¹ AB = Austin, C. and Bastianini, G. (edd.), Posidippi Pellaei quae supersunt omnia (Milan, 2002)Google Scholar. Opinio communis maintains that all of the poems are the work of Posidippus; see Gutzwiller, K. (ed.), The New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book (Oxford, 2005), 2–3Google Scholar.

² On the cult, see now Nutton, V., Ancient Medicine (London and New York, 2013 ²), esp. 104–15Google Scholar; Riethmüller, J.W., Asclepius: Heiligtümer und Kulte (Heidelberg, 2005)Google Scholar; Melfi, M., I santuari di Asclepio in Grecia (Rome, 2007)Google Scholar and Il santuario di Asclepio a Lebena (Athens, 2007)Google Scholar; and Wickkiser, B.L., Asclepius, Medicine, and the Politics of Healing in Fifth-century Greece: Between Craft and Cult (Baltimore, 2008)Google Scholar.

³ Bing, P., ‘Posidippus' Iamatika’, in Acosta-Hughes, B., Kosmetatou, E. and Baumbach, M. (edd.), Labored in Papyrus Leaves: Perspectives on an Epigram Collection Attributed to Posidippus (P.Mil.Vogl. VIII 309) (Cambridge, MA, 2004), 276–91Google Scholar; updated and republished in Bing, P., The Scroll and the Marble: Studies in Reading and Reception in Hellenistic Poetry (Ann Arbor, MI, 2009), 217–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Bing (n. 3, 2009), 223–4 with n. 28. On the inscriptional background of literary epigrams, see also Gutzwiller, K., Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context (Berkeley, 1998), esp. 47–8Google Scholar. Many of the iamata are collected in Edelstein, E.J. and Edelstein, L., Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies (Baltimore, 1945, repr. 1998)Google Scholar and Girone, M., Ιάματα: guarigioni miracolose di Asclepio in testi epigrafici (Bari, 1998)Google Scholar. At Epidaurus, arguably the most famous of Asclepius’ sanctuaries, the iamata were inscribed on large stelai erected in the centre of the sanctuary; at Lebena on Crete they were inscribed directly onto the walls of a stoa also located centrally within the sanctuary; see LiDonnici, L.R., The Epidaurian Miracle Inscriptions: Text, Translation and Commentary (Atlanta, 1995)Google Scholar, and also below.

⁵ Di Nino, M.M., ‘Posidippo e la letteratura incubatoria’, in Di Marco, M., Palumbo Stracca, B.M. and Lelli, E. (edd.), Posidippo e gli altri: il poeta, il genere, il contesto culturale e letterario (Pisa and Rome, 2005), 47–76Google Scholar; ead., I fiori campestri di Posidippo: ricerche sulla lingua e lo stile di Posidippo di Pella (Göttingen, 2010)Google Scholar; and Zanetto, G., ‘Posidippo e i miracoli di Asclepio’, in Bastianini, G. (ed.), Un poeta ritrovato: Posidippo di Pella (Milan, 2002), 73–8Google Scholar. Karanika, A., ‘Medicine and cure in Posidippus' Iamatika’, in Harder, M.A., Regtuit, R.F. and Wakker, G.C. (edd.), Nature and Science in Hellenistic Poetry (Leuven, 2009), 41–56Google Scholar, argues that Posidippus innovates by employing medical terms alongside poetic vocabulary, a topic that deserves more careful and thorough study, especially in light of the following recent articles on the language of medicine in the poems of Theocritus and Callimachus: Faraone, C.A., ‘Magic, medicine and Eros in the prologue to Theocritus' Id. 11’, in Fantuzzi, M. and Papanghelis, T. (edd.), Brill's Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral, (Leiden and Boston, 2006), 75–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rynearson, N., ‘A Callimachean case of lovesickness: magic, disease, and desire in Aetia frr. 67–75 Pf.’, AJPh 130 (2009), 341–65Google Scholar; and Faulkner, A., ‘Callimachus' Epigram 46 and Plato: the literary persona of the doctor’, CQ 61 (2011), 178–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ Bing, P., ‘Medeios of Olynthos, son of Lampon, and the Iamatika of Posidippus’, ZPE 140 (2002), 297–300Google Scholar, argues that this Medeus was a prominent member of the Ptolemaic court; see also below. Like AB 95, AB 98 and 100 do not mention Asclepius either, but AB 98 is addressed to Paean (line 3), a common epithet for Asclepius as well as Apollo (see e.g. Lapini, W., Capitoli su Posidippo [Alessandria, 2007]Google Scholar, 303 n. 1), and the content and context of both poems, falling within a series about Asclepius and mentioning incubation, suggest that here too Asclepius is the healer.

⁷ On Asclepiads, see Jouanna, J., Hippocrates, tr. DeBevoise, M.B. (Baltimore and London, 1999)Google Scholar, 10–12, 33–5, 50–2, and also below. On Panacea, see Edelstein (n. 4), 2.87–9.

⁸ On ties between physicians and Asclepius, see Nutton (n. 2), 104–15; Wickkiser (n. 2), 42–61.

⁹ On the date of the lebes inscribed to Apollo Pythius, see also Jeffery, L.H., The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth Centuries b.c. (Oxford, 1990), 180Google Scholar, 182 no. 11. On Apollo Pythius in sanctuaries of Asclepius, see Riethmüller (n. 2). Moreover, local cults of Apollo Pythius are attested across the Mediterranean; see ‘Apollon’ in RE, esp. 66–8.

¹⁰ Those who propose that Delphi was the site of Medeus’ dedication include: Bastianini, G. and Gallazzi, C., Posidippo di Pella, Epigrammi (P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309) (Milan, 2001), 222Google Scholar; N. Papalexandrou, ‘Reading as seeing: P.Mil.Vogl. VIII 309 and Greek art’, in Acosta-Hughes, Kosmetatou and Baumbach (n. 3), 247–58, at 255–8; and Stewart, A., ‘Alexander, Philitas, and the skeletos: Poseidippos and truth in early Hellenistic portraiture’, in Schultz, P. and von den Hoff, R. (edd.), Early Hellenistic Portraiture: Image, Style, Context (Cambridge, 2007), 123–38Google Scholar, at 135–6. In addition to the epithet ‘Pythius’, Papalexandrou notes that there was a strong association between Delphi and a group of Asclepiads, perhaps the same Asclepiads mentioned in AB 95 (see Bousquet, J., ‘Inscriptions de Delphes’, BCH 30 [1956]Google Scholar, 547–97, at 579–91, and Jouanna [n. 7], 33–5 and 50–2), and that Paus. 10.2.6 reports a story about a certain mid fourth-century ruler who dreamed of seeing a statue at Delphi of an emaciated man that had been dedicated by the famous physician Hippocrates. On the latter point, see also Stewart.

¹¹ Petrain, D., ‘Homer, Theocritus and the Milan Posidippus (P.Mil.Vogl. VIII 309, Col. III.28–41)’, CJ 98 (2003), 359–88Google Scholar, at 376–82, discusses epithets of Poseidon in AB 19 and 20 that evoke qualities of the god rather than geographic locations per se (e.g. Γεραίστιος, AB 20.5, pointing not only to the promontory Geraistos at the southern tip of Euboea, whose harbour provided safe haven along a difficult coastline, but also by extension ‘connotations of security and safety’). AB 95 may also be punning, of course, on the etymology of ‘Pythius’, traced in some ancient sources to πύθω, ‘cause to rot’ (e.g. Hymn. Hom. Ap. 371–4), given the wasting away of the individual depicted in the statue; see also AB 98 for the verb.

¹² Lebena Asclepieum: Melfi, Lebena (n. 2), with bibliography; other Asclepiea on Crete: Riethmüller (n. 2), 2.342–6; Cos Asclepieum: Riethmüller, 2.349, no. 179, with bibliography (esp. Sherwin-White, S., Ancient Cos: An Historical Study from the Dorian Settlement to the Imperial Period (Göttingen, 1978), 275–8, 352–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, on the relationship between physicians and the Asclepieum); Cos as birthplace of Hippocrates: Pl. Prt. 311 b–c; on the Coan Asclepiads and the tradition of a medical ‘school’ on the island: Jouanna (n. 7), 48–50. Cos was also a site of special significance to the Ptolemies under whom Posidippus was writing: Ptolemy II Philadelphus was born on Cos, an event celebrated by Posidippus’ contemporary Callimachus in his Hymn to Delos. On Cos and the Ptolemies, see Sherwin-White (this note), 90–131.

¹³ On the traditions and compositional background of the iamata from Asclepius’ sanctuaries, see LiDonnici (n. 4), esp. 40–9.

¹⁴ On Posidippus’ attention to numbers and measurements in AB 18, see P. Bing, ‘The politics and poetics of geography in the Milan Posidippus, section one: on stones (AB 1–20)’, in Gutzwiller (n. 1), 119–40, at 135–9. On attention to numbers and counting also in the ancient editing of the Milan papyrus, see W. Johnson, ‘The Posidippus papyrus: bookroll and reader’, in Gutzwiller (n. 1), 70–80, at 77–9.

¹⁵ Other sources for the cult also indicate attention to the chronic nature of ailments cured by Asclepius, such as the Sacred Tales of Aelius Aristides (Or. 47–52) who suffered numerous chronic conditions, and an epigram in the Palatine Anthology about Aeschines, who was bothered by a sore on his head for one year (Anth. Pal. 6.330).

¹⁶ On the didacticism of the iamata, which gave worshippers guidance as to proper behaviour when encountering Asclepius and his cures, see Bing (n. 3, 2009), 226–7; also Dillon, M.P.J., ‘The didactic nature of the Epidaurian iamata’, ZPE 101 (1994), 239–60Google Scholar, and Dorati, M., ‘Funzioni e motivi nelle stele di Epidauro e nelle raccolte cristiane di miracoli incubatori’, Syngraphe 3 (2001), 91–118Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Much as AB 101 departs in certain ways from the other iamatika, the last poem of the λιθικά (‘stones’, AB 20) is not, unlike the rest, about a stone; on this aspect of AB 20, see Petrain (n. 11).

¹⁸ Bing bases his argument about moderation also on what appears to be a weaker point about the position of μέτριον in the first line: Bing argues that its position just after the bucolic diaeresis is marked, and that since μέτριον is a two-termination adjective, it modifies not just ὄλβον in line 1 but also ὑγίειαν in line 3. But in this instance, position after the bucolic diaeresis does not seem to be particularly marked; moreover, ὑγίειαν sits within a clause that is semantically independent of both ὄλβον and μέτριον. While most readers of the Greek thus will understand μέτριον as having no direct application beyond the first line, Bing may have discovered a secondary, latent association that would occur to a reader after reflecting on the thematics of the iamatika as a whole. My thanks to David Petrain for these observations.

¹⁹ One could interpret Bing's arguments as suggesting that the iamatika are critical of the gods as providers of immoderate cures, in contrast to the more moderate healing that is dispensed by mortals. The final iamatikon, however, seems to indicate that the fault lies not with the gods who have the power to effect such cures – Asclepius’ power is great indeed (AB 101.2) – but with petitioners who request of the gods immoderate cures. In other words, the poet may be distinguishing between a request for health and a request for perfect health (e.g. the ability to hear extremely well).

²⁰ Bing (n. 6); quotation from Bing (n. 2, 2009), 219.

²¹ Wickkiser, B.L., ‘Chronicles of chronic cases and tools of the trade at Asclepieia’, Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 8 (2006), 25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² Bing (n. 6), 297 n. 1, and Bing (n. 3, 2004), 218 n. 5. Ironically and unintentionally, of course, AB 95 foreshadows popular stories about the death of a later Ptolemy, Cleopatra VII, by asp bite.

²³ Wealth and health are paired also in Aristophanes’ Plutus where the god Wealth, suffering from blindness, is cured of his malady by Asclepius and his snakes (653–747). Wealth then ascends the Acropolis (presumably of Athens) to resume his watch over Athena's treasury (1191–3). The collocation of wealth, health and ‘acropolis’, as in AB 101, is remarkable if only coincidental, although the Plutus like the iamatika does seem to suggest that immoderate wealth is not a panacea and can be detrimental to the relationship between mortals and the gods (1113–16, 1173–84). We might also note that in Pythian 3, Pindar is consoling Hieron about an illness, and a central message of the ode is that no one is entirely happy (80–3), which sounds a lot like the message that Bing identifies in the iamatika.

²⁴ Race, W.H., Pindar: Olympian Odes, Pythian Odes (Cambridge, MA, 1997)Google Scholar.

²⁵ Id. 11.81, regarding Polyphemus who cured himself of lovesickness by singing: ῥᾶιον δὲ διᾶγ’ ἢ εἰ χρυσὸν ἔδωκεν. Hunter, R. (ed.), Theocritus: A Selection (Cambridge, 1999)Google Scholar, comments ad loc., ‘T. here greatly teases Nikias with the high fees doctors could earn’. In Epigr. 7, moreover, Theocritus describes a statue of Asclepius at which Nicias makes daily sacrifices, a statue that is apparently less ostentatious than Medeus’ (Nicias’ statue is made out of cedar wood, not bronze, and depicts his patron god rather than his typical patient), although Theocritus does state that Nicias paid the sculptor handsomely for it.

²⁶ On the wealth and power of Hellenistic court physicians, see also Nutton (n. 2), 153–4.

²⁷ Stewart (n. 10), 136, remarks, ‘Medeios evidently amassed the means to make a costly, unorthodox offering at Delphi to advertise his expertise and his professional success, and to enlist a leading Alexandrian poet to celebrate it’.

²⁸ My thanks to David Petrain for the observations about Antichares.

²⁹ On the prominence of snakes in the iconography of Asclepius, see LIMC, s.v. ‘Asklepios’, esp. 865–6, with bibliography. Evidence for snakes in the Epidaurian iamata is gathered in Wickkiser (n. 2), 47 n. 12; snakes appear also in the iamata from Lebena (ICr I xvii 10–11).

³⁰ R. Herzog, Die Wunderheilungen von Epidaurus: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Medizin und der Religion, Philologus Suppl. 22.3 (Leipzig, 1931), proposes δάγματι] ἀνοίγει at IG IV² 1 123.7. This is the only instance of a viper (ἔχις) as opposed to a more generic serpent (δράκων or ὄϕις) in the iamata.

³¹ His immoderation becomes even more apparent when we consider that the only mortals named in the other epigrams are petitioners/patients, none of whom are identified by patronymic, as is Medeus, and that the only other dedication is a silver phiale (AB 97), a much less ostentatious gift than Medeus’ statue.

³² My thanks to Kathryn Gutzwiller for this observation. Pindar's influence on Posidippus is discussed by M. Fantuzzi in ‘The structure of the hippika in P.Mil.Vogl. VIII 309’, in Acosta-Hughes, Kosmetatou and Baumbach (n. 3), 212–24, and ‘Posidippus at court: the contribution of the ἱππικά of P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309 to the ideology of Ptolemaic kingship’, in Gutzwiller (n. 1), 249–68, both with regard to the ἱππικά in particular.

³³ Even if Posidippus was responsible for the poetry book as we have it, he had deniability given that the rest of the poems on the papyrus are largely laudatory of the Ptolemies.

³⁴ See e.g. Gutzwiller (n. 1); N. Krevans, ‘The editor's toolbox: strategies for selection and presentation in the Milan epigram papyrus’, in Gutzwiller (n. 1), 81–96.

³⁵ The Coan Soses, whose epilepsy Asclepius had cured in the iamatika (AB 103 and 97), returns in this latter collection. The message, Bing argues, is that while Asclepius may make you well, he can never save you from death. This is certainly true, but it seems clear that Asclepius’ worshippers did not expect that he would save them from death (even if they may have hoped for it), unlike many who must have gone to Medeus with this specific expectation in mind, given the latter's claim.

³⁶ P Mil. Vogl. VIII 309 was found reused as mummy cartonnage; see Bastianini and Gallazzi (n. 10), 3–11. I wish to thank Kathryn Gutzwiller, David Petrain, Daniel Solomon and the anonymous reader at Classical Quarterly for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Much of the research for this article was conducted at the American School of Classical Studies in Athens where I spent spring 2010 as a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow. I wish to thank the NEH, ASCSA and Vanderbilt University for support that enabled my research. Any views, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the National Endowment for the Humanities, American School of Classical Studies or Vanderbilt University.