Archiatri and the Medical Profession in AntiquityAuthor(s): Vivian NuttonSource: Papers of the British School at Rome, Vol. 45 (1977), pp. 191-226Published by: British School at RomeStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40310863 .Accessed: 10/10/2011 19:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

British School at Rome is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Papers of theBritish School at Rome.

http://www.jstor.org

ARCHIATRI AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION IN ANTIQUITY

(Plates XXXI-XXXII)

How far there was ever in classical antiquity a public health service, organised and paid for by the state, has been often debated by both doctors and classical scholars, with conflicting results.1 For fifth and fourth century Greece the amount of evidence available is insufficient to permit any certainty, but there can be no doubt that in the Hellenistic age individual cities offered special privileges in order to secure the residence of a qualified physician.2 But whether and in what ways such a system was carried over into the very different society of the Roman empire, and still more into that of late antiquity, are questions which have never been satisfactorily answered, and the authority of the Roman part of Pohl's dissertation De graecorum mediéis publicis, despite its increasing age, has never been seriously challenged - indeed, some more recent studies have only highlighted by contrast its high level of accuracy, judgement and, for its time, comprehensiveness.3 However, the discovery of three new inscriptions of archiatri from Aphrodisias affords an opportunity to re-examine the institution of public doctors in the Roman empire and thereby to throw light upon a professional designation, archiatros/archiater, which has troubled scholars ever since Herodian the grammarian attempted to settle the position of its Greek accent.4 By surveying the evidence according to the varied societies in which the archiatri practised - the courts, the Eastern cities, the West and Rome in late antiquity, Constantinople and Roman and Byzantine Egypt - a much clearer picture of the spread of public doctors can be obtained without introducing anachronistic or extraneous attitudes and institutions to provide a single uniform pattern of development.

irThe debate can be traced back at least to R. Mead, Dissertatio de nummis quibusdam Smyrnaeis in medicorum honorem percussis, London, 1 724, which provoked violent criticism from Conyers Middleton, De medicorum apudveteres Romanos degentium conditione, Cambridge, 1726, and Defensio, Cambridge, 1727. In the last century the argument moved to France, with R. Briau, Uarchiàtrie romaine, Paris, 1877, and A. Vercoutre, 'La médecine publique dans Vantiquité grecque1, Rev. Arch. n.s. xxxix (1880) 99-110, 231-46, 309-21, 348-62; the Berlin dissertation of R. Pohl, De graecorum medias publicis, Berlin, 1905 (hereafter = Pohl), brought this period of controversy to an end.

2M. I. Rostovzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Oxford, iy41, lU8«-y4

(= SEHHW); L. Cohn-Haft, The public physicians of Ancient Greece, Northampton, Mass., 1956 ( =

Cohn-Haft) ; A. R. Hands, Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome, London, 1968, 131-45. 3T. C. Allbutt, Greek medicine in Rome, London, 1921, 443-74, is a mere paraphrase of Pohl; A. G.

Woodhead, 'The state health service in ancient Greece', Camb. Hist. J. (1952) 235-53, is an anachron- istic political tract for the times; M. E. Pfeffer, Einrichtungen der sozialen Sicherung in der griechischen und romischen Antike, Berlin, 1969 (= Pfeffer), is neither accurate nor comprehensive, despite appearances.

4Herodian gramm. I 229, placing it on the last syllable.

192 VIVIAN NUTTON

I. NEW INSCRIPTIONS FROM APHRODISIAS*

1. On a marble statue base, broken at the top: 0-46-0-43 m. x 0-83 x 0-32: letters 0-035 m. Plate XXXla.

[Titos Oàó(3ios Ztoc] (3epiccvos tòv 'Aa KÀT)TriOV KCCÌ TT)V 'Yyeiccv ovv tois |3ci>|jiois ¿k Tcov í 6ÍCOV ávéOrjKe tco 8fmco KocOcbs Títos OXá(3ios ZTCc(3epíavos áp Xiorrpòs TTÓÀe cos o TtaTTip aÙToO

Ù7T6CTX6TO

The combination of the Flavian nomen and the full form ápxicnpos ttóXecos (below, p. 198f ) suggests a date for this inscription between 100 and 250 a.d., possibly, if letter forms are to be trusted, between 150 and 200 a.d. Other examples of similar munificence by doctors towards their patron deities come from Rome (a statue carved by a famous sculptor, IG XIV 967) ; Oenoanda (a shrine of Asclepius, BCHX (1886) 216); Nysa (a shrine and precinct, L. Robert, Etudes Anatoliennes, Paris 1937, 256) ; while Heracleitus of Rhodiapolis, poet, philosopher and doctor, erected statues and a temple to Asclepius and Hygieia at his own expense, and lavished money on splendid games in honour of Asclepius (IGR III 732-3).

2. Inv. No. 66.102 : on a marble slab, broken above and to the right: 0-39 m. x 0-16 x 0-105: letters 0-015-0-025, with deep serifs: traces of a relief above. Plate XXXIè.

Aúp(r|Aícc) OA(a(3ía) 'Avr(covía) 'EXms Neikío[u <pú crei 5è Eìtccàìkou MápKo[v Aùp(f)Àiov)? *AttoààcÌ)vio\; y' tou 'Av6p[. . . . ìttttikòv apxtocTpòv tòv <i)e[cxuTffs ccvSpà jiveias \ap\v

Triple nomina are rare at Aphrodisias, and the cognomen, Italicus, is there recorded only on an inscription of the poet and governor, Silius Italicus (MAMA VIII 411): a M. Aur. Apollonios is mentioned on MAMA VIII 586, but secure identification of him with this doctor or with a member of his family is impossible. His equestrian rank (cf. MAMA VIII 468, 516, 518) is noteworthy,6 and shows the

6I am grateful to Professor K. T. Erim and Miss J. M. Reynolds for permission to publish these inscriptions, and to Dr. D. T. Crawford and Dr. T. Sheoard for their advice and criticism.

«The use of hippikos to indicate that he was a horse doctor would be without parallel, for the hippikos iatros of CIG 4716 was eliminated by the revision of A. Reinach, BSAA xiv (1912) 140.

ARCHIATRI AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION 193

wealth which civic physicians in the Eastern cities might have: cf. nos. 48 and 82, and for examples of civic doctors of social standing in their community, nos. 23, 25, 28, 32, 34, 47 and 59. 7 It would be unwise to speculate on the subject of the grave relief, but its presence is a further indication of the wealth of this archiatros and his family. To judge from the names and from the letter forms this inscription is to be dated to the first half of the third century.

3. Inv. No. 65.418: inscribed within a roughly incised tabella ansata on a marble block, broken to the right: 0-27 m. x 0-41 x 0-15: letters 0*015-025. Plate XXXIItf.

Xpua[a? <píou á[p Xiorrpo[0

If the restoration of lines 2 and 3 is correct, the space available for supplement in line 1 is of two letters at the most, and, depending on the extent of the curve of the sigma and the size of the letter(s) restored, may be of only one. Thus, unless peculiar spellings are admitted, supplements based on a nominative followed by >Att]9Íou such as the attractive Xpualjn 'An^iou, must be rejected on grounds of excessive length. Of possible names, Xpucr[a]<piou fits best, although it is not other- wise found at Aphrodisias.8 However, if more than one letter is to be restored in line 2, the line length and supplements can be extended almost at will: but the rough carving of the inscription suggests that on this late epitaph brevity, not eloquence, was required.9

II. ARCHIATROS AS A ROYAL DOCTOR

The earliest attested meaning of archiatros is that of a personal physician to a ruler,10 and modern discussion has concentrated upon identifying the court where the title was first used, Pohl, following Reinach, argued that it was among the Seleucids, rather than in Egypt,11 but although this still remains a possible hypo- thesis, the evidence in its favour is far less cogent than it seemed to Pohl. Crateros, the archiatros, whom he had assumed to be doctor to Antiochus III, was shown to have lived in the reign of Antiochus IX, eighty years later;12 and only the restoration

'Numbers refer to the inscriptions enumerated in Appendix 3. 8L. Zgusta, Kleinasiatische Personennamen, Prague, 1964, 533, n.1648. 9Other inscriptions of doctors from Aphrodisias are: CIG 2846 (MAMA VIII 552); CIG 2847;

H. Grégoire, Receuil des inscriptions grecques chrétiennes d'Asie Mineure, Brussels, 1922, 272; MAMA VIII 486-7 (L. Robert, Hellenica, IV, 119f; XIII 170f); MAMA VIII 605 (Hellenica XIII 605).

10For a misreading which invented a civic archiatros of the fourth or third century on Calymnos, see no. 96 of Appendix 3.

11S. Reinach, in Daremberg-Saglio, Dictionnaire 3, s.v. medicus, col. 1690: Pohl, 25-8. 12No. 73: the correct date was established at IDelos 1547; cf. Porphyry, FGH II B 260, fr. 32, 20.

194 VIVIAN NUTTON

of a battered inscription in honour of Apollophanes, the doctor of Antiochus III, to read

.... Cnrep [toO ápx]iocTpou | [toO] (3aaiÀecos | 'Attoaào9Cxvou ....

reveals the title in the Seleucid kingdom at the end of the third century b.c.13 Pohl's objection to an Egyptian origin was based first upon the absence of the

word from all but Byzantine papyri and secondly upon the existence of possible alternative titles for a royal physician, basilikos iatros and epi ton iatron. But Tatas, basilikos iatros, as Letronne had seen long before, was a local nome official, like the basilikos grammateus,1* and Pohl himself doubted whether Chrysermus epi ton iatron was a personal doctor of the Ptolemies, for his titles seemed to be restricted to functions at Alexandria.15 Nevertheless, Gortemann's analysis of Ptolemaic royal doctors shows only iatroi, not archiatroi, in the early and mid-third century,16 although the fact that much of the evidence is unofficial and non-documentary reduces the weight of this argument from silence.17 In 1912 a papyrus was published which indicated beyond doubt an archiatros in Ptolemaic Egypt.18 An archiatros, Athenagoras, resident in Alexandria in the first century b.c., ordered the mummy-dressers and priests of the Fayum to release the body of an assistant which he wished to save from mummi- faction. Whatever the precise duties of Athenagoras,19 the strength of Pohl's first objection was weakened almost to nothing, and it became possible to consider the word as a Greek version of the Egyptian wr sinw, chief doctor, a title current through -

13No. 54, either 216-3 or, less likely, 197-6 b.c.; Apollophanes' political influence is known also from Polyb. V 56.1; 58, 3, and, possibly, Arch. Anzeig. 1905, 11. The restoration is considered con- vincing by J. and L. Robert, Bull. Ep. (1971) n.600: to judge from the editor's description, there are no decorations or word dividers (e.g. at the end of line 4), and, although no information is given on the exact letter spacing, a wide-spaced Crrrèp [toO] iorrpoO in line 2 would seem unlikely. Connoisseurs of continuity may care to speculate on an Assyrian tablet recording a 'physician in chief, H. Sigerist, A history of medicine, Oxford 1951, I, 433.

14P. Torin. I 2.25; UPZ 162; J. Letronne, JS 1828. Denied by S. Reinach, BCH vii (1883) 361 ; but see SEHHW 1093: P. M. Fraser. Ptolemaic Alexandria. Oxford 1972. TI 549.

15Pohl 28 : T. Homolle, BCH iii (1879) 470, dating Chrysermus to the third century b.c. ; the right date, c. 150-125, was argued at Melos 1525. See also SEHHW 1091, Fraser, I 373, who leaves it open whether he was an archiatros, in charge of all the medical services of Egypt, or responsible for the doctors at Alexandria, in the Museum or in the Palace, or performed any combination of these possible duties.

16C. Gortemann, 'Médecins de cour dans l'Egypte du III e siecle avant J.C, Chron. Eg. xxxii (1957) 332, n.2.

17 If literary evidence alone was to be considered, the first occurrence of archiatros would be in Erotian, c. 60 a.d. The reading àpxirjTpòs in the Mss of Aristeas 182, accepted by Reinach, BCH vii (1883) 361 and Thackeray, in H. B. Swete, Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1900, 550, was rightly rejected, on the parallel evidence of Josephus, AJ 12.94, by Letronne, JS 1828, 105, and other editors of Aristeas, including Thackeray in his 1902 edition, in favour of àpYeSéorrpos.

18No. 2: cf. C. C. Edgar, 'The stolistae of the Labyrinth', Arch.f. Pap. xiii (1938) 76-7. Prosopo- graphia Ptolemaica VI, no. 16571, dates him to 68-7 or 39-8 b.c.

19Note the Pharaonic title of 'chief of the doctors of the place of truth' (the necropolis) under the New Empire, F. Jonckheere, Les médecins de VEgypte pharaonique, Brussels 1958, 98.

ARCHIATRI AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION 195

out the Pharaonic period.20 Alternatively, the word archiatros could have been coined (or borrowed) in the second century without reference to any previous, Egyptian, institution, and in that case Pohl's preference for a Syrian origin for the word would still be valid. But it should also be remembered that we have no non-literary evidence for the medical organisation of the Macedonian and Attalid courts,21 and the Seleucid theory, although possible, remains unproven.

That the title was not confined to Syria and Egypt is clear from a Delian inscription of 102/1 in honour of Papias of Amisus, archiatros, secretary and friend of Mithridates Eupator (no. 74), but when it was first applied to the personal physician of the Roman emperor is hard to determine. Neither Artorius Asclepiades22 nor Antonius Musa,23 who attended Augustus, is called archiatros, and Ti. Claudius Melito is styled simply 'medicus Germanici'.24 It is of course likely that most of the doctors recorded epigraphically as med. Aug. or its Greek equivalent attended the imperial familia rather than the emperor,25 but it is difficult to believe that Ti. Claudius Menecrates,26 the founder of a medical sect, the recipient of honours from notable cities and iatros of the emperors, had not at some point treated the emperor himself. Another inscription of the Julio-Claudian period, which describes Ti. Claudius Aug. lib. Tyrannus,27 a native of Magnesia ad Maeandrum, as 'approved by the divine judgement of the emperors for his skill in medicine and his moral excellence' suggests by this circumlocation that he had served the emperors them- selves and that the simple word archiatros had not then returned to fashion.

It reappears on two of a series of Coan inscriptions in honour of C. Stertinius Xenophon and his family,28 although whether its adoption is owed to Xenophon, to the emperor Claudius - for both had antiquarian tastes29 - or even to the extrava-

20Jonckheere, op. cit., 96-7; wr sinw occurs alone or in such phrases as 'chief of the palace doctors' (98) and 'chief of the doctors of Upper and Lower Egypt' (98, c. 590 b.c. and earlier).

21Since Polybius, V 56.1, calls Apollophanes, the Seleucid archiatros, merely iatros, one cannot conclude from XXX 2 that the Attalid doctor Stratius (cf. Livy xlv, 19) was not officially designated archiatros.

™IG II2 4116, Webs 1589, CIG 3285 (IGR IV 1444), which Pohl, 34, following H. Diitschke, Antike Bildwerke IV, Leipzig 1880, 238, thought a forgery.

23P. Hermann, Ath. Mitt, lxxv (1960) 141 ; cf. ILS 8594, and F. Della Corte, Pompeiana, Naples 1950, 91, but very speculative.

24G. Jacopi, Boll. Comm. lxvii (1939) 24-5; A. Degrassi, Scritti Vari di Antichità, Rome 1962, 382; he may be the author mentioned by Galen in xiii, 843.

25E.g. CIL VI 8897-8904; IG XIV 1330. 26/G XIV 17 59; pace Cagnat, IGR IV 1359, he cannot be identified with Menecrates of Sosandra,

see 7P£xxii (1976) 93-96. 27O. Kern, Inschriften von Magnesia, Berlin 1900, 113. A similar career may be posited for Ti.

Claudius Epagathus of Sidyma, IGR III 578-9 (from Benndorf) = TAM II. 1.1 78-9, iorrpos cckktictctos of Claudius.

28R. Herzog, 'Nikias und Xenophon von Kos', HZ cxxv (1922) 230, claimed that twenty inscriptions were known, but of the Claudian series, begun c. 53, only the following have been published: ICos 84-91, R. Herzog, Koische Forschungen und Funde, Leipzig 1899, 21-3, A. Maiuri, Nuova Silloge Epieraphica di Rodi e Cos, Florence 1925, 476-8.

29It was Xenophon who paid for the reconstruction of the shrine and library at the Asclepieion, Herzog, HZ cxxv (1922) 242; he rebuilt part of the walls of Naples, Pliny, NH xxix, 7, and he has been conjectured, without solid evidence, as the moving spirit of the antiquarian revival at Velia, G. Pugliese Carratelli, PP 1965, 27.

196 VIVIAN NUTTON

gant hero-worship of the Coan demos cannot be decided for certain.30 On one inscription (no. 68A) the word cpiÀovépcovoc is inscribed over an erased <piÀOKÀocu8iov, which might suggest that Xenophon was first called archiatros during the reign of Claudius,31 and that the cutter was working on the stone when news of Claudius5 death (and of Xenophon's part in it) reached him. But since there is no other example on Cos of the deliberate damnatio memoriae of Claudius or of an updating of Xenophon's title, and since the other inscription is later,32 it is possible that Xenophon was not called archiatros until the reign of Nero and that the cutter was led into error by familiarity with the earlier form of the epithets applied to him. In Rome, of course, Xenophon was styled medicus Augusti'** his new title is found only on Greek inscriptions, and was not immediately adopted by his contemporaries and successors as imperial doctors, for Ser. Sulpicius Hecataeus, friend and doctor of Galba, is termed iatros on an inscription from Cnidos.34 But the novelty caught on, for by the end of the second century it was in common use on inscriptions35 and in medical texts to denote a royal physician, although circumlocutions such as Hatroi of the palace' are found in more stylish authors.36 Its first appearance in a medical text is in Erotian's medical glossary, which is dedicated to Andromachus the archiatros of Nero.37 Another writer of the Neronian age, Aretaeus, also employed the word when, in a discussion on intestinal pains, he declared that it was wrong for an archiatros to induce death, however much relief it might bring to the sufferer.38 Since it is above all royal doctors whose charges must not be assisted to die, the combination of a Neronian date, a royal physician and an acute stomach or intestinal pain prompts the hypothesis that Aretaeus is here scoring a hit off Xenophon, the archiatros and accomplice in the murder of Claudius.39

Aretaeus and Erotian are Greek technical writers: it is not until the third century that archiatros becomes an accepted part of the non-medical writer's vocabu-

30Pohl, 32; T. C. Allbutt, Greek medicine in Rome, London 1921, 457, ascribed it to the 'more Eastern Coans'.

31No. 68A; Pohl, p. 32, dated it to the reign of Nero; an earlier inscription from Calymnos, BCH v (1881) 472 = SIG* 806, calls him simply Icrrpòs TiBepíou KAou8íou Kccíaapos.

32No. 68B; cf. Herzog, HZ cxxv (1922) 236, n.l and 240f. 33C7L VI 8905 (ILS 1841). 34C. T. Newton, AGIBM, Oxford 1892, 799; cf. CIL VI 8895 (Domitiani medicus). The damaged

inscription from Blaundus of the Neronian doctor, Servilius Damocrates, C. Cichorius, Ramisene Studien, Leipzig 1922, 432-3 (AE 1923, 32; SEG 2, 667), can be restored as either iatros or archiatros.

35Nos. 20, 27, 40, 41. 36Andromachus, Galen xiv, 2, cf. 233; Magnus, Galen xiv.261 ; Demetrius, Galen xiv, 4, 261f:

for other variants, cf. xiv.625; although Galen treated emperors from M. Aurelius to Septimius Severus, he never calls himself archiatros, but is so designated in mediaeval Mss., e.g. Ms. Merton 219, 36v.; Wellcome 284, Wellcome 801 A, 3r.

37Erotian, p. 29 Klein; pace Klein, p. XII, arguing for the son, the Galenic evidence is strongly in favour of the father, see K. Strecker, 'Zu Erotian', Hermes xxvi (1891) 262-307; A. A. Niketas, 'EpEVvoci 6TTÌ tcov -rniycov toO Ae^ÍKOv toO 'EpcoTiccvou, Athens 1971, 2-6.

**Ve morb. ac. 11 b,l = CMG 11 133, 11; for the date, see F. Kudlien, 'Untersuchungen zu Aretaios', AAWM 1963, 11, 1151-85.

á9lacitus, Ann. 12.67; most commentators on Aretaeus, e.g. Petit, Wiggon, have assumed that the word means 'civic doctor' - but as will be shown, this is an unlikely meaning for c. 60 a.d.

ARCHIATRI AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION 197

lary.40 Its Latin equivalent, archiater, is not found except on inscriptions until 286, when Diocletian and Maximian informed Aurelius archiater that he was to be restored to the property seized from him in his unavoidable absence with the emperor's comitatus.*1 Both Aureiius and the archiatri whom the law freed from the common duties of counts and senators that were imposed on retired members of the administration42 were imperial physicians, but it is not always clear that such archiatri as appear in the codes are always doctors to the emperor or to the city of Rome. In particular a law addressed by Julian in 362 to archiatri and confirming privileges traditionally given them has been interpreted to refer to civic physicians, either in Constantinople, whence the law was issued,43 or, with greater plausibility, throughout the empire, on the evidence of a letter from Julian freeing all doctors from civic liturgies.44 Libanius certainly knew that this letter had been put into effect, for, commenting on the compulsion of a doctor, Philo, to serve as a decurión at Rhosus, he writes, Ep. 723, 'If the Rhosians do not know that Philo is a doctor, they are to cease molesting him now that they have been informed : if they already knew, though Philo himself is weak, the law is strong.'

That the law and the letter are closely connected is obvious, and Gothofredus' observation that the law reproduced faithfully in translation the substance and some of the stylistic features of the letter cannot be denied.45 But the law is directed to archiatri, who, as Below rightly noted,46 should be imperial doctors; the letter to all doctors. One solution to this dilemma was proposed by Ensslin, who argued that the law, which had applied to a restricted group of civic physicians, the archiatri, was now extended in popular estimation to cover all doctors.47 But Julian's letter can hardly be dismissed as a misunderstanding, especially as its opening sentences have a general applicability, and, if it is necessary to believe in two separate enactments, for medici and archiatri,** it is easier to assume that only the one relating to imperial doctors was included by the compilers of the Theodosian Code. But two considera- tions suggest that the law as it stands is of doubtful historical value. The first is that since immunity from muñera publica had already been extended by Constantine to all

40Herodian gramm. I 229, and especially Origen, PG 12.1021, 1369; 13.472, 1831 ; Griech. Christ. Schriftst. 12.1.92, are relatively early examples: cf. also the liturgical papyrus, No. 4.

41CJ 7.35.2 ; little reliance can be placed on a fourth century (at the earliest) scholium to Juvenal x, 22 1 calling the first century doctor, Themison of Laodicea, archiater. For an unwise attempt to invent the word in Lucretius, see CR, n.s. xxvi (1976) 180.

i2CT 13.3.2. The date is given in the Mss. as 326, but Mommsen in a note on CT 2.9.1 (followed at PLRE I s.v. Rufinus) set out the evidence for assigning it c. 354: both rank and remuneration of the archiatri fit the 350s more than the 320s.

43C7~ 13.3.4. This interpretation was put forward by J. Gothofredus in his commentary on the Theodosian Code, ed. Lyon 1665, V, p. 30 - but the place of issue of a law indicates only where the emperor was at any one time, not the area where the law was to apply, see also below p. 211.

44£/>. 75b. Although the heading calls it a nomos, it is easier to distinguish the two as 'law' and 'letter'.

45Gothofredus, V 30 : e.g. kata ton tou dikaiou logismon = ratio aequitatis. 46K. H. Below, Der Arzt im ròmischen Recht, Munich 1953, 45. 47W. Ensslin, 'Kaiser Julians Gesetzgebungswerk und Reichsverwaltung', Klio xviii (1922)

104-99 (148). 48 As in CT 13.3.8 and 10 (in a peculiar situation, see below, p. 208f).

198 VIVIAN NUTTON

medici^ it was a minor privilege for the court archiatri compared with the special immunities given them by CT 13.3.2 and 14-16; the second is that in the body of the law there is no mention of the identity of the 'vos' to whom the law is to refer. Given the closeness of phrasing between letter and law, it is best to assume that the compilers of the Theodosian code curtailed the opening rhetoric of the letter, which identified the 'vos' as doctors in general, and themselves added the head 'ad archiatros', which thereby reflects a fifth century usage of the word, not a fourth, and which leaves open the question of the archiatri to whom the privileges apply.

Usually in the law codes archiater denotes an imperial or a Roman physician, while civic doctors are addressed as medici. But a law of 427 about the freedom from billeting {molestia hospitalis) of archiatri and magistri litterarum may apply to all civic doctors generally, given the relatively minor nature of the privilege.50 But the last sentence of that law, which confirms intact all the benefits given to archiatri serving in the palace as counts of the first and second grade and to magistri liber alium litterarum appears to restrict its application to a small group. Although the scope of the pre- amble is wide, the specific provisions given at the end are only for a few, and the compilers of the Justinianic Code, CJ 12.40.8, certainly interpreted this law to refer only to archiatri nostri palatii nec non urbis Romae, the two groups alone termed archiatri for certain in the law codes.

But from the mid-fourth century, the imperial archiatri are increasingly denoted in the codes by long and resounding titles - a reflection of the proliferation of non- imperial archiatri and possibly also of the growing divergence of the two groups in status and legal privileges. Archiatri qui intra penetralia regalis aulae fiorente archiatri sacri palatii) and archiatri intra palatium militantes cannot be mistaken for mere city doctors.51 Stephanus, 'the wisest and glorious archiatros of the divine palace', was of far greater wealth and status than Aur. Gaius archi[eiatros] and his wife, Auguste archeiatrina, from a remote Phrygian village.52

III. ARCHIATROS AS A CIVIC PHYSICIAN IN THE GREEK EAST

That archiatros frequently indicates a civic physician of some sort cannot be disputed, and it is generally agreed that in such instances it stands for the longer form 'archiatros of the city'. But when such civic physicians were instituted and what their duties and privileges were has been far more difficult to determine. Although the evidence so far known shows that the use of archiatros to describe a civic physician is unlikely to pre-date 50 a.d., possibly even 140 a.d., this cannot of itself disprove

i9CT 13.3.3 (333); cf. 13.3.1. Gothofredus' suggestion that Gonstantius had reduced these im- munities mistakes imperial failure to confirm earlier privileges for deliberate curtailment.

&0CT 13.3.18, interpreted by Below, Der Arzt, 46, to refer only to royal doctors; by Pfeffer, 87, n.32, to refer to all civic doctors.

51CT 13.3.12 (379); 3.14 (387) and 19 (428); 3.16 (414), cf. Sozomen 2.3B; in literary circles iatros was always acceptable for a court doctor, e.g. Himerius, Or. 33 (34) on Arcadius, count and iatros.

52Rev. Biblique, n.s. 1909, 104, on a neon ergon at Hebron; MAMA VII 566, cf. L. Robert, N. Firatli, Les stèles funéraires de Byzance Gréco-Romaine, Paris 1964, 177.

ARCHIATRI AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION 199

the hypothesis of Pohl and Woodhead that the archiatroi were merely the Hellenistic 'public doctors' under another name.53 Since Cohn-Haft's vehement assault on this view was never fully worked out in print, it was left to Below to provide the neatest argument in favour of a change in both institution and title in the reign of Antoninus Pius.54 Yet there are in both interpretations many problems which call for consideration of all the legal, literary and epigraphic evidence before a choice can be made between the two theories.

The demosioi iatroi of the Hellenistic age are known almost exclusively from a series of inscriptions that runs from at least the fourth century b.c. to the second century a.d., and, although debate has raged vigorously over the purpose of such an institution, the general outline of the system is clear.55 A public doctor might be elected, hired or sent for by some agency in a city, usually the council, or in return for some service to the community he might be voted a gold crown, a statue, an honorary decree proclaiming his merits, and other privileges such as proxenia, promanteia, proedria, ateleia and the right to own land. He might receive payment from the city and a public salary, although as Cohn-Haft has plausibly argued, this might not bring with it the requirement to treat all citizens without fee. The doctor gained public recognition of his abilities - and, in a society where much depended upon reputation, more patients56 - and the city a resident physician of presumed competence.

That such privileges continued to be given well into the Roman period without apparent change is beyond dispute. Lucían57 states that:

Tois torrpols kocì Srujocría ai iróAeis Tiuàs kccì Trpoe6pias kocì órreXeías kccì TrpovotAÍas SiSóaai,'

while Galen remarks that in his day many towns provided surgeries where doctors might attend the sick;58 and Ulpian in his treatise on the duties of a curator reipublicae allows salaries given by decree of the town council if they have been given ob liberalem artem . . . vel ob medicíname A similar continuity can also be posited on epigraphic evidence, for Cohn-Haft's list of public doctors ends in the second century, just at the time when inscriptions of civic archiatroi begin to appear. Yet

53Pohl, 42, 45; Woodhead, CHJ x (1952) 241-2. 54Cohn-Haft, 69-72 ; Below, Der Arzt, 34-8. 55See the list given by Cohn-Haft, 76-91, whose account of the privileges and the method of

appointment I follow; additions to Cohn-Haft's list are: Bull. Ep. (1955) 123; (1958) 263 and 336; (1971) 479; Annuario della Scuola Archeolog. Atene n.s. xxxi-ii (1969-70) 375, n.3. Corrections and ampli- fications to the list are: to no. 10, Bull. Ep. (1958) 263 and (1973) 320; to no. 24, Bull. Ep. (1960) 187; to no. 50, Bull. Ep. (1956) 189 and (1958) 336 with ICos 37, n.54; to no. 58, BCH xciv (1970) 680-2.

56L. Edelstein, Ancient Medicine. Baltimore 1967, 75-85. "Lucian, Abdicatus 180. 58Galen xviiiB, 678; Cohn-Haft, 48, n.18, rightly attacks the supposition that a surgery was

always provided (and Galen refers to 'many'), but Pliny, NH xxix 6, shows that the practice goes back at least to the third century b.c.

59 Dig. 50.4.9.2. The curator was expected to curtail frivolous and unnecessary expenditure by a council: cf. ib. 13.1.

200 VIVIAN NUTTON

only four honorary decrees for archiatroi are known, 60 all for fellow-citizens, not foreigners, and in only two are the medical qualities of the honorand pre-eminent. Aur. Lucianus, a member of a family of archiatroi, was honoured for his morals and his skill by the council and people of Philadelphia (No. 53), and the council and people of Cibyra Minor praised Aurelius Varianus Pantauchus, the most distin- guished Asclepiadean doctor (No. 19). The brevity of both these inscriptions contrasts with the fulsomeness of Hellenistic decrees, and only on Lesbos can a similarly lengthy decree be found for an archiatros, although the great list of magis- tracies and priesthoods which this man held suggests that the emphasis falls less on his medicine than on his public services (No. 59). A similar argument can explain the honours given by the gerousia of Lampsacus to Cyrus, son of Apollonius, archiatros and citizen (No. 60), who had, among many other benefits, provided oil at his own expense and given a thousand Attic drachmas. This change from the transient public doctors of the Hellenistic age to the citizen archiatroi of the Roman period reflects the increasing stability of many medical families in the East.61 In a small town, once a doctor had taken up residence and handed his art down to his descen- dants, there was little incentive, or clientele, for a competitor, and the family itself would participate in the duties expected of any wealthy member of the community. At the same time there is a shift from the positive attractions offered to civic physi- cians - proxeny, citizenship, proedria etc. - to the negative one of immunity from local taxation and liturgies.62 It is this that Below stressed in his careful study of the legal status of the doctor in the Roman empire, linking the growth of archiatroi to the development of the legal privileges given to physicians by the emperors.63 In a.d. 75 Vespasian granted them exemption from taxation and from billeting, as well as the right to form collegia,6* and an edict of Hadrian confirmed their existing honours and immunities:65

ypáyccs 91A0CJÓ90US prjTopas ypaunorriKoùs iorrpoùs órreXeis eívai yw^jtvaaiapxicov áyopavouicov lepcoovvcov èTnora©|jiicov amovías éAaicovías kccí |ít)T6 Kpíveiv pir|T6 TrpeafJeúeiv \xryve sis orporreíav KccTccAéyEcrdai ockovtccs \it\ts eis aXXrjv ocutoùs ÙTrripecriav é6vikt)v f| Tiva &XKr\v ávayKcc£ec70cci.

Probably also by this edict doctors were freed from the muñera personalia of cura and tutela.66 These privileges of immunity were available to all doctors of moral standing,

60On Cohn-Haft's criteria of statues and other public acknowledgments one should include also Alexander, a fourth centnrv for evpn lateral Hnrtnr from F.nhecns 7(1 AT viiw HQ^Q\ 3^9

61 As well as Lucianus and his family from Philadelphia, note also families oí archiatroi at Ephesus (No. 47), Heraclea (No. 43), Thyatira (No. 57).

62Galen, v, 751, includes legally given immunity from taxes as one of the reasons why some become doctors.

63Below, Der Arzt, 22-40; Pohl, 22, had already acknowledged that the spread of archiatroi was influenced by the edict of Pius.

64R. Herzog, SDAW 1935, 967-1019; FIRA I 73; cf. C. A. Forbes, 'The education and training of slaves', TAPA lxxxvi (1955) 348-9.

"Dig. 27.1.6.8; cf. 50.4.18.30. ««Dig. 27.1.6.1; InsL 1.25.15; Frag. Vat. 149.

ARCHIATRI AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION 201

although it was still presumably up to the town council or the governor to declare who was a doctor and, if necessary, advertise yet greater privileges to attract a suitable physician.

The letter of Antoninus to the council of Asia marks a distinct change in the previously generous attitude of the central government towards medicine and education by restricting the number of doctors, rhetors and grammarians eligible for immunity.67 Small towns could grant exemption to up to five doctors, three sophists and three grammarians; larger ones, conventus capitals, to seven, four and four; and the largest, the metropoleis, to ten, five and five respectively. Beyond this number not even the greatest of cities could go. As Below saw, the purpose of this letter is financial, not philanthropic:68

Keinesfalls darf ihr Zweck darin erblickt werden, dass der Herrscher in der Sorge um das Wohl der Bevòlkerung eine Mindestzahl von Medizinern für jede Stadt vorschreibt, damit Tag und Nacht den Einwohnern àrztliche Hilfe zur Verfiigung steht.

The lavish generosity of Hadrian in granting immunities was clearly having a bad effect on the finances of the Asian cities and on those citizens on whom the burden of liturgies increasingly fell, and this restriction agrees well with Pius' known policy of careful attention to the economic problems of the cities.69 When this decision was made cannot be known for certain, although a date in the early 140s is attractive,70 but from now on there are two classes of doctors, those with immunity and those without.

Can we then identify the archiatroi with the doctors included within the numerus of civically approved physicians ? And, if so, does the title follow the establishment of the numerus system, as Brunn thought,71 or was it already in use before the time of Antoninus Pius ? Despite the absence of the word from second and third century legal texts about civic doctors, there can be no doubt that it can denote such a doctor, for there is no other adequate explanation for the marked increase in the number of archiatroi from the late second century onwards, and also because archiatroi from Lesbos and Sidyma (Nos. 59, 20) specifically mention their immunity. Not that archiatros immediately replaced iatros everywhere: Calestrius, who is hon- oured by the council and people of Choma and adjudged to have immunity, is styled iatros,12 and the paragon of the medical art, Heracleitus of Rhodiapolis, who

67 Dig. 27.1.6.2-4: observe the stylistic variation of iatroi, sophistai, grammatikoi; hoi therapeuontes, hoi paideuontes hekateran paideian (i.e. both sophists and grammarians, hence no need to assume, with Mommsen, ad loc, a lacuna) ; iatroi, rhetores, grammatikoi, cf. G. W. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman empire, Oxford 1969, 12-3, 33-4.

68Below, Der Arzt, 35. 69W. Williams, 'Antoninus Pius and provincial embassies , Historia xvi (19b7) 47Ü-OJ. 70Hands' suggestion, Charity and Social Aid, London 1968, 140, that it dates from 161 is very

unlikely. 71W. v. Brunn, Kurze Geschichte der Chirureie* Berlin 1928, 111. "JRSWÚ (1967) 41.

202 VIVIAN NUTTON

also was exempt from liturgies, merely provided his services free of charge and referred to himself as iatros.13

But even if the archiatroi of the late second century are to be identified with the doctors within the numerus, this does not exclude the possibility that before Pius' edict the word indicated those civic physicians who were in receipt of salaries and the other privileges noted by Lucian and Galen. A securely dated inscription of an archiatros of the first or early second century would resolve the controversy once for all, but since the earliest such inscription dates from 192 (No. 75), recourse must be had to more fallible criteria. Although, as I shall show, it is probable that in some areas, especially on Cos, civic archiatroi are found in the first century, firm evidence for such an early dating is lacking, and the discussion that follows is intended to indicate the limits and difficulties of the various hypotheses so far propounded.

The question was apparently settled by Boeckh in his commentary on CIG 2987, which he assigned to the early principate because of the mention of an archiatros' administration of an oücía 'Avtcoviócvtì. But, as Le Bas argued,74 it is not certain that this property belonged to the triumvir rather than to one of the other Antonii who made benefactions to Ephesus, and, even if it did, its administration is unlikely to have been confined to the age of Augustus and the Julio-Claudians. However, the later discovery of another inscription bearing the same date, èm ápxicJKirrrroúxou 'EpiiÍTTTTOv and referring to a decision of oi vecóttoioi ol Trepi A. Octiviov (DocOotov qnÀoaépoccrrov kccI M. Aüp. 'AXé^ocvSpov definitely rules out Boeckh's theory,75 for Faustus is known to have been active in 160/ 176 and Alexander's nomen and praenomen are very rare before the 160s. Thus the inscription in honour of Attalus Priscus, dcpXiorrpòs Sia yévous may not have been erected at the earliest until the 160s and may be some years later, and although the words 8tà yévous imply that his father, Asclepiades, was also an archiatros, they attest the continuity of the institution without confirming that of the title.77

Of the four criteria that can be used to date the inscriptions of archiatroi, letter forms, nomenclature, style and historical or archaeological context, the first is notoriously the most hazardous. Of the inscriptions I have seen, only the bilingual inscription from Puteoli (No. 84 + Plate XXXII6), with its deeply cut serifs and fine lettering, looks early, but even if the style of its verse epigram is taken into account, it would be rash to attempt a more precise dating than 75-200 a.d.

Nomenclature may also help to identify early archiatroi, and two doctors from Cos can for that reason be assigned an early date. Cos[seini]us or Cos[souti]us

™IGRR III 733 {JAM II.2.910), III 732; J. H. Oliver, 'The Empress Plotina and the sacred Thymelic synod', Historia xxiv (1975) 127, assigns him to the Trajanic period, but his arguments are unconvincing, and cannot exclude a date anywhere in the first half of the second century, cf. also Bull. Ep. (1969) 551.

74P. Le Bas, Voyage archéologique III, Paris 1870, 161. 75Forschungen in Ephesos IV.3, Vienna 1951, 282, n.27: is oi Trepi ... an elegant way of referring

to Faustus and Alexander? cf. L-S-T s.v. ireoí C 2. ™SIG* 867. "They are only here used of doctors, but are understandable in the context of stable medical

families. A similar caveat against anachronism can be entered when treating of such families of archiatroi as the Statuii (nos. 41, 42) and Charmidai (no. 44).

ARCHIATRI AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION 203

Bassus, who died aged twenty-one (No. 69), is unlikely to have been an imperial physician or the head of a medical collegium or school, and must thus have been a civic physician: his nomen, however restored, hints at a date in the first or early second century.78 Another Coan archiatros, C. Iulius Protoctetus (No. 70), could have been a doctor who had received citizenship from Caesar or Augustus for practising in Rome, but it is more probable that he was a descendant of a man who had been granted it by them for other reasons.79 A stronger case against a first or early second century date can be made for Claudius Andromachus, archiatros at Bostra (No. 15), for that city was not incorporated in the empire before the time of Trajan and did not enjoy great prosperity until the end of the second century. The combination on a new inscription from Aphrodisias (above, p. 192) of a Flavian nomen and of the fuller form of the title, never found after 250 a.d., suggests that Ti. Flavius Staberianus could also be an early archiatros, although it would be unwise to date him much before 150 a.d. Names, then, suggest possibly three archiatroi before Pius' edict, with the evidence from Cos distinctly stronger than that from Aphrodisias, and it may be that there the example of the returned Stertinius Xenophon had brought about the use of that title for the leading doctors of the island.

Stylistic judgement are scarcely more helpful, for although early elements can be isolated in inscriptions of civic archiatroi - the long form of the title, verbosity and mention of immunity - none can be dated more precisely than pre-250 a.d. How- ever, a fulsome decree in the Hellenistic manner (although this may be deliberate archaising) in honour of an immune archiatros, Bresus of Lesbos, suggests that he is among the earliest archiatroi*0 and if the OeiÓTcrros ocuTOKpónrcop whose priest he was could be identified, we would have a secure terminus post quern. Rouge has argued that 661ÓTCCTOS is used only of a living emperor and that, apart from an isolated instance under Augustus, it does not occur before Hadrian.81 But his second contention could be the result of epigraphic chance, while his first is somewhat weakened by Pius' reference, Dig. 27.1.6.8., to the deceased Hadrian as ó deiÓTcrros Tronrip nou. Thus Bresus' emperor and date remain uncertain, although it is tempting to place his activity in the reigns of Hadrian and Pius, and certainly no later than c. 180 a.d.

One archiatros whose inscription was discovered in a clearly defined and datable archaeological context is C. Marcius Dem[ ] from Ostia (No. 91), but contro- versy has raged over both his date and his medical position. He was responsible for erecting an inscription on a tomb on the Isola Sacra to Iulia Pr[ocla], T. Munatius Pr[oclus] and Munatia E[lpis], and within the tomb was found a female statue of undoubtedly Trajanic or Hadrianic origin. For this reason Meiggs and Degrassi argued that the inscription was cut at the same time, probably to the order of the

78Pfeffer, 194, assigns it to the second century: both nomina are found on Cos, but Cosseinius is more frequent. The spacings given by ICos are not accurate enough to permit a decision between Cos[seini]us, Cos[sini]us, Cos[souti]us and Cos[suti]us, although the longer forms seem more likely.

79Omitted from Pfeffer's list. Note also ICos 409 {IGRR IV 1 108) + GVI 1566, which shows a civic iatros on Cos c. 50 a.d.

80No. 59; Pa ton's appeal to letter forms for dating is vague and confusing. 81J. Rougé, 'ó OeiÓTOTOs Aüyovcrros', RPh. xliii (1969) 83-92.

204 VIVIAN NUTTON

archiatros husband of Munatia.82 On the other hand, H. Hommel in a very complica- ted series of hypotheses83 preferred to identify him with Demetrius, the doctor of Marcus Aurelius, who died in the early 1 70s,84 and to date inscription and tomb to the 160s, consequent upon the great plague. He explained the nomen Marcius as formed from the praenomen of the emperor, and further suggested that it was Demetrius' daughter, Marcia Demetrias, who was the mistress of Commodus. But none of these contentions is in any way certain - although the identification of C. Marcius Dem [ ] with Galen's Demetrius and with Marcia's father is attrac- tive - and some of them, especially that drawn from the nomen, are very doubtful indeed, and, taken as a whole, Hommel fails to explain satisfactorily why a statue of the 120s should be placed in a tomb of the 160s.

The archaeological evidence thus favours a date for Demetrius before the edict of Pius, but can we be sure that he was a civic rather than an imperial physician ? Although civic doctors are known in the West (below, IV), it would be a little surprising to find one of the earliest examples, if not the earliest, of a civic archiatros close to Rome and not in Greece or Asia Minor. Bloch's suggestion that Demetrius was a civic doctor because there is no other Western instance of archiatros used of a court doctor and because 'it would be against all etiquette for a physician of the emperor not to mention his position, especially once he discloses his profession' becomes less convincing when it is noted that this is a Greek inscription and, as we have seen, the word had been used for an imperial doctor for seventy years or so, and that if in the 120s the word signified in the West only an imperial physician, it simultaneously indicated his profession and his employer.85 Meiggs' assumption that Demetrius was a court doctor is more plausible,86 for the links between Rome and Ostia were strong : doctors at Ostia brought unusual cases of dislocations for Galen to inspect in Rome,87 and there is no objection to believing that an imperial physician in Rome came from or married into an Ostian family. He could indeed be Galen's Demetrius if he lived to his late seventies or beyond, but this identification is by no means assured or even necessary for Meiggs' hypothesis.88

The evidence for dating civic archiatroi thus supports Below's contention that the great majority come from after Pius' edict, and that the title denotes a doctor included within the numerus of those exempted from liturgies. It is possible that the word occurs before the 140s in a few areas, principally on Cos, when it would indi- cate a doctor who received certain privileges, and even a salary, from a city. The fact that there are generations of archiatroi recorded on second century inscriptions from Ephesus and Heracleas (Nos. 47, 42) shows that even if the title was first used

82R. Meiggs, Roman Ostia, ed. 2, Oxford 1973, 233-4, 562-4; A. Degrassi. 'Epigraphica 1\ MAL 1963, 139-65; H. Bloch, Gnomon xxxvii (1965) 202.

83H. Hommel, 'Euripides in Ostia', Epigraphica xix (1957) 109-64; 'Das Datum der Munatier Grabstàtte in Portus Traiani und die Hederae distinguentes', ZPE v (1970) 293-303.

84Galen xiv, 4. 85H. Bloch, Gnomon xxxvii (1965) 202: contrast Galen xiv. 261. 8€ "Roman Ostia, ed. 2, 563-4. 87Galen xviiiA, 348. 88Demetrius may have been archiater portus (Ostiensis), but the evidence for the existence of such

a post is tenuous in the extreme, see below, p. 2 1 7f.

ARCHIATRI AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION 205

in the 1 60s for doctors with tax-immunity, there was assumed to be some degree of continuity between the institution of public doctors before and that of archiatroi after Pius' edict.

Legal sources give a partial insight into the workings of the system oí archiatroi. The choice of doctor within the numerus was made by the town council within the limits laid down by the emperors, and was to be free from the governor's influence and interference,89 although this would not prevent would-be applicants from seeking his assistance. Specialists such as ear-doctors and dentists were eligible for inclusion but not practitioners of incantations, prayers and exorcisms, however much help they might have given to an invalid.90 But membership of the numerus was not for life; a city could always review a doctor's immunity and deprive him of it if he seemed to despise his task.91

But what qualifications enabled a doctor to gain immunity in the first place ? Josef Keil believed that a series of inscriptions from Ephesus recording contests between doctors in four specialities represented a sort of final examination, which on the evidence of Rufinus àpxiorrpòs tò 6' had to be retaken regularly if the fiscal privileges were to be retained.92 But the law codes know nothing of this, and Paul Wolters rightly pointed out that the numeral referred to victories in the contests, not to repeated civic appointments.93 True, participation in such meetings, and certainly victory, would be a guide to peritia artis, one of the requirements demanded of a civic doctor by Ulpian,94 but failure would not automatically end membership of the numerus. A recommendation from a distinguished friend or patient, attendance at a famous medical centre such as Alexandria,95 family tradition or a successful cure would all help to establish a doctor's competence,96 and, conversely, a spectacular and unexpected failure could reduce a doctor from plenty to poverty and from a figure of authority to one of fun.97

Nowhere is there any evidence that civic archiatroi had as part of their duty to attend and treat poor citizens without fee, although the demand for them to have probitas morum might well involve free attention to the needs of the poor.98 Valentin- ian's instruction to the new archiatri of Rome that they should remember to serve the humble may make explicit a sentiment that already existed much earlier in the minds of civic electors, but even here there is no reference to any compulsory remission of fees.99 That could be left to the doctor's own conscience and to his

*9Dig. 50.9.1 ; 27.1.6.4, emphasising the necessity of a decree of the council. »°Dig. 50.13.1.3; cf. G. Baader, 'Spezialàrzte in der Spátantike', Med. Hist. Journal n (1957)

231-8. 91Dig. 27.1.6.4 and 6; 50.4.11.3; Below, Der Arzt, 42-4: there is no need to posit an annual

review of the competence of a civic doctor. »2'Àrzteinschriften aus Ephesos', JOAI viii (1905) 125-38. 93<>ApxtocTPòs tò 6", JOAI ix (1908) 295. »*Dit>. 50.9.1. 96V. Nutton, 4Ammianus and Alexandria', Clio med. vii (1972) 165-76. °«CJ 10.53.1; cf. CIL XI 3007 (ILS 2542). 97JiWlxi(1971) 54-5. »*Dig. 50.9.1. "Infra, p. 209.

206 VIVIAN NUTTON

awareness that the town council who appointed him would require an adequate performance from him, especially if they had provided him with a salary and other benefits. Some doctors, according to Galen, 5.751, practised medicine from a love of humanity, but others for the money that could be made, from a desire for honour and glory, and for the immunity that could be obtained, and it is clear from this that it was not only the philanthropic who were made archiatroi. Not all his colleagues shared Galen's scruples about fees and suitable treatments,100 and in the larger cities quacks and charlatans could flourish.101 In a small provincial town, where everyone knew everyone else, public opinion would be at least as effective an incentive to a doctor's moral probity as any law from Rome, and the unwritten assumptions of city councils may have been a greater inducement to treat the poorer citizens for nothing than any legal obligation.102

How far there was continuity between the Hellenistic and public doctors and the Roman archiatroi is difficult to say. Both institutions can be seen as providing for the residence of a competent physician : both offered a sort of financial incentive and a moral imperative to treat all citizens, without laying down a level of fees;103 and the manner of appointment and the reasons for it would be broadly similar. The change in emphasis from the privileges of citizenship and status to tax-immunity, and the more frequent reference to the non-medical activities of archiatroi within the polis may be explained by the bias of the epigraphic and legal sources, but it also mirrors the growing stability of the medical profession during the principate. Wander arzte there undoubtedly were,104 but also medical families whose roots went back several generations. Cohn-Haft's polemic against a facile and total identification of the two institutions was timely, although exaggerated : their outlines are similar, and their differences may reveal not so much changes in the attitudes of com- munities towards doctors as developments within society in general. The archiatroi are in many ways the successors of the demosioi iatroi, but to invent the titles of archiatros demosios and archiater popularis,100 and to explain the workings of a Hellenistic institution by the decisions of a Roman emperor three or even six centuries later is to assume a far greater continuity in detail than the evidence warrants.

100The fiction that money paid for a cure was a gift, not a fee, may have enabled even the unscrupulous to claim that his treatment was free, cf. Below, Der Arzt, 57-98; D. Daube, JRS xlv (1955) 179-80; K. Visky, 'La qualifica della medicina5, Iura x (1959) 24-66; J. A. Crook, Law and life of Rome, London 1967, 205.

101xiv, 622-5. 102A. R. Hands, Charities, 136-41. 103The doctors themselves seem to have regulated the level of fees at Ephesus, if the restorations

of JOAIxxx (1937) B 200, are accepted. 104E.g. Eusebius, H. E. V.1.49; Galen xiv, 171 ; Augustine, Ed. 159.3; GVI 766. 105Pfeffer, 31 ; pace Wellmann, RE 2, 465, s.v. archiatros, the earliest evidence I can find for the

term archiatri populares is as a title for Gothofredus' discussion of CT 13.3.8, Lyon 1665, V p. 30, and has no warrant from any ancient text. It is of course possible that archiater popularis was the title of civic physicians in Renaissance Italy, and that Gothofredus adopted it as an intelligible heading, but there is no evidence for its use in antiquity.

ARCHIATRI AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION 207

IV. THE WEST

The search for an equivalent institution in the West to the public doctors of the East is made very difficult by the lack of evidence, and by the absence of the word archiater from the inscriptions of ail the Western provinces save for Christian Africa (No. 1), but the fact that archiatri are recorded in at least six Italian towns before the fourth century suggests that the difference may be one of terminology, not of substance.106 The hiring of public doctors by Marseilles (and possibly other Provencal towns)107 may be ascribed to Greek influence, but M. Ulpius Sporus(?), who received a salary from Ferentum after military service,108 must have practised there as a public physician. Legal texts also imply that the numerus system obtained in the West, although the collegium medicorum at Beneventum is more likely to have been a social club of all doctors than confined only to those within the numerus.109 Civic doctors have also been posited for Corduba and Nemausus, although in both cases the evidence depends on the expansion of an epigraphic abbreviation.110

V. ROME

Only at Rome can the adoption of the numerus system be dated exactly, but the anomalous position of doctors there makes it extremely hazardous to use evidence from Rome to amplify that for civic doctors elsewhere. According to Suetonius, Jul. 42, it was Julius Caesar who first granted Roman citizenship to all foreign doctors resident in Rome,111 and Dio records that Augustus, in gratitude to Antonius Musa for curing him of a dread disease, gave to all his fellow practitioners then and forever freedom from public taxes.112 What the effect of these inducements was is open to question : very few doctors can be shown to have gained citizenship by coming to Rome,113 and, as Momigliano has suggested,114 by registering themselves in order to obtain citizenship, peregrine doctors were submitting themselves to some degree of official control, for some assertion of medical competence would have to be made. Certainly there is little likelihood that Augustus' generosity extended throughout the empire,115 and Gummerus strongly doubted the truth of Dio's information even as applied to Rome.116 As Roman citizens the doctors were free from most taxation,

106Nos. 80-82, 84, 92-3. 107Strabo 4.1.5, 18 1C. 108C7L XI 3007 (ILS 2542) ; No. 79 (Edessa) may also have seen earlier military service. 109C/L IX 1618 (ILS 6507), possibly Trajanic; cf. also CIL V 6970 and XIII 5079 (ILS 7786). ll0CIL II 2348, XII 3342: the abbreviation could signify the doctor's town of origin. 111Pliny, NH xxix, 6, shows that in 219 b.c. the Romans, in true Hellenistic fashion, had hired

a distinguished doctor from the Peloponnese. 112Dio 53.30, cf. Suetonius, Aug. 59. 113The most likely candidate is C. Iulius Epianactis f. Mnesicleides, IG XII 5. 199 (ci. XII ó. 1 1 Ib)

from Paros. ^Secondo Contributo agli studi classici, Rome 1960, 396. 115Below, Der Arzt, 22-30. 116H. Gummerus, Der Àrztestand im ròmischen Reiche, Helsinki, 1932 (= Gummerus), 7.

208 VIVIAN NUTTON

and Rome's public magistracies were those of an empire and in no way compulsory liturgies.117 If anything in Dio's statement is to be saved, the immunity must relate to the demands of private law, to cura and tutela,11* or to those of an immigrant's home city; but it may be that Dio is anachronistically transferring the situation of his own day back to the early principate. Certainly Severus and Caracalla confirmed all sophists and teachers in Rome in the enjoyment of their exemptions both in Rome and in their home towns, and a similar privilege was probably given to the doctors with whom they are so often associated in the legal texts.119 The fact that immunity within Rome itself is always assumed to be generally available to all doctors suggests strongly that a numerus clausus of immune civic physicians was there unnecessary, since all doctors already enjoyed there privileges elsewhere restricted to a select few.120 Confirmation of this may be found in the late appearance of civic archiatri on Roman inscriptions, all of them Christian and generally of the fifth century.121

There is thus no reason to doubt that it was not until Valentinian's law of 368 that the system prevailing elsewhere was enacted at Rome,122 although neither the reasons that lay behind its adoption nor the detailed instructions contained therein need be equally universal, given the anomalous position of Rome and its citizens. In addition to the already existing private archiatri of the Guild of Athletes and the Vestal Virgins, there were created archiatri, one for each of the regions of the city, who formed a collegium with certain privileges beyond those of the medici.

Both the manner of election and the duties of the regional archiatri are unusual. How the first members of the collegium were selected is not specified, although probably it was left to the discretion of Rufinus, the city prefect, but the choice of a successor to a deceased archiater is prescribed by the emperor's regulation.123 It is to be made, not through the influence of the overmighty or the favour of a judge, but by the faithful and circumspect decision of all the members of the collegium, and the name of the successful candidate is to be submitted for the emperor's approval. It may have been the ambiguity of 'horum omnium fideli circumspectoque delectu' which gave rise to another imperial decision of 370,124 for it was uncertain whether all members had to vote in favour of a candidate or merely participate in the election, and whether the victor was to be promoted to the place in the order of seniority occupied by the previous archiater. The emperor decided that no candidate could be elected unless he had the votes of seven archiatri (a majority) voting in order of seniority: the successful doctor was not to take a place immediately among the seniors but would attain it by the gradual workings of promotion. In theory, there- fore, the archiatri, once the collegium was set up, were not to be subject even to the Roman senate, but only to the overriding authority of the emperor; and this con-

117J/Wlxi (1971) 61-3. 116Dig. 27.1.8.9; 27.9.5.12; Inst. 1.25.15. 119Dig. 27.1.6.11; cf. also Inst. 1.25.15. 120Also, if CT 13.3.1 (321/4) is right, all doctors everywhere now received immunity and salaries. 121Nos. 85-90; Pohl, 42, believed in the existence of medici pub liei at Rome in the early third

century a.d., but without specific evidence. 122CT 13.3.8. For the textual problems, see Appendix 2. 123CT 13.3.8. 124CT 13.3.9; Gothofredus, V 37-8: misunderstood by Pfeffer, 92. n.73.

ARCHIATRI AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION 209

trasts with the standard procedure elsewhere, which left the choice of civic archiatri in the hands of city councillors.125

This independence of the Roman archiatri was not as great as theory suggested. In 384 Symmachus, the city prefect, wrote to the emperor, Rei. 27, about an ambi- tious doctor, John v.p., who had claimed the second place in the college on the grounds that he had been an imperial doctor and that it had been specifically promised to him even before the death of Epictetus, its holder. At a meeting of the college convened before Symmachus, the most influential doctors, not daring to reach a definite judge- ment, thought that he could be given the place in the order which he would have had if his palace service had been taken into account, but many others argued that there had been several examples of doctors who had passed from palace to civic service without disturbing the order of seniority. The situation was further complicated by John's refusal to submit any document by which his length of service could be ad- judged and his position determined, for he claimed that his papers had all been stolen in a burglary at his house. It is interesting to see Symmachus and the doctors hedge and shuffle around this apparently simple decision, all alike unwilling to compromise their status and privileges by precipitate action that might snub an emperor's favourite or show too little respect for his father's regulations. Two or three years later the emperor gave his decision : the original rules were confirmed and the order of seniority reasserted.126

The members of Valentinian's college were to receive commoda annonaria from the city and in return they were to put an honourable service to the poor before squalid servitude to the rich. They were allowed to receive some payment, 6quae sani offerunt pro obsequiis\ either as a regular retainer127 or as a reward for their completed cures, but not the possibly vast sums offered by the dangerously ill for their future recovery. If payment was to be made, it was to be on the basis of results, not promises, and it was in no way binding on a patient. There is no formal compulsion on an archiater to give his services free to the poor, but the strong language of Valentinian's law suggests that this was expected of him. What had been left unsaid in earlier decrees was made more explicit, and the supervision exercised at least in theory by emperor, prefect and college might impose effective constraints. But it would be un- wise to suppose that public charity was the prime intention in creating select groups of civic doctors, for as well as the silence of pre-fourth century sources, a letter of Julian implies that this was a development of the mid-fourth century, encouraged for reasons of state rather than philanthropy.128 Julian noted with some acerbity that the charitable acts of the Jews and the impious Galilaeans extended to all members of society, pagans included, while the poorer pagans apparently lacked assistance even from their own community. The law of Valentinian relating to Rome may have

125Above p. 200f. l26CT 13.3.13. Under Theoderic, Cassiodorus, Var. VI 19, the doctors were under the presidency

of a comes archiatrorum, who was authorised to settle the disputes and be the arbiter artis egregiae; if the collegium still existed, the comes, an imperial physician, may have had the right of appointment.

127Varro, RR 1.16.4; Dig. 19.5.26.1; Chrysostom, Patr. gr. 51, 5b; Augustine, Enarr. in Psalmos 50.6.

™Ep. 22, 430D.

210 VIVIAN NUTTON

sought to institutionalise still further the Christian ideal of charity in the very stronghold of paganism. A closer inspection of the law reveals another possible reason for its introduction. Patrocinium praepotentium and gratia are emotive words,129 appropriate in a struggle for power and office among the aristocracy of Rome. The first years of Valentinian's reign were a time for careful consolidation,130 when the security of the emperor and his dynasty was not yet achieved and when the urban plebs had to be weaned away from their traditional patrons. Far from being an un- selfish act of Christian benevolence, the law was part of Valentinian's struggle for control against their ancestral relationship with their clients by providing an alter- native source of medical aid, and emphasising yet again the greater benefits to be gained from adherence to an emperor than to a consul.

The Roman doctors who failed to secure entry to the college were obviously in danger of losing their traditional privileges. The archiatri might aim for the title of count of the first order or something more prestigious,131 but the humble medicus set his sights lower, on what concerned his pocket, not his status. In 370 or 371 these lesser doctors were confirmed in their enjoyment of their immunities,132 making it clear that in Rome membership of the college added to the standard privileges of a doctor and was not a prerequisite for their enjoyment. The medici could of course still obtain annonae for teaching their art, a benefit granted by Constantine and con- firmed by a succession of emperors,133 even as late as 552, after Justinian's reconquest of Rome.134 What the barbarian Theoderic had allowed, the restorer of the Roman empire could hardly refuse, since for 'iuvenes liberalibus studiis eruditi' to flourish once more would benefit the community and enhance the prestige of the benevolent emperor.

VI. CONSTANTINOPLE

That Constantinople possessed an identical system of medical organisation to that of Rome has often been asserted,135 yet the evidence for this belief is far from con- clusive. This uncertainty is in part due to the fact that the law codes, as we have them, are more concerned with Rome than with Constantinople, partly to the scanty epigraphic material surviving from the Eastern capital, and partly to the absence from the East of sources such as Symmachus and Cassiodorus concerned with the

129C. Moussy, Gratia et sa f amille, Paris, 1966. 130J. F. Matthews, Western aristocracies and imperial court, a.d. 364-425, Oxford, 1975, 35-41. 131CT 13.3.19 (428). 132CT 13.310. 133CT 13.4.2 (337) : both St. Thallulaeus and St. Pantalaon were apprenticed to archiatroi, Acta

Sanct. 20 May, 27 July. 134Justinian, Nov. App. 7.22. 135R. Brau, apud Daremberg-Saglio, Dictionnaire I, 1877, 373; M. Wellmann, RE ii (1896) 465;

Pohl, 25; G. Dagron, Naissance d'une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451, Paris, 1974, adds very little: p. 144, n.5, appears to identify civic archiatri with imperial as evidence for a trend whereby He palais annexe une partie des affaires de la ville'; and, p. 281, he accepts the validity of CT 13.3.4 as applying to Constantinople alone.

ARCHIATRI AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION 211

details of civic administration. Lives of saints, episcopal sermons and elegant epi- grams are no substitute for the letters of a Roman city prefect.

It was Gothofredus who first argued for a similar collegiate system in the two capitals, but his evidence vanishes on inspection.136 He accepted that CT 13.3.8, 9 and 13 and their reformulation at CJ 10.53, 9 and 10 were directed specifically to Rome, but assumed that they merely repeated for Rome regulations already in existence at Constantinople on the evidence of CT 13.3.4. But, as I have argued above, p. 197f, this law and letter of Julian was of universal application and its title, if indeed it is not a later addition, relates to all civic doctors, not just those of the capital. The fact that the law emanates from Constantinople, where Julian then was, cannot be used to prove that it took effect only there. If the civic physicians of Constantinople were in as unusually privileged a position as those of Rome,137 it is strange that al- though the Roman archiatri are mentioned as a distinct group in the codes,138 nothing is said of those of Constantinople.139

To reconstruct the medical services of Constantinople from fragments of laws and lives of the saints is extremely hazardous, and the confident claims of modern scholars should all be regarded with suspicion. From Pius' edict it is clear that as a very large city it would have ten immune, and possibly salaried, doctors,140 and Constantine granted immunity and annonae to all doctors if they were engaged in teaching their art.141 Caesarius, the brother of Gregory of Nazianzus, on his return from Alexandria received public honours (as a doctor?) and became an imperial physician, providing his services free of charge to members of the administration (tois ev TéÀsi),142 while in the next century James Psychrestus, apxnyrpos d>v rf\s TTÓAecos had a statue set up in his honour by the senate in the baths of Zeuxippus.143 Procopius records that the practice of medicine fell into disrepute when Justinian abolished the provision of civic salaries for doctors and teachers,144 but his charge applies to the whole empire and may involve merely the restriction of a universal grant to a select few or some sort of administrative or financial reorganisation. None of this evidence proves anything about civic physicians of Constantinople beyond their existence and remuneration, and says nothing of their numbers or organisation.

Later sources are a little more informative but equally hard to interpret. The Life of SS. Cosmas and Damián mentions a Kc^ns iorrpcov as èmTTiSeiÓTepos tcov icrrpcov in the city,145 and it is possible that, as in the Rome of Theoderic, he was responsible

136CT 13.3.4; 8; 9 and 13; Gothofredus, V 30-1. 137 Above, p. 208f. 138Especially in the reconstituted CJ 12.40.8. 139This has not prevented Pfeffer, 92, from relating CT 13.3.8 and y to Constantinople and,

following Briau, positing a college of seven archiatroi. 1MDig. 27.1.6.2; Ph. Koukoules, Bu£ccvtivcov píos kocì ttoàitktuós, VI, Athens, 1955, 17, thinks

this system was ended by Justinian. 141CT 13.3.1; 13.4.2. 142Greg. Naz., Or. 7.8-10. 143Malalas, Chron. 360b; Chron. Pasch., Pair. gr. 92, 824A. 144 Anecdota 143, 1 1 ; if the salaries for teaching were completely abolished, this would conflict

with Justinian's policy towards Rome. 145L. Deubner, Cosmas und Damián, Leipzig 1907, 160.

212 VIVIAN NUTTON

for approving and supervising all the doctors of Constantinople.146 That there was a medical guild in the time of Constantine Porphyrogenitus is clear from the Book of Ceremonies,1*7 but it is uncertain whether this was confined to the palace148 or included all the doctors of the city.149 That the latter is more likely is suggested by a letter of St. Theodore of Studion which ranks doctors as TTpcbTccpxoi, ápxiorrpoí, liécjoi kccì TeÀeuTccioi, implying some sort of organisation.150 But beyond this the evidence fails, except for isolated references to named imperial doctors and to archiatroi (who are very probably the emperor's physicians),151 and it would be rash to construct an all-embracing hypothesis that covers five centuries or more on such doubtful fragments.

VII. EGYPT

In medicine, as in so many aspects of its society and institutions, Egypt stands apart from the other provinces of the empire, and cannot easily be made to conform to the general pattern. Conversely, evidence that derives solely from Egypt is applied to similar non-Egyptian institutions only at the risk of historical confusion and error. The temptation is particularly great with the physicians of Roman Egypt, for they are perhaps known in greater detail than those of any other province. The papyri reveal their sources of wealth, from both fees and farming,152 and the extent of their literacy and medical learning,153 but such medical activities as are mentioned con- firm the impression that their organisation and legal status differed considerably from that of physicians elsewhere in the empire.

Although the medical tax, iatrikon, paid by Ptolemaic cleruchs to doctors does not seem to have lasted far into the Roman period,154 they still retained many other privileges. A list of exemptions from liturgies and certain public taxes at Philadelphia includes physicians as well as registered invalids and those over age, priests of approved shrines, oil producers, fullers, carpenters and craftsmen.155 Such immunity

146Cassiodorus, Var. VI 19. 147Ed. A. Vogt, Paris 1935, I, 10; the emperor is greeted by to ionpeiov eTneuxonevov toTs

SeOTTÓTOClS.

148As Vogt and L. Bréhier, Les institutions de V empire byzantin, Paris 1949, 49, argue, the iatreion is separate from the guilds, aucrrrmonra ttjs ttóAccos, who greet the emperor elsewhere (I, 9), and associated with oí tt\s iraXaiaTpas, whom Voert believes attended the emoeror Dersonallv.

149H. J. Magoulias, 'The lives of saints as sources for the history of Byzantine medicine in the sixth and seventh centuries', BZ lvii (1964) 128, oddlv citine Bréhier as his authoritv

150Ep. II 162, Patr. gr. 99, 1907-9. 151Vita SS. Cyrietjohannis, Patr. gr. 87.3, 3453; Vita Sampsonis, ib. 115, 285; G. Zacos, A. Veglery,

Byzantine lead seals, Basle 1972, nn. 1575, 2809. 162For farming, PRylands II 206a, PStrassb. 119, PAmherst 128, PLond. 131.8; fees, PTebt. 112,

PStrassb. 73, PRoss. Georg. V 4, PLond. 982. PRoss. Georg. V 60 (a. retainincr W^ ìò3PLugd. Bat. XI. 1.1 1.24, PAlex. 34; on prescriptions, V. Gazza, 'Prescrizioni mediche',

Aegyptus xxxv (1955) 86-110; xxxvi (1956) 73-114. 154Despite the arguments of O. Nanetti, 'To icnrpiKÓv', Aegyptus xxiv (1944) 119-25, the only

evidence for its survival into the Roman period, PAlex. Inv. 263, 36, is very dubious, and no other papyrus of Roman date records the tax.

165PPhiL I 30.

ARCHIATRI AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION 213

seems to have been available to all doctors. In a court case before the Prefect of Egypt in 142-3, a native doctor, Psasnis, complained that a liturgy had been illegally imposed on him by men whom he had treated; Valerius Eudaemon cuttingly remarked that his inefficient treatment might have caused them to revise their view of his medical abilities, and told him to declare before the strategos that he was a practising doctor and he would recover his immunity.156 There is no reference to the need for Psasnis to belong to a particular group among the doctors, only for him to be in practice. On a later land tax register from Arsinoe the list of properties belonging to doctors does not include any of the surplus marginal land whose cultivation is imposed on the inhabitants of Arsinoe in general, and this privilege may have been common to all physicians.157

But in Egypt, as elsewhere, there were gradations of status and privilege among the doctors, and a distinction between those who practised medicine and others who were specifically approved in some way, dedokimasmenoi, is implied in the complaint of M. Valerius Gemellus to Heliodorus, Prefect of Egypt 1 37-42. 158 Although such impositions are forbidden by law, Gemellus has been forced for four years to be responsible for the confiscated property in two villages in the Arsinoite nome: he seeks exemption from this duty and asks that all who practise medicine should be completely freed from liturgies, especially those who, like him, were dedokimasmenos. What this word means has been much disputed. Zalateo believed that it signified that a doctor had passed a qualifying examination which entitled him to practise,159 but Gemellus clearly implies that not all doctors are so qualified, and, as the case of Psasnis shows, a man's own declaration that he was a practitioner was considered good enough for a governor or strategos.

It was N. Lewis who rightly suggested that 'dedokimasmenos' denotes membership of a particular group of doctors with certain special privileges,160 and it is tempting to associate such men with the 'public iatroi\ who appear on papyri from 173 a.d. onwards. Our information about them comes largely from the medical reports submitted by public doctors certifying death or injury, a procedure which, in its formality, is peculiar to Egypt.161 In such a case, the sick man or a relative asks the governor or strategos to send a member of his staff, who is provided with a dossier on the patient and with the services of a public doctor (or doctors) to make the examina-

iwpOxy. 40, with the readings of D. L. Page apud H. C. Youtie, Scriptiunculae II, Amsterdam 1973, 878-88.

l57PCornell 20, with the discussion, p. 1 10; cf. also BGU 1897a, PMich. II 123, r° IV 8-9; PMich. II 223-5.

15BPFay. 106. 159G. Zalateo, 'Dokimasia', Aegyptus xxxvii, 1957, 32-40; he also assumed, ibid, xhv (1964) 52-7,

that the 'question and answer' medical payri were learnt as set books for this examination. 160N. Lewis, 'Exemption of physicians from liturgy'; BASP ii (1965) 87-9 = Atti XICongr. pap.,

Milan 1966, 513-8. 161 1 am not convinced by Bowersock's argument, Greek sophists in the Roman empire, Oxford 1969,

92, that the doctor who appeared in court to give evidence at an Athenian murder trial, Philostr., VS 588, was an Athenian public physician.

214 VIVIAN NUTTON

tion and provide the appropriate certificate.162 There are rare exceptions to this procedure: in BGU 647, from the Fayum in 130, C. Menicius Valerianus, who has a surgery at Karanis, both signs the report and testifies on oath to its accuracy, while POxy 476 breaks off before reaching the subscription and the oath that two embalmers who examined the body are likely to have made.163 Boswinkel, in his study of Egyptian public physicians, suggested that they gained their title as a result of Pius5 edict and that their duties included the inspection of all cases of death and serious injury.164 But it would appear that the change of title occurred at Oxy- rhynchus between 170 and 173 a.d., rather late for any direct influence from Pius' edict.165 The system too may have existed much earlier: the first known medical report, POslo 95, dates from 96 a.d., and, as we have seen, dedokimasmenoi are found c. 140 a.d., and are assumed to have existed before then. BoswinkePs hypothesis is acceptable only in the very limited sense that Pius' edict may have formalised in Egypt a numerus of approved doctors with special privileges, such as appears later at Hermopolis,166 but even this is far from certain. Demosioi iatroi are recorded until the beginning of the fifth century,167 but from at least 338 the title coexists with that of archiatros ;16S by the end of the fifth century it seems to have fallen into disuse, and Egypt, like the rest of the empire, called its public doctors archiatroi.169

A nice schema can therefore be constructed to link Egyptian public doctors and archiatroi: at first, in Ptolemaic times, the word archiatros denotes a court physician;170 the public doctor receives a special title c. 170 a.d. which is gradually replaced, from the fourth century onwards, by that of archiatros. But one piece of evidence does not easily conform to this pattern: POslo 53, a private letter of the second century, written to Ammonius the archiatros and instructing him to bring with him some loaves and a box with figs and rolls.171 The context of the letter and its provenance

itzpOslo 95-6, with Eitrem's commentary; O. Nanetti, 'Ricerche sui medici e sulla medicina nei papiri', Aegyptus xxi, 1941, 301-14; H. Kupiszewski, 'Surveyorship in the law of Graeco-Roman Egypt', JJP 1952, 257-68; 1957-8, 163. The most recently published certificate, POxy. 3195, is signed by four public doctors (the total membership of the numerus at Oxyrhynchus in 331 a.d.?).

l63If the reading is correct, I assume that the scribe of Antinoe, Wessely, Stud. Pal. I 8, who certifies that he saw a woman confined to bed and unable to walk through illness or injury and himself signs the document, was acting on behalf of the doctor with him ; but it is possible that his profession has been misread and that he was in fact a doctor, cf. B. R. Rees, Mnemosyne, ser. iv, 15 (1962) 375.

l64E. Boswinkel, 'La médecine et les médecins dans les papyrus grecs'; Eos xlviii (1956) 181-90. 165POxy. 2111 (135) and 2563 (170) refer simply to iatroi; POxy. 51 (173), PSI 455 (178) and

POxy 475 (182) add demosioi. 1G6PLips. 42 (382 or 391) has év tco copiaijévco àpiGiaco in a medical report, but the doctor's

name was not read at this point in the badly damaged papyrus, although logically it should appear here. PCafro Preis. 1 = PCairo 10706, fourth century, records a 5r||jo]ciíou lonrpoG tcov év tco cr[có|jaTi . . . .] tcov 8oki|ícov ttjs aujjfjs TróÀecos ....].

l%1PRein. 92 (392) is the latest dated demosios iatros. PHarris 133 is dated, on no sound grounds, by Nanetti, Aegyptus xxi (1941) 311, to the end of the fifth century.

16*PLiòs. 97. l69The inscription of Proteris, no. 6, dates probably from the fifth century; other archiatroi are

even later, nos. 7-13; no. 7 contrasts iatros and archiatros. 170Above, p. 194. 171I am grateful to Dr. M. H. Eliassen for checking and confirming for me the opening lines of

the papyrus.

ARCHIATRI AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION 215

offer no guidance to the meaning of archiatros here, but Ammonius is obviously resident in Egypt, and Eitrem in his commentary pronounced him to be a public doctor. But it is strange to find this title of a civic physician so isolated from other examples, and there may be other possible explanations for its appearance. Am- monius could be an imperial doctor attached to the Museum172 (although it would be premature to conclude, with Eitrem, that archiatros was the title of the doctor who attended Museum members or who presided over it); he could be a civic physician at Alexandria or one of the Egyptian poleis, like Naucratis, which, in con- trast to the chora, enjoyed Greek institutions; or he could be a native Egyptian who retained on his return home the title he had gained in service abroad.173 If Eitrem is right, then it must be admitted that archiatros was used to indicate a civic physician almost as soon in Egypt as in the other Eastern provinces.174 On the other hand, if any of my explanations of the anomaly is correct, Egypt resembles Africa and the Western provinces in its late reception of this technical term.

VIII

Archiatroi have been shown in this paper to comprise both royal and civic physicians, and the shifts in the meaning and the use of the word have been examined and, where possible, dated. The edict of Antoninus Pius, although not responsible for the creation of civic physicians as a group over and above the normal doctor, undoubted- ly stimulated the spread of the title archiatros as the designation of a doctor within the numerus. But its acceptance was by no means as speedy in Africa as it was in Asia Minor, and it is important to separate, at least at first, the functions of archiatroi by date and by region. The fourth century regulations for the city archiatri of Rome, on the one hand, and the formal medical reports submitted to the strategos of an Egyptian nome, on the other, are alike peculiar to their region and should not be used to illuminate the duties of an Ephesian archiatros. Even where there is a con- siderable degree of continuity, as between the public doctors of the Hellenistic age and the civic archiatroi of the Roman East, it is essential to realise that developments within society may well prevent a precise identification of the two in every respect. The society itself was not static; there is no reason to believe that an institution like that of civic physicians and archiatroi did not also respond in some way to change. The word which originally indicated a doctor in a royal household was glossed, twelve centuries later, with the simple 'archiatres id est medicus sapientissimus'.110

Vivian Nutton

172As with L. Gellius Maximus, see CQ n.s. xxi (1971) 262-72. 173Egyptian doctors abroad are recorded at GVI 766 (Tithoreia), 1907 (Milan), Augustine, Civ.

Dei 22.8, and possibly also at IG XIV 809 (but cf. GVI 435). mIts appearance in a theological papyrus of the third century, no. 4, shows only that its author

was abreast of current (Origenic?) theological metaphors. llbVind. Lai. 68, tenth-eleventh century, fol. 1.

216 VIVIAN NUTTON

APPENDIX 1

MEDICUS PALATINUS

The Life of Alexander Severus, ch. 42, apparently offers unique information on payments made to doctors in the imperial household :

medicus sub eo unus palatinus solarium accepit, ceterique omnes qui usque ad sex fuerunt binas aut ternas accipiebant ita ut mundas singulas consequerentur, alias aliter. qui post omnes colloc. edd. : post fuerunt Mss. Both text and meaning are uncertain, and the renowned untrustworthiness of this particular

Life casts further doubt on the truth and validity of this statement. If the reading of the Mss. is kept, it must mean that one doctor was paid a salary and that there

were up to six others who received annonae variously divided. The traditional emendation offers a similar contrast between the one salaried doctor and the other six, but in neither version is it obvious whether one doctor or seven (or even more) bore the title of medicus palatinus. D. M. Magie in his Loeb translation, thought they were all so qualified : 'only one palace doctor received a salary, while all the others . . .', but Below restricted the title to one only:176 'Alexander Severus hat als erster einen medicus palatinus gehabt und ihm ein solarium gegeben, ausserdem sechs weitere Àrzte durch annonae besoldet\ That the latter was also Hermann Peter's view is shown by his change of punctuation, putting a full stop after 'Fuerunt':177 on this interpretation all the seven doctors receive annonae as a solarium, but only one is called medicus palatinus.

None of these texts and interpretations is free from grave objection on factual or linguistic grounds. Peter at least could explain why the annonae j salaria are so divided - the medicus palatinus receives three annonae, the other six two - but medicus palatinus, a title found nowhere else, is a vague (literary?) substitute for archiater, which was standard in the late empire when the Life was written. What source, if any, the biographer could have used that would have noted this transitory change is impossible to say, and I suspect that, if Peter's text is retained, the use of medicus palatinus to mean chief doctor is at best historical guesswork, at worst inventive forgery.

But the objection to this interpretation of medicus palatinus is avoidable if the Mss. reading or Magie's translation of the standard text is followed. Here the adjective applies to all the royal doctors and indicates their place of work, not a grade in their hierarchy. But doubt and confusion then arise over the payments made to them. In what way does a solarium differ from annonae ? Why is the author, who knows the details of the composition of the annonae, apparently ignorant of those of the solarium ? And was this grant of annonae superseded by the undated and equally dubious regulation recorded in ch. 44 which gives salaria to all doctors? That benefaction too has payments in both salaria (to doctors, rhetors, grammarians, soothsayers, astrologers and architects) and in annonae (to students and forensic orators), although the annonae are not divided as in ch. 42. 178 Clearly the biographer believes in a distinction between the two types of payment; but the system of payment in kind to court officials is unlikely to have existed before the late third century,179 and thus the distinction between solarium and annonae can hardly have been known in the time of Severus Alexander but is the anachronistic construction of the biographer.

The point of Magie's version is therefore historically implausible and anachronistic; that of Peter's the result of ignorance or fraud, while the interpretation of Below, which combines the

176Below, Der Arzt, 44. 177Ed. Teubner, Leipzig 1884, 280. 178 At best this is a pastiche of such laws as Frag. Vat. 204 and CT 13.4.1-3, with the surprising

addition of mathematici, who are usually mentioned only to be condemned. 179A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, Oxford 1964, 396-8; III, 88-9.

ARCHIATRI AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION 217

improbable title for the chief physician with the impossible division of payment, can be doubly censured.180 Far from being valuable evidence for privileges and titles given to court doctors, this passage is no more worthy of credence than the rest of the romantic fiction that makes up this Life.101

APPENDIX 2

VALENTINIAN'S LAW: CT 13.3.8

The unique Ms., V, reads: Exceptis portus syxti virginum vestalium quot regionum urbis sunt totidem constituantur archiatri. It was Gothofredus in his great commentary who first attempted to resolve the textual difficulties

and who, in default of any known portus syxtus proposed the convincing change of'syxtV to 'xysti'.182 This was accepted by Mommsen and by Clyde Pharr, who produced the following version:183

As many chief physicians should be appointed as there are districts of the city, except in the districts of the Portus Xystus and in areas belonging to the Vestal Virgins. This makes grammatical sense, but historical nonsense, for there is no region of the city called

that of Portus Xystus or the Vestal Virgins, and, even if there was, it is hard to see why these two regions alone should either be excluded from the services oí archiatri or be in possession of them before 368. In fact the word to be supplied with exceptis is archiatris, not regionibus,18* and the sentence should be translated: Leaving aside the archiatri of . . ., there should be appointed as many archiatri as there are city districts. The special archiatri mentioned at the beginning are supernumerary to those of the districts, and they are not to be taken into account when calculating the number of doctors to enjoy the title and immunity of archiatri.

But the textual difficulties do not end here, for, as Gothofredus noted, there is no other evidence for a. portus xystus (or xysti), and it is hard to see what the words could mean. If portus is right, then the opening words, as Pazzini suggested,185 should be punctuated: exceptis Portus, Xysti, Virginum Vestalium. An archiater portus would be a plausible title for an official concerned with the general medical supervision of the Ostian harbour, its warehouses, stores and merchandise, especially slaves,186 and C. Marcius Demetrius might even have held that post.187 But Valentinian's law relates to archiatri resident and practising in Rome, and in the law codes portus by itself never refers to the quays and warehouses along the Tiber in Rome but to the portus Ostiensis ; 188 when the quayside installations of Rome are included in a harbour regulation, they are specifically mentioned. If there was ever an archiater portus, he worked at the Trajanic Basin at the mouth of the Tiber and could have no place in a regulation drawn up for the city of Rome only.

180J. Scarborough, Roman Medicine, London 1969, 1 12, sees this 'titbit from the Historia Augusta5 as 'giving the impression of pay according to social rank' which 'suggests the class structuring noted for the early empire.' This restatement of Below's position involves yet further errors, for all the court doctors would be of the same social rank, and evidence for imperial physicians has little bearing on the class structure outside the court.

181J. Straub, 'Severus Alexander und die Mathematica, Bonner Historia- Augusta Colloquium 1968-9, Bonn 1970, 247-72, esp. 254-60; R. Syme, Emperors and biography, Oxford 1971, 146-62.

182Gothofredus, ed. Lyon, 1665, V 37-8. l8ZThe Theodosian Code, Princeton, 1952, 380; implicitly also by A. H. M.Jones, The Later Roman

Empire, Oxford, 1964, 708. 184As Pohl, 25, n.l, had already seen. 185A. Pazzini, L'organizzazione sanitaria in Roma imperiale, Rome, 1940, 12. l»*Dig. 2 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 ; 2 1 . 1 . 1 0. 1 ; Claudian, In Eutrop. 33-7 ; Galen XVII B 83 ; Rufus, 469 Daremberg-

Ruelle = F. Rosen thai, The classical heritage in Islam, London 1975, 204. 187 Above, p. 204f, but this possibilitv is very unlikely. l88CT 14.15.4; 15.1.12; marking portus off from urbs; cf. also CT 13.5.4 and 38; 14.4.9, 14.15.2;

14.22 and 23.

218 VIVIAN NUTTON

Despite the authority of Mommsen, more drastic surgery is required. Gothofredus suggested 'porticus xystV a simple palaeographical change,189 but this too is open to serious doubts, for 'porticus xystV is either tautological or a description of a place in a context that calls for an institution. Gotho- fredus' argument must be carried further in order to give sense: 'porticus* is a gloss on the Greek word 'xystus9, which intruded into the text and was then altered by an emending scribe who was aware of the tautologous repetition. But Louis Robert has proposed a solution to this crux which involves only one stage of corruption,190 to read Hotius9 for 'portus9, an easy palaeographical change. Totus xystus is thus the general association of athletes, which had its headquarters in Rome at the Baths of Trajan and had archiereis, an archigrammateus, and, as we know from an inscription from Thyatira, an archiatros. Whether portus replaced totius or is the remains of a gloss, portions, can be left open, but on either hypothesis portus stands condemned as corrupt, and only two groups are recorded as already having archiatri, the guild of athletes and the Vestal Virgins. Since these archiatri served private institutions, not open to all citizens, they were excluded by Valentinian from the highly privileged collegium of regional archiatri.

APPENDIX 3

ARCHIATRI RECORDED ON INSCRIPTIONS, PAPYRI AND COINS

Civici No. Provenance Date Publication Name Royal 1 Furni 4-5thcent. CIL VIII 25811 Cottinus C

(/LCF606B, Gummerus 318)

2 Fayum c. 100-50 b.c. E. Breccia, Bull. Soc. Athenagoras R? Alex, xiv (1912) 194 {SB 5216: Select Pap. 104), cf. Arch. Pap. xiii (1938) 76-7

Athenagoras was resident at Alexandria, see above, p. 194. 3 Egypt 2nd cent. POslo 53 Ammonius C ?

See above, p. 00. 4 Egypt 3rd cent. Patr. Or. 18.3, 430 A liturgical papyrus so

describing Christ 5 Hermopolis 338 PLips. 97 Porphyrius C 6 Akoris 5-6th cent. G. Lefebvre, BCH xxvii Proteris C

(1903) 375 (Receuildes inscr. gr. chrét. d'Egypte, 135 and p. XXV)

7 Oxyrhynchus 572 POxy 126 John C Father of Fl. Marcus iatros.

8 Hermopolis 6th cent. G. Wessely, Studien z. Gollouthus C Paleogr. u. Papyruskunde III, 77

9 Arsinoe ? 6th cent. C. Wessely, Stud. Pal. Menas C VII, 1175

189Gothofredus, V 22 ; followed by I Bloch, in T. Puschmann, Handbuch der Geschichte der Medizin, Jena, 1902, I 584.

"fflL. Robert, Hellenka IX, Paris 1950, 25-8, publishing no. 58.

ARCHIATRI AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION 219

10 Fayum 6th cent. C. Wessely, Stud. Pal. John G X, 251, b.2

11 Aphrodito 570 PCairo Masp. 67151 Euprepes and C Phoebammon C (father and son)

12 Aphrodito 6-7th cent. PCairo Masp. 67077 Sophronius C 13 Egypt 6-7th cent. PLond. 1032 Menas C 14 Hebron 6th cent. F. M. Abel, Rev. Bibl., Stephanus R

n.s. vi (1909) 104 àpxiocTpòs toO Oeiou ttocAoctìou.

15 Bostra 2-3rd cent. F. Brunnow, Mitt. Claudius Andromachus C Palaest. Verein 1899, 83, n.38 {IGRR III 1333)

16 Rhosus 5th cent. ? R. Heberdey, A. Cyrillus G Wilhelm, D AW W xliv (1896) 21, n.51 (J. Jalabert, MFO i (1906) 147: ISyria III 724)

17 Seleucia ad 5th cent. ? MAMA III 22 Theodorus C Calycadnum

18 Olba 3rd cent. ? R. Heberdey, A. M. Aurelius Menandrus C Wilhelm, DAWW xliv (1896) n.161

Ascribed by Pfeffer, 194, to Ephesus. 19 Gibyra Minor 3-4th cent. G. Bean, T. B. Mitford, Aur. Varianus C

DA WW cii ( 1 970) 65, Pantauchus n.38 and pl. 52

20 Sidyma 2-3rd cent. O. Benndorf, G. M. Aurelius Ptolemaeus R Niemann, Reisen in ó kocì 'ApiaróS^os (+G?) Lykien, Vienna 1884, Te*nnT| nevos Otto tgov 55 + fig. 46 {IGRR III lepóccrrcov kocì ttjs mrrpiSos 599: TAM II. 1. 221) aAiTOupyTiaia

21 Sidyma 3rd cent. TAM II. 1.224: N. M. Aurelius Ptolemaeus C Lewis Atti XI Cong. Pap. ó kccì 'ApicrroTéÀTis 1965, 515, n.2

A relative of no. 20 ? 22 Xanthus 2-3rd cent. CIG 4277 Claudius Epictetus C 23 Synnada ¿r. 170 MAMA VI 373 Aquilas (?) C

The archiatros is an uncle by marriage of a civic magistrate whose coins have the head of Faustina the younger on them.

24 Qesmeli Zebir 4-6th cent. MAMA VII 566 (cf. L. Aur. Gaius, dpx- and C Robert, N. Firatli, Les Auguste, ápxeiónpTiva C steles funér aires de Byzance gréco-romaine, Paris 1964, 177)

25 Antioch in Pisidia 4th cent. W. M. Ramsay, CR G. Calpurnius Collega C xxxiii (1919) 2, n.l Macedo

A councillor, orator, doctor and philospher: another medical relative is ib., p. 5 (MAMA VIII 404: GF7 692).

26 Antioch in Pisidia 3rd cent. D. M. Robinson, TAPA Diogenianus C lvii (1926) 226n.52 (^G VI 571): W. M. Ramsay, JHS liii (1933) 318

220 VIVIAN NUTTON

27 Antioch in Pisidia c. 215 T. Mommsen, from L. Gellius Maximus C Ramsay, Eph. Ep. v (1884) 579, n.1346: J. R. S. Sterrett, An epigraphical journey in Asia Minor, Boston 1888, 109: CIL III 6820, tobe restored as arch [iatro on the evidence of three other inscriptions: (i) W. M. Ramsay,

JRS ii (1912) 96: D. M. Robinson TAPA Ivii (1926) 224, n.48

(ii) W. M. Calder, JRS ii (1912) 96, n.25

(iii) W. M. Ramsay, JAS xiv (1924)199, n.35:^G VI 563

A full discussion of the man and his career is given by me in: *L. Gellius Maximus, physician and procurator,' CQ n.s. xxi (1971) 262-72.

28 Harpasa 211-7 F. Imhoof-Blumer, M. Aur. Euandrus p\ C AB AW xviii (1890) àpxicrrpòs *ApTraar|vcov 671, n.435

Possibly identical with no. 29. 29 Geramos 211-7 F. Imhoof-Blumer, RSN M. Aur. Euandrus £' C

xiii (1905) 253 (93), n.5: Sammlung H. von Aulock, n.2581 (L. Robert, Monnaies grecques, Paris 1967, 57, n.7)

30 Ceramos 251 E. L. Hicks, JHS xi M. Aur. V(alens) G (1890) 127 Polites

31 Alabanda 3-4th cent. P. Le Bas, W. H. Hermeros C Waddington, Voyage archéologique, II Paris 1870, 568

An Aur. Dionysius is also mentioned. 32 Euromus 100-250 CIG 2714: P. Le Bas, Menecrates Menecratous C

W. H. Waddington, ápx- ttís ttóAecos Voyage arch. II 314-8

City doctor at Euromus or Mylasa, donor of five columns to the shrine. 33 Lagina 2-3rd cent. C. Picard, BCH xliv, Menippus ( ?) C

75, n.6 Honours paid to the daughter (or wife?) of Menippus: her brother is mentioned at BCHxi, 1887, 27.

34 Lagina 2-3rd cent. C. T. Newton, Sulpicius Demetrius C Halicarnassus, Cnidus and Branchidae, London 1863, II.2.96

Demetrius was epimelete of the mysteries and responsible for honouring P. Ael. Aur. Neon.

ARCHIATRI AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION 221

35 Alan Kòy, Caria 3-4th cent. L. Robert, Etudes Fl. Eustatheius C Anatoliennes, Paris 1937, 564

Husband of CI. FI. Ouaemias (?). 36 Aphrodisias 2-3rd cent. CIG 2847 M. Aurelius Messuleius C 37 Aphrodisias 2-3rd cent. Above, p. 192 no. 1 T. Flavius Staberianus C

ápX- TTÓÀ6COS 38 Aphrodisias 3rd cent. Above, p. 192 no. 2 M. [ ] Apollonius y' C 39 Aphrodisias 3-5th cent. Above, p. 193 no. 3 Chrysaphius (?) C 40 Heraclea Ulpia 114 J. R. S. Sterrett, Epigr. T. Statilius Grito R

Journey xiii: W. H. Buckler, JO AI xxx (1936) B. 5-8: MAMA VI 91 and pl. 19: J. and L. Robert, La Carie, II, Paris, 1954, 167, n.49

Other inscriptions from Heraclea referring to him are: (i) J. and L. Robert, La Carie II, 178, n.73 and pl. 33.3 (ii) W. Henzen, Ann. Inst. Con. Arch. (1852) 155 (Le Bas, Waddington 1694): J. and L.

Robert, La Carie II, 126 He is commemorated on an Ephesian inscription, J. Keil, JO AI xxiii (1926) B. 263-4 (SEG IV 521 : La Carie II, 179). Cf. also L. Robert, Hellenica iii (1946) 5-8.

41 Heraclea Ulpia c. 150-170 W. Henzen, Ann. Inst. T. Statilius Attalus C(?) R Con. Arch. (1852) 154 (Le Bas, Waddington 1695: La Carie II, 179, n.76)

Another inscription from Heraclea of him is : MAMA VI 117 and pl. 21 {La Carie II, 179, n.77). Under Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius he had various coins struck for the neoi of Heraclea, (Le Bas, Waddington 1695: La Carie, II, 220), two types with the inscription àpxton-pòs 'HpocKÀEcbTcov véois. F. E. Kind, RE 2 Reihe, III.2, 1929, 2186, interpreted this to mean he was civic doctor at Heraclea (which is a priori likely) , but the legend on the obverse of the third type, 'HpccKÀecoTGovvéois, suggests that the genitive applies to the neoi, not to the archiatros. But family tradition makes a civic post before going to Rome very probable.

42 Heraclea Ulpia c. 120 MAMA VI 117 {La T. Statilius Artemidorus C Carie II 179, n.77)

A statue erected c. 170 to him by his great nephew Attalus (no. 41). 43 Heraclea Ulpia 2nd cent. (?) CIG 3953h: La Carie Pappias C

II 197, 115 A fragmentary inscription which describes Pappias as 'descendant of archiatroV and as 'son of Papias the archiatros' ': the correction adopted by Franz in CIG identifies Pappias and Papias the archiatros, but this is unnecessary, for the phrase 'descendant of archiatroV implies that Pappias himself was a doctor.

44 Heraclea Ulpia 3rd cent. P. Paris, M. Holleaux, M. Aur. Gharmides C BCHix (1885) 337, n.20 {La Carie II, 170, n.57)

45 Heraclea Ulpia 3rd cent. P. Paris, M. Holleaux, ? son of M. Aur. C BCHix (1885) 336, n.19 Charmides Menander (La Carie II, 170, n.58) : J. R. S. Sterrett, Epigr. Journ. xvii

Although obviously related, it is impossible, on the present evidence, to be more specific about the connection of nos. 44 and 45 (Cf. La Carie II, 225) : it remains possible that

222 VIVIAN NUTTON

they are the same man, since both are recorded as prytanis, stephanephoros and archiatros, but other relationships cannot be excluded.

46 Tralles 3-7th cent. A. E. Contoleon, REG Eucarpus C xii (1899) 382

On a lead seal. 47 Ephesus 160-200 CIG 2987 : Le Bas, Attalus Asclepiadou C

(above, p. 204) Waddington, Voyage àpxtocrpòs 8ià arch. Ill 171 yévous: presumably

Asclepiades also C 48 Ephesus c. 180-250 ForschungeninEphesoslH, Aur. Apolaustus C

141, n.55 (L. Robert, (piÀocrépocoros hnriKOs Les gladiateurs dans ápxtcrrpos Tfjs >E9ectícúv I* orient grec, Paris 1 940, ttóàecos 25-7)

49 Ephesus c. 250-400 Forschungen in Ephesos Fl. Munatius Valerianus C IV 3, n.50 and pl. qMÀoaépccoros ápxionpós LIX.5

50 Ephesus 150-250 AGIBM 677 (Ci J 745) Iulius C His tomb is cared for by the Jews of Ephesus.

51 Ephesus c. 200 J. Keil, JO AI viii (1905) P. Aelius Menandrus C 128-32 (cf. P. Wolters, [. . e]inus C JO AI ix (1906) B 295) P. Aelius C

P. Vedius Rufinus C and possibly others competing in the medical contests

52 Smyrna 3rd cent. Le Bas, Waddington, Unknown C Voyage arch. Ill 1523

The man served as an agonothetes. 53 Philadelphia 2-3rd cent. J. Keil, A AW W xciü Aur. Lucianus L. C

(1956) 225-6 (SEG Papinnii Corneliani XVII 527: Bull. Ep. f. ek irpoyóvcov àpxiccTpós (1958) 437, n.7)

54 Iulia Gordos 216-13 or P. Herrmann, AAWW Apollophanes of Seleucia R 197-6 b.c. cvii (1970) 93-8 {Bull.

Ep. (1971) 600) 55 Saujilar 3rd cent. J. Munro, JHS xvii Aur. Hierocles P' C

(1897) 286, n.54 (IGRR IV 533)

56 Coloe 3rd cent. A. Wagener, Inscriptions Aurelius Artemidorus C recueillies en Asie Mineure, Brussels 1861, 20, n.3 + pl. A. 3 : Moucteíov kcu BiPAio6t)kti ii-iii (1876-8) 119, n.219:K. Buresch, Aus Lydien, Vienna 1898,

,. , 55 (IGRR IV 1383) He was also a hierophant. ,. , 57 Thyatira 150-300 J. Keil, A. v. Hermophilus, son of C

Premerstein, DA WW liv Moschianus, and C (1911) 39, n. 70 (IGRR ? father, nephew and IV 1278: R. cousin of archiatroi? Merkelbach, £/>£ ix (1972) 133)

The relationships are those suggested by Merkelbach: the earlier restoration made him grandfather, father, uncle and great- uncle of archiatroi.

ARCHIATRI AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION 223

58 Thyatira 3rd cent. L. Robert, Hellenica ix Heléis ( ?) ápxtorrpos (1950) 25 + pl. V.I TOO CJÚ|i7T(XVTOS §Ú<TTOV and IX.3

59 Hiera, Lesbos 125-175 IG XII.2.484 (IGRR Bresus Bresou G IV 116)

The holder of many priesthoods and civic offices (above, p. 200)

60 Lampsacus c. 200 CIG 3643 {IGRR IV 182) Cyrus Apolloniou C A benefactor of the gerousia of Lampsacus.

61 Amaseia 3rd cent. F. Cumont, Studia Aur. Philomousus C Pontica III, 110a

62 Near Claudiopolis, c. 200 G. Perrot, Exploration de Acilius Theodorus G Bithynia la Bithynie, Paris 1862,

n.27 (£G352: Mendel, BCH xxvii (1903) 317-8: IGRR III 77: GF/686)

His father is described in verse as ìorrpcov irpóiiov, which Kaibel interpreted as a poetic form of archiatros.

63 Khavsa, Pontus 150-250 H. Grégoire, J. G. G. ]andrus C Anderson, Studia Pontica apjxiocTpos III, 24: A. Wilhelm, JO AI xxvii (1932) B92-6: G. E. Bean, Belleten xvii (1955) 178 {SEG XIII 525)

64 Constantinople 550-650 G. Zacos, A. Veglery, Leontius R Byzantine Lead Seals, axoÀapios kocì ápx- Basle 1972, 2809

65 Thessalonica 249 S. Pelekides, 'Aitò ttjv Aurelius Isidorus C TTOAlTEÍa KOCt TqV KOlVCOVÍa

Tfís ápxaías GeCTCTOCÀOVtKTÌSi

Thessalonica 1934, p. 63, n.19, pl. 28 (/GX 2.1.163)

High priest and archiatros, and a relative by marriage of a Macedonarch.

66 Anticyra 3-4th cent. L. Lerat, F. Chamoux, Epictetus C BCH lxxi-lxxii (1947-8) 74

67 Thebes 2-4th cent. IG VII 2688 Chareas C Pfeffer, 193, dates it to the second century: the addition of fipcos may indicate that Chareas was a pagan.

68A Cos c. 59 G. Dubois, BCH v C. Stertinius Xenophon R (1881) 473: /Car 345 {SIG* 368: IGRR IV 1086: /LS 1841 adn.: SIG* 804: wrongly assigned to Calymnos by H. G. Pflaum, Les carrières procuratoriennes équestres, Paris 1960, 43)

224 VIVIAN NUTTON

68B Cos c. 60 ( ?) A. Maiuri, Nuova Silloge Epigraphica di Rodi e Cos, Florence 1925, 475 Gf. also R. Herzog, "Nikias und Xenophon von Kos', HZ cxxv (1922) 230: and above, p. 196

Herzog, 224, n.l, and Pflaum, 43, claim him as doctor to Tiberius on the evidence of BCHw (1881) 472 (from Calymnos), but Tib. Claudius Caesar is more likely to represent the emperor Claudius.

69 Cos 100-200 ICos 282 (IGRR IV 1067) Cos[seini?]us Bassus C Above, p. 202.

70 Cos 75-200 R. Herzog, Koische C. Iulius Protoctetus C Forschungen und Funde, Leipzig 1899, 115 (IGRR IV 1066)

71 Anaphe 150-250 CIG 2482 {IG XII.3.259) Eugnomon Eugnomonos C A dedication to Apollo with very ornate lettering.

72 Chios 2-3rd cent. W. G. Forrest, BSA lix Eutyches C (1964) 35, n.28 + pl. 3

From his commemoration by an Ephesian Forrest suggests that he may have been archiatros of the Museum of Ephesus, but the presence of many Ephesians on Chios, ib. 32, makes this hypothesis unnecessary.

73 Delos 129-1 17 b.c. T. Homolle, BCH iv Craterus of Antioch R (1880) 218 (OGIS 256: Melos 1547)

For the date, see IDelos 1547. 74 Delos 102-1 b.c. S. Reinach, BCH vii Papias of Amisus R

(1883) 57-61 (OGIS 374: IDelos 1573)

75 Troezen 192 IG IV 782 Agasikleidas C àpxionrpòs tt)S TTÓÀecos

76 Hermione 2-3rd cent. IG IV 723 Leontidas C 77 Cletor 100-250 IG V 2.385 Eutychus C

Very ornate lettering. 78 Sparta 2-3rd cent. CIG 1407: IG V.I. 623 Unknown C

A decree of the council found (set up ?) in the temple of Apollo and calling the doctor 'saviour of the city' (after an outbreak of plague?).

79 Edessa 100-250 H. Danov, Ann. Bibl. Asclepiades C Mus. Plovdiv (1931-4) 91-5; S. Velkov, Bull. Inst. Arch. Bulg. viii (1934) 457-9; H. Danov, JO AI xxx (1937) B83-7 {AE 1937,99): GIB 150

The relief, showing military equipment, may indicate that he had once been a military doctor, possibly a volunteer like the Thespian doctor Philistus, Bull. Ep. (1934) 227.

80 Venusia 3-4th cent. CIL IX 6213 (Gummerus Fl. Faustinus C 204; C/J 600)

He was also a gerousiarch. 81 Aeclanum 150-250 CIG 5877; IG XIV 689 C. Salvius Atticianus C

(IGRR I 461 : àpxiorrpòs ttoXecos Gummerus 228)

On the marble base of a votive offering to Asclepius.

ARCHIATRI AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION 225

82 Beneventum 231 CIL IX 1655 (ILS 6496: L. Staius Rut(ilius) C Gummerus 193) Manilius

He called himself eques Romanas archiater Benev. when commemorating the achievements of his son as praetor Cerialis (cf. JVdS 1913, 311 (AE 1914, 164; Gummerus 231), a similar inscription set up by his father and mother in honour of their grandson) : he was also responsible for another Beneventan inscription, CIL IX 1971.

83 Noia 4-5th cent. CIL IX 1381 {ILCV 606: Stefanus C Gummerus 206)

84 Puteoli l-2nd cent. T. Mommsen, Inscr. Q,. Passen[ius Regn. Nap, 3322 {EG 677: IG XIV 852: CIL X 2858: Gummerus 210)

Very elegant lettering (Plate XXXII6): assigned by Kaibel to the first century, by Gummerus (restoring archiat [er puteolanus]) to the second.

85 Rome 4-5th cent. CIJ I, p. 535, n.5*: Aulus Vedius G IGUR 850 Collega (?)

Found in a catacomb on the Via Appia. 86 Rome 4-5th cent. CIL VI 9562 (ILCV 605: Timotheus C

Capparoni, / titoli sepolcrali dei medici cristiani delle catacombe di Roma, London 1913, 220, n. 1 : Gummerus 64)

87 Rome 541-565 CIL VI 9563 (/¿CF606: ]aratus filius C ILS 7798: Capparoni, 220, n.4: Gummerus 65)

88 Rome 4-5th cent. CIL VI 9564 (ILCV 606 S[ C adn. : Capparoni 220, n.2 : Gummerus 66)

89 Rome 4-6th cent. CIL VI 9565 (ILCV 606 Unknown C adn. : Capparoni 220, n.3 : Gummerus 67

90 Rome 4-5th cent. Inscr. chr. urbis Romae Unknown C 5412

91 Portus 115-140 G. Calza, La necropoli C. Marcius Dem[etrius? R? del porto di Roma, Rome 1940, 373-6 (H. Bloch AJA xlviii (1944) 218): H. Thylander, Inscriptions du Port d'Ostie, Lund 1952, 158, pl. XLVI.2: cf. G. Becatti, RPA xxi (1945-6) 126-31 : H. Hommel, Epigraphica xix (1957) 109-64: R. Meiggs, Roman Ostia, Oxford 1960 (ed. 2, 1973), 563-4: A. Degrassi, Mem. Ac. Lincei (1963) 139-66 (H. Bloch, Gnomon xxxvii (1965) 202): H. Hommel, ZPE v (1970) 293-303

226 VIVIAN NUTTON

92 Concordia 350-450 CIL V 8741 (ILS 7797: FI. Aristo C /LCF606A: Gummerus 285)

93 Pola 2-3rd cent. CIL V 87 (Gummerus A. Atius Caius C 260) : Inscr. Italiae X.I. 161

FORGERIES

Civic/ No. Provenance Publication Name Royal 94 Pisaurum A. Olivieri, Marmora Pisaurensia, C. Tettius Gtesias C

Pesaro 1738, 64 (Orelli, Inscr. lai. sel coll., Zurich 1828, 4017: CIL XI 821*: Pfeffer 196)

95 Rome Orelli, Inscr. lat. sel. coll., Zurich 1828, M. Livius Eutychus C 4226

MISREADINGS

Civici No. Provenance Publication Name Royal 96 Calymnos G. T. Newton, AGIBM 258 {SGDI Chatalas C

3557) : revised, without archiatros, by M. Segre, Ann. scuola arch. Atene 1944-5 (1952), n.58

97 Kapikaya, E. Petersen, F. v. Luschan,/feú¿w in Philologus C Lycia Lykien, Milyas und Kibyratis, Vienna

1 889, 1 76 : revised as a chief huntsman by G. E. Bean, DA WW civ (1971) 25, n.42

DUBIOUS

No, Provenance Publication 98 Ceramos B. V. Head, Historia Numorum, ed. 2, London 1911, remarked that

among the archons or ex-archons who signed the coins of Ceramos more than one is distinguished personally as archiatros. His reference for this statement is to Imhoof-Blumer (no. 29), who mentions only one coin. I think it more likely that Head misunderstood his source than that he knew of other examples, with the possible exception of no. 28.

PLATE XXXI

a Aphrodisias inscription, No. 1

b Aphrodisias inscription, No. 2

ARCHIATRI BY VIVIAN NUTTON

PLATE XXXII

a Aphrodisias inscription, No. 3

b Puteoli Inscription (p. 202)

ARCHIATRI BY VIVIAN NUTTON