K, 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’ mentions
of authors providing him with glosses are a valuable listing of medical writers circulating in
Rome 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 the
Hippokratic 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 Scarborough
Erukinos (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, the
paradox being that two sides of the inner
triangle can be made greater than the cor-
responding sides of the outer triangle.
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 in
inverse 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, so
that it is plausible that only some of these theorems are taken from Erukinos. Moreover, the
construction 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, this
same construction is retrieved by E in his discussion of A’ postulates
about the relative size of lines having the same extremities (in Sph. and Cyl. 3, pp.12– 14
Heiberg) and in P’ comments on Elem. 1.21, in which he clearly refers to it as
a “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” and
Pappos repeatedly mentions “paradoxes” as a recognized genre, to which Erukinos’ text
therefore probably belonged.
Heath (1921) 365–368.
Alain Bernard
Eruthrios (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
One of Erukinos’ (?) paradoxes © Bernard
AB=DB, DH is constructed so as to have the same
area as ABC: thus OHZ has a lesser area than ABC
but greater sides. © Bernard
ERUTHRIOS