latin name (Aelianus,Arrianus, Rufus, Vettius, etc.). There are very few examples of Latin writers possessing both aLatin and a Greek name – in this work, perhaps only Fauonius Eulogios (ﬁled under his Latinname). In late antiquity, many names lost their ethnic speciﬁcity: for example, Io¯anne¯s, oncea Hebrew/Jewish name (Yohannan, as at I Macc. 2.1–2, Iosephus Ant. Iud. 18 [116–119]),then became a Christian name, and by the 5th c. was in general use (e.g., Io¯anne¯s ofStoboi). Likewise, many Greek names, Gre¯gorios, Hierokle¯s, Isido¯ros, Palladios, Paulos, andTheodo¯ros, e.g., became fully Latinized by the 4th or 5th c., whereas Latin names such asMarcellus and Marcianus/Martianus became fully Hellenized apparently by the 3rd c.III. Gazetteer, Glossary, Time-Line, and Indices. Many terms used in describingthe work of ancient scientists are Greek (or Latin) terms whose translation raises subtle and 3

P:15

I N T RO D U C T I O Nimportant questions. Any adequate treatment of such issues is outside the scope of thiswork, but we have provided a Glossary of commonly used terms, giving a brief discussionof their meaning, with some references. Entries refer to these terms in bold, or for termstransliterated rather than translated, in bold italic. Three indices or appendices, to aid consultation and cross-referencing, are provided:(1) topical or categorical index, listing all authors astronomical, geographical, medical, etc.,in order to facilitate understanding the degree to which ancient science was understood byits practitioners as straddling multiple traditions; (2) the “Time-Line,” a chronologicalindex, to facilitate understanding the chronological development of ancient natural science;(3) the “Gazetteer,” a geographical index, listing by place of author’s origin all entries forwhich that is possible, to clarify the diverse origins of the scientists and the degree to whichancient science was conducted away from the two traditional intellectual centers of Athensand Alexandria. The Gazetteer shows that scientists originated from a wide variety of locales: over 325 arelisted for the almost 1,000 scientists (i.e., about half those in this encyclopedia) whose placeof origin is attested or inferred (thus, an average of three scientists per locale). Alexandria(with ca 80) and Athens (with ca 50) indeed each produced more scientists than any othertwo places together; but 16 other sites also produced signiﬁcant numbers (at least thrice theaverage): Samos (22), Kure¯ne¯ and Mile¯tos (at least 17 each), Rhodes (16), Ephesos, Ko¯s,and Surakousai (at least 13 each), Pergamon, Smurna and Tarsos (at least 11 each), plusBuzantion, Khios, Knidos, Kuzikos, Taras, and Tralleis (at least ten each). The total forAlexandria or Athens, although many times the average, amounts to only 1/8 of the num-ber of scientists whose place of origin is known (8% for Alexandria; 5% for Athens). Thosetwo centers did produce (and attract) many scientists, as indeed one would expect for placesthat provided resources and an environment congenial to the practice of science. But pros-perity, trade, and democracy seem also to promote the practice of science, or at least becorrelated with it, as can be seen in the list of 16 cities above, which altogether provided atleast 204 (ca 1/5) of the scientists whose place of origin is known. (That conclusion is basedupon only half of our entries, but to alter it signiﬁcantly would require establishing a placeof origin for a large number of the unassigned scientists, which itself would be a welcomeresult.) The same can also be seen in the Gazetteer as a whole: scientists come primarilyfrom prosperous places open to outside inﬂuences and which foster free discussion of ideas(cf. Keyser in Irby-Massie and Keyser 2002, c. 1). The Time-Line shows that the practice of science was not uniform over time, as maywell be expected; but the “classical” era of Hippokrate¯s, Plato, and Aristotle was not themost productive – rather the 4th to 3rd cc.  and the 1st c.  through 1st c.  were(the “dip” in the 2nd c.  may be an artifact of fragmentary data). Periodization isalways a scholarly imposition of discontinuity upon complex and continuous data, sinceevery era is transitional between its own past and its own future. Nonetheless, using onlythose scientists who are relatively narrowly dated (about half those in this encyclopedia),we create Fig. 1 of the Time-Line, showing the rapid rise in the 5th c.  and rapiddecline after Hadrian. As previously argued (ibid.), the decline seems due to the centraliza-tion of political power under Hadrian and abolition of semi-autonomous polities through-out the Mediterranean world, with the consequent loss of a context within which sciencecould ﬂourish. No doubt these conclusions should be held somewhat tentatively, given thelikelihood that many names have been entirely lost, especially in the latest periods (andperhaps also in the turbulent and less-well-known periods of the 2nd c.  and 3rd c. ). 4

P:16

I N T RO D U C T I O NHowever, to alter it signiﬁcantly would require establishing a narrower date-range for alarge number of the poorly-dated scientists, or else would require ﬁnding many hithertounknown scientists dating to post-Hadrianic times, either of which would be anotherwelcome result.IV. Creation of the Encyclopedia. The germ of this encyclopedia was sown twodecades ago when Keyser began annotating the margins of his copy of the OCD, 2nd ed.,with missing scientists. That seed fell on fertile ground during a memorable dinner withRichard Stoneman celebrating the publication of Irby-Massie and Keyser (2002), at theAPA meeting of January 2002. The ﬁrst contributor was recruited that very evening, andnumerous scholars were contacted over the next 18 months. Almost all were supportive,and most were willing to participate; many others provided useful advice. Scholars wererecruited in the ﬁrst instance to compose groups of entries (e.g., on medical Empiricists,or Neo-Platonic mathematics, or Hellenistic and Greco-Roman agronomy); neverthelessmany scientists were covered individually. In the end, slightly over half of our entries, andall the more important, were contributed by 119 scholars familiar with the relevant material(listed below); the balance were composed by the editors. One team of contributors contrib-uted many entries on paradoxographers, and the entries on the Sanskrit authors were alsoplanned as teamwork; other collaborations developed in the course of the work. The editors speciﬁed the total lengths of sets of entries to be supplied; individual contri-butors were then free to adjust the relative lengths within their sets as they saw ﬁt. Weselected a few entries (Aristotle, Gale¯n, Ptolemy) to have the maximum length, of ca 2,000words. For most of the entries, much lengthier pieces could have been written, and it ishoped that the texts here, together with their bibliographies, will serve as a useful introduction.For the better-known scientists (the three mentioned and many others), the bibliographiesmust perforce be very selective and serve only as prolegomena. Anaximandros and Anaximene¯s, similarly-named and both of Mile¯tos, are nonethelesswell-distinguished; there are cases far more problematic than that herein. Despite care anddiligence, we cannot be sure to have made all distinctions correctly, and in some cases theentries discuss the problems quite explicitly: see esp. Aelianus, Apollo¯nios, Apuleius/PlacitusPapyriensis, De¯me¯trios, pseudo-De¯mokritos, Dionusios, Magnus, Olumpiodo¯ros, Orpheus,Plutarch, and Stephanos. Less than 25% of our entries are found in English-language reference works (such asOCD3 or DSB), although the BNP when complete will contain about 40% of our entries;even in such works the coverage of Latin authors is almost twice that of the Greeks. More-over, about 1/8 of our entries are not listed in any encyclopedia whatsoever, neither thefamously capacious 85-volume RE, nor even the most complete list of medical authorsheretofore, Fabricius (1726). We consulted not only modern encyclopedias, but also manyancient authors more generous than usual with explicit citation (esp. Aëtios of Amida,Gale¯n, Io¯anne¯s of Stoboi, Oreibasios, Paulos of Aigina, Pappos, Pliny, Plutarch, Proklos,Simplicius, and Vitruuius). Finally, over 1/5 of our 2,043 entries were discovered during thewriting of the originally-proposed 1,558 entries. The proportion of entries herein not found in any encyclopedia, averaging 1/8, seemsto rise from about 1/12 early in the English (or German) alphabet to over one-seventh at theend (See the last Index). Compared to the distribution of initial letters in the names ofthe LGPN, some of our initial letters seem underrepresented. Those observations, as well asthe fact that many entries were discovered during composition, suggests that there are still 5

P:17

I N T RO D U C T I O Nitems to be discovered, perhaps principally late in the alphabet, or from the early Byzantineperiod (330–650 ), or among the papyri. It is therefore almost certain, although no lessregrettable, that we have omitted some names. If the fates are kind and scholars diligent, wehope to include them in a revised edition.V. Contributors and Supporters. Over half, and all the more important, of the entriesof the EANS were composed by the following 119 contributors (we indicate in each case thecategory or categories within which they contributed, or list the entries):Gianfranco Agosti (Biological poets) Università di Udine, UdineEugenio Amato (Lithika authors) Université de Nantes, France and Department of Classics, Fordham University, New York USA (from 2008)Cosmin Andron (Neo-Platonists) Department of Classics, Royal Holloway College, University of London, England, UKJacques Bailly (Theagene¯s) Classics Department, University of Vermont, USAHan Baltussen (Neo-Platonists) Classics, School of Humanities, University of Adelaide, AustraliaAlain Bernard (Neo-Platonists) Centre Université Paris 12 (IUFM Créteil), EHESS et PAI “Mathematiques et Histoire”Sylvia Berryman (Strato¯n) Department of Philosophy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CanadaGábor Betegh (Derveni Papyrus, Ste¯simbrotos) Department of Philosophy, Central European University, Budapest, HungaryRichard Bett (Skeptics) Department of Philosophy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore Maryland, USASiam Bhayro (Syriac authors) Department of Theology, University of Exeter, Exeter, United KingdomShane Bjornlie (Ambrose, Macrobius, Cassiodorus) Assistant Professor of Ancient and Medieval History, Department of History, Claremont McKenna College, Claremont California, USALarry Bliquez (Hippokratic Corpus) Classics, University of Washington, Seattle Washington, USAIstván Bodnár (Aristotelian Corpus, Peripatetics) Institute of Philosophy, Eötvös University/Department of Philosophy, Central European University, Budapest, HungaryJan Bollansée (Paradoxographers) Faculteit Letteren, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, BelgiumAlan C. Bowen (Hellenistic astronomers) Institute for Research in Classical Philosophy and Science, Princeton New Jersey, USAIstván M. Bugár (Gorgias, Melissos, On Melissos, Xenophanes and Gorgias) University of Debrecen, Department of Philosophy, Debrecen, HungaryStanley M. Burstein (Agatharkhide¯s, Be¯rossos) Department of History, California State University, Los Angeles California, USA 6

P:18

I N T RO D U C T I O NBrian Campbell (Agrimensores) School of History and Anthropology, The Queen’s University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, UKBruno Centrone (Neo-Pythagoreans) Professor of Ancient Philosophy, Dipartimento di Filosoﬁa, Università di Pisa, ItalyElizabeth Craik (Hippokratic Corpus) School of Classics, University of St. Andrews, Scotland, UKDavid Creese (Harmonics authors) Classical, Near Eastern and Religious Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CanadaPatricia Curd (Parmenide¯s, Xenophane¯s, Ze¯no¯) Department of Philosophy, Purdue University, West Lafayette Indiana, USAChristophe Cusset (Astronomical poets) Littérature Grecque, École Normale Superieure Lettres et Sciences Humaines, Université de Lyon, FranceMauro de Nardis (Metrologists) Dipartimento di Discipline storiche, Università di Napoli “Federico II,” ItalyClaudio De Stefani (Aemilius Macer, Aglaias, Ovid) Venice International University, Venezia, ItalyLesley Dean-Jones (Hippokratic Corpus) Department of Classics, University of Texas, Austin Texas, USALeo Depuydt (Demotic and Coptic texts) Norton, Massachusetts, USAKeith M. Dickson (Byzantine medical authors) Classical Studies, Purdue University, West Lafayette Indiana, USACristiano Dognini (Androsthene¯s, Arrian, Megasthene¯s, Xenopho¯n) Liceo Scientiﬁco Elio Vittorini, Milano, ItalyDaniela Dueck (Hellenistic geographers) Department of History, Department of Classical Studies, Bar Ilan University, IsraelWalter G. Englert (Atomists) Department of Classics, Reed College, Portland Oregon, USASilvia Fazzo (Peripatetics) Università di Trento, Italy – Université de Lille 3, FranceKlaus-Dietrich Fischer (Mulomedicina Chironis) Institut für Geschichte, Theorie und Ethik der Medizin der Johannes Gutenberg- Universität Mainz, GermanyRebecca Flemming (Hippokratic Corpus) University Lecturer in Ancient History and Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge University, UKEmma Gee (Firmicus, Io¯anne¯s “Lydus”) School of Classics, University of St. Andrews, Scotland, UKDaniel W. Graham (Pre-Socratics) Department of Philosophy, Brigham Young University, Provo Utah, USAAndrew Gregory (Plato) Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College, London England, UK 7

P:19

I N T RO D U C T I O NAurélie Gribomont (Herme¯s, Kor¯e Kosmou) Faculteit Letteren, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, BelgiumAntonino Grillone (pseudo-Hyginus) “Aglaia” – Dipartimento di studi greci, latini e musicali. Tradizione e modernità, Università di Palermo, ItalyJean-Yves Guillaumin (Agrimensores; Boëthius, Capella) Professeur de Langue et Littérature Latines, Université de Franche-Comté, Besançon, FranceKaren Haegemans (Paradoxographers) Faculteit Letteren, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, BelgiumDavid E. Hahm (Aristo¯n of Keo¯s) Department of Greek and Latin, Ohio State University, Columbus Ohio, USABink Hallum (Hellenistic alchemists) Warburg Institute, University of London, UKR. J. Hankinson (Gale¯n) Department of Classics, University of Texas, Austin Texas, USAMaury Hanson (Hippokratic Corpus) Madison Virginia, USAStephan Heilen (“Lion Horoscope”) Department of Classics, University of Illinois, Urbana Illinois, USAOliver Hellmann (Aristotelian Corpus) Klassische Philologie, Universität Trier, GermanyThomas Noble Howe (Roman architectural authors) Coordinatore Generale, Fondazione Restoring Ancient Stabiae, Brown Distinguished Research Professor, Southwestern University, Georgetown Texas, USAKaterina Ierodiakonou (Aristotelian Corpus) Associate Professor in Ancient Philosophy, Department of Philosophy and History of Science, University of Athens, GreeceJean-Marie Jacques (Iologists) Professeur émérité de l’Université Michel de Montaigne, Bordeaux, FranceAlexander Jones (Astronomers, astrologers, and mathematicians) Institute for the Study of the Ancient World (NYU), New York City, USAJacques Jouanna (Hippokrate¯s) UFR de Grec – Université de Paris 4, Paris, FrancePhilip G. Kaplan (Classical geographers) Department of History, University of North Florida, Jacksonville Florida, USAGeorge Karamanolis (Neo-Platonists) Department of Philosophy and Social Studies, University of Crete, Rethimno, GreeceToke Lindegaard Knudsen (Sanskrit authors) Department of Mathematics, Computer Science, and Statistics, State University of New York, College at Oneonta, Oneonta, New York, USAKostis Kourelis (Byzantine architectural authors) Art Department, Clemson University, South Carolina, USAAndreas Kuelzer (Byzantine geographers) Oesterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Byzanzforschung, Wien, Austria 8

P:20

I N T RO D U C T I O NVolker Langholf (Hippokratic Corpus) Classics Department, Universität Hamburg, GermanyJulie Laskaris (Hippokratic Corpus) Department of Classical Studies, University of Richmond, USAPeter Lautner (Neo-Platonists) Inst. of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, HungaryDaryn Lehoux (Stoics; astrologers) Classics and Ancient History, University of Manchester, UKRobert Littman (Classical medical authors) LLEA, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu Hawai’i, USANatalia Lozovsky (Late Roman geographers) San Mateo California, USADaniela Manetti (Classical Medical authors) Universita’ degli Studi di Firenze, Facolta’ di Lettere e Filosoﬁa, Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità, ItalyMaria Marsilio (Classical agronomists) Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia Pennsylvania, USAEdward G. Mathews, Jr. (Armenian authors) Tunkhannock Pennsylvania, USAThomas J. Mathiesen (Late Harmonics) Center for the History of Music Theory and Literature, Jacobs School of Music, Indiana University, Bloomington Indiana, USAAnne McCabe (Greek veterinarians) Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents, Oxford England, UKJørgen Mejer (Doxographers) Washington DC, USA and Copenhagen, DenmarkClaudio Meliadò (Biological poets) Università degli Studi di Messina, ItalyHenry Mendell (Classical astronomers) Philosophy Department, Cal. State University, Los Angeles California, USAMargaret Miles (Greek architectural authors) Department of Art History, University of California, Irvine California, USAIan Mueller (Euclid and Classical mathematicians) University of Chicago, Illinois, USABret Mulligan (Claudian) Haverford College, Pennsylvania, USATrevor Murphy (Pliny) Department of Classics, University of California, Berkeley California, USAReviel Netz (Hierokle¯s, Pelagonius) Department of Classics, Stanford University, Stanford California, USAJennifer Nilson (Hierocles, Pelagonius) UW-Madison Classics Department, Madison Wisconsin, USAJan Opsomer (Middle Platonists) Philosophisches Seminar, Universität zu Köln, GermanyVincenzo Ortoleva (Vegetius) Università di Catania, Dipartimento di Studi archeologici, ﬁlologici e storici, Italy 9

P:21

I N T RO D U C T I O NAntonio Panaino (Iranian authors) Facoltà di Conservazione dei Beni Culturali, Ravenna, ItalyHolt N. Parker (Damaste¯s, Me¯trodo¯ra) Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati, Ohio, USACarl Pearson (Io¯anne¯s Philoponos) Department of History, Rice University, Houston Texas, USAGerard J. Pendrick (Antipho¯n) Spelman College, Atlanta Georgia, USAChristopher A. Pfaﬀ (Greek architectural authors) Florida State University, Department of Classics, Tallahassee Florida, USAKim L. Plofker (Sanskrit authors) Department of Mathematics, Union College, Schenectady New York, USAPeter E. Pormann (Paulos of Aigina) Wellcome Trust Assistant Professor, University of Warwick, Coventry, UKAnnette Yoshiko Reed (Jewish authors) Department of Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Pennsylvania, USAEleonora Rocconi (Harmonics authors) Università degli studi di Pavia, Facoltà di Musicologia, Cremona, ItalyFrancesca Rochberg (Early astrologers) Department of Near Eastern Studies, University of California, Berkeley California, USARobert H. Rodgers (Late agronomists) Classics Department, University of Vermont, USALucía Rodríguez-Noriega Guillén (Epikharmos) Universidad de Oviedo, Facultad de Filología, Dpto. De Filología Clásica y Románica, Oviedo, SpainJames Romm (He¯rodotos) Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson New York, USAAnne Roth Congès (Innocentius) Centre Camille Jullian, CNRS, Aix-en-Provence, FranceJohn Scarborough (Askle¯piadeans, Erasistrateans, He¯rophileans, Methodists; ByzantineMedical authors; Hellenistic Pharmacists; Roman Medical authors) School of Pharmacy, Departments of History and Classics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USAGuido Schepens (Paradoxographers) Faculteit Letteren, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, BelgiumHermann S. Schibli (Pherekude¯s) Universität Passau, Rotthalmünster, GermanyDaniel Schwartz (Greek Fathers) Bryn Mawr College, History Department, Bryn Mawr Pennsylvania, USAJacques Sesiano (Diophantos) Département de Mathématiques, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, SwitzerlandJosé Solana Dueso (Dissoi Logoi, Io¯n, Kritias) Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, SpainMichael G. Sollenberger (Theophrastos) 10

P:22

I N T RO D U C T I O N Foreign Languages and Literatures, Mount St. Mary’s University, Emmitsburg Maryland, USAAnna Somfai (Calcidius, Isidore of Hispalis) Visiting Professor, Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest, HungaryFabio Stok (Empiricist medical authors) Dipartimento di Antichità e tradizione classica, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosoﬁa, Roma, ItalyPeter Struck (Artemido¯ros of Daldis) Classics Department, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Pennsylvania, USAIoannis Taifacos (Klearkhos) Faculty of Letters, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, CyprusRichard Talbert (Itineraries, Peutinger Map) Department of History, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill North Carolina, USAHarold Tarrant (Early Platonists, Thrasullos) School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Newcastle, New South Wales, AustraliaPhilip Thibodeau (Hellenistic and Roman agronomists) Brooklyn College, Classics Department, Brooklyn New York, USARobert B. Todd (Damianos, Geminus, He¯liodo¯ros of Larissa, Kleome¯de¯s, Themistios) Emeritus Professor of Classics, University of British Columbia, CanadaLaurence Totelin (Hippokratic Corpus) The Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine, University College, London England, UKAlain Touwaide (Hellenistic pharmacists; pneumaticists; Byzantine medical authors) Historian of Sciences, Department of Botany, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, USASimon Trépanier (Empedokle¯s) Lecturer in Classics, School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UKKarin Tybjerg (Hellenistic mechanics authors) Head of the Department of Astronomy, Kroppedal Museum, Copenhagen DenmarkKevin van Bladel (Arabic) Assistant Professor of Classics, Classics Department, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CaliforniaCristina Viano (Byzantine alchemy) Université de Paris Sorbonne, Centre de recherches sur la pensée antique, Paris, FranceSabine Vogt (Physiognomers) Institut für Klassische Philologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München, GermanyJ. M. Wilkins (Hippokratic Corpus) Department of Classics and Ancient History, Queens Building, University of Exeter, UKMalcolm Cameron Wilson (Aristotle) Department of Classics, University of Oregon, Eugene Oregon, USALeonid Zhmud (Pythagoreans) Institute for the History of Science, St. Petersburg, RussiaArnaud Zucker (Biological authors) Université de Nice, Faculté LASH, Nice, France 11

P:23

I N T RO D U C T I O NMany other scholars and friends assisted in the creation of this work, often by helping usﬁnd contributors (marked * in the list below). Much of the work was carried out in thelibraries at Columbia University, at New York University, at the New York Public Library,and at the College of William and Mary whose Inter-Library Loan oﬃce is the very modelof cheerful eﬃciency. We are grateful to those organizations, to Richard Stoneman for ﬁrstseeing the value of the book, and to the 78 individuals listed below, notably Michèle Lowrie(whose questions always clarify) and Keith Massie (whose eﬀorts included tracking downmuseum addresses, creating digital images, and building a secure web site which greatlyfacilitated the ﬁnal editing process). Georgia L. Irby-Massie dedicates her entries and editor-ial eﬀorts to her father, Richard E. Irby, an autodidact and polymath, who ﬁrst setGeorgia’s feet on the path of knowledge, truth, and scientiﬁc inquiry.Silvia Barbantani* Ian LockeyAndrew Barker* Michèle LowrieAdam H. Becker* Enrico Magnelli*Peter Bing* Jaap Mansfeld*Calvin Bower* Keith MassieEwen Bowie* Steve McCluskey*Laurel M. Bowman Michael McCormickCharles Burnett* Michèle Mertens*William M. Calder III* Chris Minkowski*Alan D.E. Cameron David MirhadyDee Clayman* Phil Mitsis*Shaye Cohen* Tony Natoli*J.J. Coulton* Thomas Noble*Seraﬁna Cuomo* Jim O’Donnell*Frans de Haas* Tim O’Keefe*Denise Demetriou Michael Peachin*Bruce Eastwood* Jim Porter*Michel Federspiel* John M. Riddle*Simonetta Feraboli Tracey E. Rihll*William W. Fortenbaugh* Duane RollerDorothea Frede David Runia*Michael Frede Jacques Schamp*Karen Green David N. Sedley*Jerry Heverly Robert W. Sharples*Brooke Holmes David Sider*C.A. Huﬀman* Ian SimmondsRichard Janko* Lucas SiorvanesC.H. Kahn* P. Oktor Skjaervo*R.A. Kaster David A. SmithRachel L. Keyser Richard Sorabji*Ewald Kislinger* Liba Taub*Johannes Koder* Bill ThayerNita Krevans* Teun Tieleman*Bob Lamberton* Philip van der Eijk*M.J.T. Lewis* Marlein van Raalte* 12

P:24

I N T RO D U C T I O NEvangelos Venetis* Craig WilliamsHeinrich von Staden* Georg Woehrle*Bonna Wescoat* Ehsan Yarshater*Stephen Wheeler* Jim ZetzelNeedless to say, they should not be held accountable for any defects of this work. Abbreviations and Bibliographyb. = born n.d. = no datec. = century (pl.: “cc.”) # = numberca = circa ns = new seriesd. = died pr. = preface/proem/prologueed. = edition/editor (pl.: “edd.”) repr. = reprintedf. = folio (pl.: “ﬀ.”) § = sectionfr. = fragment (pl.: “frr.”) s. = seriesmod. = modern S. = Supplementn. = note (pl.: “nn.”) v. = volume (pl.: “vv.”)The bibliographic closing date of the EANS was 31 December 2007: itemsappearing after that date could not be taken into account; in a few cases con-tributors were aware of items forthcoming, and those are cited as such.Abbreviations of journal titles are according to L’Année Philologique (Paris1924–). Texts of authors in the encyclopedia:Are cited according to the edition(s) given in the relevant entry (q.v.); see esp. G . Notealso:• Editions cited by an abbreviation of their title are also listed below under “Works (of reference and editions) cited by abbreviation”.• Editions cited by author-date (e.g., those in the Loeb and CUF series) are also listed below under “Frequently-cited” works.• Editions cited by name of editor(s), without date or title, are listed here:Athan. P. Athanassiadi, Damascius, The Philosophical History (Athens 1999)BDM U.C. Bussemaker, Ch. Daremberg, and A. Molinier, Oeuvres d’Oribase 6 vv. (Paris 1851–1876)Cornarius J. Cornarius, Aetii medici graeci contractae ex veteribus medicinæ Tetrabiblos, etc. (Basel 1542)DK H. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 2 vv. (Zürich and Berlin 1964: 11th ed.) – cited by section and fragment numberDR Ch. Daremberg and Ch.É. Ruelle, Oeuvres de Rufus d’Éphèse (Paris 1879; repr. 1963) 13

P:25

I N T RO D U C T I O NDeichgr. K. Deichgräber, Die griechische Empirikerschule (Berlin 1930; augmented repr.EK 1965) L. Edelstein and I.G. Kidd, Posidonius, 3 vv. in 4: Edelstein and Kidd, v. 1 Text,FHSG 2nd ed. (Cambridge 1989); Kidd, vv. 2.1, 2.2 Commentary (Cambridge 1988), Kidd, v. 3 Translation (Cambridge 1999) – cited by fragment numberFr. W.W. Fortenbaugh, Pamela Huby, Robert W. Sharples, and Dimitri Gutas,Hultsch edd., Theophrastus of Eresus. Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought and Inﬂuence, 2 vv.K. (Leiden 1992) = Philosophia Antiqua 54; Commentary, vv. 2, 3.1, 4, 5, 8 (of 9 projected) (1995–2006) = Philosophia Antiqua 103, 79, 81, 64, 97 (respectively) –KRS cited by fragment numberLittré G. Friedlein, Procli Diadochi In primum Euclidis Elementorum librum commentariiMMH (Leipzig 1873)Nachm. Fr. Hultsch, Pappi: Math. Collectiones quae supersunt, 3 vv. (Berlin 1876–1878)Puschm. C.G. Kühn, Claudii Galeni Opera omnia, 20 vv. in 22 parts (Leipzig 1821–1833;Speranza repr. Hildesheim 1964–1965; 1986); note: CMGen = De Compositione Medicamen-Tecusan torum per Genera; CMLoc = De Compositione Medicamentorum secundum LocosThesleﬀ G.S. Kirk, J.E. Raven, and Malcolm Schoﬁeld, The Presocratic Philosophers,W. 2nd ed. (Cambridge 1983)Wa. É. Littré, Oeuvres complètes d’Hippocrate, 10 vv. (Paris 1839–1861; repr. AmsterdamW.-C. 1973–1980)W.-H. J. Marquardt, I. Müller, and G. Helmreich, Claudii Galeni Pergameni ScriptaWu. Minora 3 vv. (Leipzig 1884, 1891, 1893; repr. Amsterdam 1967)Wehrli E. Nachmanson, Erotiani Vocum Hippocraticarum collectio cum fragmentis (UppsalaWellmann 1918) Th. Puschmann, Alexander von Tralles. Original-Text und Übersetzung 2 vv. (Vienna 1878–1879; repr. Amsterdam 1963) F. Speranza, Scriptorum Romanorum De Re Rustica Reliquiae (Messina 1971) M. Tecusan, The Fragments of the Methodists, v.1: Methodism outside Soranus (Leiden 2004) = SAM v.24/1 H. Thesleﬀ, The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period (Äbo 1965) Carle Wescher, Poliork¯etika kai poliorkiai diaphor¯on pole¯on. Poliorcétique des Grecs. Traités théoriques. – Récits historiques (Paris 1867) C. Wachsmuth, Ioannis Laurentii Lydi, Liber de ostentis (Leipzig 1863; 2nd ed. 1897) L.G. Westerink and J. Combès, Damascius, Traité des premiers principes, 3 vv. (CUF: Paris 1986–1991) C. Wachsmuth and O. Hense, Iohannis Stobaei Anthologium 5 vv. (1884–1912) – often instead cited by “book.section” R. Wuensch, Ioannis Laurentii Lydi, Liber de mensibus (Stuttgart 1903; repr. 1967). F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles, 2nd ed., 10 vv. (Basel 1967–1969), Suppl. 2 vv. (Basel 1974, 1978) M. Wellmann, Fragmentsammlung der griechischen Ärzte, I: Die Fragmente der sikelischen Ärtze Akron, Philistion und des Diokles von Karystos (Berlin 1901) 14

P:26

I N T RO D U C T I O N Works (of reference and editions) cited by abbreviation of title:ACA Ancient Commentators on Aristotle Series (London and Ithaca 1989–), ed. R. SorabjiACT Astronomical cuneiform texts: Babylonian ephemerides of the Seleucid period for the motion of the sun, the moon, and the planets (London 1955; repr. New York and BerlinAL 1983), ed. O. NeugebauerAML Anthologia Latina, 2 vv. in 5 (Leipzig 1893–1926; repr. 1964, 1973), ed. Fr.ANRW Bücheler (v. 2) and A. Riese (v. 1)BAGRW Antike Medizin: Ein Lexikon (München 2005), ed. K.-H. LevenBBKL Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (Berlin and New York 1972–), ed.BEA H. TemporiniBNJ Barrington atlas of the Greek and Roman world (Princeton 2000), ed. R.J. TalbertBNP Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, 26 vv. (Hamm 1975–2005), ed. F.W. BautzBTML Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers (New York and Berlin 2007), ed. Thos. A. HockeyCA Brill’s new Jacoby, ed. I. Worthington et al. (forthcoming); see http://CAAG www.brillsnewjacoby.com/description.htmlCAG Brill’s New Pauly 11 vv. to date (Leiden 2002–), ed. H. Cancik and H. Schnei-CCAG der (the NP is cited instead of not-yet published volumes of the BNP, or when an entry is missing from the BNP)CAR Bibliographie des textes médicaux latins. Antiquité et haut moyen âge, edd. G. Sabbah, P.-P. Corsetti, and K.-D. Fischer (Saint-Étienne 1987 [1988]) = Mémoires duCESS Centre Jean Palerne 6; and Premier Supplement, 1986–1999 (2000), ed. K.-D. FischerCHG Collectanea Alexandrina (Oxford 1925; repr. 1970, 1981), ed. J.U. Powell Collection des anciens alchimistes Grecs, 3 vv. (Paris 1883–1888; repr. London 1963),CMAG ed. M. Berthelot and Ch.-Ém. RuelleCMG Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, 23 vv. and three supplements, some in multiple parts (Berlin 1882–1909) Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum, 12 vv. in 20 parts (Brussels 1898–1953), ed. D. Bassi, Fr. Boll, P. Boudreaux, Fr. Cumont, A. Delatte, J. Heeg, W. Kroll, E. Martini, A. Olivieri, Ch.-Ém. Ruelle, M.A.F. Sˇangin, St. Weinstock, and C.O. Zuretti Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum (Naples 1993–): 1. M. Clavel-Lévêque et al., Les conditions des terres, Siculus Flaccus (1993); 2. Présentation systematique de toutes les ﬁgures (1996); 3. J.-Y. Guillaumin, Balbus. Podismus et textes connexes (1996); 4. M. Clavel-Lévêque et al., Hygin l’arpenteur, l’établissement des limites (1996); 5. O. Behrends et al., Hygin. L’oeuvre gromatique (2000) Census of the Exact Sciences in Sanskrit, Series A, 5 vv. to date (Philadelphia 1970–1994), ed. D.E. Pingree Corpus Hippiatricorum Graecorum 1: Hippiatrica Berolinensia (Leipzig, 1924) and 2: Hippiatrica Parisina, Hippiatrica Cantabrigiensia, Additamenta Londinensia, Excerpta Lugdunensia (Leipzig 1927); (both vv. repr. Stuttgart 1971), ed. E. Oder and C. Hoppe Catalogue des manuscripts alchimiques grecs, 8 vv. (Brussels 1924–1932), ed. J. Bidez et al. Corpus Medicorum Graecorum (Berlin 1908–) 15

P:27

I N T RO D U C T I O NCML Corpus Medicorum Latinorum (Berlin 1915–)CTC Catalogus translationum et commentariorum, 8 vv. to date (Washington 1960, 1971,CUF 1976, 1980, 1984, 1986, 1992, 2003), ed. P.O. Kristeller et al.DPA Collection des Universités de France (i.e. the “Budé” series)DSB Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques, 4 vv. (Paris 1989, 1994, 2000, 2005) and Supplement (2003) to date, ed. R. GouletEAAE Dictionary of Scientiﬁc Biography, 14 vv. (New York 1970–1976, 2 vv. per year), v.ECP 15 = S.1 (1978), v.16, index (1980), ed. C.C. Gillispie (vv. 17–18 = S.2–3EI contain no relevant entries); see also NDSBEJ2 Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt (Routledge 1999), ed. Kathryn A.FHG BardFLP Encyclopedia of Classical Philosophy (Westport 1997), ed. D.J. ZeylFGrHist Encyclopaedia Iranica, 12 vv. to date (London and Boston 1982–), ed.GAS E. Yarshater Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd ed. 22 vv. (Detroit 2007), ed. F. Skolnik andGGL M. BerenbaumGGLA Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, 5 vv. (Paris 1849–1884), ed. K.O. MullerGGM The Fragmentary Latin poets (Oxford 2003), rev. ed., E. CourtneyGGP Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Leiden 1923–), ed. F. Jacoby – cited byGL number (not volume and page)GLLM Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, 12 vv. to date (Leiden 1967–), ed. F. Sezgin: v.GLM 3 (Medizin, Pharmazie, Zoologie, Tierheilkunde, 1970), v. 4 (Alchimie,GRL Chemie, Botanik, Agrikultur, 1971), v. 5 (Mathematik, 1974), v. 6 (Astronomie,HGM 1978), v. 7 (Astrologie, Meteorologie und Verwandtes, 1979), vv. 10–12HGP (Mathematische Geographie und Kartographie, 2000)HLB Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, 5 vv. (München 1929–1948), ed. WilhelmHLL Schmid und O. Stählin – cited by section Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit, 2 vv. (Leipzig 1891–1892), ed. Fr. Susemihl – cited by section Geographi Graeci Minores, 2 vv. (Paris 1855–1861; repr. Hildesheim 1990), ed. K. Müller Grundriß der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike, 4 vv. (Basel 1983–), ed. H. Flashar Grammatici Latini 8 vv. (Leipzig 1855–1880; repr. 1961; repr. 1981), ed. H. Keil Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, v.1 (München 1911), ed. M. Manitius Geographi Latini Minores (Heilbrun 1878; repr. Hildesheim 1964), ed. A.L. Riese Geschichte der römischen Literatur, 4 vv. (München 1896–1935), ed. M. Schanz and C. Hosius – cited by section Handbuch der Geschichte der Medizin, v. 1, begründet von Th. Puschmann, ed. M. Neuburger and J. Pagel (Jena 1902; repr. Hildesheim 1971) History of Greek Philosophy, 6 vv. (Cambridge 1965–1981), W.K.C. Guthrie Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, 2 vv. (München 1978), Herbert Hunger Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike 5 vv. (München 1989–), ed. R. Herzog and P.L. Schmidt – cited by volume and section number 16

P:28

I N T RO D U C T I O NHWPhil Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie 12 vv. (Basel and Stuttgart 1971–2004)KLA Künstlerlexikon der Antike 2 vv. (Munich and Leipzig, 2004), ed. R. VollkommerKP and D. Vollkommer-GloeklerLGPN Der Kleine Pauly, 5 vv. (Stuttgart 1969–1975), ed. K. Ziegler and W. SontheimerMGG2 Lexicon of Greek Personal Names 4 vv. (in 5) to date (Oxford 1987–), ed. P.M. FraserMRR and E. MatthewsMSG Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Personenteil, 2nd rev. ed., 17 vv. (Kassel,MSR New York and Stuttgart 1999–2007), ed. L. FinscherNDSB Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 2nd ed., 3 vv. (Atlanta 1984–1986), ed. T.R.S.NGD2 BroughtonNP Musici scriptores graeci (Leipzig 1895; repr. Hildesheim 1962), ed. Karl von Jan Metrologicorum Scriptorum Reliquiae (Stuttgart 1864–1866; reprint 1971), ed. Fr.OCD3 Hultsch New Dictionary of Scientiﬁc Biography 8 vv. (Detroit 2007), ed. Noretta KoertgeODB New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd rev. ed., 29 vv. (London 2001),PCG ed. S. Sadie and J. TyrrellPGR Der Neue Pauly, 12 vv. (Stuttgart 1996–2003), ed. H. Cancik und HelmuthPG Schneider (the BNP is cited by preference when available, i.e., normally upPL through “Pr-”): vv. 10 (2001), 11 (2001), 12/1 (2002), 12/2 (2003)PIR2 Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed. rev. (Oxford 2003), ed. S. Hornblower andPLRE A.J.S. Spawforth – pages diﬀer from the 3rd ed. only for Aristokle¯s of Messe¯ne¯RAC and He¯liodo¯ros of Alexandria (med.)RBK Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3 vv. (Oxford 1991), ed. A.P. Kazhdan (paginated continuously)RE Poetae Comici Graeci, 8 vv. (New York and Berlin 1983–2001), ed. R. Kassel and C. AustinREP Paradoxographorum Graecorum Reliquiae (Classici Greci e Latini 3, Milan 1966), ed.RUSCH A. Giannini Patrologiae cursus completus . . . series graeca 161 vv. (Paris 1857–1866; repr. Athens 1988), ed. J.P. Migne Patrologiae cursus completus . . . series latina 221 vv. (Paris 1844–1891), ed. J.P. Migne Prosopographia Imperii Romani, 2nd ed., (Berlin 1933–), ed. E. Groag and Arthur Stein – cited by Letter + number (not volume and page) Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, 3 vv. (Cambridge 1971, 1980, 1992), ed. A.H.M. Jones, J.R. Martindale, and J. Morris Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, 20 vv. to date (Stuttgart 1950–), ed. Th. Klauser et al. Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst 6 vv. to date, issued in fascicles (Stuttgart v.1: 1963–1966; v.2: 1967–1971; v.3: 1972–1978; v.4: 1982–1990; v.5: 1991–1995; v.6: 1997–2005), ed. K. Wessel and M. Restle Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 85 vv, incl. 15 sup- plements (Stuttgart 1893–1978), ed. G. Wissowa et al.; see also the Paulys Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertunswissenschaft: Gesamtregister 1 (Stuttgart 1997), ed. Tobias Erler et al. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 10 vv. (Routledge 1998), ed. Edward Craig Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 13 vv. to date (New Brunswick and London 1983–) ed. W.W. Fortenbaugh et al. 17

P:29

SAM I N T RO D U C T I O NSDSSEP Studies in Ancient Medicine, 33 vv. to date (Leiden 1990–) Storia della scienza (Rome 2001–), ed. S. PetruccioliSH Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta, online: http:// plato.stanford.edu/ (search under the given entry-title)Souda Supplementum Hellenisticum (Berlin and New York 1983), ed. H. Lloyd-Jones and P. Parsons – cited by fragment (not page)SRMH A. Adler, Suidae Lexicon 5 vv. (Leipzig 1928-1938; repr. 1967–1971; repr. 1989–2001) – cited by Letter + number of entrySSR Source Readings in Music History (New York 1998), ed. W. Oliver Strunk, rev. ed.SVF L. Treitler: v. 1: Greek Views of Music, ed. T.J. Mathiesen Socratis et Socraticorum Reliquiae 4 vv. (Naples 1990), ed. G. GiannantoniTAM Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, 4 vv. (Leipzig 1905–1924; repr. Stuttgart 1968; Dubuque 1973), ed. H.F.A. von ArnimTLL Tituli Asiae Minoris, 5 vv. to date (Vienna 1901–), ed. E. Kalinka, R. Heberdey,TTE and P. Herrmann Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, 10 vv. to date (Leipzig 1900–) Trade Travel and Exploration in the Middle Ages (New York 2000), ed. J.B. Friedman, K.M. Figg, et al. Inscriptions, Manuscripts, and Papyri:Papyri edited in a series are cited usually with both the volume number and papyrusnumber, e.g., P.Hibeh 1.27 or P.Mich. 3.148.BNF Bibliothèque nationale de FranceCIL Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, 17 vv. to date, some in 2nd ed. (Berlin 1862–)IBM The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum 4vv. (Oxford 1874–1916; repr. Milan 1977–1979): vv. 1–3, ed. T.C. Newton, E.L. Hicks,IG3 and Gustav Hirschfeld; v. 4 ed. Gustav Hirschfeld and F.H. MarshallIGLSyr Inscriptiones Graecae, 3rd ed. (Berlin 1981–) Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie 7 vv. (and parts of others) to date (ParisIGRR 1929–), ed. L. Jalabert, R. Mouterde, et al. Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes, v. 1 (Paris 1911) ed. R. Cagnat et al.;ILS v. 3 (1906), ed. R. Cagnat and G. Lafaye; v. 4 (1927), ed. G. Lafaye [v. 2 never published]; all vv. (repr. Rome 1964)OGIS Inscriptiones latinae selectae 3 vv. (Berlin 1892–1916; repr. 1954–1955; repr. Chicago 1979), ed. Hermann DessauP.Ant. Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae 2 vv. (Leipzig 1903–1905; repr. HildesheimP.Berol. 1960), ed. Wilh. DittenbergerPGM The Antinopolis papyri 3 vv. (London 1950–1967) Papyri graecae berolinenses (Berlin 1911), ed. Wilhelm SchubartP.Hibeh Papyri graecae magicae 2 vv. (Leipzig 1928–1931), ed. K. Preisendanz; rev. ed. by Albert Henrichs (Stuttgart 1973–1974) The Hibeh Papyri, 2 vv. (London 1906, 1955), ed. B.P. Grenfell and E.G. Turner 18

P:30

I N T RO D U C T I O NP.Lit.Lond. Catalogue of the Literary Papyri in the British Museum (London 1927), ed. H.J.M.P.Lund. MilneP.Mich. Aus der Papyrussammlung der Universitätsbibliothek in Lund (Lund 1934/1935), ed. A.F. WifstrandP.Mil.Vogl. Michigan Papyri (individual volumes variously subtitled and edited) 19 vv. toP.Oslo. date (Ann Arbor 1931–); see esp:POxy v.2 (1933), ed. A.E.R Boak, Papyri from Tebtunis, Part IP.Ryl. v.3 (1936), ed. J.G. Winter, Papyri in the University of Michigan collection; miscel-PSI laneous papyriP.Tebtunis v.5 (1944), ed. E.M. Husselman, A.E.R. Boak, and W.F. Edgerton, Papyri from Tebtunis, Part IIP.Turner Papiri della R. Università di Milano (Milan 1937; repr. 1966), ed. A. VoglianoPack Papyri Osloenses 3 vv. to date (Oslo 1925–), ed. S. EitremSamama The Oxyrhynchus papyri, 67 vv. to date (London 1898–), ed. B.P. Grenfell et al.SB Catalogue of the Greek {and Latin} Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester 4 vv. (Manchester 1911–1952): vv.3–4 have the augmented title Papiri Greci e Latini, Pubblicazioni della Società italiana per la ricerca dei papiri greci e latini in Egitto 15 vv. (Florence 1912–1979; repr. 2004) Tebtunis Papyri, vv.1-3, ed. C.C. Edgar, E.J. Goodspeed, B.P. Grenfell, A.S. Hunt, and J.G. Smyly (London 1902–1938); v.4, ed. J.G. Keenan and J.C. Shelton (London 1976); see also several vv. of P.Mich. Papyri Greek and Egyptian edited by various hands in Honour of Eric Gardner Turner (London 1981) Roger A. Pack, ed., The Greek and Latin literary texts from Greco-Roman Egypt, 2nd ed. (Ann Arbor 1965) – cited by number (not page) Évelyne Samama, Les médecins dans le monde grec: Sources épigraphiques sur la naissance d’un corps medical (Geneva 2003) – cited by number (not page) Sammelbuch Griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten 26 vv. to date (Strassburg 1915) Frequently-cited works, cited by “Author (Date) pp.” (works entered here if cited thrice or more; forenames written out when needed for clariﬁcation):J.N. Adams, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (London and Baltimore 1982).Idem, Pelagonius and Latin Veterinary Terminology in the Roman Empire (Leiden 1995) = SAM 11.B. Alexanderson, Peri Krise¯on. Galenos. Überlieferung und Text (Stockholm, Göteborg and Uppsala 1967).I. Andorlini Marcone, “L’apporto dei papiri alla conoscenza della scienza medica antica,” ANRW 2.37.1 (1993) 458–562.Jacques André, Les Noms de plantes dans la Rome antique (Paris 1985).R.G. Arnott, “Healing and medicine in the Aegean Bronze Age,” J Roy Soc Med 89 (1996) 265–270.Athanassiadi (1999): see “editions,” above.H. Bailey, Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-Century Books (Oxford 1943; new ed. 1971).A.D. Barker, Greek Musical Writings 2 vv. (Cambridge 1984, 1989).Idem, The Science of Harmonics in Classical Greece (Cambridge 2007).I.C. Beavis, Insects and Other Invertebrates in Classical Antiquity (Exeter 1988).A. Beccaria, I codici di medicina del periodo presalernitano (secoli IX, X e XI) (Rome 1956). 19

P:31

I N T RO D U C T I O NM. Berthelot, Les origines de l’alchimie (Paris 1885).I. Bodnár and W.W. Fortenbaugh, edd., Eudemus of Rhodes (2002) = RUSCH 11.A.C. Bowen, ed., Science and philosophy in classical Greece (New York 1991).J. Bidez, “Plantes et pierres magiques d’après le ps. Plutarque de ﬂuviis,” in Mélanges oﬀerts à O. Navarre (Toulouse 1935) 25–38.Idem and F. Cumont, Les Mages hellénisés (Paris 1938; repr. New York 1975).G. Björck, Zum Corpus hippiatricorum graecorum. Beiträge zur antiken Tierheilkunde = Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift (1932) # 5.Idem, Apsyrtus, Julius Africanus, et l’hippiatrique grecque = Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift (1944) # 4.J. Blänsdorf, Fragmenta Poetarum Latinorum epicorum et lyricorum (Leipzig 1995).R.C. Blockley, The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire:. Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus 2 vv. (Liverpool 1981–1982).Peter Brain, trans., Galen on Bloodletting (Cambridge 1986).Jean Rhys Bram, Ancient Astrology Theory and Practice (Park Ridge, NJ 1975; repr. 2005).A.J. Brock, Greek Medicine. Being Extracts Illustrative of Medical Writers from Hippocrates to Galen (London, Toronto and New York 1929).S.P. Brock, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature (Kottayam 1997).W. Burkert, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism, trans. by E.L. Minar, Jr. (Cambridge Mass. 1972).Bussemaker, Daremberg, and Molinier (1851–1876): see “editions”, above.Brian Campbell, The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors (London 2000).L. Casson, The Periplus Maris Erythraei (Princeton 1989).R. Chartier, Magni Hippocratis Coi et Claudii Galeni Pergameni Archiatron Universa Quae Extant Opera 13 vv. (Paris 1639).G.-A. Costomiris “Études sur les écrits inédits des anciens médecins grecs. Deuxième série,” REG 3 (1890) 145–179.S. Cuomo, Pappus of Alexandria and the Mathematics of Late Antiquity (Cambridge 2000).M. Decorps-Foulquier, Recherches sur les Coniques d’Apollonios de Pergé et leurs commentateurs grecs (Paris 2000).Deichgräber (1930): see “editions,” above.A. De Lazzer, Plutarco. Paralleli minori (Naples 2000).Idem, Plutarco. Fiumi e monti (Naples 2003).D.R. Dicks, Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle (London 1970).Keith Dickson, Stephanus the Philosopher and Physician. Commentary on Galen’s Therapeutics to Glaucon (Leiden 1998) = SAM 19.H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci (Berlin 1879; repr. 1929, 1958, 1965).Idem, Die Handschriften der antiken Ärzte 2 vv. (Berlin 1905–1907); plus Bericht über den Stand des interakadem- ischen Corpus Medicorum Antiquorum und erster Nachtrag zu den in den Abhandlungen 1905 and 1906 veröﬀent- lichten Katalogen: Die Handschriften der antiken Ärzte, I. und II. Teil. Zusammengestelt im Namen der Kommission der königl. preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften = Abhandlungen der königl. preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, Abhandlung 2 (1907; repr. Berlin 1908); all three vv. repr. (Leipzig 1970).Idem, Antike Technik, 2nd ed. (Leipzig and Berlin 1920).F. Dietz, Apollonii Citiensis, Stephani, Palladii, Theophili, Meletii, Damascii, Ioannis, aliorum Scholia in Hippocra- tem et Galenum 2 vv. (Königsburg 1840; repr. Amsterdam 1963).O.A.W. Dilke, Greek and Roman Maps (Ithaca 1985).Aubrey Diller, The Tradition of the Minor Greek Geographers (Lancaster 1952).John M. Dillon, The Middle Platonists, 80 B.C. to A.D. 220, 2nd ed. (Ithaca 1996).Idem, The Heirs of Plato: a study of the Old Academy, 347–274 B.C. (Oxford 2003).K. Dimitriadis, Byzantinische Uroskopie (Inaugural-Dissertation, Universität Bonn 1971).B. Dodge, The Fihrist of Al-Nadim: A Tenth-Century Survey of Muslim Culture 2 vv. (New York 1970).G. Downey, “Byzantine Architects: Their Training and Methods,” Byzantion 18 (1948) 99–118.A.G. Drachmann, Ktesibios, Philon and Heron (Copenhagen 1948).Idem, Mechanical Technology of Greek and Roman antiquity (Munksgaard 1963). 20

P:32

I N T RO D U C T I O NW.L.H. Duckworth (ed. M.C. Lyons and B. Towers), Galen. On anatomical procedures, the later books (Cambridge 1962).D. Dueck, Strabo of Amasia: a Greek Man of Letters in Augustan Rome (Routledge 2000).I. Düring, Porphyrios Kommentar zur Harmonielehre des Ptolemaios (Göteborg 1932).R.J. Durling, A Dictionary of Medical Terms in Galen (Leiden 1993) = SAM 5.L. Edelstein, “Methodiker,” RE S.6 (1935) 358–373, English trans. by C.L. Temkin as “The Method- ists” in O. Temkin and C.L. Temkin, edd., Ancient Medicine: Selected Papers by Ludwig Edelstein (Baltimore 1967; repr. 1987) 173–191.Edelstein and Kidd (1972-1999): see “editions,” above.É. Espérandieu, Signacula medicorum oculariorum = CIL 13.3.2 (Berlin 1906).W.C. Evans, Trease and Evans’ Pharmacognosy, 14th ed. (London 1996).Johann Albert Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, v.13 (Hamburg 1726).Cajus Fabricius, Galens Exzerpte aus älteren Pharmakologen (Berlin 1972).K.-D. Fischer, Pelagonii Ars veterinaria (Leipzig 1980).A.J. Festugière, La révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste 4 vv, 2nd ed. (Paris 1949–1953; repr. in 3 vv, 1983).P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria 3 vv. (Oxford 1972).M. Frede, “The Method of the So-Called Methodical School of Medicine,” in J. Barnes et al., edd., Science and Speculation: Studies in Hellenistic Theory and Practice (Cambridge, New York and Paris 1982) 1–23.J.W. Fück, “The Arabic Literature on Alchemy According to An-Nadim (A.D. 987): A translation of the tenth discourse of the Book of the Catalogue (Al-Fihrist) with introduction and commentary,” Ambix 4 (1951) 81–144.D.J. Furley and J.S. Wilkie (w/trans. and comm.), ed., Galen On Respiration and the Arteries (Princeton 1984).H. Gerstinger, Codex Vindobonensis med. Gr. 1 der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek (Graz 1970).A. Giannini, “Studi sulla paradossograﬁa greca II,” Acme 17 (1964) 99–140.A. Gioè, Filosoﬁ medioplatonici del II secolo d.C. Gaio, Albino, Lucio, Nicostrato, Tauro, Severo, Arpocrazione = Elenchos 36 (Naples 2002).B.R. Goldstein and A.C. Bowen, “Meton of Athens and Astronomy in the Late Fifth Century B.C.,” in E. Leichty, M. de J. Ellis, and P. Gerardi, edd., A Scientiﬁc Humanist: Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs (Philadelphia 1988) 40–81.Eidem, “The introduction of dated observations and precise measurement in Greek astronomy,” AHES 43 (1991) 93–132.H.B. Gottschalk, “Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century,” ANRW 2.36.2 (1987) 1079–1174; in part reprinted as “The earliest Aristotelian commentators,” in R. Sorabji, ed., Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their inﬂuence (London 1990) 55–81.D. Gourevitch, “L’Anonyme de Londres et la médecine d’Italie du Sud,” HPLS 11 (1989) 237–251.Henry Gray, Anatomy of the Human Body, 27th ed., ed. Charles Mayo Goss (Philadelphia 1959).H. Grensemann, Knidische Medizin (Berlin 1975).C.L. Grotefend, Die Stempel der römische Augenärzte (Hannover 1867).M.D. Grmek, Diseases in the Ancient Greek World (Baltimore and London 1989), trans. of Les maladies à l’aube de la civilisation (Paris 1983) by Mireille Muellner and Leonard Muellner.Idem and D. Gourevitch, “Aux sources de la doctrine médicale de Galien: l’enseignement de Marinus, Quintus et Numisianus,” ANRW 2.37.2 (1994) 1491–1528.W. Gundel and H.G. Gundel, Astrologumena: Die astrologische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte (Wiesbaden 1966).R. Halleux, Les alchimistes grecs I: Papyrus de Leyde. Papyrus de Stockholm, Fragments de recettes (Paris: CUF 1981).Idem and J. Schamp, Les lapidaires grecs (Paris: CUF 1985).R.J. Hankinson, Galen On the Therapeutic Method Books I and II (Oxford and New York 1991). 21

P:33

I N T RO D U C T I O NC.R.S. Harris, The Heart and the Vascular System in Ancient Greek Medicine from Alcmaeon to Galen (Oxford 1973).T.L. Heath, A history of Greek mathematics (Oxford 1921; repr. New York 1981).Idem, The thirteen books of Euclid’s Elements, 3 vv., 2nd ed. (Cambridge 1926; repr. New York 1956).E. Heitsch, Griechischen Dichterfragmente der römischen Kaiserzeit 2 vv. (Göttingen 1963–1964).Jeﬀrey Henderson, The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy, 2nd ed. (New York and Oxford 1991).Gustav Heuser, Die Personennamen der Kopten (Leipzig 1929).R.G. Hoyland, “Theomnestus of Nicopolis, Hunayn ibn Ishaq, and the beginnings of Islamic veterinary science,” in R.G. Hoyland and P.F. Kennedy, edd., Islamic Reﬂections, Arabic Musings. Studies in Honour of Professor Alan Jones (Cambridge 2004) 150–169.C.A. Huﬀman, Philolaus of Croton: Pythagorean and Presocratic (Cambridge 1993).Fr. Hultsch, Griechische und römische Metrologie, 2nd ed. (Berlin 1882; repr. Graz 1971).Idem (1876–1878): see “editions,” above.J.L. Ideler, Physici et medici graeci minores 2 vv. (Berlin 1841–1842; repr. Amsterdam 1963).A.M. Ieraci Bio, “La transmissione della letteratura medica greca nell’Italia meridionale fra x e xv secolo,” in A. Garzya, ed., Contributi alla Cultura greca nell’Italia meridionale (Naples 1989) 133–257.S. Ihm, Clavis commentariorum der antiken medizinischen Texte (Leiden 2002).G.L. Irby-Massie and P.T. Keyser, Greek Science of the Hellenistic Era (Routledge 2002).J.-M. Jacques, Nicandre, v.2 (Paris: CUF 2002); v.3 (2007).F. Jacoby, “Die Überlieferung von ps.-Plutarchs parallela minora und die Schwindelautoren,” Mnemosyne 8 (1940) 73–144.Ian Johnston, Galen on Diseases and Symptoms (Cambridge 2006).Alexander Jones, Book 7 of the Collection: Pappus of Alexandria, 2 vv. (New York 1986).Idem, “Uses and Users of Astronomical Commentaries,” in G.W. Most, ed., Commentaries – Kommentare (Göttingen 1999) 163–172.H.W.S. Jones, Hippocrates vv.1–2 (Cambridge, MA: Loeb 1923), v.4 (1931).D. Kahn and S. Matton, edd., Alchimie: art, histoire et mythes. Actes du 1er colloque international de la Société d’Étude de l’Histoire de l’Alchimie, (Textes et Travaux de Chrysopoeia, I) (Paris and Milan 1995).S. Kapetanaki and R.W. Sharples, Pseudo-Aristoteles (Pseudo-Alexander), Supplementa Problematorum (Berlin and New York 2006).R.A. Kaster, C. Suetonius Tranquillus: De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus (Oxford 1995).A. Keller, Die Abortiva in der römischen Kaiserzeit (Stuttgart 1988).W.R. Knorr, The Evolution of Euclidean Elements (Dordrecht 1975).Idem, The ancient tradition of geometric problems (Boston 1986).Idem, Textual studies in ancient and medieval geometry (Boston and New York 1989).J. Kollesch, “René Chartier, Herausgegeber und Fälscher der Werke Galens,” Klio 48 (1967) 183–198.Idem, Untersuchungen zu den pseudogalenischen Deﬁnitiones Medicae (Berlin 1973).J. Korpela, Das Medizinalpersonal im antiken Rom: eine sozialgeschichte Untersuchung (Helsinki 1987).Fr. Kudlien, “Poseidonios und die Ärztesschule der Pneumatiker,” Hermes 90 (1962) 419–429.Idem, “Pneumatische Ärzte,” in RE S.11 (1968) 1097–1108.Kühn (1821–1833): see “editions,” above.J.H. Langenheim, Plant Resins (Portland and Cambridge 2003).D.R. Langslow, Medical Latin in the Roman Empire (Oxford and New York 2000).Fr. Lasserre, De Léodamas de Thasos à Philippe d’Oponte: témoignages et fragments: edition, traduction et commentaire (Naples 1987).E. Leichty, M. de J. Ellis and P. Gerardi, edd., A Scientiﬁc Humanist: Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs = Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 9 (Philadelphia 1988).Jean Letrouit, “Chronologie des alchimistes grecs,” in Kahn and Matton (1995) 11–93.Littré (1839–1861): see “editions,” above.A.A. Long, ed., Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy (Cambridge 1999). 22

P:34

I N T RO D U C T I O NIdem and D.N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers 2 vv. (Cambridge 1987).J. Longrigg, Greek rational medicine: Philosophy and medicine from Alcmaeon to the Alexandrians (London 1993).E. Maass, Commentariorum in Aratum reliquiae (Berlin 1898).Anne McCabe, A Byzantine Encyclopaedia of Horse Medicine: The Sources, Compilation, and Transmission of the Hippiatrica (Oxford 2007).R.J. Mainstone, Hagia Sophia (New York 1988).D. Manetti and A. Roselli, “Galeno commentatore di Ippocrate,” ANRW 2.37.2 (1994) 1529– 1635.J. Mansfeld and D. Runia, Aetiana. The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer I. The Sources (Leiden 1996).M.-H. Marganne, Inventaire Analytique des Papyrus Grecs de Médecine (Geneva 1981).Eadem, L’ophthalmologie dans l’Égypte gréco-romaine (Leiden 1994) = SAM 8.Eadem, “Les medicaments estampillés dans le Corpus Galénqiue,” Galen on Pharmacology, ed. A. Debru = SAM 16 (1997) 153–174.Eadem, La chirurgie dans l’Égypte gréco-romaine d’aprés les papyrus littéraires grecs = SAM 17 (1998).Marquardt, Müller and Helmreich: see “editions,” above.E.W. Marsden, Greek and Roman Artillery 2 vv. (Oxford 1969, 1971).Jean Martin, Histoire du texte des Phénomènes d’Aratos (Paris 1956).T.J. Mathiesen, Apollo’s Lyre (Lincoln 1999).J. Matthews, Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, A.D. 364–425 (Oxford 1975; repr. w/postscript 1990; repr. 1998).I. Mazzini and F. Fusco, I testi di medicina latini antichi (Rome 1985).Jørgen Mejer, Diogenes Laertius and his Hellenistic Background (Wiesbaden 1978).A. Meredith, The Cappadocians (London 1995).M. Mertens, Les alchimistes grecs 4.1 (Paris: CUF 1995).M. Michler, Die Alexandrinischen Chirurgen = Die Hellenistische Chirurgie 1 (Wiesbaden 1968).J.I. Miller Spice Trade of the Roman Empire (Oxford 1969).P. Moraux, Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias 3 vv. (Berlin and New York 1973, 1984, 2001).Ph. Mudry and J. Pigeaud, edd., Les Écoles médicales à Rome: Actes du 2ème colloque international sur les textes médicaux latins antiques, Lausanne septembre 1986 (Geneva 1991).Ian Mueller, “Greek arithmetic, geometry, and harmonics: Thales to Plato,” in C.C.W. Taylor, ed., The Routledge History of Philosophy (1997) 1.271–322.Nachmanson (1918): see “editions,” above.C.A. Nallino, “Tracce di opere greche giunte agli Arabi per traﬁla pehlevica,” A Volume of Oriental Studies Presented to Professor E.G. Browne, T.W. Arnold and R. Nicholson, edd. (Cambridge 1922) 345–363, reprinted in Idem, Raccolta di scritti editi e inediti 6 (Rome 1948) 285–303.R. Netz, “Classical Mathematics in the Classical mediterranean,” Mediterranean Historical Review 12.2 (1997) 1–24.O. Neugebauer, A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy (Berlin, Heidelberg and NewYork 1975).Idem and H.B. van Hoesen, Greek Horoscopes = Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 48 (1959).V. Nutton, “Drug Trade in Antiquity,” JRoySocMed 78 (1985) 138–145; repr. in From Democedes to Harvey (1988), #IX.E. Oder, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Landwirtschaft bei den Griechen,” RhM 45 (1890) 58–99, 212–222; 48 (1893) 1–40 (3 parts of one article).D.J. O’Meara, Pythagoras Revived: mathematics and philosophy in late antiquity (Oxford 1989).A. Önnerfors, “Das medizinische Latein von Celsus bis Cassius Felix,” ANRW 2.37.1 (1993) 227–392 and 924–937.A. Panaino, “L’inﬂusso greco nella letteratura e nella cultura medio-persiana,” Autori classici in Lingue del Vicino e Medio Oriente (Rome 2001) 29–45.W. Pape and G.E. Benseler, Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen 2 vv. (Braunschweig 1884). 23

P:35

I N T RO D U C T I O NH.M. Parker, “Women Doctors in Greece, Rome, and the Byzantine Empire,” in L.R. Furst, ed., Women healers and physicians: climbing a long hill (Lexington KY 1997) 131–150.L. Pearson, Lost Histories of Alexander (New York 1960).P. Pédech, Historiens compagnons d’Alexandre (Paris 1984).J. Pigeaud, “Les fondements théoriques du méthodisme,” in Mudry and Pigeaud (1991) 7–50.J.R. Pinault, Hippocratic Lives and Legends (Leiden 1992) = SAM 4.D.E. Pingree, “Classical and Byzantine Astrology in Sassanian Persia,” DOP 43 (1989) 227–239.Idem, Yavanaj¯ataka of Sphujidhvaja 2 vv. (Harvard 1978).Paul Potter, Hippocrates v.8: Places in Man. Glands. Fleshes. Prorrhetic I. Prorrhetic II. Physician. Use of Liquids. Ulcers. Haemorrhoids. Fistulas (Cambridge, MA: Loeb 1995).R. Rashed, Les catoptriciens grecs I: Les mirroirs ardents (CUF 2000).E. Rawson, Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic (London and Baltimore 1985).A. Rehm, Parapegmastudien = Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Abt. N.F., Heft 19 (1941).M. Riley, “A Survey of Vettius Valens,” ANRW 2.37.5 (forthcoming), cf.: http://www.csus.edu/indiv/ r/rileymt/pdf_folder/VettiusValens.pdfC.A. Robinson, The History of Alexander the Great, v. 1 (Providence 1953).D.W. Roller, Scholarly Kings: The Writings of Juba II of Mauretania, Archelaos of Kappadokia, Herod the Great and the Emperor Claudius (Chicago 2004).M. Roueché, “The Deﬁnitions of Philosophy and a New Fragment of Stephanus the Philosopher,” JÖByz 40 (1990) 107–128.G. Sabbah, ed., Mémoires VIII. Études de Médecine romaine (Saint-Étienne 1988) = Mémoires (Centre Jean Palerne) 8.H.-D. Saﬀrey, “Historique et description du Marcianus Graecus 299” in Kahn and Matton (1995) 1–10.S.M.R. Sala, Lexicon nominum Semiticorum quae in papyris Graecis in Aegypto repertis ab anno 323 a. Ch. n. usque ad annum 70 p. Ch. n. laudata reperiuntur (Milan 1974).B. Salway, “What’s in a Name? A Survey of Roman Onomastic Practice from c. 700 B.C. to A.D. 700,” JRS 84 (1994) 124–145.J. Scarborough, “Roman Pharmacy and the Eastern Drug Trade: Some Problems Illustrated by the Example of Aloe,” PhH 24 (1982) 135–143.Idem, ed., Symposium on Byzantine Medicine (1985) = DOP 38.Idem, “Early Byzantine Pharmacology,” in Idem (1985a) 213–232.Idem, “Criton, Physician to Trajan: Historian and Pharmacist,” in J.W. Eadie and J. Ober, edd., The Craft of the Ancient Historian: Essays in Honor of Chester G. Starr (1985) 387–405.Idem, “The Opium Poppy in Hellenistic and Roman Medicine,” in R. Porter and M. Teich, edd., Drugs and Narcotics in History (1995) 4–23.Idem and V. Nutton, “The Preface of Dioscorides’ Materia Medica: Introduction, Translation, Commen- tary,” Transactions and Studies of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia 4.3 (1982) 187–227.I. Schlereth, De Plutarchi quae feruntur parallelis minoribus (Freiburg i. Br. 1931).Wilh. Schulze, Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen (Berlin 1904; repr. 1966).S.M. Sherwin-White, Ancient Cos: an historical study from the Dorian settlement to the imperial period (Göttingen 1978).P.N. Singer, trans., Galen: Selected Works (Oxford 1997).Wesley D. Smith, The Hippocratic Tradition (Ithaca and London 1979).Idem, ed. and trans., Hippocrates: Pseudepigraphic Works (1990) = SAM 2.H. Solin, Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom: ein Namenbuch 2nd ed., 3 vv. (Berlin and New York 2003).Fr. Solmsen, “Greek philosophy and the discovery of the nerves,” MusH 18 (1961) 150–197, repr. in his Kleine Schriften 1 (1968) 536–582.Speranza (1971): see “editions,” above.Fr. Staab, “Ostrogothic geographers at the Court of Theodoric the Great,” Viator 7 (1976) 27–58.H. von Staden, Herophilus (Cambridge 1989). 24

P:36

I N T RO D U C T I O NIdem, “Rupture and Continuity: Hellenistic Reﬂections on the History of Medicine” in van der Eijk (1999) 143–187.F. Steckerl, The Fragments of Praxagoras of Cos and his School (Leiden 1958).M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism 3 vv. (Jerusalem 1974, 1980, 1984).A.F. Stewart, “Nuggets: Mining the Texts Again,” AJA 102 (1998) 271–282.Malcolm Stuart, ed., The Encyclopedia of Herbs and Herbalism (London and Novara 1979).H. Svenson-Evers, Die griechische Architekten archaischer und klassischer Zeit (Frankfurt am Main 1996).S. Swain, ed., Seeing the Face, Seeing the Soul. Polemon’s Physiognomy from Classical Antiquity to Medieval Islam (Oxford and New York 2007).O. Temkin, Geschichte des Hippokratismus im ausgehenden Altertum = Kyklos: Jahrbuch des Instituts für Geschichte der Medizin an der Universität Leipzig 4 (1932).Idem, Hippocrates in a World of Pagans and Christians (Baltimore 1991).Thesleﬀ (1965): see “editions,” above.D’A.W. Thompson, A Glossary of Greek Fishes (London 1947).L. Thorndike and P. Kibre, A Catalogue of Incipits of Mediaeval Scientiﬁc Writings in Latin, 2nd ed. (London 1963).C.O. Thulin, Corpus agrimensorum Romanorum (Berlin 1913; repr. Stuttgart 1971).G.J. Toomer, Diocles on Burning Mirrors (Berlin and New York 1976).A. Touwaide, “Medicinal Plants,” BNP 8 (2006) 558–568.M. Ullmann, Die Medizin in Islam (Leiden and Köln 1970).Idem, Die Natur- und Geheimwissenschaften im Islam (Leiden and Köln 1972).George Usher, A Dictionary of Plants Used by Man (London 1974).J.T. Vallance, The Lost Theory of Asclepiades of Bithynia (Oxford 1990).M.E. Vázquez Buján, ed., Tradición e Innovación de la Medicina Latina de la Antigüedad y de la Alta Edad Media (Santiago de Compostela 1994).Ph. van der Eijk, ed., Ancient Histories of Medicine: Essays in Medical Doxography and Historiography in Classical Antiquity (Leiden 1999) = SAM 20.B.L. van der Waerden, Die Pythagoreer (Zürich 1979).J. Voinot, Inventaire des cachets d’oculists gallo-romains = Conférences Lyonnaise d’ophtalmologie, # 150 (Lyon 1981–1982).Idem, Les cachets à collyres dans le monde romain (Montagnac 1999).F.W. Walbank, A historical commentary on Polybius 3 vv. (Oxford 1957–1979).John Warren, Greek Mathematics and the Architects to Justinian (London 1976).Gilbert Watson, Theriac and Mithridatium. A Study in Therapeutics (London 1966).Wehrli (1967–1969; 1978): see “editions”, above.M. Wellmann, Die pneumatische Schule bis auf Archigenes (Berlin 1895).Idem, “Die Pﬂanzennamen des Dioskurides,” Hermes 33 (1898) 360–422.Idem (1901): see “editions,” above.Idem, “Pamphilos,” Hermes 51 (1916) 1–64.M.L. West, “Magnus and Marcellinus: Unnoticed Acrostics in the Cyranides,” CQ 32 (1982) 480–481.Idem, Orphic Poems (Oxford and New York 1983).Westerink and Combès (1986–1991): see “editions,” above.M. Wichtl, ed., Herbal Drugs and Phytopharmaceuticals, 3rd ed. trans. from the 4th German ed. (Boca Raton and Stuttgart 2004).E. Wickersheimer, “A Note on the Liber de medicinis expertis Attributed to Galen,” Annals of Medical History 4 (1922) 323–327.M.C. Wilson, “Hippocrates of Chios’s Theory of Comets,” JHA 39 (2008) 141–160.E.T. Withington, Hippocrates, v.3 Wounds in the Head. In the Surgery. Fractures, Joints, Instruments of Reduction (Cambridge, MA: Loeb 1928, repr. 1984).W. Wolska-Conus, “Stéphanos d’Athènes et Stéphanos d’Alexandrie. Essai d’identiﬁcation et de biographie,” REByz 47 (1989) 5–89. 25

P:37

I N T RO D U C T I O NH.C. Wood, Jr. and C.H. LaWall, et al., edd., The Dispensatory of the United States of America, 21st ed. (Philadelphia and London 1926): later editions are less relevant.L. Zhmud, Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Religion im frühen Pythagoreismus (Berlin 1997).Idem, The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity (Berlin and New York 2006). 26

P:38

NOTE TO USERSEntries whose inclusion in this work is doubtful have their lemma italic; entries withuncertain name have a “(?)” suﬃxed.Entries for anonymi give the title of the work underlined; almost all papyri are ﬁled under“Papyrus” with the papyrological citation.Date-ranges in the lemmata are termini post and ante of the period ofactivity. Such a system is the only one that can be fairly applied to all cases.(For some entries only the terminus post or ante is known; a very few entriesgive only a single “akme¯” date; the few known or inferred birth-dates aregiven within the lemma.) Precision is almost never possible, so most datesshould be regarded as best estimates.Homonyms are listed in this order: (1) bare names, in order by topic (mathematics, cosmology,astronomy, astrology, geography, mechanics, alchemy, biology, pharmacy, and medicine);(2) names provided with some accepted, usually ancient, epithet (e.g., Apollodo¯ros“De¯mokritean” and then “th¯eriakos”); (3) names with known patronymics; (4) names withknown ethnics (cities of origin or residence), in order by city-name. These 11 frequentnames best show the system: Apollodo¯ros, Apollo¯nios, De¯me¯trios, Diodo¯ros, Diogene¯s,Dionusios, He¯liodo¯ros, He¯rakleide¯s, Io¯anne¯s, Me¯trodo¯ros, and Philo¯n.Cross-references to other entries are indicated by S C (on their ﬁrst occurrencewithin an entry).Terms in the Glossary are marked in bold wherever they appear in an entry.Bibliography at the end of an entry is intended to be initiatory and not complete (especiallyfor entries such as Aristotle, Euclid, Gale¯n, Homer, or Plato); items in English have generallybeen preferred (e.g., BNP rather than NP), but not exclusively. Authors or works whoseeditions are cited within the encyclopedia (e.g., Aëtios of Amida, Pappos, Proklos, etc.)or else which would not readily be found through the initiatory bibliography cited, are givenunder “Ed.:” before other items. (*) indicates a person (or work) for which we could ﬁndno modern bibliography. 27

P:40

AA  ⇒ AAbas (or Aias) (500 – 330 BCE)Greek physician, quoted only by the L  (8.45–9.4), who attributesdiseases to discharges from the head through nose, ears, eyes and mouth. Health or diseasedepends on the quantity of these ﬂows. Cf. H ’ Loc. hom. 1.10 (6.276 Littré);Gland. 11 (8.564 Littré); Morb. sacr. 3.17 (6.366 Littré).RE S.1 (1903) 1–2 (#12), M. Wellmann; S.3 (1918) 13, H. Gossen; H. Grensemann, Die hippokratische Schrift “Über die heilige Krankheit” (1968) 30–31; BNP 1 (2002) 6, V. Nutton. Daniela ManettiAbaskantos of Lugdunum (10 BCE – 80 CE)A approves his remedy for phthisis, composed of birthwort, saﬀron,euphorbia (cf. I), gentian, henbane, mandrake, myrrh, opium, etc.: G , CMLoc7.2 (13.71 K.); he again cites Abaskantos for a colic remedy, involving Indian nard, myrrh,opium, pepper, etc. in boiled wine, ibid. 9.4 (13.278). A   P., in Gale¯n Antid.2.12 (14.177 K.), cites him (with ethnic) for an antidote: castoreum, saﬀron, Illyrian iris,myrrh, opium, white pepper, germander, wild staphis, etc., in wine. Andromakhos (13.71)gives him an apparently Roman nomen, ΚΛΗΤΙΟΣ, which may represent GLITIVS: cf.P 7.39, Schulze (1904/1966) 232, n. 2, and RE S.3 (1918) 790–791 (#4).RE 1.1 (1893) 20 (#8), M. Wellmann. PTKAbdaraxos (of Cyprus?) (330 – 25 BCE)Writer on mechanics resident in Alexandria, listed by P. Berol. P-13044, col.8. The name isotherwise unattested, but compare Abdimilkos (4th c. BCE) and Abdubalos (5th c. BCE),both of Cyprus, LGPN 1.1: if Semitic, the preﬁx Abd- corresponds to -doulos (Sala 1974:1–3). Perhaps the name derives from Abde¯ra, cf. Abde¯rio¯n of Thrake¯ (bis, 4th and 3rd c.BCE) as well as Abdarakos of Tanais (3rd c. CE), LGPN 4.1.Diels (1920) 30, n.1. PTK 29

P:41

A B I Y U¯ N A L - B I T˙ R I¯ QAbiyu¯ n al-Bitrı¯q (ca 630 CE) ˙“Apio¯n the Patricius,” at the time of the advent of Islam, mentioned by Ibn-al-Nad¯ım anduIbnnk-naol-wQni.f˙t¯ı. He wrote a work “On Operating the Planispherical Astrolabe,” at presentGAS 6 (1978) 103. Kevin van BladelAbram (150 BCE – 150 CE)Presumably pseudepigraphic astrological authority cited by V V (2.29–30) asa “most wondrous” authority on astrological prediction of a propensity to travel, and severaltimes on various topics by F M (4.pr, 4.17–18, and 8.3), who calls him“divine.” The patriarch Abraham was regarded in early Jewish and Christian lore as adiscoverer of astronomy (e.g. Iosephus, Ant. Iud. 1.156–157), but it is remarkable to ﬁnd hisreputation thus reﬂected in the “pagan” astrological tradition already in the 2nd c. CE.RE S.1 (1903) 5 (#2), F. Boll; Riley (n.d.). Alexander JonesA- ⇒ A-C. Acilius (155 – 140 BCE)Wrote Roman history in Greek, and served as translator when K , D  B , and K  P  addressed the Senate in 155 BCE. His annalsexplained Sicily as an island rent from the mainland in a prehistoric ﬂood (F13).FGrHist 813; OCD3 7–8, A.H. McDonald. PTKAcilius Hyginus of Kappadokia (20 – 55 CE)Modiﬁed the colic remedy taught by A , substituting white pepper for black: S- L 120 (M  B 29.5 [CML 5, p. 502]). Presumablydistinct from his contemporary, Acilius the rake: T, Ann. 13.19, 13.21–22.RE S.3 (1918) 17 (#47a), W. Kroll; Korpela (1987) 164. PTKAdamantios (300 – 350 CE?)Author of a paraphrasis of the physiognomy by P  (whose Greek original is lost),taking into account also the A C P, as he states in theforeword. The metaphor in the ﬁrst sentence for his use of past physiognomic lore, that ofsetting up a holy statue of a god in a Pagan sacred precinct, hardly allows identifyinghim with A I, which some have suggested (Rose; Wellmann; Nutton).Foerster (1.) deduces from style and language a date of 300–350 CE. The treatise has two parts, the ﬁrst of which contains a brief theoretical introduction onthe methods of physiognomy (1.1–4) and long chapters on the signiﬁcance of the eyes (1.5–23).The second brieﬂy resumes the main areas of signs (2.1) and the signiﬁcance of gender 30

P:42

ADRASTOS OF APHRODISIAS(2.2–3) and then lists the signs in the unusual order from toes to head (2.4–30) as well ascolor, hair, stride, voice and the like (2.31–42). It ends with a list of character types and theirsigns (2.43–61), much in accordance with the equivalent list in the Aristotelian CorpusPhysiognomy.Ed.: I. Repath, “The Physiognomy of Adamantius the Sophist,” in Swain (2007) 487–547.V. Rose, Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus (1863) 697; RE 1.1 (1893) 343 (#1), M. Wellmann; KP 1.61, F. Kudlien; PLRE 2 (1980) 6; BNP 1 (2002) 133 (#1), V. Nutton. Sabine VogtAdamantios of Alexandria, Ioudaios (ca 412/415 CE)Jewish iatrosophist, who was expelled with other Jews from Alexandria by the patriarchCyril (cf. K) in ca 412 or 415 CE, went to Constantinople to be christened by thepatriarch Atticus, and returned to live in Alexandria (So¯cr. Hist. eccl. 7.13.54–57). So¯crate¯scalls him a “sophist of medical works” (iatrik¯on log¯on sophist¯es). Given his interest in medicine,he might be the author of a metrology and recipes quoted by O (Syn. 2.58; 3.24–25;3.28–29; 3.35; 7.6; 9.57 = CMG 6.3, pp. 50–51, 73–77, etc.); if so, these must havebeen written before Oreibasios’ death around 400 CE. Two recipes in A  A(8.29.1–47, CMG 8.2, pp. 438–440, for toothache and 15.6 [Zervos 1909: 23] for tumor ofthe throat) are also likely to be his. Aëtios cites him as “Adamantios the sophist” in quoting the ﬁrst of those recipes (8.29.2)and in an excerpt of a treatise “on the winds” (peri anem¯on) (3.163). It has been doubted,however, whether the latter treatise was written by the same author, as it resembles Peri-patetic meteorology and might stem rather from the 3rd c. CE (Rose 1.22, Nutton).Ed.: V. Rose, Anecdota Graeca et Graecolatina (1864) 1.1–26 (introduction) and 1.27–52 (text).RE 1.1 (1893) 343 (#1) M. Wellmann; KP 1.61, F. Kudlien; PLRE 2 (1980) 6 (#1); BNP 1 (2002) 133 (#1), V. Nutton. Sabine VogtAdeimantos (325 BCE – 75 CE)Listed by P as an authority on “foreign” trees, such as cinnamon, and distinguishedfrom medical authorities, 1.ind.12.(*) PTKA  ⇒ A Adrastos of Aphrodisias (60 – 170 CE)Peripatetic philosopher. Two inscriptions of Aphrodisias (ca 110 and ca 185 CE) mentionan Adrastos, but neither is identiﬁed as a philosopher (scholars have suggested identiﬁcation,not proven). His commentary on the Categories – along with that of A – is mentionedby G . Semantic and metaphysical considerations play an important role in the passagefrom his commentary on the Physics quoted – through P – by S.Besides some philological works on the history and the internal structure of the Peri-patetic corpus, a commentary – or at least an extended discussion of the technically 31

P:43

ADRASTOS OF KUZIKOSdiﬃcult passages and facets – of P’s Timaeus is attested. This commentary is quoted byPorphurios and transcribed by T   S and C. In his interpretation,Adrastos sets out the details, and the astronomical and musical issues operative in thePlatonic text, but, characteristically, he brushes over the diﬀerences between A’splanetary theory of homocentric spheres and the later theory of epicycles; indeed, heclaims that Plato already knew the theory of epicycles.Moraux 2 (1984) 294–332; Gottschalk (1987) 1155–1156. István BodnárAdrastos of Kuzikos (120 – 80 BCE)Augustine, City of God 21.8.2, quotes V following Kasto¯r of Rhodes saying that Adrastosand D   N computed the date of a portent of Venus.RE S.1 (1903) 11–12 (#9), Fr. Hultsch. PTKA- ⇒ A-Aeﬁcianus (130 – 160 CE)Stoicizing doctor who wrote commentaries on two books of the H C,E, was a student of Q, and taught G  at Corinth ca 151–152 CE:Gale¯n, Comm. in Hipp. Oﬀ. 1.3 (18B.654 K.), Comm. in Hipp. Epid. III 1.40 (CMG 5.10.2.1,p. 59), On the Order of my own Books 3 (2.87 MMH).Grmek and Gourevitch (1994) 1520–1521; Manetti and Roselli (1994) 1590–1591; DPA 1 (1989) 88, R. Goulet; Ihm (2002) #5–7. PTKA ⇒ MAelianus “the Platonist” (165/170 – 230/235 CE)Author of a commentary on P’s Timaeus, a fragment of which survives in P-’ commentary on P’s Harmonics. Porphurios calls him Aelianus “the Platonist;”he is probably to be identiﬁed with the rhetorician and natural scientist C A,whose other lost works included an Indictment of the Eﬀeminate, an On Providence and anOn Divine Manifestations. His three extant works, On the Nature of Animals, Varia Historia (or“Miscellany”) and Rustic Letters, show a concern to elucidate the workings of the divine inhuman and animal life. Porphurios’ quotations from Aelianus’ commentary are limited to discussions of acous-tics, harmonics, and musicological terminology; the tradition of comment on the Timaeuswas a common forum for such discussions, not all of which were restricted to explanationsof the harmonizing of the world soul (34b–36d). Porphurios’ passing references to Aelianusshow that in several other respects he adhered to the mathematical (rather than the Aristox-enian) musicological tradition: he followed Ptolemy in admitting six concords, rather thanA’ eight, and he discussed and explained musicological terminology peculiar toPythagorean authors. 32

P:44

CLAUDIUS AELIANUS OF PRAENESTE The four-page fragment from the second book of Aelianus’ Timaeus commentary quotedby Porphurios (33.16–37.5 Düring) is concerned with the physical determinants of pitch-diﬀerence in musical notes. Aelianus subscribes to the traditional Pythagorean thesis(established by A and codiﬁed in the E S C) that move-ment is the cause of all sound, and that sound is “air that has been struck” (a¯er pepl¯egmenos,33.21, a notion familiar from Timaeus 67b and the A C O S).Diﬀerences in the speeds of the movements of the air cause diﬀerences in pitch: fastermovement causes higher pitch, and slower movement causes lower pitch. Aelianus illustratesthe theory with demonstrations on both wind and stringed instruments – demonstrationswhich, while they employ two diﬀerent hypotheses about the causation of pitch, are uniﬁedin an attempt to explain how movement within an instrument is transferred to a movementof the surrounding “air that has been struck;” it is the relative speeds of the latter, inAelianus’ argument, which constitute the pitch diﬀerences we apprehend with our ears. Aelianus discusses concord and discord, and deﬁnes concord as a blend (krasis) of twonotes of diﬀerent pitch, combined according to a principle of proportionality (summetria).He is explicit in his view (a logical consequence of his acoustic theory) that the twonotes in a musical interval travel at diﬀerent rates, and thus cover diﬀerent distances inthe same amount of time. (In the case of the 2:1 octave interval, Aelianus’ theorydemands that the higher note travel twice the distance of the lower note in the sameamount of time). If empirical observation played a part in his investigations (as sug-gested by his instrumental demonstrations), it must therefore have been limited. Aelianusappears, from Porphurios’ quotation, not to have been worried by the implications ofthis acoustic theory, about which A had already expressed concern (De Sensu448a).Düring (1932); Barker (1989); Mathiesen (1999); BNP 1 (2002) 201 (#3), M. Baltes. David CreeseClaudius Aelianus of Praeneste (ca 195 – ca 235 CE)Born ca 170, Roman freedman and well-connected orator and priest, “honey-tongue”(meligl¯ossos: Souda AI-178), a canonical sophist who wrote in Greek (Philostratos VS). His losttreatises On Providence and On Divine Manifestations (perhaps the same work), based on a coupleof fragments, may show Stoic ideas, which appear superﬁcial or irrelevant in his two extantwritings, which extol through exquisite anecdotes human morality and animal virtue.Besides a probably posthumous pamphlet Indictment of the Eﬀeminate against Elagabalus, and20 Rustic Letters (maybe apocryphal), he wrote a collection of edifying tales known as Miscel-lany (Poikil¯e historia, in 14 books) and a monumental compilation On the Characteristics ofAnimals (Peri idiot¯etos z¯oi¯on, in 17 books), which is, after A, the most importantextant zoological opus in Greek. His subtly aﬀected style delighted Byzantine scholars (seethe numerous mentions in the Souda), and his work, surviving in many MSS, was abundantlyimitated in the east and used in medieval bestiaries. The Constantinian animal anthologyknown as Epitome of Aristophan¯es of Byzantium (10th c.) was primarily composed of an abstractof Aristotle and a wide choice of whole chapters from Aelianus. Aelianus’ work is a personal selection, made from numerous Greek authors (A M, K , D  , I, P  A, etc.), addressingall aspects of animals (mythology, ethology, biology, zootechnics, . . .), untidily dispatched in808 chapters of uneven length. He records only three original observations (2.56, 5.47, 33

P:45

L . A E L I U S G A L L U S , P R A E F E C T. A E G Y P T I5.56), but his “personal contribution to science” (prologue) lies in literary achievement andscientiﬁc popularization. Mixing quasi-quotations and abrupt summaries, the book slipsoften into paradoxographical accounts, treating mythical animals, e.g., phoenix (6.58), basi-lisk (2.7), mantichore (4.21), gryphon (4.27), unicorn (16.20), amphisbaena (9.23). As usualin such collections, Aelianus included other natural paradoxa in chapters on springs andrivers (8.21, 9.29, 10.38, 12.36, 12.42, 14.19, 15.25) or on plants (9.31–33, 9.37, 14.27).Nevertheless, he preserves scientiﬁc information, e.g. D  on how deers’ hornsgrow (12.18); the toxic action of venoms (4.36, 4.41); anatomy of cobra teeth (9.4). Histestimony is especially worthy on Asiatic and African fauna, ichthyology, and angling (evenmore than O’ Halieutika): Aelianus discusses butterﬂy-ﬁsh in minute detail (11.23),the otolith of some ﬁshes (9.7), symbiosis of sponge and hermit crab (8.16), techniques ofmusical ﬁshing (6.31–32, 17.18) and submarine hunting (4.58, 8.16), the subtle tactics ofﬁshing-frogs (9.24), and gives the ﬁrst reference to ﬂy ﬁshing (15.1, 15.10).Ed.: A.F. Scholﬁeld, Aelian, On the characteristics of animals 3 vv. (Loeb 1958–1959).RE 1.1 (1893) 486–488 (#11), M. Wellmann; DPA 1 (1989) 79–81, S. Follet; OCD3 18, M.B. Trapp; ANRW 2.34.4 (1998) 2954–2996, J.F. Kindstrand. Arnaud ZuckerA ⇒ P L. Aelius Gallus, praefect. Aegypti (45 – 5 BCE)Although the chronology of Gallus’ military expedition into Sabaean country (after 27 BCE)is debated (Jameson 1968), there is little doubt it was a disaster. Gallus was seduced byprospects of controlling the spice trade, which had enriched the Roman client kingdom ofNabatea, which received caravans and camel-loads of frankincense and myrrh from south-western Arabia, as well as many spices by then imported from India and south-east Asia.A appointed Gallus Prefect of Egypt 27–25 BCE, years that witnessed his ill-fatedattempts to control ports on the Red Sea and emporia further south. The Aelii were a lateRoman Republic family of intellectuals, and Gallus’ father, C. Aelius, was a legal lexi-cographer (Syme 1986: 308); the gens produced scholars known for varied interests, includ-ing science and medicine (Ibid., 300). Aelius Gallus was patron and friend of S , whowas with Gallus (25 BCE) in Egypt (Syme 1995: 243, 322, 360). Gallus’ medical interests focused on pharmacology and toxicology. G  (Antid. 2.17[14.203 K.]) records a theriac against the stings of scorpions, a multi-ingredient drug that“. . .Gallus brought out of Arabia and gave to Caesar [Augustus], [and] many soldiersreceived cures from it.” Probably Gallus was an “Askle¯piadean,” since Gale¯n cites a “Marcus”Gallus, “follower of A  ,” as the inventor of a useful prophylactic aid (for usebefore luxurious meals), a compound of henbane seeds, roses, anise, celery seeds, old myrrh,and saﬀron crocus, boiled in wine and honey (CMLoc 8.5 [13.179–180 K.]). Gale¯n writesthat an “. . .antidote of Aelius Gallus was employed by C and K  against thelethal eﬀects of poisons,” which also aids women who have diﬃculty being purged, and it“. . .expels a fetus painlessly” (Antid. 2.1 [14.114–115 K.]). Gallus, a gourmand, alsooﬀered digestive “antidotes” for gluttony (Gale¯n, Antid. 2.10 [14.158–159, 161–162 K.]),containing myrrh and other costly, imported spices. A S quotes fromGallus’ books on cough syrups (Gale¯n quotes the quotes at CMLoc 7.2 [13.28–30 K.]),suggesting he had learned how useful were frankincense, myrrh, the two cinnamons, and 34

P:46

PA L L A D I U S RU T I L I U S TAU RU S A E M I L I A N U Sother exotic ingredients in compounding eﬀective cough drops and other medicines thatsoothed the windpipe.RE 1.1 (1893) 492–493, P. von Rohden and M. Wellmann; S. Jameson, “Chronology of the Campaigns of Aelius Gallus and C. Petronius,” JRS 58 (1968) 71–84; G.W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia (1983) 46–49; R. Syme, The Augustan Aristocracy (1986); Idem, Anatolica: Studies in Strabo (1995). John ScarboroughAelius Promotus of Alexandria (ca 140 – 190 CE?)Physician, wrote On Curative Remedies, and Natures and Antipathies (cf. N), the latterunedited. The ﬁrst work (ed. Crismani) contains 130 chapters of remedies for such condi-tions as falling hair (1), duspnoia (30), fevers (39–40), anthrax (57), erusipelas (59),insomnia (85–90), eye disorders (96–99), and colic or dysentery (119–130). Nestled betweenthe two attributed treatises, two MSS (Vat. Gr. 299, Ambros. Gr. S3) transmit an anonymoustext On Venomous Animals and Poisons, attributed by scholars to Aelius, A , orA   P (but P 14 shows that Arkhigene¯s oﬀered a diﬀer-ent analysis of scorpion poisons than Venomous 15). It cites N   H (14), A P. (50), S  (56), and E  (64–67, etc.); and is citedﬁrst by A  A (Book 13, passim). The treatise falls into two parts: poisoningcaused by bites (snakes – cf. N, lizards, humans, hudrophobic dogs, cats, etc.),and from ingesting plants (aconite, hemlock, henbane, mandrake, etc.), minerals (litharge,mercury, psimuthion, etc.), or small animals (leeches, etc.). Ihm divides the text into79 chapters, each describing the poison, symptoms, and remedies. Though references toArabia and Egypt may suggest a geographical link, the author’s treatment of crocodiles andlions makes no particular Egyptian correlation. Ihm dates the core of the treatise to the eraof Aelius, and subsequent additions before Aëtios; Touwaide considers this text a 14thcentury compilation.Ed.: S. Ihm, Der Traktat Peri ton iobolon therion kai deleterion pharmakon des sog. Aelius Promotus (1995); D. Crismani, Manuale della Salute (2002).OCD3 19, anon.; A. Touwaide, rev. of Ihm, Medicina nei Secoli 8 (1996) 306–307; BNP 1 (2002) 207, V. Nutton. PTK and GLIMPalladius Rutilius Taurus Aemilianus (ca 375 – ca 450 CE)Latest surviving Latin agricultural writer, of uncertain date: he used the work of V- A, and his title uir inlustris postdates ca 375. Author of Opus agriculturae in 13books: the ﬁrst treats general matters (e.g. siting, water, building, poultry, beekeeping), whileeach of the following is devoted to the range of tasks appropriate for each calendar month.A 14th book discusses veterinary medicine. An elegiac poem on grafting, addressed to anunknown Pasiphilus, is appended as literary ﬂourish in the manner of C’Book 10. Palladius owned property near Rome (3.25.20) and in the area of Neapolis in Sardinia(4.10.16); he describes in detail a reaping machine used in the plains of Gaul (7.2.2–4).Primarily he follows literary sources: Columella on ﬁeld crops, vines, livestock, andG  M on gardens and fruit trees; these are supplemented by Graeci (i.e.,Anatolios) and, for building topics, C F’ epitome of V (not 35

P:47

AEMILIUS HISPANUSnamed). He expresses personal views and practices desultorily (e.g. 1.28.5, 2.9.1, 4.10.24).His is not the world of large (and absentee) landowners; agricultural slaves are mentionedbut once (1.6.18). That “some fragment of column” will serve for rolling the threshing ﬂoor(7.1) implies agricultural recession. Lists of necessities to be kept ready (e.g. 1.42 imple-ments, 14.3 medicinal plants) combine with straightforward organization to appeal to anaudience of free tenants. He provides novel uses of wood: vine props made of winter oak(aesculus) and exposed structures made of Spanish chestnut (castanea): 12.15.2. Language and style are characteristic of late Antiquity. There is an explicit aversionto rhetorical embellishment (1.1.1), belied to some extent by conscious application ofboth quantitative and accentual prose rhythms. Palladius’ work was recommended byC  (Inst. 1.28.6) and used by I (e.g. Etym. 17.10.8). Books 1–13 weretransmitted as a unit and circulated widely from the 9th c. onward, eclipsing all similarworks in the Latin Middle Ages. The Carmen de insitione was known to 15th c. readers, butBook 14 re-emerged only in the 20th c.Ed.: Robert H. Rodgers (1975); concordance: J.F. Núñez (2003).J. Svennung, “De auctoribus Palladii,” Eranos 25 (1927) 123–178, 230–248; Idem, Untersuchungen zu Palladius (1935); PLRE 1 (1971) 23–24; F. Morgenstern, “Die Auswertung des opus agriculturae des Palladius . . .,” Klio 71 (1989) 179–192; D. Vera, “Dalla ‘villa perfecta’ alla villa di Palladio,” Athenaeum 83 (1995) 189–211, 331–356; OCD3 1101, M.S. Spurr; BNP 10 (2007) 393–394, K. Ruﬃng. Robert H. RodgersAemilius Hispanus (ca 100 BCE – ca 350 CE)Cited by P  S for a remedy for arthritic glanders (Pel. 23 = Hip-piatrica Parisina 57 = Hippiatrica Berolinensia 4.14) and described as a mango or horse-dealer.Fischer (1980) 23; Adams (1995). Anne McCabeAemilius Macer of Verona (d. 16 BCE)Wrote didactic poems. The scholia Bernensia ad VERGILIUS Ecl. 5.1 claim he was Vergilii aman-tissimus, and that Vergil disguised him as Mopsus and himself as Menalcas. Macer read hispoems to O, his younger contemporary (Trist. 4.10.43–44). He died in Asia. Two titlesand only fragments thereof survive: The Generation of Birds (Ornithogonia), in two or morebooks, frr.1–6, and Th¯eriaka, in two books, frr.7–11. Scholars assume the existence of anotherpoem, to which Ovid (above) legit . . . quae iuuat herba seems to allude, as does M(2.44). Fragments 12–14 probably belonged to the latter work, whose title was perhapsAlexipharmaka (alternatively, this poem on herbal remedies might simply have been Th¯eriaka2). The Generation of Birds was based on Boios’ poem with the same title, whereas Th¯eriakafollowed N. L seems to have drawn on Macer in his excursus on Lybiansnakes (9.700–947); a scholion to Lucanus 9.701, in fact, cites Macer as a possible source.W. Morel, “Iologica,” Philologus 83 (1928) 345–389; R. Rau, “Ein Jugendwerk Ovids,” PhW 52 (1932) 895–896; A.S. Hollis, “Aemilius Macer, Alexipharmaca?” CR 87 (1973) 11; H. Dahlmann, Über Aemilius Macer (1981); F. Brena, “Nota a Macro, fr. 17 Büchn.,” Maia 44 (1992) 171–172; FLP 292–299 and 520; Blänsdorf (1995) 271–278; Jacques (2002) , n. 253. Claudio De Stefani 36

P:48

A E¨ T I O SAethicus Ister (650 – 800 CE?)The purported author, otherwise unknown, of a Latin Cosmographia written in the late 7th or8th c. and containing later interpolations. It claims that a philosopher and traveler Aethicuswrote it in Greek, and that Jerome translated it into Latin (i.e., ca 400 CE). The work beginswith the creation of the world and describes the author’s travels through the oikoumene¯,including Taprobane¯ (Ceylon), Britain, Thule, Asia Minor, Greece, and many other realand imaginary places. Some of the material is taken from I  H, IS, and other earlier writers. The author emphasizes that much of his material is notmentioned in any other authority, and he obviously invents some place names. The namesof the author and the translator are considered to be a mystiﬁcation, and the work may havebeen a parody, missed by its medieval audiences. The Cosmographia was often used in theMiddle Ages by geographical writers and mapmakers.Ed.: O. Prinz, Die Kosmographie des Aethicus (1993).RE 1.1 (1893) 697–699, H. Berger; TTE 4–5, M. Hamel; M.H. Herren, “The ‘Cosmography’ of Aethicus Ister: Speculations about Its Date, Provenance, and Audience,” in A. Bihrer and E. Stein, edd., Nova de veteribus: mittel- und neulateinische Studien für Paul Gerhard Schmidt (2004) 79–102; D. Shanzer, “The Cosmographia Attributed to Aethicus Ister as Philosophen- or Reiseroman,” in G.R. Wieland et al., edd., Insignis Sophiae Arcator: Medieval Latin Studies in Honour of Michael Herren on His 65th Birthday (2006) 57–86. Natalia LozovskyAethicus, Pseudo (450 – 600 CE?)The unknown author of a Cosmographia (diﬀerent from that by A I but falselyattributed to him in some MSS). The ﬁrst part is based on I H, and reportsthat I C as consul ordered a survey and measurement of the world. Then it listsgeographical features, such as seas, rivers, and mountains, as well as provinces, towns, andpeoples. The second part, drawn from O, describes the three known parts of theworld, Asia, Europe, and Africa. The work’s focus on Italy suggests a Roman compiler.Ed.: GLM 71–103.RE 1.1 (1893) 697–699, H. Berger; GRL §1061; PLRE 2 (1980) 19; C. Nicolet and P.G. Dalché, “Les ‘quatre sages’ de Jules César et la ‘mesure du monde’ selon Julius Honorius: réalité antique et tradition médiévale,” Journal des savants (1986) 157–218. Natalia LozovskyAethlios of Samos (350 – 200 BCE?)Wrote a chronicle of Samos, giving geographical or botanical data: fruits that grow twice ayear, pears of Keo¯s. For the very rare name, cf. D  L 8.89.FGrHist 536 = Ath., Deipn. 14 (650d, 653f ). PTKAëtios (1st c. CE)The name of an otherwise unknown writer of a survey of philosophical opinions (oftencalled Placita). Since Diels (1879) he is assumed to be the source of the two extant specimensof doxography found in pseudo-P’s Epitome of the Opinions of the Philosophers and 37

P:49

A E¨ T I O S O F A M I D AI   S’ Eclogae Physicae. Aëtios presents various philosophical views in shortthematic entries on cosmology and (meta)physics, meteorology, psychology and perception,and human physiology and embryology. There are no arguments and no context; many ofthe questions posed and answered seem to reﬂect the concerns of Hellenistic philosophyand not those of the original philosophers. As for the Pre-Socratic philosophers, manypieces of information derive from A and T.Ed.: Diels (1879) 267–444; L. Torraca, trans., I Dossograﬁ Greci (1961); H. Daiber, Aëtius Arabus. Die Vorsokratiker in arabischer Überlieferung (1980).J. Mansfeld “Chrysippus and the Placita,” Phronesis 34 (1989) 311–342; Idem, “Physikai doxai and Problemata physica from Aristotle to Aëtius (and Beyond),” in W.W. Fortenbaugh and D. Gutas, edd., Theophrastus; his Psychological, Doxographical and Scientiﬁc Writings (1992) 63–111; Mansfeld and Runia (1996); BNP 1 (2002) 274–276 (#2), D.T. Runia. Jørgen MejerAëtios of Amida (500 – 550 CE)A scholion to a MS of the Tetrabiblos (CMG 8.1, p. 8) terms the author a “kom¯etos tou opsikiou,”indicating that Aëtios was probably a court physician. Traditions and MSS uniformly sug-gest a ﬂoruit in the reign of Justinian (527–565 CE) and, given the unique preponderance ofobstetrics and gynecology (and large number of contraceptive and abortifacient recipes) inBook 16 of the Tetrabiblos, it is also likely that Aëtios was a personal physician to the empressTheodo¯ra (d. 548 CE), whose checkered career receives scurrilous if overdrawn detail inProkopios’ Arcana. Aëtios studied medicine in Alexandria (Tetr. 1.131; 1.132; 2.121; cf. 4.22[CMG 8.1, pp. 65, 67, 197, 368]), and may have practiced for a time in Egypt before movingto Constantinople. Olivieri collated 29 MSS to produce the CMG edition of Books 1–8 of the Sixteen Books(Grk. Tetrabiblos, so named for the usual subdivision into four blocks of four books each), andthe large number of texts (showing widespread popularity) descending into the Renaissancegenerally militated against meticulous editing of the Greek, although good translations intoLatin appeared in the 16th c. (Cornarius [1542] remains the only complete and fairlyreliable edition of Aëtios’ gigantic handbook). Dry in style but remarkably comprehensive,the Tetrabiblos reﬂects the teaching of medicine in 6th c. Alexandria: an authoritative text isquoted, then the practicing physician adds his own experiences, especially those recipes fordrugs and surgical techniques found to be beneﬁcial; probably Aëtios had at hand a wellstocked medical library in Alexandria, as well as in Constantinople. Book 1 begins with afamous “drugs-by-degrees” summary, the theoretical constructs of pharmacy that pre-dominated until medicinal chemistry in the 19th c. Signiﬁcant are Aëtios’ accounts ofmastectomies, embryotomies, abortions (never after the third month, never before), andrepair of inguinal hernias in Book 16, the toxicology in Book 13, general surgery in 14, andthe rightly famous ophthalmology in Book 7. Pho¯tios includes a lengthy summary of Aëtios’work in the Bibliotheca, and is duly impressed, concluding, “Indeed, those who have chosento demonstrate through their [medical] practice that [medical] attention can drive awaydiseases [or aﬄictions], should devote continual study and close attention to this work”(Biblioth., 221.181a R. Henry).Ed.: [Latin] J. Cornarius, Aetii medici graeci contractae ex veteribus medicinæ Tetrabiblos, etc. (1542): still essential for Books 9–16; A. Olivieri, Aetii Amideni Libri medicinales I–IV, V–VIII (1935, 1950) = CMG 8.1–2; J. Hirschberg, Die Augenheilkunde des Aëtius aus Amida (1899); Ch. Daremberg and Ch.É. Ruelle, 38

P:50

AFRICANUS (METROL.) Aetiou tou Amid¯enou Biblion IA, in Oeuvres de Rufus d’Éphèse (1879; repr. 1963) 85–131; S. Zervos, “Aetiou Amide¯nou Logos Enatos,” Ath¯ena 23 (1911) 265–392; G.A. Kostomiris, Aetiou logos dodekatos (1892); S. Zervos, Aetiou Amidinou [sic] Logos dekatos pemptos in Ath¯ena 21 (1909) 3–144; Idem, Aetii Sermo sextidecimus et ultimus. Ersten aus Handschriften veröﬀentlicht (1901); Brock (1929) 247–249 (“Aetius of Amida: Aneurysms” and “Fatty Tumours”).I. Bloch, “Aëtios von Amida,” in HGM 529–535; Scarborough (1985b) 224–226; R. Masullo, “Prob- lemi relativi alle fonti di Aezio Amideno nei libri IX–XVI: Filumeno, Areteo e altri medici minori;” A. Pignani, “Aezio Amideno L.XI: La considerazione delle fonti nella costituzione del testo;” and R. Maisano, “L’edizione di Aezio Amideno, IX–XVI,” in A. Garzya, ed., Tradizione e ecdotica dei testi medici tardoantichi e bizantini (1992) 237–256, 271–274, and 350–353; John Scarborough, “Teaching Surgery in Late Byzantine Alexandria,” in H.D.F. Horstmanshoﬀ, ed., Medical Education in Antiquity (forthcoming). John ScarboroughAetna (55 BCE – 78 CE)Latin didactic poem, of unknown authorship and date, treating the causes of volcanicactivity in general by focusing on Sicily’s Mount Etna in particular. It is generally seen aspostdating L for stylistic reasons, and predating the eruption of Vesuvius (79 CE)because of the poem’s reference to the Naples area as having been long volcanically inactive(line 431). The poem’s authorship has always been a question of some debate. Many of thepoem’s MSS are ascribed to V, though most (but certainly not all) recent commenta-tors reject this ascription. Other candidates, including S, M, and P,have been variously (and sometimes rashly) oﬀered. The Augustan poet Cornelius Seueruswas long preferred, but more recently, C. Lucilius, to whom Seneca dedicated his NaturalesQuaestiones, has been proposed. Nevertheless, the question is far from settled and the evi-dence does not strongly favor any candidate. The poem’s explanation of volcanism is similar to Seneca’s explanation of earthquakes(Q.Nat. 6). Several other passages in the poem may also indicate a Stoic author, and P- ’ inﬂuence is often hypothesized. A longish passage extolling the importance ofstudying both physics and astronomy also includes references to the divinity of the stars, andpossibly to the Stoic end-of-the-world conﬂagration. The basic argument of the poem isthat volcanic activity is caused by the powerful motion of wind through natural subter-ranean passages. Certain types of sulfurous stones, with which Aetna is prodigiously fur-nished, serve in combination with the subterranean winds to “feed” and “nourish” theﬂames of the volcano during an eruption. Much of the argument’s detail is, however,obscure and the diﬃculty is compounded by the highly corrupted state of the text.Ed.: J. Vessereau, L’Etna (1905; repr. 1961) with commentary; W. Richter, Aetna (1963), with German translation; F.R.D. Goodyear, Incerti auctoris Aetna (1965) with commentary. Daryn LehouxA ⇒ I AAfricanus (Metrol.) (200 – 300 CE)A short treatise On measures and weights is transmitted by the MSS under, among others,Africanus’ name, which modern scholars ascribe either to I A or, alter-natively, to this later Africanus. 39

P:51

AFRICANUS (PHARM.)P. De Lagarde, Symmicta 1 (1874) 166–176; RE 1.1 (1893) 715–716 (#7), M. Wellmann; BNP 1 (2002) 300–301 (#1), V. Nutton. Mauro de NardisAfricanus (Pharm.) (ca 40 – 30 BCE)Both Africanus’ name and work are attested only by manuscript tradition. In a Greek codexcontaining an excerpt on medical matters and antidotes from A P, Africanus,hypothetically a pharmacologist or a physician, is referred to as an eyewitness, “under kingAntigonos” of how citron can act as antidote to any poison. Since Africanus is a name notcommonly used before the 2nd c. BCE (Kajanto, Latin Cognomina [1965] 205–206), probablythe reference is to Antigonos of Judea, who ruled 40–37 BCE.E. Rohde, “Aelius Promotus,” RhM 28 (1873) 287; RE 1.1 (1893) 715–716 (#7), M. Wellmann; BNP 1 (2002) 300–301 (#1), V. Nutton. Mauro de NardisAganis (520 – 550 CE)Cited by S, In Eucl. Elem. I (preserved solely in Arabic), as a companion, and asfollowing P  A on deﬁning the angle. The name seems to be Egyptian(Coptic), not Greek.DPA 1 (1989) 60–62, R. Goulet and M. Aouad. PTKAgape¯tós (200 – 560 CE)A  T (2.529–531 Puschm.) and P  A 7.11.59 (CMG9.2, pp. 312–313) record two versions of Agape¯tós’ 15-ingredient gout remedy, both con-taining aloes, saﬀron, malabathron, myrrh, pimpernel, peony, spikenard, etc., but diﬀer-ing in ﬁve ingredients. The rare name is likely Christian, though cf. Iliad 6.401.RE 1.1 (1893) 734 (#2), M. Wellmann. PTKAgapios of Alexandria (470 – 510 CE)D’ Life of Isidore describes the very erudite and admired medical scholar, whomigrated to Constantinople and there became wealthy from his work (Pho¯tios, Bibl. 242.298[352a34–b2]; Souda A-158), perhaps to be distinguished from the homonymous coeval neo-Platonist, Souda A-157, who taught I    P.DPA 1 (1989) 63, R. Goulet. PTKAgatharkhide¯s of Knidos (ca 200 – 140 BCE)Agatharkhide¯s was a historian and grammarian. Born in Knidos (Cnidus), he was raised inthe household of a councilor of Ptolemy VI named K and was the protégé of thehistorian and diplomat H   “L,” whom he served as personal secretaryand reader. Nothing is known about his life except that he was a Peripatetic like his patron 40

P:52

A G AT H E¯ M E RO S S O N O F O RT H O¯ NHe¯rakleide¯s and that he lived for some time in Athens, probably after being exiled byPtolemy VIII in 145 BCE. Only minor fragments survive of most of his works. According to Pho¯tios, he wrote sevenworks. These include an epitome of the 4th c. BCE poet Antimakhos of Kolopho¯n’s Lud¯e(“Lyde”), a book on friendship, and a collection of excerpts from writers on remarkablenatural and human phenomena. Agatharkhide¯s was best known in antiquity, however, as ahistorian. His principal works were two large histories – On Aﬀairs in Asia in 10 books and OnAﬀairs in Europe in 49 books – which together surveyed world history up to his own time. Histhird historical work, the On the Erythraean Sea in ﬁve books, is better known thanks to thesurvival of an epitome of its ﬁrst and ﬁfth books by Pho¯tios and extensive excerpts in thethird book of D   S. The ﬁfth book of the On the Erythraean Sea treated comprehensively the history and cul-tural geography of the Red Sea and its hinterlands based on the reports of 3rd c. BCEPtolemaic explorers. Its ethnographic accounts were organized according to the Peri-patetic theory that a people’s interaction with its environment determined the nature of itsculture. Although not a formal geographical work, the ﬁfth book of the On the Erythraean Seawas the main source for later accounts of the geography and ethnology of the region,strongly inﬂuencing S ’s Geography, P’s Natural History, and A’ On theNature of Animals.Ed.: FGrHist 86; Stanley M. Burstein, Agatharchides of Cnidus, On the Erythraean Sea (1989).BNP 1 (2002) 311, K. Meister. Stanley M. BursteinAgatharkhide¯s of Samos (250 BCE – 50 CE?)Author of an On stones in at least four books (-P De ﬂuu. 9.5 [1155D]).Many consider him ﬁctive. (Schlereth, however, identiﬁes him with the Peripatetic histor-ian and geographer A   K.) P quotes our author in Parall.min. 305E, and attributes to him a Persika in at least two books, possibly supporting thehistoricity of our Agatharkhide¯s.J. Geﬀken, Geographie des Westens (1892) 85, n.2; RE S.1 (1903) 22, G. Knaack; Schlereth (1931) 97–99; Jacoby (1940) 76; FGrHist 284; Giannini (1964) 124; PGR 144–145; De Lazzer (2003) 66–67. Eugenio AmatoAgatharkhos of Samos (460 – 410 BCE?)Son of Eude¯mos, worked as a painter in Athens, and wrote a book on sk¯en¯e-painting forAeschylus, or a revival of Aeschylus, oﬀering a novel theory of perspective, that inspiredD  and A (V 7.pr.11; cf. P Rep. 10 [602c–d]). Agath-arkhos worked rapidly (P, Per. 13.2), and was compelled to paint Alkibiade¯s’ house(Andokide¯s 4.17).BNP 1 (2002) 311–312, N. Hoesch. PTKAgathe¯meros son of Ortho¯ n (400 – 600 CE)Otherwise unknown author of a treatise Ge¯ographias hupotup¯osis, preserved only in latercopies of the 9th c. codex Palatinus gr. 398. The text treats the history of geography from 41

P:53

AG AT H I N O S O F S PA RTAA to P  and describes the continents, winds, seas, length of theoikoumene¯ (in stades), and perimeters of some Mediterranean islands between the Straitof Gibraltar in the west and Lesbos in the east. Written without literary pretensions, thework seems inﬂuenced by E . Agathe¯meros quotes from D andT , and draws from A   E and M  P- for the passage on perimeters. The MS-tradition appended two anonymous works tothe Ge¯ographias hupotup¯osis: the Hupotup¯osis ge¯ographias en epitom¯e was present already in thecodex Palatinus gr. 398 (see E ). Then in the 15th c. the Diagn¯osis enepitom¯e t¯es en t¯e sphaira geographias was added: see S  . Twofurther fragments concern distances (in stades) and islands: GGM 2.509–511.A. Diller, “Agathemerus, Sketch of Geography,” GRBS 16 (1975) 59–76.KP 1.116, H. Gams; HLB 1.528; BNP 1 (2002) 312, K. Brodersen. Andreas KuelzerAgathinos of Sparta (30 – 70 CE)Greek physician from Sparta, active in Rome, probably distinct from Claudius Agathinos ofBithunia (1st c. BCE), but possibly in contact with the Stoic L. Annaeus Cornutus. Agathi-nos may have been a pupil of A   A (Wellmann 1895: 14), or just amember of his circle (G , Dign. Puls. 1, 8.787 K.). His students included A and H  (P.). Agathinos is generally considered a Pneumaticist (Gale¯n,Diﬀ. Puls. 3, 8.674 K.), or even that school’s founder (Gourevitch 1993: 135–136). P-G  D (19.353 K.) further credited him with creating the episunthetic oreclectic school (cf. 7.359, 8.771 K.). He seems also to have borrowed Empiricist andMethodist elements, and (probably S  in) C A includes himamong the Methodists (ex nostris: Acut. 2.57, CML 6.1.1, p. 166). The unﬁxed and pre-liminary state of the developing school, or else his own attempt to transcend contemporarymedical sectarianism, may be the origin of the ambiguity of his aﬃliation. Pneumaticismindeed seems to have evolved rapidly to an open and ﬂexible system, permeable to hetero-geneous contributions. In accord with Pneumaticist theory on the importance of the vascular system as thevehicle of pneuma, Agathinos wrote on pulse (Gale¯n, Diﬀ. Puls. 2 [8.593–594 K.], 4[8.748–750, 753–754 K.], Dign. Puls. 1 [8.787 K.], 4 [8.931, 935–936, 953 K.]), fever(Gale¯n, Febr. Diﬀ. 2 [7.367, 369, 373 K.], De Typis [7.469 K.]; 17A.120, 228, 942 K.),pharmaceuticals (Gale¯n, CMGen 5 [13.830 K.]), and hydrotherapy (O, Coll. 10.7,CMG 6.1.2, pp. 49–53). He wrote a book on hellebore (Cael. Aur., Acut. 3.135, CML 6.1.1,p. 371; cf. Oreib., Coll. 8.2, CMG 6.1.1, p. 252), speculated on the deﬁnitions to be used insphygmology (Gale¯n, Diﬀ. Puls. 4 [8.750 K.]), and analyzed tertian fever, distinguishing anintermediary semi-tertian fever on which he might have written a treatise (Marganne 1981:311–314). Only fragments of Agathinos’ works survive, with the exception of the papyrus fragmenton semi-tertian fever attributed to him. Gale¯n respected him highly (Adv. Typ. 7.488 K.;Dign. Puls. 4 [8.938 K.]), and compared him with H  for his eﬀorts to improvemedicine and for his capacity to reason (Dign. Puls. 1 [8.786–788 K.]), but also criticizedAgathinos’ unnecessary prolixity (Diﬀ. Puls. 4 [8.750 K.]), enigmatic explanations (Dign.Puls. 4 [8.935 K.]), and excessive emphasis on terms rather than on facts (Febr. Diﬀ. 2[7.367 K.]).42

P:54

A G AT H O K L E¯ S O F AT R A XRE 1.1 (1893) 745, M. Wellmann; KP 1.117 (#2), Fr. Kudlien; Kudlien (1968) 1098; DSB 1.74–75, Idem; OCD3 36, J.T. Vallance; BNP 1 (2002) 313–314, V. Nutton. Alain TouwaideAgathodaimo¯ n, pseudo (250 BCE – 300 CE)Pseudonymous authority ﬁrst mentioned in the Greek alchemical corpus by Z  P , but also found in the C H. O   A- gives three mythical reports on the identity of this otherwise unknown author orauthors (CAAG 2.79–80). His only extant Greek works are a Demonstration and Commentary onthe Oracle of Orpheus (CAAG 2.268–271) and an aphorism (CAAG 2.115). Zo¯simos (CAAG2.193) cites his Teaching on the Pretincture and Olumpiodo¯ros (loc. cit.) mentions his AlchemicalBook (Biblos Kh¯emeutik¯e), both lost. He is also associated with the verse Riddle of the PhilosophicalStone of Herm¯es and Agathodaim¯on (CAAG 2.267–268), an excerpt from the Sibylline Oracles(lines 141–146) which had been given an alchemical interpretation by, at least, the time ofOlumpiodo¯ros (CAAG 2.71). Texts attributed to Agathodaimo¯n are extant in Arabic.Ullmann (1972) 175–177. Bink HallumAgathodaimo¯ n of Alexandria (after 178 CE)Several MSS of P’s Ge¯ographik¯e huph¯eg¯esis (including 13th c. Vat. Urb. gr. 82, 14th c.Florent. Laurent. XXVIII 49, and 15th c. Venet. Marc. gr. 516) contain at the end of Book8 (where the world-map is divided into 26 regional maps) a small notice that one Agathod-aim¯on Alexandreus m¯ekhanikos has drawn the whole oikoumene¯ (hupetup¯osato, hupetup¯osa orhupetup¯ose). In spite of intensive research, it is still today impossible to decide whether thissentence means the drawing of all Ptolemaic maps or simply the drawing of the Ptolemaicworld map.H. von Mzˇik, Denkschriften Akademie Wien 59.4 (1916), appendix 2; RE S.3 (1918) 59, Jos. Fischer; RE S.10 (1965) 737–741, E. Polaschek. Andreas KuelzerAgathokle¯s (50 BCE – 75 CE)Wrote a work On Nutrition, after D   “K ” (Schol. Nik. Th¯er. 622), and is citedby A, in Gale¯n CMGen 5.12 (13.832–833 K.), for an erusipelas remedy, andby P 22.90 for an antidote to “bull’s blood.” Lucian’s joke merely uses the name,Kataplous 7.BNP 1 (2002) 317 (#12), V. Nutton. PTKAgathokle¯s of Atrax (300 BCE – 175 CE)Wrote On ﬁshes (Halieutika) in prose (Ath. Deipn. 1 [13c] = Souda K-1596); cf. P  C. Perhaps identical to the Agathokle¯s whom P includes as a foreign authorityon geography (1.ind.4–6), if that is not a reference to the memoirs of the tyrant Agathokle¯sof Surakousai. 43

P:55

A G AT H O K L E¯ S O F K H I O SRE 1.1 (1893) 759 (#33), E. Oder. PTK and GLIMAgathokle¯s of Khios (325 – 90 BCE)Authored a treatise on agriculture possibly covering cereals, livestock, poultry, viticulture,and arboriculture (cf. P, 1.ind.8, 10, 14–15, 17–18) that C D excerpted(V, RR 1.1.8–10, cf. C, 1.1.9).RE 1.1 (1893) 759 (#32), E. Oder. Philip ThibodeauAgathokle¯s of Mile¯tos (250 BCE – 50 CE?)Cited for a paradoxon by -P, On Rivers 18.3, and likely ﬁctive.RE 1.1 (1893) 759 (#27), M. Wellmann. PTKA  ⇒ B  A  A    Agatho¯ n of Samos (300 – 50 BCE?)Anethnically credited with an accurate Periplous of the Pontos by a scholiast, and creditedby -P (most of whose citations are ﬁctive) with a Skuthika, whose solefragment describes a marvelous plant, and a book On Rivers, whose two fragments describemarvelous plants.FGrHist 801 (Periplous), 843 (Skuthika, On Rivers); BNP 1 (2002) 318 (#2), K. Brodersen. PTKAgathosthene¯s (unknown date)Mentioned among paradoxographers discussing aquatic phenomena (Tzetze¯s Chil. 8.144,645). Whether he is identical to Aglaosthene¯s, author of Naxiaka (Müller FHG 4.294), isuncertain.RE 18.3 (1949) 1137–1166 (§24, 1159–1160), K. Ziegler. Jan Bollansée, Karen Haegemans, and Guido SchepensAgathotukhos (ca 325 BCE – ca 300 CE)Wrote on veterinary medicine. Three fragments, quoted by T , are preservedin the Hippiatrika: a drench for fever (Hippiatrica Parisina 5 = Hippiatrica Berolinensia 1.25), aremedy for arthritic glanders (Hippiatrica Parisina 35 = Hippiatrica Berolinensia 2.24), and adescription of symptoms of liver trouble with treatments (Hippiatrica Parisina 546 = Hip-piatrica Berolinensia 32.4). These passages also ﬁgure in the Arabic translation ofTheomne¯stos.CHG v.1; Hoyland (2004); McCabe (2007) 201. Anne McCabe 44

P:56

AGLAIAS OF BUZANTIONAgennius Urbicus (390 – 410 CE)The earliest MSS transmitting the most important remains of the ancient Latin prosetreatises on surveying and/or similar topics, namely the two halves of the Arcerianus, con-tain also Urbicus’ work On land disputes (de controuersiis). Owing to damage suﬀered by theArcerianus, the preface and the conclusion of Urbicus’ work are both lost: a text largelyrearranged by Lachmann and Thulin survives. After explaining technicalities of land surveying, Urbicus treats the globe and its fourparts made by the Oceans, following a Stoic source. Since part of this land is under Romanrule, Urbicus aims at illustrating what were the “types” (genera), “conditions” (statu¯s) and“eﬀects” (eﬀectu¯s) of 15 diﬀerent types of land disputes and how to settle them (the key issue),along with instructions on both Roman law (as for possession/ownership) and surveyingtechnique (the nature and identiﬁcation of any kind of boundary marker and land division)that trainees had to know. Lachmann argued Urbicus largely drew on F (as isclearly the case with controuersia de proprietate, “dispute about ownership”: Frontinus, p. 15.1–7La. and Agennius, p. 79.13–22 La.), whereas Thulin suggested a 1st c. CE unknown mainsource. The same manuscript tradition of land-surveying texts also falsely attributed to Urbicus acommentary on the ﬁrst two sections of Frontinus’ handbook, which for textual reasonsmust be dated to ca 450–550 CE.Ed.: F. Bluhme, K. Lachmann, A Rudorﬀ, Die Schriften der römischen Feldmsser, 2 vols. (1848–1852); Thulin (1913).RE 1.1 (1893) 773, W. Kubitschek; Campbell (2000) –. Mauro de NardisAge¯sias of Megara (250 BCE – 200 CE)If not a mistake for H    M, this otherwise unknown author is cited forcrane ethology by the P V (§1).RE 1.1 (1893) 795 (#3), E. Schwartz. PTKAge¯sistratos (100 – 50 BCE)Studied under A   A and tutored A  M., modiﬁeddesigns for spring-frames, using oval instead of round washers, creating more powerfulcatapults with greater range (Athe¯n. Mech. p. 8 W.; V 7.pr.14). The name isespecially common on Rhodes (LGPN 1.10), where his teacher worked.Cichorius, Römische Studien (1922) 271–279. GLIMA ⇒ A Aglaias of Buzantion (40 – 70 CE)Two 15th c. MSS, Ambr. A 162 sup./Gr. 58 and Marc. gr. Z. 480, transmit under the nameof Aglaias from Buzantion 28 verses (14 elegiac couplets), containing a prescription for 45

P:57

AG N E L LU S O F R AV E N NAcataracts, invented by Aglaias himself (v. 4). A  A (7.101, CMG 8.2, p. 351)quotes in prose the same prescription (naming the inventor as Aglaidas). The verses musthave been well known, as a scholion to N’ Alexipharmaca 314 mentions one phrase.Aglaias calls himself a physician (verse 2) and addresses the poem to an unknown poetDe¯me¯trios (verse 3). The two MSS further reveal that Aglaias belonged to an illustriousfamily of Buzantion (the poet likewise attests this origin: verse 1), was a pupil of Alexander(probably A P  , the physician), and schoolmate and friend ofD   (apparently, the famous ophthalmologist), dating Aglaias to the reigns ofClaudius/Nero. The style is obscure: in some cases the ingredients are expressed throughmythological circumlocutions recalling Lykophro¯n and Dosiadas (e.g. verses 10, 14, 15–6).Ed.: Claudio De Stefani, “Aglaia di Bisanzio, SH 18: edizione critica e note,” in G. Cresci Marrone and A. Pistellato, edd., Studi in ricordo di Fulviomario Broilo. Atti del Convegno Venezia, 14–15 ottobre 2005 (2007) 266–275. Claudio De StefaniA  ⇒ A Agnellus of Ravenna (ca 590 – 615 CE)Gradually coming to light are lectures or perhaps lecture notes by a master physician andteacher (iatrosophista) in Byzantine Ravenna, probably based on similar commentaries thentaught as part of a “medical curriculum” at Alexandria. Attempts to link the medicalprofessor with St. Agnellus (ca 525–555) are not fruitful, nor is there ﬁrm evidence connect-ing medical lectures with Patricius Agnellus, sent to Africa by Theodoric between 507 and511. Agnellus iatrosophista knew Greek and was aware of the sequence of topics taught overabout two years in Byzantine Alexandria, a curriculum preserved in outline in Arabic andconﬁrmed by surviving Greek texts of several elaborate commentaries; medical and exe-getical tracts function on two levels: ﬁrst, students receive commentaries on selected worksfrom a “canon” of H  and G ; then the professor interlards his own experi-ences as a practitioner within the commentary, a characteristic displayed by Agnellus inLatin and S  A, I    A, and others in Greek. TheLatin MSS are a tangle of attributions and misattributions, but diligence has begun to bringsome order and restoration of both authors’ names and the actual works, indicating a livelynorthern Italian medical and intellectual life in the late 6th and early 7th c.Ed.: L.G. Westerink et al., Agnellus of Ravenna: Lectures on Galen’s De sectis (1981); N. Palmieri, Agnellus de Ravenne. Lectures galéniques: le «De pulsibus ad tirones» (2005); D. Irmer, Palladius. Kommentar zu Hippokrate “De fracturis” und seine Parallelversion under dem Namen des Stephanus von Alexandria (1977); C.D. Pritchett, Iohannis Alexandandrini Commentaria In sextum librum Hippocratis Epidemiarum (1975); Idem, Iohannis Alexan- drini Commentaria In librum De sectis Galeni (1982); J.M. Duﬀy, Stephanus the Philosopher. A Commentary on the Prognosticon of Hippocrates (1983) = CMG 11.1.2; L.G. Westerink, Stephanus of Athens. Commentary on Hippocrates’ Aphorisms (1985–1995 = CMG 11.1.3.1–3; Dickson (1998); J.M. Duﬀy, Commentary on Hippocrates’ Epidemics VI Fragments. Commentary of an Anonymous Author on Hippocrates’ Epidemics VI Frag- ments [and] T.A. Bell et al., John of Alexandria. Commentary on Hippocrates’ On the Nature of the Child (1997) = CMG 11.1.4.O. Temkin, “Studies on Late Alexandrian Medicine. I. Alexandrian Commentaries on Galen’s De sectis ad introdocendos,” BHM 3 (1935) 405–435 = The Double Face of Janus and Other Essays in the History of Medicine (1977) 178–197; A.Z. Iskandar, “An Attempted Reconstruction of the Late Alexandrian 46

P:58

A I G I M I O S O F E¯ L I SMedical Curriculum,” Medical History 20 (1976) 235–258; M.E. Vázquez Buján, “El Hipócrates delos comentarios atribuidos al Circulo de Rávena,” in J.A. López Férez, ed., Tratados hipócraticos (estudioacerca de su contenido, forma e inﬂuencia) (1992) 657–685; N. Palmieri, “Survivance d’une lecture alexan-drine de l’ ‘Ars medica’ en latin et en arabe,” Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age 60(1993) 57–102; Eadem, “Il commento latino-ravennate all’Ars medica di Galeno e la tradizionealessandrina” in Vázquez Buján (1994) 57–76; Eadem, “ ‘Practicon diuiditur in duo’: mesures pro-phylactiques et mesures thérapeutiques chez Agnellus de Ravenne,” in Fr. Gaide and Fr. Biville,edd., Manus Medica. Actions et gestes de l’oﬃciant dans les texts médicaux latins. Questions de thérapeutique et delexique (2003) 183–206. John ScarboroughA ⇒ (1) I; (2) VAgrippa of Bithunia (92 CE)P, Synt. 7.3, records Agrippa’s observation of the occultation by the moon of partof the Pleiades.BNP 1 (2002) 393 (#4), W. Hübner. PTKAhrun ibn-A yan al-Qass (ca 600 – 640 CE)Known from Arabic sources as an Alexandrian physician living in the early 7th c. He wrotea medical compendium said to have been translated into Syriac by an unknown GWSYWS(Gessios? cf. GAS 3 [1970] 160–161) and later translated into Arabic in the late 7th or early8th c. as al-Kunna¯sˇ. It discussed causes, symptoms, and treatments for diseases. Mined bylater Arabic authors for material, some of its contents can be gathered from the numerouscitations.GAS 3 (1970) 166–168; Ullmann (1972) 23, 87–89; A. Dietrich, “Ahrun (Ahru¯ n) b. A yan al-K. ass,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Supplement Vol. (1980) 52; NP 12/2.884–885, Chr. Schulze. Kevin van BladelA ⇒ AAigeias of Hierapolis (ca 200 BCE – 460 CE)Wrote an epitome of E’s Elements, combining theorems, according to P, InEucl. p. 361 Fr. For the name, compare only LGPN 3A.17, Aigeia of Surakousai (3rd–5thcc. CE).Netz (1997) #74. PTKAigimios of E¯ lis (325 – 300 BCE)Greek physician, perhaps the ﬁrst to write a work on pulse: G  Diﬀ. Puls. 1.2, 4.11(8.498, 751–752 K.) knew a work On throbbing under his name; Aigimios thought diseasesarise from residues (perittomata) and nourishment (L  13.21–14.3). Theresidues are normally eliminated through the bodily secretions, but under certain conditions 47

P:59

AINEIAS TACTICUSbecome pathological, e.g. if the residues are not yet expulsed and an excess of nourishmentintervenes. He was considered wrongly as a forerunner of the corpuscular theory ofdigestion.RE 1.1 (1893) 964 and S.1 (1903) 36, M. Wellmann; W.A. Heidel, “Antecedents of Greek Corpuscular Theories,” HSCPh 22 (1911) 111–172 at 165; BNP 1 (2002) 191, V. Nutton. Daniela ManettiAineias Tacticus (370 – 350 BCE)The earliest author on military topics. His identity is much debated, but he was probablyidentical to Aineias Stumphalos, general of the Arcadian League in 367 BCE, who helpedovercome Euphro¯n, the tyrant of Sikuo¯n (X  Hell. 7.1.44–46). Aineias wrote sev-eral treatises on military topics, but only the long extract, Siege-Craft, survives (Aelian Tactics1.2). From the historical examples of sieges used in the treatise it can be dated to the mid-4th c. Siege-Craft deals with the preparations for and methods for countering sieges, althoughhe sometimes switches brieﬂy to the viewpoint of the attacker. Aineias refers to other trea-tises of his: Siege Preparations (Paraskeuastik¯e) (7.4, 8.5, 21.1, 40.8) and Procurement (Poristik¯e) (14.2). Siege-Craft has no discernible structure. It may, however, be seen as falling broadly intothree parts: preparing for a siege by an unknown threat (1–14); preparing for a siege by anenemy known to be on its way (15–31); and resisting an actual attack (32–40). Only a minorpart of the treatise thus deals with the attack itself, concerning, for instance, techniques forprotecting walls against attack, dealing with incendiary devices, countering attempts toundermine walls and making the defending forces seem as large as possible. The majority ofthe treatise is concerned with strategies for dealing with potential threats and dangers fromwithin. Aineias discusses how to select troops, prepare defenses, keep up morale and discip-line, estimate the approach of an enemy, avoid treachery at the gate and prevent enemiesfrom communicating with sympathizers inside. The treatise thus gives a vivid picture of lifein a Greek polis and the role of military technology on the scale of a small city state.Although siege technology and generalship were developing into forms of technical know-ledge taught outside practical contexts, Siege-Craft appears to be written by someone with ameasure of direct practical experience.Ed.: D. Whitehead, Aineias the Tactician: How to Survive under Siege (1990).KP 1.175 (#2), W. Sontheimer; OCD3 23, D. Whitehead; BNP 1 (2002) 221–222, L. Burckhardt. Karin TybjergAineias of Gaza (ca 460 – 530 CE)Christian orator of the Gaza school, Prokopios of Gaza’s contemporary (465–528) andpupil of the Platonist Hierokle¯s (Theophrastos 2.9, 2.20). Aineias wrote 25 letters and adialogue entitled Theophrastos. The dialogue is between a Platonist called Theophrastosand two Christians, Aiguptos and Euxitheos, trying to defend Christian doctrine, especiallythe immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body, rejecting Platonist doctrinesincompatible with Christianity, like the pre-existence of the soul and the eternity of theworld.Ed.: M.E. Colonna, Enea di Gaza Teofrasto (1958); L.M. Positano, Enea di Gaza Epistole (1962).DPA 1 (1989) 82–87, A. Segonds; BNP 1 (2002) 222 (#4), P. Hadot. George Karamanolis 48

P:60

A I S K H I N E¯ S O F AT H E N SAineios (of Ko¯ s?) (10 BCE – 110 CE)K , in Gale¯n CMLoc 2.2 (12.589–590 K.) cites from Aineios a decongestant, contain-ing beeswax, goat-fat, lye, natron, pitch, and soap, instilled nasally. The following threerecipes, possibly also his, involve euphorbia (cf. I), or pepper, or both (a sternutatory).This form of the name is rare, cited only by S  B, s.v. Ko¯s, for adoctor (likely earlier), and LGPN 3B.18.RE 1.1 (1893) 1022 (#3), M. Wellmann. PTKAineside¯mos of Kno¯ ssos (100 – 50 BCE)Initiated the skeptical movement known as Pyrrhonism, claiming inspiration from Pyrrhoof E¯ lis (ca 360–270 BCE). We have an informative summary by Pho¯tios, Bibl. §212, of hisPyrrhonist Discourses (Purr¯oneioi Logoi: in eight books), and several other works are attested. It iscontestable whether the variety of Pyrrhonism espoused by Aineside¯mos was identical withthat of S E. Whereas Sextus stresses the undecidability of the conﬂicts betweenincompatible arguments or impressions, Aineside¯mos seems rather to have stressed the rela-tivity to circumstances, or to persons, of each of these arguments or impressions – theconsequence being that none of them can be taken to capture the way things are intrinsically. Like Sextus, Aineside¯mos appears to have applied his skeptical method to a great varietyof topics, including scientiﬁc topics. The subjects addressed in Pyrrhonist Discourses includedcauses, eﬀects, generation, destruction, motion and sense-perception. Aineside¯mos also dis-cussed “signs” – observable phenomena that, according to non-skeptical philosophers, con-stituted evidence of non-observable states of aﬀairs. Signs were an important aspect of thescientiﬁc methodology of particularly the Hellenistic period; not surprisingly, Aineside¯mosis reported to have argued that there are no such things.Long and Sedley (1987) §§71–72; ECP 6–8, J. Allen. Richard BettAisara of Lucania (100 BCE – 100 CE?)P’ daughter according to Pho¯tios, Bibl. 249. I    S (1.49.27)transmits under her name On the Nature of Man (Peri Anthr¯opou Phuseo¯s), a spurious Dorianfragment conjecturally attributed to Aresas, a Pythagorean scholarch. The text prob-ably belongs to a group of treatises ascribed to Pythagorean women philosophers andmainly treating the ethics of the household. Human nature is the criterion of law andjustice; justice consists in harmonizing the parts of the soul, which occurs, in Platonicfashion, when the superior part (intelligence) rules the inferior (appetite), and the intermedi-ate (spirit) rules the appetitive and follows the superior part. The best life results from acommingling of virtue and pleasure.Thesleﬀ (1965) 48.20–50.23; DPA 1 (1989) 348–349, Bruno Centrone. Bruno CentroneAiskhine¯s of Athens (350 BCE – 77 CE)Wrote on medicine and recommended burnt excrement (in a remedy called botruon) fortonsil complaints, sore uvula, and carcinomata (P 1.ind.28, 28.44). 49

P:61

A I S K H R I O¯ NRE 1.1 (1893) 1063 (#21), M. Wellmann. GLIMAiskhrio¯ n (325 – 90 BCE)Wrote a work on agriculture possibly treating cereals, livestock, poultry, viticulture, andarboriculture (cf. P, 1.ind.8, 10, 14–15, 17–18); excerpted by D  U(V, RR 1.1.9; cf. C, 1.1.10).RE 1.1 (1893) 1064 (#9), E. Oder. Philip ThibodeauAiskhrio¯n of Pergamon (100 – 150 CE)Empiricist physician, in old age teacher of G  in Pergamon (Simples 12.1.24 [12.356K.]); perhaps to be identiﬁed with the Empiricist teacher mentioned by Gale¯n in Plen. 9(7.558 K.). Gale¯n praises Aiskhrio¯n for his pharmacological knowledge and especially for a(magical) remedy for rabid dog-bites based on ash of crayﬁsh; another teacher of Gale¯n,P, did not refute but explained the recipe (12.357–359 K.). This remedy is quotedalso by other authors, but without reference to Aiskhrio¯n; amongst them by the anonymousauthor of On Poisonous Animals commonly attributed to A P (which the 16thc. physician Antonius Possevinus, Bibliotheca selecta [Venetiis 1603] 2.163, attributed to“Aischrion Empiricus”). Gale¯n, however, does not refer to any writings by Aiskhrio¯n, whocould have been a practitioner physician.Ed.: Deichgräber (1930) 3, 215 (fragment).RE 1.1 (1893) 1064 (#8), M. Wellmann. Fabio StokAiskhulide¯s of Keo¯ s (325 BCE – 200 CE)Composed a work on agriculture in at least three books; the two fragments describe pears(Ath., Deipn. 14 [650d]) and sheep (A, HA 16.32) of Keo¯s.RE 1.1 (1893) 1064–1065 (#2), E. Oder Philip ThibodeauAiskhulos (430 – 400 BCE)Student of H   K who with his mentor held that comets are planets,much slower than the sun, which move to the north and south of the tropics and that the tailarises when the planet is north of the tropic, away from the dry region of the sun, andresults from moisture around the planet that causes reﬂection from the eye to the sun to theplanet: A, Meteorology 1.6 (342b36–3a20). For Aristotle’s criticisms, cf. ibid. 1.6(343a20–b7), 1.7 (344b8–17).DSB 6.416B (s.v. Oinopides), I. Bulmer-Thomas; Wilson (2008). Henry MendellA ⇒ A 50

P:62

AKHILLEUSAkesias of Athens (350 – 230 BCE)Wrote on culinary art (Ath., Deipn. 12 [516c]). Proverbially, patients under his care declined,and so he was declared to have “healed (patients) for the worse” (Souda A-842; Zenob. 1.52;Diogenianus, 2.3). A   B (p. 238 Nauck) provides the terminusante quem.RE 1.1 (1893) 1163, M. Wellmann; KP 1.217, Fr. Hiller von Gärtringen; BNP 1 (2002) 67, V. Nutton. GLIMAkhaios (200 BCE – 80 CE)A, in G  CMLoc 7.4 (13.79 K.), records a pill for blood-spitting (cf.phthisis) from ΑΚΑΚΙΟΣ, containing several red ingredients (Samian and Sino¯ pianearths, red coral, and pomegranate-ﬂower), for sympathetic eﬀect, as well as henbaneand opium. ΑΧAIOΣ, common from the 5th to 2nd cc. BCE, could easily become ΑΚΑΚΙΟΣ,common from the 3rd c. CE (LGPN).RE 1.1 (1893) 1140 (#1), M. Wellmann. GLIMAkhilla¯ s (120 BCE – 80 CE)A, in G  CMLoc 7.5 (13.90 K.), describes him as a parakent¯etos (cataract-coucher or dropsy-tapper), and records his opium-based anodyne (containing also ammi,cassia, Indian nard, and pepper), and in CMGen 5.12 (13.834 K.) lists his pill, containingaloes, alum, frankincense, khalkanthon, misu, myrrh, etc., with the renowned ones ofP and A . This form of the name is not recorded before the 1st c. BCE(LGPN). (The Akhilleios of A 15.15 [Zervos 1909: 67] is likely a brand-name.)RE 1.1 (1893) 220 (#2), M. Wellmann. PTKAkhilleus (Tatius?) (200 – 300 CE)Three MSS include an introduction to A’ Phainomena deriving “from Akhilleus’ <trea-tise> On the Universe” (Univ). Its 40 chapters, constituting an elementary introduction toastronomy, emphasizes underlying physical theories more than mathematics (sphericalastronomy) and quotes an impressive range of sources: pre-Socratics, A, P,E, Aratos, many Stoic and Pythagorean philosophers, mathematicians (astron-omers) and grammatikoi, whose divergences Akhilleus is quick to indicate. Since Univquotes 2nd c. authorities (including P and A  A) and F- M cites prudentissimus Achilles as an authority in astrology (Mathesis 4.17.2,but see Neugebauer 1975: 950–952 for Univ’s meager astrological content), Akhilleus musthave lived around the 3rd c. and may be identiﬁable with an homonymous grammatikos(Di Maria 2) – according with Univ’s style and content. The Souda (A-4695) lists only one Akhilleus “Statios” (i.e. Tatios), author of Leukipp¯e andKleitoph¯on, attributing to him an additional three works: On the Sphere (of which Univ may be achapter) and Etumologiai and Historia summiktos (both lost). Identiﬁcation with the novelist isdoubtful (the Souda seems to rely only on the novel’s stylistic similarities to the last threeworks) and is now usually rejected (the earliest known fragment of the novel is dated ca 51

P:63

AKHINAPOLOS250 CE, but see Di Maria ). Two MSS also attribute shorter tracts, Life of Aratos and Periex¯eg¯ese¯os, commenting on the ﬁrst verses of Aratos and possibly part of a larger commentary(this plausible attribution is disputed, see Di Maria –).Ed.: G. Di Maria, Achillis quae feruntur astronomica et in Aratum opuscula (1996).Martin (1956); DPA 1 (1989) 48–49, P. Robiano; BNP 1 (2002) 96 (#2), K. Brodersen. Alain BernardAkhinapolos (?) (ca 150 – 25 BCE?)Devised a method of casting zodiacs from the time of conception rather than birth (V- 9.6.2). All MSS agree on ACHINAPOLVS (save two late Vaticani, 2767 and 1328,which read ARCHINAPOLVS); the name seems otherwise unattested. Rose emended toAthe¯ nodo¯ ros.RE 1.1 (1893) 248, E. Riess, s.v. Achinapolus. GLIMAkholios (400 – 500 CE?)A  A 8.58 (CMG 8.2, p.506) records his cough medicine composed of penny-royal, pepper, hyssop, etc. in terebinth, fresh butter, and honey. For the rare name, cf.PLRE 1 (1971) 9–10 (ca 400 CE) or Pho¯tios, Bibl. 257 (477a).Fabricius (1726) 31. PTKAkro¯ n of Akragas (ca 450 – 400 BCE)Son of a doctor with the same name (D  L 8.63). A late tradition relatesthat Akro¯n had some success in curing the plague of Athens by lighting ﬁres (P,Isis and Osiris 80 [383 C–D], A  A, 5.95 [CMG 8.2, pp. 80–82]), a story also toldof H , his slightly younger contemporary. According to P 29.5 he foundedthe Empiricists (and was recommended by E ), a foundation-legend rejectedby -G  Introd. 4 (14.683 K.).Ed.: Wellmann (1901) 70, 73, fragments pp. 108–109; Deichgräber (1965) 40–41, 270.Pinault (1992) 45–46, 55; BNP 1 (2002) 114, V. Nutton. Robert LittmanA ⇒ D. C AAlbinus (Encyclo.) (ca 320 – 345 CE?)Latin encyclopedist, wrote on music (C, Inst. 2.10), geometry, and dialectic(B, Inst. Mus. 1.12, 26), all lost. Perhaps identiﬁable with one of the mennamed Ceionius Ruﬁnus Albinus, and/or Albinus the poet of De Metris and Res Romanae(FLP 425–426); cf. M, Sat. 1.24.19.PLRE 1 (1971) 33–34 (#4,5), 37–38 (#14,15); OCD3 50, R.A. Kaster; BNP 1 (2002) 431 (#2), L. Zanoncelli. GLIM 52

P:64

ALEXANDER (MED.)Albinus of Smurna (130 – 170 CE)Wrote a brief Introduction to Plato’s dialogues (Prologos or Eisag¯og¯e), preserved in the P MSVindob. suppl. gr. 7 and containing a theory of the dialogue genre, a classiﬁcation of Plato’sworks and two distinct sequences for reading the dialogues. No longer extant are: (a) tran-scripts of G’ lectures, a survey of Platonic doctrine, (b) a treatise on the incorporeal,and (c) possibly commentaries on Plato’s Timaeus, Republic and Phaedo. Transcripts of Gaius’lectures and the survey of Platonic doctrine, still available in the 6th c., ﬁgured in the losthalf of MS Paris. gr. 1962 (9th c.), the pinax of which is still extant. The Prologos could well bethe introduction to the lecture transcripts. Albinus was Gaius’ disciple and was consideredimportant by later Platonists, such as P (cf. in Remp. 2.96.10–13). For a long whilecredited with the Didaskalikos (cf. J. Freudenthal, Der Platoniker Albinos und der falsche Alkinoos,1879), now re-attributed to A. G  met Albinus in Smurna some time between149 and 157.Ed.: Burkhard Reis, Der Platoniker Albinos und sein sogenannter ‘Prologos’ (1999); Gioè (2002) 79–115.DPA 1 (1989) 96–97, J. Whittaker; T. Göransson, Albinus, Alcinous, Arius Didymus (1995); BNP 1 (2002) 431–432, M. Baltes. Jan OpsomerA- ⇒ A-Alexander (Geog.) (300 BCE? – 110 CE)M  T in P Geography 1.14 cites an Alexander for the description of avoyage far to the east (so perhaps after ca 120 BCE).RE S.6 (1935) 3–5 (#90a), W. Kubitschek. PTKAlexander (Med.) (400 – 600 CE)Early Byzantine physician, wrote on sphygmology and urology (Alexandrou iatrou peridiagn¯ose¯os sphugm¯on epi t¯on puress¯ont¯on kai peri our¯on aphorismoi). The work survives in a 15th c.MS (Paris, BNF, graecus 2316, ﬀ.207V–214V), there attributed to A  T-, and is cited by Io¯anne¯s Aktouarios (On urine, Ideler 2 [1842/1963] 5). The work,perhaps a fragment of a larger unknown work (1.88 Puschm.), proﬀers a typical 5th/6th c.Alexandrian school synthesis of earlier knowledge. The work explores the causes of diseasesas the basis for prognosis. The part on the pulse deals with fevers and several diseasesclassiﬁed a capite ad calcem. The part on urine is more aphoristic in nature. Both take forgranted a good knowledge of the topics as they do not explain any of the notions they use.Two Medieval Latin translations are ascribed to G : Diels 1905–1907: 1.128, 132,2.13; Beccaria (1956) 126, 137, 299, 327; L. McKinney, Early Medieval Medicine with SpecialReference to France and Chartres (1937) 188–191. Through these, the text helped disseminateearly-Byzantine uroscopical knowledge to the West.Ed.: E.F. Farge, Alexandre de Tralles, ms. latin du du X siècle: un livre inédit (1891); E. Landgraf, Program der königlichen Progymnasiums in Ludwigshafen am Rhein (1895); B. Nosske, Alexandri (Tralliani?) liber de agno- scendis febribus et [sic] pulsibus et urinis aus dem Breslauer Codex Salernitanus (1919); H. Pohl, “De pulsis et urinis omnium causarum” aus der Handschrift Nr.44 der Stiftsbibliothek zu St.Gallen: Ein Pseudogalentext aus dem frühen Mittelalter (Inaug.-Diss. Leipzig 1922); H. Leisinger, Die lateinischen Harnschriften Pseudo-Galens = 53

P:65

A L E X A N D E R S O P H I S T E¯ S Beiträge zur Geschichte der Medizin 2 (1925); M. Stoﬀregen, Eine frühmittelalterliche lateinische Übersetzung des byzantinischen Puls- und Urintraktats des Alexandros. Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Diss. Med. Berlin 1977).Thorndike and Kibre (1963) 1004; Dimitriadis (1971) 28–29; F. Wallis, “Signs and Senses: Diagnosis and Prognosis in Early Medieval Pulse and Urine Texts,” Social History of Medicine 13 (2000) 265–278; BNP 1 (2002) 485 (#30), V. Nutton. Alain TouwaideAlexander Sophiste¯s (400 – 600 CE?)Two unpublished treatises are attributed to “Alexander Sophiste¯s”: one on embryology (MSParis, BNF, suppl. gr. 165, ﬀ.116–117V: Costomiris 97–98); the other on sacred plants(MS Oxford, Bodleian Library, Baroccianus 150, ﬀ. 67V–68) (Costomiris 98; see also Ch.Daremberg, Notices et extraits des manuscrits médicaux grecs, latins et français. I re partie: manuscritsgrecs d’Angleterre, 1853: 39), resembling the treatise published by M. Thomson, Textes grecsinédits relatifs aux plantes, 1955: 80–87. The distinctive qualiﬁcation Sophist¯es scarcely provesthe same man composed both works. Moreover, there is reason to doubt the attribution ofthe sacred botany treatise, since a similar text is explicitly attributed to an “Alexander theKing” (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Roe 15, ﬀ.103, 105), and the author discusses plants (e.g.,bryony and mandrake) characteristic of the largely anonymous and freely circulating corpusof iatromagics.G.-A. Costomiris, “Études sur les écrits inédits des anciens médecins grecs. Troisième série,” REG 4 (1891) 97–99; Diels 2 (1907) 11. Alain TouwaideAlexander of Aphrodisias (T. Aurelius Alexander) (ca 200 CE)The most inﬂuential commentator on A in antiquity, and the ﬁrst whose worksare well known to us. Son of an homonymous philosopher, Alexander acquired Romancitizenship through connection with the imperial family, and was appointed in Athens bySeptimius Seuerus between 198 and 211 CE (most probably before 209) as professor andscholarch in Aristotelian philosophy. His commentaries are “continuous” in their devotionto careful sentence-by-sentence explanations of the whole of Aristotle’s texts. He com-mented on most of Aristotle’s logical and theoretical works, the latter on the basis of theformer. He tends to reshape the treatises’ contents into syllogisms and other forms of argu-ments described by Aristotle’s Organon, reducing them to a standard terminology. By con-trast with Aristotle’s ﬂexible way of thinking and lexical usages, Alexander produced acoherent and consistent system of thought, suitable for teaching. Alexander also wroteoriginal treatises, more pedagogical in character, and a number of shorter discussions ofvarious kinds, always focused on Aristotelian exegesis. When this procedure is diﬃcult andwhere no convenient consensus has been reached, problems (aporiai) are openly discussedand more than one solution may be kept, either within the commentaries or in separateopuscula (aporiai kai luseis, the so-called Quaestiones). Altogether, Alexander is the main repre-sentative of a distinctively Aristotelian commentary tradition, which was to be the basis forsubsequent exegesis by Neo-Platonic, Arabic, and Renaissance commentators. Some theoretical assumptions seem original to Alexander or scarcely expressed before.He explained circular heavenly motions as due to desire of imitating the eternal perfectionof the Unmoved Mover. As for the origin of soul, which is form and perfection of the livingbeings, it derives from a divine power (theia dunamis) exerted by the movement of the celestial 54

P:66

ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS, PSEUDO, ON FEVERSbodies, which supervenes upon the physical mixture (krasis) of their organic components (seeDe prouidentia 148 Zonta, 75–77 Ruland; Quaestio 2.3). By this activity, the celestial power isthe cause both for providence, which guarantees preservation and well-being of living spe-cies, and for individual fate. From fate, nonetheless, one is able to escape through educationand exertion, so that moral life remains up to us (eph’ h¯emin). As for the active intellect (nouspoi¯etikos, of Aristotle’s De an. 3.5), this is identical with its peculiar object, namely the eternalﬁrst intelligible, and is therefore itself eternal. But since the ﬁrst intelligible is alike for allrational beings, no place seems to remain in Alexander for the immortality of individualsouls, and Alexander’s Renaissance followers were charged with impiety for their positionin this regard. Extant commentaries and minor works of Alexander are mainly edited within the CAGvolumes (1883–1901): 1. Comm. in Metaph. (Books 1–5 only are authentic); 2.1: In An. pr. I(M. Wallies, 1883); 2.2: In Top. (M. Wallies, 1891); 3.1: In De sensu et sensato (P. Wendland,1901); 3.2: In Meteor. (M. Hayduck, 1899). Treatises and opuscula: Suppl. Arist. 2.1: De animaand Mantissa (I. Bruns, 1889); v. 2.2: De fato, Quaestiones, De mixtione (I. Bruns, 1892; also afurther edition of De fato by P. Thillet, 1984; a revision of Bruns’ Quaest. 1.10, 1.15, 2.3 bySilvia Fazzo, Aporia e sistema, 2002; and of De mixtione by R.B. Todd, 1976). We also havefragments of Alexander on Cat., De int., An. pr. I, An. post. (ed. P. Moraux, 1979), Phys., Decaelo (fr. on Book I ed. by A. Rescigno, 2004), De gen. et corr., De an., and Met. XII, and Arabictranslations of Alexander’s lost De prouidentia (ed. J.-H. Ruland, Diss. Saarbrucken, 1976; P.Thillet’s Thèse d’état, Paris 1979; M. Zonta in Silvia Fazzo, ed., Alessandro di Afrodisia. Laprovvidenza. Questioni sulla provvidenza, 1999), De principiis (ed. C. Genequand, Alexander ofAphrodisias On the Cosmos, 2001), and of other minor writings. Many of Alexander’s workshave been translated into English, among others in the ACA. The name “Alexander” has been abused, especially in the Middle Ages, as a generouslabel for diﬀerent writings with some Aristotelian connection; texts preserved only in Arabicwith no Greek parallel or counterpart must be handled with caution as sources for Alexander;and so also Greek texts, opuscula, or fragments, when no safe indication of authorship isgiven. Therefore, authenticity is sometimes controversial (e.g. of some opuscula, includingQuaestio 2.21 and the famous De intellectu = Mantissa II), and some works are certainly spuri-ous: the commentaries to Soph. El. and Met. 6–14 (both by Michael of Ephesos), variousmedical writings (edited by Ideler 1 [1841/1963], and by Kapetanaki and Sharples [2006]),some Arabic treatises or titles of treatises, most of which are polemical, against the thinkersdenying creatio ex nihilo and against G .R.W. Sharples, “Alexander of Aphrodisias: Scholasticism and Innovation,” ANRW 2.36.2 (1987) 1176–1243 (good starting point on themes, problems, and bibliography); DPA 1 (1989) 125–139, R. Goulet and M. Aouad; Moraux v. 3 (2001), with a chapter on ethics and a general bibliography by R.W. Sharples, integrated and supplemented in DPA S. (2003) 61–67, Silvia Fazzo; Eadem, “Alexandre d’Aphrodise contre Galien: la naissance d’une légende,” Philosophie Antique 2 (2002) 109–144; J. Sellars, “The Aristotelian Commentators: a Bibliographical Guide,” in Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries, edited by P. Adamson, H. Baltussen and M.W.F. Stone, BICS S.82.1 (2004) 244–245. Silvia FazzoAlexander of Aphrodisias, pseudo, On Fevers (150 – 200 CE)Otherwise unknown medical writer, whose treatise On Fevers deﬁnes and classiﬁes themaccording to the Pneumaticist school, based on a lengthy discussion of the nature of 55

P:67

ALEXANDER OF EPHESOS, LUKHNOScausation. The author (§§26–30) divides causes into prokatartika (predisposing), pro¯egoumena(antecedent), and sunezeugmena (conjoint), as had A   A. The heat offever arises from the innate heat of the heart (§2), but is none the less unnatural (§8).Pneuma and humors are not the primary agents of disease or fever (§13). In §§16.1, 24.5,30.1, he appears to cite A  K.Ed.: Ideler 1 (1841/1963) 81–106; P. Tassinari, Trattato sulla febbre (1994).P. Tassinari, “Il trattato sulle febbri dello ps. Alessandro d’Afrodisia,” ANRW 2.37.2 (1994) 2019–2034. PTKAlexander of Ephesos, Lukhnos (75 – 45 BCE)This rhetor was contemporary with C who described him in mixed words such aspoeta ineptus, non inutilis (Att., 2.20.6; 2.22.7). He was known as Lukhnos (“The Light”) andwrote an historical work on the Marsian War. S  (14.1.25) especially mentions himas an author of didactic poems on geography (SH 23–38: it seems that D A took him as a model) and astronomy: he wrote Phainomena of which theremaining 26 hexameters show the inﬂuence of Pythagorean philosophy on his descrip-tion of the harmony of spheres (SH 21).BNP 1 (2003) 479 (#22), C. Selzer; SH 19–38. Christophe CussetAlexander of Laodikeia on the Lukos, Philale¯the¯s (20 BCE – 25 CE)Originally a follower of A    B, succeeded Z as arkhiatros of theHe¯rophilean school in Asia, tutored A and D   P  (G , Puls. Diﬀ. 4.10 [8.744, 746 K.]). His views on lethargy, a sudden loss of reasonaccompanied by fever and impaired senses (C A, Acute 2.5 [CML 6.1.1,p. 132]), digestion, a predisposition but not assimilation of nutriments (L .24.27–35), and pores, all derive from Askle¯piade¯s (cf. von Staden 1989: 532–534). Alexanderposits invisible apertures (“apprehensible only by reason”) through which corporeal matterenters and leaves the body (Londiniensis med. 35.21–9, 38.58–39.13). Alexander oﬀeredtwo deﬁnitions of the pulse (Gale¯n, Puls. Diﬀ. 4.4–5 [8.725–727, 731 K.]): (1) involuntarycontractions and distentions of heart and arteries (“objective,” according to nature); (2) thethrob resulting from the continuous involuntary motion of arteries against one’s touch andits following interval (“subjective”). His “objective” deﬁnition is orthodox He¯rophilean: cf.B, Z   (H .), and K. Alexander concurs with theHe¯rophilean theory that male seminal ﬂuid arises in the blood (fr.9 von Staden). Hewrote a Gynecology (at least two books), denying illnesses speciﬁc to women (S  Gyn.3.2: CMG 4, pp. 94–95; CUF v. 3, p. 47) and deﬁning vaginal ﬂux as a sanguineous ﬂowover the uterus (cf. D    A). The A  B (1, p. 208Wellmann) cites the ﬁrst book of Alexander’s On Seed. In Opinions, at least ﬁve books andﬁltered to Gale¯n through Aristoxenos, Alexander is connected with the doxographic trad-ition reaching back, perhaps, to H  himself (von Staden 1989: 538; cf. Gale¯n,above).von Staden (1989) 532–539; OCD3 61, Idem; Idem (1999) 164–165; BNP 1 (2002) 485, V. Nutton. GLIM 56

P:136

A RC H I M E¯ D E¯ S O F S U R A KO U S A IArchime¯de¯s of Surakousai (ca 250 – 212 BCE)The most important scientist of antiquity. 1. Biographic Evidence. Archime¯de¯s’ death is dated, most securely on P’authority (Book 8, frr.4–6, 37), to the fall of Surakousai in the Second Punic War; he likewisedescribes the scientist then as presbut¯es, old. (The often repeated statement that he was 75when he died is based on the worthless authority of the Byzantine poet Tzetze¯s.)Archime¯de¯s refers, in the introductions to several of his major treatises, to the death ofK , known to have been alive in 245 (when Kono¯n named the “Lock of Berenice”).It follows that at least some of Archime¯de¯s’ major works were likely written during the230s–220s. Knorr (1978) oﬀers the most ambitious attempt to oﬀer a chronology ofArchime¯de¯s’ life and works. E refers (p. 228 H.) to an ancient Life of Archim¯ed¯es written by a certain He¯rak-leios or H  . Since Archime¯de¯s’ introduction to Spiral Lines mentions an associatenamed He¯rakleide¯s, it is likely that this Life was written by a knowledgeable, if partisan,author. While none of this work survives save for the two comments quoted by Eutokios(both of a strictly mathematical signiﬁcance), the possibility remains that at least some ofArchime¯de¯s’ ancient biographical tradition stems ultimately from such a reliable source. Itremains impossible to say which parts of the tradition are ﬁctional, and which are historical.The familiar stories (such as that of the forged crown problem solved in the bath, or launch-ing the giant ship while uttering “give me where to stand and I shall move the earth”),having the ring of legend, derive from late authorities. Archime¯de¯s refers in the Sand-Reckoner to an astronomer, “P, my father.” Twoonomastic comments suggest themselves. (a) From the late-5th c. onwards, “Pheidias” was aname traditionally given in artistic and artisanal families, (b) the name “Archime¯de¯s” iseﬀectively a hapax, apparently modeled on “Diome¯de¯s,” or “the mind of Zeus,” meaningroughly “the mind of the Arch¯e.” This clearly suggests a religion motivated by Platonic orStoic metaphysics. The sum total of our evidence is that Archime¯de¯s’ grandfather waslikely an artist, his father an astronomer and follower of contemporary, Platonic or Stoic,currents of metaphysical thought. Reliable historical evidence on Archime¯de¯s’ death portrays him as heroically, to someextent single-handedly, and very eﬀectively, contributing to the defense of Surakousai,through the construction of original war engines. Nothing in the extant corpus bears on theproblem of war engines, probably the simple product of necessity. Mention of the sands ofSicily (in the introduction to the Sand-Reckoner), as well as the choice of setting for the CattleProblem, both suggest a patriotic devotion consistent with his wartime conduct. 2. Bibliographic Evidence. As mentioned above, some works ascribed to him startwith a letter of introduction, whose ﬁrst words typically are “Archime¯de¯s to X, greetings.”The sober, mathematical character of those letters suggests authenticity. If so, several extantworks are deﬁnitely authentic (titles, however, always unreliable, are provided here for refer-ence, followed by the abbreviation to be used below): Sphere and Cylinder I (SC I) and theindependent but closely-related Sphere and Cylinder II (SC II); Spiral Lines (SL); Conoids andSpheroids (CS); Quadrature of Parabola (QP); Sand-Reckoner (Arenarius); Method (Meth.). The ﬁrstﬁve – SC I, SC II, SL, CS, QP – all addressed to D , can be seen as the core ofArchime¯de¯s’ achievement. The Greek manuscript tradition further includes the following works: Measurementof the Circle (DC); Planes in Equilibrium I, II (PE I, II) (two rolls of one work); Floating Bodies I, 125

P:137

A RC H I M E¯ D E¯ S O F S U R A KO U S A III (CF I, II) (also a single work divided into two rolls); Stomakhion (Stom.); Cattle Problem(Bov.). DC contains obvious mistakes, alongside some inspired mathematics, and it is oftenassumed that the extant version is a corruption of an original work by Archime¯de¯s (Knorr1989, part 3). Similar doubts were raised concerning PE I (Berggren). Still, the presence ofDoric dialect in PE, CF, as well as some ancient testimonies connecting the contents of DC,Stom., and Bov. to Archime¯de¯s, make us believe that indeed all the works extant in Greekare by Archime¯de¯s himself – even if in corrupt form. To this should be added the treatiseOn Polyhedra (Poly.) which P (Coll. 5.19, pp. 2.352–358 H.) describes in detail. Ancient testimony mentions several more works (in a few cases, inside the works ofArchime¯de¯s himself), but evidence is meager and allows no ﬁrm conclusions. The mentionof a work on Optics, though, is especially intriguing, as this ﬁeld – otherwise not very wellattested in Archime¯de¯s’ time – would provide ample opportunities for Archime¯de¯s’ genius inmathematical physics (Knorr 1985 connects Archime¯de¯s and the Catoptrics ascribed toEuclid). Many Arabic treatises are ascribed to Archime¯de¯s, but most go beyond the Greek corpus.Four of these are usually taken to be authentic (even if in a more or less mediated form:Sesiano): Construction of the Regular Heptagon (Hept.); Tangent Circles (Tan.); Lemmas (Lem.);Assumptions (Assum.). With the exception of Bov. (surviving through collections of epigrams), all Greek worksare transmitted through one or more of three early Byzantine MSS. One of these, a collec-tion of various mechanical works, only some by Archime¯de¯s, was lost and is known onlythrough Moerbeke’s Latin translations of PE and CF, partly based on this MS. The tworemaining MSS seem to form a kind of “collected works of Archime¯de¯s” (Medieval scien-tiﬁc MSS are arranged typically by subject matter rather than author, so that those“collected works” are an exception testifying to Archime¯de¯s’ stature). One of these two,containing SC I, SC II, DC, CS, SL, PE I-II, Aren., QP, became lost in the Renaissance,after serving as another source for Moerbeke’s translation as well as for numerous copies.The second, “The Archime¯de¯s Palimpsest,” contains PE II (end only), CF I-II, Meth., SL,SC I, SC II, DC, Stom. (beginning only). This 10th c. Byzantine MS, turned in the 13th c.into a prayer book, was rediscovered by Heiberg in 1906. Again lost, it resurfaced in anauction in 1998 and has been recently the subject of intensive study, giving rise to notablechanges in the received text. 3. Major Areas of Discovery. The most signiﬁcant body of Archime¯de¯s’ work con-cerns measuring curvilinear objects, based on the technique of “exhaustion,” whichpreﬁgures the calculus (SC I, SC II: sphere; CS: conoids of revolution; SL: spirals, QP:parabolic segment, Meth.: various ﬁgures). In the most general terms, the method ofexhaustion works as follows (Fig.). The curvilinear object is bound (from above, below, orboth) by a complex rectilinear object whose diﬀerence, or ratio, of volume or area, from thegiven curvilinear object, can be made indeﬁnitely small. Typically, this involves dividing thecurvilinear object into an indeﬁnitely large number of sections, each of which is circum-scribed or inscribed by a respective section of the complex rectilinear object. Certain meas-urements are then made for the rectilinear objects and, based on these measurements, oneshows through contradiction that the curvilinear object must possess the speciﬁed measure(or else for instance it can be made smaller than a rectilinear object it circumscribes, etc.).E had already applied the same technique for the measurement of the cone (Elements12.10) – a result ascribed to E  K, partly on the authority of Archime¯de¯s 126

P:138

A RC H I M E¯ D E¯ S O F S U R A KO U S A Ihimself (in the introduction to Meth.). Archime¯de¯s has put his signature on this technique,through his wide ranging and elegant application of it. It was following on his lead thatmodern mathematicians strove to transform this technique into the project of measuring,systematically, all curvilinear objects – a project giving rise to the calculus. In both PE and CF, Archime¯de¯s applies mathematics rigorously to the physical world.Starting from simple assumptions – e.g. that equal weights balance at equal distances (PE) orthat the columns of a liquid at rest all press down with equal force (CF) – he derives by purelogic the main principles of Statics and Hydrostatics, respectively – Archime¯de¯s’ Laws ofthe Lever and Buoyancy. From these, Archime¯de¯s derives special results such as the ﬁndingof centers of weight, ultimately deriving complex results of a more geometrical character,once again having to do with curvilinear objects: e.g. the center of weight of a parabolicsegment (PE II) and the hydrostatic properties of certain conoids of revolution (CF II). Therigorous application of mathematics to physics appears to have been original to Archime¯de¯sand served as major inspiration to the scientiﬁc revolution. Meth. combines Archime¯de¯s’ interest in measuring curvilinear objects with mathematicalphysics, in subtle and surprising ways. In most propositions of this treatise, plane ﬁgures (orsolid ﬁgures) are sliced by parallel lines (or parallel planes), and results are obtained for thecenter of gravity of each of the resulting linear segments (or planar segments). Those resultsare then summed up as a result for the center of gravity of the plane or solid ﬁgure as awhole, giving rise to its measurement. This technique preﬁgures Cavalieri’s indivisibles(1635). Unfortunately this treatise was discovered only with the appearance of the Palimp-sest in 1906 and so did not contribute to the scientiﬁc revolution. In 2001, a new readingrevealed Archime¯de¯s’ use of actual inﬁnity, in the course of applying proportion theory to ageometrical arrangement involving indivisibles (Netz, Saito and Tchernetska). This appearsto be unique in the extant Greek corpus. While Archime¯de¯s’ most remarkable achievements are qualitative in character (in eitherpure geometry or in mathematical physics) many of his works involve detailed calculation.His bounds for the value of π (to use the modern notation), 31/7 ≥ π ≥310/71, are obtained inDC based on a whole set of numerical results, including an approximation of √3. Aren.states the number of grains of sand it takes to ﬁll up the universe; Bov. is a staggeringlydiﬃcult numerical puzzle; Poly., at least in the form reported by Pappos, appears to havebeen primarily a numerical study in the faces, edges and vertices of solids; ﬁnally, it has beensuggested recently that Stom. formed a study in geometrical combinatorics, counting thenumber of ways in which a certain jigsaw puzzle can be put together (Netz, Acerbi andWilson). 4. Scientiﬁc Personality. The subject matters chosen by Archime¯de¯s all revolvearound the surprising: curved objects are equal to straight ones; physical objects obey geo-metrical laws; apparently impossible calculations are executed. Such results are alwaysshown through elegant and surprising routes. In a typical work, Archime¯de¯s builds up anarsenal of apparently unrelated results which then unexpectedly combine to yield themain result of the treatise. No allusion is ever made, within the works themselves, to anyextra-mathematical interests, and it appears that Archime¯de¯s saw himself (at least in hispersona of a scientiﬁc author) as a pure mathematician, dedicated to the pure pursuit ofproofs. Archime¯de¯s’ manner of proof is more diﬃcult to study. While a substantial part ofArchime¯de¯s’ work does survive, the works as transmitted contain what appears to be obvi-ous later glosses, in places quite substantial. It is thus to some extent a matter of conjecture 127

P:139

AREIOS DIDUMOSto say which of the text is by Archime¯de¯s and which by later commentators, considerablylimiting our ability to judge Archime¯de¯s’ scientiﬁc personality. Assuming most of thoseapparent glosses are indeed late, the emerging personality is that of a very precise, and yetsomewhat impatient author. While no mistakes are ever made, and careful attention is givento many subtle points of logic, Archime¯de¯s can be quite cavalier about details he considersobvious. (This, indeed, may be the reason why later readers felt the urge to add in theirglosses.) In many of the introductions to his works, Archime¯de¯s mentions previously sent “enun-ciations,” apparently challenges distributed so as to test Archime¯de¯s’ contemporaries. In onecase (the introduction to SL) he speciﬁcally mentions a false enunciation, i.e. one meant totease his contemporaries into proving a falsehood. The overall tone of the introductions isof supreme self conﬁdence. In the very choice of scientiﬁc subject matter, in the spirit of“intellectual tournament” sustained through his correspondence, and ﬁnally in the subtleand yet cavalier manner of his writing, Archime¯de¯s radiates a consistent persona – subtle,self-conﬁdent, playful.J.L. Berggren, “Spurious Theorems in Archimedes’ Equilibrium of Planes, Book I,” AHES 16 (1976– 1977) 87–103; W.R. Knorr, “Archimedes and the Elements: Proposal for a revised Chronological ordering of the corpus,” AHES 19 (1978) 211–290; Idem, “Archimedes and the pseudo-Euclidean Catoptrics,” AIHS 35 (1985) 28–105; Idem (1989); J. Sesiano, “Un Fragment attribué à Archimède,” MH 48 (1991) 21–32; Reviel Netz, K. Saito, and N. Tchernetska, “A New Reading of Method Proposition 14: Preliminary Evidence from the Archimedes Palimpsest,” SCIAMVS 2 (2001) 9–29, 3 (2002) 109–125; Reviel Netz, F. Acerbi, and N.W. Wilson, “Towards a Reconstruction of Archimedes’ Stomachion,” SCIAMVS 5 (2004) 67–99; NDSB 1.85–91, F. Acerbi. Reviel NetzAreios Didumos (100 BCE – 200 CE)A number of passages on Peripatetic and Stoic ethics and on Stoic physics in the churchfather E and in I   S are attributed to Areios, to Didumos or once toAreios Didumos. It is a modern assumption that all these passages refer to one and the sameperson called Areios Didumos, and that this person was identical with Emperor Augustus’philosophical friend Areios. This identiﬁcation is far from assured: all we can say is thatthese texts seem to have been written before the end of the 2nd c. CE. In any case, theseexcerpts seem to belong to that kind of doxographical literature where the philosophy ofeach of the schools was dealt with in separate sections on logic, physics and ethics.Ed.: Fragments of physical doxography in Diels (1879) 447–472; fragments of ethical doxography in A.J. Pomeroy, trans., Epitome of Stoic Ethics (1999).Moraux (1973) 1.259–443; W.W. Fortenbaugh, ed., On Stoic and Peripatetic Ethics, The Work of Arius Didymus (1983); D. Hahm “The Ethical Doxography in Arius Didymus,” ANRW 2.36.4 (1990) 2935– 3055; T. Göransson, Albinus, Alcinous, Arius Didymus (1995); Mansfeld and Runia (1996) 238–266; NP 1 (1996) 1041–1042, D.T. Runia (not in BNP). Jørgen MejerAreios of Tarsos, Laecanius (54 – 77 CE)D  dedicates his Materia Medica to an Areios (Pr.1), an instructor of medicalbotany and mineralogy then resident in Tarsos, and likely one of Dioskouride¯s’ primarymentors in pharmacology. In CMLoc 4.8, and 5.3 (12.776 and 829 K.) G  ascribes 128

P:140

ARETAIOS OF KAPPADOKIAAskle¯piadean connections to Areios, but given Dioskouride¯s’ criticism of Askle¯piadeantheories (Pr.2), Areios was not a strict adherent of the sect. He was an accomplishedphysician and pharmacologist in his own right, and a client of the consular C. LaecaniusBassus (consul 64 CE: CIL 5.698; T Annals, 15.33; P 26.5 and 36.203). Areios wrotea handbook on pharmacology, known to Gale¯n through quotations in A’compilation (CMGen 5.13 [13.840 K.]), and Dioskouride¯s contributed a styptic compoundincluded by Areios in that work (Gale¯n, CMLoc 5.15 [13.857 K.]). He also wrote a Life ofH¯, mentioned by S  (Vita Hipp. 1 [CMG 4, p. 175]). If the formulas and recipes quoted by Gale¯n are representative, Areios was an expertcompounder of drugs fashioned from ores and minerals, and Book 5 of Dioskouride¯s’Materia Medica plausibly reﬂects this emphasis on medical mineralogy and concomitanttechnologies of smelting and reﬁning in 1st c. CE Roman metallurgy and mining. Not onlywould that variety of drugs have indeﬁnite “shelf-lives,” many were superb styptics quitesuitable for staunching the wounds commonly suﬀered by soldiers and gladiators, and kind-red pharmaceuticals were quite eﬀective in the treatment of the widespread ophthalmicailments of the day. Ingredients are exempliﬁed in one of Areios’ styptic collyria and includecopper “ﬂakes,” iron pyrite, ﬁssile alum, calamine, and verdigris, compounded with thelatex of the opium poppy and thickened with acacia-gum (Gale¯n, CMLoc 4.8 [12.776 K]).RE 2.1 (1895) 626, M. Wellmann; R. Syme, “People in Pliny,” JRS 58 (1968) 135–151; J.F. Healy, Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World (1978) 246 with nn.133–154; Scarborough and Nutton (1982) 198–199, 206–208; R. Syme, “Eight Consuls from Patavium,” PBSR 51 (1983) 102–124; John Scarborough, “Introduction” to L.Y. Beck, trans., Dioscorides of Anazarbus De materia medica (2005) – at . John ScarboroughAretaios of Kappadokia (150 – 190 CE?)Greek physician from Kappadokia of uncertain date; -A  A-, O F, quoting Aretaios (16.1, 24.5, 30.1 Tassinari), provides a clear terminus antequem. G , who does not quote Aretaios explicitly, fails to mention his source in reportinga case of elephantiasis (Subﬁguratio Empirica 10 [pp. 75–79 Deichgr.]; Simples 11.pr.[12.312 K.]), which corresponds to Aretaios, Morb. Chron., 4.13. Gale¯n mentions that thisepisode happened when he was young, living in Asia minor (in the 140s): thus Aretaiosmight have lived during Gale¯n’s lifetime rather than a century earlier as suggested byKudlien and Oberhelmann. Aretaios’ major work analyzes causes, signs, and therapy of acute and chronic diseases intwo groups of four books each (On causes and signs of acute and chronic diseases, and On therapy ofacute and chronic diseases). He composed four other treatises, all lost, three known only throughAretaios’ own testimonia: (1) On Fevers (Acute, 3.pr.; possibly cited by ps.-Alexander Aphro-disias, De Febr., 16 and 30); (2) On Gynecology (Acut., 3.3); (3) On Surgery (Chron., 3.2); (4) OnPreventive Medicines (?) (Peri Phulaktik¯on: ps.-Alexander Aphrodisias, De Febr., 24). Aretaios’ theoretical leanings are debated. Although often presented as a Pneumaticiststrongly inﬂuenced by Hippokratic medicine (Kudlien), Oberhelmann’s recent re-evaluationshows him more Pneumaticist than Hippokratic. Aretaios deﬁned four major categoriesof diseases according to elemental imbalance (duskrasia), those of (1) dry and cold, (2) coldand wet, (3) dry and warm, and (4) warm and wet. Therapy consists, ﬁrst, in eliminating theexcess of pneuma by bleeding, cupping, and possibly also rubefaction. Simultaneously, the 129

P:141

A R I O B A R Z A N E¯ Spatient is assisted with psychotherapy, physiotherapy, and diet to recover strength and toprepare the body for pharmacotherapy, based on the principle of allotherapy and aiming torestore eukrasia. Aretaios’ conservative materia medica includes animal, vegetable, and mineralproducts, prepared as in antecedent literature, and administered according to use (internalor external) and the organ to be treated. According to Oberhelmann, Pneumaticism inAretaios is the “orthodox” theory at its zenith, before it evolved toward eclecticism.Aretaios’ Hippokraticism seems more literary than medical: like the Hippokratic physicians,he wrote in Ionic Greek. An abundant Byzantine MS tradition transmitted Aretaios’ extant work (Diels 2 [1907]17–19), ﬁrst printed in Greek in 1554 (Paris, edition by Jacques Goupyl), and contributing tothe development of Morgagni’s (1682–1771) anatomico-pathological theory.Ed.: C. Hude, Aretaeus, 2nd ed. = CMG 2 (1958); F. Adams, trans., The extant works of Aretaeus, the Cappadocian (1856).RE 2.1 (1895) 669–670, M. Wellmann; Idem (1895); Kudlien (1962); J. Stannard, “Materia Medica and Philosophic Theory in Aretaeus,” Sudhoﬀs Archiv 18 (1964) 27–53 (reprinted in Pristina Medicamenta [1999], #V); Fr. Kudlien, Untersuchungen zu Aretaios von Kappadokien (1963); Idem (1968) 1098; KP 1.529, Idem; DSB 1.235–236, Idem; A.D. Mouroudes, “Aretaios o Kappadokes; Analutike¯ bibliogra- ﬁa,” Ellênika 36 (1986) 26–68; S. Oberhelmann, “On the Chronology and Pneumatism of Aretaeus of Cappadocia,” ANRW 2.37.2 (1994) 941–966; G. Weber, Areteo di Cappadocia. Interpretazioni e aspetti della formazione anatomo-patologica del Morgagni (1996); OCD3 152–153, W.D. Ross; BNP 1 (2002) 1051– 1052, V. Nutton. Alain TouwaideA ⇒ H.  Ariobarzane¯s (1st c. BCE)Medical writer, whom Philostratos (VS 1.19), identifying as a Sophist, calls a “Kilikian,”probably the same Ariobarzanios credited with the invention of a special plaster againstcancers and sclerodermas, according to H   in G , CMGen 4 (13.439 K.) and 14(13.750–751 K.); the composition of this plaster is given by A  T(2.108–111, 388–389 Puschm.) and quoted by A  A (6.89 [CMG 8.2, p. 234])and P  A (4.23.13 [CMG 9.1, p. 193], 7.17.22 [9.2, p. 353]).Fabricius (1726) 82. Antonio PanainoAristagoras (of Mile¯tos?) (380 – 340 BCE)Wrote a geographical work On Egypt cited by P 36.79, P Isis 5 (352F), A- NA 11.10, D  L 1.11, and S  B.FGrHist 608. PTKAristaios (350 – 250 BCE)P  A (Collection 7.3), in discussing analysis and synthesis, refers to a setof works by E, A , Aristaios “the elder,” and E , sup-plementing the “common elements” of geometry as tools for solving geometric problems. 130

P:142

ARISTARKHOS OF SAMOSPappos lists Aristaios’ Solid Loci in ﬁve books (also called Conic Elements: 7.29) after Apollo¯n-ios’ Conics, the last work discussed in detail, and before the ﬁnal two treatises in the cata-logue, Euclid’s Surface Loci and Eratosthene¯s’ On Means. The order suggests Pappos thoughtAristaios best studied after Apollo¯nios, and, indeed, he says that Aristaios’ work was writtenrather succinctly as if for readers already competent. However, he clearly thinks Apollo¯nioswas chronologically later since he tells us (7.30) that Apollo¯nios introduced the words“ellipse,” “parabola,” and “hyperbola” for what his predecessors and Aristaios called sec-tions of acute-angled, right-angled, and obtuse-angled cones (7.30), and Euclid published a(lost) work on loci after Aristaios’ Solid Loci (7.34). Attempts to reconstruct Aristaios’ contribu-tion to the study of conics are inferences from this information and what else we knowabout Greek studies in the ﬁeld. H  (in the so-called Book 14 of Euclid’s Elements) says that in his Comparison of theFive Figures, Aristaios proved that the same circle circumscribes the pentagonal face of theregular dodecahedron and the triangular face of the regular icosahedron (Heiberg-Stamatis1977: 4.4–7). Hupsikle¯s gives his own proof of this result as proposition 3. Doubts havebeen raised about whether Solid Loci and Comparison of the Five Figures have the same author,but these seem to depend on more speciﬁc chronological assumptions than the evidencewarrants.Heath (1926) 3.513–515; J.L. Heiberg and E.S. Stamatis, edd., Euclidis Elementa (1977) v. 5.1; Jones (1986) 573–591. Ian MuellerAristanax (330 BCE – 120 CE)Greek physician criticized by S , Gyn. 2.48 (CMG 4, p. 87; CUF v. 2, p. 57), forrecommending that female infants be weaned six months later than males, based on hisgeneralizing assumption that females are weaker. Listed after, and probably later than,M  ( A?  K?). This Doric form of the name is esp. commonon Rhodes (LGPN).RE 2.1 (1895) 859 (#2), M. Wellmann. GLIMAristandros of Athens (240 – 90 BCE)Wrote a work on agriculture, possibly treating cereals, livestock, poultry, viticulture, andarboriculture (cf. P, 1.ind.8, 10, 14–15, 17–18), that was excerpted by CD (V, RR 1.1.8, cf. C, 1.1.8). He had a special interest in botan-ical “portents” or anomalies, such as trees bearing fruit on their trunks, or fruit but noleaves, and trees which altered in color or genus (Pliny, 17.241–243). A terminus post quem isprovided by his reference to the city of Laodikeia, which was founded by Antiokhos IIsometime between 261 and 247.RE S.1 (1903) 131 (#6a), M. Wellmann. Philip ThibodeauAristarkhos of Samos (ca 280 – 270 BCE)Particularly renowned for proposing a heliocentric theory that inspired Copernicus, but hisone extant work is a study On the Distances of the Sun and the Moon. Prior to Aristarkhos, there 131

P:143

ARISTARKHOS OF SAMOSwere theories proposing the motion of the Earth (P, H  ). Accordingto P (Platonic Questions, 1006C, and The face on the Moon, 923A, cf. pseudo-Plutarch,De placita phil. 891A), Aristarkhos merely hypothesized with demonstrations that the Earthrevolved around the Sun on an inclined circle and also rotated so that the sphere of theﬁxed stars would not move. S  S later maintained this view. We maysurmise that the account included other basic elements of a heliocentric theory.Unfortunately, no extant testimony provides any motivation for his heliocentric theory oreven details. Indeed, our other principal source, A  ’ Sand-Reckoner, 1.4–7, onlymentions that such a universe must be larger than a geocentric one. Even here, we mustinfer a motivation for this claim, that otherwise we would expect an observable stellarparallax, i.e. a change in the angle between stars in diﬀerent seasons. Indeed, it is easier tospeculate on why the theory was not accepted than why it was proposed. DoesK ’ accusation of impiety represent a common judgment among ancientscientists? The treatise on the measurement of the distances and sizes of the Sun and Moon was profoundly inﬂuential in the ancient world. Interestingly it assumes a geocentric universe (cf. prop. 6). Using four basic phe- nomena in addition to the equal apparent or angular size of the Moon and Sun, Aristarkhos constructed a valid geo- metrical analysis of the relative distances of the Sun and Moon, based on the insight that the triangle formed by the Sun, Moon, and observer must form a right tri- angle at half moon, with the right angle at the Moon. One phenomenon is that the shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is two lunar diameters: the actual ratio varies and is larger (about 2.6). Aristarkhos also treated the distances of the Moon and Sun as constant, as would most contemporary astronomers, and ignored parallax. Only these assumptions aﬀect the geometry of his argument. Although Archimedes ascribes to him the correct angular size of the sun as ½˚, here it is 2˚ (by inference from eclipses and hisAristarkhos of Samos: distances and sizes value for the moon as 1/45 right angle).of Sun and Moon © Mendell These three observational errors facilitate the geometry and calculation but do notaﬀect the calculation seriously. Quite diﬀerent is his assumption that the angle of the Sun-Earth-Moon at half moon is 1/30 less than a right angle (87˚ in a later system). The actualangle, ca 89˚51’, is not observable without sophisticated instruments. At 87˚ the Moon is ca47.5% illuminated, about 4 to 5 hours before true half Moon. So his approximation makesthe Sun much nearer. The principal results are that the distance of the Sun’s distance from 132

P:144

A R I S T E I D E¯ S ( M E C H . )the Earth and diameter are respectively between 18 and 20 times the Moon’s distance anddiameter, and that the Sun’s diameter to the Earth’s is between 19:3 and 43:6, while theEarth’s to the Moon’s is between 108:43 and 60:19. The upper and lower ranges are typicalof Hellenistic science. However, they are purely trigonometrical and not based on thephenomena. In modern discussions, it is sometimes suggested that this exercise should beregarded as a thought experiment. It may be signiﬁcant that no known ancient reader eversaid so. In other matters, Aristarkhos reports views of T  and H  on eclipsesand the month (POxy 3710). He observed the summer solstice of 280 BCE. V 9.8.1credits him with a hemispherical sun dial and a level disk sun dial. The work on the phasesof the Moon as described by Vitruuius 9.2.3–4 is fairly trivial, but may reﬂect more sophisti-cated work. Aristarkhos appears to have constructed a solar/lunar/eclipse cycle of 2,434years (C 19.2, as corrected), so that it seems that he added 1/1623 day to the365 1/4 day solar year of K.Ed.: T.L. Heath, Aristarchus of Samos (1913); B. Noack, Aristarch von Samos: Untersuchungen zur Überliefer- ungsgeschichte (1992).Neugebauer (1975) esp. 621, 634–643, 697–698; J.L. Berggren and N. Sidoli, “Aristarchus’s On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and the Moon: Greek and Arabic Texts,” AHES 61 (2007) 213–254. Henry MendellAristarkhos of Sikuo¯ n (60 BCE – 60 CE)Wrote a description of Greece and lands to the north, cited by P 1.ind.5, and used bythe R C, 4.8–11 on Greece, and 4.14 on Dacia – i.e. after 60 BCE.Cf. H and S.J. Schnetz, SBAW (1942), # 6, pp. 81–84. PTKAristarkhos of Tarsos (30 – 70 CE?)Physician to be distinguished from Polyainos’ Aristarkhos (Strateg. 8.50.1.14), a physicianliving at Berenike¯’s court, wife of Antiokhos II Theos (261–246 BCE). Prior to A -  P. who quotes (in G  CMGen 5.1 [13.824.13 K.]) his “multi-purpose pas-tilles” (trokhiskoi), and (CMLoc 7.5 [13.103.7–104.6 K.]) the formula of “an admirablypotent” antidote called Paulina, with various applications in such conditions as duspnoiaand poisonous and venomous infections; K  (CMLoc 5.1 [12.818.3–8 K.]) quotes hisointment for the treatment of black eyes.RE 2.1 (1895) 873 (#24), M. Wellmann. Jean-Marie JacquesAristeide¯s (Mech.) (440 – 400 BCE?)Pausanias 6.20.14 reports that he improved the hippaphesis of K; Fabricius suggestshe may be the student of the sculptor P.RE 2.1 (1895) 896 (#28), E. Fabricius PTK 133

P:145

A R I S T E I D E¯ S ( PA R A D O X O G R A P H E R )Aristeide¯s (Paradoxographer) (250 BCE – 25 BCE)Among other authors discussing geographical properties and qualities of water, V(8.3.27) enumerates Aristeide¯s. Whether this man should be identiﬁed with the homonym-ous geographer (P 4.70) is doubtful.RE S.5 (1932) 46 (#23a), W. Kroll. Jan Bollansée, Karen Haegemans, and Guido SchepensAristeide¯s Quintilianus (ca 270 – 330 CE)Author of a treatise On music, arranged in three books (in Greek). The overall vocabularyand style of the treatise are Neo-Platonic, reﬂecting or suggesting speciﬁc notions found inthe writings of P , P, and I. In addition, Aristeide¯s almostcertainly drew on such 2nd c. authors as T   S, P, P, andHephaistio¯n, and on other authors of less certain date such as K  and G.Whole sections of M  C’s On the Marriage of Philology and Mercury havebeen identiﬁed as derived from his treatise. On music weaves together in rigorous, systematic, and highly complex language a widerange of materials – musical, philosophical, medical, grammatical, metrical, and literary –to create a uniﬁed philosophical discourse in which music serves as a paradigm for the orderof the soul and the universe. Book I, largely following the Aristoxenian model, deﬁnes thescience of music (mousik¯e ), conjoining the treatments of harmonics (1.6–12), rhythmics(1.13–19), and metrics (1.20–29) by means of vocabulary and the development of def-initions. Various notational diagrams are included, one of which (1.9) purports to preservescales of “the exceedingly ancient peoples.” Another diagram (1.11) illustrates the 15 tonoi(cf. A) laid out “akin to a wing.” The treatments of rhythmics and metrics exhibitapparent loci paralleli with Hephaestion’s Handbook and Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ On literarycomposition (1st c. BCE). Book II, conceived in three sections, applies the deﬁnitions of theﬁrst book to larger considerations: the soul, the inﬂuence of music on character, and ethnicstereotypes and the use of music in the Roman empire (2.1–6); the development of ethicalnotions through music, the relationship of souls and bodies (human and otherwise), and theassociation of masculine, feminine, and medial natures with the technical details of music(2.7–16); and the aﬀective power of instruments, exercised through their association withthe soul, the Muses, and the gods (2.17–19). Book III reveals music as a paradigm for cosmicorder in two sections: the ﬁrst reviewing mathematical–musical aﬃnities (3.1–8); the second,as Aristeide¯s states, “making quite plain the similarity of each particular to the universealtogether” (3.9–27), in which nearly every particular of the preceding material is related ina grand Neo-Platonic cosmology based not only on P (especially Republic andTimaeus) and A (On the heavens, Physics, Metaphysics, and History of Animals) but alsoon Plo¯tinos, Ptolemy (Tetrabiblos), Porphurios, and Theo¯n of Smurna.Ed.: R.P. Winnington-Ingram, De musica (1963); Thomas J. Mathiesen, trans., Aristides Quintilianus On Music (1983); SRMH 1.47–66 (with diagrams).MGG2 1 (1999) 917–922; Mathiesen (1999) 521–582; NGD2 1.905–907. Thomas J. Mathiesen 134

P:146

ARISTOBOULOSAristeide¯s (of Knidos?) (360 – 325 BCE?)Cited twice by P for names of islands: 4.64 Euboia is “Long Island” (Makra), and 4.70Me¯los is MIMBLIS; Pliny 1.ind.4 lists him between E and A, possiblyindicating the date-range. Jacoby tentatively identiﬁes with the writer of Knidiaka.FGrHist 444. PTKAristeide¯s of Samos (360 – 50 BCE)V, Hebd. 1 (in Gellius 3.10.6), reports that he cited the 28-day lunar month as evidenceof the power of seven in nature (cf. A, On the Decade). Scholars suggest emendingto A  S, but the more obscure person is the lectio diﬃcilior.RE 2.1 (1895) 896 (#26), G. Kauﬀmann. PTKAristio¯ n, father and grandson (Mech.) (200 – 160 and 140 – 80 BCE?)Aristio¯n (or Kharistio¯n), the father of the physician and pharmacologist P (O Coll. 49.24, 26 = CMG 6.2.2., pp. 36–38, 41–43), was a medical engineer whomay have developed the balance (kharistion) employing a ratio between the motor power, theweight moved, and the space traveled, which S credits to A   (in Phys.7.5: CAG 10 [1895] 1110). He designed a triple-pulley (trispaston) described by Oreibasios(Coll. 49.15–27, pp. 26–43), which the grandson then altered. One of the two developed alsoa plaster for fractures, if “Aristos” is to be read as Aristio¯n (S L 209).P. Duhem, Origins of Statics (1905–1906; translated, 1991) 65–66, 70–73; Drachmann (1963) 181–183; Michler (1968) 87–88, 130–131. PTK and GLIMAristippos of Kure¯ne¯ (225 – 175 BCE?)Author of a doxographical account On the Natural Philosophers, known only for explainingP’ name (D  L 8.21). The author is probably the philosopherof the new Academy, student of L  (Classen 180; cf. E, PE 14.7.14). D.L.8.60 also cites him on the love of E  for P. The student of So¯crate¯swho taught and wrote that pleasure was the goal of life (ca 410 – ca 360 BCE) does not seemprobable; nor his grandson Aristippos (D.L. 2.83; cf. S  17.3.22 and A,NA 3.40).C.J. Classen, “Bemerkungen zu zwei griechischen, Philosophiehistorikern’,” Philologus 109 (1965) 175–181; SSR 4.155–168, esp. 164; BNP 1 (2002) 1103–1104, K.-H. Stanzel. PTKAristoboulos (250 BCE – 50 CE?)Wrote an On stones quoted by -P (De ﬂuu. 14.3 [1158C]) reporting a frag-ment from the ﬁrst book, treating a stone similar to crystal, common in the river Tanais. Heis to be distinguished from A  K and from the homonymousAristoboulos, often quoted as a source by pseudo-Plutarch in his Parallela minora. He could, 135

P:147

ARISTOBOULOS OF KASSANDREIAhowever, possibly be identiﬁed with a homonymous author whom Giannini lists among thenon-specialist paradoxographical writers.RE S.1 (1903) 133 (#14), F. Knaack; Schlereth (1931) 105; FGrHist 830 F1; A. Giannini, “Studi sulla paradossograﬁa greca I,” Rend. Ist. Lomb. Sc. Lett. 97 (1963) 247–266 at 265; De Lazzer (2003) 71. Eugenio AmatoAristoboulos of Kassandreia (334 – 301 BCE)Serving in Alexander’s army, he had no known military role, but his technical skills weresuch that Alexander commissioned him to restore Cyrus the Great’s desecrated tomb atPasargadae. Alexander may have commissioned him to restore the water systems aroundBabylo¯n. Late in his long life he wrote an account of Alexander’s expedition, which doesnot survive; but A used him as a source, along with Ptolemy. He gave a largely eye-witness description of the geography, ﬂora and fauna, and ethnography of the regionsthrough which the expedition passed. His observations on Mesopotamian and CentralAsian rivers were particularly detailed. He discussed the cause of the Indus’ ﬂooding, whichhe ascribed, along with that of the Nile, to summer rains. He described the Hindu Kush,which he called the Caucasus. His remarks on the climate of Afghanistan and Pakistan wereaccurate for the regions through which he actually traveled; but he maintained erroneouslythat the Indian plains are desert. He also discussed the Indus crocodiles, its abundant ﬁsh,and numerous venomous serpents of India. Furthermore, he described in detail the banyantree, and gave the ﬁrst known Greek account of the banana and the cultivation of rice. Hementioned various customs he heard about at Taxila such as the exposure of the dead, thethrowing of the elderly to dogs, the sale of daughters, and the sati. His observations wereoften more sober than those of O  and N: Aristoboulos gave moremodest ﬁgures for the size of serpents in India, and for the extent of the shade of thebanyan tree, and contradicted One¯sikritos’ assertion that there are hippopotami in theIndus river. He gave a graphic account of Alexander’s trek through the desert of Gedrosia.Aristoboulos’ account of the lands of Mesopotamia, Iran, and India was a reasonable ﬁrst-hand report; but it was unable to displace the tradition of eastern wonders begun byS , H , and K .Ed.: FGrHist 139.Robinson (1953) 1.205–243; Pearson (1960) 150–187; P. Brunt, “Notes on Aristobulus of Cassandria,” CQ 26 (1974) 65–69; Pédech (1984) 331–406. Philip KaplanAristode¯mos (250 BCE – 175 CE)Perhaps the grammarian from Nusa (active ca 90–40 BCE), S ’s teacher, or hisyounger relative (ca 80–30 BCE), teacher of Pompey’s sons. Cited by A  A13.86 (p. 713 Cornarius), probably from C P’s work On Animals, on thedomesticated weasel’s ability to sniﬀ out medicinal roots. The name is very frequentthrough the 1st c. CE, quite rare in the 2nd/3rd c. CE, and unattested thereafter: LGPN.BNP 1 (2002) 1114–1115 (#7), F. Montanari (the grammarian). PTK 136

P:148

A R I S T O K L E¯ SAristogeito¯ n (of Boio¯ tian The¯bai?) (60 – 75 CE)P 27.31 (cf. 1.ind.27), listing him after H, records that he prescribed theSkuthian herb anonymus for wounds. After the 1st c. BCE, the name is attested only fromBoio¯tian The¯bai.Fabricius (1726) 83. PTKAristogene¯s of Knidos (260 – 240 BCE)The Souda A-3911 credits him with curing Antigonos “Gonatas,” King of Macedon(reigned 284–239 BCE). Scholars generally equate him with the widely cited anethnic doc-tor, but cf. A   T. The A C, B confutesAristogene¯s’ theory of breath and respiration, that air is somehow “digested” via the lungswhich also excrete some residue, 2 (481a28–30), that respiration extends only to the lungs(i.e., not to the whole body as E  had taught), 2 (481b17–18), and that therespiratory vessels grow like other body parts and when larger contain more air. Pmentions Aristogene¯s as an authority on drugs from animals and minerals (1.ind.29–30,33–35), and C, who refers to a “student of Chrysippus at the court of Antigonus”(presumably K  K (II)), cites Aristogene¯s’ emollient of natron, squill,sulfur, etc. in terebinth, bovine suet, and beeswax, 5.18.27. G  records that he andM , students of Khrusippos of Knidos (II), abjured phlebotomy as did E-: On Venesection, Against the Erasistrateans in Rome 2 (11.197 K. = p. 43 Brain), Treatment byVenesection 2 (11.252 K. = p. 68 Brain), cf. probably CMG 5.9.1, pp. 69–70.RE 2.1 (1895) 932–933 (#5), M. Wellmann. PTKAristogene¯s of Thasos (unknown date)The Souda A-3910 credits him with 24 works, including Biting Beasts, Diet, Health, Semen, andan Epitome of Natural Remedies. Usually identiﬁed with A   K.(*) PTKA  ⇒ PAristokle¯s (120 BCE – 80 CE)Pharmacologist, three of whose recipes A preserves in G . His remedyfor oral infections, later used by A (the one cited by A or elseGale¯n’s contemporary the Methodist), included oak-gall cooked in vinegar until tender,myrrh, Indian nard, rhubarb, 20 peppercorns, Attic honey, and mandrake seeds (CMLoc 6.6[12.936 K.]). His remedy for the liver and internal ailments consisted in pepper, myrrh,saﬀron, kostos, me¯on, yellow iris, nard, carrot seeds, parsley, skordion, cinnamon, cassia,mixed with suﬃcient honey (CMLoc 8.6 [13.205 K.]). Aristokle¯s’ emollient was compoundedof pitch, beeswax, resin, terebinth, ammo¯niakon incense, and galbanum (CMGen 7.6[13.977 K.]).RE 2.1 (1895) 937 (#20), M. Wellmann. GLIM 137

P:149

A R I S T O K L E¯ S O F M E S S E¯ N E¯ ( S I C I L Y )Aristokle¯s of Messe¯ne¯ (Sicily) (1st c. CE?)Peripatetic philosopher who wrote a treatise On Philosophy in ten books, transmitted byE in Praeparatio Euangelica Books 11, 14 and 15. All the fragments come from Books7 and 8 of Aristokle¯s’ treatise and deal mainly with the epistemology of the Skeptics,Cyrenaics, P , M    K, Epicureans, and Eleatics. Thepurpose of Aristokle¯s’ treatise as such is not known but he seems to have had extensiveknowledge of the history of philosophy.M.L. Chiesara, Aristocles of Messene: testimonia and fragments (2001). Jørgen MejerAristokrate¯s (30 – 80 CE)Grammarian, possibly identiﬁable with Cornutus’ friend Petronius Aristocrates (RE 19.1[1937] 1214 [#30], O. Stein: ca 35–65 CE). A in G  CMLoc 5.5(12.878–879 K.) preserves his toothache remedy compounded from poppy, sagape¯non,silphion, pepper, sphondulion (D  3.76), myrrh, galbanum, purethron, andsaﬀron, made glutinous with honey. Andromakhos then gives Aristokrate¯s’ gingivitisremedy.RE 2.1 (1895) 941 (#27), M. Wellmann. GLIMAristokreo¯ n (ca 300 – 250 BCE?)Cited with B  and D  as a foreign authority on geography and ethnography (P1.ind.5–6). In his Aithiopika, he estimated the country’s dimensions (6.183), placed Elephantis750 Roman miles from the Mediterranean, presumably following the Nile (5.59), andplaced Tolles ﬁve days from Meroe (towards Libya), a further 12 days being needed to reachAesar (which town Bio¯n calls Sape¯s: 6.191). H cites Aristokreo¯n’s witness to an“Ethiopian” tribe whose king was a dog (A, HA 7.40; FGrHist 667). The name israre, attested on Cyprus and at Ko¯s (2nd to 1st cc. BCE: LGPN 1.70), so he may be the sameas, or an ancestor of, the homonymous Stoic, active 230–185 BCE, the nephew and studentof C (D  L 7.185).RE 2.1 (1895) 941–942 (#1), H. Berger. GLIMAristolaos (250 BCE – 80 CE)A, in G  CMLoc 9.5 (13.296 K.), notes that he employed an enemasimilar to that of A , which itself contained minerals (lime, realgar, etc.), plus sourgrapes and ashed papyrus, in myrtle wine.Fabricius (1726) 83. PTKAristomakhos of Soloi (325 – 25 BCE)Wrote a treatise on beekeeping (Melittourgika) which according to P, 11.19, was basedon 58 years of ﬁrst-hand experience. He recommended feeding bees on moon-trefoil, and 138

P:150

A R I S T O¯ N O F I O U L I S O N K E O¯ Sadding new bees to a colony that had grown old (Pliny, 13.131–132, C, 9.13.8–9).His work also dealt with trees, the cultivation of radishes, and wine-making (Pliny1.ind.11–15, 19, 14.120, 19.84). His ﬂoruit falls somewhere between A, whom heappears to surpass in apiary expertise, and I H, who cited him.RE 2.1 (1895) 946 (#20), M. Wellmann. Philip ThibodeauAristombrotos (350 BCE – 50 CE)Attributed with a brief Doric fragment from a pseudo-Pythagorean treatise On sight(I    S 1.52.21), treating the properties and the interrelations of air, sightand light.Thesleﬀ (1965) 53.23–54.7. Bruno CentroneAristomene¯s (325 – 90 BCE)Agricultural writer whose work was used by C D (V, RR 1.1.9–10).RE 2.1 (1895) 949 (#14), M. Wellmann. Philip ThibodeauAristo¯ n (I) (450 – 400 BCE)Physician, pupil of P  (or P)  A. G  (15.455.15 K., cf. 18A.9.1K.) includes him among the palaioi, to whom the Regimen in Health was attributed. He was anupholder of the thesis which the author of the H C O SD  objected to, according to which intelligence was located in the diaphragm, so that,in his opinion, the diaphragm played an important role in mental diseases.RE 2.1 (1895) 959 (#58), S.1 (1903) 135, M. Wellmann. Jean-Marie JacquesAristo¯ n (II) (50 – 10 BCE?)Not the same as A  (I), but a later homonym whom C 5.18.33 quotes concern-ing an ointment for gout. Aristo¯n (II) may be the same Aristo¯n whose medicationA   Y (in G  CMLoc 9.4 [13.281.4 K.]) mentions as being anexcellent soothing remedy for intestinal disorder.RE 2.1 (1895) 959 (#58), S.1 (1903) 135, M. Wellmann. Jean-Marie JacquesAristo¯ n of Ioulis on Keo¯ s ( ﬂ. ca 225 BCE)Student of L   T and his successor as scholarch of the Peripatos from ca225; author of Erotic Examples and other works, probably including a dialogue Luk¯on, andpossibly also ethical works On Old Age and On Relieving Arrogance. Lack of speciﬁc identiﬁca-tion in ancient sources often makes it impossible to distinguish his works and ideas fromthose of other writers named Aristo¯n. He played a role in preserving and transmitting the 139

P:151

A R I S T O¯ N O F K H I O Swills of earlier Peripatetic scholarchs and may have written about H ,So¯crate¯s and/or E. Stoics in the next century, wishing to distance their schoolfrom the Cynic tendencies of earlier Stoics, attempted unsuccessfully to reassign to himthe books of the Stoic Aristo¯n of Khios ( fr.8 = D  L 7.163). Thoughno scientiﬁc writings have been attributed to him, he is credited with incidental observationson mitigating hangovers ( frr.10–11) and on the deleterious physical and mental eﬀects ofdrinking water from certain springs ( fr.17).BNP 1 (2002) 1119–20 (#3), R.W. Sharples; P. Stork et al., “Aristo of Ceos: The Sources, Text and Translation,” David E. Hahm, “In Search of Aristo,” and R.W. Sharples, “Natural Philosophy in the Peripatos after Strato,” in Fortenbaugh and White, RUSCH 13 (2006) 1–177, 179–215 and 312–20. David E. HahmAristo¯ n of Khios (100 – 60 BCE)Peripatetic who argued with E   A over the priority of theirpublished theories of the rise of the Nile (S  17.1.5).KP 1.571–572 (#3), H. Dörrie. PTKA  ⇒ H Aristophane¯s (250 BCE – 100 CE)P  A 7.17.34 (CMG 9.2, p. 356) records his emollient of beeswax, liquidpitch, panax-juice, and vinegar (cf. 4.55 [9.1, p. 380]). The name is almost unattested afterthe 1st c. CE (LGPN ).(*) PTKAristophane¯s of Buzantion (ca 230 – 180 BCE)Born ca 257 BCE; prominent scholar and head of the Alexandrian library (195–180), wrotenumerous critical editions and treatises on classical poets, and lexicographical compilations(Lexeis or Gl¯ossai). He also abridged the Aristotelian zoological corpus (Epitome by Aristophanesof the writings of Aristotle on living creatures), partly preserved in a Byzantine zoological Syllogededicated to Constantine VII Porphurogenne¯tos (10th c. CE), with additional extractsmainly borrowed from A, T, K  and the -AD M A. Originally in four books, the Epitome excerpted,summarized and reorganized Peripatetic zoological material, mainly but not exclusivelyfrom History of Animals, and including later material (e.g., T: 1.98, etc.), toprovide a practical handbook. This digest demonstrates an original structure. Aristophane¯streats ﬁrst general questions on mammals (Book 1), then systematically describes principalmammalian species and ovoviviparous ﬁshes (Book 2); he seems to have posited generalquestions on ovoviviparous animals in Book 3 and then described them speciﬁcally in Book4 (both lost), rejecting the remaining animals as unworthy (Epit. 2.2–3). Aristophane¯s’ didactic and synthetic introduction focuses on zoological classiﬁcation 140

P:152

A R I S T O T E L E¯ S O F M U T I L E¯ N E¯(1.1–27), generation (1.27–97), and sensational peculiarities of men (1.98–113) and animals(1.114–154). Book 2, altered in the sole surviving MS, presents 26 monographic ﬁles onmammals (beginning with ﬁssipeds: man, elephant, lion. . .) systematically arranged andincluding the following headings: complete anatomy, mating, gestation, reproduction, num-ber of oﬀspring, lifestyle, ethology, longevity (1.155, 2.1). This new arrangement of zoo-logical knowledge, separating clearly the (general) theory and the (singular) concretedescription leads to a signiﬁcant distortion of the meaning and aim of Aristotelian inquiry.This kind of naturalist guide, with a general introduction and systematic monographic ﬁles,was apparently the standard format of “Aristotelian” zoology transmitted through ancientand Byzantine times. Scholars have erroneously considered this Epitome the enigmaticAristotelian Zoika, but the complex composition and intertwined citations suggest rather theresult of a well-developed early Peripatetic tradition of editing, reorganizing and rewrit-ing the broad Aristotelian zoological corpus and information disseminated (see Epit. 2.1) byhis inquiry. Of a lexicographical treatise entitled On the names [of animals] according to their age,182 brief fragments survive.Ed.: S.P. Lambros, Excerptorum Constantini De Natura Animalium Libri Duo: Aristophanis Historiae Animalium Epitome, Supplementum Aristotelicum, 1.1 (1885); Arnaud Zucker, Recueil zoologique de Constantin (CUF, forthcoming).RE 2.1 (1895) 994–1005 (#14), L. Cohn; O. Hellmann, “Peripatetic biology and the Epitome of Aristophanes of Byzantium,” Aristo of Ceos, RUSCH XIII (2006) 329–359. Arnaud ZuckerAristophane¯s of Mallos in Kilikia (325 – 90 BCE)Agronomist whose writings may have treated cereals, livestock, poultry, viticulture, andarboriculture (cf. P, 1.ind.8, 10, 14–15, 17–18); C D excerpted from hiswork (V, RR 1.1.8–10, cf. C, 1.1.7). Pliny gives Mile¯tos as Aristophane¯s’homeland, but Varro, somewhat closer to the source, has it as Mallos.RE 2.1 (1895) 1005 (#15), M. Wellmann. Philip ThibodeauAristophilos of Plataia (350 – 280 BCE)Pharmacologist, used his knowledge of antaphrodisiac medicines to punish and reform hisslaves (T HP 9.18.4).RE 2.1 (1895) 1005, M. Wellmann. GLIMAristotele¯s of Mutile¯ne¯ (180 – 205 CE)Peripatetic teacher of A  A, who promulgated a Stoic theoryof mind (In de Anima: CAG S.2.2 [1887] 110) and contributed to the debate on circularmotion (S In de Caelo: CAG 7 [1894] 153–154). G , Peri Eth¯on (2.11–12MMH), gives the ethnic and records how he died from lack of proper care.P. Moraux, “Aristoteles, der Lehrer Alexanders von Aphrodisias,” AGP 49 (1967) 169–182. PTK 141

P:153

ARISTOTLEA   S ⇒ AAristotle (355 – 322 BCE) Aristotele¯s; born 384 BCE in Stageira, son of N, a Macedonian court physician; joined P’ Academy in Athens at age 17 and stayed until Plato’s death in 348/7 BCE; left Athens for the Troas and Lesbos (perhaps in association with fellow Academician T); was tutor to Alexander the Great (343–340); returned to Athens and founded the Lyceum (ca 335); ﬂed anti-Macedonian Athens after Alexander’s death (323); died in Khalkis (322). Aristotle is the most inﬂuential observer and recorder, philosopher and systematizer of antiquity. Though his most volu- minous contribution was in biology, he is best known for his physical theory, dominant in the Middle Ages and overturned only in the early mod- ern period. This article treats the contents and con-Aristotle © Kunsthistorisches Museum, tribution of his treatises in systematic order.Vienna Aristotle’s physical treatises (originally lecture notes and catalogues edited and rearranged) form ahierarchical unity of discrete but related disciplines subject to a variety of methods. Aristotledivides rational thought, according to its object, into theoretical, practical and productiveareas (Metaphysics 6.1 [1025b25]). Theoria is further divided into physics, mathematics andtheology depending on the materiality and changeability of its subjects. The three domainsremain closely related: physics studies embodied form subject to change, theology providesthe ﬁnal cause of physics, and mathematics is the study of unchanging quantity inhering inphysical substance.Aristotle’s natural science arises from Greek speculative philosophy. P  deniedthe possibility of change (since what is not cannot be), and E , A,and D , among others, responded by reducing genesis and alteration to the lessproblematic locomotion (all change is the movement of elements, homoeomeries or atoms).Aristotle starts from these problems, and his discussion assumes a philosophical and deduct-ive rather than empirical tone.Nature is “the principle of change and rest in a thing”: what makes a thing act and reactthe way it does (Physics 2.1 [192b13–15]). Not only is the nature of earth to fall to the centerof the universe; plants and animals also have their own complex internal sources of changegoverning growth and behavior. Though each complex and simple nature is a principle ofchange, complex natures subsume simple natures hierarchically: the nature of complexbodies cannot be reduced to the nature of their constituent elements like a clockworkmechanism.The Physics begins with the most general conditions of change: an unchanging substrate(matter) upon which a change (locomotion, genesis and destruction, growth and decay,alteration) occurs from privation to form. Parmenide¯s’ problem is solved: we can denyex nihilo genesis while accounting for change and motion, and without reducing all change to 142

P:154

ARISTOTLElocomotion. Aristotle also adapts Plato’s demiurge (Timaios) and his Forms into a dynamicconception of the good. Natural, like artiﬁcial, change is purposive, and tends regularly andthrough its own agency toward some end, its perfected form. Aristotle’s four causes (formal,ﬁnal, eﬃcient and material) are thus accounted for: the form, the good, and the agent areidentiﬁed and made immanent in each material substance. The substrate-form response toParmenide¯s is melded with the ﬁnal cause to generate the potentiality-actuality distinction:change is the fulﬁllment of potentiality. The changer is actually, what the changed thing ispotentially. The ﬁrst half of the Physics discusses the existence and deﬁnition of the fundamentalprinciples concerning change: inﬁnity (material stuﬀ is a continuum inﬁnitely divisible, butits extent is ﬁnite: Aristotle uses this principle throughout the physical treatises), place (theinnermost boundary of the containing thing, having direction up and down: useful in cos-mology and biology), void (does not exist: antiperistasis, mutual replacement of material,explains locomotion), time (the measure of motion, a continuum on which the now is apoint: used throughout the physical works). The second half of the Physics applies these principles (along with continuity and contact)to prove facts about motion. Aristotle uses the inﬁnite to demonstrate that Z  ’ para-doxes of motion and time are misdirected: motion, time and magnitude are all continuousand inﬁnitely divisible. The theorems culminate in a set of arguments for the ﬁrst unmovedmover. All alteration, growth and decay, and terrestrial locomotion occur between someterminal contraries. All such motion and change come to an end. Yet change and motionare eternal: for how, if it ceased, would it ever get going again? Moreover, there cannot bean inﬁnite series of moved movers, and so there must be eventually an unmoved mover,which is the source of the other ﬁnite movements. This unmoved mover will have nomagnitude and will cause movement by desire (Met. 12). On the Heavens (de Caelo) uses the conclusions of the Physics as principles and studieslocomotion in its speciﬁc kinds: the natural motions of the elements, the heavy (earth andwater), the light (air and ﬁre) and the ﬁfth element (aithe¯r) whose natural motion iscircular. Again Aristotle’s method is philosophical and deductive, constantly engaging thetheories of Empedokle¯s, Anaxagoras, De¯mokritos and Plato. He discusses the roles of theelements as heavy and light. He avoids mathematical methods: his frequent use of inverseproportion (among speed, distance, weight, resistance) is intended merely to prove theimpossibility of situations involving zero and inﬁnity, and not to establish ﬁnite mathemat-ical relations. He is keenly aware how tenuous his conclusions are where direct knowledgeis impossible. The world is a unique, single, ﬁnite, uncreated and everlasting thing, comprising allmatter. The earth is spherical, about 50,000 miles in circumference (2.14 [298a15–17]). It isunmoving and heavy things, like earth, tend to its center, which is identical with the centerof the universe. Light things, like ﬁre, have an opposite natural tendency to seek the per-iphery. Such is the world below the level of the moon. The heavens are occupied by a ﬁnitebut much greater amount of an element – aithe¯r – whose natural motion is circular, andwhich cannot transmute into other elements. The animate planets and stars are ﬁxed into,and made of the same stuﬀ as, the spheres that revolve regularly from the right (south poleis up). In Metaphysics 12, Aristotle adapts the homocentric model of E and Kto explain the complex motions of the planets. Generation and Corruption considers diﬀerences among changes (alteration, growth, andgeneration and corruption) and the lower four elements. Change among contrary powers 143

P:155

ARISTOTLE(hot-cold, wet-dry) accounts for change among the elements. Terrestrial changes are drivenultimately by the northward and southward oscillation of the sun, and generation andcorruption will be continuous, the closest possible approximation to eternal being. Meteorologica concerns the phenomena below the lowest sphere of the moon, and deducesthem from the material causes (the dry and the moist exhalations from the earth) and theeﬃcient cause (the sun). More speciﬁc causes include burning (comets, milky way), ejection(lightning), condensation (dew, rain), reﬂection (rainbows). In absence of the ﬁnal cause,relative place above the earth (or below in the case of earthquakes and mineral formation) isa fundamental ordering principle. Meteorologica 4 is a separate treatment of chemical trans-formations (concoction, parboiling, etc.) Aristotle’s biological works, the most extensive part of his natural writings, focus onzoology. As he moves to more speciﬁc principles, his interpretation of matter and form isadapted to living things. The principle of life is the soul, the form, or ﬁrst actuality, of thepotentially living body, likened to the ability of the axe to cut (de Anima). Soul consists of aseries of ultimate functions: nutrition and reproduction, sensation and locomotion, intel-lect. These are both the form and the ﬁnal cause of a living thing. With the exception ofthe intellect these functions cannot exist apart from the body (cf. Plato’s Pythagoreansoul). Each of the ultimate soul functions is characterized in relation to some externalobject: the reception of food by digestion, the reception of the form of sensitive andintelligible objects. The sense organs are aﬀected and in turn aﬀect the heart, the commonsensorium, which discriminates and uniﬁes the sense perceptions. The heart is also the seatof phantasia, the primary intentional faculty. The passive intellect contemplates its objectsthrough the illumination of the active intellect. The Short Natural Treatises (Parva Naturalia)discusses some general life functions from other perspectives. Sense and Sensibilia discusseswhat makes the objects of sense sensible. Other treatises concern memory and recollection,dreams, and aging (all of which concern the physical principle, time). Of this same seriesare the Movement of Animals and the Progression of Animals. The ﬁrst is a discussion of thegeneral conditions of movement: the moved and moving parts of the body, desire, etc.; thesecond is a speciﬁc treatment of the forms movement takes in various animal groups (ﬂying,crawling, swimming) and how many and of what form are the appendages (points ofmotion). The History of Animals is a sprawling collection of data in the Ionian tradition, probablya collaboration with Theophrastos and other members of the Lyceum. It introduces anew, empirical approach, appropriate here where data are available from extensive dissec-tion and reports from ﬁshermen, hunters and farmers. Since the physicist’s task is to studyboth the matter and the form, the History is a description of the various parts of animals,and their activities and functions. Aristotle isolates the universal nature of each animalkind without reference to incidentals like the animals’ utility to man (in contrast to Theo-phrastos’ parallel work on plants). The diﬀerences among animals are studied in accord-ance with the basic principles of the Physics: privation and contrariety of properties.Humans are studied ﬁrst because of their familiarity, then the basic kinds of blooded(viviparous quadrupeds, oviparous quadrupeds, birds, ﬁshes, selachia and cetacea) andbloodless animals (crustacea, testacea, insects) in their internal and external parts and theirbehavior. The History provides the facts for which the Parts of Animals gives the causes. The form,the ultimate functions of the soul, provides the ﬁnal cause, and the parts and tissues arethe material cause. These two causes, inherited from Plato’s Timaios, act together through 144

P:156

ARISTOTELIAN CORPUS ON BREATHhypothetical necessity: if an animal is to discharge a certain function, it must have suchand such a material constitution. Aristotle arranges his subjects as in the History: animalgroups that belong together, e.g. birds, ﬁsh, are treated together; parts common to manygroups (especially internal organs) are treated together and given single explanations.Broadly Aristotle moves from highest life form to lowest, from most general to most spe-ciﬁc, and from the head down. He rejects the dichotomous form of division popular in theAcademy in favor of a system of multiple diﬀerentiae, e.g. birds have several generalessential features in which they vary from one another by having more or less (longer/shorter beaks). Finally (apart from spurious works) the Generation of Animals investigates the material andeﬃcient cause, though ﬁnal and formal play subsidiary roles. Diﬀerences among sexualorgans, modes of propagation and causes of the diﬀerences among animal groups aretreated in the manner of the Parts. In procreation the male semen, a concoction of blood,provides the form and eﬃcient cause; female menstrual ﬂuid provides the matter. Imperfectmastering of the menstrual ﬂuid by the semen results in a female oﬀspring. Resemblances toother relatives on the mother’s side and father’s occur by “relapse.” Aristotle refutes thetheory of pangenesis, according to which the seed is gathered from and composed of allparts of the body. Lower animal forms, including testacea, are generated spontaneously bythe vital heat present in the air forming a kind of froth in mud. Finally, some parts andqualities (e.g. eye color) are not for a purpose, but have a material cause.Ed.: I. Bekker, Aristotelis Opera (1831); Oxford Classical Texts for Physics, de Caelo, de Anima; H. Joachim, de Generatione et Corruptione (1926); F.H. Fobes, Meteorologica (1919); Loeb for biological works.Trans.: The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes (1984).Studies: DSB 1.250–281, G.E.L. Owen et al.; G. Freudenthal, Aristotle’s Theory of Material Substance (1995); L. Judson, Aristotle’s Physics (1991); J.G. Lennox, Aristotle’s Philosophy of Biology (2001); Fr. Solmsen, Aristotle’s System of the Physical World (1960); NDSB 1.99–107, J.G. Lennox. Malcolm C. WilsonAristotelian Corpus On Breath (ca 270 – 230 BCE)The short Pseudo-Aristotelian treatise On Breath (481a1–486b4) is commonly believed to bea product of the mid-3rd c. Peripatos. Some have connected it with T,S   L and E. The treatise starts by investigating the preservation of the innate breath (emphutonpneuma) and its increase (§1–2), polemizes by name against A  (§2), and dis-cusses various physiological questions all in some way connected with the function ofpneuma. The author treats respiration (§3), alluding (482a28–31) to A On Respir-ation 1 (470b6–9), movement of pneuma through the vessels (§4–6), nature and functionsof the bones (§ 7), locomotion (§8), and the function of heat in biological processes (§9).Jaeger considers §9 a later Stoic polemic against Strato¯n; Roselli defends it as part ofthe original work. The author very rarely gives solutions to the problems presented to the reader. Theaporetic nature of the discussion, combined with its brevity and the corrupt status of thetext, makes On Breath a rather diﬃcult text. It may be interpreted as a Peripateticreaction to 3rd c. medical discoveries. The author refers clearly to Erasistratos’ theory ofskin composition (483b5–19), but elsewhere the unnamed referent is diﬃcult todetermine. 145

P:157

ARISTOTELIAN CORPUS, DE COLORIBUSEd.: W.S. Hett, Aristotle, On the Soul, Parva Naturalia, On Breath, rev. ed. (Loeb 1957); A. Roselli, [Aristotle], De spiritu (1992).W.W. Jaeger, “Das Pneuma im Lykeion,” Hermes 48 (1913) 29–74. Oliver HellmannAristotelian Corpus, de Coloribus (ca 320 – 250 BCE?)Brief treatise, textually corrupt in many places, generally thought to have been authored notby A, but by another Peripatetic. There is no unanimity, however, regarding theauthor’s identity; scholars recently have attributed the treatise to T, thoughS  also had been suggested, while its unpolished style suggests a student’s lecturenotes. The author claims that the basic colors are those of the elements: ﬁre by nature is yellow,while air, water and earth intrinsically are white. When heated, though, air and waterbecome black; in addition, things appear black when reﬂecting little or no light. All othercolors are produced by mixing elemental colors; an object’s speciﬁc color depends not onlyon the colors mixed but also on proportion and intensity. For instance, violet is produced atsunrise and sunset by the mixture of the sun’s rays, then weak, with the then shadowycolored air. The treatise includes numerous illustrations of color phenomena which the author triesto explain, especially on artiﬁcial dyeing and the colors of plants and animals. The last partof this work treats particular cases exemplifying color changes of plants and animals, dueeither to exsiccation or to the earth’s absorption of liquids. For instance, humanhair changes color because it acquires through the skin diﬀerent degrees of moisture atdiﬀerent ages. There are clear deviations from Aristotle’s color theory; e.g. elements are said to becolored, the “transparent” is not mentioned, light is treated as a material substance. Butthese deviations, together with the treatise’s method, are not foreign to the Peripateticschool; for similar doctrines and the preference for observed phenomena over abstractgeneralizations can be found in post-Aristotelian Peripatetic accounts. Having been included in the Aristotelian corpus, this work was widely read and para-phrased in medieval times. Michael of Ephesos commented on it in the 12th c., and hiscomments as well as the text itself were later translated into Latin.Ed.: K. Prantl, Aristoteles über die Farben (1849); M.F. Ferrini, Pseudo Aristotele, I colori (1999).H.B. Gottschalk, “The De coloribus and its author,” Hermes 92 (1964) 59–85; G. Wöhrle, Aristoteles, De coloribus. Aristoteles Werke in deutscher Übersetzung (1999). Katerina IerodiakonouAristotelian Corpus On the Flood of the Nile (ca 340 – 328 BCE)A Medieval Latin translation preserves, under A’s name, this short treatise, whosescientiﬁc aim is to investigate why the Nile is the only river that ﬂoods in summer. The textdiscusses and refutes some 12 diﬀerent explanations of this, some made by Greek intel-lectuals or famous philosophers from the 6th to 4th cc. BCE. The author’s conjecture, namelythat heavy rains in “Ethiopia” cause the Nile’s rise, is strikingly accurate, but not original. Although modern scholars have raised doubts about both Aristotle’s authorship of thisshort treatise and its original structure, it is likely that the Latin version comes from a Greekoriginal written by Aristotle, since both in this treatise and in his Mete¯orologikà the Red Sea 146

P:158

ARISTOTELIAN CORPUS ON INDIVISIBLE LINESand the Persian Gulf are not yet considered branches of the Indian Ocean, as becamestandard after Alexander’s expedition to India (327–325 BCE).FGrHist 646 F 1; M. de Nardis, “Aristotelismo e doxographia,” Geographia antiqua 1 (1992) 89–108. Mauro de NardisAristotelian Corpus, Historia animalium 10 (ca 350 – 270 BCE)As stated in its ﬁrst sentence, the main topic of HA 10 (633b12–638b37) is sterility and itscauses in women and men. In fact, female sterility is treated in much greater detail.§1 discusses the condition and position of the uterus and menstruation, §2 the condition andposition of the mouth of the uterus, §3 the uterus after menstruation, emissions duringsleep, ﬂatulences in the uterus, and wind pregnancy, §4 spasms of the uterus. Male sterility isbrieﬂy discussed in §5 – testable, according to the author, by intercourse with a diﬀerentwoman – followed by a theory of simultaneous emission in men and women as well asfurther details about the female role in reproduction (female seed); §6 addresses reproduc-tion in animals, §7 mola uteri. HA 10, transmitted in some MSS as the last book of the HA, missing in others, may beidentical with the work On sterility listed in the Catalogues of A’s work byD   L and in the Vita Hesychii. Perhaps A  R added itto the HA. Today some scholars do not believe HA 10 to be a genuine work of Aristotle butan addition presumably by a later Peripatetic author with medical knowledge or by aHippokratic physician. Besides language, style, and its anthropocentric perspective, HA 10diﬀers from HA and the other biological treatises mainly in the doctrine of female seed(rejected by Aristotle in GA 1.17–23 [721a30–731b14]), of pneuma drawing the seed intothe uterus, and because it lacks the concept of form (eidos) and matter (hul¯e ). In the lastdecades, Balme and van der Eijk, in diﬀerent ways, have defended it as a genuine work.Ed.: P. Louis, Aristote, Histoire des animaux III (1969); D. Balme and A. Gotthelf, Aristotle, History of Animals, Books VII–X (1991); Eidem, Aristotle, Historia animalium, v. 1, Books I–X: Text (2002).G. Rudberg, Zum sogenannten zehnten Buche der Aristotelischen Tiergeschichte (1911); D. Balme, “Aristotle Historia animalium Book Ten,” in J. Wiesner, ed., Aristoteles, Werk und Wirkung I (1985) 191–206; S. Föllinger, Diﬀerenz und Gleichheit (1996) 143–156; P. van der Eijk, “On Sterility (‘HA X’), A Medical Work By Aristotle?” CQ 49 (1999) 490–502. Oliver HellmannAristotelian Corpus On Indivisible Lines (330 – 300 BCE)Preserved in the Aristotelian corpus in a rough and often unintelligible form, inspiring muchphilological work. Sometimes ascribed to T in antiquity, and today generallyagreed not to be by A, but assignable to the Peripatos of the later 4th c. BCE.Evidence suggests that P and his follower X  maintained a doctrine ofindivisible lines, as much metaphysical as mathematical, although the treatise stresses itsmathematical aspect, i.e., its inconsistency with accepted mathematics. Mathematically thedoctrine holds that the primary entity of geometry is minimal, indivisible (atomic) lines,with every line being a (apparently ﬁnite) sum of such lines. The argumentation of thetreatise is fundamentally Aristotelian. It begins (968a2–b21) with ﬁve arguments in supportof indivisibles, refutes the arguments (968b21–969b28), and then (969b9–971a5) oﬀers fur-ther considerations against indivisible lines. Some related claims are then made: a line is not 147

P:159

A R I S T O T E L I A N C O R P U S M E¯ K H A N I K A ( P RO B L E¯ M ATA M E¯ K H A N I K A )a concatenation of points (971a6–972a13); a point cannot be added to or subtracted from aline (972a13–30); a point is not a minimum component of a line (972a30–b24). The treatiseconcludes (972b25–33) by arguing that a point is not an indivisible connector (arthron).Unfortunately our knowledge of the ideas refuted here comes only from such refutations,making it diﬃcult to understand why such ideas were propounded.Ed.: H.H. Joachim, De Lineis Insecabilibus, in W.D. Ross, ed., The Works of Aristotle v. 6 (Loeb 1913); M. Timpanaro Cardini (with Italian trans.), Pseudo-Aristotele, De Lineis Insecabilibus (1970).O. Apelt, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Griechischen Philosophie (1891) 255–286; RE S.7 (1940) 1542–1543, O. Regenbogen. Ian MuellerA C O M, X ,  G ⇒ M, . . .Aristotelian Corpus Me¯khanika (Proble¯mata me¯khanika) (320 – 200 BCE)This collection of problems (or a similar one) apparently has been part of the Aristoteliancorpus from early on: a work with the title M¯ekhanikon features in D  L’ listof A’s works. Internal characteristics also place the work quite early: its math-ematical terminology is close to E’s, and it is not acquainted with A  ’contributions to the study of mechanics. This, however, does not necessarily exclude thatthe work was written after Archime¯de¯s. The key concepts in the M¯ekhanika are the force (iskhus or dunamis) and the load (baros): aforce has to be equal to hold a load, or it has to exceed the load to be able to lift it or moveit. These fundamental relations are apparently not observed when a mechanical device isoperative: little forces are able to hold or move a much bigger load. The M¯ekhanika uses abalance-lever model to explain how such mechanical devices work. The aspect of the bal-ance addresses cases of equilibria, whereas the aspect of the lever accounts for cases whenthe device described is in motion. The M¯ekhanika opens with a general explanation whylesser forces are able to move greater loads with the help of a lever. This is possible becauseof the amazing features of the circle, which combines in itself the opposites of motion andrest, and of two component motions – one centripetal, another tangential – which for noextended period of time remain in the same relation to each other. On account of these, theauthor argues (§8), circles have an intrinsic tendency to move. This is also why the circularmotion of the balance and the lever is able to make the small force produce a greater eﬀect.It is important to note that the author does not formulate this enhancing capacity of thelever, or of circles in general, in terms of explicit proportionalities. Nevertheless the idea ofthe proportionality among the distances of the force and the load from the fulcrum, and ofthe magnitude of the force and the load themselves is expressed repeatedly (for the mostunequivocal formulation see §3). The authorship of the M¯ekhanika is still being debated. Among other indications, the mostcompelling one against an Aristotelian authorship is the way §§32–33 give a rather unskillfulrecapitulation of Aristotle’s account of projectile motion (Physics 8.10). As the title M¯ekhan-ikon also occurs in Diogene¯s Laërtios’ list of S ’s works (5.59), it has been repeatedlysuggested that the work is by Strato¯n. The fact, however, that Strato¯n is credited with a workon mechanics does not require that he should be identiﬁed with the author (or indeed,any of the authors) of these mechanical problems.Ed.: O. Apelt, Aristotelis quae feruntur De plantis, De mirabilibus auscultationibus,. . . (1888); M.E. Bottecchia, 148

P:160

ARISTOTELIAN CORPUS PROBLEMS Aristotele, Mechanica (1982: provides the most detailed apparatus; however, Bottecchia also integrates in her lemmata a MS of Book 12 of Geo¯rgios Pachymeres’ Epitome of Aristotelian philosophy).Th. Heath, Mathematics in Aristotle (1949; reprint: 1998) 227–254; István Bodnár, “The mechanical principles of animal motion,” in: A. Laks and M. Rashed, edd., Aristote et le mouvement des animaux (2004) 137–147. István BodnárAristotelian Corpus Physiognomy (320 – 280 BCE)This text transmitted in the Corpus Aristotelicum was believed until the 17th c. to havebeen written by Aristotle himself. Since then, his authorship has been rightly doubted, and itis now assumed to have been composed shortly after Aristotle’s death and based on his owninterest in the subject, cf. Anal. Pr. 2.27 (70b7–38), a passage absorbed into the argument ofPhgn. 805b10–806a18, and the occasional passage especially in the biological works (Vogt1999: 120–145). The treatise consists of four parts: (1) a discourse on the theory and methods of thesubject (805a1–807a30); (2) a catalogue of 21 character types, listing their bodily signs(807a31–808b10); (3) again, and slightly diﬀerent from before, an introduction to thesubject, focusing on the prevalent distinction between the genders (808b11–810a13); (4)another catalogue, this time in order of body traits and qualities, listing their correlations tocharacter types (810a12–814b9). The diﬀerent focus in the two methodical parts has led tothe assumption of two separate treatises A (1 and 2) and B (3 and 4) by two diﬀerent authors(cf. Boys-Stone 64–75), but such strong separation is not necessary; the diﬀerences can beexplained by a more practical attitude in the second half. The methodological considerations became the model for physiognomists for centuries,adopted not only by L, P , the P L and A-, but also by modern physiognomies that cared about the theory and method (e.g.Gianbattista della Porta 1535–1615).Ed.: I. Bekker, Aristotelis Opera Omnia I (1831) 805–814; R. Foerster, Scriptores Physiognomonici (1893) 1.2–90; G. Raina, Pseudo-Aristotele, Fisiognomica. Anonimo Latino, Il trattato di ﬁsiognomica (1993).M.M. Sassi, La scienza dell’uomo nella Grecia antica (1988); Sabine Vogt, Aristoteles, Physiognomonika. Aristoteles Werke in deutscher Übersetzung 18.6 (1999); G. Boys-Stones, “Physiognomy and Ancient Psychological Theory,” in Swain (2007) 19–124. Sabine VogtAristotelian Corpus Problems (ca 270 – 230 BCE)The Probl¯emata phusika is the third-largest work in the Aristotelian Corpus (859a1–967b27).In 38 topical sections of diﬀerent length, the text treats nearly 900 scientiﬁc problems (withabout 200 repetitions) in question-and-answer form. The questions are always introducedby a characteristic “Why is it that . . .” (Dia ti ); the causal explanation is usually given as arhetorical question “Is it because . . .” (¯e oti ). In many cases, alternative answers are added. Section 1 treats medical questions, 2–9 diﬀerent human phenomena (sweat, wine anddrunkenness, sexual intercourse, fatigue, position, sympathy, frost and shivering, skin),10 zoology, 11 voice, 12–13 odors, 14 mixtures, 15 mathematics, 16–17 animate andinanimate things, 18 philology, 19 music, 20–22 botany, 23–26 waters, air and wind, 27–30ethics and mental faculties (including the inﬂuential discussion of melancholy: 30.1), 31–35 149

P:161

ARISTOTELIAN CORPUS ON SOUNDSsense organs (eyes, ears, nose, mouth, touch), 36–38 human body (face, body and color ofthe skin). This treatise clearly postdates A although he authored a work by the same title(e.g. PA 3.15 [676a18]; GA 2.8 [747b5]). How much of Aristotle’s work has been incorpor-ated into the extant Problems remains a matter of dispute: Louis accepts a greater proportionas genuinely Aristotelian than Flashar. Other sources include T (sections 2,5, 12–13, 23, and 26 bear the titles corresponding to his On Sweating, On Tiredness, On Odors,On Waters, and On Winds), and medical writings (H , D   K).There is great variety in the treatment of sources, from wholesale quotations to looseparallels. Flashar considers the work a Peripatetic handbook collecting and summarizing know-ledge in the ﬁelds of medicine and science. While the author utilizes the four Aristotelianqualities warm and cold, wet and dry as fundamental explanatory principles, there aresigniﬁcant conceptual diﬀerences: for example, the concept of vacua shows clear parallels toS   L. It is generally agreed that the extant work is the result of several redactions, as evidencedby contradictions and repetitions. Flashar convincingly argues that most of the materialdates to the mid 3rd c. BCE, though there are later additions, common with this type ofliterature. A collection of problems known today as Supplementa Problematorum was attributedto Aristotle or Alexander of Aphrodisias in antiquity: Kapetanaki and Sharples (2006). Also surviving is H. unain ibn Ish. a¯q’s Arabic translation of a version of the text composedafter 200 CE. Moses ibn Tibbon translated the Arabic into Hebrew in 1264.Ed.: W.S. Hett, Aristotle, Problems, 2 vols., rev. ed. (Loeb: 1970 and 1965); P. Louis, Aristote, Problèmes, 3 vols. (CUF 1991–1994); L.S. Filius, The Problemata Physica Attributed to Aristotle. The Arabic Version of H. unain ibn Ish.a¯q and the Hebrew Version of Moses ibn Tibbon (1999); M.F. Ferrini (with Italian trans.), Aristotele, Problemi (2002).H. Flashar, Aristoteles, Problemata Physica. Aristoteles Werke in deutscher Übersetzung (1991); A. Blair, “The Problemata as a Natural Philosophical Genre,” in: A. Grafton and N. Siraisi, edd., Natural Particulars (1999) 171–204. Oliver HellmannAristotelian Corpus On Sounds (322? – 269? BCE)A short document On Sounds (De Audibilibus = Peri akoust¯on) quoted by P in hiscommentary on P’s Harmonics (67.24–77.18 Düring), and attributed there to A- (51.1, 67.17). The treatise survives in no other ancient source, and in his introductionPorphurios confesses that he quotes only “some of it, abridging it on account of its length.”Its Aristotelian authorship has been doubted since the 19th c., but on this issue there is stillno consensus; inconclusive arguments have been put forward in favor of H  P, T and S . The text, as it stands, is concerned with the generation and transmission of sounds (vocalsounds in particular), and oﬀers explanations of the causes of their pitches and qualitieswhich diﬀer in important details from other 4th c. accounts. Porphurios’ ten-page abridge-ment opens with the general thesis, articulated already by A ( fr.1), that sounds arethe result of impacts (pl¯egai ) between bodies or between a body and the surrounding air. Butwhere other theorists (both earlier [e.g. Arkhutas] and later [e.g. A “ P”]had imagined that the impacts cause the air itself to move, the author of the De 150

P:162

ARISTOTELIAN CORPUS SITUATIONS AND NAMES OF WINDSAudibilibus proposes instead that the impacts which constitute a sound are transmitted fromthe point of origin to the point of perception through the stationary, yet ﬂexible, medium ofthe air. (Examples of bronze statues resonating under the ﬁle, and ships’ masts being tappedto detect cracks, though not adduced in defense of this pulsation-theory, show a concern toaccount for the transmission of sound through solid objects as well as through the air.)Impacts, thus transmitted, are diﬀused widely, each portion of the air conveying to the nextby its movement the timbre, as well as the pitch, of the sound. This is eﬀected not by the airbeing “shaped” (skh¯ematizesthai ), but by each portion of the air being identically moved(kineisthai ) by a neighboring portion of air. Each of these portions is momentarily contractedand expanded by the pulse of sound which travels through it, but is not pushed or shuntedto a new position, as in the acoustic theory of the A P (11.6). While this theory of the propagation and transmission of sound attempts to improve onearlier ones, it does not, in the De Audibilibus, underpin a thesis that higher pitch is caused bya greater frequency of impacts. The author makes an important improvement on Arkhutanacoustics by separating force and speed as distinct variables which cause diﬀerent qualitiesin a sound (73.23–24). But by maintaining the view that velocity of transmission is thedeterminant of pitch, the author falls short of a theory in which diﬀerences between fre-quencies of impact are directly responsible for diﬀerences between pitches. Greater fre-quency of impact at the point of perception will be a consequence of greater velocity oftravel, and so, accidentally, higher pitches will be constituted by a greater number ofimpacts in an equal amount of time; but this higher frequency is a consequence rather thana cause. Aristotle’s own objections to the pitch-velocity theory (De Sensu 448a) are thereforenot avoided in the present text, as they are in the E S C.Düring (1932); Idem, Ptolemaios und Porphyrios über die Musik (1934); H.B. Gottschalk, “The De Audibilibus and Peripatetic acoustics,” Hermes 96 (1968) 435–460; Barker (1989); Mathiesen (1999). David CreeseAristotelian Corpus Situations and Names of Winds (ca 300 – 200 BCE?)This brief and fragmentary text (973a1–b25) lists 11 winds with various local names in theMediterranean region and some brief etymological explanations: the name of one wind(north) is missing. The list agrees almost exactly with T ’ system of winds. A(now lost) drawing of a “wind rose” (illustrating the situations of the winds) is promised atthe end of the text. According to the MSS, the text is an excerpt of A On Signs, anattribution accepted by Sider and Brunschön but doubted by other modern scholars, whosuggest T’ On Signs or another unknown Peripatetic author as source ofthe excerpt. Regenbogen assumed that the text was possibly the mutilated end ofTheophrastos’ On Winds, whereas Rehm denied a Peripatetic origin.Ed.: W.S. Hett, Aristotle, Minor Works (Loeb, 1936); V. D’Avella, “[Aristotle] On the Locations and Names of the Winds,” in D. Sider and C.W. Brunschön, Theophrastus On Weather Signs = Philosophia Antiqua 104 (2007), 221–225.A. Rehm, Griechische Windrosen (1916) 94–103; RE S.7 (1940) 1412, O. Regenbogen; RE 8A.2 (1958) 2350–2351, R. Böker; J.F. Masselink, De Grieks-romeinse Windroos (1956). Oliver Hellmann 151

P:163

PSEUDO-ARISTOTLE, DE MIRABILIBUS AUSCULTATIONIBUSpseudo-Aristotle, De Mirabilibus Auscultationibus (250 BCE – 200 CE)From Athe¯naios (12 [541a–b]), and throughout late Antiquity, there is evidence for aDe mirabilibus auscultationibus (On Marvelous Things Heard) circulating under the name of A-. In its present state, it contains 178 chapters probably resulting from merging threepre-existing collections of excerpts, the nucleus of which might be traced back to the 3rd c.BCE. Notwithstanding, internal evidence suggests a date well after Aristotle, so the work’sattribution to the Stagirite (possibly due to the similarity between its opening paragraphs,1–2, 5–6, and 8, and parts of Book 9 of the Historia Animalium) is deﬁnitely spurious –although it probably contributed greatly to its survival. In keeping with its composite nature, De mirabilibus auscultationibus is structurally muddled.More than one principle of organization is used to order heterogeneous data. Chapters 1–77and 139–151 display a random thematic arrangement, whereas §§78–136 are clearly organ-ized along geographical lines, albeit with a few stray chapters; §§152–178 – the latest addi-tion to the corpus – are arranged topically. The collection’s content varies widely, featuringscattered clusters on zoological marvels (the predominant theme), ﬁre-related paradoxa,curious stones and ore, and wondrous rivers; botanical phenomena, however, are conspicuousby their near-complete absence. True to its paradoxographical nature, De mirabilibus auscultationibus acknowledges numer-ous sources. In §§1–151, the limited number of sources is of the highest quality: includingAristotle and T on natural phenomena, T on paradoxa from thewest and Theopompos on those from Greece and the eastern part of the world. In the lateaddendum, §§152–178, the quality declines, with references to -P,D F, P, and Herodian.Ed.: PGR 221–313; G. Vanotti, Aristotele, De mirabilibus auscultationibus (1997).RE 18.3 (1949) 1137–1166 (§13, 1149–1152), K. Ziegler; Giannini (1964) 133–135; H. Flashar, Aristo- teles, Opuscula 2. Mirabilia (1990, 3rd ed.); BNP 10 (2007) 506–509 (I.B.1, 508), O. Wenskus. Jan Bollansée, Karen Haegemans, and Guido SchepensAristotelian Corpus, Translations into Pahlavi (200 – 900 CE)The impact of Greek philosophy on Sasanian Iran was particularly signiﬁcant directlythrough Pahlavi translations of Greek originals or through Syriac versions of Christiantranslators; terms like “philosopher,” “physicist,” and “sophist” are attested with loanwordsin Pahlavi sources. A’s inﬂuence was seminal not only in physics, but also in laterZoroastrian ethics, especially with regard to mesót¯es. According to the Anecdota Syriaca, PaulusPersa (6th c.) oﬀered a Syriac synthesis of Aristotle’s dialectics and logic to King Xusraw I.Aristotelian concepts and categories such as “movement,” “time,” “space,” “nature,”“becoming,” “change,” and “increasing” are well attested in the 9th c. Zoroastrian encyclo-pedia D¯enkard. They seem to be directly inspired by Aristotle’s Generation and Corruption,translated also in Syriac by H. unain (809–876). The doctrine of primal matter, that of theprincipal elements, and other related concepts were known; all these Greek elements weremore or less adapted to the Zoroastrian framework, and had a certain impact on Sasanianastronomy, astrology, and culture.J.P.N. Land, ed., Anecdota Syriaca 4 (1875) 1–30; L.C. Casartelli, La philosophie religieuse du Mazdéisme sous les Sassanides (1884); Bailey (1943; 1971) 82–119; R.Ch. Zaehner, Zurvan. A Zoroastrian Dilemma (1955; 19712); J. de Menasce, Le troisième livre du D¯enkart (1973); Panaino (2001). Antonio Panaino 152

P:164

ARISTOXENOS OF TARAS-A, O  K ⇒ KAristotheros (ca 250 BCE?)According to S, In de cael. 2.1.2 (CAG 7 [1894] 504.16–505.19), Aristotheros had adispute with A, which Simplicius cites as proof that Autolukos failed in hisattempts to explain the apparent variation in the distance of the planets from the Earth bymeans of hypotheses (here, models: sc. homocentric spheres). Simplicius does not say whatthe dispute was about, and we cannot conﬁrm his account in any of its details; indeed, giventhat Simplicius here reconstructs the past by retrojecting later astronomical theory, it isprobably a thorough misrepresentation. Still, from this text one might infer that Aristotheroswas at least a contemporary of Autolukos. But, even were Simplicius right in this limitedrespect, Autolukos’ dates are uncertain, so this would hardly help to identify Aristotheros.There is also a report in the anonymous Vita Arati IV that Aristotheros was an astronomerand the teacher of A, but this is contradicted in the same text which also says thatAratos was the student of Persaios of Athens as well as by reports elsewhere that he was thepupil of Dionusios of He¯rakleia (Vita Arati I ) or of M   E (Souda A-3745). Given the current state of our sources, there is no sensible way to adjudicate thisdisagreement.SDS 1.806–839, Alan C. Bowen; Idem, “Simplicius and the Early History of Greek Planetary Theory,” Perspectives on Science 10 (2002) 155–167; Idem, “Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle, De caelo 2.10–12: An Annotated Translation (Part 2)” SCIAMVS 9 (2008: forthcoming). Alan C. BowenAristoxenos (ca 25 – 50 CE)He¯rophilean physician, A P  ’ student (G , Puls. Diﬀ. 4.10[8.746 K.]), wrote a polemical On the School of H¯erophilos, attacking even prominent membersof his own school for their illogical or defective understanding of medicine and their impre-cise, redundant and superﬂuous deﬁnitions, especially of sphygmology, e.g., B,Z  , K, A  “M,” and H    E (Gale¯n,Puls. Diﬀ. 4.7, 4.8, 4.10 [8.734–735, 738–740, 744–747 K.], Puls. Dign. 4.3 [955 K.]). Gale¯n,who may have relied on the text for substantial portions of his Puls. Diﬀ. (von Staden 1999:170–171), praises Aristoxenos’ theory of the pulse, which distinguished between distentionand contraction, and identiﬁed the pulse as a function of the arteries and heart (8.734–5,955 K.). He prescribed purgatives to patients to maintain humoral balance (CA, Acute 3.134 [CML 6.1.1, p. 372]).von Staden (1989) 559–563; Idem (1999) 170–176; BNP 1 (2002) 1155 (#2), V. Nutton. GLIMAristoxenos of Taras (350 – 310 BCE)Traditionally regarded as the major musical authority of the ancient world (hence simplycalled “the musician”), he was born in Taras to Spintharos, or Mne¯sias, a nickname thatsome scholars think derived from the verb mimn¯esk¯o (“to remember”), according to the habitwidespread among Pythagoreans of using epithets related to the sphere of memory. Fromhis father he received his ﬁrst training in music which, according to the sources, continuedwith Lampro¯s of Eruthrai (perhaps during his stay in Mantinea, whence he moved toCorinth and then to Athens), the Pythagorean X and, from about 330 BCE, 153

P:165

ARISTOXENOS OF TARASA. His failure to gain the Lyceum’s headship after his master’s death is promin-ent in the biographical sources because of the harsh resentment it seems to have aroused inhim. The Souda ascribes 453 writings to Aristoxenos on many diﬀerent topics: music, history,philosophy and education. However this exceptional number is more likely the total numberof book-rolls comprising diﬀerent works than as independent titles. Among his writingswere biographies, including lives of P, A, So¯crate¯s, and P; alarge number of musicological works (On Music, On Musical Listening, On Melodic Composition,On Tonoi, On Instruments, On Auloi, On the Boring of Auloi, On Aulos Players, On Tragic Dancing); andethical and political writings (Educational Nomoi, Political Nomoi, Pythagorean Sentences, Customs ofMantineans). Of all this material only titles or fragments survive, the plurality of whichbelong to the Elementa Harmonica, a treatise which was very inﬂuential and became para-digmatic for musical theory in antiquity (not only for the “Aristoxenian” tradition), and tothe Elementa Rhythmica. The conventional division of the Elementa Harmonica into three books (the thirdincomplete) has nowadays become almost unanimously rejected thanks to the correct read-ing, in the earliest MSS, of the title as “Before the (pro t¯on) Harmonic Elements,” corruptedthroughout the manuscript tradition to “The First Book (pr¯oton) of the Harmonic Elements.” Infact, P ascribes to Aristoxenos a preliminary treatment of the subject entitled Onprinciples (Peri arkh¯on), which proposed his criteria for a theoretical enquiry on music, percep-tion and reason: that suggests that Book 1 of the Harmonica – as its generic content alsoseems to show – belongs to this separate and more introductory work, while the traditionalsecond book is probably the original beginning of the Elements. According to Aristoxenos, harmonics is a theoretical science (the¯or¯etik¯e epist¯em¯e) concerningaudible melos, an element which exists in nature as a continuous becoming. Thus, in accord-ance with the Aristotelian grounds of his methodology, harmonics is a “physics” concernedwith melody, but it is only a part of a wider and multifaceted science, as are the sciences ofrhythm, meter and instruments. Harmonics, in particular, has the purpose of picking outmusical facts – like notes, intervals and scales – grasped by perception (aisth¯esis), and then ofdiscovering – by means of reason (dianoia) – the principles governing the ways in which theseelements are combined to form melodic or unmelodic sequences. For the comprehension ofmusic, Aristoxenos states that the harmonic scientist should also use the memory (mn¯em¯e) toperceive the melos as a process of coming to be, remarking the distance between thePythagorean theory (whose mathematical representation of intervals conceived them onlyas relations between immovable pitches) and his dynamic approach. The conception ofmelodic movement of the voice with respect to “place” (kin¯esis kata topon) is actually one ofhis most original and lasting concepts, and the description of musical structures as combin-ations of conjoined and disjoined tetrachords to form bigger arrangements (as the “GreatPerfect System,” shown in the diagram) is the ﬁrst full account of an extensive scalarsystem in antiquity. His scientiﬁc approach to the subject, overemphasized by himself asabsolutely new and innovative, was also directed against earlier empiricists, faulted for hav-ing merely sought to catalogue diﬀerent forms of scales without investigating the principleson which they were constructed. Aristoxenos lists seven subjects of study in harmonics:genera (gen¯e, i.e. diﬀerent arrangements of tetrachords, depending on the tuning of movablenotes); notes (phthongoi, conceived as dimensionless points lying on a spatial continuum);intervals (diast¯emata, lit. “distances” between two points in the continuum); scales (sust¯emata,lit. “combinations of intervals”); tonoi (somewhat like “keys” in which scales are placed whenthey occur in melody); modulations (metabolai, variations between systems, genera, keys and 154

P:166

ARISTULLOSso on); and melodic composition (melopoiïa, basically the use to which the notes are put inmelodies). The discussion of the last three topics has not been preserved in the treatise, butcan be reconstructed from later Aristoxenian writers such as K , B andG, who in their handbooks gave a scholastic exposition of the master’s doctrines. Of the Elementa Rhythmica we have only a section of Book 2, but we can infer the main topics of its missing portion from later sources such as Bakkheios, A-   Q and the Byzantine scholar Michael Psellos, as well as from POxy 34 (1968) 2687 plus POxy 1 (1898) 9 (identiﬁed by scholars as an Aristoxenian source). In this treatise, Aristoxenos asserted that rhythm is a temporal struc- ture imposed on a medium susceptible of rhythmic formation (to rhuthmizomenon, i.e. speech, melody, or bodily movement) to which rhythm gives a particular arrange- ment of khronoi. To be “rhythmic,” these arrangements need a clear ratio between arsis (an¯o, the up-beat) and thesis (kat¯o, the down-beat), and they are deﬁned by refer- ence to a minimal time-length, diﬀerent from the syllable, to which the performerAristoxenos: the Great Perfect System © will match each of his notes, the “primaryRocconi duration” or pr¯otos khronos. Thus, for the ﬁrst time in antiquity, rhythm is describedas something independent, not inherent in the syllabic structure, therefore no longer subjectto verbal prosody. Conﬁrming its importance, Aristoxenos devoted an entire work (On thePrimary Duration) to this topic, as attested by Porphurios.Ed.: R. Da Rios, Aristoxeni Elementa Harmonica (1954); F. Wehrli, Aristoxenus (1967); Barker (1989) 119–189; L. Pearson, Aristoxenus, Elementa Rhythmica. The fragment of book II and the additional evidence for Aristoxenean rhythmic theory (1990).L. Laloy, Aristoxène de Tarente, disciple d’Aristote, et la musique de l’antiquité (1904; repr. 1973); A. Bélis, Aristoxène de Tarente et Aristote: le Traité d’Harmonique (1986); M. Litchﬁeld, “Aristoxenus and empiricism: a reevaluation based on his theories,” JMT 32 (1988) 51–73; A.D. Barker, “Aristoxenus’ harmonics and Aristotle’s theory of science,” in Bowen (1991) 188–226; Mathiesen (1999) 294–344; A. Visconti, Aristosseno di Taranto. Biograﬁa e formazione spirituale (1999); A.D. Barker, The science of harmonics in classical Greece (2007) 113–259. E. RocconiAristullos (300 – 265 BCE)Astronomer cited in P, Alm. 7.3 for the undated measurement of the declinationsof six ﬁxed stars. Ptolemy (Alm. 7.1) reports that H had access to a few suchmeasurements by Aristullos and T and that, on such a basis, he conjectured theprecession of the equinoxes. It is doubtful that Aristullos’ measurements were made withthis question in mind. A better hypothesis would be that they were part of an eﬀort to 155

P:167

ARKADIOSimprove on contemporary accounts of the heavens (cf. A, Phain.) by mapping thecelestial sphere scientiﬁcally (in prose: cf. P, De Pyth. 18) and, perhaps, to constructa precisely marked celestial globe.E. Maass, Aratea 2 (1892) 123, 151; Goldstein and Bowen (1991). Alan C. BowenArkadios (200? – 500 CE)A commentator on P’s Almagest criticized by E in his commentary on DeSphaer. et Cyl. 2.4 (3.120.8 H.) for his account of compound ratio. Knorr conjectured thatthis account is found at the end of the P  P’ S, but theargument, though not impossible, is weak.Knorr (1989) 168. Alain BernardArkhagathos of Lako¯ nika ( ﬂ. 219 BCE)P 29.12–13 preserves the tale, by the historian Cassius Hemina (ca 150 BCE), ofArkhagathos as the ﬁrst Greek doctor to come to Rome, his receipt of citizenship, andpractice at public expense of surgery and cautery in the centrally-sited “Crossroads ofAcilius.” His plaster of misu, burnt copper, litharge and psimuthion, in terebinth resin,is recorded by C, 5.19.27, used by T , and still in use in the time of S (C A Chron. 4.7 [CML 6.1.2, p. 778]).BNP 1 (2002) 975–976 (#3), V. Nutton. PTKArkhebios/Arkesios (190 – 25 BCE)Wrote on Corinthian proportions, the Ionic temple of Askle¯pios at Tralleis whose construc-tion he may have overseen (V 7.pr.12: where the MSS have ARGEL(L)IVS) – cf.7.5.5 regarding Apaturios of Alabanda at Tralleis – and argued against using the Doricorder in temple construction because of faulty and inconsistent proportions (ibid. 4.3.1:where the MSS have (T)ARCHESIVS). A better restoration than the rare Arkesi- (for which cf.only LGPN 1.80, 2.64) might be Arkhebios. Tralleis was the seat of the Pergamene governor189–133 BCE (P Book 21, fr.46.1–10), and its Askle¯pieion may date to this period.RE 2.1 (1895) 1169, E. Fabricius. PTK and GLIMArkhede¯mos (Veterin.) (before ca 300 CE?)Author of a recipe for an ointment for foals quoted by A, preserved in the Hippiatrika(Hippiatrica Parisina 837 = Hippiatrica Berolinensia 130.14). Apsurtos describes Arkhede¯mos ashippotrophos, “horse-keeper” or “breeder.”CHG v.1; McCabe (2007). Anne McCabe 156

P:168

ARKHELAOS (MED.)Arkhede¯mos of Tarsos (175 – 125 BCE)Arkhede¯mos studied Stoic philosophy under D   B  and Z   T at Athens and subsequently opened a school in Seleukeia. He is credited withseveral titles including On Voice which deﬁned “voice” as body (soma: D  L7.55), On Elements, a discussion of the active and passive principles and the four elements(D.L. 7.134, 136), and On the Master Argument, probably an attack on D   I.In some work he taught that the he¯gemo¯n of the kosmos was ﬁery and resided in thecenter of the Earth, thus explaining volcanoes (SVF frr.15–16).DPA 1 (1989) 331–333, R. Goulet; GGP 4.2 (1994) 634–635, P. Steinmetz; ECP 48–49, Tiz. Dorandi. GLIMArkhelaos (Geog.) (320 – 50 BCE)Described the lands traversed by Alexander, according to De¯me¯trios of Magnesia inD   L 2.17. S 52.18 cites an Archelaus on India, as does -P, Rivers 1.3 (1150B).(*) PTKArkhelaos (Lithika) (60 BCE – 10 CE?)Wrote On rivers, in at least 13 books, and On stones (-P De Fluu. 1.3 [1150B],9.3 [1155D]; I   S 4.36.17). His identity, as well as his very existence areuncertain. Bidez considered him authentic, while Jacoby, collecting the fragments underA  K, thought them spurious or not attributable to our Arkhelaos.However, since P quotes the Kappadokian in relation to amber, his identiﬁcationwith our author could be accepted. Finally nothing excludes identifying our man withA  K .Bidez (1935) 31; FGrHist 123; Giannini (1964) 111–112; KP 1.503 (#6), H. Volkmann; De Lazzer (2003) 70; Roller (2004); I. Ramelli, in G. Reale et al., edd., Diogene Laerzio. Vite e dottrine dei più celebri ﬁlosoﬁ (2005) 1330–1331, n.67. Eugenio AmatoA (A.) ⇒ H  Arkhelaos (Med.) (200 – 700 CE)Credited with medical fragments. One, in the 15th c. MS of Bologna, Biblioteca Universi-taria, 3632, ﬀ. 43–45 (Baﬃoni), discusses pediatrics and seems to come from a larger treatisebased on G . Another appears in On intestines by Io¯anne¯s bishop of Prisduana (sup-posedly of the 12th century), contained in manuscript Paris, BNF, graecus 2286, f.127V,written by the mid-14th c. monk, philosopher and physician Neophutos Prodrome¯nos inConstantinople. In the title of the On intestines, Arkhelaos is listed between P andS  A, and these three names are followed by kai diaphor¯on palai¯oniatr¯on. These two facts suggest that Arkhelaos might have been a palaios iatros and that he wasa member of the same group as Palladios and Stephanos of Alexandria, that is, the Schoolof Alexandria. Signiﬁcantly, the Paris MS comes from the most important hospital in 157

P:169

ARKHELAOS (VETERIN.)14th c. Constantinople, the Krale¯, with which the Bolognese MS is linked, suggesting thatArkhelaos’ works were still in use at that time.Ed.: G. Baﬃoni, “Inediti di Archelao da una codice Bolognese,” Bollettino del Comitato per la preparazione dell’ edizione nazionale dei classici greci e latini ns 3 (1954) 57–76.Diels 2 (1907) 16. Alain TouwaideArkhelaos (Veterin.) (ca 100 – 300 CE?)Author of a recipe for a trokhiskos; the recipe is preserved in the Hippiatrika as a quotationin the treatise of A (Hippiatrica Parisina 772 = Hippiatrica Berolinensia 129.27).CHG v.1; McCabe (2007). Anne McCabeArkhelaos of Athens (ca 460 – 440 BCE)A student of A and teacher of So¯crate¯s, he propounded a cosmology broadlysimilar to that of Anaxagoras, positing material stuﬀs as basic principles. Hot and coldcaused these to diﬀerentiate into the four elements recognized by E : earth,water, air and ﬁre. Moisture gathered in the center of the world, where heat caused some ofit to turn into air and rise, while another part solidiﬁed into earth. The earth is a concavedisk, which originally was swampy in the middle so as to produce living things. Mind isfound in all animals, and it mixes with the stuﬀs of the world. Arkhelaos seems also to havereﬂected on ethics and political theory but apparently made no signiﬁcant advances inscientiﬁc theory or observation.DK 60; KRS 385–389; V. Tilman, “Archélaos d’Athènes,” Revue de Philosophie Ancienne (2000) 65–107. Daniel W. GrahamArkhelaos (of He¯rakleia Salbake¯?) (40 – 95 CE)A   P., in G  CMLoc 9.6 (13.312 K.), preserves his recipe to treat analprolapse, compounded from lead-slag, rose blossoms, rhubarb, and myrrh. Uncertain is theidentiﬁcation of our Arkhelaos with the son of Euneikos, physician, priest, gymnasiarch,and stephanophoros whose virtue and skill is acclaimed in an inscription from He¯rakleiaSalbake¯, ca 50 CE (Robert and Robert 2.177, #70).J. and L. Robert, La Carie II: Le Plateau de Tabai (1954); RE S.14 (1974) 56 (#37a), J. Benedum. GLIMArkhelaos of Kappadokia (36 BCE – 17 CE)Was installed by M. Antonius as king of Kappadokia, which he ruled until his death. Pmakes him the author of writings on animals, agriculture, and stones (1.ind.8–9, 17–18, 37).However, the anecdotes on animals (8.202, 218) are copied from Varro, RR 2.3.5, 3.12.4,and Varro’s source is clearly A  K  (3.16.4; note that Varro men-tions Arkhelaos several times but does not cite him in his index of sources). It would appearthat Pliny’s claims that the king wrote on animals, and perhaps agriculture as well, are basedon a mistaken inference from Varro’s text. Since Jacoby, scholars have identiﬁed the king 158

P:170

ARKHIBIOSwith A (G); the fragments on lithika from Pliny are assigned to thiswork (37.46, 95, 104, 107). But as D ’ source was De¯me¯trios of Magnesia, ﬂ. 50BCE, this identiﬁcation too must be rejected. Perhaps the most economical hypothesis is tomake one person of the geographer, Pliny’s writer on stones, the Arkhelaos of S52.18 (on India), and A (L).RE 2.1 (1895) 451–452 (#15), U. Wilcken and H. Berger; FGrHist 123; OCD3 144, S. Harrison. Philip ThibodeauArkhelaos of Khersone¯sos (270? – 180? BCE)Mysterious Egyptian author (A, Mir. 19) of Special Natural Phenomena (Idiophu¯e, cf.Ath. Deipn., 9 [409c]; D  L 2.17). He seemingly transposed into elegiacs aprose collection of marvels (Antigonos, Mir. 89) for Ptolemy III. Arkhelaos was more poetand paradoxographer (A, NA 2.7) than phusikos. His only preserved epigram tellshow some animals arise from corpses of other animals, following the principle of sym-pathy or similitude: scorpion from crocodile, wasp from horse, snake from human spinalcolumn (Antigonos, Mir. 19).GGLA 1 (1891) 465–467; RE 2.1 (1895) 453–454 (#34), R. Reitzenstein. Arnaud ZuckerArkhestratos (250 – 150 BCE)Musical theorist, quoted by P on the authority of D’ writings andrecalled by P  as a scholar whose approach to harmonics was based more onreason than perception, hence not Aristoxenian. According to Athe¯naios (Deipn. 14 [634d]),he wrote On Aulos Players.RE 2.1 (1895) 459 (#13, 14), C. von Jan; BNP 1 (2002) 984–985 (#3), F. Zaminer; A.D. Barker, “Diogenes of Babylon and Hellenistic Musical Theory,” in C. Auvray-Assayas and D. Delattre, Cicéron et Philodème. La polemique en philosophie (2001) 353–370. E. RocconiA ⇒ M Arkhibios (50 – 75 CE)Empiricist physician, lived after A    B (he knows a pharmaceuticremedy by him: G  CMGen 13.849 K.) and before A   P. (from whomGale¯n Antid. 14.159–160 K. derives an antidote by Arkhibios). Besides being a pharmacolo-gist, he was a surgeon: his activity is documented by the surgical procedure in OColl. 46.11.31 (CMG 6.2.1 p. 222: from H  ) and P. Berol. 9764 (Pack2 #2354) onthe teaching of surgery, against Dogmatic medicine (perhaps also a commentary onH  C, A 1.1). The name of Arkhibios is mentioned amongstthe sources of Book 18 of P, but what Pliny says about him at 18.294 is surprising:Arkhibios suggested to one king Antiokhos of Syria that to avert bad weather, one buries ina ﬁeld a pot with a stolen frog inside. It is not certain that the physician Arkhibios in LucianGall. 10 alludes to this Arkhibios.Ed.: Deichgräber (1930) 21, 209–210, 407 (fragments). 159

P:171

A R K H I D E¯ M O SRE 2.1 (1895) 466 (#5), M. Wellmann; Manetti and Roselli (1994) 1536; Marganne (1998) 13–34; Ihm (2002) #17. Fabio StokArkhide¯mos (350 – 290 BCE)G , Simples 2.5 (11.471–474 K.), cites D   K’ work Arkhid¯emos, inwhich Diokle¯s rejected Arkhide¯mos’ view that oil-massages hardened the skin, whichabsorbed the olive oil and blocked the pores, thus impeding the normal ﬂow of secretionsand pneuma through the ﬂesh; he therefore preferred dry massage, ibid. 2.6 (11.477).P, 1.ind.12–13 (trees), 29–30 (animal-based drugs), and 33–35 (metals and pigments)cites the doctor Archedemus, who may be the same person.van der Eijk (2000–2001) fr.185. PTKArkhigene¯s of Apameia (95 – 115 CE)Greek physician from Apameia, possibly son of P  R. Arkhigene¯s studiedmedicine with A, practiced in Rome under Trajan, and died aged 63, his namenearly synonymous with “physician” (Juvenal 6.236, 13.97, 14.251). He either taught medi-cine, or had a group of followers (G , CMLoc 7.1 [13.14 K.]). Though fundamentally aPneumaticist, he also incorporated elements from contemporary medical thought, espe-cially the four humors and the Hippokratic kairos. As a result, he was considered eclectic asearly as -G  I 4 (14.684 K.), and was even credited with thefoundation of an “eclectic” school, just like Agathinos. A productive writer, Arkhigene¯s worked on physiology, pathology, and therapy. In physi-ology, he followed mainly the Pneumaticist system, and particularly explored sphygmol-ogy. He reﬁned Agathinos’ deﬁnition of the pulse (sustol¯e and diastol¯e), adding that eachphase is a movement that is “natural” (phusike¯), i.e., involuntary. He also classiﬁed diﬀer-ent types of pulse according to qualities (with eight major types, Harris 1973: 251–257). Hiswork on sphygmology (Gale¯n, Diﬀ. Puls. 2.4 [8.576 K.]), and Gale¯n’s seven-book commen-tary (Febr. Diﬀ. 2.8 [7.365 K.]), are lost (Ihm 2002: #89). Gale¯n preserves abundant passages,yet criticizes Arkhigene¯s’ many distinctions of pulse quality (Diﬀ. Puls. 2.10 [8.625–635 K.])as well as his opacity (Febr. Diﬀ. 2.8 [7.365 K.]). Arkhigene¯s wrote two works on pathology: Peri Top¯on and Peri Peponthot¯on Top¯on in threebooks: Gale¯n considered the latter “the best of all works” previously written on the topic(Cris. 2.8 [9.670, 672 K.]). Arkhigene¯s wrote on fevers (Peri Puret¯on S¯emei¯ose¯os: ibid. [9.668–669, 672 K.]), on the development of diseases, i.e. the Hippokratic kairos (Peri t¯on en tais NosoisKair¯on: Gale¯n, De totius morb. temp. [7.461 K.]), and on chronic diseases (T¯on Khroni¯on Patho-gn¯omonika: Gale¯n, De Locis Aﬀect. 3 [8.203 K.]). He collected his letters of medical advice tofriends and colleagues (ibid. 3.5 [8.150 K.]). Arkhigene¯s compiled an overview of surgery (Sunopsis t¯on Kheirourgoumen¯on: OColl. 45.29 [CMG 6.2.1, p. 190], with scholia ad locum), inﬂuenced by L  A . He supposedly wrote on acute and chronic diseases, known through Arabicsources (Ullmann 1972: 69–70); though Oreibasios (Coll. 8.1, CMG 6.1.1, p. 247) cites it as awork only on chronic diseases. Arkhigene¯s also wrote on materia medica, devoting at least anentire book to castoreum (Gale¯n, Simples 20.15 [13.337 K.]) and another to hellebore(Gale¯n, in Hipp. de Humor. 1 [16.124 K.]). Arkhigene¯s also composed a treatise on medicines 160

P:172

ARKHUTAS OF TARASby types (kata genos pharmaka: Gale¯n, CMLoc 1.8 [12.468 K.]), heavily extracted by Gale¯n,and perhaps on medicines (Peri Bo¯eth¯emat¯on, Wellmann 1895: 485). Contrary to Wellmann(1895: 486), Arkhigene¯s did not write a text on toxicology, but seems rather to have includedthis topic in his pharmaceutical treatise. According to the extant fragment (pseudo-AP, §58, pp. 30–31 Ihm), the work listed medicines and detailed the symptoms forwhich they were prescribed. Arkhigene¯s’ works survive only in fragments preserved by Gale¯n (Fabricius 1972: 198–199),Oreibasios, A  A, and P  A (for the latter two, Brescia), and insome Byzantine MSS (Olivieri; Brescia; and Calabrò). Some works, intact or fragmentary,were still known in 14th c. Constantinople, in the Prodromou monastery. His treatises onpathology and medicines by types were used by Neophytos Prodromenos in his work ondental pathologies (contained in MSS Paris, BNF, graecus 2286 and Athens, BN, 1481), andin the anonymous treatise on toxicology contained in MS Vat. graec. 299 (i.e., pseudo-AeliusPromotus).Ed.: A. Olivieri, “Frammenti di Archigene,” Memorie della Real Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arte della Società Reale di Napoli 6 (1938) 44–46; C. Brescia, Frammenti medicinali di Archigene (1955); G. Larizza Calabrò, “Frammenti inediti di Archigene,” Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Bolletino del Comitato per la preparazione della Edizione nazionale dei classici greci e latini ns 9 (1961) 69–72.Wellmann (1895) 19–22; RE 2.1 (1895) 484–486, Idem; Diels 2 (1907) 16–17; Kudlien (1968) 1099; KP 1.507, Idem; DSB 1.212–213, J. Stannard; GAS 3 (1970) 61; Ullmann (1972) 159; A.D. Mauroudes, “O iatros Archigenes,” Ell¯enika 36 (1985) 278–285; OCD3 145, V. Nutton; BNP 1 (2002) 989–990, Idem. Alain TouwaideArkhutas (350 – 90 BCE)C D excerpted from a work on agriculture attributed to A T (V, RR 1.1.8–10, cf. C, 1.1.7), while D  L (8.82),following De¯me¯trios of Magnesia’s discussion of homonymous persons, considered theagronomist and the philosopher to be diﬀerent people. It is reasonable to assume that all thesources knew a pseudo-Arkhutan work on farming, which may have discussed cereals,livestock, poultry, viticulture, and arboriculture (cf. P, 1.ind.8, 10, 14–15, 17–18).RE 2.1 (1895) 602 (#6), M. Wellmann. Philip ThibodeauArkhutas of Taras (400 – 360 BCE?)Arkhutas/Archytas (b. ca 435 BCE), the last prominent representative of ancient Pythago-reanism, is a rare example of a brilliant mathematician and an original thinker whoachieved success in ruling a state. He was elected seven times in succession as a strat¯egos ofTaras, at that time one of the most powerful cities of Greece; as a strat¯egos-autokrat¯or heheaded the union of the Greek cities in Italy (A1–2 DK). Some of Archytas’ original works,e.g. On mathematical sciences, Diatribae, and Harmonics, are preserved in several fragments andindirect testimonies. Most writings bearing his name belong to the late Hellenistic pseudo-Pythagorean literature, in which Archytas, judging by the number of the forged treatises(45), was even more popular than P. Archytas actively and fruitfully took up all the sciences of Pythagorean quadrivium 161

P:173

ARRABAIOS (OF MACEDON?)(arithmetic, geometry, harmonics, astronomy), which he regarded as akin (B1). He was theﬁrst to solve the famous problem of doubling the cube (A14) by having found two meanproportionals between two given lines (a:x = x:y = y:2a; x3 = 2a3). His remarkable stereo-metrical construction that for the ﬁrst time introduces movement in geometry employed theintersection of the cone, the torus and the half-cylinder, which produced the necessarycurve. Archytas’ discoveries might have prompted his pupil E  K todevelop a similar kinematic theory for the motion of the heavenly bodies. Archytas’ arith-metic was closely related to harmonics. He demonstrated that between numbers in the ratio(n+1): n there is no mean proportional (A19), hence the basic harmonic intervals, e.g. theoctave (2:1), the fourth (4:3) and the ﬁfth (3:2) cannot be divided in half. His researches inacoustics combined mathematics with empirical observations and experiments, though notalways with correct results: following H, he considered the pitch of a sound todepend on the velocity of its propagation (B1); Ciancaglini questioned this standard inter-pretation. These and other studies of Archytas (A16–17, B2) completed Pythagorean har-monics, which was further advanced by the E S C. In astronomy,contrary to the subsequently dominant scheme, he argued for an unlimited universe (A24). In physics Archytas developed the mathematical approach characteristic for Pythago-reanism: any motion occurs according to proportion (analogia). In “natural,” circularmotion it is “the proportion of equality,” for “it is the only motion that returns to itself ” (A23a), as in the circular motion of the heavenly bodies. The causes of mechanical motion arethe unequal and uneven (A23), e.g., unequal arms of the lever. The AC  M  drew upon Archytas’ discoveries. There are grounds to regard himas a founder of mechanics and, possibly, of optics (A1, 25). Following P, Archytas was engaged in philosophical analysis of mathematics,in particular of its epistemological potential (B1, 3–4). He taught that arithmetic promotesconsent and justice in the society and even improves morality (B3). P’s ﬁrst trip to Italy(388 BCE) started his long acquaintance with Archytas. Though their relationship was notdevoid of rivalry, it was Archytas’ intervention that made possible Plato’s return from histrip to Surakousai (361 BCE), where he was kept by the tyrant Dionysius II. Archytas was animportant source of Plato’s knowledge of Pythagoreanism and stimulated many of hisgeneral ideas: on the ruler-philosopher, on beneﬁcial inﬂuence of mathematics on the soul,on mathematical sciences as a threshold of dialectic, etc. Mathematics, in which Archytaswas the main expert in his generation, served as a model for Plato’s theory of ideas and forAristotle’s logic. Aristotle devoted two special works to Archytas’ philosophy (A13); thePeripatetic A, whose father was close to Archytas, wrote his biography.DK 47; Thesleﬀ (1965); F. Kraﬀt, Dynamische und statische Betrachtungsweise in der antiken Mechanik (1970); van der Waerden (1979); Barker (1989); G.E.R. Lloyd, “Plato and Archytas in the Seventh Letter,” Phronesis 35 (1990) 159–173; C.A. Ciancaglini, “L’acustica in Archita,” Maia 50 (1998) 213–251; M. Burnyeat, “Archytas and optics,” Science in context 18 (2005) 35–53; C.A. Huﬀman, Archytas of Tarentum: Pythagorean, Philosopher and Mathematician King (2005); Zhmud (2006). Leonid ZhmudArrabaios (of Macedon?) (250 BCE – 25 CE)A   P. cites his “Pontic” recipe for blood-spitting, G , CMLoc 7.4(13.83 K.): reduce bear-berry (arkou staphulos) by one third, boiling in rainwater. Known onlyfrom Macedon, LGPN 4.48 (5th–2nd cc. BCE; cf. Errabaios, 4.127; see Krahe, Lexicon altil- 162

P:174

A RT E M I D O¯ RO S ( A S T RO N . )lyrischer Personnamen [1929]), the name is given by Kühn as “Arrabianus,” presumably due to“Arabianus,” attested from the 2nd c. CE (LGPN 2.48, 4.40); cf. Arabaia¯s (Solin 2003: 1.667,2nd/3rd c. CE). Gale¯n, Antid. 2.12 (14.179–180 K.) records the scorpion antidote, contain-ing galbanum, terebinth, myrrh, raw sulfur, etc., of ΑΡΑΒΑΘΗΒΑΙΟΥ, probablyArabbaiou, with a marginal “ΑΘΗ” taken into the text. C 5.18.16 records the emolli-ent of an anonymus Arabs, probably a mistake by Celsus for “Arabaios.” The complex kidney-pill cited by A, in Gale¯n CMLoc 10.1 (13.324 K.), from “a Macedonian” morelikely belongs to T  or Z .Fabricius (1726) 78, 85. PTKA ⇒ F AArrianus (210 – 220 CE)Poet who translated V’ Georgics into Greek. His other works included an epic aboutAlexander the Great, and a panegyric for “Attalos of Pergamon,” presumably a late Attaloslike Claudius Attalos Paterculianus, governor of Thracia and Cyprus under Elagabalus.FGrHist 143F15; SH 207; S. Swain, “Arrian the epic poet,” JHS 111 (1991) 211–214. Philip ThibodeauArruntius Celsus (200 – 350 CE)P  C quotes a short fragment in Latin (de ﬁg. num., 9) from anunnamed work (metrological or philological) of an Arruntius, on the etymology of sestertius.He is probably Arruntius Celsus, a grammarian who wrote on Terence and V. Priscianderives the word sestertius from semis tertius, based on Arruntius’ claim that the sestertius “longago” was worth two asses and a half (dupondius et semis), “when the denarius was ten asses.”RE 2.1 (1895) 1265 (#16), G. Goetz; PLRE 1 (1971) 194; BNP 2 (2003) 30 (#II.9), P. Gatti. Mauro de NardisArsenios (300 – 400 CE)Greek physician, prescribed pessary laxatives used by Arsinoë and Saluina (pseudo-T p. 338.4 Rose). In his Letter to Nepotianus, in scope similar to the HO, but Christianizing in tone, Arsenios described the qualities and duties of the idealphysician, vigilant in study, modest in character and appearance.RE S.3 (1918) 162 (#2a), R. Ganschinietz; E. Hirschfeld, “Deontologische Texte des frühen Mittelalters,” AGM 20 (1928) 353–371; BNP 2 (2003) 33–34, V. Nutton. GLIMA ⇒ MArtemido¯ ros (Astron.) (210 – 215 CE)Wrote a commentary on P’s Almagest, a fragment of which is extant: CCAG 8.2(1911) 129–130.Neugebauer (1975) 948–949. PTK 163

P:175

A RT E M I D O¯ RO S C A P I T OArtemido¯ ros Capito (115 – 135 CE)Greek physician, relative of D   A (CMG 5.9.1, p. 113), togetherfrequently cited by G . Artemido¯ros, following Dioskouride¯s’ re-attribution of manyHippokratic works, published an edition of the entire H C whichHadrian valued highly (15.21–22 K., 18B.631 K.). Gale¯n criticizes Artemido¯ros and Diosk-ouride¯s for greatly emending text and modernizing language (17B.104 K., 19.83 K.), butpreserves Artemido¯ros’ recipe for treating scars left by tumors (12.828–829 K.). Strato¯n, in aseries of epigrams satirizing “types” of (mostly ﬁctive) physicians, lampoons Artemido¯ros’eye-salve which destroyed the vision of keen-sighted Khruse¯s (Anth. 11.117).J. Ilberg, “Die Hippokratesausgaben des Artemidoros Kapiton und Dioskourides,” RhM 45 (1890) 111–137; RE 2.1 (1895) 1332 (#34), M. Wellmann; KP 1.618 (#5), F. Kudlien; Smith (1979) 234–240; Manetti and Roselli (1994) 1617–1625; BNP 2 (2003) 62 (#8), V. Nutton. GLIMArtemido¯ ros of Daldis (ca 150 CE)Of Ephesos, but called himself “of Daldis” in deference to his mother’s birthplace, whereApollo, god of divination, was the principle deity. His ﬁve-book Oneirokritikon, the sole extantexample of the popular ancient genre of dream interpretation, consists mostly of a copiouscatalogue of dreams and the results they portend. The Souda, G , and pseudo-Lucian inthe Philopatris mention him as a famous dream interpreter. His work shares characteristics with travel literature, encyclopedias, empirical medicaltracts, and the other cataloguing genres thriving during his period. The ﬁrst three booksare addressed to “Cassius Maximus,” likely Maximus of Tyre (ca 125–185 CE). Books 1and 2 organize dreams topically and chronologically according to the life of a Romanmale – from dreams of birth to dreams of death. The third book is presented as asupplement, adding anything omitted from the ﬁrst two. Books 4 and 5, addressed to hisson, also named Artemido¯ros, appear more rudimentary and pedagogical. These twobooks are full of fatherly advice to the practicing dream interpreter, much of it consonantwith the tips for aspiring itinerant doctors in the H C A, W,P. The Oneirokritikon opens with a discussion of theory, though the multiple schematic formu-las introduced are an overlapping and sometimes redundant succession of taxonomies morethan a coherent synthesis. Though his interest in systematization is somewhat half-hearted,the real engine of the work is Artemido¯ros’ acute interest in his subjects’ personal details,local customs, and peculiarities, resulting in a guide of unmatched usefulness to the personallives of ancient dreamers. His method is decidedly empirical, showing some inﬂuences fromskepticism and Epicureanism. He endorses broad travel and wide reading of details.Aspects of Stoicism are also recognizable, since most of his past authorities are inﬂuencedby that school, and his notions of the soul and of how dreams are produced resonates withStoicism as well.Ed.: R.A. Pack, Artemidori Daldiani Onirocriticon (1963); trans. R.J. White, The Interpretation of Dreams. The Oneirocritica of Artemidorus (1975).C. Blum, Studies in the Dream-Book of Artemidorus (Diss. Uppsala, 1936); S.R.F. Price, “The Future of Dreams: From Freud to Artemidorus,” P&P 113 (1986) 3–37; J. Winkler, The Constraints of Desire (1990) 17–44. Peter Struck 164

P:176

A RT E M I D O¯ RO S O F P E RG E¯ , C O R N E L I U SArtemido¯ ros of Ephesos (104 – 101 BCE)Greek geographer, author of an 11-book geographical description of the world preserved inan epitome by M  H . The work, divided into three sections (Europe,Libya and Asia), included distances between sites and measurements of geographical fea-tures along the lines of a traditional periplous perhaps partially based on his own travels.Part of it was devoted to Ionic Notes (upomn¯emata), which may have been a separate work. Thework also included calculations of the measurements of the inhabited world. Artemido¯rosstarted his description of the oikoumene¯ with the Iberian peninsula as did also S K and S  K before him and S , P andD  A after him. Book 1 was introductory, Book 2 described Spainand Lusitania, Book 3 Gallia, and so forth around the Mediterranean. Artemido¯ros’ sourceswere mainly A , M  and the geographers of Alexander theGreat, and he himself became an important source for later geographers including Strabo¯n.Artemido¯ros’ work had been known only through literary references, but recently a papyrusexcerpt of the text was discovered including a prooimion saying that geography is a branch ofphilosophy, and a description of Spain – its name, political situation, coasts and distancesbetween sites. Micunco casts doubt on the authenticity of the animal drawings on the verso,Canfora on the text of Artemido¯ros, in that papyrus.GGM 1.574–576; FGrHist 438; C. Gallazi and B. Kramer, “Artemidor in Zeichensaal. Eine Papyrus- rolle mit Text, Landkarte und Skizzenbüchern aus späthellenistischer Zeit,” APF 44 (1998) 189–208; S. Settis and C. Gallazzi, Le tre vite del Papiro di Artemidoro: Voci e sguardi dall’Egitto greco-romano (2006); St. Micunco, “Figure di animali: il verso del papiro di Artemidoro,” Quaderni di Storia 64 (2006) 5–43; L. Canfora, “Postilla Testuale Sul Nuovo Artemidoro,” ibid. 45–60. Daniela DueckArtemido¯ ros of Parion (70 – 50 BCE)Wrote an account of the kosmos collecting opinions of A, A  M, and others; entitled Phainomena, if B  S  (P) refersto the same man, or if he is the same as the writer on A (Robiano). S, QN1.4.3–4, describes Artemido¯ros’ explanation of rainbows as specular reﬂections from clouds,and 7.13 his theory of multiple normally unseen orbiting bodies, under a heaven congealedfrom atoms (Goulet sees an Epicurean), and with apertures admitting occasional extra-cosmic ﬁre.DPA 1 (1989) 604, P. Robiano and 614, R. Goulet; P.T. Keyser, “On Cometary Theory and Typology from Nechepso-Petosiris through Apuleius to Servius,” Mnemosyne 47 (1994) 625–651 at 649–650. PTKArtemido¯ ros of Perge¯, Cornelius (75 – 70 BCE)K , in G  CMLoc 5.3 (12.828–829 K.), preserves his pill for facial growths (copperﬂakes, khalkanthon, and alum, in clear carpenter’s glue and vinegar). C, Verr. II 3,provides the ethnic and nomen (54), and scurrilous anecdotes (ibid. 69–60, 117, 138). Diels(1905–1907) 2.19 records a British Museum MS, 16C XVI (16th c.), f.8, of his work OnUrines (in epitome?). Cf. perhaps C (P.).RE 2.1 (1895) 1332 (#33), M. Wellmann; Korpela (1987) 157–158. PTK and GLIM165

P:177

A RT E M I D O¯ RO S O F S I D E¯Artemido¯ ros of Side¯ (90 – 30 BCE)Follower of E, who wrote on pathology, explaining hudrophobia as an aﬀec-tion of the upper gastro-intestinal tract, and denied that there could be any new diseases,including hudrophobia: C A Acute 3.113, 118 [CML 6.1.1, pp. 358,362]); he is there listed before A, supplying the likely terminus ante. He also deﬁnedcardiac disease as an inﬂammation in the region of the heart: ibid., 2.163 (p. 242).RE 2.1 (1895) 1332 (#32), M. Wellmann. PTKArtemisius Dianio (200 – 400 CE)M  B ascribes two recipes to an Artemius (13.17, CML 5, p. 228) orArtemisius (36.54, p. 614) Dianio, whose name seems somehow related to the small islandDianium, near the Etruscan coastline, called Artemisium by the Greeks (cf. P 3.81 andothers), today Giannutri, where remain important ruins of a 1st/2nd c. BCE Roman villa.The ﬁrst recipe is a toothpaste against the gnashing of teeth; the second one is a cure forgout (podagra).RE 2.2 (1896) 1445 (#5), M. Wellmann. Fabio StokArtemo¯ n (Epicurean) (ca 240 – 180 BCE)Teacher of P  , who in turn wrote on Artemo¯n’s commentary on E’On Nature.DPA 1 (1989) 615, T. Dorandi. PTKArtemo¯n (Med.) (20 BCE – 25 CE)P lists him, apparently in chronological order, after D , A “M,” and M , and before A S (1.ind.28 and 28.7–8) as givingmedicines from the human body, and records his quasi-magical remedy for epilepsy (night-drawn spring-water drunk from a dead man’s exhumed skull: cf. H  4.65).S  L in A   P., in G  CMLoc 4.7 (12.780 K.), recordsthe “Artemonion” collyrium used by I B, containing antimony, saﬀron, myrrh,psimuthion, white pepper, etc. in gum and wine.RE 2.2 (1896) 1447 (#21), M. Wellmann. PTKArtemo¯ n of Kassandreia (250 – 150 BCE?)Certainly lived after the mid-3rd c. BCE, because of the reference he makes, in one of hisfragments, to the grammarian Dionusius Skutobrakhio¯n (Ath. Deipn. 12 [515d–e]); he wrotetreatises on several topics, On collecting of books, On the use of books (probably a part of the samework previously quoted) and On the Guild of Dionusos, whose title seems to refer to guilds oftheatrical artists – musicians as well as poets and actors – called “Artists of Dionusos”(Dionusiakoi tekhnitai), active in several parts of Greece from the late 3rd c. BCE. Of this musical 166

P:178

A¯ RYA B H A T˙ Awork we have two fragments preserved by Athe¯naios, our main source on Artemo¯n: theformer is concerned with the musician Timotheos of Mile¯tos, accused by Lacedaemoniansof ﬁtting too many strings on his instrument, the latter with P  Z.FHG 4.340–343; BNP 2 (2002) 69–70 (#1), F. Montanari. E. RocconiArtemo¯ n of Klazomenai (450 – 430 BCE)Designed rams and tortoises for Perikle¯s in the siege against Samos (440–439 BCE: Efr.194 = D   S 12.28 and P Perikl¯es 27.3–4). H   H  P linked this Artemo¯n with a man (described by the poet Anakre¯on,frr.372, 388) who rode in litters (Periphor¯etos), was notorious for his cowardice, and who hadslaves hold shields over his head during sieges. A cites the Annals of Klazomenai byanother Artemo¯n describing a destructive winged pig (HA 12.38).RE 2.2 (1896) 1445 (#1), J. Toepﬀer. PTK and GLIMM. Artorius (55 – 27 BCE)Brought a warning to the future emperor A before the battle of Philippi (42 BCE,Vell. Pat. 2.70.1). C A, Acut. 3.113 (CML 6.1.1, p. 358), assigns him to thesect of A    B, and describes his theory of hudrophobia: the stom-ach is the aﬀected part, causing the hiccups, vomiting, and thirst. He also wrote On Long Life(Clement of Alexandria, Paid. 2.2.23). Inscriptions reveal that he beneﬁted De¯los, and diedin a shipwreck, 27 BCE.BNP 2 (2003) 81, V. Nutton. PTK and GLIMA¯ ryabhata (ca 500 CE) ˙Aw¯ oryrakbs,htah˙tea (born 476 C E) lived in Pa¯taliputra (modern Patna in Bihar, India), authored two A¯ryabhat.¯ıya (ca 500 CE), th˙e origin of the A¯ ryapaks.a school of astronomy, and anow lost work, the origin of the A¯ rdhara¯trikapaks.a school of astronomy. The A¯ ryapaks.a,which became inﬂuential in south India, has a dawn epoch, whereas the A¯ rdhara¯trikapaks.a,which inﬂuenced north-west India and Iran, has a midnight epoch, but otherwise the twoschools diﬀer only in certain parameters.While both schools diﬀer from the Bra¯hmapaks.a and the A¯ryabha.t¯ıya has a diﬀerent struc-ture from other Indian astronomical treatises, the P  , the founding ohfistahsetrBorna¯ohmmicaaplasky.ssate, mwawsaasmreovnegalAe¯drybaybhSav˙taay’asmsobuhru¯c,esi.,ea.,nBdrahhemsta¯a.testext in the A¯ryabha.t¯ıyathatwhTichhesopulagnhettatoryprmesoedrevleutsheedAbryistA¯orteylaibanhap˙trainiscidpeleriovef dcofnrocmentaripcirtey.-PTtohleemmaeiacnGprlaeneketmmoodveels,in a circle around the Earth, and centered around the mean planet are one or two epi-cycles, depending on whether the planet is one of the two luminaries or a star-planet.Pingree (DSB 15.590) believes that the mean motions of the planets in the A¯ryabha.t¯ıya,apparently unrelated to those of the Bra¯hmapak.sa, were derived from a Greek table ofmean longitudes corresponding to noon on 21 March 499 CE. 167

P:179

A S A F H A - RO F E , A S A F T H E J E W, A S A F B E N B E R E K H I A H In tahnedA¯arsyaabhrao.t¯ıtyaat,ioAn¯ royaf bthhea˙tﬁaxsepdeastkasrso.fMthaethdeimurantiaclalrloy,tatthioense both as a rotation of theearth are equivalent, but otherIndian astronomers, including V , rejected that the earth is rotating, for phys- cA¯rrityiacibzhead˙tahiamls.oical reasons. divided the world ages untraditionally, for which later IndianastronomersDSB 1.308–309, 15.590–602 (A¯ ryapaks.a), 15.602–608 (A¯ rdhara¯trikapak.sa), D.E. Pingree; CESSA.1.50–53, A.2.15, A.3.16, A.4.27–28, A.5.16–17; D.E. Pingree, Jyotih.s´a¯stra: astral and mathematical “nA¯s r1y2a.b1h–a2˙ta(1,9t9h3e)literature = A History of Indian Literature 6.4 (1981); Idem, Paita¯ mahasiddha¯ nta, andGreek astronomy,” Studies in History of Medicine and Science 69–79. Kim Plofker and Toke Lindegaard KnudsenAsaf ha-Rofe, Asaf the Jew, Asaf ben Berekhiah (300 – 900 CE)Jewish physician associated with the oldest extant medical text in Hebrew, Sefer Asaf ha-Rofeor Sefer Refu’ot (“Book of Remedies”), not completely published or translated and sorelyunderstudied. Its date and provenance remain debated. Among current theories, an8th/9th c. compilation in Byzantine Italy seems most plausible. Sefer Asaf records the teach-ings of Asaf and his colleagues Yohanan ben Zabda and Yehudah ha-Yarhoni. Some MSSidentify Asaf with Asaf ben Berekhiah, mentioned brieﬂy in I Chron. 15:17 and associatedwith Solomon in Jewish and Islamic folklore. The book is prefaced by an account of theorigins of medicine in revelations by the angel Raphael (lit. “God heals”) to Noah, transmit-ted to Shem, progenitor of the Jews. From the Jews, medicine was taught to Indians, Greeks,Egyptians, and Mesopotamians. In listing famous physicians, Sefer Asaf groups “Asaf theJew” with H , G , and D . The body of the text is an eclecticcompendium of medical traditions, covering all areas but surgery. Its anatomy and embry-ology reﬂect Jewish tradition. Hippokratic inﬂuence is marked; its medical aphorisms areessentially Hebrew paraphrases of the H C, A, and theoath that Asaf and Yohanan require of their students stands in a close relationship to theH O. Gale¯n’s inﬂuence is minor, but lists of pharmacological plants derivelargely from Dioskouride¯s. In presenting a Jewish interpretation of Hippokratic medicine, inparticular, Asaf and his colleagues may stand in the tradition of earlier Jewish physicianssuch as R  S. No evidence suggests inﬂuence from Arabic medicine.S. Pines, “The Oath of Asaph the Physician and Yohanan Ben Zabda,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 9 (1975) 223–264; E. Lieber, “Asaf’s Book of Medicines,” DOP 38 (1984) 233–249; EJ2 2.543–544, S. Muntner. Annette Yoshiko ReedAsamo¯n (unknown date)Wrote about the rise of the Nile. The name appears to be Egyptian for “eagle” (Heuser1929: 13), but cf. also LGPN 3A.78 (2nd c. BCE, E¯ lis).RE 2.2 (1896) 1515 (#3), H. Berger. PTK 168

P:180

A S K L E¯ P I A D E¯ S P H A R M A K I O¯ NAsarubas or Asdrubas (55 – 75 CE)Wrote on electrum, relaying that the mud of lake Cephesis – known to the Mauri as“Electrum” – produced electrum when dried by the sun (P 37.37, see also 1.ind.3).Some scholars read Asdrubas, i.e., the Punic name Hasdrubal.Fr. Buecheler, “Zwei Gewährsmänner des Plinius,” RhM 40 (1885) 304–307; RE 2.2 (1896) 1518, P. von Rohden; RE S.1 (1903) 151, G. Knaack. Eugenio AmatoAsinius Pollio of Tralleis (40 – 10 BCE)Freedman of the historian Asinius Pollio, described by the Souda Pi-2165 as both a sophistand a philosopher. Besides writing various historical works, he made an epitome ofD   N’ Ge¯orgika, reducing it from six books to two, and wrote ten books“against A on animals.”RE 2.2 (1896) 1589 (#23), E. Schwartz. Philip ThibodeauAsklatio¯ n (Astrol.) (50 – 535 CE)Astrologer (I   “L,” Ost. p. 6.24 Wa.). Dubiously identiﬁable with Domitian’sastrologer Ascletario whom, upon predicting his own rending by dogs, the emperor executedas an object-lesson in the mendacity of astrology. Dogs mangled the corpse (Suet. Dom. 15.3).RE 2.2 (1896) 1622 (#2), E. Riess; Gundel and Gundel (1966) 158–159. GLIMAsklatio¯ n (Med.) (250 BCE – 65 CE)Commentator on H , mentioned by E  (A-103.9, p. 23.10 Nachm.),probably distinct from the homonymous astrologer.RE 2.2 (1896) 1662 (#1), M. Wellmann; Ihm (2002) #25. Alain TouwaideAskle¯piade¯s Pharmakio¯ n (ca 90 – 100 CE)Greek pharmacologist, distinct from A    B, wrote a pharmacologicalwork quoting A  C (Y) and cited by A   A-; scholars view the citation at Pliny 14.183 as interpolated. Perhaps, like many con-temporary pharmacologists, he lived in Rome. He studied medicine under L T (as did K ); he also cites M , and seems to have read SL in a Greek edition. Askle¯piade¯s authored ten books of recipes, perhaps a singlecompilation, more likely two works of ﬁve books each; he also composed works on theriacand gynecology (whose precise nature is uncertain: G , CMGen 1.16–17, 13.441–442 K.).His ten books treated medicines for external use (called, and possibly dedicated to a, Mar-cella) and for internal use (called, and dedicated to a Mnaso¯n), organized by place; he oftenprovides detailed preparations. Gale¯n, highly praising Askle¯piade¯s for his careful cata-loguing of recipes, quotes him ﬁrsthand in over 50 lengthy extracts (Fabricius), more thanfrom H  , A, and K  together. 169

P:181

A S K L E¯ P I A D E¯ S T I T I E N S I SRE 2.2 (1896) 1633–1634, M. Wellmann; Watson (1966) 8–10, 15–16, 60–61; Fabricius (1972) 192–198, 246–253; BNP 2 (2003) 99 (#9), V. Nutton. Alain TouwaideAskle¯piade¯s Titiensis (ca 100 BCE?)Cited after H , D , P, and before “De¯me¯trios,” for identify-ing apoplexy with paralysis (S  in C A, Acute 3.55 [CML 6.1.1,p. 324]). The text may originally have read Apoll¯onios Kitiensis (Citiensis in Latin), emended toTitiensis by a copyist (referring to an obscure Bithunian town), who further confusedApollo¯nios with Askle¯piade¯s (both common medical names). Earlier editions of CaeliusAurelianus (Sichardus, Rovillius, Amman) proﬀer ASCLEPIADES TITIENSIS; Wellmannfollowed by Bendz corrected Titiensis to Citiensis, and Drabkin restored Apollo¯nios Citien-sis. Furthermore, Caelius Aurelianus may be citing authors chronologically (the ﬁrst threeare ca 400, ca 300, and ca 200 BCE respectively). D  may be  A or someother medical De¯me¯trios (e.g., “K ”). Most likely, our author is A  K. (Cf. A, S  A.)RE 2.2 (1896) 1632 (#37), M. Wellmann. GLIMAskle¯piade¯s of Bithunia (in Rome, ca 120 – 90 BCE)P 26.12 relates the story of Askle¯piade¯s turning to medicine from rhetoric since he wasnot making a good living in a very crowded profession, but our polymath garbles thechronology, setting the rhetorician-turned-physician in the time of Pompeius Magnus.Rawson demonstrates that Askle¯piade¯s was dead by 91 BCE (C, De or. 1.62), but sheadvances ﬂaccid arguments against Pliny’s switch of professions, fairly common in an agelong before legally sanctioned medicine of any particular outlook. Pliny is ambivalent aboutAskle¯piade¯s: he is brilliant (sagacis ingenii), but reduced medicine to a discovery of causes anddiagnostics into guesswork (medicinam ad causas reuocando coniecturae fecit); as a gifted speaker, hepersuaded patients that diseases were cured by simple means, but used the lies ordinaryamong magicians (26.18: adiuuere eum magicae uanitates). C, 4.26.4, says Askle¯piade¯sadvocated giving cold rainwater mixed with wine (L  34.30 calls himthe “wine giver”), and his practice was marked by huge success and many prominentpatients, who valued his advice on dietetics, moderation in personal habits, mild exercise,and careful employment of drugs – and then only rarely. Many of his students becameprominent physicians in their own right, and his pseudo-mechanistic medical philosophy ﬁtwell into the general popularity of E in the late Republic, suggested by the famousLibrary at Herculaneum, from which have emerged unknown works of P .“Askle¯piadean” physicians attended the emperors from A through Nero, andA M used the “cold water treatment” to save Augustus in 23 BCE. Debated are origins of his medical theories: Askle¯piade¯s taught the body is formed from“fragile corpuscles” (anarmoi ongkoi), but, as Vallance (1990: 7–43) warns, certainly not the“corpuscles” as understood in modern hematology. Ongkos in medico-philosophical contextcould be a “lump,” and the ongkoi presumably passed through channels (poroi) throughoutthe living body. If the ongkoi were blocked or the motion became too easy, disease occurred.The mechanical nature of Askle¯piade¯s’ theories suggests Epicurus, the Platonist H -   H  P , the Peripatetic S   L, or possibly 170

P:182

A S K L E¯ P I O D O T O S O F A L E X A N D R I Aall three, but Vallance thinks Askle¯piade¯s was rejecting the then-popular notions (alsomechanical) of E. None of Askle¯piade¯s’ writings survives, although he is citedas late as A  A’s Tetrabiblos, and G ’s vicious attacks against Askle¯piade¯sand his “followers,” especially T  and T, rather well doomed the works toobscurity. Gale¯n’s major objection was Askle¯piade¯s’ denial of teleology.Ed.: C.G. Gumpert, Asclepiadis Bithyniae Fragmenta (1794) = trans. by R.M. Green, “Fragments from Asclepiades of Bithynia” in Asclepiades: his Life and Writings (1955); J.T. Vallance (in preparation).N.W. DeWitt, “Epicureanism in Italy” and “Epicureanism in Rome” in Epicurus and his Philosophy (1954) 340–344; H.B. Gottschalk, “The Theory of anarmoi ongkoi” in Heraclides of Pontus (1980) 37–57; E. Rawson, “The Life and Death of Asclepiades of Bithynia,” CQ 32 (1982) 358–370 = repr. in Roman Culture and Society: Collected Papers (1991) 427–443; Vallance (1990); Idem, “The Medical System of Asclepiades of Bithynia,” ANRW 2.37.1 (1993) 693–727; R. Polito, “On the Life of Asclepiades of Bithynia,” JHS 119 (1999) 48–66; W.R. Johnson, “A Secret Garden: Georgics 4.116–148;” M. Gigante, “Vergil in the shadow of Vesuvius;” D. Delattre, “Vergil and Music, in Diogenes of Babylon and Philodemus;” and F. Cairns, “Varius and Vergil: Two Pupils of Philodemus in Proper- tius 2.34?,” in D. Armstrong et al., edd., Vergil, Philodemus and the Augustans (2004) 75–99, 245–263, and 299–321; D. Sider, “Philodemus and his Texts” in The Library of the Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum (2005) 78–95. John ScarboroughAskle¯piade¯s of Murleia (ca 90 – 60 BCE)Son of Diotimos; taught in Turdetania (inland north of Gade¯s). Before leaving his homeland,wrote its history, of which a few fragments survive, notably Ath., Deipn. 2.35 (50d-e), on thesoporiﬁc and headache-inducing berries of the khamaikerasos (“ground cherry”) of Bithunia.While in Turdetania wrote a perie¯ge¯sis of that land, Galicia, and Catalonia (perhaps of allIberia?), which S  cites (3.4.3, 19). Also composed a commentary on A, amonograph on the Pleiades, and a work on Nestor’s Cup in H, of which Athe¯naios,Deipn. 11 (489c–494b), preserves much: Askle¯piade¯s argues that it metaphorically reﬂects thekosmos. The confused notice in the Souda A-4173, and the frequency of his name, havespawned modern scholarly debates about his identity with the grammarian Askle¯piade¯sused by S E. He is called doctus ac diligens by M 5.21.5.FGrHist 697; BNP 2 (2003) 98–99 (#8), F. Montanari. PTKA    P ⇒ A    BAskle¯piodotos of Alexandria (460 – 510 CE?)Born in Alexandria, where, as a boy, devoting himself to science and crafts (paints and dyes,rocks, and especially biology), he invented mechanical devices for religious ritual use. Hestudied medicine with I  P, and later revived the use of white helle-bore. P was his mentor in Athens, where ca 470 CE Askle¯piodotos met andbefriended D (later quarreling over a mathematical dispute), and becameacquainted with D, whose fragmentary Life of Isidore is our primary source forAskle¯piodotos. S called him Proklos’ best student (Coroll. Time = CAG 9 [1882]795). He left Athens for study in Seleukeia of Syria, married Damiane¯ of Aphrodisias, andtaught in Aphrodisias. Initially childless, the couple moved to Alexandria to entreat Isis for a171

P:183

A S K L E¯ P I O D O T O S ( O F N I K A I A ? )child, and later they reared daughters. He also taught in Alexandria and apparentlyreturned to Aphrodisias ca 485 CE. He wrote a lost commentary on P’s Timaios andattempted to reconstruct the “enharmonic” scale. He was a careful and expert farmer, and adevoted pagan, reviving pagan worship in Aphrodisias, at great personal expense, so thatdespite his wealth, he bequeathed his estates encumbered by debt.PLRE 2 (1980) 161–162; Athanassiadi (1999) 212–216. PTKAskle¯piodotos (of Nikaia?) (40 BCE – 30 CE)A student of P , whose meteorological theories S cites on the volcanicisle Hiera (QN 2.26.6), on thunder and lightning produced by the collision of solid bodies(2.30.1), on the discovery of subterranean lakes (5.15.1), and on earthquakes generatingwinds and transmitting shocks (6.17.2–3, 6.22.1). He is perhaps identical with the tacticianwhose treatise Tactical Summary details technical aspects of the organization and dispositionof an ideal phalanx.GGP 4.2 (1994) 709, P. Steinmetz; OCD3 187, J.B. Campbell; BNP 2 (2003) 100 (#2), L. Burckhardt. PTK and GLIMAskle¯pion/Askle¯pios (Med.) (250 – 75 BCE)G , Diﬀ. Morb. 9 (6.869 K.), mentions that a certain Nikomakhos of Smurna becameimmobile because of obesity, but “Askle¯pios cured him” – god or man? G  20.6,citing H    T, ascribes works on nutrition from ﬁsh to Askle¯pios,M , P, and -D . Hipp. Cant. 31.2 (2.166–167 ed. Oder-Hoppe) mentions Askle¯pio¯n’s spleen-remedy.RE 2.2 (1896) 1698 (#8), M. Wellmann. PTKAskle¯pios (Pharm.) (ca 515 – ca 565 CE)A   T (in Metaphys. 995b20 = CAG 6.2 [1888] 143) cites a homonymouspharmacist, fellow-student of A  and later a teacher of pharmacy. He composed acommentary on the H A (Westerink, CMG 11.1.3.1 [1985] 17–23).RE 2.2 (1896) 1698 (#6), J. Freudenthal, (#9), M. Wellmann. PTKAskle¯pios of Tralleis (Math.) (515 – 565 CE)Neo-Platonic mathematician and philosopher, student of A , wrote a commen-tary on N’ Arithmetica, derived from Ammo¯nios’ lectures and surviving aslengthy scholia. Askle¯pios also wrote a commentary (CAG 6.2) on A’s MetaphysicsA–Z, valuable primarily for testimonia of Ammo¯nios as well as extracts from A A.RE 2.2 (1896) 1697–8 (#5), A. Gerke; L. Tarán, Asclepius of Tralles: Commentary to Nicomachus’ Introduc- tion to Arithmetic (1969). GLIM 172

P:184

A S PA S I O S ( P E R I P. )Aspasia (120? – 540? CE)Cited by A  A, Book 16, for gynecological remedies and practices, more oftenthan S . She cites H C, A 5.31 (apud Aëtios 16.18[Zervos 1901: 21–22]; cf. 16.99 [pp. 147–148]), employs gentian (cf. G) in an abor-tifacient (16.18), and may cite A   (16.94 [p. 141]: of Bithunia? Pharmakio¯n?),providing a terminus post quem. That So¯ranos (usually careful to cite predecessors) nowherementions her suggests a later terminus. Her care of the gravida (16.12 [p. 12]) and adviceon abortives (16.18) resemble the corresponding sections of So¯ranos Gyn. (1.46 and 1.64–65[CMG 4, pp. 32–34, 47–49; CUF v. 1, pp. 43–46, 62–65]), whereas she intervenes less indiﬃcult births (16.15 [p. 16] contrasted with So¯ranos Gyn. 4.7–8 [CMG 4, pp. 136–139; CUFv. 4, pp. 11–16]), but more in cases of tilted womb (16.73 [pp. 112–115] contrasted withSo¯ranos Gyn. 3.50 [CMG 4, pp. 127–128; CUF v. 3, pp. 54–55]). Since she also advises onthe care of the woman after embryotomy (16.25 [p. 36]), whereas So¯ranos focuses on theembryotomy itself (Gyn. 4.9–13 [CMG 4, pp. 140–144; CUF v. 4, pp. 16–22]), she seems onthe whole to evince greater care for the mother than did So¯ranos. Her prescriptions forvarious uterine disorders (corresponding to lost sections of So¯ranos, Gyn.), 16.94 and99 (above), plus 102 (p. 150), 104 (pp. 151–152), and 108 (p. 155), oﬀer a variety of relativelysimple recipes, plus venesection and some radical surgeries. Her unapologetic stance onabortives and embryotomy might suggest a date before Constantine (or Theodosius I), butAëtios likely cites her as an authority for his actual practice, and not merely out of antiquarianinterest, showing that although oﬃcially condemned, such procedures continued to beemployed by women and their gynecologists and midwives.H. Fasbender, Geschichte der Geburtshülfe (1906) 58–61; Parker (1997) 138 (#54). PTKAspasios (Perip.) (ca 100 – 130 CE)Aristotelian commentator. G  studied in Pergamon with one of his students, when thestudent had returned home after a long sojourn elsewhere – either from Aspasios’ school, orsome other city where the student had been active as a teacher. Wherever Aspasios wasactive, he was not simply an instructor at a local Peripatetic school. It is certain thatAspasios’ commentaries were standard works, but the evidence we have about them onlygives us a glimpse of the state of the textual tradition of the Aristotelian corpus in the 2nd c.CE, not about Aspasios’ positions. Gale¯n took Aspasios’ (and A’) commentaries ashis starting point when writing his more extensive (lost) commentary on the Categories, andlater interpreters – H, A  A, even P  andB – had access to, and used one or another of Aspasios’ commentaries. References in later authors attest that Aspasios wrote commentaries on the Categories, theDe interpretatione, the Physics, the De sensu, and the Metaphysics. In one instance, Alexander ofAphrodisias refers to Aspasios’ interpretation of a passage of the De caelo, about which helearnt from his teacher, Herminos – apparently this was not part of a commentary to whichAlexander had access. Only the commentary on Books I–IV and VII–VIII of theNicomachean Ethics is extant (CAG 19.1).Moraux 2 (1984) 226–293; Gottschalk (1987) 1156–1158. István Bodnár 173

P:185

ASPASIOS (PHARM.)Aspasios (Pharm.) (250 BCE – 90 CE)A   P., in G  CMLoc 9.5 (13.302 K.), records his remedy for dysentery:parsley, pomegranate, heath-fruit, and opium, reduced in myrtle. Possibly Askle¯piade¯s’ ref-erence was originally to A.Fabricius (1726) 92. PTKAsterios (120 BCE – 540 CE)A  A 7.117 (CMG 8.2, p. 398) records his collyrium, an opium-laced mixtureof minerals (antimony, calamine, and psimuthion) and aromatics (cassia, myrrh, andspikenard).Fabricius (1726) 92. PTKAstrampsukhos (ca 1st – 9th c. CE?)Legendary Persian magus; the name appears in a list given by D  L (pr.2)of Z’s successors in the period before the Persians were defeated by Alexander.Several works of occult nature circulated under Astrampsukhos’ name in antiquity: thepopular Sortes Astrampsychi, a set of oracular questions and answers (in some MSS prefacedwith a dedication by “Astrampsukhos the Egyptian” to an unknown Ptolemaios, also falselyattributed in one MS to Leo¯n the Wise; 3rd c. CE papyri provide a terminus ante quem for thework); a dream-book in verse (dated by Oberhelman between the 6th and 9th centuries CE);and a spell for the prosperity of a workshop (PGM 8.1–63, labeled a love-charm). Accordingto the Souda A-4251, a book on the healing of donkeys was also attributed to Astrampsu-khos; this, however, is not preserved.Ed.: N. Rigault et al., Artemidori Daldiani et Achmetis Sereimi f. Oneirocritica, Astrampsychi et Nicephori versus etiam oneirocritici (1603); G.M. Browne, Sortes Astrampsychi, v.1 (1983), R. Stewart, v.2 (2001).RE 2.2 (1896) 1796–1797, E. Riess; P. Tannery, “Astrampsychus,” REG 11 (1898) 96–106; S. Ober- helman, “Prolegomena to the Byzantine Oneirokritika,” Byzantion 50 (1980) 489–491; R. Stewart, “The Textual Transmission of the Sortes Astrampsychi,” ICS 20 (1995) 135–47; BNP 2 (2003) 121–122, C. Harrauer; McCabe (2007) 5. Anne McCabeAstrologos of 379 (379 CE)Anonymous author of a brief text “prognostications from the positions of the ﬁxed stars,”forming part of a long compilation of astrological texts in Greek ascribed to “Palkhos” butactually the work of the 14th c. Byzantine astrologer Eleutherios Eleios. The author claimsEgyptian ancestry, and to be writing in a location having the latitude of Rome, giving hisdate of writing as the consulate of Olybrius and Ausonius (379 CE). His text cataloguesastrological inﬂuences determined by a list of bright stars, the selection of which was clearlyinﬂuenced by P’s Phaseis, though the positions of the stars derive from the Almagestwith adjustment for precession. This short catalogue of stars was repeatedly reworked withupdated precessional corrections in late antiquity and the Byzantine period. 174

P:186

AT H E¯ N A G O R A S S O N O F A R I M N E¯ S T O SEd.: CCAG 5.1 (1904) 196–206.D.E. Pingree, “The Astrological School of John Abramius,” DOP 25 (1971) 189–215; S. Feraboli, “L’evoluzione di un catalogo stellare,” Maia 45 (1993) 269–273. Alexander JonesAstunomos (350 – 100 BCE?)Wrote a book on islands (i.e., likely after E) or a geographical gazetteer, cited byP 1.ind.4 and 5.129, and by S  B. The archaic name was rarebefore 100 BCE, and almost unattested thereafter (LGPN).RE 2.2 (1896) 1872 (#2), E. Schwartz. PTKAthanarid (496 – 507 CE)Wrote in Gothic a geography of Europe, covering Finland to Spain, listing towns accordingto the rivers on which they stood, and cited extensively by the R C,Book 4. See also H and M.Staab (1976); DPA 1 (1989) 639, R. Goulet; BNP 1 (2002) 408, A. Schwarcz. PTKAthe¯nagoras (Agric.) (325 – 90 BCE)Agricultural writer whose work was used by C D (V, RR 1.1.9; cf.C 1.1.10).RE 2.2 (1896) 2021 (#11), M. Wellmann. Philip ThibodeauAthe¯nagoras (Med.) (400 – 600 CE?)Credited with a Latin treatise on pulse and urine (Incipit liber Athenagore de pulsis et urinis.Quoniam medicus peritissimus debet esse . . .), although the author’s name seems to indicate a tractwritten in Greek and translated into Latin. Citations suggest either a work discussing onlyurine (Diels 1907: 2.21) or two separate treatises (Thorndike and Kibre 1963: 1285, 1610).Medical content in the classical, especially Gale¯nic tradition, and the earliest extant manu-script (Paris, BNF, latinus 7028, 10th/11th c.) predate the post-Constantinian activity ofSalerno school (12th c.), suggesting that the Latin version might date to the period of theearly medieval translations of Greek medical works into Latin in the medical schools ofnorthern Africa and Italy (Ravenna).RE 2.2 (1896) 2021 (#10), M. Wellmann; Cam. Vitelli, “Studiorum Celsianorum particula prima,” SIFC 8 (1900) 450–476 at 467; Beccaria (1956) 155; E. Wickersheimer, Manuscrits latins de médecine du haut moyen âge dans les bibliothèques de France (1966) 85. Alain TouwaideAthe¯nagoras son of Arimne¯stos (365 – 350 BCE)Hypothesized that the Red Sea and the Ocean outside the Pillars of He¯rakle¯s were con-nected, according to the A C O  F   N, which 175

P:187

AT H E¯ N A I O S M E C H A N I C U Splaces Athe¯nagoras at the Persian court before the expedition against Egypt by Artaxerxe¯sIII “O¯ khos,” 357 BCE.RE S.5 (1931) 46 (#12), W. Kroll. PTKAthe¯naios Mechanicus (30 – 20 BCE?)Wrote a work on siege machinery, On Machines. Its dating is uncertain, but current consensusplaces it in the second half of the 1st c. BCE and identiﬁes the dedicatee of the treatise,“Marcellus,” as M. Claudius Marcellus (42–23 BCE), A’ nephew and son-in-law.The treatise was perhaps prepared for his departure to Spain with Augustus. Athe¯naioshimself is identiﬁed as a Peripatetic philosopher who lived and held public positions inRome in this period (S  14.5.4). On Machines opens with an introduction on the need to speak brieﬂy and avoid theoreticaldigressions (3.1–7.7). The main part of the treatise contains descriptions of a number ofdevices for attacking cities: D ’ portable siege towers, rams and tortoises, i.e. sheds forcovering and moving siege machinery; the probably impossible monumental ram-tortoiseby H   ; and E’ helepolis (7.8–27.6). These descriptions are followed by ashorter section on more unfortunate devices: some that are scaled wrongly, and K ’sea-saw tube for scaling walls, which Athe¯naios regards as pure imagination (27.7–29.2).Last he includes devices of his own invention, such as devices for making a tortoise changedirection, so it is less easy to hit (31.6–38.13). The ﬁrst section on machines is closely related to V’ descriptions of siegemachinery in On Architecture (10.13–16). Both are thought to have drawn on the artilleryspecialist A ; Athe¯naios states that he is “relating in full” everything he learnedfrom him. The style of the treatise is seemingly nuts-and-bolts and includes details andmeasurements, but the material does not appear organized. Athe¯naios’ descriptions are oftenhard to interpret, because of his vagueness and frequent hapax legomena in describing his owninventions. It is likely that Athe¯naios, despite his emphasis on practical application, drew hismaterial mainly from technical literature and teaching rather than direct experience.Ed.: D. Whitehead and P.H. Blyth, Athenaeus Mechanicus, On Machines (2004).Marsden (1969); BNP 2 (2003) 243–244 (#5), D. Baatz. Karin TybjergAthe¯naios of Attaleia (or Tarsos?) (30 – 70 CE)Greek physician from Attaleia (G , Ars medica [1.306 K.], Elem. Hipp. 1 [1.457 K.], Temp.1 [1.522 K.]; Dign. Puls. 1 [8.787 K.]; etc.; -G , D 19.347, 356, 392K.) or Tarsos (C A, Acut. 2.6 [CML 6.1.1, p. 134], reading Tharsus).Traditionally dated to the 1st c. CE, Kudlien (1962) dates him to the 1st c. BCE on the basisof his doctrine, likely derived from P   A (see Gale¯n, Morb. Diﬀ. 6.842K.), whose student he may have been (Gale¯n, On Cohesive Causes 2 = CMG S. Orient. 2,pp. 54–57; cf. p. 134), or whose philosophy he simply may have followed (Gale¯n, Elem. Hipp.1 [1.469 K.]; -G , I 14.698 K.). The 1st c. CE date would betterexplain C’ omission of the Pneumaticists in his overview of contemporary philo-sophical approaches to medicine (1.pr.), and accord with the date of Athe¯naios’ ﬁrstknown follower (i.e., A). 176

P:188

AT H E¯ N A I O S O F AT TA L E I A Athe¯naios, practicing in Rome, opened a new avenue in medical thinking, loosely andvariously deﬁned by Gale¯n, most explicitly as pneumatik¯e (Diﬀ. Puls. 3, 4 [8.646, 756 K.]) andits members as pneumatikoi (ibid. [8.674, 749 K.]), on the basis of the role of pneuma intheir physiological system. According to Gale¯n, such physicians were especially well-qualiﬁed in general medicine, particularly with regard to fever (Febr. Diﬀ. 1 [7.295 K.]).Among those deserving his deepest esteem was Athe¯naios himself (Sympt. Caus. 2 [7.174 K.]). According to Athe¯naios, reasoning from theories of nature alone is the basis of medicine(Gale¯n, Elem. Hipp. 1 [1.457–486 K.]; ps.-Gale¯n, Intro. 14.676–677, 698 K.; ps.-Gale¯n, Def.,19.356 K.), contrary both to those relying on tradition, and to A    B,who valued reason and experience (logos and peira). Athe¯naios’ theory was based onStoicism, particularly regarding the role of ﬁre both in the kosmos and in physiology.Again contrary to Askle¯piade¯s, Athe¯naios opted for an incorporeal biological theory. Hebelieved that the body is made of four elemental properties (stoikheia: heat, cold, dry andmoist), which Gale¯n found unclearly deﬁned, but Athe¯naios claimed were evident (enarg¯e)and not requiring demonstration. Athe¯naios variously called the stoikheia “qualities” (poi-ot¯etes), “powers” (dunameis), and “bodies” (s¯omata). Gale¯n found it unclear whether the bodiescomposed of these four elements were homoiomerous. Two of these elementary qualitiesare active (poi¯etika: heat and cold), two are material (hulika: dry and wet). A ﬁfth element,pneuma, holding the qualities together and contained in the blood, generates cardiacmovement. It circulates through the heart and the arteries, stimulating their expansion, anatural and involuntary movement. Heat thus moves from the heart and returns to it(Gale¯n, Diﬀ. Puls. 4 [8.755–756 K.]). As a result, the source and directing principle ofhuman life (he¯gemonikon) is located in the heart (Gale¯n, MM 13 [10.929 K.]). Athe¯naios deﬁned health as an equilibrium (eukrasia) of pneuma and the four elements(MM 7 [1.523 K.]). The equilibrium between the pneuma and four elements is created bythe tension (tonos) between them (Gale¯n, Diﬀ. Puls. 3 [8.646 K.]). The pneuma is thusresponsible for both health and disease (ps.-Gale¯n, Intro. 14.699 K.), the latter being adisequilibrium (duskrasia). Diseases are caused by substances altering the quantity or thequality of either the pneuma or of the elements. Athe¯naios dedicated no speciﬁc work to articulate his theory (ps.-Gale¯n, Def., 19.347 K.),and none of his writings, or even their titles, survives. Gale¯n refers to the 24th book of anunnamed treatise (Sympt. Caus. 2 [7.165 K.]), and quotes an enema (through A-, in CMLoc 9.5 [13.296 K.]), and a medical formula (through A   P.,in CMGen 5.3 [13.847 K.]). Gale¯n connects Athe¯naios’ work on embryology with A- (Gale¯n, De Semine, passim). Gale¯n admired Athe¯naios (Tremor [7.609 K.]), and agreed with him except on quotidianfever (Febr. Diﬀ. 1 [7.295 K.]). Nevertheless he criticized him, principally for his vagariesregarding the four stoikheia (Elem. Hipp. 1 [1.457, 460 K.]). Athe¯naios’ theory reached itszenith with A, but evolved very early toward a more synthetic system absorbingelements from other contemporary schools, leading to the so-called episunthetic or eclecticschool (ps.-Gale¯n, Def. 19.353 K.) supposedly created by Agathinos, and followed byA  and L   A.Wellmann (1895); RE 2.2 (1896) 2034–2036 (#24), Idem; Kudlien (1962); Idem (1968) 1097–1098; KP 1.703, Idem; DSB 1.324–325, J.S. Kieﬀer; Harris (1973) 237–242; Smith (1979) 231–234; OCD3 203, V. Nutton; BNP 2 (2003) 244–245, Idem. Alain Touwaide 177

P:189

AT H E¯ N A I O S O F K U Z I KO SAthe¯naios of Kuzikos (390 – 345 BCE)Mathematician and geometer, and member of P’s Academy (P In Eucl. p. 67Fr.).RE 2.2 (1896) 2025 (#18), P. Natorp. GLIMAthe¯nio¯ n (of Athens?) (50 – 10 BCE)C 5.25.9 records his trokhiskos against cough: castoreum, myrrh, poppy “tears”and pepper, ground separately, then mixed (take two in the morning and two at bedtime).S , Gyn. 3.2 (CMG 4, p. 94; CUF v. 3, pp. 2–3), classing him as Erasistratean,indicates that he, like M , argued in favor of the existence of diseases special towomen. In this period, the name is especially Athenian: LGPN.RE 2.2 (1896) 2041 (#9), M. Wellmann. PTKAthe¯nippos (120 BCE – 40 CE)Compounded a collyrium that became known as “Athe¯nippion”; recorded by SL 26–27 (opium, white pepper, pompholux, roasted copper, etc.), by A  P. in G , CMLoc 4.7 (12.789 K., cf. 774) as “universal” (pankhr¯eston), and by M-  B 8.6 (CML 5, p. 114.26).RE 2.2 (1896) 2042 (#2), M. Wellmann. PTKAthe¯nodo¯ ros (Med.) (50 – 100 CE)Physician and philosopher, contemporary with P. He wrote On Epidemics (periepid¯emi¯on) claiming that hudrophobia and elephantiasis ﬁrst appeared in the time ofA    B, cited as a witness against the conjecture of P   H- that the diseases were newly discovered (Quaest. Symp. 8.9.1 [731A]).RE 2.2 (1896) 2046 (#23), M. Wellmann. GLIMAthe¯nodo¯ ros (of Rhodes?) (250 BCE – 50 CE)D  L four times cites the 8th book of Athe¯nodo¯ros’ Peripatoi, apparently abiographical account of philosophers: 3.3 (P and Dio¯n), 5.36 (T’father’s occupation), 6.81 (Diogene¯s the Cynic), and 9.42 (D ’ visual acuity).Grammarians record the remarks of some Athe¯nodo¯ros on prosody and melody, andQuintilian 2.17.15 assigns that man to Rhodes.GGP 3 (1983) 585, Fr. Wehrli. PTK 178

P:190

AT TA L O S I I I O F P E RG A M O N , P H I L O M E¯ T O¯ RAthenodo¯ ros of Tarsos (ca 60 – 20 BCE)Athe¯nodo¯ros “Caluus” from the village of Kana near Tarsos (C Att. 16.11.4, 14.4),son of Sando¯n, was, like A D, a court philosopher and tutor to A.S  mentions Athe¯nodo¯ros as one of his companions and a source for government atPetra (16.4.21). Athe¯nodo¯ros’ writings include a work on tides (Strabo¯n 1.1.9, 1.3.12, 3.5.7),in which he argued that ebb and ﬂux are analogous to breathing, and that sub-oceanicsprings may exist whose ﬂux raises the tide. Late in life, he returned to Tarsos to expel thedespot Boëthos who was placed in power there by M. Antonius (Strabo¯n 14.5.14). He diedat the age of 82. Sometimes confused with a coeval philosopher of the same name, alsofrom Tarsos (Athe¯nodo¯ros Kordulion); one of the two argued that divination is reliable anda skill (D  L 7.149).FGrHist 746; GGP 4.2 (1994) 711–712, P. Steinmetz; OCD3 203, J. Annas; ECP 100, I. Vasiliou; BNP 2 (2003) 252–253 (#3), K.-H. Hülser. GLIMAtime¯tos (10 – 40 CE)Taught S L (120) the colic remedy of C, which included Indiannard, opium, black pepper, etc., in honey. A   P., in G  CMLoc 4.7(12.771 K.: emending from AΤIMHΤP-), cites him for a collyrium containing psimu-thion, khalkanthon, pompholux, opium, and saﬀron. He was associated with theemperor Tiberius, and may be the same as the ocularis Attius Atimetus, known from hiscollyrium stamps. See A H.RE 2.2 (1896) 2253 (#10), M. Wellmann; S.3 (1918) 17, W. Kroll; Korpela (1987) 180. PTKAttalos (Med.) (130 – 170 CE)G , MM 13.15 (10.909–916 K.) describes his elder contemporary Attalos, a student ofS ; Gale¯n disparages his treatment of the Cynic Theagene¯s via plasters of honey-bread, aﬀusions of warmed olive oil, and a diet of porridge. He is perhaps the same asStatilius Attalus, personal physician to Antoninus Pius and M. Aurelius. A P-, Dyn. 72.5, refers to the “plaster we received from Attalos” (more likely a contemporarythan A III  P), also to be found in T   M, Book 6.The preface to a late-Latin commentary on O lists “Attalion” (perhaps our man)among earlier commentators on the H C, A.RE 3A.2 (1929) 2186 (Statilius #11), F.E. Kind; Korpela (1987) 180; Ihm (2002) #32. PTKAttalos III of Pergamon, Philome¯to¯ r (138 – 133 BCE)Last monarch of the Pergamene kingdom, which he famously bequeathed to Rome in hiswill. He probably served as patron to N  K , and authored a treatiseon agriculture known to C D (V, RR 1.1.8–10; cf. C1.1.8); to judge from references in P, 1.ind.10–11, 14–15, 17–18, it discussed beekeep-ing, cereals, viticulture, and arboriculture. He reportedly devoted his ﬁnal years to garden-ing, pharmacology, and bronze-smithing (Justin 36.4.1–5; cf. Pliny 1.ind.33). H  , in 179

P:191

ATTALOS OF RHODESG  CMGen 1.13 (13.414–416 K.), cf. 1.17 (13.446–447 K.), records his wound plastercontaining white pepper, litharge, and psimuthion in terebinth and beeswax; cf.A in Gale¯n, CMGen 1.14 (13.419–427 K.). C 5.19.11 oﬀers a woundplaster from Attalos composed of copper ﬂake, frankincense soot, and ammo¯niakonincense in terebinth, bull-fat, vinegar and olive oil, and 6.6.5B a collyrium of aloes,antimony, calamine, myrrh, saﬀron, etc. Pliny, 1.ind.28, 31, cites him for medicine fromanimals. Gale¯n praises the pharmacological work of “our Attalos,” Simpl. Med. 10.1 (12.251K.), Antid. 1.1 (14.2 K.). (Cf. perhaps A   P., in Gale¯n CMLoc 8.3 [13.162–163 K.], apparently used by M.)J. Hopp, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der letzen Attaliden (1977); OCD3 211, R.M. Errington. Philip ThibodeauAttalos of Rhodes (ca 150 – 125 BCE)H (In Eudoxi et Arati Phaenomena) frequently castigates a commentary on A’Phainomena by Attalos, his local contemporary whom he calls math¯ematikos (i.e. astronomer);the designation “of Rhodes” is found only in an anonymous list of commentators onAratos. Hipparkhos’ criticisms and 14 brief quotations show that Attalos for the most partsought to exonerate Aratos from charges of astronomical inaccuracy.Maass (1898) 1–24; J. Martin, Histoire du texte des Phénomènes d’Aratos (1956) 22–27. Alexander JonesA ⇒ (1) I; (2) LAtticus (ca 150 – 200 CE)Platonic philosopher, wrote a polemical tract Against those who interpret Plato’s teachings throughAristotle’s, cited extensively by E (PE 11 and 15), and commentaries on Platonicdialogues, cited by P (often grouping Atticus with P). Evidence exists forcommentaries on Timaeus, Phaedo (?) and Phaedrus (?). Eusebios (Chron. p. 207 Helm2) placeshis ﬂoruit in 176–180 CE. He taught H   A. Regarding ontology and cosmology Atticus often sides with Plutarch against the Pla-tonic mainstream, teaching the temporal creation of the kosmos. Atticus’ anti-Aristotelianism is noticeable in his rejection of the ﬁfth element (aithe¯r), criticism of theastronomical views expressed in De caelo, and of the Categories, for which he follows his near-contemporary Nikostratos the Platonist. Atticus’ works were read in P ’ school.He moreover seems to have inﬂuenced G  and L.Ed.: E. des Places, Atticus. Fragments (CUF 1977).Moraux (1984) 2.564–582; DPA 1 (1989) 664–665, J. Whittaker; Dillon (1996) 247–258; BNP 2 (2003) 325–326, M. Baltes. Jan OpsomerAttius (30 BCE? – 75 CE)Among the ﬁrst astrologers to write in Latin, listed last (after M S) withagricultural authorities (P 1.ind.18). In Praxidik¯e, Attius suggests that the best time tosow is when the moon is in Aries, Gemini, Leo, Libra, or Aquarius (Pliny 18.200): masculine 180

P:192

P O S T U M I U S RU F I U S F E S T U S AU I E N U S O F VO L S I N I Iand diurnal signs (Sagittarius omitted: M 1.150–154, 2.358–384, cf. AMet. 1.5 [986a]) in accord with the Pythagorean theory that odd numbers are masculine.Praxidike¯, exactor of justice, is identiﬁed with Persephone in the Orphic tradition (Paus.9.33.3).(*) GLIMT. Auﬁdius of Sicily (ca 100 – 50 BCE)Listed by P    D among the medical notables resident inDurrakhion (S  B, Ethnika s.v. “Durrakhion” [Meineke, p. 245]), asectator of A  , likely the Titus Asclepiadis sectator in C A, Acute2.158, and Chronic 3.78 (pp. 239 and 761 Drabkin; CML 6.1, pp. 238, 726). Nothing elsesurvives of his books on chronic diseases or his two-volume De anima (sc. Peri psukh¯es, “mentalillness”). Auﬁdius thought it beneﬁcial to ﬂog a mental patient (here aﬄicted with mania), orto put him in chains, starve and deny him water, then after a time entice him with wine andthe prospect of sex (Cael. Aur., Chron., 1.179 [CML 6.1, p. 536]: tunc uino corrumpi, uel inamorem induci); sex is again recommended in treating jaundice (Chron., 3.78 [above]), since it“relaxed the ﬂesh” (laxationem carnis faciendum). It is little wonder that Askle¯piade¯s and hisstudents were popular among their Roman patients.RE 2.2 (1896) 2290 (#13), M. Wellmann. John ScarboroughA ⇒ A AA ⇒ I C OAuidianus (200 – 650 CE)I    A, In Galeni Sect. (pp. 15–16 P., cf. D   K fr.13cvan der Eijk), lists Methodists: “T , T, D, MANASEVS (sc.M), P , OLIMPICVS (i.e., O), M, AVIDIANVS.”Although the name is attested in the mid-3rd c. CE, Cod. Iust. 9.2.6 (RE 2.2 [1896] 2378,P. von Rohden), if for –ID- we restore –REL- we have AVRELIANVS, i.e. a reference toC A. (Cf. A   T, S  A .)(*) PTKPostumius Ruﬁus Festus Auienus of Volsinii (340 – 380 CE)Roman aristocrat and poet, whose work includes translations of the astronomical poemPhainomena by A and of the geographical poem by D P   , Descrip-tio orbis terrae. He also wrote a poem De ora maritima, in which he follows the model of aperiplous and describes regions in the order of travel along the coastline. Only the partdescribing regions of the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea from Brittany toMarseille survives. Scholars debate whether the poem is based on older periploi or latercompilations. 181

P:193

AURELIUSEd.: GGM 2.177–189; P. van de Woestijne, La descriptio orbis terrae d’Avienus (1961).KP 1.788–789, M. Fuhrmann; PLRE 1 (1971) 336–337; OCD3 226, J.H.D. Scourﬁeld; BNP 1 (2003) 426–427, J. Küppers. Natalia LozovskyA ⇒ C AA ⇒ (1) A  A; (2) H  ; (3) N; (4)C SAurelius (ca 155 – 200 CE?)G  himself records Aurelius’ dentifrice in CMLoc 5.5 (12.892 K.), compounded fromalum, roasted and then quenched with dry wine, to which were added mastic, frank-incense, malabathron, and kuperos, mixed and applied. He is conceivably identiﬁable withthe military physician Aurelius Artemo¯n, attested at Moesia Inferior (155 CE: CIL 3.7449).F. Cramer, Anecdota Paris. 1 (1839) 394; RE S.1 (1903) 229–230 (#60a), A. Stein. GLIMAurelius Augustinus (ca 385 – 430 CE)Born 354 CE in Thagaste, he was concerned with transmitting the classical intellectualdisciplines arrayed by V until his conversion in 386 to the blend of neo-Platonismand Christianity taught by A; he was bishop of Hippo from 395. In addition toscores of theological works, wrote a treatise On music in six books. Its famous deﬁnitionsof “music” (1.2–3) as “scientia bene modulandi” and “scientia bene mouendi” ground it inRoman rhetorical tradition rather than Greek music theory. Books 1–5 (completed ca388 CE), on rhythm, develop the primacy of music over grammar in understanding themovement of sound in language, illustrate proportions of time (following Pythagoreantraditions) expressed in rhythm and meter, establish that number provides the basis fortrue knowledge of music, and provide examples of various meters and verse types. Inthe sixth book (ca 391 CE), on musical metaphysics, number and proportion areexpanded from the corporeal to the incorporeal. Numbers in rhythm – found as well inlight, color, dance, and celestial harmony – are heard and exist in the memory but arealso eternal. Genera of number exist in: sound (sonus), the sense of hearing (sensus audien-tis), the act of presentation (actus pronuntiantis), memory (memoria), and discernment (iudi-cium). Augustine concludes that when organized according to the numerical principles ofproportion, music can stimulate the soul to imitate celestial harmony and lead it to alove of God.Ed.: M. Jacobsson (with English trans.), Aurelius Augustinus De musica liber VI (2002).R. Catesby-Taliaferro, trans., Saint Augustine on Music (1947); Mathiesen (1999) 619–622; NGD2 1.173–174. Thomas J. MathiesenIulius Ausonius of Vasates (ca 315 – 378 CE)Born ca 290 CE; father of the poet Decimus Magnus Ausonius, was born at Vasatesand practiced medicine at Burdigala, where was member of the curia; in old age became 182

P:194

A U X A N O¯ Npraefectus of Illyria (Aus. Epic. 2; Lect. 5–14; Parent. 3). He spoke Greek better than Latin (Epic.2.9), possibly because he had studied in a medical school of Massalia. He is listed byM  B (pr.2) as a source, who also refers to a remedy of Ausonius forsciatica and arthritis (25.21).RE 2.2 (1896) 2562 (#2), F. Marx; M.K. Hopkins, “Social Mobility in the Later Roman Empire,” CQ 11 (1961) 239–249; PLRE 1 (1971) 139 (#5); Matthews (1975) 81–82. Fabio StokAutolukos of Pitane¯ (ca 300 BCE) Taught Arkesilaos with whom he then traveled to Sarde¯s (D  L, 4.29). Two works of his survive, On Rotating Spheres and On Risings and Settings. Although earlier Greek mathematical texts may be found in A and the fragments of E , these are probably the earliest extant complete Greek mathematical texts; yet they display a formal presentational style similar to other extant treatises of the 3rd c. BCE. The 12 propositions of On Rotating Spheres concern a sphere attached to a ﬁxed horizon, where it rotates obliquely to it, and consider the proper-Autolukos: On Risings and Settings © ties of visible and invisible parts of theMendell sphere. In On Risings and Settings (two books), Autolukos deﬁnes the basic phasesof ﬁxed stars, evening rising and setting, morning rising and setting, distinguishes the appar-ent phases from the true, and examines the conditions for the phases to occur for stars northof, on, and south of the ecliptic. He assumes the arc determining visibility is ½ a zodiacalsign or a 24th part of the zodiacal circle, i.e. if the sun is at least ½ a sign from the eclipticpoint on the horizon, then stars above the horizon can be visible. The second book elabor-ates in detail some of the theorems of the ﬁrst book. He attempted, in a dispute withA, to explain variations in the brightness of planets, which seem to indicatechanges in their distances from the earth (S, In de caelo, CAG 7 [1894] 504: cf.P).Ed.: J. Mogenet, Autolycus de Pitane: histoire du texte (1950); F. Bruin and A. Vondjidis, trans. and ed., The Books of Autolykos: On a Moving Sphere and On Risings and Settings (1971).Neugebauer (1975) 747–767. Henry MendellAuxano¯ n (before ca 350 CE)Described as hippiatros by A, who quotes Auxano¯n on cures for diarrhea (HippiatricaParisina 103 = Hippiatrica Berolinensia 35.1).McCabe (2007) 141–142. Anne McCabe 183

P:195

AXIOSAxios (45 BCE – 100 CE)Ocularis of the Roman British ﬂeet. K   H  preserves two recipes: hiscollyrium based on cinnabar, in G  CMLoc 4.8 (12.786 K.), and his treatment forleikhe¯n, ibid. 5.3 (12.841 K.: emending from ΑΞΙΟΡI-), compounded of copper ﬂakes,khalkanthon, realgar, cantharides, and white hellebore. The name could be Latin, theplebeian nomen Axius.RE 2.2 (1896) 2633 (#2), M. Wellmann. PTKAzanite¯s (1st c. BCE)Created a special plaster against various types of ulcers, wounds, and other diseases, men-tioned by H   and approved by G  (CMGen 5 [13.784–785 K.]). Azanite¯s’ pharma-cological formulae were popular, quoted by O (Synopsis, 3, p. 43), A A (14.34, p. 781 Cornarius; 15.21, p. 854 Cornarius, where Zervos 1909: 123 reads“Ananias”), and P  A (CMG 9.2, p. 376; cf. also Hipp. Berol. 130.126–127,p. 424 ed. Oder-Hoppe).RE 2.2 (1896) 2640, M. Wellmann. Antonio Panaino 184

P:196

BBabylonian Astronomy (ca 1800 BCE – ca 100 CE)A tradition of celestial divination, the oldest cuneiform record of which goes back toca 1800 BCE, produced systematic observation of the Moon, Sun, planets, and ﬁxed stars.In addition to celestial divination, early astronomical texts, such as the Astrolabes, a trad-ition mainly concerning ﬁxed stars originating in the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE(Hunger and Pingree 50–57), reﬂect knowledge of the seasonal heliacal rising of ﬁxed starsas well as the change in the length of the day with the north-south progress of the Sun’srising over the eastern horizon in the course of an ideal year (12 30-day months). Thecompendium “MUL.APIN,” composed ca 1000 BCE, systematizes astronomical phenom-ena such as stellar risings, settings, and culminations, intervals of visibility between ﬁrst andlast appearances of the superior planets, intervals of invisibility between last and ﬁrstappearances of the superior planets, as well as periods of visibility and invisibility betweensynodic appearances of the inferior planets, and intercalation schemes based on the idealcalendar. With recognition of the periodic nature of some of the ominous phenomena,methods to predict such phenomena were developed, ﬁrst within the 7th c. Neo-Assyriancourt, then after 500 BCE in the scribal centers of Babylo¯n and Uruk. Observational reports extant from 709–649 record phenomena considered ominous andinterpreted according to the canonical omen series Enu¯ma Anu Enlil. The more comprehensiveBabylonian astronomical diaries contain systematic and continuous nightly observationsfrom the 7th to 1st cc., though evidence points to their origin already in the 8th c. Celestialdata focused on the Moon’s progress through the ﬁxed stars, eclipses both lunar andsolar, planetary phenomena, meteors, comets, and various weather reports. The diarieswere utilized by P: for example, Alm. 9.7 dates observations of Mercury “accordingto the Khaldaeans,” and gives positions by means of the cubit and the ecliptical stars usedin the diaries. Late Babylonian astronomy was an exact science characterized by mathematical modelsof the longitudinal progress of synodic lunar and planetary phenomena. These modelsunderlie the computation of lunar and planetary ephemerides, which tabulate the datesand longitudes of the synodic phenomena. Hellenistic authors (e.g., S , P, andV V) associated this science with the names K , S , andN. Greek papyri from Roman Egypt, containing sequences of sexagesimalnumbers forming “zig-zag” and “step” functions with Babylonian astronomical parameters,attest to the transmission of Babylonian astronomy to the Greeks. Babylonian predictivemethods were therefore fully integrated in Greco-Roman astronomy until the 5th c. CE, 185

P:197

B A I T O¯ Nand Greek awareness of their Babylonian inheritance is indicated by mention of Orchenoi(P.Oxy. 4139, line 8: Jones [1999]), “people of Uruk,” whom Strabo¯n identiﬁed as“astronomical Khaldaeans” (16.1.6). The Babylonian paradigm for calculating the rising times of the zodiacal signs (Greekanaphorai) signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced Hellenistic astronomy. The evidence for zodiacal ris-ing times is embedded in the column for generating length of daylight in Babylonianephemerides. The calculation for the length of daylight is derived from the sum of therising times for the appropriate half of the zodiac rising on the day in question beginningwith the position of the Sun. The direct connection between the position of the Sun in theecliptic and the length of daylight is therefore expressed. Two such schemes are attested,and their values are constrained by a 3:2 ratio of longest to shortest daylight, assumed inHellenistic astronomy as the canonical value for the klima of Babylo¯n (latitude 32.5˚). Furthermore, the ancient Mesopotamian celestial science of genethlialogy signiﬁcantlyshaped Hellenistic astrology. Natal omens are attested in cuneiform texts of the mid- to lateﬁrst millennium. By ca 500 BCE the celestial signs visible at birth were noted, and suchdivination was soon followed by the earliest horoscope, i.e., a collection of the positionsof the planets, Moon, and Sun at the moment of birth. Most Babylonian horoscopescome from the city of Babylo¯n. Others are known from Uruk and one from Nippur. Theydate from the 3rd to the 1st c. BCE, excepting two 5th c. BCE documents. Because it wasnecessary to obtain the positions of all planets at the arbitrary moment of birth, methodsto compute these positions were critical. As horoscopes begin to appear, so do a variety ofmethods to compute astronomical data. It is unknown whether the schemes attested in theephemerides were used for this purpose. Certainly the astronomical diaries and almanacswere a source for the scribes who prepared horoscopes.ACT; H. Hunger, Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings (1992); Idem and D.E. Pingree, Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia (1999); Francesca Rochberg, Babylonian Horoscopes (1998); Eadem, The Heavenly Writing: Divination, Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture (2004); Eadem, “A Babylonian Rising-Times Scheme in Non-Tabular Astronomical Texts,” in Ch. Burnett, J. Hogendijk, K. Plofker, and M. Yano, edd., Studies in the History of the Exact Sciences in Honour of David Pingree (2004) 56–94. Francesca RochbergBaito¯ n (335 – 305 BCE)Recorded Alexander’s itinerary, giving data on peoples, plants, and the heavens alongthe route, preserved in P 6.61–62, 6.69, and 7.11; cf. D   E andP    K . The apparently unattested name Baito¯n may be Egyptian,meaning “hawk” (Heuser 1929: 14, 20). Compare perhaps Bato¯n in D  L6.99 (3rd c. BCE), LGPN 3A.89 and 3B.85 (4th c. BCE), and Baitis of Larissa (LGPN 3B.84),3rd c. BCE.FGrHist 119. PTKBakkheios Gero¯ n (ca 300 – 400 CE?)Author of a small musical catechism preserved under the title of Introduction to the artof music, usually (though not always) followed in the MSS by a second distinct treatise.The MSS regularly apply the same title and author to the second treatise, due to the 186

P:198

BAKKHEIOS OF TANAGRAinadvertent connection of the end-title of the ﬁrst treatise with the beginning of thesecond, but the second is entirely diﬀerent from the ﬁrst in approach, style, and content.It is almost certainly not by Bakkheios. The second treatise is followed in most (but not all)MSS by an epigram referring to a certain Dionusios and the emperor Constantine. Theepigram has commonly been taken to refer to the second treatise, the attribution ofwhich is accordingly modiﬁed (even in some of the MSS) to Dionusios, but this, too, ishardly certain, nor is it certain which of the several possible emperors Constantine isintended or whether Bakkheios is contemporary with Dionusios. In the end, the epigramis of no use in dating either treatise, and only the ﬁrst can be reasonably assigned toBakkheios. The treatise, presented as a series of questions and answers, mixes deﬁnitions and theoriesfrom various early traditions. The ﬁrst 88 questions deﬁne common terms and conceptsin harmonics; questions 89–101 are devoted to rhythmics. Some of the answers (11, 13–18,29–34 and 38–42) employ musical notation, recognizable from the tables of A.The treatise represents nothing completely new, but several of the answers, especially inthe section on rhythmics, clarify or conﬁrm other sources. The unassuming character,routine content, and style of the treatise suggest a date no earlier than 300.Ed.: MSG 292–316.O. Steinmayer, trans., “Bacchius Geron’s ‘Introduction to the Art of Music’,” Journal of Music Theory 29 (1985) 271–298; NGD2 2.293–294; Mathiesen (1999) 583–593. Thomas J. MathiesenBakkheios of Mile¯tos (325 – 90 BCE)Agronomist whose work, which may have treated cereals, livestock, poultry, viticulture, andarboriculture (cf. P, 1.ind.8, 10, 14–15, 17–18), was excerpted by C D(V, RR 1.1.8–10, cf. C, 1.1.9).RE 2.2 (1896) 2790 (#9), M. Wellmann. Philip ThibodeauBakkheios of Tanagra (250 – 200 BCE)Physician, resident in Alexandria, among the rare central Greek immigrants. Bakkheios wasa “He¯rophilean” in medical practice, valuing anatomy, pharmacology, and knowledge ofthe pulses in diagnosis and prognosis, but he is generally cited for his lexicographical studiesof Hippokratic terminologies. E  records his glosses on at least 18 works ofthe H C (including E III, S D, A,W   H, and Joints, Instruments of Reduction, Fractures: see S), demon-strating the circulation of “Hippokratic” writings by the 3rd c. BCE. Probably the pre-dominance of so-called “Koan” treatises (as contrasted to those presumably from Knidos)led later commentators to make what modern scholarship has determined to be a falsedichotomy among the Hippokratic tracts. In addition to the extensive fragments ofBakkheios’ Hippokratic Lexicon (Lexeis), later authors cite him for his work in pulse theory(G , Diﬀ. Puls. 4.6, 10 [8.732–733, 748–749 K.]; M, On Pulses 3 [p. 457Schöne]; and Gale¯n, Dign. Puls. 4.3 [8.955 K.]), and pharmacology (Gale¯n, CMGen 7.7[13.987 K.]). Also mentioned is his Memoirs of H¯ and Those from his House(Gale¯n, CMG 5.10.2.2, p. 203). 187

P:199

BAKKHULIDIOSW.D. Smith, “Galen on Coans versus Cnidians,” BHM 47 (1973) 569–585; Idem (1979) 202–204; von Staden (1989) 484–500; OCD3 230, Idem; Idem (1999) 158–160. John ScarboroughBakkhulidios (250 BCE – 500 CE)Cited by pseudo-A P 51 (p. 66 Ihm) for an antidote; the name as such isunattested, although the archaic “Bakkhulide¯s” was in use until Aelius’ era (LGPN 1.98,2.86). Cf. perhaps A   K .(*) PTKBako¯ ris of Rhodes (ca 405 – 350 BCE?)Wrote a Periplous of unknown scope, which A, OM 42–50, cites with P A and others. The otherwise unattested name might be Egyptian: either fromPako¯ris (“he of the snake,” cf. Heuser 1929: 34) or a version of Bokkho¯ris. Compare alsoBako¯(n) of Athens (LGPN 2.86), 5th/4th c. BCE, and Bakos of Tauris (LGPN 4.64),4th c. BCE.(*) PTKBalbillos (Barbillos), Ti. Claudius (40 – 80 CE)Roman court astrologer of the 1st c. CE and praefectus Aegypti, 55–59 CE. Cichoriusidentiﬁed Balbillos as the son of T, astrologer for Tiberius and Claudius.Balbillos served in the courts of Claudius, Nero, and Vespasian. Fragments of his worksurvive (CCAG 8.4, 232–238 and 240–244), including sunkephalai¯osis (CCAG 8.3, 103), andhe is mentioned by S (QN 4.2.13), T (Annals 15.47), Suetonius (Nero 36)and Dio Cassius (65.9.2). His Astrologumena is dedicated to Hermogene¯s (CCAG 8.3,pp. 103–104). A proponent of deterministic astrology in an era when the nature of astral inﬂuenceswas in debate, Balbillos utilized a “method concerning the length of life from starter anddestroyer” (CCAG 8.4, p. 232), in which a linear arithmetical scheme is given to predict themonth of a person’s death (CCAG 8.4, p. 243). The numbers of the scheme are simplesubstitutions for the days of a lifetime, modeled loosely on schemes for the change in thelength of daylight through the year. The same treatise preserves the two earliest Greekliterary horoscopes, dated 72 BCE Jan. 21 or 16, and 42 BCE December 27 (Neugebauer-vanHoesen 1959: 76–78). After serving as praefectus, Balbillos’ career is obscure until the accession of Vespasian,when he again rose to prominence, perhaps through his relation by marriage to Vespasian’sally Antiokhos IV Epiphane¯s of Kommage¯ne¯. Dio Cassius mentions games in Balbillos’honor established at Ephesos. Other Latin inscriptions attest to these games from 90 CEuntil the 3rd c., referring to them either as the Balbillea or the Barbillea.C. Cichorius, RhMus 76 (1927) 102–105, contra, see PIR2 C-813; Pingree (1978) 423; BNP 2 (2003) 471, W. Hübner; BNP 3 (2003) 397–398 (#II.15), W. Eck. Francesca Rochberg 188

P:271

DIONUSIOS, SALLUSTIUSHippokratic exegete (Gale¯n, In Hipp. Aph. 4.49 [17B.750–51 K.] = fr.209); (c) the botanistwho described clover (Seruius, Ad Geor. 1.215 = fr.302); or, most likely according toTecusan 2004: 55–56, (d) the Dionusios listed by P (1.ind.4, 8, 10–17, 27, 31,33–36 = fr.256) as a foreign medical authority. Pliny’s Dionusios recommended turnips forjoint pains (20.18–19 = fr.258), believed that eating parsley caused sterility and epilepsyin suckling infants (20.112–114 = fr.259), and wrote on the correct preparation anddangers of orache (20.219 = fr.260), and the properties and beneﬁts of asphodel (22.67= fr.61). Pliny’s Methodist is probably identical to Seruius’ botanist, but it is unclearhow many medical Dionusioi Pliny may have cited. Cf. D (M.) andD ( M ?).Tecusan (2004) 53–59. GLIMDionusios, Sallustius (100 BCE – 75 CE)P describes his cure for toothache or loose teeth: eat a frog boiled in vinegar; to theweak of stomach, he instead oﬀered frog-saliva brewed in vinegar (1.ind.31, 32.80–81).RE 5.1 (1903) 976 (#131), M. Wellmann. PTK and GLIMDionusios, son of Diogene¯s (ca 210 – 90 BCE?)Credited by M 1.4 with determining the circumference of the Earth, and ﬁndinga value agreeing with that of E .RE 5.1 (1903) 992 (#145), Fr. Hultsch. PTKDionusios son of Kallipho¯ n (ca 100 – 87 BCE)Greek, possibly Athenian, geographer, author of a description (anagraph¯e) of Greece intrimetric iambics addressed to an unknown Theophrastos and written ca 100–87 BCE. Earl-ier attributed to D, the poem revealed the author’s name and epithet in theacrostics of verses 1–23. The work adheres to the periplous form, describing coast-lines,giving distances measured in stades and sailing days, and using speciﬁc terminology ofrelative positions of sites and of toponymy. Dionusios’ sources were Phile¯tas, an unknownAthenian historian, Apollodo¯ros of Athens, and A   E. Manifestingsome Stoic tendencies, the extant 150 verses describe western and central Greece, Creteand the Aegean islands.Ed.: GGM 1.238–243; D. Marcotte, Le poème géographique de Dionysios ﬁls de Calliphon (1990). Daniela DueckDionusios son of Oxumakhos (300 – 250 BCE)Cited by R  E, Onom. Anthr. Mor. 205–208 (pp. 162–163 DR), as havingcoined the term epanthismos (used by E   A for “vein”), whichDionusios used for a “vein-like vessel” (distinguished from both vein and artery: i.e., afterP). This Dionusios is perhaps contemporary, and thus possibly identical, with 260

P:272

D I O N U S I O S O F A L E X A N D R I A , P E R I E¯ G E¯ T E¯ SD  E; Wellmann and others have suggested identiﬁcation withD (M.). The father’s name is very rare: LGPN 1.353 (Crete), 3A.344 (Argos),3B.327 (Amphissa and Eruthrai).C.G. Kühn, Additamenta ad elenchum medicorum ueterum 14 (1827) 7; RE 5.1 (1903) 976 (#132), M. Wellmann; BNP 4 (2004) 486 (#24), V. Nutton. PTKDionusios of Aigai (200 – 300 CE?)Empiricist physician and Skeptic who probably lived after G ; von Staden (1999) hassuggested that he was perhaps not an Empiricist. He wrote a work called Diktuaka (whosedate and provenance is not certain), twice excerpted by Pho¯tios, Bibl. 185 and 211, contain-ing 100 chapters, consisting of 50 pairs of medical thesis and antithesis (listed), with argu-ments (lost). For example, §50: “the capacity to think is located in the area of the centralvesicle of the brain,” or §42: “the liver is the source of the veins.” The work can be dividedinto ﬁve sections: A = 1–4: spermatogenesis; B = 5–26: digestion and nutrition; C = 27–52:pathology; D = 52–69: therapy; E = 70–100: anatomy and cognition. He often presentedseveral theoretical alternatives, and how each could be refuted. His work focused onHellenistic debates, but also contained traces of theories of the 2nd c. CE, includingthose of Gale¯n, such as antithesis 42 (ﬁrst attested in Gale¯n PHP 6.3–6 = CMG 5.4.1.2,pp. 372–404). Antithesis 50 apparently reﬂects the works of N and P (M. II), which may indicate that Dionusios is later than usually assigned. A number ofthe counter-hypotheses include doctrines attributed to E, with whom Dionu-sius at times agrees and at other times, disagrees.RE 5.1 (1903) 975 (#124), H. von Arnim; Deichgräber (1965) 340; von Staden (1989) 389; Idem (1999) 177–185. Robert LittmanDionusios (of Alexandria?) (ca 240 – 260 CE?)Addressed by D, Arithmetica Pr.1, as an enthusiastic beginning student ofmathematics. Hultsch rejects identiﬁcation with the contemporary bishop of Alexandria.RE 5.1 (1903) 993 (#147), Fr. Hultsch. GLIMDionusios of Alexandria, Perie¯ge¯te¯s (130 – 138 CE)Greek grammarian and geographer, son of Glaukos, living under Hadrian. Dionusios wasdirector of the imperial libraries and secretary in charge of correspondence andembassies. There is some confusion regarding Dionusios’ period. However, he himselfhints at his origin and time in the acrostics of some verses (109–134; 513–532) of hispoetic description (perie¯ge¯sis) of the oikoumene¯, consisting in 1,186 hexameters. Thework describes the ocean and the three continents: Africa, Europe and Asia, based mainlyon E .Ed.: GGM 2.–, 103–176; K. Brodersen, Dionysios von Alexandria: Das Lied von der Welt (1994); A.A. Raschieri, Dionigi di Alessandria: Guida delle terre abitate (2004); E. Amato, Dionisio di Alessandria. Descrizione della Terra abitata (2005). 261

P:273

DIONUSIOS OF ALEXANDRIAC. Jacob, La Description de la terre habitée de Denys d’Alexandrie ou la leçon de géographie (1990); I.O. Tsavari, Histoire du texte de la description de la terre de Denys le Périégète (1990); H. White, “On the date of Dionysius Periegetes,” Orpheus 22 (2001) 288–290; E. Amato, “Per la Cronologia di Dionisio el Periegeta,” RPh 77 (2003) 7–16; E. Bowie, “Dénys d’Alexandrie. Un poète grec dans l’empire romain,” REA 106 (2004) 177–186; R. Hunter, “The Periegesis of Dionysius and the traditions of Hellenistic poetry,” REA 106 (2004) 217–232. Daniela DueckDionusios of Alexandria (300 – 220 BCE)Designed a repeating catapult for discharging arrows, possibly constructed during the siegeof Rhodes by De¯me¯trios Poliorke¯te¯s. P  (Belop. p. 73 W.), who saw the weapon inaction, describes the catapult and its operation: a winch was pulled back and forth to volleyarrows as quickly as the men could turn the handles. Philo¯n criticizes the catapult whichcould not be re-sighted between shots.Irby-Massie and Keyser (2002) 160–161. GLIMDionusios of Buzantion (120 – 180 CE?)Composed the extant Anaplous of the Bosporos, describing the sail up (anaplous) and back downthe Thrakian Bosporos. The work is preserved in one MS, missing a middle folio, represent-ing one-third of the work (§57–96), for which we rely on the 16th c. Latin of Pierre Gilles,translated from a lost Greek MS. Dionusios’ detailed description of Buzantion seems topredate the city’s razing by Septimius Seuerus in 196 CE, and the language suggests the 2ndc. CE. Dionusios refers to or imitates H , T , X , P,S , P, and A, possibly not using any directly. The work gives an over-view of the Bosporos (§1–6), describes sites in and around Buzantion (§7–34), proceeds upthe European shore of the Bosporos to the Black Sea (§35–87), and returns down the Asianshore to Khalke¯do¯n (§87–112). Dionusios’ unusual periplous gives extents only for theMaiotis, Bosporos, Keras, and walls of Buzantion (§2–6). He describes monuments, anchor-ages, and ﬁshing, and for all names provides aitia, which include myths (§7, 24, 45) andparadoxa (§24, 42, 70, 95). The monuments include many temples, Philip’s siege-bridge(§27), Dareios’ throne (§57), and the ruined lighthouse Timaion (§77). His greatest practicalinterest lies in anchorages, described for 16 sites, and ﬁshing, described for 15 sites, plusoyster-beds (§37).Talbert (2000) #53; BNP 2 (2003) 733–735 (Bosporus #1), E. Olshausen; BNP 4 (2004) 487 (#28), K. Brodersen. PTKDionusios of Corinth (265 BCE – 75 CE)This epic poet is of uncertain date but he surely lived after K. According tothe Souda Delta-1177, he wrote Hupothekai, Mete¯orologoumena, and Aitia from which only asmall fragment remains (P, Amat. 761B = SH 388). He is likely to have also writtena prose commentary on H . However all this remains uncertain because the Soudaattributed to him a Perie¯ge¯sis owing to confusion with D  A.BNP 4 (2004) 490 (#43), M. Di Marco. Christophe Cusset 262

P:274

D I O N U S I O S O F K U R E¯ N E¯Dionusios of Ephesos (290 – 250 BCE?)Physician, wrote a Record of Physicians wherein he reports that N  M  wasE’ fellow student.FGrHist 1104. GLIMDionusios (of Halikarnassos?) (200 BCE – ca 300 CE)One or perhaps two authors of this name are cited by P in his commentary onP’s Harmonics. Dionusios “the musicologist” (ho mousikos) is introduced early in Porphurios’ work as theauthor of a Peri homoiot¯et¯on (On likenesses, 37.16). Porphurios preserves a brief quotation fromthe ﬁrst book of this treatise, in which Dionusios relates four basic doctrines of the “canonictheorists” (kanonikoi): (1) the nature of rhythm and melody is nearly one and the same; (2)what is high-pitched is fast and what is low-pitched is slow; (3) attunement is the com-mensurability (summetria) of certain speeds; and (4) well-tuned intervals (diast¯emata) are inratios (logoi) of numbers. Much later in Porphurios’ commentary a Dionusios “of Halikarnassos” is mentioned in adiﬀerent context (92.28); he is named in a list of authorities including P, D  ,A and E, all of whom used the term “interval” (diast¯ema) in place of “ratio”(logos) – i.e., they referred to (e.g.) the “epitritic interval” rather than the “epitritic ratio.”This Dionusios agreed with A and E  “and many others” inadmitting eight concords, as opposed to A and Ptolemy, who only admitted six(96.11). His authority is invoked to corroborate the statement that the octave interval doesnot diﬀer in function (kata dunamin) from a single note, and therefore that any intervalcombined with an octave will have the same melodic function as the uncompounded inter-val, like the numbers under ten when added to ten (104.14). The second Dionusios (“of Halikarnassos”) may be the same man as the ﬁrst Dionusios(ho mousikos), notwithstanding his use of both terms logos and diast¯ema in the same sentence(37.19–20). (The context here requires the use of both terms, and the discussion at 92.28 isof a somewhat diﬀerent point.) Porphurios’ Dionusios ho mousikos has therefore been identiﬁed by some as Dionusios ofHalikarnassos – not the author of the De compositione verborum, who lived in the time ofA, but a Hadrianic musicologist for whom the Souda (Delta-1171, which gives himboth epithets) lists three further titles: Rhythmics (in 24 books), Musical History (in 36 books)and Science of Music (in 22 books). He may be identical with Aelius Dionusios, the Atticistlexicographer of Hadrian’s time (so Düring, following Scherer).Karl Scherer, De Aelio Dionysio musico qui vocatur (Diss. Bonn 1886); RE 5.1 (1903) 986–991 (#142), L. Cohn; Düring (1932); BNP 4 (2004) 484 (#20), F. Montanari. David CreeseDionusios of Kure¯ne¯ (160 – 110 CE)A student of A  T and of D   S, Dionusios was anacclaimed Stoic geometer (according to a Herculaneum papyrus, Index Stoicorum, col. 52)who wrote against P, and was attacked by D    L  (P. Herc. 263

P:275

D I O N U S I O S K U RTO S O R D I O N U S I O S O F K U RTO S1642, fr.4). He insisted that induction must be based upon what is always and everywhereobserved.GGP 4.2 (1994) 641–642, P. Steinmetz; BNP 4 (2004) 476 (#10), B. Inwood. PTK and GLIMDionusios Kurtos or Dionusios of Kurtos (100 BCE? – 50 CE)Physician from Egypt also named after his homeland Kurtos (though one would then expectKurtit¯es), not because he was actually kurtos (“hunchbacked”), as we are told by S B (s.v. Kurtos; cf. Schol. Oribas. .687 BDM), citing “H P ’sbook On the Physicians.” Dionusios was used by R  E and before him byA  Y, which indicates Nero’s period as terminus ante quem.Andromakhos (in G  CMGen 6.14 [13.928.7–11 K.]) describes one of his vesicatoryplasters (Kurtou epispastik¯e), whereas Rufus of Ephesos in O, Coll. 44.14 (CMG6.2.1, pp. 131–132: Dionusion ton kurton) cites him regarding a pestilential bubo speciﬁc toLibya, Egypt and Syria.RE 5.1 (1903) 976 (#132), M. Wellmann; RE 12.1 (1924) 206 (#2), F.E. Kind. Jean-Marie JacquesDionusios of Mile¯tos (460 – 430 BCE)Wrote histories of Persia and mythographical works (Souda Delta-1180), plus a Guide to theWorld, of which a few fragments are preserved by scholiasts.FGrHist 687; OCD3 478, K. Meister. PTKDionusios (of Mile¯tos?) (75 – 35 BCE)G  at CMLoc 5.3 (12.835 K.: following A   P.) ascribes a dermato-logical recipe to a Dionusios schoolfellow (summath¯et¯es) of H    T: he ispossibly to be identiﬁed either with the Dionusios of Mile¯tos mentioned at CMLoc 4.7(12.741–742 K.) and Antid. 2.11 (14.171 K.) or with the D  S mentionedat CMGen 6.16 (13.938 K.), or with the Dionusios mentioned at In Hipp. Aph. 17B.751 K. Acertain Dionysius is mentioned by P for diﬀerent remedies at 1.ind.20, 19.113, 219;22.67 and 25.8.RE 5.1 (1903) 976 (#132), M. Wellmann. Fabio StokDionusios of Philadelpheia (140 BCE? – 20 CE?)Enigmatic ﬁgure sometimes identiﬁed with D  A, P   .Authored a poem On Bird-catching (Ixeutika) or On Birds (Ornithiaka), originally in two or threebooks, traditionally but wrongly attributed to O, whose substance is well preservedin a Byzantine paraphrase previously attributed to the sophist E. Dionusios’ textshares many parallels with those of Athe¯naios and A. The paraphrase, preservingtypical rhythmic endings and special vocabulary, is probably a prosaic transcription, veryclose to the original. More folkloric than technical treatise, the text mentions prey as well as 264

P:276

D I O N U S O D O¯ RO S ( P H A R M . )domestic and mythic fowls, and presents “the names, residences and customs, talents, forcesand desires of birds, and the ways of catching them” (1.1). The ﬁrst book treats land-birds (beginning with eagle and ﬁnishing with phoenix), the second with water-birds (begin-ning with water-eagle and ﬁnishing with swan), the third with bird-catching, with birdlime(ixos: 3.1–6) and various other means and sometimes subtle traps (3.7–28).Ed.: A. Garzya, Dionysii Ixeuticon (1963).RE 5.1 (1903) 925 (#96), G. Knaack; OCD3 478 (#9–10), J.S. Rusten. Arnaud ZuckerDionusios of Rhodes (265 BCE – 200 CE)Souda Delta-1181 mentions that some attribute to this historian the Guide to the Earth(perie¯ge¯sis g¯es) by D  A; the same work is also attributed toD  C. Contrast the epigrammatist of BNP 4.488 (#33).(*) PTKDionusios of Samos (250 BCE – 95 CE)A   P., in G  CMGen 4.13 (13.745–746 K.), records his recipe for alotion compounded of Eretrian earth (a grey clay), copper ﬂake, ikhthuokolla, frank-incense, verdigris, myrrh, and vinegar. He is probably distinct from other homonymousmedical authors; cf. D ( M ?).RE 5.1 (1903) 976 (#132), M. Wellmann. GLIMDionusios of Utica, Cassius (90 BCE)Agronomist who translated Mago the Carthaginian’s encyclopedic work on agriculture intoGreek, reducing it to eight books while adding a further 12 books of excerpts from theGreek agricultural writers listed by V (RR 1.1.8–10). The complete volume was dedi-cated to the praetor P. Sextilius, governor of Africa in 89 or 88 BCE. Dionusios discussedcattle-breeding in his ﬁrst book, leeks in the seventh (Mago frr.42, 63, Speranza). If thealteration of S  B, s.v. Ituk¯e, is correct, Cassius also composed awork on botanical medicine (Rhizotomika) with illustrations of the ﬂora discussed (P25.8), including rape, parsley, orache, and asphodel (20.19, 113, 219, 22.67; cf. Schol. Nik.519). Like the agricultural work, this collection may have been partly an anthology, drawingon writers such as D   K and K  K (I). “Dionusios”suggests a Greek-speaking freedman, perhaps from the household of Cassius Longinus, thepraetor (111 BCE) who escorted Iugurtha from Africa to Rome.Ed.: Speranza (1971) 75–119.Rawson (1985) 135; BNP 2 (2003) 1172, C. Hünemörder. Philip ThibodeauDionusodo¯ ros (Pharm.) (300 BCE – 115 CE)A , in G  CMLoc 1.2 (12.409–410 K.), cites his al¯opekia remedy, composed ofashed raw-hide in sharp vinegar (optionally add thapsia-juice), as a scalp-rinse to exfoliate 265

P:277

D I O N U S O D O¯ RO S , M A E C I U S S E U E RU Sthe skin and produce hair-growth. Wellmann tentatively equates him with the oculist “C.Iulius Dionysodorus” known from a collyrium stamp: Grotefend (1867) #43; but thename is exceedingly common (LGPN).RE 5.1 (1903) 1004–1005 (#17), M. Wellmann. PTKDionusodo¯ ros, Maecius Seuerus (100 – 200 CE)Platonist, wrote a commentary on the Timaeus, to which P repeatedly refers (e.g. inTim. 1.204.16–18), and On the Soul (possibly part of the same commentary), from whichE (PE 13.17) preserves an extract. “Seuerus,” as he is known in the later tradition, isprobably identical with “Flauius Maecius Se[. . .] Dionusodo¯rus, Platonic philosopherand counselor” honored in an inscription from Antinoe¯, IBM IV 1076 = SB III 6012. ADionusodo¯rus mentioned by D  L (2.42) may well be the same person.Seuerus was read in P ’ school. S (in Metaph. 84.23–5) censures Seuerus formisusing mathematics to study nature.Ed.: Gioè (2002) 379–433.RE 2A.2 (1923) 2007–2010, K. Praechter; P. Cauderlier and K.A. Worp, “SB III 6012 = IBM IV 1076: Unrecognised Evidence for a Mysterious Philosopher,” Aegyptus 62 (1982) 72–79; Dillon (1996) 262–264; NP 11.484–485, M. Baltes and M.L. Lakmann. Jan OpsomerDionusodo¯ ros (of Kaunos?) (ca 200 BCE)We know of three geometers named Dionusodo¯ros: (1) of Amise¯ne¯, mentioned byS  (12.3.16), (2) of Me¯los, mentioned by Strabo¯n (ibid.) and P (2.248), whorelates a foolish anecdote about his funeral inscription, and (3) of Kaunos, one ofthe teachers of P  , and thus a member of a circle of intellectuals includingthe mathematicians A   P , Eude¯mos of Pergamon (otherwise unknown),Z  , and probably D . This milieu makes Dionusodo¯ros of Kaunosthe most credible candidate for the authorship of two sophisticated geometrical resultsattributed to an unspeciﬁed Dionusodo¯ros. E (In Arch. Sph. Cyl. pp.152–160 H.) quotes an alternative solution by Dionuso-do¯ros to the problem of dividing a sphere by a plane such that the two segments are in agiven ratio, which A   reduced to a complex division of a line segment in Sphereand Cylinder 2.4. Dionusodo¯ros’ construction solves the problem by ﬁnding the intersectionsof a parabola and a hyperbola. H   (Metrika 2.13) reports that Dionusodo¯ros’ On theTorus contained a formula eﬀectively relating the volume of a torus to the diameters of thegenerating circle and the circle of revolution. The proof, which probably resembledArchime¯de¯s’ procedures in Sphere and Cylinder and other works, is lost. V (9.8)attributes the invention of the conical sundial to a Dionusodo¯ros.DSB 4.108–110, I. Bulmer-Thomas; Knorr (1986) 263–277; R. Netz, The Transformation of Mathematics in the Early Mediterranean World (2004) 29–38. Alexander Jones 266

P:278

DIOPHANTOS OF ALEXANDRIADiophane¯s of Nikaia (85 – 60 BCE)Compiled a six-book epitome of C D’ translation of Mago’s agriculturalwork, dedicated to Deiotaros, tetrarch of Galatia; cf. V, RR 1.1.8–10. The popularepitome eventually superseded the original translation; Varro treats it as well-known ca 55BCE (1.9.7). A collection of “paradoxes” was also ascribed to Diophane¯s (Pho¯tios Bibl.163), though it may be the case that these were simply items culled from his agriculturalwork.Ed.: Speranza (1971) 75–119.RE 5.1 (1903) 1049 (#9), M. Wellmann, S.6 (1935) 27, W. Kroll; 18.3 (1949) 1137–1166 (§22, 1159), K. Ziegler; KP 2.85, H.G. Gundel. Philip ThibodeauDiophantos (Geog.) (325 – 150 BCE)A   K notes that Diophantos wrote about the north-lands; scrapsare preserved in the scholia to Apollo¯nios of Rhodes and in S  B, s.v.Abioi and Libustinoi.FGrHist 805. PTKDiophantos of Alexandria (ca 250 CE)Greek mathematician, author of a sizeable and inﬂuential algebraic treatise, the Arithm¯etika.A small fragment of a treatise on polygonal numbers is also attributed to him. Diophantoslived in Alexandria, the main scientiﬁc center of antiquity. Not mentioned before the 4th c.,he is thought to have lived in the 3rd, and the Dionusios addressed in the introduction tothe Arithm¯etika may have been Saint Dionusios of Alexandria (d. ca 264 CE). An arithmeticalepigram from the Anthologia Graeca (14.126), retracing some events of his life (marriage at33, birth of his son at 38, death of his son four years before his own at 84), seemscontrived. The Arithm¯etika has not been preserved in its entirety; only ten of its 13 books (biblia) havebeen transmitted, at diﬀerent times and in a diﬀerent form. Six in Greek (numbered 1–6)reached Europe in the 15th c. Four more, in a 9th c. Arabic translation, (numbered 4–7)were discovered in 1968; since this latter numbering turned out to be correct, the last threeGreek books must follow them, probably as Books 8–10, while Books 11–13, still missing,must be considered lost. The Arabic version (originally covering Books 1–7) is notably moreprolix than the extant Greek text, for it completes computations and veriﬁes that solutionsindeed fulﬁll the equations. Certainly Greek in origin, it must be the commentary (hupom-n¯ema) which the Souda Y-166 (as emended by Tannery 1895: 36) attributed to H, thedaughter of T   A. In the introduction, Diophantos provides general instructions regarding treating equa-tions, and he deﬁnes relevant symbols, with signs for the unknown and its powers, as wellas for a few operations, the ﬁrst known algebraic symbolism. Like its late medieval succes-sors, Diophantos’ symbolism originated in scribal abbreviations of commonly repeatedwords. Then Diophantos proceeds with the problems (some 250 survive). In Book 1, theproblems are of the familiar kind seen by the student in school and solved, with an earlyform of algebra, by applying identities already in use in Mesopotamia; but Diophantos 267

P:279

DIOPHANTOS OF LUKIAtreats these problems in his new, algebraic way. Books 2–3 teach and apply some funda-mental methods which are then extended to further problems in Books 4–7; for their scopeis, as Diophantos says, “experience and skill” (introductions to Books 4 and 7, pp. 87, 156).(Thus no really new methods are taught here, perhaps explaining why the lacuna in themiddle of the six Greek books escaped notice.) The last three Greek books contain problemsof a notably higher level. All the problems require that the solution be a rational andpositive number. The Arithm¯etika’s historical importance is twofold. First, it is the only surviving testimonyof higher algebra in antiquity. Secondly, the extant Greek books initiated the ﬁrst modernstudies on number theory, beginning principally with the observations of the French math-ematician Pierre de Fermat (1601–1665) in his copy of Diophantos. (Fermat’s note onproblem 2.8 is well-known: the equality xn+yn=zn with n any integer larger than 2 is impos-sible in rational numbers; this assertion was to occupy mathematicians for more than threecenturies until proved in 1992–1995.) Most of Diophantos’ problems are indeterminate ones of the second degree, that is, withmore unknowns than equations. Now such problems may be soluble or not. Since Diophan-tos had few general methods at his disposal, only through skillful assumptions were hisproblems made determinate and reduced to an already known problem or method; depart-ing form Diophantos’ assumptions may lead to quite another situation. Furthermore,Diophantos states, when necessary, that certain numbers cannot be represented as the sumof two squares, or as the sum of three squares, but without oﬀering any proof. So it is hardlysurprising that later mathematicians found in Diophantos an incentive for further researchto the extent that Diophantos’ name is now associated with various ﬁelds of modernmathematics quite foreign to the content and spirit of his Arithm¯etika.Ed.: P. Tannery, Diophanti Alexandrini Opera omnia 2 vv. (1893–1895, repr. 1974); Jacques Sesiano, Books IV to VII of Diophantus’ Arithmetica in the Arabic translation attributed to Qus.ta¯ ibn L¯uqa¯ (1982).Th. Heath, Diophantus of Alexandria (1910, repr. 1964); Jacques Sesiano “An early form of Greek algebra,” Centaurus 40 (1998) 276–302. Jacques SesianoDiophantos of Lukia (40 – 10 BCE)Physician and surgeon, probably identiﬁable with C. Iulius Diophantos, son of C. IuliusHe¯liodo¯ros of Lude¯ in Lukia, responsible for inscribing a remedy on the base of an Askl-e¯pios statue in the Ludean agora (JHS 10 [1889] 59, #11); the father may have been amongI C’s freedmen (ibid., #8). Diophantos’ colic remedy, admired by A  (II),included centaury sap (either Centaurium nemoralis Jord., native to Spain and Portugal, orcommon or lesser centaury, C. erythraea Raﬁn.: Durling 1993: 199), plus castoreum, squill,both white and long pepper, myrrh, rue, hyssop, wormwood, Illyrian iris, saﬀron,ammo¯niakon incense, yellow iris root, Pontic nard, ginger, and black hellebore, adminis-tered with oxumel (G  CMLoc 9.4, 13.281 K.). K , in Gale¯n CMLoc 5.3 (12.845K.), records his salve for burns and intertrigo, eﬀective also against erusipelas, com-pounded from litharge, stag marrow, psimuthion, beeswax, terebinth, frankincenseand olive oil, prepared as needed. A records three remedies: Diophantos’Aphra (sc. “foaming”?) quince-yellow emollient for drawing and squeezing out to healjoints in Gale¯n CMGen 2.7 (13.507 K.); and two antidotes for scorpion and spider bites inAntid. 2.12, 13 (14.175–176, 181 K.), the second of which treats also all serpent bites. 268

P:280

D I O S KO U R I D E¯ S ( M E T RO L O G Y )A   P., in Gale¯n CMGen 5.4 (13.805 K.), discussing the uses of dittany,includes Diophantos’ antidote to any poison, used by P.RE 5.1 (1903) 1051 (#17), M. Wellmann; S.14 (1974) 113–114, J. Benedum. GLIMDiophil- (150 BCE – 50 CE?)An astronomical poem of disputed title (en t¯o epigraphomen¯o Prok[. . .]¯o) survives in eightcorrupt verses (POxy 20 [1952] 2258C fr.1, ad Callimimachi Comam). The scholiast attributesthe verses to a Diophil- (i.e., of uncertain gender). The fragment, following A andK ( frr.110, 387), describes a constellation of seven stars, near Virgo, Leo,Boötes, and the Bear – likely the triangular “Coma Berenices.” The titular expansionProk[omi]¯o (“lock”) suggests an encomium to Berenice. The extremely rare name (LGPN3B) could be corrupted from the less rare Dinophil- (LGPN 3B) or common Diphil-(LGPN ).L. Lehnus, “Notizie Callimachee V,” Acme 54.3 (2001) 283–291 at 285. GLIMDioskoros (Geog.) (ca 50 BCE – 80 CE?)Described a voyage down the east coast of Africa near the equator, according to M T in P, Geog. 1.9, 1.14. Cf. D  and T.RE 5.1 (1903) 1086 (#4), H. Berger. PTKDioskoros (Alch.) (300 – 390 CE)Found in the list of poi¯etai (makers of gold, CAAG 2.25), but no speciﬁc work attributed tohim is found in the Greek alchemical corpus. Dioskoros priest of Serapis at Alexandria isthe dedicatee of S’ Commentary on the Book of D¯emokritos (CAAG 2.56–69); Berthelot(1885: 186) considers our Dioskoros historical. The 10th c. catalogue of books, Kita¯bal-Fihrist, mentions a Book of Dioskoros about the Art.Berthelot (1885) 131, 156, 186, 190–191; Fück (1951) 94 (#1, 5), 122. Cristina VianoDioskoros (Pharm.) (120 BCE – 80 CE)A, in G  CMLoc 8.7 (13.204–205 K.), records his hepatic antidote, ofcassia, kostos, licorice, nard, saﬀron, etc., in honey.Fabricius (1726) 144. PTKDioskouride¯s (Metrology) (ca 60 – 200 CE?)A treatise On Weights and Measures (peri metr¯on kai stathm¯on), surviving as a table in two parts,appears to be attributed to the pharmacist D . One deﬁnes various measure-ments of weight, including three standards of mina (Attic, Italian, Alexandrian). The other, 269

P:281

D I O S KO U R I D E¯ S P H A K A¯ Sin three sections, treats Roman liquid quantities (of wine, olive oil, and honey), includingquantities for the amphora (keramion), urn (ourna), and congium (chous). Dioskouride¯s givesweights of an amphora of wine, oil, and honey as 80, 72, and 70 pounds, agreeing withO.Ed.: MSR 1.132–133, 239–244.RE 5.1 (1903) 974 (#122), Fr. Hultsch. PTK and GLIMDioskouride¯s Phaka¯ s (80 – 45 BCE)He¯rophilean physician, whose epithet means “warty-faced,” resident in Alexandria dur-ing the ﬁrst years of the joint reign of Ptolemy XIII and K VII, likely courtdoctor and roving ambassador under Ptolemy XII Aule¯te¯s (80–51 BCE). C (BC3.109.3–6) is ambiguous about his fate as an emissary of Ptolemy XIII to Akhilla¯s threaten-ing civil war (48 BCE): “[Akhilla¯s] ordered them [Dioskouride¯s and Serapio¯n] arrested andkilled, but one of them was simply wounded and was quickly rescued by his friends andborne away as if he were dead . . .” If Dioskouride¯s survived, he would have been an elderlyand wily court physician “associated with Kleopatra in the time of Antony” (SoudaDelta-1206). He wrote 24 books on medicine (ibid.) as well as tracts on strange Hippokraticterminology (E , Pr., and fr.5 [pp. 5, 91 Nachm.]). In his Strange Diseases, R E reports that (probably this) Dioskouride¯s had composed a work on a nodular-swelling (“bubonic”) plague of uncertain era ravaging Libya (excerpted in O Coll.44.14.2 [CMG 6.2.1, p. 132]). P  A (4.24 [CMG 9.1, p. 345]) quotes directlyfrom “Dioskouride¯s of Alexandria” on skin diseases, providing a careful description:“Dioskouride¯s of Alexandria says that terminthoi are protuberances formed in the skin, thatare round and colored dark green, like the fruit of the terebinth-tree” (cf. pseudo-G Commentary on the Hippocratic Humors 3.26 [16.461 K.]). This small bit of evidence, if typical,suggests an expertise in pharmacology, rather necessary at the Ptolemaic court.RE 5.1 (1903) 1129–1130 (#10), M. Wellmann; von Staden (1989) 519–522 (incl. 7 fragments enumer- ated but not edited). John ScarboroughDioskouride¯s of Alexandria (100 – 120 CE)Wrote commentaries on the H C, A, E 2, 3, 6,P, etc., and a glossary, all much used by G ; only P  A 4.24(CMG 9.1, p. 345) preserves the ethnic. Gale¯n often cites him with A  C,and says he imitated the text-critic Aristarkhos, altering or athetizing passages (In Hipp. EpidVI [CMG 5.10.2.2, pp. 415, 464, 483]), and was accustomed to rewrite passages for clarity(pp. 4, 232, 400); he re-attributed many Hippokratic works, to H ’ grandson(p. 55: N  M), T  K  (p. 76: Epidemics 2 and 6), or D (Gale¯n, Diﬃculty Breathing 2.8 [7.854–855 K.]: Epidemics 5). Gale¯n cites him extensively in hisown Hippokratic Glossary (19.63–64, 83, 88–89, 97, 105–106, 109, 140–142, 148, 152, etc. K.).Manetti and Roselli (1994) 1617–1633; Ihm (2002) #45–46. PTK 270

P:282

D I O S KO U R I D E¯ S O F A N A Z A R B O SDioskouride¯s of Anazarbos (ca 40 – 80 CE) The De materia medica (Greek: Peri hul¯es iatrik¯es) is one of the most inﬂuential works of its kind, but its gifted and energetic author is almost unknown, biographically. Dioskouride¯s’ birthplace was the small city of Anazar- bos, about 100 km east north-east from Tarsos on a major highway in the Roman province of Cilicia. Com- paring passages in P’ Natural History with similar extracts in the De materia medica reveals both quoting independently from S N, so probably Dioskouride¯s was born sometime in the reign of Tiberius or Caligula, and set down his observations in the same decade as Pliny composed his encyclopedia. In the Preface to the De materia medica, Dioskouride¯s intimates he studied herbal pharmacology at Tarsos, and that here were teachers of medical botany, and medicaments fab-Dioskouride¯s of Anazarbos ricated from animal products and minerals; an early and(Vind. Med. Gr. l, f.3V ) © Österreich- respected instructor was A  T, to whom Dioskouride¯s dedicates the De materia medica. G ische Nationalbibliothek notes that Areios was a famous teacher in Tarsos inthe right decade, and the De materia medica and other texts reﬂect teaching centers inthe eastern half of the Roman Empire, cities with reputations for given subjects avail-able for instruction. Alexandria in Egypt long remained a center for medical learning, andother urban clusters of medical education existed in Laodikeia, Ephesos, and probablySmurna.Dioskouride¯s traveled widely in the Greek-speaking parts of the empire: prominent arehis citations of herbal lore and pharmacology in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, various provincesin Asia Minor, Greece and the Islands, and he visited Greek communities in Sicily, southernItaly, and southern Gaul. He was not part of his contemporary elite, although Areios’connections with the consular Bassus suggest intermittent if occasionally important con-tacts. Preface 4 (oistha gar h¯emin strati¯otikon ton bion) does not mean that Dioskouride¯s was amilitary physician, but perhaps he had served in an eastern legion for short periods as acivilian doctor, a common custom in the western legions. “My soldier’s life” likely says thatDioskouride¯s lived as a soldier as he journeyed from region to region, listening to theinhabitants and surviving on the minimum of food, drink, and clothing. Perhaps he madehis living as an itinerant physician in the manner of the medical travelers recorded inthe works under the name of H .Dioskouride¯s arranges his material into ﬁve books, writing in the Preface that his way oforganization is superior to previous compilations of drugstuﬀs, but he never explicitlyexplains his new scheme. Clues are the linking of “similars” in each book, or as he writes inPreface 3, “. . . [not] using the alphabetical arrangement which splits materia medica and theirproperties from those which they are closely related.” Drugs will be classed according to thedunameis (almost always “properties” to Dioskouride¯s) they evince as pharmaceuticals, asthey “act” in or on the body of a patient. Sense-perceptions (quite probably adapted fromT) are central: smells linked with tastes identify drugs in Book 1 (aromaticoils, salves, trees, and shrubs, and the strongly fragrant liquids, gums, and fruits produced by 271

P:283

D I O S KO U R I D E¯ S O F A N A Z A R B O Sthem); Book 2 takes up animals and parts of animals, pharmaceuticals fashioned fromvarious insects, crustaceans, arthropods, reptiles, and larger animals, both wild anddomestic, and then follow cereals, pot herbs, and others which are “sharper”; Book 3 con-tinues with more roots, juices, and seeds, and Book 4 provides roots and herbs not includedpreviously; ﬁnally in Book 5 are details of wines and mineralogy, disclosing that Dioskou-ride¯s knew well the vintner’s technologies since ancient wine production struggled to pro-duce a beverage that did not become “sour” (viz. turn into vinegar), and the “additives” inBook 5 are priceless listings of ingredients used to ﬂavor wines, or were substances used inhopes of controlling what we call fermentation. In Book 5 Dioskouride¯s considers subjectsfar beyond what moderns expect in a work on pharmacology: here are the technologies ofquicklime, the important properties of minerals as manufactured into drugstuﬀs and otherproducts, and why one has to know the best sites of mining and smelting of ﬁne ores, so thatthe physician can procure good mineral pharmaceuticals; knowledge of such metallurgicaltechnologies enables the doctor to recognize the best remedies, as contrasted to some com-mon poisons, also derived from minerals. Several of Dioskouride¯s’ descriptions became standard, appearing repeatedly in accountsof medicines in later Greek, Latin, Arabic, and Armenian, coming down to the ﬁrst printededitions of the Renaissance. Illustrative are the opium poppy (4.64), mandrake (4.75), willow(1.104), the chaste tree (1.103), the two blister beetles (2.61), sea creatures and similar landanimals (2.1–33: n.b. beaver castor, 2.24, standard to the 18th c.), the numerous milks (2.70),rennets (2.75), fats (2.76), honeys, beeswax, and bee glue (2.82–84), the ﬂavorings of wines(5. 34–73), minerals and ores (5.76–162), and many others. The complete De materia medica isa compaction of over 700 items fused into more than 2,000 recipes and formulas, and itsbulk guaranteed it would be modiﬁed and augmented according to local requirements. Theoriginal work did not have illustrations, but when codices replaced papyrus rolls, scribes andartists produced handsome versions of the De materia medica, with the Codex Juliana Aniciaof 512 CE the earliest, extant exemplar. First to employ Dioskouride¯s in a rearranged,alphabetical format was O, physician and friend of Julian the Apostate (reigned361–363 CE), but papyri as early as 150 CE show recensions, as do allusions to P A’s alphabetical Herbs (ca 100 CE) nestled in Gale¯n (Simples 6. pr [11.792–796K.]). The De materia medica achieved immediate popularity reﬂected in the citation byE , who mentions Dioskouride¯s’ synonyms for leopard’s bane (31 [p. 51 Nachm.]= Diosk. 4.76).Ed.: H. Stadler, “Dioscorides Longobardus (Cod. Lat. Monacensis 337),” Romanische Forschungen 10 (1897) 181–247, 369–445; 11 (1899) 1–121; 13 (1902) 161–243; 14 (1903) 601–635; M. Wellmann, Pedanii Dioscuridis Anazarbei De materia medica libri quinque (1906–1914; repr. 1958): the edition cited; C. Bonner, “A Papyrus of Dioscurides in the University of Michigan Collection,” TAPA 53 (1922) 142–168; H. Mih˘aescu, Dioscoride Latino Materia medica libro primo (1938); C.E. Dubler and E. Terés, La “Materia Médica” de Dioscórides. Transmisión Medieval y Renacentista (1953–1959); Fr. Rosenthal, “Pharmacology” in The Classical Heritage in Islam (1975) 194–197; Scarborough and Nutton (1982) 187–227; A. Dietrich, Dioscurides Triumphans. Ein anonymer arabischer Kommentar (Ende 12. Jahr. N. Chr.) zur Materia medica (1988); Idem, Die Dioskurides-Erklärung des Ibn al-Bait¯ar (1991); R. Flemming and A.E. Hanson, “2. Dioscorides, De materia medica II 76.2 and 76.7–18,” in I. Andorlini, ed., Greek Medical Papyri I (2001) 9–35; M. Aufmesser, Pedanius Dioscurides aus Anazarba Fünf Bücher über die Heilkunde (2002); L.Y. Beck, Pedanius Dioscorides of Anazarbus De materia medica (2005).Wellmann (1898); Idem, Die Schrift des Dioskurides Peri Hapl¯on Pharmak¯on (1914); Idem (1916); H. Gerstinger, Dioscurides Codex Vindobonensis Med. Gr. 1 der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Kommentarband 272

P:284

DIPHILOS OF SIPHNOSzu der Faksimileausgabe (1970); DSB 4 (1971) 119–123, J.M. Riddle; M. Ullmann, “Pharmaceutics,” inIslamic Medicine (1978) 103–106; J.M. Riddle, “Dioscorides,” CTC 4 (1980) 1–143; O. Mazal, Pﬂanzen,Wurzeln, Säfte, Samen. Antike Heilkunst in Miniaturen des Wiener Dioskurides (1981); M.M. Sadek, The ArabicMateria Medica of Dioscorides (1983); A. Touwaide, “L’authenticité et l’origine de deux traits detoxicologie attributés à Dioscoride,” Janus 70 (1983) 1–53; J.M. Riddle, “Byzantine Commentarieson Dioscorides,” in Scarborough (1985b) 95–102; J.M. Riddle, Dioscorides on Pharmacy and Medicine(1985); A. Touwaide, “Un Recueil grec de pharmacologie du Xe siècle illustré au XIVe siècle: LeVaticanus Gr. 284,” Scriptorium 39 (1985) 13–56 with plates 7–8; Scarborough (1995); A. Touwaide,“Tradition and Innovation in Mediaeval Arabic Medicine. The Translations and the Heuristic Roleof the Word,” Forum 5.2 (1995) 203–213; OCD3 483–484, J.M. Riddle; A. Touwaide, “La thérapeu-tique médicamenteuse de Dioscoride à Galien: du pharmaco-centrisme au medico-centrisme,” in A.Debru, ed., Galen on Pharmacology (1997) 255–282; M. Aufmesser, Etymologische und wortgeschichtlicheErläuterungen zu De materia medica des Pedanius Dioscurides Anazarbeus (2000); J.E. Raven, “Lecture 4:Primitive Medicine. The Rhizotomists and Druggists. Crateuas and the Illustration of Plants. TheCodex Vindobonensis. Dioscorides’ Herbal, its Nature and Inﬂuence,” in F. Raven et al., edd., Plantsand Plant Lore in Ancient Greece (2000) 33–40. John ScarboroughDiphilos (200 – 25 BCE)Writer on machines listed by V 7. pr.14, and to be distinguished from Q. TC’s architect (C, ad Q. fr.3.1.1).RE 5.1 (1903) 1156 (#19–20), E. Fabricius. PTKDiphilos of Laodikeia (40 BCE – 180 CE)Uncertainly dated grammarian; wrote on N’ Th¯eriaka. Wellmann dated him tothe High Roman Empire, solely because most commentaries on Nikandros were composedthen. The only two testimonies about Diphilos do not concern Nikandros directly. (1) Schol.Theokritos 10.1–3b, Diphilos quotes boukaios as a proper name (cf. Theokritos Id. 10.1); but inNik. Th¯er. 5 and fr. 90 boukaios = boukolos, herdsman. (2) Athe¯naios, Deipn. 7 (314d), Diphilos hoLaodikeus speaks of the torpedo-ﬁsh: referring to its eﬃcacy even through a solid body, as forthe Basilisk? If so, he augmented Nikandros’ teachings which neither attribute this power tothe Basilisk (Th¯er. 396–410) nor mention the Torpedo. The Schol. Nik. Th¯er. may have usedDiphilos; this is however impossible to prove.RE 5.1 (1903) 1155 (#18), M. Wellmann; Jacques (2002) 2. (and n. 300). Jean-Marie JacquesDiphilos of Siphnos (300 – 250 BCE)Greek physician, active at L’ court (306–281 BCE: Ath., Deipn. 2 [51a]). In Ondiet for ill and healthy people, discussing a wide variety of vegetables, fruits and other foods(including ﬁshes), Diphilos describes the eﬀects of single foods on human health and givesinstructions for preparing them: Ath. 8 (355a).RE 5.1 (1903) 1155, W. Schmid; J. Scarborough, “Diphilus of Siphnos and Hellenistic Medical Dietetics,” JHM 25 (1970) 194–201; KP 2.97, F. Kudlien; BNP 4 (2004) 527, V. Nutton; AML 230, M. Stamatu. Daniela Manetti 273

P:285

DISSOI LOGOIDissoi Logoi (ca 400 BCE)Short anonymous treatise, written in Doric and transmitted in the MSS on the folii followingthe text of S E, currently known by the initial words, Dissoi Logoi (DoubleArguments). H. Estienne published it in 1570 under the title Dialexeis; Diels included it in theEarly Sophistic. According to most scholars, the treatise was composed about 400 BCE (ca 403–395according to Robinson). The ﬁrst ﬁve of the treatise’s nine brief chapters treat moral (good/bad, beautiful/ugly, just/unjust), epistemological (true/false) and ontological questions(being/not being). The next four chapters refer to topics discussed by the sophists, such aswhether virtue and wisdom can be taught, the assignment of oﬃces by lot, the ideal of thewise man, and a short praise of memory. The fact that the author could have been a student summarizing the controversy betweentwo sophists expounding opposite viewpoints on the same topic would account for itsimperfect literary form. Although philosophically controversial, the Dissoi Logoi shows some interesting scientiﬁcaspects. The ﬁrst ﬁve chapters expound two theses, the ﬁrst of which, like P ’work, could be described as relativistic for two reasons: ﬁrstly, because it makes use ofethnographic accounts depicting the variation and opposition between ways of life andcultural and moral values in diﬀerent societies or diﬀerent social groups. Secondly, becauseit employs a language of dyadic predicates (good, beautiful for . . .) in one case and ofcomplex propositions (just, true if . . .) in the other case. The second thesis, Socratic incharacter, develops arguments against the relativistic thesis. Therefore, the controversyconcerns both anthropology and logic. In the dispute between the defenders of both theses, some reﬁned discursive devices showthe high level attained in the art of criticism, such as the use of thought experiments (2.18,6.12) or the distinction between the premises and the conclusion of an argument (6.13).Ed.: DK 90; T.M. Robinson, Contrasting Arguments. An Edition of the Dissoi Logoi (1979).DPA 2 (1994) 888–889, M. Narcy; M. Untersteiner, I Soﬁsti 3 (1967) 148–191. José Solana DuesoD O T ⇒ D PDoarios (325 – 540 CE)A  A 12.47 (p. 681 Cornarius) cites Doarios the bishop for a gout-remedycontaining shelf-fungus, parsley, gentian, etc. The name seems otherwise unattested, and islikely corrupt: besides “Dareios,” or else an ethnic based on Euhe¯meros’ mythical land Do¯a(D   S 5.44.6–7), perhaps most likely is Daorsios, from the Hellenized Illyr-ian town of Daorsi, cf. P Book 32, fr.9.2, S  7.5.5, and BNP 4 (2004) 78–79.Fabricius (1726) 145. PTKDomitius Nigrinus (ca 10 BCE – ca 90 CE)A   in G , CMGen 7.12 (13.1021 K.), cites his powerful akopon, containing,among much else, mandrake and euphorbia (i.e., post I).PIR2 D-155. PTK 274

P:286

D O¯ R I O¯ N ( B I O L . )Domninos of Larissa (ca 430 – ca 475 CE)Neo-Platonist philosopher and mathematician, studied under S with P,who reports two of his theories (In Tim. I.109.30 and 122.18). D’ Vita Isidoridescribes him as “a philosopher,” “of Syrian origin” (which, added to another anecdote con-cerning Domninos’ disrespect for “the Syrian Law,” may indicate he was a Jew), “fromLaodikeia and Larissa, a Syrian city” (Laodikeia may refer to his residence in Thessalia).M  calls him “philosopher and successor” (Vita Procli 26), implying that he may havebeen Syrianus’ successor, which is not improbable but reliant upon meager evidence. BothProklos and Damaskios respected him as an able mathematician, despite their strong oppos-ition to his philosophical opinions; Syrianus, in contrast, held Domninos and Proklos in thesame respect. Domninos wrote a Manual of introduction to arithmetic (extant), wherein his Elements ofarithmetic (lost) is attested. To Domninos is also attributed the tract How one is to subtract a ratiofrom a ratio. The ﬁrst text points to a lucid and competent treatment of ancient arithmetic,based mainly on N and E, with a preference for the latter. The ﬁrst twotreatises were meant to introduce the reading of P, following T   S’stradition. The third one, together with Proklos In Tim. 122.18, intimate Domninos’ interestin mathematical astronomy.Ed.: F. Romano, Domnino di Larissa (2000).DPA 2 (1994) 892–896, A. Segonds. Alain BernardDomnus (ca 450 – 500 CE)Jewish physician, taught and was superseded by G  P (S B, s.v. Gea; Souda Gamma-207), listed as a commentator on the HC, A in pseudo-O commentary.RE 5.1 (1903) 1526, M. Wellmann; Stern 2 (1980) 678–679; P. Kibre, Hippocrates Latinus (1985) 31; Ihm (2002) #48. Annette Yoshiko ReedDo¯ rio¯ n (Mech.) (200 – 25 BCE)Writer on machines and inventor of the lusipolemos, listed by P. Berol. P-13044, col.8.Diels (1920) 30, n.1. PTKDo¯ rio¯ n (Biol.) (1st c. BCE)Compiled gastronomical and dietetic treatises and authored a book On Fishes, where hegave names, descriptions and main characteristics of diﬀerent species, apparently withgreat detail (Ath., Deipn. 7 [306e]). Do¯rio¯n was concerned with lexicology and synonyms(Deipn. 7 [282c, 285a, 304c, 315f, etc.]) and fond of cookery books (e.g., Euthude¯mos, OnPickles; E, On Cookery). He advised on culinary preparations (Deipn. 7 [287c, 300f],and 7 [309f]: seasoning garﬁshes) and oﬀered one technical recommendation (using thejuice of a ﬁsh called gnapheus, unfortunately not identiﬁed, against stains: 7 [297c]). Do¯rio¯n, 275

P:287

D O¯ RO T H E O S O F AT H E N Squoted 34 times, is considered Athe¯naios’ main source, although indirect, for Book 7 onﬁshes.GGLA 1 (1891) 850; RE 5.2 (1905) 1563 (#3), M. Wellmann. Arnaud ZuckerDo¯ rotheos of Athens (325 BCE? – 79 CE)Author of a medical poem quoted by P (22.91) for a herb called condrion that could behelpful for stomach and digestive ailments. Do¯rotheos is also cited among Pliny’s sources:1.ind.12 (on the nature of trees) and 1.ind.13 (on foreign trees). He is probably diﬀerent fromD   H .FGrHist 145; RE 5.2 (1905) 1571 (#19), M. Wellmann. Claudio MeliadòDo¯ rotheos of He¯liopolis (250 BCE – 95 CE)Consulted by A   P. in G  Antid. 2.14 (14.183, 187 K.) on cures forsnake bites. Perhaps identical to Do¯rotheos medicus, possibly from Egypt, whom P  T mentioned (On Marvels 26). Identiﬁcation of this doctor with the Do¯rotheosquoted by P (22.91) is doubtful.RE 5.2 (1905) 1571 (#19), M. Wellmann. Jan Bollansée, Karen Haegemans, and Guido SchepensDo¯rotheos of Khaldaea (250 BCE – 50 CE?)Wrote On stones. P-P De ﬂuu. 23.3 (1165A) preserves a single fragment of thesecond book, regarding the stone sikuonos. Among various identiﬁcations proposed areD   S , and the homonymous author of the Pandekt¯e quoted by Clement ofAlexandria, Str. 1.21.133. According to Jacoby, he is entirely ﬁctive.E. Hiller, “Zur Quellenkritik des Clemens Alexandrinus,” Hermes 21 (1886) 126–133 at 129; GGM 1.; RE 5.2 (1905) 1571 (#15), E. Schwartz; Schlereth (1931) 114–115; Jacoby (1940) 95–96; FGrHist 289; Halleux and Schamp (1985) , n.8; De Lazzer (2000) 64–66; De Lazzer (2003) 81–82. Eugenio AmatoDo¯ rotheos of Sido¯ n (50 – 100 CE)Authored a widely inﬂuential astrological poem in Greek hexameters, comprising ﬁvebooks, addressed to “his son, Herme¯s.” Only brief excerpts of the original text survive inquotations by later authors, but an Arabic translation of a lost Pahlavi version of the wholeis extant (see P, T I). At the beginning of the poem, Do¯rotheos,calling himself an Egyptian, claims to have traveled through Babylo¯n as well as Egypt, butthese are presumably ﬁctions. That Do¯rotheos was active in the 1st c. CE is established byeight horoscopes dating from 7 BCE to 43 CE and included for illustrative purposes. Do¯ro-theos’ work, notwithstanding its use of verse as a medium, is a practical handbook. The ﬁrstfour books address interpreting personal horoscopes to determine the individual’s characterand the course of his life; the ﬁfth concerns katarkhic astronomy.276

P:288

DOURIS OF SAMOSEd.: D.E. Pingree, Dorothei Sidonii Carmen Astrologicum (1976).Irby-Massie and Keyser (2002) 93–96 (partial trans.). Alexander JonesD  (A. II) ⇒ D  (A.)Do¯ sitheos (pharm.) (30 BCE – 540 CE)A  A 8.70 (CMG 8.2, p. 530), records his opium-based pill for “blood-spitting”(cf. phthisis), containing also frankincense, lukion, myrtle, saﬀron, roses, etc.; and P A 7.11.45 (CMG 9.2, p. 308), his liver-pill, containing aloes, kostos, malabath-ron, mastic, shelf-fungus, etc.Fabricius (1726) 146. PTKDo¯ sitheos of Pe¯lousion (250 – 210 BCE)Student of K  and a correspondent of A  . He wrote and observed in Alex-andria, and perhaps on Ko¯s. The name, meaning “god-given,” is typically Jewish, so it maytranslate Nathaniel. After Kono¯n died, Archime¯de¯s addressed four works to Do¯sitheos,providing requested proofs, while acknowledging Do¯sitheos’ familiarity, not expertise, withgeometry, although according to D , On Burning Mirrors 1, he was the ﬁrst to discoverthe focal property of the parabola. His astronomical contributions chieﬂy concerned thecalendar, on which he wrote three works: Appearances of Fixed Stars (rising and setting dates),Weather-signs (seasonal weather-predictions based on astronomical phenomena), and On theOktaete¯ris of E (all lost). Notes from the ﬁrst and second are preserved in thecalendar appended to G’ Introduction, in P, and in P’s Phaseis. A workentitled To Diod¯oros (an exceedingly common name) apparently gave information on the lifeof A.R. Netz, “The First Jewish Scientist?” SCI 17 (1998) 27–33; BNP 4 (2004) 695 (#3), M. Folkerts. PTKDouris of Samos (ca 340 – 260 BCE)Greek historian and tyrant of Samos, claimed descent from Alkibiade¯s, probably born inSicily after his family’s banishment from Samos when Athens captured the island fromPersia in 366 BCE. His father, Kaios, an Olympic boxing victor, tyrant of Samos, had threesons: Douris who inherited the Samian tyranny, Lunkeos, a comic poet and friend ofMenander, and Lusagoras involved in Samian politics. In about 304–302 BCE Douris andhis brother Lunkeos studied under T in Athens, returning to Samos in 300.Douris composed several historiographical works including a biography of Agathokle¯s theSicilian tyrant (at least four books), a history of Macedon (at least 23 books), and a localhistory of Samos (at least two books). He also wrote various (lost) works on tragedy, art, lawsand competitions. His interest in Macedon and Samos had some geographical undertones;A  expressed appreciation of Douris’ work. His style followed theHe¯rodotean tradition, emphasizing fascination and amusement.Ed.: FGrHist 76; P. Pédech, Trois historiens méconnus: Théopompe, Duris, Phylarque (CUF 1989) 255–389; F. Landucci Gattinoni, Duride di Samo (1997). 277

P:289

D R A K O¯ N O F K E R K U R AR.B. Kebric, In the Shadow of Macedon: Duris of Samos (1977); D. Knoepﬂer, “Trois historiens hellénis- tiques: Douris de Samos, Hiéronymos de Cardia, Philochore d’Athènes,” in Histoire et Historiographie dans l’Antiquité (2001) 25–44. Daniela DueckDrako¯ n of Kerkura (80? – 120 CE)Wrote an On stones (P, QR 22.41 and Ath., Deipn. 15.46 [692d]). Drako¯n maypostdate P to whom he was apparently unknown. However, his interest in the Januslegend (to whom the invention of the crown, rafts, boats and bronze coinage are attributed)might suggest the Augustan age.RE 5.2 (1905) 1663 (#16), M. Wellmann. Eugenio AmatoDrako¯n of Ko¯s (400 – 350 BCE)G , commenting on two Hippokratic treatises, mentions Drako¯n the son ofH  , and brother of T  K , and suggests that some claimed thatDrako¯n authored them: In Hipp. Nat. Hom 2.1 (CMG 5.9.1, p. 58) and In Hipp. Prorrhet. I 2.17(CMG 5.9.2, p. 68). S , Vita Hipp. 15 (CMG 4, p. 178), describes the family; SoudaDelta-1497 distorts that account.Von Staden (1989) 64; van der Eijk (2000–2001) fr.13. PTK“Dtrums” (230 – 30 BCE?)Wrote a Greek work on burning mirrors surviving only in Arabic, unknown beyond histext itself, which has only one internal reference, to an anonymous Katoptrika. Rashedrenders the author’s original name, distorted beyond recognition in Arabic transliterationand subsequent tradition, according to an ad-hoc transliteration of the Arabic charactersused for the name: DTRWMS. The treatise’s level and contents are comparable toD ’, and may suggest a Hellenistic date, but the methods used indicate no depend-ence of one treatise on the other. There is, furthermore, no clear dependence or inﬂuenceon A , Didumos (also edited by Rashed 2000, and post-Anthe¯mios), or the Bob-bio fragment (see Rashed 1997). The Arabic translator has explicitly replaced the ﬁrst twoparts, treating proprieties of conic sections, with excerpts of A ’ K¯onika. Onlythe third part is translated from Dtrums’ Greek; it ﬁrst addresses the properties of theparabolic mirror, including a skillful and original point by point construction of the para-bola, given its axis and diameter (prop. 12 and 13). The end discusses the burning proper-ties of the spherical mirror (prop. 14 and 15) and includes an original discussion of thepath of reﬂected sunrays, coming to meet the axis after more than one reﬂection on themirror.Ed.: R. Rashed, Œuvres philosophiques et scientiﬁques d’al-Kindi, v. 1, L’optique et la catoptrique (1997) 117–120; Rashed (2000) 153–213. Alain Bernard and Kevin van Bladel 278

P:290

DULCITIUSDulcitius (180 – 360 CE)O, Ecl. Med. 114.8 (CMG 6.2.2, p. 289), cites his remedy against warts of all kinds(thumoi, murm¯ekiai, akrokhordonai): fava beans, bruised, pounded, and applied. The name isattested from the late 2nd c. CE to the era of Oreibasios: CIL 3.7088, 3.12030, LGPN 4.111(Doulkitios), PLRE 1 (1971) 273–274, esp. Libanios, Orat. 42.24.(*) PTK 279

P:291

EEgnatius (of Spain?) (ca 100 – 50 BCE?)Wrote a poem De Rerum Natura in at least three books, of which M (Sat. 6.5.2, 12)preserves two very short passages: in fr. 1 Blänsdorf, Egnatius speaks about metal working,and in fr. 2, he describes the Moon (Phoebe¯) setting or disappearing at dawn. Egnatiuslived between Accius and V (150–50 BCE), and probably was a contemporary ofL. Bergk and Baehrens identiﬁed him with the Egnatius Celtiber mentioned byCatullus (Carm. 37 and 39), a rather unlikely conjecture. It is also impossible to ascertain ifEgnatius were an imitator of Lucretius or wrote independently.Ed.: N. Marinone, “I frammenti di Egnazio,” in Poesia Latina in frammenti (1974) 179–199; FLP 147– 148.BNP 4 (2004) 842 (#I.4), P.L. Schmidt. Claudio MeliadòEire¯naios (250 BCE – 25 CE)Pharmacist whose remedy for uitiligo (psoriasis) comprised alkuoneion, natron, cumin, anddried ﬁg leaves, pounded with vinegar, to be applied under sunlight and washed oﬀ toprevent corrosion (C 5.28.19C).RE 9.2 (1916) 2032 (#3), H. Gossen. GLIMEkhekrate¯s of Phleious (400 – 360 BCE)Student of P and of E (D  L 8.46; I VP251, 267), he described So¯crate¯s’ last day to Phaedo, and sympathized with the view thatthe soul “is a kind of harmony” (P, Phaedo 57a, 88d–e). A later legend suggested thatPlato visited Ekhekrate¯s at Lokri (pseudo-Plato Epist. 9 [358b]; C Fin. 5.87; Val. Max.8.7. ext.3).DK 53; BNP 4 (2004) 781 (#2), C. Riedweg; OCD3 501 C. Roueché. GLIMEkphantos of Surakousai (400 – 350 BCE?)Ekphantos belongs to a group of later Pythagoreans active in Surakousai in the ﬁrst partof the 4th c. (DK 50–51, 55). As distinct from other later Pythagoreans, Ekphantos’ 280

P:292

E L E U T H E RO Stheories are described in some detail in the doxographical tradition (DK 51 A1–5), implyingthat he wrote a treatise on natural philosophy that was available to T. In thecatalogue of Pythagoreans, compiled by A, his birthplace is given as Kroto¯n(DK 59 A1), but otherwise he is from Surakousai (A1–2, 5). He must be earlier thanH    H  P , who accepted his theory that the Earth rotatesaround its own axis. Ekphantos could have been a follower of P, though notnecessarily his pupil. As a philosopher Ekphantos is an example of an eclectic, typical of late Pre-Socratics.Following D  he taught that the world consists of indivisible bodies (adiairetas¯omata, atoma) and void (A2), but is governed by “divine power, which he calls ‘mind’ and‘soul’,” as A believed, and not by necessity (A1, 4). The idea that he identiﬁedthese adiaireta s¯omata with “Pythagorean monadas”, i.e. arithmetical units (A2), which gaverise to the Pythagorean “number atomism,” is unattested in the other testimonia onEkphantos and comes most probably from doxographers. Ekphantos’ skepticism (“it is notpossible to attain a true knowledge of things,” A1) is close both to the epistemological stanceof some Pythagoreans (A , Philolaos) and of De¯mokritos. His astronomicalhypothesis (attested also in his contemporary H) develops Philolaos’ theory that theEarth rotates around the Central Fire in 24 hours. Ekphantos abandoned Philolaos’ ideason the Central Fire and the Counter-Earth, returned the Earth to the central place in theuniverse, and asserted that it moves about its own center from west to east (A1, 5), in orderto explain the apparent diurnal rotation of the heavens. Copernicus mentioned bothEkphantos and He¯rakleide¯s in the preface to his De revolutionibus.DK 51; T.L. Heath, Aristarchus of Samos (1913); Dicks (1970). Leonid ZhmudElephantine¯/Elephantis (100 BCE – 75 CE)P 28.81 cites her for quasi-magical abortifacients, and S , in G  CMLoc 1.1(12.416–420 K.) lists her, with A  , H  , and M , as providingrecipes for al¯opekia. The Souda A-4261 blames her or a homonym for a work on sexualpositions.RE 5.2 (1905) 2324–2325 (#3), O. Crusius; Parker (1997) 145 (#43). PTKEleutheros (900 – 1450 CE)Physician, credited with a treatment for sciatica compounded from the juice of wild ﬁgs andradish mixed with olive oil and applied externally or injected internally as an enema, andpreserved in MS Antinori 102 of Florence, Medicea Laurenziana, ca 1460 CE, f. 358. TheMS probably comes from the collection of a medical library in Constantinople. It excerptscanonical writers such as H , D , G , and P  A,plus physicians of the mid- to late-Byzantine period: Theophane¯s Khrusobalante¯s “Nonnos”(mid-10th c.), Sumeo¯n Se¯th (mid-11th c.), Nike¯phoros Blemmide¯s (mid-13th c.), etc., thussuggesting the date-range.Diels 2 (1907) 35. Alain Touwaide 281

P:293

P S E U D O - E L I A S ( P S E U D O - DAV I D )Pseudo-Elias (Pseudo-David) (600 – 726 CE?)Anonymous collection of 51 lectures, replete with medical learning, on P’Isagoge (lectures 1–7 are lost), which the MS tradition connects to commentaries by Elias (onthe Isagoge and A’s Categories, CAG 18.1) and David (on the Isagoge, CAG 18.2). Theauthor seems Christian and probably taught at Constantinople. He cites G  by name(pp. 17.22, 24.12, 28.27–8, 35.3): e.g., ginger, pepper, and purethron exhibit similarity indiﬀerence in degree, “as Gale¯n writes” (p. 14.4–5; cf. Gale¯n Simples 6.6.2 [11.880–882 K.],8.16.11 [12.97 K.], 8.16.41 [12.110 K.]). The author distinguishes corporeal and incorpor-eal bodies, simple and composite bodies, and composite bodies in equilibrium or dominatedby one property (e.g., wet, cold: pp. 35.2–4; cf. Gale¯n, Bones for Beginners, pr. [2.733 K.];contrast David, CAG 18.2 [1904] 151.18–28, who makes only the ﬁrst distinction). Theauthor employs medical technical terminology (pp. 18.5: epidiaresis; 29.29: antembainein;45.13: anal¯osis), examples (p. 19.4: ﬁnger as a continuous quantity), and metaphors (p. 13.23:suﬀering is to the soul as painful surgical cuts are to the ill). Westerink (p. ) surmises theauthor may be “a professor of medicine giving an elementary course in logic.” Our authorconsidered himself a philosopher, but misunderstood P and basic Aristotelian logic.Diﬀerences in presentation, style, emphasis, and approach to Porphurios’ text militatestrongly against identifying the author with either Elias or David.Ed.: L.G. Westerink, Pseudo-Elias (Pseudo-David): Lectures on Porphyry’s Isagoge (1967). GLIMEmboularkhos (?) (30 BCE – 540 CE)A  A 16.142 (Zervos 1901: 171) cites his fumigation recipe, containing bdel-lium, cassia, cinnamon, saﬀron, malabathron, myrrh, spikenard, fresh and dried roses,sturax, etc. The name is otherwise unattested and seems incorrectly formed; Boularkhos isattested through the 1st c. BCE (LGPN), and perhaps Euboularkhos, though unattested, iscorrect; alternatively, perhaps emend ΕΜΒΟYΛ- to ΠΟΛY- (cf. P, cited forgynecological remedies).Fabricius (1726) 148. PTKEmeritus (Hemeritos) (100 BCE – ca 400 CE?)Author of remedies quoted in P, who calls Emeritus mulomedicus, “horse-doctor.”The remedies are for cough (85, 99, 110); dysury (153); opisthotonos (272, 274); and colic(290). Three, translated into Greek, ﬁgure in the Hippiatrika: on pneumonia (Pel. 72 =Hippiatrica Berolinensia 7.5), cough (Pel. 85 = Hippiatrica Parisina 564), and a caustic ointmentfor shoulders and hips known in Latin only from the Einsiedeln MS (XXXII.519, Corsetti,53–54 = Hippiatrica Parisina 963 = Hippiatrica Berolinensia 96.23).Fischer (1980); P.-P. Corsetti, “Un nouveau témoin de l’Ars veterinaria de Pelagonius,” Revue d’histoire des textes 19 (1989) 31–56; CHG vv.1–2; McCabe (2007). Anne McCabe 282

P:294

E M P E D O K L E¯ S O F A K R A G A SEmpedokle¯s of Akragas (ca 460 – 430 BCE)Philosopher-poet and natural scientist, born ca 483 BCE, author of one or two lost didacticepics, the On Nature and The Puriﬁcations. His prominent family secured victories in thechariot-race at the Olympics, and retained its position after the fall of the tyranny inAkragas. D  L records Empedokle¯s’ involvement in early struggles for thedemocratic regime (8.64–66), which may have some independent basis, for his source,T (FGrHist 566 F 2), remarks that Empedokle¯s’ democratic leanings seem at oddswith his lordly and conceited posture in his poetry. This presumptuous tone, however, prob-ably inspired his colorful ﬁgure in the biographical tradition, including the tale of his leapinto the ﬂaming caldera of Aetna. Empedokle¯s’ poetry survives mainly from citations in later authors, especially Aand S, but a recently-reconstructed papyrus containing 74 lines of four continu-ous sections (a, b, c, d) brings the extant total to ca 490 lines. DK divide our fragmentsbetween two works, following the thematic aﬃliations of the two titles. Thus, On Naturediscussed natural science, while The Puriﬁcations told of the exile of the soul and its struggleto regain its place over several reincarnations. Some recent scholarship, however, prefers asingle poem, combining both themes. The debate continues. Only Diogene¯s Laërtios (8.77)gives both titles, but even he, perhaps considering them a unit, provides a single verse-sumfor both. Other authors mention either no titles or only one. The opening of section d ofthe Strasbourg papyrus, omitting a title, overlaps with a number of lines which Simpliciusrecords from On Nature, and contains a discussion of reincarnation, including the previouslyknown fragment B 139, cited from The Puriﬁcations. The second half of section d shifts to theorigin of life, material suited to the On Nature. This does not eliminate the possibility of twooriginal works, but now it seems that On Nature also discussed the after-life. Empedokle¯s’ most lasting inﬂuence on Western science remains his theory of the fourelements – earth, air (sometimes aithe¯r), ﬁre and water – the permanent building blocks ofthe universe, adopted, with modiﬁcations, by most subsequent ancient philosophical schoolsexcept the Atomists. Less historically inﬂuential, but equally central to Empedokle¯s’ physi-cal system, was his doctrine of the cosmic cycle driven by two equal and opposite moving/volitional powers, Love and Strife, sharing dominion over the elements, Love combiningand Strife separating them. Each power always eventually achieves, in alternation, full swayover the elements. Thus, the universe oscillates between two extreme states, during which no world cancome to be, because of the exclusive predominance of Love or Strife over the elements.Under the rule of Love, all four elements become harmoniously fused into one all-embracing super-organism, which Empedokle¯s calls the Sphairos god, while under the ruleof Strife the four elements either separate into diﬀerent places, or perhaps slide into chaos(the evidence is unclear). Only in the middle periods do worlds like ours occur. The apparent motivation for the theory seems to be a commitment to non-emergence(i.e., no state has ontological priority to any other), and through it, an attempt to respond toP ’ critique of change. Aristotle provides an important hint (GC 1.1 [315a19–20]), wondering if one ought not to consider the Sphairos-god as having an equal claim to bea ﬁrst-principle, alongside the elements. That is, perhaps neither elements nor Sphairosare prior to each other, but merely extreme limits of the two-way never-ending processof becoming. Thus, becoming as a whole might acquire eternal and invariant limits, likeParmenide¯s’ Being. 283

P:295

Q. E N N I U S O F RU D I A E Within this framework, Empedokle¯s aimed to be as encyclopedic as possible. Boththe fragments and doxography include passages on physics/cosmology, botany, zoology,physiology, reproduction and sense-perception. Also attested is a critique of Greek religionand ritual, especially animal sacriﬁce, based on Empedokle¯s’ Pythagorean belief inreincarnation. The over-all unity of Empedokle¯s’ thought remains perplexing, although, since bothreincarnation and physics appear in a single passage, it can no longer be denied. Theproblem is whether or not Empedoklean physics and reincarnation can be accommodatedin the same system. At a minimum, many diﬃculties can be avoided if Empedokle¯s’ trans-migrating soul is not anachronistically identiﬁed with P’s immortal soul.Ed.: DK 31; M.R. Wright, Empedocles (1981); A. Martin and O. Primavesi, L’Empédocle de Strasbourg, P. Strasb. Gr. 1665–1666 (1999); B. Inwood, The Poem of Empedocles, 2nd ed. (2001).D. O’Brien, Empedocles’ Cosmic Cycle (1969); P. Kingsley, Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic (1995); DPA 3 (2000) 66–88, R. Goulet; Simon Trépanier, Empedocles, an Interpretation (2004); NDSB 2.395–398, Idem. Simon TrépanierQ. Ennius of Rudiae (ca 205 – 169 BCE)Ennius © Rheinisches Landesmuseum TrierLatin poet, born 239 BCE in Rudiae (near Lecce), had a Greek cultural formation. In 204 hecame from Sardinia to Rome with C, where he taught Greek. A member of Scipio’sretinue, he obtained Roman citizenship in 184. Only fragments of his diverse works survive.Ennius wrote tragedies (Andromache, Medea, Telamon, inspired by Greek models), poems, com-edies, and saturae. In the Euhemerus, Ennius expounded the successive reigns of Sky, Saturn,and Jupiter, stressing particularly, in agreement with Euhe¯me¯ros’ theories, their humancharacteristics. In the Epicharmus, Ennius identiﬁed gods with primordial elements, whencethe kosmos arose (cf. E). In the epic Annales, he celebrated Roman history fromher origins to his own time. The Pythagorean theory of metempsychosis is suggested inEnnius’ claim to be H’s reincarnation. 284

P:296

EPAPHRODITOS (METEOR.)J. Vahlen, Ennianae poesis reliquiae, 3rd ed. (1928); E.H. Warmington, Remains of Old Latin, v. 1 (Loeb 1935); O. Skutsch, Ennius (1972); Idem, The Annals of Ennius (1985). Bruno CentroneEpagathos (100 BCE – 80 CE)A, in G  CMLoc 9.5 (13.300–301 K.), cites his enema for “dysentery,”composed of orpiment, realgar, and wild pomegranate ﬂower (balaustion), in old dry wine.The Greek name is frequent from the 1st c. BCE, and unattested prior; his seeming nomen“Deletius” is unexplained (perhaps “De¯me¯trios”?). If the remedy for blood-spitting, alsocontaining balaustion, cited ep’ agathou kath¯eg¯etou by Andromakhos, ibid. 7.4 (13.79), is by thesame man, perhaps emend ∆ΗΛΗΤΙΟY to ΚΑΘΗΓΗΤΟY (“teacher”; and thus set theterminus post as ca 40 CE).Fabricius (1726) 136. PTKEpainete¯s (100 BCE – 100 CE?)Greek toxicologist, who wrote on iology (Th¯eriaka), often mentioned by pseudo-AP (On Venomous Animals and Poisons), who calls him an herbalist (rhizotomos) andpresents under his name various remedies for intoxication: leopard’s bane (53), hemlock(63), mandrake (65), opium poppy (64), henbane (66), deadly mushrooms (67), a plant calledblack chameleon (70), bull’s blood (71), gypsum (72) and sea-hare (79). See E.BNP 4 (2004) 1011 (#1), V. Nutton. Arnaud ZuckerEpainetos (ca 90 BCE)Writer of an On Cookery (Opsartutika) often mentioned by Athe¯naios (esp. Deipn. 12 [506c]),who preserves a fragment giving a recipe for muma (Deipn. 14 [662d]) and repeatedly quoteshim for lexical remarks on food, strongly suggesting that Athe¯naios knew Epainetos’ bookthrough a grammarian (see Deipn. 9 [387e]). The titles On Vegetables and On Fishes, if noterroneous, must have been chapters of On Cookery. The identiﬁcation of Epainetos withE , formerly accepted (and still plausible since gastronomy, dietetics and toxicologyare closely related), appears now at least doubtful.RE 5.2 (1905) 2672–2673 (#9), L. Cohn; BNP 4 (2004) 1011 (#2), G. Binder. Arnaud ZuckerEpaphroditos (Meteor.) (unknown date)Wrote a “Commentary on A’ Discussion of the Halo (of the Moon) and theRainbow,” as noted by Ibn-al-Nad¯ım from writing of the Aristotelian Yah. ya¯ ibn- Ad¯ı(d. 974). Tha¯bit ibn-Qurra’s (ca 826–901) Arabic translation has not yet been found inArabic MSS.GAS 7 (1979) 230. Kevin van Bladel 285

P:297

E PA P H RO D I TO S A N D V I T RU U I U S RU F U SEpaphroditos and Vitruuius Rufus (200 – 300 CE?)A collection of geometrical problems to be found in Latin gromatic MSS (i.e. collections oftexts about land surveying) has survived with these two otherwise unknown names attachedto it; but Lachmann did not include them in his edition of the corpus. Following the sameorder as that in the works attributed to H    A (Metrika I, authentic, andGe¯ometrika, considered apocryphal), whose inﬂuence is obvious, the calculations of peri-meters and areas of triangles, of quadrangular ﬁgures, regular polygons, and of the circleand its segments are all dealt with practically, with detailed ﬁgures but no attempt at demon-stration, which is a great diﬀerence from the Metrika. Surprisingly, the polygonal areas(pentagon and so on up to dodecagon) are here dealt with arithmetically, not geometrically;they are looked at in the Pythagorean manner as sums, not products. The origin of thesedevelopments ought to be looked for in D’ treatise Polygonal Numbers, whichprovides evidence for dating. As they show similarities with the Podismus (Lachmann,pp. 295–301), Epaphroditos’ and Vitruuius’ excerpts may bear some link with the calcula-tion of triangular, trapezoidal, and pentagonal subseciua (minor areas of a centuriation notallotted to any owner), such as presented by I N (Lachmann p. 290).Ed.: N. Bubnov, Gerberti opera mathematica (1899); CAR 3 (1996). Jean-Yves GuillauminEpaphroditos of Carthage (25 – 80 CE)A records that he used – as patient or doctor? – an antidote from Z as a once-a-year prophylactic: birthwort, clover, herpullos, myrrh, opopanax, pimpernel,skordion, germander, etc., plus bitumen and sulfur, in wine: G , Antid. 2.12(14.178–179 K.).RE S.9 (1962) 36 (#7), J. Kollesch. PTKEphoros of Kume¯ (360 – 330 BCE)Wrote a History of Kum¯e, a work On Words, and a work On Inventions. His Histories in 30 books –lost but frequently cited by later writers – traced the history of the inhabited world from thereturn of the He¯rakleidai to the siege of Perinthos in 340 BCE (the ﬁnal book was written byhis son De¯mophilos). Arranging his history by nation (kata genos), he took a particular interestin geography. In Books 4–5, he gave a geographical overview of the oikoumene¯, coveringEurope and Asia respectively. A particularly important fragment, preserved by S (1.2.28) and K  I , represents the Earth as a ﬂat rectangle, bordered tothe north by Skuthians, to the east by Indians, to the south by Aithiopians (Ethiopians),and to the west by Kelts, an advance over the older Ionian view of the world as a circlesurrounded by the River Ocean. Ephoros likely arranged his conspectus of the lands alongthe standard lines, following the Mediterranean coast from western Europe, coveringGreece and the Pontos, moving down the eastern Mediterranean to north Africa, andending with the African coast outside of the Straits of Gibraltar. Ephoros showed particularinterest in the historical geography of places, their early inhabitants, and foundationaccounts of cities. He speculated on the origins of the Nile ﬂood, proposing that the groundsoaks up water like a sponge in the cool months and sweats it out in the hot months. He 286

P:298

E P I C U RU S O F S A M O Sbelieved that the Tanais (Don) river originated in a sea of unknown extent. He attributedthe cause of the great earthquake and ﬂood that destroyed Helike¯ and Boura in Achaia in373 to a comet seen before the earthquake, which split into two planets.Ed.: FrGrHist 70.W.A. Heidel, The Frame of the Early Greek Maps (1937) 16–17; Chr. van Paassen, The Classical Tradition of Geography (1957) 246–253; G.L. Barber, The Historian Ephorus (1985); G. Schepens, “The Phoenicians in Ephorus’ Universal History,” in Studia Phoenicia 5 (1987) 315–330. Philip KaplanE- ⇒ E-Epicurus of Samos (310 – 270 BCE) 1. Life and Writings. Epicurus (Epikouros) was an Athenian citizen born on the island of Samos. He founded the Epicurean school, called the Garden (k¯epos), in Athens around 307 BCE, having taught previously at Mutile¯ne¯ on Lesbos and at Lampsakos. Epicurus developed the atomic theory of L and D  (which he had studied with the atomist N ) and wrote proliﬁcally: 300 books are recorded, most lost. Extant works include three “epitomes” discussing physics (Letter to Herodo- tus), ethics (Letter to Menoeceus), and meteorology and astronomy (Letter to Pythocles). In addition, there are two collections of short sayings (the Principal Doctrines and Vatican Sayings), and fragments of other works, most notably his major work in 37 books, On Nature. 2. Physics. In his physics, Epicurus adapted earlier atomism to meet the criticisms of A-  and others. He taught that there existEpicurus © Roma, Musei Capitolini, indestructible atoms and the void (empty space), andArchivo Fotograﬁco dei Musei that all other objects in the world are compound bodies made up of atoms moving in the void. TheCapitolini universe is inﬁnite in all directions, and there are an inﬁnite number of variously shaped atoms movingconstantly through empty space. He claimed that while the number of atoms in the universewas inﬁnite, the sizes and shapes they could take were not. He denied that individual atomscould ever be so large as to be visible to the naked eye. He posited that there are three typesof atomic movement: (1) a natural motion downward caused by the weight of the atom(How Epicurus deﬁned the direction “down” in an inﬁnite void is not fully understood); (2)forced motion in all directions caused by collisions with other atoms, and (3) a minimal,completely random motion of the atom he called the “swerve” (Greek parenklisis; Latinclinamen). He posited the random swerve in his physics in order to explain how atoms, fallingnaturally downward at the same high speed, can cross each other’s path and collide. Attimes atoms move about separately, but at other times they come together to create diﬀerentworlds comprised of various compounds. Even in compound bodies, however, atoms are in 287

P:299

E P I C U RU S O F S A M O Sceaseless motion, traveling at a constant and incredibly high speed. Compound bodies andthe worlds of which they are a part are transient, coming into being and passing away. Onlyatoms and the void are eternal and indestructible, having no beginning and no end. Epicu-rus also posited several physical theories criticized by later ancient philosophers, includingthat the Earth is ﬂat and rests on a gradually less and less dense foundation, and that theSun and stars are very small, in fact about the size that they appear to us. Like all compound bodies, humans consist of atoms. Epicurus taught that both body andsoul were corporeal: the body was made of relatively large, dense atoms, and the soul,responsible for sensation and thinking, of several types of small, light, and mobile atoms.Perceptions arise when images (eid¯ola) ﬂow oﬀ of physical objects and strike the senseorgans. Sight, for instance, occurs when thin, swift moving images ﬂy oﬀ of objects andstrike the eyes. Thought is caused by even thinner images directly striking the mind, whichEpicurus located in the chest near the heart. He held that there are an almost inﬁnitenumber of diﬀerent images ﬂying around us at any time on which our thoughts can focus.The process of thinking is thus a focusing of the mind on one external image after another.At death, the soul atoms escape from the body and disperse. Epicurus taught that there is noafterlife, since the soul does not survive after death, and held that therefore we should fearneither death nor punishment in the afterlife. Although a strict materialist, Epicurus was notan atheist. He held that the gods existed, but were completely blessed creatures who livedlives of perfect pleasure and had nothing to do with our world. 3. Scientiﬁc Method. Epicurus shunned traditional logic, substituting what he labeled“canonic” (from the Greek word kan¯on, “rule, standard”), his term for his theory of knowl-edge that he connected closely to physics. Epicurus was an empiricist, teaching that knowl-edge was possible and derived from sensation. He held that there were three criteria oftruth: sensation, general concepts, and feelings. Sensation was the primary criterion oftruth. He said “all sensations are true,” a claim which at ﬁrst sight appears implausible.Epicurus, though, carefully distinguished sensations themselves from the judgments thatpeople make about them. In the case of an optical illusion like an oar appearing bent whenpartially submerged in water, Epicurus would say that the image of the oar that reaches oureyes is true: we see an image made up of certain sizes, shapes, and colors. Error occurswhen we add false judgments to our perceptions, such as “this oar is bent.” Sensation hasnot fooled us, but our interpretation of the sensation that has reached our eyes. Our know-ledge of the world is ultimately based on sensations, and the judgments we make on thebasis of sensation must be scrutinized for possible error. An important way to avoid makingerrors of judgment and attain knowledge is by attending to “general concepts” ( prol¯epseis).Epicurus maintained that general concepts could function as a criterion of truth. Hebelieved that humans form general concepts by generalizing from their sensations. Fromsuch general concepts, people make statements that are true and false about objects in theworld. Epicurus’ third criterion of truth was “feelings” (path¯e). He taught that our actionsmust be judged by the primary feelings of pleasure and pain, and took them to be thecriterion of ethical truth. All our actions must be directed to maximizing our pleasure andminimizing our pain in the long run. Relying on these criteria of truth, Epicurus argued that we could gain knowledge notonly of the visible world, but also of the microscopic world of atoms and the distantmovements of the heavens. When we are investigating the visible world directly accessibleto us, Epicurus taught that we should accept as true things veriﬁable by direct andclear observation, and false what we cannot so verify. But when we are investigating the 288

P:300

E P I C U RU S O F S A M O Sunderlying principles of matter (e.g., atoms and the void) or the heavens, realms that wecannot examine directly, he argued that we must make use of analogies with the physicalworld, and take as true “uncontested” views and as false those that are “contested.” Forexample, Epicurus argues that the only view that can explain the workings of the physicalworld around us is atomism, because it alone accounts for and does not conﬂict with thefacts of the world as we see them. Similarly, when discussing the movements of the heavens,Epicurus posits explanations that are not contradicted by the evidence. At the microscopiclevel, though, only one theory, atomism, ﬁts all the facts, whereas in astronomy andmeteorology there are often several hypotheses that are not contradicted by the phenomena.For example, Epicurus posited a number of possibilities for why the Moon waxes andwanes, all of which he says may be true. Only one of the possibilities will in fact be true forour Moon, but that does not stop the other explanations from being true of other similarphenomena somewhere else in the universe. 4. Ethics. In ethics, Epicurus taught that the highest good is pleasure, deﬁned as freedomfrom pain in the body (aponia), and freedom from anxiety and disturbance in the mind (atar-axia). Epicurus identiﬁed two types of pleasure, static and kinetic. Static pleasure is the statean organism feels when it suﬀers no pain and is functioning well. Kinetic pleasure is what anorganism feels when it is physically or mentally stimulated. Kinetic pleasure apparentlyoccurred in two ways: either in the process of satisfying a want and returning an organism toits static state of pleasure, or when an organism’s experience of static pleasure is “varied” bythe addition of kinetic pleasure. Epicurus taught that static pleasure is the highest possible fora human being. Kinetic pleasure does not increase pleasure, but only varies it. Epicurus taught that human beings often fail to achieve happiness because they do notdistinguish among three types of desires: (1) natural and necessary desires, i.e., desire forthings that are necessary for life; (2) natural and non-necessary desires, i.e., desires for thingsthat are not necessary for life but help to “vary” our pleasure; and (3) desires that are neithernatural nor necessary, i.e., desires for things like honor and political oﬃce. Epicurus advo-cated leading a simple life, taking pleasure in easily satisfying our natural and necessarydesires. He also taught that not all pleasures should be chosen, nor all pain avoided.Humans often must give up pleasure now to avoid greater pain later, and chose some painnow to attain greater pleasure later. If an action promotes long-term freedom from pain andanxiety, it should be chosen, otherwise not. Epicurus also taught techniques for maintainingmental ataraxia even when the body was feeling great pain. He maintained that physical paincould be endured, his reasoning captured later in a memorable Latin phrase: si grauis, breuis;si longus, leuis (“Pain is short if it is strong, light if it is long”). Pleasure was also the basis forevaluating virtue and ethical behavior. According to Epicurus, it is important to be virtuousnot because the virtues are valuable in themselves, but because the virtues are the means tothe most pleasant life. He maintained that human beings, although they had minds andsouls made up of atoms and void, had freedom of action because of the swerve of atoms.How he thought the swerve preserved the freedom of living creatures, and what kind offreedom he thought it preserved, have been the subject of intense scholarly debate.DSB 4.381–382, D.J. Furley; G. Arrighetti, Epicuro, Opere (1973); E. Asmis, Epicurus’ Scientiﬁc Method (1984); Walter G. Englert, Epicurus on the Swerve and Voluntary Action (1987); Long and Sedley (1987) §4–25; OCD3 532–534, D.J. Furley; ECP 214–219, E. Asmis; REP 3.350–351, D.N. Sedley; BNP 4 (2004) 1075–1084, M. Erler. Walter G. Englert 289

P:301

EPIDAUROS (?)Epidauros (?) (120 BCE – 80 CE)A, in G  CMGen 7.7 (13.985 K.), gives his ointment for circumcision:thapsia root, pepper, veal fat, frankincense, balsam-wood, resin, and beeswax. The rarename is attested in the 3rd–1st cc. BCE: LGPN 1.156, 2.148. (For toponyms as personalnames, cf. E  and K  .)Fabricius (1726) 150. PTKEpidikos (300 BCE – 500 CE)Taught that the kosmos was caused by nature (phusis): I   S 1.21.6,Pho¯tios, Bibl. 167 (p. 114a). The name is rare, attested in Akhaia: LGPN 3A.146, and inPlautus’ eponymous comedy.DPA 3 (2000) 182, R. Goulet. PTKE  ⇒ D PEpigene¯s (Med.) (ca 390? – 310 BCE)Physician, claimed that rancid water puriﬁed seven times would not putrefy again (P31.34), from T On Water (Wellmann 1900). In On Fatigue (p. 398 W.), Theo-phrastos may cite an Epigene¯s arguing that fatigue occurs primarily in veins and tendons.The MS, however, is corrupt, and the name is Furlanus’ (reasonable) restoration forΕΠΙΓΟΝ, so perhaps cf. E.M. Wellmann, “Zur Geschichte der Medicin im Altertum,” Hermes 35 (1900) 349–384 at 354–358; RE 6.1 (1907) 66 (#18), Idem; W.W. Fortenbaugh, R.W. Sharples, and M.G. Sollenberger, Theophrastus of Eresus: On Sweat, On Dizziness, On Fatigue (2003) 279–280. GLIMEpigene¯s of Buzantion (120 – 30 BCE?)P (7.160) cites Epigene¯s (who “studied the stars”), together with B  and P-, as astrological authorities on the destined length of life; he also invokes Epigene¯s as asource on the antiquity of Babylonian astronomical observations (7.193), saying they wentback 720,000 years. Epigene¯s claimed that the maximum possible human lifespan was less than 112 years, avalue that may be evidence for the astrological application of a Babylonian style scheme forthe rising times of the zodiacal signs, adapted for Alexandria where the longest to shortestday ratio is 7:5, the longest day (M) is 3,30;0˚ (14 hours), and the constant diﬀerence is 3;20˚.The longest life, derived from the quadrant with the greatest rising time, is found from ½M+ 2d, hence 111;40˚ for Alexandria. Epigene¯s’ value might represent a rounding of thisresult.RE 6 (1907) 65–66 (#17), A. Rehm; Honigmann in P. Mich. 3 (1936) 310–311; Neugebauer (1975) 721. Francesca Rochberg 290

P:302

EPIKHARMOS OF SURAKOUSAIEpigene¯s of Rhodes (285 – 90 BCE)Agronomist whose work may have treated cereals, livestock, poultry, viticulture, and arbori-culture (cf. P, 1.ind.8, 10, 14–15, 17–18). C D excerpted from hiswritings (V, RR 1.1.8–10, cf. C, 1.1.9). Pseudo-P, Nobil. 20 (7.269Bern.), reports that Epigene¯s advanced numerous arguments to prove that humans lived inthe countryside long before they lived in cities (cf. Varro, RR 3.1); this sort of speculativeanthropology seems to have been popularized by D.RE 6.1 (1907) 65 (#19), E. Fabricius. Philip ThibodeauEpigonos (250 BCE – 10 CE)H   records that some attributed the “I” plaster to Epigonos; it “drew out poison,”and contained aloes, alum, birthwort, galbanum, copper ﬂakes, myrrh, verdigris, etc. inaged olive oil and vinegar: G , CMGen 5.2 (13.774–778 K.). A creditshim with a “green” plaster, of almost identical ingredients, in an olive oil and “Kolopho¯n”resin base: ibid. 2.2 (pp.492–493); Gale¯n himself cites Epigonos’ plaster as exemplary, Rat.Cur. ad Glauk. (11.126 K.). Cf. also G  and H .RE 6.1 (1907) 66 (#21), M. Wellmann. PTKEpikharmos of Surakousai ( ﬂ. 488 – 485 BCE)Sicilian comic poet, known through several hundred testimonia and fragments. Most evi-dence about his life is obscure, but he undoubtedly lived and wrote in Surakousai in thetimes of Gelo¯n and Hiero¯n (491–467), and died after 458 (perhaps as late as 438). Frag-ments containing either satires against contemporary thinkers or sententious maxims, takenout of context, shaped the idea of Epikharmos as philosopher and “wise man,” later aug-mented by his alleged relationship with P. Consequently, other writers ascribedto him their own philosophical or quasi-scientiﬁc works, most of them linked to thePythagorean school, written in trochaic tetrameters, and in a dialect which tried to imitateEpikharmos’ Sicilian Doric. According to Athe¯naios, Deipn. 14 (648d), the spuriousness ofthese writings (the Pseudepikharmeia) was known to some authors from the late 4th c. BCE,thus A, Philokhoros (early 3rd c. BCE), and Apollodo¯ros of Athens (2nd c.BCE), but many continued treating them as genuine, and at least one of them, the Antenor,seems to have been forged after Aristoxenos, and may be the latest. They addressed phil-osophy or physics (so the Republic, written by a ﬂute-player called Khrusogonos; the Kan¯on,by a certain Axiopistos; and the Antenor), general truths and rules of conduct (the Maxims,also by Axiopistos), and medicine and veterinary medicine. The ﬁrst writer to connect Epikharmos with medical subjects is D   S,and many others did so afterwards (P 20.89, 20.94, etc., C 7.3.6, P A, D  L, C 7.5–6, I). By assertingthat Epikharmos was a native of Ko¯s, Diogene¯s Laertios (8.78) might mean to connect himwith that island’s medical school. In a rather obscure passage, Iamblikhos (VP 241) also linksa certain M   (allegedly his son) with Epikharmos’ theories on medicine. In alllikelihood, the source for pharmaceutical prescriptions allegedly coming from Epikharmoswas the poem Kheir¯on (Chiron), which probably included the culinary treatise also attributed 291

P:303

E P I K L E¯ S O F C R E T Eto him. The real author and date of the Kheir¯on are unknown, but it might have been writtenas early as the 4th–3rd cc. BCE, if the papyrus fragment *295 PCG = *335 R–N is conﬁrmedto be a part of the poem.Ed.: Lucía Rodríguez-Noriega, Epicarmo de Siracusa. Testimonios y fragmentos. Edición crítica bilingüe (1996).R. Kerkhof, Dorische Posse, Epicharm und Attische Komödie (2001). Lucía Rodríguez-NoriegaEpikle¯s of Crete (130 – 30 BCE)Abridged B’ Hippokratic glossary (E  p. 5.5 Nachm.), alphabetizing(Ero¯tianos p. 7.23 Nachm.), revising (A-8, A-58, A-66 [pp. 13.3, 19.3, 20.2 Nachm.]), andmediating Bakkheios (A-4, A-8, A-58, A-66, A-69, A-73, B-8, B-30, and fragment 42[pp. 10.16–17, 13.2–4, 19.2–5, 20.1–2, 20.12–13, 21.10–11, 28.10–14, 37.9–10, and112.2–7 Nachm.]). Ero¯tianos, drawing comparisons and contrasts between Bakkheios andhis successors, cites Epikle¯s by name 23 times, quoting his glosses all but twice. SeeA  “O.”RE 6.1 (1907) 117 (#5), M. Wellmann; H. von Staden, “Lexicography in the III B.C.: Bacchius of Tanagra, Erotian, and Hippocrates” in J.A. López Férez, ed., Tratados Hipocraticos (1992) 549–569; Ihm (2002) #50. GLIMEpikouros (250 BCE – 80 CE)Pharmacist: quoted by G  (CMGen 5.5, 13.807 K.), from A, for his recipeof a plaster for the cure of scars, containing aloes, galbanum, myrrh, verdigris, etc.Deichgäber (1930) 408 (attributed to E  P); RE S.9 (1962) 64 (#5), F. Kudlien; Fabricius (1972) 226–227. Fabio StokEpikouros of Pergamon (120 – 180 CE)Empiricist physician, teacher of G , author of a commentary on the HC, E, Book 6 (Gal. Hipp. Epid. CMG 5.10.2.2, p. 412), and probably also ofother exegeses of Hippokratic works.Deichgräber (1930) 408 (fragment); RE S.9 (1962) 64 (#5), F. Kudlien; Ihm (2002) #51; A. Anastassiou and D. Irmer, Testimonien zum Corpus Hippocraticum 2.1 (1997) 486. Fabio StokE  S ⇒ EEpikrate¯s of He¯rakleia (325 – 25 BCE)Writer on machines listed by P. Berol. P-13044, col.8, as having constructed war-machines inRhodes, perhaps for the siege in 88 BCE; contrast E  A.Diels (1920) 30, n. 1. PTK 292

P:304

EPIPHANIOS OF ELEUTHEROPOLIS/SALAMISEpimakhos of Athens (310 – 300 BCE)Epimakhos designed a giant helepolis (siege-tower) for De¯me¯trios Poliorke¯te¯s at the siegeof Rhodes (305–304 BCE). This costly and elaborate siege machine was ca 40m high, ca 20mwide, weighed ca 160 metric tons, and could withstand the impact of a 160-kg stone thrownby a ballista (A  M. p. 27 W.; V 10.16.4).RE 6.1 (1907) 160 (#3), E. Fabricius. GLIMEpimenide¯s of Crete (650 – 520 BCE)Wise man credited with wonders including a 57-year nap (D  L 1.109). His“hunger-banishing” recipe, allegedly based on H , WD 41, is cited by T-, HP 7.12.1 (contains squill), H  S (FGrHist 1026 T8e = P,in Hes. Op. 41), and P, Conv. Sap. 157D–E (cf. Fac. Orb. 940), among others. A- 12.7 = fr. B2 preserves three lines of verse which he interprets as a claim that theNemean lion fell from the inhabited Moon.DK 3. PTKE ⇒ P  OEpiphane¯s (?) (400 BCE – 300 CE)The “Laurentian” list of medical writers (MS Laur. Lat. 73.1, f. 143V = fr.13 Tecusan)includes Epiphane¯s, more likely as the epikl¯esis of a king or god than a proper name (althoughattested: LGPN). Perhaps E  or E  is meant, or else A  orA    B. Cf. also H , L, and P  K .(*) PTKEpiphanios (Meteor.) (unknown date)Author of an unedited work On Thunder and Lightning, conceivably a work similar toV’.RE 6.1 (1907) 196 (#11), A. Rehm. PTKEpiphanios of Eleutheropolis/Salamis (ca 365 – 403 CE)Born in a Jewish family of Eleutheropolis, after conversion became bishop of Salamis.Besides his Christian dogmatic works, Epiphanios wrote also a metrological treatise whosetitle, On measures and weights, seems a later addition. The work survives abridged in Greek andGeorgian, but complete only in Syriac. It seems clear the work was basically didactic, andcontained much Biblical and historical material, including the metrological terms. Whatsurvives is an unsystematic exposition of Biblical units, giving the meaning of their Hebrewname, comparison with the measures used in the Greco-Roman world, along with entriesabout the currency units. 293

P:305

ERASISTRATOS (ASTROL.)Ed.: MSR 1 (1864) 140–142, 259–276, 2 (1866) 100–106; J.E. Dean, Epiphanius’ Treatise on weights and measures. The Syriac Version (1935); M.-J. van Esbroeck, Les versions géorgiennes d’Épiphane de Chypre. Traité des poids et des mesures (1984).BNP 4 (2004) 1119–1120 (#1), C. Markschies. Mauro de NardisErasistratos (Astrol.) (200 – 300 CE?)CCAG 1 (1898) 81–82 prints a Greek translation from Mash’allah al-Misri (ca 760 CE), wholists his 11 sources as: P, H , P (six books), D  (11 books),D  (14 books), A (ten books), A ( A) (seven books),(V) V (ten books), “Erasistratos” (11 books), “Stokhos” (sc. “Eustokhios”?“Stoikos”?) (six books), and “the Persians” (44 books). Antiokhos, Do¯rotheos, Ptolemy, andValens are genuine, and an otherwise unknown astrologer Erasistratos probably is too, cf.Al-B¯ıru¯ n¯ı, Book of Instruction in the Elements of the Art of Astrology (1029 CE), §453 (p. 265, ed.R.M. Wright, 1934).(*) PTKErasistratos of Ioulis on Keo¯ s (ca 260 – 240 BCE)Erasistratos (b. ca 315 BCE) may or may not have been a “colleague” of H  at theMuseion in Ptolemaic Alexandria, but ancient testimonia attest to his presence as a “youngercontemporary” and that he also performed systematic dissections (and less likely vivi-sections) on human cadavers ca 260–250 BCE. Ancient sources also tell us that Erasistratoshad links with the Peripatetic School in Athens (but not a student of T:Scarborough 1985), and that he served for a time as a court physician to one of the Seleukidor Antigonid monarchs (Wellmann 1907: 333–334), before moving on to Alexandria. Fraserasserts (1969, 1972: 1.347) that Erasistratos spent his entire career in Antioch, refutedby Lloyd (1975). Biographical details are at best confused and confusing in our ancienttestimonies, and no work survives intact. Erasistratos’ connections to the Peripatetics are well-documented in D L  5.57 and G , Blood in the Arteries 7 (4.729 K. = Furley and Wilkie 174), and itis likely that the mechanical and corpuscular theory espoused by Erasistratos owed much toS   L. Thereby Erasistratos diﬀered greatly from He¯rophilos regardingwhat we would term “physiological functions”: Erasistratos employed mechanistic principlesfused with an Aristotelian notion of teleology, occasionally verifying hypotheses by means ofexperiment. From contemporary mechanics and physics, he derived a major mechanistic principle:substances move in nature by “going toward that which is being emptied” (pros to kenoumenonakolouthia: Gale¯n, Natural Faculties 1.16 [2.62–63 K.] = Garofalo, fr.74; cf. frr.93–96, 109, 110,198). In General Principles (kath’holou logoi [Garofalo, frr.74–152]), Erasistratos combined veinsand arteries, nerves, muscles, the function of appetite, and digestion into a uniﬁed templateof physiology. The system was: air enters the lungs via the trachea and bronchi while thethorax expands after exhalation: some of the “breath” ( pneuma [ frr.101–108 Garofalo]) inthe lungs then moves via the “vein-like artery” (our pulmonary vein) into the left ventricle ofthe heart, when this cavity expands after contraction; meanwhile the pneuma in the leftventricle of the heart is “reﬁned” or “thinned” into a “vital” (z¯otikon) pneuma, and thence 294

P:306

E R A S I S T R AT O S O F I O U L I S O N K E O¯ Spushed into the arteries when the heart contracts; meanwhile, excess air in the lungs hasabsorbed or “sucked up” some of the superﬂuous heat of the body and the heart, and isexhaled when the thorax contracts. Following the basic principle (“an empty space ﬁlls up”),new breath ( pneuma) rushes into the expanding thorax. Thus Erasistratos explained howthe breathing-cycle both cools the body and provides the arteries with essential pneuma(Scarborough 1998: 175) To explain why the arteries are empty but the veins are full ofblood, Erasistratos argued that when an artery is severed, it spurts blood because there are(theoretical) extremely minute blood vessels, the sunastom¯oseis (invisible to the eye), that con-nect blood-ﬁlled veins to arteries (Gale¯n, Blood in the Arteries 2 [4.709 K.] = Furley and Wilkie150 = Garofalo, fr.109 [parempt¯osis]), and therefore blood rushed into the severed artery.Erasistratos’ theory led to the capillaries, not demonstrated until the 17th c. by Malpighi inDe pulmonibus observationes anatomicae (1661): using a microscope was the key (Major 1954:1,511). Erasistratos’ postulation of sunastom¯oseis allowed his system to “work,” and his dissec-tions gave a physiology founded on anatomy. Telling is the absence of blood in a “normal”artery (which Gale¯n condemned in Venesection against Erasistratos, and proved wrong in Bloodin the Arteries): no observed arterial blood (esp. in the aorta) in the living human, thus novivisection of humans (Scarborough 1976). Works known by title and shorter and longer quotations in A  A, theL , C, D , Gale¯n, M, O,R  E, S , and others (see Garofalo, “Index Fontium” and “Indexauctorum et locorum”) are Fevers ( frr.194–226 Garofalo), Expectoration of Blood, Paralysis,Dropsy, Podagra (viz. Gout [ frr.267–269]), The Abdominal Cavity, and Divisions. In the last,Erasistratos enunciated the famous dictum that “every organ is supplied by an artery, avein, and a nerve,” and he conﬁrmed He¯rophilos’ observations of the “two parts” of thebrain, re-emphasizing that human cranial convolutions were far more complex than thosein animals, which proved higher human intelligence (geometry easily demonstrated a“greater surface area”). Erasistratos rejected the Hippokratic notions of a humoral path-ology, teaching that blood in the veins and two kinds of pneumata were essential for life.Detailed dissection of the heart yielded description of the semi-lunar valves and the tri-cuspid valve, which he named and understood prevented reﬂux of blood. The list ofaccurate descriptions (many from Abdominal Cavity [ frr.258–269 Garofalo]) is impressive: theaorta, the pulmonary artery, the intercostal arteries, hepatic artery, the arteries of thestomach, pulmonary vein, vena cava, the azygos vein, the milk-white vessels of the mes-entery (lymphatic vessels [Gray, Anatomy, 800–803]), and the complicated courses of thehepatic veins. The function of the nerves also followed the same basic principles. The nerves alsocarried “vital” (z¯otikon) pneuma, “pushed” through the arteries from the left ventricle ofthe heart to the brain, where the pneuma gains further reﬁnement into a “psychic” ( psu-khikon) pneuma, lacking any notion of “soul”; this then is “pulled” throughout the body bymeans of the two kinds of nerves (we call them “sensory” and “motor”). Sight requires themost “psychic” pneuma, and thus the optic nerve has the greatest “psychic” pneuma, andwas tubular or hollow for the pneuma directed at the eye. Meanwhile, appetite and diges-tion gave the liver liquid nourishment so that it could “process” food into blood, then“pushed” into the veins by his principle “all empty spaces are ﬁlled up.” Arteries + nerves,therefore, contain only pneuma, and the veins have blood, “pushed” as nutriment to allparts of the body. Also, therefore, all parts, muscles, and organs, to live and grow must have“triple-woven” (triplokiai) ingrowths of veins, arteries, and nerves; pneuma “pushed” to 295

P:307

E R A S I S T R AT O S O F I O U L I S O N K E O¯ Smuscles by arteries and nerves enables them to contract and relax, displaying “voluntary”motion. This theory of “eating + digestion + manufacture of blood by the liver + ready-made food (blood) from the liver to the rest of the body” was adapted by Gale¯n in his NaturalFaculties, and held until 1833 (Scarborough 1998: 222). For Erasistratos, the laws of probability governed symptoms of disease and any appliedtherapeutics, so that he opposed phlebotomy (Gale¯n excoriates him for this), and any harshtreatments. The etiology of disease emerges from the classiﬁcation of matter (blood,pneuma, other life-supporting liquids), usually absolutely (somehow) separate, but mixed indisease; thus one has a plethora = too-much-blood-as-food in the veins, causing inﬂamma-tion, in turn causing fevers, and swollen limbs (Dropsy [ frr.248–257 Garofalo]), unhealthystates in the liver and the stomach, the Falling Sickness (epilepsy), and many more. Themechanics of pathology: excess venous blood undergoes a “spill-over” (parempt¯osis) into thearteries through the invisible sunastom¯oseis, which lessens the arterial “push” of “vital”pneuma. Women do not have pathologies peculiar to females, except for matters obstet-rical (He¯rophilos had said the same), so that in Erasistratos’ Hygiene (frr.115–167 Garofalo)he urges a healthy life-style (regimen) to prevent plethora, and mild intervention to restoredisplaced matter. The Londiniensis medicus 33 (ed. Diels, 62–63 = Jones, 126–127) records an experiment byErasistratos to determine weight-loss in a fasting animal: “If one were to take a creature,such as bird or something of the sort, and were to place it in a pot for some time withoutgiving it any food, and then were to weigh it with the excrement that visibly had beenpassed, he will ﬁnd that there has been a great loss of weight plainly because, perceptibleonly to the reason, a copious emanation has taken place” (trans. Jones; cf. von Staden1975). Erasistratos’ writings were long available for discussion and citation, indicated by therather precise account of the epiglottis, esophagus, and trachea cited by Gellius 17.11. Thelearned elite in 2nd c. Rome (in P’s Table-Talk) continued to debate P’s asser-tion that food and drink went into the lungs, and from the comments in Gellius, Erasistratos’correct description based on dissection remained controversial. Plato (and Plutarch) were“authorities,” and Erasistratos’ medical mechanics fades before Gellius, “. . . who allowsthe last word to the defense of Plato” (Holford-Strevens, 303).Ed.: I. Garofalo, Erasistrati Fragmenta (1988) [incomplete]; see also the following: A.J. Brock, Galen on the Natural Faculties (Loeb 1916); J.F. Dobson [trans., selected passages], “Erasistratus,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 20 (1927) 21–27 [= 825–832]; Wehrli 5 (1969); Furley and Wilkie (1984); Brain (1986).RE 6.1 (1907) 333–350, M. Wellmann; R. Major, A History of Medicine, 2 vols. (1954); L. Wilson, “Erasistratus, Galen, and the Pneuma,” BHM 33 (1959) 293–314; Solmsen (1961); P.M. Fraser, “The Career of Erasistratus of Ceos,” Rendiconti del Istituto Lombardo 103 (1969) 518–537; Fraser (1972) 1.347–348, 2.503–504; DSB 4 (1972) 382–386, J. Longrigg; G.E.R. Lloyd, “A Note on Erasistratus of Ceos,” JHS 95 (1975) 172–175; John Scarborough, “Celsus on Human Vivisection at Ptolemaic Alexandria,” CM 11 (1976) 25–38; H. von Staden, “Experiment and Experience in Hellenistic Medicine,” BICS 22 (1975) 178–199; W.D. Smith, “Erasistratus’ Dietetic Medicine,” BHM 56 (1982) 399–409; John Scarborough, “Erasistratus, Student of Theophrastus?,” BHM 59 (1985) 515–517; Idem, Medical and Biological Terminologies, 2nd ed. (1998); L. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius: An Antonine Scholar and his Achievement, rev. ed. (2003). John Scarborough 296

P:308

E R AT O S T H E N E¯ S O F K U R E¯ N E¯Erasistratos of Sikuo¯ n (250 BCE – 95 CE)A   P., in G  CMLoc 10.3 (13.356–358 K.), records two humor-extracting remedies. For gout, draw out the phlegm from blisters raised by pouring on chilledfeet a solution of caper-root, henbane-seed, hemlock, mandrake, etc., heated with dried lees,and then bandaging the feet with thin vinegar-soaked cloth for two hours. Blood is extractedby an analogous procedure, rather than by cupping vessels or leeches. Cf. T.(*) PTKEratokle¯s (450 – 390 BCE)Musical theorist quoted by A as representative of the school of harmonikoi,earlier empiricists who rejected the Pythagorean description of notes as quantities andconceived them as dimensionless points lying on a linear continuum they called the “dia-gram.” He and his followers seem to have attempted a distinction of conjunct from disjuncttetrachords and to have enumerated arrangements of octaves interpreting harmoniai asapproximations to “octave species” (eid¯e tou dia pas¯on). However, according to Aristoxenos,they made no serious attempt to explain the principles governing the melodic phenomena:thus their results are described by him as incomplete.A.D. Barker, “Hoi kaloumenoi harmonikoi: the predecessors of Aristoxenos,” PCPhS 24 (1978) 1–21; Idem (1989) 124–125; OCD3 553, Idem. E. RocconiEratosthene¯s of Kure¯ne¯ (ca 240 – 194 BCE?)Polymath, wrote works on a wide range of subjects including mathematics, harmonic the-ory, geography, chronology, grammar, and literary criticism, as well as composing poetry.Scarcely any of this oeuvre remains extant except for a mathematical epigram and quotationsfrom his most important work, Geographica. Various ancient sources report conﬂicting bio-graphical details. The Souda (E-2898) credibly states that he was born in the 126th Olympiad(276–272 BCE) and died at age 80 during the reign of Ptolemy V. Son of Aglaos, during hisyouth in Kure¯ne¯ he supposedly received a literary education from the philologist Lusaniasand poet K. During a sojourn at Athens, he associated with prominent philo-sophers, the Peripatetic Aristo¯n of Khios and Academic Arkesilaos. From Athens hewas invited to Egypt by Ptolemy III. A Roman-period papyrus (POxy 10.1241) asserts thatEratosthene¯s succeeded Apollo¯nios of Rhodes as head of the Alexandrian library, and thatin turn Aristophane¯s of Buzantion succeeded him. Probably during the earlier part of hisAlexandrian period, A   communicated to him a lost collection of geometricalpropositions asserted without proofs, as well as the extant Method Concerning MechanicalTheorems, though in his other surviving prefatory letters (to D   P ),which must have been written while Eratosthene¯s was still alive, Archime¯de¯s singlesout K  as the Alexandrian mathematician for whom Eratosthene¯s had greatestrespect. 1. Mathematics and Harmonics. Our evidence for Eratosthene¯s’ mathematicalwork is severely limited. P (Collection 7.3) includes a formal geometrical treatise byEratosthene¯s called On Means, apparently in two books, as one of the writings making up 297

P:309

E R AT O S T H E N E¯ S O F K U R E¯ N E¯the “Treasury of Analysis” (topos analuomenos), a corpus of resources for the solution ofgeometrical problems by analysis, but he does not describe the work’s contents. It was likelyin On Means that Eratosthene¯s discussed “loci on means,” which according to an obscurestatement of Pappos’ (7.22) seem to have comprised straight lines and circles, conic sec-tions, and other curved lines. We do not know the context in which Eratosthene¯s presentedthe so-called “sieve,” an algorithm for ﬁnding prime numbers (N, IntroductioArithmetica 1.13). E (In Arch. Sph. Cyl. pp. 88–96 Heiberg) quotes what purports to be a letteraddressed by Eratosthene¯s to “King Ptolemy,” describing a geometrical and instrumentalsolution of the problem of ﬁnding two mean proportionals between two given rectilinearmagnitudes; that is, given linear magnitudes A and D, to ﬁnd magnitudes B and C such thatA : B = B : C = C : D. The letter originates the problem in the story of how the Deliansconsulted the “geometers around P” on how to obey an oracle commanding thedoubling of a cubical altar. Eratosthene¯s’ geometrical solution is to erect A and D asperpendiculars to a base line, and to construct three similar right triangles adjacent to oneanother on this base such that the ﬁrst has the end point of A as its vertex and the othertwo have their vertices collinear with the end points of A and D (Fig.); the heights of theselatter triangles are the mean proportionals. The solution is to be implemented mechanicallyby an arrangement of rigid triangles sliding along grooves. According to the letter, Eratos-thene¯s made a votive dedication of a bronze specimen of this mesolabon (“mean-obtainer”)accompanied by a proud epigram in elegiacs, reproduced at the end of the letter, assertingthe superiority of Eratosthene¯s’ solution to those of A, E, andM. (N   would in turn castigate Eratosthene¯s’ approach as bothunmechanical and ungeometrical; cf. Eutokios p. 98 Heiberg.) Modern scholarship has, forthe most part, followed Wilamowitz in considering the letter spurious but the epigramauthentic, though Knorr has argued that the whole is genuine. It seems plausible in anycase that Eratosthene¯s did commemorate his discovery through a votive object andinscription.Eratosthene¯s’ mechanical method of ﬁnding two mean proportionals betweenmagnitudes A and D. The left and right triangles are slid along grooves until by trial and errorthe four vertices are collinear © Jones T   S (p. 2, Hiller) reports that Eratosthene¯s gave a similar account of theDelians’ eﬀorts to double their altar in Plat¯onikos, “the Platonist.” This seems to have been adiscursive book on the philosophy of mathematical objects and relations, and Theo¯n’sseveral citations of Eratosthene¯s on the topic of ratios probably come from it. Theo¯n(p. 142) also ascribes to Eratosthene¯s a discussion of the harmonies of the celestial spheresthat was partly in verse and contained an etiological myth for the origins of the celestialtuning. 298

P:310

E R AT O S T H E N E¯ S O F K U R E¯ N E¯ A more technical work on harmonic theory seems to lie behind schemes that Pattributes to Eratosthene¯s (Harmonics 2.14) specifying numbers associated with the pitchesof three tuning systems: on Ptolemy’s understanding, these numbers represent the lengthsof a uniformly tensed string that would sound at the corresponding pitches. Two ofthe schemes coincide perfectly with schemes that Ptolemy associates with A;hence it appears that Eratosthene¯s was attempting somehow to reconcile Aristoxenos’ the-ory of tonal “distances” with the Pythagorean model of musical intervals as whole numberratios. 2. Geography. H   (Dioptra 35) refers to Eratosthene¯s’ work “on the measurementof the Earth,” seemingly independent of his Geographica and in which he presented ageometrical deduction of the length of the spherical Earth’s circumference from ostensiblyempirical data. K   (1.7) reports a summary of Eratosthene¯s’ approach, whichhe characterizes as following a ge¯ometrik¯e ephodos, a phrase that could mean a method involv-ing surveying or, more likely, deductive argument expressed in the manner of the geometers.The assumptions are (1) that the Sun is eﬀectively at inﬁnite distance from the Earth, sothat shadows cast in all localities are parallel, (2) that Alexandria is situated 5,000 stadesnorth of Sue¯ne¯ as measured along a meridian, (3) that for an observer at Sue¯ne¯ the Sunpasses through the zenith at noon on the summer solstice, and (4) that for an observerat Alexandria the Sun is 1/50 of the meridian circle south of the zenith at the solstitialnoon. Of these data, (3) was probably derived from common report, and is accurate, andthe interval (2) between the two cities – not in fact on the same meridian – has the appear-ance of a round estimate. Kleome¯de¯s, supported by M C’s (6.596–598)dubious testimony, states that (4) was measured using a spherical sundial, though thismay be a didactic simpliﬁcation. The resulting value of the Earth’s circumference, 250,000stades, is often cited in ancient sources, but not always attributed to Eratosthene¯s. Erato-sthene¯s himself is likely to be responsible for the well attested “rounding” of this number to252,000, allowing a convenient equation of 700 stades with one degree of the meridian.(Eratosthene¯s apparently employed a division of the meridian into 60 units, however, ratherthan into degrees.) In the same work, Eratosthene¯s may have treated related questions ofmathematical geography, including estimates of the latitudes of Alexandria and other citiesderived from the ratio of a gnomon to its noon shadow on an equinox, and an estimateof the obliquity of the ecliptic (or equivalently, the latitude of Sue¯ne¯), which Ptolemy(Almagest 1.12) says was very near his own value, 11/83 of a semicircle. The Geographica, in three books, was a treatise on the construction of a map of theoikoumene¯. Eratosthene¯s may have coined the word ge¯ographia (in the sense of “world-cartography”) and terminology derived from it, reﬂecting a new emphasis on settingmap-making on a rational and quantitative scientiﬁc basis. Eratosthene¯s thus initiated agenre that was to lead, by way of M  T, to Ptolemy’s Geography. Thoughno longer extant, the Geographica is often mentioned in ancient authors, in particularS , who reports many speciﬁc details. Strabo¯n had direct access to Eratosthene¯s’work and also drew extensively from H’ lost polemic against it, and thus wecan recover from Strabo¯n the general structure and character of the Geographica. Book 1contained a critical review of earlier geographical authors and cartographers, a list fromwhich Eratosthene¯s signiﬁcantly excluded H. Book 2 appears to have addressedmethodology and the situation and dimensions of the oikoumene¯. Book 3 provided thedetailed discussion of the dimensional and positional data necessary for drawing a mapof the oikoumene¯, employing a division of the continents into large geometrically 299

P:311

deﬁned regions with rectilinear borders (sphragides, “seals”). It is not clear whether thetext was meant to be accompanied by an actual map. Notwithstanding Hipparkhos’criticisms, Eratosthene¯s’ conception of the general shape and layout of the known worldremained the basis for verbal and pictorial portrayals of the world well into the Romanperiod. 3. Astronomy and Chronology. Although Eratosthene¯s’ geodesy had an ostensiblyastronomical empirical foundation, his direct contributions to astronomy were slight.G (8.24) refers to a work on the oktaete¯ris, in which Eratosthene¯s explained howthe 365-day year of the Egyptian calendar meant that Egyptian festivals gradually shiftedbackwards in relation to the natural seasons. A work for which the Souda oﬀers the alterna-tive titles Astronomia and Katast¯erigmoi (“constellations”) retailed myths relating to the constel-lations; an extant anonymous book containing such material may represent an adaptationor digest of Eratosthene¯s’ work. Eratosthene¯s is often credited as the principal founder of Greek chronography, chieﬂy onthe basis of his On Chronographers and Olympic Victors. It is unclear, however, whether thitreputation is wholly deserved. On Chronographers (an alternative version of the title, Chronogra-phy, is less likely to be correct) appears to have been more a critical review of earlier writingtpertaining to chronology rather than an original study, though it did propose a frameworkof speci

P:312

E RU T H R I O SK, H    T, and several others; most of Ero¯tianos’ appositions,however, are drawn from drama and poetry, with numerous selections from H,Menander, Aeschylus, Sophokle¯s, Aristophane¯s, and similar “classics.” Ero¯tianos’ mentionsof authors providing him with glosses are a valuable listing of medical writers circulating inRome in the 1st c. CE: noteworthy are P  K , N  K ,L  N, S N, Dioskouride¯s, as well as many of the works in theHippokratic corpus. Ero¯tianos himself probably was not a physician.Ed.: Nachmanson (1918).K. Strecher, “Zu Erotian,” Hermes 26 (1891) 262–307; RE 6.1 (1907) 544–548, L. Cohn; E. Nachman- son, Erotianstudien (1917); M. Wellmann, Hippokratesglossare (1931); Smith (1979) 202–204; E.M. Craik, “Medical References in Euripides,” BICS 45 (2001) 81–95. John ScarboroughErukinos (before 250 CE) P (MC 3, pp. 104–130 H.) explains and demonstrates 15 paradoxical construc- tions of triangles and quadrilaterals, start- ing from the “well-known paradoxes” of Erukinos (106.8). Seven of them concern triangles drawn inside given triangles, theOne of Erukinos’ (?) paradoxes: AC=CE, paradox being that two sides of the innerAB=DB, DH is constructed so as to have the same triangle can be made greater than the cor-area as ABC: thus OHZ has a lesser area than ABC responding sides of the outer triangle.but greater sides. © Bernard From those are derived ﬁve more that pro- pose the same kind of paradox for quadri-laterals. The last three concern the areas of triangles or parallelograms, the areas being ininverse relation to the lengths of the sides of the corresponding ﬁgures. In many places (e.g.130.5), Pappos seems to have added his own constructions to Erukinos’ so as to reinforce the“paradoxical eﬀect” of the latter. The whole order of exposition follows Pappos’ style, sothat it is plausible that only some of these theorems are taken from Erukinos. Moreover, theconstruction submitted by one of P’s students to Pappos triggering his discus-sion (104.15–23), is not among the latter and therefore in Erukinos. On the other hand, thissame construction is retrieved by E in his discussion of A  ’ postulatesabout the relative size of lines having the same extremities (in Sph. and Cyl. 3, pp.12–14Heiberg) and in P’ comments on Elem. 1.21, in which he clearly refers to it asa “mathematical paradox” (In Eucl. p. 326.24–25 Fr.). Proklos (397) also mentions Elem.1.25–27 as belonging to the “treasury of paradoxes” worked out by “mathematicians” andPappos repeatedly mentions “paradoxes” as a recognized genre, to which Erukinos’ texttherefore probably belonged.Heath (1921) 365–368. Alain BernardEruthrios (ca 350? – 640 CE)P  A 7.18.10 (CMG 9.2, p. 371) records his ointment of two dozen ingredi-ents, including three compounds, plus clove-ﬂowers, saﬀron, cyclamen, nard, propolis, rose 301

P:313

ESDRASoil, spikenard, sturax-gum, terebinth, and absinthe wormwood, in honey and Falernianwine. The archaic name (cf. LGPN 3B.145) was seeing a late-antique revival: cf. LGPN1.283–284, 2.401–402.(*) PTKEsdras (100 – 500 CE?)Greek physician of dubious historicity as he is identiﬁed in the MSS as a “great prophet”(below) and a “teacher.” Whatever the case, the formulas for medicines with which he iscredited are of the same type as many antidotes from the 1st to 4th cc. CE. They might thusdate back to this period, and have been attributed to a possibly mythical Esdras at a laterperiod. So far, two formulas for compound medicines are known under his name: a40 ingredient antidote made mainly of vegetals, with also brimstone, and used for thetreatment of a wide range of pathologies, from venoms and poisons to diﬃcult childbirth,headache, delirium, cough, fever, swellings, edema, gout and sciatica, for example (threeGreek MSS: Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria, 1808, early 14th c.; Oxford, BodleianLibrary, Baroccianus 150, 15th c., and Roe 14, 15th c.; and one Latin: Monte Cassino,Archivio della Badia, V.225, 11th c. [Beccaria 1956: 304], ascribed to Esdre). The othermedicine, which is a shorter version of the prior, was made of 27 ingredients, mostlyvegetals but plus also castoreum and dog’s ﬂesh, and was prescribed against dropsy andcold diseases (MSS: München, graecus 72, 16th c.; Roma, Biblioteca Angelica, 4, 15th c.;Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, med. gr. 31, 16th c., and 41, 14th c.). Esdras proph¯et¯es is cited in astrological texts (CCAG 8.3 [1912] 13, 26–27, 34, 64–65, 76,88; CCAG 6 [1903] 51, 56), and in Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, appendix graecaIV.46 (E. Mioni, Codices graeci manuscripti Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum I.2 [1972] 236).Latin astrological texts circulated in the medieval West under Esdras’ name (Thorndike andKibre 1963: 427, 603, 739, 805, 837, 1444, 1451, 1453), but whether the medical andastrological writers are the same man is uncertain.Diels 2 (1907) 27, 37–38, Suppl. (1908) 50; M. Formentin, I codici greci di medicina nelle tre Venezie (1978) 50, 81. Alain TouwaideEuago¯ n of Thasos (325 – 90 BCE)Authored a work on agriculture which may have treated cereals, livestock, poultry, viti-culture, and arboriculture (cf. P, 1.ind.8, 10, 14–15, 17–18). It was used by CD (V, RR 1.1.8–10, cf. C, 1.1.9).RE 6.1 (1907) 820 (#2), M. Wellmann. Philip ThibodeauEuainetos (250 BCE – 100 CE?)Wrote a commentary on A, entirely lost; there may have been two such men (FGrHist1026 T19). The name is common before ca 100 CE and unattested thereafter (LGPN ).(*) PTK 302

P:314

EUBOULOS (AGRIC. AND VETERIN.)Euangeus (?) (250 BCE – 80 CE)A, in G  CMGen 5.5 (13.806 K.), gives his “green” plaster, containingaloes, birthwort, frankincense, galbanum, ikhthuokolla, myrrh, opopanax, verdigris,etc. in an olive oil, vinegar, and terebinth base. The name is otherwise unattested(Pape-Benseler; LGPN ), and if we do not emend to “Euangelos,” ΕΥΑΓΓΕΩΣ may be agarbled brand name rather than a possessive.Fabricius (1726) 154. PTKEuax (400 – 500 CE)A name of probably pseudepigraphic origin. Together with D , he is creditedwith a Latin lapidary tract, of uncertain date and composition, consisting, in its currentstate, in two introductory letters, two very short astrological lapidaries (a planet correspondsto each stone), and the description and ﬁnd-places of 80 stones with magical properties,most likely translated from Greek originals and then synthesized into one text. Such fusioncan be dated to ca the 5th/6th c. CE, that is to the same period when, in Italy (particularly inRavenna and in Cava de’ Tirreni) but also in Vandal Africa, medical-scientiﬁc works, suchas those by D , O, and G , were translated into Latin. It is impossible to determine how much of the text is due to Damigero¯n, and how much toEuax. Likely the dual Euax-Damigero¯n authorship reﬂects two stages of tradition. Euaxprobably refers to more recent revisions, while Damigero¯n may refer to an older edition,probably the original Alexandrine Greek text used as a model. The name Euax, completelyunknown in the ancient world (in Latin euax is an interjection of joy, while the Greek suﬃx -axforms several proper names, e.g. Hierax, Phaiax, Skulax), appears only at the beginning ofthe second introductory letter, addressed to the emperor Tiberius (in some codices, however,both letters, as well as the lapidary itself, are attributed only to Euax). In it, Euax is character-ized as “king of the Arabs,” possible evidence of the lapidary’s presumed original date(commercial relationships between Romans and Arabs are attested from the imperial age on).RE 6.1 (1907) 849–850, M. Wellmann; Halleux and Schamp (1985) 193–290. Eugenio AmatoEuboulide¯s (ca 200 BCE – ca 250 CE)A, On the Decade, as preserved in the T A (p. 52de Falco), cites Euboulide¯s, A , A, H, and N ,as writers on P and his rebirths. B, Inst. Mus. 2.19, cites (thesame?) Euboulide¯s with H on the order and generation of the harmonies fromthe Pythagorean tetraktus, i.e., the number ten and its representation as 1 + 2 +3 + 4. (The name is more frequent in Athens and areas under Athenian inﬂuence:LGPN.)FGrHist 1106. PTKEuboulos (Agric. and Veterin.) (325 – 90 BCE)Author of a remedy for opisthotonos in horses quoted by P (Pelagonius 271).H  attributes the same remedy to unknown authorities (henioi): Hippiatrica Parisina 303

P:315

EUBOULOS (PHARM.)325 = Hippiatrica Berolinensia 34.10). A Euboulos appears in V’s list of Greek writers onagriculture (RR 1.1.9) added by C D to Mago¯n’s agricultural treatise(cf. C, 1.1.11). Pelagonius and Hierokle¯s may have used sources derived fromCassius Dionusios.RE 6.1 (1907) 879 (#18), M. Wellmann; Fischer (1980); CHG v. 1; McCabe (2007) 159, 168, 236–237. Anne McCabe and Philip ThibodeauEuboulos (Pharm.) (250 BCE? – 80 CE)A quotes two of Euboulus’ recipes: an enema for dysentery compoundedfrom realgar, copper, acacia, etc., in myrtle wine and infused with warm, diluted wine(G  CMLoc 9.5, 13.297 K.); and a phaia, possibly against venoms, compounded fromlitharge, roast copper, verdigris, beeswax, terebinth, ammo¯niakon incense, opop-anax, etc. (CMGen 6.1, 13.911–912 K.; cf. 3.9, 13.650 K.). Phaia (dark) plasters are so-calledprobably because of their colorful mineral ingredients.RE 6.1 (1907) 879 (#19), M. Wellmann. Alain TouwaideE- ⇒ E-Euclid of Alexandria (300 – 260 BCE)We have remarkably little personal information about Euclid (Eukleide¯s), arguably the mostinﬂuential mathematician who ever lived. P (Collection 7.35, p. 678.10–12 H.) says thatA   P studied with Euclid’s students in Alexandria, suggesting a ﬂoruit inthe middle of the 3rd c. . P (In Eucl. p. 68.10–11 Fr.) makes Euclid a contempor-ary of the ﬁrst Ptolemy (d. 282), but his evidence does not inspire conﬁdence. The standardedition of Euclid’s works (Heiberg and Menge) includes the following complete texts inGreek: Elements, 13 books (vv. 1–4) plus a 14th book written by H  and a 15th bookat least in part due to a pupil of the elder I   M  (v. 5); Data (v. 6); Optics (intwo recensions) and Catoptrics (v. 7); Phenomena, Sectio Canonis, and Introductio Harmonica (v. 8).Volume 8 also contains textual evidence relating to non-extant works ascribed in ancientsources to Euclid: On Divisions, Fallacies, Porisms, Conics, and Surface Loci. Arabic evidenceindicates that Euclid also wrote on mechanics. Mathematical texts are especially vulnerable to “improvements,” inserted “explanations,”and recasting, as is shown, for example, by the 14th and 15th books of the Elements and thetwo recensions of the Optics. Most Greek MSS of the Elements and all early printed versionsderive from an edition by T   A, whereas the standard printed editionpurports to be pre-Theonine. There are considerable variations between our Greek text andArabic translations and also among the Greek MSS themselves. Because the texts are sosubject to tampering, it is really not possible to speak about exactly what Euclid wrote, butonly about whether a work is based on something Euclid could have written. Of the com-plete works published in the standard edition, only the Introductio Harmonica is universallyrejected as non-Euclidean in this sense. Older scholars tended to consider the Catoptrics andSectio Canonis spurious, but both works have been defended as Euclidean in more recentyears (the Sectio is treated in a separate entry). Only the other surviving works which can be 304

P:316

EUCLID OF ALEXANDRIAconsidered Euclidean, all characterized by apparently rigorous, stylized deduction from ﬁrstprinciples, are discussed here. Data (“Things Given”) is mentioned ﬁrst by Pappos (Collection 7.3, p. 636.18–19 H.) in hislist of works useful for analysis, that is, the ﬁnding of solutions to problems and of proofs ofpropositions, by supposing that what has to be done is accomplished or that what is to beproved is true, and asking what else must be accomplished or true as a result: the idea is thatwhen one reaches things one knows how to accomplish or prove, one will be able to reversethe steps and produce a solution or proof for what is sought. Optics is essentially a treatise on monocular perspective. It is assumed that vision is amatter of the emission of rectilinear rays from the eye which strike an object and form acone with vertex in the eye and base a plane ﬁgure determined by the shape of the objectseen, and that the relative apparent size of an object is determined by the size of the angle“under which” it is seen and its relative apparent position by the relative position of the raysunder which it is seen; the rays are treated as discrete straight lines, so that an object will notbe seen if it falls between rays. Catoptrics takes the same approach to mirror vision, treating plane, convex, and concavemirrors. Phenomena is an essay in very elementary geometric astronomy, the main point of whichseems to be showing that certain astronomical appearances can be represented and under-stood geometrically. In the prologue simple astronomical data are invoked to justify theclaim that the sphere of the ﬁxed stars rotates uniformly about a ﬁxed axis and that the eyeof an observer is at the center of the sphere, and geometrical deﬁnitions are given of suchastronomical terms as “horizon,” and “meridian.” Among the theorems proved are theassertion that if two stars lie on a great circle which has no point in common with the arcticcircle (the circle including all stars that are never seen to set), the one which rises earlier setsearlier (prop. 4). The name of “Euclid” is associated ﬁrst and foremost with the Elements, apparently a single treatise in which propositions are derived from principles labeled as “deﬁnitions,” “postu- lates,” and “common notions” (the last frequently called axioms). Careful scholarship of the last century has made clear that the work is a compilation based on several sources. The subject of book 1 is the geometry of plane rectilinear ﬁgures. The book is noteworthy for avoiding the use of pro- portions and for postponing the use of the parallel postulate until it is required. Book 2 introduces what is now frequently called geometric algebra in a series of geometric propositionsEuclid’s geometric alge- corresponding to what we know as algebraic equations; forbra (1. prop. 2) © Mueller example, proposition 2, which corresponds to “(x+y)2 = x2 + y2 + 2xy,” says that if AGB is a straight line, the square with sideequal to AB [SQ(AB)] is equal to SQ(AG) plus SQ(BG) plus two times the rectangle withsides equal to AG and BG. Book 3 treats circles and their relations to straight lines and angles, Book 4 the inscriptionin circles and circumscription about circles of rectilinear ﬁgures. Book 5 brings in pro-portionality, developing a theory based on a deﬁnition which says of four magnitudes A, B,C, D that A:B :: C:D if and only if for any multiples m·A, n·B, m·C, n·D of those magnitudes,if m·A is greater than, equal to, or less than n·B, m·C is accordingly greater than, equal to, or 305

P:317

EUCLIDEAN SECTIO CANONISless than n·D, and that A:B > C:D if and only if for some m and n, m·A > n·B and m·C ≤ n·D.Euclid’s theory deals only with proportionalities among magnitudes, not with ratios betweenpairs of magnitudes, but it is a simple matter to reformulate the theory of Book 5, bytreating ratios A:B as “cuts” in the system of positive fractions m/n. In Book 6 Euclid appliesthe theory of proportion to geometric entities and develops the notion of similarity. Books7–9 introduce numbers as objects of study using a separately developed theory of propor-tion. The major topic of the very diﬃcult Book 10 is a classiﬁcation of straight lines A whichare called irrational relative to a given straight line R if both A and R and SQ(A) and SQ(R)are incommensurable. Book 11 develops basic ideas of solid geometry. Book 12 uses a method, whichis called the “method of exhaustion,” to prove a series of sophisticated results, thesimplest of which is prop. 2: if C and C’ are circles with diameters d and d’, thenC:C’ :: SQ(d ):SQ(d’ ). In Book 13 Euclid constructs the ﬁve regular solids, triangular pyramid, octahedron,cube, icosahedron, and dodecahedron, circumscribes spheres around them, and character-izes their edges relative to the diameters of the circumscribing spheres using in the last threecases the classiﬁcation of Book 10. It is clear from Proklos (In Eucl. pp. 65–68 Fr.) that Euclid’s Elements had more thanone predecessor, starting with a work of H   K. It is also clear thatmuch of the contents of the Elements is based on the work of others, most clearlyE (Books 5 and 12) and T  (Books 10 and 13). Nevertheless, Euclid’sElements is an outstanding achievement which replaced all of its predecessors and sources,and became both an inspiration and a foil for much of the subsequent history of Westernmathematics.Ed.: J.L. Heiberg, and H. Menge, Euclidis Opera Omnia, 9 vv. (1883–1916);P. Ver Eecke, trans., Euclide, L’optique et al catoptrique (1938); DSB 4.414–437, I. Bulmer-Thomas; B. Vitrac, trans., Euclide, Les Elements 4 vv. (1990–2001); J.L. Berggren and R.S.D. Thomas, trans., Euclid’s Phaenomena (1996); DPA 3 (2000) 252–272, B. Vitrac; C.M. Taisbak, trans., Dedomena (2003). Ian Muellerpseudo-E, E 15 ⇒ I   M ’ Euclidean Sectio Canonis (300 – 260 BCE?)“Division of the Monochord” (= kanonos katatom¯e = Sectio Canonis), a short text on mathemati-cal harmonics ascribed in most MSS to E. Fragments are quoted by P(title and authorship: In Ptolemaei Harmonica Commentarium 98.19 Düring; preface: 90.7–22;props.1–16: 99.1–103.25) and B (De Institutione Musica iv). Its authorship, date andunity of composition have been long debated: a logical error in prop. 11 has been used asevidence against Euclid’s authorship, but arguments for dating it substantially later thanEuclid, and for excising the preface and two (or four) ﬁnal propositions as late accretions,have not met with consensus. The text as we now have it is comprised of ﬁve types of material: (1) a discursive prefaceattempting to derive mathematical harmonics from a physical acoustics which can accountfor the behavior of strings (an essential connection in order for the monochord to be useddemonstratively in props.19–20); (2) nine purely mathematical propositions demonstrating 306

P:318

E U D E¯ M O S ( M E T H O D I S T )the properties of the simplest multiple (mn:n) and epimoric ((n+1):n) ratios; (3) seven sub-sequent propositions (10–16) wherein the properties of simple musical intervals are shownto be analogous to those of the ratios of props.1–9; (4) two propositions (17–18) locating the“movable” notes in the scale by the method of concordance; (5) a ﬁnal two propositions(19–20) introducing the monochord and marking on it the bridge-positions correspondingto the notes of a two-octave scale-system. The Sectio owes as much to 4th c. developments in acoustics and harmonics as it does toEuclidean mathematics. In the preface, the basic assumptions of Arkhutan acoustics (e.g.,that sound is caused by impact, pl¯eg¯e ) are adopted and modiﬁed, apparently with the aim ofallowing mathematical propositions to be demonstrated on strings, in ways that suggest theinﬂuence of theories akin to those expressed in the A O S and theA P (11.6, 19.12, 19.23, 19.39). The Sectio is also a polemical text;certain propositions (e.g. 16, 18) are clearly intended to refute not only the conclusions butalso the basic assumptions of Aristoxenian harmonics.Ed.: MSG; H. Menge, Euclides Phaenomena et scripta musica (1916).Düring (1932); A.D. Barker, “Methods and aims in the Euclidean Sectio Canonis,” JHS 101 (1981) 1–16; A. Barbera, “Placing Sectio Canonis in historical and philosophical contexts,” JHS 104 (1984) 157–161; Barker (1989); A. Barbera, The Euclidean Division of the Canon (1991); A.D. Barker, “Three approaches to canonic division,” Apeiron 24 (1991) 49–83; A.C. Bowen, “Euclid’s Sectio canonis and the history of Pythagoreanism,” in Bowen (1991); O. Busch, Logos Syntheseos (1998); Mathiesen (1999); S. Hagel, “Zur physikalischen Begründung der pythagoreischen Musikbetrachtung,” WS 114 (2001) 85–93; Barker (2007) ch. 14, 364–410. David CreeseEude¯mos (Methodist) (ca 21 – 31 CE)The irony-infused episode in T, Hist. 4.3 and 11, and the gossipy notice in P29.20 name Eude¯mos the Methodist as a personal physician to Tiberius’ son Drusus “theYounger” and his wife, Liuilla (Liuia Iulia). Implicated long after Drusus’ death in 23,Eude¯mos was put on the rack in 31, “confessing” to murder by poisoning, a charge stem-ming from a letter written by Apicata to Tiberius after the disgrace and execution of her ex-husband Seianus; she conveniently committed suicide once the letter was sent. Liuilla’sadultery with Eude¯mos, as recorded by Pliny, “. . . was an easy frill” (Levick, 279 n. 151).Only Tacitus’ innuendo suggests Eude¯mos was named in Apicata’s letter; more likely itsimply stated that Seianus and Liuia had poisoned Drusus (whose death was quite likely tohave been “natural”). “[A doctor’s] professional duties at the time of the alleged murderwould ensure that the unfortunate Eude¯mos . . . stood at the head of the list of candidatesfor the rack” (Seager, 156). Eude¯mos was T ’s student (C A, Acute 2.219 [Drabkin,p. 286; CML 6.1.1, p. 278]), and under Eude¯mos’ name is preserved a poetic version of atheriac invented by A VIII P   (G , Antid. 2.14 [14.185–186K.]; Tecusan, p. 339, rough translation), perhaps indicating that Themiso¯n, who had emi-grated from Syria to Italy, passed along to Eude¯mos some of Antiokhos’ detailed knowledgeof pharmacology and toxicology, especially antidotes against snake bites, scorpion stings,and spiders (cf. Gale¯n, Antid. 2.17 [14.201–202 K.]). Eude¯mos was one of the ﬁrst physi-cians to write about hudrophobia, as contracted from dog bites (P, PoisonousAnimals 1.4 [CMG 10.1.1, p. 5]), but assumed that hudrophobia was the same as melankho-lia, a diagnosis refuted by Caelius Aurelianus (Acute 3.107–108 [Drabkin, p. 368; CML 6.1.1, 307

P:319

E U D E¯ M O S “ T H E E L D E R ”p. 354]); therapy for hudrophobia, according to Eude¯mos, consisted of venesection,administration of hellebore (type not speciﬁed), and application of cupping vessels (bodilyposition also not designated [ibid., 3.134–135; Drabkin, p. 386; CML 6.1.1, p. 372]).Eude¯mos recorded the anecdote of a physician who had contracted hudrophobia; recog-nizing his unhappy and painful fate, weeping, he dropped to his knees but seeing the tearsdripping onto his body, “he leaped up and tore his clothes to pieces” (ibid., 3.105 [Drabkin,pp. 366–367; CML 6.1.1, p. 354]). To alleviate “cardiac disease” (a severe and constrictingpain in the upper chest, our angina pectoris), Eude¯mos recommended an enema of cold water(ibid., 2.219 [Drabkin, p. 286; CML 6.1.1, p. 278]).Ed.: Tecusan (2004) 83, 91, 98, 103, and 107 (“Eudemus: Thematic Synopsis”).RE 6.1 (1907) 904–905, M. Wellmann; B. Levick, Tiberius the Politician (1976); R. Seager, Tiberius, 2nd ed. (2005). John ScarboroughEude¯mos “the Elder” (250 – 30 BCE)Cited once by A, in G  CMLoc 9.5 (13.291 K.), for a trokhiskos against“dysentery” (compounded from saﬀron, “tubes” of cassia, nard, myrrh, alum, and poppyjuice). Designated “the Elder” presumably to distinguish him from the then-recent E (M ). The name is very frequent, and there is no need to identify with any othermedical Eude¯mos.(*) PTKEude¯mos of Alexandria (285 – 235 BCE)Greek anatomist, often quoted by G , together with his younger contemporaryH  (Gale¯n, In Hipp. Aph. 18A.7 K.), as among the great historical anatomists (DeSemine 2.6.13 [CMG 5.3.1, p. 200], In Hipp. Nat. Hom. 15.134 K., etc.). He seems to haveworked on bones (R, Onom. Anthr. Mor. 73 [p. 142 DR]), arteries and veins (Gale¯n, UP3.8 [Helmreich 1907: 148–149]), joints of hands and feet (ibid.), and the embryonic vascularsystem (S  Gyn. 1.57.4 [CMG 4, p. 42; CUF v. 1, pp. 56–57]). He apparently wrote onthe nervous system (Gale¯n, On My Own Books 3 [2.108 MMH]).RE 6.1 (1907) 904 (#17), M. Wellmann; KP 2.405, F. Kudlien; BNP 5 (2004) 147 (#4), V. Nutton; AML 280, K.-H. Leven. Daniela ManettiE   A ⇒ E   AEude¯mos of Athens (380 – 300 BCE)Drug merchant to be distinguished from later homonymous physicians (see AVIII). He may have been active as early as the beginning of 4th c. BCE, if one can identifyhim with Eudamos (Aristophane¯s, Plut. 884), which is hardly certain. In order to demon-strate that drugs have diﬀerent eﬀects according to the person, T (HP9.17.2–3) contrasts Eude¯mos, who, “after making a wager that he would experience noafter-eﬀect before sunset, drank a quite modest dose” of hellebore and could not withstand 308

P:320

E U D E¯ M O S O F R H O D E Sthis purgative, with another pharmakop¯ol¯es, E  K, who took a draught ofhellebore with impunity.RE 6.1 (1907) 903–904 (#16), M. Wellmann. Jean-Marie JacquesE   P ⇒ P    LEude¯mos of Rhodes (330 – 285 BCE)Student of A, founded a philosophical school in Rhodes. D’ vita ofEude¯mos is lost ( fr.1 Wehrli). From biographical sources on other members of theLyceum we can glean that Eude¯mos, already a mature scholar by 322 BCE, was acandidate to succeed Aristotle ( fr.5 Wehrli); that, upon T’ designation asscholarch, Eude¯mos left for his native Rhodes and set up a school there; furthermore,that he remained in correspondence with Theophrastos about matters of Aristotelianphilosophy ( fr.6 Wehrli). Eude¯mos is credited with some works on logic (frr.7–24 Wehrli, these testimonies almostalways mention Eude¯mos together with Theophrastos, suggesting there was no speciﬁccontribution by him which would have set him apart from Theophrastos), On angle ( fr.30Wehrli), a Physics ( frr.31–123 Wehrli), a collection of data on animal behavior ( frr.125–132Wehrli), and histories of the mathematical sciences (geometry: frr.133–141 Wehrli, arith-metic: fr.142 Wehrli, astronomy: frr.143–149 Wehrli), and perhaps one of theology ( fr.150Wehrli). The testimony from On angle situates angles in terms of Aristotelian ontology, asbelonging to the category of quality. The Physics – which must have been composed forpurposes of Eude¯mos’ own school – follows the discussion of Aristotle’s Physics in a linearfashion, omitting Book VII. The collection of data on animal behavior continues Aristotle’sinvestigations in the History of Animals. Practically everything we know about early Greek mathematics and astronomy comesfrom Eude¯mos’ histories. These histories must have belonged to the category of collectionsof data, known as hypomnematic works in the Aristotelian corpus. Nevertheless, suchhypomnematic works were not just loose collections: rather, Eude¯mos’ histories rested onwhat could be termed a framework of the rational reconstruction of the development ofthese disciplines, in terms of a sequence of crucial discoveries, each attributed to a ﬁrstdiscoverer ( pr¯otos heuret¯es), and contributing to the perfection of the discipline – a perfectionwhich either has already been achieved by Eude¯mos’ contemporaries, or which can beexpected to be achieved soon. When assessing Eude¯mos’ sources and methods in writing his histories, we can withsome conﬁdence assume that he had access to his predecessors’ works, at least beginningwith O  and H   K, and for earlier authors he relied on collec-tions, like e.g. the collection (Sunag¯og¯e ) of H. These works, however, must have beenless rich in detail about earlier mathematicians than Eude¯mos’ histories, hence Eude¯mosalmost certainly had some further material at his disposal to supplement these earliercollections.Ed.: Wehrli, v. 8; H. Baltussen, “Wehrli’s edition of Eudemus of Rhodes,” in Bodnár and Fortenbaugh (2002) 127–156.Bodnár and Fortenbaugh (2002); Zhmud (2006). István Bodnár 309

P:321

E U D I KO SEudikos (250 BCE – 75 CE)P 31.13 cites him for two springs near Hestiaia: one which blackens and one whichwhitens the skin of drinkers. Pliny, 1.ind.31, lists him among early sources, such as K and T, explicitly distinguishing him from E, and the name Eudikosis more frequent than Eudoxos through the 1st c. CE (LGPN ): contrast Gisinger, Eudoxos(1921) 123–124. Perhaps the same as, or confused by Pliny with, the (neo)-Pythagorean ofLokroi (I, VP 267).(*) PTKEudo¯ ros of Alexandria (ca 60 – 35 BCE)An “Academic” (I   S 2.24.7–8 W.-H.) considered the founder of MiddlePlatonism. His doctrine of principles has a Neo-Pythagorean outlook. The “elem-ents” Monad and Dyad are transcended by a higher principle “the One.” Eudo¯ros isreported to have ventured an emendation of Metaph. 1 (988a11), where A dis-cusses P’s ﬁrst principles (A in A  A CAG 1 [1891]58–59). A subdivision of ethics survives from Eudo¯ros’ classif ication of philosophy. P- (Anim. Procr. 1013B; 1019E; 1020C) refers to a work on the Timaeus, whereinEudo¯ros upheld a non-literal interpretation of Plato’s cosmogony and calculated thenumbers of the soul. In a work on the Categories, Eudo¯ros raised detailed objectionsagainst Aristotle (S, in Categ. CAG 8 [1907] 159). A work on the heavens or onthe world seems to have been a principal source for A. Drawing on D  A, Eudo¯ros discussed among other things the division of the Earth intoﬁve zones and argued that the torrid (equatorial) zone is inhabited. Eudo¯ros also wrote onthe Nile (S  17.1.5).Ed.: C. Mazzarelli, “Raccolta e interpretazione delle testimonianze e dei frammenti del medioplatonico Eudoro di Alessandria,” Rivista di ﬁlosoﬁa neo-scolastica 77 (1985) 197–209, 535– 555.Moraux (1984) 509–527; Dillon (1996) 115–135; DPA 3 (2000) 290–293, Idem; BNP 5 (2004) 149–150 (#2), M. Baltes and M.-L. Lakmann. Jan OpsomerEudoxos of Knidos (ca 365 – ca 340 BCE)Son of Aiskhine¯s, born ca 395–390 BCE; mathematician, astronomer, and geographer.D  L (8.86–91) provides our principal biographical evidence. At age 23,though impoverished, Eudoxos visited Athens for two months with the otherwise unknownTheomedo¯n, a physician who funded him. After returning to Knidos, he visited Egypt withK  K (I), and stayed for 16 months, where he studied astronomy. Thedoxographical tradition also claims that he studied mathematics with A  Tand medicine with P   L. He then proceeded to the Hellespont where helectured and gained many followers, especially from Kuzikos (K, H ,P). He then returned to Athens, where he associated with the Academy.Having returned home, he did legislative work for Knidos, probably after 347, and died inhis 53rd year, well honored by his city. 310

P:322

EUDOXOS OF KNIDOS Eudoxos completed the generalization of proportion theory, one of the principal intellectual eﬀorts of the previous 50 years, and developed fundamental techniques for comparing ﬁgures by approximating ﬁgures leading to a reductio. They are among the most enduring achievements of ancient Greek mathematics. Our knowledge of his work on mathematics comes principally from four sources: P’ claim that Eudoxos expanded the number of general theorems; scholia to E’s Elements claiming Eudoxos as the author of Book 5 on proportion theory and to Elements 12.2 (circles are as the square on their diagonals) and 12.10 (a cone is 1/3 a cylinder with the same height and base); A  ’ comment in the introductions to On theEudoxos of Knidos © Budapest Museum Sphere and Cylinder and Method that Eudoxos proved that the pyramid is 1/3 a prism with the same height and base (= Elements 13.3–7) and the cone/cylinder theorem; and ﬁnally E ’ claim that Eudoxos pro-duced a solution to the double mean proportion problem: given a, b, to ﬁnd x, y so that a : x= x : y = y : b, using curved lines, which Eratosthene¯s found impractical and E (oursource for Eratosthene¯s) found too garbled to reproduce.From these sources, a general understanding of 4th c. BCE mathematics, and tracesespecially in A, Archime¯de¯s, and T, we can reconstruct some ofEudoxos’ mathematical ideas. The method by which theorems from Euclid, Elements 12 areproved, inappropriately called “the method of exhaustion,” approximates the comparedﬁgures by inscribed ﬁgures whose relations are known. Then it proves by contradiction thatthe approximated ﬁgures must be in the same relation. The reductio builds on two implicitprinciples: (1) given two comparable magnitudes A, B, A > B or A = B or A < B (connectiv-ity), (2) given comparable magnitudes, A and B, and a magnitude C, there is an X such thatA : B = C : X (existence of 4th proportional), and one fundamental theorem: (3) given A, B,if A > B and more than half is taken away from A, and so continuously from the remainder,there will eventually be left a magnitude X, such that X < B (a bisection principle proved inElements 10.1). He also uses a theorem based on (2): (4) if X > B and A : B is a ratio, thenthere is a Y, such that Y < A, X : A = B : Y (cf. Elements 5.14). Principles (2) and (4) are notused in the cone/cylinder theorem.As an example of the structure of the method, for which there are several other forms,suppose that one needs to prove that A : B = C : D. The proof involves two theorems. In theﬁrst, one proves for an approximating class of ﬁgures, a, b of A, B, that a : b = C : D. In thesecond, one assumes that A : B C : D, in which case, by (2), there is an X, A : X = C : D,where X < B or X > B, by (1). For the ﬁrst part of the proof, suppose X < B. One now ﬁnds,by construction, ai, bi, such that ai < A and bi < B, where ai : bi = C : D, by the ﬁrst part ofthe proof, and B-bi < B – X by (3), so that X < bi < B. But since ai : bi = C : D = A : X and ai< A, it follows that bi < X. This is a contradiction, so that A : B C : D. We can take 311

P:323

EUDOXOS OF KNIDOSthis as a general theorem about magnitudes A, B. In the second part of the proof, one nowassumes that X > B. Here this case is reduced to the ﬁrst, since, by (4), there will be a Y suchthat Y < A and D : C = X : A = B : Y, which contradicts the ﬁrst case. Hence, X Y.So, by (1), A : B = C : D. There is some evidence that Eudoxos also used this method for proving general theoremsin proportion theory, where the ﬁrst case would be for commensurable magnitudes and thesecond for incommensurable magnitudes. If so, then Elements 5, on proportion theory,would represent a later reworking of his theory and proofs. Here, there is a general deﬁn-ition of “same ratio” (Elements 5. def. 5), eliminating the need for separate cases: A : B = C : D iﬀ ᭙ n, m: (n × A) ԰ (m × B) iﬀ (n × C) ԰ (m × D).Eudoxos was the ﬁrst astronomer to attempt a general geometrical model to explain apparentmotion of planetary stars, the sun, Moon, and ﬁve visible planets. The model assumed that allcelestial bodies are spheres with the Earth as their center and whose motion is regular: circularabout an axis through the center of the Earth. Each planetary star has a system of concentricspheres where the axis of one inner sphere is ﬁxed to the next outer sphere. In this way,Eudoxos could create apparent irregular motions. For example, each planetary system con-sisted of an outer sphere whose poles would be the poles of the celestial equator and whichrotated daily east/west. Fixed to it were the poles of a sphere contained in it with the samecenter. The poles of the ﬁxed sphere would be perhaps 1/15 circle (the obliquity of the eclip-tic) from the poles of the ﬁrst sphere with the second sphere rotating slowly west/east, i.e.,with the zodiacal period of the planetary star, where the net motion produced is a sphericalspiral. For the ﬁve planets, further variations in their motion would then be explained by twoEudoxos of Knidos: Hippopede © Mendell 312

P:324

EUDOXOS OF KNIDOSmore spheres rotating oppositely with the synodic period of the planet, one with poles onthe equator of the second sphere, and the last, carrying the planet, with poles at an angle tothis. The motivation for the extra two spheres is uncertain, although the spheres for Mer-cury and Venus certainly provided elongations from the Sun. Other suggested phenomenainclude retrograde motion, invisibility periods, and latitudes. On the other hand, the Sun and Moon only required one additional sphere each. Herethe second and third sphere of the Sun moved east/west, although the purpose of the thirdsphere is not known, except that it provided a latitudinal motion for the Sun, rightly criti-cized by H two centuries later. The best understood model is that of the Moon.The outer sphere moved with the daily motion, while the second moved west/east with thelongitudinal motion plus the latitudinal motion, and the third moved oppositely with thelatitudinal motion, but at an angle perhaps of 1/12 or 1/15 of a right angle to the secondsphere. Here the latitudinal motion is, e.g., 1 cycle per interval from downward node todownward node, while the longitudinal motion is 1 cycle per interval between conjunctionswith the same star (the zodiacal motion). Eudoxos’ other work in astronomy includes notably the systematic organization of ﬁxedstars, which he described in two works, the Mirror and later the Phainomena, which survive inA’ versiﬁcation and Hipparkhos’ commentary on Aratos. In the ﬁrst work the ratio oflongest day to shortest night for Greece is given as 5 : 3, and in the other as 12 : 7, as also inP  O. His division of the year, consisting of three seasons of 91 days andautumn of 92 days, makes the seasons as equal as possible and would seem to be an explicitrejection of M  and E  . Eudoxos may have endorsed an oktaete¯ris calendar(cf. K), also a rejection of Meto¯n and Eukte¯mo¯n, but the attribution of thebook Oktaete¯ris to him was doubted in antiquity (esp. by Eratosthene¯s, cf. A,Introduction 19). Traces of his parape¯gma, possibly erected on De¯los, survive in Gand P. Eudoxos also wrote an extensive geography in seven books, The Circuit of the Earth, andmay have been the ﬁrst to divide the Earth into regions according to projections of celestialcircles: equatorial, tropical, arctic and antarctic. He held that the inhabited world, fromIndia to the Iberian Peninsula, was twice as long as it was wide. The work includedethnologies. In other matters, Eudoxos deﬁned the good as “what all things aim at” and identiﬁed itwith pleasure (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1.1.12 and 10.2–3). He also thought that Formswere immanent in things (cf. Aristotle, Metaphyics A.9).Ed.: Fr. Lasserre, Die Fragmente des Eudoxos von Knidos (1966).Knorr (1975); Neugebauer (1975) 596, 620–621, 662, 675–689; W.R. Knorr, “Archimedes and the Pre-Euclidean Proportion Theory,” AIHS 28 (1978) 183–244; I. Mueller, Philosophy of Mathematics and Deductive Structure in Euclid’s Elements (1981); A.C. Bowen and B.R. Goldstein, “A New View of Early Greek Astronomy,” Isis 74 (1983) 330–340; R.M. Dancy, Two Studies in the Early Academy (1991); Henry Mendell, “The Trouble with Eudoxus,” in P. Suppes, J. Moravcsik, and Henry Mendell, edd., Ancient and Medieval Traditions in the Exact Sciences: Essays in Memory of Wilbur Knorr (2001) 59–138; Henry Mendell, “Reﬂections on Eudoxus, Callippus and their Curves: Hippopedes and Callip- popedes,” Centaurus 40 (1998) 177–275; I. Yavetz, “On the Homocentric Spheres of Eudoxus,” AHES 51 (1998) 221–278. Henry Mendell 313

P:325

EUDOXOS OF KUZIKOSEudoxos of Kuzikos (120 – 110 BCE)Greek navigator whose adventures and discoveries were documented by P  A (On the Ocean, F 49 E–K), later transmitted and denounced by S  (2.3.4–5).According to these reports, Eudoxos was a sacred ambassador and peace herald at thefestival of Persephone. Coming to Egypt under Ptolemy VIII Euerge¯te¯s II (145–116 BCE),he formed an association with the king and his ministers regarding voyages up the Nile. AnIndian sailor, found alone and half dead on his stranded ship at the Arabian Gulf, andbrought before the king, declared that he had come from India; whereupon Ptolemy sent anexpedition including Eudoxos to explore the route. Kleopatra III, Ptolemy’s wife and successor, sent Eudoxos to sail the same route. Return-ing to Egypt, he drifted to southern “Ethiopia” where he contacted the inhabitants andfound a horse-shaped wooden prow of a ship from Gade¯s that had sailed beyond the Lixosriver (in Morocco) but had not returned. Eudoxos concluded that it was possible to sailaround Africa, and set sail from Kuzikos with all his property and a large entourage. But theship sank. Eudoxos built another ship and set sail again. Arriving in Maurousia (Mauretania) hetraveled on foot to the court of Bogos whose advisors opposed the exposure of their countryto foreigners. Eudoxos, ﬂeeing to Roman territory, crossed over to Iberia where he built twoships, one for sailing along the coast and the other for the open sea. He equipped the shipswith supplies and carpenters and set sail once again, but never returned. Eudoxos’ achievements reﬂect two maritime routes: from Egypt to India, and aroundAfrica from west to east. Both journeys occurred around 120–110 BCE. Eudoxos’ journeyswere probably not along the coast (periploi ), but followed the monsoon sailing with themonsoon winds across the open sea between Egypt and India. In the second route, aroundAfrica, Eudoxos’ failures were probably due to E ’ misconception of the sizeand shape of Africa as a right angled triangle, the right angle being in Egypt.J.H. Thiel, Eudoxus of Cyzicus, A chapter in the History of the Sea-route round the Cape in ancient times (1966): Strabo¯n’s text with commentary. Daniela DueckEudoxos of Rhodes (ca 275 – 200 BCE)Historian (D  L 8.90), who incorporated periploi into his Histories; thefragments suggest paradoxography. He described birds larger than oxen beyond the Pillarsof He¯rakle¯s (F3 = A, HA 17.14) and how the Galatians charmed birds to vanquishlocust swarms (F4 = HA 17.19). He noted a lack of sunlight in Celtic climes (F2).FGrHist 79; OCD3 566, anon. GLIMEuelpide¯s (15 – 35 CE)Greek ophthalmologist contemporary with C (6.6.8A) who preserves several ofEuelpide¯s’ recipes for eye pathologies, all containing poppy juice and minerals, in gum; allbut one contain saﬀron. The trygodes, resembling wine lees (trux), he compounded fromcalamine, antimony, lukion, myrrh, etc. (6.6.8A [2.196.12–19 Spencer]); the memigmenonsalve he “mixed” from white peppercorn, roasted copper, etc., without saﬀron (6.6.17[2.210.3–6 Spencer]); the pyrrona, red from roasted copper, contained also myrrh and white 314

P:326

E U E¯ N O Spepper (6.6.20 [2.210.24–28 Spencer]); the ball-shaped sphaerion he compounded fromhematite, peppercorns, calamine, and myrrh pounded in Aminian wine (6.6.21 [2.212.1–6 Spencer]); the pyxinum he kept in a box-wood case, having compounded it fromammo¯niakon incense, calamine, and psimuthion (6.6.25C [2.214.12–17 Spencer]);the royal basilicon he formed also from psimuthion, white pepper, calamine, etc. (6.6.31A[2.218.23–27 Spencer]). S L 215 (p. 99 Sconocchia) quotes the plaster ofthe surgeon E, whom Wellmann equated with Euelpide¯s. Since the plaster treatsskin abrasions, contrasting with Euelpide¯s’ ophthalmologic interests, the identiﬁcationseems unlikely.RE 6.1 (1907) 951, M. Wellmann. Alain TouwaideEuelpistos, Terentius (30 BCE – 10 CE)C 7.pr.3 names him as a prominent surgeon operating in Rome between T and M . S L 215 preserves his ointment of litharge and pine resinin wax and olive oil; whereas M  B, Epist. Hipp. ad Maec. 11 (CML 5,p. 32), states that he wrote a book on the powers of herbs, describing the inﬂuence thereonof the lunar cycle.Michler (1968) 74, 117; Korpela (1987) 169. PTKEue¯no¯ r of Argos (Akarnania) (350 – 290 BCE)Greek physician, lived mostly in Athens, where he probably achieved considerable success:he was honored as benefactor in 322 for giving the city a great sum of money and receivedcitizenship in 307–303 BCE (IG II–III, 374). He wrote On Therapy in at least ﬁve books(C A, Chron. 3.122 [CML 6.1.2, p. 752]) and was interested also in gyne-cology (S  Gyn. 1.35.3 [CMG 4, p. 24; CUF v. 1, p. 32]; 4.36.8 [CMG 4, p. 149; CUFv. 4, p. 25]). He thought that pleuritis concerned lungs (Cael. Aur., Acute 2.96 [CML 6.1.1, p.194]) and that an abnormal increase of innate heat caused fevers. He cured dropsicalpatients and thought highly of water therapy, particularly that connected with Amphiaraus’sanctuary in Eretria (Ath., Deipn. 2 [46d]).RE 6.1 (1907) 972–973, M. Wellmann; KP 2.411, F. Kudlien; BNP 5 (2004) 247 (#2), V. Nutton. Daniela ManettiEue¯nos (250 BCE – 95 CE)A   P., in G  CMLoc 8.5 (13.178 K.), cites his stomach compress, ofamber-ﬁlings, melilot (cf. T HP 7.15.3, N Th¯er. 897, D-  3.40, Durling 1993: 233), oinanth¯e (dropwort, cf. Theophrastos HP 6.8.1–2, NikandrosTh¯er. 898, Dioskouride¯s 3.120, Durling 1993: 250), dried roses, and saﬀron, pounded andsieved, mixed with myrtle wine to a waxy consistency, and topped oﬀ with date-nut meat, tobe applied in a linen bandage. The name, though rare, is widely attested (LGPN), and he issurely distinct from E  .RE 6.1 (1907) 977 (#9), M. Wellmann. PTK 315

P:327

EUGAMIOSEugamios (250 BCE – 300 CE?)The Antidotarium Brux. 39 (T P p. 374 Rose) cites his (or her?) remedyagainst dropsy: ashed dove, feathers and all, savin juniper, pounded and sifted, and myrrh,in pure African wine, warmed. The name is only attested in the feminine (LGPN 2.165), butEugamos is found (LGPN ).RE 6.1 (1907) 984 (#2), M. Wellmann. PTKEugeneia (120 BCE – 80 CE)A, in G  CMLoc 7.6 (13.114–115 K.), records her remedy for lung andother disorders, containing saﬀron, galbanum, kostos, laurel, licorice, misu, white andlong pepper, opium, and terebinth, in gum and honey. The use of pepper might suggest aterminus post of ca 120 BCE. Kühn prints -ΕΙΟΣ, but the name is primarily feminine until the2nd c. CE (LGPN ). Cf. E  and O¯ .RE 6.1 (1907) 988 (#11), M. Wellmann. PTKEugenios (Alch.) (300 – 800 CE?)Extant is a short treatise entitled Eugenios’ On the Doubling (i.e., doubling the quantity of ametal, CAAG 2.39). In the early table of MS Marcianus gr. 299, a short treatise On the SacredArt is attributed both to H and to Eugenios. But in the alchemical corpus, thetreatise appears only under Hierotheos’ name. The 10th c. catalogue of books, Kita¯bal-Fihrist, mentions the Eugenios’ name among the authors of alchemy.Ed.: CAAG 2.39Berthelot (1885) 131, 176; Dodge 2 (1970) 852, 983; Letrouit (1995) 83. Cristina VianoEuge¯rasia (?) (120 BCE – 90 CE)A   P., in G  CMLoc 9.2 (13.244 K.), preserves her spleen remedy:squill, boiled and strained, bryony, Cretan-carrot-seed, iris, cedar-berry, myrrh, panax,parsley, pepper, and ground bitter vetch, in vinegar and Falernian wine (famed since themid-2nd c. BCE: C, Brut. 287; P 14.55, 76); stored away from light. Her nameseems otherwise unattested, but cf. the later Euge¯ros (LGPN 1.172) and E.Fabricius (1726) 156; Parker (1997) 145 (#50). PTKEuhe¯meros (200 BCE – 25 CE)Cited four times by S L in A   P. in G  CMLoc 4.7,for eye-medicines (12.774, 777–778, 788 K.). Three of the four use saﬀron and opium, withvarious minerals; two of the four use “Italian” or Falernian wine, rendering a date after 200BCE more likely.RE 6.1 (1907) 972 (#4), M. Wellmann. PTK 316

P:328

Euhe¯meros/Himerios (ca 150 – 350 CE?)Euhe¯meros (in MS Parisinus gr. 2322) or Himerios (in MS Phillipps 1538); addressee ofA

P:329

E U M E¯ L O S O F T H E¯ B A IEume¯los of The¯bai (before ca 350 CE?)Author of a treatise on the medical treatment of horses and cows, preserved in excerpts asone of the seven principal sources of the Hippiatrika. Striking instances of near-verbatimcorrespondence with C, P, and V  illustrateEume¯los’ dependence upon the agricultural tradition, and imply that he copied his sourceor sources uncritically. Through A, Eume¯los’ advice reappears in the treatises ofT  and H , as well as in the Latin M C.Apsurtos’ use of Eume¯los provides a mid-4th c. CE terminus ante quem. Unlike the agriculturalmanuals, which cover a wide array of subjects, Eume¯los’ treatise apparently focused onveterinary treatments. Apsurtos calls him hippiatros megalos, implying that Eume¯los was notsimply a compiler but also a practitioner. Apsurtos also refers to him as Th¯ebaios, but withoutspecifying which of the numerous cities named The¯bai was Eume¯los’ home. Hierokle¯s,following Apsurtos, mentions Eume¯los by name; but no other authors do so.CHG vv.1–2 passim; J.N. Adams, “Pelagonius, Eumelus, and a lost Latin veterinary writer,” Mémoires du Centre Jean Palerne 5 (1984) 7–32; McCabe (2007) 98–121. Anne McCabeEunapios of Sarde¯s (375 – 420 CE)Greek historian (b. ca 345 CE?) who wrote an account of the period 270–404 CE (now lost)and a Lives of the Sophists, dealing mainly with contemporary Neo-Platonists and intel-lectual life in Constantinople and Asia Minor.Ed.: Blockley v. 2 (1983); W.C. Wright, Lives of the Sophists (1922).R.J. Penella, Greek Philosophers and Sophists in the Fourth Century A.D.: Studies in Eunapius of Sardis (1990); R. Goulet, Études sur les vies de philosophes dans l’antiquité tardive. Diogène Laerce, Porphyre de Tyr, Eunape de Sardes (2001). Jørgen MejerEunomos Askle¯piadean (1 – 50 CE)So called by A   P. in G  CMGen 5.14 [13.850.17 K.]). Askle¯piade¯sdescribes three of his dry healing ointments (see ibid. 851.1–2, 11–15; 852.8–11 K.).RE 6.1 (1907) 1133 (#9), M. Wellmann. Jean-Marie JacquesEunomos of Khios (380 – 300 BCE)Drug merchant active in Athens before T’ time. A  the paradox-ographer (Mirab. 50) tells the same anecdote as Theophrastos (HP 9.17.2–3) using the nameEunomos, whereas Theophrastos calls him Eude¯mos (§3), though here he seems to bemistaken, having mentioned in §2 Eude¯mos, another pharmakop¯ol¯es who could be one ofEunomos’ contemporaries. Apollo¯nios explains Eunomos’s ability to resist the eﬀects ofhellebore by his progressive addiction to the drug, in conformity with one of Theophrastos’teachings in the chapter quoted. Theophrastos however states that he used an antidote.RE 6.1 (1907) 904 (#16), M. Wellmann. Jean-Marie Jacques 318

P:330

E U P H O R I O¯ N O F K H A L K I SEupalinos of Megara (550 – 500 BCE)Son of Naustrophos, architect and engineer, built a water supply system for Samos notedby H  (3.60) as one of the three greatest achievements in Greek building andengineering. The system, dating to ca 550–530 BCE, ca 2.5 km long, included a reservoir atthe spring’s source, a covered pipeline leading to a water conduit tunneled 1,036 m througha large hill rising up behind the city, and a second pipeline that brought the water into thecity. The work may be associated with the patronage of the tyrant Polukrate¯s in its laterphase (see also P for another impressive hydraulic project). The attribution of aspringhouse in Megara of ca 500 BCE to Eupalinos is uncertain.H.J. Kienast, Die Wasserleitung des Eupalinos auf Samos (1995); BNP 5 (2004) 176, 177–8 (illus.), C. Höcker; KLA 1.227–228, M. Weber. Margaret M. MilesEuphe¯mios of Sicily (1000 – 1200 CE)Greek physician cited with P X   R  in the Book containing compoundmedicines, brought together and tried by Euph¯emios of Sicily the most commendable [ physician], andPhilippos X¯eros of R¯egion, commendable physicians (Paris, BNF, graecus 2194, ﬀ. 454–464V).Euphe¯mios’ association with Philippos Xe¯ros (known also from the 12th c. Vat. graec. 300)suggests that he also came from Reggio. Euphe¯mios was probably a member of a family ofphysicians, as his son composed pharmaceutical recipes (one quoted in Euphe¯mios’ work:the Parisian MS, f.454V). Since some of the formulae in the Parisian MS are introducedapo ph¯on¯es (“from oral presentation”), Euphe¯mios and Philippos Xe¯ros may have taughtmedicine at a school in the area of Reggio (Ieraci Bio 228).Costomiris (1890) 170–171; Diels 2 (1907) 38; S. (1908) 51; G. Mercati, Notizie varie di antica letteratura medica e di bibliograﬁa (1917) 12; Ieraci Bio (1989) 226–227. Alain TouwaideEuphorbos (40 – 20 BCE)Brother of A M, and like him a follower of A    B,became the personal physician and traveling companion of I, with or for whom hediscovered the plant named for him (euphorbia), and widely used in ancient pharmacy:P 5.16, 25.77–79.M. Michler, “Principis medicus: Antonius Musa,” ANRW 2.37.1 (1993) 757–785 at 760–764. PTKEuphorio¯ n of Khalkis (275 – 220 BCE)A scholar-poet in the manner of K, who studied at Athens under L  K  , enjoyed the patronage of the wife of Alexander of Euboia, and towards theend of his life served as librarian for Antiokhos III. His poetry, notorious for its eruditionand obscurity, became an important source for later lexicographers and technical writerslike S  B, who used its material on toponyms extensively. HisMopsopia apparently contained a discussion of perfect numbers (SH 417; cf. Lightfoot).Among his prose works was a glossary to the Hippokratic corpus in six books (E ,Pr. [p. 5 Nachm.], B-8 [p. 28 Nachm.], fr.29 [p. 107 Nachm.]). That Euphorio¯n also wrote 319

P:331

E U P H R A N O¯ R ( M U S I C )a prose treatise on agriculture excerpted by C D seems doubtful (V,RR 1.1.9–10; cf. C, 1.1.11); perhaps Cassius found material relevant to agronomyin a poem like the H¯esiodos.Ed.: B.A. van Groningen, Euphorion (1977); SH 413–453.RE 6.1 (1907) 1189–1190, O. Skutsch; J.L. Lightfoot, “An early reference to perfect numbers? Some notes on Euphorion, SH 417,” CQ 48 (1998) 187–194; OCD3 570, F. Williams; Ihm (2002) #52. Philip ThibodeauEuphrano¯ r (Music) (400 – 350 BCE?)Pythagorean musical theorist quoted by Athe¯naios, together with A andP  (Deipn. 6 [184e]), as devoted to the art of the aulos; he also wrote a treatise titledOn Auloi or On Aulos Players.RE 6.1 (1907) 1190–1191 (#5), E. Wellmann. E. RocconiEuphrano¯ r (Pythag.) (ca 150 – 50 BCE)Second-generation Pythagorean musician who, together with M  , some timeafter E , discovered four new means (mesòt¯es), added to the six already known(I in Nikom. 2.28.6–11 [p. 116]).M. Timpanaro Cardini, I Pitagorici. Testimonianze e frammenti (1962) 2.436–439. Bruno CentroneEuphrano¯ r (Arch.) (ca 364 – 325 BCE)Sculptor, painter, wrote on theories of art. Quintilian singles out for praise Euphrano¯r’stalents in sculpture, painting, and the other arts (Inst. 12.10.3). V notes his treatiseson proportions and color (7. pr.14). Ancient authors describe many of his statues and paint-ings (e.g. P 34.77, 35.128–129, Pausanias 1.3.3–4), of which the torso of the colossalmarble cult statue of Apollo Patroös (Athenian Agora) has been excavated and is generallyaccepted as a genuine work of Euphrano¯r.O. Palagia, Euphranor (1980); C. Hedrick, “The Temple and Cult of Apollo Patroos in Athens,” AJA 92 (1988) 185–210; KLA 1.229–230, W. Müller. Margaret M. MilesEuphrano¯ r (Pharm.) (200 BCE – 95 CE)A   P., in G  CMGen 2.14 (13.525 K.), records his cicatrizing oint-ment composed of calamine, khalkitis, diphruges, lead, roasted misu, in beeswax,“Kolopho¯n” resin, myrtle oil, and Italian wine. The last-named ingredient renders a dateafter ca 200 BCE more likely; the name is very common on Rhodes, and rare after the 1st c.BCE: LGPN.RE 6.1 (1907) 1191 (#7), M. Wellmann. PTK 320

P:406

HIKESIOSHiero¯ numos of Rhodes (260 – 230 BCE)Scholarch of the Peripatos, and writer of biographies. P, Quaest. Conv. 1.8 (626A–B) credits him with a theory of vision based upon corpuscular (non-atomic) emission.T.S. Ganson, “Third-century Peripatetics on Vision,” and P. Lautner, “The Historical Setting of Hieronymus fr.10 White,” in Fortenbaugh and White, RUSCH 12 (2004), 355–362 and 363–374; BNP 6 (2005) 317 (#7), H.B. Gottschalk. PTKHierophilos Sophiste¯s (550 – 1050 CE)Wrote a dietetic calendar, often dated to the 12th c; however, he might be earlier (7th/9thc.). A poem on the same topic by Theodo¯ros Prodromos ( ﬂ. ca 1130) shows close similaritiesto Hierophilos’ work and establishes a terminus, whereas a Syriac calendar also shows closeparallels, allowing a date as early as the 6th c., when Syriac medical literature was ﬁrsttranslated from Greek. Although the epithet sophist¯es ( physician) recalls the late antiquemedical milieu, both name and epithet may be apocryphal, added to a previously anonym-ous work to recall H , whose work included dietetics. Whatever its period andorigin, this typically Byzantine text is mainly based on G ’s system of health preserva-tion, with the dietary properties of food and all the human activities that might aﬀect health:bathing, unguents, and sexual intercourse.Ed.: J.Fr. Boissonade, in Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la blibliothèque du roi et autres bibliothèques 11 (1827) 178–273; Idem, in Anecdota Graeca e codicibus regiis 3 (1831) 409–421; Ideler 1 (1841/1963) 409–417; A. Delatte, Anecdota atheniensia et alia 2 (1939) 456–466.Ch. Daremberg, in Archives des missions scientiﬁques et littéraires 3 (1854) 19–20; Diels 2 (1907) 49; L. Oeconomos, Actes du VIème Congrès International d’Études Byzantines (1950) 1.169–179; M. Formentin, I codici greci di medicina nelle tre Venezie (1978) 83. Alain TouwaideH (A.) ⇒ H  Hikatidas (200 BCE – 75 CE)P 28.83–84 records that Hikatidas claimed sex relieved quartan fevers (cf. A) –so long as the woman is commencing menstruation. The name is recorded once elsewhere,LGPN 1.234. Cf. perhaps H  or H.Fabricius (1726) 253, s.v. Icetidas. PTKHikesios (325 BCE – 75 CE)Known to P (1.ind.14–15, 14.120) as the author of a technical treatise on winemaking.Pliny seems to distinguish him from the doctor of Smurna, but an identiﬁcation cannot beruled out.RE 8.2 (1913) 1593–1594 (#5), H. Gossen. Philip Thibodeau 395

P:407

HIKESIOS OF SMURNAHikesios of Smurna (120 – 80 BCE?)In his terse summary of the medical instructors assembled at Me¯n Karou (founded as aschool by Z), S  (12.8.20) adds as an aside, “. . . the Erasistratean teachingcenter was established by Hikesios in Smurna.” Athe¯naios, Deipn. 3 (87b), notes thatHikesios was a “follower of E,” and Strabo¯n’s clipped notice (the text seemsbadly corrupted in part [Syme 1995: 344–347]) indicates that the Smurnean school did notlast very long. D  L 5.94 lists the eighth He¯rakleide¯s, iatros t¯on apo Hikesiou,probably “a student of Hikesios” (number nine being the famous Empiricist physician,H    T). Scattered in Athe¯naios’ Deipnosophists are numerous fragmentsof Hikesios’ Peri hul¯es, rendered by Gourevitch as On Materials for Health (2000: 490–491), i.e.,foods as remedies, especially ﬁsh; but many of these remnants as quoted are fused withother bits, often diﬃcult to separate from one another. P’s references are condensed(Gourevitch 2000: 484), and the single notice of Hikesios as a surgeon occurs in Tertullian’swell-known condemnation of pagan anatomists for their destructive practices with embryosand fetuses (De anima 25.6 Waszink). Though known for his medical dietetics, later physicians more highly respected Hikesios’pharmaceutical compounds, evinced by Hikesios’ Melaina (“The Black One”: H   inG , CMGen 5.2 [13.780–781 K.]) and an all-inclusive, multiple-use plaster (K  inGale¯n, CMGen 5.3 [13.787–788 K.; cf. 13.809–810: “A’ Hikesian Melaina”]),on which Gale¯n oﬀers his extended critical commentary, viz. on changes by He¯ra¯s andKrito¯n, and the properties of the ingredients (13.788–794 K.). Hikesios as a good Erasis-tratean was a keen student of herbal, mineral, and entomological pharmacology, andGale¯n’s sometimes acidic remarks about alterations in Hikesios’ recipes demonstrate thelong term respect for Erasistratean drug lore. P  A 3.64 (CMG 9.1, p. 281)recommends the “Hikesian Plaster” (without formula) in the treatment of external harden-ing of the uterus; then among extracts from A (7.17.1, CMG 9.2, p. 347) hecombines the extant recipes, above, into the “Plaster of Hikesios: For Scrofulas, Abscesses,the Spleen, Joints, and Ailments of the Hips/Sciaticas” (7.17.45, CMG 9.2, p. 359]). Paulos’6th c. streamlining of the recipes still carrying Hikesios’ name reduced the 19 substancesdebated in the 2nd c. to twelve: dropped from the He¯ra¯s-Andromakhos-Krito¯n revisions arebitumen, Ampelitidian earth, alum, powdered frankincense, and honey, whereas retainedare litharge, old olive oil, propolis (“bee glue”), beeswax, vinegar, and verdigris; Paulosaugments with pine bark, pseudo-mastic gum (Atractylis gummifera L.), horseheal (Inula helen-ium L.), purethron, euphorbia, and the juice of the parasitic hupokistis (Cytinus hypocistisL.). The bee glue, beeswax, and pseudo-mastic made this plaster sticky, while the horseheal,verdigris, euphorbia and Cytinus provided properties that were bactericidal, and thepurethron was lightly anesthetic and insecticidal. Especially eﬀective against micro-organisms of many kinds was/is the propolis, one of the most hypertonic natural substancesknown.RE 8.2 (1913) 1593–1594 (#5), H. Gossen; R. Syme, Anatolica: Studies in Strabo (1995); Dueck (2000) 142; D. Gourevitch, “Hicesius’ Fish and Chips,” in D. Braund and J. Wilkins, edd., Athenaeus and his World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire (2000) 483–491. John Scarborough 396

P:408

HIPPARKHOS OF NIKAIAHiketas of Surakousai (ca 400 – 350 BCE)Belongs to a group of later Pythagoreans active in Surakousai in the ﬁrst part of the 4thc. (DK 50–51, 55). An astronomical hypothesis, ascribed to him, is identical to that of hiscountryman E: the Earth rotates about its own axis in 24 hours, whereas thediurnal rotation of the heavens is only apparent (A1). This was a modiﬁcation of P’system; Hiketas could have been his follower, though not necessarily a pupil.T refers to Hiketas’ theory which therefore must have been put into writing.DK 50; T.L. Heath, Aristarchus of Samos (1913); Dicks (1970). Leonid ZhmudHilarius of Arles (425 – 450 CE)The nobly-born and liberally-educated bishop of Arles, among other writings, composedverses on the hot spring at Grenoble; G  T preserves one quatrain.FLP 454; OCD3 706–707, P. Rousseau. PTKH ⇒ HH (V.) ⇒ E  (V.)Himilko¯ n (of Carthage?) (520 – 480 BCE?)Wrote a periplous of his voyage up the Atlantic coast of Iberia to the Kassiterides, frag-ments of which describe the shallow Ocean: P 2.169 and A, OM 117–129,380–389, 402–415.BNP 6 (2005) 332 (#6), L.-M. Günther. PTKHipparkhos (Veterin.) (before ca 350 CE)Quoted by P  S on evaluating stallions for stud. The passage is pre-served in Greek in the Hippiatrika (Pel. 3 = Hippiatrica Parisina 85 = Hippiatrica Berolinensia14.10).Fischer (1980) 3. Anne McCabeHipparkhos of Nikaia (ca 140 – 120 BCE)Astronomer, astrologer, geographer, without a doubt the most important of P’spredecessors, and central in incorporating Babylonian astronomy into Greek mathematicalastronomy. Unfortunately eclipsed by Ptolemy’s Almagest, most of Hipparkhos’ works havenot survived. His short commentary on the Phainomena of A and E survives,but all other evidence is secondary. He wrote at least one book ( possibly two) on the ﬁxedstars, including material excerpted in later parape¯gmata, and he is also known to havecompiled a star catalogue, long thought the basis of Ptolemy’s but now generally seenas independent. Indeed, parts of the Almagest are so indebted to Hipparkhos that it is 397

P:409

HIPPARKHOS OF NIKAIAsometimes diﬃcult to distinguish Hipparkhos’ material from Ptolemy’s. Consequently, somescholars have underemphasized the scale and nature of Ptolemy’s achievement, but gener-ally a considerable degree of diﬀerence is now acknowledged between Ptolemy and Hip-parkhos, in spite of important lines of dependence. Clearly Hipparkhos seems not to havewritten a systematic astronomical treatise to preﬁgure the Almagest, but he instead did muchfoundational work that Ptolemy would later use in his systematization of mathematicalastronomy. Considerable evidence suggests that Hipparkhos used both (Greek) geometricaland (Babylonian) arithmetical methods in his astronomical calculations. Hipparkhos isbelieved to have published a collection of eclipse observations spanning 600 years (thusgoing back to the 8th c. BCE) and including much Babylonian material that Hipparkhoshimself may have collected in Babylo¯n. Indeed, when Kugler discovered in 1900 thatHipparkhos’ very precise value for the mean synodic month (in sexagesimal notation:29; 31,50,08,20 days) was actually borrowed from the Babylonian “System B” for the Moon,only then did we recognize the deep indebtedness of Greek mathematical astronomy toBabylon. Hipparkhos’ published eclipse records were an invaluable resource for Ptolemy’slunar theory. Ptolemy’s solar theory is also deeply indebted to Hipparkhos, including thewholesale use of his values for the lengths of the seasons and solar year. Hipparkhos is perhaps best known for his discovery of the precession of the equinoxes,the very slow (and very diﬃcult to observe) movement of the equinoctial points relativeto the ﬁxed stars. His fundamental work on parallax allowed accurate prediction of solareclipses for the ﬁrst time. He is also known to have been innovative in developing astro-nomical instruments, including a dioptra, an accurate star globe, and possibly even the planeastrolabe. Later writers praise Hipparkhos for his skill in astrology, and P (2.95) reports that no-one had done so much as Hipparkhos to establish clearly the connection between human soulsand the stars. Unfortunately, however, virtually nothing of the details of his astrology survive.He also seems to have written something on combinatoric logic, criticizing C. His attested lost works include: On the Movements of the Solsticial and Equinoctial Points, On theLength of the Year, On Intercalary Months and Days, On the Risings of the Twelve Zodiacal Signs, Treatiseon Simultaneous Risings, On Sizes and Distances, On the Moon’s Monthly Motion in Latitude, On ThingsCarried down by their Weight, and Against the Geography of E  (most of our know-ledge of which comes from S ). Hipparkhos also wrote on chords in 12 (implausiblylong) books, according to T   A (In Ptol. Synt. 1.10). Two other titlescommonly found in modern sources, On the Length of the Month and On Matters Pertaining toStraight Lines in the Circle, are essentially fabrications of Albert Rehm.Ed.: K. Manitius, Hipparchi in Arati et Eudoxi phaenomena commentariorum libri tres (1894).Neugebauer (1975) 274–343; G.J. Toomer, “Hipparchus and Babylonian Astronomy,” in E. Leichty et al. (1988) 353–362; A. Jones, “The Adaptation of Babylonian Methods in Greek Numerical Astronomy,” Isis 82 (1991) 441–453. 398

P:410

HIPPASOS OF METAPONTUMPtolemy’s version of Hipparkhos’ model for solar motion © Lehoux and Massie.With the Earth at the center of the kosmos, E, and looking out at the four cardinal divisions ofthe heavens (vernal equinox at A, summer solstice at B, autumnal equinox at G, and wintersolstice at D), we know that the Sun takes diﬀerent times to travel through each of the seasons(viz., 94 ½ days from A to B, 92 ½ days from B to G, 88 1/8 days from G to D, and 90 1/8 daysfrom D back to A again). The problem then becomes how to model this mathematically. Theelegant solution adopted by Hipparkhos is to assume that the Sun does not actually move on circleABDG, but in fact moves uniformly on a diﬀerent circle (QKLM), one that is not centered on theEarth but is instead centered on Z. Looking out from the Earth at E, what was an apparentmotion of the Sun from A to B is actually a real motion from Q to K on the Sun’s own smallercircle, and this should obviously take longer than the motion from L to M (since arc QK is longerthan arc LM), as it in fact does. (Adapted from Toomer, Ptolemy’s Almagest (1984) 154.) Daryn LehouxHippasios of E¯ lis (before ca 400 CE?)Author of a remedy for horses or cows preserved in the Hippiatrika (Hippiatrica Parisina 1148= Hippiatrica Berolinensia 130.160). The remedy is attributed to Hippasios in the treatise ofH . Hippasios is called “E¯ leios”; according to S  B therewere three cities called E¯ lis.CHG v.1; McCabe (2007) 227. Anne McCabeHippasos of Metapontum (520 – 480 BCE)Student of P. Evidence of his natural philosophical doctrines is very scanty; ifhe put them in writing this book was lost very early. Hippasos made ﬁre the ﬁrst principle(18 A7 DK), regarded soul as ﬁery (A9) and the kosmos as ﬁnite and ever moving (A1).The doxographical tradition frequently combines philosophical doctrines of Hippasos andH , therefore it is diﬃcult to say what exactly belongs to whom. Hippasos’principle was reﬂected in P’ theory, who made all heavenly bodies rotate aroundthe Central Fire. Hippasos discovered irrational magnitudes, which left a profound trace inGreek mathematics (the legend that he “disclosed” this Pythagorean secret arose from adouble meaning of the word arr¯etos: “inexpressible in numbers” and “secret”). In solid 399

P:411

H I P P I A S O F E¯ L I Sgeometry he is connected with a construction of the dodecahedron. Along with Pythagoras,Hippasos was one of the founders of mathematical harmonics; he developed the theory ofproportions in its application to harmonics (A14–15) and carried out acoustic experiments(A12–13). To already known harmonious intervals (octave, ﬁfth and fourth) he added adouble octave (4:1) and a twelfth (3:1). Hippasos, probably, was the ﬁrst to connect the pitchof a sound with frequency of vibration (A13).DK 18; K. von. Fritz, “The discovery of incommensurability by Hippasos of Metapontum,” Annals of Mathematics 46 (1945) 242–264; van der Waerden (1979); Zhmud (1997); Zhmud (2006). Leonid ZhmudHippias of E¯ lis (440 – 400 BCE)Best known to us from P’s dialogues, where he is represented as a pretentious poly-math, public performer, and “sophist.” It appears from Plato’s Protagoras (318d7–e5) thatHippias taught what came to be called the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, andmusic). Most scholars have accepted that P refers to this Hippias when he says thatsome people have carried out angle trisection on the basis of the quadratices (tetrag¯onizousaigrammai) of Hippias and N   (In Eucl. p. 272.1–10 Fr.) and that Hippias gave thecharacterizing feature (sumpt¯oma) of the same curve (356.6–11). The name “quadratix”derives from the use of the curve to square a circle, but it has a simpler application todividing an angle in a given ratio. Scholars disagree about whether Hippias of E¯ lis used thequadratix for squaring the circle as well as for dividing an angle in a given ratio and aboutwhether he knew anything about the quadratix under any name. There is no other knownHippias to whom such knowledge can be ascribed.DK 86; R.K. Sprague, ed., The Older Sophists (1972) 94–105; DSB 6.405–410, I. Bulmer-Thomas; Knorr (1986) 80–86. Ian MuellerHippobotos (200 – 180 BCE)Wrote two books on ancient philosophers. Most of the fragments are preserved inD   L and oﬀer biographical information. Non-biographical informationseems to come from his On the Sects, dealing only with Hellenistic ethical thought. (For therare name compare only LGPN 2.237.)M. Gigante, “Frammenti di Ippoboto. Contributo alla storia della storiograﬁa ﬁlosoﬁca,” Ommagio a Piero Treves (1983) 151–193; Mejer (1978) passim. Jørgen MejerHippokrate¯s (Veterin.) (before ca 500 CE?)Wrote on the medical treatment of horses, mules, and other beasts of burden; one of theseven principal sources of the Hippiatrika. Concealed behind the famous name, his identity iselusive, but apparently distinct from the Hippokrate¯s to whom A addresses twoletters, the Hippokrate¯s cited by Ibn al-Awwa¯m, and the so-called “Ipocras Indicus,” andcertainly from the Hippokrate¯s to whom, along with G , the Epitom¯e of the Hippiatrika isattributed in MSS. Although he does not name any sources, the author of the Hippokrate¯s-extracts in the Hippiatrika apparently drew upon the C D-Mago¯n tradition, 400

P:412

H I P P O K R AT E¯ S O F K H I O Swithout depending on any other known author as an intermediary. His text is notable for itsintroductory material on bloodletting, as well as for its lack of literary pretension.CHG vv.1–2 passim; G. Björck, “Griechische Pferdeheilkunde in arabischer Überlieferung,” Le monde oriental 30 (1936) 1–12; McCabe (2007) 245–258. Anne McCabeHippokrate¯s of Khios (440 – 400 BCE)In his history of geometry, P mentions Hippokrate¯s of Khios together with T-   K  as distinguished people in geometry, and tells us that Hippokrate¯s wasthe ﬁrst person said to have written elements of geometry (In Eucl. p. 66.4–8 Fr.). Etells us that Hippokrate¯s reduced the problem of constructing a cube twice the size of agiven one to the ﬁnding of two mean proportionals between two given straight lines x and y(In Arch. 88.17–23), and Proklos says that he was the ﬁrst person to reduce outstandinggeometric questions to other propositions (In Eucl. p. 212.24–213.11 Fr.). It appears that healso concerned himself with questions of natural philosophy, since A tells us (Mete.1.6 [342b35–343a20]) that those around Hippokrate¯s and also his pupil A gavean account of the tail of a comet as an optical illusion and explained the rareness withwhich one appears; Aristotle also implies (1.8 [345b10–12]) that they also considered theMilky Way to be an illusion. However, the most mathematically interesting material relating to Hippokrate¯s concernsquadrature. In the Physics (1.2 [185a14–17]), Aristotle mentions an attempt to square thecircle “by means of segments” as a false inference from true geometrical principles. Theancient commentators on the Physics passage all attribute this attempted quadrature toHippokrate¯s of Khios. The commentators express uncertainty about what the quadraturewas, but it is now generally accepted that S provides our best information about itin his comment on the Aristotle passage (In Phys. = CAG 9 [1882] 60.22–68.32) in whichSimplicius adds his own explanatory material to E ’ reworking of Hippokrate¯s’argument. The argument has several problematic features, but I shall discuss only the threemajor ones after giving my own formulation of Hippokrate¯s’ quadratures. The ﬁrst prob-lematic aspect of the argument is Hippokrate¯s’ assumption that: If a and b are similar segments of circles on the bases α and β, then a is to b as the square with side α [SQ(α)] is to SQ(β). Simplicius implies that Hippokrate¯s proved this principle, as he could have, from anequivalent of E’s Elements 12, prop. 2, according to which circles are to one another asthe squares on their diameters. However, Simplicius also says that Hippokrate¯s proved thisproposition, which Euclid proves by the method of exhaustion, a method almost certainlyunavailable to Hippokrate¯s. Hippokrate¯s applies his principle in squaring three “lunes,” the shaded plane ﬁgures in ﬁgures1, 2, and 3a, which are contained by arcs of two circles. In particular, in ﬁgure 1, the lune ABCDis contained by the semicircle ACB and the arc ADB, which is similar to the arcs cut oﬀ bythe equal straight lines AC and CB; in ﬁgure 2 arc ADCB is greater than a semicircle, DC isparallel to AB, and SQ(AB) = SQ(AD) + SQ(DC) + SQ(CB); and in ﬁgure 3a ADCB is lessthan a semicircle, DC is parallel to AB and equal to AD and CB, and such that AC and DBintersect at E with SQ(AE) = 3/2 × SQ(AD). In order to carry out the construction of this 401

P:413

H I P P O K R AT E¯ S O F K H I O Sthird quadrilateral ADCB Hippokrate¯s starts from a semicircle FGD’ with diameter FC’D’and center C’. He bisects C’D’ at H and draws HJ perpendicular to C’D’. He then deter-mines B’ on the semicircle FGD’ and E’ on HJ by using a so-called neusis (verging) construc-tion in which B’E’ is placed in such a way that it “verges” toward D’ and so that SQ(B’E’ ) is3/2 × SQ(B’C’ ). He draws B’K parallel to D’F and connects C’ to B’ and to E’. He extendsC’E’ to meet B’K at A’, and connects D’ to E’ and A’. Then A’D’ is equal to B’C’, which isequal to C’D’. So A’B’C’D’ is the desired quadrilateral. Simplicius does not discuss this neusisconstruction so we can only conjecture how Hippokrate¯s carried it out. One might think ofthe verging argument as a matter of marking a line or ruler LN at a point M so thatSQ(LM ) = 3/2 × SQ(B’C’), then moving the line around until a position is found in which Llies on the circumference of the semicircle FGD’, M lies on HJ and the line passes throughD’. The construction can also be carried out using a fairly complicated application ofareas.Hippokrates of Khios, 1 © Mueller Having squared these three lunes, Hip- pokrate¯s shows how for any circle A’B’C’- D’E’F’ one can construct a square equal to it plus a lune AGCB which is constructed as follows. ABCDEF and A’B’C’D’E’F’ are taken as circles with center O arranged as in ﬁgure 4 with A’B’C’D’E’F’ a regular hexagon, with SQ(AD) = 6 × SQ(A’D’), and with the circular segment AGC similar to the segment a on A’B’. Scholars in gen- eral have been dubious about whether Hippokrate¯s believed or even claimed that he had squared the circle when he had shown how to square any circle plus a par- ticular lune and how to square particular members of three classes of lunes into which every lune must fall.Hippokrates of Khios, 2 © Mueller Hippokrates of Khios, 3a © Mueller 402

P:414

H I P P O K R AT E¯ S O F K H I O S Hippokrates of Khios, 3b © Mueller Hippokrates of Khios, 4 © MuellerEd.: F. Rudio (with trans.), Der Bericht des Simplicius über die Quadraturen des Antiphon und des Hippokrates (1907).Heath (1921) 182–202; DSB 6.410–418, I. Bulmer-Thomas; Mueller (1997) 304–309; Wilson (2008). Ian Mueller 403

P:415

H I P P O K R AT E¯ S O F K O¯ SHippokrate¯s of Ko¯ s (ca 440 – ca 370 BCE)Hippokrate¯s is considered the father of medicine, just as H  is considered thefather of history.Life: It is not always easy to untangle the historical and the legendary in the life of thisdoctor of the 5th/4th c. BCE, who was famous during his lifetime. According to P(in the Protagoras and the Phaidros), he was the best doctor, in his teaching as in his methodof medical discovery. According to A, Hippokrate¯s was great, not in size butin talent. Born on Ko¯s in 460 BCE, Hippokrate¯s belonged to the aristocratic family of Askle¯piads.Famed for its medical knowledge, the family traced its lineage to Askle¯pios, prince of Trikkain Thessaly in the Homeric era (later the god of medicine). Askle¯pios’ two sons, Makhao¯nand Podaleirios, were the best-known doctors among the Greeks at Troy. Podaleirios, uponhis return after the war, fell in Karia. Three extensive branches of the family each in aspeciﬁc area (Rhodes, Ko¯s, Knidos) traced their descent from him; the Rhodian branchrather soon died out. The best-known, due to Hippokrate¯s, was that of Ko¯s. The Knidianbranch included both E , to whom is attributed the Knidian Sentences, in fact acompilation of the Knidian doctors, as well as K , doctor to Artaxerxe¯s and author ofa Persian history. Hippokrate¯s was considered the 17th (or 18th or 19th) descendant of Askle¯pios in themale line. In the Koan branch of the family, the best-known doctor before Hippokrate¯s wasNebros (summoned by the Pythia at the time of the “ﬁrst sacred war,” ca 590 BCE). Son ofHe¯rakleidas, Hippokrate¯s was named after his grandfather; his ancestry was also traced toHe¯rakle¯s, probably through his mother, Phainare¯te¯. Medicine was taught in each of thebranches of the family by father to son. Hippokrate¯s had two sons, T andD , who were also doctors, and a daughter who married one of his students, P-. Hippokrate¯s’ notoriety came about because that familial instruction was opened tounrelated students, instructed for a fee, under the terms of the H CO. The reputation of the doctor from Ko¯s is shown also by two widely-told tales popularizedby the Hippokratic Letters:1 Hippokrate¯s and D : summoned by the residents of Abde¯ra to treat De¯mokritos, whom they believed stricken with madness, Hippokrate¯s established the wisdom of the philosopher, who laughed at others’ madness.2 Hippokrate¯s and the King of Persia: Artaxerxe¯s I attempted to hire Hippokrate¯s, who refused to serve barbarians.Leaving his student Polubos on Ko¯s, Hippokrate¯s went to mainland Greece, arrived inThessalia and traveled, probably with his students, in northern Greece (Thessalia, Macedon,the Thrakian coast, esp. Abde¯ra and Thasos, and the Propontis, esp. Perinthos), as theprovenance of the patients in the H C E attests.Two other anecdotes belong to this period:1 Summoned before Perdikkas, king of Macedon, believed stricken with phthisis after the death of his father, Hippokrate¯s is said to have diagnosed love-sickness. 404

P:416

H I P P O K R AT E¯ S O F K O¯ S2 Hippokrate¯s is said again to have refused to treat barbarians during a plague (not the Athenian plague); on the contrary, he sent his disciples to treat Greeks.He died (aged 85 to 109) at Larissa in Thessaly. After his death, he received honors and apublic cult as a hero at Ko¯s, and his image appeared on their bronze coins. Works: Under the name of Hippokrate¯s, Renaissance scholars collected some 60 treatises.This mass of treatises, when examined closely, cannot possibly derive from a single person(Hippokrate¯s), nor even from a single school (that of Hippokrate¯s, called the school of Ko¯s),nor even from a single era (5th–4th cc. BCE). Some treatises are later than Aristotle, such asthe H C H, notable for its anatomical understanding. The soletreatise of the corpus to which one can reasonably attach an author’s name is the Nature ofMan, a work of his student Polubos, known for his theory of the four humors (blood,phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile). Besides treatises of the school of Hippokrate¯s, whose medicine was environmental andfor which the patient was at the center of observation (the Hippokratic Corpus Epidemics,the H C A, W, P, the H C P-, etc.), some treatises are ascribed to the school of Knidos, where the concept of thedisease was primary (H C, N W: Diseases; H- C, G: Diseases of Women). Others are philosophical, basingtheir understanding of diseases upon a prior understanding of human nature (Fleshes,H  C R, H C S). All aspects of medicine are represented in the totality of the corpus: semiology, prognostic,etiology, therapy by surgery and by pharmacy, regimen, and deontology. Nevertheless, thesetreatises, diverse in origin, subject, and audience, demonstrate suﬃcient coherence, espe-cially in their rational spirit of a medicine detached from magic, that they could be read asthe work of one man. Reception: Hippokrate¯s enjoyed in the history of medicine a reputation comparable tothat which Plato or Aristotle had in the history of philosophy. In antiquity, it was G  who contributed more than anyone else to Hippokrate¯s’reputation, in re-interpreting him the better to make himself his continuator. Thus, Gale¯nattributed to Hippokrate¯s himself the theory of the four humors (blood, phlegm, yellowbile, and black bile), which was the theory of his student Polubos. This four-fold theory,relating the humors to the seasons and life-stages, became received as the teaching ofHippokrate¯s in western thought. Even in the Byzantine era, Hippokrate¯s was credited withthe theory of four humors, as augmented with the theory of the four temperaments. ThisByzantine Greek medicine translated into Latin (in V’ Letter to Pentadius), andalso into Arabic, was to have a decisive inﬂuence on medieval thought, especially throughthe medical school of Salerno. After the Renaissance rediscovery of the Greek text of the Hippokratic Corpus, Hip-pokrate¯s continued to excite admiration in the West for his observations (the “hippokraticface”) up to the 19th c., including Laënnec (d. 1826), the inventor of indirect auscultation(the stethoscope), who had found in Hippokrate¯s the practice of direct auscultation. Thetwo best-known treatises that remained attached to the name of Hippokrate¯s were the Oathand the H C A.Ed.: É. Littré, Oeuvres complètes d’Hippocrate 10 vv. (1839–1861); CUF ( partial: see individual entries).Smith (1979); Pinault (1992); Jacques Jouanna, Hippocrate (1992; Engl. trans. 1999); V. Nutton, Ancient Medicine (2004). Jacques Jouanna 405

P:417

HIPPOKRATIC CORPUS, AIRS, WATERS, PLACESHippokratic Corpus, Airs, Waters, Places (430 – 400 BCE)Intended to aid itinerant doctors traveling to unfamiliar places, Airs, Waters, Places discussesthe eﬀects of the natural environment, including astronomical phenomena, on constitutions,illnesses, and ethnic traits. The treatise’s date is debated, but it is doubtless among theearliest of the extant texts on these topics. The environmental elements inﬂuencing constitutions and illnesses are the city’s positionwith respect to the Sun and prevailing winds; the source(s) and qualities of drinking water;the seasons; and such astronomical phenomena as solstices and equinoxes. Two constitu-tions are identiﬁed (bilious and phlegmatic) and more than 30 illnesses. Variations mayoccur according to individual constitution, regimen, sex, or age. Environmental eﬀects on ethnic groups are discussed more broadly, especially with regardto Asia Minor (sections on Egypt and Libya are missing). The entire region has anunchanging, moderate climate producing people of greater beauty and size than elsewhere;individual variation plays little role and there is no mention of constitutions. Asians’environment also makes them lack courage and spirit, in contrast to Europeans, whosechangeable and more extreme climates produce an array of physiques and a bellicosetemperament. Political institutions often reinforce such tendencies, but they may alsoover-ride them. The customs of several European ethnic groups are described in detail, perhaps reﬂectingcontemporary nomos-phusis debates. A relationship with H  has been suggested,particularly because both texts discuss the Skuthians and their sacred disease; relative datesare debated. Because Airs, Waters, Places and O  S D discuss some topics, mostnotably “sacred disease,” with similar ideas and language, a single author, or closely-relatedauthors, has been posited. There are also points of dispute, including whether bile cancause the sacred disease. The recommendation that doctors study astronomy (contra O A M)may echo contemporary inquiries concerning the impact of the environment (or of thekosmos) on individual nature and health. Ideas similar to the text’s are found variously inEpidemics I–III, Humors, A, R, P, and A and his school. B may have known the treatise. E  and G  provide some glosses,and consider it a genuine work of H . Gale¯n’s commentary survives in Arabic(now in German).Littré v. 2; J. Jouanna, Airs, Eaux, Lieux (CUF 1996). Julie LaskarisHippokratic Corpus, Anatomy and Physiology (ca 430 – 370 BCE)Nature of Man (Littré 6). This work, written in an agonistic debating style, is most celebrated forits exposition of the nature of the four humors – blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile –which must be in proper balance to ensure bodily health. It is the only work of the Corpuswhich explicitly takes this stance. The treatise is sometimes attributed to H ’ son-in-law P, as A quotes (HA 3.3 [512b13–513a8]), with that ascription, apassage from it in which the vascular system is described. In all ancient MSS, Nature of Manand Regimen in Health are transcribed as a single work; the two contain similar provisions forattaining and maintaining a state of health. ( J. Jouanna, CMG 1.1.3, 2nd ed. [2002])406

P:418

HIPPOKRATIC CORPUS, ON ANCIENT MEDICINE Breaths (Littré 6). This is a treatise of unusual content, aﬃrming that all diseases arecaused by “winds” or “breaths” ( phusai), aﬀecting the body or the atmosphere. This viewresembles that apparently attributed to the historical Hippokrate¯s by a pupil of Aristotle(M , on the evidence of the L ): accordingly, the work has someclaim to be considered truly Hippokratic. ( J.L. Heiberg, CMG 1.1 [1927] pp. 91–101; J.Jouanna, Hippocrate v. 5.1 [CUF 1988].) Places in Man (Littré 6). This long work deals with a large number of subjects in anatomy,physiology and pathology, as well as enunciating various medical precepts and doctrines.Throughout, there is much stress on bodily balance as a factor in health, and on ﬂux ofexcess or noxious matter from the head to other parts of the body (eyes, chest etc.) as acausative agent in disease; in therapy cauterization is favored. There is an excursus ongynecology. The work seems to be early and may have a west Greek origin (Craik 1998). Glands (Littré 8). This work deals with the function of glands, believed to be situated inparts of the body where moisture gathers, usually associated with places where hair grows.Among these the brain has an important place, as it is the starting point for ﬂux of disease-inducing ﬂuids; the theory of seven ﬂuxes resembles that of Places in Man. Flesh(es) (Littré 8). This treatise gives an elegant scientiﬁc account of the formation of thekosmos, and of the body and its parts. It is envisaged that two types of matter (cold andgluey or viscous on the one hand; hot and fatty or slippery on the other) underlie theprocess. The formation of the body, including eyes and other sense organs, is described. Thework ends with an excursus on the importance of the number seven in both embryologyand nosology. Bones (Littré 9). Despite the title, probably drawn from the ﬁrst words, this treatise dealswith the (blood) vessels, bones being the subject only of the ﬁrst section. Various views of thevascular system, with similarities and diﬀerences alike apparent, are presented. Although theaccounts are confused and fanciful in details, a salient common supposition is that the vesselsoriginate in the head. Diﬀerent parts of Bones can be traced to diﬀerent sources: to a workdescribed by G  as “Appendix to Mokhlikon” (Gale¯n 19.128 K.), to the obscure S-  C, and to similar passages in Nature of Man and in Epidemics 2 (C.R.S. Harris,The Heart and the Vascular System in Ancient Greek Medicine [1973]; Duminil 1998). Anatomy (Littré 8). This very short piece, comprising a single page in the modern printedtext, is an account, with some reference to comparative anatomy, of the internal conﬁgur-ation of the human trunk. It seems to be a late pastiche, incorporating material both fromHippokratic sources and from the work of D . (Duminil 1998; ed.: ElizabethCraik, “The Hippocratic Treatise On anatomy,” CQ 48 [1998] 135–167.) Vision (Littré 9). This is a short surgical manual prescribing treatment, most commonlypurging and cautery, for various diseases aﬀecting the eyesight and the eyelids; these can beplausibly identiﬁed as cataract, trachoma and other common conditions (Elizabeth Craik,Two Hippocratic treatises on sight and on anatomy = SAM 33 [2006]).Jones v. 2 (1923); Jones (1931); R. Joly, Hippocrate v. 13 (CUF 1978); Potter (1995); Elizabeth Craik, Hippocrates: Places in Man (1998); M.-P. Duminil, Hippocrate v. 8 (CUF 1998). Elizabeth CraikHippokratic Corpus, On Ancient Medicine (430 – 380 BCE)On Ancient Medicine denies the value of assumptions (hupotheseis) as the foundation of medi-cine, or of any discipline, claiming that their appeal to invisible or non-existent substances 407

P:419

HIPPOKRATIC CORPUS, APHORISTIC WORKSmakes them unveriﬁable and impedes communication between doctor and patient. Medi-cine’s traditional method – reasoning based upon observation – is suﬃcient. Philosophicaltheories are attacked, especially those narrowing etiologies to one or two of such unmixedsubstances as the hot, cold, wet, and dry. The author, however, employs hupotheseis himself(Lloyd), asserting that innumerable substances (e.g., bitterness, sweetness), properly mixed,constitute the healthy body (cf. A ). Illness results from the separation of one ofthe humors, or from the body’s own structures. Singling out E , the author also refutes those asserting that medicine requiresﬁrst a knowledge of Nature, claiming the converse: Nature is understood only via medicine.Doctors require such knowledge, but it is subordinate to medicine. The defense of medicine’s status as a tekhn¯e echoes sophistic debates (cf. On the Art, OnBreaths, O  S D). Ideally, a tekhn¯e has a theoretical foundation and isunfailingly successful, in contrast with chance (tukh¯e). Here, however, medicine’s inevitable(though infrequent) fallibility does not diminish its technical status (it surpasses chance),whose attainment is attributed to empirically-based reasoning requiring no hupotheseis. The author traces medicine’s origins to primitive man’s discovery that many illnesseswere prevented by eating mild, cooked foods rather than the strong, raw ones suited toanimals. Expertise in treating illness came later. Early doctors’ regimens of restricted foodintake, weak gruels, and liquid nourishment followed the same reasoning as the primitivediscoveries. Good doctors know that individual constitutions have individual dietaryrequirements. E  attributed the treatise to H . Modern scholars have suggestedvarious schools and ﬁgures as the author’s speciﬁc targets. The particular sense of “hupoth-esis” – otherwise known only in P (Meno) and later authors (and rare in any sense beforePlato [Lloyd]) – clouds this issue and the dating of the text.Ed.: Littré v. 1; J. Jouanna, Hippocrate: De l’Ancienne médecine (CUF 1990).G.E.R. Lloyd, “Who is Attacked in On Ancient Medicine?” Phronesis 8 (1963) 108–126; repr. in Methods and Problems in Greek Science (1991) with new introduction; M.J. Schiefsky, trans., Hippocrates on ancient medicine = SAM 28 (2005). Julie LaskarisHippokratic Corpus, Aphoristic Works (ca 430 – 370 BCE)Aphorisms (Littré 4) and Coan Prognoses (Littré 5). These two compilations are alike: bothcomprise lengthy collections of disjointed sayings, conveying useful information for thedoctor. The content of the latter is somewhat more restricted, dealing primarily with prog-nostic guidance, though this relates to a wide range of diseases and conditions; it is alsomore clearly organized by subject matter. The guidance ranges from common-sense rules ofthumb to superstitious observations. There is some overlap in content, but diﬀerences invocabulary and modes of expression suggest that the collections had diﬀerent origins; CoanPrognoses is related to Prorrhetic 1. Both collections, especially Aphorisms, were subject to muchreprinting, being cited and followed by practicing physicians until the 19th c. Humors (Littré 5). The title, based on a passing reference to humors in the ﬁrst sentence,is misleading. The work is a collection of aphorisms on miscellaneous subjects, notably onsigns and symptoms to be observed by the physician. Particular attention is paid to thenature of body ﬂuids and evacuations, and to signs which indicate medical crisis; someattention is given to seasonal factors in causing disease. The expression is frequently obscure 408

P:420

H I P P O K R AT I C C O R P U S , E P I D E¯ M I A Iand elliptical, with recourse to simile and metaphor. Where case notes are recorded, thecontent overlaps with that of E 6. Dentition (Littré 8). This work consists of a set of 32 aphorisms, relating to feverish illnesseswhich typically beset infants at the time of teething. The expression is concise and thecontent condensed. Nutriment (Littré 9). This short collection of aphorisms deals with the importance ofnourishment to all parts of the body, though it is clearly perceived that individual needsdiﬀer. The style is contorted, and there is much riddling antithesis in the manner ofH   E. Crises and Critical Days (Littré 9). These two works are “late” and derivative selectionsof aphoristic material from a variety of Hippokratic sources.Jones (1923, 1931); R. Joly, Hippocrate vv. 6.2, 13 (CUF 1972, 1978). Elizabeth CraikHippokratic Corpus, Epide¯miai (ca 430 – 350 BCE)Seven anonymous books transmitted in Ionic Greek under the name of H  aspart of the Corpus Hippocraticum. Their title is perhaps old (4th c. BCE?) but probably notoriginal; its meaning is uncertain: “arrival” or “sojourn” of persons (of itinerant physiciansand/or patients) or diseases (but not only of epidemics and endemics, since the booksdescribe others as well, e.g. injuries) or both. The seven books form three groups: (1) Epid¯emiai 1 and 3 (ca 410 BCE; extant commentar-ies by G ) contain observations on weather conditions of particular years and on con-comitant diseases; individual case descriptions; and aphorisms. They are, in parts, carefullycomposed. (2) Epid¯emiai 2, 4, 6 (between 427/426 and 373/372 BCE) are, in content, similarto 1 and 3 ( plus a description of an anatomical dissection, 2.4.1–2) but read more likenotebooks and are composed largely chaotically (commentaries are extant by Gale¯n on 2,by Gale¯n, P, and I    A on 6). (3) Epid¯emiai 5 and 7 (ca 375–350BCE) consist mostly of individual case descriptions. The “literary” or in parts subliterary form of the Epid¯emiai, characterized by inexplicit-ness and unpolished (elliptic, “telegraphic”) diction, is remarkable. With hundreds ofrecords about individual patients or groups of patients and with sometimes obscure general-izing texts (“aphorisms”), the Epid¯emiai were obviously written for informal use, perhaps asnotes which medical teachers would expand upon during lessons, or as internal materials fora professional group. They seem to have served didactic as well as practical purposes andrepresent an advanced stage of Greek medical development as compared to certain otherHippokratic treatises. The patients, whose names, professions, and addresses are oftenrevealed, lived throughout the Aegean and belonged to both sexes, all age-groups ( perhapsexcept very young infants) and social strata. Modern attempts to relate the Epid¯emiai tospeciﬁc “medical schools,” in particular a hypothetical “school of Ko¯s,” have failed. Thetechnical vocabulary comprises many terms absent from earlier, more traditional texts. Atﬁrst sight, one might conclude that the Epid¯emiai were designed as a database of obser-vational raw data; but a more thorough analysis makes it clear that observations have been“ﬁltered”: that they presuppose (i) elaborate methods of prognosis, (ii) nosological doctrine(i.e. lore about particular diseases conceived of as entities), (iii) sophisticated theoreticalassumptions about the healthy body (e.g. its physiological “type”; its “humors”) and thediseased organ(ism) (e.g. the processes of “ripening” and “krisis” during a malady), and409

P:421

HIPPOKRATIC CORPUS, GYNECOLOGICAL WORKS(iv) about the environment (including weather, food etc.). Observation was, therefore, guidedby dogma, “facts” became “facts” through dogma. All medical ﬁelds (i–iv) were consideredinterdependent; but since data collected within this framework are (in modern terms)incommensurate, “there is,” as one of the texts admits, “a diﬃculty of evaluation, even ifone knows the method” (Epid¯emiai 6.8.26). The theoretical activity of the physicians whowrote the Epid¯emiai may aptly be called “research,” and a spirit of criticism is not absent.This skeptical attitude, however, concerns only details. Fundamental dogmas remainunchallenged. In the Epid¯emiai pre-existing theories or methods are never submitted tocriticism by questioning their value or by restricting their range of applicability; instead,there is a marked tendency to ask only constructive theoretical questions which extend thevalidity of existing doctrines and prompt an aﬃrmative answer. Apart from their high value as documents of Greek medical history, the Epid¯emiai are,more generally, monuments of the evolution of Greek thought in the “classical” period andas such hitherto little explored.Ed.: Jones (1923) [Epid¯emiai 1 and 3]; W.D. Smith, Hippocrates v. 7 [Epid¯emiai 2, 4–7] (Loeb 1994).G. Baader and R. Winau, edd., Die hippokratischen Epidemien (1989); Volker Langholf, Medical theories in Hippocrates. Early texts and the “Epidemics” (1990); L.A. Graumann, Die Krankengeschichten der Epidemienbücher des Corpus Hippocraticum. Medizinhistorische Bedeutung und Möglichkeiten der retrospektiven Diagnose (2000). Volker LangholfHippokratic Corpus, Gynecological Works (ca 470 – 370 BCE)The gynecological works of the Hippokratic Corpus comprise eight works: (1) Diseases ofWomen I and II (Mul. I and II) contain the bulk of material treating female anatomy, physi-ology and pathology as well as many issues of reproduction. (2) On Sterile Women (Steril.)continues Mul. II, but focuses primarily on causes and treatment for infertility. Some of thematerial in these books may date from the ﬁrst half of the 5th c., but their ancient compileralso inserted later material, including an independent treatise on women’s diseases writtenby the author of On Seed or On Generation (Genit.) and On the Nature of the Child (Nat. Puer.).(3) Nature of Women (Nat. Mul.) contains descriptions of female diseases and remedies corres-ponding to what are considered the earlier sections of Mul. I and II and Steril. (4) Superfetation(Superf.) also includes some material found in Mul. I and II and Steril. The ﬁrst part of thetreatise focuses on the problems of pregnancy and childbirth and the second part on steril-ity. The treatise is named for the topic of the ﬁrst chapter: the rare occurrence of a secondconception in an already pregnant woman. (5) Excision of the Fetus (Exc.), a very short treatiseon childbirth and its attendant problems, also takes its title from the topic of the ﬁrstchapter. (6) On the Seven Month Fetus (Sept.) and On the Eight Month Fetus (Oct.), which deal withembryology and the problems of premature births, are a single treatise most often cited asOct., though the title Sept. is sometimes retained when referring to the chapters of what wastraditionally thought to be a self-contained work. Similarly, (7) Genit./Nat. Puer. form onecontinuous treatise on conception, gestation and parturition, with Genit. indicating the ﬁrst11 chapters. There is also a brief treatise, maybe a fragment of a treatise on epilepsy, (8) Onthe Diseases of Young Girls (Virg.). Genit./Nat. Puer., and therefore the latest sections of Mul. I and II and Steril., is the mostreliably datable of the treatises. Diseases IV (Morb. IV), by the same author, aims to reducethe humors into a tetrad schema similar to that of Nature of Man – the watery humor 410

P:422

HIPPOKRATIC CORPUS, GYNECOLOGICAL WORKShudrops replaces black bile – implying a date of ca 420–380 BCE. The other gynecologicaltreatises too are thought to have taken their present shape around this time, althoughthey probably enshrine much older material, such as perhaps the extended series ofpharmacological recipes of Mul. I and II, Steril., Nat. Mul. and Superf., rare elsewhere in theCorpus. The model of the female body emerging from these diverse treatises is generally consist-ent, and coheres with female physiology and pathology in the general works of the Corpus,when diﬀerentiated from male physiology. However, because the word the ancient medicalwriters used for “patient” (anthropos) is an unmarked term, it is possible that some Hippokrat-ics assimilated women’s bodies to men’s to a greater extent than the gynecological authors.The author of Mul. I castigates some doctors for “treating women as if they had men’sdiseases” (63). No evidence exists that any Hippokratic physician would have specialized asa gynecologist. Women were diﬀerentiated from men by the nature of their ﬂesh. Female ﬂesh wasspongier than the male and absorbed excess blood produced in the woman’s stomach fromthe nourishment which her smaller, weaker body and less active life style could not consume.The blood was stored in her ﬂesh for a month to act as nourishment for a fetus should thewoman conceive. If she was not pregnant at the end of a month, the womb would draw theblood from all over the body and evacuate it through the cervix. If the woman’s passageswere all open and the mechanism functioned properly, this acted as a very eﬃcient purgeand prophylactic. However, the beneﬁts of menstruation were oﬀset by the fact that themechanism was liable to malfunction causing a retention of menses, potentially leading to avariety of pathological conditions. Other speciﬁcally female conditions were caused by thetendency of the womb to move from its position. Both the wandering womb and menstrualretention were most easily averted by regular intercourse. This moistened and warmedthe womb, keeping the cervix and the passages throughout a woman’s body open. Thus,unmarried girls approaching puberty were thought to be at increased risk of disease. Thehealthiest result of intercourse for a woman was pregnancy. The fetus anchored the wombin place and consumed the woman’s excess blood. It also drew the blood to itself in thewomb steadily throughout the month, thereby avoiding pain and discomfort caused by themenses being drawn through the narrow passages to the womb all at once. Once a womanhad given birth, the abundant lochial ﬂow broke down her body, opening up the passagesand making her menstrual mechanism more reliable in the future, another reason why itwas considered healthy for a pubescent girl to marry. If a woman did fall ill, the attendant physician would often try to stimulate themenses with an emmenagogue, administered as a drink or a pessary. Pessaries andfumigations were also used to try to attract the uterus back to its normal position.Regimen, bleeding and cauterization seem to have been employed less often to cure womenthan men. The death rate for female patients of the Hippokratics is comparable to that ofmale. The Hippokratics believed that a woman contributed seed to conception much as a mandid, and argued that a child resembled one parent more than the other in those character-istics for which they had received more or stronger seed. The theories of the embryologicaltreatises appear to be largely guesswork, though there is some evidence that some authorshad seen aborted fetuses. Normal childbirth is not mentioned in the gynecology of theCorpus. Apparently, a Hippokratic doctor would only be called to attend a problematicparturition. 411

P:423

HIPPOKRATIC CORPUS, ON HEAD WOUNDSEd.: Mul. I and II, Steril.: Littré 8; some sections, with German trans., in H. Grensemann, Knidische Medizin 1 (1975), Hippokratische Gynäkologie (1982), Knidische Medizin 2 (1987); Nat. Mul.: Littré 7; H. Trapp, (Diss. Hamburg, 1967); Superf.: Littré 8; C. Lienau, CMG 1.2.2 (1973), with German trans.; Foet. Exsect.: Littré 8; Oct. (and Sept.): Littré 7; H. Grensemann, CMG 1.2.1 (1968), with German trans.; R. Joly, Hippocrate 11 (CUF 1970); Genit./Nat. Puer.: Littré 7; Joly (1970); Virg.: Littré 8.Trans.: Mul. I: A.E. Hanson, “Hippocrates: Diseases of Women I,” Signs 1 (1975) 567–584 (selected chapters); Genit./Nat. Puer.: I.M. Lonie, The Hippocratic Treatises “On Generation”; “On the Nature of the Child”; “Diseases 4” (1981); Mul. I and II, Nat. Mul., Oct., Virg. (excerpts): in M. Lefkowitz and M. Fant, Women’s Life in Greece and Rome (1992) 230–243; Virg.: A.E. Hanson and R. Flemming, “Hippocrates’ Peri parthenion (Diseases of young girls): Text and Translation,” Early Science and Medicine 3 (1998) 241–252.Lesley Dean-Jones, Women’s Bodies in Classical Greek Science (1994); N. Demand, Birth, Death and Motherhood in Ancient Greece (1994); H. King, Hippocrates’ Woman (1998). Lesley Dean-JonesHippokratic Corpus, On Head Wounds (ca 400 BCE)Included by G  among the genuine and most useful of the Hippokratic works(17[1].577 K.), this treatise contains vocabulary, dialectal forms and grammar consistentwith a date of composition ca 400 BCE. Other Hippokratic treatises have similarities: inparticular, E V presents case histories illustrating its advice, and On Ulcers (seeH C S) contains almost identical language. On Head Wounds survives in nine MSS, the most authoritative being the beautiful 10th c.codex, Laurentianus Gr. 74.7. The treatise begins with a description of cranial anatomy,then lists the types of skull injury, discusses clinical evaluation of the patient, and concludeswith advice on treatment. It falls short of modern knowledge in some aspects of anatomy, inthe use of the neurological examination, and especially in the indications for surgery. How-ever, some of the anatomical description is accurate; there is clear evidence of the emer-gence of a technical medical vocabulary (bregma, diplo¯e, suture [raph¯e], linear fracture [r¯ogm¯e],depressed fracture [esphlasis]); the relevance of brain function (state of consciousness, con-tralateral paresis/paralysis) is acknowledged; the importance of a good trauma history isstressed; and excellent advice is given on examination of the wound and on surgical tech-nique. The examining surgeon is warned to distinguish between sutures and fractures, andin cases where fracture is suspected but not seen to apply a black solution which will enter afracture but not normal skull, and to enlarge by incision any wound too small to allowadequate visualization of the injury. Trephination is described in detail with emphasis onrecognizing when the inner table of the skull is perforated and in allowing for the relativethinness of children’s skulls. The advice in this treatise, itself only a small remnant of a surgical tradition ancientat the time of its composition, clearly represents the experience not just of onetalented surgeon but of many generations of surgeons. Following its translation into Latinin the 16th c. (Calvus, 1525; Vidius, 1544), it remained a surgical reference work well intothe 19th c. (Littré 1. and 3.150–261). It is a good example of a practical surgicalhandbook.Maury Hanson, CMG 1.4.1 (1999): Greek text, English translation, commentary; Withington (1928) 6–51. Maury Hanson 412

P:424

HIPPOKRATIC CORPUS, NOSOLOGICAL WORKSHippokratic Corpus, Heart (ca 350 – 250 BCE)Although G  does not question its authenticity, it is unlikely that this work was writtenby H . P Quaest. conv. 7.1 (699 C–D), our earliest reference, cites Hip-pokrate¯s as having mentioned that some things that are drunk pass down the windpipe intothe lungs. The author argues that the heart is the center of the vascular system. SinceA HA 3.3 (513a16–22) claimed to have known this, the mid 4th c. most probablyis a terminus post quem for the work. Fredrich and others, however, dated the work beforeAristotle. Abel, on philological grounds, dates the work in the 3rd c. None of the argumentsfor dating are entirely persuasive. A 3rd c. date would correlate with the knowledge of anatomyof the heart. The author does not appear to be H ’ or E’ pupil. De Corde describes the heart and vascular system, as well as the atrio-ventricular valves.The heart is described as being like a pyramid and dark red, it is a strong muscle becauseof its thickness and texture. The treatise discusses the inlet valves and semi-lunar valves. Theauthor knows that there is blood-ﬂow from the right to the left side of the heart. Given thelevel of sophistication, the author most probably gained his knowledge through dissection,either by him or others. Possibly he could have been one of the earlier Pneumaticists.Ed.: Littré 9.80–93.C. Fredrich, Hippokratische Untersuchungen (1899) 15, 77; K. Abel, “Die Lehre vom Blutkreislauf im Corpus Hippocraticum,” Hermes (1958) 192–219, esp. 196; C.R.S. Harris, The Heart and the Vascular System in Ancient Greek Medicine (1973) 83–96; I.M. Lonie, “The Paradoxical Text ‘On the Heart’,” Medical History 27 (1973) 1–15, 136–153. Robert LittmanHippokratic Corpus, Nosological Works (ca 450 – 380 BCE)Five nosological treatises, overlapping much in content:(1) Internal Aﬀections (Int.) describes 54 diseases, classiﬁed in “head to toe” order, starting with aﬄictions of the chest. The compiler divides several diseases into a number of varieties (e.g. 4 jaundices, 4 typhuses, 3 tetanuses).(2) Aﬀections (Aﬀ.) in two parts: a nosological section (§§1–38), wherein illnesses are classiﬁed from head to toe, and which refers several times to a lost recipe book entitled Pharmakitis; and a dietetic section (§§39–61), lacking a clear organizing principle. The compiler claims (§1) that he is writing for laymen (idi¯otai); but the technicality of some chapters seems to indicate that this work was addressed to physicians.(3) Diseases I (Morb. I) in two sections: the ﬁrst, comprising general remarks on the medical art, is intended to enable the physician to defend his views in debates with colleagues; while the second describes internal diseases (“suppurating” and acute diseases).(4) Diseases II (Morb. II), not the continuation of Morb. I, contains two sub-treatises: the ﬁrst (§§1–11; Morb. II-1) describes 14 diseases of the head and throat; the second (§§12–75; Morb. II-2) addresses the same aﬄictions, and also lists diseases of the nose, chest and back.(5) All the descriptions of diseases in Diseases III (Morb. III) have parallels in Morb. II and Int. However, Morb. III also includes a collection of recipes for cooling remedies (§17), which has no parallel in the nosological treatises. Each description of disease in the nosological works includes the identiﬁcation of the 413

P:425

HIPPOKRATIC CORPUS, OATHdisease and its symptomatology. Other elements ﬁguring in the nosological descriptions are:details of treatment, both dietetic and pharmacological (found in Int., Aﬀ., Morb. II-1, andMorb. III); prognosis (found in Int., Morb. II-1, and Morb. III); and etiology (found in Aﬀ.,Morb. I, and Morb. II-2). The etiology in Aﬀ. and Morb. I is centered on the humors: bile andphlegm. Numerous parallel redactions of material in these treatises indicate that their compilersexploited the same source(s), one of which may be the Cnidian Sentences, a lost ﬁfth-centurytreatise. The relative chronology of the nosological treatises is disputed, but a date in thesecond half of the 5th c. can be advanced for Int., Morb. II and Morb. III, whilst Aﬀ. I andMorb. I, with their systematic bi-humoral etiology, were more likely composed at thebeginning of the 4th c. BCE.Ed.: Littré 6 (Diseases I; Aﬀections) and 7 (Internal Aﬀections; Diseases II and III); R. Wittern, Die hip- pokratische Schrift De Morbis I (1974); P. Potter, CMG 1.2.3 (1980); J. Jouanna, Hippocrates. Maladies II (CUF 1983); P. Potter, Hippocrates v. 5 (1983) (Diseases I and II; Aﬀections) and v. 6 (1988) (Diseases III; Internal Aﬀections).J. Jouanna, Hippocrate: Pour une archéologie de l’école de Cnide (1974). Laurence M.V. TotelinHippokratic Corpus, Oath (350 – 100 BCE)Short Hippokratic treatise of uncertain origin. The oath falls into two parts. In the ﬁrst, theoath-taker vows to Apollo, Askle¯pios, and the gods of healing to hold his teacher equal tohis own parents, to make him partner in his livelihood, to share with him his own goods, toimpart oral instructions only to his own sons, to the teacher’s sons and to those pupils whohave taken the oath. The second part of the oath contains speciﬁc deontological prescrip-tions; the physician will use medical treatments only to the advantage of the sick, abstainingfrom any injury and wrongdoing; it is forbidden to administer poison, to perform abortion,to operate using the knife, to divulge professional secrets. Edelstein argued that the oath displays features that are Pythagorean in tone or seem toecho the precepts of P (cf. D  L 8.34–35); other scholars areless certain. Pythagoreans were unique in prohibiting suicide (P, Phaedo 61d-62b), inconsidering embryos animate from the moment of conception (D.L. 8.28–29), and in their4th c. BCE disputes over blood sacriﬁce (D.L. 8.13). Furthermore, Pythagorean stipula-tions of purity may have contributed to prohibitions against using the knife (Edelstein 1943:32–33). It is uncertain whether the oath was required by some physician’s guild or merely anormative moral and ethical guide. E  Pr. ( p. 9 Nachm.) considered the oathgenuinely Hippokratic.W.H.S. Jones, The Doctor’s Oath (1924); L. Edelstein, The Hippocratic Oath (1943); G. Harig and J. Kollesch, “Der hippokratische Eid,” Philologus 122 (1978) 157–176. Bruno CentroneHippokratic Corpus, Prognostic Works (ca 450 – ca 370 BCE)“I hold that it is an excellent thing for a physician to practice pronoia (forethought/fore-sight).” So opens the Hippokratic treatise Prognostic (Prog.), in which the author oﬀers athreefold argument about the beneﬁts of medical prognosis for both doctor and patient, and 414

P:426

HIPPOKRATIC CORPUS, PROGNOSTIC WORKSthen provides detailed practical instructions about how most accurately and eﬀectively toread signs oﬀered by the bodies of the acutely sick. Nor is this the only Hippokratic textdedicated to medical forecasting. It is joined by Prorrhetic (Prorrh.) 1 and 2, and Coan Prenotions(Coac.); though none of these achieved the same canonical status as Prog., which was alwayscounted amongst the writings of H  himself in antiquity. There is some further variation within this prognostic grouping. Both Prorrh. 1 and Coac.are, in contrast to the more polished and synthetic prose of Prog. and Prorrh. 2, aphoristicand disconnected (though not disorganized); and their content overlaps considerably. Forexample, Prorrh. 1.55 states that, “The loss of speech arising from exertion brings a bad death,”which follows a similarly terse sentence about a diﬀerent (but also fatal) form of speechless-ness, in a longer sequence of bad signs. The same aphorism appears at Coac. 244, with thepreceding entry also identical, though the longer sequence in this treatise is dedicated morespeciﬁcally to loss of speech or speech-related symptoms. Coac. contains about 90% of the170 aphorisms in Prorrh. 1 in some form – more often contracted or otherwise amendedthan replicated verbatim – collected and arranged together with almost 500 additional,and more heterogeneous, segments making a total of about 640 aphorisms in all. CompareH C, A W. On the other hand, though both of the other two works open with programmaticstatements about the importance, and basis, of medical prognosis, and share a certainstyle and literary vocabulary, they advocate distinct programs and their technical termin-ology diﬀers. While the author of Prog. promotes the practice of medical prediction asbeneﬁcial to the physician’s authority and reputation and to his success in treating thesick, with the two combining to produce the “good doctor,” Prorrh. 2 concentrates heavilyon the former. Sound forecasting here brings success in competition with other physicians,and there is no mention of healing. Prorrh. 2 is, however, more explicit about predictivemethods and their limitations than Prog. The former text deﬁnes the careful and method-ical observation and interpretation of medical signs it advocates and describes, against amore prophetic or divinatory form of prognosis; while the latter blurs the distinctionbetween the two. Thus the opening sentence of Prog. paraphrases H’s description of the famous seerKalkhas (Iliad 1.69–70) in explicating what pronoia means in a medical context: i.e., “fore-knowing and foretelling, in the presence of the sick, the present, the past, and the future.” Inhis introductory sequence, however, the author of Prorrh. 2. rejects “prophecy about the pastand present,” stating “I will not divine in this way; rather I will record the signs from whichone must judge which persons will become well and which will die.” The same author alsouses only words of “foretelling” while eschewing entirely the “foreknowing” that accompan-ies prediction in Prog. These points make it tempting to think that Prorrh. 2 was written in response to Prog., andconsciously attempts to promote an alternative view of what constitutes “the best medicalprognosis,” an interpretation strengthened by recent suggestions that Prorrh. 2 is early 4th c.,rather than sharing a late 5th c. date with Prog. More caution is perhaps needed about thetraditional ordering of Prorrh. 1 (usually placed in the mid-5th c.) and Coac. (4th c.).Although the latter could directly depend on the former (and Prog. and Prorrh. 2 might alsohave borrowed vocabulary from the same source), it is increasingly accepted that large partsof Hippokratic material were held, roughly speaking, in common; and so might be multiplydrawn on, rearranged and modiﬁed, without establishing a clear, vertical, line of textualsuccession. 415

P:427

HIPPOKRATIC CORPUS, PROTREPTIC WORKSEd.: Littré 5.588–733; B. Alexanderson, Die hippokratische Schrift Prognostikon: Überlieferung und Text (1963); H. Polack, Textkritische Untersuchungen zu der hippokratischen Schrift Prorrhetikos I (1976); Potter (1995) 167–293.L. Edelstein, Ancient Medicine (1967) 65–85; V. Langholf, Medical Theories in Hippocrates: Early Texts and the “Epidemics” (1990) 232–254; T. Stover, “Form and function in Prorrhetic 2,” in P. van der Eijk, ed., Hippocrates in Context (2005) 345–361. Rebecca FlemmingHippokratic Corpus, Protreptic Works (ca 420 – 100 BCE)The Art (Littré 6). This carefully worked treatise sets out to demonstrate that there really isa tekhn¯e (“art,” “craft,” “science”) of medicine. Various arguments to the contrary are setout and rebutted, for instance the contention that medical cures arise from tukh¯e (“luck”)rather than from tekhn¯e. The author, perhaps a sophist rather than a practicing doctor, is athome with techniques of literary prose and rhetorical expression ( Jones v.2, 1923; Heiberg1927: 9–19; J. Jouanna, Hippocrate v. 5.1 [CUF 1988]). Precepts (Littré 9). This little work is made up of a disjointed amalgam of notes andremarks, where much is individually and collectively obscure. The vocabulary is reconditeand the style self-consciously arresting. It describes the precepts to be followed by the ideal,high-principled physician. In date, it is regarded as “late”: at least Hellenistic and possiblyRoman ( Jones v.1, 1923; Heiberg 1927: 30–35). Law (Littré 4). The Law is frequently linked with the H C, O,but is more reﬂective in character. Debate on the tekhn¯e of medicine centers on thequalities required for medical expertise and understanding: innate ability, properinstruction and diligence. There is in conclusion a reference to the peripatetic nature of theprofession and to the “sacred” character of its knowledge ( Jones v.2, 1923; Heiberg 1927:7–8). Decorum (Littré 9). The author argues that personal phusis is necessary for progress inmedical wisdom, as the prerequisites of this cannot be taught; indeed teaching in general issuspect. The work is idiosyncratic in vocabulary and contorted in expression; on the basis ofthis it is commonly regarded as “late.” The content, however, accords with matters debatedin the 5th c. ( Jones v.2, 1923; Heiberg 1927: 25–29). Physician (Littré 9). In this tract, the qualities of appearance and character desiderated inthe ideal doctor are ﬁrst outlined: health, dignity and trustworthiness are important. Theessential elements of basic medical education are then set out: particular attention is paid tothe orientation of the surgery, to proper ways of bandaging and to appropriate types ofinstrument. The work with its practical tenor has an appealing immediacy. (Potter 1995;Heiberg 1927: 20–24).J. L. Heiberg, CMG 1.1.1 (1927). Elizabeth CraikHippokratic Corpus, Regimen (ca 430 – 370 BCE)Regimen I–IV: a series of four treatises placing the human being, both physically andpsychologically, in the kosmos. The ﬁrst, much inﬂuenced by the Pre-Socratics, drawsanalogies between the kosmos and human microcosm, both constituted from ﬁre andwater, which govern diet, health, sickness, and even reproduction. The second establishesthe impact of location (with signiﬁcant diﬀerences from H C, A, 416

P:428

HIPPOKRATIC CORPUS, REGIMENW, P), food and drink, and lifestyle on the body. Food and drink are presentedauthoritatively but summarily, hence the need for G ’s supplements in On the Powers ofFoods. The third develops the role of bathing, exercise and daily regime in maintaininghealth, while recognizing the impact of work and limited resources on the majority of thepopulation. The fourth reviews the production and signiﬁcance of dreams. The integrationof diet, health and cosmology is comparable to Chinese and Indian medicine. The actionof bodily heat and ﬂuids (or “humors”) on ﬂuids of ingested plants and animals underpinsthe Hippokratic system of humors (which varies between diﬀerent groups of treatises).These treatises are powerfully located in the thought of the late 5th c. BCE and reﬂect theimportance of lifestyle in maintaining good health, in preference to treatment by drugs(themselves often essences of foods) or surgery. The point is reinforced in Regimen in AcuteDiseases (next) where the patient’s life is under serious threat. Joly (1960) and Joly and Byl(1984) present major reviews of the scholarly debate. Regimen in Acute Diseases: this work has been much discussed, not least by Gale¯nin an important commentary, because of its explicit attack from the very ﬁrst sentence onthe Knidiai Gnomai of the “Cnidian School,” its links with H   E, andits possible relationship to Regimen I, A M, some of the E, andFractures and Joints (see H C, S), among other treatises. Thetreatise, apparently written in the later 5th c. BCE, is designed for use by professional phys-icians in critical cases, particularly fevers. The key treatment is varied preparations of barleywater (with careful regulation of food), from which the patient progresses to stronger liquids(honey and water, vinegar and water, and wine). An Appendix (of disputed authenticity)discusses certain conditions, prognostics and therapy. An important Arabic translation pre-serves Regimen but not the Appendix. Kühlewein edited the text (1894), and summaries ofthe scholarly debate appear in Jouanna 1992: 559–560, Joly 1972 (with French translation),and Jones 1931 (with English translation). Regimen in Health: a short treatise transmitted with Nature of Man and normallyconsidered with it, Regimen in Health sets out dietary requirements according toseason, bodily state, and exercise taken by the ordinary person (men who take moderateexercise) – women, children, and athletes are considered as special cases. Particular atten-tion is given to emetics and clysters. The treatise may date to the late 5th c., like Nature ofMan, though some doubt surrounds its integrity, not least the quotations from other treatisesat the end. Use Of Liquids: this work complements Regimen I–IV, Regimen in Acute Diseases and othertreatises in concentrating on external applications of fresh water, salt water, vinegar andwine. Heating and cooling are major issues, along with moistening and drying, and cleans-ing and softening – all according to the medical condition of the patient and consequentstate of the skin. The treatise, diﬃcult to read and to date, contains many obscurities as ifthe text were merely reference notes – but is closely related to A 5 and is citedfrequently in E  and Gale¯n. Heiberg edited the text (1927) and Joly (1972) andPotter include useful editorial comments, translations and summaries of the scholarlydebate.Ed.: J.L. Heiberg, CMG 1.1.1 (1927); Jones (1931); R. Joly, Hippocrate v. 6.2: Du regime des maladies aigues, Appendice, De l’Aliment, De l’Usage des liquides (CUF 1972); R. Joly and S. Byl, Hippocrate: du Regime = CMG 1.2.4 (1984); H. Kühlewein, Hippocrates: Opera Omnia 1 (1894); Potter (1995).R. Joly, Recherches sur le traité pseudo-hippocratique du regime (1960); J. Jouanna, Hippocrate (1992). J.M. Wilkins 417

P:429

HIPPOKRATIC CORPUS, ON THE SACRED DISEASEHippokratic Corpus, On the Sacred Disease (430 – 400 BCE)On the Sacred Disease attacks magicians and priests as impious charlatans for blaming theillness on the gods and prescribing ritual cures. The illness, it maintains, is no more sacredthan others, since all are divine – yet subject to human expertise. The illness develops in uterofrom an excess of phlegm; phlegmatics are particularly susceptible. Symptoms includeconvulsions, nightmares, hallucinations, hunchback and, apparently, the epileptic “aura.”The illness might disappear in childhood or become chronic; victims may be “distorted” orhave no obvious vestiges. Scholars have equated the illness with epilepsy, though stroke,schizophrenia, and tuberculosis may also be indicated. “Sacred disease” is a topic of A,W, P; On Breaths; and Diseases of Young Girls. The author also argues for and against the views of philosophers and doctors. Bile cannotcause the illness (contra Airs, Waters, Places); constitution is familial (contra Airs, Waters, Placeswhich posits that winds and environmental factors determine regional constitutions).Reproduction occurs by pangenesis, and unhealthy seed can be inherited. The importanceof air to cognition may show D   A ’s inﬂuence. The author may befollowing A  (and anticipating P and D ) in considering the brainthe locus of intelligence, emotion, and perception, and not the diaphragm (H, etc.) orthe heart (A, etc.). On the Sacred Disease shares enough with Airs, Waters, Placesthat many assert single authorship; there is no consensus on relative dating. There are alsosigniﬁcant diﬀerences between the texts (as above). B knew the treatise; E  deems it a genuine work of H .The pseudo-Hippokratic Letter 19 on madness incorporates a section. G  glossed somewords and considered its author “noteworthy,” though inferior to Hippokrate¯s, and wrote nocommentary. Others providing testimonia assume Hippokratic authorship: H (P.), S  in C A, and Theodo¯re¯tos (the 5th c. bishop of Cyprus). On the Sacred Disease did not greatly inﬂuence the etiology or treatment of the sacreddisease. Plato and Gale¯n attributed the illness to black bile. D , P, Aristo-tle, T, and S  variously recommend for it such typical substances ofthe materia magica as genitals, blood, and excrement; Gale¯n advocates concocting pulverizedhuman bone and wearing an amulet. Caelius Aurelianus reports that some doctors thoughtmagicians’ aid helpful in treatment.Littré v. 6; J. Jouanna, Hippocrate v. 2.3: La Maladie Sacrée (CUF 2003). Julie LaskarisHippokratic Corpus, Sevens (440? – 50 BCE)First known in a Latin translation, then in a fragmentary Greek version (the complete textsurvives in Arabic), it treats cosmology and pathology by applying the pattern of the num-ber seven (hebdomadic principle). The kosmos divides into seven parts as do all of thethings in it; the outermost part is Olympos, then the stars, Sun and Moon, the sublunaryregion, with air and waters over the Earth, then at the seventh place the Earth itself. TheEarth and the outer region are stationary, but the other ﬁve parts revolve eternally aroundthe Earth, moved by themselves and the immortal gods. There are seven stars, and sevenseasons, seven winds, seven “seasons” or “ages” in the human life; the seven parts of theworld are associated with the seven parts of the body and each part can itself be dividedinto seven; the soul is also a mixture of seven substances, the Earth’s surface divides into418

P:430

H I P P O K R AT I C C O R P U S , S U RG E RYseven parts, which correspond to the parts of the body. The second part of the work,discussing the causes and treatment of fevers, makes little reference to arithmology and thenumber seven. Chronologies proposed swing between the 5th and 1st cc. BCE, but thepresence of postclassical features in the tract can be taken for granted.J. Mansfeld, The Pseudo-Hippocratic Tract Περ εβδοµα´ δων and Greek Philosophy (1971); M.L. West, “The Cosmology of ‘Hippocrates’, de hebdomadibus,” CQ 21 (1971) 365–388 (text and commentary). Bruno CentroneHippokratic Corpus, Surgery (ca 430 – 370 BCE)Fractures (Fr), Surgery (S): Littré 3; Joints ( J), Mochlikon (M): Littré 4; Fistulas (F), Hemor-rhoids (H), Ulcers (U): Littré 6 Along with O H W, Fr and J constitute the major Hippokratic surgicaltreatises. Both address dislocations and fractures, their descriptions, treatment (includingdiet and purges) and the consequences of non-treatment. Their common approach, similar-ity of language and cross references (cf. Fr 31 and 13 and J 67 and 72) suggest a once unitarywork. M (“Instruments of Reduction,” garbled toward the end) epitomizes Fr and J, andsome passages (7–19, 27–31) were introduced verbatim into J (17–29, 82–87). M, largelyfollowing the traditional tendency to proceed from head to foot (except in the introductorychapter on bones where, curiously, it reverses the sequence), possibly reﬂects the originalorder of the now hodge-podge arrangement of topics in Fr and J. In antiquity Fr and J werealmost universally attributed to Hippokrate¯s. If by one author, he was a surgeon experi-enced with bones, muscles, tendons and major blood vessels, presenting himself as a prac-titioner, not a theorizer, and describing cases he witnessed or attended (e.g. Fr 1–3). Hemanifests the adversarial attitude found elsewhere in the Corpus ( J 1 attests to a publicdispute), but, to his credit, considers it ﬁtting for a good surgeon to admit and describepersonal failures ( J 48). A few of his views, if we correctly understand the text, have puzzledmodern readers: e.g. that the ﬁbula is longer than the tibia (Fr 12 and 37). Reduction devices described in Fr, J and M range from simple (leather balls for shoulderdislocations) to complex (“Bench of Hippokrate¯s”: J 72–73). A   K’commentary preserves illustrations of some mechanisms and maneuvers detailed in J. S falls into two parts: the ﬁrst (1–6) treats necessary equipment and conditions as well aspersonal appearance, positioning and movements of surgeons and assistants. Remainingchapters describe bandaging (types and modes of application with attendant problems):bandages are both knotted and sutured into position, both with and without splints andsupports (7–25); only linen is mentioned (11, 12, 22). It is debated whether these condensedand sometimes obscure notes represent an instructional outline (e.g. for opening an “oﬃce”)to be ﬁlled in later, or an abbreviated summary like M. The author of U, positing that moisture promotes lesions, provides a mine of pharma-ceutical information, as he favors non-surgical cures promoted by purges, plasters, andstyptics, emphasizing desiccating ingredients. Numerous concoctions include vegetable,mineral and animal products such as clover, lentils, oak gall, myrrh, blister beetles, copperand lead by-products and, of course, hellebore. The ﬁnal chapters, treating bleeding andcupping (25–27), may be later additions. The brief treatises H and F focus on maladies of the anal tract and associated conditionslike strangury. Their language is similar and, like Fr and J, since antiquity have often beenthought to have originally constituted a unitary work. After identifying heated and/or 419

P:431

H I P P O K R AT I C C O R P U S, I N PA H L AV I T E X T Saccumulated blood as the cause of piles, ﬁstula in ano, and condyloma, both recommendtreatment by medication and fomentation but favor surgery, though apparently not for pilesin women (H 7). These surgical tracts refer to many metal instruments: cupping vessels ( J 48, M 38, U 27);knives with ﬁne sharp blades (U 24); probes (U 10, 24, J 11, 37, F 5), of tin (F 4) and lead (F6); iron cauteries that are slender ( J 11), obeliskoid (H 2), and passed through a tube (H 6);iron reduction levers (Fr 31, J 68, M 25, 33, 42); and, for anal dilation, a katopt¯er (H 4–5; F 3),possibly the familiar rectal speculum of the Roman Empire. These Greek tools were oftennot regularly professionally prepared, but created ad hoc.Translations (with informative introductions): Fr, J, M, and S: Withington (1928); Fr reprinted in G.E.R. Lloyd, ed., Hippocratic Writings (1983); U, H, and F: Potter (1995). Lawrence J. BliquezHippokratic Corpus, in Pahlavi textsThe deep inﬂuence of Greek medicine in Iran is attested from the Achaemenid periodwhen Greek physicians such as D    K , K   K or Apoll-o¯nide¯s of Ko¯s (Kte¯sias, FGrHist 688 F14.34, 44) were active at the Persian court. Moreover,a Greek doctor, Stephanos of Edessa, cured the Sasanian king Ka¯wa¯d I (Prokopios, Bell.Pers. 2.26). Pahlavi sources clearly refer to the Hippokratic tradition, e.g., humoral theory(Wizidag¯ıha¯ ¯ı Zadspra¯m 29–30). The 9th c. Zoroastrian encyclopedia D¯enkard (3.157) atteststhe Hippokratic distinction between medicine of the body and of the soul. The Christian(Nestorian) school of medicine, where Greek and Indian doctrines intermingled, surelyrepresents a center of diﬀusion of Western medicine in Iran. A melothesia in IranianBundahisˇn 28.3–5 (e.g., the eyes relate to the Sun and Moon) seems to derive from theH C S.L.C. Casartelli, La philosophie religieuse du Mazdéisme sous les Sassanides (1884); Idem, “Un traité pehlevi sur la médecine,” Le Muséon 5 (1886) 296–316, 531–558; H. Fichtner, Die Medezin im Avesta (1924); Bailey (1943; 1971) 104–108; E. Benveniste, “La doctrine médicale des Indoeuropéens,” RHR 130 (1945) 5–12; R.Ch. Zaehner, Zurvan. A Zoroastrian Dilemma (1955; 19712); A. Götze, “Persische Weisheit in griechischem Gewande,” Zeitschrift für Indologie und Iranistik 2 (1963) 60–98, 167–174; J. de Menasce, Le troisième livre du D¯enkart (1973); Panaino (2001). Antonio PanainoHippolutos of Rome (200 – 236 CE)Controversial Christian father (b. ca 170 CE) who disputed the status of the oﬃcial bishop ofRome and had to go into exile on Sardinia. His main work, Refutation of all Heresies, is anattempt to derive Christian ideas from earlier Greek philosophy and contains numerousfragments of Pre-Socratics and other philosophers. Book 1 has a number of doxographicalreports similar to D  L while later books contain many fragments of, inparticular, H  and E .C. Osborne, Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy. Hippolytus and the Presocratics, (1987); J. Mansfeld, Heresiology in Context. Hippolytus’ Elenchos as a Source of Greek Philosophy (1992); I. Mueller, “Heterodoxy and Doxography in Hippolytus’ ‘Refutation of All Heresies’,” ANRW 2.36.6 (1992) 4309–4374; K. Alt “Hippolytos als Referent Platonischer Lehren,” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 40 (1997) 78–105. Jørgen Mejer 420

P:432

H I P P O S I A D E¯ SHippo¯ n of Kroto¯ n (450 – 430 BCE?)Hippo¯n (b. ca 475 BCE) continued a line of early Pythagorean natural philosophy andItalian medicine (A , M , E ); his theories concern mainlyphysiology, embryology and botany. Of his two books only one literal fragment and about20 testimonia are preserved. Kratinos in his comedy Panoptai (“All-seers” fr.167 PCG = DK38A2; ca 435–431 BCE) derides Hippo¯n as a reprobate, which seems to be the origin of his(hardly deserved) reputation as an atheist. Hippo¯n’s activity is connected with traditionalcenters of Pythagoreanism in Italy (Kroto¯n, Metapontion, Rhe¯gion), whereas Samos ashis birthplace (A fr.21) is probably a mistake. In any case, he cannot beregarded as an epigone of the Ionian school: his principle, moisture (to hugron) seems to bemicrocosmic rather than macrocosmic and is not identical to T ’ water. He believedthat there is a moisture in the body due to which it feels and lives; the lack or surplus ofmoisture, e.g. because of an excessive cold or heat, leads to illness and death. The soul hasa moist nature, as does male seed; the latter comes not from the brain (as Alkmaio¯nthought), but from marrow (this thesis Hippo¯n tried to prove “experimentally”). Manyembryological views of Hippo¯n are naive (sex of the child depends on what seed appearedstronger, male or female; twins are born, if seed was more than it is necessary for one child),though some of them survived up to the 19th c. Hippo¯n’s materialistic monism seemedprimitive and vulgar to A, but the idea that health depends on a balance of liquidsin an organism became standard for ancient medicine.DK 38; E. Lesky, Die Zeugungs- und Vererbungslehren der Antike und ihr Nachwirken (1950); HGP 2.354–358; Zhmud (1997). Leonid ZhmudH ⇒ H Hipponikos (of Athens?) (ca 285 – 250 BCE)Proﬁcient but lackluster geometry teacher whose lectures in Athens the Platonist Arkesi-laos attended, and whom he restored to health in his own house (D  L4.32).Netz (1997) #47. GLIMHipposiade¯s (?) (400 BCE – 300 CE)The “Laurentian” list of medical writers (MS Laur. Lat. 73.1, f.143V = fr.13 Tecusan)includes this otherwise unattested name. The list repeats no names, so this entry cannot bean error for Hippo<krat¯es . . . Askl¯ep>iad¯es. Perhaps the same as H or H; orelse perhaps we should restore some name like Iasiade¯s (LGPN 2.231: one), Dosiade¯s (LGPN1.145, 2.135: six; cf. the historian, FGrHist 458), So¯siade¯s (LGPN 1.420, 2.415, 3A.412,3B.392: eight; cf. the non-medical author cited by I    S 1.90), or most likelyPasiade¯s (LGPN 2.361, 3A.354, 3B.337, 4.274: 18). Cf. also E , L, andP  K .(*) PTK 421

P:433

HOMERHomer (750 – 700 BCE)Associated with the two earliest surviving Greek epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey, along witha number of shorter hymns and several lost epics of later date. The ancients believedHomer (Hom¯eros) to be a blind poet from Khios or another eastern Greek city. Modernscholarship largely accepts the view of Parry and his school that the poems were recorded inthe second half of the 8th c., following a long oral tradition. Still disputed is whether thepoems preserve traditions of their Late Bronze age setting or reﬂect the cultural backgroundof the 9th or 8th c. The later Stoic view, followed by S  (throughout), saw Homer as an entirelyaccurate guide to the world, particularly in geography; indeed, Strabo¯n put Homer ﬁrstamong reliable geographers. Geographic and toponymic references in the Iliad, concen-trated in the Catalogue of Ships and Trojan Allies (2.493–877), reﬂect knowledge of main-land Greece and western Anatolia. Beyond these regions, geographic data in the poem arescarcer; it is uncertain, for example, whether the poetic tradition knew of the Black Sea.Simpson and Lazenby attribute the geography of the Catalogue to the Aegean Bronze Age,arguing from the prominence of Bronze Age sites later abandoned; this view has beenchallenged. The old debate about Troy’s location has been resolved in favor of Hisarlık inthe Troad, ﬁrst identiﬁed as Troy by Calvert and excavated by Schliemann. Excavationshave revealed a substantial Bronze Age settlement reoccupied in the Archaic, Classical,Hellenistic and Roman periods after a hiatus. Topographical references in the Iliad suggesta familiarity with the Troad and the environs of the settlement. The Odyssey’s geography proves even more contentious. The poem’s references to Egypt,Cyprus and Phoenicia suggest an 8th c. worldview. Descriptions of Ithaca and surroundingIonian islands have proven diﬃcult to reconcile with geographical facts. But the most hotlydisputed issue has been the geography of Odysseus’ journey to fantastic lands. E-  rejected all attempts to locate the journey, but the view that placed the fantasticlands in the central and western Mediterranean prevailed.R.H. Simpson and J.F. Lazenby, The Catalogue of Ships in Homer’s Iliad (1970); J.K. Anderson, “The Geometric Catalogue of Ships,” in The Ages of Homer (1995) 181–191; M. Dickie in Homer’s World: Fiction, Tradition, Reality (1995) 29–56; J.V. Luce, Celebrating Homer’s Landscapes: Troy and Ithaca Revisited (1998); C. Dougherty, The Raft of Odysseus: The Ethnographic Imagination of Homer’s Odyssey (1999); J. Latacz, Troy and Homer. Towards a Solution of an Old Mystery (2004). Philip KaplanH ⇒ IHostilius Saserna and son (125 – 60 BCE)The father and son pair wrote about agriculture based in part on their experience with afarm in Cisalpine Gaul (V, RR 1.18.6). Theirs was the second oldest Latin treatise onagriculture, after C’s. T S and Varro frequently criticized its recom-mendations, while C praised it for its detail and expertise. It oﬀered formulaefor staﬃng a farm (Columella 1.7.4, 2.12.7; Varro 1.16.5, 18.2, 6, 19.1), folk remedies(1.2.25–28, 2.9.6), advice on growing vines (Columella 3.3.2, 3.12.5, 3.17.4, 4.11.1; P17.199), fertilizing crops (Columella 2.13.1), and operating clay, stone, and sand pits (Varro1.2.22–23). Their land-holdings appear to have been extensive (ca 100 ha); thus, like otherknown Sasernae, they may have been senatorial. 422

P:434

HUPATIA OF ALEXANDRIA The Sasernae apparently referred to H’ discovery of the precession of theequinoxes (Columella 1.1.4–5). They are thus the earliest of the very small number ofancient authors to acknowledge the discovery (the others are P, T   A-, and P). Their suggestion that the spread of viticulture northward was asign of climate change brought on by precession constituted an ingenious, if ultimatelymistaken, speculation. Finally, the recorded dates for Hipparkhos’ observations provide aterminus post quem for the Sasernas’ work of 127 BCE (but ca 70 BCE if they knew Hipparkhosonly through D   N).GRL §81; Speranza (1971) 33–45; OCD3 1358, A.J.S. Spawforth; NP 11.98, K. Ruﬃng; HLL §196.3. Philip ThibodeauHubriste¯s of Oxyrhynchos (120 – 100? BCE)A   P., in G  Antid. 2.14 (14.188–189 K.), preserves Hubriste¯s’ recordof the prescription of A   M for “all bites,” containing 16 ingredientsincluding Massilian hartwort (D  3.53–54), Indian nard, pepper, kangkhru, rue,and St. John’s wort. The name is unattested after 100 BCE (LGPN ).Fabricius (1726) 249. PTKHugie¯nos, the “Hippokratic” (100 BCE – 10 CE)Physician, known for various topical treatments: K , in G  CMLoc 1.8(12.488–489 K.), describes his quince-yellow plaster eﬀective against all ﬂuxes; A  P ., in Gale¯n CMLoc 4.8 (12.788), details his collyrium for inﬂammation at the cornerof the eyes and scabs; A , in Gale¯n CMLoc 10.2 (13.353–354 K.), records histopical for sciatica and chills, to remain on the pained area for three hours, after which abath is prescribed; and H  , in Gale¯n CMGen 2.10, 4.14 (13.512, 747 K.), declares hisplaster for cicatrization and whitlow the best. The physician’s name, curiously recalling theGreek for “health,” is attested, along with variants Hugianos, Huginianos, and Huginos(cf. the Latinized name H), from the 1st c. BCE to 3rd c. CE (LGPN ).RE 9.1 (1914) 97, H. Gossen. GLIMHulas (ca 60 BCE – 430 CE)Wrote a geographical work, cited by the R C, which treated Macedon(4.9), Sarmatia (4.11: i.e. before 430 CE) and Dacia (4.14: i.e. after 60 BCE). Cf. perhaps theHulas cited by P 10.38 on ﬁve ominous Greek birds (for the name cf. PIR2 H-240, 242);see A  S  and S.(*) PTKHupatia of Alexandria (ca 380 – 415 CE)Lived, was educated and taught in Alexandria. The daughter of T   A(PLRE 2 [1980] 439), she is known, through the correspondence of her famous student 423

P:435

H U PAT O SS  K  , to have mentored at least 15 students, most of them Christians, allsocially and politically elite (Dzielska 27–46). Since Sunesios studied under her until 398 andshe probably collaborated with her father, she was probably born ca 355. Already elderlywhen she was murdered, she was the victim of a political conﬂict between the bishop Cyril(cf. K) and the augustal prefect Oreste¯s (see Dzielska 83–100 and 1–26 for literaryand historical ﬁctions derived from this episode). Several sources describe her proﬁciency in mathematics (astronomy and astrologyincluded), as surpassing her father’s. The (notoriously unreliable) Souda, in particular, creditsher with The astronomical canon, commentaries on D ( perhaps his Arithm¯etika) andA ’ K¯onika, all of which, if they ever existed, are lost or at best survive asanonymous fragments (Cameron 44–48). The heading of Theo¯n’s commentary on the 3rdbook of P’s Almagest (2.807 Rome) only shows that Hupatia proofread it for herfather (see Jones 1999: 170–172, contra Cameron 1993). Cameron 1993 conjectured, onweak evidence, that her “astronomical canon” refers to an edition of Ptolemy’s Handy Tablesand that she is responsible for some interpolations found in the MSS of the Almagest.Qusta’s Arabic translation of Books 4–7 of Diophantos’ Arithm¯etika may have been based ona Greek text that already included interpolated commentaries perhaps due to Hupatia,but this point is again disputed. Moreover, the study of the direct transmission does notallow positive conclusions on scholia to Diophantos written before the 13th c. Knorr (1989:765–770) plausibly argued that part of Hupatia’s hypothetical commentary on Apollo¯niosmay be found in the material used for E’ commented edition of the K¯onika. ButKnorr’s own attempt to circumscribe part of it is weak. His attribution to her of a rework-ing of A  ’ De dim. circ., likewise, is highly conjectural (ibid. 771–780). The Souda notice is partly based on D’ Life of Isidore, in which Hupatia’s reputa-tion in mathematics is used to belittle her proﬁciency in philosophy (Cameron 41–43),somewhat contradicting the well-informed and enthusiastic testimony of her studentSunesios, whose letters, although deliberately allusive regarding the content of Hupatia’steaching, clearly show that she considered astronomy “a divine science” leading tophilosophy (Ad Paeonium de dono, 310c-311a), and one of E’s common notions liableto an ethical interpretation (Epist. 93). She therefore probably considered mathematicsone stage in a philosophical and “psychagogic” curriculum (Dzielska 54–56). This doesnot imply that she was not competent in mathematics (cf. Sunesios’ letter to Paeonius), northat her philosophical obedience was to Iamblikhean Neo-Platonism (Dzielska 62–64contra Cameron 49–58). But it may bring her teaching close to what is found some decadeslater in P’ Hupotuposis. Probably following her father’s interests, she also taughtastrology (see Sunesios’ allusion to an astrological hydroscope in Epist. 15, Dzielska 74–79).She also showed interest in music and musical instruments (Cameron 60). These aspectsof her teaching may have contributed to Alexandrian hostility leading up to her death(Dzielska 91).A. Cameron, Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius (1993) 42–60; M. Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria (1995); BNP 6 (2005) 627–628, P. Hadot; NDSB 3.435–437, F. Acerbi. Alain BernardHupatos (1000 – 1250 CE?)Some MSS contain a lexicon of terms designating the parts of the body, the titleof which includes the word hupatos, traditionally interpreted as the author’s name, a 424

P:436

HURIADASsupposed physician, Hupatos. It was, however, a professorial title in use at the university inConstantinople (from the 11th c. onward); it may also be an adjective expressing the distinctquality of the author whose name has been lost in the MS tradition. The hupatos (t¯on philos-oph¯on) Io¯anne¯s Pediasimos ( ﬂ. ca 1250), writer of a medical work on obstetrics, might verywell be our author, particularly because all the MSS of the work are recent. This lexicon isattributed to H  in some MSS (Diels 1905: 1.43).Diels 2 (1907) 50; RE 9.1 (1914) 251 (#6), H. Gossen; F. Fuchs, Die höheren Schulen von Konstantinople im Mittelalter (1926) 50–54; G. Björck, “Remarques sur trois documents médicaux de la Bibliothèque universitaire de Leyde,” Mnemosyne 3 (1938) 139–150 at 141–145; C.N. Constantinides, Higher educa- tion in Byzantium in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries (1204–ca. 1310) (1982) 113–132. Alain TouwaideHupsikle¯s of Alexandria (150 – 100 BCE)Mathematician and astronomer, later than A   P and roughly con-temporary with H. Hupsikle¯s is perhaps best known as the author of a treatisethat survives as Book 14 of E’s Elements. This treatise, which concerns the ratio of aregular dodecahedron and icosahedron inscribed in the same sphere, is addressed toP   B. His other surviving work, the Anaphorikos, is remarkable for itsintroduction of the division of the circle into 360 degrees of arc and of the day into 360degrees of time, as well as for its quantitative and arithmetical approach to a problem thatis treated qualitatively and geometrically in Euclid’s Phainomena. This treatise addresses thequestion of the time-intervals required for the individual zodiacal signs (that is, the 30˚-segments of the ecliptic named after the zodiacal constellations) to rise at a given latitude(Alexandria), and uses an arithmetical scheme for computing such rising-times that is knownto be Babylonian in origin to answer it. (Some mistakenly infer that Hupsikle¯s’ use of such ascheme dates him before Hipparkhos.) D (De polyg. num.) attributes a deﬁnitionof polygonal number to Hupsikle¯s, which some speculate belonged to a treatise on poly-gonal numbers that has been lost. A T indicates that Hupsikle¯s also wrotea treatise (not extant) on the harmony of the spheres.Ed.: V. De Falco, M. Krause, and O. Neugebauer, Hypsikles: Die Aufgangszeiten der Gestirne (1966).Maass (1898) 43; Heath (1921) 1.419–421; Fraser (1972) 2.612, n.381; Neugebauer (1975) 712–733. Alan C. BowenHupsikrate¯s of Amisos (30 – 10 BCE)Wrote a geographical work cited by S , describing the Crimean region (7.4.6), theAmazons of the Caucasus (11.5.1), and the western “Ethiopians” (17.3.5). He attained anage of 92, and also wrote history and grammar.FGrHist 190. PTKHuriadas (400 – 300 BCE)Listed by T (Sweat 17) with A   D  on disorders related tosweat: uncertain whether a dietician like Antiphane¯s or perhaps an athlete or trainer. (The 425

P:437

HYGINUS (AGRIMENSOR)name is otherwise unattested.) Cf. perhaps E  , H, H , orHurradios (father of Pittakos: D  L 1.74).(*) PTKH ⇒ (1) A; (2) IHyginus (Agrimensor) (ca 100 – 120 CE)One of two writers named Hyginus in the Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum, the compilation (ca4th c. CE) of texts concerned with land survey and various aspects of measurement. Hyginusrefers to a recent distribution of land in Pannonia to veterans of Trajan, i.e., post 102 CE. Aprofessional surveyor with substantial ﬁeld experience, including work at Kure¯ne¯ in northAfrica, and Samnium, where he investigated changes of ownership in lands allocated toveteran soldiers by Vespasian, he also produced a collection of imperial edicts and decisionson land. Hyginus expounds the role of limites, which, because of their speciﬁed width andstatus, were the crucial elements in dividing land into units (centuriae) for distribution. Hecarefully describes the erection of stones appropriately inscribed to designate each centuria. Ingeneral, Hyginus oﬀers practical guidance to surveyors, advising on methods for recognizingand interpreting boundaries, and emphasizing the importance of using wide ranging evi-dence. He notes important regional variations in expressing an area of land, such as theuersus (8,640 square feet) in Dalmatia. In Kure¯ne¯ the Ptolemaic foot (25/24 Roman feet) wasin use, and in Germany the Drusian foot (9/8 Roman feet). Notably, in a wide-rangingdiscussion of land-holding conditions, Hyginus insists on the relevance and importance oflocal practices, and that each land-holding community should be judged on its own terms.Thulin (1913); CAR 5 (2000); Campbell (2000) 76–101. Brian CampbellHyginus Gromaticus (100 – 300 CE?)The second of the two writers named Hyginus in the Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum (seeH [A]), and often referred to as “Gromaticus” on the basis of the ratherconfused MS headings. He refers to the poet L, but otherwise makes no datablereferences. His approach is partly historical in that he discusses the foundation of colonies,but he also describes the procedures of land survey in a way that oﬀers guidance to othersurveyors. He is particularly informative on the establishment of limites, the dimensions ofland division units (centuriae), and their proper designation with inscribed stones so that plotsof land could be found easily and without ambiguity. Hyginus describes methods of orienta-tion and the alignment of limites, using a sundial and the measurement of shadows, and amore complex method based on solid geometry. He also outlines a method for measuringparallel lines using similar right-angled triangles. Hyginus sets out the best methods ofland division starting from the principle that the two main limites, aligned north-south andeast-west, intersected in the middle of the settlement and extended through four gates.Although this could rarely be achieved, surveyors with their professional, scientiﬁc approachworked with the administrative bureaucracy to overcome and exploit physical terrain. Ina way, they represented the power of the Roman state to control natural resources.Thulin (1913); CAR 4 (1996); Campbell (2000) 134–163. Brian Campbell 426

P:438

H YG I N U S, P S E U D O, D E M E TAT I O N E C A S T RO RU MHyginus, pseudo, de Metatione Castrorum (ca 200 – 212 CE)A military geometer of good theoretical training and practical experience (§45, 47), whowrote probably in the beginning of the 3rd c. CE, but not later than 212 (edict of Caracalla:Grillone 1987: 407–411). De metatione castrorum is a more suitable title than the commonly-accepted de munitionibus castrorum, proposed by a copyist: the author treats fortiﬁcations onlybrieﬂy at the end (§48–58), where however he expends no small attention on geometricalmatters, coxae and clauiculae (§54–55). Coxae round and thus strengthen the angles of thecastra; clauiculae form a vertical quarter-cylinder, extending from the door’s right jamb untilthe point corresponding to the central point of the opening part of the wall reserved to thedoor (width = 60 feet: §14,49; Grillone 2000: 378–379). Clauiculae and small fossae (§50: titula)aim to impede frontal attacks, to defend retreating soldiers, and to allow defenders to hitassailants everywhere.Plan view of Clauicula and plan view of Coxa © GrilloneThe rest of the booklet (§1–47), mutilated at the beginning, addresses only metatio,i.e., how a camp’s surface is distributed between the units of an army of three legionsin three parts, to the front ( praetentura), in the middle (latera praetorii), to the back (retentura);cohortes partly are symmetrically disposed along the four sides of the castra (8+8 on leftand right hand [§36], 4+4 to the front and to the back [§44]: Grillone 1984: n. 25), partlyin praetentura and in latera praetorii (4+2; §3,9; Grillone 1984: n. 24). In calculating thearea necessary for any unit, the geometer allots 11/5 foot for each infantryman, andthree feet for each horseman (width ﬁxed at 30 feet for arms, animals . . .; §1). Cohorteslegionariae and other units – auxiliarii and gentes (nationes and symmachares) – diﬀer in thatcohortes legionariae take up quarters according to a ﬁxed plan, also if they have less than600 soldiers (720×30 feet: §1–2), while other troops have an area corresponding tothe number of soldiers (i.e., cohors peditata: 600 men = 720×30 feet: §27–28), and some-times the usable area accords to the circumstances (for gentes, if they are less or morepeople: §40).Ed.: Antonino Grillone, Hygini qui dicitur de metatione castrorum liber (1977); M. Lenoir, Pseudo-Hygin, Des fortiﬁcations du camp (CUF 1979).Antonino Grillone rev. of Lenoir, in: Gnomon 56 (1984) 15–26; Idem, “Problemi tecnici e datazione del de metatione castrorum dello ps.-Igino,” Latomus 46 (1987) 399–412; Idem, “Soluzioni tecniche e linguaggio di un geometra militare del III secolo: lo pseudo-Igino,” in Atti del IV Seminario Internazionale di studi sulla letteratura scientiﬁca e tecnica greca e latina (Messina 29–31 ottobre 1997) (2000) 365–395; Idem, “Lessico ed espressioni della gromatica militare dello ps. Igino,” in Atti del 427

P:439

H YG I N U S, P S E U D O, D E M E TAT I O N E C A S T RO RU M Congresso Internazionale “Les vocabulaires techniques des arpenteurs romains,” Besançon (19–21 Septembre 2002) (2005) 125–136. Antonino GrilloneH- ⇒ H- 428

P:440

IIako¯ bos Psukhrestos (457 – 474 CE)D, Philosophical History 5.84 ( pp. 206–213 Athan.), attests most fully to the politi-cal, intellectual, and medical prominence of Iako¯bos “The Cooler” (from his habit ofprescribing cold baths for a number of diseases) in the reign of Leo the Thrakian (457–474CE); the Souda (I-12, 13), John Malalas’ Chronicle, Marcellinus’ Chronicle, the Chronichon Pascale284–628 AD, and A  T add details regarding the remarkable careerof Iako¯bos and his father H . An avowed pagan, closely associated with Neo-Platonists in Athens (including P  L, whom he treated for a stomachailment: Dam., 84J), Iako¯bos was so renowned for his medical skills, the equal of Askle¯pios,that the sculptor Zeuxis produced idealized statues of him. “Iako¯bos persuaded his wealthypatients to alleviate the poverty-stricken: he took no payment for his services, being quitesatisﬁed with his salary as arkhomenos” (Dam. 84G). In 462 CE, Iako¯bos, summoned to theemperor’s bedside to cure Leo’s high fever, seated himself without the proper signal fromLeo, and laid his “healing hands” on his royal patient, scandalizing observers. Returninglater, he explained “that he had not acted arrogantly but had done this in accordance withthe practices of the ancient founders of his discipline” (Marcellinus, Chronicle: Leonis Aug. IISolius [sic; viz. 462 CE]: Croke 1995, pp. 23–24). When the wealthy and learned Isokasioswas accused of paganism (467 CE), Iako¯bos’ sensational defense achieved Isokasios’ acquit-tal through his close association with the emperor (that Isokasios underwent baptism mayhave helped: Malalas, Chronicle, and Chronicon Paschale). Fame did not assure good preservation of biographical detail; our sources suggest Iako¯boswas born either in Damascus, or Alexandria, or at Argive Drepanon. For two decades hestudied the Art of Medicine under his father before going to Constantinople, where fatherand son prescribed baths, diet, and purgatives, generally avoiding cautery, surgery, andphlebotomy (Dam. 84D). Alexander of Tralleis has enormous respect for Iako¯bos Psukhrestos, writing that he wasa “great man possessed of the most divine virtues in the practice of the Art” (5.4 [On Coughs]= 2.163 Puschm.), even while praising how Iako¯bos had improved the traditional com-position of the “Secret Cough-Medicine” (cf. N ’ Secret Remedy), judiciously com-bining licorice (Glycyrrhiza glabra L.), tragacanth-gum (Astragalus gummifer Labill.), high-gradeﬂour, and lettuce-juice. Highly signiﬁcant are two dual-ingredient recipes to treat gout (Alex.Trall., Twelve Books 12: Podagra = 2.565, 571 Puschm.), both among the simplest of therecipes in Podagra, and both including hermodaktulon, the autumn crocus, Colchicum autumnaleL., the source of colchicine, the fundamental drug of modern gout-therapy. Iako¯bos was also 429

P:441

IAMBLIKHOS (OF SYRIA?)a skilled pharmacological technologist, as evinced by the ﬁve multi-staged, multi-ingredientcompounds recorded in the Latin translation of O’ Syn. 7.22 (6.160–161 BDM)to treat nerve-pain. The ingredients of one of them, to be ground in a mortar and mixedwith beeswax, olive oil, and butter, include beaver castor, terebinth oil, opopanax,chamomile, and other substances, to produce a narcotic salve (unguentum) called a Bromios(sc. the god Bacchus, thus a drug acting like strong wine), “a pain-killer (anodinus) good forluxations and wounded nerves.”O. Holder-Egger, “Die Chronik des Marcellinus Comes und die oströmischen Fasten,” Neues Archiv 2 (1877) 59–109 at 107; RE 9.1 (1914) 622–623, H. Gossen; E. Jeﬀreys et al., trans. The Chronicle of John Malalas (1986); M. and M. Whitby, trans., Chronicon Paschale 284–628 AD (1989); Temkin (1991) 214–215 and 222; B. Croke, ed., trans., comm., The Chronicle of Marcellinus (1995); Idem, Count Marcellinus and his Chronicle (2001) 260. John ScarboroughIamblikhos (of Syria?) (ca 50 BCE – 450 CE?)Wrote a geographical work used by the R C 2.16–19 on Asia Minorand 4.1–3 on Europe, the Black Sea, and the Bosporos (see also 1.5). The Syrian nameIamblikhos transliterates ya-mliku, “God rules,” and is attested from ca 50 BCE: C,Fam. 15.1.2, S  16.2.10. Cf. L G. and P G.(*) PTKIamblikhos (Alch.) (200 – 800 CE)Two alchemical recipes are ascribed to Iamblikhos (CAAG 2.285–287): a procedure for tinc-turing a metal and another for making gold. Whether falsely attributed to the Neo-Platonicphilosopher I or actually written by an homonymous author is unknown.(*) Bink HallumIamblikhos of Constantinople (ca 300? – ca 540 CE)Leontios Skholastikos praises him as a virginal old man, who taught and practiced medicinewithout fee (AP 16.272). P  A, 3.48.4 (CMG 9.1, p. 258), records that heprescribed a diet for dropsy; such a diet is described in some detail by A T (2.455–461 Puschm.). Iamblikhos’ probable contemporary A  Arecords his digestif salt, like that of M (P.), but substituting for the anise andseeds of elecampane and nasturcium instead arugula and thistle seeds: 9.24 ( p. 507 Cornarius;omitted by Zervos 1911: 324–325).RE 9.1 (1914) 651 (#5), H. Gossen. PTKIamblikhos of Khalkis (Syria) (300 – 327 CE)Studied Neo-Platonic philosophy with A  L, then with P T and subsequently established his own school in Apameia. He wrote numerousworks, among them a treatise in ten books on Pythagoreanism, commentaries on P 430

P:442

I A S O¯ N O F N U S A(Timaeus, Parmenides, Phaedrus and, possibly, Alcibiades I, Phaedo, Philebus and Sophist ) andA  (Categories, Prior Analytics). He is credited with the titles, Pythagorean Way of Life,Protrepticus, On the General Principles of Mathematics, Introduction to the Arithmetic of N G, On Mysteries (the title comes from Ficino), a response to Porphurios on the useof mysteries and religion in general, but also containing the core of his metaphysics, On theSoul, which draws not only on Plato but Aristotle as well. Inﬂuenced by Pythagorean doctrines, Iamblikhos’ philosophy is a complex version ofthe teaching of P  and Porphurios. He introduced triadic schemata into each levelof being below the ﬁrst One, completely unspeakable, and the second One, not related tothe triadic structure of the intelligible realm. Below the second One are the Limit and theUnlimited making up the One Existent (D, De Principiis 2, pp. 25.15–26.8 W.-C.).Then come seven triads constituting the intelligible and intellective realms, of which the ﬁrstmember is the One Existent, and the last, called Zeus, plays the role of the Demiurge(P, In Tim. 1, p. 308.17–23). Other members of the triads were also identiﬁed asgods, which shows the attempt to integrate traditional religion into Neo-Platonic meta-physics. The realm of the soul also has a threefold structure, with a transcendent souldiﬀering both from the world-soul and from individual souls. In contrast to Plo¯tinos,Iamblikhos denies that any part of the individual human soul does not descend into body:when connected, the whole human soul pervades the body. One consequence is the need fortheurgy to set the soul free of the pollution coming from bodies, the other is that the rationalelement shows itself in each psychic activity of men, and even in the arrangement of thehuman body (S, In De Anima: CAG 11 [1882] 187.35–188.3). He is also creditedwith establishing the curriculum followed later in the Neo-Platonic schools at Athens andAlexandria. For generations of later Neo-Platonists he was the authoritative philosopherafter Plato and Aristotle.Ed.: (cited in works below)B.D. Larsen, Jamblique de Chalcis (1972); J. Dillon, “Iamblichus of Chalcis (c. 240 – 325 A.D.),” ANRW 2.36.2 (1987) 862–909; RAC 16 (1994) 1244–1259, G. O’Daly; NP 5 (1998) 848–852, L. Brisson; BNP 6 (2005) 666–670, M. Fusillo and L. Gallo. Peter LautnerIanuarinus (ca 250 – 400 CE)M  B 23.24 (CML 5, p. 398) records his spleen-poultice, composedof ben-nut oil (C 6.2.2), cardamom, mustard-seed, nettle-seed, pepper and purethron,ground into vinegar, and placed over the spleen after washing the skin with natron-water.For the name, cf. PLRE 1 (1971) 452–453.Fabricius (1726) 252. PTKIaso¯ n of Nusa (ca 80 – 10 BCE)He succeeded P  as head of the Stoic school in Rhodes; son of Menekrate¯s andof Poseido¯nios’ daughter, Iaso¯n was his grandfather’s student. He wrote two biographicalworks, Lives of Famous Men and Successions of Philosophers, but no fragments of these or anyother works have been preserved.RE 9.1 (1914) 780–781 (#1), F. Jacoby; GGP 4.2 (1994) 709, P. Steinmetz. Jørgen Mejer 431

P:443

IDIOSI- ⇒ I-Idios (250 BCE – 80 CE)G  (CMLoc 9.5 [13.297 K.]) quotes A’ record of his enema, com-pounded of quicklime, roast copper, realgar, and burnt papyrus, reduced in myrtle wine (orrose-water) and dry wine. A   P., in Gale¯n CMLoc 9.2 (13.245 K.), gives hisspleen remedy (emending Ι∆ΙΩΤΟY to Ι∆ΙΟY ): oak mistletoe, reduced in a pottery vessel,then add quicklime, and apply, leaving in place until it falls oﬀ of its own accord. For therare name, cf. LGPN 1.231, 2.232, 4.172, or perhaps cf. I.Fabricius (1726) 253. PTKIdomeneus of Lampsakos (300 – 270 BCE)Epicurean philosopher who met E in Lampsakos when Epicurus founded aschool there ca 310–307. When Epicurus departed to found his school in Athens, Idomeneusremained in Lampsakos as scholarch, and kept in touch with Epicurus in a series ofletters, fragments of which remain. It is debated whether he is to be identiﬁed with theIdomeneus who was active as a politician in Lampsakos during the same period. If so, hisworks also include On the Socratics (D  L 2.19, 2.60, 3.36), On Demagogues,and a History of Samothrak¯e.FGrHist 338 (Samothrake¯); A. Angeli, “I frammenti di Idomeneo di Lampsaco,” CrErc 11 (1981) 41–101; BNP 6 (2005) 717 (#2), T. Dorandi, and (#3), K. Meister. Walter G. EnglertIkkos of Taras (ca 470 – 440 BCE)The Pythagorean Ikkos (b. ca 500) was in his youth a famous athlete and an Olympicvictor. As a doctor and a trainer he practiced gymnastics and dietetics and possibly wrote abook on dietetics as a basis for athletes’ training. Approvingly mentioned by P, Ikkoswas known for his moderate way of life, which included strict diet and abstention duringathletic competitions.DK 25; W. Fiedler, “Sexuelle Enthaltsamkeit Griechischer Athleten und ihre medizinische Begründung,” Stadion 11 (1985) 137–175; Zhmud (1997). Leonid ZhmudIktinos (465 – 410 BCE)Architect and author, famous for the Parthenon in Athens, the Temple of Apollo at Bassae,and the Telesterion at Eleusis (S  9.1.12, 16; V 7.pr.12, 16; Pausanias8.41–7–9), co-wrote (with K ) a treatise on the Parthenon (Vitr. 7.pr.12). P(Pericles 13) states that K  collaborated with Iktinos on the Parthenon, andnames other architects participating in the Telesterion’s construction, perhaps in a laterphase. Iktinos faced substantial challenges in all three projects. The current Parthenon was constructed (449–432 BCE) on a platform intended for 432

P:444

IMBRASIOS OF EPHESOSits narrower and longer predecessor of ca 485 BCE, burnt by the Persians in 480/479BCE. Iktinos designed a wider temple, with 8 × 17 columns allowing a larger interior, andre-used many blocks and column drums from the older building, some of them re-cut.By emphasizing the proportion 4:9, using many “reﬁnements” (deviations from the hori-zontal and vertical), including Ionic features, and an elaborate sculptural program, Iktinoscreated a superlative temple. M. Korres has shown that the Parthenon had windowsin the door wall between the cella and pronaos, an interior service staircase to the attic inthe width of the same wall on its north side, and included an earlier shrine in the northperistyle. At Eleusis, Iktinos sought a spacious interior to accommodate initiates into the EleusinianMysteries in privacy. He chose a nearly square plan with a Doric exterior and an Ionic,many-columned interior, more than doubling the space of its predecessor. Others com-pleted this work when Iktinos went to Bassae ca 429–427 BCE, where he repeated anarchaic predecessor’s plan for continuity, but introduced the ﬁrst engaged Ionic columnsinto the interior, the ﬁrst Corinthian capital, and an interior sculptured frieze. Iktinos wasoutstanding for his innovations, adaptability, and skillful engineering.M. Korres in P. Tournikiotis, ed., The Parthenon (1994) 56–97, 138–161; F. Cooper, The Temple of Apollo Bassitas I (1996) 369–379; Svenson-Ebers (1996) 157–211; BNP 6 (2005) 708–709, H. Knell; KLA 1.338–345, M. Korres; J. Neils, ed., The Parthenon (2005). Margaret M. MilesImbrasios (Paradox.) (100 – 550 CE)One of the sources named by T, at the end of his Quastiones Physicae. Therare name is attested (Markovich). Cf. H , H   A, andS  , also named as sources.M. Markovich, “Supplement to RE: A New Paradoxographer,” CP 54 (1959) 260; RE S.10 (1965) 328, Idem. PTKImbrasios of Ephesos (300 BCE – 650 CE?)Putative author of a short work on iatromathematics, Prognostica de decubitu ex mathematicascientia, attributed to G  in most MSS but to Imbrasios in a single codex seeminglyindependent of the rest of the manuscript tradition. Weinstock argued for the authenticityof the ascription to Imbrasios and further speculated that this Imbrasios was a pseud-epigraphical writer identiﬁable with a legendary Egyptian priest-magician Iambre¯s orAmbre¯s. The work is of exceptional interest as one of the few extant on iatromathemat-ics. After a preface addressed to an Aphrodisios and invoking the Stoics, H ,and D   K, the main body of the text works systematically throughforecasts for a sick person based on astronomical conditions in eﬀect at the time the patientis bedridden, with particular emphasis on zodiacal position, apparent speed, and latitude ofthe Moon.S. Weinstock “The Author of Ps.-Galen’s Prognostica de Decubitu,” CQ 42 (1948) 41–43. Alexander Jones 433

P:445

INNOCENTIUSI T A ⇒ P. B. 9782Innocentius (350 – 360 CE?)Vir perfectissimus and auctor, known as the writer of a tract entitled On explaining legal records andsigns (De litteris et notis iuris exponendis), extracted from Book 12 of a work otherwise lost,probably devoted to surveying. The name, Innocentius, of this agrimensor, a high-level imperialadministrator of equestrian rank, is associated with ﬁve lists (Casae litterarum), recording theboundaries of 107 properties ( fundi), each identiﬁed by a letter of the Latin (lists 1, 4, 5) orGreek alphabet (lists 2, 3). Critical analysis shows that only the 2nd, 5th and half thematerial in list 1 are original, referring to genuine fundi, some along the uia Flaminia, perhapsnear Rome; the 4th list is interpolated and list 3 is just a catalogue of symbols. It is uncertainif Innocentius authored the whole collection, the ﬁrst delimitation, or just the revision asinterpolations to list 1 (in part) and list 4 (entire) intimate. The dates of the lists appear tovary, but the emperor Arcadius (395–408 CE), speaking about demarcation of propertiesand letters, quotes a “12th Book,” surely Innocentius’. He is probably (1) the surveyor whoadvised Constantius II near the Danube in 359 CE (Amm. Marc., 19.11.8); but he could be(2) the Innocentius associated with a Paulus ( probably the jurisconsult, Praetorian prefectca 218–219 CE) in Gisemundus’ Ars gromatica; or even (3) the presumed author of the Iusrespondendi, written late in the 3rd c., before Diocletian’s reign (RE 9.2 [1916] 1558–1559).However, the late-antique language and Christian allusions indicate a more recent date:Constantius II’s surveyor would have written the 1st and perhaps 2nd and 5th lists.Ed.: K. Lachmann, Die Schriften der römischen Feldmesser 1 (1848) 310–338.Å. Josephson, Casae litterarum. Studien zum Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum (1950); L. Toneatto, “Note sulla tradizione del Corpus agrimensorum Romanorum. I. Contenuti e struttura dell’Ars gromatica di Gisemundus (IX sec.),” MEFRM 94 (1982) 191–313 at 223; Idem, Codices artis mensoriae. I manoscritti degli antichi opuscoli latini d’agrimensura (V–XIX sec.) (1994–1995) 1002; J. Peyras, “Ecrits d’arpentage et hauts fonctionnaires géomètres de l’Antiquité tardive,” DHA 21 (1995) 166–186, 29 (2003) 160–176, 30 (2004) 166–182; St. Del Lungo, La pratica agrimensoria nella tarda Antichità e nell’alto Medioevo (2004) 569–637; A. Roth Congès, “Nature et authenticité des Casae litterarum d’après l’analyse de leur vocabulaire,” in Les vocabulaires techniques des arpenteurs latins, Actes du colloque international de Besançon (19–21/09/2002) (2006) 71–124. A. Roth CongèsIo¯anne¯s Archpriest (700 – 800 CE?)Cited as “from the divine Euagia” in the list of poi¯etai (makers of gold, CAAG 2.25). In thetreatise bearing his name, On the Sacred Art (CAAG 2.263–267), he invokes in Gnostic fashioncelestial and de¯miourgic natures, Unity, and the Triad; he cites -D and Z . The A A P (CAAG 2.424) cites himas “Io¯anne¯s made archpriest in Euagia of the Tuthia and of the sanctuaries included.”Berthelot notes that Euagia can either be a place-name or mean “sanctity”; whereas Tuthiacould indicate a location, or calamine, or even the place to prepare that substance(Berthelot 1885: 118; CAAG 3.406, note). Berthelot considers Io¯anne¯s historical and notes thatthe name is Christian, but his function seems to recall some Egyptian institution (1885: 186).Ed.: CAAG 2.263–267.Berthelot (1885) 186–187; ODB 55, s.v. Alchemy. Cristina Viano 434

P:446

I O¯ A N N E¯ S M AT T H A I O SIo¯anne¯s Esdras (1100 – 1200 CE)Credited with an unpublished treatise on urine preserved in a Greek MS (Città del Vaticano,Reginensis graecus 182, f.4). The text strongly resembles that of the 12th c. Byzantine physi-cian Io¯anne¯s bishop of Prisduana contained in several MSS (Diels 2.55; Zervos in EEBS 10[1933]: 362–382; see Dimitriadis 1971: 41–42).Diels 2 (1907) 53; RE 9.2 (1916) 1800 (#32), H. Gossen; Dimitriadis (1971) 43. Alain TouwaideIo¯anne¯s Iako¯bos (1200 – 1400 CE?)Wrote several medical treatises known in Latin MSS; the orthography of the name suggestsa Greek origin, yet no Greek text seems extant. He probably lived after 1000 CE, as none ofhis work is known in pre-Salernitan Latin MSS. Furthermore, one of the texts attributedto him seems to be a Latin translation of compound medicines from Avicenna’s Qanu¯n(ca 1000). Similarly, de pestilentia, known in numerous MSS under diﬀerent titles, might berelated to the plague of 1348. His name is also attached to texts on head wounds, stones,fever, and female sterility.Diels 2 (1907) 53; RE 9.2 (1916) 1800 (#33), H. Gossen; Thorndike and Kibre (1963) 45, 521, 1421, 1502, 1693, 1709 ( plague); 227 (formulas from Avicenna); 1028, 1081 (head wounds); 1214 (stones); 1341 (fever); 1506 (female sterility). Alain TouwaideIo¯ anne¯s Iatrosophist (400 – 650 CE?)Known solely from a treatise on therapeutics apparently contained in only one 15th c.Byzantine MS (Paris, BNF, graecus 2316). The text closely follows the ancient version of thetherapeutic collection by Io¯anne¯s arkhiatros (date unknown) attested through several MSSand diﬀerent versions. The therapeutic work of the MS might be attributed to this Io¯anne¯s.In any case, Io¯anne¯s’ title (iatrosophist¯es), the iatrosophic nature of the work along the lines ofthe Alphabetum empiricum ascribed to D  and S  A, andthe presence of a commentary on the H C A precedingIo¯anne¯s’ text in the same MS, all suggest a late antique date and a location in such a medi-cal school as Alexandria or Ravenna. Io¯anne¯s might be identiﬁable with other better-knownIo¯anne¯s but is probably distinct from I    A.Diels 2 (1907) 54; RE 9.2 (1916) 1800 (#34), H. Gossen; Temkin (1932) 66; Ihm (2002) #283–284; BNP 6 (2005) 897, V. Nutton. Alain TouwaideIo¯anne¯s Matthaios (ca 1450 CE?)In one Latin manuscript credited with the work Consilia medicinalia. The ascription might be apartially truncated form of the name of the late medieval Italian physician Giovanni MatteoFerrari de Gradi (d. 1472), who authored similar Consilia and commentaries on Avicenna’sQanu¯n, G ’s Tegni (the Latin translation of the Arabic version) and Ra¯z¯ı’s Nonus Almansoris.Diels 2 (1907) 54; RE 9.2 (1916) 1800 (#35), H. Gossen. Alain Touwaide 435

P:447

I O¯ A N N E¯ S O F A L E X A N D R I AIo¯ anne¯s of Alexandria (500 – 700 CE?)Physician (iatrosophist¯es) and teacher in the Alexandrian school; his name is typically Christian.He refers vaguely to his teacher, assumed without secure evidence to have been G P. He authored commentaries on at least two treatises of the H C:E VI and Nature of the Child. The works are typical of the Alexandrian school intheir Gale¯nic interpretation of Hippokratic medicine. Io¯anne¯s might have written otherworks, lost in Greek, but preserved in Arabic, such as a commentary on G ’s Theriac.This work and other commentaries on Gale¯nic treatises such as De pulsibus attributed in theArabic versions to an unspeciﬁed Io¯anne¯s may be best ascribed to this man (or a homo-nym?), all the more because this man is often confused with several Arabic authors includ-ing Io¯anne¯s grammatikos. It is unlikely that our Io¯anne¯s of Alexandria was responsiblefor the manual on nosology and therapeutics contained in a unique manuscript of Paris asby an otherwise unknown homonym.Ed.: C.D. Pritchet, Iohannis Alexandrini Commentaria in librum de sectis Galeni (1982); J.M. Duﬀy, John of Alexandria, Commentary on Hippocrates’ Epidemics VI. Fragments. Commentary of an Anonymous Author on Hippocrates’ Epidemics VI. Fragments (1997) = CMG 11.1.4.Diels 2 (1907) 51; RE 9.2 (1916) 1800 (#25), H. Gossen; Temkin (1932) 66–71; KP 2.1430 (#13), F. Kudlien; Ullmann (1970) 89–91; I. Garofalo, “La tradizione araba del commento di Ioannes grammatikos al De pulsibus di Galeno,” in A. Garzya and J. Jouanna, edd., I testi medici greci. Tradizione e ecdotica. Atti del III Convegno Internazionale Napoli 15–18 ottobre 1997 (1999) 185–218; P.E. Pormann, “Jean le grammarien et le De sectis dans la littérature médicale d’Alexandrie,” in I. Garofalo, A. Roselli, Galenismo e medicina tardoantica: fonti greche, latine e arabe (2003) 233–263; BNP 6 (2005) 897, V. Nutton. Alain TouwaideIoanne¯s of Alexandria, Philoponos, Grammatikos (ca 510 – 570 CE)Born ca 490; studied at the Academy in Alexandria under A   A(S  H) and probably taught there, although he never held the chair of philo-sophy. A Christian Neo-Platonist, his name probably indicates his association with agroup of lay Christians, the philoponoi. His earliest surviving works are Neo-Platonic com-mentaries on A, as well as more elementary works, including a treatise on theastrolabe and an introduction to N’ Arithmetic. Four of these commentaries(on the Prior and Posterior Analytics, De anima and De generatione et corruptione) derive fromAmmo¯nios’ lectures, edited and augmented by Philoponos. Commentaries on the Physics,the Categories and the Meteorologica also survive. Starting around 529, when Justinian closedthe Athenian Academy, Philoponos wrote a series of anti-eternity polemics, includingAgainst Proklos on the Eternity of the World and the fragmentary Against Aristotle on the Eternity ofthe World. His natural philosophical corpus culminated in De opiﬁcio mundi, written in the 540s(although some dispute this date), an attempt to harmonize pagan natural philosophy withthe account of creation in Genesis. For the remainder of his career he focused his formidableintellectual talents on Christian theological matters, including developing a doctrine of thetrinity based on a rigorous application of Aristotle’s deﬁnition of substance. This doctrine,called “tritheism” by its opponents, ultimately led the Church to anathematize Philoponosin 681. The commentaries written with Ammo¯nios are traditional, Neo-Platonic exercises aim-ing to construct a harmonized and systematic philosophy from the writings of P and 436

P:448

I O¯ A N N E¯ S O F A N T I O C H , A R K H I AT RO SAristotle. Later commentaries on the Physics (517) and the Meteorologica (after 529),however, display a marked shift toward a more critical approach to Aristotelian physics.Philoponos considers void space a theoretical possibility. He proposes an alternative toAristotelian forced motion, suggesting an impetus force is somehow imparted to themoved thing by the mover. In the De opiﬁcio mundi (1.12, pp. 28–29 Reichardt), Philoponoseven suggests God placed an impetus force in the heavens at creation. Most Christiannatural philosophers denied the heavens a divine status and Philoponos also denied thema soul, so a primitive impetus theory could provide a natural – as opposed to a supernaturalor psychic – explanation for their motion. He also reﬁnes the concepts of prime matterand place. His best known and most widely inﬂuential contributions to natural philosophy were hisarguments against eternity. The extent of these polemics is quite broad. All arguments indefense of eternity are attacked in detail, and, while some of these have little philosophicalforce on their own, as a whole the polemics make for a compelling dossier against thephilosophical case for eternity. Moreover, some of his arguments are quite novel and power-ful, particularly those using puzzles about inﬁnity. Their eﬀectiveness is evident in S-’ response in his commentary on the De caelo. He attacks not only the arguments, butalso Philoponos’ character and his Christianity. Nonetheless, Philoponos’ arguments againsteternity spread widely, particularly in the Islamic Middle Ages, and subsequently in theLatin West. While the anti-eternity polemics are primarily a negative critique, Philoponos’ ﬁnal nat-ural philosophical work aimed to construct a Christian natural philosophy through a literalreading of Genesis. The De opiﬁcio mundi, primarily striving to reconcile Moses’ account withGreek science, was written in response to anti-pagan Christian natural philosophers,such as K  I , whose Topographia Christiana ridiculed Christians whofailed to abandon Greek philosophy when they forsook pagan religion. Philoponos’ replyshows that Greek rationalism is not only useful for Christians but necessary. Moreover, heargues that the Genesis narrative preﬁgures and even inﬂuences later Greek cosmology. Themain points of contention between Kosma¯s and Philoponos focus on the shape of theworld, the materiality of angels and the anthropology implied by being made in the imageof God.Ed.: H. Hase, De usu astrolabii eiusque constructione (1839); R. Hoche, Eis to pr¯oton [kai deuteron] t¯es Nikomakhou Arithm¯etik¯es eisag¯og¯es (1864); CAG 13–17 (1887–1909); H. Rabe, De aeternitate mundi (1890); G. Reichardt, De opiﬁcio mundi libri VII (1897); R. Sorabji, ed., ACA (1987–); C. Scholten, trans., De opiﬁcio mundi (1997).RE 9.2 (1916) 1764–1795 (#21), W. Kroll; DSB 7.134–139, S. Sambursky; R. Sorabji, ed., Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science (1987); REP 7.371–378, C. Wildberg; BNP 11 (2007) 89–91, K. Savvidis and C. Wildberg; NDSB 4.51–52, Carl Pearson. Carl PearsonIo¯anne¯s of Antioch, arkhiatros (1200 – 1500 CE?)A collection of compound medicines is preserved under the name of a Io¯anne¯s of Antiochin a Byzantine manuscript now in Paris, BNF, graecus 2315 partially copied by ZakhariasKallierge¯s (d. after 1524). The texts in the manuscript seem to reproduce a collection cre-ated in a late Byzantine hospital, perhaps in Constantinople, as they include the Byzantinetranslation of Avicenna’s De pulsibus (ca 1000) and other treatises circulating among 437

P:449

I O¯ A N N E¯ S O F A N T I O C H , K H RU S O S T O M O S ( “ C H RY S O S T O M ” )contemporary practicing physicians. If the collection does derive from such a milieu, itmight represent a hospital’s accumulated recipes: other similar collections make explicitreference to hospitals and that mode of gathering recipes, and the epithet arkhiatros providessome conﬁrmation.RE 9.2 (1916) 1800 (#27, 28), H. Gossen; Diels 2 (1907) 2.51. Alain TouwaideIo¯anne¯s of Antioch, Khrusostomos (“Chrysostom”) (ca 380 – 407 CE)Born ca 350, student of D   T and of L, priested 386, bishop ofConstantinople 397/398, deposed 403, exiled 404, died 407. Wrote numerous ethical trea-tises, commentaries on Christian scriptures, sermons, letters, and speeches (e.g., those Againstthe Jews, 386–387: trans. Harkins, 1999). A work Demonstration of the Construction of the HumanBody, attributed in the margin to “Khrusostomos,” is preserved in MS Ambros. Q94 Sup.(undated), f.364V (Diels 1907: 2.23). Three Paris MSS – Coislin. 78 (11th c.), f.199, 79(11th/12th c.), f.79, and Parisin. 912 (14th c.), f.266 (Diels 1907: 2.52) – preserve a work OnDiseases and Doctors attributed to the bishop, possibly in error for I    A, (cf. Diels 1907: 2.51–52, Parisin. 2315, 15th c., f.117, extracts from D- , and Therapy of Various Diseases, in many MSS). From the 6th c., Byzantine textsdescribe him as “golden-tongued” (khruso-stomos) for his sermons, and numerous works wereascribed to him; received as a saint by the Orthodox and Roman churches.RE 9.2 (1916) 1800 (#29), H. Gossen; OCD3 329, W. Liebeschütz (no mention of medical writings); BNP 6 (2005) 890–892 (#4), J. Rist (ditto). PTKIo¯ anne¯s of Philadelpheia, “Lydus” (ca 540 – ca 561 CE)Imperial bureaucrat and scholar, who served most of his career under Justinian. Perhaps in543, he was appointed to a chair at the imperial school in Constantinople. Of Lydus’ threeextant works, De m¯ensibus (Peri m¯en¯on), De ostentis (Peri dios¯emei¯on), and De magistratibus, onlythe ﬁrst two are scientiﬁc. De mens. and De ost. share calendrical interests, and a consistent, ifunderstated, engagement with philosophical issues. The concept of the motion of heavenlybodies as a chronological mechanism underlies both treatises. De mens. contains passagesof Pythagorean numerology, probably drawn from a contemporary compendium, whileDe ost. is concerned with exegesis of Ptolemaic, and ultimately Platonic and Aristotelian,world-systems. These concerns are apt for a student (in 511) of the Neo-Platonicphilosopher A (cf. De Mag. 3.26). Lydus’ natural scientiﬁc works, particularly De ost., stand in a tradition of calendrical andmeteorological astrology which continued from the parape¯gmata of M , E and E, through A,V and O, to the astronomical didactic writingsof the Renaissance. The De mens. gives information about the week and months. Book 1 treats the old Romancalendar; the second book, days of the week; the third, the months; the fourth gives a ritualcalendar similar to O’s Fasti. Of primary natural scientiﬁc interest is Book 1, whereLydus describes Numa’s institution of the solar year. The De ostentis has been characterised as an astrological compilation, as conﬁrmedby Lydus’ own list of sources, De ost. 2 ( pp. 4–5 Wa.), citing authors as diverse as438

P:450

IOLLAS OF BITHUNIA( )-Z, P, A, A, H  , A ,O¯   T , P   A, and P; among his Roman sources areP and V (cf. Wachsmuth, pp. –). The De ost. is also valuable for thestudy of important but poorly-attested authors, such as N F and CT. What looks like a miscellany, from the standpoint of Quellenforschung, actually pres-ents a coherent system, based on synchronic signs, months and dates. The desire for suchunity seems evident in Lydus’ own program at De ost. 4 ( pp. 6–7 Wa.). Of special interest are Lydus’ various systems of dating, indicating divergences betweensources, or competing contemporary systems. For example, days of the month listed in theephemeris of chapters De ost. §§27–38 are numbered consecutively, whereas, in theephemeris of Clodius Tuscus (§§59–70), this system is combined with a Greek version ofthe old Roman system of counting back from the ﬁxed points of the month. In De mens.Book 2, Lydus follows the seven-day “planetary” week, rather than the nundinal cycleappropriate to his antiquarian material.Ed.: R. Wuensch, Ioannis Laurentii Lydi, Liber de mensibus (1903; repr. 1967); C. Wachsmuth, Ioannis Laurentii Lydi, Liber de ostentis (1863; 2nd edition 1897).A.K. Michels, The Calendar of the Roman Republic (1967); KP 3.801–2 (#2), T.F. Carney; PLRE 2 (1980) 612–615; M. Beard, “A complex of times: no more sheep on Romulus’ birthday,” PCPS (1987) 1–15; M. Maas, John Lydus and the Roman Past: Antiquarianism and Politics in the Age of Justinian (1992); OCD3 899, L.M. Whitby; BNP 8 (2006) 14–15, F. Tinnefeld. Emma GeeIo¯ anne¯s of Stoboi (400 – 440 CE)Io¯anne¯s from the Macedonian city Stoboi (often cited as “Stobaios”) collected a large num-ber of “excerpts, sayings, and precepts” from more than 500 Greek authors, from Hto T (who is the terminus post quem). He dedicated this collection to his son. It wasdivided into four books on physics (1), logic and ethics (2–3), and political theory andpractice and various practical matters (4). In the medieval tradition it was split into twodiﬀerent volumes, Books 1–2 called Eclogae physicae et ethicae, Books 3–4 Florilegium. Stobaioshas preserved many quotations from Greek authors otherwise lost; the text was arrangedin thematic chapters, e.g. “Is the universe one?,” “No one is willingly evil,” or “On virtue.”In Book 1 he used the doxographical collection of A, in Books 2, 3 and 4 we ﬁndmany of D ’ ethico-political statements. Stobaios is also an important source formany (Neo)Pythagoreans and Neo-Platonists, not to mention poets like Euripide¯s andMenander.Ed.: C. Wachsmuth and O. Hense, Iohannis Stobaei Anthologium 5 vv. (1884–1912).Mansfeld and Runia (1996) 196–271; NP 11.1006–1010, R.M. Piccione and D.T. Runia; DPA 3 (2000) 1012–1016, R. Goulet. Jørgen MejerIollas of Bithunia (150 – 110 BCE?)Physician prior to H    T, both of whom are quoted by D (MM 1.pr.1); wrote a lacunose pharmacological work of unknown title. N’Scholia in Th¯eriaka twice refer to somebody called Iolaos, who must be the same person asIollas: (1) ad verse 683, concerning the herb named puritis/purethron; (2) ad verse 523, on 439

P:451

I O¯ N O F K H I O Sthe Peloponnesian phytonym rhut¯e (Ruta graveolens L.), from another work On the Peloponnesiancities. C 5.22.5 describes one of his compound medicines, a cauterizing powder.GGLA 1 (1891) 826, M. Wellmann; RE 9.2 (1916) 1855 (#2), H. Gossen. Jean-Marie JacquesIo¯ n of Khios (ca 460 – before 421 BCE)Writer of lyric poetry and tragedy, born in Khios ca 490, also known as Xouthos. Histragedies were performed during the 82nd Olympiad (452–449). He wrote prose works,including a history of the foundation of Khios (Khiou Ktisis) and a book of memoirs (Hupom-n¯emata or Epid¯emiai), where Io¯n recounts his meetings with and opinions about great mensuch as Kimo¯n, Aeschylus, Sophokle¯s, Perikle¯s or So¯crate¯s. The earliest known testimonies about Io¯n are found in Aristophane¯s and Isokrate¯s. Theformer (Peace 832–837, presented in 421 BCE), dramatically assuming Io¯n’s recent death,calls him “morning star,” alluding to the ﬁrst words of one of his dithyrambs. Isokrate¯s(Antidosis 268), including Io¯n among the “old sophists,” together with E ,A  , P , M and G, recalls their theories about thenumber of the ﬁrst elements. Io¯n authored a philosophical book entitled Triagmos or Triagmoi, a word of dubious meaninginterpreted as “tripartition” or “triad.” The treatise opens as follows: “This is the beginningof my discourse: all things are three and not more or less than these three. The virtue ofeach singular thing consists of a triad, intelligence, power and fortune.” (DK 36B1).I   P says that Io¯n postulated ﬁre, earth and air as the material elements(DK 36A6), which some scholars interpret as a cosmological version of the triad-theory.The scholion to Aristophane¯s’ Peace (832) quotes a book entitled Kosmologikos, probably adiﬀerent title for the same work. According to A, “about the nature of the Moon, Io¯nbelieves that it is partly a translucent and transparent body, partly an opaque one” (DK36A7). Ancient scholars considered Io¯n to be not only a poet but also a natural scientist.Ed.: DK 36; FGrHist 392; A. Leurini, Ionis Chii. Testimonia et Fragmenta (1992).DPA 3 (2000) 864–866, L. Brisson. José Solana DuesoIo¯nikos of Sarde¯s (ca 380 – 400 CE?)Philosopher, physician, rhetorician, and poet, son of a physician and student of Ze¯no¯n ofCyprus, knowledgeable in all aspects of medicine, especially theory and anatomy, a highlyadmired teacher, esteemed for his practical therapy, pharmacology, bandaging, and surgery.He was also skilled in medical prognostication and divination (E, Vit. Phil. 499), butno publications are attested.BNP 6 (2005) 1078, V. Nutton. GLIMIordanes (ca 550 CE)Historian of Gothic descent who most probably worked in Constantinople and wrote inLatin. He compiled a world chronicle, De Summa Temporum Vel Origine Gentis Romanorum(known as the Romana) and a history of the Goths, De Origine Actibusque Getarum (known as the 440

P:452

IOUBA II OF MAURETANIA, C. IULIUSGetica). The Getica is based on the lost history of the Goths by C, and scholarsdebate the extent of Iordanes’ borrowings. The Getica contains much geographical informa-tion, beginning with a geographical introduction and including geographical digressions.Iordanes’ geographical descriptions highlight the places important in Gothic history. Hisintroduction focuses on Scandza, according to Iordanes an island in the Northern Oceanand the place of the origin of the Goths. Iordanes cites P and P M,but the sources for most of his description of Scandza have not been identiﬁed. Somescholars have suggested that he may have relied on Gothic historical and geographicalwriters, but a consensus has not been reached.Ed.: Th. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae historica. Auctores antiquissimi v. 5.1 (1882) 53–138.C.C. Mierow, The Gothic History of Jordanes 2nd ed. (1915; repr. 1960, 2006); RE 9.2 (1916) 1908–1929, A. Kappelmacher; KP 2.1439 (#1), M. Fuhrmann; PLRE 3 (1992) 713–714; OCD3 798, P.J. Heather; Natalia Lozovsky, “The Earth Is Our Book”: Geographical Knowledge in the Latin West ca. 400–1000 (2000); BNP 6 (2005) 917–918 (#1), P.L. Schmidt. Natalia LozovskyIouba II of Mauretania, C. Iulius (ca 20 BCE – 24 CE) King of Mauretania and Libya, an eminent scholar who wrote in Greek (P 5.16). Son of Iouba I and prisoner of C in 46, along with his pro-Pompeian father, Iouba II became a friend and client of A and a Roman citizen, renamed C. Iulius. He married Kleopatra Sele¯ne¯, daughter of M. Antonius and K, and was restored to his father’s throne in 25 BCE. Thoroughly Greco-Roman by his education among the Roman oli- garchy, and moreover Punic-speaking, he developed this double culture in his kingdom. With his extensiveIouba II (inv. 1944.100.81120) resources, he sent exploratory missions to the Canary© Courtesy of the American islands ( fr.44), to seek the source of the Nile which heNumismatic Society supposed was in the Atlas mountains ( fr.38a). Iouba dis- covered the plant euphorbia (D  3.82.1)and developed and established the “Getulian purple” industry from orchil (indigenous toMogador).A proliﬁc author (Souda I-399), aided by numerous collaborators, Iouba wrote manycompilations: On theatre (17 books), On painting (eight books), On the history of Rome (two or fourbooks), and on cultural comparative history On Similitudes (15 books), treating parallel cus-toms, manners, words, etc. between diﬀerent peoples, especially Greek vs. Roman. Thisbroad natural-anthropological perspective seems typical of Iouba’s cultural conception asshown in the remains of his three ethnological works Libuka (at least three books), Assuriaka(two books derived from B ) and Arabika (on southern countries from Egypt and“Ethiopia” up to India). He collected many data on natural history and treated zoology( frr.3, 40, 58, 70, 71), botany ( frr.2, 62–69), and mineralogy ( frr.72–79) in later works.Unfortunately only 100 fragments survive, despite his immeasurable inﬂuence on Greek (asP, Athe¯naios, and A who copies him in maybe 50 chapters of NA) andLatin writers (Pliny quotes him 37 times – e.g., 8.4 on the nature of elephant tusks: horn[ Iouba] or tooth [H ]). Mentioned among the auctores externi for 16 books, he is 441

P:453

IOUDAIOSprobably the main source of Pliny and later encyclopedists for natural history in exoticcountries. His work was lost and unknown to Latin early medieval writers, but “Iorach,”often quoted as a scientiﬁc authority in Arabic literature and inﬂuential on medievalencyclopedias (e.g. Arnoldus Saxo), is very probably Iouba II himself.GGLA 2 (1892) 402–414; OCD3 799, K.S. Sacks; DPA 3 (2000) 940–954, J.M. Camacho Rojo and P.P. Fuentes Gonzales; I. Draelants, “Le dossier des livres sur les animaux et les plantes de Iorach: tradition occidentale et orientale,” in I. Draelants et al., edd., Occident et Proche-Orient: contacts scienti- ﬁques au temps des croisades (2000) 191–276; D.W. Roller, Scholarly Kings: The Writings of Juba II of Mauretania, Archelaos of Kappadokia, Herod the Great and the Emperor Claudius (2004). Arnaud ZuckerIoudaios (250 BCE – 25 CE)Physician whose plaster for skull fractures consisted in salt, red copper scales, roastedcopper, ammo¯niakon incense, frankincense soot, dried resin, “Kolopho¯n” resin, calfsuet, vinegar and olive oil (C 5.19.11B). Celsus also preserves Ioudaios’ skin pow-der of lime, red natron, and a young boy’s urine, recommending that the area to betreated be moistened occasionally (5.22.4). Ioudaios, attested only once, 2nd c. BCE(LGPN 3B.207), is perhaps a corruption of the ethnic Ioudas, Ioudion, or Ioudio¯n knownfrom the 1st c. CE (LGPN ).RE 9.2 (1916) 2461, H. Gossen. GLIMI ⇒ IIrio¯ n (?) (250 BCE – 80 CE)A, in G  CMGen 6.10 (13.913 K.), records this man’s phaia (dark) plaster,containing litharge, roast copper, and verdigris, plus birthwort, galbanum, and opop-anax, in a beeswax-and-resin base. The name ΙPIΩΝ seems otherwise unattested, andperhaps we ought to read ΕΙΡΗΝΙΩΝ (LGPN 2.139) or else HPIΩΝ (LGPN 3B.183–184).Alternatively, it may be a brand-name, as are the immediately preceding (“Phtheirograph”)and following (“Hellespontian”) plasters.Nutton (1985) 145. PTKIsido¯ ros (300 – 500 CE?)Found in the list of philosophers “of the science and of the sacred art,” at the beginning ofMS Marcianus gr. 299 (f.7V ), and probably identiﬁable with P, an Egyptian synonymof “Isido¯ros” (gift of Isis).(*) Cristina VianoIsido¯ ros the Younger (ca 510 – 563 CE)Nephew of I   M , who repaired Hagia Sophia, designed by his uncle, afterthe dome collapsed during the earthquake of 558 CE (Prokop. Aed. 2.8.25). Consecrated in 442

P:454

I S I D O¯ RO S O F K H A R A X563, the new dome was 6 m deeper, more stable, but less “awe inspiring” (Agathias, History5.9). Isido¯ros and John of Constantinople, both young men, built fortiﬁcations, churches,barracks and baths in Zenobia, Mesopotamia (Prokop. Aed. 2.8.25). Constantine of Rhodes(9th c.) names Isido¯ros as co-designer of Justinian’s church of the Holy Apostles in Constan-tinople. Although not an academic, Isido¯ros seems to have matched his uncle’s reputation.The illustrious m¯ekhanik¯os celebrated in two house inscriptions at Qinnesr¯ın, Syria, (ca 550CE) has been associated with Isido¯ros the Younger.RE 9.2 (1916) 2081, E. Fabricius; IGLSyr 2, #348, #349; Downey (1948) 105; W. Emerson and R.L. van Nice, “Haghia Sophia, Istanbul,” AJA 47 (1947) 403–436; eidem, “Haghia Sophia: The collapse of the ﬁrst dome,” Archaeology 4 (1951) 94–103; RBK 3 (1975) 508–510, M. Restle; Warren (1976) 10–12; Mainstone (1988) 215–217; ODB 1017, W. Loerke and M.J. Johnson; PLRE 3 (1992) 724–725 (#5); R. Taylor, “A Literary and Structural Analysis of the First Dome on Justinian’s Hagia Sophia, Constantinople,” JSAH 55 (1996) 66–78. Kostis KourelisIsido¯ ros of Abudos (170 – 160 BCE?)Designed a large stone-throwing catapult at Thessalonike¯, probably for its successful emer-gency defense against the Romans (Livy 44.10.5–7). Isido¯ros’ stone-thrower, described byB , Belop. 3 ( pp.48–51 W.), was a mechanically-assisted bow (i.e., gastraphet¯es), cockedby a winch (kokhlias), that shot stones of ca 20 kg (40 minae).Marsden (1971) 68–69, 82–84. PTKIsido¯ ros of Antioch (50? – 80 CE)Traditionally considered G ’s student and friend (Gossen), but the reference is byA  C (Y) in Gale¯n (CMGen 5.12, 13.834–835 K.); he mighthave practiced in Rome (Fabricius). Andromakhos quotes ﬁve compound recipes authoredor used by Isido¯ros: a lozenge for dysentery compounded from yellow orpiment, realgar,copper scales, saﬀron, etc, mixed with sweet wine (CMLoc 9.5, 13.295–296 K.); trokhiskoiagainst aphthae (CMGen 5.12, 13.833–835 K.); plaster for wounds (gangrenous and malign:CMGen 6.6, 13.885 K., giving the ethnic); and a plaster for dermatological aﬀections(ibid., 908 K.).RE 9.2 (1916) 2080 (#29), H. Gossen; Fabricius (1972) 228. Alain TouwaideIsido¯ ros of Kharax (ca 40 – 1 BCE)Greek geographer of Kharax Spasinou (later Antioch), an important mercantile center insouthern Mesopotamia on the Persian Gulf, author of Stathmoi Parthikoi, an itinerary of thecaravan trail from Zeugma to the borders of India, naming the supply stations maintainedby the Parthian authorities for the convenience of merchants and containing some descrip-tion of local traits. The work includes names of stations and intervening distances indicatedin skhoinoi, a Persian unit of measure. Other fragments attributed to Isido¯ros deal with long-lived people, pearl ﬁsheries in the Persian Gulf, measurements of the oikoumene¯ based onE  and records of distances given by P. Isido¯ros, identiﬁed as “Dionusios,” 443

P:455

I S I D O¯ RO S O F M E M P H I Sis probably also the author of a survey of the east commissioned by A beforeGaius’ expedition to Armenia, against the Parthians and Arabs, 1 BCE (Pliny 6.141).Ed.: GGM 1.244–256; FGrHist 781; W.H. Schoﬀ, Parthian Stations by Isidore of Charax (1914).M.L. Chaumont, “Études d’histoire parthe. V. La route royale des Parthes de Zeugma à Séleucie du Tigre d’après l’itinéraire d’Isidore de Charax,” Syria 61 (1984) 63–107; A. Luther, “Zwei Bemerkungen zu Isidor von Charax,” ZPE 119 (1997) 237–242. Daniela DueckIsido¯ ros of Memphis (250 BCE – 540 CE)A  A 7.110 (CMG 8.2, p. 387) cites his collyrium: grind ammo¯niakonincense, cuttleﬁsh ink, opopanax, silphium, verdigris, sagape¯non, and gum in water,and pour into a mixture of fennel-juice and honey.Fabricius (1726) 303; RE 9.2 (1916) 2080 (#30), H. Gossen. PTKIsido¯ ros of Mile¯tos (ca 500 – 558 CE)Architect, mathematician, and academic. In 532 CE he collaborated with A  T in the design of Hagia Sophia, Constantinople, and he advised Justinian I in thedams of Dara (Prokop. Aed. 1.1.24, 2.3.7). Isidoros edited mathematical texts, particularlyA   and E, and was probably professor of geometry in Constantinople. Healso wrote a commentary on H    A’s lost treatise On Vaulting. AmongIsidoros’ students was E   A, who notes his teacher’s invention of adevice for drawing parabolas. Scholars have celebrated Anthe¯mios and Isidoros as math-ematical theorists akin to the architects of antiquity and the Renaissance. Although theirscientiﬁc interest is irrefutable, their editorial activities served the practical needs of theirprofession rather than the search for higher mathematical principles.RE 9.2 (1916) 2081, E. Fabricius; Downey (1948) 99–118; RBK 3 (1975) 505–508, M. Restle; Warren (1976); Mainstone (1988) 157; Alan Cameron, “Isidore of Miletus and Hypatia: On the Editing of Mathematical Texts,” GRBS 31 (1990) 103–127; ODB 1016, M.J. Johnson and W. Loerke; PLRE 3 (1992) 724 (#4). Kostis KourelisIsido¯ ros of Mile¯tos’ student (author of Elements Book XV) (520 – 580 CE)The end of the pseudo-Euclidean “Book 15” of the Elements (Elementa 5.1, pp. 29–38 Heiberg),extant in Greek but missing from known Arabic translations, treats the following question:how to ﬁnd by geometrical construction the inclination between adjacent faces of the ﬁveregular solids. The constructions detailed therein are explicitly attributed to “Isido¯ros ourgreat teacher” (29.21 Heiberg), later called “the most glorious man previously mentioned”(30.26 Heiberg); the ﬁve “instrumental constructions” are given ﬁrst and each is then carefullyjustiﬁed through demonstrations, including analyses through data. Four similar mentions of “Isido¯ros the Milesian m¯ekhanikos, our teacher” are found inaddenda to E’ commentaries on A  : three (48.30, 224.9, 260.12Heiberg) allude to Isido¯ros’ proofreading of Eutokios’ commentaries (Decorps 2000: 62,n.8), and the last (84.8–11) mentions a compass drawing parabolas invented and describedby Isido¯ros in his commentary to H  ’s (lost) Kamarika. The precise references to444

P:456

I S I D O RU S ( I S I D O R E ) O F H I S PA L I S ( S E V I L L E )A ’ K¯onika in Eutokios’ commentaries probably derive from Isido¯ros’ revision(Decorps 2000: 82). The Isido¯ros in question may be either the uncle or the nephew, sinceboth were famous m¯ekhanikoi.Heath (1926) 3.519–520. Alain BernardIsidorus (Isidore) of Hispalis (Seville) (ca 610 – 636 CE)Encyclopedist, historian, theologian. Isidore was born ( possibly in Cartagena, Spain ca 560)to a noble family in Visigothic Spain and was educated by his brother, Leander, whom hesucceeded as Bishop of Seville in 600; he died April 4th, 636. His works (extant in severalhundred medieval MSS), covering Biblical exegesis, canon law, theology, history, philosophyand science, served throughout the Middle Ages as handbooks for various disciplines.They preserved philosophical and scientiﬁc ideas current in late ancient Rome that hadultimately derived from Greek sources. Isidore was among the late ancient encyclopedists(C, M, M C, B, and C) whoseworks contained both texts and diagrams, setting the model for the genre of the medievalencyclopedia and serving as its sources. Isidore’s chief scientiﬁc works include Etymologiae or Origines, De natura rerum, De ordinecreaturarum (brief explanations of various natural phenomena), and De diﬀerentiis uerborum andDe diﬀerentiis rerum (concepts and distinct nature of diﬀerence present in words and in thingsrespectively). The encyclopedic De natura rerum includes the division of time, and the description of theplanetary system and Earth with its parts and connected astronomical and natural phenom-ena. Isidore’s natural philosophy centers on his theory of elements, visualized in a cubicdiagram and a series of circular (rota) diagrams that became the standard visual means ofdepicting elemental concepts during the Middle Ages. His theory of elements relies onCalcidius’ Commentary on P’s Timaeus (combining Aristotelian and Platonic concepts)and on medical sources (connecting elemental qualities with humors of the human bodyand temperaments based on them). He linked the mikrokosmos (man) with the makrokosmos(universe) through their parallel elemental structure and described atoms conceptually asthe smallest invisible particles present in bodies and time or even in numbers or letters. In Etymologiae (20 books), Isidore organized a large body of diverse encyclopedic know-ledge around the etymology of words on the principle that the name of a thing is key to itsnature. Though his etymologies are often farfetched and misleading, they represent a newapproach towards organizing knowledge. The ﬁrst two books discuss the trivium (grammatica,rhetorica, dialectica), the third book the quadrivium (arithmetica, musica, geometria, astronomia). Books4, 11, and 12 discuss medicine, man, and the animal world respectively. Books 13 and 14,describing the parts of the universe and natural phenomena, provide a theory of elementsand atoms; Book 16 treats stones and metals. By using Christian as well as pagan sources, Isidore secured not only survival but alsobroad acceptance for ancient concepts.Ed.: Opera omnia in PL 81–84; W.M. Lindsay, Etymologiarum sive originum libri XX (1911); J. Fontaine, Traité de la nature (1960).J. Fontaine, Isidore de Séville et la culture classique dans l’Espagne Wisigothique vv. 1–2 (1959), v. 3 (1983). Anna Somfai 445

P:457

ISIGONOS OF NIKAIAIsigonos of Nikaia (50 BCE – 70 CE)Author of high standing (Aulus Gellius 9.4), composed a work of Apista, of which fragmentssurvive in Cod. Vatic. 12. As the codex mentions a second book, this work consisted of at leasttwo books. Diﬀerent themes were discussed: ethnography, zoology, hydrography. Isigonosseems to have relied on excellent sources, such as A, A  K,T and N . Some disagreement remains regarding chronology.Albeit, P 7.12, 7.16 functions as the ultimate terminus ante quem. The terminus post quemdepends on whether we can count V among Isigonos’ sources, combined with Isigonos’possible role as source for P  and N  D. In all probability,the author was active towards the end of the 1st c. BCE.Ed.: PGR 146–148.RE 18.3 (1949) 1137–1166 (§17, 1155–56), K. Ziegler; Giannini (1964) 124–125; KP 2 (1967) 1463, W. Spoerri; OCD3 768, J.S. Rusten; BNP 10 (2007) 506–509 (I.B.1, 508–509), O. Wenskus. Jan Bollansée, Karen Haegemans, and Guido SchepensIsis, pseudo (Alch.) (175 – 225 CE)An alchemical text entitled Of Isis the Queen of Egypt and Wife of Osiris Concerning the Sacred Art,Addressed to her son H¯oros survives in two redactions (CAAG 2.28–35; for date see Mertens[1988] 4). Both begin with variations of a myth in which Isis receives knowledge of alchemyfrom the angel Amnae¯l and end with almost identical procedures for the “whitening of allbodies.”Festugière (1950) 253–256; M. Mertens, “Une scène d’initiation alchimique: la Lettre d’Isis à Horus,” RHR 205 (1988) 3–23. Bink HallumIsis, pseudo (Pharm.) (250 – 10 BCE)S L 206 explains that G ’s excellent plaster was known as “Isis”;according to H  , in G  CMGen 5.2 (13.774–775 K.), E’ plaster was so-named (cf. 5.3, p. 794); Gale¯n distinguishes M ’s, Epigonos’, and “the one calledIsis,” Ad Glauk. Meth. Med. 2.10 (11.126 K.), 2.11 ( p. 138). Gale¯n cites several remedies thusinscribed – CMGen 4.13 (13.736–737, 747), as does P  A 4.19.2 (CMG 9.1,p. 339, also Makhairio¯n), 4.40.3 ( p. 360, also M  and the “Athe¯ne¯” drug), 4.43.3( p. 362), 4.45.5 ( p. 366), and 7.17.39–40 (CMG 9.2, pp. 356–357, also “Athe¯ne¯”). But at4.48.2 ( p. 369), Paulos appears to refer to “drugs of Isis and of Makhairio¯n,” as if “Isis”were a person. Cf. I,  (A.).Fabricius (1726) 303–304. PTKIskhomakhos of Bithunia (70 BCE – 60 CE)Physician, wrote On the School of Hippokrat¯es (CMG 4, p. 175), suggesting that H   E ( perhaps rather H    T) attributed Regimen to H .E  censures Iskhomakhos and K  M for their alternate orthographyof iktar (I-20 [p. 47.2 Nachm.]) and quotes our author with G  T and anunidentiﬁable Hippo¯nax for their explanation of kokhon¯e ( fr.17 [p. 103.15 Nachm.]).FGrHist 1058; Ihm (2002) #153. GLIM 446

P:458

IULIANUS (PHARM.)Itineraries (from ca 100 CE)Although Greeks listed notable points on coastal voyages (periploi), the compilation ofequivalent documents for land travel (itineraria, from Latin iter = journey) was primarily aRoman development stemming from construction of roads along which milestones wereplaced. Even so, claims that reliance upon itineraries caused Romans’ worldview to be linearrather than spatial are extreme. The content of a typical itinerarium is minimal, comprising astart- and end-point, the names of intermediate stopping-points and the distance betweeneach, and a total ﬁgure for the entire distance. Point-to-point distances rarely exceed 20–25miles (thus furnishing successive overnight stops after a day’s journey), although the fullestitineraries may include additional intermediate points. Distances are usually recorded inRoman miles (sometimes even half-miles), except in Gaul where the local leuga (one Romanmile and a half ) is often preferred. Itineraries seldom include any reference to the nature andcondition of road surfaces, the character of terrain to be traversed, the relative importanceof stopping-points, or other circumstances of concern to travelers. Itineraries were produced by both public and private initiative, and recorded by vari-ous means; there is as yet no indication that they were linked to maps. Inscribed stonetablets erected at city gates oﬀer onward itineraries to neighboring communities and even toRome. Small silver beakers survive listing over 100 intermediate points on the 1,840–milejourney from Gade¯s (modern Cadiz) through Spain and across the Alps to Rome. The tripmade by a privileged lawyer from Hermopolis Magna (Egypt) to Antioch (Syria) and backca 320 is detailed on papyrus. An unnamed Christian pilgrim writes a notably full recordof travels between Gaul and Jerusalem in 333. No doubt some sets of itineraries wereassembled for reference by provincial administrators and imperial couriers, but how com-prehensive such collections were, and how widely available, is far from clear. The onesurviving collection, the misnamed Antonine Itinerary of ca 300, is a raw, confusing assemblageof routes (not all of them direct), seemingly the work of an anonymous individual enthusi-ast. The maker of the P M too, who is so dependent upon itineraries, evidentlyneeded to gather and organize them as he seems to have lacked access to a full, collatedcollection.Ed.: B. Löhberg, Das Itinerarium Provinciarum Antonini Augusti: Ein kaiserzeitliches Strassenverzeichnis des Römischen Reiches – Überlieferung, Strecken, Kommentare, Karten 2 vv. (2006).Richard Talbert, “Author, audience and the Roman empire in the Antonine Itinerary,” in R. Haensch and J. Heinrichs, edd., Der Alltag der römischen Administration in der Hohen Kaiserzeit (2007) 256–270. Richard TalbertIuliana (485 – 527/8 CE)Cited only in the list of philosophers “of the science and of the sacred art,” at the begin-ning of MS Marcianus gr. 299 (f.7V). Berthelot identiﬁes her with Iuliana Anicia (b. 462,d. 527/8), daughter of Olybrius (Western emperor 472), for whom the illustrated MS ofD  was produced.CAAG 1.122; Letrouit (1995) 57. Cristina VianoIulianus (Pharm.) (520 – 540 CE)A  A 11.12 ( p. 609 Cornarius), giving remedies employing goat’s blood,notes that he is a contemporary deacon, and records his antidote, containing saﬀron, 447

P:459

I U L I A N U S I M P.“Ethiopian” cumin, myrrh, parsley, two kinds of pepper, spikenard, etc., in dried goat’sblood and honey.PLRE 2 (1980) 638. PTKIulianus Imp. (330 – 363 CE)Cited in f. 242 of MS Parisinus gr. 2327: “Thus is accomplished the precept of the EmperorIulianus.” Berthelot ﬁnds this signiﬁcant, since Iulianus consorted with magician students ofI and himself practiced theurgy.Berthelot (1885) 145. Cristina VianoL. Iulianus Vertacus (300 – 470 CE)Writer on arithmetic and astrology, used by A (Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. 8.11.10;Carmen 22.pr.3).PLRE 1 (1971) 952. GLIMIulianus (of Alexandria?) (ca 140 – 160 CE)G  met Iulianus (“Julian”), the Methodist physician, some time during his youthfulsojourn in Alexandria: “. . .more than twenty years ago, since when he has written hand-book upon handbook, always changing them and altering them, never content with what hehas written. . .’ (MM 1.7.6 [10.53 K.] = Hankinson 1991: 27). Iulianus had studied underA    C. Thanks to Gale¯n’s acidic logic and nuanced condemnation,little remains of Iulianus’ writings, even though one can, through painstaking reading, dis-cern the main outlines of his works on the deﬁnitions of health and disease. Gale¯n’s AgainstIulianus so completely demolishes Methodism’s medical logic that Tecusan simply editsand translates the entire tract to suggest the involuted and precise philosophical sarcasmapplied to Methodist doctrine, also explicated by Hankinson (1991: 145–160). Despite his scorn for the Methodists, Gale¯n (CMGen 2.21 [13.557 K.]) preserves thecomplicated recipe, suggesting an expertise in pharmacology, for Iulianus’ enaimos – a thick,adhesive, styptic plaster that “sealed wounds shut,” to avoid stitches (cf. HC, Fractures 24; T HP 4.7.2). The enaimos, prepared in bulk, probablywas an ordinarily available plaster to treat wounds suﬀered by gladiators; it had a long“shelf-life,” since it included 50 parts each of litharge and Dead Sea bitumen (asphaltos),copper ﬂakes (12 parts), and khalkitis (four parts). The beeswax (50 parts), carefullyroasted pine-resin (15 parts), and the ﬁnest Bruttian pine-pitch (50 parts), ensured theenaimos’ adhesive properties. Finally, smaller quantities of frankincense, myrrh, two kinds ofbirthwort (Aristolochia spp.), and aloe-latex ( prob. the “best,” viz. Aloe perryi Baker fromSocotra) gave the plaster a mild analgesic and antibiotic quality, the latter augmented withoak-gall (k¯ekis). Those 13 ingredients, plus galbanum, were compounded in “old olive oil.”Ed.: E. Wenkebach, Galeni Adversus Lycum et Adversus Iulianum libelli (1951) = CMG 5.10.3, pp. 33–70; Tecusan (2004) 290–331 ( fr.111), with trans. 448

P:460

IULIANUS OF TRALLEISRE 10.1 (1918) 11–12 (#4), H. Gossen; Frede (1982); Scarborough (1982); R.J. Hankinson, “Method- ism” in Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought (1998) 318–321. John ScarboroughIulianus of Askalon (ca 530 – 535 CE)Architect from Askalon, known exclusively as author of a treatise composed around 531–533CE. On the laws or customs [nomoi . . . eth¯e] of Palestine was transmitted as an appendix in theBook of the Eparch (9th/10th c.) and incorporated in Harmeno¯poulos’ Hexabiblos (14th c.).The treatise prescribes codes for building in Askalon and encapsulates local customs as wellas the inﬂuence of Beirut’s law school. Iulianos, revealing his interests in natural philosophy,organizes the work around the four elements of ﬁre, air, water, and earth. Scholars have inconclusively attempted to link him with other architects by the samename. A Iulianos arkhitekt¯on who built a noria is addressed in a letter by A  G(PLRE 2 [1980] 639 #16), and another Iulianos supervised repairs in an aqueduct at Sardica(PLRE 3 [1992] 738 #21). Inscriptions referring to a Iulianos at Qasr al-Brad, Syria, havealso been associated with Iulianos of Askalon or his hypothetically homonymous father.J. Geiger, “Julian of Ascalon,” JHS 112 (1992) 31–43; B.S. Hakim, “Julian of Ascalon’s Treatise of Construction and Design Rules from Sixth-Century Palestine,” JSAH 60 (2001) 4–25; ODB 1079–1080, M.Th. Fögen; M.Ja. Sjuzjumov, “O tractate Juliana Askalonita,” ADSV 1 (1960) 3–34. Kostis KourelisIulianus of Laodikeia (ca 500 CE?)Astrological author mentioned often in late antique and Byzantine Greek astrological litera-ture. A chapter transmitted as part of the compilations of astrological texts associated withR , in fact a reworking of the text on inﬂuences of ﬁxed stars by the A 379, identiﬁes “Iulianus the polyhistor” as its source, and since the positions of the starscited in this version have been corrected to ﬁt a date within a year or two of 360 years afterP’s star catalogue in the Almagest (whose epoch is 137 CE), it is plausibly supposedthat Iulianus was active about 500 CE. Another section of the Rhe¯torian corpus comprisesa series of ten chapters headed “Useful Selections from the Discoveries of Iulianus ofLaodikeia on katarkhai.” Other texts, both astrological and astronomical, came to befalsely ascribed to him (in particular in the form of a pseudo-treatise called AstronomicalEpiskepsis) through the chaotic processes by which the astrological literature was selected andreordered in the Byzantine manuscript tradition.CCAG 8.4 (1921) 244–253. Alexander JonesIulianus of Tralleis (100 – 180 CE?)S, in De Caelo 2.1 (CAG 7 [1894] 379–380), quotes A  Arefuting Iulianus’ theory that the cause of the regularity and right-handedness of themotion of the heavens is “soul.” He is presumably distinct from the theourgos of ca 160–180CE, who placed the Sun midmost of the planets (P, In rem Publ. 2, p. 220 = In Tim. 1,pp. 63, 132) – always called “theourgos” and never assigned to Tralleis: BNP 6 (2005) 1045(#4–5), S.I. Johnston.RE 10.1 (1918) 9 (#1), H. von Arnim. PTK 449

P:461

IULIUS AFRICANUSI ⇒ (1) A; (2) F; (3) IIulius Africanus (ca 190 – 235 CE)Born ca 160 CE; in addition to his ﬁve books on the world chronology, both pagan andChristian, from early ages to his own time, his main work is a technical encyclopedia entitledKestoì (“Embroideries”), written between 227/8 and 232/3 and presented to the emperorAlexander Seuerus. No ﬁrm hypothesis can be made about the actual framework of thisbook, since only excerpts and fragments have come down to us. Since a papyrus preservesthe end of Book 18, the original number of books was likely 24 (Souda A-4647). Vieillefond divides this material into these main sections, exhibiting a variety of interestsand approaches: extracts from Book 7: on warfare, on horse diseases, on weights and meas-ures, lyric fragments; extracts from Book 13: on cinnamon, on dyeing. The metrologicalchapters, in ﬁve recensions, appear as a somewhat muddled conﬂation of lemmas. In des-cending order, Africanus explained the main weights, liquid- and grain-measures used in theMediterranean, along with each sub-multiple. Some recensions record the correspondingweight of the Roman currency system in use later than Africanus’ time, or assign thisextract to H   or D, suggesting this section should perhaps be credited to adiﬀerent writer.RE 10.1 (1917) 116–125 (#47), W. Kroll; J.-R. Vieillefond, Les “Cestes” de Julius Africanus (1970); H. Chantraine, “Der metrologische Traktat des Sextus Iulius Africanus, seine Zugehörigkeit zu den κεστο und seine Authentizität,” Hermes 105 (1977) 422–441; OCD3 778, J.F. Matthews; T. Rampoldi, “I ‘κεστο ’ di Giulio Africano e l’imperatore Severo Alessandro,” in ANRW 2.34.3 (1997) 2451–2470; RAC 19 (2001) 508–518, F. Winkelmann; NP 11 (2001) 494–495 (“Sextus” #2), J. Rist. Mauro de NardisIulius Agrippa (10 BCE – 90 CE)Recompounded recipes by earlier pharmacists, as recorded by A   in G :CMGen 7.12 (13.1030–1031 K.), an akopon potion including euphorbia (cf. I),malabathron, etc., revising G  N; and CMLoc 8.5 (13.185–186 K.), stomachointment including bdellium, cardamom, cassia, cinnamon, malabathron, myrrh, Indiannard, pepper, etc., in terebinth, from P. The use of euphorbia and mala-bathron, plus the citation by Askle¯piade¯s, yield a date-range consistent with either of twohomonymous descendants of King Herod, though an identiﬁcation is not substantiated.PIR2 I-128 to I-132. PTKIulius Atticus (10 – 30 CE)From a prominent family in Gallia Narbonensis, an older contemporary of C(1.1.4), author of a monograph on viticulture. Columella, calling him an expert in the ﬁeld,cites some of his recommendations with approval (4.2.2, 3.11.9), while criticizing him fore.g. preparing trenches for vine plants too deep (3.16.3, 4.1.1–6, 4.2.2). Atticus consideredthe shade of elm trees noxious (P 17.90). Cf. I G.GRL §497.1; OCD3 779, M.S. Spurr; BNP 6 (2005) 1080 (#IV.3), E. Christmann. Philip Thibodeau 450

P:462

C. IULIUS CAESARI A ⇒ AIulius Bassus (ca 10 – 40 CE)Friend of S N (C A, Acut. 3.135 [Drabkin, p. 386; CML6.1.1, p. 372]; the MS has TVLLIVS ), who appears in the listing of “less-than-accurate”Askle¯piadeans in D , pr.2 (Beck p. 2), and as one of P’s Greek auctores(1.ind.20–27), but among “medical writers” (1.ind.33–34). Caelius Aurelianus (ibid.) citesBassus as prescribing sternutatories and enemas in treating rabies, instead of the Methodisttherapy of alternating remedies (metasyncritica). S L, Comp. 121 (ed.Sconocchia, pp. 63–64 = A in G , CMLoc 9.4 [13.280–281 K.]) recordshis “wonderful remedy for intestinal colic,” which “gives relief quickly and then countersthe bloated state of the lower bowel along with all of the other parts of the body.” Among theingredients are spikenard oil (Nardostachys jatamansi DC.), white pepper, black pepper (viz. theunshelled peppercorns), henbane-root (Hyoscyamus niger L.), myrrh, frankincense, cabbageseeds, the latex of the opium poppy (Papaver somniferum L.), and beaver-castor; such a com-pound would engender a mild narcotic eﬀect. Andromakhos adds mandrake root-bark, andhemlock seeds (Conium maculatum L.; the dried, unripe “fruits” are a potent sedative andnarcotic); cf. Bassus’ clipped formulas quoted by Gale¯n from Andromakhos in CMLoc 7.2and CMGen 7.13 (13.60 and 1033 K.). If the quotations are representative, Bassus was adeptat devising eﬀective anodynes and narcotics for chronic illnesses aﬀecting the digestive tract.RE 10.1 (1918) 180–181, M. Wellmann; Scarborough and Nutton (1982) 205. John ScarboroughC. Iulius Caesar (77 – 44 BCE) Roman statesman, historian, orator, accomplished military general, politician and dictator, born 100 BCE to an ancient but recently undistinguished patrician family. He saw military service in Asia in the 70s, defeating an advance force of M  VI and receiving the corona ciuica for service at the sack of Mile¯tos. He published legal orations and eulogies, was elected tribunus militum in 73, served as quaestor and praetor in Further Spain, and consul in 59. As governor of Illyricum, Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul for an unprecedented ten years, he launched campaigns against Helvetian uprisings, resulting in economic depletion of his provinces, deaths of one million Gauls, enslavement of another million (by hisIulius Caesar Courtesy of the Vatican Museums own account), and conquest of Gaul. Caesar also engaged in civil war againstPompeius Magnus and senatorial forces from 48–47, and the Alexandrine war to avenge 451

P:463

GERMANICUS IULIUS CAESARPompey’s execution on Ptolemy XIII’s orders. Caesar reigned in Rome until his assassin-ation by a senatorial mob in 44. In Caesar’s two treatises Gallic Wars (on the campaigns during his governorship) and CivilWars (48–47 BCE), geography is ancillary but essential to military success. His Gallic Warsfamously opens with a description of the three provinces, their demarcating bodies of water,and cultural and linguistic distinctions (BG 1.1). As a ﬁeld general, Caesar emphasizes rivers,especially as landmarks (BG 1.2, 1.12, 1.38, 2.5), mountain ranges (BG 1.2), ease and lengthof marching routes (BG 1.8, 1.10), distances (BG 1.48, 2.6), supply lines, and battleﬁeldtopography (BG 1.26, 2.9, 2.23: especially vivid are his descriptions of the Hecyrnian forest:BG 6.24–26, Alesia: BG 7.69, and Dyrrhachium: BG 3.44–46). In his excursus on Britain,informing T’, Caesar notes the Channel’s frequent but small tidal activity necessitat-ing adaptations in ship design (BG 5.1). He discusses ethnography, natural resources, climate,the island’s shape, distances, and the surprising behavior of the midwinter sun: regardingwhich the locals were unable to provide information, but Caesar’s own exact water meas-urements ( presumably with a klepsudra) showed that British summertime nights were shorterthan on the continent (BG 5.12–13). Caesar’s authorship of the accounts of the Alexandrine, African, and Spanish Warsis currently regarded as dubious. Caesar’s calendar, executed by S   (and onwhich Caesar published the De Astris: P 18.212; M Sat. 1.16.39), was notsubstantially revised until 1582. For the world map commissioned by Caesar, see IH.Dilke (1985) 39–41; Rawson (1985) 109–114, 259–263; OCD3 780–782, E. Badian; DLB 211 (1999) 109–117, C.B. Champion; BNP 2 (2003) 900–912, J. Rüpke. GLIMGermanicus Iulius Caesar (10 – 19 CE)Born on May 24, 15 BCE. He was the son of Nero Claudius Drusus and Antonia, and thennephew of Tiberius and great-nephew of A. He was nicknamed Germanicus afterhis father’s death. But, when he became one of the closest male relatives of Augustus, he wasadopted by Tiberius. He also married Agrippina under the inﬂuence of Augustus in 5 CE.He took part between 11 and 16 in the German campaigns so that he celebrated a triumphin 17 (T Ann. 2.41). He then left for the eastern lands where he died at Antioch inOctober, 19 CE; his ashes were brought back to Rom (Tac. Ann. 3.1–4). He received a verygood literary, rhetorical and philosophical education (Suet. Calig. 3.1): he was clever, culturedand excelled in rhetoric (O Pont. 2.5.53; Tac. Ann. 2.83.5). He delivered many defensespeeches before the courts or the emperor. He also wrote several comedies in Greek anddiﬀerent kinds of poems: only two epigrams survive (AL 708–709 Riese). Finally, he rendered in Latin A’ Phainomena during his stay in Rome in 16–17 CE.In all likelihood he already knew Ovid’s Fasti and M’ Astronomica. Germanicus wasnot a specialist in astronomy, but he was very fond of it and wanted to popularize thescience. He dedicated his work not to Zeus like Aratos, but to his father (genitor) who may beAugustus himself. Germanicus’ poem does not correspond entirely to Aratos’, but only to itsastronomical part: so, after the prologue (1–16), we ﬁnd ﬁrst one long description, of theconstellations (17–445), and then another shorter one, of the diﬀerent circles of the heavens(446–572); thirdly Germanicus explains how to estimate the passage of time according tothe rise of zodiacal constellations (573–725). Besides this poem, we also have six fragments 452

P:464

L. IULIUS GRAECINUSof varying length on the zodiac, planets and meteorology. It is not the adaptation of thesecond part of Aratos’ Phainomena (ordinarily called Dios¯emeiai), but these fragments mayhave been part of a large poem dealing with astronomy, astrology and meteorology.Ed.: A. Le Boeuﬄe, Germanicus. Les Phénomènes d’Aratos (CUF 1975).OCD3 783, B.M. Levick; BNP 5 (2004) 812–814, Werner Eck. Christophe CussetC. Iulius Caesar Octauianus, Augustus (31 BCE – 14 CE)The emperor Augustus, born in Rome (Suet., Aug. 5); according to Suetonius, Aug. 85, hewrote a possibly geographical poem on Sicily, and is also attested to have “completed” themap of A.OCD3 217–218, N. Purcell. PTKI F ⇒ FSex. Iulius Frontinus (ca 90 – 103/104 CE)Born ca 40, Roman senator, possibly from southern Gaul, with a distinguished active career(70 CE: praetor urbanus and assisted in repressing the Iulius Ciuilis revolt; consul, 72 or 73;governor of Britain, 73/74–77; proconsul of Asia, 87; curator aquarum under Nerva, 97;suﬀect consul, 98; and consul, 100), and authored De aquis urbis Romae and Strategemata. Frontinus writes on the aqueducts of Rome as the Roman senatorial administrator (cur-ator) deeply cognizant of his department’s technology. He cites technical reports from engin-eers, senatorial decrees and known abuses of the public water system (e.g. illegal tapping).He credits M. V A and his architect V for having introduced theuse of standard pipe sizes (the only other reference in antiquity) based on the measurementof the quinaria (meaning either a ﬁve-digit lead sheet rolled into a pipe, or a pipe ﬁvequadrantes – quarter digits – in diameter), but he gives slightly diﬀerent and more compli-cated measurements than Vitruuius, probably indicating further evolution of the system(De aquis, 25, 26–34, Vitr. 8.6.4). Strategemata is divided into four books: before battle; duringand after battle; sieges; and generalship. The authenticity of the fourth book, though ques-tioned, is probably genuine, and was likely meant to be a manual on military practiceto assist the education of the Roman senatorial elite in their potential roles as ﬁeldcommanders. He is also possibly the author of certain sections of the Corpus Agrimensorum.Ed.: C. Thulin, Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum 1/1 (1913); C.E. Bennet and M.B. McElwain, Stratagems, The Aqueducts of Rome (Loeb 1925); P. Grimal, Les Aqueducs de la ville de Rome 2nd ed. (CUF 1961; repr. 2003); R.H. Rodgers, De aquaeductu urbis Romae (2004).O.A.W. Dilke, The Roman Land Surveyors (1971; repr. 1992). Thomas Noble HoweL. Iulius Graecinus (30 – 50 CE)Roman senator from Forum Iulii, and the father of the Iulius Agricola immortalized byT (Agricola); Caligula executed him for refusing to participate in a show-trial(Tac., Agr. 4). He wrote in Latin a treatise On Vineyards (de Vineis) in two books whose style 453

P:465

IULIUS HONORIUSC (1.1.14) praised. He ascribed the decline of viticulture in his day to an ignor-ance of good practice on the part of growers, since his calculations showed that the incomefrom viticulture ought to exceed outlays even on poor land (cf. Columella 3.3.4–7, 4.3.1, 6).He described the best soil for vines as slightly warmer and looser than average, recom-mended dates for various activities, and maintained that vines can have a life-span of up to600 years (3.12.1, 4.28.2–29.1; P 16.241). Columella (1.1.14) calls him a “student, as itwere,” of I A, and Pliny 14.33 reports that he closely followed C.GRL §497.2; DPA 3 (2000) 493, M. Ducos; BNP 6 (2005) 1082 (#IV.9), E. Christmann. Philip ThibodeauIulius Honorius (300 – 450 CE?)A teacher who wrote a geographical treatise in Latin for the purpose of instructing students.He says his text included a map (not extant). The text lists geographical objects (seas,islands, mountains, rivers), as well as administrative divisions, cities, and peoples. In someMSS the text begins with the report of a survey and measurement of the world made byfour Greeks, which continued from “the consulate of I C and Marc Antony”until the time of A. The four surveyors explored the east, the west, the north, andthe south, and produced a description, which supposedly served as the basis for this treatise,and probably its lost map. Modern scholars often connect this information to the surveymade by A by the order of Augustus. The story of the survey of the world wasrepeated in later geographers (such as -A) and sometimes representedon maps.Ed.: GLM 21–55.GRL §1060; RE 10.1 (1918) 614–628 (#277), W. Kubitschek; PLRE 2 (1980) 569; C. Nicolet and P. Gautier Dalché, “Les ‘quatre sages’ de Jules César et la ‘mesure du monde’ selon Julius Honorius: réalité antique et tradition médiévale,” Journal des savants (1986) 157–218. Natalia LozovskyC. Iulius Hyginus (ca 30 BCE – ca 10 CE)A learned, Greek-speaking slave from Spain or perhaps Alexandria who was brought byI C to Rome (ca 45?), where he became a student of the scholar A M  (Suet. Gram. 20). After Caesar’s death he passed into the possession of theemperor A, who eventually freed him, and appointed him overseer of the Palatinelibrary (28 BCE or later). He became a friend of the poet O, and of the consularhistorian Clodius Licinus, who supported him after he lost his post and fell into poverty.(Ovid probably did not address him in the Tristia: Kaster 1995: 212.) Most of his numerous writings, many cited by Gellius, Seruius, and M, weredevoted to topics of interest to the Augustan nobility, such as the genealogy of Italianfamilies (de familiis Troianis), the history of religious practice at Rome (de diis penatibus;de proprietatibus deorum), and the customs of the Italic peoples (de origine situque urbiumItalicarum). He also wrote commentaries on V and Heluius Cinna, and fragmentsfrom a biographical collection have survived. A work dealing with the geography of Greece,Italy and perhaps other parts of the world was used as a source by P, 1.ind.3–6.(Contrast the works on surveying attributed to one or another, later, H.) Despite much controversy, a mythological compendium entitled Genealogiae (or Fabulae), 454

P:541

M A RC E L L U S O F S I D E¯A. Önnerfors, “Marcellus, De medicamentis. Latin de science, de superstition, d’humanité,” inLe latin médical, ed. Sabbah (1991) 397–405; Önnerfors (1993) 319–330; Lexikon des Mittelalters 6 (1993)221–222, K.-D. Fischer; W. Meid, Heilpﬂanzen und Heilsprüche: Zeugnisse gallischer Sprache bei Marcellusvon Bordeaux (1996); AML 591–592, K.-D. Fischer; BNP 8 (2006) 300–301 (#8), A. Touwaide. Fabio StokMarcellus of Side¯ (ca 140 – 160 CE)Widely reputed and imperially recognized physician and poet who lived under AntoninusPius. He wrote an immense compilation of 40 books in hexameters, On Medical Matters(Iatrika) or, more poetically (AP 7.158) Daughters of Chiron (Chironides). A preserved fragment ofOn Werewolves (Peri lukanthropias; see Souda M-205), perhaps a part of the Iatrika, presents thisdisease as a form of melancholia, gives clinical symptoms, and prescribes bloodletting, baths,and an antidote used against viper bites (A  A 6.11 = CMG 8.2, pp. 151–152,citing R and A ). Contemporary with G , with whom he was probablypersonally in contact, Marcellus is mentioned by major later physicians, including Aëtiosand P  A who borrowed medical treatments from him. He supplied numer-ous medico-magical recipes similar to those given by K. He also wrote a poem OnFishes, preserved in a lengthy fragment (101 verses) which oﬀers in Homeric diction a longcatalogue of 91 so-called ﬁshes (ikhthus) including shellﬁsh and dolphins.RE 14.2 (1930) 1496–1498 (#56), W. Kroll; M. Wellmann, Marcellus von Side als Arzt (1934); OCD3 922, A.J.S. Spawforth. Arnaud ZuckerMarcianus (of Africa?) (10 BCE – 15 CE)Prepared an antidote for A, which S L (177) also used, contain-ing over 40 ingredients, including such imports as “Ethiopian” cumin, African silphiumand ammo¯niakon incense, and Indian cinnamon, kostos, Celtic and Indian nards,and pepper, plus fresh duck blood. O, Ecl. Med. 74.9 (CMG 6.2.2, p. 243) givesMarcianus’ akopon, employing African euphorbia (cf. I) and Indian galbanum,cardamom, and pepper. A  A cites probably the same man six times forrelatively simple recipes, once calling him African (11.11, p. 608 Cornarius: recipe forkidney and bladder stones): a collyrium including rue, fennel, and coriander (7.110, CMG8.2, p. 387), an emetic for sunankhe¯ with aphronitron and bull gall, etc. (8.50, p. 485),two compresses for intestinal disturbances, both involving rue and fenugreek (9.27, Zervos1911: 331), and a potion for those who cannot keep food or water down, based on the barkof the Libyan l¯otos tree (9.42, p. 389 Zervos = 9.48, pp. 550–551 Cornarius, with furtherrecipes; on the tree, cf. T, HP 4.3.1–2); cf. 12 ( p. 28 Kostomiris). The preva-lence of African ingredients (ammo¯niakon, cumin, euphorbia, silphium, and l¯otos)accords with an African origin. Marcianus seems an imperial-era name (often corrupted tomartianus in Latin minuscules).Fabricius (1726) 320, 322. PTKMarcianus of He¯rakleia Pontike¯ (ca 300 – 430 CE)Geographer who tells us he wrote an epitom¯e of A   E’ Geographia(GGM 1.574–576), and of M  P’s Periplous t¯es entos thalass¯es (the 530

P:542

MARIANUSMediterranean) in three books (GGM 1.563–573), of which only fragments are extant. HisPeriplous t¯es ex¯o thalass¯es, however, is preserved almost completely (GGM 1.515–562). Aftera prooimion with some general deliberations about the structure of the world and referencesto P and P  (G.), his primary sources, a ﬁrst book describes theworld from the Gulf of Aqaba (Arabios kolpos) to the Indian Ocean, from the Persian Gulfto the “Gulf of the Chinese” (kolpos t¯on Sin¯on). A second book describes the coasts of theAtlantic Ocean from Spain to Britain.RE S.6 (1935) 271–281, F. Gisinger; RE S.10 (1965) 772–789, E. Polaschek; PLRE 1 (1971) 555; HLB 1.528; ODB 1302, A. Kazhdan. Andreas KuelzerM  ⇒ M Marcomir (500 – 600 CE)Wrote in Gothic a geography of Europe, covering Denmark to Spain, giving dataabout tribes unknown to earlier geographers, and cited extensively by the RC , Book 4. See also A and H.Staab (1976); DPA 4 (2005) 268–269, R. Goulet. PTKMaria (100 BCE – 250 CE?)Jewish, among the earliest alchemists in Hellenistic Egypt, highly regarded by later alchem-ists for descriptions of furnaces and other apparatus, many of which are thought to beher own inventions, given in her Descriptions of Furnaces, ﬁrst mentioned by Z  P  (CAAG 2.240; see Festugière 1950: 365) and perhaps identical with On Furnacesand Apparatus (Mertens 1995, §1.2). Presumably in this work Maria gave her instructions,often quoted by later alchemical authors, for making and using various chemical equip-ment including stills, the k¯erotakis reﬂux device, furnaces and baths for slow, constantheating (CAAG 2.224–227). A hot water bath in culinary use today, the bain-marie, bearstestament to her. Zo¯simos also attributes to her the Procedures for the Making of a LittleImage (CAAG 2.157). None of her works survives in the original Greek, but a few shortand possibly apocryphal treatises and fragments exist in Arabic (Ullmann 1972: 181–183)one of which, The Crown and the Nature of Creation, was thought by its modern translator(Holmyard 1927: 162) to be a genuine translation from the Greek, if not an authentic workof Maria.E.J. Holmyard, “An Alchemical Tract Ascribed to Mary the Copt,” Archeion 8 (1927) 161–167; R. Patai, “Maria,” Ambix 29 (1982) 177–197. Bink HallumMarianus (490 – 520 CE)Erudite poet, perhaps an epigrammatist (if identiﬁable with Marianus Skholastikos, Anth.Graec., 9.668–669, etc.), of Roman patrician origin, lived under Anastasios (491–518).He metrically paraphrased numerous Alexandrine poems, including epics (Apollo¯nios ofRhodes, K, and Theokritos: Souda M-194) and transposed various didactic, 531

P:543

MARINOS (MED.)dactylic poems such as A’ Phainomena (in 1,140 verses) and N’ Th¯eriaka (in1,370 verses) into iambic meters, all completely lost.RE 14.1 (1928) 1750, J. Geﬀcken; GGL §973; BNP 8 (2006) 353 (#1), G. Damschen. Arnaud ZuckerMarinos (Med.) (70 – 120 CE)G  generously preserves the memory of Marinos (the teacher of Q), who afterthe “ancients” (H  and H ), “in the time of my grandparents,”revived anatomical study, and gave his whole life to its study, based on dissections of apesand other animals. His Anatomy comprised 20 books, of which Books 1–2 covered thehomoiomerous parts, 3–4 the tubes and vessels, 5–6 the bones, 7–10 the muscles, 11–15internal organs, 16–19 the head, nerves, and he¯gemo¯n (Gale¯n’s On My Own Books 3 isdamaged, leaving the contents of Book 20 unknown). He taught that the glands have twouses, to stabilize vessels at junctions, and to secrete liquids to moisten and soften parts (OnSeed 2.6.14–21, CMG 5.3.1, pp. 200–202). He wrote commentaries on the HC, A 7, and E 2 and 7, from which Gale¯n cites. A,in Gale¯n CMLoc 7.2 (13.25 K.), cites his arte¯riake¯, composed of saﬀron, gum, and traga-canth, boiled in honey.Marquardt, Müller and Helmreich 2 (1891) 104–108; Grmek and Gourevitch (1994) 1493–1503; Manetti and Roselli (1994) 1580–1581; Ihm (2002) #170–172; BNP 8 (2006) 357 (#I.2), V. Nutton. PTKMarinos of Neapolis (Palestine) (460 – 495 CE)Studied Neo-Platonic philosophy under P who dedicated to him an essay on atheme in P’s Republic, the myth of Er (Proklos, In Remp. 2, p. 96.2 K.), and subsequentlybecame head of the philosophical school at Athens. He is credited with the title Lifeof Proklos, a biography containing a discussion of the virtues. He wrote an introductionand commentary on E’s Data, starting with deﬁnitions, following A’s modelin discussing scientiﬁc material, on Plato’s Philebus and Parmenides, and on Aristotle (PriorAnalytics, Posterior Analytics, De Anima). Marinos was considerably inﬂuenced by Aristotelian ideas. He emphasized the need fordeﬁnitions and analyses of terms. When asking what the data are, he surveyed the relevantmathematical material in A , D   A, and P,examined complex deﬁnitions and disputed the explanation of P. He tried to attachphilosophy to mathematics, with an emphasis on exactness through deﬁnitions and consist-ent use of terms (-D = Elias, Prolegomena: CAG 18.1 [1900] 28.9–29.5). In psychol-ogy he connected Neo-Platonic theories with Aristotelian ones. The distinction betweensix grades of virtue has precedents in P  and P. Those possessing lowergrade virtues do not necessarily possess higher virtues, whereas those having higher virtuesretain the lower ones as well. The lowest grade includes good birth and education, followedby the virtues of character, civic virtues, puriﬁcatory virtues – cleansing the soul from bodilyinﬂuences – theoretical and, in the end, theurgical virtues, the importance of which is dueto I’ inﬂuence.Ed.: J. Fr. Boissonade, Marini Vita Procli (1814); H. Menge, Euclidis Data cum commentario Marini et scholiis antiquis (1896); H.D. Saﬀrey and A.Ph. Segonds, Marinus: Proclus ou Sur la bonheur (CUF 2001). 532

P:544

MARIUS VICTORINUSRE 14.2 (1930) 1759–1767, O. Schissel von Fleschenberg; DPA 4 (2005) 282–284, H.D. Saﬀrey. Peter LautnerMarinos of Tyre (100 CE)Greek geographer known only through hostile criticism in P’s Geography, author of aCorrection (diorth¯osis) of the World Map. On the basis of astronomical observation and theduration of land and sea journeys, Marinos calculated coordinates of regions and sites on theglobe and attempted to modify existing maps. He employed records of travelers and mer-chants, Greek and Roman alike, converting voyage duration from days into stades. Living inTyre, a busy Phoenician port, Marinos could meet people able to supply such information.He adopted a rectilinear projection of the world and incorporated his unscientiﬁc meas-urements into his text. Ptolemy thought this was diﬃcult to work from without a map athand but nevertheless borrowed some features. Ptolemy says that Marinos never drew amap to illustrate his claims, although Arabic geographers mention maps attributed to him.Marinos dealt with two major cartographic problems confronting mapmakers: (1) The sizeand position of the inhabited world: according to him the oikoumene¯ occupied more thana quarter of the terrestrial globe, lying mostly in the northern hemisphere but drawn inboth hemispheres. Ptolemy contested the width and length of Marinos’ map. (2) Map pro-jections: regarding the problem of representing a portion of the globe on a plane, Marinos,like E  and S , adopted a rectangular projection in which parallels andmeridians were drawn as straight parallel lines, in Marinos’ version at regular distances fromeach other. Further problems arise from uncritical copying of geographical detail fromwritten commentaries. Ptolemy thus rejected Marinos’ work as a cartographer and con-sidered its information incoherent and impractical. However, Marinos’ importance in thehistory of cartography still lies in his critical approach to existing maps.Dilke (1985) 72–86; J.B. Harley and D. Woodward, A History of Cartography 1 (1987) 178–180; R. Wieber, “Marinos von Tyros in der arabischen Überlieferung,” in M. Weinmann-Walser, ed., Historische Interpretationen (1995) 161–190; NDSB 5.27, A. Jones. Daniela DueckMarius Victorinus (ca 340 – 370 CE)Grammarian, philosopher, rhetorician, and theologian, born ca 300 CE in Africa. Moving toRome, he taught rhetoric under Constantius (337–361). His works divide into grammar,rhetoric, philosophy, and theology, which was his focus after conversion to Christianity laterin life (A, Conf. 8.2.1.–8.3.5). His philosophical works include a translation withcommentary on A’s Categories and De interpretatione, a commentary on C’sTopica and De inuentione, and a translation of P’ Isagoge, all lost. Extant is Victorinus’Ars Grammatica, his anti-Arian Ad candidum Arianum, De generatione uerbi diuini ad candidum,three hymns De trinitate, and commentaries on Paul’s letters to Ephesians, Galatians, andPhilippians. Inﬂuenced by Porphurios’ version of Platonism, Victorinus inherited hisscheme of three divine hupostaseis: the One, the ultimate source of Being; Intellectwhich is life; and soul, the source of thinking. Victorinus seems to have identiﬁed theChristian triad of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with the Porphurian triad.Ed.: PL 8.993–1310; I. Mariotti, Ars Grammatica (1967); P. Henry-P. Hadot, Opera Theologica, CSEL 83.1 (1971); A. Locher, Marii Victorini Commentarii in epistolas Pauli ad Galatas ad Philippenses ad Ephesios (1972); F. Gori, Opera Exegetica, CSEL 83.2 (1986). 533

P:545

MARKIANOSRE 14.2 (1930) 1840–1848, P. Wessner; P. Hadot, Porphyre et Victorinus 2 vv. (1968); idem, Marius Victorinus. Recherches sur sa vie et ses oeuvres (1971); OCD3 1597–1598, S. Hornblower; BNP 8 (2006) 371–372 (#II.21), Chr. Markschies. George KaramanolisMarkianos (before 11th c.)The 11th c. MS of Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana 75.3, probably of Italianorigin (Calabria-Campania), contains several medical texts of a practical nature, amongwhich is Markianos’ compound Medicine to Relax Nerves. Markianos is identiﬁed as Rhakendutes(wearer of rags), an adjective seemingly referring to monastic status (an homonymouscommissioner, who owned the late 13th c. codex of Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana,graecus 294 [coll. 288], is there qualiﬁed as a physician by the copyist Theophilos Rhakendutes:but this later Markianos must be distinct). Markianos’ recipe is added to the last folio of themanuscript, probably by one of the owners and also users of the manuscript: this mightsuggest a south-Italian provenance for Markianos.Diels 2 (1907) 61; E. Trapp, ed., Prosopographische Lexicon der Palaiologenzeit, fasc. 7 (1985) 16985; Ieraci Bio (1989) 169–170, 190, 235, 237, 239. Alain TouwaideMarkio¯ n of Smurna (30 BCE – 77 CE)Wrote on the virtues of simples, cited after A and before A  as a foreignauthority on drugs obtained from animals (P 1.ind.28). Pliny reports his observationthat sea scolopendrae burst if spat upon (28.38: see also O and S ). Unattestedbefore the 1st c. CE (LGPN 1.298: cf. Markios, 2nd–3rd cc. CE: LGPN 2.298, 3A.288–289,3B.270, 4.222), Markio¯n might be a Romano-Greek name postdating the battle of Actium.Fabricius (1726) 302. GLIMMarpe¯ssos (300 BCE – 500 CE)Wrote a work on Kolkhis, cited by the R C, 4.4, as MARPESIVS(cf. P). The name when personal is otherwise attested solely as feminine:Pausanias 4.2.7, 5.18.2, 8.47.2; O 1.15.4–5; Pape-Benseler s.v. Marp¯ess-.J. Schnetz, SBAW (1942), # 6, pp. 58–59, 61–62. PTKMarsinus of Thrake¯ (500 – 565 CE)According to A  T (1.565 Puschm.), giving a series of recipes hehimself collected, Marsinus prescribed for epilepsy seven doses of the ashes of a rag blood-ied by an executed man, taken in wine. For the rare Latin name cf. Schulze (1904/1966)189; or perhaps emend to Arsinoë (see A) or M.Fabricius (1726) 322. PTKM ⇒ G 534

P:546

M AT R I K E TA S O F M E¯ T H U M N AMartialius/Martianus (150 – 190 CE)Erasistratean who wrote on anatomy, and whom G  had in mind as the object of hisattack on the Erasistrateans at Rome; he attended Eude¯mos, whom Gale¯n claims to havecured: Progn. 3.6–7, 4.1–2 (CMG 5.8.1, pp. 84, 88), On My Own Books 1 (2.94–95 MMH).The name Martialius is rare before ca 200 CE, and ΜΑΡΤΙΑΛΙΟ- diﬀers very slightly fromΜΑΡΤΙΑΝΟ-.RE 14.2 (1930) 2003 (Martianus #1), W. Kroll; Korpela (1987) 198 #240; DPA 4 (2005) 286–288, V. Boudon-Millot. PTKM C ⇒ CMassiliot Periplous (520 – 350 BCE?)Scholars have identiﬁed a periplous written in Massalia that described the Iberian coast,Atlantic and Mediterranean, and which is preserved in the verse paraphrase of A,OM. Auienus claims to use an ancient document (OM 9, 17), and over 450 lines of his poem,from line 85, are credited to the Massiliot Periplous. Ascribed to other sources are lines115–129, 266–283 on the Carthaginians, 336–389, 406–413 explicitly from D ,E , and H , and 323–334, 390–405, 645–679, 689–698 explicitly fromD  A (331) and P (695). In view of Auienus’ citation ofB  and T  in lines 42–50, some scholars date the Massaliot Periplous toca 400–350 BCE. See also E .L. Antonelli, Il periplo Nascosto (1998). PTKC. Matius Caluena (45 BCE – 5 CE)Equestrian friend of C, C, and A who introduced the cultivationof dwarf shrubs at Rome (P, 12.13), and developed a new variety of apple, themalum Matianum, grown near Aquileia, presumably on his estates there (P 15.49; Ath.,Deipn. 3 [82c]). C (12.4.2, 46.1) credits him with three books (“The Cook,” “TheFish Dealer,” and “The Pickler”), wherein he discussed the storage of wine and agriculturalproduce.RE 14.2 (1930) 2210 (#2), A. Stein; KP 3.1080 (#2), H. Gundel; BNP 8 (2006) 479 (#2), Tho. Frigo; OCD3 937, R.J. Seager. Philip ThibodeauMatriketas of Me¯thumna (before 320 BCE)Astronomer who observed solstices from Mt. Lepetumnos on Lesbos (-T, De signis 4).(*) Henry Mendell 535

P:547

MAXIMIANUSMaximianus (ca 300 – 565 CE)A  T (2.57 Puschm.) records his collyrium, composed of one parteach of the two collyria of H, and two parts of the “swan” collyrium. Surelydistinct from the poet, PLRE 2 (1980) 739–740.Fabricius (1726) 327. PTKMaximinus (ca 350 – 550 CE?)Wrote in Latin a geographical work that treated at least Illyria and Dalmatia, and wasfollowed by the R C 4.15–16. Cf. M and P.J. Schnetz, SBAW (1942), # 6, pp. 80–81. PTKMaximus (300 – 400 CE?)Wrote an astrological poem in Greek hexameters entitled Peri Katarkh¯on, treating katarkhicastrology but surviving incomplete (a later prose version of the entire poem is extant). TheSouda (M-174), with what authority one cannot say, identiﬁes the author of Peri Katarkh¯on asthe philosopher Maximus who taught the emperor Julian, and says that he was from eitherE¯ peiros or Buzantion.Ed.: A. Ludwich, Maximi et Ammonis carminum de actionum auspiciis reliquiae (1877).BNP 8 (2006) 517 (#2), W. Hübner. Alexander JonesMe¯deios (320 – 270 BCE)Maternal uncle of E and student of K  K (II), who likehis teacher rejected phlebotomy (G , On Venesection, Against Erasistratos 2 [11.196–197 K.= p. 43 Brain]; Treatment by Venesection 2 [11.252–253 K. = p. 68 Brain]). He appears to havebeen a grandson of A and to have attended T in his last illness:S E Math. 1.258 (with Kroll 1932), D  L 5.53, 72. Gale¯nrefers to him in a list of early anatomists: In Hipp. Nat. Hom. (CMG 5.9.1, pp. 69–70). C5.18.11 preserves the recipe of his ointment of alum, copper-ﬂakes, roasted lead, andpanax in beeswax, and P (who cites him as an authority, 1.ind.20–27) his prescriptionof radishes for blood-spitting and to promote lactation, 20.27.RE 15.1 (1931) 106 (#5), 15.2 (1932) 1482–1483 (#26), W. Kroll; Brain (1986). PTKMedicina Plinii (200 – 240 CE)By the ﬁrst decades of the 3rd c. CE, an unknown student of P had extracted acompilation of the “medical sections” of the Natural History, especially Books 20–32, onpharmaceuticals derived from plants and animals. Although philologists debate when auctorignotus assembled the collection of extracts, the borrowings in S’ Liber medicinalisseem decisive (Önnerfors [1963] esp. 62–83), although ﬁrm proof remains elusive. In hisedition, Önnerfors’ earliest MS is the Codex Sangallensis 752 (9th c.), and his proposed 536

P:548

M E G A S T H E N E¯ Sstemma ( p. ) suggests a double origin in the 4th c. and what are labeled alii fontes uariigeneris. The text itself is a tangle of quotations, snippets, and abridgements mostly fromPliny, but discerned are subsumed bits from earlier authors as varied as C, SL , and a Latin version of D  ( pp. –), sometimes shadowed inthe Latin texts under the name of Sextus Placitus and others. M  Bin the preface of his De medicamentis liber (CML 5.1, p. 2) says he has lifted things from“both” Plinys (cui rei operam uterque Plinius), indicating that the Medicina Plinii was in commoncirculation by 400 CE.Ed.: A. Önnerfors, Plinii Secundi Iunioris qui feruntur De medicina libri tres (1964) = CML 3.A. Köhler, “Handscriften römischer Mediciner. 1. Pseuodoplinii medicina,” Hermes 18 (1883) 382–392; GRL §523.3; R. Laux, “Ars medicinae. Ein frühmittelalterliches Kompendium der Medizin,” Kyklos 3 (1930) 417–434; RE 15.1 (1931) 81–85, E. Steier; A. Önnerfors, In medicinam Plinii Studia Philologica (1963); Idem, “Die mittelalterlichen Fassungen der Medicina Plinii,” Berliner Medizin 16 (1965) 652–655; Ch.G. Nauert, “Caius Plinius Secundus, Spurious Work: Medicina Plinii,” CTC 4 (1980) 422; Önnerfors (1993) 277–280; Langslow (2000) 64. John ScarboroughMe¯dios (Stoic) (ca 240 – 270 CE?)Older contemporary of C L, compiled the writings of earlier philosophers,making no original contributions (P, Vit. Plot. 20). Longinus defended the soul’sunity against Me¯dios’ traditional Stoic division of the soul into eight parts (P inPlat. Rep. 1.233.29–234.30).H. Dorrie, Porphyrios’ “Symmikta Zetemata”: Ihre Stellung in System und Geschichte des Neuplatonismus nebst einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten (1959) 104–107; BNP 8 (2006) 588 (#3), B. Inwood. GLIMMegasthene¯s (ca 320 – 290 BCE)Born ca 350 in Asia Minor, ambassador of Seleukos I Nikato¯r (or Siburtios, satrap ofArakhosia) near the court of Chandragupta Maurya in eastern India. In his Indiká (fourbooks: FGrHist 715), he described geography, fauna, ﬂora (Book 1), customs, towns andadministration (Book 2), society and philosophy (Book 3), archaeology, myth and historyof India (Book 4). Megasthene¯s supplemented personal observations with data from earlierGreek authors and information from Indian scholars whom he met. Modern scholarsoften debate Megasthene¯s’ credibility, although some consider his “the most reliableaccount of India produced account in antiquity.” Of especial value are the long descriptionsof techniques for capturing, training, and utilizing elephants in hunting and warfare. Notvery reliable, however, is his sociological treatment of the caste system and Indian society,since Megasthene¯s seems more interested in presenting India as a social model thanrealistic description.Ed.: FGrHist 715.J. Timmer, Megasthenes en de Indische maatschappij (1930); RE 15.1 (1931) 232–233, O. Stein; T.S. Brown, “The Reliability of Megasthenes,” AJPh 76 (1955) 18–33; A. Zambrini, “Gli Indiká di Megastene,” ASNP 12 (1982) 71–149; A.B. Bosworth, “The Historical Setting of Megasthenes’ Indiké,” CPh 91 (1996) 113–127; DPA 4 (2005) 367–380, J.M. Camacho Rojo and P.P. Fuentes González. Cristiano Dognini 537

P:549

M E G E¯ S O F S I D O¯ NMege¯s of Sido¯ n (10 BCE – 30 CE)Surgeon from Sido¯n (kheirourgos: G , CMLoc 5.3 [13.845 K.]; ho Sid¯onios: Gale¯n, MM6.6 [10.454 K.]), T ’s student (scholion to O, Coll. 44.21, title = CMG6.2.1, p. 142). He emigrated to Rome where he attained fame and presumably fortunefrom his skilful surgical procedures for bladder stones (C 7.26.2N) and ﬁstulas, as wellas carefully compounded collyria (here, “surgical tents”: glutinous pastes rolled into rods todilate ﬁstulas), for treating ﬁstulas – very common and troublesome (abnormally-open tubu-lar passages between epithelial surfaces; modern diagnostics names ca 100 varieties). Mege¯s’collyrium for hardened ﬁstulas was simple and rapidly eﬀective, consisting of verdigris,ammo¯niakon incense, and vinegar (Celsus 5.28.12K). K  in Gale¯n (CMLoc 5.2[12.845 K.]) records another of Mege¯s’ famous plasters (also for dissolving calluses), arather harsh one, compounded from psimuthion, beeswax, terebinth-resin, litharge,olive oil, and water. Celsus 7.pr.3 rates Mege¯s as “most learned” of surgeons who havepracticed in Rome, and Oreibasios (ibid., pp. 142–144) cites with enormous respect Mege¯s’On Fistulas. (Even at the end of the 19th c., Gurlt mirrored a professional esteem aﬀordedto Mege¯s’ scrupulous surgical techniques.) Unusually Mege¯s appears to have studiedhuman anatomy: On Fistulas contains meticulous descriptions, and Celsus, recordingdetailed bladder anatomy, credits Mege¯s with inventing a “straight blade, a knife borderedwidely on its upper part but semicircular below” (7.26.2N), for use in operations to removerough bladder stones.E. Gurlt, Geschichte der Chirurgie und ihrer Ausübung (1898) 1.332–333 (“Meges”); RE 15.1 (1931) 328, H. Raeder; J.D. Grainger, Hellenistic Phoenicia (1991) 185. John ScarboroughMegethio¯n (of Alexandria?) (ca 285 – 320 CE)Dedicatee of the ﬁfth book of P’ Mathematical Collection (5.pr.).Netz (1997) #22. GLIMMegethios of Alexandria (ca 530 – 540 CE)S, In de Caelo 3.3 (CAG 7 [1894] 602), on the potential presence of elements insubstances cites both T, fr.281 FHSG (ﬁre excreted from the eyes, cf. De Sensu26), and his own contemporary the doctor Megethios, who showed that ﬁre was excreted bythe ﬂesh of a man with sciatica. For the rare name, cf. only LGPN 4.226 (2nd/3rd c. CE).Fabricius (1726) 328. PTKM ⇒ MM ⇒ P MMelampous (300 – 200 BCE?)Physiognomist and astrologer; three brief seemingly complete treatises survive. (I) Divinationby Birthmarks ( peri elai¯on tou s¯omatos) details signs indicated by birthmarks – probably moles 538

P:550

M E L E¯ T O S(elai¯on) – on various parts of the human body. Reading like a horoscope in predicting thecourse of a human life, the essay proceeds from head to toe. Melampous’ signs reﬂectHellenistic melothesia. Moles on the nose, for example, suggest sexual insatiability(3): the nose is governed by Aphrodite (V V 1.1). Birthmarks seem to enhancethe function of the body part to which they bring attention. Melampous’ predictions formoles on the belly (gluttonous behavior: 15), the spleen (sickliness: 16) and genitalia ( parentsof same-sex children) follow anatomical function. (II) On Bodily Tremors (Peri palm¯on mantik¯es),addressed to Ptolemaïs, likewise descends from head to toe, right to left, detailing the signsindicated by trembling of quite speciﬁc body parts often connected to deities, e.g., each ear,the tip of the nose (right side and left) and each ﬁnger and toe (and all parts between). Forexample, the third ﬁnger of the right hand, governed by Kronos, indicates glory for some,subjugation for slaves, and illness for virgins; a palpitation of the left knee presages greatunhappiness for all. Melampous oﬀers predictions especially for slaves, virgins, and widows,and refers to named and generalized sources (Phe¯mo¯n, Antipho¯n, and the “Egyptians”:461 Franz). (III) In Prognostication by the Moon ( peri t¯on t¯es sel¯en¯es progn¯ose¯on), the Moon in varioussigns together with weather (thunder, clouds, wind) oﬀers signs for political and agriculturalventures: e.g., a blood-red Moon in Ram portends a fruitful grain crop; with Moon inTaurus, winds portend ﬂock destruction and noises from the sky indicate civil war; if anearthquake occurs with Moon in Gemini, war is evident; with Moon in Cancer, thunderpresages crop-destruction.Ed.: J.G.F. Franz, Scriptores Physiognomoniae ueteres (1780) 451–508; CCAG 4 (1903) 110–113.RE 15.1 (1931) 404–405 (#9), W Kroll; H. Diels, Beiträge zur Zuckungsliteratur des Okzidents und Orients 2 vv. (1908–1909; repr. 1970); OCD3 952, anonymous. GLIMMelampous of Sarnaka (500 – 25 BCE)Listed among minor artisans and artists; compiled rules of architectural symmetry(V  7.pr.14).RE 15.1 (1931) 405 (#10), G. Lippold. GLIMMeleagros (ca 350 BCE – ca 200 CE)D  L 2.92 cites Meleagros’ On Philosophical Opinions, Book 2, on Aristipposof Kure¯ne¯ (So¯crate¯s’ student); Meleagros doubtless included other philosophers. Perhapsthe same as the Cynic philosopher and poet Meleagros of Gadara (ca 100 BCE).OCD3 953 (the Cynic), A.D.E. Cameron. PTKMele¯tos (20 BCE – 25 CE)P lists him after D  and A  “M,” and before A  andA S (1.ind.28 and 28.7–8) as giving medicines from the human body, andcites him as claiming human gall cures cataracts. A, in G  CMLoc 6.6(12.946–947 K.), indicating that he wrote a multi-volume work on pharmacy, cites two 539

P:551

MELIORgargles, one with saﬀron, kostos, roses, and sumac, the other with rush-ﬂower, alum,cassia, saﬀron, Illyrian iris, Indian nard, and myrrh, both in honey.RE 15.1 (1931) 504 (#4), R. Hanslik. PTKMelior (d. 144 CE)Calculator who wrote notebooks (commentarii) of everything he knew. Melior, possibly a home-bred slave (Russell 214), died at age 13 and was honored by his grieving teacher (Sex.Aufustius Agreus) with an epitaph (ILS 7755: Ostia) proclaiming his recall and knowledge(scientia; he apparently had mastered the names of all things from antiquity to the day of hisdeath), which would “ﬁll a volume rather than an inscription.” Russell (214) hesitates overauthenticity, probably in view of the unusual and precise death-date.D.A. Russell, “Arts and Sciences in Ancient Education,” G&R 36 (1989) 210–225. GLIMMelissos of Samos (ca 480 – 430 BCE)Born ca 500, admiral who defeated the Athenian ﬂeet at Samos in 441 BCE. The argument ofhis lost work can be reconstructed from extensive fragments, the brief account of A,and a more detailed paraphrase by the anonymous O  M, X  G. Melissos revives the arguments of P  in prose, with some change.By insisting that the only Being is inﬁnite, argues Aristotle (Physics 1.2), he gave Parmenide¯sa materialistic interpretation. He is especially interested in the theory of motion, void (anecessary condition of motion according to Melissos) and mixture, excluding the possibilityof all three. Sense perception and “common mind” are delusory. A late source adduces afragment claiming incorporeality for his only being, but the authenticity and the contextof the statement is highly problematic.D.N. Sedley in Long (1999) 390–441; DPA 4 (2005) 391–393, R. Goulet. István M. BugárOn Melissos, Xenophane¯s, and Gorgias (“MXG”) (300 – 50 BCE)Transmitted by MSS under the name of A or T, consisting ofthree treatises dedicated to a pre-Socratic philosopher each. Each treatise ﬁrst provides areconstruction of the main tenets and arguments of the philosopher in question, followedby a detailed analysis of the validity of their reasoning. The three philosophers treated arerelated to the Eleatic school, the central ﬁgure of which was P . The textual tradition is very poor, and the text badly needs a critical edition, since thecentury-old editions of Apelt and Diels are over-emended, while that of Cassin follows themost puzzling readings. There is already confusion about the titles in the MSS. Some supplythe following title: On Xenophan¯es, Z¯en¯on and Gorgias, others reverse the order of the ﬁrst twonames. However, the ﬁrst treatise begins with an accurate account of M’ phil-osophy, and the second can only be related to X . The transmitted title andsome cross-references in the work – which support a single author-editor for the threetreatises – make it likely that a treatise on Z   E has been lost. Like the account of Melissos, the G treatise appears more reliable on doctrine 540

P:552

O N M E L I S S O S , X E N O P H A N E¯ S , A N D G O RG I A S ( “ M X G ” )and terminology than later sources. Since, from the Hellenistic catalogue of the works ofAristotle preserved by D  L, we know that he had composed a monographon Melissos and Gorgias, it seems reasonable that those two treatises of the MXG are basedon the lost Aristotelian prototypes, with some shifts of interest. The treatise on Xenophane¯slargely departs from the evidence on the author known from other witnesses, such asAristotle. The MXG attributes to Xenophane¯s the argument e gradu entium for the existence ofGod (known from fr.16 of Aristotle’s On philosophy). Further, it misinterprets Theophrastos’brief account on Xenophane¯s presented in his Doctrines of the physicists, claiming thatXenophane¯s did not say whether God was limited or unlimited, moving or unmoved, andelaborates it into a “negative theology”: God is neither limited, nor unlimited (cf. Aristotle,Physics 8.10), neither moved, nor unmoved. In this, as in other parts of the work, theinﬂuence of P’s Parmenides is considerable. Like that dialogue, the MXG also appears to be a dialectical exercise, but in the Aristotelianfashion. In this respect, the author may also be inﬂuenced by the Megarians, or the skepticalAcademy (Diels, 10–12). Other suggestions are less likely (Neo-Pyrrhonist inﬂuence:Mansfeld; sophistic movement: Cassin). However, typical Skeptical vocabulary is totallyabsent from the treatises, especially the On Gorgias, where the author has agn¯oston (“unknow-able”) for S’ akatal¯epton (“incomprehensible”), which becomes standard in epistemol-ogy from Arkesilaos onwards. At one point (977a4–10, cf. 975a6–7), the author calls aphysical theory mentioned but ﬁnally rejected by Aristotle (GC 1.10 [327b30–328a18])“probable” – compare the probabilism of the Skeptical Academy. Nevertheless, the author is strikingly ignorant of some crucial Aristotelian passages.Metaphysical issues especially seem alien to him: e.g. he cannot conceive that the divine iswithout magnitude, although has also exegetical and eristic reasons for excluding thissolution (978a16–20, contra Physics 8.10 [267b19–24]). The dominance of dialectic, aswell as some trace of probabilism, is attested in Aristotle’s school after S  andbefore the revival under A  R (cf. S  13.1.54 and CTusc. 2.3, 2.9, De ﬁnibus 5.10, De oratore 3.80, Orator 14). For dialectic, the exemplary workfor Cicero was Aristotle’s Topics, from which MXG oﬀers a wide range of reminiscences.For other elements of Aristotelian learning, the author seems interested only in such phys-ical theories as that of empty space (976b14–19) and mixture (977a4–11), which werewidely discussed among Peripatetics and Stoics, from Strato¯n ( frr.54–67 W.) to A-  A. Thus, the author appears to be a dialectician in the tradition of the school of Aristotle,working some time between the composition of the early catalogue of Aristotle’s writingsand the rediscovery of the Aristotle of his school-works, reﬂecting some developments ofcontemporary physics and theology.Ed.: H. Diels, Aristotelis qui fertur de M.X.G. libellus = Abhandlungen der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1900); B. Cassin, Si Parménide: le traité anonyme De Melisso, Xenophane, Gorgia (1980).J. Mansfeld, “De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia. Pyrrhonizing Aristotelianism,” RhM 131 (1988) 239–276; István M. Bugár, “How to Prove the Existence of a Supreme Being?” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 42 (2002) 203–215 at 205–206. István M. BugárM ⇒ M M 541

P:553

MELITIANUSMelitianus (350 – 500 CE?)Wrote in Latin a geographical work on Africa, cited by the R C 3.5,and there said to be an African. The name is otherwise unattested, but cf. Melinianus (PLRE1 [1971] 594), or Melitius/Meletius, common 350–500 CE.(*) PTKMelito¯ n (250 BCE – 80 CE)A, in G  CMGen 5.13 (13.843 K.), cites his wound-powder, containinglime, orpiment, pumice, and realgar, ground ﬁne in water for 30 days, then dried for anentire day. PIR2 suggests identiﬁcation with Ti. Claudius Meliton (on whom see Korpela),physician to some Germanicus, perhaps Tiberius’ adopted heir (s.v.).PIR2 M-451; Korpela (1987) 167 #69. PTKMenaikhmos of Prokonessos (365 – 325 BCE)A pupil of E and associate of P, who together with his brother Dand A   H , also an associate of Plato, “made the whole ofgeometry more perfect (or complete)” (P In Eucl. p. 67.8–12 Fr.). Proklos associatesMenaikhmos with metamathematical questions, telling us that he gave an account of theword “element” ( pp. 72.23–73.14 Fr.), that the mathematicians “around” him consideredeverything proved in geometry to be a “problem” rather than a theorem – although heallowed that some problems seek to determine a feature of some deﬁned thing – ( p. 78.8–13Fr.), and that the mathematicians around him and Amphinomos dealt with questions con-cerning the convertibility of propositions of the form “All A are B.” But Proklos also reports ( p. 111.20–23 Fr.) that Menaikhmos “conceived” (epinoeisthai,apparently meaning “discovered”) the conic sections and cites a line of poetry by E- : “Don’t section the cone with the triads (standardly taken to be the curves wecall parabola, hyperbola, and ellipse) of Menaikhmos.” The line is from an epigram whichEratosthene¯s attached to his mechanical solution to the problem of producing a cubedouble a given one and urges the reader not to follow the solution of Menaikhmos. Theepigram is quoted by E in his commentary on A  ’ On the Sphere andCylinder ( p. 96.10–27 H.). In the commentary Eutokios describes a number of solutions,including one which is ascribed to Menaikhmos (78.13–80.24 H.). In it, there is an analysisand a synthesis. The procedure depends upon the reduction of cube duplication to theproblem of ﬁnding two mean proportionals between straight lines a and b, a reduction dueto H   K ( p. 88.17–21 H.); for if b = 2a, and a:x :: x:y :: y:b, then, inalgebraic terms, (i) x2 = ay, (ii) y2 = 2ax, and (iii) xy = 2a2, and any two of these equationsyield that x3 = 2a3, i.e., geometrically, the cube with side x is double the cube with side a.Eutokios’ presentation of Menaikhmos’ solutions uses the terms “parabola” and “hyper-bola,” which were introduced by A   P to replace his predecessors’“section of a right-angled cone” and “section of an obtuse-angled cone” (Eutokios, inApol. pp. 168.12–170.24 H.; cf. Pappos, Collection 7.30). We cannot determine exactlyhow Menaikhmos proceeded and how much he knew about conics. Most scholars assumethat he knew quite a bit, but it has been argued that Menaikhmos only used point-wise 542

P:554

MENANDROS (OF PERGAMON?)constructions of curves which were later determined to be deﬁnable as conic sections(Knorr 1982). Menaikhmos’ solution uses a parabola and a hyperbola. Immediately after describing it,Eutokios ( pp. 82.1–84.7 H.) gives under the heading “in another way” (all¯os) a very similarone, using two parabolas. Menaikhmos has usually been credited with this solution, but avery similar argument is found in the Arabic translation of D  (186–207), raisingdoubts about the attribution to Menaikhmos. If that attribution is moot, then so must be theattribution to Menaikhmos of a mechanical solution, ascribed by Eutokios ( pp. 56.13–58.14H.) to Plato, the conﬁguration of which is very like the alternative solution. However,P (Quaest. Conv. 718E) says that Plato reproached Eudoxos, A, andMenaikhmos for trying to reduce the duplication of the cube to a matter of mechanicalconstructions. T   S ( pp. 201.22–202.2) connects Menaikhmos with the astronomicaltheory of homocentric spheres, commonly attributed to Eudoxos.DSB 9.268–277, I. Bulmer-Thomas; Toomer (1976) 90–96, 169–170; W.R. Knorr, “Observations on the early history of the conics,” Centaurus 26 (1982) 1–24; Jones (1986) 573–577; Lasserre (1987) 12. Ian MuellerMenandros Iatrosophist (600 – 1200? CE)Under the name of Menandros iatrosophist¯es, the 14th c. MS, Paris BNF, graecus 1630, containsa fragment of a work on gynecology in the vein of the undated M  , and themany works from southern Italy that constituted the so-called 12th-century Trotula (in fact acollection of treatises rather than a single author). The author of the Paris fragment isprobably not the same as the M cited by P; the epithet iatrosophist¯es mightconﬁrm a late-antique date.Diels 2 (1907) 64 (De Mulieribus). Alain TouwaideMenandros of He¯rakleia (325 – 90 BCE)Wrote a treatise on agriculture excerpted by C D (V, RR 1.1.8–10).To judge from references in P (1.ind.8, 11), he discussed livestock and bees. Pseudo-P, Nobil. 20 (7.269 Bern.) reports his claim that farmers were the last remnant ofthe Saturnian race.RE 15.1 (1931) 764–765 (#19), Ernst Diehl, and S.6 (1935) 297, W. Kroll. Philip ThibodeauMenandros (of Pergamon?) (ca 175 – 155 BCE)Physician, medical authority on drugs (P 1.ind.30), possibly the same as the Menandrosfrom Pergamon attested at Athens, and a companion of King Eumene¯s (Syll. 655). Heprescribed eating beetroot roasted on hot coals to neutralize “garlic breath” (19.113).N  reused his enema. Identiﬁcation with Pliny’s non-medical authority whowrote Necessities for Life (ΒΙΟΧΡΗΣΤΑ: 1.ind.19–27) is tenuous, for whom better see M. H  or  P  . 543

P:555

M E N A N D RO S O F P R I E¯ N E¯RE S.6 (1935) 297, W. Kroll. GLIMMenandros of Prie¯ne¯ (325 – 90 BCE)Wrote a work on agriculture excerpted by C D (V, RR 1.1.8–10,cf. C, 1.1.9). To judge from references in P (1.ind.8, 11), he wrote aboutlivestock and bees.RE 15.1 (1931) 764–765 (#19), Ernst Diehl, and S.6 (1935) 297, W. Kroll. Philip ThibodeauMe¯na¯ s (350? – 540 CE)Cited by A  A 10.5 ( p. 567 Cornarius) for a remedy involving bdellium,cassia, saﬀron, myrrh, spikenard, etc. Aëtios 7.42 ( p. 351 Cornarius) and 7.110 ( p. 391Cornarius) appear to refer to the collyrium of “Monus,” where Olivieri (CMG 8.2) readsrespectively ΠΙ (7.44, p. 297) and “Nonnos” (7.114, p. 382). The name Me¯na¯s is frequent inthe early Byzantine period (PLRE 3 [1992], cf. LGPN ), e.g., the patriarch of Constantinople536–552 CE (ODB 1339–1340, A. Kazhdan), under the inﬂuence of the Egyptian cult ofthe mythical martyr Me¯na¯s (ODB 1339, A. Kazhdan and N.P. Sˇevcˇenko).Fabricius (1726) 329, 341. PTKMenekrate¯s, Ti. Claudius (10 – 40 CE)Syll. 803 (Rome) records that he wrote 156 books establishing his own medical system, andwas an imperial physician; the Latin nomen accords with G ’s confused notice placinghim after H  , before A, and contemporary with A M,CMLoc 6.9 (12.989 K.), if the emperor could be Tiberius. His pharmaceutical work, Written-in-Full Emperor, gave recipes whose quantities were in words not numerals, but even thosebecame corrupted, which led D  to put recipes into verse: Gale¯n, CMGen 2.6(13.502–503 K.), 7.9 (13.994–996), Antid. 1.5 (14.31–32 K.). A few of his recipes are pre-served – A   P., in Gale¯n CMGen 6.14 (13.937–938), and K , inGale¯n CMLoc 5.3 (12.846) – but he did not write on theriac: Gale¯n, Theriac (14.306).S , as preserved in C A, approves the internal-abscess drug ofsome Menekrate¯s, Chron. 5.126 (CML 6.1, p. 930), and disparages the epilepsy-treatment ofMenekrate¯s ZEOPHLETENSIS, Chron. 1.140 ( p. 512), plausibly emended by Drabkin torefer to M  Z  S, famed for epilepsy treatments.BNP 3 (2003) 410 (#IV.2), V. Nutton. PTKMenekrate¯s of Elaious (330 – 300 BCE)A student of X   K  , and approved by M    S.Credited with two works, Foundations (of cities), which claimed that the Ionian coast andneighboring isles were originally Pelasgian (S  13.3.3), and Periodos of the Helle-spont, which explained the Halizones of Iliad 2 as a mountainous tribe near Murleia 544

P:556

MENEKRITOS(Strabo¯n 13.3.22–23). He also explained the name “Musian” as the Ludian word for thebeech tree, common in Musia (idem 12.8.3).RE 15.1 (1931) 801 (#25), P.E. Göbel; DPA 4 (2005) 442–443, R. Goulet. PTKMenekrate¯s of Ephesos (330 – 270 BCE)A philologist perhaps best known as the teacher of the astronomical poet A. He wasalso the author of a poem in the He¯siodic style called Works, in which the discussion of beevarieties was apparently based on A’s Historia Animalium (cf. V, RR 3.16.18,with HA 5.21 [553a25], 9.40 [624b21]). He seems thus to have been a pioneer in the early-Hellenistic revival of scientiﬁcally-informed didactic poetry. He may also be identical to thestatesman who led a rebellion at Ephesos after the death of the diadoch L in 281BCE (Polyain. 8.57).Ed.: SH 542–550.RE 15.1 (1931) 798 (#6), 800 (#16), P.E. Göbel; OCD3 958, J.S. Rusten; DPA 4 (2005) 443, R. Goulet. Philip ThibodeauMenekrate¯s of Surakousai (ca 350 BCE)Greek physician who carried out a detailed study of the qualities ( poi¯ot¯etes) of bodies in hiswork On medicine (L  19.18–20.1): bodies are formed of four elem-ents, two of which are hot and two cold (blood and bile, phlegm and air). Good or badmixtures (krasis) result in health or disease; alterations produce ﬂows or other secondarysubstances such as red or black bile. Menekrate¯s had enormous success in curing epilepsyand demanded his patients obey him like slaves: contemporary comic poets mocked himfor calling himself Zeus and giving his patients names of other gods (Ath., Deipn. 7[289a–b]). Philip II (359–336 BCE) and Agesilaos (445–359 BCE), to whom he wrote letters,also ridiculed him.RE 15.1 (1931) 802 (#29), H. Raeder; O. Weinreich, Menekrates Zeus und Salmoneus = Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 18 (1933); RE S.9 (1962) 401, K. Deichgräber; D. Gourevitch, “Médecins fous,” Evolution psychiatrique 47 (1982) 1113–1118; Gourevitch (1989) 246–248; G. Squillace, “Le lettere di Menecrate/Zeus ad Agesilao di Sparta e Filippo II di Macedonia,” Kokalos 46 (2000) 175–191; AML 604, G. Marasco; BNP 8 (2006) 672–673 (#3), V. Nutton. Daniela ManettiMenekritos (350 BCE – 80 CE)H    A, in O, Coll. 48.53 (CMG 6.2.1, p. 286),describes the winding of his exakros hand-bandage. H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H.S. Jones,A Greek-Emglish Lexicon (1968), s.v., identify as M , but the name Menekritos isattested, LGPN 3B.279, 4.229.Fabricius (1726) 334. PTK 545

P:557

MENELAOS (PHARM.)Menelaos (Pharm.) (100 BCE? – 95 CE)A   P., in G  Antid. 2.11 (14.173 K.), records Menelaos’ salve to treathudrophobia, also eﬀective against aigilo¯ps and attacks of all serpents, consisting inred natron, goat-suet, olive oil, beeswax, charred lees, and ammo¯niakon incense groundin water until glutinous. The ingredients are mixed, dissolved, heated, and then softened ina mortar.RE 15.1 (1931) 835 (#17), K. Deichgräber. GLIMMenelaos of Alexandria (ca 90 – 100 CE)Ptolemy’s version of part of the Mathematician and astronomer, to whom Ptheorem of Menelaus. Given: great attributes two observations of lunar positions rela-circles AB and AG on the face of a tive to ﬁxed stars, both made in Rome in January 98sphere, cut by great circles GD and BE, CE (Almagest 7.3, pp. 30 and 33 H.). Menelaus alsowhich meet at Z, and where each of the appears as a bystander in P’s On the Facearcs is less than a semicircle. Then the that Appears in the Moon, set in the late 1st c. Twochord (CRD) of arc 2GE : CRD arc mathematical works are extant in Arabic transla-2EA is combined from (CRD arc 2GZ : tions: the Sphairika and On Speciﬁc Gravities (MS Escu-CRD arc 2ZD) and (CRD arc 2 DB : rial 960/3, ﬀ.43–50, 742 H., dedicated to Domitian;CRD arc 2BA), where “A is combined cf. M). The Sphairika was translated into Latinfrom B and C” can be treated in mod- several times, ﬁrst by Gerard of Cremona, and laterern terminology as “A = B × C”. © by Edmund Halley. Menelaos’ most important con-Lehoux and Massie tributions are to spherical trigonometry, which ﬁeld he pioneered, with immediate applications in spher- ical astronomy. He wrote six (lost) books on chords, usually taken to include a chord table. His Sphairika includes a general proof of what has come to be known as the “Theorem of Menelaus” (actually two closely related theorems), allowing one to solve for triangles on a spherical surface. The theorem has wide-ranging astronomical applications including conversions between spherical coordinate systems, the calculations of rising times of oblique arcs, and (hence) the determination of the length of daylight at any given latitude, for example.Ed.: M. Krause, Die Sphärik von Menelaos aus Alexandrien (1936).A.A. Björnbo, Studien über Menelaos’ Sphärik (1902); Neugebauer (1975) 26–27. Daryn LehouxMenemakhos of Aphrodisias (30 – 90 CE)Physician, listed with T  and S  among the Methodists (-G I 14.684 K.; MS Laur. Lat. 73.1, f.143V = fr.13 Tecusan), probably not beforeT (Tecusan 2004: 15–16, 65), disagreed with predecessors, sometimes vitupera-tively (G  MM 1.7.5 [10.54 K. = p. 27 Hankinson]). A, in Gale¯n CMLoc3.1 (12.625 K.), records (and uses) his ear remedy compounded from myrrh, frankincense, 546

P:558

M E N E S T O¯ R O F S U B A R I Saphronitron, saﬀron, poppy-juice, bitter almonds, galbanum, and vinegar. OColl. 7.22 reports Menemakhos’ instructions for applying and removing leeches (CMG 6.1.1,pp. 220–221 = fr.226 Tecusan), and a depilatory method involving scratching the scalp andcarefully applying pitch plaster (dr¯opax: Coll. 10.14: CMG 6.1.2, p. 58 = fr.227 Tecusan).C A, Acut. 1.8 (CML 6.1.1, p. 134), conveys his deﬁnition of lethargy,augmented by S , as a swift or acute pressure accompanied by acute (but not alwayscontinuous) fever. Tecusan doubts our Methodist is as early as the Menemakhos attri-buted by C with a multi-ingredient toothache remedy whose active component waspurethron (6.9.5 = fr.106 Tecusan; cf. p. 64).RE 15.1 (1931) 838 (#6), H. Raeder; Tecusan (2004) 63–65. GLIMMenenius Rufus (30 BCE – 90 CE)A   P. in G , CMGen 7.12 (13.1010–1011 K.), records his complexrecipe for a potion against gout, calling for over two dozen ingredients concocted over threedays in three stages. Kühn reads MEΝI-, which PIR2 accepts, but Fischer points out thatMenenius is far more likely as a nomen (cf. RE 15.1 [1931] 838–844, Fr. Münzer, and Catullus59 on Menenius husband of Rufa).PIR2 M-256. PTKMenestheus of Stratonikeia (150 BCE? – 50 CE)G  Hipp. Gloss. cites his Names of Drugs twice (where Fabricius and Kühn printΜΕΝΗΘΕΥΣ, otherwise unattested): s.v. boukeras (19.89 K.) and Indikon (19.105–106 K.),there agreeing with A and X   A that it is ginger.E  A-103 ( p. 23.12–13 Nachm.) supplies the ethnic, recording his opinion that inthe H C, J, 7 (4.88 Littré), amb¯e means “leverage.” A  P. in Gale¯n, CMGen 5 (13.830 K.), records his trokhiskos for skin disorders (chap-ping, callosities, etc.), of aloes, alum, and saﬀron, in wine. Perhaps cf. Gale¯n, In Hipp. Epid.VI 4.11 (CMG 5.10.2.2, p. 212), ad 4.8 Littré, where the Arabic records a MNSNUS amongother commentators.Fabricius (1726) 335; RE 15.1 (1931) 852 (#6), K. Deichgräber. PTKMenesto¯ r of Subaris (460 – 440 BCE?)A Pythagorean natural philosopher and the earliest Greek botanist. His botanical treatiseis lost, and our knowledge of his theories rests on several references to them, preserved inT’ works on plants. Theophrastos reckons him among the ancient phusiologoi(32 A7 DK) and says that he sided with (A5) an opinion of E . Menesto¯r isusually regarded as a contemporary of Empedokle¯s, most probably slightly older than him.His name occurs in the list of the Pythagoreans compiled by A (A1). Following A , whose theory of health was based on the idea of qualitative oppos-ite principles (cold/hot, wet/dry, etc.), Menesto¯r transferred this explanatory pattern to therealm of plants. He believed that the moisture, or the juice of plants (hugron, khumos, A2, 7), 547

P:559

MENESTRATOS (I)bears life and heat. There are inﬁnite number of such juices of plants, which are distributedin pairs: bitter/sweet, harsh/oily etc.; a plant consists of their mixture (A7). Menesto¯rmethodically divides all plants into cold and warm and derives from their balance the mostimportant qualities of plans, taking into account external factors as well (climate, soil, etc.,A4, 6). An excessive cold or heat reduces the moisture of plants, so that they either freezeor dry out. The warm plants bear fruits, the cold do not. The warmer a plant is, the fasterit grows and the earlier it bears fruits. The evergreen plants have more inner heat thanothers, which shed their leaves in winter due to the cold (A5). Plants can live only in placeswith opposite climate: the warm in cold, the cold in warm.DK 32; W. Capelle, “Menestor redivivus,” RhM 104 (1961) 47–69; C. Viano, “Théophraste, Ménestor de Sybaris et la summetria de la chaleur,” REG 105 (1992) 584–592; Zhmud (1997). Leonid ZhmudMenestratos (I) (ca 400 – 250 BCE?)C 18.5 lists H, N , the otherwise unknown Menestratos, andD  as writers of works on the oktaete¯ris. Cf. perhaps M (II).(*) PTKMenestratos (II) (325 – 90 BCE)Authored a treatise on agriculture excerpted by C D (V, RR 1.1.9–10).He is perhaps identical to M (I), whose oktaete¯ris may have been a farmer’scalendar.RE 15.1 (1931) 856 (#9), W. Kroll. Philip ThibodeauMenippos (100 BCE? – 95 CE)A   P., in G  Antid. 2.11 (14.172–173 K.), records his simple salveagainst hudrophobia, used by Gale¯n’s teacher P, compounded of Bruttian pinepitch, opopanax and vinegar, heated, but not to boiling, administered to the wound with acompress. The wound should be watched for 40 days.RE 15.1 (1931) 894 (#12), K. Deichgräber. GLIMMenippos of Pergamon (ca 80 – ca 20 BCE)Greek geographer, author of a Periplous of the Inner Sea (Mediterranean) in three booksand possibly also one of the Black Sea, relying on the work of A   E.Menippos is known mainly through an epitome by M  H . Theextant fragments contain the prooimion and the descriptions of the Black Sea, Bithunia,Paphlagonia, Pontos, Bosporos, Propontis and Europe. The work has a clear navigationalinclination concentrating on coasts, ports and distances between coastal points. An allusionby the Greek Augustan epigrammatist Krinagoras of Mutile¯ne¯ to Menippos, as his friendand author of a circular tour, determines Menippos’ date. 548

P:560

M E¯ N O D O T O S O F N I KO M E¯ D E I AEd.: GGM 1.563–573.Diller (1952) 151–164; F.J. González Ponce, “El Periplo Griego antiquo: Verdadera Guí a de viajes o mero género literario? El ejemplo de Menipo de Pérgamo,” Habis 24 (1993) 69–76. Daniela DueckM R ⇒ M RMe¯nodo¯ ros of Smurna (85 – 35 BCE)Friend of the Erasistratean H  S, and oﬀered dietary advice includingremarks on squashes and their preparation: Ath., Deipn. 2 (59a). A, in G CMLoc 7.3 (13.64 K.), preserves R’ preparation of a cough-syrup, for suﬀerers fromphthisis, named after Me¯nodo¯ros. O, Coll. 46.11 (CMG 6.2.1, p. 222), recordshis work as a surgeon, and his procedure in cases of skull fracture (to excise all damagedbone). P. C C 1 records his practice in eye-surgery. Michler (1968a) identiﬁesM  with this man, but all the names Me¯nodo¯ros, Me¯nodotos, and Me¯nophilosare suﬃciently common (LGPN ) to render such equation otiose.RE S.9 (1962) 402, J. Kollesch; S.11 (1968) 934–935, M. Michler; Idem (1968) 71, 113–114. PTKMe¯nodotos (Astr.) (250 BCE – 100 CE?)Wrote a commentary on A (FGrHist 1026 T 19), entirely lost.(*) PTKMe¯nodotos of Nikome¯deia (105 – 145 CE)Empiricist physician, pupil (with T   L) of the Skeptic philosopherAntiokhos of Laodikeia, and teacher of the Skeptical He¯rodotos of Tarsos (in the catalogueof D  L 9.115; it is doubtful whether the physician is the Me¯nodotos towhom Diogene¯s Laërtios ascribes the catalogue itself; it is also controversial whether toread the name of Me¯nodotos in S E Pyrrh. hyp. 1.222 regarding P’sskepticism). Of his works we only know that one of them, in several books, was dedicatedto a certain Seuerus ( perhaps the Cn. Claudius Seuerus, Peripatetic, interlocutor ofthe emperor M. Aurelius: SHA, Marc. 3.3 and M. Aur. ad se ipsum 1.14), and that about itG  wrote a lost work in 11 books (On My Own Books 2.115 MMH; Subf. emp. 11); it is stilluncertain whether we should read the name of Me¯nodotos in the title of Gale¯n’s lostProtreptikos (On My Own Books, ibid.). The fact that Me¯nodotos is frequently mentioned by Gale¯n in The Outline of Empiricismand in other works had suggested the idea that he was the main source of Gale¯n forEmpirical doctrine, and more generally that he played the role of an innovator in thedevelopment of Empirical doctrine (Favier went so far as to view him as a forerunner ofmodern experimental science). It is unclear, however, the real extent of Me¯nodotos’ innov-ations in the elaboration of the Empiricist doctrine created by H    T(who was used by Gale¯n as well): certainly Me¯nodotos, as well as He¯rakleide¯s, has a ten-dency to give more importance to the “rational” element in the doctrine of the “school.” In 549

P:561

M E N O I TA S / M E N O I T I O Shis layout of the three principles of the Empiricist “tripod,” Me¯nodotos separated thediﬀerent types of “experience” (Gale¯n Subf. emp. 2–3), and he maintained that the thirdelement of the tripod, the “transition to the similar,” is not a true criterion but only acriterion of what is possible (Subf. emp. 9). Probably Me¯nodotos introduced the concept ofepilogismos, namely the possibility of rational inferences on the basis of the data comingfrom the experience – distance from Dogmatic medicine remains assured by the fact thatthe epilogismos is an inference directed toward visible things, whereas the analogismos is theconclusion pointing to invisible things (Gale¯n, Med. exp. 24). For other ﬁelds of Me¯nodotos’ production, we know that, according to Gale¯n (who basic-ally agreed with him: Nat. fac. 3.71 MMH; perhaps Caus. resp. 4.475 K.), he polemizedagainst A    B in an excessively violent manner (Subf. emp. 11; Gale¯ngives a similar opinion also about the criticisms Me¯nodotos made against other Empiri-cists); that he deemed it legitimate for the physician to seek fame and money (Gale¯n PHP:CMG 5.3.1.2, p. 764); that he used phlebotomy only in case of plethora, that is excessiveincrease in the blood mass (Gale¯n, Cur. rat. ven. rom. 11.277, 285 K.; Hipp. ac. mor. vic. 15.766K.; Hipp. art. 18A.575 K.).Ed.: Deichgräber (1930) 212–214 (fragments), 264–265.A. Favier, Un médecin grec du deuxième siècle ap. J.C., précurseur du la méthode expérimentale moderne: Ménodote de Nicomédie (1906); RE 15.1 (1931) 901–916 (#2), W. Capelle; 916 (#3), H. Raeder; KP 3.993–994, F. Kudlien; L. Perilli, Menodoto di Nicomedia (2004); BNP 8 (2006) 695 (#2), V. Nutton; DPA 4 (2005) 476–482, V. Boudon-Millot. Fabio StokMenoitas/Menoitios (250 BCE – 10 CE)H  , in G  CMGen 2.10 (13.511–512 K.: Menoitios), and A, ibid. 2.8(13.509 K.: Menoitas), cite two versions of his m¯elin¯e, containing beeswax, litharge, clearterebinth, olive oil; Andromakhos adds frankincense, galbanum, and verdigris, provid-ing a multi-step preparation. The epic name appears in both forms (e.g., the herdsman ofHade¯s and the father of Patroklos), as for historical ﬁgures, among whom Menoitas isusually Doric and more widely used, being especially frequent in Aitolia: RE 15.1 (1931)918–922, K. Keyßner; LGPN.Fabricius (1726) 335. PTKMeno¯ n (350 – 300 BCE?)A pupil of A, known to G  (15.24 K.) as the author of a medical doxography,Medical Collection, circulating under Aristotle’s name, probably the same work quoted byP (Quaest. conv. 8.9.3) as Menoneia (i.e. “work by Meno¯n”). Diels considered Meno¯nthe source of the doxography about the causes of diseases preserved in the ﬁrst part of theL . It is impossible to determine his actual role, whether he wrotethe Medical Collection, or was a later editor of Peripatetic material, a reviser, or merely onewho “possessed” a copy of the work, used by early imperial Aristotelian scholars.H. Diels, “Ueber die Excerpte von Menons Iatrika in dem Londoner Papyrus 137,” Hermes 28 (1893) 407–434; KP 3.1223, F. Kudlien; D. Manetti, CPF I.1 (1989) 345–351; OCD3 960, J.T. Vallance. Daniela Manetti 550

P:562

M E T O¯ N O F AT H E N SMe¯nophilos (120 BCE – 25 CE)C 6.7.2C describes his ear medicine: pepper, myrrh, saﬀron, poppy “tears,” pome-granate peel, almonds, etc., in honey and very sour vinegar. The name is unattested before300 BCE (LGPN ), and the use of pepper suggests the terminus post, when Indian trade made itmore available.Fabricius (1726) 336. PTKM ⇒ VM ⇒ PMetagene¯s of Kno¯ ssos (550 – 500 BCE)With his father K , began the great Temple of Artemis at Ephesos, andwrote about it in one of the earliest known architectural treatises (V 7.pr.12, 16).Metagene¯s also invented a rolling framework for moving large rectangular epistyle blocks ofthe temple, an extension of his father’s invention for the column drums (Vitr. 10.2.12, 13).Svenson-Ebers (1996) 67–99; KLA 2.78–79, A. Bammer. Margaret M. MilesMeto¯ n of Athens (440 – 410 BCE)Astronomer who, with E  , observed the summer solstice on the morning of 13Skirophorion ( probably 27 June 432 BCE) on the Pnyx using a h¯eliotropaion (an instrumentof disputed nature) and devised a 19-year calendar, whose ﬁrst period presumably wouldhave begun on the next new moon. The period was 235 months, which required 12 yearswith 12 months and 7 years with 13 months. This part of the system was certainly basedon the Babylonian 19-year system and probably distributed months in the same way. More-over, the period was 6,940 days, implying a year of 365 5/19 days and an average synodicmonth of 29 25/47 days. The distribution of hollow (29 days) and full months (30 days)might have used a scheme like that reported by G, Elem. Astron. 8. To yield 235months in 6,940 days, the system treats all months as having 30 days (making 7,050 days),but then drops a day every 64th day (i.e. after the 63rd day), with the month being hollow,to bring the total back down to 6,940 days. The period was called “Meto¯n’s cycle”(D    S 12.36.2–3). Whatever Meto¯n’s purpose was in devising thecalendar, it was used as the basis of astronomical observation, especially in its revisedform by K. Meto¯n may have begun the practice of erecting public parape¯g-mata, traces of which survive in Geminus and P (also, Schol. A 752).Meto¯n and Eukte¯mo¯n parceled out the seasons (P. P G 1): summer (90days), fall (90 days), winter (92 days), and spring (by inference, 91 days). His appearancein two comedies in 414 BCE, as a cloudy architect and geometer in Aristophane¯s, TheBirds, and as a well-maintainer in Phrunikhos, The Recluse (Schol. Aristoph. Birds 997), probablyhas more to do with his attempts to avoid military service in Sicily the previous year thanto his work as a mathematician (P, Alkibiad¯es 17.5, Nikias 13.6; A, VH13.12). 551

P:563

M E¯ T RO D O¯ R ADSB 9.337–340, G.J. Toomer; B. Goldstein and A.C. Bowen, “Meton of Athens and Astronomy in the Late Fifth Century B.C.,” in Leichty et al. (1988) 40–81; R. Hannah, “Euctemon’s Parape¯gma,” in C.J. Tuplin and T.E. Rihll, Science and Mathematics in Ancient Greek Culture (2002) 76–132. Henry MendellMe¯trodo¯ ra (50 – 400 CE?)Preserved in a single MS (Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Pluteus 75.3, 4V–19R). Dating isdiﬃcult, since Me¯trodo¯ra mentions no names, apart from a cosmetic used by “Berenike¯called Kleopatra” (a confused reference, possibly an interpolation). Use of the vaginalspeculum argues for a date beginning ca 1st c. CE, and the text cites neither S  norencyclopedias, and displays no Galenism, which places it probably before the ﬁfth. The title, From the Works of M¯etrod¯ora, indicates a selection from a corpus of at least twobooks. The preserved text, entitled “Concerning the Feminine Diseases of the Womb,”contains 63 chapters in seven well-organized sections. 1: Introduction; 2–19: General con-ditions of the womb (inﬂammation, suppuration, hardness, cancer, discharges, hemor-rhages, prolapses, coldness, and inﬂation); 20–25: Diseases caused by excessive moisture(dropsy, cleansing of ulcers, recipes to restore the appearance of virginity); 26–28: Con-ception and contraception (fertility, female and male children, cures for sterility, threerecipes for contraception); 29–32: Childbirth; 33–39: Sexual recipes (tests for virginity,aphrodisiacs), 40–55: Diseases of the breasts; 56–63: Cosmetics and general preparations.(Four sets of mainly pharmaceutical extracts following in the MS are probably not Me¯tro-do¯ra’s). The earlier chapters are fuller and the text may have been abbreviated at somepoint. There is no mention of obstetrics; the work was not conﬁned to midwifery, butfocuses on pathology. Me¯trodo¯ra is an interesting ﬁgure in the history of medicine for reasons independent ofgender. More than an anthologist like O or an encyclopedist like A A, she does not depend on the growing secondary literature of the handbooks butreaches directly back to H , quoting, paraphrasing, synthesizing, and gatheringsymptoms missed by others. Me¯trodo¯ra takes sides in several medical controversies over symptomatology and etiology(e.g., inﬂammation of the womb). She formulates an individual classiﬁcation of variousvaginal discharges, a hotly debated topic. She makes several seemingly original contribu-tions to theory and etiology (e.g., linking certain vaginal discharges to irritation of theadjoining rectum produced by intestinal worms). Some of her compounds became part ofthe ancient medical common stock, but the vast majority appear only in her work. Inclinical practice Me¯trodo¯ra employs both digital examination and the vaginal speculum,providing a unique and detailed description of pathology based on its use. These are indica-tions of individual scholarship of a high level, backed by experience. A Latin translation was made in late antiquity ( probably 5th/6th c.), and portions ofthe material circulated under the names of K, T P, and inother early medieval sources, notably the Liber de causis feminarum (ed. Egert 1936). Throughthese the material passed to Caspar Wolf’s Harmonia Gynaeciorum (1566), the ﬁrst Renaissanceencyclopedia of gynecology.Ed.: A.P. Kousis [Kuzes], “Metrodora’s work ‘On the feminine diseases of the womb’ according to the Greek codex 75, 3 of the Laurentian Library,” Praktika t¯es Akademias Athen¯on (1945 [1949]) 20, 46–68: editio princeps and unreliable; G. Del Guerra, Il Libro di Metrodora (1953), repr. with Italian trans.: 552

P:564

M E¯ T RO D O¯ RO S ( P H A R M . )Metrodora: Medicina e cosmei ad uso delle donne (1994): unreliable; Holt N. Parker, Metrodora: The Gynecology= SAM (forthcoming). Holt N. ParkerMe¯trodo¯ ros (Astr. I) (ca 150 – 50 BCE?)P’s Phaseis records that Me¯trodo¯ros observed in Italy and Sicily ( p. 67 H.), andcites him, with other parape¯gmatists from D  to H and“Caesar” (S   I) for over a dozen weather-signs: Phao¯phi 5: “rain” ( p. 18), Athur13: “tempest and thunderstorm” ( p. 22), Mekhir 15: start of spring ( p. 38), Mechir 30:“the swallow appears” ( p. 39), Pakho¯n 17: start of summer ( p. 50), Epiphi 27: start of fall( p. 60), etc. I   “L,” Mens. cites him ad March 15, September 17, and October27.Rehm (1941) 82, n.2; BNP 8 (2006) 838 (#7), W. Hübner. PTKMe¯trodo¯ ros (Astr. II) (ca 10 – 300 CE?)Seruius, ad Georg. 1.229 (3.1.185 Th.-H.), cites Me¯trodo¯ros’ work on the zones, which alsodefended V’s astronomy, and “Probus” ad Georg. 2.224 (3.2.371 Th.-H.) cites him forthe geographical tidbit that the River Clanius near Mount Vesuvius is named for a giant.Goulet identiﬁes with M   (A. I).RE S.7 (1940) 449 (#24a), W. Kroll; DPA 4 (2005) 504, R. Goulet. PTKMe¯trodo¯ ros (Arch.) (20 BCE – 77 CE)Listed among the non-Roman authorities on painting, pigments, and drugs derived there-from consulted by P (1.ind.35). He wrote On the Science of Architecture (de Architectonice),but is omitted from V 7.pr, perhaps providing a terminus post.RE 15.2 (1932) 1483 (#29), W. Kroll. GLIMMe¯trodo¯ ros (Pharm.) (100 BCE – 60/75 CE)Wrote Epitome of Rootcutting, recommending peplis (a Euphorbia sp.) after delivery, to easeexpulsion of the khorion (P 20.214). Illustrations accompanied exegeses of botanicalproperties, as for D ( M ) and K (25.8). He was presumably thedoctor listed after T  and before S  (1.ind.20–27). Our pharmacist, perhapsidentiﬁable with the Hippokratic commentator cited by E  under Epidemics 5.26,“caul” ( fr.19, p. 105 Nachm.), may also be the homonymous Askle¯piadean pharmacistcited by G , Simples 1.29, 35 (11.432, 442 K.).RE 15.2 (1932) 1483 (#27), W. Kroll. GLIM 553

P:565

M E¯ T RO D O¯ RO S S O N O F E P I K H A R M O S , P S E U D OMe¯trodo¯ ros son of Epikharmos, pseudo (200 BCE – 100 CE?)E’ son, credited by I (VP 241) with a medical treatise ( probablypseudepigraphical, cf. Thesleﬀ 1965: 121–122) where supposedly P’ teachingswere applied.DPA 4 (2005) 502–503 (#143), Bruno Centrone and C. Macris. Bruno CentroneMe¯trodo¯ ros of Alexandria (ca 130 – 170 CE)S’ student, P   P’s teacher (G  CMG 5.10.1, p. 401),wrote commentaries on the H C, E, and was acclaimed withSabinus as more accurate than previous Hippokratic scholars (CMG 5.10.2.1, pp. 17–18).Gale¯n sharply criticizes numerous interpretative errors, chiding Sabinus and his followersfor their unique view of the dangers of pustules (5.10.2.2, pp. 46–47).Smith (1979) 151, n.71, 152, n.73; Ihm (2002) #176–178; BNP 8 (2006) 838–839 (#8), V. Nutton. GLIMMe¯trodo¯ ros of Buzantion (180 – 80 BCE)Father of L   B, mentioned among famous ichthyologists by A(NA, epilogue).RE 15.2 (1932) 1482 (#25a), W. Kroll. Arnaud ZuckerMe¯trodo¯ ros of Khios (400 – 350 BCE)Atomist philosopher and student of D . His major work On Nature ( periphuseo¯s) combined skeptical views about the possibility of knowledge with an atomicanalysis of the nature of reality. Following De¯mokritos, he taught that everything was madeup of atoms and the void, and that there are an inﬁnite number of worlds (kosmoi). Healso discussed meteorology and astronomy.Ed.: DK 70.RE 15.2 (1932) 1475–76 (#14), W. Nestle; KP 3.1280 (#4), H. Dörrie; Long and Sedley (1987) §1D; OCD3 977, W.D. Ross; ECP 342, J.S. Purinton; DPA 4 (2005) 506–508, R. Goulet; BNP 8 (2006) 836–837 (#1), I. Bodnár. Walter G. Englert 554

P:566

M E¯ T RO D O¯ RO S O F S K E¯ P S I SMe¯trodo¯ ros of Lampsakos (305 – 278 BCE) Epicurean philosopher who studied under E-  at Lampsakos ca 310–307, and moved to Athens with him in 307. Along with Epicurus, H- , and P, he was considered one of the four founders of the Epicurean school. Epicu- rus dedicated some of his works to him, and he wrote extensively. His works included: Against the Physicians, On the Senses, Against the Dialecticians, Against the Sophists, Against D¯emokritos, and On Change (D  L-  10.24).Metrodo¯ ros of Lampsakos RE 15.2 (1932) 1477–80 (#16), W. Kroll; KP 3.1280 (#6),Reproduced with kind permission of H. Dörrie; Long and Sedley (1987) §21G; OCD3 977,the National Archaeological Museum, D. Obbink; ECP 342–343, D.N. Sedley; DPA 4 (2005)Athens 514–517, B. Puech and R. Goulet; BNP 8 (2006) 837–838 (#2), T. Dorandi. Walter G. EnglertMe¯trodo¯ ros of Ske¯psis (ca 100 – ca 70 BCE)Greek rhetorician and historian, son of K ’ disciple Me¯trodo¯ros. An impover-ished Ske¯psian, also interested in philosophy, Me¯trodo¯ros, marrying well in Khalke¯do¯n,became an intimate friend of M  VI. Appointed a senior judge, Me¯trodo¯roswas called the king’s father. Some time between 73 and 71 BCE, Eupato¯r sent Me¯trodo¯rosas an ambassador to Tigrane¯s of Armenia to ask for military aid against the Romans.Me¯trodo¯ros betrayed Eupato¯r and died shortly afterwards, probably by the king’s order:S  13.1.55; P Luc. 22. Renowned for his excellent rhetorical style,Me¯trodo¯ros wrote on diverse subjects, including a biography of Tigrane¯s, and treatises onhistory, habits and gymnastic training. A scholium on L (F 16) calls Me¯trodo¯ros“Periegeticus” suggesting a lost perie¯ge¯sis. Fragments of his lost works contain variousethnographic and geographical data on Italy, Greece, Pontos and Kappadokia, and P(7.89, 8.36) used him for geographical and mineralogical information. Possible anti-Romanundertones earned him the nickname “Misoromaios” (Roman-hater).Ed.: FGrHist 184.J.-M. Alonso-Núñez, “Un historien antiromain: Métrodore de Scepsis,” DHA 10 (1984) 253–258; P. Pédech, “Deux grecs face à Rome au Ier siècle av. J. C.: Métrodore de Scepsis et Théophane de Mitylène,” REA 93 (1991) 65–78; DPA 4 (2005) 515, T. Dorandi. Daniela Dueck 555

P:567

M E¯ T RO D O¯ RO S O F T R A L L E I SMe¯trodo¯ ros of Tralleis (ca 550 – 600 CE)Grammatikos who compiled or penned 30 epigrams presenting arithmetical puzzlesof aliquot parts (Greek Anthology 14.116–146). He lived some time after D(cf. 14.126), and is probably the grammatikos brother of A  and A T.BNP 8 (2006) 839 (#9), M.G. Albiani. PTK and GLIMMikio¯ n (100 – 40 BCE?)His Rhizotomoumena is cited after P by P 20.258, as prescribing hip-pomarathron for snake bite, apparently in reference to N, Th¯er. 596. (For hip-pomarathron Durling 1993: 185 suggests either Prangos ferulacea [L.] Lindl. or Cachrys ferulacea[L.] Calest.; cf. D  MM 3.71; G , Simpl. 7.12.5 [12.67–68 K.].) Mikio¯n isalso cited by the Schol. Nik. Th¯er. 617, on tithumallos (“petty spurge” and other names, i.e.,Euphorbia peplus L.: Dioskouride¯s MM 4.164; Gale¯n, Simples 8.19.7 [12.141–143 K.]; Durl-ing 1993: 311). The name, rarely spelled with -kk-, is almost unknown after the 1st c. BCE(LGPN ).RE 15.2 (1932) 1555 (#5), W. Kroll. PTKMile¯sios (280 BCE – 120 CE)Wrote on seminal ducts, denying physiological distinction between nocturnal emissionsresulting from dreams of coitus wherein semen is completely discharged (oneir¯ogmos) and isnot (oneiropol¯esis: probably S , in C A, Chron. 5.82 [CML 6.1.2,p. 904]). He also believed that weakness in seminal ducts results in discharging blood ratherthan semen during coitus (Chron. 5.87 [ p. 906]). The rare name is attested from the 3rd c.BCE: LGPN 1.314, 3A.301, 3B.286, 4.337.Fabricius (1726) 338. GLIMMilo¯ n (450 – 300 BCE?)I    S 1.29.3 records Milo¯n’s theory that lightning is produced when wateris “broken” (rhag-), diurnally by the sun, and nocturnally by the stars. The latter claimsuggests an early date, when the stars were imagined as nearby. The name is mostfrequent in the 4th–3rd cc. BCE, but is attested as late as the 3rd c. CE: LGPN 1.314, 2.315,3A.301.RE 15.2 (1932) 1677–1678 (#7), W. Kroll and A. Modrze; DPA 4 (2005) 522, R. Goulet. PTKMiltiade¯s (250 BCE – 120 CE)Physician, perhaps Erasistratean, argued that some diseases are exclusive to women(S , Gyn. 3.2 [CMG 4, p. 94; CUF v. 3, pp. 2–3]). The name is very common atAthens (LGPN 2.314–315), but rare elsewhere (LGPN 1.314, 3A.301).RE 15.2 (1932) 1705 (#7), K. Deichgräber. GLIM 556

P:568

M I T H R A D AT E¯ S V I , K I N G O F P O N T O SM¯ınara¯ ja (ca 300 – 325 CE)M¯ınara¯ja was a yavana¯dhir¯aja, i.e., person of authority in the settlements of Greeks underthe western K.satrapas in what is now Gujarat and Rajasthan in western India. He wrote along astrological compendium, the V.rddhayavanaja¯taka, covering every subject of astrology,in 71 chapters. The work is based on S’s Yavanaj¯ataka and a lost work of Satya.Pingree suggests that the ﬁrst part of his name, “m¯ına,” is a designation of the S´akas, i.e.,Indo-Skuthians.CESS A.4.427–429, A.5.310; Pingree (1978) 1.24, n. 75. Kim Plofker and Toke Lindegaard KnudsenMinius Percennius of Nola (200 – 150 BCE)Agronomist who “demonstrated” a superior method for sowing seed of the Tarentinecypress (P C, 151). It is unclear how Cato learned of his method: whether frompersonal contacts, or from a treatise, written perhaps in Latin, Greek, or even Minius’ nativetongue, Oscan.RE 19.1 (1937) 588 (#1), F. Münzer; Speranza (1971) 11–13. Philip ThibodeauMinucianus (10 – 80 CE)A approves his recipe for scrofula (beeswax, galbanum, propolis, tere-binth, and mistletoe from oak, add lees and natron, set on coals and add olive oil, wildcucumber root, gladiolus bulb, and “Asian ﬂower”): G , CMGen 6.14 (13.930–931 K.).Minucianus also preserved an antidote from Z    L, see Gale¯n, Antid. 2.20(14.163 K.).RE 15.2 (1932) 1988 (#4), K. Deichgräber. PTKMinue¯s (ca 500 BCE – ca 200 CE)D  L 1.27 cites Minue¯s for the tale that T  associated with Thrasub-oulos, tyrant of Mile¯tos; probably, like S  , he is ca 200 BCE. The name is otherwiseunattested (LGPN ) but accepted by Pape-Benseler, and may mean “a Minyan” (i.e., fromOrkhomenos, destroyed in 368 and 346 BCE, and mostly abandoned after 85 BCE), like theeponymous hero of the Minyans, Paus. 9.36.4, or else “an informer” (m¯enu¯es).FGrHist 1111. PTKMithradate¯s VI, King of Pontos (ca 115 – 63 BCE)Born 132 BCE in Sino¯pe¯, son of King Mithradate¯s V (d. 120 BCE); he deposed his regentmother Gespaepuris ca 115 BCE, and expanded his realm, allying with Armenia. By ca 95 hehad come into conﬂict with Roman interests, after which he conquered Bithunia and alliedwith many Greek cities, including Ephesos, Mile¯tos, Pergamon, and Athens, defecting fromRome in 90. More or less continuous warfare ensued for 25 years, Mithradate¯s representinghimself as the savior of Hellenism, until his defeat by Pompey and suicide in 63; his treasury 557

P:569

MNASEAS (METHOD.)immoderately enriched the Roman Republic. Like contemporary kings (A,A, and N  ), he practiced pharmacy, with the legendary intent of immun-izing himself against all poisons, by often sampling each: P 25.5–7; G  Antid. 1.1(14.2–5 K.). P L translated his Greek into Latin, and numerous pharma-cists of the 1st c. CE record antidotes alleged to be his, from a simple one, “in his ownhand,” of walnuts, ﬁgs, and rue (Pliny 23.49; cf. Pliny Jr. 3.33.4, Gellius 17.16), throughthe earliest known, of 37 ingredients, C 5.23.3, to one of 54 ingredients, Pliny29.24 (no recipe). The more complex recipes all include cinnamon (usually with cassia),kostos, myrrh, pepper, and saﬀron, and most add frankincense, parsley, and skordion:A and K in Gale¯n, Antid. 2.1 (14.108), Celsus, D  ibid.2.2 (14.115–117), X  ibid. 2.10 (14.164–165), A, ibid. 2.1 (14.107),2.7 (14.148), and 2.9 (14.152–155), and A   P. in Gale¯n CMLoc 10.1(13.329–330 K.). The last two pharmacists also credit him with throat-remedies, in Gale¯nCMLoc 7.2 (13.23–25, 52–56), all containing cinnamon, cassia, frankincense, myrrh, andsaﬀron. K named a plant mithradatia (Pliny 25.62), and agrimony was known aseupatoria in his honor (25.65; cf. D  4.41). He was the subject of a play byRacine (1673), an Italian opera by Mozart (1770), a poem by Housman (1896), and several20th/21st c. English novels.Fr. de Callataÿ, L’histoire des guerres mithridatiques vue par les monnaies (1997) 235–388. PTKMnaseas (Method.) (54 – 68 CE)Physician listed among the Methodists; S  accepts him as one of “his” sect:“Mnaseas says that some [women] are by nature healthy, but others are by nature less thanhealthy, and among those who are less than healthy some are more constricted (stegnoteron)than not, some are more ‘ﬂowing’ (rho¯odesteron, i.e. ‘lax’ or ‘unconstricted’) than not” (Gyn.1.6.29 [CMG 4, p. 19; CUF v. 1, p. 24]). Similarly Methodist is Mnaseas’ bipartite diag-nosis of lethargy: one kind is from a state of stricture, another kind from a state of laxity(solutio: C A, Acut. 2.24 [Drabkin, p. 134; CML 6.1.1, p. 144]); and hethinks that paralysis is caused by contraction ( paraleipsis) saying that sometimes paralysis is aconstriction (here extentio) and sometimes a loosening (solutio; Chron. 2.16 [Drabkin, p. 574;CML 6.1.2, p. 554]). Later, -G , I 4, lists him among the Meth-odists: “after T  T, then Mnaseas, D, P, A-” (14.684 K.). Once, So¯ranos compares (or contrasts?) him with H :“He¯rophilos and Mnaseas – although basing their opinions on diﬀering doctrines – bothstate that in some women, menstruation is health-producing, in others it is not” (Gyn. 1.6.27[CMG 4, p. 17; CUF v. 1, p. 22]). Nevertheless, perhaps because S E,Pyrrh. 1.34 (esp. 1.34.236–237), describes a physician who combined Methodism withSkepticism, some modern scholars have ranked Mnaseas with the Skeptics (Deichgräber1930/1965: 267, n.2; cf. Tecusan, pp. 60–61). Mnaseas is typical of Methodists, who wererarely rigidly sectarian. Mnaseas’ eﬀective and simple plaster is recommended by several authorities, Methodistand not. P  A, 7.27.21 (CMG 9.2, p. 353), gives its basic recipe of ﬁvecommon and easily compounded ingredients: one litra each of beeswax and pig’s fat(“lard”), six ounces of scammony-resin (Convolvulus scammonia L.), two litrai of litharge,mixed with four litrai of good wine. As Paul says, this is an excellent “diaphoretic,” i.e., a558

P:570

M N E¯ S A R K H O S O F AT H E N S“discutient” (a common property in salves and plasters before 1920, when they were some-times termed “resolvents,” drugs that could dissipate pus in a wound). G  harshlycriticizes the plaster as overly-simplistic; his typically legalistic attack seemingly demolishedthe theoretical usefulness of such a homely and ordinary ﬁve-ingredient drug (CMGen 7.5[13.962–966 K.], cf. 1.4 [13.392 K.]: “Mnasaios”). Signiﬁcantly, Gale¯n’s criticism does notaddress the scammony. A   P., in Gale¯n CMGen 1.17 (13.445 K.), recordsanother plaster of “Mnasaios”: 100 drachmai of litharge and psimuthion, 50 of beeswax,25 each of terebinth and frankincense, 12 of alum, in two cups of olive oil.Ed.: Tecusan (2004) 85–86, 99, 104–105 (“Thematic Synopsis: Mnaseas”).RE 15.2 (1932) 2247 (s.v. Mnasaios), H. Raeder; 2252–2253 (#7), K. Deichgräber. John ScarboroughMnaseas of Mile¯tos (90 – 40 BCE)Wrote a treatise on agriculture known to V, RR 1.1.9. According to C,12.4.2, he discussed the preservation of foodstuﬀs, “following Mago” – presumably he readhis source in C D’ translation.RE 15.2 (1932) 2253 (#8), R. Laqueur and W. Kroll. Philip ThibodeauMnaseas of Patara (215 – 175 BCE)A student of E , wrote a compilation of myths and thaumasia, probablyentitled Periplous or Perie¯ge¯sis, organized geographically, three chapters being entitled“On Europe,” “On Asia,” and “On Libya.” In addition, Mnaseas authored Peri khr¯esm¯on.He tries to explain mythical stories rationally and genealogically. Judging from extant frag-ments, compared with parallel traditions, Mnaseas seems to have followed his sources quitefaithfully and added few inventions of his own.Ed.: P. Cappelletto, I frammenti di Mnasea: Introduzione testo e commento (2003).POxy 13 (1919) #1611; H.J. Mette, Lustrum 21 (1978) 39–40; OCD3 992, K.S. Sacks; BNP 9 (2006) 93 (#2), G. Damschen. Jan Bollansée, Karen Haegemans and Guido SchepensMne¯mo¯ n of Side¯ (245 – 220 BCE)Student of K who brought to Alexandria from Side¯ a copy of the HC , E 3, annotated with marks whose interpretation exercised generationsof Alexandrian commentators; G  doubts their authenticity: In Hipp. Epid. III (CMG5.10.2.1, pp. 77–80, 87, 157). They may be notes written in the epichoric Sidetan script.Ihm (2002) #179. PTKMne¯sarkhos of Athens (ca 110 – 90 BCE)Taught by D   B , A  T and P (C DeOr. 1.45–46), Mne¯sarkhos, son of One¯simos of Athens, was the Stoic scholarch at Athens(Cic. Acad. Pr. 2.69). He taught that the primary substance of the universe ( pr¯ot¯e ousia) waslocated in pneuma (I   S 2.29.24 = Diels 1879: 303), and that language 559

P:571

M N E¯ S I D E¯ M O Sand procreation were not rational faculties but sensory faculties shared by all animals(-G  H. P. 24 = Diels 1879: 615).GGP 4.2 (1994) 661–662, P. Steinmetz; ECP 349, T. Dorandi; DPA 4 (2005) 538–542, R. Goulet. PTK and GLIMMne¯side¯mos (200 – 120 BCE)D , MM 4.64.6, cites E, D  C, and A,(all ca 250–200 BCE), on the use of the opium-poppy, after whom Mne¯side¯mos restricted itto sleeping-draughts. The name is attested up through the mid-2nd c. BCE (LGPN ).RE 15.2 (1932) 2275 (#2), K. Deichgräber. PTKMne¯side¯s (300 BCE – 77 CE)Cited as a foreign authority on scents from trees (P 1.ind.12–13), an expert on medi-cines from botanics (20–27), and an expert on metals (33–35). Pliny cites only his opinionthat henbane seed is the best preservative of opium (20.203). Mne¯side¯s may be corruptedfrom Mne¯iside¯s (Athens, 3rd c. BCE), Mne¯siade¯s (cited eight times at Athens, 6th–3rdcc. BCE: LGPN 2.316, and four times at De¯los, late 3rd c. BCE: LGPN 1.317), or Mnasiade¯s:(3rd–2nd cc. BCE: 3A.303, 3B.288). Our author is possibly identiﬁable with M  ,who wrote on opium preparation.RE 15.2 (1932) 2275, K. Deichgräber. GLIMMne¯simakhos of Phase¯lis (400 – 200 BCE)Composed a work on Skuthia, which recorded myths about the north, and assigned theregion to Europe; the few fragments are preserved in the scholia to Apollo¯nios Rhodios.FGrHist 841; BNP 9 (2006) 101 (#2), M. Baumbach. PTKMne¯sitheos of Athens (370 – 330 BCE)Greek physician, mentioned, together with D , in an Athenian votive inscriptiondedicated to Askle¯pios (350 BCE: IG II2 1449: citing either our physicians or their families),and quoted in Alexis’ comedy Foster Brothers (370–280 BCE: fr.219 PCG = Ath., Deipn. 10[419b]). Mne¯sitheos is usually included among the dogmatic physicians with D (whom he postdates: G , 17B.608 K). Pausanias mentions his grave in Athens, not farfrom the Ke¯phisos, near the altar of Zeus Meilikhios (1.37.4). Mne¯sitheos followed, but also innovated, “Hippokratic” humoral etiology and developedthe diﬀerence between humors (khumoi ) and savors (khuloi: frr.12–15). He approved thetheory of the innate heat and pneuma and tried to systematize his medical theories usingthe diairetical Platonic method. Much interested in dietetics, he said that health is main-tained through similes and disease is cured by opposites ( fr.11). He treated specializedsubjects: his Letter to Lukiskos (an Athenian archon of 344/343 BCE), devoted to infants’ care,seems a polemical answer to P’s regimen of children (Laws, VII). His Letter on Tippling 560

P:572

MOLPISreveals the importance given to wine both as nutriment and as drug ( frr.41, 45–47). Moregeneral texts are On Edibles or On the Properties of Foods, whence Athe¯naios, Gale¯n and O- preserve many literal quotations. He addressed morpho-pathology in On the Construc-tion of the Body, examining the proportion of individual body parts and their predispositionto disease. He wrote also on therapy discussing the use of hellebore and of clysters. A workPathology is mentioned (-G  Def. Med. 19.457 K.).J. Bertier, Mnésithée et Dieuchès (1972); G. Wöhrle, Studien zur antiken Gesundheitslehren (1990) 160–169; AML 623–624, R. De Lucia; BNP 9 (2006) 102, V. Nutton. Daniela ManettiMne¯sitheos of Kuzikos (200? – 160 BCE)Composed a work on the virtues of cabbage, O Coll. 4.4 (CMG 6.1.1, p. 100), aversion of which appears in C, Agric. 156–157 and P 20.80–81. He eschewedhellebore as dangerous, Oreib., Coll. 8.9 ( p. 261), and described the testing of human milk,for color, smell, taste, and even viscosity, by storing it overnight in a glass, horn, or shell (i.e.,non-reactive) vessel, ibid. inc.32 (6.2.2, pp. 124–126). He, or his Athenian homonym, alsowrote on anatomy, cf. ibid. inc.7 ( p. 84) and 8.38 (6.1.1, pp. 288–290).R.M. Grant, Dieting for an Emperor (1997) 300–302. PTKM ⇒ I M CModeratus of Gade¯s (ca 25 – 75 CE)Neo-Pythagorean philosopher, wrote Lectures on Pythagoreanism in ten or 11 books. P-’s portrayal of Moderatus’ student Lucius as an interlocutor in Quaestiones Conviviales(8.7–8) establishes Moderatus’ approximate date as well, perhaps, as his observance of strictPythagorean asceticism. The Lectures, quoted in P’ Vita Pythagorae (48–53),were a source from which Porphurios and other authors of late antiquity apparently drewmuch information on Pythagorean teachings. I   S, Anthologium 1 ( p. 21W.-H.) reports Moderatus’ metaphysical deﬁnitions of number and monad.Dillon (1996) 344–351. Alexander JonesM. Modius Asiaticus (30 – 90 CE)An inscribed honoriﬁc bust from Smurna (CIG 3283 = Kaibel #306 = fr.12 Tecusan)records this Methodist; he may be the pharmacist whose name is transmitted as K T.G. Kaibel, Epigrammata Graeca (1878/1879; repr. 1965); Schefold (1997) #204. PTKMolpis (250 – 50 BCE?)Listed (with P, E  , N, and N ) by H   T, in G , Comm. in Hipp. Artic. 4.40 (18A.735–736 K.), as having reduced 561

P:573

M O N A¯ Sdislocations of the thigh. He, or P , invented the thaïs bandage: pseudo-Gale¯n, deFasciis 16 (18A.789 K.).Michler (1968) 47, 98; van der Eijk (2000–2001) fr.164. PTKMona¯ s (350 – 270 BCE)Mentioned by T, Sweat 12, as theorizing about sweat. (The rare name isattested from Epidauros, LGPN 3A.305, and Egyptian The¯bai, CIG 4951.)(*) PTKM  ⇒ SMo¯(u)se¯s (600 – 800 CE)Alchemist, perhaps pseudonymous and alleging to be the prophet Moses. A brief latealchemical recipe for doubling the weight of gold (The Doubling of M¯os¯es: CAAG 2.38–39)may in fact be the work of the alchemist P (Letrouit 1995: 87). A Domestic ChemicalTreatise is ascribed to the prophet Mo¯use¯s in an anonymous Byzantine discussion on dyingstones (CAAG 2.353). The text entitled Chemistry of Moses by Berthelot (CAAG 2.300–315) isan acephalic collection of alchemical recipes, following a brief introduction ( paraphrasingExodus 31.1–5) in which God tells Mo¯use¯s that he gave Beselee¯l mastery over metal, stoneand woodworking (CAAG 2.300). However, the rest of the text refers neither to Mo¯use¯s northis story.(*) Bink HallumMoses of Xoren (Arm., Movse¯s Xorenac‘i) (traditionally400 – 500 CE: disputed)Known as the “father of Armenian history” (Arm. patmahayr), there is next to nothingknown of his life. Explicit references to him or to his work are not found before the mid-9thc. His History of Armenia traces the beginnings of the Armenian people from a descendant ofNoah to the middle of the 5th c. He provides the most detailed account of pre-ChristianArmenia and makes use of much – some otherwise unattested – archival material, as well asextensive use of Greek historical and scientiﬁc works. In addition to his History, Moses, whoclaims to have worked as a translator (III.65), was long considered to have been the authorof a Geography of Armenia, which is clearly dependent on Greek sources, such as P andP. This attribution, however, is found only in late MSS ( post 17th c.); the work isnow generally ascribed to A  S.J. Marquart, E¯ransˇahr nach der Geographie des Ps. Movs¯es Chorenac‘i (1901); see also sources cited on Anania of Shirak. Edward G. Mathews, Jr. 562

P:574

M O S K H I O¯ N ( P H A R M . )Moskhio¯ n or Moskhos (220 – 180 BCE)Moskhio¯n’s treatise M¯ekhanika described every aspect of the construction of H  II’smassive ship Surakousia overseen by Arkhias, A  , and Phileas of Tauromenion:sources and preparation of materials, workmen and workmanship, adornments, includingartwork and a private library, launching the ship, battlements, siege engines, defensive lea-ther “shields,” masts, and a screw for pumping out bilge water (Ath., Deipn. 5 [206d-209e]).Moskhio¯n also described the invention of the sambuke¯ by H    T (idem,14 [634b]).RE 16.1 (1933) 356 (#7), K. Orinsky. GLIMMoskhio¯ n (Pharm.) (90 BCE – 80 CE)Within a seriatim listing of pharmaceutical recipes culled from A   P.,G  inserts a formula from the books of the “very familiar” or “celebrated” (gn¯orimos)Moskhio¯n, an always-reliable compound that removed calluses and heavy scar-tissue (CMGen2.14 [13.528–529 K.]), made from notably caustic simples, including litharge, psimuth-ion, and quicklime (asbestos), fashioned into a plaster using deer marrow, beeswax, andmyrtle oil (cf. K , ibid. 5.3 [13.787–794]); such ingredients were typical in the pharma-ceutical cosmetics of the day, and one notes similar substances especially in the treatmentof al¯opekia (cf. Moskhio¯n [emended from Moskhos] in Gale¯n, CMLoc 1.2. [12.401 K.]: seaurchins + ashed shells, and ibid., [12.416 K.] cat or crocodile dung, bear fat, ashed frog,sharp vinegar, white hellebore, among several). Gale¯n there indicates that Moskhio¯n wasone of a group of pharmacologists whose collection of recipes he has consulted, includingalso Askle¯piade¯s “the Pharmacist” and H    T. Gale¯n’s excerpts fromthis handbook show Moskhio¯n and others specializing in wound treatments, the manu-facture of collyria, and arte¯riakai. Moskhio¯n understood the narcotic properties of opiumlatex and mandrake, illustrated by a collyrium-formula, also noted as invented by Moskhio¯ngn¯orimos (Gale¯n, CMLoc 4.8 [12.745 K.]). Moskhio¯n’s styptic wound-clotter (Askle¯piade¯sPharm. in CMGen 2.17 [13.537–539 K.; cf. 13.528 and 646–647]), good for fractures,hemorrhoids, and other bleeding skin-lesions, is a complex, 14–ingredient, multi-stagedpreparation, altered somewhat as “fashioned by our mentor L (ho h¯emeteros kath¯eg¯et¯esLeukios),” and includes litharge, decocted pine-pitch, frankincense, beeswax, and ﬁg-juice,to be applied with wine and sharp vinegar. Moskhio¯n followed A    Bon pulsation as arising from the heart, veins, arteries, and the brain, to emerge as a singlepulsation via the meninges (Gale¯n, Puls. Diﬀ. 16 [8.758–759 K.]), and is thereby groupedwith those called Askle¯piadeans, even though Gale¯n is unusually mild with his criticismin these passages. A  (known to A) followed Moskhio¯n’s work,providing the terminus ante of 80 CE; if we emend the MOSCHI of C 5.18B.10 toMOSCHIONIS, his terminus ante could even be 40 CE. In either case, he is probably the mancited by P 19.87, for a book on the radish.RE 16.1 (1933) 349–350 (#9), K. Deichgräber; BNP 9 (2006) 227 (#4), V. Nutton. John Scarborough 563

P:575

MOUSAIOS “THE BOXER”Mousaios “the boxer” (350 BCE – 75 CE)Prescribed the rubbing of decapitated muloikon beetles on the skin, for lepra, according toP 29.141 (cf. M ). For a boxer as medical writer, cf. F or T  A (M. I). The Musaeus cited by Pliny 1.ind.21–27, with H, H , andSophokle¯s the tragedian, presumably intends the early Greek prophet.(*) PTKMucianus (560 – 590 CE)Translated into Latin G’ treatise on musical theory (C Inst. 2.5.2),as well as 34 homilies of I   K on the Christian Letter to the Hebrews(1.8.3).RE 16.1 (1933) 411 (#3), W. Enßlin. PTK and GLIMMuia, pseudo (250 BCE – 150 CE)Neo-Pythagorean; daughter of P and wife of Milo¯n of Kroto¯n according toP, V.Pyth. 4 and I, V.Pyth. 267. An apocryphal letter to Phyllis hasbeen transmitted under her name. The letter indicates how to hire a wet-nurse and particu-larly emphasizes measure and balance in the child’s upbringing.Ed.: Thesleﬀ (1965) 123.5–124.8.H.J. Snyder, Woman and the Lyre (1989) 110–111 (trans.); A. Städele, Die Briefe des Pythagoras und der Pythagoreer (1980) 267–281 (comm.); DPA 4 (2005) 573–574, Bruno Centrone. Bruno CentroneMulomedicina Chironis (ca 300 CE?)Two closely related Latin MSS, both from the second half of the 15th c., transmit the singlemost comprehensive work on equine medicine that has survived from antiquity. Probablythe main source of V’ Digesta artis mulomedicinalis, its redaction goes back to the4th if not the 3rd c. CE. A number of passages preserved in Greek within the Greekcollection of veterinary writers (Hippiatrika) provides close parallels, making it almost certainthat the Mulomedicina is mainly based on Greek writings now partly lost, but preservedhere in Latin translation. Among its ten books, the structure of Books 3 and 4 (§§114–421)closely resembles the structure of the Hippiatrika in presenting extracts from a number ofwriters excerpted in sequence. Similarly, a collection of recipes (starting in §796 and extend-ing to the very end = §999) concludes the treatise. Book 1 is devoted to phlebotomy andcauterization, Book 8 (§§741–774) to reproduction, while the books in between roughlyfollow the order a capite ad calcem (from head to hoof). This order seems to have beendisturbed at an early time during the transmission, because even Vegetius complains aboutit in his preface. It is unclear how often the text was redacted or augmented; the presenta-tion echoes that of therapeutic manuals on human medicine from Imperial times, and it isevident how much the authors (apart from A, parts of whose work survive withinthe Hippiatrika, other names – e.g. S  , P, and – a clear pseudonym – Chironthe Centaur, cannot be linked to known fragments) wished to achieve a standard of 564

P:576

M U R S I L O S O F M E¯ T H U M N Adiagnosis and therapy on a par with human medicine. Accordingly, medical historians mustpay more attention to this source than has hitherto been the case. Book 1 and some otherpassages obviously derive from the doctrine of the Methodist school of medicine and havenot been exploited adequately. Nevertheless, after the ﬁrst (and to date only complete)edition in 1901, the language of the Mulomedicina has been studied intensively by Latinistsfor whom it constituted a very important source of vulgar Latin (inspired by remarks inVegetius’ preface). While this view deserves to be challenged or bolstered with fresh argu-ments, the Mulomedicina remains one of the most important (and often puzzling) sources oftechnical Latin and veterinary expertise in late antiquity.Ed.: E. Oder, Claudii Hermeri Mulomedicina Chironis (1901); other editions and translations in BTML 409–422.K. Hoppe, Die Chironfrage (1933); RE 16.1 (1933) 503–513, K. Hoppe; Klaus-Dietrich Fischer, HLL §513; W. Sackmann, “Eine bisher unbekannte Handschrift der Mulomedicina Chironis aus der Basler Universitätsbibliothek,” ZWG 77 (1993) 117–119; Önnerfors (1993) 370–380; Adams (1995). Klaus-Dietrich FischerMuo¯ nide¯s (ca 150 – 50 BCE)Neo-Pythagorean musician who some time after E , together withE , discovered four new means (mesòt¯es), added to the six already known(I  in Nikom. 2.28.6–11 [p. 116]). The name is apparently attested only onRhodes, in the 1st c. BCE: LGPN 1.323.M. Timpanaro Cardini, I Pitagorici. Testimonianze e frammenti (1962) 2.436–439; DPA 4 (2005) 575, Bruno Centrone Bruno CentroneMuro¯ n (250 BCE – 25 CE)C records two dermatological recipes from Muro¯n, against leikhe¯n (5.28.18B), con-taining raw sulfur, red natron, terebinth, pine pitch, frankincense, etc., and against alphos(5.28.19D), containing sulfur, natron, alum, and myrtle.RE 16.1 (1933) 1115 (blind cross-reference). PTKMursilos of Me¯thumna (300 – 250 BCE)Wrote a local history of his native island Lesbos (Lesbiaka) and a paradoxographical treatise(Historika Paradoxa). The former was cited by A  K (as indicatedin the ﬁrst part of Antigonou Histori¯on paradoxo¯n sunag¯og¯e, at 5; 15.3; 117–118), whichestablishes an early 3rd c. date for Mursilos. Later writers to use his works include Dionusiosof Halikarnassos (A.R. 1.23.1–5; 1.28.4), S  (1.3.19; 13.1.58), P (3.85; 4.65),P (Arat. 3.5; De soll. anim. 36 [984E]), Athe¯naios (Deipn. 13 [609f-610a]), andClement of Alexandria (Protr. 2.31). Hardly any of the scanty surviving fragments can beassigned with certainty to either of the two known treatises, as they seem to have featuredthe same mix of historical, etymological, and paradoxographical data. Mursilos was per-haps the earliest author to collect mirabilia of contemporary life alongside natural (botanicaland ornithological) wonders. 565

P:577

MUSCIO/MUSTIOEd.: FGrHist 477; PGR 29–30.RE 18.3 (1949) 1137–1166 (§7, 1143), K. Ziegler; Giannini (1964) 116–117; S. Jackson, Myrsilus of Methymna: Hellenistic Paradoxographer (1995); BNP 9 (2006) 422 (#2), K. Meister. Jan Bollansée, Karen Haegemans, and Guido SchepensM ⇒ AMuscio/Mustio (440 – 460 CE)Otherwise unknown physician, resident in Roman north Africa; extant is an extendedLatin catechism (viz. “question-and-answer” format) on women’s diseases and midwiferytitled Gynaecia or De muliebribus passionibus, generally based on the Gynecology of S  E. The MSS couple this work with a Latin Genesia, attributed to a “Kleopatra,”probably of the 4th or 5th c. The author had access to texts varying from those cited byC A and other, near-contemporary, medical writers in north Africa, illus-trated by the mention of S  as physician to K VII (26.78: Apollonius etSostratus et Filoxenus adseuerant. . . [ed. Rose, p. 106]). Perhaps circulating was the lost “medicaljournal” of So¯stratos, a physician attending Kleopatra in 30 BCE, and witness to the famoussuicide. Later copyists fused some of Mustio with Gynaeciae produced by Caelius Aurelianusand Kleopatra, as well as several other writers on surgery and gynecology, in a 13th c. MSluckily recovered in 1948 through a Zurich antiquities sale catalogue.Ed.: V. Rose, Sorani Gynaeciorum vetus translatio Latina nunc primum edita cum additis Graeci textus reliquiis a Dietzio repertis atque ad ipsum Codicem Parisiensem (1882) 3–167; M.F. Drabkin and I.E. Drabkin, Caelius Aurelianus Gynaecia. Fragments of a Latin Version of Soranus’ Gynaecia from a Thirteenth Century Manuscript = BHM S.13 (1951).J. Ilberg, Die Überlieferung der Gynäkologie des Soranos von Ephesos (1910); J. Medert, Quaestiones criticae et grammaticae ad Gynaecia Mustionis pertinentes (1911); Önnerfors (1993) 331–336. John Scarborough 566

P:578

NNaburianos (Naburimannu) of Babylo¯ n (ca 50 BCE)Known to Greeks as a Babylonian math¯ematikos (astronomer), together with K  andS  (cf. S  16.1.6). Naburianos is assumed to be the Greek version of theBabylonian name Nabu¯ -rimannu or Nabu¯ -rimanni appearing in the colophon of a Baby-lonian astronomical cuneiform tablet (ACT #18, lower edge of reverse 1). The tablet isbroken, however, so the reading is uncertain. The colophon designates the tablet as a ters¯etuor “computed table” of Nabu¯ -rimannu, giving dates and positions in the ecliptic of newand full moons for the year 49–48 BCE and is among the youngest extant cuneiform lunarephemerides of System A. Consequently, the report of Naburianos being an inventor ofBabylonian astronomy is unfounded.ACT p. 23. Francesca RochbergNaukrate¯s (200 – 180 BCE)Geometer who encouraged A   P to study conic sections when he visitedAlexandria (K¯onika 1.pr.), and received an uncorrected, unrevised copy of the K¯onika beforesetting sail.RE 16.2 (1935) 1954 (#4), K. Orinksy. GLIMNaukratite¯s medicus (250 BCE – 25 CE)S L in A   P., in G  CMLoc 4.7 (12.764 K.), recordsa collyrium containing calamine, copper ﬂakes, iron ﬂakes, roasted lead, rose juice, acacia,gum, myrrh, nard, saﬀron, and opium, credited to a “Naukratite¯s medicus.” No medicalwriter is known from Naukratis (and only one scientist, S), although two anethnicEgyptian pharmacists, H  and N , compounded collyria, Hermo¯n’s alsoincluding myrrh, nard, saﬀron, and opium ( plus M , known for a wound-ointment).The text may conceal ΝΕΑΠΟΛΙΤΑΝ- (i.e., G  N) or an otherwise unknownphysician “Naukrate¯s.” S , Gyn. 3.32.7 (CMG 4, p. 115; CUF v. 3, p. 35), and Gale¯n,Sanit. 4.5.12, 4.7.18, 6.7.18, 6.10.23–35 (CMG 5.4.2, pp. 117, 125, 182, 188–189), recorda “Diospolitikos” ointment, as if from Diospolis; perhaps likewise the collyrium of the“Naukratite” physician is simply from Naukratis.Fabricius (1726) 344. PTK 567

P:579

N A U S I P H A N E¯ S O F T E O¯ SNausiphane¯s of Teo¯ s (340 – 320 BCE)De¯mokritean philosopher and teacher of the atomist E, he was inﬂuenced by theSkepticism of Pyrrho and wrote an epistemological work called the Tripod. Epicurus’ majorwork on epistemology, the Canon, was partially a response to it. Nausiphane¯s’ interestsincluded physics, mathematics, ethics, music, and rhetoric.DK 75; Long and Sedley (1987) §1B; OCD3 1029, D.N. Sedley; ECP 352, D. Konstan; DPA 4 (2005) 585–586, R. Goulet; BNP 9 (2006) 552–553, I. Bodnár. Walter G. EnglertNautele¯s (ca 400 – 250 BCE?)C 18.5 lists H, the otherwise unknown Nautele¯s, M (I),and D  as writers of works on the oktaete¯ris.(*) PTKNeanthe¯s of Kuzikos (330 – 30 BCE?)Greek historian who wrote a collection of biographies, On famous Men, that mainly dealtwith the lives of philosophers up to the generation of P.FGrHist 84; RE 16.2 (1935) 2108–2110, R. Laqueur; DPA 4 (2005) 587–594, P.P. Fuentes González. Jørgen MejerNearkhos (60 BCE – 80 CE)A, in G  CMLoc 8.7 (13.204 K.), gives his liver-pill recipe, containingagrimony (after M : cf. D  4.41), arugula seed, elecampane, eryngo,gentian (cf. G), hart’s tongue (T, HP 9.18.7), polion (Diosk. 3.110),juniper, kostos, madder, pepper, and nine other ingredients.Fabricius (1726) 344. PTKNearkhos of Crete (315 – 295 BCE)Originally from Crete, lived in Amphipolis, one of the boyhood companions of Alexanderof Macedon. He accompanied Alexander on his expedition and was made satrap of Lukiaand Pamphulia in 334/3. In 329/8 he rejoined Alexander in Baktria and was made aKhiliarkh of the Hypaspists. When the ﬂeet was built on the Hydaspes river, Alexanderappointed Nearkhos admiral of the ﬂeet, sharing responsibility with O , thechief pilot of Alexander’s ship. Alexander charged Nearkhos with guiding the ﬂeet back tothe Persian Gulf and exploring the coast along the way. The half-year journey ended suc-cessfully with Nearkhos arriving at the mouth of the Euphrates; Nearkhos then sailed theﬂeet up the Pasitigris (Karun) river to Susa and was awarded a gold crown by Alexander.Shortly before Alexander’s death, he and Nearkhos were planning an expedition to Arabia.Afterwards, Nearkhos served under Antigonos Monophthalmos. Nearkhos’ lost account ofIndia and the coasting expedition was used extensively by A in the latter part of 568

P:580

NEILEUSthe Anabasis Alexandrou and in the Indika. Nearkhos’ account was skeptical of superstitionsand full of observed detail. He described in detail the topography and climate of the landsthrough which he passed, including distances, harborages, islands, and water sources. Hewitnessed ocean tides, and speculated on the alluviation of major rivers and the cause of theﬂood of the Indus river. His observations of the ﬂora and fauna of India and the sea voyagecontained some misinformation and exaggeration. His astronomical comments probablyderived from speculation or hearsay, rather than observation: he noted the absence ofshadows at midday when he sailed out to sea and described sailing to a region whereshadows pointed south, but it is unlikely that he made it south of the Tropic of Cancer. Healso evidently reported that both Dippers could be seen to set in India, which could only beobserved near the equator.Ed.: FGrHist 133.Robinson (1953) 1.100–149; Pearson (1960) 112–149; E. Badian, “Nearchus the Cretan,” YClS 24 (1975) 147–170; A.S. Sofman and D.I. Tsibukidis, “Nearchus and Alexander,” AncW 16 (1987) 71–77. Philip KaplanN ⇒ PNeilammo¯ n (250 BCE – 540 CE)P  A 3.21 (CMG 9.2, p. 179) claims that the best of all anodynes is Neilam-mo¯n’s, contraindicated for chronic use because too narcotic. A  A 7.106(CMG 8.2, p. 370), repeated by Paulos 7.16.16 (CMG 9.2, p. 338), records his collyrium ofcalamine, pompholux, psimuthion, tragacanth, gum acacia, and opium, in rainwater.The Egyptian name is not so rare as to require identiﬁcation with the medical deacon,PLRE 2 (1980) 784; cf. perhaps N  .(*) PTKNeileus (255 – 215 BCE)Neileus (or Neilos), son of Neileus, was a surgeon and pharmacist, who developed recipesfor muscle relaxation (C 5.18.9), inﬂammation of the eyes (Celsus 6.6.8–9) – bothoften repeated later, an antidote recorded by A (G , Antid. 2.10 [14.165K.]), and a spleen remedy in A   P. (Gale¯n, CMLoc 9.2 [13.239 K.]),both connected to A. S  in C A repeatedly prescribeshis remedies: Acute 2.153 (CML 6.1, p. 236); Chron. 2.34 ( p. 564), 5.13 ( p. 862). A renownedauthority on dislocated joints, especially the thigh (Celsus 8.20.4), Neileus developed aspanner for setting bone fractures, an improvement on the Hippokratic bench (cf. Joints72–73). The device was an oblong quadrangle, with holes bored through the centers of thelonger boards to accommodate an axle with a peg and handles on the projecting ends tomaintain tension (H   in O, Coll. 49.8, 49.23 [CMG 6.2.2, pp. 13–15,32–33]). The apparatus was lashed to a bench or a ladder to keep the fractured boneimmobile. See H  (M.).Drachmann (1963) 174; Michler (1968) 45, 97; BNP 9 (2006) 619 (#2), V. Nutton. GLIM 569

P:581

NEILOSNeilos (ca 250 – 300 CE)Alchemist and member of T’s alchemical milieu. Z   P ,addressing Theosebeia, calls Neilos “your priest” (CAAG 2.191) and urges her to disassoci-ate from him. Elsewhere Zo¯simos refers to “the pseudo-prophet of yours” (Festugière1950: 367), almost certainly an allusion to Neilos, in connection with an astrological/alchemical doctrine employing astral daimones in alchemical procedures which Zo¯simosconsiders dangerous. Zo¯simos’ diatribe against reliance on the use of astrologically oppor-tune moments in alchemy (Mertens 1995, §1) should also be read as tacitly directed againstNeilos. Although none of Neilos’ writings survives, Chapters of Neilos, now lost, areannounced in the index of the alchemical miscellany, codex Marcianus gr. 299 (CMAG 2.21).D. Stolzenberg, “Unpropitious Tinctures. Alchemy, Astrology & Gnosis According to Zosimos of Panopolis,” AIHS 49 (1999) 3–31; K.A. Frazer, “Zosimos of Panopolis and the Book of Enoch: Alchemy as Forbidden Knowledge,” Aries 4.2 (2004) 125–147. Bink HallumN ⇒ PNemesianus, M. Aurelius Olympius, of Carthage ( ﬂ. 284 CE)Wrote three didactic poems in Latin on hunting and ﬁshing: Halieutica, Cynegetica, Nautica( perhaps rather: Ixeutica?), and ﬁve pastoral eclogues. Only 325 lines of the Cynegetica remain,discussing rearing dogs (103–238), training horses (238–298) and nets and traps (299–320).Nemesianus also alludes, mimetically and conventionally, to diﬀerent hound breeds andtheir main diseases (scabies and rabies). The truncated hexameter poem, inspired byV and probably by G and O, ends before the description of thehunt. Two fragments on bird-catching (de aucupio vel Ixeutica) in 28 hexameters (the woodcockand the little bustard) are spurious.KP 4.47–48, R. Herzog; OCD3 1033–1034, J.H.D. Scourﬁeld. Arnaud ZuckerNemesios of Emesa (ca 360 – 430 CE)Bishop of Emesa in Syria, brilliant author of the philosophical and scientiﬁc On the Natureof Man (Peri phuseo¯s anthr¯opou), whose title is borrowed from the H C,wherein Nemesios contributes to establishing Christian anthropology (following Origen,and G  N’s On the Creation of man). Based on pagan scientiﬁc tradition ratherthan Christian literature, this text, probably unﬁnished, tries to reconcile Christianity andneo-Platonism. Asserting the eternity of the world, the pre-existence of the soul, and asubtle union (without blending) between soul and body, in the manner of P,Nemesios assumes the body’s natural limitations condition man’s spiritual life. Although henever mentions a personal practice, Nemesios’ exceptional medical education and currentphysiological knowledge permitted him to discuss and even refute G  (on the anatomyof the tongue: §30; on female semen: §42). He was apparently aware of the circulatorysystem and the functions of bile (§§24, 28). He is, in fact, especially renowned for a “ventriculartheory” of the mind (§§6–13). Gale¯n asserted that reasoning is localized in ventricles (Loc. Aﬀ.4.3 [8.232 K.]) and Gregory claimed that “the cerebral membrane . . . forms a foundation 570

P:582

N E P H O¯ Nfor the senses” (Opif. 12.3). Nemesios states that all mental faculties lie speciﬁcally located inthe three brain ventricles (koiliai tou enkephalou): the intellect (aestimativa or cogitativa) in themiddle ventricle, imagination (phantasia) in the front (= union of the two lateral ventricles,sometimes plural, e.g., §27), and memory in the posterior (or cerebellum, §§30–32; A,de Genesi ad litteram 7.18, where a similar ventricular doctrine appears, also based on observ-ing brain-lesions in humans). This “Nemesian” theory, perhaps originated by H ,and ﬁrst detailed by P  (M. II) (in A  A 6.2 [CMG 8.2,pp. 125–128]), was widely accepted, translated and reformulated ( Johannes Damascenus,Meletius, Al-Razi, Avicenna. . .) until the 16th c. (Vesalius).RE S.7 (1940) 562–566, E. Skard; DSB 10.20–21, C.D. O’Malley; REP 6.763–764, J. Bussanich; DPA 4 (2005) 625–654, M. Chase; BNP 9 (2006) 630–631, L. Brisson. Arnaud ZuckerNeokleide¯s (of Athens?) (390 – 350 BCE)Younger mathematical contemporary of L , A, and T ; andthe teacher of L  (Proklos, In Eucl. p. 66 Fr.). The name is rare except in Athens (6th–4thcc. BCE: LGPN 2.328), and possibly indicates an Athenian origin.RE S.7 (1940) 566–567 (#4), K. von Fritz. GLIMNeokle¯s of Kroto¯n (300 – 50 BCE)Aelianus, NA 17.15,records that the doctor Neokle¯s claimed toads had two livers, onepoisonous, one healthful (Wellmann assigned the fragment to D   K).Athe¯naios, Deipn. 2 (57f ), records that Neokle¯s of Kroto¯n claimed the Moon was inhabited(and that Helen’s egg came thence); Bicknell thus assigns the remark in Schol. Ap. Rhod. 1.498about the Nemean lion being from the Moon to Neokle¯s; cf. also E  DK B2.RE 16.2 (1935) 2422 (#7), K. Deichgräber; P.J. Bicknell, “Lunar Eclipses and Selenites,” Apeiron 1.2 (1967) 16–21. PTKNeoptolemos (325 – 25 BCE)Greek author of a treatise on beekeeping (Melittourgika) of which P knew (1.ind.11), asin all likelihood did I H (cf. A  S).RE 16.2 (1935) 2470 (#12), W. Kroll. Philip ThibodeauNepho¯n (unknown date)Source of a remedy for arthritic glanders cited by T , preserved in theHippiatrika (Hippiatrica Parisina 34–35 = Hippiatrica Berolinensia 2.23–34). The passage ispreserved in the Arabic translation of Theomne¯stos.Hoyland (2004) 162; McCabe (2007) 201. Anne McCabe 571

P:583

NEPUALIOS OR NEPTUNIANUSN ⇒ C NNepualios or Neptunianus (100 – 200 CE?)Authored a treatise On Antipathy and Sympathy or Phusika (I A, Kest. 2.4),preserved in a Byzantine epitome (86 sentences). Pretending to reject vulgar marvels andfollowing the pseudo-De¯mokritean tradition (see B ), the book describes treatmentsused by animals (1–26), prophylactics against enemies, and wide-spread sympathies (lionfears cock, magnet attracts iron, salamander does not burn, etc.). Flagrant parallels can befound with T  G and -Z (in G  15.1).Ed.: W. Gemoll, Nepualii fragmentum Peri t¯on kata antipatheian kai sumpatheian & Democriti Peri sumpathei¯on kai antipathei¯on, Städtisches Realprogymnasium zu Striegau (1884) 1–3.RE 16.2 (1935) 2535–2537, W. Kroll; BNP 9 (2006) 663, C. Hünemörder. Arnaud ZuckerNesto¯ r of Laranda, Septimius (195 – 210 CE)Father of Peisandros the epic poet, and dwelt for a time in Nikaia of Bithunia; was honoredin his lifetime by statues in Paphos, Ephesos, Kuzikos, Ostia, and Rome (Souda N-261).Wrote didactic and epic verse in the tradition of N  K , especiallya Metamorphoses of which a few fragments survive in the Greek Anthology: 9.129 the dragonPython drinking up the River Ke¯phisos, 9.536 the Alphaios ﬂowing sweetly through the saltsea, and 9.364, 537. His Alexik¯epos (“antidote garden”) is cited by C B in theG , 12.16.1 and 12.17.16–17 (on the antipathy of cabbage and grape-vine), as isNesto¯r’s Panakeia (“Heal-all”): 15.1.11, the hyaena’s attack, and 15.1.32, the paradoxicalproperties of lignite (gagat¯es), as in P 36.141.BNP 9 (2006) 683 (#3), J. Latacz. PTKN  ⇒ X() N ⇒ (1) S; (2) T; (3) TP. Nigidius Figulus (70 – 45 BCE)Inﬂuential Roman politician and scholar, born ca 100 BCE. Senator and supporter of Pompeyin the civil war, he died in exile 45 BCE. His friend C (Timaeus 1) describes him as ahard-working researcher and the renewer of the ancient disciplina pythagorica (though theextent of this revival remains uncertain). Nigidius Figulus was a very learned and versatilescholar with a wide range of interests, compared by some, e.g., Aulus Gellius 19.14.3, toV. The extant fragments and the titles of his works suggest that he devoted himself tothe study of natural sciences (De uentis, De hominum natura), zoology (De animalibus), astronomy(De sphaera), grammar, occultism and divination. In his Commentarii grammatici, he treatedquestions of phonetics and morphology and displayed a deep interest in speech. He main-tained the natural origin of language, according thereby a pivotal role to etymology. Hiswork On Gods (De diis) was the ﬁrst comprehensive study on Roman divinities. He built up asociety (sodalicium), of uncertain nature, perhaps a philosophical school or secret society. 572

P:584

N I K A N D RO S ( N I C A N D E R ) O F KO L O P H O¯ NSome anecdotes speak of his interest in divination: at the birth of Octauius (who becameA), Nigidius is said to have predicted that the newborn would become the ruler ofthe universe; he also practiced dish-divining (lekanomanteia) and was deeply interested inastrology (de extis, de augurio priuato). To him was attributed a brontoscopic calendar. Althoughconnections to Pythagoreanism remain possible, Nigidius’ extant doctrines do not displaytypical Pythagorean features.Ed.: A. Swoboda, P. Nigidii Figuli operum reliquiae (1889; repr. 1964); D. Liuzzi, Nigidio Figulo, “astrologo e mago”: testimonianze e frammenti (1983).RE 17.1 (1936) 200–212, W. Kroll; A. Della Casa, Nigidio Figulo (1962). Bruno CentroneNikagoras of Cyprus (375 – 335 BCE)Wrote a geographical or paradoxographical work cited by K for mineral saltfrom Kition and by the A C O  F   N for thetheory that the rise of the Nile is caused by trans-equatorial rainfall.BNP 9 (2006) 705 (#3), Fr. Lasserre. PTKNikandros (Nicander) of Kolopho¯ n (150 – 110 BCE) Physician and poet who wrote Th¯eriaka (958 lines), Alexipharmaka (630) and other ep¯e (Souda); son of Damaios (fr.110), hereditary priest of Clarian Apollo (cf. Alex. 11 ~ Th¯er. 958), he was Aitolian by origin, and spent much time in Aitolia (Nikandrou Genos); according to the Vitae of Theokritos, A, and Lykophro¯n (= test. C.I–V Gow-Scholﬁeld), a con- temporary of Aratos (C.I–III), or of Ptolemy V (204– 181) (C.IV–V); according to Souda and Genos, of A III (138–133). A proxenia decree honoring “Nikandros, son of Anaxagoras, Kolopho¯nios, epe¯on po¯et¯es” (SIG3 452: Delphi, ca 210 BCE) compels us to distinguish Nikandros (I), the epic poet honored in Delphi, from Nikandros (II), his grandson or great-Nikandros (Vind. Med. Gr. l, f.3V) © nephew, author of the iological poems and a eulogy to Attalos III (fr.104) – not Attalos I (241–197), paceÖsterreichische Nationalbibliothek Cazzaniga (PP 27 [1972] 369–396) and Cameron. The reverse combination (Nikandros [I], the iologist:Cameron, after Bethe, Hermes 53 [1918] 110–112) as opposed to the Genos attestation, themost reliable authority (Theo¯n?) on Nikandros’ biography (also to be rejected is C.V’s dat-ing: cf. Fantuzzi, BNP 9 [2006] 706: 200 BCE), can no longer be supported by the Delphiandecree (formerly dated ca 250 BCE) but only by the early dating of Vitae which is as ques-tionable as the exchange of poems between Aratos (writer of Th¯eriaka) and Nikandros (ofPhainomena), a legend condemned by his own sources (C.IV–V). Nikandros (I) may be theauthor of works ascribed to Nikandros (II), the only one recognized in literary tradition. 573

P:585

N I K A N D RO S ( N I C A N D E R ) O F KO L O P H O¯ NThis could even be true for Ophiaka, Iase¯on sunag¯og¯e, and the epic transposition of H- C P. We are only concerned here with Th¯eriaka and Alexipharmaka, the oldest monuments of ascience that ﬂourished during the Hellenistic period. The study of scientiﬁc and literaryparallels (Jacques [2002] 2.–, –; cf. [2007] 3.–) shows that theymay be the work of a poet-physician belonging to Attalos III’s entourage. These poems,between a proem to a relative/friend ( possibly a physician) and a sphragis (cf. the acrostic, Th¯er.345–353/Alex. 266–274), deal with venoms/poisons and their antidotes, beginning with themost dangerous (cobra/aconite). However similar they are in presentation, language andstyle, there are diﬀerences. In Alexipharmaka, 22 vegetable, animal and mineral poisons arethe subject of tripartite articles (description, symptomatology and therapy) following eachother without any general preamble or any other rule but a sense of variety. Th¯eriaka dividespoisonous creatures into two groups (1/snakes 2/arachnids and miscellaneous [descriptionand symptomatology only]), each followed by a collective therapy including hapla and sun-theta pharmaka. The whole is both preceded and followed by general precepts, ﬁrst onprophylaxis and, at the end, on other methods of treatment (among which leeches arequoted for the ﬁrst time for medical use), and then crowned by an antidotos polumigmatos, apanacea anticipating the great antidotes to come (Mithridateion, Gal¯en¯e). Some of the des-criptions or symptomatologies are remarkable, i.e. proteroglyph fangs (Th¯er. 182–185),side-winding progression (Th¯er. 264–270, cf. Jacques 2004: 120–121), viper and hemlockpoisoning (Th¯er. 235–257, Alex. 195–206). Nikandros’ medical competence was not questioned in antiquity. His name appears ina list of physicians in an MS of C (Wellmann, Hermes 35 [1900] 370). He is amongthe medical auctores mentioned in P’s index of 17 books (e.g. those on medicinalplants, 1.ind.20–27); there are more parallels between Nikandros and Pliny/D than the latter’s explicit references. In Dioskouride¯s’ Vindob. med. gr. 1 and some otherMSS, E’ paraphraseis of Nikandros replace pseudo-Dioskouride¯s’ iological books(his portrait, f.3V). Far from being A ’ versiﬁer, Nikandros treats him freely,as a professional pharmacologist, as he does his other predecessors (see N ); andthe iologists that followed Nikandros (see P) sometimes used him tacitly( Jacques [2002] 2.–). The concept of Nikandros, versiﬁer of a subject alien tohim (Schneider), does not take medical poetry (of which he is a representative) into account.All known iologists were physicians including those who expressed themselves in versesuch as Noume¯nios and P. Polypharmacy manifests Nikandros’ Empiricisttendency.Ed.: O. Schneider (1856); Gow and Scholﬁeld (1953); Jean-Marie Jacques v. 2 (2002): Les Thériaques, Fragments iologiques antérieurs; 3 (2007): Les Alexipharmaques, Lieux parallèles du livre XIII des Iatrika d’Aétius. Scholia: Theriaka: Crugnola (1971); Alexipharmaka: Geymonat (1974).G. Pasquali, “I due Nicandri,” SIFC 20 (1913) 55–111; A. Cameron, Callimachus and his Critics (1995) 194–207; G. Massimilla, “Nuovi elementi per la cronologia di Nicandro,” in: R. Pretagostini, ed., La Letteratura ellenistica (2000) 127–137; Jean-Marie Jacques, “Médecine et poésie: Nicandre de Colophon et ses poèmes iologiques,” in J. Jouanna and J. Leclant, edd., La médecine grecque antique = Cahiers Kérylos 15 (2004) 109–124; Jean-Marie Jacques, “Situation de Nicandre de Colophon,” REA 109 (2007) 99–121. Jean-Marie Jacques 574

P:586

N I K E¯ R AT O S ( O F AT H E N S ? )Nikano¯r of Samos (118 – 131 CE?)Wrote On rivers, in at least two books, quoted by -P, D F 17.2(1160C) as a source of information about the stone thrasudeilos (“audacious-cowardly”)found along the Eurotas river. Among the Nikano¯rs mentioned by Müller (FHG 3.632–634)and Jacoby, our Nikano¯r is perhaps identiﬁable with the one ( perhaps from Kure¯ne¯) wholived under Hadrian, and to whom the Metonomasiai are attributed; consequently, possiblythe Nikano¯r quoted by S  B, who says that he loved to HellenizeBarbarian names (according to Jacoby, however, he should be an unidentiﬁable authorbefore V).RE 17.1 (1936) 277 (#28), C. Wendel; FGrHist 146; De Lazzer (2003) 85. Eugenio AmatoNike¯ratos (of Athens?) (10 – 40 CE)A 3rd c. papyrus cites a “Nike¯ratos of Athens” and his suggestions for the use of liquidbitumen to treat mange in dogs (Gazza 1955: 96–97), probably the Nike¯ratos mentionedby D , pr.2, as an Askle¯piadean pharmacologist who lacked precision inhis description of medicinals. Like I B, P , S N, andD, these Askle¯piadeans did not “. . .measure the activities of drugs experi-mentally, and in their vain prating about causation, they have explained the action of anindividual drug by diﬀerences among particles, as well as confusing one drug for another”(Scarborough and Nutton 1982: 196, with comm., 205). Dioskouride¯s’ criticism notwithstanding, Nike¯ratos’ is quoted with respect by SL  39 (unnamed, attribution established from A   P. in G , CMLoc3.1 [12.633–634 K.]; cf. Wellmann 1914: 44, n. 1), listing simples to treat unulcerated butpainful ears, including small millipedes or pillbugs (oniokon t¯on katoikidi¯on; cf. Scarborough1980) boiled in oil, then inserted into the external auditory meatus. Nike¯ratos’ coral-basedtrokhiskoi incorporated two kinds of “earths” (Samian and Lemnian), henbane seeds, thelatex of the opium poppy, pomegranate ﬂowers, high-grade ﬂour, broom (Cytinus spp.), andplantain juice (Askle¯piade¯s in Gale¯n, CMLoc 7.1 [13.87 K.]), an eﬀective narcotic compoundfor raw windpipes that produced bloody sputum. His Secret Pain-Killer (ibid., 96) – good for“consumption” (phthisis), coughs, bowel pains, diarrhea, and catarrhs of all sorts – con-sisted of saﬀron, a double-measure of henbane, opium poppy latex, beaver castor, therhizomes of European wild ginger (Asarum spp. [a good emetic]), and storax, to be admin-istered with honey. Among the ekleikta (lozenges manufactured to “melt in the mouth” ormedicinals “made into a linctus,” viz. an “electuary,” a medicine to be licked from a spoon),Nike¯ratos’ intended his Pharyngeal Linctus/Lozenge to be a galactagogue for the new mothersuﬀering from suppurations, diﬃcult breathing, persistent coughs bringing up glutinousor sticky phlegm, and whose infant was not receiving suﬃcient milk (ibid., 98): she wasgiven fresh horehound-leaf juice (prasion: likely Marrubium vulgare L.), liberally mixed with“Falernian” wine and Attic honey, augmented with white pepper, frankincense, and myrrh(horehound syrup remains a common remedy for sore throats). Nike¯ratos’ little pills (katapo-tia) for diﬃcult breathing and panting (asthmatikos) combined beaver castor, the gum of theLibyan giant fennel (Ferula marmarica L.), lavender cotton ( probably the oil from the leaves ofSantolina chamaecyparissus L.), wormwood oil (Artemisia spp.), and “Ethiopian” ammi, mixedwith vinegar and administered as pills the size of chickpeas (ibid., 110), and his two recipes 575

P:587

N I K E¯ T E¯ S ( O F AT H E N S ? )for medicines to treat jaundice (Askle¯piade¯s in Gale¯n, CMLoc 9.1 [13.232–233 K.]) employquantities (“handfuls”) of chickpeas, asparagus, rosemary, and common fennel, mixed withwine. Embedded in the medical poetry of D  (Gale¯n, Antid. 2.15 [14.196–201K.]) is Nike¯ratos’ multi-ingredient antidote against poisons and the bites of rabid animals.As probably recorded by S , C A, Chron. 2.86 (Drabkin, p. 620;CML 6.1.1, p. 596), cites and approves Nike¯ratos’ tract Katal¯epsis (“seizure”). The remnants ofNike¯ratos’ medical, and especially pharmaceutical works, indicate a prominent practitionerwhose pharmacological expertise included the full range of drugs fashioned from animals(e.g. coral, beaver castor, and pill-bugs), common foodstuﬀs, and several gum-exudatesthat ensured successful administration as pills and pastilles to patients for a number ofdiseases.M. Wellmann, Die Schrift des Dioskurides Peri hapl¯on pharmak¯on: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Medizin (1914); RE 17.1 (1936) 314, K. Deichgräber; V. Gazza, “Prescrizione mediche nei papiri dell’Egitto greco- romano,” Aegyptus 35 (1955) 86–110, and 36 (1956) 73–114; John Scarborough, “Nicander Theriaca 811,” CPh 75 (1980) 138–140; Beavis (1988) 13–19 (“Arthropoda: Diplopoda and Isopoda”). John ScarboroughN  M ⇒ H    MNike¯te¯s (of Athens?) (250 BCE – 90 CE)A   P., in G  CMLoc 4.8 (12.765 K.), records his collyrium prescribedfor great pain and eye-infections, composed of calamine, roasted copper, spodos, gal-banum, myrrh, and opium, in water. The name is rare outside Athens (LGPN); emendationto ΝΙΚΗ<ΡΑ>ΤΟΥ (i.e., N ) is possible but unnecessary.Fabricius (1726) 346. PTKNikias of Mallos (125 BCE – 75 CE?)Lapidary writer whose On stones is cited by -P, D F 20.4 (1163A),regarding a stone similar to sardonyx. It is debated, however, if the Nikias Maleo¯te¯s, quotedby pseudo-Plutarch; (Parall. min. 13A: on He¯rakle¯s’ attempt to seize Iole¯), is to be identiﬁedwith our author: the ethnic hinders such an interpretation. Moreover, P 37.36 alsomentions, in discussing electrum, a certain Nikias and an Homeric scholium about Helen’srape by Alexander (FHG 4.463–464), which is similar in content to the Parallela minora:presumably the homonymous Homeric grammarian.Ed.: FGrHist 60.J. Tolkiehn, Philologische Streifzüge (1916) 11–19; F. Atenstadt, “Zwei Quellen des sogennanten Plutarch de ﬂuviis,” Hermes 57 (1922) 219–246, esp. 237–238; Schlereth (1931) 118–120; Bidez (1935) 31; Jacoby (1940) 129, n. 1; De Lazzer (2003) 85–86. Eugenio AmatoNikias of Mile¯tos (ca 300 – 250 BCE)Poet and physician, friend of Theokritos, who addressed him in Idd. 11 (asserting poetry wasthe only remedy for love) and 13, described a cedar statue which Nikias dedicated to Askl-e¯pios (Ep. 8), and also composed Id. 28 to accompany a distaﬀ for Nikias’ wife Theugenis. 576

P:588

NIKOLAOS OF DAMASKOSThe hupothesis to Id. 11 recounts that Nikias replied to Theokritos with a short poem inhexameters; in the opening, preserved in the scholia, he said that Er¯otes inspired many poetspreviously amousoi (SH 566). The same source informs us that Nikias was a fellow student ofE, according to D  E, and also the author of epigrams.Therefore, it is probable that he is to be identiﬁed with the homonymous poet deﬁnedby Meleagros in his Garland (AP 4.1.19) as khloeron sisumbron, a plant sacred to Aphrodite¯and with great healing properties, in which we may see an allusion to Nikias’ experience inamatory matters, consistent with Theokritos’ account. Eight epigrams are transmittedunder his name in the Anthologia Palatina and in the Planudean: three were written for thededication of objects to Athena (AP 6.122), Artemis (AP 6.127) and Eileithuia (AP 6.270);two are inscriptions for a statue of Herme¯s (APl. 188) and one of Pan (APl. 189); two haveinsects as subjects (AP 7.200 and 9.564); and one is an inscription for a fountain built bySimos for the grave of his son (AP 9.315).W. Schott, Arzt und Dichter: Nikias von Miletos (1976); A. Lai, “Il chloeron sisumbron di Nicia, medico-poeta milesio,” QUCC 51 (1995) 125–131; BNP 9 (2006) 720 (#4), M.G. Albiani. Claudio MeliadòNikias of Nikaia (1st c. BCE?)Author of a Successions of Philosophers quoted by Athe¯naios, Deipn. 4 (162e), 6 (273d),10 (437e), 11 (505b, 506c), 13 (591f), but not by D  L.Mejer (1978) 63–64; DPA 4 (2005) 666–667, R. Goulet. Jørgen MejerNikolaos (Math.) (350 BCE – 460 CE)Wrote a political interpretation of numbers, especially the marital number, in P’sRepublic, that was paraphrased by M: P In Plat. Rep. (2.25–26 K.).(*) PTKNikolaos (Pharm.) (150 BCE – 95 CE)A   P., in G  CMGen 5.11 (13.831 K.), records his plaster, composedof acacia, antimony, myrrh, opium, and verdigris, in gum and wine. P  A7.17.44 (CMG 9.2, pp. 358–359) records his 40-ingredient blood-stanch (enaimos), includingvarious oxides and minerals, aloes, bdellium, various resins, mandrake, and opium;cf. Idem, 4.37 (CMG 9.1, p. 358).Fabricius (1726) 346–347. PTKNikolaos of Damaskos (ca 40 BCE – ca 10 CE?)Born 64 BCE, major political and intellectual personality of Judea, Nikolaos was ministerand personal counselor to Herod the Great, king of Judea, before going with HerodArkhelaos to Rome, where he settled, in the court of A, and tutored the chil-dren of M. Antonius and K VII. Distinguished encyclopedic scholar and 577

P:589

NIKOMAKHOS (PHARM.)polygraph, he wrote comedies, tragedies, a comprehensive compilatory Universal history(144 books) from the beginning of the time until Herod, a fundamental source forFlauius Josephus and S , two biographies (C and Augustus), and an auto-biography On my own Life and Education (Souda N-393). He is now chieﬂy known as aphilosopher and commentator of A. Besides a collection, in Peripatetic style,of data On strange Manners and Customs of 50 nations (Paradoxo¯n eth¯on sunag¯og¯e), he wrotemany commentaries and paraphrases of Aristotle’s philosophical and natural historicaltreatises. Nikolaos’ On the Philosophy of Aristotle (in many books with numerous fullextracts) is often mentioned and celebrated by later philosophers such as S orP. Concerning natural sciences, he wrote On Meteorology (Peri mete¯or¯on), treating, amongother things, the origin of springs and rivers, an Epitome of the Historia Animalium ofAristotle, and On Plants (two books), which played – as did Nikolaos’ work in general – adecisive role in Syriac and Arabic culture, since Aristotle’s On plants disappeared earlyand T’ Historia Plantarum was never translated in the East. Nikolaos’ trea-tise, probably a patchwork of extracts and commentaries based on Aristotle’s lost Onplants and Theophrastos’ broader botanic corpus, was translated into Syriac (ca 870) –only fragments of the ﬁrst book survive – then into Arabic (ca 1000), and again both intoHebrew (ca 1280), and, independently into Latin by Alfred of Sareshel (ca 1200). ThisLatin version was translated back into Greek by an unknown Byzantine scholar (ca 1300),perhaps Maximus Planude¯s or Manuel Holobolos, whose text was still included byBekker (1831) and Hett (1936) in the Aristotelian corpus, after the A C-, P. This retroversion, less reliable than the Latin text, despite beingcomplete, presents an unsatisfactory text which cannot be emended by other versions.Chaotic and full of internal contradictions (e.g. the sex of plants; the deﬁnition of plantlife), this patchwork of epitomized extracts formally describes (in seven chapters of Book1) theoretical and biological questions, and (in ten of Book 2) more heteroclite matters(including the paradoxographical, digressions on ﬂoating stones, strange perfumes, etc.).This opuscule, almost always attributed to Aristotle himself (in place of the lost DePlantis), was a primary reference for Aristotelian and generalized botany in the late MiddleAges.DSB 10.111–112, J. Longrigg; H.J. Drossaart Lulofs and E.L.J. Poortman, Aristoteles semitico-latinus. Nicolaus Damascenus “De plantis.” Five translations (1989); OCD3 1041–1042, Kl. Meister; DPA 4 (2005) 669–679. J.-P. Schneider; BNP 9 (2006) 725–728 (#3), Kl. Meister. Arnaud ZuckerNikomakhos (Pharm.) (250 BCE – 80 CE)A ’s green plaster, A in G  CMGen 5.5 (13.807 K.), is alter-natively attributed to Nikomakhos, possibly N  S. Gale¯n, Diﬀ.Morb. 9 (6.869 K.), mentions that a certain obese Nikomakhos of Smurna was cured byA .Fabricius (1726) 348. PTK 578

P:590

N I KO M E¯ D E¯ S ( H E¯ R A K L E I T E A N )Nikomakhos of Athens (ca 320 – 310 BCE)A’s son, by his concubine Herpullis, a minor at his father’s death, and who diedyoung in battle, probably at Mounukhia harbor in 307 BCE (D   S,20.45.5–7); the extant Ethica Nicomachea and a lost work on his father’s Physics are attributedto him: C, Fin. 5.12, D  L 8.88, and Souda N-398.RE 17.1 (1936) 462–463 (#19), K. von Fritz; DPA 4 (2005) 694–696, J.-P. Schneider. PTKNikomakhos of Gerasa (100 – 150 CE)Neo-Pythagorean philosopher; the Gerasa whence he came is likely to have been theone in Palestine. Nikomakhos composed two surviving treatises, Introductio Arithmetica (twobooks) on the philosophy of number and number theory, and Harmonicum Enchiridion on thePythagorean theory of pitches and tuning systems. In the latter (11) he cites T,while C , Institutiones ( p. 140 Mynors) writes that A translated the Intro-ductio Arithmetica into Latin, thus bracketing his date. The contents of two further lost worksare known in great part. Arithm¯etika Theologoumena (“arithmetic subjected to theology”), anexposition of Pythagorean number symbolism, was one source of the TA, and Pho¯tios also summarized it (Bibl. cod.187). A work on the life ofP is cited by P, Vita Pythagorae (20, 59) and was also exploited withoutacknowledgement by I in his De Vita Pythagorica. Nikomakhos himself alludes toa lost Introduction to Geometry in Introductio Arithmetica 2.6. The Introductio Arithmetica moves fairly rapidly from discussing the ontology of numbersto exposing elementary number-theoretic classiﬁcations of numbers, e.g. into even and odd,prime and composite. Other prominent topics are ratio equalities and inequalities andﬁgurate numbers. The presentation is discursive and eschews proofs. In the HarmonicumEnchiridion, Nikomakhos presents in a comparably discursive manner a Pythagorean the-ory of the celestial and numerical foundations of musical pitch, while tacitly incorporatingelements from A.DSB 10.112–114, L. Tarán; Barker (1989) 245–269; Dillon (1996) 352–361; DPA 4 (2005) 686–694, G. Freudenthal. Alexander JonesNikomakhos of Stageira (ca 410 – ca 370 BCE)The father of A, who died in his son’s childhood; according to the Souda N-399,he wrote a Iatrika in six books and a Phusika in one.RE 17.1 (1936) 462 (#18), Kurt von Fritz. PTKNikome¯de¯s (He¯rakleitean) (230 – 50 BCE)Interpreter of H , later than S  B , according toDe¯me¯trios of Magnesia in D  L 9.15; see also P.RE 17.1 (1936) 500 (#13), R. Laqueur. PTK 579

P:591

N I KO M E¯ D E¯ SNikome¯de¯s (ca 225 – 200 BCE)Mathematician, credited by later authors with inventing an easily constructed group ofmechanical curves, conchoids (On Conchoid Lines, lost), which could be used to solve twoimportant classical geometrical problems: doubling a cube (by ﬁnding two mean propor-tionals), and trisecting an angle. P, Coll. 4 ( pp. 242–246, 274 Hultsch), P ( p. 272Fr.), and I (in S In Categ., CAG 8 [1907] 192.19–24) also credit himwith using a quadratrix in solving the squaring of a circle. E, In Archim. circ. dim.(3.114 H.), reports that Nikome¯de¯s sharply criticized E ’ solution to the problemof two mean proportionals.Nikome¯de¯s’ “ﬁrst” conchoid. Point D is allowed to slide along ﬁxed line AB. The length ofline DG is constant, but it is always oriented toward point E, ﬁxed below line AB (the Greek termfor a line that verges toward a distant point like this was a neusis). Point G then traces out aconchoid. © Lehoux and MassieKnorr (1986) 219–220. Daryn LehouxNikome¯de¯s Iatrosophist (900 – 1200 CE?)Wrote a lexicon of plant names (typical of post-classical medical literature), attested by a15th c. manuscript in the Iviron Monastery in Mount Athos (4271.151) and an early 16th c.one (Paris, BNF, graecus 2224: the basis of Delatte’s edition). Nikome¯de¯s’ lexicon, containingneither magical terms nor plant names borrowed from Arabic, pertains to a pre-13th/14thc. period and perhaps even to the 10th c. The current text is clearly augmented withreferences to other manuscripts and literary explanations, probably ﬁrst added in somemanuscript as scholia, later integrated into the main text. Such a lexicon, diﬀuse in genre,was probably aimed at connecting the medical practices of non-learned healers withlearned technical texts.Ed.: A. Delatte, Anecdota Atheniensia 2 (1939) 302–318.Diels 2 (1907) 69; RE 17.1 (1936) 500 (#15), H. Diller; M. Thomson, Textes grecs inedits relatifs aux plantes (1955) 176–177; Alain Touwaide, “Lexica medico-botanica byzantina. Prolégomènes à une étude” in Tês ﬁliês tade ta dôra. Miscellánea léxica en memoria de Conchita Serrano (1999) 211–228 at 214. Alain Touwaide 580

P:592

N I K O¯ N I D E¯ S O F T H E S S A L I ANikome¯de¯s IV of Bithunia (100 – 74 BCE)A, in G  CMGen 6.14 (13.929 K.), records that some king Nikome¯de¯s,under the syncopated nickname “Kodamos,” published a plaster (ammo¯niakon incense,red natron, propolis, and oak mistletoe, in beeswax, lye, and resin). Presumably the sameNikome¯de¯s is the author of the head-compress recorded by A   P., inGale¯n CMLoc 2.1 (12.556 K.), containing sulfurwort (hog-fennel), rue, mint, and otherherbs in rose oil. Probably we should read Nikome¯de¯s for the “Nikode¯mos” in SL in Askle¯piade¯s Pharm. in Gale¯n CMLoc 9.7 (13.314 K.), author of a mineral-basedhedrike¯ in myrtle oil, good wine, and butter. The last-cited practiced in Rome, suggestingeither Nikome¯de¯s II (who was in Rome 167 BCE: P Book 32, fr.16.4, Livy45.44.4–18), or better Nikome¯de¯s IV, who dwelt in Rome in the 80’s BCE (S 12.3.40). That would explain the presence of such northerly ingredients as oak mistletoe,butter, and sulfurwort.BNP 9 (2006) 736–737 (#6), M. Schottky. PTKNiko¯ n of Akragas (80 – 40 BCE)Physician, Sextus Fadius’ mentor, wrote On Overeating: C, ad Fam. 7.20.3, calling him“pleasant” (O medicum suauem). C describes his emollients for scrofulous tumors(5.18.14) and for relaxing, cleaning, and opening pores (5.18.26). He is probably the sameNiko¯n whom P  H includes among A  ’ students (S B, s.v. Durrakhion) and possibly the one claiming the best rennet comes fromyoung deer, then hares, then goats (Schol. Nik. Th¯er. 577a).RE 17.1 (1936) 506–507 (#17), H. Diller. GLIMNiko¯ n of Pergamon, Aelius (120 – 150 CE)Architect and geometer, father of G  (Souda Gamma-32), who does not name his fatherbut thanks him for his grounding in mathematics and logic (2.116.22–26, 119.2–9MMH). Gale¯n’s father is probably the Aelius Niko¯n who erected isopsephic inscriptionsat Pergamon (IGRR 4, #502–506; Schlange-Schöningen). Using π = 22/7, Niko¯n com-pares the volumes of a cone, cylinder, and sphere, all with a common given radius (thatradius equal also to the height of the cylinder and cone), and compares the surface areas ofa cube (superposed over a cone), of a cylinder, and of a sphere, likewise with a commonradius, yielding a proportion of 42 : 33 : 22 (#503).H. Schlange-Schöningen, Die römische Gesellschaft bei Galen: Biographie und Sozialgeschichte (2003) 45–54; DPA 4 (2005) 696–698, V. Boudon-Millot; BNP 9 (2006) 740 (#4), M. Folkerts. GLIMNiko¯ nide¯s of Thessalia (75 – 70 BCE)An engineer of M  VI, Niko¯nide¯s designed siege engines used at the siege ofKuzikos (P, Luc. 10; Appian, Mithr. 73–75): rams, towers, and a novel and amazingboarding bridge extended from a ship-mounted tower.BNP 9 (2006) 740, W.H. Groß. GLIM 581

P:593

NIKOSTRATOS (PHARM.)N  ⇒ N   ANikostratos (Pharm.) (50 – 80 CE)A in G  cites eight of his recipes: gout-ointment, CMGen 7.7 (13.985 K.);stomach-remedy CMLoc 8.2 (13.139 K.); his “god-like” (isotheos) colic-remedy, includinggalbanum, kostos, mandrake, myrrh, pepper, saﬀron, ibid. 9.4 (13.279–280 K.), cf. 7.3(13.65–66 K.); his enema derived from M  P, ibid. 9.5 (13.299–300K.); lanolin and beeswax-based hedrike¯ including Indian buckthorn, ibid. 9.6 (13.308K.); his Mithridateion derived from X   A, involving galbanum,kostos, white pepper, saﬀron, etc., Antid. 2.10 (14.164–165 K.); his hudrophobia-treatment, of Indian buckthorn, gentian (cf. G), and burnt crabs in honey,ibid. 2.17 (14.208 K.); and his best antidote, including cinnamon, gentian, ginger, kostos,licorice, malabathron, long pepper, white pepper, etc., ibid. 2.1 (14.112–114 K.).Fabricius (1726) 350–351. PTKNikotele¯s of Kure¯ne¯ (240 – 220 BCE)Writer on conic sections and circles who responded to K ’s work (A  Conica4.pr.).DPA 4 (2005) 702–703, P.P. Fuentes González. GLIMN ⇒ I NNinuas of Egypt (400 – 300 BCE)Physician quoted only by the L  (9.37), Ninuas distinguished con-genital and non-congenital diseases: the latter are caused by heat, which, if the nourishmentremains blocked, generates dangerous residues. The theory is actually common in ancientEgyptian medicine.BNP 9 (2006) 770 (#2), V. Nutton. Daniela ManettiNonnos (200 – 540 CE)A  A, 7.114 (CMG 8.2, p. 382), records his collyrium for trachoma (roastedcopper, hematite, calamine, opium, etc.), said to be suitable for children.(*) PTKNonnosos (525 – 540 CE)Member of a Jewish family of envoys, dispatched on a diplomatic mission to central andsouthern Arabia and “Ethiopia” by the emperor Justinian I in 530/531. His grandfatherEuphrasios (in 502) and his father Abram (in 524 and later) performed similar duties. Hewrote an account of the embassy in Greek, now lost but still known to Pho¯tios in the 9th c. 582

P:594

N O U M E¯ N I O S O F H E¯ R A K L E I A(Bibl. 3 = FHG 4.178–180). In a lively style, Nonnosos describes elephants and pygmies, aswell as the Arabian language and religion. John Malalas and Theophane¯s the Confessorused this narrative.RE 17.1 (1936) 920–921, R. Laqueur; I. Kawar, “Byzantium and Kinda,” ByzZ 53 (1960) 57–73; HLB 1.303; ODB 1492–1493, B. Baldwin; BNP 9 (2006) 812, A. Berger. Andreas KuelzerNoume¯nios of Apameia (ca 150 – 180 CE)Pythagoreanizing Platonist, often associated with K. His works were read inP ’ school (P, Vit. Plot. 14.10–14) and he had a considerable inﬂuenceon the development of Platonism. Seven works are known by title: On Place, On Number,The Hoopoe (“Epops,” a pun on epopteia, the mystical vision), On the Indestructibility of the Soul, Onthe Secret Doctrines of Plato, On the Unfaithfulness of the Academics toward Plato, On the Good (in atleast six books, in dialogue form). E preserves longer fragments of the last two: PE14.5, 14.7–9; and PE 9.7, 9.17, 9.21–22, 11.8–10, 11.17–18, and 11.21–22. His hierarchyof three gods foreshadows the neo-Platonic hupostaseis. Noume¯nios believed in anoriginal wisdom preserved in eastern religions, especially Judaism, and in the teachings ofP and P.Ed.: E. des Places, Numénius. Fragments (CUF 1973).M. Frede, “Numenius,” ANRW 2.36.2 (1987) 1034–1075; Dillon (1996) 361–379; OCD3 1054–1055, D.J. O’Meara; DPA 4 (2005) 724–740, P.P. Fuentes González; BNP 9 (2006) 895–898, M. Frede. Jan OpsomerNoume¯nios of He¯rakleia (270 – 230 BCE)Physician and poet, student of D , who wrote a Deipnon under his inﬂuence (Ath.,Deipn. 1 [5a]), and a didactic poem on ﬁshing, Halieutika, often quoted by Athe¯naios (Nou-me¯nios the H¯erakle¯ot¯es: Ath. 1 [5a, 13a], 7 [282a, 306d]). The scholia to N’Th¯eriaka, and later iological treaties (P, “A P,” A A), refer to Noume¯nios’ Th¯eriaka (cf. Nikandros’ homonymous poem and, prior toNikandros, P’ Ophiaka), without giving his ethnic H¯erakle¯ot¯es or the poem’s title(th¯eriakos in frr.3 [= SH 593] and 5 [= SH 594], however, alludes to the poem). The iologistsquote Noume¯nios in prose, but a few verses have come down to us in Nikandros’ scholia( fr.1 = SH 590 ~ Nik. Th¯er. 237; fr.2 = SH 591 ~ Th¯er. 257–258). Poetically, Nikandros isinﬂuenced by Noume¯nios (Schol. [Theo¯n?] 237a metapepoi¯eke, 257a memn¯etai), but his treat-ment of scientiﬁc facts is independent (cf. Th¯er. 643–4 ~ Noume¯nios fr.6 = SH 589). Thefragments of Noume¯nios’ Th¯eriaka are concerned with symptomatology (frr.1–2) and ther-apy (3–6). Noume¯nios’ therapy, unlike Nikandros’, deals with anti-venoms separately (fr.3:cobra; fr.5: gecko). Did he also write a book entitled Therapeiai? C quotes two of hiscompound medicines that may be derived from it, one treating gout (5.18.35) and the otherinﬂammation of the womb (5.21.4).Ed.: SH 568–596; Th¯eriaka in Jacques (2002) 2.304–306 (see –).GGLA 1 (1891) 812–813, M. Wellmann; RE S.7 (1940) 663–664 (#7a), H. Diller; KP 4 (1972) 192, R. Keydell; BNP 9 (2006) 895 (#1), S. Fornaro (relation Noume¯nios/Nikandros inverted); Jean-Marie Jacques, “Situation de Nicandre de Colophon,” REA 109 (2007) 99–121 at 115–117. Jean-Marie Jacques 583

P:595

NUMISIANUSNumisianus (130 – 150 CE)Student of Q, father of H , and teacher of P. Wrote commen-taries on the H C, A, E 2, and perhaps other works.G  traveled to Corinth in 152 CE to hear him, the “most famous” student of Quintus,and then on to Alexandria with the same goal: Anat. Admin. 1.1 (2.217–218 K.). Gale¯nreports the doctrines of Pelops and Numisianus usually without distinction.Grmek and Gourevitch (1994) 1513–1518; Manetti and Roselli (1994) 1581–1582; Ihm (2002) #180–184; BNP 9 (2006) 906, V. Nutton. PTKNumius (300 BCE – 540 CE)A  A 13.20 ( p. 694 Cornarius) cites him for the use of wild marjoram as anantidote for asp bites. The name Numius is otherwise unattested, though Nummius is foundfrom the 3rd c. CE (PIR2 N-225 to 241), and Numisius is an old Republican nomen (MRR1.398, 435, PIR2 N-207 to 220); probably read N   H  or perhapsN?Fabricius (1726) 351. PTKNumphis of He¯rakleia Pontike¯ (ca 280 – 245 BCE)Greek historian, son of Xenagoras, born ca 310 BCE, author of a local history of He¯rakleia(13 books) and a universal history of Alexander and his successors (24 books). His 1st c. CEcompatriot, Memno¯n (7.3, 16.3) presented Numphis in his own He¯rakleian history as aleader of the He¯rakleians expelled by Seleukos I. Numphis convinced his fellow exiles torenounce restoration of the property taken from their parents and return to the city. Theydid so and were received with pleasure. Later Numphis led the He¯rakleian embassy to theCelts who had devastated the territory of the He¯rakleians because of their alliance withMithradate¯s I. By paying 5,000 gold pieces to the army of the Celts as a whole and 200pieces to each leader, Numphis persuaded them to withdraw from the country. Numphis’work was a source for both Memno¯n and P T. Surviving fragmentsreveal no particular geographical orientation other than the traditional historiographicallusions to toponyms and to ethnographic details. Numphis is sometimes confused withN   S who in his periplous of Asia referred to Sappho’s loveaﬀair with Phao¯n (Ath., Deipn. 13 [596e]).FGrHist 432 (Numphis); FGrHist 434 (Memno¯n). Daniela DueckNumphodo¯ ros (240 – 200 BCE)O (Coll. 49.21–22: CMG 6.2.2, pp. 30–33) preserves the “chest” of Numphodo¯ros,a square spanner to which a patient was tied for treating dislocated legs (cf. also V7.pr.14; C 8.20.4; G  UP 7.14 [3.572–575 K.] and MM 6.5 [10.442–443 K.]). Ascrew-thread engaged a wheel, on each side of which were eyelets for ropes. The axle andwheel turned together drawing in the ropes to stretch the patient. Probably the same man 584

P:596

N U M P H O D O¯ RO S O F S U R A KO U S A Icomposed recipes for a wound poultice preserved by P 34.104 and a skin plasterquoted by A (in Gale¯n CMGen 4.14 [13.926 K.]).RE S.11 (1968) 1020–1022, M. Michler; Michler (1968) 48, 98–99. GLIMNumphodo¯ ros of Surakousai (230 – 190 BCE)Composed Periploi and Peri t¯on en Sikeliai thaumazomen¯on. The former work was divided intosections, one of which was entitled Periplous t¯es Asias. A selection Peri t¯on en Sardiniaithaumazomen¯on possibly completed his oeuvre. Numphodo¯ros perhaps composed his para-doxographical writings from the most interesting paradoxographical material in his travelcompilation. The few extant fragments treat anthropological and zoological themes.Ed.: FGrHist 572; PGR 112–115.RE 18.3 (1949) 1137–1166 (§12, 1149), K. Ziegler; Giannini (1964) 119–120; KP 4 (1972) 217 (#1), W. Spoerri; OCD3 1055–1056, K. Meister; BNP 9 (2006) 927–928 (#1), H.A. Gärtner. Jan Bollansée, Karen Haegemans, and Guido Schepens585

P:597

OOcellus Lucanus (200 – 50 BCE)Early Pythagorean (I V.Pyth. 267) under whose name is preserved an apoc-ryphal treatise deeply inﬂuenced by Peripatetic doctrines: the universe is eternal, indes-tructible and ungenerated; it undergoes no change, by remaining always identical with itself.The whole divides into a celestial or superlunary region, which, inhabited by divinities, is inperpetual motion and governs the constantly changing sublunary realm, inhabited by mor-tals. This part of the world, wherein generation occurs, is the realm of the four elements,neither corrupted nor generated. The human species, which as a co-subsistent part of aneternal world must be perpetual, attains immortality through the continuity of generation,where intercourse should occur not for pleasure, but only for the procreation of children.Under Ocellus’ name, we also have a brief fragment from an apocryphal On laws, where lawis described as the cause of concord in the family and the city, since God is the cause ofharmony in the world.Ed.: R. Harder, Ocellus Lucanus. Text und kommentar (1926, repr. 1966); Thesleﬀ (1965); K.S. Guthrie, The Pythagoran Sourcebook and Library (1987) 203–213; DPA 4 (2005) 746–750, Bruno Centrone and C. Macris. Bruno CentroneO¯ dapsos of Thebes (150 – 400 CE?)Authored an astrological work cited several times by H   T  for associ-ations between parts of the zodiacal signs and geographical regions (1.1.65, 123, 163, 221).I   “L” mentions O¯ dapsos in his De Ostentis 2 (p. 6 Wa.) as an authority on astralomens, indicating that he postdated P.RE 17.2 (1937) 1881–1883, W. Kroll. Alexander JonesOfellius Laetus (ca 50 – 95 CE)In his Quaestiones naturales, P cites a certain Laitos on the eﬀect of rainfall on plants(911F) and the harmful eﬀect of dew on human skin (913E). Plutarch’s wording suggestspersonal encounters with Laitos. He is probably identical with the Platonic philosopherOfellius Laetus, known from two 1st c. inscriptions, from Ephesos ( J. Nollé, ZPE 41 [1981]197–206) and Athens (IG II2 3816). Ofellius Laetus is the author of a hymn extolling the 586

P:598

OKIANOSheavens and is called a theologian. He probably belonged to the Ephesian Ofellius family.He is possibly also identical with Laetus the author of lives of philosophers, and the transla-tor of historiographies of Phoenicia by Theodotos, H  and Mo¯khos (Tatianos adGraec. 37; FGrHist 784). The “opening of heaven” mentioned in IG II2 3816 could then be anallusion to a cosmogony attributed to Mo¯khos by D: Prim. Princ. 3 (p. 166.11–20W.-C.). Ofellius Laetus may also be the same person as the physician Oﬁllius/Oﬁlius con-sulted by P regarding the beneﬁts of saliva against snakes (1.ind.28; 28.38).G.W. Bowersock, “Plutarch and the Sublime Hymn of Ofellius Laetus,” GRBS 23 (1982) 275–279; DPA 4 (2005) 79, B. Puech. Jan OpsomerOinopide¯s of Khios (450 – 420 BCE)According to E  (DK 41A7), the ﬁrst to identify the region of the zodiacal circle andthe cycle of the Great Year, attributed to many others and plausibly adopted from Babylonianastronomy. However, his particular innovation may have been to distinguish geometrically thewest/east revolution of the Sun on the ecliptic circle from the daily east/west motion of theentire kosmos, the basic model of most subsequent Greek astronomy. As to the Great Year,this was probably a terminological innovation to name a minimum integer of years andsynodic months. His Great Year was 59 years (A VH 10.7), and more dubiously asolar year of 365 22/59 days (C 19). P credits him with two geometricalproblems, the construction of a perpendicular, which he called “gnomonwise,” according toProklos from the gnomon of a sundial (In Eucl. pp. 283–283 Fr.; cf. E, Elements 1.12),and, according to Eude¯mos (Proklos, ibid. p. 333), the construction of an angle equal toa given rectilinear angle on a given line at a given point (cf. Euclid, Elements 1.23), both ofwhich exhibit the growing contemporary interest in geometrical constructions. Oinopide¯s regarded ﬁre and air as the basic principles of the physical kosmos andconsidered god the soul of the kosmos. This model suggests his account of the seasons.When the Sun is below the horizon, it generates moisture below the earth and heats it; whenabove, it heats the Earth. Hence, the water below is cold in summer and hot in winter.Oinopide¯s explained the rise of the Nile according to this model. The Milky Way, a previ-ous path of the Sun, moved to its present route and changed direction in disgust atThyestes’ feast, a view akin to one A attributes to Pythagoreans: Meteor. 1.8(345a16–18). It may be signiﬁcant here that one doxographical tradition (DK 41A7) accusesOinopide¯s of appropriating the discovery of the zodiac from P.DK 41; DSB 10.179–182, Bulmer-Thomas; DPA 4 (2005) 761–767, I. Bodnár: revised with new collection of fragments at http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P327.PDF Henry MendellOkianos (1000 – 1400 CE?)A manuscript of the Iviron monastery on Mount Athos (4271.151) contains a collection ofmedical recipes presented as the ﬁfth book of an otherwise unknown Okianos (not Okeanos).However, the recipes show an Arabic inﬂuence, thus suggesting the date-range, when thistype of formulary was typical.Diels 2 (1907) 70. Alain Touwaide 587

P:599

OLUMNIOS OF ALEXANDRIAOlumnios of Alexandria (400 – 650 CE)Olumnios’ Alexandrine origin indicates a terminus ante quem and suggests his participation inthe Alexandrian school (provided that he did not move to another center such as Ravenna,which reproduced the Alexandrian model). Two MSS (the more recent perhaps a copy ofthe other) contain two fragments of medical works: Paris, BNF graecus 2289 (mid 14th c.),and New Haven, Yale University, History of Medicine Library, 34 (ex Phillipps 6763)(1540s). One discusses the critical days, that is, the evolution of diseases in the Hippokraticand Gale¯nic model; the other fragment describes the evolution and treatment of a clinicalcase. It is unclear if Olumnios is likewise responsible for the iatromathematical textsthat follow in the MSS. Signiﬁcantly, both works seem still to have been used in 14th c.Constantinople: the Parisian codex was written and owned by the monk, philosopher, andphysician Neophutos Prodrome¯nos who possibly used Olumnios’ work in his own medicalpractice or in teaching at the hospital of the Krale¯, which was adjacent to the Monasteryof the Prodromos, also hosting a school.Diels 2 (1907) 70; Boudreaux in CCAG 8.3 (1912) 23–27. Alain TouwaideOlumpiakos of Mile¯tos (ca 80 – 150 CE)Physician cited as Olumpikos (G  MM 1.7, 1.9 = 10.54–57, 67–68 K. = pp. 28–29, 34–35Hankinson = frr.162, 165 Tecusan) and Olumpiakos (-G  I14.684 K. = fr.283), taught A    C, and listed among the Methodists( frr.11, 162, 219, 283). Disagreeing in some points with predecessors, he was consideredarrogant and foolish by Gale¯n who sharply criticizes Olumpiakos’ deﬁnition of illness as abodily change from a state in accord with nature into one beyond nature as simplistic andnaïve ( frr.162, 165). Gale¯n further reprimands Olumpiakos’ failure to discriminate between“aﬀection” and “symptom” ( frr.165–166). P  A preserves a recipe for atreatment called Olumpiakon (thus perhaps by Olumpiakos), or Olumpos (cf. O), com-pounded from 20 (pricey and exotic) ingredients including frankincense, myrrh, spikenard,saﬀron, and Indian buckthorn (7.16.24 [CMG 9.2, p. 339] = fr.248), recommended forprolapses and various protuberances (warts, staphylomata: 3.22.22 [CMG 9.1, pp. 179–180]= fr.239). Olumpiakos is probably distinct from O.RE 18.1 (1939) 199 (#2), K. Deichgräber; Tecusan (2004) 63. GLIMOlumpias of Thebes (325 BCE – 77 CE)P, citing her among medical authorities (1.ind.20–28), records her emmenagoguepessary of bull’s gall, lanolin, and natron on wool, 28.246, as well as her abortifacientpessary of mallows in goose-fat, 20.226 (Pollux 10.12 [ p. 192 Bethe] cites her for thedanger of mallows). She claimed to cure parturition-induced barrenness with a vaginalointment of bull’s gall, snake-fat, and verdigris in honey, 28.253: copper-salts are howevercontraceptive. Alleged parallels to D  seem weak.BNP 10 (2007) 109–110 (#2), V. Nutton. PTK 588

P:600

O L U M P I O D O¯ RO S O F A L E X A N D R I A ( A L C H . )Olumpikos (300 BCE – 77 CE)Wrote On stones (P 1.ind.37). Wellmann has unconvincingly identiﬁed him withO   M . Our Olumpikos is more likely a technical writer, who lived atthe beginning of Vespasian’s reign.M. Wellmann, “Der Verfasser der Anonymus Londinensis,” Hermes 57 (1922) 396–429, esp. 406, n.4; RE 18.1 (1939) 199 (#2), K. Deichgräber. Eugenio AmatoOlumpiodo¯ ros (ca 525 – 565 CE)Platonist philosopher, active in Alexandria. Of his commentaries on P there survivethose on Alcibiades I and Gorgias; that on the Phaidros is lost. Several fragments of commentar-ies on the Phaedo, as well as a commentary on the Philebos, attributed to Olumpiodo¯ros, are ofdubious authorship, arguably authored by D. Olumpiodo¯ros’ work on Aincludes the Prolegomena to the Organon, and commentaries on the Categories and Meteorologica.Olumpiodo¯ros also authored a biography of Plato and a (lost) commentary on P’Isagoge upon which depended the Isagoge exegeses of his students Elias and David. Olumpio-do¯ros’ commentaries derive from school lectures, as suggested by the recurrence of the termpraxis, probably indicating school hours. The fairly detailed, sometimes repetitive commen-taries are structured according to lemmata, divided into theoria (interpretation of an issue) andlexis (interpretation of a speciﬁc lemma). Olumpiodo¯ros relied considerably on A A regarding the Meteorologica, and on Porphurios for Aristotle’s logic.Ed.: L.G. Westerink, Olympiodori In Platonis Gorgiam Commentaria (1970); W. Norvin, Olympiodori In Platonis Phaedonem Commentaria (1913); L.G. Westerink, The Greek Commentaries on Plato’s Phaedo (1976); A. Busse, Olympiodori Prolegomena et in Categorias Commentarium = CAG 12.1 (1902); G. Stüve, Olympiodori in Aristotelis Meteora Commentaria = CAG 12.2 (1900).RE 18.1 (1939) 207–227, R. Beutler; SEP “Olympiodorus,” Chr. Wildberg. George KaramanolisOlumpiodo¯ ros of Alexandria (Alch.) (530? – after 565 CE)Wrote a commentary (CAAG 2.69–106) on a lost treatise of Z  entitled The AlexandrianPhilosopher Olumpiod¯oros on the Book “Kat’ Energeian” by Z¯osimos and on the Sayings of Herm¯es and thePhilosophers (kat’ energeian is “On the Action” or “According to the Action”). Olumpiodo¯rosdistinguishes himself among the Alexandrian alchemists by his exegesis treating both theprinciples of transmutation and the philosophical models of those principles. In the alchem-ical corpus, Olumpiodo¯ros is mentioned with S among “the ecumenical masterscelebrated everywhere, the new interpreters of P and A” (CAAG 2.425). Thetitle of his treatise indicates his Alexandrian origin, and, according to some MSS, he dedi-cated his work to P. Olumpiodo¯ros explicitly presents his commentary as both exegetical and doxographical.His originality consists in explicitly vindicating Greek philosophy, notably pre-Socratic, asthe epistemological foundation of transmutation. In fact, near the middle of the commen-tary, Olumpiodo¯ros sets forth the opinions of nine pre-Socratics (M, P ,T , D , H , H, X , A , and A-) on the monistic principle of the Universe and then sketches a comparisonbetween their theses and those of the principle masters of the art of transmutation (Zo¯simos, 589

P:676

PHYSIOLOGOS Frühmittelalterliche Rezeptarien (1925); H. Fischer, Mittelalterliche Pﬂanzenkunde (1929; repr. 1967); A. Önnerfors, Pliniana (1956); B. Löfstedt, Studien über die Sprache der langobardischen Gesetze (1961). John ScarboroughPhysiognomista Latinus (350 – 400 CE)Composer of a book on physiognomy, based on and extensively translating and para-phrasing P , using also L and “Aristotle” (i.e. the A CP), as he states in the ﬁrst sentence. An attribution by Albertus Magnus toA was once discussed (cf. Rose 77–86), but has been rejected by André (31–34) andRepath (549–550), who, because of its language, instead suggest the date we give. Thetreatise has four main parts: 1–15: an introduction on the theory and method of physi-ognomy which closely follows the methodical introduction in the Aristotelian CorpusPhysiognomy; 16–89: the signs from head to feet and the characters they signify, accordingmostly to Polemo¯n, especially for the eyes (20–43); 90–117: several character types who bearcombinations of the signs, including a brief chapter on the importance of the “overallimpression” (epiprépeia), following the Aristotelian Corpus Physiognomy and Polemo¯n; ﬁnally,118–133: the characteristics of animals, according mostly to Loxos.Ed.: V. Rose, Anecdota Graeca (1864) 1.59–102 (introduction) and 103–169 (text); J. André, Anonyme Latin: Traité de physiognomonie (CUF 1981); I. Repath, “Anonymus Latinus, Book of Physiognomy,” in Swain (2007) 549–635. Sabine VogtPhysiologos (100 – 400 CE)Greek Christian anonymous collection of brief animal portraits, originated in Alexandriaor Palestine, widely distributed throughout the Greco-Roman world until late Middle Ages.With a wide range of texts of variable length and material, the Physiologos (i.e. “Expert-in-nature”) has no standard form and is rather a genre than a work. It usually presents atwofold description of one or several features of an animal, ﬁrst naturalistically, and thenallegorically and symbolically, with regular scriptural quotations, revealing how nature(phusis) itself expresses Christian realities and spiritual truths. On the basis of some80 MSS, Sbordone distinguished three main Greek recensions: ancient (immediately post-dating the gospels), Byzantine (5th/6th c.), and a so-called Basilean (10th/11th c.), errone-ously attributed to B  C. Traditionally ascribed to various heterogeneousauthors (e.g., the Christian bishop E, the pagan naturalist A, or theHebrew king Solomon), this very popular syncretic digest of Egyptian lore, Greek naturalhistory and Judeo-Christian exegesis was early translated into the main ancient Easternlanguages (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, etc.), and Latin. All medieval Bestiaries(books of beasts) or Aviaries (in Latin as in vernacular versions) originate from one of thenumerous Latin recensions (B, Y, A, C, etc., produced before 500 CE). This extensiblecollection with an average of 45 chapters (cumulatively treating some 80 diﬀerent creaturesin the ancient versions) is not even strictly zoological, including also plants (sycamore andthe peridexion tree) and stones (adamas, magnetite, ﬁre-ﬂints, etc.). This cultural medleyabounds in popular beliefs and ethology (with many parallels in Aristotle, A andK), sometimes misconceived animal behavior (the beaver’s autocastration, thefox’s simulating death, the crow’s monogamy, the snake’s hibernation, etc.), and theologicalinterpretations: the ichneumon covering himself with mud to kill the snake becomes thus a 665

P:677

T. P I T E N I U Snatural allegory of Christ assuming mortal nature to defeat the evil spirit. The selectedanimals are mostly savage (and often exotic), and some are mythical: onocentaur, siren,phoenix, ant-lion (fantastic creature generated by a free translation in the Septuagint of arare Hebraic word for lion). However, Physiologos, containing no original naturalistic data,oﬀers rather a series of peculiar behaviors or powers (called “natures”) turning to popularthemes (curative properties of the bird kharadrios – not the ordinary plover, the horror of thewolf in front of a naked man, the tears of the anthropophagous crocodile, etc.); and itgathers the main moral ﬁgures of medieval imaginary and Romanesque architecture (theﬁreproof salamander, abstinent elephant, resuscitating phoenix, heroic ichneumon, savageunicorn tamed by a virgin, eagle renewed by the sunlight of the truth and the water ofbaptism, etc.). The apologetical function and homiletical use of the text is obvious, butPhysiologos often occurs in the manuscript tradition with zoological (and not Christian) writ-ings and was read and treated as such. Medieval zoology (from I  H toBartholomaeus Anglicus, 13th c.) relies in fact amply on Physiologos’ moralizing, myths, anderroneous assumptions.Ed.: A. Zucker, Physiologos. Le bestiaire des bestiaires (2004).M. Wellmann, Der Physiologos. Eine religionsgeschichtlich-naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung = Philologus S.22.1 (1930) 1–116; F. Sbordone, Ricerche sulle fonti e sulla composizione del Physiologus greco (1936); RE 20.1 (1941) 1074–1129, B.E. Perry; N. Henkel, Studium zum Physiologus im Mittelalter (1976); J.H. Declerck, “Remarques sur la tradition du Physiologus grec,” Byzantion 51 (1981) 148–158; A. Scott, “The Date of the Physiologus,” Vigiliae Christianae 52 (1998) 430–441; BNP 11 (2007) 227–228, K. Alpers. Arnaud ZuckerP ⇒ CT. Pitenius (ca 100 CE)Astrologer, wrote an elaborate horoscope on a papyrus roll for Hermo¯n, born on April 1,81 CE, presumably in Lower Egypt (P. Lond. 1.130). The positions of the heavenly bodieswere computed by the “Eternal Tables,” mentioned also by P (Almagest 9.2) andV V (6.1).Neugebauer and van Hoesen (1959) 21–28. Alexander JonesSextus Placitus Papyriensis (400 – 450 CE)In the corpus constituted of (1) pseudo-A M, De herba uettonica, (2) -A, H, (3) the anonymous De taxone, and (4) pseudo-D , Deherbis feminis, there is a Liber medicinae ex animalibus, ascribed to this man. Each of its 34chapters treats an animal, describing its products used as materia medica (e.g., from deer, fox,rabbit and wild goat to eagle, vulture and other birds). It borrows material from M B and the Plinian tradition, and its illustrations may be based on Hellenisticmodels (Grape-Albers 1977: 27, 35). Both the text and its illustrations, originating probablyin the ﬁrst half of the 5th c. CE, are known through two recensions (text: Howaldand Sigerist 1927; illustrations: Talbot and Unterkircher 1971–1972; Grape-Albers 1977:23–25), probably resulting from independent rearrangements of an original nucleus, ratherthan from two authors (Howald and Sigerist 1927: ). The compiler has sometimes been 666

P:678

P L ATOidentiﬁed with Sextus Platonicus. The date of the English translation is still debated,D’Aronco (2007: 38) preferring the late 10th c. Constantine the African (d. after 1081 CE)rearranged the treatise (Ackermann 1788: 1–112), and it saw several Renaissance printings.Ed.: E. Howald and H.E. Sigerist, Antonii Musae De herba vettonica liber. Pseudo-Apuleius Herbarius. Anonymi De taxone liber. Sextii Placiti Liber medicinae ex animalibus = CML 4 (1927).J.G. Ackermann, Parabilium medicamentorum antiqui (1788); C.H. Talbot and F. Unterkircher, Medicina antiqua. Codex Vindobonensis 93 der ÖNB. Facsimile & Kommentarband (1971–1972); H. Grape-Albers, Spätantike Bilder aus der Welt des Arztes (1977); H.J. De Vriend, The Old English Herbarium (1984); M.P. Segolini, Libri medicinae Sexti Placiti Papyriensis ex animalibus pecoribus et bestiis vel avibus concordantiae (1998); M.A. D’Aronco, “The Transmission of Medical Knowledge in Anglo-Saxon England: the Voices of Manuscripts,” in P. Lendinara et al., edd., Form and Content of Instruction in Anglo-Saxon England in the Light of Contemporary Manuscript Evidence (2007) 35–58. Alain TouwaideDe Planetis (200 – 300 CE?)The author explains the powers of single planets, of planetary conjunctions, and of theplanetary ﬁgures trine, quadrature, and opposition; the work is suﬃciently similar toF  6.3–27 (on those ﬁgures) that Kroll thought a common source likely (cf. alsoF. Boll in PSI 3.158, a 3rd c. CE papyrus from Oxyrhynchos). The author apparentlyexploited a hexameter poem, of which a few lines remain embedded in the prose (cf. per-haps M  or A ). The text proceeds systematically from Kronos (Saturn:pp. 160–168) inward through Zeus ( Jupiter: pp. 169–173) and Ares (Mars: pp. 173–176) tothe Sun ( p. 176), then Aphrodite¯ (Venus: pp. 177–178) and Herme¯s (Mercury: pp. 178–179),and ending with the Moon ( pp. 179–180). Each planet’s role in melothesia is given (citingP and V V); then its eﬀects in conjunctions with more inward planets;then its eﬀects with more inward planets in the three ﬁgures (omitting impossible ﬁgures).For the inner planets, Aphrodite¯, Herme¯s, and Moon, the eﬀects of “superiority” arerecorded (cf. Manetho¯n 6.279); for Herme¯s, the eﬀects of conjunctions with all precedingplanets are repeated.W. Kroll, CCAG 2 (1900) 159–180. PTKPlato¯ n (Med.) (50 BCE – 95 CE)Wrote On Phlebotomy, of which a Latin translation apparently survives, in MS Monac. 8.2(16th c.). A   P. in G  CMLoc 7.2 (13.60 K.) records two cough remed-ies, both containing sturax, opium, and myrrh, and providing immediate relief. Since notmentioned in D  L 3.109, he probably postdates 50 BCE.Diels 2 (1907) 86; RE 20.2 (1950) 2542 (#10), Johanna Schmidt. GLIMPlato (ca 390 – 348/347 BCE)Plat¯on; born at Athens (or Aigina?) 427 BCE, and died in Athens 348/347 BCE. Plato’sattitude and contribution to ancient natural science are both diﬃcult to judge and havebeen the subject of considerable controversy. As Plato wrote dialogues, whose often complexarguments are sometimes inconclusive, and never appears in person in these works, there 667

P:679

P L ATO has been considerable debate concerning Plato’s actual thoughts. This is exacerbated by the fact that Plato does not appear to write to record his own doctrines, but to engage in or illustrate the nature of philosophical debate, or perhaps even to provoke his readers to examine their own opinions. The order of his works and the possible development of his thought are also areas of contention. The consensus on groupings of early, middle and later works is broad, but the position and signiﬁcance of indi- vidual works can still be hotly contested. The key work for Plato’s views on natural science is the Timaeus, now generally agreed to be late, but its relation to other late works and to the development of Plato’s thought is unclear. Sources for Plato’s biography include D  L, whose own sources vary in reliability, and A, Plato’s pupil. Some letters in Plato’s namePlato © Fitzwilliam Museum, give interesting information, but their provenance is openCambridge to considerable doubt. Plato gives us the ﬁrst thoroughgoing teleologicalaccount of the kosmos, its formation and the origins of humans and animals in theTimaeus. This work was hugely inﬂuential in astronomy and cosmology, and signiﬁcantlyaﬀected attitudes to explanation down to the 17th c. Why does Plato adopt this teleology?Plato’s critics argue that his motivation here is some sort of overspill from his programs inethics and epistemology, both dominated by an absolute conception of the good. Theyargue this was a reaction against materialist science preceding Plato, and had a malign eﬀecton subsequent thought.Plato found contemporary materialist explanations crude, implausible and inadequate, areasonable conclusion given the lack of sophistication of these accounts at this stage of theirdevelopment. His alternative was to postulate a craftsman God, the demiurge, who organ-ized all things out of chaos, always with the best arrangement in mind. Where Land D  had an unlimited number of worlds occurring by accident, an unlimitednumber of sizes and shapes of atoms, and E  had a multiplicity of biologicalaccidents before viable species are formed, Plato was adamant that there was onewell-designed kosmos, a small number of well-designed basic particles and unitary, well-designed species.That Plato criticized many theories of Pre-Socratic phusiologoi is sometimes taken asevidence of a negative attitude towards natural science. Here it is important to distinguishbetween Plato’s attitude to the phusiologoi and his own conception of how natural phenom-ena should be explained. When he is critical of materialist accounts of So¯crate¯s remainingin jail, or why the Earth has its shape and position, or why one person is taller than another,it is not that he believes these issues are not worthy of investigation, but rather that material-ist accounts of these issues are inadequate, either because they do not refer to the good, andso are not teleological in the sense required, or do not refer to Plato’s forms.Plato contrasted his unchanging, intelligible, knowable forms with the changing, per-ceptible physical world, the subject of opinion only. Modern interpretations of Platodownplay the extent to which these should be seen as two separate worlds and emphasize 668

P:680

P L ATOthat both participate in investigation for Plato. There is no reason to suppose that Platothought natural science solely concerned with forms, and so entirely non-empirical, orsolely concerned with the physical and so unable to constitute knowledge. Plato has been much criticized for appearing to denigrate the role of observation andexperiment in science. Plato has So¯crate¯s say (Republic 530b6–c1): “It is by means of problems, then, that we shall proceed with astronomy as we do geometry, and we shall leave the things in the heavens alone, if we propose by really taking part in astronomy to make useful instead of useless the understanding that is by nature in the soul.” The context and the conditional nature of this passage are critical here. Plato prescribes acurriculum for the intellectual development of the guardians of his ideal state, not oﬀeringa methodology for astronomy, nor does this passage have any implication for such a meth-odology. It says that if we are to use astronomy to educate the guardians, then we use itin this speciﬁc manner. The Timaeus (47b6–c5), more concerned with method, tells us incontrast that: “God devised and gave to us vision in order that we might observe the rational revolutions of the heavens and use them against the revolutions of thought that are in us, which are like them, though those are clear and ours confused, and by learning thoroughly and partaking in calculations correct according to nature, by imitation of the entirely unwandering revolutions of God we might stabilize the wandering revolutions in ourselves.” If Plato’s Timaeus supports the idea that the motions of the Sun, Moon and planets canbe resolved into combinations of regular circular motions, then this is probably Plato’s mostimportant contribution to contemporary Hellenic science. While (apparent) motions of theﬁxed stars were easy to model, motions of the other heavenly bodies were not. They werecommonly referred to as “wanderers,” as their motion appeared to defy simple laws. The problem in ascribing regular, circular motion to Plato is that the astronomical modelof the Timaeus is very crude, using only two circular motions each for Sun, Moon andﬁve planets, and so can only reproduce very few phenomena. This appears to produce adilemma. Either Plato is ignorant of the phenomena, or his model must be able to accountfor more of the phenomena, by using motions which are not regular and circular, ifPlato believes his model can reproduce all the phenomena of which he is aware. However,S (in De Caelo = CAG 7 [1894] 504.17–20) tells us that authors proposed modelsthat could not account for all the phenomena of which they were aware. It may well be thatPlato considered his model of the Timaeus a prototype, not able to account for all the knownphenomena but showing the way in terms of regular circular motion. If so, Simplicius’comment (in De Caelo = ibid., 488.18–20) makes sense: “Plato posed the following problem for those engaged in these studies: ‘Which hypotheses of regular and ordered motion are able to save the phenomena of the planets?’ ” It matters little whether Plato or E, his associate, originated the idea as it is theTimaeus which popularizes it. Eudoxos greatly improved on Plato’s model using a more 669

P:681

P L AT U S E¯ M O S ( ? )complex array of regular circular motions. Once the paradigm of regular circular motion isestablished, an enormously successful research program ensues, resulting in one of the ﬁnestproducts of ancient science, Ptolemaic astronomy, and it is not until ca 1600 that Kepler ﬁrstquestioned that astronomy should be done in this fashion. A further part of Plato’s legacy was the Academy, a school of intellectuals researchingin Athens down to its closure by Christian authorities in 529 CE. We are by no meanscertain of the nature of the school’s activities, though it is reported that “Let no oneignorant of geometry enter here” was written above the door.G.E.R. Lloyd, “Plato as Natural Scientist,” JHS 28 (1968) 78–92; J.P. Anton, ed., Science and the Sciences in Plato (1981); Andrew Gregory, Plato’s Philosophy of Science (2000). Andrew GregoryPlatuse¯mos (?) (100 BCE – 360 CE)O, Ecl. Med. 86.6 (CMG 6.2.2, p. 263), records his blood-stanch (iskhaimon)of lime, orpiment, realgar, and sulfur. The word seems otherwise unattested as a Greekname (LGPN, Pape-Benseler), but represents the Latin laticlauia (S  3.5.1), the senat-orial stripe, or its rank; compare the late Roman name Senator, PLRE 2.989–991, esp.C  S. (Or perhaps cf. Platulaimos in Alkiphro¯n 1.23.)(*) PTKPleistonikos (300 – 240 BCE)Greek physician, P’ pupil (C 1.pr.20), cited by G  mostly with histeacher and other Dogmatic physicians, especially D  (4.732, 10.28, 10.110 K., etc).Although his place of origin is unknown, he probably practiced in Ko¯s. His opinions onphysiology and anatomy must have been similar to Praxagoras’, but it is diﬃcult to dis-tinguish Pleistonikos’ theories in Gale¯n’s general lists: certainly Pleistonikos described andanalyzed the humors (Gale¯n, Atra Bile 1.2 [CMG 5.4.1.1, p. 71], PHP 8 [CMG 5.4.1.2,p. 510]). He believed that air entered the arteries not only from the heart but also from theentire body (Gale¯n Blood Arter. 8.1, pp. 176–177 Furley and Wilkie) and approved phle-botomy (Gale¯n On Venesection, Against Erasistratos 5 [11.163 K. = p. 25 Brain]). To him aloneis attributed the opinion that digestion is a process of putrefaction (sepsis: Celsus 1.pr.20). Heclaimed that water is a better aid to digestion than wine (Ath., Deipn. 2 [45d]), treated someillness with radish (P 20.26), and used hellebore in a peculiar way, employing it asa pessary and making patients smell it to induce vomit: O Coll. 7.26.194(CMG 6.1.1, p. 245).Ed.: Steckerl (1958).KP 4.925, F. Kudlien; BNP 11 (2007) 379–380, V. Nutton. Daniela ManettiPlentiphane¯s (500 – 90 BCE)Agricultural writer whose work was known to C D (V, RR 1.1.9–10).Since “Plentiphane¯s” is not a plausible Greek name, one may infer textual corruption ofe.g. L .RE 21.1 (1951) 226, K. Ziegler. Philip Thibodeau 670

P:682

C. PLINIUS SECUNDUS OF NOVUM COMUMC. Plinius Secundus of Novum Comum (43 – 79 CE)Wrote Naturalis Historia (NH), a 37-volume compendium of knowledge about the naturalworld, medicine, technology, and art, oﬀering a universal index of the world as known andimagined by the educated classes of early imperial Rome. Life: Born in Novum Comum in 23 or 24 CE, Pliny had a career typical of the wealthyequestrian class to which he was born. As a young man, he served in the army (47–52 CE) asmilitary tribune and commander of a cavalry unit; a decorative roundel ( phalera) bearing hisname has been recovered at Xanten. He participated in campaigns in the frontier provincesof Upper and Lower Germania, under Domitius Corbulo against the Chauci (47 CE), andagainst the Chatti under Pomponius Secundus (50–51 CE). In military life, he befriendedthe future emperor T. F V, the future dedicatee of NH. In civilian life, heacted as a forensic orator and wrote proliﬁcally. Beside NH, his works included a biographyof Pomponius Secundus; a manual on throwing javelins from horseback; a history ofRome’s wars with the Germanic tribes (inspired by a dream-vision of Nero ClaudiusDrusus, hero of A’ German campaigns); a book on the education of orators; abook on linguistic problems (an apolitical choice dictated by the dangers of life under Nero);and a history of his times. After Nero’s death and the Flavians’ ascent to power (69 CE), Pliny became a man ofimportance. Between 70–76 CE, Pliny took procuratorships in several provinces includingHispania Tarraconensis, Africa, and probably both Gallia Narbonensis and Belgica. Eventually hewas recalled to Vespasian’s court as an imperial adviser (amicus principum), and ﬁnally wasappointed commander of the Roman ﬂeet at Misenum on the Bay of Naples. From hishouse at Misenum, as described by his nephew (Pliny the Younger, Letters 6.16), Pliny sawthe eruption of Vesuvius of 79 CE, August 24. Having taken a galley to Stabiae to observethe eruption and rescue others in the neighborhood, he died when asphyxiated by volcanicgas (some scholars prefer to adduce a heart-attack). Pliny the Younger described his uncle’s work-habits in detail (Letters 3.5). Reducing his sleepto an austere minimum, he spent his waking hours either at oﬃcial duties or studying. Whilelistening to a reader, he dictated whatever caught his interest to scribe, keeping reader andscribe employed even at meals; rather than suspend note-taking while walking, he traveledby litter. No book was so bad, he said, that some part of it might not be somehow useful. Inthis way he produced the raw materials of his enormous books: 20 volumes on Rome’s warsagainst the Germani, 31 volumes of contemporary history, and the 37 volumes of NH. Work: Pliny is of major signiﬁcance as a pioneer in the encyclopedic tradition. Forhistorians of science, Pliny’s importance lies more in the concept and outline of Natureimplicit in the structure of his book than in original theories or ﬁrst-hand observations, ofwhich there are few. Pliny dedicates NH ( Pr.1) to Titus, Emperor Vespasian’s son and co-ruler – a measureof Pliny’s ambitions. There follows an extended table of contents or index-list, setting outhis topics by book and subsection; for each book Pliny gives a total sum of facts contained(consistently undercounted) as well as authors consulted, listing Roman authors separatelyfrom foreigners. NH begins with cosmology, including astronomy and geology (Book 2);there follow a geographical gazetteer of the known world (Books 3–6); man (7); creatures ofland, sea, and air (8–10); insects and comparative anatomy (11); botany (12–19); medicineand pharmacology (20–32); and ﬁnally minerals, including long subsections on pigments,painting, sculpture, architecture, and gems (33–37). 671

P:683

P L O¯ T I N O S As the Hellenistic period saw the methodical collection of knowledge in royal libraries,Rome’s ascendancy was marked by the appearance of books aiming at comprehensivesyntheses of Greek scholarship and traditional Roman culture. Designed to embrace enkuk-lios paideia, “general culture,” these books represent the beginning of the encyclopedictradition. What enkuklios paideia meant was not yet ﬁxed: V’s Disciplinae covereddialectic, rhetoric, grammar, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music, architecture, andmedicine; C’ Artes comprised agriculture, military science, medicine, oratory, juris-prudence, and philosophy. Unlike these older encyclopedias, the goal of NH, and its primestructural criterion, was not tuition in skills valued by Roman society, but investigation intonature. The index-list of NH, a novel device intended to let readers ﬁnd particular facts withoutlengthy browsing, represents another innovation. A universal taxonomy in miniature, theindex-list also demonstrates how to ﬁt the world into a referential shape. This instrument ofreference, as well as Pliny’s sums of facts recorded, set a standard and issued a challenge tolater encyclopedic authors. Pliny is sometimes attacked for excessive credulity, since NH abounds in the surprisingand the marvelous (mirabilia): fantastic animals, astonishing springs, and oddly-shapedpeoples. But from an ancient perspective, mirabilia serve not only the recognized literary endof entertainment, they also illustrate the variety and power of Pliny’s chosen subject,Nature. Since the normal is understood by contrast with the strange, Pliny’s mirabilia work aslimit-cases, demarcating the realm of accepted knowledge by tracing its periphery. Pliny’s book, which often reads like an inventory of things available to his contempor-aries, is not simply collected data given referenceable form, it is knowledge collected forRoman use and made accessible, as Pliny himself says, by the spread of Roman authority.As with the treasures displayed in a triumphal procession, one witnesses in NH Rome’spower at work subduing and taxonomizing Nature.Ed.: R. König and G. Winkler, ed. and trans., Naturkunde: Lateinisch-Deutsch/C. Plinius Secundus der Ältere 27 vv. (1973–2004); H. Rackham and W.H.S. Jones, ed. and trans., Pliny: Natural History 10 vv. (Loeb: 1938–1963: complete, though not always reliable, English translation with Latin text).M. Beagon, Roman Nature: The Thought of Pliny the Elder (1992); Trevor Murphy, Pliny the Elder’s Natural History (2004); V. Naas, Le Projet Encyclopédique de Pline l’Ancien (2002), with other bibliography; NDSB 6.116–121, A. Doody. Trevor MurphyPlo¯ tinos (254 – 270 CE)The most important Platonist philosopher in late antiquity, whose life is well documentedin his pupil P’ detailed biography. Born 204 CE in Egypt, Plo¯tinos studiedphilosophy, with both the Christian and the Platonist Origen, under Ammo¯nios Saccas atAlexandria for 11 years (Vit. Plot. 3). In 242–3 he joined Gordian’s expedition to Persia tolearn about Persian and Indian philosophy, but without success (Vit. Plot. 3). In 244, Plo¯tinosmoved to Rome where he opened his own school, seemingly quite popular, attractingstudents from abroad – Porphurios from Athens, Roman senators (Vit. Plot. 7), and women(ibid. 9) – and enjoying the emperor Gallienus’ favor (ibid. 12). Porphurios provides agood impression of Plo¯tinos’ seminars, consisting in reading the exegetical works ofD  S, N , G, A, A, A, andA  A (ibid. 14), presumably to elucidate P’s and A’s 672

P:684

P L O¯ T I N O Sphilosophy, while his pupils raised questions and argued for their views (ibid. 13, 18).Suﬀering from a serious disease, in 270 Plo¯tinos retired to Campania to die. Porphurios divided Plo¯tinos’ works into three periods: early, those recorded beforePorphurios’ arrival (263); middle, during Porphurios’ stay in Rome (until 268); and late,written after Porphurios’ departure (Vit. Plot. 4–6). Porphurios reports that Plo¯tinos, whostarted to write at age 50, composed carelessly (ibid. 8) and his writings needed editorial care,provided by both A G (ibid. 19–20) and Porphurios, Plo¯tinos’ most loyalstudents (ibid. 24). Plo¯tinos’ work survives today in the arrangement of Porphurios’ editionpublished ca 300–305. Porphurios arranged Plotinos’ treatises into six groups of nine trea-tises (Enneads), because he regarded the numbers six and nine as perfect, symbolizing theperfection of Plo¯tinos’ philosophy. Pedagogically the arrangement guides the reader to theheights of philosophy, the vision of the ultimate divine entity, the One. The ﬁrst Enneadtreats ethics, the second physics, the third cosmology, the fourth the soul, the ﬁfth theintellect, and the sixth the One. Yet this division does not correspond to the treatises asPlo¯tinos wrote them, since sometimes Porphurios gathered his mentor’s notes (Enn. 3.9) butmore often divided longer treatises into smaller pieces (e.g. Enn. 3.8, 5.8, 5.5, 2.9) Plo¯tinos intended to elucidate and expound Plato’s philosophy, not to create a new one(Enn. 5.1.8.10–14). His understanding of Plato is much indebted to earlier Platonistsespecially P and Noume¯nios, but also to Aristotle and Peripatetics like Alexander.Plo¯tinos tried to systematize various ideas in Plato’s work, defending them againstPeripatetic, Stoic, and other critics. For Plo¯tinos only what subsists of its own is a sub-stance, a hupostasis, and as such only intelligible entities qualify; but given that intelligibleentities have diﬀerent degrees of unity and simplicity, there are higher and lower entitiesrepresenting diﬀerent degrees of reality. Plo¯tinos maintained the existence of three divinehupostaseis, the One, the Intellect, and the Soul, from which everything else results.Inspired by Plato’s Parmenides, Plo¯tinos, like Noume¯nios, postulated the existence of theOne, which he identiﬁed with the Form of the Good of Republic 6 and which he consideredthe ultimate cause of everything in the intelligible and the sensible world. The One isclaimed to be above the Intellect, or the divine demiurge, ﬁrst because the Intellect actingunder constraints, such as matter, is incompatible with the unlimited freedom that thehighest God merits; and second because an intellect implies dualism, since it has thoughts,while the ﬁrst principle must be utterly simple and united. The Intellect is characterized bynon-discursive thinking (noesis), while the Soul displays discursive or dianoetic thinking. Belowthe Soul lies Nature maintained by the higher hupostaseis. The hupostaseis play a rolealso in Plo¯tinos’ cosmology. Plo¯tinos argues for the everlastingness of the universe, theheavens, and the heavenly bodies, which means that all of them persist and retain theirindividual identity over time because they are ultimately ontologically dependent on theWorld-Soul, which in turn is dependent on the Intellect. The crux of Plo¯tinos’ philosophy ishis psychology. Plo¯tinos seems to approach the question of how the intelligible realm relatesto the sensible one by investigating the relation between soul and body. Plo¯tinos’ preoccupa-tion with the soul was both metaphysical and ethical. He distinguished between inner andouter man, and he identiﬁed man’s self with the former which is the soul. By “soul” is notintended the embodied soul which enlivens the body, but rather the transcendent, intel-lective one, from which the embodied emanates. Man’s aim, according to Plo¯tinos, is toachieve unity with the One (Enn. 1.4.3, 1.4.10). Plo¯tinos’ philosophy exerted enormous inﬂuence on later generations of Platonists,leading historians of philosophy to consider Plo¯tinos the founder of a distinct version of 673

P:685

PLOUTARKHOS OF ATHENS, SON OF NESTORIOSPlatonism, Neo-Platonism, a label to be used with caution: ﬁrst because Plo¯tinos did notaim to create a new interpretation of Plato, “Neo-Platonism,” and second because muchof this is anticipated by earlier Platonists including Noume¯nios.Ed.: P. Henry and H.-R. Schwyzer, Plotini Opera (1964–1982).A. Armstrong, The Architecture of the Intelligible Universe in the Philosophy of Plotinus (1940); RE 21.1 (1951) 471–592, H.-R. Schwyzer; H. Blumenthal, Plotinus’ Psychology. His Doctrine of the Embodied Soul (1971); E. Emilsson, Plotinus on Sense Perception (1988); D.J. O’Meara, Plotinus. An Introduction to the Enneads (1993); L. Gerson, Plotinus (1994); OCD3 1198–1200, J. M. Dillon; P. Hadot, Plotin ou la simplicité du regard (1997); J. Wilberding, Plotinus’ Cosmology. A Study of Ennead II.1 (40) (2006); BNP 11 (2007) 395–403, P. Hadot. George KaramanolisPloutarkhos of Athens, son of Nestorios (d. 432 CE)Neo-Platonist philosopher from Athens, taught (in his own house) Hierokle¯s of Alexan-dria, S, P, and his own daughter Askle¯pigeneia; was acquainted withD. He wrote commentaries on P (Gorgias, Phaedo and Parmenides) andA  (at least on De Anim. 3), of which only fragments are preserved in later com-mentators. His successors, especially Proklos, esteemed him highly, and his work’s mainfocus seems to have been harmonizing Platonic and Aristotelian doctrines, partly based onI . Ploutarkhos was the main source of the revival of Platonism in Athens.RE 21.2 (1952) 962–975 (#3), R. Beutler; D.P. Taormina, Plutarco di Atene, L’Uno, l’Anima, le Forme (1989); ECP 429–430, H.J. Blumenthal; BNP 11 (2007) 426–427 (#3), H.D. Saﬀrey. Cosmin AndronP  K ⇒ PPlutarch of Khairo¯ neia, L. Mestrius (ca 80 – 120 CE)Born ca 46, biographer and Platonic philosopher. At the time of Nero’s visit to Greece(66/67 CE), Plutarch was not older than 20 (De E 385B). Born to a wealthy family, he heldvarious public oﬃces: a mission to the proconsul of Achaia (Praec. ger. reip. 816B), agoranomosand eponymous archon in Khairo¯neia (Quaest. conv. 642F; 693F), Boeotarch, and probablyseveral times president of the Amphictyony. Hadrian entrusted the government of Greeceto Plutarch (119 CE: E, Chron. 2135 ab Abr.). Trajan elevated him to consular status(Souda Pi-1794). Plutarch counted inﬂuential Romans, such as Sosius Senecio, Fundanus,and Mestrius Florus, among his friends. Plutarch’s nomen gentilicium Mestrius indicatedRoman citizenship (CIG 1713). With his wife Timoxena he had four sons and a daughter,who died young, like two of her brothers. Plutarch himself died between 119 and 127. Plutarch studied under A  A in Athens but resided mostly in Khairo¯neia,where he established a philosophical school, and in Delphi, where he held a priesthood (atthe latest from the beginning of Hadrian’s reign – cf. CIG 1713 – but probably already longbefore: An seni 792F). He traveled to Egypt (Quaest. conv. 678C), Asia Minor (An. an corp.501E) and several times to Rome (Demosth. 2.2). His extant writings include 50 biographies(23 parallel lives, Vitae, and lives of Otho, Galba, Aratos and Artaxerxe¯s) and various otherworks belonging to diﬀerent genres (in modern editions known as Moralia). The dialoguesportray Plutarch’s circle of friends and students. Plutarch’s philosophy of nature is largely based on P’s Timaeus but is also inﬂuenced 674

P:686

P L U TA RC H O F K H A I R O¯ N E I A , L . M E S T R I U Sby the skepticism of the Hellenistic Academy and especially by the fallibilism character-izing its ﬁnal phase. Any enquiry into the physical world and its physical causes can merelyattain probability (cf. De def. or. 435E–436A; Ti. 68e–69a; Phaed. 97b–99d). The philosopher,however, should also look for ﬁnal, i.e. teleological, causes. The fallible character of anyinquiry on the level of material causes enables Plutarch to give serious considerationnot only to Plato’s views, but also to physical doctrines of the Peripatetic, Stoic andEpicurean schools. Even if their speciﬁc doctrines ﬁnd provisional acceptance, theyremain subordinated to Plutarch’s overall Platonism. In De facie in orbe lunae, Plutarch, citing H and A, discussesastronomy, geography, and catoptrics. Lunar phenomena, Plutarch argues, show that theMoon’s constitution is earthy. He mentions the theory that the Moon’s velocity prevents itfrom falling, rejects the Aristotelian doctrine of natural motion, discusses distances betweenheavenly bodies, size, position and shape of the Earth, the existence of the “antipodes,”lunar phases, solar and lunar eclipses, the habitability of the Moon, lunar vegetation, theapparent face in the Moon (the great ocean reﬂected in the Moon, according to anAristotelian speaker). In the introduction to the concluding myth a trans-Atlantic continentand islands westward of Britain are mentioned. Plutarch rejects motion of the Earth(Quaestiones Platonicae 1006C–E; citing Aristarkhos, S, T). He alsotreats the parts of speech (1009B–1011E), and antiperistasis, a Platonic theory to explain theproperties of magnets and amber, the motion of projectiles and thunderbolts, the working ofcupping-instruments, the perception of consonance (1004D–1006B; cf. Ti. 79e–80c). InDe animae procreatione, Plutarch discusses arithmetical problems related to Plato’s harmonicdivision of the soul. In Quaestiones naturales, he discusses various issues, including agriculture,zoology, medicine, meteorology, ﬁshing, hunting, cooking, properties of sea water, many pre-viously addressed by A or Theophrastos or “Laitos” ( probably O L).Plutarch often oﬀers original solutions, probably of his own making. Quaestiones Convivalesaddress medicine, botany, zoology, physics in general, and astronomy. Plutarch considerscomparable subjects in some of the fragments of his commentaries on H ( fr.127),H  ( fr.75–76, 80–81, 102, 104) and N’ Th¯eriaka ( fr.113–114). The scholia( fr.13–20) preserve excerpts from notes on A’ Diosemiae. In De primo frigido, Plutarchsearches for the primarily cold element: not air (the Stoics), not water (E ,S   L), but earth. The essay closes with an appeal to suspend judgment.In De sollertia animalium and Bruta animalia ratione uti, Plutarch upholds the intelligence ofanimals against the Stoics. De tuenda sanitate praecepta provides dietary advice. Plutarch occasionally addresses scientiﬁc theories in the anti-Stoic works De Stoicorumrepugnantiis (rejecting the Stoic view on the role of air in the animation of the fetus, and ofair as primarily cold: 41–43), and De communibus notitiis (on mixture, the divisibility of body,the continuum, the structure of matter: 37–43; 49–50). Plutarch inserts a treatment of theStoic hypothetical syllogism and speculations on the number ﬁve in De E Delphico. De Pythiaeoraculis opens by discussing the atmospheric conditions in Delphi giving bronze a peculiarpatina and then moves on to exhalations as material causes for the oracle. This issue alsofeatures in De defectu oraculorum, which, moreover, describes the lamps at the shrine ofAmmo¯n consuming less and less olive oil every year (410B). The handbook On music and the geographical work On rivers (De ﬂuuiis) are spurious: seethe next two entries.RE 21.1 (1951) 636–962, K. Ziegler; P.L. Donini, “Science and metaphysics. Platonism, Aristotelian- ism, and Stoicism in Plutarch’s On the face in the moon,” J.M. Dillon and A.A. Long, edd., The Question 675

P:687

PLUTARCH (?), ON MUSIC of “Eclecticism” (1988) 126–144; P.L. Donini, “I fondamenti della ﬁsica e la teoria delle cause in Plutarco,” in I. Gallo, ed., Plutarco e le scienze (1992) 99–120; OCD3 1200–1201, D. Russell. Jan OpsomerPlutarch (?), On Music (ca 150 CE)The dialogue On music, included among the Moralia by tradition, is rejected by currentscholarship as an authentic work of P. Nevertheless, a number of authentictreatises contain important information on Pythagorean mathematics and music (On thegeneration of the soul in the Timaeus), the ethical eﬀect and value of music in society (Table-Talk),and the history of musical instruments (Ancient customs of the Spartans; Life of Crassus; Onprogress in virtue; On the control of anger). Regardless of its author, On music is in a sense the earliest “history” of Greek music and aprime source of information on ancient Greek musical life, including historical material onPythagorean music theory, the “invention” of musical forms, and the development ofearly musical scales. Some of this material is attributed to now-lost works by A M , A, Glaukos of Rhe¯gion, and H    H P , J. The two primary speakers in the dialogue, Lysias and Soterichus, repre-sent respectively the practical and theoretical viewpoints of music and its development.After describing various musico-poetic forms and attributing them to early “inventors,”Lysias explains the construction of the enharmonic genus, its relationship to the othergenera, and a special “spondeion” scale, the precise structure of which remains obscure.Soterichus expands on Lysias’ practical presentation, correcting and augmenting hisdescriptions of the musico-poetic forms and the spondeion scale. He subsequently turns hisattention to the realm of Pythagorean mathematics and music, concluding that musicshould be elevating, instructive, and useful. Modern musical innovations have led musicto its present low estate, aptly represented by the famous fragment from the Cheiron ofPherecrate¯s. Music must be restored to its proper place by copying the ancient style, follow-ing the guidance of philosophy. Reviewing the principles of harmonics and rhythmics,Soterichus recognizes that this knowledge is insuﬃcient alone for the creation or judgmentof musical art and yields to the precentor One¯sicrate¯s, who provides the philosophicalcapstone of the dialogue: P, P, and A have revealed that musicis of value because the revolution of the universe is based on music and god has arrangedeverything to accord with harmonia (kath’ harmonian).K. Ziegler, Plutarchi Moralia 6.3 (1966); Barker (1984) 1.205–257; NGD2 19.931–932; Mathiesen (1999) 355–66; MGG2 13.698–699. Thomas J. MathiesenPlutarch, pseudo, De Fluuiis (300 CE?)The anonymous collection De Fluuiis is divided into 25 chapters containing etiological mythsabout the names of as many streams in Greece, Gaul, Asia and Egypt, with added informa-tion about unusual or wonderful stones, metals and plants found in those rivers or on nearbymountains. The work survives in a single MS preserving several other paradoxographicaltreatises (Palat. gr. 398). Numerous source-citations, underscoring the collection’s credi-bility, further place it squarely in the mirabilia-tradition. However, while some of the acknow-ledged writers (46) and books (65) peri potam¯on, peri lith¯on, peri or¯on etc. are possibly realsources (A   S, A  K, P   S, 676

P:688

P O L E M O¯ N O F AT H E N SS   N, and T  M ), the great majority of them havelong since been exposed as ﬁgments of the author’s imagination, only to be found in DeFluuiis and another mediocre Pseudo-Plutarchan writing obviously coming from the samepen (Parallela minora). As such, De Fluuiis is merely pseudo-paradoxographical, a gratuitousconcoction for a gullible, sensation-seeking audience.Ed.: N. Bernardakis, Plutarchos, Moralia 7 (1896) 282–328.RE 18.3 (1949) 1137–1166 (§34, 1164), K. Ziegler; RE 21.1 (1951) 636–962 (#2; III.10f-g, 867–871), Idem; BNP 11 (2007) 424 (#2, IV.A), E. Olshausen. Jan Bollansée, Karen Haegemans, and Guido SchepensPodanite¯s (250 BCE – 80 CE)A, in G  CMLoc 7.4 (13.115 K.), quotes his remedy for duspnoia: dis-solve mustard, salt, and natron in water, drink often. The name seems otherwise unattested:cf. Podanikos (LGPN 1.374), Podanemos (LGPN 3A.365), or perhaps Podare¯s (ibid.).Fabricius (1726) 375. PTKPolemarkhos of Kuzikos (360 – 330 BCE)Follower of E, classmate or teacher of K (S, In de caelo, = CAG7 [1894] 492). He noted the apparent variation in the brightness of planets but dismissed itas evidence for variation in the distances of planets from the Earth, on the grounds that thedistance is not really observable, and so defended Eudoxos’ theory of homocentric spheres(ibid., p. 505).Simplicius, On Aristotle’s “On the Heavens 2.10–14,” trans. Ian Mueller (ACA 2005). Henry MendellPolemo¯ n of Athens (ca 345 – 270/269 BCE)Followed his teacher X  as scholarch of the Academy in 314/313 BCE untilhis death in (or near) 270/269 BCE. Sources other than D  L (4.16–20)and C are limited. Until recently, Polemo¯n had been considered mainly a moralphilosopher (following D.L. 4.18), but Cicero’s mentor Antiokhos of Askalon stressedwide-ranging connections between Polemo¯n and Z   the Stoic, once his pupil. Sedleyhas now persuasively argued that the account of Platonic physics oﬀered by Cicero (Acad.1.24–29), attributing to P a single organic universe with two principles, active andpassive, operating in close conjunction within it, and hitherto seen as Antiokhos’ own sto-icizing contribution, is in fact an account of Academic physics under Polemo¯n. LikeZe¯no¯n, Polemo¯n had idealized “life according to nature (phusis),” and written a book onthe subject (Clement, Strom. 7.6.32.9). The passage identiﬁes matter with the passive prin-ciple, while the other principle seems to be given a sentient nature and perfect reason, calledthe “soul of the world,” god, or providence. It also makes much use of the idea of bodies asqualiﬁed matter, using earth, air, ﬁre and water as “elements,” two more active and two morepassive, mentioning in addition the ﬁfth astral body of A. These are distinguishedfrom compound bodies. While the attribution to Polemo¯n is only hypothetical, it accordswith trends already found in Xenokrate¯s and can be reconciled with early Academicnon-literal readings of the Timaios’ creation-process. 677

P:689

P O L E M O¯ N O F I L I O N As an ethicist, Polemo¯n is associated with the idea that, whereas virtue is the mostimportant object of pursuit, being suﬃcient for happiness, humans must also give thoughtto the provision of the “ﬁrst things according to nature,” various desirable things promotinglife from its very ﬁrst stages. His deﬁnition of love, associating it with service to thegods in looking after the youth, is preserved by P, Uneducated Ruler 3 (780D),and the Academy under him was characterized by a number of prominent male-to-malerelationships, including his own with Xenokrate¯s and then his successor as scholarch,Krate¯s, causing Tarrant (JHP 43 [2005] 131–155) to postulate a relationship with thepseudo-Platonic Theag¯es, combining the divinely inspired So¯crate¯s with the erotic one.Ed.: M. Gigante, Polemonis Academici Fragmenta (1977).Dillon (2003) 155–177; D.N. Sedley, “The Origins of the Stoic God,” in M. Frede and A. Laks, edd., Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background, and Aftermath (2002) 41–83. Harold TarrantPolemo¯ n of Ilion (190 – 160 BCE)Wrote a set of perie¯ge¯tic works on various Greek lands, explaining myths and customs, anumber of scholarly works, and paradoxographical works. Over 100 fragments sur-vive, in authors from S  to M, and he was described by P,Q.Conv. 5.2 (675B), as “of wide learning, tireless, and accurate.” From his paradoxographicalwork Rivers in Sicily, Macrobius, Sat. 5.19.26–30, preserves a long fragment; see also Ath.,Deipn. 7 (307b).BNP 11 (2007) 458–459 (#2), A.A. Donohue. PTKPolemo¯ n of Laodikeia on the Lukos (“Antonius Polemo”) (ca 110 – 144 CE)Born ca 88 CE from an inﬂuential family, Polemo¯n was a rhetor and prominent politician inSmurna and a representative of the Second Sophistic (Philostratos, Vit. Soph. 1.23). He enjoyedprivileged access to power through his friendship with Hadrian, but also Trajan andAntoninus Pius; he died in 144 CE. From his rhetorical work, only two short declamationsand several fragments have survived, showing him as preferring the “Asian” style of briefsentences and rhetorical tropoi. He is reported to have been extraordinarily conscious of comportment and self-representation, so it is not surprising that he also was a physiognomist. His written work onphysiognomy can be reconstructed from one brief fragment, an Arabic translation anda Greek paraphrase by A. It appears to have been silently based on theA  C P, and interspersed with anecdotes fromPolemo¯n’s own travels. Most prominent in his physiognomical method is the observation ofsigns in the eyes, comprising one-third of the text (in the Arabic version). Polemo¯n alsoreviews the character traits of 92 animals, signs of the various parts of the body, ethno-graphic diﬀerences, the color of skin and eyes, the signiﬁcance of hair on head and body,and features of comportment such as body movement, gait, gesture and voice. As in theAristotelian Corpus Physiognomy, Polemo¯n considers it essential to “seek an overall impres-sion (epiprépeia) so that you may apply it to the body the way a signet ring is applied tomaterial on which it is to print” (1 [1.168 F.] Arabic; cf. 2.1 [1.348–9. F.] Adamantios). 678

P:690

P O L L E¯ S O F A I G A I , P S E U D OEd.: R. Hoyland, “A New Edition and Translation of the Leiden Polemon,” and A. Ghersetti, “The Istanbul Polemon ( TK Recension): Edition and Translation of the Introduction,” in Swain (2007) 328–463 and 465–485.KP 4.972–973 (#5), H. Gärtner; OCD3 1204 (#4), D.A.F.M. Russell; BNP 11 (2007) 460–461 (#6), E. Bowie; M.W. Gleason, Making Man. Sophists and Self-Representation in Ancient Rome (1995); S. Swain, “Polemon’s Physiognomy,” in Swain (2007) 125–201. Sabine VogtPolite¯s (250 BCE – 200 CE)Cited by the P V 3 for the claim that the tuna-fry in thePontos are generated from mud ( p¯elos), hence their name “p¯elamus.” The name is rare afterthe 1st c. BCE: LGPN (-tas, -te¯s, and -tis).(*) PTKPolle¯s (Med.) (120 – 365 CE)O, Syn. 3.13 (CMG 6.3, p. 65), cites his beeswax-based “crane” remedy composedof verdigris, realgar, sandux (minium, i.e., red lead [lead tetroxide], prepared by roastinglitharge or psimuthion in air, below 500 ˚C: D , MM 5.88), terebinth, andnotably a crane wing, combusted in a sealed ceramic jar, all powdered. His recipes fora chest-wound plaster and for an ointment for headaches and migraines, ibid. 3.15–16( pp. 67–68) contain primarily botanicals, but the Schol. Oreib. Coll. 45.21.1 (CMG 6.2.1,p. 177) says he used a mixture of pigeon dung, barley-chaf fand water on scrofula. A A preserves his digestif salt, containing calamint, chamomile-ﬂower, eryngo-root,konuza (cf. P 21.58; G , Simples 7.10.42 [12.35–36 K.]; Andre¯ 1985: 74; Durling1993: 209: either Inula viscosa Aiton [“ﬂeabane”] or Inula graveolens Desf.), marjoram,pepper, and silphion, plus roasted salt: 9.24 ( p. 507 Cornarius; omitted by Zervos1911: 324–325), and seven complex softening diaphore¯tike¯ plasters (15.15, Zervos 1909:73–75, 77–80, 82–83). P  A, 4.16 (CMG 9.1, p. 334), places him afterA .(*) PTKPolle¯s of Aigai, pseudo (80 – 120 CE)Wrote three extensive volumes Concerning antipathies and sympathies (Souda, O-163),including a fragment Roadside Augury (Enodion Oi¯onisma). Along with M, Polle¯s wasconsidered infallible (Souda, M-448; cf. M, V. Prokl. 10).RE 21.2 (1952) 1410–1411 (#1), K. Scherling; Ullmann (1972) 394. GLIMP ⇒ (1) A; (2) V 679

P:691

P O L L I S ( O R P O L L E¯ S ? )Pollis (or Polle¯s?) (300 – 25 BCE)Compiled rules of architectural symmetry and proportion (V 7.pr.14), perhapsidentiﬁable with the homonymous sculptor ( post 300 BCE) of athletes, hunters, warriors, andmen oﬀering sacriﬁces, whom P (34.91) lists among minor sculptors.RE 21.2 (1952) 1417–1418 (#4), G. Lippold. GLIMPoluainos of Lampsakos (310 – 275 BCE)Epicurean philosopher, he became E’ student when Epicurus was teaching atLampsakos ca 310–307, and moved to Athens with him in 307. Epicurus was said to haveturned Poluainos’ interests from mathematics to philosophy (C, Lucullus 106). Alongwith Epicurus, H, and M  , he was known as one of the fourfounders of the Epicurean school. He wrote a number of works, including On Deﬁnitions,On Philosophy, Against Arist¯on (target uncertain), and Aporiai (Puzzles).Ed.: A. Tepedino Guerra, Polieno: Frammenti (1991).OCD3 1209, D. Obbink; ECP 445–446, D.N. Sedley; BNP 11 (2007) 494–495 (#1), T. Dorandi. Walter G. EnglertPoluarkhos (30 BCE – 35 CE)Widely-cited pharmacist. C 5.18.8 (cf. 8.9.1D) gives his softening malagma (resin,beeswax, cardamom, kuperos, etc.); A, in G  CMGen 7.7 (13.981 K.),oﬀers his ointment; and A   P., in Gale¯n CMLoc 8.5 (13.184–185 K.),reports two internal remedies, one with bdellium, saﬀron, cinnamon-wood, Indian nard,etc., the second revised by I A. M  B 20.149 (CML 5,p. 372) reports another: cardamom, cassia, galingale, malabathron, roses, etc. S ,Gyn. 3.32, 3.38 (CMG 4, pp. 115, 118 = CUF v. 3, pp. 35, 41; along with K  ’sointment), O, Syn. 9.43.19 (CMG 6.3, p. 303), A  A 8.63 (CMG 8.2,p. 512), and P  A 3.74.3, 7.18.4–5 (CMG 9.1, p. 292; 9.2, pp. 369–370)prescribe Poluarkhos’ remedies.RE 21.2 (1952) 1439–1440, H. Diller. PTKPolubios of Megalopolis (ca 180 – 118 BCE)Son of Lukortas, one of the leaders of the Akhaian Confederation. Biography: In 182 Polubios buried the ashes of Philopoimen, well-known general ofthe Confederation. Two years later, Polubios was appointed envoy to Alexandria and in 170served as general of cavalry of the Confederation. After the Roman victory over Perseus ofMacedon in 168, Polubios was deported to Rome (due to insuﬃciently good relations withthe Roman occupier), together with a thousand elite Akhaians. Polubios became friend andmentor of P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus. In his years as a political prisoner of Rome(167–150 BCE), Polubios made several journeys: through Africa, Spain, Gaul and the Alps.On his 151 BCE visit to Spain, accompanying Scipio, he probably visited New Carthage. In149, released from exile, he was asked to come to Lilubaion in Sicily. He arrived inKerkura/Corcyra, was informed that Carthage had accepted Roman terms and returned 680

P:692

POLUBOShome to Arkadia. When the war resumed, Polubios came to Carthage and after its destruc-tion in 146 BCE he went on a voyage of discovery through the Pillars of He¯rakle¯s (Gibraltar),up the coast of Portugal and back along the African coast as far as the river Lixos (inMorocco), attempting to locate Mount Atlas more accurately than had yet been done. LaterPolubios visited Asia Minor. He was also at Alexandria and probably Buzantion. He mayhave visited Scipio’s camp at Numantia in 133 BCE. Polubios died at the age of 82 after afall from a horse. Works: (1) Histories in 40 books beginning chronologically where T left oﬀ (264BCE) and concentrating on the swift ascendance of Rome as a world power; lost works:(2) biography of Philopoimen; (3) On Tactics, a history of the Numantine War; (4) on livingconditions in the equatorial region. Contribution: Polubios expanded the role of geography within historiography byreducing the traditional use of geographical digressions and assigning a separate section ofhis Histories to geography. The idea probably came from E, whose Books 4–5 wereexclusively geographical. Polubios concentrated his geographical descriptions and discus-sions in Histories Book 34, surviving only as paraphrases in S , P and Athe¯naiosDeipnosophists; it contained a geographical survey of the entire oikoumene¯ and a detaileddescription (khorographia) of Europe and Africa. Polubios’ pragmatic attitude towards geog-raphy made him less interested in scientiﬁc and theoretical discussions of geography andtopography and more in information aimed at increasing his readers’ knowledge of remoteand little known regions. Much of the book comprised attacks on previous geographers,discussions of theory, practical details concerning distances and topography. Like his con-temporary, K   M, Polubios emphasized the role of H in geographicaltradition, drew geographical information from the Iliad and Odyssey and dealt at length withlocating Odysseus’ wanderings. Polubios wrote of latitudinal climatic zones and their inﬂu-ence on the character of their human inhabitants and on animals and plants. He dividedthe globe into six zones unlike Strabo¯n who preferred P   A’s ﬁve-zone division. Polubios used astronomical methods to measure the length of the oikou-mene¯ and a system of triangulation to describe the main outlines of Italy (2.14.4–6). Hedid not make a serious contribution to the scientiﬁc study of geography but recorded topo-graphical details as well as assembling and comparing distances.F.W. Walbank, “The geography of Polybius,” C&M 9 (1948) 155–182; P. Pédech, “La géographie de Polybe: Structure et contenu du livre XXXIV des Histoires,” LEC 24 (1956) 3–24; Walbank v.3 (1979). Daniela DueckPolubos (420 – 350 BCE)Greek physician, son of Apollo¯nios, credited by A (HA 3.3 [512b–513a]) with thedescription of blood vessels preserved also in the H O  N  M11 (and On the nature of bones 9). He argues that all vessels originate in the head. A laterbiographical tradition (Vita Hp. Bruss. 1; Hipp., Letter 27) considers him H ’ pupiland son-in-law; Polubos remained at Ko¯s, heading the school after Hippokrate¯s. Accord-ingly, Polubos was credited with the authorship of Hippokratic works (On the Nature of Manpartly, Nature of the Child, On Birth in the Eighth Month): see G  4.653, 18A.8 K., CMG5.9.1, p. 8; pseudo-P Plac. 5.18. But he was probably connected with Hippokrate¯sonly later, because the “Aristotelian” doxography in the L  19.2–18 681

P:693

P O L U D E U K E¯ SK. separates them neatly: Polubos admits four qualities (hot, cold, dry, moist) and foursubstances (yellow bile, black bile, phlegm and blood); diseases arise from alterations in themanner in which substances are blended and are diﬀerentiated according to wherehumors derive and where they end up: a humoral pathology similar to Nature of Man 3–4.H. Grensemann, Abh. Ak. Wiss. Mainz, geist. u. sozialw. Kl. (1968) 2; J. Jouanna, “Le médecin Polybe est-il l’auteur de plusiers ouvrages de la Collection Hippocratique?” REG 82 (1969) 552–562; Idem, Hippocrate. La nature de l’homme (CMG 1.1.3) 56; KP 5.1639 (#4), J. Kollesch; RE S.14 (1974) 428–436, H. Grensemann; OCD3 1211, J.T. Vallance; AML 723–724, C. Oser-Grote; BNP 11 (2007) 504–505 (#6), V. Nutton. Daniela ManettiPoludeuke¯s (250 BCE – 565 CE)A  T (2.15 Puschm.), in a series of collyria containing saﬀron,glaukion, and sarkokolla, gives his recipe additionally including fresh roses, gum, andopium. Cf. the “Parrot” collyrium of H   (M.), and S  B .(*) PTKPolueide¯s (250 BCE – 25 CE)The “sphragis” of Polueide¯s – composed of aloes, alum, khalkanthon, myrrh, pomegran-ate ﬂowers, and bull gall, ground in dry wine – is repeatedly prescribed for wounds bypharmacists from C 5.20.2 and A, in G  CMGen 5.12 (13.834 K.),through P  A 7.12.21 (CMG 9.2, p. 318). P 17.9 (CMG 10.1.1,p. 24) cites his remedy for snake bite: drink alkibiadion juice and apply the mash tothe wound; Paulos mentions his cream for anthrax, 4.25.2 (9.1, pp. 346–347). Dillerargued he was merely a brand-name, for the mythical early doctor, as at -G ,I (14.675 K.), but Gale¯n himself cites this Polueide¯s as an individual, andplaces him after A : CMGen 3.3 (13.612 K.), CMLoc 3.1, 3.3 (12.611, 690–191 K.).RE 21.2 (1952) 1661–1662 (#12), H. Diller. PTKPoluidos of Thessalia (360 – 320 BCE)Poluidos, whose students included K and D , designed siege machines forPhilip II for the siege of Buzantion in 340–339 BCE (V 10.13.3), and wrote demachinationibus (A  M. p. 10 W.; Vitruuius 7.pr.14), of which nothing survives.BNP 11 (2007) 527 (#4), M. Folkerts. GLIMPolukleitos of Argos or Sikuo¯ n (ca 460 – 415 BCE)Polukleitos was born in Argos or Sikuo¯n around 480 BCE and died probably in 415 BCE. Hesculpted almost exclusively in bronze and preferably standing virile naked youths. The mainmotif in his sculpted work is the contrapost position which had already been invented andwhich Polukleitos brought to perfection. According to G  (PHP 5.3.16 = CMG 5.4.1.2,p. 308), he wrote a treatise entitled Kan¯on, arguing that “beauty lies in the proportion (sum- 682

P:694

POLUSTOMOSmetria) of the members: of ﬁnger to ﬁnger, of all the ﬁngers to the palm and wrist, of theseto forearm, of forearm to upper arm, and of all to all.” Hippocratic medicine can beregarded as an inspiration for the way in which Polukleitos conceptualized and organizedthe body, in the tract as well as in sculpture. In a conjectural reconstruction of the outlineof the Kan¯on from all known and attributed sources (Stewart 1998: 273–275), it emergesthat Polukleitos obsessively insists on exactitude at all levels in order to achieve perfectionand beauty.Ed.: DK 40.J.J. Pollitt, “The Canon of Polykleitos and Other Canons,” in: W.G. Moon, ed., Polykleitos, the Doryphoros, and Tradition (1995) 19–24; OCD3 1211–1212, A.F. Stewart; BNP 11 (2007) 511–513 (#1), R. Neudecker. Sabine VogtPolukleitos of Larissa (ca 360 – 300 BCE?)Father of Olumpias (mother of Antigonos), captured in Alexander’s campaigns in Kure¯ne¯(FGrHist 128T1), among S ’s geographical sources, and cited as a foreign authorityon trees (P 1.ind.12–13). His Historiae described Persia, Mesopotamia, and India, andtreated Alexander the Great’s luxurious lifestyle (Ath., Deipn. 12 [539a]; P, Alex.46). Polukleitos claimed that the Euphrate¯s did not overﬂow, due in part to the mountains’low altitudes and shallow snow cover, and its drainage into the Tigris and ﬂooding of theplains; dismissed as absurd by Strabo¯n (16.1.13). Polukleitos described the mountainousterrain between Susa and Persis and the river Choaspe¯s, which ﬂowed through Susis, meet-ing the Tigris and Eulaeos in a lake subsequently emptying into the sea (Str. 15.3.4). Heproﬀered the opinion that the serpent-producing Caspian with its sweet water was in factLake Maeotis, into which the Tanais poured (Str. 11.7.4). He reported large, polychrome,dappled Indian lizards, soft to the touch (A, NA 16.41) and tortoises from theGanges whose shells could hold 5 medimnoi (P V 10). It is likelythat “Polukleitos of Liparis,” Pliny’s authority on the river Liparis in Soloi near Kilikia(31.17), is identiﬁable with our geographer.FGrHist 128.RE 21.2 (1952) 1700–1707 (#7–8), Fr. Gisinger; Pearson (1960) 70–77; KP 4.999 (#3), H. Gärtner; OCD3 1211, A.B. Bosworth; BNP 11 (2007) 514 (#4), E. Badian. GLIMPolukritos of Mende¯ (400 – 350 BCE)Historiographer whose treatise on water-mirabilia survives in two fragments. He wrote aSikelika in verse with an obvious leaning towards natural sciences and paradoxography.Ed.: FGrHist 559.RE 21.2 (1952) 1760–1761 (#7, 8), K. Ziegler. Jan Bollansée, Karen Haegemans, and Guido SchepensPolustomos (250 BCE – 80 CE)A, in G  CMGen 6.14 (13.931 K.), records his recipe for gout ( podagra):aphronitron and psimuthion in beeswax, aged olive oil, and terebinth. The name 683

P:695

P O L U S T R ATO Sseems otherwise unattested, and may be distorted from, e.g, Polustratos (though nopharmacist by that name is otherwise known) or perhaps P .(*) PTKPolustratos (275 – 225 BCE)Epicurean philosopher and student of E, he became the third scholarch ofthe Garden upon the death of H (D  L 10.25). Little isknown of his life, but two titles are attested: On Philosophy and On the Unfounded Contemptof Commonly Held Beliefs. The latter is preserved in fragments among the Herculaneumpapyri, and attacks skeptical philosophers who denied that knowledge could be based on thesenses.Ed.: G. Indelli, Sul Disprezzo Irrationale (1978).RE 21.2 (1952) 1833 (#7), H.J. Mette; Long and Sedley (1987) §7D; OCD3 1213, D. Obbink; ECP 446, D. Clay; BNP 11 (2007) 533–534 (#2), T. Dorandi. Walter G. EnglertP- ⇒ P-P ⇒ T Pompeius Lenaeus (70 – 40 BCE)A learned freedman of Pompey Magnus who at the latter’s request translated into LatinM  VI’s pharmacological writings, which P (1.ind.14–15, 20–27, 25.5–7)utilized. A fragment describes mustax – a variety of laurel with pale, drooping leaves –distinguished from the more familiar Delphic and Cyprian laurels mentioned by C;another sketches the appearance and medicinal properties of a plant from Pontos calledscordotis or scordion (15.127, 25.63). The famous story of Mithradate¯s’ eﬀorts to immunizehimself against poisons by consuming them in minute quantities comes from this work(25.6; Gellius 17.16).Speranza (1971) 63–65; KP 3.556, W. Richter; OCD3 1215, J.W. Duﬀ; BNP 11 (2007) 386 (#2), Ed. Courtney. Philip ThibodeauPompeius Sabinus (90 – 110 CE)Prepared for Aburnius Valens a complex herbal antidote: A   P., inG  CMGen 7.12 (13.1021–1023, 1027 K.). PIR2 identify the pharmacist as theprocurator of E¯ peiros (CIL 3.12299), and the patient as L. Fuluius Aburnius Valens (PIR2F-526), the latter of whom is later than Askle¯piade¯s; probably ancestors of those men areinvolved.PIR2 P-649. PTK 684

P:696

POMPONIUS MELA OF TINGENTERAPompeius Trogus (30 BCE – 10 CE)Roman historian of Gallic descent living in the Augustan age, author of a 44-book histor-ical work in Latin titled Historiae Philippicae surviving as a 2nd (?) c. CE epitome made byM. Iunianus Iustinus. According to his own testimony, Pompeius was of the Vocontii, aGallic tribe in Gallia Narbonensis conquered and incorporated into a Roman province inthe 120s BCE. His grandfather, receiving Roman citizenship from Pompey, served underhim in Spain against Sertorius. His uncle was a cavalry commander under Pompey in theMithridatic War in Asia. His father was in charge of correspondence and embassies underJulius Caesar. These origins explain Pompeius’ double name – his Roman name from hispatron, and Trogus, a Gallic name. Pompeius’ work, relying on the historiographic modelof Theopompos of Khios in his Philippika, treats universal history, focusing on the Near Eastand Greece. As the subtitle (totius mundi origo et terrae situs) indicates, Trogus includes ethno-graphic and geographic digressions, for instance a description of Skuthia and its inhabitants(Iust. 2.2.1–15); an allusion to Egypt and its customs (Iust. 2.1.5–9); an excursus on the localhistory and foundation of Kure¯ne¯ (Iust. 13.7); a digression on He¯rakleia Pontike¯ (Iust.16.3–5) based on N and Memno¯n of He¯rakleia; an excerpt on the Jews including ageographical description of Judaea (Iust. 36.3.1–7); and a description of Parthia and theParthians (Iust. 41.1.11–41.3.10). Pompeius’ scientiﬁc interests probably inspired his lesserknown work On Animals, quoted by P, and based on the earlier works of Aand T.R. Develin, “Pompeius Trogus and Philippic History,” Storia della Storiograﬁa 8 (1985) 110–115; H.D. Richter, Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Historiographie. Die Vorlagen des Pompeius Trogus für die Darstellung der nachalexandrischen hellenistischen Geschichte (Iust. 13–40) (1987); J.M. Alonso-Núñez, “Trogue-Pompée et l’impérialisme romain,” BAGB (1) (1990) 72–86; R. Develin and J.C. Yardley, Justin: Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus (1994); W. Heckel and J.C. Yardley, Justin: Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus Books 11–12 (1997). Daniela DueckPomponius Bassus (65 – 95 CE)A   P., in G  CMLoc 4.8 (12.781–782 K.), preserves his collyriumcompounded from calamine, euphorbia, long and white peppers, opium, cinnamon,opopanax, etc, moistened with fennel sap. Askle¯piade¯s describes him as “companion”(12.780 K.).RE 21.2 (1952) 2420 (#108), H. Diller. GLIMPomponius Mela of Tingentera (ca 30 – 60 CE)From Hispania Baetica (2.96, probably Iulia Traducta; cf. Iulia Soza, S  3.18;Romer, 1), the ﬁrst extant systematic Roman geographer, composing under Claudius whoseBritish triumph the work was perhaps intended to celebrate (3.49–52). P lists him as anauthority for nine books (1.ind.3–6, 8, 12–13, 21–22), but never later cites him by name. Vat. Lat. 4929 (9th c.: our source for the text) gives the title De Chorographia, changed bycopyists to De Cosmographia, the former suggesting regional geography, the latter a descrip-tion of the entire Earth. Mela, broadly treating the known world, selectively includes placesconsidered well-known, important, or interesting, and omits lesser-known sites and features. 685

P:697

PONTICAPositing a spherical Earth without much considering the mathematical ramiﬁcations ofsphericity, he divides the world into two longitudinal hemispheres (east and west) and,following E , ﬁve latitudinal zones, all habitable (cf. P). Mela suggeststhe existence of the Antikhthone¯s, occupying the habitable but unknown and unexploredsouthern zone (1.4, 1.54). Naming his sources with greater frequency in Book 3, Mela drewfrom H and H, but especially C N (3.45). Mela declares his purpose to describe the known world and trace the complex arrange-ment of peoples and places (1.1–2). Mela overviews the continents from east to west:Asia, Europe, Africa (1.3–23), but proceeds unusually counter-clockwise, detailing sitesand peoples in Africa (1.25–48), Asia (1.49–117), Europe (Book 2), outer coasts andislands (Book 3). Mela’s interests included anthropological curiosities (3.75: hairy, ﬁsh-skinwearing nomadic Carmanii of the Persian Gulf), paradoxa (1.39: the diurnal temperaturecycle of the Katabathmian fountain, boiling at midnight and freezing at midday; 1.94:X ’ sun on Trojan Mt. Ida), and topography (1.35: gulf of Syrtis; 3.70:Taprobane), plus mythology (1.37: Lotus-Eaters; 2.120: Calypso’s island Aeaee) and history(2.32: Xerxe¯s’ invasion of Hellas). He exhibits some skepticism, especially regarding myth-ical and legendary creatures of the African interior (1.23). No evidence suggests that mapsaccompanied the text.Ed.: A. Silberman (CUF 1988).DSB 11.74–76, Ed. Grant; OCD3 1218, N. Purcell; P. Berry, Pomponius Mela: De Chorographia (1997); F.E. Romer, Pomponius Mela’s description of the world (1998). GLIMPontica (250 – 400 CE?)Latin hexameter poem of which only the ﬁrst 22 lines survive, in MSS of I S,who is probably not the author. It describes the Black Sea, and assigns it as the province ofVenus.GRL §523.3; RE 22.1 (1953) 26, K. Ziegler. PTKM. Porcius Cato of Tusculum (185 – 149 BCE)Born 234 BCE to a plebeian family in the Latin countryside outside Rome, and died 149BCE one of the most important political and cultural ﬁgures of his day (for his life, we areprimarily indebted to P, Cato Maior). Early on his talents won him the nicknameCato, “the Shrewd.” For the ﬁrst half of his career political advancement and militaryachievement alternated. Elected quaestor for 204, he served under Scipio Africanus in Sicilyand Africa, where he criticized his superior for allowing the Roman troops to indulge inGreek ways. As governor of Sardinia he made his administration a model of justice andfrugality. A consulship in 195 saw him campaigning in Spain, where he put down a rebellionand opened up gold and silver mines to Roman exploitation; for his eﬀorts there he wasawarded a triumph. He played a key role in the defeat of Antiokhos III at the battle ofThermopylae, leading his troops around the same short cut once taken by the Persians. Hiscensorship in 184 became the stuﬀ of legend thanks to his eﬀorts to clamp-down on luxuri-ous living and corruption among senators and commoners alike; during his term he alsomade much-needed improvements to the city’s infrastructure, in particular the sewer sys- 686

P:698

M. PORCIUS CATO OF TUSCULUMtem. He died before Rome, in the third Punic War, could carry out his famous demand thatKarthago delenda est. Cato’s most signiﬁcant contributions to Roman culture was Latin prose, which he essen-tially invented as a literary form. His Origins was the ﬁrst history of Rome composed inLatin, while his works To my Son and Recital on Conduct were the ﬁrst Latin ethical treatises. Healso wrote about civil law and military aﬀairs, and was the earliest Roman orator known tohave published his speeches (he reportedly never lost a case in court). In his day Rome wasalready possessed by an enthusiasm for Greek culture, hence Cato’s purpose was not somuch to introduce the Romans to literature as to make them less reliant on foreigners for it. The one product of Cato’s pen to survive complete is his De Agricultura. The audience forthis work consisted of wealthy landowners like himself who owned several large estates indiﬀerent parts of Italy and were interested in acquiring more. This growing interest seemsto have created a demand for better information on farming; shortly after Cato’s death,the Roman Senate ordered that the 28 volumes on agriculture ascribed to Mago theCarthaginian be translated into Latin (cf. D  U). Cato describes individualestates which are between 60 and 150 acres in size; he seems to have owned at least sixdiﬀerent ones. The ﬁrst noteworthy feature of his work is its organization, or lack of such. After a briefpiece of praise for the life of the citizen-farmer, Cato launches into his subject with noobvious plan. Topics are frequently repeated and discussions are broken up, e.g. advice onhow to process olives occurs in chapters 3, 31, 52, 54, 55, 64–69, and 93. Given thisdisorganization, the conclusion has sometimes been drawn that the work represents, whollyor in part, a compilation made after Cato’s death; yet lack of ﬂow would hardly present anydiﬃculty to the energetic reader Cato seems to imagine himself addressing. Also distinctiveis the treatise’s explicitness about numbers: Cato prescribes exactly how many slaves oneshould assign to particular tasks, details the size of the rations to be distributed to workersand animals, and even lists the number of tools each building on the farm should have(cf. 10 ﬀ.). He also oﬀers several specimen contracts for the letting out of work on the farm.Such speciﬁcs make the work a crucial document for our understanding of the ancienteconomy. Cato devotes little space to the production of cereals; vines, olives, and orchards absorbmost of his attention, either because they were the most proﬁtable forms of agriculture, orbecause there was a greater demand for technical knowledge on these subjects. For thesecrops Cato details at length the eﬀorts required, describing the specialized equipment whichwine- and oil-making demand, incorporating a complete calendar of annual tasks, andexplaining the techniques of transplanting, grafting, and layering. He gives a long list ofpractical uses for amurca, a viscous by-product of olive oil production, and oﬀers directionsfor making six varieties of ﬂavored wine. Towards the end of the treatise he includesnumerous medical recipes, in many of which the magical or superstitious element ispronounced; cabbage is praised, highly and at great length, for its medicinal virtues(cf. M   K). Cato’s treatise is of some interest for the history of technology. His recommendations forolive oil production include a detailed set of instructions for building a press, the mostinnovative feature of which is its levered drum, which when turned pulls a rope that lowersthe press-beam onto the fruit (18). Working models of the “Catonian press” have beenconstructed based on his account, and examples have even been uncovered at Pompeii. Alsodescribed in considerable detail is a rotary olive-crusher called a trapetum; Cato even gives 687

P:699

PORPHURIOS (GEOG.)the cost of shipping and handling (20). His treatise may also contain the earliest mention ofthe donkey mill – the ﬁrst mill of any kind to dispense with human labor as its main powersource (10). There is little to Cato’s work that by Greek standards might be deemed scientiﬁc: only thebarest of descriptions of plants and animals, for example, and almost nothing about phys-ical causes. Yet it treats certain aspects of the farm, particularly the use of slaves, animals,and equipment, with a degree of detail found in no other surviving author. His mainimportance was as a pioneer, who, in the words of C, 1.1.12, “taught agricultureto speak Latin.”E. Brehaut, Cato the Censor on Farming (1933); K.D. White, Roman Farming (1970); A. Astin, Cato the Censor (1978); OCD3 1224–1225, M.S. Smith; BNP 1 (2002) 368–372 (§B.1, 369–370), E. Christmann; BNP 3 (2003) 20–23 (#1), W. Kierdorf. Philip ThibodeauPorphurios (Geog.) (ca 350 – 450 CE?)Wrote a geographical work on Asia Minor and the lands around Constantinople, cited bythe R C, 2.16 (Asia Minor), 4.3–4.7 (Bosporos, Dardania, Thrake¯,and Musia). The Ravenna Cosmography calls him miserus and nefandissimus, confusing himwith the anti-Christian Neo-Platonist. Cf. I G. and L G.(*) PTKPorphurios (Med.) (300 – 1000 CE?)In iatrosophic therapeutic collections contained in two late-Byzantine MSS (Oxford,Bodleian, Barocc. 150 and Paris, BNF, suppl. gr. 1202), and in the scholia of another late-Byzantine MS (Paris, BNF, graecus 2183; mid 14th c.), credited with information on somemateria medica and medicines (for example, in Paris, BNF, suppl. gr. 1202, f. 16, a fragment onoxuphoinikon). Paris, BNF, graecus 2183 was probably copied and used in the Krale¯ hospital inConstantinople. The formularies preserving Porphurios’ fragments were probably developedin the context of Byzantine hospitals, especially common after 1200, and amalgamate for-mulae extracted from authors such as D , G , and the encyclopedias ofO, A  A and P  A, or anonymous physicians. Thus,although P  T supposedly wrote on vegetarianism and included medicalconsiderations in his philosophical works, he is probably not our author.Diels 2 (1907) 86. Alain TouwaidePorphurios of Tyre (ca 260 – 305 CE)Platonist philosopher. Born ca 234 in Tyre in Phoenicia, he changed his original Semiticname “Malkhos” (king) to “Porphurios” to celebrate his native city famous for purple ( por-phura). He studied with L in Athens before joining P  in Rome (263–269),becoming one of his most loyal students. On Plo¯tinos’ advice, Porphurios left for Sicilyto overcome depression; his later activity is poorly documented. His students, for whomhe wrote some texts, included the Roman aristocrat Chrysaorius and perhaps alsoI , but whether he had established a school is unclear. 688

P:700

POSEIDIPPOS OF PELLA Porphurios was a man of formidable talent and learning, as his surviving work shows.He wrote commentaries on P’s dialogues including Sophist and Timaeus, A’sCategories, On Interpretation, Physics. The nature of his writings on Aristotle’s Ethics, SophisticRefutations, Prior Analytics, and Metaphysics 12 remains unclear. Other titles include Isagoge (anintroduction to Aristotle’s Categories), a history of philosophy, Starting points leading to intelligiblesor Sententiae (a philosophical handbook), On Abstinence from eating food from animals (a treatise onvegetarianism), comments on H, the Cave of the Nymphs (an allegorical interpretationof Odysseus’ hiding the Phaeacean gifts in a cave in Ithaca: Od. 13.102–112), On how theembryos are ensouled, a polemical Against the Christians, a commentary on P’s Harmonics(underscoring Porphurios’ commitment to the Pythagorean view that music manifests thework of reason in the world), and works on rhetoric and grammar. Particularly important isPorphurios’ edition of Plo¯tinos’ writings divided into six books of nine treatises each(Enneads), prefaced with his Life of Plotinus. Remaining philosophically close to Plo¯tinos, Porphurios departed from his mentor,though never expressly. Porphurios agreed with Plo¯tinos on the structure of the intelligibleworld, acknowledging three divine hupostaseis (the One, the Intellect, and the Soul), butseemingly disagreed on some aspects of the relation between the intelligible and the sensibleworld. Like Plo¯tinos, Porphurios identiﬁed the human soul with the intellect but apparentlymaintained contrarily that the human soul was a manifestation of the hupostasis soul,rather than a power stemming from it. Porphurios also held that Plato regarded immanentForms as versions of the transcendent ones, the latter being thoughts of the divine intellectinstantiated into matter. Porphurios seemed to ascribe the same view to Aristotle, aﬀectingthe evaluation of Aristotle’s ontology. Further, Porphurios did not object to the priority ofparticulars over universals in Aristotle’s Categories, as did Platonists until Plo¯tinos: ﬁrstbecause, for him, Aristotle’s treatise examines signiﬁcant expressions signifying particularsubstances, and secondly because Porphurios interpreted “particulars” as the whole class ofentities (e.g. men), which are prior to the universal term (e.g. man). Porphurios saw ethics asthe end of philosophy and agreed with Plo¯tinos’ division of levels of virtue, but apparentlydiﬀered in believing that happiness is not obtained only at the ultimate level of virtue but,in a diﬀerent degree, also at the ﬁrst. Porphurios’ impact on later generations was huge, especially regarding his example ofwriting commentaries on Aristotle and his appreciation of Aristotle’s logic, integrated theninto the Platonist philosophical curriculum. Later Platonist commentators on Aristotledraw much from him, and in turn commented on his Isagage.Ed.: J. Bouﬀartique and M. Patillon, Porphyre, De l’abstinence 4 vv. (CUF 1977–1996); A. Smith, Porphyrii Philosophi Fragmenta (1993).RE 22.1 (1953) 275–313, R. Beutler; P. Hadot, Porphyry et Victorinus (1968), vols. 1–2; A. Smith, Porphy- ry’s Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition. A Study of post-Plotinian Neoplatonism (1974); J. Barnes, Porphyry Introduction (2003); BNP 11 (2007) 646–652, R. Harmon; George Karamanolis, “Porphyry, the First Platonist Commentator of Aristotle,” in P. Adamson, H. Baltussen, and M. Stone, edd., Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries = BICS S. 83 (2004) 79–113; George Karamanolis and A. Sheppard, edd., Studies on Porphyry = BICS S. 98 (2007). George KaramanolisPoseidippos of Pella (290 – 240 BCE)Friend and disciple of Askle¯piade¯s of Samos, writer of epigrams and a famous member ofthe Ptolemaic court in Alexandria in Egypt. Born ca 310 BCE, he makes reference (Epigr. 689

P:701

P O S E I D O¯ N I O S ( M E D. I )112) to the Olympic Games in 240, suggesting a long life. Before moving to Alexandria, helived in Athens (where his friends included the Stoics Z   and K ) and in Ko¯s(where he met important poets like Philetas, Askle¯piade¯s and Theokritos, participated inheated contemporary cultural debates, and polemicized K). Only 23 authentic Poseidippean epigrams were preserved until the discovery (in 1990) ofthe Milan papyrus Vogliano 1295 dating to the second half of the 3rd c. BCE (nearly con-temporary with our author). This MS transmits about 100 compositions, nearly 600 newverses. Among the most interesting elements emerging from this important literary docu-ment are the thematic distribution of epigrams (not according to an alphabetic order) andtheir nature in relation to a speciﬁc client’s request. The MS groups epigrams into ninecategories, each with its own subject heading (a tenth section may lurk in the tatteredremains of the end of the roll). Some of these categories are familiar, such as “poems ontombs” (epitumbia); other sections are more exotic and almost bizarre, e.g., poems aboutstones (lithika), omens (oionoskopika), statue-making (andriantopoiika), even a group of funeraryepigrams with the enigmatic title “turnings” (tropoi). The ﬁrst and longest section of thepapyrus, the lithika, treats gems and other noteworthy stones in a tour de force ofgeographical, cultural and literary references. The ecphrastic content has a practicalend, as in the case of an epigram ordered by a suitor to accompany the gift of a preciousstone to his beloved. The entire section reads like a gazetteer of the Hellenistic world:beginning far in the east with the Indian river Hydaspes, it proceeds through Persiaand Arabia to the island of Euboia, as it details the provenances of the stones and thedistances they have traveled. Women often serve as the ﬁnal destination, the recipients ofthe precious objects. The lithika displays in miniature the ambitious scope of the entirecollection, its ability to weave together literary and material culture, the powerful and thehumble.Ed.: G. Bastianini et al., Posidippo di Pella Epigrammi (P. Mil. Vogl. VII 309) (2001); C. Austin and G. Bastianini, Posidippi Pellaei quae supersunt omnia (2002).RE 22.1 (1953) 428–444, W. Peek; KP 4 (1972) 1075–1076, R. Keydell; K. Niatas, “A poetic gem. Posidippus on Pegasus,” Pegasus 40 (1997) 16–17; W. Luppe, “Weitere Überlegungen zu Poseidipps Lithika-Epigramm Kol. III 14ﬀ.,” APF 47 (2001) 250–251; G. Bastianini, ed., Un poeta ritrovato: Posidippo di Pella. Giornata di studio Milano 23 novembre 2001 (2002); Idem and A. Casanova, edd., Il papiro di Posidippo un anno dopo. (2002) 1–5; W. Luppe, “Poseidipp, Lithika-Epigramm II 23–28,” Eikasmos 13 (2002) 177–179; Idem, “Zum Lithika Epigramm Kol. III 28–41 Poseidipps (P.Mil.Vogl. VIII 309),” AC 71 (2002) 135–153; B. Acosta-Hughes et al., edd., Labored in Papyrus Leaves. Perspectives on an Epigram Collection Attributed to Posidippus (P.Mil.Vogl. VIII 309) (2004); R. Casamassa, “Posidippo fra arte e mito. La gemma di Pegaso (Posidipp. ep. 14 A–B),” Acme 57 (2004) 241–252; E. Lelli, “I gioielli di Posidippo,” QUCC 76 (2004) 127–138; M. Di Marco et al., edd., Posidippo e gli altri. Il poeta, il genere, il contesto culturale e letterario. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma, 14–15 maggio 2004 (2005); V. Garulli, “Rassegna di studi sul nuovo Posidippo (1993–2003),” Lexis 22 (2004) 291–340; K.J. Gutzwiller, ed., The New Posidippus. A Hellenistic Poetry Book (2005); BNP 11 (2007) 671–672 (#2), M.G. Albiani. Eugenio AmatoPoseido¯ nios (Med. I) (70 – 30 BCE?)Student of Z   A, along with A   K (CMG11.1.1, p. 12), and co-authored with D  P  a work on the bubonicplague in Libya (high fever, terrible pain, widespread buboes): R in O,Coll. 44.14.2 (CMG 6.2.1, p. 132); compare the similar work by D  K. 690

P:702

P O S E I D O¯ N I O S O F A PA M E I AHe is hardly likely to be identiﬁable with the homonymous Stoic (contrast Kudlien;cf. T113 EK).F. Kudlien, “Poseidonios und die Ärzteschule der Pneumatiker,” Hermes 90 (1962) 419–429. PTKPoseido¯ nios (Med. II) (400 – 440 CE)Denied that demons caused any disease or mental illness (P, HE 8.10), andexplained them on the basis of displacement of humors, to the head in the case of mentalillness. A  A gives extensive extracts, showing that he prescribed phlebotomy,regimen, and mainly vegetal drugs, containing few exotics (aloes: CMG 8.2, pp. 139, 147;ginger, pp. 150–151; Indian buckthorn: p. 167; and silphium: p. 129); he followedA on hellebore: 3.122 (CMG 8.1, pp. 309–310). His explanations of mental ill-nesses, which show some aﬃnity with -G , I 13 (14.732–733, 741K.), consistently invoke humoral pathology: three forms of phrenitis come from phlegm,Aëtios 6.2 (CMG 8.2, pp. 125–128); cold and wet humors cause karos, 6.5 ( p. 133), wet andwarm cause k¯oma, 6.6 ( pp. 133–134); chilling of the head causes m¯or¯osis and l¯eros, 6.22( pp. 159–160); cf. also on melancholy, 6.9 ( pp. 141–143) and epilepsy, 6.13 ( pp. 153–155),including three recipes 6.19–21 ( pp. 158–159). Not even nightmares, long attributed tospirits, were demonic, but rather caused by indigestion, 6.12 ( pp. 152–153): cf. S in C A Chron. 1.55 (CML 6.1.1, p. 220). He follows A on l¯ethargia (6.3, pp. 128–131), katal¯epsia as the mean between phrenitis and l¯ethargia(6.4, pp. 131–133), skoto¯ma (6.7, pp. 134–136), and mania, caused by blood rising to thehead (6.8, pp. 136–141). He cites G , Simples 11.24 (12.356–357 K.), on ashed crabs asan antidote for hudropobia, though primarily following R’ method of treatment,6.24 ( pp. 163–169). See also P  A, 7.3, 7.20.26, 7.21.2, 7.22.4 (CMG 9.2,pp. 196, 387, 392, 394).PLRE 1 (1971) 717; BNP 11 (2007) 682 (#1), V. Nutton. PTKPoseido¯ nios of Apameia (ca 110 – ca 51 BCE)Born in Apameia on the Orontes, ca 135 BCE, student of P and founder ofa Stoic school at Rhodes which superseded the school at Athens after Panaitios’ death.Poseido¯nios wrote broadly on physics, logic, and ethics. As Rhodian ambassador to Romein 87–86 BCE, Poseido¯nios became close to inﬂuential Romans, including C andPompey. Precise details of his philosophy have been much debated, compounded bymethodological divisions among modern historians of philosophy regarding which sourcesshould count as fragments (the most secure collection is that of Edelstein and Kidd,conﬁning itself to sources mentioning Poseido¯nios by name, a good antidote to the kind ofpan-Poseidonianism found in some earlier accounts). Much of Poseido¯nios’ philosophy built on and developed standard Stoic fare: the unityof the kosmos; its ﬁnite and spherical nature; its governance by divine reason; the divisioninto active and passive principles; the soul as warm pneuma; the doctrine of fate; and theeﬃcacy of divination (though Poseido¯nios seems to have emphasized astrology in particu-lar). Poseido¯nios is said to have written ﬁve books on divination (D  L,7.149; Cicero, Div. 1.6), and Cicero (ibid. 2.35) reports that he followed C and 691

P:703

P O S E I D O¯ N I O S O F C O R I N T HA (of Tyre?) in claiming that a providential deity – leading the diviner to selectthe particular victim whose internal organs will correspond with the situation under enquiry– guides the choice of sacriﬁcial victim in extispicy (entrail divination). It is debated whetherPoseido¯nios broke up the older Stoic unity of god-fate-nature into its individual com-ponents and placed them hierarchically with god at the top, fate below, and nature in thethird tier, although this may only have been done for the purposes of grounding a particularargument in defense of divination (Reydam-Schils). Poseido¯nios accused E of athe-ism, on the grounds that Epicurus’ inclusion of “gods” in his kosmos (gods who did notand could not interact or interfere with the workings of the world) was no more than atoken gesture designed to make his philosophy less unpalatable to the masses. Poseido¯nios also made novel and important contributions in many areas, including his-tory, geography, meteorology, cosmology, psychology, and mathematics. G  (PHP8.1.14: CMG 5.4.1.2, p. 482) calls him the “most scientiﬁc” of the Stoics. S  (Books1–3) discussed his work in geography at length. Poseido¯nios is reported to have estimatedthe circumference of the Earth at 180,000 stades, a signiﬁcantly smaller ﬁgure thanE  ’ 252,000 stades. In meteorology, he wrote on the causes of hail, snow,winds, storms, thunder, lightning, rainbows, earthquakes, halos and parhelia. He arguedinﬂuentially that tides were caused by winds aﬀected by the Moon (cf. S S). Poseido¯nios seems to have gone to some length to clarify the methodologicaldiﬀerences between philosophy generally and particular sciences like astronomy. He isreported to have constructed a celestial globe. He estimated the sizes and distances of theSun and Moon, and a few ﬁxed-star observations are credited to him. For Poseido¯nios, theSun is larger than the Earth, a sphere, and composed of pure ﬁre. The Moon was composedof a mixture of ﬁre and air, and its opacity was caused only by extreme thickness. He alsowrote on eclipses and comets. In mathematics, he contributed to the foundations of geo-metry, and composed a book (quoted at some length by P in his Commentary on the FirstBook of Euclid’s Elements) to counter Z    S ’s critique of geometry. Gale¯n reports (PHP 5.7.1–10: CMG 5.4.1.2, pp. 336–338) that Poseido¯nios broke withearlier Stoics and followed P and A in dividing the faculties of the soul intothree: thinking, desiring, and being angry. But Poseido¯nios, on Gale¯n’s account, broke withPlato in situating all three faculties in the heart rather than in separate locations in the body.The extent and depth of Poseido¯nios’ use of Plato is still debated.Ed.: Edelstein and Kidd (1972–1999).G. Reydams-Schils, “Posidonius and the Timaeus: Oﬀ to Rhodes and Back to Plato?” CQ 47 (1997) 455–476; A.D. Nock, “Posidonius,” JRS 49 (1959) 1–15. Daryn LehouxPoseido¯ nios of Corinth (325 BCE? – 175 CE?)Mentioned by Athe¯naios, Deipn. 1 (13b), in a catalogue of authors of Halieutika. He livedprobably before O  K.RE 22.1 (1953) 826 (#5), R. Keydell; SH 709; A. Zumbo, “Ateneo 1, 13b–c e il ‘canone’ degli autori alieutici,” in P. Radici Colace and A. Zumbo, Atti del Seminario Internazionale di Studi “Letteratura scientiﬁca e tecnica greca e latina” (2000) 163–170. Claudio Meliadò 692

P:704

PRAECEPTA SALUBRIAPoseido¯ nios of Macedon (335 – 325 BCE)Designed a helepolis, described in B , Belop. 4 ( pp. 51–56 W.), for Alexander the Great,perhaps in 335 BCE. Poseido¯nios’ rolling siege-tower, over 20 m (50 cubits) tall and made oflight ﬂexible wood coated with ﬂame-retardant, was padded against missiles and supportedon a wheeled oaken platform about 18 m (60 feet) square. It was self-propelled, driven by acapstan operated by the soldiers inside, and had ﬂoors corresponding to the heights of thewalls to be assaulted.Marsden (1971) 70–73, 84–90. PTKPotamo¯ n (300 BCE – 80 CE)A, in G  CMGen 2.2 (13.473, 488–489 K.), mentions Potamo¯n’s “green”plaster. The name is rare before ca 300 BCE (LGPN ).RE 22.1 (1953) 1028 (#5), H. Diller. PTKPotamo¯ n of Alexandria (ca 40 – ca 10 BCE)Described as an “eclectic” by D  L pr.21; the Souda Pi-2126 records that hewrote on Elements; his arkhai were matter, quantity, quality, and space. S, In de Caelo3.4 (CAG 7 [1894] 607), says that he deﬁned mathematical arkhai through quantity, startingfrom the monad.OCD3 1235, J. M. Dillon. PTKPraecepta Salubria (100 – 400 CE)Iambic poem giving advice on regimen, purportedly based on A   andD  ; its pharmaceutical use of beer (zum¯e lines 88, 97) suggests an Egyptian (orMesopotamian) origin. The invocation of an unnamed single deity, if not merely formulaic(“with God”, line 27), and emphasis on repressing libido (62–63 and 72–75), may suggest aChristian origin. Moderation is urged (1–5) and a diet prescribed that balances the qualitieshot/cold and wet/dry by solar and lunar cycles (7–46); therapeutic interventions includesleeping on one’s right-hand side (6, 45), bathing (14–16), purges and phlebotomy (30–32),and fumigations (47–52). Those are followed by six simple prescriptions: raw honey for longlife (57–61), chicory (intubion) and lentils to repress libido (62–63: on chicory, contrastG  Properties of Foodstuﬀs 2.40–41 [6.624–628 K.], and A , in Gale¯n [?],Eupor. 1.1 [14.321 K.]), boiled oregano taken at the new moon for good memory (64–67),Thasian almonds to prevent inebriation (68–71), lettuce-seed in water for sexual restraint(72–75), garlic or cinnamon to clear the throat (76–79 – perhaps another encratic therapy,cf. -D  in P 20.28). The poem closes with four pest-control potions:wormwood, absinthe wormwood, or boiled ﬁg-juice to banish ﬂeas and bedbugs (80–85),pellets formed of iron ﬁlings in beer and fat to slay mice (86–90), an ointment of mercurysimmered in fat for delousing (91–94), and aconite or realgar boiled in beer and fat toexterminate rodents (95–100). 693

P:705

P R A X A G O R A S O F K O¯ SEd.: U.C. Bussemaker, Poetae Bucolici et Didactici (1862) 132–134. PTKP  ⇒ P Praxagoras of Ko¯ s (325 – 275 BCE)Greek physician, from a highly reputed medical family of the Asclepiad tradition active inKo¯s (including his father Nikarkhos and an earlier Praxagoras, pupil of H ). Hispupils included H , P, P and X . His name ismentioned for an ointment in a papyrus of ca 250 BCE (SB 9859d). G , citing himfrequently with D  as an important member of the Dogmatic medical tradition,dates him a little after Hippokrate¯s (Tremor Palp. 7.584 K., Diﬀ. Puls. 4.3 [8.723 K.]). A moreancient tradition credits Praxagoras, together with Hippokrate¯s and K K (), with perfecting dietetics (Schol. Hom. Iliad. 11.515). He is credited with many treatises, revealing the broad spectrum of his medical activity,some surviving to Gale¯n’s era (Gale¯n wrote a polemical essay against Praxagoras’ humoraldoctrine). Praxagoras wrote on physiology and anatomy (Phusika, at least two books, andAnatomy apparently in many books), as well as on pathology (On diseases, at least three books,and On diﬀerences in acute diseases), prognosis (On the concurrent signs, two books, and On thesupervening aﬀections [or signs]), and therapy (Ways of therapy, four books, and Causes, aﬀectionsand therapies). Having developed and expanded “Hippokratic” humoral physiology and pathology,Praxagoras probably also wrote a treatise on humors, wherein he distinguished tenhumors (the most-often cited among them being the “glassy” one, hualodes) plus blood.Distinguishing some as kinds of phlegm, others according to taste, consistency or quality, heclaimed they are formed in the veins by nutriment transformed by heat, determining healthand disease (Gale¯n Sympt. Caus. 1.6, 1.7 [7.124, 137 K.], -G , I 9[14.698–699 K.]). Fever, for example, is caused by the putrefaction of humors (MM 2.4.13[10.101 K. = p. 51 Hankinson). Praxagoras was apparently the ﬁrst to distinguish the anatomical structure and physio-logical function of veins and arteries. Veins contain blood, and arteries air (pneuma) intro-duced through respiration (and from gaseous digestive byproducts) and nourishing the soul.He places the seat of the soul in the heart, thus making it the he¯gemonikon, arguing thatthe brain is just an extension of the spinal marrow. Praxagoras did not believe in innateheat, but thought that bodily heat was drawn in from the outside. No details of his theory ofdigestion remain, but he thought that blood was the product of good digestion, becomingﬂesh through the veins. (It is wrong to ascribe to Praxagoras the theory of his pupilPleistonikos that digestion is a process of putrefaction, sepsis: C 1.pr.20). He surelyshared with his pupils the idea that sperm comes not only from the brain but from the entirebody (-G , D 19.449 K.), and asserted the ﬁltering role of kidneys(Gale¯n Nat. Fac. 1.13 [2.30 K.]). His anatomical doctrines (that arteries become more andmore subtle ﬁnishing as nerves, and pulse independently of the heart) are sometimes criti-cized by Gale¯n. Regarding therapy, he approved bloodletting, used emetics, and discussedthe utility of fasting. Many of his opinions and treatments of single diseases are preservedby the P  and in C A, while Athe¯naios (Deipn. 2 [32d,41a, 46d], 3 [81c]) records some of his opinions in the use of wine, water and other foods, aﬁeld that Praxagoras and his school explored in detail. 694

P:706

PRISCIANUS OF LUDIAEd.: Steckerl (1958).RE 22.2 (1954) 1735–1739, K. Bardong; OCD3 1241–1242, J.T. Vallance; BNP 11 (2007) 782–783, V. Nutton. Daniela ManettiPrimio¯ n (100 BCE – 80 CE)A records and approves Primio¯n’s remedy to cicatrize severe wounds, inG  CMGen 4.5 (13.695–696 K.). The balm is compounded from so¯ru, alum, pom-egranate peel, unslaked lime, frankincense, oak-gall, beeswax, calf-suet, and old olive oil.Although Pr¯ımos is a far more common variant, Primio¯n is not unique, known from the 1stc. BCE to the 2nd c. CE (LGPN 2.380, 3A.376, 3B.362, 4.290).RE 22.2 (1954) 1974, H. Diller. GLIMP ⇒ T PPriscianus (ca 300 – 365 CE)O, Ecl. Med. 54.10 (CMG 6.2.2., p. 218), records his enema for dysentery,composed of ashed papyrus, lime, orpiment, and realgar, to be used like N ’( pp. 217–218). Unless the recipe is a later insertion (cf. A), this Priscianuspredates T P. The name is attested from ca 300 CE: PLRE 1 (1971)727–728, but perhaps cf. P.(*) PTKPriscianus of Caesarea (Mauretania) (500 – 525 CE)The widely-used grammarian of Latin, who taught in Constantinople. He also composedtwo or three small works, De Figuris, Description of the World-Globe, and perhaps a brief poemOn the Stars. The ﬁrst gives a false theory of the Roman numerals (§1–8), an accurateaccount of the Roman weights and coins (§ 9–18), and the conjugation of the Latinnumeral-words (§19–32); ed. Keil, GL 3 (1859) 406–417. The geographical poem is a freeinterpretation of the poem of D  A, omitting most pagan refer-ences: Priscianus describes in hexameters the parts of the Earth (vv. 1–36), the ocean and itsinlets (37–66), the Mediterranean from the Pillars to the Pontos (67–159), Libya, its peoplesand lands (160–258), Europe, its peoples, lands, and isles (259–567), the isles of the Ocean(568–613), and Asia, its peoples and lands (614–1034): ed. Paul van de Woestijne, La périégèsede Priscian (1953). A mnemonic poem listing the constellations, northern, zodiacal, andsouthern, may be his: ed. A. Riese, Anthologia Latina (1906) #679.BNP 11 (2007) 868–870, P.L. Schmidt. PTKPriscianus of Ludia (ca 530 CE)Neo-Platonic philosopher and colleague of S active in Athens when Justinian’snew laws forbade pagan philosophers to teach (529 CE). Little is known about his life or his 695

P:707

PRISKOS OF PANIONworks. His contribution to scientiﬁc writing lies solely in the incomplete Metaphrasis [ para-phrase] of Theophrastos’ On Sense-Perception, which discusses A’s psychology from aNeo-Platonic perspective, and speciﬁcally inquires into what T contributesto the subject in his Physics (Books 4–5). Together with T’ summary version ofAristotle’s On the soul, Priscian’s Metaphrasis is a major source on Theophrastos’ psychology.Steel attributes to Priscian a commentary on Aristotle’s On the soul, but this is still disputed.Priscian’s Solutions to King Chosroes’ scientiﬁc questions (Solutiones eorum de quibus dubitavit ChosroesPersarum rex – only in Latin translation, CAG S.1.2), presumably written in Persia, belongs tothe probl¯emata-genre, covering without originality soul, sleep, astronomy, lunar phases, thefour elements, animal species, and motion.RE 22.2 (1954) 2348 (#9), W. Enßlin; C.G. Steel, The Changing Self. A Study on the Soul in Later Neoplatonism: Iamblichus, Damascius and Priscianus (1978); C.G. Steel and P.M. Huby, Priscian, On Theophrastus’ on Sense-Perception with ‘Simplicius’ On Aristotle On the Soul 2.5–12 (ACA 1997); P.M. Huby, Theophrastus of Eresus. Sources for His Life, Writings, Thought and Inﬂuence. Commentary Volume 4: Psychology (1999); BNP 11 (2007) 870, L. Brisson. Han BaltussenPriskos of Panion (ca 445 – 480 CE)Rhetorician and historian, born in Panion no later than 420. Primarily a teacher of rhetoricat Constantinople, he was among Theodosios II’s envoys to Attila the Hun in 449. In 450,he stayed at Rome; in 452/453 he was in Syria and Egypt, visiting Damaskos, Alexandriaand the Thebaid. Around 456 he served as assessor to the magister oﬃciorum Euphe¯mios. Inaddition to lost declamations and letters, he wrote an eight-book history, probably entitledHistoria Buzantiak¯e, covering from at least 433 to 472, classicizing in style and rich in ethno-graphic detail, and one of the most important sources for the Huns in the time of Attila.Unfortunately only long fragments, incorporated in the 10th c. Excerpta de legationibusof Constantine VII Pophurogenne¯tos, are extant. Narratives of Euagrios Skholastikosand Theophane¯s the Confessor preserve some fragments, other quotations survive in theChronicon paschale and the Souda (Pi-2301 and Z-39, s.v. Zerko¯n). Apparently, Priskos was aninﬂuential author in Buzantion.Ed.: FHG 4.69–110; Blockley 1 (1981) 48–70, 113–123, 2 (1982) 222–400.HLB 1.282–284; B. Baldwin, “Priscus of Panium,” Byzantion 50 (1980) 18–61; ODB 1721, Idem; OCD3 1248, R.J. Hopper; NP 10 (2001) 343, K.-P. Johne. Andreas KuelzerProbinus (ca 350 – 450 CE?)Wrote in Latin a geographical work, cited by the R C, and whichtreated at least Africa (3.5: where he is called African), and Illyria and Dalmatia (4.15–16).The name is common 350–450 CE: PLRE 1 (1971) 734–735, 2 (1980) 909–910.(*) PTKProclianus (ca 180 – ca 400 CE)M  B cites two remedies from Proclianus for liver ailments: 22.34, 37(CML 5, pp. 388, 390). The rare name is ﬁrst attested 182 CE, Prokliane¯ of Thessalonike¯ 696

P:708

PROKLOS THE METHODIST(LGPN 4.29; see also 3A.377), and primarily from the 4th c.: PLRE 1 (1971) 741, 2 (1980)914. Cf. perhaps P.Fabricius (1726) 380. PTKP (M.) ⇒ H Proëkhios (?) (120 BCE – 365 CE)O, Ecl. Med. 90.1 (CMG 6.2.2, p. 270), records his remedy for scrofula, composedof barley, galbanum, ammo¯niakon incense, oak mistletoe, natron, pigeon-dung, prop-olis, and pyrites, in terebinth; P  A, 7.16.22 (CMG 9.2, p. 339), records hisblood-stanch of antimony, calamine, saﬀron, khalkanthon, misu, opium, balsam,white pepper, and verdigris, in gum and water. The name is otherwise attested only for anobscure bishop from Arsinoë, in the acts of the council of Khalke¯do¯n (451 CE): RE 23.1(1957) 104. Cf. perhaps P.Fabricius (1726) 380, s.v. Prosechius. PTKProklos the Methodist (ca 27 BCE – 30 CE)C A (Chron. 3.8.100) calls Proklos a “follower” of the early MethodistT  (cf. G  MM 1.7.4 [10.52 K.]), placing Proklos in the reign of A;-G , I 4 (14.684 K.) puts him slightly later, listing Proklos afterT, M, and D (M.). Caelius Aurelianus (Chron. 3.100–101[CML 6.1.2, p. 738]) records Proklos’ theories regarding developmental stages of edemas:ﬁrst are the beginnings of dropsies characterized by small changes in the ﬂesh (leucophleg-matia); the most severe state tympanites occurring when abdominal swelling and tightness areat their worst, followed by a lessening phase, ascites (Caelius further claims that Proklos “. . .strays from [the sect’s] true doctrine”). O, Synopsis, 3.103 (CMG 6.3, pp. 95–96),strongly commends Proklos’ recipe for the treatment of gout ( podagra) which if consumed forone year “. . . cures gout, sciatica, and generally any sort of ailment and pain in the joints. Itenables the [ﬁve] senses to be more acute since the compound cleanses mildly throughurination, engendering a more healthy state in the entire body. It also cures epilepsies andhardened swellings in the liver and spleen.” The nine ingredients in stepwise reduced quan-tities are 9 ounces of germander (Teucrium chaemaedrys L.), 8 ounces of the full twig – fruitsand all – of the white centaury (Centaurium umbellatum Gilib.), 7 ounces of “long birthwortbrought from the mountains” (Aristolochia longa L.), 6 ounces of “great” or “yellow” gentian(Gentiana lutea L.), 5 ounces of huperikon (“St. John’s wort”; probably Hypericum crispum L.), 3[sic]ounces of parsley, 3 ounces of valerian (Valeriana phu L.), and a single ounce of shelf-fungus, mixed with honey. Proklos grinds in a mortar each ingredient separately, fashion-ing the compound into trokhiskoi, to be taken daily in water some three hours after abowel movement. Proklos’ “Medicine for Gout” was a mild analgesic, anti-depressant, anddiuretic, but any beneﬁts for the patient would have been counteracted in the long term by agradual poisoning of the kidneys from the substantial total quantity of birthwort consumed.RE 23.1 (1957) 247, H. Diller; Wichtl (2004) 630–634 [valerian], 305–308 [St. John’s wort]. John Scarborough 697

P:709

P RO K L O S O F L A O D I K E I A ( S Y R I A ) , “ P RO K L E¯ I O S ”Proklos of Laodikeia (Syria), “Prokle¯ios” (150 – 480 CE)Son of Themiso¯n and hierophant, according to the Souda Pi-2472. He wrote a com-mentary on N, some ge¯ometrika, and other works, all lost, save one citation byD , In Philebum 19.PLRE 1 (1971) 742. PTKProklos of Lukia, diadokhos (ca 430 – 485 CE)Life: Proklos’ life is amply recorded in the edifying encomium by his student M N, composed the year after his mentor’s death (Vita Procli = VP), and inD ’ Vita Isidori. Born in Constantinople in 412 to a Lukian noble family, Proklosbegan his studies with a grammatikos in Lukian Xanthos and continued them inAlexandria. His father Patricius, a high-ranking advocate, had practiced in the capital andwanted his son to learn Roman Law. Proklos also began studying rhetoric under the SophistLeo¯nas, whom Proklos accompanied on an embassy to Constantinople (VP 8–9). Returningto Alexandria, Proklos studied philosophy (especially A’s) and mathematics underH   (M). Ca 430, Proklos went to Athens to study with P  Aand S, the latter connected with Athenian Sophists, especially Lakhare¯s and hisstudent Nikolaos who welcomed Proklos on his arrival (VP 10–11). Among his fellow stu-dents were D  L and Hermeias. After Syrianus died, ca 437, Proklosbecame his “successor” (diadokhos), and, for the rest of his life, lived and taught in Athens,except during one year when Christian threats forced him into exile in Lydia (VP 15).Several of his students would become inﬂuential in government and/or philosophy, includ-ing A   A and his brother H  , Marinos and Isido¯ros ofAlexandria (who successively succeeded Proklos). His students also included high-rankingnotables of the late empire, many of them Christians (see Saﬀrey and Westerink, edd.,Theologie Platonicienne: Proclus I.–). Proklos himself was an inﬂuential political ﬁgure,extending patronage to many contemporaries (VP 16–17). He was also a devoted paganwho scrupulously observed traditional rites (VP 18–19). Nature of his scientiﬁc works and activities: Marinos describes Proklos as a hardworker, devoting time to courses, lectures and discussions which he subsequently recorded incommentaries (VP 22). Some of his extant works greatly inﬂuenced philosophy, theology,and science. Of particular signiﬁcance are his commentaries on P’s Timaeus (IT ) andRepublic (IR), on E’s ﬁrst book of the Elements (IE), his Outline of astronomical hypotheses(or Hupotuposis), and his Elements of Physics. Proklos’ written works derive from a method of reading and discussion that could bequaliﬁed as mystagogical, eclectic, conciliatory, and agonistic. (a) Mystagogical: Proklos remainedfaithful to Syrianus’ idea that preparatory readings (like the study of Aristotle) shouldlead one to Plato’s mystagogy (VP 13), i.e., to the idea that Plato’s dialogues (especiallyTimaeus and Parmenides) were designed to lead their readers to higher hypostases. Proklosthus considered it his duty to imitate Plato by providing his own “guidance” into Neo-Platonist metaphysics, e.g., a teaching both inspired and inspiring. In particular, heconsidered reading Euclid, Plato’s Timaeus or P as steps along the same path. Ingeneral, he considered commentary in itself as a kind of religious performance, akin toprayer and theurgy. (b) Eclectic, since Proklos chose from among his extensive literary 698

P:710

PROLEGOMENA TO PTOLEMY’S SUNTAXISknowledge everything relevant to attain “true reality” ( pragmata) and Platonic theology. Theliterature upon which Proklos relied included important mathematical works like Euclid’sElements, H  ’s or P’ commentaries thereon, Neo-Pythagorean arithmeticworks, G’ encyclopedia of mathematical science, and astronomical works (especiallyPtolemy’s Almagest and Hypotheseis). (c) Conciliatory, since Proklos also tried to build a harmony(sumph¯onia) between diﬀerent kinds of reasoning or theories – e.g., Euclid’s proofs andAristotle’s theory of demonstration (revised by Syrianus). (d) Agonistic: the interpretation oftexts was discussed in a closed circle, some of them sometimes raising valid objections(e.g. IE 29–30). This, in turn, was consistent with Proklos’ view that teaching should awakenthe souls of his listeners, controlled by, and directed toward, higher levels of cognition. Main scientiﬁc works and inﬂuence: IT, Proklos’ favorite work (VP 38), is an ambi-tious attempt to reconcile Plato’s dialogue with Aristotelian physics and cosmology, whichProklos substantially criticized and modiﬁed. Likewise, his Hupotuposis attempts to criticizePtolemy’s cosmology by emphasizing the artiﬁciality of his hypotheses as compared withthe simplicity and the independence from human needs characterizing natural processes,ideas also explored in IR (2.213–236 Kroll). The 13th dissertation of IR also includes along discussion, in which Proklos discusses various issues pertaining to astrology orNeo-Pythagorean arithmetic. He addresses in particular side and diagonal numbers andconfronts the Neo-Pythagorean procedure with a geometrical proof drawn from Euclid.Proklos’ IE contains an original theory of mathematical activity and invention, derived fromSyrianus’ own projectionist theories about the activity of the soul (IE 49–57). In its ﬁrstPrologue, Proklos also developed I’ earlier idea of “general mathematics” (hol¯emath¯ematik¯e) by expressing it according the late Neo-Platonist metaphysics (IE 5–10).Proklos’ Elements of Physics, as well as his Elements of Theology, show his eagerness to adapt theEuclidean paradigm of demonstration to other subjects, such as Aristotelian physics andNeo-Platonist theology. Proklos’ immediate inﬂuence is seen in the interest that some ofhis pupils took in ancient science, particularly Ammo¯nios and Marinos.DSB 11.160–162, G.R. Morrow; A.-Ph. Segonds, “Proclus: astronomie et philosophie,” in J. Pepin and H.D. Saﬀrey, edd., Proclus, lecteur et interprète des anciens (1987) 319–334; O’Meara (1989) 142–208; L. Siorvanes, Proclus, Neo-Platonic Philosophy and Science (1996); ECP 452–454, D.J. O’Meara; H.D. Saﬀrey and A.-Ph. Segonds, Marinus: Proclus ou sur le bonheur (CUF 2001). Alain BernardProlegomena to Ptolemy’s Suntaxis (ca 450 – 500 CE?)Some 25 MSS of P’s Suntaxis (early 9th c. and later) have a long introductionconsisting of a preliminary chapter, to which alone the title prolegomena legitimately applies(ed.: Hultsch 1878: 3.–) and three independent studies, probably not from thesame author: (1) on isoperimetric ﬁgures, deriving from an earlier treatment traditionallyascribed to Z   (Knorr 1989: 725 and 738–741; ed.: Hultsch 1878: 3.1138–1165);(2) on the calculation of the volume of the Earth, perhaps deriving from P withdiﬀerent, sometimes erroneous, calculations (ed.: Hultsch 1878, 3.–); (3) on variouscalculation techniques: multiplication, division, extraction of square roots, division of ratios( partial ed.: Tannery, Diophantos 3–15 and Mémoires Scientiﬁques II.447–450; Knorr 1989:185–210 and 787–793). This last study explicitly praises S, is close to D’style, and was plausibly written by a member of the Neo-Platonist circle in Athens aroundthe middle of the 5th c. (Knorr 1989: 168). 699

P:711

PROMATHOS OF SAMOS Knorr convincingly refuted Mogenet’s previous attribution to E and proposedinstead A, but the argument is weak. Mogenet conjectured that the text is a clan-destine edition of notes on a public course on the Almagest. Later MSS (14th c. onwards)attribute the text to T   A or D.J. Mogenet, “L’introduction à l’Almageste” (1956); Knorr (1989) 155–211, 689–751, 787–793; Decorps-Foulquier (2000) 66, nn.27–30. Alain BernardPromathos of Samos (460 – 430 BCE?)Cited by the A C O  F   N, as the source ofA’ opinion that the Nile rises when snow melts on the mountain at the head-waters of the Khremes river, an opinion rejected by H  2.22, but echoed byA, Meteor. 1.13 (350a14–350b23). The name is rare, cf. only LGPN 3A.378(7th c. BCE).RE 23 (1957) 1285–1286, Fr. Gisinger. PTKPro¯ ros of Kure¯ne¯ (370 – 340 BCE?)Said by I to be from Kure¯ne¯ (VP 127, 267), he became impoverished in apolitical upheaval but was restored to fortune by K  T (D  S Book 10, fr.4.1; Iamblikhos, VP 239). Diodo¯ros (16.2.1) and Pausanias (10.2.3) namePro¯ros of Kure¯ne¯ victor in the stadion sprint of the 105th Olympiad. His only known work,On the Heptad, of which two brief testimonia survive (pseudo-Iamblikhos, T. A.7 [ p. 57 de Falco]), discussed the holiness of the number seven.Thesleﬀ (1965) 154–155. PTK and GLIMProsdokhos (200 BCE – ca 400 CE)M  B 29.55 (CML 5, p. 518) refers to his collection of recipes,and cites a quasi-magical recipe for ikhneum¯on-urine and black-cow milk as a remedy forcolon-troubles. The name is attested once elsewhere, Prosdokhe¯ of Edessa (LGPN 4.292,ca 100 CE). Cf. perhaps P.Fabricius (1726) 380. PTKPro¯ tagoras (200 – 300 CE?)Geographer, working in the tradition of P. He lived after him but long beforeM  H , who regarded him as one of the arkhaioi andres (ancientauthors) and used his material extensively. Pro¯tagoras wrote a work in six books, entitledeither Ge¯ometria (Pho¯tios, Bibl. 188) or Ge¯ographia t¯es oikoumen¯es (GGM 1.543), preserved only infragments. The ﬁrst ﬁve books, written in a poor style (Pho¯tios), described Asia Minor,Libya, and Europe in general; the last book mentioned doxologoumena (marvelous things) ofthe oikoumene¯. Some material was taken from older sources, some based on autopsy 700

P:712

P R O¯ TA G O R A S O F N I K A I A( John Tzetze¯s, Chil. 7.647). Distances along coast-lines are given in stades (with theexception of north-eastern Europe). The compendium Hupotup¯osis ge¯ographias en epitom¯e(E ), however, occasionally attributed to Pro¯tagoras, belonged mostprobably to the circle of the 9th c. patriarch Pho¯tios of Constantinople.RE 18.3 (1949) 1160–1161, K. Ziegler; RE 23.1 (1957) 921–923 (#5), F. Gisinger; NP 10.458, H.A. Gärtner. Andreas KuelzerPro¯ tagoras of Abde¯ra (ca 460 – 420 BCE)The oldest and perhaps most important of the 5th c. sophists whose educational activitiesand intellectual interests belong more to the social sciences than the natural sciences. Butone central doctrine of Pro¯tagoras, that “a human being is measure of all things,” hasimportant consequences for all kinds of inquiry. We have only a single sentence of Pro¯tagoras’own words on this topic. But as explained by both P (Tht. 152a–c) and SE (PH 1.216–219), the doctrine entails that, for any individual in a given set ofcircumstances, the way things appear is the way they are. (Whether this is equivalent torelativism, as that term is normally understood, is another question.) Pro¯tagoras thus erasesany distinction between appearance and reality, which seems seriously to undermine theimpulse to scientiﬁc inquiry. Plato connects Pro¯tagoras’ “measure” doctrine with an ontology of radical ﬂux. It is notclear, however, whether he means to attribute this to Pro¯tagoras himself, or suggest thatPro¯tagoras should have taken this as a corollary of the doctrine. What does seem to have beenconnected with the measure doctrine was a suspicion of claims about matters falling outsideordinary experience. Pro¯tagoras’ famous expression of religious agnosticism is one of sev-eral indications of this attitude. A Metaph. 3 (998a1–4) also reports that he tookissue with geometers about whether a line touches a circle only at a point. It looks as if hispoint was that this is clearly not the case for visible straight and circular objects; the implica-tion seems to be that any other kinds of objects, such as those of pure mathematics, arenot even worth considering. Other indications suggest he was dismissive of mathematics,explained, presumably, in his On Mathematics.ECP 455–458, P. Woodruﬀ. Richard BettPro¯ tagoras of Nikaia (100 BCE – 350 CE)Authored a lost astrological work entitled Sunag¯ogai, part of which H  T  paraphrases for doctrines relating journeys of individuals to planetary motions(3.30 and 3.47). The same work contained material on astrological medicine, for which it iscited, along with similar texts attributed to H  and P, in an anonymousiatromathematical chapter in an 11th c. Byzantine astrological codex. The character ofthe doctrines indicates a date no earlier than the 1st c. BCE. D  L (9.56)refers to an astrologos Pro¯tagoras who lived about 200 BCE, probably distinct from ourPro¯tagoras, and probably an astronomer rather than an astrologer.Pingree (1978) 2.438–439. Alexander Jones 701

P:713

P R O¯ TA R K H O S ( M E C H . A N D P H A R M . )Pro¯ tarkhos (Mech. and Pharm.) (220 – 180 BCE?)Named only by C, as one of those who, like N  and H   T (M.), built devices for the reduction of dislocations of the thigh (8.20.4); alsocited for an ear-ointment (5.18.18) and a remedy against scabies (5.28.16–18).Michler (1968) 49, 99. PTKPro¯ tarkhos of Bargulia (150 – 120 BCE)Epicurean mathematician whose student was D    L  (S 14.2.20), and to whom H  addressed his appendix of E.RE 23.1 (1957) 924 (#5), W. Aly. GLIMPro¯ tarkhos of Tralleis (160 – 60 BCE)Cited by I H in M, Sat. 1.7.19, on early Italy, and by S B on the Hyperboreans who live in and beyond the Alps (which appear ﬁrst inP 2.14).RE 23.1 (1957) 923–924 (#4), K. Ziegler. PTKPro¯ ta¯ s of Pe¯lousion (120 BCE – 80 CE)A, in G , CMLoc 10.2 (13.338 K.), cites his remedy against sciaticaand headache. A  , in Gale¯n, CMLoc 4.7 (12.787–788 K.), cites the “Proteus”collyrium (a brand-name? emend to “ΠΡΩΤΑ¯”?), containing calamine, khalkitis,psimuthion, saﬀron, opium, white pepper, etc., in rainwater; A  A 7.114(CMG 8.2, p. 388), A  T (2.47 Puschm.), and P  A7.16.43 (CMG 9.2, p. 343) repeat the prescription. The use of white pepper suggests theterminus post.RE 23.1 (1957) 924, H. Diller. PTKProthlius/Protlius (?) (150 – 378 CE?)“Only physician saved by war,” came to Germany as a captive. He invented a plaster calledcaptiuum to treat the stricken daughter of a “king” (M. Aurelius is the only emperor knownto have been in Germany with a daughter, but her illness is otherwise unattested), andfor his success was rewarded and freed together with his fellow-captives. The plaster –compounded from ocean water, natron, pure beeswax, roasted resin, sal ammoniac, opop-anax, galbanum, the beak of a dove, old olive oil, birthwort, psimuthion, and the dungof a white dog – was eﬃcacious against scrofulous tumors, abscesses, punctures, and cal-luses: “wherever you will have used it, you will praise it” extols Nicholas Myrepsus (1.202).Kühn reads the name as “Protlius.” Neither variant is Greek or Roman, but perhapsemendable to Procilius or Procilianus.C.G. Kühn, Additamenta ad elenchum medicorum ueterum 25 (1837) 5. GLIM 702

P:714

PTOLEMAIOS (MED.)Proxenos (120 – 30 BCE)Used by A M and commended by G , his “harmonious” remedy for long-standing coughs and fevers consisted in white pepper, opium, cardamom, saﬀron, raw sulfur,myrrh, white henbane seeds, and honey, administered with hydromel (Gale¯n, CMLoc 7.2[13.61 K.]). This name is attested from the 5th c. BCE to 1st c. CE (LGPN ).RE 23.1 (1957) 1034 (#15), H. Diller. GLIMPrutanis (250 BCE – 80 CE)A, in G  CMLoc 3.1 and 7.3, records two remedies of Prutanis. Hiscompound to treat auricular inﬂammation, according with H’, contained myrrh,nard, saﬀron, burnt copper, opium, castoreum, and alum, taken with must when the sore isrunning, when painful with rose oil (12.627–628 K.). Prutanis’ white pill for phthisis wascompounded of myrrh, henbane seed, opium, sturax, taken with staphis, must or a date(13.73 K.). This rare name, attested from the heroic era into the 2nd c. CE (LGPN ), primarilyin the Black Sea area where eight Prutaneis are known, is a cognomen of the Augustan eraand later (Solin 2003: 1.1090).RE 23.1 (1957) 1158 (#6), H. Diller. GLIM-<N> ⇒ <N>Ptolemaios (Pharm.) (70 – 90 CE)A   P., in G , describes a pharmaceutical Ptolemaios as an acquaint-ance, and records: (a) eye-ointment, with khalkitis, misu, realgar, cassia, malabathron,myrrh, omphakion, opium, pepper, and saﬀron, in gum and rainwater (CMGen 4.7,12.789 K.), (b) pain-killer in cases of blood-spitting (phthisis?), of henbane, mandrake,opium, with saﬀron, cassia, etc. in Aminian wine (CMLoc 7.5, 13.101 K.), and (c) wound-powder of pine-bark, calamine, copper-ﬂake, roasted deer-antler, etc. (CMGen 5.14,13.849–850 K.). Shortly thereafter, Askle¯piade¯s cites probably the same Ptolemaios, withoutepithet, for another wound-powder, of roasted lead, orpiment, copper-ﬂake, ashed papyrus,and unﬁred sulfur (13.852–853 K.), and probably again, for a headache remedy (good forskoto¯matics and epileptics) based on white hellebore: CMLoc 2.2 (12.584 K.). (Michler1968: 122–125 wrongly equates this pharmacist with C’ surgeon.) Cf. perhapsP (E).Fabricius (1972) 224, 228. PTKPtolemaios (Med.) (250 BCE – 25 CE)Surgeon whose recipe to treat ear ulcers is preserved in C (6.7.2B–C), immediately afterone by E. Diller distinguishes him from the homonymous Erasistrateanphysician, because Ptolemaios utilizes completely diﬀerent ingredients than the Erasistratean;i.e., mastic, oak gall, omphakion, and pomegranate juice; Michler however argues thatCelsus is here giving recipes from Erasistratean sources. 703

P:715

PTOLEMAIOS (ERASI.)RE 23.2 (1959) 1863 (#81), H. Diller; Michler (1968) 83–84, 122–125. GLIMPtolemaios (Erasi.) (250 BCE – 100 CE?)Erasistratean who taught that dropsy originated in the “hardness” of the liver, conclud-ing that parakentesis (direct ﬂuid extraction through an inserted tube) treated only the symp-tom not the cause of the disease: C A Chron. 3.125, 130 (CML 6.1.2,pp. 754, 756). The name is much more frequent before the Roman conquests (LGPN ),suggesting an early terminus ante, and our Erasistratean may be identical with C’surgeon or A  ’ pharmacist.Michler (1968) 83–84, 122–125; Fabricius (1972) 224, 228. PTKPtolemaios Platonikos (ca 50 – ca 250 CE)Philosopher cited by I  K (I   S 1.378.1–11 W.) andP (in Tim. 1.20.7–9 D.). Ptolemaios may have commented on P’s Timaeus, sinceProklos (ibid.) claims that Ptolemaios believed the fourth, missing person in the dialogue wasKleitopho¯n. Inﬂuenced by both Platonic and Aristotelian theories, Ptolemaios thinks thatthe soul is always in a body and moves from bodies of a rare nature into the oyster-like body,the vehicle of the soul. It can reside in the sensible world, inhabiting solid bodies (Stobaios1.378.1–11 W.). Ptolemaios may also have compiled a list of A’s writings, alongwith his biography and testament (E, in Cat.: CAG 18.1 [1900] 107.11–14 [referring to acertain Ptolemaios Philadelphos], 128.6–7). In this context, his name is likewise mentionedby Arabic sources.A. Dihle, “Der Platoniker Ptolemaios,” Hermes 85 (1957) 314–325; RE 23.2 (1959) 1859–1860 (#69), A. Dihle; PLRE 1 (1971) 753 (#1); Moraux 1 (1973) 60–94; NP 10.571 (#68), M.-L. Lakmann. Peter LautnerP  A ⇒ PPtolemaios of Kure¯ne¯ (125 – 75 BCE)That the skeptic philosopher Ptolemaios of Kure¯ne¯ was an Empiricist physician as wellis an idea suggested by the catalogue of skeptic philosophers in D  L(9.115–116), where it is said that Ptolemaios, besides having relaunched skepticism after aperiod of decline, was the teacher of He¯rakleide¯s. The identiﬁcation of this He¯rakleide¯swith H    T suggested the hypothesis that the Empiricist Ptolemaioswas his teacher after his breaking with the He¯rophilean M. But this identiﬁca-tion appears to be highly hypothetical, and it ﬁnds little support in the two fragmentsDeichgräber decided to ascribe to him (thinking that they had been transmitted byHe¯rakleide¯s): the recipe against auricular ulceration that C (6.7.2B) ascribes to aPtolemaeus chirurgus (P (M.)), and those against headache that G  ascribesto a Ptolemaios; but Celsus’ Ptolemaeus is possibly to be identiﬁed as P (E.),whereas Gale¯n’s Ptolemaios is probably the same as the Ptolemaios of A   P.:see P (P.).704

P:716

P T O L E M A ¨I S O F K U R E¯ N E¯Ed.: Deichgräber (1930) 20, 172 (fragments), 258.RE 23.2 (1959) 1861 (#72), A. Dihle, 1863 (#80–82), H. Diller; C.A. Viano, “Lo scetticismo antico e la medicina,” in G. Giannantoni, ed., Lo Scetticismo antico = Elenchos 6 (1981) 2.563–656 at 640; J. Barnes, “Ancient Skepticism and Causation,” in M. Burnyeat, ed., The Skeptical Tradition (1983) 149–203 at 189–190 (n. 14). Fabio StokPtolemaios of Kuthe¯ra (100 – 120 CE)The Souda Pi-3032 says he wrote a didactic poem on the power and marvel of theplant psalakanth¯e: “power” (dunamis) could be pharmacological or magical. To be dis-tinguished from his contemporary, the polymathic paradoxographer Ptolemaios “Khennos”(“Chennus”), son of Hephaistio¯n, who mentioned the same plant (Pho¯tios, Bibl. 190,p. 150a20–37), citing a possibly-ﬁctive line of Euboulos, fr.27 PCG.RE 23.2 (1959) 1859 (#68), A. Dihle. PTKPtolemaïs of Kure¯ne¯ (ca 50 BCE? – ca 50 CE?)Musicologist, the only surviving fragments of whose catechetic manual Pythagorean Elementsof Music (Puthagorik¯e t¯es mousik¯es stoikhei¯osis) are preserved by P in his commentaryon P’s Harmonics (22.22–24.6, 25.3–26.5 Düring). Porphurios’ source for Ptolemaïs’writings may have been D (25.3–6). Ptolemaïs presents the diﬀerent types of musical theorists in a spectrum, arrangedaccording to the importance they placed on either reason or perception. On one end of thespectrum are certain Pythagoreans who regarded reason as an autonomous criterion andexcluded sensory data altogether; on the other are the “instrumentalists” (organikoi), whobased their conclusions solely on the evidence of perception. The latter, she says, werefollowers of A, though she takes care to place Aristoxenos himself more cen-trally on account of his more balanced treatment of the necessary cooperation of the twofaculties. Ptolemaïs also discusses kanonikoi, “canonic theorists,” who practiced a mathematicalharmonic theory which she calls “canonic science” (h¯e kanonik¯e pragmateia), in which themonochord (kan¯on) had a central role in demonstrating the numerical ratios of musicalintervals to the ear. She locates canonic science at the meeting point between reason andperception; its fundamental postulates are drawn from the hypotheses of both the musicians(1–3 below) and the mathematicians (4–5): (1) that there are concordant and discordantintervals, (2) that the octave is made up of a fourth and a ﬁfth, (3) that the tone is the excessof a ﬁfth over a fourth, (4) that intervals are in ratios of numbers, and (5) that a note consistsof numbers of collisions. Ptolemaïs is an important source for our understanding of the range of approaches toharmonic science between E  and T, and for the development ofspeciﬁc terminology within the discipline. She may in fact be the earliest extant author touse the term kanonik¯e to indicate mathematical harmonics, a label which gained commoncurrency among contemporary or later authors (e.g. P   A, H   A, G, P  Y, P, D “            ”). 705

P:717

PTOLEMYDüring (1932); Barker (1989); Mathiesen (1999); NP 10.571–572, R. Harmon; NDSB 6.172–173, E. Rocconi. David CreesePtolemy (“Claudius Ptolemaeus,” 127 – after 146 CE)Ptolemy (Ptolemaios) was the most important author working in the mathematical and phys-ical sciences during the Roman Empire. His extant writings are devoted to astronomy,astrology, cartography, harmonic theory, and optics. A central concern of his work was thededuction of systems of models representing physical causes of various categories of phe-nomena, whether in the heavens or in our more immediate environment. From his ownworks we know that he made astronomical observations between 127 and 141 CE atAlexandria, and erected an inscription reporting the numerical details of his astronomicalmodels at Kanobos (“Canopus,” a suburb of Alexandria) in 146 or 147 CE. The order ofseveral of his books is known from cross-references, and most were completed after theinscription. Authentic tradition may be behind O   A’s asser-tion that Ptolemy lived for 40 years in an isolated place called the “Wings” at Kanopos; thefew medieval sources attesting Ptolemy’s biography are untrustworthy or ﬁctitious. Astronomy: Among Ptolemy’s several works on astronomy, occupying a central place isthe Almagest – the medieval nickname derived from the Greek megistos (“greatest”) by way ofArabic and Latin; Ptolemy entitled it Mathematical Composition (Suntaxis Math¯ematik¯e ). Thistreatise in 13 books attempts to use mathematics – by which Ptolemy means the rationalstudy of shape, number, size, position, and time in physical bodies – to establish models forthe motions of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars. The fundamental assumption is that thesemotions are combinations of uniform circular revolutions representing the spinning ofspherical bodies of aithe¯r. Starting from appropriately selected observations, subjected tomathematical analysis, Ptolemy demonstrates ﬁrst the qualitative arrangement and then thequantitative details such as radii and rates of revolution in the various circles. The opening chapters of Book 1 give empirical arguments for Ptolemy’s basic cosmo-logical framework, most of which would not have been controversial among contemporaryastronomers. The Earth is spherical, stationary, and located at the center of the kosmos.The Earth’s size is negligible relative to the heavens, which taken as a whole revolve uni-formly in an east-to-west direction around the Earth, causing the daily risings and settingsof the visible heavenly bodies. The complex secondary motion of the Sun, Moon, andplanets occurs from west to east along the ecliptic circle. To account for the apparent irregularity in the motions of the heavenly bodies, Ptolemyemploys two devices, introduced into Greek astronomy by the time of H N: eccentric motion and epicycles. A uniform circular motion, when seen from apoint oﬀ center, appears to vary in speed, and is called an eccenter; likewise a uniformcircular motion, the center of which is carried uniformly in a circular path around theobserver, will appear non-uniform, and is called an epicycle. Any periodic variation inapparent speed explainable by an eccentric model can equivalently be explicated by anepicyclic model, though the circles involved have diﬀerent physical meanings. Ptolemy usesa simple eccenter for the Sun, but his models for the Moon and planets combine the twoprinciples since the apparent motions of these bodies exhibited two intertwined periodici-ties. Moreover, in his models for the Moon and planets, Ptolemy considers that a motion isuniform if it sweeps out equal angles as seen from some ﬁxed point which need not be the 706

P:718

PTOLEMYPtolemy’s model for the motion of Mars © Jonescircle’s center. The model for Mars illustrates these concepts ( ﬁgure). Planet B is assumed torevolve uniformly around an epicycle RQ. The center of this epicycle S revolves around aneccenter AP, the center of which C is displaced from the Earth T. The motion of S aroundthe eccenter is uniform as seen, not from C, but from an “equant” point E which in thismodel is twice as far from the Earth as the eccenter’s center. The central argument of the Almagest begins, after various mathematical and geographicalpreliminaries, in Book 3 with the theory of the Sun, chosen because it can be establishedwithout recourse to assumptions about the motions of other heavenly bodies. In this andsubsequent sections, Ptolemy follows a recurring pattern. First, the basic structure of themodel is supported by very general observed facts. Then Ptolemy applies a geometrical andtrigonometrical analysis to a small number of dated observations of the positions of thebody to acquire numerical details. In his solar theory the deduction is straightforward andﬁnal, but for the other bodies Ptolemy must correct the initial data in the light of his ﬁrstapproximate results, so that the arguments are recursive and depend on convergence. In discussing solar and lunar theory (Books 4–5), Ptolemy acknowledges Hipparkhos, whohad developed some of the same deductive methods and arrived at some of the sameresults. However, Ptolemy explicitly takes credit for the discovery that the Moon has twoperiodicities. Book 6 applies the solar and lunar models to the study and prediction ofeclipses. In Books 7–8, where Ptolemy again draws on Hipparkhos, Ptolemy shows that thestars, while maintaining conﬁgurations relative to each other, make a gradual revolution(“precession”) around the poles of the ecliptic, and he presents a catalogue of 1022 stars.Books 9–13 are devoted to the ﬁve planets known to antiquity (Mercury, Venus, Mars,Jupiter, and Saturn). Ptolemy asserts that Hipparkhos contributed little to planetary theory;and it is striking that he acknowledges no debt in the Almagest to any astronomers during theintervening centuries except as observers. The Almagest does not profess to be a historical account of discovery, and internal analysisof its details reveals that many of its results cannot have been obtained originally in the waythat Ptolemy deduces them. Moreover, some of Ptolemy’s reports of his own observations –perhaps all – have been adjusted or fabricated to agree closely with the theories. How much 707

P:719

PTOLEMYPtolemy appropriated from his predecessors is diﬃcult to determine because of Ptolemy’ssilences and the dearth of other Greek technical literature on the subject, and there isno modern consensus. A byproduct of Ptolemy’s determining celestial models in the Almagest is a set of tables,interspersed among the chapters of the Almagest, enabling computation of a full range ofphenomena including the positions of heavenly bodies at any given date. Subsequently,Ptolemy published a revised and expanded set of tables as the Handy Tables, used extensivelyin antiquity and the Middle Ages, especially by astrologers. Ptolemy gave a more physicalaccount of the models in Planetary Hypotheses, in two books, surviving complete only inArabic translation. He returned here to a question that he had regarded as inconclusive inthe Almagest, the distances of the planets, proposing a system of nested and contiguoussystems of etherial spheres in the order (outward from the Earth): Moon, Mercury, Venus,Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, stars. By way of Islamic astronomy this became the standardcosmological model until the 16th c. Ptolemy’s other astronomical writings are relatively minor. Phaseis is a parape¯gma,arranged according to the solar year and the principal latitudes of the Greco-Roman world.Planispherium (extant only through Arabic translation) is a study of stereographic projection,a mathematical technique for representing circles on the celestial sphere by circles in aplane, the basis of the primary astronomical instrument of late antiquity and the MiddleAges, the plane astrolabe. Analemma, extant in fragments in Greek and a more or less com-plete Medieval Latin translation, concerns the mathematical theory underlying sundials.Ptolemy also appears to have written monographs, now lost, on the theory of visibility ofstars and of the planets Venus and Mercury. Other sciences: The Harmonics, in three books, deduces models for systems of tuningemployed by Greek musicians. Probably one of his earliest treatises, it contains discussionsof scientiﬁc epistemology that have bearing on Ptolemy’s work in other sciences. Ptolemysituates his own harmonic theory in relation to two faulty theories: that of the Pythagor-eans, which modeled the intervals in Greek scales by means of a highly restricted set ofratios of whole numbers, and that of the Aristoxeneans, which was ostensibly empirical andeschewed ratios. These theories complementarily exemplify reason insuﬃciently controlledby the senses, and empiricism insuﬃciently controlled by reason, though Ptolemy’s solutionfalls closer to the Pythagoreans by embracing a more ﬂexible system of whole-numberratios. Ptolemy’s central claim is that the general constraints he proposes for the ratios ofmusical intervals within scales lead to a ﬁnite set of possible scales that is almost coextensivewith the scales employed by contemporary musicians. Experimental apparatus plays animportant role in this complex work. The Optics, in ﬁve books, is a study of the phenomena of visual perception, including longtreatments of binocular vision and the appearances of objects seen reﬂected in mirrors orrefracted through the interfaces between diﬀerent transparent media. It unfortunately sur-vives only in a defective Medieval Latin translation of a lost Arabic translation, lackingthe whole of Book 1 and end of Book 5. Ptolemy’s model for vision assumes that it iseﬀected through a cone-shaped visual ray with its vertex at the eye; perception occurs alongstraight lines emanating from the cone’s vertex. Ptolemy probably thought of the ray as analteration of the exterior environment caused by the human soul. In contrast to themodel of visual rays in E’s Optics, there are no gaps between potential lines ofsight in Ptolemy’s cone, and it has some ability to perceive the distance of objects. AgainPtolemy makes appeal to experimental apparatus, most impressively on binocular vision 708

P:720

PUBLIUS OF PUTEOLIand measuring angles of refraction at boundaries between diﬀerent media (air, water, andglass). The treatise in four books on astrology known as the Tetrabiblos (Ptolemy’s title for it is notknown) makes a case for astrology as a legitimate though inexact science, primarily physicalrather than mathematical, and grounded in the interplay of reason and tradition ratherthan reason and observation. Ptolemy divides his subject into a more reliable “general”astrology treating the inﬂuence of celestial bodies on entire geographical regions (Book 2)and a personal astrology covering inﬂuences on individual lives and characters (Books 3and 4). In the Geography ( properly Guide to Drawing Maps of the World) Ptolemy addressed the prob-lems of how best to determine positions on the globe of localities throughout the knownworld from the source materials, mostly unscientiﬁc, available to an ancient geographer;how to present this information in an image conveying the impression of the Earth’s spher-ical shape; and how to transmit this picture accurately from copy to copy. Of the eightbooks, almost six consist of a list of about 8,000 localities with their assigned latitudes (indegrees north or south of the equator) and longitudes (in degrees east of the meridianthrough the Isles of the Blest, i.e. the Canaries). Ptolemy explains how to construct a mapfrom these data on a large globe or on a plane surface, employing sophisticated gridsof circular arcs and straight lines representing parallels and meridians. Ptolemy’s mapwas closely modeled on M  T, though he incorporated new informationespecially concerning east Africa and south Asia. On the Kriterion and He¯gemonikon is a brief work presenting an eclectic Hellenisticapproach to the classiﬁcation of epistemological standards. The authenticity of this workhas been disputed. S (Comm. in Aristotelem de caelo = CAG 7 [1894] pp. 20 and 710)cites what appears to be a single lost work by the diﬀering titles On Weights and On theElements. This book replaced Aristotle’s theory of the natural motion of the ﬁve elementsearth, water, air, ﬁre, and aithe¯r with a theory resembling that of X.F. Boll, “Studien über Claudius Ptolemaeus,” Jahrbücher für Classische Philologie, S.21 (1894) 51–244; RE 23.2 (1959) 1793–1831, 1839–1853, 1858–1859, B.L. van der Waerden; DSB 11.186–206, G.J. Toomer; Idem, Ptolemy’s Almagest (1984); A. Lejeune, L’Optique de Claude Ptolémée dans la version latine d’après l’arabe de l’émir Eugène de Sicile (1989); A. Murschel, “The Structure and Function of Ptolemy’s Physical Hypotheses of Planetary Motion,” JHA 26 (1995) 33–61; A. Barker, Scientiﬁc Method in Ptolemy’s Harmonics (2000); J.L. Berggren and Alexander Jones, Ptolemy’s Geography: An Annotated Translation of the Theoretical Chapter (2000); Alexander Jones, “Ptolemy’s Canobic Inscription and Heliodorus’ Observation Reports,” SCIAMVS 6 (2005) 53–97; NDSB 6.173–178, Alexander Jones. Alexander JonesPublius of Puteoli (60 – 80 CE)Cited thrice by A, for various remedies (in G  CMLoc 9.4 [13.281 K.],CMGen 2.15 [ p. 533], 5.13 [ p. 842]), and once by A   P., ibid. 5.14 (13.852K.) who calls him his teacher.RE 23.2 (1959) 1936 (#3), H. Diller. PTK 709

P:721

PURAMOSPuramos (250 BCE – 95 CE)A   P. records in G  CMLoc 4.7 (12.777–778 K.) his eye-salve, treatingscars and swelling/calluses, and all protuberances, compounded from Cyprian calamine,hematite, roasted copper, roasted misu, saﬀron, ammo¯niakon incense, copper scales,heated and cooled, to which are then added opium, myrrh, gum and very sour vinegar. Thisrare name, known from the 5th c. BCE to 3rd c. CE, is concentrated in western Greece andMagna Graecia (LGPN ).RE 24 (1963) 11 (#4), H. Diller. GLIMPurgotele¯s (or Ergotele¯s?) (280 – 260 BCE)Son of Zo¯e¯s, master ship builder for Ptolemy II Philadelphos, for whose services Philadel-phos erected in the temple of Aphrodite at Paphos a statue whose inscription (OGIS 39) citesPurgotele¯s’ two ships, one a “thirty” the other a “twenty” (cf. Athe¯naios, Deipn. 5 [203c–d],and see Casson pp. 99–116). The inscription is damaged, and only . . .ΟΤΕΛΗΣ is pre-served. Purgotele¯s is attested once at De¯los and four times at Rhodes (2nd c. BCE: LGPN1.396); the sole alternate supplement, Ergotele¯s, is more common, attested 30 times fromthe 5th–2nd cc. BCE (LGPN 1.162, 2.155, 3A.151, 3B.142), though also not on Cyprus. ForZo¯e¯s, see LGPN 1.195 (Cyprus and Lesbos).RE 24 (1963) 49 (#2), E. Fabricius; L. Casson, Ships and seamanship in the ancient world (1971; repr. 1986). GLIMPurrhos of E¯ peiros (and Macedon) (295 – 275 BCE)A  M. p. 5 W. lists Purrhos “of Macedon” (after D, K, andD ) as a writer on siege engines (cf. V 7.pr.14). He also wrote so well onmining and tunneling that Athe¯naios had nothing to add ( p. 31 W.). P, Pyrrh. 8,Aelianus, Taktika 1.2, and C, ad Fam. 9.25.1, record that King Purrhos of E¯ peiroswrote a Taktika, abridged by his minister K. Purrhos was king of Macedon for lessthan a year (287 BCE: Plut., Pyrrh. 11).OCD3 1283, P.S. Derow. PTKPurrhos of Magnesia (250 BCE – 100 CE)Wrote a commentary on A (FGrHist 1026 T19), entirely lost.(*) PTKPuthagoras (Med.) (450 – 50 BCE)Physician, wrote a work On Squill (skill¯es: cf. E), or less likely On Hernia (k¯el¯es), andperhaps a book about H: De¯me¯trios of Magnesia, in D  L 8.47 (laterthan Puthagoras of Rhe¯gion, the sculptor); pseudo-G , Eupor. 3 (14.567 K.) cites Gale¯nfor “Pythagoras on squill.” Two fragments in Arabic concerning urine are attributed to aPythagoras of Alexandria (Ullmann 1970: 82). A’ notice regarding Puthagoras’ 710

P:722

PUTHEAS OF MASSALIAinterest in medicine may refer to our author rather than the philosopher (VH 9.22), ifit does not refer to the pseudo-Puthagoras of D ; cf. also P A . Ziegler distinguishes the physician from the author of the Homeric treatise.RE 24 (1963) 305 (#12b), H. Diller and K. Ziegler. PTK and GLIMPuthagoras (of Alexandria?) (275 – 265 BCE)Oﬃcer under Ptolemy Philadelphos, whose lost On the Red Sea described stones (I inP 37.24), musical instruments of the Trogodutes (Ath., Deipn. 4 [183f], 14 [634a]), andthe long-tailed monkey (A, NA 17.8).NP 10.654 (#6), H.A. Gärtner. PTKP  S ⇒ PPuthagoras of Samos, pseudo (Astrol.) (ca 1 – 150 CE)Three extant treatises on occult sciences are attributed to P  S. Twoare astrological, The Pebble (CCAG 11.2.124–125), describing planetary inﬂuences on char-acter (from Saturn inward to the Moon), and On the Forms and Indications of the 12 Signs of theZodiac (CCAG 11.2.135–138), which has been shown to depend on D   S (Pingree 1978: 292–299). The third is an untitled work on numerological onomancy, whichtakes the form of a letter addressed to his son Te¯lauge¯s (CCAG 11.2.139). H R cited this text in extenso (Haer. 4.13.1–14.20).Diels (1905) 87–88; P. Tannery, “Notice sur des fragments d’Onomatomancie arithmétique” (1886), repr. in Mémoirs scientiﬁques 9 (1929) 17–50. Bink HallumPuthagoras of Zakunthos (500 – 450 BCE?)Professional kitharodos and theoretician probably active in the mid-5th c. BCE (according toD  L 8.46), he is also recalled by A for his theoretical interestsin describing diﬀerent forms of scales without achieving a complete enumeration oftheir possible structures and without investigating the general principles governing them(El. Harm. 36.33). As stated by a fragment of A   K in Athe¯naios,Deipn. 14 (637b–f), he became famous for the invention of an instrument resembling theDelphic tripod (hence called tripous), a triple kithara where three sets of strings were put on arevolving base with a big common sound-box, so that the Dorian, Phrygian, and Lydianharmoniai could all be played.M.L. West, Ancient Greek Music (1992) 226. E. RocconiPutheas of Massalia (ca 320 – 305 BCE)Explorer and geographer of uncertain date; D’ criticism (S  2.4.2)seems our earliest reference. P described him as a private individual and a 711

P:723

P U T H E O S O F P R I E¯ N E¯poor man (ibid.). His motivation may have been commercial, to ﬁnd northern sources of tinand amber, but his interest in science was genuine, and he may have been a student ofE  K. Although later writers such as Polubios and Strabo¯n made him outto be a liar, E , H, P, and others used his observations, andPutheas’ contributions to descriptive and mathematical geography and astronomy arefundamental. In one or more works, entitled On the Ocean and Circuit of the Earth, Putheas described hisjourney from Marseilles to northern Europe via the Atlantic coast, either in a Massilian shipout the Pillars of He¯rakle¯s around the Iberian peninsula to the British Isles, or onfoot and on native craft. He described Britain as three-sided and estimated its circumferencewith reasonable accuracy. He also mentioned the island of Thule, six days beyond Britain,whether referring to the islands north of Scotland, or to Norway, Jutland, or even Iceland, isa matter of longstanding debate. He described the enigmatic Congealed Sea, like a sea-lung(jellyﬁsh?), wherein earth, air and water were mixed together; perhaps a ﬁrst- or second-hand report of pack or slush ice. He mentioned ﬁnding the source of amber on an islandAbalus, in an estuary on the northern shore of Europe; perhaps west of Jutland, or eveneast into the Baltic. A reference to reaching the Tanais (the Don) must be discounted. The perspicacity of Putheas’ observations is astonishing. He calculated the latitudeof Marseilles fairly exactly using a gnomon. He established, through careful observation,that the celestial North Pole was occupied not by a star, but by empty space bordered byfour stars. He also observed ocean tides, and proposed that their amplitude depends onlunar phases. He reported an improbably high tide in northern Britain – likely an exagger-ated account of surge tides of the Pentland Firth or regions around the Scottish islands. Ashe journeyed north, he recorded the lengthening of the solsticial day, although his claim tohave witnessed the midnight sun north of the Arctic Circle is doubtful.Ed.: C.H. Roseman, Pytheas of Massalia: On the Ocean (1994); S. Bianchetti, Pitea di Massalia. L’Oceano (1998).DSB 11. 225–226, A. Diller; B. Cunliﬀe, The Extraordinary Voyage of Pytheas the Greek (2001). Philip KaplanPutheos of Prie¯ne¯ (ca 370 – 330 BCE)Architect, sculptor and author, collaborated with S  P on the Mausso¯lleion,and designed the Temple of Athena at Prie¯ne¯. V (7.pr.12) credits him witha commentary on the Mausso¯lleion (written with Saturos), and one on the Temple ofAthena that included comments on the architect’s proper education and on the Doricorder’s disadvantages (Vitr. 1.1.12, 4.3.1). The Mausso¯lleion (funerary monument for Maus-so¯llos, d. 352 BCE) was famed for its great height and extensive, high-quality sculpturaldecoration. Putheos may be the “Puthis” mentioned by P (36.30) as the sculptor (ordesigner) of the marble four-horse chariot on the top of the Mausso¯lleion. The Temple ofAthena at Prie¯ne¯, ﬁnanced and dedicated by Alexander the Great ca 334 BCE, admired forits proportions, became a standard model for the Ionic order. Putheos is assumed to havetaken great interest in theories of proportion and design and is believed to have inﬂuencedlater theoreticians such as H , and eventually Vitruuius.Svenson-Ebers (1996) 116–150; K. Jeppesen, The Maussolleion at Hallikarnassos 2 (1986) 52–113; 5 (2002) 29–42; KLA 2.334–338, W. Hoepfner. Margaret M. Miles 712

P:724

P U T H O K L E¯ S O F S A M O SPuthio¯ n (Pharm.) (50 – 30 BCE)A   P., in G  CMGen 2.17 (13.536–537 K.), preserves his fracture-compound, used by the freedman Helenos: asphalt, Bruttian pine pitch, beeswax, frank-incense, and copper ﬂakes in olive oil and vinegar. A’ freedman C. Iulius Helenosheld Sardinia for him in 40 BCE: BNP 6 (2005) 67 (#3).RE 24 (1963) 568 (#6), H. Diller, 1429 (#2), R. Hanslik. PTKPuthio¯ n of Rhodes (325 – 90 BCE)Author of a treatise on agriculture excerpted by C D (V, RR 1.1.9–10).(*) Philip ThibodeauPuthio¯ n of Thasos (ca 255 – 235 BCE)Wrote a lost letter to K  proposing the problem of ﬁnding a mirror surface that reﬂectssolar rays to meet the circumference of a circle: D , On Burning Mirrors 1.Toomer (1976) 138. PTKPuthios (325 BCE – 80 CE)A, in G  CMLoc 5.5 (12.879–880 K.), gives his treatment for loose teethand gingivitis (alum roasted in papyrus, mixed with ruddle). For the rare name, probably nota mistake for P , see LGPN 1.392, 2.386, 3A.380, 4.295.Fabricius (1726) 382. PTKPuthokle¯s (450 BCE – ca 350 BCE)Cited in the H C, E, 5.56 = 7.75 (5.238, 434 Littré), for curingpatients through use of water or watered milk. (For the name, cf. Phaidros’ father in P,Phdr. 244a.)Fabricius (1726) 382. PTKPuthokle¯s of Samos (325 BCE – 200 CE)Was the author of a treatise on agriculture, according to pseudo-P, Para. Min. 41.The Parallels contains much fabricated information, but the History of Italy which it ascribesto Puthokle¯s (14) is independently attested (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1.135).Ed.: FGrHist 833.RE 24 (1963) 601 (#10), K. Ziegler; KP 4.1279–1280, O. Dreyer. Philip Thibodeau 713

P:725

PYTHAGORAS OF SAMOSPythagoras of Samos (ca 570 – 495 BCE)In the ancient tradition Pythagoras (Grk. Puthagoras) is presented as a philosopher, scientist,religious reformer and politician. The old debate on the reliability of this image is stillunresolved. Some scholars accept evidence for Pythagoras’ scientiﬁc and philosophicalactivities, but disagree on what can be safely ascribed to him; others regard him only as areligious leader and moral reformer. Like T  and So¯crate¯s, Pythagoras wrote nothing,whereas his pupils and followers, unlike So¯crate¯s’ pupils, did not take care to expose hisideas. Absence of direct sources is only partially compensated by a very extensive indirecttradition, which can be used only as far as it goes back to the 5th/4th centuries. Pythagoras left Samos ca 530 because of Polukrate¯s’ tyranny and moved to Kroto¯n.Owing to his talents and charisma he found here many supporters and founded a politicalcommunity. A special way of life and cultivation of friendship contributed to the rallying ofthe Pythagoreans; many of Pythagoras’ ethical rules had a religious basis and were sup-ported by belief in his god-like nature. The Pythagoreans’ inﬂuence increased after thedefeat of Subaris by a Krotonian army under Pythagorean command (ca 510). Shortly afterthis, an opposing faction of the Krotonian elite organized an anti-Pythagorean revolt;Pythagoras ﬂed to Metapontion, where he soon died. Pythagoras’ teaching has to be considered in a context of the Ionian natural philosophyand science. A cosmogony that might go back to him explains the origin of the world by theinteraction of two principles, “limit” and “unlimited.” The “unlimited” is identiﬁed with anempty space and with an inﬁnite pneuma that surrounds kosmos. It is inhaled into thekosmos and, limited by “limit,” begins to separate individual things from each other.Opposite principles of a diﬀerent kind play a further and important role both in thePythagoreans (A , M , P) and in other Italian philosophers(P , E ). Pythagoras’ contributions to cosmology and astronomy are hard to discern. Such import-ant discoveries as the sphericity of the Earth, a division of heavenly and terrestrial spheresinto zones, an identiﬁcation of the Evening and Morning star with Venus, are ascribed bothto Pythagoras and Parmenide¯s. Independent planetary movement from west to east and oncircular orbits are ﬁrst attested in the Pythagorean Alkmaio¯n (24 A4, 12 DK). It is possiblethat relying on A’ concept of “geometrical kosmos,” Pythagoras trans-ferred to the planets the circular motion inherent in the Sun, the Moon and stars inAnaximandros’ system. According to the early Pythagorean theory of “heavenly har-mony,” the circular motions of all the heavenly bodies produce sounds; their pitch dependson the speed of motion, which, in turn, corresponds to the relative positions of the heavenlybodies: the farther from the Earth the greater speed of rotation. The speeds correspond toeach other as the harmonious intervals, so that common circular movement of all thebodies generates harmonious sound. The search for the heavenly harmony was undoubtedly prompted by Pythagoras’ dis-covery of the numerical expression of harmonic intervals: octave (2:1), fourth (4:3) andﬁfth (3:2). Most probably, he obtained these results by dividing the string of a monochord;further scientiﬁc experiments in acoustics were carried out by Pythagoras’ studentH . Pythagoras’ discovery laid the foundations of the mathematical harmonics andcontributed to the formation of the mathematical quadrivium: geometry, arithmetic,astronomy and harmonics (A 47 B1 DK). The theory of proportions valid forcommensurable magnitudes became a link between all the four sciences. It is very probable 714

P:726

PYTHAGORAS OF SAMOSthat Pythagoras knew the geometric, arithmetic and harmonic means. In geometry, wherehe continued the line of Thale¯s, the deductive proof of Pythagoras’ theorem is ascribedto him (empirical formulas for some of the “Pythagorean triplets” – 3, 4, 5, etc. – wereknown already in Babylo¯n). Pythagoras further applied the technique of deductive proof toarithmetic; to him must go back one of the earliest samples of the theoretical arithmetic –the theory of even and odd numbers (E, Elem. 9.21–34) using an indirect proof. Themethod of deductive proof was further transferred from mathematics to philosophy byParmenide¯s, who had a Pythagorean teacher.DK 14; RE 24 (1963) 171–203, K. von Fritz; HGP v. 1; Burkert (1972); L. Navia, Pythagoras: An Annotated Bibliography (1990); Zhmud (1997); C. H. Kahn, Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: A Brief History (2001). Leonid Zhmud 715

P:727

QQuadratus (ca 100 BCE – 80 CE)A in G , CMGen 7.13 (13.1034 K.), records Quadratus’ akopon, of abaker’s dozen ingredients. The cognomen is recorded from the late Republic – MRR 1.196(L. Ninnius, tr. pl. 58 BCE), 2.239=3.224, and plausibly restored in LGPN 2.271 – and later,e.g., T, Ann. 6.7 and PIR2 I-507.PIR2 Q-4. PTKDe Quaternionibus (180 – 300? CE)Neo-Pythagorean author who cites P, Almagest 8.4, in arguing that the Pythago-rean tetraktus rules and orders the kosmos. He cites the seasons, the lunar phases, theelements, the humors, and the dimensions (including “point”) as instances of cosmologicaltetrads, and adds the four astrological centers (Horoscopus, Midheaven, Setting, and Nadir),and the quarters of the year (two equinoxes and two tropics); cf. T   S(pp. 93–99 H.) and A  A (CCAG 1 [1898] 143, 146; 8.3 [1912] 105). Hisastrological contribution is to argue that the planets’ powers shift as they pass the centers,and that they are more eﬀective when in quadrature than in trine.CCAG 9.1 (1951) 172–174. PTKSex. Quintilii, Condianus and Valerius Maximus, of Alexandria Troas(ca 140 – ca 182 CE)Brothers whose lifelong harmony was proverbial: they were consules ordinarii in 151, bothheld inﬂuential oﬃces under Marcus Aurelius, and were executed under Commodus, theirsumptuous villa outside of Rome conﬁscated. Authors of a comprehensive agriculturaltreatise which was cited by G M and V A, and ofwhich echoes survive in the Hippiatrika (Hipp. Berol. 1.18) and the G . The calendarattributed to them (Ge¯opon. 3.1) is independently known (Boll).F. Boll, “Der Kalender der Quintilier,” SB Heidelberg 1 (1911) 3–18; PIR2 Q-21, 27, W. Eck; OCD3 1291, A.R. Birley; NP 10.702 (#II.1, 6), W. Eck. Robert H. Rodgers 716

P:728

QUIRINUSQuintus (of Pergamon?) (ca 115 – ca 145 CE)Student of M, and praised by G  (Prognosis 1 [CMG 5.8.1, pp. 70–72]) as thebest doctor of his era, he made anatomical discoveries that he taught to his students (includ-ing L  M and S  S), but did not publish (Gale¯n, Anat.Admin. 14.1 = Duckworth 1962: 183). He also commented upon the HC , E, perhaps published (In Hipp. Epid. III [CMG 5.10.2.1, pp. 14–17, 59],In Hipp. Epid. VI [CMG 5.10.2.2, pp. 212, 314]). He practiced in Rome under Hadrian, butwas banished thence on a charge of malpractice, and died (in Pergamon?) in Gale¯n’s youth(Anat. Admin. 1.2 [2.224–225 K.]). Gale¯n wrote a (lost) work in support of Quintus’ criticismof the four qualities (GAS 3 [1970] 167), and describes him as being like an Empiricist,but not of that school (In Hipp. Epid. I, CMG 5.10.1, pp. 6, 17, 52). Gale¯n explainsthat Quintus substituted Pontic nard (karp¯esion) for cinnamon (Antid. 1.14 [14.69–72 K.]);O, Syn. 3.192 (CMG 6.3, p. 115), preserves Quintus’ henbane- and opium-basedanodyne.Grmek and Gourevitch (1994) 1503–1513. PTKQuirinus (350 – 450 CE?)With the assistance of M, wrote a M¯ekhanik¯e, according to Leo¯n, Anth. Gr. 9.200.Leo¯n praises technical works of the 4th–5th centuries CE (9.201–202), but also of the late3rd c. BCE (9.578), so if Marcellus is the taker of Surakousai, Quirinus could instead becontemporary with P . (Note that A  M. dedicated his On Machines toMarcellus, usually taken to be A’ nephew.) The name may be a pseudonym, sinceQuirinus is the Sabine god of war.PLRE 2 (1980) 933 (#1); Netz (1997) #136. PTK 717

P:729

RRabirius (ca 150 BCE – 75 CE)P records his advice that human milk beneﬁts the bowels and serves as an emmena-gogue: 28.74 (note 1.ind.28). To be distinguished from C’s two clients, and unlikelyto be the epic poet contemporary with O (Ex Ponto 4.16.5; FLP 332); the name is notrare enough to identify him with the Epicurean Rabirius in Cicero, Acad. 1.5, much lessthe Rubrius of Pliny 29.7; cf. also LGPN 1.398, MRR 2.35, 2.273.RE 1A.1 (1914) 23 (#2), H. Gossen. PTKRavenna Cosmography (600 – 720 CE?)A Latin work composed in Ravenna. It begins with an introduction that contains biblicaland patristic references and places the geographical account in the framework of Christianknowledge about the world created by God. The work combines late Roman and biblicaltraditions. Thus, following a pattern already established by earlier Christian writers, theauthor uses the notion of a tripartite division of the Earth, which became traditional inclassical geography, and supplies from the Bible the names of the sons of Noah who settledin each continent. The work describes the Earth’s three continents and contains lists ofgeographical names partially arranged in the order of Roman provinces. Most of thesources used by the anonymous author are now lost (cf. C). Similarities to theP M suggest that both works ultimately go back to a common exemplar, prob-ably a Roman road map.Ed.: J. Schnetz, Ravennatis Anonymi Cosmographia = Itineraria Romana 2 (1990) 1–110.RE 1A.1 (1914) 305–310, G. Funaioli; KP 4.1343, Fr. Lasserre; NP 4.934, K. Brodersen. Natalia LozovskyRemmius Fauinus (300 – 400 CE)Some MSS attribute the C  P  M to Remus or Rem(m)iusFauinus (or Fauianus). He has been identiﬁed with Dunamius, alias Flauinus, a poet friendof Ausonius (ca 310–400? CE).PLRE 1 (1971) 325; K.D. Raios, Recherches sur le Carmen de ponderibus et mensuris (1983) 27–45. Mauro de Nardis 718

P:730

RO M U L ARhe¯ginos (ca 65 – 180 CE)Physician, listed among the Methodists post-dating T  and T (G MM 2.7.5 [10.52–53 K. = p. 27 Hankinson]), omitted by Tecusan 2004.Edelstein (1935) col. 358 = (1967) p. 173. GLIMRhe¯torios (600 – 700 CE?)Extremely shadowy ﬁgure, apparently participated in forming large compilations of Greekastrological texts now found in many Byzantine codices. His authentic contribution isobscured by misattributions by later Byzantine scholars and by frequently speculative iden-tiﬁcations of authors on the part of the editors of the CCAG (1898–1940), still the only pub-lished repository for the majority of the relevant texts. Pingree hypothesized that Rhe¯toriosassembled a lost enormous anthology of astrological chapters that was the common ancestorof selections preserved in two MSS now in Paris.Ed.: D.E. Pingree, Rhetorii Aegyptii compendium astrologicum [. . .], imprimendum curavit S. Heilen (Teubner, forthcoming).D.E. Pingree, “Antiochus and Rhetorius,” CPh 72 (1977) 203–223. Alexander JonesRhoikos of Samos (550 – 500 BCE)Son of Phileus, sculptor and architect of an archaic Temple of He¯ra at Samos (begun ca530 BCE, He¯raion IV ), then the largest temple in Greece (ca 55 × 110 m). H (3.60) names Rhoikos the ﬁrst architect of this temple; later authors link him withT    S for this and other projects. V (7.pr.12) names them asco-authors of a book on the temple. Pausanias (10.18.5) cites Rhoikos as sculptor of astatue at the Artemesion at Ephesos. Under Rhoikos’ supervision, the problem of stablefoundations for the temple at Samos was solved.Svenson-Ebers (1996) 7–49; KLA 2.351–352, H.J. Kienast. Margaret M. MilesRipalus (50 BCE – 80 CE)A in G , CMLoc 7.3 (13.64 K.), records his cough-syrup for phthisisand recurrent fevers, composed of nard, myrrh, cinnamon, black and white pepper, poppyjuice, henbane seed, etc., in honey-wine. He called his recipe Ambrosia or M¯enod¯orios, pre-sumably from M    S.Fabricius (1726) 383. PTKRomula (180? – 400? CE)A  A 16.141 (Zervios 1901: 171) records her uterine fumigation, compoundingcinnamon, saﬀron, kostos, myrtle, spikenard, sturax, etc. (cf. T). He describesher as kurias, an honoriﬁc for women over 40, in use by the late 2nd c. CE, and probably outof use once Christianity became dominant: cf. Williger in RE 12.1 (1924) 176–183.(*) PTK 719

P:731

RU F I¯ N O S O F A N T I O C HRufı¯nos of Antioch (ca 402 CE)Architect from Antioch summoned by Bishop Porphurios in 402 CE to build the cathedralof Gaza. Mark the Deacon (V. Porph. 78.1), calling him an arkhitekt¯on, describes the process ofconstruction in great detail. The empress Eudoxia prescribed the plan which Ruf¯ınosmarked on the ground during a public ceremony.Downey (1948) 104; Idem, Gaza in the Early Sixth Century (1963) 26–29; ODB 157, M.J. Johnson et al.; PLRE 3 (1992) 952 (#4). Kostis KourelisR ⇒ V RR F A ⇒ AR ⇒ (1) M; (2) V; (3) VRufus of Ephesos (ca 70 – 100 CE) Despite fame in his own era, Rufus’ historical contexts and milieu are not certain. The Souda (Gamma-241) says that he and K  were physicians under Trajan (98–117 CE). G , however, in quoting D ’ didactic poem on the Egyptian triplicate-use incense kuphi (Antid. 2.2 [14.117–119 K.]), reveals that Damokrate¯s cites Rufus for his work on kuphi, and since Damokrate¯s worked under Nero and Vespasian (54–77 CE), Rufus presumably lived a full generation before the decades given by the Souda, which often skips the Flavians. His birthplace was the thriving commercial center of Ephesos, and the fuzzy traditions in later Byzantine and Arabic sources suggest he practiced medicine in his home city; no evidence suggests that Rufus ever was in Rome, although he seems to have traveled widely in the eastern half of the Roman Empire. Two sources probably suggestRufus of Ephesos (Vind. Med. that Rufus studied medicine in Alexandria: at AnatomicalGr. l, f.3V ) © Österreichische Nomenclature, 133 (p. 151 DR), Rufus mentions that theNationalbibliothek Egyptians have their own names for the parts of the body, and two passages in Interrogation of the Patient (12.67–68, 70[pp. 44, 46 Gärtner]) are striking observations on guinea-worm infestations in Egypt. ByRufus’ day, human dissection was no longer an option for medical students; in fact, dissec-tion of animals “. . ..most closely like a human being. . .” was the accepted norm, whereas“in ancient times, [the internal parts] were learned from a man” (Nomenclature 9–10, p. 134DR).Rufus was principally a clinician, and his talents in diagnostics are sharply revealed inthe Case Histories (preserved in an Arabic translation: Ullmann 1978); even without directanatomical observations, Rufus’ Kidney and Bladder Diseases (Sideras 1977) discloses consum-mate skills in treatment of common urological ailments, and long experience with many 720

P:732

RU F U S O F S A M A R I Apatients brought forth the incisive Jaundice (extant in Latin and Arabic: Ullmann 1983).Gale¯n has enormous admiration for Rufus, frequently citing tracts (occasionally quotingthem in extenso) with obvious approval, e.g. a four-book Herbs in hexameters (Simples pr.[11.796 K.]), Black Bile (Atra bile 1 [5.105 K. = CMG 5.4.1.1 (1937) 71]), On the Gum-ResinLabdanum (CMLoc 1 [12.425 K.], perhaps from the verses of Herbs), and the remarkable Pain-Alleviating Potion (CMLoc 7.5 [13.92–93 K.]). This last is a truly anesthetic compound,combining with precision the root-bark of mandrake, frankincense, “white” pepper, saﬀroncrocus, the seeds of henbane, the latex of the opium poppy, myrrh, spikenard, and theouter rinds of cassia; Rufus (and Gale¯n) probably employed such drugs as they performedsurgeries or cauteries. Other writings, known either in toto, in extracts, or by title alone, display his considerableintellectual attentions: e.g. Satyriasis and Gonorrhea, Purging Drugs, Bones (probably spurious),Pulses, Diseases of the Joints, Aphrodisiacs, Melancholia, On Rabies, Glaucoma and Diseases of theEyes, Fevers, Urines, Commentary on the Hippocratic Airs Waters Places, Andrapodismus, Acute andChronic Diseases, Therapeutics (from which Pain-Alleviating Potion is extracted by Gale¯n), andmany more. Widely cited, quoted, extracted, recopied and summarized in later Roman, Byzantine,and Arabic medicine, Rufus of Ephesos’ inﬂuence slowly became swamped in the longshadows cast by Gale¯n’s prescient synthesis, but it is little surprise that Rufus appears as a“standard” authority in the famous “Seven Physicians” Folio of the 6th c. Codex JulianaAnicia (notably absent is H ). As late as the 9th c., Rufus’ status wasunquestioned as one of the “Four Silencers of Disease,” to approximate the baroquelypiquant Byzantine Greek phrase (Gossen 1212).Ed.: Daremberg and Ruelle (1879/1963); H. Gärtner, Rufus von Ephesos. Die Fragen des Artzes an den Kranken (1962) = CMG S.4; A. Sideras, Rufus von Ephesos. Über die Nieren- und Blasenleiden (1977) = CMG 3.1; M. Ullmann, Rufus von Ephesos Krankenjournale (1978 [Arabic]); Idem, Die Schrift des Rufus von Ephesos über die Gelbsucht (1983 [Arabic and Latin]); P.E. Pormann, Rufus of Ephesus On Melancholy = SAPERE (Scripta Antiquitatis Posterioris ad Ethicam REligionemque pertinentia) 13 (2008 [Arabic, Greek, and Latin]); Brock (1929) 112–129: partial translations of Interrogation of the Patient and Anatomical Nomenclature.RE 1A.1 (1914) 1207–1212, H. Gossen; J. Ilberg, Rufus von Ephesos. Ein griechischer Arzt in trajanischer Zeit (1930); A. Sideras, Textkritische Beiträge zur Schrift des Rufus von Ephesos De renum et vesicae morbis (1971); DSB 11 (1974) 601–603, F. Kudlien; Scarborough (1985c); NDSB 6.290–292, V. Nutton. John ScarboroughRufus of Samaria (ca 100 CE)Jewish physician who lived in Rome and wrote in Greek. G  refers to Rufus’ commen-taries on the sixth book of H ’ Epidemics in his commentary on the same work,noting Rufus’ Jewish ethnicity negatively, even as he uses his commentary: CMG 5.10.2.2,pp. 213, 289, 293, 413.F. Pfaﬀ, “Rufus aus Samaria: Hippokrateskommentator und Quelle Galens,” Hermes 67 (1932) 356–359; RE S.6 (1935) 646 (#18a), L. Edelstein; S. Muntner, “Rufus of Samaria,” Israel Medical Journal 17 (1958) 273–275; NP 10.1158, V. Nutton; EJ2 17.527–528, S. Muntner. Annette Yoshiko Reed 721

P:733

SSabinius Tiro (35 – 10 BCE)Author of a book on gardening (Kepourika) which he dedicated to Maecenas. In it he statedthat rue, savory, mint, and basil were harmed by contact with iron (P 19.177).GRL §213, 225, 356.7; RE 1A.2 (1920) 1601–1602 (#33) s.v. Sabinus, G. Funaioli. Philip ThibodeauS ⇒ P SSabinus (15 BCE – 15 CE)Poet friend of O who left unﬁnished at his death (ex Pont. 4.16.15–16) a didactic poemon the calendar like the Fasti.RE 1A.2 (1920) 1598–1599 (#21), Fr. Vollmer; OCD3 1342, E. Courtney. Philip ThibodeauSabinus (Med.) (ca 100 – 120 CE)Commentator of Hippokratic treatises frequently referred to by G , traditionally datedto Hadrian’s era. He was the teacher of S  P and M  .He wrote commentaries on the H C, A, W, P, N-; A, E II, III and VI, and On the Nature of Man; perhaps alsoHumors. A fragment is preserved in O Coll. 9.12 (CMG 6.1.2, pp. 15–16) on geo-medicine, which summarizes such Hippokratic theories as those of Airs, Waters, Places.Though Gale¯n held him in high esteem, he also criticized his ignorance of anatomy andoverly-teleological exegeses.RE 1A.2 (1920) 1600 (#25), H. Gossen; Deichgraber (1930) 25–28, 29 n.1; KP 4.1483, F. Kudlien; Smith (1979) 64–72, 132–133, 149–154, 162–163, 171–172, 245–246; NP 10.1189, V. Nutton; Ihm (2002) #220–227. Alain TouwaideSalimachusC A ( probably mostly from S ), in Acute 3.138 (CML 6.1.1, p. 376),cites SALIMACHVS recording that Pythagorean physicians in Sicily called ileus by the 722

P:811

THEOPHRASTOS OF ERESOShail, dew and the like, as well as the Moon’s halo and earthquakes. In general, Theophras-tos attempts to correlate varieties of phenomena with their diﬀerent causes. In On Winds,Theophrastos discovers multiple causes of winds and adopts no one as the primary cause.While he generally deﬁnes wind simply as movement of air (considered inadequate byAristotle, Mete. 1.13 [349a17–32]), he asks whether winds move in order to restore equi-librium in the air. This imbalance is, in part, deductively attributed to the Sun and itsheat. The notion of the restoration of air’s equilibrium brings up the question of whetherTheophrastos admitted the idea of horror vacui. On (Weather) Signs, attributed to Aristotle inmanuscripts but to Theophrastos in modern editions, has been conclusively shown not tohave been authored by either: cf. -T. Of the three extant physiological works, On Fatigue begins with a discussion of seats offatigue in the blood vessels, tendons, joints, and even bones. He moves to their causes, symp-toms, and therapies. Individual cases of fatiguing exertions follow, after which Theophrastosreturns to therapies, concluding with remarks on constitutional dispositions toward fatigue.He presents no classiﬁcation of diﬀerent types of fatigue; the treatise appears disorderly. Hedoes, however, present his favored explanation of the general cause of fatigue: col-liquescence (sunt¯exis), the product of liquefaction of bodily wastes arising due to the motionof bodily parts in exercise or exertion. These ﬂuids are not excreted like other natural bodilywastes ( peritt¯omata) but permeate the body and settle in various places, e.g., joints, especiallysinewy ones. One symptom upon which he dwells is the feeling of being weighed down bythe sunt¯exis, essentially a hydraulic explanation leading to a hydraulic therapy – removeexcess ﬂuid and fatigue disappears. In On Sweat, rather than answer fundamental questionsabout the occurrence of sweating, Theophrastos turns his attention to certain qualities ofsweat, e.g., saltiness and bad odor. He concludes that saltiness is due to the secretion ofunconcocted matter not natural in the body; foul odor is due to imperfect concoction due tobodily condition, age, and eating certain foods. The sweat of young people, he says, smellsworse than older people’s due to their sexual drive, open pores, and continued bodilychange, i.e., their bodies are less stable. A brief excursus on eruptions or ulcers of the skindue to sweating explains that skin sores may result if exercise fails to remove impuritiesalong with sweat,. Various brieﬂy-considered problems associated with sweating follow butare not conclusively answered. On Dizziness deals with a sensation involving disequilibriumand lack of coordination between vision and bodily position occurring from rotationalmovement, looking at moving objects, looking down from elevations. This dizziness canbe accompanied by blurred vision and, in extreme instances, unconsciousness. AlthoughTheophrastos recognizes multiple causes for dizziness, he still attempts to settle on oneexplanation – separation or imbalance of ﬂuid in the head caused by some interference withthat ﬂuid’s natural condition. Pho¯tios preserves excerpts from two other physiological works.In On Paralysis, Theophrastos explains that interruption of the ﬂow of breath ( pneuma) bypressure causes paralysis. The breath becomes trapped, triggering cooling and loss of heatin the aﬄicted area. In On Fainting, he considers fainting due more to the eﬀects of hot andcold than breath. It happens from loss of heat occurring for various reasons: sudden coolingof the body can occur with excessive blood loss or when external heat overpowers thebody’s inner heat. There is no clear evidence that Theophrastos seriously criticized Aristotle’s scientiﬁcmethods of inquiry, but rather basically accepted his mentor’s hierarchical division ofnature. He often develops, reﬁnes, and improves ideas already present in Aristotle’s writings:resolving loose ends, continuing discussions initiated by Aristotle, or clarifying ideas which 800

P:812

T H E O P H U L A K T O S S I M O K AT T E¯ SAristotle left implicit. Theophrastos willingly entertained multiple explanations for certainphenomena. For the most part, he raises problems and indicates various diﬃculties ratherthan oﬀering a systematic theory. He adheres to a uniform physical system in which heemphasizes the hot, active element versus the three passive ones, putting the Sun in thecenter of activity as the pre-eminent heat. Theophrastos does not wholly oppose teleologicalexplanations of all natural phenomena, but rejects them in several instances, e.g., oceantides, droughts, male breasts, beards (cf. Metaph. 10a28–b16), and domestication of plants,which presents a conﬂict with their natural goals (e.g., Plant Explanations 1.16). Theophrastosmaintains Aristotle’s doctrine of the eternity of the universe, which depends on reciprocityof the four elements as they change into one another. Theophrastos nowhere mentions theAristotelian notion that the heavens are composed of a ﬁfth element, aithe¯r, but he doesconsider the heavens ensouled yet self-moving, rather than moving through their longing fora transcendent Unmoved Mover. While he may have allowed supra-sensible principles,Theophrastos emphasized the limitations of human understanding and the need to start fromwhat is accessible to us, which of course are the phenomena of the natural world to whichhe devoted so much of his intellectual energy.Ed.: P. Steinmetz, Die Physik des Theophrast (1964); D. Eichholz, On Stones (1965); V. Coutant, On Fire (1971); V. Coutant and V. Eichenlaub, On Winds (1975); B. Einarson and G. Link, Plant Explanations (1976–1990); S. Amigues, Researches on Plants (1988–2003); H. Daiber, Meteorology (RUSCH 1992); Testimonia and fragments in W.W. Fortenbaugh et al., Theophrastus of Eresus (1992); U. Eigler and G. Wöhrle, On Odors (1993); R.W. Sharples, On Fish (RUSCH 1992); A. Laks and G. Most, Metaphysics (1993); R.W. Sharples, Theophrastus of Eresus, Commentary v. 3.1: Biology (1998) and Commentary v. 5: Physics (1995); W.W. Fortenbaugh, R.W. Sharples, and Michael G. Sollenberger, On Sweat, On Dizziness, On Fatigue (2003).G. Stratton, Theophrastus and the Greek Physiological Psychology before Aristotle [On Sense-Perceptions] (1917); A. Hort, On Weather Signs (1926); RE S.7 (1940) 1354–1562 (#3), O. Regenbogen; OCD3 1504–1505, R.W. Sharples. Michael G. SollenbergerTheophrastos, pseudo (330 – 300 BCE?)Wrote On Signs of rains, winds, storms, and clement weathers, addressing each of these topics,mostly for predicting imminent weather within the seasonal patterns. Few of the signs areastronomical, although a miscellany of irregular astronomical signs (e.g., comets) at theend predict seasonal variations. Apparently a Peripatetic treatise and seemingly used byA, it could be a later compilation, but must be no earlier than 430 BCE, as it mentionsM ’s calendar, and probably much later, as it mentions Herme¯s’ Star (Mercury).Ed.: D. Sider and C.W. Brunschön, On Weather Signs = Philosophia Antiqua 104 (2007).P. Cronin, “The Authorship and Soures of Peri s¯emei¯on Ascribed to Theophrastus,” in W.W. Fortenbaugh and D. Gutas, Theophrastus: His Psychological, Doxographical, and Scientiﬁc Writings (1992) 307–345; D. Sider, “On On Signs,” in W.W. Fortenbaugh and G. Wöhrle, On the Opuscula of Theophrastus (2002) 99–111. Henry MendellTheophulaktos Simokatte¯s (610 – 645? CE)Theophulaktos the “snub-nosed cat” (perhaps a physically descriptive epithet) was a “soph-ist” (Souda Theta-201; Sigma-435) and Egyptian civil servant (Hist. 7.16.10). Probably 801

P:813

THEOPOMPOSeducated in rhetoric at Alexandria (Whitby 1986: ), he moved to Constantinople to studylaw before 610 (Hist. 8.12.3–7; perhaps the judge attested in an inscription from Aphrodis-ias: Grégoire #247). He wrote four works: History, Problems of Natural History, Ethical Epistles,and On Predestined Terms of Life (favoring a synergism between predestination and randomfate). His eight-book moralizing “world history” continues Menander “Protector” and treatsthe reign of Maurice (582–602), whom Theophulaktos eulogized ca 610; he describedMaurice’s Persian and Balkan wars, and included modest ethnographical and geographicaldiscussion of peoples from the Balkans to China: especially peoples along the Ister, theircities, military histories, rivalries, and strength (Hist. 1.3.1–7.6). His Problems of Natural Historyis cast in the form of a Platonic dialogue, wherein the ﬁctional characters Antisthene¯s andPolukrate¯s assess various explanations of 19 paradoxa: e.g., why iron does not burn, whyelephants stir water before drinking, why olive oil calms the ocean, why vultures gestate forthree years, why goat’s blood softens steel, why ravens do not drink in summer, why thefrogs of Seriphos are mute. Many of these wonders are noted in A from whomTheophulaktos drew deeply throughout his oeuvre. His description of Tempe (Hist. 2.11.4–8)relies on Ael. Var. Hist. 3.1 and examples in his Ethical Epistles derive from Ael. Nat. An.(Pignani). He lists some 18 “predecessors” (including Aelianus), from canonical authors(A, D , G , P, P, and T), to neo-Platonists (D, I, P , P), and notably the paradox-ographers B , H , I, and S  , plus the geographer T .His “Hierokle¯s” is almost certainly H   A. His “Alexander” is likelyto be A  M or A  M  (read as a paradoxographer),although A  A cannot be ruled out.Ed.: Ideler 1 (1841) 168–183; L. Massa Positano, Simocatta, Theophylactus: Questioni naturali (1965).H. Grégoire, Recueil des inscriptions grecques-chrétiennes d’Asie mineure (1922); KP 5.725–726, H. Gärtner; A. Pignani, “Strutture compositive delle epistole ‘morale’ di Teoﬁlatto Simocata,” Univ. di Napoli, Annali Fac. lett. e ﬁlos. 22 (ns10) (1979–1980) 51–59; Michael and Mary Whitby, trans., The History of Theophylact Simocatta (1986); Michael Whitby, The Emperor Maurice and his historian: Theophylact Simocatta on Persian and Balkan warfare (1988); ODB 1900–1901, B. Baldwin; PLRE 3 (1992) 1311. GLIMTheopompos (120 BCE – 300 CE)A  A 16.122 (Zervos 1901: 171) records his uterine fumigation, employingstorax, kostos, mastic, roses, etc. Diels 2 (1907) 106 records a Bologna MS, 1808(15th c.), f.32V, containing extracts from Theopompos. The name is unattested after 300 CE(LGPN ). Cf. R.Fabricius (1726) 435. PTKTheosebeia (ca 250 – 300 CE)Alchemist and correspondent or even “sister” (Souda Z-168) of Z   P .Although none of her letters to Zo¯simos (Mertens 1995, §1.19) survives, she practicedalchemy as part of a coterie with whom Zo¯simos sometimes worked (Mertens 1995,§8.1). At some point she joined a group of alchemists including N and “the virginTaphnoutia” (CAAG 2.190). The fact that Zo¯simos addresses Theosebeia as “purple-robed 802

P:814

T H E S S A L O S O F K O¯ Slady,” (CAAG 2.246), implies that she was of patrician if not imperial status, while a Latinterm rarely used in Greek literature but applied to a member of her entourage suggests thatshe may have been of Roman lineage (Mertens 1995: §8.3 and note ad loc.).(*) Bink HallumTheosebios (100 – 300 CE?)A 15th c. MS (Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria, 3632) contains a ﬁve-ingredient formula(opium, myrrh, castoreum, hupokistos juice, and storax mixed with wine) to treat intestinalailments. The formula’s simple design reﬂects the early stages of compound medicines(1st–3rd cc. CE), although Theosebios does not seem to have been mentioned by (the sourcesof) G . The name appears Christian which perhaps renders the 3rd c. most likely.Diels 2 (1907) 106. Alain TouwaideTheotropos (65 – 90 CE)A   P., in G  CMGen 5.14 (13.852 K.), repeats from A T  a medication given by Theotropos for ulcers of several kinds, containing yelloworpiment, litharge, etc. The name seems otherwise unattested (Pape-Benseler; LGPN ).Fabricius (1726) 435. PTKTheoxenos (300 BCE – 25 CE)C 5.18.34 records his remedy for gout: smear the foot with kidney suet and salt,sheath it, and pour on a vinegar solution. Cf. E  S .Fabricius (1726) 435, s.v. Theosenus. PTKT ⇒ P    LThessalos of Ko¯ s (ca 420 – 350 BCE)Physician like his father H  and brother D . The sons of both brotherswere each called Hippokrate¯s (G , In Hipp. De natura hominis 2.1, CMG 5.9.1, p. 58) and,like their fathers and grandfather, were physicians, as was Hippokrate¯s’ son-in-law P.Inscriptional evidence suggests the continuing family tradition in medicine atKo¯ s (Benedum; Sherwin-White). Thessalos, who may have worked at the Macedonian court (Embassy, 9.418, 428 Littré),contributed to the H C, editing and publishing E II, IV andVI from notes made by his father (Gale¯n, In Hipp. Epid. VI [CMG 5.10.2.2, pp. 13, 76, 156,272]). Several Hippocratic works in antiquity were assigned alternately to Hippokrate¯sor Thessalos (Gale¯n, ﬁrst reference above). For example, On Nutriment was assigned toHippokrate¯s, Thessalos or even to H  (Gale¯n, De septimestri partu 2 [Walzer];Schol. M in Hippokrate¯s On Nutriment, MS Marcianus graecus 269 (11th c.) [CMG 1.1, p. 79]). 803

P:815

THESSALOS OF TRALLEISThessalos and Drako¯n in antiquity were held to be the founders of the Dogmatists, whobelieved that they should investigate not only the obvious, but also underlying and hiddencauses of disease. In a letter concerning mathematics, supposedly from Hippokrate¯s toThessalos (but generally believed to date much later), Hippokrate¯s explains the importanceof geometry so that the physician can know better the location of the bones in the body, tocorrect them when they are twisted; he also tells him how to calculate changes in fevers(9.392 Littré). Thessalos is the supposed author of the Embassy (9.404–428 Littré), althoughit is clearly not by him, but a later ﬁction. See also S , Vita Hippocratis 15 (CMG 4,pp. 175–178); Souda I-564 (“Hippokrate¯s”); Tzetze¯s, Historiarum variarum chiliades 7.968–973.R. Walzer, “Über die Siebenmonatkinder,” Rivista di studi orientali 15 (1935) 323–357 at 345; RE 6A.1 (1936) 165–168 (#5), H. Diller; A. Nikitas, Untersuchungen zu den Epidemienbuchern II IV VI des Corpus Hippocraticum (Diss. Hamburg, 1968); J. Benedum, “Griechische Artzinschriften aus Kos,” ZPE 25 (1977) 265–276 at 272–274; Sherwin-White (1978) 262, 278; von Staden (1989) T16a–b, 36a–b; W.D. Smith, Hippocrates. Pseudepigraphic Writings (1990) 2, 4–5, 10, 39–40, 101, 111; Pinault (1992) 8–9, 11, 18, 19, 22, 25, 37, 39, 48, 75, 83, 85; NP 12/1.454–455 (#5), V. Nutton. Robert LittmanThessalos of Tralleis (ca 20 – 70 CE)One of the reputed founders of the Methodist medico-philosophical sect, a claim but-tressed by his letter to Nero: “I have founded a new sect, which is the only true one, as noneof the earlier doctors propounded anything advantageous either for the preservation ofhealth or the curing of disease” (G , MM 1.2.1 [10.7–8 K.]; Hankinson 1991: 6).Gale¯n avers that Thessalos, raised in “the women’s quarters, was the son of a lowly wool-carder” (On Crises 2.3 [9.657 K. = Alexanderson 1967: 136–137]), but the scattered andoften contradictory details regarding Thessalos’ “life, times, and doctrines” allow no ﬁrmconclusions (Edelstein 1935: 358–363/1967: 173–179; Frede 1982: 15, 23; Vallance 1990:132; and Tecusan pp. 9–16). That some Thessalos composed a tract addressed to someemperor (probably either Tiberius or Claudius, although one MS has “Germanicus Caesar”)on medical astrology (linking pharmaceutically useful plants with planets and zodiac con-stellations) is attested by the MSS (Boudreaux pp. 134–165; Friedrich pp. 45–273), butscholarly opinion is neatly divided on its authorship: “by” Thessalos (Friedrich; Smithpp. 172–189; Fowden pp. 162–165), “probably” by Thessalos (Diller col. 180–182; Scarbor-ough pp. 155–156), or total forgery (Pingree pp. 83–86). Tecusan “eliminated from thestart every possibility that the famous zodiac produced under his name. . .could have beenwritten by Thessalos or any other Methodist” (pp. 61–62). One could, however, easilyassociate medical astrology with the simple and simplistic theories espoused by Thessalos. Gale¯n repeatedly excoriates for Thessalos “frivolity” (e.g. Crises 2.3, above). Thessalos’ lowstatus, recent date, and medical daring merits Gale¯n’s deepest scorn: “. . .Thessalos not onlyespecially cultivated the wealthy in Rome, but also promised to teach the art in six months,and thus readily attracted many pupils. For if those who wish to become doctors have no needof geometry, astronomy, logic, or music, or any of the other noble disciplines, as our ﬁnefriend Thessalos promised, and they do not even require long experience and familiaritywith subject-matter of the art in question, then the way is clear to anyone who wants tobecome a doctor without any expenditure or eﬀort. . .” (MM 1.1.5 [10.4–5 K.], Hankinson1991: 4–5; cf. Diller col. 169). Gale¯n’s vitriol obscures much of Thessalos’ doctrine, which derives ultimately from a 804

P:816

T H R A S U A L K E¯ S O F T H A S O Srather modiﬁed Epicureanism (cf. entries A  , T , and laterS ). Grouping diseases and therapies into “communities” (koin¯otetes) allowed dis-tinguishing “acute” from “chronic” illnesses, thereby also giving superﬁcial precision torecommended treatments (e.g., Tecusan frr.67 [surgery/bleeding] and 180 [chronicwounds]), as well as circumscribing the ailments ( frr.46 [ileus], 54 [epilepsy], 62 [paralysis],65 [excessive “ﬂowings”], 70–73 [hemorrhagia], 85 [dropsy], 95 [gout/podagra], 146[fevers], and 310 [uterine prolapse]), which in turn suggested applicable drugs and com-pounds. Gale¯n and C A ascribe about nine titles to Thessalos: The Canon,Commentary on Hippocrates’ Aphorisms, The Communities, Letter to Nero, On Medicines, The Method,Regimen, Surgery, and Syncritics (Tecusan pp. 107–108).Ed.: P. Boudreaux in CCAG 8.3 (1912) 132–165; H.-V. Friedrich, Thessalos von Tralles. griechisch und lateinisch (1968); Tecusan (2004) “Thematic Synopsis: Thessalus,” pp. 84–85, 91–92, 98, and 103.Edelstein (1935/1967); RE 6A.1 (1936) 168–182, H. Diller; D.E. Pingree, “Thessalus Astrologus,” CTC 3 (1976) 83–86; J.Z. Smith, “The Temple and the Magician,” in Map is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religion (1978) 172–189; Frede (1982); G. Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes (1986); John Scarborough, “The Pharmacology of Sacred Plants, Herbs, and Roots,” in C.A. Faraone and D. Obbink, edd., Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion (1991) 138–174. John ScarboroughTheuda¯ s “Sarkophagos” (30 BCE – 80 CE)Called “ﬂesh-eater” or “coﬃn” (sarkophagos), and quoted approvingly, by A, inG  CMGen 6.14 (13.925–926 K.), for a plaster used on cancers, ﬁstulas, etc., and con-taining terebinth, litharge (for which “some” substitute orpiment), copper ﬂakes, verdi-gris, and frankincense, in beeswax. The more common form of the name (LGPN 1.222,2.224, 3A.208, 4.168); contrast Theoda¯s (LGPN 1.213, 4.162). Prior to T  L; and hardly the same as T  A; but cf. S .(*) PTKTheudios of Magnesia (365 – 325 BCE)Mentioned by P after A, M, and D and beforeA   K, all of whom worked together in P’s Academy, he excelledin mathematics and other parts of philosophy, and put the elements of geometry in goodorder, generalizing many results (In Eucl. p. 67.8–21 Fr.).RE 6A.1 (1936) 244–246, K. von Fritz. Ian MuellerT   A ⇒ T Thrasualke¯s of Thasos (well before 350 BCE)Held that there are only two winds, the North and the South (S  1.2.21), and wasA’s source for the view that ﬂooding of the Nile was caused by summer rains inthe far south (ibid. 17.1.5: discussed by Aristotle in the fragments of On the Rising of the Nile; cf.A C O  F   N).Ed.: V. Rose, Aristotelis Fragmenta (1886), frr.246–248; DK 35. Henry Mendell 805

P:817

T H R A S UA N D RO SThrasuandros (300 – 30 BCE)A  A mentions his pill for dysentery: 9.35, 42 (Zervos 1911: 363, 385). Therare name is unattested after the 1st c. BCE: LGPN 1.226.Fabricius (1726) 437. PTKThrasuas (350 – 280 BCE)T, HP 9.17.2, records his theory that poisons can become tolerated andmastered; he cited evidence that the same stuﬀ was poisonous to some but not others, andmade “clever” distinctions among constitutions. Theophrastos proceeds to relate storiesabout E   A and E  K.Fabricius (1726) 437. PTKThrasubulus (220 – 470 CE)Writer on astrology used by A (Sidonius Apollinaris Ep. 8.11.10). He is, possibly,the same astrologer Thrasubulus who advised Seuerus Alexander (SHA Alex. Sev. 62.2).RE 6A.1 (1936) 577 (#11) A. Stein. GLIMThrasudaios (ca 250 – 200 BCE)Cited by A   P (Kon. 4.pr.) as the addressee of K   S’ workon conic sections. The rare name is mostly Doric: LGPN.RE 6A.1 (1936) 577 (#3), K. Ziegler; Netz (1997) #119. GLIMThrasullos, Ti. Claudius (of Mende¯s?) (4 – 36 CE)A polymath and scholar, who became the emperor Tiberius’ astrologer, and best known forhis tetralogical arrangements of the works of P and D , the former surviv-ing in the manuscript tradition. Material on the Platonic corpus at D  L3.47–66 (= T22) follows as introduction to the reading of Plato in the Thrasullan tradition.His work on the corpus involved interpretation, but surviving fragments clearly mark him asmuch more than a scholar. Though never explicitly referred to as a Pythagorean, it isagreed that he leans in this direction, and P’ Life of P¯ 20–21 (= T19a-b),following L, includes him in a list of Pythagorizers who treated the ﬁrst principlesof P and Plato. A passage in Porphurios’ Commentary on P’s Harmonicsp. 12 (= T23) speaks of a logos, involving analogical relations and embracing all physicalreality, which is imitated by human reasoning, informs matter, and is employed cognitivelyby the Universal Leader-God. Thrasullos is said to have called this “the logos of the forms”and sees its inﬂuence as penetrating to all levels. The information may have come fromOn the Heptachord, a harmonic writing of Thrasullos, cited by Porphurios (p. 91 = T15a,p. 96 = T15b), which included the octave along with the fourth and ﬁfth as harmonic 806

P:818

T H U C Y D I D E¯ S O F AT H E N Sintervals and deﬁned such terms as interval and harmony. T   S (Expositionof Plato’s Mathematics) preserves material oﬀering deﬁnitions of such terms as “enharmonic”or “harmony,” and of “symphonic” and “diaphonic” intervals, and explaining the diﬀer-ences between arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic rations (T13, 14a). Thrasullos alsodiscussed astronomy in a mathematical context, tackling the size of the Sun, as well asinﬂuencing the astrological tradition in various ways (T24–28). -P, OR, mentions a Thrasullos of Mende¯s writing works On Stones, Thrakian Matters, andEgyptian Matters.Barker (1989) 2.209–213, 226–229; Harold Tarrant, Thrasyllan Platonism (1993), with fragments. Harold TarrantThrasumakhos of Sarde¯s (430 – 330 BCE)Greek physician known only from the doxography of the L (11.42–12.8): he attributes the origin of diseases to blood, considered a residue of food.Blood, modiﬁed through excessive heat or cold, produces bile, phlegm or sepsis, patho-logical humors. K, according to A, de Anima 1.2 (405b6), thought thatsoul is blood and Thrasumakhos’ theory can well represent one of those against which theH N  M polemizes, wherein bile and phlegm are humors parallelto blood and not produced by it: cf. P Timaios 82e–83a.K. Fredrich, Hippokratische Untersuchungen (1899) 27, n.1; M.P. Duminil, Le sang, les vaisseaux, le coeur dans la collection hippocratique (1983) 251–252. Daniela ManettiThreptos (100 BCE – 90 CE)A   P., in G  CMGen 5.11 (13.828 K.), records his remedy for a widevariety of ulcers: alum, khalkanthon, aloes, birthwort, frankincense, myrrh, oak-gall,and pomegranate peel. The name is unattested before the 1st c. BCE: LGPN 2.230,3A.213.Fabricius (1726) 439. PTKThucydide¯s of Athens (430 – 400 BCE)Thoukudid¯es, historian, son of Oloros, Athenian citizen, served as general in the war againstSparta in 424 BCE. He was exiled for failing to stop Brasidas from taking Amphipolis andspent the rest of the war gathering information and writing an account of it. His History ofthe Peloponnesian War ends abruptly in 411 but shows signs of work after 404. Although not explicitly concerned with geographical questions, he understood betterthan any other ancient historian the importance of geography in interstate relations. In hisintroduction to the Sicilian Expedition, he himself notes, and endeavors to correct, thegeneral ignorance of Athenians about the geography of Sicily. His descriptions of sites ofvarious conﬂicts in the war are detailed and, where evaluation is possible, highly reliable. Inseveral instances, such as the campaigns at Pulos, Amphipolis and Surakousai (Syracuse),even if he did not witness the events, he may very well have visited, studied the sites andinterviewed eyewitnesses extensively. Elsewhere his brief geographical descriptions of the 807

P:819

THUMARIDAS (OF PAROS?) various theaters of war around the Aegean suggest the language of periploi and periodoi g¯es. He shows interest in the origins of place names, histor- ical geography, and topographical detail, even when not relevant to his narrative. Thucydide¯s shows the inﬂuence of H  in his description of the plague at Athens in 430 (2.47.3–54.5), which he himself contracted, and for which he provides an epidemiology and detailed prognosis. Thucydide¯s’ description of symptoms suggests adherence to contemporary medical doc- trine rather than exact observation, while his lan- guage is not technical in the manner of medical writers, leaving key details ambiguous. The possibil- ity that the disease has altered in its course, symptoms and virulence over the intervening millennia must also be considered. This has led to extensive debate about the nature of the disease:Thucydide¯s of Athens © Holkham many candidates have been proposed, includingHall typhus, inﬂuenza with toxic shock syndrome, and smallpox. Recent DNA analysis of remains foundin mass burial pits in the Kerameikos cemetery points to typhoid fever as the causeof the plague. Although doubts about the accuracy of Thucydide¯s’ description remain,his recognition of the corrosive eﬀects of epidemics on social order, and the long-term implications for political and military aﬀairs, is unparalleled among ancienthistorians.L. Pearson “Thucydides and the Geographical Tradition,” CQ 33 (1939) 49–54; F. Sieveking, “Die Funktion geographischer Mitteilungen im Geschichtswerk des Thukydides,” Klio 42 (1964) 73–179; J. Scarborough, “Thucydides, Greek medicine and the plague at Athens. A summary of possi- bilities,” Episteme 4 (1970) 77–90; T.E. Morgan, “Plague or poetry?” TAPA 124 (1994) 197–207; OCD3 1516–1521, H.T. Wade-Gery et al.; M. J. Papagrigorakisa et al., “DNA examination of ancient dental pulp incriminates typhoid fever as a probable cause of the Plague of Athens,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases 10 (2006) 206–214. Philip KaplanThumaridas (of Paros?) (400 BCE – 200 CE)In his Life of Pythagoras (33.239.7–240.2; cf. 36.267.34–35, where “Eumaridas” is listed as awell-known Pythagorean from Paros), I gives, as an illustration of friendship,a story about a man collecting money and sailing to Paros to give it to the Parian Pythago-rean Thumaridas, who had fallen into poverty. Elsewhere (28.145.4–5) Iamblikhos mentionsa Pythagorean Thumaridas from Tarentum, and he lists (28.104.7) some Thumaridas asa pupil of P himself. In his commentary on the Introduction to Arithmetic ofN, Iamblikhos ascribes to a Thumaridas the deﬁnition of the arithmetical unitas limiting quantity (perainousa posot¯es: 11.2–3) and a characterization of prime numbers asrectilinear (euthugrammikos, 27.4), i.e., perhaps, not representable as rectangular arraysof points, but only as straight lines. Most strikingly Iamblikhos (62.18–63.2) attributes 808

P:820

T I M A G E N E¯ S O F A L E X A N D R I Ato Thumaridas his “Bloom” (epanth¯ema), which formulates in complex prose the idea that ifx + y1 + . . . + yn − 1 = a and x + yi = bi, then:x = b1 + . . . + bn − 1 − a . n−2Iamblikhos then demonstrates how other equations can be reduced to it. In most recentaccounts, Thumaridas is assigned to Paros, and said to be P’ contemporary or per-haps even earlier. But what is said about Thumaridas in the Life of Pythagoras is legendarytradition rather than history, and some scholars assign the mathematical ideas associatedwith him in the commentary on Nikomakhos to the common era.Heath (1921) 1.94–96; I. Bulmer-Thomas, Selections Illustrating the History of Greek Mathematics (Loeb 1939; rev., 1981) 1.139–141; DK, 1.447, n. on-line 3; Burkert (1972) 442, n. 9. Ian MuellerTiberianus (ca 300 – 330 CE)Possibly a prefect of Rome in 303–304, wrote poems, including a prayer to the PlatonicDemiurge (carmen 4), following Platonic doctrines and inﬂuencing B (Consolatio3, carmen 9.22). Tiberianus prays for knowledge to a divinity who is unique and many initself, a cause of the world. But he equates it with the whole nature and considers this worlda home of both men and gods, reﬂecting Stoic views.Ed.: S. Mattiacci, I carmine e di frammenti di Tiberiano (1990); FLP 429–446.RE 6.A.1 (1936) 766–777, F. Lenz; PLRE 1 (1971) 911–912 (#1 and maybe #4); NP 12/1, 529, K. Smolak. Peter LautnerTiberius (ca 150 CE – ca 500 CE?)Wrote on the medical treatment of horses and cows. Tiberius’ name belongs to lateantiquity; however, there is no evidence in his text for a precise date. Excerpts are preservedin the 10th c. B recension, the L recension, and the RV recension of the Hippiatrika. Tiberiusis related to the agricultural writers: his text contains parallels with V Aand I A. No treatments for cows appear in B, but a list of them is appendedto L, and some appear anonymously in RV.CHG vv.1–2; G. Björck, “Le Parisinus grec 2244 et l’art vétérinaire grec,” REG 48 (1935) 505–524 at 513–515; Idem (1944) 16–17; McCabe (2007). Anne McCabeTimagene¯s of Alexandria (ca 75 – ca 25 BCE)Greek historian and rhetorician, apparently impulsive, witty and sharp, son of a royal mon-eychanger. Timagene¯s arrived in Rome in 55 BCE as A. Gabinius’ prisoner. Sulla’s sonFaustus liberated him. Seneca reports that “from captive he became a cook, from cook achair-carrier, from chair-carrier a friend of A” (Sen. Sr., Contr. 10.5.22). A,angry over Timagene¯s’ remarks about the emperor and his family, banished Timagene¯sfrom his house; in response Timagene¯s burned parts of his histories relating to the 809

P:821

T I M A G E¯ T O Semperor’s deeds (Sen. ibid.). Timagene¯s then moved to live with the Roman historian C.Asinius Pollio. Later he traveled a bit and died in Albania, having written many books. Solidinformation exists only regarding a work on kings and a universal history; the Souda (T-589)ascribes to him also a periplous of the sea in ﬁve books. Euagoras of Lindos composed anow lost biography.Ed.: FGrHist 88.M. Sordi, “Timagene di Alessandria: uno storico ellenocentrico e ﬁlobarbaro,” ANRW 2.30.1 (1982) 775–797. Daniela DueckTimage¯tos (ca 400 – 350 BCE?)Wrote a periplous entitled On Harbors, preserved in the scholia on Apollo¯nios of Rhodesand in S  B. He described a river rising among the Celts, ﬂowinginto a lake (probably Lake Geneva), and thence bifurcating into the Rhône and the Istros(Danube). For the name cf. LGPN 3A.427, of Argos (3rd c. BCE).NP 12/1.573–574, H.A. Gärtner. PTKTimagoras (ca 200 – 100 BCE)Epicurean philosopher who disagreed with some of the teachings of the school, especiallyon the topic of sense perception (C, Lucullus 80). If, as seems likely, he is identical tothe Epicurean whose name is given as Timasagoras in P ’ On Anger, he andanother Epicurean Nikasikrate¯s maintained, against the more orthodox Epicurean view,that anger was to be completely avoided in all its forms.RE 6A.1 (1936) 1073–1074 (#5) – cf. Timasagoras: 17.1 (1936) 281–283 (s.v. Nikasikrate¯s), R. Philippson; NP 12/1.582 (Timasagoras), T. Dorandi. Walter G. EnglertTimaios (Astrol.) (75 BCE – 79 CE)Astrological doctrines are ascribed to Timaios by V V, commenting on theobscure vocabulary (Anthologiai 9.1), and in isolated chapters of the great Byzantine astro-logical anthologies. That Timaios discussed less conventional topics in his lost works issuggested by P’s references to “Timaeus mathematicus” as an authority on theinﬂuence of Scorpio causing leaves to fall oﬀ trees in autumn, on the causes of the Nileﬂood, and on the limits of Venus’ elongation from the Sun (2.38, 5.55, and 16.82).RE 6A.1 (1936) 1228 (#9), W. Kroll. Alexander JonesTimaios (Pharm.) (250 BCE – 25 CE)Wrote Mineral Drugs, cited as a foreign authority on metals after I and beforeH    (P 1.ind.33). C preserves his remedy for a burning sensation of theskin (ignis sacer) and cancer, compounded of myrrh, frankincense, khalkanthon, realgar, orpi-ment, copper scales, oak galls and roasted psimuthion, applied dry or with honey (5.22.6).Fabricius (1726) 438. GLIM 810

P:822

TIMAIOS OF TAUROMENIONTimaios of Lokris, pseudo (100 BCE – 100 CE)The Timaios of P’s eponymous dialogue has been credited with an apocryphal tractin Doric prose (On the Nature of the Soul and of the World ), an epitome of the Platonic dialoguewhich, for the most part, merely reiterates the Plato’s content but also was deeply inﬂuencedby middle-Platonic doctrines. A two-principle theory, which sees mind (nous) and necessity(anank¯e ) as causes of the universe, is combined with a three-principles doctrine which repro-duces Aristotelian hylomorphism: the imposition of form on passive (“female”) matter,thereby producing perceptible things. The universe, which is one, perfect, spherical andendowed with soul, was molded by the Demiurge, who reduced it to order by imprintinga deﬁnite form onto an undeﬁned matter. By attuning the world soul according to harmonicratios, the author, unlike in Plato’s Timaios (35b–36d), starts from the number 384 to avoidfractions. The author explains the origin of the elements by a reduction to geometric ﬁguresand, in addressing physiological questions, also follows the Platonic model.Ed.: W. Marg, Timaeus Locrus, De natura mundi et animae (1972); T.H. Tobin, Timaios of Locri: On the nature of the World and the Soul (1985).M. Baltes, Timaios Lokros: Über die Natur des Kosmos und der Seele (1972); K.S. Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (1987) 287–296. Bruno CentroneTimaios of Tauromenion (ca 335 – 260 BCE)Author of three works: a treatise on Olympic victors, perhaps based on his study of inscrip-tions in Olympia (E  had also composed an Olumpionika); a History of events inItaly, Sicily and Libya; a work about P  E¯ . Timaios’ father, Androma-khos, founded Tauromenion as a city of refuge for the people of Naxos when Dionusios I,the tyrant of Surakousai, destroyed their city (403 BCE). Andromakhos continued as theirdynast for many years and welcomed the expedition of Timoleo¯n of Corinth in 345 BCE.Timaios moved to Athens as a very young man (339–329 BCE) and remained there for 50years because ca 315 the Sicilian tyrant Agathokle¯s oﬃcially banished him. Sometimebetween 289–279 BCE, during the reign of H  II, Timaios returned to Sicily (prob-ably to Surakousai), where he died at the age of 96. While at Athens, Timaios studiedrhetoric under Philiskos of Mile¯tos, a pupil of Isokrate¯s, and wrote his historical works. HisHistory, probably in 38 books, introduced the system of chronology by Olympiads anddevoted special attention to colonies, foundations and peoples. Timaios considered geog-raphy an integral part of history, accepted the conventional division of the oikoumene¯into three parts (Asia, Libya and Europe), and was particularly interested in islands. Heapproved of the work of P  M but did not have the mathematicaltraining to appreciate some themes in geographic theory. Many of Timaios’ preservedgeographical notices lack a context and are too brief to enable a proper evaluation.According to the Souda (T-600) Timaios traveled very little and made only one expeditionfrom Corinth to Surakousai, but P, starting his own work chronologically whereTimaios ended (264 BCE), says that Timaios made a special journey to the Lokrians ofGreece to get information. Polubios’ Histories include many attacks and criticisms ofTimaios’ supposedly childish and illogical approach.Ed.: FGrHist 566.T.S. Brown, Timaeus of Tauromenium (1958); L. Pearson, The Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus and his 811

P:823

TIMARISPredecessors (1987); R. Vattuone, “Timeo di Tauromenio,” in R. Vattuone, ed., Storici greci d’Occidente(2002) 177–232. Daniela DueckTimaris (325 – 90 BCE)Allegedly a queen, to whom P 37.178, following M    S , attributesa poem devoted to Venus and referring to paner¯os, presumably a type of amethyst, thoughtto foster fertility. Susemihl considers her historicity questionable, and the name ﬁctitious,since Me¯trodo¯ros makes no reference to the stone or Timaris.GGLA 1 (1891) 864–865; RE 6A.1 (1936) 1239, E. Diehl; SH 774. Eugenio AmatoTimaristos (325 BCE? – 79 CE)Cited among the sources of P’s books: 1.ind.21 (on the nature of ﬂowers and garlands);1.ind.22 (on the importance of herbs); 1.ind.23 (on medicines deriving from cultivatedplants); 1.ind.24 (on medicines deriving from wild plants); 1.ind.25 (on the nature of spon-taneous plants); 1.ind.26 (on other medicines divided into genera); 1.ind.27 (on other kindsof herbs and on medicines deriving from them). Pliny (21.180), treating a plant namedhalicacabus, says that it was celebrated by Timaristos in a poem.Fabricius (1726) 438. Claudio MeliadòT ⇒ ST ⇒ (1) I; (2) M T, I. ⇒ F VTimokharis (300 – 265 BCE)Astronomer, active in Alexandria, cited by P for the undated measurement of thedeclinations of 12 ﬁxed stars (Alm. 7.3), for observing some undated lunar eclipses (one datableto 284 Mar 17), as well as the Moon’s occultation of four ﬁxed stars during the period from295 to 283 (Alm. 7.3), and its overtaking η Virginis in 272 (Alm. 10.4). The ﬁrst set of measure-ments may have been part of the same project as those measurements ascribed by Ptolemy toA, a project with the goal of describing the heavens scientiﬁcally (in prose: cf.P, De Pyth. 18) and, perhaps, constructing a precisely marked celestial globe. What-ever their purpose, they were apparently used by H to discover the fact of preces-sion (cf. Alm. 7.1). Likewise unknown is why Timokharis observed lunar eclipses, although theywere used, according to Ptolemy, by Hipparkhos to quantify the rate of precession (Alm. 7.3).The observations of the lunar occultation of four ﬁxed stars are the earliest known dated (asopposed to datable) observations by a Greek. It is diﬃcult to say what the purpose of theseobservations was. Though there are some parallels between these observations and thoserecorded in the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries, they do not help identify the purpose. PerhapsTimokharis was investigating the length of the sidereal month (the period of the Moon’s 812

P:824

T I M O¯ N O F P H L E I O U Sreturn to a ﬁxed star). The observation of the Moon’s overtaking η Vir concerns a conjunc-tion, not an occultation. But, again, the purpose of this observation is unknown.B.R. Goldstein and Alan C. Bowen, “On Early Hellenistic Astronomy: Timocharis and the First Callippic Calendar,” Centaurus 32 (1989) 272–293; Goldstein and Bowen (1991). Alan C. BowenTimokleanos (?) (10 BCE – 365 CE)O, Ecl. Med. 73.32 (CMG 6.2.2, p. 240), records his remedy for paralysis, contain-ing euphorbia (cf. I), Chian mastic, pepper, spikenard, sturax, etc. in beeswax.The name seems otherwise unattested, although names related to Timokle¯s are common.(*) PTKTimokrate¯s (30 BCE – 95 CE)After A (q.v.) and before A   (P.). G  records his dentifrice,for gingivitis, loose teeth, etc., compounded by roasting salt, honey, and perdikias (probablyConvolvulus arvensis L., cf. helxin¯e in Gale¯n Simples 6.5.10 [11.874–875 K.]; Durling 1993: 150,263), in an almost-sealed vessel, until it just fumes, then mixing that with alum, celery seed,Illyrian iris, lanolin, mint, myrrh, purethron, pennyroyal, white and black pepper, andpumice, all dried in the sun and pounded: CMLoc 5.5 (12.887 K.), possibly from K (Fabricius 1972: 147). A, in P  A 7.24.12 (CMG 9.2, p. 400), recordshis way of preparing pharmaceutical bitumen, “I boil it in olive oil” (cf. H  K).RE 6A.1 (1936) 1271 (#16), K. Deichgräber. PTKTimo¯ n (250 BCE – 77 CE)P, discussing the eﬃcacy of fenugreek against uterine and intestinal complaints,preserves Timo¯n’s recipe for a drink of fenugreek seed with must and water as anemmenagogue (24.187; cf. D  in 24.185).(*) GLIMTimo¯ n of Phleious (290 – 240 BCE?)The foremost exponent of the ideas of Pyrrho of E¯ lis (ca 360–270 BCE), who inspired thelater Pyrrhonist skeptical movement. Pyrrho was renowned for extraordinary tranquility,associated with some form of skeptical stance (the details are controversial). One aspectof this, according to Timo¯n, was his refusal to trouble himself with scientiﬁc inquiry, appar-ently because such inquiry is pointless and doomed to frustration. There is reason to believe, however, that Timo¯n himself did not entirely adhere to thisattitude concerning science. Titles attributed to him include On the Senses and Against thePhysicists, the latter suggesting a critical rather than a constructive work, but at least indicat-ing detailed engagement with scientiﬁc ideas. Very little is known of the content of theseworks. Just one sentence survives from On the Senses; in the mold of the later Pyrrhonists, 813

P:825

T I M O S T H E N E¯ S O F R H O D E STimo¯n declines to posit anything about the real nature of things, while accepting theirappearances for practical purposes. More speciﬁcally scientiﬁc interests are suggested forAgainst the Physicists. Timo¯n is reported as stressing the importance of the question whetheranything should be assumed by hypothesis – a notion originally employed in geometry, butlater without restriction as to subject-matter; it is a fair guess that Timo¯n’s answer to thequestion was negative. Also probably from the same work is the claim that no processdivisible into temporal parts can take place in an indivisible time; the point of this remark,in the absence of context, is unclear.Long and Sedley (1987) §§1–3; SEP “Timon of Phlius,” Richard Bett. Richard BettTimosthene¯s of Rhodes (270 – 240 BCE)Admiral of Ptolemy Philadelphos, sailed west to the Tyrrhenian Sea and east to thelower Red Sea. He wrote On Harbors, a periplous covering Asia, Europe, and Libya,used extensively by E  (see S  2.1.40), as well as a Summary of Distances,and – according to Strabo¯n 9.3.10 – the song for the Pythian games. His wind-rose had12 parts (Strabo¯n 1.2.21 and A ); 40 or so other fragments include citations byStrabo¯n (3.1.7, 13.2.5, 17.3.6), P (5.47, 6.15, 6.163, 6.183, 6.198), and P, Geog.1.15.NP 12/1.595 (#2), H.A. Gärtner. PTKTimotheos (250 BCE – 100 CE)Wrote a commentary on A (FGrHist 1026 T19), entirely lost.(*) PTKTimotheos of Gaza (ca 490 – 510 CE)Born ca 460, enigmatic grammarian who supposedly had “written in epic meter a book onquadrupeds, and Indian, Arabian, Egyptian and Libyan animals . . . and four books onexotic birds and on reptiles” (Souda T-621). Considering the reliquiae (a Byzantine epitome of56 + 10 monographic chapters, and an anthology of 32 fragments preserved in a zoologicalSylloge attributed to Constantine VII Pophurogenne¯tos; see A   B),he was a Christian who, in addition to a political memorandum (on thechrysargyron-tax), composed a zoological compilation in mannered and rhythmical prose.Wellmann’s argument failed to prove that Timotheos followed a lost book On Animals writ-ten by the apologist Tatian, but the Syro-Egyptian origin of the book is clear from the textitself. The zoological material was probably geographically dispatched in at least four books,and the work was highly esteemed in Byzantine times, mainly due to originality and stylisticreﬁnement. Timotheos was considered a major zoological writer, listed with A,O and L  (Tzetze¯s, Chiliades, 4.166). A signiﬁcant proportion of the animalsmentioned are exotic (tiger, bison, giraﬀe, hyena), but not restricted to land (griﬃn, seal,. . .). Timotheos possibly treated all macrofauna (including ﬁshes). There are many parallelswith Aelianus (whom he surely used), but Timotheos is often richer and more complex. The 814

P:826

CN. TREMELLIUS SCROFAwork oﬀered seemingly complete monographs on animals, mixing anatomical and etho-logical remarks with various mythological, lexicographical, medical, magical and paradoxo-graphical data. Timotheos, showing vivid interest in special powers of animals, insisted alsoon the themes of sympathy and hybridism.Ed.: F.S. Bodenheimer and A. Rabinowitz, Timotheus of Gaza, On animals (1949).M. Wellmann, “Timotheos,” Hermes 62 (1927) 179–204; RE 6A.2 (1937) 1339–1341 (#18), A. Steier; KP 5.851 (#8), Th. Wolbergs. Arnaud ZuckerTimotheos of Metapontion (500 – 400 BCE)Greek physician, who, according to the L  (8.10–34), supposes thatnutrients are distributed throughout the body starting from the head. When pathways areobstructed, the digestive residues that have risen to the head remain blocked and are trans-formed into an acid and saline liquid, which travels to other parts of the body. Outcomesvary according to situations. When, for example, liquid concentrates in the larynx, suddendeath follows. The head may fall prey to diseases, because of excessive heat or cold, orblows to the head. See E   K, A, and A .Gourevitch (1989) 238–241; NP 12/1.596, V. Nutton. Daniela ManettiTle¯polemos (of De¯los?) (300 – 30 BCE)P 20.194 records his remedy for quartan fevers: anise-seed and fennel in honey-vinegar. The name is especially De¯lian, and scarce or unattested after ca 50 BCE (LGPN ).Fabricius (1726) 435 (s.v. Theopolemos). PTKTrebius Niger (150 – 130 BCE)A companion of L. Lucullus (proconsul of Hispania Baetica in 150 BCE) who wrote a work onnatural history in Latin which included observations made by the author and his general inSpain. One fragment from P (9.89–93) describes at considerable length a giant octopuswhich harassed the garum-works near the Straits of Gibraltar; others discuss the remora(9.80), the swordﬁsh and the cuttleﬁsh (32.15) and the woodpecker (10.40). Scholarlyattempts to date him to a later period founder on the clear evidence of Pliny’s text: Trebiusis one of the earliest Roman scientiﬁc writers.GRL §495.5; RE 6A.2 (1937) 2272 (#5), Fr. Münzer. Philip ThibodeauCn. Tremellius Scrofa ( ﬂ. 59 BCE)Roman senator of praetorian rank, one of the 20 land-commissioners mandated by C’agrarian legislation (59 BCE). Regarded as the foremost authority on agriculture in his day,he oﬀered personal instruction (V, RR 2.1.2) and composed an agricultural treatise,noted for its stylistic polish (C 1.1.12). This contained advice on the tendingof grape-vines (3.11.8, 3.12.5, P 17.199) and trees (Columella 5.6.2), gave times and 815

P:827

T R I B O N I A N U S O F S I D E¯directions for sowing seed (2.8.5, 2.10.8), and observed that the soil of freshly-cleared forest-land rapidly declines in fertility (2.1.5). He read and critiqued his predecessors’ writings(1.1.6, 3.3.2), and supplemented that reading with experience gained running his wife’sfarm in the Sabine country, as well as his own estate, located on the slopes of Mt. Vesuvius(Varro 1.15.1).GRL §202; Speranza (1971) 46–55; P.A. Brunt, “Cn. Tremellius Scrofa the Agronomist,” CR ns 22 (1972) 304–308; KP 5.937 (#4), M. Deißmann-Merten; NP 12/1.780 (#3), J. Fündling; OCD3 1549, E. Badian. Philip ThibodeauTribonianus of Side¯ (540 – 580 CE?)A jurist distinct from the homonymous contributor to Justinian’s code (Souda, T-957). ThisTribonianus wrote a verse commentary on P’s Kan¯on, and several works on astrol-ogy, as well as works on poetic diction and on H, all lost.PLRE 3 (1992) 1339–1340. PTKT ⇒ P TTrophilos (220 BCE – 420 CE)I    S’s Anthology (4.36.24–28 W.-H.) purports to contain four excerpts aboutanimals from the Collection of Wonderful Reports (Sunag¯og¯e akousmat¯on thaumasi¯on) of a certainTrophilos. Elsewhere in the Anthology a bon mot about the accomplished doctor is attributedto Trophilos (4.36.9 W.-H.), but scholars prefer to change the rare name (not listed in anyof LGPN vv. 1–5A) to that of the famous physician, H . Because the fourparadoxographical fragments correspond almost verbatim (albeit with omissions) with fourparagraphs in the -A D M A (fromwhich there is one more fragment at 4.36.15 W.-H.), a textual corruption has also beensuspected in this case, to the eﬀect that the actual quotation from Trophilos – perhaps to beemended to He¯rophilos again (so Roeper 569–570) or Pamphilos (so Giannini 131–132) – andthe name of A (as the source-citation of the ensuing excerpt from the Ausculta-tiones) would have dropped out of the Stobaios MSS. Whatever the case may be, nothingsuggests that Trophilos was the true compiler of the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise, given itslongstanding attribution to Aristotle.Ed.: PGR 392–393.Th. Roeper, “Joannis Stobaei Florilegium,” Philologus 10 (1855) 569–571; RE 18.3 (1949) 1137–1166 (§30, 1161), K. Ziegler; Giannini (1964) 131–132. Jan Bollansée, Karen Haegemans, and Guido SchepensTrupho¯ n of Alexandria (220 – 210 BCE)Helped Illyrian Apollo¯nia successfully resist the siege of Philip V of Macedon (214 BCE: Livy24.40), by detecting the besieger’s excavations, using resonant vessels (cf. H  4.100),and ﬂooded the miners with heated water, pitch, sand, and dung (V 10.16.9–10).RE 7A.1 (1939) 745–746 (#31), H. Riemann. PTK 816

P:828

TUKHIKOS OF TRAPEZOUSTrupho¯ n of Gortun (ca 15 BCE – 20 CE)One of S L’ colleagues, acknowledged as mentor or teacher (praeceptor:Comp. 175), from Gortun (G , CMLoc 9.2 [13.253 K]). Frequently termed “surgeon”(Comp. 201; 203; etc.), Trupho¯n was famed for his plasters, designed to aid knitting of brokenbones – Comp. 201 (“Pale Green Plaster . . . eﬀective for skull-fracture,” cf. Gale¯n, CMGen,4.13 [13.745 K.]), wounds sustained by gladiators – Comp. 203 (“Green Plaster . . . for freshwounds . . . and for the wounds of gladiators”), as well as for his multiple-ingredient collyria –e.g. Gale¯n, CMLoc, 4.8 (12.784 K., “Spherical”) – and antidote-plasters deemed eﬀectiveagainst animal bites, particularly dogs (Comp. 175). Trupho¯n’s plaster for dog bites saw use inthe court of an “Augusta” (likely Antonia Minor, Claudius’ mother), and Scribonius Largussays that she always had some at hand. Generally Trupho¯n favored minerals in his com-pounds (ensuring long shelf-lives), but he employed in a sophisticated way botanicals andanimal products, suggested by the formulas for “The Antidote Plaster” and “The Pale GreenPlaster.” The former combined powdered iris rhizome, beaver castor, wild ﬁg juice, the fatand blood of a black dog, Khian terebinth resin, hare’s rennet, rock salt, silphion (eitherfrom Libya or Syria), Pontic beeswax, olive oil, and squill-ﬂavored vinegar, all carefullyground in vinegar, mixed and melted into a consistency of honey, then stored in glass con-tainers. “The Pale Green Plaster,” good for broken bones (even old ones, all scabbed andcorroded), mixed ﬂakes of copper with frankincense, Libyan fennel-gum, Bruttian pine-resin, Khian terebinth resin, calf’s fat, beeswax, olive oil, and vinegar, blended and heated,and then made into plasters called magdalia, viz. (Grk.) “lumps of bread used for wiping thehands at table.” The “Green Plaster” for gladiators (Comp. 203), made in quantity, wasintended to stop bleeding and engender quick healing: combining roasted copper, alum,rock salt, frankincense, verdigris, beeswax, resin, and olive oil, one notes not only thelong shelf-life (most useful in the arena) but the styptic (alum), bactericidal and antibiotic(frankincense and verdigris), all “packaged” in the green of the verdigris. Trupho¯n’srecipes were available in both Greek and Latin, and in some instances, Scribonius Largustranslates directly into Latin from Greek originals. Like Scribonius, Trupho¯n was probablybilingual.RE 7A.1 (1939) 745 (#28), H. Diller. John ScarboroughTukhikos of Trapezous (Arm., Tiwk ikos; 500 – 600 CE)Mathematician and philosopher known only from his short biography which comprises partof the Autobiography of A  S. He served the Byzantine army in Armeniaduring the reigns of Tiberius (578–582) and Maurice (582–602). After being wounded, hedevoted the rest of his life to study, traveling successively to Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria,Rome, and eventually to Constantinople, where he studied with an unnamed “doctor of thecity of philosophers.” Upon the death of this last teacher, Tukhikos was nominated tosucceed him, but declined and returned to his native Trapezous. Anania studied withTukhikos for eight years and while there he thoroughly mastered mathematics and becamelearned in many other ﬁelds, for Tukhikos possessed many books “secret and esoteric,ecclesiastical and profane, scientiﬁc and historical, medical and chronological.” Apparentlya very learned man in all branches of learning, who taught a large number of students,Tukhikos has left no writings of his own. 817

P:829

M. TULLIUS CICEROF.C. Conybeare, “Ananias of Shirak (A.D. 600–c.650),” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 6 (1897) 572–574; A. Abrahamyan, Anania Sˇirakac u Matenagrut yuneˇ [The Works of Anania Sˇirakac i] (1944) 206–209; H. Berbérian, “Autobiographie d’Anania Sˇirakac i,” Revue des études arméniennes 1 (1964) 189–194. Edward G. Mathews, Jr.M. Tullius Cicero (80 – 43 BCE) Born 106 BCE; Academic philosopher, but with eclectic allegiances including a strong sympathy for Stoic ethics. His philosophical dialogues are a seminal source for Sto- icism generally and for Stoic physics and theology in particular. He was instrumental in bringing Greek phil- osophy into Latin, inventing some of what would become the basic Latin vocabulary for discussing philosophy (most famously coining the words essentia, qualitas, and moralis, the roots of our essence, quality, and moral). Cicero’s reputation as a philosopher in his own right has ﬂuctuated considerably: he played a prominent role in Early Modern and Enlightenment philosophy and political theory (it is now evident, for example, that Cicero was used as a resource for those who wanted toM. Tullius Cicero Reproduced argue against moral skepticism – like that apparent inwith permission of the Soprin- Hobbes and Mandeville – and his De natura deorum was atendenza speciale per il Polo Muse- model and inspiration for Hume’s Dialogues Concerningale ﬁorentino Natural Religion). Nevertheless, in the 20th century, his importance was downplayed, and he has often been mined only as a source for Hellenistic philosophy –unfortunate, as this seriously underestimates the force and originality of Cicero’sthinking.Cicero’s trilogy of De natura deorum, De diuinatione, and De fato represent sophisticatedtreatments of contemporary theology (particularly Stoic), as well as the physics and logic ofdivination, causation, and free will. What is usually seen as a straightforward rationalistskepticism of superstition in De diuinatione can better be read as the insistence on causal (asopposed to indicative) accounts of the relationships between signs and predictions, furtherconﬁrmed by the emphasis on particular logical questions in the De fato.Cicero’s Dream of Scipio, together with M’ substantial Commentary, was animportant source for (particularly early) medieval cosmology. Originally written as part ofCicero’s Republic (corresponding to the myth of Er in P’s Republic), the Dream, cleavedand circulated as a text in its own right during the Middle Ages, describes a dreamreported by P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus the Younger in which his dead grandfather,Scipio Africanus the Elder, takes him up through the spheres of the stars to see thestructure of the Kosmos and to hear the music of the heavens. They look down upon theEarth, and the grandfather reﬂects on the futility of worldly glory. Although the point ofthe Dream is ultimately ethical, the story made a profound impression on the medievalcosmological imagination, and formed the model for the heavenly journey in Dante’sParadiso. 818

P:830

TURRANIUSEd.: Cicero’s works are conveniently available in the Loeb Classical Library series, although better Latin texts are available in Teubner and Budé (CUF) editions. A.S. Pease, M. Tvlli Ciceronis De divinatione (1920–1923), ed. and comm.: highly recommended.R. Philippson, “Cicero: Philosophische Schriften,” RE 7A.1 (1939) 1104–1192; T.A. Dorey, ed., Cicero (1965); P. MacKendrick, The Philosophical Books of Cicero (1989); G. Striker, “Cicero and Greek Philosophy,” HSPh 97 (1995) 53–61; J. Leonhardt, Ciceros Kritik der Philosophenschulen (1999). Daryn LehouxQ. Tullius Cicero (55 – 43 BCE)Younger brother of C, Quintus Tullius was born 102 BCE, and similarly educated inAthens, but did not equal his brother’s genius. He was a good soldier and had a respectablecursus honorum. He governed Asia from 61 to 58, served under C’s command in Gaulfrom 54 to 51 and the next year under Marcus’ in Cilicia. He joined Pompey during theCivil War. After Pharsalus, he returned to Rome in 47. In 43 he died with his son, betrayedby his own slaves. Only four short letters of Quintus Tullius survived: one to M. TulliusCicero, three to M. Tullius Tiro. But he is said to have written four tragedies. We are alsoable to read a poem which is made up of 20 hexameters and is doubtfully attributed to him;this poem was transmitted by Ausonius (Ecl. 25) in order to compare his own poetry; it dealswith zodiacal signs, but the astronomical description is poor. The zodiac is only used toillustrate in a poetical way the calendar of seasons.Ed.: Blänsdorf (1995) 181–183; FLP 179–181.RE 7A.2 (1948) 1286–1306 (#31), F. Münzer. Christophe CussetTurannos (ca 100 BCE – ca 80 CE)A in G , CMLoc 9.6 (13.310 K.), preserves his mineral- and beeswax-based hedrike¯. The word is ﬁrst attested as a name in the 1st c. BCE (LGPN 3A.437, Pompeii;4.336, Buzantion). Cf. perhaps CIL 6.3985, Liuia’s slave doctor (Korpela 1987: 176).Fabricius (1726) 440. PTKTurpillianus (ca 30 BCE – 90 CE)A   P., in G  CMGen 4.13 (13.736 K.), records his plaster, “The Philo-sophers’,” based on litharge and khalkitis, for the most infected wounds. The non-Republican cognomen (also spelled Turpilienus) is attested in the 1st c. CE: PIR2 P-315,Petronius Turpillianus (cos. 61 CE), cf. Schulze (1904/1966) 246.Fabricius (1726) 440. PTKTurranius (50 – 10 BCE)Wrote a handbook on agriculture in at least two books (Diome¯de¯s, GL 1.368.24). The Latinof the sole fragment has an archaic ﬂavor, and Diome¯de¯s ranges him with Plautus, C,and C. If he is to be identiﬁed with a known individual, two plausible candidates areT G or Turranius Niger, a rancher from Campi Macri in Cisalpine Gaul to 819

P:831

TURRANIUS GRACILISwhom V dedicated the second book of his Res Rusticae (pr.6). The author may haveintroduced the variety of pear known as Turraniana (C, 5.10.18; M,Sat. 3.19.6).Ed.: Speranza (1971) 60–62.RE 7A.2 (1948) 1442–1443 (#7), W. Kroll, with 1443 (#10), Fr. Münzer. Philip ThibodeauTurranius Gracilis (10 BCE – 10 CE)Wrote one or more geographical or agricultural works on Spain and Africa, cited by P:pillars of He¯rakle¯s (3.3), monstrous ﬁsh at Gade¯s (9.11), barley-drink of Andalusia andAfrica (18.75).RE 7A.2 (1948) 1442–1443 (#7), W. Kroll. PTKT ⇒ TT ⇒ C  820

P:832

UUlpianus (ca 475 – 500 CE)Brother of the late Neo-Platonist Isido¯ros of Alexandria (Souda O-914 [Oulpianos], deriv-ing partly from D’ Vita Isidori). His natural talent for solving mathematicalproblems, noted in particular by Syrianus the younger (= Syrianus 4 in PLRE 2 [1980]1051–1052; RE 4A.2 [1932] 1775 [#2], K. Praechter), made him famous at Athens;by contrast, he produced no philosophical arguments of any worth (a commonplace inDamaskios), nor are any titles attributed to him. He died young and never married.PLRE 2 (1980) 1181. Alain BernardUlpianus of Emesa (ca 300 – 330 CE)Sophist, born in Askalon, taught rhetoric at Emesa and at Antioch, to L, Proair-e¯sios and Makedonios; his successor in the post was Ze¯nobios. His own rhetorical works anddeclamations (Souda O-911) are lost. The suggested authorship of the scholia to 18 speechesof De¯mosthene¯s, with some geographical material, is doubtful (FGrHist 676).RE 9A.1 (1961) 569 (#3), A. Lippold; KP 5 (1975) 1044 (#2), H.A. Gärtner; OCD3 1570, N.G. Wilson. Andreas KuelzerU ⇒ PU ⇒ OUrbicius (ca 490 – ca 520 CE)Author of Epit¯edeuma (Invention), addressed to Anastasios, as well as Tactica, and perhaps anextant Kun¯egetika. The Invention describes two innovations (cf. D R B): bundlesof spiked poles for rapid construction of an anti-cavalry fence (§4–7), and ballistae mountedupon carts as mobile artillery (§8, 14–16; already attested on Trajan’s column).Ed.: G. Greatrex, H. Elton, and R. Burgess, “Urbicius’ Epitedeuma: An Edition, Translation and Commentary,” ByzZ 98 (2005) 35–74. PTKU ⇒ A 821

P:833

VV ⇒ (1) M. T V; (2) V VV ⇒ C VM. Valerius Messalla Potitus (45 – 15 BCE)Suﬀect consul in 29 BCE, and author of a treatise on gardening (Kepourika) known to P(1.ind.19). The emended text of Pliny (14.66) makes him the creator of a variety of wineknown as Potitana. The Messalla of Pliny 14.69, who advertised the health-giving eﬀectsof a wine known as Lagarina, will either be this man or M. Valerius Messalla Coruinus, thefamous orator and general.RE 8A.1 (1955) 165–166 (#267), R. Hanslik. Philip ThibodeauValerius Paulinus (ca 30 BCE – 90 CE)A   P. in G  – CMLoc 8.8 (13.211–213 K.) for a liver remedy, andCMGen 7.12 (13.1025–1027 K.) for several akopa based on H or F C- – twice cites this man, whose name and terminus ante match the Vespasianic praefectusAnnonae and praefectus Aegypti (PIR2 P-173). (Cf. also the Paulina prepared by A T.) But the cognomen is known from the 1st c. BCE: Paulinos (ca 100 BCE: LGPN3A.356), Paulinos (1st c. BCE–1st c. CE: LGPN 4.276), Paulina (20 CE: Iosephus, Ant. Iud.18.65–80), Paulina (38 CE: Dio Cassius 59.12.1, 59.23.7), etc.Fabricius (1726) 440. PTKC. Valgius Rufus (45 – 5 BCE)Roman senator, suﬀect consul (12 BCE), student of and translator for A’ teacherApollodo¯ros (Quint. 3.1.18, 3.5.17), friend of Horace who respected his literary judgments(Sat. 1.10.82) and consoled him over the loss of a beloved slave Mystes (Carm. 2.9). Valgiuswrote a grammatical treatise (de rebus per epistulam quaesitam: Gell. 12.3.1), epigrams, elegies,and a panegyric for Messalla (FLP 287–290). P, describing Valgius’ erudition, cites himas only the second Latin author, after P L, to write on herbal medicine. His 822

P:834

VEGETIUS RENATUSunﬁnished treatise was dedicated to Augustus and prefaced with a prayer that the emperorheal all human evils (25.4–5).GRL §273–274; OCD3 1581, E. Courtney; NP 12/1.1118–9 (#2), P.L. Schmidt. GLIMVara¯ hamihira (ca 550 CE)A descendant of Zoroastrian immigrants from Iran to India and a resident of the area nearUjjain, and a proliﬁc writer, whose works cover all aspects of traditional Indian astrologyand astronomy. His Pañcasiddha¯ntik¯a is a summary of ﬁve astronomical works current at histime, but now lost: the Paita¯mahasiddha¯nta, which expounds astronomy inﬂuenced byMesopotamia (contrast the P  , the founding text of the Bra¯hmapaks.a);the Vasis..thasiddh¯anta, the Pauli´sasiddha¯nta, the Romakasiddh¯anta and the S¯uryasiddh¯anta, which allexpound Indian versions of Greco-Babylonian astronomy. The Pañcasiddh¯antika¯ is animportant work both in shedding light on the Indian astronomical tradition prior to 500 CE,and in recording pre-Ptolemaic Greek astronomy from which the Indian tradition bor-rowed. Vara¯hamihira authored three works on divination. The B.rhatsam. hit¯a is a large collec-tion of omens in 106 chapters, based on adaptations of Mesopotamian omen series byearlier Indian writers. Two other works on divination, the Sam¯asasam. hita¯ and the Va.taka.nika¯,are now lost. On genethlialogy, Vara¯hamihira authored two works, the B.rhajj¯ataka andthe Laghuj¯ataka, both based on the Indian adaptation of Greek material in the works ofS and others. On military astrology (“ya¯tra¯”), Vara¯hamihira composed threeworks, the Br.hadya¯tr¯a, the Yogaya¯tr¯a, and the T. ikan. ik¯aya¯tra¯, the earliest separate treatises on thetopic. Vara¯hamihira’s remaining work, the Viv¯ahapa.tala, deals with astrology applied tomarriage.DSB 13.581–583, D.E. Pingree; CESS A.5.563–595. Kim Plofker and Toke Lindegaard KnudsenV ⇒ M. T VVegetius Renatus (ca 445 – 450 CE)Vir illustris, credited with three technical treatises: a compendium of military warfare(Epitoma rei militaris) in four books; a work on horse medicine (Digesta artis mulomedicinalis) inthree books; a tract on bovine diseases (De curis boum epitoma) in one book. Scholars have long debated the author’s dates and name. The year of Gratianus’ death(383 CE) provides a secure terminus post quem, since Vegetius calls this emperor diuus (Mil.1.20.3). A secure terminus ante quem is 450 CE, given by the subscription of a corrector namedFl. Eutropius, who worked at Constantinople. The name of the emperor in the inscriptionvaries in the MSS. One passage (4.pr.7) seems to allude to a datable historic event, thehurried reconstruction of Constantinople’s walls (which had been destroyed by an earth-quake) early in 447, due to the Huns having crossed the Danube border. Thus, the Epitomarei militaris was probably written ca 447–448 under Theodosius II. Vegetius wrote the De curisboum while preparing to write the Digesta, for use in combating an epidemic in bovines (Cur.boum pr.1–2). Vegetius’ statements (Dig. 3.6.1) about his travels through the empire suggestthat he wrote his veterinary treatises after retiring from public life. The author’s name poses another problem. Authoritative MSS of the veterinary works 823

P:835

VELCHIONIUSreport the author as Publii; those of the Epitoma have Flauii. Reeve 2004:  suggests theimperial service of Publius entitled him to use the late-antique status-indicator Flauius.Although possible, this implies that the Epitoma was composed after the veterinary works,contrary to expectation. Additionally, the form Vegeti suggests the common nominativeVegetus rather than the rare form Vegetius. All three of Vegetius’ works are compilations. In the Epitoma, the author conﬂates lostmilitary and strategic sources: at 1.8.10–11 he claims to have used C’s De disciplinamilitari, C, F and Tarruntenus Paternus (author ca 180 of a treatise onmilitary law of which only two fragments remain, transmitted at Digesta Imp. Iustiniani49.16.7 and 50.6.7: see RE 4A.2 [1932] 2405–2407). Vegetius’ Digesta are almost entirelybased on P and the M C, the latter elegantly modiﬁedby Vegetius. Some passages, whose source is unknown, provide interesting vocabulary andinformation about the anatomy or breeding of horses. The De curis boum almost entirelyderives from C’s Res rustica Book 6. The Epitoma, popular in the Middle Ages and later (more than 200 MSS still survive),has been translated into several languages: most famously those of Jean de Meun (1284,old French) and Bono Giamboni (1286, old Italian). The two veterinary works, lesswidely diﬀused, survive in about 20 MSS, usually preserving the two treatises together.Nevertheless, Italian versions also exist. Theodericus Borgognoni used the Digesta exten-sively for his Medela equorum in the 13th c., and Dino Dini for his 14th c. vernacular work onhorse medicine. Also noteworthy is Giovanni Brancati’s Italian translation of both works(ca 1470).Ed.: E. Lommatzsch, P. Vegeti Renati Digestorum artis mulomedicinae libri (1903) (with De curis boum errone- ously as the fourth book); M.D. Reeve, Vegetius, Epitoma rei militaris (2004).Vincenzo Ortoleva, La tradizione manoscritta della «Mulomedicina» di Publio Vegezio Renato (1996); M.B. Charles, Vegetius in Context. Establishing the Date of the Epitoma rei Militaris (2007). Vincenzo OrtolevaVelchionius (50 – 30 BCE)A   P., in G  Antid. 2.11 (14.170–171 K.), records that Belkhionios saidthat a recipe of A G was used by I C. Although ΒΕΛXΙΟΝΙΟΣmight conceal a Greek name such as ΤΕΛXΙΝΑΙΟΣ (attested at Kure¯ne¯, 1st c. CE: LGPN1.433), given the Latin context, a name derived from the Etruscan Velkhi- seems more likely:Schulze (1904/1966) 99, 377–378.(*) PTKP. Vergilius Maro of Mantua (42 – 19 BCE)The man who would become arguably the greatest poet of the Latin language was born70 BCE on a country estate in the village of Andes outside Mantua. Vergil trained as anorator in Milan and Rome and studied there with various prominent scholars and poets,including Parthenios of Nikaia. After moving to Naples he joined an Epicurean school ledby Siro¯n and became acquainted with P . During the veteran-resettlement pro-gram of 42–40 BCE his family’s estate was conﬁscated, then apparently restored through theintervention of his patron, Asinius Pollio. It was at this time that he began publishing versions 824

P:836

P. V E RG I L I U S M A RO O F M A N T UAVergilius Reproduced with permission, Musée national du Bardoof the Idylls of Theokritos and other pastoral poems, which he released as a collection,entitled the Bucolics, in 37. Entering the circle of poets patronized by Maecenas, A’most trusted political advisor, Vergil spent the next eight years of his life working on adidactic poem about agriculture, the Georgics; that he read to Augustus in person during thesummer of 29. He devoted the rest of his life to the task of creating a Roman equivalent forHomer’s Iliad and Odyssey, the result being a new national epic, the Aeneid. The poem had yetto receive its ﬁnal touches when Vergil died while returning from vacation in Greece in 19. Of his three poems, the Georgics best illustrates Vergil’s place in the scientiﬁc tradition atRome. The poem is in four books, the ﬁrst treating cereal crops and weather signs, thesecond vines and orchards, the third animal husbandry, and the fourth bees. Its language isthat of Latin lyric and epic, and for euphony and vividness it ranks among the most pol-ished works of Latin literature. But aesthetic demands also forced the poet to be selective:typically Vergil will only relate a small set of precepts on a given topic, leaving it to thereader to ﬁll in the rest (cf. his short list of wine varieties [2.89–108], or Book 3, which givesinstructions for raising cattle, horses, and sheep but not donkeys, mules, or pigs). Thiscompression can sometimes result in statements which are confused or simply incorrect (asoften happens in the section on weather signs [1.351–460], and with the apiary lore ofBook 4). On the other hand, Vergil’s elisions encouraged later scholars to ﬁll in the gaps; indoing so they were contributing to the promulgation of technical knowledge. Entire bookswere written to expand on or explain brief portions of the poem; cf. C bk. 10,and Seruius ad Georg. 1.231. For the most part, Vergil derived his lore from other sources; the Georgics draws upon awide range of authorities, most notably A (for data on bees and animal sexualbehavior), T (for botany), A (for weather-signs), E  (for 825

P:837

P. V E RG I L I U S M A RO O F M A N T UAan account of climate zones), B   M  (for the bugonia), L (for methodsof inference), and V (for much of the practical agricultural knowledge of Books 2–4).There are only a few particular items which, if not original to Vergil, at least receive theirearliest mention in his poem. In Book 1 these include an explanation for the beneﬁcialeﬀects of burning stubble that shows the inﬂuence of Epicurean physics (84–93); advice tosow broad beans in the spring, which, though criticized by S (Epist. 86.15), reﬂectsthe custom of the area in northern Italy where Vergil grew up (215; cf. P 18.120); andan account of the physical causes of weather signs, of particular interest for its suggestionthat abnormal animal behavior can be traced to internal perceptions of atmospheric dens-ity (415–423). Other Vergilian “ﬁrsts” include the mention of the Epirote breed of horses(1.59, 3.21), Crustumnian pears (2.85), a potent wine called lagois (2.93), a ﬂower, the amellus,described as a panacea for apiary illnesses (4.271–280), and a recommendation to placespiked halters on kids to encourage early weaning (3.398–399). More distinctive is the poet’s holistic vision of agriculture, whereby the pedestrian charac-teristics of soils, plants, animals, and bees are traced back to broader cosmic trends andlaws. Thus Vergil draws an analogy between the diversity of soils on a large estate and thediversity of products exported by countries around the oikoumene¯ (1.50–63). He uses thetendency of seeds to decline in fertility over time to illustrate a generalized principle ofentropy (1.197–203). The favorable features of the climate in spring are said to reproducethe conditions which obtained when life ﬁrst appeared on Earth (2.315–345). Farm animals’susceptibility to disease is worked up into an illustration of the death drive which aﬀects allliving beings (3.440–566). The rational, collective behavior of bees is oﬀered as evidence forthe existence of a world-soul (4.219–227). Even the peasant is portrayed as an ersatzphilosopher-scientist, who combines practical knowledge of the natural world with a tem-perate lifestyle (2.475–494). The later ideal of the gentleman farmer who dabbles in scien-tiﬁc and philosophical speculation owes much to this poem, as do many organic andRomantic conceptions of Nature. In the Georgics, Vergil often plays with the identiﬁcation of known ﬂora and fauna in waysthat assume a fairly detailed knowledge of both. Although the Bucolics are not didacticpoetry, they resemble the Georgics in this regard. In the Aeneid, this sort of erudite game isfurther expanded, so that it takes in such ﬁelds as geography, astronomy, and medicine.Vergil also engaged the traditions of Homeric allegoresis, which saw the epics as repositoriesof insight into the nature of the kosmos, and generally identiﬁed the gods with the ele-ments and other forces of nature, by incorporating allusions to Stoic physical theory intohis own descriptions of the universe and the gods. Yet only once in the epic does he dealexplicitly with cosmology; this is in Anchises’ speech in Book 6 (724–751), where thevision of the kosmos bears no small resemblance to that presented by P in the Mythof Er, with touches of C’s Somnium Scipionis and other Stoic and Pythagoreandoctrines added in. Vergil’s poetry wears its erudition lightly. Yet the reputation for learning and wisdomwhich he acquired during his lifetime continued to grow after his death. Subsequent gener-ations of scholars felt challenged to interpret, expand upon, and even correct his work witha view towards establishing or refuting some scientiﬁc or philosophical dogma (cf. Pliny,Aulus Gellius, M, etc.). After a few centuries Vergil the scientiﬁc dilettante disap-peared completely from view, having been replaced by the ﬁgure best known from Dante’sDivina Commedia, who stood as the living embodiment of the entire pagan tradition ofrational knowledge and wisdom. 826

P:838

V E T T I U S VA L E N S O F A N T I O C HT.F. Royds, The Beasts, Birds and Bees of Virgil (1918); J.J. Sargeaunt, The Trees, Shrubs and Plants of Virgil (1920); D. Comparetti, Vergil in the Middle Ages (1929); L.P. Wilkinson, The Georgics of Virgil. A Critical Survey (1969); KP 5.1190–1200 (#5), K. Büchner; P.R. Hardie, Virgil’s Aeneid. Cosmos and Imperium (1986); R.A.B. Mynors, Virgil. Georgics (1990); NP 12/2.42–60 (#4) W. Suerbaum; OCD3 1602–1607, D.P. and P.G. Fowler. Philip ThibodeauVettius Valens (Med.) (ca 35 – 48 CE)Lover of Messalina, and founder of a new medical sect, which apparently died with himupon his execution in 48 by Claudius (T, Ann. 11.30, 35; P 29.8, 20). Identiﬁedwith the “Valens,” teacher of S L (Moog), but the imperial-era cognomenValens is very frequent, and there is no other reason to equate them; see insteadM. T V.F.P. Moog, “Kaiserlicher Leibarzt und einziger römische Schulgründer,” Würzburger medizinhistorische Mitteilungen 20 (2001) 18–35; NP 12/2.151–152. PTKVettius Valens of Antioch (150 – 180 CE)Wrote a Greek astrological treatise in nine books, the Anthologiai. The numerous horoscopesof unnamed individuals and details of their lives reveal the author as a working astrologerwith an extensive practice as well as a teacher of his science. The birth years deduciblefrom the horoscopes range from 50–150 CE; if we add to each birth year the greatest age ofthe individual that Valens reports, we ﬁnd a great concentration through the 150s and untilthe 160s, which presumably reﬂects the interval during which he was hardest at work onhis opus, but he continued to add new material into the 170s. He repeatedly adduces ahoroscope cast for February 8, 120 CE, plausibly identiﬁed as his own birth-date. The earlier books of the Anthologiae show some eﬀort to cover basic topics of horoscopicastrology systematically. As the work progresses, however, it becomes increasingly devoted tospecialized topics such as the precise forecasting of length of life. While drawing (sometimeswithout acknowledgement) on earlier authorities, Valens frequently claims elements ofinterpretative technique as his own inventions. He often criticizes unidentiﬁed contempor-ary astrologers, and occasionally pronounces on broader philosophical issues, for examplearguing for a hard-line deterministic view of horoscopic predictions. Professing to aim atclear presentation, Valens was not successful; his Greek style is characterized by a penchantfor rare vocabulary, not invariably used with precision. The authorial obscurities wereexacerbated, moreover, by extensive textual corruption and tampering in later transmission.Nevertheless the Anthologiae is enormously valuable for its focus on astrological practice,without rival in the surviving Greco-Roman astrological literature. It is also an importantsource on contemporary astronomical resources, ranging from crude rules of thumb toarithmetically structured theories of ultimately Babylonian origin, comparable to methodsknown from Roman-period papyri and from early Indian astronomy.Ed.: D.E. Pingree, Vettii Valentis Antiocheni Anthologiarum Libri Novem (1986).O. Neugebauer, “The Chronology of Vettius Valens’ Anthologiae,” HThR 47 (1954) 65–67; Neugebauer and van Hoesen (1959); Neugebauer (1975) 793–801, 823–829; J. Komorowska, Vettius Valens of Antioch: An Intellectual Monography (2004); Riley (n.d.). Alexander Jones 827

P:839

C . V I B I U S RU F I N U S O F T U S C U LU MC. Vibius Ruﬁnus of Tusculum (45 – 65 CE)Latin authority on trees, plants, and ﬂowers (P 1.ind.14–15, 19, 21). Vibius Ruﬁnus, asuﬀect consul of 21 or 22 with M. Cocceius Nerva (the emperor’s grandfather), was possiblyour botanist’s father; Vibius Ruﬁnus, the proconsul of Asia, ca 36/37, and legate of GermaniaSuperior 42–45, was perhaps our botanist. Our Ruﬁnus seems later than the addressee oftwo Ovidian epistles replete with medical imagery (ex Pont. 1.3 and 3.4) whom Syme argueswas not a Ruﬁnus (1434, n.94). Nonetheless an interest in botany accords equally with afriend of O or a provincial governor.RE 8A.2 (1958) 1981 (#49), R. Hanslik; R. Syme, “Vibius Rufus and Vibius Ruﬁnus,” Roman Papers 3, ed. A.R. Birley (1984) 1423–1435 at 1430–1435; NP 12/2.177 (#II.14), W. Eck. GLIMVibius Sequester (300 – 500 CE?)Wrote a geographical work in Latin, De ﬂuminibus fontibus lacibus nemoribus paludibus montibusgentibus per litteras. This is a list of geographical names which occur in Latin poets, such asV, L, and O, arranged in alphabetical order. The list contains both realand mythological toponyms.Ed.: GLM 145–159.RE 8A.2 (1958) 2457–2462 (#80), W. Strzelecki; KP 5.1251–1252, F. Lasserre; PLRE 1 (1971) 823; NP 12/2.177–178 (#II.19), K. Sallmann. Natalia LozovskyVicellius (100 BCE? – 150 CE?)Roman writer known solely from I   “L,” de Ost., who describes him as prior toA (cf. perhaps M. VIGELLIVS, known solely as P’ Stoic house-mate:C, De Or. 3.78; RE 8A.2 [1958] 2130–2131[#1], H. Gundel). Io¯anne¯s quotes orparaphrases Vicellius’ Seismologium, which predicts, based on the sun-sign in which a quakeoccurs, catastrophes in the regions from India to Hispania which are ruled by that sign: §55–58 (pp. 110–117 Wa.). Compare the omen-literature of writers such as P, andcontrast Seismologia that predict type not place of trouble: CCAG 5.4 (1940) 155–163, 7(1908) 167–171. Io¯anne¯s §23–26 (pp. 57–62) also quotes or paraphrases a work predictingmisfortunes in regions from India to Hispania, based on the sun-sign in which thunderoccurs, which some scholars have attributed to Vicellius. Such Brontologia (or Tonitrualia)usually predict the type not place of trouble, based on the sun-sign: CCAG 4 (1903)128–131, 8.3 (1912) 123–125, 9.2 (1953) 120–123, and -H ; but CCAG 7(1908) 163–167 combines a lunar Brontologion, predicting type of trouble, with the VicellianTonitruale.HLL §409.3. PTKVictorius of Aquitania (445 – 465 CE)Mathematician, calculated paschal dates. In Calculus, his elementary arithmetical text,Victorius discussed the properties of numbers, conventions of arithmetical expression, and 828

P:840

HELUIUS VINDICIANUSprocess of multiplication and division. MSS contain numerous multiplication and divisioncharts, and tables of standard weights and measures (oils, honeys, lengths, liquid and drymeasures).Ed.: MSR 2.87–88; G. Friedlein, “Der Calculus des Victorius,” ZMP 16 (1871) 42–79.GRL §1229.8; F.K. Ginzel, Handbuch der mathematischen Chronologie (1914) 3.245–247; RE 8A.2 (1958) 2086–2087 (#8), W. Enßlin. GLIMHeluius Vindicianus (ca 350 – 410 CE)Prominent politician and physician, perhaps receiving literary and medical education inRoman Gaul, Vindicianus appears as a gifted and crusty rhetorician of advanced years inA’s Confessions (4.3.5; 7.6.8; cf. Ep. 138.3), then resident in Carthage, holdingthe rank of comes and likely archiater. Augustine’s youthful studies on astrology may haveattracted the attention of Vindiciater, who detested such irrational approaches to diagnosisand prognosis: uir sagax, acutus senex, magnus ille nostrorum temporum medicus, so says Augustineof Vindicianus. Formerly court physician to Valentinian, Vindicianus’ medical skills wereoutstanding enough to win the emperor’s extension of privileges to loyal court doctorsand their families, especially to those like Vindicianus who had attained the rank of comes(Cod.Theod., 12.3.12 [14 Sept., 379]; cf. Cod.Theod., 11.31.7 [3 Dec., 379]). Likely, too, archiatrifunctioned as teachers, and T P and C F were both proudto be Vindicianus’ students. That medical education was fairly widespread in the 4th c. isindicated by Symmachus’ Relationes (# 27: a perfectissimus demands the salary of archiaterin Rome), as well as the medically informed poetry of Ausonius, whose father IA was court physician to Valentinian I. Remnants of Vindicianus’ medical writings demonstrate a respect for the Greek medicalclassics, esp. G  and S , but with a practical twist emphasizing folk remedies,careful analysis of pharmaceuticals, and avoidance of gratuitous surgeries. An extant EpistulaVindiciani to Valentinian evinces expertise in medicinals to ease constipation, and the EpistulaVindiciani ad Pentadium (ed. Rose, pp. 484–492) brieﬂy advises a nephew regarding the then-canonical doctrine of the four humors derived from Greek tracts (H  andGale¯n), which he says he has translated into Latin. The epitomes of Vindicianus’ Gynaeciasuggest close attention to anatomical structures, but details are almost certainly derived fromSo¯ranos’ Gynecology, not from actual dissection. The 13th c. Codex Monacensis (Clm 4622,ﬀ.40R-45R) preserves Vindicianus’ “Medical Etymology” compiled, as he says, since onecannot “. . .dissect corpses . . . because it is prohibited, and . . . an account is given of thejoints, bones, limbs, and blood vessels of which we consist” (Cilliers 2005: 167). Debru(1996, 1999) and Cilliers (2005) have concluded that the attribution by Wellmann (1901)of the Codex Bruxellensis f.48R to Vindicianus is no longer acceptable.Ed.: V. Rose, Vindiciani Afri Expositionis membrorum quae reliqua sunt. . . I. Gynaecia quae vocantur; II. Epitoma uberior altera adhaeret Epistula Vindiciani ad Pentadium [in] Theodori Prisciani Euporiston (1894) 425–492; M. Niedermann, re-ed. E. Liechtenhan, Epistula Vindiciani Comitis Archiatrorum ad Valentinianum Impera- torem 1.46–53 in Marcelli De medicamentis (1968; 2 vols.) = CML 5; R.H. Barrow, Prefect and Emperor: The Relationes of Symmachus A.D. 384 (1973) 148–151 (# 27); L. Cilliers, “Vindicianus’s Gynaecia: Text and Translation of the Codex Monacensis (Clm 4622),” Journal of Medieval Latin 15 (2005) 153–236.K. Sudhoﬀ, “Zur Anatomie des Vindicianus,” Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftgeschichte 8 (1915) 414–423; Th. Haarhof, [“Medicine”] in Schools of Gaul (1920) 87–89; RE 9A.1 (1961) 29–36, W. Enßlin and 829

P:841

M. VIPSANIUS AGRIPPA K. Deichgräber; Matthews (1975; repr. 1990, 1998) 68, 72–73, and 399–400 [postscript to 1990 repr.]; V. Nutton, “Archiatri and the Medical Profession in Antiquity,” PBSR 45 (1977) 191–226; Idem, “Continuity or Rediscovery: The City Physician in Classical Antiquity and Mediaeval Italy,” in A.W. Russell, ed., The Town and the State Physician in Europe from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment (1981) = Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 17; M.E. Vázquez Buján, “Vindiciano y el tratado «De natura generis humani»,” Dynamis 2 (1982) 25–56; P. Migliorini, “Problemi Testuali in Vindiciano (Paris. Lat. 7027, cc. 3r–13v),” in Mazzini and Fusco (1985) 237–252; Önnerfors (1993) 281–288; A. Debru, “L’Anonyme de Bruxelles: un témoin latin de l’hippocratisme tardif,” in R. Wittern and P. Pellegrin, edd., Hippokratische Medizin und antike Philosophie, v.1 (1996) 311–327; A. Debru, “Doctrine et tactique doxographie dans l’Anonyme de Bruxelles: Une comparaison avec l’Anonyme de Londres,” in van der Eijk (1999) 453–471; L. Cilliers, “Vindicianus’ Gynaecia and Theories on Generation” in H.F.J. Horstmanshoﬀ and M. Stol, edd., Magic and Rationality in Ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Medicine (2004) 343–367. John ScarboroughV ⇒ AM. Vipsanius Agrippa (40 – 12 BCE)Born 64/63 BCE to an obscure but wealthy family, lifelong friend and doubly son-in-lawto A. He ﬁtted and trained the ﬂeet, orchestrated naval victories against Sex.Pompeius – wherein his improved grapnel proved eﬀective – and M. Antonius, served inpolitical positions of authority and distinction, was consul 37 BCE, then held extraordinarygrants of imperium and tribunicia potestas. Traveling widely, Agrippa governed Gaul, repre-sented Augustus’ interests broadly in the east, and quelled a rebellion in Spain (20 BCE).His muniﬁcent building program at Rome (Pantheon, aqueducts, an expanded sewer, gran-ary, etc) and in the provinces (roads from Lugdunum) earned him enduring popularity. Lost are his autobiography, Commentarius de Aquis, geography, and map of the empire,intended to perfect I C’s eﬀorts. It is unclear if the geographical treatise repre-sented a continuous commentary or supplementary notes. Whether Agrippa’s map resembledmore closely E ’ or the P M continues to be debated, but itsdisplay on a colonnaded wall in the Porticus Vipsania suits better a rectangular deployment.The map, completed by Augustus himself after Agrippa’s death, probably represented theentire inhabited world. P cites Agrippa almost exclusively for quantitative data (dis-tances, lengths, circumferences) occasionally criticizing their veracity (3.16–17, 4.91, 4.102)or comparing with numbers from other geographical authors (4.45, 4.60, 4.77). Agrippaalso described topography (5.9–10, 6.39). S  may have relied on Agrippa for ﬁguresfor Italy, Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily.GRL §332–333; Dilke (1985) 41–53; OCD3 1601–1602, B.M. Levick; TTE 8, R.T. Macfarlane; BNP 1 (2002) 391–392 (#1), D. Kienast. GLIMM. Vitruuius Pollio (ca 30 – 20 BCE)Professional architect and engineer, born ca 85 BCE, author of De Architectura Libri Decem, theonly comprehensive summary of architecture to survive from antiquity, and possibly theonly one ever written. The work presents the best panorama of what a broadly educatedRoman professional with a “liberal arts” education would have known of the works of theleading scientists and mechanical authors of antiquity. 830

P:842

M . V I T RU U I U S P O L L I O The nomen Vitruuius (“Vitruvius”) is the only name known with certainty from most MSS,the cognomen Pollio comes from a single MS of F, the praenomen is variouslyreported as Aulus, Lucius and most commonly Marcus. The gens Vitruuia is well attested ongravestones centering around Formia between Naples and Gaeta, and it seems likely fromDe Architectura that Vitruuius was raised and trained either in Campania or Rome, or both.He is almost certainly distinct from L. Vitruuius Cerdo, a freedman recorded in the arch ofthe Gauii in Verona, since the author was not a freedman, and from C’s praefectusfabrum Mamurra, though the author served many years with Caesar and then A asan artillery engineer and staﬀ architect. He received a pension from Augustus and then hissister Octauia as a reward for service, and he is very likely the same Vitruuius credited withstandardizing water pipe sizes in Rome while working as Agrippa’s staﬀ architect on the curaaquarum (F, De Aquis Urbis Romae 25.1), a position he also may have received as areward for service or for his writing. The treatise was written in the decade immediately after Actium (31 BCE), a period oftremendous renewed building activity after the civil wars. A literary hybrid, common inthe last century of the Republic, De Architectura is a technical handbook with literary preten-sions, aimed at the highly literate Roman elite, i.e., senators and equestrians who directedbuilding projects, either private or public. Vitruuius seems unknown in contemporaryaccounts, but is mentioned later in ways suggesting that his writing remained the mostcomprehensive Roman building compendium: P 33.87, 33.91, 36.171–172; F25.1; F ; Seruius, Ad Aen. 6.43 (4th c. CE); Sidonius Apollinarius, Epistulae 4.3.5(mid-5th c. CE), and indirectly P A. Vitruuius received a liberal arts education before training as an architect. His handbookin part presents architecture as a liberal art, whose practice had to be based on a mastery ofthose fundamentals of liberal knowledge common to many disciplines. In addition to thestandard seven subjects (mathematics, music, geometry, astronomy; grammar, rhetoric,logic), he also lists draftsmanship, knowledge of painting and sculpture, law, and philosophy.Most architects were not trained that way. Vitruuius includes numerous supportive dis-courses based on generally understood principles of science: the four-element theoryexplained the properties of mortar (2.5.2), building stones (2.7.2), types of timber (2.9.1)and strength and weakness of opus reticulatum (2.8.2); retrograde motion of the planets asexplained by the attraction of heat (9.1.12); latitude determining human physiology andjustifying window placement (6.1.1–11); the variety of springs being due to the varietyintroduced into nature by the “inclination of the heavens” (inclinatio mundi), i.e., the inclin-ation of the Earth on its axis. Book 1 treats purported theoretical principles, orientation and siting of cities, and survey-ing, 2 addresses building materials, 3 and 4 the so-called orders and their proportionalprinciples (Vitruuius never uses the term “orders,” but rather calls them genera, or “types,”of column), 5 public buildings, including bath construction, with a discourse about musictheory, 6 private building, 7 ﬁnishes, 8 water distribution and surveying, 9 astronomy andthe geometry of sundials and clocks (Figure), and 10 a variety of mechanical devices,including cranes, levers, water lifters, water wheels, pumps, pneumatic organs, catapults(scorpions and ballistae), and siege engines. The meticulous description of catapults andorgans relies on the same type of modular geometry and arithmetic as his earlier descrip-tion of the proportions of the orders, sundials, theaters, house proportions, boat design andproportions in nature (human anatomy). The section on siege-craft (10.13–15) is virtuallyidentical to chapters in A  M’ Peri M¯ekhan¯emat¯on (9.4–10.4); they are 831

P:843

M . V I T RU U I U S P O L L I OAnalemma (geometry of sundial construction) from Vitr. 9.7.1–7 © Howeprobably contemporaries, and their common source was probably A , whomhe cites (7.pr.14). Vitruuius is often more “prescriptive” than descriptive, that is, arguing for innovationsbased on experience and critical evaluation rather than summing up current standard prac-tice. The chorobates (surveyors’ level, 8.6.1–3) is otherwise unattested in antiquity, and hisrecommendations for items such as polygonal fortiﬁcation towers (1.5.1–8), sounding vesselsin theaters (5.5.1–8), a peculiar form of castellum aquae (8.6.1–2), and ﬁre-resistant larch(2.9.15) were not then standard Roman practice.A. Boethius, “Vitruvius and the Roman Architecture of his Age,” in Dragma Martin Nilsson (Acta Ist. Sue Rom. 1) (1939) 114–143; H. Knell, Vitruvs Architekturtheorie (1991); P. Fleury, La méchanique di Vitruve (1993); P. Gros, A Corso, and E. Romano, Vitruvio, De Architectura (1997); I. Rowland and Thomas Noble Howe, Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture (1999). Thomas Noble HoweV R ⇒ E 832

P:844

L. VOLUSIUS MAECIANUSL. Volusius Maecianus (ca 140 – 170 CE)Important member of the “court society” of the 2nd c. CE, assigned to high imperial oﬃces,including the government of Egypt. As a legal expert, Maecianus wrote treatises on publictrials and on trusts. Because of his competence in law, he also became advisor of AntoninusPius and legal tutor to Marcus Aurelius (SHA, MA 3.6). A Caesar (deputy emperor), prob-ably Marcus Aurelius, is the addressee of his Distributio (Division). Maecianus oﬀers a didacticand exhaustive work on units of minted coins and their reckoning, dealing with the basicunits of the Roman denominational system, both Republican and Imperial, their subdivi-sions and exchange rates, according to a peculiar system of symbols, useful to indicate sumsof money. It ends with a short appendix on capacity measures both for grain and liquids,and their equal (sub-)units.Ed.: MSR 2.17–22, 61–71.RE 9A.1 (1961) 904–906 (#7), T. Mayer-Maly; HLL 4.130–133; NP 12/2 (2002) 323 (#II.1), T. Giaro; OCD3 1612, T. Honoré. Mauro de Nardis 833

P:845

WWuzurgmihr (ca 531 – 579 CE)Persian astrologer, active during the kingdom of Xusraw I (531–579), generally identiﬁedwith the famous vizir, son of Bo¯xtag, of the same Sasanian sˇ¯ah, an association debated byscholars (cf. B ). According to Arabic sources, Wuzurgmihr (also Buzur˘jmihr andother spellings) translated V V’ Anthologies into Pahlavi, augmenting the Greekwith Indian and Iranian sources concerning katarkhic and interrogative astrology, “con-tinuous” horoscopy and genethlialogy. The Pahlavi title of this important astrologicaltreatise must have been *W¯ız¯ıdag “Selections” (al-Biz¯ıdaj in Arabic). The Pahlavi originalwas used by Ma¯sˇa¯’alla¯h in his Kit¯ab al-mawa¯l¯ıd “The book of the nativities” (partly incorpor-ated into Hugo of Santalla’s Liber Aristotilis), and referred to in other works by Ma¯sˇa¯’alla¯h.The Cod. Vat.Gr. 1056, ﬀ.81V–82 directly attests “Porzozómchar” (i.e., Wuzurgmihr). Seealso P, T I.Nallino (1922) 351–357 = (1948) 291–296; D.E. Pingree, “The Indian and Pseudo-Indian Passages in Greek and Latin Astronomical Texts,” Viator 7 (1976) 170, 187; Idem (1989); EI 4 (1990) 427–429, D.K. Motlagh (s.v. Bozorgmehr); Ch. Burnett and D.E. Pingree, The Liber Aristotilis of Hugo of Santalla (1997); Antonio Panaino, La novella degli scacchi (1999) 107–123. Antonio Panaino 834

P:846

XXanite¯s (?) (250 BCE – 80 CE)A in G , CMLoc 9.6 (13.311 K.), records the “very useful” ΞΑΝΙΤΗΣhedrike¯, composed of beeswax, butter, goose-fat, deer-marrow, a little rose-water, etc.The name, otherwise unattested, may be a brand-name, a distortion of A ,P  , or else emendable to Naxite¯s (cf. N ), a remedy from Naxos (cf.N ).Fabricius (1726) 452; Parker (1997) 145 (#53). PTKXanthos (of Sarde¯s?) (480 – 440 BCE)Son of Kandaule¯s, a Ludian who wrote in Greek; E names him as an older con-temporary of H , who used him as a source. He wrote a History of Ludia, retailingmyths, as well as the history of the Ludian royal family, enlivened with lurid details. He paidspecial attention to the toponymy and topography of Ludia, and included as well someherbal lore and ethnography of the Ludians and of the Persian Magi, to whom he may havedevoted a separate work, along with a biography of E . He also anticipatedHe¯rodotos in his observations of fossils found far inland as evidence for geological upheavalsin the past. His work, or an epitome by M, was used by D  H-, S , Athe¯naios, and S  B, although Athe¯naios raisesdoubts about its authenticity.Ed.: FGrHist 765.P. Kingsley, “Meetings with Magi: Iranian themes among the Greeks, from Xanthus of Lydia to Plato’s Academy,” JAS 5 (1995) 173–192; OCD3 1627, K. Meister. Philip KaplanXenagoras son of Eume¯los (ca 200 – 180 BCE?)Measured the height of Mt. Olympus and recorded his precise results, ten stades and96 feet, in an epigram addressed to the king (Philip V or Perseus) of Macedon, copied byP. Cornelius Scipio Nasica in 168 BCE, and quoted by P, Aemil. 15.9–11.NP 12/2.606 (#2), H.A. Gärtner. PTK 835

P:847

X E N A G O R A S ( O F H E¯ R A K L E I A P O N T I K E¯ ? )Xenagoras (of He¯rakleia Pontike¯?) (330 – 210 BCE?)Wrote a chronology and a work On Islands (cf. the work of E  K) coveringCyprus (P 5.129) and the Pithekousai (Dionusios of Halikarnassos, A.R. 1.72.5), aboutwhich he told etymological tales.FGrHist 240; NP 12/2.606 (#1), H.A. Gärtner. PTKXenarkhos of Seleukeia (Kilikia) (45 BCE – 17 CE)S  14.5.4 records that this Peripatetic taught him and others in Alexandria andAthens; at Rome he joined the court of A as a protégé of A D; hedied in 17 CE, aged over 90. His work Against the Fifth Substance argued the non-existence ofthe Aristotelian aithe¯r, partly on the basis that “simple” motion need not be rectilinearand that circular motion must always be forced; S preserves a handful of frag-ments, e.g. In De Caelo: CAG 7 (1894) 13–14, 21–24, 286.NP 12/2.608–609 (#4), A. Falcon; Irby-Massie and Keyser (2002) 67–69. PTKXen(okh)are¯s (500 – 25 BCE)Compiled rules of architectural symmetry (V 7.pr.14), listed ﬁrst in an approxi-mately chronological order, so perhaps 5th/4th c. BCE. Fabricius defends the unusual nameΝΕΞΑPΗΣ on analogy with Drouare¯s, but Xenare¯s is found at Lokris (2nd c. BCE) andThessalia (3rd c. BCE, LGPN 3B.314), at Sparta (5th c. BCE: RE 9A.2 [1967] 1435–1436),and Kerkura (6th c. BCE: LGPN 3A.333); whereas from the 5th c. BCE, Xenokhare¯s isfrequent and widespread (LGPN ).RE 17.1 (1936) 163, E. Fabricius. PTK and GLIMXenokrate¯s of Aphrodisias (Kilikia) (ca 50 – 70 CE)Physician who wrote pharmaceutical works, famous until at least the 7th c. CE, butblamed by G  (Simples 9.1 [12.248–251 K.]) – although he utilizes the work abund-antly – for making use of disgusting remedies, such as human brains, ﬂesh, liver, or evenurine and excrement (see also P 32.144), in his On Useful Things from Living Beings(animals and humans equally serviceable as Wellmann rightly indicated). This text, acompilation partly based on D  S’ treatise and used by Pliny in Books20–30, which suggested treatments probably not more superstitious than many other phar-macologists (he proposes, e.g., remedies to steal an opponent’s voice), is to be diﬀerentiatedfrom a book with lexicographical relevance named On Vegetal Remedies (Peri botanik¯on phar-mak¯on). O (Coll. 2.58: CMG 6.1.1, pp. 47–57) preserved a large fragment of apossibly independent book, On the Food Given by Aquatic Animals, addressing shellﬁsh, cet-aceans (distinguished from ﬁshes), and ﬁshes, divided, as in D , between ﬁshes withhard ﬂesh and those with soft ﬂesh. It gives a great number of marine zoönyms and detailedremarks on dietetics and gastronomy (kinds and uses of scallops: 56–71, preparations ofpinna: 98–104, Egyptian pickles: 148–151). 836

P:848

X E N O K R AT E¯ S O F E P H E S O SXenokrate¯s of Aphrodisias (Vind. Med. Gr. l, f.2V ) © Österreichische NationalbibliothekM. Wellmann, “Xenokrates aus Aphrodisias,” Hermes 42 (1907) 614–630; RE 9A.2 (1967) 1529–1531 (#8), F. Kudlien; OCD3 1628, W.D. Ross. Arnaud ZuckerXenokrate¯s of Ephesos (50 – 70 CE)Son of Ze¯no¯n, lived under Nero, and wrote at least a treatise on stones (Lithika), read andmuch appreciated in his own time and later. P 37.38 speaks about Xenokrate¯s asstill living and considers his work worthy of the greatest admiration. Origen, In Ps. 118.127,transmitting a description of topaz, calls our author lithogn¯om¯on, “expert on stones.”Xenokrate¯s’ fragments mostly survived via the Arab tradition. According to Wellmann, thealphabetic catalogue of gems, included by Theodo¯ros Melite¯niote¯s in his poem On moderation(second half of the 15th c.), probably derives from Xenokrate¯s. Xenokrate¯s’ lapidary was a compilation of various traditions, including detailed descrip-tions, classiﬁcations and geographical documentation, in the tradition of Tand S , medical material in the tradition of D , and magical propertiesin the traditions of Z or B , as well as medical questions related to minerals.Consequently Pliny sometimes quotes Xenokrate¯s among medical experts, but does notimply equating him with the homonymous physician X   A.M. Wellmann, “Xenokrates aus Aphrodisias,” Hermes 42 (1907) 614–629; RE 7.1 (1910) 1052–1115 at 1052, O. Rossbach; R. Cadiou, “L’île de Topaze. Le fragment du «lithognomon» de Xénocrate d’Éphèse,” in Mélanges Desrousseaux (1937) 27–33; RE 9A.2 (1967) 1529 (#7), K. Ziegler; Ullmann (1972) 98–100; Idem, “Das Steinbuch des Xenokrates von Ephesos,” Medizinhistorisches Journ. 7 (1972) 49–64; Idem, “Neues zum Steinbuch des Xenokrates,” Medizinhistorisches Journ. 8 (1973) 59–76; KP 5.1416 (#4), C.J. Classen; RE S.14 (1974) 974–977 (#7), M. Ullmann; Halleux and Schamp (1985) –; NP 12/1.623–624 (#5), Chr. Hünemörder. Eugenio Amato 837

P:849

X E N O K R AT E¯ S O F K H A L K E¯ D O¯ NXenokrate¯s of Khalke¯do¯ n (ca 375 – 314/3 BCE)Student of P and Head of the Academy for 25 years after the death of S,probably also a candidate for the position on Plato’s death; said to have died at the age of82. Known as a systematizer, he organized philosophy into its three branches of physics,ethics and logic, and tried to integrate all kinds of reality into his kosmos. While closer toPlato than Speusippos had been, Xenokrate¯s helped remove Platonism from any tran-scendent features. He is usually associated with dogmatic teaching, but it should be notedthat mythical features abound in extant material, suggesting that he often communicatedsomewhat indirectly. At times, this makes the reconstruction of a supposedly systematicphilosophy somewhat diﬃcult. This trend is observable in the epistemological fragment (S E Adv. Math.7.147–9 = fr.83), where the intelligible objects (above the heavens) are linked with truth andscientiﬁc knowledge, sensory objects (below the heavens) with some qualiﬁed truth andsensation, and mixed or opinable objects (in the heavens) with both either truth or falsehoodand with belief. The three fates, Atropos, Lachesis, and Clo¯tho¯, are associated with the threerealms respectively. The triads, observable here, recur elsewhere (e.g. P Def. Orac. 416C–E = fr.222;Fac. Orb. 943E–4A = fr.161), and Xenokrate¯s produced a variation on Plato’s triad of Ideas,Mathematicals, and Sensibles, according to which the Ideas (treated as the patterns behindnaturally occurring species) were themselves a kind of number (fr.103), superior to mathe-matical numbers. The deﬁnition of Ideas illustrates a further diﬃculty, that of knowingwhether Xenokrate¯s speaks for himself or as an interpreter of Plato, in which capacity heappears in Plutarch (Anim. Proc. 1012D–13D = fr.188) and later commentators. His “the-ology” ( fr.213) begins with the quasi-Platonic Monad (odd, male, father, supra-heavenlyruler, Zeus, intellect) and Dyad (even, female, mother, sub-heavenly ruler, universal soul).Doubts arise with regard to the last three attributes (Dillon 2003: 103), particularly for thosewho emphasize the systematic nature of Xenokrate¯s’ philosophy. The theology continueswith Heaven, heavenly bodies (= Olympians), and daimonic powers pervading air, water,and earth (= Hade¯s, Poseido¯n, De¯me¯te¯r). A famous physical-mathematical doctrine is that of the existence of indivisible lines, meet-ing with typical hostility from the Peripatetic tradition, as observed in the AC O I L. Various fragments of Xenokratean ethics and logic sur-vive, but do not, on the whole, set him apart from the early Academic tradition. Thismay reﬂect the inﬂuence of Antiokhos of Askalon who had minimized diﬀerences. It may,however, indicate Xenokrate¯s’ profound inﬂuence over it.Ed.: M. Isnardi Parente, Senocrate–Ermodoro: Frammenti (1982).Dillon (2003) 89–155. Harold TarrantXenokritos of Ko¯ s (325 – 275 BCE)Hippokratic commentator prior to K  B, cited twice byE , pr. (p. 4.24 Nachm.) and A-5 ( p. 12.7 Nachm.).RE 9A.2 (1967) 1533 (#4), M. Fuhrmann. PTK 838

P:850

X E N O P H O¯ N O F AT H E N SXenophane¯s of Kolopho¯ n (540? – 478? BCE)Born ca 570 BCE, an itinerant Greek bard and philosopher, criticized traditional claims aboutthe gods as inconsistent with the concept of the divine. Rather than accepting that godsare like humans and behave in all-too-human ways, he claimed god was a single divineforce: “One god is greatest among gods and men, not at all like mortals in body or inthought . . . whole he sees, whole he thinks, and whole he hears . . . but completely withouttoil he shakes all things by the thoughts of his mind” (B23, 24, 25). Xenophane¯s rejectedthe notion that there is divine communication to human beings, claiming instead thatthrough inquiry humans can “discover better” (B18). Recognizing possible skeptical con-sequences of this claim, he nevertheless oﬀered naturalistic explanations of meteorologicalphenomena based on a theory about clouds: the rainbow and St. Elmo’s ﬁre are not divinemessages: both are explainable as kinds of cloud (fragment B32: “She whom they call iris(rainbow), this too is by nature cloud, purple, red, and greenish yellow to see”). Indeed theSun, Moon and all luminous celestial phenomena are clouds in various states. The Earth isﬂat (like a column drum) and extends unlimitedly outwards and downwards. Thus the Sundoes not travel under the Earth as earlier theories had claimed: it is new each day and iscloud fed by exhalations from the Earth, traveling across the sky until it expires. Both thecontent of his scientiﬁc theories (he made claims instrumental for later Greek discoveries inastro-physics) and the epistemological problems generated by his rejection of divine inter-vention and warrant for knowledge inﬂuenced later thinkers, especially H  andP .Ed.: DK 21, J.H. Lesher, Xenophanes of Colophon (1992).ECP 570–573, J.H. Lesher; SEP “Xenophanes,” Idem; A.P.D. Mourelatos, “La Terre et les étoiles dans la cosmologie de Xénophane,” in A. Laks and C. Louguet, edd. Qu’est-ce que la Philosophie présocratique? (2002) 331–350; A.P.D. Mourelatos “Xenophanes’ Contribution to the Explanation of the Moon’s Light,” Philosophia 32 (2002) 47–59; Idem, “The Cloud-astrophysics of Xenophanes and Ionian Material Monism,” in Patricia Curd and D.W. Graham, The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy (forthcoming). Patricia CurdXenophilos of Khalkidike¯ (375 – 325 BCE)Musical theorist of the last generation of Pythagoreans, who is cited by diﬀerent sourcesas teacher of A. According to D  L 8.46, he was born inKhalkis of Thrake¯ (whose real existence, however, has been put in doubt by some archae-ologists), and was active, probably in Athens, in the mid-4th c. BCE. According to P7.168, he reached an age of 105 years.KP 5.1421 (#3), R. Engel; NP 12/2.632 (#2), R. Harmon. E. RocconiXenopho¯ n of Athens (400 – 355 BCE)Born ca 430–425 BCE, soldier, mercenary, known especially for his historical writings. Hestudied under So¯crate¯s to whom he dedicated his Apology, Memorabilia, Oeconomicus, andSymposium. Among the Ten Thousand Greeks supporting Cyrus II’s rebellion against hisbrother the Persian king Artaxerxe¯s II, Xenopho¯n commanded the rearguard. Although theGreeks were victorious at Kunaxa (401 BCE), Cyrus was killed, and the mercenaries, without839

P:851

X E N O P H O¯ N ( O F K O¯ S ? )leadership deep in hostile territory, elected new leaders, including Xenopho¯n, and traveledback to Greece. Xenopho¯n was later exiled from Athens for his association with Cyrus, orbecause he fought under the Spartan king Agesilaus against Athens at Koronea (394 BCE).The Spartans gave him property at Skillous, near Olympia in E¯ lis, where he composed hisworks. Xenopho¯n’s Anabasis (“The Expedition” or “The March Up Country”), to whichhe preﬁxed the pseudonym Themistogene¯s of Surakousai for greater credibility, recordsthe expedition of the Ten Thousand and the journey home, Notably, Alexander, during theearly phases of his expedition into Persia, used the Anabasis as a ﬁeld guide. Xenopho¯n’smain historical work is the seven-book Hellenika treating events from 411 to 362, continuingT ’ history, and underscoring Xenopho¯n’s optimal knowledge of military art, hisinterest in prominent personalities, and skill at psychological analysis. Xenopho¯n was par-ticularly interested in analyzing the character traits of leaders, as in the biography of hisfriend the Spartan king Agesilaus, the Cyropaedia and Hiero, and in his reﬂections on theConstitution of Sparta. Moreover his treatises On Horsemanship and The Cavalry General bothaddress military cavalry art. He also composed Hunting with Dogs, and Ways and Meanswherein he addresses economic problems of reorganizing Athenian ﬁnances.M. Sordi, “I caratteri dell’opera storiograﬁca di Senofonte nelle Elleniche,” Athenaeum 28 (1950) 3–53 and 29 (1951) 273–348; É. Delebecque, Essai sur la vie de Xénophon (1957); RE 9A.2 (1967) 1569–2051, H.R. Breitenbach; L. Canfora, Tucidide continuato (1970); C.J. Tuplin, The Failings of Empire. A Reading of Xenophon Hellenica 2.3.11–7.5.27 (1993); J. Dillery, Xenophon and the History of his Times (1995). Cristiano DogniniXenopho¯ n (of Ko¯ s?) (330 – 270 BCE)Greek physician, P’ pupil. (The Xenopho¯n of Ko¯s in D  L2.59 is surely the physician of the emperor Claudius.) We do not know the origin ofPraxagoras’ pupil, although a medieval MS (Laur. Lat. 73.1, f.143V) quotes a “XenophonAlexandrinus” in a list of physicians, after Praxagoras and H , referring perhapsmerely to his place of activity. He studied malign tumors and tumors called terminthoi(O Coll. 44.15 [CMG 6.2.1, p. 132]), and wrote On cancers (ibid. 45.11 [p. 166]).Most peculiarly, in referring to the word theion (divine) in the H C, O S D 1, Xenopho¯n considered somewhat divine the phenomenon ofthe “critical day” of the disease’s evolution and compared it to the Dioskouroi appearingto shipwreck victims (E  fr.33 [p. 108 Nachm.]): the Hippokratic Corpus utterlydenies the divine origin of disease. C A 2.186 (CML 6.1.1, p. 658) men-tions the uterine therapy and ligations for therapy of hemorrhage of a Xenopho¯n (as wellas of D (M.)), whose identity is more doubtful.Steckerl (1958); RE 9A.2 (1967) 2089–2092; F. Kudlien; KP 5.1430–1431, J. Kollesch; NP 12/2.643, V. Nutton. Daniela ManettiXenopho¯ n of Lampsakos (ca 100 – 60 BCE)Greek geographer, author of two lost works on Syria and a periplous which describedcoasts beyond the Mediterranean, of northern and western Europe, and of Africa. Hementioned an enormous island, Balcia, three days’ sail from the Skuthian coast (P4.95): probably Scandinavia. Xenopho¯n’s fragments, as they are preserved for instance in 840

P:852

XOUTHOSPliny, give measurements in days of sail, indicating their navigational origin and purpose.A  M  used Xenopho¯n as a source.NP 12/2.643–644, H.A. Gärtner. Daniela DueckX ⇒ I   KXouthos (450 – 350 BCE)A, Physics 4.9 (216b22–27), cites his clever turn of phrase in his discussion of“micro-voids” interspersed within matter allowing for compression and rarefaction ofmatter yielding to other matter, without which “the universe would billow (kumanei ).” Per-haps of Kroto¯n, if I, VP 267 “Bouthos” should read “Xouthos.” S,ad loc. (CAG 7 [1882] p. 683.24), calls him a Pythagorean.DK 33. GLIM 841

P:853

YYavanes´ vara (149/150 CE)Anonymous author in 149/150 CE of a Sanskrit prose translation of an unidentiﬁed Greek(probably Alexandrian) text on horoscopy, a translation known only from the survivingSanskrit verse version Yavanaja¯taka composed by S in 269/270. The titleYavane´svara then meant literally “lord of the Greeks,” evidently a high position among theGreek residents of western India under the western Ks.atrapa rulers in the S´aka or Skuthiandominion of the area. This Yavanes´vara worked in the reign of Rudrada¯man I (and prob-ably at his court in Ujjayin¯ı, modern Ujjain). His text as known through the Yavanaj¯atakabecame the chief inspiration for Indian horoscopic astrology.CESS A.5.330; Pingree (1978). Kim Plofker and Toke Lindegaard Knudsen 842

P:854

ZZakhalias of Babylo¯ n (ca 120 – 63 BCE?)Babylonian physician, possibly Jewish. P (37.169) cites his views about the medicinaland magical qualities of precious stones, noting that his books were dedicated to “KingMithradates” (probably M  VI). Our Zakhalias may be identical to the other-wise unattested “Zalakhthes” in the summary of A ’ comments on amulets forepilepsy preserved by A  T (1.567 Puschm.); “Zalakhthes” is therecredited with knowledge of the properties of jasper.Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft, ed. A.F. von Pauly, v. 6.2 (1839) 2813, C. Cless; RE 9A.2 (1967) 2210, K. Ziegler; EJ2 13.720–729 at 723, S. Muntner; Stern 1 (1974) 467; M.W. Dickie, “The learned magician and the collection and transmission of magical lore,” in D.R. Jordan et al., edd., World of Ancient Magic (1999) 163–193 at 176. Annette Yoshiko ReedZarathusˇ tra (before ca 600 BCE?)It is problematic if not impossible to construct an historical biography of the founderof Zoroastrianism. Zarathusˇtra’s homeland and dates are deeply debated: traditionallyZarathusˇtra is dated ca late 7th c. BCE. Some scholars, mainly on linguistic grounds, date himto the end of the 2nd millennium BCE. Classical authors called him Zoroástre¯s and consideredhim a magician and expert in astral sciences. According to the scholia to P’s Alcibiades(I.222a), the name should be interpreted as astrothút¯es “sacriﬁcer to the stars”; Dino¯n,H    S (D  L, pr.), and pseudo-Clement (Recogni-tiones, 4.27–29) considered Zoroaster an astrologer. Contrarily, Avestan sources do not conﬁrmthat early Zoroastrians were directly involved in astrology, per se, but refer only to astral con-ceptions and mythological speculations. During the Sasanian period (3rd–6th cc. CE) and afterthe Arab invasion of Iran, some astrological treatises were attributed to -Z.C. Clemen, Fontes Historiae Religionis Persicae (1920) 96; Bidez and Cumont (1938) 2.23–24, 66–67; J. Duchesne-Guillemin, The Western Response to Zoroaster (1958); KP 5.1561–2, W. Röllig; Antonio Panaino, Tisˇtrya (1995); OCD3 1639–1640, H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg; Gh. Gnoli, Zoroaster in History (2001). Antonio PanainoZe¯markhos of Kilikia (565 – 575 CE)Native of Kilikia, magister militum per Orientem. In early August 569, Justin II (565–578) senthim on an embassy to Dizabulos, the khan of the Turks and ruler of Sogdia, accompanying 843

P:855

Z E¯ N A R I O¯ Na returning Turkish embassy under Maniach (Menander Prot., fr.19, FHG 4.227). A fullydetailed report on the journey, lasting two to three years, is preserved in Menander Prot.fr.20–22, FHG 4.227–230. Ze¯markhos had to accompany the Turks on a military campaignagainst Persia. His return journey to Constantinople was long and dangerous; on thisoccasion he also spent some time with the Alans.R. Hennig, “Die Einführung der Seidenraupenzucht ins Byzantinerreich,” ByzZ 33 (1933) 302–305; RE 9A.2 (1967) 2500 (#4), A. Lippold; KP 5 (1975) 1490, Idem; PLRE 3 (1992) 1416–1417; NP 12/2 (2003) 728–729, K.-P. Johne. Andreas KuelzerZe¯nario¯n (50 – 120 CE or 910 – 980 CE)Cast a horoscope whose date computes either to December 22 of 57 CE, or else to December3rd–16th of 911 CE. With the Sun in Sagittarius, Mercury’s given position in Aquariusis impossible, but the actual position is closer to Aquarius in 911 (Capricorn) than in57 (Sagittarius). The name, though typically Byzantine, is attested in the feminine (-ion) from1st c. BCE to 1st c. CE (LGPN 3A.187: Lilybaeum).CCAG 1 (1898) 128–129. PTKZ  ⇒ Z  Ze¯no¯ of Elea (ca 470? – 430? BCE)Perhaps born ca 490, Ze¯no¯ (Ze¯no¯n) was a younger companion and follower of P ,and constructed arguments exploiting conflicts between sensory evidence andclaims supported by reason, with particular emphasis on problems of plurality, space, andtime. He argued against plurality, and that all things are one, despite sensory evidence thatthings are many. Various arguments against plurality (mentioned in P’s Parmenides127d6–128e4) all show that assuming either a plurality of entities or a plurality of predi-cates within a single entity entails logical contradiction. Similarly, Ze¯no¯ argued againstthe possibility of motion. There are no surviving texts of the arguments, but four arereconstructed from A’s discussions in the Physics and further discussions in theancient Aristotelian commentators. Despite our belief (based on sensory experience) thatthings move, Ze¯no¯ argues that this is impossible: motions cannot be begun (the Achillesargument), or, if begun, cannot be completed (the Stadium, also called the Dichotomy).Further, according to “the Moving Blocks,” relative motion entails contradictions, and “theArrow” shows that any motion is indistinguishable from rest. Two other arguments, “theParadox of Place” and “the Millet Seed,” explore common-sense notions of the placewherein a thing rests, and the idea that things are composed of parts. Some ancientthinkers tended to treat Ze¯no¯ as a master of eristic rather than a philosopher raising seriousproblems about the natures of space, time, and the inﬁnite; Aristotle, who called Ze¯no¯ “theFather of Dialectic” (and devoted part of the Physics to a study of Ze¯no¯), was among thoserecognizing his importance. Twentieth-century mathematicians, physicists, and philos-ophers of science have found the study of Ze¯no¯’s arguments fruitful for analyses of space,time, and the inﬁnite.Ed.: DK 29, H.P.D. Lee, Zeno of Elea (1967). 844

P:856

Z E¯ N O D O T O S ( O F M A L L O S ? )G. Vlastos, “Zeno,” in P. Edwards, ed. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) 8.369–379; A. Grünbaum, Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes (1968); W.C. Salmon, Zeno’s Paradoxes (1970); ECP 579–573, Patricia Curd; REP 843–853, S. Makin; R. McKirahan, “Zeno,” in Long (1999) 134–158; R. McKirahan, “Zeno of Elea,” in D.M. Borchert, ed., Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2nd ed. (2005) 9.871–879; SEP “Zeno’s Paradoxes,” N. Huggett; SEP “Zeno of Elea,” John Palmer. Patricia CurdZe¯nodo¯ ros ( ﬂ. 200 BCE?)Geometer whose only known writing, On Isoperimetric Figures, was a study of polygons andpolyhedra, demonstrating various inequalities between polygons of equal perimeter, andpolyhedra of equal surface area, aiming – unsuccessfully – to prove that the circle has agreater area than any polygon of equal perimeter and that the sphere has the correspondingproperty among solids. T   A in his commentary to P’s Almagestreports part of Ze¯nodo¯ros’ mathematical argument as does P in Collection Book 5,without attribution, and the anonymous author of the P  P’S. (The connection to the Almagest is Ptolemy’s statement without proof [1.3] thatthe circle and sphere are the greatest of isoperimetric ﬁgures.) The character of Ze¯nodo¯ros’ mathematics appears to ﬁt the time of A   orsoon after, but a deﬁnite dating to about 200 BCE depends on his identiﬁcation with aZe¯nodo¯ros mentioned twice in the fragmentary anonymous Life of Phil¯onid¯es as an associateof that Epicurean philosopher. Since P  ’ encounters with this man were atAthens and the name Ze¯nodo¯ros was rare except in Attica and the Near East, Ze¯nodo¯rosprobably was Athenian. Ze¯nodo¯ros may also be the “astronomer” mentioned by D in his On Burning Mirrors as having challenged Diokle¯s to solve a problem in mirroroptics, but the name is corrupt in the extant Arabic text.G.J. Toomer, “The Mathematician Zenodoros,” GRBS 13 (1972) 177–192. Alexander JonesZe¯nodotos (Math.) (ca 390 – ca 350 BCE)According to E   R (in P, In Eucl. p. 80.17 Fr.), student of A ,with whom he distinguished theor¯ema from probl¯ema. Cf. his contemporary A.Zhmud (2006: 178–179) identiﬁes Proklos’ source as G not E , and datesZe¯nodotos (with his teacher) to the Hellenistic era.RE 17.2 (1937) 2267–2271 (s.v. Oinopides), K. von Fritz. PTKZe¯nodotos (of Mallos?) (ca 170 – ca 120 BCE?)Scholar who commented on H and A (probably not astronomically), andperhaps identical to Ze¯nodotos the Stoic student of “Diogene¯s” (perhaps D  B ): D  L 7.30.FGrHist 1026 T19; NP 12/2.740 (#3), M.G. Albiani. PTKZ   ⇒ Z  845

P:857

Z E¯ N O¯ N ( M E D. )Ze¯no¯ n (Med.) (ca 200 – 150 BCE?)Physician, perhaps identical to Z    L, wrote on pharmacology andHippokratic lexicography; cited by C 5.pr.1 and G  as exemplary amongHe¯rophileans for pharmacy (Zn.4 von Staden). Participating in the He¯rophileandebate on pulse theory, Ze¯no¯n argued for contraction and dilation of the arteries producingan harmonious sequence, with variation in type of pulses and timing, eﬀecting both equaland unequal beats, analogous with respiration; A criticized the deﬁnition for itsredundancies, and G  noted Ze¯no¯n’s omission of the heart in his discussion of thepulse (Zn.1 von Staden), probably reﬂecting acceptance of B’ deﬁnition of“arterial parts” as including both the arteries and the left ventricle (von Staden 1989:504; Ba.2). Ze¯no¯n attributed the sigla found, by M    S , in MSS of theH  C, E 3, to H  himself. Ze¯no¯n read the symbolsas indicating the diagnosis, the length of the illness, and the outcome (health or death:Zn.5–6 von Staden). A  “B” claimed he could not ﬁnd Ze¯no¯n’s readings inany of the three versions he had examined personally, and further accused Ze¯no¯n ofemending the sigla where conceivable resolutions were lacking (Zn.6 von Staden; cf. He.5).Ze¯no¯n explained the amb¯e of the H C, J as like a door’s bolt pin(Zn.7 von Staden) and explained the kammaron of the H C (Places inMan 27) as what the Dorians in Italy called hemlock (k¯oneion) (Zn.8 von Staden). CA refered to the “cassidony” drink for colon complaints of some Ze¯no¯n, perhapsours (Chron. 4.99 [CML 6.1.2, p. 830]).von Staden (1989) 501–505; OCD3 1635 (#7), Idem; NP 12/2.752 (#9), V. Nutton. GLIMZe¯no¯ n (of Athens?) (ca 80 – 120 CE)Among the guests discussing if food from the sea is better than food from the land inP’s Table Talk 4.4 (667C–669E). Together with K  ( A?), he deemedﬁsh “lighter,” i.e., easier to digest, for sick people (4.4.3, 669C). Uncited elsewhere, he hasbeen identiﬁed with the pharmacologist Ze¯no¯n of Athens contemporary with some teacherof G , according to pseudo-Gale¯n, De medicinis expertis 10 (Chartier 1639: v. 10, p. 568;cf. Wickersheimer 1922).RE 10A (1972) 146 (#14) F. Kudlien; KP 5 (1975) 1506–1507 (#13), J. Kollesch. Alain TouwaideZe¯no¯ n of Kition (ca 305 – ca 263 BCE)Founder of Stoicism. Ze¯no¯n was born ca 335 BCE to a Phoenician family in Cyprus andcame to Athens in 313 BCE. He studied philosophy under Krate¯s the Cynic, P and X  the Academics, and Stilpo¯n the Megarian before he began togive discourses at the so-called Stoa poikil¯e, the painted colonnade which gave Stoicismits name. D  L (7.4) attributes 20 titles to him, none of which survives. Ze¯no¯n’ssystem was to be considerably elaborated by his successors in the school, but the basic andmost fundamental doctrines of Stoicism can often be traced back to Ze¯no¯n. Heemphasized the interdependence of physics, ethics, and logic, although as with later Stoics,846

P:858

Z E¯ N O¯ N O F S I D O¯ Nethics seems to have been his ultimate priority. Ze¯no¯n’s physics emphasized a uniﬁedkosmos whose substance is itself divine. Strict laws of causation meant that the kosmoswas predestined but this did not absolve humans of moral responsibility, as highlighted by astory told in Diogene¯s Laërtios (7.23): Ze¯no¯n was beating a slave for stealing a loaf of bread.When the slave protested (sarcastically) that he was not guilty, for he had been fated to stealthe bread, Ze¯no¯n countered that this was true, as was the fact that the slave was fated also tobe beaten. The kosmos is uniﬁed and ﬁnite, surrounded by void. From the fundamental intercon-nectedness of the kosmos, Ze¯no¯n argued for the eﬃcacy of divination. He is responsiblefor the original Stoic division into active and passive principles as the basis for physicalexplanation, as well as the doctrines of the interrelation of the four Aristotelian elementswith pneuma, and of the periodic conﬂagration of the kosmos.Ed.: SVF 1.1–72.A. Graeser, Zenon von Kition (1975). Daryn LehouxZe¯no¯ n of Laodikeia (250 BCE? – 80 CE)Greek physician, considered He¯rophilean (Kudlien), but without evidence (Kollesch; vonStaden 1989: 504–505, n.19). A, in G  Antid. 2.9 (14.163 K.), quotes hismulti-ingredient theriac compounded from cardamom, herpullos, parsley, bryony root,clover seed, anise, fennel root and seeds, birthwort, bitter vetch, opopanax, in equal meas-ures, beaten individually, mixed and administered with sour wine, then made into 3–obolpills, dried in the shade, one pill given every night in conjunction with a regimen of inducedvomiting. A   P., in Gale¯n Antid. 2.11 (14.171 K.), preserves his treatmentfor hudrophobia, useful against any kind of venomous bite and compounded from muchthe same ingredients. P 10 (CMG 10.1.1, pp.14.25–15.6]) eschews Ze¯no¯n’slengthy antidote, but records his plaster for healing venomous bites. P (22.90) reportsthat a Ze¯no¯n, possibly identiﬁable with our pharmacologist, recommended soncus rootagainst strangury. The Ze¯no¯n who prepared liquid colon remedies (C AChron. 4.99 = CML 6.1.2, p. 830.13–14) may, likewise, be our man.RE 10A (1972) 146 (#13), Fr. Kudlien; KP 5.1506 (#2), J. Kollesch; NP 12/2.754 (#13), V. Nutton. Alain TouwaideZe¯no¯ n of Sido¯ n (130 – 70 BCE)Epicurean philosopher and scholarch at Athens. He lectured, and authored works onmany diﬀerent topics. He criticized the foundations of Euclidean geometry, and arguedwith the Stoics about whether inferences from individual cases can lead to knowledge.None of his writings has survived, but some of the works of his student, P  G, show his inﬂuence, including On Signs and On Plain Speaking.DSB 14.612–613, K. von Fritz; A. Angeli and M. Colaizzo, “I frammenti di Zenone Sidonio,” CrErc 9 (1979) 47–133; OCD3 1635, D. Obbink; ECP 584, D. Clay; NP 12/2.752–753 (#10), M. Erler. Walter G. Englert 847

P:859

Z E¯ N O P H I L O SZe¯nophilos (100 BCE – 360 CE)Physician whose antidote for inﬂamed bladders and kidney stones comprised cassia,sarxiphagos, betonik¯e, kuperos, parsley, kostos, chaste-tree, roasted linseed, malabathron,spikenard, European wild ginger, dittany, laurel-berry, basil- and celery-seed, pine-nut,ginger, and honey, administered with honeyed or golden (khrusattikos) wine: O,Syn. 3.197 (CMG 6.3, p. 116) = A  A 11.13 (p. 610 Cornarius, readingXENOPHILVS ). The name, attested from ca 110 BCE (LGPN 1.199), and cited more fre-quently in the 2nd/3rd cc. CE (LGPN 2.193, 3A.187), is probably not Christian.RE 10A (1972) 220, Fr. Kudlien. GLIMZe¯nothemis (340 – 260 BCE)Wrote a periplous of the known world in elegiacs, of which one distich is quotedby Tzetze¯s, Chil. 7.675–677. He is also cited by P for mineral products (37.34 amber,86–88 Indian sardonyx, 90 Indian onyx, 134 Carmanian ceraunia), and by A, NA17.30 for cattle fed on live ﬁsh. For the rare name, cf. LGPN 1.194 (De¯los, 297 BCE; Samos240–220 BCE).NP 12/2.756–757, E. Bowie. PTKZeuxippos (225 – 175 BCE?)Addressee of A  ’ lost treatises On Numbers and Of Balances (2.216 H.); mentionedin Sand Reckoner (2.236 H.).Netz (1997) #118; Idem, Works of Archimedes (2004) 12. GLIMZeuxis (Empir.) (200 – 100 BCE)Empiricist physician, certainly prior to H    T (G , Hipp. Epid.:CMG 5.10.2.2, p.3). His identiﬁcation with the skeptical philosopher Zeuxis mentioned byD  L 9.106 (implying a date in the 1st c. CE) is groundless. He wrotecommentaries on all treatises of the H C that were regarded as authen-tic (certain: Epid. 2–3, 6, De locis, De oﬀ.med., Prorrh.; doubtful: De hum.), suggesting glosses,variants, and interpretations, and polemizing against previous commentators (He¯rophil-eans, G). He also resumed the controversy over the attribution to H of the marks contained in an Alexandrine copy of Epidem. 3, that had been advanced by theHe¯rophilean Z   and contested by the Empiricists beginning with A  A. Gale¯n knew his commentaries on Epid. 3 and 6: he complained that they werediﬃcult to ﬁnd (CMG 5.10.2, p. 1 = 17A.605 K.).Ed.: Deichgräber (1930) 209 (fragments), 263.RE 10A (1972) 386–387 (#7), F. Kudlien; KP 5.1527 (#2), J. Kollesch; Smith (1979) 219–222; Manetti and Roselli (1994) 1594–1597; OCD3 1639, H. von Staden; NP 12/2.794 (#3), A. Touwaide; Ihm (2002) #264–271. Fabio Stok 848

P:860

Z I¯ G ( RO YA L TA B L E S )Zeuxis “the He¯rophilean” (ca 80 – 10 BCE)S  12.8.20 notes that “. . .in my own time. . .,” a Zeuxis had established a “largeHe¯rophilean teaching center of medicine” at the Temple of Me¯n Karou, located betweenLaodikeia and Karura in Phrugia, western Asia Minor. Strabo¯n continues to say thatA P   succeeded Zeuxis. Kudlien posits a “Zeuxis the Elder fromTaras,” but the evidence is shaky, and a recipe for the treatment of leikhe¯n ascribed toZeuxis (G , CMLoc 5.3 [12.834 K.]) probably belongs to the homonymous Empiricistphysician, not the He¯rophilean. Nonetheless, a Zeuxis was named on two bronze coinsissued in Laodikeia, after 27 BCE (the obverse carries Sebastos, Greek for Augustus), one ofwhich displays a caduceus on the reverse. Nothing is known regarding Zeuxis’ medicalcontributions, but one can suppose that his instruction at Me¯n Karou included such typicalHe¯rophilean topics as pulse lore, obstetrics and gynecology, and the physiology ofreproduction.RE 10A (1972) 387, Fr. Kudlien; J. Benedum, “Zeuxis Philalethes und die Schule der Herophileer in Menos Kome,” Gesnerus 31 (1974) 221–236; RE S.15 (1978) 306–308, idem [“Philalethes”]; von Staden (1989) 529–531; Dueck (2000) 142. John ScarboroughZ ı¯g (Royal Tables) (450, 555/556, and ca 635 – 650 CE)The Pahlavi Z¯ıg ¯ı Sˇahrya¯r¯an (Arabic: Z¯ıˇj al-sˇa¯h), three diﬀerent versions of the Sasanianroyal astronomical tables. The ﬁrst was calculated in 450, according to Ibn Yu¯ nis, underYezdegird II (438–457 CE). Its mathematical parameters were probably derived from theSanskrit P  . Al-Ha¯sˇim¯ı (Kit¯ab al-z¯ıj¯at, ca 875) preserves a statement of Ma¯sˇa¯ alla¯h that King XusrawI ordered an astronomical meeting, where the Pahlavi version of P’s Syntaxiswas compared with the Pahlavi translation of the Old Su¯ryasiddh¯anta; this second set of tableswas named Z¯ıg ¯ı Arkand (probably the Pahlavi translation of Sanskrit aharga.na: “series ofdays, calculated term”). Indian parameters were curiously preferred to the Ptolemaic ones.Al-B¯ıru¯ n¯ı in his al-Q¯an¯un al-Mas ¯ud¯ı (3.1473–1474) conﬁrms that the meeting occurred in the25th year of Xusraw (555–556). Ma¯sˇa¯ alla¯h wrote that, under Yezdegird III (632–652), a third set of tables was compiled.This Z¯ıg was named “Trifold,” because it utilized only three kardaja (Sanskrit kramajy¯a: “out-stretched cord, sinus, etc.”). Manusˇˇcihr’s second Epistle (2.2.9–11, a 9th c. Pahlavi text),conﬁrms the promiscuous use of diﬀerent astronomical tables, such as the Z¯ıg of the PersianKing (or Z¯ıg ¯ı Sˇahry¯ar¯an), the Z¯ıg of the Indians (or Z¯ıg ¯ı Hindu¯g), and the Z¯ıg of Ptolemy (or Z¯ıg ¯ıPtalamaius). In particular the last redaction of the Sasanian Z¯ıg had an enormous impact onsubsequent sets of astronomical tables calculated by Arabo-Islamic and mediaevalastronomers.Bailey (1943; 1971) 80; al-B¯ıru¯ n¯ı, Kit¯ab al-Q¯anu¯n al-Mas u¯d¯ı 3 vv. (1954–1956); E.S. Kennedy, A Survey of Islamic Astronomical Tables (1956); GAS 6 (1978) 106–111, 115 and 7 (1979) 102–108; ‘Al¯ı b. S. al- Ha¯shim¯ı, The Book of the Reasons behind Astronomical Tables (Kita¯b ﬁ ‘¯ılal al-z¯ıj¯at): translation by F.I. Haddad and E.S. Kennedy and a commentary by D.E. Pingree and E.S. Kennedy (1981), 95–95R, 212–213; Pingree (1989) 238–239; Antonio Panaino, Tessere il Cielo (1998). Antonio Panaino 849

P:861

Z O¯ I L O S ( O F C Y P RU S ? )Zo¯ ilos (of Cyprus?) (ca 305 BCE)According to P, D¯em¯etrios 21.4–5, an engineer who made in Cyprus two th¯orakes ofextraordinarily hard steel (sid¯eroi ).(*) PTKZo¯ ilos of Macedon (15 – 75 CE)Although P 1.ind.12–13 cites him as an authority on trees, A, in G CMLoc 3.1 (12.632–633 K.), cites him as an oculist, and records an earache remedy, whereasA   P., in Gale¯n CMLoc 4.7, cites several collyria, including one “fromP” (12.752), a “green” (12.763–764), and the Nardinon (12.771–772), whichremained in use throughout antiquity: C F 29.13 (CUF, p. 63), A A 7.117 (CMG 8.2, pp. 392–393), and A  T (2.39–41 Puschm.).Besides nard, it contained acacia, aloes, antimony, calamine, saﬀron, ginger, malabath-ron, myrrh, opium, psimuthion, etc., in rainwater. Askle¯piade¯s, in Gale¯n Antid. 2.12(14.178–179), furthermore records his remedy for scorpion stings, also used by E-  C.NP 12/2.826 (#7), V. Nutton. PTKZo¯ puros (Geog.) (250 – 120 BCE)Wrote a geographical work, On Rivers, cited by the grammarian Harpokratio¯n and byA  M  in S  B. Historical fragments of variouskinds are attributed to the common name Zo¯puros: I   “L,” Mens. 4.150 ( p. 168Wu.) on early Rome, and Marcellinus, Vit. Thuc. on T’ death.NP 12/2.836 (#7), H.A. Gärtner. PTKZo¯ puros (Physiogn.) (440 – 400 BCE?)Physiognomist known only from an anecdote about assessing So¯crate¯s by physiognomicinference: “Stupid is So¯crate¯s and dull, because he has no hollows at the joint of thecollarbones, but these parts are blocked and stopped up; besides, he is a womanizer.” At theaudience’s laughter, So¯crate¯s defended Zo¯puros’ analysis, saying that this was indeed hisnatural inclination, but that by his intellect he had rid himself of it (C de Fato 10; cf.Tusc. 4.80). This anecdote presumably stems from the dialogue Z¯opuros by Phaido¯n of E¯ lis(D  L 2.105) and probably served to illustrate the current theme inSocratic writings about the discrepancy between the appearance of the body and the natureof the soul (cf. A ). Another version of the anecdote calls Zo¯puros a “wise manfrom Syria” and has him prophesy an unnatural death to So¯crate¯s (D.L. 2.45).RE 10A (1972) 768–769 (#3), K. Ziegler; SSR 1.491–492 (Phaedon frr.8–11) and 4.115–127; G. Boys- Stone, “Physiognomy and Ancient Psychological Theory. I. The Circle of Socrates (1): Phaedo of Elis,” in Swain (2007) 22–33. Sabine Vogt 850

P:862

ZOROASTER, PSEUDOZo¯ puros of Alexandria (130 – 70 BCE)Surgeon and pharmacologist, active in Alexandria, teacher of the Empiricist A -  K (whence we infer that he belonged to the Empiricist “school”). He kept upa correspondence with M  VI: he sent the king an antidote suggesting that hetry it on some condemned men (G  Antid. 2.8 [14.150 K.]; S L 169).He prepared an antidote, called Ambrosia, for one Ptolemy, perhaps XII Aulete¯s (Gale¯n Antid.2.17 [14.205 K.]; C 5.23.2). Further pharmaceutical prescriptions, probably from awork entitled On simple remedies, are attested by P (24.87), O (several remed-ies), A  A, and D . The remedy called zopyrium from the name ofits inventor, mentioned by C A Acute 3.47 (CML 6.1, p. 320), Chron. 2.210,3.58, 5.118 (pp. 672, 712–714, 924), is perhaps named after him.Ed.: Deichgräber (1930) 21, 205–206 (fragments), 261–262.RE 10A (1972) 771–772 (#15), J. Kollesch; NP 12/2.836 (#8), V. Nutton; AML 938–939, G. Marasco. Fabio StokZo¯ puros of Gortuna (ca 20 – 55 CE)Physician, S L’ guest-friend during Zo¯puros’ ambassadorship to Rome(Comp. 172). Scribonius included one of Zo¯puros’ antidotes, now lost (Comp. 169, and index).RE 10A (1972) 772 (#17), J. Kollesch. GLIMZo¯ puros of Taras (220 – 210 BCE?)B  records two tension-catapults constructed by Zo¯puros, whom Diels (1930: 22–23)identiﬁed with an otherwise unknown Pythagorean mentioned by I (VP 267),and dated to ca 360 BCE. But the name is very common (LGPN ), and there is no need tomake the identiﬁcation. Sometime before 170 BCE, at Mile¯tos, Zo¯puros designed a mid-sized arrow-shooter (gastraphet¯es: Bito¯n pp. 61–64), perhaps in preparation for an attackexpected from Attalos I in 218 BCE (P 5.77.2–9). Zo¯puros also designed at ItalianCumae a smaller device, the “mountain gastraphet¯es” (Bito¯n, pp. 65–67), probably for itsemergency defense against Hannibal in 215 BCE (Livy 23.35–37). Cf. H   T (M.), and other contemporary mechanics such as N , P-  R, P   B, and T   A, whoinnovatively redeployed old technology.RE S.15 (1978) 1556 (#19a), E. Fischer. PTKZoroaster, pseudo (500 – 300 BCE)Legendary character credited spuriously with numerous treatises, some of which treatedastrology, because of the renown of the Iranian Magi, frequently associated or confusedwith the Chaldaeans. According to P (7.72) “magic” originated from Zoroaster’s medi-cine. The legend of Zoroaster was developed in the Iranian (and later Islamic) framework,as well as among Classical and Western authors: for example the late-Byzantine authorPle¯tho¯n attributed the Oracula Chaldaica to Zoroaster. Various astrological works in Arabic were attributed to Zoroaster. E.g., an astrological 851

P:863

Z O¯ S I M O S ( M E D. )compilation of H origin was translated into Pahlavi at the time of Xusraw I; theGreeks, and later the Arabs (and Persians), ascribed it to Zoroaster. This text was correctedand revised by Ma¯ha¯nkard ca 637, then translated into Arabic by Sa ¯ıd ibn Xura¯sa¯nxurrah(ca 747/754) as Kit¯ab al-mawa¯l¯ıd. This Arabic text, incorporating many Pahlavi terms andloanwords, reveals a Greek foundation, intermingled with Indian and Iranian traditionsand doctrines, although some elements could show a H. arra¯nian inﬂuence. Consequently,Pingree suspects that a H. arra¯nian native composed the Pahlavi version from a Greekoriginal of the 3rd c. CE, which Ma¯ha¯nkard deeply revised. Theophilos of Edessa (8th c.) read and translated Sasanian astrological material (whetherin Pahlavi, Arabic, Syrian, or Greek), e.g., letters attributed to Zoroaster.C. Clemen, Fontes Historiae Religionis Persicae (1920); V. Stegemann, “Astrologische Zarathustra- Fragmente bei den arabischen Astrologen Abu¯ l H. asan. Al¯ı b. ab¯ı r-Rig˘a¯l (11. Jh.),” Orientalia ns 6 (1937) 317–336; D.E. Pingree, The Thousands of Abu¯ Ma shar (1968) 7, 10, 22, 130; Idem (1978) 445; GAS 7 (1979) 81–86; C.M. Woodhouse, George Gemistos Plethon (1986); Pingree (1989) 227–239; P. Kunitzsch, “The Chapter on the Fixed Stars in Zara¯dusht’s Kit¯ab al-mawa¯l¯ıd,” Zeitschrift für Geschichte der arabisch-islamischen Wissenschaften 8 (1993) 241–249; Antonio Panaino, “Sopravvivenze del culto iranico della stella Sirio nel Kit¯ab al-mawa¯l¯ıd di Zara¯dusˇt ed altre questioni di uranograﬁa sasanide,” in E. Acquaro, ed., Alle soglie della Classicità. Il Mediterraneo tra tradizione e innovazione. Studi in onore di S. Moscati (1996) 1.343–354. Antonio PanainoZo¯ simos (Med.) (10 BCE – 95 CE)A   P., in G  CMLoc 4.8 (12.753 K.), records his collyrium, com-pounded from calamine roasted and quenched in Italian wine, plus acacia, aloes,antimony, copper oxide, saﬀron, myrrh, Indian nard, and opium, in gum and rainwater.O, Ecl. Med. 69.6 (CMG 6.2.2, p. 232), records his ointment for tremors, acarefully prepared mixture of euphorbia (cf. I), marsh-salt (D  5.119),pine-resin, natron, and opopanax, in olive oil and beeswax; the recipe is praised andrepeated by P  A, 3.21 (CMG 9.1, p. 170), 7.19.16 (CMG 9.2, p. 378).RE 10A (1972) 790 (#5), Fr. Kudlien. PTKZo¯ simos of Pano¯ polis (ca 250 – 300 CE)Earliest Hellenistic alchemist who wrote without a pseudonym and whose writings survivein any appreciable number. He was a proliﬁc commentator on the works of previousalchemists and in his writings are found a blend of practical laboratory instructions, loreconcerning the (pseudo-)history and mythology of alchemy and mystical and religiousspeculations of a Gnostic and Hermetic character. He was born at Pano¯polis in theThe¯baïd region of Upper Egypt and was, perhaps, resident at Alexandria. He composed alarge number of alchemical treatises, many of which addressed to T, and it isfrom these treatises that we have much of our knowledge of the other early alchemists andtheir works. Despite his fame and prominent position in alchemical history, almost nothingis known about his life and because of the allegorical and secretive style of the alchemists,little can be said with certainty about his alchemical doctrines. Pho¯tios calls him a The¯ban of Pano¯polis and says that his writings were discussed in a work,of unknown title and author, which tried to prove that pagan intellectuals of all lands 852

P:864

Z O¯ S I M O S O F PA N O¯ P O L I Sproclaimed Christian dogma in advance (Bibl. 170). The Souda’s short entry on Zo¯simos(Z-168) calls him a philosopher of Alexandria, perhaps indicating, against the general opin-ion that he was a Pano¯polite, that he was a resident of the me¯tropolis. The Souda says thatZo¯simos wrote chemical works in 28 (sic) books, arranged alphabetically, addressed to his“sister” Theosebeia, and called by some the Kheirokm¯eta (Things Wrought By Hand; elsewhereKheirotm¯eta). Although Zo¯simos himself mentions a work of his thus titled and addressed toTheosebeia (Mertens 1995, §4.2), and treatises entitled with letters of the alphabet surviveand are referred to in his extant works, it is diﬃcult to judge which, if any, of these texts werepart of the Kheirokm¯eta. Finally, the Souda says that he wrote a biography of P, entirely lost. The date of Zo¯simos’s lifetime is broadly bounded by two points: a) his citation of IA (CAAG 2.169) provides a terminus post quem in the ﬁrst half of the 3rd c. CE,while b) his reference to the Serapeion at Alexandria as still existent (Mertens 1995, §1.8)allows a terminus ante quem at the destruction of that temple in 391 CE. Thus, most scholarsdate him to the late 3rd or early 4th c., although Hammer Jensen (1921: 99) dated him toca 500 CE. Letrouit (1995: 46) would tighten these boundaries, noting that Zo¯simos’ veiledanti-Manichaean polemic (Mertens 1995, §1.14) would only have been appropriate betweenthe introduction of Manichaeism into Egypt (ca 268 CE) and the death of Mani (278 CE). Zo¯simos was a fervent follower of M whose descriptions of furnaces and otherchemical apparatus he elaborates and whose alchemical maxims he preserves (Mertens1995: -). Likewise he followed H  T, A ,-D  and other early alchemical authorities. Aside from discussions ofearlier alchemical works and their instruments, ingredients and procedures, Zo¯simos’ writ-ings also occasionally took the form of allegorical dream-visions (Mertens 1995, §10–12),discussions of material similar to that found in the Corpus Hermeticum (e.g. in Mertens 1995,§1) and spiritual advice to Theosebeia (Festugière 1950: 366–368). M. Berthelot and C. E. Ruelle (CAAG 2.107–252) edited his extant Greek works, but theinclusion in this edition of texts full of later interpolations, texts that are in fact by laterauthors merely citing Zo¯simos, as well as numerous errors due to the obscurity of thesubject matter and problems surrounding the manuscript tradition, have rendered theedition untrustworthy. Mertens is re-editing Zo¯simos’ Greek works; see also Letrouit (1995:22–37) for a list of his known Greek works and discussion of those falsely attributed to himin the CAAG. Texts attributed to Zo¯simos are extant in Syriac (partial paraphrased translation inBerthelot and Duval 1893: 203–266) and Arabic, much of which appears to be authenticand some of which, in the case of the Arabic, are translations of extant Greek texts (Hallum2008: 114–192). However, the gnomic sayings preserved in early Arabic literature and men-tioned by Ullmann (1972: 160–161) do not derive from Zo¯simos (Hallum 2008: 34–87).Ed.: Mertens (1995) 1–49.M. Berthelot and R. Duval, La Chimie au moyen âge 2: L’achimie Syriaque (1893); I. Hammer Jensen, Die älteste Alchymie (1921); DSB 14.631–632, M. Plessner; M. Mertens, “Project for a New Edition of Zosimus of Panopolis,” in Z.R.W.M. von Martels, ed., Alchemy Revisited (1990) 121–126; Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism 2 (2005) 1183–1186, A. de Jong; NDSB 7.405–408, M. Mertens; Bink Hallum, Zosimus Arabus: the Arabic/Islamic Reception of Zosimos of Panopolis (Diss. London, 2008). Bink Hallum 853

P:866

GAZETTEERWe list here all 290 or more sites and all 35 or more regions from which ca 1000 ancient scientists areattested or considered to have originated (when two or three homonyms came from the same place, that ismarked with a parenthetical Arabic numeral “2” or “3” – see Alexandria, e.g.). A few other sites mentionedin the entries are also included. Identiﬁcations of ancient with modern sites are often controversial, and wehave simply listed what we believe to be the scholarly consensus (indicating disagreements where we foundthem); a few sites have not yet been located. Because modern names are subject to change, we have given thelatitude and longitude of each site. Moreover, about one tenth of the sites are ambiguous (marked by %),since two or more by the same name existed: often such sites were distinguished in antiquity by some epithet orlocalization (which may nevertheless have been lost in transmission), the oldest or largest site being sometimesunmarked: see esp. Antioch, Apameia, H¯erakleia, Laodikeia, and Neapolis. In some cases, disambiguationis not certain, and we index such entries ﬁrst, indicating the possibilities. Finally, where the attribution of aplace of origin to one of the scientists is itself uncertain, the scientist’s name is marked with “(?)”. Notes1) Regions are underlined, and include a list of their cities in this gazetteer, plus a list of scientists from that region for whom no city is known. (Suﬃciently small islands are considered sites.)2) The historical sketches cover the period represented by the relevant entries; thus the later history of, e.g., Arados, Gad¯es, Kn¯ossos, and Nola is omitted.3) Certain turning points are emphasized: foundation, autonomy or its loss, conquests by non-Greeks (esp. by Rome), and raids in the 3rd c. by the Goths (256–277: see Argos, Boio¯tia, Ephesos, Kilikia, Nikaia (Bithunia), Nikome¯deia, Pergamon, Side¯, and Trapezous), or Heruli (267: see Athens, Buzantion, Corinth, and Sparta), and invasions by the Vandals in the early 5th c. (Burdigala, E¯peiros, Hispalis, and esp. Africa and Mauretania, within which see Caesarea, Carthage, Cirta, Hippo Regius, and Sicca Veneria).Abde¯ra (mod. Avdira; 40˚57’ N, 24˚59’ E): coastal city of Thrake¯ opposite Thasos,founded mid-7th c. BCE from Klazomenai, augmented with settlers from Teo¯ s in 544BCE (H  1.168), allied with Athens in the 5th c. BCE, sacked in 350 BCE (byPhilip II of Macedon) and 170 BCE (by Eumene¯s II of Pergamon); small thereafter. PECS3–4, D. Lazarides; OCD3 1, J.M.R. Cormack and N.G.L. Hammond; BAGRW 51-D3; BNP1 (2002) 16 (#1), I. von Bredow. B , D , D , H, L, P .Abudos (mod. Mal Tepe near Naara Point; 40˚12’ N, 26˚23’ E): Musian city on theHellespont, between Sigeion and Lampsakos, sacked by Philip V of Macedon 855

P:867

GAZETTEER(P , Book 16, frr.29–34), and made a free city by Rome (Livy 33.30). PECS 5, G.E.Bean; OCD3 1–2, St. Mitchell; BAGRW 51-G4; BNP 1 (2002) 38 (#1), E. Schwertheim.(Contrast the Egyptian homonym, BAGRW 77-F4.) A , I .Africa: the northern portion of the modern African continent excepting Egypt, i.e., thecoastal region from the western edge of the Nile Delta to Cape Delgado; later the Romanprovince Africa (initially approximately modern Tunisia and eastern coastal Algeria, laterexpanded eastwards and westwards), whose capital was Utica. Sometimes distinguishedfrom, or at other times including, Libya and Mauretania. Taken by the Vandals 430 CE;retaken by Belisarius for Buzantion 534 CE. OCD3 33, J.M. Reynolds; BNP 1 (2002) 291–300, W. Huß et al. Sites: Auzia, Caesarea (Mauretania), Carthage, Cirta, Hippo Regius, Kure¯ne¯, Madaurus, Sicca Veneria, Utica. People: M V, M (?), M, M/M (?), P, M A T (?).Agurion (mod. Agira; 37˚39’ N, 14˚31’ E): inland city of Sicily west of Centuripae,much built up by Timoleo¯n ca 335 BCE. PECS 18–19, M. Bell; BAGRW 47-F3; BNP 1 (2002)398, G. Makris. D .% Aigai (mod. Yuntdag˘ıköseler; 38˚51’ N, 27˚12’ E): east of Kume¯ and south ofPergamon, which controlled Aigai from 218 BCE; ravaged by Prousias II (ca 155 BCE).PECS 19, G.E. Bean; OCD3 16, N.G.L. Hammond; BAGRW 56-E4. Several homonymoussites exist, cf. S  B, s.v., from one of which Dionusios may have come:esp. (A) in Macedon (mod. Vergina, BAGRW 50-B4, small after 168 BCE; gone after 1st c.CE); (B) on Euboia (mod. Politika Kafkala, BAGRW 55-F3); (C) the Peloponnesian Aigai(mod. Akrata, BAGRW 58-C1); and (D) Aigai of Kilikia, mod. Yumurtalık, BAGRW 67-B3). D (?), P .Aigina (mod. Aigina; 37˚45’ N, 23˚20’ E): island, maritime trade center (whose monetaryand metrological system were standards in commerce) in the 7th–6th cc. BCE; opposedand ﬁnally overwhelmed by neighboring Athens 488–431 BCE. Prosperous from Hellenisticto early Byzantine times. PECS 19–21, B. Conticello; OCD3 17, S. Hornblower; BAGRW58-E2; BNP 1 (2002) 192–194, H. Kalcyk. P, P .Aizanoi (mod. Çavdarhisar; 39˚12’ N, 29˚37’ E): well east of Pergamon, and well southof Prousias, in Phrugia; 184 BCE taken by Eumene¯s II of Pergamon (from Prousias I ofBithunia); then under Rome from 133 BCE. Prosperous esp. in the 2nd c. CE. Strabo¯n12.8.11; RE 1.1 (1893) 1131–1132, G. Hirschfeld; PECS 16, R. Naumann; BAGRW 62-C3. A.Akhmim ⇒ Pano¯ polisAkragas (mod. Agrigento; 37˚19’ N, 13˚35’ E): founded on south-west coast of Sicilyca 582 BCE from Gela, prosperous and democratic in the 5th c. BCE; sacked by Carthagein 406 BCE. Restored by Timoleo¯n ca 335 BCE; taken by Rome in 210 BCE, who enslavedthe population, and resettled the city ca 195 BCE with Sicani. Plundered by Verres, 73–71BCE. PECS 23–26, P. Orlandini; OCD3 9, A.G. Woodhead and R.J.A. Wilson; BAGRW47-D4; BNP 1 (2002) 110–111, G. Manganaro. 856

P:946

G L O S S A RY Greek codices of Dioskouride¯s have been traditionally evaluated on the basis of theirantiquity and artistic quality (hence the focus on the Vienna codex), but can be approachedmore appropriately from scientiﬁc and iconic viewpoints, with due consideration of Arabiccopies. Possibly the most ancient set of pictures is that of MS Paris, BNF, graecus 2179(9th c., southern Italy or Syria-Palestine), to which the early 13th c. codices of Istanbul,Suleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Ayasoﬁa 3702 and 3703 are very close (Touwaide). Thoughrelatively recent, the latter two probably reproduced a 9th c. model that, in turn, copiedcarefully the 9th c. or even earlier Greek codex used to translate Dioskouride¯s’ treatise intoArabic. None of these three MSS is complete. The Vienna codex is usually paired with the parchment MS of Naples, Biblioteca Nazi-onale, ex Vindobonensis graecus 1 (7th c.). This codex presents the text in the layout ofpapyrus rolls, i.e., in two columns on the pages, and illustrations atop the columns. It istherefore deemed a close copy of the most ancient form of De materia medica illustrations.The Vienna and Naples MSS are traditionally considered copies of the same ancestor,which, given the realistic aspect of the pictures in the Vienna and Naples books, is believedclosest to the most ancient form of De materia medica illustrations. Nevertheless, a systematiccomparison of these two with all other illustrated MSS suggests their common modelmight have reinterpreted in a realistic way such pictures as those of Paris graecus 2179, asdid also the Vienna codex thus adding a further layer of realism. (Their naturalism prob-ably explains why the Vienna representations are often considered close to the originalform.) This set of pictures, too, is incomplete, as the text of the two MSS is a selection fromDioskouride¯s. Later MSS generally reproduced the illustrations of the two groups above more or lessdeftly and can be divided into two major categories, for each of which the major items aregiven. The New York and Athos Dioskouride¯s (respectively New York, Pierpont Library, M652, 10th c., and Athos, Megisti Lavra, Ω 75, 11th c.) reproduce the text and the pictures ofthe Vienna-Naples group. However, they also add the text missing in these two codices,taking it from the full recension (represented by Paris graecus 2179). The picturesaccompanying these parts of the text in the New York and Athos volumes do not corres-pond to those in the Paris codex, and seem to have been created by the artists of the twoMSS, who probably lacked models. While the newly created tables in the New York codexare highly schematic, those of the Athos are much more realistic, and also include easterndrugs missing not only in the Vienna and Naples volumes, but also in the New York codex.Signiﬁcantly, one of these illustrations corresponds closely to its equivalent in an Arabiccopy of Dioskouride¯s. The second category is formed of late illustrated Dioskouride¯s MSS, all of which descendfrom the Parisinus graecus 2183 (mid-14th c.), wherein the illustrations of several models havebeen meshed, just as the text itself, which results from the collation of all previous versionsof Dioskouride¯s’ Materia medica. This was the set of illustrations that was ﬁrst known in theRenaissance.A.-L. Millin, “Observations Sur les Manuscrits de Dioscorides qui sont conservés à la Biblio- thèque nationale,” Magasin Encyclopédique 2 (1802) 152–162; L. Choulant, “Ueber die Handschriften des Dioskorides,” Archiv für die zeichnenden Künste 1 (1855) 56–62; A. de Premerstein, C. Wessely, and I. Mantuani, De codicis Dioscuridei Aniciae Iulianae, nunc Vindobonensis Med. Gr. 1 historia, forma, scriptura, picturis (1906); E. Grube, “Materialen zum Dioscurides Arabicus,” in Aus der Welt der Islamischen Kunst: Festschrift für Ernst Kühnel (1959) 935

P:947

G L O S S A RY163–194; H. Grabe-Alpers, Spätantike Bilder aus der Welt des Arztes: Medizinische Bilderhand-schriften der Spätantike und ihre mittelalterliche Überlieferung (1977); Alain Touwaide, Farmacopeaaraba medievale: Codice Ayasoﬁa 3703, 4 vv. (1992–1993); M. Collins, Medieval Herbals: TheIllustrative Traditions (2000). Alain Touwaide 936

P:948

TIME-LINE1 Most (97%) of the entries possess a date-range, either the termini post and ante of actual working lifespan (e.g., Aristotle), or else the termini post and ante within which the author was active or the work created (e.g., the “Anonymous Londiniensis” here ﬁled as “Londiniensis medicus”). There are 30 entries for which only one terminus is provided; and 12 entries for which no date at all is given (these are listed after the “Time-Line”). Moreover, 18 entries whose date-range (or akm¯e) places them after our terminus of 650 , but included in EANS either because previously assigned to our period or else helpful to clarify other entries, are also placed after the “Time-Line.”2 We eschew as far as possible the ill-deﬁned concept of the “akm¯e” introduced by Apollodo¯ros of Athens (and Latinized by Jerome as “ﬂoruit ”), although in 70 cases where we have but one date that is all we can give (e.g., Aristo¯n of Keo¯s, Arkhagathos, Astrologos of 379, etc.). Some of those demonstrate the defect of using a ﬂoruit, since the sole date known is the death-date (e.g., Aemilius Macer, Ploutarkhos of Athens, and Theaite¯tos).3 Note that the dates given for papyri are usually the papyrological date, not the date of the work; but see P. Berol. 9782, P. Hibeh 1.27, P. Hibeh 2.187, P. Oxy. 3.470, P. Oxy. 13.1609, and P. Parisinus graecus 1.4 About half the entries have date-ranges much wider than the “maximum likely” working lifetime (which we take to be 50 years); these are placed in the right-hand column of the “Time-Line.” However, 33 of the 1,014 entries with a “wide” date-range represent a known actual working lifetime, and those are treated as (i.e., categorized with) the other 962 that have a narrow range or an akm¯e: Alexander of Tralleis, Anaxagoras, Anthe¯mios, Antisthene¯s of Athens, Antonius Castor, Arkhelaos of Kap- padokia, Ausonius, Cornelius Nepos, Damaskios, De¯mokritos of Abde¯ra, Diodo¯ros of Sicily, Gale¯n, Gorgias of Leontinoi, Hiero¯n II, Hiero¯numos of Kardia, Hippokrate¯s of Ko¯s, Io¯anne¯s of Alexandria (Philoponos), Kleanthe¯s, Luko¯n of Troas, Lusimakhos of Macedon, Mithradate¯s VI, Polemo¯n of Athens, Polubios, Poseido¯nios of Apameia, Proklos of Lukia, Cassiodorus Senator, Strabo¯n, Terentius Varro of Reate, Theophras- tos, Timaios of Tauromenion, Xenarkhos, Xenokrate¯s of Khalke¯do¯n, Xenophane¯s.5 In addition to the exclusions noted in # 1 above (entries with unknown, late, or partial date-ranges), 61 entries of the remaining 981 “wide” entries are so uncertainly dated, i.e., have termini so wide (525 years or more), that they cannot be meaningfully included in the “Time-Line” and are also listed afterwards.6 In grouping the 995 net total “narrow” entries into 37 clusters of 35 years each (a notional “generation”), as well as in grouping the 920 net total “wide” entries into 937

P:949

TIME-LINE 14 clusters of 105 years, we are well-aware of the “sometimes-deceptive eﬀects of aggregation” (E.R. Tufte, Visual explanations: images and quantities, evidence and narrative [1997] 35) – increments much smaller could cause possibly-misleading multiplication of the names, whereas increments much larger might falsely suggest synchronizations.7 Four encyclopedia lemmata generate multiple entries in this index, either because they represent multiple authors or works: Apollo¯nios Biblas and Son (two narrow); Aristio¯n (Mech.) (one narrow, one wide); and Z¯ıg (two akm¯e, one narrow), or else because two disjoint date-ranges are suggested: Komerios (two wide); see also Hermolaos (Geog.) and Ze¯nario¯n, for which two disjoint date-ranges are suggested, with the later one being after our terminus.8 Finally, two kinds of entries are not indexed here at all: a eight on schools or collections, which extend over many centuries, and represent no single work: Arabic Translations; Aristotelian Corpus in Pahlavi; Babylonian Astronomy; Demotic Texts; Hellenizing School (Armenian); Hippokratic Corpus in Pahlavi; Pahlavi translations; and “Papyri” (the entry introducing all the individual papyrological entries). b four non-existent people: Sextus of Apollo¯nia, Salimachus, Silimachus, and So¯sandros (Vet.); moreover, Askle¯piade¯s Titiensis and Auidianus should perhaps be likewise omitted. Number of scientists (with “narrow” date-ranges) per generationAll entries with “narrow” date-ranges are plotted above; the smaller ﬂuctuations may not besigniﬁcant, but the large rise (500  to 330 ) and the high level (through ca 100 )surely are, as is also the precipitous fall after Hadrian (ca 140 ). (The “late-Hellenistic”dip, of the 2nd c. , may be signiﬁcant.) Below we also plot all the entries with “wide” 938

P:950

TIME-LINEranges, where the counts per “long” century (105 years) are weighted (lower for widerranges): Number of scientists (with “wide” date-ranges) per century The same general trend can be observed, a strong rise from ca 500 , a high level fromca 300  to ca 100 , and a precipitous drop ca 150 . (In principle one could combinethese two graphs, but suﬃcient complexities would arise regarding the widths of the inter-vals, and no signiﬁcant new results would be expected.) As argued in the Introduction, pp. 7–8,the decline in science around 150  was due to a shift of the political paradigm, thecentralization of power and the loss of autonomy (cf. also P.T. Keyser, “Roman Science,” inA. Barchiesi and W. Scheidel, Oxford Handbook of Roman Studies [2008: forthcoming]). Thisshift is from what Jane Jacobs, Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations ofCommerce and Politics (1992), has called the “commercial” syndrome to the “extractive” syn-drome. The latter is characterized by adherence to tradition, respect for hierarchy, honor,loyalty, obedience, and ostentatious acts of patronage, a predilection for military prowessand solutions, and rejection of investment and trade. In contrast the “commercial” syn-drome encourages trade and investment, but eschews force, values thrift and industry, andrespects invention, dissent, honesty, and cooperation. Thus, one expects to ﬁnd evidenceof a signiﬁcant decline in trade around 150 , and indeed shipwreck evidence stronglyconﬁrms that: A.J. Parker, Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces (1992)ﬁg. 3 and 5, pp. 549 and 551; data pp. 10–14. The table on the following pages (940–986) shows the scientists whose date-ranges areplotted in the two graphs above: narrow date-ranges on the left and wide date-ranges on theright. 939

P:951

T I M E - L I N E ( 7 5 0 – 4 3 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:750–700 610–575  Homer 820–715  He¯siod575–540  715–610  Epimenide¯s,540–505  Glaukos of Khios, Anaximandros, 610–505  He¯siod505–470  Mamerkos 505–400  De¯mokede¯s of (9) Anaximandros, Kroto¯n, Epimenide¯s,470–435  Anaximene¯s, Eupalinos, Glaukos of Khios, Euthumene¯s, Kleostratos, Mandrolutos, Khersiphro¯n, Mamerkos, Massiliot Periplous, Metagene¯s, Pherekude¯s, Pythagoras, Thale¯s, Rhoikos Theodo¯ros of Samos (14) Anaximene¯s, Eupalinos, Euthumene¯s, Abas, Alkamene¯s, Hekataios of Mile¯tos, Andro¯n (Math), He¯rakleitos of Ephesos, Apollodo¯ros of Le¯mnos, Himilko¯n, Hippasos, Bako¯ris of Rhodes, Khersiphro¯n, Mandrokle¯s, De¯mokede¯s of Kroto¯n, Metagene¯s, Rhoikos, De¯mophilos, Eratokle¯s, Skulax of Karuanda, Eurupho¯n, Harpalos Theagene¯s, Xenophane¯s (Astron.), He¯rakleitos (21) Alkmaio¯n of (Math.), He¯rodikos of Kroto¯n, Anaxagoras, Selumbria, Hippokratic Epikharmos, Eupalinos, Corpus (Anatomy and Hanno of Carthage, Physiology, Aphoristic Hekataios of Mile¯tos, Works, Epide¯miai, He¯rakleitos of Ephesos, Gynecological Works, Himilko¯n, Hippasos, Nosological Works, Kleoitas, Mandrokle¯s, Prognostic Works, Melissos, Metagene¯s, Protreptic Works, Parmenide¯s, Phaiax, Regimen, Sevens, Puthagoras of Zakunthos, Surgery), Iktinos, Keras, Rhoikos, Skulax of Kharetide¯s, Kleophane¯s, Karuanda, Theagene¯s, Kleostratos, Massiliot Xanthos, Xenophane¯s Periplous, Melampous of (48) Agatharkhos Sarnaka, Milo¯n, of Samos, Akro¯n of Akragas, Anaxagoras, Antipho¯n of Athens, Aristeide¯s (Mech.), Aristo¯n (I), Arkhelaos of Athens, Artemo¯n of Klazomenai, Damaste¯s of Sigeion, Damo¯n of Athens, 940

P:952

T I M E - L I N E ( 4 3 5 – 4 0 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:435–400  De¯mokritos of Abde¯ra, 505–400  Pephrasmenos, Diogene¯s of Apollo¯nia, Petro¯n of Aigina, Phao¯n, Dionusios of Mile¯tos, Plentiphane¯s, Polubos, Empedokle¯s, Eukte¯mo¯n, Puthagoras (Med.), Gorgias of Leontinoi, Puthokle¯s, Pythagoras, He¯rodikos of Knidos, Simo¯n of Athens, He¯rodotos of Skuthinos, Sminthe¯s, Halikarnassos, Hippias, Suennesis, Theodo¯ros of Hippokrate¯s of Khios, Kure¯ne¯, Theokude¯s, Hippokrate¯s of Ko¯s, Thessalos of Ko¯s, Hippo¯n of Kroto¯n, Ikkos, Thrasumakhos, Io¯n, Kallikrate¯s (Arch.), Timotheos of Karpio¯n, Kleoitas, Metapontion, Leophane¯s, Leukippos, Xen(okh)are¯s, Xouthos, Melissos, Menesto¯r, Zoroaster (pseudo) Meto¯n, Oinopide¯s, Parmenide¯s, Pausanias of Gela, Pausimakhos, Petro¯n of Himera, Phaeinos, Phileas, Polukleitos of Argos, Promathos, Pro¯tagoras of Abde¯ra, Puthagoras of Zakunthos, Ste¯simbrotos, Stuppax, Xanthos, Ze¯no¯ of Elea, Zo¯puros (Physiog.) (55) Agatharkhos of Samos, Aiskhulos, Akro¯n of Akragas, Anaxagoras, Antiokhos of Surakousai, Antipho¯n of Athens, Antisthene¯s of Athens, Aristeide¯s (Mech.), Aristo¯n (I), Artemo¯n of Klazomenai, Damaste¯s of Sigeion, Damo¯n of Athens, De¯mokritos of Abde¯ra, Diogene¯s of Apollo¯nia, Dionusios of Mile¯tos, Dissoi Logoi, Empedokle¯s, Eukte¯mo¯n, Gorgias of Leontinoi, He¯rodikos of Knidos, 941

P:953

T I M E - L I N E ( 4 0 0 – 3 6 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:400–365  He¯rodotos of 400–295  Abas, Abdaraxos, Halikarnassos, Hippias, Adeimantos, Aëthlios of Hippokrate¯s of Khios, Samos, Agathokle¯s of Hippokrate¯s of Ko¯s, Atrax, Agathokle¯s of Hippokratic Corpus Khios, Agatho¯n of (AWP, Ancient Medicine, Samos, Aiskhine¯s, Head Wounds, Sacred Aiskhrio¯n, Aiskhulide¯s, Disease), Hippo¯n of Akesias, Alexander Kroto¯n, Io¯n, Kallikrate¯s (Geog.), Alexias, (Arch.), Karpio¯n, Alkamene¯s, Amphilokhos, Kratulos, Kritias, Kte¯sias, Amuntas (Geog.), Leophane¯s, Leukippos, Anakreo¯n (Astron.), Melissos, Meto¯n, Anaxipolis, Androitas, Nikomakhos of Stageira, Andro¯n (Math.), Oinopide¯s, Pausanias of Antigonos of Kume¯, Gela, Pausimakhos, Antiphane¯s of De¯los, Petro¯n of Himera, Apollodo¯ros (Med.), Phaeinos, Phileas, Apollodo¯ros of Kition, Philolaos, Polukleitos of Apollodo¯ros of Le¯mnos, Argos, Promathos, Pro¯tagoras of Abde¯ra, Ste¯simbrotos, Stuppax, Thucydide¯s, Ze¯no¯ of Elea, Zo¯puros (Physiog.) (50) Aineias Tacticus, Androtio¯n of Athens, Antisthene¯s of Athens, Aristagoras (of Mile¯tos?), Arkhutas of Taras, Athe¯naios of Kuzikos, Bruso¯n, De¯mokritos of Abde¯ra, Dexippos, Diodo¯ros of Eretria, Dissoi Logoi, Drako¯n of Ko¯s, Ekhekrate¯s, Ekphantos, Euphrano¯r (Music), Eurutos, Gorgias of Leontinoi, Heliko¯n, He¯rakleodo¯ros, Hiketas, Hippokrate¯s of Ko¯s, Hippokratic Corpus (Ancient Medicine, Head Wounds), 942

P:954

T I M E - L I N E ( 3 6 5 – 3 3 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:365–330  Khrusippos of Knidos Apollodo¯ros of Taras, (Med. I), Kleide¯mos, Apollo¯nios of Pergamon Kleinias, Kte¯sias, Kudias (Agric.), Apollo¯nios of (of Kuthnos?), Leo¯damas, Pitane¯, Aristaios, Leo¯n, Loxos, Me¯trodo¯ros Aristanax, Aristeide¯s of of Khios, Mne¯sitheos of Samos, Aristomakhos Athens, Neokleide¯s, of Soloi, Aristombrotos, Nikagoras, Nikomakhos Aristomene¯s, of Stageira, Philistio¯n of Aristophane¯s of Mallos, Lokroi, Plato, Polukritos, Aristophilos of Plataia, Pro¯ros, Putheos of Prie¯ne¯, Aristotelian Corpus So¯krate¯s (junior), (Colors, HA 10, Speusippos of Athens, Me¯khanika, Sounds, Theaite¯tos, Theodo¯ros of Winds), Arkhelaos Phokaia, Timage¯tos, (Geog.), Arkhide¯mos, Xenokrate¯s of Khalke¯do¯n, Arkhutas, Astunomos, Xenophilos, Xenopho¯n of Athe¯nagoras (Agric.), Athens, Ze¯nodotos (Math.) Bakkheios of Mile¯tos, (88) Aineias Tacticus, Bako¯ris of Rhodes, Amphinomos, Amuntas of Basilis, Bio¯n of Abde¯ra, He¯rakleia Pontike¯, Bio¯n of Soloi, Botrus, Androkude¯s (Med.), Bo¯tthaios, Dadis, Dalio¯n Andro¯n of Teo¯s, (Med.), Damigero¯n, Androtio¯n of Athens, De¯markhos, Derveni Aristagoras (of Mile¯tos?), papyrus, Dieukhe¯s, Aristeide¯s (of Knidos?), Diodo¯ros of Prie¯ne¯, Aristoboulos of Diokle¯s of Karustos, Kassandreia, Aristotelian Dionusios of Alexandria Corpus Flood of the Nile, (Mech.), Dionusodo¯ros Aristotle, Aristoxenos of (Pharm.), Diophantos Taras, Arkhutas of Taras, (Geog.), Do¯rotheos of Athe¯nagoras son of Athens, Douris of Arimne¯stos, Athe¯naios of Samos, Epigene¯s Kuzikos, Baito¯n, Bruso¯n, (Med.), Epikrate¯s of Deino¯n of Kolopho¯n, He¯rakleia, Eratokle¯s, Deinostratos of Euago¯n of Thasos, Prokonessos, Dexippos, Euboulos (Agric.), Dikaiarkhos, Diodo¯ros of Eude¯mos of Athens, Eretria, Diogne¯tos (of Eue¯no¯r of Argos, Eruthrai?), Dionusios Eunomos of Khios, (Med.), Drako¯n of Ko¯s, Euphro¯nios of Ekhekrate¯s, Ekphantos, Amphipolis, Euphro¯nios Ephoros, Eudoxos of of Athens, Euphuto¯n, Knidos, Euphrano¯r Euruo¯de¯s, Euthude¯mos 943

P:955

T I M E - L I N E ( 3 6 5 – 3 3 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: (Music), Heliko¯n, of Athens, Glaukide¯s, He¯rakleide¯s of He¯rakleia Glaukos (Geog. II), Pontike¯, He¯rakleodo¯ros, He¯ge¯side¯mos, He¯ge¯to¯r of Hermodo¯ros of Buzantion, He¯rakleitos Surakousai, Hermotimos, (Math), Hermarkhos of Hestiaios, Hiketas, Mutile¯ne¯, Herma¯s Kallippos, Kallisthene¯s, th¯eriakos, Hikesios (Agric.), Khrusippos of Knidos Hippokratic Corpus (Med. I), Kleide¯mos, (Anatomy and Physiology, Kleinias, Krate¯s of Aphoristic Works, Khalkis, Kudias (of Epide¯miai, Gynecological Kuthnos?), Leo¯damas, Works, Heart, Nosological Leo¯n, Leo¯nidas of Naxos, Works, Oath, Prognostic Loxos, Lusimakhos of Works, Protreptic Works, Macedon, Menaikhmos, Regimen, Sevens, Menekrate¯s of Surgery), Huriadas, Surakousai, Meno¯n, Kaikalos of Argos, Me¯trodo¯ros of Khios, Kallimakhos of Kure¯ne¯, Mne¯sitheos of Athens, Kallistratos, Nausiphane¯s, Neokleide¯s, Ke¯phisopho¯n, Keras, Nikagoras, Paio¯nios, Khaireas, Khairesteos, Periandros, Phainias of Kharetide¯s, Kharito¯n, Eresos, Philippos of Kharmandros, Kharo¯n of Opous, Philistio¯n of Carthage, Kleo¯n of Lokroi, Philo¯n of Eleusis, Surakousai, Kleophane¯s, Philo¯nide¯s of Crete, Plato, Kleëmporos, Kommiade¯s, Polemarkhos, Polemo¯n of Kranto¯r of Soloi, Krate¯s Athens, Poluidos of (Agric.), Krito¯n of Naxos, Thessalia, Polukritos, Kte¯sipho¯n, Leo¯nidas Poseido¯nios of Macedon, (Geog.), Luko¯n of Iasos, Pro¯ros, Putheos of Prie¯ne¯, Lukos of Rhe¯gion, Saturos of Paros, Silanio¯n Lusimakhos, Massiliot of Athens, Simos of Periplous, Melampous, Poseido¯nia, Skulax of Melampous of Sarnaka, Karuanda (pseudo), On Melissos Xenophane¯s So¯krate¯s (junior), and Gorgias, Menandros Speusippos of Athens, of He¯rakleia, Menandros Strato¯n (Med.), of Prie¯ne¯, Menekrate¯s of Theophrastos, Theudios, Ephesos, Menekritos, Timage¯tos, Timaios of Menestratos I, Tauromenion, Xenokrate¯s Menestratos II, Milo¯n, of Khalke¯do¯n, Xenophilos, Mne¯side¯s, Mne¯simakhos, Xenopho¯n of Athens, Mona¯s, Mousaios, Ze¯nodotos (Math.) Nautele¯s, Neanthe¯s of 944

P:956

T I M E - L I N E ( 3 3 0 – 2 9 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:330–295  (101) Aigimios, Kuzikos, Neokle¯s, Amphinomos, Amuntas of Neoptolemos, Ninuas, He¯rakleia Pontike¯, Olumpias, Olumpikos Anaxikrate¯s (of Rhodes?), (Lith.), One¯tide¯s/One¯to¯r, Androkude¯s (Med.), O¯ ros, Pankrate¯s of Argos, Andro¯n of Teo¯s, Papias, P. Hibeh 2.187, P. Androsthene¯s of Thasos, Louvre inv. 7733, P. Oxy. Aristeide¯s (of Knidos?), 13.1609, P. Ryl. III.531, Aristoboulos of Pephrasmenos, Persis, Kassandreia, Aristokreo¯n, Phanokritos, Phao¯n, Aristotelian Corpus (Flood Phasitas, Philippos of of the Nile, Indivisible Medma, Philiskos of Lines, Physiognomy), Thasos, Philome¯los, Aristotle, Aristoxenos of Phulotimos, Pleistonikos, Taras, Aristullos, Plentiphane¯s, Pollis Autolukos of Pitane¯, (Arch.), Polubos, Baito¯n, Be¯rossos, Bromios, Polukleitos of Larissa, Dalio¯n (Geog.), Daphnis Poseido¯nios of Corinth, of Mile¯tos, Deinostratos Potamo¯n (Pharm.), of Prokonessos, De¯me¯trios Puthagoras (Med.), (of Athens?), Diade¯s, Puthio¯n of Rhodes, Dikaiarkhos, Diodo¯ros of Puthios, Puthokle¯s, Iasos, Diogne¯tos (of Puthokle¯s of Samos, Eruthrai?), Diogne¯tos of Saturos (Lithika), Se¯mos Rhodes, Dionusios (Med.), of De¯los, Sile¯nos, Simo¯n Dionusios son of of Magnesia, Simos of Oxumakhos, Diphilos of Ko¯s, Skuthinos, Sminthe¯s, Siphnos, Epicurus, So¯krate¯s of Argos, Epimakhos of Athens, So¯ranos of Ko¯s, Euclid, Euclidean Sectio So¯sikrate¯s of Rhodes, Canonis, Eude¯mos of So¯simene¯s, So¯teira, Rhodes, Euphrano¯r Suennesis, Teukros of (Arch.), He¯ge¯sias of Carthage, Theodo¯ros of Magnesia, Hekataios of Soloi (Kilikia), Abde¯ra, He¯rakleide¯s of Theokude¯s, Theomene¯s, He¯rakleia Pontike¯, Theophilos (Agric.), He¯ rakleodo¯ ros, Theoxenos, Thessalos of Hermodo¯ros of Ko¯s, Thrasuandros, Surakousai, Hermotimos, Thrasuas, Thrasumakhos, Hestiaios, Hiero¯n of Soloi, Timaris, Timaristos, Hiero¯numos of Kardia, Timokharis, Tle¯polemos, Idomeneus, Kallias, Xen(okh)are¯s, Xenagoras Kallippos, Kallisthene¯s, (of He¯rakleia Pontike¯?), Kharias, Kineas, Xenopho¯n (of Ko¯s?), 945

P:957

T I M E - L I N E ( 2 9 5 – 2 6 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:295–260  Klearkhos, Krate¯s of 295–190  Xouthos, Ze¯nothemis, Khalkis, Lasos, Leo¯nidas Zoroaster (pseudo) of Naxos, Lusimakhos of Macedon, Me¯deios, Abdaraxos, Megasthene¯s, Adeimantos, Aëthlios of Menaikhmos, Menekrate¯s Samos, Agatharkhide¯s of of Elaious, Meno¯n, Knidos, Agatharkhide¯s of Me¯trodo¯ros of Samos, Agathokle¯s of Lampsakos, Mursilos, Atrax, Agathokle¯s of Nausiphane¯s, Nearkhos, Khios, Agathokle¯s of Nikias of Mile¯tos, Mile¯tos, Agatho¯n of Nikomakhos of Athens, One¯sikritos, Ophella¯s, Orthagoras, Paio¯nios, P. Hibeh, P. Hibeh 1.27, Parmenio¯n, Patrokle¯s, Phainias of Eresos, Pheidias, Philo¯n (Geog.), Philo¯n of Eleusis, Philo¯nide¯s of Crete, Polemo¯n of Athens, Poluainos, Poluidos of Thessalia, Poseido¯nios of Macedon, Praxagoras, Putheas of Massalia, Silanio¯n of Athens, Simo¯nide¯s (Geog.), So¯stratos of Knidos, So¯takos, Strato¯n (Med.), Theophrastos, Theophrastos (pseudo), Theudios, Timaios of Tauromenion, Xenokrate¯s of Khalke¯do¯n, Xenophilos, Ze¯no¯n of Kition, Zo¯ilos (of Cyprus?) (84) Alexander of Pleuron, Amo¯me¯tos, Androsthene¯s of Thasos, Antigonos of Karustos, Apeimantos, Apollodo¯ros the th¯eriakos, Aratos, Aristarkhos of Samos, Aristokreo¯n, Aristotelian 946

P:958

T I M E - L I N E ( 2 9 5 – 2 6 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: Corpus (Breath, Samos, Age¯sias, Aiskhine¯s, Physiognomy, Problems), Aiskhrio¯n, Aiskhulide¯s, Aristullos, Be¯rossos, Akesias, Akhaios, Daimakhos of Plataia, Alexander (Geog.), Dalio¯n (Geog.), Damas, Alexander of Lukaia, De¯me¯trios (of Athens?), Alexias, Alkimakhos, De¯modamas, Dikaiarkhos, Amphilokhos, Amphio¯n, Diodo¯ros of Iasos, Amuntas (Geog.), Dionusios (Astron.), Anakreo¯n (Astron.), Dionusios (Geog.), Anaxipolis, Androitas, Dionusios of Ephesos, Andro¯n (Pharm.), Dionusios son of Andronikos (Med.), Oxumakhos, Diphilos of Antigonos (Med.), Siphnos, Epicurus, Euclid, Antigonos of Kume¯, Euclidean Sectio Canonis, Antipatros (of Tarsos?), Eude¯mos of Alexandria, Apelle¯s (of Thasos?), Eude¯mos of Rhodes, Apellis, Apollodo¯ros Hagnodike¯, He¯ge¯sias of (Med.), Apollodo¯ros of Magnesia, Hekataios of Kition, Apollodo¯ros of Abde¯ra, He¯rakleide¯s Taras, Apollo¯nios “Kritikos,” He¯rophilos, Glaukos, Apollo¯nios of Hiero¯n II, Hiero¯numos of Aphrodisias, Apollo¯nios Kardia, Hipponikos, of Pergamon (Agric.), Idomeneus, Kallianax, Apollo¯nios of Pitane¯, Khrusippos of Knidos Apollo¯nios of Tarsos, (Med. II), Kineas, Apollo¯nios “Ophis,” Kleanthe¯s, Klearkhos, Apollophane¯s of Nisibis, Kleophantos, Ko¯lo¯te¯s, Aristaios, Aristanax, Kte¯sibios, Lasos, Luko¯n of Aristandros of Athens, Troas, Lusimakhos of Aristeide¯s (Paradox.), Macedon, Manetho¯n of Aristeide¯s of Samos, Sebennutos, Me¯deios, Aristoboulos, Megasthene¯s, Me¯trodo¯ros Aristode¯mos, Aristolaos, of Lampsakos, Mursilos, Aristomakhos of Soloi, Nikias of Mile¯tos, Aristombrotos, Noume¯nios of He¯rakleia, Aristomene¯s, Numphis, Ophio¯n, P. Aristophane¯s, Hibeh, P. Hibeh 1.27, Aristophane¯s of Mallos, Parmenio¯n, Patrokle¯s, Aristophilos of Plataia, Pheidias, Philo¯n (Geog.), Aristotelian Corpus Polemo¯n of Athens, (Colors, HA 10, Poluainos, Polustratos, Me¯khanika, Sounds, Poseidippos, Praxagoras, Winds), Aristotle (pseudo: Purgotele¯s, Purrhos of Mirab.), Arkhelaos 947

P:959

T I M E - L I N E ( 2 6 0 – 2 2 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:260–225  Epeiros, Puthagoras (of (Geog.), Arkhelaos of Alexandria?), Simo¯nide¯s Khersone¯sos, Arkhestratos, (Geog.), So¯stratos of Arkhide¯mos, Arkhutas, Knidos, So¯takos, Strato¯n Arrabaios, Artemo¯n (Erasistratean), Strato¯n of (Epicurean), Artemo¯n of Lampsakos, Kassandreia, Asklatio¯n Theophrastos, Timaios of (Med.), Askle¯pios (Med.), Tauromenion, Timo¯n of Aspasios (Pharm.), Phleious, Timosthene¯s, Astunomos, Athe¯nagoras Ze¯no¯n of Kition (Agric.), Athe¯nodo¯ros (of (78) Alexander of Rhodes?), Bakkheios of Pleuron, Amo¯me¯tos, Mile¯tos, Basilis, Bio¯n of Andreas of Karustos, Abde¯ra, Bio¯n of Soloi, Antigene¯s, Antigonos of Boëthos (Med.), Bo¯los, Karustos, Apeimantos, Botrus, Dadis, Dalio¯n Apollodo¯ros the th¯eriakos, (Med.), Damigero¯n, Apollo¯nios of Memphis, Damo¯n (Geog.), De¯ïleo¯n, Aratos, Archime¯de¯s, De¯markhos, De¯me¯trios Aristogene¯s of Knidos, (Pythag.), De¯me¯trios of Aristokreo¯n, Aristo¯n of Alexandria, De¯me¯trios of Ioulis, Aristophane¯s of Apameia, De¯me¯trios of Buzantion, Aristotelian Kallatis, De¯mokle¯s, Corpus (Breath, Problems), De¯mokritos (pseudo: Aristotheros, Bakkheios of Agric.), De¯mokritos Tanagra, Chrysippus of (pseudo: Alch.), Soloi, Damas, De¯me¯trios De¯mokritos (pseudo: of Amisos, Dionusios Lith.), Derkullos, (Geog.), Dionusios of Didumos of Knidos, Ephesos, Dionusios son of Dieukhe¯s, Diodo¯ros of Oxumakhos, Diphilos of Prie¯ne¯, Diokleide¯s of Siphnos, Do¯sitheos of Abde¯ra, Diokle¯s of Pe¯lousion, Erasistratos of Khalke¯do¯n, Diome¯de¯s, Keo¯s, Eratosthene¯s, Dionusios (of Eude¯mos of Alexandria, Halikarnassos?), He¯ge¯sias of Magnesia, Dionusios of Alexandria He¯rakleide¯s “Kritikos,” (Mech.), Dionusios of Hermippos (of Smurna?), Corinth, Dionusios of He¯rodotos (Mech.), Rhodes, Dionusios of Hiero¯n II, Hiero¯numos of Samos, Dionusios: son of Kardia, Hiero¯numos of Diogene¯s, Dionusodo¯ros Rhodes, Hipponikos, (Pharm.), Diophantos Kallianax, Kallimakhos Jr. (Geog.), Diphilos, Do¯rio¯n of Kure¯ne¯, Khrusippos of (Mech.), Do¯rotheos of Knidos (Med. II), Athens, Do¯rotheos of 948

P:960

T I M E - L I N E ( 2 2 5 – 1 9 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:225–190  Kleanthe¯s, Kleophantos, He¯liopolis, Do¯rotheos of Ko¯lo¯te¯s, Kono¯n, Khaldaea, Douris of Kte¯sibios, Lakude¯s, Lasos, Samos, “Dtrums,” Leptine¯s I, Luko¯n of Eire¯naios, Epigene¯s of Troas, Mne¯mo¯n of Side¯, Rhodes, Epigonos, Mursilos, Neileus, Nikias Epikouros (Pharm.), of Mile¯tos, Nikotele¯s, Epikrate¯s of He¯rakleia, Noume¯nios of He¯rakleia, Erasistratos of Sikuo¯n, Numphis, Numphodo¯ros, Euago¯n of Thasos, Numphodo¯ros of Euainetos, Euangeus, Surakousai, Ophio¯n, P. Euboulide¯s, Euboulos Hibeh (Ophth.), Pheidias, (Agric.), Euboulos Philo¯n (Geog.), Philo¯n of (Pharm.), Eude¯mos the Buzantion, elder, Eudikos, Eudoxos Philostephanos, of Rhodes, Eue¯no¯r of Polustratos, Poseidippos, Argos, Eue¯nos, Puthio¯n of Thasos, Euhe¯meros (Pharm.), Serapio¯n of Alexandria Euphorio¯n of Khalkis, (Empir.), Simmias (of Euphrano¯r (Pharm.), Macedon?), Simmias son Euphro¯nios of of Me¯dios, Simo¯nide¯s Amphipolis, Euphro¯nios (Geog.), So¯stratos of of Athens, Euphuto¯n, Knidos, Sphairos, Strato¯n Euruo¯de¯s, Euthude¯mos (Erasistratean), Sudine¯s, of Athens, Euthukleos, Thrasudaios, Timo¯n of Gennadios, Glaukide¯s, Phleious, Timosthene¯s Glaukos (Geog. I), (70) Andreas of Glaukos (Geog. II), Karustos, Antigene¯s, Gluko¯n, Halieus, Apollo¯nios (of Harpokra¯s, He¯ge¯side¯mos, Alexandria), Apollo¯nios of He¯ge¯to¯r (Med.), He¯ge¯to¯r Antioch, Apollo¯nios of of Buzantion, Hekataios Memphis, Apollo¯nios of (Pharm.), He¯liodo¯ros of Perge¯, Apollophane¯s of Athens, He¯rakleitos Seleukeia, Archime¯de¯s, (Math.), He¯rakleitos of Aristio¯n (father: Mech.), Sikuo¯n, Hermarkhos of Aristippos of Kure¯ne¯, Mutile¯ne¯, Herma¯s Aristo¯n of Ioulis, th¯eriakos, Hermeias Aristophane¯s of (Ophthalm.), Hierax of Buzantion, Arkhagathos The¯bai, Hikatidas, of Lako¯nika, Bakkheios of Hikesios (Agric.), Tanagra, Basileide¯s, Hippokratic Corpus Chrysippus of Soloi, (Heart, Oath, Protreptic Damaste¯s, Damis of Works, Sevens), Idios, Kolopho¯n, Damo¯n of Ioudaios, Irio¯n, Isis: 949

P:961

T I M E - L I N E ( 2 2 5 – 1 9 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: Kure¯ne¯, De¯mokleitos, pseudo (Pharm.), Diagoras, Diogene¯s of Kallikle¯s, Kallimakhos (of Babylo¯n, Diokle¯s, Bithunia), Kallimakhos of Dionusodo¯ros (of Kure¯ne¯, Kalliphane¯s, Kaunos?), Do¯sitheos of Kallistratos, Kallixeinos, Pe¯lousion, Ennius, Ke¯phisopho¯n, Khaireas, Eratosthene¯s, Glaukias of Khairesteos, Khalkideus, Taras, He¯ge¯sianax, Kharito¯n, Kharmandros, Heirodotos, He¯rakleide¯s Kharo¯n of Carthage, of Taras (Mech.), Khios, Khrusippos Hermippos (of Smurna?), (Agric.), Kimo¯n, Hermogene¯s of Alabanda, Kleoboulos (Pharm.), He¯rodotos (Mech.), Kleo¯n of Surakousai, Hiero¯n II, Hippobotos, Kleëmporos, Kloniakos, Kharo¯n of Magnesia, Klutos, Ko¯dios Toukos, Kleoxenos, Kono¯n, Kommiade¯s, Kranto¯r of Lakude¯s, Minius Soloi, Krate¯s (Agric.), Percennius, Mnaseas of Krito¯n of Naxos, Patara, Mne¯mo¯n of Side¯, Kte¯sipho¯n, Kudias, Mne¯sitheos of Kuzikos, Laodikos, Leo¯nidas Moskhio¯n (Mech.), (Geog.), Leptine¯s II, Linos Naukrate¯s, Neileus, (pseudo), Lobo¯n, Luko¯n Nikome¯de¯s, Nikotele¯s, of Iasos, Lukos of Numphodo¯ ros, Rhe¯gion, Lunkeus, Numphodo¯ros of Lusimakhos, Lusimakhos Surakousai, P. Parisinus of Ko¯s, Melampous, graecus 1, Pausistratos, Melampous of Sarnaka, Philo¯n of Buzantion, On Melissos Xenophane¯s Philostephanos, and Gorgias, Melito¯n, Pro¯tarkhos (Mech. and Menandros of He¯rakleia, Pharm.), Saturos of Menandros of Prie¯ne¯, Kallatis, Serapio¯n of Menekrate¯s of Ephesos, Alexandria (Empir.), Menekritos, Menestratos Simmias (of Macedon?), I, Menestratos II, Simmias son of Me¯dios, Me¯nodotos (Astr.), Skopinas, So¯tio¯n of Menoitas, Me¯trodo¯ros Alexandria, Sphairos, son of Epikharmos Thrasudaios, Trupho¯n of (pseudo), Mile¯sios, Alexandria, Xenagoras Miltiade¯s, Mne¯side¯mos, son of Eume¯los, Mne¯side¯s, Mne¯simakhos, Ze¯nodo¯ros, Ze¯no¯n (Med.), Molpis, Mona¯s, Zeuxippos, Zo¯puros of Mousaios, Muia: pseudo, Taras Muro¯n, Naukratite¯s medicus, Nautele¯s, Neanthe¯s of 950

P:962

T I M E - L I N E ( 2 2 5 – 1 9 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: Kuzikos, Neokle¯s, Neoptolemos, Nike¯te¯s (of Athens?), Nikomakhos (Pharm.), Nikome¯de¯s (He¯rakleitean), Ocellus, Olumpias, Olumpikos (Lith.), Olumpionikos, One¯tide¯s/One¯to¯r, O¯ rio¯n of Bithunia, O¯ ros, Orpheus (pseudo: Astrol.), Orpheus (pseudo: Med.), Pankrate¯s of Argos, Pantainos, Papias, P. Ashmolean Library, P. Fayumensis, P. Hibeh 2.187, P. Louvre inv. 7733, P. Oxy. 13.1609, P. Ryl. III.531, Pasio¯n, Pausanias “He¯rakleiteios,” Perigene¯s, Perseus, Persis, Petrikhos, Phaidros, Phanias, Phanokritos, Philinos of Ko¯s, Philippos of Medma, Philiskos of Thasos, Philokle¯s, Philokrate¯s, Philome¯los, Philo¯n (Meteor.), Philo¯n of He¯rakleia, Philo¯n of Tuana, Philo¯nide¯s of Laodikeia, Phulotimos, Pleistonikos, Plentiphane¯s, Podanite¯s, Polite¯s, Pollis (Arch.), Polueide¯s, Polustomos, Poseido¯nios of Corinth, Potamo¯n (Pharm.), Prutanis, Ptolemaios (Erasi.), Ptolemaios (Med.), Puramos, Purrhos of Magnesia, Puthagoras (Med.), Puthio¯n of Rhodes, Puthios, Puthokle¯s of Samos, Salmeskhoiniaka, 951

P:963

T I M E - L I N E ( 1 9 0 – 1 5 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:190–155  (58) Antipatros of 190–85  Sarkeuthite¯s, Saturos Tarsos, Apollodo¯ros of (Lithika), Seleukos of Kerkura, Apollodo¯ros of Tarsos, Se¯mos of De¯los, Seleukeia, Apollo¯nios (of Sergius of Babylo¯n, Alexandria), Apollo¯nios of Sile¯nos, Simo¯n of Antioch, Apollo¯nios of Magnesia, Simos of Ko¯s, Sminthe¯s, So¯krate¯s of Argos, So¯kratio¯n, Solo¯n, So¯ranos of Ko¯s, So¯sagoras, So¯sandros (Pharm.), So¯sikrate¯s, So¯sikrate¯s of Rhodes, So¯simene¯s, So¯teira, So¯tio¯n, Speusippos of Alexandria, Staphulos, Sunero¯s, Telamo¯n, Telephane¯s, Teukros of Carthage, Thamuros, Theano¯ (pseudo), Theodo¯ros of Soloi (Kilikia), Theodosios (of Bithunia), Theokhre¯stos, Theokritos, Theokude¯s, Theomene¯s, Theophilos (Agric.), Theophilos (Lithika), Theoxenos, Thrasuandros, Thrasuas, Timagoras, Timaios (Pharm.), Timaris, Timaristos, Timokharis, Timo¯n, Timotheos, Tle¯polemos, Xanite¯s, Xen(okh)are¯s, Xenagoras (of He¯rakleia Pontike¯?), Xenopho¯n (of Ko¯s?), Ze¯no¯n of Laodikeia, Ze¯nothemis, Zeuxis (Empir.), Zo¯puros (Geog.) Abdaraxos, Abram, Adeimantos, Aemilius Hispanus, Agatharkhide¯s of Knidos, Agatharkhide¯s of Samos, Agathokle¯s of Atrax, 952

P:964

T I M E - L I N E ( 1 5 5 – 1 2 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:155–120  Perge¯, Apollo¯nios Agathokle¯s of Khios, “Biblas,” Apollophane¯s of Agathokle¯s of Mile¯tos, Seleukeia, Aristio¯n (father: Agatho¯n of Samos, Mech.), Aristippos of Age¯sias, Aisara, Kure¯ne¯, Aristophane¯s of Aiskhine¯s, Aiskhrio¯n, Buzantion, Arkhede¯mos Aiskhulide¯s, Akhaios, of Tarsos, Basileide¯s, Akhilla¯s, Akhinapolos, Bito¯n, Boëthos of Sido¯n Alexander (Geog.), (Stoic), Damaste¯s, Damis Alexander of Lukaia, of Kolopho¯n, Damo¯n of Alkimakhos, Alkimio¯n, Kure¯ne¯, De¯mokleitos, Ammo¯n (Astrol.), Diagoras, Diogene¯s of Amphilokhos, Amphio¯n, Babylo¯n, Diokle¯s, Amuthao¯n, Anakreo¯n Dionusios of Kure¯ne¯, (Astron.), Anaxipolis, Ennius, Fuluius Nobilior, Androkude¯s (Pythag.), Genthios, Glaukias of Andro¯n (Pharm.), Taras, He¯ge¯sianax, Andronikos (Med.), Heirodotos, Hermogene¯s Andronikos of Rhodes, of Alabanda, He¯rodotos Antigonos (Med.), (Mech.), Hippobotos, Antigonos of Kume¯, Isido¯ros of Abudos, Antipatros (of Tarsos?), Kleoxenos, Krate¯s of Antipatros of Tyre, Mallos, Kritolaos, Antisthene¯s (of Rhodes), Menandros (of Antonius “root-cutter,” Pergamon?), Minius Apelle¯s (of Thasos?), Percennius, Mnaseas of Apellis, Aphroda¯s, Apios Patara, Mne¯sitheos of Phaskos, Apollodo¯ros Kuzikos, Moskhio¯n (Med.), Apollodo¯ros (Mech.), Naukrate¯s, P. De¯mokritean, Parisinus graecus 1, Apollodo¯ros of Artemita, Pasikrate¯s, Polemo¯n of Apollodo¯ros of Kition, Ilion, Polubios, Porcius Apollodo¯ros of Taras, Cato, Pro¯tarkhos (Mech. Apollo¯nios Glaukos, and Pharm.), Saturos of Apollo¯nios of Athens, Kallatis, Seleukos of Apollo¯nios of Pergamon Seleukeia, Skopinas, (Agric.), Apollo¯nios of Skumnos, So¯tio¯n of Pitane¯, Apollo¯nios of Alexandria, Sulpicius Tarsos, Apollo¯nios Gallus, Xenagoras son of “Ophis,” Arbinas of Eume¯los, Ze¯nodotos (of Indos, Areios Didumos, Mallos?), Ze¯no¯n (Med.), Ariobarzane¯s, Aristanax, Zeuxippos Aristandros of Athens, (51) Acilius, Aristeide¯s (Paradox.), Andronikos of Kurrhos, Aristeide¯s of Samos, 953

P:965

T I M E - L I N E ( 1 2 0 – 8 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:120–85  Ankhialos, Antipatros of Aristio¯n: grandson Tarsos, Apollodo¯os of (Mech.), Aristoboulos, Athens Apollodo¯os of Aristode¯mos, Aristokle¯s, Kerkura, Apollodo¯ros of Aristolaos, Aristomakhos Seleukeia, Apollo¯nios of Soloi, Aristombrotos, (Paradoxographer), Aristomene¯s, Apollo¯nios (of Aristophane¯s, Alexandria), Apollo¯nios of Aristophane¯s of Mallos, Antioch, Apollo¯nios Aristotle (pseudo: Mirab.), “Biblas,” Arkhede¯mos of Arkhebios/Arkesios, Tarsos, Attalos III, Attalos Arkhelaos (Geog.), of Rhodes, Boëthos of Arkhelaos of Sido¯n (Stoic), Damaste¯s, Khersone¯sos, Diogene¯s of Babylo¯n, Arkhestratos, Arkhutas, Diogene¯s of Tarsos, Arrabaios, Artemido¯ros Dionusios of Kure¯ne¯, of Side¯, Artemo¯n He¯rakleide¯s of Kallatis, (Epicurean), Artemo¯n of Hermogene¯s of Alabanda, Kassandreia, Asklatio¯n Hipparkhos of Nikaia, (Med.), Askle¯pios (Med.), Hupsikle¯s, Iollas, Iunius Aspasios (Pharm.), Silanus, Kassandros, Astunomos, Athe¯nagoras Kleitomakhos, Krate¯s (Agric.), Athe¯nippos, (Geom.), Krate¯s of Athe¯nodo¯ros (of Mallos, Kritolaos, Mantias Rhodes?), Azanite¯s, (He¯roph.), Minius Bakkheios of Mile¯tos, Percennius, Nikandros of Basilis, Bathullos, Bio¯n Kolopho¯n, Panaitios of Caecilius, Boëthos (Med.), Rhodes, Pasikrate¯s, Boëthos of Sido¯n (Perip.), Pausanias of Damaskos, Bo¯los of Mendes, Petosiris, Polubios, Porcius Boutoridas, Brenitus, Cato, Pro¯tarkhos of Caecilius “Medicus,” Bargulia, Ptolemaios of Campestris, Cornelius, Kure¯ne¯, Saturos of Cornelius Bocchus, Kallatis, Seleukos of Dadis, Dalio¯n (Med.), Seleukeia, Skopinas, Damigero¯n, Damo¯n Skulax of Halikarnassos, (Geog.), Dasius, De¯ïleo¯n, Skumnos, So¯tio¯n of De¯markhos, De¯me¯trios Alexandria, Sulpicius (Geog.), De¯me¯trios Gallus, Trebius Niger, (Pythag.), De¯me¯trios of Ze¯nodotos (of Mallos?), Alexandria, De¯me¯trios of Ze¯no¯n (Med.) Apameia, De¯me¯trios of (68) Adrastos of Kallatis, De¯me¯trios of Kuzikos, Agesistratos, Lako¯nika, De¯me¯trios Aineside¯mos, Andrias, “physicus,” De¯mokle¯s, Ankhialos, “Antikythera De¯mokritos (pseudo: 954

P:966

T I M E - L I N E ( 1 2 0 – 8 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: Device,” Antiokhis of Agric.), De¯mokritos Tlo¯s, Antiokhos VIII, (pseudo: Alch.), Apollodo¯ros of Athens, De¯mokritos (pseudo: Apollo¯nide¯s, Apollo¯nios Lith.), De¯mokritos (Paradoxographer), (pseudo: Med.), Apollo¯nios of Kition, De¯mokritos (pseudo: Apollo¯nios of Mundos, Pharm.), De¯motele¯s, Aristo¯n of Khios, Derkullos, Dexios, Artemido¯ros of Ephesos, Didumos of Knidos, Askle¯piade¯s Titiensis, Diodo¯ros (Astron.), Askle¯piade¯s of Bithunia, Diodo¯ros (Empir.), Askle¯piade¯s of Murleia, Diodo¯ros of Prie¯ne¯, Auﬁdius of Sicily, Billaros, Diodo¯ros of Samos, De¯me¯trios Khlo¯ros, Diokle¯s of Khalke¯do¯n, Diodotos (Astr. I), Diokle¯s of Magnesia, Diogene¯s of Tarsos, Dio¯n Diome¯de¯s, Dio¯n (Med.), of Neapolis, Dionusios of Dionusios (of Kure¯ne¯, Dionusios of Halikarnassos?), Utica, Dionusios son of Dionusios of Corinth, Kallipho¯n, Egnatius, Dionusios of Kurtos, Epainetos, Eudoxos of Dionusios of Kuzikos, Fuﬁ(ci)us, Philadelpheia, Dionusios Gorgias of Alexandria, of Rhodes, Dionusios of He¯rakleide¯s of Kallatis, Samos, Dionusios: He¯rakleide¯s of Taras Sallustius, Dionusios son (Med.), He¯ro¯n (Med.), of Diogene¯s, Hikesios of Smurna, Dionusodo¯ros (Pharm.), Hubriste¯s, Hupsikle¯s, Diophantos (Geog.), Iollas, Kassandros, Diophil–, Dioskoros Kleitomakhos, Krateuas, (Pharm.), Diphilos, “Lion Horoscope,” Do¯rio¯n (Biol.), Do¯rio¯n Mantias (He¯roph.), (Mech.), Do¯rotheos of Me¯trodo¯ros of Ske¯psis, Athens, Do¯rotheos of Mithradate¯s VI, Mnaseas He¯liopolis, Do¯rotheos of of Mile¯tos, Mne¯sarkhos, Khaldaea, “Dtrums,” Nikandros of Kolopho¯n, Eire¯naios, Elephantine¯/ Nikome¯de¯s IV, Orestinos, Elephantis, Emeritus Panaitios of Rhodes, P. (Hemeritos), Epagathos, bibl. univ. Giss. IV.44, Epainete¯s, Epidauros, Parmeniskos, Pausanias of Epigene¯s of Buzantion, Damaskos, Petosiris, Epigene¯s of Rhodes, Philoxenos, Polubios, Epigonos, Epikle¯s of Poseido¯nios of Apameia, Crete, Epikouros Ptolemaios of Kure¯ne¯, (Pharm.), Epikrate¯s of 955

P:967

T I M E - L I N E ( 1 2 0 – 8 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: Septimius, Serapio¯n of He¯rakleia, Erasistratos of Antioch, Skulax of Sikuo¯n, Euago¯n of Halikarnassos, So¯stratos Thasos, Euainetos, of Nusa, Themiso¯n, Euangeus, Euboulide¯s, Theodotos, Theophane¯s Euboulos (Agric.), of Mutile¯ne¯, Xenopho¯n Euboulos (Pharm.), of Lampsakos Eude¯mos the elder, Eudikos, Eue¯nos, Eugeneia, Euge¯rasia, Euhe¯meros (Pharm.), Eukleide¯s “Palatianus,” Euphrano¯r (Pharm.), Euphrano¯r (Pythag.), Euphro¯nios of Amphipolis, Euphro¯nios of Athens, Euphuto¯n, Euruo¯de¯s, Euskhe¯mos, Euthude¯mos of Athens, Euthukleos, Faustinus, Fronto (Astrol.), Geminos, Gennadios, Glaukide¯s, Glauko¯ n/Glaukos, Glaukos (Geog. I), Glaukos (Geog. II), Gluko¯n, Granius, Halieus, Harpalos (Pharm.), Harpokra¯s, He¯ge¯side¯mos, He¯ge¯to¯r (Med.), He¯ge¯to¯r of Buzantion, Hekataios (Pharm.), He¯liodo¯ros of Athens, He¯rakleitos (Math.), He¯rakleitos of Sikuo¯n, Herma¯s th¯eriakos, Hermeias (Astrol.), Hermeias (Ophthalm.), Herme¯s Trismegistos (pseudo), Hermo¯n of Egypt, Hermophilos, Hierax of The¯bai, Hikatidas, Hikesios (Agric.), Hippokratic Corpus (Oath, Protreptic Works, Sevens), Hostilius Saserna and son, 956

P:968

T I M E - L I N E ( 1 2 0 – 8 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: Hugie¯nos, Idios, Ioudaios, Irio¯n, Isis: pseudo (Pharm.), Kallikle¯s, Kalliphane¯s, Kallistratos, Kallixeinos, Karneade¯s, Ke¯phisopho¯n, Keskintos: Inscription of, Khaireas, Khairesteos, Khalkideus, Kharikle¯s, Kharito¯n, Kharo¯n of Carthage, Khios, Khrusanthos, Khrusippos (Agric.), Khrusippos (Med.), Kide¯nas, Kimo¯n, Kleoboulos (Pharm.), Kleo¯n (of Kuzikos?), Kleëmporos, Kloniakos, Klutos, Ko¯dios Toukos, Kommiade¯s, Kore¯ Kosmou, Krate¯s (Agric.), Kratippos, Krato¯n, Kte¯sipho¯n, Kudias, Laïs, Lampo¯n, Laodikos, Leo¯nidas (Geog.), Leo¯nidas of Buzantion, Leptine¯s II, Licinius Atticus, Linos (pseudo), Litorius, Lobo¯n, Lukome¯de¯s, Lukos of Neapolis, Lunkeus, Lupus, Lusias, Lusimakhos, Lusimakhos of Ko¯s, Magnus of Philadelpheia, Makhairio¯n, Maria, Melampous of Sarnaka, Melissos Xenophane¯s and Gorgias, Melito¯n, Menandros of He¯rakleia, Menandros of Prie¯ne¯, Menekritos, Menelaos (Pharm.), Menestheus, Menestratos II, Menippos, Me¯nodotos (Astr.), Menoitas, 957

P:969

T I M E - L I N E ( 1 2 0 – 8 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: Me¯nophilos, Me¯trodo¯ros (Astr. I), Me¯trodo¯ros (Pharm.), Me¯trodo¯ros of Buzantion, Me¯trodo¯ros son of Epikharmos (pseudo), Mikio¯n, Mile¯sios, Miltiade¯s, Mne¯side¯mos, Mne¯side¯s, Molpis, Moskhio¯n (Pharm.), Mousaios, Muia: pseudo, Muo¯nide¯s, Muro¯n, Naukratite¯s medicus, Neanthe¯s of Kuzikos, Neokle¯s, Neoptolemos, Nike¯te¯s (of Athens?), Nikias of Mallos, Nikias of Nikaia, Nikolaos (Pharm.), Nikomakhos (Pharm.), Nikome¯de¯s (He¯rakleitean), Ocellus, Olumpias, Olumpikos (Lith.), Olumpionikos, One¯ tide¯ s/One¯ to¯ r, Oppius, O¯ rigeneia, O¯ rio¯n of Bithunia, O¯ ros, Orpheus (pseudo: Astrol.), Orpheus (pseudo: Med.), Ortho¯n, Panaitios Jr., Pankrate¯s of Argos, Pantainos, Papias, P. Ashmolean Library, P. Fayumensis, P. Lit. Lond. 167, P. Osloensis 73, P. Oxy. 13.1609, P. Oxy. 15.1796, Pasio¯n, Pausanias “He¯rakleiteios,” Paxamos, Perigene¯s, Perikle¯s, Perseus, Persis, Petrikhos, Phaidros, Phanias, Philippos (Astron.), Philippos of Macedon, Philiskos of Thasos, 958

P:970

T I M E - L I N E ( 1 2 0 – 8 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: Philistide¯s of Mallos, Philokalos, Philokle¯s, Philokrate¯s, Philome¯los, Philo¯n (Meteor.), Philo¯n of Tuana, Philo¯nide¯s of Laodikeia, Phoibos Ulpius, Platuse¯mos, Plentiphane¯s, Podanite¯s, Polite¯s, Pollis (Arch.), Polueide¯s, Polustomos, Poseido¯nios of Corinth, Potamo¯n (Pharm.), Primio¯n, Proëkhios, Pro¯tagoras of Nikaia, Pro¯tarkhos of Tralleis, Pro¯ta¯s, Proxenos, Prutanis, Ptolemaios (Erasi.), Ptolemaios (Med.), Puramos, Purrhos of Magnesia, Puthagoras (Med.), Puthio¯n of Rhodes, Puthios, Puthokle¯s of Samos, Quadratus, Rabirius, Salmeskhoiniaka, Salpe¯, Samithra, Sarkeuthite¯s, Saturos (Lithika), Seleukos of Tarsos, Se¯mos of De¯los, Serapio¯n of Alexandria (Astrol.), Sergius of Babylo¯n, Sile¯nos, Silo, Simos of Ko¯s, So¯krate¯s of Argos, So¯kratio¯n, Solo¯n, So¯ranos of Ko¯s, So¯sagoras, So¯sandros (Geog.), So¯sandros (Pharm.), So¯sikrate¯s, So¯sikrate¯s of Rhodes, So¯simene¯s, So¯teira, So¯tio¯n, Spendousa, Speusippos of Alexandria, Staphulos, Strato¯n of Be¯rutos, Sunero¯s, Tekto¯n, 959

P:971

T I M E - L I N E ( 8 5 – 5 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:85–50  (80) Adrastos of 85 –20  Telamo¯n, Telephane¯s, Kuzikos, Agesistratos, Teukros of Carthage, Aineside¯mos, Alexander Thamuros, Tharseas, of Ephesos, Alexander of Theano¯ (pseudo), Mile¯tos, Andrias, Theodo¯ros of Soloi Antigonos of Alexandria, (Kilikia), Theodosios (of Antiokhis of Tlo¯s, Bithunia), Theokhre¯stos, Apollo¯nide¯s, Apollo¯nios of Theokritos, Theokude¯s, Kition, Apollo¯nios of Theomene¯s, Theophilos Mundos, Aristo¯n of (Agric.), Theophilos Khios, Arkhelaos (Lithika), (Geog.), Theophilos Artemido¯ros of Parion, (Lithika), Theopompos, Artemido¯ros of Perge¯, Theoxenos, Artorius, Askle¯piade¯s of Thrasuandros, Threptos, Murleia, Athe¯nodo¯ros of Timagoras, Timaios Tarsos, Auﬁdius of Sicily, (Pharm.), Timaios of Billaros, Cornelius Nepos, Lokris (pseudo), Timaris, Timaristos, Timo¯n, Timotheos, Tle¯polemos, Turannos, Vicellius, Xanite¯s, Xen(okh)are¯s, Zakhalias, Ze¯no¯n of Laodikeia, Ze¯no¯n of Sido¯n, Ze¯nophilos, Zeuxis (Empir.), Zo¯puros (Geog.), Zo¯puros of Alexandria Abaskantos, Abdaraxos, Abram, Adeimantos, Aemilius Hispanus, Aëtios, Aetna, Agatharkhide¯s of Samos, Agathokle¯s, Agathokle¯s of Atrax, Agathokle¯s of Mile¯tos, Agatho¯n of Samos, Age¯sias, Aineios, Aisara, Aiskhine¯s, Aiskhulide¯s, Akhaios, Akhilla¯s, Akhinapolos, Alexander (Geog.), Alexander of Lukaia, Alkimakhos, Alkimio¯n, Amarantos, Ammo¯n (Astrol.), Amphio¯n, 960

P:972

T I M E - L I N E ( 8 5 – 5 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: De¯me¯trios Khlo¯ros, Amuthao¯n, Androkude¯s Diodo¯ros of Sicily, (Pythag.), Andro¯n Diodotos (Astr. I), Dio¯n of (Pharm.), Andronikos Neapolis, Dionusios (of (Med.), Andronikos of Mile¯tos?), Diophane¯s of Rhodes, Anoubio¯n of Nikaia, Dioskouride¯s Diospolis, Antigonos Phakas, Egnatius, Eudo¯ros (Med.), Antimakhos of Alexandria, Fuﬁ(ci)us, (Pharm.), Antiokhos of Gorgias of Alexandria, Athens, Antipatros He¯rakleide¯s of Ephesos, (Pharm.), Antipatros of He¯rakleide¯s of Taras Tyre, Antisthene¯s (of (Med.), He¯ro¯n (Med.), Rhodes), Antoninus of Hikesios of Smurna, Iulius Ko¯s, Antonius “root- Caesar, Khrusermos, cutter,” Apelle¯s (of Kleopatra, Krateuas, Thasos?), Aphroda¯s, Licinius Caluus, “Lion Aphrodisis, Apios Horoscope,” Lucretius Phaskos, Apollodo¯ros Carus, Mamilius Sura, De¯mokritean, Me¯nodo¯ros, Me¯trodo¯ros Apollodo¯ros of Artemita, of Ske¯psis, Mithradate¯s Apollodo¯ros of Athens VI, Mnaseas of Mile¯tos, (pseudo), Apollodo¯ros of Naburianos, Nigidius Kition, Apollodo¯ros of Figulus, Nikome¯de¯s IV, Taras, Apollo¯nios Niko¯n of Akragas, Glaukos, Apollo¯nios of Niko¯nide¯s, Orestinos, P. Alexandria (“Mus”), bibl. univ. Giss. IV.44, Apollo¯nios of Athens, Parmeniskos, Philode¯mos, Apollo¯nios of Pergamon Philo¯nide¯s of Durrakhion, (Med.), Apollo¯nios of Pompeius Lenaeus, Pitane¯, Apollo¯nios of Poseido¯nios (Med. I), Prousias, Apollo¯nios of Poseido¯nios of Apameia, Tarsos, Apollo¯nios Ptolemaios of Kure¯ne¯, “Ophis,” Aquila Sallustius (Cn.), Septimius, Secundilla, Arbinas of Serapio¯n of Antioch, Indos, Areios Didumos, So¯sigene¯s (I), So¯stratos of Ariobarzane¯s, Aristanax, Nusa, Sueius, Tarutius, Aristarkhos of Sikuo¯n, Terentius Varro of Narbo, Aristeide¯s (Paradox.), Terentius Varro of Reate, Aristeide¯s of Samos, Themiso¯n, Theodotos, Aristio¯n: grandson Theophane¯s of Mutile¯ne¯, (Mech.), Aristoboulos, Timagene¯s, Tremellius Aristode¯mos, Aristokle¯s, Scrofa, Tullius Cicero Aristokle¯s of Messe¯ne¯, (M.), Tullius Cicero (Q.), Aristolaos, Aristomakhos Xenopho¯n of Lampsakos of Soloi, Aristombrotos, 961

P:973

T I M E - L I N E ( 5 0 – 1 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:50–15  (87) Aelius Gallus, Aristophane¯s, Aristotle Aemilius Macer, Africanus (pseudo: Mirab.), (Pharm.), Alexander of Arkhebios/Arkesios, Ephesos, Alexander of Arkhelaos (Geog.), Laodikeia, Alexander of Arrabaios, Artemido¯ros Mile¯tos, Ambiuius, of Side¯, Asklatio¯n (Med.), Ammo¯nios of Alexandria, Askle¯piodotos (of Anaxilaos of Larissa, Nikaia?), Askle¯pios Antigonos of Alexandria, (Med.), Aspasios (Pharm.), Antiokhos (Paccius), Athe¯nippos, Athe¯nodo¯ros Antonius Musa, Aristo¯n (of Rhodes?), Attius, (II), Arkhelaos (Lithika), Axios, Azanite¯s, Arkhelaos of Kappadokia, Bathullos, Bio¯n Caecilius, Artemo¯n (Med.), Artorius, Bithus of Durrakhion, Asinius Pollio, Athe¯naios Blastos, Boëthos (Med.), Mechanicus, Athe¯nio¯n (of Boëthos of Sido¯n (Perip.), Athens?), Athe¯nodo¯ros of Boutoridas, Brenitus, Tarsos, Castricius, Clodius Caecilius “Medicus,” Tuscus, Cornelius Nepos, Caesennius, Campestris, Diodo¯ros of Sicily, Candidus, Celer, Clodius Dionusios (of Mile¯tos?), (Askle¯piadean), Clodius Diophantos of Lukia, of Naples, Cornelius, Dioskouride¯s Phakas, Cornelius Bocchus, Eudo¯ros of Alexandria, Dalio¯n (Med.), Euelpistos (Terentius), Damigero¯n, Damo¯n Euphorbos, Florus, (Geog.), Damostratos/ Fonteius Capito, Grattius De¯mostratos, Dasius, Faliscus, He¯ra¯s, De¯ïleo¯n, De¯markhos, Hupsikrate¯s, Iouba II, De¯me¯trios (Geog.), Isido¯ros of Kharax, Iulius De¯me¯trios of Alexandria, Caesar, Iulius Caesar De¯me¯trios of Lako¯nika, (Augustus), Iulius Hyginus, De¯me¯trios “physicus,” Khrusermos, Kleopatra, De¯mokle¯s, De¯mokritos Krateros, Licinius Caluus, (pseudo: Agric.), Maecenas Licinius, De¯mokritos (pseudo: Maecenas Melissus, Alch.), De¯mokritos Matius Caluena, Mele¯tos, (pseudo: Lith.), Me¯nodo¯ros, Mnaseas of De¯mokritos (pseudo: Mile¯tos, Naburianos, Med.), De¯mokritos Nigidius Figulus, Nikolaos (pseudo: Pharm.), of Damaskos, Niko¯n of De¯mosthene¯s Philale¯the¯s, Akragas, Olumpos of De¯motele¯s, Derkullide¯s, Alexandria, Ouidius Naso, Derkullos, Dexios, Philode¯mos, Pompeius Didumos of Alexandria 962

P:974

T I M E - L I N E ( 1 5 – 2 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: Lenaeus, Pompeius (Metrol.), Didumos of Trogus, Poseido¯nios (Med. Knidos, Diodo¯ros I), Potamo¯n of (Astron.), Diodo¯ros Alexandria, Puthio¯n (Empir.), Diodo¯ros of (Pharm.), Sabinius Tiro, Samos, Diogas, Diogene¯s Sallustius (Cn.), Sallustius (Geog.), Diokle¯s of Crispus, So¯sigene¯s (I), Khalke¯do¯n, Diokle¯s of Strabo¯n, Sueius, Tarutius, Magnesia, Diome¯de¯s, Terentius Varro of Narbo, Dio¯n (Med.), Dionusios Terentius Varro of Reate, (of Halikarnassos?), Themiso¯n, Theodo¯ros of Dionusios of Corinth, Gadara, Theophane¯s of Dionusios of Kurtos, Mutile¯ne¯, Timagene¯s, Dionusios of Tullius Cicero (M.), Tullius Philadelpheia, Dionusios Cicero (Q.), Turranius, of Rhodes, Dionusios of Valerius Messalla Potitus, Samos, Dionusios: Valgius Rufus, Sallustius, Dionusodo¯ros Velchionius, Vergilius, (Pharm.), Diophil–, Vipsanius Agrippa, Dioskoros (Geog.), Vitruvius Pollio, Dioskoros (Pharm.), Xenarkhos Diphilos, Diphilos of15  – 20  (72) Aelius Gallus, Laodikeia, Domitius Alexander of Laodikeia, Nigrinus, Do¯rio¯n (Biol.), Alexander of Mundos, Do¯rio¯n (Mech.), Ambiuius, Ammo¯nios of Do¯rotheos of Athens, Alexandria, Antiokhos Do¯rotheos of He¯liopolis, (Paccius), Antonius Castor, Do¯rotheos of Khaldaea, Aristo¯n (II), Arkhelaos “Dtrums,” Eire¯naios, (Lithika), Arkhelaos of Elephantine¯/Elephantis, Kappadokia, Artemo¯n Emeritus (Hemeritos), (Med.), Asinius Pollio, Epagathos, Epainete¯s, Athe¯nio¯n (of Athens?), Epidauros, Epigene¯s of Atime¯tos, Caepio, Cassius, Buzantion, Epigonos, Cloatius Verus, Clodius Epikle¯s of Crete, Tuscus, Cornelius Celsus, Epikouros (Pharm.), Diodotos (Pharm.), Epikrate¯s of He¯rakleia, Diogene¯s (Pharm.), Erasistratos of Sikuo¯n, Diophantos of Lukia, Euainetos, Euangeus, Euelpide¯s, Euelpistos Euboulide¯s, Euboulos (Terentius), Eunomos (Pharm.), Eude¯mos the Askle¯piadean, Florus, elder, Eudikos, Eue¯nos, Grattius Faliscus, Eugeneia, Euge¯rasia, He¯liodo¯ros (Stoic), He¯ra¯s, Euhe¯meros (Pharm.), Hupsikrate¯s, Iouba II, Eukleide¯s “Palatianus,” 963

P:975

T I M E - L I N E ( 1 5 – 2 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: Isido¯ros of Kharax, Iulius Eumakhos, Euphrano¯r Atticus, Iulius Bassus, (Pharm.), Euphrano¯r Iulius Caesar (Augustus), (Pythag.), Euruo¯de¯s, Iulius Caesar Euskhe¯mos, Euthude¯mos (Germanicus), Iulius of Athens, Euthukleos, Hyginus, Kárpos, Fauilla, Faustinus, Maecenas Licinius, Firmius, Flauianus of Maecenas Melissus, Crete, Flauius Clemens, Manilius, Mantias (Alch.), Flauius “the boxer,” Marcianus (of Africa?), Fronto (Astrol.), Gaius of Matius Caluena, Mege¯s, Neapolis, Gemellus, Mele¯tos, Menekrate¯s Geminos, Gennadios, (Claudius), Nike¯ratos, Glaukide¯s, Glauko¯n/ Nikolaos of Damaskos, Glaukos, Glaukos (Geog. Ouidius Naso, Petronius II), Gluko¯n, Granius, Musa, Philemo¯n, Philo¯n Halieus, Harpalos of Alexandria, Philo¯n of (Pharm.), Harpokra¯s, Tarsos, Philo¯nide¯s of Harpokratio¯n (Pharm.), Catina, Pompeius Trogus, He¯ge¯side¯mos, He¯ge¯to¯r Potamo¯n of Alexandria, (Med.), He¯ge¯to¯r of Sabinius Tiro, Sabinus Buzantion, Hekataios (Agric.), Sallustius (Pharm.), He¯liodo¯ros of Mopseates, Seleukos of Athens, He¯rakleide¯s Alexandria, Sextius, Pontikos of He¯rakleia Strabo¯n, Theodo¯ros of Pontike¯ (Junior), Gadara, Theo¯n of He¯rakleide¯s of Eruthrai, Alexandria (Stoic), He¯rakleitos of Sikuo¯n, Thrasullos, Trupho¯n of Herma¯s th¯eriakos, Hermeias Gortun, Turranius, (Astrol.), Hermeias Turranius Gracilis, Valgius (Ophthalm.), Herme¯s Rufus, Vipsanius Agrippa, Trismegistos (pseudo), Xenarkhos Hermo¯n of Egypt, Hermophilos, Hierax of The¯bai, Hikatidas, Hikesios (Agric.), Hippokratic Corpus: Sevens, Hostilius Saserna and so¯n, Hugie¯nos, Hulas, Iamblikhos (Geog.), Iaso¯n of Nusa, Idios, Ioudaios, Irio¯n, Isigonos of Nikaia, Isis: pseudo (Pharm.), Iskhomakhos, Iulius Agrippa, Iulius Secundus, 964

P:976

T I M E - L I N E ( 1 5 – 2 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: Iunia/Iounias, Iustinus (Pharm.), Iustus the Pharmacologist, On the Kosmos, Kallikle¯s, Kalliphane¯s, Kallistratos, Ke¯phisopho¯n, Keskintos: Inscription of, Khalkideus, Kharide¯mos, Kharikle¯s, Kharito¯n, Kharixene¯s, Khios, Khrusanthos, Khrusippos (Agric.), Khrusippos (Med.), Kide¯nas, Kimo¯n, Kleoboulos (Geog.), Kleoboulos (Pharm.), Kleome¯de¯s, Kleo¯n (of Kuzikos?), Kleophantos, Kleëmporos, Kloniakos, Klutos, Ko¯dios Toukos, Komerios, Kommiade¯s, Kore¯ Kosmou, Krate¯s (Med.), Kratippos, Krato¯n, Kritode¯mos, Kte¯sipho¯n, Laïs, Lampo¯n, Laodikos, Leo¯nidas of Buzantion, Lepidianus, Licinius Atticus, Lingo¯n, Litorius, Lobo¯n, Logadios, Lukome¯de¯s, Lukos of Neapolis, Lunkeus, Lupus, Lusias, Lusimakhos of Ko¯s, Magnus of Philadelpheia, Magnus of Tarsos, Makhairio¯n, Marcellinus (Pharm.), Maria, Markio¯n, Melampous of Sarnaka, Melissos Xenophane¯s and Gorgias, Melito¯n, Menekritos, Menelaos (Pharm.), Menestheus, Menippos, Menippos of Pergamon, Menenius Rufus, Me¯nodotos (Astr.), 965

P:977

T I M E - L I N E ( 1 5 – 2 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: Menoitas, Me¯nophilos, Me¯trodo¯ros (Arch.), Me¯trodo¯ros (Astr. I), Me¯trodo¯ros (Astr. II), Me¯trodo¯ros (Pharm.), Me¯trodo¯ros of Buzantion, Me¯trodo¯ros son of Epikharmos (pseudo), Mikio¯n, Mile¯sios, Miltiade¯s, Minucianus, Mne¯side¯s, Molpis, Moskhio¯n (Pharm.), Mousaios, Muia: pseudo, Muo¯nide¯s, Muro¯n, Naukratite¯s medicus, Neanthe¯s of Kuzikos, Nearkhos, Neokle¯s, Neoptolemos, Nike¯te¯s (of Athens?), Nikias of Mallos, Nikias of Nikaia, Nikolaos (Pharm.), Nikomakhos (Pharm.), Nikome¯de¯s (He¯rakleitean), Ocellus, Olumpias, Olumpikos (Lith.), Olumpionikos, One¯side¯mos, One¯tide¯s/ One¯to¯r, Oppius, Orﬁtus, O¯ rigeneia, O¯ rio¯n of Bithunia, O¯ ros, Orpheus (pseudo: Astrol.), Orpheus (pseudo: Med.), Ortho¯n, Ostane¯s (pseudo), Paconius, Panaitios Jr., Pantainos, Papias, Papirius Fabianus, P. Berol. 9782, P. Lit. Lond. 167, P. Mich. 3.148, P. Osloensis 73, P. Oxy. 13.1609, P. Oxy. 15.1796, Paradox. Vaticanus, Pasio¯n, Patroklos, Pausanias “He¯rakleiteios,” Paxamos, Pelops (Med.), Perigene¯s, 966

P:978

T I M E - L I N E ( 1 5 – 2 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: Perikle¯s, Perseus, Phaidros, Phanias, Philippos of Macedon, Philiskos of Thasos, Philistide¯s of Mallos, Philokalos, Philokle¯s, Philokrate¯s, Philome¯los, Philo¯n (Meteor.), Philo¯n of Tuana, Philo¯tas, Phoibos Ulpius, Phulakos, Plato¯n (Pharm.), Platuse¯mos, Podanite¯s, Polite¯s, Pollis (Arch.), Poluarkhos, Polueide¯s, Polustomos, Poseido¯nios of Corinth, Potamo¯n (Pharm.), Primio¯n, Proëkhios, Proklos (Methodist), Pro¯tagoras of Nikaia, Pro¯tarkhos of Tralleis, Pro¯ta¯s, Proxenos, Prutanis, Ptolemaios (Erasi.), Ptolemaios (Med.), Ptolemaïs of Kure¯ne¯, Puramos, Purrhos of Magnesia, Puthagoras (Med.), Puthagoras (pseudo: Astrol.), Puthios, Puthokle¯s of Samos, Quadratus, Rabirius, Ripalus, Salpe¯, Samithra, Sardonius, Sarkeuthite¯s, Saturos (Lithika), Sebosus Statius, Serapio¯n of Alexandria (Astrol.), Sergius of Babylo¯n, Sertorius Clemens, Sile¯nos, Silo, Simos of Ko¯s, So¯krate¯s (Med.), So¯krate¯s of Argos, So¯kratio¯n, Solo¯n, So¯ranos of Ko¯s, So¯sagoras, So¯sandros (Geog.), So¯sandros (Pharm.), 967

P:979

T I M E - L I N E ( 2 0 – 5 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:20–55  (94) Acilius 20–125  So¯sikrate¯s, So¯simene¯s, Hyginus, Agathinos, So¯stratos of Alexandria, Aglaias, Alexander of So¯teira, So¯tio¯n, Laodikeia, Alexander of Spendousa, Speusippos of Mundos, Alﬁus Flauus, Alexandria, Staphulos, Alko¯n, Ambrosios Strato¯n of Be¯rutos, Sunero¯s, Tekto¯n, Telamo¯n, Telephane¯s, Teukros of Carthage, Teukros of Kuzikos, Thamuros, Theano¯ (pseudo), Theodo¯re¯tos, Theodo¯ros of Soloi (Kilikia), Theodosios (of Bithunia), Theokhre¯stos, Theokritos, Theokude¯s, Theomene¯s, Theophilos (Geog.), Theophilos (Lithika), Theopompos, Theoxenos, Theuda¯s, Thrasuandros, Threptos, Timaios (Astrol.), Timaios (Pharm.), Timaios of Lokris (pseudo), Timaristos, Timokleanos, Timokrate¯s, Timo¯n, Timotheos, Tle¯polemos, Turannos, Turpillianus, Valerius Paulinus, Vicellius, Xanite¯s, Xen(okh)are¯s, Zakhalias, Ze¯no¯n of Laodikeia, Ze¯no¯n of Sido¯n, Ze¯nophilos, Zeuxis (He¯roph.), Zo¯ilos of Macedon, Zo¯puros of Alexandria, Zo¯simos (Med.) Abaskantos, Abram, Adeimantos, Adrastos of Aphrodisias, Aemilius Hispanus, Aëtios, Aetna, Agatharkhide¯s of Samos, 968

P:980

T I M E - L I N E ( 2 0 – 5 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: Rusticus of Puteoli, Agathokle¯s, Agathokle¯s of Ammo¯nios (Annius), Atrax, Agathokle¯s of Andromakhos of Crete Mile¯tos, Age¯sias, Aineios, (Elder), Annaeus Seneca, Aisara, Aiskhine¯s, Anthaios (Sextilius), Aiskhulide¯s, Akhaios, Antonius Castor, Apio¯n of Akhilla¯s, Alexander Oasis, Apollo¯nios (Geog.), Alkimio¯n, (Claudius), Apuleius Alkinoos, Amarantos, Celsus, Areios of Tarsos, Ammo¯n (Astrol.), Aristarkhos of Tarsos, Amphio¯n, Amuthao¯n, Aristokrate¯s, Aristoxenos, Andronikos (Med.), Arkhibios, Artemo¯n Anoubio¯n of Diospolis, (Med.), Athe¯naios of Antimakhos (Pharm.), Attaleia, Athe¯nodo¯ros Antiokhos of Athens, (Med.), Atime¯tos, Antipatros (Methodist), Balbillos, Caepio, Cassius, Antipatros (Pharm.), Castus, Cornelius Celsus, Antoninus of Ko¯s, Cornelius Valerianus, Antonius “root-cutter,” Damonikos (Claudius), Antullos, Aphroda¯s, Diodotos (Pharm.), Aphrodisis, Apios Diogene¯s (Pharm.), Phaskos, Apollinarios of Dionusios (Meth.), Aizanoi, Apollodo¯ros of Dioskouride¯s of Kition, Apollodo¯ros of Anazarbos, Do¯rotheos of Taras, Apollo¯nios Sido¯n, Eude¯mos Glaukos, Apollo¯nios of (Method.), Euelpide¯s, Alexandria (“Mus”), Eunomos Askle¯piadean, Apollo¯nios of Pergamon He¯liodo¯ros (Stoic), (Med.), Apollo¯nios of Hermogene¯s of Smurna, Pitane¯, Apollo¯nios of Iouba II, Isido¯ros of Prousias, Apollo¯nios of Antioch, Iulius Atticus, Tarsos, Aquila Secundilla, Iulius Bassus, Iulius Arbinas, Areios Didumos, Graecinus, Iunius Aristanax, Aristarkhos of Moderatus Columella, Sikuo¯n, Aristoboulos, Khaire¯mo¯n, Kharme¯s, Aristode¯mos, Aristokle¯s, Koiranos, Krinas, Kárpos, Aristokle¯s of Messe¯ne¯, Leo¯nidas of Alexandria Aristolaos, Aristombrotos, (Astron.), Leukios, Magnus Aristophane¯s, Aristotle of Ephesos, Manilius, (pseudo: Mirab.), Marcellus (Pharm.), Arkhelaos (Veterin.), Mege¯s, Mele¯tos, Arkhelaos of He¯rakleia Menekrate¯s (Claudius), Salbake¯, Arrabaios, Mnaseas (Method.), Asklatio¯n (Astrol.), Moderatus, Nike¯ratos, Asklatio¯n (Med.), 969

P:981

T I M E - L I N E ( 5 5 – 9 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:55–90  Nikostratos (Pharm.), Askle¯piodotos (of Ofellius Laetus, Paetus, P. Nikaia?), Aspasios Vindob. 19996, Periplus (Pharm.), Athe¯nippos, Maris Erythraei, Petronius Athe¯nodo¯ros (of Musa, Philemo¯n, Rhodes?), Attius, Axios, Philippos of Rome, Philo¯n Bio¯n Caecilius, Bithus of of Alexandria, Philo¯n of Durrakhion, Blastos, Huampolis, Philo¯n of Boëthos (Med.), Brenitus, Tarsos, Philo¯nide¯s of Caecilius “Medicus,” Catina, Pliny, Pomponius Caesennius, Campestris, Mela, Sallustius Candidus, Carmen Mopseates, Scribonius Astrologicum, Celer, Largus, Seleukos of Clodius (Askle¯piadean), Alexandria, Seuerus the Clodius of Naples, Ophthalmologist, Sextilius Cornelius, Cornelius Paconianus, Sextius, Bocchus, Dalio¯n (Med.), Sextius Niger, Strabo¯n, Damigero¯n, Damo¯n Terentius Valens, (Geog.), Dasius, De¯ïleo¯n, Thessalos of Tralleis, De¯markhos, De¯me¯trios Thrasullos, Vettius Valens (Geog.), De¯me¯trios of (Med.), Vibius Ruﬁnus, Alexandria, De¯mokritos Xenokrate¯s of (pseudo: Alch.), Aphrodisias, Xenokrate¯s De¯mokritos (pseudo: of Ephesos, Zo¯puros of Lith.), De¯mosthene¯s Gortuna Philale¯the¯s, Derkullide¯s, (81) Agathinos, Derkullos, Dexios, Aglaias, Alﬁus Flauus, Didumos of Ambrosios Rusticus of Alexandria (Metrol.), Puteoli, Ammo¯nios Didumos of Knidos, (Annius), Andromakhos of Diodo¯ros (Astron.), Crete (Elder), Diodo¯ros of Samos, Andromakhos of Crete Diogas, Diogene¯s (Geog.), (Younger), Annaeus Diogene¯s of Oinoanda, Lucanus, Annaeus Seneca, Diokle¯s of Khalke¯do¯n, Anthaios (Sextilius), Diome¯de¯s, Dio¯n (Med.), Antonius Castor, Dionusios (Lithika), Apollo¯nios (Claudius), Dionusios (of Areios of Tarsos, Halikarnassos?), Aristarkhos of Tarsos, Dionusios of Buzantion, Aristogeito¯n, Aristokrate¯s, Dionusios of Corinth, Arkhibios, Asarubas, Dionusios of Kurtos, Athe¯naios of Attaleia, Dionusios of Rhodes, Athe¯nodo¯ros (Med.), Dionusios of Samos, Balbillos, Castus, Dionusios: Sallustius, 970

P:982

T I M E - L I N E ( 5 5 – 9 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: Damokrate¯s (Seruilius), Dionusodo¯ros (Maecius Damonikos (Claudius), Seuerus), Dionusodo¯ros Didumos (Music), (Pharm.), Diophil–, Dionusios (Meth.), Dioskoros (Geog.), Dioskouride¯s of Dioskoros (Pharm.), Anazarbos, Do¯rotheos of Dioskouride¯s (Metrol.), Sido¯n, Drako¯n of Diphilos of Laodikeia, Kerkura, Ero¯tianos, Domitius Nigrinus, Flauius Vespasianus, Do¯rotheos of Athens, Gaius (He¯roph.), Do¯rotheos of He¯liopolis, He¯liodo¯ros of Alexandria Do¯rotheos of Khaldaea, (Pneum.), Hermogene¯s of Eire¯naios, Elephantine¯/ Smurna, He¯rodotos Elephantis, Emeritus (Pneum.), He¯ro¯n of (Hemeritos), Epagathos, Alexandria, Isido¯ros of Epainete¯s, Epaphroditos Antioch, Iunius Crispus, of Carthage, Epidauros, Iunius Moderatus Epikouros (Pharm.), Columella, Khaire¯mo¯n, Epikouros of Pergamon, Kharme¯s, Koiranos, Erasistratos of Sikuo¯n, Kosmos, Krato¯n of Esdras, Euainetos, Athens, Krito¯n, Leo¯nidas Euangeus, Euboulide¯s, of Alexandria (Astron.), Euboulos (Pharm.), Leo¯nidas of Alexandria Eudikos, Eue¯nos, (Pneum.), Leukios, Eugeneia, Euge¯rasia, Licinius Mucianus, Euhe¯meros (Pharm.), Londiniensis medicus, Eukleide¯s “Palatianus,” Magistrianus, Magnus of Eumakhos, Euphrano¯r Ephesos, Marcellus (Pharm.), Euruo¯de¯s, (Pharm.), Marinos (Med.), Euskhe¯mos, Euthukleos, Mnaseas (Methodist), Fauilla, Faustinus, Moderatus, Nikostratos Firmius, Flauianus of (Pharm.), Ofellius Laetus, Crete, Flauius Clemens, Paetus, Pamphilos of Flauius “the boxer,” Alexandria, P. Iandanae Fronto (Agric.), Fronto 85, P. Oxy. 3.467, P. (Astrol.), Gaius of Vindob. 19996, Periplus Neapolis, Gale¯n (pseudo: Maris Erythraei, Pharnax, Hist. Phil.), Gemellus, Philippos of Rome, Philo¯n Gennadios, Glaukide¯s, of Huampolis, Pliny, Glauko¯ n/Glaukos, Plutarch, Polle¯s of Aigai Glaukos (Geog. II), (pseudo), Pomponius Granius, Habro¯n, Bassus, Pomponius Mela, Harpalos (Pharm.), Ptolemaios (Pharm.), Harpokra¯ s, Publius of Puteoli, Rufus Harpokratio¯ n 971

P:983

T I M E - L I N E ( 9 0 – 1 2 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:90–125  of Ephesos, Theotropos, (Pharm.), Harpokratio¯n Thessalos of Tralleis, of Alexandria, Vibius Ruﬁnus, He¯ge¯side¯mos, Hekataios Xenokrate¯s of (Pharm.), Hekato¯numos Aphrodisias, Xenokrate¯s of Khios, He¯liodo¯ros of of Ephesos, Ze¯no¯n (of Athens, He¯rakleide¯s Athens?) Pontikos of He¯rakleia (68) Agrippa of Pontike¯ (Junior), Bithunia, Aiskhrio¯n of He¯rakleide¯s of Eruthrai, Pergamon, Andro¯n of He¯rakleitos of Rome, Apollodo¯ros of Rhodiapolis, He¯rakleitos Damaskos, Arkhigene¯s, of Sikuo¯n, Herma¯s Artemido¯ros Capito, th¯eriakos, Hermeias Askle¯piade¯s Pharmakio¯n, (Astrol.), Hermeias Aspasios (Perip.), (Math.), Hermeias Athe¯nodo¯ros (Med.), (Ophthalm.), Herme¯s Balbus, Calpurnius Piso Trismegistos (pseudo), (I), Cornelius Tacitus, Hermippos of Be¯rutos, Dioskouride¯s of Hermophilos, He¯ro¯nas, Alexandria, Do¯rotheos of Hierax of The¯bai, Sido¯n, Drako¯n of Hikatidas, Hikesios Kerkura, Fauorinus, (Agric.), Hulas, Hyginus Flauius Arrian, Gaius Gromaticus, Iamblikhos (Platonist), Gale¯n (pseudo: (Geog.), Idios, Imbrasios Def. Med.), He¯liodo¯ros of (Paradox.), Ioudaios, Alexandria (Pneum.), Irio¯n, Isigonos of Nikaia, He¯rakla¯s, He¯rodotos Iskhomakhos, Iulianus of (Pneum.), Hierokle¯s of Tralleis, Iulius Agrippa, Alexandria, Hyginus Iulius Secundus, Iunia/ (Agrimensor), Iulius Iounias, Iustinus Frontinus, Kosmos, (Pharm.), Iustus the Krato¯n of Athens, Krito¯n, Pharmacologist, Kallikle¯s, Leo¯nidas of Alexandria Kallikrate¯s (Astrol.), (Pneum.), Londiniensis Kallinikos (Pharm.), medicus, Magistrianus, Kalliphane¯s, Magnus arkhiatros, Magnus Ke¯ phisopho¯ n, of Ephesos, Manetho¯n Khalkideus, Kharide¯mos, (Astrol.), Marinos (Med.), Kharikle¯s, Kharito¯n, Marinos of Tyre, Kharixene¯s, Khios, Menelaos of Alexandria, Khrusanthos, Khrusippos Me¯nodotos of (Med.), Kimo¯n, Nikome¯deia, Nikano¯r, Kleoboulos (Geog.), Nikomakhos of Gerasa, Kleoboulos (Pharm.), Niko¯n of Pergamon, Kleome¯de¯s, Kleoneide¯s, 972

P:984

T I M E - L I N E ( 9 0 – 1 2 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: Ofellius Laetus, Orpheus Kleophantos, Kleëmporos, (pseudo: Lithika), Paetus, Kloniakos, Ko¯dios P. Iandanae 85, P. Oslo. Toukos, Komerios, 72, P. Oxy. 3.467, P. Kommiade¯s, Kore¯ Vindob. 19996, Pharnax, Kosmou, Krate¯s (Med.), Philippos of Rome, Philo¯n Kratippos, Krato¯n, of Bublos, Phlego¯n, Kritode¯mos, Kte¯sipho¯n, Pitenius, Plutarch, Kuranides, Kuros, Polemo¯n of Laodikeia, Laïs, Lampo¯n, Laodikos, Polle¯s of Aigai (pseudo), Lepidianus, Licinius Pompeius Sabinus, Atticus, Lingo¯n, Litorius, Pomponius Bassus, Lobo¯n, Logadios, Ptolemaios of Kuthe¯ra, Lukome¯de¯s, Lunkeus, Quintus, Rufus of Lupus, Lusias, Maecius Ephesos, Rufus of Aelianus, Mae¯s Titianus, Samaria, Sabinus (Med.), Magnus of Philadelpheia, So¯ranos of Ephesos, Magnus of Tarsos, Stratonikos of Pergamon, Makhairio¯n, Marcellinus Theoda¯s of Laodikeia, (Pharm.), Maria, Theo¯n of Smurna, Ze¯no¯n Markio¯n, Melito¯n, (of Athens?) Menekritos, Menelaos (Pharm.), Menemakhos, Menestheus, Menippos, Menenius Rufus, Me¯nodotos (Astr.), Me¯nophilos, Me¯trodo¯ra, Me¯trodo¯ros (Arch.), Me¯trodo¯ros (Astr. II), Me¯trodo¯ros (Pharm.), Me¯trodo¯ros son of Epikharmos (pseudo), Mile¯sios, Miltiade¯s, Minucianus, Mne¯side¯s, Modius Asiaticus, Moskhio¯n (Pharm.), Mousaios, Muia: pseudo, Muro¯n, Naukratite¯s medicus, Nearkhos, Nepualios, Nike¯te¯s (of Athens?), Nikias of Mallos, Nikolaos (Pharm.), Nikomakhos (Pharm.), Olumpiakos, Olumpias, Olumpikos 973

P:985

T I M E - L I N E ( 9 0 – 1 2 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: (Lith.), Olumpionikos, One¯side¯mos, One¯tide¯s/ One¯to¯r, One¯to¯r, Orﬁtus, O¯ rigeneia, O¯ rio¯n of Bithunia, O¯ ros, Orpheus (pseudo: Astrol.), Orpheus (pseudo: Med.), Ortho¯n, Ostane¯s (pseudo), Pammene¯s (Alch.), Panaitios Jr., Pantainos, Papias, Papirius Fabianus, P. Aberdeen 11, P. Ayer, P. Berol. 9782, P. Geneva inv. 259, P. Lit. Lond. 167, P. London 98, P. Mich. 3.148, P. Mich. 3.149, P. Mil. Vogl. I.14, P. Mil. Vogl. I.15, P. Osloensis 73, P. Oxy. 13.1609, P. Oxy. 15.1796, P. Tebtunis 679, Paradoxographus Florentinus, Paradoxographus Vaticanus, Parisinus medicus, Paulos (of Italy), Pause¯ris, Pe¯bikhios, Pelops (Med.), Perigene¯s, Perikle¯s, Phaidros, Phanias, Philaretos (Alch.), Philippos of Egypt, Philistide¯s of Mallos, Philokalos, Philokle¯s, Philokrate¯s, Philome¯los, Philo¯n (Meteor.), Philo¯n (Meth.), Philo¯n of Tuana, Philo¯tas, Phoibos Ulpius, Phulakos, Physiologos, Plato¯n (Pharm.), Platuse¯mos, Podanite¯s, Polite¯s, Polle¯s (Med.), Poluarkhos, Polueide¯s, Polustomos, Poseido¯nios of Corinth, Potamo¯n (Pharm.), 974

P:986

T I M E - L I N E ( 9 0 – 1 2 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: Praecepta Salubria, Primio¯n, Proëkhios, Proklos (Methodist), Pro¯tagoras of Nikaia, Pro¯ta¯s, Prutanis, Ptolemaios (Erasi.), Ptolemaios (Med.), Ptolemaios Platonikos, Ptolemaïs of Kure¯ne¯, Puramos, Purrhos of Magnesia, Puthagoras (pseudo: Astrol.), Puthios, Puthokle¯s of Samos, Quadratus, Rabirius, Rhe¯ginos, Ripalus, Salpe¯, Samithra, Sardonius, Sarkeuthite¯s, Saturos (Lithika), Sebosus Statius, Serapio¯n of Alexandria (Astrol.), Serenus (Pharm.), Sergius of Babylo¯n, Sertorius Clemens, Sextus Empiricus, Siculus Flaccus, Silo, So¯krate¯s (Lithika), So¯krate¯s (Med.), So¯kratio¯n, Solo¯n, So¯ranos of Ko¯s, So¯sagoras, So¯sandros (Pharm.), So¯sikrate¯s, So¯simene¯s, So¯teira, So¯tio¯n, Spendousa, Strato¯n of Be¯rutos, Sunero¯s, Telamo¯n, Telephane¯s, Teukros of Egyptian Babylo¯n, Thamuros, Theano¯ (pseudo), Theodo¯re¯tos, Theodo¯ros (of Macedon?), Theodo¯ros of Soloi (Kilikia), Theokhre¯stos, Theokritos, Theomene¯s, Theophilos (Geog.), Theophilos (Lithika), 975

P:987

T I M E - L I N E ( 1 2 5 – 1 6 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:125–160  (73) Aeﬁcianus, 125–230  Theopompos, Aelius Promotus, Theosebios, Theoxenos, Aiskhrio¯n of Pergamon, Theuda¯s, Threptos, Albinus of Smurna, Timaios (Astrol.), Alexander of Aphrodisias Timaios (Pharm.), (pseudo), Andro¯n of Timaios of Lokris Rome, Antigonos of (pseudo), Timaristos, Nikaia, Apollo¯nide¯s of Timokleanos, Cyprus, Apuleius of Timokrate¯s, Timo¯n, Madaurus, Aretaios, Timotheos, Turannos, Artemido¯ros Capito, Turpillianus, Valerius Artemido¯ros of Daldis, Paulinus, Vicellius, Aspasios (Perip.), Attalos Xanite¯s, Ze¯nario¯n, (Med.), Atticus, Aurelius Ze¯no¯n of Laodikeia, (Pharm.), Calpurnius Piso Ze¯nophilos, Zo¯ilos of (I), Dionusios of Macedon, Zo¯simos Alexandria (Geog.), (Med.) Fauorinus, Flauius Arrian, Abram, Adrastos Gaius (Platonist), Gale¯n, of Aphrodisias, Aelianus Gale¯n (pseudo: Def. “the Platonist,” Aemilius Med.), Gale¯n (pseudo: Hispanus, Africanus Introductio), He¯rakla¯s, (Metrol.), Agape¯tós, He¯rakleianos of Agathokle¯s of Atrax, Alexandria, He¯rakleide¯s Age¯sias, Aiskhulide¯s, of Athens, Iulianus (of Akhilleus, Alkinoos, Alexandria?), Iulius Ammo¯n (Astrol.), Titianus, Kallimorphos, Anastasios, Antiokhos of Athens, Antipatros (Methodist), Antullos, Apella¯s of Laodikeia, Apollinarios of Aizanoi, Apollinarios (Pharm.), Apollo¯nios of Laodikeia, Apollo¯nios of Pergamon (Med.), Apsurtos, Areios Didumos, Aristode¯mos, Aristotle (pseudo: Mirab.), Arkadios, Arkhelaos (Med.), Arkhelaos (Veterin.), Arruntius Celsus, Artemisius Dianio, Asklatio¯n (Astrol.), Auidianus, 976

P:988

T I M E - L I N E ( 1 6 0 – 1 9 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:160–195  Kronios, Lukos of Book of Assumptions, Macedon, Magnus Campestris, Carmen arkhiatros, Manetho¯n Astrologicum, Clodius of (Astrol.), Marcellinus Naples, Damigero¯n, (Med.), Marcellus of Side¯, De¯mokritos (Neo-Plat.), Martialius, Melior, De¯mokritos (pseudo: Me¯nodotos of Alch.), Diodo¯ros (Astron.), Nikome¯deia, Me¯trodo¯ros Diogene¯s Laërtios, of Alexandria, Nikano¯r, Diogene¯s of Oinoanda, Nikomakhos of Gerasa, Dionusios (Lithika), Niko¯n of Pergamon, Dionusios (of Noume¯nios of Apameia, Halikarnassos?), Numisianus, Orpheus Dionusios of Aigai, (pseudo: Lithika), Dionusios of Buzantion, Pankrate¯s of Alexandria, Dionusios of Rhodes, P. Oslo. 72, P. Ross. Georg. Dionusodo¯ros (Maecius 1.20, P. Strassbourg Inv. Seuerus), Dioskouride¯s Gr. 90, P. Turner. 14, (Metrol.), Diphilos of Pelops of Smurna, Philo¯n Laodikeia, Dulcitius, of Bublos, Philoumenos, Emeritus (Hemeritos), Phlego¯n, Plutarch (Music), Epaphroditos and Polemo¯n of Laodikeia, Vitruuius Rufus, Ptolemy, Quintilii, Epikouros of Pergamon, Quintus, Saturos of Erasistratos (Astrol.), Smurna, Simmias the Esdras, Euboulide¯s, Stoic, So¯ranos of Ephesos, Euhe¯meros/Himerios, Stratonikos of Pergamon, Eutychianus, Fronto Suros, Tauros of Be¯rutos, (Agric.), Fronto (Astrol.), Theoda¯s of Laodikeia, Gale¯n (pseudo: Hist. Theo¯n (Astr.), Theo¯n of Phil.), Gale¯n (pseudo: Alexandria (Med. I), Pulsibus), Gaudentius, Theo¯n of Smurna, Vettius Glaukos (Geog. II), Valens of Antioch, Gre¯gorios (Pharm.), Volusius Maecianus, Habro¯n, Harpokratio¯n of Yavane´svara Alexandria, (44) Aelius Hekato¯numos (?) of Promotus, Albinus of Khios, He¯rakleitos of Smurna, Alexander of Rhodiapolis, De Herbis, Aphrodisias (pseudo), Herma¯s th¯eriakos, Ampelius, Amuntianos, Hermeias (Astrol.), Andro¯n of Rome, Hermeias (Doxogr.), Antigonos of Nikaia, Herme¯s Trismegistos Antonius, Apuleius of (pseudo), Hermippos of Madaurus, Aretaios, Be¯rutos, He¯ro¯nas, Hulas, 977

P:989

T I M E - L I N E ( 1 9 5 – 2 3 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:195–230  Aristotle of Mutile¯ne¯, Hyginus Gromaticus, Attalos (Med.), Atticus, Iamblikhos (Geog.), Aurelius (Pharm.), Imbrasios (Paradox.), Bardaisan, Calpurnius Iulianus of Tralleis, Piso (II), Censorinus (I), Iunius Nipsus, Kallikle¯s, Diodotos (Astr. II), Kallikrate¯s (Astrol.), Euphrates, Flauius Arrian, Kleome¯de¯s, Kleoneide¯s, Gale¯n, Gale¯n (pseudo: Kore¯ Kosmou, Introductio), Kuranides, Kuros, Harpokratio¯n of Argos, Largius, Leontinos He¯rakleide¯s of Athens, (Agric.), Lepidianus, Herminos, Isis (pseudo: Litorius, Lobo¯n, Alch.), Iulius Africanus, Logadios, Lupus, Maecius Iulius Titianus, Iustus the Aelianus, Maria, Ophthalmologist, Me¯trodo¯ra, Me¯trodo¯ros Kallimorphos, Kronios, (Astr. II), Muia: pseudo, Martialius, Me¯trodo¯ros of Nepualios, Nonnos, Alexandria, Noume¯nios of O¯ dapsos, Olumpiakos, Apameia, Oppianus of One¯to¯r, Orpheus (pseudo: Kilikia, P. Strassbourg Inv. Astrol.), Pammene¯s Gr. 90, P. Turner. 14, (Alch.), Panaitios Jr., Philistio¯n of Pergamon, Pankharios, P. Aberdeen Philostratos, Philoumenos, 11, P. Ayer, P. Berol. 9782, Quintilii, Serenus P. Cairo Crawford 1, P. Sammonicus, Vettius London 98, P. Lund I.7, P. Valens of Antioch, Michiganensis 3.149, P. Volusius Maecianus Mil. Vogl. I.14, P. Mil. (29) Aelianus of Vogl. I.15, P. Ryl. III.529, Praeneste, Alexander of P. Tebtunis 679, Aphrodisias, Alexander of Paradoxographus Aphrodisias (pseudo), Florentinus, Aristotle of Mutile¯ne¯, Paradoxographus Arrianos, Artemido¯ros Palatinus, (Astron.), Atticus, Aurelius Paradoxographus (Pharm.), Bardaisan, Vaticanus, Paraphrasis eis Calpurnius Piso (II), ta Oppianou Halieutika, Cassius Iatrosophist, Parisinus medicus, Censorinus (I), Clodius Paulos (of Italy), Albinus, Diodotos (Astr. Pause¯ris, Pe¯bikhios, II), Florentinus, Gale¯n, Perikle¯s, Philaretos Gargilius Martialis, (Alch.), Philippos (of Harpokratio¯n of Argos, Pergamon?), Philippos of Hippolutos, Hyginus Egypt, Philo¯n (Meteor.), (pseudo), Isis (pseudo: Philo¯n of Gadara, 978

P:990

T I M E - L I N E ( 2 3 0 – 2 6 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:230–265  Alch.), Iulius Africanus, Phoibos Ulpius, Medicina Plinii, Nesto¯r, Physiologos, Planetis, Oppianus of Apameia, P. Platuse¯mos, Polite¯s, Polle¯s Turner. 14, Philostratos, (Med.), Poseido¯nios of Serenus Sammonicus, Corinth, Praecepta Serenus of Antinoeia Salubria, Proclianus, Proëkhios, Proklos of (24) Aelianus of 230–335  Laodikeia, Pro¯tagoras, Praeneste, Amelius, Pro¯tagoras of Nikaia, Anatolios of Laodikeia, Prothlius, Ptolemaios Cassius Iatrosophist, Platonikos, Puthagoras Cassius Longinus, (pseudo: Astrol.), Censorinus (II), De¯me¯trios Puthokle¯s of Samos, (Math.), Dionusios (of Quaternionibus, Alexandria?), Diophantos Rhe¯ginos, Romula, of Alexandria, Sardonius, Secundus, Florentinus, Gargilius Serapio¯n (Astron.), Martialis, Hippolutos, Serenus (Pharm.), Sextus Iulius Africanus, Iulius Empiricus, Siculus Solinus, Medicina Plinii, Flaccus, So¯krate¯s Me¯dios (Stoic), Neilos, (Lithika), So¯sigene¯s (II), P. Rylandensis 27, PSI Sporos, Stadiasmus Maris inv. 3011, Plo¯tinos, Magni, Theodo¯re¯tos, Theodo¯ros (of Macedon?), Theodosios (Empir.), Theopompos, Theosebios, Thrasubulus, Tiberius, Timokleanos, Vicellius, Ze¯nophilos Aelianus “the Platonist,” Aemilius Hispanus, Africanus (Metrol.), Agape¯tós, Akhilleus, Alupios, Ammo¯n (Astrol.), Anastasios, Antiokhos of Athens, Antullos, Apella¯s of Laodikeia, Aphthonios, Apollinarios (Pharm.), Apollo¯nios of Laodikeia, Apsurtos, Aristeide¯s Quintilianus, Arkadios, Arkhelaos (Med.), Arkhelaos (Veterin.), Arruntius Celsus, 979

P:991

T I M E - L I N E ( 2 6 5 – 3 3 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:265–300  Porphuriosof Tyre, Arsenios, Artemisius300–335  Samuel, Theosebeia, Dianio, Asklatio¯n Zo¯simos of Panopolis (Astrol.), Auidianus, (24) Amelius, Bakkheios Gero¯n, Book Anatolios of Laodikeia, of Assumptions, Cassius Longinus, Campestris, Carmen De¯me¯trios (Math.), Astrologicum, Carmen de Fauentinus (Cetius), ponderibus et mensuris, Flauius (Med.-poet), Carminius, Celsinus of Gargilius Martialis, Kastabala, Constantinus, Lactantius, Me¯dios (Stoic), De¯mokritos (Neo-Plat.), Megethio¯ n, De¯mokritos (pseudo: Mulomedicina Chironis, Alch.), Diodo¯ros (Astron.), Neilos, Nemesianus, Diogene¯s Laërtios, Pamphilos of Be¯rutos, Dionusios (of Pandrosion, Pappos of Halikarnassos?), Alexandria, P. Rylandensis Dionusios of Aigai, 27, PSI inv. 3011, Plo¯tinos, Dioskoros (Alch.), Plutarch (pseudo: Rivers), Doarios, Dulcitius, Porphurios of Tyre, Emeritus (Hemeritos), Sphujidhvaja, Theosebeia, Epaphroditos and Zo¯simos of Panopolis Vitruuius Rufus, (25) Adamantios, Erasistratos (Astrol.), Albinus (Encyclo.), Esdras, Euboulide¯s, Anatolios of Be¯rutos, Eugenios (Alch.), Ausonius (Iulius), Euhe¯meros/Himerios, Fauentinus (Cetius), Euteknios, Eutychianus, Firmicus Maternus Fronto (Agric.), Fronto (Iulius), Flauius (Med.- (Astrol.), Fullonius poet), Hermodo¯ros of Saturninus, Gale¯n Alexandria, Iamblikhos of (pseudo: An Animal), Khalkis, Iulianus Imp., Gale¯n (pseudo: Hist. Lactantius, Megethio¯n, Phil.), Gale¯n (pseudo: M¯ınara¯ja, Mulomedicina Pulsibus), Gaudentius, Chironis, Pamphilos of Gre¯gorios (Pharm.), Be¯rutos, Pandrosion, Hekato¯numos (?) of Pappos of Alexandria, P. Khios, De Herbis, Leidensis V, Peutinger Hermeias (Doxogr.), Map, Philagrios, Plutarch Herme¯s Trismegistos (pseudo: Rivers), (pseudo), He¯ro¯nas, Porphurios of Tyre, Hierios, Hierokle¯s Theol. Arith., Tiberianus, (Veterin.), Hulas, Hyginus Ulpianus of Emesa Gromaticus, Iamblikhos (Geog.), Iamblikhos of Constantinople, 980

P:992

T I M E - L I N E ( 3 0 0 – 3 3 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names: Ianuarinus, Imbrasios (Paradox.), Isido¯ros (Alch.), Iulianus Vertacus, Iulius Honorius, Iunius Nipsus, Kore¯ Kosmou, Kuros, Largius, Leontinos (Agric.), Lepidianus, Libanios of Antioch, Litorius, Logadios, Louka¯s (pseudo: Alch.), Lupus, Magnus of Emesa, Makarios of Magnesia, Marcellus (Geog.), Marcianus of He¯rakleia, Maria, Maximianus, Maximus, Me¯trodo¯ra, Me¯trodo¯ros (Astr. II), Nonnos, O¯ dapsos, Pammene¯s (Alch.), Panaitios Jr., Pankharios, P. Cairo Crawford 1, P. Holmiensis, P. Leidensis X, P. Lund I.7, P. Ryl. III.529, Paradoxographus Palatinus, Paraphrasis eis ta Oppianou Halieutika, Paterios, Paulos (of Italy), Pause¯ris, Pe¯bikhios, Peitho¯n, Pelagios, Perikle¯s, Petasios (pseudo), Philaretos (Alch.), Philo¯n of Gadara, Phimenas, Phoibos Ulpius, Physiologos, Planetis, Platuse¯mos, Polle¯s (Med.), Pontica, Praecepta Salubria, Priscianus, Proclianus, Proëkhios, Proklos of Laodikeia, Pro¯tagoras, Pro¯tagoras of Nikaia, Prothlius, Ptolemaios, Platonikos, Quaternionibus, Remmius Fauinus, 981

P:993

T I M E - L I N E ( 3 3 5 – 3 7 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:335–370  (37) Adamantios, 335–440  Romula, Sardonius, Albinus (Encyclo.), Secundus, Serapio¯n Alupios of Antioch, (Astron.), Serenus Anatolios of Be¯rutos, (Pharm.), Sporos, Andreas (of Athens?), Stadiasmus Maris Magni, Arbitio, Auienus, Ausonius Sunesios, Theodo¯re¯tos, (Iulius), Basil of Caesarea, Theodo¯ros of Asine¯, De Rebus Bellicis, Theomne¯stos of Caesarius of Nazianzos, Nikopolis, Theo¯n of Dardanos, Diodo¯ros of Alexandria (Med. II), Tarsos, Epiphanios of Theopompos, Theosebios, Salamis, Eutropius of Thrasubulus, Tiberius, Bordeaux, Expositio totius Timokleanos, Vibius mundi, Firmicus Sequester, Ze¯nophilos Maternus (Iulius), Aemilianus He¯liodo¯ros (Astrol.), (Palladius), Aemilius Hermodo¯ros of Hispanus, Agape¯tós, Alexandria, Innocentius, Agathe¯meros son of Iulianus Imp., Magnus of Ortho¯n, Akholios, Nisibis, Marius Victorinus, Alexander (Med.), Oreibasios, P. Johnson, P. Alexander Sophiste¯s, Leidensis V, P. Mich. Alupios, Ammo¯n 17.758, Paulos of (Astrol.), Anastasios, Alexandria, Pelagonius, Apella¯s of Laodikeia, Philagrios, Physiognomista Aphthonios, Apollo¯nios Latinus, Saloustios, of Laodikeia, Apsurtos, Siburius, Themistios, Arkadios, Arkhelaos Theodorus Priscianus, (Med.), Arruntius Theol. Arith., Theo¯n of Celsus, Arsenios, Alexandria (Astr.) Artemisius Dianio, Asklatio¯n (Astrol.), Athe¯nagoras (Med.), Auidianus, Bakkheios Gero¯n, “Be¯rutios,” Book of Assumptions, Campestris, Carmen Astrologicum, Carmen de ponderibus et mensuris, Carminius, Celsinus of Kastabala, Constantinus, Damianos of Larissa, Didumos of Alexandria (Agric.), Dimensuratio and 982

P:994

T I M E - L I N E ( 3 7 0 – 4 4 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:370–405  (46) Agennius Diuisio, Diodo¯ros405–440  Urbicus, Alupios of (Metrol.), Dioskoros Antioch, Ambrose (Alch.), Doarios, (Ambrosius), Ammo¯n Dulcitius, Emeritus (Metrol.), Arbitio, (Hemeritos), Eruthrios, Astrologos of 379, Esdras, Euax, Eugenios Auienus, Aurelius (Alch.), Euhe¯meros/ Augustinus, Ausonius Himerios, Euteknios, (Iulius), Basil of Caesarea, Eutychianus, Fronto De Rebus Bellicis, (Agric.), Fronto (Astrol.), Calcidius, Cassius Felix, Fullonius Saturninus, Claudian, Dardanos, Gale¯n (pseudo: Hist. Diodo¯ros of Tarsos, Phil.), Gale¯n (pseudo: Epiphanios of Salamis, Pulsibus), Gaudentius, Eunapios, Eusebius son of Gre¯gorios (Pharm.), Theodorus, Eutropius of He¯liodo¯ros of Larissa, Bordeaux, Fauonius Herme¯s Trismegistos Eulogius, Gregory of (pseudo), He¯ro¯nas, Nazianzos, Gregory of He¯sukhios, Hierios, Nussa, Hupatia, Io¯anne¯s Hierokle¯s (Veterin.), of Antioch Hulas, Iamblikhos (“Chrysostom”), Io¯anne¯s (Geog.), Iamblikhos of of Stoboi, Io¯nikos, Constantinople, Macharius, Magnus of Ianuarinus, Imbrasios Nisibis, Mallius (Paradox.), Io¯anne¯s Theodorus, Marcellus of Iatrosophist, Isido¯ros Bordeaux, Oreibasios, (Alch.), Iulianus Vertacus, Orosius, P. Johnson, Iulius Honorius, Iunius Paulos of Alexandria, Nipsus, Kore¯ Kosmou, Pelagonius, Philostorgios, Kratistos, Kurillos, Kuros, Physiognomista Latinus, Largius, Lepidianus, Placitus Papyriensis, Libanios (Geog.), Libanios Poseido¯nios (Med. II), of Antioch, Litorius, Ruﬁnos of Antioch, Logadios, Louka¯s Siburius, Sunesios of (pseudo: Alch.), Louka¯s Kure¯ne¯, Themistios, (pseudo: Med.), Lupus, Theodorus Priscianus, Magnus of Emesa, Theo¯n of Alexandria Maiorianus, Makarios of (Astr.) Magnesia, Marcellus (32) Adamantios (Geog.), Marcellus of Alexandria, Agennius (Mech.), Marcianus of Urbicus, Aurelius He¯rakleia, Maximianus, Augustinus, Caelius Maximinus, Maximus, Aurelianus, Capella Melitianus, Me¯na¯s, 983

P:995

T I M E - L I N E ( 4 4 0 – 4 7 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:440–475  (Martianus), Cassius Felix, Me¯trodo¯ra, Moses of Dardanos, Domninos, Xoren, Nemesios, Eunapios, Fauonius Nonnos, O¯ dapsos, Eulogius, Gamaliel VI, Olumnios, Pankharios, P. Hephaistio¯n, He¯ro¯n Holmiensis, P. Laur. Inv. (Math.), Hilarius, Hupatia, 68, P. Leidensis X, P. Io¯anne¯s of Antioch Lund I.7, Paraphrasis eis (“Chrysostom”), Io¯anne¯s ta Oppianou Halieutika, of Stoboi, Marcellus of Paterios, Paulos (of Italy), Bordeaux, Olumpiodo¯ros Peitho¯n, Pelagios, Petasios of The¯bai, Orosius, (pseudo), Phimenas, Paita¯ mahasiddha¯ nta, Phoibos Ulpius, Perikle¯s, Philostorgios, Physiologos, Platuse¯mos, Placitus Papyriensis, Polle¯s (Med.), Pontica, Ploutarkhos of Athens, Porphurios (Geog.), Poseido¯nios (Med. II), Praecepta Salubria, Proklos of Lukia, Priscianus, Probinus, Seuerianus, Sunesios of Proclianus, Proëkhios, Kure¯ne¯, Syrianus, Proklos of Laodikeia, Theodo¯ros (Mech.), Pro¯tagoras of Nikaia, Theodosius (Macrobius) Prothlius, Quirinus, Remmius Fauinus, (25) Agapios of 440–545  Romula, Sardonius, Alexandria, Ammo¯nios of Secundus, Serapio¯n Alexandria (Neo-Plat.), (Astron.), Serenus Anthedius, Askle¯piodotos (Pharm.), Sunesios, of Alexandria, Caelius Theodo¯ros of Asine¯, Aurelianus, Cassius Felix, Theomne¯stos of Domninos, Domnus, Nikopolis, Theo¯n of Hephaistio¯n, He¯ro¯n Alexandria (Med. II), (Math.), Hilarius, Iako¯bos Thrasubulus, Tiberius, Psukhrestos, Marinos of Timokleanos, Vibius Sequester, Vindicianus, Ze¯nophilos Aemilianus (Palladius), Aethicus (pseudo), Agape¯tós, Agathe¯meros son of Ortho¯n, Aineias of Gaza, Akholios, Alexander (Med.), Alexander Sophiste¯s, Anastasios, Anonymous Alchemist “Christianus,” Arkadios, 984

P:996

T I M E - L I N E ( 4 7 5 – 5 4 5 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:475–510  Neapolis, Mustio, Perikle¯s, Arkhelaos (Med.),510–545  Petros, Physica Plinii, Asklatio¯n (Astrol.), Placitus Papyriensis, Athe¯nagoras (Med.), Priskos, Proklos of Lukia, Auidianus, “Be¯rutios,” Prolegomena to Ptolemy’s Book of Assumptions, Suntaxis, Theodo¯ros Carmen Astrologicum, (Mech.), Vegetius, Carmen de ponderibus et Victorius, Z¯ıg mensuris, Cassianus (39) Aëtios of Bassus, Damianos of Amida, Agapios of Larissa, Didumos of Alexandria, Ammo¯nios of Alexandria (Agric.), Alexandria (Neo-Plat.), Dimensuratio and Anthe¯mios, Anthimus, Diuisio, Doarios, Eruthrios, Apuleius (pseudo: Esdras, Euax, Eugenios AHsekrlbe¯aprioiudso),toA¯sroyaf bha˙ta, (Alch.), Eusebius (pseudo), Alexandria, Athanarid, Euteknios, Fronto (Agric.), Boëthius, Capito, Fullonius Saturninus, Castorius, Damaskios, Gale¯n (pseudo: Pulsibus), Domnus, Gessios, Gre¯gorios (Pharm.), He¯liodo¯ros of Alexandria Heldebald, He¯liodo¯ros of (Astron.), He¯raiskos, Larissa, He¯ro¯nas, Isido¯ros of Mile¯tos, He¯sukhios, Hierokle¯s Iuliana, Iulianus of (Geog.), Iamblikhos Laodikeia, Khruse¯s of (Geog.), Iamblikhos of Alexandria, Lollianus, Constantinople, Marianus, Marinos of Imbrasios (Paradox.), Neapolis, Ouranios, Io¯anne¯s Iatrosophist, Perikle¯s, Physica Plinii, Io¯anne¯s of Alexandria, Priscianus of Caesarea, Isido¯ros (Alch.), Isido¯ros Priskos, Proklos of Lukia, of Mile¯tos’ student, Prolegomena to Ptolemy’s Isido¯ros the Younger, Suntaxis, Cassiodorus Iulianus Vertacus, Iulius Senator, Sergius of Honorius, Kratistos, Resˇ aina, Seuerus Kurillos, Kuros, Libanios Iatrosophista, Stephanos (Geog.), Libanios of of Tralleis, Theodo¯ros Antioch, Logadios, (Mech.), Timotheos of Louka¯s (pseudo: Alch.), Gaza, Ulpianus, Urbicius Louka¯s (pseudo: Med.), (43) Aëtios of Amida, Maiorianus, Marcellus Aganis, Ammo¯nios of (Mech.), Marcomir, Alexandria (Neo-Plat.), Marsinus, Maximianus, Anthe¯mios, Anthimus, Maximinus, Melitianus, Apuleius (pseudo: Me¯na¯s, Moses of Xoren, Nonnos, Olumnios, 985

P:997

T I M E - L I N E ( 5 4 5 – 5 8 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:545–580  Herbarius), Askle¯pios Palladios, P. Akhmim, P. (Pharm.), Askle¯pios of Laur. Inv. 68, Paraphrasis Tralleis (Math.), Boethius, eis ta Oppianou Capito, Castorius, Halieutika, Pelagios, Damaskios, Eutokios, Porphurios (Geog.), Gessios, Gildas, Probinus, Proklos of Hermolaos (Geog.), Laodikeia, Quirinus, Io¯anne¯s of Alexandria Serenus (Pharm.), (Philoponos), Io¯anne¯s of Stephanos of Athens, Philadelpheia (“Lydus”), Theomne¯stos of Isido¯ros of Mile¯tos, Nikopolis, Theo¯n of Iuliana, Iulianos of Alexandria (Med. II), Askalo¯n, Iulianus Thrasubulus, Tiberius, (Pharm.), Khruse¯s of Tukhikos, Vibius Alexandria, Kosma¯s, Sequester Lollianus, Marianus, Megethios, Nonnosos, 545–650  Aethicus Ister, Olumpiodo¯ros of Agape¯tós, Agathe¯meros Alexandria, son of Ortho¯n, Alexander Olumpiodo¯ros of (Med.), Alexander Alexandria (Alch.), Sophiste¯s, Anania of Ouranios, Priscian of Shirak, Anonymous Ludia, Priscianus of Alchemist Philosopher, Caesarea, Cassiodorus Anonymous Alchemist Senator, Sergius of “Christianus,” Arkhelaos Resˇ aina, Seuerus (Med.), Athe¯nagoras Iatrosophista, Simplicius, (Med.), Auidianus, Book Stephanos of Buzantion, of Assumptions, Stephanos of Tralleis, Cassianus Bassus, Theodore pupil of Sergius, Tribonianus, Urbicius, Wuzurgmihr (28) Aganis, Alexander of Tralleis, Anthe¯mios, Askle¯pios (Pharm.), Askle¯pios of Tralleis (Math), Aëtios of Amida, Burzoy, Capito, Gildas, Gregory of Tours, Hermolaos (Geog.), Io¯anne¯s of Alexandria (Philoponos), Io¯anne¯s of Philadelpheia (“Lydus”), Iordanes, Isido¯ros of Mile¯tos, Kosma¯s, 986

P:998

T I M E - L I N E ( 5 8 0 – 6 5 0 )Dates: Names: Dates (Wide): Names:580–615 615–650  Me¯trodo¯ros of Tralleis, Damianos of Mucianus, Olumpiodo¯ros Larissa, Elias (pseudo), of Alexandria, Eruthrios, Eugenios Olumpiodo¯ros of (Alch.), Eusebius (pseudo), Alexandria (Alch.), Gale¯n (pseudo: Pulsibus), Periplus Ponti Euxini, H. arith ibn-Kalada, Cassiodorus Senator, Heldebald, He¯liodo¯ros of Stephanos of Buzantion, Larissa, Hierophilos Tribonianus of Side¯, Sophiste¯s, Imbrasios Vara¯ hamihira, (Paradox.), Io¯anne¯s Wuzurgmihr, Ze¯markhos, Iatrosophist, Io¯anne¯s of Z¯ıg Alexandria, Isido¯ros of (16) Agnellus, Mile¯tos’ student, Isido¯ros Ahrun, Alexander of the Younger, Iustinianus Tralleis, Burzoy, Geo¯rgios Imp., Komerios, Louka¯s of Cyprus, Geo¯rgios of (pseudo: Alch.), Louka¯s Pisidia, Gregory of Tours, (pseudo: Med.), He¯rakleios Imp., Isidorus Marcomir, Marsinus, of Hispalis (Seville), Maximianus, Maximinus, Leontios (Astron.), Moses, Olumnios, Me¯trodo¯ros of Tralleis, Palladios, Pappos (II), P. Mucianus, Paulos (Music), Akhmim, Ravenna Periplus Ponti Euxini, Cosmography, Rhetorios, Cassiodorus Senator, Stephanos of Alexandria, Theophulaktos Stephanos of Alexandria (13) Abiyu¯ n, (Alch.), Stephanos of Ahrun, Anq¯ıla¯was, Athens, Theomne¯stos of Geo¯rgios of Cyprus, Nikopolis, Tukhikos Geo¯rgios of Pisidia, He¯rakleios Imp., Isidorus of Hispalis (Seville), Leontios (Astron.), Paulos (Music), Paulos of Aigina, Severus Sebokht, Theophulaktos, Z¯ıgThese 18 entries have date-ranges that place them after our terminus; the three marked *are included solely because of their relation to other entries, whereas those not so markedhave been dated to within our range by some scholars; cf. also Hermolaos (Geog.) andZe¯nario¯n, who may belong here:Aethicus, pseudo * Euphe¯mios of SicilyDamaske¯nos Expositio geographiaeEleutheros Geo¯ponika * 987

P:999

TIME-LINEGeo¯ponika in Pahlavi * Io¯anne¯s MatthaiosHe¯liodo¯ros (pseudo?) Io¯anne¯s of Antioch (arkhiatros) Nikome¯de¯s IatrosophistHupatos OkianosIo¯anne¯s Archpriest Philaretos (Med.)Io¯anne¯s Esdras Philippos Xe¯rosIo¯anne¯s Iako¯bosThese 12 entries are not assigned any date, because the evidence for them is based onmiddle- or late-Byzantine sources, and internal evidence is not decisive:Agathosthene¯s Asamo¯ nAmbrosios Sophiste¯s De¯me¯trios (Astrol.)Anthemustio¯ n Epaphroditos (Meteor.)Antimakhos of He¯liopolis Epiphanios (Meteor.)Apollo¯nios of Tuana, pseudo Nepho¯ nAristogene¯s of Thasos Philogene¯sThese 30 entries have only a single terminus (ﬁve post and 25 ante); those marked with * haveonly a terminus post, or else only a terminus ante late enough that their actual date may beoutside our date-range:Agathodaimo¯n of Alexandria * ItinerariesAnakreo¯n (Pharm.) * Kalya¯n. aArkhede¯mos (Veterin.) Kleomene¯s the LibyanAuxano¯ n Markianos *Blatausis * MatriketasBook of the Signs of the Zodiac * P. FlorentinusCaystrius Phokos of SamosDe¯me¯trios (Music) Sophar/So¯phar *Erukinos SornatiusEume¯los of The¯bai Stratonikos (Veterin.)Gre¯gorios (Veterin.) Summaria rationis geographiae *Helenos * Theodos of AlexandriaHipparkhos (Veterin.) Theophane¯s of He¯rakleopolisHippasios of E¯ lis Thrasualke¯sHippokrate¯s (Veterin.) ZarathusˇtraThese 61 entries have date-ranges too wide (525 years or more) to warrant entering theminto the “Time-Line” above:Agathodaimo¯n (pseudo) AphrosAgathotukhos Apollodo¯ros of KuzikosAigeias of Hierapolis Asaf ha-RofeAmuntas (Med.) AspasiaAnaxilaïde¯s AsteriosAndronikos (Paradox.) AstrampsukhosApella¯s of Kure¯ne¯ Bakkhulidios 988

P:1000

Bola¯ s TIME-LINEBothrosBouphantos Marpe¯ssosClaudianus (Alch.) MeleagrosDiodo¯ros of Ephesos Menandros IatrosophistDionide¯s Minue¯sDo¯sitheos (Pharm.) Neilammo¯ nEmboularkhos Nikolaos (Math)Epidikos NumiusEpiphane¯s P. Oxy. 3.470Eugamios Pammene¯s (Biol.)Eutonios PenthesileusHe¯liade¯s Philippos of Ko¯sHermeias (Geog.) Poludeuke¯sHermolaos (Pharm.) Porphurios (Med.)Hiero¯n (Veterin.) ProsdokhosHipposiade¯s SandariusIamblikhos (Alch.) Simo¯nide¯s (Biol.)Imbrasios of Ephesos ThaïsIsido¯ros of Memphis Theokle¯sKhe¯me¯s or Khume¯s Theomne¯stosKleandros Theophilos (Pharm.)Magne¯s or Magnus Theophilos son of Theogene¯sManetho¯n (Pharm.) Thumaridas Trophilos 989

P:1002

TOPICSWe oﬀer here an index of the entries by “topic” using modern categories, which do notalways map neatly onto ancient categories, but which are good (and even necessary) forus to think with. The categories are similar to those of the chapters of our earlier book,Irby-Massie and Keyser (2002). Of course, many authors, especially those known asphilosophers, will appear in multiple categories.Agriculture/Agronomy (102) (authors and writings on the methods and practice offarming; contrast next, Agrimensores); most entries by Marsilio, Rodgers, or Thibodeau:Aemilianus, Palladius Cassianus BassusAgathokle¯s of Khios CastriciusAiskhrio¯ n Cloatius VerusAiskhulide¯s Clodius AlbinusAmbiuius A. Cornelius CelsusAmphilokhos DadisAnatolios (Vindonios) Deino¯ nAnaxipolis De¯mokritos, pseudoAndrotio¯ n Didumos of AlexandriaAntigonos of Kume¯ Diodo¯ros of Prie¯ne¯Apollodo¯ros of Le¯mnos Dionusios of UticaApollo¯nios of Pergamon Diophane¯sAristandros Epigene¯s of RhodesAristomakhos Euago¯ nAristomene¯s EuboulosAristophane¯s of Mallos Euphro¯nios of AmphipolisArkhelaos of Kappadokia Euphro¯nios of AthensArkhutas Euphuto¯ nArrianus FirmiusAthe¯nagoras FlorentinusAttalos of Pergamon FrontoAttius GargiliusBakkheios of Mile¯tos Geo¯ ponikaBio¯n of Soloi He¯ge¯siasCaepio He¯siodCaesennius Hiero¯n II of Syracuse 991

P:1003

TOPICS (ALCHEMY)Hikesios Minius PercenniusHostilius Saserna & son Mnaseas of Mile¯tosIulius Atticus NeoptolemosL. Iulius Graecinus Nesto¯ rC. Iulius Hyginus OppiusL. Iunius Columella P. Hibeh 2.187Iunius Silanus PaxamosKhaireas PersisKhairisteos PhiliskosKharetide¯s Plentiphane¯sKhrusippos Pompeius LenaeusKleide¯mos M. Porcius CatoKommiade¯s/Kosmiade¯s Puthio¯n of RhodesKrate¯s Puthokle¯s of SamosLeontinos Sex. QuinctiliiLeophane¯s Sabinius TiroLusimakhos M. SueiusMaecenas Licinius M. Terentius VarroMaecenas Melissus TheophilosMamilius Sura Trebius NigerC. Matius Caluenus Cn. Tremelius ScrofaMenandros of He¯rakleia TurraniusMenandros of Prie¯ne¯ Turranius GracilisMenekrate¯s of Ephesos M. Valerius Messalla PotitusMenestratos (II) P. Vergilius MaroAgrimensores (8) (authors and writings on the measuring of land and surveying, primar-ily Latins); most entries by Campbell, Guillaumin, and Roth Congès:Balbus Hyginus GromaticusEpaphroditos and Vitruuius Rufus pseudo-HyginusHe¯ro¯n of Alexandria InnocentiusHyginus (Agrimensor) Iunius Nipsus Siculus FlaccusAlchemy (56) (authors and writings on the theory and method of material transformation;cf. Lithika); most entries by Hallum or Viano:Agathodaimo¯n, pseudo DioskorosAnaxilaos of Larissa EgnatiusAnonymous Alchemist “Christianus” EugeniosAnonymous Alchemist Philosopher He¯liodo¯ros, pseudoAttalos III of Pergamon He¯rakleios Imp., pseudoBo¯los of Mende¯s “Herme¯s Trismegistos”Claudianus IamblikhosDe¯mokritos, pseudo Io¯anne¯s ArchpriestDionusios of Corinth Isido¯ ros 992

P:1004

TOPICS (ASTROLOGY)Isis, pseudo P. Iandanae 85Iuliana Anicia P. Leidensis VIulianus Imp., pseudo P. Leidensis XSex. Iulius Africanus P. Oxy. 3.467Iustinianus Imp., pseudo Pause¯risKhe¯me¯s PaxamosKleopatra VII Pe¯bikhiosKo¯ marios PelagiosKudias of Kuthnos Peteësis/PetasiosLouka¯ s PhilaretosMaria PhimenasMo(u)se¯s SopharNeilos StephanosOlumpiodo¯ ros SunesiosOstane¯s, pseudo Teukros of KuzikosPammene¯s Theophilos son of Theogene¯sPappos II TheosebeiaP. Florentinus Zo¯ilos of CyprusP. Holmiensis Zo¯simos of PanopolisArchitecture (44) (authors and writings on the theory and method of construction, oftenincluding mathematical, mechanical, or other analyses); many entries by Howe, Kourelis,Miles, or Pfaﬀ:Andronikos of Kurrhos Mandrokle¯sAnthe¯mios Melampous of SarnakaArkesios Metagene¯sDaphnis Me¯ trodo¯ rosDe¯mophilos Niko¯n of PergamonEpaphroditos Paio¯ niosEupalinos Parmenio¯ nEuphrano¯r of Corinth Philo¯n of EleusisM. Cetius Fauentinus PollisFuﬁcius Puthios of Prie¯ne¯Hermogene¯s of Alabanda Rhoikospseudo-Hyginus RuﬁnusIktinos Saturos of ParosIsido¯ros of Mile¯tos (three men) P. SeptimiusIulianus of Askalon Sile¯nosSex. Iulius Frontinus So¯stratos of KnidosKallikrate¯s Theodo¯ros of PhokaiaKarpio¯ n Theodo¯ros of SamosKhersiphro¯ n Theokude¯sKhruse¯s VitruuiusLeo¯nide¯s of Naxos Xe¯n(okh)are¯sAstrology (96) (authors and writings on the positions and eﬀects of the “stars,” based on a 993