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

(Ron) #1

Ze ̄nophilos (100 BCE – 360 CE)


Physician whose antidote for inflamed bladders and kidney stones comprised cassia,
sarxiphagos, betonike ̄, kuperos, parsley, kostos, chaste-tree, roasted linseed, malabathron,
spikenard, European wild ginger, dittany, laurel-berry, basil- and celery-seed, pine-nut,
ginger, and honey, administered with honeyed or golden (khrusattikos) wine: O,
Syn. 3.197 (CMG 6.3, p. 116) = A  A 11.13 (p. 610 Cornarius, reading
XENOPHILVS). The name, attested from ca 110 BCE (LGPN 1.199), and cited more fre-
quently in the 2nd/3rd cc. CE (LGPN 2.193, 3A.187), is probably not Christian.


RE 10A (1972) 220, Fr. Kudlien.
GLIM


Ze ̄nothemis (340 – 260 BCE)


Wrote a periplous of the known world in elegiacs, of which one distich is quoted
by Tzetze ̄s, Chil. 7.675–677. He is also cited by P for mineral products (37.34 amber,
86 – 88 Indian sardonyx, 90 Indian onyx, 134 Carmanian ceraunia), and by A, NA
17.30 for cattle fed on live fish. For the rare name, cf. LGPN 1.194 (De ̄los, 297 BCE; Samos
240 – 220 BCE).


NP 12/2.756–757, E. Bowie.
PTK


Zeuxippos (225 – 175 BCE?)


Addressee of A’ lost treatises On Numbers and Of Balances (2.216 H.); mentioned
in Sand Reckoner (2.236 H.).


Netz (1997) #118; Idem, Works of Archimedes (2004) 12.
GLIM


Zeuxis (Empir.) (200 – 100 BCE)


Empiricist physician, certainly prior to H  T (G, Hipp. Epid.:
CMG 5.10.2.2, p.3). His identification with the skeptical philosopher Zeuxis mentioned by
D L 9.106 (implying a date in the 1st c. CE) is groundless. He wrote
commentaries on all treatises of the H C that were regarded as authen-
tic (certain: Epid. 2 – 3, 6, De locis, De off.med., Prorrh.; doubtful: De hum.), suggesting glosses,
variants, and interpretations, and polemizing against previous commentators (He ̄rophil-
eans, G). He also resumed the controversy over the attribution to H
of the marks contained in an Alexandrine copy of Epidem. 3, that had been advanced by the
He ̄rophilean Z and contested by the Empiricists beginning with A 
A. Gale ̄n knew his commentaries on Epid. 3 and 6: he complained that they were
difficult to find (CMG 5.10.2, p. 1 = 17A.605 K.).


Ed.: Deichgräber (1930) 209 (fragments), 263.
RE 10A (1972) 386–387 (#7), F. Kudlien; KP 5.1527 (#2), J. Kollesch; Smith (1979) 219–222; Manetti
and Roselli (1994) 1594–1597; OCD3 1639, H. von Staden; NP 12/2.794 (#3), A. Touwaide; Ihm
(2002) #264–271.
Fabio Stok


ZE ̄NOPHILOS
Free download pdf