¹ The debate can be traced back at least to Mead, R., Dissertatio de nummis quibusdam Smyrnaeis in medicorum honorem percussis, London, 1724Google Scholar, which provoked violent criticism from Middleton, Conyers, De medicorum apud veteres Romanos degentium conditione, Cambridge, 1726Google Scholar, and Defensio, Cambridge, 1727Google Scholar. In the last century the argument moved to France, with Briau, R., L'archiâtrie romaine, Paris, 1877Google Scholar, and Vercoutre, A., ‘La médecine publique dans l'antiquité grecque’, Rev. Arch. n.s. xxxix (1880) 99–110, 231–46, 309–21, 348–62Google Scholar; the Berlin dissertation of Pohl, R., De graecorum medicis publicis, Berlin, 1905Google Scholar (hereafter = Pohl), brought this period of controversy to an end.

² Rostovzeff, M. I., The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Oxford, 1941, 1088–94Google Scholar ( = SEHHW); Cohn-Haft, L., The public physicians of Ancient Greece, Northampton, Mass., 1956Google Scholar ( = Cohn-Haft); Hands, A. R., Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome, London, 1968, 131–45Google Scholar.

³ Allbutt, T. C., Greek medicine in Rome, London, 1921, 443–74Google Scholar, is a mere paraphrase of Pohl; Woodhead, A. G., ‘The state health service in ancient Greece’, Camb. Hist. J. (1952) 235–53Google Scholar, is an anachronistic political tract for the times; Pfeffer, M. E., Einrichtungen der sozialen Sicherung in der griechischen und römischen Antike, Berlin, 1969Google Scholar ( = Pfeffer), is neither accurate nor comprehensive, despite appearances.

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

⁵ I am grateful to Professor K. T. Erim and Miss J. M. Reynolds for permission to publish these inscriptions, and to Dr. D. J. Crawford and Dr. J. Shepard for their advice and criticism.

⁶ 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 Reinach, A., BSAA xiv (1912) 140Google Scholar.

⁷ Numbers refer to the inscriptions enumerated in Appendix 3.

⁸ Zgusta, L., Kleinasiatische Personennamen, Prague, 1964, 533, n.1648Google Scholar.

⁹ Other inscriptions of doctors from Aphrodisias are: CIG 2846 (MAMA VIII 552Google Scholar); CIG 2847; Grégoire, H., Receuil des inscriptions grecques chrétiennes d'Asie Mineure, Brussels, 1922, 272Google Scholar; MAMA VIII 486–7Google Scholar (Robert, L., Hellenica, IV, 119fGoogle Scholar; XIII 170f); MAMA VIII 605Google Scholar (Hellenica XIII 605Google Scholar).

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

¹¹ Reinach, S., in Daremberg-Saglio, , Dictionnaire 3Google Scholar, s.v. medicus, col. 1690: Pohl, 25–8.

¹² No. 73: the correct date was established at IDelos 1547; cf. Porphyry, , FGH II B 260Google Scholar, fr. 32, 20.

¹³ No. 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, 11Google Scholar. The restoration is considered convincing by Robert, J.and Robert, L., Bull. Ep. (1971) n.600Google Scholar: 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 ὑπὲρ [τοῦ] ἰατροῦ in line 2 would seem unlikely. Connoisseurs of continuity may care to speculate on an Assyrian tablet recording a ‘physician in chief’, Sigerist, H., A history of medicine, Oxford 1951, I, 433Google Scholar.

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

¹⁵ Pohl 28: Homolle, T., BCH iii (1879) 470Google Scholar, dating Chrysermus to the third century B.C.; the right date, c. 150–125, was argued at IDelos 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.

¹⁶ Gortemann, C., ‘Médecins de cour dans l'Egypte du III^e siècle avant J.C.’, Chron. Eg. xxxii (1957) 332, n.2Google Scholar.

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

¹⁸ No. 2: cf. Edgar, C. C., ‘The stolistae of the Labyrinth’, Arch.f. Pap. xiii (1938) 76–7Google Scholar. Prosopographia Ptolemaica VI, no. 16571, dates him to 68–7 or 39–8 B.C.

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

²⁰ Jonckheere, 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).

²¹ Since 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.

²² IG II ²4116Google Scholar, IDelos 1589, CIG 3285 (IGR IV 1444)Google Scholar, which Pohl, 34, following Dütschke, H., Antike Bildwerke IV, Leipzig 1880, 238, thought a forgeryGoogle Scholar.

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

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

²⁵ E.g. CIL VI 8897–8904Google Scholar; IG XIV 1330Google Scholar.

²⁶ IG XIV 1759Google Scholar; pace Cagnat, , IGR IV 1359Google Scholar, he cannot be identified with Menecrates of Sosandra, see ZPE xxii (1976) 93–96Google Scholar.

²⁷ Kern, O., Inschriften von Magnesia, Berlin 1900, 113Google Scholar. A similar career may be posited for Ti. Claudius Epagathus of Sidyma, IGR III 578–9Google Scholar (from Benndorf) = TAM II. 1.178–9, ἰατρὸς ἀκκησσος of Claudius.

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

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

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

³¹ No. 68A; Pohl, p. 32, dated it to the reign of Nero; an earlier inscription from Calymnos, BCH v (1881) 472Google Scholar = SIG ³ 806, calls him simply ἰατρὸς Τιβερίου Κλαυδίου Καίσαρος.

³² No. 68B; cf. Herzog, , HZ cxxv (1922) 236Google Scholar, n.1 and 240f.

³³ CIL VI 8905Google Scholar (ILS 1841).

³⁴ Newton, C. T., AGIBM, Oxford 1892, 799Google Scholar; cf. CIL VI 8895Google Scholar (Domitiani medicus). The damaged inscription from Blaundus of the Neronian doctor, Servilius Damocrates, Cichorius, C., Römische Studien, Leipzig 1922, 432–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar (AE 1923, 32Google Scholar; SEG 2, 667)Google Scholar, can be restored as either iatros or archiatros.

³⁵ Nos. 20, 27, 40, 41.

³⁶ Andromachus, 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.

³⁷ Erotian, p. 29 Klein; pace Klein, p. XII, arguing for the son, the Galenic evidence is strongly in favour of the father, see Strecker, K., ‘Zu Erotian’, Hermes xxvi (1891) 262–307Google Scholar; Niketas, A. A., Ἐρευναὶ ἐπὶ τῶν πηγῶν τοῦ λεξίκου τοῦ Ἐρωτιάνου, Athens 1971, 2–6Google Scholar.

³⁸ De morb. ac. II 5, 1Google Scholar = CMG II 133, 11Google Scholar; for the date, see Kudlien, F., ‘Untersuchungen zu Aretaios’, AAWM 1963, 11, 1151–85Google Scholar.

³⁹ Tacitus, , Ann. 12.67Google Scholar; 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.

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

⁴¹ CJ 7.35.2; little reliance can be placed on a fourth century (at the earliest) scholium to Juvenal x, 221 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) 180Google Scholar.

⁴² CT 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.

⁴³ CT 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 Ep. 75b. Although the heading calls it a nomos, it is easier to distinguish the two as ‘law’ and ‘letter’.

⁴⁵ Gothofredus, V 30: e.g. kata ton tou dikaiou logismon = ratio aequitatis.

⁴⁶ Below, K. H., Der Arzt im römischen Recht, Munich 1953, 45Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Ensslin, W., ‘Kaiser Julians Gesetzgebungswerk und Reichsverwaltung’, Klio xviii (1922) 104–99 (148)Google Scholar.

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

⁴⁹ CT 13.3.3 (333); cf. 13.3.1. Gothofredus' suggestion that Constantius had reduced these immunities mistakes imperial failure to confirm earlier privileges for deliberate curtailment.

⁵⁰ CT 13.3.18, interpreted by Below, , Der Arzt, 46Google Scholar, to refer only to royal doctors; by Pfeffer, 87, n.32, to refer to all civic doctors.

⁵¹ CT 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)Google Scholar on Arcadius, count and iatros.

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

⁵³ Pohl, 42, 45; Woodhead, , CHJ x (1952) 241–2Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Cohn-Haft, 69–72; Below, , Der Arzt, 34–8Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ See 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) 123Google Scholar; (1958) 263 and 336; (1971) 479; Annuario della Scuola Archeolog. Atene n.s. xxxi–ii (1969–1970) 375, n.3Google Scholar. Corrections and amplifications to the list are: to no. 10, Bull. Ep. (1958) 263Google Scholar and (1973) 320; to no. 24, Bull. Ep. (1960) 187Google Scholar; to no. 50, Bull. Ep. (1956) 189Google Scholar and (1958) 336 with ICos 37, n.54; to no. 58, BCH xciv (1970) 680–2Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Edelstein, L., Ancient Medicine, Baltimore 1967, 75–85Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Lucian, , Abdicatus 180Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Galen 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 6Google Scholar, 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.

⁶⁰ On Cohn-Haft's criteria of statues and other public acknowledgments one should include also Alexander, a fourth century (or even later) doctor from Ephesus, , JOAI xliv (1959) 352Google Scholar.

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

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

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

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

⁶⁵ Dig. 27.1.6.8; cf. 50.4.18.30.

⁶⁶ Dig. 27.1.6.1; Inst. 1.25.15; Frag. Vat. 149.

⁶⁷ Dig. 27.1.6.2–4: observe the stylistic variation of iatroı, 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. Bowersock, G. W., Greek Sophists in the Roman empire, Oxford 1969, 12–3, 33–4Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Below, , Der Arzt, 35Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Williams, W., ‘Antoninus Pius and provincial embassies’, Historia xvi (1967) 470–83Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Hands' suggestion, Charity and Social Aid, London 1968, 140Google Scholar, that it dates from 161 is very unlikely.

⁷¹ Brunn, W. v., Kurze Geschichte der Chirurgie, Berlin 1928, 111Google Scholar.

⁷² JRS lvii (1967) 41Google Scholar.

⁷³ IGRR III 733Google Scholar (TAM II.2.910), III 732; Oliver, J. H., ‘The Empress Plotina and the sacred Thymelic synod’, Historia xxiv (1975) 127Google Scholar, 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) 551Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ Le Bas, P., Voyage archéologique III, Paris 1870, 161Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ Forschungen in Ephesos IV.3, Vienna 1951, 282, n.27Google Scholar: is οἱ περί … an elegant way of referring to Faustus and Alexander? cf. L–S– J s.v. περί C 2.

⁷⁶ SIG ³ 867.

⁷⁷ 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 Statilii (nos. 41, 42) and Charmidai (no. 44).

⁷⁸ Pfeffer, 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.

⁷⁹ Omitted from Pfeffer's list. Note also ICos 409 (IGRR IV 1108)Google Scholar + GVI 1566, which shows a civic iatros on Cos c. 50 A.D.

⁸⁰ No. 59; Paton's appeal to letter forms for dating is vague and confusing.

⁸¹ Rougé, J., ‘ὁ θειότατος Αὔγουστος’, RPh. xliii (1969) 83–92Google Scholar.

⁸² Meiggs, R., Roman Ostia, ed. 2, Oxford 1973, 233–4, 562–4Google Scholar; Degrassi, A., ‘Epigraphica I’, MAL 1963, 139–65Google Scholar; Bloch, H., Gnomon xxxvii (1965) 202Google Scholar.

⁸³ Hommel, H., ‘Euripides in Ostia’, Epigraphica xix (1957) 109–64Google Scholar; ‘Das Datum der Munatier Grabstätte in Portus Trajani und die Hederae distinguentes’, ZPE v (1970) 293–303Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Galen xiv, 4.

⁸⁵ Bloch, H., Gnomon xxxvii (1965) 202Google Scholar; contrast Galen xiv, 261.

⁸⁶ Roman Ostia, ed. 2, 563–4Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ Galen xviiiA, 348.

⁸⁸ Demetrius may have been archiater portus (Ostiensis), but the evidence for the existence of such a post is tenuous in the extreme, see below, p. 217f.

⁸⁹ Dig. 50.9.1; 27.1.6.4, emphasising the necessity of a decree of the council.

⁹⁰ Dig. 50.13.1.3; cf. Baader, G., ‘Spezialärzte in der Spätantike’, Med. Hist. Journal ii (1967) 231–8Google Scholar.

⁹¹ Dig. 27.1.6.4 and 6; 50.4.11.3; Below, , Der Arzt, 42–4Google Scholar: there is no need to posit an annual review of the competence of a civic doctor.

⁹² ‘Ärzteinschriften aus Ephesos’, JOAI viii (1905) 125–38Google Scholar.

⁹³ ‘Ἀρχιατρὸς τὸ δ´’, JOAI ix (1908) 295Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ Dig. 50.9.1.

⁹⁵ Nutton, V., ‘Ammianus and Alexandria’, Clio med. vii (1972) 165–76Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ CJ 10.53.1; cf. CIL XI 3007Google Scholar (ILS 2542).

⁹⁷ JRS lxi (1971) 54–5Google Scholar.

⁹⁸ Dig. 50.9.1.

⁹⁹ Infra, p. 209.

¹⁰⁰ The 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, 57–98Google Scholar; Daube, D., JRS xlv (1955) 179–80Google Scholar; Visky, K., ‘La qualifica della medicina’, Iura x (1959) 24–66Google Scholar; Crook, J. A., Law and life of Rome, London 1967, 205Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ xiv, 622–5.

¹⁰² Hands, A. R., Charities, 136–41Google Scholar.

¹⁰³ The doctors themselves seem to have regulated the level of fees at Ephesus, if the restorations of JOAI xxx (1937) B 200Google Scholar, are accepted.

¹⁰⁴ E.g. Eusebius, , H. E. V.1.49Google Scholar; Galen xiv, 171; Augustine, Ep. 159.3; GVI 766.

¹⁰⁵ Pfeffer, 31; pace Wellmann, , RE 2, 465Google Scholar, 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.

¹⁰⁶ Nos. 80–82, 84, 92–3.

¹⁰⁷ Strabo 4.1.5, 181 C.

¹⁰⁸ CIL XI 3007Google Scholar (ILS 2542); No. 79 (Edessa) may also have seen earlier military service.

¹⁰⁹ CIL IX 1618Google Scholar (ILS 6507), possibly Trajanic; cf. also CIL V 6970Google Scholar and XIII 5079 (ILS 7786).

¹¹⁰ CIL II 2348, XII 3342Google Scholar: the abbreviation could signify the doctor's town of origin.

¹¹¹ Pliny, , NH xxix, 6Google Scholar, shows that in 219 B.C. the Romans, in true Hellenistic fashion, had hired a distinguished doctor from the Peloponnese.

¹¹² Dio 53.30, cf. Suetonius, , Aug. 59Google Scholar.

¹¹³ The most likely candidate is Iulius, C.Epianactis f. Mnesicleides, IG XII 5.199Google Scholar (cf. XII 3.1116) from Paros.

¹¹⁴ Secondo Contributo agli studi classici, Rome 1960, 396Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ Below, , Der Arzt, 22–30Google Scholar.

¹¹⁶ Gummerus, H., Der Ärztestand im römischen Reiche, Helsinki, 1932 (= Gummerus), 7Google Scholar.

¹¹⁷ JRS lxi (1971) 61–3Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ Dig. 27.1.8.9; 27.9.5.12; Inst. 1.25.15.

¹¹⁹ Dig. 27.1.6.11; cf. also Inst. 1.25.15.

¹²⁰ Also, if CT 13.3.1 (321/4) is right, all doctors everywhere now received immunity and salaries.

¹²¹ Nos. 85–90; Pohl, 42, believed in the existence of medici publici at Rome in the early third century A.D., but without specific evidence.

¹²² CT 13.3.8. For the textual problems, see Appendix 2.

¹²³ CT 13.3.8.

¹²⁴ CT 13.3.9; Gothofredus, V 37–8: misunderstood by Pfeffer, 92. n.73.

¹²⁵ Above p. 200f.

¹²⁶ CT 13.3.13. Under Theoderic, Cassiodorus, , Var. VI 19Google Scholar, 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.

¹²⁷ Varro, , RR 1.16.4Google Scholar; Dig. 19.5.26.1; Chrysostom, , Patr. gr. 51, 56Google Scholar; Augustine, , Enarr. in Psalmos 50.6Google Scholar.

¹²⁸ Ep. 22, 430DGoogle Scholar.

¹²⁹ Moussy, C., Gratia et sa famille, Paris, 1966Google Scholar.

¹³⁰ Matthews, J. F., Western aristocracies and imperial court, A.D. 364–425, Oxford, 1975, 35–41Google Scholar.

¹³¹ CT 13.3.19 (428).

¹³² CT 13.310.

¹³³ CT 13.4.2 (337): both St. Thallulaeus and St. Pantalaon were apprenticed to archiatroi, Acta Sanct. 20 May, 27 July.

¹³⁴ Justinian, , Nov. App. 7.22Google Scholar.

¹³⁵ Brau, R., apud Daremberg-Saglio, , Dictionnaire I, 1877, 373Google Scholar; Wellmann, M., RE ii (1896) 465Google Scholar; Pohl, 25; Dagron, G., Naissance d'une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451, Paris, 1974Google Scholar, adds very little: p. 144, n.5, appears to identify civic archiatri with imperial as evidence for a trend whereby ‘le 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.

¹³⁶ CT 13.3.4; 8; 9 and 13; Gothofredus, V 30–1.

¹³⁷ Above, p. 208f.

¹³⁸ Especially in the reconstituted CJ 12.40.8.

¹³⁹ This has not prevented Pfeffer, 92, from relating CT 13.3.8 and 9 to Constantinople and, following Briau, positing a college of seven archiatroi.

¹⁴⁰ Dig. 27.1.6.2; Koukoules, Ph., Βυζαντινῶν βίος καὶ πολιτισμός, VI, Athens, 1955, 17Google Scholar, thinks this system was ended by Justinian.

¹⁴¹ CT 13.3.1; 13.4.2.

¹⁴² Naz., Greg., Or. 7.8–10Google Scholar.

¹⁴³ Malalas, , Chron. 360bGoogle Scholar; Chron. Pasch., Patr. gr. 92, 824A.

¹⁴⁴ Anecdota 143, 11; if the salaries for teaching were completely abolished, this would conflict with Justinian's policy towards Rome.

¹⁴⁵ Deubner, L., Cosmas und Damian, Leipzig 1907, 160Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁶ Cassiodorus, , Var. VI 19Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁷ Ed. A. Vogt, Paris 1935, I, 10; the emperor is greeted by τὸ ἰατρεῖον ἐπιευχόμενον τοῖς δεσπόταις.

¹⁴⁸ As Vogt, and Bréhier, L., Les institutions de l'empire byzantin, Paris 1949, 49Google Scholar, argue, the iatreion is separate from the guilds, συστήματα τῆς πόλεως, who greet the emperor elsewhere (I, 9), and associated with οἱ τῆς παλαίστρας, whom Vogt believes attended the emperor personally.

¹⁴⁹ Magoulias, H. J., ‘The lives of saints as sources for the history of Byzantine medicine in the sixth and seventh centuries’, BZ lvii (1964) 128Google Scholar, oddly citing Bréhier as his authority.

¹⁵⁰ Ep. II 162, Patr. gr. 99, 1907–09.

¹⁵¹ Vita SS. Cyri et Johannis, Patr. gr. 87.3, 3453; Vita Sampsonis, ib. 115, 285; Zacos, G., Veglery, A., Byzantine lead seals, Basle 1972, nn. 1575, 2809Google Scholar.

¹⁵² For farming, PRylands II 206aGoogle Scholar, PStrassb. 119, PAmherst 128, PLond. 131.8; fees, PTebt. 112, PStrassb. 73, PRoss. Georg. V 4Google Scholar, PLond. 982, PRoss. Georg. V 60Google Scholar (a retaining fee?).

¹⁵³ PLugd. Bat. XI.1.11.24, P Alex. 34; on prescriptions, Gazza, V., ‘Prescrizioni mediche’, Aegyptus xxxv (1955) 86–110Google Scholar; xxxvi (1956) 73–114.

¹⁵⁴ Despite the arguments of Nanetti, O., ‘Τὸ ἰατρικόν’, Aegyptus xxiv (1944) 119–25Google Scholar, 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.

¹⁵⁵ PPhil. I 30Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁶ POxy. 40, with the readings of Page, D. L.apud Youtie, H. C., Scriptiunculae II, Amsterdam 1973, 878–88Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁷ PCornell 20, with the discussion, p. 110; cf. also BGU 1897a, PMich. II 123Google Scholar, r⁰ IV 8–9; PMich. II 223–5Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁸ PFay. 106.

¹⁵⁹ Zalateo, G., ‘Dokimasia’, Aegyptus xxxvii, 1957, 32–40Google Scholar; he also assumed, ibid. xliv (1964) 52–7, that the ‘question and answer’ medical payri were learnt as set books for this examination.

¹⁶⁰ Lewis, N., ‘Exemption of physicians from liturgy’; BASP ii (1965) 87–9Google Scholar = Atti XI Congr. pap., Milan 1966, 513–8Google Scholar.

¹⁶¹ I am not convinced by Bowersock's argument, Greek sophists in the Roman empire, Oxford 1969, 92Google Scholar, that the doctor who appeared in court to give evidence at an Athenian murder trial, Philostr., VS 588, was an Athenian public physician.

¹⁶² POslo 95–6, with Eitrem's commentary; Nanetti, O., ‘Ricerche sui medici e sulla medicina nei papiri’, Aegyptus xxi, 1941, 301–14Google Scholar; Kupiszewski, H., ‘Surveyorship in the law of Graeco–Roman Egypt’, JJP 1952, 257–68Google Scholar; 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.?).

¹⁶³ If the reading is correct, I assume that the scribe of Antinoe, Wessely, , Stud. Pal. I 8Google Scholar, 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. Rees, B. R., Mnemosyne, ser. iv, 15 (1962) 375CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶⁴ Boswinkel, E., ‘La médecine et les médecins dans les papyrus grecs’; Eos xlviii (1956) 181–90Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁵ POxy. 2111 (135) and 2563 (170) refer simply to iatroi; POxy. 51 (173), PSI 455 (178) and POxy 475 (182) add demosioi.

¹⁶⁶ PLips. 42 (382 or 391) has ἐν τῷ ὡρισμένῴ ἀριθμῷ 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. PCatro Preis. 7 = PCairo 10706, fourth century, records a δημο]σίου ἰατροῦ τῶν ἐν τῷ σ[ώματι. …] τῶν δοκιμῶν τῆς αὐ[τῆς πόλεως. …].

¹⁶⁷ PRein. 92 (392) is the latest dated demosios iatros. PHarris 133 is dated, on no sound grounds, by Nanetti, , Aegyptus xxi (1941) 311Google Scholar, to the end of the fifth century.

¹⁶⁸ PLips. 97.

¹⁶⁹ The 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.

¹⁷⁰ Above, p. 194.

¹⁷¹ I am grateful to Dr. M. H. Eliassen for checking and confirming for me the opening lines of the papyrus.

¹⁷² As with L. Gellius Maximus, see CQ n.s. xxi (1971) 262–72Google Scholar.

¹⁷³ Egyptian doctors abroad are recorded at GVI 766 (Tithoreia), 1907 (Milan), Augustine, , Civ. Dei 22.8Google Scholar, and possibly also at IG XIV 809Google Scholar (but cf. GVI 435).

¹⁷⁴ Its appearance in a theological papyrus of the third century, no. 4, shows only that its author was abreast of current (Origenic?) theological metaphors.

¹⁷⁵ Vind. Lat. 68, tenth–eleventh century, fol. 1.

¹⁷⁶ Below, , Der Arzt, 44Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁷ Ed. 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.

¹⁷⁹ Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire, Oxford 1964, 396–8Google Scholar; III, 88–9.

¹⁸⁰ Scarborough, J., Roman Medicine, London 1969, 112Google Scholar, sees this ‘titbit from the Historia Augusta’ 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.

¹⁸¹ Straub, J., ‘Severus Alexander und die Mathematici’, Bonner Historia–Augusta Colloquium 1968–9, Bonn 1970, 247–72Google Scholar, esp. 254–60; Syme, R., Emperors and biography, Oxford 1971, 146–62Google Scholar.

¹⁸² Gothofredus, ed. Lyon, 1665, V 37–8.

¹⁸³ The Theodosian Code, Princeton, 1952, 380Google Scholar; implicitly also by Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire, Oxford, 1964, 708Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁴ As Pohl, 25, n.1, had already seen.

¹⁸⁵ Pazzini, A., L'organizzazione sanitaria in Roma imperiale, Rome, 1940, 12Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁶ Dig. 21.1.1.1; 21.1.10.1; Claudian, , In Eutrop. 33–7Google Scholar; Galen XVII B 83; Rufus, 469 Daremberg-Ruelle = Rosenthal, F., The classical heritage in Islam, London 1975, 204Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁷ Above, p. 204f, but this possibility is very unlikely.

¹⁸⁸ CT 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.

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

¹⁹⁰ Robert, L., Hellenica IX, Paris 1950, 25–8Google Scholar, publishing no. 58.