Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T15:12:17.537Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE DATING OF PHILIPPOS OF AMPHIPOLIS (BNJ 280 T2)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2021

Brent Arehart
Brent Arehart*
Affiliation:
University of Cincinnati
*
areharbf@mail.uc.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On the basis of two neglected testimonia, this short note argues that the terminus ante quem for Philippos of Amphipolis (BNJ 280) should be moved forward to the third century or to the early fourth century c.e. if not earlier.

Keywords

Philippos of AmphipolisnovelistTheodorus PriscianusPaulos of NicaeaLiber Esculapii

Information

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , May 2021 , pp. 459 - 461
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

Philippos of Amphipolis is an author about whom little is known for certain. He is included in Brill's New Jacoby (= BNJ), because the Suda lists him as a historian who authored the Rhodiaka, the Kōiaka and the Thasiaka (BNJ 280 T1), but the rest of our testimony suggests that these works were erotic novels rather than local histories. The proposed terminus ante quem for Philippos relies on a passage from the physician Theodorus Priscianus (c. late fourth/early fifth century c.e.), who includes Philippos’ works among his bibliotherapeutic recommendations for genital dysfunction (BNJ 280 T2). However, while working on her critical edition of the Byzantine medical compendium of Paulos of Nicaea (c. ninth century c.e.), A.M. Ieraci Bio discovered a parallel passage mentioning Philippos of Amphipolis. Virgilio Costa, the author of BNJ 280, though apparently aware of this passage, did not include it among the testimonia.Footnote 1 Yet, Paulos of Nicaea becomes relevant to the dating of Philippos, when we take into account another parallel passage in a Latin work known as the Liber Esculapii (c. sixth or seventh century c.e.), which appears to be based on the same source as Paulos of Nicaea. Compare Paulos 81 with Liber Esculapii 41.24:Footnote 2

καὶ ἀναγνώσματα ὅσα ἀκόλαστα ἀναγινώσκονται, οἷά ἐστιν τὰ τοῦ Ἀμφιπολίτου Φιλίππου καὶ τοῦ Ἀριστείδου καὶ τὴν τῶν ὁμοίων μυθολογίαν γεγραφηκότων.

and books that are known to be licentious, such as the works of Philippos the Amphipolitan and Aristeides and the fiction of similar authors.

et lectionem legant amorum, sicut scripserunt Amphipolitus Philippus et Aristides, et similium fabulas scriptorum dandum.

and let them read romance, such as Philippus the Amphipolitan and Aristides have written, and a work of similar authors of fiction should be given.

Paulos and the Liber Esculapii agree together against Theodorus on which books are suitable for treatment. Whereas Theodorus recommends Philippos of Amphipolis, Herodian (of uncertain identity)Footnote 3 and Iamblichos of Syria, both Paulos of Nicaea and the Liber Esculapii recommend Philippos of Amphipolis and Aristides. The latter is presumably Aristides of Miletus (c. second century b.c.e.), author of the famous Milēsiaka or Milesian Tales. Otherwise, it seems that Theodorus Priscianus, the Liber Esculapii and Paulos of Nicaea all share a common source for their bibliotherapy of genital dysfunction.

One way to explain the difference is to posit that the original source in common recommended Philippos of Amphipolis and Aristides, but Theodorus Priscianus decided to revise the list of recommended reading—perhaps because he had a personal preference for Herodian and Iamblichos or because he wanted to include authors that he felt would be familiar to his audience.Footnote 4 If so, then the original source can be placed anywhere after Aristides of Miletus and before Theodorus Priscianus (that is, second century b.c.e.–late fourth century c.e.). Rufus of Ephesus (late first or early second century c.e.) has been suggested as a potential candidate for this original source.Footnote 5 However, in the medieval Latin translation of al-Rāzī's Kitāb al-Ḥāwī (that is, Liber continens), there is a chapter on genital dysfunction attributed to ‘Filogorius’, assumed to be the late antique physician Philagrios.Footnote 6 The instructions and the materia medica prescribed in this passage are essentially identical to what we find between Theodorus Priscianus, the Liber Esculapii and Paulos of Nicaea, though there is no mention of bibliotherapy. That omission could easily be explained as an editorial decision by al-Rāzī, or the posthumous editors that arranged the Kitāb al-Ḥāwī, to abridge certain material.Footnote 7 Philagrios would also make a credible candidate for the hypothesized source because of his dating. He was excerpted by Oribasios (fourth century c.e.) and so has a firm terminus ante quem.Footnote 8 At the same time though, if Philagrios were Theodorus’ source, we still could not rule out a scenario in which Philagrios used Rufus of Ephesus.

To summarize: if Rufus of Ephesus is the original source for the bibliotherapy of genital dysfunction shared among Theodorus Priscianus, the Liber Esculapii and Paulos of Nicaea, then we can place Philippos of Amphipolis between Aristides of Miletus and Rufus (that is, second century b.c.e.–late first century c.e.). If Philagrios is the original source independently of Rufus, then we can move the terminus ante quem for Philippos of Amphipolis forward to the third or early fourth century c.e.

References

1 Bio, A.M. Ieraci, ‘Per la fortuna degli erotici greci nella letteratura medica tardoantica’, Koinōnia 8 (1984), 101–5Google Scholar is listed in the bibliography of BNJ 280 (accessed online 4 June 2020), but Paulos of Nicaea is not mentioned in the entry itself.

2 The Greek and Latin texts have been drawn, respectively, from: Bio, A.M. Ieraci, Paolo di Nicea. Manuale medico. Testo edito per la prima volta, con introduzione, apparato critico, traduzione e note (Naples, 1996), 168Google Scholar and F. Manzanero Cano, ‘Liber Esculapii (Anonymus Liber Chronicorum): edición crítica y studio’ (Diss., Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1997), 825. Ieraci Bio ([this note], 21–2) suggested that Paulos of Nicaea may have used the (now lost) Greek original of Theodorus Priscianus’ Euporista, whether directly or indirectly. The Latin version of Euporista 2.11 cannot be the only source used by the Liber Esculapii, because the latter includes more material than can be found in Theodorus. There are some additional parallels with Eclogae medicamentorum 66, Aetius of Amida 11.35 and Paul of Aegina 3.58, but these are not discussed above because they do not further contribute to the dating of Philippos.

3 Bowie, E., ‘The ancient reader of the Greek novels’, in Schmeling, G. (ed.), The Novel in the Ancient World (Leiden, 1996), 94–5Google Scholar has suggested that ‘Herodian’ was a corruption from ‘Heliodorus’.

4 Ieraci Bio (n. 2) was aware of Liber Esculapii 41.22–4, to judge from an endnote in her critical edition, but she suggested that Paulos of Nicaea may have changed the names out of personal preference. The anterior dating of the Liber Esculapii to Paulos necessitates a revision of that hypothesis. Moreover, although Sisenna had translated Aristides into Latin early in his career (Ov. Tr. 2.443–4; E. Bowie, OCD 4 s.v. ‘Aristides 2’), his translation may not have been easily accessible by the time of Theodorus Priscianus. We can also imagine that the original compiler of the Liber Esculapii transliterated or copied the names before him as they appeared. The name of Aristides, restored by Manzanero Cano (n. 2), was at some point corrupted during transmission (v.ll. aristibos, acistidos, aristotilis, etc.). The apparatus criticus of Ieraci Bio (n. 2) reveals similar corruption (ἀρεότιδος).

5 Ingelmo, M. Herrero and Cartelle, E. Montero, ‘Las deformaciones léxicas en los textos salernitanos: aproximeron y gomorrea’, in Jacquart, J. and Paravicini, A. (edd.), La scuola medica salernitana: gli autori e i testi. Convegno internazionale, Università degli studi di Salerno, 3–5 novembre 2004 (Florence, 2007), 315–37Google Scholar. Rufus of Ephesus was probably a near contemporary of Galen.

6 See Philagrios, fr. 202 Masullo (Masullo, R., Filagrio. Frammenti. Testo edito per la prima volta, con introduzione, apparato critico, traduzione e note [Naples, 1999], 400–1Google Scholar).

7 For the compilatory practices of al-Rāzī, see J. Bryson, ‘The Kitāb al-Ḥāwī of Rāzī (ca. 900 ad): book one of the Ḥāwī on brain, nerve and mental disorders: studies in the transmission of texts from Greek into Arabic into Latin’ (Diss., Yale University, 2000). A revised critical edition of the rest of the Kitāb al-Ḥāwī is a desideratum.

8 Masullo (n. 6), 19 seems to have accidentally written terminus post quem for terminus ante quem with reference to Oribasios. The span of 300–40 c.e. is suggested by J. Scarborough, Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists, s.v. ‘Philagrios of Ēpeiros’.