The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists: The Greek tradition and its many heirs

(Ron) #1

myrrh (AM.24b von Staden). So ̄ranos (Gyn. 3.2 [CMG 4, pp. 94–95; CUF v. 3, p. 3]) cites
him among physicians denying illnesses specific to women. C A (Acute
2.88–89 [CML 6.1.1, p. 186]) criticizes his definitions of pleurisy as pleonastic and omitting
essential details (e.g., the presence of fever).
Athe ̄naios refers at length to Apollo ̄nios’ On Perfumes and Unguents (15.688e–689b):
recounting the best quality varieties of many; and commenting on the changing fortunes of
quality control: the excellent tradition of perfume in Ephesos is in decline, but royal interest
in Adramuttion has yielded an improved dropwort perfume.


Pack #2386 = POxy 234; Fabricius (1972) 180–183; von Staden (1989) 540–558; OCD3 127, Idem; Idem
(1999) 166–169; BNP 1 (2002) 882–883 (#17), V. Nutton.
GLIM


Apollo ̄nios of Antioch (200 – 150 BCE)


Apollo ̄nios “Biblas” (175 – 125 BCE)


Empiricist physicians, father and son, both from Antioch. The Elder is quoted by C
(pr.10) as the second exponent of the Empirical School after S; -G
I 14.683 K. quotes both the Apollonii after P and Serapio ̄n. The
Elder carried on the polemical tradition that had been typical of the first empirical phys-
icians: we know about his polemics against the Epicureans about the foundations of
sensible experience (cf. D  L, P. Herc. 1012, frr.23, 58, 71 Puglia: criti-
cizes particularly Apollo ̄nios’ exegesis of the H C E 6.9), and
against the He ̄rophilean Z, who in a work entitled On the Marks had attributed to
H himself the marks or symbols (kharakte ̄res) in the Alexandrian copies of Book
III of the Hippokratic Epidemics; Apollo ̄nios challenged Ze ̄no ̄n’s thesis, denying that those
marks went back to Hippokrate ̄s (G Hipp. Epid.: CMG 5.10.2.1, p. 86). As we can infer
from E (p. 23.17 Nachm.), he wrote also a Hippokratic lexicon. His polemic
against Ze ̄no ̄n was taken up after Ze ̄no ̄n’s death by his son, Apollo ̄nios “Biblas” (“the
Bookworm”). Biblas’ references to Hippokratic MSS suggest that he spent some time in
Alexandria. From S (Gyn. 2.87 [CMG 4, p. 65; CUF v. 2, pp. 26–27]) we know that
he was also interested in gynecology.


Ed.: Deichgräber (1930) 171–172 (fragments), 256–257.
RE 2.1 (1895) 149 (#101), M. Wellmann; M. Gigante, Scetticismo e epicureismo (1980) 170–175; J. Nollé,
“Die ‘Charaktere’ im 3. Epidemienbuch,” Epigr. Anat. (1983) 85–98; E. Puglia, ed., Demetrio Lacone,
Aporie testuali ed esegetiche in Epicuro (PHerc. 1012) (1988) 217–219, 286, 311; von Staden (1989)
501 – 502; Ihm (2002) #12.
Fabio Stok


Apollo ̄nios of Aphrodisias (265 – 195 BCE)


Wrote a Karika describing the land and its history, of which S  B
preserves over a dozen fragments. Stephanos, s.v. Agkura, provides the terminus post; the Souda
A-3424 gives the ethnic and his works. Stephanos, s.v. Le ̄tous polis, establishes an Egyptian
connection (not origin, despite RE 2.1 [1895] 134–135 [#73], E. Schwartz), which suggests
the terminus ante. (He also wrote on O and his rites, of which cult he was high priest.)


FGrHist 740; PLRE 2 (1980) 120 [impossibly dating him to ca 400 CE].
PTK


APOLLO ̄NIOS OF ANTIOCH
Free download pdf