stemma ( p. ) suggests a double origin in the 4th c. and what are labeled alii fontes uarii
generis. The text itself is a tangle of quotations, snippets, and abridgements mostly from
Pliny, but discerned are subsumed bits from earlier authors as varied as C, S
L, and a Latin version of D (pp. –), sometimes shadowed in
the Latin texts under the name of Sextus Placitus and others. M B
in the preface of his De medicamentis liber (CML 5.1, p. 2) says he has lifted things from
“both” Plinys (cui rei operam uterque Plinius), indicating that the Medicina Plinii was in common
circulation by 400 CE.
Ed.: A. Önnerfors, Plinii Secundi Iunioris qui feruntur De medicina libri tres (1964) = CML 3.
A. Köhler, “Handscriften römischer Mediciner. 1. Pseuodoplinii medicina,” Hermes 18 (1883) 382–392;
GRL §523.3; R. Laux, “Ars medicinae. Ein frühmittelalterliches Kompendium der Medizin,” Kyklos
3 (1930) 417–434; RE 15.1 (1931) 81–85, E. Steier; A. Önnerfors, In medicinam Plinii Studia Philologica
(1963); Idem, “Die mittelalterlichen Fassungen der Medicina Plinii,” Berliner Medizin 16 (1965)
652 – 655; Ch.G. Nauert, “Caius Plinius Secundus, Spurious Work: Medicina Plinii,” CTC 4 (1980)
422; Önnerfors (1993) 277–280; Langslow (2000) 64.
John Scarborough
Me ̄dios (Stoic) (ca 240 – 270 CE?)
Older contemporary of C L, compiled the writings of earlier philosophers,
making no original contributions (P, Vit. Plot. 20). Longinus defended the soul’s
unity against Me ̄dios’ traditional Stoic division of the soul into eight parts (P in
Plat. Rep. 1.233.29–234.30).
H. Dorrie, Porphyrios’ “Symmikta Zetemata”: Ihre Stellung in System und Geschichte des Neuplatonismus nebst einem
Kommentar zu den Fragmenten (1959) 104–107; BNP 8 (2006) 588 (#3), B. Inwood.
GLIM
Megasthene ̄s (ca 320 – 290 BCE)
Born ca 350 in Asia Minor, ambassador of Seleukos I Nikato ̄r (or Siburtios, satrap of
Arakhosia) near the court of Chandragupta Maurya in eastern India. In his Indiká (four
books: FGrHist 715), he described geography, fauna, flora (Book 1), customs, towns and
administration (Book 2), society and philosophy (Book 3), archaeology, myth and history
of India (Book 4). Megasthene ̄s supplemented personal observations with data from earlier
Greek authors and information from Indian scholars whom he met. Modern scholars
often debate Megasthene ̄s’ credibility, although some consider his “the most reliable
account of India produced account in antiquity.” Of especial value are the long descriptions
of techniques for capturing, training, and utilizing elephants in hunting and warfare. Not
very reliable, however, is his sociological treatment of the caste system and Indian society,
since Megasthene ̄s seems more interested in presenting India as a social model than
realistic description.
Ed.: FGrHist 715.
J. Timmer, Megasthenes en de Indische maatschappij (1930); RE 15.1 (1931) 232–233, O. Stein; T.S. Brown,
“The Reliability of Megasthenes,” AJPh 76 (1955) 18–33; A. Zambrini, “Gli Indiká di Megastene,”
ASNP 12 (1982) 71–149; A.B. Bosworth, “The Historical Setting of Megasthenes’ Indiké,” CPh 91
(1996) 113–127; DPA 4 (2005) 367–380, J.M. Camacho Rojo and P.P. Fuentes González.
Cristiano Dognini
MEGASTHENE ̄S