another discipline already studied by Mantias. He also wrote two treatises on therapeutics,
one dealing with external diseases, of surgical interest too, and the other, largely used by
Caelius Aurelianus, dealing with internal diseases. Interest in ophthalmic surgery is testified
by P. C C 1.
Following the Empirical tradition, he dealt also with Hippokratic exegesis, writing the
first commentary ever on all the works of H (certainly on Aph., De art., Epid. 2 – 4
and 6, De off. med., doubtful De hum.). He also wrote a work in three books against the
Hippokratic interpretations of the He ̄rophilean B. He ̄rakleide ̄s also dealt with
other traditional topics of the Empiricist polemic, such as the polemic against H-
’ On Pulses and against the He ̄rophilean Z about the marks contained in the
Alexandrian copies of Book III of the H C E.
Two of his recipes (for the treatment of fractures and against chronic warts) are attested
by the Hippiatrica Cantabrigensia (62.5 from M p.194.13–19, and 67.3 p. 199.4– 11
Oder-Hoppe: the first one also in P A 7.17.87 [CMG 9.2, pp. 367–368],
and given by A P. in Gale ̄n CMGen 2.17 [13.537–539 K.] but without
reference to He ̄rakleide ̄s; the second one also by A A 16.6 = Guardasole fr.22a).
Perhaps his are also two fragments attested by Hipp. Berolinensia, both from H and
ascribed to “Tarentinus”: the anecdote of the old Athenian mule (1.13, p. 5.23), also known
to A HA 6.24 (577b) and others, and a recipe against shrew bites (87.2, p. 314.21).
Both fragments were ascribed by Oder and by Georgoudi to an agricultural writer
“Tarentinus” quoted by Pho ̄tios Bibl. 163 and frequently in G 3 – 4; but He ̄rakleide ̄s
too is sometimes referred to as “Tarentinus”: Gale ̄n Antid. 2.13 (14.181 K.) and by Etym.
magn. s.v. elinuein, on the Hippokratic Epidemics 6.1 (omitted by editors, connected with
fr.352 D. against Bakkheios). All the fragments attested by veterinarians came likely from
He ̄rakleide ̄s’ pharmaceutical works, and not from “the first attested veterinary work,” as
stated by Gossen (1913) 1714 (contra Deichgräber, 260 and Björck).
Ed.: Deichgräber (1930) 172–204 (fragments), 258–261; A. Guardasole, Frammenti (1997).
Oder (1890) 89–90; RE 8.1 (1912) 493–496 (#54) and 8.2 (1913) 1713–1715, H. Gossen; Björck (1932)
38 – 39; KP 2.1044 (#23), F. Kudlien; Fabricius (1972) 200; Smith (1979) 211–212; M. Frede
“The Empiricist attitude towards reason and theory,” in R.J. Hankinson, ed., Method, Medicine and
Metaphysics = Apeiron 21.2 (1988) 79–97 at 91–94; S. Georgoudi, Des chevaux et des boeufs dans le monde
grec (1990) 55–56; Marganne (1994) 147–167; Manetti and Roselli (1994) 1595–1597; OCD3 687,
H. von Staden; ECP 258 – 259, Idem; BNP 6 (2005) 173–174 (#27), V. Nutton; Ihm (2002) #114–123;
AML 401 – 402, A. Guardasole.
Fabio StokHe ̄rakleios Imp. (610 – 640 CE)
Byzantine emperor (reigned 610– 640 CE), found in the list of poie ̄tai (makers of gold, CAAG
2.25). The early table in MS Marcianus gr. 299 attributes to him three treatises not preserved
in the corpus: On Alchemy, Eleven Chapters on the Making of Gold, and Collection Concerning the
Study of the Sacred Art by Philosophers. The first was addressed to Modestus ( patriarch of
Jerusalem, 614– 630 CE). The 10th c. catalogue of books, Kita ̄b al-Fihrist, mentions: “of
He ̄rakleios the larger book, fourteen chapters.”
Berthelot (1885) 132; Fück (1951) 95 (#42), 124; ODB 916 – 917, W.E. Kaegi et al.
Cristina Viano
HE ̄RAKLEIOS IMP.