The manuscript tradition of the De lapidibus attributes that text to a certain peritissimus  Damigeron, a name that appears three times in ancient lists of magi: Tertullian (De anima 57.1); Arnobius (Adversus nationes 1.52); and Apuleius, who denies that he was himself a member of a cabal of warlocks that included a ‘Damigeron’ (Apologia 90.6). These three authors do not expressly name any Damigeron’s work, but he is cited among the sources of the Byzantine Geoponika. Whatever this evidence might tell us about his literary activity, it does little to provide further information about the identity of the man who compiled the De lapidibus. Further difficulty is posed by the mutability inherent in a literary genre whose practical nature invited nearly constant interventions by copyists who refashioned the text (e.g. through additions, deletions) in order to support their own needs.

In this specific case, the question is greatly complicated by the fact that the manuscripts offer two different names for the author of the De lapidibus - Damigeron and Evax - authors of the two work’s prefatory letters that come before the text. These epistles do not give any useful information about the relationship between the two authors, nor even of their relative chronology.  The name Damigeron, as noted above, is found in other sources, but Evax is not otherwise known to us; despite this, the person lurking behind the moniker seems to have had some historical relevance given that he is identified as rex Arabiae and that the work is dedicated to a certain ‘Tiberius’ (presumably the Roman emperor).  [A. Borgna; tr. C. L. Caterine].