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

(Ron) #1

Kleitomakhos (Hasdrubal) of Carthage (155 – 110 BCE)


Son of Diogne ̄tos, born 187/186, taught philosophy at Carthage in Punic, studied at
Athens from 147/146 under K (D L 4.67). Kleitomakhos
founded a school in Palladion (140/139), and then returned to the Academy (129/128),
whose head he became (127/126). Although Diogene ̄s Laërtios attributes 400 works to him,
only five titles are known, including On the Sects, in which he denied the utility of physics and
logic, since ataraxia can be attained by study of ethics (D.L. 2.92); and On Withholding Assent
(Peri epokhe ̄s) in which he discussed perception and probability (C, Acad. 2.98).


BNP 3 (2003) 421–422 (#1), K.-H. Stanzel.
PTK and GLIM


K ⇒ H


Kleoboulos (Geog.) (60 BCE – 60 CE?)


Wrote a periplous or the like in which he gave the name “Khia” for Khios (P 5.136).
For Khios as feminine, cf. Eupolis of Athens, Poleis fr. 246 PCG.


RE 11.1 (1921) 672 (#5), F. Jacoby.
PTK


Kleoboulos (Pharm.) (250 BCE – 95 CE)


A, in G CMGen 5.14 (13.854 K.), records his wound-powder, containing
copper flakes, oak-gall, frankincense, khalkanthon, myrrh, orpiment, ashed papyrus, and
realgar.


RE 11.1 (1921) 672 (#6), F.E. Kind.
PTK


Kleoitas (Mech.) (480 – 440 BCE)


Son of Aristokle ̄s, invented the mechanical hippaphesis (horse-race starting gate) used at
Olympia, according to Paus. 6.20.14. The device was later improved by A.


RE 11.1 (1921) 675–676, G. Lippold.
PTK


Kleome ̄de ̄s (ca 50 BCE – ca 200 CE)


Stoic philosopher and teacher. His date has been inferred from the fact that his sole surviv-
ing treatise, the Caelestia, appears to include an account of the equation of time (1.4.72–89),
which is usually viewed as an original discovery of P. This account, however,
follows G, Intro. Astr. 6.1–4, in failing to separate the contribution of latitude to the
variation in the length of a full day during the course of the year, and so shows no depend-
ence on Ptolemy. Fortunately, Kleome ̄de ̄s can be dated effectively by his polemics against
the followers of A and of E, which characterize debates between
Stoics and other philosophers during the 1st and 2nd cc. CE but which largely cease by
the early 3rd c. CE. Attempts to date Kleome ̄de ̄s to the 4th c. CE on the basis of an
astronomical observation reported at Cael. 1.8.46–56 are not warranted by the text.


KLEOME ̄DE ̄S
Free download pdf