Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:41:45.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L. Gellius Maximus, Physician and Procurator

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Vivian Nutton
Vivian Nutton
Affiliation:
Selwyn College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The private physicians of the Roman emperors with the exception of Galen are shadowy figures whose origins, friends, and political influence can only rarely be glimpsed. G. Stertinius Xenophon obtained immunity from taxation for his native island of Cos, and ‘L’. Statilius Griton may have secured certain privileges from Trajan for the Museum of Ephesus, but these are isolated instances. Their social position is similarly hard to define: no doctor entered the senate and equestrian rank was the most that could be obtained. But, if social prejudices prevented them from becoming senators, their descendants were free from such restraints, and in the turbulent Roman society of the late second century upward mobility was not difficult.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , May 1971 , pp. 262 - 272
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 262 note 1 Tac. Ann. 12. 61. Herzog, R., ‘Nikias und Xenophon von Kos’, HZ cxxv (1922), 230Google Scholar, erred in thinking that he also secured libertas for Cos. On his equestrian career, H. G. Pflaum, Les Carrières procuratoriennes équestres sous le haut-empire romain, n. 16. This work will henceforward be referred to as CP.

page 262 note 2 The honorific inscription, JÖAI xxiii (1926), .B.263, is inscribed in the same year as a diatagma of Trajan giving privileges, Forschungen in Ephesos, iv. 80 n. 1.

page 262 note 3 Dio 80. 7. 1. He may well be identical with the Gellius who was said to have been executed under Macrinus, SHA Diadumenianus 9. 1 and PIR Z G.123.

page 262 note 4 T. Mommsen from Ramsay's copy in Eph. Ep. v (1884), 579 n. 1346: a better version was given by J. R. S. Sterrett, An Epigraphical Journey in Asia Minor, n. 109.

page 262 note 5 Hirschfeld, O., Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis auf Diokletian, p. 363 n. i.Google Scholar

page 262 note 6 First published as an annotation to the following inscription, and later by Robinson, D. M., TAPA lvii (1926), 224 n. 48.Google Scholar

page 262 note 7 JRS ii (1912), 96 n. 25. This inscription may reveal a further cognomen, [Poly]-histor, but Calder and Stein, PIR 2 G.131, were rightly sceptical.

page 262 note 8 JRSxiv (1924), 199 n. 35. Ramsay read , Crönert at SEG vi. 563 δ[ιάδoχoς].

page 263 note 1 Stein, A., Der römische Ritterstand, pp. 402–3.Google Scholar The assertion is made less confidently at PIR 2 G. 131.

page 263 note 2 On Dio, Millar, F., A Study of Cassius Dio, pp. 8 ff.Google Scholar

page 263 note 3 As Pflaum, CP, discusses in detail only those careers that show more than one post, Gellius is not discussed, and he is also omitted from the Fasti of procurators.

page 263 note 4 Stein, A., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Verwaltung Aegyptens unter römischer Herrschaft, p. 122.Google Scholar Although he still denied Alexandrian membership at PIR 2 G. 131, he was less certain of Ephesian. His original view was maintained by Levick, B. M., Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor, p. 127 n. 6.Google Scholar

page 263 note 5 Keil published the records of the medical contests in ‘Ärzteinschriften aus Ephesos’, JÖAI viii (1905), 128–38.Google Scholar

page 263 note 6 Philostratus, , VS, pp. 526 ff., 605 ff.Google Scholar

page 263 note 7 The inscriptions are respectively: J. T. Wood, Inscriptions from Ephesus, Tombs 8 n. 7 {Forschungen in Ephesos ii. 115 n. 21) (cf. ii, n. 65) and CIL iii. 14195a {Forschungen in Ephesos iii. 150 n. 68).

page 263 note 8 JÖAI viii (1905), 128–38Google Scholar; JÖAI xxx (1937), B.200: Keil's view that the medical contests were final examinations was refuted by P. Wolters, JÖAI ix (1906), B.295, an his attempts to locate the Museum at the site of the ‘Doppelkirche’ and to discover rooms for teaching were rejected by E. Reisch, Forschungen in Ephesos iv/i. 3 ff. and by Miltner, F., Ephesos, p. 91.Google Scholar

page 263 note 9 JÖAI xxiii (1926), B.263, and see the comments of Buckler, W. H., ‘T. Statilius Criton, Trajani Aug. medicus’, JÖAI xxx (1937), .5 ff.Google Scholar

page 264 note 1 J. and Robert, L., La Carie ii. 220.Google Scholar On Soranus, Drabkin, I. E., ‘Soranus and his system of medicine’, BHM xxv (1951), 503–18Google Scholar, and on Rufus, Ilberg, J., ‘Rufus von Ephesos’, Abh. Sächs. Akad. 1931, Band 1.Google Scholar

page 264 note 2 Much material will be found conveniently assembled in Bowersock, G. W., Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire, pp. 17–29, 45–7, 90–1.Google Scholar

page 264 note 3 As he realized, PIR 2 G. 131.

page 264 note 4 Robert, L., Etudes anatoliennes, pp. 146–8.Google Scholar

page 264 note 5 Robert, L., Hellenica, xi–xii.Google Scholar 233, with details of earlier publications, and cf. also CIG 3283: Lebas, P. and Waddington, W. H., Voyage archéologique, iii. n. 1523.Google Scholar

page 264 note 6 Oliver, J. H., Hesperia iii (1934), 191–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Doubts were expressed by Lemerle, P., ‘Inscriptions latines et grecques de Philippes’, BCH 1ix (1935), 135–7Google Scholar, although he accepted Oliver's conclusion. See also Oliver, J. H., Hesperia, Suppl. xiii (1970), 106.Google Scholar

page 264 note 7 The teaching of medicine at Tarsus was not mentioned by Ramsay, W. M. in his description of the intellectual life of the city, The Cities of St. Paul, pp. 228–35Google Scholar, but a pharmacological tradition stretching from Philo and Dioscorides to Asclepiades Phar-macion can be easily discovered or manufactured. On Byzantium, Philostratus, VS 529–30, 590–1.

page 264 note 8 On Pergamum, Bowersock, op. cit. passim. More light on the cultural importance of this city in the second century is thrown by C. Habicht and M. Wörrle, Die Inschriften des Asklepieions. Vespasian's rescript was published by Herzog, R., SBBerl 1935, 967–1019.Google Scholar Two Pergamene doctors connected with a Museum (probably that of Alexandria) are honoured at Delphi in 27 B.c., SEG ii. 332 with Robert, L., BCH lii (1928), 178 n. 2.Google Scholar On the intellectual tradition of Pergamum and its links with Alexandria, Pfeiffer, R., History of Classical Scholarship, pp. 234–52Google Scholar, and Habicht, op, cit., pp. 149–51.

page 265 note 1 Levick, op. cit. 127, Philostratus, VS605.

page 265 note 2 Levick, op. cit. 124–6: CIL iii. 6820 must be expanded to read sac{erdoti).

page 265 note 3 Müller-Graupa, 's discussion in RE xvi/ I. 797–821Google Scholar is still useful, although he attributes too much to the emperor Hadrian. Lewis, N., ‘The non-scholar members of the Alexandrian Museum’, Mnemosyne, 4th ser. xvi (1963), 257–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar, has collected some of the evidence for non-scholars. P. Rylands 143, dated to a.d. 38, shows a local Egyptian politician as a member, and P. Oxy. 1241. ii. 16, reveals that an officer λoγχo øóρων was president under the Ptolemies.

page 265 note 4 Aur, M.. Asclepiades, IG xiv. 1103Google Scholar, who is the ignotus of BCAR lvii (1953–1955), 73–8Google Scholar; A. and Bemand, E., Les Inscriptions grecques et latines du Colosse de Memnon, pp. 66–7Google Scholar (henceforth Bemand); ib. 112–13; among the philosophers note OGIS 712 with the comments of Jones, C. P. {CQ n.s. xvii [1967], 311 ff.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also the list given by Habicht, op. cit., p. 162.

page 265 note 5 P. Lemerle, op. cit. 131–40, but his arguments are not conclusive, as will be shown.

page 265 note 6 On the early history of the Museum, Pfeiffer, op. cit. 96 ff., 156 fr. If øíλoς indicates that Gellius was a member of the emperor's consilium, he should be retained in the prosopographical appendix to J. A. Crook, Consilium Principis, and the following doctors added: Criton, on the evidence of MAMA vi. 91 (═ J. and Robert, L., La Carie, ii. 167Google Scholar); Ser. Sulpicius Hecataeus from Cnidos, C. T. Newton et al., Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, n. 799. I remain unconvinced by the attempts of West, A. B. to discover an imperial doctor at Corinth viii/2, n. 15.Google Scholar

page 265 note 7 IGRR iii. 733. Another inscription of this wealthy doctor is IGRR iii. 732.

page 265 note 8 Philostratus, VS 524 and 532–3. Stein, , Untersuchungen, p. 122Google Scholar, rightly regarded theeir presence as an obstacle to his theory of Gellius and the Ephesian Museum.

page 266 note 1 Lemerle, op. cit. 131–3; CILxiv. 5340; Syll.3, n. 900, and BCH iv (1880), 405–6Google Scholar; I. Magnesia. 189, although it is not impossible that the last three belonged to Ephesus: Keil, J. and von Premerstein, A., Denkschr. Wien. liv/2 (1911), n. 210Google Scholar, who thought that this inscription came from a library or from a collection of family portraits.

page 266 note 2 Ammianus 22. 16. 18; cf. Anon. Ex-positio totius mundi 37. The arguments against accepting the evidence of Ammianus put forward by J. Scarborough, 'Ammianus Marcellinus xxii. 16. 18; Alexandria, –s medical reputation in the fourth century’, Clio Medica iv (1969), 141–2Google Scholar, must be rejected.

page 266 note 3 IGRR iii. 374Google Scholar, on which see also Robert, L., ‘Hellenica’, RevPhil xiii (1939), 173Google Scholar: Galen (ed. Kühn), ii. 217–18, x. 52, xv. 136.

page 266 note 4 Athenaeus 4. 184 b; Pfeiffer, op. cit. 252 ff

page 266 note 5 Inscriptions de Délos, 1525.

page 266 note 6 The evidence which is given by Celsus, Proem, to Bk. i. 23, is extensively discussed by Edelstein, L., Ancient Medicine, pp. 249 ff.Google Scholar and by Kudlien, F., ‘Antike Anatomie und menschlicher Leichnam’, Hermes xcvii (1969),87–93.Google Scholar

page 266 note 7 Tac. Hist. 4. 81, Philostratus, VA 185 (5. 27). Henrichs, A., ‘Vespasian's visit to Alexandria’, ZeitFapEpig iii (1968)Google Scholar, does not discuss this possibility at 65–72, where he considers the story of Vespasian's miracles, and, p. 54 n. 12, he disregards the evidence of Philostratus.

page 266 note 8 Much of the evidence is set out by Bowersock, op. cit. 66–9: note especially the attitude of Aulus Gellius, NA 18. 10. 8, and the association of teachers and doctors at Aventicum, ILS 7786, cf. ILS 6507 (Beneven-turn) and 5481 and 7817 (Rome).

page 267 note 1 IGRR iv. 618.Google Scholar The evidence for membership of the Museum at Ephesus by the three men listed at p. 266, n. 1 is weak and cannot be pressed.

page 267 note 2 CIL iii. 680; JRS ii (1912), 96 n. 25.Google Scholar

page 267 note 3 CPHerm 53, 59, 124+125.

page 267 note 4 Save by Otto, W., Priester und Tempel im hellenistischen Aegypten, iii. 321Google Scholar: ‘Es sei denn, es ist das hermupolitanische Movadov.’

page 267 note 5 Untersuchungen, pp. 119–22.

page 267 note 6 CP 1089, with which compare JS 1959, p. 83 n. i, and p. 269 n. 1 below.

page 268 note 1 Lemerle, op. cit. 131–2.

page 268 note 2 Ib., 138–9.

page 268 note 3 For the first, CILiii. 6820, JRS ii (1912), 96 n. 25Google Scholar, CPHerm 53; for the second, CPHerm 59, 124+125. The other papyri, CPHerm 77, 78, 106??, 119 verso 3, are either fragmentary or do not mention his membership of the Museum. On the meaning of the word egregius as the possible title of a procurator, see Duncan-Jones, R. P., PBSR xxxv (1967)Google Scholar, Appendix ii, pp. 185–6.

page 268 note 4 As Stein, argued, Untersuchungen, 120–2.Google Scholar

page 268 note 5 Les Procurateurs équestres sous le haut-empire romain, p. 253, where the post is given to Vestinus; at CP 1089 the two are correctly distinguished.

page 268 note 6 Op. cit. 119–22. He suggested that many of the duties performed by non-scholar members of the Museum related to other posts held concurrently. Note SB 7027 ═ SEG viii 652, where an єuθηνíαςbecame .

page 268 note 7 Inscriptions de Délos1525: IG xiv. 1085 with CP, n. 105, pp. 245 ff.

page 268 note 8 AǼ 1924, n. 78, CP, n. 15. The salary of this post is unknown, pace Pflaum, and it may not be a regular post in an equestrian career; if it is, the presence of other procurators actively engaged in the Museum becomes even more surprising.

page 269 note 1 Examples are J. and Robert, L., Bulletin Epigraphique 1967, n. 688Google Scholar: Moretti, L., BCAR Ixxix (1963–1964), 140–1Google Scholar: I. Magnesia. 189. de Franciscis, A., RAN xlii (1967), 155–8.Google Scholar An inscription published by Oliver, (Hesperia iii [1934]], 192Google Scholar) reveals a man eπì Moυσєíoυ, probably at Athens, and this is a possible title for the president. The examples of άπó used instead of eπí in the description of procuratorian posts are few, cf. L. Vibius Lentulus, άπòλóγων, CP, n. 66. M. Valerianus Rullianus Agrippa, CP, n. 345, , is irrelevant as άπó here indicates that he was a former holder of these posts, cf. Lewis, op. cit. 258.

page 269 note 2 CIL xiv. 5340: Bernand, 112–13: add to Lewis–s examples of the latter usage, which may have been the official title, SB 7027, Bernand, 66–7, and AGIBM iv/2. 1076.Google Scholar

page 269 note 3 Stein's division of duties was accepted by Pflaum, CP, 1086 and 1089, cf. also SEG ii. 870.

page 269 note 4 CPHerm 53, 59, 77, 78, 106?, 119 v. 3 and 124+125.

page 269 note 5 CPHerm 53, lines 17–18; Zwicker, F., ‘Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Gerichtsorganisation in ptolemäischen und rämischen Aegypten’, Philologus, Suppl. xii (1911), 120 n. 211.Google Scholar

page 269 note 6 CPHerm 53, 59, 119 v. 3.

page 269 note 7 Stein, , Untersuchungen, p. 122Google Scholar; Méautis, G., Hermoupolis la grande, p. 173.Google Scholar

page 269 note 8 Méautis, op. cit. 172–6; Turner, E. G., Greek Papyri, pp. 85–7.Google Scholar

page 270 note 1 BGU7729+136.

page 270 note 2 IGxiv. 1103; BCAR lxxv (1953–1955), 73–8.Google Scholar

page 270 note 3 Bernand, pp. 66–7; Pflaum, CP, n. 104 bis.

page 270 note 4 CIL xiv. 5340; CP, n. 352.

page 270 note 5 Lewis, op. cit. 258 (P. Corn, inv., no. ii. 25): Gilliam, J. F., Mnemosyne, 4th ser. xvii (1964). 293–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 270 note 6 Lemerle, op. cit. 131–2.

page 270 note 7 Stein, , Ritterstand, p. 437Google Scholar (where his reference to Calpurnius Asclepiades contradicts his statement on p. 402): on Xeno-phon, CP, n. 16, and on service as praefectus fabrum, Dobson, B., Britain and Rome: Studies Presented to Eric Birley, pp. 61–84.Google Scholar

page 270 note 8 To the biography of Buckler (JÖAI xxx [1937]], 5.5 ff.Google Scholar) add MAMA vi. 91, La Carie ii. 167 and p. 201Google Scholar, and the discussion of the fragments of his Getica in Jacoby, F., FGrHist ii. B, n. 200.Google Scholar He is mentioned in CP 298–303 as a relative of T. Statilius Apollinaris, and on p. 1018 in the index as ‘procurator rerum Caesaris’. It would have been safer to list him as the holder of an unknown post.

page 270 note 9 CP, n. 352: his military service took place in Germania Inferior.

page 270 note 10 ‘Histoire et Cultes de Thasos’, JS 1959, p. 83 n. 1. At CP 950–1, he says that ducenarius indicates that such a man ranked higher than a simple egregius and at 951, CIL x. 5336, ducenarius represents an honorary grant to a lower procurator. Turner, op. cit. 86, misrepresents Pflaum's original position, although his comments upon honorary pro-curatorships are apposite.

page 271 note 1 Fronto, ed. Naber, p. 170.

page 271 note 2 Les Procurateurs équestres, pp. 200–5.

page 271 note 3 Stein, , Ritterstand, 246 if.Google Scholar, 274 ff.; Borsák, S., RE xviii/1.1110–22.Google Scholar The statement in the Suda that Plutarch was granted ornamenta consularia by Trajan is open to suspicion.

page 271 note 4 Philostratus, , VS 589–90.Google Scholar The grant is not recorded by Pflaum among his list of ab epistulis graecis, CP 1021.

page 271 note 5 Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, p. 659, from Eusebius, recorded under the year 119.

page 271 note 6 Suda s.v. Plutarchos notes that the governor of Illyricum was forbidden to act without Plutarch's permission: Jones, C. P. in his dissertation, summarized at HSCP lxxi (1966), 322–9Google Scholar, argues that this means that Plutarch was ‘proc. Dalmatiae’. Oliver, J. H., Hesperia, Suppl. xiii (1970), 70–1Google Scholar, claims a wide jurisdiction for Plutarch in Hellas.

page 271 note 7 Groag, E., Die rb'mischen Reichsbeamten Achaia von Augustus bis auf Diokletian, pp. 145–7Google Scholar, correctly surmised that the post was very unusual and unlikely to be a normal administrative procuratorship. ‘Ubrigens wäre es keineswegs ausgeschlossen, da er das Amt nur titular gefUhrt hat.’ Pflaum, CP 1071, called Plutarch the procurator of imperial estates in Achaea.

page 271 note 8 Jones, C. P. (jAS lvi [1966], 63 n. 18)Google Scholar; Bowersock, op. cit. 57 n. 18 and p. 112. Turner, op. cit. is correct in removing Plution from the list of non-governing procurators.

page 271 note 9 The passage in Suda was rejected by Ziegler, K., in RE xxi/i. 658 ff.Google Scholar s.v. ‘Plutarchos’, and K. Latte in a footnote at the same place attacked the evidence of Eusebius. The action seems perfectly in keeping with a phil-Hellene such as Hadrian, but it cannot entirely be excluded that Eusebius is in error.

page 271 note 10 A similar remark applies to the career of Statilius Criton, of whose procuratorship we know only that it occurred.

page 272 note 1 I am grateful to Mr. J. A. Crook for assistance in the preparation of this paper.