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’.