( p. 58 Ihm) records his remarks on the field-mouse (mugale ̄), and on the poisonous plant
ephe ̄meron (§56, p. 69 Ihm). R E, in O Coll. 45.28 (CMG 6.2.1,
p. 184), says that he was the first to describe elephantiasis, and called it kakokhumia (bad-
humor).
NP 11.1043–1044 (#4), V. Nutton; Jacques (2002) 295–297.
PTK
Strato ̄n of Be ̄rutos (90 BCE – 50 CE)
Greek physician. A P., in G CMLoc 4.7 (12.749 K.), preserves his
Be ̄rution collyrium, providing immediate relief, and compounded from roasted copper,
pompholux, acacia, opium, gum, saffron, and myrrh, in rainwater; administered with an
egg(-white). Strato ̄n is perhaps also the Be ̄rutan whose compounds for stomach ailments are
preserved in Gale ̄n CMLoc 9.5 by A (13.290–291 K.) and Askle ̄piade ̄s Pharm.
(13.303 K.). A T cites perhaps this Strato ̄n, who followed O,
for three prescriptions to treat epilepsy (1.15 [1.563.6, 1.565.11, 1.571.3 Puschm.]), one of
which (1.571.3) Alexander also attributes to M, providing the probable terminus post.
RE 4A.1 (1931) 317 (#20), F.E. Kind.
Alain Touwaide
Strato ̄n of Lampsakos (ca 295 – 268 BCE)
The work of Strato ̄n of Lampsakos, third head of A’s school, is known only
through secondhand reports, as no work of his survives. He was particularly known in
antiquity for his focus on natural philosophy and for denying any appeal to the divine
in accounting for the natural world. It is likely that he knew of the work of doctors and
scientists associated with Ptolemaic Alexandria, since he served as tutor to the young
Ptolemy Philadelphus for some time before he took over the leadership of the Peripatos.
A S was a pupil of his, and he is said to have had ties to E.
From T’ death in 286 BCE, he was head of Aristotle’s school in Athens, until
his own death in 268 BCE.
Strato ̄n was known in antiquity as ho phusikos, “the natural philosopher” or “the physical-
ist,” possibly because of his insistence on separating the study of the natural world from
theological intervention. He reportedly ascribed all natural events to forces of weight and
motion. He rejected Aristotle’s doctrine of the fifth element, and also the idea that lighter
bodies have a natural tendency to move upward, claiming instead that they are squeezed out
by the fall of heavy bodies. He considered the natural world to contain the causes of all
change.
He seems to have held a basically Aristotelian view of the nature of matter, inasmuch as
he stressed the role of hot and cold in effecting change. Nonetheless, he altered the doctrine
of void, holding that it is at least possible within the kosmos. Some reports suggest that
Strato ̄n thought void is only a conceptual possibility, and that it is coextensive with space.
He supported Aristotle in denying that void is needed to account for magnetism or for the
motion of bodies. One report, however, claims that he held that matter has passageways to
allow the passage of light and heat. Some scholars take this report as evidence that Strato ̄n
took void to be part of the microstructure of matter. Much controversy surrounds the
relationship between Strato ̄n’s view of the matter and void and the theory of H
STRATO ̄N OF LAMPSAKOS