The physician Philistion, born in Epizephyrian Locris, was one of the leading figures in Sicilian medicine between the late fifth century bc and the first half of the fourth. However, we know little – almost nothing – about Philistion. His doctrine is only documented at some length by the Anonymus Londinensis, while the second pseudo-Platonic letter mentions him as court physician in Syracuse. In his still relevant book Die Fragmente der sikelischen Ärzte Akron, Philistion und des Diokles von Karystos (1900), M. Wellmann provided some conceptual coordinates that were followed by subsequent scholars. For example, he notes the theoretical proximity of Philistion's medical doctrines to Empedocles’ philosophy, his presence in Syracuse, the influence of his theory of elements on Plato's Timaeus, Philistion's sojourn in Athens and his explanation of illnesses in terms of the imbalance of constitutive elements. L. Edelstein, in his entry for the first edition of the Oxford Classical Dictionary (1949), subscribed to Wellmann's approach, focusing on those sources that present Philistion as Eudoxus of Cnidus’ medicine teacher (a thesis recently endorsed by D. Manetti, ‘Philistion of Lokroi’, in P. Keiser and G. Irby-Massie [edd.], The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists. The Greek Tradition and its Many Heirs [2008], pp. 649–50).

While Philistion is undoubtedly an important figure in the development of Sicilian culture, and in a way Athenian culture too, what was still missing was a comprehensive new study of the available sources that might add other testimonia to those collected by Wellmann and provide an overall evaluation of them. This gap has now been filled by S.’s study, which is an innovative one in two chief respects. First, S. attempts to reconstruct – as far as this is possible – the cultural and political context in which Philistion received his training, in an attempt to ascertain the reasons for his choice to move to Syracuse and for his success at Dionysius’ court.

S. then draws upon some of the conclusions reached in the philological debate on collections of fragments and on the distinction between fragmentum and testimonium, which he applies to the case under consideration. This strikes me as the most significant aspect of the volume. S. denies that we have any Philistion fragments and reduces all the sources to the rank of testimonia. This evaluation seems correct to me, as is further confirmed by a reading of the sources included in the volume: what we have are almost invariably pieces of biographical information or brief allusions to doctrinal aspects inserted in narrative contexts. S. regards any source explicitly mentioning Philistion as a testimonium. To these he adds certain texts not present in Wellmann, such as Galen, De methodo medendi 1.3, which is particularly interesting as in this source the physician from Locris ‘fa da cerniera tra Ippocrate e i medici vissuti tra la seconda metà del IV e la prima metà del III secolo’ (p. 82). The Quellenforschung is conducted by examining the cover-text, to borrow G. Schepens’ happy turn of phrase (i.e. the context of a quotation is more important than the mere mention of Philistion). In my view, this is a promising approach, which can help further our knowledge of the Sicilian physician. Many sources mention him in lists of doctors sharing common doctrines, or in polemical contexts contrasting different medical approaches. It is important, therefore, to understand what use of Philistion each source makes, as opposed to searching for traces of his ipsissima verba.

The most relevant consequence of S.’s approach is that three texts that are regarded as being of particular importance are not reckoned among the testimonia (but are included in the volume as appendices): Epicrates, fr. 10 Kassel–Austin (ap. Athen. 2.59d–f), which mentions an ἰατρός τις Σικελᾶς ἀπὸ γᾶς who at the Academy spoke out against the sterile dialectic of the philosophers: this physician is often identified with Philistion; sections 32b–3a, 53b–c, 70a–d, 77c–9e, 90e–1b of Plato's Timaeus, mentioning the four elements in relation to both the origin of the universe and the formation of bodies, along with the flowing of liquids through the lungs (a thesis which some sources attribute to Philistion); finally, [Hippocrates], De corde, pp. 190–5 Duminil, featuring the thesis that breathing cools down the innate heat of the body and the idea that part of the liquids one imbibes flows through the lungs. S.’s choice is a convincing one, in my view, not only because none of the three texts mentions Philistion but also for more specific reasons. As regards the Epicrates passage, Wellmann put forward some interesting arguments to support the identification of the ἰατρός as Philistion (his likely travel to Athens, the presence in the Timaeus of a physiology of the body based on the four elements and Philistion's proximity to the Academy, as witnessed by the second pseudo-Platonic letter). However, we should not forget that this text is a comedy; hence, it is more likely that Epicrates is not referring to an actual physician but presenting the stock character of a doctor, a character which – as S. has previously illustrated (Menecrate di Siracusa. Un medico del IV secolo a.C. tra Sicilia, Grecia e Macedonia [2012], p. 75 and n. 379) – is often portrayed in Middle Comedy as a foreigner speaking a Doric dialect. As for Plato, the hypothesis of the influence of Philistion's theory on the Timaeus is quite a convincing one, and it may even be that Plato met the physician in Syracuse and/or Athens. Nevertheless, there is no real evidence for this, and it is possible that Plato only had indirect and partial knowledge of Philistion's theory of elements. As regards the Hippocratic treatise De corde, there are no compelling reasons why it should be attributed either directly to Philistion himself (J. Bidez/G. Leboucq) or to Diocles (while still tracing its origin back to Philistion, as Wellmann does). Without overlooking its links to Philistion, then, it is more prudent not to regard it as a testimonium.

S. formulates two hypotheses about Philistion's move from Locris to Syracuse. The first presents it as a chance event, suggesting that the physician moved together with the Locrians residing in the sub-colony of Hipponion, which Dionysius I transferred to Syracuse after his victory on the River Elleporus, or that he followed the Locrians whom the tyrant had settled in Messana in 396/5 bc; Philistion would then have distinguished himself as a physician, to the point of establishing himself at court. The second hypothesis is that Philistion sought to make a career for himself in an important centre such as Syracuse, an ambition that was favoured by the popularity of Pythagorean philosophy in the city (assuming Philistion himself had a Pythagorean background) and by the close links established between Dionysius I and the Locrians through the tyrant's marriage with Doris: Dionysius I de facto joined the aristocracy of Locris, of which in all likelihood Philistion was a member (Φιλιστίων being an aristocratic name). S. does not commit himself to either hypothesis; however, the second one, while indemonstrable, rests on some reasonable assumptions. Equally reasonable is the hypothesis, which S. upholds, that Philistion had some pupils, as the pseudo-Galenic De succedaneis liber apparently asserts (οἱ περὶ τὸν Φιλιστίωνα). S. regards Eudoxus, Chrysippus of Cnidos and Plato, along with Menecrates, as Philistion's ‘eredi’.

As regards the circulation of Philistion's theories in the Peripatos, S. offers an interesting explanation. The Anonymus Londinensis claims to be drawing upon the doxography of Aristotle (or that of the Peripatetic Meno) and distinguishes two approaches to the aetiology of illnesses among the physicians of Magna Graecia and Sicily: on the one hand, the approach favoured by Philolaus, Philistion and Menecrates, who traced illnesses back to στοιχεῖα; on the other that of Timoteus and Hippo, who invoked περιττώματα. S. argues that the Peripatetics acquired these data about the aforementioned physicians from two different sources: the Academy as regards the information about Philolaus and Philistion; Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus as regards the information about Timoteus, Hippo and Menecrates. In this case too, S. offers a careful and well documented discussion of the problem.

The volume includes a table of concordances (Squillace–Wellmann), some maps of Italy, and indexes for sources, place and personal names, along with a general index. S.’s study is bound to become not just a point of reference for future studies on Philistion and the Sicilian medicine of his day, but also for anyone investigating the development of philosophical and biological theories in the Academy and the Peripatos.