C A’ Acute and Chronic Diseases appear to be direct adaptations from The-
odorus’ Logicus 8 (on hudrophobia [Rose, p. 125]) and ibid. 20 (on “catarrh” [Rose, p.158];
cf. Cael. Aur., Acute 3.11.102, and Chron. 2.7.94 [Drabkin, 364 and 626]). Not only were
Theodorus’ works known and cited in the Greek-speaking east, but the medical writings of
Latin medical writers were widely circulated and studied in the Roman west. Partially
underpinning Theodorus’ Logicus and Gynaecia are G and S, but the Euporiston
Faenomenon is pointedly based on “natural remedies” of decidedly local origins (Eup. 1.4
[Rose, p. 4]), and there are traces of P, S L, and G
M who expressed similar grumpiness about exotic and complicated pharmacology.
Theodorus organizes his medical botany according to the “place on the body” to be
treated, the traditional “head-to-heel,” beginning with one’s hair and skull. Farmer’s lore
abounds, e.g. Eup., 1.5.12 (Rose, pp. 12–13), a tried-and true therapy for head and body lice,
including bathing in a goodly mixture of powdered oak galls and pellitory roots (hoc pyrethri
et gallarum puluis ex aequo commixtus in balneis adhibitus facit); cf. purethron. Significantly, Theo-
dorus does not suggest surgery for the very common childhood hernias, recommending a
number of simples to be made into plasters (Eup., 28, 79 [Rose, pp. 83–85]). Much of the
Gynaecia is taken up with pharmacology, and Theodorus acknowledges the professional
expertise of a woman named Victoria medica, whose status is honored without question
(Gyn., 1.1, 5.13 [Rose, pp. 222, 233]). Her specialty was the prescription of drugs ensuring
pregnancies, a midwifely activity recognized in Roman law (Marcian in the Digest,
48.3.2–3). And even though Hippokrate ̄s had advised against a medicus or medica prescribing
drugs for abortions, Gyn., 6.23–27 (Rose, pp. 240–244), provides five recipes for abortifa-
cients, saying that “.. .occasionally these are necessary,” much as farmers understand with
their cattle.
Ed.: V. Rose, Theodori Prisciani Euporiston Libri III cum physicorum fragmento et additamentis Pseudo-Theodoreis
... accedunt Vindiciani Afri quae feruntur reliquiae (1894 [includes the Logicus as Bk. II and Gynaecia as Bk.
III]); Th. Meyer, Theodorus Priscianus und die römische Medizin (1909; repr. 1967).
E.H.F. Meyer, “Theodorus Priscianus” in Geschichte der Botanik v.2 (1855; repr. 1965) 286–299;
RE 5A.2 (1934) 1866–1869, K. Deichgräber; Önnerfors (1993) 288–301; M.C. Salazar and
A.M. Hernández, “Estudio del lexicon tardio de los tratados latinos africanos de los siglos IV y V,”
in Vázquez Buján (1994) 241–251; M.C. Salazar, “Grupos binarios de sinónimos en Theodoro
Prisciano” in B. García Hernández, ed., Latin vulgar y tardio: homenaje a Veikko Väänänen 1905– 1997
(2000) 257–262; A. Fraisse, “Médecine rationelle et irrationelle dans le livre I des Euporista de
Théodore Priscien” in N. Palmieri, ed., Rationnel et irrationnel dans la médecine ancienne et médiévale (2003)
183 – 192.
John Scarborough
Theodos of Alexandria, ha-Rofe (before 200 CE)
Jewish physician. Of the six people granted the title “physician” (rofe or asya) in classical
Rabbinic literature (i.e., Theodos/Theodoros, Tobiya, Bar Ginte, Minyomi/Benjamin,
R. Ammi, and Bar Nathan), we know most about Theodos. He is mentioned in the
Mishnah (Bekhorot 4.4) as an expert on the ritual slaughter of animals, associated with
Alexandria. The Tosefta (Ohalot 4.2) and Talmud (Nazir 52a; Sanhedrin 33a; Bekhorot 28b)
depict Rabbis using his osteological expertise as a basis for Jewish legal decisions. Some
scholars have sought to identify him with a T mentioned by (A in)
G, but the name was very common, and such connections highly speculative.
THEODOS OF ALEXANDRIA, HA-ROFE