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

(Ron) #1

spurious are Theano ̄’s letters, of uncertain date (proposed chronologies range from the 3rd
c. BCE to the 2nd c. CE) which mainly treat the correct behavior of women toward hus-
bands, infants and nurse-maids.


Ed.: Städele (1980) 166–185 (text); 288–335 (commentary).
Thesleff (1965) 193.17–201.9.
Bruno Centrone


Themiso ̄n of Laodikeia (Syria) (ca 90 – 40 BCE)


From the Syrian city (-G, I 4 [14.684 K.]), and in Rome by ca
100 BCE, Themiso ̄n studied under A  B (Tecusan, p. 14). Shortly
before, Themiso ̄n had emigrated to somewhere near Milan, seemingly becoming an expert
on troublesome cases of saturiasis in both sexes (C A, Acute 3.186 [Drabkin,
p. 416; CML 6.1.1, p. 400]). Tecusan (ibid.) calculates that Themiso ̄n was born ca 120 BCE,
and that E became his student ca 45 BCE (cf. frr.98 and 264). Tecusan’s dates for the
early Methodist figures rely on Rawson’s chronology for Askle ̄piade ̄s (prior scholars, e.g.,
Sepp, Wellmann, Deichgräber, Edelstein 1935/1967, offered a later chronology).
Themiso ̄n’s physiological theories may be faintly reflected in V, Georgics 1.84–93 and
415 – 423 (so Pigeaud); but the supposed archiater C. Proculeius Themison (identified with our
Themiso ̄n by Roemer) is too late, viz. 7 CE. Tecusan’s only firm date, however, is for Eude ̄mos’
possible role in Drusus Caesar’s assassination, 23 CE (T, Ann. 4.3, 4.8–11; P
29.20–21). Moreover, Deichgräber (1934: 1633; cf. Sepp, pp. 119–120) has linked Themiso ̄n
with the obscure skeptic-empiricist philosopher-doctor, T  L 
L, who is early 2nd c. CE (cf. G, On My Own Books 9 [2.115 MMH = Singer 1997:
17 = Boudon, CUF v.1, p. 163]).
Themiso ̄n (or less likely T) emerges from our often-contradictory texts as the
“founder” of the Methodist “sect” (hairesis) of medicine (but vide Edelstein 1935/1967:
174 – 176). Themiso ̄n was the first to distinguish “chronic” ailments in his (lost) three-book
work on the subject (Caelius Aurelianus, Chron. 1.pr. 1 – 3 [CML 6.1.1, pp. 426–428; fr. 50
Tecusan]), and the separation of “chronic” from “acute” diseases became somewhat canoni-
cal among the Methodists (theoretical constructs later carefully elaborated by S).
Doctrinal heritages from Askle ̄piade ̄s’ “atomism” are very weak (Tecusan, p. 14; cf.
Vallance 1990: 141–142), and mechanical notions in Askle ̄piade ̄s’ theories are distinct from
Themiso ̄n’s (Vallance 1990: 123–130). Occasionally, our sources attribute the notion of
koino ̄tetes (“communities” viz. of diseases) to Themiso ̄n (frr.63, 111, 161 Tecusan), but most
sources “sandwich” citations of Themiso ̄n among Thessalos and other later Methodists
( Tecusan, pp. 82–83). Themiso ̄n’s remnants demonstrate his interest in pharmacology: e.g.,
fr.88 Tecusan (Caelius Aurelianus, Chron. 4.39 [CML 6.1.2, p. 796]), Themiso ̄n’s recipe for a
beeswax-based remedy for bowel pains, whose ingredients also included acacia-gum, dried
rose petals, and rose oil, triturated in wine once the beeswax has been melted; cf. fr.105
(C 6.7.1F), for ear problems, a recipe containing beeswax, opium poppy latex, and
raisin wine. Themiso ̄n authored four works known by title: Acute Diseases, Chronic Diseases,
Hygiene (or Rules of Health), and a collection of Letters; two others, The Method and Periodic
Fevers, Tecusan (p. 107) classes among her “dubia.”


Ed.: Tecusan (2004) “Thematic Synopsis: Themison,” pp. 82–83, 90–91, 97, and 101–102);
F.P. Moog, Die Fragmente des Themison von Laodikea (Diss. Giessen, 1994 [cited by Tecusan, p. 13, n. 16]:
non vidi).


THEMISO ̄N OF LAODIKEIA (SYRIA)
Free download pdf