SH 504 – 526.
C. Farinelli “Lobone di Argo, ovvero la psicosa moderna del falso antico,” Annali dell’ Istituto Universitario
Orienteale di Napoli (filol.) 22 (2000) 367–379; DPA 4 (2005) 111–112, R. Goulet.
Jørgen Mejer
Logadios (20 BCE – 450 CE)
C F 73.2 (CUF, p. 196), repeated by A A 3.113 (CMG 8.1, p. 302)
= P A 7.8.2 (CMG 9.2, p. 287), preserves his hiera of aloes, black hellebore,
cinnamon, euphorbia (see I), gentian, myrrh, pepper, squill, etc. Paulos lists him with
G and earlier pharmacists; the name is otherwise unattested (Pape-Benseler; LGPN;
PIR; PLRE), though logades are the whites of the eyes (N, The ̄r. 292); it may be a
mistake for Lagodius (attested 409 CE: RE 12.1 [1924] 457, O. Seeck), or else derived from
“Lugh” (Irish sun-god), as Lugaid (attested from the 3rd c. CE). Diels 2 (1907) 58, and 3
(1908) 35, lists MSS containing extracts from Logadios, including Brit. Mus. Harl. 5626
(15th c.) f. 2, Oxford Barocc. 150 (15th c.) f. 3b, Vienna Med. 31 (15th c.) ff. 133V– 136 V and
Med. 41 (14th–15th c.), ff. 93V–96.
RE 13.1 (1926) 990, F.E. Kind.
PTK
Lollianus (480 – 520 CE?)
Wrote in Latin a geographical work on current and former Roman possessions, which the
R C follows on Egypt (3.2, 3.8), and cites often in Book 4 on Europe.
Although the name is attested primarily earlier (Souda Lambda-670; BNP 7 [2005] 802–803;
PIR2 Q-52; PLRE 1 [1971] 511–512), his reference to Burgundia, 4.26–27, postdates 480
CE. Cf. A and C.
(*)
PTK
Londiniensis medicus (80 – 100 CE)
The unknown author of the text in Papyrus London inv. 137, first published by Diels who
viewed it as a text consisting of notes on an introductory medical course, badly copied by
a scribe or an uneducated pupil, written under Domitian or Trajan. The text is, in fact,
autographous, originating probably in an instructional context: the scribe was at the same
time “composing” the text. Clearly incomplete, the papyrus breaks off abruptly halfway
down col. 39 and is perhaps only a rough draft. The contents can be divided into three
sections. The first part defines fundamental medical concepts, such as “affection,” “condi-
tion,” “disease,” etc. Then follows an extensive section (4.18–21.9), treating causes of dis-
ease, derived from “A”: it is rich in unique testimony on Pre-Socratic doctors and
philosophers of 5th/4th cc. BCE. Diels traced it back to Aristotle’s pupil M, through
A P’ doxographical work, cited by the author, but his thesis remains
dubious. Finally, there is a physiological section (cols. 21–39), a lengthy discussion of the
theory of digestion and assimilation of food. The author seems to know and manipulate a
wide range of doxographical material: in his section on definitions he uses Stoic-oriented
manuals, but Aristotle’s doxography on the causes of disease appears to trace back to the early
Peripatos, while in the physiological discussion the author probably draws on Alexander
LOGADIOS