The Fragments of the Methodists, Volume One: Text and Translation [1] 9004124519, 9789004124516

Citation preview

THE FRAGMENTS OF THE METHODISTS Volume One: Methodism outside Soranus BY

MANUELA TECUSAN

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2004

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Tecusan, Manuela. The fragments of the Methodists / by Manuela Tecusan. p. cm. -- (Studies in ancient medicine ; 24) Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents: v. 1. Methodism outside Soranus ISBN 90-04-12451-9 (hbk : alk. paper) 1. Medicine, Greek and Roman. 2. Methodism. I. Title. II. Series. R126.T436 2003 2003041478

ISSN 0925–1421 ISBN 90 04 12451 9 © Copyright 2004 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.    

CONTENTS Acknowledgements ......................................................................

vii

Introduction ................................................................................ 1 Appendix .................................................................................... 45 List of the Fragments and their Sources .................................. 69 Thematic Synopsis ...................................................................... 81 List of Methodist Works ............................................................ 107 Main Editions of the Sources .................................................... 111 The Fragments ............................................................................ 117 Ancient Weights and Measures ................................................ 815

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book is the outcome of a research project sponsored by the Wellcome Trust and would not exist without its generous financial support, which was extended over four years of Wellcome Fellowship in the History of Medicine. I have great pleasure in acknowledging my debt of gratitude to the Wellcome Trust. It was a privilege to work with Geoffrey Lloyd, my sponsor, who examined my fragments in detail and fuelled my work with lively discussions and incisive criticisms. In Vivian Nutton I always found a supportive reader, extremely generous with his time and good advice; his sharp eye on text and apparatus saved me from many errors, and his own example of scholarship has been an inspiration all throughout. Philip van der Eijk made me improve large portions of my fragments and Introduction to this volume by discussing them extensively with me, and gave me unfaltering encouragement when it was needed most. To these three scholars I owe more than I can say. I started on the Methodist project as a classicist and ancient philosopher, with a huge interest in medicine aroused especially by previous work on Plato, but with little experience in medical historiography. Doing history of ancient medicine properly requires the concept of a discipline which was extremely close to philosophy without being submerged into it. This fine balance is very difficult to maintain in the face of two complementary dangers, which are to “medicalise” and to “philosophise”: that is, to take ancient medicine out of its cultural context and place it (more or less teleologically) on an abstract line of medical “progress” from beginnings to our day; or, on the contrary, to assimilate it to the dominant feature of its own cultural context, philosophy, until nothing much is left of “medicine” to make sense as such. If I have learned something about keeping this balance in the appreciation of individual phenomena, great and small, I owe it mostly to the scholars I worked and had main contacts with—and not least to the creative “fights” between us. And, speaking of formative influences, a special debt of gratitude must go to Jonathan Barnes, my doctorate supervisor in Oxford: he is the one who, apart from teaching me how to approach philosophy, strongly

viii



sustained my interest in Galen and the Hippocratics and made me think seriously about the Methodists for the first time, in the course of a seminar on Sextus Empiricus. He also offered help with the fragments whenever I needed it. I am greatly indebted to all the scholars who contributed to this book in any form. Klaus-Dietrich Fischer and Antonio Garzyia generously put at my disposal unpublished results of their own research, on Pseudo-Soranus and Pseudo-Democritus (Frr 295 and 272) and on Cassius respectively (Fr 97). Alain Touwaide kindly made it possible for me to benefit from his study of manuscripts and variant readings in preparation for his edition of Pseudo-Dioscorides (Fr 273). David Sedley assisted with precious suggestions to my first two versions of the same tantalising Pseudo-Dioscorides fragment (273) and of the papyrus fragment (9). Oswyn Murray helped me out with advice on a number of historical issues. Armelle Debru read large sections of earlier drafts of the Introduction and sent me a host of interesting comments and questions. I also profited greatly from various conversations with her, Heinrich von Staden, Daniela Manetti, Pat Easterling, Eirîkur Sigurdarsson, and others, all of whom created the much needed sense of a lively community of scholars and friends. A debt must be acknowledged to libraries, which are vital to a project of this nature: especially the University Library in Cambridge, whose friendly and helpful librarians in the rare books room and manuscripts room have been of great assistance on numerous occasions; the Wipple Library in Cambridge; the Wellcome Trust Library in London; and the Ashmolean Library in Oxford—in all of which it was a great pleasure to work. At the Classics Faculty Library in Cambridge my thanks go particularly to Stephen How, who coped with my last-minute demands with remarkable equanimity and kindness. I am also grateful to Malcolm Schofield for the privilege of working in the library of St John’s College; to Nicholas Denyer for books he has taken out from Trinity College Library on my behalf; and to Peter Parsons for permanent access to the Methodist papyrus in the papyrology room of the Ashmolean. I am extremely grateful to the competent team at Brill and especially to Michiel Klein-Swormink, my editor, who exercised more patience and understanding for my delays than anyone could have hoped for. I was very fortunate to work with them.



ix

I was also fortunate in having supportive and faithful friends, whose presence was invaluable. My warmest thanks are for my friends and for all those who, often without knowing, have helped me immensely through the joy, inspiration and novelty which they brought into my life and through their own achievements and strivings.

INTRODUCTION

A GUIDE TO THE METHODIST COLLECTION I. T  There are not many corners of the ancient world which have escaped the searching eye of classical scholars. Methodism is just such a dark place—and a surprisingly large one at that. Of course, the subject is not terra incognita. Methodism has been acknowledged as an important stage in the history of medicine— occasionally one finds it mentioned even in general histories. But this recognition is more of a hindrance than a help. When not ignored, the whole phenomenon is packed up in one or two mistaken statements. Nobody knows exactly why the Methodists are important. Do we still mention them because they were too outrageous to be forgotten, or did they really produce a revolution in medicine? If they did, what was it? Methodism still haunts medical history rather than having found its proper place in it. This situation is not as surprising as it may seem. The subject is riddled with paradoxicalities which seem designed to baffle inquiry. It looks familiar to us today, but what is known of it makes it extremely remote. The sense of familiarity is due to authors like Celsus or Pliny, or above all Galen, who was intensely preoccupied with Methodism and mentioned it extremely often. But such authors were equally intensely inimical to it, and the positive information to be sifted from their abuse is disappointingly meagre. Methodist cures became popular, Methodist ideas influential, yet Methodist medicine was perceived as a threat to the established tradition. The Methodists achieved fame at the cost of an extremely bad press: if they revolutionised medicine, they were certainly silenced by their rivals. For it looks as if the main obstacle to our knowledge resided in their own originality and success. And this paradox generated others. To begin with, very little survives from the Methodists themselves. Their numerous books are lost, with the single exception of those of Soranus; but even this illustrious survival is less helpful than desired. Soranus the gynaecologist enjoys a reputation of his own rather than

2



as a Methodist, whereas those of his works which dealt more specifically with Methodism, such as the treatise On the koinotetes, have perished in the shipwreck of the “school”.1 There is very little direct evidence of Methodist views in the form of quotations or reliable, unbiased paraphrases and close reports. Even the names are few and far between. Methodism appeared at an age of “sects” and was recorded mainly as a collective phenomenon; its representatives are referred to as a group far more often than as distinct individuals. Thus Methodism has to be recovered, globally, from the smokescreen of indirect and fragmentary sources. And if knowledge gathered from fragmentary material is in general problematic and fragile, here the factors at work make it one of the most difficult cases of historical reconstruction there can be. The focus of the evidence is uneven; the information given by the sources is highly selective and leaves huge gaps in the picture. Certain topics keep coming up, others are never or only superficially touched upon. Some of the most important sources are anonymous and difficult to date, so that one does not know whose views the authors represented, when they wrote, for whom, or for what purpose. But the most serious handicap is the extreme hostility of the sources. Methodism survived through polemics, not through systematic presentations. Its own spokesmen did not explain their “theoretical foundations”, at least not in the practically-oriented books that survive, and those who volunteered to do it had their own theories and agendas; the sources almost invariably suppress or manipulate On Soranus see the comprehensive new study by A. E. Hanson and M. Green, “Soranus of Ephesus: Methodicorum Princeps”, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, W. Haase and H. Temponini edd, Berlin 1972– (= ANRW ) II 37.2, 1993, pp. 981–1042 (in addition to Kind’s classical article “Soranos” in the Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, G. Wissowa ed, Stuttgart-München 1893– (= RE ), 2. III, 1927, cols 1113–30); and, more specifically on Soranus in the context of Methodism, G. E. R. Lloyd’s seminal chapters “The critique of traditional ideas in Soranus’ gynaecology” and “The epistemological theory and practice of Soranus’ Methodism”, in Science, Folklore and Ideology. Studies in the Life Sciences in Ancient Greece, CUP 1983, pp. 168–200, and P. van der Eijk’s recent paper “Antiquarianism and criticism: Forms and functions of medical doxography in Methodism (Soranus, Caelius Aurelianus)”, in P. van der Eijk ed, Ancient Histories of Medicine, Brill 1999, pp. 397–452. There are a few other crucial contributions on Methodism as a whole (especially by V. Nutton, M. Frede, and L. Edelstein) and on its earlier phase (eg J. Pigeaud, P. Mudry), but Soranic (and post-Soranic) Methodism remain the best studied areas so far. I shall discuss in detail the specific views and positions on Methodism adopted in modern scholarship in the Commentary and in the relevant sections of the Introduction to Volume II. Here, in the presentation which follows, such incursions (together with the corresponding bibliographical references) will be kept to a minimum. 1



3

the information. The prototype is Galen, for whom the Methodists were bitter personal rivals: their success and popularity at the Imperial court, which he had to put up with during his stays in Rome,2 threatened him no less than the novelty of their ideas and practices. And Galen never runs out of steam in discrediting them. He is the one who created the standard picture of the Methodists as boastful, ignorant, aggressive, profit-seeking charlatans, without the rudiments of a decent education, incoherent, self-contradictory, always at war with each other, irresponsible and criminal to their patients. Galen is the main witness on ancient Methodism (over two thirds of my material comes from his books), and his picture took roots. Moreover, his stance fitted well into the moralising climate of Roman medicine, which was suspicious of sophisticated Greek traditions such as Galen’s own,3 and the combined effect of similar attacks from different angles became increasingly difficult to dismantle in later periods. Even today, scholars prefer sometimes to reformulate Galen’s pronouncements rather than question the picture he transmitted.4 Galen also attempted to reduce Methodist medicine to a handful of shocking and provocative statements. The Methodist doctor needs neither practice nor theory; he gets whatever his training consists in in no longer than six months, then goes about the business of healing in a somnambulistic trance, applying the same treatment to all and sundry. The few sympathetic readers who have not been taken in by the picture of unscrupulous charlatanry will have to admit that Methodism, like genius, is better left alone: it is an incomprehensible phenomenon. Methodism is still discussed from angles alien to it, because most of what is taken for granted comes from the blueprints of opponents like Celsus or Galen. But this is not all. Quite apart from external

For the high credit of Methodist doctors, who had imperial or otherwise prestigious patients under their care, see eg Frr 201 and 196 (cases of Commodus and Theagenes). Another embittered witness to the Methodists’ success at court was Pliny (see esp. Frr 265 and 266). 3 See material such as the fragments from Pliny (above) or Celsus (esp. Frr 98 and 100). The historical significance of the fact that Methodism was Greek medicine born in Rome should be fully appreciated: Methodism was a case of acculturation and gradual assimilation—a phenomenon for the importance and complexities of which see V. Nutton, “Roman medicine: tradition, confrontation, assimilation”, in ANRW 37.2, pp. 49–78. 4 I have in mind, for instance, the remarks on Methodism which spice R. J. Hankinson’s otherwise excellent commentary to Books i–ii of Galen’s De methodo medendi. 2

4



events such as the accidents of survival which favour one party over another, Methodism is indeed puzzling on its very own: it taunts the scholar with seeming contradictions which make it exceptionally hard to supply the missing bits in a satisfactory way and place the whole phenomenon on the wider landscape of ancient medicine. Here is no doubt one reason why falling back on Galen has proved unavoidable. For instance, the Methodists famously dismissed the principle of causation from the range of things relevant for therapy; they claimed that a good doctor should never concern himself with the causes of disease. But how can this be? Or consider the fact that no theoretical accounts of Methodism by any of its representatives survived. Is it that such accounts are all lost, or rather that they never existed? Titles of lost works such as On the method or On the koinotetes suggest the first, but this cannot be taken for granted: without ever coming across a sample, however modest, of what could possibly be written in such a book, one is at liberty to be sceptical about their “theoretical” content. This alternative highlights an element which is probably at the root of all problems. From antiquity on, Methodism was taken to represent a “third party”—a bridge between two prior positions, uncompromisingly hostile to each other: the so-called “Dogmatism” of theoretically-minded doctors and the Empiricism of the opponents of theory. Methodist doctors claimed, in Empiricist fashion, to “spend their time” only with manifest things, and the characterisation “manifest” ( phainomene) regularly accompanies the name of the main Methodist entity, koinotes, in text-book definitions. But koinotes was, quite obviously, a theoretical entity, and the Methodists had in fact no less of a theory to offer than their “Dogmatist” colleagues. The crucial question is then: are these two aspects compatible with each other? Did Methodism have the kind of internal coherence expected of a legitimate position? The problem suggested by the absence of theoretical accounts is indeed fundamental; for it is not clear whether Methodism permitted its holders to propose anything like a theory, or to offer a language in which they might describe and express it. On the other hand, if it did permit such things, how can Methodism be understood? Did it create a valid compound out of Empiricist and “Dogmatist” elements—better still, was this brand of medicine specific enough to gain autonomy from both?



5

II. T     All the negative factors reviewed so far obstruct one’s access to Methodist medicine, but they equally increase the need for a proper study of the texts themselves. Misleading as most of them may be, ancient testimonials are the only true basis of our judgements and misjudgements, hence the interested student should get to know them well. The traditional picture has grown in the absence of a body of Methodist fragments, and it is marred by misunderstandings and erroneous or superficial views which have acquired a spurious authority by sheer self-perpetration. For instance, the unfounded belief that the Methodists were some kind of “atomists” is widespread among scholars, and Galen’s malicious remark that the Methodists treated “the universal man” instead of individual patients is sometimes taken to provide a serious insight into the epistemology on which their therapy was grounded. To dislodge transmitted ideas of this sort, one must examine the original material with a fresh and unprejudiced eye. Doing so certainly repays the effort. For one thing, one will have a few nice surprises. Some of the most precious positive details about Methodism come, unexpectedly, from its bitterest enemies; for instance, Galen’s absorption with the issue at hand makes him drop accidental revelatory lines about one Methodist while criticising another. Ironically, it is from him that we know some of the best things about the “reckless” and “uneducated” Thessalus, one of the Methodists he despised most: his sense of precision in measurement5 and his interest in Plato and Aristotle, the figures behind Thessalus’ conception of method.6 It is more difficult to discover what lies behind a distorted statement than to accept it with naïve confidence or to cancel it as a plain lie, yet even this task, excruciating as it may be, is not impossible. Finally, there is the issue of making proper use of the great Methodist Soranus and his Latin “shadow”, Caelius Aurelianus (who produced a translation-cum-paraphrase of Soranus some good three centuries after

5 6

See eg Fr 166, p. 74 K. Fr 180, p. 266 K.

6



him).7 These authors have left behind a wealth of direct evidence on earlier phases of Methodism, but their testimonial does not work on its own; it needs to be integrated among the others. The Soranic material available acquires its relevance for the reconstruction of Methodism only through purposeful comparings which can make the two main voices—the internal witnesses and the extraneous reporters— respond to each other. But in order to examine the original material on Methodism with a fresh and unprejudiced eye, squeezing sense from Galen or comparing him with Soranus, such material needs to be there, collected and available for research, which has not been the case until now. This is what the present book aims to offer: an impartial and exhaustive body of the relevant ancient evidence on the Methodists, in so far as such a thing is possible. Only such a body can function as a basis for reconstruction and further elaborations; there is no chance of speaking about Methodism in an intelligible way until all the fragments have been put together and considered in detail. The other major purpose of my book is to offer a reconstruction myself. Of course, in the circumstances I described, reconstructing Methodism is a very tall order. For lack of evidence, certain doctrinary questions cannot be answered and probably never will be. Some of these questions, such as those regarding the exact relationship of Methodism to Scepticism, or how many koinotetes there were, are indeed important. The situation is equally difficult on the historical front. It is a matter of habit to refer to “Methodism” and its representatives, but even the use of such terms is problematic, at least in certain types of context. In speaking of “schools” and “sects”, or “beginnings” and “founders”, it is far from clear that “Methodism” corresponds to a clear-cut entity on the nature of which there can be undisputed and legitimate agreement. In what sense is Methodism to be regarded as a medical hairesis, as late sources refer to it? As a group of people, as a doctrine, or both? To what extent should

The relation between these two authors is an almost intractable problem, the complexity of which results, roughly, from the lack of positive biographical information on either of them, combined with the fact that their identities seem to overlap in part: although Caelius’ Soranic books are obviously not translations of Soranus, it is far from clear what status they had and how much independence they could claim. The best discussion of this issue to date is to be found in P. van der Eijk’s “Antiquarianism and criticism”, pp. 414–24 (with further references). 7



7

it be represented as independent from the other medical haireseis, and since when? The reservations imposed by the fact that there are no secure answers to such questions apply with particular force in the realm of chronological hypotheses and pictures of the development of Methodism, especially those that include the randomly preserved names of some representatives. These cautionary remarks encompass all that will be said on such topics later on in my book. The very act of using words to point to something imposes an artificial sense of order and precision upon the things talked about; but the reader should never lose sight of the provisionality of terms which attempt to capture a fluid historical situation. And yet, as I hope to prove, it is not crucial for the understanding of Methodism to have an answer to all the questions, desirable as that would be. Being able to give up is as important as being able to pursue. I have tried to reconstruct Methodism from what there is, without forcing closed doors; and what there is, however unsatisfactory in certain respects, permits us to answer the most important questions, reshape the modern image of ancient Methodism, and establish its place in medical history. In epistemology, the Methodist notion of “the manifest” (to phainomenon) will help to solve many other puzzles. In history, there is enough evidence to support the general view that the Methodists formed a cohesive group with a sense of self-identity and an internally coherent doctrine, which developed without becoming unrecognisable through change. These complex topics will be discussed in detail in the Commentary and in the Introduction which precedes it (Volume II). Here, for the purposes of the present volume, I shall confine myself to a simple and brief presentation of some of the substantial issues involved. III. T M First, the background. Methodism came on stage at a time when medical scientists were divided over the fundamental issue of the priority of theory or experience; this is what the tradition of the two quarrelling “sects” mentioned earlier—“Empiricist” and “Dogmatist”, “Rationalist”, or “Logical”—reflects. As the names themselves indicate, such a situation shadowed the leading preoccupation of Hellenistic epistemology: concern with the limits of knowledge. Historically, “Dogmatism” was a fiction created by the Empiricists, as a matter

8



of self-definition; but the fact that an epistemological issue could divide the medical world so deeply as to produce a re-creation of history from its own angle indicates the extent to which the participants in the debate identified themselves with, or were felt to represent, the positions in question. There is no doubt something universal about a controversy set in such terms, but the notions of “theory”, “reason”, “observation”, and “experience” at work in the ancient context are very different from any modern equivalents. Positions were extreme. The Empiricists rejected wholesale any theoretical approach to problems of health. The doctor, they claimed, should only pay heed to what presented itself to the naked eye; his method was to “observe” (terein), and the object of his observations was “the manifest” (ta phainomena). The only causes admitted under the scope of Empiricist observation were the (more or less) obvious events which triggered the disease, such as falling or getting tired—the causes labelled “procatarctic” in Hellenistic sources, which traditional, self-esteeming doctors of the Galenic type placed rather lowly in the general scheme of things. The Empiricists had set out to eliminate metaphysical speculation from medicine, but they succeed in eliminating far more. For although their primary target was the set of preconceptions about “hidden causes” and the nature and workings of body and soul which formed the content of ancient physiologies and aetiologies, branches of medicine like anatomy also found themselves excluded from Empiricism on the grounds that they, too, were concerned with what is “hidden”: the Empiricists’ ban on “hidden things” (adela) was indiscriminate. On the other hand, their position was not entirely consistent; for under their strict conditions it would not seem legitimate to rely on causation at all. Relations and conjunctions, constant or otherwise, are, after all, no less “hidden to the eye” than anatomical structures or internal organs which cannot be seen as long as they function in a living body. For a hard-going Empiricist, this fact should leave it open to interpretation what the “real cause” was, even the simplest cases like fracture, and even when the field for choice was narrowed to straightforward-looking factors like fatigue or a fall. However this may be, the injunction to “heed to the manifest” had a perplexing effect. Although the Empiricists focused on what seems to be the proper domain of scientific research—the phainomena—in actual fact they inhibited research for more than two centuries, and their influence was most oppressive on branches of medicine



9

like anatomy, which one would expect to thrive under “experience”. One general reason for these negative effects was what is often referred to as a negative Dogmatism: the certainty of Empiricist claims to the unknowability of what is hidden. A more specific reason, which operated in conjunction with the first, must have been, as I noted, the Empiricist mode of limiting the notion of manifest, which I described above. And another, practical reason was, no doubt, as has been argued, the passive nature of the main Empiricist tools of research, “experience” ( peira, empeiria), “observation” (teresis), and “history” (historia). The Empiricists did not “tamper with nature” at all: their notion of “experience” excluded experimentation.8 Ironically perhaps, the great programmes of empirical research that led to spectacular developments in anatomy or dissection and make the glory of Hellenistic medicine were pursued within the tradition labelled “Dogmatist”, by scientists such as Herophilus and Erasistratus, whose main interests were theoretical and aetiological.9 Empiricism came to dominate the medical scene until the advent of Methodism in the first century BC and, under its influence, active research in the major branches of medicine, with the exception of pharmacology, gradually died out. This impoverishment in scientific inquiry went hand in hand with an intensification of ideological battles. To exaggerate the picture somewhat, the dominant concerns in medicine had moved to areas like doxography, philology, historiography, and exegesis, which fuelled the destructive polemicism between and within various “sects”.10 This state of things, however simplified, gives Methodism quite a remarkable start. Methodism confronted its environment with a positive theory which, on Galen’s own admission, pumped new life right H. von Staden, “Experiment and experience in Hellenistic medicine”, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 22 1975, pp. 178–99, has made a strong case for this view, although his own criteria for what counts as “passive” and “active” in the area of experimentation may seem a bit too strong: they do not leave much room for experiments which do not test a hypothesis formulated in advance—experiments led just by the curiosity to see what happens (see for instance Hacking’s examples of “crazy” experimentation of the kind “encouraged by physicists”, like blowing the trumpet at one’s tulips every morning for a month). 9 A point lucidly emphasised by Geoffrey Lloyd on several occasions; see for instance his 1991 “Introduction” to “Experiment in early Greek philosophy and medicine”, in Methods and Problems in Greek Science, CUP 1991, pp. 70 ff. 10 Cf the picture elaborately drawn by von Staden in “Hairesis and heresy: the case of the haireseis iatrikai ”, in Ben F. Meyer and E. P. Sanders edd, Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, pp. 76 ff. (esp. 85–95). 8

10



into the practice of medicine11—for Methodist medicine focused on therapy: the theory of koinotetes carried a new conception of disease, proposed a comprehensive scheme for the organisation of empirical data, and, above all, set therapeutic practice on new foundations. Let me draw an outline of its main positions and claims to originality. To begin with, the Methodists transformed the very notion of “disease”. In traditional, so-called “Hippocratic”, medicine this notion carried certain basic assumptions. It tied together an item which was in principle well specified, the seat or the part affected, and one which was, by contrast, general and speculative: the “cause” or aetiological theory supposed to explain the disease. These two functioned as main sources of indications for therapy.12 As a result, conventional diseases were at once nebulous and rigidly compartmentalised. The Methodists abandoned these assumptions. Their “affections” were not independent entities but specific and interrelated forms of three basic general states (koinotetes): the constricted, the lax, and the mixed— that is, a combination of the two; when the Methodists spoke of “affections” ( pathe) rather than “diseases” (nosoi ), it was such nonindependent entities, forms of the koinotetes, that they had in mind, rather than disease entities in the traditional sense. And the forms of the koinotetes displayed a number of features which set them a long way apart from the conventional diseases. First, they were free from aetiology: the Methodists considered the facts of a case without describing any of them as a “cause”. Secondly, Methodist pathe, be it only a toothache, were conceived of as states of the whole body; the part affected, although not forgotten, always played a second role.13 True, much of the traditional Hippocratic medicine had taken Cf Fr 203, p. 79 K. The topics of “indication” and “part affected” were not, strictly speaking, “Hippocratic” but Hellenistic (on the latter, see A. Gelpke, Das Konzept des erkranken Ortes, Zürich 1987), and their polemical development—like the entire use of “Hippocrates” by the Hellenistics—had little to do with the real concerns of the authors of the Hippocratic Corpus. This is well argued by P. van der Eijk, eg “Quelques remarques sur la méthode doxographique de Caelius Aurélien”, in C. Deroux ed, Maladie et malades dans les textes latins antiques et médiévaux, Bruxelles, 1998, pp. 349–50). To this extent, “Hippocratic” here must be understood very loosely: most Hellenistic medicine, “Dogmatists” and Empiricists included, claimed descent from “Hippocrates”. But it is true that, even if the Hippocratics did not speak in the technical language of Hellenistic concepts such as types of cause, indication, or affected part and had other aims than the authors of late doxographies (who did speak so), the basic notions of cause and seat of a disease were there. 13 This attitude is extremely important to understand, for it characterises the 11

12



11

a holistic approach, but it was far from being systematic and consistent in so doing. Thirdly, the Methodist pathe tended to have clear structures, expressed into patterns of features which, ideally, should mark every affection as different from all others. Fourthly, the koinotetes depended in no way on the four humours, which in very diverse formats dominated nearly all traditional accounts of disease and dictated therapy even in Empiricist medicine.14 Humouralism played no part in Methodist nosology. The model of bodily functioning at its base was of the kind sometimes described as “solidistic” or “mechanistic”: contrary to mainstream traditional medicine, it focused on the solid parts and on morphological change rather than on the fluids running through those parts. This type of model followed roughly on the footsteps of Erasistratus’ physiology, best known through the famous example of the peristaltic movements of the stomach in nutrition; for Erasistratus, too, had given priority to bodily channels ( poroi ) and their contractions and relaxations. The model might also explain the Methodists’ holism; for it was probably through the network of channels that an affection extended from its original seat to the whole body, through sympathetic reverberations. Another area of originality was the Methodists’ use of the notion of “indication” (endeixis). Methodist endeixis differed from that of philosophers and of so-called “rationalist” doctors in two fundamental Methodist approach not only to the part affected but much more generally to symptoms, patients, and therapies. In a nutshell, their position (which is well reflected by Caelius) is this. Do treat the part affected (eg TP I 35, I 83), but do not: (1) derive the indications for therapy from it, (2) change the type of therapy on its account (only a koinotes can indicate the type), or (3) give it priority over the treatment of the whole—body and affection (see eg CP I 55, TP II 127–8). Giving priority to the part can compromise the patient’s recovery, which is the main reason why the Methodists criticised the “Hippocratic” tradition (cf eg TP III 62). The whole attack on the Methodism’s neglect or ignorance of the part sprang from this one point; nevertheless, Caelius and Soranus offer ample evidence of Methodist local treatments. Metasyncritics, at any rate, were local remedies; and it was important to know the part, as Caelius pointed out, if only to know where to apply them (TP II 127–8, haemorrhage). In general, Caelius reasoned that treating the part is a good thing, although not essential—and certainly something dangerous to speculate about when you did not know which the part was (CP II 36, II 183). In the case of affections which could have different kinds and sites, like nephritis or paralysis, there was even such a thing as a specialis curatio, apart from the generalis (eg TP V 59); and this one presumably took the part into account, among other factors of secondary importance. 14 An interesting case (and one which deserves study) is the humouralistic mentality exhibited by the numerous medical examples and analogies in the text of Sextus Empiricus.

12



respects. First, its exclusive object was the discovery of therapy— never the discovery of theoretical entities such as the causes of an affection. Secondly, Methodist endeixis was a process of being “put on the way” or “led” to therapy (hodegeisthai ) rather than a process of logical inference; in particular, it did not involve drawing inferences either to, or from, what is hidden. Indications for treatment derived from the unified cluster of primary symptoms which also permitted diagnosis. Hence, the koinotetes’ sending indications (endeixeis) and the doctor’s being led to these indications was the main tool in therapy. To go by a hint in Celsus, it may even be that the selfchosen name of the Methodikoi was inspired by this conception of endeixis, which they saw as a “road”, “path”, or “way” (hodos) along which the doctor was led by the affection he had to cure.15 Methodist therapy was of the same basic kinds as the affections themselves, constricting and relaxing. Around these features the Methodists constructed a complex pharmacology, where substances were organised not according to the usual humoural properties (hot, cold, wet, and dry), but according to their “metasyncritic” capacity—that is, the capacity to open or close the channels, restoring the body to its proper, natural, “channel-making” state ( poropoiia). Hence Methodist therapy involved a complete rethinking of the properties of substances, the most notorious result of which was the invention of a new and increasingly popular class of drugs, known as metasyncritics (eg Fr 1). This must be one basis for Galen’s judgement that the Methodists did not differ from the others only on theoretical points, but also (unlike them) imposed changes on the practice of medicine. And now for a tentative history of the Methodist hairesis. A hairesis can be understood, roughly, as a “doctrine” or way of belief, but

Cf Fr 99 [57], where Celsus reports that the Methodists would describe medicine itself as a uia or “what the Greeks call methodos”, with Sextus’ use and PseudoGalen’ use of hodegeisthai and hodegein in Frr 303 [238] and 277, p. 120 K respectively. Moreover, Pseudo-Galen’s context strongly suggests that hodegein should be related to the Methodist version of endeixis. The hypothesis that the name of the Method could be explained in this way runs against Galen’s much publicised view that that name would reflect the Methodists’ fatuous beliefs about possessing the only true method available in medicine. But, given the importance of a certain notion of “method” for Galen himself, it is more likely that his view, together with the undefatigable puns on “the un-Methodical Methodists”, are the product of a competition for the “true method” which was not shared by the Methodists themselves. More on this topic in the notes to the relevant fragments. 15



13

also as a group of historical figures held together by a doctrinal bond; and it is in this latter sense that I propose to speak of Methodism as a medical hairesis. It is not known who used appellations like “Methodist”, “Method”, or “Methodism” for the first time, but the first name in the history of what we call Methodism is that of Themison of Laodicea, a pupil of the famous Asclepiades of Bithynia.16 Themison is often bypassed at both ends: some scholars consider him to be a “precursor”, a figure who only foreshadowed the “real Methodism” established by Thessalus, while others tend to associate the “origins” of Methodism more strongly with Asclepiades himself, diminishing Themison’s independence and the importance of his input. But Themison introduced the key notion of koinotes,17 and this is enough to place him in the picture as the first Methodist. As for Asclepiades, the relationship between these two is riddled with difficulties which defy any simplistic characterisation, but it will become clear later on that Methodism owes far less to the influence of Asclepiades than is usually assumed.18 There is also considerable evidence, especially in Caelius and Celsus, for Themison’s departures from his teacher on points of therapeutic practice. Themison goes down in our records as the first doctor to have dealt systematically with the treatment of chronic conditions,19 and his division of the therapies themselves into acute and chronic, which became canonical, is probably his greatest contribution to medicine. In later Methodism, probably under Thessalus, chronic therapies came to be marked by what was known as “the metasyncritic cycle”, a chain of procedures completely forbidden in acute affections; but the seeds of a strict separation between two types of therapy were already sown by Themison. The emphasis on the criterion chronic–acute was part of a more general preoccupation with the element of time, which is another feature of Methodist medicine. The first two full days at the beginning of an illness—the so-called “three-days period” (diatriton), another share of Erasistratus’ inheritance—had a special significance and required putting the patient under special dietary rules. Also,

There is now a collection of Themison’s fragments by Ferdinand Peter Moog, Die Fragmente des Themison von Laodikea, Diss. Giessen 1994. 17 Cf Frr 111, pp. 270–1 K, and 161, p. 34 K. 18 Largely as a result of John Vallance’ conclusions in his study of The Lost Theory of Asclepiades of Bithynia, Oxford 1990 (which will be discussed in Volume II). 19 Cf Fr 50 [3]. 16

14



the Methodists transformed the old Hippocratic “phases” of a disease (kairoi ) by representing them as related to the patient rather than just given in the abstract formula of an affection. Themison lived and practised medicine in the first century BC, and his direct disciples Proclus and Eudemus are the only individual representatives of a first generation of Methodists that one hears of. Eudemus got involved in the assassination of Drusus Germanicus in 23 AD,20 an event which thus provides one of the few safe dates in the history of Methodism. One can work backwards from there. Suppose that Eudemus was in his sixties at the time of the imperial plot: this would place his birth around 65 BC. Suppose, again, that he went in pupilage to Themison around 45 BC, at the traditional age of twenty (although there are exceptions to this rule, especially on the younger side).21 As a young man, Themison had, in his turn, enrolled in pupilage to Asclepiades, who was dead before 91 BC.22 If one places the beginning of this pupilage around 100 BC, the probable date of Themison’s birth would be around 120 and certainly no later than 115 BC. On this reconstruction, when Eudemus went to him around 45 BC, Themison was in his late seventies or early eighties—already a “proper” Methodist;23 and I would place his floruit roughly between 90/85 and 40/35 BC. Almost all the evidence on Eudemus focuses on pharmacy. Apart from the story of poisoning, legend had it that he—just like Themison—was once bitten by a mad dog, escaped, and subsequently established the first treatment for rabies, or at least the first systematic one (here the pupil was seen to have succeeded where the teacher had failed).24 Correspondingly, all the Eudemus material in Caelius, with one exception, is concerned with this affection: pathology, classification, therapy, case-records.25 Such associations around poisoning point to pharmacy and the study of the effects of substances. This major area of interest is related to the other key Methodist concept, metasunkrisis—a concept linked, in turn, with Thessalus, who seems to have invented the word itself.26 See Frr 266, 316, 317. Cf Todd, “Sidelights on Greek philosophers”, Journal of Hellenic Studies 77 1957, p. 140. I shall make use of this possibility in a moment. 22 On Asclepiades’ dating see E. Rawson, “The life and death of Asclepiades of Bithynia,” Classical Quarterly 32 1982, pp. 358–70. 23 Cf Frr 98 [11] and 264 [v, 6]. 24 Cf Frr 253 and 274. 25 See Frr 35, 41, 42, 43, 45. 26 See Fr 180, p. 268 K. 20 21



15

Thessalus is one of the most conspicuous figures in the history of Methodism. He was active about a century after Themison: Galen quotes from a letter addressed to Nero where Thessalus proudly introduced himself as the man who had challenged and renovated the whole medical tradition (Fr 156). Such a letter would have been written, I expect, as a greeting to the new Emperor from a well established court doctor; hence it was probably composed not long after 54 AD, and the reference to Thessalus’ own achievements would indicate that by that date he was approaching the end of his career. On this basis his floruit might be tentatively placed some time between 15/20 and 55/60 AD. What happened during the time-span which separates Themison from Thessalus is not known, but by Thessalus’ days Methodism had spread over to Asia Minor: while Thessalus prospered at the Imperial court, if not before, Marcus Modius Asiaticus was running a Methodist group in Smyrna (Fr 12). Indeed the funerary epigram for Asiaticus throws precious sidelights on a phenomenon which Galen has left in complete darkness: the probable expansion of Methodism during this century of silence, even if only towards its end. Most of the names of Methodists known to us come down from a list that Galen drew in his Method of Therapy,27 which is repeated, albeit in part, by several later sources, notably the author of the Pseudo-Galenic Medicus.28 The list starts with Themison and Thessalus and continues with Rheginus, Antipater, Eudemus, Mnaseas, Philo, Dionysius, Menemachus, Olympicus, Apollonides, Soranus, and Julian. Some of these Methodists—the likes of Antipater or Dionysius, of whom extremely little is known—would be ideally cast to fill in the empty gap between Themison and Thessalus. But there is good reason to believe that all or nearly all the Methodists on the list in Fr 162—who, with the

See Fr 162, pp. 52–3 K. Cf Fr 283, p. 684 K. Unlike Galen, the author of the Medicus seems to make a distinction between just “leaders” of the hairesis and outstanding Methodists like Olympi(a)cus, Menemachus, and Soranus, who diverged from the others or brought some important changes of doctrine; but if the latter group included Soranus, it too may have consisted of “leaders”. Cf also the testimonials concerning the “three” or “four” Methodists in Frr 6, 9, 18, 237, and 250 (although the names here are badly mutilated); and also the longer lists in Frr 11 and 219. All these late records tend to be selective and unreliable; names are sometimes distorted beyond recognition. Note in particular the list transmitted by John of Alexandria (Fr 219), which places Dionysius immediately after Thessalus and before Mnaseas and Philo, has Menemachus after Soranus, and introduces a new name—Auidianus, probably a late Roman Methodist, otherwise unknown. 27 28

16



sole exception of Statilius Attalus (Fr 196), are all the Methodists ever recorded by Galen by name—were active after Thessalus; for Galen regularly portrayed him as the main spokesman on all major Methodist topics, second only to Themison. The one Methodist on Galen’s list who might have preceded Thessalus is Menemachus. The latter clearly enjoyed a special status: his is the only name which joins the company of the best acknowledged Methodists, Themison and Soranus, never missing from any single list. Such prominence could explain Galen’s manner of introducing Menemachus in Fr 162, and also maybe the fact that he preferred to overlook him elsewhere; Galen might well never have mentioned Soranus either, were it not for the prescriptions he took from him. But the possibility of an early date for Menemachus hangs on a piece of evidence from Celsus which may not refer to the Methodist Menemachus at all;29 hence the grounds for the hypothesis of an early, pre-Thessalus dating in the case of Menemachus are relatively thin. Asiaticus on the other hand, who comes to us on a different route, might be just one of many others, never recorded by Galen, whose activity outside big centers like Rome or Alexandria testifies to the growing success of Methodism even before Thessalus. About another half of a century separates Thessalus from Soranus, whose floruit is conventionally placed in the first decades of the second century AD, during the period of Trajan and Hadrian (98–138 AD). Between the three reference-points provided by Themison, Thessalus, and Soranus, the chronology of the other known Methodists is rather hazy, but there are at least a few links which could point to groups of teachers and pupils. Dionysius and Mnaseas form a first such group, intermediary between the early Methodists and Soranus. According to the latter, they took a new angle on substantial issues such as the nature of the koinotetes.30 Mnaseas is mentioned as a leader with his own followers. The next group consists of Olympicus, Apollonides, and Julian, who reopened other vital topics, for instance the distinction between affection and symptom. This group appears to represent an Alexandrian version of Methodism which ran parallel, roughly, with the Methodism developing under Soranus in Rome. Apollonides was Julian’s teacher and (on my reading)31 a pupil of 29 30 31

Fr 106, on which see the Appendix on the Dubia, pp. 63–5. See Fr 305 [29]. Cf text and apparatus at Fr 162, p. 54 K.



17

Olympicus. Julian was “still alive”, no doubt an old man, in the late nineties, when Galen probably completed the Method of therapy (or at any rate the later books, vii–xiiv);32 Galen had made his acquaintance in Alexandria some twenty years before (Fr 162). This seems to suggest a floruit for Julian which runs parallel to that of Galen, roughly covering the second half of the second century AD (150 to 200 if not later, as in Galen’s case). Then Julian’s teacher Apollonides would have been active around 130–170 AD, a chronology which converges with that suggested by Fronto’s letter (Fr 108); and, if Apollonides himself was the pupil of Olympicus, then Olympicus, in turn, would have to be placed before the middle of that century. On this reconstruction Olympicus would have been an Alexandrian contemporary of Soranus (98–138). A placeable Methodist is Statilius Attalus: a pupil of Soranus, maybe from Heracleia Ulpia, who achieved the status of royal doctor under Antoninus Pius (138–161 AD) and Marcus Aurelius (161–180 AD).33 This is the doctor whom Galen made to illustrate the verdict “the disease is cured, the patient is dead” (Fr 196). The Galenic episode is datable: Theagenes’ death occurred in or around 165 AD,34 towards the end of Galen’s first stay in Rome. J. Benedum placed the life-span of Statilius Attalus between 100 and 170 AD, giving him a period of studies between 120 and 140.35 This would make Statilius into a Roman contemporary of Apollonides. I would rather see him as the Roman counterpart of Julian; in other words I would not push his acme earlier than 150 AD.36 The tone of the dialogue in Fr 196 suggests to me that Statilius (who was by then a reputable archiater with a distinguished clientele) ought to have been younger than sixty-five (younger, maybe, by some fifteen to twenty years) at the time when Galen, himself no older than thirty-six, confronted him as an equal over the treatment of Theagenes. Yet there

See V. Nutton, “Style and content in the ‘Method of Healing’”, in F. Kudlien and R. J. Durling edd, Galen’s Method of Heling, Brill 1991, esp. pp. 2–4. 33 For the meanings of the title archiater at different times in different parts of the Roman Empire see V. Nutton, “Archiatri and the medical profession in antiquity”, Papers of the British School at Rome, 45 1977, pp. 191–226. 34 Cf Modrze, “Theagenes 11”, RE V 1348–9 (at 1348, 32). 35 Medical History 6 1971, 26–77; also RE Suppl. XIV 63–6); but neither the statue nor the coins warrant such a precise dating. 36 See also V. Nutton, “Archiatri”, Appendix 3, No 41, p. 221, who gives “c. 150– 170” as Statilius’ dates. 32

18



is no conclusive evidence either way. On both hypotheses, however, Statilius Attalus may have been the teacher of Antipater, if the episode narrated in Fragment 153 refers to the Methodist. Antipater the Methodist is difficult to locate in time and almost impossible to identify; and so is Philo the Methodist. It seems to me that Philo lived around the turn of the first century AD and Antipater in the second half of the next; but again, there is no conclusive evidence to support these datings. And there is not much beyond that: just Rheginus and Auidianus, who are to us pure names. I should add a word here on the controversial issue of the unity or lack of unity of Methodism. This problem arose from the striking contrast between the crude version of Methodism presented by Galen and the complexity that one finds in Soranus. Just to take the easiest example: according to Galen, the Methodists would have reduced all diseases to three; they knew nothing beyond their koinotetes and had no specific cures. Yet what Soranus examines in the third book of the Gynaecology in careful detail are, quite clearly, specific conditions, not koinotetes; as for the Soranic Chronic and Acute affections in Caelius’ version, these are just long series of accounts of affections with regular Greek names like “pneumonia”, “phrenitis”, “cardiac affection”, “lethargia”, and so on. To explain this discrepancy, one solution has been to assume that Methodism changed dramatically between the early stage of Themison and Thessalus—presumably the stage that Galen criticised—and a later stage represented by Soranus. The combined facts that Thessalus features in Galen as the paradigm of a rotten Methodist doctor, whereas Soranus is almost never mentioned in the context of Methodism, as if he might be exempt from Galen’s criticism, appear to corroborate the hypothesis of discontinuity. But this is to give in to Galen far too easily. Galen himself is clearly not aware of any important breach in continuity between the early Methodism of Themison or Thessalus and that of his own contemporaries; Methodists like Julian or Statilius Attalus fare just as badly with him as Thessalus, and their approach appears to be, in his presentation, just as crude. This is understandable, if one reflects that Galen’s anti-Methodist campaign was primarily inspired by the success of contemporary Methodists. But Julian and Statilius were in the immediate following of Soranus: Statilius was his own pupil, and Julian was acutely aware of doctrinary issues—he wrote books to a



19

number which exasperated even Galen (Fr 111). How is it that, to judge by Galen, not even these two show any trace of an influence from Soranus’ complex Methodism, or at least a sign of having heard of it? It is utterly implausible that an authority of Soranus’ calibre suddenly renovated Methodism from the roots, while all the Methodists of the next generation, beginning with his own pupils, ignored him and carried on silently in the old ways of Themison and Thessalus. Besides, Soranus is not the only Methodist leader famous for having brought changes: as an “innovator” and even “founder”, his name is recorded in the company of those of Themison, Olympicus, and Menemachus. Further, if one examines the evidence on earlier Methodism provided by Soranus, one will find very little to support the thesis of a primitive, non-complex Methodism of the kind suggested by Galen. At least on the topic of koinotetes versus affections, things are obvious enough: it emerges from Soranus that the very first Methodists were interested in the correct classification of the various affections under one koinotes or another. This is the most recurrent subject of controversy among them. For instance, Mnaseas thought that there are two kinds of lethargia—one, a form of looseness, the other, of constriction. Against his view, Soranus and Caelius set out to explain why lethargia can only be a form of the koinotes of looseness (Fr 25). Or, Themison and Thessalus classified “flux”, catarrhos, under looseness, other Methodists under constriction; but Mnaseas diagnosed it as an affection of the mixed koinotes, and this time Soranus and Caelius agreed with him (Fr 63). The fragments offer more examples of this kind.37 Again, when Soranus and Caelius correct their predecessors on details of therapeutic procedure, they make it perfectly clear that the earlier Methodists devised each of the criticised therapies for the same affection as the one under discussion. One can find out from this material that there was such a thing as Themison’s treatment of epilepsia (Frr 3, 55), stomachic affection (Fr 5), phrenitis (Fr 23), lethargia (Fr 26), catalepsis (Fr 28), pleuritis (Fr 30), peripneumonia (Fr 24), cardiac affection (Frr 35, 36), satyriasis (Fr 48), cephalaea (Fr 52), madness (Fr 57), paralysis (Fr 61), flux

37

Frr 39, 42, 56, 59.

20



(Frr 64, 65), haemorrhage (Frr 71, 73, 303), phthisis (Fr 74), asthma (Fr 76), affections of the liver and spleen (Fr 79), jaundice (Fr 808), cachexia (Fr 81), atrophia (Fr 82), dropsy (Frr 84, 85), elephantiasis (Frr 86, 229), phthiriasis (Fr 87), dysenteria (Fr 89), sciatica and psoitis (Fr 92), podagra (Fr 95), fevers (Frr 101, 102), or nausea (Fr 125). Such dialogues with the predecessors emphasise the fact that the early Methodists had not abolished the affections any more than Soranus did. But this is not to deflate the role of the koinotetes, as if nothing much happened by way of their changing the framework of medical thought; it only points to the fact that neither the Methodist koinotetes nor the Methodist pathe were “diseases” in the traditional sense. The former functioned as complex classificatory items right from the start, hence the relation between the affections and the koinotetes will prove crucial to understanding the nature of a koinotes. The reason why Galen did not point to any substantial distinctions between early and contemporary Methodism is, simply, that there were no such distinctions to be pointed at: Methodism developed within one continuous tradition, without violent ruptures. This is not to say that it remained unchanged; on the contrary, it was in a “constant process of critical revision”,38 and the fact that the Methodists’ greater independence and insubordination to authority made them (as has been remarked by Geoffrey Lloyd) less reserved and more outspoken about criticising their own elders—at least more so than was customary in Hellenistic “schools”—only marks their internal state of disagreement more sharply. Galen, too, can be taken to confirm the diagnosis; for if Galen did not point his finger towards distinct phases or stages of Methodism, he complained instead that the Methodists permanently disagreed with each other on all the subjects. An indeed criticisms and corrections of predecessors and fellow Methodists are amply illustrated in the text of Soranus and I borrow this felicitous formulation from P. van der Eijk, “Antiquarianism and criticism”, p. 399, to whose excellent analysis of the situation I subscribe—including his emphasis on Caelius’ view (also discussed by Pigeaud) that Soranus brought rigour into Methodism—although the general conclusion I draw from that situation differs in some major respects from his. In particular, I doubt that the postSoranic Methodism of Caelius Aurelianus (or Methodism at any stage, for that matter) came to make room for a positive appraisal, however limited, of causation (a view for which see P. van der Eijk, “The Methodism of Caelius Aurelianus: Some epistemological issues”, in P. Mudry ed, Caelius Aurelianus. Nouvelles approches, Lausanne, 1999); and that would indeed have been a radical transformation of Methodism. (A detailed discussion of causation will follow in Volume II.) 38



21

Caelius. But what are they like? They are very much what we saw in the cases reviewed above. Such cases suggest that what Galen perceived—or wanted us to perceive—as disruptive disagreement, diaphonia, were in fact refinements on matters of detail. Suggestive here (though not more) may be Kuhn’s distinction between a revolutionary and a normal stage in the life of a scientific theory. The Methodists shattered the foundations of established medicine; this was their “revolutionary” stage. Subsequently, in reaction to each other, they came up with new solutions, of the kind that occur in “normal science”, that is, solutions which were designed to fit the empirical data better, as in the case of lethargia, but did not shake the foundations of Methodism itself. The successive definitions of basic notions like health, affection, or koinotes point in the same direction: permanent revisions but no drastic change. Thus even the criticisms and corrections that Soranus and Caelius directed at their predecessors are a proof of continuity: the fact that different Methodists proposed different answers on specific points indicates that the same preoccupations were present from the start and subsisted. One should make all the proper distinctions between any two Methodists whenever this is possible (which, unfortunately, is not very often). But there is enough reason to proceed on the assumption that all the Methodists, from Themison down to Caelius, used roughly the same concepts all the way through and worked within a continuous tradition, which they attempted to improve. This tradition grew around the two leading notions of Methodist medicine, koinotes and metasunkrisis, and never stepped out of them. Both appeared well before Soranus: Themison introduced the concept of koinotes from the outset, Thessalus coined the word metasunkrisis about a hundred years later. And the two of them dominate the medical thought of Soranus and Caelius Aurelianus. One cheering consequence of this situation is that much material from Soranus and Caelius can be used to reconstruct missing or obscure areas of earlier Methodism instead of being contrasted with it—hence, used to solve problems instead of compounding them. IV. P   The basic principle which has guided my selection of fragments is the occurrence of an explicit reference to Methodism as a whole or

22



to individual Methodists. There is plenty of material where one should suspect either Methodist influence or implicit references to Methodism. Galen often has the Methodists in mind without mentioning them openly. In some cases there can be no doubt about the unnamed subject of a reference; one straightforward example is Galen’s talk at De crisibus II i (p. 642 K) of doctors who claim to master medicine in six months—a formula by which he constantly brands the Methodists (I have excluded the passage). But most cases lack such formulaic simplicity and are thereby open to discussion. Material of this sort is discussed at relevant points in the Commentary, but I have made it a rule not to include it in the corpus. In general, an implicit reference remains controversial. Its firm attribution would presuppose choices and beliefs on the editor’s part which, at the upper limit, can beg the whole question of what Methodism was or appeared to be—say, to an author like Galen.39 There is, however, an area where controversial choices could not be entirely avoided. The fragments which I have prefixed as “Dubia” refer, with one exception, to individual Methodists whose identification as subjects of those pieces is, to various degrees, problematic. In the worst cases the matter is undecidable. These are, first of all, the cases of Methodists with ordinary Greek names, in particular “Dionysius”, “Antipater”, and “Philo”, of whom extremely little is known from the few fragments which can be securely attributed to them. The high rate of occurrence of these names has produced a host of references, scattered in Hellenistic and later sources, to characters, some of them medical, which are just as shadowy as the Methodists; sometimes it is not even clear just how many individuals can be counted under several references. Hence, material related to the Methodist bearers of these names cannot be separated other than tentatively. This should be a big warning to the reader: handling the Dubia requires enormous caution. However “objective” one’s criteria aim to be, the calculus of degrees of probability in cases where there is no definite final test of one’s hypothesis is bound to involve, to a certain degree, personal choice and subjective assumptions. I have tried to be as fair as possible to the material, but the portraits

See also the convincing arguments developed by H. von Staden in the introduction to his Herophilean corpus (CUP, 1989), which adopts the same principle. 39



23

of individual Methodists which emerge from my selection of Dubia are open to revision. The one place which can be consulted on problems of identity remains Pauly Wissowa’s Real Encyclopädie. But the way in which those various figures have been classified in the authoritative entries of the Real Encyclopädie is not always satisfactory, and I have departed from it. This calls for a brief presentation of the material, together with a word of explanation concerning the principles which I have followed in accepting a piece as a Dubium or in rejecting it altogether. The Appendix at the end of the present Introduction is devoted to these issues. It does not rehearse the details which have furnished my arguments (these will be found in Volume II), but lists the Dubia attributed to each Methodist and, in the more difficult cases, some of the material I have rejected, reviewing the strategy behind my choice only selectively and sketchily. The collection attempts to be complete; it includes every reference to Methodism that I have found in the ancient texts. But the transmission of ancient medical traditions into late and medieval sources challenges the conventional boundaries between what may or may not count as “ancient”. Accordingly, I have been selective with two categories of texts. One belongs in the genre of the commentary and consists in late works such as the group of commentaries to Galen’s treatise On sects for beginners, best represented by those of Agnellus of Ravenna or Johannes of Alexandria. As one might expect, such commentaries include large sections on Galen’s Methodist chapters of the treatise.40 Their treatment is detailed but repetitious and conventional, and it follows a standard pattern; close parallels abound. This material would be precious for a study of the reception of Galen, but it brings nothing new on Methodism and belongs in a cultural climate of its own. For reasons of balance and editorial space I decided to exclude the largest bulk of it, preserving only the lists of Methodists they provide. The second category (although the limits between such types of text are not at all cut and dry) belongs in the medical literature of anonymous Latin translators, compilers, and

For a useful introduction to the study of the commentaries to Galen’s De sectis see O. Temkin, “Studies on late Alexandrian medicine”, Bulletin of the History of Medicine 3 1935, pp. 405–30, with further bibliography. 40

24



epitomatists of texts assimilated, by and large, to the tradition of Soranus and Caelius Aurelianus—a tradition which goes down to the Salernitan school.41 Here again, the Methodist excerpts are entirely dependent on earlier originals and add little to our knowledge of Methodism. Besides, presalernitan medicine (Sudhoff ’s “Mönchsmedizin”) transformed the ancient tradition by merging many separate lines into one—from Hippocratic biography or epistolar attempts at medical history to questionnaires on anatomy, fevers, and pulse, scholastic definitions, or etymologies (any of which can also be found in works of the former type I referred to, ie summaries of, and commentaries to, Galenic works). Again, this medical culture, together with the whole question of the transmission of medical knowledge through Latin epitomatists and the filiation of sources, is still to be studied in its own right. I did not venture upon it here. I have nonetheless integrated a fragment from the (arguably) twelfth-century Petrocellus Salernitanus, because its list of Methodists (as well as other features) should relate it to a unitary tradition: comparisons with other fragments are interesting (Fr 250). The present collection does not contain the fragments of the great Methodist Soranus—either the doxographical material or the pieces surviving from his lost works. The decision to exclude Soranus from a Methodist collection may seem paradoxical, but it was dictated to me by the nature of the material. There is a considerable disproportion between the fragmentary material which can be recovered from the lost Soranus and the fragments—that is, both testimonials and quotations—of any other single Methodist: just the scattered entries from Soranus’ work on anatomical terms preserved in various lexicographers, or the few pages from the surgical treatise edited by Ilberg, exceed by far (each on its own) the bulk of the ipsissima verba which could be attributed to all the other Methodists taken together. Hence, the Soranic material required a mode of presentation different from the rest (on which see my next section), and it

I am grateful to Klaus-Dietrich Fischer, who has pointed to me a number of parallels in the rich tradition of Caelius’ medical Responsiones such as the Liber interrogationis Yppocratis medici, the Diaeta Theodori, the Mulomedicina Chironis, Aurelius and Esculapius. 41



25

seemed best to deal with it separately: Soranus’ fragments are to be collected and analysed in a “companion” (third) volume.42 Finally, I should introduce a distinction between the Methodist collection itself and my discussion of it. In the collection, that is, in the material of the fragments, the reader will meet Soranus (together with Caelius Aurelianus), not as Methodists witnessed by others, but in the opposite capacity of witnesses on other Methodists: side by side with authors like Galen, Oribasius, Paulus, Celsus, Trallianus, or the many anonymous authors of pieces such as the Tabulae Diuisionum, the manual on the Oxyrhynchus papyrus, or the PseudoGalenic treatises, Soranus and Caelius Aurelianus, too, provide evidence for the earlier Methodists whom they occasionally discuss. On the other hand, the Methodism of both of them is extremely valuable for three major purposes: validation or invalidation of nonMethodist witnesses; comparisons with the earlier stages of Methodism; and reconstruction. Soranus’ Gynaecology and Caelius’ Acute and Chronic affections have been extensively used for these three purposes outside the text of the fragments themselves, in the Commentary and in the Introduction to Volume II. V. P   The fragments are arranged in the alphabetical order of the sources. Here even more than in other cases of reconstructing lost doctrines from fragments, the best order promised to be the most neutral one, that is, the order which should leave the fragments free to form any combinations among themselves. The alphabet provided the least “binding” and interpretative criterion available for my material. But, since collections of fragments are usually organised by themes, it may be relevant to explain why that criterion was not suitable in the present case. Most of the fragments fall into several thematic categories: source-authors like Galen deal with much more than one

This, as the specification “fragments” indicates, will not contain new editions of the (relatively) fully preserved works, but only material from the lost works, which is largely new material. As far as the preserved works go, the “lost Soranus” will only contain portions from the Gynaecology which are new and fragments from Caelius which can be said to derive from Soranus more securely than the rest. 42

26



“theme” at once, and often jump from one subject to another, in long continuous chunks of text. To adjust such testimonials to “themes”, one should chop them up into the smallest thematic units. My principle has been, on the contrary, to preserve them as much as possible as wholes, avoiding any further fragmentation of fragmentary evidence. Besides, not even that process would have saved tiresome repetitions: I should have either reprinted some of the text of the overlapping “themes”, or else renumbered fragments (or parts of fragments) many times over. A thematic arrangement would have been uneconomical and confusing. In addition, the choice of “themes” and of their concatenation is anything but obvious: it is up for grabs what the “themes” might be and how they should be organised. Firstly, Methodism does not lend itself to divisions that one could easily supply or anticipate— for instance into branches like pathology, physiology, anatomy, semiotics, and so on, as found in Herophilus, Erasistratus, or the Empiricists. Unlike other Hellenistic forms of medicine, and unlike Hellenistic philosophy, which can be conveniently dealt with under the standard tripartition physics/epistemology/ethics, Methodism had no “parts” that could of themselves provide headings for organising the subject; it went against the general Hellenistic tendency towards systematisation and attempted to play down the role of nomenclature. Secondly, we do not possess an internal account of Methodism which might indicate how it was organised (and hence how the views recovered in the fragments from disparate bits of polemic originally hanged together), although titles of lost works like On Method or On the koinotetes suggest that such accounts existed.43 In these circumstances, a thematic arrangement would be highly subjective, imposing patterns of reading which belong to the editor rather than to the material itself. I have nonetheless drawn a Thematic Synopsis, which represents one way of putting order into things. It aims to guide the reader and to prompt him to do the same: the fragments say more when read in more than one way. The other two possible criteria, the chronological order of the sources and the Methodists taken one by one, were equally unsuitable. Too many of the sources are undatable for any chronology to

43

p. 4.

See the list of Methodist works, pp. 107–9. But see also the warning supra,



27

do a proper job; besides, presenting Methodism in that way would transform its history into a history of cultural reception, which is not satisfactory when the phenomenon itself is still obscure. As for individual Methodists, a quick glance at the Dubia shows clearly enough that the few names transmitted are far from capable to provide a criterion of any sort. VI. T  The shape and size of my fragments result from the application of a principle which I have already introduced. The loss of Methodist works cannot be repaired, but in the absence of proper wholes the fragments should be fashioned as complete and unitary pieces in as much as they can be. I tried to achieve this mainly by not chopping up any lump of material, however large, into more than one fragment, and by allowing for plenty of context around it in most cases. The operation has produced stretches of continuous text, in some cases extremely lengthy; thus Fr 111 amounts to a whole Galenic book, albeit a small one (the pamphlet Against Julian), and Frr 277–279 contain between them the best part of the considerably bulkier pseudo-Galenic tract On the best sect. Such valuation of the context asks for a comment on the role I assigned it in the present collection. The topic is too complex to be more than touched upon here, but it is absolutely vital. When a corpus consists of evidence which is fragmentary and indirect, one’s position on the value of the context of reference or quotation tends to have a deeper influence on reconstruction and interpretation than other kinds of evidence would permit.44 Moreover, in the case of Methodism the evaluation of the context is complicated by the fact that most fragments derive from inimical authors: this strengthens its negative aspects, making it more obvious than in other cases of fragment-literature that the context is a slippery and devious friend.

Catherine Osborne’s Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy: Hippolylus of Rome and the Presocratics (Duckworth, London, 1987) is probably the most vivid illustration of this tendency. For a good discussion of the problems posed by editing and interpreting fragments see van der Eijk, “Some methodological issues in collecting the fragments of Diocles of Carystus”, in A. Garzya and J. Jouanna edd, Tradizione e ecdotica III, Naples 1992, with further bibliography. 44

28



And yet even a predominantly negative context is indispensable to understand: the challenge is to force it in the positive direction of yielding a correct interpretation. There are in my view two major ways in which even the most misleading context can be helpful. First, it reveals an author’s motives for (a) selecting a particular text or thought for comment and for (b) using it in the way he does at a given juncture in his own exposition. Such knowledge enhances the evaluation of the author’s reliability; this is why I tried never to break the continuity of an argument, which offers precious clues to the author’s intentions and train of thought. Secondly, different contexts (if they exist) make it possible to compare an author’s statements on the same topic when his own pursuits give him different angles on it. This is another important test of reliability. Galen offers contradictory information in different contexts without a blink: as a rule, he adjusts the facts to make them suit his immediate concerns. Here is an example: in Fr 203 he criticises the Methodists for dividing inflammations into two kinds, constricted and mixed, whereas in Fr 109 he criticises them for making all inflammations constricted, in ignorance of the fact—claimed there by Galen himself—that inflammations are of two kinds (which, incidentally, resemble quite closely the would-be Methodist kinds castigated in Fr 203).45 The reasons for this discrepancy can be found in the two contexts. In Fr 203 Galen was mainly concerned to show that the Methodist koinotetes did not provide valid criteria in the classification of disease; therefore he was prepared to postulate and dismiss a two-fold Methodist classification of inflammations, which he largely invented for this purpose. But Galen also wished to imprint on his public the notion that the Methodists did not perceive distinctions but regarded everything as being of one kind; the argument in Fr 109, which reduces the Methodist position to nonsense, represents this “simplifying” tendency, which was very persistent. Understanding such motives is crucial for a correct interpretation: it gives the exegete the right distance from his source, indicating what

Cf Fr 203 (= De sectis), pp. 80, 97–8, and 111 K with Fr 109 p. 78 K; see also the notes ad l. For further material on Galen’s attitude to Methodist inflammations of specific organs and to their therapy see eg Frr 185, 196, 197, where he deplores lack of complexity, as in Fr 109. 45



29

is to be rejected, what is to be accepted, and what the latter might come from. For in this case neither of Galen’s verdicts captures the true Methodist position, which was as follows: the whole state induced by an inflammation can be constricted or mixed, but the inflammation itself, as a local phenomenon, is always constricted. Here as elsewhere Galen simply selected those features which suited his plans, distorted them, and suppressed the others. But this is not all. On a larger scale, comparison between types of work which induce widely different contexts reveals an interesting discrepancy in Galen’s attitude to the Methodists as a whole. The polemical Galen was always ready to slander them, but the tone of the professional Galen, tempered down as it is in the treatises on pharmacology, indicates a very different set of opinions. The most telling case is that of Soranus—a towering Methodist at home, from whom Galen culled prescriptions without ever abusing him. But Galen also reproduced and recommended prescriptions from some of the Methodists he openly abhorred, like Julian (Frr 119, 127). In these positive contexts his general policy was to eliminate any reference to Methodism: no one would ever guess from them that doctors like Soranus or Julian had any affiliation with it whatsoever. Thus, in short, the main task to which I attempted to make the context work was gauging the reliability of the sources. And, since Galen provides the clearest possible illustration of a negative context, I should stop here to list some of the more pervasive of his procedures of distortion and mystification which the context will uncover. It is no more than a summary à vol d’oiseau and, of course, an analysis of this kind is artificial to the extent that, in actual texts, the procedures in question are intertwined. Yet it should be useful for the reader to be warned from the start against the flaws of the principal witness on Methodism, while also getting some taste of the difficulties one encounters in reconstructing this phenomenon. Galen was a great man and one of the most remarkable physicians of all times, but the Methodist episode definitely shows him at his worst— even more so than the numerous other cases of unfair polemic in his long life.46

The most comprehensive discussion of Galen’s misleading habits remains Wesley Smith, The Hippocratic Tradition, Ithaca–London 1979. 46

30



Substitutions of terms. Let me take an example which involves a crucially problematic concept: causation, which the Methodists famously eliminated from medicine. The material I have reviewed so far should leave one in no doubt that these doctors were greatly concerned with the treatment of rabies; Themison struggled unsuccessfully with it, but his disciple Eudemus “discovered” it or put it for the first time on a solid basis. Yet Galen claims with considerable dramatic force that the Methodists would treat the mad-dog bite no differently from an ordinary bite; moreover, he brings under your eyes the devastating consequences of their criminal ignorance of rabies.47 He favoured this example, and the public tended to believe him. But what case could he make for a view which contradicted the facts so blatantly? Like most other doctors, Galen held that the mad-dog bite was the cause of rabies, although there was no consensus as to the kind of cause it was, and he himself made no proper distinction between the biting—an “evident”, triggering or procatarctic cause— and the poison—a “hidden” cause of the decisive kind.48 Clearly his reasoning went like this. The mad-dog bite is the cause of rabies; therefore whatever is true of the cause of rabies is also true of the mad-dog bite. Since it is true, then, that the Methodists refuse to pay attention to causes, it must also be true that they refuse to pay attention to the mad-dog bite; so here is what patients must suffer at their hands. In other words Galen replaced the term “cause” by the particular entity which he considered to fill that role, deliberately overlooking the fact that this identification was precisely what the Methodists refused to licence: they dealt with the mad-dog bite without labelling it a “cause”. He presented them as denying the relevance of specific facts where they denied the relevance of a general concept, widely accepted in the medical tradition. The procedure consists in substituting, for a term A, a term B which expresses one’s own beliefs about A, then in applying to B statements of someone else’s beliefs about A. This mode of reasoning occurs very frequently in Galen—he uses it for instance to bring Hippocratic authority in

Cf Fr 208, and especially the well-known case put by the hypothetical Empiricist in Fr 203 (= De sectis) against the Methodists. 48 Cf for instance Fr 203, where the Methodists are accused of ignoring a procatarctic, Empiricist cause, with Fr 208, where the whole attack turns on the point that the cause of rabies is hidden. 47



31

line with his own views—and it is a powerful tool in discrediting his adversaries. Almost the entire attack on Julian the Methodist is based on such substitutions. Hidden assumptions. At the bottom of Galen’s argument on the Methodists’ ignorance of rabies lies a hidden assumption about the undisputed causal nature of the mad dog’s bite: only that could make the substitution possible. Building on hidden assumptions is another strong weapon in his hands. Galen could dress the conclusions of his deductions as statements of fact, without allowing his readers to detect their inferential or hypothetical nature. In this way he advanced unsupported accusations; the impressive story of the dying hydrophobiac in the popular treatise On sects, narrated as if it had happened, is a case in point. I should add two more instances. Another group of hypothetical-deductive stories with massive effects on the perception of Methodism focuses on its attitude to anatomy. The hidden assumption runs somehow like this: the Methodists refuse theory and are not concerned with hidden things; but anatomy is theoretical and concerned with what is hidden in the body; hence the Methodists must have no truck with anatomy as a subject.49 On the force of this reasoning Galen introduced examples designed to illustrate his conclusion, thereby transforming it into a fact; and these had a cumulative effect. He also tended to chain the proposition about anatomy with assumptions related to another topic dear to his heart: the role the part affected as a source of indications for therapy. According to traditional medicine, the part affected played a decisive role; according to the Methodists, it did not. Galen argued that the Methodists’ denial of the primacy of the part was closely related to their ignorance of anatomy—either a cause or an effect of it—and proved it. Of course, no reader of Soranus or Caelius could take seriously the accusation that the Methodists ignored anatomy; just one look at the description of complicated surgical procedures like paracentesis should be enough to settle the matter. Besides, no other detractor of Methodism mentions anatomy or dissection, although the main

Anatomy as a subject must be distinguished from dissection, both being called in Greek énatomÆ. There is no conclusive evidence that the Methodists practised the latter, although Soranus and Caelius describe surgical procedures in a way which strongly suggests familiarity with opening the body. But it is clear that Galen refers to “anatomy” as a theoretical subject in the context of Methodism. 49

32



other objections levelled at the Methodists are roughly similar to Galen’s.50 Galen would not allow anatomy to the Methodists simply on the grounds that they rejected the adela; and, in the same way, he would not allow them certain other things, for instance certain kinds of correct therapy, on the grounds that they rejected anatomy.51 The second example is the ingenious fiction of the Methodists’ atomism,52 which seems to rest on a particularly ingenious assumption. According to Galen, the main factors of disease were, uncontroversially, the bodily humours. The Methodists, as we have seen, had a different view, in which the channels fulfilled an equivalent (noncausal) role. One of the ways in which Galen proposed to deal with the Methodist view was to pretend that such a view presupposes the humours themselves to be “porous”, ie to have channels, instead of being “homoeomeric” and continuous; in other words the humours should be constructed as textures where interstices of substance— “particles” or “atoms”—alternate with interstices of non-substance— holes or “void”. What is more, Galen implied (without however stating it in so many words) not only that such a consequence is inherent in the Methodist conception of disease, but also that the Methodists actually held it; and indeed he complained somewhere that they do not understand the nature of homoeomeric substances.53 But the view that homoeomeric substances are “atomistic” and pierced by channels can only result only if you attempt to engraft the Metho-

Cf especially the fragments from Celsus (who nevertheless reports on the Empiricists on this subject), Pliny, and the Pseudo-Galenic treatises Medicus and De optima secta. Nor does Galen himself mention anatomy or the affected part in his two more systematic lists of theoretical subjects eliminated by the Methodists (such as geometry or astronomy: Fr 155) and of the relevant factors which they deemed useless (place, season, age, habit, constitution: Fr 203 = De sectis, p. 79 K—although a little latter in the De sectis Galen does bring up the topic of the Methodists’ ignorance of anatomy in a rather oblique fashion, pp. 95–6 K). The only author other than Galen who claims that the Methodists rejected dissection or anatomy is the compiler of the Pseudo-Soranic Quaestiones medicinales (Fr 295), a very late source, probably influenced by the De sectis (anatoma is appended there to a list of factors similar to that of Fr 203, p. 79 K). 51 See eg the imaginary example of the treatment of a prolapsed omentum in Fr 194. 52 See Frr 180, p. 268 K; also Fr 203, p. 256 K, and Fr 111, p. 258 K, where Galen implies that the Methodists should be atomists on account of their views on bodily channels. 53 Fr 194, p. 421 K. 50



33

dist views on the role of the channels in pathology on Galen’s own explanation of disease as being of humoural origin. Reductivism. As I have already emphasised, Methodism in Galen’s presentation is drastically impoverished: it is reduced to the basic notion of koinotes. The claim that the Methodists had nothing else to work with was vital to his strategy of denigration: it allowed them to appear just as naïve, ignorant, and unprofessional as the man in the street. I refer to this line of attack as “the layman argument”. Galen’s procedure here was to pick out the highest principle in a system and to describe it as if it were the only principle there is. But it is perfectly normal for a scientist to have a hierarchical conception of what falls within his field; putting certain principles at the top has no tendency to eliminate the ones below, whose scope is narrower. Simplicity and high explanatory power are valuable features in a scientific theory. Besides, Galen was better placed than most ancients to appreciate such features: his own “first principles”, including the four classes of disease that he postulated, are certainly no inferior matches to the koinotetes in point of generality. The “layman argument” he raised against the Methodists could easily turn against himself, and it might be an interesting exercise to imagine an opponent doing it in circumstances where all of Galen’s works would have been lost. The main effect of Galen’s reductivist picture has been the assumption that Methodism suffered a major change under Soranus.54 But, as I have argued, the fact that contemporary post-Soranic Methodists such as Julian, or even Soranus’ pupil Statilius Attalus, were no more “complex” in Galen’s eyes than the likes of Thessalus strongly suggests that the reductivist picture is his own creation rather than capturing an earlier stage in the history of Methodism. Manipulation of views and quotations. Similar procedures can be detected in Galen’s reports of Methodist views, which are often incomplete and/or contradictory: as I have shown in the case of inflammations, he often limits himself to reproducing only those parts which suit his polemical purposes in a particular context. As for quotations, Galen is quite capable of modifying the text: he sometimes runs in and out of it without warning, introducing his own comments in

54

See supra, p. 18.

34



between. His Methodist quotations are more in the nature of paraphrase and should not be taken as faithful renderings of the original, however keen one may be to retrieve a few precious “real words”.55 Denials. Akin to reductivist and manipulative strategies are Galen’s wholesale reports of denial—that is, his claims that the Methodists simply turned their back on certain subjects and excluded them from medicine, thereby impoverishing it. Such claims are difficult to deal with because they misdescribe much more specific positions. Two subjects which feature prominently in Galen’s reports of denial are the relevance of aetiology and the role of the affected part in therapy. Since these have been discussed above, in illustration of other procedures, one can already see that what the Methodists refused or denied was very different in each case; and the difference reveals that the umbrella of Galen’s indiscriminate denials embraced in reality extremely diverse attitudes. The Methodists challenged indeed the relevance of causation, judging it to be the wrong kind of concept; hence it is correct to say that they “denied” causation. But with regard to the part affected one cannot speak of “denial” in the same way. The Methodists only demoted the part affected from its traditional status of main factor in therapy to one of secondary importance; they held that the main decision concerning the type of treatment to be adopted should depend on the nature of the affection, not on its location. But it is far from being the case that they disregarded the seat in the way they disregarded the notion of cause. Most metasyncritics, for instance, were drugs for local application, specifically adapted to the parts. Another pair of subjects where Galen’s statements of denial conceal a similar difference of attitudes, but one which is even harder to detect, is medical versus non-medical theoretical concerns. To Galen’s chagrin, the Methodists excluded subjects such as geometry, astronomy, or philosophy from the scope of medicine; they treated them more or less in the same way as they treated causation. On the other hand, they obviously engaged in what they regarded as proper medical theorising, for instance the study of the koinotetes—and, of course, it was their right to decide what counted

This warning applies with equal force to the Pseudo-Galenic material, where the authors have been more generous than Galen in supplying their readers with what they purport to be quotations. This is not to say that all such passages should be rejected off-hand as fabrications, but one must exert careful judgement as to what can be accepted as a possible genuine Methodist testimonial. 55



35

as proper medical “theory” in their own brand of medicine. As good practicians, they would always give second place to theory, subordinating it to therapeutic practice; but they did not banish it any more than they banished the study of the affected parts. Galen mixes up these attitudes into one. According to him, the Methodists simply denied the relevance of theory together with the relevance of all study. Thus the feature “anti-theorists” in their portrait is just an extension of Galen’s presentation of them as uneducated people. And “anti-theorist” was a pernicious label, not least because it could be extended to “theoretical” parts of medicine like anatomy. On the whole, Galen’s statements of the form “the Methodists denied x” have had an enormous impact on the reception of Methodism in modern scholarship. It is fortunate that some of the counter-evidence for these “denials” can be found in Galen himself. Abuse. Galen more than earned his reputation for rudeness to his opponents, but the case of the Methodists is spectacular even by his standards. A very large part of the Galenic material is coated in long, repetitious streams of invective and abuse. The habit of not even mentioning the Methodists without some insult makes his testimonial singularly verbose and uninformative and tends to predispose, tire, and confuse the reader. “Translation”. Galen operated from within a very strong theory, which represented his educated synthesis of wide medical and philosophical traditions. This framework made him impatient and unwilling, if not incapable, to explore an alien premiss on its own ground. He could not but translate Methodist notions into his own language and, when attempting to refute Methodist propositions, his first step was to assimilate them automatically into his own system; this is why he often failed to criticise them in a pertinent way. The tendency to “translate” is dangerously confusing, for instance in pharmacy, where the terminology is highly technical and meanings hard to detect. However, it contains a precious compensating feature. Clearly Galen was out to slander the Methodists, but there is also an element of genuine misunderstanding in his reluctance to face the phenomenon on its own territory. His “translations” emphasise the gap between two medical theories in confrontation and give a measure of their incompatibility. To this extent they are helpful. And in fact all of Galen’s faults are helpful in a similar way: properly used, they turn into pieces of evidence of great value. His extreme hostility, a complex response to the success of contemporary

36



Methodism, concentrated on two features: anti-humouralism—a representation of body, disease, and treatment which was not based upon the humours—and the theory of the koinotetes, which showed the doctor that it is possible to make useful generalisations without resorting to logical method, hidden causes, or any metaphysical entities. Galen’s sensitivities in these two areas map out for us what was important and original in Methodism. So much on the positive uses of a negative context—such as the ones created by Galen, the Methodists’ main witness. But there is also a principle which should govern and restrain all such uses: no context which is alien to the original one can replace it, however valuable it may be. Any context of quotation or reference, even one produced by a scrupulously faithful commentator, has a negative value just by virtue of not being the home where the quotation or idea in question was produced. And there are many ways for an alien context to be negative, most of them being more discreet than open hostility to the subject. A particularly insidious one is cultural distance: the phenomenon of talking about P in a vocabulary which is not that of P and which assimilates P into aims and preoccupations unknown or indifferent to P. My principle may be obvious and trivial but, like all truths of this kind, it is easily forgotten and overwritten. The understandable desire to remove the blinkers of embedded reference which block unmediated access to ancient theories produces sometimes the impression that those blinkers can be, or even have been, removed. Yet nothing changes the fact that a context of reference is not as good as the lost original environment of the piece which interests us: it is just another blinker to our knowledge of that environment, and hence it must be used with great caution.56 VI. T  The greatest difficulties in the reconstruction of Methodism relate to the filling of missing parts. But there are also difficulties of another

For sobering warnings against relying on the context of reference as if it were as good as the lost original context see Jonathan Barnes’ review of Osborne’s book on the Presocratics (supra, n. 44), Phronesis 33 1988, pp. 327–44. 56



37

sort. The very act of rendering medical concepts across any languages which are separated by the cultural gulf between ancient and modern idiom is an intrinsic part of reconstructing, even interpreting, the theories involved. I shall make myself clear with the help of the two categories proposed by Richard Rorty as the necessary and complementing sides of a successful reading of past thinkers. One would be the attempt to understand the past authors in their specific cultural context by making them converse with their own contemporaries, people who shared the same language and kinds of knowledge: this is what Rorty calls a “historical” reconstruction. But one should equally aim to understand and assess the past thinkers by relating them to us as our contemporaries and conversational partners. Rorty calls this process a “rational” reconstruction: it reeducates the past masters in our methods, perspectives, and modes of thinking, lends them our terms and descriptions, forces them to take sides in our debates, and extracts from them interviews on topics unknown to their culture.57 Cast in such terms, the task of supplying the missing parts—those parts which belonged in the ancients’ lost conversation with their own contemporaries—is the task of a historical reconstruction. In the case of a fragmentary corpus where a large proportion of what was said is missing, this is the predominant task. The translation of ancient medical and scientific texts, on the other hand, presupposes a certain degree of obligatory interference which falls within the scope of a “rational” reconstruction understood on Rorty’s terms—that is, an attempt to modify and recast the thought expressed in those texts in order to make it accessible and meaningful for us. Cf R. Rorty, “The historiography of philosophy: four genres”, in R. Rorty, J. B. Schneewind, Q. Skinner edd, Philosophy in History, CUP 1984, pp. 49–75. Again, the scheme is suggestive in a global way, but should be taken with great caution; in particular, it is unduly simplificatory on the side of “historical” reconstruction and idealistic about the “rational” one. Note in particular the view that “Historical reconstructions of what unre-educated dead thinkers would have said to their contemporaries [. . .] are, ideally, reconstructions on which all historians can agree” (p. 53). But to supply some more of what Aristotle would have said to his contemporaries about katharsis is no less problematic than to supply what he might have said about the moons of Jupiter, or what Locke might have said about labour unions: there certainly can be no reasonable hope for agreement on complex topics of historical reconstruction, unless Rorty’s “ideally” is taken to imply no more than that, in the case of unhypothetical topics like “Aristotle’s views on katharsis”, there must at least have been a truth of the matter—namely Aristotle’s views on katharsis, whatever those were. 57

38



This kind of interference is not quite what the optimist may hope. Take the terms “science” and “scientific”, which I have just used (and I am using them throughout). The semantic area of the Greek term episteme is very different from that of any possible modern equivalent, and, although “science” may capture relevant aspects of what episteme meant in certain contexts, at another level such a term is profoundly misleading in relation to anything the ancients did or had. This is, roughly, the big problem which translations such as the present one must face: in what terms, and with what provisions, is one allowed to refer to a scientific theory not only encoded in another language, but also bound by semantic and cultural conventions which were very differently shaped from our own? If one is to speak at all, one needs to find a mode of compromising. I will give here a short version of my answer: as a tag for the compromises I have adopted, I would transport the division used in anthropology between actor and observer (or spectator) categories. It is all right under certain circumstances to introduce terms of our own such as “science”, provided that we are reasonably aware (and make it sufficiently clear for others too) that these are observer terms which did not really belong in the actors’ culture we attempt to render or describe: we use them only because no other available term would do a better job of rendering or describing a certain item in a particular context of that culture. Let me now review the specific results of this approach which will be found in the translation. 1) Use of transliteration In certain cases I have refrained from proposing a modern equivalent at all; I opted instead for transliterating the Greek (or reproducing the Latin), which is thus printed in italics, eg koinotes, asaron. With some of the terms I took the further step of de-italicising them, thereby treating them as proper English words, eg metasyncrisis, procatarctic, catalepsis. The terms which have been transliterated rather than translated can be grouped into three classes: (a) names of principal theoretical entities like “koinotes” or “procatarctic cause”, which are extremely important yet too idiosyncratic for a straight translation (moreover, there is no agreement among modern



39

scholars as to a uniform way of referring to such items in English). The reader will find these concepts in the Glossary for medical theoretical terms in Volume II. Some of them, especially the ones related to Methodism, are also amply discussed in the Introduction to that volume; (b) names of pharmaceuticals, especially plant names like “asaron”, where the plant in question is hard or impossible to identify and hence unsafe to translate or untranslatable. These terms are fully discussed in the Glossary of materia medica in Volume II, where the emphasis is on the substances used by the Methodists, the Methodist manner of using them, and the properties of those substances according to other ancient sources, eg Theophrastus and Dioscorides (sometimes confronted with modern evidence of various kinds, from traditional herbals to biochemical analysis); (c) names of disease entities like “catalepsis”, for which there are deceptively close derivatives in the modern medical vocabulary—ie terms like “catalepsy”, which derive of course from the Greek etymons but refer to widely different pathological phenomena. In such cases I tried to avoid the modern equivalents in use at all cost, although this was not always possible: a disease name like paralysis, for example, could not be rendered by anything other than “paralysis”. Since there are no clear-cut identifiable phenomena for the ancient words to pick out, the creation of medical terms like “catalepsis”, which, strictly speaking, does not exist in modern English, seemed less confusing and hence preferable to the use of available medical terms like “catalepsy”. This strategy, and especially the de-italicisation of would-be English words like “catalepsis”, has created a grey area between translation and transliteration. The commentary to the fragments attempts to give the reader some idea about the spectrum of symptoms which were thought by various ancients to correspond to a given disease. Such mappings constitute a guide to the possible meaning of the disease names which occur in the text. But rendering (and referring to) cultural constructs like ancient disease entities remains an acute difficulty, and the reader should always refrain from any close correlations or identifications suggested either by the name or by the description of symptoms.

40



2) Use of square brackets (a) Of course not all the problematic concepts can be transliterated; that would endanger the comprehensibility of a translation, especially when such concepts are clustered together (eg “synectic”/“autotelic”/ “procatarctic cause”). When translating terms of this sort, I have always added the Greek or Latin name in square brackets, eg “containing [sunektika]”, “complete [autotele]”—at least at the first occurrence in a fragment. The list of items whose English name is followed by square brackets includes any idiosyncratic concept which plays a sufficiently important role in context for its original form to deserve attention, eg “insensitivity [duspatheia]”, “factions [scholae]”. (b) I have also used the square brackets to supply words which the original clearly implies without saying them, which is possible in Latin or Greek to a much greater extent than in a non-inflected language like English. The content of these brackets is introduced by sc and it is in most cases uncontroversial, yet there are ambiguities of reference where another reader may take a view different from mine. This is why, on pain of pedantry, I preferred in all cases to impose a graphical demarcation between what the text says and what it merely implies. 3) Consistency On a strict view, a consistent translation should produce one-to-one correspondences, such that no term in the original should be substituted by more than one term in the translation. But it is a familiar fact that the context has its own capacity for creating or influencing meaning; and it can do so to an extent which renders any strictly consistent translation inaccurate. This is especially a threat when there is not enough overlap between important semantic areas in two languages, which diminishes the chances that a single term of the translating language may respond suitably to all the contexts where the original term has been used. I have tried therefore to be consistent within flexible limits, paying sufficient attention to the requirements of different contexts. So for instance in pharmaceutic contexts dunamis (“potentiality”) is “power” or “action” (typically of a substance or drug), but “faculty” in anatomo-physiological contexts; plethos is “abundance”, “satiety”, or just plethos; and similarly other humoural terms, such as kakochumia or krasis and its derivatives



41

eukrasia/duskrasia, are sometimes transliterated, sometimes rendered in different ways, eg “temperament” and “mixture”. Some of the texts included in the Methodist collection have not been translated into English or another modern language before; others have. But all the translations here are my own. VII. T  The ambition of basing the Methodist texts on a study of their manuscript tradition, with which I embarked on this project, was chimerical: alone, the study of the manuscripts of Galen’s De methodo medendi would take at least a good few years. I have devoted a summer to parts of just three of these manuscripts, located in Caius College Cambridge and in the British Library London; but I could go no further along this path. The only other text which I studied at first hand is the difficult papyrus of Fragment 9, located in the Ashmolean Library and kindly reserved there for me by Peter Parsons; for this papyrus I have also prepared a diplomatic transcription. In four other cases I have been able to use the results of unpublished research carried by other scholars, who generously put them at my disposal. Klaus-Dietrich Fischer supplied me with his own transcription of, and apparatus to, the relevant portion of the Chartres Codex of Pseudo-Soranus’ Quaestiones medicinales (Fr 295) and with the text and apparatus from his forthcoming edition of Pseudo-Democritus, which I have used for Fr 272. Antonio Garzya sent me all the variant readings for Chapter viii of Cassius’ Quaestiones medicae (Fr 97), culled by him for the first time from the manuscripts of Cassius. Finally, for the extremely problematic text of Pseudo-Dioscorides’ Preface (Fr 273), I have benefited from the relevant section of the edition of Pseudo-Dioscorides which Alain Touwaide is currently preparing. In all other cases I have established the text, apparatus, and list of manuscripts by using the best and/or the most recent of the available editions. But those texts are not reproduced as printed. I have chosen alternative readings which I found in the editor(s)’ apparatus whenever I judged them to be the better ones. One point which I should perhaps defend here concerns my policy with emendations and conjectures: (1) although sparingly, whenever the transmitted text was clearly wrong or unintelligible I did not hesitate to propose

42



conjectures and emendations, even without having checked the manuscript tradition (when this was not already available through an apparatus—as it is not, for instance, in the case of the treatises edited by Kühn); and (2) I tended to print the favoured conjecture (mine or those of others) in the main text, putting the manuscript reading (or the reading followed by the text’s editor) in the apparatus—not the other way round. This is because my aim has been to get together on the page, translate, and present as the most probable text the variant which also seemed to make the best sense: the most excellent conjectures do not come properly to life as long as they stay in the apparatus, while “the text” is felt to say something else. The problem is, of course, that, extremely simple and obvious errors apart, what qualifies as the wrong text is open to discussion; and the defensibility of my procedure is largely a matter of taste and philological habits. Two of the fragments, from the Pseudo-Galenic De optima secta (277 and 279), required quite heavy interventions. The reader (conservative or not) will at least find in the apparatus, each time, the transmitted text I have departed from—which is that of Kühn. In fact I have always preserved Kühn’s readings in the apparatus, even in cases where more recent editions supersede his; for there are instances (although very few) where for example Hunain’s reliable Arabic seems to support the reading of a manuscript followed by Kühn over the alternative reading of some other manuscript preferred by the more recent editor (such examples will be found in the apparatus of the large Fr 203, from Galen’s De sectis). My apparatus is selective: I have not reproduced manuscript variants which seemed cumbersome and irrelevant to the purposes of the present collection (for instance uninteresting misspellings), especially when these can be found in good editions dedicated to the author or text in question.58 There is no comprehensive list of manuscripts, but the sigla are explained at each first occurrence in a fragment or group of fragments which derive from the same author or work; besides, the interested reader should be able to trace any manuscript which features in my apparatus by consulting the relevant item from the List of Main Editions.

A case in point is Pliny: contrast my apparatus to the Pliny fragments to that of Caelius’ De salutaribus praeceptis, Fr 49. 58



43

There is no full separate apparatus for parallels, quotations, echoes, allusions, reminiscences, literary reverberations, and the like: all the material of this nature is more or less amply discussed in the Commentary (Volume II). I have nevertheless included a minimum of references to the straightforward quotations, especially the medical ones, which appear in the text as part of the argument, or, in the case of commentaries, as lemmata (for instance in Galen’s commentaries to Hippocratic treatises or in those of Stephanus to Hippocratic or Galenic treatises). And, when the original is problematic or insecure, or differs from the text of the quotation, I have also added the original text, sometimes followed by a translation (or alternative translations). But I have refrained from giving “circular” references— for instance references to collections like the fragments of the comics, when the piece referred to got there from the same source as my fragment—say, Athenaeus.59 Ancient names and titles in this minimal apparatus tend to be unabbreviated, at least at the first occurrence in one fragment. For this reason I have not given a separate List of Abbreviations to this volume. The general List of Abbreviations, together with all the indices (to text, translation, and commentary; and of proper names and passages) will join the Glossaries and Bibliography in Volume ii. For the numerous fragments which derive from Kuhn’s edition of Galen, the reader will be able to find the number of the volume which includes each source-work in the list of Main Editions of the Sources (pp. 111–5). A final word about conventions of notation. In order to mark portions of text which feature in the manuscript tradition but have been eliminated by the editor (and hence are not translated) I have used curly brackets { } instead of the more usual square brackets [ ]. This is because the square brackets are constantly used for reference numbering; in Galenic fragments, for instance, the serial numbers in square brackets give the page number in Kuhn’s edition. Angular or pointed brackets < > mark editorial additions of lost portions of text, which do not feature in any manuscript tradition. Three stars *** mark a lacuna for which no suggestion has been made as to how it might be filled. Dotted square brackets [. . .] mark an editorial decision to omit a portion of otherwise existing text. The one exception is the reference to von Arnim’s collection in Fr 298, where it may be of some interest to see exactly from what sources his fragment was assembled. 59

APPENDIX

THE DUBIA A Dubia Antipater Fr 68: Fr 72: Fr 113: Fr 114: Fr 121: Fr 122:

Fr 124: Fr 129: Fr 131:

Fr 133:

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, II xiii 156–157 Letters, book iii Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, II xiii 186–187 Letters, book iii Galenus, De antidotis, II i, pp. 107–109 K prescription—a mithridatic of Andromachus, revised (?) by Antipater and Cleophantus Galenus, De antidotis, II x, pp. 160–161 K prescription—Antipater’s (?) theriac Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, V xiii, p. 841 K prescription—Antipater’s (?) drug for wounds Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, VI xiv, pp. 925 + 931 K prescription—diaphoretic and epispastic plaster for glandular inflammations, recorded (?) by Antipater Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, VII vii, pp. 983–984 K prescription—Antipater’s (?) emollient plaster for colon etc. Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, III i, pp. 624 + 630 K prescription—Antipater’s (?) analgesic for ears Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, III iii, pp. 684–685 K prescription—drug for polyp in the nostrils, used (?) by Antipater Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, IV viii, p. 760 K prescription—Aristocles’ drug for mouth, used (?) by Antipater

46



Fr 135: Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, VII iii, p. 66 K prescription—Antipater’s (?) potion for coughs, dyspnoea, etc. Fr 137: Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, VIII ii, p. 136 K prescription—Antipater’s (?) antidote for stomach Fr 139: Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, IX ii, p. 239 K prescription—Antipater’s (?) potion for spleen, recorded by Neilus Fr 140: Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, IX v, p. 292 K prescription—Antipater’s (?) drug for colon, dysentery, etc. Fr 141: Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, X ii, p. 348 K prescription—Asclepiades’ emollient plaster for sciatica Fr 153: Galenus, De locis affectis, IV xi–V i, pp. 293–298 K story of illness and death Fr 298: Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem, xi 115 On Soul Nothing certain survives on Antipater the Methodist except a reference to this name in just two lists of Methodists, the ones from Galen (Fr 162) and Pseudo-Galen (Fr 283). These are indeed the main lists, but it is interesting to note a contrast: all the other names of Methodist leaders appear in at least one of the later lists, even if nothing else survives about them; for instance Reginus, a mere name mentioned just once by Galen (Fr 162), somehow reached the rich early medieval tradition represented by the Anonymus Bambergensis (Fr 11). But not so Antipater. My Dubia fall into four strands: a) The Antipater in Caelius Aurelianus, author of a collection of Letters to Gallus (Frr 68 and 72). This is almost certainly the Methodist: Caelius quotes him among “the leaders of our secta”, making him defend a Methodist position on the controversial issue of the appropriateness of bandaging in haemorrhage (Fr 72). He also reveals that Antipater wrote on the famous and much attacked Methodist diatriton,



47

the “three-days cycle” (Fr 68). Besides, medical correspondence was at home in the Method: Themison himself had set the example (Frr 53, 81, 86, 238). Antipater’s addressee was tentatively identified with: (i) Galen’s source Aelius Gallus, a pharmacologist who, on return from Arabia, brought back a theriac which he offered to the Caesar;1 and further, on the basis of the name “Aelius” and of the association with Arabia, with: (ii) Strabo’s friend Aelius Gallus, the prefect of Egypt who led an invasion of Arabia in 27 BC;2 (iii) the hypothetical Aelius who must have adopted Lucius Aelius Seianus.3 (i) is plausible; if (ii) and/or (iii) were correct, they would suggest a relatively early chronology for Antipater, placing him maybe among Themison’s disciples or the Methodists of the next generation, certainly before Thessalus. But the basis of fact behind these serial hypotheses is extremely tenuous: just the number of Aelii Galli on record (some connected with Egypt, too) should sober speculations. b) The pharmacologist Antipater, who invented, improved, and transmitted numerous drugs recorded by Galen (Frr 121, 122, 124, 129, 131, 133, 135, 137, 139, 140, 141),4 including a mithridatic and a theriac (Frr 113, 114). Such pursuits would suit a Methodist’s profile well: pharmacology, and especially the study of poisons and venoms, were pursued by Themison and Eudemus and must have taken a new impetus after Thessalus’ discussion of metasyncrisis.

Antidotes, pp. 189 and 203 K; the name “Aelius” occurs twice in addition to “Gallus”, Antidotes p. 161 K. 2 On this episode see eg Strabo ii Ch 12, 118C. 3 Seianus’ father was Lucius Seius Strabo, a knight from Vulsinii, himself prefect of Egypt: see Tacitus, Annals iv 1 et al. For all these hypotheses cf mainly Klebs, Prosopographia Imperii Romani I, 1897, A 134–135, p. 16; RE “Aelius 59”, col 493 (Rohden–Wellmann: “höchst wahrscheinlich identisch”); and RE “Aelius 133”, coll 529–31 (Rohden, more reserved in this entry). 4 In some of these cases authorship, or the nature of Antipater’s input, is unclear; formulations like ⁄ §xrÆsato ÉAnt¤patrow (Fr 131) are ambivalent. At any rate Antipater worked on old drugs like Aristocles’ stomatikon, probably modifying them; his name joins that of Cleophantus (Fr 104) or Andromachus, who did the same (Fr 133). 1

48



The text of the prescriptions provides one chronological signpost: Antipater worked on a drug of the great pharmacologist Asclepiades the Younger (nicknamed Pharmakion), one of Galen’s principal sources in the pharmaceutic treatises. Since Asclepiades was active in the last quarter of the first century AD,5 Antipater’s dates cannot be pushed back beyond this limit: Fr 129 gives him a terminus post quem in the second half or towards the end of the first century AD. Galen also tended to associate Antipater with another celebrated pharmacologist, Andromachus the Younger (Frr 113, 129, 133, 139).6 No other pharmacologist by the name Antipater is registered outside the Galenic tradition. c) Galen’ s contemporary Antipater, a doctor of considerable reputation who practised in Rome in the second half of the second century AD (Fr 153). He died in his fifties, some time before the composition of the treatise On the affected parts, which was written during Galen’s Severan period—that is, after 193 AD. In this case Galen provides a terminus ante quem: Antipater is to be placed in the second half of the second century AD, about half a century away from Soranus. Two factors might be taken to plead against his Methodism: Galen’s almost respectful attitude and the lack of confrontation between the two men, which creates the impression that Antipater held views similar to Galen’s on asthmatic dyspnoea and, in general, shared his humoural and causal vocabulary. But neither factor

See C. Fabricius, Galens Exzerpte aus älteren Pharmakologen, de Gruyter 1972, p. 193; cf also RE, “Asclepiades 43”, coll 1633–4 (Wellmann). Asclepiades refers to Nero’s army surgeon Dioscorides and to Andromachus the Younger ( fl under Vespasian), and is quoted by Archigenes ( fl under Trajan). As for Andromachus, see Fabricius, who places his floruit after 70–80 AD (pp. 185–9). This proposal is adopted by von Staden in his edition of Herophilus (p. 546) and Marganne (“Les médicaments estampillés”, in A. Debru ed, Galen on Pharmacology, Brill 1997, p. 164). 6 Son of the equally famous Andromachus the Older, the inventor of the first proper theriac. On Andromachus the Younger, apart from Fabricius supra, see also RE “Andromachos 18”, col 2154 (Wellmann). Galen’s attitude to him is discussed by J.-M. Jacques, “La méthode de Galien pharmacologue”, in Debru ed [1997], esp. pp. 121–2. Andromachus the Older, archiater under Nero around 54–68 AD, transformed the mithridatic into a theriac by adding flesh of viper to it—an essential ingredient which the simpler theriacs of old, such as that of Nicander, did not contain. On this subject see now M. Stein in Debru ed [1997]. Andromachus’ theriac was versified, and it is recorded as such by Galen (Antidotes i Ch 6 and Theriac to Piso, vi, on which see also V. Nutton in Debru ed [1997], pp. 142–3). 5



49

is conclusive.7 If the character of Fr 153 was indeed the Methodist, Antipater would have been a towering Methodist at home, like Soranus—another one whom Galen did not attack openly and whose Methodism he never mentioned outside the “official” list in Fr 162; and proximity combined with status and reputation might go some way to explain such restraint. At least among older colleagues or immediate predecessors at court, towering Methodists at home might have been more difficult to abuse than towering figures far away in Alexandria, like Julian—although this is certainly not true in the case of Galen’s contemporary Statilius Attalus. d) Finally, the Antipater who wrote a treatise On soul, recorded in the confusing tradition of Homeric scholia and commentaries (Fr 298). The choice here is not even restricted to doctors; a strong contender is the Stoic philosopher Antipater. But it is likely that the better known “Antipater the Stoic” was mistaken for “Antipater the doctor” rather than the other way round; besides, any scholiast in doubt could attribute a book on the soul to a Stoic, but not so easily to a doctor. As for the reason why the doctor in question would preferably be the Methodist, his views converge with a claim quoted by Tertullian from Soranus’ treatise On soul, to the effect that the soul’s nourishment derives from food and hence its life depends on the body.8 Both doctors argued for the Aristotelian thesis of a physical dependence of soul on the body, a position which is easy to recognise behind many occasional comments in Caelius on topics like mental affections, which raised the controversial question of the causal priority of body or soul in pathology.9 The material which I have dismissed from the range of plausible references includes another Homeric scholion, which quotes an “Antipater” side by side with Porphyry and other anonymous authorities who tried to explain the injunction “cut out the tongues” of the

See the notes to Fr 153. Tertullian, De anima vi 6. 9 The best example is Caelius’ introduction to the discussion of mania (TP I v): see especially his comparison of Plato’s notion of “divine madness” in the Phaedrus with clinical madness such as doctors encounter in real life. (Had the Methodists agreed to describe the phenomena in causal terms, they would have been what is now termed bottom-up and not top-down etiologists.) 7 8

50



sacrificed animals at Odyssey iii 333.10 According to this Antipater (whose proposal is classified as allegorical), the reason behind the ritual would be that “one must make it [sc the tongue] stop before bed”. The view on soul excerpted in Fr 298 was clearly not generated in the process of explaining a Homeric expression. By contrast, the form of the scholiast’s quotation here leaves one in no doubt that Antipater’s original comment referred to the Homeric line; hence, its probable source was a book of exegesis on the Odyssey— just the kind of work one would expect from a Stoic. At any rate, authorship of a Homeric commentary is more than enough to eliminate the Methodist. The material of (a), (b), (c), and (d) could of course relate to four distinct Antipatri, but there is nothing against taking it to form a unitary portrait of Antipater the Methodist: a reputed doctor whose practice was flourishing in Rome within some fifty years after Soranus (Antipater (c)), who also distinguished himself as a pharmacologist (Antipater (b), and whose works included Letters on controversial medical topics of Methodist interest (Antipater (a)) and a treatise On soul (Antipater (d)). The one obstacle which might be invoked against identifying Antipater (a) with both Antipater (b) and Antipater (c) is a possible early dating of Antipater (a). But this would rest on the hypothesis that his addressee Gallus (maybe the pharmacologist Aelius Gallus) was a political figure around the turn of the millennium, but this is not a hypothesis worth building upon; and, even if one were to accept it, Gallus’ dating is still not conclusive. As a literary device, Antipater might well have dedicated his correspondence to the memory of a pharmacologist of old who had brought an exotic theriac to the court, if toxicology was in his own line of work. In his brief entry “Antipatros 33”,11 Wellmann identified the Methodist with Galen’s patient and colleague (my Antipater (c)). But Wellmann attributed the Letters to Gallus mentioned by Caelius, together with all the Antipater prescriptions recorded by Galen, to a different doctor, “Antipatros 32”;12 and he also regarded this other character, but not the Methodist, as a plausible contender to the authorship of the treatise On soul. Wellmann’s reason for splitting the See Dindorf ’s edition, Scholia Graeca in Homeri Odysseiam, i, pp. 152–3. The scholiast treats the existence of this practice as an aporia to be solved. 11 RE, col 2518. 12 Ibid. 10



51

author of the Letters apart from Galen’s colleague must have been the dating suggested by the identification of Gallus with the prefect of Egypt, which pushes Antipater about a century ahead of Galen. But it is far from transparent (i) why Wellmann decided that the Methodist Antipater was Galen’s colleague rather than the author of the Letters to Gallus, and (ii) what criteria made him attribute the work on pharmacy and psychology to Caelius’ non-Methodist Antipater (“32”) rather than to Galen’s Methodist Antipater (“33”). P Dubia Philo Fr 20: Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae vii, 322A book on metals Fr 111: Galen, Adversus Julianum sub-title “Philo” of Julian’s Method Fr 267: Plutarchus, Quaestiones conuiuales, ii 6.1–2, 640B–D botany—engrafting Fr 268: Plutarchus, Quaestiones conuiuales, viii. 1, 1–3, 660D–663C physiology—diet Fr 269: Plutarchus, Quaestiones conuiuales, vi 2.1–2, 687B–E physiology—thirst and hunger Fr 270: Plutarchus, Quaestiones conuiuales, viii 9.1, 731A–B elephantiasis a new disease Fr 299: Scholia in Oribasium, xliv 14: book on the acquisition of a library Philo the Methodist is securely identifiable just in three fragments: the lists by Galen (Fr 162), John of Alexandria (Fr 219), and Anonymus Bambergensis (Fr 11).13 Much like Antipater, he is a mere shadow, and he is treated as such by the one modern scholar who pondered about him: Diller’s one-line entry “Philo 60” registers Galen’s list alone. Yet this is probably not the whole story.

Although in the third list the name is a telescopation of “Philo” and “Mnaseas” into one word. 13

52



(a) One medical Philo who stands a good chance of being the Methodist is a character of this name in Plutarch’s Sympotic questions (Frr 267, 268, 269, and 270), who in Fr 269 engages in an elaborate account of the physiology of thirst and hunger.14 Although his ideas are liberally transformed by Plutarch, whose perception was that of a cultivated layman with little medical understanding and even less sympathy for anti-teleologists, they still are consistently Methodist. There are three more apparitions of a medical Philo in the Sympotic questions, and it is natural to assume that Plutarch referred to the same character on all four occasions (Fr 270 strengthens the impression of Methodism). One of these pieces suggests that Philo the Methodist was practising in the city of Hyampolis in Phocis, where he acted as host in the Elaphebolia (Fr 268). He may or may not have been one of the provincial intellectuals who formed Plutarch’s circle at home and around; at any rate, Plutarch’s acquaintanceship places Philo’s floruit some time between the last quarter of the first century AD and the first decade of the next. Such a dating would accommodate my hypothesis that the name “Philo” in Fr 111 (p. 257 K) is that of the Methodist, which Julian added to the title of his book On the method; for Julian seemed fond of paying tribute to conspicuous Methodists of the past whose successor he regarded himself to be. The other important medical Philo on record is the pharmacologist from Tars,15 known mainly as the author of the Philonian—an antidote originally recorded in what seems to have been Philo’s book of versified drugs, the Philoneia.16 Intended primarily for kolika as a painkiller, the Philonian came to be recommended for related internal complaints like duskrasia of the liver,17 or even conditions like insomnia.18 Philo of Tars would make another attractive option; in fact Plutarch’s Philo, too, appears to have acquired some reputation

Diller’s RE “Philo 61”, col 60. Diller’s RE “Philo 47”, coll 52–3. 16 The prescription is quoted in its original metre, then carefully discussed, at Galen’s De compositione medicamentorum per genera (= CMG ) IX iv, 266–276; for variants see also Oribasius, Synopsis iii 182 (pp. 111 and 112 Raeder), Ad Eunapium iv 135 (V p. 496 Raeder), and Paulus of Aegina, Epitome VII xi, 13 (II p. 300 Heiberg). 17 Galen, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos (= CML) VIII 198–202 K, Oribasius, Synopsis ix 18, p. 289 Raeder. 18 Paulus, Epitome III xlv, pp. 241–3 Heiberg. 14 15



53

with his handling of drugs (Fr 268). But of course the location of Plutarch’s Philo in Hyampolis precludes his, and hence—on my hypothesis—the Methodist’s, identification with Philo of Tars. The rest of the material is undecidable, with very little by way of a criterion for attribution. The Philo(s) mentioned in the two remaining fragments wrote: (b) A book on minerals, if not on mineral drugs (metallikå fãrmaka): Metallikon or Metallikos (Fr 20). Given that minerals and metals were matera medica just like the plants, and that Methodists such as Themison had written on plants, it is just possible that the Philo mentioned by Athenaeus was the Methodist. (c) A book On the acquisition of a library (Fr 299)19—maybe a historical catalogue of books, in the manner of Photius’ Library. The chances for a Methodist to write such a book are entirely created by the context of the reference: (i) a scholion to a medical author, Oribasius, which (ii) reports Philo’s view on the nickname of a medical author and (iii) reports it side by side with Soranus’ view. But none of these amounts to much. D Dubia Dionysius Fr 10: Papyrus Atheniensis 2781 Recto, coll i–ii Mandilaras = coll III i, IV ii Tsouklas (SB VIII No. 9860, p. 128) prescriptions: arete (= salve ?) of Dionysius and another drug (maybe by another doctor) Fr 104: Celsus, De medicina VI vi 2 + 4 prescription: salve of Dionysius Fr 107: Celsus, De medicina VI xviii 9C prescription for haemorrhoids

Alternative translations, depending on the purpose and content of that book, could be: On acquiring a library (eg reading instructions to the would-be purchaser) or Library possessions (eg the description of an ideal library). 19

54



Fr 132: Galen, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, IV viii, 760 K prescription: salve of Dionysius Fr 209: Galen, In Hippocratis Aphorismos commentarii, lxix 750–751 K philology/exegesis: comments on the meaning of obscure Hippocratic words; Numisianus Fr 256: Pliny, Historia naturalis, I, Sources source to books IV, VIII, X, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVII, XX, XXI, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXXI, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVI, XXXVII Fr 258: Pliny, Historia naturalis, XX ix 1819 botany/dietetics: the turnip Fr 259: Pliny, Historia naturalis, XX xliv, 112–114 botany: the parsley Fr 260: Pliny, Historia naturalis, XX lxxxiii 219–220 botany/dietetics/pathology: orache Fr 261: Pliny, Historia naturalis, XXII 67 botany: the asphodel Fr 302: Servius, In Vergilii Georgica, i 215–6 botany: description of the clover Only four fragments refer with certainty to Dionysius the Methodist: three of the lists—the Galenic and Pseudo-Galenic (Frr 162 and 283) and the list in John of Alexandria (Fr 219)—and, more interestingly, Fr 305, where Soranus discusses Dionysius’ views on the koinotetes in relation to the notion of “what is natural”, placing him under the influence of Mnaseas. This is more than what is available on Antipater and Philo, but hardly enough to guide one in retrieving Methodist material from the jungle of extant references to Dionysii.20 According to my selection, the Methodist Dionysius could be: a) A pharmacologist known for two drugs: an eye-salve (Frr 104 and 132), which also seems to have circulated as “the arete of Dionysius”

See especially Wellmann’s “Dionysios 132”, in the RE (col 976), which contains a brief reference to the Methodist among many others, all “to be distinguished” from a Dionysius at Caelius’ TP II 304 (on whom see infra) and from each other. In this case there is no separate entry in the RE for the Methodist. Cf also the other RE “Dionysios” entries, to which I refer in what follows. 20



55

(Fr 10), and a prescription for haemorrhoids (Fr 107). The sources who mention Dionysius the pharmacologist are Celsus, Galen, and the author of the papyrus. b) A doctor who engaged in Hippocratic exegesis of the kind displayed by the philological note in Fr 209. The Methodists carried this kind of work: like the letter-form, the Hippocratic commentary was a medium for contemporary debates, and Julian wrote many books on the Hippocratic Aphorisms. c) The author of a description of the clover (Fr 302), which Servius may have taken from a botanical work. Again, describing plants fits in with what is known about the Methodists: Themison dedicated a whole book to the study of the plantain (Frr 222, 263). This kind of interest derived from the need to discover the properties of drug ingredients, most of which were vegetal. d) The medical author (if it is only one) who features as “Dionysius” and “Dionysius the doctor” among Pliny’s sources (Fr 256) and is used by him as an authority on the description, identification, properties, and dietetical use of four plants (Frr 258, 259, 260, 261). This author looks very much like Servius’ Dionysius. Pliny lists Dionysius’ name among those of Hesiod (Fr 257), Democritus (Fr 258), Hippocrates (Fr 260), Diocles (Frr 258, 260), Nicander (Fr 261), Lycus Neapolitanus (Fr 260), and Chrysippus the doctor, himself difficult to identify (Fr 259). Of course, these random associations of names cannot be taken to indicate anything as to when Dionysius might have lived.21 But being mentioned by Pliny gives him a terminus ante quem at least a few years before 79 AD. Pliny was acquainted with Methodism and compiled from the works of Themison, which seems to favour this identification. His date might be uncomfortably early if one assumes that Dionysius succeeded Thessalus, as I do. Apart from the general reason I adduced

Pace Wellmann, who regards Pliny’s Dionysius as a fourth-century doctor, contemporary with the non-Methodist Dionysius mentioned by Caelius Aurelianus at TP II 186 (see “Dionysius j” infra): cf “Dionysios 132” in the RE. I can see no grounds for placing either of these Dionysii in the fourth century BC. 21

56



earlier,22 there is a specific report that Dionysius held views on the koinotetes which influenced Mnaseas (Fr 305). Here he must have departed from Thessalus, who wrote a treatise on the subject. If one wished to place him before Thessalus, one would have to assume, on the contrary, that Dionysius’ earlier ideas represented an oldfashioned stage which Mnaseas attempted to reactivate; and this is far-fetched. However, the gap between 55 AD (the upper limit of Thessalus’ floruit on my reconstruction) and anything within the last ten or fifteen years before Pliny’s death in 79 AD make it just possible for Pliny to have been acquainted with the work of a Methodist Dionysius who would have been a disciple or younger contemporary of Thessalus. The case of Dionysius is complicated by two factors. First, there is a negative “double” to this character: a markedly non-Methodist Dionysius who is just as shadowy as the Methodist. This doctor is mentioned by Caelius Aurelianus in discussion of the treatment of haemorrhage.23 His views on bandaging are non-Methodist and are clearly reported as such. Wellmann ventured the hypothesis that the Dionysius in question might be identical with Dionysius the anatomist, son of Oxymachus. But the problem is that Caelius’ non-Methodist character could be almost any of the lot, including one of the Dionysii selected in my Dubia: nothing prevents it, for instance, that the Dionysius who features among Pliny’s sources was the Dionysius of Caelius’ passage on haemorrhage rather than the Methodist Dionysius. This kind of problem should strengthen my initial warning that the identifications which I have proposed are in most cases tentative and conjectural. Secondly, there are references to several “Dionysii” where the name is further qualified by a patronymic, a place name, or a nickname. Since the probabilities are equally low in all these cases, I have rejected all the qualified Dionysii out of court: the simple occurrences, where the name “Dionysius” is not qualified, seem preferable because this is at least how the Methodist’s name features in the four fragments where the reference is certain. But a conventional criterion does not compensate for the lack of substantial one. The situation compels me to review here the Dionysii I have excluded:

22 23

See supra, pp. 15–6. TP II 186.



57

i) First, a group of five pharmacologists, starting with a certain “Dionysus of Hierapolis”, whose prescription for a slave for abscesses and bruises is reproduced by Oribasius.24 The formula for this salve is different from both drugs known to come from my “Dionysius (a)” above. It remains of course possible that Dionysius of Hierapolis was identical with that character, but the same is true of all next four Dionysii. ii) The pharmacologist to whom Scribonius Largus refers as “Dionysius the Surgeon”,25 who produced a diaphoretic for internal abscesses known as the “Dionysiac”. Since it was known to Scribonius Largus, the Dionysiac must have been in circulation by the half of the first century AD. Galen and Paulus record the diaphoretic too,26 but they attribute it, simply, to “Dionysius”; had it not been for Scribonius, there would not be any question of a “Dionysius the Surgeon”, author of the diaphoretic, with a separate identity from my “Dionysius (a)”. Wellmann in fact assumed that the eye-salve in Celsus (Fr 104) comes from the author of the Dionysiac—that is, Scribonius’ “Surgeon”—whom in turn he seems to identify with Dionysius of Miletus.27 iii) Dionysius of Miletus, a pharmacologist presented in this way by Galen;28 the occurrence is unique, but of course any of the references to a “Dionysius” might be completed by the qualification “Milesian”. iv) Dionysius of Samos, whose case is identical with the previous one.29 v) Finally, a pharmacologist whose name occurs, again, just once, accompanying a prescription: “Dionysius the associate (symmathetes) of Heraclides of Tarentum”, as Galen describes him, and (hence) Dionysius the Empiricist in modern scholarship. Wellmann considered the

Eclogae medicamentorum 101.6 = IV p. 281 Raeder. Compositiones 212 and 213. 26 Galen CML IV, pp. 740–1 K, and Paulus Aegineta, Epitomae medicae IV xviii, 5 (I 337 Heiberg). Galen records it as a variant to the diaphoretics of Asclepiades Pharmakion. 27 RE “Dionysius 132” col 976; see also below and next note. 28 CML, p. 741. Note that Wellmann ibid. attributes to the Milesian both my Fragment 132 (the eye-salve) and the Dionysiac at CMG, p. 938. 29 CMG, p. 745 K. 24 25

58



possibility of identifying Dionysius the Empiricist with Dionysius of Miletus, but there is no reason to associate him this way rather than another.30 vi) And now for the Dionysii outside pharmacology. First, Dionysius son of Oxymachus, an anatomist mentioned by Rufus as the first authority who used the term epanthismos to designate a type of vessel, generating controversies as to which type that was.31 vii) Secondly, Dionysius “Cyrtus”, whose views on pestilential boubones are mentioned by Oribasius and whose nickname is discussed in the afferent scholia—with reference to Soranus, one of the Philos, and the third-century BC historian and biographer Hermippus.32 This is almost certainly not the Methodist. Alone, the occurrence of Hermippus’ name among the witnesses should suffice to eliminate Dionysius Cyrtus from the range of possible Methodists, were it not for the general unreliability of the scholiasts when it comes to identifications; however, the present scholiast is precise enough to be trusted. viii) Thirdly, Dionysius of Aegae, author of the intriguing Diktyaka, whose chapter headings are listed by Photius.33 Since these consist of antithetical pairs of the type “P” “Not-P”, which generate the expectation of a Dissoi logoi type of work, Dionysius of Aegae has been supposed to be a Sceptical doctor and hence an Empiricist or a Methodist. So far as the latter hypothesis goes, this of course begs the question of the Methodists’ official affiliation to Scepticism; but von Staden’s recent discussion of the Diktyaka offers excellent warnings against the unsafety and narrowness of all these identifications.

See his RE “Dionysios 132”, col 975. Names of bodily parts, pp. 162–3 Daremberg; the dispute seems to be whether Dionysius referred specifically to the veins or just to vessels with blood in them. 32 Schol. in Orib. Coll. xliv 14 (= Fr 299; and see also the material on Philo supra). 33 Bibliotheke, Codex 185 and 211. On this Dionysius see now von Staden’s latest discussion in “Rupture and continuity: Hellenistic reflections on the history of medicine”, in P. J. van der Eijk ed, Ancient Histories of Medicine, Brill 1999, pp. 177–87; cf also von Arnim’s article “Dionysios 124” in the RE, Deichgräber, Die griechische Empirikerschule, Berlin 1965, pp. 335–6, Goedeckemeyer, Geschichte des Skeptizismus, 1905, 237–8. Von Staden’s proposed translation for the title is Net-like [propositions]. 30 31



59

ix) Finally Dionysius of Ephesus, author of a Iatron anagraphe (Catalogue of doctors) in which a certain “Nicias the doctor” was registered as a fellow (symphoitetes) of Erasistratus.34 E Dubia Eudemus Fr 13: Anonymus Laurentianus, Auctores medicinae, Cod Laur 73,1, f. 142v–143v list of famous doctors Fr 115: Galenus, De antidotis, II xiv, pp. 185–186 K antidote of Antiochus Philometor Eudemus the Methodist is slightly better known: apart from Galen’s list (Fr 162), ten fragments refer to him with certainty. Since most of this material associates Eudemus with the handling of poisonous substances and conditions,35 it is natural to assume, as Wellmann did, that the pharmacologist Eudemus mentioned by Galen in Fr 115, who contributed to the transmission of the famous theriac of Antiochus Philometor, was the Methodist—although to attribute to him a whole book of versified prescriptions might go a bit too far:36 interest in a reputed theriac ties in with what is known about the Methodist’s performances in toxicology. The antidote was inscribed upon a stone in the temple of Asclepius at Cos; it features in versified form in several sources, one being the Empiricist Hero, great pharmacologist and near contemporary of Eudemus. Galen registers a pill for dysentery attributable to an “older Eudemus”.37 I have eliminated this testimonial from the range of plausible Dubia, since the description “the older” (absent in Fr 115) suggests a character (a) different from the Eudemus of Fr 115, and (b) who could not be picked out by a more straightforward formula such as “the Methodist”. Most probably, the older Eudemus was Eudemus the anatomist, enlisted a few times among the famous 34 35 36 37

See Scholia to Theocritus, Idyl xi, c (= p. 240 Wendel). See above, p. 14. See Wellmann’s entry “Eudemos 18”, coll 904–905. CML IX v, p. 291 K.

60



doctors of old—of the days of Herophilus38—a doctor whom Galen distinguished in this way from an ageing colleague of the same name.39 Given the prestige of most of these Eudemii, it is impossible to decide which one was the “famous Eudemus” whom the author of the list in Fragment 13 had in mind. M I have included no Dubium on Mnaseas, but a word is in place on the three (if not two) available options which I have eliminated. These are: a) A certain Mnaseas mentioned by Eusebius at the head of a list which continues with Philomelus and Timon, all explicitly declared to be Sceptical philosophers.40 Their collective view is brought there to bear on the controversial issue of Arcesilaus’ Scepticism. Gödeckemeyer41 and Deichgräber42 were inclined to identify this Sceptical Mnaseas with the Methodist (which is still accepted today). But, as I pointed out with respect to Dionysius of Aegae, this hypothesis begs the question of the Methodists’ Scepticism. b) Another (?) Sceptic Mnaseas, who complicates the previous case considerably: Mnaseas the Academic, mentioned in Philodemus’ Index Academicorum as a pupil of Antiochus of Ascalon.43 It seems to me far more likely that this, rather than the Methodist, is the Sceptic Cf Galen’s Commentary to Hippocrates’ Aphorisms, 7 K; Commentary to Hippocrates’ Nature of Man, 134 K; De libris propriis 29–30 K, etc. For Eudemus the anatomist cf “Eudemos 17” in the RE (col 904). His researches in the anatomy of the vessels and nerves, together with other attempts at establishing an anatomical vocabulary, are known from Rufus (pp. 142 and 152 D–R), Soranus, Gynaikeia I xix 57 (p. 42 Ilberg, pp. 56–7 BG) and Galen LibPr 29–30 K. 39 De methodo medendi (= MM ) VII Ch. 6; “Eudemos 19”, RE, col 905. 40 Praeparatio Euangelica xiv, Ch 6; Eusebius’ source is Numenius. On Mnaseas the Sceptic see Deichgräber’s RE article, “Mnaseas 7”, col 254. 41 Geschichte des Griechisches Skeptizismus, 1905, p. 237. 42 Griechische Empirikerschule, 1965, pp. 266–7; cf also RE “Mnaseas 7”, col 253 (quoted above). 43 Cf RE, “Mnaseas 5”, col 2250 (W. Capelle, with further references). The reading “Mnaseas” is, however, uncertain; it rests, apparently, on the sequence m«aw in col XXXIV 11 (non uidimus). 38



61

Mnaseas on Eusebius’ list. The obvious idea of unifying the Sceptical Mnaseas and the Academic Mnaseas into one character occurred of course to Capelle, but he resisted it. This is because Capelle accepted the Gödeckemeyer–Deichgräber hypothesis—he referred to the Sceptical Mnaseas as “the Sceptical and Methodist doctor Mnaseas”— which furnished him with good chronological objections. The Mnaseas in Eusebius could not be the same as the Mnaseas in Philodemus if he was also to be a Methodist; for indeed Mnaseas the Methodist, or any Methodist for that matter, could hardly have been a pupil of Antiochus. But drop the Methodist instead of the Academic from this triangle, and things begin to fall in place. c) A Mnaseas whom Pliny lists among his “foreign sources” to Book XXXVII of the Natural history.44 But according to Soranus (Fr 305) Mnaseas was influenced by Dionysius; hence he must have succeeded him. This makes it rather improbable that there was enough time for an early author like Pliny, who died in 79 AD, to get himself acquainted with the work of both Dionysius and Mnaseas.45 Alternatively, one might suppose that Dionysius was active before Thessalus, whose upper limit I placed during the first years of Nero’s reign; but, as I have already argued, that possibility is just as weak as the hypothesis that a large proportion of the Methodists recorded by Galen crowded in the narrow space between Nero and Vespasian. So far as I can guess, Pliny’s Mnaseas may well have been Eratosthenes’ disciple Mnaseas—another Mnaseas quoted by Eusebius.46 T There is no Dubium on Thessalus in the present collection. I have eliminated from start every possibility that the famous zodiac produced

NH I, Auctores = Fr 256, end. See supra, my “Dionysius (d)”, p. 55. 46 PE ix, Ch 11 and xiv, Ch 6; Eusebius’ source on that occasion was Flavius Josephus. For full references to this Mnaseas see RE “Mnaseas 6”, coll 2250–2252 (Laqueur). He is also, I guess, the Mnaseas mentioned in some scholia to the Iliad, B 489, B 761, and O 336 ( J. A. Cramer, Anecdota Oxoniensia (repr. Amsterdam, 1963), I, p. 277, IV, p. 318, and Anecdota Parisina (repr. Hildesheim, 1967), III, p. 286), and maybe the Laconian or Colophonian author of Bagatelles (nicknamed “the Saupe”), mentioned by Athenaeus (cf Fr 20). 44 45

62



under his name, the De plantis duodecim signis et septem planetis subiectis, could have been written by Thessalus or any other Methodist.47 A Dubia Apollonides Fr 19: Artemidorus, Oneirocriticon, iv 2 (A) + iv 22 (B) dream-interpretation and surgery Fr 108: Fronto, Epistulae ad amicos, i 2 Fronto’s friend Apollonides is another shadowy figure. Galen registers him on the list as a Methodist, a teacher of Julian and (on my reading) a pupil of Olympicus (Fr 162). Otherwise he speaks of him just once more, as an authority on pulse (Fr 117). The Dubia open more possibilities. Fr 19 connects Apollonides with dream-interpretation and, more importantly, with surgery, an area of medical activity which the Methodists pursued, yet precious little is known about this. If Artemidorus’ character in Fr 19 was indeed the Methodist, then Apollonides would be the only Methodist surgeon known to us by name. Unfortunately the question is undecidable. But the identity of the Methodist in Fr 108 may receive some support from the material in Fr 162: the two chronologies converge. Fronto’s letters were written between 159 and 165. A floruit for Apollonides around that date, maybe after the middle of the second century, is entirely plausible, since Apollonides was probably the teacher of Galen’s older contemporary Julian (Fr 162).

Pace Hans Veit Friedrich, who edited this text in Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 28 1968, and Sergio Sconocchia, the latest champion of its authenticity: see his article in A. Garzya ed, Storia ed ecdotica dei testi medici greci, Naples 1999, pp. 389–406 (with further bibliography). 47



63

O Dubia Olympicus Fr 239: Paulus Aegineta, Epitomae medicae, III xxii 22 prescription—Olympiac or Olympos for prolapses and wounds Fr 248: Paulus Aegineta, Epitomae medicae, VII xvi 24 prescription—Olympiac or Olympos Olympicus’ name is recorded on four lists of Methodists: the ones in Galen (Fr 162), in the Medicus (Fr 283), in John of Alexandria (Fr 219), and in the Codex Bambergensis (Fr 11). If he was the teacher of Apollonides, as I assume, then he can be safely placed in the first half or towards the middle of the second century AD.48 Although only slightly known, he is an interesting Methodist; he engaged in major theoretical debates, as his definitions of health and disease testify.49 For balance, the two Dubia suggest that the theoretically-minded Olympicus might also have been a pharmacologist, and probably a successful one, since the drug by which he was remembered was named after him. The hypothesis that the author of the Olympiac was the Methodist Olympicus and not another cannot be confirmed, but it ties in with the pharmacological traditions of the Method. M Dubia Menemachus Fr 13: Anonymus Laurentianus, Auctores medicinae, Codex Laurentianus 73,1, f. 142v–143v list of famous doctors Fr 106: Celsus, De medicina VI ix 5 prescription—Menemachus’ composition for teeth Fr 237: Palladius, In Galeni De sectis commentarium, Codex Laurentianus Pluteus 74, 11, fol 208r = 24 p. 77 Baffioni list of Methodist leaders 48 49

See Apollonides above. Frr 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168.

64



Fr 250: Petrocellus Salernitanus, Practica, Epistola [= Quot annis latuit medicina], IV pp. 188–189 De Renzi list of Methodist leaders Menemachus is a problematic character. Galen portrays him almost as a kind of dissident (Fr 162). All the later sources in the “lists” tradition remember him as a “founder” or “leader” (Frr 11, 219, 283), and typically as one out of the three or four most outstanding Methodists, in the company of Themison and Soranus always, of Thessalus often (Frr 6, 9, 18, 237). Galen’s reference in Fr 162 strengthens the impression of dealing with a highly original and productive Methodist, who held a special position in the history of the “school”.50 And yet the substantial material from him is meagre. Oribasius quotes him on two occasions on the usage of leeches and depilatories (Frr 226 and 227). Caelius reproduces a definition of lethargia by him; later on this definition was completed by Soranus, but not much changed. This is all that can be reliably attributed to Menemachus. Whether the prescription for teeth in Celsus (Fr 106) goes back to the Methodist or to a name-sake (otherwise unknown) depends entirely on chronology, but Menemachus’ dates cannot be worked out, even tentatively, from the lists’ ordering and grouping of names or from hints about his special position. It seems on the whole unlikely that this character could have lived early enough for Celsus to witness and register his pharmaceutical contributions, unless one is to opt for the solution of placing Menemachus before Thessalus, in the blank century which separates Themison from the Neronian wave of Methodists. And this solution, although not impossible, remains highly problematic.51 On the other hand, the mere shadow of a possibility that the famous Methodist Menemachus had a non-Methodist “double” is enough to cast some doubts on the identity of the “famous Menemachus” recorded on the anonymous list in Fragment 13. But these

Fr 162, p. 53 K; cf also Fr 217. See my comments above, pp. 15–6 (general) and pp. 55–6 (case of Dionysius). Contrast M. Wellmann, Die Pneumatische Schule, Berlin 1895, p. 7, n. 1, who, on the basis of Celsus’ reference to a “Menemachus” in my Fr 106, assumes that the Methodist of this name was one of the earliest ones—a pupil, namely, of Themison. So, after Wellmann, Sudhoff, Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin 8 1915, p. 412. 50 51



65

doubts should not be very strong, if one considers that the our Menemachus was popular enough to get his name, even distorted and misspelled, on all the lists of Methodist leaders. If the names “Menendus” and “Micannicus”, recorded by Palladius and Petrocellus (Frr 237 and 250), stand for “Menemachus”, as they probably do, they are bad mutilations of the Methodist’s name but also telling proofs of its endurance through fame; and the parallel case of Themison offers a good standard to judge others by. T Dubia Themison Fr 11: Anonymus Bambergensis, Cod Bamberg L. III. 8 (Med. 1), f. 6r (p. 411 Sudhoff ) list of medical leaders Fr 221: Iuuenalis, Saturae x 217–226 (A) + scholium ad l (B) joke Fr 253: Philumenus, De uenenatis animalibus, i, p. 5 Wellmann legend of mad dog bite Fr 315: Suda, Lexicon, 2472 Proklos, p. 210 A doxography Themison is known relatively well by comparison with the Methodists reviewed above, and his two Dubia are much simpler too. They are not cases of genuine choice between the Methodist Themison and other doctors of the same name, but rather cases of confusion, either about the form of his name (Fr 11), which suffered many transformations throughout late antiquity and the early middle ages, or about his legendary and hazy personality (Frr 221, 315). All these confusions and literary proliferations stem from the same source and can be explained by the same factor: the great and long-lasting fame of the Methodist Themison. The reference to him in such material is in the nature of an echo—distorted, almost fictional; hence it is “uncertain” rather in the way in which a reference to Einstein in a play might be classified as a Dubium by Einstein’s biographer. Some of the potential Themison material, which ought to be classified as “fictional” in this way but to a higher degree than, say, the material

66



of Fr 221, has been completely left out. So are, for instance, the references in Martial (Epistulae, xii 20.1–2, v 47.1) or Apuleius (Apologia, 33, 40, 48); but the latter is not without a certain interest, since Apuleius multiplies the name “Themison” and attributes it simultaneously to all the relevant medical characters in his story, from slave to doctor. The reference to Themison in Fr 253 is insecure for an additional textual reason: the name does not feature in the ms tradition of Philumenus’ Peri iobolon, it was added by Wellmann from the parallel passage of Pseudo-Dioscorides Peri iobolon, which is almost identical (Fr 274). But there is little doubt that Wellmann’s conjecture was right. The main “doubt” remains, rather, the same as above. Although the versions of this anecdote where Themison’s name is preserved do not feature among the Dubia, the anecdote itself is probably fictional. If, as is likely, it “exaggerates” the truth in some way, its interest would lie in revealing something about Themison’s medical concerns and about the way in which these were perceived. P Dubia Proclus Fr 315: Suda, Lexicon, 2472 Proklos, p. 210 A doxography The same applies to the one Dubium concerning Themison’s pupil Proclus: Fr 315, which also features among Themison’s Dubia, is the result of a confusion probably generated through Proclus’ association with a famous teacher. M Fr 10: Papyrus Mediolanensis I 15 Vogliano (2340 Mertens-Pack = 103 Andorlini Marcone) This is the only Dubium related to “Methodists” as a whole, and it is an Oxyrynchus Papyrus from the University of Milan, edited by



67

Deichgräber in Vogliano’s collection of Milanese papyri. The relevant reading is insecure: the word meyod[iko¤], half missing, was only restored by Deichgräber. If anything, the reference to Asclepiades in the line above increases the plausibility of Deichgräber’s reading; but nothing very important hangs on this piece.

LIST OF THE FRAGMENTS AND THEIR SOURCES Notation in superscript square brackets: [+Q ] = Fragment containing a quotation [+Q?] = Fragment containing an uncertain quotation or a par phrase [Dub] = dubium [+Dub] = authentic Fragment also containing dubium material iii vi vi vi ix

185 10 16 18 9

1 2 3 4 5

Aetius, Aetius, Aetius, Aetius, Aetius,

6

Agnellus Ravennas, In Galeni De sectis commentarium, Actio IV, Cod Ambr G 108 inf., f. 26r (pp. 22–24 BCS)

7 8

Alexander Trallianus, Therapeutica, iii 7 Alexander Trallianus, Therapeutica, v 11

9

Anonymus, Anecdota Graeca Parisina, Cod Par Gr 2286, f. 104 (I p. 395 Cramer)

10dub

Anonymus Atheniensis, Pap Ath 2781r, coll i–ii Mandilaras = coll III i, IV ii Tsouklas (SB VIII No. 9860, p. 128)

Libri Libri Libri Libri Libri

medicinales, medicinales, medicinales, medicinales, medicinales,

11+dub Anonymus Bambergensis, Cod Bamberg L. III. 8 (Med. 1), f. 6r (p. 411 Sudhoff ) 12

Anonymus Epigrammatista, Epigrammata Graeca, N. 306 Kaibel = CIG 3283

13+dub Anonymus Laurentianus, Auctores medicinae, Cod Laur 73,1, f. 142v–143v

70

      

14dub

Anonymus Mediolanensis, Pap Med I 15 Vogliano (2340 Mertens-Pack = 103 Andorlini-Marcone), col iiv

15

Anonymus Oxyrhynchus, Pap Oxy N. 3654

16 17

Anonymus Parisinus, De morbis acutis et chroniis, XXXIX iii 5–6 Anonymus Parisinus, De morbis acutis et chroniis, L iii 11

18

Anonymus Vindobonensis, Tabulae Diuisionum in Galeni, Cod Vind med gr 16 Hunger = 35 Lambeck-Kollar, fol. 329rg (VI p. 345 Lambeck-Kollar)

19dub

Artemidorus, Oneirocriticon, iv 2 (A) + iv 22 (B)

20dub

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae vii, 321D–322A

21

Ausonius, Griphus ternarii numeri, 66–69

22[+Q?] 23 24 25 26[+Q ] 27 28[+Q ] 29 30 31 32[+Q ] 33 34[+Q ] 35 36[+Q ] 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Caelius Caelius Caelius Caelius Caelius Caelius Caelius Caelius Caelius Caelius Caelius Caelius Caelius Caelius Caelius Caelius Caelius Caelius Caelius Caelius Caelius Caelius

Aurelianus, Aurelianus, Aurelianus, Aurelianus, Aurelianus, Aurelianus, Aurelianus, Aurelianus, Aurelianus, Aurelianus, Aurelianus, Aurelianus, Aurelianus, Aurelianus, Aurelianus, Aurelianus, Aurelianus, Aurelianus, Aurelianus, Aurelianus, Aurelianus, Aurelianus,

Celeres Celeres Celeres Celeres Celeres Celeres Celeres Celeres Celeres Celeres Celeres Celeres Celeres Celeres Celeres Celeres Celeres Celeres Celeres Celeres Celeres Celeres

passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones,

I i 22–30 I xvi 155–165 II i 8 II v 24–25 II ix 44–52 II x 56–58 II xii 82–85 II xviii 112 II xxiii 134 II xxix 152–153 II xxix 158–160 II xxxiii 173 II xxxvii 197–198 II xxxviii 218–224 II xl 232–234 III iii 17 III iv 39 III v 55–56 III viii 81–82 III xi 104–105 III xii 107–108 III xv 125

       44 45 46[+Q ] 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67[+Q?] 68+dub 69 70 71 72dub 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82

Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, p. 197 Rose) Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus, Caelius Aurelianus,

71

Celeres passiones, III xvi 132 Celeres passiones, III xvi 134–135 Celeres passiones, III xvi 172–173 Celeres passiones, III xvi 173 Celeres passiones, III xviii 185–187 De salutaribus praeceptis, Cod Aug cxx (II Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae Tardae

passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones, passiones,

I Praefatio 1–3 I i 32–33 I i 47–50 I iii 54–55 I iv 80–83 I iv 140–143 I v 153–154 I v 171–179 I vi 183 II i 16–17 II i 25–26 II i 57–59 II i 60–62 II vii 96–97 II vii 109 II vii 112–113 II ix 121–125 II xii 145–146 II xiii 156–157 II xiii 170 II xiii 171–172 II xiii 183–186 II xiii 186–187 II xiii 187–188 II xiii 215–218 III i 7–8 III i 11–12 III ii 13–14 III ii 25–26 III iv 65–67 III v 78 III vi 80 III vii 94–95

72

      

83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, III viii 100–101 Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, III viii 122–124 + 125–128 Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, III 137–139 + 151–155 Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, IV i 4–10 Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, IV ii 15 Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, IV iii 39 Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, IV vi 90–91 Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, IV viii 108 Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, V i 13 Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, V i 25–26 Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, V ii 37 Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, V ii 43 Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, V ii 50–51 Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, V x 116–117

97

Cassius Iatrosophista, Quaestiones medicae, viii

98 99 100 101 102 103 104dub 105 106dub 107dub

Celsus, Celsus, Celsus, Celsus, Celsus, Celsus, Celsus, Celsus, Celsus, Celsus,

108dub

Fronto, Epistulae ad amicos, i 2

109

Galenus, Ad Glauconem de methodo medendi, II ii, pp. 78– 80 K Galenus, Ad Glauconem de methodo medendi, II iii, pp. 89 + 96–98 K Galenus, Aduersus Iulianum, pp. 246–299 K = 33–70 Wenkebach Galenus, De anatomicis administrationibus, III i, pp. 245 K Galenus, De antidotis, II i, pp. 107–109 K Galenus, De antidotis, II x, pp. 160–161 K Galenus, De antidotis, II xiv, pp. 185–186 K

110 111[+Q ]+dub 112 113dub 114dub 115[+Q ] dub

De De De De De De De De De De

medicina, medicina, medicina, medicina, medicina, medicina, medicina, medicina, medicina, medicina,

Prooemium 1–11 Prooemium 54–57 Prooemium 62–73 III iv 6 III iv 16–17 IV xxii 1–4 VI vi 2–4 VI vii 1D–F VI ix 5 VI xviii 9 C

       116 117 118 119 120 121dub 122dub 123 124dub 125 126 127 128 129dub 130 131dub 132dub 133dub 134 135dub 136

73

Galenus, De atra bile, i, pp. 104–105 K = 3 de Boer Galenus, De causis pulsuum, III ix, pp. 137–139 K Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, I iv, pp. 375–394 K Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, II xxii, p. 557 K Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, IV v, pp. 681–683 K Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, V xiii, p. 841 K Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, VI xiv, pp. 925 + 931 K Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, VII, v, pp. 962–967 K Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, VII vii, pp. 983–984 K Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, VII xii, pp. 1009–1010 K Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, II i, pp. 512–513 K Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, II i, pp. 559–560 K Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, II ii, pp. 568 + 571–572 K Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, III i, pp. 624 + 630 K Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, III ii, pp. 668 + 677 K Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, III iii, pp. 684–685 K Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, IV viii, p. 760 K Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, VI vi, pp. 935 + 936–938 K Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, VII ii, pp. 40–42 K Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, VII iii, p. 66 K Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, VIII i, pp. 116–118 K

74

      

137dub Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, VIII ii, p. 136 K 138 Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, VIII iii, pp. 158–162 K dub 139 Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, IX ii, p. 239 K dub 140 Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, IX v, p. 292 K dub 141 Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, X ii, p. 348 K 142 Galenus, De crisibus, I iv, pp. 558–562 K = pp. 74–76 Alexanderson 143 Galenus, De crisibus, I ix, pp. 582–585 K = pp. 90–91 Alexanderson 144 Galenus, De crisibus, I xviii–xix, pp. 632–634 K = p. 121 Alexanderson 145 Galenus, De crisibus, II iii, pp. 655– 656 K = p. 135 Alexanderson 146 Galenus, De crisibus, II iii, pp. 656–658K = pp. 136–137 Alexanderson 147 Galenus, De differentia pulsuum, III i, pp. 639–641 K 148 Galenus, De differentia pulsuum, IV ii, pp. 719–720 K 149 Galenus, De differentiis febrium, I ix, pp. 307–308 K 150 Galenus, De dignoscendis pulsibus, I i, pp. 768–9 + 770–771 151 Galenus, De libris propriis, i, pp. 11–12 K = 93–94 Müller 152 Galenus, De libris propriis, vi, pp. 33 + 36–7 K = 111 + 113–114 Müller dub 153 Galenus, De locis affectis, IV xi–V i, pp. 293–298 K 154 Galenus, De locis affectis, V viii, pp. 354–357 K 155 Galenus, De methodo medendi, I i, pp. 4–5 K [+Q ] 156 Galenus, De methodo medendi, I ii, pp. 7–8 K 157 Galenus, De methodo medendi, I ii, pp. 8–13 K 158 Galenus, De methodo medendi, I ii–iii, pp. 17–23 K 159 Galenus, De methodo medendi, I iii, pp. 26–28 K 160 Galenus, De methodo medendi, I iii–iv, pp. 29 + 33 K 161 Galenus, De methodo medendi, I iv, pp. 34–39 K [+Q ] 162 Galenus, De methodo medendi, I vii, pp. 50–58 K 163 Galenus, De methodo medendi, I vii, pp. 61–63 K 164 Galenus, De methodo medendi, I viii, pp. 66–67 K [+Q ] 165 Galenus, De methodo medendi, I ix, pp. 67–69 K

       166[+Q?] 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180[+Q ] 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196[+Q ] 197 198 199 200 201 202

75

Galenus, De methodo medendi, I ix, pp. 71–76 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, II iii, pp. 90–91 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, II iv, p. 93 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, II iv, pp. 95–101 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, II vi, pp. 123–125 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, II vii, pp. 141–142 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, III i, pp. 157–159 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, III ii, pp. 162–164 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, III iii, pp. 168–170 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, III iii, pp. 180–181 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, III iii, pp. 181–182 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, III iv, 193–194 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, III vii, pp. 204–211 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, III viii, pp. 213–214 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, IV iv–v, pp. 250–286 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, IV vi, pp. 286–287 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, V i, pp. 305–306 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, V iii, p. 319 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, V x, pp. 346–355 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, V xv, pp. 379–383 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, VI i, pp. 384–386 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, VI ii, pp. 386–389 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, VI ii, p. 395 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, VI ii, pp. 400–401 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, VI iii, pp. 405–406 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, VI iii, p. 408 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, VI iv, pp. 410–411 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, VI iv, p. 413 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, VI iv, pp. 420–423 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, VII ii, pp. 535–543 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, XIII xv, pp. 909–916 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, XIII xviii, p. 923 K Galenus, De methodo medendi, XIII xx–xxi, pp. 927–929 K (I) + inscriptiones Asiae Minoris (II A–E) Galenus, De ordine librorum suorum, p. 50 K = pp. 80–81 Müller Galenus, De plenitudine, i–ii, pp. 513–520 K Galenus, De praecognitione, xii, pp. 161–165 K = 130–134 Nutton Galenus, De sanitate tuenda, III xiii, p. 228 K = 100–101 Koch

76

      

203[+Q ] Galenus, De sectis, vi–ix, pp. 79–105 K = 12–32 Helmreich 204 Galenus, De simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis et facultatibus, III ix, p. 558 K 205 Galenus, De simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis et facultatibus, IV x–xi, pp. 740–742 K 206 Galenus, De simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis et facultatibus, IV xiii–xiv, p. 749 K 207 Galenus, De simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis et facultatibus, IV xxiv–v, pp. 780–783 K 208 Galenus, De theriaca ad Pisonem, xiv, pp. 277–280 K dub 209 Galenus, In Hippocratis Aphorismos, lxix, pp. 750–751 K 210 Galenus, In Hippocratis De acutorum morborum uictu, I xxiv, pp. 476–678 K = 144–145 Helmreich 211 Galenus, In Hippocratis De acutorum morborum uictu, IV xvii, pp. 763–764 K = 286–287 Helmreich 212 Galenus, In Hippocratis librum primum Epidemiarum, II xxv, pp. 118–120 K = 61–62 Wenkebach 213 Galenus, In Hippocratis librum sextum Epidemiarum, II ix, pp. 907 + 909–914 K = 65 + 67–69 Wenkebach 214 Galenus, In Hippocratis librum sextum Epidemiarum, II xxvi, p. 941 K = 85–86 Wenkebach 215 Galenus, In Hippocratis Prognosticum, I i, pp. 1–2 K = 197 Heeg 216 Galenus, Synopsis librorum suorum de pulsibus, xvi, pp. 474– 476 K 217 Galenus, Thrasybulus, xxix, pp. 859–860 K = 71 Helmreich 218

Hieronymus, Epistulae, liii 6

219

Ioannes Alexandrinus, Commentaria in librum De sectis Galeni, Prooemium, 2 ra, pp. 15–16 Pritchet

220

Isidorus Hispalensis, Etymologiae, IV iii–iv

221dub Iuuenalis, Saturae x 217–226 (A) + scholium ad l (B) 222 223

Macer Floridus, De uiribus herbarum, vi 265–266 Macer Floridus, De uiribus herbarum, lvi 1825–1832

224 225

Oribasius, Ad Eunapium, iv 44 Oribasius, Ad Eunapium, iv 122

       226[+Q ] 227[+Q ] 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236

Oribasius, Oribasius, Oribasius, Oribasius, Oribasius, Oribasius, Oribasius, Oribasius, Oribasius, Oribasius, Oribasius,

77

Collectiones medicae, vii 22 Collectiones medicae, x 14 Collectiones medicae, x 41 Collectiones medicae, xlv 29 Collectiones medicae, xlix 1 Eclogae medicamentorum, xcii 7 Synopsis ad Eustathium, i 34 Synopsis ad Eustathium, iii 56 Synopsis ad Eustathium, iii 75 Synopsis ad Eustathium, iii 103 Synopsis ad Eustathium, ix 4

237+dub Palladius, In Galeni De sectis commentarium, Cod Laur Plut 74, 11, f. 208r (24 p. 77 Baffioni) 238 239dub 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248dub 249

Paulus Paulus Paulus Paulus Paulus Paulus Paulus Paulus Paulus Paulus Paulus Paulus

Aegineta, Aegineta, Aegineta, Aegineta, Aegineta, Aegineta, Aegineta, Aegineta, Aegineta, Aegineta, Aegineta, Aegineta,

Epitomae Epitomae Epitomae Epitomae Epitomae Epitomae Epitomae Epitomae Epitomae Epitomae Epitomae Epitomae

medicae, medicae, medicae, medicae, medicae, medicae, medicae, medicae, medicae, medicae, medicae, medicae,

III xv 3 III xxii 22 III xxiii 13 III xxxi–xxxii 1–2 III xlvi 6 III lxiv 3 III lxxvii 5 III lxviii 22 VII v 2 VII xi 59 VII xvi 24 VII xvii 21

250+dub Petrocellus Salernitanus, Practica, Epistola [= Quot annis latuit medicina], IV pp. 188–189 De Renzi 251 Philumenus, De coeliacis, p. 68 Puschmann 252 Philumenus, De rheumate uentris, p. 22 Puschmann +dub 253 Philumenus, De uenenatis animalibus, i, p. 5 Wellmann 254 255

Photius, Bibliotheca, Codex 164 Photius, Bibliotheca, Codex 218

256+dub Plinius, Naturalis historia, I, Auctores (A–X): Libro iv (A)dub

78

       Libro viii (B)dub Libro x (C)dub Libro xi (D) Libro xii (E)dub Libro xiii (F)dub Libro xiv (G)dub Libro xv (H)+dub Libro xvii (I)dub Libro xviii ( J)dub Libro xx (K)dub Libro xxi (L)dub Libro xxii (M)dub Libro xxiii (N)dub Libro xxiv (O)dub Libro xxv (P)dub Libro xxvi (Q)dub Libro xxvii (R)dub Libro xxxi (S)dub Libro xxxiii (T)dub Libro xxxiv (U)dub Libro xxxv (V)dub Libro xxxvi (X)dub Naturalis historia, XIV xxi 114–115 Naturalis historia, XX ix 18–19 Naturalis historia, XX xliv 112–114 Naturalis historia, XX lxxxiii 219 Naturalis historia, XXII xxi 67 Naturalis historia, XXV xxiii 56–58 Naturalis historia, XXV xxxix 80 Naturalis historia, XXIX i–v 1–6 Naturalis historia, XXIX v 7–10 Naturalis historia, XXIX viii 20–21

257 258dub 259dub 260dub 261dub 262 263 264 265 266

Plinius, Plinius, Plinius, Plinius, Plinius, Plinius, Plinius, Plinius, Plinius, Plinius,

267dub 268dub 269dub 270dub

Plutarchus, Plutarchus, Plutarchus, Plutarchus,

271

Priscianus, Euporiston, II xxvi, p. 174 Rose

Quaestiones Quaestiones Quaestiones Quaestiones

conuiuales, conuiuales, conuiuales, conuiuales,

ii 6.1–2, 640B–D viii.1, 1–3, 660D–663C vi 2.1–2, 687B–E viii 9.1, 731A–B

      

79

272 Pseudo-Democritus, Liber medicinalis, lxxx, 4 Fischer 273 Pseudo-Dioscorides, De uenenis, Prooemium, pp. 51–55 Sprengel 274 Pseudo-Dioscorides, De uenenis, i, p. 59 Sprengel 275 Pseudo-Galenus, Definitiones medicae, p. 353 K 276 Pseudo-Galenus, De melancholia, ii, pp. 710–711 K 277 Pseudo-Galenus, De optima secta, vii–ix + xi, pp. 117–126 K + 131 K 278 Pseudo-Galenus, De optima secta, xii, pp. 132–133 K 279 Pseudo-Galenus, De optima secta, xxi–l, pp. 162–223 K 280 Pseudo-Galenus, De remediis parabilibus, pp. 367–368 K 281 Pseudo-Galenus, De uictus ratione in morbis acutis ex Hippocratis sententiis [De diaeta Hippocratis in morbis acutis], pp. 195–198 K = 377–378 Westenberger 282 Pseudo-Galenus, Medicus, i–ii, pp. 674–678 K 283 Pseudo-Galenus, Medicus, iii–iv, pp. 678–684 K 284 Pseudo-Galenus, Medicus, v, pp. 684–686 K 285 Pseudo-Galenus, Medicus, vii–viii, pp. 690–691 K 286 Pseudo-Plutarchus, Fragmenta, 215 k 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295

Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales, xiii 239b, p. 247 Rose Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales, xiii 239b, p. 249 Rose Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales, xlvi 240a, p. 253 Rose Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales, xlix 240b, p. 253 Rose Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales, cxxx 242a, p. 262 Rose Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales, clxxxvii 243a, p. 266 Rose Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales, cxliv 243b, p. 267 Rose Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales, cxcvii 243b, p. 267 Rose Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales, li, Cod Carnot 62 (115), f. 5v (pp. 363–364 Stadler) 296 Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales, Cod Carnot 62 (115), 149.3 (p. 50 Fischer) 297 Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales, Cod Carnot 62 (115), 160.8 (p. 52 Fischer)

80

      

298dub Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem, xi 115 (I + II A–D): Scholia Towleyana, III, p. 148 Erbse (V p. 385 Maas) (A) Scholia exegetica et Veneta, III p. 461 Dindorf (B) Eusthatius, Ad Homeri Iliadem, III p. 166 Van Der Valk (C) Scholia Homeri Parisina, Anecdota Graeca Parisina, III, p. 14 Cramer (D) 299dub Scholia in Oribasii Collectiones medicas, xliv 14 (A + B) 300 Scholia in Oribasii Collectiones medicas, xliv 21 301

Seneca, Epistulae, xcv 9–10

302dub Seruius, In Vergilii Georgica, i 215 (A + B) 303

Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, i 34

304 305 306 307 308 309 310

Soranus, Soranus, Soranus, Soranus, Soranus, Soranus, Soranus,

311

Stephanus, Commentarii in priorem Galeni librum Therapeuticum ad Glauconem, I, pp. 237 + 240 Dietz Stephanus, Commentarii in priorem Galeni librum Therapeuticum ad Glauconem, I, pp. 243 + 245 Dietz Stephanus, Commentarii in priorem Galeni librum Therapeuticum ad Glauconem, I, p. 256 Dietz Stephanus, Scholia in Hippocratis Prognosticon, i 2 Duffy = I pp. 57–58 Dietz

312 313 314

Gynaikeia, Gynaikeia, Gynaikeia, Gynaikeia, Gynaikeia, Gynaikeia, Gynaikeia,

I iv 15 I viii 27–29 III i 1–5 III iv 24 III xi 38 III xii 42 IV xv 39

315dub Suda, Lexicon, 2472 Proklos, p. 210 A 316 317

Tacitus, Annales iv 3 Tacitus, Annales iv 8–11

THEMATIC SYNOPSIS Notation: bold figure = Fragment number (?), ? = uncertain—information derived from a dubium or a textually uncerctain passage I. H A Methodists the general picture: the three haireseis: 6, 9, 11, 18, 219, 203 (with 151 and 254), 237, 250, 277, 279, 282, 283, 290 (cf controversies, i) Methodist leaders: 6, 9, 11, 13, 18, 162, 219, 237, 250, 282 popularity and later impact: 109, 110; 199; 21, 218 controversies—the rivalry between haireseis: general: 277; 279 Methodist vs traditional account of drug-action (see pharmacy) Methodist indication vs indication from part (see ¶ndeijiw, indication) Methodist rejection of causes (see aetiology) Methodist conception of disease (see pathology) classification of disease by koinotetes (see philosophy) prognosis: 22, 314 (see pathology) place of the hegemonikon: 198 (see philosophy, physiology) therapies and procedures: cf eg 70 (Soranus) and 180 (Galen) for and against Thessalus (use of venesection in chronic wounds) development and change within the Method: Methodists at war with each other: 170; cf 203 phases—the early Method: 57, 63, 85 the late Method: problems of identity, eg the case of Magnus: 27 sub-groups (see Themison, Thessalus, Mnaseas, Olympicus) internal debates (see Themison, Thessalus, Mnaseas, Olympicus, Julian)

82

 

B Themison disciple of Asclepiades: 264, 98 founder of Methodism: 162, 283; 6, 9, 11, 18, 219; 237; 250; 166 (NB order Thessalus—Themison) “father”: 161, 111 (of koinotetes); 162 (of “madness”); cf Thessalus Themison’s followers = the Methodists: 98, 99 life: mad-dog bite anecdote: 44, 253, 274, 286 archiater: 221B fame: 13; 147 (discoveries?), 221A, 315 (confusions?); cf 257 (authority) disciples: Proclus: 83, 315 Eudemus: 35, 41, 42 Meges (?): 300 Themison’s development away from Asclepiades: Themison’s development: 23, 61 Themison paired with Asclepiades: 28, 35, 38, 52, 57, 84, 86; 111, 180 (element-theory) early phase, non-Methodist works: 64 non-Methodist disciples (?): 300 (Meges) Themison independent from Asclepiades: 33; 66, 73; 98, 264 (deviation); 301 (independence); 101, 102? Themison’s influence on Asclepiades: 5 (pharmacy) Themison’s main innovations and the identity of the Method: notion of koinotes: 161, 111; cf 63 (classifications) therapy of chronic diseases (first systematic account): 50 (cf 81, cachexia; 48, satyriasis) Themison and later Methodism (see development and change within the Method): Themison’s followers a sub-group; controversies:

 

83

47 (ileus), 58 (melancholia), 68 (haemorrhagia) 57 (madness), 63 (flux), 85 (dropsy) points of divergence between Thessalus and Themison: 71 (venesection in haemorrhagia; new specifications), 84 (paracentesis in dropsy; cf 85) 95 (podagra) 180 (element-theory—but cf 111); points of divergence between Mnaseas and Themison: 305 (menstruation) points of divergence between Mnaseas and the group Themison— Thessalus: 63 (classification of flux) points of divergence between Olympicus and the group Themison— Thessalus: 166 (distinction disease–symptom) points of divergence between Julian and the group Themison— Thessalus: 111 (element-theory; Stoicism?) Proclus leader of the Method: 162, 283 disciple of Themison: 83, 315 Eudemus leader of the Method: 162 disciple of Themison: 35, 41, 42 famous Methodist: 13 life: story of adultery and poisoning: 266, 316, 317 (dating) mad-dog bite anecdote: 253, 274 interest in toxicology? cf pathology (hydrophobia in all surviving accounts) Rheginus leader of the Method: 11, 162

84

 

Thessalus dating: 265, 156 (Nero; the gap between Themison and Thessalus) leader of the Method: 6, 11, 13, 18, 162, 219, 237, 283; 111, 162 (leader of “madness”—but Themison father) Themison his forerunner: 63 (cf 166) Thessalus’ followers/the Thessaleans: = all the Methodists: eg 166, cf 161, 162, 164, 170, 177, 180, 182 (hairesis of Thessalus), 184, 185, 192; 118, 202, 295 (“offspring” of Thessalus) = a sub-group; controversies with other Methodists: 67 (the koinotetes of haemorrhage) life, character, anecdotal threads: social background: 146, 157, 158 six months story: 150, 155, 198, 203 epitaph: 265 knowledge claims: 188 contest: 156, 157, 158, cf 111 general stand: elimination of non-medical theory: 155, 157; 160 critical attitude to tradition: 156, 157 (cf 22, 46, the contest) 207 (account of drug-action; cf 180) 205, 207 (classifications of drugs, metasyncritic/analeptic) 118 (drugs—simple) 170 (therapeutic aims) originality—main contributions to Methodism: concepts of poropoiia and metasunkrisis in pathology, pharmacy, and therapy: 180, 207 non-humoural conception of disease: 180 revised definition of koinotes: 203 non-causal use of the elements of time and sign in diagnosis: 166 Thessalus within the history of Methodism (continuity and change): Thessalus’ and his predecessors:

 

85

Asclepiades: 22 (phrenitis: prognosis, signs) 170 (therapy, general) cf Themison, 33 (fever in cardiac disease), 73 (treatment of haemorrhagia) Asclepiades and Themison: 180 (but cf 111) Themison (cf Themison): 63 (group of Themison and Thessalus = early Methodism) 68 (treatment of haemorrhagia) 71 (venesection in haemorrhagia; new specifications) 84 (paracentesis in dropsy; cf 85) 95 (podagra) Thessalus and his successors (cf Themison and later Methodists): Mnaseas vs Themison—Thessalus: 63 (classification of flux) Olympicus vs Themison—Thessalus: 166 (distinction diseasesymptom) Julian vs Themison—Thessalus: 111 (element-theory; Stoicism) Julian and Thessalus: 111 (purging drugs; nature of the koinotetes) Thessalus’ followers vs other Methodists: 67 (koinotetes of haemorrhagia) Marcus Modius Asiaticus leader of the Method: 12 Menemachus leader of the Method: 6, 9, 11, 18, 162 (after Mnaseas and Dionysius, before Olympicus), 219, 237, 250, 283 famous doctor (?) 13 prolific author: 162, 217 innovativeness (?) 162 Dionysius leader of the Method: 162, 219, 283 Dionysius’ departures from predecessors: 305 (koinotes, the natural) Mnaseas leader of the Method: 11, 162, 219, 283 Mnaseas within the history of Methodism (see continuity and change):

86

 

broadly distinguished from Themison and Thesalus as early Methodists: 63 Mnaseas vs early Methodism: Mnaseas vs Themison: 305 (menstruation) Mnaseas vs Eudemus: 42 Mnaseas vs Themison and Thessalus: 63 (classification of flux); 56 (madness), 58 Mnaseas influenced by Dionysius: 305 followers of Mnaseas a subgroup, controversies: 25, 59; cf 56, 63, 305 Philo leader of the Method: 11, 162 (placed before Menemachus, between Mnaseas and Dionysius), 219 Julian’s book On the method bearing his name in the sub-title (?): 111 Plutarch’s contemporary (?) 267, 268, 269, 270 works (?) 20, 267, 299 Olympicus leader of the Method: 11, 162 (after Menemachus, before Apollonides and Julian), 219, 283 disciples: Apollonides (?) 162 innovator of the Methodist tradition (cf Themison, Thessalus): distinction affection–symptom modified: 166 nature of health; definition of disease revised: 162, 165, cf 167, 163 Olympicus within the history of the Method (see continuity and change): Olympicus’ followers a subgroup, controversies: 166, cf 168 Julian vs Olympicus: 162 (health-disease) Apollonides leader of the Method: 162 surgeon (?) 19 pupil of Olympicus (?) 162 disciples: Julian (?) 162 patients: Fronto (?) 108

 

87

Julian leader of the Method: 162 acquaintanceship with Galen: 162, 111 pupil of Apollonides (?) 162 critical attitude towards received ideas: 111 (concept of nature) Julian within the history of the Method (see continuity and change): succession Olympicus–Apollonides–Julian: 162 points of divergence from Olympicus: 162 (nature of disease) relation with the founders: 111 (Stoicism; element-theory—cf Themison, Thessalus) criticism of Asclepiades (and Hippocrates): 111 (aetiology, pathology) Statilius Attalus disciple of Soranus: 196 I archiater of the imperial family under Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius: 196 II criticism of the medical tradition: 196 I (see Thessalus, Julian) Antipater leader of the Method: 162 (paired with Proclus), 283 life: fame and account of his death (?) 153 II. P A Methodists status of medicine—techne or episteme? 146, 178 (cf 187, boasts), 284, 287 cf ékrib«w and the study of oÈs¤a, 169; see Thessalus notion of method: 99; cf 303, 277

88

 

principle of similarity: see Thessalus notion of koinotes: Methodist medicine a study of the koinotetes: 203, 15, 275, 288 (see status of medicine) kinds and number of koinotetes: 67 (koinotetes of surgery); 279, 283; 273; 180; 203 (see also surgery, pharmacy, pathology) the three main koinotetes and the general picture of Methodism: 99, 203, 277, 283, 295 nature of the koinotetes: manifest: 15, 161, 203, 277, 279 undemonstrable: 160 (see Thessalus; see element-theory, Thessalus, Julian) not diseases but general qualifications: 279, cf 97 (sleep), 269 (hunger), 111 (general forms of movement—see also conception of health–disease, esp. Thessalus, Olympicus, Julian; and the distinction natural–unnatural, Dionysius) a principle of classification of affections: 306; 168, 171, 311; 109; 24, 25, 59, 63, 77 role of similarity: 15 (definition of koinotes); 279, 282, 295; 288; 180 (see Themison, notion of method, types of sign, differential diagnosis) role of the koinotetes: indications for therapy (see notion of ¶ndeijiw) identification of the affections for diagnosis, eg 26 (see role of similarity) relation between koinotes and traditional causation: 279, 277; 294 relation between stegnosis and the traditional notion of plethos? 200 the koinotetes and the problem whether there can be a valid independent position other than reason and experience: 100, 173, 178, 184 notions of poropoiia and metasunkrisis and their role in physiology and pathology: Methodist channels: 26, 34, 35, 36, 51, 66; 111, 180, 207 (see Thessalus, Julian); 203 Methodist notion of ¶ndeijiw: indication from koinotes, not from cause: 203, 277, 279; 282, 283, 278, 178; 172, 285; 294

 

89

indication of therapy, not of causes: 279, 283, 285 non-inferential (see notion of method) Methodist indication vs indication from part: 110; cf 196, 200; and anatomy: 183, 192, 194, 198 (see wounds, eg 184, 190) counter-indication (tÚ éntendeiktikÒn): 279 ¶ndeijiw and skopÒw: eg 180, 187; cf 181 (skopo¤); see Thessalus— therapy of wounds criterion of the natural: 279 (and summetr¤a) 162 (in the definition of health–disease; see Olympicus) 305 (and koinotes; see Dionysius, Mnaseas) 306 (senses of pãyow) 169 (anti-Empiricist objection) Methodist definitions (see also Methodist divisions): 289 (use of definitions vs descriptions) 291, 292, 293, 296 (diagnosis between defining and describing) 15 (koinotes) 49, 111 (health and disease) Methodist divisions (see also pathology—basic notions): koinotes–affection (pãyow)–sign/symptom: 306, 307 (see Thessalus, Olympicus) types of sign: primary–secondary (see diagnosis, aetiology, Themison, Thessalus, Olympicus): 307 (§pigenÒmena, sunedreÊonta) 63 (accidentia vs signa [= sumpt≈mata—shme›a]); 35, 57 common/specific (see differential diagnosis, koinotes a principle of classification): 22, 25, 27 (signa communia–differentiae generales [vs propria–specialia = ‡dia–koinã]; cf 306); cf current attacks on Methodism, eg 100 (Celsus), 187, 174 (Galen—recurrent) aetiology (see koinotes): Methodist rejection of Hellenistic causation: 203, 208, 273; cf 168, 169; 164 (Thessalus)—but cf 297 role of poropoiia and metasunkrisis in the explanation of disease: 207, 177 (see Thessalus; pharmacy; pathology)

90

 

Methodist denial of “faculties” (dunãmeiw): 200 Methodist denial of the claim that treatment is by opposites: 213 Methodist anti-humouralism: 116 (see Themison, Julian) soul, psychology (see Antipater and Julian, List of Works): place of the hegemonikon: 198 Hippocratic exegesis: 210; 143, 213? (see Thessalus, Eudemus, Dionysius, Julian) Scepticism? 303; cf 286 (Methodist use of words), 111 ( Julian) relation with the traditional philosophical schools: Plato and Aristotle: 180 (see notion of method, principle of classification, role of similarity, types of sign, Thessalus) Stoicism, Epicureanism? 111 (see types of sign, role of similarity; Julian) modes of argument: eg 43; 84; 305, 306; 279; 67; 111 (see Thessalus, Julian) reported elimination/ignorance of anatomy/dissection (Galen and Pseudo-Soranus only sources): 183, 194, 198; 184; 192, 203 (= Galen) 295 (= Pseudo-Soranus) the problem of element-theory and atomism (Galen only source): 111, 180, 203, 207; 159 (koinotetes as stoicheia); see notions of poropoiia/metasunkrisis, Themison, Thessalus, Julian B Themison koinotetes: “father” of the concept: 161, 111; cf 63 classificatory role: eg 77 role of the channels in physiology: 22, 51

 

91

primary vs secondary features: 144 (éx≈riston), cf 216 aetiology—cooperant causes: 86 pneuma: 51 element-theory? 111, 180 Eudemus Hippocratic exegesis (?): 43 Thessalus status of medicine—certainty of medical knowledge: 146, 178; cf 203 (see techne or episteme?) notion of similarity—Plato and Aristotle in Thessalus’ conception of Method: 180, cf 15 (definition of koinotes), 279, 282, 295, 288 definitions and divisions: Methodist medicine: 203 pãyow–sÊmptvma = concomitant vs supervening symptoms: 166 (see Methodist divisions) koinotetes: new koinotetes? (see kinds and number of the koinotetes) koinotetes of surgery: 67 (haemorrhage) koinotetes of chronicity: 180 (chronic wounds) the koinotetes and the classification of affections: 63 (flux); 158, 159; cf 170; 177 koinotes and poropoiia: 207 koinotetes and the elements: 111 conception of koinotes: manifest: 161 (cf 203, Methodists) forms of movement: 207 koinotetes and demonstrability: 161 vs 159, 160 (etc) indication from koinotes: 180 vs indication from part affected: 67 metasunkrisis and poropoiia: 180 (word metasunkrisis coined by Thessalus), 207 (role of these concepts in pharmacy); cf 34 (channels)

92

 

problem of element-theory and atomism: 111, 180, 207 (see Themison, Julian) time: importance of time in pathology and therapy: relevance for diagnosis: 166 (precedence/concomitance/supervenience) time as criterion of diseased states: 166 (§p¤monow; cf Olympicus) chronicity a distinct category: 180 see phases of a disease, diatritus non-causal interpretation of the time-element in disease: 166 the future: proneness, 37 prognosis and future symptoms, 22; cf 146 (not possible? see 215, 314, Methodists) aetiology: rejection of Hellenistic causes: 164 poropoiia the ultimately relevant factor: 207 anti-humouralism: argument against the “drawing power” of purging drugs: 111 (see Julian) Hippocratic exegesis: 111, 156 (Aphorisms); cf 157, 158; 210? (Thessalus’ followers; cf also 143) style of argument: eg 111 (the athlete: experimentation? cf 166) Dionysius the criterion of the natural and the koinotetes: 305 Hippocratic exegesis (?) 209 (see List of Works) Mnaseas the criterion of the natural and the koinotetes: 305 (see Dionysius)

 

93

Philo metaschematismos and the role of channels in physiology (?): 269 (see notions of poropoiia and metasunkrisis, Themison, Thessalus) the possibility of new diseases (?): 270 Olympicus distinction pãyow–sÊmptvma: 166 (see Thessalus, Methodist divisions) definitions of health and disease: 162, 165; 163, 167; see 49 (Methodist notion of health), 111 ( Julian’s definition of health) role of time: 166 Apollonides dream-interpretation (?): 19 (cf incubus—Themison; soul—Julian, Antipater) Julian definitions of health and disease: 111; 162 (see 49, Methodist notion of health) koinotetes: as forms of movement: 111 (see nature of the koinotetes, Thessalus, Olympicus) (logically) prior to/simpler than other entities: 111 element-theory? 111 (see Julian—koinotetes, problem of element-theory and atomism, Themison, Thessalus) anti-humouralism: argument against the “drawing power” of purging drugs: 111 (see Thessalus) arguments against “causes in liquids” being of the “containing” type: 111 (see aetiology) aetiology: rejection of Hellenistic kinds of cause (see humoural theory)

94

 

Hippocratic exegesis: 111, 162 psychology: body–soul distinction—affections of soul vs affections of body: 111 (see List of Works) style of argument: criticism of the doctors’ appeal to a concept of nature: 111 denial of dunamis in the case of purging drugs, by reasoning and experimentation: 111 criticism of interpretations of “Hippocrates” in the spirit of Hellenistic aetiologising: 111 denial of the primacy of humoural factors in the explanation of disease: 111 relation with the philosophical tradition—revised? 111 (Plato, Aristotle; Stoicism, Epicureanism, Scepticism) Antipater psychology (?): 298 (see List of Works) III. Medical Theory A Methodists pathology basic notions (see koinotes, poropoiia/metasunkrisis, Methodist divisions): health and disease: 49, 162, 166, 167, cf 164; see Thessalus, Olympicus, Julian symptom: 279; 165 (Olympicus), 166 (Themison, Thessalus); cf 164 paroxysm, attack: 292, 293 mechanism of disease (see Methodist channels, anti-humouralism): role of secondary factors, eg air: 179

 

95

other relevant factors—time: phases of affections: 143, 145, 146 (see Thessalus) koinotetes of phases? 279 chronicity: koinotes of chronicity? 180 (see Thessalus) diatritus: see Thessalus role of memory patterns: 44 (see diatritus; psychology, Julian— body–soul) role of the affected part: eg 51 (cf 46, 67; see esp. Thessalus) diagnosis: based on the koinotes: 25, 56, 59, 67 (not on the affected part) from clusters of symptoms: 24, 56, 154; cf 14 (?) importance for correct therapy: 65 element of time in diagnosis: 53 (see Thessalus, Olympicus) differential diagnosis: 39 (apoplexia/paralysis) 27 (catalepsis/lethargia) 42 (hydrophobia/melancholia/mania/phrenitis) 58 (mania/melancholia) 83 (sub-species of dropsy) prognosis: 215, 314; cf 22 (signs of the future); see time, symptom analysis and classification of affections (see Eudemus, Themison, Menemachus, Mnaseas; differential diagnosis; also Methodist definitions): fevers: 212, 214; 313 (but cf 109); 291, 296, 297; 149, 216 (symptoms; see Themison, diatritus, therapy of fevers) inflammations: 109 surgery (see Apollonides) Methodist modes: 230; koinotetes of surgery: 283, 279 (opposition external–internal) 67, 180 (see Thessalus (chronic wounds, haemorrhagia)

96

 

pharmacy koinotetes of pharmacy? 279, 283; 273 (tÚ fyoropoiÒn) importance of the concept of metasunkrisis for pharmacy: metasyncritic/chalastic a new principle of drug-classification: 112, 136 205, 211 (regrouping of properties: Thessalus) 185, 211 (venesection a chalastic procedure); see Themison, Thessalus 123 (Galenic vs Methodist grouping) general principle of drug-composition: no admixture of opposite dunameis (ie metasyncritic/chalastic): 118 (see Thessalus); cf 136 (and 280), 184 (case-record), 271, 280; (relaxants used unmixed) metasyncritic drugs associated with chronic disease (the two Methodist agogai ): 1, 128, 228, 232, 255; 15; 126; see 207, 180 (Thessalus) non-humoural account of drug-action: 189, 207, 180 (Thessalus); cf 175 cf argument against •lktikØ dÊnamiw of purging drugs, 111 (Thessalus, Julian) problem of the sources of drug-discovery: 184 (Thessalus); 173, 174, 175 problem of criteria for variations (in strength etc) between drugs of similar action (see indication from the koinotetes): 279; cf 176 with 120 problem of local remedies: eg 206 drug-types related to the skopoi, eg 176, 184, 185 (epoulotika, sarkotika for wounds); see indication from the koinotetes, treatment of wounds therapy general principles: preliminary katharsis abolished: 180, 272 strict demarcation chronic-acute: eg 294

 

97

observance of the diatritus: eg 61, 146, 281, 312; see Thessalus treatment not by opposites: 213 Methodist therapy of wounds: 174, 175, 176, 178, 182, 184, 191; see Thessalus physiology (see Themison, Mnaseas, Philo, Apollonides, Antipater): sleep: 97 (see psychology—Apollonides) pulse: 148, cf 150 (see Themison, Apollonides) B Themison pathology classifications, definitions, and descriptions of affections: apoplexia, paralysis: 39 incubus: 53, 238 (etymology) melancholia: 58 flux: 63 haemorrhagia, kinds: 66 stomachic affection: 77 worms: 90 fevers: 216 (cf 212, 214) women’s affections: 306 phases of affections: 26 (decline) physiology pulse: 90; cf 147 menstruation: 305 function of uterus: 304 botany and pharmacy properties of plants: 222, 263 (the plantain; see List of Works) anatomy? nature of the head: 51

98

 

Proclus pathology phases of affections: 83 classification of affections: 83 (dropsy) Eudemus pathology classification and diagnosis of affections: hydrophobia/melancholia: 42 (see Themison, Thessalus) analysis of symptoms: 43 case-records: a method of presentation? 41 Thessalus pathology—see Thessalus on koinotes, poropoiia/metasunkrisis, pãyow— sÊmptvma, time order of classification: 177 phases of an affection—the beginning: 144 (see diatritus) therapy the metasyncritic cycle: 180 variations in therapy according to the phase: the beginning: 142, 143, 204; cf 62 the diatritus: 146, cf 145; 54, 62, 70, 71 problem of the role of the affected part: cf 46 (indication from koinotes vs indication from part) with: 182; 184, 190, 192 (see anatomy); 174, 175, 176 therapy of wounds: 180 (chronic), 173; 186, 187, 193; 180, 187 (skopÒw) pharmacy—see importance of the concept of metasunkrisis for pharmacy athlete experiment—argument against •lktikØ dÊnamiw: 111 (see anti-humouralism) Methodist vs Empiricist discovery of drugs: 184

 

99

Menemachus pathology definition of lethargia: 24 Dionysius pharmacy and botany (?) investigation of properties of plants: 258, 259, 260, 261 Mnaseas pathology differential kinds of kinds of kinds of flux: 63

diagnosis: lethargia: 25 madness: 56 (etymology) paralysis: 59

physiology menstruation: 305 Philo pathology (?): debate on the possibility of new diseases: 270 physiology (?): hunger, thirst, sleep: 269 (role of the channels—see metaschematismos) digestion: 268 (simple vs varied foods) botany, mineralogy, pharmacy (?): properties of plants: 267 (engrafting) property of minerals: 20 Olympicus pathology—see Olympicus: pãyow–sÊmptvma, health–disease:

100

 

Apollonides physiology pulse and sleep: 117 surgery (?): 19 Julian pathology—see definition of health–disease, anti-humouralism pharmacy athlete experiment—argument against •lktikØ dÊnamiw: 111 (see anti-humouralism) Attalus pharmacy and therapy: 196 Antipater psychology (?): 298 (see List of Works) therapy discussion of the value of bandaging: 72 discussion of the diatritus: 68 IV. M P A Methodists illustrations of the role of pharmacy in therapy: ileus: 47 (some sectatores of Themison) haemorrhagia: 68 (some sectatores of Themison and Thessalus); see wounds

 

101

phrenitis: 198 wounds (see Thessalus): in the intestine: 193 in the stomach: 194, cf 192 of nerves and ligaments: 191, 192, 187, cf 188, 190 (caserecords) in the genitals, inflamed and uninflamed: 185 (case-records; see inflammations) in the ear, chronic: 184 (case-record); cf chronic wounds, 180 (Thessalus) inflammations: of the liver, 196 (Theagenes; cf 197) of the genitals, 185 (case-record) fevers: 195 (case-record), 201 (case-record: Commodus); see diatritus impairment of the fingers: 112 (case-record) B Themison therapy—accounts from the treatment of: epilepsia: 3, 55 stomachic affection: 5; cf 138 phrenitis: 23 lethargia: 26 catalepsis: 28 pleuritis: 30 peripneumonia: 32 cardiac affection: 35, 36 satyriasis: 48 cephalaea: 52 madness: 57 paralysis: 61 flux: 64, 65 haemorrhagia: 71, 73, 309; cf 69 phthisis: 74 asthma: 76 conditions of the spleen and liver: 79 (see Thessalus); see 197 jaundice: 80

102

 

cachexia: 81 atrophia: 82 dropsy: 84, 85 (see Thessalus) elephantiasis: 86, 229 phthiriasis: 87 dysentery: 89 sciatica, psoitis: 92 podagra: 95 fevers: 101, 102 nausea: 125 inflammation of the uterus: 307 pharmacy: drugs made by Themison: drug of aloes, Themison’s antidote for stomach, or the bitter drug: 2, 276 (used in melancholia) 5, 138 (used in the stomachic affection and others) Themison’s cerate: 88 (used in the coeliac affection) Themison’s drug for haemorrhagia: 69 Themison’s drug for inflamed ears: 105 Themison’s drug for coughs: 134 Themison’s use of drugs in therapy: 2, 3, 5, 23, 26, 28, 30, 32, 35, 36, 48, 52, 55, 57, 61, 65, 69, 73, 74, 76, 79, 82, 85, 86, 87, 89, 92, 95, 103, 138, 229 223, 261 (dosage of hellebore) 257 (artificial wines) 101, 102 (food in relation to phases) Proclus therapy—pharmacy: drugs made by Proclus: Proclus’ drug for podagra: 235 Proclus’ potion for one year (same?): 244 (preparation; sciatica) 245 (used for discharge of blood) 247 (preparation; used for sciatica)

 

103

Eudemus therapy—accounts from the treatment of: cardiac affection: 35 hydrophobia: 45 pharmacy—drugs used by Eudemus: hellebore: 45 (hydrophobia) antidote of Philometor: 115 Thessalus therapy—accounts from the treatment of: ileus: 46 epilepsia: 54 paralysis: 62 flux: 65 haemorrhagia: 70, 71, 73 conditions of the spleen and liver: 79 (cf Themison); see 197 cachexia: 81 dropsy: 85 (cf Themison) sciatica and psoitis: 92 podagra: 95 fevers: 146 chronic wounds: 70; 180 prolapse of uterus: 310 pharmacy: Thessalus’ use of drugs in therapy: ileus: 46 synanche: 37 paralysis: 62 flux: 65 haemorrhagia: 73 dropsy: 85 (cf Themison) metasyncritic drugs: 207, 180 (mustard a paradigm)

104

 

Menemachus therapy—accounts of procedures: leeches: 226 depilatory: 227 pharmacy—drugs made by Menemachus (?): the composition of Menemachus for teeth: 106 Dionysius pharmacy (?): medicines made by Dionysius: salve for eyes: 10, 104, 132 use of substances in pharmacy: 107 Mnaseas pharmacy: medicines made by Mnaseas and their use in therapy (Methodist and non-Methodist): emollient/diaphoretic plaster of Mnaseas: 7, 118, 123, 225, 233, 249 (preparation) epilepsia: 4 tumours of the parotid: 7, 130, 224, 240 expectoration: 8 ulcers of the bladder: 16 podagra: 17, 93; 94 (misuse of the plaster) pleuritis: 29 peripneumonia: 31 tetanus: 31, 40 paralysis: 60 asthma: 75 stomachic affection: 78 sciatica and psoitis: 91 suppurations: 96, 241 inflammations: 231; of the liver: 242; of the uterus: 243

 

105

consumption: 236, 241 myle: 308 clidion of Mnaseas: 234, preparation flux of stomach: 251 coeliac affection: 252 Philo experience in drugs (?): 268 Olympicus pharmacy: drugs made by Olympicus—the “olympiac”, “olympos”: 248 (preparation) 239 (used prolapse of uterus) Julian pharmacy: drugs made by Julian: Julian’s enaimos: 119 Julian’s mead: 127, 246 (podagra) Antipater pharmacy (?): drugs possibly made by Antipater: Antipater’s drug for wounds: 121 Antipater’s plaster for colon and internal affections: 124 Antipater’s analgesic: 129 Antipater’s potion for coughs: 135 Antipater’s antidote for the stomachic affection: 137 (cf Themison, the bitter drug) Antipater’s drug for dysentery: 140 Antipater’s potion for the spleen: 139 drugs possibly used by Antipater: 122 (diaphoretic and epispastic for inflammations)

106

  113, 114 (mithridatic and theriac) 131 (drug for nasal polyps) 133 (drug for mouth) 141 (malagma for sciatica)

Anonymous Methodists case-records (Galen): 112, 184, 185, 188, 190, 195, 201

LIST OF METHODIST WORKS Notation: bold figure = Fragment number Q = quotation (name of the quoting authority in brackets) (?) = reasonably plausible attribution ? = other doubts [ ] = highly unlikely attribution T Acute affections: 26Q (Caelius) Chronic affections: 50; i: 52, 55, 57, 61, 64, 66, 77, 89; ii: 71, 74, 76, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 92, 95; iii: 307 Hygenics: 64 Letters: 81; ii: 53, 86; ix: 90; x: 238 The method (?): 65 [but cf Thessalus, 166Q] Periodic fevers: 28Q (Caelius) work on the plantain: 222, 263 quotations from unspecified works: 32Q (Caelius), 36Q (Caelius); works used as source-material by Pliny: 256 E, H; cf 48, 51, 304 E antidote of Philometor, versified (?): 115Q (Galen) case records—hydrophobia: 41 T The canon: 180, 206 Commentary on Hippocrates’ Aphorisms: 111Q (Galen), 156 The koinotetes: 156

108

   

Letter to Nero: 156Q (Galen) On medicines: 180 The method: 166Q (Galen) Regimen: 46, 50; ii: 62, 65, 67, 71, 77, 79, 81, 84, 85, 95 Surgery: 67, 180 Syncritics (Corporation? = Regimen ii?): 46Q (Caelius), 156 quotations from unspecified works: 34Q (Caelius), 111Q (Galen), 203Q (Galen); uncertain: 22Q? (Caelius), 67Q? (Caelius) M quotations from unspecified works: 226Q; 227Q (Oribasius) D Commentary on Hippocrates’ Aphorisms (?): 209 pharmaceutic/botanical books (?) 258, 259, 260, 261, 302 works used as source-material by Pliny (?) 256 A–C, E–Y P work on minerals or minerals drugs (?): 20 [work on library acquisition: 299] O quotations from unspecified works: 162Q, 165Q, 166Q (Galen) J Affections of the body and [sc affections] of the soul: 111Q Commentary on Hippocrates’ Aphorisms: 111Q, 152 The method: 111Q

    A Letters: 68, 72 On soul (?): 298

109

MAIN EDITIONS OF THE SOURCES

Aetius Amidenus: Libri medicinales i–viii, ed. Alexander Olivieri, CMG VIII 1, VIII 2, Vols I–II, Leipzig–Berlin 1935–1950 ——: Libri medicinales ix, ed. S. Zervos, Athena 24 1911, pp. 265–392 Agnellus Ravennas: In Galeni De sectis commentarium, edd Buffalo Classics Seminar 609, Arethusa Monographs, Buffalo 1981 Alexander Trallianus: Alexander von Tralles. Original-Text und Übersetzung, Bände I–II, ed. Theodor Puschmann, Wien 1879 (repr. Amsterdam 1963) Anonymus, Anecdota Graeca Parisina: J. A. Cramer, Anecdota Graeca e codicibus manuscriptis Bibliothecae Regiae Parisiensis, Vol I, Oxford 1839 (repr. Hildesheim 1967) Anonymus Atheniensis: Sammelbuch Griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten, continued by Emil Kiesserling, Band VIII (Nr. 9642–10208), Wiesbaden 1967 Anonymus Bambergensis: Karl Sudhoff, “Ein Bamberger historisch-propädeutisches Fragment”, Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin 8 1916, 410–413 Anonymus Epigrammatista: Georg Kaibel, Epigramata Graeca ex lapidibus collecta, Berlin 1878 Anonymus Laurentianus: Max Wellmann, “Zur Geschichte der Medizin im Alterthum. VI”, Hermes 35 1900, 367–382 Anonymus Mediolanensis: Karl Deichgräber, “15. Questionario medico”, in Papiri della R. Università di Milano, Vol I, ed. Achille Vogliano, Milano 1937 Anonymus Oxyrhynchus: David Sedley, “Methodic Medicine: fr no. 3654”, Oxyrhynchus Papyri 52 1984, 39–44 Anonymus Parisinus: Ivan Garofalo and Brian Fuchs, Anonymi medici De morbis acutis et chroniis, Brill, Leiden 1997 Anonymus Vindobonensis: Petrus Lambecius, Commentariorum de augustissima Bibliotheca Caesarea Vindobonensi liber VI, ed. A. F. Kollar, Wien 1780, pp. 329–47 ——: cf also H. Hunger, O. Koller, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, Teil 2: Codices juridici, Codices medici, Wien 1969, p. 61 Artemidorus Daldianus: Onirocriticon i–v, ed. R. A. Pack, Teubner, Leipzig 1966 Athenaeus Naucratita: Deipnosophistae i–xv, ed. G. Kaibel, Vols I–III, Teubner, Leipzig 1887–1890 ——: Deipnosophistae i–xv, ed. C. B. Gulick, Vols I–VII, Loeb, Cambridge Mass.–London 1927–1937 Decius Magnus Ausonius: R. P. H. Green, The Works of Ausonius, OCP, Oxford 1991 Caelius Aurelianus: I. E. Drabkin, Caelius Aurelianus, On Acute Diseases and On Chronic Diseases, Chicago 1950 ——: Celerum uel acutarum passionum libri I–III, ed. Gerhard Bendz, CML VI 1, Berlin 1990–1993 ——: Tardarum passionum libri I–V, ed. Gerhard Bendz, CML VI 1, Berlin 1990–1993 ——: De salutaribus praeceptis, ed. Valentin Rose, Anecdota Graeca et Graeco-Latina, II Heft, Berlin 1864 (repr. Amsterdam 1963) Cassius Iatrosophista: J. L. Ideler, Physici et medici minores, Vol I, Berlin 1864 (repr. Amsterdam 1963), 144–176 Aurelius Cornelius Celsus: Philippe Mudry, La Préface du De medicina de Celse (texte, trad., comm.), Roma 1982 ——: Guy Serbat, Celse. De la médecine I–II, Tome I, Budé, Paris 1995 ——: De medicina III–VIII, ed. K. Marx, CML I, Leipzig 1915

112

    

——: De medicina, ed. W. G. Spencer, Loeb, Cambridge Mass.–London 1960–1961 Marcus Cornelius Fronto: Epistulae, ed. Michael P. J. van den Hout, Teubner, Leipzig 1988 Claudius Galenus: Claudii Galeni opera omnia, ed. Carolus Gottlob Kühn, Vols I–XX, Leipzig 1821–1830 (repr. Hildesheim 1964–1965) ——: Claudii Galeni Pergameni scripta minora, Vols I–III, edd J. Marquardt, I. Müller, G. Helmreich, Teubner, Leipzig, 1884–1893 (repr. Amsterdam 1967) ——: Ad Glauconem de methodo medendi, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol XI, 1826 ——: Aduersus Iulianum [= Aduersus ea quae Iuliano in Hippocratis Aphorismos enunciata sunt libellus], ed. C. G. Kühn Vol XVIII A, 1829 ——: Aduersus Iulianum, ed. E. Wenkebach, CMG V 10, 3, Berlin 1951 ——: De anatomicis administrationibus, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol II, 1821 ——: De antidotis, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol XIV, 1827 ——: De atra bile, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol V, 1825 ——: De atra bile, ed. W. de Boer, CMG V 4. 1. 1, Leipzig–Berlin 1937 ——: De causis pulsuum, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol IX, 1825 ——: De compositione medicamentorum per genera, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol XIII, 1827 ——: De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, i–vi, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol XII, 1826 ——: De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, vii–x, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol XIII, 1827 ——: De crisibus, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol IX, 1825 ——: De crisibus, ed. B. Alexanderson, Göteborg 1967 ——: De differentia pulsuum, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol VIII, 1824 ——: De differentiis febrium, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol VII, 1824 ——: De dignoscendis pulsibus, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol VIII, 1824 ——: De libris propriis, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol XIX, 1830 ——: De libris propriis, ed. I. Müller in Marquardt, Müller, Helmreich, Vol II, 1891 ——: De locis affectis, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol VIII, 1824 ——: De methodo medendi, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol X, 1825 ——: De ordine librorum suorum, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol XIX, 1830 ——: De ordine librorum suorum, ed. I. Müller in Marquardt, Müller, Helmreich, Vol II, 1891 ——: De plenitudine, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol VII, 1824 ——: De praecognitione [De praenotione ad Posthumum], ed. C. G. Kühn Vol XIV, 1827 ——: De praecognitione, ed. Vivian Nutton, CMG V 8. 1, Berlin 1979 ——: De sanitate tuenda, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol VI, 1825 ——: De sanitate tuenda, ed. K. Koch, CMG V 4. 2, Leipzig–Berlin 1923 ——: De sectis, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol I, 1821 ——: De sectis, ed. G. Helmreich in Marquardt, Müller, Helmreich, Vol III, 1893 ——: De simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis et facultatibus, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol XI, 1826 ——: De theriaca ad Pisonem, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol XIV, 1827 ——: In Hippocratis Aphorismos i–v, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol XVII B, 1829 ——: In Hippocratis De uictu acutorum morborum i–iv, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol XVI, 1828 ——: In Hippocratis De uictu acutorum morborum i–iv, ed. G. Helmreich, CMG V 9. 1, Leipzig–Berlin 1914 ——: In Hippocratis librum primum Epidemiarum i–iii, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol XVII A, 1828 ——: In Hippocratis librum primum Epidemiarum i–iii, ed. E. Wenkebach, CMG V 10. 1, Leipzig–Berlin 1934 ——: In Hippocratis librum sextum Epidemiarum i–ii, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol XVII A, 1828

    

113

——: In Hippocratis librum sextum Epidemiarum i–vii, ed. E. Wenkebach, CMG V 10. 2. 2, Berlin 1940 ——: In Hippocratis Prognosticum i–iii, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol XVIII B, 1830 ——: In Hippocratis Prognosticum i–iii, ed. J. Heeg, CMG V 9. 2, Leipzig–Berlin 1915 ——: Synopsis librorum suorum de pulsibus, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol IX, 1825 ——: Thrasybulus [= Ad Thrasybulum, utrum medicinae sit an gymnasticae hygiene, ed. C. G. Kühn Vol V, 1825 ——: Thrasybulus, ed. G. Helmreich in Marquardt, Müller, Helmreich, Vol III, 1893 Hieronymus: J. Labourt, Sancti Hieronymi Epistulae, Tome III, Budé, Paris, 1953 Inscriptiones Asiae Minoris (at Fr 196 II A–E): Louis Robert and Jeanne Robert, La Carie. Histoire et géographie historique avec le recueil des inscriptions antiques, II 1954 Ioannes Alexandrinus: Commentaria in librum De sectis Galeni, ed. C. D. Pritchet, Brill, Leiden 1982 Isidorus Hispalensis: Etymologiarum siue Originum libri xx, ed. W. M. Lindsay, Vol I, OCP, Oxford 1911 Iuuenalis: Pierre de Labriolle et François Villeneuve, Juvénal, Satires, Budé, Paris 1983 ——: Paulus Wessner, Scholia in Iuuenalem uetustiora, Teubner, Leipzig 1931 Macer Floridus: De uiribus herbarum, ed. Ludovicus Choulant, Leipzig 1832 Oribasius: Ad Eunapium, ed. Joannes Raeder, CMG VI 3, Vol V, Leipzig–Berlin 1926 ——: Collectiones medicae, ed. Joannes Raeder, CMG VI 1.1, VI 1.2, VI 2.1, VI 2.2, Vols I–IV, Leipzig–Berlin 1928–1933 ——: Eclogae medicamentorum, ed. Joannes Raeder, CMG VI 2.2, Vol IV, Leipzig–Berlin 1933 ——: Synopsis ad Eustathium, ed. Joannes Raeder, CMG VI 3, Vol V, Leipzig–Berlin 1926 Palladius: Giovanni Baffioni, “Scolii inediti di Palladio al De sectis di Galeno”, Bolletino del Comitato per la preparazione della edizione nazionale dei cassici greci e latini, NS 6 1958, 61–78 Paulus Aegineta: Epitomae medicae, ed. I. L. Heiberg, CMG IX 1, IX 2, Vols I–II, Leipzig–Berlin 1924–1925 Petrocellus Salernitanus: Practica Petrocelli Salernitani, in Collectio Salernitana, ed. Salvatore de Renzi, Tomo IV, Napoli 1856 Philumenus: De coeliacis, in Nachträge zu Alexander Trallianus, Fragmente aus Philumenus und Philagrius, ed. Th. Puschmann, Berlin 1887 (repr. Amsterdam 1963) ——: De rheumate uentris, in Nachträge zu Alexander Trallianus, Fragmente aus Philumenus und Philagrius, ed. Th. Puschmann, Berlin 1887 (repr. Amsterdam 1963) ——: De venenatis animalibus eorumque remediis, ed. Maximilianus Wellmann, CMG X 1.1, Leipzig-Berlin 1908 Photius: René Henry, Photius, Bibliothèque, Tomes II–III, Budé, Paris 1960 Plinius: Naturalis historia, ed. H. Rackham, Vol IV, Loeb, Cambridge Mass.-London 1967–1968 ——: Naturalis historia, ed. W. H. S. Jones, Vols VI–VIII, Loeb, Cambridge Mass.London 1963–1966 ——: Jean Beaujeu, Pline l’Ancien, Histoire naturelle, Vol I, Budé, Paris 1950 ——: J. André, Pline l’Ancien, Histoire naturelle, Vols XIV, XX, XXII, XXV, Budé, Paris 1958–1974 ——: A. Ernout, Pline l’Ancien, Histoire naturelle, Vol XXIX, Budé, Paris 1962 Plutarchus: Plutarchi Moralia, Vol IV [= Quaestiones conuiuales], ed. C. Hubert, Teubner, Leipzig 1938 (repr. 1971) ——: Plutarch’s Moralia, Vols VIII–IX [= Quaestiones conuiuales], ed. Herbert B. Hoffleit, Loeb, Cambridge Mass.–London 1969

114

    

Priscianus: Theodori Prisciani Euporiston, ed. Valentin Rose, Teubner, Leipzig 1894 Pseudo-Democritus: Liber medicinalis, ed. I. Heeg, in Abhandlungen der Königlich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Nr. 4 (= “Pseudodemokritische Studien”), Berlin 1913 ——: Liber medicinalis, ed. Klaus-Dietrich Fischer (forthcoming) Pseudo-Dioscorides: Pedanii Dioscoridis Anazarbei Per‹ dhlhthr¤vn, fiobÒlvn ka‹ eÈpor¤stvn (= De uenenis), ed. Curtius Sprengel, Leipzig 1930 ——: De uenenis, ed. Alain Touwaide (forthcoming) Pseudo-Galenus: Claudii Galeni opera omnia, ed. Carolus Gottlob Kühn, Vols I–XX, Leipzig 1821–1830 (repr. Hildesheim 1964–1965) ——: Definitiones medicae, ed. C. G. Kühn, Vol XIX, 1830 ——: De melancholia, ed. C. G. Kühn, Vol XIX, 1830 ——: De optima secta ad Thrasybulum liber, ed. C. G. Kühn, Vol I, 1821 ——: De remediis parabilibus, ed. C. G. Kühn, Vol XIV, 1827 ——: De uictus ratione in morbis acutis ex Hippocratis sententiis, ed. C. G. Kühn, Vol XIX, 1830 ——: De uictus ratione in morbis acutis ex Hippocratis sententiis [De diaeta Hippocratis in morbis acutis], ed. J. Westenberger, CMG V 9.1, Leipzig–Berlin 1914 ——: Medicus [= Introductio seu Medicus Galeno adscriptus], ed. C. G. Kühn, Vol XIV, 1827 Pseudo-Plutarchus: Plutarchi Moralia, Vol VII [= Fragmenta], ed. F. Sandbach, Teubner, Leipzig 1967 ——: Plutarch’s Moralia, Vol XV [= Fragmenta], ed. F. Sandbach, Loeb, Cambridge Mass.-London 1969 Pseudo-Soranus: Quaestiones medicinales, ed. Valentin Rose, Anecdota Graeca et GraecoLatina, II Heft, Berlin 1864 (repr. Amsterdam 1963) ——: H. Stadler, “Neue Bruchstücke der Quaestiones medicinales des PseudoSoranus”, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 15 1906, pp. 361–68 ——: Klaus-Dietrich Fischer, “Beiträge zu den pseudosoranischen Quaestiones medicinales”, in Text and Tradition. Studies in Ancient Medicine and its Transmission, presented to Jutta Kollesch, edd. K.-D. Fischer, D. Nickel, P. Potter, Brill, Leiden 1998 Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem: Hartmut Erbse, Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem, Vol III, De Gruyter, Berlin, 1974 ——: Ernestus Maass, Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem Townleyana, Tomus V, OCP, Oxford 1887 ——: Gulielmus Dindorfius, Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem, Tomus III, OCP, Oxford 1877 ——: Marchinus van der Valk, Eusthatii Archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes, Vol. III, Leiden, Brill, 1979 ——: J. A. Cramer, Anecdota Graeca e codicibus manuscriptis Bibliothecae Regiae Parisiensis, Vol III, Oxford 1841 (repr. Hildesheim 1967) Scholia in Oribasii Collectiones medicas: Oribasii Collectiones medicae, ed. Joannes Raeder, CMG VI 2.1, Vol III, Leipzig–Berlin 1931 Lucius Annaeus Seneca: Ad Lucium Epistulae morales, ed. L. D. Reynolds, Tomus I, OCP, Oxford 1965 Seruius: Seruii Grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii Bucolica et Georgica commentarii, ed. Georgius Thilo, Teubner, Leipzig 1927 Sextus Empiricus: Sexti Empirici opera: Purr≈neiai Ípotup≈seiw, ed. Hermann Mutschmann, Vol I, Teubner, Leipzig 1958 ——: Outlines of Pyrrhonism, ed. R. G. Bury, Loeb, Cambridge Mass.–London 1967 Soranus: Gynaikeia, ed. I. Ilberg, CMG IV, Berlin 1927 ——: Paul Burguière, Danielle Gourevitch, Yves Malinas, Soranos d’Ephèse, Maladies des femmes, Tomes I–IV, Budé, Paris 1988–2000

    

115

Stephanus: Stephani philosophi et medici Commentarii in priorem Galeni librum Therapeuticum ad Glauconem, ed. F. R. Dietz, in Scholia in Hippocratem et Galenum, Vol I, Königsberg 1834, pp. 233–344 ——: Stephani Scholia in Hippocratis Prognosticon, ed. F. R. Dietz, in Scholia in Hippocratem et Galenum, Vol I, Königsberg 1834, pp. 51–232 ——: In Hippocratis Prognosticon, ed. J. M. Duffy, CMG XI 1.2, Berlin 1983 Suda: Ada Adler, Suidae Lexicon, Pars IV, Teubner, Leipzig 1935 Cornelius Tacitus: Annales, ed. C. D. Fischer, OCP, Oxford 1906 (repr. 1939)

THE FRAGMENTS

118

  ‒  - FR 1. AETIUS, LIBRI

MEDICINALES

(1)

Aetius, Libri medicinales, iii 185 = I p. 355 Olivieri: [355] Per‹ t«n metasugkritik«n bohyhmãtvn: GalhnoË.1 Pãntvn t«n §p‹ ple›ston xronizÒntvn2 pay«n, ˜tan mhd¢n énÊ˙3 tå bohyÆmata, tØn metasugkritikØn4 ÍpÚ t«n Meyodik«n5 Ùnomazom°nhn yerape¤an ëpantew efi≈yasi poie›syai. ÉEg∆ d¢ §fÉ œn ≥toi duskras¤a tiw Ígrå ka‹ 5 cuxrå to›w pãsxousi mor¤oiw §st¤n, ≥toi6 dusaisyhs¤a µ énaisyhs¤a,7 prosf°rv tå diå nãpuow µ yac¤aw ka‹ t«n ımo¤vn aÈto›w fãrmaka, ta›w jhra›w d¢ ka‹ yerma›w diay°sesin oÈ prosf°rv tå toiaËta.

GalhnoË om A (= Athous LaÊraw 718 V 63) + Mo (= Marcianus 291) 2 fronizÒntvn A Mo 3 énÊvsi A + D (= Codex Athous Batoped¤ou A 29) + A + c (= codd D E F Mo N P S (chartaceus) T V): énÊei Pa (= Parisinus Suppl Gr 1240) At (= Athous LaÊraw 719 V 64): énÊoi Px (= Vaticanus Palatinus 199) 4 sugkritikØn Px + La (= Laurentianus LXXV, 20) 5 metå t«n meyodik«n A + D + P (= Vaticanus 298) 6 µ A D P 7 µ énaisyhs¤a om A 1

FR 2. AETIUS, LIBRI

MEDICINALES

(2)

Aetius, Libri medicinales, vi 10 = II pp. 146 + 147 Olivieri: [146] Yerape¤a melagxolik«n: GalhnoË.1 [147] Poseidvn¤ou.2 ÉEfÉ œn dÉ aÂma pleonãzein fa¤noito, eÈyÁw §j érx∞w fl°ba t°mnein prosÆkei 10 tØn §n égk«ni3 ka‹ mãlista §fÉ œn sunÆyeiw §kkr¤seiw efis‹ toË a·matow §pesxhm°nai.4 ÉEp‹ d¢ gunaik«n aÂw §kle¤pei5 tå katamÆnia, tØn §n t“ sfur“ fl°ba t°mnein xrÆ, kenoËn dÉ ßkaston6 prÚw dÊnamin. ÉEfÉ œn dÉ ≤ kakoxum¤a mçllon pleonekte›, prodiaitÆsaw tÚn pãsxonta7 kãyaire8 tª flerò ÑRoÊfou µ ÉArxig°nouw µ ÉIoÊstou. Efi dÉ êmfv pleonãzoi,9 15 proflebotomÆsaw kãyaire. Metå10 d¢ taËta dialip∆n11 ≤m°raw tinåw klust∞rsi tØn koil¤an kenoËn, pr«ton m¢n diå xul«n pitÊrvn12 ka‹ kentaur¤ou toË mikroË13 ka‹ éfron¤trou14 ka‹ m°litow,15 met°peita16 d¢17

GalhnoË om At 2 Poseidvn¤ou in margine Pa: om x (= codd A B K Lb Q Pa) c 3 égk«si v 4 §pisxhm°nai f Px Mo c v 5 §kle¤poi Pa 6 an •kãsthn? 7 kãmnonta v 8 kaya¤rein v 9 pleonãzei Pa Mo v (Gal.) 10 Poseidvn¤ou. Metå add A 11 dialoipÚn A: dialoip∆n P At: diå leip∆n Px 12 xuloË pitÊrvn Pa x c (Gal.): pitÊrvn xul«n v 13 ka‹ kentaur¤ou toË mikroË om Cp Px P v (Gal.): post éfron¤trou A: ka‹ kentaÊrion mikrÚn Mo, in margine 14 éfon¤trou Pa: éfon¤trvn Cp: éfron¤trvn Mo P v 15 m°litow kêpeita d¢ ka‹ kentaÊrion mikrÚn add P 16 om P 17 om Px P v 1

  ‒  - FR 1. AETIUS, MEDICAL

BOOKS

119

(1)

Aetius, Medical books, iii 185 = I p. 355 Olivieri: [355] Concerning metasyncritic remedies: [sc excerpt] from Galen. For all the affections which are predominantly chronic, when the remedies bring no succour, all [sc the doctors] are in the habit of applying the therapy which the Methodists call “metasyncritic”. I for one administer medicines made of mustard, thapsia, and suchlike in cases where there is humid or cold duskrasia in the affected parts, and either a low sensitivity-threshold or complete lack of sensation; but I do not administer such medicines in cases of hot and dry [sc duskrasia].

FR 2. AETIUS, MEDICAL

BOOKS

(2)

Aetius, Medical books, vi 10 = II pp. 146 + 147 Olivieri: [146] The treatment of melancholics; [sc excerpt] from Galen. [147] [sc Excerpt from] Poseidonius. In cases where blood appears to be in excess, the thing to do is to open the vein at the elbow right from the start, especially in cases where the usual discharges of blood are blocked. In the case of women whose menses have stopped, we should open the vein at the ankle, and empty out each one according to the [sc patient’s] strength. In cases where it is rather corrupt humours [kakochumia] that are in excess, submit the patient to a preliminary regimen, then purge him by [sc using] the antidote of Rufus, Archigenes, or Iustus. If he [sc the melancholic patient] has an excessive amount of both [sc blood and corrupt humours], perform a preliminary venesection, then purge him. Leave [sc him] for a couple of days after this, then evacuate the bowel with a clyster—with bran-juices, fever-few, washing soda, and honey to begin with; later on,

120

  ‒  -

ka‹ polupod¤ou =¤zaw teylasm°naw sun°cein to›w pitÊroiw ka‹18 §p¤yumon. Metå d¢ tre›w ≤m°raw toË klust∞row dot°on aÈto›w tØn diÉ élÒhw pikrãn, proseilhfu›an prÚw to›w êlloiw pçsi ka‹ §piyÊmou.19 Skeuãzein dÉ aÈtØn …w Yem¤svn boÊletai:20 élÒhw m¢n bal∆n21 < bÉ22 5 mast¤xhw d¢ ka‹ krÒkou ka‹ nardostãxuow, kinnam≈mou te µ23 kass¤aw: tÚ diploËn24 ésãrou ka‹ karpobalsãmou: •kãstou25 énå26 go27 aÉ:28 prostiy°nai d¢ toÊtoiw: ka‹29 §piyÊmou go bÉ 10 30 ka‹ didÒnai koxliar¤ou megãlou tÚ31 pl∞yow metå melikrãtou. Dot°on dÉ aÈto›w32 §k diasthmãtvn Ùl¤gvn33 deÊteron µ tr¤ton, e‰ta pãlin diaitÆsaw ka‹ énalab∆n tåw dunãmeiw d¤dou pãlin tØn flerån ÑRoÊfou µ 15 ÉArxig°nouw µ ÉIoÊstou.34 µ x c v (Gal.) 19 prÚw to›w êlloiw pçsi ka‹ §piyÊmou cett: metå tØn kãyarsin ka‹ tÚn klust∞ra P 20 boÊletai: Skeuas¤a t∞w pikrçw. Yem¤svn add Px: boÊletai: ≤ pikrå …w Yem¤svn add Mo 21 bãllvn A v 22 corr ego: rÉ Olivieri 23 ka‹ A v 24 te µ kass¤aw: tÚ diploËn om Px 25 om Pa Px 26 om Cp Mo c v 27 drm Px 28 om Px 29 prostiy°nai d¢ toÊtoiw ka‹ cett: kas¤aw drm b Px 30 add Olivieri ex Galeno 31 megãlou tÚ cett: megãlou P + S (= Scorialensis C IV, 14): M°ga La At 32 aÈtÚn La: aÈtØn Pa: aÈto›w + corr aÈt∞w supra Mo 33 Ùl¤gon At 34 µ ÉIoÊstou µ ÉArxig°nouw Pa 18

FR 3. AETIUS, LIBRI

MEDICINALES

(3)

Aetius, Libri medicinales, vi 16 = II pp. 155 + 156 Olivieri:a [155] Dioskor¤douw prÚw §pilhptikÚn bohyÆmata. 1 [156] ÖAllo ÉAsklhpiãdou:2 fÊlla §la¤aw: keÉ kastor¤ou3< aÉ4 sÁn Ùjum°liti:5 20 ⁄6 Yem¤svn7 §xrÆsato. Poie›8 §pilhptiko›w ka‹ §lefanti«sin.9 a

Olivieri’s sentence at the end of this fragment runs into what I take to be a new prescription: poie› §pilhptiko›w [ka‹ §lefanti«sin], ¶sti d¢ ka‹ yhriakØ égayØ §lefanti«si: ses°levw < eÉ skord¤ou kastor¤ou kinnam≈mou ktl. Dioskor¤dou prÚw §pilhptikoÁw P: BoÆyhma §pileptiko›w Dioskor¤douw Px 2 ÉAsklhpiãdou om Pa P v 3 ka‹ kastor¤ou Px c v 4 aÉ ego < Ùgk¤a Cp Mo 5 sÁn Ùjum°liti: êllo ÉAsklhpiãdou add Pa: sÁn Ùjum°liti: êllo x A 6 ˜ Px Mo P v 7 ı Yem¤svn A 8 Poie› ka‹ add P v 9 ka‹ §lefanti«sin om La > del Olivieri: §lefanti«sin om x c v. 1

  ‒  -

121

boil some crushed polypody-root and epithumon into the bran as well. Three days after the clyster you should give them [sc the patients] the bitter [sc antidote] of aloes, adding some epithumon to all the other [sc ingredients]. Prepare it as Themison indicates, taking: two [sc ounces] of aloes; a double amount of mastich, crocus, spikenard, and cinnamon or cassia; asaron and balsam-fruit: one ounce of each. Also add to these: two ounces of epithumon; one ounce of schoinos flower, and administer in the dose of a large spoonful, with hydromel. You should make them [sc the patients] take it two or three times, at short intervals; then, once you have put them through the regimen and rebuilt their strength, re-administer the antidote of Rufus, Archigenes, or Iustus.

FR 3. AETIUS, MEDICAL

BOOKS

(3)

Aetius, Medical books, vi 16 = II pp. 155 + 156 Olivieri: [155] Dioscorides’ remedies for epilepsia. [156] Another one, by Asclepiades: twenty-five olive-leaves; one ounce of castor with oxymel: this is one that Themison used. It is efficient for epileptics and patients with elephantiasis.

122

  ‒  - FR 4. AETIUS, LIBRI

MEDICINALES

(4)

Aetius, Libri medicinales, vi 18 = II p. 158 Olivieri: [158] Per‹1 t«n épÚ mor¤ou tinÚw §xÒntvn tØn t∞w §pilhc¤aw2 afit¤an.3 ÜOsoiw dÉ épÒ tinow •t°rou faneroË mor¤ou tØn érxØn ¶xei ≤ §pilhc¤a, kayãper §p‹ toË proeirhm°nou épÚ t∞w knÆmhw, metå tØn toË pantÚw s≈matow k°nvsin, xr¤smasin §kyerma¤nein tÚn tÒpon xrØ prÒteron, e‰ta4 5 §piye›nai5 tÚ diå spermãtvn §p¤yema ka‹ t«n §mplãstrvn tå éraivtikã te6 ka‹ metablhtikå7 t∞w duskras¤aw, oÂã §stin ≤ m°yh kaloum°nh ka‹ ≤ di É élya¤aw ka‹ ≤ Mnasa¤ou,8 metå d¢ taËta ka‹ ≤ foinik¤nh.9 Metå d¢ xrÒnon flkanÚn10 drvpak¤zein tÚn tÒpon ka‹ sinap¤zein. OÏtvw m¢n nean¤skouw te ka‹ meirãkia ka‹ parakmãzontaw fisxurot°rouw yera10 peÊesyai de›.

Poseidvn¤ou. Per‹ add Cp Px P At 2 §pilhc¤an La Px At 3 afit¤an. Poseidvn¤ou add Mo A: . . . tinÚw tØn t∞w §pilhc¤aw afit¤an §xÒntvn. Poseidvn¤ou transp S 4 ¥tiw Px A 5 §piy∞nai Pa Px A At: §piye›nai ka‹ proegrãfh ¶mprosyen Px 6 om c 7 katablhtikå La 8 Mnas°ou quaer Olivieri 9 foinik¤nh. œn tåw skeuas¤aw toioÊtvn nËn §roËmen. Skeuas¤a t∞w metå liyargur¤ou §la¤ou ktl P 10 om c At 1

FR 5. AETIUS, LIBRI

MEDICINALES

(5)

Aetius, Libri medicinales, ix 9 = p. 292 Zervos: [292] ÑO dÉ ÉAsklhpiãdhw skeuãzesyai keleÊei tØn pikrån …w Yem¤svn, ¥tiw ka‹ aÏth =hyÆsetai metÉ oÈ polÊ.

FR 6. AGNELLUS RAVENNAS, IN GALENI DE SECTIS COMMENTARIUM Agnellus Ravennas, In Galeni De sectis commentarium, Actio quarta, Codex Ambrosianus G 108 inf., fol 26 recto = pp. 22–24 Buffalo Classics Seminar: Qui constituerunt Inpiricam sectam? Acron Cacrantinus, Philon de Cho, Seraphion de Alexandria, Sextus, Apollonius. Qui sunt qui constituerunt 15 Dogmaticam sectam? Ypocrates de Cho, Diocles, Praxegoras, Philotemus,

  ‒  - FR 4. AETIUS, MEDICAL

BOOKS

123

(4)

Aetius, Medical books, vi 18 = II p. 158 Olivieri: [158] Cases where the cause of epilepsia is in some part [sc of the body]. In cases where epilepsia starts from some other visible part [sc of the body]—take for instance the lower limb, as in our previous discussion—the first thing to do after the evacuation of the whole body is to heat the place by frictions; then you must apply the coating [sc made] of seeds and, from the range of emollient plasters, the ones that have the loosest texture and are capable of changing the unbalance of humours [duskrasia]— for instance the one called drunkenness-plaster [methe], the plaster of marshmallow, the plaster of Mnaseas, and after them the date-plaster [ phoinikine]. When enough time has passed, apply a pitch-plaster and a mustard-plaster to the part. This is how lads, youngsters, and stronger people past their prime should be treated.

FR 5. AETIUS, MEDICAL

BOOKS

(5)

Aetius, Medical books, ix 9 = p. 292 Zervos: [292] Asclepiades advises us to prepare the bitter [sc antidote] in the same way as Themison; this [sc the (composition of ) the antidote], too, will be given before long.

FR 6. AGNELLUS OF RAVENNA, COMMENTARY ON GALEN’S ON SECTS Agnellus of Ravenna, Commentary on Galen’s On Sects, Fourth lecture, Codex Ambrosianus G 108 inf., fol 26 recto = pp. 22–24 Buffalo Classics Seminar: Who Philo Who Cos,

established the Empirical hairesis [secta]? Acron of Agrigentum, [= Philinus] of Cos, Serapion of Alexandria, Sextus, Apollonius. are those who established the Dogmatist hairesis? Hippocrates of Diocles, Praxegoras [= Praxagoras], Philotemus [= Philotimus],

124

  ‒  -

Erasistratus, Asclepiades, Gallienus. Qui sunt qui constituerunt Methodicam sectam? Fimision de Laodicea, Tessalus de Roma, Mimomachus, Soranus.

FR 7. ALEXANDER TRALLIANUS, THERAPEUTICA (1) Alexander Trallianus, Therapeutica, iii 7 = II pp. 105 + 107–109 Puschmann: [7, 105] Per‹ parvt¤dvn. [107] Per‹ kataplasmãtvn. Kataplãsmata m¢n oÔn §p‹ t«n meg¤stvn ka‹ §pvdÊnvn èrmÒzei flegmon«n tã te diå 5 toË kriy¤nou éleÊrou ka‹ linosp°rmou sugke¤mena. Efi d¢ ka‹ sklhr¤a tiw e‡h, fisxãdvn te ka‹ steãtvn xoire¤vn prospl°kesyai ka‹ lapãyvn. D∞lon dÉ ˜ti efiw tÚ z°ma t∞w tÆlevw1 ka‹ t«n xamaimÆlvn ka‹ t∞w élya¤aw ka‹ t«n fisxãdvn ßcesyai de› tÚ katãplasma. Metå d¢ tre›w ≤m°raw t∞w xrÆsevw toË kataplãsmatow k°xrhso ka‹ tª Mnasa¤ou 10 kaloum°n˙ §mplãstrƒ, parhgorikª pãnu oÎs˙ ka‹ diafore›n tå §skirrvm°na ka‹ malãttein tåw sklhr¤aw kal«w dunam°n˙. ÖExei dÉ oÏtvw: [109] khroË: li aÉ Ùjugg¤ou xoire¤ou: li aÉ Kolofvn¤aw: < stÉ liyargÊrou: li bÉ 15 o‡nou kaloË: kot stÉ skeuãsaw xr«. pÒlevw 2200 (= Parisinus chartaceus 2200) + 2202 (= Parisinus chartaceus [olim Mazarineus] 2202 1

FR 8. ALEXANDER TRALLIANUS, THERAPEUTICA (2) Alexander Trallianus, Therapeutica, v 11 = II pp. 187 + 197 Puschmann: [11, 187] Per‹ a·matow énagvg∞w. [197] Per‹ farmãkvn. Pausam°nhw d¢ t∞w toË a·matow énagvg∞w ÙdÊnhw d¢ prosoÊshw §p‹ tÚn y≈raka, 20 oÈd¢n êtopon t«n parhgore›n ëma ka‹ Ípojhra¤nein1 dunam°nvn farmãkvn prosf°rein, mãlista dÉ efiw tåw toiaÊtaw diay°seiw, ˜sa diå t«n metallik«n ka‹ ˆjouw ¶xei tØn skeuas¤an, oÂã §stin ¥ tÉ émbros¤a, ∂n ka‹ sunex«w kataskeuãzein efi≈yamen, ka‹ ≤ diÉ fite«n ka‹ ≤ barbãra. PrÚw d¢ tå èpal≈tera t«n svmãtvn ka‹ mØ dunãmena f°rein 1

épojhra¤nein M (= Marcianus IX, Cl. V)

  ‒  -

125

Erasistratus, Asclepiades, Galen. Who are those who established the Methodist hairesis? Fimision [= Themison] of Laodicea, Tessalus [= Thessalus] of Rome, Mimomachus [= Menemachus], Soranus.

FR 7. ALEXANDER TRALLIANUS, THERAPEUTICS (1) Alexander Trallianus, Therapeutics, iii 7 = II pp. 105 + 107–109 Puschmann: [7, 105] Tumours of the parotid gland. [107] Plasters. The plasters that are suitable for very large and painful inflammations are the ones made of barley-flower and flaxseed. If there is also hardness, they [sc these substances] should be mixed with dried figs, swine fat, and docks. The plaster must, obviously, be boiled into a decoction of fenugreek, camomile, marsh-mallow, and dried figs. After three days of applying the plaster, also use the emollient known as the plaster of Mnaseas, which is extremely soothing and has the power both to dissolve the indurations and to soften the hardened parts nicely. Here it is: one litra of bees-wax; one litra of swine fat; six ounces of kolophonia; two litrae of litharge; six kotylae of good wine; prepare and use.

FR 8. ALEXANDER TRALLIANUS, THERAPEUTICS (2) Alexander Trallianus, Therapeutics, v 11 = II pp. 187 + 197 Puschmann: [11, 187] Expectoration of blood. [197] Medicines. Especially for such states [sc caused by rhexis], when the expectoration of blood has stopped and there is pain in the chest, it is not unusual to administer medicines prepared with minerals and vinegar from the range of those which can simultaneously soothe and dry in moderation—for instance the [sc plaster] ambrosia, which we usually make for continuous supply, the willows-plaster, and the [sc plaster] barbara. For more delicate bodies, which cannot bear

126

  ‒  -

tå sklhrå t«n farmãkvn, ka‹ ≤ foinik¤nh metå khroË Ùl¤gou ka‹ =od¤nou ka‹ ˆjouw énaluom°nh,2 ka‹ ≤ Mnasa¤ou. Ka‹ aÈtå d¢ tå proeirhm°na fãrmaka, ¥ te barbãra ka‹ ≤ diå t«n fite«n, e‡per énaluye›en3 kal«w ka‹ g°nointo khrvta¤, proshne›w gÉ ín oÏtv ka‹ §pitÆdeiai pãnu 5 prÚw tå èpal≈tera ka‹ ésyen°stera t«n svmãtvn ¶sontai bohyÆmata.

énaluye›sa L (= Laurentianus chartaceus [Puschmann I, 88–9] + M ye¤h L

2

3

énalu-

FR 9. ANONYMUS, ANECDOTA GRAECA PARISINA Codex Parisinus Graecus 2286, fol 104 = Anecdota Graeca Parisina I p. 395 Cramer:a GalenoË érxihtroË époria‹ fiatrika¤: Parå t¤nvn §n tª érxª eÍr°th ≤ fiatrikØ §pistÆmh; Pr«ton m¢n ÉApÒllvn §feËren aÈtØn ka‹ ¶dvken aÈtØn t“ flppokentaÊrƒ, ı d¢ flppok°ntaurow ¶dvken aÈtØn ÉAsklhp¤ƒ, ı d¢ ÉAsklhpiÚw ¶dvken aÈtØn to›w pais‹n 10 aÈtoË, ofl ∑san Podale¤riow ka‹ ÑUpÒlhfow. PÒsoi efis‹n ofl susthsãmenoi tØn ÉEmpeir¤an fiatrikÆn; T°ssarew. T¤new otoi; ÖAkrvn ı ÉAkragant›now, F¤linow ı K«ow, Sarap¤aw1 ı ÉAlejandeÊw, ka‹ Serj°staw ı ÉApoll≈niow.2 Ka‹ pÒsoi ofl susthsãmenoi tØn LogikÆn; P°nte. T¤new otoi; ÑIppokrãthw ı K«ow, PrajagÒraw, FilÒtimow, ÉEras¤stratow ka‹ 15 ÉAsklhpiãdhw. Ka‹ pÒsoi efis‹n ofl susthsãmenoi tØn MeyodikØn §pistÆmhn; Tre›w. T¤new otoi; MeyÆsan3 ı LaodikeÊw, MonÒmaxow ı ÉAfrodisieÊw, ka‹ SvranÚw ı ÉEf°siow. a

The general description of this codex in Cramer’s edition, p. 394, runs as follows: “Chart. sec xiv. Continet Lexic. Medic. e Galeno, Crateva et aliis, quorum nomina saepius citantur, conflatum. Auctor multum est in homonymiis secundum dialectos.” The material of the present fragment is out of place in that context: it was appended at the end of a section introduced as “Varia Antiqq. Medicor. Remedia” (f. 91 ff.), which deals in fact only with prescriptions for teeth, gums, and mouth from Archigenes, Timocrates, Aurillius [sic], Diocles, Crito, Andromachus, Menecrates, Asclepiades, Soranus, Apollonius the Herophilean, Heraclides of Tarentum, and a few others. The list of Empiricists features in Deichgräber, Die griechische Empirikerschule (1930, repr. 1965), as fragment 7a (p. 40; and cf also the apparatus, where Deichgräber compares readings from the Codex Scorialensis Graecus F III (= S). The full section on Diocles in this codex is now edited for the first time by Philip van der Eijk in his edition of Diocles (Brill 2000), Fr 148b (see also his Introduction to Vol. I, p. xx, and his Index of Sources in the same volume, p. 398). C (= Cramer): Serap¤vn corr D (= Deichgräber) 2 C: ka‹ S°jtow ÉApoll≈niow D: ı ÉApoll≈niow add S 3 MeyÆsan pro YemÆsvn per errorem transpositum suspicor 1

  ‒  -

127

hard medicines, even the date-plaster [ phoinikine] [sc would do the job], if diluted in a small quantity of bees-wax, rose-oil, and vinegar; and the plaster of Mnaseas. In fact even the [sc remedies] mentioned before—the barbara and the plaster of willows—will become mild remedies, perfectly suitable for more delicate and weaker bodies, if properly dissolved and transformed into cerates.

FR 9. ANONYMOUS, ANECDOTA GRAECA PARISINA Codex Parisinus Graecus 2286, fol 104 = Anecdota Graeca Parisina I p. 395 Cramer: Medical questions from the archiater Galen: Who in the beginning discovered the science [episteme] of medicine? Apollo discovered it for the first time and taught it to the Centaur, then the Centaur taught it to Asclepius, then Asclepius taught it to his children, who were Podaleirius and Hypolephus. How many are those who founded Empirical medicine? Four. Who are these? Acron of Agrigentum, Philinus of Cos, Sarapias [= Serapion] of Alexandria, and Serxestas [= Sextus] of Apollonia. And how many founded the Logical [sc medicine]? Five. Who are these? Hippocrates of Cos, Praxagoras, Philotimus, Erasistratus, and Asclepiades. And how many are those who founded Methodist science [episteme]? Three. Who are these? Themeson [= Themison] of Laodicea, Monomachus [= Menemachus] of Aphrodisias, and Soranus of Ephesus.

128

  ‒   FR 10DUB. ANONYMUS ATHENIENSIS

Papyrus Atheniensis 2781 recto, coll i–ii Mandilaras = coll III i, IV ii Tsouklas (Sammelbuch VIII, No. 9860, p. 128):a i [4] Dionus¤ou ≤ éretÆ: [5] spodoË kupr¤aw (drxm.) b: [6] =Òdvn toË §mm°sou 5 [7] ênyouw tri≈bolon: kro[8] kou tri≈bolon: [9] smÊrnhw ÙbolÒn: [10] mhkvn¤ou ≤miob°[11] lion: kÒmmiow leukoË 10 [12] tri≈bolon. TaËa §[13] gleãsaw §n1 o‡nƒ leu[14] k“ …w belt¤stƒ é[15] naplãsaw kollÊri{on}a,2 [16] xr«. 15 [17] ÖAllo: parå tØn é[18] retØn sun°yhke: ii [1] [2] 20 [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

kÒmmiow leukoË m°rh tr¤a: spodoË m°row ßn: xalkoË kekaum°nou ¥musu: Íoskuãmou xÊlisma ‡son t“ xalkoË. TaÊta §gleãnaw ka‹ énaplãsaw §n Ïdati, xr“.

a

The recto (but not the verso) of this papyrus was originally published by Michael Tsouklas in 1962 as part of his doctoral dissertation, and subsequently reproduced as such in Preisige’s Sammelbuch (= SB; vol. VIII by Emil Kieserling, 1967, No. 9858). More recent work on the papyrus by B. G. Mandilaras (who edited the verso for the first time in Atti del XVII Congresso internazionale di papirologia, III, pp. 873–7) revealed that the columns should be read in a different sequence from the one established by Tsouklas. 1

§n ego: efi SB

2

corr SB

  ‒   FR 10DUB. ANONYMOUS

OF

129

ATHENS

Papyrus Atheniensis 2781 recto, coll I–II Mandilaras = coll III i, IV ii Tsouklas (Sammelbuch VIII, No. 9860, p. 128): i [4] Dionysius’ arete: [5] copper ashes: two drachmae; [6] flower of roses, medium size: [7] three obols; saffron: [8] three obols; [9] myrrh: one obol; [10] poppy-juice: half an obol; [11] white kommi: [12] three obols. Triturate these [sc ingredients] [13] in white wine [14] of the best quality and mould [15] them [sc in the shape of ] collyria, [16] then use [sc the compound]. [17] Another. Apart from the [18] arete, he [= Dionysius?] composed [sc the following collyrium]: ii [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

white kommi: three parts; zinc ashes: one [sc part]; burnt copper: half [sc a part]; juice of henbane: same quantity as the copper. Triturate these [sc ingredients] and mould them in water, then use [sc the compound].

130

  ‒   FR 11(+DUB). ANONYMUS BAMBERGENSIS

Codex Bambergensis L. III. 8 (Med. 1), fol 6 recto = p. 411 Sudhoff:a [411] Ypocratis quidem genus ex Asclepio, patrem autem Eraclitim, ciues1 uero Chous,2 didicit3 fisicam fidem Mellissi, philosophia4 et barba5 Democriti6 addidit,7 medicinalem artem8 Eraclitis patris.9 Scripsit libros LVI. Posteriores10 autem eius, qui successerunt, hi sunt: Thessalus,11 Draccus, 5 Epocratis12 iunior, Poliemmius,13 quorum libri non apparuerunt. Subsequente14 autem tempore facti sunt Rationabiles potentes15 medici16 Deoclex,17 Praxacoras,18 Herophilos,19 Erasistratus, Asclepiades, Atheneus, Agathenus,20 b Ariston, Archigenes, Herodotus, Philominus, Antillus. Imperici autem Serapion, Eraclitis, Glautias, Menodotus, Thedaret, Theodosius. Metoici21 uero 10 Srinon,22 Thessalus, Retinus, Philominaseas, Olempicus, Mimenacus, Soranus,

a

Edited by Sudhoff in Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin 8 1916, pp. 410–13; early ix century. There are two close parallels to the text in two other codices: (a) one from Paris, Fonds Latin, cod. 7028 f. 1r–4r (= P, x century; edited by C. Vitelli in Studi italiani di filologia classica, 8 1900, pp. 451–5), (b) the other from St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, cod. 751, pp. 335–6, non uidimus (late ix century; partially edited by E. Hirschfeld, Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin 20 1928, pp. 361–71). From the material published, I gather that neither of these codices contains the Methodist section. The codex Parisinus as published by Vitelli on p. 455 comes closest to mentioning a Methodist: “Therasllus”, but that doctor is placed in the immediate succession of Hippocrates, so the reference is much more likely to Hippocrates’ son. The Codex Bambergensis contains a deontological discussion of medicine and of the doctor’s position, which leads to an account of the Hippocratic oath (Tale etiam constitutum conjurationis Ypocratis medicinalem sacramentum secumdum eius preceptum). The Codex Parisinus 7028 f. 1r–4r contains a “history of medicine” and an extensive section on Hippocrates, with the famous legend of the statue dedicated to him by the Athenians for saving their city from a pestilential disease, and an account of the Hippocratic oath; and it is from this point on that the two codices converge. But the Codex Parisinus does not list the Empiricists and the Methodists (cf p. 455 Vitelli). Cf also the text reconstructed from all three codices by L. Firpo in Medicina medievale, Torino 1972, under the caption “IX. [INITIA MEDICINAE]” (pp. 48–52), and his description of the codices (pp. 9–13; unfortunately Firpo gives no apparatus). b Here ends the parallel text in P. corr Sudhoff: cibos cod 2 corr Sudhoff: chuos cod 3 Ypocras quidem didicit P corr ego: philosophia Sudhoff < cod 5 corr ego: barba Sudhoff < cod 6 corr ego: Democritis Sudhoff < cod 7 et barba . . . addidit om P 8 corr ego: autem Sudhoff < cod + Vitelli < P 9 patri sui habuit, unde et P 10 posteri P 11 Thersallus P 12 Ypocras P 13 Polemius P 14 subsequenti P 15 et potentes P 16 medici idest P 17 dio clesis P 18 Prossagoras P 19 erofilos P 20 Aristotelis et reliqui. Quorum libri manifesti sunt P 21 ego: metoici Sudhoff < cod 22 Symon Firpo; forte Thesymon < Themison? 1 4

  ‒   FR 11(+DUB). ANONYMOUS

OF

131

BAMBERG

Codex Bambergensis L. III. 8 (Med. 1), fol 6 recto = p. 411 Sudhoff: [411] And indeed Hippocrates’ line derived from Asclepius, but he had Heraclites [= Heraclides? Heraclitus?] for a father and was a citizen of Chios; he learned the natural philosophy of Mellissus, added to it the philosophy and the beard of Democritus, and acquired the medical art of his father Heraclites. He wrote fifty-six books. His successors, those who came after him, are as follows: Thessalus, Dracon, Hippocrates the younger, Poliemmius, whose books have not been published. But in the subsequent period Deoclex [= Diocles], Praxacoras [= Praxagoras], Herophilus, Erasistratus, Asclepiades, Atheneus [= Athenaeus], Agathenus [= Agathinus], Ariston, Archigenes, Herodotus, Philominus [= Philumenus], Antillus [= Antyllus] became powerful Rationalist doctors. The Empiricists on the other hand [sc were] Serapion, Heraclites [= Heraclides], Glautias [= Glaucias], Menodotus, Thedaret, Theodosius. As for the Methodists, [sc these were] Srinon [= Themison?], Thessalus, Retinus [= Reginus], Philominaseas [Philo, Mnaseas], Olempicus [= Olympi(a)cus], Mimenacus [= Menemachus], Soranus; their books can be seen. And so, by the agreement

132

  ‒  -

quorum libri manifesti sunt. Ex consensu itaque omnium discribserunt23 medicinam in elementis quattuor, quorum primus est chyrorgicus secundus farmacheuticus24 tertius dieticus25 quartus pronosticus.26

omnes isti distinxerunt Firpo 24 corr Sudhoff: farmaucheticus cod Sudhoff < cod 26 ego: pronosticus Sudhoff < cod 23

25

ego: dieticus

FR 12. ANONYMUS EPIGRAMMATISTA Kaibel, Epigrammata Graeca, N. 306 = Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum N. 3283:a ÉIhtØr MeyÒdou, ÉAsiatik°, prostãta, xa›re: 5 pollå m¢n §sylå pay∆n fres¤, pollå d¢ lugrã. M[çrkow] MÒdiow ÉAsiatikÒw, fiatrÚw MeyodikÒw.

a

This piece consists of a funerary epigram and the name of its dedicatee, separately engraved on a very remarkable marble bust from Smyrna, 51 cm high, now at the Cabinet des Médailles, Paris (bronze copies elsewhere, eg the Oxford bust at Christ Church): the epigram appears on the bust itself, the name on the base, and there is a marked stylistic difference between these two layers of text (cf fiatrÒw and the epic fihtÆr in the epigram; see also E.Q. Visconti’s comments on the two kinds of sigma, Iconographie Grecque I, 1824, p. 396 n. 2). Since this is the only extant reference to Marcus Modius Asiaticus, the dating of the bust is exceptionally important. The most plausible date seems to be the first century AD, which was proposed on internal, stylistic grounds—the “outspoken Julio-Claudian or Flavian style” of the sculpture ( J. Bernouli, Griechischer Ikonographie, II, 1901, pp. 195–6). Of the two other dates on offer, the second century AD (Kaibel, Peek) seems too late for the style—cf Bernouli, “nicht später als die Flavier”—whereas the middle of the first century BC, proposed by G. Richter (“the bust comprises parts of the shoulders and suggests a date around the middle of the first century BC”: The Portraits of the Greeks, III, 1965, p. 283) and favoured by J. Benedum (“Markos Modios Asiatikos”, Medizinhistorisches Journal 13 1978), is too early to be possible, although it may be compatible with the style. It was in fact Bernouli who suggested this date, but only as a reasonable terminus post quem: if Methodism was established by Themison around 50 BC, he argued, then the bust of Asiaticus cannot go back any further. He was too generous: even if Asiaticus was a direct pupil of Themison he could hardly have had the time to disseminate Methodism in Asia Minor if he was dead by 50 BC.

  ‒  -

133

of all, they distributed medicine into four elements, the first of which deals with surgery, the second with pharmacy, the third with the regimen, and the fourth with prognosis.

FR 12. ANONYMOUS EPIGRAMMATIST Kaibel, Greek Epigrams, Nr. 306 = CIG 3283: Fare you well, Asiaticus, doctor and leader of the Method; Many blessings and many sorrows have you experienced in your soul. M[arcus] Modius Asiaticus, Methodist doctor.

134

  ‒   FR 13(+DUB). ANONYMUS LAURENTIANUS, AUCTORES MEDICINAE

Auctores medicinae, Codex Laurentianus 73,1, fol 142 verso—143 verso: [142v] Nomina auctorum medicinae Aegyptorum uel Graecorum et Latinorum: Escolapius1 Podalirius2 et Machaon eius filii Asclepius {eius}3 nepos Escolapi 5 Hermes Trismegistus4 Manetho5 Nechepso6 Cleopatra regina Item qui Graeca lingua scripserunt: 10 Chiron Thessalus Hippocrates7 Heraclidis filius Cous8 Soranus Galenus9 Dioscurides 15 Musa Euphorbus10 Asclepiades Menemachus [143v ] Philoxenus11 20 Crito Niger Apollonius Pergamenus12 Herodotus Diocles Archidami13 filius Carystius14 25 Nicander Theophrastus Andreas Thessalus Hippocratis15 filius Cous Heras Cappadox16 30 Andromachus17 corr Wellmann: Scolapius cod 2 corr Wellmann: Podarilius cod 3 secl Wellmann corr Wellmann: trimegistius cod 5 corr Wellmann: emmanetos cod 6 corr Wellmann: Necepso cod 7 corr Wellmann: Hipocras cod 8 corr Wellmann: chous codd 9 corr Wellmann: Gallienus cod 10 corr Wellmann: Eufuranus cod 11 corr Wellmann: Siroxenus cod 12 corr Wellmann: Pergamin cod 13 corr Wellmann: arcida cod 14 corr Wellmann: caristius cod 15 corr Wellmann: yppocrates cod 16 corr Wellmann: Eras capadox cod 17 corr Wellmann: Andromacus cod 1 4

  ‒  

135

FR 13(+DUB). ANONYMOUS OF FLORENCE, MEDICAL AUTHORITIES Medical authorities, Codex Laurentianus 73,1, fol 142 verso—143 verso: [142v] Names of authorities in medicine, Aegyptian and Greek or Latin: Escolapius Podalirius and Machaon, his sons Asclepius, Escolapius’ grandson Hermes Trismegistus Manetho Nechepso Cleopatra the queen Likewise those who wrote in Greek: Chiron of Thessaly Hippocrates of Cos, son of Heraclides Soranus Galen Dioscurides Musa Euphorbus Asclepiades Menemachus [143v ] Philoxenus Crito Niger Apollonius of Pergamum Herodotus Diocles son of Archidamus Carystius Nicander Theophrastus Andreas Thessalus of Cos, son of Hippocrates Heras of Cappadocia Andromachus

136

  ‒  

Theomnestus18 Themison Thessalus Menecrates19 5 Elephantides20 Muscio Eudemus Sostratus21 Heron22 10 Heliodorus23 Apollonius Epiphanes24

15

20

25

30

35

Chrysippus Erinei25 filius Cnidius26 Lysias27 Laurentius Philippus Cous Democedes Calliphontis28 filius Crotoniensis29 Dracon Hippocratis filius Cous Praxagoras Nicarchi filius Herophilus Chalcedonius30 Erasistratus Cleombroti31 filius Ceius32 Xenophon33 Alexandrinus Dionysius Cyrtos34 Callimachus Bithynius35 Asclepiades Andreae filius Heraclides36 Menodotus Archibius Pythagoras37 Empedocles38 Democritus Chrysippus39 Serapion40 Glaucias41 Plistonicus

corr Wellmann: Theonestus cod 19 corr Wellmann: Menegrates cod 20 corr Wellmann: Elifantides cod 21 corr Wellmann: Sostradus cod 22 corr Wellmann: Eron cod 23 corr Wellmann: Eliodorus cod 24 corr Wellmann: Epifanes cod 25 corr Wellmann: erui cod 26 corr Wellmann: chnidius cod 27 corr Wellmann: Lisius cod 28 corr Wellmann: callifontes cod 29 corr Wellmann: crodoniensis cod 30 corr Wellmann: Herophilius calcedonius cod 31 corr Wellmann: Herasistratus cleobroti cod 32 corr Wellmann: eius cod 33 corr Wellmann: xenofion cod 34 corr Wellmann: custos cod 35 corr Wellmann: Scomachus bitinius cod 36 corr Wellmann: Eraclidis cod 37 corr Wellmann: pithagorax cod 38 corr Wellmann: Empodedes cod 39 corr Wellmann: Crisippus cod 40 corr Wellmann: Sepion cod 41 corr Wellmann: Claucias cod 18

  ‒   Theomnestus Themison Thessalus Menecrates Elephantides Muscio Eudemus Sostratus Heron Heliodorus Apollonius Epiphanes Chrysippus of Cnidos, son of Erineus Lysias Laurentius Philippus of Cos Democedes of Croton, son of Calliphon Dracon of Cos, son of Hippocrates Praxagoras son of Nicarchus Herophilus of Chalcedon Erasistratus of Chios, son of Cleombrotus Xenophon of Alexandria Dionysius Cyrtos Callimachus of Bithynia Asclepiades son of Andreas Heraclides Menodotus Archibius Pythagoras Empedocles Democritus Chrysippus Serapion Glaucias Plistonicus

137

138

  ‒  -

Cassius Cleophantus42 Paccius Antiochus43 Philonides Catinensis44 5 Lupus Pelopis45 Hipposiades Antyllus46 Archigenes47 Marcellus 10 Lucius48 Lucius Attalus Niceratus49 Tharseas50 15 Thessalus ex Nechepso

corr Wellmann: Clefantes cod 43 corr Wellmann: anthiocus cod 44 corr Wellmann: Filonis catensis cod 45 corr Wellmann: pelobi cod 46 corr Wellmann: antillus cod 47 corr Wellmann: arcigenis cod 48 corr Wellmann: Licius cod 49 corr Wellmann: Nigeratus cod 50 corr Wellmann: Tharteus cod 42

FR 14DUB. ANONYMUS MEDIOLANENSIS Papyrus Mediolanensis I 15 Vogliano (2340 Mertens-Pack = 103 Andorlini-Marcone), col ii verso: [9] fisxi]ãdow; [ [10] * ion ¶fasan g¤nes[yai [11] gleisx]r«n Ígr«n ka‹ dreim[°v]n[ [12] mu«n. katå d¢ ÉAsklhpiãdhn [ 20 [13] lÒgƒ yevrht«n ˆgkvn §n * * [ [14] w coe›taw mÊaw. ofl d¢ meyod[iko‹ [15] anto. ——— t¤na [s]hme›a fi[s]xiã[dow

  ‒  -

139

Cassius Cleophantus Paccius of Antiochia Philonides of Catina [= Catania] Lupus of Thebes Hipposiades Antyllus Archigenes Marcellus Lucius Lucius Attalus Niceratus Tharseas Thessalus from Nechepsus

FR 14DUB. ANONYMOUS

OF

MILAN

Papyrus Mediolanensis I 15 Vogliano (2340 Mertens-Pack = 103 Andorlini-Marcone), col ii verso: [9] of sciatica? [10] . . . they claimed that it occurs . . . [11] of sticky and dry liquids . . . [12] . . . of the muscles. According to Asclepiades . . . [13] . . . of onkoi visible by reason in . . . [14] . . . the psoas muscles. As for the Methodists. . . . [15] . . . ——— What are the signs of sciatica?

140

  ‒   FR 15. ANONYMUS OXYRHYNCHUS

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus N. 3654: 1:a ib

5

10

15

20

[1] [2] [3] TAT[ [4] TOUS[ [5] SAMV[1 [6] OIDAN[ [7] FRHN[ [8] LUNT[ [9] XRONO[2 [10] DIANAST[3 [11] YISTANU[ [12] YERAPEU[c [13] PTIKON[ [14] TOUSP[ [15] XALA[ [16] XRONISH[4 [17] AUTOUTOU[ [18] BAINONT[ [19] FE . . . VN[5 [20] XRON . ONX[ [21] KAIPANT[

a

The papyrus, now located in the Ashmolean Library, Oxford, was fist edited by David Sedley in Oxyrhynchus Papyri 52 1984 (pp. 39–44), who assigned it to the second century AD. Section 1 below approximates a diplomatic transcription, ie a transcription of the letters I saw, with possible alternative readings in footnotes (but no description of shapes, spaces, etc.); section 2 is an attempted reconstruction (where that is possible). b My col i corresponds to Frr 2, 1, and 5 Sedley, now joined by Peter Parsons in one column. (Sedley too noticed that his 1 and 2 “might, from the vertical fibres, belong to the same column”.) c New paragraph marked by ekthesis (Sedley, p. 39). 1

SMAV

2

XROM

3

DIANASP

4

XRONISOI

5

CE . . (or maybe O)

  ‒  

141

142 [22] [23] [24] [25] 5 [26] [27]

  ‒   TADETAU[ TAP . RM[ Y.EI.[6 ]SM[ ]PL[7 ]U[

iid [1] [2] ]VSA[ 10 [3] ]VNI[8 [4] ]NAG[9 [5] ]ISA[10 [6] ]ENA[ [7] ]ESTI[11 15 [8] ]ATA[12 [9] ]ERAT[13 [10] ]NT[ [11] ]AIRO[14 [12] ]VN[ 20 [13] ]AIP[15 iiie [1] [2] [3] 25 [4] [5] [6] [7]

d e

]ENY[16 ]ALH[ ]OUSA[17 ]SETO[18 ]NTO[ ]HT[19 ]NE[20

Fr 3 Sedley. Fr 4 Sedley.

Or P, T, or S (instead of EI) 7 Also possible HA (and the resulting combinations) 8 VNH 9 NAP 10 HSA 11 ESTH or ESTN 12 STA 13 ERAP or ERAG 14 AIRV 15 Or L, D (instead of A) and T (instead of P) 16 ENE 17 OUSD 18 SEP 19 I or P 20 NO or NS 6

  ‒  

143

144

  ‒  

ivf [1] [2] [3] 5 [4]

]SVMATOS[ ]STEGNV[ ]E . . OINO[21 ]TR[22

vg [1] KANOMOIV[23 [2] TVNKATE . . . KH[ [3] LEGETAIKO . NOT[ 10 [4] PARATHMEYODVK[24 [5] THSPROSEXHSKA . A [6] NAGKAIAK. IENERGHS [7] TIESTINKO.NOTHSHDIh [8] ATVNANOMOIVNKA 15 [9] TAFANTAS . ANDIH [10] . OUSAKATADUNAMIN [11] OMOIOTHSPROSEXHS vi [1] 20 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] 25 [7] [8]

f g h

21

]A25 ]KATAD . NA ]IOTHSKAYO 26 ]YRVPOTHTA ]KAIKOINH27 ]NEI [28 ]DEIKN [ ]AN . . V[

Fr 6 Sedley. Fr 8 Sedley. New paragraph marked by ekthesis (Sedley, p. 39). Y . . EINO

22

ter may follow

PR 23 KAINO . DOIV 24 P (last legible letter) IOTHSKAYO 27 KAIPRINH 28 NEPI

26

25

L; another let-

  ‒  

145

146

  ‒  

viii [1] ]AFOR[ [2] ]EROM[29 [3] ]KOIN[ 5 [4] ]MN[ [5] ]MEI[ [6] ]SUN[ [7] ]KEINA[30 [8] ]KART[ 10 [9] ]OTHT[31 [10] ]OTIK[32 [11] ]USYAI[33 [12] ]HOM[ [13] ]S[ 15 2: i [1] [2] [3] tat[ 20 [4] tous[ [5] samv[ [6] oidan[ [7] frhn[ [8] kunt[ 25 [9] xrono[ [10] diå nast[oË j

i

Frr 10 and 9 Sedley, joined (cf i). M. Frede’s proposal (in Sedley ad l) to read diÉ énastom≈sevw here is certainly attractive. ÉAnastÒmvsiw (lit. “opening up”) plays a crucial role in the physiology and pathology of Erasistratus as a term of art, where it designates the “capillaries”, ie the minute channels at the ends of blood-vessels (cf also Fr 65 on the differentiae of haemorrhage); and Erasistratus is the first chain in the link leading to the Methodists. Metasyncrisis would accommodate the notion of a specific Methodist use of énastÒmvsiw in therapy, and indeed Caelius does recommend the use of “anastomotics” in his account of the Methodist treatment of jaundice: “then use the drugs called ‘anastomotica’, which are known to produce opening by irritating the surface of the body” (superficiem corporis lacessendo osculare, TP III 73; on anastomotics see also Galen, SMTF V Chs 14–15 and n. 9 to Fr 206). j

29

SROM

30

SEINA (or possibly last letter L)

31

STHT

32

STIK

33

HSYAI

  ‒  

FR 15. ANONYMOUS Papyrus Oxyrhynchus Nr. 3654: i

[9] . . . time chronic . . . [10] . . . through opening . . .

OF

OXYRHYNCHUS

147

148 [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] 5 [16] [17] [18] [19] 10 [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] 15 [25] [26] [27]

  ‒   yistan Í[ Yerãpeu[siw: tÚn m¢n énalhptikÚn [kÊklon pr«ton xr≈menon toÁw p[ãsxontaw tonoËn xala[stiko›w, deÊteron dÉ efi xron¤sh[i tÚ pãyow §pÉ aÈtoË toÔ [metasugkritikoË metaba¤nont[ak fe[ . . . ]vn[ xrÒn[i]on x[ ka‹ pant[ tãde tau[ tap[ . ]r . m[ [ ]y[ . ]ei[ [ ]sm[ [ ]pl[ [ ]u[

ii [1] 20 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] 25 [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] 30 [12] [13]

]vsa[ ]vni[ ]nag[ ]isa[ ]ena[ ]esti[ ]ata[ ]erat[ ]nt[ ]airo[ ]vn[ ]aip[

k

This is, of course, only a hypothetical way of reconstructing the text, and it is based on the associations that the beginnings of these lines prompt to mind: cf eg Soranus, Gyn. iii 15 and iv 39. Another possibility would be that lines 12–13 referred to the parts of medicine called to therapeutikon and to analeptikon, since such divisions were commonplace in handbooks of medicine (eg Medicus, Ch 7, diaire›tai d¢ ka‹

tÚ ÍgieinÚn m°row t∞w fiatrik∞w efiw te tÚ sunthrhtikÚn Íge¤aw ka‹ efiw tÚ profulaktikÚn t«n nÒsvn ka‹ efiw tÚ énalhptikÚn épÚ t«n nÒsvn, p. 690 K). But that

solution would leave unexplained the references, quite obvious in the present column, to time—probably chronicity (a key Methodist concept).

  ‒  

149

[12–17] Therapy: first you should use the restorative cycle, strengthening the ill with relaxants; second, you should turn to the metasyncritic cycle itself, if the affection is chronic . . . [20] . . . chronicity . . .

150

  ‒  

iii [1] [2] [3] 5 [4] [5] [6] [7]

]eny[ ]alh[ ]ousa[ ]seto[ ]nto[ ]ht[ ]ne[

iv 10 [1] [2] [3] [4]

]s≈matow[ ]stegnv[ ]e[ . k] . oino[ ]tr[ l

v 15 [1] k énomoiv[ [2] tvn kate[ . . . ]kh[ [3] l°getai ko[i]nÒt[hw [4] parå tª MeyÒdƒ: k[oinÒ[5] thw prosexØw ka[‹] é20 [6] nagka¤a k[a]‹ §nergÆw. [7] t¤ §stin ko[i]nÒthw; ≤ di[8] å t«n énomo¤vn ka[9] tå fantas[¤]an diÆ[10] k]ousa katå dÊnamin 25 [11] ımoiÒthw prosexÆw. vi [1] ]a [2] ]katå d[Ê]na[3] min ımo]iÒthw kayÚ 30 [4] én]yrvpÒthta [5] ]ka‹ koinh [6] ]nei [7] ]deikh[ [8] ]én[yr]v[p

l

These could be the first letters in a numeral, namely trite (or treis) or prote. If my guess about koinotes (or koinotetes) in the line above is correct, at this point the author might have listed the three major Methodist koinotetes, probably starting from st°gnvsiw.

  ‒  

151

iv [1] . . . of the body . . . [2] . . . constriction . . . [3] . . . koinote(te)s . . . [4] . . . the third one . . . v [1] . . . of dissimilar [sc features] . . . [3–6] . . . is called koinotes in the Method. A koinotes is relevant, necessary, and actual. [7–11] What is a koinotes? It is the true relevant similarity which pervades apparently dissimilar cases.

vi [3–4] . . . true similarity . . . [5] . . . manhood . . . [6] . . . and common . . . [9] . . . man[hood?] . . .

152

  ‒  -

vii [1] [2] [3] 5 [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] 10 [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

]éfor[m ]erom[ ]koin[ ]mn[ dunã]mei[ ]sun[ ]keina[ ]kart[ ]otht[ ]otik[ ]usyai[ ]hom[ ]s[

FR 16. ANONYMUS PARISINUS, DE ACUTIS ET CHRONIIS (1)

MORBIS

Anonymus Parisinus, De morbis acutis et chroniis, XXXIX iii [= KÊstevw •lk≈sevw yerape¤a], 5–6 = pp. 202–204 Garofalo: 15 [5] Katå d¢ toÁw parojusmoÁw ka‹ propotiz°syvsan 1 sikÊou sp°rmatow µ toË2 diå mÆkvnow µ toË3 diå tri«n pep°revn, ka‹ tåw trofåw sit≈deiw lamban°tvsan. [6] ÉEpirript°syv tÉ ≥trƒ ka‹ ÙsfÊi malãgmata, …w afl mÆlinai ka‹ ≤ Mnas°ou,4 §n d¢ to›w diale¤mmasi ka‹ ≤ ÑIkes¤ou5 ka‹ ≤ diÉ fite«n barbãra.6 add ego 2 codd: sp°rmati µ t“ Garofalo [= Ga] 3 codd: µ t“ Ga 4 Ga: mnãsevw P1 (= Parisinus Suppl Gr 636): mnasa¤ou P2 (= Parisinus Gr 2324) 5 corr ego: cod flk°siow 6 add et corr ego: ka‹ ≤ diå fit°vn bãrbarow Ga 1

FR 17. ANONYMUS PARISINUS, DE ACUTIS ET CHRONIIS (2)

MORBIS

Anonymus Parisinus, De morbis acutis et chroniis, L iii [= Podãgraw yerape¤a], 11 = pp. 252–254 Garofalo: [11] ÉEp‹ t«n pepvrvm°nvn malakt°on tå êryra µ tª toË Mnas°ou1 µ 20 tª diå xul«n2 µ tª mhl¤n˙. 1

Ga: mnas°vw P1: mnasa¤ou V (= Vindobonensis medicus 38)

2

diå xuloË V

  ‒  -

153

vii [1] . . . the beginning [sc of illness] . . . [3] . . . koinotes . . . [5] . . . true [?] . . . [7] . . . pervade [?] . . .

FR 16. ANONYMOUS CHRONIC

PARIS, ACUTE DISEASES (1) OF

AND

Anonymous of Paris, Acute and chronic diseases, XXXIX iii [= Treatment for the ulceration of the bladder], 5–6 = pp. 202–204 Garofalo: [5] During paroxysms, let them [sc the patients] drink the [sc potion] made of cucumber seed, or the one made of poppies, or the one made of three peppers, and let them have cereal food. [6] On the lower abdomen and lower back let emollient plasters be applied, for instance the quince-plaster and the plaster of Mnaseas, and, during remissions, also the plaster of Hicesius, the willows-plaster, and the [sc plaster] barbara.

FR 17. ANONYMOUS CHRONIC

PARIS, ACUTE DISEASES (2) OF

AND

Anonymous of Paris, Acute and chronic diseases, L iii [= Treatment of podagra], 11 = pp. 252–254 Garofalo: [11] In cases where stones have formed, you should soften the joints with the plaster of Mnaseas, the [sc plaster] of juices, or the quince-plaster.

154

  ‒  - FR 18. ANONYMUS VINDOBONENSIS, TABULAE DIUISIONUM IN GALENI

Tabulae Diuisionum in Galeni, Codex Vindobonensis medicus Graecus 16 Hunger (olim 35 Lambeck-Kollar), fol 329rg = VI p. 345 LambeckKollar:a [140] Dia¤resiw gÉ.b SunestÆsanto tØn ÉEmpeirikØn o·de, ÖAkrvn ÉAgragant›now, FÊlinow K«ow,1 Serap¤vn ÉAlejandreÊw,2 S°stow, ÉApoll≈niow. TØn LogikÆn, o·de, ÑIppokrãthw, Diokl∞w, PrajagÒraw, FilÒtimow,3 ÉAsklhpiãdhw. TØn MeyodikØn o·de, Yem¤svn LaodikeÊw, Y°ssalow, Men°maxow, SvranÒw. 5

a

This text features as a specimen de reliquo Opere in Petrus Lambecius’ Liber Sextus Commentariorum de augustissima Bibliotheca Caesarea Vindobonensi (ed. A. F. Kollar, Wien 1780), where it is introduced with the following words: Quandoquidem autem hae Tabulae hactenus, quod ego sciam, nunquam in lucem prodierunt, ob summam tamen utilitatem publica luce sunt dignissimae, subjungo hic non solum generalem eorum titulum, uerum etiam principii earundem non exiguam partem, ut ex ea, tanquam ex qualicunque specimine de reliquo Opere in antecessum possit judicari (col. 344). The same excerpt was recently published in a footnote by Beate Gundert in her study of the Tabulae, “Die Tabulae Vindobonenses als Zeugnis alexandrinischer Lehrtätigkeit um 600 n. Chr.”, in Text and Tradition, K.-D. Fischer, D. Nicke, P. Potter edd, Brill 1998, p. 140 n. 155; and by Philip van der Eijk as fragment 13g in his collection of Diocles. b Sc “in Claudii Galeni Libro Per‹ aflr°sevn siue De sectis”, as explained in LambeckKollar’s catalogue (supra), VI col. 344. Lambeck-Kollar: Fil›now K“w Gundert + Van der Eijk 2 Lambeck-Kollar: ÉAlejandre›ow Gundert + Van der Eijk 3 Lambeck-Kollar: FulÒtimow, ÉEras¤stratow Gundert + Van der Eijk 1

FR 19DUB. ARTEMIDORUS, ONEIROCRITICON A Artemidorus, Oneirocriticon, iv 2 (= p. 205 Hercher, p. 245 Pack): [2] Ka‹ t«n texn«n dÉ afl dunãmeiw ˜moiai, ka‹ efi tª §nerge¤& e‰en énÒmoioi, efiw taÈtÚn époba¤nousin. ÑVw ÉApollvn¤dhw ı xeirourgÒw, ımhr¤zein noÆsaw ka‹ polloÁw titr≈skein, polloÁw §xe¤rise.1 Ka‹ går ofl ımhrista¤, 1

§xeiroÊrghse V (= Marcianus 268)

  ‒  -

155

FR 18. ANONYMOUS OF VIENNA, TABLES OF DIVISIONS OF GALEN’S WORKS Tables of divisions of Galen’s works, Codex Vindobonensis medicus Graecus 16 Hunger (= 35 Lambeck-Kollar), fol 329rg = VI p. 345 Lambeck-Kollar: [140] Third division. Those who founded the Empirical [sc hairesis] are the following: Acron of Agrigentum, Phylinus [= Philinus] of Cos, Serapion of Alexandria, Sextus, Apollonius; the Logical [sc hairesis], the following: Hippocrates, Diocles, Praxagoras, Philotimus, Erasistratus; the Methodist [sc hairesis], the following: Themison of Laodicea, Thessalus, Menemachus, Soranus.4 Cf also the lists preserved in two British Museum Arabic codices containing anonymous summaries of Galen’s De sectis: Codex Arundinianus Orientalis 17 (described in Part II of the Catalogue of Oriental mss in the BM, 1837, p. 217) and Codex Additicius 23,407 (in the Supplement to the Catalogue, 1871, pp. 629–30). Temkin Bulletin of the History of Medicine 3 1935, who discusses these mss in conjunction with the Tabulae (see esp. pp. 412–4), reproduces and translates the Arabic list in Cod. Add. 23,407 in his Appendix (p. 428), commenting that the other list is “substantially the same”. Almost identical lists, with the Empiricists at the top, are to be found in Palladius’ Scholia (Fr 237) and Agnellus’ Commentary (Fr 6). The only two variations among these five texts are: (a) the absence of the name of Erasistratus from the Codex Vindobonensis (as excerpted in Lambeck and Kollar’s Catalogue); and (b) the addition of what seems to be “Mnaseas” in the Codex Additicius. 4

The names translated by Temkin from the Arabic are as follows: Empiricists: Acron of Agrigent, Philinus of Cos, Serapion of Alexandria, Sextus, Apollonius Dogmatists: Hippocrates. Diocles, Praxagoras, Philotimus, Erasistratus, Asclepiades Methodists: Themison of Laodicea, Thessalus, Menemachus (?), Mnaseas (?), Soranus.

FR 19DUB. ARTEMIDORUS, THE

INTERPRETATION OF DREAMS

A Artemidorus, The interpretation of dreams, iv 2 (= p. 205 Hercher, p. 245 Pack): [2] The functions of the arts [sc in dreams], too, are similar; even if they [sc the arts] are dissimilar in their [sc form of ] activity, they come down to the same thing. For instance, Apollonides the surgeon imagined [sc in a dream] that he was acting on stage in an episode from Homer and wounded a great number of people; afterwards he performed operations on a great

156

  ‒  -

titr≈skousi2 m¢n ka‹ aflmãssousi éllÉ oÈk épokte›na¤ ge boÊlontai: oÏtv d¢ ka‹ ı xeirourgÒw.

B Artemidorus, Oneirocriticon, iv 22 (= p. 215 Hercher, p. 257 Pack): [22] Tåw d¢ suntagåw t«n ye«n ≥toi èplçw ka‹ oÈd¢n §xoÊsaw a‡nigma eÍrÆseiw—xristå går3 µ §p¤plasta µ brvtå µ potå aÈto›w4 5 ÙnÒmasin oÂw ka‹ ±me›w kaloËmen suntãssousin ofl yeo¤—µ, ka‹ ıtan afin¤ssvntai,5 pãnu saf«w afin¤ssontai. OÂon gunØ ¶doje per‹ mazÚn ¶xousa flhgmonØn6 ÍpÚ probãtou yhlãzesyai: érnÒglvsson kataplasam°nh fiãyh7—diå 8 tÚ ˆnoma toË futoË, sÊnyeton ˆn, dhloËn “tØn9 toË érnÚw gl«ssan”10 11 botãnhn.12 OÂan dÉ13 ín yer10 ape¤an eÏr˙w, §ãn tÉ aÈtÚw kr¤n˙w14 §ån tÉ êllou kr¤nantow épobçsan15 mãy˙w, énereun«n eÍrÆseiw fiatrik≈tata ¶xousan ka‹ oÈk ¶jv toË §n fiatrikª lÒgou.16 ÑVw17 ka‹ FrÒntvn ı éryritikÒw,18 yerape¤an afitÆsaw, ¶dojen §n to›w proaste¤oiw peripate›n ka‹ propÒlei19 xrisãmenow20 parhgorÆyh flkan«w {…w ‡son e‰nai tÚ xr›ma yerape¤&}.21 ÜOyen ¶stv 15 soi katå tÚ §ndexÒmenon §pimel°w,22 …w pollãkiw soi parπnoun, fiatrik«n ¶xesyai lÒgvn.23

titr≈skousi. Verba m¢n ka‹ aflmãssousi ktl usque ad ka‹ e‡ moi ¶stai (p. 246 l. 60) redeunt in Lb. II post uerba lambãnousin œn d¢ (p. 80 l. 16) L (= Laurentianus plut. 87, 8) 3 corr Reiske: xrhstå går V: tå går L 4 aÈto›w Pack: aÈtå oÂw L 5 ofl yeo¤ . . . afin¤ssvntai om L 6 flhgmonØn ¶xousa V 7 érnogl≈ssv kataplasam°nh ‡ayen µ L: érnÒglvsson botãnhn kataplassam°nh fiãyh V 8 add Pack 9 dhloËn tØn corr Pack: dhloËnta µn L: §dÆlou tØn V 10 toË érnÚw gl«ssan Pack: toË érnogl≈ssou L V 11 add Pack 12 Pack < V: om L 13 om L 14 kr¤nontow V 15 épÒbasin V 16 toË fiatrikoË lÒgou L 17 om L 18 corr Rigault: éryrhtikÚw V: éryritik«n L 19 Pack: pro polÊsei L: propolÆsei V 20 Pack: xrhsãmenow L V 21 del Pack: flkan«w, œw . . . yerape¤& del Hercher: . . . xr∞sma yerape¤aw L 22 §pimel«w V 23 fiatrikØ ¶xesyai L: fiatrik«n pe›ran e‡sesyai V 2

FR 20DUB. ATHENAEUS, DEIPNOSOPHISTAE Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, VII, 321D–322A: [321D] Sãlph. • ÉEp¤xarmow ÜHbaw gãmƒ: “éÒnew fãgroi te lãbrak°w te ka‹ ta‹1 p¤onew skatofãgoi sãlpai bdeluxra¤, èd°ai dÉ §n t“ y°rei.” 20

1

C (= Epitome e codice Parisino): te A (= codex Marcianus)

  ‒  -

157

number of patients. For actors in Homeric scenes inflict wounds and shed blood, but have no wish to kill; and so does the surgeon, too.

B Artemidorus, The interpretation of dreams, iv 22 (= p. 215 Hercher, p. 257 Pack): [22] You will discover that the gods’ medical prescriptions either are simple and harbour no puzzle—for the gods prescribe ointments, plasters, foods, and drinks using the same terms by which we, too, refer to them—or, even when the gods speak in riddles, their riddles are very easy. For instance, a woman suffering from inflammation in the breast dreamt that a sheep suckled her; she had a plaster of plantain applied to her and recovered— because the name of the plant, being a compound, means “lamb’s tongue” as well as [sc designating] the herb. Whatever treatment of this sort you may discover, either by interpreting the dream yourself or by learning how to proceed from someone who has already done the interpretation, if you examine it thoroughly you will find that the treatment is as medical as one can wish, and not at all at variance with medical reasoning. Here is another example: Fronto, who suffered from podagra, requested a treatment; he dreamt that he was strolling at the outskirts of the city [ proasteia], and was relieved nicely after being anointed with bee-glue [ propolis]. Hence, take it to your heart, as I often urged you, to refrain from medical interpretations as best you can.

FR 20DUB. ATHENAEUS, THE DINNER-LEARNED Athenaeus, The Dinner-Learned, VII, 321D–322A: [321D] The saupe. • Epicharmus, The marriage of Hebe: “The aones, the sea-breams, the basses, and the fat Loathsome saupes who eat dung, yet are sweet in summertime.”

158

5

10

15

20

25

  ‒  -

• [E] ÉAristot°lhw dÉ §n p°mptƒ Mor¤vn ëpaj t¤ktei fhs‹n aÈtØn toË metop≈rou. ÉEst‹ d¢ polÊgrammow ka‹ §ruyrÒgrammow, ¶ti d¢ karxarÒdouw ka‹ monÆrhw. L°gesyai d¢ ka‹ ÍpÚ t«n èli°vn fhs‹n …w ka‹ kolokÊny˙ yhreÊeyai xa¤rousa t“ br≈mati. • ÉArx°stratow d° fhsin: [F] “sãlphn d¢ kakÚn m¢n ¶gvge fiyÁn efiw ée‹2 kr¤nv: brvtØ d¢ mãlista §st‹ yerizom°nou s¤tou. Lãbe dÉ §n MutilÆn˙3 aÈtÆn.” • Pagkrãthw dÉ §n ÖErgoiw yalass¤oiw: “sãlpai tÉ fisomÆkeew fixyËw, ëw te “bÒaw” pork∞ew èl¤zvoi4 kal°ousin, oÏneka gast°ri fËkow ée‹ él°ousin5 ÙdoËsin.” • ÉEsti d¢ poik¤low ı fixyÊw, ˜yen ka‹ tÚn LokÚn µ Kolof≈nion Mnas°an suntajãmenon tå §pigrafÒmena Pa¤gnia diå tÚ poil¤lon t∞w sunagvg∞w Sãlphn ofl sunÆyeiw proshgÒreuon. ••• NumfÒdvrow [322A] d¢ ı SurakÒsiow §n t“ T∞w ÉAs¤aw Per¤plƒ Lesb¤an fhs‹ gen°syai Sãlphn 6 tå Pa¤gnia sunye›san. ÖAlkimow dÉ §n to›w Sikeliko›w §n MessÆn˙ fhs‹ tª katå tØn n∞son BÒtrun gen°syai eÍretØn t«n paraplhs¤vn paign¤vn to›w prosagoreuom°noiw “sãlphw”. • ÖArxippow dÉ §n ÉIxyÊsin érsenikÚw e‡rhken “ı sãlphw”: “§k°rujen bÒaj7 sãlphw dÉ §sãpigjÉ, ßptÉ ÙboloÁw misyÚn f°rvn.” • G¤netai dÉ ˜moiow fixyÁw §n tª ÉEruyrò Yalãss˙, ı kaloÊmenow “stromateÁw” =ãbdouw ¶xvn diÉ ˜lou toË s≈matow tetam°naw xrusizoÊsaw, …w flstore› F¤lvn §n t“ Metallik“. e‰nai ée‹ Wilamowitz 3 mitulÆn˙ AC 4 corr C: èl¤zvnoi A 5 corr Gesner: él°gousin AC 6 add Musurus 7 ci Meineke: µ kÆruj m¢n §bÒaj A 2

FR 21. AUSONIUS, GRIPHUS

TERNARII NUMERI

Ausonius, Griphus ternarii numeri, ll. 66–69 = p. 114 Green: [66] Trinum dicendi genus est: sublime, modestum, Et tenui filo.1 Triplex2 quoque forma medendi, 30 Cui Logos3 aut Methodos cuique Experientia nomen, Et medicina triplex: servare, cavere, mederi. V (= Leidensis Vossianus Latinus F 111) + P (= Parisinus Lat. 8500) + H (= Harleianus BL 2613) + L (= Laurentianus LI.13) + T (= Leidensis Vossianus Latinus Q. 107): tenue philo C (= Padua, Capit. C. 64) + K (= Londinensis BL King’s 31) 2 triplex . . . triplex om P 3 quae logos VHCKT 1

  ‒  -

159

• [E] In the fifth book of Parts of animals, Aristotle tells us that it [sc the saupe] spawns once [sc a year], in the autumn. It is marked with numerous red stripes, has jagged teeth, and lives solitarily. He [sc Aristotle] also reports that fishermen recommend catching it with gourd, since it enjoys that food. • Archestratus says: [F] “I for one judge the saupe to be a poor Fish at all times; it is however palatable mostly At the time of corn harvest. Get it in Mytilene.” • Pancrates in his Seaworks says: “And the saupes, fishes of equal length, Whom the masters of fish-trapping, dwellers by the sea, Call ‘cows’ because they always grind sea-weed for their belly with their teeth.” • It is also a speckled fish, hence when the Locrian or Colophonian Mnaseas composed the work entitled Bagattelles his acquaintances nicknamed him “The Saupe” on account of the speckled nature of his collection. ••• But Nymphodorus [322A] of Syracuse claims in his Coasting voyage around Asia that the “Saupe” who composed the Bagattelles was a woman from Lesbos. And Alcimus claims in his Sicilian facts that the inventor of bagatelles similar to those known as “by The Saupe” was born in Messene, which lies across from the island of Botrys. • Archippus in his Fishes speaks of “the saupe” in the masculine: “He heralded, the boax, He trumpeted, the saupe, as he carried a fee of seven obols.” • A similar fish lives in the Red Sea: it is the fish called “patchwork”, whose whole body is marked by golden stripes, as Philo informs us in his work On minerals.

FR 21. AUSONIUS, THE

RIDDLE OF THE NUMBER THREE

Ausonius, The riddle of the number three, ll. 66–69 = p. 114 Green: [66] And The And

The oratoric genre falls into three parts: the sublime, the moderate, the one in a thin thread. Again, therapy is of three kinds, names of which are Logic, Method, and Experience, medicine falls into three parts: preserving, preventing, and curing.

160

  ‒   FR 22. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(1)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, I [= Phrenitis], i (= Vtrumne sunt signa phreniticae futurae passionis), 22–30:

5

10

15

20

25

30

[22] Dehinc quaerendum utrumne sint signa phreniticae futurae passionis. Nam multi sectarum principes, inter quos fuit et Asclepiades, signa futurae passionis posuerunt. At Thessalus et eius sectatores id posse fieri negant, dicentes quia: “Si futurae phreniticae passionis signa uera atque necessaria fuissent, oportebat {autem}1 omnes in iisdem constitutos necessario esse phreniticos. Nunc uero quidam, cum his afficerentur signis, in phreniticam passionem non uenerunt. Secundo, oportebat etiam aliarum passionum futurarum esse signa. Nullius autem futurae passionis signa esse perspicimus, [23] neque igitur phreniticae passionis esse posse signa credamus. Sed neque praestantius quicquam antecedentium causarum, ut adustio, cruditas, uinolentia atque exercitium post cibum uel mansio siue somnus in speluncis confertur aut noua politura in muris parietis cubiculorum.2 Haec alias quoque passiones ingerunt generaliter, ut lethargiam, apoplexiam, epilepsiam. Neque multos tempore certo specialiter phreniticam incurrere passionem, ut autumno uel alio quolibet, firmum esse credamus: incertum est enim siquidem non omnes phrenitici efficiantur sed alii diuersis afficiantur passionibus. [24] Neque etiam uigilare ac iugiter cum dolore urinam reddere (paruum uel plurimum) atque grauedine3 uel dolore capitis uel occipitis uel clunium affici aut oculorum rubore.4 Haec enim signa communia sunt passionum quae uexata membrana cerebri fiunt atque male laborantium aegrorum, non necessario omnium ac semper phreniticorum. Dehinc audacia sine ratione uel econtrario securitas et hilaritas5 non futuram sed praesentem alienationem designant.” [25] Haec expugnantes Asclepiadis sectatores contra primum responderunt: “Quamquam” inquiunt “signis futurae passionis aegri afficiantur, ratione tamen certa non in ipsam plerumque ueniunt, siquidem imminentem passionem cohibeat medicinalis uera curatio {quod inquiunt debemus diffinitione explicatum accipere etenim furore febricitantium non ex obstrusione membranarum},6 quae non sinat initium sumere. Non igitur negant signa fuisse futurae passionis.” [26] Dehinc signorum quaedam inquiunt secundum Asclepiadem esse necessaria, ut cordis uulneratio mortis signum, quaedam non necessaria sed frequenter futura significantia, sicut membranae capitis uulneratio moriturum uulneratum significat. Frequenter enim hoc, non iugiter ac necessario contingit, et futurae igitur phreniticae passionis signa frequentiam, non necessitatem futurorum secl Drabkin (= D) < Rovillius (= Rov): etiam Bendz (= B) 2 D B: muris parietibus cubiculorum Rovm: {muris} pariete cubiculorum Almeloveen (= Alm): “fort. parietis (abl.) uel parietibus (secl. muris)” D in apparatu 3 Rov > B D: grauedinem Guinterius (= Guint) 4 rubore certa signa sunt Rovm 5 D < Guint: audacia sine ratione et hilaritas uel e contrario securitas B 6 del D B, et uide D in apparatu: “quod . . . membranarum hinc ad Ac. i 18 transposuit Schmid 80” 1

161

  ‒   FR 22. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(1)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, I [= Phrenitis], i (= Are there signs of a future phrenitic affection?), 22–30: [22] Now we must look into the question of whether there are signs of a future phrenitic affection. For many leaders of sectae, Asclepiades among them, have postulated signs of a future affection. But Thessalus and his sectatores deny that such a thing can exist, arguing as follows: “If there were true and necessary signs of a future phrenitic affection, it would be necessary for all those who manifested them to become phrenitics. However, some people do not incur the phrenitic affection, although they display the signs in question. Secondly, [sc if there were such signs], there should also be signs of other future affections. But we are not aware of there being signs of any future affection; [23] in consequence, we should not assume that there can be signs of the phrenitic affection. What is more, nothing related to the preliminary causes [antecedentes]—such as sunburn, indigestion, wine-intoxication, post-prandial exercise, adjourning or sleeping in caves, or fresh painting indoors, on the bedrooms’ walls—fits the bill in any remarkable way: these [sc causes] also engender other diseases generally— for instance lethargia, apoplexia, epilepsia. Nor should we take it for granted that many people incur the phrenitic affection specifically, at a given time [sc of the year], say autumn or any other: this is uncertain, since not everyone becomes phrenitic but different people incur different affections [sc during one season]. [24] Not even sleeplessness, continuous discharge of urine (in small or large quantities) accompanied by pain, or being seized with [sc a feeling of ] heaviness or pain in the head, occiput, or loins, or with redness in the eyes [sc fit the bill]. For these signs are common to the affections which arise when the membrane of the brain is damaged: they are shared by severely ill patients but not necessarily by all the phrenitics, and not always by them. Next, unreasonable aggressiveness or, on the contrary, [sc unreasonable] carefreeness, or hilarity, indicate loss of reason [alienatio] in the present, not in the future.” [25] In refutation of these [sc arguments], the sectatores of Asclepiades retort to the first one: “Although patients do display signs of a future affection, in most cases they are not bound to fall into it if an effective medical treatment inhibits the impending affection, not allowing it to get started. Therefore they [sc Thessalus and his sectatores] do not establish [sc by this argument] that there are no signs of a future affection.” [26] Next they [sc the sectatores of Asclepiades] explain that, according to Asclepiades, some signs are necessary—in the way in which a wound of the heart is a sign of death—while others are not necessary but indicative of what will frequently happen—in the way in which a wound to the membrane of the head indicates that the wounded will die; for this happens frequently, but not without exceptions or by necessity. Therefore the signs of a future phrenitic affection, too, indicate what will frequently happen, not what will necessarily happen. In consequence, the

162

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

designant.7 Quapropter manet genus futurae phreniticae passionis in signis, quamquam 8 necessario in eam ueniant aegrotantes. “Contra secundum uero haec probauerimus et de singulis scribentes docebimus. [27] Dehinc potest etiam soli phreniticae passioni hoc priuatum inueniri: ut enim ab aliis passionibus differt, sic etiam cum nondum est differre.” Ceteris respondentes aiunt antecedentes causas, quas “procatarcticas” appellant, singulares quidem non esse futurae passionis signa neque rem sine tempore neque concurrentia,9 ut forte oculorum sanguinolentia uel capitis grauedo, sed in unum coaceruata atque concurrentia. [28] Audacia uero sine ratione10 atque hilaritas certa significatione dicta sunt11 signa futurae phreniticae passionis, sicuti et in externis, quamquam praesentia paruitate iam latentia pro futuris accipimus. Igitur Thessalus primo libro Diaetetico praecepit phlebotomari in stricturam magnam uenturos; atque hos ita designat iugiter febricitantes et usque ad dimissionis tempus submerso pulsu affectos, frequenter uel cum dolore urinam reddentes, cum haec praesentis iam sint uehementiae signa, non futurae. [29] Ex ea enim significatione futuram dicunt intelligi phrenitim quae non naturalis est, sed multorum placitis est firmata. Dehinc praesentis passionis signa necessaria esse confitentur. Aiunt enim quaedam esse quae futura denuntient, quaedam quae saepe futura, quorum secunda futurae phreniticae passionis esse dicunt, siquidem non necessario sequatur. Quod enim est repugnans.12 Omne etenim signum ad eam rem quam significauerit intelligitur, est enim ex his quae ad aliquid intelliguntur. Quomodo igitur signum uocari potest, cum non solum praesens non est quod ostenderit, uerum etiam in quibusdam neque erit? [30] Secundum nos itaque decliuitatis atque pronae aegritudinis in phrenitim 13 recte nuncupatur, ut labiles in passionem aegros pronuntiemus, quos Graeci §pinÒsouw14 totius appellatione uocant. Ipsius enim uerbi qualitas siue ueritas excussa designat aliquid esse quo res ferantur nec tamen necessario uenturae. Signa igitur res ipsa semper praesens quae significatur ostendit, qua saepe etiam futura noscuntur. Alia uero esse signa decliuitatis in phrenitim, alia in lethargiam atque ceteras passiones ex his reddere coeperimus cum sua suis manifestabimus.

et futura igitur phreniticae passionis signa frequentia, non necessitatem futurorum designantia Guint 8 add Rov 9 sed suspicor uerba “neque rem sine tempore neque concurrentia” fortasse delenda (et uide “atque concurrentia” prox.) 10 sinceratione Guint 11 ci Schmid (= S) D B: dictans Guint 12 D: Quid enim est repugnans? B (sic Caelius Asclepiadem defendisse uidetur, quod repugnat): tamen uel autem pro etiam ci D in apparatu (quod lectionem faciliorem puto) 13 add D: add Rov 14 eÈnÒsouw Guint 7

  ‒  

163

genus of the phrenitic affection subsists in the signs, even if the patients [sc manifesting such signs] do not necessarily end up with it. “As for the second [sc group of arguments adduced by Thessalus and his followers], we may have established these [sc facts], and we will also explain [sc them] in writing about individual [sc diseases]. [27] Besides, it is quite possible for this [sc phenomenon] to occur in isolation, only in the phrenitic affection: just as it differs from the other affections, it may differ even when it is not yet present.” In answer to the other arguments they [sc the sectatores of Asclepiades] say that the preliminary causes [antecedentes], those which the Greeks call “procatarctic”, such as maybe bloodshot eyes or heaviness in the head, are certainly not signs of the future affection when taken singly— nor is anything temporally undetermined, or [sc features] which do not come together—but [sc they are signs] when they form a unit and come together. [28] As for unreasonable aggressiveness and hilarity, these are called signs of the future phrenitic affection by virtue of their signifying being certain: in the same way, in external things, we count [sc certain things] as future although they are present, but still concealed by their smallness. Hence Thessalus in book i of his Regimen prescribes venesection for patients who are on the verge of a severe [sc state of ] stricture, and he places in this class those who are continuously feverish and have a low pulse up until the time of remission, discharging urine either frequently or with pain—because these are signs of a disorder which is already present, not in the future. [29] So they [sc the sectatores of Asclepiades] claim that the future phrenitis is grasped from a [sc kind of ] signifying which is not natural but based on the opinion of the many. Next, they admit that it is the signs of a present affection that are necessary. Now, they hold that there are signs that indicate what will happen and signs that indicate what will often happen, and they claim that the signs of the future phrenitic affection belong in this second group, since it [sc the phrenitic affection] does not follow by necessity. This is contradictory. For every sign is to be grasped in relation to the thing it signifies, since it belongs to the [sc class of ] things which are grasped in relation to something else. How, then, can something be called a sign, if the thing which it points to not only is not present, but in some cases not even will be? [30] Thus in our opinion it is right to speak of signs of a predisposition and diseased condition that is ready to pass into phrenitis, so that we may speak of people who are slipping into the disease—those whom the Greeks designate by the global description “epinosos” [sickly]. The core nature or meaning of this word indicates that there is something that things do tend towards, but without necessarily getting there. In conclusion, it is always the present thing itself, that which is being signified, that displays the signs, and it is in this way that we often learn even about the future. But in the course of distinguishing each disease by its own [sc signs] we will begin to show that, among them, the signs of a predisposition to phrenitis are different from the signs of a predisposition to lethargy or other diseases.

164

  ‒   FR 23. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(2)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, I [= Phrenitis], xvi (= Ad Themisonem), 155–165:

5

10

15

20

25

30

[155] Quomodo Themison scribens Celerum passionum curationes antiquorum peccatis assentiens quaedam incondita dereliquit—nam necdum purgauerat suam sectam—et ob hoc phreniticorum ordinans curationem quibusdam erroribus implicatur, ipsius quoque inspicienda sunt singula. Primo igitur ex prima diatrito nutriendos dicit, nullis etiam cogentibus causis, quod est improprium tempori. Dehinc dat sorbilia aut cucurbitam aut solum mulsum aut pomorum quaedam. Quomodo nunc dissimilitudo uirtutis ciborum docet errorem facile eius perspicimus. [156] Etenim sorbilia quae posuit suci sunt melioris, cucurbita uero cito corrumpitur, poma quoque suci maligni ac facile acescentis esse noscuntur, etiamsi sani fuerint accipientes: quibus denique medio cibo uti debere Salutaribus praeceptis docuimus. Ubi autem uiscera tument et altiora febribus inuruntur multo facilius acescere poma probamus. [157] Prohibet sane in fomentis peucedanum, castoreum, rutam, sed aceto rosaceo admixto hiberno tempore, aestate uero aqua admixta rosaceo initio passionis caput foueri iubet, non coniciens quomodo ob magnitudinem, transcenso initio, extemplo passio sumit1 augmentum. Dehinc etiam si initium habere potuerit, quod est difficile, erat melius constrictiuis uti lenioribus, ut oleo Hispano atque nouo. Etenim acetum et rosaceum percutit et implet caput. Quod autem refrigerantis ac densantis uirtutis est, crescente strictura, incongruum esse perspicitur. Ita iuxta differentiam temporum hiemis uel aestatis fomenti mutare qualitatem nullius est rationis. [158] Item, duobus diebus uel tribus transactis, etiam hederae foliis uel suco aut serpylli aut mentae uel cuiusquam similis uirtutis simplicium ac non uehementium specierum, cum oleo atque aceto, per interualla fouendos dicit, etiam nunc non iuxta sectae rigorem. Neque enim ad numerum dierum oportet fomenta ordinare, cum debeamus magis passionem uel tempus attendere, et neque constrictiua tumoribus atque grauabilia aegrotantibus adhibere; nam hedera cum bibitur mentis errorem inducit. Cadit etiam cum in accessione thoracem putat unguendum, et in his qui forte2 ardorem sentiunt rosaceo fouendum. [159] Hoc etenim, cum uirtutis sit densatiuae,

D: passionis sumit Hagendahl + B: passionis sumit Guint Rovm 1

2

D B: fortem

165

  ‒   FR 23. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(2)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, I [= Phrenitis], xvi (= Against Themison), 155–165: [155] When Themison wrote the [sc chapters on] treatments in his Acute affections he sanctioned the mistakes of the ancients, leaving some issues in a state of confusion—for he had not purged his secta yet—and for this reason he gets himself caught into a number of errors when he prescribes the treatment of phrenitis; hence his [sc mistakes], too, must be examined one by one. So then: in the first place, he recommends that patients should be nourished from the first day of the diatritus [= three-days period], although he gives no compelling reasons; but this procedure is ill-timed. Then he prescribes foods that can be swallowed up, gourd or hydromel alone, or some [sc kinds of ] fruit. But we [sc can] easily perceive his mistake, as the discrepancy between the powers of these foods points it out. [156] True, the swallowable foods he prescribes are of good juice, but the gourd gets quickly adulterated. Fruits, too, are known to be of a bad juice which easily turns sour, even when those who digest them are healthy; hence, I have instructed in my Precepts on health that one should have them in the middle of a meal. But we [sc can] prove that, when the viscera are inflamed and the deeper parts of the body burn with fever, fruits turn sour much more easily. [157] He [sc Themison] rightly forbids [sc the use of ] sulphurwort, castor, and rue in fomentations; but he recommends us, at the beginning of the affection, to foment the head, in winter, in vinegar mixed with rose oil, and, in summer, in water mixed with rose oil, without reckoning that the affection, owing to its magnitude, by-passes [sc the period of ] beginning and reaches [sc the period of ] increase in no time. Besides, even if he could catch the beginning, which is difficult, it would have been better to use milder astringents, such as new Spanish olive oil. For vinegar and rose oil pierce and congest the head. But when [sc the state of ] stricture advances, anything that has a cooling and condensing action is found unsuitable. So it is unreasonable to change the nature of the fomentation according to the difference between the seasons of winter and summer. [158] Again, he [sc Themison] advises that, after two or three days, we should also foment them [sc the phrenitic patients], at intervals, with leaves or juice of ivy, wild thyme, mint, or any other simple but not powerful drug with a similar action, administered with olive oil and vinegar—and here again he is at variance with the strict rule of the [sc Methodist] secta. For we should neither regulate the fomentations according to the number of days—we should pay greater attention to the affection than to [sc the factor of ] time—nor apply astringents to inflammations, or aggravating [sc substances] to the ill; indeed ivy induces mental disturbance when it is drunk. He [sc Themison] is also mistaken in thinking that the chest should be anointed during paroxysm and, in the case of [sc patients] who have a sensation of burning, fomented with rose oil. [159] For it [sc rose oil] constricts

166

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

constringit tumentia et ardorem geminat. Omne etiam unguentum accessionis tempore et magis in augmento febrium incendium facit ex superficie corporis ad altiora perduci. Peccat etiam3 et in reprobandis odoramentis, non docendo quae illa sint; ac quot diebus abstinemus aegrotos unguentum adhibendo: quod est laboriosum, nisi etiam cibus fuerit datus. Oportet enim neque cibari non antecedente perunctione neque perungi nisi cibus fuerit consecutus. Sed etiam post unctionem aqua frigida faciem fomentat, constringens rursum tumentia {phreniticis strictura caput afficit}.4 [160] Omni5 etenim phrenitico strictura caput affici nemo negat. Item inaniter putat ex tertia die, quo mente alienari coeperunt, nulla accessionum discretione cogente, quotidie cibum dari. At si alternis diebus fuerit occurrens accessio, alternandum etiam nutrimentum: oportuit enim, nisi declinato solutionis metus occurrerit, atque 6 quotidianis diebus accessiones fuerint effectae, omnibus cibum alternis dari. Nam non potest corpus diurnis accessionibus grauatum suis partibus applicare nutrimenta quae sumpserit. [161] Sed hic grauius peccans ait adiuuare etiam lauacrum, quamquam sit adhuc passio in gradu constituta, tribus tamen uel quattuor diebus transactis quo mentis alienatio irruisse uidetur. Quomodo igitur conueniens lauacrum passioni probatur, cum necdum quotidianis diebus cibum dare uideatur? Quippe cum adhuc passio suae magnitudinis teneat summitatem, et propterea mitigatiua sit curatio magis quam turbatio ex lauacri commotione adhibenda. [162] Mitto quod aeger ad haec magis moueatur alienatione mentis nec ullo assensu nostro pareat imperio, siquidem ferali mente omnia quaeque accipiat ac recuset. Item iubet lauantes solium primo descendere, tunc ascendentes solium fricari plurimum et rursum descendere, quod est laboriosum. Sufficiebat enim defricatos tunc solum7 descendere, cum se modico sensirent sudore uexatos. At iste post lauacrum oleo rosaceo caput fouet, quo grauius odore impletum aegrotantes afficiat. [163] Est autem incongruum atque inconsequens laxata,8 ut putat, lauacro corpora oleo rosaceo fomentare, cum sit frigidae atque constrictiuae uirtutis et propterea corporis efficiat densitatem. Non enim eius frigus erit aquae frigidae comparandum, cum aqua frigida ob exstinguendum feruorem ueluti cocti corporis adhibeatur,

3 7

B: peccat enim D 4 del D > B 5 corr Rov > D B: omnis Guint 6 add ego ci D in apparatu > B: tunc solum D 8 D: atque consequens laxata B

  ‒  

167

the inflamed parts and redoubles the [sc sensation of ] burning, since it has an astringent action. Moreover, any unguent [sc applied] during paroxysm, particularly during the [sc period of ] increase, makes the feverish heat to be transported from the surface [sc of the body] to the deeper parts. When he condemns [sc the use of ] strong-smelling substances, he [sc Themison] is in error again, because he does not instruct us which ones he means; and again, [sc he commits a mistake] by advising the application of an unguent for the whole period during which we keep [sc the patients] without food; for it [sc the (application of ) unguents] is wearisome unless food is also taken. Indeed, they [sc the patients] should neither be fed without a previous anointment nor anointed without food to follow. Moreover, after the anointing he [sc Themison] foments the face in cold water, thus constricting the inflamed parts afresh. [160] For no one disputes the fact that, in any phrenitic, the head is affected by stricture. Again, he [sc Themison] is, wrongly, of the view that [sc phrenitic patients] should be fed day by day from the third day after the one in which they started being deprived of reason, although the difference between paroxysms by no means compels him [sc to do so]. But if the paroxysm is to come on alternate days, nourishment should be given on alternate days too. In fact food should be administered on alternate days in all cases, unless there is danger of extreme weakness [solutio] in the declining phase [sc of the affection], all the more if there are paroxysms every day. For a body which is oppressed by daily paroxysms is not capable of sending to its parts the nourishment it has taken. [161] But he [sc Themison] commits an even more serious fault when he claims that bathing, too, is beneficial, although the affection may already have reached the increasing [sc phase] even if [sc no more than] three of four days have elapsed since loss of reason visibly seized [sc the patient]. Now, how can bathing turn out to be suitable for [sc this] affection, when not even administering food every day is proper yet? For clearly the affection is already at the height of its strength, and therefore one should resort to a soothing treatment rather than to the disturbance resulting from the agitation of bathing [162] I pass over the fact that the patient, in his derangement [alienatio], would be greatly excited by this [sc by bathing] and would not submit to our order with the slightest cooperation, since it is with the mind of a beast that he would consent to, or refuse, anything whatsoever. Again, he [sc Themison] prescribes that [sc the patients], when bathing, should go down into the tub first, then come out and have a thorough massage, then go down again; and this is wearisome. It would have been enough [sc to prescribe] that they go down into the tub after massage, when a moderate amount of sweat would make them uncomfortable. But our doctor foments the head with rose oil after bath: in this way it [sc the head], congested by the scent, aggravates [sc the condition of ] the patients. [163] On the other hand, it is unsuitable and inconsistent to foment the body—relaxed from bathing, as he assumes it to be—with rose oil, because it [sc the oil in question] has a chilling and astringent action and therefore condenses the body. For we must not compare its chill with that of cold water: cold water is used to quench heat, for example in cooked

168

5

10

15

20

  ‒  -

rosaceum uero perseueratione quadam simili atque eadem uexatione iugi frigore et odore percussibili caput afficiat. [164] Vinum etiam dandum declinationis ordinauit tempore, cum neque omnibus hoc sit adhibendum, sed solis illis qui simplici aegritudine afficiuntur. Dehinc non in omnibus prohibuit uinum salsum sed in his qui sunt insueti, nescius quia consueti uexantur siquidem sit natura noxium febricitantibus uinum. Consuetudo autem nihil aliud prodesse quam ut non plurimum corpora noceantur potest. Nos uero oportet consuetudinem rerum utilium facere, noxiarum fugere. Dat etiam uinum plurimum: heminam etenim uel tres dimidias iubet ante cibum, si fuerit sitis nimia consecuta. [165] Quod est, ut sentio, sine ulla ratione. In graui enim ac periculosa aegritudine, nudis et sitientibus uisceribus, ingrediens uinum facile concurrit ad neruos atque mentis iudicium tollit, cum non habuerit praemissum cibum, quem incurrens quadam tarditate moretur. Proficientibus igitur aegris perseuerandum inquit in utendo uino; si uero profectus cessauerit, tribus uel quattuor diebus aquam dabimus usum uini differentes, rursum dierum numerum et non passionis considerans motum.9 Quapropter etiamsi post tres dies difficultas adhuc declinationi10 obstiterit, non oportet ad usum uini descendere. Etenim sollicitae passiones his impulsibus facile ad augmenta recurrunt. Haec nunc Themison phreniticis curandis ordinauit; sed post ex Methodica secta multa bona contulit medicinae.

9

corr S: considerantes motum Guint

10

ego: declinationis cett

FR 24. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(3)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, II, i (= De lethargo), 8: [8] Item Menemachus pressuram inquit celerrimam uel acutam cum acutis febribus et non semper iugibus. Soranus uero, cuius haec sunt quae latinizanda suscepimus, pressuram inquit celerem esse uel acutam cum acutis febribus et pulsu magno ac tardo atque inani. Frequentare inquit in senibus, siquidem aptior sit sensuum difficultati atque demersioni ipsa quoque senectus.

169

  ‒  -

matter, whereas rose oil, which has a somehow similar stubbornness and the same noxiousness, attacks the head with a continuous chill and a penetrating odour. [164] He [sc Themison] also prescribed the administration of wine during the declining phase of the disease, although it should not be given to all [sc the phrenitics], but only to those affected by illness in its simple form. Moreover, he did not forbid salted wine for all [sc the phrenitics], but only for those who are not used to it, without realising that the ones who are used do suffer damage to the extent that wine, by its nature, is harmful for feverish patients. For the rest, habituation cannot bring any benefit other than preventing the body from being further harmed. But we ought to get habituated to what is helpful and avoid what is harmful. In fact Themison prescribes a considerable amount of wine: he orders a hemina—or even one and a half—before food, even if great thirst were to follow. [165] This is, to my judgement, completely unreasonable. For in a severe and dangerous disease, when the viscera are empty and parched, the wine that enters runs easily to the nerves and abolishes the mind’s reasoning capacity, since there has been no previous intake of food at the encounter of which it [sc the wine] would slow down and become somewhat sluggish [sc in its progress to the head]. Then he [sc Themison] claims that we should continue to use wine if the patients improve; but if improvement comes to a halt, we will administer water for three or four days, postponing the use of wine: here again he is concerned with the number of days, not with the course of the affection. On this account, we should not resort to using wine even if after three days the obstinacy [sc of the affection] still obstructs the [sc settling of the] declining phase. For affections stirred by these stimulants easily go back to their increasing phase. This is, then, what Themison prescribed for the treatment of phrenitics; but later on he made many valuable contributions to medicine from [sc his position within] the Methodist secta.

FR 24. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(3)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, II, i (= Lethargia), 8: [8] Menemachus, in turn, defines it [sc lethargia] as a swift or acute oppression [ pressura] accompanied by acute fevers, not always in continuous succession. As for Soranus, the author of the work which we have undertaken to present in a Latin version, he claims that it [sc lethargia] is a swift or acute oppression accompanied by acute fevers and by a large, slow, and hollow pulse. He says that it is common in old people, because old age itself is more predisposed to a poor functioning of the senses and to despondency.

170

  ‒  - FR 25. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(4)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, II, v (= Utrumne sint differentiae lethargorum), 24–25: [24] Item Mnaseas lethargum alium strictura effici, alium solutione dicit, siquidem somnus nunc densitate nunc laxamento corporum fiat, atque in aliis abstentas uideamus officiorum naturalium egestiones, in aliis uero largius influentes, adeo ut etiam inuoluntario exitu stercorum1 siue urinae fun5 dantur. Item multi nostrorum temporibus atque magnitudine constare lethargi differentias tradiderunt. Alium enim magnum alium paruum esse dixerunt, et alium initio alium in augmento, alium in statu alium in declinatione et accessione uel dimissione. Sed omnes illi2 summas atque generales passionis differentias3 tradiderunt et non specialem lethargi. [25] Falsum4 etiam 10 solutione lethargum fieri, quantum intelligitur atque est lethargus. Etenim inuoluntariam egestionem dicimus, 5 in infantibus,6 non solutionis ratione sed mentis occupatione fieri; nihil denique plus quam naturae conuenit excludunt, sed solum quod debuit etiam uoluntate deponi. Tenues etiam sudores pressura fieri non solutione intelliguntur, sed neque adiutoriis laxa15 tiuis, sicut in Adiutoriorum libris demonstrabimus. Quapropter lethargi differentias tradendas esse negamus.

stercora Rovm 2 corr D: illius Guint 3 Rov > B: summae atque generalis passionis differentias Guint > D 4 falsum B 5 add D 6 dixerunt in infantibus Guint + B 1

FR 26. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(5)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, II, ix (= Ad Asclepiadem et Themisonem et Heraclidem Tarentinum), 44–52: [44] Themison libris Acutarum (uel Celerum) passionum recte cetera ordinauit, sed iubet obscuro in loco haberi lethargos. “Etenim” inquit “lux apta non est, siquidem moueat atque turbet corpora et non sufficiant spiramenta tur20 bationi commotae1 congruam exhalationem praebere—quapropter etiam sani in luce dormientes grauantur, quorum maxime hi qui 2 sole dormierunt uexari noscuntur”, non aduertens quod omnis tenebrosus aer constringit, lethargica autem passio nullo alio magis quam strictura cognoscitur, quam necesse est augeri ob aeris densitatem. [45] Sub sole autem dormientes 1

B < Rov: turbationis commotae D

2

add Rov > B

171

  ‒  - FR 25. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(4)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, II, v (= Are there different kinds of lethargia?), 24–25: [24] Mnaseas claims, in turn, that one [sc kind of ] lethargia comes about through stricture, another through looseness, in so far as sleep results now from the bodies’ being compact, now from their being loose, and we may see that in some people the discharges governed by natural functions are suppressed [sc during sleep], while in others they flow abundantly—so much so that there can even be uncontrolled discharge of faeces and urine. Again, many of our people have taught that the kinds [differentiae] of lethargia relate to [sc points in] time and to intensity. One [sc kind] is severe, they claimed, another one mild; or one occurs at the beginning, another in the increasing phase; another at acme, another on the decline, another during paroxysm or during remission. But all those [sc Methodist doctors] have taught us the differentiae of affection in its essence and generality, not the one specific to lethargia. [25] And it is false [sc to say] that lethargia, in so far as it is diagnosed as, and is, lethargia, results from looseness. As for uncontrolled discharge, we reply that this [sc phenomenon] happens, as in young children, not on account of looseness but by virtue of the mind’s being engaged [sc in other things]; at any rate, they do not evacuate more than what is sanctioned by nature but only what should have been eliminated even at their will. And the thin sweats are [sc to be] diagnosed as resulting from oppression [ pressura], not from looseness—and in any case not from laxative remedies, as we shall show in our treatise On remedies. We therefore claim that it is not proper to speak about different kinds of lethargia.

FR 26. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(5)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, II, ix (= Against Asclepiades, Themison, and Heraclides of Tarentum), 44–52: [44] In his work On Acute (or Swift) affections, Themison has made a number of correct prescriptions, but he is of the view that the patients suffering from lethargia should be kept in a dark place. “For” he argues “light is not suitable because it stirs and excites the body, and the channels [spiramenta] do not provide adequate ventilation for the excitement that has been stirred—which is why even healthy people have a feeling of heaviness if they sleep in the light, and those who have slept in sunlight are known to be damaged worst of all.” But he does not pay heed to the fact that dark air of any sort produces constriction. The lethargic affection, on the other hand, is predominantly marked by stricture, which is of necessity increased by the thickness of air. [45] As for those who sleep in sunlight, we too

172

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

grauari etiam nos asserimus, sed ob contrarietatem efficientium3 causarum: lux enim solis atque uapor relaxat, e contrario somnus astringit. Dehinc lethargia grauis atque perniciosa esse passio perspicitur; somnus autem naturale est officium. Item sol grauat caput; lux autem, quam lethargicis adhibemus tectorum sub tegmine, nullo uapore lucifici solis augetur, neque splendore radiorum perfusum corpus grauiter afficitur aegrotantis. Iubet etiam parua per interualla eorum faucibus insinuari liquorem, quod praeter tempus faciens ardorem illum cuius causa id adhiberi existimat augere potius quam minuere uidetur. [46] At si uenter strictus fuerit, aloes iubet dari bibendum triobolum4—hoc est dimidiam drachmam—cum aqua ante cibum: prodesse inquit priusquam passio augeatur, siquidem multa quae ad caput ex corpore concurrunt detrahentur. Soranus uero, qui normarum regulis Methodum restituit, noxiam esse inquit istius modi potionem: forsitan enim ob nimiam stricturam retineatur et non solum nihil egerat, uerum etiam ipsa remaneat. Credibile autem ad eius pigmenti in stomacho effectum sensum accurrere materiam ac deinde ad caput recurrere, quod per uias stomacho uicinum est,5 et 6 membranas, ad rapiendum7 quae sunt summa facultate aptissimae8 ob tumoris feruorem. [47] Dehinc grauius augeri peccatum uidemus cum ante cibum hoc medicamen dari iubet. Adiectus enim cibus necessario corrumpitur, manente adhuc in ore aloe; corruptio autem cibi uexat ea quae se circumplexa sunt. Attrahens deinde materiam a capite, attrahit etiam eius nutrimentum. Non enim ratione quadam tacita ueluti animal sentiens poterit medicamen naturalia relinquere et ab his quae contra naturam sunt9 detrahenda separare. Nutrimenta igitur propria deperdere dubium non est cum ui medicaminis detrahantur.10 Post tertium diem sternutamento utitur, cum ipse prohibuerit lucido in loco aegrotos iacere, siquidem moueantur atque turbentur liquida et spiritus. Sed utique multo uehementius sternutamenta commouere posse perspicimus. [48] Dehinc 11 quattuor”12 inquit “uel quinque dies declinante accessione, si nihil obstiterit, ultra muros producendus13 aegrotans et usque ad uiginti uel triginta stadia gestatione mouendus; quo tempore excitare etiam conuenit atque sternutamento et aceti cum sinapi odoramento uti uel cataplasmatibus”— et hoc per totam passionem faciendum probat. Sed omnino lucem inquit recusandam14 tamquam commobilem corporis, cum sit grauior in sinapi uel gestationis motu commotio. Iners etiam atque uana intentio dierum numerus

B < Rovm: afficientium D 4 D: apponendum triobolum B < Guint 5 B: stomacho uicinum D 6 add ego 7 ego: ad rapienda cett 8 aptissimae ego: aptissima ci B: aptissimum D < Guint 9 contra naturam sunt atque sola sunt B 10 B: detrahuntur D 11 add Rov > B 12 dehinc quattuor D 13 producendos B— ex errore typogr.? 14 B < Rovm: recusandum D 3

  ‒  

173

agree, of course, that they have a feeling of heaviness, but this is due to an opposition between efficient causes: for the sun’s light and [sc warm] stream produce relaxation, whereas sleep is, on the contrary, astringent. Besides, it is quite clear that lethargia is a serious and dangerous affection, whereas sleep is a natural function. Again, the sun gives a feeling of heaviness in the head; but light under the roofs of houses, of the sort we use in treating the lethargic patients, is not increased by any luminous vapour from the sun and the patient’s body does not suffer the aggravating effects of having bathed in its bright rays. Themison also orders liquid to be introduced at short intervals through the [sc patient’s] throat, but by doing it at the wrong time he certainly increases instead of diminishing the burning heat [ardor] against which he proposes this remedy. [46] If the stomach is constricted, he orders three obols of aloes—that is, half a drachma—to be drunk with water before the meal: he claims that this [sc treatment] would be helpful before the affection increases, in so far as much of what runs from the body to the head would [sc thus] be drawn off. But Soranus, who reformed Methodism through the discipline of his rules, claims that a potion of this sort is harmful; for it could be retained on account of [sc the body’s] excessive constriction, and, so far from driving anything out, it would itself remain inside. And it is conceivable that substance would gather in the oesophagus in reaction to the perception of the juice [sc of aloes] and then it would run to the head, which is nearby across the channels, and to the membranes—which are at their aptest to absorb whatever comes along, owing to the intense heat of the swelling. [47] Next, we think that he [sc Themison] aggravates his mistake even further by ordering that this medicine should be administered before food. For when aloes is still left in the mouth, the food added to it becomes inevitably corrupted; and food’s corruption, in turn, damages everything around. Then, by drawing substance from the head, it [sc the medicine] also draws its [sc the head’s] nourishment. For the medicine will not be able—by some secret reasoning, like a creature endowed with sense—to let what is natural remain in place, separating it from what is unnatural and should be removed. There is no doubt, then, that the head loses its own nourishment, since that is being carried away under the power of the medicine. After the third day Themison prescribes a strenutatory, although he has himself prohibited the patients from lying in a light place on the grounds that the humours and the pneuma would get agitated and excited [sc in that way]: but we know for sure that strenutatories can produce a far stronger commotion. [48] Then he [sc Themison] says: “When the affection is on the decline, after four or five days the patient should be brought out of house and made to take passive exercise for twenty to thirty stades, if nothing prevents it: at that time it is also proper to arouse the patient using a strenutatory and an aromatic preparation—or plasters—of vinegar and mustard”; and he recommends doing this throughout the whole [sc remainder] of the affection. Yet he claims that light should be rejected at all cost as irritating the body, although the irritation produced by mustard or passive exercise is more serious. As for the number of days and measure of stades in the prescription of the

174

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

atque modus stadiorum circa gestationem adhibendam; addo etiam immodicum motum esse stadiorum triginta periclitanti. [49] Quid etiam considerans sinapi probauerit adhibendum, ratione caret. Utrumne tumorem senserit in membrana? Sed haec acrimonia necessario densatur. An uero sensuum torpentium mouendorum causa? Sed iamdudum lucem ne commoueat recusauit. Postea inquit radendum sequenti die duabus ante accessionem horis, seruatis cataplasmatibus pane et alica et oleo rosaceo et lini semine cum posca uel polenta cum foenugraeco et aqua mulsa, usum dissimilium cataplasmatum permiscens. Etenim mulsum atque foenugraecum relaxant atque mitigant tumentia, oleum uero rosaceum atque acetum uel alica constringunt et propterea in augmento tumores supertendunt. [50] Intemporaliter etiam utitur cataplasmatibus, cum ante duas horas accessionis uenturae adhiberi iubet et sit eo tempore requies adhibenda. Dehinc inquit: “Si uehementer fuerit oppressus aegrotans ut neque dimissionis tempore eum ualeamus excitare, si praecordia mollia senserimus atque uocem non hirtam obtusam,15 fricationibus corpus calefaciemus, tunc frigida caput fomentamus coaceruatim atque iugiter et quodam percussu, ut altius a capite demissa ueniant fomenta, tunc ad balnea aegrotantem ducemus ut densitatem frigoris relaxemus.” Hoc igitur uexationum perdendae salutis magnitudinem uehementer excedit. [51] Quod enim passio crescere facit, hoc est torporem sensuum, hoc etiam frigida fomentatio cogit augeri. Quo fiet ut, si forte temporaliter quisquam aegrotantium raptu quodam horroris frigidae excitetur, uehementius tamen accessionis tempore opprimatur, sicut et ipse eodem in libro nescius confitetur. Dehinc affectans stationem sensuum emouere fomento frigidae, uidendum est utrumne in accessione id fieri eligat aut in dimissione. Sed si in augmento, e contrario aduersum est16 etiam naturale lauacrum; sin uero dimissionis tempore, feruntur17 ea quae dimissionis ratione indulgentia quadam tenues uias agnouerant. Praeterea post frigidam ablutionem18 balneum sanos quoque incommodat implendo caput. [52] Quid igitur prodest frigidae ablutio, quae stationem atque torporem uiarum excludere putatur, si necessario magis densitas acquisita aegrotantem opprimere perspicitur? Ita corpuscula, quorum statione uiarum obtrusionem factam existimat, facile utique transire uel resilire possunt, si capacitas exitum dederit

ci B: uocem non ita obtusam ci D: uocem istam obtusam Guint 16 B: contrarium adversum est D 17 D in apparatu > B: feriuntur D 18 allutionem D 15

  ‒  

175

exercise, this is a worthless and futile concern; and I should add that, even if one is to risk [sc the exercise], movement along thirty stades is excessive. [49] Besides, there is no clue as to what he [sc Themison] had in mind when he recommended the use of mustard. Did he suspect an inflammation in the membrane of the brain? But under the [sc mustard’s] pungency it [sc the membrane] is of necessity thickened. Or is it [sc that he recommended the use of mustard] for the purpose of arousing the benumbed senses? He rejected light, however, lest it might arouse the patient. Then he claims that the patient[sc’s head] should be shaved on the next day, two hours before the paroxysm, after we have taken good care to apply plasters of bread, spelt groats, rose oil, flaxseed in diluted vinegar [ posca], or pearl barley with fenugreek and honey-water: [sc thus] he confounds the use of dissimilar plasters. For honey-water and fenugreek relax and soothe the inflamed parts, while rose oil, vinegar, and spelt groats produce constriction and hence overstretch the inflamed parts during the paroxysm. [50] Moreover, he uses plasters at the wrong time, since he orders them to be applied two hours before the start of the paroxysm; but one should prescribe rest at that time. Next he [sc Themison] says: “If the patient is so utterly weighed down that we fail to wake him up even during remission, and if the precordia is soft to the touch and the voice not too weak, we should warm the body by massage, then foment the head with cold water copiously, continuously, and in strokes, so that the fomentations would come beating on the head from above; then we should take the patient to the bathroom, to relax the thickness produced by the cold.” Now this [sc procedure] considerably exceeds in magnitude the injuries of the [sc original] loss of health. [51] For a cold fomentation urges the aggravation of the very thing engendered by the affection: the benumbing of the senses. Thus, even if a patient gets occasionally stimulated for a while under the kind of shock induced by shivering in cold water, he will nevertheless be more severely weighed down during the paroxysm—as he [sc Themison] himself unwittingly admits in the same book. Next, given that he [sc Themison] attempts to release the blocking of the senses with a fomentation of cold water, we should examine whether he wants this done during paroxysm or during remission. But if [sc he wants it] during the increase [sc of the paroxysm], even an ordinary bath is unsuitable and harmful; if during remission, then the matter which was in the process of recognising the thin channels and yielding to them somewhat, owing to the remission, is sent back. Besides, a bath after a dousing in cold water brings discomfort even to healthy people, by congesting the head. [52] What, then, is the benefit of a dousing in cold water—one that is supposed to eliminate the blocking and benumbing of the channels—if the resulting thickness clearly and inevitably weighs down the patient still further? So the particles [corpuscula]—through the blocking [statio] of which the obstruction [obtrusio] of the channels would, in his opinion, have occurred—could easily pass through and bounce [sc back into place] if the width [sc of the channels]

176

  ‒  -

in quam uenisse uel ex qua exisse uidentur. Huic autem rei perficiendae frigida repugnat, densat enim atque conducit uias. Fatetur sane neque se hoc uti adiutorio cum sit melius, quamquam nominare quod sit metuat: etenim inimicum et neque ipsius dogmati conueniens esse probatur.

FR 27. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(6)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, II, x (= De apprehensione uel oppressis, quos Graeci “cataleptos” appellant), 56–58: 5 [56] Vicina atque similis est lethargiae passio quam Graeci “catalepsin” appellant, nos apprehensionem uel oppressionem uocare poterimus; de qua nunc dicemus. Nomen igitur ab accidenti sumpsit; sed Hippocrates libro suo Sententiarum et Diocles libro Prognostico hanc passionem “aphoniam” appellauit, Praxagoras secundo libro Peregrinarum passionum “catochen” appellauit, item 10 Antigenes Cleophantinus libro quem De febribus et tumoribus scripsit “anaudian”1 uocauit, Asclepiades libro quem De periodicis febribus scripsit “catalepsin” appellauit atque plenum corpus scripturae composuit. [57] Quo constat errasse Chrysippum libro quo de ipsa passione scripsit, appellans “catocham”, hoc modo: “passionem” inquit “quam appellamus catocham”. Veteres etiam 15 medici hanc passionem non tacuerunt, sed facile, sicuti etiam nunc plurimi, lethargiam esse senserunt. Alii horum successores, pauci quidem 2 Asclepiadis sectatores, hanc passionem a lethargo discreuerunt et nomine adiecto “catalepsim” uocauerunt equidem nihil3 ei nouitatis ascribentes quod proprium passionis uideretur, sed omnia communia, quae etiam de lethargo 20 dixerunt. Sed neque alius quisquam hanc passionem cognouit usque ad Methodicorum tempora. [58] Nam ex nostris primus Magnus eius argumenta constituit; atque mox Agathinus, dehinc Archigenes, qui plurimum passionem a ceteris discernendo separauit. Sed neque proprium nomen passioni omnes unum posuerunt {Praxagoras eam “catochen” appellauit}4 neque, 25 si quisquam nomen passionis dedit primus, etiam eius signa recte agnouisse probatur. Neque Asclepiadis sectatores soli “catalepsin” uocauerunt, uerum etiam et ipse Asclepiades. Aliam dixit esse passionem quam lethargiam; sed, cum hoc solum praeciperet, nouum non dedit signum.5

B: anaudiam D 2 add B 3 D: e quidem nihil B 4 secl B dub D in apparatu (“fort. del.”) 5 signum corr ego: uerum etiam et ipse Asclepiades aliam dixit esse passionem quam lethargiam. sed cum hoc solum praeciperet nouum non dedit nomen cett

1

177

  ‒  -

made room for their comings and goings. But cold water is opposed to producing this result; for it thickens and contracts the channels. He [sc Themison] admits, however, that he would not use this treatment when he may have a better one, though he avoids being specific [sc about the latter]: for it [sc the former] is obviously averse [sc to the patient] and not consistent with his own [sc Themison’s] teaching.

FR 27. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(6)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, II, x (= Seizure or the patients suffering from oppression, whom the Greeks call “cataleptics”), 56–58: [56] Close and similar to lethargia is the affection which the Greeks call “catalepsis” and we might call apprehensio [= oppression] or oppressio [= seizure]; and this is what we shall discuss now. So then: the name derives from a symptom [accidens]; but Hippocrates in the treatise of Aphorisms and Diocles in the treatise on Prognosis called this affection “aphonia” [= voicelessness], Praxagoras called it “katoche” [= hold-up, suspense] in book ii of his treatise on Exotic diseases, Cleophantus’ disciple Antigenes called it “anaudia” [= incapacity to articulate] in the treatise he devoted to Fevers and inflammations, Asclepiades called it “catalepsis” [= seizure] and dedicated to it a compendious presentation in the treatise he devoted to Periodic fevers. [57] Hence Chrysippus made a mistake when, in a treatise where he wrote about this very affection, he called it “katoche”, introducing it by the words “the affection which we call katoche”. Clearly the ancient doctors did not ignore this affection; but they were ready to take it for lethargia, as do most [sc doctors] even today. Some of their [sc the ancients’] successors, in fact a few of Asclepiades’ disciples, distinguished this affection from lethargia and gave it a [sc specific] name, calling it “catalepsis”; but, to be sure, they did not ascribe to it anything new which might appear to be the specific [sc element] of the affection—only common features, which they had also discussed in connection with lethargia. And no one else recognised this affection up until the time of the Methodists. [58] For it was one of us, Magnus, who organised [sc the subject] properly for the first time; then soon after him Agathinus [sc continued the job] and later on Archigenes, who distinguished the affection and separated it from the others in the best way. But it was neither the case that all referred to the affection by one single name specific to it, nor that, if someone did come up with the affection’s name for the first time, that person should also be credited with having identified its symptoms correctly. Surely the disciples of Asclepiades were not alone in calling [sc the affection] seizure: Asclepiades himself did that too. He claimed that it was an affection distinct from lethargia; but, although he saw that much ahead [sc of his time], he did not ascribe a new symptom [sc to catalepsis].

178

  ‒   FR 28. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(7)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, II, xii (= Quomodo aliarum sectarum principes istam curauerunt passionem [sc catalepsin]), 82–85:

5

10

15

20

25

30

[82] Multi aliarum sectarum principes ;1 quos inter etiam Chrysippus, scribens de catalepticis in ultima parte libri (etiam “catochos”2 nominauit).3 Sed in his qui mediocriter tardasse in eadem passione inueniuntur acrioribus utitur unctionibus ob stuporem articulorum uel tremorem, hoc est cyprino admixto pipere et nitro et fomento ex aqua salsa concoctis sulfure et bitumine. Dehinc perungit4 unctione quam appellauit “tripticen”, quam conficiendam dixit ex calamo aromatico, schoeno, cachry, pyrethro, irino, manna, singulorum partibus oleo admixtis atque contritis. [83] Sed haec nos ob acrimoniam reprobamus, siquidem sit passio celeris atque acuta etiamsi cui iamdudum5 tardantibus atque inueteratis febribus irruerit; quippe cum chroniae febres ista passione {necessario}6 in superpositionem ueniant—quam Graeci7 epithesin uocant—quae similis fiet necessario acutis passionibus, et ob hoc mitigationem deposcet.8 Prohibemus etiam supradictis rationibus unctionem ex illo liquore articulis adhibendam uel ex eo quicquam potandum aut cibo admiscendum, item sternutamenta uel rasuram capitis aut articulorum sinapismum aut supponenda podici acria collyria ob prouocandum uentrem, quae appellauit “balanos”, item diagridium atque castoreum et omnia grauabilia fomenta, ex quibus tumor magis augetur et soporifera pressura geminatur. [84] His etiam compeccauit Themison libris quos Periodicos dixit, adhuc quidem in iuuentute constitutus, necdum Asclepiades in libris suis eos discreuerat. Ait enim: “Si iam tardantibus atque insidentibus febribus apprehensiones uel oppressiones aduenerint sensuum atque in accessione uocis silentium fecerint, ceteris ut supra diximus similiter adhibitis, ante accessionem tribus uel quattuor horis seruatis, si uenter non fluit, diagridii obolum cum tribus uel quattuor obolis castorei dabimus cum aqua occipitium atque tempora capitis iungentes thapsia” (quam nos ferulaginem dicimus), “aqua contrita, ut quendam sensum atque leuationem mediocrem per corporis faciat superficiem.” Cibos etiam inquit dandos solidiores, nisi praecordia fuerint in tumore constituta; quod si obstiterit, bibiles dabimus cibos. [85] Necdum quidem ait prouidens quia etiamsi in aliis partibus tumores fuerint corporis, sorbiles interea cibi conueniunt, siquidem

B ex apparatu D (“fort. suppl. uel sim”, quod uertit: “Many leaders of other sects have given directions for treating catalepsy” 2 ego—et uide Fr 27 [57] cum comm. ad l: etiam catocham cett 3 B lacunam hic sumit 4 D < Rov: perunget B < Guint 5 B: etiam sicut iamdudum Guint: etiam si iamdudum Rov > D: etiam si cum iamdudum Rovm 6 del ego 7 D in apparatu > B: graece D 8 ego: deposcat cett 1

179

  ‒   FR 28. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(7)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, II, xii (= How the leaders of other sectae have treated this affection [sc catalepsis]), 82–85: [82] Many leaders of the other sectae ; among them is Chrysippus, who writes about cataleptics towards the end of his treatise (in fact he called them “catochics”). But with patients found to have developed a mildly chronic form of the same affection he uses sharper unguents against the numbness and trembling of the joints—that is, henna oil in an admixture of pepper and soda, and a fomentation made of salt water, with brimstone and bitumen boiled in it. Afterwards he smears [sc the patient] with an unguent which he called “triptike” and said it should be made of sedge, schoinos, kachru, pellitory, iris oil, and frankincense powder, by mixing them one by one in oil and pounding them. [83] But we disapprove of these [sc substances] on account of their pungency, because the disease is swift or acute even if it may clash with prolonged and persistent fevers: since of course in this affection chronic fevers develop a paroxysm (what the Greeks call an “epithesis”), this will necessarily be similar to [sc the paroxysms which develop in] acute affections, and hence it will call for a soothing [sc treatment]. For the reasons just given, we also disapprove of applying to the joints the unguent made from the liquid described above, of letting him [sc the patient] drink any of it, or of mixing any of it in his food; similarly [sc we disapprove] of strenutatories, the shaving of the head, mustard plasters for the joints, or the insertion of sharp suppositories—he [sc Chrysippus] called them “balanoi ”—into the anus, for the purpose of stimulating the bowel; and similarly [sc we disapprove] of scammony juice, castor, and all pungent fomentations, which aggravate the inflammation and redouble the [sc sensation of ] drowsy oppression. [84] Themison shared in these errors in the treatise he devoted to Periodic fevers when he was still a young man, at a time when Asclepiades had not yet distinguished them [sc the cataleptic patients] in his own books. Now he [sc Themison] says: “If [sc forms of ] apprehensio or oppressio [= seizure] of the senses supervene on already existing fevers of the chronic and stubborn kind and produce loss of voice during paroxysm, when everything has been administered just as recommended above, then three or four hours before the paroxysm, in case the bowel is not loose, we shall administer an obol of scammony juice and three or four obols of castor in water, anointing the occiput and the temples with thapsia” (the plant that we [sc Latin speakers] call ferulago) “rubbed up in water, so that it may produce a certain amount of sensation and a moderate relief on the surface of the body.” He also claims that we should administer more solid foods, unless the precordial region is caught in an inflammation; but if there is that obstacle, we shall administer liquid foods. [85] Yet he speaks here without concern for the fact that, even if the inflammations were in other parts of the body, the foods appropriate during this interval are of the kind that can be swallowed up: in so far as the

180

  ‒  -

laxamentum passio deposcat, quam9 necessario accendit thapsia10 atque erigit manificum11 tumorem. Est etiam castoreum acre inueteratae qualitatis causa, sicut omnis caro reposita.

D: cum ci B Eranos 41.67: “fort. quamquam” D in apparatu accendit transposui: post erigit cett 11 D B: magnificum cett

9

FR 29. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

10

PASSIONES

thapsia post

(8)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, II, xviii (= Quomodo curandi sunt pleuritici), 112: [112] Tunc post tres uel quattuor dies solutis febribus adhibendum lauacrum, 5 sed a uino temperandum. Illis quoque partibus quae dolore tanguntur cerotaria apponenda1 ex oleo dulci uel cyprino confecta, admixto foenugraeci polline uel meliloto tuso atque creto, admixtis etiam adipibus. Vtendum quoque medicamine quod “diatessaron” uocant: cera, resina terebinthina, iri Illyrica, pice, aequis ponderibus. Dehinc post unum uel duos 2 adhiben10 dum lauacrum et dandum uinum, apponendum malagma quod “diachulon” uocant uel Mnaseu.3 Haec ratio secundum Soranum curationis. Antiquorum uero Erasistratus et Herophilus de pleuriticis nihil dixerunt.

1

D B: ponenda cett

2

add B

3

ci D > B: diamna Guint: Dia Mannae Rov

FR 30. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(9)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, II, xxiii (= Ad Themisonem), 134: [134] At Themison alias quidem pleuriticos recte curauit, peccauit autem quarta die cataplasmando, dehinc cerotarium apponendo aliquo1 uir15 tutis feruentis ungendo 2 atque ruta: sunt enim acria. Dehinc cerotarii tempus declinante est passione.

Rovm: ex aliquo D in apparatu > B ungendo, ** atque ruta”

1

2

B ex apparatu D: “fort. scrib.

181

  ‒  -

affection requires relaxation, thapsia inevitably stimulates it, increasing the inflammation by manufactured means. And castor, too—like all preserved meat—is pungent on account of its property of being stored up for long.

FR 29. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(8)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, II, xviii (= How to treat patients with pleuritis), 112: [112] Next, three or four days after the fever has disappeared, we should prescribe bathing but refrain from wine. As for those parts which are still affected by pain, we should apply to them cerates made of sweet olive oil or henna oil with the addition of fenugreek flour or melilot pounded and sifted, and with the addition of suet too. We should also use the medicine which they [sc the Greeks] call “diatessaron” [= of four ingredients]: equal measures of wax, turpentine, Illyrian iris, and pitch. Then after one or two days we should prescribe bathing, administer wine, and apply the emollient plaster which they call [sc in Greek] “diachulon” [= of juices], or the plaster of Mnaseas. This is the system of treating pleuritis according to Soranus. Of the ancients, neither Erasistratus nor Herophilus had anything to say about the pleuritics.

FR 30. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(9)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, II, xxiii (= Against Themison), 134: [134] Themison’s treatment of pleuritic patients is correct in most respects, but he committed a fault in that he used plasters on the fourth day, then applied a cerate and anointed the patient with another [sc unguent] of burning action, and with rue: for these substances are pungent. Moreover, the proper time for applying cerates is the declining [sc phase] of the affection.

182

  ‒  - FR 31. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(10)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, II, xxix (= Quo modo curandi sunt peripneumonici), 152–153: [152] Cum statum sumpserit passio, gestatione leui utemur; cum uero declinauerit, uario nutrimus cibo seruantes ac praecauentes multo tempore ex liquamine et oleo cibos, siquidem tussiculam commoueant. [153] Tunc lauacrum adhibemus et ultimo uinum damus. Pectori autem atque a tergo 5 circulatim cerotaria apponimus ex oleo dulci confecta uel cyprino, admixta iridis radice decocta uel meliloto, et secundum aliquos sampsucho. Sed est hoc acerrimum, quamquam sit calidae uirtutis. Post cerotarium uero apponimus 1 quod appellatur “diachulon” uel Mnaseu;2 aliqui etiam adhibuerunt illud quod Nileos appellatur, item Cephisophontis, quae non 10 sunt ita uehementia et propterea permittenda. Horum sane compositiones de medicaminibus scribentes Interrogationum docuimus libris.

1

add D B

2

D B: Mnasei Guint

FR 32. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(11)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, II, xxix (= Quo modo curandi sunt peripneumonici), 158–160: [158] Themison uero alia quaedam de passione recte composuit, sed peccat iubendo eos secunda uel tertia die gestari, quoniam nondum sumpserit passio statum. [159] Iubet etiam cum scarificatione adhiberi cucurbitam 15 declinante accessione, cum sit adiutorii genus districtiuum1 et propterea proprium dimissionis. Dat etiam bibere aquam frigidam uel frigidae uicinam, et non est consequens sorbilibus cibis atque curationi laxatiuae potus constrictiuus. “Si” inquit “incensa atque longa fuerit accessio, ut ardore ac siccitate difficultatem faciat excludendi ea quae tussicula emitti coguntur, 20 dabimus pityidas uel nucleos aut cucumeris semen bibendum cum aqua— aut secundum modum collecta”. Et sunt haec maxime contraria; augmenti etenim atque accessionis tempore etiam aqua, quae nullius est qualitatis, noxia perspicitur. [160] Vtitur etiam amygdalis amaris, quae ob amaritudinem tumores uehementius accendunt.

D < Vetter: destrictiuum Guint: destructiuum B (uide CP III 20, cucurbitae cum scarificatione (. . .) etiam ceteris districtiuis adiutoriis).

1

183

  ‒  - FR 31. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(10)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, II, xxix (= How to treat patients with peripneumonia), 152–153: [152] When the affection reaches the acme, we shall prescribe gentle passive exercise; when it has declined, we nourish the patient by giving him foods of many sorts, and for a long time we avoid foods made in fish sauce and olive oil, since they produce coughing. [153] Then we prescribe bathing, and finally we administer wine. On to the chest and around the back, in a circle, we apply cerates made of sweet olive oil or henna oil, mixed with iris root or melilot that has boiled into it—or, according to others, marjoram. But the latest is very pungent, although it has a warming action. After the cerate we apply the emollient called [sc in Greek] “diachulon” [= the plaster of juices], or that of Mnaseas; some also apply what is known as the plaster of Nileus, or that of Cephisophon, which are not too strong and therefore are permissible. I have discussed their composition in my book of Questions and answers, in the section concerning medicines.

FR 32. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(11)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, II, xxix (= How to treat patients with peripneumonia), 158–160: [158] Themison’s discussion of the affection is correct on many points, but he is mistaken when he prescribes that they [sc the peripneumonic patients] should take passive exercise on the second or third day on the grounds that the affection has not reached its acme yet. [159] He also orders that we use cupping with scarification when the paroxysm begins to decline, although this remedy is of the dilating kind and therefore suitable for the [sc period of ] remission. He administers even cold water to drink, or water that is nearly cold; but an astringent drink does not go well with foods that can be swallowed up and with a relaxing treatment. “If ”, he says, “the paroxysm is very feverish and prolonged, so that the heat and the dryness make it difficult [sc for the patient] to get rid of the matter which is [sc normally] forced out through coughing, we shall administer pine seeds or pine kernels, or cucumber seeds, to drink with water—or a mixture of them in suitable proportions.” But these [sc substances] are extremely averse; in fact even water, which has no [sc medical] property, is known to be harmful during the increasing [sc phase] and at the time of paroxysm. [160] Themison makes use even of bitter almonds, which aggravate inflammations because of their bitterness.

184

  ‒  - FR 33. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(12)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, II, xxxiii (= Vtrumne febricitent cardiaci), 173: [173] Quaeritur etiam utrum cardiaci febricitent, et plurimi quidem ante Asclepiadem febricitare cardiacos negauerunt, alii uero contraria dixerunt, ut Apollophanes Erasistrati sectator. Item Asclepiades plurimos inquit non febricitare; libris enim quos ad Erasistratum fecit et appellauit Contradictorios: 5 “Dico” inquit “cardiacos non febricitare.” Sed secundo libro Oxeon non inquit febricitare frequenter cardiacos. Item Themison et Thessalus {Demetrius Aponieus}1 quosdam febricitare aiunt, quosdam negauerunt. Demetrius uero Apameus2 incipiente inquit passione atque crescente omnes febricitare, post uero, cum uehementescere coeperit passio, febris recedere fertur.

1

secl D

2

corr Alm > D B: Aponieus edd

FR 34. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(13)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, II, xxxvii (= Quomodo curandi sunt cardiaci), 197–198: 10 [197] Aliquando etiam linteola tenuia tingentes similiter aut suco plantaginis aut polygonii aut portulacae aut herbae pulicariae uel semper uiuentis aut myrti aut rubi comae, aut rosarum uel mali Punici decoctionibus aut hypocistidis herbae aut acaciae resolutae ex posca aut oleo Hispano uel lentiscino pectori atque ori uentris apponimus. At si sudorum perseuerauerit 15 fluor, probandam etiam asperginem quae suo frigore ac propria uirtute uel obstrusione constringat iudicamus, cuius 1 frigerantia atque obtrudentia tactu et densantia sunt haec: terra Samia et Cimolia, frigerantia uero rosa arida contusa atque creta, mixta etiam2 3 alumen scissum, plumbum exustum atque lotum, gypsum atque mala Punica, oenanthe, acan20 tha Aegyptia, quam nos Latine spinam Aegypticam4 dicere poterimus. [198] Haec singula commixta atque corpori aspersa per linteolum rarum sudantibus locis uel omnibus locis prodesse probantur. Oportet autem haec singula diligenter conteri atque ad summam tenuitatem deduci, ut patentibus irruentia uiis5 ingressu quodam uehementem faciant constrictionem et nulla

add Amman (= A) > D B 2 B: in isto etiam D tiam D 5 B D: patientibus irruentia in iis Guint

1

3

lacunam suspicor

4

B: aegyp-

185

  ‒  - FR 33. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(12)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, II, xxxiii (= Are patients with the cardiac affection feverish?), 173: [173] The question is also put whether patients suffering from the cardiac affection are feverish, and many [sc doctors] before Asclepiades answered that they are not, while others claimed the opposite—for instance Apollophanes, the sectator of Erasistratus. Asclepiades, in turn, holds that in most cases patients do not have fever; thus in the treatise entitled Refutations, which he wrote against Erasistratus, he says: “I submit that patients with the cardiac affection are not feverish.” But in book ii of his Acute [sc affections] he says that they are not frequently feverish. Again, Themison and Thessalus claim that some [sc of the patients] are feverish; but of others they reported that they were not. By contrast, Demetrius of Apamea holds that all [sc the patients] are feverish in the beginning and in the increasing phases [sc of the affection], but he asserts that the fever wanes later on, when the affection started to be strong.

FR 34. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(13)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, II, xxxvii (= How to treat patients with the cardiac affection), 197–198: [197] Sometimes we also apply small, thin linen cloths onto the chest and [sc the part over] the mouth of the stomach, moistening them either by a similar method [sc in cold water and vinegar], or in the juice of plantain, knot-grass, purslane, the psullion or ever-green plant, myrtle, or bramble leaves, or in decoctions of roses, pomegranate, hypocist, or acacia, dissolved in diluted vinegar, Spanish oil, or mastic oil. But if the flow of sweating persists, we also recommend trying a sprinkling [sc powder] which could constrict it through chill and through its specific action, that is, through blocking. Substances of this kind, chilling, obtrusive to the touch, and condensing, are: Samian and Cimolian earth; especially chilling are dried rose petals, powdered and sifted, and also mixed with ; chopped alum; lead, roasted and washed; gypsum, pomegranate, grape of wild wine; and Egyptian akantha, which we might call in Latin spina Aegyptia [= Egyptian thorn]. [198] These [sc ingredients], mixed together one by one and sprinkled on the body with the help of a thin linen cloth, are found to benefit the sweating parts, and in fact all the parts. But the ingredients must be carefully pounded one by one and reduced to their finest elements, so that they may produce a strong constriction on their way, as they invade the open channels, and yet they would not injure the body by any roughness which the patient could find disturbing. It was, in fact, on such grounds

186

  ‒  -

corpus asperitate afficiant qua possit aeger aliter inquietari. Hinc namque commotus Thessalus, unus e principibus nostris, eorum usum iudicauit cohibendum. “Etenim recte quoque ualentibus” inquit “parua cuiusquam asperitas contagio uigilias facere solet: stramentis6 irruens terga iacentium 5 uel alias corporis partes lacessendo inquietat.”

6

D: solet stramentis B

FR 35. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(14)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, II, xxxviii (= Quomodo aliarum sectarum principes cardiacos curauerunt), 218–224:

10

15

20

25

[218] Antiquorum plurimi cardiacorum curationem tacuerunt, aliqui uero memorauerunt, ut Serapionis atque Heraclidis sectatores et quidam Herophili, item Asclepiades et Themison; paruissime quidem at iisdem deceptionibus implicati. Phlebotomant enim et clysteres adhibent acerrimos et ob calefaciendum articulorum frigus pannos applicant calidos et lanas oleo infusas ac sulfure fumigatas. Terunt etiam oleo ueteri ac Sicyonio cum pipere sulfur et cachry et ammoniaci guttam et laserpicium cum bulbis. Cataplasmant praeterea ex lasere et bulbis, sympasmatibus utentes quae nos aspergines dixerimus, item ex calce cum pipere, [219] cibis acribus utentes atque edacibus, allio1 salsamento et lasere, et per totum diem atque noctem uino usque ad ebrietatem replerunt. Alii uero in aquam frigidam aegros deposuerunt. Eudemus Themisonis sectator ait per clysterem aquam frigidam iniciendam. Sed haec omnia grauia atque exsecrabilia2 et aegrotantibus perniciosa esse perspicimus. Etenim phlebotomiam nihil iugulatione differre ratio testatur, quippe cum haec faciat quae ipsa nititur passio, mentem disicere et corpus in mortem per sudores soluere ac ad sua primordia reuocare, defluxionem atque casum uirium augere.3 [220] Quibus denique commoti eorum successores aiunt esse eos phlebotomandos qui proni ac decliues in cardiacam sint passionem, non aduertentes quia ipsa quoque in passionem prona decliuitas nulla re alia corpus affici quam solutione testatur. Clysteres etiam, quos utiles probauerunt, adhibentes corpora resoluunt et ob acrimoniam aperiunt.4 Sed aiunt coaceruatam atque celerem per superficiem corporis

B: alio D: alii Guint 2 B: execrabilia D 3 ego: reuocare defluxionem, atque casum uirium augere D 4 Rov: Clysteres etiam adhibentes corpora resoluunt et ob acrimoniam aperiunt, quos utiles probauerunt. D B

1

187

  ‒  -

that Thessalus, one of the leaders of our secta, was led to adopt the view that the use of these substances should be prohibited. “For even in people who are in perfect health”, he comments, “a slight [sc degree of ] roughness in any [sc particle] usually causes sleeplessness through contact [sc with the body]: when it penetrates the bed-clothes, [sc that particle] disturbs the sleepers by irritating their backs or other parts of the body.”

FR 35. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(14)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, II, xxxviii (= How the leaders of the other sectae dealt with the treatment of patients with the cardiac affection), 218–224: [218] Most of the ancients ignored the treatment of the patients suffering from cardiac affection although some mentioned it, for instance the sectatores of Serapion and of Heraclides, some of those of Herophilus, and also Asclepiades and Themison; but [sc these said] extremely little, while getting themselves ensnared in the same mistakes. For they resort to venesection, they apply the most pungent clysters, and, to warm up chill in the joints, they use warm strips of cloth or wool steeped in olive oil and fumigated with sulphur. They also crush sulphur, kachru, gum-ammoniac, and silphium with bulbs, in old olive oil [sc treated] with Sicyonian pepper. Moreover, they apply plasters made of silphium and bulbs using “sumpasmata” (we might call them aspergines [= sprinkling powders]), and also [sc plasters] made of quicklime and pepper; [219] they use pungent and biting foods—garlic, pickled fare, and silphium—and they fill the patient with wine all day and night, to the point of drunkenness. Some [sc of these doctors] have immersed the patient in cold water. Themison’s sectator Eudemus claims that we should inject cold water with a clyster. But we can easily see that all these [sc procedures] are oppressive and hateful and put the patients at risk. For reason is witness that venesection is nothing short of murder [sc in such cases], since it accomplishes what the affection itself strives to do, [sc namely] to disperse the mind, to dissolve the body though sweat to the point of annihilation, reducing it to elements, and to increase flux along with the collapse of the [sc patient’s] forces. [220] Influenced by these [sc doctors], then, their successors hold that people who are on the verge of, or ready to fall into, the cardiac affection should be treated by venesection; they do not pay heed to the fact that the very readiness or tendency to fall into the affection indicates that it is nothing but [sc a state of ] looseness that the body suffers from. By applying the clysters which they sanctioned as helpful, in fact they unbind and open the bodies through their [sc the clysters’] pungency. But they [sc the doctors in question] claim

188

5

10

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

insumptionem retineri, cum ad uentrem uel intestina fuerint conuersa fluentia. Hoc quidem, si more mechanico ac simili miraculo se facere posse promittunt, ut aperientes uentris interiora superficiem corporis claudant, erit credibile quod promittunt. [221] Sin uero, ut in omnibus uidemus, superficiei5 fluentia augere6 potius quam minui interiorum fluxu debilitate crescente cognoscunt,7 contrarius procul dubio clysteris usus accipitur atque fluentium relaxator. Dehinc consequens non est, immo etiam incongruum iudicandum, articulos igneis medicaminibus confricare ut ex alto ad semet materiam ducant. Inicere quoque intestinis acriora, ut illuc concurrens ex articulis materia atque ex omni corporis superficie attrahatur rursum ad altiora corporis conducta, similis erroris esse probatur. Est igitur melius propria uiarum {ac}8 naturae9 spiramenta seruare et non infracta corporis fortitudine acutiori atque celeri solutioni corpus aptare: [222] feruentia uero et ignea et urentia ad uisa mentis simplicia, quae appellant “phantasiam”, sunt frigori atque torpori congrua, ad uirtutem tamen incongrua. Est enim solutioni accidens atque comes corporis frigidus torpor, qui feruentibus rebus aucta passione necessario duplicetur: seruiunt enim dominantibus appendentia. Dehinc acria, siquidem non sint mitigatiua, celeritatem passionum acutiorem faciunt adiuuando. Prohibemus iniectionem aquae frigidae, siquidem celerrime calefacta interiorum feruore adiuuet solutionem; faciat etiam delectatione quadam uentris officium prouocari. Non aliter et in aquam frigidam deponendos prohibemus aegrotos: non enim manet lenis atque mitis constrictio. Item ex sinapi cataplasma prohibemus, [223] siquidem sit recorporatiuae uirtutis, quam Graeci “metasyncrisin” uocant, cum passio atque eius celeritas mitem demonstret atque exigat curationem. Praeterea sinapismi acrimonia hortationem fieri sudorum nemo est qui nesciat. Sicut enim semper lacrimam commouet oculorum acrioris humectatio collyrii,10 non aliter supradicta contingunt. Item bulborum putamina molliunt, non constringunt. Illa uero quae eorum corpulenta uidentur recorporatiuae uirtutis esse noscuntur. Reprobamus etiam aspergines ex calce atque faecibus et pipere. [224] Haec enim singula corpus incendunt et in ignis uicem suburunt et superficiem corporis uulnerant, quo fiet ut saepe transitum faciant in grauissimos tumores. Non sunt haec denique ex genere mitium adiutoriorum. Est etiam iners allium dare atque laser et salsamenta uel communiter acriores cibos: sunt enim digestione in uentre difficiles atque inspiratione11 corporum tardi,12 et inflant. Haec nunc communiter13 omnibus respondenda.

B: superficie D < Rov: superficiem Guint 6 B: augeri D 7 B: cognoscunt D del ego 9 natura Guint 10 B: collirii D 11 D B: in spiratione cett 12 D in apparatu autem coniecit: “fort. inspirationem corporum tardant” 13 comiter Guint 5 8

  ‒  

189

that the massive and swift dissolution through the body’s surface is restrained when the flows are diverted towards the stomach and intestines. Now if what they promise to be able to achieve—mechanically, or by some sort of miraculous device—is this, namely to close the surface of the body while opening the inside of the stomach—what they promise will deserve credit. [221] But if in fact, as we observe in all [sc the cases], the flows coming to the surface are clearly increased rather than diminished by intestinal flux, while the [sc patient’s] weakness advances, the use of the clyster is decidedly harmful—an agent which relaxes the flows. Next, it should not be considered appropriate but downright harmful to massage the joints with burning medicines, so as to make them draw matter from the inside towards themselves. Also, to inject sharp [sc substances] into the intestines so that matter would run to them from the joints, being drawn from all over the surface and sent to the inner parts of the body, is evidently an error of the same type. Therefore it is better to maintain the channels [spiramenta] in a condition appropriate to their nature of ducts [uiae], without preparing the body for a quick and sudden dissolution by destroying the bodily strength. [222] It is true that, at a [sc level of ] simple mental representations (which they [sc the Greeks] call “phantasia”), hot, burning, and scorching medicines are compatible with chill and numbness; nevertheless, when you consider their action, they are incompatible. For cold numbness of the body is a [sc secondary] symptom [accidens] and companion [comes] of [sc the state of ] looseness, and by necessity it is redoubled when the affection is increased through the application of hot remedies; for subordinate [sc features] follow the dominant ones. As for pungent medicines, in so far as they are not soothing, they increase the swiftness of affections by contributing to it. We forbid the injecting of cold water because, rapidly warmed up under the heat of the internal [sc organs], it contributes to the [sc state of ] looseness; it also stimulates, with some effort, the functioning of the bowels. Similarly, we forbid immersing the patients in cold water; for the constriction [sc which results] does not stay mild and gentle. Again, we forbid the plaster of mustard [223] on the grounds that its action is recorporative—what the Greeks call “metasyncritic”—while both the affection and its acute character indicate and require a mild treatment. Besides, it is no secret to anyone that the pungency of the mustard plaster stimulates sweating; for the moisture of a sharp eye-salve always brings out tears in the eyes, and the above mentioned [sc phenomena of sweating] occur in exactly the same way. Further, the peelings of bulbs have an emollient, not an astringent, effect. But the parts which look fleshy are known to have a recorporative property. We also reject sprinkling powders made of quicklime, dregs, and pepper. [224] For each one of these [sc substances] inflames the body, scorches it like fire, and injures the body’s surface, so that they often lead to very severe inflammations. Briefly, they [sc the substances in question] do not belong in the class of mild remedies. Also, it is awkward to administer garlic, silphium, pickled fare, or pungent foods in general. For they are hard to digest in the stomach, slow to assimilate in the body, and they cause flatus. This, then, is what we have to reply collectively to all [sc the aforementioned doctors].

190

  ‒  - FR 36. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(15)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, II, xl (= Utrum recte Themison cardiacos curauerit), 232–234:

5

10

15

20

[232] Themison uero quaedam recte dixisse perspicitur ad1 cardiacorum curationem, quaedam praue. Vino namque cum amylo trito cum bulbis et ammoniaci gutta cum uino et oui albore et pipere trito cum sinapi corpora defricanda existimat. Dat etiam cibo allium2 cum pipere, dehinc in scaphulam deponi iubet aegrotantes quae sit aqua plena calida. Item post cibum adhibet gestationem, siquidem sint (inquit) imbecilla ac debilia nimium corporis officia et indigeant hoc adiutorio, quo pariter3 etiam caro commoueatur sua praemota substantia,4 hoc est spiritu atque nutrimento,5 ex quibus concreta perspicitur; [233] quae omnia facere ualet gestatio, omni corpori suffundens materiam. “Mox denique” inquit “alleuatos atque magnitudinem accipientes pulsus inuenimus.” Sed haec Asclepiadis nugis sunt adiungenda. Demonstrauimus enim feruentium medicaminum fricamenta esse necessario noxia, et sinapi. Tentat etiam inflabiles cibos et, quamquam haec sint omnibus celeribus atque acutis passionibus inimica, multo tamen uehementius cardiacis. Gestatio uero et incongrua et intemporalis esse probatur: incongrua inquam siquidem sit laxatiua—omnis etenim motus uiarum efficit raritatem—[234] intemporalis autem, siquidem post cibum fieri iubeatur. Etenim si sanos post cibum uexat motio, non permittens naturae quadam requie ac tacito motu ad suos effectus accepta perducere, quid sperare de aegris ac solutione laborantibus poterimus? Pulsus uero post gestationem erigitur cardiacorum non ob resumptionem uirium, sed ob turbationem corporis motu conceptam—ex qua magis adiuuari passionem dissolutione corporis iudicamus.

ci B: ob D < Guint 2 B: alleum D < Guint 3 B: partim D: parti Guint 4 B < Alm: promota substantia D < Guint 5 D: hoc est nutrimento Guint: ac {est} nutrimento B 1

FR 37. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(16)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, III, iii (= Quomodo curandi sunt synanchici), 17: [17] At si passio coeperit declinare, conuenit etiam Cybiraticum1 et Creticum 25 passum. Ea uero quae sunt leuiter stringentia, quae appellant “stymmata”, 1

D: etiam Sybariticum B

191

  ‒  - FR 36. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(15)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, II, xl (= Did Themison deal correctly with the treatment of patients with the cardiac affection?), 232–234: [232] As for Themison, clearly some of the things he said concerning the treatment of patients with cardiac affection are correct, while others are wrong. For he is of the view that the body should be massaged with wine and starch, pounded up with bulbs; with gum-ammoniac and wine; and with the white of an egg and pepper, ground up with mustard. He prescribes garlic with pepper even for food. Next, he orders immersing the patients in a bath-tub filled with hot water. Again, he employs passive exercise after food because (he claims) the bodily functions are weak and lame and they need this remedy: with its help, the flesh itself would participate in movement to the same degree as its own substance, which was previously moved—that is to say, the pneuma and the nutriment, of which it [sc flesh] is clearly compounded; [233] and passive exercise can accomplish all these [sc motions] by spreading the matter to the whole body. “Thus” he says “soon afterwards we find that the pulse has raised and is becoming larger.” But this is to be added to the nonsense proffered by Asclepiades. For I have shown that frictions with hot medicines are bound to be harmful, and so too mustard. He [sc Themison] even tries out foods that cause flatus; but these, harmful enough as they are in all swift or acute affections, are even more powerfully so in cases of cardiac affection. As for passive exercise, it is demonstrably harmful and ill-timed: I call it harmful because it is relaxing—for any [sc kind of ] motion produces a dilatation of the channels—[234] and ill-timed in so far as it is prescribed after food. For if motion after food upsets even the healthy by not allowing nature to lead the assimilated [sc substances] to their proper functions, through some rest and quiet motion, what could we possibly expect for the ill, especially those whose affliction is due to looseness? As for the pulse of patients with the cardiac affection, it is not because of a revival of strength that it becomes animated after passive exercise, but rather because of the bodily disturbance engendered by the motion—and we consider this disturbance to contribute to the affection more than the bodily flux.

FR 37. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(16)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, III, iii (= How to treat the patients with synanche), 17: [17] If the affection has started to decline, raisin wine of Cibyra or Crete is also suitable. As for the mild astringents, the ones called [sc in Greek]

192

  ‒  -

nunc incongrua iudicamus. His enim utemur quoties initia fuerint passionis, leuibus adhuc querelis affecto aegrotante aut dolore leui in faucibus uel uua; tunc enim etiam Thessalus adhibendam poscam iudicauit, siquidem “pronos atque in passionem synanchicam decliues, necdum tamen patientes” 5 uocauerit.

FR 38. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(17)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, III, iv (= Quomodo synanchicos aliarum sectarum principes curauerunt), 39: [39] Est etiam fabulosa arteriae ob respirationem diuisura, quam “laryngotomiam” uocant, et quae a nullo sit antiquorum tradita, sed caduca atque temeraria Asclepiadis inuentione1 affirmata. Cui ne nunc occurrentes latius respondere uideamur aut tantum scelus angusta oratione damnemus, libris 10 quos De adiutoriis sumus scripturi respondebimus. Themison uero sine febribus passiones recte curare Asclepiadem probans huic accusationi subicietur. 1

D < Guint: intentione ci B

FR 39. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(18)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, III, v (= De apoplexia), 55–56: [55] Discernitur etiam paralysi apoplexia, quamquam idem multis uideatur ueteribus, ut Hippocrati et Diocli et Praxagorae et Apollonio Citiensi et Demetrio et si qui praeterea. Inquiunt enim apoplectos toto corpore uitiatos 15 paralysi, paralyticos1 uero particulis. [56] Themison uero capitis uel in capite paralysin cum mentis impedimento proprie “apoplexiam” uocat, in aliis uero partibus corporis sine impedimento mentis hanc ipsam “paralysin”. Sed non oportet certare de his ex quibus curationis ratio non sumetur. Solum tamen commemorandum est quod apoplexia celeris atque acuta natura intelligatur, 20 paralysis uero propria quae dicitur tarda semper intelligatur.

1

ci B: paraplectos D < Rov: parapoplectos Guint

193

  ‒  -

“stummata” [= styptics], we deem them ill-suited at this stage. Indeed we shall always use them when the affection is at the beginning and the patient is affected by complaints which are still mild, or by a mild pain in the throat or in the uvula; even Thessalus considered it proper to apply diluted vinegar at that stage, since he referred to them [sc those for whom he recommended the treatment] as “being prone and ready to fall into the synanchic affection, but not suffering from it already”.

FR 38. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(17)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, III, iv (= How the leaders of the other sectae have dealt with the treatment of the patients with synanche), 39: [39] There is also the famous incision of the windpipe for the benefit of respiration—they call it “laryngotomia” [sc in Greek]—which is not mentioned by any of the ancients but was encouraged as a result of Asclepiades’ futile and ill-advised invention [sc of it]. But we shall make our comment on him in the treatise we plan to write on Remedies: in this way we shall not appear either to reply too extensively if we attack him here or to condemn a crime of such proportions in a short paragraph. Also submitted to this accusation will be Themison, who sanctioned Asclepiades’ treatment of the affections unaccompanied by fever as being correct.

FR 39. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(18)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, III, v (= Apoplexia), 55–56: [55] Apoplexia is also distinct from paralysis, though many of the earlier [sc doctors] thought them to be identical—for instance Hippocrates, Diocles, Praxagoras, Apollonius of Citium, Demetrius, and others. For they claim that apoplectic patients are crippled by paralysis throughout the whole body, whereas paralytic patients [sc are crippled by paralysis] in small local areas. [56] Yet Themison specifically calls “apoplexia” the [sc kind of ] paralysis which is of the head, or located in the head, and accompanied by mental impairment, whereas what he calls “paralysis” is located in other parts of the body and unaccompanied by mental impairment. But we should not argue about matters from which we do not derive a mode of treatment. The one point that should, however, be retained is that apoplexia is diagnosed as being swift and acute in its nature, while what is properly called paralysis is always diagnosed as chronic.

194

  ‒  - FR 40. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(19)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, III, viii (= De curatione [sc rapti]), 81–82: [81] Tunc cum ex parte passionem mitigatam senserimus, embasim olei uel aquae et olei adhibemus, cuius rationem atque ordinem libris Specialium adiutoriorum docebimus. Dehinc quotidianis diebus humaniore cibo nutrimus, praecauentes etiam nunc dura quaeque ac difficilis transuorationis dare 5 mandenda sed magis pultes offerentes uel olera uel cerebra uel pisces teneros et omne quod facile accipi ac digeri potest, ne ob uehementem masticationem naturales colligationes buccarum, quas Graeci “chalinos” uocant, moueantur. [82] Erunt praeterea loca ipsa quae patiuntur cerotario curanda ex oleo dulci uel cyprino confecto, item diachulon medicamento et quod 10 appellant Mnaseu.1

1

Mnasei Guint

FR 41. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(20)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, III, xi (= Quae sequuntur eos qui in hydrophobicam passionem proni ac decliues esse uidentur), 104–105: [104] In ultimo etiam singultus et uomitus fellis ac frequentius nigri, quibusdam etiam timor manus1 oculis tenus admotae uel circumtractae. Quidam se agnoscere fateantur2 esse naturalem uel consuetum aquae liquorem cum sibi monstratur, sed commoueri cum uiderint, ut se ipse quoque Soranus 15 uidisse testatur in hac passione constitutum sese hortatum liquorem ut sumeret, nec tamen potuisse. Aiunt et militem quendam, ut Artorius memorat, in passione constitutum sibi indignatum quod in bello nulla timuerit uice, sed nunc aquam cum uidisset—quae esse consuetudini iocunda solet— metu inenarrabili terreretur. [105] Item Eudemus Themisonis sectator memo20 rat fuisse hydrophobum medicum qui, cum praenosceret periculum, suppliciter ingredientes exoraret et, cum lacrimarum fluore guttis destillantibus tangeretur, exiliens uestem consciderit. Dehinc Soranus memorat se infantem hydrophobum uidisse ubera matris expauescentem. Item ait quendam Atheniensem

1

tremor manus Rovm

2

B < Guint: fatentur D < Rov

195

  ‒  - FR 40. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(19)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, III, viii (= The treatment [sc of tetanus]), 81–82: [81] Next, when we perceive that the affection has partly abated, we use an embasis [= plunging] in olive oil or in water and olive oil, on the mode and preparation of which I shall give instructions in the treatise on Special remedies. From this point on we nourish [sc the patient] daily and according to a more liberal diet, still taking good care not to give [sc him] to chew anything tough and hard to swallow; we administer instead mainly porridges, vegetables, brains, tender fish, and anything that can be taken in and digested easily, so as not to shake the natural ligatures [sc at the corners] of the mouth (the ones which the Greeks call “chalinoi ”) as a result of intense mastication. [82] As for the parts affected themselves, these will have to be treated with a cerate made of sweet olive oil or henna oil, and also with the medicine [sc called] diachulon [= the plaster of juices] and with what is known as the plaster of Mnaseas.

FR 41. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(20)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, III, xi (= The [sc symptoms] which come upon those who appear to be on the verge of, or ready to fall into, the hydrophobiac affection), 104–105: [104] In the last stages [sc of hydrophobia] hiccoughing and vomiting of bile develop, most often the black sort, and even, in some patients, fear when a hand stretches up to their eyes or waves around them. Some patients would admit that, when you show them water, they recognise it for the natural and familiar liquid it is, but they become agitated at the sight of it—for instance Soranus testifies that he actually saw someone with this affection exhorting himself to drink water and yet being unable to do it. There is also the story, which Artorius relates, of a soldier with this affection who became angry with himself on the grounds that he had not feared any change of fortune in war, whereas in his present state he was devastated by an indescribable terror at the sight of water—something usually pleasant in one’s experience. [105] Again, Themison’s sectator Eudemus relates how a doctor got hydrophobia and started pleading with his visitors in the manner of a suppliant [sc on his knees], since he could see the danger ahead of him; but when drops of tears trickling down in a stream touched him, he sprang [sc up to his feet] and tore off his clothes. Moreover, Soranus relates how he saw a hydrophobiac baby shrinking in terror from its mother’s breast. He also relates that some Athenian reported to him

196

  ‒  -

sibi retulisse quod uiderit hydrophobum ex domo fugatum ad locum uenisse ubi inclusus corpore implicato uitam finiuerit, sed in ipso loco fuisse canem iacentem quem rabie accensus repente accurrens momorderit.

FR 42. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(21)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, III, xii (= Quae sunt similia hydrophobiae et quomodo internoscuntur), 107–108: [107] Similes sunt hydrophobicae passioni phrenitis, mania—quam nos 5 furorem siue insaniam dixerimus. Sed hae discernuntur siquidem plus in ipsis caput patiatur, in phreniticis uero etiam febres sequantur, item in hydrophobicis1 plus stomachus et sine febribus esse perspiciatur, et acuta sit atque celeris passio, mania uero etiam tarda frequentius inueniatur. Eudemus Themisonis sectator inquit melancholiam esse hydrophobicam pas10 sionem; sed ab hac quoque discernitur [108] siquidem tarda sit melancholia, acuta uel celeris hydrophobia. Alii quoque aerophobas aiunt esse similes supra dictis, sed internosci siquidem aeris sit timor. Qui generaliter 2 phreniticis ascribitur; etenim phrenitici quidam aerem lucidum extimescunt, quidam obscurum. Item Andreae sectatores memorant esse pantophobas, 15 quos nos omnipauos dicere poterimus, siquidem omnia timere dicantur, si uere tamen haec esse poterit passio. Discernitur autem quod non solius potus sed omnium rerum timorem faciat.

in hydrophobicis uero Rov eraliter cett 1

2

timor. Qui generaliter ego: timor qui gen-

FR 43. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(22)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, III, xv (= Vtrum noua passio sit hydrophobia), 125: [125] Item Hippocrates magis phreniticos memorauit, non hydrophobas, “paruibibulos”. Nam inquit eos—quod in quibusdam phreniticis frequentare 20 uidemus—aut fastidio possessos non solum ad cibum uerum etiam ad potum, uel certe traductos uisis (quae Graeci “phantasiam” appellant)—ut, ait Eudemus, accipiendum non existiment potum uel suspicione delirationis affecti admixta

197

  ‒  -

having seen a hydrophobiac, who had run away from home and reached the spot where he was going to die—shrunk and his body contorted: a dog had been lying on that very spot, and he [sc the hydrophobiac patient], in an attack of rabies, suddenly jumped and bit it.

FR 42. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(21)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, III, xii (= Affections which are similar to hydrophobia, and how to discriminate between them), 107–108: [107] Similar to the hydrophobiac affection are phrenitis [sc and] “mania”— which we have called [sc in Latin] furor or insania [= madness]. But they differ [sc from hydrophobia] in that the head is mainly affected in these [sc affections]—and in cases of phrenitis fevers develop too—whereas in cases of hydrophobia one finds that it is mainly the oesophagus, and that fever is absent; moreover, it [sc hydrophobia] is a swift or acute affection, whereas mania is more frequently found to be chronic. Themison’s sectator Eudemus claims that the hydrophobiac affection is [sc identical with] melancholia; but it is distinct from that too, [108] in so far as melancholia is chronic while hydrophobia is swift or acute. There are still others who claim that the patients with aerophobia are similar to the ones mentioned above and we distinguish them in so far as their fear is of the air. This [sc fear] is generally attributed to the phrenitics as well; for some phrenitics have a dread of the luminous air, others, of the dark air. Moreover, Andreas and his sectatores claim that there are such people as pantophobes (we might call them omnipaui [= all-fearing]), to the extent that they are said to fear everything—if indeed this could qualify as an affection. But in any case it is distinct [sc from hydrophobia] because it produces fear not only in relation to drinking but in relation to everything.

FR 43. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(22)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, III, xv (= Is hydrophobia a recent affection?), 125: [125] Now for Hippocrates: it is the phrenitics rather than the hydrophobiacs that he referred to as “those who drink a little”. For he designates [sc by this name] those who have contracted a loathing of food as well as of drink—a [sc symptom] which we find to be prominent in some phrenitics— or those who have been undoubtedly deluded by visions (what the Greeks call “phantasia”)—to a point where, as Eudemus puts it, they believe they should not drink anything, or, being affected by the mistrust of [sc engendered

198

  ‒  -

putent uenena liquori. Tremunt quoque nonnumquam debilitate neruorum et ad omnem sonitum commouentur, scilicet alienationis proprietate et non necessario hydrophobicae passionis. Quapropter aliis utendum est rationibus ad demonstrandum non esse nouam hydrophobicam passionem.

FR 44. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(23)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, III, xvi (= Quomodo curandi sunt hydrophobae), 132: 5 [132] Antiquorum autem medicorum nullus istius passionis tradidit curationem. Aiunt denique Themisonem quamquam uolentem non potuisse, siquidem ex rabido cane quondam {fuerat}1 uulneratus, etsi eius curationem assumeret mente, quippe scripturus, continuo admonitus in eandem laberetur.

1

secl D B

FR 45. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(24)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, III, xvi (= Quomodo curandi sunt hydrophobae), 134–135: [134] Item Aristoxenus, ad corruptionem atque abundantiam liquoris inten10 tus, praedandum dicit potum atque clysteribus utendum communiter omnibus depurgatiuae uel temperatiuae uirtutis; sed haec tumorem passionis incendendo1 geminant comitantia. Item Iulius2 Bassus etiam sternutamentis utitur et clysteribus, cum generaliter haec passio mitigatione indigeat ob acutissimam celeritatem et non, ut hic putat, corporatiuis adiutoriis3 15 sit asperanda,4 quae Graeci “metasyncritica” uocant. Item Niger eius amicus etiam album helleborum dedit. Eudemus autem phlebotomans helleborum dat secunda uel tertia die atque cucurbitas affigit usque ad partium pustulationem. [135] Item Agathinus libro De helleboro conscripto iubet etiam dari helleborum in initio passionis. Alii podicem cataplasmandum iubent helleboro, 20 alii collyria ex ipso facientes, quae appellauerunt balanos, podici supponunt.

ci B D: intendendo cett 2 ego < V. Nutton: Tullius cett toriis D 4 D B: aspergenda Guint: exasperanda Rovm 1

3

B: corporatiuis adiu-

199

  ‒  -

by] their delirium, they think that poison was mixed in the liquid. They also shake sometimes because of weakness of the nerves, and any sound makes them jump: obviously a characteristic of mental aberration and not necessarily of the hydrophobic affection. Therefore we must appeal to other arguments to prove that hydrophobia is not a recent disease.

FR 44. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(23)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, III, xvi (= How to treat the hydrophobiacs), 132: [132] None of the ancient doctors has given us a treatment for this affection [sc hydrophobia]. Legend has it that in the end Themison, although willing, could not do it—because once he was bitten by a mad dog and, although he worked out a treatment in his mind and intended of course to write it down, he had a relapse of the same [sc affection] because he was constantly reminded of it.

FR 45. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(24)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, III, xvi (= How to treat the hydrophobiacs), 134–135: [134] Aristoxenus, who is preoccupied with the corruption and excess of the [sc bodily] fluid, claims that all [sc the hydrophobiacs], without distinction, should first be administered a drink, then treated with clysters of a purging or soothing action; but these redouble the accompanying [sc symptoms] by stimulating the swelling produced by the affection. Julius Bassus employs strenutatories and clysters, although in general this disease requires soothing [sc treatment] on account of its extreme acuteness and should not, as he [sc Bassus] thinks, be aggravated by recorporative remedies—the ones that the Greeks call “metasyncritic”. His friend Niger administered even white hellebore. On the other hand Eudemus uses venesection, prescribing hellebore on the second or third day, and impresses cups until the parts would blister. [135] In the treatise entitled On hellebore, Agathinus orders the administering of hellebore right at the beginning of the affection. Others order that the anus should be plastered with hellebore, and still others insert into the anus suppositories that they make from the same [sc substance]—the ones that they [sc the Greeks] called “balanoi”.

200

  ‒  - FR 46. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(25)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, III, xvi (= De acuto tormento, quod Graeci “ileon” appellant), 172–173: [172] Item Thessalus primo libro De regulis (quas Graeci Diaetas) alia quidem ut Methodicus scripsit, alia culpabiliter, adiciens quod potum 1 dare debeamus, siquidem ad loca patientia descendat. Quod contra sectae disciplinam uidetur sensisse et contra se ipsum inconsequenter fuisse com5 motus, siquidem pro patientibus locis nolit2 esse mutabilem curationem. Secundo libro, quem Corporatiua appellauit,3 contradicens Erasistrato, haec ait apertissime discordantia sermonibus: [173] “Non enim pro differentia partium mutatur liquidorum quantitas, sed ob stricturam uel solutionem.” Inconsequenter igitur idem in iliacis patientis loci causa potus quantitatem 10 minuendam existimat. Erat enim prompte dicendum atque demonstrandum quomodo consideratione acutae atque celeris passionis minuenda fuit potus quantitas.

1

add D B

2

locis uelit Rovm

3

ci ego: quem Comparationem appellauit cett

FR 47. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(26)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, III, xvi (= De acuto tormento, quod Graeci “ileon” appellant), 173: [173] Item quidam nostri scriptores, Themisonis sectatores, cuminum oleo decoxerunt ob adhibendum fotum, aut tritum lanis asperserunt. Item alii 15 oleo rutam decoquentes iniciunt per clysterem et iubent uaporari ex cineribus.

FR 48. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CELERES

PASSIONES

(27)

Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres passiones, III, xviii (= De satyriasi), 185–187: [185] Aliorum autem medicorum excepto Themisone nullus hanc passionem conscribit, cum non solum raro uerum etiam coaceruatim saepissime inuasisse uideatur. [186] Memorat denique Themison apud Cretam multos satyriasi interfectos; quod quidem quantum creditur factum est ignorantia

201

  ‒  - FR 46. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(25)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, III, xvi (= Acute intestinal obstruction, which the Greeks call “ileus”), 172–173: [172] In book i of his treatise on Regimen (called by the Greeks “Diaita”), Thessalus writes partly as a Methodist and partly in the wrong way—[sc for instance] when he notes that we should administer a small amount of drink on the grounds that it would descend to the affected parts. He appears to have held this belief against the principles of the [sc Methodist] secta, as well as being inconsistent and contradicting himself, since he refuses [sc to grant] that therapy should vary according to the parts affected. In refuting Erasistratus in book ii [sc of the same treatise], which he has entitled Corporative remedies, he makes the following claim, in blatant contradiction to his statements [sc reported above]: [173] “The quantity of the [sc bodily] fluids does not vary in proportion to the difference between the parts affected, but in relation to stricture or looseness.” Therefore he is being inconsistent when he thinks that it is because of the part affected that the quantity of drink should be reduced in patients with acute intestinal obstruction. For he should have said and proved without hesitation that the quantity of drink should be reduced in view of the swift and acute nature of the affection.

FR 47. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(26)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, III, xvi (= Acute intestinal obstruction, which the Greeks call “ileus”), 173: [173] As a fomenting [sc substance], some authors from our ranks, sectatores of Themison, have applied cumin boiled in olive oil or have sprinkled it in pounded form, with the help of woollen cloths. Other [sc authors] boil rue in olive oil, injecting it with a clyster, and prescribe steaming [sc in warm fumigations] from ashes.

FR 48. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ACUTE

AFFECTIONS

(27)

Caelius Aurelianus, Acute affections, III, xviii (= Satyriasis), 185–187: [185] No other doctor apart from Themison wrote about this affection, although very often it has been seen to attack not only in isolated cases but even collectively. [186] Thus Themison reports that in Crete people died of satyriasis in great numbers; and this is thought to be the result of

202

  ‒  -

ciborum, quod frequenter ac plurimam manderent satyrion herbam. Ait praeterea apud Mediolanum iuuenem, atque alias decentem, nuptam cuidam nobili, se uidisse satyriasi interfectam. Ponit etiam eius passionis curationem secundo libro Epistolarum ad Asilium scribens, imperans phlebotomiam atque 5 fomentationes et cataplasmata frigidae uirtutis adhibenda, quibus possit exstingui ueneris appetentia; dans etiam potum frigidum. [187] Quae omnia sunt inconsequentia atque incongrua, siquidem pugnent phlebotomiae laxamento, ex quo indulgentia corporis fiet. Et est 1 cataplasmatibus et fomentis et frigido potu constrictio atque condensatio, ut supra diximus, 10 contraria, quippe cum appetentia ac delectatio concubitus accidens sit uerendorum partibus ob tumorem, sicut etiam mentis alienatio membranis cerebri tumentibus, quo fiet ut ex frigidis atque constrictiuis rebus augeatur etiam uel geminetur ueneris cupiditas.

1

B: et ex Guint: et est D

FR 49. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, DE

SALUTARIBUS PRAECEPTIS

Caelius Aurelianus, De salutaribus praeceptis, Codex Augiensis CXX = II p. 197 Rose:a Uniformis est sanitas an uaria,1 cum extenditur et minuitur? Secundum 15 Asclepiadem et Erasistratum2 uniformis: uolunt3 summum sanitatis et altitudinem4 esse. Secundum Erofilum et Methodicos uaria, cum extenditur et minuitur. Id etiam nos adserimus: si5 enim modo nos fortes modo 6 fatigatos esse sentimus, manifeste uariatur7 sanitas.

a

Vide Codex Augiensis a Rose editus [= AR], cum lectionibus codicis Londinensis, Sloane 1122 (= S), p. 193 Rose (Ayscough, Catalogus II, p. 586), et cum transcriptione (“reinschrift”) a Rose proposita, p. 184 (= r). Cf et von Staden, fr 207 Herophilus (= St).

an uaria AR St: annuaria S r 2 AR St: arasistratum r: arasistratu S 3 r S: nolunt enim AR St 4 et altitudinem ci ego (an fortasse magnitudinem?): eanditudinem r: et quantitudine S: et quantitudinem AR St 5 si AR St: sic S: si ff (usque at sentimus) om r 6 add ego: Sic eni modo no forte. modo no fatigato esse sentimus S: si enim modo nos fortes modo fatigatos etc AR St 7 uariatur AR St: uaria turba r S 1

  ‒  -

203

lack of instruction about [sc the properties of ] foods, because they [sc the Cretans] would chew the plant “saturion” [= salep] very frequently, and more than any other [sc plant]. Afterwards he [sc Themison] recounts witnessing in Milan how a young woman—quite modest in the past and married to a nobleman—died of satyriasis. He even proposes a treatment for this affection in writing to Asilius, in book ii of his Letters: he orders venesection and the application of fomentations and plasters with a chilling action, by which it would be possible to annihilate the craving for sex; and he also administers cold drinks. [187] But all these [sc prescriptions] are inconsistent and unsuitable in that they conflict with the relaxing effect of venesection, which should be conducive to a feeling of relief [indulgentia] in the body. And, as I have already said, the constriction and thickening resulting from plasters, fomentations, and cold drink is harmful, since clearly the craving and straining for coition is a symptom [sc located] in the genital organs and due to their inflammation—just as loss of reason [sc is a symptom due to] the brain’s membranes’ being inflamed—so that the desire for sex is even increased or redoubled by the application of cooling and astringent things.

FR 49. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, ADVICE

ON HEALTH

Caelius Aurelianus, Advice on health, Codex Augiensis CXX = II p. 197 Rose: Is health uniform or varying, given that it increases or diminishes? According to Asclepiades and Erasistratus it is uniform: they are of the view that the highest point of health is also [sc coincides with] its lowest level. According to Herophilus and the Methodists it is varying, since it increases and diminishes. We, too, subscribe to this [sc view]; for if we feel now strong, now tired, it is clear that health varies.

204

  ‒   FR 50. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(1)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, I, Praefatio 1–3:

5

10

15

20

25

[1] Praescriptis Celerum passionum libris, Tardarum placet curationes ordinare, quae solo superpositionis tempore 1 superioribus similes, in lenimento uero uaria recorporatione formantur et peritis medicinae claram aeternamque gloriam quaerunt. Celeres enim uel acutae passiones etiam sponte soluuntur, et nunc fortuna nunc natura fauente; quo fit ut ignari homines elati saepe medicos fugiant, cum hos prouentus incantationibus uanis2 ac ligamentis ascribant aut fortunae, cum quoties repentino nuntio laeti aut territi aegrotantes mutatione quadam corporis morbos excludunt, [2] uel ea per intemperantiam gerunt quae ratione occulta sibi profutura nescientes duce desperatione committunt. In utrumque enim faciles celeres passiones accipimus; pelluntur enim aut fluore sudoris aut sanguinis per nares aut uentris. Chroniae autem uel tardae passiones, quae3 iam praeiudicio quodam corpora possederint, solius medici peritiam poscunt, cum neque natura neque fortuna soluantur. Podagram denique uel phthisin aut elephantiasin uel similes tarditate passiones resolui nulli sectarum principes meminerunt, sicut saepe febres acutae soluuntur. Hinc denique Graeci Asclepium nomen sumpsisse dixerunt, quod dura curando primus superauerit uitia. [3] Scribentium igitur medicinam nullus ante Themisonem tardarum passionum curationes principaliter ordinauit: alii uero has omnino tacuerunt, tanquam impossibiles iudicantes uel incurabilium passionum. Alii aliptarum officio transmittendas crediderunt, alii disperse atque de aliis passionibus scribentes, ut podagra, sanguinis fluore, hydropismo, paralysi, alopecia uel quartanis typis, ut Erasistratus et Asclepiades. Themison autem Tardarum passionum tres libros scripsit; item Thessalus secundo libro Regulari earum curationem ordinauit. Dehinc Soranus plenissime cunctarum diligentiam tradidit atque speciale corpus scripturae formauit, de passione capitis initia sumens, quod nos quoque faciendum assumimus.

add Rov B 2 B < Axelson (= Ax): nouis D 3 ego ex apparatu D: chroniae autem uel tardae passionis morbi, qui D B: passiones et morbi Rovm

1

205

  ‒   FR 50. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(1)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, I, Introduction 1–3: [1] Now that the treatise on Acute affections is written, I propose to make a systematic record of the therapies for chronic [sc affections]: they [sc the therapies in question] are similar to the former ones only during paroxysms, but throughout remission they consist in various [sc kinds of ] recorporatio; and they win an astounding and everlasting glory for those who are competent in medicine. For swift or acute diseases [sc can] disappear even spontaneously, if luck or nature are propitious; and so it is that ignorant people often get exalted and run away from doctors, since they attribute these successes to empty charms, things tied to the body, or luck—whenever the ill get rid of their diseases through some change [sc which occurs] in their body as they are made happy or frightened by an unexpected piece of news, or [2] [sc whenever] they do, out of impulsiveness, something of which they do not know that, for some hidden reason, it will help them, but they do it being led by despair. Now we know that acute diseases are easy whichever the outcome; for they are expelled with a flow of perspiration or [sc a flow] of blood from the nose or bowels. But the chronic or slow affections, which already have a hold over the body through some previous damage, demand exclusively the doctor’s competence, since they would not disappear either by nature or by luck. Thus none of the leaders of the [sc medical] sectae held that podagra, phthisis, elephantiasis, or affections which are similar by reason of their chronicity disappear [sc of themselves], in the manner in which acute fevers often disappear. Hence the Greeks claimed that this is where Asclepius took his name from: from the fact that he was the first one to subdue hardened illnesses by curing them. [3] So then: no medical writer before Themison gave a major systematic account of the therapies of chronic affections. Some ignored them completely, considering them to be impossible [sc to perform] or related to incurable affections; others considered that they [sc the therapies of chronic affections] should be left to the care of [sc gymnastic] masseurs; others, like Erasistratus and Asclepiades, [sc mentioned] them at random in the course of writing about other affections—as [sc they did] for instance in the case of podagra, haemorrhagia, dropsy, paralysis, alopecia, or quartan fevers. But Themison wrote three books of Chronic affections; likewise, Thessalus gave a systematic account of their treatment in book ii of his Regimen. Afterwards Soranus gave us a very detailed record of the therapies of all [sc chronic affections] and created a specialised body of literature. He begins with the affection of the head, and we take the view that we, too, must proceed in the same way.

206

  ‒  - FR 51. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(2)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, I, i (= De capitis passione, quam Graeci “cephalaean” nominant), 32–33: [32] Est igitur, ut dicimus, cibo abstinendus ne sumpta corrumpat ex corporis remanente torpore post agitationem uomitus atque feruorem, quippe cum saepe manentibus in stomacho squamulis uel folliculis radicum, requie superaddita atque cibo nouo commixto, eius necessario faciant corruptionem, 5 ex qua consequenter caput impletum, [33] etiamsi sua passione praeuexatum non fuerit, necessario constrictum grauescit cum ex illa putredine corruptionis exhalationes ascensu quodam caput obsidunt. Sicut enim Themison ait, est natura caput carnibus pauperum et neruosum, et duris cutibus et capillis obtectum, et spiramentis difficilibus natura—tum sensibus quoque 10 uniuersis—foratum,1 insidens corporibus atque accipiens eorum cunctas exhalationes, cum spiritus naturaliter superiora petens2 ex inferioribus trahit uapores per arteriam3 atque stomachum, quae sunt corporis ueluti maiora fumaria.

Rov: formatum D B > Pigeaud (“formée avec des pores difficilement franchissables”), uide Tradición e Innovación, Actas IV Col. Int. Univ. Santiago de Compostella, ed. M. E. Vásquez Buján, p. 33 2 B: superna petens D 3 B: uapores eos per arteriam D < Rovm: corpora ea per arteriam S 1

FR 52. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(3)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, I, i (= De capitis passione, quam Graeci “cephalaean” nominant), 47–50: [47] Item Themison primo libro Tardarum passionum (quas Chronias uocant) 15 phlebotomat atque constrictiuis fomentis utitur ad laxamentum phlebotomiae, frustratus errore sequenti ex fomentis incongruis. Item imminente augmento duas praecauens horas unctiones adhibet acerrimas [48] et durissimam fricationem atque constrictionem articulorum; tunc sinapismum adhibet ultimis membrorum partibus siue summitatibus articulorum ob auertendam 20 materiam. Plurimas etiam fronti sanguisugas apponit atque humeris et temporibus capitis, quod est contra sectae rigorem. Affectandam igitur corporis laxationem, non auersionem materiae eius dicimus, quippe cum non concurrat neque conueniat quod faciendum putat, ut eodem tempore articulorum constrictione et sanguisugarum appositione utamur praeseruatis horis 25 duabus antequam passionis implicent augmenta, cum illo tempore sit requies

207

  ‒  - FR 51. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(2)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, I, i (= The affection of the head, which the Greeks call “cephalaia”), 32–33: [32] So, as we say, he [sc the patient] ought to be made to refrain from food so that, once taken, it may not get corrupted through the body’s numbness, which subsists after the agitation and feverish heat of vomiting: because, when tiny scraps or husks of radishes remain in the oesophagus, if sleep follows and fresh food has got mixed in, they inevitably turn it into corrupted matter; consequently, when the head is congested from it [sc corrupt matter], it is bound to become constricted and heavy [33] even if it was not impaired earlier on by its own affection, since the emanations from the festering core of the corrupt matter mount to the head and attack it. For, as Themison puts it, the head is by nature poor in flesh and fibrous; on the one hand it is protected by hard skins and hairs, on the other hand it is pierced by channels [spiramenta] of an intricate nature—in fact by all the senses—as it sits upon the body receiving all its emanations; since the pneuma, in its natural tendency [sc to go] upwards, carries the vapours from the lower parts through the wind-pipe and oesophagus, which are, so to speak, the major chimneys of the body.

FR 52. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(3)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, I, i (= The affection of the head, which the Greeks call “cephalaia”), 47–50: [47] In book i of his Slow ([sc in Greek] they call them “Chronic”) affections, Themison prescribes venesection, then he uses astringent fomentations to counteract the relaxation produced by venesection, letting himself caught into an error which results from [sc choosing] unsuitable fomentations. Next, when paroxysm is impending, he takes a safety-margin of two hours and applies very pungent unguents, [48] very hard massage, and binding of the joints; then, in order to remove matter, he prescribes the application of a mustard-plaster to the parts’ extremities or the joints’ ends. He even applies several leeches to forehead, shoulders, and temples, which goes against the strict rule of the [sc Methodist] secta. For we claim that the object to aim at is the body’s relaxation, not, to be sure, the removal of matter from it, and what he [sc Themison] thinks we should do is neither consistent not helpful: that is, to bind the joints and to apply leeches at the same time— and [sc to do this] two hours before the affection’s paroxysm would seize

208

  ‒  -

adhibenda; et saepe contingat [49] ut, praeueniens corpori occupato querela accessionem denuntians, ipsum quoque tempus quod elegisse uidetur turbare noscatur; sitque nocens appositio sanguisugarum, ex quibus perfricatio1 atque commotio uel ex earum morsibus amentia aut, si aliquo sanguinem detrahunt, 5 grauis aegros uexatio consequitur. Probat etiam apponenda malagmata dolori contraria, quae “anodyna” uocantur, uel castoreum aut rutam aut sphondylion herbam cum cerotario ex oleo rosaceo atque pice liquida confecto, ex iisdem iugiter iubet odorem capere aegrotantem, omnifariam caput implens; [50] atque ita si dolores, inquit, mitigati non fuerint, ex calidis rebus frigi10 dae spongiae apponendae, ad Empiricorum consilia deuolutus, qui ex contrariis ad contraria transeundum causis resistentibus probauerunt. Vtitur etiam scaroticis, hoc est quae cutem extendere uel corrumpere ualeant, et cessante accessione imperat fricationem adhiberi atque fomenta, quorum item usus non declinantis est accessionis sed in toto recedentis. Denique 15 peccatis indulgendum Methodicorum princeps Soranus dignissime iudicauit. Adhuc enim, inquit, Themison Asclepiadis2 erroribus et rudimento temporis Methodici fallebantur.3

1 3

B: perfrictio D 2 Themison Asclepiadis Wellmann, Hermes 57 1922 398 {methodici} fallebatur Deichgräber, RE “Themison” col 1634

FR 53. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(4)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, I, iii (= De incubone), 54–55: [54] “Incubonem” aliqui ab hominis forma uel similitudine nomen ducere dixerunt, aliqui a phantasia qua patientes afficiuntur—siquidem ueluti ascen20 dere atque insidere suo pectori sentiant quicquam. Themison uero secundo Epistolarum libro “pnigaliona” uocauit, siquidem praefocet aegrotantes. Item quidam ueteres “ephialten” uocauerunt, alii “epialen”1—quod hostilis2 patientibus perhibeatur. Afficit crapula uel indigestione iugi uexatos. Accidens igitur semel, ita ut nullam uigilantibus querelam aut displicentem sanitatem faciat 25 sed solius somni turbatio noscatur, minime passio dici potest, sicut neque semel effectus per somnum seminis lapsus [55] (quem Graeci “onirogmon” appellant) passio nuncupatur, nisi iugiter atque cum corporis incommoditate fuerit effectus. Est autem supradicta passio epilepsiae tentatio. Nam quod neque deus neque semideus neque Cupido sit, libris Causarum (quos 30 Aetiologumenos Soranus appellauit) plenissime explicauit. 1

ego: epibolen Sichardus (= Sich) Rovm: epofelen D B

2

Rovm: quod utilis D B

209

  ‒  -

[sc the patient], when in fact rest is what should be recommended at that time; and it is often the case [49] that the pain announcing a paroxysm is seen to precede it when the body is engaged [sc in some activity], troubling the very time which he [sc Themison] has chosen [sc for his treatment]; and also [sc it is often the case] that the application of leeches is harmful, their consequences on the patients being chilling, commotion, insanity from the bites, or severe injury if blood is sucked at any point. Against pain he [sc Themison] recommends the application of emollient plasters called [sc in Greek] “anoduna”, or [sc the application of ] castor, rue, or cow-parsnip herb, with a cerate of rose oil and raw pitch, and he orders the patient to inhale scent from the same [sc ingredients] continually, thus completely congesting the head; [50] and if pains are not relieved in this way through warm things, he claims that we should apply cold sponges, reverting to the advice of the Empiricists, who recommend transition from contraries to contraries in cases where the causes are resisting. He also uses escharotics, that is, [sc medicines] which can devour the skin or produce corruption [sc underneath it]. While the paroxysm is receding he orders massage and fomentations, although the use of these [sc procedures] is in place not when the paroxysm is [sc in the process of ] abating but when it has completely stopped. To end: Soranus, the leader of the Methodists, has most considerately appreciated that we should pardon these errors, for, he says, Themison was still being misled by Asclepiades’ mistakes, and the Methodists [sc were misled] by the pioneering character of [sc their enterprise at] the time.

FR 53. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(4)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, I, iii (= Incubus), 54–55: [54] Some people have argued that the word “incubus” [= nightmare] derives from a human shape or a likeness of it, others, from the apparition which besets the patients—for they have the impression of something climbing and getting seated on their chest. Yet Themison in book ii of his Letters calls it [sc the affection] “pnigalion” because it chokes the patient. Again, some of the ancients called it “ephialtes”; others [sc called it] “epiales”, on the grounds that it is reported to be inimical to the patients. It afflicts people continuously beset by intoxication or indigestion. Now, if it occurs only once, so that after waking up it leaves no pain or health complaint but the disturbance of sleep is all there is to it, we can hardly call it an affection—just as ejaculation during one’s sleep (which the Greeks call “onirogmos”) [55] does not qualify as an affection if it happens once, but only if it is continuous and accompanied by discomfort of the body. The aforementioned affection [sc incubus] is a prelude to epilepsia. For in the treatise on Causes (which he called “Aitiologumenoi”) Soranus has shown abundantly that it [sc incubus] is neither a god or a demigod, nor Desire.

210

  ‒   FR 54. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(5)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, I, iv (= De epilepsia), 80–83:

5

10

15

20

25

[80] In aetatibus uero quae ferre maiora adiutoria possint, accessione transacta, erit phlebotomia adhibenda. Aliqui enim medici statim phlebotomandos probant, sicut etiam Thessalus se velle demonstrat; aliqui prima diatrito seruandum existimant, quo speculentur utrum post unam accessionem passio soluta recessisse uideatur1—sit praeterea non solum inane uerum etiam noxium phlebotomiam adhibere—quippe cum praedicendum probent ex accessione secunda utrum passio augeatur et hoc phlebotomiae exigat adiutorium et phlebotomatus cibi refectione toleretur. [81] Alii uero discernenter2 aiunt hoc adiutorii genus adhibendum, ut qui forte iam consueti passione afficiuntur, reseruato ordine lenimentorum, statim accessione facta, phlebotomentur, hi autem qui in prima incursione passionem accipiunt in tertium diem {siue ut Graeci uocant “diatriton”}3 differantur, siquidem sit incerta accessionis recursio. Nos uero, ut Soranus docuit, neque omnes intra diatriton phlebotomamus—et magis eos qui primo incursu passionis afficiuntur; plurimi enim aegrotantes corrupto cibo admonentur, et est praecauendum indigestione sauciatos phlebotomare—[82] neque rursum omnes in tertium diem probamus reseruandos; cogente enim passione, nullo subiecto indigestionis obstaculo, erit arripienda phlebotomiae commoditas non solum his4 qui iam saepe admoniti passione uidentur sed etiam illis5 qui primo inuasu afficiuntur. Cessante etenim accessione inesse passionem conicimus, siquidem generaliter sit maligna et frequentius tarda quam celer, nisi adiutoriis medicinalibus destructa a corpore depellatur aut ullo naturae aut fortunae beneficio, nisi tardando corpus tenuerit, ut solius medicinae diligentiam poscat. [83] Iudicare enim est incertum utrum passio post accessionem primam inesse corpori an soluta uideatur, siquidem ex occulta ueniat apprehensione causarum, et oportet Methodicum sine ulla falsitate regulas intendere curationum. Videmus denique phlebotomiam conuenire—nam passionales coenotetes argui uidebuntur si utrum passioni conueniat fuerit dubitatum— sed quia (sola) temporum quaestio flagitari perspicitur, erit coniciendum

B uideatur sit 2 discernentes Rovm Rov 5 B: sed etiam in illis D 1

3

del ego

4

D B: non solum in his

211

  ‒   FR 54. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(5)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, I, iv (= Epilepsia), 80–83: [80] With patients who are of an age where they can bear more drastic remedies, we should perform venesection when the paroxysm is over. Now some doctors recommend venesection immediately [sc after the paroxysm], as Thessalus too clearly prefers; others think they should wait to the end of the first three-day period [diatritus], when they could reckon whether the affection has clearly disappeared, being eliminated after one paroxysm—in which case venesection would be not only useless but positively harmful; in fact they argue that it is from the second paroxysm that one can predict whether the affection would increase and require this remedy of venesection, and whether the patient, if subjected to venesection, would let himself restored by the repairing [sc remedy] of food. [81] But others hold that a remedy of this kind should be applied with discrimination, so that those attacked [sc by a paroxysm] who are, as it may be, already accustomed to the affection should be subjected to venesection immediately after the conclusion of the paroxysm, provided that the regularity of remissions is maintained; whereas those who experience the first attack of the affection should have it [sc venesection] postponed to the third day, because the recurrence of [sc another] paroxysm is uncertain. As for us, as Soranus has taught us, neither do we subject everyone to venesection within the threedays period—especially not those who suffer the first attack of the affection: for most patients have returns [sc of the first paroxysm] on account of the corrupted food, and we should avoid subjecting to venesection the patients who are wounded by indigestion; [82] nor do we recommend, on the other hand, that everyone should have it [sc venesection] postponed to the third day: for when the affection compels us and the impediment created by indigestion does not exist, we should seize the opportunity to perform venesection not only on those whom we know to have had returns of the affection quite a number of times already, but also on those who are suffering the first attack. Moreover, we work on the premiss that the affection subsists even if the paroxysm is over, because generally it [sc epilepsia] is a vicious [sc affection], more frequently chronic than acute, unless it is ejected from the body, being destroyed either by medical remedies or by some good turn of nature or luck—unless it has not got hold of the body, becoming chronic, in which case nothing but careful medical attention would do. [83] Besides, it is risky to decide whether the affection remains in the body after the first paroxysm or is clearly destroyed, in so far as that [sc such deciding] would derive from a hidden grasp of causes, and the Methodist must set up the rules of his treatments in complete freedom from falsehood. In conclusion, we are of the view that venesection is good— for if it were doubted that it is suitable for the affection, the koinotetes of affections would appear to be under attack—but, since a debatable point (the only one) does emerge in relation to its timings, we will have to assume

212

  ‒  -

ante secundam accessionem6 adhiberi posse phlebotomiam, siquidem7 initium uehementiae atque magnitudinis causa passio transcedat,8 ut saepe contusio corporis aut fractura uel ignis ustura.

6

D

ci D B: ante secundam passionem cett

7

D: siquidem, B

FR 55. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

8

PASSIONES

B: transcedat

(6)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, I, iv (= De epilepsia), 140–143: 5

10

15

20

25

[140] Themison uero libro primo Tardarum passionum, Asclepiadis erroribus nondum purgatus, ante accessionem phlebotomandos inquit si ordo fuerit augmentorum praeseruatus; sin uero errans fuerit perspectus, post accessionem imperat phlebotomiam adhibendam. [141] Modum autem detrahendi sanguinis eius approbat mutatione. Quae sunt uanissimae intentiones,1 sicut libris Specialium adiutoriorum docuimus. Tunc si in brachiis uel in cruribus, inquit, aliqua querela extiterit, earundem partium uenas 2 diuidendas, sin minus interiorem uenam distringendam lino, coniciens melius esse ex partibus non patientibus sanguinis coaceruatam facere detractionem, siquidem patientes magis grauentur ob irruentem materiae lapsum, qui detractae superet modum. Tunc post phlebotomiam deambulatione utitur et defricatione alienis manibus adhibita, quo corporis motus conquiescat. Dat etiam cibum ex mediae qualitatis materia et nulla cogente ratione rursum sanguinem detrahit. [142] Sed si ordinem seruauerint accessiones, intra quinque dies secundo uel tertio detractionem facit; de aliis quoque multis atque omnibus corporis partibus, et talis et brachiis, nil metuens defectionem, sanguinem detrahit. In lenimento uero, ut exempli causa XXX dierum, post accessionem helleboro utitur post quattuor uel quinque dies. Tunc sequenti iniciet atque alia die adhibet lauacrum et tribus uel quattuor diebus ceteris cursibus cyclum complet, ac deinde rursum adhibet helleborum post accessionem transactam uel certe radicum adhibet,3 phlebotomo dissiccans4 corpus, quod erat melius ordinare ante usum hellebori, quo leuiora maioribus praeponerentur, quippe in recorporatiuis curationibus. [143] Adhibet praeterea clysterem, qui uires detrahat aegrotantis et propterea sequi non debuerit supra dicta. Vtitur etiam localibus adiutoriis, et quidem multis pro differentia, et quibusdam falsissimis, ut est sub

ci S > D B: inuentiones cett 2 ego ex apparatu D; et cf Reg. Acut. Ch xxii, fl°ba tØn ¶sv 3 B: radices adhibet D: radicium adhibet Sich 4 corr ego: dissecans cett 1

213

  ‒  -

that venesection can be used before the second paroxysm, on the hypothesis that the affection persists beyond the initial stage by reason of its violence and power, as often does a contusion of the body, a fracture, or a fire burn.

FR 55. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(6)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, I, iv (= Epilepsia), 140–143: [140] In book i of his Chronic affections Themison, not yet purged of Asclepiades’ mistakes, holds that, if the succession of the paroxysms can be anticipated, venesection should he performed before a paroxysm; but if we found it [sc the succession] to be erratic, he orders performing venesection after the paroxysm. [141] As for the measure of blood to be withdrawn, he approves of [sc using as a criterion] its change of colour. But these are futile concerns, as we have shown in the treatise on Special remedies. Next, he claims that, if there is pain in the arms or legs, we should open the external veins of the parts in question, unless we bind the internal vein with a thread: for he supposes that it is better to have a copious withdrawal of blood from parts that are not affected, on the grounds that the affected ones would be greatly oppressed by the flow of matter rushing to them, which might exceed the measure of the matter withdrawn. Next, after venesection he [sc Themison] prescribes a walk and massage administered by unfamiliar hands, through which the body’s motion would calm down. He also administers food consisting of substances of the middle class; then, for no compelling reason, he withdraws blood again. [142] But if the paroxysms have succeeded regularly he prescribes a second or even a third withdrawal of blood within five days; and he withdraws blood from many other parts of the body, in fact from all of them, including the forearms and ankles, without considering [sc the patient’s] fainting. Now, during a [sc period of ] remission of, say, thirty days, he [sc Themison] gives the patient hellebore four or five days after the paroxysm, then injects [sc him] on the following day and administers a bath on the next one, and within three or four days he completes the cycle with the rest of the procedures. And then again, when the [sc next] paroxysm is over, he administers hellebore, or at any rate radishes, parching the body through venesection, when it would have been better to prescribe that before using hellebore, so that the milder [sc remedy] may precede the more drastic, as is the rule in recorporative [= metasyncritic] treatments. [143] Furthermore, he [sc Themison] uses a clyster which pulls down the patient’s resources and therefore should not be brought after the [sc procedures] I just mentioned. He also employs local remedies—many of them in response to the diversity [sc of the cases], and some utterly

214

  ‒  -

occipitio accurata diuisura (quam “chiasmum” uocari diximus) et ferro circumscripta in capite cutis ustura qua testa squamulis despumatur, item medium testae (quod Graeci “bregma” appellant) terebri perforatione et in accessione constrictione articulorum, et odoribus taetris5 atque male olen5 tibus ex pice atque ex spondylio, castoreo, galbano, sinapi cum aceto, quae ex ante dictis erunt protinus refellenda.

5

B: tetris D

FR 56. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(7)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, I, v (= De furore siue insania, quam Graeci “manian” uocant), 153–154: [153] Est praeterea passio magna atque tardissima, superpositionibus ac lenimentis uariata, ex constrictione confecta. Etenim his qui Mnaseam sectantes aliud putant acquiescendum non est, suspicantibus eum furorem qui 10 hilaritate affecerit aegrotantes solutionis appellatum.1 Falluntur etenim nominis uoce, siquidem Graeci “diachysin” animi laxationem dixerunt siue diffusionem, cum hoc animi, non corporis, ostendat qualitatem. Nam quod omnis furens strictura afficiatur manifestum atque probabile est ex oculis sanguinolentis, qui in lato2 constitutam stricturam denuntiant; [154] 15 item quod ipsos oculos atque uenas in uultu extantiores habeat, totius corporis attestante duritia, cum fortitudine praeter naturam adueniente ob stricturae consensum. Denique lenimenti tempore fatigatos se sentiunt aegrotantes. Est item coniectura facienda ex his quae mentis alienationem praecedunt, ut capitis grauedo uel dolor spinae uel scapularum et tardus membrorum 20 motus 3 uentris inflatio. Peccant denique etiam hi qui animi4 passionem principaliter, dehinc corporis, esse concipiunt, cum neque quisquam philosophorum eius tradiderit curationem et antequam mente falluntur accidentia substantia corporis habere uideatur. Haec sunt quae ad apprehendendum uel discernendum morbum Methodus ordinauit.

add ego: solutionis appellandum cett ratu: “…w §n plãtei Sor. Gyn., p. 16.8” 1

2 3

corr A: in lato D, et uide D in appaadd Rov > D 4 B: animae D

215

  ‒  -

unsound, such as an incision exactly under the occiput (the one we said is called [sc in Greek] “chiasmos”) and a circular burning of the head’s skin with an iron instrument, which takes scales off the skull; again, [sc he employs] [sc the method of ] perforating the middle part of the skull (what the Greeks call “bregma”) with a trephine; [sc the method of ] binding the joints during a paroxysm; and [sc he makes use of ] repellent and foulsmelling vapours from pitch and from cow parsnip, castor, all-heal, and mustard with vinegar—which will have to be rejected straightaway, on the basis of what has already been said.

FR 56. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(7)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, I, v (= Madness or insanity, which the Greeks call “mania”), 153–154: [153] Besides, madness is a serious disease, chronic to the utmost, marked by [sc periods of ] paroxysm and remission, and resulting from constriction. For surely one must not agree with the view put forth by those who followed Mnaseas, who imagine that the [sc kind of ] madness which affects the patients with hilarity has been named after the name of looseness. In fact they are deceived by the sound of the name: the Greeks have called “diachusis” the loosening or expansion of the soul because this [sc word] would designate a quality of the soul and not one of the body. For the fact that any madman is affected by stricture is perceivable and probable from the bloodshot eyes, which indicate that [sc the state of ] stricture has settled deep down; [154] again, [sc it can be proved] by the fact that the eyes themselves, as well as the facial veins, are bulging; and the hardness of the whole body is a confirmation, because unnatural strength arises through sympathy [consensus] with [sc the state of ] stricture. Finally, the patients feel tired during the interval of remission. Our conjecture can also be drawn from [sc the symptoms] which precede the loss of reason, for instance heaviness in the head or pain in the spine or shoulderblades, slow motion in the limbs, and flatus of the abdomen. Therefore those who believe it [sc madness] to be mainly an affection of the soul and only derivatively one of the body are also mistaken; for no philosopher has ever handed down to us a treatment for it, and the [sc physical] matter of the body clearly displays the symptoms before reason collapses. These are the things which the Method has set up for the recognition or diagnosis of the disease.

216

  ‒   FR 57. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(8)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, I, v (= De furore siue insania, quam Graeci “manian” uocant), 171–179:

5

10

15

20

25

[171] Aliarum sectarum 1 ueterum Methodicorum plurimi2 obscuris in locis habendos inquiunt aegrotantes, neque accidentia passionis conicientes (siquidem saepe quidam obscuritatem odisse uideantur) neque ipsam passionem, quod sit ex strictura effecta. Etenim densata corpora aeris obscuritas minime reflari permittit, abstentis denique naturalibus officiis, impletum caput magis grauatur. 3 adhibendam etiam immodicam abstinentiam, quam Graeci “limanchian” uocant, non aduertentes quia immoderata cibi abstinentia uires corporis uexat et aegrotantem naturali fortitudine desertum adiutoria ferre non patitur. Perdit etiam cibandi tempora, ex quo densata corpora saepe laxantur. [172] Non enim uere admittenda aut credenda sunt ea quae suspicantur, quibus ipsi insanire potius quam curare uideantur. Aiunt enim ferarum similitudinem intuendam, quae deductione cibi posita4 ferocitate mansuescunt: non aliter etiam furentes posse iugi abstinentia mitigari, quippe cum inter sanos homines facile sapere ieiuni uideantur. Post cibum uero affici hilaritate facilius aut furore. Iubent praeterea uinculis aegrotantes coerceri sine ulla discretione, cum necessario deuinctae partes quatiantur et 5 facilius aegros ministrantium manibus quam inertibus uinculis retinere. [173] Cupiunt etiam certis medicaminibus somnos altos efficere, papauere fouentes et pressuram potius atque grauationem capitis, non somnum ingerentes. Fouent etiam oleo rosaceo aceto admixto; serpyllo6 et castoreo et ceteris simillimae uirtutis caput obsidunt, constringentes ea quae laxatione indigeant. Item alii frigidis usi sunt rebus, passionis causam ex feruore uenire suspicantes, ut Aristoteles et Diocles, nescii quoniam feruor innatus sine dubio tumoris est signum et non, ut existimant, passionis est causa. Quare peiorare necesse est et maiorem furorem fieri cum frigida curatione corpora densantur. [174] Alii uero phlebotomiam adhibendam probant ex duobus brachiis usque ad animi7 defectionem, ut saepe faciunt mori cupientes. Etenim defectio aut uirium amputatio sequuntur immodicam sanguinis detractionem, quam non oportebit ex utroque brachio fieri. Dicunt

1 3 6

add Rov 2 D: aliarum sectarum ueterum medicorum plurimi B lacunam supposui (fortasse “Et inquiunt”?) 4 D: quae deductione cibi B 5 add B B: serpillo D 7 B: animae D

217

  ‒   FR 57. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(8)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, I, v (= Madness or insanity, which the Greeks call “mania”), 171–179: [171] Most doctors from the other sectae as well as most of the early Methodists claim that patients [sc with mania] should be kept in dark places, failing to interpret correctly both the symptoms [accidentia] of the affection (for it turns out quite often that patients dislike darkness) and the affection itself, namely the fact that it is brought about by stricture. For darkness of air allows a constricted body to exhale [sc only] to a minimum; thus, with the natural functions impeded in this way, the head, which is already congested, becomes even more oppressed. that excessive privation [sc of food]—what the Greeks call “limachia”—is also to be recommended, without paying heed to the fact that immoderate privation of food impairs the powers of the body and the patient, robbed of his natural resistance, cannot bear the remedies. He [sc the patient] also misses the [sc periods of ] time involved in taking a meal, which is when constricted bodies often relax. [172] So we should not accept or believe their [sc these doctors’] assumptions, which make it look as if they themselves were the mad [sc patients] rather than their healers. They say for instance that we should look closely at the parallel case of wild beasts, who give up their beastliness and get tame when they are deprived of food: it is no different with the mad—they can be calmed down by continuous fasting—since, even among the sane, people seem to be more readily amenable to sense during a period of fasting, whereas after a meal they are more readily pray to hilarity or mad rage. Besides, they [sc the doctors in question] order, without any discrimination, that the patients be kept in chains, although the chained parts are bound to get injured, and it is easier to hold the patients in the attendants’ hands than in motionless chains. [173] Again, they wish to induce deep sleep with the help of certain medicines and apply fomentations of poppy, producing oppression and heaviness in the head rather than sleep. They even apply fomentations of rose oil mixed with vinegar; and they assail the [sc patient’s] head with thyme, castor, and other substances of a similar action, constricting those [sc parts] which are in need of relaxing. Others in turn have used cooling substances, supposing, like Aristotle and Diocles, that the cause of the affection derives from boiling: they were not aware that the boiling inherent [sc in madness] is, to be sure, a symptom [signum] of inflammation and not, as they suppose, the cause of the affection. For this reason madness is of necessity aggravated and intensified when bodies are condensed by a cooling course of therapy. [174] On the other hand others recommend performing venesection at both arms until they [sc the patients] faint, so that they [sc the doctors in question] often make them [sc the patients] desirous to die. For the result of excessive withdrawal of blood is loss or impairment of [sc the patient’s] forces: it must not be performed at both arms. In addition, they [sc the doctors

218

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

praeterea usum esse clysteris addendum ex acerrimae uirtutis liquoribus, iniectione frequenti, ex quibus nihil utile sed potius dysenteria sequatur, dantes etiam urinalia atque uentriflua medicamina potanda, quae “diuretica” uel “coeliotica”8 Graeci uocauerunt—auertendam etenim e superioribus ad inferiora materiam dicunt—ex quibus corpora tabescunt, neruositas uitiatur. [175] Item alii inebriandos aiunt aegrotantes, cum saepe ex uinolentia furor atque insania generetur. Alii flagellis aiunt coercendos, ut quasi iudicio mentis pulso resipiant, cum magis tumentia caede lacessendo faciant et, adueniente lenimento passionis, cum sensum recipiunt plagarum dolore uexentur. Vel certe, sicut ratio poscit, uicinis magis ac patientibus locis adiutoria sunt adhibenda; coguntur ergo ut ori uel capiti plagas imponant. Vtuntur etiam decantationibus tibiarum9 uaria modulatione, quarum alteram Phrygiam uocant, quae sit iucunda atque excitabilis eorum qui ex maestudine in furore noscuntur;10 [176] aliam, quam Dorion appellant, diram uel quae occupata mente pudorem suadeat, iniecto rigore—ut in bello—in his qui11 risu uel puerilibus cachinnis afficiuntur, cum cantilenae sonus caput impleat, ut etiam recte ualentibus apertissime uidetur, uel certe, ut plerique memorant, accendat aliquos in furorem, quo saepe uaticinantes deum accepisse uideantur. Alii uero amorem furentibus aiunt procurandum, quo mentis intentio conuersa furoris asperitatem purgetur, non intuentes nudissimam ueritatem, quod plerisque furoris amor fuerit causa. Sic denique alius amore Proserpinae petit inferna (et sibi licitas alienae ac diuae coniugis credidit nuptias), [177] alius nymphae ob desiderium Amphitritis sese deditum mari proiecit. Ferunt Graecorum commenta loquacia aetheriae prolis feminam humanis exercitatam fatis et saeuo poenitudinis dolore commotam sua manu suos extinxisse successus. Neque aspernandos ceteros accipiamus qui ipsum quoque amorem generaliter furorem uocauerunt, ob similitudinem accidentium quibus aegrotantes afficiuntur. Et est impium12 atque absurdum passioni adiutorium13 id ipsum probare quod curas. Omitto quod sit impossibile amorem furentibus persuadere, siquidem iudicio carentes pulchritudinem probare non possint. Nam saepe homines feras existimant uel ea quae uiderint fingendo praesentia putant. [178] Dehinc etiamsi amor fuerit acquisitus, quid magis probemus erit incertum, utrumne prohibendus sit usus uenerius an admittendus. Sed prohibitus indignari magis

D: coeliolytica B ex apparatu D (cum TP II 50 et koiliolus¤a in Sor.) 9 ci Helmreich > B: decantionibus tibiarum D: cantionibus tibiarum Rov 10 add B: in furore noscuntur D 11 transp ego: aliam diram uel quae occupata mente pudorem suadeat, iniecto rigore, ut in bello, quam Dorion appellant, in his qui etc cett 12 D: improprium B 13 B: adiutoriorum D 8

  ‒  

219

in question] claim that we should use a clyster with fluids of an extremely pungent quality, in frequent injections—although nothing good results from them, but rather dysentery; and they also administer potions with a diuretic and deconstipating action (the Greeks called them “diouretika” and “koiliatika”), for they claim that matter should be brought downwards from the upper parts; but these [sc potions] waste the body and injure the [sc system of ] nerves and sinews. [175] Some hold that the patients should be inebriated, although it is often from wine-intoxication that madness or insanity comes about. Others hold that they [sc the patients] should be subjected to scourges, so as to recover their senses by, as it were, their mind’s judging faculty being beaten out, when in fact they [sc the scourges] render the inflamed parts rougher, causing irritation as they pour down, and when the remission of the affection arrives and the patients return to their senses they suffer from the pain left by the blows. But of course, as reason demands, remedies ought to be applied especially to the affected parts and the surrounding areas; therefore they [sc the doctors in question] are forced to inflict blows on the face and head. They also use songs played on pipes in differing modes: one is the mode which they [sc the Greeks] call Phrygian, which would be pleasant and invigorating for those whom we know to have fallen into madness from depression; [176] another, which they [sc the Greeks] call Doric, would be solemn and summon [sc the patient] to decency when his mind is prostrate, instilling seriousness (as it does in war) into those beset by giggles and childish hilarity—when in fact the sound of old songs congests the head, as is obvious even in perfectly healthy people, and certainly arouses some people to madness, as most [sc readers] remember; which is why they [sc the healthy] are often found to rave in song about having received a god. Yet other [sc doctors] claim that what we should provide for the mad is love, which would purify the mind of the curse of madness by diverting its focus; they overlook the very obvious truth that in most cases the cause of madness was love. Thus one, for instance, betook himself to the nether-world for love of Proserpina (and thought that marriage to the divine spouse of another was permitted to him); [177] another threw himself as an offering into the sea, out of longing for the nymph Amphitrite. [sc One of ] the numerous stories of the Greeks tells us how a woman of divine descent, harried by human fates and beset by the cruel pangs of vengeance, killed her offspring with her own hand. And we should not treat with superior contempt those who have characterised love itself, on the whole, as madness, in view of the similarity between its symptoms and those which affect the patients [sc suffering from madness]. But it is both wicked and absurd to recommend, as remedy for an affection, the very thing that you are treating. I pass over the fact that it would be impossible to make madmen fall in love, because, lacking judgement as they do, they cannot appreciate beauty. For they often take humans for beasts, or they consider what they see in their imagination to be real. [178] Next, even if he [sc the patient] were to fall in love, an issue over which (we should think) there will be considerable doubt is whether sex should be forbidden or permitted. But if [sc sex is] forbidden,

220

  ‒  -

cogit aegrotantes, cum desiderata producuntur, item permissus uexat, cum corpore euirato animae quoque substantia turbatur. Item alii arteriotomian probauerunt, inutili uexatione caput afficientes. His igitur omnibus experimentis inanibus conferta est furiosorum curatio. Quae ne falsa putentur, erunt denuntiandae personae atque librorum nomina designanda. Asclepiades 5 autem secundo libro 14 adhibendam praecepit cantilenam. Quo etiam eius discipulus Titus adductus secundo libro De anima memorat flagellandos; [179] sed idem etiam officiis solitis amoueri iubet aegrotantes et uinculis constringi et abstinentia ciborum nimia coerceri et siti affici, tunc uino corrumpi uel in amorem induci; ceterum primo libro Tardarum passionum supra10 dicta compleuit {item}15 Themison: phlebotomatos constrictiuis curat fomentis, qui se sua lege tenere non potuit, adhibens etiam lauacrum atque uinum plurimum et amorem suadens, adiuncta ciborum copia, aliis quoque incongruis utens rebus quae magis Asclepiadi quam Themisoni sunt adscribenda. Nondum enim sese eius liberauerat secta: sic16 haec ordinasse perspicitur.

uide D in apparatu: excisisse uidetur titilus 15 secl Rov > D: post Themison transp Kind RE “Soranos” 1127 16 B: secta sic D < Rov

14

FR 58. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(9)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, I, vi (= De melancholia), 183: 15 [183] Sed hanc passionem furoris speciem alii plurimi atque Themisonis sectatores uocauerunt. Differt autem siquidem 1 ista principaliter stomachus patiatur, in furiosis uero caput.

1

add Rov

FR 59. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(10)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, II, i (= De paralysi), 16–17: [16] De nominibus autem specialiter elogiatis paralyticae passionis, ut mydriasi, phthisi, priapismo, gonorrhoea, et his similibus, singula praescripsi20 mus;1 de ceteris nunc dicemus. Hanc ergo passionem multi sectae nostrae 1

B ex apparatu D (et uide sect. 5–14 supra): praescribemus D

221

  ‒  -

it forces the patients rather to experience dejection when the object of their desire turns up; if permitted, it harms them, because, when the body is robbed of its forces, the substance of the soul, too, becomes agitated. Again, other [sc doctors] have recommended the opening of an artery, subjecting the head to a pointless injury. Thus the treatment of insanity is replete with all these futile trials. I will have to point out the doctors in question and to designate their books, so that this [sc what I have said so far] may not be considered false. Asclepiades in book ii of advises us to make use of music. His pupil Titus, persuaded on this point too, says in book ii of his [sc treatise] On soul that [sc patients with madness] should be flogged; [179] but he also orders the patients to be taken away from their usual pursuits, put in chains, forced [sc to endure] extreme lack of food, beset by thirst, then spoiled with wine or incited to love. As for the rest of what I described above, Themison covered it in book i of his Chronic affections: once they [sc the patients] have been subjected to venesection, he treats them by constrictive fomentations, unable as he is to stick to his own rule; he also makes use of bathing and of much wine and incites the patient to love, giving him food in abundance; and he adds still other harmful things, which ought to be attributed to Asclepiades rather than Themison. Clearly his own secta had not yet freed itself by the time he established these [sc procedures].

FR 58. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(9)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, I, vi (= On melancholia), 183: [183] But most other [sc doctors], including the sectatores of Themison, have called this affection a species of madness. It is, however, different, because in the present [sc affection] it is the stomach that is mainly affected, while in the patients afflicted by madness it is the head.

FR 59. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(10)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, II, i (= Paralysis), 16–17: [16] We have dealt individually with the names related to the paralytic affection, as they were mentioned species by species—for instance mydriasis, phthisis, priapism, gonorrhoea, and the like; now we shall concern ourselves with the other [sc facts about paralysis]. So then: many leaders of our secta have classified this affection as [sc a state of ] stricture on account

222

  ‒  -

principes stricturam dixerunt ob duritiam uitiatarum partium atque siccitatem et grauedinem et torporem. Mnaseas uero conductione factam “paralipsin” uocat, fierique etiam aliquando extentione aliquando solutione. Nos uero iuxta Sorani sententiam illam uocamus solutionem, cum plurimae eges5 tiones corporis fuerint uisae. [17] Etenim manuum uel pedum et horum similium extentione facta,2 nulla egestione attestante, et in ligni similitudinem duratis partibus, stricturae dicimus esse passionem, quippe cum frigescere3 uel quadam rugatione crispari corpora commune contrariis passionibus esse uideatur.

2

D: factam B < Rov

3

sed in apparatu D rigescere uel rugescere suggessit

FR 60. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(11)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, II, i (= De paralysi), 25–26: 10 [25] Vtemur praeterea eodem tempore etiam cerotariis qualibet 1 paralysi uitiata, et primo simplicibus, ut ex cera et oleo pingui uel Sabino et squinanto, admixta hibisci decoctione uel foenigraeci semine contuso atque trito, tunc ex oleo ueteri et resina terebinthina. [26] Adhibemus etiam embasin ex oleo calido, tunc calida et oleo, cibum dantes diurnis diebus ex 15 oleribus non acrioribus atque piscibus petrensibus et uolantum paruioribus. Vtemur etiam acopis, ut est diasamsucu et diamelilotu uel omnibus quae ex adipibus conficiuntur et medullis, et irino oleo uel malabatrino et cyprino2 et his similibus, et malagmatibus talibus, ex quibus est diachylon atque Mnaseu et diamelilotu et melinum simplex.3

add Rovm > D + B 2 ci Schmid > D B; Sich: quirino 3 diasamsuchu, diamelilotu, Mnaseu corr. sunt a diasamsuchum, diamelilotum, Mnaseum

1

FR 61. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(12)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, II, i (= De paralysi), 57–59: 20 [57] Item Themison primo libro Tardarum passionum in quibusdam peccare cognoscitur, nondum rectam Methodon respiciens. Etenim phlebotomat ex ea parte quae passione uitiata est, si (inquit) sensu {non} caruerit1—non 1

secl B < D in apparatu: si, inquit, sensu non caruerit D

223

  ‒  -

of the hardness, dryness, heaviness, and numbness of the affected parts. But Mnaseas calls the kind [sc of paralysis] produced by contraction “paralipsis” and holds that it comes about sometimes through tightening, sometimes through loosening. As for us, we classify it [sc paralysis], in accordance with Soranus’ view, as [sc a state of ] looseness when there are copious bodily discharges to be seen. [17] If, however, there is tightening of the hands, feet, and similar parts without any evidence of discharge, and the parts stiffen like pieces of wood, we classify the affection as one of stricture, because the chilling of bodies or their shrivelling in a curl appears to be [sc a feature] shared by opposite affections.

FR 60. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(11)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, II, i (= Paralysis), 25–26: [25] Then during the same period [sc decline] we also apply cerates on any part which has been damaged by paralysis—simple ones to begin with, for instance [sc cerates] made of wax and a thick oil, such as Sabine oil or mastich oil, mixing in a decoction of marsh-mallow or fenugreek seed, pounded and rubbed down; and [sc cerates] made with old olive oil and turpentine afterwards. [26] We also prescribe an embasis [= immersion, plunging into a bath] of warm olive oil, then one of warm water and olive oil, and we administer food every day from the range of non-acrid vegetables, rockfish, and the smaller birds. We also employ pain-killers, for instance the one made of marjoram [diasampsukou], the one made of melilot [diamelilotou], or all those made of suet, marrow, and oil of iris, of malabathrum, or henna oil, and their like, as well as emollient plasters of the same quality, such as the diachulon [= plaster of juices], the plaster of Mnaseas, the diamelilotou [= melilot plaster], and the simple [sc plaster] of quince.

FR 61. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(12)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, II, i (= Paralysis), 57–59: [57] In book i of the Chronic affections Themison is known to make mistakes on a number of points, since he does not take his stand by the true Method yet. Thus he performs venesection on the part damaged by the affection if, he specifies, it is bereft of sensation—without (as I explained above) taking care to avoid all those [sc effects] which are clearly damaging and

224

  ‒  -

curans, ut supra demonstrauimus, euitanda ueluti omnia uexabilia2 quae adiutorio quadam necessitate uideantur esse coniuncta. Dehinc lanam sucidam, quam oesypon appellant, capiti iubet imponi aceto atque oleo rosaceo infusam; [58] neruis autem ceruicis atque spinae et cruribus et brachiis 5 uinum atque oleum cum sale imponendum iubet, constringens atque lacessens incongrue ea quae phlebotomiae miti releuatione laxauerat. Tunc tertia die cibum probat atque quarta die cucurbitam imponi, adiuncta scarificatione— non interrogans passionis tempus, solum numerum dierum imprudente, gestationem probat, et neque in eo definiens tempus atque audaciter secundae 10 diatriti expectationem spernens. Dat etiam aloen in potu, et ex aqua calida et oleo intestinis dare laxamentum ordinat. [59] Praeterea anatresin testae faciendam, quam nos perforationem uocamus, iamdudum quidem et in aliis Methodicis explosam; et harenae deambulationem conuenire existimat atque plagis ferulae caedendas partes in passione constitutas, profecto quae sal15 sae aquae mitigatione atque recorporatione uidentur esse curandae.

2

B: uexabili D < Rov

FR 62. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(13)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, II, i (= De paralysi), 60–62: [60] Item Thessalus secundo libro De regulis scribens plurima recte dixisse probatur, quaedam uero proterua festinatione caduca. Etenim post phlebotomiam usque ad tertium imperat abstineri, solum potum diurna cum luce offerendum. Tunc, transacta tertia die atque hora qua sunt aegrotantes 20 paralysi uitiati, cibum probat. [61] Quibus respondere facile quisquam poterit, si quaerat qua intentione Thessalus oriente luce potum iubeat dari. Etenim si continuationis causa id fieri responderit, oportebat etiam cibum eodem tempore approbare. Sin uero accessionum frequentia id existimat declinandum uel suspicione futurarum et propterea post tertium diem cibum 25 transferendum, quo transacta hora passionis illatae tertia die recte aegros nutrire uideamus, oportebat etiam potum non communiter et generaliter1 diurnis diebus nec initio2 lucis offerre, sed horarum dimissione captata. Dehinc non semper ac nccessario tertia die3 cibum oportet dari, [62] sed etiam quarta continuationis quae initium ex die sumpsisse uisa {uel ob

sed generaliter Sich 2 B: uel initio D 3 B < D in apparatu, “fort. tertia secundum usum Caelianum; cf Schmid Mus. Helvet. i (1944) 124”: tertio die D

1

225

  ‒  -

are connected with the remedy through some necessity. Then he orders a piece of greasy wool (what they [sc the Greeks] call “oisopos”), soaked in vinegar and rose oil, to be applied to the head; [58] whereas on the nerves of the neck and spine, on the legs, and on the arms he orders applications of wine and olive oil with salt, inadvertently constricting and irritating the parts which he had relaxed by the mild relief of venesection. Next, on the third day Themison recommends food, and on the fourth day he recommends the application of a cupping-glass with scarification: he does not examine the time of the affection but only pays heed to the number of days, in a narrow-minded way. Then for the following days he prescribes passive exercise, without specifying the [sc period of ] time there either, and foolishly dismissing the [sc interval of ] waiting for the second three-days period. He also prescribes aloes to drink, and orders the administration of a relaxant for the bowels made of warm water and olive oil. [59] Moreover, [sc he orders] performing an anatresis [= trepanning] of the skull (what we call perforatio)—a procedure long since refuted in other Methodist writings too. He thinks that walking on sand is helpful, and that the parts caught in the affection should be subjected to the aggression of a whip’s blows, when in fact it is clear that they should be treated by [sc using] the soothing and recorporative [sc action] of salt water.

FR 62. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(13)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, II, i (= Paralysis), 60–62: [60] Thessalus, in turn, was certainly right about most of what he said in book i of his Regimen, yet some of it is flawed by reckless haste. After venesection, for instance, he orders [sc the patient] to refrain [sc from food] down to the third day, [sc and claims that] we should only administer a drink at dawn. Then he gives food on the third day, when the hour at which the patients were [sc originally] attacked by paralysis has passed. [61] Anyone could easily object to this [sc treatment] by asking Thessalus for what purpose he orders the drink administered at dawn. For if he is to answer that it is done for the sake of continuity, then he ought also to approve of food during the same period of time. But if he is of the view that it [sc food] should be withheld on account of the frequency of paroxysms or for fear of their occurrence in the future, and that this is why food should be postponed until after the third day: in order that we make sure that the patients are fed correctly, three days after the passing of the hour when the affection has commenced—then he ought to give the drink, too, not every day, indifferently and generally, and not at dawn, but trying to respect the sequence of hours. But then it is not always and necessarily the case that food must be administered on the third day; [62] it may also [sc be administered] on the fourth day of an [sc unremitting] continuation, when it [sc paralysis] was found to start during the day. Again, he claims,

226

  ‒  -

typum eadem ratione currentem}.4 Idem post haec, similiter ut Themison, quarta inquit die cucurbitas infigendas, non interrogans utrum passio sumpserit statum, quod est maxime seruandum. Ait praeterea alternis diebus cibandos usque ad certum numerum dierum, quod infinitum reliquisse perspici5 tur. Audaciter etiam atque inuidiose acopa quaedam uel malagmata probat excludenda, solius moderationis neglectae arguens uitia. Haec sunt quae etiam Thessalo Sorani diligentia uidentur esse responsa.

4

del ego

FR 63. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(14)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, II, vii (= De influxione, quam Graeci “catarrhon” uocant), 96–97: [96] Veterum igitur Methodicorum alii stricturam hanc passionem uocauerunt, uelut expressis humoribus atque coactis in alia uenire loca eam fieri asse10 rentes; [97] alii solutionem, ut Thessalus manifestat atque eius decessores, ut Themison. Mnaseas uero et Soranus, cuius etiam nos amamus iudicium, complexam inquiunt esse passionem et nunc strictura superante, nunc solutione. Etenim constrictio atque dolor accidentia sunt stricturae, quae Graeci symptomata uocant, multorum uero liquidorum egestio solutionis est signum.

FR 64. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(15)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, II, vii (= De influxione, quam Graeci “catarrhon” uocant), 109: 15 [109] Decessores uero medici nondum rigore Methodico obtinente, in quibus est Erasistratus secundo libro Salutarium praeceptorum et Asclepiades tertio Celerum passionum, item Themison Salutari libro atque primo Tardarum passionum (quas Chronias appellant), meracum potum dari iusserunt.

227

  ‒  -

like Themison, that cupping-glasses should be impressed [sc upon the patient] on the fourth day, without inquiring whether the disease has reached its highest stage, which is the absolute first thing to consider. Besides, he holds that [sc the patients] should be fed on alternate days up to a given number of days, which nevertheless he appears to have left unspecified. He is even presumptuous and hostile in recommending that we should reject some pain-killers and emollient plasters: he demonstrates nothing but the perils of overlooking moderation. This appears to be what was offered in answer to Thessalus, thanks to Soranus’ industry.

FR 63. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(14)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, II, vii (= Flux, which the Greeks call “katharros”), 96–97: [96] Some of the early Methodists classified this affection under constriction, asserting that it occurs when the humours are, as it were, squeezed out and forced to run to other places; [97] others [sc classified flux] under looseness, for instance Thessalus and his forerunners, for instance Themison. But Mnaseas and Soranus, with whose conclusions we, too, agree, claim that it [sc flux] is an affection of the mixed type, where now constriction predominates, now looseness. For constriction and pain are accidentia [= secondary symptoms] of stricture, which the Greeks call “symptomata” [= symptoms], but discharge of many liquids is a signum [= primary symptom] of looseness.

FR 64. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(15)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, II, vii (= Flux, which the Greeks call “katharros”), 109: [109] Our forerunners, doctors from an age when Methodist strictness had not yet imposed itself—and they include Erasistratus with book ii of his Hygenics, Asclepiades with book iii of his Acute affections, then Themison with his Hygenics and with book i of his Slow affections (which they call [sc in Greek] “Chronic”)—have prescribed the administration of an undiluted drink [sc of wine].

228

  ‒  - FR 65. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(16)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, II, vii (= De influxione, quam Graeci “catarrhon” uocant), 112–113: [112] Themisonem uero et Thessalum, memorantes constrictiuam curationem libro 1 De Methodo atque secundo Regulari (quem Diaeteticum uocant), culpandos arbitramur quod non uiderint aliquando stricturam fieri superiorem.2 Item plura3 sulphurosa admiscenda quam4 satis sit probauerunt 5 [113] et lanis quibus thorax circumdatur aspergenda, ordinantes etiam odoramenta iris Illyricae aridae contusae atque eius oleum, item opobalsamum et melanthium, linteolo ligatum 5 naribus frequenter admouendum, et anisum et cuminum et rutam {et antiflorum}6 uel distillationem amaracini7 olei et samsucum et styracem uel ex eo oleum confectum, quod “styracinum” 10 dicitur, item hedycroum uel murram cum thure et sulphure et radicibus silphii, quae omnia caput implent et propterea sunt euitanda, magis accessionis tempore. In lenimento uero, ratione recorporatiuae uirtutis atque interiecto tempore, per interualla adhibenda8 poterunt iudicari.9

II siue III? uide D, qui notat in app.: “** hunc De methodo (numerus ordinalis est supplendus si non sub haec latet)”: +haec demetico+ D B: libro hac de methodo ci Triller 2 B: superiorum D 3 corr ego: plurima cett 4 corr ego: quod cett 5 add ego 6 secl D B < Rov; “om. R. mendum ortum esse uidetur ex glossemate melanthium = atriflorem” notat D in apparatu 7 B: amaricini D 8 D: adhibita B 9 D: medicari B 1

FR 66. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(17)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, II, ix (= Quot uel quae sunt differentiae fluoris sanguinis), 121–125: [121] Differentias etiam fluoris sanguinis ueteres quaesierunt, et quidam 15 aiunt unam solam esse uel intelligi, hoc est uulnerationis, ut Themison 1 libro Tardarum passionum; alii uero eruptionis, ut Hippocrates, Euryphon: sed Hippocrates solarum uenarum, Euryphon uero etiam arteriarum. Alii duas differentias posuerunt, eruptionis et putredinis, ut Asclepiades; alii tres, eruptionis et putredinis et osculationis (quam Graeci “anastomosin” 20 uocant), ut Erasistratus; [122] alii quattuor, adicientes expressionis siue sudationis, ut Bacchius, adserens ex gingiuis sanguinem sine ulla uulneratione, uel in curationibus fracturarum saepe fasciolarum ligamenta maculis san-

1

add D B

229

  ‒  - FR 65. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(16)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, II, vii (= Flux, which the Greeks call “katharros”), 112–113: [112] As for Themison and Thessalus, who refer to an astringent treatment in book < *** > of the Method and in book ii of the Regimen (they call it “Diaitetikon” [sc in Greek]), we are of the view that they should be criticised for failing to observe that sometimes constriction is more powerful. Besides, they recommended that we mix more sulphurous ingredients than is adequate [113] and sprinkle them over pieces of wool that would be wrapped around the chest; and they prescribed aromatics [sc made] of Illyrian iris dried and pulverised, oil made of it, and again, balsam-tree juice and melanthion [= cumin], tied in a small linen bag, to be frequently put under the [sc patient’s] nostrils; then anise, cumin, rue, or drops of marjoram oil, marjoram, and storax or the oil made out of it, which is called [sc in Greek] “sturakinon”; then either hedukrous or myrrh with frankincense, sulphur, and silphium root—all of which congest the head and therefore must be avoided, especially during the paroxysm. During remission, however, it will be permitted to consider prescribing them from time to time, with interruptions, in view of their recorporative action.

FR 66. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(17)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, II, ix (= The number and kinds of haemorrhagia), 121–125: [121] The [sc doctors] of old also raised the question of the differentiae [= kinds] of haemorrhagia, and some of them, like Themison in book ii of his Chronic affections, say that there is only one [sc kind] to speak of, namely the one related to wounding. Others, like Hippocrates and Euryphon, [sc say that it is] related to [sc the blood’s] bursting—according to Hippocrates, only from the veins, but according to Euryphon from the arteries as well. Others, like Asclepiades, have posited two different kinds [sc of haemorrhagia], one related to bursting, the other, to festering; others, like Erasistratus, three kinds—related to bursting, festering, and inosculation (which the Greeks call “anastomosis”); [122] others, four, adding one related to squeezing or sweating —like Bacchius, who argues that bleeding from the gums may occur without any wound, and that during the treatment of fractures stripes

230

5

10

15

20

  ‒  -

guinolentis aspersa reperiri. Item Demetrius Herophili sectator duas inquit esse principales differentias fluoris sanguinis, unam incisurae, aliam sine ulla incisura, speciales uero plurimas, quas principalibus subiciendas ordinauit. Etenim quam memorat incisura fieri in duas diuisit partes, quarum alteram uocauit eruptionis alteram putredinis. [123] Eam uero quae sine ulla incisura2 est in quattuor diuidit partes, quarum unam raritate3 fieri dixit, aliam expressione siue sudatione, tertiam defectione uel debilitate corporum (quam Graeci “atonian” uocant), quartam osculatione. Vult enim eam differre a supradicta, id est expressionis, quam secundam4 nominauit. Osculari enim inquit corpora nimia plenitudine, siue uirtute medicaminum osculantium (quae Graeci “anastomotica” uocant), et magis (inquit) uenarum ultimos fines; exprimi etiam sanguinem siue excludi per uenarum latera. [124] Item alii Asclepiadis sectatores unam esse dicunt differentiam fluoris sanguinis, hoc est eruptionem, siquidem omnem sanguinis solutionem eruptione fieri Asclepiades memorauerit, negantes esse5 osculationis differentiam, siquidem sit impossibile sanguinem crassum tenera ferri6 per oscula uel excludi. [. . .] [125] [. . .] Nos autem iuxta Sorani iudicium hac quaestione nullis commodis curationes adiuuari probamus, sed dicimus tres esse differentias fluoris sanguinis, hoc est: eruptionis; uulnerationis et putredinis siue lacerationis ex tussicula uenientis (sicut operantium manus iugi fricatione lacessiti uulnerantur); item sudationis7 sine uulnere, siue ex raritate uiarum8 effectus fluor osculationis differentiam tenet, siue expressionis, uel cuiuslibet alterius causae.

corr ego: diuisura cett (sed vide “diuisit” supra) 3 Rov: raritate (cf 125 infra) 4 ci D B: tertiam cett 5 ci B: negantes eam D 6 fieri Sich 7 sudatione Rov 8 raritate {uiarum} (cf 123 supra) Rovm: varietate Sich 2

FR 67. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(18)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, II, xii (= De effectu siue exitu supradictarum passionum [sc fluoris sanguinis], quem Graeci “apotelesma” uocant), 145–146: [145] Nunc nobis necessario dicendum remanet cui coenoteti 1 sanguinis fluor adscribatur. Aliqui etiam Thessali sectatores recenti incisurae siue uulneri 25 passionem subici dixerunt: “Non enim oportet locorum differentia coenoteton 1

ne cui coenotetesi Sich

231

  ‒  -

of bandage are often found to be spotted with stains of blood. Demetrius the Herophilean claims that there are two main kinds of haemorrhagia— one related to incision, the other occurring without incision at all—but several kinds at species level; and he has arranged them in subordination to the main ones. For he subdivided [sc the kind] which according to him occurs through incision into two parts, one of which he attributed to bursting, the other to festering. [123] As for that [sc other kind] which occurs without incision, he divided it into four parts, claiming that one is due to looseness [sc of texture], another one to squeezing or sweating, the third one to exhaustion or bodily weakness, which the Greeks call “atonia”, and the fourth one to inosculation. For he insists that the last one is different from the one mentioned above, which he placed second on the list—that is, from squeezing. He is, namely, of the view that bodies suffer inosculation either when they are too full or through the action of medicines that produce inosculation—the ones which the Greeks call “anastomotika”; and he claims that it [sc inosculation] occurs mostly at the extremities of the veins, while the squeezing or ejecting of blood is done through the lateral walls of the veins. [124] Others still, members of Asclepiades’ secta, hold that there is only one kind of haemorrhagia, namely bursting, since Asclepiades said that any blood-flow is due to bursting; and they deny the [sc existence of the] kind related to inosculation, on the grounds that it is impossible for thick blood to be transported along, or ejected through, thin openings. [. . .] [125] [. . .] As for us, we declare, in accordance with Soranus’ view, that treatments get no benefit at all from this debate; yet we hold that there are three kinds of haemorrhagia: the [sc kind] due to [sc the blood’s] bursting; the [sc kind] due to wounding and festering or to the tearing which results from cough (the workers’ hands get wounded in that way, being torn by constant rubbing); finally, the [sc kind of haemorrhagia] due to sweating in the absence of a wound, no matter whether the flow is of a kind that belongs to inosculation, being engendered through looseness of the channels, [sc of a kind that belongs] to squeezing, or [sc of a kind that is due] to some other cause.

FR 67. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(18)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, II, xii (= The outcome or result, which the Greeks call “apotelesma”, of the aforementioned affections [sc haemorrhagia]), 145–146: [145] It remains now to say, as I have to, to what koinotes haemorrhagia should be attributed. Some [sc Methodists], sectatores of Thessalus, have claimed that the affection comes under [sc the category of ] fresh incision or wound: “For we should not make the specific kind [uirtus] of the koinotetes

232

  ‒  -

mutare uirtutem. Externam igitur corporis eruptionem recentem dicimus incisuram, quo erit consequens ut etiam interiorum eruptio huic coenoteti subiciatur.” Sed his respondemus quoniam passio non chirurgia sed diaetetica traditur curatione. Omne etenim adiutorium quod adhiberi uidetur 5 supradictis fluoribus est diaeteticae partis, non chirurgiae. Quapropter diaeteticae scriptores2 libris Regularibus, quos Diaeteticos uocant, de haemoptyicis scripserunt, quos nos sanguinem spuentes nuncupamus; [146] chirurgi uero in Chirurgumenis hoc memorare non ausi sunt. Ipse quoque Thessalus secundo libro Diaetetico de fluore sanguinis scribens nihil in Chirurgumenis memorauit. 10 Et 3 improprium quod sola diaeta curetur in adiutoriis adhibendis chirurgiae coenoteti ascribere.4

2

B: diaetetices D

3

S > B

4

S > D B: coenoteta scribere Sich

FR 68(+DUB). CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(19)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, II, xiii (= De curatione [sc fluoris sanguinis]), 156–157: [156] Dehinc permittentibus uiribus alternis diebus aeger nutriendus etiamsi nondum repressus fluor uideatur, usque ad id tempus quo cicatricem firmatam senserimus. [157] Quod quidem Themisonis atque Thessali sec15 tatores usque ad septimum diem seruari dixerunt—hoc est trium diatritorum spatium. Ut enim Antipater ait tertio Epistolarum libro ad Gallum scribens, naturalis est ratio trini numeri, non solum in diebus sed etiam in omnibus diatritis. Sed est melius, ut Soranus ait, quoniam non aequali tempore nec dierum numero cunctis poterit cicatricis firmari soliditas—ob alias 20 causas et ob fortitudinem corporis ac debilitatem pro differentia naturali uariatam—neque nos unum atque eundem signare poterimus finem.

FR 69. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(20)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, II, xiii (= De curatione [sc fluoris sanguinis]), 170: [170] Conuenit etiam medicamen quod Themison ordinauit hoc modo: mali Punici partibus duabus aloe admixta parui cochlearis quantitate; cum aqua frigida offerendum.

233

  ‒  -

change according to the difference between parts. Therefore we say that a bursting [sc of blood] at the surface of the body is a fresh incision, from which it will follow that a bursting from the internal [sc parts], too, should fall under this koinotes.” But our answer to these [sc doctors] is that the affection is consigned not to surgical, but to dietetic treatment. For every remedy that we see applied in the aforementioned cases of haemorrhagia belongs to the dietetic part [sc of medicine], not to surgery. Hence it is the writers of dietetics who have dealt with haemoptyic patients, the ones we call blood-spitters, in books on the Regimen—they [sc the Greeks] call them “Diaiteticoi”—[146] whereas surgeons did not venture to mention these [sc patients] in their books on surgery. In fact Thessalus himself wrote about haemorrhagia in book ii of his Regimen, without mentioning it at all in his Surgery. And to attribute to a koinotes of surgery something which is treated exclusively through the regimen would be improper in [sc a discussion about] prescribing remedies.

FR 68(+DUB). CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(19)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, II, xiii (= Treatment [sc of haemorrhagia]), 156–157: [156] From then on until the moment when we acknowledge the formation of a firm scar, the patient should be nourished on alternate days if his strength permits, even if the flow [sc of blood] is not yet seen to have stopped. [157] Some sectatores of Themison and Thessalus have recommended that we continue this [sc nourishing] up to the seventh day—that is, for an interval of three diatritoi [= three-days periods]. For, as Antipater remarks to Gallus in book iii of his Letters, calculation based on the number three is natural, not only where days are concerned, but in everything divisible into triads. Yet it is better the way Soranus has it: since firmness cannot develop in all the scars in an equal time or number of days because (among other reasons) bodily resistance and weakness vary [sc from patient to patient] according to the natural difference [sc between them], we, too, shall be unable to demarcate one single time-limit, identical [sc in all cases].

FR 69. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(20)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, II, xiii (= Treatment [sc of haemorrhagia]), 170: [170] Also suitable is the medicine that Themison ordered [sc to be prepared] as follows: a small spoonful of aloes, mixed with two parts of pomegranate; to be administered with cold water.

234

  ‒  - FR 70. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(21)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, II, xiii (= De curatione [sc fluoris sanguinis]), 171–172: [171] At si quisquam non plurimum sanguinem fluxerit nec tamen materia ferri cessauerit, conuenit etiam tertia die phlebotomiam adhibere. Etenim ex eo quod sanguis ferri non quieuerit manifeste conicimus glutinationem partium non fuisse perfectam diuisurae siue uulneris et propterea in tumorem 5 uenisse perspicimus; omne etenim uulnus quod usque in tertium diem glutinari non potuerit necessario tumescit. Thessalum denique indigna accusatione appetitum Sorani sententia recte purgauit. [172] Tertia etenim die phlebotomandos sanguinem fluentes constituit, nutriens constrictiuo cibo, non inconsequentia ordinans adiutoria, sed tamquam complexis passionibus 10 apta, ut contrariis contraria obicere uideatur.1

1

B < Rov: uideantur D

FR 71. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(22)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, II, xiii (= De curatione [sc fluoris sanguinis]), 183–186a: [183] 1 siquidem Erasistratus phlebotomari praeceperit patientes. Alii uero eius sectatores etiam fieri principaliter damnauerunt 2 adiutorii genus tamquam uirium uexabile; item plurimi nostrorum, tamquamquam laxatiuum et indignum ad constrictionem3 et propterea inconueniens fluori 15 sanguinis ex solutione uenienti. [184] Alii adhibendum probauerunt, ut Hippocrates De morbis scribens, Diocles libro quo De passionibus causis uel curationibus scripsit, Praxagoras libro tertio De curationibus, item Asclepiades libro quo De clysteribus scripsit, dehinc Themison secundo libro Tardarum passionum et Thessalus secundo libro Regulari—sed adiecta discretione: etenim

a

The larger context is Caelius’ review of disputed areas (apud ueteres dissonantia) in the treatment of hemorragia (182ff.), and Caelius probably said something to the effect that “There is also dissonantia concerning venesection”. lacunam signauit S > D, qui in apparatu suppleuit “item de phlebotomia inquam siue similem quamuis longiorem sequentiam” 2 add B: Rov 3 et indignum ad constrictionem post laxatiuum transposui: post uenienti cett 1

235

  ‒  - FR 70. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(21)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, II, xiii (= Treatment [sc of haemorrhagia]), 171–172: [171] But if one does not bleed copiously and yet the flow of matter does not stop, it is appropriate to perform venesection even on the third day. For we [sc can] conjecture on manifest grounds [manifeste], from the fact that blood would not cease flowing, that the gluing of the sides of the cut or wound has not been completed, and we [sc can] ascertain that they have developed an inflammation on this account; for any wound which has failed to glue up by the third day necessarily becomes inflamed. Thus the judgement of Soranus has rightfully cleared Thessalus, who was subjected to an undeserved accusation. [172] For he ordered venesection to be performed on patients with haemorrhagia on the third day, while nourishing them with constrictive food: he did not [sc thereby] prescribe incompatible remedies but remedies adapted to the affections, to the extent that the latter are of a mixed character; and so it is clear that he brings contraries against contraries.

FR 71. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(22)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, II, xiii (= Treatment [sc of haemorrhagia]), 183–186: [183] , since Erasistratus advised subjecting the patients to venesection whereas others, his own sectatores, disapproved that a remedy of this kind should even exist, on the grounds that it damages the strength; similarly, many of us [sc disapproved of venesection] on the grounds that it is a relaxing [sc procedure] incapable of [sc producing] constriction and therefore unsuitable for haemorrhagia, which originates in [sc a state of ] looseness. [184] Others have recommended that it should be used—for instance Hippocrates in his Diseases, Diocles in the treatise which he devoted to Diseases, their causes and their treatment, Praxagoras in book iii of his Treatments, then Asclepiades in the treatise he wrote on Clysters, afterwards Themison in book ii of his Chronic affections, and Thessalus in book ii of his Regimen, but not without a specification: for he claims to have approved of performing

236

  ‒  -

si tertia inquit die rursum sanguinem fluxerint aegrotantes atque plurimum, quod intelligitur tamquam in complexis passionibus, hoc est strictura obtinente, faciendum approbasse. [185] Alii uero omnes statim atque sine ulla dilatione phlebotomandos dixerunt, et magis si ex thorace uel pulmone san5 guis fluxerit uel plurimus, auertendae materiae causa, quo patientibus partibus derelictis aliorsum feratur, hoc est ad eas quae non patiuntur, uel ob educendam materiae multitudinem. Denique saepe inquiunt faciendam consuetudinem, si oportuerit, semel et secundo uel tertio, quo recurrens ex brachio post abstinentiam sanguis iterum auocetur; uelut Themison, 4 10 ait secandam 5 et laxamenti esse et minutionis, ne initium tumoris efficiat;6 [186] item ut alii, ob euacuandas uenas, quo exantlatae celerius concedant7 atque coeant diuisurae; uelut Asclepiades, ad minuendum cursum8 siue spirationem, quibus passio adiuuatur.

add ego: uelut Themison ait cett secundum se D B 6 B: efficiat D cursum B 4

5 7

corr ego < ait secandam uenam esse ci Rovm: D: concidat B 8 D < Rov: ad minuendum

FR 72DUB. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(23)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, II, xiii (= De curatione [sc fluoris sanguinis]), 186–187: [186] Item de ligationibus pugnauerunt, siquidem Xenophon et Dionysius 15 et Herophilus primo libro Curationum et Erasistratus probent articulorum faciendam constrictionem, Herophilus uero capitis et brachiorum et femorum, Erasistratus magis inguinum et alarum: etenim laxatione1 sensus sanguinis approbat fieri retentionem.2 Asclepiades uero ad ipsum scribens libros Parasceuasticos ligationem excludit, eamque neque Erasistrato congruam dicens 20 (osculari non posse sub discrimine uenulas quod Graeci “diaphragma” uocant uel misceri eas quae supra “diaphragma” esse uidentur). [187] Omnes etiam nostrae sectae principes id approbasse uidentur. Impressa etenim (inquiunt) ligatura uexat, non impressa inutilis esse perspicitur. Item Antipater tertio libro Epistolarum ait teneri materiam quidem ligatione, sed cum fuerit in25 dulta uel relaxata in repentinum atque immodicum fluorem uenire,3 siquidem abstinentiae causa 4 altiora pendendo latere potius quam teneri uideantur.

corr Rovm > D B: laxationem Sich: ligatione sensus, s. stupore A Rovm 3 B < Rovm: ueniat D 4 add ego 1

2

uacuationem

237

  ‒  -

[sc venesection] if the patients have another, and copious, haemorrhagia on the third day—which is diagnosed as in affections of the mixed type, namely those where constriction predominates. [185] But all the others have claimed that patients should be subjected to venesection at once and without delay, especially if the blood streams from chest or lung, or is copious, [sc and they would have this] both for the purpose of diverting the matter, to make it leave the affected parts and flow somewhere else, that is, to parts which are not affected, and in order to evacuate the matter in excess. In fact they often claim that one should make it a habit [sc of performing venesection] once, twice or three times if need be, so that blood would be redirected when it starts to flow again from the arm after a [sc period of ] restraint; or [sc they recommend venesection] like Themison, who claims that cutting the vein is both a relaxing and a lessening measure, which prevents the outbreak of an inflammation; [186] or like others, [sc who claim that venesection] serves the purpose of clearing the veins, so that, once they are drained [sc of blood], the cuts would more quickly give in and join; or like Asclepiades, [sc who claims that venesection] serves the purpose of slowing down the movement of blood and the respiration, which encourage the affection.

FR 72DUB. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(23)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, II, xiii (= Treatment [sc of haemorrhagia]), 186–187: [186] They [sc the doctors of old] have also disagreed with each other on the subject of bandaging. Xenophon, Dionysius, Herophilus in book i of his Treatments, and Erasistratus recommend the binding of the joints; Herophilus, that of the head, arms, and thighs; Erasistratus, rather that of the groin and armpits—for he thinks that the checking of blood occurs together with a relaxation of the senses. But Asclepiades in the treatise of Preparations, which is directed against him [sc Erasistratus], rejects the [sc procedure of ] bandaging, as well as showing that it is not consistent with Erasistratus (the small veins below the dividing membrane which the Greeks call “diaphragma” can neither open nor be connected with those which are known to lie above the diaphragma). [187] Now, all the leaders of our secta have clearly approved of this [sc Asclepiades’ view]. For (they say) bandaging is injurious if it gets pressed [sc into the flesh], but if it is not pressed it is clearly of no use. Again, Antipater in book iii of his Letters remarks that matter may be somewhat checked with bandaging, but once that [sc the bandaging] is slackened or relaxed, it [sc the matter, ie blood] comes in a sudden and immoderate flow, since it seems to hide in deeper recesses as a result of restraint, floating rather than being withheld.

238

  ‒  - FR 73. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(24)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, II, xiii (= De curatione [sc fluoris sanguinis]), 187–188: [187] Item de constrictiuis cataplasmatibus plurimi dissenserunt. Nam si Erasistratus haec approbat,1 Asclepiades excludit tamquam materiam imprimentia uel coercendo in altum reuocantia. Item acetum alii tamquam tussiculam uel fluorem commouens expulerunt, uel quod duras partes densando 5 faciat. [188] Themison uero his repugnans adhibendum iudicauit, attestante etiam Thessalo. Alii aiunt eius acrimoniam uel nimietatem temperandam admixtione aquae.

1

D: approbauit B

FR 74. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(25)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, II, xiii (= De phthisica passione), 215–218: [215] At Themison secundo libro Tardarum passionum quaedam recte, quaedam caduca proteruitate composuit; ex quibus est etiam pendentis tori gestatio, 10 quo plurima parte diei ac noctis motu exerceantur aegrotantes, cum necessario accessio uespertino tempore asperetur atque luce surgente leuigetur. [216] Quo non solum laboriosus uerum etiam intemporalis et inordinatus motus ab eodem adhibitus approbatur. Etenim initio lucis et dimissionis tempore nutriri cibo conuenit aegrotantes. Est etiam noxium allium quod 15 imperat dare, siquidem inflationem maximam faciat. Vnctio item ex feruentibus adhibita uirtutibus, quam circa uesperam probat adhibendam, cruribus atque brachiis contraria iudicatur: tunc enim febres ardescunt. [217] Imperat praeterea inter duos 1 uel tres aegros lauandos, cum corpus elimatis uiribus debilitet lauacri frequentia et sordidet atque humectet 20 ulcera; praeterea herbum, dehinc intybum et plantaginem, cum sit horum usus differentia temporum separatus. Herbum enim purgationis adhibetur causa, frigerantia uero cicatricis obducendae. Item imperat ulcera facienda extrinsecus iisdem quibus intus inesse senserimus, quod est perniciosum. Putat

1

add Rov > B

239

  ‒  - FR 73. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(24)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, II, xiii (= Treatment [sc of haemorrhagia]), 187–188: [187] Again, most [sc doctors of old] have disagreed on the subject of astringent plasters. For if Erasistratus approves of them, Asclepiades rejects them as pressing upon the matter or sending it by force deep down inside. Others, in turn, have eliminated vinegar as stimulating coughing or haemorrhagia, or because it would harden the parts by condensing them. [188] But Themison opposed these [sc doctors] and considered that it [sc vinegar] should be used; and Thessalus confirms [sc his view]. Others opine that its sharpness and excess should be diluted by admixture with water.

FR 74. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(25)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, II, xiii (= The phthisic affection), 215–218: [215] As for Themison, some of the things he has written in book ii of his Chronic affections are correct, but others are flawed by recklessness; to the latter belongs [sc the prescription of ] passive exercise on a suspended couch, whereby the patients are kept in motion for the best part of the day and night, although the paroxysm is bound to worsen in the evening and to lighten at day-break. [216] For this reason the motion prescribed by him is not only wearisome but also ill-timed and out of sequence. Indeed, what is suitable at the beginning of the day and during [sc periods of ] remission is to nourish the patients with food. Also harmful is the garlic which he [sc Themison] wants to administer, because it maximises the flatus. Likewise, the anointing he employs and recommends us to employ in the evening, based on [sc ingredients] with heating properties, is decidedly harmful for the arms and legs: for that is a time when fevers become inflamed. [217] Moreover, he orders the patients to be bathed at intervals of two or three days, although frequent bathing debilitates the body by reducing its forces and renders the wounds filthy and moist; and [sc he orders] bitter vetch and afterwards endive and plantain, although their [sc periods of ] use should be separated according to the difference between the phases [sc of the affection]. For bitter vetch is applied for the sake of purging, while the chilling substances should be applied for cicatrisation. Again, he prescribes the external infliction of wounds on those [sc patients] in whom we detect internal [sc wounds], and this is dangerous. He thinks that the

240

  ‒  -

enim auersione humoris facta ad exteriores partes altiora ulcera praesiccari et propterea diutissime differendam sanitatem exteriorum ulcerum, donec illa clauduntur.2 [218] Imponenda namque ait emplastra quae humoris prouocant defluxionem, cum humoris defluxio iuxta sapientium placita3 nul5 lius commodi teneat fidem. Sic etiam plurima localia adiutoria adhibenda conscripsit, quae multo tempore manificas ulcerationes, hoc est quas nos extrinsecus infiximus, in cicatricem uenire cohibeant, impediens plurima quae tamen congrue adhiberi possunt, ut defricationes, dropaces, cucurbitae, sinapismi, paropteses et alia quae, cum uehementissime prosint, ulcera10 tione cutis praefecta adhiberi non possint.

2

claudantur Rovm

3

B < Rovm: sapientia placita D

FR 75. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(26)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, III, i (= De suspirio siue anhelitu, quem Graeci “asthma” uocant), 7–8: [7] Sin uenter1 officium non agnouerit, simplex clyster adhibendus et ante cibum mulsae ex melle despumato duo uel tres cyathi praebibendi. Tunc cataplasma laxatiuum atque cucurbita cum scarificatione adhibenda thoraci et inter utrasque scapulas2 ac magis paulo inferioribus locis, quo sine ulla 15 quassatione partium eius raptus efficiatur; tum uaporatio spongiarum atque cerotarium et malagma quod “diachulon” appellant uel Mnaseu,3 [8] atque ita lauacrum et uinum et uarius reddendus cibus.

Rov > B: sin uero D: sin uero Sich > B: mnaseum Sich 1

2

D B: interscapulis Rovm

FR 76. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

3

D

(27)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, III, i (= De suspirio siue anhelitu, quem Graeci “asthma” uocant), 11–12: [11] Aliqui autem aduersarum sectarum principes etiam dauco cum aceto et melle aegros potauerunt siue iri cum mulso, et uentrem plurimum 20 deduxerunt dando de diagridio, quod “scammonian” Graeci appellant, obolos tres cum duplici pondere aloes siue “hierae” quam “catharticam” uocant, uel

241

  ‒  -

internal wounds would dry up if the fluid is diverted to the external parts and that the healing of the external wounds should in consequence be postponed to the last moment, until after the others close up. [218] He claims that we should apply plasters which stimulate the flow of fluid matter, although the flow of fluid matter is of no avail in the opinion of those who know. In this way he has also recorded many local remedies, but these for a long time prevent the hand-made wounds (that is, the ones that we have inflicted externally) from coming to cicatrisation; and he obstructs most of those [sc local remedies] which can be employed to advantage, for instance massages, pitch plasters, cupping-glasses, mustard plasters, paroptesis [= overheating], and also others which, although extremely beneficial, cannot be employed if the skin has been wounded.

FR 75. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(26)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, III, i (= Shortness of breath or panting, which the Greeks call “asthma”), 7–8: [7] If the bowels do not function, a simple clyster should be employed, and two or three kyathoi of hydromel made with skimmed honey should be drunk before the meal. Then a relaxing plaster and a cupping-glass with scarification should be applied to the chest, between the shoulderblades, and especially to the parts located a little below, so that its jerking effect may occur without shaking the affected parts; then steaming [uaporatio] from sponges and from cerates, the emollient plaster which they call [sc in Greek] “diachulon” [= plaster of juices], or the plaster of Mnaseas, [8] and afterwards a bath and wine, and we should re-administer food of a varied nature.

FR 76. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(27)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, III, i (= Shortness of breath or panting, which the Greeks call “asthma”), 11–12: [11] Some of the leaders of the rival sectae have made their patients drink wild carrot with vinegar and honey, or iris with honeyed wine, and have cleansed the bowel as much as possible by prescribing three obols of diagridium [= scammony juice], which the Greeks call “scammonia”, with twice as much aloes or the hiera which they call “cathartic” [= purgative], or an

242

  ‒  -

ammoniaci salis obolum siue opopanacis1 simile pondus uel cneoron aut polion herbam uel peplion aut chalcanthum uel tapsian aut asininum lac et castoreum, non solum lenimenti tempore sed etiam in augmento siue superpositione passionis. Alii uero etiam urendum thoracem uel caput crediderunt. 5 [12] Themison quoque secundo libro Tardarum passionum in quibusdam eisdem compeccasse uidetur, cum plurimum uentrem depurgandum credidit ex diagridio, atque in ipsa accessione. Vtitur praeterea constrictiuis, atque his acrioribus, et imperat dari tapsiae sucum cum opopanace aut sagapeno, ex quibus stomachus necessario uexatur. Hic denique erit memorandum, 10 quia potis medicaminibus non sine cautione utendum est, et neque eorum plurima satietate uexandi aegrotantes. Item in impetu uel asperitate passionis recorporatiua adiutoria prohibenda; erit enim coenoteta consideranda, qua facile medicamina qualitatis ratione accedente correctius approbamus.

1

B < Rov: opoponacis D

FR 77. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(28)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, III, ii (= De stomachicis), 13–14: [13] A parte corporis quae patitur stomachica passio nomen accepit. Sed 15 non omnis stomachi querela ilico passio nuncupatur, nisi fuerit ex multorum concursu signorum et perseuerantium1 confecta atque corporibus tardans, repetendo superpositionibus lenimenta. Plurimi igitur singulatim speciales curationes eius tradiderunt, nunc de stomachi duritia dicentes, nunc de uentositate, de reumatismo,2 et debilitate et horrore ciborum et fastidio; [14] 20 Themison quoque primo libro Tardarum passionum solutionem circa stomachum, quam appellauit “reumatismum”,3 secundo libro uentositatem; item Thessalus secundo libro Regulari curationem separauit soluti stomachi atque inflati. Nos uero communiter sub una propositione de omnibus dicere curabimus, qua uentositatem uel ex tumore duritiam confectam stricturae 25 iungimus, fastidium uero siue horrorem ciborum et corruptionem ambiguam, utrisque principalibus passionibus subicientes.

1

B: perseuerantia D

2

D: reumatismo B

3

D: reumatismum B

243

  ‒  -

obol of rock-salt, or the same quantity of opopanax, or kneoron, hulwort, wild purslane, chalkanthon, thapsia, ass’s milk, and castor—not only during the period of remission but also during the augmentum or superpositio [= paroxysm] of the affection. And some even thought it fit to cauterise the chest or the head. [12] In book ii of his Chronic affections, Themison too appears to have taken his share of these errors, when he thought it fit to cleanse the bowel as much as possible with scammony juice, even during a paroxysm [accessio]. Besides, he makes use of astringents, and the more pungent ones at that, and he prescribes the administration of thapsia juice with opopanax or sagapenon, as a result of which the stomach is inevitably irritated. Accordingly, it will be appropriate to recall this [sc principle]: potable medicines should not be used without care and patients should not be harmed by over-saturation with them. Again, recorporative remedies should be forbidden [sc during the period] when the affection is violent and severe; for we shall have to consider the koinotes, through which we can easily reach a more correct appraisal of the medicines, paying due regard to their qualities.

FR 77. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(28)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, III, ii (= Patients with the stomachic affection), 13–14: [13] The stomachic affection takes its name from the part of the body which is affected. But it is not the case that any pain of the stomach is [sc to be] immediately identified as the [sc stomachic] affection—not unless it results from the coming together [concursus] of many symptoms which persist and it becomes chronic in the bodies [sc affected by it], repeating [sc the pattern of ] remissions after paroxysms. Accordingly, most [sc doctors] have set out special treatments separately, now dealing with hardness of the stomach, now with ventosity, flux, and weakness, and loathing or disgust for food; [14] so [sc did] for instance Themison, who [sc has dealt with] looseness in the area of the stomach, which he called “rheumatismos” [= flux], in book i of his Chronic affections, and with ventosity in book ii; and likewise Thessalus, who in book ii of his Regimen has distinguished between the treatment of a loose stomach and that of a stomach affected by flatus. As for us, we shall endeavour to deal with all [sc the symptoms] at once, under a single heading: on the one hand, we connect ventosity and hardness resulting from inflammation with [sc the state of ] constriction, on the other hand [sc we consider] distaste or loathing of foods and [sc its] corruption to be ambivalent and we classify it under both main affections.

244

  ‒  - FR 78. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(29)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, III, ii (= De stomachicis), 25–26: [25] Declinante passione, si ulla durities fuerit consecuta, erunt cataplasmata apponenda ut nuper docuimus, admixta resina siue in olei uicem liquida pice [26] uel ex radice hibisci et adipe porcino, recenti primo tum ueterato confecta, siue ex hordei pollinibus aut lolii semine et arido fico et 5 hibisco. Tum etiam ex oleo calido embasis siue ex uarietate eiusdem per diuersa uirtutis, faenigraeci1 decoctione uel radicis maluarum aut lini seminis.2 Dehinc cibus uarius dandus, sed qui nullam faciat inflationem neque digestione tardius approprietur3 sed omni facilitate conueniens, ut cerebrum porcinum, pisces teneri, atque olera quae uentrem mollire ualeant. Tum 10 lauacra conuenit adhibere atque uino aegrotantem resumere leni. Vtendum etiam malagmate quod diachulon appellamus siue Mnaseu uel diamelilotu.4

B: faenograeci D 2 D B: semine cett mnaseum uel diamelilotum Sich 1

3

Triller B: tardus approbetur D

FR 79. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

4

D B:

(30)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, III, iv (= De iecorosis, quos Graeci “epaticos” uocant, et lienosis, quos “spleniticos” dicunt), 65–67: [65] Themison uero secundo libro Tardarum passionum plurima in his Methodico rigore ordinauit, sed 1 proterua atque caduca intentione. [66] Etiam2 ex talo eiusdem partis phlebotomari iubet aegrotantes atque alter15 nis uel interpositis duobus diebus sanguinis iteratam fieri detractionem.3 Vulnerandam quoque iecoris partem ex superficie medicamine uel cauteribus existimat, et contendit4 esse quaedam propria lienis adiutoria ob eius firmitatem, hoc est quae fuerint uehementia, ut cataplasmata uel ustiones, eo concedens ut etiam ipsum quoque lienem igneo cautere transpungen20 dum probet tribus uel quattuor locis, non aduertens quia pro magnitudine passionis ac uirium corporis extenduntur atque indulgentur adiutoria et non pro specie patientis partis, siquidem quaedam quae natura difficilem habuerint sensum et propterea non facile tactum accipiant, morbo tentata, sensibiliora ceteris fiant, ut est plantae cauum, quod tumore dolidum atque omnino

add ego 2 etenim Rovm 3 B < Rovm: interea fieri detractionem D: iterum fieri D in apparatu 4 ci Schmid > B: concedit D 1

245

  ‒  - FR 78. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(29)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, III, ii (= Patients with the stomachic affection), 25–26: [25] If any [sc sensation of ] hardness follows as the affection is on the decline, plasters should be applied as I explained above, mixing in resin or raw pitch instead of olive oil; [26] or [sc plasters] made of marsh-mallow root and pork suet—fresh to begin with, later on aged—or [sc made] of barley flower, darnel seed, dried fig, and marsh-mallow. Now an embasis in warm olive oil or, for variety, in other [sc substances] of the same action— [sc for instance] in a decoction of fenugreek, mallow root, or flaxseed—[sc is welcome] too. Then food should be administered: diversified, yet not of a kind that would produce flatus or would be assimilated too slowly through digestion, but suitable [sc food] which creates no problem; for instance hog’s brain, tender fish, and vegetables which can soften the belly. At this stage it is fitting to prescribe baths and to restore the patient with a mild wine. We should also use the emollient plaster which we call “diachulon” [= plaster of juices], or that of Mnaseas, or the diamelilotou [= plaster of melilot].

FR 79. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(30)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, III, iv (= Patients suffering from the liver, whom the Greeks call “hepatikoi”, and patients suffering from the spleen, whom they [sc the Greeks] call “splenitikoi”), 65–67: [65] Most of what Themison has set out in book ii of his Chronic affections with regard to these [sc affections] conforms to the strict Methodist rule, but some things [sc are marked by] a reckless and futile concern. [66] He orders the patients to have venesection performed at the ankle on the side of the part [sc affected], and he renews the withdrawal of blood every other day or after intervals of two days. He also thinks that the surface of the liver should be wounded with a medicine or a cauter, and he contends that some remedies are peculiar to the spleen on account of its firmness—that is, remedies which are strong, such as plasters or cauterising [sc procedures]: he goes as far as to recommend even puncturing the spleen itself in three or four places with a burning cauter, without paying heed to the fact that remedies are reinforced and weakened in proportion to the magnitude of the affection and of the resistance of [sc the patient’s] body, not in response to the nature of the affected part; because some [sc parts] which in a natural state have a low sensitivity and therefore hardly respond to touch do become more sensitive than others when they are assailed by a disease: such is, for instance, the arch of the sole, which becomes painful and extremely sensitive and perceptive under an inflammation. [67] On the

246

  ‒  -

sensibile et attentum fiet. [67] Atque rursum ea quae natura facile sentiunt difficilioris sensus passionis efficiuntur causa. Quo fiet ut sit iuxta regulam Methodicam explosum ut qui intentione coenotetarum ducitur corporis 5 facilene an difficile sentiant curet, sicut latius De coenotetis scribentes doce5 bimus. Thessalus uero secundo Regulari libro omni ex parte immutatam atque eandem iecorosis et lienosis formam tradidit curationis.

5

add D (uel corporis) >B

FR 80. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(31)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, III, v (= De aurigine siue arquato morbo, quem uulgo morbum regium uocant, Graeci “icteron” appellant), 78: [78] Item quidam ueneris probauerunt adhibendum usum, laxationem carnis faciendam aestimantes, ex quibus est Titus, Asclepiadis sectator, et Themison. Sed est hoc neruositatis uexabile, quippe cum fortitudinem cor10 poris tollat quae magis est aegrotantibus acquirenda.

FR 81. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(32)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, III, vi (= De cachexia), 80: [80] Cachexia nomen sumpsit a quodam corporis habitu malo: “cacian” enim uitium uel uexationem Graeci uocauerunt, “hexin” habitudinem. Sed principaliter eius curationem ante Themisonem nullus ordinauit. Ipsam namque secundo libro Tardarum passionum itemque primo atque quarto 15 Epistolarum memorauit; item Thessalus secundo libro Regulari.

FR 82. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(33)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, III, vii (= De nutrimenti cessatione, quam “atrophian” Graeci uocant), 94–95: [94] Themison uero secundo libro Tardarum passionum plurima recte ordinasse probatur, aliqua uero caduca intentione dixisse intelligitur. Iubet etenim

247

  ‒  -

other hand, parts which in a natural state are highly sensitive come to have a lower sensitivity on account of an affection. This is why, as I shall demonstrate more fully in the treatise on The koinotetes, it is not admitted under the Methodist rule that someone led by concern for the koinotetes should bother with the problem whether the bodily parts have a high or a low sensitivity. As for Thessalus, in book ii of his Regimen he set forth a type of treatment which does not vary between the hepatic and the splenitic patients, being identical to the last detail.

FR 80. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(31)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, III, v (= Jaundice or the rainbow-coloured disease, which we call in common parlance the royal disease and the Greeks call “ikteros”), 78: [78] Again, some [sc doctors] have recommended using sex [sc for treatment], in the belief that it should produce a relaxation of the flesh; these [sc doctors] include Asclepiades’ sectator Titus and Themison. But this [sc procedure] is damaging for the [sc system of ] nerves and fibres since it destroys the resistance of the body—the thing which [sc all] ill people need above all to acquire.

FR 81. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(32)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, III, vi (= Cachexia), 80: [80] Cachexia has taken its name from some bad habit of the body; for “kakia” in Greek means defect or injury, and “hexis” means habit. But no one before Themison gave a major systematic account of its treatment. He has written about this very [sc affection] in book ii of his Chronic affections, as well as in books i and iv of his Letters; and likewise Thessalus, in book ii of his Regimen.

FR 82. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(33)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, III, vii (= Cessation of nutrition, which the Greeks call “atrophia”), 94–95: [94] Most of what Themison has set out in book ii of his Chronic affections proves to be correct, but it is clear that some of what he said resulted from

248

  ‒  -

aegros non aequaliter aegrotantes duodecim stadiorum spatium gressu conficere, aequalem modum cunctis definiens. Item igneo in loco uel feruenti fricari iubet praefatigatos sudoribus aegrotantes, item sole torreri atque ita per interualla leniter defricari et in calida atque oleo calido eorum manus 5 infundi, [95] ex quibus periculum perfrictionis1 necessario sequetur. Item post interdianum cibum2 deambulationem probat adhibendam atque fricationem et lauacrum, tum post uespertinum cibum ungenda crura3 atque brachia, quod est dormituris anxiosum. Praeterea post cenam imperat uomitum, praedato passo aut uino dulci uel suco ptisanae; tum, frequentato 10 uomitu, oua duo danda sorbilia cum panis unciis duabus; ex quo incensa altiora,4 atque exercitatis uomitu uisceribus facile corrumpuntur accepta. Haec igitur recusantes, alia quae recte ordinasse perspicitur amplectenda iudicamus.

Rovm > D B: perfricationis Sich 2 post meridianum cibum Amm 3 ci D B: iungenda crura Sich: inungenda crura Rovm 4 incensis altioribus Rovm

1

FR 83. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(34)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, III, viii (= De hydrope), 100–101: [100] Item Proculus Themisonis sectator secundum plurimos inquit hydropis 15 differentias temporibus passionis ascribendas; [101] initium enim atque augmentum esse “leucophlegmatian”, cum adhuc secundum carnem fieri mutationem uiderimus, statum uero “tympaniten”, cum summa tensio secundum uentrem fuerit facta, declinationem autem “asciten”, cum quadam indulgentia fuerit inflatio relaxata. Non secutus ueri regulam neque aduertens 20 quia omnis species passionis sua quaeque tempora percurrit. Denique etiam “catasarca” usque ad statum uel declinationem perseuerat, ac “tympanites” et “ascites” ex initio facti in augmentum uenerint et statu sumpto declinauerint.

FR 84. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(35)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, III, viii (= De hydrope), 122–124 + 125–128: [122] Sed nunc decet, priusquam ipsius [sc paracentesis] officii usum doceamus, his respondere qui istius curationis adhibendae dissonantia iudicia

249

  ‒  -

a reckless and futile concern. Thus he orders patients who are not all equally ill to walk for twelve stades, specifying an equal distance for all. Likewise, he orders the patients to be massaged when they are already exhausted from sweating in a hot or burning-hot place, and also to bake in the sun, be gently massaged from time to time, and plunge their hands in hot water and hot olive oil [95]—[sc remedies] which are bound to bring the risk of catching a cold. Again, after the midday meal he [sc Themison] recommends a walk, massage and a bath, and after the evening meal [sc he recommends] anointing the legs and arms, which is unsettling for people who prepare for sleep. Besides, he orders vomiting after dinner, having previously administered raisin wine, sweet wine, or pearl barley gruel; then, once the vomiting has been repeated, [sc he orders] the administration of two soft eggs with two ounces of bread, which inflames the inner parts, and because the viscera are irritated from vomiting, the [sc food] taken gets easily corrupted. In conclusion, we reject these [sc prescriptions]; but it is obvious that he has set out the other ones correctly and we consider those worthy of being adopted.

FR 83. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(34)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, III, viii (= Dropsy), 100–101: [100] Themison’s sectator Proclus claims that in the majority of cases the different kinds of dropsy should be ascribed to the chronological phases of the affection; [101] indeed “leukophlegmatia” is the beginning and the increase, when we can already see a change occurring in the flesh, whereas “tumpanites” is the culmination, when there is maximum tenseness in the abdomen, and “askites” is the decline, when the swelling has relaxed somewhat through remission. But he neither follows the principle of [sc abiding by the] truth, nor pays heed to the fact that each variety of the affection runs its own chronological phases. Thus “katasarka” persists even until culmination or decline, and “tympanites” and “askites” would appear from the start, then they would increase, and, when culmination is over, they would [sc go through the phase of ] decline.

FR 84. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(35)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, III, viii (= Dropsy), 122–124 + 125–128: [122] But now, before explaining its functioning [sc the functioning of paracentesis], I must reply to those who have posited conflicting views

250

5

10

15

20

25

  ‒  

posuerunt. Antiquorum igitur aliqui incongruam1 paracentesin dicunt, ut Euenor libro quinto Curationum, Erasistratus libro quo De hydrope scripsit et eius sectatores, Thessalus secundo libro Regulari. Alii uero congruam laudauerunt, ut Asclepiades libro quo De hydrope scripsit et Themison secundo libro Tardarum passionum, quibus etiam nos iuxta Sorani sententiam consentimus. Assertores tamen primae sententiae (hoc est istius reprobandae curationis) haec dicunt. [123] “Peritoneos membrana natura neruosa esse perspicitur, et est omne quod neruosae fuerit qualitatis punctionibus inimicum, siquidem consensus ingerat. Praeterea spirationis naturalis causa, qua nos aerem recipere atque reddere haustu potili necesse est, intestina quoque commouentur, quibus superficies corporis consequenter tangitur, et est periculum haec2 paracentesi3 uulnerari4 loca. Quippe cum5 non solum corruptus humor detrahi uideatur uerum etiam naturalis saepe spiritus excludatur, quod est uehementer corporibus noxium. Dehinc etiam post effectum punctionis aliqui aegri sua uulnera resoluentes uoto prius torporis deponendi6 uitam quoque liquerunt. [124] Item neque tempus sibi conueniens hoc genus adiutorii habere uidetur. Etenim passione constituta uel superpositione siue lenimento aliud tempus mitigationem demonstrat at aliud resumptionem7 uel recorporationem. Paracentesis uero conturbat atque uires corporis tollit et non recorporatiua uirtute medetur, sed usum recorporatiuum8 impedit. Ad summam, nemo” inquiunt “saluatus est eorum qui per paracentesin curati sunt.” Quapropter adhibenda negantur.9 [. . .]a [125] Sed sunt haec omnia facile expugnabilia. Tunc enim uulnerata neruositas in tumorem uenire recte iudicatur quoties naturali habitu fuerit constituta. [126] Nunc autem morbo uitiata peritoneos membrana contra naturam habere perspicitur, et non similia atque eadem sequentur 10 naturaliter uel contra naturam constituta. Item intestinorum uulnerationem metuere inanis timoris est; etenim exercitatis atque prudentibus hoc genus officii committitur. Dehinc plurimum peritoneos membrana distabit, interiecti humoris

a

The section I omitted consists in two arguments against paracentesis by Erasistratus and his follower Ptolemaeus: Item Erasistratus ait quod iecore in duritia constituto obesse paracentesis uideatur, siquidem grauatio iecoris tumentis toleretur humoris substantia subleuata atque natans in liquidis, quibus effusis omnis grauedo partium tumentium quae diaphragmati sunt natura connexae [125] atque uenae maiori atque cauae [B: {atque contendit} Rov+D], quam Graeci quilen appellant, adductione sui tumores ingerant uicinarum ac deinde celerem faciant mortem. Item Ptolemaeus Erasistrati sectator ait causam passionis esse iecoris duritiam, supercreatam uero humoris infusionem. Paracentesis igitur liquorem detrahens passionem minime detrahere agnoscitur, siquidem non auferat causam ex qua humor creatus esse uideatur.

D B < Rovm: congruam Sich 2 D B < Rovm: hanc Sich 3 Rov > D B: paracentsin Sich 4 Rov: uulnerare D B 5 ego: loca quippe cum cett 6 prius passionis deponendae Rovm 7 D: demonstrat aut aliud resumptionem S: demonstrat, aliud resumptionem B < Rovm 8 B: recorporatiuum cett 9 ego: negatur cett 10 add ego 1

  ‒  

251

concerning whether this treatment should be employed or not. So then: some of the ancients, for instance Euenor in book v of his Treatments, Erasistratus in the book he wrote on Dropsy and his sectatores, and Thessalus in book ii of his Regimen claim that paracentesis is inappropriate. Others, on the other hand—for instance Asclepiades in the book he wrote on Dropsy and Themison in the second book of his Chronic affections—have approved of it as being suitable, and we, too, in accordance with the view of Soranus, agree with him. Now the supporters of the former view—that is, of the view that this treatment should be rejected—argue as follows. [123] “The membrane of the peritoneum is known to be endowed by nature with nerves and fibres [neruosa], and anything which has the property of being endowed with nerves and fibres is hostile to perforations, since that would give rise to sympathetic reactions [consensus]. Besides, because of the natural [sc process of ] breathing, through which we must inhale and exhale the air swallowing it in sips, the intestines are set in motion as well; in consequence, the surface of the body is brought into contact with them, and there is a risk that paracentesis might wound these places. To be sure, not only the corrupt humour is driven out: the natural pneuma [spiritus] is often expelled [sc along with it] too, and this is extremely damaging for the body. And then even after the completion of the perforation some patients have released their wounds [sc from the bandage], in a crave for immediate relief from numbness, and lost their life. [124] Next, there does not seem to be a suitable time for this kind of remedy. For the affection goes either through paroxysm or through remission, and the former requires soothing, the latter, restoration or a recorporative [sc treatment]. Instead, paracentesis produces agitation, ruining the body’s resistance, and not only fails to cure through recorporative action but even prevents the use of recorporative [sc medication]. In short,” they conclude, “none of those who were treated by paracentesis has been cured.” For this reason they say that it should not be used. [. . .] [125] But all these [sc arguments] can be easily refuted. The view that the [sc system of ] nerves and fibres gets inflamed if it is hurt holds whenever it [sc the system in question] is in a natural state. [126] But when the membrane of the peritoneum is damaged by a disease we can see that it is in an unnatural state, and it is not the case that things have similar or identical [sc responses] when they are in a natural state and when they are in an unnatural state. Again, to fear that the intestines might get wounded is a worry of a futile sort; for certainly an operation of this kind [sc paracentesis] is entrusted to experienced and knowledgeable [sc doctors]. Besides, the membrane of the peritoneum will

252

  ‒  -

causa submota. Spiritus uero etiam phlebotomatis sanguini iunctus excluditur, nec ilico tamen reprobanda phlebotomia, cum sit ab omnibus rectissime adiutorium comprobatum. Ferendum est enim leue damnum naturalis officii quoties maior utilitas excludendae passionis promittitur. [127] Soluere 5 uero ligationem aegrotantes et immoderato fluore ac uoto11 deponendae passionis in mortem uenire, simile quiddam est tamquam phlebotomatum ligaturam medici soluere ac deinde plurimo sanguinis fluore uitam finire. Haec enim non adiutorii est accusatio12 sed stultitiae aegrotantis. Habet praeterea paracentesis etiam aptissimum tempus, quod illi inueniri negant, 10 sicut cucurbita scarificatione adiuncta atque hirudinum appositio, quae non in accessione aut lenimento sed in dimissione superpositionis recte adhibenda probantur, sicut in aliis docuimus13 De adintoriis specialibus scribentes. Omnes enim paracentesi curatos, ut aiunt, mori apertissime mentiuntur. [128] Nos enim quosdam uidimus euasisse. Plurimi uero moriuntur siquidem meden15 tium tardante consilio14 serius paracentesis adhibeatur, atque alii15 adhuc tumente peritoneos 16 membrana et neque usu dextero operantes diuisuram faciendo mortis periculum incurrant.17

fluore acuto Sich 12 ci D > B: curatio Sich: culpatio Rovm 13 ci Friedländer + D + B: docebimus Sich 14 Rov > D + B: tardantes consilia Sich 15 B: utque alii D 16 ego: peritoneo D+B: peritonei Sich 17 B: incurrunt cett 11

FR 85. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(36)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, III, viii (= De hydrope), 151–155: [151] Themison secundo libro Tardarum passionum utitur gestatione et defricatione atque exercitio uel communiter regula exercibili, salibus ac nitro fricans 20 corpus et frigida perfundens, ex quibus non aequaliter afficit membra, quippe cum interpositis tribus uel quattuor diebus aqua marina feruenti perfundat. [152] Item iubet post gestationem tribus uel quattuor cyathis uino mixto aegrotantes potari. In ordine, inquit, medicaminum, non designans1 quem esse uelit ordinem medicaminum aut nutrimenta2 digestione 25 difficilia. In uespertino inquit cibo utendum mediocri potu, ut nec sitis aegros afficiat neque plurima liquoris ingestio; sed uinum eligit3 acrioris uirtutis et aqua confusum.4 Sed temperandi moderationem tacet ut “mediocriter” quidem dicat, quod est improprie dictum; etenim excessa5 temperandi moderatio neruos nocet et ingerit sitim. [153] Prohibet praeterea idem uentriflua

B: potari, in ordine, inquit, medicaminum, non designans Rov > D 2 add Rov: aut nutrimenta D B 3 B ex apparatu D: eligat D 4 ci Rovm: et neque confusum D B 5 ci B: extenta D: extendit Sich 1

253

  ‒  -

withdraw as much as possible, changing [sc position] because of the interposed humour. As for the pneuma, this is also expelled when [sc patients] are subjected to venesection, since it [sc the pneuma] is attached to the blood, and yet venesection is not to be rejected for that reason; it is a remedy most rightfully approved by everyone. For one ought to put up even with the slight hampering of a natural function when there is promise of a greater benefit in the direction of eliminating the affection. [127] As for the patients’ undoing their bandages and dying as a result of excessive flow and in consequence of their craving for relief from the affection, this is something similar to undoing the doctor’s bandage, say, after venesection, and ending one’s life as a result of a powerful haemorrhagia. This is not really a point against the remedy, but against the patient’s silliness. Next, paracentesis does have what those [sc doctors] say they cannot find, namely a perfectly appropriate time, like cupping with scarification and the application of leeches, which are correctly used neither during paroxysm nor during remission but during the declining phase of the paroxysm, as I have shown, among other places, in the treatise On special remedies. That all those who were treated by paracentesis died, as they [sc the doctors in question] claim, is certainly a blatant lie. [128] For we have seen some [sc patients] who were saved. But most of them die because the doctors’ decision is slow, so that paracentesis is employed too late; and some may run the risk of losing their life because the membrane of the peritoneum is still inflamed and because those who perform [sc paracentesis] are not skilful.

FR 85. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(36)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, III, viii (= Dropsy), 151–155: [151] Themison in book ii of his Chronic affections uses passive exercise, massage, and [sc a type of ] exercise and regimen which can be practised by all: he rubs the body with salt and soda and bathes it in cold water; he does not treat the parts uniformly with these [sc substances], for after three or four days he administers bathing in hot sea water. [152] Then he orders the patients to drink three or four kyathoi of diluted wine after the passive exercise. He says that in the sequence of medicines, without specifying what sequence of medicines he has in mind, or what foods are difficult to digest. He claims that we should use a reduced amount of drink during the evening meal, so that the patients may not be affected either by thirst or by excessive ingestion of liquid; on the contrary, he chooses a wine of rather pungent action, and mixed with water. But when he says “in moderation”, which is not a proper description, he does not indicate the proportion [sc of water and wine] in the dilution. And an increased proportion [sc of wine] in the dilution injures the nerves and causes thirst. [153] Besides, Themison prohibits purgative medicines and medicines for

254

5

10

15

20

  ‒  -

medicamina atque urinalia, quae “catartica” atque “diuretica” uocant, et per singulos menses ternos radicum ordinat uomitus. Sed erat regulae medicinali conueniens ad lenimentorum latitudinem siue spatium uomituum designare quantitatem. Vtitur etiam in utroque talo scarificatione, ut Asclepiades. In ascite uero initium ex uomitu sumit quem helleboro faciendum probat si (inquit) metuerit quisquam radicum uomitum. Et est praeceps atque—ut ita dixerim—periculosum non medicatum corpus magno adiutorio dissecare.6 Aliis7 quoque regulam similem dicit ordinandam. Sed passionis initio neque ungentis8 tangi neque fricari uentrem permittit; [154] ceteras autem corporis partes, si multa inquit fuerit humoris infusio, defricandas, initium ex uentris finibus , augendum curationis modum.9 Sed oportebat ob aequandum corpus totum fricatione curari. Item, interpositis quattuor uel quinque diebus, aqua calida et magis marina tribus uel quattuor uasculis foueri;10 sed neque hoc aequaliter. Item ante unctionem utitur sinapismo. Post singulas gestationes lambendam dicit scillam in electarii uicem. Et si plurima fuerit humoris infusio, utitur paracentesi. Sed primo die, si uires patiuntur, abstinet cibo. [155] Quod si minime ferre potuerint aegrotantes, partem tertiam panis solitae quantitatis aqua infusam offerendam dicit. Tum alia die articulos ungens atque ora lauans simili panis reficit modo cum pulmento uolantum, ceteris quoque diebus omni aequalitate augens atque aegros resumens. Thessalus autem secundo libro Regulari plurima Themisonis similiter probat, sed quinque uel tribus cyathis uini aqua temperati ante cibum potat aegrotantes, et paracentesin prohibet. 11

ci B D: discere Sich: disicere Rovm 7 Rovm > D B: aliam Sich: aliam Wellmann (= We) 8 B: ungentis D 9 B: defricandas initio, ex uentris finibus augendum curationis modum D: initio ex uentris finibus D in apparatu: initio ex uentris finibus coercendum We 10 foueri uentrem iubet Rov 11 S D B 6

FR 86. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(37)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, IV, i (= De elephantiasi), 4–10: [4] Veterum autem medicorum nullus istius passionis curationem ordinauit 25 excepto Themisone atque ex philosophis Democrito, si uere eius De elephantiacis conscriptus dicitur liber: quo sanguinis corruptionis causas conscribens, phlebotomandos imperat aegrotantes et potandos decoctione herbae quam in Syria memorat nasci et in Cilicia. Sed neque hanc dicere pos-

255

  ‒  -

urination, which they [sc the Greeks] call “kathartika” and “diouretika”, and he orders vomiting induced by radishes, three times in each month. But it would have been in accordance with medical rule to establish the quantity of vomiting in relation to the length or duration of the remissions. He also makes use of scarification at both ankles, like Asclepiades. But in the case of askites he starts by [sc inducing] vomiting, and he recommends us to engineer it with the help of hellebore if, he says, we have reservations about vomiting induced by radishes. But it is reckless and, if I may say so, dangerous to injure a body which has not been subjected to previous medication by using a powerful drug. He claims that, in other respects, the course of treatment to be prescribed [sc for askites] should be similar [sc to that prescribed for other forms of dropsy]. Now, at the beginning of the affection he does not allow the abdomen to be either touched by, or massaged with, unguents; [154] but if there is an abundant suffusion of humour at the beginning, the other parts of the body should be massaged, he says, starting from the ends of the abdomen and applying the remedy with increasing force. But in order to create a uniform effect in the body the whole of it should have been treated by massage. Again, after four or five days [sc he orders the patient] to be fomented with three or four vessels of hot water, preferably from the sea; but this treatment is not applied uniformly either. Again, he [sc Themison] employs a mustard plaster before the anointing. He claims that after each passive exercise the patient should lick a squill, using it in place of an electuary. If there is a great suffusion of humour, he employs paracentesis. But during the first day, if the [sc patients’] strength permits, he prescribes abstention from food; [155] and if the patients are hardly able to bear it, he orders a third of their usual amount of bread, soaked in water. Then on the following day he anoints the [sc patients’] joints, washes their face, and restores them with the same quantity of bread, increased by a portion of fowl; and every day he increases the amount of food uniformly, restoring the patients. As for Thessalus, in book ii of his Regimen he makes the same recommendations as Themison for the most part, except that he orders the patients to drink five or three kyathoi of wine diluted in water before the meal, and he forbids paracentesis.

FR 86. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(37)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, IV, i (= Elephantiasis), 4–10: [4] None of the doctors of the past has set out a treatment for this affection, with the exception of Themison and, among the philosophers, Democritus, if the book on Elephantiasis ascribed to him is indeed by him: in it he pins down the causes of the blood’s corruption and orders that the patients be subjected to venesection and made to drink a decoction from a plant which, he says, grows in Syria and Cilicia. But we cannot say what this plant is;

256

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

sumus, neque passio tam difficilis his duobus adiutoriis solui creditur posse. Themison uero secundo libro Epistolarum, ad Dimantem scribens, phlebotomari iubet recte quidem, sed non stricturam considerans potius quam coniuuantem causam1 sanguinem2 detrahendam.3 [5] Quod est aestimabile atque (ut ita dixerim) dogmaticum, sicut secundo libro De coenotetis scribens Soranus docuit. Vtitur praeterea uomitibus ieiunis4 itemque radicum, eorum confundens tempus: oportet enim superpositionis tempore adhibere phlebotomiam, in lenimento uero uomitum. Item uentrem inter paucos dies leuiter deducendum iubet atque superficiem corporis constringendam unguento myrobalani cum aceto et oleo rosaceo paruo uel myrtino et ammoniaci gutta cum alumine. [6] Deponit etiam aegrotantes in decoctione frigida ex herba perdicio confecta uel plantagine aut murta aut rubo, bis in die, atque sufficienti tempore quadam tarditate aegrotantes imperat immorari. Dat cibos facile reflabiles, et potu magis aquam. Quae sunt incongrua. Phlebotomia enim similiter laxatiuum genus est et cibus reflabilis, et singula unguenta quae imperat adhiberi constringunt, item embasis quam fieri ex decoctione herbarum iubet supradictarum; item unguenta condensant corpora. Sed hoc passus est cum nondum limpide Methodicam perspiceret disciplinam et Asclepiadis secta circumsaeptus passionis causam {in} enstasin5 aestimaret, quam praestabat fieri per superficiem6 siue cutem; [7] et ob hoc quaerebat materiam a superficie ad altiora, uelut latius patentia, reuocare. Vtitur denique constrictiuis extrinsecus et rapit ad interiora ea quae fuerint appositorum uirtute depulsa. Prouocat etiam uentris fluorem et uomitum et utitur hellebori purgatione, adhibito psilothro in tres uel quattuor dies, uel alio quolibet urenti medicamine usque ad cutis ruborem, quo magis perseuerantem faciat passionem. Adhibet praeterea cataplasmata, ex quibus etiam sucos adhibuit arnoglossae uel perdicii herbae. Item malagmata adhibet constrictiua, ex quibus nunc plurimi laudant “arcagation”7 appellatum medicamen. [8] Item exercitium probat et defricans cutem declinat ungere, sed adhibet lauacrum,8 non coniciens hoc quoque esse laxatiuae uirtutis. Adhibet etiam ammoniaci guttam cum aceto uel uino, {aut} quae sunt9 intra se contrariae qualitatis. Item post exercitium sudationem faciendam igne uicino, sed aqua frigida fouendos imperat aegrotantes, et usum hellebori geminum probat, quae sunt quidem uera adiutoria si tempora quoque seruentur, ut Responsionum docuimus libris. Item quidam Themisonis sectatores initia quoque passionis praeuisa coercentes, pronos ac decliues uel uenturos in eandem

coniuuantem uel comitantem ci Alm > B: conuiuantem D: continentem Rovm corr ego: sanguinis cett 3 detrahendi Rovm 4 uomitiuis ieiunus Sich 5 B: in enstasi D: in extasin Sich: intrinsecam Sichm: in extis sitam uel intus sitam Reinesius (= Re): exta sitam We 6 B < Sichm: per faciem D: per ensem Sich 7 argagation Sich 8 ci D B: graecum Sich 9 secl B: aut quae sunt D 1 2

  ‒  

257

nor is it plausible that an affection as difficult as this one can be broken with these two remedies. As for Themison, in writing to Deimas in book ii of his Letters he orders us, correctly, to perform venesection, yet he does not think of [sc sc removing] blood in terms of removing the [sc state of ] stricture, but rather a cooperant [coniuuans] cause. [5] This point is debatable and dogmatic, if I may say so—as Soranus has instructed in book ii of his Koinotetes. Then he [sc Themison] makes use of vomiting on an empty stomach, induced with the help of radishes, and he gets confused about timing them: for he ought to perform venesection during the paroxysm and induce vomiting during remission. Next, he prescribes that the bowel should be gently purged at intervals of a few days, and the surface of the body constricted with the help of an unguent made of myrobalanus with vinegar and a little rose oil, or with myrtle oil and gum-ammoniac with alum. [6] He also immerses the patients twice a day in a cold decoction made of pellitory herb, plantain, myrtle, or brambles, and orders the patients to lay there, lingering for quite a while. He administers foods which evaporate easily [reflabiles], and, for drinking, mostly water. But these [sc prescriptions] are inconsistent. For venesection is [sc a remedy of ] the relaxing kind, just like food of the sort that evaporates, whereas each of the unguents he orders us to apply produces constriction, and so does the embasis he orders for the patient in the decoction of herbs mentioned above; and the unguents also condense the bodies. But he [sc Themison] allowed this [sc inconsistency] because he had not yet got a clear grasp of Methodist principles and, enclosed within Asclepiades’ secta, he considered the cause of the affection to consist in an obstruction [enstasis] which would occur predominantly at the level of face and skin. [7] And this is why he was seeking to redirect matter from the surface to the deeper parts, as if these would be broader. Thus he uses astringents on the outside, and drives to the inner parts what is pushed away by the action of the [sc medicines] applied. He also stimulates flux of the bowels and vomiting, he employs hellebore as a purge, and every third or fourth day he applies a depilatory or some other burning medicine, to the point of reddening the skin—thereby making the affection [sc even] more stubborn. Besides, he applies plasters; among them he applied [sc plasters containing] juices of plantain or of pellitory. He also applies astringent emollients; among them is the medicine called “arkagation”, which most [sc doctors] nowadays recommend. [8] He advises exercise; he has the skin massaged, but refuses to have it anointed. And he makes use of bathing, not realising that it, too, has a relaxing action. He makes use even of gum-ammoniac with vinegar or wine, which have properties that conflict with each other. After exercise he recommends that we make [sc the patient] sweat by placing him near a fire, but [sc also] that we foment the patients in cold water; and he recommends the use of both kinds of hellebore: these are valid remedies, to be sure, provided that their timing is respected, as I have instructed in the book of Answers. Now some sectatores of Themison, trying to prevent a foreseen outburst of the affection, prescribe venesection and purging with hellebore for those whom they

258

  ‒  -

quos uiderint phlebotomant et helleboro purgant; [9] eos autem quos iam possessos acceperint iisdem negant curandos adiutoriis, siquidem corruptione quadam uel laxatione extremae cutis in corporibus haec passio generetur et sit rarifica carnis atque mollifica corporis phlebotomia. Quapropter 5 inquiunt esse frigerandam10 uel siccandam corporis superficiem, quo possit eius humor ad intestina uel uentrem recurrere, ac deinde clysteribus uel purgatiuis medicaminibus quae “catartica” uocant detrahendum cibum.11 Praeterea praepotandos probant aegrotantes suco nepetae seruata moderatione quantitatis, quae neque minuenda neque superanda sit tribus cyathis usque 10 ad sex, [10] cibum etiam dandum frigidum atque constrictiuum et paruum, potum frigidum sed meracum, ex uino uehementioris acrimoniae atque albo uel ueteri, et saepe tenuandos12 aegrotantes uel siccandos abstinentia bibendi 13 siccioribus reficiendos cibis. Quae sunt utraque incongrua ac dissonantia siccandae cuti secundum eorum intentionem. Si enim, ut aiunt, e 15 superficie transmittendus est humor ad altiora atque eo prouocandus ut clysteribus ac purgatiuis medicaminibus excludatur per uentrem, erit etiam contrarium14 siti atque siccioribus cibis et uino supradicto altiora siccare.

B: frigorandam D 11 B ex apparatu D: detrahendo cibum D: detrahendo cibum Rov 12 ci B: tenendos D 13 add Rov > B 14 B: erit {enim} Rov > D

10

FR 87. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(38)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, IV, ii (= De phthiriasi), 15: [15] Denique superpositionis tempore iacere oportet aegrotos loco mediocriter frigido atque cibis constrictiuis et temporibus iam saepe demonstratis 20 refici. Fomenta uero et perunctiones et cataplasmata membratim erunt adhibenda qualia Themison elephantiacos curans ordinauit. Sed ea loca quae capillatura uestita sunt erunt praeradenda.1

1

ci Triller B: praeterea radenda D

FR 88. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(39)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, IV, iii (= De uentriculosis, quos Graeci “coeliacos” uocant, et de ceteris defluxionibus), 39: [39] Dehinc cerotaria apponenda ex oleo murtino aut melino aut uiridi,

259

  ‒  -

judge to be on the verge of it, or ready and about to incur it; [9] but they claim that those [sc patients] whom they took over already in the grip of the affection must not be treated with the same remedies, because this affection would develop in the body through some [sc kind of ] corruption or relaxation of the surface skin, and venesection would relax the flesh and soften the body. In consequence, they claim that the surface of the body should be chilled and dried, so that the humour may be able to return to the intestines or stomach, and that the food should be eliminated afterwards with the help of clysters or purgative medicines, the kind which they [sc the Greeks] call “kathartika”. They also recommend the patients to take a preliminary drink of nepeta juice, limiting the quantity between no less than three kyathoi and not more than six. [10] In addition, [sc they say] that we should administer a small quantity of chilling and astringent food, and a chilling unmixed drink of a wine of rather strong pungency, white or old; that the patients should often be weakened or dried out through abstinence from drink, then restored through [sc even] drier foods. But both of these [sc prescriptions] are inconsistent and conflict with the drying of the skin according to their plan. For if, as they say, the humour is to be transported from the surface to the deeper parts of the body and, once there, made to be eliminated through the bowel with the help of clysters and purgative medicines, then drying out the deeper parts through thirst, drier foods, and the [sc kind of ] wine described above will run against it [sc achieving the desired purpose].

FR 87. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(38)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, IV, ii (= Phthiriasis), 15: [15] Finally, during paroxysm we should make the patients lie in a moderately cold place and be nourished with the astringent foods, and at the times, that I have often indicated by now. We shall have to apply, part by part, fomentations, anointments, and plasters of the kind that Themison ordered for the treatment of the patients with elephantiasis. But first we shall have to shave the parts which are covered with hair.

FR 88. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(39)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, IV, iii (= Patients suffering from belly-ache, whom the Greeks call “koiliakoi”, and from other [sc kinds of ] flux), 39: [39] Then we should apply cerates made of myrtle oil, quince oil, or green

260

  ‒  -

contrita acacia atque consoluta, uel ex omphacino aut oenanthino cum ruta1 aut balaustio aut aliquando his omnibus, uel, ut Themison composuit: acaciae partem unam; rosae aridae partem unam; 5 ammoniaci guttae partem dimidiam; cerae partes quattuor; et olei rosacei quod sit sufficiens. Haec contrita in uino Amineo et soluta cera cum rosaceo oleo miscenda. 1

cum murta Rovm

FR 89. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(40)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, IV, vi (= De dysenteria), 90–91: [90] Themison primo libro Tardarum passionum plurima recte memorauit, 10 aliqua uero correctione indigentia. [91] Laxamenti enim causa atque lapsus faciendi aqua1 et arnoglossae suco iniectionem faciendam probat, et hoc aptum etiam tumoribus memorat, quod ob constrictionem siccare perspicitur. Adhibet etiam naribus atque auribus et angulis oculorum sanguinis detractionem, nihil propositis profuturam, et post cibum unctionem, quo 15 tempore quies est adhibenda ob digestionis perficiendae facilitatem. Dat etiam uinum asperius, cum fluorem uehementescere uiderit atque febrem; et meracum probat offerendum, quo tempore ob augmentum passionis aqua uino infecta conueniat, maxime cum meraca potio uexare neruos approbetur quos Graeci “cremasteras” uocauerunt.

1

B < D, in apparatu: aquae D: aqua Rovm

FR 90. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(41)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, IV, viii (= De lumbricis), 108: 20 [108] Tum denique eorum euersione1 aegrotantes interficiuntur. Pulsus uero, ut etiam Themison libro nono Epistolarum designat, est inaequalis ac plurimum deficiens.

1

Rovm: conuersione

261

  ‒  -

olive oil with acacia pounded and dissolved in it; or [sc cerates] made of unripe olive oil or wild vine-flower oil with rue or wild pomegranate flower, or sometimes with all of these; or, as Themison made it: one part of acacia; one part of dried rose petals; half a part of gum-ammoniac; four parts of bees-wax; and as much rose oil as it takes. These should be pounded in Aminaean wine and mixed with the rose oil when the bees-wax has melted.

FR 89. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(40)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, IV, vi (= Dysenteria), 90–91: [90] Most of the things that Themison has written in book i of his Chronic affections are correct, but some are in need of rectification. [91] Thus he recommends making an injection of water and plantain juice in order to produce evacuation and lubrication, and he notes that this [sc remedy] is also suitable for inflammations, although it [sc the remedy] is known to produce dissication because of its astringency. He also prescribes withdrawal of blood from the nostrils, ears, and [sc the region at] the corners of the eyes, which brings no benefit to the patients in question, and anointing after the meal—a time when we should prescribe rest, to help the completion of digestion. Again, he administers a rather pungent wine, although he might have noticed that the flux and the fever become more violent [sc as a result]; and he recommends that the wine offered should be undiluted, at a time when, because of the exacerbation of the affection, the suitable [sc drink] should be water just touched by wine—especially since undiluted wine is known to damage the muscles which the Greeks call kremasteres.

FR 90. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(41)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, IV, viii (= Worms), 108: [108] Finally the patients die at the moment of their [sc the worms’] expulsion. As for pulse, it is uneven and extremely weak, as Themison too notes in book ix of his Letters.

262

  ‒  - FR 91. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(42)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, V, i (= De ischiadicis et psoeadicis), 13: [13] Ac si difficile passionem declinare uiderimus, erit embasis adhibenda ex oleo et aqua calidis. Tum, cum fuerit plurimum minutus dolor, uarius offerendus est cibus ex mediae qualitatis materia. Adhibendum etiam lauacrum, dehinc lene uinum, tunc malagmata partibus in passione consti5 tutis, ut diachylon uel Mnaseu1 aut dioxelaeu2 uel Nileos, item unctiones quae mitiganter emolliant et neque perfrigescere partes permittant, cerotaria quoque limpida aut diasamsucu3 acopum aut irinum oleum aut samsucinum.

1

mnaseum Sich

2

D: dioxeleu B: dioxeleum Sich

3

FR 92. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

diasamsucum Sich

PASSIONES

(43)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, V, i (= De ischiadicis et psoeadicis), 25–26: [25] Item Themison secundo libro Tardarum passionum in quibusdam peccare perspicitur, phlebotomans talum uel ancalen atque lanis sucidis cum 10 oleo et aceto et sale statim patientia contegens loca, articulos astringens, et intestina per clysterem exulcerans et os ipsum quod “ischion” Graeci uocant. [26] Ante haec omnia et equitare imperat aegrotantes, quo magis ob uehementiam motus partium faciat uexationem. Item alternis sinapizat diebus, quod est immoderatum, et in omnibus ulcerationem cutis existimat facien15 dam, qua plurima congrua prohibentur adiutoria adhiberi, cum partes, ulceratae, apposita tolerare non possint. Thessalus uero uaporationem faciendam improbe recusauit—est enim recorporatiuae uirtutis—neque initio recte constrictiua probat adhibenda; etenim ischiadica passio uehementi atque difficili strictura confecta perspicitur.

263

  ‒  - FR 91. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(42)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, V, i (= Patients with sciatica and lumbago), 13: [13] If we find that the affection goes with difficulty into the declining phase, what will have to be prescribed is an embasis in warm olive oil and water. Then, when the pain has diminished as much as possible, we should administer food, diversified and made of stuffs of the middle class. Also to be used is a bath, then a mild wine, and afterwards emollient plasters applied to the affected parts—for instance the diachulon [= plaster of juices], the plaster of Mnaseas, the dioxelaiou [= plaster of vinegar and olive oil], or the plaster of Nileus—and again, unguents that would smoothly soften the parts and prevent them from getting a cold; and also clear cerates or the painkiller made of marjoram [diasampsukou], iris oil, or oil of marjoram.

FR 92. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(43)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, V, i (= Patients with sciatica and lumbago), 25–26: [25] It is clear that Themison, too, makes errors on some points, in book ii of his Chronic affections, when he performs venesection at the ankle or knee, then immediately covers the affected parts in greasy wool [sc sprinkled] with olive oil, vinegar, and salt, constricting the joints; or when he wounds the intestines and the very bone which the Greeks call “ischion” [= hipjoint] with clysters. [26] Before all these treatments he also orders the patients to ride; but in this way he increases the damage to the parts through the vehemence of the motion. Again, he applies mustard plasters every other day, which is excessive, and he deems it right to perform an ulceration of the skin on all the patients; but in this way the application of most beneficial remedies becomes prohibited, since the parts, when wounded, cannot bear them. As for Thessalus, he was not right when he claimed that steaming should not be used: for it has a recorporative action. Nor is he right in recommending the application of astringents in the initial phase: for the sciatic affection is known to be produced by a [sc state of ] constriction which is violent and difficult [sc to deal with].

264

  ‒  - FR 93. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(44)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, V, ii (= De articulorum passione, quam Graeci “arthritin” uocant, et de pedum dolore, quem “podagran” appellant), 37: [37] Tum, cum firma declinatio fuerit constituta, adhibenda lauacra atque uarius cibus et aqua potu danda, et propter passionis nequitiam adhibenda etiam cerotaria ex oleo dulci uel cyprino, aut ex adipe confectum medicamen quod Graeci “diasteaton” uocant, tunc malagma diachulon uel Mnaseu 5 aut quod appellant “diateleos” uel “dioxelaeu”1 uel “diathalasses”.

1

dioxeleon Sich

FR 94. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(45)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, V, ii (= De articulorum passione, quam Graeci “arthritin” uocant, et de pedum dolore, quem “podagran” appellant), 43: [43] Item alii transeundum ex aliis in alia probant ungenta1 et cataplasmata, nunc specie nunc genere differentia, donec aegrotantes releuentur, siquidem alia pro aliis corporibus uideantur conuenire, et propterea doloris mitigatio sequetur. Ordinauerunt denique etiam contrarias uirtute 10 materias, laxatiuas simul atque constrictiuas et recorporatiuas, ut Mnaseu2 malagma uel diachylon, item e contrariis uehementius constringentia, ut diaiteon et Cyzicenum et Erasistrion3 emplastrum.

1

B: ungenta D

2

mnaseum Sich

3

corr D B

FR 95. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(46)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, V, ii (= De articulorum passione, quam Graeci “arthritin” uocant, et de pedum dolore, quem “podagran” appellant), 50–51: [50] Specialiter autem ueterum pertransiendo errores, uanum puto atque prolixum quod de podagricis scripserunt, et propterea fastidiosum maxime,

265

  ‒  - FR 93. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(44)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, V, ii (= The affection of the joints, which the Greeks call “arthritis”, and pain in the feet, which they call “podagra”), 37: [37] Then, when the [sc phase of ] decline has firmly settled in, we should prescribe baths and administer food of a varied sort and water for drink; and because of the stubbornness of the affection we should also apply cerates made with sweet olive oil or henna oil, or the medicine prepared from suet, which the Greeks call “diasteaton”, and after that the emollient plaster diachulon [= plaster of juices] or the plaster of Mnaseas, or the plaster which they [sc the Greeks] call “diateleos” [= plaster of fenugreek], the dioxelaion [= plaster of vinegar and olive oil], or the diathalasses [= plaster of sea water].

FR 94. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(45)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, V, ii (= The affection of the joints, which the Greeks call “arthritis”, and pain in the feet, which they call “podagra”), 43: [43] And some [sc doctors] recommend that we switch from one unguent and plaster to another, now of a different species, now of a different genus, until the patients might find relief, on the grounds that different remedies are found to suit different bodies and therefore an abatement of the pain would follow. Thus they have prescribed even substances opposite in their action, [sc using] simultaneously relaxing, astringent, and recorporative [sc medications], for instance the [sc plaster] of Mnaseas or the diachulon [= plaster of juices], then [sc plasters] which have, on the contrary, quite a powerful constrictive effect—for instance the diaiteon [= plaster of willows], the Cyzican [sc plaster], and the plaster of Erasistratus.

FR 95. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(46)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, V, ii (= The affection of the joints, which the Greeks call “arthritis”, and pain in the feet, which they call “podagra”), 50–51: [50] As I examine the ancients’ errors by species [sc of affections], I find what they wrote on podagra futile and long-winded, and for this reason

266

  ‒  -

cum sufficiat communis materiarum memoratio suprascripta, tacitis dominis qui nunc dicentur: Diocles libris quos De passionibus atque causis et curationibus scripsit, Praxagoras tertio libro De morbis, Erasistratus libro quo De podagra scripsit—prohibens tamen purgatiua adhiberi quae “cathartica” uocauerunt, 5 malagma uero Ptolemaeo regi promittens cuius scripturam non edidit, quamquam quidam sibi uisum Erasistrati nominent medicamen; [51] item Herophili sectatores multi atque Asclepiades libris Ad Erasistratum scriptis et Heraclides Tarentinus et Themison secundo libro Tardarum passionum—aliqua ut Methodicus, aliqua ut non Methodicus decurrens:1 phlebotomat enim 10 ex pedibus et uinum2 approbat et cataplasmatum qualitates confundit, non discernens constrictiuis laxatiua. Quibus respondere quid oportet, cum uinolentia neruos amputet, phlebotomia patientes impleat partes? Thessalus autem secundo libro Regulari imperfecte quidem sed consequenter Methodicis intentionibus curationem ordinauit.

1

ci D B: decurrerit Sich: decurrit Rov

2

ci Re > D B: nihil Sich

FR 96. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, TARDAE

PASSIONES

(47)

Caelius Aurelianus, Tardae passiones, V, x (= De uomicis siue internis collectionibus, quas Graeci “empyemata” uocant), 116–117: 15 [116] Pausante igitur tumore omni ex parte et nondum erupta collectione, oportet eius adiuuari celeritatem, ut primum praescriptis1 cataplasmatibus ficum faciamus admisceri cum hibisco, tum resinam terebinthinam,2 adiuncto usu malagmatum quae congrua Responsionum docuimus libris, ut est Mnaseu, [117] item ex tribus resinis, quod Graeci “dia trion retinon” uocant, tum etiam 20 diagalbanes uel melinon3 uel quod4 appellant “Serapionos”5 aut dictamnu6 uel quicquam simili permistione7 conscriptum.

ci S D B: perscriptis Sich 2 resina terebinthina Sich 3 ego: melinon cett 4 ego: uel quam cett 5 Serapionis Rov 6 D B: diadictamnum Rovm: dictamnu Sich 7 ci Fr D: promissione B < Sich 1

267

  ‒  -

irritating in the extreme: when the general record of substances given above would be enough, the leaders whom I shall mention now are nevertheless silent [sc about them]: Diocles in the treatise he wrote On affections, their causes and their treatment, Praxagoras in book iii of his Diseases, Erasistratus in the treatise he wrote On podagra—he at least forbade the application of purgatives (what the Greeks call “kathartika”), and he promised an emollient plaster for King Ptolemy without publishing a description of it, although some people who saw it call it the medicine of Erasistratus; [51] then the numerous sectatores of Herophilus, Asclepiades in the treatise written Against Erasistratus, Heraclides of Tarentum, and Themison in book ii of his Chronic affections—this one does makes some points as a Methodist, but others as a non-Methodist: for he performs venesection at the feet, approves of wine, and messes up the properties of plasters, failing to distinguish relaxing from astringent ones. What should we say about these [sc prescriptions], when wine-intoxication impairs the nerves and venesection causes congestion in the affected parts? But Thessalus in book ii of his Regimen prescribes a treatment which, although not perfected, is in agreement with Methodist principles.

FR 96. CAELIUS AURELIANUS, CHRONIC

AFFECTIONS

(47)

Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic affections, V, x (= Suppurations or internal collections [sc of pus], which the Greeks call “empuemata”), 116–117: [116] Thus, when the inflammation stops [sc growing] from all sides but the collection [sc of pus] has not broken up yet, we must help speeding up [sc this process]: first we should mix up fig and marsh-mallow into the plasters described above, then [sc we should] add turpentine into the emollient plasters which I have indicated as suitable in the book of Answers—for instance the plaster of Mnaseas, [117] then the plaster made of three resins, which the Greeks call “dia trion retinon”, and also the diagalbanes [= all-heal plaster], the melinon [= quince-ointment], what they call “the plaster of Serapion”, the diadiktamnou [= plaster of dittany], or any other one made from a similar composition.

268

  ‒   FR 97. CASSIUS IATROSOPHISTA, QUAESTIONES

MEDICAE

ET PROBLEMATA PHYSICA

Cassius Iatrosphista, Quaestiones medicae et problemata physica, Ch. viii = I pp. 147–148 Ideler = 34 Gesner, 334–335 Sylburg:a [147] ÑH d¢1 ≤donØ Àsper diãxusiw ka‹ ênesiw toË s≈matÒw §sti, ka‹ toËto trÒpon tina aÈtØ ≤ a‡syhsiw paregguò. D∞lon dÉ ˜ti2 ka‹ ≤ ≤donØ g¤netai Ïpnou ginom°nou:3 ka‹ toËtÉ ín4 ≤ pe›ra marturo›5—ka‹ ı poihtÆw, §n pollo›w “nÆdumon” aÈtÚn Ùnomãzvn …w ín efi6 ≤don∞w parek15 tikÒn. Efi to¤nun ≤ ≤donØ diãxus¤w §sti toË s≈matow taÊthn dÉ épergãzetai ı Ïpnow, t¤ oÈ xalastikÚn mçllÒn famen tÚn Ïpnon ≥per7 puknvtikÒn,8 …w o‡ontai ofl Meyodiko¤; ÉAllå ka‹ ≤ diå skãfhw afi≈ra xalastikÆ §sti, ka‹ §n t“9 paralambãnesyai10 taÊthn Ípn≈deiw pvw g¤nontai, kataferÒmenoi meyÉ ≤don∞w tinow, Àste11 ka‹ §k toÊtvn §st‹ sumbale›n 20 ˜ti êra mçllÒn §sti xalastikÚw ı Ïpnow ≥per §fektikÒw. áH oÈ prÚw12 toËto =ht°on ˜ti oÈ pãnu sumbebhkÒw §sti toË Ïpnou ≤ ≤donÆ,13 éllå sumba¤nei toÊtou genom°nou tØn ≤donØn g¤gnesyai diå tÚ tå s≈mata efiw tÚ ofike›on épokay¤stasyai katãsthma, oflone‹ Íponem°nou14 toË kÒpou §k t«n §nergei«n t«n §n t∞w §grhgÒrsei; ÜOti dÉ oÈ pãntvw ≤ 25 ≤donØ g¤netai diå tØn diãxusin t«n svmãtvn §nteËy°n §stin eÍre›n. ÑH d¤ca katå jhrÒthta g¤netai: ≤ d¢ jhrÒthw pÊknvsin épergãzetai: dic«ntew oÔn ¶syÉ ˜tÉ, efi prosenegko¤meya Ïdvr cuxrÒn, ≤dÒmeya sfÒdra, ka¤toi t∞w pro#pokeim°nhw puknÒthtow §piteinom°nhw §k t∞w

a

The text of this fragment is based on the only existing published version of Cassius’ Problemata—the one edited by I. L. Ideler in Physci et medici minores in 1841, shortly before death prevented him from keeping the promise, made in the Preface, p. iv, to disclose the mss sources from which he had worked (they were part of a large collection inherited from Dietz). All the knowledge of the Cassius mss which made possible the apparatus below (and my departures from Ideler’s text) is due to Antonio Garzya who kindly and generously supplied me with readings, giving me access to yet unpublished results of his pioneering work on Cassius. The sigla I am using are, of course, his own. I: d∞lon tÚ ˜ti Ambrosianus I A Bononensis 3635 (= B) Mutinensis gr. 109 (= M) gr. 23 (A 92 sup.) (= A) Oxoniensis Noui Collegii E 233 (= O) Parisinus gr. 1943 (= P) Vaticanus gr. 1614 (= V) Vaticanus Barberinus gr. 147 (= Vb) Marcianus gr. 257 (= Ve) Marcianus gr. 259 (= Vm): genom°nou Marcianus gr. 521 (= Mb) Mu: genom°nou corr (i supra e) Mutinensis gr. 210 (= Mt) 4 toËtÉ ín cett codd: toËto A I 5 Mu: marturª B Ve: marture› cett codd I 6 …w ín efi Mb: …w ín codd cett I 7 cett codd I: Àsper Mu 8 puknvtÒn P 9 B Mb Mu Vb Vm: ka‹ t“ A M Mt O P V Ve I 10 perilambãnesyai A 11 om Mt Mu 12 A B O P Ve Vm: µ prÚw M Mb Mt Mu V Vb I 13 ≤ ≤donÆ A B Mt Mu Vb: ≤donÆ M Mb O P V Ve Vm I 14 Mb: Ípoanem°nou Vb: Ípon°mou V: ÍpÚ én°mou A B M Mt Mu O P Ve Vm: Ífiem°nou ci (?) I 1

≤ d¢ Mutinensis gr. 145 (= Mu): ≤ Ideler (= I) 3

2

  ‒   FR 97. CASSIUS IATROSOPHISTA, QUESTIONS

269

OF MEDICINE

AND PROBLEMS OF PHYSICS

Cassius Iatrosophista, Questions of medicine and problems of physics, Ch. viii = I pp. 147–148 Ideler = 34 Gesner, 334–335 Sylburg: [147] Pleasure is similar to the dissolution and relaxation of the body; sensation itself somehow intimates this [sc fact]. Now it is clear that, when sleep comes, pleasure comes too; again, experience would testify to it—and so would the Poet, who on many occasions qualified sleep as “sweet”, as if it were productive of pleasure. So then: if pleasure is a dissolution of the body and sleep brings about this state, why do we not claim that sleep produces loosening rather than condensing, as the Methodists believe? But even the swing of the rocking-chair produces loosening; people get drowsy when they engage in it, and they fall asleep with some pleasure; and so from this fact too we can conclude that sleep produces loosening rather than condensing. Or should we not reply that pleasure is not altogether a consequent [sumbebekos] of sleep? It is rather the case that, when it [sc sleep] comes, pleasure happens to occur because the body is restored to its proper condition, as if the exhaustion from the activities of wakefulness were undermined. The fact that pleasure does not come about invariably through the dissolution of the body can be discovered from the following [sc example]. Thirst arises through dryness, and dryness produces condensation; now if we are given cold water when we are thirsty we sometimes enjoy it thoroughly, although the state of condensation, already present, is intensified

270

  ‒  -

m¤jevw toË cuxroË. Ka‹ Àsper tÚ cuxrÚn oÈ l°gomen e‰nai15 xalastikÚn diå tÚ ≤donØn §mpoie›n to›w s≈masin, oÏtvw16 oÈd¢ tÚn Ïpnon ín e‡poimen xalastikÒn, §peidØ ≤don∞w g¤gnetai parektikÒw. [148] G¤gnetai gãr, …w ¶famen, ≤ ≤donØ diå tØn efirhm°nhn afit¤an. ÑH d¢ diå toË skãfouw17 5 afi≈ra diaforhtikØ m¢n e‰nai dÊnatai t«n paxumer«n svmãtvn, toË dÉ afisyhtikoË pneÊmatow puknvtikÆ, §piyoloËsa aÈtÚ ka‹ sust°llousa diå tØn ékinhs¤an t«n loip«n Íl«n: sustellom°nou d¢18 toÊtou19 Ïpnon §pig¤netai sumba¤nei. Ka‹ oÈ de› yaumãzein efi20 aÍtØ afi≈ra diafore› m¢n tÚ s«ma, pukno› d¢ (…w ¶famen)21 tÚ afisyhtikÚn pneËma. ÜVsper 10 går tÚ yermÚn Ïdvr én¤hsi m¢n tå ≤m°tera s≈mata, efi dÉ §pixuye¤h pur‹22 sb°nnusi toËto, oÏtv23 ka‹ ≤ afi≈ra t«n §nant¤vn §st‹ poihtikÆ. Ka‹ pollå ên tiw eÏroi24 tå §nant¤a épotele›n dunãmena.

om Mt Vb Ve I 16 A M Mt V: oÏtv codd cett I 17 toË skãfouw codd fere omnes: t∞w skãfhw I (uide et Garzya in Text and Tradition 1998, p. 87) 18 A B M Mu O P V Ve: går Mb Mt Vb Vm I 19 toÊtou toË Ïpnou add M 20 yaumãzein efi cett codd I: yaumãzein …w Vm 21 …w ¶famen om Mb 22 A M Mu O V Ve I: pËr B Mb Mt P Vb Vm 23 oÏtvw A 24 eÏrh corr (oi supra h) Mt 15

FR 98. CELSUS, DE

MEDICINA

(1)

Celsus, De medicina, Prooemium, 1–11: [1] Ut alimenta sanis corporibus agricultura, sic sanitatem aegris medicina promittit. Haec nusquam quidem non est, siquidem etiam imperitissimae 15 gentes herbas aliaque prompta in auxilium uulnerum morborumque nouerunt. [2] Verum tamen apud Graecos aliquanto magis quam in ceteris nationibus exculta est, ac ne apud hos quidem a prima1 origine sed paucis ante nos saeculis, utpote cum uetustissimus2 auctor3 Aesculapius4 celebretur5 qui, quoniam adhuc rudem6 et uulgarem hanc scientiam paulo subtilius excoluit,7 20 in deorum numero8 receptus est. [3] Huius deinde due filii, Podalirius et Machaon, bello Traiano ducem9 Agamemnonem secuti, non mediocrem opem commilitonibus suis attulerunt.10 Quos tamen11 Homerus non in pesti-

primo V (= Romanus Vaticanus 5951)1 2 V2 F (= Laurentinus 73,1)2 J (= Laurentinus 73,7)2 T (= Toletanus 97–12)2: uetustissimis J1: uetussimus V1: uetustinus T1 3 V F T: auctoribus J 4 scolapius V 5 celeberetur T 6 adhuc rudem V F T: ad hodiernum J 7 V F J2 T: excessisset J1 8 numerum F J T: numeru V 9 F J: om T 10 V F2 T: adtulerunt J: contulerunt F1 11 V F J: tantum T 1

  ‒  -

271

by contact with the cold. And just as we do not consider cold to be loosening on account of the fact that it gives rise to [sc a sensation of ] pleasure in the body, similarly we should not consider sleep to be loosening because it can produce pleasure. [148] For, as we have said, pleasure arises from the cause indicated above. As for the swing of the rocking-chair, it can promote perspiration in bodies with thick parts, but also condensation in the perceptible pneuma, making it turbid and contracting it as a result of the motionlessness of the other constituents [sc of the body]; but when it [sc the pneuma] is contracted, sleep follows. And we should not be surprised that one and the same swing dissipates the body by perspiration but (as we said) condenses the perceptible pneuma. For hot water relaxes our bodies but, if poured on fire, puts it out: the swing generates opposite effects in just the same way. In fact you should find many other things that are capable of accomplishing opposite results.

FR 98. CELSUS, ON

MEDICINE

(1)

Celsus, On medicine, Introduction, 1–11: [1] Just as from agriculture we expect nourishment when the body is healthy, so from medicine we expect the restoration of health when we are ill. There is indeed no place under the sun where it [sc medicine] is not known, since even the most backward populations have discovered herbal and other remedies, whose beneficial action in the treatment of wounds and diseases is obvious. [2] It is nevertheless true that medicine developed among the Greeks more considerably than among any other populations; but not even there did this happen straight from the beginning, but only during the last few centuries; proof lies in the fact that the most ancient authority on Greek record is Esculapius, who was received among the gods because he brought some refinement—even if only a modest one—to this form of knowledge [scientia], until then rudimentary and unspecialised. [3] Afterwards his two sons, Podalirius and Machaon, accompanied king Agamemnon in the Trojan War and brought no small assistance to their fellows under arms. Yet Homer does not suggest that they gave any help either during the plague

272

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

lentia neque in uariis generis morborum attulisse aliquid auxilii, sed uulneribus tantummodo ferro et medicamentis mederi solitos esse proposuit. [4] Ex quo12 apparet has partes13 medicinae solas ab his14 esse tractatas15 easque esse uetustissimas. Eodem uero16 auctore disci potest morbos17 tum ad iram deorum immortalium relatos esse et ab18 isdem opem posci19 solitam. Verique simile est inter20 nulla21 auxilia aduersae ualetudinis plerumque tamen eam bonam contigisse ob bonos mores quos neque desidia neque luxuria uitiarant,22 [5] siquidem haec duo corpora prius in Graecia deinde apud nos adflixerunt. Ideoque multiplex ista medicina, neque olim23 neque apud alias gentes necessaria, uis aliquos ex nobis24 ad senectutis principia perducit.25 Ergo etiam post eos de quibus retuli nulli26 clari uiri27 medicinam exercuerunt donec maiore studio litterarum disciplina agitari coepit [6] quae, ut animo praecipue omnium necessaria, sic corpori inimica est. Primoque medendi scientia sapientiae28 pars habebatur ut et morborum curatio et rerum naturae contemplatio sub isdem auctoribus nata sit, [7] scilicet iis29 hanc maxime requirentibus qui corporum suorum robora quieta30 cogitatione nocturnaque uigilia minuerant. Ideoque multos ex sapientiae professoribus peritos eius fuisse accipimus,31 clarissimos uero ex his32 Pythagoran et Empedoclen et Democritum. [8] Huius autem, ut quidam crediderunt, discipulus,33 Hippocrates34 Cous,35 primus ex omnibus36 memoria dignus,37 a studio38 sapientiae disciplinam hanc separauit, uir et arte et39 facundia insignis. Post quem40 Diocles41 Carystius, deinde Praxagoras et Chrysippus, tum42 Herophilus43 et Erasistratus, sic44 artem hanc exercuerunt ut45 etiam in diuersas curandi uias processerint.46 [9] Isdemque temporibus in tres partes medicina diducta47 est ut una esset quae uictu, altera quae medicamentis, tertia quae manu mederetur. Primam48 diaithtikÆn,49 secundam50 farmakeutikÆn, tertiam xeirourg¤an51 Graeci nominarunt.52 Eius autem quae uictu morbos curat longe clarissimi auctores etiam altius quaedam agitare conati rerum quoque naturae sibi cognitionem uindicarunt,53 tamquam sine ea trunca et debilis medicina esset. [10] Post quos Serapion, primus omnium nihil hanc rationalem disciplinam pertinere ad medicinam profes-

V F J2 T: ex hoc J1 13 V F J2 T: artes J1 14 ab his F T > Mudry (= Mu): ab is V1 J > Serbat (= Se): abas V2 15 tractatas V T > Daremberg (= Da) Mu Se: tentatas F1: temtatas ci Marx (= M): probatas F2 J 16 eodemque Da 17 V2 F J T: morbus V1 18 V F J2 T: in J1 19 V F J2 T: poni J1 20 post inter lacunam supposuit M 21 V P J2: nonnulla F2 J2 T 22 V F T2 > Mu Se: uitiauerant J: uiuiarant T1 23 olim [apud Graecos] Da 24 JT: bonis VP 25 V F J: perducit principia T 26 [V F J1 T: nonnulli F1 J2] 27 V F J: om T 28 V F J: om T 29 V > Mu Se: his F J T 30 quieta F V J2 > Mu Se: inquieta J1 T 31 accepimus J > Da 32 V2 F J T > Mu Se: iis V1: is M 33 F J T: discipulos V 34 J F2 T: ypocrates V: hippogrates F1 35 V: chous F J T 36 V F1 T: primus quidem J: primus quidem ex omnibus F2 > Da 37 dignis Da 38 V F J: ac studio T 39 uir et arte et V F T: uir clarus et J 40 V F T: quam J 41 V2 F J T: di . . . es V1 42 V F J2 T: et J2 43 V F J: europhilus T 44 om J1 45 V F J1 T: atque J2 46 V F J2 T: processierunt J1 47 V F1 T: deducta F2: diuisa J 48 V F J: prima T 49 diaithtikhn V T: diatihtikhn F: yhluthtikhn J 50 V F J: secunda T 51 xeirourgikÆn Da 52 V F: nominauerunt J T 53 V F T: uindicauerunt J 12

  ‒  

273

or in various cases of disease; they normally treated mere wounds, by knife and drugs. [4] It would seem from this that only those parts of medicine were practised by them, and that they are the most ancient. In fact we learn from the same author that diseases were then ascribed to the wrath of the immortal gods, and succour was normally sought from them too. And it is likely that, in the absence of any remedies for bad health, most people were nonetheless in good health as a result of their good habits, which neither idleness nor excess had perverted—[5] for these are the two evils which have beset the body, first in Greece and next among us. Here is why this complicated medicine, superfluous in the past or among other populations, drags scarcely a few of us up to the threshold of old age. So then: after those whom I have mentioned, no illustrious men practised medicine right until the time when people started to get exercised by culture and scholarship, [6] which are just as damaging for the body as they are supremely indispensable for the mind. At a first stage, the science of healing [medendi scientia] was held to be a branch of philosophy, so that both healing diseases and reflecting upon the nature of things sprang at the same source, [7] obviously because the need for therapy was greatest in those who had sapped the strength of their body by inactive thinking and lying awake at night. Thus we learn that many philosophers were versed in this art, the most celebrated of them being Pythagoras, Empedocles, and Democritus. [8] But it was a disciple of this last one (as some believed), Hippocrates of Cos, the first one of all to deserve posterity’s record, who separated this subject [disciplina] from the study of philosophy—a man remarkable both as a practitioner and in his literary productivity. After him Diocles of Carystus, later on Praxagoras and Chrysippus, and next Herophilus and Erasistratus practised this art in such manner that they even opened up methods of healing which went in different directions. [9] During the same period of time medicine got divided into three branches, so that one branch attempted to heal through the regimen [uictus], another one through medicines, and a third one through the hand. The Greeks have called the first branch “dietetics”, the second branch “pharmacy”, and the third branch “surgery”. Now, the most brilliant figures in the field of dietetics, striving to pursue some matters even in greater depth, also made claims upon the understanding of the nature of things, as if medicine would be crippled and feeble without that. [10] After them Serapion avowed for the first time that this theoretical approach [disciplina rationalis] has nothing to do with

274

  ‒  -

sus, in usu tantum et experimentis eam posuit. Quem Apollonius54 et Glaucias et aliquando post Heraclides55 Tarentinus56 et aliqui57 non mediocri uiri secuti, ex ipsa professione se58 Empiricos59 appellauerunt. [11] Sic in duas partes ea quoque quae uictu curat60 medicina diuisa est, aliis rationalem 5 artem, aliis usum tantum sibi uindicantibus,61 nullo62 uero63 quicquam post eos qui supra comprehensi sunt agitante nisi quod64 acceperat, donec Asclepiades medendi rationem ex magna parte mutauit. Ex cuius successoribus Themison65—nuper ipse quoque—quaedam in senectute deflexit. Et per hos quidem maxime uiros salutaris ista nobis professio increuit.

F J: appollonius V T 55 V F J: eraclides: T 56 V F J2 T: tarantinus J1 57 et aliqui V F: alii quoque J alii queq T 58 V F J: om T 59 empericos F1: empeiriphos J1: emfeiphyos T: §mpeirikow J: §mpeirikoÊw Targa (= Ta) Da 60 V F J2: caret J1 T 61 V F2 T: uendicantibus F1: uindicauerunt J 62 F J T: nullam V 63 V F J2 T: om J1 64 V F J: quid T 65 V F J: themisson T 54

FR 99. CELSUS, DE

MEDICINA

(2)

Celsus, De medicina, Prooemium, 54–57: 10 [54] Quamuis ne haec1 quidem sic praeteriri debent quasi nullam controuersiam recipiant. Nam et Erasistratus non ex his2 fieri morbos dixit, quoniam et alii et idem alias3 post ista4 non febricitarent; et quidam medici5 saeculi nostri sub auctore, ut ipsi uideri uolunt, Themisone6 contendunt nullius causae notitiam quicquam ad curationes pertinere satisque esse 15 quaedam communia morborum intueri. [55] Siquidem horum tria genera esset: unum adstrictum, alterum fluens, tertium mixtum. Nam modo parum excernere aegros, modo nimium, modo alia parte parum,7 alia nimium. Haec autem genera morborum modo acuta esse, modo longa, et modo increscere, modo consistere, modo minui.8 [56] Cognito igitur eo quod9 ex 20 his10 est, si corpus adstrictum est, digerendum esse; si profluuio laborat, continendum; si mixtum uitium habet, occurrendum subinde uehementiori malo. Et aliter acutis morbis medendum, aliter uetustis; aliter increscentibus, aliter subsistentibus, aliter iam ad sanitatem inclinatis.11 [57] Horum obseruationem medicinam esse, quam ita finiunt ut quasi uiam qamdam, quam 25 m°yodon12 nominant,13 eorumque quae in morbis communia sunt contem-

V F J > Mu Se: hoc T 2 J T > Da Se: illis F V > Mu: illis suppl M 3 V F J Mu Se: alios T 4 J T Da Mu (uide et pp. 153–4): istas F V 5 om T 6 corr edd: temisone F J T: emisone V 7 rarum F1 J 8 minus V: minui consuerunt J T 9 eo quod V2 F J T: om V1 10 F J T: iis V 11 V F: inclinantibus J T 12 MEYODON J T V: MEYOLON F 13 nominant V: Graeci nominant add J T Da: Graeci vocant Targa (= Ta) 1

  ‒  -

275

medicine, and based the latter on practice [usus] and the data of experience [experimenta]. Apollonius, Glaucias, some time later Heraclides of Tarentum, and other great men followed in his steps; they called themselves Empiricists, from the very thing they believed in. [11] So even the branch of medicine which heals through the regimen split up into two branches, since some [sc doctors] were vindicating a theoretical art [ars rationalis], others just practice alone; and no one after those mentioned above stirred things beyond the received tradition, until Asclepiades transformed the method [ratio] of healing radically. From the ranks of his successors, Themison—once even himself [sc one of them]—gave a new direction to certain things when he was in old age. Here are the most conspicuous men to whom this profession of ours, of bringing health, owes its development.

FR 99. CELSUS, ON

MEDICINE

(2)

Celsus, On medicine, Introduction, 54–57: [54] However, one should not pass over these matters as if they were free from controversy. On the one hand, Erasistratus has claimed that diseases are not produced by these [sc factors, ie factors in the category of “procatarctic” or triggering causes] because different subjects, or one and the same subject at different times, failed to get fever after being exposed to them. On the other hand, some contemporary doctors—under the leadership of Themison, as they present themselves—claim that it is completely irrelevant to therapy to know any cause whatsoever; it is enough to grasp certain communia [= common features] of disease. [55] For there are three of these: one is the constricted state; the second, the fluid state; the third, the mixed state. For in some cases the ill evacuate too little, in other cases too much, and yet in other cases [sc they evacuate] too much in one part, too little in another. But these kinds of disease are in some cases acute, in other cases chronic; and in some cases they are in the ascending phase, in other cases they are stationary, in other cases they are in the descending phase. [56] Therefore, once you know which one of these [sc common features] is [sc in play], if the body is in a state of constriction, relax it; if it is oppressed with flux, compress it; if the malady is of a mixed type, take immediate care of the stronger evil. And you should treat acute diseases in one way, chronic diseases in another; one way when you find them in the ascending phase, another way when they are stationary, and yet another when they already tend towards recovery. [57] Medicine is the study of these facts; the doctors in question describe it as a sort of path [uia], which they call “methodos” [= way], and they claim that it examines those features

276

  ‒  -

platricem esse contendunt.14 Ac neque rationalibus15 se neque experimenta tantum spectantibus16 adnumerari uolunt,17 cum ab illis eo nomine18 dissentiant quod in coniectura rerum latentium nolunt19 esse medicinam, ab his eo quod20 parum21 artis esse in obseruatione experimentorum credunt. contendunt F1 V Mu: contendant F2 J T Da M 15 J T rationabilibus V2 F F J T: exspectantibus V 17 F J T: uolent V2: selent V1 18 V2 P (= Parisinus 7028) J T: mine V1 19 V J F: uolunt T 20 eo quod V F J: quod T 21 V F J2 T: partes rum J1 14 16

FR 100. CELSUS, DE

MEDICINA

(3)

Celsus, De medicina, Prooemium, 62–73: 5 [62] Themisonis1 uero aemuli, si2 perpetua quae promittunt habent, magis etiam quam3 ulli rationales sunt. Neque enim si quis non omnia tenet quae rationalis alius4 probat, protinus alio nouo5 nomine artis indiget si modo, quod primum est, non memoriae soli sed rationi quoque insistit. [63] Si uero, quod6 propius est, uix ulla perpetua praecepta medicinalis ars recipit, 10 idem sunt quod ii quos experimenta sola sustinent: eo magis quoniam, compresserit7 aliquem morbus an fuderit, quilibet, etiam imperitissimus, uidet. Quid autem8 compressum corpus resoluat, quid solutum teneat, si a ratione9 tractum est, rationalis est10 medicus; si, ut11 ei12 qui se rationalem negat confiteri necesse est, ab experientia,13 Empiricus.14 [64] Ita apud eum morbi 15 cognitio extra artem, medicina intra usum est. Neque adiectum quicquam Empiricorum15 professioni sed demptum est, quoniam illi multa circumspiciunt, hi tantum facillima et non plus quam uulgaria. [65] Nam et ii qui pecoribus ac iumentibus medentur, cum propria cuiusque ex mutis16 animalibus nosse non possint,17 communibus tantummodo insistunt; et exterae 20 gentes, cum subtilem medicinae rationem non nouerint, communia tantum uident;18 et qui ampla19 ualetudinaria20 nutriunt, quia singulis21 summa cura consulere non sustinent, ad communia ista confugiunt. [66] Neque, Hercules, istud22 antiqui medici nescierunt, sed his23 contenti non fuerunt. Ergo etiam uetustissimus auctor, Hippocrates, dixit mederi oportere et communia et

V F J: themissionis T 2 om J T 3 V2 F J2 T: qui J1: om V1 4 F J T: aliis V : alio V2 5 del Ma 6 ego: si, uero quod Mu Se: sin Da 7 V F J: comprehenserit T 8 quid autem V F J2 T: quod J1 9 a ratione V F J1 T: e ratione J2 10 rationalis est om V1 11 ut F2 J T: om V F1 12 ei V F T: et J 13 experientia V F J: experimenta T1: experimentia T2 14 empericus V F T Ma: empericus est J 15 J T: empericorum V F Ma 16 J T: multis V F 17 F2 Se: possent V F1 J T 18 om V1 19 cett: ample F2 20 V: ualetudinari T: ualetudinarios F J 21 V F J2: singuli J1 T 22 V T: istud et F J 23 V2 F T: sed hic J: sed iis V1 1

1

  ‒  -

277

which are common to all diseases. And they refuse to be assimilated either to the Rationalists or to those who rely on experience alone: they dissent from the former, namely, by reason of not conceding that medicine is a matter of conjecture about hidden things, and from the latter in that they do not believe there is much of an art in the recording of the facts of experience.

FR 100. CELSUS, ON

MEDICINE

(3)

Celsus, On medicine, Introduction, 62–73: [62] And now for the disciples [aemuli ] of Themison: if they take the things they vouch for to be absolute, then they are Rationalists [rationales] even to a greater extent than others. For if you do not stick to everything held by another, who is a Rationalist, you do not thereby automatically need a brand new name for your art, provided that you do not rely on memory alone but use reasoning [ratio] as well (and this is the primary [sc consideration]). [63] But if, as is more probable, the art of medicine has hardly any room for absolute principles, they [sc the disciples of Themison] do not differ from those who base themselves exclusively on [sc the results of ] experience—and the more so as anyone, even the man in the street, has eyes to see whether the disease has produced constriction or waste in the patient. On the other hand, when it comes to what relaxes a body under constriction or constricts it when it is relaxed, if the doctor derives that from reasoning, then he is a Rationalist doctor; if he derives it from experience, as one who claims that he is not a Rationalist must admit to do, then he is an Empirical doctor. [64] And so, according to him [sc a doctor of the kind we discuss, ie one of Themison’s aemuli ], knowledge of disease falls beyond the boundary of his profession, and medicine falls within the boundary of practice. The doctrine of the Empiricists has not been enriched; on the contrary, it has been impoverished, since those doctors make observations about many facts, whereas these ones [sc make observations] only about the facts that are most readily accessible, and indeed not above ordinary notice. [65] For also those who look after cattle and horses depend exclusively on what is common [communia], just like them—because they cannot possibly learn from the inarticulate beasts what is specific [ propria] to each one in part; foreigners, too, perceive only what is common, just like them—because they are uninstructed in the subtleties of medical reasoning; again, those who have large hospitals in their charge take refuge in what is common, just like them—because they lack resources to attend properly to individual patients. [66] It is not, by Hercules, that the doctors of old were ignorant of a thing like that; on the contrary, they were not happy with them [sc the communia]. Therefore even Hippocrates, our most ancient

278

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

propria24 intuentem. Ac ne isti quidem ipsi intra suam professionem consistere ullo modo possunt, siquidem et compressorum et fluentium morborum genera diuersa sunt. Faciliusque id in iis25 quae fluunt inspici potest. [67] Aliud est enim sanguinem, aliud bilem, aliud26 cibum uomere; aliud deiectionibus, aliud torminibus laborare; aliud sudore digeri, aliud tabe consumi. Atque in partes quoque umor erumpit, ut oculos27 auresque.28 Quo periculo nullum humanum membrum uacat. Nihil autem horum sic ut aliud29 curatur. [68] Ita protinus in his30 a communi fluentis morbi contemplatione31 ad propriam medicina32 descendit.33 Atque in hac34 quoque rursus alia proprietatis notitia saepe necessaria est, quia non eadem omnibus etiam in similibus casibus opitulantur, siquidem certae quaedam35 res sunt quae in pluribus uentrem aut adstringunt36 aut resoluunt, inueniuntur tamen in quibus aliter atque in ceteris {idem}37 eueniat. In his ergo communium inspectio contraria est, propriorum tantum salutaris. Et causae quoque aestimatio38 saepe morbum soluit. [69] Ergo etiam ingeniosissimus39 saeculi nostri medicus, quem nuper uidimus, Cassius,40 febricitanti cuidam et magna siti affecto, cum post ebrietatem eum premi coepisse cognosset,41 aquam frigidam ingessit. Qua ille42 epota43 cum uini uim miscendo fregisset, protinus febrem somno et sudore discussit. [70] Quod auxilium medicus opportune prouidit non ex eo quod aut adstrictum corpus erat aut fluebat, sed ex ea causa quae ante praecesserat. Estque etiam proprium aliquid et loci et temporis istis quoque auctoribus qui, cum disputant quemadmodum sanis hominibus agendum sit, praecipiunt ut grauibus aut locis aut temporibus magis uitetur frigus, aestus, satietas, labor, libido; magisque ut conquiescat isdem44 locis aut temporibus si quis grauitatem corporis sensit,45 ac neque uomitu stomachum neque purgatione46 aluum sollicitet. [71] Quae uera quidem sunt; a47 communibus tamen ad quaedam propria descendunt, nisi persuadere nobis uolunt sanis quidem considerandum esse quod caelum, quod tempus anni sit, aegris uero non esse, quibus tanto magis omnis obseruatio necessaria est quanto magis obnoxia offensis48 infirmitas est. Quin49 etiam morborum in isdem50 hominibus aliae atque aliae proprietates sunt, et qui secundis aliquando frustra curatus est contrariis saepe restituitur.51 [72] Plurimaque in dando cibo discrimina reperiuntur, ex quibus contentus

et communia propria V F1 25 V Se: his F J T 26 aut V1 27 ut oculos V F1 Se: in oculos J T: ut in oculos F2 Da 28 auresque F2 J T:aurisque F1 V 29 F J T: alii V 30 in his V F J: nihil T 31 F J T: contemplationem V 32 medicina corr edd: medicinam codd 33 F J2 T: discedit V: desedit J1 34 hac codd Da Ma Se: hoc corr Mu 35 quaedam corr Palavicinus in F: quidem F1 V J T 36 V1 F: stringunt V2 J T 37 secl ego (an: inuenitur tamen in quibus aliter atque in quibus idem eueniat?): id Da 38 stimatio V1 39 V F J: ingeniosissimi T 40 F J T: cautius V 41 V1 F: cognosceret V2 J T 42 F J T: illa V 43 V F2 J T: pota F1 44 V J: hisdem F1: hisdem aut F2 J: idem aut T 45 sensit V F: sentit J T1 Da: sentiat T2 46 F J T: purgationum V 47 V F J1: ac J2 T 48 V F J: infensis T 49 F2 J T: qui V F1 50 hisdem J T 51 V F J: restituuntur T 24

  ‒  

279

author, said that, in therapy, one should take notice both of what is common and of what is specific. But not even they [sc the followers of Themison] can stick to their own doctrine, since there are various kinds of diseases of compression and flux. This can be more easily seen in diseases of flux. [67] For it is one thing to vomit blood, another to vomit bile, and still another to vomit food; one thing to suffer from diarrhoea, another to suffer from colics; one thing to be wearied by sweating, another to be wasted by consumption. Moreover, a fluid may break out in different organs, such as the eyes or the ears. No part of the human body is free from that danger. But not a single one of them asks for the same treatment as another. [68] So, in these cases medicine turns rapidly from the general [communis] investigation of a disease of flux to the specific [propria] [sc investigation]. And such an inquiry, in turn, often demands additional acquaintance with what is peculiar to the patient, because even in similar cases the same remedies are not beneficial to everyone: certain substances are sure to compress or relax the stomach in most people, and yet you find people on whom the very same substance produces other results than on the rest. With these people, the investigation of what is common would be counter-productive; only the investigation of what is specific would be useful. [69] It is also the case that the identification of the cause often removes a disease. Thus someone was taken with fever and great thirst. Cassius—the cleverest doctor of our age: he was under our eyes until quite recently—gave him plenty of cold water when he learned that the attack had started after intoxication. By drinking it, the man curbed the virulence of wine mixing it [sc with water]; he slept, sweated, and shook off his fever at once. [70] The doctor successfully anticipated [sc the course of action of ] that remedy, not on the basis of the fact that the body was in a state of tension or flux, but on the basis of the preceding cause. There is also something specific to region and season, and even according to our authors: when they take up the subject of how healthy people should live, they instruct us that, in a region with a heavy climate or under an oppressive period of the year, one should take greater care to avoid cold, heat, surfeit, fatigue, and sexual excitement; that, in such a place or season, one who feels heavy should rest longer and should not irritate the oesophagus by vomiting or the bowel by excreting. [71] All this is certainly true; however, they do descend from what is common to some specific features—unless they would have us persuaded that the healthy ought to pay heed to such factors as climate or season, but not so the ill—although in the case of the latter taking every precaution is all the more welcome, since their debility exposes them to further damage. In fact, the characteristics displayed by diseases vary even with identical subjects; and someone to whom the appropriate treatment was formerly administered without results is often restored to health by an opposite treatment. [72] There is a great range of differences [sc to be

280

  ‒  -

uno ero. Nam famem facilius adulescens quam puer, facilius52 in denso caelo quam in tenui, facilius hieme quam aestate,53 facilius uno cibo quam prandio quoque assuetus, facilius inexercitatus quam exercitatus homo sustinet. [73] Saepe autem in eo magis necessaria cibi festinatio est qui 5 minus inediam tolerat. Ob quae54 conicio55 eum qui propria non nouit communia tantum debere intueri;56 eumque57 qui nosse proprietates58 potest non59 illa60 quidem oportere neglegere, sed his quoque insistere. Ideoque, cum par61 scientia62 sit, utiliorem tamen medicum esse amicum quam extraneum.

V F1 T: facilius fert F2 J 53 om J T 54 F J T: qua V 55 V F J2: competit J T: concipio Da 56 V F: intueri debere J T 57 V F: eum J T 58 proprietates V F Mu Se: propria J T Da 59 hic V F T: post quidam J Da 60 illa J T Da Mu Se: illas F V Ma 61 V F J: per T 62 V2 F T: scientiae J: scien . . . tia V1 52

1

FR 101. CELSUS, DE

MEDICINA

(4)

Celsus, De medicina, III iv 6: 10 [6] Optimum uero medicamentum eius1 est opportune cibus datus. Qui quando primum dari debeat quaeritur. Plerique ex antiqui tarde dabant, saepe quinto die, saepe sexto; et id fortasse uel in Asia uel in Aegypto caeli ratio patitur. Asclepiades ubi aegrum triduo per omnia fatigaret,2 quartum diem3 cibo destinabat. At Themison nuper non quando coepisset febris sed 15 quando desisset aut certe leuata esset considerabat. Et ab illo tempore expectato die tertio, si non accesserit4 febris, statim; si accesserat, ubi ea uel desierat, uel, si adsidue inhaerebat, certe si se inclinauerat cibum dabat.

1

eius: om Da

2

fatigaverat Da

3

quarto die Da

FR 102. CELSUS, DE

4

accesserat Da

MEDICINA

(5)

Celsus, De medicina, III iv 16–17: [16] Illud autem magis ad rem pertinet scire, tum oporteat dari, cum iam bene uenae conquieuerunt, an etiamnum manentibus reliquiis febris. Antiqui 20 enim quam integerrimis corporibus alimentum offerebant; Asclepiades, incli-

  ‒  -

281

observed] in prescribing food, and I shall content myself with just one example. Fasting is endured more easily by an adult than by a growing youth; more easily in a dense than in a light atmosphere; more easily in winter than in summer; more easily by someone accustomed to one meal than by someone who also has lunch regularly; more easily by a sedentary than by an active person. [73] But in general one must speed up the resumption of food when the patient does not bear well the lack of food. From these [sc facts] I gather that it is the doctor who does not know the propria [sc of his case] that should grasp only the communia; as for the doctor who has the possibility of learning the particular features [ proprietates], he should not, of course, ignore the latter [sc the communia], but he should concentrate on the former. Besides, even at equal amounts of knowledge, a doctor is still of greater assistance when he is a friend rather than a mere stranger.

FR 101. CELSUS, ON

MEDICINE

(4)

Celsus, On medicine, III iv 6: [6] But his [sc Asclepiades’] best medicine is food administered at the right moment. The question is when it should be administered for the first time. Most of the doctors of old used to do it at a late stage—often on the fifth, often on sixth day; and maybe the climatic conditions in Asia or Egypt permit this. Asclepiades assigned to nourishment the fourth day, after having exhausted the patient for three days in every possible way. But in more recent times Themison used to take into account not the moment when the fever begun but the moment when it ceased, or at least alleviated. From that time on he would wait for three days, and if the fever did not return, he would administer food at once; if it did, he would administer food either when the fever disappeared or, if it persisted stubbornly, when at least it abated.

FR 102. CELSUS, ON

MEDICINE

(5)

Celsus, On medicine, III iv 16–17: [16] But it is more to the point to know whether one should administer food when the pulse has come down completely or when there is still a remainder of fever. The doctors of old used to give nutriment when the body was as much as possible in a good condition; Asclepiades, when the

282

  ‒  -

nata quidem febre sed adhuc1 tamen inhaerente. In quo uanam rationem secutus est, non quod non sit interdum maturius cibus dandus, si mature timetur altera accessio, sed quo scilicet quam sanissimo dari debeat: minus enim corrumpitur quod integro corpori infertur. [17] Neque tamen uerum 5 est, quod Themisoni uidebatur, si duabus horis integer futurus esset aeger, satius esse tum dare ut ab integro potissimum corpore diduceretur. Nam si diduci tam celeriter posset, id esset optimum; sed cum hoc2 breue tempus non praestet, satius est principia cibi a decedente febre quam reliquias ab incipiente excipi. Ita si longius tempus secundum est, quam integerrimo 20 dandum est; si breue, etiam antequam ex toto integer fiat.

1

adhuc Da: etiamnum Spencer (= Sp)

2

hoc Da: id Sp

FR 103. CELSUS, DE

MEDICINA

(6)

Celsus, De medicina, IV xxii 1 + 3–4: [1] Proxima his inter intestinorum mala tormina esse consueuerunt—“dysenteria” Graece uocatur. [. . .] [3] Si uetustior morbus est, ex inferioribus partibus tepidum infundere uel tisanae cremorem uel lac uel adipem liquatam uel medullam ceruinam uel oleum uel cum rosa butyrum uel cum eadem 15 album crudum ex ouis uel aquam in qua lini semen decoctum sit; uel, si somnus non accedit, uitellos cum aqua in qua rosae floris folia cocta sint. Leuant enim dolorem haec et mitiora ulcera efficiunt; maximeque utilia sunt, si cibi quoque secutum fastidium est. [4] Themison muria dura quam asperrima hic1 utendum memoriae prodidit. Cibi uero esse debent qui leniter 20 uentrem adstringant.

1

corr cett edd: sic Da e codd

FR 104DUB. CELSUS, DE

MEDICINA

(7)

Celsus, De medicina, VI vi 2 + 4: [2] Multa autem multorumque auctorum collyria ad id apta sunt, nouisque etiamnum1 mixturis temperari possunt, cum lenia medicamenta et modice

1

etiamnum Da: etiam nunc Sp

  ‒  -

283

fever had diminished somewhat, but was nevertheless still active. In this he was mistaken—not because food should not, on occasion, be administered earlier, if a new attack of fever is expected soon, but because food should obviously be administered when the patient is in the best possible state: for what is introduced in a sound body gets corrupted to a lesser degree. [17] However, what Themison thought is not correct either—namely that, if the patient is going to be in good condition for two hours, it is better to administer [sc the food] then, so as to have it distributed by a body which is chiefly in a good condition. That would be ideal if food could be distributed at such speed; but, since this short period is of no avail, it is preferable that the assimilation of food should start while the fever is declining, rather than finish while it [sc the fever] is ascending. Thus, if the propitious interval is longer, food should be administered when the patient is in the best condition he can reach; if short, [sc food should be administered] even before he is completely in a good condition.

FR 103. CELSUS, ON

MEDICINE

(6)

Celsus, On medicine, IV xxii 1 + 3–4: [1] Among the complaints of the intestines, spasms [tormina]—called in Greek “dusenteria”—are considered to come closest to the above [sc efileÒw and kolikÒw]. [. . .] [3] If the disease is chronic, you should inject through the lower parts a lukewarm and viscous juice of pearl barley, milk, melted lard or deer marrow, olive oil, or rose oil, [sc treated] either with butter or with the white of an egg, or a decoction of water and flaxseed; or, if the patient cannot sleep, yolk in a decoction of water and rose leaves. For these substances alleviate the pain and soften the ulcerations; and they achieve maximum efficiency if loss of appetite follows. [4] Themison has put it down in writing that in such cases one should use strong brine, as prickly as possible. Indeed the foods must be such as to have a mildly astringent effect on the stomach.

FR 104DUB. CELSUS, ON

MEDICINE

(7)

Celsus, On medicine, VI vi 2 + 4: [2] Now, there are many salves for this [sc disease], prepared by many doctors, and they can be blended into new admixtures even to this day, since mild and moderately repressant medicines mix up easily in all sorts

284

  ‒  -

reprimentia facile et uarie misceantur. Ego nobilissima exequar. [. . .] [4] Dionysi uero collyrium est: papaueris lacrimae, combustae donec tenerescant:2 pondo unus et sextans denarii; 5 turis3 combusti, cummis:4 singulorum pondo semidenarius; spodii pondo quattuor denarii.

2

tenerescat Da

3

turis: aeris Da

4

cummis: gummi Da

FR 105. CELSUS, DE

MEDICINA

(8)

Celsus, De medicina, VI vii F: [F] Licet etiam compositione uti Themisonis, quae habet: castorei, opopanacis, papaueris lacrimae: singulorum pondo duo denarii; spumae lyci: pondo quattuor denarii. 10 Quae contrita passo excipiuntur donec cerati crassitudinem habeant atque ita reponuntur. Ubi usu1 requiritur,2 rursus id medicamentum adiecto passo specillo3 teritur. Illud perpetuum est, quotienscumque crassius medicamentum est quam ut in aurem instillari possit, adiciendum eum esse umorem ex quo id componi debet donec satis liquidum sit.

1

ego: usus cett e codd

2

requirit corr Da

3

FR 106DUB. CELSUS, DE

om Da

MEDICINA

(9)

Celsus, De medicina, VI ix 5: 15 [5] Si uero exesus est dens, festinare ad eximendum eum nisi res cogit1 non est necesse, sed tum omnibus fomentis quae supra posita sunt, adiciendae quaedam ualentiores compositiones sunt quae dolorem leuant, qualis Herae est. [. . .] Aut Menemachi, maxime ad maxillares dentes, in qua sunt: croci pondo sextans denarii; cardamomi, turis fuliginis, ficorum, sparti,2 pyrethri—singulorum pondo 20 quattuor denarii; sinapis pondo octo denarii.

1

coegit Sp

2

sparti corr ego: ficorum, spartes Sp: ficorum partes Da

  ‒  -

285

of ways. I shall present the most reputable ones. [. . .] [4] Next, the salve of Dionysius is as follows: poppy tears, burnt until they soften: one denarius and a sixth; burnt frankincense and kommi: half a denarius each; zinc ashes: four denarii.

FR 105. CELSUS, ON

MEDICINE

(8)

Celsus, On medicine, VI vii F: [F] You may also use the composition of Themison, which contains: castoreum, opopanax, and poppy tears: two denarii of each; ashes of lycium: four denarii. You pound these [sc ingredients] and add raisin wine until they acquire the consistency of a cerate, then you store them. Whenever it [sc the remedy] is required for use, you stir it afresh with a probe, adding raisin wine. It is an absolute [sc rule] that, whenever a remedy becomes too thick to be poured into the ear, one must add in the very liquid with which it has to be made, until it [sc the remedy in question] is fluid enough.

FR 106DUB. CELSUS, ON

MEDICINE

(9)

Celsus, On medicine, VI ix 5: [5] But if the tooth is decayed, there is no need to remove it in a rush unless one has to; instead, one should use all the applications described above, with the addition of some stronger compositions which alleviate pain, such as the composition of Heras. [. . .] Or, especially for molar teeth, [sc one should use] the composition of Menemachus, which contains the following: saffron: one sixth of a denarius; cardamom, frankincense soot, figs, spartum, pellitory: four denarii each; mustard: eight denarii.

286

  ‒  - FR 107DUB. CELSUS, DE

MEDICINA

(10)

Celsus, De medicina, VI xviii 9 C: [9 C] Ac si iam uetustiora sunt, sub auctore Dionysio inspergenda sandraca est, deinde imponendum id quod ex his constat: squamae aeris, auripigmenti: singulorum pondo quinque denarii; saxi calcis: pondo octo denarii. 5 Postero die acu compungendum. Adustis capitulis fit cicatrix quae sanguinem fundi prohibet.

FR 108DUB. FRONTO, EPISTULAE

AD AMICOS

Fronto, Epistulae ad amicos, i 2: FrÒntvn ÉAp ÉApollvn¤d˙: KornhlianÚn Soulp¤kion file›n §rjãmhn ≤sye‹w t“ te trÒpƒ téndrÚw ka‹ to›w lÒgoiw: p°fuken går prÚw lÒgouw êrista:1 oÈk ín dÉ ¶jarnow e‡hn tå pr«ta parÉ §mo‹ f°resyai tØn §k paide¤aw fil¤an sustaye›san.2 10 Paide¤an d¢ taÊthn l°gv tØn t«n =htÒrvn: aÏth3 går doke› moi ényrvp¤nh tiw e‰nai.4 < ÑH d¢> t«n5 filosÒfvn ye¤a tiw ¶stv. BoÆyhson oÔn tå dunatå Kornhlian“: égay“ éndr‹ kémo‹ f¤lƒ ka‹ ka‹ oÈ filosÒfƒ.6

êrista A (= Ambrosianus E 147 ord. sup.) > Haines (Ha) van den Hout (= Ho): êristow Haupt (= H) 2 sustaye›san Maius ed secunda (= Ma2) Naber (= Na) Jacobs (= Ja) Ha Ho: eÈstaye›san Maius ed princeps (= Ma1): §nstaye›san Buttmann (= Bu) 3 Bu Ja Ha Ho: aÎth ci Ma1 4 tiw e‰nai corr Bu Ja Ha Ho: tisneiai A: tis‹n e‰nai ci Ma1 5 t«n add Bu: t«n add Ja: t«n Ha 6 Na> Ha: éndr‹ kémo‹ f¤lƒ ka¤ oÈ filosÒfƒ Niebur (= Ni): égay“ éndr‹ damof¤lƒ ka‹ ka‹ oÈ filosÒfƒ Ma1: égay“ éndr‹ kémo‹ f¤lƒ ka‹ ka‹ oÈ filosÒfƒ Bu: égay“ éndr‹ kémo‹ f¤lƒ ka‹ Ja (i) / Ja (ii) / Ja (iii): ka‹ sÁ f¤low Ãn ka‹ 1

Anon 1817 (sic in Ha)

  ‒  - FR 107DUB. CELSUS, ON

MEDICINE

287

(10)

Celsus, On medicine, VI xviii 9 C: [9 C] And if they [sc the small heads in haemorrhoids] are already chronic, under the authority of Dionysius, sprinkle sandarac, then apply the [sc composition] which consists of the following: copper scales and orpiment: five denarii of each; limestone rock: eight denarii. On the next day, puncture [sc the affected area] with a needle. Once the small heads are cauterised, a scab forms which prevents the blood from running out.

FR 108DUB. FRONTO, LETTERS

TO HIS FRIENDS

Fronto, Letters to his friends, i 2: Fronto to Appius Apollonides: I came to care a lot for Cornelianus Sulpicius, by way of enjoying the man’s character and his eloquence—for he has an extraordinary gift for eloquence; and I would not deny that it is the [sc kind of ] friendship grounded on culture that takes the highest place with me. When I say “culture”, I mean the sort that the rhetoricians have; for this is the one that seems to me something proper for man. As for the one that belongs to philosophers—let it be something suited to the gods. Well then, do help Cornelianus to your best: he is a good man, a friend of mine, a scholar, and no philosopher.

288

  ‒  -

FR 109. GALENUS, AD GLAUCONEM

DE METHODO MEDENDI

(1)

Galenus, Ad Glauconem de methodo medendi, II, ii, pp. 78–80 K:

5

10

15

20

[ii, 78] ÖEsti goËn m¤a tiw prÒfasiw t«n fainom°nvn flegmon«n oÈ pãnu ti lanyãnousa: tÚ kaloÊmenon =eËma—plØn e‡pote sundrãmoi ta›w diÉ êllhn tinå prÒdhlon afit¤an dokoÊsaiw gegon°nai. ÑHn¤ka m¢n går oÈdemiçw [79] §ke¤nvn prohghsam°nhw §ja¤fnhw §fl°gmhne tÚ mÒrion, ≤ m¢n §rgasam°nh tÚ pãyow afit¤a =eËma kale›tai, tÚ pãyow dÉ aÈtÚ =eumatikØ diãyesiw. Ka‹ xrØ mãlistÉ §p‹ t«n toioÊtvn flegmon«n tåw érxåw t«n fiãsevn xrhståw e‰nai. Tå går §n aÈta›w èmartÆmata dusiãtouw µ ka‹ pantãpasin éniãtouw §rgãzetai tåw diay°seiw. M°gista dÉ èmartÆmata dÊo taËta, tÒ te mhdem¤an ˜lou toË s≈matow prÒnoian poie›syai ka‹ tÚ yerma¤nein m¢n ka‹ Ígra¤nein ¶ti tÚ m°row. ÖAmfv dÉ ofl pollo‹ t«n fiatr«n èmartãnousi. Tin¢w m¢n gãr efisin §k t∞w Meyodik∞w aflr°sevw énapepeism°noi ka‹ tåw flegmonåw èpãsaw stegnå pãyh nom¤zontew ka‹ xalòn aÈtåw ≤goÊmenoi de›n. Efis‹ dÉ o„ ka‹ élÒgvw te ka‹ ésk°ptvw §ke¤noiw ßpontai, m¤an épolog¤an toË kak«w poie›n ¶xontew tÚ sÁn pollo›w èmartãnein. ÉAllÉ oÎte t«n Dogmatik«n fiatr«n tiw oÎte t«n ÉEmpeirik«n oÏtvw §g¤gnvsken, éllÉ ˜per ˜ te lÒgow ÍpagoreÊei ka‹ ≤ pe›ra, tÚ m¢n ˜lon s«ma kenoËn ta›w §ndexom°naiw ken≈sesi sumbouleÊousin, aÈtÚ d¢ tÚ flegma›non m°row §pibr°xein te ka‹ kataplãttein to›w épvye›syai m¢n tÚ §pirr°on [80] dunam°noiw kenoËn d¢ tÚ ≥dh periexÒmenon §n t“ peponyÒti tÒpƒ, tÒnon d¢ ka‹ =≈mhn §ntiy°nai to›w ≥dh peponhkÒsi mor¤oiw.

FR 110. GALENUS, AD GLAUCONEM

DE METHODO MEDENDI

(2)

Galenus, Ad Glauconem de methodo medendi, II, iii, pp. 89 + 96–98 K: [iii, 89] ToiaËtai m°n tinew afl t«n toioÊtvn pay«n fiãseiw katå g°now: §jallãttontai d¢ parå tåw t«n peponyÒtvn Ùrgãnvn fÊseiw. T°ttarew dÉ épÚ toÊtvn §nde¤jeiw efis¤n, §k t∞w krãsevw aÈt«n, §k t∞w diaplã25 sevw, §k t∞w y°sevw, §k t∞w dunãmevw. [. . .] [96] ÑH m¢n oÔn parå t∞w y°sevw t«n mor¤vn ¶ndeijiw efiw tosoËton êra tØn yerape¤an Ípallãttei: ≤ d¢ parå t∞w dunãmevw efiw ˜son nËn §r«. ÉEpeidØ t«n mor¤vn toË s≈matow tå m¢n §pirrÊtoiw dioike›tai dunãmesi, tå d¢ ka‹ sumfÊtoiw, toÊtvn dÉ aÈt«n tå m¢n •auto›w mÒnoiw, tå d¢ ka‹ êlloiw érxa‹ dunãme≈n 30 efisi: ka‹ t«n m¢n ‡dion toÔrgÒn §sti, t«n d¢ koinÒn, énagka›on Ípallãttesyai tÚ t∞w yerape¤aw e‰dow §n •kãst˙ t«n efirhm°nvn diafor«n.

289

  ‒  - FR 109. GALEN, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY, TO

GLAUCON (1)

Galen, On the method of therapy, to Glaucon, II, ii, pp. 78–80 K: [ii, 78] There is, then, just one cause for the manifest inflammations, and one which does not escape our notice at all: [sc it is] the thing called flux [=eËma]—unless it [sc the inflammation] happens to run into [sc others], which seem to have come about through some other obvious cause. For when the part got inflamed straightaway, without any [79] of those [sc causes] having preceded it, the cause which produced the affection is called flux, and the affection itself [sc is called] a state of flux. And it is especially in inflammations of this sort that the beginnings of treatments must be good. For mistakes during these [sc periods] render the states difficult to cure, if not altogether impossible. Now, the greatest mistakes are the following two: failure to take precautions about the whole body, and heating accompanied by moistening of the part. Most of the doctors make both of these mistakes. For some come to be seduced by the Methodist hairesis and, taking all inflammations to be affections of the constricted kind, believe that one must relax them. There are in fact [sc doctors] who follow them [sc the Methodists] irrationally and without examination, their only excuse for the harm they inflict being that they share their mistakes with many others. On the contrary, none of the Dogmatists or Empiricists has taken this sort of approach; they agree instead on what both reason and experience dictate, namely that one should empty the whole body by the [sc kinds of ] evacuations that it admits of; [sc that one should] drench the inflamed part itself and apply to it plasters [80] which can repel what flows into it and evacuate what is already collected in the affected part; and [sc that one should] build tonus and strength into those parts which are already affected.

FR 110. GALEN, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY, TO

GLAUCON (2)

Galen, On the method of therapy, to Glaucon, II, iii, pp. 89 + 96–98 K: [iii, 89] Such are, then, some of the treatments for such affections, taken by kind: they vary according to the [sc specific] natures of the affected organs. There are four [sc kinds of ] indications originating in them [sc the organs]: [sc the kind derived] from their temperament, [sc the kind derived] from their shape, [sc the kind derived] from their position, and [sc the kind derived] from their function. [. . .] [96] In conclusion, this is the extent to which the indication from the position of the parts imposes variations in therapy; and now I will show to what extent the one from their function [sc does]. For some of the bodily parts are governed by functions that supervene on them, whereas others [sc are governed] by functions that are congenital to them; some of the latter [sc organs], in turn, [sc are sources] of their own functions, while others are sources of functions for other [sc parts] as well; and some have a specific activity, others one which is shared. So the kind of the therapy necessarily varies with each of the distinctions I

290

5

10

15

20

  ‒  -

Pollå går t«n proeirhm°nvn bohyhmãtvn lÊei m¢n tå pãyh, blãptei d¢ tåw sumfÊtouw t«n mor¤vn dunãmeiw, œn d¢ ≤ blãbh pant‹ t“ s≈mati diaf°rei, ditt«w toÊtou gignom°nou, parÉ ˜son ≥toi dunã[97]me≈w §stin érxØ tÚ splãgxnon 1 ëpasi to›w m°resi koinØ µ toÔrgon aÈtoË pant‹ t“ s≈mati xrÆsimon. äHpar m¢n går ka‹ kard¤a ka‹ §gk°falow ka‹ ˆrxeiw érxa‹ dunãme≈n efisi koina‹ ˜lƒ t“ s≈mati, gastr‹ d¢ ka‹ mÆtr& ¶mfutoi m¢n afl dunãmeiw ka‹ oÈdenÚw êllou koina¤, tÒ ge mØn ¶rgon tÚ m¢n t∞w gastrÚw ëpanti t“ s≈mati xrÆsimon, tÚ d¢ t«n mhtr«n oÈk°ti. Blãptei d¢ pollãkiw ≤ toË pãyouw ‡asiw tØn dÊnamin toË m°rouw: tã te går ém°trvw xal«nta lÊei tÚn tÒnon Àste ka‹ tØn dÊnamin toË m°rouw, tå dÉ ÍperballÒntvw cÊxonta sb°nnusi tÚ ¶mfuton yermÒn, ˘ tãxa m°n, Àw tisin ¶doje t«n ér¤stvn fiatr«n te ka‹ filosÒfvn, ≤ oÈs¤a t«n dunãme≈n §stin: efi d¢ mÆ, éllå tÒ ge pr«tÒn te ka‹ énagkaiÒtaton aÈt«n ˆrganon. ÖHdh d¢ ka‹ poiÒtht°w tinew êtopoi katalutika‹ t«n dunãme≈n efisin. OÈd¢n oÔn toÊtvn xrØ par°rxesyai katå tåw fiãseiw, ·na mÆ pote lãyvmen ≤mçw aÈtoÁw efipÒntaw tÚ m¢n pãyow §yerapeÊyh, ı dÉ ênyrvpow ép°yanen: ˜per ıshm°rai gignÒmenon ıròw ÍpÚ t«n ple¤stvn—˜soi tÆn tÉ êlogon tribØn presbeÊousi ka‹ tØn ëpasi to›w t∞w t°xnhw kalo›w [98] lumhnam°nhn a·resin MeyodikÆn: ¥ tinaw lÒgouw metadi≈kei DogmatikoÁw m°n, éllå ka‹ poll«n èmarthmãtvn énãplevw.

1

add ego

FR 111(+DUB). GALENUS, ADVERSUS IULIANUM Galenus, Adversus Iulianum, pp. 246–299 K = 33–70 Wenkebach: [i, 246] ÖAmeinon m¢n ∑n, Àsper ofl nomoy°tai toÁw ceud«w §gkal°santaw ımo¤vw timvroËntai to›w §gklhye›sin, e‡per ¥lvsan, oÏtvw ka‹ toÁw éntil°gontaw ceud«w oÂw oÈk ¶mayon Íp°xein éj¤an œn plhmmeloËsi 25 timvr¤an. ÉEpe‹ dÉ oÈk o‰dÉ ˜pvw Ïbrevw m¢n §fe›tai dikãzesyai, nÒmow dÉ oÈde‹w ke›tai per‹ t«n ceud«w §gkaloÊntvn,1 efikÒtvw o‰mai [247] katå t«n ér¤stvn éndr«n ofl skaiÒtatoi l°gein tolm«sin. ÉExr∞n går Àsper §n AfigÊptƒ pãlai t«n katå tåw t°xnaw eÍriskom°nvn ßkaston ÍpÚ koinoË sunedr¤ou t«n pepaideum°nvn kriy¢n §negrãfeto stÆlaiw 30 tis‹n épokeim°naiw §n flero›w xvr¤oiw, oÏtv ka‹ parÉ ≤m›n e‰na¤ ti sun°drion éndr«n dika¤vn te ëma ka‹ pepaideum°nvn, o„ dokimãzontew tå

1

per‹ t«n ceud«w éntilegÒntvn ci Wifstrand (= Wi), “Emendazionen”, Eikota VIII

Lund 1962–1963.3

  ‒  -

291

mentioned. For many of the remedies discussed above indeed destroy the affections, but they also damage the functions congenital to the parts, and their [sc the functions’] damage is distributed through the whole body; this happens under two circumstances, depending on whether [97] the source of the function is an internal organ whose [sc function] is shared by all the parts or its activity is good for the whole body. For instance the liver, the heart, the brain, and the genital organs are sources of functions which are shared by the whole body, while the stomach and the womb have functions of their own, which are not shared by any other part, but the activity of the stomach is good for the whole body, that of the womb is not. It is often the case that the healing of the affection damages the function of the part; for immoderate relaxants destroy the tonus as well as the function of the part, while excessively cooling [sc medicines] extinguish the natural heat, which may well be the substance of the functions, as some of the best doctors and philosophers have thought; or, if not that, it is at least their primary and most necessary instrument. Strange qualities, too, can be destructive for the functions sometimes. Therefore we must ignore none of these [sc factors] in our healings, so as not to delude ourselves by saying that the affection was cured but the man died: you can see how most [sc doctors] do this everyday—all those who give pride of place to irrational practice or to [98] the Methodist hairesis, which has spoilt all the good things of our art: it pursues some Dogmatist principles, but it is crammed with a host of mistakes.

FR 111(+DUB). GALENUS, AGAINST JULIAN Galenus, Against Julian, pp. 246–299 K = 33–70 Wenkebach: [i, 246] Legislators exact the same punishment from those who brought false accusations, in case they are convicted, as from the accused. It would be a good thing if those who put up false arguments against [sc authors] that they have not studied should suffer due punishment in exactly the same way. And yet, for some mysterious reason, it is possible to be brought into court for hubris, but there is no law concerning people who make false accusations; hence it does not surprise me [247] that the greatest crooks dare speak against the best of men. Once upon a time, in Egypt, every single discovery made in the arts was judged by a board of learned men and subsequently engraved on slabs of stone which were kept in sacred places. On the same principle, among us, too, there ought to exist a board of law-abiding and learned people who should examine the new writings,

292

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

n°a suggrãmmata yÆsousi m¢n §n dhmos¤oiw xvr¤oiw tå xrhstã, diafyeroËsi dÉ ˜sa moxyhrã: b°ltion dÉ ∑n, efi mhd¢ toÎnoma toË grãcantow §fÊlatton, Àsper oÈdÉ §n AfigÊptƒ tÚ érxa›on: §kvlÊyh går ín oÈx ¥kista kék toËde t«n filot¤mvn ≤ per‹ dÒjan êmetrow spoudÆ. NËn dÉ §peidØ ka‹ grãfein ¶jestin ëpasi ka‹ kr¤nein to›w §pituxoËsin, eÈdokimoËsi parå to›w pollo›w ofl tolmhrÒtatoi, kayãper ı YessalÒw, 2 œn ¶grace loidorhye‹w ÑIppokrãtei—ka¤toi bibl¤on ©n sunye‹w §n ⁄, kayãper o‡etai, toÁw ÉAforismoÁw §jel°gxei, deiknÁw §narg«w ≤m›n •autÚn oÈd¢ [248] toÈlãxiston §pistãmenon t∞w ÑIppokrãtouw t°xnhw. Ka¤toi d¤kaiÒn gÉ ∑n §kmayÒnta prÒteron aÈtØn oÏtvw §pixeire›n éntil°gein. áH toËto m¢n ‡svw oÈk Ùry«w e‰pon; OÈ går 3 §tÒlmhsen énteipe›n to›w élhy°sin, e‡per ¶mayen aÈtÆn, plØn efi pantãpasin éna¤sxuntÒw tiw ∑n, oÂow ka‹ ı nËn §p‹ t∞w ÉAlejandre¤aw gegon∆w ÉIoulianÒw: o b¤blouw e‰na¤ fasin Ùkt∆ ka‹ tessarãkonta prÚw toÁw ÑIppokrãtouw ÉAforismoÊw. ÉEj œn ¶nagxow ¶labon4 tØn deut°ran, §n √ tÚn éforismÒn, …w o‡etai, ceud∞ fhsin e‰nai toËton: “ÉEn tªsi taraxªsi t∞w koil¤hw ka‹ to›sin §m°toisi to›sin aÈtomãtvw gignom°noisin, µn m¢n oÂa de› kaya¤resyai kaya¤rvntai, jumf°rei te ka‹ eÈfÒrvw f°rousin: µn d¢ mÆ, toÈnant¤on. OÏtv dØ ka‹ keneagge¤h, µn m¢n oÂa de› g¤nesyai ,5 jumf°rei te ka‹ eÈfÒrvw f°rousin: µn d¢ mÆ, toÈnant¤on.”a Ka‹ xãriw ge tÊx˙ toËyÉ ≤m›n pr«ton §gxeirisam°n˙ tÚ bibl¤on, ˜pvw mØ mãthn ı xrÒnow tr¤boito makrÚn énaginvskÒntvn ˘n6 ¶grace prÚw tÚn pr«ton éforismÒn, 7 t«n •j∞w èpãntvn §st‹ proo¤mion. ÖIsvw går ín ±nagkãsyhn ti ka‹ prÚw §ke›na grãcaw [249] oÈd¢n m°ga doke›n pepoihk°nai, diå tÚ mhd°pv yevr¤aw fiatrik∞w ëptesyai tÚn lÒgon. ÉAllÉ ˜ ge proeirhm°now éforismÚw oÈ per‹ mikr«n t∞w t°xnhw dial°getai, sumbouleÊvn t“ fiatr“ t«n aÈtomãtvw gignom°nvn ken≈sevn diã te t∞w ênv ka‹ kãtv gastrÚw mime›syai tåw »feloÊsaw, ka‹ didãskei ge t¤new efis‹n atai ka‹ p«w aÈtåw gnvrioËmen, Àsper ge ka‹ t¤new afl blãptousai, sÁn to›w ofike¤oiw gnvr¤smasin. Efi m¢n oÔn §memayÆkei tØn t°xnhn ÉIoulianÚw ÍpÚ didaskãlvn ÑIppokrate¤vn, oÈk ín §tÒlmhse to›w élhy°sin éntil°gein. ÉEpe‹ dÉ oÎtÉ aÈtÚw oÎyÉ ı t∞w toiaÊthw §mplhj¤aw ≤gem∆n aÈtoË YessalÚw §gn≈kasi t«n ÉAsklhpiad«n tØn t°xnhn, yaumastÚn oÈd¢n égnoe›n aÈtoÁw ì mhdÉ ofl xvr‹w lÒgou fãskontew fiatreÊein ±gnÒhsan. ÉAkoËsai goËn ¶stin §ke¤nvn legÒntvn aÈjhy∞nai mãlista tØn t°xnhn §k t∞w mimhtik∞w pe¤raw. ÜOsa går §k peript≈sevw

a

Hippocratic Corpus, Aphorisms i 2.

add Wenkebach (= W) 3 K W < corrector in L (= L1) 4 W: ¶labe K 5 K W: g¤nesyai Marcianus Venetus App. class. V 4 (= M) Laurentianus Florentinus Gr. plut. lxxiv 3 (= L) 6 W: énaginvskÒntvn œn K 7 W: éforismÚn œn K 2

  ‒  

293

placing the worthy ones in public places and destroying the bad ones; and better still would it be if they did not even preserve the name of the author, as in ancient Egypt they did not: for by this measure the disproportionate yearning for fame would be repressed to a significant degree. Nowadays instead, when everyone is free to write and exhibit opinions about whatever takes their fancy, it is the most insolent who gain credit by the many— like Thessalus, who reviled Hippocrates throughout his writings: he even composed one in which he refutes the Aphorisms, as he imagines, giving us a clear demonstration that he does not possess [248] even the slightest knowledge of Hippocrates’ art. And yet it would have been decent to master that first, attempting to refute it from that position. Or can I possibly be wrong to speak like this? For if he learned it [sc the art of Hippocrates], he would not have dared to argue against true [sc statements] unless he were a completely shameless sort of fellow, like this Julian settled in Alexandria, who is the object of our present concern: fourty-eight books is he reported to have written against the Aphorisms. Of these I recently picked up the second one, where he advances the proposition that the following aphorism is—as he thinks—false: “In disturbances of the abdomen or attacks of vomiting which occur spontaneously, if patients are purged of what they should be purged, that is good for them and they bear it with ease; if not, the contrary is the case. The same holds for evacuations resulting from the treatment [keneagg¤h]: if what happens is what should happen, that is good for the patients and they bear it with ease; if not, the contrary is the case.” And we are grateful for the lucky chance that put this book into our hands first, so that the time of potential readers of the lengthy refutation of the first aphorism that he [sc Julian] composed, which stands as an introduction to all the following books, may not be wasted in vain. Indeed, had I written anything about those [sc books] too, I probably could not have avoided [249] giving the impression that I didn’t do anything much, because the argument never touches on medical theory. But the aphorism which I quoted above deals with big issues in our art: it advises the doctor that, out of the evacuations which occur spontaneously in the upper and lower parts of the stomach, he should imitate those which are beneficial; and it teaches us which those [sc evacuations] are—as well as which ones are damaging—and how we will recognise them with the help of appropriate signs. So if Julian had learned our art under the guidance of Hippocratic teachers, he would not have dared to argue against true [sc statements]. But, since neither he nor Thessalus—the leader of this colossal madness that possesses him—acquainted themselves with the art of the Asclepiads, it is no wonder that they do not know what did not remain unknown even to those who claim to heal without reasoning. At least one can hear those

294

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

genÒmena toÁw kãmnontaw »f°lhse, taËyÉ ≤me›w, fas¤, mimoÊmenoi pollãkiw sunesthsãmeya. Ka‹ diairoÊmenoi taËta: “fusikå” m¢n Ùnomãzousin œn §k toË s≈matow ≤ afit¤a, “katå [250] tÊxhn” d¢ g¤gnesya¤ fasin œn ¶jvyen, Àste mØ mÒnhw fÊsevw éllå ka‹ tÊxhw e‰nai mimhtikÚn tÚn fiatrÒn. E‡rhtai goËn ÍpÉ §ke¤nvn t«n éndr«n êlla te pollå t«n katå tÊxhn »felhsãntvn parade¤gmata, ka‹ ı tØn §n met≈pƒ fl°ba diakope‹w §k toË katapese›n: §p‹8 går ımo¤vw diakeim°nou tØn aÈtØn fl°ba teme›n §tolmÆsamen, fas¤n, §lp¤di t∞w aÈt∞w »fele¤aw. ÉAllå ka‹ gastØr éjiolÒgvw ÍpelyoËsa, flegmainÒntvn Ùfyalm«n e‰tÉ ÙnÆsasa megãlvw, §p‹ tØn toË genom°nou m¤mhsin ≤mçw proÈtr°cato. ÑVsaÊtvw d¢ ka‹ toÁw fikteri«ntaw éyrÒa xol≈dh diaxvrÆmata fyh pollãkiw »felÆsanta ka‹ toÁw tÚn kaloÊmenon §l°fanta nosoËntaw ≤ t«n melagxolik«n xum«n k°nvsiw ka‹ toÁw Íderi«ntaw 9 Ídatvd«n: ka‹ §k toÊtvn prÒdhlÒn §stin ˜ti ka‹ to›w fiatro›w prosÆkei mime›syai. Ka‹ t¤ de› l°gein aÈtomãtouw ken≈seiw, ˜pou ka‹ tå t«n didaskãlvn ¶rga mimoÊmenoi manyãnomen tØn t°xnhn; áH YessalÚn m°n, §ån diå klÊsmatow otinow ÍpagvgoË tØn gast°ra yerapeÊs˙ tÚn kãmnonta, mimht°on §st‹ toÁw toÊtou mayhtãw, §ån dÉ [251] aÈtomãtvw ÍpelyoËsa tÊx˙, feukt°on; áH t∞w §mmÆnou kayãrsevw fisxom°nhw, §ån ¶metow a·matow g°nhtai tª gunaik‹ kêpeita YessalÚw ≥toi kinÆsaw tØn kãyarsin µ fl°ba tem∆n fiãshtai tÚ pãyow, oÈk ín èmãrtoien ofl mayhta‹ mimhsãmenoi tÚn didãskalon: §ån dÉ aÈtomãtvw =ag°ntvn t«n katamhn¤vn ≤ kãmnousa =&stvnÆs˙, toËto oÈk°tÉ aÈtoÁw mimht°on; Ka‹ mØn oÈd¢n diaf°rei prÚw tØn •kat°rvn m¤mhsin ên yÉ ÍpÚ t∞w ma¤aw ên yÉ ÍpÚ YessaloË kinhy°ntvn t«n katamhn¤vn ên te ka‹ xvr‹w toÊtvn aÈtomãtvw §kkriy°ntvn ≤ kãmnousa =&stvnÆs˙: diå gãr toi tØn k°nvsin, oÈ diå tÚ poi∞san aÈtØn ≤ »f°leia g¤netai, ka‹ toËto didãskvn ı ÑIppokrãthw ¶grace tÚn éforismÚn §ke›non: “gunaik‹ aÂma §meoÊs˙ t«n katamhn¤vn =ag°ntvn lÊsiw.”b ÜOpvw ín =agª, fhs¤, tå katamÆnia, lÊsiw ¶stai toË payÆmatow, e‡te fusik«w e‡te ka‹ ≤m«n toËtÉ §rgasam°nvn. OÈ går tÚ poi∞san a‡tion éllå tÚ ginÒmenon »fele› tØn nosoËsan. àEn mÒnon Íparx°tv to›w katamhn¤oiw, tÚ éyrÒvw §kkriy∞nai: ˜per10 ı ÑIppokrãthw »nÒ[252]mase “=ag°ntvn” (¶yow ¯n aÈt“ tåw éyrÒaw ken≈seiw oÏtv prosagoreÊein), …se‹ ka‹ katå tÆnde tØn l°jin efirÆkei: “gunaik‹ aÂma §meoÊs˙ t«n katamhn¤vn éyrÒvw §kkriy°ntvn lÊsiw”. ÉEpile¤poi dÉ ên me ≤ ≤m°ra dierxÒmenon ˜sa mimoËntai t«n aÈtomãtvw gignom°nvn ofl ênyrvpoi: oÈ mØn oÈdÉ émfisbhte› tiw ßterow, éllÉ …w koinØn ¶nnoian d°xontai plØn t«n miar«n sofist«n, ˜soi per‹ m¢n tå t∞w t°xnhw ¶rga ka‹ t«n fidivt«n efisi xe¤rouw, flkano‹ dÉ épanaisxunt∞sai ka‹ makråw fluar¤aw sunye›nai katå t«n ér¤stvn fiatr«n, oÂow ka‹ nËn g°gonen

b

Aphorisms v 32 (but cf also the next one, 33).

K: §pe‹ W < codd

8

9

W: ka‹ toÁw Íderi«ntaw Ídatvd«n om K

10

ci Wi: ˜pvw K W

  ‒  

295

people [sc the Empiricists] saying that the art has grown mostly out of imitative experience. For (they say) we have often imitated and put together all that happened by chance and was beneficial to the ill. And they make distinctions among these finds: they call “natural” the things whose cause originates in the body, [250] whereas those whose cause is external come about “by accident”, they say—so that the doctor imitates chance no less than nature. Those people [sc the Empiricists] have given us a great store of examples of beneficial things which occurred by accident—especially the case of the man who fell and cut a blood-vessel at the temple: later on when he got into a similar state we had the courage to cut the vessel (they say), expecting the same beneficial effect. Again, we were encouraged towards the imitation of what happened when a very upset stomach improved as soon as the eyes got inflamed. In the same way, abundant excretions of a bilious nature have often been found to bring some benefit to patients suffering from jaundice; the evacuation of atrabilous juices, to patients affected by the so-called elephant’s disease; and that of watery juices, to patients suffering from dropsy. And it is clear from these examples that it is particularly appropriate for doctors to imitate. But why should we raise the issue of spontaneous evacuations, when we learn even our art by imitating the actions of our teachers? Now, is it the case that, if Thessalus were to cure a patient with the help of some injection which evacuates the stomach, he would have to be imitated by his disciples, but if [251] the stomach were to flow spontaneously, that would have to be avoided? Or take a case of suppressed menses: if a woman comes to vomit blood, and Thessalus cures the affection either by stimulating her menstruation or by cutting a vein, his disciples would not make a mistake if they imitated the teacher; but if the ill woman gets relief because the menses have burst forth spontaneously, should they not imitate this too? And yet it makes no difference to either imitation whether the ill woman gets relief from the fact that the menses were stimulated by the midwife, by Thessalus, or came out spontaneously, without [sc assistance from] these people; for the benefit is due to evacuation, not to the thing that produces it, and it was in order to teach us this truth that Hippocrates wrote that other aphorism: “When the woman vomits blood, the cure consists in her menses bursting forth.” He means that, no matter how the menses are to burst forth, that will be the cure of her affection, whether it happens naturally or because we brought it about. For what benefits the ill woman is not the producing cause, but the effect. Let just this one thing be enough for the menses, that they come out in abundance or “burst forth”, as Hippocrates put it, [252] as he was in the habit of calling abundant evacuations by that term—so that he might have expressed himself also in this way: “When the woman vomits blood, the cure consists in her menses coming out in abundance.” But I would spend the whole day reviewing everything that people imitate from the range of things which occur spontaneously; and no one disputes this; everyone accepts it as a common notion except the foul sophists—those who are worse even than laymen where the facts of our art are concerned, but are prepared instead to be insolent and to put up long pieces of garbage

296

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

ÉIoulianÚw otow, ˘n ëpantew m¢n ‡sasi mhd¢n p≈pote t«n t∞w t°xnhw ¶rgvn metaxeirisãmenon, énaisxÊntvw dÉ Íbr¤zonta toÁw palaioÁw fiatroÊw. [ii] àA goËn §tÒlmhse grãcai prÚw tÚn ért¤vw efirhm°non éforismÚn oÈdÉ efipe›n oÂÒn te phl¤khn ≥toi gÉ émay¤an µ énaisxunt¤an µ tÒlman §nde¤knutai: mçllon dÉ, efi xrØ [253] télhy¢w efipe›n, ka‹ taËta pãnta ka‹ toÊtvn ¶ti ple¤v. Tãxa m¢n oÔn êmeinon ∑n mhdÉ éntilog¤aw éjioËn aÈtå t∞w diå grammãtvn mhdÉ épollÊnai tinå ka‹ prÚw toËto xrÒnon. Dehy°ntvn d° mou lipar«w pãnu poll«n f¤lvn ˜sa, proskomisy°ntow moi toË bibl¤ou kayÉ ˘ tÚn proeirhm°non éforismÚn §jel°gxein ÉIoulianÚw §pexe¤rei, di∞lyon §n ÈpomnÆmasin aÈto›w parasxe›n, Èp°meina ka‹ toËton oÈ smikrÚn îylon: éllÉ, efi xrØ télhy¢w efipe›n, polÁ me¤zv toË katå toÁw aÈtosxed¤ouw oÓw ≤mer«n ©j µ pleiÒnvn §poihsãmhn §pideiknÁw tÚ pl∞yow t«n lhrvd«n ÉIoulianoË lÒgvn œn §n°grace t“ bibl¤ƒ. Kuri≈taton går ên tiw e‡poi toËto dØ tÚ sunÆyvw legÒmenon, …w oÈd°n §stin éperantolog≈teron tényr≈pou: 11 “Yers¤thw dÉ ¶ti moËnow émetroepØw §kol–a12”c toÊtƒ mçllon ín µ Yers¤t˙ pr°poi, pãntaw ÍperbalÒnti toÁw p≈pote gegonÒtaw 13 émetroep¤aiw. Ka‹ to¤nun ofl paragenÒmenoi to›w lÒgoiw énaginvskom°noiw14 aÈ[254]toË dÊo taÊtaw ¶yento proshgor¤aw tényr≈pƒ, tØn émetroep¤an ka‹ tØn éperantolog¤an, ÀstÉ oÈk §moË svfron¤zontow, éllÉ ÉOduss°vw tinÚw §de›to toË t“ skÆptrƒ kayijom°nou:15 svfron¤sai går tÚn oÏtvw ¶mplhkton oÈdÉ aÈtÚw ı t«n Mous«n dÊnatai xorÒw. ÉEpe‹ to¤nun êkvn ±nagkãsyhn grãfein taËta, ı lÒgow §st‹n Ím›n …w mo¤ prooim¤ou tinÒw,16 ˜pvw mØ katagnvsy« prÚw17 t«n énagnvsom°nvn aÈtã: m°llv går §l°gjein ênyrvpon ¶mplhkton émay∞ dojÒsofon, épaideÊtoiw meirak¤oiw §n ëpanti t“ b¤ƒ fluarÆsanta, parÉ oÂw §j œn §blasfÆmei toÁw palaioÁw §pisteÊyh tiw e‰nai. D°omai 18 oÔn sugxvr∞sa¤ moi kolãsai tØn épaideus¤an aÈtoË lÒgoiw traxut°roiw œn e‡yismai xr∞syai. DeinÚn går efi toÊtƒ §j°stai19 loidore›syai t«n palai«n to›w ér¤stoiw, ≤m›n dÉ oÈk §j°stai diÉ épode¤jevn §narg«n §jel°gxein aÈtoË tØn épaideus¤an. Efiw tosoËton går ¥kei meg°youw ÀstÉ oÈdÉ ˜yen êrjhta¤ tiw eÍre›n eÈpet°w. [iii, 255] Katå m¢n tØn érxØn toË bibl¤ou tå ple¤v prÚw Sab›non épote¤netai katalip∆n tÚn ÑIppokrãthn, ka‹ toËto m°n, …w ¶oiken, §n èpãs˙ poie› tª pragmate¤&, ka¤toi PrÚw toÁw ÑIppokrãtouw ÉAforismoÁw §pigrãcaw aÈtÆn, oÈ PrÚw tåw Sab¤nou ÉEjhgÆseiw, e‰ta fluare› pollã, kayãper ¶yow aÈt“, l∞rÒn tina =hmãtvn ésaf«n sun-

c

Cf Iliad ii 211–242 (at 212), 243–62, and 265 ff.

addidi 12 §kol–a, suppl W 13 K W < L1 14 corr Helmreich (= He) > W: énaginvskom°noi K < editio Aldina Opizonis (=Ald): énagignvskomn L 15 ci Wi: kay¤zontow K W: kayezomn L: i super e L1 16 W: taËta dÉ efis¤ moi prooim¤ou tinÒw K 17 W: katagnvsyª ÍpÚ K 18 add W 19 W: efi toËton §j°stai K 11

  ‒  

297

against the best doctors; of such a sort is this Julian here, who, as everyone knows, has never handled the facts involved in our art, and yet he keeps insulting the ancient doctors without shame. [ii] Concerning the things he dared to write against the aphorism which I quoted shortly above, it would in any case be impossible to say what an enormous ignorance, impudence, or recklessness they reveal—or rather, if the truth is to be [253] told, [sc they reveal] all these [sc features] and even worse. Hence it might have been better, perhaps, not to deem them worthy of a refutation in writing and not to waste time even on this [sc book]. But since many friends offered to me the book in which Julian attempted to refute the aphorism quoted earlier, asking me keenly to give them all my impressions as I go through with it, in the form of a commentary, I submitted myself to this ordeal, which was no small one; but, if I am to be truthful, the mass of humbug arguments that Julian put into the book exceeds by far that of the ones I have pointed out in my improvised notes, which I composed in six days or so. For the chief comment that one could pass is the commonplace remark that no one is given to verbal incontinence more than our man: rather than Thersites, [sc the words] “Thersites alone brawled with an unbridled tongue” would describe him [sc Julian], who, in garrulity, supersedes anyone who ever existed. Besides, those who attended the presentation of his books [254] have labelled the man by these two qualifications, garrulity and verbal incontinence; so that it is not me he would need to recall him to his senses but some Odysseus, coming down on him with his sceptre; in fact, not even the venerable choir of the Muses can call such a madman to his senses. Since, then, I was compelled to write this against my will, I give you the present speech by way of an introduction, so that future readers may not condemn me: I intend to refute a person who is crazy, ignorant, conceited, and spends his life talking nonsense to uneducated youngsters, who trust him to be a man of importance on the credit of his insults towards the ancients. Therefore I ask you to allow me to reprimand his lack of instruction in harsher words than I am accustomed to use. It would be dreadful indeed if he were to enjoy the freedom of reviling the best of the ancients, while we would not enjoy the freedom of refuting his lack of instruction through clear demonstrations. For it reaches such proportions that one is at a loss as to where to start. [iii, 255] At the beginning of the book he dwells for the most part on Sabinus, forgetting about Hippocrates; and he does this apparently throughout the whole work, although he has entitled it Against the Aphorisms of Hippocrates, and not Against the Interpretations of Sabinus. Then he says a lot of nonsense in keeping with his habit, constructing a drivelling maze of obscure words, so that, if you

298

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

tiye¤w, ˜n, efi m¢n §l°gxein tiw §pixeiro¤h, fyãsei plhr≈saw bibl¤on m°giston pr‹n êrjasyai dÒjein, sugxvrÆsaw20 oÈ lel°xyai pãnta. Grãfonti21 m¢n oÔn dusdiãyeton ka‹ toËto, mçllon dÉ êporon §sxãtvw. ÉEn m°ntoi to›w aÈtosxed¤oiw lÒgoiw oÓw pollãkiw §poihsãmeya parÒntvn éndr«n pepaideum°nvn §pid°deikta¤ tiw ≤m›n eÈpor¤a kayÉ ımoiÒthta t«n efiw toÁw palaioÁw §jhgÆsevn eÈreye›sa: kayãper går §ke¤nvn tÚ problhy¢n bibl¤on §n ta›w dhmos¤aiw §pide¤jesin §jhgoÊmeya “Efi dÉ ı MeyodikÚw fa¤h” (lelhyÒtvw) “fusikeuÒmenow, {˜ti}22 mØ élaz∆n mhd¢ megalhgorÚw mhdÉ efiw m°son f°rvn tØn ênvyen =¤zan toË kekrumm°nou dÒgmatow, dÊo e‰nai tå [256] s≈matow pãyh t“ ge23 katå fÊsin sunest«ti dÊo ín §fedreÊein24 tropåw ka‹ metabolåw éllÆlaiw §nant¤aw—µ sunagom°nou ple¤v µ xeom°nou—dianohtå25 ín doko¤h l°gein, oÈ må D¤a fusikeuom°noiw to›w filosÒfoiw ka‹ per‹ t∞w t«n ˜lvn Ïlhw dialegom°noiw, éllÉ fiatro›w fusiko›w.” AÏth m°n soi m¤a =∞s¤w §sti t«n yaumast«n 26 ÉIoulianoË lÒgvn, 27 oÂw époxvr«n 28 ı ÉAsklhpiãdhw ka‹ Yem¤svn ka‹ YessalÚw ¶yento stoixe¤vn,29 §p‹ toÁw proeirhm°nouw ¥kei filosÒfouw énairoËntaw §k toËde toË kÒsmou pantãpasi tÚ kenÒn. ÑEt°ra dÉ §fej∞w aÈt∞w ¥de: “ÉAllÉ §pixvrÆsaimÉ 30 ka‹ mÆtÉ §ke¤nhw katãsxoimÉ ín tÚ loipÚn31 t∞w gl≈tthw, …w mØ e‡poimi. T¤ går µ tÒde, ˜ti ta›sde32 ta›w tropa›w Àsper ±koloÊyhsen ≤ t«n stoixe¤vn g°nesiw, oÏtv ka‹ yermoË fÊsiw ka‹ cuxroË ka‹ ÍgroË ka‹ jhroË; ÉEke¤nvn går pr≈tvn {ka‹}33 gon°vn34 ¶ggona poiÆmatÉ ín e‡h.” ÜOra p«w §n Íchlotãtƒ yrÒnƒ ka‹ metevrotãtƒ kayhm°nh ≤ M°yodow §lãnyanen: “∂n ÍpÉ §pieike¤aw ka‹ metriÒthtow boulom°nhn lan[257]yãnein §n oÈran“ ¶deija ka‹ §jekãluca mÒnow ka‹ pr«tow 35 §piskotoËn n°fow paragag∆n ka‹ §leuyer≈saw.” TaËtÉ oÔn ı ÉIoulianÚw l°gei ka‹ toÊtvn •j∞w. ÖAllo ti: “Me›on ín jumfero¤mhn ÉEpikoÊrƒ: oÈx •lÒmenow aÈtoË tå stoixe›a, oÈx •n≈santi tØn oÈs¤an.” ÉEn m¢n dØ t“ Per‹ t∞w meyÒdou taËtã te ka‹ êlla pollå g°graptai ÉIoulian“, tÚ bibl¤on ˜lon §pigrãfonti F¤lvna.36 DiÉ êllou dÉ aÔyiw, §n ⁄ Per‹ t«n cuxik«n ka‹ svmatik«n pay«n ı lÒgow §st‹n aÈt“, grãfei taut¤: “SÊmmetron dØ37 katãstasin ka‹ memetrhm°nhn sunagvg∞w te ka‹ xÊsevw Íposthsãmenoi §p‹ t«n ényrvpe¤vn sugkrimãtvn ˆnoma aÈtª §y°meya Íge¤an. Efi dÉ ¥de ≤ mesÒthw ÍpÚ nÒsvn §pibouleuye¤h,38 §j énãgkhw pãsxei tå s≈mata

W: sugxvr«n K 21 W: grãfonta K 22 del W 23 W: pãyh. TÚ går K < L W < L: §fedreÊoien M > Deichgräber (= De): §fedreÊseian K < Ald 25 corr Wi: xeom°nou b¤&, dianohtå K W < codd 26 add De > W 27 W: ÉIoulianoË He: oÂw §pixvre› De 28 add Chartier (= Ch) > K W 29 corr He > W: stoixe›a K < codd 30 add ego: éllÉ §pixvrÆsein ka‹ K: éllÉ §pixvrÆsein + ka‹ W 31 W: mÆtÉ §ke¤nhw katãsxoimi aÈtÚ loipÚn K 32 suppleui: t¤ går ín §mo‹ ka‹ tÒnde ˜ti ta›sde L: t¤ går ín §mo‹ ka‹ t∞de µ ˜ti ta›sde : L1 M: t¤ går ín §mo‹ tÒde; µ ˜ti to›sde K : T¤ går + ín §mo‹ ka‹ tÒde µ ˜ti ta›sde W 33 del K: pr≈tvn ka‹ W 34 corr ego: gÒnvn K W: protogÒnvn ci Wi 35 add He > W 36 W: tÚ bibl¤on ˜lon ÉIoulianoË §pigrãfontow F¤lvna K 37 W < L: sÊmmetron m¢n dØ K < M 38 W: ¥de ≤ mesÒthw ÍpÚ nÒsvn §pibouleuye›sa K 20 24

  ‒  

299

try to refute it, you will have filled a huge book even before you considered yourself started and yet you would admit that not everything has been said. Here too the commentator meets a problem extremely difficult to face, if not downright insuperable. However, in the speeches that we have often improvised in the society of learned men, we have exhibited a certain ease, which we gained by a procedure similar to that of the interpretations of the ancients; for just as, in public demonstrations, we interpret the book which has been proposed “If the Methodist who engages in the exploration of nature” (secretly!) “would claim—without boasting, without talking grandiosely, and without disclosing to the public the deepest root of his hidden belief—that the affections of the body are two [256] and that two processes of transformation and change, opposite to each other, inhere in anything that has a natural constitution—since either it becomes predominantly contracted or flowing—his [sc the Methodist’s] claims would not seem inconceivable; and not, by Zeus, to philosophers, who explore nature and debate about matter in the universe, but to down-to-earth doctors.” Here is, my reader, a passage from Julian’s amazing speeches, in which he takes off from the elements which Asclepiades, Themison, and Thessalus postulated and arrives at the philosophers mentioned above, who completely abolish void from the universe. And here is another passage, in sequence [sc to the above]: “But I should open the attack; I should not refrain that tongue hereafter, so as not to speak. For what is easier to understand than this: just as the coming to be of the elements has followed from these processes of transformation [sc being contracted and being in flux], so has, likewise, the nature of the hot, cold, wet, and dry? Indeed they would be descendants and creations of those primordial begetters.” See how the Method, seated on the loftiest and most heavenly throne, was hidden from us: “I have shown that it was for fairness and moderation that she wanted to hide [257] in heavens; and I alone uncovered and released it for the first time, dispelling the cloud which shrouded it in darkness.” This is how Julian speaks, and he goes on and on like that. Here is another one: “With Epicurus I should agree less: I have not adopted his elements, since he fails to unify being [ousia].” Julian wrote such things and many others in On the method, entitling the whole book “Philo”. Again, here is what he writes in another book, where he deals with Affections of the body and [sc affections] of the soul: “Having posited, for the human secretions, a condition of proportion and good balance with respect to constriction [sunagoge land flux [chusis], we applied the term ‘health’ to it. When this mean [mesotes] has been ensnared by diseases, the bodies are necessarily affected:

300

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

sunagÒmena ka‹ sklhrunÒmena ka‹ jhrÒtera ginÒmena µ xeÒmena ka‹ malakunÒmena ka‹ ÍgrainÒmena.” [iv] Atai m¢n oÔn afl =Æseiw toË lamprotãtou sofistoË, ZÆnvni ka‹ ÉAristot°lei ka‹ Plãtvni toÁw MeyodikoÁw fia[258]troÁw ßpesyai fãskontow. ÑHme›w dÉ aÔyiw énamnÆsomen aÈtÚn …w ßkastow toÊtvn t«n filosÒfvn ëma pollo›w to›w metÉ aÈtÚn eÈkras¤an m¢n ≤ge›tai tØn Íge¤an e‰nai yermoË ka‹ cuxroË ka‹ jhroË ka‹ ÍgroË, nosÆmata d¢ g¤gnesyai—tå goËn katå d¤aitan—Íperbãllontow •kãstou t«n efirhm°nvn µ §lle¤pontow: e‰nai d¢ ka‹ xumoÁw §n t“ s≈mati, toÁw m¢n ÍgroÁw ka‹ jhroÁw katå dÊnamin, §n¤ouw d¢ yermoÁw µ cuxroÊw, énãlogon to›w nosÆmasin.39 OÏtvw Plãtvn ëma to›w épÉ aÈtoË pçsin, oÏtvw ÉAristot°lhw ëma to›w §k toË Peripãtou, oÏtvw ZÆnvn ka‹ XrÊsippow ëma to›w êlloiw StvÛko›w §g¤gnvskon. ÉIoulianÚw dÉ oÎdÉ én°gnv ti bibl¤on œn e‰pon éndr«n oÈdÉ ˜lvw ékoloÊyou ka‹ maxom°nou sÊnesin ¶xei: pãntvw går ín æsyeto tª m¢n énairoÊs˙ tÚ kenÚn aflr°sei taËyÉ •pÒmena, tª dÉ Ípãrxein efipoÊs˙, summetr¤an m°n tina pÒrvn e‰nai tØn Íge¤an, §n stegn≈sei d¢ ka‹ =Êsei t«n diÉ aÈt«n40 ferom°nvn sun¤stasyai tå katå d¤aitan nosÆmata. PÒteron oÔn ÉAristot°louw ka‹ Xrus¤ppou ka‹ t«n êllvn èpãntvn Peripathti[259]k«n te ka‹ StvÛk«n •j∞w paragrãcv tåw =Æseiw, §n aÂw fl°gma ka‹ xolØn afiti«ntai ka‹ tå pr«ta noshmãtvn t°ttara Ípãrxein fas¤n, Àsper ka‹ tå stoixe›a, tÚ yermÚn ka‹ tÚ cuxrÚn ka‹ tÚ jhrÚn ka‹ tÚ ÍgrÒn, µ toËto m°n (…w ín oÈx ©n µ dÊo bibl¤a plhr«sai dunãmenon éllå ka‹ tr¤a ka‹ t°ttara ka‹ ple¤w) paralipe›n êmeinon, érkesy∞nai d¢ mÒnoiw to›w ÍpÚ Plãtvnow efirhm°noiw; ÖIsvw êmeinon oÏtv prçjai ka‹ mØ sunadolesxe›n tå pãnta lhr≈dei sofistª. TosoËton mÒnon efipÒntew Íp¢r t«n §k toË Peripãtou te ka‹ t∞w Stoçw t«n filosÒfvn épallãjomen: oÈdÉ ín41 eÏroiw oÎtÉ ÉAristot°louw oÎte Yeofrastou bibl¤on, §n ⁄ per‹ noshmãtvn énagkasy°ntew efipe›n ti 42 yermoË ka‹ jhroË ka‹ cuxroË ka‹ ÍgroË mnhmoneËsai di∞lyon tÚn lÒgon, éllå ka‹ toÊtvn ée‹ m°mnhntai ka‹ sÁn aÈto›w pollãkiw •kat°raw t∞w xol∞w, mela¤nhw ka‹ jany∞w, oÈk Ùligãkiw d¢ ka‹ fl°gmatow, o· ge ka‹ tåw diaforåw aÈtoË di°rxontai, tÚ m¢n ÙjÊ, tÚ dÉ èlmurÚn µ èlukÒn, êllo d¢ glukÁ prosagoreÊontew. OÈ mØn oÈd¢ XrÊsippow •t°rvw, [260] éllÉ oÏtvw ée‹ ka‹ per‹ noshmãtvn ka‹ xum«n dial°getai. e‡43 tiw §y°loi mÒnvn t«n efirhm°nvn tri«n éndr«n §kl°gein tåw =Æseiw, oÈk Ùl¤ga plhr≈sei bibl¤a: sxolãzvn dÉ oÏtvw tiw Àsper ÉIoulianÚw §p‹ t∞w ÉAlejandre¤aw §sxÒlazen, §ån §y°44 ka‹ t«n êllvn èpãntvn StvÛk«n µ Peripathtik«n •kãstou tåw =Æseiw §kl°gein, ˜lhn biblioyÆkhn plhr≈sei. ÉAllÉ Àsper ¶fhn45 §ãsaw toÊtouw, érkesyÆsomai mÒnou 46 Plãtvnow =Æsesin, •pom°nou katå pãnta to›w ÑIppokrãtouw

ci He (aut énalÒgouw ˆntaw nosÆmasin proponens) > K: énalog¤zontai nosÆmasin M: énalog¤zontaw nosÆmasin corr Cornarius (= Co) Ch > W 40 W: aÈtÚ K 41 K: oÈd¢n ín add W 42 add et corr He > W 43 add W: efi He 44 ci W: §ån d¢ K < L 45 K < Ald: ˜per ¶fhn W < L 46 W < L1: mÒnon toË K 39

  ‒  

301

they contract, harden, and become drier, or they flow, soften, and become more humid.” [iv] These, then, are the words of our most distinguished sophist, who claims that the Methodist [258] doctors follow Zeno, Aristotle, and Plato. But let us remind him again that each one of these philosophers, together with their many successors, held the view that health consists in the right blend [eukrasia] of the hot, the cold, the dry, and the wet, and that diseases—at least those related to the regimen [diaita]—occur when any of the items in question is either in excess or in deficit; and there are humours in the body as well: these are wet or dry by virtue of their own power, but some of them are hot or cold in proportion to the diseases. This is what Plato thought, together with his followers; this is what Aristotle thought, together with the philosophers of the Peripatos; this is what Zeno and Chrysippus thought, together with the rest of the Stoics. But Julian neither read any book by the people I mentioned, nor has any understanding whatever of what follows from what and what is contradictory to what; for on any account he would have understood that these [sc the above views] are in agreement with the hairesis which abolishes void, whereas [sc the view] that health is some sort of proportion [summetria] of the channels and that the diseases related to the regimen consist in the stoppage [stegnosis] or leakage [rhusis] of the matter carried through them is in agreement with the hairesis which upholds it [sc void]. Then shall I quote below passages from Aristotle, Chrysippus, and all the other Peripatetics [259] and Stoics, in which they allege phlegm or bile as causes and claim that the four primary components of diseases are—just like the elements—the hot, the cold, the dry, and the wet? Or is it better to leave out this material (since it could well fill up, not just one or two books, but three or four, if not even more), and to confine myself only to what Plato’s followers said? Perhaps it is better to proceed in this way, without indulging in chat with this drivelling sophist over each point. Concerning the philosophers of the Peripatos and Stoa we shall only say this much before leaving them: you would not find a single book by Aristotle or Theophrastus where these people, when constrained to speak about diseases, reach the end of their argument without referring to the hot, the dry, the cold, and the wet; on the contrary, they always refer to these and, apart from them, also (quite often) to both kinds of bile, black and yellow, and (not seldom) to phlegm—at least they rehearse its different kinds, calling one bitter, another salty or brackish, and yet another sweet. Nor indeed does Chrysippus discuss diseases and humours along different lines, [260] but always in the same way. If one is willing to select passages only from the three philosophers mentioned above, one will fill in a large number of books; and if someone with the bags of leisure that this Julian of ours had at his disposal in Alexandria is willing to select passages from every individual Stoic and Peripatetic, he will fill up a whole library. But I will put these aside, as announced, and I will content myself with passages from Plato alone, since he agrees with Hippocrates’ opinions in every respect. In fact, I will not even select [sc

302

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

dÒgmasin. OÈ mØn oÈd¢ parå toÊtou t«n êllvn §kl°jaw bibl¤vn ˆntvn poll«n, éllÉ §j •nÚw érkesyÆsomai mÒnou toË Tima¤ou paragrãcai taËta:47 “TÚ d¢ t«n nÒsvn pÒyen sun¤statai d∞lÒn pou ka‹ pant¤. Tettãrvn går ˆntvn gen«n §j œn sump°phge tÚ s«ma, g∞w Ïdatow purÒw te ka‹ é°row, toÊtvn ≤ parå fÊsin pleonej¤a ka‹ ¶ndeia ka‹ t∞w x≈raw metãstasiw §j ofike¤aw §pÉ éllotr¤an genom°nh, purÒw tÉ aÔ ka‹ t«n •t°rvn, §peidØ pl°ona g°nh •nÚw ˆnta tugxãnei, tÚ mØ pros∞kon ßkaston •aut“ proslambãnon ka‹ pãnyÉ ˜sa toiaËta tãseiw48 [261] ka‹ nÒsouw par°xei: parå fÊsin går •kãstou gignom°nou ka‹ meyistam°nou, yerma¤netai m¢n ˜sa ín prÒteron cÊxhtai, jhrå dÉ ˆnta efiw Ïsteron g¤netai ,49 ka‹ koËfa dØ ka‹ bar°a, ka‹ pãsaw pãnth metabolåw d°xetai.”d ÉEn taÊt˙ m¢n oÔn tª =Æsei saf«w ı Plãtvn ékolouye› t“ ÑIppokrãtei katå tå pr«ta stoixe›a ka‹ tåw poiÒthtaw aÈt«n. ÉEn d¢ to›w metå taËta ka‹ toÁw xumoÊw pvw afiti≈menow t«n noshmãtvn …d¤pvw fhs¤: “TÚ d¢ leukÚn fl°gma diå 50 t«n pomfolÊgvn pneËma xalepÚn épolhfy°n, ¶jv d¢ toË s≈matow énapnoåw ‡sxon ±pi≈teron m°n, katapoik¤llei d¢ tÚ s«ma leÊkaw élfoÊw te ka‹ tå toÊtvn suggen∞ nosÆmata épot¤kton. Metå d¢ xol∞w mela¤nhw kerasy¢n §p‹ tåw periÒdouw tåw §n tª kefalª—yeiotãtaw oÎsaw—§piskedannÊmenon ka‹ juntarãtton aÈtãw, kayÉ Ïpnon m¢n fiÚn pr&@teron, §grhgorÒsi d¢ §pitiy°menon dusapallaktÒteron: nÒshma dÉ flerçw ¯n fÊsevw §ndik≈tata flerÚn l°getai.”e Ka‹ taÊt˙ ge tª =Æsei pãlin §pif°rvn •t°ran fhs¤: “Fl°gma dÉ ÙjÁ ka‹ èlmurÚn phgØ pãntvn noshmãtvn ˜sa g¤gnetai ka[262]tarroÛkã: diå d¢ toÁw tÒpouw efiw oÓw =e› pantodapoÁw ˆntaw panto›a ÙnÒmata e‡lhfen.”f OÏtv m¢n ı Plãtvn per‹ fl°gmatow épefÆnato ka‹ sÁn aÈt“ mela¤nhw xol∞w. ÉEfej∞w dÉ êkouson ì l°gei per‹ t∞w jany∞w: “ÜOsa d¢ flegma¤nein l°getai toË s≈matow épÚ toË kãesya¤ te ka‹ fl°gesyai, diå xolØn g°gone pãnta. Lambãnousa m¢n 51 énapnoØn ¶jv panto›a énap°mpei fÊmata z°ousa, kayeirgnum°nh dÉ §ntÚw pur¤kauta nosÆmata pollå §mpoie›, m°giston dÉ, ˜tan a·mati kayar“ sugkerasye›sa tÚ t«n fin«n g°now §k t∞w •aut«n diaforª tãjevw, a„ diespãrhsan m¢n efiw aÂma, ·na summ°trvw leptÒthtow ‡sxoi ka‹ pãxouw ka‹ mÆte diå yermÒthta …w ÍgrÚn §k manoË toË s≈matow §kr°oi mÆtÉ aÔ puknÒteron

d e f

Cf Plato, Timaeus 81E6–82B2. Cf Ti. 85A1–B2. Cf Ti. 85B2–5.

W: érkesyhsÒmenow . . . paragrãcomai taËta K 48 codd > W: stãseiw corr Co Ch > K 49 Ald > K W 50 add Co Ch 51 add Ald

47

  ‒  

303

the relevant passages] from all of his books, since they are numerous, but will confine myself to giving the following quotations from just one book, namely the Timaeus: “As for the diseases, it is clear to everyone where they originate. Given that there are four kinds out of which the body is compounded, namely earth, water, fire, and air, their unnatural excess or lack; any displacement that occurs from the proper place [sc of each] to another; or again—since there happens to be more than one kind of fire and of the other [sc components]—the adoption by any of them of a kind which does not suit it—everything of this sort produces tensions [261] and diseases; for when each component becomes or is made unnatural, what was previously cold becomes heated, what is dry becomes for the future moist, what is light [sc becomes heavy] and what is heavy [sc becomes light], and everything follows every sort of change.” So in this passage Plato clearly agrees with Hippocrates about the primary elements and their qualities. In what follows he also alleges as causes the humours, expressing himself like this: “The white phlegm, when arrested [sc in the body], is irksome because of the air contained in its bubbles; when it breathes [sc air from] outside the body it is milder, but it mottles the body, giving rise to white leprous eruptions and similar diseases. When, mixed with black bile, it gets dispersed around the courses of the head—the most divine thing in us—and disturbs them, it is easier to bear if it comes during sleep, but if it attacks you when you are awake it is extremely difficult to get rid of; and, since this is a disease of our sacred nature, it is for good reasons called sacred.” From here on he continues by saying: “Phlegm, when acid and salted, is the source of all catarrhal diseases; [262] and these have received various names because it [sc phlegm] flows into all sorts of places.” So this was Plato’s account of phlegm, and, with it, of black bile. Listen, next, to what he says about yellow bile: “All the diseases in which we say that the body ‘is inflamed’ ([sc deriving the word] from burning and kindling by flames) come about, all of them, through the bile. When bile breathes [sc air] from outside, being effervescent, it throws up all sorts of tentacles; but when it is shut inside it generates many inflammatory diseases, first and foremost when, getting mixed into pure blood, it upsets from their positions the family of fibres, which have been dispersed through the blood in order to maintain the balance between the rare and the dense, so that it [sc the blood] may neither flow like a liquid out of the distended body, under the effect of heat, nor find it difficult to roll through the vessels because it is too dense and can

304

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

dusk¤nhton ¯n mÒgiw énastr°foito §n ta›w flec¤. KairÚn dØ toÊtvn ‰new tª t∞w fÊsevw gen°sei fulãttousin, ëw, ˜tan tiw ka‹ teyne«tow a·matow §n cÊxei te ˆntow prÚw éllÆlaw junagãg˙, diaxe›tai pçn tÚ loipÚn aÂma, §aye›sai d¢ taxÁ metå toË periest«tow aÈtÚ cÊxouw jumphgnÊasi. TaÊthn dØ tØn [263] dÊnamin §xous«n fin«n §n a·mati, xolØ fÊsei palaiÚn aÂma gegonu›a ka‹ pãlin §k t«n sark«n efiw toËto tethku›a, yermØ ka‹ Ígrå katÉ Ùl¤gon tÚ pr«ton §mp¤ptousa, pÆgnutai diå tØn t«n fin«n dÊnamin: phgnum°nh d¢ ka‹ b¤& katasbennum°nh xeim«na ka‹ trÒmon §ntÚw par°xei: ple¤vn dÉ §pirr°ousa, tª parÉ aÈt∞w yermÒthti kratÆsasa tåw ‰naw, efiw étaj¤an z°sasa di°seise: ka‹ §ån m¢n flkanØ diå t°louw krat∞sai g°nhtai, prÚw tÚ toË mueloË diaperãsasa g°now ka¤ousa ¶luse tå t∞w cux∞w aÈtÒyen oÂon ne∆w pe¤smata mey∞k°n tÉ §leuy°ran: ˜tan dÉ §lãttvn ¬ tÒ te s«ma ént¤sx˙ thkÒmenon, aÈtØ krathye›sa, µ katå pçn tÚ s«ma §j°pesen µ diå t«n fleb«n efiw tØn kãtv junvsye›sa µ tØn ênv koil¤an, oÂon fugåw §k pÒlevw stasiasãshw §k toË s≈matow §kp¤ptousa, diarro¤aw ka‹ dusenter¤aw ka‹ tå toiaËta 52 pãnta par°sxeto.”g Taut‹ m¢n oÔn §n mÒnƒ t“ Tima¤ƒ Plãtvn e‰pen •pÒmenow ÑIppokrãtei: tå dÉ §k t«n êllvn aÈtoË bibl¤vn e‡ tiw §kl°goi pãnta, dÒjei mime›syai makrolog¤aw ßneka tÚn ÉIoulianÒn, ¶ti d¢ dØ mçllon, [264] efi tå {parå} Yeofrãstƒ ka‹ ÉAristot°lei ka‹ Xrus¤ppƒ ka‹ pçsi to›w Peripathtiko›w te ka‹ StvÛko›w efirhm°na53 per‹ yermoË ka‹ cuxroË ka‹ jhroË ka‹ ÍgroË ka‹ xol∞w ka‹ fl°gmatow Íge¤aw te ka‹ nÒsou paragrãfoi sÊmpanta. Ka‹ går nËn ≤goËma¤ tinaw ≥dh m°mfesyai toË mÆkouw ≤m›n t«n lÒgvn efiw ¶legxon énaisyÆtou sofistoË sugkeim°nvn. àOw går oÈk knhsen, Œ ZeË ka‹ yeo¤, Plãtvna m¢n ka‹ ÉAristot°lhn ka‹ ZÆnvna ka‹ toÁw épÉ aÈt«n filosÒfouw §paine›n, §jel°gxein d¢ tå per‹ t«n toË s≈matow stoixe¤vn ÍfÉ ÑIppokrãtouw efirhm°na, t¤ ín §p‹ t«n pãntvn ı toioËtow efipe›n afidesye¤h; [v] taËta m¢n éfe¤syv, sk°cai54 dÉ •j∞w ì grãfei mØ sugxvr«n, …w ¶oike, mhd¢ t“ ÙnÒmati xrÆsasyai t∞w “fÊsevw”. ÖEsti dÉ 55 érxØ t∞w =Æsevw ¥de: “OÈdÉ ín pe¤seian ≤mçw ge •autoÁw56 §pÉ élhye¤& ˜ti ‡sasi t¤ ≤ fÊsiw §st¤n, ∂n ênv te [265] ka‹ kãtv yruloËsi tragƒdoËntew pantaxoË, ≥toi yermÚn èploËn µ krçma kék m¤jevw57 µ cuxroË oÈs¤an ka‹ pneÊmatow.” KêpeiyÉ •j∞w toÊtvn §pif°rei pollå mØ sugxvr«n §gn«syai fÊsevw oÈs¤an, Àsper ÑIppokrãtouw gegrafÒtow ˆnoma “fÊsevw” §n t“ prokeim°nƒ nËn ≤m›n

g

Cf Ti. 85B5–86A2.

W < He: efi tå parå Yeofrãstou ka‹ ÉAristot°louw ka‹ Xrus¤ppou ka‹ pçsi to›w Peripathtiko›w te ka‹ StvÛko›w efirhm°na K < Ald 54 ci et restit He > W: afidesye¤h; µ taËta m¢n éfe¤syv. [v] Sk°cai K 55 add W 56 add et corr W: ≤mçw te µ aÈtoÁw L > K cett 57 He: kék krçma kék m¤jevw K cett: krçma + kék m¤jevw WT(EXTU): krãmmatow uel krçmma te {kék m¤jevw} WA(PPARATU) 52

add Ald

53

  ‒  

305

hardly move. By their natural constitution, the fibres guard the right proportion between them [sc the rare and the dense]: if one is to make them stick together even when the blood is dead and in the process of cooling, all the blood which remains [sc alive] gets running, but if one leaves them alone it coagulates under the surrounding cold. Such is the [263] power of fibres in blood. Now bile—which, for its nature, has resulted from old blood and dissolved back into it from flesh—begins by pouring in little by little, while it is hot and humid, and coagulates under the power of fibres; but when it coagulates and is forced to quench down it gives rise to storm and trembling inside. When it flows in in a larger amount it tries to overcome the fibres by its heat and, in its effervescent state, it shakes them off from their positions; and, if there is enough of it to overcome them completely, it travels across to the marrow and burns it, thus unfastening at once the ship’s cables, as it were, of the soul and setting it loose. But when there is less of it and the body, though wasted, bears it, then, being itself overcome, it is either repelled through the whole body or, once pushed through the veins towards the lower or the upper abdomen and thrown from the body as an exile from a city plagued with civil war, it breeds diarrhoea, dysentery, and all such diseases.” So this is what Plato said in agreement with Hippocrates only in the Timaeus; but if one is to select all the passages from his works, one will seem to imitate Julian for prolixity, and even more so [264] if one is to insert all that Theophrastus, Aristotle, Chrysippus, and all the Peripatetics and Stoics said about the hot, the cold, the dry, and the moist, and about bile and phlegm, in health and disease. In fact, I suspect there are people dissatisfied with the length of my speeches even now—composed as they are for the refutation of a senseless sophist. By Zeus and the gods! A man who did not shrink from praising Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and the philosophers who followed them, while on the other hand refuting what Hippocrates said about the elements of body— what is there, on any topic, that such a character would, out of shame, refrain from saying? [v] But let these be passed over; we should examine, in sequence, what he [sc Julian] writes, as it seems, in a mood of not conceding that one may as much as use the term “nature”. Here is the beginning of the passage in question: “They could not persuade us, as they persuade themselves, that they truly know what nature is, when they harp on it in grand style throwing it backwards and [265] forwards all over the place, now as a simple, the hot, now as a compound and a result of mixture, now as an essence of the cold and the pneuma.” After this he goes on to add a lot of things by way of not conceding that the essence of nature is known, as if Hippocrates had put the word “nature” in the aphorism we quoted above in this book, instead of using the expression “which

306

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

éforism“, éllÉ oÈk “§n to›w aÈtomãtvw gignom°noiw” efirhkÒtow. PÒyen §peis∞lye tÚ t∞w “fÊsevw” ˆnoma; PÒyen gÉ êlloyen58 µ §k t∞w sunÆyouw ÉIoulianoË fluar¤aw éformØn parejoÊshw lÒgvn makr«n, oÓw §ãn tiw énaptÊj˙, prodÆlvw fvrãsei tÚn l∞ron aÈtoË. ÉEpe‹ to¤nun ëpantew fiatro‹ t«n ken≈sevn tåw m¢n ÍpÚ fÊsevw, tåw dÉ ÍpÚ tÊxhw g¤gnesya¤ fasin, §ndeiknÊmenoi tØn afit¤an aÈt«n §n¤ote m¢n §j aÈtoË toË t«n kamnÒntvn ırmçsyai s≈matow, ¶stÉ ˜te dÉ ¶jvyen, éformØn taÊthn e‰xe toË lhr∞sa¤ ti per‹ toË t∞w “fÊsevw” ÙnÒmatow. ÖEsti dÉ ˘ boÊletai l°gein §n kefala¤ƒ perilabÒnti toiÒnde: “fusikåw ken≈seiw” oÈd¢ fy°ggesyai pros∞ken, égnooËntaw ˜ ti potÉ §st‹n ≤ fÊsiw. ÉAllÉ, Œ gennaiÒtate [266] sofist«n, oÈdÉ ˜ti cuxØn ¶xomen µ a‡syhsin µ noËn µ mnÆmhn µ logismÚn ı toioËtow lÒgow §pitr°cei gign≈skein, …w •kãstou ge ka‹ toÊtvn dÊsgnvstow ≤ oÈs¤a. Ka‹ t¤ yaumastÒn; ÜOpou går ka‹ tÚn ¥lion aÈtÚn ˘n §narg°stata59 bl°pomen oÈk ‡smen ékrib«w ıpo›Òw §sti tØn oÈs¤an, ∑ poÊ ge per‹ fÊsevw µ cux∞w µ mnÆmhw ≥ tinow •t°rou t«n toioÊtvn •to¤mvw épofanoÊmeya. ÉAllÉ Àsper ka‹ taËta Ùry«w efirÆkamen, oÏtvw ka¤, ˜te tØn ¶nnoian aÈt«n •kãstou ka‹ tØn t∞w Ípãrjevw diãgnvsin ¶xomen §narg∞, prosye›nai xrØ t“ lÒgƒ. ÜApan m¢n går futÚn ÍpÚ fÊsevw dioike›tai, pçn d¢ z“on ÍpÚ fÊse≈w te ëma ka‹ cux∞w, e‡ ge dØ tØn m¢n toË tr°fesya¤ te ka‹ aÈjãnesyai ka‹ t«n toioÊtvn ¶rgvn afit¤an Ùnomãzomen ëpantew ênyrvpoi “fÊsin”, tØn d¢ t∞w afisyÆse≈w te ka‹ t∞w ej∞w aÈtª kinÆsevw60 “cuxÆn”. ÜVstÉ oÈde‹w ≤m«n oÎte kataceÊdetai t«n ¶rgvn t∞w fÊsevw oÎtÉ, §peidØ taËta gign≈skei, ka‹ tØn oÈs¤an aÈt∞w eÈyÁw o‰de, kayãper oÈd¢ tØn toË [267] ≤l¤ou, éllÉ énat°llonta m¢n aÈtÚn ırvmen §narg«w, Àsper ge ka‹ duÒmenon ëpantã te metajÁ tÒpon émeibonta tãjei xrÒnon éfvrism°non,61 tØn dÉ oÈs¤an ıpo›Òw t¤w §stin §p‹ sxolª zhtoËmen. Efi m¢n oÔn édÊnaton ∑n gn«nai tåw fusikåw §kkr¤seiw ıpÒte g¤gnontai xvr‹w toË progn«nai tØn oÈs¤an t∞w §rgazom°nhw aÈtåw fÊsevw, efikÒtvw ín ı de¤jaw §ke¤nhn êgnvston eÈyÁw aÈtª sunan˙rÆkei tØn toÊtvn gn«sin. ÉEpe‹ dÉ §gxvre›, kín §ke¤nhn tiw égnoª, taÊtaw goËn gin≈skein, §k perittoË fluare› pãnta taËyÉ ı yaumasi≈tatow ÉIoulianÒw. ÑHme›w gãr, ˜tan t“ xvr‹w farmãkou kaya¤rontow ¶metow µ suxnØ kãtv g°nhtai k°nvsiw, e‡te diÉ §nt°rvn e‡te ka‹ diå mÆtraw, ëpanta tå toiaËta fÊsei te gegon°nai fam¢n µ ÍpÚ fÊsevw µ fusik«w (oÈd¢n går diaf°rei) mimoÊmeyã te faner«w »felÆsanta62 toÁw kãmnontaw. ÉIoulianÚw dÉ ¶oiken oÈdÉ ˘ pãntew ênyrvpoi l°gous¤ te kayÉ •kãsthn ≤m°ran ka‹ gign≈skousin, oÈd¢ toËtÉ §p¤stasyai, katå fÊsin m¢n ¶xein toÁw Ígia¤nontaw, parå [268] fÊsin d¢ toÁw nosoËntaw. Efi går oÈk ¶jestin oÈden‹ t«n toioÊtvn Ùnomãtvn xr∞syai mØ prÒteron §pistam°nouw t∞w fÊsevw tØn oÈs¤an, oÎte toÁw Ígia¤nontaw ˜ti katå fÊsin ¶xousin §roËmen oÎte toÁw nosoËntaw ˜ti parå fÊsin. ÉAllå går efi boÊlei ka‹ corr Wi: pÒyen dÉ êlloyen cett 59 L K: §nerg°stata W (ex errore typographico?) W: ka‹ t∞w •jevw aÈt∞w kinÆsevw K 61 W: tãjei ka‹ xrÒnƒ éfvrism°nƒ Ch > K 62 W: mimoÊmeyã te faner«w »felÆsantew K: »felÆsanta He 58

60

  ‒  

307

occur spontaneously”. Wherefore did the word “nature” jump to his mind? From nowhere but Julian’s habit of rambling, which provides food for long speeches; but if you spread them out from the rolls you will find his nonsense staring into your face. Thus, as all the doctors say that some evacuations come about by nature and others by accident, showing that sometimes the cause originates in the patients’ body itself, sometimes outside it, he [sc Julian] took this as an opportunity to ramble about the word “nature”. In a nutshell, what he wants to say is this: it is not appropriate to utter the words “natural evacuations” as long as we do not know what nature is. But, my most distinguished [266] sophist, such an argument will make us equally inclined to disclaim any knowledge of having souls, perception, mind, memory, or reasoning—on the grounds that the essence of each one of these is of course difficult to understand. And what is so remarkable here? Since not even the sun, which we see most clearly, is not known to us with any precision when it comes to its essence, much less indeed shall we be equipped with ready pronouncements about nature, soul, memory, or anything of this sort. We have nevertheless uttered these [sc names] correctly; and when we get a clear notion of each [sc thing] and a clear mark of its existence, we should add it to our account in just the same way. Every plant is under the control of nature, and every animal, under that of nature together with soul—at least if all of us mortals call “nature” the cause of being nourished, growing, and suchlike functions, and “soul”, the cause of perception and of movement, which is consequent upon it. And so it is not the case that none of us is ever mistaken about the achievements of nature, or that, once we understand them, we also know its essence straightaway any more than we know the essence of the [267] sun: plainly we see it rising, setting, and shifting through every intermediary position in order, according to its apportioned time; but, as for its essence, we study what sort of thing the sun is when we have the leisure [sc to do it]. Now, if it were impossible to recognise natural secretions when they occur, unless we had previous knowledge of an essence of the nature which produces them, then it would be fair, once you have demonstrated that the essence in question is unknowable, also to abolish the recognition of natural secretions together with it. But since it is possible for someone to recognise them even if he is ignorant about that essence, the astounding Julian is completely off the mark in babbling all these things. If you ask us, whenever vomiting or a strong downward-moving evacuation—either through the intestine or through the womb—occurs without a purging medicine, we claim that all such phenomena happened through nature, by nature’s agency, or naturally (it makes no difference which) and we imitate what benefits the patients in an obvious way. But Julian does not seem to know even what everyone says and recognises every day, namely that the healthy are in a natural state while the ill are in an [268] unnatural state. For if it is not possible to use any of these words without knowing the essence of nature beforehand, we will say neither that the healthy are in a natural state nor that the ill are in an unnatural state. However, let us generously grant him the following point, if you wish, and concede that it would be

308

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

toËtÉ aÈt“ d«men §k perious¤aw ka‹ sugxvrÆsvmen, efi mØ prÒteron efide¤hmen …w §k yermoË ka‹ cuxroË ka‹ jhroË ka‹ ÍgroË tå s≈mayÉ ≤m«n sun°sthken, émÆxanon e‰nai mimÆsasyai tå kal«w ÍpÚ fÊsevw µ tÊxhw gignÒmena. T¤ oÔn kvlÊei gign≈skein ≤mçw ékrib«w toËto, m°xriw ín ≤me›w te l°gein ¶xvmen épÒdeijin dÒgmatow o· tÉ êristoi t«n filosÒfvn (oÓw ka‹ sÁ yaumãzeiw aÈtÒw) ımolog«sin ÑIppokrãtei te ka‹ éllÆloiw, efi mÆ tiw tØn diafvn¤an flkanÚn ≤ge›tai martÊrion e‰nai t∞w égno¤aw toË dÒgmatow §ja¤fnhw ÉAporhtikÒw tiw ént‹ StvÛkoË gegon≈w; Efi går dØ toÊtƒ p°peisai t“ lÒgƒ t“ fãskonti mhd¢n t«n diapefvnhm°nvn pçsi to›w filosÒfoiw efiw gn«sin ényrvp¤nhn éfik°syai dÊnasyai, t¤ dÆpote oÈ polÁ pr«tow [269] èpãntvn épiste›w ta›w kala›w sou koinÒthsin, ìw ≤ katå tÚn oÈranÚn ofikoËsa m°yodow §g°nnhsen; ÉAllÉ ˜mvw oÈde‹w t«n êllvn fiatr«n e‰den aÈtåw émudr«w, §narg«w d°, …w nom¤zei, ı YessalÒw, ka‹ tÒ ge toÊtou me›zon, ˜63 yeasam°nou ka‹ de¤jantow aÈtåw toË YessaloË t“ lamprotãtƒ xor“ t«n émfÉ aÈtÚn fiatr«n ˜mvw oÈde‹w oÈden‹ sunef≈nhsen, éllÉ êxri deËro polemoËsin éllÆloiw me¤zona pÒlemon o YessalÚw §pol°mhse to›w sumfoithta›w. E‡per oÔn ≤ diafvn¤a shme›Òn §sti t∞w t«n pragmãtvn égno¤aw, èpas«n pr≈taiw épistht°on §st‹n ta›w YessaloË koinÒthsin, ˜son ka‹ ple¤sth per‹ aÈt«n §sti diafvn¤a. TÚ m°ntoi ge toË s≈matow ≤m«n tØn fÊsin ≥toi gÉ §j é°row ka‹ purÚw ÏdatÒw te ka‹ g∞w µ §j ÍgroË ka‹ jhroË ka‹ yermoË ka‹ cuxroË summ°trvw éllÆloiw kekram°nvn gegon°nai diapef≈nhtai m°n, éllÉ oÈk efiw tosoËton ˜son afl YessaloË koinÒthtew, e‡ ge ka‹ Plãtvn ka‹ ZÆnvn ÉAristot°lhw te ka‹ YeÒfrastow EÎdhmÒw te ka‹ Kleãnyhw ka‹ XrÊsippow ëma pollo›w filosÒ[270]foiw, œn ofl m¢n StvÛkoÁw ofl d¢ PeripathtikoÁw ofl d¢ PlatvnikoÁw •autoÁw »nÒmasan, ımologoËsin émfÉ aÈtã: afl dÉ ÍpÚ YessaloË koinÒthtew efirhm°nai tosoÊtou d°ousin ér°skein toÁw êllouw fiatroÊw, ÀstÉ oÈdÉ aÈto›w toÊtoiw ımologoËntai to›w émeyÒdoiw m¢n ˆntvw, ÙnÒmati d¢ semn“ t“ t∞w meyÒdou kayãper tin‹ problÆmati kexrhm°noiw. OÎte går ÑIppokrãthw oÎte Diokl∞w oÎte PleistÒnikow oÎte PrajagÒraw oÎte FulÒtimow oÎte Mnhs¤yeow oÎtÉ ÉEras¤stratow oÎyÉ ÑHrÒfilow oÎtÉ êllow tiw fiatrÚw oÎte LogikÚw oÎtÉ ÉEmpeirikÚw ±r°syh ta›w YessaloË koinÒthsi. Ka‹ mØn efi xrØ parabale›n éllÆlaiw tåw diafvn¤aw, oÈ mikr“ tini proÎxousan eÍrÆseiw tØn per‹ tåw toË YessaloË koinÒthtaw. Tri«n går oÈs«n §n fiatrikª katå g°now aflr°sevn, …w aÈto‹ l°gousin, ˜tan o· tÉ épÚ t∞w §mpeir¤aw ˆntew o· te dogmat¤zontew énair«si tåw YessaloË koinÒthtaw, oÈ mikrãn tina xrØ nom¤zein e‰nai tØn toiaÊthn diafvn¤an, 64 énup°rblhton tÚ m°geyow aÈt∞w g¤gnetai, mÆtÉ aÈtoË [271] toË gennÆsantow tåw koinÒthtaw Yem¤svnow mÆte t«n épÉ aÈtoË mhdenÒw, éllå mhd¢ t«n émeyÒdvn Yessale¤vn mhdenÚw fulãjantow aÈtãw. OÈde‹w goËn §stin ˘w oÈk ≥toi pros°yhken aÈta›w êllaw µ

63

add L1

64

W < Co: om K

  ‒  

309

impossible to imitate what happens to a good effect under the agency of nature or chance unless we knew beforehand that our bodies are made out of the hot, cold, dry, and wet. So what is there to prevent us from getting to know this with precision, up to a level where we would be able to demonstrate it ourselves, and where the best philosophers (whom even you admire) would agree with Hippocrates and the rest—were it not for some chap who turned Aporetic from Stoic overnight, coming to consider that disagreement makes enough of a proof of the ignorance in which a belief is grounded? Well, if you let yourself persuaded by this argument, which claims that none of the issues generally disagreed upon by philosophers can be brought within the compass of human knowledge, why don’t you mistrust your nice koinotetes far and above all else, [269] begotten as they are by the Method who dwells in heaven? And yet no other doctor saw them [sc even] dimly, whereas Thessalus saw them limpidly, as he [sc Julian] thinks; and, what is more, although Thessalus gazed at them and also pointed them out to the most brilliant choir of doctors in his train, nevertheless no one agreed with anyone else: down to this very day they carry on a bigger fight against each other than Thessalus fought against his [sc medical] companions. So, if disagreement is the sign of ignorance about the facts [sc disagreed upon], then the thing to be mistrusted far and above all else is the koinotetes of Thessalus, in so far as the disagreement about them is the greatest. There is of course disagreement as to whether the nature of our body has resulted from air, fire, water, and earth, or from the wet, the dry, the hot, and the cold, proportionally mixed among them, but that is not as great as the disagreement aroused by Thessalus’ koinotetes— at least considering that Plato, Zeno, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Eudemus, Cleanthes, Chrysippus, together with many philosophers [270] who styled themselves Stoics, Peripatetics, or Platonists are agreed about the former, while on the other hand what Thessalus called koinotetes, so far from satisfying the other doctors, are not agreed upon even by [sc the Methodists] themselves—these people who in reality are the most amethodical, yet use the august name of Method as a defence. Neither Hippocrates, Diocles, Pleistonicus, Praxagoras, Phylotimus, Mnesitheus, Erasistratus, and Herophilus, nor any other doctor, Logical or Empirical as you would have it, was satisfied with the koinotetes of Thessalus. If indeed you must compare various disagreements with each other, you will find that the one about the koinotetes of Thessalus is ahead of the lot by a great distance. Bearing in mind that there are by kind three haireseis in medicine, as they say it themselves, since those who follow experience and those who uphold systems of beliefs confute Thessalus’ koinotetes, one should not imagine that a disagreement of that sort is a trifle; but it becomes insuperably great when not even [271] Themison, the man who created the koinotetes, nor any of his followers—not even one among the amethodical Thessaleans—abides by them. There is indeed no one who did not impose on them additions, subtractions, or changes of some sort. And even if all of them agreed

310

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

éfe›len µ metekÒsmhs° pvw. Ka¤toi gÉ oÈdÉ efi pãntew otoi sunef≈noun éllÆloiw, oÈdÉ oÏtv mikrã tiw ∑n ≤ diafvn¤a prÚw toÁw êllouw aÈto›w. ÑOpÒte dÉ §pÉ §ke¤noiw ëpasin oÈdÉ aÈto‹ sumf°rontai, mÒnow épole¤petai ı YessalÚw ımÒchfon ¶xvn oÈd°na plØn êxri lÒgou toËton tÚn ÉIoulianÒn. ÉErgƒ m¢n går §de¤xyh ka‹ otow §nanti≈tata l°gvn aÈt“, ka‹ ˜stiw per‹ toÊtou peisy∞nai boÊletai, to›w Per‹ t∞w meyodik∞w aflr°sevw ÍpomnÆmasin ≤m«n §ntux°tv. ÉAllå ka¤toi mÒnow ı YessalÚw efi fa¤h to›w Íp¢r élhye¤aw égvnizom°noiw épode¤jevw65 e‰nai tÚ kritÆrion 66 sumfvn¤an t«n to›w êlloiw dokoÊntvn, oÈde‹w aÈtoË katagn≈setai: e‰ta YessaloË m¢n oÈ prokatagin≈skomen ëpasi to›w êlloiw diafvnoËntow, ÑIppokrãtei prÚw to›w ér¤stoiw fiatro›w ofl krãtistoi t«n filosÒfvn marturoËsin, épistÆsomen §k67 mÒnhw diafvn¤aw; [272] T¤w ín toÊtvn énasx°syai dÊnaito; T¤w perime›nai l∞ron toioËton; T¤w oÈk ín élgÆseien épollÁw tÚn xrÒnon efiw éntilog¤an ényr≈pou mÆyÉ œn aÈtÚw e‰pe memnhm°nou mÆyÉ œn grãfei suni°ntow, éllÉ aÈtÚ dØ toËto tÚ katå tØn paroim¤an ˜ ti per ín §p‹ gl«ttan ¶ly˙ fluaroËntow; [vi] ÉAllå går §ãsantew ≥dh ka‹ taËta t«n •j∞w efirhm°nvn ékoÊsvmen aÈt“, ka‹ pr≈thw ge t∞w =Æsevw §n √ fhs‹ tÚn proke¤menon éforismÚn “=¤zan te ka‹ phgØn” ¶xein “tÚ ˜ti pl∞yow Ígr«n t«n noshmãtvn §st‹ sunektikÚn a‡tion”. ÖAmeinon ‡svw kéntaËya paragrãcai tØn =∞sin ˜lhn aÈto›w ÙnÒmasi. G°graptai dÉ oÏtvw ÍpÉ aÈtoË aÈt¤ka tÚ œd° pvw efirhm°non (kairÚw går ≥dh §p‹ tØn §j eÈye¤aw parelye›n ént¤rrhsin): “ÉEn tªsi taraxªsi t∞w koil¤hw”—…w tÚ paraleipÒmenon toË éforismoË—“ëpan =¤zan te ka‹ phgØn [273] ¶xei tÚ ˜ti pl∞yow Ígr«n nosopoie› tå s≈mata katÉ ¶nnoian sunektikoË afit¤ou: ˜yen épodedeigm°nƒ t“ oÈk §n Ígro›w e‰nai a‡tia t«n pay«n (ceudØw går ≤ dÒja) sunapod°deiktai ka‹ ≤ toË éforismoË moxyhr¤a, ˜ti édÆlƒ eÍrÆmati68 ßpetai69 ceÊdh”. AÏth m¢n ≤ =∞siw aÈtoË: kãlliston dÉ ∑n, e‡per §nex≈rei gen°syai y°atrÒn ti, plhr≈santaw mØ toioËton oÂon ı YessalÚw Ípoy°menow §stefãnvsen •autÚn §n to›w lhr≈desi bibl¤oiw, éllÉ ¯n mestÚn éndr«n pepaideum°nvn, §r°syai tÚn ÉIoulianÚn 70 ıpo¤aw ırm≈menow épodeiktik∞w meyÒdou tÚn efirhm°non ÍpÉ aÈtoË lÒgon élhy∞ nom¤zei. GenÆsetai gãr, e‡ tiw aÈtÚn •rmhneÊseien …w prosÆkei,71 toiÒsde: “To›w ≤goum°noiw §p‹ ta›w ken≈sesin »fele›syai toÁw kãmnontaw énagka›Òn §sti sunektikÚn a‡tion Ípoy°syai t«n nÒsvn pl∞yow.” Efi dÉ élhyÆw §stin ı lÒgow otow ≤d°vw ín §peimhn toË72 yeãtrou pepaideum°nvn éndr«n, ·na kék toË plÆyouw aÈt«n a‡syhta¤ pote t∞w §mplhj¤aw ı lhr≈dhw ÉIoulianÒw: §k m¢n går aÈt«n t«n legom°nvn

corr ego: épod L > épÒdeijin Ald cett 66 add ego: add Ch > W K transp., ci et corr Wi (sic et ego Wifstrandi emendationem ignorans): flppokrat . . . épistÆsomen L: flppokrat . . . épistÆsomen suppl L1: diafvnoÊntow ÑIppokrãtouw, . . . épistÆsomen dÉ W: diafvnoÊntow ÑIppokrãtouw, ⁄ . . . épistÆsomen dÉ K 68 corr W: sp°rmati L > Ald > K: ßrmati adscr Co 69 corr ego: ßpontai cett 70 add He > W 71 W: •rmhneÊsei aÈtÚn §n ⁄ prosÆkei K < Ald < L1 72 W: ≤d°vw ín …w §pa¤deusa K 65 67

  ‒  

311

with each other, their disagreement with the others would be—even then— of no small account. But since they [sc the Methodists] are not in harmony with each other about the whole lot [sc of koinotetes], Thessalus is left alone, with no one apart from this Julian to share in his vote—in words; for in point of fact he, too, has been proved to make claims that are incompatible with him [sc Thessalus], and if you want to be sure of this you should peruse our commentaries On the Methodist hairesis. Now even if Thessalus alone is to shout in the face of those who contend for the truth that the standard for [sc judging] a proof is the agreement among the beliefs of different people, no one will accuse him; but in that case shall we not accuse Thessalus straightaway, when he disagrees with everyone else? Shall we mistrust Hippocrates instead, on the basis of his [sc Thessalus’] unique disagreement—he [sc Hippocrates], whom the greatest philosophers acknowledge as one of the best doctors? [272] Who could put up with this? Who could endure such garbage? Who would not be aggrieved to waste his time refuting someone who has neither the memory of what he said nor the understanding of what he wrote, but, as in the proverb, jabbers out whatever may come to his mouth? [vi] But let us leave these [sc matters] too, to hear what he [sc Julian] wrote next—beginning with the passage in which he claims that the “root and spring” of the afore quoted aphorism is [sc the principle] “that the abundance of liquids is the containing [sunektikon] cause of diseases”. But it would be better perhaps, here as well, to render the whole passage in its own words. So here is what he goes on to write next, putting it somehow like this (for it is time to proceed straight to the refutation): “In disturbances of the abdomen” [sc and so on], as the rest of the aphorism runs: “Its root and spring lies in [273] [sc the principle] that the abundance [ plethos] of liquids makes the body diseased in conformity with the notion of a containing cause [sunektike]; hence, when you demonstrate that it is not the case that the cause of diseases lies in the liquids (for the belief is false), the unsoundness of the aphorism, too, results from the same demonstration; since false [sc consequents] follow from a nonevident discovery.” These are his words; and, if it were possible to conjure up some theatre—we would not have filled it like Thessalus, when he assumed he would get the [sc victor’s] crown for his drivelling books, but it would be crowded with men of learning—the finest thing would be for him [sc Julian] to get asked from which method of demonstration he takes his start when he considers the argument advanced by him to be true. For, if one is to interpret it properly, it will boil down to an argument such as this: “Those who consider that the ill are benefited by evacuations necessarily presuppose that abundance [ plethos] is the containing cause of diseases.” I would gladly ask the theatre of learned men whether this argument is true, so that Julian the waffler might get a sense of his foolishness from their sheer number; since he could not get it from the objections themselves,

312

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

édÊnaton afisy°syai, toioÊtƒ gÉ [274] ˆnti oÂon •autÚn §pide¤knutai diå t«n grammãtvn.73 ÉAllÉ 74 §n t“ yeãtrƒ kal«w §gxeirÆsei, taËta ka‹ nËn §r«. ÑH t«n Yessale¤vn ˆnvn ég°lh flebotomoËsi pampÒllouw t«n purettÒntvn. Efi m¢n blãptesyai nom¤zousin §k t∞w ken≈sevw aÈtoÊw, oÈk Ùry«w flebotomoËsin: efi dÉ »fele›syai, sunektikÚn a‡tion Ípot¤yentai pl∞yow, ˜per oÈ boÊlontai. TãxÉ oÔn ên tiw §j aÈt«n e‡poi: “Ka‹ t¤w énãgkh sunektikÚn a‡tion e‰nai tÚ pl∞yow, »feloÊshw t∞w ken≈sevw;” PrÚw ˘n épokr¤nasya¤ moi =òston …w énãgkh m¢n oÈdem¤a, l°gei dÉ oÔn taËta t«n §k t∞w ég°lhw t∞w Ím«n oÍtos¤, ka‹ de¤jv tÚn ÉIoulianÚn §ke›nÒn te fÆsv d¤kaion e‰nai lÒgon Íp°xein œn §lÆrhsen. OÏtv m¢n 75 §n t“ yeãtrƒ proshn°xyh tiw aÈt«n. Nun‹ dÉ (oÈ går ¶xomen y°atron) efiw tåw aÈtåw ¥kousi labåw Ùl¤gou pãntew,76 ên tÉ élhye›w Ípãrxvsin ên te ka‹ profan«w ceude›w. ÉIoulianÚw toigar77 ée‹ grãfei tÚ §pelyÚn aÈt“, mhdep≈pote front¤saw élhye¤aw: §g∆ d°, parÉ ˜lon §mautoË tÚn b¤on oÈd¢n [275] oÏtv spoudãsaw …w gn«nai pr«ton m¢n épodeiktikØn §pistÆmhn, éskhy∞nai dÉ aÔyiw aÈtª metå pãshw spoud∞w, ¶oika kãmnein mãthn. ÜOsoi m¢n går épode¤jei parakolouyoËsi, tãxa m¢n ka‹ gign≈skousin ˜lvw mhd°pv tÚn ÉIoulianÚn éfistãmenon lÆrvn:78 ˜soi dÉ §k t∞w ég°lhw efis‹n aÈtoË, tØn érxØn oÈd¢n manyãnousi t«n legom°nvn. Diå taËta to¤nun aÈtå79 ka‹ prÒsyen ¶legon, oÈ smikrÒn moi toËton îylon80 ofl f¤loi pro°tajan,81 œn ßneken §pisthmonikvt°rvn ëcomai lÒgvn. ÉExr∞n m¢n dÆpou mØ fy°ggesyai mÒnon ÙnÒmata tª diaforò t«n afit¤vn prosÆkonta tÚn ÉIoulianÒn, éllå ka‹ fulãttein aÈt«n tå shmainÒmena. Nun‹ d¢ (ka‹ går toËyÉ ßn §sti t∞w §mplhj¤aw èpãntvn t«n Meyodik«n koinÒn) êxri m¢n t∞w proshgor¤aw ¥kei t«n sunektik«n afit¤vn, oÈ parakolouye› dÉ ˜p˙ diaf°rei t«n prohgoum°nvn: µ pãntvw ín §g¤nvsken 82 ≤ t«n noshmãtvn aÎjhsiw t«n prohgoum°nvn afit¤vn ¶rgon §st¤n. àO går ˜lvw ≥rjato t∞w gen°sevw toË nosÆmatow, énãgkh toËtÉ aÈjãnein aÈtÚ m°[276]xri per ín §nergª ti parÒmoion:83 e‡ gÉ oÏtvw tÊxoi84 drimÁ fãrmakon …w •lkoËn dÊnasyai, miò m¢n Àr& katå toË d°rmatow §pitey°n, aÈtØn mÒnhn •lk≈sei tØn kaloum°nhn §piderm¤da: ple¤oni d¢ xrÒnƒ plhsiãzon ßlkow85 éjiÒlogon §rgãsetai pr≈tou m¢n toË d°rmatow, e‰ta ka‹ t«n Ípokeim°nvn sark«n. Ka‹ tå d¢ kaloÊmena shptå m°xri m¢n t«n Ípokeim°nvn Ùst«n §n¤ote pro°rxetai, diaka¤onta tØn §pikeim°nhn aÈto›w 86 sãrka. ToiaÊthn oÔn fÊsin §xÒntvn t«n prohgoum°nvn

W: ˆnti. ToioËtow går §stin oÂon •autÚn §pide¤knusi diå t«n grammãtvn K add W: éllÉ K < Ch 75 add He > W 76 add W: efiw tåw aÈtåw labåw Ùl¤goi pãn L > efiw tåw aÈtåw labåw Ùl¤goi , pãntew Ald K cett 77 W: ÉIoulianÚw te går L > Ald K cett 78 He > W: ˜ mhd°pv t fioulian §fistamn lhr L: ˜ti mhd°pv t«n ÉIoulianoË §fistãmenoi lÆrvn Ald > K cett 79 aÈtå K Wi < L: ˜per corr W 80 îylon add W 81 K Wi < codd: prosetajan corr W 82 add W: §g¤gnvskon Co Ch > K 83 W: àA går . . . taËtÉ . . . aÈtå 84 W: ¶tuxe K < Ald 85 ci Wi: ¶rgon K W < codd 86 add L1 73 74

  ‒  

313

being such as [274] he reveals himself to be throughout his writings. But presently I shall ask [sc the questions] through which anyone in the theatre will attack him successfully. The herd of Thessalean asses apply venesection to a large number of patients with fever. Now, if they believe that the patients in question are harmed by evacuation, they are not right in applying venesection; on the other hand, if they think that the patients are benefited, they assume that abundance is the containing cause, which they would not have. Maybe one of them [sc the Methodists] would object: “And what need is there for abundance to be the containing cause, if evacuation is beneficent?” It will be easiest for me to retort to him that there is indeed no need, but here is one of your herd who claims it—and I will point to Julian and say that it would be right for him to account for his waffles. This is, then, how one of them [sc the learned] would lead the attack in the theatre. As it is now (since we do not have a theatre at our disposal), nearly everyone, whether in earnest or a patent liar, comes under the same grip. Hence Julian always writes whatever came to him, never minding the truth; whereas I, who have applied myself, above all and throughout my whole life, [275] first to mastering the science of demonstration, next to exercising it with supreme dedication—I appear to be toiling in vain. But in fact all those who abide by demonstration realise at once that Julian absolutely never stopped waffling, while all those who belong in his herd fail to understand the first thing of what he says. It is because of this that I said previously that the task my friends assigned to me was no small one; and for their sake I will avail myself of more scientific arguments. Surely Julian should not have merely uttered words related to the difference between the causes; he should also have paid attention to what they mean. As it is (for this is one common characteristic of the foolishness of all the Methodists), he only gets as far as the name of the containing causes, but he does not examine how they differ from the antecedent causes [ proegoumena]; or else he would certainly have known that the intensification of diseases is the result of antecedent causes. For the thing which started off the whole process of disease is bound to intensify it until [276] it effects something proportionate; if a medicine happens to be drying enough to be capable of producing a wound, when applied on the skin for one hour it will wound only what is called the epidermis; but if it stays on for a longer time it will perform a more serious wound, first on the skin, then also on the flesh underneath. And the [sc medicines] called septic sometimes penetrate to the bones underneath, burning up all the flesh that covers them. So, since the antecedent

314

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

afit¤vn, oÈx oÂÒn te tÚ gegonÚw ≥dh pãyow fiãsasyai menÒntvn. ÜOpou går §de¤xyh me›zon gignÒmenon, oÈk ín dÆpou tel°vw Ígiasye¤h pr‹n tÚ poioËn éry∞nai. Tå to¤nun prohgoÊmena t«n afit¤vn, oÂÒn per ka‹ tÚ pl∞yÒw 87 (Ípoke¤syv går pr«ton §n t“de t“ lÒgƒ prohgoÊmenon), efi mÆ tiw §kkÒcei prÒteron, édÊnaton aÈt“ tÚ ≥dh gegonÚw pãyow fiãsasyai: ka‹ diå toËto ÉAsklhpi88 pl∞yow ≤ge›tai prokatãrxein nÒsvn ÍpÒ te t∞w ken≈sevw aÈtoË fhsin »fele›syai toÁw kãmnontaw oÈk efiw tÚ lÊein œn §po¤h89 ≥dh [277] pay«n, éllÉ efiw tÚ mhk°ti aÈjãnein aÈtã, 90 épaite› to›w fiatro›w §pitele›syai tØn ‡asin. ÉAllå går Ípoke¤syv tÚ pl∞yow g¤gnesya¤ pote nÒsvn a‡tion sunektikÒn: énagka›on aÈtoË tª ken≈sei paÊsasyai tÚ nÒshma: ka‹ mØn oÈd°potÉ §stin, Àw fhsin ÉAsklhpiãdhw, sunektikÒn. ÉApoxvrÆsantaw går §ntaËya toË lhr≈douw ÉIoulianoË b°ltion ÉAsklhpiãd˙ dialexy∞nai, kín efi mhd¢n êllo nom¤mƒ goËn Ípãrxonti91 sofistª. LÒgouw går e‡vyen §rvtçn piyanvtãtouw ı énØr otow oÈk ékÒmcvw pepanourgeum°nouw, ˜per ∑n ¶rgon o‰mai sofistoË. ToioËtow d¢ dÆ t¤w §sti ka‹ ˘n §fej∞w ¶gracen ÉIoulianÒw, oÈ må tÚn D¤a t∞w dunãmevw afisyanÒmenow aÈtoË92 (pãntaw93 går ín §gegrãfei toÁw toioÊtouw), éllÉ épomnhmoneÊsaw efirhm°nvn ÍpÉ ÉAsklhpiãdou: …w, e‡ ge t«n fid¤vn ÉIoulianoË lÒgvn ∑n, ımo¤vw ín §fa¤neto to›w ¶mprosyen lhr≈dhw. ÑO to¤nun ÉAsklhpiãdhw fhs‹n …w, e‡per ∑n sunektikÚn a‡tion tÚ pl∞yow t«n pay«n, §p‹ dacil°si ken≈sesin, §n¤ote katå tØn érxØn t∞w nÒsou genom°naiw, eÈ[278]yÁw 94 èpãntvn Ùxlhr«n ı kãmnvn éphllãtteto: nun‹ d¢ fa¤nesyai pollãkiw aÈjanom°naw tåw nÒsouw ≥dh toË plÆyouw kay˙rhm°nou. Otow ı lÒgow flkan«w piyanÒw §sti ka‹ diå toËto de›tai lÊsevw fid¤aw: oÈ mØn ëptetai t«n katå tÚn éforismÚn ÑIppokrãtouw efirhm°nvn. OÈ går §k dÒgmatow §ke›na tØn p¤stin ¶sxhken, éllÉ §k logismoË koinoË pãntvn ényr≈pvn, ⁄ ka‹ toÁw ÉEmpeirikoÁw ¶fhn xr∞syai. DiÚ ka‹ lÊvmen95 aÈtÚn tÚn ÉAsklhpiãdou lÒgon oÈx …w prosÆkonta to›w katå tÚn éforismÚn efirhm°noiw, éllÉ §peidØ b°ltion e‰nai doke›, t«n ÉIoulianoË lÆrvn énesxhm°nouw96 êxri deËro, gumnãsasya¤ pote dialektik≈teron, ényr≈pƒ prospala¤santaw97 ˆnti sofistª. ÜOtan oÔn Ùnomãz˙ “pl∞yow” ı ÉAsklhpiãdhw §rvtht°on aÈtÚn ıpÒterÒn fhsin—îrã ge tÚ prÚw tØn dÊnamin e‡te tÚ prÚw tØn x≈ran t«n égge¤vn, ˘ dØ ka‹ katå tÚ ¶gxuma kale›n efisin efiyism°noi—ka‹ pÒteron tÚ kayÉ ˜lon tÚ s«ma gignÒmenon µ kín §n m°rei tin‹ sun¤statai. TÚ m¢n oÔn …w prÚw tØn dÊnamin oÈdÉ efi[279]pe›n aÈt“ dunatÒn, én˙rhkÒti tåw dunãmeiw sxedÚn èpãsaw aÂw dioike›tai tÚ z“on. TÚ dÉ …w prÚw tØn x≈ran t«n égge¤vn, ¶sti m¢n dÆpou ka‹ toËto dittÒn, ≥toi t“ katå fÊsin m°trƒ paraballÒmenon µ cil“ ka‹ mÒnƒ t“ mØ st°gesyai.98 DÊnatai dÉ •kãteron aÈt«n ≥toi kayÉ

add W: oÂÒn per ka‹ tÚ pl∞yow K cett 88 compl Ald: ésklhpid L 89 W: §po¤ei K < Ald 90 add W 91 W: nom¤mvw Ípãrxonti K < Ald 92 K: •autoË 93 Co < L: pãnta K cett 94 add He > W 95 corr W: lÊomen K cett < L 96 He > W: énesxhm°non K cett < énesxhmn L 97 corr L1 > W: prospelãsantaw L > Ald > K cum cett 98 corr Co > W: t“ mØ t°ggesyai K cett < LL1 87

  ‒  

315

causes have this kind of nature, as long as they subsist it is not possible to heal an affection which is already there. For when it [sc the affection] were seen to grow bigger, surely it would not be completely cured before the removal of the thing that produced it. For where we are concerned with the antecedent causes, such as abundance essentially is (let it be assumed, in the present argument, that it [sc abundance] is, in the first place, an antecedent [sc cause]), if one does not extirpate them, it is impossible for one to heal an affection which is already there; and this is why Asclepiades claims that abundance triggers diseases off [ prokatarchein] and that its evacuation benefits the patients, not towards abolishing the affections which it [sc abundance] has already brought about [277], but towards stopping their intensification; and he requires the doctors to pursue the treatment to its very end. But let it be assumed that abundance is sometimes the containing cause [sunektikon] of diseases: then the disease would necessarily cease together with the evacuation; in that case, as Asclepiades says, it [sc abundance] never is a containing cause. For at this point it would be better to move away from Julian the waffler and to converse with Asclepiades, even if he is nothing but a sophist of the usual sort. For this man was in the habit of propounding arguments of the most persuasive sort, ridden with quite ingenious tricks, which was, I think, the feat of a sophist. The argument that Julian wrote thereupon is also one of this kind—not, by Zeus, because he grasped its [sc Asclepiades’ argument’s] meaning (otherwise he would have written everything like that), but because he reproduced from memory what Asclepiades said; so that, if it had been one of Julian’s own arguments, it would have looked just as nugatory as the preceding ones. So then: Asclepiades claims that, if abundance were the containing cause of diseases, then the patient would be relieved of all his troubles straightaway through thorough evacuations, which occur sometimes at the onset of disease; [278] but in fact diseases are often seen to aggravate when the abundance has already been purged. This argument is persuasive enough, and for this reason it needs a specific refutation; it certainly does not impugn what Hippocrates said in the aphorism. For that [sc what Hippocrates said] did not derive its persuasiveness from an assumption but from a reasoning shared by all men—one which I said that even the Empiricists use. Therefore let us deal with this argument of Asclepiades—not on the grounds that it is suited to what is said in the aphorism, but because it seems better, once we confined ourselves to Julian’s waffles so far, to warm up in a more dialectical exercise, wrestling with a man who is a real sophist. So, when Asclepiades uses the word “abundance”, one should ask him which one he means—is it the one related to the faculty [dunamis] or the one related to the capacity [chora] of the vessels, which they [sc doctors] also use to call [sc abundance] from filling?—and whether it occurs in the whole body or is located in some part. It is not possible for him [sc Asclepiades] to speak of abundance in relation to the faculty, [279] since he abolished almost all the faculties which govern the animal. As for abundance in relation to the vessels’ capacity, that, too, is of two sorts, according to whether it is measured by the criterion of conformity to nature or by the bare and sole [sc fact of something’s] not being contained. Each one of them [sc the two sorts of abundance] can be found either throughout the whole animal or

316

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

˜lon Ípãrxein tÚ z“on µ kayÉ ßn ti mÒrion µ ple¤v. Ka‹ d°deiktai prÚw ≤m«n ¶n te to›w ÍpomnÆmasin §n oÂw tåw Afit¤aw t«n sumptvmãtvn dierxÒmeya kén t“ 99 t«n parå fÊsin ˆgkvn ˜ te spasmÚw §n¤ote ka‹ ı trÒmow ¥ te flegmonØ diå pantÚw §rus¤pelãw te ka‹ tÚ kaloÊmenon ÍpÚ t«n nevt°rvn fiatr«n o‡dhma ka‹ prÚw toÊtoiw ßterã tina pãyh plhyvrikØn ÍpÒyesin ¶xonta ka¤, e‡ tiw ken≈sei tÚ pl∞yow, aÈt¤ka tÚ mÒrion efiw tÚ katå fÊsin §panerxÒmenon. E‡rhtai d¢ ka‹ Per‹ t«n sunektik«n afit¤vn •t°rvyi, deiknÊntvn ≤m«n ˜ti te toÎnoma ka‹ tÚ prçgma aÈtÚ kayÉ o toÎnoma t∞w StvÛk∞w aflr°se≈w §sti, ka‹ …w oÈk Ùry«w oÎyÉ ÍpeilÆfasin oÎtÉ Ùnomãzousin ofl ne≈teroi t«n fiatr«n ëpan toËto tÚ g°now, [280] ka¤toi ge ka‹ ≤me›w •pÒmenoi pollãkiw aÈto›w, ˜pvw mØ dÒjvmen §r¤zein Íp¢r ÙnÒmatow, ¶nia t«n afit¤vn oÏtv kale›syai sugxvroËmen, oÈ må D¤É, ˜sa t«n èpl«w100 ˆntvn §st¤n, éllå t«n §n t“ g¤gnesyai tÚ e‰nai kekthm°nvn. ÉEn toÊtƒ m¢n ≤ lÊsiw toË sof¤smatow: ëpanta d¢ metaf°rein §ntaËya t∞w ÉIoulianoË fluar¤aw ¶rgon oÈx ≤m°teron. ÉAllÉ §fÉ ßterÒn ti t«n probeblhm°nvn ‡vmen, ˘ koinª prÚw ëpantÉ §st‹101 t«n §n Ígro›w afit¤vn: 102 tÚ g°now Ípãrxei dittÒn, §n plÆyei m¢n tÚ ßteron, §n diafyorò d¢ tÚ ßteron. ÉAllÉ émfo›n ge =&d¤an ¶sesya¤ fasi tØn ‡asin, §n ékare› xrÒnƒ dunam°nvn ≤m«n ka‹ toË pleonãzontow épox°ai tÚ perittÚn ka‹ tÚ diefyarm°non ˜lon §kken«sai, ÀstÉ oÈd°pote xron¤sein nÒshma. ToËton oÔn tÚn lÒgon oÏtvw ˆnta saf∞ te ëma ka‹ sÊntomon ésaf«w ka‹ makr«w ı ÉIoulianÚw ¶grace katå tÆnde tØn =∞sin: “AÈt¤ka 103 §n t“ éforism“ l∞mma sunhrpãsyai oÈk épodedeigm°non, tÚ ˜ti ÍgroË pl∞yow nosopoie› µ metabolØ prÚw tÚ oÈk ofike›on t∞w fid¤aw poiÒth[281]tow, ˆnoma104 fiatr«n pa›dew ¶yento katå toË ˜lou e‡douw “diafyorãn”: Àste, toË nosopoioË épokrinom°nou, »f°leian ¶sesyai fantãzetai sfÒdra fitam«w prÒw ge tØn105 épÚ toË émãxou fainom°nhn kr¤sin. É106 ÍgroË tinow §n t“ s≈mati pl∞yow t∞w nÒsou tÚ a‡tion e‰nai nom¤zein, µ oÈ pl∞yow m¢n tropØn d°, édianÒhtÒn te ka‹ prÚw tØn élÆyeian ésÊmfvnon tÒde tugxãnei ˆn. Ka‹ går tå pãyh107 eÎluta pãnta ka‹ oÈk108 ín ∑n ti xrÒnion ¥ te yerape¤a pçsa monoeidÆw, oÈdÉ ≤ntinoËn109 dusx°reian §rg≈dh ¶xousa. ÑAploËn går ∑n §k parakeim°nou ken«sai tÚ nosopoioËn ka‹ aÈt¤ka §n érxª ka‹ katå tØn pr≈thn ÍpÒstasin lÊein tÚ pãyow, ÀsyÉ •nÚw mÒnou de›syai kenvtikoË bohyÆmatow ka‹ toËto parå pãnta kairÚn §nest«ta pesÒnta ır¤zein, ka‹ a·matow m°nontow110 mÒn˙ érke›syai flebotom¤&, fl°gmatow d¢ flegmagvg“, xol∞w d¢ xolagvg“.” [vii, 282] AÏth m¢n ≤ toË ÉIoulianoË =∞siw. ÖEsti dÉ, …w ¶fhn, ı katÉ aÈtØn lÒgow toiÒsde: “E‡per §n Ígro›w e‡h tå t«n nÒsvn a‡tia, dunatÒn §stin ≤m›n add He > W 100 W: èplv L: èpl«n Ald > K cett 101 W < L1: prÚw ëpan §sti K cett < L 102 add W 103 add W 104 add W: poiÒthtow ˆnoma add He: poiÒthtow ˆnoma K e correctione Ch: poiotht noma L 105 restit W < LL1 (“fitam«w prÒw ge utpote paene illegibilia”): sfÒdra. Tå m¢n prÒsyen tØn Ald > K cett 106 add W 107 W: tugxãnein. ÖVmhn går tå pãyh K cett < Ald < tugxãnei mhn L1 108 oÈk om Ch > K 109 ≤ntinaoËn K 110 restit W: m¢n ˆntow K cum cett < m° nont L in rasura 99

  ‒  

317

in one or several of its parts. Moreover, it has been shown by us, in the commentaries where we deal with the Causes of symptoms as well as in the treatise On unnatural tumours, that sometimes spasm and shaking, always inflammation, then erysipelas and what modern doctors call oidema, and several other affections beside these have a plethoric basis and that, if someone will evacuate the abundance, the part will go back to normal straightaway. Somewhere else there are also explanations concerning the Containing causes, where we showed that both the name and the thing itself that corresponds to the name belong to the Stoic hairesis, and that the modern doctors have not formed correct ideas about this whole genus nor apply its name correctly—[280] although we, too, not wishing to appear to fight about words, often follow in their steps and agree to refer to some causes in this way—not, by Zeus, those which are [sc causes] of what there is without qualification, but [sc those which are causes] of what acquired its being through [sc a process of ] becoming. This is where the refutation of the sophism lies; to transfer all of Julian’s nonsense to that level is not our job. But let us move on to another of his proposals, one which embraces all the causes [sc which reside] in the fluids: their genus is twofold, one [sc species] consisting in abundance, the other in corruption [sc of the humours]. But they [sc the Methodists] say that healing will be easy in both cases if we can, on the spot, pour off the residual part of what is in excess or evacuate all the corrupted matter, so that the disease may not become chronic. So: clear and concise as this argument is, Julian managed to give it an unclear and lengthy expression in the following passage: “Next [sc point]: an undemonstrated assumption seems to have snatched its way into the aphorism, namely that what produces disease is the abundance of fluid or the change of its specific quality to into something uncongenial—[281] a change to which the offspring of doctors assigned the name of ‘corruption’, after the entire species [sc where it belongs]; and so one imagines that, once the factor which produces disease is eliminated, there will be extremely rapid progress towards the unquestionably manifest crisis. But to think that the cause of disease is the abundance of some fluid in the body, or if not its abundance then its change, is, as it happens, thoughtless and discordant with the truth. For [sc in that case] all affections would be easy to break, none would be chronic, and all therapy would be of one kind, posing no troublesome difficulty. Indeed, it would be a simple affair to evacuate at one’s convenience what produces disease and then immediately to break the affection from the start, at its first onset, so that just one depletive remedy would be needed, and in every circumstance the doctor in charge would settle on that one for his use: if blood was retained [sc in the body], venesection alone would suffice; if phlegm, a phlegm-drawing [sc medicine]; if bile, a bile-drawing [sc medicine].” [vii, 282] This is Julian’s speech. As I said, the argument is as follows: “If the causes of diseases are to reside in the fluids, it is possible for us to eliminate them quickly and not to allow

318

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

§n tãxei kenoËsin aÈtã, mhden‹ nosÆmati xron¤zein §pitr°pein. ÉAllå mØn xron¤zei ge pollã, kín katå tØn érxØn aÈt«n flkan«w §kken≈svmen tÚ s«ma. OÈk êrÉ §st‹n §n Ígro›w tå a‡tia.” ÉAllÉ ˜ ge lÒgow otow, efi m¢n per‹ toË prÚw tØn x≈ran t«n égge¤vn §n ˜lƒ t“ s≈mati sunistam°nou plÆyouw §st¤n, élhyØw Ípãrxei (boulhy°ntew går eÈy°vw §n érxª t∞w nÒsou ken«sai tÚ perittÚn §kkr¤nomen111 ëpasan plhyvrikØn diãyesin). Efi d¢ per‹ toË katã ti mÒrion, §n ⁄ ka‹ ple¤v gignÒmena,112 ceudÆw. ÉEpid°deiktai går ≤m›n §ke›no tÚ pl∞yow oÈk ée‹ kenoËsyai tax°vw dunãmenon. OÏtv dØ ka‹ per‹ t∞w diafyorçw ı lÒgow §rvt≈menow {efi}113 prÒxeiron ¶xei tØn lÊsin. OÈ går oÂÒn te tax°vw aÈtØn §kken«sai, kayãper §j éskoË tinow µ p¤you. Kên, 114 §k toÊtvn ˜lvw 115 §kken≈saimen pª pote tÚ moxyhrÚn ÍgrÒn, oÈk eÈy°vw éntegx°oi[283]men116 ßteron xrhstÒn, éllå dian¤cant°w te ka‹ plÊnantew ékrib«w tÚ égge›on. âArÉ oÔn oÏtv dunatÚn §n ényr≈pou s≈mati ken«sai m¢n tÚ diefyarm°non aÂma, xrhstÚn dÉ éntegxe›n paraxr∞ma to›w §ke¤nou mor¤oiw {êjion toËto};117 P«w oÔn §n tãxei fas‹ dÊnasyai kenvy∞nai tØn diafyorãn; OÏtvw …w ka‹ têlla pãnta l°gousin eÈxer«w, oÈden‹ pros°xontew tÚn noËn, oÈd¢ metå perisk°cevw ékribest°raw ˜lon éyroËntew tÚ prçgma. Ka‹ mØn ka‹ xol∞w periexom°nhw §n t“ s≈mati poll∞w, êneu m¢n puretoË =ñdion §kken«sai pollãkiw: efi dÉ èl«nai fyãseien ı ênyrvpow Ùje› puret“, xalep≈taton. OÈ går oÈdÉ118 §gxvre› xr∞syai kaya¤rousi farmãkoiw ékindÊnvw. ÑOmo¤vw d¢ ka‹ per‹ fl°gmatow ¶xei ka‹ t«n Ùrvd«n119 perittvmãtvn. E‡rhtai d¢ ka‹ per‹ toÊtvn èpãntvn §n êllaiw pragmate¤aiw, ka‹ xrØ tÚn boulÒmenon ékrib«w ti gn«nai per‹ aÈt«n §ke›yen §kmanyãnein. ÜOti m¢n oÔn ≤ flegmonØ plhyvrikÒn ti nÒshmã §stin, oÈk §n aÈto›w mÒnoiw to›w égge¤oiw stegom°nou toË plÆyouw [284] éllå ka‹ tåw §n to›w mus‹ x≈raw kenåw èpãsaw katalambãnontow, §j §ke¤nou mãlista mayÆs˙ toË grãmmatow §n ⁄ Per‹ t«n parå fÊsin ˆgkvn ı lÒgow §st¤ moi: ˜ti dÉ oÈx oÂÒn te flegmonØn ëpasan fiãsasyai tax°vw §n to›w Yerapeutik∞w meyÒdou grãmmasin e‡rhtai, katÉ §ke›na mãlista tå bibl¤a diÉ œn ≤ m°yodow de¤knutai t∞w per‹ t«n parå fÊsin ˆgkvn fiãsevw. ÉEn¤ote går oÏtvw fisxur«w ka‹ duslÊtvw §mplãttontai ta›w sarj‹ gl¤sxroi ka‹ paxe›w xumo¤, Àste k¤ndunon e‰nai xronizÒntvn aÈt«n ékolouyÆsein sk¤rron. ÉAllÉ ofl mhd¢n toÊtvn efidÒtew, §j œn égnooËsi tå t∞w t°xnhw §p¤kaira kathgore›n120 ÑIppokratouw. Ka¤toi gÉ, éntistr°caw ên tiw efi m¢n ≥toi cuxye¤h 121 t«n stere«n svmãtvn µ yermanye¤h, =&d¤an ¶sesya¤ fhsi tØn122 efiw tÚ katå123 fÊsin §pãnodon aÈt“, kayãper ge ka‹ efi puknvye¤h pot¢ µ man≈teron gennhye¤h. TÒ te går cuxy¢n yerm∞nai ka‹ tÚ yermany¢n cÊjai ka‹ tÒ te puknvy¢n érai«sai ka‹ tÚ manvy¢n pukn«sai ci W: §kprom L: §kkenoËmen K cum cett 112 W: ple›on gignÒmenon Ald > K cum cett: plei(v superscr L1) gignomn L 113 del Ald: §rvt≈menow efi L 114 suppl He > W 115 corr ego: ˜lvn cett 116 corr ego: éntegx°omen cett 117 del W < Co: êjion toËto proposuit He 118 corr W: oÎt L > K cett 119 ego: Ùrrvd«n cett 120 suppl W: kathgoroËsin corr Co 121 add W 122 tØn W: t∞w K 123 corr He > W: tå katå L > K cum cett 111

  ‒  

319

any disease to become chronic. Yet many do become chronic, even if we emptied out the body completely right from the beginning. Therefore the causes do not reside in the fluids.” Well, if this argument concerns abundance in relation to the vessels’ capacity and in the whole body, then it is true (for it is with the desire to evacuate the residue right at the beginning of a disease that we single out every plethoric disposition). But if what is at stake is abundance in some part, [sc and one] in which several other things occur too, then it [sc the argument] is false. For we have demonstrated that it is not always possible to evacuate that [sc kind of ] abundance quickly. On the issue of corruption, too, the argument propounded is easily refuted. For one cannot evacuate it quickly, as if from a wineskin or a cask. And even from those, if we were somehow to evacuate a bad fluid from them completely, we would not replace it immediately by pouring [283] a good one in, but only after we have thoroughly washed and cleansed the vessel. Is it possible, then, in no time like that, to evacuate corrupt blood which lies in the human body and to pump into the parts good blood in its place? How can they claim that corruption can be evacuated at speed? In the same unscrupulous way in which they make all other claims, without paying heed to anything and without giving any scrupulous thought to how the whole thing may fit together. Surely when a large amount of bile is contained in the body, it is often easy to eliminate it if there is no fever; but it would be extremely difficult if the patient should have contracted a sharp fever already. For it is not possible to use purging medicines without taking risks. The position is the same when it comes to phlegm or serous excreta. But about all these I have written in other treatises, and if you wish to understand anything on the subject properly you should learn it well from there. So: from the book where I deal with Unnatural tumours you will get your main knowledge [sc of the fact] that inflammation is a plethoric disease because abundance collects not only in the vessels themselves, [284] but also seizes any empty place in the muscles; as for the fact that it is not possible for every inflammation to heal quickly, that is presented in the books of The method of therapy, especially in the sections where I show the method of healing unnatural tumours. For sometimes humours which are sticky and thick adhere to the flesh with such force, and in a way that makes them so hard to dissolve, that there is a risk, in case they become chronic, that scirrhus might accompany them. But it is on the basis of their ignorance that those who know none of these things dare to raise fundamental [sc issues] in our art in accusation against Hippocrates. Moreover, if you turn [sc the state of ] some solid thing into its contrary, no matter whether you heat it or cool it, one [sc can] say that that thing’s return to its natural state will be easy; and similarly if the thing became dense or loose. For there is no difficulty about heating up what is cold, cooling down what is hot, loosening what is dense, or tightening up

320

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

xalepÚn oÈd°n: §mpeplasm°non d¢ xumÚn ≥toi gl¤sxron µ paxÁn §n sark≈desi mor¤oiw [285] §kken«sai xalep≈taton. ÜOpou går dØ ka‹ tÚn §k toÊtvn t«n égge¤vn t«n érai«n §kkay∞rai =Êpon oÈk eÈpet°w, ∑ poÊ gÉ §k t«n124 sarkoeid«n ßtoimon. ÜVste pãnu moxyhrÚw ı lÒgow ı tåw125 §n Ígro›w afit¤aw eÈiatot°raw126 e‰nai fãskvn ée‹ t«n §n to›w stereo›w. Efi m¢n går èpl«w pl∞yow e‡h kayÉ ˜lhn toË z–ou tØn ßjin §n to›w égge¤oiw periexÒmenon—˜per fid¤vw Ùnomãzousi “pl∞yow”—ßtoimÒn te paraxr∞ma ken«sai toËto ka‹ t«n sumptvmãtvn ı kãmnvn épallagÆsetai t«n diÉ aÈtoË. Kakoxum¤aw d° tinow µ diafyorçw ÍparxoÊshw, édÊnatÒn §sti diå ken≈sevw éyrÒaw fiãsasyai tÚn ênyrvpon. Ka‹ m°ntoi ka‹ fa¤netai taËyÉ oÏtvw gignÒmena: pollo‹ m¢n går barunÒmeno¤ te tÚ s«ma ka‹ tãsevw afisyanÒmenoi paraxr∞ma t«n sumptvmãtvn éphllãghsan §p‹ ta›w flebotom¤aiw, ¶nioi d¢ m∞na ˜lon ÍpÚ diafyorçw ÙxloÊmenoi diet°lesan, mÆtÉ éyrÒvw §kken«sai tÚ moxyhrÚn aÂma dunam°nvn ≤m«n mÆyÉ ßteron éntegx°ai xrhstÒn. ÉEk m¢n går t«n s¤tvn dÆpou kal«w katergasy°n[286]tvn §n t“ toË z–ou s≈mati tÚ xrhstÚn aÂma gennçsyai p°fuken. ÉEn aÈt“ d¢ t“ prosf°resyai trofåw §pithde¤ouw k¤ndunÒw §sti t“ pro#pãrxonti moxyhr“ sundiafyar∞nai tÚ xrhstÒn: ˜yen oÈd¢ pçsan oÂÒn te diafyorån fiãsasyai, éllÉ §ke¤nhn mÒnhn §fÉ ∏w fisxurÚn m¢n ¶ti tÚ s«mã §stin, ≤ dÊnamiw dÉ eÎrvstow. OÈ mØn fi«dew §g°neto tÚ aÂma pantãpasin oÈdÉ oÂon127 sundiafye›rai tØn §pirr°ousan trofÆn, éllÉ aÈtÚ mçllon ÍpÉ §ke¤nhw §pikray∞nai.128 OÈ mØn oÈdÉ ˜tan tÚ prÚw tØn dÊnamin pl∞yow sustª dunatÚn fiãsasyai tax°vw aÈtÒ, sugkataluom°nhw §n¤ote tª ken≈sei t∞w dunãmevw. E‡rhtai dÉ ≤m›n ka‹ per‹ t∞w toiaÊthw diay°sevw §n tª t∞w Yerapeutik∞w meyÒdou pragmate¤&. ÉOligãkiw oÔn §p‹ tª ken≈sei tÚn ênyrvpon de¤jeiw Ígia¤nonta paraxr∞ma. GenÆsetai m°ntoi pot¢ toËto, kayãper ka‹ fa¤netai, ka‹ de¤knusin §narg«w ≤129 pe›ra toË lÒgou tØn élÆyeian: ¶nioi går §p‹ ta›w ken≈sesin aÈt¤ka pãntvn épallãttontai t«n Ùxlhr«n. ÉAllÉ oÎtÉ ‡sasi tåw diay°seiw aÈt«n ofl fiatro‹ pãntew oÎtÉ, efi gin≈skousin, eÈy°vw dia[287]gin≈skein dÊnantai. Otoi to¤nun ofl mãlista lhroËntew, œn, efi xrØ télhy¢w efipe›n, ı korufa›Òw §stin ÉIoulianÒw, énom¤lhtow m¢n ée‹ diatel°saw to›w ¶rgoiw t∞w t°xnhw, §j œn dÉ aÈtÚw ¶grace yrasunÒmenow:130 éllÉ ≤me›w ge diÉ aÈt«n t«n ¶rgvn t∞w t°xnhw pollãkiw §de¤jamen §p‹ tª ken≈sei toË plÆyouw •kat°rou paraxr∞ma toÁw ényr≈pouw Ígiasy°ntaw. ÑEkãteron d¢ l°gv tÒ yÉ …w prÚw tØn x≈ran t«n égge¤vn, ˘ dØ ka‹ plhy≈ran Ùnomãzousi, tÒ te prÚw tØn dÊnamin, ˜tan mØ sugkatalÊhtai tª ken≈sei. TaËta m¢n oÔn, ˜tan êrjhta¤ tb«w131 §pisk°ptesyai toÁw érr≈stouw, ëma to›w §pistam°noiw fiãsasyai mayÆsetai. [viii] Tå dÉ •j∞w ‡dvmen §n oÂw tÚn ci W < L: ∑ poÊ ge t«n K < Ald 125 corr W: ı lÒgow aÈtåw Ald > cett corr He > W: §n Ígro›w afit¤oiw §nantivt°raw L > K cum cett 127 corr W: oÈdÉ ˜son K cum cett < L 128 corr W < He (an quaerens §pikerasy∞nai): §pikray∞nai L > K cett 129 ≤ W: ka‹ cett < Ald 130 ego: gign≈skei yrasunÒmenow K cum cett: ¶grace menow restit W (ex L ¶grace), “non nisi cum cautione” gnvr¤zetai recepisse animaduertens 131 W: êrjhtai tiw aÈt«n ci Co: êrjhtai taÈt«n K 124 126

  ‒  

321

what is loose; but to evacuate a humour, sticky or thick, which has adhered to the fleshy parts, [285] is one of the most difficult tasks. When it is not easy to clear away filth even from those vessels which have a loose texture, it might indeed be a handy job [sc to clear it away] from the fleshy parts! And so the argument which claims that the causes residing in liquids are always easier to heal than those residing in solids would be completely unsound. For if abundance is to be contained indiscriminately in the vessels, throughout the whole system [hexis] of the animal—which is what they [sc the doctors] specifically call “abundance”—it will be a handy job to evacuate it immediately, and the patient will be relieved of the symptoms produced by it. But if there are bad humours or corruption of some sort, it is impossible to heal the man through one complete evacuation. And indeed, it is plain to the eye that things happen this way; for many patients who feel oppression in the body and tension are instantly relieved of their symptoms after venesection, whereas some continue to be troubled for a whole month, and we are able neither to evacuate the corrupt blood in one go nor to pump good blood in its place. For surely good blood is a natural product of foods which have been properly digested [286] in the animal’s body. In the very process of administering the customary foods there is a risk of the good [sc blood] being vitiated together with that which was already corrupt; hence, it is not possible to heal every [sc form of ] corruption, but only one in which the body is still strong, or its power is flourishing. Then, to be sure, not the whole of the blood would become poisonous and of such a quality as to corrupt the in-flowing nourishment along with it, but rather to be dominated by it. Not even when there is abundance in relation to the faculty is it possible to heal it quickly, because, together with the evacuation, also the faculty gets sometimes crippled. We have also dealt with this state in the treatise On the method of therapy. It is, then, [sc only] in a few cases that you will show a patient to become healthy straight after evacuation. Nevertheless, this will happen sometimes, as is plain to the eye, and experience gives palpable proof of the truth of this proposition; for some [sc patients] are relieved of all their troubles immediately after evacuations. But not all the doctors know their [sc these patients’] states or, if they learn them, are capable of [287] recognising them. It is these ones that are the greatest wafflers, and, if the truth is to be told, the leader of their party is Julian, who always persevered at keeping himself unacquainted with the facts of our art and gained confidence from what he himself wrote; but we, at least, have often demonstrated, through these very facts of our art, that there are patients who recovered immediately after the evacuation of both kinds of abundance. By “both” I mean the kind related to the vessels’ capacity, which is also called repletion [plethora], and the kind related to the faculty—whenever that is not eased through evacuation. So then: when one begins to examine the ill accurately, one will learn to heal these [sc kinds] side by side with the knowledgeable people. [viii] Let us have a look at the next [sc sections of the commentary], where

322

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

ÉAsklhpiãdou lÒgon ı ÉIoulianÚw metaxeir¤zetai,132 toËton dØ tÚn poluyrÊlhton, …w oÈx ßlkei tÚn ofike›on xumÚn133 ßkaston t«n kayairÒntvn farmãkvn, éllÉ aÈtÚn gennò. L°lektai d° moi [288] per‹ toÊtou brax°a m°n tina kép‹ t∞w teleut∞w toË Per‹ t«n kayÉ ÑIppokrãthn stoixe¤vn Àsper kén t“ pr≈tƒ t«n Fusik«n dunãmevn: Ïsteron d¢ t«n •ta¤rvn éjivsãntvn ka‹ diÉ •nÚw ˜lou grãmmatow, 134 Per‹ t∞w t«n kayairÒntvn farmãkvn dunãmevw, §pig°graptai. TÚn m¢n ˜lon lÒgon ı boulÒmenow §j §ke¤nvn manyan°tv, to›w dÉ ÍpÚ YessaloË gegramm°noiw §ntaËya épantÆsv, prosgrãcaw aÈtå katå l°jin: “ÉAylhtØn går lambãnontew eÈ°kthn ˘n boÊlontai katå fÊsin ¶xonta, xrhst∞w toÊtƒ t∞w Ïlhw §n t“ s≈mati Ípokeim°nhw ka‹ étr°ptou, kayartikÚn did«men ka‹ deiknÊvmen135 tå épokrinÒmena sfÒdra diefyorÒta. E‰tÉ §pilogizÒmeya, mhdenÚw §n¤stasyai dunam°nou prÚw tÚ legÒmenon §nantivtik«w, …w dØ ì nËn §kkr¤netai drimÊtatã te ka‹ diefyarm°na prÚ m¢n toË kayartikoË oÈx ÍpÒkeitai toiãde t“ éylhtª: eÈ°kthw går §tÊgxanen n. Le¤petai oÔn mhd¢n êllo ≤mçw dÊnasyai l°gein µ tÒde, ˜ti ÍpÚ toË farmãkou émfÒtera g¤netai, pr«ton m¢n tÚ tØn Ïlhn metabãllein [289] efiw diafyorãn, deÊteron d¢ ka‹ 136 épokr¤nesyai, e‡te diÉ §m°tvn e‡h e‡te diå gastrÒw.” AÏth m¢n ≤ toË YessaloË =∞siw: ékoÊsate dÉ §n m°rei prÚw ≤m«n137 …w tÚ kaya¤resyai pãntaw xumoÁw tÚn eÈ°kthn oÈ mçllÒn ti toË gennçsyai nËn §sti dhlvtikÚn µ toË peri°xesyai prÒsyen. Mãthn oÔn e‡rhke mhdÉ •t°ran ge t«n aflr°sevn ,138 mÆtÉ énatr°pvn §j énãgkhw mÆte kataskeuãzvn. 139 . . . efi d¢ ka‹140 t«n ÍpagÒntvn ti tØn gast°ra dido›en, éllÉ oÈ farmak«d°w ge toËtÉ §stin aÈto›w: oÈdÉ, Àsper ı141 éna¤sxuntow Yers¤thw l°gei, “d¤domen ka‹ de¤knumen”,142 mÆte doÁw aÈtÚw µ de¤jaw p≈pote, mÆtÉ êllou dÒntow µ de¤jantow yeasãmenow. OÈ mØn ≤me›w ge toioËtoi tolm«ntew l°gein µ grãfein ì mØ prãttomen, éllå to›w ¶rgoiw aÈto›w prÒteron épodeiknÊntew télhy°w, thnikaËta tØn émfÉ aÈtå t°xnhn §jhgoÊmeyÉ ëper ¶stÉ ékoËsai t«n §k t∞w ég°lhw toË YessaloË. PÒsouw m¢n ÍderikoÁw Ídragvg“ farmãkƒ kayÆraw aÈt¤ka tØn gast°ra prosestalm°nhn ép°fhna,143 pÒsouw 144 fikteri«ntaw xolagvg“ [290] paraxr∞ma tÚn ‡kteron fiasãmhn; ÉAllÉ oÈd¢ toÊtvn oÈd¢n oÈdÉ êllo ti145 toioËton ÉIoulianÚw §yeãsato. “Ñl°ƒ t«n146 éylht«n”, fhs¤, “d¤dvmi kayartikÚn ka‹ de¤knumi.” ÉAkÒlouyon m¢n går dhladØ t“ tosaÊthw §mplhj¤aw mest“ kaya¤rein m¢n toÁw eÈxÊmouw éylhtãw, mØ kaya¤rein d¢ mÆyÉ Íderi«ntaw mÆte fikteri«ntaw mÆte melagxol«ntaw mÆte tÚn kaloÊmenon §l°fanta nosoËnta mÆte kark¤nƒ kãmnonta mÆyÉ ÍpÚ fageda¤nhw µ §rusip°latow §noxloÊmenon ≥ tinow êllou kakoxÊmou nosÆmatow. ÜAliw ≥dh moi ka‹ toÊtvn aÈtoË t«n lÆrvn. Efi går ëpanta l°gein œn ékoÊein §st‹n êjion W < L: metaxeir¤setai Ald > K cum cett 133 restit W: t«n ofike¤vn xum«n mutauit Ald > K cum cett 134 suppl Ald > omnes cett 135 W < L: d¤domen ka‹ de¤knumen K cum cett < Ald 136 add He > W 137 restit W: ékoÊsate d¢ ka‹ prÚw ≤m«n §n m°rei K cum cett ex Aldina transpositione 138 suppl W 139 W lacunam in L post kataskeuãzvn reperit 140 W < L: efi d¢ cett 141 ı om Ch > K 142 W: yers¤thw d¤domen l°gein ka‹ de¤knumen K < Ald 143 corr Ald > K W: épefÆnato L 144 add W 145 êllo ti W: ti om K cett 146 ci W: diå t«n L > K 132

  ‒  

323

Julian deals with Asclepiades’ argument we heard so very much about— [sc the one which claims] that it is not the case that each one of the purging medicines draws its own humour; rather, it produces it. I have offered brief comments [288] on this subject at the end of the [sc treatise] On the elements according to Hippocrates as well as in the first book of the Natural faculties, and later on, at my friends’ request, in a whole book which I entitled On the power of purging medicines. You may learn the entire argument from those books, if you wish; but here I will reply to what Thessalus has written, once I reproduce it verbatim: “Let us take any athlete they wish, provided he is in a healthy and natural state, the substance of his body being sound and firm: let us give him a purging medicine and demonstrate that his secretions have been badly corrupted. Then we conclude, without anyone being able to refute our statement, that the very dry and corrupt matter which is now being excreted did not exist as such in the athlete prior to [sc his taking of ] the purging medicine; for, as it happens, he was in a healthy state. In consequence, there is nothing left for us to say except this, that both [sc processes] occur under the influence of the medicine: first, the transformation of substance into corrupt matter, [289] second, its excreting—either through vomiting or through the bowel.” This is Thessalus’ speech; and now listen in turn to us, [sc who declare] that a healthy man’s having all his humours purged away is no more revelatory of their being produced on the spot than of their being contained [sc in the body] at a previous stage. Therefore his [sc Thessalus’] claim that there is no other choice left for us has no support; he neither refutes from necessity nor establishes anything. . . . if they [sc the Methodists] are to administer some medicine with an withdrawing effect on the stomach, surely it does not have a medical effect on them [sc the athletes]; nor is it the case that “we administer it and we get the proof ”, as the impudent Thersites puts it, when he himself never administered or proved [sc anything of the kind], nor witnessed anyone else administering or proving [sc it]. Well, we at least are not the kind of people to have the cheek to say or write what we do not do in practice; rather, we start by establishing the truth on the basis of the facts themselves, and then we expound as much of the art involved in them as is possible for the members of Thessalus’ herd to follow. How many patients with dropsy have I not purged with a water-drawing medicine, producing evidence that the stomach was immediately tightened up, or how many patients with jaundice have I not cured of their jaundice on the spot, with a bile-drawing medicine? [290] But Julian has never witnessed any of these facts or anything like them. “I give a purging medicine to some robust athlete” he declares “and get my proof.” Well, for someone imbued with so much folly, it is obviously consistent to purge athletes whose humoural system is in good condition but not to purge people with dropsy, jaundice, or black bile, or patients suffering from the socalled elephant’s disease, afflicted with an ulcer, or troubled by a cancerous sore, an erysipelas, or some other disease related to corrupt humours. But I had enough now of these waffles of his. For if one is to attempt to say

324

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

ÉIoulianÚn §pixeirÆsei° tiw, oÈ miçw µ duo›n, éllå pampÒllvn aÈt“ xre¤a bibl¤vn §st¤n. ÉAkoÊsvmen oÔn aÈtoË ti t«n §fej∞w …d¤pvw grãfontow: “ÖAllo dÆ fhmi fisxurÒtaton, ˘ mçllon ır«ntaw svfron¤zesyai §xr∞n ka‹ mØ pãnta 147 t∞w mela¤nhw xol∞w êgein. ÜOtan148 dØ xol∞w Ípe›nai dojazom°nhw flegmagvgÚn did«men,149 ka‹ xolØ m¢n épokr¤netai, fl°gma d°,150 µ fl°gmatow Íponooum°nou xolagvgÒn,151 ka‹ fl°gma m¢n oÈk [291] épokr¤netai, xolØ d°, §pÉ émfo›n152 ÍdragvgÚn did«men, ka‹ tÒte153 {oÈd¢}154 Ïdvr fanÆsetai tÚ ferÒmenon: 155 pãntvn mãlista paradojÒtaton, Ídrvpiko›w156 saf«w Ïdatow parakeim°nou, épÒkrisiw157 g°noitÉ ín xolª m¢n diå xolagvgoË, fl°gmati d¢ diå flegmagvgoË.” AÏth m¢n ≤ =∞siw. ÖAjion dÉ aÈt∞w êgasyai pr«ton m¢n tÚ katå tØn érxØn efirhm°non …w “§xr∞n158 mØ pãnta t∞w mela¤nhw xol∞w êgein”. Melagxol«ntaw går ≤mçw dhlonÒti l°gei toÁw §painoËntaw ÑIppokrãthn. ÉAllÉ otÒw gÉ ı xarientismÚw •t°roiw mçllon ¶prepen, ˜soi dogmat¤zousin ÍpÚ mela¤nhw xol∞w §noxle›syai toÁw melagxol«ntaw. ÉIoulianÚw dÉ ımoiÒtatÒw §sti t“ katå tÚn Afis≈pou lÒgon ˆnƒ, ˘w yeasãmenow ©n t«n Melita¤vn kun¤dion érist«nti t“ despÒt˙159 sugkatake¤menon èllÒmenÒn te per‹ aÈtÚn ka‹ skirt«n ka‹ se›on tØn oÈrån ka¤ ti ka‹ f≈nhma terpnÚn ÍpofyeggÒmenon, §fÉ oÂw ¥dontÒ te ka‹ katef¤loun aÈtÚ pãntew ofl sÊndeipnoi, mhd¢n mellÆsaw éllÉ eÈyÁw énaphdÆsaw §p‹ tØn kl¤nhn, »gkçtÒ te ka‹ katÉ aÈtØn ¥lleto160 se¤vn tØn oÈrãn. ÉAllå toÊtƒ ge paraplÆsiow 161 Ãn [292] ÉIoulianÚw §pisk≈ptei162 xarientizÒmenow efiw melagxol¤an ≤mçw, ∂n aÈtÚw oÏtvw163 fhsin ÍpÚ mela¤nhw g¤gnesyai xol∞w. Katãlipe to¤nun ≤mçw §p¤ soi l°gein tØn m°lainan, …w164 oÈd¢ t«n paidar¤vn t«n fiatrik«n165 éme¤nvn Ípãrxvn tØn t°xnhn §pitimòw ÑIppokrãtei. T¤w taÊthw me¤zvn melagxol¤a; T¤w épaideus¤a fanervt°ra; T¤w tÒlma propetest°ra; KayÉ ≤m«n, ÉIoulian°, xarient¤z˙ toiaËta ka‹ sunãpteiw 166 lÒgoiw émay°sin, …w ín mhd¢ pa›da laye›n aÈt«n tØn étop¤an. ÑIppokrãtouw går efirhkÒtow oÎyÉ ≤lik¤an oÎyÉ Àran ¶touw oÎyÉ ˜lvw oÈd°na kairÚn eÍrey∞nai dÊnasyai, kayÉ ˘n épÒlluta¤ tiw §k toË s≈matow ≤m«n xumÚw ˘n aÈtÚw ée¤ fhsin Ípãrxein, a·matow dhlonÒti ka‹ fl°gmatow ka‹ xol«n ditt«n (ëpantaw m¢n går e‰nai diå pantÒw, aÈjãnesyai dÉ êllon §n êll˙ krãsei ka‹ fÊsei s≈matow ≤lik¤& te ka‹ Àr& ka‹ x≈r& ka‹ nosÆmati), nom¤zeiw katabãllesyai tÚn lÒgon, efi t“ xol«nti fl°gmatow égvgoË

suppl ego 148 ci W: ˜ti L > cett edd 149 corr W: d¤domen Ch > K 150 ci Wi: xolØ m¢n épokr¤netai, fl°gma dÉ Ald > K W 151 xolagvgÒn corr Wi: flegmagvgÒn K W 152 Wi: xolØ d¢ §pÉ émfo›n, K W 153 W Wi: tÒde L > K cum cett 154 del Wi 155 add Wi 156 W: Ídropi L > Ídropik«w Ald: Ídropik«n Ch > K 157 épÒkrisiw add Co > W 158 xr∞n K 159 emend Cobet > W: éristo L cum s¤tv in spatio relicto L1: ÉAristos¤tƒ K cum cett 160 W: Ùgkçtai ka‹ katÉ aÈtÚn efile›to K < Ald 161 W: toÊtƒ paraplhs¤vw K 162 W < L: §piskÆptei Ald > K cum cett 163 ego: aÈt Àw fhsin L: Àw del Co Ch > K W 164 W < L: ˜w Ald > K cett 165 L: t«n fiatrik«n paidar¤vn transp Ald > K 166 add L1 > K W 147

  ‒  

325

all that Julian deserves to hear, one needs not one or two books but quite a lot of them. So let us listen to some of what he says next, writing in the following manner: “I make another very strong claim, at the realisation of which they ought to be recalled to their senses, not to act entirely on black bile. If we administer a phlegm-drawing medicine thinking that there was bile [in the patient], phlegm is secreted, but not bile; alternatively, if we administer a bile-drawing medicine suspecting phlegm [sc to be in the patient], bile is secreted, but not phlegm; [291] if we administer a waterdrawing medicine in both cases above, then, again, the product will appear to be water; and, most astonishing of all, although it is plain that the residual matter in dropsical patients is water, we will get from them a secretion of bile through the bile-drawing medicine and one of phlegm through the phlegm-drawing medicine.” This is the quotation. We are bound to marvel, first, at what is said at the beginning—that we “ought not to act entirely on black bile” [melaine chole]. For clearly Julian implies that we, the supporters of Hippocrates, are mad [melancholein]. But this pun would be more suitable in the others [sc the supporters of Hippocrates], who do entertain the belief that mad people are troubled by black bile. Julian is very much like the ass in Aesop’s fable: seeing how a Maltese lapdog reclined on the couch by his master’s side during the meal, twitching and leaping around him, wagging his tail, and even yelping with delight—actions which all the dinner-guests enjoyed and rewarded with strokes—he [sc the ass] jumped on the couch without any further thought and started to bray and coil himself around it, wagging his tail. Yes, Julian is similar to him [292] when he derides us by making puns about madness: in this way he himself endorses the view that it [sc madness] is due to black bile. Leave it to us to invoke the black [sc kind of bile] against you, who blame Hippocrates for his art, although you are no better than the doctors’ slaves. What [sc form of ] madness is greater than this? What [sc form of ] lack of instruction is more obvious? What [sc form of ] boldness is more reckless? You play such puns at our expense, Julian, and you weave them into boorish arguments, so that their absurdity would not escape even a child. For Hippocrates has said that one can find no age, no season of the year, and no occasion at all where any humour in our body which is always in it, as he [sc Hippocrates] claims—that is to say, blood, phlegm, and the two kinds of bile—ceases to exist (for all of them run through the whole of it, and different ones increase in different mixtures and constitutions of the body, at different ages, and in different seasons, places, and diseases); and you think that his argument is upset if, when you give a phlegm-drawing

326

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

doy°ntow farmãkou167 tout‹ m¢n 168 kenoÊmenon fa¤noito, xolØ d¢ {oÈ}169 ke[293]noËtai. 170 F°re to¤nun ≤m›n toËto fa¤netai gignÒmenon, mhdÉ §kkenoËn tÚ fãrmakon ée‹ tÚn ofike›on •aut“ xumÒn. âArÉ oÈk171 §narg«w doke›172 ceud¢w e‰nai tÚ ÑIppokrãtouw dÒgma; Efi går ımot¤mouw m¢n ëpantaw ßlkei toÁw xumoÁw ßkaston t«n kayairÒntvn, élloioËn dÉ efiw m¤an fid°an aÈtoÁw ∂n173 p°fuken, oÈd¢n dio¤sei toË flebotome›n tÚ kaya¤rein. ÉAllÉ e‡per oÏtvw toËtÉ ¶xei =òston ≥dh tª pe¤r& kr›nai tÚ dÒgma, ka‹ duo›n ényr≈pvn ésk¤thn Ïderon §xÒntvn ‡son tÚ m°geyow, §p‹ tª toË s≈matow ßjei te ka‹ ≤lik¤& paraplhs¤vw diakeim°nvn, t“ m¢n •t°rƒ doËnai t«n Ídragvg«n ti fãrmakon, toË dÉ •t°rou teme›n tØn fl°ba kêpeita yeãsasyai t¤w m¢n §j aÈt«n »fele›tai, t¤w d¢ blãptetai. D¤kaion m¢n oÔn ∑n ‡son •kat°rƒ poiÆsasyai tÚ pl∞yow t∞w ken≈sevw, tosaÊtaw kotÊlaw §kx°ontaw toË a·matow ˜saw toË kenvy°ntow, …w otoi nom¤zousin, Ïdatow ÍpÚ toË kayartikoË farmãkou. ÉAllå174 kín toËto sugxvrÆsvmen aÈto›w ka‹ toË m¢n •t°rou diå t∞w kayãrsevw ken≈svmen kotÊlaw Ïdatow efi tÊxoi ieÉ, toË dÉ •t°rou diå t∞w fle[294]botom¤aw dÊo mÒnaw, §p¤dvmen ˜stiw m¢n aÈt«n §sfãgh—t¤ går ín êllo tiw e‡poi per‹ toË flebotomhy°ntow Íderi«ntow;—˜stiw dÉ nhto175 tå m°gista. T¤ l°gomen, Œ otow; âArÉ ‡sow µ paraplÆsiow ı nËn efirhm°now ¶legxow ⁄ sÁ smikrÚn ¶mprosyen §nexe¤rhsaw; “KayartikÚn xol∞w”, fhs¤, “didÒsyv tin‹ t«n Íderi≈ntvn”: ken≈sei m°n, Œ otow, ka‹ tout‹ xolÆn, éllÉ Ùl¤ghn te ka‹ sÁn oÈden‹ xrhst“: kayartikÚn Ídat≈douw fix«row didÒsyv t“ xol«nti: ken≈sei m¢n Ídat«dew, éllÉ Ùl¤gon te ka‹ metå blãbhw. Pãlin oÔn didÒsyv tÚ m¢n ÍdragvgÚn t“ tÚn ésk¤thn nosoËnti, tÚ d¢ xolagvgÚn t“ tÚn ‡kteron, ka‹ polÁ kenvyÆsetai t«n ényr≈pvn •kãterow ka‹ sÁn »fele¤& megãl˙. TaËtÉ efi m¢n oÈdep≈176 én°gnv gegramm°na parã tini t«n fiatr«n ı ÉIoulianÒw, yaumãzv tØn filopon¤an téndrÒw. ÉAnagnoÁw dÉ efi §tÒlmhse grãfein ëper ¶gracen, êjion êgasyai tØn sÊnesin aÈtoË. Nom¤zv går §g∆ nËn 177 ékoÊsasi t«n efirhm°nvn élgÆsein178 179 aÈt«n tå Œta. ÉIoulianÚw dÉ §n oÂw ¶grace per‹ [295] aÈt«n ≤ge›tai melagxolçn ≤mçw. ÉApokrinãsyv180 toigaroËn, énamnhsye‹w t«n filosÒfvn oÓw §pπnese, parã tinow181 aÈt«n ¶maye nÒmon épode¤jevw toioËton o·ƒ fa¤netai kexrhm°now. “Efi går §pefÊkei”, fhs¤, “tÚ xolagvgÚn fãrmakon §kkaya¤rein toË z–ou tØn xolÆn, oÈk aÈtØn gennçn, oÈk ín §k°nou182 xolØn to›w flegmat≈desi.” YaumastÆ gÉ ≤ t∞w ékolouy¤aw183 gn«siw: Œ t∞w megãlhw dialektik∞w toË sofistoË: t¤ sunetÚn oÏtv XrÊsippow µ ÉAristot°lhw µ Plãtvn e‰pen; O· gÉ, efi per‹ toÊtvn aÈto›w184 §pisk°casyai proÈt°yh,185 t“186 ci W < flegmat égvg doyent farm L: égvgÚn doye¤h fãrmakon Ald > K cum cett 168 add Co > W 169 del Co > W: xolØ d¢ oÈ K 170 W < L (“le¤pei” in margine) 171 restit W: îrÉ oÔn Ch > K 172 corr W (siue ín §dÒkei): §dÒkei L > K cett 173 ∂n del Ch > W 174 W: om K cett 175 He > W: nht L > nhtai Ald > K cett 176 compl W 177 add W 178 ci Co > W: értÆsein cett 179 add W 180 He > W: épokrinasy L: épokr¤nasyai K cett 181 Ch > W: parå t¤now L > Ald > K 182 W < L: §kenoËnto Co > K 183 ci W: toË ékoloÊyou K 184 W < L: aÈt«n Ald > K cett 185 corr W: proÈtãth L > K cett 186 He > W: tÚ K < L 167

  ‒  

327

medicine to a bilious patient, that very humour does not appear to be evacuated but bile is [293] evacuated. Come on then, we are perfectly aware of this phenomenon—that the medicine does not always evacuate its own humour. But then clearly it looks, does it not, as if Hippocrates’ belief was mistaken? Well, if every purging [sc medicine] drags [sc to itself ] all the kindred humours, altering them into [sc humours of ] the unique type which it has by nature, purging will be no different from venesection. But it would be easiest to put the view to the test of experience straightaway, [sc to see] whether this is how things are: given two patients with a dropsical collection of equal size, both of similar bodily condition and age, [sc we would] administer some water-drawing medicine to one of them while applying venesection to the other, inspecting afterwards which one is benefited and which one is harmed. Now, it would be fair to evacuate equal quantities from each patient, letting out just as many kotyloi of blood as those of the water which, as they [sc the Methodists] believe, was eliminated under the purging medicine. But even if we grant them a concession on this point and evacuate from one patient, say, fifteen kotyloi of water through purging and only two from the other through [294] venesection, let us see the result: which one got slaughtered—for what else could one say of a dropsical patient submitted to venesection?—and which one profited to a very high degree. What do we say, man? Is the refutation I just offered a match, or anywhere near that, to the one you attempted shortly before? “Let a purgative for bile be administered to one of the dropsical patients”, he says: yes, man, this [sc purgative] will evacuate bile too, but in a small quantity and with no benefit. Let a purgative for watery serum be administered to the bilious patient: it will evacuate watery serum, but in a small quantity and with harm. Again, let the water-drawing medicine be administered to the dropsical patient and the bile-drawing medicine to the one with jaundice, and both patients will have large evacuations of great benefit for them. Now, if Julian never read these things in the written accounts given by one doctor or another, I am amazed at the man’s industriousness. But if he read them and dared to write what he wrote, I am bound to marvel at his [sc power of ] understanding. I, as a matter of fact, think that those who listened to what has been said will have pains in the ears from it. But in what he wrote about these matters Julian [295] expresses the view that we are mad. Let him answer, then, reviewing in his mind the philosophers whom he praised, from which one of them he learned a principle of demonstration such as he appears to have used. “If the bile-drawing medicine had the natural property to eliminate the animal’s bile and not to produce it”, he claims, “it would not evacuate bile from phlegmatic patients.” Wondrous knowledge of [sc logical] consequence! Oh, sophist of the great dialectic! Did Chrysippus, Aristotle, or Plato say anything as clever as that? For their part, if the task had been set before

328

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

m¢n mhdÉ ˜lvw peri°xesyai katå tÚ s«ma xolØn pãntew ín ¶fasan ßpesyai tÚ mhdÉ ˜lvw ÍpÚ t«n xolagvg«n §kkenoËsyai, t“187 dÉ Ùl¤gon peri°xesyai tÚ tØn •lkom°nhn ÍpÉ aÈt«n Ùl¤ghn Ípãrxein, Àsper gÉ efi polÁ peri°xoito, pollØn e‰nai ka‹ tØn •lkom°nhn. ÉAllÉ ÉIoulianÚw ı t∞w kain∞w dialektik∞w sofistØw éjio› mhdÉ ˜lvw ßpesyai xolØn to›w xolagvgo›w, ˜tan Ùl¤gh poyÉ Ípãrx˙ katå tÚ z“on. E‰yÉ ≤mçw m¢n l°gei melagxol«ntaw toÁw dØ ÍdragvgÚn didÒntaw [296] fãrmakon to›w Íderi«sin, •autÚn d¢ svfrone›n o to›w dÒgmasin ßpetai flebotome›n aÈtoÊw. ÑOmoiÒtaton d¢ toÊtoiw aÈtoË to›w lÒgoiw §st‹ ka‹ tÚ diå t«n §xom°nvn efirhm°non188 §n tªde tª =Æsei: “TÒ te g¤gnesyai §p‹ tÚ ple›ston §nallåj §pitãseiw te ka‹ én°seiw189 Íge¤a édiÒristow: ımoioÊmenow tiw …w prÚw ≤m«n katå pçn sunexe¤a §n t“ span¤vw Ùligãkiw te fainom°nƒ.” ÉEn toÊtoiw ÉIoulianÚw katabãllei tØn dÒjan t«n 190 ofiom°nvn ée‹ svmatikåw e‰nai tåw kataskeuåw t«n pay«n, taËta …w marturoËnta grãfvn tåw §pitãseiw191 ka‹ tåw én°seiw t«n noshmãtvn, ofiÒmenow sumfvne›n m¢n tª dÒj˙ t«n Meyodik«n, §nantioËsyai d¢ tª toË palaioË. Ka¤toi gÉ aÈtÚ192 tÚ §nanti≈taton eÏroiw ên. Afl m¢n går §n193 to›w stereo›w toË z–ou m°resi diay°seiw §sthrigm°nai tÉ efisi ka‹ mÒnimoi, tå d¢ Ígrå ka‹ metarre›n efikÚw 194 êllo mÒrion toË z–ou ka‹ diafore›syai leptunÒmena ka‹ katã tinaw afisyhtoÁw pÒrouw §kkr¤nesyai ka‹ pot¢ m¢n ÍpÚ t∞w dioikoÊshw tå z“a fÊsevw pettÒmena xrhstÒtera g¤nesyai, [297] pot¢ dÉ ÍpÚ puret≈douw yermas¤aw élloioÊmena moxyhrÒtera, ka‹ tå m¢n ÍpÚ toË diapne›syai sunapobãllein195 ti t∞w puret≈douw yermÒthtow196 ka‹ diå toËto belt¤v g¤gnesyai197 kerannÊmena xrhsta›w trofa›w, tå d¢ sundiafye¤resyai ta›w §pirreoÊsaiw ≥toi gÉ eÈyÁw ¶jvyen oÎsaiw moxyhra›w µ mØ kal«w ¶ti §n tª gastr‹ pefye¤saiw 198 toÁw dÉ §p‹ shpedÒni xum«n énaptom°nouw: oÈd¢n dÆpou yaumastÒn §stin, …w ín §ke›na tÊx˙ katã ge x≈raw éyroizÒmenã 199 ka‹ shpÒmena ka‹ kenoÊmena, tãw te gen°seiw ‡sxein ka‹ tåw parakmãw. ÉAllÉ §n m¢n toÊtoiw énãsxoitÉ ên tiw ‡svw aÈt«n. ÜO dÉ §fej∞w ¶gracen ÉIoulianÚw oÈk°ti koinÚn èpãntvn Ípãrxon, éllÉ ‡dion §ja¤reton •aut“, toËtÉ ≥dh soi d¤eimi. ÜOlhn dÉ êmeinÒn moi doke› paragrãcai tØn =∞sin, efi ka‹ makrot°ra p≈w §stin, ¶xousan œde: “ÜOlvw m¢n200 édianÒhton §p‹ pl∞yow µ diafyorãn, ˜ti ín prÚ t∞w nËn nÒsou Ípoy°menoi,201 h énaf°rein tÚ poihtikÚn t∞w nÒsou: t¤ dÉ ên tiw summel°stata diagno¤h toË pãyouw diÉ ˜lou toË s≈matow épiÒntow; ÉAnagka›on ımologe›n pãnta peritteÊein h

Cf uersio Latina: “. . . quod ad rem propositam spectat”.

He > W: tÚ K < L 188 W < L: efirhm°nvn K cett 189 restit W: §p¤tasiw te ka‹ ênesiw K cett 190 suppleui 191 He > W: grãfontaw §pitãseiw K cett 192 restit W: ka¤toi taÈtÚ cett 193 W: §n om L > K cett 194 add Co > W 195 ci WA (uel sunapallãttein, sunapãgein, sunapobãllein, sunapopaÊein): ~sunapa WT: om K 196 W: ka‹ tå m¢n diapne›syai ÍpÚ t∞w puret≈douw yermÒthtow 197 W: tå dÉ aÈt«n belt¤v g¤gnesyai K 198 L1 > Ald cett omnes 199 W: katã te x≈raw éyroizÒmenã L > K 200 ci W: ˜ti dÉ K cett 201 ego: ˘ ên ~ti prÚw t∞w nËn tiy°nai WT: ˘ ên tiw per‹ t∞w nËn tiy°nai WA 187

  ‒  

329

them to investigate into these matters, they would all have said that the fact that no bile at all is evacuated under [sc the action of ] bile-drawing medicines follows from the fact that there is no bile at all in the body, and the fact that the amount drawn by them is little follows from the fact there is little of it [sc in the body], just as, if there is much of it, the amount drawn is also large. But Julian, sophist of the new dialectic, expects that no bile at all should follow from bile-drawing medicines when there is little of it in the animal. After that he declares that we, who administer a water-drawing medicine to dropsical patients, are mad, [296] whereas he, from whose views it follows that we should venesect them, is sane. The thing that comes closest to these arguments of his in the course of the subsequent discussion is what he says in the following passage: “The fact that in most cases paroxysms alternate with remissions is [sc the mark of ] an indefinite health; if one were to make a comparison as if coming from us, [sc it is] like any continuum [sc present] in something which is manifest [sc only] rarely and with difficulty.” Here Julian overthrows the view of those who do not think that the constitutions [kataskeuai ] of the affections are always somatic: he writes as if these [sc things] would be evidence for attacks and remissions in diseases, and he thinks that he is in harmony with the Methodists’ view and in opposition to the view of the past. And yet you would find that this is the very opposite [of how things are]. For the states which are in the solid parts of the animal have settled and are stable, but the liquids are likely to flow to another part of the animal; to be dispersed [sc through evaporation] when they thin out and to be eliminated through some perceptible channels; to be now good—when they are digested under the supervision of nature, which governs living creatures—[297] now bad— when they alter under feverish heat; and [sc it is likely that] some of them would give off some of the feverish heat through [sc the process of ] breathing, and for this reason they improve when mixed up with good foods, while others would get corrupted under the in-flowing [sc foods], which either are already bad when they come from the outside or are not digested properly in the stomach those [sc fevers?] which get fastened to putrid humours; it is no wonder, I suppose, that they [sc the diseases] have their origins and declines at the places where those [sc the humours] happen to collect, rot, and be evacuated from. But maybe on these issues one could be patient with them [sc the Methodists]. On the other hand, what Julian wrote next is no longer shared by all of them but belongs to him exclusively, and I shall run through it right now. I think it better to quote the whole passage, even if it is a little too long—it goes like this: “It is entirely thoughtless to relate the factor which produces disease to abundance or corruption, no matter what we suppose to have preceded the present disease: how could one recognise [sc abundance or corruption] with any great precision, when the affection spreads through the whole body? One is forced to admit that everything is in excess

330

5

10

15

20

  ‒  

[298] §n pant‹ m°rei te ka‹ mor¤ƒ. T“ épotel°smati går sumparate¤nesyai xrØ tÚ sun°xon a‡tion. Xvre› d¢ diÉ ˜lou pãyh …w pureto‹ êlla te mur¤a, §fÉ œn §n t“ ˜lƒ ka‹ tÚ pl∞yow e‰nai de›, kín toÊtoiw ple›on202 ˜tan ple›on ka‹ tÚ nÒshma ¬ {ka‹ tÚ to›w ple›on ka‹}203 sugkexvrhm°non œd° pvw fãnai. Efi d° ge prot+dia éntifvne›204 tÚ pl∞yow toË ÍgroË ”i Ka‹ mØn ÉIoulianÚw oÈ boÊletai t«n kayÉ ˜lon205 tÚ s«ma noshmãtvn §n •n‹ tÒpƒ tØn sunektikØn Ípãrxein afit¤an. ÉAllå kín tØn =Êsin ÍpÒyhta¤ tiw §p‹ t“ boub«ni g¤gnesyai sun°xon a‡tion oÔsan toË puretoË, efiw tosaÊthn épor¤an ı lÒgow éxyÆsetai. Luom°nou går toË boub«now oÎte diam°nein aÈtØn oÎte paÊesyai206 dunatÒn, §peidØ menoÊshw m¢n énagka›Òn §sti ka‹ tÚn puretÚn mØ lÊesyai,207 luoum°nhw d°, •aut∞w sunektikÚn a‡tion208 ¶xein tÚn boub«na: kén toÊtƒ tÚn lÒgon énatr°pesyai toË yaumastoË prostãtou fãskontow édÊnaton e‰nai toË kayÉ ˜lon tÚ s«ma pãyouw a‡tion209 §n •n‹ tÒpƒ sust∞nai. Ka‹ mØn [299] oÈdÉ êllhn tinå ¶nnoian efipe›n ¶xei toË sun°xontow afit¤ou parå tÚ g¤nesya¤ ti prÚw aÈtoË ka‹ paÊesyai sÁn aÈt“, plØn efi kéntaËya pãlin §ja¤fnhw •autÚn e‰na¤ fhsi StvÛkÒn, …w §n êlloiw §po¤hsen. ÉAllå toËtÒ ge prãjaw oÈ nÒsou mÒnon, éllå ka‹ t∞w Íge¤aw aÈt∞w a‡tion épofane›ta¤ ti,210 ka‹ yermÚn ka‹ cuxrÚn énagkasyÆseta¤ ti l°gein e‰nai nÒshma ka‹ jhrÚn ka‹ ÍgrÒn, ëper oÈ boÊletai. MØ to¤nun lhre¤tv mãtaia mhdÉ §mplÆktou211 trÒpon êllotÉ êlla212 fantaz°syv pot¢ m¢n §pain«n StvÛkoÊw, pot¢ dÉ énair«n aÈt«n tå dÒgmata.

i

Cf uersio Latina: “. . . eamque [sc plenitudinem] aliis maiorem, quum maior morbus fuerit, atque ita dicere concessum est. Si vero in parte dumtaxat esset humorum plenitudo, causam quoque parti inesse continentem oporteret, reluctatur tamen humorum plenitudo.” restitui: ~ka‹ tÚ to›w ple›on W 203 secl ego 204 ci He: diå ~éntif«n Ald K W W: kayÒlou Ch > K 206 K < L1: oÎtÉ jãnesyai ci W: aÎjesyai adscr Co 207 ci Co > W (“ex consuetudine sermonis Galeni”): puretÚn dialÊesyai K cett 208 K cett: luom°nou d¢ sunektikÚn •autoË a‡tion Co > W: luomn d¢ sunektik •aut a‡ti L1 209 add et corr W: tÚ kayÉ ˜lon toË s«ma pãyow a‡tion K: toË kayÉ ˜lon tÚ s«ma pãyouw a‡tion He 210 He > W: tina cett 211 ci Co > W: §mplÆktvn ci Ch > K 212 He > W: êlla têlla L > K cett 202 205

  ‒  

331

[298] in every part and in every member; for the containing cause must be coextensive with its effect. Affections such as fevers, and a host of others, do stretch over the whole [sc body]; in their case abundance must also be [sc present] in the whole [sc body], and it has been agreed to put it somehow like this: that in these [sc affections] it [sc abundance] is greater by as much as the disease is greater. If the abundance of the liquid disagrees ” Clearly Julian would not have it that the containing cause of the diseases of the whole body is [sc located] in one single part. But even if one were to assume that there is flux in the bubo and that it [sc flux] is the containing cause of the fever, the argument will protest against so much perplexity. For when the bubo disappears, it [sc flux] can neither subsist nor cease, since if it subsists, the fever does not disappear, but if it [sc flux] disappears, it [sc flux] is bound to have the bubo as its own containing cause; and at this point the argument of the amazing man who presided over it, claiming that the cause of a disease in the whole body cannot concentrate in one place, [sc is bound] to be refuted. Moreover, [299] he [sc Julian] has no notion of a containing cause to speak of, apart from the fact that something comes about from it and ceases together with it—except that here too he suddenly claims to be a Stoic again, as he did concerning other issues. Yet if he achieved this [sc being a Stoic] he will come up with some cause, not only of disease, but even of health itself, and he will be forced to declare that disease is a matter of the hot and the cold, the dry and the wet—which he would not have. So let him not waffle in vain nor fancy different things each time, like a foolish man, now praising the Stoics, now abolishing their views.

332

  ‒  - FR 112. GALENUS, DE

ANATOMICIS ADMINISTRATIONIBUS

Galenus, De anatomicis administrationibus, III i, pp. 343–345 K:

5

10

15

20

25

[i, 343] . . . TÚ d¢ toË beblamm°nou tØn a‡syhsin t«n mikr«n §n tª xeir‹ daktÊlvn ka‹ toË m°sou katå tÚ ¥misu m°row, ˘n ≤me›w §yerapeÊsamen, oÈde‹w égnoe› diå tØn §pifãneian toË yerapeuyentow sofistoË: pronooum°nvn m¢n aÈtoË t«n épÚ t∞w tr¤thw aflr°sevw fiatr«n ka‹ prãgmata parexÒntvn to›w daktÊloiw, …w aÈto›w peponyÒsin, oÎshw d¢ t∞w diay°sevw ¶nya pr«ton §kfÊetai toË nvtia¤ou mueloË tÚ neËron. Ofl m¢n oÔn Meyodiko‹ xalastikå m¢n §n érxª, sugkritikå dÉ Ïsteron (…w aÈto‹ kaloËsi) fãrmaka pros°feron to›w daktÊloiw, oÈd¢n t«n prohghsam°nvn afiti«n polu[344]pragmonÆsantew, aÈtÒ ge mÒnon toËto gnÒntew: ˜ti to›w daktÊloiw épÚ taÈtomãtou dusaisyhs¤a te ka‹ nark≈dhw diãyesiw §ggenom°nh katå braxÁ prosaÊjoito. Mhd¢n dÉ ÍpÚ t«n farmãkvn Ùninãmenow ı kãmnvn §koin≈sato kômo‹ per‹ t∞w fiãsevw. ÉHrÒmhn oÔn aÈtÚn efi mhd¢ katå tÚn p∞xun µ tÚn brax¤ona gegenhm°nh tiw e‡h plhgØ prÒsyen: …w dÉ oÈdem¤an ¶fh, pãlin ±rÒmhn efi mØ katå tØn érxØn toË metafr°nou: ı dÉ …w prÚ tri«n µ tettãrvn mhn«n ¶fh §kpes∆n ÙxÆmatow §n t“ kataf°resyai prÚw tØn g∞n Ùry¤ƒ tin‹ l¤yƒ prostuxe›n ÍfÉ o plhg∞na¤ ti tØn érxØn toË metafr°nou, ka‹ sfodr«w Ùdunhye‹w §ntÚw t∞w zÉ ≤m°raw én≈dunow gen°syai, ieÉ dÉ Ïsteron épÚ t∞w pr≈thw plhg∞w ≤m°r& braxe›ãn tina gen°syai t∞w §n to›w daktÊloiw dusaisyhs¤aw ka‹ nark≈douw diay°sevw a‡syhsin, ∂n aÎjesyai m°xri deËro, mhd¢n »feloum°nhn ÍpÚ t«n farmãkvn. ÉElogisãmhn oÔn ÍpÒleimmã ti t∞w genom°nhw flegmon∞w §n tª =¤z˙ toË neÊrou toË paragignom°nou prÚw toÁw peponyÒtaw daktÊlouw, skirrvy°n: aÈtÚ m¢n én≈dunon e‰nai, [345] to›w daktÊloiw dÉ efiw oÓw éfikne›tai t∞w dusaisyhs¤aw a‡tion Ípãrjai. Ka‹ dØ ka‹ metaye‹w aÈtoË tå to›w daktÊloiw §pitiy°mena fãrmaka katå t∞w toË plhg°ntow §n érxª x≈raw, tØn ‡asin toË pãyouw §poihsãmhn.

FR 113DUB. GALENUS, DE

ANTIDOTIS

(1)

Galenus, De antidotis, II, i, pp. 107 + 108–109 K: [i, 107] ÉAndromãxou ént¤dotoi [. . .] [108] ÖAllvw ≤ Miyridãteiow …w ÉAnt¤patrow ka‹ KleÒfantow: smÊrnhw < zÉ S” ÙboloÁw dÉ (ofl d¢ gÉ) 30 nãrdou ‰son krÒkou < zÉ ÙboloÁw gÉ Ùp¤ou < dÉ ÙboloÁw bÉ S”

  ‒  - FR 112. GALENUS, ON

333

ANATOMICAL PROCEDURES

Galenus, On anatomical procedures, III i, pp. 343–345 K: [i, 343] . . . As for the man who was impaired in the small fingers of his hand and halfway through the middle one, and whom we have cured, there is no one who would not know his case, thanks to the patient’s fame as a sophist: how those in charge of him were doctors from the third hairesis and got much exercised about the fingers as if these were affected, when in fact the state [diathesis] was located at the point where the nerve springs from the spinal marrow. So the Methodists applied to the fingers relaxing [chalastika] medicines at the beginning and syncritic ones (as they call them) later on; they did not in the least bother with the antecedent [ proegesamenai ] causes, [344] but only knew this one thing: that a state of diminished sensitivity and numbness had occurred spontaneously in the fingers, then had worsened by degrees. Getting no benefit from the medicines, the patient consulted me too about his treatment. So I asked him whether he had previously suffered any blow in the upper or lower arm. When he answered that none, I asked the same question in relation to the point where the metaphrenon [= the region behind the diaphragm] starts. He replied that three or four months ago he had fallen from a chariot and, as he was projected to the ground, he hit upon an angular stone which struck him somewhere [sc in the area] where the metaphrenon starts; after suffering severely he was free from pain on the sixth day, but on the fifteenth day from the original blow he had a slight feeling of diminished sensitivity and numbness in the fingers, and this [sc feeling] increased up until the present, without being helped at all by medicines. In consequence, I reasoned that there must be some remainder from the inflammation which occurred at the root of the nerve that controls the affected fingers—[sc a remainder] which was now indurated; it was itself painless, [345] but became a cause of diminished sensitivity in the fingers which it [sc the nerve] reached. And indeed, by moving the medicines applied on his fingers to the place of the original blow, I cured the affection.

FR 113DUB. GALENUS, ON

ANTIDOTES

(1)

Galenus, On antidotes, II, i, pp. 107 + 108–109 K: [i, 107] The antidotes of Andromachus. [. . .] [108] Another way of preparing the antidote of Mithridates, after the fashion of Antipater and Cleophantus: myrrh: six drachmae and a half and four obols (three according to others); spikenard: the same quantity; saffron: six drachmae and three obols; poppy-juice: four drachmae and two and a half obols;

334

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

stÊrakow < eÉ kastor¤ou < stÉ ÙbolÚn ßna kinnam≈mou < zÉ ÙboloÁw gÉ pol¤ou < stÉ ÙboloÁw gÉ skord¤ou < zÉ ÙboloÁw gÉ ziggib°revw tÚ ‰son kÒstou < stÉ ÙboloÁw gÉ pep°revw leukoË < eÉ ÙboloÁw bÉ pep°revw makroË < stÉ ÙboloÁw gÉ ses°levw < eÉ ÙboloÁw bÉ ébrotÒnou < eÉ ÙboloÁw bÉ petrosel¤nou < idÉ daÊkou sp°rmatow < stÉ ÙboloÁw gÉ kass¤aw < eÉ ÙboloÁw gÉ libãnou < [109] stÉ ÙboloÁw bÉ Ípokust¤dow xuloË < stÉ ÙbolÚn aÉ nãrdou Keltik∞w < dÉ marãyrou sp°rmatow < dÉ malabãyrou fÊllvn < dÉ nãrdou ÉIndik∞w < dÉ ékÒrou, foË PontikoË, sagaphnoË, balsãmou karpoË, ÍperikoË, ÉIllurik∞w:1 énå < bÉ m¤ltou Lhmn¤ou stÉ kÊfevw, sk¤gkou ÙsfÊow: énå < stÉ ékak¤aw, kÒmmevw, kardam≈mou, pelek¤nou: énå < bÉ ylãspevw < stÉ ÙboloÁw dÉ gentian∞w < dÉ (ofl d¢ gÉ) én¤sou < gÉ =Òdvn jhr«n < dÉ mÆou éyamantikoË ‰son sxo¤nou < stÉ ÙboloÁw gÉ Ùpopãnakow < stÉ xalbãnhw < stÉ ÙboloÁw gÉ Ùpobalsãmou tÚ ‰son éristolox¤aw < aÉ Íss≈pou < gÉ pras¤ou < aÉ xamaip¤tuow < gÉ libanvt¤dow < eÉ terminy¤nhw < stÉ tri≈bolon m°litow ÉAttikoË tÚ flkanÒn: o‰non mØ bãle.

1

add et corr ego: ÉIllur¤dow K

  ‒  

335

storax: five drachmae; castor: six drachmae and one obol; cinnamon: seven drachmae and three obols; polion: six drachmae and three obols; skordion: seven drachmae and three obols; zingiber: the same quantity; kostos: six drachmae and three obols; white pepper: five drachmae and two obols; long pepper: six drachmae and three obols; seseli: five drachmae and two obols; wormwood: five drachmae and two obols; parsley: fourteen drachmae; wild carrot seed: six drachmae and three obols; cassia: five drachmae and three obols; frankincense-tree: [109] six drachmae and two obols; juice of hypocist: six drachmae and one obol; Celtic spikenard: four drachmae; fennel seed: four drachmae; malabathron leaves: four drachmae; Indian spikenard: four drachmae; sweet flag, Pontic phou, sagapenon, fruit of the balsam-tree, St John’s wort, Illyrian iris: two drachmae each; red earth from Lemnos: six drachmae; kuphi, back of skinkos: six drachmae each; acacia, gum, cardamom, pelekinos: two drachmae each; thlaspis: six drachmae and four obols; gentian: four drachmae (three according to others); anise: three drachmae; dry roses: four drachmae; spigne: the same quantity; schoinos: six drachmae and three obols; opopanax: six drachmae; galbanum: six drachmae and three obols; balsam-tree juice: the same quantity; birth-wort: one drachma; hyssop: three drachmae; horehound: one drachma; chamaipitus: three drachmae; rosemary: five drachmae; turpentine: six drachmae and three obols; Attic honey: the same quantity; do not add wine.

336

  ‒   FR 114DUB. GALENUS, DE

ANTIDOTIS

(2)

Galenus, De antidotis, II, x, pp. 160–161 K:

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

[160] . . . ÉAnt¤dotow ÉAntipãtrou yhriakØ ka‹ prÚw éspidodÆktouw, prodidom°nh ka‹ §pididom°nh, √ xr«mai: gentian∞w < dÉ trifÊllou =¤zhw < dÉ ka‹ toË karpoË < bÉ pol¤ou < dÉ éristolox¤aw lept∞w < bÉ peukedãnou =¤zhw ‡son xalbãnhw < bÉ petrosel¤nou < dÉ phgãnou égr¤ou < gÉ pur°yrou < aÉ staf¤dow égr¤aw ‡son ékÒrou < gÉ bruvn¤aw =¤zhw < bÉ pep°revw leukoË ‡son ka‹ makroË < gÉ émmvniakoË yumiãmatow < aÉ tri≈bolon flÒmou, ÉIda¤ou xamaip¤tuow, xamela¤aw, pras¤ou leptoË, konÊzhw lept∞w, kum¤nou AfiyiopikoË, ÙpoË mÆkvnow, kastor¤ou, marãyrou sp°rmatow, égarikoË, kass¤aw kirrçw, sxo¤nou ényoÊw, =Æou: énå < bÉ daÊkou KrhtikoË < aÉ ÙboloÁw gÉ Ùpopãnakow ‰son sagaphnoË < bÉ ÙboloÁw gÉ ébrotÒnou < aÉ ÙboloÁw gÉ diktãmnou ‡son stÊrakow ‡son kinnam≈mou < gÉ nãrdou < gÉ smÊrnhw < dÉ libanvtoË < aÉ krÒkou < hÉ [161] én¤sou < aÉ ÙpoË KurhnaÛkoË aÉ pituçw nebroË < gÉ m°li ÉAttikÒn: taÊthw lambãnetai karÊou PontikoË m°geyow efiw profulakÆn.

  ‒   FR 114DUB. GALENUS, ON

ANTIDOTES

337

(2)

Galenus, On antidotes, II, x, pp. 160–161 K: [160] Antipater’s antidote for patients bitten by venomous animals and by spiders, which I use; given before and after [sc the bite]: gentian: four drachmae; clover root: four drachmae of the root, two drachmae of the flower; hulwort: four drachmae; peeled birth-wort: two drachmae; root of sulphur-wort: the same quantity; galbanum: two drachmae; parsley: four drachmae; mountain rue: three drachmae; pellitory: one drachma; stavesacre: the same quantity; sweet flag: three drachmae; bryony root: two drachmae; pepper: white, the same quantity; long: three drachmae; ammoniac incense: one drachma and three obols; mullein, chamaipitus from Mount Ida, chamelaia, peeled horehound, peeled fleabane, Ethiopian cumin, poppy-juice, kastoreon, fennel seed, agarikon, orange–tawny cassia, flower of schoinos, rhubarb: two drachmae each; Cretan carrot: one drachma and three obols; opopanax: the same quantity; sagapenon: two drachmae and three obols; wormwood: one drachma and three obols; dittany: the same quantity; storax: the same quantity; cinnamon: three drachmae; spikenard: three drachmae; myrrh: four drachmae; frankincense: one drachma; saffron: eight drachmae; [161] anise: one drachma; Cyrenaic juice: one drachma; rennet of fawn: three drachmae; Attic honey: take a quantity equivalent to a filbert, for preventive purposes.

338

  ‒   FR 115(+DUB). GALENUS, DE

ANTIDOTIS

(3)

Galenus, De antidotis, II, xiv, pp. 185–186 K: [185] ÖAllh t«n parÉ EÈdÆmou, §mm°trvw énagegramm°nh: yhriakØ ÉAntiÒxou toË FilomÆtorow, ∏w ≤ érxØ ¥de: “ÖIhsin mãye tÆnde prÚw •rpetã, ∂n FilomÆtvr NikÆsaw pe¤r& k°kriken ÉAnt¤oxow.” 5 Tå d¢ t∞w skeuas¤aw ¶xei oÏtvw: “MÆou épÚ =¤zhw ılkØn didraxm¤an ÙrÊjaw: SÁn t“ dÉ, •rpÊllou kl«naw fisorrep°aw SÁn dÉ ÙpÚn §k pãnakow stÆsaw ‡son ±d¢ trifÊllou KarpÚn ˜son draxm∞w staymÚn êgonta, d¤dou ÉAn¤sou marãyrou te ka‹ êmmiow ±d¢ sel¤nou ÉEj •nÒw, ©n plhr«n sp°rmatow ÙjÊbafon: SÁn dÉ, ÙrÒbou le¤ou dÊo ÙjÊbafÉ ¶mpasÉ éleÊrou: Pãnta dÉ ımoË X¤ƒ n°ktari sugkerãsaw Kuklotere›w énãplasse troxoÊw, fisÒthti mer¤zvn ÑHmidraxmo›o =op∞w ˆfrÉ ín ßkastow ¶x˙. X¤ƒ dÉ §gkerãsaw tãde m¤gmata, pikrÚn §x¤dnhw ÑHm¤sevw draxm∞w1 fiÚn époskedãseiw. [186] T“ d¢ pot“ ka‹ deinå falãggia ka‹ skolio›o Skorp¤ou §kfeÊj˙ k°ntra f°rontÉ ÙdÊnaw.”

10

15

20 Tå d¢ katå m°row §st‹ taËta: mÆou =¤zhw, •rpÊllou, Ùpopãnakow: énå bÉ trifÊllou sp°rmatow aÉ én¤sou, marãyrou, êmmevw, sel¤nou sp°rmatow: énÉ ÙjÊbafon éleÊrou Ùrob¤nou leptotãtou: ÙjÊbafa bÉ o‡nou palaioË efiw énãlhcin ˜son §jarke›. 25 ÉAnãplasse trox¤skouw ka‹ jÆrane §n skiò ka‹ d¤dou tri≈bolon metÉ o‡nou kuãyvn gÉ.

1

ci ego: draxmØn K

339

  ‒   FR 115(+DUB). GALENUS, ON

ANTIDOTES

(3)

Galenus, On antidotes, II, xiv, pp. 185–186 K: [185] Another [sc theriac], from those of Eudemus, versified and inscribed on stone: the theriac of Antiochus Philometor, which begins like this: “Learn the cure against [sc the venom of ] reptiles, on which Antiochus Philometor passed judgement from his own experience, having survived.” The [sc details] of its preparation are as follows: “Dig up two drachmae of spigne root; weigh in addition to it equally balanced twigs of tufted thyme, then with it an equal quantity of all-heal juice and clover fruit, as much as to weigh one drachma; then put anise, fennel, ammi, and celery, filling one saucer with the seed of each; then sprinkle two saucers of pounded bitter vetch flour; and, when you have mixed everything together with nectar of Chios, model round pastilles dividing [sc the substance] into equal parts, so that each one should weigh half a drachma. Infuse Chian wine into these compositions, then sprinkle them with the mordant venom of a viper—half a drachma. [186] Dreadful venomous scorpions, as well as the pain-bearing stings of the scorpion, will be put off by this beverage.” The parts severally are set out as follows: spigne root, thyme, opopanax: two drachmae each; one [sc drachma of ] clover seed; anise, fennel, ammi, celery seed: one saucer each; two saucers of the finest flower of bitter vetch; as much old wine as it takes for the preparation. Mould little pastilles, dry them in the shade, and administer three obols with three kyathoi of wine.

340

  ‒   FR 116. GALENUS, DE

ATRA BILE

Galenus, De atra bile, i, pp. 104–105 K = 3 de Boer: [i, 104] Per‹ mela¤nhw xol∞w ¶nioi m¢n §p‹ ple›on µ …w §n to›w ¶rgoiw1 t∞w fiatrik∞w t°xnhw §st‹ xrÆsimon §j°teinan tÚn lÒgon, ¶nioi d¢ ka‹ toË dika¤ou m°trou kaye›lÒn ti, kayãper ¶nioi pantãpasin oÈd¢n e‰pon, oÂw ên tiw mçllon m°mcaito2 t«n prosy°ntvn3 êxrhstÒn ti. ÑRòon går 5 éfele›n tÚ perittÚn toË tÚ mhdÒlvw efirhm°non4 aÈtÚn ëpan5 §jeure›n. ÑIppokrãthw m¢n oÔn moi doke› tÚ xrÆsimon efiw tå t∞w t°xnhw ¶rga pr«tow efipe›n, Àsper aÔ6 pãlin ÉEras¤stratow ˜lon paralipe›n.7 Ofl d¢8 per‹ PleistÒnikÒn9 te ka‹ PrajagÒran ka‹ FilÒtimon, §p‹ ple›ston10 §jergasãmenoi11 [105] tÚn per‹ t«n xum«n lÒgon, ¶nia m°n moi dokoËsi 10 xrhs¤mvw dior¤sasyai t«n édior¤stvw ÑIppokrãtei12 gegramm°nvn, ¶nia d¢ ka‹ ceud«w épofÆnasyai. T«n d¢ nevt°rvn fiatr«n13 êrista g°graptai per‹ melagxol¤aw t“ ÉEfes¤ƒ14 ÑRoÊfƒ: ka¤ tiw eÈlÒgvw ín fa¤h mhd¢n §nde›n to›w katå fÊsin ékoÊousin, oÈk §ristik«w éntil°gein pro˙rhm°noiw,15 ˜per §p‹ ple›ston §zÆlvsan oÈk Ùl¤goi t«n nevt°rvn 15 fiatr«n16 ka‹ mãlista ofl kaloËntew •autoÁw17 ÉErasistrate¤ouw te ka‹18 ÉAsklhpiade¤ouw19 ka‹ MeyodikoÊw: œn ¶nioi ka‹ sof¤smata sun°yesan

Bo (= de Boer): µ …w to›w ¶rgoiw B (= Marcianus Graecus 276, Marcianus Graecus 278, Marcianus Graecus 284, Mosquensis Graecus 467) C (= Marcianus App. Cl. V 5, Mutinensis 213, Parisinus Graecus 2166) 2 K Bo: m°mcoito codd > cett edd 3 t«n prÒsyen efipÒntvn B C 4 B C > K Bo: efirhm°nou (= Vaticanus gr. 1845) > cett edd 5 B C editio Aldina (= Ald) editio Basileensis (= Bas) > Bo: tÚ pçn V: aÈtÚ ëpan Chartier (= Ch) K 6 oÔn B 7 perilipe›n B 8 Bo: ı går B: ofl går K 9 plãtvna V 10 V B > K Bo: §p‹ ple›on C 11 Bo: §rgasãmenoi cett edd 12 V > Bas K Bo: flppokrtÉ Marcianus gr. 276 (= M): flppokrat Ambrosianus gr. Q 3 Sup. (= AI): flppokrãthw Marcianus gr. 284 (= b): flppokrãtouw Marc. gr. App. cl. V 5 (= g): ÑIppokrãteiw Ald 13 Bo: fiatr«n om B C > K cett edd 14 V > K Bo cett edd: §fes¤v tv M AI: §fes¤vn tv b : §fes¤v toË g Mutinensis gr. 213 (= m) 15 Bo: proairoum°noiw B C > K 16 Bo: oÈk Ùl¤goi t«n nevt°rvn fiatr«n §zÆlvsan K 17 aÈtoÁw C 18 Bo: ÉErasistrate¤ouw ka‹ B C > K cett edd 19 ésklhpiad¤ouw C 1

  ‒   FR 116. GALENUS, ON

341

THE BLACK BILE

Galenus, On the black bile, i, pp. 104–105 K = 3 de Boer: [i, 104] On the subject of black bile, some put their argument to greater lengths than is useful from the point of view of practice in the medical art, but others reduced [sc it] even beyond due measure, just as others said nothing whatsoever [sc on it]—and one would blame these [sc last two] more than those who made some useless addition. For getting rid of what is superfluous is easier than discovering from scratch something that has not been said at all. In my judgement, Hippocrates was the first to formulate what is useful for the practice of the [sc medical] art [sc on the subject of black bile], while Erasistratus, on the contrary, overlooked the whole [sc subject]. As for the followers of Pleistonicus, Praxagoras, and Philotimus, who dealt extensively [105] with the subject of the humours, it seems to me that these people defined well some of the things that Hippocrates had left undefined in his writings, while making false pronouncements on others. Among the most recent doctors, Rufus of Ephesus has written best on melancholia; indeed one would have good reason to say that there is nothing missing for you in it if you listen to it in a natural spirit, not with the design to give it an eristic refutation, which is mainly what many of the most recent doctors have attempted [sc to do]—chiefly those who call themselves Erasistrateans, Asclepiadeans, and Methodists; some of them even

342

  ‒  -

§pideiknÊnai peir≈menoi20 tÚn per‹ t«n xum«n21 lÒgon êxrhston e‰nai prÚw tå22 t∞w fiatrik∞w t°xnhw ¶rga.

20

perÒmenoi C

21

tÚn per‹ xum«n B C

22

prÚw tØn B

FR 117. GALENUS, DE

CAUSIS PULSUUM

Galenus, De causis pulsuum, III, ix, pp. 137–139 K:

5

10

15

20

[ix, 137] . . . ÜUpnow gãr, …w ka‹ t«n poiht«n ¶stin ékoËsai legÒntvn, édelfÒw §sti yanãtou, ka‹ ©n aÈt“ koinÚn Ípãrxei mÒnon prÚw toÁw z«ntaw, ≤ per‹ tØn trofØn [138] §rgas¤a, tå dÉ éllå pãnta to›w époynÆskousin ˜moia, mØ bl°pein, mØ ékoÊein, mØ frone›n, mØ noe›n, mØ lale›n, éna¤syhton, ék¤nhton, élÒgiston §rr¤fyai. áAn toËto to¤nun ˘ koinÚn ¶ti mÒnon ¶xei prÚw toÁw z«ntaw épÒllutai, t¤ êllo µ Ùry«w §p‹ yãnaton ıdÚw ín l°goito; Ka‹ går oÔn ka‹ ˜ti pr≈th m°n §sti ka‹ katå fÊsin ≤ ¶jv te ka‹ éfÉ •autoË k¤nhsiw t“ yerm“, deut°ra dÉ ≤ e‡sv te ka‹ efiw •autÒ, diå tØn trofØn ginom°nh, pollãkiw ≥dh fyãnomen efirhk°nai. ÜOtan oÔn mÆte per‹ tØn trofØn ¶ti pragmateÊhtai mhd¢n mÆte t∞w ¶jv ofike¤aw énamimnÆskhtai kinÆsevw, éllÉ érgÚn •kat°rvyen ¬, yanãtƒ dhlonÒti pelãsei. Ka‹ lÊetai m¢n ı tÒnow aÈtoË ka‹ diå toËtÉ émudrÚw ı sfugmÚw g¤netai, katalÊetai dÉ ≤ k¤nhsiw ka‹ diå toËto mikrÚw ka‹ bradÁw ka‹ éraiÒw: kùn §p‹ pl°on ge pro°ly˙ mikrÒthtÒw te ka‹ bradÊthtow ka‹ éraiÒthtow, §ggÁw ín ¥koi toË mhdÒlvw kine›syai: toËto dÉ ∑n ı yãnatow. OÏtv m¢n ¶xei pãnta tå katå toÁw Ïpnouw. Efi dÉ ÉArxig°nhw m¢n prÚw to›w efirhm°noiw ka‹ plhrestãtouw fhs‹ fa¤nesyai toÁw sfugmoÊw, ÉApollvn¤dhw d¢ [139] kenvtãtouw, oÎ moi doke› mhkÊnein ¶ti de›n ≤mçw per¤ ge t«n toioÊtvn, flkan«w épodedeixÒtaw §n ta›w

  ‒  -

343

composed sophisms, in an attempt to prove that the subject of humours is useless for the practice of the medical art.

FR 117. GALENUS, ON

THE CAUSES OF PULSE

Galenus, On the causes of pulse, III, ix, pp. 137–139 K: [ix, 137] . . . For sleep is the brother of death, as indeed you can hear the poets say, and it has just one [sc thing] in common with the living, namely the activity of digestion, [138] but all others are like in the dead: not seeing, not hearing, not caring, not thinking, not speaking, lying there bereft of sense, motion, and reason. Now if the only thing that he [sc the sleeping creature] still has in common with the living ceases, is it not right to call it [sc sleep] nothing but a path towards death? For I have already said, and many times now, that the movement [sc to the] outside and away from itself is primary and natural for the hot element, while the internal movement towards itself, which is due to nourishment, is secondary. Thus when it is neither the case that it [sc the hot] is still engaged in anything to do with nourishment nor that it has any memory of its own movement [sc to the] outside, but it is inactive with respect to each [sc movement], obviously it will come near to death. On the one hand, its tone dissipates and the pulse consequently becomes faint, on the other hand its movement is halted and it [sc the pulse] consequently becomes small, slow, and scanty; if it were to increase only a little in smallness, slowness, and scantiness, it would come within a hair’s breadth of not moving at all—and that would be death. And here is all that concerns sleep. If, apart from what I said, Archigenes claims that [sc in sleep] pulse appears to be at its fullest, while Apollonides [sc claims that it appears to be] [139] at its emptiest, I don’t think that we should linger any more on such matters, since in the course

344

  ‒  -

¶mprosyen pragmate¤aiw …w mãthn toËto tÚ g°now t«n sfugm«n ofl meyÉ ÑHrÒfilon §peisÆgagon, Àsper ka‹ êlla pollã. Ka‹ yaumastÚn oÈd¢n §n prãgmati mhdÒlvw diaginvskom°nƒ ténant¤a l°gein ÉArxig°nhn te ka‹ ÉApollvn¤dhn: oÈ går afisyÆsevw koin∞w tÚ pãyow éllå fantas5 mãtvn fid¤vn •kãterow ¶gracen.

FR 118. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM PER GENERA

(1)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, I, iv, pp. 375–394 K:

10

15

20

25

30

[iv, 375] Per‹ toË diå xalk¤tevw §mplastoË farmãkou. T¤ni lÒgƒ sun°yhka tØn diå xalk¤tevw ¶mplastron ∂n “foinik¤nhn” Ùnomãzv, kollhtikÆn te ka‹ sunoulvtikØn •lk«n ka‹ flegmon«n yerapeutikØn §peidån take›sa sÊstasin Ígrçw ¶x˙ khrvt∞w; ToÁw m¢n ÉEmpeirikoÁw §ãsantew ımologe›n tØn •aut«n émay¤an, épostãntew d¢ ka‹ t«n per‹ tÚn YessalÒn, égnooÊntvn tå kãllista t«n hÍrhm°nvn to›w fiatro›w farmãkvn §j §nant¤vn dunãmevn sugke¤mena: tÚn logismÚn éske›te prÚw tÚ dÊnasyai suntiy°nai fãrmaka ta›w aÈta›w §mo‹ xr≈menoi meyÒdoiw, ·nÉ ¶rgƒ ka‹ aÈto‹ peisy∞te ka‹ tå to›w ¶mprosyen hÍrhm°na logism“ sunt¤yesyai pãnta, lhr≈douw t∞w t«n ÉEmpeirik«n peript≈sevw oÎshw. Lekt°on oÔn ≥dh tÚn lÒgon t∞w toË prokeim°nou farmãkou suny°sevw. DiaforhtikØn m¢n ¶xei dÊnamin ¶laiÒn te palaiÚn ka‹ st°ar, épokroustikØn d¢ ka‹ stuptikØn ¥ te xalk›tiw ka‹ ı toË fo¤nikow xulÒw. ÉEk toÊtvn oÔn §g∆ sun°yhka fãrmakon, ⁄ pãnu polloÁw ≥dh xrv[376]m°nouw ‡ste diå tÚ t«n ımoeid«n èpãntvn êmeinon kekr¤syai, diÉ aÈt«n t«n ¶rgvn basanisy°n. ÑO m¢n går lÒgow eÍr¤skei tØn sÊnyesin, ≤ d¢ pe›ra kr¤nei tØn t«n eÍrey°ntvn éretÆn, Àste ka‹ to›w épe¤roiw logik«n meyÒdvn pisteÊesyai tå texnik«w suntey°nta. Pros°mija d¢ to›w efirhm°noiw êrti farmãkoiw liyãrguron, oÈd°n ti m°ga suntel°sai dunam°nhn oÎte to›w énast°llousi tÚ §pirr°on oÎte to›w diaforoËsi tÚ §sthrigm°non ≥dh katå tå flegma¤nonta mÒria—jhrantik∞w gãr §sti dunãmevw oÈ mØn fisxurçw—éllÉ …w §pitÆdeion fãrmakon aÈtØn efiw §mplastoË sÊnyesin ¶mija: sÁn går to›w efirhm°noiw •cÆsetai1 m°xri sustãsevw émolÊntou. XrØ d¢ tÚ st°ar ênalÒn te ka‹ …w ¶ni mãlista palaiÒtaton e‰nai, tÒ tÉ ¶laion ımo¤vw palaiÒn. ÉEmãyete gãr pvw paraplhs¤aw m¢n e‰nai éllÆloiw dunãmevw tÒ tÉ ¶laion ka‹ tÚ st°ar t«n Í«n, malaktik≈teron braxÁ ka‹ yermÒteron ¯n tª dunãmei tÚ st°ar. ÉEmãyete d¢ ka‹ …w palaioÊmena leptomer°sterã te ka‹ diaforhtik≈tera g¤gnetai, ka‹ diå toËto ta›w m¢n Ùdunhra›w flegmona›w parhgo-

1

ego: ßchtai K

  ‒  -

345

of the preceding treatises we have satisfactorily proved that the followers of Herophilus introduced this kind of pulse, like many other things, for no good. And it is no wonder that Archigenes and Apollonides should hold opposite claims on a subject on which they are completely in the dark: for each one recorded the experience, not of a common perception, but of their own private imaginings.

FR 118. GALENUS, ON

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES BY KINDS

(1)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines by kinds, I, iv, pp. 375–394 K: [iv, 375] On the plastering medicine composed of chalkitis. What is the principle that I followed in composing the plaster of chalkitis which I call the “date-plaster” [= phoinikine], so that it has the effect of closing up wounds and of promoting scarification, as well as of curing an inflammation, once it acquires the consistency of a liquid cerate, after it has melt? Allow the Empiricists to admit their own ignorance, stay away from the followers of Thessalus, unaware as they are that the best medicines discovered by doctors are composed of opposite powers—and then train your reasoning with a view to becoming able to compose medicines by the same methods as I do, in order to get yourselves convinced, on the basis of fact, that all the [sc medicines] discovered by our precursors are also composed with the help of reasoning, the Empiricists’ [sc notion of ] lucky chance being all nonsense. So now I must proceed with the account of the composition of the medicine that concerns us. Well, old oil and swine fat have a diaphoretic power; on the other hand, chalkitis and date-juice have a repelling and astringent power. It is from these that I composed the medicine—and you know how many use it already [376] because it is judged to be the best of its kind, having been tested through its own achievements. For reason discovers the composition while experience confirms the excellence of what has been discovered, so that the [sc medicines] composed artistically carry conviction even with those who are not skilled in logical methods. With the above-mentioned ingredients I also mixed litharge; not that it can achieve great results for those who are in the course of either checking the flow or getting rid of [sc matter] that has already settled in the inflamed parts—for it [sc litharge] has a drying action, albeit not strong; no, I mixed it in as a suitable ingredient for the composition of the plaster: for it will boil with the above into a pure substance. The swine fat must be unsalted and as old as possible, and the oil must, similarly, be old. For you have learned that oil and swine fat, [sc compared] to each other, are of a somehow similar power, yet the swine fat is slightly milder and hotter in power. You have also learned that they [sc these substances] come to be, with age, of finer particles [leptomere] and more diaphoretic, and for this reason fresh [sc substances] are more soothing for painful inflammations,

346

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

rik≈[377]tera tå n°a, ta›w d¢ mØ toiaÊtaiw …felim≈tera tå palaiã. [. . .] [391] ToËto tÚ fãrmakon ≥legje tØn YessaloË fluar¤an, §nergestãthn m¢n §pideiknÊmenon »f°leian §j §nant¤vn d¢ ta›w dunãmesi sugke¤menon, œn, §ån éf°l˙w [392] tØn •t°ran, oÈd¢n t«n efirhm°nvn §rgãsetai. OÎte går §k t«n stufÒntvn mÒnon êneu t«n xal≈ntvn énÊsei ti genna›on §p‹ t«n =eumatik«n diay°sevn µ ˜lvw t«n érxom°nvn te ka‹ aÈjanom°nvn flegmon«n—oÈd¢ går ßjei tÚ parhgorikÒn—oÎtÉ §k mÒnvn t«n xal≈ntvn tÚ diaforhtikÚn êneu stÊcevw genÒmenon, oÂw malãttein Ípãrxei tå sklhrunÒmena. XalastikÚn dÉ ín ékrib«w g°noito ka‹ metr¤vw malaktikÒn, efi mØ pãnu palaiÚn ¶xoi tÒ te ¶laion ka‹ tÚ st°ar. ÖO goËn sun°yhken ı Mnasa›ow fãrmakon ‡sa m¢n éllÆloiw ¶xei tÒ tÉ ¶laion ka‹ tØn liyãrguron ka‹ tÚ st°ar: §nanti≈taton dÉ §stin érxom°naiw te ka‹ aÈjanom°naiw flegmona›w. ÖExei d¢ dhlonÒti ka‹ tÚ ≤m°teron toËto fãrmakon ˜sa per ka‹ tÚ toË Mnasa¤ou, tÆn te liyãrguron ka‹ tÚ st°ar ka‹ tÚ ¶laion. ÉAllÉ §ån mhd¢n proslãb˙ t«n stufÒntvn, §kyhlÊnei tå mÒria ka‹ dialÊei tÚn tÒnon aÈt«n: diÚ ka‹ =eumatikå g¤gnetai. MemayÆkate går …w oÈk ée‹ diå yermas¤an pollÆn, Àw tinew o‡ontai, =eumat¤zetai tå mÒria toË s≈matow, éllå toËto m¢n g¤gne[393]tai span¤vw aÈto›w. ÑH dÉ ésy°neia t«n mor¤vn tåw =eumatikåw §rgãzetai diay°seiw ¥ tiw …w tÚ polÁ katå duskras¤an épotele›tai cuxrãn. ÉEån oÔn Ígra¤n˙ tiw aÈtå ka‹ yerma¤n˙ to›w xalastiko›w farmãkoiw, tel°vw ¶klutã te ka‹ êrrvsta g¤gnetai. Pãlin dÉ aÔ stÊfvn fisxur«w toÁw §n ta›w =eumatika›w diay°sesin ˆgkouw, §n érxª m¢n énÊsai dÒjei, dÊsluton dÉ §rgãsetai ka‹ skirr«dew aÈtÚ tÚ le¤canon. ÑVw tå pollå dÉ oÈd¢ f°rousi tØn t«n êgan stufÒntvn §p¤yesin afl toiaËtai diay°seiw, Ùdun≈mena¤ te ka‹ sunteinÒmenai prÚw aÈt«n. ÉOdÊnh d¢ pçsa parojÊnei tå flegma¤nonta ka‹ =eumãtvn afit¤a g¤gnetai, kùn mØ =eumatikØn ¶x˙ duskras¤an ı pepony≈w. ÉAllÉ oÈd¢n yaumastÒn, êpeirÒn te t«n katÉ fiatrikØn t°xnhn ¶rgvn ˆnta tÚn YessalÚn édÊnatÒn te t“ lÒgƒ tåw diay°seiw §jeure›n égnoe›n ëpanta tå katå tåw fiãseiw t«n flegmon«n: Ímçw d°, teyeam°nouw pollãkiw ka‹ t∞w foinik¤nhw t∞sde ka‹ êllvn farmãkvn §j §nant¤vn dunãmevn sugkeim°nvn §nargestãthn »f°leian §p‹ poll«n diay°sevn, peirçsyai xrØ ka‹ aÈtoÊw, ˜tan épor∞t° pote [394] t«n ≥dh sugkeim°nvn, suntiy°nai fãrmaka katå tØn aÈtØn m°yodon §k t«n eÈporoum°nvn §n §ke¤nƒ t“ xvr¤ƒ: prosdokvm°nhw m¢n ¶sesyai flegmon∞w µ ka‹ kathrgm°nhw ≥dh, pl°ona tØn stÊcin ¶xonta, katå d¢ tåw aÈjÆseiw aÈtåw §lãttona, katå d¢ tåw ékmãw te ka‹ parakmåw pl°ona tØn xalastikÆn te ka‹ diaforhtikØn ¶xonta dÊnamin. ÉAe‹ m°ntoi mem¤xyvsan émfÒtera, ¥ tÉ épokroustikØ ka‹ diaforhtikÆ, plØn e‡ pote t«n §pirreÒntvn ≥dh tel°vw

  ‒  

347

[377] but old ones are more beneficial for inflammations that are of another sort. [. . .] [391] This medicine has refuted the nonsensicality of Thessalus: it displays itself as a most efficient source of benefit, and yet it is composed of contraries, so far as its powers [dunameis] go: if you remove one of them [392] it will not accomplish any of the effects I mentioned. For neither will it achieve anything good for states of flux and, in general, for incipient or developing inflammations on the basis of astringents alone, without relaxants—since it will not have the property of soothing —nor [sc will it achieve anything good] if the diaphoretic [sc quality] results from relaxants alone, without astringency, since what is proper to them [sc the relaxants] is to mollify the hard [sc parts]. It [sc the medicine] would be perfectly relaxing and moderately emollient if the oil and swine fat in it were not to be very old. Now, the medicine which Mnaseas composed has the [sc quantities of ] oil, litharge, and swine fat equal to each other; but it is most inimical to incipient and developing inflammations. Obviously, this medicine of ours, too, contains what the one of Mnaseas does—litharge, swine fat, and oil; but if it does not receive any astringent in its composition, it weakens the parts and breaks up their tension; which is why they [sc the parts] may fall into a state of flux. For you have learned that the parts of the body do not always suffer from flux because of great heat, as some believe; on the contrary, they are in this situation only rarely. [393] What engenders states of flux is the weakness of the parts, which in most cases results by virtue of cold duskrasia [= bad mixture]. So, if one is to moisten and heat them [sc the parts] with relaxing medicines, they become completely unnerved and powerless. Conversely, if you treat with strong astringents the tumours which occur in states of flux, at the start that will seem to work, but it [sc the treatment] will make what remains of it [sc the tumour] unyielding and indurated. In most cases such states do not bear the application of too strong astringents—they become painful and strained under them. But any pain exacerbates inflammations and becomes a cause of discharges, even if the affected place does not suffer from a bad mixture of the fluid variety. And yet, given that Thessalus is unacquainted with the facts of the medical art and incapable of discovering the states through reasoning, it is no surprise that he should not know anything about the curing of inflammations; as for you, since you have witnessed many times the beneficial effect, so very obvious, of this phoinikine and of other medicines composed of contrary powers, you too should try to compose medicines by the same method for many states, from [sc the range of ingredients] abundant in your country whenever you are short of [394] those already presented: [sc ingredients] of higher astringency when you suspect that an inflammation will develop or even when it has already started, [sc ingredients] of lower [sc astringency] during the [sc periods of ] increase, and, during the [sc periods of ] culmination and decline, [sc ingredients] of a higher relaxing and diaphoretic power. But always make sure that you have

348

  ‒  -

pepaum°nvn ka‹ kenoË toË s≈matow ˆntow §p‹ tåw diaforhtikåw dunãmeiw ékindÊnvw ên tiw ¶lyoi, kayãper §n ta›w pr≈taiw efisbola›w §p‹ tåw épokroustikãw.

FR 119. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM PER GENERA

(2)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, II, xxi, p. 557 K: [557] ÖAllh ¶naimow: ÉIoulianoË: liyargÊrou nÉ 5 ésfãltou draxmãw nÉ khroË nÉ p¤sshw Brutt¤aw1 draxmåw nÉ =ht¤nhw frukt∞w ieÉ lep¤dow xalkoË ibÉ 10 libãnou draxmåw idÉ xalbãnhw hÉ xalk¤tevw draxmåw dÉ élÒhw stÉ khk¤dow dÉ 15 smÊrnhw draxmåw dÉ éristolox¤aw makrçw stÉ éristolox¤aw stroggÊlhw draxmåw dÉ §la¤ou palaioË kotÊlaw dÉ (§g∆ dÉ §la¤ou kotÊlaw gÉ).

1

ego: brut¤aw K

FR 120. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM PER GENERA

(3)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, IV, v, pp. 681–683 K: 20 [v, 681] Per‹ t«n ÍpÉ ÉAndromãxou gegramm°nvn §mplãstrvn prÚw tå kakoÆyh t«n §lk«n. ParayÆsomai to¤nun ßneka parade¤gmatow ˜sa tª pe¤r& k°kritai t«n suny°tvn farmãkvn prÚw tå kakoÆyh t«n •lk«n èrmÒttonta, tØn érxØn épÚ t«n ÉAndromãxou gegramm°nvn poihsãmenow. M°mcaito dÉ ên tiw aÈt“ xvr‹w diorismoË tå fãrmaka grãcanti. ToÊtou

  ‒  -

349

combined both [sc powers], the repelling and the diaphoretic, except in cases where, if the discharges have completely ceased and the body is empty, one would have recourse to the diaphoretic powers without danger, just as [sc one would, without danger, have recourse to] the repelling powers during the first attacks.

FR 119. GALENUS, ON

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES BY KINDS

(2)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines by kinds, II xxi, p. 557 K: [557] Another one [sc plaster for the gluing of wounds]: the enaimos of Julian: fifty [sc drachmae] of litharge; fifty drachmae of asphaltos; fifty [sc drachmae] of bees-wax; fifty drachmae of pitch from Bruttium; fifteen [sc drachmae] of roasted pine-resin; twelve [sc drachmae] of copper-flakes; fourteen [sc drachmae] of frankincense; eight [sc drachmae] of galbanum; fourteen drachmae of chalkitis; six [sc drachmae] of aloes; four [sc drachmae] of oak-gall; four drachmae of myrrh; six [sc drachmae] of long birth-wort; four drachmae of round birth-wort; four kotylae of old oil (three kotylae of old oil according to me).

FR 120. GALENUS, ON

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES BY KINDS

(3)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines by kinds, IV, v, pp. 681–683 K: [v, 681] On the plasters for malignant wounds recorded by Andromachus. I shall add now, for the sake of exemplification, those compound medicines which experience has confirmed to be suitable for malignant wounds; and I shall take my start from the ones recorded by Andromachus. One might blame him for having recorded the medicines without distinction [diorismos]. As this has been left out, it so happens that

350

  ‒  -

går1 paraleleimm°nou, sumba¤nei kak«w aÈ[682]to›w xr∞syai toÁw polloÁw t«n fiatr«n, ka‹ diå toËto pot¢ m¢n §pitugxãnein toË skopoË yaumas¤vw, ¶sti dÉ ˜te ka‹ diamartãnein épop¤ptontaw pãmpolu. [. . .] [683] Tå m¢n oÔn p°nte t«n sunÆyvn §st‹n §poulvtik«n oÎte t«n dusepoul≈tvn oÎte t«n kakoÆyvn, tÚ dÉ ßkton t«n dusepoul≈tvn, oÈ mØn ≥dh 5 ge t«n kakoÆyvn. ÉAllÉ afl grafa‹ t«n Ípolo¤pvn ©j farmãkvn to›w kakoÆyesin èrmÒttousi, diaf°rousai katÉ fisxÁn éllÆlvn. AÂw duo›n yãteron §xr∞n, ≥toi LogikØn ka‹ MeyodikØn poioÊmenon tØn didaskal¤an prosgegraf°nai tØn katå sfodrÒthta diaforãn, …w ≤m«n nohsãntvn 10 §p‹ m¢n t«n kakohyest°rvn •lk«n to›w fisxurot°roiw xr∞syai farmãkoiw, §p‹ d¢ t«n metrivtãtvn to›w ésyenest°roi: µ to›w ÉEmpeiriko›w ımo¤vw grãcai to›w m¢n fagedainiko›w ka‹ ˜lvw to›w énabibrvskom°noiw ka‹ nemom°noiw §pitÆdeia tãde tinå t«n farmãkvn e‰nai, to›w d¢ ko¤loiw tãde tinã, ka‹ to›w m¢n flkan«w =uparo›w taut¤, to›w d¢ metå flegmon≈15 douw µ skirr≈douw diay°sevw µ t«n xeil«n toË ßlkouw sklhr«n µ Ùxyvd«n µ melãnvn ≥ tinÉ êllhn xroiån §xÒntvn—‡dia •kãstou. ToÊtvn m¢n oÈd¢n §po¤hsen.

1

Kühn’s ±år here is no doubt a misprint.

FR 121DUB. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM PER GENERA

(4)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, V, xiii, p. 841 K: [xiii, 841] PrÚw nomåw Antipãtrou: xrusokÒllhw oÈgg¤aw stÉ érrenikoË oÈgg¤aw stÉ, jer“ ka‹ sÁn =od¤nƒ. 20

FR 122DUB. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM PER GENERA

(5)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, VI, xiv, pp. 925 + 931 K: [xiv, 925] Afl ÍpÉ ÉAndromãxou gegramm°nai diaforhtika¤ te ka‹ §pispastika¤. [. . .] [931] ÖAllh ÉAntipãtrou: n¤trou l¤tran aÉ terminy¤nhw l¤tran aÉ §la¤ou palaioË l¤tran aÉ 25 Ïdatow j°sthn aÉ ka‹ ple›on.

  ‒  -

351

the majority of doctors make wrong use of them [sc the medicines in question]; [682] as a result, they sometimes hit upon the aim [sc as it were] wonderfully, other times they fall and err a great deal. [. . .] [683] Thus the [sc first] five [sc prescriptions recorded by Andromachus] are among familiar medicines that promote cicatrisation, but neither for [sc wounds] that are hard to cicatrise nor for malignant ones, whereas the sixth one is for wounds that are hard to cicatrise but not yet for malignant ones. On the other hand, the prescriptions for the remaining six medicines are suitable for malignant [sc wounds] but differ among them in strength. He [sc Andromachus] should have done one of two things: he should either have added an account of their difference in strength, following the Logical or Methodist procedure, so that we may take care to use the strongest medicines for the most malignant wounds and the ones that are easiest to tolerate for the weakest [sc wounds]; or he should have written, like the Empiricists, that such and such medicines are suitable for cancerous sores and on the whole for corroding and devouring wounds, such others for hollow wounds, this one for wounds that are sufficiently dirty, or for those accompanied by a state of inflammation and induration, for cases where the lips of the wound are hard, tuberous, black or of some other colour— the medicine proper to each. Well, he did neither of these.

FR 121DUB. GALENUS, ON

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES BY KINDS

(4)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines by kinds, V, xiii, p. 841 K: [xiii, 841] Antipater’s [sc remedy] for spreading wounds: six ounces of chrusokolla; six ounces of orpiment, dry or [sc treated] with rose oil.

FR 122DUB. GALENUS, ON

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES BY KINDS

(5)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines by kinds, VI, xiv, pp. 925 + 931 K: [xiv, 925] The diaphoretic and epispastic [sc plasters] recorded by Andromachus. [. . .] [931] Another one, by Antipater: one litra of soda; one litra of turpentine; one litra of old oil; one sextarius of water or more.

352

  ‒  -

ÜOtan •cÒmenon mØ pomfolÊj˙, prÒsbale: émmvniakoË yumiãmatow go bÉ xalbãnhw go aÉ bdell¤ou go aÉ libãnou go bÉ 5 sandarãxhw go bÉ l¤you ÉAs¤ou go bÉ. ÑO ÖAsiow ka‹ ≤ sandarãxh sÁn §la¤ƒ Ùl¤gƒ lea¤netai, tå thktå énajÊetai ka‹ m¤sgetai to›w jhro›w. 10 ÖAllh diaforhtikØ ÉAntipãtrou: molubda¤nhw tÉ khroË rnÉ terminy¤nhw lÉ xalk¤tevw stÉ xalbãnhw hÉ 15 smÊrnhw hÉ mãnnhw hÉ §la¤ou xeim«now kotÊlaw dÉ, yere¤aw kotÊlaw gÉ.

FR 123. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM PER GENERA

(6)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, VII, vii, pp. 962–966 K: [vii, 962] DiafÒrouw g¤nesyai diaforåw §n t“ mçllÒn te ka‹ ∏tton katå 20 tØn malaktikØn toË Mnasa¤ou ¶mplastron katå diãforon t«n èpl«n posÒthtã te ka‹ ≤lik¤an ka‹ ßcesin. Katå gãr toi tØn deut°ran tãjin t«n malaktik«n oÎx ¥kistÉ ên tiw ye¤h tØn ÍpÚ toË Mnasa¤ou sunteye›san ¶mplastron, ımologoÊntvn m¢n èpãntvn éllÆloiw t«n mnhmoneusãntvn aÈt∞w §j §la¤ou toË palaioË ka‹ liyargÊrou ka‹ st°atow Íe¤ou, 25 diaferom°nvn dÉ ¶n te tª posÒthti toÊtvn •kãstou ka‹ t“ tinåw m¢n §k prosfãtou st°atow, §n¤ouw dÉ §k palaioË suntiy°nai toË kaloum°nou prÚw èpãntvn ≥dh sunÆyvw éjougg¤ou. ÉEp‹ gãr toi toÊtoiw ≤ ésyenestãth g°noitÉ ín §k liyargÊrou ka‹ st°atow Íe¤ou ka‹ §la¤ou, mhdet°rou palaioË: ≤ dÉ fisxurot°ra §la¤ou m¢n aÈt«n palaioË, yat°rou d¢ n°ou 30 blhy°ntow: ≤ d¢ taÊthw fisxurot°ra palai«n émfot°rvn. Katå m¢n oÔn tÚ n°on µ palaiÚn bãllesyai tÚ ¶laion ka‹ tÚ st°ar afl diafora‹ dÉ [963] ¶sontai, pot¢ m¢n émfo›n n°vn, pot¢ dÉ émfo›n palai«n, pot¢ d¢ toË m¢n §la¤ou palaioË, toË st°atow d¢ prosfãtou, ≥ toÈnant¤on §la¤ou m¢n prosfãtou, palaioË d¢ st°atow §mballom°nou. Katå d¢

  ‒  -

353

When it has boiled without making bubbles, add in: three ounces of ammoniac incense; one ounce of galbanum; one ounce of bdellium; two ounces of frankincense; two ounces of realgar; two ounces of Asian stone. Emulsify the stone and realgar with a little oil, scrape off the soluble [sc ingredients] and mix them with the dry ones. Another diaphoretic by Antipater: three hundred [sc drachmae] of molubdaina; one hundred and fifty [sc drachmae] of bees-wax; thirty [sc drachmae] of turpentine; six [sc drachmae] of chalkitis; eight [sc drachmae] of galbanum; eight [sc drachmae] of myrrh; eight [sc drachmae] of manna; four kotylae of oil during the winter, three during the summer.

FR 123. GALENUS, ON

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES BY KINDS

(6)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines by kinds, VII, vii, pp. 962–966 K: [vii, 962] In the case of the plaster of Mnaseas, the differentia of the more and the less varies according to variations in the quantity, age, and coction of the simples. One could just as well assign the plaster composed by Mnaseas to the second category of emollients, if everyone who remembers it were agreed [sc that it is composed] of old olive-oil, litharge, and swine fat, whereas in fact they [sc these people] are at variance regarding both the quantity of each one of these [sc ingredients] and the fact that it [sc the plaster] should be made with new swinefat according to some, old according to others—the kind that everyone now usually calls tallow. For out of these [sc possible combinations] litharge, swine fat and olive-oil would produce the weakest [sc plaster] if neither of them [sc of the last two] is old; a stronger one if out of them the olive-oil is old but the other ingredient is new; and one stronger than the previous if both of them are old. Hence, there will be on the one hand four different degrees according to whether the olive-oil and the swine fat used as ingredients are new or old, [963] sometimes both ingredients being new, sometimes both being old, sometimes the olive-oil being old but the swine fat new, sometimes still, on the contrary, the olive-oil being old but the swinefat being new. On the other hand, [sc there will be] more numerous other

354

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

tØn prÚw êllhla summetr¤an aÈt«n t«n tri«n èpl«n farmãkvn ßterai ple¤ouw. ÖHtoi går ‡sa t“ staym“ ka‹ m°trƒ m¤gnutai tå tr¤a—ka‹ pollo¤ fasi tØn ÍpÉ aÈtoË toË Mnasa¤ou sunteye›san §k tri«n ‡svn sugke›syai: µ tå dÊo m¢n ‡sa, tÚ tr¤ton dÉ oÈk ‡son éllÉ ¶latton ≥ ple›on: µ t«n tri«n én¤svn mignum°nvn. Ple¤onow m¢n går t∞w liyargÊrou blhye¤shw malak≈teron tª dunãmei genÆsetai tÚ fãrmakon, §lãttonow dÉ fisxurÒteron: ka‹ malak≈teron m¢n efi toË st°atow §mbãlloimen pl°on, diaforetik≈teron dÉ efi toË §la¤ou. Ka‹ går aÔ ka‹ êllo ti pros°rxetai pl°onow §mblhy°ntow §la¤ou, megãlhn ¶xontow dÊnamin efiw tÚ diaforhtik≈teron §rgãsasyai tÚ fãrmakon: ¶sti d¢ toËto, kayãper e‡rhta¤ moi katå tÚn aÉ lÒgon, efi §p‹ pl°on •cÆseiw. ÉEån goËn mÒnhn tØn liyãrguron •cÆseiw §n §la¤ƒ pl°oni, jhrantik≈teron ¶stai tÚ fãrmakon. ÉEn [964] pl°oni dÉ •cÆseiw pl°on §la¤ou bal∆n, e‡ ge m°lloi sÊstasin ßjein §mplãstrou. ÑVw e‡ ge toÊtou mØ front¤zoi tiw éllÉ ‡sƒ xrÒnƒ tÒ yÉ ∏sson ¶xon §la¤ou ka‹1 tÚ pl°on •cÆsei, prÒdhlon ˜ti malaktik≈teron ¶stai katå tØn dÊnamin ⁄ pl°on ¶laion m°miktai, kayãper efi ka‹ »mÆn tiw êkopon tØn liyãrguron §la¤ƒ m¤jaw boÊloito xr∞syai. DiÒper ı pollãkiw moi l°lektai memn∞syai diå pantÚw aÈtoË keleÊv, mØ kayãper ¶nioi tåw épofãseiw èpl«w Íp¢r t«n farmãkvn poioËntai ka‹ ≤mçw oÏtv prãttein, belt¤ona l°gontaw èpl«w e‰nai tÆnde tØn sÊnyesin toË farmãkou t∞sde: dÊnatai går •kãtera prÚw diaf°ronta katÉ e‡dh payh kal«w sugke›syai, ka¤ pote prÚw taÈtÚ katå diaf°rontaw toÁw kairoÊw. TaËta to¤nun ëpanta tå nËn efirhm°na moi proakoÊsaw tiw oÈ filÒponow mÒnon µ mnÆmvn éllå ka‹ fÊsei sunetÚw n, »fel¤mvw anagn≈setai tå metå diorism«n gegramm°na te ka‹ grafhsÒmena moi. Ka‹ l°jv d° soi toÁw diorismoÁw §p‹ t«n prokeim°nvn farmãkvn §n prosyÆk˙ tri«n µ tettãrvn sullab«n genom°nouw: [965] ıpo¤an prosyÆkhn §p‹ toË prokeim°nou katå tÚn §nest«ta lÒgon farmãkou toË Mnasa¤ou fa¤netai pepoihm°now ı ÉAndrÒmaxow. ÉEn går t“ katalÒgƒ t«n mhl¤nvn §mplãstrvn §ndekãt˙ tª tãjei grãcaw aÈtØn oÈx èpl«w efipe›n ±rk°syh kayãper §p‹ t«n ¶mprosyen efirhm°nvn, êll˙ ka‹ êll˙ progrãfvn aÈt«n, éllå pros°yhke tÚ “èpalÆ”. ToËtÉ oÔn ±j¤oun aÈtÚn §p‹ pas«n pepoihk°nai ka‹ katÉ aÈtãw ge tåw mhl¤naw ∑rxyai m¢n épÚ t∞w èpalvtãthw, metabãnta d¢ épÉ aÈt∞w §p‹ tØn fisxurot°ran Ùl¤gƒ dedhlvk°nai, prosgrãcanta braxe› m°n tini taÊthw fisxurot°ran e‰nai tØn deut°ran, §ke¤nhw dÉ aÔ pãlin fisxurot°ran e‰nai tØn tr¤thn, e‰tÉ §ke¤nhw tØn dÉ. ÜVsper aÔ pãlin, e‡ tina ‡shn ’eto dÊnamin ¶xein, aÈtÚ

1

ci ego: katå K

  ‒  

355

[sc different degrees] according to the proportion of these three simple components to each other. For the three [sc substances] mixed in can be of the same weight and measure—and many say that Mnaseas himself composed it [sc the plaster] from three equal [sc substances]; or two can be equal and the third not equal but less or more; or all three [sc substances] mixed in can be unequal. Now the medicine will be milder in action [dunamis] if the litharge mixed in is in larger quantity, but stronger if it [sc the litharge] is in smaller quantity; again, [sc it will be] more emollient if we mix in more of the swine fat, more conducive towards diaphoresis if [sc we mix in] more of the olive-oil. Further, something else occurs too when a larger quantity of olive-oil is mixed in, since it [sc the olive-oil] has a great power [dunamis] to make the medicine conducive towards diaphoresis in the highest degree. This is the case, as I have explained in book 1, if you boil it [sc the composition] over a longer period of time. So if you boil the litharge alone in a larger quantity of olive-oil, the medicine will be drier. [964] But if you want it to have the consistency of a plaster, you will boil it [sc the litharge] in a larger quantity adding more olive-oil; because, if one would not take care of this but were to boil both the [sc the composition] containing the smaller quantity of olive-oil and the one containing the larger quantity for equal periods of time, it is clear that the one where the larger quantity of olive-oil was mixed in will have a more emollient action [dunamis], just as if one would wish to use it as a pain-killer, having thrown raw litharge too into the olive-oil. Therefore I strongly advise that you keep in mind what I have repeated many times over: let us not proceed in the manner of people who make their decisions on the basis of components [ pharmaka], unqualifiedly, claiming unqualifiedly that such and such composition of the medicine [ pharmakon] is better than such and such composition; for each one can have a good effect on affections which differ by kind, and sometimes on the same [sc affection] at different phases [kairoi ]. Anyone who has already heard all that was said now, not only the industrious and those endowed with memory but anyone who is perceptive by nature, will read with profit what I have written and what I shall write in the divisions [diorismoi ]. I will tell you that, in the case of the present medicines, the divisions are to be found in an appendix [ prostheke] of three or four syllables; [965] an appendix of the sort [sc that I have made] presently in this book around the medicine of Mnaseas appears to have been made by Andromachus. For in his catalogue of quince-plasters, in writing about the eleventh one, he did not content himself to speak [sc about it] unqualifiedly, as he had done with the ones previously dealt with, listing them one after another, but he added the [sc specification] “weak”. Well, I would have liked him to do this with all of them; as for the quince plasters, [sc I would have liked him] to start from the weakest one, then to proceed from it to the stronger, with a short clarification, adding that the second is just a trifle stronger than the first, and then again, the third [sc stronger] than the second and the fourth [sc stronger] than the third. Likewise, if he thought that one [sc plaster] is equal [sc to another] in power

356

5

10

15

20

  ‒  -

toËto prosgrãcai, µ e‡per eÈlabo›to kinduneÊein ¶n ge ta›w toiaÊtaiw épofãsesin, éllå tã ge èplç malaktikå fãrmaka prodidãjai, tÚ mçllÒn te ka‹ ∏tton §n aÈto›w diorisãmenon, ˜pvw ı énagign≈skvn §fej∞w tåw ÍpÉ aÈtoË gegramm°naw malaktikåw §mplãstrouw pollåw fisxurot°ran m¢n e‰nai gnvr¤z˙ tØn diå stÊrakow, émmvniakoË te ka‹ bdell¤ou ka‹ propÒlevw ka‹ xalbãnhw, st°atÒw te [966] taure¤ou ka‹ trage¤ou ka‹ t«n muel«n sugkeim°nhn, ésyen∞ d¢ tØn mhd¢n toÊtvn ¶xousan, éllÉ ≥toi pãnta ésyen∞ katå tØn dÊnamin µ toÊtvn m¢n aÈt«n fisxurÒtera, m°sa d¢ ta›w krãses¤ te ka‹ dunãmesin µ metå toË mem¤xyai to›w ésyen°sin ßn ti t«n fisxur«n µ dÊv. D∞lon går ˜ti tÚ metajÁ plãtow §n ëpasi to›w farmãkoiw oÈk Ùl¤gon §st‹ katå tÚ mçllÒn te ka‹ ∏tton §p‹ koinª dunãmei pãntvn aÈt«n genik«w nooum°n˙, kayÉ ∂n ımogen∞ te ka‹ ımoeid∞ tå fãrmaka l°getai, kayãper ge ßtera diaf°ronta genika›w µ efidika›w diafora›w. ÑOpÒtÉ oÔn taËtã moi divr¤syh ka¤ tiw §j aÈtvn ırm≈menow oÈ xalep«w dunÆsetai diagin≈skein tã te dÊnamin fisxurot°ran ¶xonta ka‹ tå malakvt°ran, tØn flstor¤an aÈt«n ≥dh poiÆsomai, tåw gegramm°naw to›w §mpeirotãtoiw t«n farmãkvn éndrãsin, e‡tÉ §mplãstrouw Ùnomãzein §y°loiw e‡te malãgmata, grãcaw §fej∞w. ÖArjomai dÉ épÚ t«n ÍpÉ ÉAsklhpiãdou gegramm°nvn §n t“ dÉ T«n §ktÒw, ì Mark°llaw §pigrãfei.

FR 124DUB. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM PER GENERA

(7)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, VI, vii, pp. 983–984 K: [vii, 983] Mãlagma ÉAntipãtrou prÚw kvlikoÁw ka‹ pãnta tå §ntÒw: silf¤ou bÉ §lelisfãkou dÉ kass¤aw dÉ melany¤ou dÉ 25 staf¤dow égr¤aw dÉ xalbãnhw dÉ strouy¤ou dÉ ye¤ou épÊ[984]rou dÉ pãnakow zÉ 30 propÒlevw zÉ pur°yrou zÉ

  ‒  -

357

[dunamis], [sc I would have liked him] to add this too; or, if he was really concerned that one might go wrong with such catalogues, [sc I would have liked him] especially to teach us beforehand the simple ingredients [ pharmaka] with emollient properties, having made distinctions among them according to the more and the less, so that the reader who comes across the numerous emollient plasters as they are recorded by him in succession may be familiar with the fact that the one made of storax, gum-ammoniac, bdellium, bee-glue, galbanum, swine fat, [966] oxen fat, goat fat, and marrow is stronger, whereas the one which contains none of these [sc ingredients] is weak—either all its [sc ingredients] are weaker in their action [dunamis] or they are stronger than the above but rendered moderate either through their combinations [kraseis] and powers [dunameis] or by means of mixing one or two of the stronger [sc ingredients] with the weak ones. For it is clear that the middle range in all the medicines [ pharmaka] is not small in point of the more and the less relative to the common action [dunamis] of all of them, which is thought of as a genus and according to which the medicines are said to be of the same genus and of the same kind, like the other [sc things] which differ among themselves through differentiae related to genus and species. So when I will have made the divisions so that someone starting from them would have no difficulty in recognising the [sc medicines] with a stronger action [dunamis] and those with a weaker one, I will record their written account [historia] and the [sc accounts] written by those men who were most experienced in medicines [ pharmaka], dealing with them in succession, no matter whether you wish to call them plasters or emollients. I will start from the [sc plasters] recorded by Asclepiades in the fourth book of External applications, which he entitled Marcellae.

FR 124DUB. GALENUS, ON

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES BY KINDS

(7)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines by kinds, VI, vii, pp. 983–984 K: [vii, 983] Antipater’s emollient plaster for patients suffering from diseases of the colon and for all internal [sc complaints]: two [sc drachmae] of silphium; four [sc drachmae] of salvia; four [sc drachmae] of cassia; four [sc drachmae] of melanthion; four [sc drachmae] of stavesacre; four [sc drachmae] of galbanum; four [sc drachmae] of stroution; four [sc drachmae] of native [984] sulphur; seven [sc drachmae] of all-heal; seven [sc drachmae] of bee-glue; seven [sc drachmae] of pellitory;

358

5

  ‒  -

émmvniakoË yumiãmatow zÉ n¤trou zÉ ÉAs¤ou ênyouw keÉ khroË rnÉ =ht¤nhw rnÉ §la¤ou kotÊlhn aÉ.

FR 125. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM PER GENERA

(8)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum per genera, VI, xii, pp. 1009– 1010 K:

10

15

20

25

[xii, 1009] Tå ÍpÉ ÉAsklhpiãdou gegramm°na katå tÚ dÉ T«n §ktÒw, êkopã te ka‹ murãkopa. ÖAkopa prÚw tåw §k kÒpvn éhd¤aw poie› ka‹ neurika›w sumpaye¤aiw. ÉExrÆsato d¢ Yem¤svn: tÚ fãrmakÒn §sti sfÒdra kalÒn: samcÊxou j°sthn aÉ libanvt¤dow j°sthn aÉ tÆlevw j°sthn aÉ karda[1010]m≈mou j°stou ¥misu brãyuow j°stou ¥misu o‡nou glukãzontow j°staw gÉ §la¤ou Benafrãnou l¤traw gÉ khroË l¤traw bÉ. Tå jhrå bal∆n efiw tÚn o‰non ¶a br°xesyai §p‹ gÉ ≤m°raw: tª dÉ §pioÊs˙ bal∆n tÚ ¶laion ka‹ kinÆsaw §pimel«w ka‹ ye‹w §pÉ ényrãkvn ßce kin«n. Ka‹ ˜tan sunex«w énabrãs˙, ¶kylibe tÚ ÍgrÚn ka‹ tÚn khrÚn kataknÆsaw ka‹ efiw toËto §pibal∆n ka‹ pãlin §piye‹w §p‹ tÚ pËr, ßce. Ka‹ ˜tan takª ı khrÚw êraw épÚ toË purÒw, ¶a cug∞nai, ka‹ énacÊjaw épÒyou efiw êggow Í°linon µ kassit°rinon ka‹ xr«, pot¢ m¢n ékrãtƒ, pot¢ d¢ ka‹ éniem°nƒ •n‹ t«n mÊrvn.

FR 126. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM SECUNDUM LOCOS

(1)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, II i, pp. 512–513 K: [512] Per‹ t«n xronizous«n §n tª kefalª diay°sevn yerm«n te ka‹ cuxr«n. ÉEp‹ t«n xronizous«n kefalalgik«n diay°sevn énagka›on

  ‒  -

359

seven [sc drachmae] of ammoniac incense; seven [sc drachmae] of soda; twenty-five [sc drachmae] of Asian flower; one hundred and fifty [sc drachmae] of bees-wax; one hundred and fifty [sc drachmae] of pine-resin; one kotyle of olive oil.

FR 125. GALENUS, ON

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES BY KINDS

(8)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines by kinds, VI, xii, pp. 1009– 1010 K: [xii, 1009] The medicines recorded by Asclepiades in the fourth book of External Applications—pain-killers and scented pain-killers. Pain-killers are efficacious against fits of nausea resulting from fatigue and against sympathetic nervous reactions. Themison used [sc the following one]—the medicine is extremely efficacious: one sextarius of marjoram; one sextarius of rosemary; one sextarius of fenugreek; half a sextarius of cardamum; [1010] half a sextarius of savin; three sextarii of sweet wine; three litrae of oil from Venafrum; two litrae of bees-wax. Throw the dry [sc ingredients] in wine and allow them to soak for three days; on the next day throw the oil in, stir [sc the compound] carefully and put it on a slow fire, then boil it, stirring. When it bubbles up homogeneously, squeeze out the liquid, chop up the wax and throw it in, then return [sc the compound] to the fire and boil it. When the wax has melted remove it from the fire, leave it to cool, and when it has cooled transfer it into a vessel of glass or tin and use it, either simple or treated with one of the unguents.

FR 126. GALENUS, ON

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES ACCORDING TO PLACES

(1)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines according to places, II i, pp. 512– 513 K: [512] Concerning chronic states, hot and cold, in [sc the area of ] the head. In the case of chronic headaches, one must get the [sc patient’s]

360

  ‒  -

g¤nesyai jurån tØn kefalØn µ §n xr“ pãnu ke¤ranta fãrmaka prosf°rein §mplastr≈dh te ka‹ khrvtoeid∞ ka‹ Ígra: tå m¢n oÔn §mplastr≈dh te ka‹ khrvtoeid∞ tª jurhye¤s˙ kefalª, tå d¢ Ígrå tª braxutãtaw §xoÊs˙ tr¤xaw. ÖEsti d¢ ka‹ ≤ toÊtvn Ïlh polueidÆw, t«n m¢n [513] 5 mçllon t«n dÉ ∏tton cuxÒntvn te ka‹ yermainÒntvn: tå m¢n oÔn cÊxonta metaf°rein épÚ t«n yerapeuÒntvn tå §rusip°lata, tå d¢ yerma¤nonta diå t«n yermainÒntvn farmãkvn sunyet°on. äVn èploÊstaton m°n §sti tÚ diÉ eÈforb¤ou skeuazÒmenon: érke› d¢ m¤an go §mbãllein eÈforb¤ou tris‹ khroË tethku¤aiw §n §la¤ou l¤tr& miò. Xr∞syai dÉ §la¤ƒ prÚw 10 pãnta tå yerma¤nesyai pãyh deÒmena, mÆtÉ Ùmfak¤nƒ mÆte t“ sunÆyvw ÍpÚ pãntvn Ùnomazom°nƒ1 “ÑIspan“” mÆyÉ ˜lvw §skeuasm°nƒ metå yall«n, éllÉ oÂÒn §sti tÚ §k pepe¤rvn §lai«n ginÒmenon §n pollo›w ¶ynesin êneu yall«n §mblÆsevw. ÖAriston dÉ œn o‰da tÚ Sab›nÒn §stin, oÈ pÒrrv ÑR≈mhw §n tª Sab¤nvn x≈r& genn≈menon. ÜOsa dÉ ofl ne≈teroi t«n 15 fiatr«n, ofl kaloËntew •autoÁw MeyodikoÊw, Ùnomãzousi “metasugkritikå fãrmaka”, taËta pãnta xrÆsima ta›w toiaÊtaiw diay°ses¤n §stin, œn tå kãllista §n t“ t∞w pragmate¤aw t∞w prÚ taÊthw •bdÒmƒ e‡rhta¤ moi.

1

ego: Ùnhmazom°nƒ K

FR 127. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM SECUNDUM LOCOS

(2)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, II i, pp. 559–560 K: [559] Per‹ t∞w katå tØn sumpãyeian kefalalg¤aw. Efi m¢n ˜lƒ t“ s≈mati sumpãsxei ≤ kefalÆ, toÊtou pronoht°on prÒw te tØn duskras¤an ka‹ 20 prÚw tØn kratoËsan Ïlhn §pistam°nvw. Ka‹ efi m¢n e‡h pl∞yow ka‹ mãlista katå tåw fl°baw, flebotomÆsomen: efi d¢ mçllon poiÒthw, kayartik“ xrhsÒmeya farmãkƒ. Efi d¢ mor¤ƒ sumpãsxei, oÂon ¥pati µ gastr‹ µ stomãxƒ, toÊtoiw bohyht°on: yerm∞w m¢n §n aÈto›w Ípokeim°nhw duskras¤aw, êrton §j ÍdaroËw o‡nou parasxÒntaw ka‹ tå diå xÒndrou 25 =ofÆmata ka‹ tåw ¶jvyen metr¤vw §mcuxoÊsaw te ka‹ tonoÊsaw §pibroxãw, …w ¶mprosyen [560] e‡rhtai: efi d¢ diå gl¤sxrouw te ka‹ paxe›w xumoÁw §n t“ stomãxƒ periexom°nouw kefalalgo›en, ka‹ toÊtouw §kmoxleÊsomen ÙjÊmeli p¤nein par°xontew, tÒ te èploËn ka‹ tÚ ÉIouliãneion: ka‹ to›w diÉ Íss≈pou te ka‹ Ùrigãnou ka‹ to›w toÊtvn ¶ti yermot°roiw te ka‹ 30 tmhtikvt°roiw ka‹ t“ épÚ =afan¤dvn §m°tƒ xrhst°on, §pibroxa›w te yermot°raiw ka‹ kataplãsmasi.

  ‒  -

361

head shaved or apply cutting medicines on its very skin, either in the form of plasters and cerates or liquid ones: namely, medicines in the form of plasters and cerates if the head has been shaved, liquid medicines if it has extremely short hair. Again, the material [hule] for these medicines is very diverse, since some of them [513] cool or heat more, others less; and [sc one should] derive the cooling [sc medicines] from [sc ingredients] which treat erysipelas, while the heating ones are to be composed of heating ingredients [ pharmaka]. Among the latter, the simplest is the one made from spurge: it suffices to throw one ounce of spurge in three [sc ounces] of wax, dissolved in one litra of oil. One must use oil in all the affections that require heating—not [sc oil] of unripe olives and not [sc the oil] usually called “Spanish” by everyone—in short, not [sc the oil] prepared from young green shoots, but [sc oil] such as it is produced by many populations from ripe olives, without any throwing in [emblesis] of young green shoots. The best among the ones I know is Sabine [sc oil], produced in the area inhabited by the Sabines, not far from Rome. As for what the modern doctors, those who style themselves Methodists, call “metasyncritic medicines”, all of them are useful for such states; I have mentioned the best ones in the seventh book of the manual that precedes the present one.

FR 127. GALENUS, ON

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES ACCORDING TO PLACES

(2)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines according to places, II i, pp. 559– 560 K: [559] Concerning sympathetic headache. If the head suffers sympathetically with the whole body, you should exercise understanding in taking care both of the duskrasia [= bad mixture] and of the matter which predominates. If there is abundance, and especially in the veins, we will apply venesection; if the quality [sc of the humours] is the problem, we will use a cleansing medicine. If it [sc the head] is in sympathy with a part, for instance the liver, the stomach, or the oesophagus, we should come to the rescue of these [sc organs]: if the duskrasia in them is hot, we should administer bread [sc soaked] in wine that was mixed with excessive water; porridges of spelt groats; and baths which have a moderately refreshing and invigorating effect on the external parts—as I said earlier; [560] on the other hand, if [sc the patient] suffers from headache because of glutinous and thick humours which run through his stomach, we will dislodge these too, by giving [sc the patient] oxymel to drink—either the simple one or the one of Julian; we should also use the [sc medicines] made of hyssop and origanum and others, even hotter and more pungent than these, then vomiting with the help of radishes, hotter baths and plasters.

362

  ‒  - FR 128. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM SECUNDUM LOCOS

(3)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, II ii, pp. 568 + 571–572 K: [568] Per‹ kataplasmãtvn §n kefalalg¤&. [. . .] [571] SfÒdra d¢ xronisãntvn sinãpize tØn kefalÆn …w ¶yow ka‹ diãkaie: pãntvn t«n §piple›ston xronizÒntvn pay«n, ˜tan mhd¢n énÊ˙ tå bohyÆmata, tØn “metasugkritikØn” ÍpÚ t«n Meyodik«n Ùnomazom°nhn yerape¤an ëpan5 tew sxedÚn efi≈yasi poie›syai. T«n m¢n pr≈tvn §pÉ aÈtØn éfikom°nvn fiatr«n oÈk o‰da t¤ni logism“ xrhsam°nvn, §g∆ dÉ §fÉ œn ≥toi duskras¤a tiw Ígrå ka‹ cuxrå to›w pãsxousi mor¤oiw §st¤n, aÈtØ kayÉ •autØn [572] µ diå cuxrÒthta xum«n toioÊtvn gegenhm°nh, tå diå nãpuow ka‹ yac¤aw ka‹ t«n ımo¤vn aÈto›w prosf°rv fãrmaka: ta›w d¢ yerma›w ka‹ 10 jhra›w oÈ prosf°rv. To›w m°ntoi mØ dunam°noiw gnvr¤zein tåw diay°seiw ≤ katafugÆ, kayãper §p‹ tØn kaloum°nhn flerån êgkuran, efiw tå toiaËta g¤netai fãrmaka, ka‹ diå toËto pollãkiw énÊousi tÚ d°on—˜ti to›w ple¤stoiw t«n ényr≈pvn afl toiaËtai diay°seiw §noxloËsi moxyhr«w diaitvm°noiw.

FR 129DUB. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM SECUNDUM LOCOS

(4)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, III i, pp. 624 + 630 K: 15 [624] ÉVtika‹ [sc dunãmeiw] ÉAndromãxou tÚn ériymÚn kdÉ [. . .] [630] ÉVtikØ [sc dÊnamiw] ÉAntipãtrou prÚw perivdun¤aw: krÒkou go bÉ (ofl d¢ go aÉ) smÊrnhw go aÉ èlÚw émmvniakoË go aÉ [stupthr¤a]1 a sxist∞w, émmvniakoË yumiãmatow: énå go S” 20 mÊrou fir¤nou µ SuriakoË Ípostãymhw go bÉ. SÁn ofinom°liti µ Krhtik“ poi«n m°litow pãxow leptoË xr«. a

But it is possible that sxistÆ came to designate the whole phrase just by itself: some of the neighbouring prescriptions suggest this, cf eg pp. 629 K, l 13; 630 K, ll 8–9 (sxistÆ, viz stupthr¤a sxistÆ in most other cases).

add ego; uide et alumen scissum in uersione Latina, quod passim stupthr¤a sxistÆ reddit 1

  ‒  - FR 128. GALENUS, ON

363

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES ACCORDING TO PLACES

(3)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines according to places, II ii, pp. 568 + 571–572 K: [568] Concerning plasters in [sc the treatment of ] headache. [. . .] [571] If they [sc headaches] become pronouncedly chronic, apply a mustardplaster onto the head, as the custom is, and burn them through. For all the affections which become basically chronic, when the remedies bring no succour, almost all [sc the doctors] are in the habit of applying the therapy which the Methodists call “metasyncritic”. I don’t know what reasoning the doctors used when they arrived at them for the first time; I for one administer medicines made of mustard, thapsia, and suchlike in cases where there is humid or cold duskrasia [= bad mixture] in the affected parts, be it generated on its own [572] or from the coldness of the humours in question; but I do not administer them in cases of hot and dry [sc duskrasia]. Those, however, who are not capable of recognising the states take refuge in such medicines as if they were the so-called sacred anchor; and often the reason why they accomplish the right thing is that in most cases such states give trouble to people because they pursue the wrong regimen.

FR 129DUB. GALENUS, ON

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES ACCORDING TO PLACES

(4)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines according to places, III i, pp. 624 + 630 K: [624] Twenty-four [sc prescriptions] for ears by Andromachus. [. . .] [630] [sc Prescription] for ears by Antipater, for excessive pain: two ounces of saffron (one according to others); one ounce of myrrh; one ounce of ammoniac salt; cloven [sc alum], ammoniac incense: half an ounce each; two ounces of sediment of iris oil or Syrian oil. Give it the consistency of light honey by using mead or Cretan sweet wine, then use it.

364

  ‒  - FR 130. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM SECUNDUM LOCOS

(5)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, III ii, pp. 668 + 677 K: [ii, 668] ÉArxig°nouw prÚw parvt¤daw. [. . .] [677] TaËta m¢n ı ÉArxig°nhw ¶gracen. Efis‹ d¢ ka‹ ¶mplastroi polla¤, diaforoËsai 1 parvt¤daw: afl m°n tinew tåw ≥dh skirroum°naw ka‹ kexronism°naw, afl d¢ tåw pepaum°naw m¢n t∞w ÙdÊnhw oÈdem¤an dÉ ÍpÒfasin §xoÊsaw pÊou kayãper 5 ge ka‹ tåw ≥dh diapuÛskom°naw §kyerapeÊousai. Gegramm°nai dÉ efisi metå t∞w fid¤aw §paggel¤aw §n ta›w §mplãstroiw ta›w diaforhtika›w afl toiaËtai: kayãper ge ka‹ a·de tåw èplçw parvt¤daw §kyerapeÊousai xalastika‹ kaloÊmenai, pçs¤n efisi gn≈rimoi. Parade¤gmata aÈt«n ¥ te Mnas°ou ka‹ ≤ diå xul«n ka‹ ≤ diå ptisãnhw.

1

add ego

FR 131DUB. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM SECUNDUM LOCOS

(6)

Galenus, De compoositione medicamentorum secundum locos, III iii, pp. 684–685 K: 10 [684] PrÚw tå §n mukt∞rsi polÊpoda ⁄ §xrÆsato ÉAnt¤patrow: xalkoË kekaum°nou < dÉ m¤ltou Sinvp¤dow < aÉ: [685] le¤oiw §mfÊsa diå kalam¤dow, éllå ka‹ parãptou pur∞ni mÆlhw.

FR 132DUB. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM SECUNDUM LOCOS

(7)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, IV viii, p. 760 K: [760] ÖAllo, Dionus¤ou §pigrafÒmenon:

  ‒  - FR 130. GALENUS, ON

365

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES ACCORDING TO PLACES

(5)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines according to places, III ii, pp. 668 + 677 K: [ii, 668] By Archigenes, for tumours of the parotid gland. [. . .] [677] This is what Archigenes wrote. There are also numerous plasters, which differ according to the tumours of the parotid gland: some [sc are designed] to cure tumours that have already become indurated and chronic; others, tumours which have ceased giving pain and show no trace of pus, as well as tumours which still suppurate throughout. Such [sc remedies], together with the recommendation [epangelia] of their individual properties, are recorded among diaphoretic plasters; they are known to everybody, along with those called relaxing, which are designed to cure simple tumours of the parotid gland. Examples [sc of diaphoretic plasters] include the plaster of Mnaseas, the plaster of juices, and the plaster of barley-gruel.

FR 131DUB. GALENUS, ON

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES ACCORDING TO PLACES

(6)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines according to places, III iii, pp. 684–685 K: [684] [sc The medicine] for polypus in the nostrils used by Antipater: four drachmae of burnt copper; one drachma of red earth from Sinope; [685] pound them and blow them [sc into the nostril] with the help of a phial, or else apply them with the head of a probe.

FR 132DUB. GALENUS, ON

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES ACCORDING TO PLACES

(7)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines according to places, IV viii, p. 760 K: [760] Another [sc eye-salve], attributed to Dionysius:

366

  ‒  -

cimuy¤ou draxmåw lhÉ fioË sk≈lhkow < istÉ mhkvne¤ou < hÉ kÒmmevw draxmåw dÉ Ïdati Ùmbr¤ƒ: ≤ xr∞siw diå gãlaktow. 5

FR 133DUB. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM SECUNDUM LOCOS

(8)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, VI vi, pp. 935 + 936–938 K: [935] Tå xvr‹w xul«n suntiy°mena stomatikå fãrmaka diÉ ˆjouw ka‹ khk¤dvn. [. . .] [936] “StomatikØ ÉAristokl°ouw prÚw sunãgxaw ka‹ tå loipå tå §n t“ stÒmati: taÊt˙ ka‹ ÉAnt¤patrow §xrÆsato: khk¤daw ériym“ lÉ ˆjouw leukoË kÊayon aÉ S” (ofl d¢ kuãyouw yÉ) 10 smÊrnhw hÉ nãrdou ÉIndik∞w aÉ =oË t∞w §p‹ tå ˆca kÊayon aÉ S” (ofl d¢ kuãyouw yÉ) stupthr¤aw sxist∞w aÉ pep°revw kÒkkouw kÉ 15 m°litow ÉAttikoË kuãyouw bÉ (ofl d¢ kÊayon aÉ S”). ÜEcontai dÉ afl khk¤dew §n t“ ˆjei ßvw ên èpala‹ g°nvntai ka‹ leanye›sai m¤gnuntai t“ m°liti §p‹ t∞w xrÆsevw: tin¢w d¢ ka‹ mandragÒrou sp°rmatow go aÉ.” 20 TaËta m¢n ı ÉAndrÒmaxow ¶grace: tãxa dÉ ên tiw éporÆseie diå t¤ grãcaw “ˆjouw kÊayon aÉ S” pros°gracen “ofl d¢ kuãyouw yÉ”. Parå polÁ går ≤ summetr¤a t∞w summetr¤aw Íper°xei, kayãper ge pãlin kín t“ fãnai “=oË toË §p‹ tå ˆca kÊayon aÉ, ofl d¢ kuãyouw yÉ”. KatamÒnaw oÔn §jetazÒmenon §kãteron épor¤an ¶xei, prÚw êllhla d¢ sumplekÒmena 25 proshkÒntvw g°graptai. ÉEån m¢n går kuãyouw yÉ §mbãllvmen toË ˆjouw, §mbaloËmen [937] ka‹ toË =oË toË §p‹ tå ˆca toÁw aÈtoÁw yÉ. ÉEån d¢ kÊayon aÉ toË ˆjouw, érk°sei ka‹ toË =oË toË §p‹ tå ˆca kÊayow aÉ S”. ÜVstÉ §p‹ m¢n toË pl°on ¶xontow ˆjouw farmãkou tØn ßchsin §p‹ pl°on g¤nesyai, §p‹ d¢ toË ¶latton §pÉ Ùl¤gon. ÖAmeinon d¢ poll“ tÚ 30 §p‹ pl°on: oÏtv går ka‹ afl khk¤dew ¶sontai malaka¤. EÎdhlon1 dÉ ˜ti genna›Òn §sti tÚ fãrmakon, §j §nant¤vn sugke¤menon. Afl m¢n går khk¤dew ka‹ tÚ ˆjow ka‹ ı =oËw stuptik≈tera ¶stai ka‹ épokroustik≈tata, diaforhtik≈taton dÉ §sti tÚ p°peri, mikt∞w dunãmevw ≤ nãrdow: ≤

1

ego: êmeinon K

  ‒  -

367

thirty-eight drachmae of ceruse; sixteen drachmae of earthworm venom; six drachmae of opium; four drachmae of kommi in rain-water; to be administered with milk.

FR 133DUB. GALENUS, ON

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES ACCORDING TO PLACES

(8)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines according to places, VI vi, pp. 935 + 936–938 K: [935] Medicines for the mouth, composed without juices, out of vinegar and oak-galls. [. . .] [936] “Aristocles’ [sc prescription] for the mouth, for sore-throats and the other [sc complaints] in the mouth; Antipater too used this one: thirty oak-galls; one and a half kyathoi of white vinegar (nine kyathoi according to others); eight drachmae of myrrh; one drachma of Indian spikenard; one and a half kyathoi of sumach of the kind used in cooking (nine kyathoi according to others); one drachma of cloven alum; twenty grains of pepper; two kyathoi of Attic honey (one and a half kyathoi according to others). The oak-galls boil in vinegar until they grow soft, and, once triturated, they get mixed with honey, according to usage; some also add one ounce of mandrake seeds.” Now this is what Andromachus wrote; but one may wonder why, having put down “one and a half kyathoi of vinegar”, he added “nine kyathoi according to others”. For one measure exceeds the other by a great amount, as is also the case when he says “one and a half kyathoi of sumach of the kind used in cooking (nine kyathoi according to others)”. Well, if each one is counted separately, there is a problem; but if they are combined with each other, it [sc the prescription] has been written properly. For, if we put in nine kyathoi of vinegar, we will also put in [937] nine kyathoi of sumach of the kind used in cooking. If one and a half kyathoi of vinegar, then one and a half kyathoi of sumach of the kind used in cooking will also do. So, in the case of the medicine which contains more vinegar, the boiling goes on for a longer time; in the case of a medicine which contains less, it goes on for a shorter time. And boiling for a longer time is much better; for in this way the oak-galls will become soft. It is obvious that the medicine is excellent, being composed of opposites. For the oak-galls, vinegar, and

368

  ‒  -

smÊrnh d¢ diaforhtik∞w m°n, éllÉ édÆktou ka‹ parhgorik∞w metå toË sump°ttein: diaforhtik∞w d¢ ka‹ tÚ m°li dunãme≈w §stin, éllå xvr‹w toË dãknein tå §n t“ stÒmati (§peidØ to›w Ùfyalmo›w dakn«d°w §stin). Per‹ d¢ t∞w toË ˆjouw dunãmevw ≥dh pollãkiw énemnÆsamen …w ka‹ 5 t°mnei ka‹ diafore› ka‹ épokroÊetai: tÚ d¢ “leukÚn” prÒskeitai katå tØn grafÆn, ·na leptomer¢w ¬. ÖEnioi d¢ ka‹ toË ˆjouw p°nte kuãyouw ka‹ toË =oË taÈtoÁw §mbãl[938]lousi, metajÊ pvw flstãmenoi t«n te tÚ ple›ston §mballÒntvn ka‹ t«n tÚ §lãxiston •kat°rou. D∞lon oÔn ˜ti m°son §ke¤nvn tª dunãmei tÚ fãrmakon paraskeuãzousin Àsper ka‹ 10 tª summetr¤&.

FR 134. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM SECUNDUM LOCOS

(9)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, VII ii, pp. 40– 42 K: [40] ÑH diå kvdu«n, …w Damokrãthw. ÉEskeuãsyh d¢ tÚ fãrmakon toËto, …w Damokrãthw fhs¤n, ÍpÚ Yem¤svnow pr≈tou, grãfvn oÏtvw §n t“ bibl¤ƒ t“ §pigrafom°nƒ “Damokrãtouw fil¤atrow”—‡smen dÉ ˜ti diå st¤xvn g°graptai. Fas‹ d¢ Yem¤svna toËto pr«ton skeuãsai tÚ fãr15 makon prÚw b∞xaw Ígråw ka‹ pÒnouw érthr¤aw ka‹ fãruggow—e‡dh =eumãtvn èpl«w èpãntvn t«n per‹ tÚn y≈raka ka‹ tåw égrupn¤aw œn ge taËtã §stin a‡tia:

20

25

30

“MÆkvnow ∂n l°gousin ofl gehpÒnoi MÆkvna égr¤an (oÈd¢ gãr pv spe¤retai) Kefalåw ¶ti xlvråw ëw l°gomen ka‹ kvdÊaw, TÚ sp°rmÉ §xoÊsaw kirrÒn, oÈd° pv m°lan, Tr‹w tessarãkonta tåw metr¤aw to›w meg°yesi BãllÉ efiw xÊtran kainÆn te ka‹ platÊstomon Ka‹ perix°aw tre›w Ïdatow Ùmbr¤ou m°trƒ [41] J°staw, épÒbrejon nÊkta x±m°ran m¤an: E‰tÉ aÔ m¤jaw §p‹ pl°on oÈ lãbrƒ pur‹ ÉApÒylibÉ épÉ aÈt«n ëpan Ïdvr efiw tØn xÊtran, Ka‹ proslab∆n tre›w m°litow ÉAttikoË l¤traw Pãlin ßce koufot°r& ka‹ metr¤ƒ flog¤, Ka‹ ßce ßvw sxª m°litow oÈx ÍgroË pãxow: CÊjaw dÉ époyÆseiw efiw ÍeloËn ègge›on. ÑHme›w m¢n oÏtvw. ÑO Yem¤svn dÉ ˜tÉ ≥rjato Xr∞syai pros°balle smÊrnan, ékak¤an, krÒkon, ÑUpokust¤dow xulÒn te: nËn dÉ oÈ bãlletai.

  ‒  -

369

sumach will be rather astringent and repelling, while the pepper is rather diaphoretic, and the spikenard has a mixed power; myrrh is diaphoretic, yet not biting, and, after cooking, it has a soothing quality; honey, too, has a diaphoretic power, but without being mordant for [sc the sensory apparatus of ] the mouth (considering that it is mordant for the eyes). Concerning the power of vinegar, we have many times now referred to the fact that it dilutes, disperses, and drives things away; in the prescription, “white” is added in order to mark it [sc vinegar] as being composed of small particles [leptomeres]. Some in fact put in five kyathoi of vinegar and just as many of sumach, [938] taking a middle line between those who put in the maximum or the minimum quantities of each. Well, it is clear that they prepare a medicine which achieves the mean between the two, in power as well as in quantity.

FR 134. GALENUS, ON

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES ACCORDING TO PLACES

(9)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines according to places, VII ii, pp. 40–42 K: [40] The [sc arteriac] made of poppy-heads, as [sc transmitted] by Damocrates. This medicine was prepared for the first time by Themison, as Damocrates says, recording it as follows in the book that bears the inscription “by Damocrates the lover of medicine”—we know that it was written in verse. He says that Themison was the first to prepare this medicine, [sc which is] for humid coughs and pains of the trachea and pharynx, and, in short, for all kinds of discharge around the chest and the [sc fits of ] sleeplessness that they cause: “Throw into a new wide-mouthed earthen pot three times thirty moderately-sized heads of the poppy which country-labourers call ‘wild poppy’ (for it is not sown)—still freshly picked, of the kind we call ‘poppy-heads’ [koduai ], and which bear orange-tawny seeds, not black ones; pour on them three sextarii of rain water, [41] soaking them for one night and one day; then mix them again, [sc keeping them] for a long time over a fire which is not quick; squeeze all the water from them into the pot, add three litrae of Attic honey, and boil them again over a lighter and mild flame—boil until [sc the compound] acquires the consistency of non-fluid honey. When it has cooled, stow it away in a glass vessel. This is how we prepare it. When Themison started using it, he also put in myrrh, acacia, saffron, and juice of hypocist; but we do not put these in nowadays. For when it

370

  ‒  -

ÑAploust°ra går oÔsa ka‹ tÚ sumf°ron ÖExei polÁ mçllon ka‹ proshnÆw §stÉ êgan. D¤dou d¢ pl∞yow smikrotãtou mÊstrou, potÉ Efiw nÊkta toËto, pot¢ dÉ ¶latton ≤m°raw: ÉEn t“ stÒmati ka‹ diakratoËntÉ1 Ùl¤gƒ xrÒnƒ K°leue tÆkein ka‹ katap¤nein ±r°ma. Efi dÉ aÈtÚ boÊlei koil¤aw §fektikÒn, T«n =eumãtvn te toË stomãxou ka‹ pneÊmonow [42] Aflmorragi«n te t«n ênv diafrãgmatow Poie›n, eÈpatorik∞w µ tÚ kre›tton Pontik∞w ÑRoÚw katam¤jeiw xulÚn …w draxmåw dÊo, TaÈtÚn dÉ ékak¤aw t∞w kal∞w ka‹ prosfãtou. M°llvn dÉ éfaire›n toË purÚw tÚ fãrmakon GlukÁ diax°aw, taËta dÊo m¤gmata Parãxei katå mikrÚn to›w z°ousin t∞w xÊtraw: Sunekz°saw épot¤you Íãlƒ cug°n.”

5

10

15

1

ego: diakratoËn K

FR 135DUB. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM SECUNDUM LOCOS

(10)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, VII iii, p. 66 K: [66] PÒtima prÚw b∞xaw ka‹ dÊspnoian ka‹ êlla pollå ÉAntipãtrou, ⁄ xr«mai: StÊrakow draxmåw stÉ terminy¤nhw dÉ 20 Ùpopãnakow draxmåw bÉ xalbãnhw bÉ ‡revw ÉIllurik∞w draxmåw bÉ smÊrnhw draxmåw bÉ Íoskuãmou sp°rmatow leukoË tetr≈bolon 25 éfron¤trou tetr≈bolon pep°revw leukoË tetr≈bolon Ùp¤ou ÙboloÁw eÉ. D¤dou ≤l¤kon AfigÊptiow kÊamow efiw ko¤thn. Ka¤ tinew toË Ùp¤ou aÉ, ofl 30 d¢ tri≈bolon.

  ‒  -

371

[sc the medicine] is simpler it is much more convenient, as well as very soft. Administer the quantity contained in the tiniest spoon—sometimes that much for the night, sometimes a lesser quantity for the day; and order [sc the patient] either to dissolve it by holding it in the mouth, or to swallow it gently. If you want it [sc the medicine] to stop the bowels and to be efficient against discharges of the stomach and lung [42] and against haemorrhages above the midriff, add eupatoric sumach or, better still, Pontic sumach, about two drachmae, and the same amount of fresh, good-quality acacia. When you are about to remove the medicine from above the fire, dilute it with sweet wine, then slowly pour these two components on top of the [sc ingredients] that boil in the pot; when they have boiled together, stow the cooled [sc medicine] in a glass vessel.”

FR 135DUB. GALENUS, ON

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES ACCORDING TO PLACES

(10)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines according to places, VII iii, p. 66 K: [66] Antipater’s potion for coughs, difficulty in breathing, and many other [sc similar ailments], which I use: Six drachmae of storax; four [sc drachmae] of turpentine; two drachmae of opopanax; two [sc drachmae] of galbanum; two drachmae of Illyrian iris; two drachmae of myrrh; four obols of the seed of white henbane; four obols of native soda; four obols of white pepper; five obols of poppy-juice. Administer before sleep, as much of it as an Egyptian bean. Some use one [sc drachma] of poppy-juice, others three obols.

372

  ‒   FR 136. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM SECUNDUM LOCOS

(11)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, VIII i, pp. 116– 118 K:

5

10

15

20

25

[i, 116] ÜOper ée‹ l°gv ka‹ nËn §r«, pepeism°now ˜ti xalep≈tatÒn §sti metast∞nai prÚw tØn élÆyeian toÁw fyãsantaw aflr°sei douleÊein. ÜOsoi d¢ suneto¤ te ëma ka‹ élhye¤aw ˆntvw f¤loi, toÊtouw §lp¤zv fulãjein tå parå t∞w fÊsevw ≤m›n doy°nta kritÆria t«n katå tÚn b¤on prãjevn, §mpeir¤an ka‹ lÒgon, §pÉ §n¤vn m¢n ‡son •kãteron sunteloËn efiw tØn t°xnhn, §pÉ §n¤vn d¢ pl°on yat°rou yã[117]teron, ée‹ m°ntoi prÚw tÚ t°leon •kat°rou deÒmenon: oÏtv poiÆsomai tÚn lÒgon. Afl gãr toi ceude›w dÒjai, prokatalambãnousai tåw cuxåw t«n ényr≈pvn, oÈ mÒnon kvfoÁw éllå ka‹ tufloÁw §rgãzontai t«n to›w êlloiw §narg«w ırvm°nvn. ÜOper oÈx ¥kista ka‹ per‹ t«n katå tÚ stÒma t∞w koil¤aw pay«n §sti, ka‹ mãlisyÉ ˜tan flegma¤n˙. D°ontai går atai ka‹ afl toË ¥patow flegmona‹ t∞w t«n stufÒntvn paraplok∞w. ÉEån går ÍpÚ t∞w xalastik∞w égvg∞w ém¤ktou t∞w tonvtik∞w dunãmevw genom°nhw yerapeÊvntai, k¤ndunon §pãgontai per‹ t∞w zv∞w aÈt∞w: ka‹ toËto pãntvn m¢n t«n ÉEmpeirik«n fiatr«n ÍpÚ t∞w pe¤raw dedidagm°nvn, pãntvn d¢ t«n Dogmatik«n §p‹ t«n ¶rgvn t∞w t°xnhw fulattÒntvn, oÈk Ùl¤goi t«n nËn Meyodik«n (oÈ går dØ pãntew ge) mur¤oiw m¢n aÈto‹ stomaxiko›w sugkop∞w a‡tioi gegÒnasin, ëpantaw d¢ toÁw ≤patikoÁw énairoËsin: oÈd°na går e‰don §g∆ svy°nta t«n efiw toioËton fiatrÚn §mpesÒntvn. Tin¢w dÉ aÈt«n (Ùl¤goi m°n) katantloËsin §la¤ƒ kÒmhn [118] §napozennÊntew1 éciny¤ou ka‹ nard¤nƒ mÊrƒ br°jantew ¶rion §pid°ousin. ÖEnioi d¢ ka‹ mast¤xhw X¤aw mignÊousin µ élÒhw µ mÆlinon ént‹ nãrdou paralambãnousin. ÉEp‹ d¢ t«n plous¤vn gunaik«n ka‹ tÚ kaloÊmenon ÍpÉ aÈt«n foul¤aton ka‹ spikãton prosf°rousi, ka‹ taËta poioËntew o‡ontai tØn xalastikØn égvgØn fulãttein: tosoËton aÈto›w par¤estin §mpeir¤aw farmãkvn dunãmevw. EÈja¤mhn ên pãntaw oÏtvw émaye›w e‰nai mçllon µ gin≈skontaw tå stÊfonta 2 fulãttesyai tØn xr∞sin aÈt«n.

1

corr ego: §napojennÊntew K

2

addidi

  ‒   FR 136. GALENUS, ON

373

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES ACCORDING TO PLACES

(11)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines according to places, VIII i, pp. 116–118 K: [i, 116] Now I shall repeat what I always say: I know from experience that it is extremely difficult to recall to the truth people who are already enslaved to their hairesis. But I hope that those who are intelligent and indeed friends of the truth will safeguard the criteria that nature gave us for [sc judging] the actions of life, namely experience and reason: in some cases each one of these contributes equally towards the art while in other cases one contributes more than the other, [117] but it is always the case that it [sc either one] needs the other for its completion; and I shall compose my argument accordingly. For when false beliefs take hold of the souls of men, they make them not only deaf but also blind to facts that are seen clearly by the others. This applies with equal force in the case of affections around the opening of the stomach, especially when it is inflamed. For such inflammations, as well as those of the liver, need an admixture of astringents. Indeed, if they are treated by a relaxing course unmixed with the power [dunamis] that invigorates, they put in jeopardy even the [sc patient’s] life; and although all the Empiricist doctors have been taught this fact by experience, while all the Dogmatists maintain [sc it] among the results of the [sc medical] art, not a few among the contemporary Methodists (admittedly not all of them) have made themselves responsible for the swooning of thousands of patients afflicted by disorders of the stomach, and have killed all of those who suffered from diseases of the liver; for among those who fell into the hands of such a doctor I know of nobody who survived. It is true that some of them [sc the Methodists] (but only a few) bathe [sc the patients] in oil, [118] boiling in it foliage of wormwood, and, having drenched [sc some] cotton in spikenard oil, bandage them [sc with it]. A few of them mix in even Chian mastich or aloes, or use oil of apples instead of spikenard oil. On rich women they also apply what they call phouliaton and spikaton and they think that by doing this they observe the relaxing course of treatment; that is how much expertise they muster in the power of medicines. I wish they all were ignorant enough to refrain from using astringent substances, rather than having heard about them.

374

  ‒  - FR 137DUB. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM SECUNDUM LOCOS

(12)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, VIII ii, p. 136 K: [136] PrÚw stomaxikoÁw flerå ÉAntipãtrou: élÒhw kal∞w dÉ mast¤xhw bÉ ésãrou dÉ =Òdvn jhr«n, sxo¤nou, mÆou, foË, kass¤aw: ımo¤vw énå go S”. 5 Jhr“ le¤ƒ xr«, …w §p‹ t∞w élÒhw.

FR 138. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM SECUNDUM LOCOS

(13)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, VIII iii, pp. 158– 162 K: [158] ÉEfej∞w to›w progegramm°noiw, tØn ¶mprosyen ≥dh gegramm°nhn ént¤doton flerãn, diÉ élÒhw te ka‹ kinnam≈mou sugkeim°nhn, §n to›w ÉAndromãxou farmãkoiw ka‹ aÈtÚw ¶gracen, oÈ katå tØn aÈtØn sum10 metr¤an. ÖExei dÉ ≤ l°jiw aÈtoË tÒnde tÚn trÒpon: “ÉAnt¤dotow flerå Yem¤svnow prÚw tåw toË stomãxou énatropãw. Poie› ka‹ to›w kausoum°noiw ka‹ prÚw pçsan §mpneumãtvsin ka‹ bradupec¤an ka‹ prÚw tåw per‹ mÆtran diay°seiw. ÖEsti d¢ ka‹ diourhtikØ égayØ ka‹ kayÒlou dÊnamiw yaumastØ Ídrvpiko›w, nefritiko›w, ≤patiko›w: 15 katãgei [159] ka‹ gunaij‹n ¶mmhna: élÒhw rÉ mast¤xhw go aÉ krÒkou go aÉ nãrdou ÉIndik∞w go aÉ kinnam≈mou go aÉ 20 karpobalsãmou go aÉ ésãrou go aÉ: kÒpte, s∞ye leptotãtƒ kosk¤nƒ ka‹ fÊlatte jhrÚn ka‹ édiãpneuston. ÑH xr∞siw prÚw m¢n tåw bradupec¤aw ka‹ toÁw oÏtvw Ígia¤nontaw ılkØ 25 m¤a metå cuxroË Ïdatow kuãyvn dÉ, to›w d¢ xolØn §moËsin µ êllvw pvw =eumatizom°noiw ılk∞w ¥misu. PrÚw d¢ toÁw flegma¤nontãw ti t«n

  ‒  - FR 137DUB. GALENUS, ON

375

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES ACCORDING TO PLACES

(12)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines according to places, VIII ii, p. 136 K: [136] Antipater’s hiera antidote for patients with disorders of the stomach: four [sc measures] of aloes of good quality; two of mastich; four of asaron; dry roses, schoinos, spigne, phou, cassia: half an ounce each, in the same way. Use dry and pounded, as in the case of [sc the antidote made of ] aloes.

FR 138. GALENUS, ON

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES ACCORDING TO PLACES

(13)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines according to places, VIII iii, pp. 158–162 K: [158] . . . Immediately after the above, he too [sc Asclepiades] put down among his medicines an antidote already recorded earlier—the antidote made of aloes and cinnamon—but not in the same proportion [sc of the ingredients]. His words are as follows. “Themison’s antidote for stomach upsets. It is also efficient for patients with heartburns, for every flatulence and difficulty in digestion, and for [sc diseased] states of the womb. In addition, it is a good diuretic and its power [dunamis], on the whole, works wonders for people who suffer from dropsy, nephritis, and diseases of the liver; it also brings forth [159] the menses in women: [sc take] one hundred [sc drachmae] of aloes; one ounce of mastich; one ounce of saffron; one ounce of Indian spikenard; one ounce of cinnamon; one ounce of balsam-fruit; one ounce of asaron; chop them, sift them through a narrow sieve, and keep it [sc the compound] dry and air-tight. Its [sc manner of ] use in cases of difficult digestion and for people who are thus far in good health is [sc by the dosage of ] one holke, taken with four kyathoi of cold water; for people who vomit

376

  ‒  

§ntÚw èrmÒsei meyÉ Ídrom°litow didÒmenon. ÉEfÉ œn dÉ oÔra kine›n proairoÊmeya µ ¶mmhna katãgein, d¤domen metÉ o‡nou tÚ fãrmakon. ÖEsti d¢ katapastÒn.” 5

10

15

20

25

30

35

TaËta m¢n ¶gracen ı ÉAsklhpiãdhw Íp¢r toË prokeim°nou farmãkou. Skec≈meya d¢ pr«ton m¢n §n to›w per‹ t∞w posÒthtow t«n suny°ntvn aÈtØn farmãkvn √ sunef≈nhs°n te ka‹ dief≈nhsen, e‰yÉ •j∞w per‹ t∞w §paggel¤aw te ka‹ xrÆsevw aÈt∞w. ÉEn m¢n dØ tª m¤jei t«n farmãkvn sunef≈nhsan éllÆloiw ˜ tÉ ÉAndrÒmaxow ka‹ ı ÉAsklhpiãdhw §n t“ t∞w élÒhw rÉ §mbãllein draxmãw, dief≈nhsan dÉ ¶n te t“ tÚn ÉAsklhpiãdhn èpl«w “élÒhw” grãcai, tÚn dÉ ÉAndrÒmaxon [160] tÚ “peplum°nhw” prosye›nai: kôn t“ tÚn ÉAsklhpiãdhn t«n êllvn oÈgg¤aw m›jai, tout°stin ılkåw µ draxmåw érguråw hÉ µ •ptå ¥misu, ©j d¢ tÚn ÉAndrÒmaxon: ¶ti tÚ kayÒson m¢n ı ÉAsklhpiãdhw balsãmou karpÒn, ı dÉ ÉAndrÒmaxow julobãlsamon §mbãllei: ka‹ prÚw toÊtoiw ˜ti mhdÉ ˜lvw ı ÉAsklhpiãdhw tÚ ênyow toË sxo¤nou m¤gnusi. Katå d¢ tØn §paggel¤an t«n ¶rgvn toË farmãkou t“ m¢n ÉAndromãxƒ pl°on oÈd¢n g°graptai toË d¤dosyai tis‹ m¢n ©n koxliãrion tis‹ d¢ dÊo, meyÉ Ïdatow cuxroË kuãyvn dÉ µ yermoË. T“ dÉ ÉAsklhpiãd˙ ple¤v per‹ t∞w xrÆsevw e‡rhtai t∞w prokeim°nhw éntidÒtou: prÚw m¢n går tåw duspec¤aw t«n ÍgiainÒntvn keleÊei d¤dosyai m¤an ılkØn meyÉ Ïdatow cuxroË kuãyvn dÉ. (ÑHgoËmai d¢ l°gein aÈtÚn draxmØn érgurçn: ka‹ går oÏtv sxedÚn ëpasi to›w nevt°roiw fiatro›w ¶yow Ùnomãzein. ÖAllo d¢ noe›n ≤mçw oÈd¢n ≤ toË prãgmatow fÊsiw énagkãzei: prÒdhlon dÉ ˜ti “draxmØn” l°gomen nËn §n to›w toioÊtoiw ëpantew ˜per ÑRvma›oi “dhnãrion” Ùnomãzousin.) ÉAllÉ §p¤ ge t«n bradupeptoÊntvn oÈx èpãntvn èrmÒsei didÒnai [161] tÚ fãrmakon, éllÉ §pÉ §ke¤nvn mÒnon §fÉ oÂw §p‹ xumo›w moxyhro›w g¤netai toËto, mçllon dÉ ˜tan Œsi lepto‹ ka‹ xol≈deiw. PoiÆsei dÉ ên tina =&st≈nhn ka‹ to›w êneu xum«n tØn Ígrån duskras¤an ¶xousin, §p‹ tosoËton diabebrvku›an tÚ peponyÚw mÒrion …w §klÊesyai ka‹ xalçsyai paraplhs¤vw to›w sundetiko›w kaloum°noiw neÊroiw §p‹ t«n kexalasm°nvn êryrvn. ÉEp‹ m°ntoi t«n xolØn §xÒntvn §n tª koil¤&, mãlistÉ §fÉ œn §n aÈto›w to›w xit«si diå bãyouw peri°xetai, kãllion fãrmakon oÈk ín eÏroiw. ÉAllÉ oÈk o‰dÉ ˜pvw Ùl¤gon aÈtoË d¤dvsin ı ÉAsklhpiãdhw, t∞w summ°trou dÒsevw efiw stÉ §jisoÊshw. PrÚw d¢ toÁw flegmonÆn tina ¶xontaw oÈx èpl«w dot°on §n pant‹ kair“ t∞w flegmon∞w, éllÉ ˜tan pefyª te ka‹ parakmãs˙: “p°pona går farmakeÊein” éjio› kal«w ı ÑIppokrãthw “mØ »mã, mhdÉ §n érxªsin, efi mØ Ùrgò”a—

a

Aphorisms i 22.

  ‒  

377

bile or suffer from some other form of discharge, [sc by the dosage of ] half a holke. To those who have an internal inflammation it is suitable to give it with hydromel. In cases where we want to stimulate urination or to bring forth the menses, we administer the medicine with wine. It can be used as a powder.” This is what Asclepiades wrote about the above mentioned medicine. Now, let us examine the points where he agreed and those where he disagreed [sc with Andromachus] first, concerning the quantity of the [sc ingredients] which compose the medicine, next, concerning its recommendation [epangelia] and use. With respect to the mixture of ingredients, Andromachus and Asclepiades are agreed about putting in one hundred drachmae of aloes, but they disagree: in that Asclepiades writes “aloes” indiscriminately, while Andromachus [160] specifies “washed”; in that Asclepiades mixes in an ounce of the other ingredients—that is to say, eight or seven and a half holkai or silver drachmae—and Andromachus six; further, in that Asclepiades puts in fruit of the balsam-tree, while Andromachus, balsam-wood; and, apart from these [sc points of disagreement], in that Asclepiades does not mix in schoinos flower at all. Coming to the recommendation of the effects of the medicine, the one recorded by Andromachus says no more than that we should administer one spoonful to some patients and two spoonfuls to others, taken with four kyathoi of cold or warm water. Asclepiades’ [sc medicine] tells us more about the use of the prescribed antidote; for he orders the administration of one holke, taken with four kyathoi of cold water, for cases of indigestion in healthy people. (I assume he means the silver drachma; for nearly all the contemporary doctors are in the habit of calling it [sc the silver drachma] this way. Indeed, the nature of the matter forces us to think of nothing else: concerning such matters, it is obvious that nowadays we all call “drachma” what the Romans call “denarius”.) Yet it is not suitable to administer the medicine to all those who have a difficult digestion, [161] but only to those who incur it as a result of corrupt humours, especially when the latter are thin and bilious. It [sc the medicine] will bring, however, some relief even to those who suffer from a humid [sc kind of ] duskrasia [= bad mixture] unaccompanied by [sc discharge of the] humours—one which has eaten into the affected part to the extent of setting it free or loosening it, with almost the same force as [sc it loosens] the so-called connective sinews around the loosened joints. But as regards the patients with bile in the abdomen, and above all those in whom it [sc bile] accumulates in the membranes themselves on account of their depth, you could not find a better medicine. Now, I don’t understand why Asclepiades administers a little of it, when the suitable dosage amounts to six [sc holkai]. It [sc the medicine] should not be given to patients with an inflammation at no matter what stage [kairos] of the inflammation, but [sc only] when it has concocted and is on the decline; for Hippocrates gives us good advice [sc when he says]: “Administer drugs to [sc inflammations] that are concocted, not premature or just starting, unless they swell”—that

378

  ‒  -

tout°stin efi mØ prÚw tØn ¶kkrisin §pe¤goito ≤ k¤nhsiw ka‹ mÆpv mhdem¤an ¶xousa prÚw ©n m°row •dra¤an =opÆn te ka‹ stãsin. ÉOry«w d¢ tÚ fãrmakon toËto to›w m¢n bradupeptoËsi ka‹ to›w xolØn §moËsin µ êllvw pvw [162] =eumatizom°noiw tÚn stÒmaxon §pipãttvn Ïdatow kuãyoiw 5 t°ssarsi d¤dvsi, tØn §k toË m°litow énatropØn prosginom°nhn t“ stomãxƒ dedi≈w. PrÚw d¢ tåw parakmåw t«n ¶ndon flegmon«n meyÉ Ídrom°litow …ra¤vw ên tiw dido› toËto: kayãper ka‹ kine›n oÔra proairoÊmenow µ ¶mmhna kenoËn, ı m¢n ÉAsklhpiãdhw fhs‹ mÒnon diÉ o‡nou, b°ltion dÉ ên, …w §g≈ fhmi, poie› tiw efi diÉ ofinom°litow dido› tÚ 10 fãrmakon. OÏtv går ëma te tå katå tØn §k t∞w koil¤aw énãdos¤n te ka‹ forån §pÉ oÔra ka‹ tå katå tåw mÆtraw §nistãmena dialÊei ka‹ t°mnei ka‹ =≈mhn to›w mor¤oiw par°xei diÉ œn poie›tai tØn pore¤an. ÖEti te tØn yermas¤an aÎjei t«n tÒpvn diÉ œn f°retai, sunteloËsan ka‹ aÈtØn oÈ smikrå prÒw te tØn xÊsin t«n §nistam°nvn Ígr«n ka‹ tØn 15 k°nvsin. Metå d¢ tØn progegramm°nhn flerån Yem¤svnow ént¤doton ı ÉAsklhpiãdhw •t°ran oÏtvw ¶gracen.

FR 139DUB. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM SECUNDUM LOCOS

(14)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, IX ii, p. 239 K: [239] Tå ÍpÉ ÉAndromãxou gegramm°na potå fãrmaka prÚw splhnikoÊw katå l°jin oÏtv. “PÒthma prÚw splhnikoÁw ÉAntipãtrou, …w Ne›low: murobalãnou sarkÚw gÉ ≤mion¤tidow botãnhw (∂n ofl m¢n êsplhnon, ofl d¢ skolop°ndrion l°gousi) 20 stÉ kappãrevw =¤zhw floioË dÉ kÒstou dÉ xama¤druow stÉ pol¤ou gÉ 25 kotulhdÒnow =¤zhw bÉ kissoË m°lanow t«n korÊmbvn kÒkkouw keÉ émmvniakoË yumiãmatow dÉ ÍperikoË karpoË bÉ xalbãnhw bÉ 30 periklum°nou karpoË aÉ µ t∞w =¤zhw gÉ kardãmou m°lanow aÉ sk¤llhw karpoË ÙpoË istÉ. ÉEn Ùjum°liti d¤dou ÙboloÁw bÉ”.

  ‒  -

379

is, unless the movement towards expelling [sc the matter] hastens before it [sc the inflammation] gets a stable weight and place in any single part. He [sc Asclepiades] is right in that, for people with a slow digestion and those who vomit bile or have some other [162] discharge of the stomach, he administers this medicine sprinkled on four kyathoi of water, mindful of the stomach upset which results from honey. Towards the decline of internal inflammations one would do very well to administer it [sc the medicine] with hydromel; similarly, for stimulating urination or bringing forth the menses, Asclepiades recommends [sc that we administer it] only with wine, but I say that, to my judgement, one will achieve a superior result if one administers the medicine with honeyed wine. For in this way it dissolves or cuts the [sc substances] which block the way, either in the region of distribution and transport from the intestines to urine, or in the region of the womb. It also raises up the [sc level of ] heat in the conveying places, and that [sc heat], in turn, makes an important contribution to the dispersal and evacuation of the blocking liquids. After Themison’s antidote recorded above, Asclepiades wrote another [sc antidote] as follows.

FR 139DUB. GALENUS, ON

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES ACCORDING TO PLACES

(14)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines according to places, IX ii, p. 239 K: [239] Andromachus’ potions for patients with diseases of the spleen, in his own words. “Antipater’s potion for patients with diseases of the spleen, as [sc recorded by] Neilus: three [sc measures of ] the fleshy part of myrobalanus; six [sc measures of ] hemionitis (whom some call asplenos, others “little scolopendra”); four [sc measures of ] peel of caper root; four [sc measures of ] kostos; six [sc measures of ] germander; three [sc measures of ] hulwort; two [sc measures of ] kotuledon root; twenty-five [sc seeds] from the fruit-clusters of the black ivy; four [sc measures of ] ammoniac incense; two [sc measures of ] the fruit of St John’s wort; two [sc measures of ] galbanum; one [sc measure of ] the periklumenon flower or three [sc measures] of its root; one [sc measure of ] black cardamum; sixteen [sc measures] of the juice of the squill-fruit. Administer two obols, in oxymel.”

380

  ‒  - FR 140DUB. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM SECUNDUM LOCOS

(15)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, IX v, p. 292 K: [292] PrÚw dusenterikoÁw ka‹ koiliakoÊw, §k t«n ÉAntipãtrou: pep°revw m°lanow < dÉ khk¤dow < dÉ smÊrnhw < bÉ krÒkou < bÉ 15 nãrdou < aÉ luk¤ou < aÉ Ípokust¤dow xuloË, ékak¤aw, =inÆmatow lvtoË, kÒmmvw: énå < bÉ Ùp¤ou, élÒhw, én¤sou: énå < aÉ =oË toË §p‹ tå ˆca: < bÉ. 10 Bãtou xuloË énalab∆n xr«.

FR 141DUB. GALENUS, DE

COMPOSITIONE

MEDICAMENTORUM SECUNDUM LOCOS

(16)

Galenus, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos, X ii, p. 348 K: [348] ÖAllo taÈtoË [sc ÉAsklhpiãdou] ⁄ §xrÆsato ÉAnt¤patrow: silf¤ou, phgãnou égr¤ou jhroË, dafn¤dvn jhr«n, éfron¤trou, kolokuny¤dow toË §ntÒw, ébrotÒnou YhbaÛkoË, êmmevw, kardam≈mou: 15 •kãstou dÉ phgãnou ≤m°rou xlvroË, p¤sshw jhrçw, =ht¤nhw terminy¤nhw, émmvniakoË yumiãmatow, st°atow mosxe¤ou: •kãstou mnçw ˆgdoon xalbãnou istÉ Ùpopãnakow dÉ ye¤ou épÊrou dÉ 20 §la¤ou kupr¤nou kotÊlaw dÉ. ÉEn d¢ tª xrÆsei prÒteron xrØ kor¤annon jhrÚn kaÊsanta énalambãnein kupr¤nƒ ka‹ oÏtvw §pixr¤ein tÚ fisx¤on ka‹ metå tØn toÊtou xr∞sin §piye›nai tÚ mãlagma.

  ‒  - FR 140DUB. GALENUS, ON

381

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES ACCORDING TO PLACES

(15)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines according to places, IX v, p. 292 K: [292] For patients suffering from dysentery and from conditions of the colon, from Antipater’s [sc medicines]: four drachmae of black pepper; four drachmae of oak-galls; two drachmae of myrrh; two drachmae of saffron; one drachma of spikenard; one drachma of lukion; juice of hypocist, acacia, filings of fodder-plants, kommi: two drachmae each; poppy-juice, aloes, anise: one drachma each; two drachmae of sumach of the kind used in cooking. Put into bramble juice and use.

FR 141DUB. GALENUS, ON

THE COMPOSITION

OF MEDICINES ACCORDING TO PLACES

(16)

Galenus, On the composition of medicines according to places, X ii, p. 348 K: [348] Another medicine [sc a malagma for sciatica] by the same [sc Asclepiades]; Antipater used it: silphium, dry mountain-rue, dry bay-berries, washing soda, the flesh of gourd, Theban southernwood, ammi, cardamum: four [sc measures] each; green rue of the cultivated variety, dry pitch, turpentine, ammoniac incense, calf suet: eight minae of each; sixteen [sc measures of ] galbanum; four [sc measures of ] opopanax; four [sc measures of ] native sulphur; four kotylae of oil made from henna-flowers. Concerning usage, first you must burn dry coriander and mix it in the henna-oil, then rub the hip with it, and after using it apply an emollient.

382

  ‒   FR 142. GALENUS, DE

CRISIBUS

(1)

Galenus, De crisibus, I iv, pp. 558–562 K = pp. 74–76 Alexanderson:

5

10

15

20

25

[iv, 558] Ka¤toi ge tØn érxØn toË nosÆmatow oÈd¢ paroËsan ır« diagin≈skontaw toÁw polloÁw1 t«n fiatr«n, Àsper oÈd¢ tÚn yaumasi≈taton YessalÒn, ˜w §n m¢n ta›w érxa›w st°llein parakeleÊetai, kín stegnÚn ¬ tÚ nÒshma ka‹ xalãsevw ˜son §fÉ •aut“ deÒmenon: ˜pvw dÉ ên tiw aÈtØn gnvr¤zoi kayãper ti saf°staton Ípãrxon oÈdÉ §pexe¤rhsen eflpe›n. ÖExei dÉ épor¤an oÈ smikrãn. Efi m¢n går tØn pr≈thn efisbolØn ékrib«w2 “érxØn” t¤yesyai prosÆkei toË sÊmpantow nosÆmatow, émerÆw §stin aÏth3 ka‹ êxronow: efi dÉ aÔ tÚn4 pr«ton parojusmÒn, ‡smen toËton §n¤ote tÆn tÉ §p¤dosin ˜lhn ka‹ tØn ékmØn §n •aut“ perilambãnonta, prÚw t“ ka‹ élog≈taton e‰nai tÆn tÉ §n •ptå ta›w pãsaiw ≤m°raiw luyhsom°nhn [559] nÒson ka‹ tØn efiw m∞naw ©j §ktayhsom°nhn ka‹ sumpãsaw tåw metajÁ tÚn pr«ton mÒnon ¶xein parojusmÚn5 érxÆn. ÑVw går oÈdÉ §p¤dosin µ ékmØn6 µ parakmØn fisÒxronon ëpanta k°kthtai tå nosÆmata, katå tÚn aÈtÚn o‰mai trÒpon oÈdÉ érxÆn. OÈ mØn oÈd¢ tÚn pr«ton Íperbãw tiw parojusmÚn ¶yÉ ßjei po›7 perigrãcai tØn érxÆn. Efi går ı deÊterow eÈyÁw diad°jaito8 tå t∞w aÈjÆsevw ¶xvn gnvr¤smata ka‹ metÉ aÈtÚn ı tr¤tow ka‹9 t°tartow o· tÉ êlloi sÊmpantew ofl §fej∞w, ı tÚn pr«ton10 paralip∆n …w oÈk érxØn µ ëpanta11 tÚn metajÁ xrÒnon êxri t∞w ékm∞w érxØn e‰nai fÆsei,12 ka‹ oÏtvw épole›tai13 pantãpasin ≤ énãbasiw µ po› pr«ton paÊsei tØn érxØn oÈk°yÉ ßjei.14 T¤w oÔn ≤ t∞w épor¤aw lÊsiw;15 Efi m¢n §kmanyãnein §boÊlonto tå prÚw ÑIppokrãtouw gegramm°na shme›a, dÆlh ka‹ taxe›a ín §g°neto,16 nun‹ d¢ prÚw t“ mØ boÊlesyai maye›n ¶ti ka‹ diabãllein §pixeiroËsin ì mØ gin≈skousin.17 ÉAllÉ §ke¤noiw m¢n édÊnatow ≤ [560] t∞w émay¤aw ‡asiw, ≤m›n dÉ eÎporow. “ToÁw går18 parojusmoÊw” fhsi “ka‹ tåw katastãsiaw dhl≈sousin afl noËsoi ka‹ afl œrai toË ¶teow ka‹ afl t«n periÒdvn prÚw éllÆlaw §pidÒseiw.”a ÜOti m¢n dØ katastãseiw t«n noshmãtvn tåw oÂon fid°aw

a

Aphorisms i 12.

Alexanderson (= Al): toÁw ple¤stouw A (= Parisinus 2246 + Marcianus 282) B (= Marcianus Append. cl. V, 8) H (= traditio Arabica) L (= traditio Latina) K 2 Al: tØn pr≈thn ékrib«w efisbolØn K 3 Al: aÈtØ K < A L 4 Al: efi d¢ tÒn K < A L: efi dÉ aÈtÒn B V (= Vaticanus 282) 5 mÒnon parojusmÚn ¶xein B 6 Al: oÎdÉ ékmØn K 7 Al: ßjei toi K 8 Al: diad°xoito K < A B V I (= Athos 4309. 189) 9 Al: ı tritÒw te ka‹ K < A B 10 ı tÚn pr«ton parojusmÚn add A H L K 11 Al: pãnta K 12 Al < L: fÆseie K 13 Al: épÒllutai K < A 14 Al: ßjei l°gein K 15 Al: ‡asiw K < A B H L 16 Al: shme›a, taxe›a ín §g°neto ≤ didaskal¤a K < B P (= Palatinus 157) C (= Parisinus 2272 + Parisinus 2153) 17 nun‹ d¢ prÚw 1

t“ mØ boÊlesyai maye›n tå prÚw ÑIppokrãtouw gegramm°na Ùry«w ¶ti te ka‹ diabãllein §pixeiroËsin ín mØ gin≈skousin K 18 toËto går K

  ‒   FR 142. GALENUS, ON

CRISES

383

(1)

Galenus, On crises, I iv, pp. 558–562 K = pp. 74–76 Alexanderson: [iv, 558] And yet I notice that not even when the beginning of a disease is present do the majority of doctors diagnose it, as the most astounding Thessalus does not—he who advises us to apply constriction during the [sc periods of ] beginning even if the disease be constricted and such as to demand, in itself, relaxing; but he did not endeavour to explain how one might recognise it, as if that were a perfectly obvious thing. Yet it [sc diagnosis] raises quite a big puzzle. For if it is appropriate to posit as “beginning” strictly the first onset of the whole disease, then this is [sc something] without parts and non-temporal; but if the first paroxysm, we know that this one sometimes includes the whole development and culmination within its compass; besides, it would be absurd if both a disease which will be resolved in no more than seven days [559] and one that will extend over six months, and every disease in between, had only the first paroxysm as their beginning. For it is not the case that all diseases have [sc periods of ] development, culmination, and decline which measure equal times; similarly, I believe, this is not the case where the beginning is concerned. Besides, if one has missed out the first paroxysm one will no longer be in a position to delineate the beginning. For if the second [sc paroxysm] were to take over instantly, bearing the symptoms of the development, and after it the third, the fourth, and all the rest in succession, he who omitted the first one will say either that there was no beginning or that all the intervening time, up until culmination, was the beginning, and thus the increase will be completely lost, or there will be no initial point at which the beginning might stop. So then—what is the solution to the puzzle? If they [sc the Methodists] were willing to learn thoroughly the account of signs given by Hippocrates, that [sc the solution] would be clear and quick [sc to come]; as it is, far from being willing to learn, they attempt to discredit what they are ignorant of. But the cure for ignorance is impossible for them, [560] whereas for us it is easy. “For the diseases,” he [sc Hippocrates] says, “the seasons of the year, and the intensifications of the periods [ periodoi ] with respect to each other reveal the paroxysms and the constitutions.” The shortest way for one to learn that what he [sc Hippocrates] calls “constitutions”

384

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

aÈt«n Ùnomãzei kayÉ ìw §k toi«nde ka‹ thlik«nde sÊgkeintai19 t«n kayÒlou kair«n, §n §lax¤stƒ mãlistÉ ên tiw t“de t“ tekmhr¤ƒ katamãyoi. Proeip∆n går §n t“ pr≈tƒ t«n ÉEpidhmi«n: “Efis‹ d¢20 trÒpoi ka‹ katastãsiew ka‹ parojusmo‹ tout°vn •kãstou t«n puret«n”, §fej∞w fhsi: “aÈt¤ka går sunexØw ¶stin oÂsin érxÒmenow énye› ka‹ ékmãzei mãlista ka‹ énãgei §p‹ tÚ xalep≈teron, per‹ d¢ kr¤sin ka‹ ëma kr¤sei époleptÊnetai. ÖEsti dÉ oÂsin êrxetai malyakÚw ka‹ ÍpobrÊxiow, §panadido› d¢ ka‹ parojÊnetai kayÉ •kãsthn ≤m°ran per‹ d¢ kr¤sin ka‹ ëliw21 §j°lamce”,b saf«w §ndeiknÊmenow …w tØn §k t«n toË ˜lou22 nosÆmatow kair«n poiån sÊnyesin Ùnomãzei katãstasin. P«w23 oÔn afl nÒsoi ka‹ afl œrai24 toË ¶touw ka‹ afl t«n25 periÒdvn prÚw éllÆlaw §pidÒseiw [561] §nde¤jontai toÁw kayÒlou kairoÁw toË nosÆmatow (§n toÊtƒ går ∑men26 t“ zhtÆmati); Tetarta›ow m°n tiw27 puretÚw efisbãllvn oÈk ín tÚn pr«ton mÒnon ¶xoi parojusmÚn tØn érxÆn, Àsper oÈd¢ trita›ow ékribØw ßvw t∞w •bdÒmhw ≤m°raw êrxesyai dÊnatai. Katå d¢ taÈtå taËta ka‹ per‹ t«n êllvn noshmãtvn gign≈skein. KaËsow m¢n går ka‹ pleur›tiw ka‹ peripneumon¤a braxuxrÒnion ¶xousi tØn érxÆn, §pilhc¤ai d¢ ka‹ fisxiãdew ka‹ éryr¤tidew ka‹ nefr¤tidew poluxrÒnion. OÏtvw m¢n épÚ t«n noshmãtvn aÈt«n: épÚ d¢ t«n …r«n toË ¶touw oÏtvw: “Ofl yerino‹ tetarta›oi tå pollå28 g¤gnontai brax°ew, ofl d¢ fyinopvrino‹ makro‹ ka‹ mãlisyÉ ofl prÚw xeim«na29 sunãptontew.”c OÏtvw d¢ ka‹ pçn êllo nÒshma y°rouw m¢n ÙjÊteron xeim«now d¢ xroni≈teron kine›tai,30 ka‹ d∞lon ˜ti ka‹ tØn érxØn §n y°rei m¢n Ùligoxronivt°ran §n xeim«ni dÉ ßjei makrot°ran: énãlogon d¢ taÊt˙ ka‹ toÁw kairoÁw31 toË nosÆmatow. OÏtvw m¢n ka‹ afl œrai tåw katastãseiw32 t«n noshmãtvn promhnÊousin: afl d¢ t«n periÒdvn33 §pi[562]dÒseiw oÏtvw: éllÆloiw fhsi xr∞nai parabãllein toÁw parojusmoÁw “efi34 §p‹ tÚ prvÛa¤teron µ oÎ, ka‹ efi ple¤ona xrÒnon µ oÎ, ka‹ efi mçllon µ oÎ.”d TaËta går pãnta sunye‹w §ggut°rv t∞w ékriboËw éf¤j˙ diagn≈sevw. Efi d¢ mhd¢n aÈt«n §piskecãmenow o‡ei dÊnasyai gnvr¤zein érxØn nosÆmatow µ dior¤zein énabãsevw, oÈk ín oÈdÉ §ggÊw pote t∞w élhye¤aw éf¤koio.

b c d

Epidemics I 25. Aphorisms ii 25. Epidemics II i 6.

Al: sÊgkeitai K < A B L 20 Al: efis‹ d¢ ≥dh 21 Al: kr¤sin ëliw K 22 Al: ˜lou toË K 23 Al < L: ˜pvw K 24 Al: ka‹ œrai K < B 25 Al: ka‹ t«n K < B 26 Al: §smen K 27 Al: m¢n gãr tiw K < L 28 Al: …w tå pollå 29 Al: prÚw tÚn xeim«na K < B L 30 Al: kr¤netai K < BH 31 Al: toÁw êllouw kairoÁw K 32 Al: oÏtvw m¢n går ka‹ afl œrai toË ¶touw tØn katãstasin K < B 33 A: parojusm«n K < A B V I L 34 K < A H L: oÏtvw: efi ktl Al 19

  ‒  

385

of diseases is, as it were, their form, according to which they consist of universal kairoi of such and such quality and magnitude, is through the following proof. In the first book of the Epidemics, having started by saying: “There are [sc specific] ways, constitutions, and paroxysms for each one of these fevers”, he immediately continues: “For instance, there are cases where a continuous [sc fever] comes to full flower, reaches the highest point of culmination, and leads up to the most severe stage straightaway, as soon as it started, but around the crisis and at the time of the crisis it appeases. On the other hand, there are cases where it begins by being gentle and hidden and it increases and grows to paroxysm gradually, day by day, to flash forth abundantly around their critical day”, showing clearly that what he calls “constitution” is the quality of the combination of the kairoi. So then: how will the diseases, the seasons of the year, and the intensifications of the periods with respect to each other [561] show the universal kairoi of diseases (for this was the point [sc we reached] in our inquiry)? A quartan fever in the process of setting in would not have solely the first paroxysm as its beginning, just as it is not possible for an exact tertian [sc fever] to begin all the way up to the seventh day. And we [sc must] diagnose [sc the kairoi ] by these same [sc principles] in the case of other diseases too. For instance, causus, pleuritis, and peripneumonia have a beginning that lasts a short time, fits of epilepsia, sciatica, arthritis, and nephritis have one that lasts a long time. This is [sc how we learn the kairoi ] from the diseases themselves; from the seasons of the year, on the other hand, [sc we learn them] in the following way: “Summer quartan [sc fevers] are in most cases short, whereas autumnal ones, and especially those that occur around winter-time, are long.” Thus in fact every other disease changes more rapidly during summer and more slowly during winter, and it is obvious that the beginning, too, will be shorter at summer-time and longer at winter-time, and that the other kairoi of diseases will resemble it [sc in this respect]. This is how the seasons predict the constitutions; as for the intensifications of the periods, [sc these do it] [562] as follows: he [sc Hippocrates] claims that we should compare the paroxysms with each other [sc to see] “whether they occur earlier or not and are longer or not and stronger or not”. It is by understanding all these [sc factors] that you will come quite close to an accurate diagnosis. But if, without having examined any of them, you take yourself to be capable of recognising the beginning of a disease and of distinguishing it from the development, you would not come anywhere near the truth.

386

  ‒   FR 143. GALENUS, DE

CRISIBUS

(2)

Galenus, De crisibus, I ix, pp. 582–585 K = pp. 90–91 Alexanderson:

5

10

15

20

25

30

[ix, 582] Pãlin oÔn énalabÒntew e‡pvmen taÈtÒ: toÁw kayÒlou kairoÁw t«n noshmãtvn ¶k te t«n nÒsvn aÈt«n xrØ pr«ton1 stoxãzesyai phl¤koi tin¢w ¶sontai t“ xrÒnƒ, kék t«n …r«n toË ¶touw ka‹ t∞w t«n periÒdvn énalog¤aw ka‹ prÚw toÊtoiw ëpasin §k t«n §pifainom°nvn, [583] §n oÂw pr«ta ka‹ kuri≈tata tå t∞w p°ce≈w §sti shme›a: diÉ œn tØn m¢n ≥dh perigegramm°nhn “érxØn” ékrib«w gnvr¤seiw,2 §k taÊthw d¢ tØn m°llousan ékmØn stoxasm“ texnik“ progn≈s˙ t“ metÉ Ùl¤gon efirhsom°nv: kal« d¢ “texnikÚn” stoxasmÚn ˘w ín §ggutãtv t∞w élhye¤aw éf¤khtai. ÜVsper oÔn ékribØw diãgnvsiw érx∞w3 oÈk ¶sti pr‹n êrjasyai tØn énãbasin, oÏtvw oÈd¢ t∞w énabãsevw pr‹n efisbale›n tØn ékmÆn. ÉAskht°on d¢ kéntaËya prÒteron efisbãllousan ékmØn gnvr¤zein, ¶peiyÉ oÏtvw progin≈skein. ÉEpe‹ d¢ ka‹ toÊtvn èpãntvn ≤gem∆n ÑIppokrãthw §st¤, d¤kaion ín e‡h kéntaËya tåw §ke¤nou =Æseiw §jhgoum°nouw diaperãnasyai4 tÚn lÒgon. ÖAmeinon dÉ ‡svw §st‹ pr‹n Ípãrjasyai toËto poie›n ¶ti brax°a5 per‹ t«n efirhm°nvn prosye›nai. àHn går …w m°row toË nosÆmatow §zhtoËmen eÍre›n érxÆn, e‡tÉ fisÒxronow §n èpãsaiw ta›w nÒsoiw §st‹n e‡te kayÉ •kãsthn aÈt«n ‡diow, §n √ ka‹ tÚn YessalÚn ¶famen §jeurhk°nai tÚ lhr«dew §ke›no parãggelma tÚ de›n §n érxª st°llein tå nosÆmata kín §k t∞w stegn∞w6 ¬ [584] koinÒthtow.7 ÑIppokrãthw m¢n pãntvn pr«tow ékrib«w §dÆlvsen, oÈ mØn manyãnous¤n ge tå aÈtoË8 diå tÚ tãxow t∞w •rmhne¤aw. ÉArk°sei dÉ ¶n ge t“ parÒnti diå miçw =Æsevw §pide›jai tØn gn≈mhn toË palaioË.9 Ka‹ går ka‹ tåw êllaw =Æseiw ên tiw, efi mØ pantãpasin étala¤pvrow e‡h, katå tÚn aÈtÚn o‰mai trÒpon §jeur¤skein dÊnaito. Proxeiris≈meya10 dØ tÒnde tÚn éforismÒn: “P°pona farmakeÊein ka‹ kin°ein, mØ »må mhd¢ §n érxªsin, µn mØ Ùrgò.”a TÚ m¢n dØ “Ùrgçn” kur¤vw m¢n §p‹ t«n z–vn e‡yistai l°gesyai t«n §peigom°nvn xrÆsasyai11 sunous¤&. MetenÆnektai dÉ §p‹12 tå katepe¤gonta ka‹ kinoÊmena tax°vw nosÆmata ka‹ mãlistÉ §peidån §rey¤zhta¤ pvw ≤ toË kãmnontow a‡syhsiw ÍpÚ t∞w t«n Ígr«n te ka‹ pneumãtvn étãktou kinÆsevw. ÉEp‹ går t«n toioÊtvn13 mÒnvn

a

Aphorisms i 22 (cf also the Hippocratic treatise on Humours, Ch 6: p°pona farmakeÊein ka‹ kin°ein mØ »må mÆdÉ §n érxªsin, efi mØ Ùrgò: tå d¢ pollå oÈk Ùrgò). Al: pr«ton xrØ K 2 Al: gnvr¤saiw K < B 3 Al: érx∞w ékribØw diãgnvsiw K < A B L: ékrib«w diãgnvsiw érx∞w P C 4 Al: diapera¤nesyai K < B 5 Al: braxÁ K < B 6 Al: sten∞w K < B 7 Al: kenÒthtow K: koinÒtatow M (= Marcianus 282) Y (= Parisinus 2153): koinÒthti B 8 Al: manyãnousin oÈdÉ aÈtÚ K 9 Al: gn≈mhn aÈtoË K < B H 10 Al: dÊnaito, proxeirisãmenow K 11 Al: xr∞syai K < B 12 Al: d¢ nËn §p‹ K < B 13 Al: §p‹ går toÊtvn K < B H L 1

  ‒   FR 143. GALENUS, ON

CRISES

387

(2)

Galenus, On crises, I ix, pp. 582–585 K = pp. 90–91 Alexanderson: [ix, 582] So let us get back and repeat: the universal kairoi of diseases [nosemata], namely how long they will extend in time, must first be conjectured from the diseases [nosoi ] themselves, from the year’s seasons, from the proportionality of the periods, and, in addition to all these, from the supervening symptoms, [583] first and foremost of which are the signs of coction: from them you will diagnose with precision what I have already delineated as the “beginning”, and from that you will, in turn, predict the future culmination through skilled [technikon] conjecture, which I will explain in a moment: I call “skilled” a conjecture which comes as close to the truth as possible. So then: just as there is no precise recognition [diagnosis] of the beginning before the increase has started, so [sc there is no strict recognition] of the increase before the culmination has set in. Here again we must train, first, to diagnose culmination as it sets in, and next to predict it in that way. Since in all these matters the leader is, again, Hippocrates, it would be fair to conduct our discussion here as well by way of interpreting the great man’s dicta. But it is perhaps better, before we start doing that, to add a few more brief comments on what has been said. Well, the [sc notion of ] beginning in the sense of part of the whole disease, which we were trying to discover, either measures equal amounts of time in all the diseases or is specific [sc with respect to duration] to each one of them; it is concerning this [sc notion of beginning] that Thessalus, we said, invented that silly precept, that during the [sc periods of ] beginning we must apply constriction to diseases even if they belong to the constricted [584] koinotes. It is Hippocrates, first before all, who made [sc these matters] crystal clear; but they [sc the Methodists] do not understand what he said because of the swiftness of his expression. It will suffice for the present to explain the view of our ancient [sc author] with the help of a single passage. For one should be able to find the other passages in the same way, I think, if one is not bone idle. Let us choose, then, the following aphorism: “Subject to medication or change what is concocted but not what is crude, and not at the beginning [sc of the disease], unless it is swelled [orga].” For usually “to be swelled” [organ] is properly said of animals who are under the urge of having sexual intercourse, but in this context it has been transferred to diseases which hasten and are rapidly changed, especially in cases where the patient’s sense [sc of pain] is roused by the disorderly movement of [sc his] fluids and breaths. Well, it is only in cases of this type that one would be

388

  ‒  -

eÈlÒgvw ên tiw xrÆsaito katÉ érxåw farmake¤&,14 sÊmmaxon ¶xvn efiw tÚ t∞w ılk∞w eÈpet°steron tØn t«n pleonazÒntvn Ígr«n k¤nhsin, …w tã ge prÚw t“ tel°vw Ípãrxein êpepta tÚ mÒnimÒn te ka‹ •dra›on ¶xonta xalep«w ÍpakoÊei15 ta›w ılka›w t«n kayairÒntvn farmãkvn. OÏtvw 5 oÔn e‡rhtai kéke›no:16 “ÑOkÒsoi17 d¢ [585] tå flegma¤nonta §n érxª t«n noÊsvn eÈy°vw §pixeiroËsi lÊein farmake¤˙, toË m¢n suntetam°nou ka‹ flegma¤nontow oÈd¢n éfairoËsin (oÈ går §ndido› »mÚn §Ún tÚ pãyow), tå dÉ ént°xonta t“ nosÆmati ka‹ Ígieinå suntÆkousin.”b ÉAllå per‹ m¢n toÊtou sk°casya¤ ti t∞w Yerapeutik∞w §stin ¶rgon meyÒdou.18 10 TÚn dÉ oÔn ÑIppokrãthn kale›n “érxØn” §ke›non ëpanta tÚn xrÒnon toË nosÆmatow §n ⁄ pantel«w §stin êpepton ≥dh fa¤netai. Proeip∆n går …w “p°pona” xrØ “farmakeÊein”, §pÆnegke “mØ »må mhd¢ §n érxªsin”, …w tÒtÉ érx∞w oÎshw ˜tÉ »mÒn §sti tÚ nÒshma ka‹ êpepton Ípãrxei.

b

Regimen in acute diseases (Appendix) 5.

Al: farmake¤aiw K < B 15 Al: ÍpakoÊein K < B 16 Al: kéke›na K < A B L Al: ıkÒsoisi K < V 18 Al: sk°casyai t∞w yerapeutik∞w meyÒdou ¶rgon §stin K < B 14 17

FR 144. GALENUS, DE

CRISIBUS

(3)

Galenus, De crisibus, I xviii–xix, pp. 633–634 K = p. 121 Alexanderson: [xviii, 633] . . . Pr≈taw dÉ ≤m°raw dhlonÒti toË nosÆmatow e‰pon ëw ≤ 15 pr≈th tetråw dior¤zei. [xix] Ka‹ går érxØn nosÆmatow1 katå tÚ deÊteron shmainÒmenon §n toÊtƒ perigrãfesyai t“ kair“ prÒsyen ¶legon. Ka‹ toËtÉ ¶sti tÚ “§n pleuritiko›si2 ptÊelon aÈt¤ka µn §pifa¤nhtai, érxom°nou m¢n braxÊnei”.a Trix«w går t∞w “érx∞w” legom°nhw, kayÉ ßna m¢n trÒpon t∞w pr≈thw efisbol∞w t∞w éplatoËw,3 kayÉ ßteron d¢ t∞w efiw tØn 20 tr¤thn ≤m°ran §kteinom°nhw ∂n mÒnhn ı YessalÚw Ùneir≈ttein moi doke›, ka‹ prÚw toÊtoiw t∞w …w m°rouw ˜lou toË nosÆmatow ∂n tå t∞w safoËw ır¤zei p°cevw shme›a, per‹ pas«n ı ÑIppokrãthw poie›tai tÚn lÒgon,

a

From Aphorisms i 12.

1 Al: ka‹ går ka‹ tØn érxØn toË nosÆmatow K: ka‹ tØn érxØn toË nosÆmatow B C 2 Al: §n to›w pleuritiko›si K < A B C 3 Al: t∞w èploËw µ t∞w éplatoËw K

  ‒  -

389

well advised to use medication at the beginning, since in the movement of the excessive fluids he would have an ally for dragging them out in the easiest possible way; whereas those [sc fluids] which, apart from being completely unconcocted, also are stable and fixed submit with difficulty to the drawing actions of purging medicines. In fact he [sc Hippocrates] said that too: “Those [585] who try to break down inflammations through medication right at the beginning of diseases do not draw off any of [sc the matter] which is stretched and inflamed (for the affection would not surrender as long as it is crude); instead, they consume the [sc matter] which resists the disease and is healthy.” But to examine this question is a job of the Method of therapy; it is already obvious that Hippocrates calls “beginning” all that [sc period of ] time in a disease during which it [sc the disease] is completely unconcocted. For once he said that we must “subject to medication what is concocted”, he added “but not what is crude, and not at the beginning [sc of the disease]”, on the assumption that that is when the beginning takes place—when the disease is crude and unconcocted.

FR 144. GALENUS, ON

CRISES

(3)

Galenus, On crises, I xviii–xix, pp. 633–634 K = p. 121 Alexanderson: [xviii, 633] . . . By “the first days” of the disease I mean, obviously, the ones grouped within the first tetrad. [xix] For I have already said that it is within this kairos that the beginning of the disease in the second sense is encompassed; and this is what it means [sc to say] that “in the case of patients suffering from pleuritis, if sputum appears right at the beginning, it shortens it [sc the disease]”. For “beginning” is said in three ways: [sc it is said] in one sense of the first onset, which is without extension [sc in time], in another, [sc it is said] of the [sc beginning] which extends to the third day—the only [sc sense of “beginning”] that Thessalus has ravings about; in addition, [sc it is said] of the [sc beginning] conceived as a part of the whole disease—and what defines it is the signs of manifest coction. Hippocrates speaks of all [sc these three “beginnings”], as is obvious from what has

390

  ‒  -

…w §k t«n progegramm°nvn §st‹n d∞lon ¶n te to›w §fej∞w ÍpomnÆmasin §narg°steron §pideixyÆsetai. Nun‹ dÉ ˜ti tØn katå tÚ deÊteron shmainÒmenon “érxØn” §dÆlvsen ıpÒte to›w pleuritiko›w tÚ katå tØn érxØn §pifainÒmenon ptÊelon braxÊnein [634] ¶fhse, prÒdhlon o‰mai g°gone.

FR 145. GALENUS, DE

CRISIBUS

(4)

Galenus, De crisibus, II iii, pp. 655–656 K = p. 135 Alexanderson: 5 [iii, 655] . . . ÉEp‹ toÊtoiw ëpasin ka‹ efiw épurej¤an paÊetai, tÚn sÊmpanta xrÒnon toË parojusmoË poihsãmenow …r«n oÈ pleiÒnvn d≈deka. Ple›stow går otow ı xrÒnow §n trita¤oiw gnhs¤oiw: …w tå pollå d¢ pot¢ m¢n •ptå t«n pas«n1 …r«n ı parojusmÚw aÈto›w g¤netai, pot¢ dÉ ≥toi prvÛa¤teron µ Ùcia¤teron oÈ poll“ paÊetai. ToËton m¢n efi mÆpv gnv¤zeiw 10 ékrib∞ trita›on2 Ípãrxein éllÉ [656] ¶tÉ énam°neiw tØn lhr≈dh diãtriton, oÈk ín oÈdÉ ˆnow ¶ti Yessãleiow éllã tiw e‡hw l¤yow.

1

Al: •ptå pas«n K < B

2

Al: gnvr¤saiw ékribª trita›on K

FR 146. GALENUS, DE

CRISIBUS

(5)

Galenus, De crisibus, II iii, pp. 656–658 K = pp. 136–137 Alexanderson: [iii, 656] . . . ÖAgÉ oÔn, §peidØ pãntÉ e‡rhtai tå toË gnhs¤ou trita¤ou gnvr¤smata, kayaper tinå genealog¤an aÈtoË diå kefala¤vn poihsãmenoi metab«men oÏtvw §fÉ ßteron. ÑO m¢n parojusmÚw efisbãllei metå 15 [657] =¤gouw sfodroË toÁw sfugmoÁw o·ouw e‡rhka poioÊmenow, ¶peitÉ Ùl¤gon Ïsteron aÎjeta¤ te ka‹ prÚw tØn ékmØn §pe¤getai sÁn oÂw e‡rhtai pçsin, e‰ta lÊetai kayÉ ˘n e‡rhtai trÒpon: ≤ g°nesiw dÉ aÈtoË katastãsevw m¢n aÈxmhrçw ka‹ yerm∞w de›tai ka‹ tÚ sÊmpan fãnai yerin∞w,1 ≤lik¤aw dÉ ékmastik∞w ka‹ xol≈douw fÊsevw §n pÒnoiw ka‹ front¤si 20 ka‹ égrupn¤aiw ka‹ trof«n §nde¤aiw gegenhm°nhw. Ka‹ efi boÊlei, prÒsyew toÊtoiw diå toÁw liy¤nouw MeyodikoÁw ˜per e‡vy° pou ka‹ ı ÉArxig°nhw prosgrãfein: ¶stv d¢ dÆpou ka‹ ≤ paroËsa katãstasiw §pidhm¤an §nhnoxu›a trita¤vn, ·na to›w texniko›w gnvr¤smasi ka‹ tÚn fidivtikÚn m¢n élhy∞ d¢ stoxasmÚn prosye‹w aÈjÆs˙w tÚ pistÚn t∞w progn≈sevw. 25 âV prÚw t«n ye«n, oÎpv toËton §roËmen e‰nai trita›on, éllå tØn t«n

1

Al: yerin∞w Àraw K < B C I

  ‒  -

391

already been written, and it will be proved most clearly in the forthcoming comments. But for my present purposes I think it has become perfectly plain that, when he claimed that the sputum which appears from the beginning in patients with pleuritis [634] shortens [sc the disease], he explained to us [sc the notion of ] “beginning” in the second sense.

FR 145. GALENUS, ON

CRISES

(4)

Galenus, On crises, II iii, pp. 655–656 K = p. 135 Alexanderson: [iii, 655] . . . After all these, it [sc the tertian] ends up in feverlessness, having taken no more than twelve hours for the whole duration of the paroxysm. For this is the longest duration in genuine tertians; in most cases the paroxysm either takes seven hours or comes to an end not much earlier or later than that. Now, if you do not recognise this to be the exact tertian, but [656] still wait for the ridiculous diatritus, you would not be just a Thessalean ass but some stone.

FR 146. GALENUS, ON

CRISES

(5)

Galenus, On crises, II iii, pp. 656–658 K = pp. 136–137 Alexanderson: [iii, 656] . . . Well now, since all the symptoms of the genuine tertian have been enumerated, let us trace, as it were, a pedigree of it in summary, then move on to something else. The paroxysm sets in accompanied by [657] a powerful shivering fit and alters the pulse in the ways I have indicated; then shortly later it [sc the fever] increases and is driven to culmination, while accompanied by all [sc the symptoms] that I mentioned, and afterwards it is resolved in the way I described; its occurrence requires the constitution which is dry, hot, and in short characteristic of summer, the [sc type of ] age where the patient is in his prime, and a bilious nature which has resulted from exertions, worries, sleeplessness and privation of food. And if you wish you may add to these, for the sake of the stoneheaded Methodists, the supplement that Archigenes used to note down: let it be that the present constitution, too, has brought in an epidemic of tertian fevers—so that by adding to the symptoms deduced by the rules of the art a conjecture which belongs to the man in the street, yet nevertheless is true, you may increase the credibility of your prognosis. Oh, by the gods! Shall we not say that this is the tertian? Shall we wait instead for the wool-

392

  ‒  -

§riourg«n énamenoËmen diãtriton, ∂n nom¤zvn e‰nai énagka›on2 §n tª gunaikvn¤tidi trefÒmenow ı lhr≈dhw YessalÚw ÍpÚ patr‹ moxyhr«w ¶ria ja¤nonti kak«w §tÒlma l°gein ÑIppokrãthn te ka‹ toÁw êllouw palaioÊw; ÑO tå t∞w fiatrik∞w ëpanta yevrÆmata katalazoneusãmenow 5 •st«tã yÉ Ípãrxonta ka‹ b°baia [658] trita›on efisbãllonta puretÚn oÈx oÂÒw tÉ §st‹ gnvr¤zein éllÉ énam°nei tØn diãtriton. ToËto gãr toi yaumastÒn §stin, ˜sa m¢n oÈk ∑n b°baia, taËtÉ efipe›n e‰nai b°baia, sÊmpanta dÉ égno∞sai3 tå katÉ élÆyeian4 b°baia. TaÊthw m¢n dØ t∞w graÚw oÈd¢ memn∞syai prosÆkei.

2 4

∂n nom¤zvn e‰nai énagka›on restit Al < H Al: tå katå tØn élÆyeian

FR 147. GALENUS, DE

3

Al: sÊmpanta dÉ ±gnÒhse K < I

DIFFERENTIA PULSUUM

(1)

Galenus, De differentia pulsuum, III i, pp. 639–641 K: 10 [i, 639] . . . Efiw t°ttara gãr toi m°rh nenemhm°nhw èpãshw t∞w per‹ toÁw sfugmoÁw yevr¤aw—e‡w te tÚ per‹ t∞w diaforçw aÈt«n ka‹ tÚ per‹ diagn≈sevw ka‹ tÚ per‹ t«n afit¤vn ka‹ t°tarton tÚ per‹ t∞w diÉ aÈt«n progn≈sevw—oÈd¢n aÈt«n parablãptetai kalesãntvn ≤m«n tÚn fisxur«w plÆttonta sfugmÚn D¤vna. Ka‹ går ˜ph t«n êllvn diaf°rei memayÆkamen 15 ên te Y°vn ên te D¤vn ên tÉ êllÒ ti kal∞tai, ka‹ ˜pvw [640] diagnvsyÆsetai, ka‹ ÍpÚ t¤now afit¤aw g¤gnetai, ka‹ t¤ dhlo›. Filoneike¤tv dØ loipÚn Íp¢r aÈtoË prÚw Mãgnon ÉArxig°nhw: tãxa m¢n paranomoËnta ka‹ aÈtÚn efiw tÚ t«n ÑEllÆnvn ¶yow tÚ per‹ tåw proshgor¤aw, ˜mvw d¢ suni°nta tÒ ge tosoËton, …w tÚ ple›ston aÈt“ t∞w prÚw toÁw presbut°20 rouw émfisbhtÆsevw Íp¢r ÙnÒmatow §st¤. T¤ går dØ ka¤ fhsin ı Mãgnow aÈtª l°jei; “XrØ to¤nun ka‹ m°geyow éjiÒlogon e‰nai to›w sfugmo›w ka‹ plhrÒthta ka‹ metå tãxouw prosp¤ptein to›w daktÊloiw, efi m°llei tiw kuriologe›n sfodrÚn sfugmÚn Ùnomãzvn.” O‰den oÔn saf«w ı Mãgnow ˜ti mØ per‹ prãgmatow, éllå toË kur¤vw Ùnomãzein, µ mØ kur¤vw, prÚw 25 toÁw êllouw fiatroÁw émfisbhte›. Saf°staton dÉ ¶ti poie› toËto diå t«n §fej∞w: éjio› går tÚn DhmÆtrion, ⁄ taËta tå bibl¤a—tå Per‹ t«n §feurhm°nvn metå toÁw Yem¤svnow xrÒnouw—én°yhke, sunepisk°casyai ka‹ aÈtÒn, …w ín filÒsofÒn te ˆnta ka‹ t¤ tÚ kÊrion ˆnoma ka‹ t¤ tÚ mØ toioËton ékrib°steron efidÒta. L°gei dÉ oÏtvw (oÈd¢n går xe›ron 30 kôntaËya paragrãcai tØn =∞sin aÈtØn toË Mãgnou): “P«w oÔn toËton kal«w §n ta›w èpla›w diafora›w kat°tajan, [641] sÊ moi dia¤thson. So‹ går §pibãllei mçllon tåw kuriolog¤aw kr¤nein ka‹ épÚ t«n Ùnomãtvn tekmÆrasyai tØn ÍpÒstasin t«n shmainom°nvn.” E‰yÉ •j∞w m∞llon

  ‒  -

393

workers’ diatritus, which Thessalus the waffler, brought up as he was in the women’s quarters by a father who toiled abjectly at carding the wool, took to be necessary and thereby dared to insult Hippocrates and the other ancients? After bragging that all the theorems of medicine are stable and firm, [658] he is not capable of recognising a tertian fever when it sets in, but waits for the diatritus. For this is amazing indeed—to claim “it is secure” of precisely those things which are not secure, and yet to be ignorant of all those that are in truth secure. But of course such an old woman [sc’s tale] is not worth mentioning.

FR 147. GALENUS, ON

THE DIVISON OF PULSE

[SC

BY KINDS]

(1)

Galenus, On the division of pulse [sc by kinds], III i, pp. 639–641 K: [i, 639] . . . Now, since the whole theory concerning pulses is divided into four parts—namely the part that deals with their division by kinds [differentia], the part that deals with diagnosis [sc from them], the part that deals with their causes, and, fourthly, the part that deals with prognosis through them— none of these would suffer any harm if we were to call “Dion” the pulse with a strong beat. For we have learned how it differs from the others no matter whether it is called Theon, Dion, or something else—or how it will be diagnosed, what causes bring it about, and what it indicates. [640] So let Archigenes carry on with his ambitious fight against Magnus: it may be that the latter indeed offended the Greeks’ customary use of names, but at least he understood this much: that most of his quarrel with the ancients was about the name [sc of the pulse in question]. For what is it that Magnus says, in his own words? “Therefore the pulse must have considerable magnitude and fullness, and it must strike the fingers quickly, if one is to call it a strong pulse in the proper sense.” So Magnus knew perfectly well that he was up against the other doctors not on a point of substance but on proper or improper naming. And he makes this even clearer in what follows; for he deems it right that Demetrius, to whom he dedicated the books in question—the ones On the discoveries made after the time of Themison—should also investigate the matter jointly with him, since as a philosopher he would know most exactly what a proper and an improper [sc use of a] word was. And he writes as follows (for there is no harm in quoting Magnus’ own words here as well): “So you should arbitrate on my behalf whether it was correct for them to put this [sc pulse] in the class of the simple divisions by kind [differentiae]. [641] For it is rather your concern to pass judgement on the proper use of words [kuriologia] and to ascertain from names the real nature of what is meant.” Then he makes it even clearer in what follows,

394

  ‒  -

saf°steron poie› l°gvn …d¤: “ÉEg∆ dÉ oÈk éllãssv tØn §mautoË gn≈mhn m°xri toËde: fhm‹ d¢ tÚ t∞w sfodrÒthtow ˆnoma shma¤nein oÈx èpl∞n diaforån sfugm«n, sÊmmetron dÉ §k meg°youw ka‹ tãxouw ka‹ plhrÒthtow.” OÈkoËn kôntaËya per‹ toË t¤ shma¤nei tÚ ˆnoma tÚ t∞w sfodrÒthtow 5 émfisbhte›n ımologe›. Ka‹ ˜lvw e‡ tiw boÊletai tÚn pãnta lÒgon énal°jasyai—g°graptai dÉ §n t“ tr¤tƒ t«n ÉEfeurhm°nvn metå toÁw Yem¤svnow xrÒnouw—eÏroi aÈtÚn afisyanÒmenon ˜ti per‹ ÙnÒmatow ≤ zÆths¤w §sti.

FR 148. GALENUS, DE

DIFFERENTIA PULSUUM

(2)

Galenus, De differentia pulsuum, IV ii, pp. 719–720 K: [ii, 719] . . . L°gvmen oÔn aÔyiw énalabÒntew Íp¢r toË katå tÚn sfugmÚn ˜rou, mnhmoneÊontew Ùnomast‹ t«n dojãntvn aÈtÚn …r¤syai kal«w. 10 ÖHrjanto m¢n oÔn, …w ¶fhn, t∞w toiaÊthw perierg¤aw ofl ÑHrof¤leioi: died°janto dÉ aÈtoÁw ¶nioi t«n ÉErasistrate¤vn, e‰yÉ o· te Pneumatiko‹ kaloÊmenoi ka¤ tinew t«n Meyodik«n. Efi m¢n oÔn èpãntvn mnhmoneÊv, duo›n, oÈx •nÒw, ¶stai xre¤a bibl¤vn. Boulom°nƒ d° moi tØn oÈk énagka¤an taÊthn polulog¤an §n •n‹ katapaËsai grãmmati, tosoÊtouw 15 aÎtark°w §sti dielye›n ˜rouw ëma to›w efipoËsin éndrãsin aÈtoÊw, ˜souw ín Ípo[720]d°jasyai dÊnhtai tÚ bibl¤on. ÉEk toÊtvn går oÔn §n°stai ka‹ toÁw êllouw ëpantaw kr¤nein.

FR 149. GALENUS, DE

DIFFERENTIIS FEBRIUM

Galenus, De differentiis febrium, I ix, pp. 307–308 K: [ix, 307] . . . M°giston d¢ gn≈risma t«n §p‹ sÆcei puret«n §sti ka‹ ≤ t∞w yermas¤aw poiÒthw. OÈd¢n går ¶xei xrhstÒn, oÈd¢ m°trion, oÈdÉ 20 ˜moiÒn ti t«n §fhm°rvn, éllÉ Àsper e‡rhtai ka‹ to›w ér¤stoiw t«n prÚ ≤m«n fiatr«n, dakn≈dhw p≈w §sti mçllon, …w éniòn ka‹ diabibr≈skein tØn èfÆn, Àsper ı kapnÚw toÁw ÙfyalmoÁw ka‹ toÁw mukt∞raw. ÉAllÉ §n m¢n ta›w §pibola›w t«n parojusm«n, …w ín ¶ti katapnigom°nou te toË yermoË ka‹ tufom°nvn ¶ndon t«n perittvmãtvn, oÈk eÈy°vw 25 §piballÒntvn tØn xe›ra diagin≈sketai: xronisãntvn d°, tÚ efirhm°non e‰dow t∞w yermÒthtow §k bãyouw énaf°retai. Ka¤ moi doke› toioËtÒn ti katid∆n Yem¤svn ‡diÒn te ka‹ éx≈riston Ípãrxein ëpasi to›w pur°ttousin Ípe[308]lãmbanen. ÉAllå per‹ m¢n toÊtou §n ofike¤ƒ toËde toË lÒgou xvr¤ƒ ka‹ aÔyiw skecÒmeya.

  ‒  -

395

writing like this: “I do not change my opinion as far as this goes: I do claim that the term ‘strength’ does not refer to a simple differentia of pulse, but to one which contains proportionate measures of magnitude, speed, and fullness.” Thus here as well he admits to disputing about what the term “strength” refers to. And if one wishes to read all his argument, from beginning to end—it is written in the third book of the Discoveries made after the time of Themison—one will find out that he was aware that the whole inquiry was about [sc that] term.

FR 148. GALENUS, ON

THE DIVISON OF PULSE

[SC

BY KINDS]

(2)

Galenus, On the division of pulse [sc by kinds], IV ii, pp. 719–720 K: [ii, 719 . . . So let us get back and rehearse the definition of pulse, mentioning by name those considered to have defined it correctly. As I said, it was the Herophileans who opened this kind of inquiry; they were followed by some Erasistrateans, and, later on, by the so-called Pneumatists and by some Methodists. Now, if I am to refer to all, I will need not one book, but two. But since I wish to cut this unnecessarily long talk down to a single volume, it is enough for me to review just as many definitions, together with their authors, as [720] the book would be able to contain. For it will be possible on the basis of these [sc definitions] also to form a judgement on all the others.

FR 149. GALENUS, ON

THE KINDS OF FEVER

Galenus, On the kinds of fever, I ix, pp. 307–308 K: [ix, 307] . . . In fact the most important symptom of the fevers [sc resulting] from putrefaction is the quality of the [sc patient’s] heat. For there is nothing good or moderate about it, or similar in any respect [sc to the heat of ] ephemeral [sc fevers], but, as has also been said by the best doctors who preceded us, it is rather mordant to the point of upsetting and corroding the touch, as smoke does to the eyes and nostrils. Now, at the onset of paroxysms, when the heat is still choked up and the residues are smouldering inside, it is not recognised as soon as you put the hand on, but when they [sc the fevers] become chronic, the heat of the kind we spoke of does come up from the depth [sc of the body]. And I think it is because he observed something of this sort that Themison supposed it to be [sc a feature] specific to, and inseparable from, all those afflicted with fever. [308] But we shall examine this matter again, in its proper place within this argument.

396

  ‒  - FR 150. GALENUS, DE

DIGNOSCENDIS PULSIBUS

Galenus, De dignoscendis pulsibus, I i, pp. 768–769 + 770–771 K: [i, 768] . . . Efi går ofl plastiko‹ m¢n ka‹ grafiko‹ tØn ˆcin, ofinotropiko‹ d¢ ka‹ mageiriko‹ tØn geËsin, tØn ˆsfrhsin d¢ ofl per‹ tØn t«n mÊrvn skeuas¤an, ka‹ tØn ékoØn ofl mousiko¤, ka¤toi tØn Ïlhn t∞w t°xnhw êfyonon ¶xontew, [769] oÈx ≤m°raiw oÈd¢ mhs¤n éllÉ ¶tesi suxno›w efiw 5 ékr¤beian éskoËsin, pÒsou xrØ doke›n de›syai xrÒnou tÚn fiatrÚn efiw tØn t∞w èf∞w êskhsin; [. . .] [770] TaËtÉ oÔn ëpanta pÒshw o‡ei de›syai trib∞w; ÉEmo‹ m¢n gãr, efi xrØ mØ ceusãmenon efipe›n, ëpantow tényrvp¤nou b¤ou de›syai doke› prÒw ge tØn teleiotãthn §pistÆmhn, efiw d¢ tosaÊthn ˜sh ka‹ ≤m›n ≥dh §st‹n oÈx ©j mhn«n mÒnon, §n ˜soiw ofl sof≈tatoi 10 Meyodiko‹ tØn fiatrikØn ˜lhn §pagg°llontai didãjein, éllÉ §t«n pãnu poll«n. ÉEg∆ m°n gÉ éfÉ o tÚ pr«ton efiw fiatroÁw foitòn ±rjãmhn pa›w ¶ti Ãn yaumastÆn tina §piyum¤an ¶sxon t∞w per‹ toÁw sfugmoÁw t°xnhw, e‰tÉ §j §ke¤nou m°xri ka‹ [771] efiw tÒde melet«n oÈd°pv moi dok« pçsan aÈtØn §kmemayhk°nai.

FR 151. GALENUS, DE

LIBRIS PROPRIIS

(1)

Galenus, De libris propriis, i, pp. 11–12 K = 93–94 Müller: 15 [i, 11] Per‹ t«n gegonÒtvn Ípomnhmãtvn §n ÑRÒm˙ katå tØn pr≈thn §pidhm¤an. 1 ÉEg∆ m¢n oÔn oÈdÉ e‰xon èpãntvn aÈt«n ént¤grafa “Meirak¤oiw” Ípagoreuy°ntvn “érxom°noiw manyãnein”, µ2 ka¤ tisi f¤loiw éji≈sasi doy°ntvn: Ïsteron dÉ ıpÒte tÚ deÊteron ∏kon efiw ÑR≈mhn3 komisy°ntvn, …w e‡rhtai, [12] prÒw me diory≈sevw ßneken, §kthsãmhn 20 te ka‹ tØn §pigrafØn efisagom°noiw,4 ˘ pr«ton ín e‡h pãntvn énagnvst°on to›w mayhsom°noiw tØn fiatrikØn t°xnhn: §n aÈtƒ5 går afl katå g°now éllÆlvn aflr°seiw6 diaf°rousai didãskontai: katå g°now dÉ e‰pon

inscriptionem omitit K quasi “posterioribus temporibus inserta”, sed ea “a Galeno ipso addita est” (Müller, Praef., p. lxviii) 2 µ M (= Müller): efi Q (= Ambrosianus Graecus Q 3) A (= editio Aldina) B (= editio Basileensis) Ch (= Charterius) K 3 ci He (= Helmreich, Acta Sem. Erlagensis II 240) > M: §n ÑR≈m˙ Q > K cett edd 4 tØn §pigrafØn §poihsãmhn •kãstou (sc t«n bibl¤vn œn §kthsãmhn) tª §paggel¤& prosÆkousan, oÂon Per‹ aflr°sevn to›w efisagom°noiw ci He, lacunam complens: tØn §pigrafØn §p°yeka Per‹ aflr°sevn to›w efisagom°noiw compl K (uide Müeller, Praef., pp. lxviii–lxix) 5 He > M: §n aÈtª Q > K cett edd 6 diair°seiw Q > edd 1

  ‒  - FR 150. GALENUS, ON

397

DIAGNOSING FROM PULSE

Galenus, On diagnosing from pulse, I, i pp. 768–769 + 770–771 K: [i, 768] For if the potters and painters train their sight, the wine-blenders and the cooks [sc train] their taste, those engaged in the manufacture of perfumes [sc train] their smell, and the musicians [sc train] their hearing— rigorously, [769] not for days or months but for uninterrupted years, and indeed there is plenty of available material for their art—how much time should we reckon that a doctor needs for the training of his [sc sense of ] touch? [. . .] [770] How much practice would you think all this needs? For my part, if I am not to say a lie, I think that to attain the most accomplished [sc state of ] knowledge takes the whole of a man’s life; and [sc to attain] as much [sc knowledge] as we already possess [sc takes] not just the six months during which the most wise Methodists claim to teach you the whole of medicine, but quite a large number of years. I, at least, had an amazing desire for [sc acquiring] the art of pulse ever since I first started having contacts with doctors, still in my childhood, and although I kept practising it since then even to the [771] present day, I do not hold myself to have learned it all to perfection.

FR 151. GALENUS, ON

MY OWN BOOKS

(1)

Galenus, On my own books, i, pp. 11–12 K = 93–94 Müller: [i, 11] On the commentaries written in Rome during the first visit. So I did not have copies of all of those [sc books] which had been entitled “For youngsters, at the beginning of their studies”, or in some cases I had offered them to friends who required them; but later, on my second visit to Rome, I brought back [sc copies of ] them for correction, as I said, [12] and, once in their possession, for beginners—which ought to be, for those who will get instruction in the medical art, their very first reading; for one learns from it how the haireseis differ from each other generically;

398

  ‒  -

§peidØ ka‹ diafora¤ tinew §n aÈta›w efisi, kayÉ ìw Ïsteron ofl efisaxy°ntew §pekdidãskontai. Tå d¢ t«n tri«n aflr°sevn ÙnÒmata sxedÚn ëpantew ≥dh gign≈skousin—tØn m°n tina DogmatikÆn te ka‹ LogikØn Ùnomãzesyai, tØn d¢ deut°ran ÉEmpeirikÆn, tØn tr¤thn d¢ MeyodikÆn:7 ˜sa to¤nun 5 §st‹n •kãsthw ‡dia µ kayÉ ì diaf°rousin éllÆlvn, §n §ke¤nƒ t“ bibl¤ƒ g°graptai.

7

tØn m°n . . . MeyodikÆn del M

FR 152. GALENUS, DE

LIBRIS PROPRIIS

(2)

Galenus, De libris propriis, vi, pp. 33 + 36–37 K = pp. 111 + 113–114 Müller: [vi, 33] Per‹ t«n ÑIppokrate¤vn Ípomnhmãtvn. [. . .] [36] T“ dÉ ÑIppokrãtei prosÆkontÉ §st‹ ka‹ taËta: Per‹ t∞w kayÉ ÑIppokrãthn1 dia¤thw §p‹ t«n Ùj°vn noshmãtvn, [37] Àsper ge ka‹ ≤ T«n parÉ aÈt“2 glvtt«n §jÆghsiw, 10 ka‹ tÚ PrÚw LÊkon3 per‹ toË éforismoË o ≤ érxÆ: “Tå aÈjanÒmena ple›ston ¶xei tÚ ¶mfuton yermÒn”,a Àsper ge ka‹ 4 prÚw ÉIoulianÚn tÚn MeyodikÚn Íp¢r œn §nekãlesen to›w ÑIppokrate¤oiw ÉAforismo›w.

a

Aphorisms i 14.

M: kayÉ ÑIppokrãtouw K cett edd: kayÉ ÑIppokrãth Q edd 3 Q > A B M: LÊkou Ch K 4 add M

1

FR 153DUB. GALENUS, DE

2

M: aÈtoË Q > K cett

LOCIS AFFECTIS

(1)

Galenus, De locis affectis, IV xi–V, pp. 293–298 K: [ix, 293] TÚ dÉ ÉAntipãtrƒ t“ fiatr“ sumbån ëpantew ¶gnvsan, …w oÈk éfan«w fiatreÊonti katå tØn ÑRvma¤vn pÒlin. âHn m¢n ı énØr otow 15 ≤lik¤an êgvn §t«n §lattÒnvn m¢n µ •jÆkonta, pleÒnvn dÉ µ pentÆkonta, sun°bh dÉ aÈt“ pote pur°janti t«n §fhm°rvn tinå puret«n §k fanerçw profãsevw ëcasyai t«n •autoË sfugm«n §n tª parakmª toË puretoË, xãrin toË gn«nai t¤ poiht°on §st‹n aÈt“. Pçsan dÉ eÍr∆n énvmal¤an §n tª t«n érthri«n kinÆsei kateplãgh m¢n tÚ pr«ton: …w d¢ saf«w 20 Ïsteron ºsyãneto mhk°ti pur°ttein •autÒn §loÊsato m¢n eÈy°vw—§p‹

399

  ‒  -

and I said “generically” because there are also differences within them, on which those who passed the introductory stage [sc will] get further instruction later on. Now, almost anyone already knows the names of the three haireseis: one is called Dogmatist and Logical, the second, Empiricist, and the third, Methodist. As for what is specific to each and in what they differ from each other, it is written in that book.

FR 152. GALENUS, ON

MY OWN BOOKS

(2)

Galenus, On my own books, vi, pp. 33 + 36–37 K = pp. 111 + 113–114 Müller: [vi, 33] On the Hippocratic commentaries. [. . .] [36] Also concerned with Hippocrates are the following [sc books]: On Hippocrates’ [37] Regimen in acute diseases, and also The explanation of the terms used by him, the [sc book] Against Lykon, which is about the aphorism which begins with the words: “Growing creatures have most innate heat”, and also the [sc book] against Julian the Methodist, which deals with the objections formulated by him against the Hippocratic Aphorisms.

FR 153DUB. GALENUS, ON

THE AFFECTED PARTS

(1)

Galenus, On the affected parts, IV xi–V, pp. 293–298 K: [ix, 293] Everyone knows what happened to Antipater the doctor, since he enjoyed quite a reputation as a doctor practising in Rome. This man had reached somewhere under sixty but over fifty years of age, when he caught a quotidian fever due to some manifest cause [ prophasis] which was obvious, and it so happened that he checked his own pulse on the decline of the fever, so as to know what should be done. At first he was astonished to discover a complete irregularity in his arterial pulse, but later, as it became clear to him that he no longer had any fever, he bathed at once—

400

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

kÒpoiw te går aÈt“ ka‹ égrupn¤aiw §kekmÆkei tÚ s«ma—[294] di˙tÆyh d¢ pãnu lept«w êxri toË tØn tr¤thn épÚ t∞w érx∞w ≤m°ran dielye›n: §n √ mhdenÚw ¶ti genom°nou puretoË, proπei m¢n •kãsthw ≤m°raw Àsper ka‹ prÒsyen. ÑAptÒmenow dÉ •autoË t∞w katå tÚn karpÚn érthr¤aw §yaÊmase diamenoÊshw §n to›w sfugmo›w t∞w énvmal¤aw. ÉApantÆsaw oÔn mo¤ pote proÎteine tØn xe›ra gel«n §k°leus° te t«n sfugm«n ëcasyai. Kôg∆ meidiãsaw: “T¤ tÚ a‡nigmã §stin ˘ keleÊeiw;”—±rÒmhn: ı dÉ aÔyiw ımo¤vw gel«n §de›to pãntvw ëcasyai. Ka‹ to¤nun eron ècãmenow énvmal¤an katå tÚn sfugmÚn ëpasan, oÔ mÒnon §n éyro¤smati ginom°nhn ∂n “susthmatikØn” Ùnomãzousin éllå ka‹ katå m¤an diastolØn t∞w érthr¤aw. ÉEyaÊmazon oÔn ˜pvw ¶ti zª toioËton ¶xvn sfugmÒn, §punyanÒmhn te mÆ tiw aÈt“ dusx°reia katå tØn énapnoØn g¤netai: toË dÉ oÈdem¤an afisyhtØn ımologoËntow, §petÆroun m¢n e‡ tina metabolØn ßjoi pot°, sunex«w èptÒmenow t∞w katå tÚn karpÚn érthr¤aw ©j mhn«n pou xrÒnƒ. Punyanom°nou dÉ oÔn aÈtoË katÉ érxåw ¥ tiw e‰na¤ moi doke› diãyesiw §n t“ s≈mati ka‹ katå t¤na trÒpon aÈtoË toioËton §rgã[295]zesyai dunam°nh tÚn sfugmÚn êneu puretoË, prÚw tØn §r≈thsin épekrinãmhn §n tª Per‹ t«n sfugm«n pragmate¤& dedhl«sya¤ moi per‹ t∞w toiaÊthw énvmal¤aw: ≤goËmai går aÈtØn §p‹ stenoxvr¤& t«n §n t“ pneÊmoni megãlvn érthri«n g¤gnesyai. “TØn stenoxvr¤an dÉ” ¶fhn “§p‹ m¢n flegmonª toË splãgxnou, tÒ gÉ §p¤ soi nËn édÊnaton Ípãrxein— §pÊrettew går ên—épole¤petai dÉ ≥toi diÉ ¶mfrajin Ígr«n ka‹ gl¤sxrvn ka‹ pax°vn xum«n, µ diå fÊmatow ép°ptou g°nesin, efiw tØn toiaÊthn éf›xya¤ se diãyesin.” ÑO dÉ Ípolab≈n: “ÉExr∞n oÔn” ¶fh “ésymatikØn ÙryÒpnoian e‰na¤ moi.” Kôg∆ piyan«w m¢n e‰pon l°gein aÈtÒn, oÈ mØn élhy«w: g¤gnesyai m¢n går ka‹ tØn toiaÊthn ÙryÒpnoian diå toiaÊthn afit¤an, oÈ mØn §n ta›w le¤aiw érthr¤aiw éllÉ §n ta›w traxe¤aiw, éyroizom°nou toË gl¤sxrou ka‹ pax°ow xumoË. Ka‹ to¤nun ¶dojen ≤m›n tÆn te d¤aitan aÈt“ pçsan ımo¤an poie›syai ta›w1 t«n ésymatik«n, tã te fãrmaka prosf°resyai taÈtØn §ke¤noiw ¶xonta dÊnamin. àEj dÉ §n t“ metajÁ genom°nvn (…w ¶fhn) mhn«n, æsyetÒ tinow oÈ megãlhw duspno¤aw ëma palm“ braxe› [296] t∞w kard¤aw, tÚ m¢n pr«ton ëpaj, e‰ta d¤w pou ka‹ tr¤w, e‰ta ka‹ tetrãkiw te ka‹ pleonãkiw ginom°nou, metå toË sunaujãnesyai tØn dÊspnoian, §fÉ ≤m°raw …w p°nte ka‹ d°ka: meyÉ ìw §ja¤fnhw duspnoÆsaw sfodr«w, e‰tÉ §kluye¤w, eÈy°vw ép°yanen, Àsper êlloi tin¢w §p‹ pãyesi kard¤aw, Íp¢r œn efirÆsetai katå tÚn §fej∞w lÒgon. [V i, 297] ÉEn t“ prÚ toÊtou grãmmati per‹ t«n katå tÚn pneÊmona pay«n diejerxÒmenow, §mnhmÒneusa tª koinvn¤& toË lÒgou ka‹ y≈rakow ka‹ kard¤aw §pÉ Ùl¤gon, énaballÒmenow efiw tout‹ tÚ p°mpton ÍpÒmnhma tel°vw épod≈sein ëpanta tÚn per‹ aÈt«n lÒgon. ÉEpe‹ to¤nun §teleÊthsen ≤ katå tÚ t°tarton ÍpÒmnhma didaskal¤a efiw tå sumbãnta t“ ÉAntipãtrƒ t“ fiatr“, tØn m¢n diãyesin aÈtoË §n aÈt“ t“ pneÊmoni ‡sxontow tØn pr≈thn, §pi[298]diabãntow d¢ toË pãyouw êxri t∞w kard¤aw, êmeinon e‰na¤ moi doke› per‹ pãntvn aÈt∞w t«n pay«n dielye›n. 1

ego: to›w K

  ‒  

401

for his body suffered from fatigue and sleeplessness—[294] and he adopted a very light diet up until the passing of the third day from [sc the fever’s] start; as there was no fever then, he carried on every day [sc with his activities] just as before. But he kept checking the artery at the wrist and was puzzled that the irregularity in his pulse persisted. So once when we met he stretched out his hand and, with a laugh, ordered me to check his pulse. Then I retorted, smiling: “What is the riddle you urge me [sc to solve]?” And he, laughing back in the same way, asked [sc me] to check [sc his pulse] thoroughly. So then: I checked [sc it] and discovered a complete irregularity in his pulse, not only of the kind that occurs in the system [sc of beats], which is called “constitutional”, but also in each dilatation of the artery. I was therefore puzzled that he could survive with such a pulse, and I asked whether he had any difficulty in breathing. When he assured me he had none that he was aware of, I put him under observation in case there would be any change and I checked his arterial pulse regularly for six months. Now, at the very beginning he had asked me what I thought the state in his body was and how it could bring about such [295] a pulse in him in the absence of fever—to which question I replied that this kind of irregularity has been explained in my handbook on Pulse; for I am of the view that it results from narrowness in the great arteries of the lungs. “As for the narrowness,” I said, “it [sc could result] from an inflammation in the internal organ, but this is impossible in your present case, for you would be feverish: it remains that you came by your state either through a stoppage of humid, sticky, and thick humours or through an unconcocted tumour.” He protested, replying: “In that case I should suffer from asthmatic orthopnoea.” And I observed that what he said was plausible but not true. For there is indeed an orthopnoea of this sort, due to this sort of cause, yet it occurs when the sticky and thick humour gathers in the rough arteries, and certainly not in the smooth ones. Therefore I thought it fit to prescribe for him a regimen absolutely identical with those for the asthmatics, administering medicines with the same power as those [sc the medicines used for those patients]. When the six months (which I mentioned) had passed, he had some mild dyspnoea accompanied by a short palpitation [296] of the heart: this went on for about fifteen days, [sc happening] at first once, then twice or three times, and later on four or even more times, while the dyspnoea worsened; then he was suddenly seized with a very powerful dyspnoea, choked, and died instantly, like many others with affections of the heart, whom I shall discuss in the next section. [V i, 297] In the course of presenting the affections of the lungs in the previous book, I also made brief references to those of the chest and heart, on account of the unity of the subject, but I reserved the full discussion of their subject for this fifth book. So then: since the material in the fourth book ended with [sc the narration of ] what happened to Antipater the doctor, who suffered from a state which was primarily [sc located] in the lung itself [298] but then the affection moved on to the heart, it seems to me appropriate to discuss all its [sc the heart’s] affections.

402

  ‒   FR 154. GALENUS, DE

LOCIS AFFECTIS

(2)

Galenus, De locis affectis, V viii, pp. 354–357 K:

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

[viii, 354] PÒteron d¢ diapantÚw §n to›w fikt°roiw ı pepony∆w tÒpow ∏pãr §stin, µ ka¤ tiw êllh diãyesiw §rgãzetai tÚ pãyow toËto, metabãntew ≥dh skop«men. ÑOrçtai [355] gãr pote, mhd¢n ˜lvw peponyÒtow toË splãgxnou toÊtou, xol∞w »xrçw énãxusiw efiw tÚ d°rma gignom°nh kritik«w, Àsper êlla tinå t«n époskhmmãtvn: ırçtai d¢ ka‹ xvr‹w kr¤sevw §kxoloÊmenon §n¤ote tÚ aÂma katã tina diafyorån éllÒkoton, ıpo¤a ka‹ yhr¤vn daknÒntvn g¤gnetai. Dhxye›w goËn tiw t«n aÈtokratorik«n ofiket«n oÂw ¶rgon §st‹n §x¤dnaw yhreÊein, êxri m°n tinow xrÒnou t«n sunhy«n •aut“ farmãkvn ¶pin°n ti, metaballoÊshw dÉ aÈt“ t∞w xroiçw ˜lhw …w gen°syai prasoeid∞, prosely∆n ≤m›n ßkastã te dihgÆsato, ka‹ p¤nvn t∞w yhriak∞w éntidÒtou tãxista tØn katå fÊsin énektÆsato xroiãn. ÉEzhthm°nou d¢ to›w fiatro›w efi farmake¤aw §st‹n ‡dia shme›a diå tÚ pollãkiw •vrçsyai xvr‹w t«n yanas¤mvn farmãkvn efiw diafyorån xum«n éfiknoÊmenon tÚ s«ma paraplhs¤an tª diå t«n farmãkvn gignom°n˙, yaumastÚn oÈd°n §sti ka‹ toiaÊthn pot¢ sumb∞nai tropØn t«n xum«n …w fikterivy∞nai tÚ pçn s«ma. DunatÚn d¢ ka‹ diå tØn aÈtoË toË ¥patow éllo¤vsin t∞w katå fÊsin krãsevw ≤ toiaÊth gen°syai kakoxum¤a, xvr‹w §mfrãjevw µ flegmon∞w [356] µ sk¤rrou: ka‹ går oÔn ka‹ fa¤neta¤ ge saf«w §n¤ote m¢n ˜moion »xroleÊkoiw pÒaiw ˜lon tÚ s«ma gignÒmenon, §n¤ote d¢ mol¤bdƒ paraplÆsion ¶xon tØn xrÒan µ ka‹ faiot°ran t∞sde, ka¤ tinaw êllaw érrÆtouw fidiÒthtaw xrvmãtvn, §p‹ kakoprag¤aiw ¥patow êneu t«n parå fÊsin ˆgkvn: Àsp°r ge ka‹ diå spl∞na toiaËtai g¤gnontai, poll“ melãnterai t«n §fÉ ¥pati. Xalepa‹ m¢n •rmhneuy∞nai, gnvrisy∞nai d¢ =òstai to›w pollãkiw •vrakÒsin. SthsianÚn goËn, ıpÒtÉ §p‹ t«n diagn≈sevn ∑n, oÈk o‰dÉ ˜pvw §dÒkoun ofl ple¤ouw t«n §piskeptom°nvn fiatr«n épÒstasin ¶xein §n ¥pati: kôpeidØ ple¤oni xrÒnƒ mhd¢n §ped¤dou prÚw tÚ b°ltion, §kãlesen kôm°. Yeasãmenow oÔn aÈtÚn ëma t“ pr«ton efiselye›n efiw tÚn o‰kon ¶nya kat°keito: “ToËto m¢n” ¶fhn “≥dh g¤nvske, mhd¢n §n t“ splãgxnƒ soi kakÚn e‰nai: tå dÉ êlla gumn≈saw tÚ ÍpoxÒndrion e‡somai.” Ka‹ ∑n toÊtƒ t«n §n t“ bãyei mu«n épÒsthma, ka‹ sune¤lekto pËon ≥dh metajÁ t«n tÉ §gkars¤vn ka‹ [357] t«n kãtvyen ênv ferom°nvn loj«n, oÓw m°souw ‡ste keimenouw t«n te toË peritona¤ou cauÒntvn §gkars¤vn ka‹ t«n §pipol∞w §p‹ t“ d°rmati loj«n ênvyen kãtv ferom°nvn. OÏtv d¢ ka‹ êllouw polloÁw ‡ste me shmeivsãmenon …w §k t∞w xroiçw épofÆnasyai pot¢ m¢n ∏par e‰nai tÚ pãsxon aÈto›w, pot¢ d¢ spl∞na, mÆte t«n proge-

403

  ‒   FR 154. GALENUS, ON

THE AFFECTED PARTS

(2)

Galenus, On the affected parts, V viii, pp. 354–357 K: [viii, 354] Let us turn now to examining whether in cases of jaundice the affected part is always the liver, or maybe some other state [diathesis] [sc can] produce this affection as well. For even when this internal organ is not affected at all we [sc can] sometimes notice, [355] during a crisis, a flow of sallow bile rushing towards the skin, as [sc do] other precipitations; or we [sc can] notice at other times that even without a crisis the blood gets charged with bile under some extraneous corruption, for instance when poisonous animals bite you. An imperial slave from the ranks of those employed to hunt vipers was once bitten. He kept drinking some of the usual medicines for a while, but when his whole skin altered to the point of turning leek-green he came to us and recounted all [sc the details of his story], drank the theriac antidote, and regained his natural complexion very quickly. The reason why doctors ask themselves the question whether there are signs specific to poisoning [ pharmakeia] is that it has been observed that, in the absence of lethal poisons, the body often reaches a state of corruption [diaphthora] of the humours which is similar to the one produced through poisons; hence, it is no wonder that sometimes there also occurs a change of the humours such as to make the whole body yellowish-green. And it is equally possible for this kind of bad state of the humours [kakochumia] to occur through the alteration of the liver itself, without obstruction, inflammation, [356] or scirrhus; for it is indeed perfectly visible that the whole body becomes sometimes similar to yellowish-white grass, or sometimes takes a colour like [sc that of ] lead, if not even more [sc intensely] grey than that—or other peculiar shades for which there are no names—as a result of dysfunctions of the liver not accompanied by unnatural swellings; such [sc dysfunctions] also occur because of the spleen, but those are much darker than the ones due to the liver. They are difficult to explain, yet easy to diagnose for those who have witnessed them many times. Now, when Stesianus was [sc examined] for a diagnosis, most of the doctors who inspected him thought, I don’t know why, that he had an abscess in the liver; and when he had not changed to the better for quite a while, he called for me too. Well, I took a glance at him the very moment I set foot in the house where he was lying, then I said: “Be already assured that there is nothing malignant in your organ; the rest I shall know once I get your abdomen naked.” He had an abscess in the depth of his muscles, and pus already gathered in between the transversal [sc muscles] and [357] those which go upwards from below and obliquely [sc on the transversal]—those which, as you know, lie in the middle, between the transversal [sc muscles], which are in contact with the peritoneum, and the oblique ones, which lie on the surface [sc just] under the skin, descending from above. You know that I have diagnosed many other [sc patients] in this way, in the belief that one can pronounce, on the basis of colour, that their suffering

404

  ‒  -

gonÒtvn ékhkoÒta ti mÆte diå t∞w èf∞w gnvr¤santa tÚ pãyhma t«n splãgxnvn: diÚ ka‹ pollãkiw ékoÊet° mou katarvm°nou to›w pr≈toiw tolmÆsasin •autoÁw prostãtaw m¢n fiatrik∞w yevr¤aw épof∞nai, yerapeÊein d¢ toÁw nosoËntaw oÈ boulhye›sin.1 Ofl ple›stoi d¢ toÊtvn Éem5 peiriko¤ te ka‹ Meyodiko‹ gegÒnasin, oÂw ên tiw l°g˙ dunatÚn e‰nai diå mÒnhw t∞w xrÒaw §n¤ote diagn«nai tÚn peponyÒta tÒpon, éno¤jantew tÚ stÒma, tØn éna¤sxunton aÈt«n gl«ttan Àsp°r tina kÊna lutt«nta to›w dialegom°noiw éfiçsin. ÉAllÉ oÈ prÚw §ke¤nouw ı nËn §nesthk∆w lÒgow.

1

ego: boulhy°ntaw K

FR 155. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(1)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, I i, pp. 4–5 K: [i, 4] . . . OÎkoun oÈx ı kre¤ttvn tØn t°xnhn éllÉ ı kolakeÊein deinÒterow 10 §ntimÒterow aÈto›w §sti, ka‹ toÊtƒ ëpanta bãsima ka‹ pÒrima, ka‹ t«n ofiki«n éne–gasin afl yÊrai t“ toioÊtƒ, ka‹ ploute› te tax°vw oÏtvw1 ka‹ polÁ dÊnatai ka‹ mayhtåw ¶xei toÁw §k koit«now kaloÁw2 ˜tan ¶jvroi g°nvntai. Ka‹ toËto katanoÆsaw ı YessalÚw [5] §ke›now, oÈ têlla mÒnon §kolãkeue toÁw §p‹ t∞w ÑR≈mhw plous¤ouw éllå kôn3 t“ 15 mhs‹n ©j §pagge¤lasyai didãjein tØn t°xnhn •to¤mvw §lãmbane mayhtåw pampÒllouw. Efi går oÎte gevmetr¤aw oÎtÉ éstronom¤aw oÎte dialektik∞w4 oÎtÉ êllou tinow mayÆmatow t«n kal«n ofl m°llontew fiatro‹ genÆsesyai d°ontai, kayãper ı gennaiÒtatow §phgge¤lato YessalÒw, éllÉ oÈd¢ makrçw §mpeir¤aw xrπzousi ka‹ sunÆyeiaw t«n ¶rgvn t∞w 20 t°xnhw, ßtoimon ≥dh prosi°nai pant‹ genhsom°nƒ =&d¤vw fiatr“. Diå toËto ka‹ skutotÒmoi ka‹ t°ktonew ka‹ bafe›w ka‹ xalke›w §piphd«sin ≥dh to›w ¶rgoiw t∞w fiatrik∞w, tåw érxa¤aw aÍt«n épolipÒntew t°xnaw. Ofl m¢n går tÚn =«pon diatiy°menoi ka‹ per‹ prvte¤vn §r¤zousi.

1

ego: otow K

2

ego: polloÁw K

3

ego: ka‹ K

FR 156. GALENUS, DE

4

oÎte mousik∞w add K

METHODO MEDENDI

(2)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, I ii, pp. 7–8 K: [ii, 7] ÑUpÚ taÊthw t∞w ¶ridow §kmane‹w ı YessalÚw §ke›now, ÑIppokrãtei 25 te ka‹ to›w êlloiw ÉAsklhpiãdaiw §pitimò ka‹ koinÚn t∞w ofikoum°nhw

405

  ‒  -

organ is now the liver, now the spleen, without having heard any of what happened before or identified an affection of the viscera by touch; and this is why you often hear me calling curses upon those who dare to proclaim themselves champions of medical theory but do not want to cure the ill. Most of them are Empiricists and Methodists, and if one tells them that it is possible sometimes to diagnose the affected part through colour alone, they open their mouth and release their shameless tongue like a mad dog upon their interlocutors. But our present argument is not directed at them.

FR 155. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(1)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, I i, pp. 4–5 K: [i, 4] . . . And the person who wins greater favours with them [sc our contemporaries] is not the doctor of superior professional skill but the more accomplished trickster. His route is easy and safe, the doors of houses lie open for such a man; in this way he rapidly becomes rich and powerful, and he takes as disciples the boys who visited his bedroom—the pretty ones past their bloom. That character, Thessalus, scented the state of things [5] and did more than just flatter the wealthy men of Rome: he also attracted a host of enthusiastic disciples by announcing to the world that he would teach the art of medicine within no more than six months. For if those who wish to become doctors have no need of geometry, astronomy, dialectic, or any of the other valuable sciences, as the most excellent and admirable Thessalus ventured, and if even long experience and familiarity with medical practice is not indispensable to them, then it is open to anyone to go ahead and become a doctor, with no effort at all. For this reason cobblers, carpenters, dyers, and smiths are now rushing into the medical business, having abandoned their own original skills. Dealers in knick-knacks wrangle about nothing short of who should get the prize for being the best.

FR 156. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(2)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, I ii, pp. 7–8 K: [ii, 7] Frenzied by this kind of strife, that character Thessalus raises criticisms against Hippocrates and the rest of the Asclepiads and, summoning

406

  ‒  -

y°atron §n ta›w •autoË b¤bloiw plhr«n §pÉ §ke¤nou kr¤netai ka‹ nikò ka‹ stefanoËtai katå t«n palai«n èpãntvn, énakhruttÆmenow aÈtÚw ÍfÉ •autoË. Taut‹ m¢n oÔn ¶n te t“ Per‹ t«n koinotÆtvw §po¤hse kôn to›w Sugkritiko›w, §n ëpasi d¢ to›w êlloiw Íbr¤zvn oÈ paÊetai, kayãper 5 o‰mai ka‹ diÉ œn §pist°llei N°rvni, [8] katÉ érxåw m¢n eÈy°vw grãfvn aÈto›w ÙnÒmasin oÏtvw: “Paradedvk∆w n°an a·resin ka‹ mÒnhn élhy∞,1 diå tÚ toÁw progenest°rouw pãntaw fiatroÁw mhd¢n paradoËnai sumf°ron prÒw te Íge¤aw suntÆrhsin ka‹ nÒsvn épallagÆn.” ÉEp‹ proÆkonti d¢ t“ grãmmati proÛ≈n fhsin …w ÑIppokrãthw m¢n §piblab∞ tØn parãdosin 10 pepo¤htai: §tÒlmhse d¢ ka‹ to›w ÉAforismo›w éntil°gein, ésxhmosÊnhn ésxhmonÆsaw meg¤sthn ka‹ de¤jaw ˜ti mÆdÉ efisÆxyh prÒw tinow efiw tØn ÑIppokrãteion yevr¤an mÆdÉ én°gnv parå didaskãlou tå suggrãmmata aÈtoË. Ka‹ ˜mvw ı toioËtow §autÚn oÈk afide›tai stefan«n.

1

ego: ka‹ …w mÒnhn élhyh K

FR 157. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(3)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, I ii, pp. 8–13 K: 15

20

25

30

35

[ii, 8] . . . DiÒ moi dok« kôg≈, ka¤toi gÉ oÈk efiyism°now §jel°gxein pikr«w toÁw skaioÊw, §re›n ti prÚw aÈtÚn [sc YesssalÚn] Íp¢r t∞w t«n palai«n Ïbrevw. T¤ peirò diabãllein, Œ otow, tå xrhstå diå tÚ parå to›w pollo›w eÈdokime›n, §nÚn Íperbãllesyai to›w élhy°sin efi filÒponÒw t° tiw e‡hw ka‹ élhye¤aw §rastÆw; T¤ d¢ tª t«n ékroat«n émay¤& summãxƒ k°xrhsai katå t∞w t«n palai«n blasfhm¤aw; MØ toÁw ımot°xnouw t“ patr¤ sou kritåw kay¤s˙w fiatr«n, tolmhrÒtate Yessal°: nikÆseiw [9] går §pÉ aÈto›w ka‹ kayÉ ÑIppokrãtouw l°gvn ka‹ katå Diokl°ouw ka‹ katå PrajagÒrou ka‹ katå pãntvn t«n êllvn palai«n: éllÉ êndraw palaioÊw, dialektikoÊw, §pisthmonikoÊw, élhy¢w ka‹ ceud¢w diakr¤nein ±skhkÒtaw, ékÒlouyon ka‹ maxÒmenon …w xrØ dior¤zein §pistam°nouw, épodeiktikØn m°yodon §k pa¤dvn memelethkÒtaw, toÊtouw efiw tÚ sun°drion efisãgage dikastãw: §p‹ toÊtvn tÒlmhson ÑIppokrãtei ti m°mcasyai: toÊtvn krinÒntvn §pixe¤rhsÒn ti tª miarò ka‹ barbãrƒ sou fvnª prÚw ÑIppokrãthn dielye›n—pr«ton m¢n …w oÈ xrØ fÊsin ényr≈pou polupragmone›n, ¶peita dÉ …w efi ka‹ toËto sugxvrÆsei° tiw éllÉ ˜ti ge kak«w aÈtØn §zÆthsen §ke›now ka‹ ceud«w épefÆnato sÊmpanta. T¤w oÔn ¶stai kritÆw; Efi boÊlei, Plãtvn, §peidØ toËton goËn oÈk §tÒlmhsaw loidore›n. ÉEg∆ m¢n går oÈd¢ toÁw mayhtåw aÈtoË fÊgoimÉ ên, oÊte tÚn SpeÊsippon oÎte tÚn Jenokrãthn: tÚn ÉAristot°lhn d¢ d¢ kôn parakal°saim¤ se kritØn Ípome›nai, ka‹ sÁn aÈt“ YeÒfraston: eÈja¤mhn dÉ ên se ka‹ ZÆnvna ka‹ XrÊsippon ëpantãw te toÁw épÉ aÈt«n •l°syai kritãw.

407

  ‒  -

the public of the entire world to the spectacle of his books, he gets himself judged before that audience and awarded the crown in preference to all the ancients, proclaiming his own victory. He has done this very thing in his books On the koinotetes and Synkritika, while everywhere else he pours out outrage without break—as for instance in the letter to Nero, [8] which begins unambiguously with the following words: “I leave after me a new hairesis and the only one that is true, since all the doctors of the past failed to hand over anything of use either for the preservation of health or for the removal of diseases.” As the letter goes on, he comes to say that Hippocrates left harmful pieces of teaching; and he got the nerve to criticise even the Aphorisms, disgracing himself by this greatest of indecencies and revealing that he received no guidance into Hippocratic theory from anyone and that he never read his [sc Hippocrates’] treatises in the company of a teacher. Yet, even as he is, he is not ashamed to award himself the crown.

FR 157. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(3)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, I ii, pp. 8–13 K: [ii, 8] . . . For this reason I think that even I, unaccustomed though I am to refute the stupid in a harsh manner, should nevertheless say a word about his [sc Thessalus’] assault on the ancients. Why, man, do you try to misrepresent things of value for the sake of gaining popularity with the crowd, when it would be up to you to gain excellence in real things, if you were industrious and dedicated to the truth? Why did you make the ignorance of your disciples an ally in the slandering of the ancients? Do not set your father’s fellow-workmen as judges over the doctors, most insolent Thessalus; for in their eyes you will win [9] whether you attack Hippocrates, Diocles, Praxagoras, or any of the other ancients. But call in men of old, dialecticians with a scientific mind, trained in recognising truth from falsehood, people who know how consequence should be distinguished from inconsistency and who have exercised the method of demonstration since childhood—bring men of this sort to be judges in your council; then dare, in front of them, to find some fault with Hippocrates; try, with them judging you, to make some point about Hippocrates in your foul and primitive language—first, that one should not get worked up about the nature of man, and next, that, even if you conceded that one should, Hippocrates at any rate went astray in this inquiry and made false pronouncements all over the place. So then, who shall be your judge? Plato, if you wish—since this one at least you did not dare to revile. For my part, I would not avoid his pupils either, Speusippus and Xenocrates; as for Aristotle, I would even urge you to accept him as a judge, with Theophrastus by his side; and I would pray you also to choose as judges Zeno, Chrysippus, and all their

408

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

[10] OÈde‹w toÊtvn, Œ tolmhrÒtate Yessal°, t«n ÑIppokrãtouw kat°gnv per‹ fÊsevw ényr≈pou dogmãtvn, ì tØn érxØn oÎtÉ énegnvk°nai moi doke›w oÎtÉ, e‡per én°gnvw, suni°nai: ka‹ efi sunÆkaw d¢ kr›nai goËn édÊnaton ∑n soi, traf°nti m¢n §n gunaikvn¤tidi parå patrÚw moxyhr«w ¶ria ja¤nonti. MØ går égnoe›sya¤ moi doke› tÚ yaumastÒn sou g°now ka‹ tØn éo¤dimÒn sou paide¤an, mÆdÉ …w §n kvf“ yeãtrƒ loidore›n ÑIppokrãthn te ka‹ toÁw êllouw palaioÊw: éllå t¤w Ãn ka‹ pÒyen—§k po¤ou g°nouw §k po¤aw énatrof∞w §k po¤aw paideÊsevw—§p¤deijon prÒteron: e‰yÉ oÏtvw l°ge, toËtÉ aÈtÚ pr«ton may≈n, Œ yrasÊtate, ˜ti l°gein oÈk §fe›tai pçsi dhmos¤& §n oÈdem¤& t«n eÈnomoum°nvn pÒlevn, éllÉ e‡ tiw §p¤shmÒw §sti ka‹ g°now ¶xei ka‹ énatrofØn de›jai ka‹ paide¤an éj¤an toË dhmhgore›n, toÊtƒ sugxvroËsin égoreÊein ofl nÒmoi: sÁ dÉ oÈd¢n toÊtvn ¶xvn §pide›jai tolmòw, Œ gennaiÒtate, kathgore›n ÑIppokrãtouw ka‹ kay¤zeiw m¢n §n ta›w lhr≈des¤ sou b¤bloiw dikaståw toÁw ÜEllhnaw, épofa¤n˙ dÉ aÈtÚw oÈk éname¤naw §ke¤nouw ka‹ stefano›w seautÒn, §n¤ote m¢n katå pãntvn [11] t«n fiatr«n §n¤ote d¢ katå pãntvn èpl«w ÑEllÆnvn. ToËto gãrtoi tÚ yaumastÒn §sti tÒlmhma toË sofvtãtou YessaloË: nik∞sai m¢n ëpantaw fiatroÁw aÈtÚn égvnistØn aÈtÚn égvnoy°thn aÈtÚn kritØn genÒmenon, §fej∞w d¢ ka‹ toÁw êllouw ÜEllhnaw efiw ég«na proskal°sasyai, =Ætoraw, gevm°traw, grammatikoÊw, éstronÒmouw, filosÒfouw, e‰tÉ §n aÈto›w katastãnta ka‹ tª t«n §riourg«n •rmhne¤& xrhsãmenon éjioËn èpãntvn e‰nai pr«ton: fiatrikØn m¢n går èpas«n texn«n prvteÊein, •autÚn d¢ toÁw fiatroÁw ëpantaw nenikhk°nai. ToËto mÒnon §k tÊxhw sunelog¤sato YessalÒw: efi går fiatrikØ m¢n èpas«n §sti t«n texn«n ér¤sth, pr«tow dÉ §n aÈtª YessalÒw, e‡h ín oÏtv ge pãntvn ényr≈pvn pr«tow—ka¤ Svkrãtouw dhlonÒti ka‹ LukoÊrgou ka‹ t«n êllvn oÓw ı PÊyiow §pπnesen µ …w égayoÁw µ …w sofoÁw µ …w Mous«n yerãpontaw µ …w DiÚw Íphr°taw µ …w êllo ti yeofil¢w ¶xontaw. ÜAge dØ loipÒn, Ïmnouw ôdÒntvn ëpantew YessaloË ka‹ grafÒntvn §pin¤kia m°lh ka‹ koinÚn t∞w ofikoum°nhw tÚ y°atron gen°syv, ka‹ parely∆n ôd°tv tiw …w parå to›w [12] flsto›w trafe‹w §n¤khse m¢n Dhmosy°nhn ka‹ Lus¤an ka‹ toÁw êllouw =Ætoraw, §n¤khse d¢ Plãtvna ka‹ Svkrãthn ka‹ toÁw êllouw filosÒfouw, §n¤khse d¢ ka‹ LukoËrgon ka‹ SÒlvna ka‹ toÁw êllouw nomoy°taw, §stefãnvtai d¢ koinª katå pãntvn ényr≈pvn, =htÒrvn, filosÒfvn, nomoyet«n. Efi går dØ gevmetr«n ¶ti ka‹ grammatik«n ka‹ mousik«n Ùnomast‹ mnhmoneÊoimi metå tåw thlikaÊtaw n¤kaw Íbr¤zein dÒjv tÚn ênyrvpon: ˜pou går LukoËrgow ka‹ SÒlvn ka‹ Plãtvn ka‹ Svkrãthw ka‹ PuyagÒraw §nikÆyhsan, ∑pou êra kakÚn ¶ti mnhmoneÊein ÑIppãrxou ka‹ ÉArximÆdouw ka‹ ÉAristoj°nou ka‹ ÉAristãrxou ka¤ tinvn •t°rvn toioÊtvn, oÈdenÚw

  ‒  

409

followers. [10] None of these, most insolent Thessalus, despised Hippocrates’ views on the nature of man, which you seem to me in the first place not to have read, or, if you have, not to have understood; in fact, even if you had understood them, it would still be impossible for you to form a critical judgement on them, brought up as you are in the women’s quarters, in the company of a father who toiled abjectly at carding the wool. For it seems right to me that your marvellous background and brilliant education should not pass unnoticed, and that your slandering of Hippocrates and of the other ancients should not fall on deaf ears. Do tell us, first of all, who you are and whence you came, from what kind of family, upbringing, and education. Only then speak as you do, insolent man, once you have got this first rule into your head, namely that in none of the well-regulated cities is it the case that just anyone is allowed to speak in public; the laws concede you the right of public address only if you are some remarkable fellow, have a good family-background, and bring proof of the kind of upbringing and education that empower you to speak in public. Whereas you, my most distinguished friend, you dare to launch attacks on Hippocrates without being in a position to bring any such proofs; in your drivelling books you enrol the Greeks as your judges, but you play the arbitrator yourself, without waiting for their decision, and you award yourself the crown—sometimes above all [11] the doctors, sometimes unqualifiedly above all the Greeks. For this is the amazing ambition of the supremely wise Thessalus: to win over all the doctors, himself being, all in one, competitor, president of the competition, and judge; and, next, to invite the other Greeks to join in the contest—rhetoricians, geometers, grammarians, astronomers, philosophers—while he sits in the centre and, in his woolworker’s style of expression, claims to be the first and greatest of them all. For medicine gets first prize among the arts, and he has won over all the doctors. This is a valid inference that Thessalus only chanced upon: if medicine is the best of all arts, and if Thessalus is the man greatest at it, then it should follow that he is the greatest of all men—greater of course than Socrates, Lycurgus, and the rest of those whom Apollo praised as being good, or wise, or dedicated to the Muses, or enrolled in the service of Zeus, or dear to the gods in any other way. Well, come then, let everybody sing hymns for Thessalus, let them write Epinician odes to him; let him have the public gaze of the whole mankind fixed on him, and let someone come forward and sing of how this man, brought up among [12] looms, has come to be victorious over Demosthenes, Lysias, and the other rhetoricians; how he has come to be victorious over Plato, Socrates, and the other philosophers; how he has come to be victorious over Lycurgus, Solon, and the other legislators; and how he has come to be crowned above all men indiscriminately—rhetoricians, philosophers, legislators. Indeed if, in addition to such triumphs, I were to mention by name the geometers, grammarians, and musicians, I would appear to insult the man; for where Lycurgus, Solon, Plato, Socrates, and Pythagoras have found their defeat, would it be a nice thing also to mention Hipparchus, Archimedes, Aristoxenus, Aristarchus, or others of this sort—people of no account, no doubt, so far

410

5

10

15

20

  ‒  -

éj¤vn …w ín e‡poi Yessalow; ÉAllå t¤w ≤m›n oÏtv megalÒfvnow poihtØw ˘w õsetai taËta; T¤now ÑOmÆrou nËn eÈporÆsomen §n •jam°trƒ tÒnƒ tØn Yessãleion ÍmnÆsontow n¤khn; áH t¤now melopoioË katå P¤ndaron õsontow Íchl«w §n diyurãmboiw …w pãlai tÚn DiÒnuson oÏtvw nËn tÚn YessalÒn; áH toÊtvn m¢n oÈdenÚw xrπzomen, ÉArxilÒxou d° [13] tinow µ ÑIppÒnaktow fiãmbouw grafÒntvn ≥ tinow t«n épÚ t∞w tragik∞w skhn∞w ˘w §re› prÚw aÈtÒn: “M°nÉ, Œ tala¤pvrÉ, étr°ma so›w §n demn¤oiw ÑOròw går oÈd¢n œn doke›w sãfÉ efid°nai.”a ÖOneiron ÉOr°steion dihgª, Yessal°. OÂon toËto tÚ y°atron §n ⁄ n¤k&w ÑIppokrãthn; T¤new ofl krita‹ kayedoËntai; T¤new ofl égvnoyetoËntew; âAra boÊlei pr≈tou Plãtvnow énagn«men tÚn c∞fon; [. . .] ÖHkousaw, Œ gennaiÒtate, Plãtvnow ımo¤& meyÒdƒ tå katå tØn cuxØn éjioËntow eÍr¤skein o·&per ÑIppokrãthw tå katå tÚ s«ma. [. . .] ÉApod°deiktai går …w §g∆ nom¤zv pãnu saf«w ≤ per‹ ple›stã te ka‹ m°gista dÒgmata sumfvn¤a t«n éndr«n. Metabåw d¢ tÚn ßteron ≥dh soi kal°sv xorÚn mãrtura, tÚn §k toË Peripãtou; [. . .] ÜVstÉ e‡per ofl §k toË Peripãtou krita‹ kay¤saien ÑIppokrãthw m¢n o‰mai nikÆsei, YessalÚw dÉ …w éna¤sxuntÒw te ka‹ fitamÚw §kblhyÆsetai. Efi d¢ toÁw épÚ t∞w Stoçw filosÒfouw efiw tÚ sun°drion efisagagÒntew §pitr°caimen ka‹ toÊtoiw tØn c∞fon §j œn aÈto‹ t¤yentai dogmãtvn, §k toÊtvn ÑIppokrãthn stefan≈sousi.

a

Euripides, Orestes 258–9.

FR 158. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(4)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, I ii–iii, pp. 17–23 K: [ii, 17] . . . ÜVste ka‹ katå Plãtvna ka‹ katå toÁw §k toË Peripãtou ka‹ katå toÁw §k t∞w Stoçw ≤ ÑIppokrãtouw nikò fusiolog¤a: ka‹ polÁ dØ mçllon §k t∞w fusiolog¤aw ëpantew §pideiknÊousin ofl proeirhm°noi 25 filÒsofoi mØ dÊnasya¤ tina kal«w fiãsasyai tå nosÆmata pr‹n ˜lou toË s≈matow §pisk°casyai tØn fÊsin. âArÉ oÔn §n¤khsen ín §n toÊtoiw to›w filosÒfoiw ı YessalÚw égvnizÒmenow Íp¢r t«n prvte¤vn, ofl t∞w §aut«n èpãshw fusiolog¤aw ÑIppokrãthn proustÆsanto; T¤ dÉ efi to›w gevm°traiw µ to›w éstronÒmoiw µ to›w mousiko›w µ to›w =Ætorsin §pitr°30 ceien tØn kr¤sin; âArÉ ofiÒmeya ka‹ toÊtouw ÑIppokrãthn parelyÒntaw ßterÒn tina stefan≈seien; ÉEg∆ m¢n oÎtÉ êllon tinå p°peismai tå prvte›a lÆcesyai, ka‹ pãntvn ¥kista tÚn fitam≈taton YessalÒn: oÈde‹w går oÏtvw ±t¤mhsen oÈ gevmetr¤an oÈk éstronom¤an oÈ mousikØn oÈ =htorikØn …w §ke›now, Àste taÊt˙ gÉ §n §xyr«n yeãtrƒ g°noitÉ ín ı ég∆n 35 aÈt“. ÉAllÉ ‡svw toÊtouw m¢n oÈk ín efiw [18] tÚ y°atron §kãyisen oÓw gÉ aÈtÚw fyãnvn §xyroÁw §poiÆsato, mÒnoiw d¢ to›w §n dialektikª gum-

411

  ‒  -

as Thessalus would ascertain? But which poet of ours would have the grandiloquence to sing of such deeds? What Homer shall we find in our day to hymn Thessalus’ victory in hexameters? What lyric poet of Pindar’s calibre shall we produce to celebrate Thessalus today—Dionysius, as it was once—in lofty Dithyrambs? But maybe we need no such poet; maybe we need some iambus-writer like Archilochus [13] or Hipponax, or some poet of the tragic stage, who will say to him: “Keep still in your bed, unfortunate fellow, For you see none of the things that you believe to see clearly.” You live in an Orestean dream, Thessalus. What kind of theatre should it be, the one where you turn out victorious over Hippocrates? Who should be in the judges’ seats? Who should preside over the contest? Do you accept that we start by taking Plato’s vote? [. . .] You heard, my most distinguished friend: Plato claims to investigate the soul by the same method by which Hippocrates investigated the body. [. . .] In my opinion, the agreement between the two men in most, and the most important, of their views has been abundantly demonstrated. Shall I move on and call in for you the next row of witnesses—that of the Peripatos? [. . .] So, in my opinion, as long as the philosophers of the Peripatos are to sit as judges, Hippocrates will win, while Thessalus will be cast out as a shameless and rash contender. Next, if we introduce the philosophers of the Stoa to our council and entrust them too with a vote based on the doctrines which they uphold, they will, on that score, award the crown to Hippocrates.

FR 158. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(4)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, I ii–iii, pp. 17–23 K: [ii, 17] . . . The winner, then, according to Plato, the philosophers of the Peripatos, and those of the Stoa, is the natural philosophy of Hippocrates. It is in fact mostly from natural philosophy that all the philosophers mentioned above bring proofs to the effect that one would find it impossible to cure illness properly before investigating the nature of the whole body. Could then Thessalus, in his competition for the first prize, win it from these philosophers, who have put the whole of their own natural philosophy under the authority of Hippocrates? Now—what if he were to pass the decision on to geometers, astronomers, musicians, or rhetoricians? Can we imagine that these people would pass over Hippocrates and award the crown to another? I am not at all persuaded that the prize might go to anyone else, and least of all to the supremely reckless Thessalus; for no one has displayed as much contempt as he has for geometry, astronomy, music, or rhetoric, so that on this scenario he would have to contend before a theatre of enemies. But maybe he would not install these people in the [18] theatre, since he has made them enemies in advance, and would leave

412

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

nasye›si filosÒfoiw, …w ín élhy«n te ka‹ ceud«n lÒgvn tÚ kritÆrion ±skhkÒsin, §pitr°ceie tØn kr¤sin. ÉAllÉ §ån toÁw per‹ Plãtvna ka‹ ÉAristot°lh ka‹ XrÊsippon …w égumnãstouw §n tªde par°lyvmen oÈx eÍrÆsomen •t°rouw. Efi to¤nun oÎte toÁw épÚ t«n êllvn texn«n Ípom°nei dikaståw ı YessalÚw oÎyÉ ofl dialektik≈tatoi t«n filosÒfvn o‡sousin aÈt“ tØn c∞fon, ÍpÚ t¤nvn ¶ti kriyÆsetai nikòn; T¤new plhr≈sousin aÈt“ tÚn y°atron; T¤new énagoreÊsousin; T¤new stefan≈sousin; AÈtÚw •autÚn dhlonÒti: toËto går §n ta›w •autoË b¤bloiw ta›w yaumasta›w §po¤hsen, aÈtÚw •autÚn ka‹ kr¤naw ka‹ stefan≈saw ka‹ énagoreÊsaw. [iii] ÉAllÉ ‡svw ÍpenÒhse toËtÉ aÈt“ timØn genÆsesyai ka‹ mnÆmhw éformØn efi loidorhsãmenow to›w ér¤stoiw éndrãsi énagkãseien ≤mçw éntil°gein aÈt“. ÉAllÉ oÏtv ge ka‹ Zv˝low ¶ndojow tØn ÑOmÆrou mast¤zvn efikÒna, ka‹ SalmoneÁw tÚn D¤a mimoÊmenow, ka‹ êllo pl∞yow oÈk [19] Ùl¤gon §pitr¤ptvn ényr≈pvn µ toÁw belt¤onaw oÈk afidoum°nvn µ ka‹ to›w yeo›w aÈto›w loidoroum°nvn. ÉAllÉ oÈk égayØn oto¤ ge dÒjan Ípel¤ponto sf«n aÈt«n, oÈd¢ zhlo› noËn ¶xvn énØr oÈde‹w oÎte tÚn ÑOmhromãstiga Zv˝lon oÎte tÚn Parapl∞ga Salmon°a, ka¤toi to›w m¢n filoloidÒroiw zhlvtÚw ı Zv˝low, to›w dÉ flerosÊloiw ı SalmoneÊw. ÉAllå t¤ toËto; Ka‹ går ofl balantiotÒmoi tå t«n balantiotÒmvn zhloËsi, ka‹ ofl prodÒtai t«n prodÒtvn, ka‹ oÈde¤w §stin èpl«w ênyrvpow ˘w oÈk ín sxo¤h xorÚn ofike›on §n ⁄ stefyÆsetai. Ka‹ e‡per ¶grace YessalÚw …w §n mage¤roiw ka‹ bafeËsi ka‹ §riourgo›w ka‹ skutotÒmoiw ka‹ Ífãntaiw te ka‹ knafeËsin égvnizÒmenow, épo¤setai tØn n¤khn ka‹ kayÉ ÑIppokrãtouw ka‹ oÈde‹w ín ≤m«n énte›pen: §pe‹ d¢ pãntaw ényr≈pouw kay¤zei dikastãw, §k t«n pãntvn dÉ §st‹ dÆpou ka‹ Plãtvn ka‹ ÉAristot°lhw ka‹ YeÒfrastow ka‹ XrÊsippow, oÈk ín ¶ti pãsaw mÒnow épostr°foito tåw c∞fouw: éllÉ ‡svw §n°stai d¤khn §f°simon égvn¤sasya¤ tini. Kùn går ÑIppokrãthw katafronÆs˙ mikrÒteron •autoË nom¤saw égvn¤sasyai prÚw YessalÒn, éllÉ ‡svw ÉEras¤stratow oÈ kata[20]fronÆsei ka‹ pollÊ ge mçllon ÑHrÒfilow: ka‹ toÊtvn ¶ti mçllon ÉAsklhpiãdhw êlloi te pollo‹ t«n nevt°rvn fiatr«n, ¶xont°w ti fÊsei filÒneikon, oÈ katafronÆsousi t∞w Ïbr°w ∂n efiw ëpantaw ëma toÁw ÜEllhnaw Íbr¤zei YessalÚw éllÉ efiw tÚ m°son proãjousin, §pide¤jous¤ te to›w ÜEllhsin ëpantaw aÈtoË tåw b¤blouw émay¤aw §sxãthw mestãw: ˘w tosaËtã te thlikaËta grãcaw bibl¤a ka‹ tosaÊtaw lhrÆsaw §p«n xiliãdaw épÒdejin oÈdem¤an oÈdamÒyi t«n •autoË suggramãtvn §pexe¤rhse efipe›n, éllÉ …w tÊrannow keleÊei dÊo mÒna e‰nai tå pãnta katå d¤aitan nosÆmata, =o«dew ka‹ stegnÒn: oÈk efid∆w ˜ti diaforãn tina noshmãtvn e‡rhken, §gnvsm°nhn m¢n ka‹ to›w ¶mprosyen fiatro›w, …w §pide¤jomen, éllÉ oÈde‹w ∑n oÏtvw épa¤deutow …w tåw diaforåw t«n noshmãtwn aÈtå nom¤zein e‰nai tå nosÆmata, ka‹ t∞w yerape¤aw tØn ¶ndeijin §j §ke¤nvn lambãnein, Íperbåw tØn oÈs¤an. ÉAllå toËto tÚ sfãlma toË YessaloË sikrÚn m°n, Œ ZeË te ka‹ yeo¤, smikrÒtaton, ˘ ka‹ paidãrion §n §leuy°roiw mayÆmasi teyramm°non eÈy°vw gnvr¤seien:

  ‒  

413

the decision entirely in the hands of philosophers trained in dialectic, since they have experience in applying the test for true and false arguments. And yet if we ignore Plato, Aristotle, Chrysippus, and their respective followers as untrained in this [sc discipline], we shall not find others. So, if Thessalus does not admit judges from the other arts [technai ], and if the philosophers who are best trained in dialectic will not give him their vote, by whom will he still be decreed a winner? Who will make a full house for him? Who will proclaim his victory? Who will crown him? He will have to do it for himself, to be sure; for he has done it in his perplexing books, performing his own judgement, his own coronation, and his own proclamation. [iii] But he may be under the impression that if, by sneering at the best of men, he compels me to take issue with him, this very fact would secure him honour and the ground for a reputation. Zoilus won fame in a similar way, by whipping the statue of Homer, Salmoneus by imitating Zeus, and a host of other [19] rascals who had no sense of respect for their betters, or who even reviled the gods themselves. But these people did not leave a good reputation behind, and no one in his right mind attempts to emulate the example of Zoilus the Scourger of Homer or that of Salmoneus the Deranged, however much of an ideal Zoilus may set for the slanderers or Salmoneus for the sacrilegious. And so what? Pickpockets, too, emulate the exploits of pickpockets, and traitors those of traitors; in short, there is no man who would not find a congenial crowd where he might get the crown. Now, if Thessalus wrote as if competing among cooks, dyers, woolworkers, cobblers, weavers, or fullers, he would carry off his victory—even over Hippocrates—and none of us will say a word; but if he enlists the whole humanity as his judges, and that obviously includes Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Chrysippus, he would no longer be the only one to run away with all the votes, but it will perhaps be possible for one to bring their case before a court of appeal. For even if Hippocrates were to ignore the summons, considering it below his dignity to fight Thessalus, maybe Erasistratus will not [20] ignore it, and even less so Herophilus; still less will Asclepiades and many other modern doctors, who have a natural vein of contentiousness, ignore the outrage that Thessalus commits against all the Greeks at once; rather, they will drag him into the centre and expose to the Greeks all his books, crammed as they are with the most appalling ignorance—a man who wrote so many books of such great bulk, and poured out so many thousands of nonsensical words, and yet did not attempt in his treatises, even in one single place, to produce one single demonstration; he decrees instead, in the manner of a tyrant, that all the internal diseases are only two, one fluid and one constricted. He is not aware that he has thus given us a differentia of diseases. As we will show, this differentia [= classificatory criterion] was known to the earlier doctors; but none of them was so uneducated as to imagine that the differentiae of diseases are identical with the diseases themselves, and to derive the indication of the therapy from the former, bypassing [sc the category of ] substance. This mistake of Thessalus is unimportant—Zeus and the gods, so utterly unimportant!—the kind that even a schoolboy educated in the liberal arts would immediately spot. And

414

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

˜mvw dÉ oÔn toËto tÚ sfãlma tÚ [21] smikrÚn efiw tosoËton §p∞ren aÈyade¤aw aÈtÚn Àste nom¤zein eÍrhk°nai ti m°ga ka‹ semnÒn: ımo¤vw …w efi ka¤ tiw efip∆n “pçn z«on µ logikÚn Ípãrxein µ êlogon” êllo ti nom¤zei ka‹ mØ diaforåw efirhk°nai z–vn, …saÊtvw oÔn toÊtƒ kôke¤nou =hy°ntow “ëpan z«on µ ynhtÒn §stin µ éyãnaton”: ≤ går §n §kãst˙ t«n diafor«n ént¤yesiw ˜lh katå pãntvn l°getai efid«n: ëpan oÔn z«on µ êgrion §st‹n µ ¥meron: ëpan oÔn z“on µ ÍpÒpoun est‹n µ êpoun: ëpan oÔn z“on µ kerasfÒron §st‹n µ êkeron: ka‹ oÈd°n ge timivt°ran •t°raw •t°ran ént¤yesin §n ta›w diafora›w ¶stin eÍre›n oÈd¢ mçllon Ípãrxousan ëpasi to›w katå m°row. ÉAllÉ oÈ xrØ per‹ z–vn §rvthy°ntaw ıpÒsa tå pãnta §st‹ épokr¤nasyai m¤an ént¤yesin diafor«n: oÏtv m¢n går ¶stai dÊo tå pãnta ka‹ oÈd¢n mçllon µ “logikÚn ka‹ êlogon” µ “ynhtÚn ka‹ éyãnaton” µ “êgrion ka‹ ¥meron” µ t«n êllvn tiw éntiy°sevn. Efi d¢ tåw diaforåw §ãsaw tiw …w oÔn §sti d¤kaion, “·ppon” épokr¤naito “ka‹ boËn ka‹ kÊna ka‹ ênyrvpon, éetÒn te ka‹ m°littan ka‹ [22] mÊrmhka ka‹ l°onta ka‹ prÒbaton” ëpantã te têlla katÉ e‰dow §p°lyoi z«a, d∞lon …w otow Ùry«w épokekrim°now §st‹ t“ puyom°nƒ ıpÒsa tå pãntÉ §st‹ z“a: kùn efi pollå m¢n di°lyoi t“ lÒgƒ z«a, pãnta dÉ §jariymÆsasyai mØ dunatÚn e‰nai l°goi, ka‹ oÏtvw ín e‡h deÒntvw épokekrim°now. ÑOmo¤aw oÔn oÎshw t∞w zhtÆsevw §p‹ toË t«n noshmãtvn ériymoË parå pçsi to›w palaio›w fiatro›w, ka‹ t«n m¢n efipÒntvn •ptå tå pãnyÉ Ípãrxein aÈtå t«n dÉ §lãttv toÊtvn µ ple¤v, pãntvn dÉ oÔn efiw tå katå tØn oÈs¤an e‡dh blepÒntvn, oÈk efiw tå katå tØn diaforãn: oÈde‹w går ∑n oÏtvw épa¤deutow oÎdÉ émayØw logik∞w yevr¤aw …w diaforån efid«n efipe›n éntÉ oÈs¤aw. ÑO dÉ §k t∞w gunaikvn¤tidow YessalÚw §pitimò thlikoÊtoiw éndrãsin, oÈ g°now ¶xvn efipe›n oÈk énatrofØn oÈ paide¤an o·an §ke¤nvn ßkastow, ı m¢n ÉAristot°louw ı d¢ Plãtvnow ı d¢ Yeofrãstou genÒmenow ımilhtØw ≥ tinow êllou t«n §n tª logikª yevr¤& gegumnasm°nvn éndr«n. ÑVw oÔn e‡ tiw §rvthye‹w ıpÒsa t∞w [23] fvn∞w tå pãntÉ §st‹ stoixe›a dÊo fÆseien Ípãrxein, ≥toi går fvn∞en e‰nai fÆsei pãntvw µ sÊmfvnon ˜per ín e‡h stoixe›on fvn∞w, élhy¢w m¢n e‡rhken, oÈ mØn prÚw ge tØn §r≈thsin épekr¤nato, katå tÚn aÈtÚn o‰mai trÒpon ˜stiw ên ıpÒsa tå pãntÉ §st‹ nosÆmata diel°syai boulhye‹w Íperbª m¢n e‰dÒw ti l°gein nosÆmatow, oÂon ≥toi flhgmonØn µ sk¤rron µ o‡dhma, diaforåw dÉ e‡p˙ mÒnaw, e‡tÉ oÔn stegnÚn ka‹ =o«dew e‡tÉ éraiÚn ka‹ puknÚn e‡te sklhrÚn ka‹ malakÚn e‡te suntetam°non ka‹ kexalasm°non, élhy¢w m¢n e‡rhken, oÈ mØn prÒw ge tØn §r≈thsin épekr¤nato.

  ‒  

415

yet this very mistake, [21] unimportant as it is, lifted him up to such summits of insolence that he believes to have made a great and profound discovery. The case is similar to that of someone who believed that, by making the statement “every animal is either rational or irrational” (or another statement of the same type—say, “every animal is either mortal or immortal”), has given something distinct from the differentiae of animals. For the whole [sc pair which forms the] disjunction [antithesis] in each of the differentiae is predicated exhaustively of all the species [sc in a genus]: thus every animal is either wild or tame; every animal is either footed or footless; every animal is either horned or hornless. And it is not possible, among the differentiae, to find a disjunction which is more relevant than another or belongs to all the individuals to a greater extent. And if you are asked about animals how many [sc species] of them there are, it is not correct to answer by picking out one disjunction of [sc the sort that belong to] the differentiae, for in that case there will be just two [sc species of ] animals; and these will not be the “rational and irrational” any more than the “mortal and immortal”, or the “wild and tame”, or any of the other disjunctions. But if you forget about the differentiae, which is the right thing to do, and your answer takes the form “horse, ox, dog, man—eagle, bee, [22] ant, lion, sheep”, and you go through the rest of the animals species by species, it is clear that you have given a satisfactory answer to the person who wanted to find out how many animals there are; and even if you enlisted many species in your review, but told him that it is impossible to count the whole lot, you would still have given him the right sort of answer. Similar, then, is the inquiry into the number of diseases, as it was carried by all the ancient doctors; some said that there are seven diseases altogether, others said that there are fewer or more than that, but they all looked to kinds in the category of substance, not in the category of the differentiae; for no one was as uninstructed and ignorant of logic as to confound the differentia of the species with their substance. But Thessalus leaps out of his women’s chambers to criticise people of such calibre, he who can claim no background, upbringing, or education comparable with theirs—associated as each one was, either with Aristotle, or with Plato, or with Theophrastus, or with some other man with training in logic. So, just as in the case of someone who is asked how many [23] elements of speech there are: if that person were to give the answer “two” (for, he will argue, in so far as something is an element of speech it is either a vowel or a consonant), he will have said something true, but failed to answer the question; in exactly the same way, I think, anyone who wants to give an account of how many diseases there are and does not bother to mention any species of disease (such as inflammation, tumour, oidema), but refers instead only to the differentiae (constricted—fluid, rare—dense, hard—soft, taut—relaxed), has said something true, but failed to answer the question.

416

  ‒   FR 159. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(5)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, I iii, pp. 26–28 K:

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

[iii, 26] . . . E‰tÉ ÉAristot°louw te ka‹ Plãtvnow oÏtv m°ga ka‹ xalepÚn e‰nai nomizÒntvn efiw tåw ofike¤aw diaforåw ékrib«w tå g°nh t°mnein ka‹ metÉ aÈtoÁw Yeofrãstou te ka‹ t«n êllvn filosÒfvn §jergãzesyai peirvm°nvn tÚn trÒpon …w oÎpv katvryvm°non oÈd¢ parÉ §ke¤noiw, ı tolmhrÒtatow YessalÚw èpl«w épofhnãmenow éjio› pisteÊesyai dÊo tå pãntÉ e‰nai katå d¤aitan nosÆmata, tå goËn èplå ka‹ pr«ta ka‹ oÂon stoixe›a: [27] tr¤ton går §j aÈt«n êllo gennçtai t“ lÒgƒ sÊnyeton, §pipeplegm°non §j émfo›n. ÉAllÉ e‡per meyÒdƒ tin‹ taËtÉ §jeËrew Àsper oÔn élazoneÊ˙, t¤ oÈx‹ ka‹ ≤m›n ¶frasaw aÈtØn, éllå pçn toÈnant¤on µ katå toÎnoma tÚ semnÚn ⁄ prosagoreÊeiw sautÒn, émeyod≈tate ka‹ propet°state, tØn épÒfasin §poiÆsv, mhdÉ oÔn mhd¢ t∞w érx∞w aÈt∞w §facãmenow éfÉ ∏w énagka›Òn §stin êrjasyai tÚn m°llonta kal«w oÍtinosoËn prãgmatow §jeurÆsein e‡dh te ka‹ diaforåw ofike¤aw; “Per‹ pantÚw gãr, Œ pa›, m¤a érxØ ér¤sth, efid°nai per‹ ˜tou ≤ zÆthsiw, µ pãnta èmartãnein énãgkh”, Plãtvn poÊ fhsin:a oÈk efiw tÚ diaire›n mÒnon ıtioËn éji«n ≤mçw épÉ aÈt∞w êrxesyai toË zhtoum°nou t∞w oÈs¤aw éllÉ efiw ëpan ée‹ xr∞syai sk°mma t“ toioÊtƒ trÒpƒ t∞w érx∞w. ÉExr∞n m¢n oÔn kôntaËya t¤ potÉ §stin nÒshma ka‹ t¤ sÊmptvma ka‹ t¤ pãyow ékrib«w efipÒnta ka‹ diorisãmenon ˜p˙ taÈtÒn §stin ßkaston t«n efirhm°nvn ka‹ ˜p˙ mØ taÈtÒn, oÏtvw ≥dh peirçsyai t°mnein efiw tåw ofike¤aw diaforåw aÈtã, kayÉ ∂n §d¤dajan ≤mçw ofl filÒsofoi m°yodon: µ e‡per •t°ran tinå belt¤v [28] t∞w parÉ §ke¤nvn gegramm°nhw §jeËrew aÈtÚ toËto prÒteron égvn¤sasyai, ka‹ de›jai ka‹ didãjai toÁw ÜEllhnaw …w ı parå to›w flsto›w trafe‹w Èperebãleto m¢n ÉArisot°lh ka‹ Plãtvna meyÒdoiw logika›w, katepãthse d¢ YeÒfrastÒn te ka‹ toÁw StvÛkoÁw §n dialektikª, faner«w dÉ §jÆlegxe toÁw •ta¤rouw aÈt«n ëpantaw oÈd¢ t¤na potÉ §sti tå pr«ta nosÆmata gign≈skontaw—tÚn ÑHrÒfilon §ke›non tÚn dialektikÚn ka‹ tÚn sumfoithtØn aÈtoË FilÒtimon ka‹ tÚn didãskalon aÈtoË PrajagÒran tÚn épÚ ÉAsklhpioË ka‹ sÁn toÊtoiw te ka‹ prÚ toÊtvn ÉEras¤straton Diokl°a Mnhs¤yeon Dieux∞ Filist¤vna PleistÒnikon aÈtÚn ÑIppokrãthn. TÚ dÉ èpl«w épofÆnasyai dÊo e‰nai tå pãnta pãyh katå d¤aitan, oÈ m°yodon oÈk épÒdeijin oÈ piyanØn p¤stin oÈ paramuy¤an oÈdÉ ˜lvw oÈd¢n êllo prosy°nta plØn efiw toÁw palaioÁw blasfhmÆsanta, prostãttontÒw §stin ¶rgon, oÈ didãskontow. ÖEstv: sivpòw §k po¤aw erew aÈtå meyÒdou logik∞w: éllã toi kùn kritÆriÒn g° ti t«n lÒgvn t∞w élhye¤aw §xr∞n se parasx°syai.

a

Plato, Phaedrus 237B–C.

417

  ‒   FR 159. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(5)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, I iii, pp. 26–28 K: [iii, 26] . . . So then: Aristotle and Plato found the accurate division of a genus along its own differentiae to be a task of such great importance and difficulty; and after them Theophrastus and the other philosophers attempted to deal with the subject, regarding it as not yet completed by their predecessors; whereas the supremely insolent Thessalus expects to convince us, by even assertion, that all the internal diseases are two—at least the simple and primitive ones, or the elements, as it were; [27] for there is also a third one, generated from the two by combining them in proportion, one which is composed of both. And if you have discovered that by some method, as you boast, why don’t you spell it out for us as well? Why did you fashion your arbitrary assertion in a spirit which is most adverse to the august name by which you call yourself, most un-Methodical and reckless man? You have not as much as grasped that very first point from which one has to start, if one intends to go correctly about discovering the species and the real differentiae of any subject whatsoever. “In everything, my boy, there is one starting-point which is the best: to know what the inquiry is about; otherwise one is bound to go astray”—says Plato somewhere. And he thought that we should start from the substance of the thing under inquiry not only in every division; we should use this kind of startingpoint in any inquiry whatsoever. Therefore, in our subject as well, it is by explaining with precision what “disease”, “symptom”, and “affection” are and by spelling out the ways in which each of the above entities is identical with and different from the others that one ought to attempt to divide them along their own, real, differentiae—according to the method that the philosophers taught us; or, if you have discovered another method which is better [28] than the one they have recorded in writing, then that is the first thing for you to put up for a competition: to show and explain to the Greeks how it is that someone brought up among looms outdid Aristotle and Plato in logical method, trampled on Theophrastus and on the Stoics in matters of logic, and refuted beyond dispute all their followers, who do not even know what the most basic diseases are: Herophilus the dialectician—that great man—together with his pupil and associate Philotimus and his teacher Praxagoras of the Asclepiad sect, and all their contemporaries and forerunners—Erasistratus, Diocles, Mnesitheus, Dieuches, Philistion, Pleistonicus, and Hippocrates himself. To assert simply that all the internal affections are two, without method, without demonstration, without convincing evidence, without persuasiveness, indeed without adducing anything apart from abuse towards the ancients, this is the feat of a ruler who gives orders, not of a person who teaches something. You keep quiet about the logical method by which you discovered these things; fine—let it be so. But then you should offer at least some criterion of the truth of your accounts.

418

  ‒  - FR 160. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(6)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, I iii–iv, pp. 29 + 33 K: [iii, 29] . . . ÉExr∞n oÔn o‰mai ka‹ tÚn YessalÚn ≥toi pe›ran µ lÒgon §fÉ oÂw épofa¤netai kritÆrion §pãgein, oÈx …w tÊrannon ≤m›n §pitãttein éjioËnta pisteÊesyai xvr‹w épode¤jevw. “Ka‹ t¤na” fasin “ékoÊein épÒdeijin éjio›w;” OÏtv går éntervt«sin ≤mçw ofl épÉ aÈtoË: ka‹ dika¤vw 5 ge toËto poioËsin oÈdÉ efiw ¶nnoiãn [30] pote parelyÒntew épode¤jevw, …w ín oÎte gevmetr¤aw oÎtÉ ériymhtik∞w oÎte dialektik∞w oÎte énalutik∞w oÎtÉ ˜lvw logik∞w tinow ècãmenoi yevr¤aw. ÉApokrit°on oÔn aÈto›w …w Ùc¢ pãnu manyãnein §f¤esye t¤ potÉ §st‹n épÒdeijiw, ka‹ …w oÈk §nd°xetai xrÒnƒ braxe› lept∞w gn≈mhw deom°n˙ parakalouy∞sai yevr¤& 10 mÆtÉ ±skhm°nouw ékoÊein ékrib«n lÒgvn §n diastrofª te poluxron¤ƒ gegonÒtaw. ÉEke¤nouw m¢n oÔn épop°mcvmen, …w mhd¢n suni°nai dunam°nouw élhy«n mayhmãtvn, mØ t¤ ge dØ maye›n µ kr›nai kal«w. [4] ÑHme›w d¢ metå t«n ±skhm°nvn te ëma parakolouye›n épode¤jei ka‹ fÊsei sunet«n—oÈ går dØ ˆnouw Yessale¤ouw §paggellÒmeya didãskein— 15 §p‹ tÚ proke¤menon §j érx∞w ‡vmen. [. . .] [33] [. . .] ÑVw oÔn t∞w katå tÚ tr¤gvnon épode¤jevw—oÈ går éfekt°on ≤m›n §sti toË parade¤gmatow: épelhlakÒsin ≥dh toË lÒgou toÁw épaideÊtouw MeyodikoÊw—aÈtÚ m¢n tÚ proke¤menon §k duo›n toÊtvn §pera¤neto protãsevn . . .

FR 161. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(7)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, I iv, pp. 34–39 K: [iv, 34] . . . Ofl pollo‹ d¢ t«n fiatr«n, …w o‰sya ka‹ aÈtÒw, ÑI°rvn krãtiste, 20 pÒyen ≥rjanto t∞w eÍr°sevw ∂n eÍrhk°nai fas‹n §rv[35]tãmenoi, tosoËton épod°ousi toË l°gein énapode¤ktouw te ka‹ ëpasin ımologoum°naw érxåw ÀstÉ oÈdÉ épokr¤nesyai sÊmfvnon •auto›w oÈd¢n §jeur¤skousin, éllÉ EÈr¤pou d¤khn ênv kãtv metabãllontai, ténant¤a tiy°menow ßkastow •aut“ toË lÒgou proÛÒntow œn §j érx∞w Íp°yento. Fainom°naw goËn 25 efip∆n e‰nai tåw koinÒthtaw ı sof≈tatow YessalÒw, Ùl¤gon Ïsteron oÈ mÒnon oÈd°na t«n ¶mprosyen fiatr«n fide›n aÈtãw fhsin éllÉ oÈd¢ tÚn pr«ton gennÆsanta Yem¤svna: toÊtƒ går oÔn dØ mÒnƒ paraxvre› kayãper patr‹ t°kna gnÆsia tåw terat≈deiw §ke¤naw koinÒthtaw. E‰yÉ ofl metÉ aÈtoÁw ëpantew éllÆloiw te ka‹ t“ Yessal“ dihn°xyhsan, oÎte 30 tåw aÈtåw efishgoÊmenoi koinÒthtaw oÎyÉ ˜lvw éllÆloiw ımologoËntew oÈd¢ kayÉ ßn, Àsp°r soi ka‹ toËto pollãkiw ép°deija parÒntvn aÈt«n t«n Meyodik«n: ‡svw dÉ ên pou ka‹ grãcaimi katå pollØn sxolØn

419

  ‒  - FR 160. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(6)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, I iii–iv, pp. 29 + 33 K: [iii, 29] It seems to me, therefore, that Thessalus too ought to adduce either experience or reason as a criterion to test his assertions, not order us about like a tyrant, expecting that we trust him without demonstration. “And what demonstration” they say “would you expect to hear?” For his disciples throw the question back at me in this manner; and quite right, too— given that they have not come to form any idea [30] of demonstration—as you would expect from people who have never touched on geometry, arithmetic, dialectic, analytics—in short, on anything to do with logical science at all. The reply, then, that they should get is this: it is much too late now for you to wish to learn what demonstration is; it is not in the nature of a discipline which demands subtlety of judgement to answer, at short notice, the call of people untrained to listen to precise arguments, who have been on the wrong track for a long time. So let us turn our back on those chaps, since they are incapable of understanding true doctrines [mathemata] and of learning anything or judging properly. [4] Let us now get down to our initial task, in the company of people who have both the practice of following demonstrations and the natural gift of understanding—for we shall not profess to teach these Thessalean asses. [. . .] [33] [. . .] In the demonstration concerning the triangle—for we should not excise this example, once the uneducated Methodists have gone away—the matter at issue was proved from two premises . . .

FR 161. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(7)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, I iv, pp. 34–39 K: [iv, 34] . . . As you know it yourself, my noble Hiero, the majority of doctors, when asked about the origin of the discoveries which they claim to have made, [35] so far from giving undemonstrable starting-points agreed upon by everybody, do not find an answer that is consistent even with their own views, but they ebb and flow like the Euripus and, as the argument proceeds, contradict themselves on the matter of the principles they posited at the very beginning. Thus the most wise Thessalus declares that the koinotetes are manifest, and just a little later he adds not only that none of the previous doctors has seen them but, what is more, that not even Themison, their creator, has; in consequence, these monstrous koinotetes yield only to him alone, like legitimate children to a father. So it is that all his followers quarrelled both among themselves and with Thessalus, unable to propose the same koinotetes and to come to agreement, either in their general account or on specific points—a feature I pointed out to you on several occasions, in the presence of the Methodists themselves; and I may

420

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

Íp¢r t∞w diafvn¤aw aÈt«n. ÉAllå nËn ge tosoËton efiw tå proke¤mena prosÆkei labe›n, …w §xr∞n érxhgoÁw aflr°sevw kayistam°nouw aÍtoÁw1 §jhgÆsasyai prÒteron §fÉ ˜tou prãgmatow ßkaston [36] t«n Ùnomãtvn §pif°rousin, Àsper oÔn ka‹ ofl ÉEmpeiriko‹ poioËsi, “fa¤nesyai” m¢n l°gontew tå ta›w afisyÆsesin Ípop¤ptonta, “gign≈skesyai” d¢ tå mnhmoneuÒmena, fa¤nesyai dÉ ëma ka‹ gign≈skesyai tå ka‹ prÒterÒn pote ta›w afisysÆsesin ÍpopesÒnta ka‹ nËn ımo¤vw Ípop¤ptonta. PÒteron oÔn oÏtv ka‹ aÈto‹ “fa¤nesyai” l°gousi tåw koinÒthtaw …w afisyÆsei gnvrizom°naw, µ ka‹ tå diå lÒgou lambanÒmena “fainÒmena” kaloËsin; Ofl m¢n går épÚ t∞w §mpeir¤aw oÈ pãnu ti sugxvroËsin oÈd¢n t«n t“ lÒgƒ mÒnƒ dokoÊntvn §gn«syai “fainÒmenon” Ùnomãzein: ofl dÉ aÔ palaio‹ filÒsofoi dittÚn g°now e‰na¤ fasi t«n fainom°nvn, ©n m°n, ˜per ka‹ to›w ÉEmpeiriko›w ımologe›tai, t«n afisyÆsei tin‹ diagignvskom°nvn, oÂon leukoË ka‹ m°lanow ka‹ sklhroË ka‹ malakoË ka‹ yermoË ka‹ cuxroË ka‹ t«n ımo¤vn, ßterÒn d¢ t«n ÍpopiptÒntvn noÆsei katå pr≈thn §pibolØn énapÒdeikton, …w “tå t“ aÈt“ ‡sa ka‹ éllÆloiw Ípãrxein ‡sa” ka‹ “§ån ‡soiw ‡sa prosteyª ka‹ tå ˜la ‡sa g¤gnesyai” ka‹ “§ån épÉ ‡svn éfaireyª ka‹ tå loipå ‡sa e‰nai”. ToË toioÊtou g°now e‰na¤ fasi ka‹ tÚ “mhd¢n énait¤vw g¤gnesyai” ka‹ “pãntÉ §j ˆntow tinÒw, §k d¢ [37] toË mhdÒlvw ˆntow oÈd°n”: oÏtv d¢ ka‹ tÚ “fye¤resyai mhd¢n efiw tÚ t°vw oÈk ¯n” ka‹ tÚ “per‹ pantÚw énagka›on µ katafãskein µ épofãskein” ßterã te toiaËta pollã, per‹ œn §n ta›w logika›w pragmate¤aiw §pisk°ptontai ka‹ ≤m›n dÉ efiw ˜son oÂÒn te saf°stata diå t«n ÑUp¢r épode¤jevw Ípomnhmãtvn e‡rhtai. Per‹ toË §n2 ta›w toiaÊtaiw érxa›w (ìw dØ ka‹ logikåw Ùnomãzomen) émfisbhtoËsin ¶nioi t«n filosÒfvn §r¤zontew: éllÉ §ke›noi m¢n êxri goËn tosoÊtou svfronoËsin …w épiste›n épode¤jei pãs˙, gign≈skontew, o‰mai, kùn mØ l°gvsin, …w aÈtÚ goËn toËto beba¤vw §p¤stantai: tÚ mhd¢n épodeixy∞nai dÊnasyai t«n logik«n érx«n épistoum°nvn. ÜOsoi dÉ êxri tosoÊtou skaio‹ ka‹ énÒhtoi tugxãnousin ˆntew …w mhdÉ aÈt“ toÊtƒ parakolouye›n, épodeiknÊnai m¢n peir«ntai, t¤new dÉ efisi ka‹ po›ai ka‹ pÒsai t«n épode¤jevn érxa‹ mÆte gign≈skein mÆte zhte›n §y°lein mÆtÉ êllou didãskontow ékoÊein Ípom°nein, éllÉ èpl«w épofa¤nesyai ka‹ fy°ggesyai =Æmata, mhdÉ ˜ ti shma¤nei saf«w efipe›n dunãmenoi. EÈlÒgvw oÔn •katontãbibloi pragmate›ai grãfontai [38] to›w épÉ aÈt«n: ëma m¢n zhtoËsi kayÉ ˜tou prãgmatow ßkaston t«n Ùnomãtvn ı YessalÚw §p°feren, ëma dÉ oÈx eÍr¤skousin oÈd¢n toioËton ⁄ sumfvnÆsei pãnta tå katå m°row ÍpÉ aÈtoË legÒmena. T¤new går oÔn afl “fainÒmenai koinÒtht°w” efisin µ p«w “fainÒmenai” l°gein oÈk ¶xousin, oÎdÉ ín pollaplas¤ouw êllaw grãcvsi b¤blouw. ÖHtoi går afisyÆsei pãntvw Ípop¤ptein xrØ tÚ fainÒmenon µ noÆsei katå m¤an §pibolØn éyrÒvw, •kãtera xvr‹w épode¤jevw: e‡ ti dÉ §kp°ptvken §k toË katå m¤an prosbolØn efiw gn«sin ¥kein, eÈyÁw m¢n toËto ka‹ diapef≈nhtai pãntvw ka‹ épode¤jevw de›tai ka‹ t°xnhn oÈdem¤an épÚ toioÊtou prãgmatow êrxesyai prosÆkei. TaËtÉ oÔn 1

ego: aÈtoÁw K

2

ci ego: per‹ toÊtvn §n K

  ‒  

421

perhaps write at leisure, some other time, about their disagreements. But now, for the subject at hand, it is appropriate to say this much: that those who set themselves up as leaders of schools should first of all explain to what thing they apply each [36] of the words they use, as do in fact even the Empiricists, when they call “manifest” what is grasped by the senses and “known” what is retained by memory and say that what has been grasped by the senses previously and is being grasped now is both manifest and known. So then: do the Methodists say, likewise, that the koinotetes are “manifest” in the sense that they are known by the senses, or do they call “manifest” things that are grasped by reason as well? For the Empiricists absolutely refuse to call “manifest” anything which appears to be known by reason alone, whereas the ancient philosophers said that manifest things fall into two classes: one class—which corresponds to the Empiricists’ notion— comprises what is discerned by one sense-organ or another, such as white and black, hard and soft, hot and cold, and the like; the other class comprises things that are grasped by the mind on their first occurrence, themselves being undemonstrable—for instance, the proposition “two quantities equal to a third are equal to each other”, or “equals added to equals yield equals” and “equals subtracted from equals yield equals”. And they say that the proposition “nothing happens without a cause” belongs in this class, and so too “everything comes from what exists, from [37] what does not exist at all comes nothing”—or again “nothing is destroyed to the point of not existing”, “everything must be either affirmed or denied”, and many other propositions of this sort, which they analyse in manuals of logic and which I have expounded in my commentary On demonstration as clearly as I possibly could. Some philosophers stand apart and squabble about the class of starting-points of this kind (which we call logical); but those are at least sound enough to reject any demonstration whatsoever; for I think that they admit, although they do not say it in so many words, to have certain knowledge of at least this thing—that, if the logical starting-points are not trustworthy, nothing can be demonstrated at all. Whereas those who are, as it happens, dumb and foolish enough not to understand even this, well, those do try to make demonstrations; on the other hand, they do not know what the starting-points of demonstration are, of what kind, and how many, nor do they wish to inquire into this matter or to listen, if someone is to explain it to them, but they just make unsupported assertions and they spit out words, without being capable of explaining clearly what any of them means. It is not without good reason, then, that manuals in hundreds of books get written [38] by their followers, partly because they try to discover the thing to which every word of Thessalus refers, partly because they do not find anything which may accommodate all his individual remarks about that thing. For even if they were to write many times as many other books, they cannot say what the “manifest koinotetes” are, or in what sense they are “manifest”. For what is manifest must be grasped either entirely by sense-perception or by mind at once, in a single act; and in either case it is without demonstration. If it fails to become known in one single act, this is a sure sign that the thing in question will be a matter of controversy and will need demonstration; and no art [techne] should take this sort

422

  ‒  -

efi m¢n §gumnãsanto katå tåw logikåw meyÒdouw, aÈto¤ tÉ ín ædesan ≤m«n tÉ oÈk ín mãthn kat°tribon tÚn xrÒnon: §pe‹ dÉ égÊmnastoi ka‹ émaye›w ˆntew §j épono¤aw §tÒlmhsan épode¤jei xrÆsasyai pr‹n ˜ t¤ pot° §stin épÒdeijiw maye›n, énagka›on ≥dh toÁw toioÊtouw ëpantaw sfãllesyai ka‹ lhre›n makrã, ka‹ mhd¢ to›w Ùry«w épodeiknÊousin 5 ékolouye›n éllÉ énal¤skein mãthn tÚn xrÒnon. MØ to¤nun aÈto›w [39] mhdÉ …w z≈oiw logiko›w ¶ti dialeg≈meya mhdÉ éntil°gvmen makrã, pr‹n ín §yelÆsvsi maye›n oÂÒn ti prçgmã §stin épÒdeijiw ˜pvw te de› tÚn m°llonta kal«w aÈtª xrÆsasyai gegumnãsyai.

FR 162. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(8)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, I vii, pp. 50–58 K: 10 [vii, 50] . . . ÉAllÉ §pe‹ [sc tÚ “mhd¢n xvr‹w afit¤aw g¤gnesyai”] t«n prÚw nÒhsin §narg«n §stin, Ípoy°meno¤ tina t∞w blãbhw Ípãrxein afit¤an §p‹ tÚ zhte›n aÈtØn éfikoÊmeya. TaÊthn oÔn tØn afit¤an e‡te diãyes¤n tina s≈matow e‡t° pvw diake¤menon s«ma prosagoreÊein §y°loiw oÈd¢n m¢n efiw ge tå parÒnta diaf°rei: pãntvw dÉ oÔn ≥toi tÚ nÒshma aÈtÚ fÆseiw 15 Ípãrxein aÈtØn ≥, e‡per tÚ nÒshmã §stin ≤ blãbh t∞w §nerge¤aw, ≤ blãptousa diãyesiw aÈtØn afit¤a toË nosÆmatow Ípãrxei. Ka‹ g¤gnetai kôntaËya pãlin Íp¢r ÙnÒmatow ≤ émfisbÆthsiw, ≥toi tØn §n to›w Ùfyalmo›w diãyesin ÍfÉ ∏w ≤ ˆciw blãptetai “nÒson” ≤m«n ÙnomazÒntvn, µ aÈtØn tØn blãbhn t∞w §nerge¤aw: éllÉ e‡te tØn beblamm°nhn §nerge¤an 20 §y°loi tiw Ùnomãzein “nÒson”, énãgkh dÆpou toËton polÁ prÒteron “Íge¤an” Ípoy°syai tØn katå fÊsin ¶xousan §n°rgeian, e‡te tØn diãyesin ÍfÉ ∏w ≤ [51] §n°rgeia blãptetai, ka‹ toËton polÁ prÒteron §p‹ t∞w katå fÊsin e‡tÉ oÔn diay°sevw e‡te ka‹ kataskeu∞w §y°lei kale›n §pif°rein tÚ t∞w “Íge¤aw” ˆnoma. TÚ dÉ §n ta›w §nerge¤aiw Ípoy°menon 25 e‰nai tØn Íge¤an, §n ta›w diay°sesin Ípolambãnein sun¤stasyai tØn nÒson, µ ¶mpalin §n m¢n tª kataskeuª t«n mor¤vn tØn Íge¤an, §n d¢ tª blãb˙ t«n §nergei«n tØn nÒson êjion t«n te êllvn Meyodik«n §sti, ka‹ dØ ka‹ toË t∞w §mplhj¤aw aÈt«n érxhgoË YessaloË. Pãntew goËn sxedÚn ofl épÚ t∞w émeyÒdou te ka‹ mani≈douw taÊthw aflr°sevw 30 tØn m¢n Íge¤an eÈstãyeian t«n katå fÊsin §nergei«n e‰na¤ fasi ka‹ fisxÊn, tØn d¢ nÒson oÈk ¶ti blãbhn §nerge¤aw ka‹ ésy°neian, éllÉ ofl m¢n diãyes¤n tina s≈matow ofl d¢ s«mã pvw diake¤menon: ∏w t¤w ín eÍreye¤h me¤zvn §mplhj¤a; ToËto m°ntoi kùn ı tux∆n §jeÊroi, tÚ mØ de›n §n •t°rƒ m¢n g°nei tØn Íge¤an, §n •t°rƒ d¢ tØn nÒson éllÉ §n 35 taÈt“ pãntvw êmfv t¤yesyai: tå går §nant¤a katå ple›stÒn §stin éllÆlvn diesthkÒta §n t“ aÈt“ g°nei, kayãper leukÚn ka‹ m°lan: ©n går émfo›n g°now tÚ xr«ma. Ka‹ to¤nun e‡per §nant¤a §stin Íge¤a ka‹ nÒsow, §n ⁄per ín ¬ t“ [52] g°nei t«n katå fÊsin ≤ Íge¤a, toÊtou toË

423

  ‒  -

of thing as a starting-point. So if they had trained in these [sc principles] according to logical methods, they would know them for themselves and would not waste our time in vain; but since they are untrained and ignorant, and ventured madly to use demonstration before learning what demonstration is, the whole lot of them is bound to commit errors, to waffle at great length, and, failing to follow those who make correct demonstrations, to waste their time in vain. So let us no longer converse with them [39] as if they were rational animals and engage with them in lengthy disputes, until they show some willingness to learn what kind of thing demonstration is and how one should train oneself if one wants to make proper use of it.

FR 162. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(8)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, I vii, pp. 50–58 K: [50] . . . Since it [sc the proposition “nothing happens without a cause”] belongs in the class of items which are clear to the mind, we shall suppose that there is a cause of the damage [sc to the eye], then move on to look for it. Now, for the present discussion it makes no difference whether we wish to identify this cause with some state [diathesis] of the body or with the body’s being put in a certain state; for clearly either you shall say that the disease itself consists in it [sc the cause]; or, if the disease consists in damage to the activity [energeia], the state which impairs it [sc the activity] is the cause. Here again, the disagreement is one about words, since we call “disease” either the state of the eyes by which sight is impaired or the impairment itself of the activity. But if one prefers to call “disease” the impaired activity, all the more will one have to postulate that “health” is natural activity; and if one prefers to call “disease” the state by which an [51] activity is impaired, all the more will this one be bound, in turn, to attach the term “health” to the natural state, condition, or whatever one may wish to call it. But to postulate that health resides in the activities and then to suppose that disease consists in the states—or, contrariwise, to locate health in the condition of the parts and disease in the damaging of the activities—this is something worthy of the Methodists in general, and especially of Thessalus, the founder of their madness. For nearly all the members of this un-Methodical and crazy school say that health is the balance and strength of the natural activities, but they do not say, correspondingly, that disease is the impairment and weakness of the activity: some consider it to be a state of the body, others, the body put in a certain state. Could one hear of anything madder than this? And yet anyone could work out this much: that health should not be put in one genus and disease in another, but plainly both in the same one; for contraries are items standing at the greatest distance from each other within the same genus—such as white and black, both of which belong to the genus of colour. Accordingly, if health and disease are opposites, whatever [52] genus of natural things

424

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

  ‒  

g°nouw §n t“ parå fÊsin ≤ nÒsow Ípãrjei: ÀstÉ efi m¢n §n°rgeia katå fÊsin ≤ Íge¤a, pãntvw dÆpou parå fÊsin §n°rgeiã tiw ≤ nÒsow §st¤n: efi dÉ ≥toi diãyes¤w tiw µ kataskeuØ katå fÊsin ≤ Íge¤a §st¤, ka‹ ≤ nÒsow §j énãgkhw ¶stai diãyesiw tiw µ kataskeuØ parå fÊsin. ÑO m¢n oÔn YessalÚw oÈdÉ §pexe¤rhsen ˜lvw éfor¤sasyai nÒson, éllå xrØ manteÊesyai katå t¤now §pif°rei toÎnoma prãgmatow. ÜOti m¢n går oÈd¢n diaf°rein ≤ge›tai “nÒshma” pãyouw §pede¤jam°n soi diÉ aÈt«n t«n suggrammãtvn aÈtoË, parãllhla tiy°ntow êmfv ka‹ metalambãnontow •kãteron efiw yãteron …w oÈd¢n diaf°ron µ oÏtvw µ §ke¤nvw efipe›n: ofl dÉ apÉ aÈtoË pãntew ênv ka‹ kãtv str°fontai lugizÒmeno¤ te ka‹ parakaluptÒmenoi ka‹ pãnta poioËntew …w ≥toi pantãpasin ésaf«w efipe›n µ mhdÉ ˜lvw, Àsper aÈtÚw ı YessalÚw ka‹ prÚ toÊtou Yem¤svn, ı tØn =¤zan aÈto›w t∞w §mplhj¤aw taÊthw Ípoy°menow. Efi dÆ soi tå PrÒklou ka‹ ÑRhg¤nou ka‹ ÉAntipãtrou l°goimi, ka‹ prÚw [53] toÊtoiw EÈdÆmou ka‹ Mnas°ou ka‹ F¤lvnow ka‹ Dionus¤ou, lãyoimÉ ín §mautÚn §kpes∆n t∞w prokeim°nhw nËn pragmate¤aw, §pisthmonik∞w te oÎshw ka‹ tÚ xrÆsimon aÈtÚ peirvm°nhw §kdidãskein. ÉAllå t∞w m¢n §ke¤nvn diafvn¤aw ‡svw ên pote ka‹ Ïsteron e‡h mnhmoneËsai, ka‹ sÁn aÈto›w ge to›w nËn efirhm°noiw toË pãnta sof≈teron §pitarãjantÒw te ka‹ sugx°antow aÈt«n tå prãgmata Menemãxou ka‹ toË lhr≈douw ÉOlumpikoË ka‹ metÉ aÈtoË ÉApollvn¤dou ka‹ SvranoË ka‹ toË nËn ¶ti z«ntow ÉIoulianoË—toÊtƒ m°n ge ka‹ ≤me›w §netÊxomen—·na ka‹ parå z«ntow ényr≈pou fvn∞w §kmãyvmen lÆrouw makroÊw. E‰xe dÉ oÔn oÈdÉ otow l°gein ˜ t¤ potÉ §st‹ “pãyow” ka‹ “nÒshma”, ka‹ tekmÆriÒn ge toÊtou m°giston: §t«n går ≥dh pleiÒnvn µ e‡kosi gegonÒtvn §j oper ≤me›w §p‹ t∞w ÉAlejandre¤aw aÈt“ toÊtƒ sunegenÒmeya, gegraf∆w efisagvgåw êllaw §pÉ êllaiw, ée‹ går aÈtåw metat¤yhs¤ te ka‹ metarruym¤zei t“ mhd°potÉ érke›syai ta›w grafe¤saiw, katÉ oÈdem¤an aÈt«n §tÒlmhsen efipe›n ˜ t¤ potÉ §st‹ nÒsow, ka¤toi ge mhd¢n prÚw ¶pow §n aÈta›w diej°rxetai—[54] m°xri toË ka‹ tå toiaËta zhte›n, efi zvgraf¤a xrÆsimow fiatro›w §stin: éllÉ ˜mvw tosaËtã te ka‹ toiaËta grãfvn ka‹ d∞low n (Àsper ka‹ Men°maxow) ˜ti saf«w ¶gnvke t∞w Meyodik∞w aflr°sevw tØn étop¤an, oÈd°pv ka‹ tÆmeron ¶gracen §n ta›w efisagvga›w ˜ t¤ pote “nÒson” µ “pãyow” Ùnomãzei. ÉEmo‹ dÉ oÔn §rom°nƒ potÉ aÈtÚn oÏtv makr«w te ëma ka‹ ésaf«w di∞lyen …w œn m¢n ¶lege suni°nai mhdenÒw, énagkasy∞nai d¢ tÒ ge tosoËton efipe›n prÚw aÈtÒn, …w diaf°resya¤ moi doko¤h prÚw ÉOlumpikÒn, ka¤toi pãppon aÈtoË t∞w didaskal¤aw ˆnta: mayhtØw går §stin otow ı ÉIoulianÚw ÉApollvn¤dou1 toË Kupr¤ou, §ke›now dÉ ∑n ÉOlumpikoË foithtÆw. ÑO to¤nun ÉOlumpikÒw, …w ¶fhn, ır¤sasyai tolmÆsaw “Íge¤an” te ka‹ “pãyow”, “tØn m¢n Íge¤an diãyesin” ¶fhse “katå §ktÒthta nÒsou”, “tÚ dÉ aÔ pãyow tropØn toË katå fÊsin efiw tÚ parå fÊsin §p¤monon”. ÖEsti m¢n dØ ka‹ toÊtvn •kãteron élog¤aw pampÒllhw énãplevn, ∂n ka‹ tÒte di∞lyon t“ ÉIoulian“ ka‹ nËn §p‹ kefala¤vn §r«. “TÚ goËn sugx°on” ¶fhn, “§st‹n §ke›no: tÚ mØ mÒnon èpl«w oÏtvw efipe›n tÚn [55] ÉOlumpikÚn Íge¤an e‰nai ‘diãyesin 1

ci ego: ÉApollvn¤ou K

  ‒  

425

health belongs in, disease will belong to what is unnatural in the same genus; and so, if health is natural activity, disease clearly must be an unnatural activity; conversely, if health is some natural state or condition, disease will also have to be an unnatural state or condition. But Thessalus did not, in fact, endeavour to define disease; one has to divine what thing it is that his term refers to. For we have demonstrated to you, using material from his own books, that he considers “disease” to be no different from “affection”; he uses them interchangeably and moves from one to the other, as if it made no difference whether you speak this way or that; and all his followers veer up and down, twisting and turning to evade us, and they do everything they can to speak as unclearly as possible, if at all—as did Thessalus himself and, before him, Themison, the man who planted the root of their madness. If I were now to give you an account of the doctrines of Proclus, Rheginus, and Antipater, and, in addition, [53] of those of Eudemus, Mnaseas, Philo, and Dionysius, I would, even before I knew it, stray away from my present concern—which is scientific [epistemonike] and tries to teach what is useful. But maybe I should record their disagreement sometime in the future; and then, to those listed above, I should add an account of the doctrines of Menemachus, who whirled all things into chaos and confusion even more cleverly than they did; of the divagatory Olympicus; after him, of Apollonides and of Soranus; and of Julian, who is still alive—I have met him myself—so that we may hear this great humbug even from the mouth of a living person. But he could explain no more than the others what “disease” and “affection” are, and here is the surest sign of it. More than twenty years had passed since I made his acquaintance in Alexandria; in the meanwhile he produced treatise after treatise, for he is given to changing and recasting them, being never satisfied with what he has written. In none of these books did he venture to explain what disease is, although he constantly goes at a tangent in them—[54] so much so that he raises even the question whether painting is useful to the doctors; yet in spite of writing so much stuff of this kind, and in spite of his intimations that he has a limpid understanding of the paradoxical points of Methodist doctrine (he is just like Menemachus in this respect), he has not put down in his books yet, not to this very day, what it is that he calls “disease” or “affection”. So once, when I asked him this question, he engaged in such a long-winded and obscure talk that I did not understand anything of what he was saying, but I was forced to tell him this much: that he seemed to me to depart from Olympicus, although in terms of teaching that was his grand-father—for our Julian is the pupil of Apollonides of Cyprus, and that one was, in turn, a disciple of Olympicus. Now Olympicus, as I pointed out to Julian, did venture to define “health” and “affection”: he said that “health is a state relative to the absence of illness”, whereas “affection is a persistent change from what is natural to what is unnatural”. Surely each of these definitions is replete with absurdities of all sorts; I pointed them out to Julian at that time and I shall briefly review them now. “Here is where the trouble lies”, I said: “Olympicus has not only said, without discriminations, [55] that ‘health is a state relative to the

426

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

katå §ktÒthta nÒsou’, éllå prosye›nai t“ lÒgƒ ‘∂n diãyesin ırizÒmeya eÈstãyeian t«n katå fÊsin §nerghmãtvn ka‹ fisxÊn’: oÈ går ¶xv sumbale›n e‡tÉ §n tª t«n §nergei«n eÈstaye¤& mÒn˙ tØn Íge¤an e‡tÉ §n tª toË s≈matow diay°sei e‡tÉ §n émfo›n Ípot¤yetai: tãxa dÉ, Àsper e‡vye xr∞syai to›w t«n ÑEllÆnvn ÙnÒmasin éllokÒtvw te ka‹ tetaragm°nvw ëma to›w êlloiw ëpasi Meyodiko›w, oÏtv ka‹ nËn oÈk §p‹ tÚ s«ma tØn ‘diãyesin’ éllÉ §p‹ tåw §nerge¤aw énaf°rei, Àste ≤mçw ékoËsai toË lÒgou katå toËton tÚn trÒpon: ‘Íge¤a §st‹ diãyesiw §nergei«n katå §ktÒthta nÒsou’. D¤kaion dÉ ∑n o‰mai prosye›nai t“ lÒgƒ duo›n yãteron aÈtÒn, µ §nergei«n µ s≈matow, ·nÉ ≥toi g°nhtai toioËtow ı lÒgow, ‘Íge¤a §st‹ diãyesiw §nergei«n katå §ktÒthta nÒsou’, µ nØ D¤a toioËtow, ‘Íge¤a §st‹ diãyesiw s≈matow katå §ktÒthta nÒsou’: ka‹ m°n ge ka‹ efi êmfv sunye›nai proπrhto, ka‹ oÏtvw §nex≈rei saf«w te ëma ka‹ diå brax°vn efipe›n: ‘Íge¤a §st‹ diãyesiw §nergei«n te ka‹ s≈matow katå §ktÒthta nÒsou’. T¤ dÉ ˜tan §pif°rvn e‡p˙, ‘∂n diãyesin [56] ırizÒmeya eÈstãyeian t«n katå fÊsin §nerghmãtvn ka‹ fisxÊn’; PÒteron m°row Ípolhpt°on e‰nai toËto toË proeirhm°nou ka‹ xrØ sunãptein ≤mçw ˜lon tÚn lÒgon …d¤ pvw: ‘Íge¤a §st‹ diãyesiw s≈matow katå §ktÒthta nÒsou ka‹ eÈstãyeia t«n katå fÊsin §nerghmãtvn ka‹ fisxÊw’: µ t°leiÒw §stin ı lÒgow otow, aÈtÚw kayÉ •autÚn ˜ t¤ potÉ §st‹n Íge¤a didãskvn, Àsp°r ge ka‹ ≥resen §n¤oiw t«n Meyodik«n, ‘eÈstãyeian’ épofhnam°noiw ‘e‰nai t«n katå fÊsin §nergei«n tØn Íge¤an’; ÉAllÉ e‡per otow t°leiow, ı proeirhm°now oÈk o‰dÉ ˜ti didãskei diãyesin e‰nai l°gvn tØn Íge¤an. ÉEke›no m¢n går ˘ ¶fh, tÚ katå §ktÒthta nÒsou, toioËtÒn §stin oÂon ka‹ pa›da gelãsai. Efi går dØ sugxvrÆsomen oÏtvw ır¤zesyai, dhlonÒti ka‹ ≤ nÒsow ¶stai diãyesiw s≈matow katå §ktÒthta Íge¤aw, ·na ßkastow t«n ˜rvn ≤m›n oÈ toË t¤ potÉ §st‹ tÚ Ípoke¤menon éllå toË t¤ potÉ oÈk ¶sti g°nhtai didãskalow. ÉEãsyv dÉ”, ¶fhn, “efi boÊlei, ka‹ taËta: ka‹ går pãrergã pvw §stin. ÉAllÉ §ke›nÒ ge parelye›n te ka‹ paride›n oÈk §gxvre›, tÚ katå m¢n tØn t∞w ‘Íge¤aw’ didaskal¤an ëpanta pros°rxesyai ta›w §ner[57]ge¤aiw, ≥toi mÒnaiw µ metå toË sugx°ai ka‹ peripl°jai ka‹ énam›ja¤ pvw ésaf«w tÚ t∞w ‘diay°sevw’ ˆnoma, kayãper ı ÉOlumpikÒw, §n d¢ t“ toË ‘pãyouw’ oÈk°ti memn∞syai t«n §nergei«n: ép°xrhse går efipe›n aÈt“: ‘pãyow §st‹ tropØ toË s≈matow §k toË katå fÊsin efiw tÚ parå fÊsin §p¤monow’. ÉExr∞n dÉ”, ¶fhn, “§n ta›w §nerge¤aiw µ §n ta›w diay°sesin êmfv tãttein aÈtÒn.” àO d° moi prÚw taËtÉ épekr¤nato ka‹ ≥dh m°n soi pollãkiw e‰pon, ÑI°rvn krãtiste, ka‹ nËn tÉ énamn∞sai prosÆkei—tÚ “mhd¢n e‰nai yaumastÚn §n m¢n tª t«n §nergei«n eÈstaye¤& sÁn fisxÊi tetãxyai tØn Íge¤an, §n d¢ tª parå fÊsin toË s≈matow diay°sei tØn nÒson: oÈ gãr §stin §nant¤a kayãper sÁ nom¤zeiw”, ¶fhsen: “¶sti gãr ti m°son aÈt«n ˘ mÆyÉ Íge¤a mÆte nÒsow §st¤n”. ÉAkoÊsaw oÔn §g∆ tÚn lÒgon toËton §xvr¤syhn §kpeplhgm°now te ka‹ lupoÊmenow ëma: xrØ går ımologe›n tÚ sumbãn: ¶mprosyen m¢n går oÈden‹ t«n §n toiaÊt˙ dÒj˙ tel°vw §netetuxÆkein §mplÆktvn:2 tÒte 2

corr ego: §mplÆktƒ K

  ‒  

427

absence of illness’, but has added to his definition: ‘We define that [sc state] as balance and strength of the natural activities’. Well, I cannot guess whether he takes ‘health’ to consist exclusively in the balance of the activities or in the state of the body, or in both; moreover, since he was in the habit of putting plain Greek to strange and tortuous uses, like all his fellow Methodists, perhaps here we are expected to apply ‘state’ [‘diathesis’] not to the body, but to the activities, so as to understand the definition as saying something like: ‘health is a state of the activities relative to the absence of illness’. To my judgement, he should have inserted into his formula a specification as to which of the two he meant, activities or body, so as to get either a definition of the form ‘health is a state of the activities relative to the absence of illness’ or—by Zeus!—one of the form ‘health is a state of the body relative to the absence of illness’; and even if he intended to put both things in, it would have been possible to express even this with clarity and brevity: ‘health is a state of the activities and of the body, relative to the absence of illness’. What did he mean, in fact, by adding ‘a state which [56] we define as balance and strength of the natural activities’? Is this to be regarded as a part of the previous statement, and should we compose the whole definition somehow as ‘health is a state of the body relative to the absence of illness, and a balance and strength of the natural activities’? Or is the following definition, by itself, complete and informative as to what health is—as some Methodists believe when they assert that ‘health is the balance of the natural activities’? But if this definition is complete, I do not see what the previous one is supposed to teach us by saying that health is a state. Now, that which it asserts about it [sc about health], namely its being relative to the absence of disease, is such that even a child would laugh at it. For if we agree that this is how one should go about definitions, obviously disease will be, correspondingly, a state of the body relative to the absence of health, so that each of our definitions will teach us, not what the definiendum is, but rather what it is not. But”, I said, “if you wish, let us ignore these faults as well; they are of secondary importance. What we cannot possibly neglect and overlook is this: that in the elucidation of ‘health’ everything is related to the activities—[57] either singly or by confounding and entangling and mixing them up in some obscure fashion with the term ‘state’, as Olympicus does; whereas in the elucidation of ‘affection’ there is no mentioning of the activities. He contented himself to say that ‘an affection is a persistent change of the body from what is natural to what is unnatural’. He should have located both of them”, I said, “either in the activities or in the states.” I have told you many times what Julian said in reply to all this, my noble Hiero, and it is appropriate that I repeat it now: “It is not absurd to locate health in the balance and strength of the activities and disease in the unnatural state of the body; for they are not opposites of the kind you imagine” he said; “there is something in between them, which is neither health nor disease.” On hearing such reasoning I was at once shocked and aggrieved, and I gave up—for I must acknowledge what happened: I had never before come across any of those people completely stultified by such a doctrine; and

428

  ‒  -

dÉ §ntux∆n pr«ton efikÒtvw §jeplãghn, oÈx ˜ti mÒnow §ke›now oÏtvw ∑n éna¤syhtow éllÉ ˜ti poll“ skaiot°rouw [58] •autoË tosoÊtouw e‰xe mayhtãw, o· katå tØn aÈtØn érxØn didaskal¤aw ır«ntew oÏtvw §sfalm°nouw toÁw MeyodikoÁw oÈk éf¤stantai t∞w aflr°sevw µ, e‡per 5 oÈdÉ ˜lvw ır«si, tel°vw efis‹n épÒplhktoi. T¤ går dØ ka‹ prÚw ¶pow oÈk e‰nai tØn nÒson §nant¤on Íge¤& diÒti m°son aÈt«n §st¤ ti; D∞lon går …w oÈd¢ tÚ leukÚn §nant¤on ¶stai t“ m°lani, diÒti m°son aÈt«n §sti tÚ janyÒn te ka‹ tÚ faiÒn, ¶ruyrÒn te ka‹ »xrÒn, ßkastÒn te t«n êllvn xrvmãtvn: oÈd¢ tÚ yermÚn t“ cuxr“—ka‹ går ka‹ toÊtvn §st‹ 10 m°sa, xliarÒn te ka‹ eÎkraton. Ofl m¢n dØ sof≈tatoi Meyodiko‹, katå tØn érxØn eÈy°vw peptvkÒtew oÈ smikrÚn oÈd¢ tÚ tuxÚn pt«ma, t¤ ín ¶ti t«n §fej∞w élhy«n katamãyoien; OÈdÉ ©n dÆpou: deixyÆsetai går ëpanta tå katå tØn fiatrikØn t°xnhn §k toÊtvn ±rthm°na—ka‹ deÒntvw, e‡ gÉ §n ta›w meyÒdƒ tin‹ sunistam°naiw t°xnaiw érxØ t∞w sustãsevw 15 ≤ toË t°louw §st‹n ¶nnoia.

FR 163. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(9)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, I vii, pp. 61–63 K: [vii, 61] . . . Ka‹ toÊtvn pãntvn t«n èmarthmãtvn, ˜per e‡rhta¤ te pollãkiw ≥dh ka‹ aÔyiw efirÆsetai, ©n a‡tion Ípãrxei: tÚ [62] mØ gegumnãsyai katå tØn logikØn m°yodon toÁw §pixeiroËntaw ıtioËn §jeur¤skein logik«w, éllÉ ëma m¢n époxvre›n t∞w §mpeir¤aw …w gegumnasm°nouw tÚn 20 logismÒn, ëma dÉ égumnãstouw ˆntaw §n aÈt“ sfãllesyai m°gista. Muriãkiw goËn Íp¢r Ùnomãtvn aÈtoÁw eÍr¤skv diaferom°nouw …w Íp¢r pragmãtvn: aÔyiw dÉ ên, efi tÊxoi, prçgmã ti m°giston égnooËntew ˆnoma nom¤zousin égnoe›n, Àsp°r ge kôp‹ toË prokeim°nou nËn ≤m›n oÈk ‡sasi diakr¤nein …w ≤ m¢n kataskeuØ t«n svmãtvn afit¤aw ¶xei lÒgon, ≤ dÉ 25 §n°rgeia tÚ prÚw §ke¤nhw §st‹n époteloÊmenon, oÈdÉ …w tÚ yerapeuÒmenon ≤ toË s≈matÒw §sti diãyesiw: ßpetai går §j énãgkhw taÊt˙ katå fÊsin m¢n §xoÊs˙ katå fÊsin §nerge›n, §jistam°nh d¢ toË katå fÊsin eÈyÁw ka‹ tØn §nerge¤an efiw tÚ parå fÊsin §ktr°pein. ÉEn toÊtƒ d¢ tÚ pçn §sti, ka‹ toËto érxØ ka‹ oÂon stoixe›Òn ti pr«ton èpãshw t∞w yera30 peutik∞w Ípãrxei meyÒdou. TÚ dÉ e‡tÉ aÈtÚ toËto xrØ prosagoreÊein

429

  ‒  -

when I met one for the first time I was understandably shocked—not because he alone was as senseless as all this, but because he produced so many disciples much more stupid [58] than himself: for either they see the Methodists going astray like that, at the very root of their doctrine, and yet they do not quit the hairesis, or, if they do not actually see it, they are completely mystified. Why on earth should the existence of an intermediate [sc state] be relevant to the claim that disease is not the opposite of health? On this account, it is clear that the white will not be the opposite of black because there are intermediates between them—yellow, grey, red, pale, and the other colours; nor will the hot be the opposite of the cold, for there are intermediates between these as well—the warm and the lukewarm. And if the marvellously wise Methodists have fallen right from their first principle [arche] into an error which is neither negligible nor accidental, what could they possibly understand of the subsequent truths? Absolutely nothing at all; for it will be demonstrated that everything in the medical art [techne] depends on these [sc archai ]—and this is how it should be, since in the arts which are structured according to some method the structuring principle is the conception of their goal.

FR 163. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(9)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, I vii, pp. 61–63 K: [vii, 61] . . . For all these mistakes there is one single cause, which I have already pointed out many times, and will rehearse again: it is [62] the lack of training in logical method on the part of those who attempt to conduct an inquiry by reason—the fact that on the one hand they refuse experience, as if they might be trained in reasoning, yet on the other hand, being untrained, they make the greatest errors in it [sc in reasoning]. So there are thousands of occasions where I keep finding them quarrelling about words as if they were facts; or again, if they happen to be ignorant of some important fact, they take themselves to be ignorant of the name, as for instance in our present subject they cannot discern that the condition of bodies plays the role of a cause, whereas the activity is what is brought about from it, nor that what needs treatment is the state of the body; for it follows necessarily that, when the latter is in a natural state, it produces natural activity, and when it departs from what is natural, the activity, too, changes immediately towards the unnatural. The crux of the matter is here; this is the starting-point and, as at were, the primary element of the entire therapeutic method. As for whether one should call “disease” this very

430

  ‒  -

“nÒson” e‡te tØn blãbhn t∞w §nerge¤aw, Íp¢r ÙnÒmatÒw §stin émfisbhtoÊntvn. EfirÆsetai m¢n oÔn t¤ moi ka‹ per‹ t∞w t«n Ùnomãtvn xrÆsevw, Àsper e‡rhtai ka‹ prÒsyen ≥dh diÉ •t°rvn. [63] ÉAllå nËn oÎpv diast°llomai per‹ aÈt«n, ·nÉ ¶rgƒ toËtÉ aÈtÚ mçllon bebai≈svmai, 5 ka‹ de¤jv t¤w érxØ ka‹ =¤za t∞w yerapeutik∞w §sti meyÒdou, per‹ ∂n eÈyÁw êlloi te pollo‹ t«n LogikoÊw te ka‹ DogmatikoÁw •autoÁw Ùnomasãntvn ka‹ ofl b°ltistoi sfãllontai Meyodiko¤.

FR 164. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(10)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, I viii, pp. 66–67 K:

10

15

20

25

[66] . . . Y°menow dÉ oÏtvw µ êllvw ˜pvw ín §y°l˙ saf«w ka‹ xrhs¤mvw to›w ékoÊousi, mhk°ti metatiy°syv mÆdÉ §jallatt°tv tØn xr∞sin éllÉ ée‹ fulatt°tv parÉ ˜lon tÚn lÒgon, ·na ka‹ manyãnvmen ì l°gei =&d¤vw, ka‹ tåw éntilog¤aw ka‹ toÁw §l°gxouw prÒw ti saf¢w ka‹ divrism°non poi≈meya. P«w ka‹ t¤na trÒpon; ÉEnde¤jasyai går ¶ti toËtÉ aÈtÚ xrØ diå toÁw énaisyÆtouw MeyodikoÊw. ÖEstv tinå l°gein …w ≤ m¢n flegmonØ diãyes¤w §st‹ parå fÊsin: tÚ dÉ ¶rgon toË flegma¤nontow m°rouw tÚ beblamm°non ofike›on §ja¤reton toË pãyouw sÊmptvma—pod«n m¢n bãdisiw, Ùfyalm«n dÉ ˆciw, tvn dÉ ékoÆ: tÚ dÉ ¶reuyow, efi tÊxoi, ka‹ ≤ tãsiw ≤ tÉ éntitup¤a ka‹ ı parå fÊsin ˆgkow ı ta›w flegmona›w •pÒmenow ßterÒn ti g°now e‡te sumptvmãtvn e‡te sumbebhkÒtvn e‡yÉ ˜pvw ín êllvw §y°l˙ tiw Ùnomãzein, éllÉ oÔn ˜ti ge mØ taÈtÚ g°now §st‹ tª blãb˙ t«n §nergei«n: ‡stv te ka‹ dioriz°syv saf«w: ≤ plhy≈ra dÉ, efi tÊxoi, t∞w flegmon∞w afit¤a prohgoum°nh, [67] ka‹ taÊthw prokatãrxousa tÚ pl∞yow t«n §desmãtvn. ÑVw oÔn §g∆ ka‹ parade¤gmata pepo¤hmai saf∞ toË lÒgou ka‹ t°ttara g°nh di≈rismai ka‹ tåw afit¤aw ka‹ §nno¤aw aÈt«n e‡rhka, katå tÚn aÈtÚn o‰mai trÒpon §xr∞n poi∞sai tÚn YessalÚn §p‹ tosoÊtoiw te ka‹ thlikoÊtoiw éndrãsi kayÉ œn •autÚn énekÆrutte, m°llonta nevt°ran a·resin sun¤stasyai: nun‹ dÉ oÎtÉ aÈtÚw oÈd¢n e‡pe saf¢w oÎt° tiw t«n épÉ aÈtoË.

FR 165. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(11)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, I ix, pp. 67–69 K: [ix, 67] TolmÆsaw goËn ı ÉOlumpikÚw éfor¤sasyai t¤ potÉ §st‹ “pãyow”, oÈ “pãyouw” éllå sumptvmãtvn e‡rhken ¶nnoian. ÜOlvw m¢n oÔn oÈdÉ

431

  ‒  -

thing [sc the bodily state] or the damage of the activity, this is an issue among parties who dispute about words. I will also have something to say on the use of words, as I have already done in other works in the past. [63] But I will not expand on them now, in order to secure a firmer ground for my subject through facts, and I will show what is the starting-point and root of the therapeutic method—the principle that many of the doctors who call themselves Logical and Dogmatists, as well as the most excellent Methodists, are mistaken about.

FR 164. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(10)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, I viii, pp. 66–67 K: [66] . . . Having laid down the matter this way—or in any way he [sc the doctor] may wish, provided that it is clear and helpful for the audience— he should no longer retract and switch to a different use; let him always abide by it throughout his argument, so that we may be able to follow easily what he says, as well as to produce clear and well defined counterarguments and refutations on any point. By what means and in what manner will he do it? For we have to spell out this thing too, on account of the senseless Methodists. Let someone say that the inflammation is an unnatural state [diathesis], that the damaged function [ergon] of the inflamed part is the symptom of the affection—for the feet, walking; for the eyes, seeing; for the ears, hearing—and that redness, if it occurs, tension, hardness, or the unnatural swelling which accompanies inflammations belong in another genus—symptoms, accidents, or whatever you like to call it, provided that it is not the same as the genus where the damage to the activities belongs; let all this be known and defined with clarity. And [sc let it be said that] plethora, as it might be, is the antecedent [ proegoumene] cause of the inflammation, [67] whereas abundance [ plethos] of food is the procatarctic [ prokatarchousa] cause of the former [sc of plethora]. So then: I have provided clear examples of [sc each] definition, distinguished four kinds and their causes, and explained the sense of my words; Thessalus ought to have proceeded in exactly the same manner, I think, concerning the matters for which he proclaimed himself victor over so many and such good men, in his desire to found a new sect [hairesis]; but, as it is, neither he nor any of his followers ever said one single thing that is clear.

FR 165. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(11)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, I ix, pp. 67–69 K: [ix, 67] Olympicus, then, ventured to say what an “affection” [ pathos] is and rendered instead, not the notion of “affection”, but that of symptom.

432

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  -

˜ t¤ potÉ §st‹ tÚ pãyow oÈdÉ ˜p˙ toË nosÆmatow diaf°rei gign≈skousin: éllå toËto m¢n §n to›w •j∞w diori«: pãnta går ëma l°gein oÈk §gxvre›. Sugxvrhy°ntow dÉ aÈto›w toË taÈtÚn e‰nai nÒshmã te ka‹ pãyow, ‡dvmen ˜ t¤ pot° fasi: “Pãyow §st‹ tropØ toË s≈matow §k toË katå fÊsin efiw tÚ parå fÊsin §p¤monow.” E‰ta mikrÚn proely≈n fasi: “ÉIst°on dÉ ˜ti diaf°rei pãyow sumpt≈matow: pãyow m¢n gãr §sti, …w Ùl¤gon ¶mprosyen ¶fhn, diã[68]yesiw parå fÊsin toË s≈matow §p¤monow: sÊmptvma dÉ ˘ t“ pãyei sumba¤nei, efidikØn Àsp°r tina ka‹ merikvt°ran §n to›w parå fÊsin ¶xon tÊpvsin.” AÏth m¢n ≤ yaumastØ =∞siw ÉOlumpikoË toË sofoË tolmÆsantow éfor¤sasyai pãyow te ka‹ sÊmptvma: tosoÊtvn dÉ §st‹n èmarthmãtvn mestØ Àst° moi par¤stastai tÚ toË mvroË toË prÚw kÒskion efipÒntow oÈx eÍr¤skein ˜ti bÊseien µ mØ bÊseien aÈtoË. T¤ går dØ ka‹ pr«ton §j aÈt«n e‡poi tiw, µ t¤ paral¤poi; Pãnta m¢n går §jel°gxein ˜sa kak«w épofa¤netai1 makrÚn ín e‡h. áH §k toË katå fÊsin efiw tÚ parå fÊsin tropØ pçsa nÒsow §st¤n, efi mÒnon aÈtª prose¤h tÚ “§p¤monon”; ÉAllå tØn êxroian Íme›w aÈto‹ ka‹ tØn étrof¤an §n to›w sumpt≈masin, oÈk §n to›w pãyesin ériyme›te: t¤ dÉ ≤ kakoxum¤a; T¤ dÉ ≤ §nde¤a; T¤ dÉ ≤ kaxej¤a; T¤ d¢ tÚ pl∞yow; OÈ parå fÊsin; Efi to¤nun aÈto›w prose¤h tÚ “§p¤monon”, §n to›w nosÆmasin ériymhyÆsetai. Ka‹ mØn oÈdÉ aÈto‹ boÊlesye, ka‹ kal«w toËto poie›te: prose›nai går xrØ t“ parå fÊsin e‰nai tØn diãyesin §n°r[69]geiãn tina prÚw aÈt∞w blãptesyai: m°xri dÉ ín éblabe›w afl pçsai fulãttvntai, kùn muriãkiw §jallãtthtai ka‹ tr°phtai ka‹ metabãlletai tÚ s«ma nÒsow oÎpv t«n diay°sevn §ke¤nvn §st‹n oÈdem¤a. TÒ g° toi t∞w yerape¤aw deÒmenon oÈd¢n êllo §st‹ plØn t∞w blaptoÊshw tØn §n°rgeian diay°sevw. O m¢n går deÒmeya pr≈tou ka‹ mãlista pãntvn ≤ katå fÊsin §st‹n §n°rgeia, diÉ §ke¤nhn d¢ ka‹ t∞w katå fÊsin e‡te diay°sevw e‡te kataskeu∞w Ùnomãzein §y°loiw. ÑOròn går deÒmeya ka‹ ékoÊein ka‹ dial°gesyai ka‹ bad¤zein, oÈk Ùfyalm«n oÈdÉ tvn oÈd¢ gl≈tthw oÈd¢ skel«n: efi goËn ∑n ıròn diÉ •t°rou mor¤ou, t¤w ín ∑n Ùfyalm«n ≤ xre¤a;

1

corr ego: épofa¤nontai K

FR 166. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(12)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, I ix, pp. 71–76 K: [ix, 71] . . . ÉEpeid¢ katå toËto toË lÒgou g°gona dok« moi dika¤an éj¤vsin §negke›n ·nÉ, …w ≤me›w §ke¤noiw sugxvroËmen ëttÉ ên gÉ §y°lvsin ÙnÒmata t¤yesyai, katå tÚn aÈtÚn trÒpon kôke¤nouw ≤m›n sugxvre›n ÑEllhniko›w te xr∞syai ka‹ palaio›w: µ deinÚn ín e‡h soloik¤zein m¢n 35 §ke¤noiw §je›nai kayãper turãnnoiw, ÑEllhn¤zein dÉ ≤m›n oÈk §je›nai.

433

  ‒  -

In fact they [sc the Methodists] have no idea at all what an affection is, or how it differs from a disease; but I shall make that distinction when its turn comes, for it is not possible to say everything in one. So, conceding to them that disease and affection are the same, let us examine what they say: “An affection is a persistent change of the body from what is natural to what is unnatural”. Then a little later they add: “One should know in what respect an affection differs from a symptom. For an affection, as I said a short while ago, is a [68] persistent unnatural state [diathesis] of the body. A symptom is that which accompanies an affection, carrying with it a specific and as it were minutely subdivided characterisation in the category of unnatural things.” Such is the amazing speech of the wise Olympicus, who dared to define “affection” and “symptom”; and it is crammed with so many errors that it brings to my mind the fool saying to the sieve that he cannot find what would plug it and what would not. Which one of them should I start from, which ones should I pass over? For it would take an awfully long time to refute all that is here incorrectly asserted. Is any change from the natural to the unnatural a disease, if only one adds to it the qualification “persistent” [“epimonon”]? But you yourselves count paleness and cessation of nutrition among symptoms, not among affections; and what about corrupt humours [kakochumia]? What about deficiency? What about cachexia? What about abundance [ plethos]? Are these not unnatural? But then, if one adds “persistent” to them, they will count as diseases. What is more, you do not want this yourselves, and here at least you are right; for one should add to the state’s being unnatural the fact that [69] some activity [energeia] is impaired as a result; as long as all the activities are preserved undamaged, even if the body alters, changes, and deviates in thousands of ways, there is yet no disease out of these states. Indeed what requires therapy is nothing but the state which impairs an activity; for the activity is what we need first and foremost, and it is for its sake that we also need the natural state or condition—whichever you prefer to call it. For we need, not eyes, ears, tongue, or feet, but to see, hear, talk, or walk; if it were possible to see with some other part of the body, what need would we have of eyes?

FR 166. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(12)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, I ix, pp. 71–76 K: [ix, 71] . . . Since I have reached this point in the argument, it seems to me a fair demand to make that, just as we allow them to assign whatever terms they wish, in the same fashion they, too, should allow us to use plain Greek terms sanctioned by tradition; otherwise it would be dreadful if they were permitted to use solecisms like tyrants, but we were not permitted to

434

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

Kale¤tvsan, efi boÊlointo, tØn Íge¤an “eÈstãyeian” 1 aÈt«n §nergei«n, ka¤toi d°deiktai prÚw ≤m«n …w ≤ diãyes¤w te ka‹ ≤ kataskeuØ t«n mor¤vn éfÉ ∏w katå fÊsin §nergoËmen “Íge¤a” prÚw èpãntvn ÑEllÆnvn Ùnomãzetai: ka‹ toËto y°menoi tØn Íge¤an, ˜mvw tØn “nÒson” oÈk §nerge¤aw blãbhn éllå parå fÊsin ≤ge¤syvsan e‰nai diãyesin. ÑVw oÔn ≤me›w §ke¤nouw mÆyÉ ÑEllhnist‹ mÆte dialektik«w Ùnomãzontaw oÈ kvlÊomen, oÏtv kôke›noi sugxvre¤tvsan ≤m›n ÑEllhnist¤ te ëma ka‹ dialektik«w oÈx ëpasan tØn parå fÊsin diãyesin éllÉ ¥tiw ín §n°rgeian blãpt˙ “nÒshma” prosagoreÊein: ¥tiw dÉ ín parå fÊsin m¢n ¬, mØ m°ntoi blãpt˙ gÉ §n°rgeian, oÈ nÒson éllå sÊmptvma nosÆmatow. [72] AÔyiw dÉ Àsper §ke›noi tÚ “§p¤monon” prostiy°asin oÈ dhlonoËntew êxri pÒsvn …r«n ≤ parå fÊsin aÏth diãyesiw parame¤nasa nÒsow §st¤n, oÏtvw ≤m›n sugxvre¤tvsan éfaire›n tÚ “§p¤monon”: e‡te går tris‹n Àraiw e‡te t°ttarsin e‡te ka‹ ≤m¤sei mÒnon Àraiw ˜lƒ tiw t“ s≈mati katalhfye¤h sfodr«w …w mÆtÉ afisyãnesyai mÆte kine›syai, toËton ≤me›w épÒplhkton Ùnomãzomen: …spere‹ ka‹ spasye¤˙ sÊmpanti t“ s≈mati ka‹ toËton §p¤lhpton, oÎyÉ …r«n ériymÚn oÎyÉ ≤mer«n ¶ti proslogizÒmenoi. MÒnhw går t∞w toË prãgmatow fÊsevw, oÈ t∞w toË xrÒnou posÒthtow Ípãrxei dhlvtikå tå toiaËta t«n Ùnomãtvn, Àsper o‰mai ka‹ leukÚn ka‹ m°lan ka‹ yermÚn ka‹ cuxrÒn: µ yaumastÚn ín e‡h tÚ Ïdvr tÚ yermÚn oÈk e‰nai yermÚn ín mØ diÉ ˜lhw ≤m°raw Ípãrxoi toioËton, µ tÚn ©j Àraiw pur°janta mØ pepurex°nai—xr∞nai går ka‹ toËton, e‡per §pÊrejen, §p¤monon ¶xein tÚ pãyow: ka¤toi t¤w ı xrÒnow otÒw §stin ı kr¤nvn tÚ “§p¤monon” ka‹ tÚ mØ toioËton oÈde‹w aÈt«n Àrisen: îrã ge ≤mer«n tiw ériymÚw µ mhn«n µ …r«n; [73] áH diå t¤ l°gousin “§p¤monon”, §nÚn efipe›n “poluxrÒnion”; áH toËto m¢n ka‹ metatiy°ntew ¶nioi §j aÈt«n “dÊsluton” Ùnomãzousin. ÉAllå toËtÒ ge tÚ “dÊsluton” oÈ nosÆmatow èpl«w éllå xron¤ou nosÆmatÒw §stin ‡dion, Àsp°r gÉ o‰mai ka‹ tÚ =&d¤vw luÒmenon Ùj°ow. TÚ dÉ o‡esyai diaf°rein µ “dÊsluton” µ “§p¤monon” µ “xrÒnion” efipe›n, îrÉ oÈk §sxãthw émay¤aw §st¤n; ÖEti d¢ yaumastÒteron ˜tan otoi m¢n Àsper §j Ïpnou bay°ow §gery°ntew §pixeir«si dior¤zesyai pãyow sumpt≈matow: ı d¢ t∞w §mplhj¤aw aÈt«n ≤gem«n §n t“ deut°rƒ Per‹ meyÒdou grãfei: “Tå går aÈtå prohghsãmena m¢n ‘pãyh’ l°getai, §pigenÒmena d¢ ‘sumpt≈mata’.” Ka¤toi toËtÒ ge polÁ yaumastÒteron œn §ke›noi l°gousi, tØn toË ¥patow flegmonÆn, efi m¢n eÈyÁw efisbãloi katå tØn pr≈thn ≤m°ran, pãyow e‰nai sugxvre›n, efi dÉ §fÉ •t°rƒ tin‹ g°noito, katå tØn deut°ran µ tr¤thn, efiw tå sumpt≈mata metatiy°nai. Ka¤toi t¤ l°gv deut°ran ≤m°ran; ÖAmeinon går efipe›n Àran deut°ran épÚ t∞w efisbol∞w toË nosÆmatow. OÈ går dÆpou katå m¢n tØn deut°ran ≤m°ran ≤ toË ¥patow flegmonØ [74] sÊmptvma genÆsetai, katå d¢ tØn deut°ran Àran épÚ t∞w érx∞w êllo ti ka‹ oÈ sÊmptvma: tÚ går §pig¤gnesya¤ tini prohgoum°nƒ pãntvw pou ka‹ toËyÉ ßjei. “ÉAllå tÚ oÏtvw fas‹ “tax°vw §pigignÒmenon oÈd¢n

1

addidi

  ‒  

435

speak Greek. Again, let them say that health is a “balance” of the activities if they wish, although we have shown that it is the state and the condition of the parts—that from which our natural activities derive—that all the Greeks call “health”; and, having postulated that health is that kind of thing, let them say, nevertheless, that “disease” is not a damage to the activity but an unnatural state. Thus, just as we do not prevent them from assigning names contrary to Greek usage and contrary to logic, let them equally allow us to call “disease”, in accordance both with Greek usage and with logic, not any unnatural state but only one which impairs an activity; for one which is unnatural and yet does not impair an activity is not a disease, but a symptom of disease. [72] Again, just as they add “persistent” without making a specification as to the number of hours after which that lasting unnatural state becomes a disease, let them allow us in return to excise “persistent”: for we call someone apoplectic if he suffers a violent seizure in the whole body, so as to lose both sensation and movement, no matter whether this it to last for three hours, four hours, or even half an hour; similarly, if one has convulsions in the whole body we call him epileptic, without further calculations as to the number of hours or days. For words of this kind are revelatory only of the nature of the thing, not of its duration in time, just like white and black or hot and cold, I would think; if not, it would be extraordinary for hot water not to be hot unless it stayed so for a whole day; or for the patient with a six hours attack of fever not to be feverish—for if he were to count as feverish, he should also have a persistent affection. However, none of them [sc the Methodists] has specified the length of time that should decide between what is “persistent” and what is not so: is it a number of days, months, hours? [73] And why do they call it “persistent”, when they could have said “prolonged”? Otherwise some of them have changed the terminology and called it “hard to resolve”. But this feature of being “hard to resolve” is not characteristic to any disease without qualification, but only to chronic disease—just as the feature of being “easy to resolve” is characteristic to acute disease, as I see it. So then: is it not the peak of ignorance to think that it makes any difference whether you say “hard to resolve”, “persistent”, or “chronic”? But it is even more amazing when these people, as if awoken from a deep slumber, attempt to distinguish an affection from a symptom; the leader of their madness writes in the second book of The method: “For the same things are called ‘affections’ when they precede, but ‘symptoms’ when they supervene.” And indeed, among the things they claim, here is an absolutely amazing one: if an inflammation of the liver sets in straightaway, on the first day [sc of a patient’s getting ill], they would agree that it is an affection, but if it starts on some other day, second or third, they would transfer it in the class of symptoms. But why do I say the second day? It would be better to say, the second hour after the onset of the disease; for surely an inflammation of the liver will not become a symptom during the second day, [74] yet be something other than a symptom on the second hour from start; for what will make it such is simply the fact of supervening on something that precedes it. “But” they argue, “something which supervenes so quickly does not differ from something

436

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

diaf°rei toË suneisbãllontow”. Pãlin oÔn aÈtÚn §xr∞n efirhk°nai saf«w, ıpÒsaiw Àraiw ır¤zetai ka‹ diakr¤nei toË “suneisbãllontow” tÚ “§pigignÒmenon”. ÑO YessalÚw m¢n dÆ toioËtow. Ofl d¢ per‹ tÚn ÉOlumpikÒn, …w ín efiw êkron ¥kontew sof¤aw, oÈx oÏtv dior¤zousi pãyow sumpt≈matow, éllå tÚ m¢n pãyow …w proe¤rhtai, tÚ sÊmptvma d¢ tÚ t“ pãyei sumba›non Ípãrxein fas¤, yaumast«w pãnu ka‹ saf«w §jhghsãmenoi tØn oÈs¤an aÈtoË. T¤ går dØ ka‹ ¯n tÚ sÊmptvma ˘ t“ pãyei sumb°bhken §xr∞n o‰mai prosye›nai ka‹ dior¤sasyai: îrã ge diãyes¤w t¤w §sti s≈matow µ blãbh tinÚw §nerge¤aw µ sunamfÒteron; ÉEke›noi m¢n oÈ l°gousin: ≤mçw d¢ dhlonÒti manteÊsasyai xrÆ. TÚ d¢ ka‹ prosye›nai t“ lÒgƒ toËtÉ aÈtÒn, “efidikØn Àsper ka‹ merikvt°ran ¶xon §n to›w parå fÊsin §ntÊpvsin”, ÍperbolØn oÈk épol°loipe safhne¤aw, ëma t“ [75] ka‹ to›w ÙnÒmasin ÑEllhnist‹ ka‹ pagkãlvw •rmhneÊesyai efidik≈terÒn tina tÊpon §n to›w parå fÊsin ¶xein tÚ sÊmptvma. T¤ potÉ oÔn §sti tÚ genik≈teron ¶xon tÚn tÊpon; OÈ går e‡rhkaw efi xvr‹w t∞w prÚw §ke›no parabol∞w §gxvre› tÚ “efidik≈teron” §jeure›n. Efi dÉ ˜lvw prÚw oÈd¢n parabãllontew “efidik≈teron” Ùnomãzousin, ékrib«w te pãnu ka‹ saf«w •rmhneÊousi: ka¤toi diå suntÒmvn te ëma ka‹ saf«n oÂÒn tÉ ∑n efipe›n …w tå parå fÊsin ëpanta tå katå s«ma t«n z≈vn ≥toi nosÆmatÉ §st‹n µ a‡tia µ sumpt≈mata: koinoË dÉ aÈto›w ˆntow toË parå fÊsin, ≤ nÒsow m¢n §n°rgeian blãptei, tÚ dÉ a‡tion taÊthw prohge›tai, tÚ sÊmptvma dÉ ßpetai taÊt˙ dittÚn ¯n tØn fÊsin, §nerge¤aw m¢n blãbh tÚ ßteron, diãyesiw d° tiw ékolouyoËsa t“ nosÆmati tÚ loipÒn. ÉAllå gãr, Àsper ¶fhn, efi pãnta tiw §p°rxoito tå sfãlmatÉ aÈt«n oÈk ín §piye¤h t°low t“ lÒgƒ: ka‹ gign≈skeiw toËto ékrib«w ka‹ sÊ, f¤ltate ÑI°rvn, ˜ti mhd¢ tÚ xiliostÚn aÈt«n m°row §jel°gxein §pexe¤rhsa. TosoËton oÔn ¶ti prosye‹w §ntauyo› pou katapaÊsv tÚ pr«ton grãmma, diÒti katå tØn [76] érxØn t∞w meyÒdou sfãllontai pollo‹ t«n fiatr«n: ofl m¢n épÚ YessaloË ka‹ Yem¤svnow, o·per dØ ka‹ MeyodikoÁw •autoÁw Ùnomãzousi, ¶sxatã te ka‹ m°gista sfãlmata: sÁn aÈto›w dÉ oÈk Ùl¤goi t«n ÉAnalogistik«n te ka‹ Dogmatik«n ka‹ Logik«n Ùnomazom°nvn. Efi mØ går §jeÊroi tiw èpãsaw tåw diay°seiw ÍfÉ œn §n°rgeia blãptetai, tÚ pl∞yow aÈt«n t«n noshmãtvn ıpÒson tÉ §st‹ ka‹ ıpo›on édÊnaton ékrib«w ırisy∞nai: toËto dÉ oÈdÉ §pixeirÆsantew ¶nioi poi∞sai turãnnvn d¤khn épofa¤nontai tå dÒjantã sfisi xvr‹w épode¤jevw. ÖEnioi dÉ oÈ mÒnon oÈk ép°deijan éllÉ oÈd¢ parå t«n épodeiknÊntvn manyãnousi, ka‹ tÒ ge ple›ston g°now, …w o‰sya, t«n nËn §pipolazÒntvn fiatr«n ¶sti toioËton, ka‹ yaumastÚn ‡svw oÈd°n: ˜pou går ka‹ t«n filosÒfvn ofl pollo‹ xvr‹w épode¤jevw éjioËsi pisteÊesyai, t¤ xrØ yaumãzein tinå t«n fiatr«n; OÈd¢ går sxolÆ gÉ aÈto›w ¶stin élÆyeian zhte›n: ßvyen m¢n §n éspasmo›w diatr¤bousin (oÓw aÈto‹ kaloËsin éspasmoÊw), efiw •sp°ran dÉ §mpiplãmenoi te ka‹ meyuskÒmenoi.2

2

corr ego: §mpiplam°noiw te ka‹ meyuskom°noiw K

  ‒  

437

which is concomitant.” Again, in that case they should have spelled out with clarity by how many hours the “concomitant” is defined and distinguished from the “supervening”. Thessalus was in fact one to do this. But Olympicus and his disciples, who take themselves to have attained the summit of wisdom, do not distinguish affection from symptom in this way, but claim that an affection is what I said above, whereas a symptom is that which accompanies the affection, thus explaining its essence most admirably and clearly. For in my view they should have laid down and specified what kind of thing the symptom which accompanies an affection is: is it some state [diathesis] of the body, or damage to some activity [energeia], or both? But no, they do not tell us; clearly we must resort to divinations. As for his adding to the definition this phrase, “a specific and as it were minutely subdivided characterisation in the category of unnatural things”, this is not a gem of limpidity that he has bequeathed to us, nor is it [75] a remarkably apt way of expressing in Greek words the thought that a symptom has a more specific character in the category of unnatural things. What is it, then, that has a more generic character? You have not addressed the question whether it is possible to discover the “more specific” in the absence of a comparison with the more generic. Here is an over-rigorous and clear piece of interpretation they make, if they call something “more specific” absolutely, without comparing it with anything. Yet it would have been possible to say, briefly and clearly, that all that is unnatural in the bodies of animals consists in either diseases or causes or symptoms; being unnatural is their common element, while the disease impairs an activity, the cause precedes it, the symptom follows upon it; and the symptom is by nature of two kinds, one consisting in damage to the activity, the other consisting in some state which accompanies the disease. But, as I have said, if one were to review all their faults, there would be no end to the argument; and you too, my dear Hiero, know perfectly well that I have not attempted to refute even a thousandth part. So I should close this first book here, adding just this much, that [76] many doctors get it wrong from the very beginning of the method: Thessalus, Themison, and their followers, who, on top of it all, style themselves Methodists, [sc make] the worst and biggest mistakes; and, apart from them, not a few of those labelled Analogic, Dogmatic, and Logical doctors. For if one does not discover all the states by which activity is impaired, it will be impossible for him to define with accuracy, in number and kind, the multitude of the diseases themselves. Some doctors, without even attempting to do this, assert their beliefs in the manner of tyrants, without demonstration. Others not only made no demonstrations; they do not even learn from those who do; and, as you know, the majority of doctors who prosper nowadays are of this sort. And maybe there is nothing surprising here; for when even most of the philosophers expect to convince us without demonstration, why should one be surprised at the doctors [sc expecting the same]? For they lack the leisure to pursue the truth: in the morning they are busy with salutations (or what they call so), in the evening they get sated and drunk.

438

  ‒  - FR 167. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(13)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, II iii, pp. 90–91 K: [iii, 90] . . . OÎtÉ oÔn ˜stiw k¤nhsin e‰pe parå fÊsin e‰nai tØn nÒson o‰den ˘ l°gei, kayãper §n t“ prÚ toÊtou lÒgƒ diÆlyomen §n¤ouw t«n [91] Meyodik«n oÏtvw éfor¤sasyai prosy°ntaw §k perittoË tÚ “§p¤monon”: oÈdÉ ˜stiw “tropØn §k toË katå fÊsin efiw tÚ parå fÊsin”, oÈd¢n 5 går mçllon afit¤aw µ nosÆmatow µ sumpt≈matow ı lÒgow: ëpanta går taËta diay°seiw efis‹ parå fÊsin, éllÉ efi m¢n ÙligoxrÒnia d∞lon …w Ùj°a, efi d¢ dÊsluta xrÒnia.

FR 168. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(14)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, II iv, p. 93 K: [iv, 93] ÉEmo‹ m¢n oÔn e‡rhtai tÚ pçn ka‹ d°deiktai saf«w ≥dh to›w ge dunam°noiw ßpesyai lÒgoiw élhy°sin …w oÈk §gxvre› ıpÒsa tå pãntÉ 10 §st‹ nosÆmata meyÒdƒ perilabe›n efi mÆ tiw efide¤h ıpÒsa tå pãntÉ §st‹n Ípãrxonta katå fÊsin ¶xonti t“ s≈mati t∞w §nerge¤aw a‡tia: manyãnein dÉ oÎpv dunatÒn §sti t«n efirhm°nvn oÈd¢n ˜soi skaiÒtero¤ tÉ efisi ka‹ érgo‹ tØn diãnoian µ to›w t∞w Meyodik∞w aflr°sevw lÆroiw §netrãfhsan.

FR 169. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(15)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, II iv, pp. 95–101 K: [iv, 95] . . . âArÉ oÔn ¶ti l°gv pollå toÁw énaisyÆtouw §pãgvn, efi ka‹ 15 mhdÉ êllo toËto goËn §nno∞sai, tÚ mØ dÊnasya¤ ti mÆyÉ eÍre›n mÆtÉ épode›jai tÚ pl∞yow t«n noshmãtvn êneu toË gn«nai t¤na m¢n t«n ÍparxÒntvn to›w mor¤oiw a‡tia t∞w §nerge¤aw §st¤, t¤na dÉ êllvw toÊtoiw sumb°bhken; áH ka‹ deÊterÒn ti ka‹ tr¤ton ¶ti parãdeigma proxeir¤somai; Pollãkiw går ÍpÚ toË plÆyouw aÈt«n titr≈skontai t«n énoÆtvn afl 20 cuxa¤. [. . .] [96] âArÉ oÔn deÆsei tr¤tou parade¤gmatow µ ka‹ taËyÉ flkanã; To›w m¢n suneto›w o‰mai ka‹ taËtÉ §st‹ perittã, tÚ kayÒlou suni°nai dunam°noiw êneu t«n paradeigmãtvn: [97] émay°si d¢ ka‹ skaio›w ka‹ filone¤koiw ‡svw oÎdÉ efi tr¤ton prosteye¤h parãdeigma pl°on oÈd°n. ÉAllÉ ˜mvw §peidÆper e‡rhtai dÊo, ka‹ katatr¤bousin ée‹ 25 mãthn ≤m«n tÚn xrÒnon, e‡h ín ka‹ nËn oÈk épeikÚw ©n aÈto›w ¶ti pros-

439

  ‒  - FR 167. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(13)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, II iii, pp. 90–91 K: [iii, 90] . . . And whoever claims that disease is an unnatural movement does not know what he is talking about, as we encountered in the previous book some [91] Methodists who define it in this fashion, adding the superfluous qualification “persistent”; equally ignorant is anyone who claims that it is “a change from the natural to the unnatural,” for this definition holds no more [sc specifically] of cause than of disease or of symptom; for all these are unnatural states, and it is clear that if they last for a short time they are acute, whereas if they are hard to resolve they are chronic.

FR 168. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(14)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, II iv, p. 93 K: [iv, 93] So I have said everything, and I have demonstrated clearly—at least for those capable of following true arguments—that determining by method how many all of the diseases are is out of question, if you do not know how many causes of activity there are in a body which is in a natural state; but for those with stupid and idle minds, or imbued with the nonsense of the Methodist hairesis, it is absolutely impossible to take in any of what has been said.

FR 169. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(15)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, II iv, pp. 95–101 K: [iv, 95] . . . But should I say even more, by way of inducing the senseless people to reflect at least upon this one fact—that it is impossible either to discover or to demonstrate the multitude of diseases without knowing which of the things that belong to the bodily parts are causes of activity, and which ones occur in them in some other way? Shall I produce some second example, and even a third? For it is often the case that the minds of those without understanding are wounded by the avalanche of examples. [. . .] [96] So, will a third example be needed, or do the foregoing ones suffice? I should think that even these are superfluous for people of sound understanding, because they can grasp the universal without examples; [97] on the other hand, for ignorant, stupid, and contentious people it would probably make no difference if one added a third example. However, given that two have already been drawn and that they [sc the Methodists] are

440

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

ye›nai parãdeigma. Ka‹ dØ ka‹ probeblÆsyv m¢n ˜pvw épeptoËsan §panoryvsÒmeya gast°ra: tÚn d¢ lÒgon oÈ prÚw toÁw MeyodikoÁw ¶ti mÒnouw éllÉ ≥dh ka‹ prÚw §ke¤nouw poihsÒmeya t«n logik«n o„ nom¤zousi meyÒdƒ tini dÊnasyai ka‹ lÒgƒ tØn t°xnhn sustÆsasyai xvr‹w toË gn«nai tØn pr≈thn afit¤an t∞w §nerge¤aw, ∂n dØ ka‹ “prosex∞” kale›n efi≈yasin. ÖEstv dÆ tina l°gein—épÚ går t«n prÒxeiron §xÒntvn tØn étop¤an êrxesyai b°ltion, ·nÉ §pagãgvmen aÈtoÊw, efi oÂÒn te, katå braxÁ prÚw tÚ ka‹ t«n émudrot°rvn afisyãnesyai—l°gein oÔn Ípoke¤syv tinå diÒti polla›w §fej∞w ≤m°raiw ˜de tiw ênyrvpow ı nËn épept«n §p‹ gãlaktow mÒnou diaithye‹w ±llo¤vse tÚ t∞w gastrÚw xr«ma ka‹ leukÚn §po¤hsen éntÉ §ruyroË, diå toËtÉ aÈt“ beblãfyai tØn §nerge¤an. O‰ma¤ se gelòn ≥dh, ka‹ dika¤vw gelòn: éllÉ e‡per [98] efide¤hw …w ‡son §st‹ ka‹ toÊtƒ per‹ xrvmãtvn efipe›n ıtioËn êneu toË prosye›nai tØn épÒdeijin, ka‹ so‹ per‹ t∞w t«n pÒrvn, efi oÍtvw ¶tuxe, summetr¤aw µ êllhw ≤stinosoËn diay°sevw, oÈk o‰ma¤ se gelãsein eÈlÒgvw. áH går kôp‹ saut“ tÚn g°lvta k¤nhson µ mhdÉ §fÉ •t°rƒ. ÖEstv går fitamÚn e‰nai tÚn tÚ xr«ma t∞w gastrÚw afiti≈menon toË mØ p°ttein kal«w, ka‹ fãskein …w, §peidØ katå fÊsin ¶xousa tØn xrÒan §nereuyÆw §sti, nËn dÉ épeirgãsyh leukØ ékrib«w, diå toËtÉ épeptÆsein §j énãgkhw aÈtÆn: ≤d°vw ín ékoÊsaim¤ sou tØn prÚw toËton éntilog¤an. ÉEg∆ m¢n går oÎdÉ §pino∞sai dÊnamai trÒpon ßteron aÈt∞w, êneu toË keleËsai t“ taËtÉ efipÒnti de›jai prÒteron efi diå tØn xrÒan ˜lvw §nerge› katå fÊsin ≤ gastÆr: sÁ dÉ e‡per ¶xeiw, ≤d°vw ín ékoÊsaim¤ sou. ÉAllÉ oÎtÉ ¶xeiw oÎtÉ ßjeiw efipe›n ßterÒn tina trÒpon éntilog¤aw prÚw tÚn tØn xroån afiti≈menon t∞w épec¤aw éllÉ µ tØn prÒklhsin toË de›jai p«w §k toË katå fÊsin xr≈matow ≤ gastØr e‰xe tÚ p°ttein. E‰tÉ §ke›now m¢n oÈ pisteuyÆsetai tØn xrÒan afiti≈menow t∞w épec¤aw pr‹n de›jai katå toËtÉ §ner[99]goËsan aÈtÆn, sÁ dÉ ≥toi, tØn émetr¤an l°gvn t«n pÒrvn µ ıtioËn êllo, pisteuyÆs˙ prÚ toË de›jai p«w §nerge› katå tØn §n §ke¤nƒ t“ g°nei summetr¤an; “ÉAllÉ oÈd¢ toËto l°gv” fhs‹n “oÈdÉ êllo ti tÚ prosex¢w t∞w p°cevw a‡tion, éllÉ ˜lvw égnoe›n ımolog«.” Ka‹ mØn efi t“ m¢n tØn xrÒan afitivm°nƒ t∞w §nerge¤aw énãgkaiÒn §sti ka‹ t∞w blãbhw afitiçsyai, t“ d¢ tØn summetr¤an t«n pÒrvn, ka‹ toÊtƒ, tØn émetr¤an t«n aÈt«n pÒrvn, ka‹ t“ tØn eÈkras¤an t«n tettãrvn poiotÆtvn, yermÒthtow ka‹ cuxrÒthtow ka‹ ÍgrÒthtow ka‹ jhrÒthtow, ka‹ toÊtƒ, tØn duskras¤an aÈt«n: énãgkaion ¶stai ka‹ so‹ tÚ katå fÊsin Ípoyem°nƒ prÒteron, oÏtvw §jeure›n tÚ parå fÊsin: efi d¢ mØ

  ‒  

441

always wasting our time, it may not be out of place to give them one more additional example this time as well. So then: let us consider the question of how to restore the stomach when it is not digesting properly; and we shall make an argument which is not exclusively directed at the Methodists, but also at those Logicians who consider that our discipline can be made to hang together in some methodical and rational way without knowledge of the primary cause of activity, which they usually designate also as “proximate” [ proseches]. Let someone say—for it is better to start from cases where the absurdity is obvious, so as to force them [sc our opponents] gradually to recognise also the more obscure cases, if that is possible at all— suppose, then, someone saying that this man, who presently suffers from indigestion, has altered the colour of his stomach, making it change from red to white because he has lived exclusively on milk for several days, and this would be the reason why its activity [energeia] is impaired. I imagine that you would laugh, and quite rightly; but if [98] you were to realise that both his saying no matter what about colours without offering a demonstration, and your [sc talking] about the proportion [summetria], as it may be, or whatever other state of the channels [ poroi ]—are alike, I don’t think you would laugh with a good heart. Either laugh at yourself as well, or don’t laugh at another. Now, suppose that the chap who alleges the colour of the stomach as the cause of its failure to digest is reckless and maintains that, when the stomach is in a natural state, its colour is red, whereas now it has been made completely white, and because of this, by necessity, it will not digest; I would very much like to hear your refutation of him. For I cannot figure out a way of giving one without compelling the man who makes this claim, first of all, to produce evidence as to whether the stomach functions naturally, by and large, through its colour; and if you have an alternative [sc way], I would very much like to hear you. But you have not—nor will you have—a method of refutation against the man who alleges colour as the cause of indigestion, other than to challenge him into showing how the stomach derives its digestive function [to peptein] from its natural colour. So then: this man will not persuade anyone if he alleges colour as the cause of indigestion, before he has demonstrated that it [sc the stomach] functions by this principle; [99] and yet you will produce conviction when you invoke the lack of proportion of the channels, or whatever else, before having demonstrated how it [sc the stomach] functions according to proportion in that genus? “But” protests he [sc the Methodist], “I do not claim that this thing is the proximate cause of indigestion, nor indeed that anything else is: I fully admit that I don’t know it [sc the proximate cause].” But if the man who alleges colour as the cause of activity is compelled to allege it as a cause of damage as well, the man who alleges proportion of the channels for the one will be similarly compelled to allege, for the other, lack of proportion of the same channels, and the man who alleges the good blending of the four qualities, the hot, the cold, the wet, and the dry, will also be compelled to allege their bad blending; and you too will be compelled to what is unnatural in this way, namely by laying down what is natural first; if you do not know what is natural, you have

442

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  -

gign≈skeiw tÚ katå fÊsin, oÈd¢ tÚ parå fÊsin o‰sya. Ka‹ går dØ ka‹ Ím«n aÈt«n ékoÊv legÒntvn prÚw toÁw ÉEmpeirikoÁw fiatroÁw …w oÈk §nd°xetai gn«nai tÚ parå fÊsin efi mØ prÒteron efide¤h tiw tÚ katå fÊsin. “ÉAllå gign≈skv” fhs‹ “tÚ katå fÊsin.” âArã ge sÊmpan µ m°row aÈtoË [100] ti; Ka‹ tout‹ tÚ m°row ˘ gign≈skeiw, îrã ge tÚ t∞w §nerge¤aw §st‹n a‡tion µ êllvw Ípãrxei tª gastr¤; T¤ går dØ ka‹ gign≈skeiw; aÈt∞w y°sin dhladØ ka‹ m°geyow ka‹ plokØn ka‹ diãplasin: éllÉ oÈd¢n toÊtvn §st‹ t∞w §nerge¤aw a‡tion. ÉAllÉ oÈdÉ égnoe›ta¤ ti toÊtvn to›w ÉEmpeiriko›w: ımologoËs¤ te går xr∞syai tª katå per¤ptvsin énatomª ka‹ taËtÉ §j §ke¤nhw manyãnein, oÈ mØn §nerge¤aw te ka‹ xre¤aw mor¤vn. “ÉAllÉ o‰da” fhs‹ “ka‹ t∞n §nerge¤an: ¶sti går peristolØ ka‹ tr¤ciw.” ÉAllÉ efi mØ tØn afit¤an efide¤hw aÈt∞w, oÈk e‡s˙ tØn nÒson: efi går ≤ eÈkras¤a t«n tettãrvn poiotÆtvn afit¤a t∞w §nerge¤aw §st¤n, ≤ duskras¤a pãntvw t∞w blãbhw afit¤a ¶stai. SÁ dÉ o‡ei flegmonØn ka‹ sk¤rron, o‡dhmã te ka‹ épÒsthma, ka‹ têlla ˜sa to›w Ùfyalmo›w fide›n ¶sti mÒna t∞w gastrÚw e‰nai payÆmata: ka¤toi gÉ oÈd¢ taËta, to›w ÉEmpeiriko›w ımo¤vw, Ùfyalmo›w mÒnoiw ka‹ xers‹ ka‹ ta›w êllaiw afisyÆsesi katamanyãneiw, éllÉ §p‹ tØn oÈs¤an aÈt«n én°rxesyai peirò ka‹ taÊthn §jeur¤skein ékrib«w, oÈk érkoÊmenow to›w fainom°noiw afisyÆsei sumpt≈masi, ì to›w ÉEmpeiriko›w ır¤zei te ka‹ [101] perigrãfei tØn “sundromÆn”: oÏtv går éjioËsin Ùnomãzein aÈto‹ tÚ t«n sumptvmãtvn êyroisma t«n ÍparxÒntvn t“ peponyÒti tÒpƒ. Ka‹ tØn ¶ndeij¤n ge t∞w yerape¤aw oÈk §k t«n fainom°nvn lambãneiw sumptvmãtvn: oÈd¢ går efi parå fÊsin ˆgkow oÈdÉ efi ént¤tupow oÈdÉ efi ÙdunhrÚw oÈdÉ efi §ruyrÒw, éllÉ efi sfÆnvsiw §n to›w p°rasi t«n érthri«n §p‹ parempt≈sei skope›w ka‹ tØn yerape¤an, …w aÈtÚw ¶fhw, prÚw toËtÉ énaf°rvn §jeur¤skeiw. áH går oÈx otow ı ÉErusistrãtou trÒpow t∞w didaskal¤aw §n to›w Per‹ puret«n, Àsper aÔ Diokl°ouw m¢n ßterow, PrajagÒrou dÉ êllow, ÉAsklhpiãdou dÉ êllow; ÜVstÉ oÈk épÚ t«n per‹ tÚ flegma›non m°row fainom°nvn sumptvmãtvn ≤ ¶ndeijiw aÈto›w g¤gnetai t«n bohyhmãtvn éllÉ épÚ t∞w oÈs¤aw aÈt∞w.

FR 170. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(16)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, II vi, pp. 123–125 K: [vi, 123] . . . EfirhkÒtew oÔn ≤me›w Íp¢r t∞w ÉEmpei[124]rik∞w eÍr°sevw •t°rvyi, per‹ t∞w Logik∞w §n to›sde to›w ÍpomnÆmasi proÈy°meya dielye›n. Ka¤ moi dok« saf«w ≥dh dedeixy∞nai—to›w ge tå Per‹ t∞w noshmãtvn 35 te ka‹ sumptvmãtvn diaforçw énegnvkÒsi, prÚw oÓw ı metå taËta pçw ¶stai moi lÒgow—…w eÈyÁw §n érxª m°giston pt«ma pept≈kasin ofl per‹ tÚn YessalÒn. âHn m¢n går oÈ smikrÚn oud¢ tÚ ÉAsklhpiãdeion pt«ma, diå tÚ katÉ érxåw §sfãlyai tÚn êndra per‹ tå toË s≈matow stoixe›a,

443

  ‒  -

no knowledge of what is not. In fact I hear even you yourselves criticising the Empirical doctors on the ground that it is not possible to know what is unnatural if you have not got knowledge of the natural first. “But I know what is natural”, he says. Do you know it all, or just some part of it? [100] And the part that you know—is it the cause of the activity, or does it relate to the stomach in some other way? What is it that you know? Plainly, its position, its size, its texture, its shape; but none of these is a cause of activity. Nor was any of these things unknown to the Empiricists; for they admit to using anatomy incidentally and learning such things from it, although not the activities and functions of the parts. “But” he retorts “I know the activity as well: it consists of peristaltic movement and pounding.” But if you don’t know its cause, you will not know the disease; for if the good blending of the four qualities is the cause of the activity, undisputedly their bad blending will be the cause of the damage to it. But you imagine that the only diseases of the stomach are inflammation, scirrhus, oedema, abscess, and all the others which are visible to the naked eye; however, you do not examine them like the Empiricists, by using only your eyes and hands and the rest of your sense-organs; no, it is their essence that you attempt to reach and to investigate with precision; you do not stay content with the symptoms which are manifest to the senses, which the Empiricists define and [101] isolate as “the syndrome”—for this is what they deem it appropriate to call the collection of symptoms to be found in the affected place. And you do not derive the indication towards therapy from the manifest symptoms; for you do not examine whether there is an unnatural swelling or whether it is resistant, painful, or red in colour, but whether there is an obstruction at the limits of the arteries due to the transfusion of blood into them, and you discover your therapy by reference to this, as you yourself declare. But is not this the method of teaching of Erasistratus in the treatise On fevers, just as there is another method of Diocles, another one of Praxagoras, or another of Asclepiades? For in their account the indication of the remedies does not derive from the symptoms which are manifest around the inflamed part, but from the essence itself [sc of the inflammation].

FR 170. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(16)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, II vi, pp. 123–125 K: [vi, 123] . . . We have discussed the Empirical [124] method somewhere else; in this treatise we proposed to present the Logical method. And it seems to me that it has already been shown—at least to those who have read the treatises On the difference between diseases and symptoms, to whom I shall address all the remainder of this discussion—that the disciples of Thessalus have fallen into a great error right from the start. Neither was Asclepiades’ error small, because the man went wrong at the beginning,

444

  ‒  -

polÁ dÉ ¶ti me›zon aÈtoË ka‹ éniatÒteron §po¤hsan ofl per‹ tÚn YessalÒn, efiw dÊo m¢n ëpanta tå katå d¤aitan nosÆmata diay°seiw énagagÒntew ımo¤vw §ke¤nƒ, polloÁw d¢ t«n yerapeutik«n skop«n éfelÒntew oÂw §ke›now §xrÆsato: xe¤riston d¢ ka‹ éniatÒteron èmartãnontew ˜ti mÆte 5 tåw t«n §nergei«n blãbaw éllå mhd¢ tåw afit¤aw aÈt«n tåw diay°seiw Ípolambãnousin e‰nai nosÆmata, mÒnaiw d¢ ta›w ken≈sesin, §pexom°naiw te ka‹ pleonazoÊsaiw, éjioËsi pros°xein tÚn noËn, oÈdÉ oÔn oÈd¢ t¤ potÉ §st‹ tÚ p°ra toË d°ontow µ kenoËsyai tå §k toË s≈matow µ §p°xesyai didãjantew ≤mçw saf«w. áH går …w prÚw tØn dÊnamin µ …w prÚw tØn 10 afit¤an µ …w prÚw tØn [125] diãyesin µ …w prÚw tÚ katå tØn Íge¤an •kãstƒ tethrhm°non énaf°resyai xrØ tØn tÆrhsin. ÜOyen o‰mai ka‹ pÒlemow oÈ smikrÚw to›w épÉ aÈt«n §g°neto, katã tÉ êlla pãnta dienexye›si ka‹ per‹ t∞w t«n pay«n §nno¤aw te ka‹ Ípãrjevw. ÉAllÉ efi nËn kinÆsaimi tØn per‹ t∞w diafvn¤aw aÈt«n di°jodon, épãjv toË 15 xrhs¤mou tÚn lÒgon.

FR 171. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(17)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, II vii, pp. 141–142 K: [vii, 141] ÉEnd°xetai går aÈtoÁw §ntaËta tÚ per‹ gen«n ka‹ efid«n zÆthma sf∞lai dunãmenon oÈ mÒnon égumnãstouw ényr≈pouw §n ta›w logika›w meyÒdoiw, éllå ka‹ t«n gegumnasm°nvn tinåw §ån mØ pros°xvsin ékrib«w tÚn noËn. ÉAllÉ oÈ xr∞ diÒti per‹ t∞w oÈs¤aw époroËsi t«n 20 pragmãtvn éf¤stasyai t«n §narg«n §nnoi«n, oÈdÉ ≤ge›syai sofÚn §jeurhk°nai ti toÁw m¢n ÉEmpeirikoÁw §ån “©n” e‡pvsin êneu toË prosye›nai katå po›on shmainÒmenon ßn §sti, toÁw d¢ MeyodikoÁw §ån ént‹ g°nouw µ e‡douw µ koinoË koinÒthta l°gousin. ÉEmo‹ m¢n går êmeinon §dÒkei, saf«w t∞w §nno¤aw ≥dh divrism°nhw, …w √ m¢n frenitiko¤, taÊt˙ 25 pãntew eÂw: √ dÉ ı m¢n n°ow, ı d¢ g°rvn, µ fisxnÚw µ paxÁw µ énØr µ gunÆ, [142] taÊt˙ “pollo¤”—xr∞sasyai loipÚn •rmhne¤& palaiò ka‹ sugkinduneËsai katå tØn l°jin ÉAristot°lei ka‹ Yeofrãstƒ ka‹ Plãtvni. Pãnta tå toiaËta t“ m¢n e‡dei l°gousin ©n Ípãrxein, t“1 plÆyei dÉ oÈx ßn: oÈ “frenitikÚn” mÒnon µ “lhyargikÚn” µ “ÉEmpeirikÚn” éllå 30 ka‹ “DogmatikÚn” ka‹ “MeyodikÚn” ka‹ “ênyrvpon” ka‹ “·ppon” ka‹ “êndra” ka‹ “guna›ka” ka‹ t«n êllvn ßkaston. Efi dÉ §p‹ tå katå m°row ¶lyoiw, o‰on tÆnde tØn guna›ka tØn deixy∞nai dunam°nhn, taÊthn oÈk §gxvre› t“ m¢n e‡dei l°gein ©n t“ plÆyei d¢ pollã: katÉ êmfv går

1

t« K

445

  ‒  -

on the matter of the elements of the body; but the disciples of Thessalus made a still bigger error than his, and one harder to correct: like him, they brought all the internal [kata diaita] diseases under two states, but they also eliminated many of the therapeutic aims [skopoi ] which he had used. Even worst and harder to correct was the mistake of supposing that diseases consist neither in damages brought to the activities nor certainly in the states which caused them, and that one should only pay attention to the depletions, both those which are retained [sc in the body] and those which are overabundant, [sc which they did] without instructing us clearly as to what it means either to evacuate matter from the body or to retain it beyond normality. For one must direct one’s study to the function, to the cause, to the [125] state, or to what is observed in health in each [sc case]. This, in my view, is also the reason why a war of considerable proportions arose among the followers of these people: they are divided, above all else, about the very concept and existence of the affections. But if I were now to proceed to a detailed exposition of their disagreements I would divert the course of my argument from what is useful.

FR 171. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(17)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, II vii, pp. 141–142 K: [vii, 141] Further, people are perfectly capable of going wrong in their search for the genus and the species not only because they are untrained in logical methods, but even when they are trained, if they do not focus [sc on the subject] with precision. Yet they should not depart from the evident common notions just because they are mistaken about the essence [ousia] of things, nor should they think that the Empiricists or the Methodists have discovered some piece of wisdom when the former call something a “one” without adding in what sense it is one, or when the latter speak of “koinotes” instead of genus, species, or what is common. If you ask me, I think it is better to separate the common notion clearly—for instance, in so far as they are phrenitics all are a “one”, but in so far as one is young, another one old, one is thin, another one heavy, or one is male, another one female, [142] they are “many”—and, for the rest, [sc I think it is better] to avail oneself afterwards of the ancient mode of expression and to share in the same perils of speech as Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Plato. They [sc the opponents] say that all such things—and [sc they mean] not just “phrenitic”, “lethargic”, or “Empiricist”, but also “Dogmatist”, “Methodist”, “man”, “horse”, “male”, “female”, and each one of the rest—are one in form but not one in quantity. Yet if you are to take them individually, for instance this woman here who can be pointed at, it would not be possible to say that she is one in form but many in quantity; for the woman

446

  ‒  -

ßn §stin ≤ deixy∞nai dunam°nh gunÆ, ka‹ t“ e‡dei ka‹ t“ plÆyei, ˜per dØ ka‹ t“ ériym“ kaloËmen. Ofl d° gÉ oÈx oÏtvw poioËsin éllÉ ofl m¢n koinÒthtaw Ùnomãzousin, Àsper oÈ mçllon éporhy∞nai dunam°naw efid«n ka‹ gen«n, ofl dÉ √ m¢n tÒde ti l°gousin Ípãrxein ßn, √ dÉ oÈx ©n oÈk°ti 5 l°gousin ©n Ípãrxein.

FR 172. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(18)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, III i, pp. 157–159 K:

10

15

20

25

30

[i, 157] E‡per oÔn, Œ ÑI°rvn, ≤ ¶ndeijiw §k t∞w toË prãgmatow fÊsevw ırmvm°nh tÚ d°on §jeur¤skei, tØn érxØn t∞w t«n fiamãtvn eÍr°sevw §k t∞w t«n noshmãtvn aÈt«n énãgkh g¤gnesyai: ka‹ går ka‹ êtopon ßteron m¢n e‰nai tÚ §ndeiknÊmenon tØn yerape¤an ßteron d¢ tÚ yerapeuÒmenon: ßkaston går Íp¢r •autoË ti dÊnatai dhl«sai mçllon µ Íp¢r êllou. ToËto m¢n dØ kôn to›w §fej∞w ¶stai saf°steron. ÉEpe‹ d¢ pãntew ımologoËsin §k t«n diay°sevn tåw pr≈taw §nde¤jeiw lambãnein, oÈ xrØ mhkÊnein ¶ti peritt«w tÚn lÒgon [158] épodeiknÊntaw …w §nteËyen êrxesyai prsÆkei, mçllon dÉ ˜ti mÆte tÚ jÊmpan toËtÉ §st‹ mÆyÉ ˜lvw m°ga ti m°row, …w ofl Meyodiko‹ nom¤zousin, éllå smikrÒtatÒn te ka‹ érxØn mÒnon §pide›jai peiray«men. AÈto‹ dÆ fasin §ke›noi tÚn m¢n §n tª kÊstei l¤yon, ˜ti t“ g°nei parå fÊsin, §nde¤knusyai tØn êrsin. OÏtv d¢ ka‹ tåw ékroxordÒnaw ka‹ tåw murmhk¤aw, éyer≈matã te steat≈mata ka‹ melikhr¤daw, ˜sa têlla toiaËta. TÚ dÉ efiw ˆsxeon §mpeptvkÚw ¶nteron, ˜ti t“ tÒpƒ parå fÊsin, ëpantã te tå §jhryrhkÒta, tØn efiw tØn ofike›an x≈ran §pãnodon §nde¤knutai. Ka‹ mØn oÈd¢n toÊtvn oÈd°pv texnikÒn, éllÉ ˜per o‰mai ka‹ to›w fidi≈taiw ëpasin Ípãrxei gign≈skein: §mblhy∞nai goËn •aut«n keleÊousi tÚ k«lon ˜tan §jhryrhkÒtow afisyãnontai, ka‹ éfairey∞nai tØn ékroxordÒna ka‹ tÚ ßlkow efiw oÈlØn éxy∞nai ka‹ tÚ =eËma t∞w koil¤aw §pisxey∞nai. TÚ d¢ diÉ œn xrØ taËta poie›n oÎk ‡sasi. Ka‹ toËtÉ ¶stin ¯ xrØ prostiy°nai tÚn fiatrÒn. ÜVste ≤ épÚ t«n noshmãtvn ¶ndeijiw érxØ m°n §sti ka‹ oflone‹ ırmhtÆriÒn ti t∞w yerapeutik∞w meyÒdou, t∞w t°xnhw dÉ oÎpv [159] t∞w fiatrik∞w mÒrion oÈd°n, µ oÈk éjiÒlogÒn ge mÒrion oÈdÉ ‡dion, éllÉ ˜per ka‹ to›w fidi≈taiw Ípãrxei koinÒn. ÑO to¤nun §jeure›n dunãmenow ÍfÉ œntinvn ¶stai tÚ dhloÊmenon §k t∞w pr≈thw §nde¤jevw, otÒw §stin ı t«n noshmãtvn yerapeutÆw: ka‹ efi m¢n diå t∞w §mpeir¤aw eÏroi thrhtikÒw t° tiw ka‹ ÉEmpeirikÚw ÙnomasyhsÒmenow, efi d¢ diå lÒgou tinow µ meyÒdou LogikÒw te ka‹ MeyodikÚw ka‹ DogmatikÒw.

447

  ‒  -

who can be pointed at is one in both respects, that is, in form as well as in quantity—to which we also refer as number. However, they don’t proceed in this way, but some of them use the designations “koinotetes”, as if these were not even more liable than the genera and the species to lead into difficulty, while others say that it [sc something] is one in so far as it is this thing here, but in so far as it is not one they no longer say that it is one.

FR 172. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(18)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, III i, pp. 157–159 K: [i, 157] So, my dear Hiero, if the indication which springs from the nature of the matter discovers what needs to be done, then the beginning of the discovery of remedies must be in the diseases themselves; for it would be absurd if that which indicates the therapy were one thing and that which is submitted to the therapy, another; for each thing can be better clarified by something which belongs to itself than by something which belongs to a different thing. This principle will become even clearer in the forthcoming discussion. Since everyone is agreed that the primary indications derive from the states [diatheseis], we must not labour the point unnecessarily [158] by showing that it is appropriate to start from there; rather, we should try to show that this is not everything and not at all a great part, as the Methodists think, but something very humble, no more than a startingpoint. Now even those people say that a stone in the bladder indicates its removal because it is unnatural by genus. The same goes for warts or pimples, swellings, sebaceous tumours or wens, and everything of this kind. A bowel fallen into the scrotum indicates its return to the place where it belongs because it is unnatural by position; and so do all the dislocated parts. There is nothing professional about these cases, but only what any man in the street, I think, can understand; for they all ask to have the limb reduced when they feel it is dislocated; they all ask to have the wart removed, the wound scarred over, or the intestinal flow stopped. But they don’t know by what means one should achieve these things. And this is what the doctor should contribute. So that the indication taken from the diseases is a starting-point of the therapeutic method and something which, so to speak, gives it an impulse, but it forms as yet no part [159] of medicine, or no part worth talking about or specialised, but one which is shared by ordinary people. Therefore the healer of diseases is the man who can discover the means to produce what the primary indication points to; and if he discovers them through experience he will be called an observer and an Empirical doctor; if through some reasoning or method, he will be called a Logical doctor, a Methodist, and a Dogmatist.

448

  ‒   FR 173. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(19)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, III ii, pp. 162–164 K:

5

10

15

20

25

30

[ii, 162] PrÒdhlon dÉ …w épÚ t«n èploustãtvn êrjhtai. T¤ dÉ èploÊsteron ßlkouw §pipol∞w §n sark≈dei mor¤ƒ; ToËtÉ oÔn efi m¢n èpl«w ßlkow e‡h, skopÚw aÈtoË t∞w fiãsevw ßnvsiw: efi d¢ sÁn koilÒthti, dittÚw m¢n ı skopÒw, ˜ti ka‹ ≤ diãyesiw dittÆ: sunexe¤aw m¢n lÊsiw tÚ ßlkow, ép≈leia dÉ oÈs¤aw tinÚw ofike¤aw t“ z≈ƒ ≤ koilÒthw. EÍr¤sketai d¢ kéntaËya pollãkiw ı ßterow t«n skop«n édÊnatow, oÂon efi mØ mÒnon ≤ sårj éllå ka‹ tÚ Ípoke¤menon ÙstoËn épolvlÚw e‡h: plhrvy∞nai går ékrib«w ≤ toiaÊth koilÒthw oÈ dÊnatai, éllÉ §poulvy∞nai m°n, ˜per ∑n ßlkouw ‡asiw, én¤atow d¢ ≤ koilÒthw kataleifyÆsetai. ToËtÉ oÔn aÔyiw aÈtÚ pãntvw m¢n ≥toi diå t∞w §mpeir¤aw µ diå lÒgou xrØ gn«nai. ÑO YessalÚw dÉ oÎte toÊtoiw xr∞tai ka‹ tr¤ton oÈd¢n prost¤yhsin, e‡tÉ oÈk afide›tai lhr«n éllÉ §ò toËto. TÚ ko›lon dÉ ßlkow §n sark≈dei mor¤ƒ xvr‹w toË pepony°nai ti t«n Ípokeim°nvn ˜pvw fias≈meya leg°tv parely∆n ı Yessã[163]leiow fiatrÒw. “ÉEmbalÒntew” fhs‹ “tÚ sarkvtikÚn fãrmakon.” EÔ ge t∞w eÈxere¤aw, ‡svw dÉ énaisyhs¤aw, efipe›n ∑n êmeinon, efi “sarkvtikÚn” efip∆n éphllãxyai doke› toË zhtoum°nou: efi går ≥dh tÚ sarkvtikÚn §pistãmeya, t¤ zhtoËmen ¶ti; l°ge moi tÚ sarkvtikÚn ˜ti potÉ §st‹n ⁄ m°lleiw xr∞syai: libanvtÚn o‰mai fÆseiw 1 ‡rin µ éristolox¤an µ ÙrÒbinon êleuron µ pãnaka: t«n går jhr«n farmãkvn pr«ton mnhmoneÊsv. TaËtÉ oÔn efip° moi pÒyen erew; “ÉEk t∞w pe¤raw” fhs¤. T¤ dØ oÔn ¶ti pros°yhkaw sÊ; TÚ m¢n går ˜ti xrØ plhroËn tÚ ko›lon o‰de dÆpou ka‹ ı fidi≈thw. TÚ dÉ §j œn ka‹ diÉ œn farmãkvn §d¤dajen ≤ pe›ra. YessalÚw dÉ oÎyÉ …w ÉEmpeirikÚw o‰de tÚ fãrmakon oÎyÉ …w LogikÒw, …w ÉEmpeirikÚw m¢n ˜ti mØ boÊletai, …w LogikÚw dÉ ˜ti mØ dÊnatai: §pe‹ ˜ti gÉ …w ÉEmpeirikÚw o‰den ékrib«w §g« toËto gign≈skv. Duo›n går ˆntoin èpãshw eÍr°sevw Ùrgãnvn, §mpeir¤aw ka‹ lÒgou, ı tÚ m¢n eÍrhm°non §pistãmenow, efipe›n dÉ oÈk ¶xvn aÈtoË tÚn lÒgon, eÎdhlÒw §stin §k t∞w §mpeir¤aw eÍrhk≈w. ÜIna [164] to¤nun e‡d˙ pÒson èmartãnei, mikrÚn ≤suxãsaw ékroatØw ≤m«n gen°syv: boÊlomai gãr tina dialexy∞nai t“ mÒnhn tØn §mpeir¤an presbeÊonti.

1

addidi

449

  ‒   FR 173. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(19)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, III ii, pp. 162–164 K: [ii, 162] It is clear that one should start from the simplest things. And what is simpler than a superficial wound in a fleshy part? So, if this is simply a wound, the aim [skopos] of its treatment is union [henosis]; if it is accompanied by [sc the formation of ] a cavity, the aim is twofold, because the state, too, is twofold: the wound involves a break in continuity, while the cavity involves loss of substance of the animal’s own. Here again, one of the aims often proves impossible [sc of being carried out], for instance, when not only the flesh has been lost, but also the bone which sustained it: such a cavity cannot be replenished exactly; it is possible instead to produce cicatrisation, which is the healing of the wound, while the cavity will remain incurable. Again, this is, beyond any doubt, something that one must learn either by experience or by reasoning. Thessalus uses neither, and offers no third alternative; but then he is not ashamed of talking nonsense; he indulges in it. Let, then, the Thessalean doctor come forward and explain how we should treat a wound which forms a hollow in a fleshy organ but has not affected anything that lies under it. [163] “By applying onto it the medicine which makes the flesh grow [sarkotikon],” he replies. It would be much better to talk of your carelessness, or maybe obtuseness, if you think that you have settled the question by saying “which makes the flesh grow”; for if we already know what it is that makes the flesh grow, why are we still asking it? Tell me what that is, the medicine which makes the flesh grow, that you plan to use; I should think that you mean frankincense, iris, birth-wort, flour of bitter vetch, or all-heal; for I shall mention substances [ pharmaka] with drying properties, to start with. Now tell me, whence did you discover them? “From experience”, he answers. What is your own contribution, then? For, obviously, even the man in the street is aware that one should fill the cavity. As for the things by means of which one should fill it, and as for the substances from which they [sc those things] are made, experience taught him [sc the Thessalean doctor] that. But Thessalus has acquired his knowledge of the medicine neither as an Empiricist nor as a Logical doctor: not as an Empiricist because he does not want [sc to be one], but not as a Logical doctor because he cannot [sc be one]; and then I know for sure that he has got it as an Empiricist. For, given that there are two means of making any discovery, experience or reasoning, it is clear that a man who knows what has been discovered but cannot explain it has discovered it through experience. Let him [sc the Thessalean] stay quiet for a short while and listen to us, in order to [164] learn the extent to which he is mistaken; for I want to have a discussion with the man who privileges experience alone.

450

  ‒   FR 174. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(20)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, III ii, pp. 168–170 K:

5

10

15

20

25

30

[ii, 168] . . . ÉApop°mcai gãr me xrØ pr«ton épÚ t«n §fej∞w lÒgvn tÚn ém°yodon §ke›non YessalÒn, §ndeijãmenon aÈt“ pÒson èmartãnei toË d°ontow. Fron¤mƒ går ényr≈pƒ ka‹ tå nËn efirhm°na saf«w §nde¤knutai tØn yerapeutikØn m°yodon ıpo¤an tina e‰nai xrÆ. ÉAllå går oÈ prÚw toÁw toioÊtouw ı lÒgow, ÀstÉ énagka›on ¶ti dialexy∞nai prÚw aÈtoÁw §ny°nde pÒyen érjãmenon. ÜApasa koilÒthw parå fÊsin §nde¤knutai tØn plÆrvsin: Àste ka‹ §n t“ sark≈dei mor¤ƒ: aÏth d¢ ≤ plÆrvsiw skopÚw t∞w t«n fiamãtvn eÍr°sevw g¤gnetai. ÜIna dÉ eÍreyª tå plhr≈santa, ka‹ [169] lÒgou deÒmeya suxnoË ka‹ poll«n t«n katå m°row §nde¤jevn ka‹ meyÒdou logik∞w ékriboËw: §yeãsv goËn pollãkiw ßlkh dus¤ata mØ dunam°nouw yerapeËsai mÆte toÁw tØn §mpeir¤an presbeÊontaw fiatroÊw, toÊtouw dØ polufarmãkouw, éllå mhd¢ toÁw tÚn énalogismÚn §paggellom°nouw ëpantew. Ofl går Yessãleioi, Meyodiko‹ m¢n toÎnoma ta›w dÉ élhye¤aw ém°yodoi, kayãper tin¢w ˆnoi lÊraw, oÎdÉ §pa˝ein flkano‹ t∞w toiaÊthw yevr¤aw efis¤, mÆ to¤ge dØ logism“ tÚ d°on §jeur¤skein. ÉEyeãsv d¢ pollãkiw §p‹ t«n toioÊtvn •lk«n toÁw m¢n épÚ t∞w §mpeir¤aw êllotÉ §pÉ êllo metaba¤nontaw fãrmakon, oÈ må D¤a logismoË tinow §jhgoum°nou t∞w metabãsevw éllÉ §peidØ poll«n m¢n §peirãyhsan plhroÊntvn ßlkh ko›la tØn {dÉ} …w aÈto‹ kaloËsin “fidiosugkras¤an”, §fÉ oÂw 1 ßkastow aÈt«n eÈdok¤mhsen oÎte diagign≈skein oÎte memn∞syai dÊnantai, diå toËto ka‹ nËn oÈk §pistãmenoi m¢n §fÉ ˜ti xrØ metaba¤nein §lp¤zontew dÉ §n pollª tª katå m°row diejÒdƒ pãntvw eÍreyÆsesya¤ pote tÚ pros∞kon: êllotÉ §pÉ êllo metaphd«si tÊx˙ mçllon µ logism“ tØn toË sum[170]f°rontow eÏresin §pitr°pontew. [170] ÜOmoioi dÉ aÈto›w efisi, kùn mØ y°lvsin, ˜soi t«n dogmatizÒntvn §p‹ tåw fusikåw érxåw t«n svmãtvn oÈk §dunÆyhsan énab∞nai t“ lÒgƒ. Ka‹ går aÈto¤, kayÒti prÒsyen §de¤jamen, §j ≤m¤se≈w efisin ÉEmpeiriko‹ o„ oÈk ±dunÆyhsan dialabe›n per‹ t«n pr≈tvn stoixe¤vn. Per‹ d¢ t«n émeyÒdvn toÊtvn Yessale¤vn t¤ ên tiw ka‹ l°goi; MÒnoi to¤nun ofl ˆntvw meyÒdƒ yerapeÊontew §jeur¤skous¤ te tÚ d°on µ fãrmakon µ dia¤thma kayÉ ßkaston t«n toioÊtvn •lk«n, §pideiknÊousi te tå saf°stata diå t«n ¶rgvn aÈt«n ıphl¤kon égayÒn §sti ka‹ ˜son f«w par°xei prÚw tåw fiãseiw ≤ per‹ fÊsevw pragmate¤a.

1

dÉ ante …w aÈto‹ kaloËsin transposui post §fÉ oÂw

451

  ‒   FR 174. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(20)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, III ii, pp. 168–170 K: [ii, 168] . . . First I must get rid of that amethodical Thessalus for the arguments to come, by showing him how much he errs from what is right. To a man of sense, of course, what has been said so far would show clearly what sort of thing the therapeutic method should be. But the argument is not directed at such people; so that I am forced still to converse with them [sc the Methodists] for a while, starting somewhere around the following point. Every unnatural cavity indicates its filling; so, too, does one in a fleshy organ; and the filling in question becomes the aim [skopos] of the discovery of remedies. In order for the medicines which do the filling to be found out, [169] we need a good deal of reasoning, lots of individual demonstrations, and rigorous logical method; for you have often seen that neither the doctors who trust experience above all and are thus expert in drugs, nor even all of those who advertise [sc the use of ] the analogism, are capable of healing wounds hard to treat. For the Thessaleans, Methodists by name but in truth un-Methodical, are not capable of understanding such theory any more than would asses understand a lyre; and certainly they are not capable of discovering by reasoning what needs to be done. You have often seen doctors of the Empirical school passing from one medicine to another in [sc the treatment of ] wounds of this kind, not, by Zeus, because some reasoning dictates the transition, but because they have tried by experience the “specific mixture” [“idiosunkrasia”], as they call it, of many medicines which fill up hollow wounds; and they cannot either discern or remember the properties for which each one of them was adopted—which is why they don’t know, to this day, what they should make the transition to, yet they hope that the appropriate procedure will be discovered at any rate from the host of individual details; and they jump from one [sc medicine] to another, entrusting the discovery of what is beneficial to chance rather than reasoning. [170] Similar to them, in spite of their own wish, are those of the Dogmatists who have not been able to reach to the natural principles of bodies by reason. For, as we have previously demonstrated, those who have not been able to deal with the primary elements are also Empiricists with a half of their mind. As for these un-Methodical Thessaleans, what more could one say about them? In conclusion, only those who really conduct their treatment according to method discover the required medicine or regimen [diaeta] for each wound of this sort, and show in the clearest way, through the facts themselves, what a great good the study of nature is and how much light it throws on the modes of healing.

452

  ‒  - FR 175. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(21)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, III iii, pp. 180–181 K: [iii, 180] . . . ÑOròw oÔn ≥dh saf«w ˜son de› yevrhmãtvn éndr‹ m°llonti katå m°yodon ÙryØn ßlkow fiçsyai; ÉEpeidØ går eÍr°yh pãntvw ÍgrÒthw §nupãrxousa t“ pãyei, tÚ jhra›non §nede¤jato fãrmakon. ÉAllÉ §pe‹ tå m¢n aÈt«n mçllon jhra¤nei tå dÉ ∏tton, ¶k te t∞w t«n •lk«n diaforçw 5 tÚ xrÆsimon §lÆfyh kôk t∞w toË kãmnontow fÊsevw. ÜVstÉ oÈ mÒnon énãgkh per‹ fÊsevw s≈matow §pesk°fyai t“ m°llonti katå trÒpon fiatreÊsein ßlkow éllå ka‹ tØn per‹ farmãkvn yevr¤an ékrib«w §kmemayhk°nai ka‹ krãsevw s≈matow Ígrçw ka‹ jhrçw §p¤syasyai gnvr¤smata. Y°asai to¤nun ˜sh t«n Meyodik«n §stin ≤ per‹ tåw épofãseiw tÒlma, toËyÉ ©n érke›n aÈto›w ≤goum°noiw efiw ßlkouw ‡asin ko¤lou, 10 tÚ gign≈skein ˜ti plhrvt°on tÉ §stin aÈtÚ ka‹ sarkvt°on: oÈ går §n toÊtƒ ge tÚ yerapeÊein §st¤n, éllÉ §n t“ tÚ sark«son §jeure›n. “ÉAllÉ eÏrhtai” fhs‹ “tÚ sark«son tª pe¤r&.” L°ge to¤nun ka‹ tÚ yerapeËson §k t∞w pe¤raw eÍr∞syai: ka‹ mØ mãthn fruãttou [181] mhdÉ énate¤nou 15 tØn M°yodon.

FR 176. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(22)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, III iii, pp. 181–182 K: [iii, 181] . . . ÜApantew går ofl diorismo‹ katå tåw t°xnaw épÚ toË koinoË peir«ntai tÚ ‡dion xvr¤zein: ka‹ ˜sƒper ên tiw ple¤v dior¤shtai, plhsi°steron éfikne›tai toË fid¤ou, toËto dÉ aÈtÚ [182] ékrib«w ‡dion oÎte graf∞nai dunatÒn §stin oÎte lexy∞nai. DiÚ ka‹ t«n ÉEmpeirik«n 20 to›w mãlista t«n ¶rgvn t∞w t°xnhw front¤sasi ka‹ sxedÚn ëpasi to›w Dogmatiko›w …molÒghtai tÚ mhdem¤an oÂÒn tÉ e‰nai graf∞nai yerape¤an ékrib«w, éllå tÚ le›pon efiw tÚn stoxasmÚn t∞w toË kãmnontow fÊsevw ofl m¢n §k t∞w •kãstou t«n yerapeuÒntvn ofike¤aw trib∞w, ofl dÉ §k toË logik«w tetexnçsyai fas‹ xr∞nai prostiy°nai. OÈde‹w dÉ aÈt«n oÏtvw 25 ∑n eÈxerÆw …w ëpantow •lkoËw ko¤lou fãrmakon ©n ¶xein §pagg°llesyai sarkvtikÒn: oÈ går eÍrÆseiw §n oÈden‹ toioËton fãrmakon oÂon pçn ßlkow ko›lon fiçsyai, éllå parå tÚ pl∞yow t∞w ÍgrÒthtÒw te ka‹ toË =Êpou ka‹ aÈtØn toË kãmnontow tØn krçsin Ípallãttesyai xrØ tÚn fãrmakon. ÉEãsantew oÔn §ntaËya tØn énaisxunt¤an t«n Meyodik«n, 30 ‡dvmen ˜ti pote l°gousin ofl épÚ t∞w ÉEmpeir¤aw.

453

  ‒  - FR 175. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(21)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, III iii, pp. 180–181 K: [iii, 180] . . . So, do you have now a clear idea as to how many theorems a man needs, if he intends to treat a wound according to the correct method? For, since it was discovered that moisture is at any rate inherent in the affection, the medicine indicated was of the sort that produces dryness. But since some of them produce dryness to a greater extent than others, what is useful was derived both from the differentiation of the wounds and from the nature of the patient. So that if our man intends to treat the wound as one should, he must not only do research into the nature of the body but also get accurate learning in the theory of medicines [ pharmaka], and recognise the signs of a moist or dry temperament [krasis] of the body. Consider, then, how great is the Methodists’ recklessness about assertions: they think that in the treatment of a hollow wound they can do with only this one thing—to know that it must be filled and fleshed up; for treatment does not consist in this, but in finding that which will make the flesh grow. “But that which will make the flesh grow”, they reply, “has been found through experience.” Say, then, that that which will heal has also been found through experience; don’t be insolent in vain [181] and exalt your Method.

FR 176. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(22)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, III iii, pp. 181–182 K: [iii, 181] . . . For all the distinctions in an art [techne] attempt to separate the particular starting from what is common; and the further one advances in making distinctions, the closer one approaches the particular; but, as concerns what is [182] particular in the strict sense, that it is not possible either to write or to speak about. And for this reason both those of the Empiricists who reflected with the greatest care upon the facts of our profession and nearly all the Dogmatists are agreed that no treatment can be written with accuracy, and the part which is left to conjecture [stochasmon] based on the patient’s nature should be supplied, according to some, from the practice familiar to each doctor, or, according to others, from their having practised the art by a rational method. But none of them was so light-minded as to advertise that, for any hollow wound, they have just one medicine— the medicine that makes the flesh grow [sarkotike]. For nowhere will you find a medicine such as to cure every hollow wound, but the medicine must vary together with the quantity of moisture and filth, as well as the patient’s own temperament. So let us say good-bye at this point to the impudence of the Methodists and see what the Empiricists have to say.

454

  ‒  - FR 177. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(23)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, III iv, pp. 193–194 K: [iv, 193] . . . ÑH d¢ sunÆyhw didaskal¤a to›w palaio›w, ¥nper dØ ka‹ nËn hÈjãmhn éskhy∞nai, katå fÊsin Ípãrxei, [194] mãlista t«n èpl«n •kãsthw diay°sevw ‡dion ‡ama legÒntvn aÈt«n ka‹ mãlista pãntvn ÑIppokrãtouw. ÑH gãr toi m°yodow ≤ yerapeutikØ katå toËton ín mãlista 5 pro˝oi tÚn trÒpon, Íp¢r •kãstou t«n èpl«n fid¤& dielyÒntvn ≤m«n, ¶peitÉ aÔyiw §p‹ to›w suny°toiw ëpasin •t°ran m¤an §pideijãntvn m°yodon. ÜVsper ka‹ efi dÊo ∑n ˆntvw katå d¤aitan nosÆmata, tÒ te stegnÚn ka‹ tÚ =o«dew, fid¤an •kat°rou yerape¤an efipÒntaw oÏtvw §xr∞n §pipeplegm°nou mnhmoneÊein, …w ofl per‹ tÚn YessalÚn éjioËsi: tÚn aÈtÚn o‰mai trÒpon, 10 §peidån t«n m¢n •lk«n, √ ßlkh, pãntvn ©n e‰dow Ípãrxei, t«n flegmon«n dÉ √ flegmona¤, ka‹ toÊtvn ßteron e‰dow ßn, fid¤& m¢n xrØ t«n •lk«n fid¤& d¢ t«n flegmon«n efipÒntaw yerape¤aw oÏtvw ≥dh sunãptein efiw taÈtÚn émfot°raw.

FR 178. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(24)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, III vii, pp. 204–211 K: 15

20

25

30

[vii, 204] TØn går t«n émeyÒdvn Yessale¤vn m°yodon ˆnoma mÒnon o‰sya dÆpou kenÒn, ¶rhmon ¶rgou pantÒw: o· ge tosaÊthw te ka‹ thlikaÊthw oÎshw meyÒdou per‹ tØn t«n •lk«n ‡asin oÎte to›w t«n ÉEmpeirik«n §xrÆsanto diorismo›w efiw t∞w t«n farmãkvn eÏresin oÎtÉ épÚ t∞w fÊsevw aÈt∞w t«n pragmãtvn ¶labon tØn ¶ndeijin …w ofl Dogmatiko¤: mÒnon dÉ efipÒntew ˘ ka‹ to›w fidi≈taiw gnvr¤zetai, tÚ de›syai tÚ m¢n ko›lon ßlkow plhr≈sevw tÚ d¢ pl∞rew §poul≈sevw, tÚ dÉ ÍpersarkoËn kayair°sevw, ka‹ tÚ m¢n =uparÚn kayãrsevw, tÚ d¢ kayarÚn §poul≈sevw tÚ dÉ ¶naimon ka‹ kollÆsevw, ßlkvn yerape¤aw o‡onta¤ tina efirhk°nai: tosoËton épod°ousi gign≈skein …w ta›w m¢n Ígrot°[205]raiw fÊsesi t«n ∏tton jhrainÒntvn farmãkvn §st‹ xre¤a, ta›w d¢ jhrot°raiw t«n mçllon. àO to¤nun parÉ ˜lon tÚn lÒgon §fãnh saf«w aÔyiw paralhpt°on, ·nÉ ≤me›w te mãlista pros°xvmen aÈt“ tÚn noËn o· tÉ êlloi pãntew ofl tØn palaiån m°yodon diafye¤rontew §narg°steron gn«sin ˜son èmartãnousin. ÖArjomai dÉ épÚ t«n sark≈sevw deom°nvn •lk«n, ßn ti toËto parãdeigma proxeirisãmenow §peidØ ka‹ fyãnv tÚn lÒgon Íp¢r aÈtoË pepoihm°now. E‰yÉ •j∞w per‹ pãshw ımoË t∞w fiãsevw §n t“ kayÒlou poiÆsomai tÚn lÒgon. ÉEfãnh to¤nun oÈ t“ lÒgƒ mÒnon

455

  ‒  - FR 177. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(23)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, III iv, pp. 193–194 K: [iv, 193] . . . The [sc kind of ] teaching congenial to the ancients, which I declared to be in practice even today, proceeds naturally, [194] since the ancients, and Hippocrates above all, tell us the treatment specific for each state [diathesis], especially among the simple ones. For the therapeutic method advances mainly in this way: we deal individually with each one of the simple [sc diseases]; then again, we show that there is another method, and just one, over the whole range of composite [sc diseases]. So: if indeed the internal diseases were two, the constricted and the fluid, then we would have to refer to the compound [epipeplegmenon] just as Thessalus and his followers recommend, namely after we have presented the individual therapy of each of the two; similarly, I think, since for all the wounds qua wounds, or all the inflammations qua inflammations, there is one species, and there is just one, species for every such thing, we must deal individually with the therapy of wounds, then of inflammations, and then, [sc having proceeded] in this way, [sc we must] unite both into the same.

FR 178. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(24)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, III vii, pp. 204–211 K: [vii, 204] You know of course that the method of the un-Methodical Thessaleans is only an empty word, without any practical consequence: so great and good is their method in the treatment of wounds that they neither made use of the Empiricists’ divisions [diorismoi ] for the discovery of medicines nor derived the indication from the nature of the matter, like the Dogmatists; and they imagine that they formulate some method for the therapy of wounds when they merely say what is well-known even to the man in the street, namely that a hollow wound needs filling up, and when it is full it needs cicatrisation, when it has superfluous flesh it needs bringing down, when it is filthy it needs cleaning, when it is clean it needs cicatrisation, when it bleeds it needs binding; so far are they from understanding that one should use less astringent medicines for patients of a more humid [205] nature and more astringent ones for patients of a drier nature. So, again, I must resume what has appeared clearly throughout the whole argument, so that we may concentrate above all on that, and everyone else who corrupts the ancient method may learn as distinctly as possible how mistaken they are. I shall start from the wounds which need fleshing up, and I avail myself of this one example because I have already expounded the argument about it. Then, next in order, I shall deal with every [sc kind of ] treatment at once, speaking universally. So then: it has been noticed, by

456

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

éllå ka‹ pe¤r& skopoum°noiw oÈ t«n aÈt«n ëpasa fÊsiw deom°nh farmãkvn éllÉ afl m¢n ésyen°sterai ka‹ malak≈terai t«n malakvt°rvn, afl dÉ fisxurÒterai ka‹ jhrÒterai t«n fisxurot°rvn. OÏtv d¢ kôp‹ t«n efiw oÈlØn égom°nvn •lk«n e‰xe ka‹ pros°ti t«n kollÆsevw deom°nvn. ÑApl«w går oÈd¢n t«n fisxur«n farmãkvn afl malaka‹ f°rousi fÊseiw. ÉEn d¢ t“ diejÒdƒ taÊt˙ toË lÒgou katãfvron g¤gnetai saf«w ˜ti te tØn fÊsin §piskept°on §st‹ toË kãmnontow, ˜ti te kayÉ ßkaston ênyrv[206]pon fid¤& t¤w §sti yerape¤a, ka‹ tr¤ton §p‹ toÊtoiw …w §peidØ tÚ t∞w •kãstou fÊsevw ‡dion érrhtÒn §sti ka‹ prÚw tØn ékribestãthn §pistÆmhn êlhpton, otow ín êristow fiatrÚw e‡h t«n katå m°row èpãntvn noshmãtvn ı m°yodÒn tina porisãmenow §j ∏w diagnvstikÚw m¢n t«n fÊsevn ¶soito, stoxastikÚw d¢ t«n •kãsthw fid¤vn fiamãtvn. TÚ dÉ o‡esyai koinÆn tina èpãntvn ényr≈pvn e‰nai yerape¤an §sxãtvw ±liyiÒn §stin: ˜per ofl énaisyhtÒtatoi nom¤zousi Meyodiko¤. Ka‹ diå taËyÉ •stãnai tå t∞w fiatrik∞w ¶fasan pãnta yevrÆmata, tout°stin §pisthmonikå ka‹ b°baia ta›w gn≈sesin Ípãrxein. E‰na¤ te tØn gn«sin aÈt«n t°xnhn tinå koinotÆtvn, oÈk fidiotÆtvn, …spere‹ tÚn koinÚn ka‹ genikÚn ênyrvpon yerapeÊontew, oÈ toÁw katå m°rouw. ÑVw oÔn §n to›w êlloiw ëpasin eÈy°vw katå tåw érxåw §sfãlhsan oÏtv kôn t“de: yerapeÊetai m¢n går oÈx ı koinÚw ka‹ genikÚw ênyrvpow éllÉ ≤m«n ßkastow, êllow êllhn ¶xvn dhlonÒti krçs¤n te ka‹ fÊsin. Ofl dÉ o‡ontai m¤an yerape¤an èpãntvn ényr≈[207]pvn e‰nai: §g∆ dÉ efi ka‹ tØn •kãstou fÊsin ±pistãmhn eÍr¤skein, oÂon §pino« tÚn ÉAsklhpiÚn aÈtÚw ín ∑n toioËtow: §pe‹ dÉ édÊnaton toËto, tÚ goËn §ggutãtv prosi°nai kayÒson ényr≈pƒ dunatÚn aÈtÒw te éske›n ¶gnvka ka‹ to›w êlloiw parakeleÊomai. Peir«ntai m¢n oÔn efiw ˜son oÂÒn te ka‹ ofl épÚ t∞w §mpeir¤aw époxvre›n m¢n t«n koin«n, pros°rxesyai d¢ t«n to›w fid¤oiw: éllÉ ˜son ka‹ toioÊtoiw §nde› prÚw tÚ t°leion e‡rhtai prÒsyen. OÈ går §p‹ pa¤dvn µ gunaik«n µ gerÒntvn µ malakØn §xÒntvn ka‹ leukØn tØn sãrka ka‹ ˜sa toiaËta, …w §ke›noi poioËsi, prosdiorist°on §st¤n, éllÉ ˜pvw ÍgrÒthtow µ jhrÒthtow ¶xei tÚ s«ma. ToÁw m¢n oÔn ÉEmpeirikoÁw fiatroÁw êllvn te poll«n ßneken épod°xesyai xrØ ka‹ mãlisyÉ ˜tan pros°rxesyai peir«ntai kayÉ ˜son §gxvre› tª toË kãmnonti fidiÒthti. Metå går toÁw diorismoÁw ëpantaw oÓw dior¤zontai ka‹ tÚn épÚ t«n §y«n §pãgousin, …w kônteËyen eÈporÆsantew ofikeiot°rvn t“ kãmnonti bohyhmãtvn. EfirÆsetai dÉ ≤m›n §n to›w •j∞w §p‹ [208] pl°on Íp¢r t«n §y«n, kôke› épode¤jomen Íp¢r toË gn«nai tØn fidiÒthta t∞w toË kãmnontow fÊsevw §jeur∞syai to›w palaio›w ka‹ tÚn épÚ toË ¶youw diorismÒn. ToËton oÔn §p‹ to›w êlloiw ofl ÉEmpeiriko‹ paralambãnousi: ka‹ prÚw toÊtƒ ka‹ aÈtÚn tÚn fiatrÒn, efi pollãkiw e‡h paragegon∆w t“ nosoÊnti, b°ltion ín fiçsya¤ fasi toË mØ paragegenÒtow: e‰yÉ ˜tan pãnta taËta prosy«sin oÎpv beba¤an oÈdÉ §pisthmonikØn ¶xein fas‹ t∞w fid¤aw toË kãmnontow fiãsevw tØn gn«sin. ÑO dÉ énaisxuntÒtatow YessalÚw ©n mÒnon efid≈w, ˜ti tÚ

  ‒  

457

those who conduct their inquiries not only through reason but also through experience, that not every nature requires the same remedies, but the weaker and softer ones need softer remedies, while the stronger and drier ones need stronger remedies. This principle was seen to apply also to wounds that are brought to cicatrisation, and, besides, to those that require binding. For the soft natures absolutely refuse to bear any of the strong medicines. Along this line of argument it becomes plain and obvious that one must investigate the nature of the patient, that there is a form of treatment specifically adapted to each man, [206] and thirdly, as a corollary, that, since what is specific to each nature is neither expressible nor accessible to a very precise [sc form of ] knowledge, the best doctor for any kind of disease would be the one who has worked out some method through which he might be able both to discern the natures and to conjecture the remedies specifically adapted to each. To believe that there is some treatment common to the entire mankind is foolish in the extreme; and this is exactly what the utterly senseless Methodists think. And they claim that it is on account of this that all the theorems of medicine are stable, that is to say, are scientific and lend a secure basis to our inquiries. And their [sc the Methodists’] art is an investigation of koinotetes [= common features], not of particular features, as if they were treating the common and generic man, not individual patients. So in this respect, as in everything else, they have fallen into error right from the start: for it is not the common and generic man that receives treatment, but each one of us, whose temperament and nature is of course different from another’s. They imagine that treatment is one for all people; [207] as for me, on the contrary, if I knew how to discover the very nature of everyone with accuracy, I would myself be like Asclepius, I imagine; but, since this is impossible, I have determined to train myself to get as near to this as is humanly possible, and I advise the others to do the same. Now, the Empiricists also try as much as they can to stay away from common features [koina] and to get close to particular features; but I have explained above by how much they, too, miss the ideal. For one should not make separate categories for children, women, old people, those whose flesh is soft and white, and all of that, as they do, but according to how the body stands in respect of moisture and dryness. One should, then, approve of the Empiricist doctors for many reasons, and especially because they attempt to reach the specificity of the patient in as much as that is possible. For on top of all the distinctions which they draw, they also bring in the one based on habits—since in this area as well they abound in remedies which are specific to the patent in the highest degree. In what follows we shall deal more with [208] habits, and we shall demonstrate, concerning the understanding of what is specific to the patient’s nature, that the distinction based on habit was also discovered by the ancients. The Empiricists, then, received it too, together with the other [sc distinctions], and they say, by way of adding to it, that if the same doctor attended to a patient several times he would know him better than if he did not; yet when they add all this they do not claim that he acquires a firm and scientific [epistemonike] knowledge of the [sc mode of ] treatment specific to the patient. But the most impudent Thessalus, who knows just

458

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

ko›lon ßlkow plhrvy°on, •st«tã te b°baiã fhsi tå t∞w fiatrik∞w e‰nai yevrÆmata. Ka¤toi toËtÒ ge pãntew, …w e‡rhtai ka‹ prÒsyen, ênyrvpoi gign≈skousin, oÈx ofl nËn mÒnon, éfÉ o YessalÚw ı deÊterow ÉAsklhpiÚw efiw ényr≈pouw ∏ken, éllå ka‹ ofl prÚ Deukal¤vnow o‰mai ka‹ Forvn°vw, e‡per ge kôke›noi logiko¤ te ∑san. ÉAllå prÚw t“ gign≈skein …w sarkvt°on §st‹ tÚ ko›lon ßlkow ¶ti kôke›no sun¤esan, …w ı gign≈skvn tå fãrmaka tã sark≈santa toioËton ßlkow, §ke›now fiatrÒw §st¤n. Efi m¢n oÔn §j §mpeir¤aw eÏrhtai toËta [209] d∞lon …w §mpeirik«w ≤m›n fiatreut°on §stin, efi dÉ §k lÒgou, logik«w: oÈ går dØ êllo m¢n eÏrhken êllo d° tini nËn §pidej¤vw xrÆsetai. ÉAllå per‹ m¢n toÊtou prÚw toÁw ÉEmpeirikoÊw §stin ≤ amfisbÆths¤w tiw Ím›n, ˜per d¢ l°gvn ép°lipon: ≤ ˆntvw fiatrikØ t∞w toË kãmnontow §stÒxasyai fÊsevw. ÉOnomãzousi dÉ o‰ma‹ toËto pollo‹ t«n fiatr«n “fidiosugkras¤an”, ka‹ pãntew ékatãlhpton ımologoËsin Ípãrxein: ka‹ diå toËto ka‹ aÈtØn tØn ˆntvw fiatrikØn ÉAsklhpi“ ka‹ ÉApÒllvni paraxvroËsin. ÖHrthtai dÉ ı lÒgow otow sÊmpaw épÚ ditt«n érx«n, épÚ m¢n t«n §narg«w fainom°nvn to›w ÉEmpeiriko›w te ka‹ thrhtiko›w, épÚ d¢ t«n stoixe¤vn to›w Logiko›w. ÜOti te går êllon êllo fãrmakon »fele› sxedÚn ≥dh ka‹ ofl pa›dew §p¤stantai: sumfvne› d¢ toÊtƒ ka‹ ı épÚ t«n stoixe¤vn logismÒw. Efi går ÍpÒyoio penteka¤deka diaforåw e‰nai katå tÚ mçllÒn te ka‹ ∏tton §n ta›w krãsesi t«n ényr≈pvn §p‹ mÒnhw t∞w Ígrçw fÊsevw, énãgkh dÆpou se ka‹ t«n farmãkvn oÂw m°lleiw xrÆsasyai penteka¤deka diaforåw §p¤stasyai, ka‹ tåw m¢n mçllon tåw dÉ ∏tton jhrainoÊsaw, ·nÉ [210] •kãst˙ fÊsei tÚ pros∞kon §jeur¤sk˙w. Efi d¢ ka‹ t∞w jhrot°raw fÊsevw êllaw penteka¤deka diaforåw Ípoy°menow …saÊtvw kôpÉ §ke¤nhw êllvn penteka¤deka d°oio farmãkvn, ¶stai soi tå pãnta triãkonta fãrmaka prÚw triãkonta fÊseiw ≤rmosm°na, ka‹ toÊtoiw proshkÒntvw xr∞syai dunÆsetai mÒnow ı per‹ krãsevw svmãtvn ékrib«w §peskemm°now. âArÉ oÔn, efi m¢n ˜lon tÚ s«ma e‡h jhrÒteron tØn krçsin, ÍpÚ t«n jhranikvt°rvn »felhyÆsetai farmãkvn, efi d¢ mÒrion aÈtoË ti t«n êllvn fÊsei jhrÒteron Ípãrxoi, t«n ∏tton jhrainÒntvn deÆsetai; áH prÒdhlon kôntaËya tÚ m¢n jhrÒteron tª krãsei mÒrion t«n jhranikvt°rvn, tÚ dÉ ÍgrÒteron t«n ∏tton jhrainÒntvn prosde›syai; Ka‹ toËtÉ oÔn ˜lon paral°leiptai to›w émeyÒdoiw Yessale¤oiw, ©n §p‹ pantÚw mor¤ou fãrmakon ≤goum°noiw èrmÒttein. Ofl dÉ épÚ t∞w §mpeir¤aw ˜son pleonektoËsi kôn t“de t«n Yessale¤vn Meyodik«n, tosoËton épole¤pontai t«n ˆntvw meyodik«n te ka‹ logik«n. ÖExousi går dØ kôke›noi prÚw t∞w pe¤raw didax[211]y°ntew êllo m¢n t«n §n to›w Ùfyalmo›w •lk«n, êllo d¢ t«n §n »s‹n µ êryroiw µ sarj‹n µ d°rmati mÒnƒ fãrmakon. ÉAllÉ ˜ti ge kôntaËya metaba¤nein §fÉ ßteron édunatÆsvsin, §k t«n ¶mprosyen efirhm°nvn eÎdhlon.

  ‒  

459

one thing—that a hollow wound must be filled—claims that the theorems [theoremata] of medicine are stable and firm. However, as I have said before, any man knows this, and not just the people of our times, after Thessalus dawned upon mankind like a second Asclepius, but even those before Deucalion and Phoroneus, I imagine, if they were rational at all. But in addition to knowing that the hollow wound must be fleshed up, those people were also aware of the fact that a doctor is the man who knows the medicines that will flesh up such a wound. And so, if these [sc the medicines] have been found from experience, [209] it is obvious that one must apply the treatment empirically; if from reason, rationally; for it is not the case that the medicines have been found in one way but one will successfully use them in some other way. On the other hand, we have some disagreement with the Empiricists over this point, and I still have this left to say: medicine in the true sense does make conjectures about the nature of the patient. I believe that many doctors call this thing [sc the nature of the patient] “specific mixture” [“idiosunkrasia”], and they all agree that it is inapprehensible; and for this reason they reserve even medicine in the true sense only to Asclepius and Apollo. This entire reasoning derives from a twofold starting-point: [sc one,] from that which is manifest with clarity, for those who are Empiricists and work by close observation; and [sc the other,] from the elements [stoicheia], for the Logicians. For not even children are remote from being aware that different remedies are of help in different cases; and the reasoning from the elements is in agreement with this principle. For if you postulated that, within the temperaments [kraseis] of people, just the moist nature contains fifteen divisions according to [sc the criterion of ] the more and the less, it would be necessary for you, I presume, also to get knowledge of fifteen divisions among the remedies that you plan to use, and some would be astringent to a higher degree, others to a lesser degree, so that [210] you may find what is appropriate to each nature. And if you are to postulate another set of fifteen differences for the dry nature and similarly to require another set of fifteen remedies for this nature too, there will be for you a total number of thirty remedies tuned to thirty natures; and only someone who has studied the temperaments of the body at close quarters will be capable of using these remedies in the appropriate way. Is it not the case that, if the whole body is of a drier temperament, it will be helped by more astringent medicines, whereas if some part of it is by nature drier than the others, it will ask for less astringent ones? And is it not obvious, in the latter case, that the part which is by temperament drier needs the more astringent medicines, while the part which is moister needs the less astringent ones? All of this is ignored by the un-Methodical Thessaleans, who are of the mind that one single medicine is suited to any part. By as much as the Empiricists exceed the Thessalean Methodists in this respect too, by that much are they surpassed by those who are methodical and logical in the true sense. For those, too, learn from experience and have [211] one remedy for wounds in the eyes, another one for wounds in the ears, or in the joints, flesh, or skin alone. But it is fairly obvious from what has been said above that it would be impossible for them to make the transition to another medicine, in this field no less than in others.

460

  ‒  - FR 179. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(25)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, III viii, pp. 213–214 K: [viii, 213] . . . Efi dØ taËyÉ oÏtvw ¶xei, kayãper oÔn ¶xei prosepibl°pein deÆsei ka‹ tØn toË peri°xontow ≤mçw é°row krçsin: oÂon går fãrmakÒn ti ka‹ otow ¶jvyen prosp¤ptvn to›w s≈masin, §peidån ém°trvw ¶x˙ yermÒthtow µ cÊjevw §mpod∆n ·statai tª yerape¤&. XrØ to¤nun 5 éntipepony°nai tå fãrmaka ta›w émetr¤aiw aÈtoË. Ka‹ diå toËto ka‹ ÑIppokrãthw cuxrot°roiw m¢n tª dunãmei xr∞tai katå tåw yermåw Àraw, yermot°roiw d¢ katå tåw cuxrãw. O‰sya d¢ dÆpou kéntaËya t«n énaisyÆtvn tina Meyodik«n ımologÆsanta m¢n §pibl°pein ˜pvw ¶xei yermÒthtow µ cÊjevw ı peri°xvn éØr tÚn kãmnonta, mØ m°ntoi tåw Àraw 10 toË ¶touw §pisk°ptesyai sugxvroËnta, Àsper [214] t«n Ùnomãtvn t«n katå tåw Àraw blaptÒntvn µ »feloÊntvn éllÉ oÈ t∞w krãsevw aÈt«n, µ oÈ diå taÊthn époblepÒntvn efiw aÈtåw t«n palai«n fiatr«n. ÉAllå går ˜ti m¢n énagka›Òn §sti t“ m°llonti meyÒdƒ tini yerapeÊsein ßlkow §p¤ te tå stoixe›a pr«ta ka‹ mãlista parag¤gnesyai ka‹ tåw Àraw toË 15 ¶touw ka‹ tåw krãseiw t«n svmãtvn ˜lvn te ka‹ katå tå mÒria §pibl°pein, flkan«w o‰mai dede›xyai.

FR 180. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(26)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, IV iv–v, pp. 250–286 K: [iv, 250] OÎkoun §n ÙnÒmasi mikrologe›syai kalÒn, éllÉ êmeinon efipe›n tina m°yodon fiãsevw •lk«n, o·an ≤me›w §n te t“ prÚ toÊtou lÒgƒ kôn t“de diejªmen. ÉEg∆ m¢n går ka‹ yaumãzv tØn énaisyhs¤an toË 20 YessaloË, grãfontow …d¤ pvw Íp¢r t∞w t«n kakohy«n •lk«n fiãsevw: “Efis‹ d¢ sfÒdra énagka›ai ka‹ afl koinÒthtew afl t«n xron¤vn •lk«n ka‹ mØ Ígiazom°nvn, µ katouloum°nvn ka‹ pãlin énaluom°nvn: prÚw t“ §p‹ m¢n t«n mØ sumfuom°nvn sk°ptesyai t¤ §sti tÚ §mpod¤zon ka‹ toËtÉ a‡rein, tÚ dÉ §pouloÊmenon ka‹ énajainÒmenon énagkãzein krate›n 25 t∞w oÈl∞w, metasugkr¤nontaw tÚ pãsxon m°row µ ka‹ koin«w ˜lon tÚ s«ma ka‹ duspay¢w toËto poioÊntaw1 diå t«n toËto dr≈ntvn bohyhmãtvn.”

1

corr ego: poie›n K

461

  ‒  - FR 179. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(25)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, III viii, pp. 213–214 K: [viii, 213] . . . If this is how things are, we shall then have to inspect, in addition, the character of the mixture [krasis] of the surrounding air; for it, too, comes upon bodies from the outside, like a medicine, and hence will block the therapy whenever it is excessive, either in heat or in chilliness. Thus the medicines must counteract its excessive properties. This is the reason why Hippocrates uses medicines higher in cooling properties during the hot seasons and higher in heating properties during the cold seasons. On this topic, you know of course [sc the case of ] one of the senseless Methodists, who would agree that one should pay attention to the degree of heat or coolness of the air around the patient, and yet he would not grant that the seasons of the year must be examined—[214] as if what is damaging or beneficial were the words which name the seasons, not the mixture specific to them, and as if it were not on account of it [sc of the mixture] that the ancient doctors had paid attention to them. But I think it has been sufficiently demonstrated that, on the contrary, if one intends to treat the wound with some method, he must attend to the primary elements [ prota stoicheia] and examine the seasons of the year and at the mixtures, both of the body as a whole and of its parts.

FR 180. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(26)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, IV iv–v, pp. 250–286 K: [iv, 250] It is no good, then, to be over-punctilious with one’s words; it is better to articulate some method for the treatment of wounds, such as we have expounded in the previous argument and continue in the present one. For I am certainly puzzled by the senselessness of Thessalus, who writes about the treatment of severe wounds in the following manner: “Absolutely indispensable are also the koinotetes of chronic wounds which do not get healed, or which are brought to cicatrisation and then open up again: on the one hand, [sc they are indispensable] for detecting what it is that hinders the termination [sc of the morbid process] in those wounds where the flesh does not unite, and for removing it; on the other hand, [sc they are indispensable] for compelling a scarred wound that breaks afresh to preserve its scar, as we produce change [metasunkrinein] in the affected part or even throughout the body as a whole, and we make it insensitive through remedies which produce this result.”

462

  ‒  

Taut‹ m¢n oÔn ı YessalÚw §n t“ Per‹ xeirourg¤aw bibl¤ƒ katÉ érxåw eÈyÁw proeip∆n §n to›w §fej∞w §p‹ pl°on œd° pvw Íp¢r aÈt«n toÊtvn grãfei: 5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

“Tå d¢ xrÒnia t«n •lk«n ka‹ mÆ ÍgiazÒmena, µ katouloÊmena ka‹ énajainÒmena, §mfa¤nei: tå m¢n efiw oÈlØn mØ sunerxÒmena §kkÒptein tå kvlÊonta tØn sÊm[251]fusin g¤gnesyai ka‹ nevteropoie›n toÁw peponyÒtaw tÒpouw ka‹ paraplÆsia poiÆsantaw to›w neotr≈toiw pãlin §na¤mvw fiçsyai, kùn mØ krathyª, parhgore›n tØn flegmonØn ka‹ tØn loipØn prosãgein §pim°leian: tå dÉ efiw oÈlØn §rxÒmena ka‹ énaluÒmena, katå m¢n toÁw parojusmoÁw ka‹ tåw •lk≈seiw ımo¤vw yerapeÊein to›w prosfãtvw flegma¤nousi kataplãsmasi to›w parhgoroËsin, ßvw ín paÊshtai ≤ éganãkthsiw: §ndoÊshw d¢ sunerge›n efiw §poÊlvsin: metå d¢ taËta foin¤ssein tå kÊklƒ m°rh platÁn perilambãnontaw tÒpon t“ diå toË nãpuow malãgmati ≥ tini •t°rƒ metabãllein dunam°nƒ ka‹ tØn eÈpãyeian énaire›n: mØ lhgÒntvn d¢ ka‹ koin«w ˜lou toË s≈matow §pim°leian poie›syai metasugkr¤nontaw aÈtÚ diå gumnas¤vn poik¤lvn, ka‹ afi≈raw ka‹ énafvnÆsevw parÒntvn §mpe¤rvn, ka‹ dia¤thw katå prÒsyesin aÈjanom°nhw te ka‹ meioum°nhw, érx∞w §ntiyem°nhw diå tÚn épÚ =afan¤dvn ¶meton: xr∞syai d¢ ka‹ tª toË leukoË §llebÒrou dÒsei ka‹ to›w êlloiw ëpasin oÂw xr≈meya §p‹ t«n [252] Ípagom°nvn dia¤t˙ xron¤vn ka‹ dusapotr¤ptvn pay«n.” AÏth m¢n ≤ toË YessaloË =∞siw. ÖAjion d¢ yaumãsai tényr≈pou tØn énaisyhs¤an µ tØn tÒlman: efi m¢n aÈtÚw •autÚn én°peisen …w Ùry«w l°gei, tØn énaisyhs¤an, efi dÉ §pistãmenow …w oÈd¢n l°gei parakroÊesyai toÁw énagign≈skontaw ëpantaw ≥lpike, tØn tÒlman. ÉEk t«n xron¤vn •lk«n, Œ gennaiÒtate, t¤w ¶ndeijiw g¤gnetai yerape¤aw; ÉEg∆ m¢n går oÎte t«n2 prosfãtvn oÎyÉ ˜lvw katÉ oÈd¢n t«n noshmãtvn §k xrÒnou3 §jeËron oÈdep≈pote tØn yerape¤an, éllÉ §j aÈt∞w t∞w diayes°vw ∂n fiçsya¤ moi prÒkeitai. KayÒlou går §ån efiw tÚn xrÒnon épobl°p˙ tiw …w ¶ndeijin parÉ aÈtoË lambãnein, §t°ran m¢n pãntvw ≤ deut°ra t«n ≤mer«n •t°ran dÉ ≤ tr¤th par°jei tØn ¶ndeijin: oÏtvw d¢ ka‹ ≤ tetãrth t∞w p°mpthw •t°ran, ka‹ toÊtvn èpas«n ≤ ßkth, ka‹ t«n êllvn •kãsth t«n metå taÊtaw. ÜVstÉ oÈk°ti tåw diay°seiw ìw yerapeÊomen §piskecÒmeya ka‹ parÉ aÈt«n ¶ndeijin lhcÒmeya: ka¤toi ge toÊtou élog≈teron oÎdÉ §pino∞sai dunatÒn §sti. P«w oÔn énagka›ai afl koinÒthtew afl t«n xron¤vn •lk«n efisin, oÈd°n [253] gÉ §nde¤knusyai dunam°nou toË xrÒnou kayÉ •autÒn; OÈ dÆpou gãr, §peidån ÍpÚ kakoxum¤aw ßlkow énabibr≈skhtai, diãforon ¶ndeijin épÉ aÈtoË lhcÒmeya metå t°ttaraw m∞naw ∏w eÈyÁw §j érx∞w §lãbomen. ÉEg∆ m¢n oÈdÉ ín §ãsaimi xron¤sai tÚ toioËton ßlkow éllÉ eÈy°vw épÚ t∞w érx∞w §kkÒcaimi tØn afit¤an aÈtoË. Ka‹ går ka‹ gnvr¤zein dunatÒn §sti tØn diãyesin épÚ t∞w érx∞w …w tå pollã,

ego: oÎte §k t«n K mãtvn K

2

3

transp ego: oÎyÉ ˜lvw §k xrÒnou katÉ oÈd¢n t«n nosh-

  ‒  

463

So this is what Thessalus claims right at the beginning of his book On surgery, and in the subsequent discussion he elaborates on it by writing as follows: “The wounds which are chronic and do not heal, or, once scarred over, break afresh, indicate [sc the following treatment]. (a) The wounds which do not come to cicatrisation indicate that we eliminate the things which prevent the occurrence of the [251] unifying process, that we renew the affected parts, and, having made them similar to fresh wounds, that we treat them again by the method of bleeding wounds [enaimos]; and, even if they do not yield, that we allay the inflammation and apply the rest of the treatment. (b) The wounds which come to cicatrisation but open up again indicate that, throughout the periods of paroxysm and ulceration, we treat them in the same way as we treat recently inflamed wounds, using soothing plasters until the violent pain is over; when it has abated, that we encourage [sc the process of ] cicatrisation; and, afterwards, that we empurple the parts around the wound, covering a broad surface in an emollient made of mustard or of something which can produce change and abolish the [sc patient’s] sensitivity [eupatheia]; and, if they [sc the pains] do not cease, that we take care of all the body as a whole by producing change in it [metasunkrinein] through various kinds of exercise—apt available ones are swinging, vocal exercise, and a regimen of gradual increase and diminution [sc in the intake of food], which we start off by provoking vomiting with the help of radishes; and that we make use even of the administration of white hellebore and of all the other [sc medicines] we use in [252] stubborn chronic affections of the sort that are driven away through the regimen.” This is the speech of Thessalus. It is worth puzzling at the man’s stupidity or nerve—stupidity, if he persuaded himself that he was right; but nerve, if he knew that he was speaking rubbish and yet hoped to deceive all his readers. What indication towards treatment derives from chronic wounds, most remarkable fellow? For in no instance whatsoever have I discovered the treatment, either that of recent wounds or that of diseases in general, from time, but from the state [diathesis] itself, which is there for me to heal. For, on the whole, if one is to look at time in order to take the indication from it, one will certainly come up with one indication on the second day and quite another on the third; similarly, the fourth will be different from the fifth; and the sixth will differ from all of them, and each of the remaining days will differ from its successor. So then: we will not examine the states that we are treating and we will not derive the indication from them; but it is hardly possible to imagine something more absurd than this. Now, how are the koinotetes of chronic wounds necessary, [253] if time cannot indicate anything just by itself ? Certainly after four months, when corrupt humours have gnawed at the wound, we will not get from it an indication which is any different from the one we got right at the start. To be sure, I would not allow for such a wound to become chronic; I would eliminate its cause right at the start. For, in most cases, it is possible to recognise

464

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

ka‹ tØn ¶ndeijin épÚ t∞w diay°sevw lambãnein énagka›on. ÑO xrÒnow d¢ t¤ pl°on ≤mçw didãjei toË t«n ≤mer«n ériymoË, må toÁw yeoÊw, oÈk ¶xv sumbale›n, plØn efi toËto l°gein ±boulÆyh ı YessalÒw, …w efiw diãgnvsin t«n toioÊtvn •lk«n énagka›on éname›nai tÚn xrÒnon. ÉAllÉ oÏtv ge pr«ton m¢n ín fidi≈thw e‡h pantãpasin, efi mhd°pvte prÚ toË xron¤sai tÚ ßlkow ımologe› diagn«nai dÊnasyai tØn diãyesin. ÖEpeita d¢ saf«w ín ¶ti ka‹ toËyÉ ımologÆseien, …w §j êllou m¢n ≤ t∞w fiãsevw ¶ndeijiw, §j êllvn dÉ ≤ diãgnvsiw g¤gnetai t∞w diay°sevw. ÖEstv gãr ti sumbãllesyai tÚn xrÒnon efiw tØn diãgnvsin: éllÉ ¥ gÉ ¶ndeijiw t∞w fiãsevw oÈk §k toË xrÒnou. T¤ går [254] ín e‡h prÚw ¶pow, e‡ ti xron¤zei t«n •lk«n, “§kkÒptein tå kvlÊonta tØn sÊmfusin g¤gnesyai” ka‹ “nevteropoie›n toÁw peponyÒtaw tÒpouw”; Efi går diå =eËma kakÒhyew, Œ gennaiÒtate, tå xe¤lh toË ßlkouw §n diay°sei tini g°gone, t¤ pl°on ßjomen, ín perikÒcvmen aÈtå pr‹n fiçsyai tÚ =eËma; Me›zon §rgasÒmeya dhlonÒti tÚ ßlkow, Àsper ka‹ poioËsin ¶nioi t«n ımo¤vw §ke¤nƒ yerapeuÒntvn ßlkh. T∞w går afit¤aw menoÊshw t∞w ka‹ prÒteron aÈtå sklhrå ka‹ tul≈dh poihsãshw, oÈd¢n ¶stai pl°on §k toË perit°mnein êllo gÉ µ m°geyow ßlkouw: pãlin går §ke›na tå peritmhy°nta to›w prÒteron ımo¤vw ¶stai tul≈dh ka‹ sklhrã. Ka¤to¤ gÉ oÎdÉ aÈtÚ toËto pros°yhken ı sof≈tatow YessalÒw, …w §kkopt°on §st‹ tå tul≈dh ka‹ sklhrå ka‹ kakÒxroa t«n ≤lkvm°nvn mor¤vn, éllÉ èpl«w “§kkÒptein” keleÊei “tå kvlÊonta tØn sÊmfusin” ka‹ “nevteropoie›n”. Efi m¢n oÔn §kkÒptein tå kvlÊonta tØn sÊmfusin a‡tia suneboÊleue, palaiÒw tÉ ín ∑n ı toioËtow lÒgow §g≈ tÉ oÈd¢n ín §memfÒmhn aÈt“: parπnhtai går ÍpÚ pãntvn sxedÚn t«n palai«n fiatr«n ˜soi ge lÒgƒ [255] tin‹ ka‹ meyÒdƒ per‹ yerape¤aw •lk«n ¶gracan …w §kkopt°on §st‹ tåw §rgazom°naw afit¤aw aÈtã, kayãper o‰mai ka‹ t«n êllvn èpãntvn noshmãtvn. OÈ går dØ §p‹ m¢n t«n •lk«n, ¶ti menoÊshw t∞w poioÊshw aÈtå afit¤aw, kãllion §ke¤nhn prÒteron §kkÒptein, §p‹ d¢ t«n êllvn noshmãtvn oÈ kãllion, éllÉ §p‹ pãntvn èpl«w œn tÚ poioËn ¶ti pãrestin épÉ §ke¤nou t∞w yerape¤aw érkt°on. Efi d¢ “tå kvlÊonta tØn sÊmfusin” oÈk §p‹ t«n afit¤vn èpãntvn ˜sa toËto p°fuke dròn éllÉ §p‹ t«n xeil«n e‡rhke mÒnon, …w §j œn §pif°rei d∞lÒw §stin, pl°on égnoe›n ¶oiken µ gign≈skein efiw •lk«n ‡asin. E‡h m¢n går ên pote ka‹ toËto mÒnon a‡tion toË mØ yerapeÊesyai tÚ ßlkow: e‡h dÉ ín oÈd¢n ∏tton, …w e‡rhtai, ka‹ ≤ xvr‹w ˆgkou parå fÊsin §n to›w ≤lkvm°noiw m°resi duskras¤a ka‹ ≤ metÉ ˆgkou m°n tinow, éllÉ oÈ pãntvw toË ge peritom∞w deom°nou: ka‹ prÚw toÊtoiw ¶ti skirrÚw

  ‒  

465

the state from the beginning; and it is necessary to derive the indication from the state. By the gods! What the [sc factor of ] time will teach us, apart from the number of days, I cannot guess—unless Thessalus had been willing to instruct us about this, namely that in the diagnosis of such wounds one should allow for time to pass. But, in the first place, if he [sc the doctor] does not agree that it is ever possible to diagnose the state before the wound has become chronic, he is an absolute layman. In the second place, one should also be clear and agreed about the following fact: the indication of the treatment derives from one thing, the diagnosis of the state [sc derives] from other things. For let it be granted that time contributes something towards diagnosis; even so, the indication of the treatment does not derive from [sc the factor of ] time. [254] If a wound is chronic, what is the point of “eliminating the things which prevent the occurrence of the unifying process” and of “renewing the affected parts”? For if the edges of a wound come to be in some state or other because of a malignant eruption, what shall we gain, my noblest friend, by chopping them around before we heal the eruption? We shall obviously make the wound bigger, as in fact some of those who treat wounds like him [sc Thessalus] do. For as long as the cause which has previously made them [sc the edges] hard and callous subsists, nothing will be gained from cutting around beyond the magnitude of the wound; and those extremities which have resulted from cutting around will become hard and callous once more, just like the preceding ones. However, the supremely wise Thessalus did not add this, that one should cut out the callous, hard, and badly coloured portions of the wounded parts; he requests us instead, indiscriminately, to “eliminate the things which prevent the unification” and to “renew” [sc the affected parts]. Now, if indeed what he recommended was to eliminate the causes which prevent the unification, such a line of argument would have been ancient and I would make no complaint against the fellow; for it has been advised by almost all the ancient doctors, at least by those who put some reasoning [255] and method into their writing on the subject of the treatment of wounds, that we should eliminate the causes which produce them [sc the wounds], just as [sc we should proceed] about them [sc the causes] in all other diseases. For clearly it cannot be that in the case of wounds it is better, when the cause which has produced them still subsists, to start by eliminating it, but not so in other diseases; on the contrary, in absolutely all the diseases where the producing factor still subsists, one should begin the treatment from it. But if he [sc Thessalus] has said “the things which prevent unification” not with reference to all the causes which do this by nature, but only with reference to the edges, as he makes clear from his assertions, it seems that he was ignorant rather than knowledgeable about the treatment of wounds. True, this [sc the edges] could sometimes constitute the sole cause of the wound’s not getting healed; but, as has been said, the cause could equally be bad mixture [duskrasia], either unaccompanied by an unnatural inflammation in the wounded parts or accompanied by some inflammation—and one that demands absolutely no cutting around;

466

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

Íperke¤menow µ splØn m°gaw ≥ tiw §n ¥pati kakoprag¤a ka‹ xvr‹w toÊtvn èpãntvn éton¤a toË m°rouw aÈtoË toË peponyÒtow, [256] §p¤tasiw oÔsa duskras¤aw ka‹ ¥de: ka‹ m¢n dØ ka‹ ≤ kayÉ ˜lon tÚ s«ma kakopxum¤a m°giston t«n afit¤vn ˜sa luma¤nesyai to›w ßlkesi p°fuken. ÉEnoxle› dÉ oÈd¢n ∏tton aÈto›w ka‹ ≤ kaloum°nh plhy≈ra. ToÊtvn ßkaston efi keleÊoi §kkÒptein YessalÒw, §pain« tÚn ênyrvpon …w •pÒmenon to›w palaio›w: efi d¢ tå xe¤lh mÒnon, ©n §k poll«n ¶gnvke, ˘ mhd¢ toÁw afipÒlouw lanyãnei. Efi går sklhrå ka‹ tetulvm°na ka‹ pelidnå ka‹ m°lana ka¤ tinÉ êllhn §p¤shmon êxroian ¶xonta yeãsaitÒ tiw afipÒlow ßlkouw xe¤lh, pãntvw tolmÆsei perikÒptein aÈtã. Ka‹ gãrtoi ka‹ proxeirÒtatÒn §sti tÚ perikÒcai: me›zon d° ge ka‹ texnik≈teron fiçsyai farmãkoiw. YessalÚw dÉ oÎte t«n ÍpÚ farmãkvn dunam°nvn malaxy∞nai xeil«n efiw gn«sin ∏k° pote—ka‹ går ka‹ l°gousin aÈtÚn épost∞nai tel°vw toË toioÊtou m°rouw t∞w t°xnhw, Àsper oÔn §mfa¤nei ka‹ aÈtÒw— oÎtÉ ˜lvw §mpeir¤an µ logikØn §pistÆmhn ¶oiken ¶xein oÈdenÚw farmãkou, kayÒti ka‹ toËto diå toË Per‹ farmãkvn §nde¤knutai bibl¤ou. ÉAllå per‹ m¢n t«n §n §ke¤noiw oÈk Ùry«w efirhm°nvn §p‹ proÆkonti t“ lÒgƒ [257] dial°jomai: per‹ d¢ t∞w t«n xron¤vn •lk«n fiãsevw, ∂n §n tª progegramm°n˙ =Æsei YessalÚw §poiÆsato, prÒkeita¤ moi tÒ ge nËn e‰nai dielye›n. ÖAmeinon m¢n ∑n dÆpou mØ “xrÒnia” kale›n éllå “kakoÆyh” taËta ka‹ tØn fÊsin aÈt«n §kdihgÆsasyai ka‹ tåw afit¤aw t∞w gen°sevw efipe›n ka‹ tØn yerape¤an •kãstou, tØn m¢n …w §fÉ ßlkei koinØn èpãntvn aÈt«n, o·an §n t“ tr¤tƒ grãmmati di∞lyon, fid¤an dÉ §fÉ •kãstou katå tÚ t∞w §rgazom°nhw afit¤aw e‰dow, …w §n toÊtƒ t“ lÒgƒ divrisãmhn. ÑO dÉ oÈd¢n toÊtvn poiÆsaw ka‹ “nevteropoie›n toÁw ≤lkvm°nouw tÒpouw” éjio› ka‹ “paraplÆsia to›w nevtrÒtoiw” épergasãmenow “§na¤mouw fiçsyai”. ToËto m°n ge, na‹ må tÚn ÉAsklhpiÒn, §narg«w ên tiw gnvr¤seie to›w ¶rgoiw t∞w t°xnhw §ggegumnasm°now, …w ÍpÉ ényr≈pou g°graptai taËta mhd°pote pronoÆsantow ßlkouw. ÉEna¤mvw fiçsyai dÊnata¤ tiw ßlkow xrÒnion ˜moion to›w nevtrÒtoiw §rgasãmenow, égkt∞rsi sunagag∆n µ =ãcaw aÈtoË tå xe¤lh, µ toÊtvn m¢n oÈden¤, §na¤mƒ d° tini farmãkƒ ka‹ mÒn˙ sÁn aÈt“ yarrÆsaw §pid°sei; T¤w oÔn o‰den …w pçn ßlkow kakÒhyew eÈyÁw ka‹ [258] ko›lÒn §stin, …w ín §j énabr≈sevw genÒmenon; âArÉ oÔn, Œ sof≈tate Yessal°, pr‹n sarkvy∞nai tÚ ko›lon ßlkow, efiw sÊmfusin éxy∞nai dÊnatai; áH oÈ toËtÉ ¶sti tÚ “§na¤mvw fiçsyai”; Mãthn to¤nun aÈtÚw sÁ t«n ko¤lvn •lk«n tÚn skopÚn oÈ kÒllhsin éllå plÆrvsin ¶gracaw. Efi d¢ ka‹ mØ diÉ

  ‒  

467

and, beside these, [sc the cause could be] a surmounting scirrhus, a big spleen, some dysfunction of the liver, or, in the absence of all these, a debility [atonia] of the affected part itself [256]—for this too is a [sc factor of ] intensification of duskrasia; and, above all, corruption of the humours [kakochumia] throughout the whole body is the most powerful of the causes which, by their nature, produce damage to the wounds. What is called abundance [ plethora] brings them no less trouble. If Thessalus has recommended that we eliminate each one of these, then I pay compliments to the man as a follower of the ancients; but if he has recommended that we eliminate just the edges, then he had knowledge of a single factor out of many—and one which does not escape the notice of goat-herds. For if a goat-herd were to see that the edges of a wound are hard, covered in lumps, and livid, black, or bad in colour in some other noticeable way, he would not have the slightest hesitation to cut them around; for surely cutting around is the most accessible thing, whereas treating with medicines is more difficult and requires more skill. But Thessalus never reached the point of knowing that edges can be softened through medicines—and indeed they say that he turned his back completely to this branch of medicine, as he himself makes it clear; nor did he seem, on the whole, to have experience or theoretical knowledge of any medicine—in so far as he exhibits this too throughout his treatise On medicines. But I will deal with what is incorrectly asserted in them [sc in the books of this treatise] in the progress of my argument; [257] the task which lies in front of me for the time being is to discuss the treatment of chronic wounds, which Thessalus presented in the afore mentioned book. It would indeed have been better not to call these “chronic” but “malignant” and to explain their nature in detail, setting out the causes of their occurrence and the treatment for each—both the treatment which, in so far as it pertains to [sc the category] wound, is common to all of them, such as the one I discussed in the third book, and the treatment which is specific to each [sc wound] in accordance with the kind of cause which has produced it, as I distinguished them in the present book. But he does none of these; instead, he thinks it proper to “renew the wounded parts” and, having rendered them “similar to fresh wounds”, to “treat them again with an enaimos”. But, by Asclepius, anyone trained in medical practice would palpably realise it: such words have been written by a man who never thought about a wound. Once you have made a chronic wound similar to fresh wounds, can you treat it by the method of bleeding wounds [enaimos] by tying it together with bandage and stitching together the edges, or by doing nothing of this sort but using some enaimos [= stanching medicine] and relying solely on the binding it provides? Who is it who would not know that any malignant wound is also, automatically, [258] hollow, in so far as it has resulted from erosion? So then, most wise Thessalus, can the hollow wound be brought to closing before it has been fleshed up? Or is this [sc closing it up] not what it is to “treat by the method of bleeding wounds [enaimos]”? It is therefore in vain that you yourself have written that the aim [skopos] of hollow wounds is not their closing but their filling up. For even if not every malignant

468

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

•autÚ ko›lon ∑n ëpan ßlkow kakÒhyew, éllã to¤ gÉ §n t“ “nevteropoie›n”, aÈtoË tå xe¤lh perikÒptontaw …w sÁ keleÊeiw, §j énãgkhw o‰mai ka‹ ko›lon g¤gnetai ka‹ ple¤sthn ‡sxei t«n xeil«n tØn diãstasin: ÀstÉ oÈk o‰da p«w ¶ti kollÆseiw aÈtÚ ka‹ sumfÊseiw “§na¤mvw”. Efi går prosãgein §pixeirÆseiw bia¤vw tå diest«ta pãmpolu xe¤lh, flegmane› m¢n §j énãgkhw, oÈ sumfÊsetai d°. ToÊtou ka‹ mÒnou suni°nai moi doke› ka‹ YessalÒw: §pif°rei goËn, “kùn mØ krathyª, parhgore›n tØn flegmonÆn”. ÖAmeinon dÉ ∑n grãcai: “ka‹ mØ krathy°ntvn parhgore›n tØn flegmonÆn”: §j énãgkhw går oÈ krathyÆsetai. ÉAllÉ efi ka‹ toËto sugxvrhye¤h t“ Yessal“ ka‹ par°lyoimen aÈtÚ ka‹ mØ l¤an ékrib«w §jetãzoimen, ˜ti ge tel°vw épokex≈rhke [259] t∞w koinÒthtow ∏w aÈtÚw Íp°yeto prÒdhlon pant¤. Efi går tÚ §mpod¤zon §jairÆsomen, oÈd¢n ¶ti per‹ t∞w t«n xron¤vn •lk«n …w xron¤vn koinÒthtow lhcÒmeya. ÉAllÉ ¶stv ka‹ toËto: yeas≈meya d¢ tå §fej∞w. Grãfei goËn œde: “Tå dÉ efiw oÈlØn §rxÒmena ka‹ énaluÒmena katå m¢n toÁw parojusmoÁw ka‹ tåw •lk≈seiw ımo¤vw yerapeÊein to›w prosfãtvw flegma¤nousi”. Metå d¢ taËta fhs¤: “Foin¤ssein tå kÊklƒ m°rh t“ diå toË nãpuow malãgmati”. T¤ fªw, ênyrvpe, kùn drimÊ, kùn yermÚn =eËma tÚ ferÒmenon ¬, foin¤ssein xrØ nãpuÛ tÚ mÒrion; ÜInÉ ˜per §n poll“ xrÒnƒ pãsxein ÍpÚ toË =eÊmatow ¶mellen, ÍpÚ toË Yessale¤ou tax°vw pãyoi farmãkou, pçn •lkvy°n te ka‹ énabrvy°n; Tåw går diå cÊjin µ ÍgrÒthta pollØn êneu yermas¤aw §pifanoËw éton¤aw t«n mer«n foinigmo›w §yerãpeuon ofl palaio¤. SÁ dÉ •j∞w §p‹ pãntvn xrò, pr«ton m¢n aÈtÚ toËto mØ diorisãmenow, e‡te diÉ éton¤an toË m°rouw e‡te diå kakoÆyeian toË =eÊmatow oÈ yerapeÊetai tÚ ßlkow, ¶peita dÉ Ípallãttvn tØn tãjin. ÜOtan går katakaÊsaw t“ [260] nãpuÛ tÚ m°row énÊs˙w mhd°n, §p‹ tØn toË pantÚw s≈matow ¶rx˙ yerape¤an: ¶mpalin dÉ o‰mai ka‹ t“ lÒgƒ ka‹ tª pe¤r& per‹ toÊtvn ¶gnvstai, tÚ sÊmpan s«ma prÒteron ép°ritton §rgasam°nouw tolmòn §pif°rein ti t“ mor¤ƒ yerma›non ka‹ drimÁ fãrmakon. ÜElkein går §fÉ •autå p°fuken §j ˜lou toË s≈matow ëpanta tå toiaËta d¤khn sikÊaw. ÉEan mØ fyãs˙w ken≈saw aÈtÒ, xorhg¤an =eÊmatow §gkatale¤ceiw t“ drime› farmãkƒ. ToËto ka‹ to›w ÉEmpeiriko›w fiatro›w …molÒghtai ka‹ to›w Dogmatiko›w, toËto ka‹ to›w ér¤stoiw §dÒkei t«n filosÒfvn: §peidØ går kôke¤nvn m°mnhtai YessalÒw, oÈ xe›ron aÈtoÁw §pikal°sasyai mãrturaw …w ÙfyalmÚn oÈk §gxvre› kal«w fiãsasyai prÚ t∞w ˜lhw kefal∞w, oÈd¢ taÊthn êneu toË pantÚw s≈matow. OÏtvw ÉAristot°lhw ka‹ Plãtvn §g¤gnvsken Íp¢r noshmãtvn fiãsevw: oÏtv d¢ ka‹ ÑIppokrãthw ka‹ Diokl∞w ka‹ PrajagÒraw ka‹ PleistÒnikow ka‹ pãntew ofl palaio¤. YessalÚw d¢ mÒnow ¶mpalin §p‹ tÚ diå toË nãpuow ¥kei fãrmakon

  ‒  

469

wound were by itself hollow, I should think that in the process of “renewing the parts”, when they [sc Methodist doctors] cut around the edges as you advise, it does of necessity become hollow, and it displays a very wide gap between the edges; so that I don’t see how there can still be a question of closing and filling “by the method of bleeding wounds”. For if you try by force to unite widely gaping edges, they will of necessity get inflamed, but they will not grow together. And this is the only thing which, I believe, even Thessalus understood; for he adds, “and if they do not yield, you should soothe the inflammation”. However, it would have been better to write: “and, since they do not yield, you should soothe the inflammation”— for, of necessity, they will not yield. But even if we concede this point to Thessalus and pass over without examining it carefully, it is completely obvious that he did, in fact, shun from [259] the koinotes which he himself postulated. For if we eliminate the element of obstruction, we will be left with nothing, so far as the koinotes of chronic wounds go. But let us grant him this too; let us see what comes next. Well, he writes in the following manner: “During the periods of paroxysm and ulceration, those [sc wounds] which come to cicatrisation, then open up again, should be treated like the recently inflamed ones.” And after this he says: “One should empurple the surrounding parts with an emollient of mustard.” What are you saying, man: even if out comes a dry discharge, or a hot discharge, the part must be empurpled with mustard? So that what was bound to happen over an extended period of time under the influence of the discharge may happen rapidly under the influence of Thessalus’ remedy—everything’s becoming ulcerated and corroded? Well, it was the debility [atonia] of the parts, due to chilling or moisture and unaccompanied by heat, that the ancients treated by irritating the skin. You, instead, go on to make oracular pronouncements for everyone, without making this [sc basic] distinction to begin with: whether the wound would not heal because of the debility of the part or because of the malignancy of the discharge; and, next, you reverse the order [sc of the procedures]. For you proceed to the treatment of the whole body after you parched the part with [260] mustard and obtained no results; but I think, on the contrary, that it is a matter of established knowledge on these things—both knowledge based on reasoning and knowledge based on experience—that doctors should venture to apply a hot and dry remedy to the part only if they have previously relieved the whole body of any residual matter. For such remedies have a natural power to draw towards them everything from the whole body, like cupping instruments. If you do not empty the body first, you will leave the abundance of the discharge behind the drying remedy. This is agreed upon both by the Empiricist and by the Dogmatist doctors, and the best philosophers were of the same opinion; since Thessalus mentions them too, I may as well bring them in as witnesses to the fact that it is not possible to treat the eye properly before the whole head, nor that [sc the head] without the whole body. This is how Aristotle and Plato conceived of the treatment of diseases; and in the same way also Hippocrates, Diocles, Praxagoras, Pleistonicus, and all the ancients. Only Thessalus, contrariwise, resorts in the first instance to the

470

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

pr«ton, e‡yÉ Ïsteron §pimele›tai toË pantÚw s≈matow, oÎkoun oÎdÉ §ntaËya [261] fron¤mvw oÈd¢n Ípotiy°menow. ÉEnÚn går ëpaj §kken≈santa tÚ s«ma kaya¤ronti farmãkƒ metå toËto xrhst«w énatr°fein, énafvnÆse≈w te m°mnhtai ka‹ gumnas¤vn afivrÆse≈n te ka‹ dia¤thw §k periÒdou metaballom°nhw ka¤ tinow épÚ =afan¤dvn §m°tou: kõpeita tÚn kolof«na toÊtoiw §pãgei tÚn §ll°boron aÈtÒn, ı xvr‹w perierg¤aw §paggeilãmenow ëpanta yerapeÊein. ÉEg∆ dÉ oÈdÉ §pino∞sai dÊnamai p«w ên tiw xe›ron µ makrÒteron µ periergÒteron ßlkow fiãsaito. F°re gãr, ·nÉ Àsper ¶rgƒ pollãkiw •vrãkamen oÏtv ka‹ t“ lÒgƒ plãsvmen ênyrvpon fiãsevw ßlkouw kakoÆyouw deÒmenon. ÖEstv tiw Ígia¤nvn m¢n têlla, knhsãmenow dÉ §ja¤fnhw ıtioËn mÒrion, efi boÊlei p∞xun, §geirãtv paraxr∞ma flÊktainan: e‰yÉ aÔyiw ka‹ aÔyiw knhsm«dew gign°syv taÈtÚ toËto mÒrion: §krage¤shw d¢ t∞w flukta¤nhw, ßlkow kakÒxroun énvmãlvw énabibrvskÒmenon gen°syv: ka‹ taËtÉ §n tris‹n µ t°ttarsin ≤m°raiw épÚ t∞w érx∞w sumpipt°tv. Leg°tv dÆ tiw §ntaËyã moi t«n Yessale¤vn fiatr«n ˜ntina xrØ trÒpon fiçsyai tÚ toioËton ßlkow. ÉEg∆ m¢n gãr fhmi [262] kakÒhy°w te pãntvw Ípãrxein aÈtÚ ka‹ diå toËto sunepisk°comai paraxr∞ma tØn toË pantÚw s≈matow diãyesin ıpo¤a t¤w §stin. EÍrÆsv går ¶k te t«n per‹ tÚ ßlkow sumptvmãtvn kôk t«n per‹ sÊmpan tÚ s«ma fainom°nvn shme¤vn ıpo›ow mãlista tØn fid°an §st‹n ı pleonãzvn xumÒw, ka‹ toËton §kken≈sv farmãkƒ paraxr∞ma,4 ka‹ oÈk énamen« tØn p∞xun ˜lon tényr≈pou diãyes¤n tina kakoÆyh ka‹ dus¤aton sxe›n. Ofl dÉ épÚ toË YessaloË, tåw §ke¤nvn dhlonÒti fulãttontew ÍpoyÆkaw, pr«ton énamenoËsi xrÒnion gen°syai tÚ ßlkow, ·nÉ efiw tØn yaumastØn §mp°s˙ koinÒthta t«n5 xron¤vn •lk«n, Àsper oÈk ¯n êmeinon makr“ kakohy«n •lk«n éllå mØ xron¤vn §ndeiktikØn yerape¤aw Ípoy°syai koinÒthta. E‰ta duo›n yãteron: µ §kkÒcousi ka‹ nevteropoiÆsousi ka‹ sunãjousin …w efiw kÒllhsin, µ pr«ton m¢n t“ diå toË nãpuow xrÆsontai farmãkƒ, toÊtou dÉ énÊsantow mhd¢n §p‹ tåw énafvnÆseiw te ka‹ tåw afivrÆseiw ka‹ têlla gumnãsia ka‹ tåw t∞w dia¤thw katå periÒdouw metabolåw éf¤jontai: kõpeita ka‹ to›w épÚ =afan¤dvn §m°toiw [263] xrÆsontai, ka‹ mhd¢ toÊtvn fiasam°nvn tÚ ßlkow §ll°boron d≈sousin: ín d¢ mhdÉ otow énÊs˙ mhd°n, épop°mcousin efiw LibÊhn tÚn ênyrvpon: ¶ti går toËtÉ ¶dei prosgegraf°nai tÚn YessalÚn §p‹ tª yaumastª t«n •lk«n t«n kakohy«n fiãsei. Katatr¤bei goËn §n énafvnÆsesin afi≈raiw te ka‹ toioÊtoiw, Àsper kaxej¤an éllÉ oÈ kakoxum¤an yerapeÊvn. Ka‹ t¤ yaumastÒn, efi mÆte gnvr¤zein ımologoËsin êrti sunistãmenon ßlkow kakÒhyew, énam°nous¤ te xrÒnion aÈtÚ gen°syai ka‹ pollãkiw m¢n §poulvy∞nai pollãkiw dÉ énaluy∞nai prÚ toË gn«nai t¤ poiht°on §st¤n, ˜pou ka‹ toÁw ıpvsoËn pur°jantaw Íperbãllein éjioËsi tÚn diå tr¤thw ≤m°raw ≥toi genhsÒmenon µ mØ genhsÒmenon parojusmÒn; OÏtvw ékrib«w êra tØn per‹ kr¤sevn §kmemayÆkasi yevr¤an, µ t∞w melloÊshw ékm∞w

4

corr ego: parasxr∞ma K

5

corr ego: n«n K

  ‒  

471

remedy made of mustard and turns his attention to the whole body only after that; so, here again he fails [261] to make assumptions in a sensible way. For when you have emptied the body once and for all with the help of a cleansing remedy, it is possible to feed it well afterwards; instead of that, he mentions vocal and bodily exercise, swinging, regimen periodically changed, and some vomiting, provoked by radishes; and then, to crown all these, he brings in hellebore itself—he, the man who has boasted on treating all the diseases without much fuss. But I cannot imagine how one might apply a worse, lengthier, and fussier treatment to a wound. Come, let’s create in words what we have often seen in practice—a man in need of treatment for a malignant wound. Let there be someone who is healthy in other respects, but has at one time scratched a part, no matter which— say the arm, if you like—and let us assume that he instantaneously provoked pustulation; that afterwards the same part became irritated over and over again; that, once the pustulation broke out, a wound was formed, of bad colouring and unevenly corroded; and that this happened within three or four days from the beginning. Now, let someone from the ranks of the Thessalean doctors tell me how such a wound ought to be treated. If you ask me, I should say [262] that it is doubtlessly malignant, and for this reason I would immediately examine the state of the whole body, to see how it is. For I would find out, from the symptoms related to the wound and from the manifest signs related to the body as a whole, to what class the humour in excess mainly belongs, I would immediately evacuate it with a drug, and I would not await until the man’s entire arm gets into a morbid and incurable state. But the followers of Thessalus, obviously holding fast to their own precepts, will first of all wait for the wound to become chronic, so as to fall into the province of the marvellous koinotes of chronic wounds—as if it were not much better to postulate a koinotes which indicates the therapy of malignant, not of chronic, wounds. Next, they will do one of two things: they will either cut and renew [sc the edges] and draw them together, with the intention of making them close; or else they will start by using the remedy made of mustard, and if that one does not yield results, they will resort to vocal and bodily exercise, swinging, and the rest of it, and to periodic changes of regimen; after which they will use even vomitings produced by radishes, [263] and, if these methods fail to heal the wound, they will prescribe hellebore; if this one works no better, they will send the man to Libya—for Thessalus ought also to have added this in his account of the marvellous cure of morbid wounds. At any rate, he wastes his time with vocal exercise, swinging, and suchlike, as if he were treating cachexia, not bad corruption of humours [kakochumia]. And what is there to surprise us if they [sc his disciples] are agreed not to diagnose a malignant wound just as it has arisen, but they wait until it becomes chronic, forms scars, then opens up many times over—before they would come to a decision as to what should be done? After all, they also think that patients afflicted by any kind of fever should undergo the three-days period [sc of treatment], no matter whether the paroxysm occurs or not. This, then, is the amount of rigour with which they master the theory of crises, or make prognoses concerning the future culmination of a disease.

472

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

toË nosÆmatow Ípãrxousi prognvstiko¤. T¤ dØ sumba¤nei pollãkiw; ÉEp‹ t∞w kl¤nhw katasÆpesyai toÁw ényr≈pouw ÍpÉ aÈt«n, éphllãxyai dunam°nouw eÈyÁw §n tª deut°r& t«n ≤mer«n. OÈx ëpaj går ≤me›w µ d‹w µ tr‹w éllå muriãkiw aÈto¤ te polloÁw t«n [264] purejãntvn §lousãmeyÉ ëma t“ paÊsasyai tÚn pr«ton parojusmÒn, toÊw te didaskãlouw ≤m«n §yeasãmeya taÈtÚ toËto poioËntaw, éde«w te toË loipoË diaitçsyai sunexvrÆsamen …w oÈk ín ¶ti pur°jontaw: oÓw ı sof≈tatow YessalÒw, ı tØn pr≈thn diãtriton §jeur≈n, §tar¤xeusen ín ˜laiw o‰mai tris‹ limoktonÆsaw ≤m°raiw, e‰yÉ oÏtvw ¶yrecen ín o‰mai dhladØ metr¤vw tetarta¤ouw, e‰ta katÉ Ùl¤gon énakom¤zvn mÒliw •kta¤ouw µ •bdoma¤ouw ép°lusen ín §p‹ tå sunÆyh toÁw ëpaj pur°jantaw. OÏtvw ée‹ katasÆpousi toÁw ényr≈pouw §n to›w pãyesi kùn épallag∞nai =&d¤vw aÈt«n ∑n dunatÒn. ÉOlig¤staiw oÔn ≤m°raiw oÂÒn te yerapeuy∞nai kakÒhyew ßlkow érxÒmenon ı YessalÚw efiw §niautÚn µ ka‹ ple¤ona xrÒnon §kp¤ptein §ò. TÚ går énam°nein pollãkiw m¢n aÈtÚ sunoulvy∞nai pollãkiw dÉ énaluy∞nai ·nÉ efidª efi kakÒhyew, kõpeita t∞w yerape¤aw érjãmenon oÈdÉ oÔn oÈd¢ tÒte kaya¤rein eÈyÊw éllå t“ diå toË nãpuow m¢n pr«ton, e‰tÉ afi≈raiw énafvnÆses¤ te ka‹ dia¤taiw xr∞syai kõpeita =afan›sin, e‰yÉ oÏtvw §llebÒrƒ, t¤ êllo µ §niautÚn [265] énam°nontÒw §stin; E‰tÉ, Œ prÚw ye«n, ©j ≤mer«n µ tÚ ple›ston •ptå dunam°nou tényr≈pou teyerapeËsyai, m∞naw énamenoËmen polloÁw ·na dhladØ pr«ton m¢n gn«men efi xrÒniÒn §stin, ¶peita dÉ érj≈meya t∞w yerape¤aw; Ka‹ t¤w ∑n énãgkh xron¤vn •lk«n fid¤an Ípoy°syai koinÒthta mhd¢n efiw tåw fiãseiw ≤mçw …feloËsan; ÉEnÚn mØ xron¤vn éllå kakohy«n oÈ koinÒthta, må D¤a, oÈd¢ toÊtvn §ndeiktikØn éllå yerape¤an grãcai. Sumb°bhke m¢n gãr tisin ßlkes¤ te ka‹ nÒsoiw kakoÆyesin Ípãrxein, oÈ mØn épÚ toÊtou gÉ ≤ t∞w yerape¤aw ¶ndeijiw éllÉ ≤ m¢n diãyesiw aÈtØ tÚn pr«ton t∞w fiãsevw ÍpagoreÊei skopÒn: §j §ke¤nou dÉ eÍr¤sketai tå poiht°a kayÉ ˘n §g∆ dielÆluya trÒpon. ÜVste toËtÉ ¶sti tÚ meyÒdƒ yerapeÊein, ˘ poioËmen ≤me›w •pÒmenoi to›w palaio›w, e‡ ge xrØ tØn m°yodon ıdÒn tinÉ e‰nai kayÒlou m¤an èpãntvn koinØn t«n katå m°row. ÑO d° ge kôn toÊtƒ sfãlletai ka‹ tÚ pãntvw Ípãrxon to›w ıtioËn meyÒdƒ poioËsi, toËto tØn m°yodon aÈtØn e‰nai nom¤zei. Gn«sin m¢n går ¶xein [266] énagka›Òn §sti tÚn meyÒdƒ pçn ıtioËn §rgazÒmenon ımoiÒthtÒw te ka‹ énomoiÒthtow, oÈ mØn aÈtÒ ge toËtÉ ¶stin ≤ m°yodow, ımo¤ou te ka‹ énomo¤ou gn«siw. OÈd¢ toËto l°gei Plãtvn ka‹ ÉAristot°lhw, œn tolmò kataceÊdesyai YessalÒw: éllå går oÈ toË parÒntow kairoË taËtÉ §jel°gxein. AÔyiw oÔn §p‹ tØn yerapeutikØn m°yodon §pãneimi ka‹ de¤jein §pagg°llomai tÆn tÉ érxØn aÈt∞w m¤an §n èpãsaiw ta›w fiãsesi, tÆn tÉ

  ‒  

473

And what happens often? People rot in bed under their supervision, when it would have been possible to restore them to health right from the second day. For we washed many feverish patients with our own hands as soon as the first paroxysm was over, and not just on one or two or three occasions but on thousands of them; [264] we watched our teachers doing the very same thing; and we confidently allowed them [sc our patients] to be fed for the rest of the time, as long as they were no longer feverish— patients whom the exquisitely wise Thessalus, inventor of the first diatritus [= three days period], would have macerated by putting on a starvation diet for three complete days (if I am not mistaken); then, I suppose, in the course of the fourth he would feed them, would he not, nothing but frugally; he would strengthen little by little only the regimen of the sixth and seventh days, allowing the patients who suffered one paroxysm to get back to their usual regimen. This is how they always make people rot in their diseases, although it would have been possible to restore them easily to health. So, when it is possible to cure an incipient malignant wound in a few days, Thessalus allows it to carry on for a year or longer. Consider: to wait for the wound to form a scar many times over and then to open up many times over again, in order to know whether it is malignant or not; then, when you have started the therapy, not to purge [sc the whole body] straightaway; to use instead, first, the mustard remedy, then swinging, vocal exercise, and dietary prescriptions; radishes afterwards; and, next, hellebore—are these the procedures of someone prepared to wait for less than a year? [265] But, by the gods, if the patient can be cured in six or seven days at most, shall we wait for several months to make sure that it [sc his wound] is chronic first, and only afterwards begin the treatment? Besides, why was it necessary to postulate a specific koinotes of chronic wounds, which does not help us at all towards therapy? It would have been possible for him to write down, not an indicative koinotes—by Zeus!—but a [sc method of ] therapy, and one not for chronic, but for malignant wounds. For some wounds and diseases happen to be malignant, yet the indication of the therapy decidedly does not derive from this: the state itself dictates the primary aim of the cure, and it is from it that one discovers what ought to be done, in the way I have presented. And so, this is what it is to treat according to method, which is what we do in following the ancients—if method is to be a unique and universal course, common to all the particulars. But he [sc Thessalus] is mistaken on this point too: he thinks that what, to be sure, belongs to people who proceed about anything with method, that is the method itself. For anyone who achieves anything whatsoever in a methodical way needs to have a recognition [266] of what is similar and dissimilar; but the method is not [sc identical with] this very thing—the recognition of what is similar and dissimilar. Nor do Plato or Aristotle assert such a thing, since Thessalus dares to attribute it to them falsely; but it is not relevant to my present concerns to refute this point. Therefore I will go back once more to the method of therapy, and I promise to show that its starting-point is just one throughout all the treatments and

474

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

épÚ t∞w érx∞w ıdÚn ßvw toË t°louw ımo¤an §n ëpasi to›w katå m°row, ÀstÉ efi ka‹ kayÉ ßkaston pãyow fid¤a tiw fa¤noito m°yodow fiãsevw, éllå tÒ ge koinÚn §fÉ èpãsaiw g°now ©n Ípãrxei. ÖArxesyai m¢n går ée‹ xrØ t∞w §nde¤jevw épÚ t∞w diay°sevw ∂n yerapeÊein §pixeiroËmen: §pisk°ptesyai d¢ ka‹ dior¤zesyai pÒteron ≥dh p°pautai tÚ poi∞san a‡tion tØn diãyesin µ ka‹ nËn ¶ti sunepaÊjei te ka‹ poie›: kõpeita pepaum°nou m¢n §p‹ tØn §n t“ tr¤tƒ t«nde t«n Ípomnhmãtvn efirhm°nhn m°yodon fit°on: ¶ti d¢ poioËntow §p‹ tØn §n t“de. Tª går aÈtª meyÒdƒ tªde ka‹ flegmon∞w [267] ka‹ puretoË ka‹ pãntvn èpl«w t«n noshmãtvn tåw fiãseiw §jeurÆsomen, efi m¢n mhk°ti g¤gnoito mhd¢n mØ prosxr≈menoi to›w prohghsam°noiw afit¤oiw éllÉ §j aÈt∞w mÒnhw t∞w diay°sevw ırm≈menoi, efi d° ti ka‹ nËn g¤gnoito ka‹ dittÚn skopÚn t∞w yerape¤aw Ípotiy°menoi ka‹ têllÉ •j∞w …w e‡rhtai poioËntew. ÉAllå går ka‹ t∞w énaisyhs¤aw t«n •pom°nvn t“ Yessal“ yaumãzein êjion, oÈk §peidån §n to›w toioËtoiw èmartãnvsin éllÉ ˜ti “duspaye¤aw” te ka‹ “metasuggkr¤seiw”, “éton¤aw” te ka‹ “=≈seiw” ka‹ pollå toiaËyÉ ßtera l°gontew ÙnÒmata, 6 shmainÒmena prÚw aÈt«n oÈd°pv ka‹ nËn §rvthy°ntew épokr¤nasyai dÊnantai. T¤ gãr §sti tÚ “metasugkr¤nein tØn ßjin §p‹ t«n xronizÒntvn èpãntvn” oÎyÉ …saÊtvw éllÆloiw oÎte saf«w oÎte nounex«w épokr¤nontai. Efi m¢n oÔn µ palaiÚn µ parã tini t«n ÑEllÆnvn ∑n gegramm°non toÎnoma, tãxÉ ín ‡svw §j œn §ke›noi grãfousin §noÆsamen §fÉ ˜tou prãgmatow §pif°rousin aÈtÒ: nun‹ d°—t∞w går toÊtvn §mplhj¤aw §st‹n ofike›on—épÚ t∞w ÉAsklhpiãdou gegennhm°non Ípoy°sevw, Àsper ka‹ têllÉ aÈt«n [268] dÒgmata, d¤kaioi dÆpouyen efis‹ toÁw fid¤ouw Ùne¤rouw §jhge›syai, ˜ti7 sugkr¤nesyai tå s≈mata ka‹ diakr¤nesyai to›w ˆgkouw ka‹ pÒrouw Ípoyem°noiw µ êtoma ka‹ kenÚn µ ˜lvw épay∞ ka‹ énallo¤vta tå pr«ta stoixe›a mÒnoiw §gxvre› l°gein, Àsper oÔn ka‹ l°gousi ka‹ sunex«w aÈto›w xr«ntai to›w ÙnÒmasi. Ka‹ d∞ta ka‹ ı YessalÚw §n t“ KanÒni taÊtaw kataskeuãzvn tåw érxåw nevteropoie› m°n ti kôke› parå tå Yem¤svn¤ te ka‹ ÉAsklhpiãd˙ dokoËnta: didãskei dÉ oÔn ˜mvw tØn •autoË gn≈mhn oÈk ésaf«w. OÈ går èpl«w …w ÉAsklhpiãdhw §n summetr¤& m°n tini pÒrvn to Ígia¤nein ≤mçw Ípoy°menow, §n émetr¤& d¢ tÚ nose›n, §pãnodon e‰nai tØn yerape¤an efiw tØn érxa¤an summetr¤an t«n pÒrvn Íp°laben, oÏtv ka‹ ı YessalÒw, éllå tÚn trÒpon t∞w poropoi˝aw ˜lon Ípallãttesyai nom¤zei: kôk taÊthw t∞w ÍpolÆcevw ¥kei tÚ “metasugkr¤sevw” ˆnoma, taÈtÚn dhloËn dunãmei t“ t∞w “metaporopoiÆsevw”. OÈk §xr∞n dÉ aÈtÚn §n oÂw époxvre›n t«n édÆlvn keleÊei ka‹ mÒnaiw pros°xein tÚn noËn ta›w §narg«w fainom°naiw koinÒthsin, §n toÊtoiw [269] ¶ti dogmatiko›w xr∞syai to›w ÙnÒmasin. “ÉAllå mØ dogmatik«w êkoue l°gontow aÈtoË” fhs‹n “éllÉ éfel«w:” efi≈yasi går oÏtvw éntilambãnesya¤ tinew t«n §pÉ aÈtoË, pãlin §fÉ ßteron ≤mçw êgontew ˆnoma tØn “éf°leian”, ∂n oÈdÉ aÈtØn §g∆ goËn

6

add ego

7

ci ego: ˜yen K

  ‒  

475

that its course, from beginning to the end, is similar in all particular cases, so that, even if there appears to be some specific method of treatment in each disease, the genus common to all is nevertheless one. For, with the indication, one must always begin from the state that we are trying to heal, examining whether the cause which has produced the state has already ceased or is still aggravating it and being efficient in the present: if it has ceased, one ought to turn next to the method presented in the third book of this treatise, and if it is still efficient—to the method presented in this book. By this very same method we shall indeed discover the mode of treatment for inflammation, [267] for fever, and for all the diseases unqualifiedly: if nothing is any longer in progress, we start from the state alone, without resorting to the antecedent [ proegesamena] causes as well; if something still goes on, we posit a double aim of therapy and do the rest in order, as has been explained. But it is worth puzzling over the nonsensicality of Thessalus’ followers, not [sc just] because they made mistakes in these matters, but because, although they speak in terms of “insensitivity” [duspatheia], “metasyncrisis”, “debility” [atonia], “strengthening” [rhosis], and many other things of this sort, they are never in a position to explain, when you ask them, what meaning those words have for them. Indeed, concerning what it is to “produce change” [metasunkrinein] in all the chronic [sc diseases], they produce answers which are neither the same with each other nor clear and sensible. If this were an ancient word, or one copied down from some Greek author, there might have been a chance of our guessing, from what they [sc the Methodists] write, what phenomenon they apply it to; but as it is, although it [sc the word] developed from Asclepiades’ hypothesis, like the rest of their [sc the Methodists’] opinions, [268] they are bound of course to explain [sc by it] their own dreams, as is characteristic of their state of confusion; given that to speak of bodies coming together [sunkrinesthai ] and separating [diakrinesthai ]—as they do, using these words unremittingly among themselves—is legitimate only for those who hypothesise particles and interstices [ poroi ], atoms and void, or, in a word, primary elements which are free from affection and change. And indeed Thessalus does come up with these starting-points in his Canon, but even there he makes innovations on the doctrines of Asclepiades and Themison; and yet it is not without obscurity that he explains his own view. For Asclepiades postulated unqualifiedly that our being healthy consists in the proportion [summetria] of the poroi, and our being diseased, in their lack of proportion, assuming that therapy is a return to the old proportion of the poroi; but it is not the case that Thessalus did the same. No, Thessalus sees it fit to alter the whole mode of poropoiia [= channel-opening]; and the term “metasyncrisis”, which has the same meaning as the term “metaporopoiesis”, results from this hypothesis. But he should not have still used dogmatist terms for phenomena concerning which he bids us to abstain from what is non-evident, paying heed only to the koinotetes that are clearly manifest. [269] “Do not represent him as speaking dogmatically, but plainly”, they [sc the Methodists] retort; for some of his followers usually object to us along this line, introducing us yet again to a new concept, “plainness”—on which I, at any rate, have no

476

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

¶xv no∞sai t¤ dhlo›. Efi m¢n gãr, …w aÈto‹ ka‹ toËtÉ §jhgoËntai pãlin efiw ßteron ˆnoma metalambãnontew lhrvd°steron tÚ “bivtik«w”, e‰tÉ aÔyiw ka‹ toËtÉ §jhgoÊmenoi fas‹ dhloËsyai prÚw aÈtoË tÚ “to›w pollo›w t«n ényr≈pvn …saÊtvw”, ‡son ín e‡h dÆpou tÚ “éfel«w” t“ mØ dihryrvm°nvw mÆdÉ ékrib«w, éllÉ ét°xnvw te ka‹ xvr‹w §pistÆmhw èpãshw: fy°ggontai m¢n går ofl propet°steroi t«n ényr≈pvn ÙnÒmata texnikå metã tinvn Íponoi«n oÈd¢n §xous«n ¶reisma, to›w dÉ §rvtÆsasin ˜ ti pot¢ dhloËsin oÈk ¶xousin épokr¤nasyai saf«w. Efi d¢ toËyÉ ımologoËsi ka‹ ofl Yessãleioi pepony°nai, fy°ggesyai m°n tina, mØ gign≈skein dÉ ékrib«w ì l°gousin, aÈtÚ dÆpou pros¤entai tÚ prÚw ≤m«n aÈto›w ÙneidizÒmenon. ÑH goËn “metasÊgkrisiw” efi m¢n §p‹ toË “tØn [270] poropoi˝an §nallãttesyai” l°goito, noËn m¢n ßjei tinå ka‹ dhl≈sei ti prçgma, lhr≈dhw dÉ ¶stai polueid«w. OÎte går §j ˆgkvn ka‹ pÒrvn tå s≈mata ≤m«n sun°sthken, oÎtÉ efi ka‹ toËtÉ élhy¢w ∑n ¶xei tiw de›jai p«w §jallãttei tÚ nçpu tØn poropoi˝an, oÎtÉ efi ka‹ toËtÉ e‰x° tiw de›jai katå tØn ékolouy¤an ∑n t∞w aflr°sevw aÈt«n, érke›syai faskÒntvn ta›w fainom°naiw koinÒthsi. MØ to¤nun mhd¢ xrÆsyvsan t“ ÙnÒmati mhd¢ prãgmayÉ ≤m›n parex°tvsan: ¶nesti går dÆpou ka‹ xvr‹w toË xrÆsasyai t“ t∞w “metasugkr¤sevw” ÙnÒmati tØn yerape¤an efipe›n t«n xronizÒntvn •lk«n •t°roiw ÙnÒmasin, Àsper ka‹ ofl ÉEmpeiriko‹ poioËsin. ÜOti d¢ ka‹ ≤ t∞w éton¤aw proshgor¤a katå tÚn aÈtÚn trÒpon aÈto›w fluare›tai d°deiktai prÒsyen §n t“ deut°rƒ lÒgƒ. Efi m¢n går …w 8 ÉEmpeiriko‹ prosf°rontai toÎnoma, pl°on oÈd¢n dhloËsi toË mØ s≈zesyai tØn §n°rgeian: efi d° tinaw Ípot¤yentai dunãmeiw tÚ z“on dioike›n, o·aw ≤me›w te l°gomen ëpant°w te sxedÚn ofl palaio¤, prÚw t“ to›w ÉAsklhpiãdou dÒgmasin §nant¤a t¤yesyai ka‹ t«n édÆlvn te ka‹ diapefvnhm°nvn [271] §fãcontai, ka¤toi feÊgein taËta parakeleuÒmenoi. T¤ l°geiw, Œ ênyrvpe; TÚ “metasugkr¤nein” éposafÆnison ≤m›n. Efi m¢n går tÚ toÁw pÒrouw Ípallãttein, ka‹ ceÊd˙ ka‹ t«n édÆlvn §fãpt˙: efi dÉ aÈtÚ toËto tÚ =≈nnusya¤ te ka‹ Ígiãzesyai tÚ mÒrion toÁ s≈matow µ tÚn ênyrvpon ˜lon, oÈd¢n ín pl°on §ntaËya t«n ÉEmpeirik«n épofa¤˙ plØn ÙnÒmatow. Gign≈skousi går dÆpou kôke›noi t«nd° tinvn prosagom°nvn t«n bohyhmãtvn Ígiãzesyai tÚn ênyrvpon, éllå t¤ poioÊntvn aÈt«n oÈk ‡sasin. OÎte går efi toÁw pÒrouw Ípallãttousin afl dunãmeiw t«n bohyhmãtvn oÎtÉ efi summetr¤an aÈto›w §kpor¤zousin oÎtÉ efi sÊmpan élloioËsi katå poiÒthta tÚ yerapeuÒmenon mÒrion ¶xei tiw efipe›n t«n ÉEmpeirik«n. ÉEke›noi m¢n oÔn svfronoËsin ©n mÒnon §p¤stasyai l°gontew, …w t“ toi“de nosÆmati katå tÒnde tÚn kairÚn prosferom°nou toË diå nãpuow farmãkou pollãkiw §tÆrhsan »f°leian ékolouyoËsan. OÈ mØn meyÒdouw ge fy°ggontai ka‹ tåw ÙfrËw énate¤nousi ka‹ semnÊnontai tª toiaÊt˙ gn≈sei ka‹ to›w palaio›w loidoroËntai ka‹ tÚn ÑIppokrãthn tÚ [272] mhd¢n ÍpeilÆfasin, éllÉ aÈtÚn toÈnant¤on §painoËs¤ te ka‹ sxedÚn ëpantã fasin élhyeÊein aÈtÒn. ÑO d¢ ka‹ toÊtou ka‹ t«n êllvn

8

add ego

  ‒  

477

better clue as to what it means. For if they explain it by turning once more to another, even more ridiculous, concept, that of “ordinary usage”, and then again, by way of explaining that one, they say that it means “in the same sense as most people take it”, then speaking “plainly” should be equivalent, no doubt, to speaking, not in an articulate and precise fashion, but unprofessionally and without any knowledge whatsoever; for rather reckless people let out professional terms with intimations of some deep meaning which have no basis; but they cannot say anything clear to those who ask them what they mean. Now if the Thessaleans admit that this is what happened to them—to utter something without knowing clearly what they say— they certainly accept the very reproach that we make against them. At any rate, if “metasyncrisis” is to be used in the sense of [270] “suffering change in poropoiia [= channel-opening]”, one will either have sense and refer to something, or twaddle in all sorts of ways. For our bodies do not consist of corpuscles and poroi; and even if that were true, one would not be able to show how mustard affects the state of the poroi [= channels]; and even of one were able to show this, it should be consistent with their [sc the Methodists’] hairesis to confine themselves to the koinotetes which they claim to be manifest. In consequence, let them neither use the term nor press the matter upon us; for it is certainly possible to deal with the therapy of chronic wounds without using the term metasyncrisis but other terms, as the Empiricists do. It has been shown earlier, in the second book, that they [sc the Methodists] drivel about the name “debility” [atonia] in the same way. For if they take the word like the Empiricists, they mean nothing more than the fact that the activity is not sustained; but if they hypothesise that some sort of powers [dunameis] govern the animal—powers such as we, together with nearly all the ancients, argue for—then, apart from making assumptions [sc which stand] against the views of Asclepiades, they will also trespass on non-evident and contentious matters, [271] which nevertheless they urge one to avoid. What are you talking about, man? Explain to us what it is to “produce metasyncrisis” [“metasunkrinein”]. For if it is to alter the poroi, then you are deceiving yourself and trespassing on non-evident matters; on the other hand, if this is what it consists in: in the bodily part, or the whole person, getting strong and healthy—then apart from the word you do not propound here anything more than what the Empiricists did. For they are no doubt aware, too, that the patient gets healthy when you give him certain remedies, but they don’t know how these work. Indeed no Empiricist is able to say whether the properties of the remedies alter the poroi, bring about proportion in them, or produce a change of quality throughout the whole part which is being treated. They are sensible, then, when they claim to know only one thing, namely that, when the remedy made of mustard was applied at stage x in such-and-such a disease, they have observed on many occasions that a good result followed from it. To be sure, they don’t invoke methods, they don’t lift scornful brows, they don’t give themselves airs about their great knowledge, they don’t slander the ancients, and they don’t think little of Hippocrates [272]—on the contrary, they praise him and declare that he was right about almost everything.

478

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

fiatr«n èpãntvn katafronÆsaw YessalÚw ßlkouw kakoÆyouw §mpeirikØn énagrãfvn didaskal¤an oÈk afisyãnetai: ka¤toi gÉ efi ka‹ toËto deÒntvw §po¤hsen, ∑n ên ti pl°on §jeirgasm°now: éllå går oÈd¢ toËto poie›n ¶oiken, Ípallãttvn tØn tãjin t«n bohyhmãtvn ka‹ prÒteron xr≈menow t“ toË peponyÒtow m°rouw pr‹n ín tÚ sÊmpan s«ma paraskeuãsai. ToËto går ÍperbolØn émay¤aw ¶xei: mÒnon goËn sxedÒn ti to›w fiatro›w ëpasin …molÒghtai, ka¤to¤ ge t«n ple¤stvn diapefvnhm°nvn, tÚ pçn s«ma kenÚn ka‹ ép°ritton §rgãzesyai pr‹n ıtioËn mÒrion fisxuro›w Ípobãllein bohyÆmasin. E‡te går tª pe¤r& kr¤nein §y°lei tiw ên, e‰te ka‹ t“ logism“, tr¤ton går oÈd¢n ßteron kritÆrion oÎte katÉ êllhn t°xnhn oÎte kayÉ ˜lon tÚn b¤on ¶xomen, eÍrÆsei m°giston kakÚn Ípãrxon ˜tan toË pantÚw s≈matow §pikour¤aw deom°nou pr‹n §ke¤nou pronoÆsasyai t“ peponyÒti mor¤ƒ prosf°r˙9 tiw ıtioËn drimÁ ka‹ yermÚn fãrmakon: [273] ßlkei går §fÉ •autÚ d¤khn sikÊaw §j ˜lou toË s≈matow tå peritt≈mata ka‹ sthr¤zei duslÊtvw katå tÚ peponyÚw m°row. ÖAjion oÔn §r°syai toÁw Yessale¤ouw pÒyen §p∞lye t“ Yessal“ toiaËta fluare›n Íp¢r •lk«n kakohy«n fiãsevw: oÎte går ÉEmpeirikÚw oÈde‹w t«n prÒsyen oÎte LogikÚw énØr oÏtvw ¶gracen. ÉAllå mØn oÈdÉ aÈtÚw ı YessalÚw oÈd¢ t«n épÉ aÈtoË tiw tolmÆseien efipe›n µ tª pe¤r& sumfvne›n µ t“ logism“ tØn toiaÊthn tãjin t«n bohyhmãtvn. OÈ mØn oÈd¢ de›jai dÊnantai p«w ı xrÒnow, oÈx ≤ diãyesiw, §nde¤knutai: ka‹ tÚ toÊtou me›zÒn §sti p«w aÈtÚw ı YessalÒw, éji«n sk°ptesyai t¤ tÚ §mpod¤zon §st‹ tØn sunoÊlvsin t«n •lk«n ka‹ toËtÉ §kkÒptein, oÈx‹ tel°vw §st‹n éna¤syhtow, ëma m¢n oÈk efid∆w …w toËtÉ érke› mÒnon, ≤ xroniÒthw d¢ t«n •lk«n oÈd°n §sti prÚw ¶pow, ëma dÉ …w oÈk §fÉ •lk«n mÒnon éllå kôp‹ t«n êllvn èpãntvn noshmãtvn toËto poiht°on §st¤n, …w ofl palaio‹ parainoËsin. ÉAllå prÚw taËta m¢n ≤m›n oÈd¢n épokr¤nontai: parakoåw dÉ •kãstote l°gontew …w d∞yen ékrib«w memayhkÒtew µ tØn ÑIppo[274]krãtouw µ tØn êllou tinÚw t«n palai«n gn≈mhn Ùry«w fasi tÚn YessalÚn épofπnasyai xron¤vn •lk«n e‰na¤ tina koinÒthta m¤an. OÏtv goËn ka‹ ÑIppokrãthn gign≈skein §n t“ Per‹ •lk«n œd° p«w grãcanta: “Ka‹ épÚ t«n pepalaivm°nvn •lk°vn jumf°rei aÂma poi°ein éporr°ein pukinã, ˜pvw ín dok°˙ kairÚw e‰nai”.a TãxÉ oÔn êmeinon ín e‡h, ka¤toi mØ pro˙rhm°non me per‹ t∞w ÑIppokrãtouw gn≈mhw §ntauyo› di°rxesyai, dhl«sa¤ ti kùn diå kefala¤vn Íp¢r aÈt∞w: e‡h dÉ ín oÈd¢n ∏tton ka‹ t∞w t«n palai«n diano¤aw §jÆghsiw ˜de ı lÒgow. ÉEke›noi går ofl êndrew, ëte mÆpv douleÊontew aflr°sei dogmãtvn éllå kayarò ka‹ èplª tª diano¤& spoudãzontew §jeur¤skein ti xrhstÚn efiw tåw fiãseiw, ¶mellon dÆpou tå m¢n §k tØw pe¤raw eÍrÆsein tå dÉ §k toË lÒgou, ka‹ grãcein ge tå eÍrhm°na pollaxÒyi m¢n xvr‹w toË prosye›nai tÚn trÒpon t∞w eÍrÆsevw §n¤ote d¢ ka‹ sÁn toÊtƒ, ka‹ toËtÒ ge poiÆsein a

Cf Wounds 2, ed Potter: Ka‹ épÚ t«n pepalaivm°nvn •lk°vn jumf°rei aÂma poi°ein éporr°ein puknã, ˜kow ín dok°˙ kairÚw e‰nai.

9

ego: prosf°rei K

  ‒  

479

But Thessalus, who scorns him and all the other doctors, is not aware of putting down an Empiricist account of the malignant wound; and yet, had he done properly at least this thing, he would have achieved some good; for he does not seem to do this when he messes up the order of the remedies and starts by using the one meant for the affected part, before he has prepared the whole body for it. This is an extreme case of ignorance; anyway, almost all the doctors, although contentious about most matters, are agreed over this one procedure—to empty out the whole body and relieve it of anything superfluous before submitting any of its parts to strong remedies. For whether one chooses to reach a decision through experience or through reasoning—given that there is no third criterion in any art, or in life generally—one will discover that it is extremely harmful when one applies no matter what dry and hot remedy to the affected part before having taken care of the whole body, although it needs help; [273] for, like a cupping instrument, it [sc the remedy] draws residues from the whole body towards itself and fixes them firmly and insolubly in the affected part. It is, then, worth asking the Thessaleans wherefore such nonsense about the treatment of malignant wounds came upon Thessalus; for no previous Empiricist or Logical doctor wrote in this fashion. But certainly neither Thessalus himself nor any of his followers would have the cheek to claim that such a sequence in the [sc administration of ] remedies is consistent with experience or reasoning. Besides, they are incapable of showing how it is that the time, and not the state, gives the indication; and bigger than this is the question of how Thessalus himself can be anything but a complete fool, when he asks us to look for the thing which prevents the cicatrisation of wounds and to eliminate it, and yet he does not know, on the one hand, that this alone is sufficient and the chronicity of wounds is of no importance, on the other hand that one should do this not only with wounds but with any other disease, as the ancients advise us. But they [sc the Thessaleans] do not give us answers to such questions; each time they parrot half-baked hearsay with the air of possessing, to all appearances, a sound knowledge of the doctrine of Hippocrates [274] or some other ancient, and they claim that Thessalus was absolutely right in declaring there to be some unique koinotes of chronic wounds; Hippocrates, at least, thought so when he wrote along the following line, in the treatise On wounds: “It is also beneficial to make blood flow in abundance from long-standing wounds, whenever it seems appropriate.” Perhaps, then, although I have not announced that I should go here into the details of Hippocrates’ doctrine, it would be better to give some clues about it, however summarily; and the piece which follows should equally count as an interpretation of the ancients’ mode of thinking. For they, as [sc you would expect from] people who were not yet enslaved to a school of doctrine but strove to discover with a clear and open mind what is beneficial for healing, were of course bound to make discoveries partly through experience, partly through reasoning, and to write them down often without specifying the way in which they had come to

480

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

aÈtÚ t∞w »fele¤aw ßneka t«n énagignvskÒntvn: efi m¢n går efiw tØn §pid°jion xr∞sin t«n eÍrhm°nvn ≥lpizÒn ti suntel°sein to›w ¶peita tÚn trÒpon t∞w eÍrÆsevw gnvsy°nta [275] thnikaËta m¢n ékrib«w ¶grafon, efi d¢ mÆ, perittÒn te l°gein ≤goËnto ka‹ par°leipon. ÜOti går e‡ p°r ti ka‹ êllo ka‹ ≤ braxulog¤a to›w palaio›w §tet¤mhto, pãntew ≥dh toËto gign≈skousi kùn §g∆ mØ l°gv: ka‹ diã ge taÊthn tØn afit¤an oÈx ÑIppokrãthw mÒnon éllå ka‹ ofl êlloi palaio‹ tÚ m°son Íperba¤nontew §n¤ote t“ pr≈tƒ tÚ tr¤ton sunãptousin. Efi går shme›on m¢n e‡h tÚ pr«ton toË deut°rou, toÊtƒ dÉ §j énãgkhw ßpoito tÚ tr¤ton oÏtvw §pif°rousi t“ pr≈tƒ tÚ tr¤ton, Íperba¤nontew tÚ deÊteron. ÖEdeija d¢ pollãkiw toiaËta toÊw tÉ êllouw palaioÁw ka‹ mãlista pãntvn tÚn ÑIppokrãthn grãcanta, ka‹ xrØ tÚn boulÒmenon §yãda gen°syai palaiçw •rmhne¤aw §n §ke¤noiw gumnãsasyai. Nun‹ dÉ aÈtÚ tÚ probeblhm°non §jhgÆsomai mÒnon. [v] ÜOsa går t«n •lk«n, èpãntvn Ùry«w ka‹ deÒntvw gignom°nvn, ˜mvw oÈ yerapeÊesyai, kale›tai m¢n ÍpÚ t«n fiatr«n “kakoÆyh”: xron¤zei d¢ pãntvw ˜tan tØn …w •lk«n mÒnhn aÈto›w tiw §pãgei yerape¤an. ÜHtiw dÉ §st‹ t«n •lk«n …w •lk«n ‡asiw §n t“ prÚ toÊtou lÒgƒ di≈ristai. TaËta [276] goËn tå ßlkh ka‹ “kakoÆyh” ka‹ “pepalaivm°na” ka‹ “xron¤zonta” kaloËsin, édiafÒrvw xr≈menoi to›w ÙnÒmasin §pÉ aÈt«n. Ka‹ dØ ka‹ prÚw tÚ diagn«nai tØn diãyesin ˜ti kakoÆyhw, ëma to›w êlloiw gnvr¤smasi ka‹ tÚ xron¤zein aÈtå pãntvn t«n deÒntvn gignom°nvn ¶xei tinå mo›ran. OÈ mØn toËtÒ gÉ aÈtÚ xron¤zein µ “xrÒnia” kale›sya¤ te ka‹ e‰nai, tØn prosÆkousan §nde¤knutai yerape¤an éllÉ §k m¢n toÊtou, tÚ moxyhr«w diake›syai tÚ ≤lkvm°non mÒrion, ¶nesti sullog¤sasyai: toÊtou dÉ eÍrey°ntow eÈpor∞sai t∞w yerape¤aw. P«w ka‹ t¤na trÒpon; Efi m¢n mÒna tå peri°xonta mÒria tØn ßlkvsin oÏtvw e‡h diake¤mena, taËtÉ §jiasãmenon: efi d¢ sÊmpan tÚ s«ma kakoxum¤aw tinÚw eÍr¤skoito mestÒn, §ke¤nhn §kken≈santa. Shme›on m¢n oÔn t∞w kakoxum¤aw tÚ xron¤zein tå ßlkh: toË sumf°rontow dÉ ≤ eÏresiw oÈk §k toË xron¤zein éllÉ §k t∞w kakoxum¤aw. ÜVstÉ e‰nai tr¤a taËtÉ §fej∞w éllÆlvn tÚ shme›on tØn diãyesin tØn yerape¤an, shme›on m¢n tÚ xron¤zein, diãyesin d¢ tØn kakoxum¤an, yerape¤an d¢ tØn taÊthw k°nvsin. Ka‹ katå toËto pollãkiw toÁw palaioÁw [277] Íperba¤nontaw tÚ m°son §p‹ tÚ tr¤ton eÈy°vw épÚ toË pr≈tou parag¤gnesyai, Àsper ka‹ ÑIppokrãthw §po¤hsen efip≈n: “Ka‹ épÚ t«n pepalaivm°nvn •lk°vn jumf°rei aÂma poi°ein éporr°ein pukinã, ˜pvw ín dok°˙ kairÚw e‰nai”—oÈ t∞w palaiÒthtow dÆpouyen §ndeijam°nhw tØn yerape¤an éllå t∞w moxyhr¤aw toË a·matow. ÉEpif°rvn goËn aÈtÚw §re›: “KvlÊei går mãlista m¢n tå toiaËta ßlkea Ígia¤nesyai, ¶peita d¢ ka‹ têlla sÊmpanta, a·matow shped∆n ka‹ ˜ti §j a·matow metastãsiow geg°nhtai.”b Ka‹ dØ ka‹ metÉ Ùl¤gon aÔyiw Íp¢r t«n mØ suniÒntvn efiw oÈlØn •lk«n dieji≈n: “OÈdÉ µn” fhs‹ “tå peri°xonta toË ßlkeow melanyª a·matow shpedÒni, µ ka‹ kirsoË par°xontow tØn §pirroÆn, oÈd¢ taËta §y°lei suni°nai, µn mØ b

Cf Wounds 2, ed Potter: KvlÊei går mãlista m¢n tå toiaËta ßlkea Ígia¤nesyai, ¶peita d¢ ka‹ tå jÊmpanta, a·matow shped∆n ka‹ ≤ §j a·matow metastãsiow g°nhtai.

  ‒  

481

make them, but sometimes doing that as well; and they were likely to do it for the sake of aiding their readers. For they put down such accounts exactly if they were hoping that the mode of discovery, once known, may contribute something towards the skilful use of their discoveries by the succeeding generations; [275] but if not, they considered it superfluous to mention them and left them out. For if anything was valued by the ancients that was conciseness—a fact already familiar to all, even if I don’t mention it; and this is the reason why not only Hippocrates but all the other ancients sometimes omit the middle term, connecting the third to the first. For if the first term is a sign of the second and the third follows it [sc the second] by necessity, they just add the third to the first, omitting the second. I have frequently shown that all the ancients write things of this sort, Hippocrates most of all; if one wishes to become familiar with the ancient mode of expression one must train oneself in those writings. But now I shall only explain what I have set out to explain. [v] Among wounds, those which do not heal in spite of the fact that we do correctly everything that should be done are called by doctors “malignant”, and evidently they become chronic when you treat them merely qua wounds. What is exactly the treatment of wounds qua wounds has been defined in the previous book. Well, doctors call [276] the present wounds “malignant”, “protracted”, or “chronic”, and use these names indifferently in referring to them. And now: the fact that they linger although we do all that should be done plays some role, together with other signs, towards diagnosing the state as malignant. But it is certainly not the case that this very feature—their lingering or their being called, and being, “chronic”—indicates the appropriate therapy; the fact that the wounded part is in a bad state, this is what you can make deductions from; when this has been discovered, you have solved the problem of therapy. How and by what means? If only the parts surrounding the ulceration are in this state, you treat them thoroughly; but if the whole body turns out to contain bad humours, you eliminate them. Now, the chronicity of wounds is a sign of corrupt humours [kakochumia]; yet the discovery of what is helpful does not derive from chronicity but from corrupt humours. So that there are the following three items in succession, the sign, the state, the therapy, the sign consisting in chronicity, the state, in corrupt humours, and the therapy, in emptying them; and it is in relation to this scheme that the ancients often [277] omitted the middle term, going right away from the first to the third, as did Hippocrates when he wrote: “It is also beneficial to make blood flow in abundance from long-standing wounds, whenever it seems appropriate.” Clearly, what indicates the [sc course of ] therapy is not [sc the wound’s] ancientness; the bad state of the blood does. For at this point Hippocrates adds: “The main factor in preventing the healing of such wounds, and of everything else [sc in the body], is the putrefaction of blood, and whatever results from blood alteration.” Moreover, returning a little later to complete the subject of wounds which do not come to cicatrisation, he observes: “If the surrounds of the wound turn black through the putrefaction of the blood, or if a varix maintains the afflux [sc of blood], those [sc wounds] refuse to unite unless you heal

482

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

tå peri°xonta toË ßlkeow Ígi°a poiÆs˙w.”c E‰ta ka‹ per‹ t«n kirs«n t∞w fiãsevw grãfei. Ka‹ prÚw toÊtoiw ¶ti kayãrsevw m°mnhtai toË sÊmpantow s≈matow §p¤ tÉ êlloiw tis¤ tr≈masi ka‹ oÂw sfakel¤sai k¤ndunow, ßrpes¤ te ka‹ pçsi to›w §syiom°noisin: oÏtv dÉ Ùnomãzein e‡vye tå énabibrvskÒmena. Ka‹ m¢n dØ kôn to›w §fej∞w pãlin œd° p≈w fhsin: “ÉEp‹ pant‹ [278] ßlkei, §rusip°latow §pigenom°nou, kãyarsin poi°esyai pantÚw toË s≈matow”.d Ka‹ ˜lvw, efi yelÆsaiw §pimel«w dielye›n tÚ Per‹ t«n •lk«n bibl¤on, eÍrÆseiw aÈtÚn ée‹ m¢n épÚ t«n diay°sevn tØn ¶ndeijin lambãnonta, prosxr≈menon d° pote t“ xrÒnƒ prÚw tØn t∞w diay°sevw diãgnvsin. ÜOti dÉ oÏtv taËtÉ ¶xei mãyoiw ín §k pr≈thw m¢n érx∞w toË suggrãmmatow, §xoÊshw œde: “ÜElkea jÊmpanta oÈ xrØ t°ggein plØn o‡nƒ”e—˜ti pollãkiw •t°ra diãyesiw §piplake›sa t“ ßlkei kvlÊei tØn …w ßlkouw prosf°resyai yerape¤an. Ka‹ tØn afit¤an didãskvn fhs¤: “tÚ går jhrÚn toË Ígi°ow §ggut°rv §st¤, tÚ d¢ ÍgrÚn toË mØ Ígi°ow:”f e‰yÉ •j∞w: “tÚ går ßlkow ÍgrÒn §sti, tÚ d¢ Ígi¢w jhrÒn §sti”.g Ka‹ diå toËto kayÉ ˜lon tÚ sÊggramma t∞w yerape¤aw t«n •lk«n èpãshw skopÚn poihsãmenow tÚ jhra¤nein, oÏtvw ≥dh tå katå m°row §jeur¤skei, sÁn t“ ka‹ pollãkiw énaminÆskein ≤mçw toË skopoË. ÖEn te går t“ grãcai: “T«n d¢ •lk°vn ˜ ti m¢n ín Ùje› b°lei µ diatmhyª µ diakopª, §nd°xetai ka‹ ¶naimon fãrmakon tÚ kvlËon diapÊein ka‹ énajhra›non”h— “g¤gnetai går éporr°ontow toË a·matow jh[279]rÒteron”i—ka‹ pãlin: “ÑOko›a dÉ ín kayary°nta kal«w ka‹ §w tÚ d°on ée‹ §p‹ tÚ jhrÒteron yerapeÊesyai plØn efi ylasyª”,j ka‹ pãlin: “ÜO ti dÉ, ín mØ dÊnhtai prosye›nai, ≤ sårj ÍgrØ §oËsa afit¤h §stin”k —§n to›w toioÊtoiw ëpasin énamimnÆskei toË pr≈tou skopoË t«n •lk«n t∞w fiãsevw. ÜElkouw går √ ßlkow §st‹n ‡ama tÚ jhra¤nesyai metr¤vw: e‡rhtai dÉ ≤ épÒdeijiw §n t“ prÚ toÊtou bibl¤ƒ. ToË m°ntoi meyÉ •t°raw diay°sevw ∏w pr≈thw xrØ poiÆsasyai tØn §pim°leian oÈk ¶yÉ …w ßlkouw §st‹n ≤ yerape¤a mÒnou éllå pr≈th m¢n §ke¤nhw t∞w diay°sevw, §fej∞w d¢ toË ßlkouw: e‡te går flegmonÆ tiw e‡te melanÒthw e‡tÉ §kxÊmvsiw e‡tÉ §rus¤pelaw e‡tÉ o‡dhma per‹ tØn ≤lkvm°nhn susta¤h sãrka, pr≈thw §ke¤nhw xrØ c

Cf Wounds 8, ed Potter: OÈd¢ œn tå peri°xonta toË ßlkeow melanyª a·matow shpedÒni, µ ka‹ kirsoË par°xontow tØn §pirroØn toË a·matow, oÈd¢ taËta §y°lei juni°nai, µn mØ tå peri°xonta toË ßlkeow Ígi°a poiÆs˙w. d Cf Wounds 9, ed Potter: ÉEp‹ pant‹ ßlkei, §rusip°latow §pigenom°nou, kãyarsin poi°esyai toË s≈matow. e

Cf Wounds 1. Wounds 1. g Cf Wounds 1, ed Potter: tÚ går ßlkow ÍgrÒn §sti, tÚ d¢ Ígi¢w jhrÒn. h Cf Wounds 1, ed Potter: T«n d¢ •lk°vn ˜ ti m¢n ín Ùje› b°lei diatmhyª µ diakopª, §nd°xetai ¶naimon fãrmakon ka‹ tÚ kvlËon diapÊein énajhra›nÒn ti. i Cf Wounds 1, ed Potter: g¤gnetai går éporr°ontow toË a·matow jhrÒtera. j Cf Wounds 6, ed Potter: Tå ßlkea ıkÒsa ín kayary°nta kal«w te ka‹ §w tÚ d°on f

ée‹ §p‹ tÚ jhrÒteron poi∞tai tØn blãsthsin: taËta d¢ oÈx Ípersark°ei …w §p‹ tÚ polÊ. k Cf Wounds 10, ed Potter: ÜO ti dÉ, ín mØ dÊnhtai prosst∞nai, ≤ sårj ÍgrØ §oËsa afit¤h §stin.

  ‒  

483

the surrounds.” Then he also writes about the treatment of varices. In addition, he mentions the purification of the whole body, especially in cases where the wound runs the risk of becoming gangrenous, in shingles, and in all the “eating” sores—for this is how Hippocrates used to call the eroded wounds. Note that, in the sequel, he repeats the idea somehow like this: “In any [278] wound, if an erysipelas develops on it, you should proceed to the cleansing of the whole body.” And, generally, if you care to peruse the book On wounds, you will find that Hippocrates always derives the indication from the state, and that sometimes he avails himself of the [sc factor of ] time for diagnosing the state. You would learn that this is how things are even at the very beginning of the treatise, which runs as follows: “One should not moisten a wound with anything except wine”—because quite often a different state which is interwoven with the wound prevents one from treating it qua wound. By way of explaining the cause he says: “For dryness is closer to health, moistness to unhealthiness.” And further: “For wound is moist, while healthy [sc tissue] is dry.” For this reason, throughout the whole treatise he submits that the aim of every [sc form of ] therapy for wounds is to dry them, and it is in this way that he looks for particular facts—also reminding us quite often about the aim. For instance, when he writes: “Any wound which has been produced by cleaving or splitting with a sharp arrow requires an enaimon remedy which prevents suppuration and dries up”—“since the wound becomes drier when blood flows out” [279]—or again, “those [sc wounds] which have been properly and duly cleansed are treated by being made drier, unless they are bruised”, or again, “whenever it [sc a wound] cannot be closed, the cause consists in the flesh being moist”—in all these passages he alludes to the primary aim of the treatment of wounds. For the remedy of a wound qua wound consists in moderate drying; the demonstration for this has been given in the previous book. But the therapy of a wound accompanied by another state, which must be taken care of first, is no longer the therapy of a wound only qua wound: the therapy of the state in question comes first, that of the wound follows after it. For when some inflammation, blackness, ecchymosis, erysipelas, or oidema works upon wounded flesh, one

484

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

po›syai tØn yerape¤an. ÉAllÉ ˜ti ge tÚ ßlkow §n toÊtƒ t“ xrÒnƒ mØ ˜ti yerapeÊetai proshkÒntvw éllå ka‹ polÁ me›zon •autoË g¤gnetai, pant¤ pou d∞lon: e‡te går ylasye¤h tå p°rij xvr¤a toË ßlkouw, e‡te flegmonÆ tiw, e‡tÉ ˆgkow ßterow §n aÈto›w susta¤h, tØn ofike¤an §ke¤nhw t∞w diay°sevw ‡asin §jeurÆsomen, eÔ efidÒtew …w oÈx oÂÒn tÉ §st‹n [280] fiay∞nai tÚ ßlkow pr‹n Ígiçnai tÚ xvr¤on §n ⁄ sun°sth. Diå toËtÉ oÔn ka‹ aÈtÚw ı ÑIppokrãthw, énamimnÆskvn ≤mçw œn eÈyÁw §n érxª toË suggrãmmatow épefÆnato, tå têlla tå mikr“ prÒsyen efirhm°na pros°grace ka‹ m°ntoi ka‹ tãde: “T«n d¢ •lk°vn ˜ ti m¢n ín Ùje› b°lei µ diatmhyª µ diakopª, §nd°xetai ka‹ ¶naimon fãrmakon tÚ kvlËon diapÊein ka‹ énajhra›non. E‡ tiw dÉ ÍpÚ toË b°louw §ylãsyh te ka‹ diekÒph sãrj, taÊthn fiatreÊein ˜pvw diãpuow …w tãxista g°nhtai: ≤ttÒn te går flegma¤nei: ka‹ énãgkh tåw sãrkaw tåw ylasye¤saw ka‹ kope¤saw ka‹ sape¤saw ka‹ pËon gennvm°naw §ktak∞nai, ¶peita blastãnein n°aw sãrkaw.”l Dhlo› går §n toÊtƒ t“ lÒgƒ saf«w …w mÒnaw §ke¤naw t«n §n to›w ≤lkvm°noiw m°resi gignom°nvn diay°sevn oÈ xrØ jhra¤nein §fÉ œn ˜ ti tãxista genn∞sai boulÒmeya pËon, eÈyÁw sunemfa¤nvn ˜ti metå sÆce≈w tinow gennçtai tÚ pËon. ÜApanta d¢ tå shpÒmena yerm“ ka‹ Ígr“ toËto pãsxei. Ka‹ to¤nun ka‹ tå diå t∞w »mhlÊsevw kataplãsmata yerma¤nontã te ka‹ Ígra¤nonta prosf°romen §p‹ pas«n t«n §kpu∞sai deom°nvn [281] diay°sevn. ÉVmÆlusiw går diÉ Ídrela¤ou ka‹ êrtow diÉ Ídrela¤ou ka‹ kataiÒnhsiw diÉ Ïdatow yermoË polloË ka‹ ≤ tetrafãrmakow dÊnamiw ëpantã te tå yerma¤nonta ka‹ Ígra¤nonta diapu˝skei tãxista. Diå toËto ka‹ to›w flegma¤nousi mor¤oiw, §peidån ≥dh sfÊz˙ sfodrÒteron …w épelpisy∞nai tØn xvr‹w diapuÆsevw ‡asin, §pÉ aÈt«n ëpantew ofl palaio‹ tå toiaËta prosf°rousi fãrmaka, prÒteron dÉ oÎ. Ka‹ toËto ka‹ aÈtÚw ı ÑIppokrãthw §narg«w ≤mçw didãskei katã te tØn progegramm°nhn =∞sin, §n √ keleÊei tå m¢n xvr‹w toË teylãsyai tetrvm°na mÒria jhra¤nein …w mãlista, tå dÉ ëma ylãsei tin‹ gegenhm°na diapu˝skein …w tãxista. Ka‹ m°ntoi kôpeidån e‡p˙: “Tå d¢ ßlkea ˜sa mØ kal«w kayary°nta §w tÚ d°on ée‹ prÒteron êrjetai blastãnein, taËta Ípersark°ei mãlista: ıko›a dÉ ín kayary°nta kal«w ka‹ §w tÚ d°on ée‹ §p‹ tÚ jhrÒteron yerapeÊesyai plØn efi ylasyª: taËta oÈx Ípersark°ei …w §pipolÊ.”m Ka‹ går ka‹ §ntaËya tÚ plØn efi ylasyª proske¤menon énamimnÆskei toË katå tØn [282] progegramm°nhn l°jin efirhm°nou, toË xr∞nai pãnta jhra¤nesyai plØn t«n ylasy°ntvn. OÈd¢

l

Cf Wounds 1, ed Potter: T«n d¢ •lk°vn ˜ ti m¢n ín Ùje› b°lei diatmhyª µ diakopª, §nd°xetai ¶naimon fãrmakon ka‹ tÚ kvlËon diapÊein énajhra›nÒn ti. E‡ tiw dÉ ÍpÚ toË b°louw §flãsyh te ka‹ §kÒph sãrj, taÊthn fihtreÊein ˜kvw diãpuow …w tãxista g°nhtai: ≤ttÒn te går flegma¤nei: ka‹ énãgkh tåw sãrkaw tåw flasye¤saw ka‹ kope¤saw sape¤saw ka‹ pËon genom°naw §ktak∞nai, ¶peita blastãnein n°aw sãrkaw. m Cf Wounds 6, ed Potter: Tå ßlkea ıkÒsa ín kayary°nta kal«w te ka‹ §w tÚ d°on ée‹ §p‹ tÚ jhrÒteron poi∞tai tØn blãsthsin: taËta d¢ oÈx Ípersark°ei …w §p‹ tÚ polÊ. (Also supra, n. 19).

  ‒  

485

must set about treating that first. And it is absolutely clear that during that period the wound, far from being treated straightaway, grows even larger than it was; for whether the surrounding parts are crushed, or an inflammation—or some other distension—works upon them, we will search for the cure specific to that state, being well aware that the wound cannot possibly [280] heal before the parts where it is located are cured. This, therefore, is why Hippocrates himself, reminding us of what he declared right at the beginning of the treatise, added among other things the passage quoted shortly before, and especially this: “Any wound which has been produced by cleaving or splitting with a sharp arrow requires a bleeding remedy which prevents suppuration and dries up. If a portion of flesh has been crushed and split by the arrow, one should treat it in such a way that it may start to suppurate as soon as possible; for then it gets inflamed to a minimum; and it is necessary for crushed or severed flesh which became putrid and is producing pus to ooze out before new flesh would grow.” In this passage Hippocrates shows clearly that we are exempt from the obligation of drying a state which occurs in the wounded parts only in the case of states where we wish to bring about the suppuration as soon as possible. For anything that becomes putrid undergoes this process under the influence of the hot and the moist. Accordingly, in all the states which require bringing to suppuration we apply plasters made of bruised raw corn, which have a heating and moistening effect. [281] For bruised raw corn in a mixture of water and oil, bread in a mixture of water and oil, fomentations in large quantities of hot water, the four-drugs compound [tetrapharmakos], and everything that has a heating and moistening effect promotes suppuration very quickly. This is why all the ancients apply such medicines to the inflamed parts when these are already throbbing so violently that one loses hope of recovery without suppuration—but not before that stage. And Hippocrates himself teaches us this fact openly in the text mentioned above, where he instructs us to dry as much as possible the parts which have been wounded without being crushed, but to produce suppuration as soon as possible in those which have also suffered some crushing. Moreover, he says afterwards: “The wounds which have not been properly and duly cleansed will always start to renew the tissue before the appointed time: these above all grow excessive flesh. But those which have been properly and duly cleansed are treated by being made drier, unless they are bruised: as a rule they do not grow excessive flesh.” And by adding “unless they are bruised”, especially at this point, he reminds us of what he had said in [282] the passage quoted above—namely that all the wounds should be made dry, with the exception of those that are bruised. For when inflamed

486

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

går ıpÒte tå flegma¤nonta kataplãssetai yerma¤nonti ka‹ Ígra¤nonti kataplãsmati katå pr«ton lÒgon g¤gnetai toËto, toËtÉ ¶stin oÈx …w ‡ama t∞w diay°sevw, éllÉ …w parhgor¤a toË sumpt≈matow, §pe¤ toi tå t«n flegmon«n aÈt«n fiãmata t∞w jhrot°raw §st‹ dunãmevw. ÖAkouson goËn l°gontow toË ÑIppokrãtouw: “Kataplãsmata ofidhmãtvn ka‹ flegmas¤hw t∞w §n to›w peri°xousin efi •fyª flÒmow ka‹ t∞w trifÊllou tå fÊlla »må ka‹ toË §pip°trou tå fÊlla •fyå ka‹ tÚ pÒlion”:n ëpanta går taËta jhra¤nein p°fuke, kayÒti kôn to›w Per‹ farmãkvn ÍpomnÆmasin §l°geto. Ka‹ ≤ sÊntomow yerape¤a t«n flegmainÒntvn mor¤vn diå t«n toioÊtvn §pitele›tai farmãkvn, ì ≥toi tel°vw §jiçtai tØn diãyesin ≥, efi ka‹ katale¤pei ti braxÁ diapu˝skon, •t°rou xrπzei farmãkou drim°ow §kkenoËn dunam°nou tÚ pËon: ≥, e‡per leptÚn e‡h tÚ peri°xon d°rma ka‹ yçtton épallãjai tÚn kãmnonta boulÒmeya, tom∞w §sti xre¤a. ÑH d¢ diå t∞w »mhlÊsevw égvgØ t«n flegmai[283]nÒntvn §k toË parhgorikoË trÒpou t∞w t°xnhw §st¤n, oÈ toË yerapeutikoË te ka‹ égvnistikoË: éllå per‹ m¢n t∞w t«n toioÊtvn diaforçw §n to›w •j∞w pl°on §roËmen. ÜOti d¢ tå ßlkh pãnta jhra¤nein ı ÑIppokrãthw keleÊei, ka‹ ˜ti tÚn skopÚn {e‰nai}10 t∞w fiãsevw épefÆnato t∞w diay°sevw §ndeijam°nhw, oÈ toË xrÒnou, saf«w ≥dh moi dede›xyai nom¤zv. Efi d° tiw §p‹ mçllon peisy∞nai boÊletai, t“ Per‹ t«n •lk«n bibl¤ƒ téndrÚw §pipl°on ımilhsãtv pãnta: gn≈setai går §narg«w aÈto te toËto, tÚ m¤an e‰nai pãntvn •lk«n ‡asin kayÒlou tØn ÍfÉ ≤m«n §n t“ prÚ toÊtou lÒgƒ dedeigm°nhn: ¶ti te prÚw toÊtƒ kôke›no mayÆsetai, tÚ mhdem¤an Ípãrxein ¶ndeijin épÚ toË xrÒnou mÆtÉ §p‹ t«n •lk«n mÆtÉ §p‹ t«n flegmon«n mÆyÉ èpl«w §pÉ êllhw ≤stinosoËn diay°sevw. ÉEpe‹ d¢ katå toËto toË lÒgou gegÒnamen, §pide›jai d¤kaiÒn …w oÈ mÒnon œn êrti dielhlÊyamen eÍretØw ı ÑIppokrãthw §st‹ éllå ka‹ t«n êllvn èpãntvn ˜sa xrØ gign≈skein tÚn m°llonta kal«w ßlkow fiãsasyai. Fa¤netai går oÈ mÒnon t«n êneu tinÚw •t°raw diay°sevw •lk«n §jeur∆n tØn ‡asin, [284] …w §n t“ jhra¤nein §st¤n, éllå ka‹ t«n diay°sevn èpas«n, •kãsthw fid¤& katÉ e‰dow. ÖHtoi går oÈk°tÉ §pirre› t“ dedegm°nƒ tØn ßlkvsin mor¤ƒ moxyhrÚw xumÒw, µ §pirre›: mhk°ti m¢n oÔn §pirr°ontow, aÈtÚ mÒnon fiçsyai xrØ tÚ peponyÒw, efi m¢n ≥toi pelidnÚn µ m°lan µ §ruyrÚn e‡h, sxãzontãw te ka‹ toË a·matow éfairoËntaw, e‰yÉ oÏtvw paraxr∞ma m¢n §piy°ntaw, …w aÈtÚw ¶lege, “spÒggion jhrÒteron mçllon µ ÍgrÒteron”o (oÈ går égnoÆsein o‰ma¤ tina tÚ “µ” mÒrion épofãsevw ¶xon §ntaËya dÊnamin, …w efi ka‹ oÏtvw e‰pe: “jhrÒteron oÈx ÍgrÒteron”), ¶peita d¢ to›w jhra¤nousi farmãkoiw xrvm°nouw, e‰t, efi pãlin deÆseien, aÔyiw a·matow éfairoËntaw: e‰tÉ aÔyiw tå toiaËta poioËntaw êxriw ín §jugiasyª tel°vw: efi d¢ tå xe¤lh sklhrå ka‹ tul≈dh n

Cf Wounds 11, ed Potter: Kataplãsmata ofidhmãtvn ka‹ flegmas¤hw t∞w §n to›w peri°xousin ≤ •fyØ flÒmow ka‹ t∞w trifÊllou tå fÊlla »må ka‹ toË §pip°trou tå fÊlla •fyå ka‹ tÚ pÒlion. o Cf Wounds 2, ed Potter: spÒggon §pide›n puknÚn ka‹ malyakÒn, tetmhm°non, jhrÒteron µ ÍgrÒteron. 10

del ego

  ‒  

487

parts are plastered in a heating and moistening plaster, this is not done for the primary reason, that is, as a means of treating the state, but as a means of allaying the symptom, since remedies of the inflammations themselves are rather drying. Do listen to Hippocrates saying: “Plasters for oidemas and for inflammation in the surrounding parts: boiled mullein, raw leaves of clover, boiled leaves of rock-plant, hulwort”; for all these are drying by nature, as was also explained in the commentaries On medicines. Summarily described, the therapy of the inflamed parts is accomplished through medicines of this sort, which either cure the state completely or, in case any bit of suppurating matter remains, require another medicine, drying and capable of eliminating the pus; or, if the surrounding skin is feeble, or if we wish to relieve the patient more rapidly, there is the expedient of cutting. But the handling of inflammations through raw corn [283] belongs to the branch of medicine which allays the suffering, not to the branch which treats and fights the disease; and in what follows we shall say more about the distinction between these branches. I consider to have already demonstrated beyond doubt that Hippocrates advises us to dry all the wounds, and that he gave an account of the aim of their cure such that the state and not the time would indicate it. But if one wishes to be persuaded at greater length, let him make the full and detailed acquaintance of the man’s book On wounds; he will also find out, to be sure, that there is just one general treatment for all the wounds, namely the one that we presented in the preceding book; and he will learn the truth that there is no indication to be got from the [sc factor of ] time, whether we deal with wounds, inflammations, or just any state whatsoever. And, since we have reached this point in the argument, it would be fair to point out that Hippocrates is the discoverer not only of what we presented so far, but of everything else that one must know if he is to treat a wound properly. For he appears to have discovered not only the cure for wounds which are not accompanied by some other state [284]—namely, that it consists in drying them—but the cure for all the states—for each one individually, according to its kind. For either the malignant humour no longer flows into the part which hosts the ulceration, or it does. Now then: if it no longer flows, we should treat only the affected part: if it looks livid or black or red, we should open it and let out the blood, then we should immediately apply, as Hippocrates puts it, “a sponge which is drier rather than moister” (I believe that nobody will be ignorant of the fact that the constituent “rather than” here has the force of a negative, as if Hippocrates had expressed himself thus: “drier not moister”); afterwards we should make use of drying remedies, then, if need be, let out the blood again; and we should repeat such operations until the recovery is complete. On the other hand, if the edges look hard and callous, we should cut them around. What he

488

5

10

15

20

25

  ‒  -

fa¤noito,11 perit°mnontaw aÈtã. Ka‹ går dØ ka‹ per‹ toÊtvn fhs¤: “T«n dÉ •lk°vn tå kukloter∞, µn ÍpÒkoila ¬, §n kÊklƒ perit°mnein xrØ tå éfest«ta, µ pãnta µ tå ≤m¤sea toË kÊklou, katå m∞kow toË ényr≈pou.”p G°grafe d¢ ka‹ per‹ t«n ëma to›w ßlkesin ˆgkvn [285] èpãntvn …w xrØ yerapeÊein ßkaston: …saÊtvw d¢ ka‹ per‹ t«n kirs«n: ˜tan ka‹ diå toÊtouw ßlkh dus¤ata g¤gnhtai, d∞lon …w §pirr°ontÒw tinow §j aÈt«n to›w ≤lkvm°noiw mor¤oiw. OÏtvw d¢ kôpeidån §j ˜lou toË s≈matow ≤ §pirroØ g¤gnhtai, kaya¤rein keleÊei tÚ pçn, §n oÈden‹ toÊtvn épÚ toË xrÒnou tØn ¶ndeijin lambãnvn, §pe¤ toi ka‹ gelo›on épÚ miçw koinÒthtow §nde¤jeiw oÏtv pollåw ka‹ diaferoÊsaw ka‹ pollãkiw §nant¤aw g¤gnesyai. Efi går ka‹ sugxvrÆsaimen ¶ndeij¤n tina per‹ toË xrÒnou lambãnesyai, t¤w potÉ §stin aÈtØ d¤kaion efipe›n aÈtØn •n‹ kefala¤ƒ perilabÒnta, kayãper §p‹ t«n êllvn èpãntvn poioËmen—oÈx ≤me›w mÒnon éllå ka‹ aÈtÚw ı YessalÒw. àEn goËn §nde¤knutai kayÒlou tÚ stegnÚn pãyow aÈt“ tÚ xalòn, Àsper ge ka‹ tÚ =o«dew ©n ßteron tÚ st°llein. ÉAllå ka‹ katÉ aÈtå tå ßlkh tÚ m¢n =uparÚn kaya¤resyai de›tai tÚ d¢ ko›lon plhroËsyai, ka‹ tÚ m¢n ımal¢w §pouloËsyai tÚ d¢ ÍpersarkoËn kayaire›syai, ka‹ katÉ aÈtÚn §ke›non: lejãtv to¤nun ≤m›n oÏtv [286] kôp‹ toË kexronism°nou ti toioËton ßteron ßn, …w §pÉ §ke¤nvn •kãstou: éllÉ oÈk ¶xei. Ka‹ går ka‹ perit°mnein aÈtã fhsi xr∞nai. Ka¤toi t¤w ín ¶ndeijiw aÏth noËn ¶xousa per‹ toË xrÒnou g¤gnoito; Ka‹ t“ diå toË nãpuow xr∞syai farmãkƒ, kayÉ o tÚ kenÚn ˆnoma fy°ggetai tØn “metasÊgkrisin”, ¶ti te, prÚw toÊtoiw, to›w épÚ =afan¤dvn §m°toiw, ka‹ teleut«n, §peidån mhk°yÉ eÍr¤sk˙ mhd°n, §llebÒrƒ; ÉAllå taËta m°n, …w ¶fhn, kôn to›w •j∞w §p‹ pl°on efirÆsetai, deiknÊntvn ≤m«n …w oÈd¢n §pÉ oÈdenÚw nosÆmatow ı xrÒnow §nde¤knutai, shme›on m°ntoi pollãkiw g¤gnetai t∞w diay°sevw.

p

Cf Wounds 8, ed Potter: T«n •lk°vn tå kukloter°a, µn ÍpÒkoila ¬, §n kÊklƒ pãnth §pit°mnein xrØ tå éfeste«ta, µ pãnta µ tå ≤m¤sea toË kÊklou, katå m∞kow t∞w fÊsiow toË ényr≈pou. 11

corr ego: fa¤nointo K

FR 181. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(27)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, IV vi, pp. 286–287 K: [vi, 286] ÉEpãneimi d¢ pãlin §p‹ tÚn ÑIppokrãthn: yaumãzv går t∞w ékribe¤aw tÚn êndra kôn to›w êlloiw ëpasin, oÈx ¥kista d¢ kôn t“ 30 mØ paralipe›n efiw ¶ndeijin diaf°ronta skopÒn—oÈk §fÉ •nÚw mÒnon µ duo›n éllÉ §p‹ pãntvn èpl«w t«n noshmãtvn. ÖEsti dÉ otow ı épÚ t∞w fisxÊow t∞w diay°sevw lambanÒmenow: oÈ mÒnon ofl Meyodiko‹ pare›don—

489

  ‒  -

actually says about them is this: “If circular wounds are slightly hollow, you should cut around all the portions that project—either the whole circle or the half of it, according to the size of the person.” Hippocrates also wrote about every kind of swelling that may occur in combination with a wound, [285] how each one should be treated; and he did the same for varices: when it is because of them that wounds become difficult to heal, it is clear that something is flowing from them towards the wounded parts. So, when the flow comes from the whole body, he instructs us to cleanse it all, and in none of these [sc prescriptions] does he take the indication from the [sc factor of ] time; since it is surely ridiculous to suppose that so numerous and so different—and often even conflicting—indications derive from just one koinotes. For if we were to agree that some sort of indication is taken in relation to time, it would be fair to say what that is, pinning it down through one summary, as we do with every other notion—and not just us, but in fact Thessalus himself as well. At any rate, the constricted affection indicates to him one thing universally, to relax, just as flux indicates its opposite, to bind. But among the wounds themselves, one that is filthy also needs to be cleaned, one that is hollow needs filling up; further, one that is even needs cicatrisation, one that has superfluous flesh needs bringing down—even according to him [sc Thessalus]. Well then, let him talk to us in this manner [286] about a wound which has become chronic, [sc giving] some other single account, just as [sc he does] in the case of each of the [sc wounds] above; but he cannot. For in fact he claims that one should cut around. Further, what sensible indication could there be in relation to time, or could lead to the use of the mustard remedy (in connection with which he utters that empty word, “metasyncrisis”), then, further still, [sc to the use] of vomiting provoked by radishes, and, in the end, when he found nothing else, [sc to the use] of hellebore? But, as I said, all this will receive detailed treatment in the forthcoming material, as we will show that time indicates nothing in any disease whatsoever, although quite often it is a sign of the state.

FR 181. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(27)

Galenus, On the Method of Therapy, IV vi, pp. 286–287 K: [vi, 286] I shall return again to Hippocrates; for I am amazed by the accuracy he displayed in everything, and especially in not overlooking the [sc kind of ] aim [skopos] that is important for indication—and not in one or two diseases but in all of them, without qualification. The aim in question is the one which derives from the intensity of the state; not only the Metho-

490

  ‒  -

oÈd¢n går toËtÒ ge yaumastÒn—éllå ka‹ t«n Logik«n ofl [287] ple›stoi: ka‹ kayÉ ßteron trÒpon ëpantew ofl ÉEmpeiriko¤.

FR 182. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(28)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, V i, pp. 305–306 K: [i, 305] TØn t«n •lk«n ‡asin …w ên tiw êrista poio›to diå t«n ¶mprosyen toËde duo›n Ípomnhmãtvn dierxÒmenow, ka‹ toÁw êllouw m¢n ëpantaw 5 fiatroÁw ˜soi xvr‹w toË zhte›tai tå stoixe›a t«n èpl«n §n ≤m›n mor¤vn ëptontai t∞w t°xnhw oÈ dunam°nouw oÈd¢n fiãsasyai meyÒdƒ, pãntvn d¢ mãlista toÁw tØn YessaloË presbeÊontaw a·resin, §p°deija. Ofl m¢n går êlloi tã gÉ §n to›w diaf°rousi m°resin ßlkh diafÒrvw yerapeÊein éjioËsin ÍpÚ t∞w pe¤raw dedidagm°noi: to›w dÉ épÚ toË YessaloË diå 10 tÚ perittÚn t∞w sof¤aw ëpan [306] ßlkow ımo¤aw doke› de›syai yerape¤aw §n ˜tƒper ín ¬ m°rei toË z–ou gegonÒw: efi m¢n går e‡h ko›lon, énaplhr≈sevw aÈtÒ fasi xrπzein: efi dÉ ımal°w, §poul≈sevw: efi dÉ ÍpersarkoËn, kayair°sevw: efi dÉ ¶naimÒn te ka‹ prÒsfaton, kollÆsevw. ÜVsper t“ taËta gign≈skein ékÒlouyon §j énãgkhw tÚ yerapeÊein 15 Ùry«w. ÉAllÉ oÈx‹ koinÚn m¢n toËto ka‹ prÚw toÁw fidi≈taw Ípãrxon, oÈde‹w oÔn égnoe› t«n =hy°ntvn oÈd°n: oÈ mØn oÎyÉ …w xrØ sark«sai tÚ ko›lon oÎyÉ …w §poul«sai tÚ peplhrvm°non µ kataste›lai tÚ ÍperaujanÒmenon µ sumfËsai to kayarÒn te ka‹ mØ ko›lon §p¤stantai.

FR 183. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(29)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, V iii, p. 319 K: [iii, 319] . . . “ÑR¤zan” dÉ égge¤ou kal« tÚ prÒteron aÈtoË m°row, ≥toi 20 t“ ¥pati sunãpton µ tª kard¤&. ToÊtƒ1 dÉ §n traxÆlƒ m°n §sti tÚ kãtvyen, §n xers‹ d¢ ka‹ sk°lesi tÚ ênvyen, §n •kãstƒ te t«n êllvn mor¤vn, …w §j énatom∞w ¶nesti maye›n—∂n oÈdÉ aÈtØn ofl ém°yodoi pros¤entai Yessãleioi.

1

ego: toËto K

491

  ‒  -

dists passed it over—which is in no way surprising —but also [287] most of the Logical doctors and, in a different way, all the Empiricists.

FR 182. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(28)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, V i, pp. 305–306 K: [i, 305] Throughout the last two books I have given an account of how one should go about treating wounds in the best way, and I have shown that all the other doctors who engage in our profession without searching for the elements [stoicheia] of the simple parts in us, and most of all those who revere the hairesis of Thessalus, are not capable of treating according to method. For others propose to treat wounds located in different parts by different means, as experience taught them; but the followers of Thessalus, owing to their excess of wisdom, think that every [306] wound needs the same treatment, no matter which part of the animal it has occurred in; and they claim that, if it is hollow, it requires filling up, if it is even, cicatrisation, if it is covered with superfluous flesh, bringing down, if it is bleeding and recent, closing up. So, treating correctly would be a necessary consequence of knowing these things. But this [sc treating correctly] is not [sc something] shared with ordinary folk; yet no one indeed is ignorant of any of the facts I stated, but they certainly don’t know how to make flesh grow on a hollow wound, how to bring to cicatrisation a wound which has been filled up, how to diminish a wound covered with superfluous flesh, or how to unite a wound which is clean and not hollow.

FR 183. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(29)

Galenus, On the Method of Therapy, V iii, p. 319 K: [iii, 319] . . . I call “root” of the vessel [sc of the aorta] the first part of it, which is connected both to the liver and to the heart. On the way up it goes to the neck, on the way down it goes to the arms, legs, and every other member, as one can learn from anatomy—yet another [sc subject] which the un-Methodical Thessaleans do not approve of.

492

  ‒   FR 184. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(30)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, V x, pp. 346–355 K:

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

[x, 346] AÔyiw oÔn §p‹ tåw meyÒdouw én°lyvmen, §pideiknÊntew ˜son ≤ koinØ pãntvn •lk«n ‡asiw §jallãttetai katÉ e‰dow §n •kãstƒ toË z–ou mor¤ƒ. MayhsÒmeya går §k toËde mãlista m¢n ˘ diÉ ˜lhw prÒkeitai t∞w pragmate¤aw, énamartÆtouw e‰nai katå tåw fiãseiw—§n par°rgƒ d¢ ka‹ tØn t«n •autoÁw Ùnomasãntvn MeyodikoÁw tÒlman. Efi går §mo‹ xrÆ ti pisteËsai, mhd¢n mÆte prÚw xãrin efivyÒti mÆte prÚw ép°xyeian l°gein, èpãntvn t«n fiatr«n ˆntew émeyod≈tatoi kategn≈kasin, Àw ge dØ grãfousin, oÈ mÒnon t«n êllvn palai«n éllå ka‹ toË pas«n t«n meyÒdvn ≤m›n ≤gemÒnow ÑIppokrãtouw. ÑO m¢n oÔn ÉEmpeirikÚw fiatrÚw §k pe¤raw fhs‹n §gn«syai pãnyÉ ëper ≤me›w [347] diÉ §nde¤jevw eÍr¤skesyai de¤knumen. Tr¤tou dÉ oÈdenÚw ˆntow oÈdemiçw eÍr°sevw Ùrgãnou parã te tØn ¶ndeijin ka‹ tØn pe›ran, oÈdet°rƒ xr≈menoi Meyodiko‹ kale›syai dikaioËsin. ÉAkolouyhsãtvsan oÔn ≤m›n ka‹ nËn goËn efiw tØn t«n kayÉ ßkaston m°row •lk«n yerape¤an §pedeijãtvsãn te m¤an èpãntvn ‡asin. ÉAkoÊsvmen aÈt«n ˜pvw yerapeÊousin ßlkow ≥ tinaw §nde¤jeiw épÉ aÈtoË lambãnousin: îrÉ êllaw tinåw µ tÚ m¢n ımal¢w §poul«sai keleÊousi, tÚ d¢ ko›lon sark«sai, tÚ dÉ ¶naimon sumfËsai; P«w oÔn eÏrv tã tÉ §poulvtikå ka‹ tå sarkvtikå ka‹ tå kollhtikå ka‹ tå sumfutikã; “MØ kãmne” fas¤n: “eÏrhtai går”. ÉAllÉ oÈk o‰dÉ efi kal«w µ efi pãnta: dÊnatai går ≥toi gÉ eÍr∞syai m°n tina t«n faulot°rvn, oÈx eÍr∞syai d¢ tå belt¤v, µ ka‹ tå dokoËnta eÍr∞syai ka‹ aÈtå e‰nai moxyhrã: ka‹ diå toËto tå m¢n mhdÒlvw yerapeÊesyai t«n •lkvn, tå dÉ §n xrÒnƒ pl°oni ka‹ sÁn élghdÒsi ka‹ limagxon¤aiw oÈk énagka¤aiw. OÈd¢ tolmò tiw §piy°syai nevt°ran [348] pe›ran pr‹n µ •autÚn pe›sai t∞w ¶mprosyen égvg∞w Ùry«w kategnvk°nai: oÂon aÈt¤ka per‹ t«n §n pneumÒni sunistam°nvn •lk«n, ì mhd¢ diagn«nai tØn érxØn o‰Òn tÉ §st‹n êneu t∞w énatom∞w te ka‹ t∞w t«n §nergei«n gn≈sevw, ëper émfÒtera feÊgousin. ÉAllå sugkexvrÆsyv katã ge tÚ parÚn §gn«syai to›w per‹ tÚn YessalÚn ßlkow §n pneumÒni gegonÒw. PÒteron oÔn Àsper toËto sunexvrÆsamen aÈto›w, oÏtv ka‹ ˜ti =uparÚn µ kayarÒn, µ ˜ti ko›lon µ ımal°w, µ fix≈rvn µ pÊou mestÚn §p¤stasyai sugxvrÆsomen, ≥toi gÉ §j §pino¤aw §ny°ou µ ˆnar fidoËsin; áH kôn toÊtƒ goËn §rvtÆsomen aÈtoÁw tåw diagn≈seiw, µ xvr‹w toË diagn«nai didÒnai sugxvrÆsomen ˜ ti boÊloito fãrmakon efid°nai; ÉEg∆ m¢n går ≤goËmai kay∞rai m¢n xr∞nai t«n =upar«n prÒteron tØn =upÒn, sark«sai d¢ tÚ kayarÚn ëma ka‹ ko›lon, épokay∞rai d¢ toÁw fix«rãw te ka‹ tÚ pËon ⁄ perik°xutai toËta, kõpeiyÉ oÏtvw §pouloËn. Ofl dÉ oÈk o‰dÉ ˜pvw fiãsontai ka‹ tå

493

  ‒   FR 184. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(30)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, V x, pp. 346–355 K: [x, 346] So let us get back again to the [sc question of ] methods, showing to what extent the cure which is common to all the wounds varies in kind in each part of an animal. For it is primarily from this [sc principle], which underlies the whole book, that we shall learn how to be free from error in our cures—and, incidentally, [sc we shall learn] also about the recklessness of those who called themselves “Methodists”. For if one is to give me any credit—me, who do not usually speak for favour or out of animosity—they, who are the most un-Methodical of all doctors, show contempt—at least in what they write—not only for the rest of the ancients but even for no other than Hippocrates, the princeps of all our methods. Now, the Empirical doctor claims to come to know through experience everything that we [347] demonstrably discover through indication. And, although apart from indication and experience there is no third instrument that would lead to any discovery, they, using neither, deem it right to call themselves Methodists. Well, let them follow us right now into [sc the subject of ] the treatment of wounds in every [sc bodily] part, and let them point to us one single cure for all. Let us hear them say how they treat a wound and what indications they take from it: apart from scarring over the even wound, making the flesh grow in a hollow wound, or uniting a bleeding wound, do they have any other [sc indications]? So then: how am I to discover the remedies which promote scar formation [epoulotika], flesh growth [sarkotika], gluing [kolletika], or unification [sumphutika]? “Don’t you worry”, they say; “they have been discovered.” But whether well or completely, I don’t know; for it is possible that, while some of the inferior remedies have been discovered, the superior ones have not, or that those which count as discovered are in fact no good; which is why one lot do not cure wounds at all, another do it over a long time and at the cost of unnecessary pains and starvation. One does not venture to attempt a new [sc type of ] [348] experiment before satisfying oneself that one’s rejection of the previous procedure is well grounded; for a start, take the case of wounds located in the lung, which it is not even possible to diagnose from the start without a knowledge of anatomy and of the activities [sc of bodily parts]— both of which they [sc the Methodists] evade. But for the time being let us grant that Thessalus’ pupils have recognised a wound which developed in the lung. So then, as we granted them this, shall we also grant that they know, through divine inspiration or because they saw it in a dream, whether the wound is filthy or clean, hollow or even, full of serum or pus? So, shall we ask them to give their diagnosis on these points, or shall we grant that they know without diagnosis how to administer the desired remedy? For I should think that one must first clear away the filth of filthy wounds, then make the flesh grow on a wound which is both clean and hollow, eliminate the serum and the pus from one in which there are such affluxions, and so bring it to cicatrisation in the end. But where they are concerned,

494

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

toiaËta t«n •lk«n: tØn érxØn går oÈdÉ ¶grac° ti [349] YessalÚw Íp¢r aÈt«n, ·nÉ ≥toi tØn égno¤an µ tØn ésumfvn¤an aÈtoË prÚw •autÚn §pide¤j˙. ÖHtoi går êloga ka‹ ceud∞ per‹ aÈt«n §roËsin µ, e‡per élhy∞ t¤w fhsi, tØn ¶ndeijin aÈt«n énagka›on §k t∞w oÈs¤aw gen°syai toË mor¤ou ka‹ pros°ti y°se≈w te ka‹ diaplãsevw. ÑUpoke¤syv går aÈtoÁw §p¤stasyai diagign≈skein ßlkow §n pneÊmoni =uparÚn ka‹ kayarÒn, éfl°gmantÒn te ka‹ flegma›non, ımal°w te ka‹ ko›lon: ¶ti d¢ ka‹ toËtÉ aÈto›w sugxvre¤syv gign≈skein—oÈ mØn oÈdÉ aÈtoË ka¤toi ge mikrotãtou gÉ ˆntow ¶xousin efipe›n fid¤an eÏrhsin—˜ti tÚ toioËton ßlkow ÍpÚ toË xlvroË farmãkou g¤gnetai kayarÒn, efi boÊlei toË Maxair¤vnow µ t∞w ÖIsidow, oÈd¢n går diaf°rei. T¤ potÉ oÔn poiÆsousin §p‹ toË katå tÚ splãgxnon ßlkouw; ÉApokrin°syvsan ≤m›n. âArã ge katapie›n d≈sousi toË xlvroË farmãkou; Gelo›on m¢n ˜lvw tÚ prçgma. ÉEpeidØ går §k t∞w énatom∞w ¶gnvstai ≤ efiw tÚn pneÊmona t«n farmãkvn d¤odow, ofl dÉ épÚ toË YessaloË tØn énatomØn diaptÊousi, pÒyen gn≈sontai ˜pvw efiw tÚn pneÊmona tÚ fãrmakon poreÊetai; Leg°tvsan oÔn ≤m›n, [350] pÒyen ‡sasin §nexyhsÒmenon efiw tÚn pneÊmona tÚ toioËton fãrmakon; Efi dÉ êra ka‹ toËtÉ ‡sasin, éllÉ ˜ti ge fulãjei tØn aÈtØn dÊnamin ∂n §p‹ t«n •lk«n t«n §ktÚw e‰xen oÈx oÂÒn te gign≈skein aÈto›w. ÉAllå dØ ka‹ gignvsk°tvsan ˜ti te fulãjei tØn aÈtØn dÊnamin ∂n §p‹ t«n §ktÚw •lk«n e‰xe ka‹ ˜ti kayarie› tÚn =Êpon: oÈ mØn ˜ti ge b∞xa kinÆsei dunatÚn aÈto›w §p¤stasyai, xvr‹w d¢ toË diå bhxÚw §kkayary∞nai tÚn =Êpon oÈd¢ toË =ÊptontÒw §st‹ xre¤a farmãkou. Sugxvre¤syv dÉ oÔn ka‹ toËtÉ aÈto›w. ÉAllå tÒ ge diãforon §fÉ ßlkouw pepoi∞syai yerape¤an §n mhr“ ka‹ pneÊmoni gegonÒtow oÈ dÊnantai fuge›n, e‡ ge tÚ m¢n Ïdati periplÊnousi, tÚ d¢ ta›w bhj‹n §kkaya¤rousin. ÑUpoke¤syv d¢ pãlin §n t“ pneÊmoni perikexÊsyai t“ ßlkei paxÁ pËon: îrã ge ka‹ nËn tÚ xlvrÚn d≈sousi fãrmakon, µ m°litow §kle¤xein keleÊsousin; ÉAllå ka‹ toËtÉ aÈtÚ pÒyen eÍrÆkasi leg°tvsan. OÈ går dØ toËtÒ ge fÆsousin, ˜ti leptuntikÆn tina ka‹ tmhtikØn ¶xei dÊnamin, aÈto¤ gÉ •kÒntew épostãntew toË zhte›n tåw toiaÊtaw dunãmeiw. OÈ mØn oÈdÉ ˜ti to›w ÉEmpeiri[351]ko›w eÏrhtai tÚ m°li katå toiãnde sundromØn §pitÆdeion ¶nestin aÈto›w ımo¤vw §ke¤noiw xr∞syai: pr«ton m¢n ˜ti t∞w §mpeir¤aw katafronoËsin, ¶peita dÉ ˜ti katå tåw toiaÊtaw sundromåw ı ÉEmpeirikÚw ¥tiw m°n §stin ≤ §n t“ pneÊmoni diãyesiw égnoe›n fhs¤, tethr∞syai dÉ §k pe¤raw •aut“ tå sumf°ronta. Yessal“ dÉ oÈk érke› yerapeÊein ˘ mÆdÉ ˜lvw o‰den, éllÉ épÚ t∞w t«n pay«n §nde¤jevw ırmçtai. Efi d¢ dØ ka‹ pãntÉ aÈt“ sugxvrÆsaimen Àsper ka‹ prÒsyen, ımo¤vw ≤m›n §p¤stasyai tÒ gÉ §p‹ to›w diaf°rousi m°resin §jallãttesyai tØn yerape¤an katÉ e‰dow oÈk ên potÉ §kfÊgoi. OÈ går dÆpou taÈtÒn §stin µ mel¤kraton efiw mÆtran §gx°ai diÉ ßlkow =uparÚn µ m°litow §sy¤ein µ kataplÊnein spogg¤ƒ tÚ ßlkow: éllå taËta m¢n ¶ti smikrã: m°gista dÉ §ke›na. XrÒnion éfl°gmanton ßlkow §n pollo›w Ípoke¤syv m°resin,

  ‒  

495

I don’t see how they will heal such wounds; first of all, Thessalus did not write anything [349] about them, to expose either his ignorance or his lack of agreement with himself. For either they [sc the Methodists] make irrational and false statements about these [sc wounds]; or else, if one speaks the truth, their indication is bound to derive from the substance of the part, and, beside that, from its position and shape. Now let us suppose that they know how to diagnose a wound in the lung—whether it is filthy or clean, without inflammation or inflamed, even or hollow; and let us grant that they know even this much (although there is no question of their discovering something on their own, however small that thing may be): that such a wound would be cleansed by the green remedy, that of Machairion if you wish, or that of Isis, it does not matter. Well, let them answer us: what action will they take about the wound which runs deep inside? Will they recommend swallowing the green remedy? This would be completely ridiculous. Since the route taken by medicines to arrive at the lung is known from anatomy, but the followers of Thessalus spit upon anatomy, from what source will they know how the medicine travels to the lung? Let them tell us, then, [350] how they got firm knowledge that such a medicine will be discharged into the lung. And, supposing they got it, it is still impossible for them to know whether it [sc the medicine] will preserve the same power [dunamis] it had over surface wounds. But let them know this as well, that it will preserve the same power it had over surface wounds and will clean away the filth: surely they cannot know that it will produce coughing; and without removing the filth through coughing the cleansing medicine is of no avail. But let us grant them this too. Well, then they cannot evade the fact that they apply different treatments to a wound in the thigh and to one in the lung, if they scour the former with water but cleanse the latter through coughs. Again, let us surmise that the lung is encircled by thick pus which has flown into the wound: well, will they prescribe the green remedy also in this case, or will they order licking honey? But let them explain, concerning this procedure too, whence they discovered it; for surely they will not admit that it [sc honey] has a certain thinning and cutting power—since they deliberately refrain from inquiry into such powers. Nor indeed are they allowed, just because the Empiricists [351] discovered that honey helps in [sc cases which display] this syndrome, to use it as they [sc the Empiricists] do: first, because they look down on experience, second, because in [sc cases which display] such syndromes the Empiricist claims that he does not know what the state in the lung is but has observed through experience what is beneficial to it. But Thessalus is not contented to treat something of which he would definitely have no knowledge; he starts from the indication of the affections. Now, even if we were to grant him, as we did above, that he knows everything just as we do, he would not evade the fact that treatment exerted upon different parts varies in kind. For obviously it is not the same thing to pour a mixture of honey and milk into the womb on a filthy wound, to eat some honey, and to drench a wound with a sponge. Still, such differences are small; but the following are of the greatest importance. Let us imagine a chronic wound

496

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

Ùfyalm“ ka‹ ékoª ka‹ mukt∞ri ka‹ stÒmati ka‹ mhr“ ka‹ gastr‹ ka‹ mÆtr& ka‹ ßdr& ka‹ afido¤ƒ: prosupoke¤syv dÉ, efi boÊlei, tÚ ßlkow µ ımal¢w ékrib«w µ Ùl¤gou de›n Ípãrxein ımal°w. ÉApokri[352]nãstvsan ≤m›n ofl épÚ YessaloË, toË mhd¢n ˜lvw per‹ t«n toioÊtvn diorisam°nou, p«w §poul≈somen aÈtÚ t“ diå t∞w kadme¤aw, nØ D¤a: toËto går §poul≈sei kal«w tÚ katå tÚn mhrÚn ßlkow: îrÉ oÔn ka‹ tÚ katå tÚn ékoustikÚn pÒron; ÖApiston m¢n ‡svw §r«, éllÉ—‡sasin ofl yeo¤—xrÒnion ßlkow erÒn pote t«n sofvtãtvn tina Yessale¤vn oÏtv yerapeÊonta. Yçtton dÉ ín §sãph tÚ oÔw tényr≈pƒ ka‹ sk≈lhkaw ¶sxen µ t“ diå t∞w kadme¤aw §poul≈yh farmãkƒ: sugxvrÆsantew dÉ ˜mvw aÈt“ ple¤osi xrÆsasyai ≤m°raiw, §peidØ kayÉ •kãsthn dusvd°sterÒn te tÚ oÔw §g°neto ka‹ fix≈rvn mestÒn, épistÒteron ¶ti toË prÒsyen §yeasãmeya tolmhy°n. Ofihye‹w går flegma¤nein §n t“ bãyei tÚn pÒron §p‹ tØn tetrafãrmakon ∏ken, ˘ pollÁ dØ mçllon ¶melle sÆcein tÚ mÒrion: oÈd¢ går jhra¤nein ˜lvw ßlkh dunatÒn §stin, éllå p°ttein tå flegma¤nonta. ÜAte dÉ §nantivtãtƒ t∞w diay°sevw aÈtoË xrhsam°nou farmãkƒ, metå m¤an ≤m°ran µ dÊo §polupla[353]siãsyh m¢n aÈt¤ka tÚ t«n fix≈rvn pl∞yow, éfÒrhtow dÉ ∑n ≤ dusvd¤a. OÎkoun ¶ti sunex≈roun ofl ofike›oi toË »tÚw ëptesyai t“ Yessale¤ƒ: ı dÉ ÍpÉ énaisxunt¤aw tÉ ëma ka‹ énaisyhs¤aw ±j¤ou mØ mÒnon §ntiy°nai ti t∞w tetrafarmãkou dunãmevw, éllå ka‹ kataplãttein ¶jvyen aÈt“ xalastik“ kataplãsmati. T«n dÉ ofike¤vn épelaunÒntvn te ka‹ dediÒtvn §n megãlƒ kak“ tÚn pãsxonta gen°syai, parekal°samen ≤me›w ¶ti m¤an ≤m°ran §pitr°cai t“ Yessale¤ƒ tØn yerape¤an aÈtoË. ÖEmellon g¢ dÆpou katå tØn Ístera¤an ˜ te fix∆r ¶sesyai pollaplãsiow ¥ tÉ ÙdmØ dusvdestãth. KayÉ ∂n §peirãyhn efi o‰Òn tÉ e‡h metape›sai tÚn Yessãleion ˆnon ˜pvw mØ pãntaw §pitr¤b˙ toÁw pãsxontaw éllã tinaw ≥dh pot¢ kùn Ùl¤gouw dunhye¤h s«sai, t∞w émeyodvtãtou aflr°sevw épostãw. ÉHrjãmhn m¢n oÔn lÒgou toioËde prÚw aÈtÒn. “âArÉ oÈx‹ flegmonÆ soi doke› katå bãyow e‰nai toË pÒrou ka‹ diå toËto xalastiko›w xrò bohyÆmasin;” ÑO d¢ ka‹ pãnu diete¤neto ka‹ oÏtvw ¶xein ¶faske ka‹ édÊnaton êllvw. “âArÉ oÔn” ¶fhn [354] “§yeãsv sÊ pote flegma›non ßlkow ˆjei drimutãtƒ metå glauk¤ou yerapeuy°n;” “OÈ m¢n oÔn” e‰pen, “éllÉ efi tÚn ÉAndr≈neiÒn ti kukl¤skon ˆjei deÊsaw xr“to, tãxa dÉ ín” ¶fh “ka‹ spasye¤h.” “ÉEån oÔn” e‰pon “êllo ti fãrmakon oÈk Ùl¤gƒ toË ÉAndrvne¤ou sfodrÒteron ˆjei tiw drimutãtƒ die‹w xrÆshtai ka‹ taËtÉ efiw oÔw §ggÁw oÏtv mÒrion §gkefãlou ka‹ mhn¤ggvn, îrÉ oÈk ˆntvw spasyÆsetai katå tÚn sÚn lÒgon, e‡per ge flegmonÆ tiw ÍpÒkeitai;” TaËtÉ §dÒkei kôke¤nƒ ka‹ to›w êlloiw to›w

  ‒  

497

without inflammation and [sc place it] in several parts: eye, ear, nostrils, mouth, thigh, belly, womb, bottom, genitals; and let us also assume, if you wish, that the wound is perfectly even, or only a little short of being even. By Zeus! Let the followers of Thessalus [352]—who, on the whole, made no distinctions about these things—answer to us how we shall scar it over with the calamine [sc medicine]; for this one will do a nice job of bringing to scarification the wound in the thigh, but will it also bring to scarification the [sc wound] in the acoustic channel? I should say that this is fairly implausible, but—the gods have witnessed it—once I came across one of the exquisitely wise Thessaleans, who was just in the process of treating a chronic wound in this way. The ear would rot in the patient and get worms rather than grow a scar under the calamine medicine; nevertheless they allowed him to use it for many days, and, as the ear became increasingly foul and replete with ichor by the day, we witnessed another reckless attempt, even more implausible than the one before. For he [sc the Thessalean] thought that the channel was inflamed deep down, and resorted in consequence to the four drugs compound [tetrapharmakos], which was much more likely to make the part rot; for it has the power of bringing to coction the inflamed parts without drying the wounds at all. Since he used a remedy which was as adverse for the state as that could possibly be, in one or two days [353] the quantity of serum suddenly increased a lot and the bad smell became unbearable. Obviously, the patient’s relatives no longer agreed that the Thessalean doctor should tamper with the ear; whereas he, led by his shamelessness and stupidity, had in mind not only to introduce [sc into the ear] some of the power [dunamis] of the tetrapharmakos, but also to apply a relaxing plaster on the surface [sc of the wound]. As the relatives were trying to drive him away, fearful that the patient might fare even worse, we appealed to them to entrust the Thessalean with his treatment for one more day. And indeed, on the next day, it would turn out that the secretion of serum was much increased and the smell was at its foulest. On that day I made an attempt to persuade the Thessalean ass to change his views if that was possible, so that he may not afflict all his patients but be able one day to save some, however few—if only he broke away from that most un-Methodical hairesis. And so I embarked upon the following discourse with him: “You think, don’t you, that there is an inflammation deep down the channel? This is the reason why you are using relaxing remedies, isn’t it?” With most remarkable resoluteness he vouched that this is how it was and couldn’t be otherwise. “Well,” said I, [354] “have you ever come across an inflamed wound which was treated with the most astringent sort of vinegar, mixed with juice of the horned poppy?” “Certainly not”, he replied; “on the contrary, if one were to mix an Androneian [sc pill] with vinegar and use it, the patient might even get convulsions.” “So then,” I continued, “if one would mix some other medicine, much stronger than the Androneian, in the most astringent vinegar, and use that [sc by applying it] onto the ear—a part that lies in such close proximity to the brain and to the membranes [sc dura mater]—will the patient not, on your own account, be seized by convulsions if there were an inflammation?” This was esteemed

498

5

10

15

20

  ‒  -

sumparoËsin élhy«w efir∞syai. “ÜOson m¢n oÔn” ¶fhn “§p‹ t“ de›syai tØn diãyesin t«n mor¤vn §kteyhlusm°nvn ÍpÚ t∞w s∞w égvg∞w §sxãtvw jhrainÒntvn farmãkvn, §xrhsãmhn ín ≥dh toioÊtƒ: nun‹ dÉ, §peidØ kakÚn ¶yow e‡yisaw tå mÒria ple¤osin ≤m°raiw, §p‹ toÈnant¤on aÈtå metãgein éyrÒvw oÈk ¶tÉ §gxvre›. So‹ m¢n går ka‹ Yessal“ katafrone›n ¶youw ¶jestin Àsper ka‹ fÊsevw mer«n, ≤m›n dÉ oÈk ¶jestin, éllå tª m¢n pr≈t˙ t«n ≤mer«n ˆjei xrÆsomai metå Glauk¤ou, tª d¢ deut°r& t“ ÉAndrvne¤ƒ, tª tr¤t˙ dÉ §p¤ ti sfodrÒteron ¶ti ka‹ aÈtoË toË [355] ÉAndrvne¤ou paragenÆsomai fãrmakon, ⁄ xrhsãmenow ≤m°raiw tris‹n µ ka‹ t°ttarsin, §ãn moi fa¤nhtai de›syai sfodrot°rou farmãkou tÚ ßlkow, oÈk ÙknÆsv kôke¤nƒ xrÆsesyai. ÖEjvyen dÉ” ¶fhn “§piyÆsv tª kefalª katå tÚ toË peponyÒtow »tÚw xvr¤on oÈ, må D¤É, …w sÊ, katãplasma xalastikÚn éllã ti t«n jhrantikvtãtvn farmãkvn, ıpo›Òn §sti tÚ diå t«n fite«n, µ ka‹ aÈtoË toË ÉAndrvne¤ou kataxr¤sv metÉ ˆjouw, µ t«n toÊtou tin‹ jhrantikvt°rvn. ÉEpe‹ går jhrÚn §sxãtvw §st‹ tÚ yerapeuÒmenon mÒrion énagka›on aÈtÚ jhra¤nein §sxãtvw: §nde¤knutai går Àsper tÚ pãyow toÈnant¤on •aut“ prÚw tØn yerape¤an oÏtv tÚ mÒrion ˜ t¤ per ín ımoiÒtaton •aut“ tugxãn˙.” Ka‹ to¤nun Àsper e‰pon oÏtv ka‹ ¶praja, ka‹ ı ênyrvpow Ígiãsyh, mØ dehye‹w fisxurot°rvn êllvn farmãkvn.

FR 185. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(31)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, V xv, pp. 379–383 K: [xv, 379] . . . ParaplÆsiow goËn §stin ı ÉEras¤stratow égalmatopoi“ tå m¢n êlla pãnta kosmÆsanti, tuflÚn dÉ §rgasam°nƒ tÚ êgalma. T¤ går ˆfelow toË loipoË kãllouw, Ùfyalm«n mØ parÒntvn; E‰ta t«n thlikoÊtvn éndr«n m°gista sfallom°nvn ı yaumasi≈tatow YesssalÒw, 25 oÈdÉ §nnoÆsaw tØw t°xnhn éji≈sei “MeyodikÚw” Ùnomãzesyai: ka‹ nËn ır«men sxedÚn ëpantaw toÁw épÉ aÈtoË flebotomoËntaw êllouw te polloÁw t«n kamnÒntvn oÂw oÈx ˜pvw »f°limon éllå ka‹ blaberÚn §xr∞n Ípeil∞fyai tÚ boÆyhma, fulattÒntvn gÉ aÈt«n tåw ofike¤aw Ípoy°seiw: oÈx ¥kista d¢ ka‹ toÁw aÂma ptÊsantaw, e‡te [380] sÁn §m°toiw 30 e‡te sÁn bhj¤n, ˜tan Œsin fisxuro‹ tØn dÊnamin. E‰ta p«w éllÆloiw ımologe› taËta, tÚ flebotome›n tina t«n aÂma ptusãntvn, aÈtoÁw §n to›w fid¤oiw suggrãmmasi grãfontaw to›w stegno›w pãyesin §pitÆdeion e‰nai tÚ boÆyhma; MØ to¤nun ¶ti mhd¢ MeyodikoÁw •autoÁw Ùnomaz°tvsan éllÉ ÉEmpeirikoÊw, ofl par°ntew tÚn lÒgon ˘n §nÒmizon Ípãrxein Ígi∞ 35 tª pe¤r& xr«ntai prÚw t«n bohyhmãtvn eÏresin. âArÉ oÔn §n toÊtoiw m¢n §narg«w §jel°gxontai mhd¢n mÆte meyÒdƒ mÆyÉ ˜lvw lÒgƒ tin‹ prãt-

499

  ‒  -

to be true both by him and by everyone else around. “In so far as I should go by the fact that the state of the parts, weakened as they are under your method of treatment, asks for the most astringent medicines, I would use that one [sc the Androneian] already; but, as it is, given that for several days you have built a bad habit in the parts, it is not possible to turn them in the opposite direction at once. For you and Thessalus are at liberty to ignore the [sc factor of ] habit, just as you ignore the nature of the parts, but we are not. No—I shall use vinegar mixed with juice of the horned poppy on the first day, the Androneian [sc pill] on the second, and on the third I shall resort to a medicine stronger even than the Androneian, [355] which I shall use for three or four days, and if it seems to me by then that the wound needs a stronger medicine I shall not hesitate to use even that. As for the surface,” I added, “I shall apply to the head, in the region of the wounded ear, not—by Zeus!—a relaxing plaster, as you did, but one of the most astringent drugs, such as the [sc plaster] of willows, or I shall coat in vinegar the same Androneian [sc pill], or [sc I shall use] one of the more astringent drugs. For when the part which is under therapy is [sc naturally] dry to an extreme degree, it is necessary to make it dry to an extreme degree; for, just as the affection gives indications towards a [sc form of ] treatment which is the opposite of itself, so the part gives indications towards whatever happens to be most similar to it.” So then, I did exactly as I said and the patient recovered, without needing more remedies of the stronger sort.

FR 185. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(31)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, V xv, pp. 379–383 K: [xv, 379] So Erasistratus is like a sculptor who sees about everything while leaving the statue blind. For, if the eyes are not there, what is the good of the remaining beauty? Next among men of this sort, who made the greatest mistakes, is the amazing Thessalus, who will expect to be called “Methodist” without having formed a conception of the art; and nowadays we see nearly all his followers subjecting to venesection lots of patients for whom they should have assumed this remedy not to be helpful but in fact quite damaging, at least if they were faithful to their own premises—not in the least those patients who have spit up blood, either through [380] vomiting or through coughing, when their [sc physical] capacity was unimpeded. But then how do these things square with each other: applying venesection to someone from the range of patients who spit blood—when they [sc the Methodists] write in their own treatises that the remedy is suitable for constricted affections? So, let them no longer call themselves Methodists but Empiricists, if they disregard the reasoning which they considered to be sound and go about the discovery of remedies through experience. And is it not at the following point that they clearly betray themselves as not doing anything with method, or generally with any kind of reasoning: when

500

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  -

tontew, §n oÂw d¢ tå m°rh fas‹n Ípãrxein êxrhsta prÚw tØn t∞w yerape¤aw eÏresin, oÈ polÁ mçllon; Ka‹ mØn e‡ tiw énamnhsye¤h t«n efirhm°nvn ≤m›n epÉ »t«n ka‹ muktÆrvn ka‹ Ùfyalm«n ka‹ stÒmatow ka‹ y≈rakow ka‹ pneÊmonow, ¶ti te mÆtraw ka‹ kÊstevw ka‹ t«n katå tØn gast°ra, toË pantÚw èmartãnontew fanoËntai. ToioËtow goËn ka‹ ı t“ Makedonik“ farmãkƒ xr≈menow §pÉ afido¤ou flegma¤nontow ëma t“ xalastik“ kataplãsmati, t“ sunÆyei toÊtƒ t“ diÉ êrtou ka‹ Ídrela¤ou skeuazom°nƒ. Ka¤ tiw êllow aÈt“ paraplÆsiow §fÉ [381] ßdraw ≤lkvm°nhw to›w aÈto›w xr≈menow: éllÉ §n to›w per‹ t«n flegmon«n lÒgoiw Íp¢r t«n toioÊtvn §roËmen. ÜElkh d¢ xvr‹w flegmon∞w §n afido¤ƒ ka‹ ßdra kataplãsmatow m¢n oÈdenÚw de›tai, farmãkou dÉ §pouloËntow—oÈ, må D¤a, toioÊtou tØn fÊsin oÂon efiw oÈlØn êgei tå katå tåw sãrkaw ßlkh, éllÉ efiw tosoËton jhrot°rou tØn dÊnamin efiw ˜son §st‹ ka‹ tå mÒria jhrÒtera sarkÒw. Ka‹ tÒ ge yaumasi≈teron, aÈt«n t«n §n afido¤ƒ sunistam°nvn •lk«n §p‹ mçllon de›tai jhra¤nesyai tã te toË kauloË sÊmpantow ˜sa tÉ §ktÚw aÈtoË katå tÚ p°raw §st¤n, ı prosagoreÊousi “bãlanon”. äHtton d¢ toÊtvn xrπzei jhrainÒntvn farmãkvn ˜sa t∞w pÒsyhw §st‹n ßlkh, kôk toÊtvn ¶yÉ ∏tton ˜sa katå toË loipoË d°rmatow ˘ per‹ sÊmpan §st‹ tÚ afido›on. ÑUgrÚn oÔn poyÉ ßlkow §p‹ t∞w balãnou t«n émeyÒdvn fiatr«n tiw toÊtvn dØ t«n Yessale¤vn mØ dunãmenow fiãsasyai toÊtoiw to›w “§poulvtiko›w” Ùnomazom°noiw farmãkoiw, efiw sumboulØn ≤mçw parekãlesen. ÉAkoÊsaw oÔn ˜ti polÁ jhrot°rou de›tai farmãkou tÚ mÒrion toËto parÉ ˜son §st‹ ka‹ fÊsei jhrÒteron, [382] ±p¤stei m¢n tÚ pr«ton: …w dÉ ÍpÉ énãgkhw efiw tÚ xrÆsasya¤ tini t«n ≤met°rvn éf¤keto, tris‹ m¢n ≤m°raiw Ígiãsyh tÚ ßlkow, eÎdhlow dÉ ∑n ı fiatrÚw oÈ tosoËton xa¤rvn §p‹ t“ yerapeËsai tÚn ênyrvpon ˜son éni≈menow §p‹ t“ ponhrò suntetrãfyai dogmãtvn aflr°sei. TÚ gãrtoi diå xãrtou kekaum°nou, toËto dØ tÚ sÊnhyew ≤m›n, fiçtai tå toiaËta t«n •lk«n, Àsper ge ka‹ ênhyon kekaum°non ımo¤vw §pipattÒmenon, ka‹ kolokÊnyh d¢ jhrå kekaum°nh katå tÚn aÈtÚn trÒpon: êlla te pollå t«n ˆntvw fisxur«w jhrainÒntvn farmãkvn. [. . .] [383] ToÊtvn tÉ oÔn [sc farmãkvn] oÈd¢n oÈdÉ ˆnar ‡sasin ofl épÚ t∞w émeyodvtãthw aflr°sevw, ëpan ßlkow ≤goÊmenoi t∞w aÈt∞w de›syai yerape¤aw §n ⁄per ín ¬ toË z–ou mor¤ƒ: ka‹ prÚw toÊtoiw ¶ti mhdÉ ˜pvw xrØ =ãptein aÈt«n ¶nia, kayãper efi tÊxoi tå katÉ §pigãstrion, Íp¢r œn §n t“ metå taËta lÒgƒ lexyÆsetai sÁn to›w Ípolo¤poiw ëpasi.

FR 186. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(32)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, VI i, pp. 384–386 K: [i, 384] O‰dÉ ˜ti mhkÊnein dÒjv tis‹n §n g°nei §n‹1 nosÆmatow §jhgoÊmenow ˜pvw xrØ yerapeÊesyai meyÒdƒ. ProsÆkei dÉ aÈtoÁw oÈk §mo‹ toË mÆkouw

501

  ‒  -

they declare that the parts are no more than useless for the discovery of the treatment? Certainly if one is to bear in mind what we have said on the subject of ears, nostrils, eyes, mouth, chest, lung, and then womb, bladder, and belly, they [sc the Methodists] will be seen to be entirely wrong. Such was for instance the Methodist who used the Macedonian drug for inflamed genitals, in combination with a relaxing poultice prepared, as his custom was, out of bread and water mixed with oil. And there is also some other Methodist who, much like him, used these drugs on [381] a wounded bottom; but we shall deal with such cases in the discussion of inflammations. As for uninflamed wounds in the genitals and in the bottom, they do not need any poultice but a medicine which promotes cicatrisation, and—by Zeus!—not one of the nature of a medicine that brings to cicatrisation wounds in the flesh, but one which is more astringent in power [dunamis] in as much as the parts in question are drier than the flesh. And the most surprising thing is that, among the wounds that occur in the genital organs, the ones in greater need of being dried up are those of the whole penis and those located on the external side towards the end, in what is called the “acorn” [sc glans penis]: the wounds located on the foreskin require less astringent medicines than those do, and still less the ones located elsewhere on the skin around the genitals. Now, it happened once that one of the un-Methodical doctors—that is to say, one of the Thessaleans—could not heal a moist wound in the acorn with these medicines called “epoulotika” [= promoting cicatrisation], and sent for us for consultation. When he heard that the part in question needed a much more astringent drug, in proportion to its natural dryness, [382] first he did not believe it; but when, compelled by need, he reached the stage of using some of our medicines, the wound got healed in three days; and it was transparent that the doctor was not elated by the man’s recovery so much as aggrieved by the fact that he himself had been educated in a good-for-nothing hairesis of beliefs. For such wounds are cured with burnt papyrus; that is what we are accustomed to use, as well as burnt dill sprinkled in the same way, and dry colocynth burnt by the same procedure; and many other medicines which are very drying indeed. [. . .] [383] But not even in their dreams do those from the most un-Methodical hairesis know of any of these [sc remedies], believing as they do that any wound requires the same treatment regardless of the part of the animal in which it may occur; nor do they know, for that matter, how some of them [sc the wounds] must be stitched—for instance those in the abdomen, which will be discussed in the following book, together with all the remaining one.

FR 186. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(32)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, VI i, pp. 384–386 K: [i, 384] I am aware that some will form the impression that I am dwelling at too great length upon a single kind of disease in my attempt to explain

502

  ‒  -

§gkale›n éllå to›w ì mhdÉ ˜lvw ¶gnvsan ÍfÉ ÑIppokrãtouw Ùry«w efirhm°na diabãllein §pixeirÆsasin: oÓw oÈdÉ ßlkow fiçsyai kal«w §pistam°nouw ¶deija, mÆ to¤ge dØ t«n êllvn ti t«n meizÒnvn. [. . .] [386] Pãlin oÔn énamnhst°on …w ı tolmhrÒtatow YessalÚw oÈdem¤an efip∆n m°yodon •lk«n fiãsevw o‡etai pãsaw efirhk°nai. TÚ gãr, efi oÏtvw ¶tuxe, 5 tÚ m¢n ko›lon ßlkow de›syai sark≈sevw tÚ dÉ èploËn kollÆsevw, oÈd¢ toÁw fidi≈taw lanyãnei: p«w dÉ ên tiw eÏroi meyÒdƒ fãrmaka diÉ œn ≥toi sarkvyÆsetai tÚ ko›lon µ kollhyÆsetai tÚ èploËn ßlkow oÈk°ti oÈde‹w fidi≈thw §p¤statai: ka‹ toËtÉ §stin ˘ prÒkeitai skope›syai to›w 10 fiatro›w, kôn toÊtƒ belt¤vn §st‹n ßterow §t°rou. Ka‹ går eÍrÆsei fãrmaka ka‹ to›w eÍrhm°noiw Ùry∆w xrÆsetai, kayãper §de¤knumen §n to›w ¶mprosyen, ı gegumnasm°now §n tª yerapeutikª meyÒdƒ.

1

corr ego: §n g°now ¶ti K

FR 187. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(33)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, VI ii, pp. 386–391 K:

15

20

25

30

[ii, 386] ÜIna går ≥dh tinÚw §x≈meya t«n ékoloÊyvn to›w ¶mprosyen, Ípoke¤syv tiw ¥kvn prÚw ≤mçw nenugm°now aÈtÚ mÒnon tÚ d°rma belÒn˙. [. . .] [387] ÖEnya m¢n går ≤ dia¤resiw ¬ megãlh, spoudØn xrØ poie›syai jhrantikvt°roiw farmãkoiw efiw sÊmfus¤n te ka‹ ßnvsin êgein tå xe¤lh toË ßlkouw: [388] ¶nya dÉ §k belÒnhw µ graf¤ou dia¤resiw, •nÚw mÒnou xrØ front¤zein, toË mØ flegm∞nai. Kôn t“de d∞lon …w ı gegramm°now ÍpÚ YessaloË skopÚw t«n §na¤mvn •lk«n oÈd¢n ≤mçw oÈd°pv didãskei pl°on o ka‹ to›w fidi≈taiw m°testin. OÈ går ˘ xrØ poie›syai gign≈skein m°ga, fÊsei gÉ Ípãrxon ëpasin ényr≈poiw, diÉ œn dÉ ên tiw aÈtÚ poiÆseien §p¤stasyai t«n texnik«n §sti. Ka‹ går efi naËn tiw m°llei pÆjesyai kal«w, ‡smen dÆpou ka‹ ≤me›w ëpantew oÈk ˆntew nauphgo‹ poË m¢n xrØ tãjai tå phdãlia poË d¢ tØn prÊmnan ka‹ tØn pr«ran ßkastÒn te t«n êllvn: éllÉ oÈd¢n ≤m›n pl°on prÒsestin, égnooËsi p«w aÈtå dhmiourgÆsomen. OÏtv d¢ ka‹ ofik¤an kataskeuazÒmenÒw tiw oÈk égnoe› dÆpouyen oÎyÉ …w pr«ta xrØ y°syai tå yem°lia t«n to¤xvn oÎyÉ …w §pÉ aÈto›w ka‹ ékline›w §ge›rai toÁw to¤xouw oÎyÉ …w katå toËton pÆjasyai tØn ÙrofØn oÎyÉ …w yÊraw te ka‹ yur¤daw ßkastÒn te t«n êllvn mer«n t∞w ofik¤aw §n ofike¤ƒ tãjai xvr¤ƒ: éllÉ oÈ[389]d¢n toËto pl°on oÈd¢n efiw ofik¤aw kataskeuÆn: êxri per ín émayØw Ípãrxvn ofikodomik∞w, égnoe› dhmiourge›n aÈtã. MÒnƒ to¤nun t«n èpãntvn ényr≈pvn sofvtãtƒ érke› Yessal“ prÚw §pistÆmhn texnikØn ˘ xrØ poi∞sai gign≈skein.

503

  ‒  -

how it should be treated with method. But it would be fair if they brought their charge not against me on account of my length, but against those who endeavoured to discredit things correctly asserted by Hippocrates without understanding them at all; I have exposed these doctors as being ignorant of how to cure properly a wound, as well as of anything else which counts. [. . .] [386] Again, one should call to mind the case of the most impudent Thessalus, who gave us no method for the treatment of wounds, and yet he thinks that he gave us all of them. For the fact that a hollow wound, as the case may be, needs flesh growing up, or a simple wound needs gluing, does not escape laymen; but no layman knows how one may find by method the medicines through which flesh would grow on a hollow wound, or a simple wound would be glued; it is the doctors’ province to inquire about this, and one is better at it than another. And, as has been shown above, it is the one who has been trained in the method of therapy that will discover the medicines and will make correct use of his discoveries.

FR 187. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(33)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, VI ii, pp. 386–391 K: [ii, 386] Now, to take advantage of one of the consequences resulting from what I said above, let us suppose that someone comes to us having pierced his skin—just this—with a needle. [. . .] [387] For when the cut is large one should take pains to make the edges of the wound join and unite with the help of drier remedies; [388] when the cut has been made with a needle or a chisel, one should concentrate on one thing only: that it should not get inflamed. In this, again, it is clear that the aim of bleeding wounds, as written by Thessalus, teaches us absolutely nothing on top of what even laymen have a share in. For to know what ought to be done is not a great feat—it belongs by nature to all men; it is knowing through what means one might do it that is the mark of people trained in an art [techne]. For suppose that one wants to put together a ship in the proper way: we all know, without being ship-builders, where we should place the oars, the poop, the prow, and every other part; but there is no good in it for us as long as we do not know how to build them. In the same way, if someone sets about having a house made, he would certainly not be unaware that one must first of all lay the foundation for the walls, then raise the walls on them and make these vertical, fix the roof afterwards, then put the doors, the window-frames, and every other part of a house in its accustomed place; but none [389] of it is of any use in the making of the house: as long as he is without instruction in house-building, he would not know how to make them. So then: of all people, only the exquisitely wise Thessalus is satisfied, in questions of professional knowledge, to know what ought to be done. But we have demonstrated, even by the examples above, that this

504

5

10

15

20

25

  ‒  -

ÉAllÉ ≤me›w ka‹ diå t«n ¶mprosyen §de¤jamen …w érxØ m¢n t¤w §sti toËto t«n katå tåw t°xnaw prãjevn, oÎpv mØn ‡dion oÈd¢n aÈt«n mÒrion, éllÉ ¶ti koinÚn fidi≈taiw ëpasin: afl går §nde¤jeiw afl pr«tai katå pçsan t°xnhn fÊsei pçsin ényr≈poiw Ípãrxousin. ÜVstÉ e‡per efis‹n flkana‹ texn¤taw atai poie›n, oÈd¢n kvlÊei ka‹ nauphge›n ≤mçw ka‹ tekta¤nesyai ka‹ dÊnasyai pãntaw ÍpodÆmatã te kataskeuãzein ka‹ flmãtia ka‹ ofik¤aw érxitektone›n te ka‹ kiyar¤zein ka‹ =htoreÊein. ÉAllÉ oÈx oÏtvw ¶xei tÚ élhy°w: oÈdÉ ı gign≈skvn ˜ti t“ trvy°nti mor¤ƒ tØn katå fÊsin ßnvsin §kporist°on fiatrÒw §stin, éllÉ ı diÉ œn §kporisyÆsetai: ka¤to¤ gÉ oÈd¢ toËtÒ gÉ aÈtÚ mÒnon flkanon, §ån égnoª tiw ˜pvw xrhst°on aÈto›w §stin: éllÉ ı tØn ıdÚn ëpasan §pistãmenow t∞w yerape¤aw êxri toË tuxe›n [390] toË skopoË, mÒnow otÒw §stin ı gign≈skvn fiçsyai. Sumba¤nei toigaroËn ge to›w émeyÒdoiw Yessale¤oiw §j œn me¤zv tolm«sin µ dÊnantai mhd¢ t«n dunat«n §fikne›syai. Grafe¤ƒ goËn tinow ¶nagxow efiw tØn xe›ra plhg°ntow, …w diairey∞nai m¢n ˜lon tÚ d°rma nuxy∞nai d° ti t«n Ípokeim°nvn aÈt“ neÊrvn, §n érxª m¢n §p°yhken ¶mplastrÒn ti fãrmakon ı sof≈tatow Yessãleiow, ⁄ pollãkiw §p‹ meg¤stvn traumãtvn eÈdok¤mei xr≈menow. ÖVeto går o‰mai t∞w aÈt∞w de›syai yerape¤aw ëpan traËma. Flegmon∞w dÉ §pigenom°nhw, §p‹ tÚ diÉ éleÊrou pur¤nou katãplasma metabåw §n toÊtƒ te sÆpvn tÚn ênyrvpon ép°kteinen §ntÚw t∞w •bdÒmhw ≤m°raw. OÈdÉ ériymÆsasyai dunatÚn ˜soi spasy°ntew ép°yanon efiw tåw Paivne¤aw xe›raw §mp°sontew aÈt«n, ·na dhladØ s≈zhtai to Yessãleion y°spisma pçn ßlkow ¶naimon ımo¤vw yerapeuy∞nai, mhd¢n t«n peponyÒtvn mor¤vn sunendeiknum°nvn. ÉAllÉ oÈx ¥ gÉ ˆntvw m°yodow efiw tosoËton ém°yodÒw §stin efiw ˜son ≤ Yessãleiow: eÍr¤skein d¢ dÊnatai ka‹ nËn ¶ti metå tosoÊtouw te ka‹ thli[391]koÊtouw fiatroÁw oÈ mÒnon fãrmaka belt¤v t«n ¶mprosyen éllå ka‹ tÚn sÊmpanta t∞w yerape¤aw trÒpon.

FR 188. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(34)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, VI ii, p. 395 K: [ii, 395] . . . YessalÚw dÉ ı yaumasi≈tatow oÈd¢n fãrmakon eÍr∆n 30 §gn«sya¤ fhsi tØn Ïlhn aÈt«n §k polloË. Ka‹ mØn oÈk ¶gnvsya¤ ti pampÒllvn farmãkvn œn ≤me›w eÍrÆkamen oÈ mÒnon Yessal“ ka‹ to›w prÚ aÈtoË pçsin fiatro›w éllÉ oÈd¢ to›w metÉ aÈtÚn êxri deËro. ÑUpaxye‹w goËn §g∆ prÚw tinã pote t«n shpom°nvn ÍpÚ Yessale¤vn fiatr«n émeyÒdvn ka‹ yeasãmenow aÈtÚn m°llonta kataplãttesyai t“ diÉ éleÊrou 35 pur¤nou kataplãsmati, mhd¢n §n t“ paraxr∞ma fãrmakon ¶xvn, æthsa kon¤an staktØn •vrak∆w §k geitÒnvn toË kãmnontow phlopoiÒn, •cÆsaw

505

  ‒  -

is just a starting-point [arche] in any activity governed by art: certainly not a part specific to any [sc art] as yet, but one which is the common share of all laymen; for all the primary indications in every art belong by nature to all men. And so, if those [sc indications] suffice in the making of artists, then nothing prevents us from being ship-builders and joiners and from being able, all of us, to make shoes and clothes, build houses, play the kithara, and be public speakers. But this is not in fact the case; nor is a doctor the man who knows that the thing to be provided for a wounded part is natural union, but the man who knows the means through which this will be provided; moreover, not even this alone is sufficient, if he does not know how he should make use of the means in question; no—the man who understands the whole course of therapy down to the attainment [390] of the aim, that one alone is the one who knows how to heal. This is what happens in consequence to the un-Methodical Thessaleans: because their boastful claims are above what they can do, they fail to attain even what would be possible. At any rate, when someone was recently wounded in the hand with a chisel, so that all the skin was cut and some of the underlying nerves were pierced, the exquisitely wise Thessalean applied, to begin with, a plaster which he often used, and to his credit, for the most severe wounds. For he thought, I imagine, that any wound requires the same treatment. When an inflammation supervened, he turned to a plaster made of wheat flour, and with this he made the man rot, putting him to death before the seventh day. And it would not be possible to count all those who, having fallen into the Paeonian hands [sc of the Methodists], died in convulsions—no doubt to save the Thessalean pontifical maxim that any bleeding wound should be treated in the same way, the affected parts having nothing to contribute to indication. But the real method is by no means as un-Methodical as the Thessalean method; and it is possible even nowadays, in the wake of so many and such great [391] doctors, still to discover, not only medicines which are superior to the ones of the past, but also the global method of treatment.

FR 188. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(34)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, VI ii, p. 395 K: [ii, 395] . . . Without having discovered any medicine, the most amazing Thessalus claims to know their substance from far afield. Above all, most of the medicines which we have discovered were unknown not only to Thessalus and all the doctors before him, but even to those who succeeded him right up until now. Anyway, I was brought once to one of those patients rotting under the un-Methodical Thessalean doctors and I saw that he was just about to be put in a plaster made of wheat flour; as I did not have any medicine on the spot but noticed a potter among the patient’s neighbours, I asked for some lye [konia stakte], boiled barley flour in it—

506

  ‒  -

d¢ diÉ aÈt∞w êleuron kr¤yinon—oÈx …w §ke›noi diÉ Ídrela¤ou tÚ pÊrinon •coËsin—§p°yhka. Ka‹ aÔyiw ÙrÒbion êleuron ımo¤vw •cÆsaw §p‹ flegma¤nontÒw te ka‹ shpom°nou toË neuroË diå tåw kalåw aÈt«n yerape¤aw §piye¤w, ¶pausa taÊthw t∞w shpedÒnow tÚn ênyrvpon.

FR 189. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(35)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, VI ii, pp. 400–401 K: 5 [ii, 400] . . . ToËto dÉ aÈtÒ, tÚ xr∞syai deji«w [sc to›w farmãkoiw], eÎdhlon dÆpou meyÒdƒ gignÒmenon o·an ≤me›w ≥dh pollãkiw §n to›w prÚ toËde diÆlyomen ÍpomnÆmasin, §p‹ tÚ yermÚn ka‹ cuxrÚn ka‹ jhrÚn ka‹ ÍgrÚn èpãshw xrÆsevw farmãkvn …w §p‹ kanÒnaw énaferom°nhw. àHn oÈ mÒnon ofl ém°yodoi Yessãleioi metaxeir¤zesyai kal«w édunatoËsin éllå ka‹ 10 ofl per‹ tÚn ÉEras¤stratÒn te ka‹ toÁw êllouw fiatroÁw ˜soi tå [401] stoixe›a toË s≈matow µ oÈdÉ ˜lvw §zÆthsan µ êllÉ êtta t«n efirhm°nvn ¶yento. Per‹ m¢n dØ toÊtvn ëliw.

FR 190. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(36)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, VI iii, pp. 405–406 K: [iii, 405] . . . Proe¤rhtai dÉ ˜ti to›w m¢n fisxuro›w s≈masi tå fisxurå fãrmaka, to›w dÉ ésyen°si tå malakå prosf°rein xrÆ: taËyÉ eÍr¤skei m¢n 15 ≤ élh[406]y∞w m°yodow, §pisfrag¤zetai dÉ ≤ pe›ra. YessalÚw dÉ ëma to›w •autoË sofista›w §fÉ ÍchloË yrÒnou kayÆmenow §n kriomÊjoiw éndrãsin, …w ı Kerk¤daw fhs¤n, eÈdokimÆsei kataskeuãzvn t“ lÒgƒ pantÚw ßlkouw prosfãtou tØn aÈtØn e‰nai yerape¤an, oÈdem¤an ¶ndeijin §k t∞w toË mor¤ou fÊsevw lambãnousan. EÂw d° tiw t«n ÍpÚ t∞w 20 sof¤aw aÈtoË kekomism°nvn yaumastØn §jeÊriske yerape¤an t«n neurotr≈tvn: aÈt¤ka går ˜la di°kopten §ja¤fnhw aÈtã, mhd¢ proeip≈n ti t“ trvy°nti: ka¤toi kôntaËya proed¤dou tØn a·resin. ÉExr∞n går µ ka‹ toÁw mÊaw trvy°ntaw ka‹ tåw érthr¤aw ka‹ tåw fl°baw ka‹ pçn ıtioËn êllo diakÒptein ˜lon, µ mhd¢ tÚ neËron. áH oÏtvw ín ˘ feÊgousi prãt25 tontew èl¤skontai,1 diãforon §k t«n diaferÒntvn mor¤vn ¶ndeijin yerape¤aw lambãnontew.

507

  ‒  -

unlike them [sc the Thessaleans], who boil the wheat in water mixed with oil—and applied it. Then again, I boiled flour of bitter vetch in the same way and applied it on the nerve, which was inflamed and rotting thanks to their beautiful treatments, and I made the man stop from this rotting process.

FR 189. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(35)

Galenus, On the Method of Therapy, VI ii, pp. 400–401 K: [ii, 400] . . . And it is abundantly clear that this very feature, the skilful use [sc of medicines], belongs to the kind of method that we have expounded, quite often already, in commentaries which precede the present one; the reason is that the whole use of medicines relates to the hot, the cold, the dry, and the wet as to standards. And that is something which not only the un-Methodical Thessaleans are incapable of handling properly, but also the disciples of Erasistratus and the other doctors who either did not investigate completely into the [401] elements of body or posited others, different from the ones I enunciated. But enough of these people.

FR 190. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(36)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, VI iii, pp. 405–406 K: [iii, 405] . . . It has been said previously that one should administer strong medicines to strong bodies and soft medicines to weak bodies; as for these [sc strong and soft medicines], the true [406] method discovers them and experience ratifies them. But Thessalus together with the sophists of his own making, seated upon a high throne in the midst of drivelling men, as Cercidas puts it, will gain a tremendous success if he proves by argument that the treatment of any recent wound is the same, and one which does not follow any indication from the nature of the part. One of those doctors, provided for by his [sc Thessalus’] wisdom, invented an amazing treatment for wounds in the nervous ligaments: he removed them entirely—at once, in no time, without any notice to the wounded patient; but even in this action he betrayed his hairesis. For either he should have also removed entirely the wounded muscles, arteries, veins, and what not, or he should not removed the nerve. Or this is how they are caught doing what they would avoid: taking a different indication for treatment from the different parts.

508

  ‒  - FR 191. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(37)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, VI iii, p. 408 K: [iii, 408] . . . ÑH d¢ toË pantÚw s≈matow §pim°leia ka‹ toÊtoiw [sc ßlkesin t«n neur«n] koinÆ. Diakop°ntow d¢ ˜lou toË neÊrou k¤ndunow m¢n oÈk°ti oÈde¤w, énãphron dÉ ¶stai tÚ mÒrion. ÑH dÉ ‡asiw koinØ to›w êlloiw ßlkesin, ∂n mÒnhn ‡sasin ofl Yessãleioi. Per‹ m¢n dØ t«n neÊrvn flkanå 15 ka‹ taËta.

FR 192. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(38)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, VI iv, pp. 410–411 K: [iv, 410] . . . SÊndesmow d¢ trvye‹w ı m¢n §j ÙstoË diÆkvn efiw ÙstoËn ékindunÒtatÒw §sti, ka‹ pãnt˙ jhra¤nvn aÈtÚn ıpo¤oiw boÊloio farmãkoiw oÈd¢n blãceiw tÚn ênyrvpon. ÑO dÉ efiw mËn §mfuÒmenow ˜son ékindunÒterÒw §sti t°nontow ka‹ neÊrou tosoËton t«n êllvn sund°smvn 10 sfaler≈terow, µn mØ xrhsy«w yerapeÊhtai. ToÊtvn oÈd¢n oÂo¤ tÉ efisi diaprãjasyai meyÒdƒ t«n fiatr«n ˜soi mÆte tØn épÚ t«n mor¤vn ¶ndeijin efiw tåw t«n •lk«n fiãseiw xrÆsimon e‰nai sugxvroËsin, oÎyÉ ˜soi toËto m¢n ımologoËsin égnooËsi d¢ tØn •kãstou fÊsin, ¥tiw, …w §de¤knumen, §k t∞w t«n stoixe¤vn g¤gnetai krãsevw. ÉAllÉ otoi m¢n efi ka‹ 15 mhd¢n êllo tå gÉ §k t∞w Ùrganik∞w kataskeu∞w t«n mor¤vn §ndeiktik«w lambanÒmena gign≈skousi: ofl dÉ épÚ toË YessaloË ka‹ taËtÉ égnooËsin: oÂon aÈt¤ka diairey°ntow §pigastr¤ou m°xri tosoÊtou bãyouw …w propese›n ¶nteron, ˜pvw te xrØ kataste›lai toËto, ka‹ µn [411] §p¤plouw prop°s˙ pÒteron épokÒptein µ oÈk épokÒptein aÈtÚn xrÆ, ka‹ pÒteron 20 brÒxƒ dialambãnein µ mÆ, ka‹ efi =ãptein µ mØ =ãptein tÚ traËma, ka‹ =ãptontaw ˜tƒ xrØ trÒpƒ =ãptein, oÈd¢n toÊtvn §p¤stantai: oÈd¢ går ≤me›w ín ¶gnvmen, efi mØ diÉ énatom∞w §mãyomen èpãntvn t«n tªde mor¤vn tØn fÊsin, ∂n ka‹ dielye›n énagka›Òn §stin oÈ safÆneiaw mÒnhw ßneka t«n lexyhsom°nvn éllå ka‹ p¤stevw.

FR 193. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(39)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, VI iv, p. 413 K: 25

[iv, 413] . . . Taut‹ m¢n dØ [sc tå m¢n dØ §n t“ toË §nt°rou xvr¤ƒ traÊmata] proep¤stasyai xrÆ: …w dÉ ên tiw êrista metaxeir¤zoito tåw

509

  ‒  - FR 191. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(37)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, VI iii, p. 408 K: [iii, 408] . . . The care of the whole body is common in these [sc the wounds of the nerves], too. If the entire nerve is removed, there is no longer any danger, but the part will be maimed. The treatment is common to that of the other wounds, which is the only thing that the Thessaleans know. And this is enough on the subject of nerves.

FR 192. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(38)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, VI iv, pp. 410–411 K: [iv, 410] . . . A wounded ligament which goes from bone to bone is least dangerous, and if you dry it completely with medicines in any way you wish you will not hurt the patient. One [sc a wounded ligament] which is inserted into a muscle, if not properly treated, is more dangerous than other ligaments by as much as it is less dangerous than a tendon or a nerve. Those doctors who do not agree that the indication taken from the [sc bodily] parts is useful for the treatments of wounds, or those who agree to this principle but are ignorant about the nature of each [sc bodily part]—which, as we have demonstrated, derives from the mixture of elements—those doctors are not capable of dealing successfully, according to method, with any of these wounds. But the latter at least understand, if nothing else, what derives indicatively from the organic constitution of the [sc bodily] parts; whereas the followers of Thessalus are ignorant even about this. For instance, if the abdomen got suddenly split to such depth that the intestine prolapsed, they have no idea how one should arrange it [sc the intestine], or, if [411] the omentum prolapsed, whether one should amputate it or not, catch it in a noose or not, sew the wound or not, and, if sew it, in what way one should do it; neither would we have any idea [sc about all these], had we not learned, through anatomy, the nature of all the parts in that area [sc of the body]; and it is necessary to present it not only for the sake of clarity in what follows, but also for the sake of credibility.

FR 193. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(39)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, VI iv, p. 413 K: [iv, 413] . . . But certainly one must have previous knowledge of these [sc the wounds in the area of the intestine]; and next we must examine how one

510

  ‒  -

toiaÊtaw tr≈seiw §fej∞w skept°on. ÜOti m¢n går oÈk érke› tÚ Yessãleion parãggelma tÚ kollòn to›w §na¤moiw farmãkoiw aÈtãw, oÏtvw ≤goËmai prÒdhlon Ípãrxein …w oÈd°na labe›n t«n §xÒntvn noËn.

FR 194. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(40)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, VI iv, pp. 420–423 K: [iv, 420] . . . ÜOpvw dÉ §pixeire› gast°ra tetrvm°nhn ı ÑIppokrãthw fiçsyai 5 sÁn ka‹ to›w êlloiw Ùleyr¤oiw tr≈masi, parÉ §ke¤nou manyãnein êmeinon. ÉEg∆ går oÈx Íp¢r toË mhd°na to›w ÑIppokrãtouw suggrãmmasin ımile›n §p‹ tÆnde tØn pragmate¤an ∏kon, éllÉ ˜ti moi doke› pr«tow m¢n §ke›now ıd“ xrÆsasyai proshkoÊs˙ mØ m°ntoi gÉ ëpanta sumplhr«sai: ka‹ går édiÒristã tina t«n ÍpÉ aÈtoË gegramm°nvn §st‹n eÍre›n ka‹ §llip∞ 10 ka‹ ésaf∞: diå toËto goËn §g∆ proÈyumÆyhn ëpantã te saf«w dielye›n §jergãsesya¤ te tå xvr‹w diorism«n efirhm°na ka‹ prosye›nai tå le¤ponta. Progumnasãmenow oÔn tiw §n to›w ≤met°roiw, §p‹ tØn t«n ÑIppokrãtouw suggrammãtvn énãgnvsin ‡tv ka‹ tÒte tÚ Per‹ t«n •lk«n bibl¤on énagn≈tv toË éndrÚw [421] tÒ te Per‹ t«n Ùleyr¤vn trvmãtvn. ÜEjei 15 dÉ efiw aÈtå meg¤staw éformåw §k t«nde t«n Ípomnhmãtvn: ¶ti te gn≈setai beba¤vw ˜ti mÆte tiw t«n épÚ t∞w ÙnÒmati m¢n semn“ kekosmhku¤aw •autØn aflr°sevw t∞w “Meyodik∞vw”, ¶rgƒ dÉ émeyodvtãthw, Ùry«w ßlkow fiçsyai dunatÒw §sti, mÆte t«n êllvn Logik«n ˜soi xvr‹w toË gn«nai tå t«n ımoiomer«n stoixe›a metaxeir¤zesyai tØn t°xnhn dikaioËsin: 20 éporÆsousi går ka‹ otoi logik∞w yerape¤aw §p‹ t«n èpl«n toË z–ou mor¤vn épÚ t«n Ùrganik«n mÒnvn §nde¤jeiw lambãnontew. ÉOl¤gon oÔn ¶ti prÚw toÁw MeyodikoÁw efipÒntew Èp¢r t«n katå tØn gast°ra traumãtvn §fÉ ßterÒn ti metabhsÒmeya. Trvy°ntow toË peritona¤ou prop¤ptei pollãkiw §p¤plouw: oÎtÉ efi kÊrion Ípãrxei mÒrion oÎtÉ efi mØ kÊrion oÎtÉ 25 §j œntinvn sÊgkeitai gignvskÒmenon aÈto›w oÎyÉ ¥ntinÉ ¶xvn §n°rgeian µ xre¤an. ÉEån oÔn pelidnÚn ka‹ m°lan g°nhtai tÚ propesÚn aÈtoË m°row, ˜ ti pot¢ prãjousin §pÉ aÈtoË kalÚn ékoËsai: pÒteron épotemoËsin µ katayÆsousin ¶sv toË peritona¤ou; Pãntvw m¢n går ≥toi gÉ §k pe¤raw ≤ gn«siw µ [422] §j aÈt∞w toË mor¤ou t∞w fÊsevw ≤ ¶ndei30 jiw aÈto›w ¶stai. Ka¤toi feÊgous¤ gÉ •kat°raw: tØn m¢n §k t∞w pe¤raw gn«sin énateinÒmenoi tÚ semnÚn dØ toËto t∞w aflr°sevw aÈt«n ˆnoma, tØn M°yodon, tØn dÉ §k t∞w fÊsevw toË mor¤ou diÒti mÆte tØn oÈs¤an aÈtoË gign≈skousi mÆte tØn §n°rgeian µ tØn xre¤an, épostãntew …w éxrÆstou t∞w énatom∞w. ÜVstÉ oÈk ‡sasin e‡te t«n énagka¤vn §st‹n 35 efiw tÚ zªn e‡te t«n oÈk énagka¤vn m°n, oÈ mØn ékÊrvn ge pantãpasin,

511

  ‒  -

should handle such wounds in the best possible way. It is so obvious that the Thessalean injunction that we glue them together with enaima medicines is not satisfactory that no one of a sound mind would be unaware of this fact, I think.

FR 194. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(40)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, VI iv, pp. 420–423 K: [iv, 420] . . . In what manner Hippocrates attempts to cure a wounded stomach and other deadly wounds, it is better to learn from himself. For I have not embarked upon this manual in order to prevent everyone from becoming acquainted with Hippocrates’ treatises, but because I think that he was the first one to use the right method, yet did not complete everything; for one can also find that some of the things he wrote are imprecise, incomplete, and unclear; and this is why I set out to expound everything clearly by working out the statements made without distinctions and adding what is missing. So, when you have already trained yourself in our treatises, do proceed to the reading of those of Hippocrates, and then read the man’s book On wounds [421] and that On deadly wounds. You will get from these commentaries of ours the best resources for [sc understanding] his books; and you will also get a firm understanding of the fact that no member of the hairesis which has pampered itself with the pompous name of “Methodist”, when in fact it is the most un-Methodical, is capable of treating a wound in the right way, nor is any other Logician who deems it right to practise the art without knowing the elements of the [sc substances with] uniform parts [homoiomere]; for these will be at a loss for rational treatment if they derive indications about the simple parts of the animal only from the organic parts. So, when we have argued just a little more against the Methodists on the subject of wounds in the stomach, we shall move on to something else. When the peritoneum has been wounded, it is often the case that the omentum prolapses; well, they [sc the Methodists] are in the dark as to whether the part is principal or not principal, or what [sc elements] it is made of, what its activity and function are. It would be nice to hear what they might do with the part of it [sc of the omentum] which has prolapsed, in case it becomes livid and black: will they amputate it, or will they fix it inside the peritoneum? For it is absolutely the case that their indication will consist in knowledge furnished either by experience or by [422] the very nature of the part. Yet they avoid both kinds of it: they evade knowledge derived from experience because, of course, they exalt themselves over that pompous name of their hairesis, the Method; and they avoid knowledge derived from the nature of the part because they know neither its substance nor its activity and function, rejecting anatomy as useless, as they do. In consequence, they have no idea whether it [sc the omentum] is among the [sc parts] which are necessary for living or among those which are not necessary, yet not altogether unimportant; nor do they have any

512

  ‒  -

éllÉ oÈdÉ efi sumpãsxein aÈt“ ti m°llei m°low kÊrion µ mØ sumpãsxein, oÈdÉ efi t«n égge¤vn katÉ aÈtÚ dÊnata¤ ti diÉ aflmorrag¤aw épokte›nai tÚn ênyrvpon, oÎdÉ efi, metå tØn épotomØn toË melany°ntow efi brÒxƒ dialhfye¤h tÚ Ígi°w, Íp¢r toË mhdem¤an aflmorrag¤an gen°syai toËtÉ 5 aÈt“ k¤ndunon o‡sei tinã: ka‹ gãr toi neur≈dhw fa¤netai katã ge tØn prÒxeiron fantas¤an, ÀstÉ efi mÆ tiw ékrib«w efide¤h tØn fÊsin aÈtoË mÆ potÉ ín yarrÆs˙ brÒxƒ xrÆsasyai, fÒbƒ spasmoË. ToÊtvn oÈd¢n ofl yaumasi≈tatoi gign≈skontew Meyodiko¤, t¤ pote [423] prãjontai §p¤plou melany°ntow oÈk ¶xousi fãnai. ÉAllÉ oÈx ≤me›w ge paraplhs¤vw 10 §ke¤noiw êpraktoi kayedoÊmeya: gign≈skontew d¢ tØn m¢n xre¤an aÈtoË mikrÒn ti t“ z≈ƒ sunteloËsan, tØn dÉ oÈs¤an §j Ím°now te leptoË ka‹ érthri«n ka‹ fleb«n sugkeim°nhn, fidÒntew d¢ ka‹ toÊtvn tåw érxåw épÚ meg¤stvn oÎsaw érthri«n ka‹ fleb«n, aflmorrag¤an m¢n eÈlabhsÒmeya, sumpãyeian d¢ neur«n oÈ fobhyhsÒmeya: ka‹ diå toËto 15 brÒxƒ te dialhcÒmeya tÚ prÚ toË melany°ntow épotemoËm°n te tÚ metå tÚn brÒxon, §n t“ kãtv p°rati t∞w proeirhm°nhn gastrorraf¤aw §kkreme›w toË brÒxou tåw érxåw poihsãmenoi, prÚw tÚ kom¤sasyai =&d¤vw aÈtåw ˜tan époptusy«sin, §kpuÆsantow toË traÊmatow.

FR 195. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(41)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, VII ii, pp. 535–543 K: [ii, 535] ÉEl°xyh goËn §n §ke¤noiw to›w s≈masin ≤ st°gnvsiw §rgazom°nh 20 puretÒn, §n oÂw §sti tÚ diapneoÊmenon oÈk étm«dew oÂÒn per §n to›w eÈxÊmoiw éllå dakn«dew ka‹ drimÁ ka‹ kapn“ paraplÆsion µ lignÊÛ. ToÊtoiw oÔn to›w s≈masin ÍgieinÒtata m¢n loutrå gluk°vn Ídãtvn eÈkrãtvn ka‹ tr¤ciw éraivtikØ ka‹ gumnãsia sÊmmetra ka‹ d¤aita glukÊxumow, §nanti≈tata d¢ loutrå cuxrå ka‹ stupthri≈dh ka‹ élous¤a 25 ka‹ gumnãsion ÙjÁ ka‹ tr¤ciw ≥toi mhdÉ ˜lvw µ sklhrå gignom°nh ka‹ d¤aita kakÒxumow, égrupn¤a te ka‹ yumÚw ka‹ lÊph ka‹ front¤w, ¶gkaus¤w te ka‹ kÒpow. ÉAllå per‹ m¢n t«n êllvn aÔyiw §pãneimi: per‹ d¢ t∞w stegn≈sevw nËn ˜yen ı lÒgow …rmÆyh gign≈skein xrØ saf«w ˜ti ka‹ mÒnh xvr‹w t«n êllvn èpãntvn flkanØ genn∞sai puretoÊw. ÉEån oÔn 30 e‡rj˙w tåw toiaÊtaw fÊseiw t«n ofike¤vn loutr«n, aÈt¤ka pur°ttousin. ÉEyeãsv d¢ dÆpou kayÉ ˘n §n [536] ÉR≈m˙ sÁn ≤m›n di°tricaw xrÒnon §n¤ouw oÏtv nosÆsantaw: §fÉ œn ofl tØn yaumastØn diãtriton és¤touw Íperbãllein éjioËntew1 aÈto‹ kakohyestãtouw puretoÁw kataskeuãzousi, d°on aÈt¤ka toË pr≈tou parojusmoË parakmãzontow épãgein 1

ego: éjioËntow K

513

  ‒  -

idea whether a principal limb is going to be sympathetically affected or not, whether some of the vessels in it might kill the patient through haemorrhage, or whether, if the healthy part were seized in a ligature after the removal of the blackened part, this will expose him [sc the patient] to any danger on account of there being no haemorrhage; for, at least in external appearance, it [sc the omentum] looks like a nerve, so that if you don’t know its nature with accuracy you may not dare to use a ligature, for fear of convulsion. Since the most admirable Methodists have no inkling into any of these facts, they cannot say anything about what [423] they would do with a blackened omentum. But we, we shall not sit inactive, like them; knowing as we do that the function [sc of the omentum] plays a small role in the animal, but that it [sc the omentum] is composed of a thin membrane, arteries, and veins, and being well aware that these latter have their origins in the greatest arteries and veins, we shall take care to avoid haemorrhage, but we shall not fear a sympathetic affection of the nerves; in consequence, we will seize in a ligature what lays in front of the blackened part, and we will cut what lays beyond the ligature; and we will have made the ends of the ligature hang out at the lower limit of the womb-suture just mentioned, with a view to getting hold of them easily when they are thrown out, once they have caused the wound to suppurate.

FR 195. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(41)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, VII ii, pp. 535–543 K: [ii, 535] So then: it has been said that constriction produces fever in those bodies in which perspiration is not vaporous, as it is in those of good humour, but pungent, bitter, and similar to smoke or soot. For such bodies, healthiest are: baths in sweet mild water, the [sc kind of ] friction which promotes rarefaction, moderate exercise, and a sweet-humoured regimen; while most hostile are: cold baths or baths in sulphurous waters, the lack of bathing, intensive exercise, friction—either none at all or of the dry sort—and a kakochumos regimen; lack of sleep, anger, grief, and anxiety; sunburn and fatigue. I shall take up the other [sc factors] again; but as regards constriction, which is the starting-point of the present discussion, one should know beyond doubt that it alone, unaccompanied by the rest, suffices to produce fever. So, if you keep such constitutions away from their accustomed baths, they immediately develop a fever. And in fact during the period you spent in our company in Rome you saw [536] a number of people who got ill in this way: some of them contrive the most malignant fevers just by themselves, proposing to go through the marvellous threedays period without food. The thing to do is to carry them off to the bath

514

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

efiw tÚ balane›on, §pitr°pein te loÊesyai pollãkiw efi boÊlointo, mØ mÒnon ëpaj éllå ka‹ d¤w. ÉEg∆ goËn §ãsaw ëpantaw toÁw êllouw énamnÆsv se toË lousam°nou m¢n §n to›w stupthri≈desin Ïdasin ì kaloËsin ÖAlboula, puknvy°ntow dÉ §k toÊtou tÚ d°rma kônteËyen érjam°nou pur°ttein: érk°sei går ßneka safhne¤aw otow oÂon parãdeigmã ti toË lÒgou gen°syai. Par∞san m¢n §piskopoÊmenoi t«n oÈk éfan«n tinew fiatr«n ı m¢n ÉErasistrãteiow, ı d¢ MeyodikÒw: ¶doje dÉ émfot°roiw ésit∞sai tÚn ênyrvpon. OÈ mØn efiãsam°n gÉ ≤me›w xvrisy°ntvn aÈt«n §lyÒntew, éllÉ efiw balane›on efisagagÒntew eÈy°vw ka‹ xliarÚn ¶laion §p‹ ple›ston aÈt“ perix°antew énatr¤cant°w te pr&Òtata tÚ ple›ston toË xrÒnou m°row §n t“ t∞w yerm∞w dejamen∞w2 Ïdati diatr¤bein §keleÊsamen. E‰tÉ §jelyÒnta ka‹ [537] xrhsãmenon Ïdati cuxr“, katå tå efivyÒta skepãsantew sindÒni ka‹ braxÁ kay¤sai keleÊsantew …w énaktÆsasyai tØn dÊnamin, aÔyiw efisagagÒntew efiw tÚ balane›on ımo¤vw te pãlin éle¤cant°w te ka‹ tr¤cantew ka‹ katå tÚ yermÚn Ïdvr xron¤sai keleÊsantew, e‰tÉ aÔyiw §jagagÒntew ka‹ t“ cuxr“ bãcantew, épomãjant°w te trofØn §d≈kamen, aÈt¤ka m¢n §jelyÒnti metå tÚ pie›n Ïdatow ptisãnhw xulÒn, e‰ta braxÁ dialipÒntew yridak¤nhn ka‹ metÉ aÈtØn §j èploË leukoË zvmÚn3 t«n èpalosãrkvn fixyÊvn oÂo¤ per ofl petra›oi pãntew efis‹ ka‹ ofl Ùn¤skoi kaloÊmenoi. Kãllion dÉ, ßneka toË paralele›fyai mhd°n, ëpanta prosye›nai tª dihgÆsei. ToË m¢n ¶touw ∑n ı kairÚw §ke›now §n ⁄ taËtÉ §prãtteto braxÊ ti metå tåw ÍpÚ kÊna prosagoreuom°naw ≤m°raw, ı dÉ ênyrvpow …w p°nte ka‹ triãkonta §t«n, melãnterow tØn xroiån ka‹ leptÚw tØn ßjin ka‹ dasÊw, èptom°noiw te saf«w dakn≈dh tØn yermas¤an ¶xvn ıpÒtÉ Íg¤ainen, oÔra katakorØ janyå ka‹ efi pl°on ésitÆseie dãknonta, gastØr §jhra¤neto sunex«w ka‹ ∑n tå diaxvrÆmata brax°a ka‹ drim°a ka‹ jhrã: tÚ [538] d¢ t∞w cux∞w ∑yow ÙjÊyumÒn te ka‹ frontistikÚn Íp∞rxen, ÙligÒ#pnÒw te tå pãnta ka‹ sunex«w égrupn¤an memfÒmenow. Otow §n xvr¤ƒ tini prãjevn ßneka genÒmenow §xr∞to to›w ÉAlboÊloiw plhs¤on oÔsin Àraw te •bdÒmhw …w ¶faske ka‹ tr¤w ge ka‹ tetrãkiw §loÊeto, xrhstÒn ti dØ toËto nom¤zvn §rgãzesyai. ÉEke›y°n te pãlin efiw tÚn égrÚn éfikÒmenow ka‹ trofØn prosarãmenow, e‰yÉ Ípn≈saw, brax°a pareg°neto m¢n efiw tØn pÒlin •sp°raw bay°aw, éporÆsaw dÉ §pithde¤ou loutroË diå t∞w nuktÚw §pÊreje. Yeasãmenoi dÉ aÈtÚn ofl fiatro‹ sxedÚn Àraw tr¤thw t∞w ≤m°raw §k°leusan oÈ mÒnon §ke¤nhn éllå ka‹ tØn §j∞w ésite›n ˜lhn, ·na tØn diå tr¤thw nÊkta fulãjainto: ka‹ taËtÉ efipÒntew éphllãttonto. LoÊsantew oÔn ≤me›w aÈtÚn ka‹ diaitÆsantew, …w e‡rhtai, to›w ofik°taiw §keleÊsamen, §ån efiw •sp°ran ofl fiatro‹ paragenhy«sin, ≤suxãzein te fãnai tÚn ênyrvpon épop°mpein tÉ §ke¤nouw paraxr∞ma, t∞w §pioÊshw ≤m°raw ¥kein éji≈santaw. ÑVw dÉ §xvr¤syhsan, aÔyiw ımo¤vw loÊsant°w te ka‹ diaitÆsantew aÈtÒn, §j aÈt«n toÊtvn œn §prãjamen Ípn«sai kal«w §poiÆsa[539]men. ParagenÒmenoi dÉ ofl fiatro‹ 2

ego: dejam°nhw K

3

corr ego: zvmoË K

  ‒  

515

as soon as the first paroxysm is over, leaving them to bathe many times if they wish—not only once but at least twice. Well, I shall leave all other cases aside and remind you of the patient who bathed in the sulphur waters [sc of the springs] which they call Albulan, had his skin become dense because of it, and thence started to develop a fever: for the sake of clarity, it will be enough to have this case as an illustration of our point. In attendance were two reputable doctors—an Erasistratean and a Methodist—and they decided on starving the patient. But when we arrived after their departure, we certainly did not permit this; instead we sent him straightaway to the bathroom and, when we had poured warm oil over him in abundance and rubbed him as gently as possible, we ordered him to spend most of the time in water from the hot tank. Then, once he came out and [537] went through cold water according to usage, we covered him in linen and ordered him to repose a little, so as to restore his power, then we sent him again to the bathroom and, just as before, anointed and rubbed him and ordered him to spend a long time in warm water; then we took him out again and sank him in cold water, wiped him, and administered food: barley-water after a drink a water—on the spot, just as he came out; next, after a longer interval, lettuce, then soup made from the unmixed white part of the fish with soft flesh, such as are all rockfish and all the varieties called “oniskoi” [= little asses]. It might be better to append every detail to my account, so as not to overlook something. The time of year at which this occurred was something shortly after the [sc period of ] days said to be under the Dog-star, and the patient was about thirty-five years of age, with a dark complexion, thin and hairy in his physical condition, and, when healthy, his heat had a definitely biting quality to those who touched him, his urine was intensely yellow, also pungent if he went without food for a long time, his stomach got dry continuously, and the excreted matter was little, piercing, and dry; he was of an [538] excitable and anxious disposition of mind and he slept little on the whole, constantly complaining of insomnia. As this man lived in a certain district on account of his job, he availed himself of the Albulan springs, which lay in his neighbourhood, and on his own testimony he got into the habit of taking three to four baths around the seventh hour [sc of the day], thinking of course that that did him good. He got back from there to the country, ate his food, then after a short sleep he came into the city late in the evening and, missing his customary bath, he developed a fever during the night. The doctors examined him around the third hour of the day and ordered him to fast not only on that day but also for the whole of the next, in order to observe [sc the rule] of the third night; and having established this they departed. So we washed and fed him, as has been said already, and then gave orders to the slaves, in case the doctors should return in the evening, to say that the patient is having a rest and to send them away at once, asking them to come on the next day. When they had left, we washed and fed him again in the same fashion, and we made him sleep well as a consequence of our actions. [539] When the doctors appeared early in the morning on the next day,

516

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

katå tØn Ístera¤an ßvyen, ±j¤oun aÈtÚn ¶ti kôke¤nhn ésit∞sai tØn ≤m°ran, efi ka‹ ˜ti mãlista tel°vw épÊretow e‡h. ToË dÉ Íposxom°nou prãjein …w keleÊousin, o‰sya m¢n dÆpou tÚn g°lvta tÚn genÒmenon épelyÒntvn aÈt«n, ˘n ≤me›w Ùl¤gon Ïsteron éfikÒmenoi katelãbomen. ÉEp¤stasai d¢ ka‹ ˜pvw §prãxyh tå katå tÚn êrrvston. “ÉEpeidØ går” ¶fhn “Ígia¤nvn §loÊou d¤w ofl dÉ fiatro‹ tel°vw ésit∞sa¤ se keleÊousin, oÎtÉ §ke¤noiw tÚ sÊmpan peisy∞nai d¤kaion, diallãjai t° ti t«n efÉ Íge¤aw prosÆkei.” ToË dÉ ofiom°nou me sumbouleÊein aÈt“ loÊsasyai m¢n éllÉ oÈ d¤w, •to¤mou te prãttein e‰nai fãskontow ˜ t¤ per ín §g∆ keleÊsaimi. “MØ to¤nun” ¶fhn “mÆtÉ ésitÆs˙w mÆte loÊs˙w d¤w, ka‹ går ka‹ kame›n moi doke›w tr¤thn ≤m°ran ka¤ pou ka‹ yermany∞nai sfodrÒteron ÍpÚ toË ≤l¤ou: diã tÉ oÔn tÚn kãmaton” ¶fhn “ka‹ tØn ¶gkausin ßn se xrØ prosye›nai loutrÚn to›w dÊo ka‹ tr‹w loÊsasyai peiyÒmenon §mo¤: toËto går Íp°sxou poiÆsein.” ÑO d¢ meidiãsaw “Xalepå m¢n” ¶fh “pros[540]tãtteiw: éllÉ §pe‹ sunyÆkaw fulãttein d¤kaion, ì keleÊeiw poiÆsv.” Tå d¢ praxy°nta metå taËta 4 to›w fiatro›w o‰sya dÆpou saf«w ıpÒsou katag°lvtow ∑n êjia. D‹w m¢n §l°louto ka‹ ±risthk∆w §keko¤mhto, per‹ d¢ dusmåw ≤l¤ou t«n ofiket«n tiw égg°llei pare›nai toÁw fiatroÊw. ÑO d¢ prospoie›tai pur°ttein ka‹ periballÒmenow flmãtion e‡sv te strafe‹w ˜pvw mØ katafanØw aÈto›w g°noito pepvk∆w o‰non, t«n f¤lvn tin‹ keleÊei to›w fiatro›w ényÉ aÍtoË poie›syai tåw épokr¤seiw, ≥n ti punyãnvntai. ÖEmellon d¢ dÆpou tÚ sunhy°staton aÈto›w pr«ton §rÆsesyai, ye≈menoi peribeblhm°non §pimel«w ëma tª kefalª tÚn ênyrvpon, ¥tiw ∑n Àra kayÉ ∂n ı parojusmÚw efis°balen. ÉApokrinom°nou d¢ toË f¤lou sxedÚn oÈdem¤an ılÒklhron Àran gegon°nai metajÊ, pÒteron metå fr¤khw µ metå pericÊjevw ÍpÆrjato punyãnontai. ToË d¢ metå fr¤khw efipÒntow, ëptontai toË ényr≈pou diã te tÚ gelòn ka‹ perikekalÊfyai notizom°nou. ÉEpain°santew oÔn aÈtÚn §p‹ t“ peisy∞na¤ sfisi ka‹ mhd¢n èmarte›n prÚ toË diå tr¤thw parojusmoË: “Toigãrtoi diå toËto” ¶fasan “≥dh m°n soi p°[541]pautai tå t∞w fr¤khw, fldr«tow dÉ §st‹n ÍpÒfasiw ka‹ not‹w pollØ per‹ tÚ d°rma, ka‹ taËtÉ oÈk ín §g°neto mØ ésitÆsantÒw sou ka‹ tØn diãtriton Íperbãllontow.” KeleÊsantew oÔn to›w ofike¤oiw, §ån g°nvnta¤ tinew aÈt“ not¤dew, épomãttein §pimel«w ˜pvw mØ cuxye¤h paragenÆsesya¤ te fãntew ßvyen, épallãttontai mhd¢ tÒte keleÊontew §p‹ to›w fldr«si traf∞nai tÚn ênyrvpon: §dÒkoun går aÈto›w afl katÉ §ke›non tÚn kairÚn nÊktew e‰nai mikra‹ ka‹ kãllion §fa¤neto katå tØn Ístera¤an ßvyen tr°fein. ÉApallag°ntvn oÔn aÈt«n, §n fldr«ti =eÒmenow ı nean¤skow …w §netetÊlikto to›w flmat¤oiw, katadram∆n efiw tÚ balane›on §loÊsato tÚ tr¤ton, ımo¤vw te di˙tÆyh, kõpeita katå tØn Ístera¤an, pr‹n éfik°syai toÁw fiatroÊw, pro∞lye t∞w ofik¤aw §p¤thdew, ˜pvw mØ katalãboien aÈtÒn. O„ dÉ êra mikrÚn Ïsteron ¥kontew ka‹ mayÒntew aÈtÚn proelhluy°nai, kayÉ •autoÁw §yaÊmazon ˜ ti potÉ e‡h tÚ proelye›n énagkãsan ±sithkÒta duo›n

4

addidi

  ‒  

517

they asked him to carry on starving himself throughout that day as well, even if he were completely without fever. He promised to do as they ordered, but you know of course what laughter he burst out into when they had left—we caught that on our arrival, a little later. You also know for sure how the treatment of the patient was carried out. “Now,” I said, “since as a healthy man you bathed twice [sc a day], and yet the doctors ordered you to starve yourself completely, it is reasonable not to follow their instructions to the letter; and it is proper for you to change some of your life-style in health.” The man figured that I would advise him to carry on with his baths, but not twice [sc a day], and declared that he would do whatever I order him to; but I said: “Then do not starve yourself and do not bathe twice, especially since I have the impression that you were exhausted two days ago and that the sun heated you perhaps in excess; so,” I concluded, “because of your fatigue and the sunstroke, you must add one bath to the two and bathe three times, if you are to follow my instructions; come, you have promised to do this.” He smiled and retorted: “You prescribe the hard course, [540] but since it is good for me to stand by our agreement I will do what you order me to.” As for what the doctors did afterwards, surely you know how ridiculous it was. The patient had washed and slept twice, after being fed, when a slave announced around sunset that the doctors were there. The patient pretends to be feverish and, wrapped up in a mantle turned inside out so that they may not realise that he had had wine, he instructs some friend of his to answer the doctors in his place, in case they should ask anything. And of course the first and most likely thing they were going to ask, seeing the patient carefully wrapped up even around the head, was the time at which the paroxysm occurred. When the friend answers that maybe not even a full hour had passed since then, they ask whether it started with shivering or with chilling. When he says that with shivering, they touch the patient—who was covered in perspiration because of laughing and of being muffled up all round; they congratulated him for having obeyed and made no mistake before the paroxysm on the third day, and said: “This is the very reason why [541] your shivering fit abated; there is the symptom of sweat and a lot of moisture about the skin, and these would not have occurred, had you not fasted and endured the three-days period.” So after they give orders to the slaves, in case the patient should sweat more, to wipe him off carefully so he would not get cold, there they leave, announcing that they would be there early in the morning, and they give orders not to feed the patient right then, after his sweating; for they appreciated that nights were short at that time [sc of the year], and it seemed better to administer food early next day. So, when they were gone, the youngster, who was soaked in perspiration, wrapped up in clothes as he was, dashed to the bathroom and washed for the third time, then had a meal like before. After this he went home on the next day, on purpose, before the doctors came, so that they should not get hold of him. Hence when they arrived a little later and learned that he had already left, they puzzled among themselves what on earth it could be that forced the patient to leave earlier, starved as he was for two days.

518

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  -

≤m°rain tÚn ênyrvpon. Efi m¢n oÔn ©n toËto mÒnon ÍpÚ t«n toioÊtvn fiatr«n ofl kãmnontew ±dikoËnto, tÚ m°xri pleiÒnvn ≤mer«n §p‹ t∞w kl¤nhw kat°xesyai dunãmenoi ka‹ xvr‹w ésit¤aw éka¤[542]rou polÁ yçtton §p‹ tåw sunÆyeiw éfikne›syai prãjeiw, ∑n m¢n ín dÆpou ka‹ oÏtv deinÚn tÚ gignÒmenon: éllÉ ∏tton makr“ t«n katalambanÒntvn aÈtoÊw. ÉEpeidØ d¢ xalepvtãtoiw èl¤skontai pureto›w afl efirhm°nai fÊseiw, ˜tan oÏtv diaithy«sin oÈd¢n épode›n moi dokoËsi dhm¤vn ofl tå toiaËta diaprattÒmenoi t«n fiatr«n. OÈ går Àsper ofl Ígro‹ ka‹ eÎxumoi katå toÁw §fhm°rouw puretoÁw énagkasy°ntew Íperbãllein tØn daimon¤an diãtriton ©n toËtÉ édikoËntai mÒnon, tÚ katatr¤besyai mãthn, oÏtv ka‹ afl proeirhm°nai fÊseiw, éllÉ §p‹ ta›w makrot°raiw ésit¤aiw èl¤skontai pureto›w drimutãtoiw te ka‹ Ùjutãtoiw, §j œn ≤ metãptvsiw efiw toÁw •ktikoÁw g¤gnetai =&d¤vw kôj §ke¤nvn aÔyiw efiw tÚn perifrug∞ marasmÚn ≥, §ån eÈad¤khton e‡h tÚ stÒma t∞w gastrÒw, efiw tÚn sugkop≈dh. Pollãkiw goËn ≥kousaw ≤m«n legÒntvn §n¤oiw t«n toioÊtvn fiatr«n …w ¶jestin aÈto›w §narg°stata maye›n ≤l¤kon §rgãzontai kakÚn §n ésit¤& fulãttontew tåw proeirhm°naw fÊseiw, µn §yelÆsvsin Ígia¤nontaw ém°mptvw aÈtoÁw ésit∞sai keleËsai duo›n ≤m°rain: [543] ˆcontai går aÈtfika pur°ttontaw diÉ oÈd¢n êllo dÆpouyen µ tÚn limÒn. äVi går oÎtÉ ∑n ¶mprosyen oÈd¢n êllo per‹ tÚ s«ma m°mcevw êjion oÎtÉ §n t“ metajÁ proseg°netÒ ti ne≈teron ¶jvyen, otow §narg«w ÍpÚ t∞w ésit¤aw §pÊrejen. ÜOtan dÉ, …w e‡rhtai, mØ mÒnon eÂw µ dÊo t«n oÏtv duskrãtvn éllÉ §fej∞w ëpantew ésitÆsant°w te ka‹ éloutÆsantew èl¤skvntai pureto›w, oÎdÉ émudrån ÍpÒnoian ¶ti dunatÚn ≤m›n g¤gnesyai toË diÉ êllo ti ka‹ mØ diå tØn ésit¤an pur°ttein aÈtoÊw. OÂw går §n tª krãsei toË m¢n ÍgroË tÚ jhrÚn toË d¢ cuxroË tÚ yermÚn pleonekte›, toÊtoiw ≤ m¢n ßjiw toË s≈matow flsxnØ ka‹ dase›a ka‹ melant°ra ka¤, efi ëcaio, yermot°ra t«n êllvn tri«n t«n duskrãtvn t«n ∏tton yerm«n §nteÊj˙: pampÒllh dÉ ≤ janyØ xolØ ka‹ oÔra ka‹ diaxvrÆmata katakor∞ ka‹ ofl sfugmo‹ megãloi ka‹ Ïpnoi lepto‹ ka‹ Ùl¤goi ka‹ ı yumÚw sfodrÒw.

FR 196. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(42)

I Galenus, De methodo medendi, XIII xv, pp. 909–916 K: [xv, 909] âArã soi doke› smikrå diaforå pros°rxesyai tª koinª t«n flegmon«n yerape¤& parå t«n mor¤vn; ÉEmo‹ m¢n går meg¤sth fa¤netai, kùn ofl1 tØn Yessãleion énaisyhs¤an zhloËntew o‡ontai tØn koinØn

1

ego: kùn efi K

519

  ‒  -

Now, if this were the only bad thing that the ill suffered from such doctors—to be retained in bed for several days when they could [542] have returned much more quickly to their normal activities even without undue starvation—it would still be dreadful to have it happen; but this is by far the smallest of the things they incur. Since the natures described above are seized by the most severe fevers when they are treated in this way, such doctors do not seem to me to differ from public executioners. For the natures described above are not like the humid ones with good humours, who, when forced to endure the marvellous three-days period in the course of quotidian fevers, suffer just one harm—that of being worn off in vain; as a result of very long periods of starvation they are seized by the sharpest and most acute fevers, which turn easily into hectic fevers and from there, again, into wasting languor or, if the entrance to the stomach is easy to injure, into languor accompanied by syncope. Well, you have often heard us telling some of these doctors that they are at liberty to learn as clearly as possible how much wrong they cause by keeping the above mentioned natures without food, just if they tried to order them to stay without food for two days when they are perfectly healthy: [543] then they would see them developing a fever right away, and clearly for no other reason than famine. For if previously there was nothing worth complaining about [sc the man’s] body and if nothing developed inside him in the meantime, then clearly he got his fever from starving. When, as has been said, not merely one or two among the people with this kind of bad temperament [duskrateis] are seized by fevers when they have not eaten and bathed, but all in a row, it is no longer possible for us to entertain [sc even] a faint suspicion that they might be feverish for some other reason than their starving. For when the dry is in excess over the humid or the hot over the cold in people’s temperament [krasis], such people have a thin, thick, and dark physical condition, hotter to touch than in the case of the three other bad temperaments, which are less hot; and they have a lot of yellow bile, immoderate urine and excreta, a big pulse, their sleep is light and scarce, and their passion is strong.

FR 196. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(42)

I Galenus, On the method of therapy, XIII xv, pp. 909–916 K: [1xv 909] Do you think that the variation introduced by the [sc bodily] parts into the general treatment of inflammation is insignificant? Well, to me it seems to be of the greatest importance—even if those who emulate Thessalean stupidity believe that the common indication alone suffices. But

520

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

¶ndeijin érke›n mÒnhn. ÉAnamn∞sai d° se boÊlomai ka‹ t∞w kal∞w aÈt«n yerape¤aw ∂n §p‹ Yeag°nouw §poiÆsanto toË KunikoË filosÒfou: taÊthn går ¶gnvsan oÈk Ùl¤goi diå dÒjan tényr≈pou, dhmos¤& dialegom°nou katå tÚ toË Tra`ÛanoË gumnãsion •kãsthw ≤m°[910]raw. ÑO m¢n oÔn yerapeÊvn aÈtÚn ∑n eÂw t«n SvranoË mayht«n, ÖAttalow toÎnoma. Kat°platte dÉ •kãsthw ≤m°raw tÚ ∏par értom°liti, mØ gign≈skvn ˜ti stÊfesyai metr¤vw de›tai tÚ splãgxnon toËto, diÒti t∞w yreptik∞w dunãmevw érxØ to›w z–oiw §st‹ ka‹ tÚ fleb«dew g°now épÉ aÈtoË p°fuken. OÏtvw oÔn §yerãpeuse tÚ splãgxnon …w toÁw boub«naw, ém¤ktƒ ka‹ mÒn˙ tª diå t«n xal≈ntvn égvgª, kataplãttvn m¢n értom°liti, prokataion«n dÉ §la¤ƒ yerm“, ka‹ tr°fvn §k xÒndrou =ofÆmati. TaËta går érke› tå tr¤a sxedÚn ëpasi to›w nËn émeyÒdoiw Yessale¤oiw efiw tØn t«n Ùj°vn ‡asin. ÖEdoje d° moi katamÒnaw efipe›n t“ ÉAttãlƒ prosmignÊnai ti t«n stufÒntvn ka‹ mØ cilª xr∞syai tª diå t«n xalastik«n égvgª. Per‹ m¢n oÔn t∞w toË splãgxnou fÊsevw oÈk ¶mellon §re›n aÈt“: toËto går ∑n ˆntvw ˆnƒ mËyon l°gein. àO dÉ ’mhn efip∆n pe¤sein aÈtÒn, ⁄ ka‹ pãntaw ényr≈pouw ır« tãxista peiyom°nouw, toËto di∞lyon mÒnon: …w ≤ makrå pe›ra §d¤daje toÁw fiatroÁw yerapeÊein ∏par Ïl˙ farmãkvn miktª. “Gegramm°nhn dÉ aÈtØn eÍr°seiw §n to›w ye[911]rapeutiko›w grãmmasi t«n fiatr«n. ÉEån oÔn soi dokª, m›jon” ¶fhn “éciny¤ou ti t∞w kÒmhw m¢n ékrib«w kekomm°nhw t“ kataplãsmati, t∞w pÒaw dÉ ˜lhw t“ §la¤ƒ, kayãper ıròw êllouw §naf°contaw aÈt“ metr¤vw. T“ kataplãsmati d¢ murobalãnou p¤esma ka‹ ‡rin ka‹ sx¤nou tÚ ênyow µ t∞w nard¤tidow botãnhw tØn =¤zan µ kup°rou m›jon: oÈ xe›ron d¢ ka‹ diÉ o‡nou potÉ aÈtå kataskeuãsai ka‹ m›jai pot¢ t∞w filÊow aÈtoË ka¤ ti t«n stufÒntvn §nafec∞sai mÆlvn ıpo›a tå Kud≈niã te ka‹ stroÊyia kaloÊmena ka‹ taËta dØ tå pleonãzonta katå tØn ÑRvma¤vn pÒlin, ì prosagoreÊousi kestianã. TÚ dÉ ¶laion, ır« gãr se ka‹ toËto mignÊnta, mØ tÚ tuxÚn ¶stv éllÉ ≥toi tÚ épÚ t∞w ÑIspan¤aw µ tÚ ÉIstrikÚn µ tÚ Ùmfãkinon µ sx¤ninon µ mÊrtinon µ mÆlinon µ nãrdinon mÊron.” PollØn d¢ ka‹ êllhn ¶fhn Ïlhn êfyonon e‰nai t«n §nafece›syai dunam°nvn: ka‹ går sx¤nou toÁw èpaloÁw kl«naw ka‹ murs¤nhw ka‹ bãtou ka‹ émp°lou ka‹ mçllon t∞w égr¤aw, éfÉ ∏w ka‹ tØn ofinãnyhn kaloum°nhn lambãnomen. OÈ xe›ron dÉ ín e‡h ka‹ tÚ ÉAttikÚn Ïssvpon [912] t“ te kataplãsmati ka‹ ta›w khrvta›w mignÊnai: ka‹ går ka‹ khrvtãw tinaw §j Ïlhw toiaÊthw aÈt“ suneboÊleuon §pitiy°nai metå t“ katãplasma, ka‹ sunãptein gÉ §peir≈mhn §fej∞w aÈt“ tØn ˜lhn égvgÆn, ·na ka‹ tå kaloÊmena prÚw t«n fiatr«n §piy°mata diå mikt∞w Ïlhw skeuãz˙. “B°ltion går” ¶fhn “§st¤n, éry°ntow toË kataplãsmatow, §pike›sya¤ ti t“ splãgxnƒ.” Ka‹ ı ÖAttalow ÍpotemnÒmenÒw mou tÚn lÒgon: “Efi mØ sfÒdra sÉ §t¤mvn” ¶fh “toÊtvn oÈdenÚw ín ±nesxÒmhn: §n oÂw går §nauãghsan ofl prÒsyen fiatro‹ pr‹n tØn ˆntvw fiatrikØn ÍpÚ tØn ≤met°rvn eÍrhy∞nai, taËtã moi sumbouleÊeiw Àsper oÈk efidÒti. Tre›w oÔn ≤m°raw

  ‒  

521

I wish to remind you of the splendid treatment that these people provided for Theagenes, the Cynic philosopher: quite a number of people have heard of it, thanks to the man’s fame: he contended daily in public, in Trajan’s gymnasium. [910] The doctor in charge of him was one of the disciples of Soranus, a man called Attalus. Each day he applied on the liver a plaster made of bread and honey, without knowing that this internal organ requires to be moderately contracted because it is the source of the nourishing faculty in animals and the genus of the veins begins in it. So Attalus was treating an internal organ in the same way as [sc he might treat] the glands—namely through the unmixed and exclusive action of relaxing procedures: he applied on it the bread and honey plaster, moistened it beforehand with hot oil, and nourished the patient with a thick gruel of groats. For, in the opinion of almost all the un-Methodical Thessaleans of our days, these three procedures are sufficient for the treatment of acute diseases. I decided to advise Attalus in private to mix in some astringents and not to rely on the sole action of relaxants. I did not intend, of course, to talk to him about the nature of the internal organ; that would have amounted, in fact, to telling a story to an ass. I only expounded what I thought might convince him once I said it, and what I see everyone being most easily convinced by: that a long experience has taught the doctors to treat the liver using a mixed materia medica [hule] for their medicines. “You will find a record of it [sc the mixed hule] in the treatises on therapy [911] written by doctors. So, if you decide on it”, I said, “mix into your plaster some foliage of wormwood, thoroughly pounded, and, into your oil, some whole herb—after boiling them in moderately, just as you see the other people do. And mix into the plaster the juice of a murobalanos, iris, mastich flower, and narditis root or kuperos root; in fact it would not be a bad idea to prepare them with wine, mixing the sediments in, and to boil in some astringent apples, for instance those known as Cydonian [= quince apples], ostrich apples [= quinces], or the ones which are so abundant in Rome—they call them “cestian”. As for the oil—since I see that you bring that as well [sc into your treatment]—it should not be of no matter what sort, but oil from Spain, oil from Histria, oil made from unripe olives, mastich oil, oil of myrtle, apple oil, or nard oil.” I told him that there was other materia medica too, rich and bounteous, which he might boil [sc into the composition]: twigs of mastich, myrtle, bramble, or grape-vine—especially the wild variety, from which we pluck off what is called the wild-vine flower. It would not be bad also to mix Attic hyssop [912] into the plaster or cerates; I advised him in particular to apply, after the plaster, some cerates made of such a substance; and I was trying to net the whole course [sc of medication] for him without a gap, so that he may also prepare, out of mixed substances, what doctors call “epithems” [= remedies for external application]. “For when the plaster has been fitted”, I said, “it would be better to apply something onto the organ.” But Attalus cut my speech short: “If I did not have a lot of respect for you”, he said, “I would not have put up with any of this; for you advise me to follow—as if I did not know them—precisely those procedures which brought to shipwreck the doctors of the past, before the time when medicine in the true sense was discovered by our people.

522

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

µ t°ssaraw” ¶fh “sugx≈rhsÒn moi pronoÆsasyai toË Yeag°nouw …w §g∆ boÊlomai, ka‹ yeãs˙ tele¤vw aÈtÚn Ígia¤nonta.” “T¤ oÔn,” ¶fhn “§ån §ja¤fnhw fldr≈tvn Ùl¤gvn ka‹ toÊtvn gl¤sxrvn §pifan°ntvn époyãn˙, mnhmoneÊseiw œn Íp°sxou ka‹ metayª toË loipoË;” Katagel«n §p‹ toÊtoiw ı ÖAttalow §xvr¤syh mhk°tÉ épokrinÒmenow mhd°n, ÀstÉ oÈd¢ per‹ toË xÒndrou ti sumbouleËsa¤ moi sunex≈rhsen oÈdÉ ˜ti deÆsei t«n oÈrhtik«n farmãkvn [913] mignÊnai t“ Ïdati mikrÚn Ïsteron, §peidØ tå kurtå toË ¥patow §pepÒnyei. Kayãper går tå simå diå t∞w gastrÚw §kkenvt°on §st¤n, …w Ùl¤gon ¶mprosyen e‰pon, oÏtv tå kurtå diå t«n metr¤vw oÈrhtik«n farmãkvn, oÂÒn §sti tÚ s°linon. ÉEn d¢ t“ xrÒnƒ proÛÒnti pettom°nhw ≥dh t∞w flegmon∞w ka‹ to›w fisxurot°roiw §gxvre› xrÆsasyai—t“ ésãrƒ ka‹ tª Keltikª nãrdƒ ka‹ t“ kaloum°nƒ foË ka‹ petrosel¤nƒ ka‹ smurn¤ƒ ka‹ mƃ: kayãper ge ka‹ diå t∞w gastrÚw kenoËn, efi tå simå pepÒnyasi, kn¤kon mignÊnta to›w §d°smasi ka‹ ékalÆfhn ka‹ linoz«stin, §p¤yumÒn te ka‹ polupÒdion ka‹ pãnyÉ ˜sa metr¤vw Ípãgei. ÖEti d¢ mçllon §n ta›w parakma›w aÈto›w te toÊtoiw xr∞syai yarsale≈teron µ prÒsyen, ˜sa te toÊtvn §st‹ sfodrÒtera, tå m¢n §naf°contaw tª ptisãn˙, tå d¢ kÒcantaw …w xno≈dh gen°syai: didÒnai d¢ ka‹ taËta diå ptisãnhw µ metÉ Ïdatow. ÉEg∆ goËn ka‹ polupod¤ou ti pot¢ sun°chsa tª ptisãn˙ ka‹ m°lanow §llebÒrou floiÒn. Ka‹ diå t«n klusmãtvn d¢ kenoËn aÈtoÁw pros∞ken, §n érxª m¢n érkoum°nouw èls‹n µ n¤trƒ µ éfron¤trƒ memig[914]m°noiw t“ melikrãtƒ: katå d¢ tåw parakmãw, ka‹ mãlista §ån skirr«d°w ti katale¤phtai t∞w flegmon∞w, fisxurÒtera mignÊntaw fãrmaka: tÚ goËn Ïssvpon §nafecÒmenon t“ Ïdati thnikaËta ka‹ tØn Ùr¤ganon ka‹ tØn kolokuny¤da ka‹ tÚ leptÚn kentaÊrion. ÉEpithdeiÒtata gãr §sti skirrvy∞nai tå dÊo splãgxna, tÒ yÉ ∏par ka‹ ı splÆn, §ån émelÆs˙ tiw aÈt«n µ to›w gl¤sxroiw §d°smasi xrÆshtai, kayãper ka‹ ı ÖAttalow §p‹ toË Yeag°nouw •kãsthw ≤m°raw xÒndron prosf°rvn ka‹ mhd¢n didoÁw t«n §kfrattÒntvn te ka‹ =uptÒntvn. ÉAllå tÒ ge sumbån t“ Yeag°nei, mçllon d¢ t“ ÉAttãlƒ, kairÚw efipe›n. ÑVw går Íp°sxetÒ moi metå tre›w ≤m°raw §pide¤jein tÚn êndra t∞w flegmon∞w toË ¥patow éphllagm°non, ı m¢n ¶ti dØ ka‹ mçllon §p‹ ple›stÒn te katÆntlei tÚ splãgxnon §la¤ƒ yerm“ kat°platt° te sunex°steron, §k t∞w §pimele¤aw §lp¤zvn aÍt“ proxvrÆsein tå t∞w yerape¤aw êmeinon, épekr¤natÒ te punyanom°noiw gauri«n Íp¢r toË Yeag°nouw tå belt¤v. ÉAllå sun°bh ge kayÉ ˘n §g∆ trÒpon e‰pon §ja¤fnhw époyane›n aÈtÒn. Ka‹ tÚ pãntvn geloiÒtaton, ı m¢n [915] ÖAttalow ∑g° tinaw t«n ≤rvthkÒtvn f¤lvn ˜pvw diãgoi, de›jai boulÒmenow aÈtÚn oÏtvw ¶xonta kal«w …w loÊesyai m°llein, égallÒmenÒw te metå poll«n efis∞lyen efiw tÚn o‰kon §n ⁄ kat°keito, tÚn Yeag°nh d¢ teyne«ta loÊein §nexe¤roun ¶nioi t«n f¤lvn—taËta dØ tå nenomism°na—Kuniko¤ t° tinew ˆntew ka‹ êllvw filÒsofoi. DiÚ ka‹ m°xri toË nekroË paragen°syai sun°bh t“ ÉAttãlƒ metå toË xoroË t«n yeat«n, ëte mhdenÚw

  ‒  

523

Allow me to look after Theagenes in my own fashion for three or four days, and you will see him completely recovered.” “And what if small drops of sweat appear of a sudden—and sticky ones at that—and then he dies?” I asked; “Will you remember what you promised, and will you change your mind for the future?” At these words Attalus burst into laughter and departed without making an answer, so that I had no opportunity to advise him about the groats, or [sc about the fact] that diuretic medicines should be [913] mixed with water shortly afterwards, since the convexities of the liver were affected. For just as the concavities [sc of the liver] must be vacuated through the stomach, as I said shortly above, so its convexities must be vacuated, with the help of diuretic medicines such as celery. At an earlier stage, when the inflammation is already developing, it is allowed to use even stronger diuretics—asaron, Celtic spikenard, what is called phou, parsley, myrrh, or meum—just as, if the concavities of the liver are affected, you vacuate it through the stomach by mixing safflower, stinging-nettle, or mercury into the food—or the plant which grows on thyme, polypody; or anything that promotes withdrawal in a moderate fashion. During the periods of decline it is even more audacious than before to make use of such substances; as for the stronger ones, some [sc we should use] after boiling them in barley-gruel, others, after pounding them until they become a powder; and we should administer even the latter in barley-gruel, or with water. I, at any rate, have once boiled polypody and husk of black hellebore into barley-gruel. Another thing to do is to evacuate them [sc the patients] by means of clysters, confining oneself at start to salt, soda, or washing soda, [914] added to a mixture of honey and water, and afterwards, during the periods of decline, mixing in stronger medicines, especially if some callosity subsists from the inflammation: hyssop boiled in water [sc is good] at this stage, origanum, colocynth, and small centaury. For these two viscera, the liver and the spleen, are the most liable to develop a callosity if one is negligent about them or makes use of sticky foods—as Attalus did when he administered spelt groats to Theagenes every day, without giving him anything with an eliminatory and cleansing effect. And now it is opportune to say what happened to Theagenes, or rather to Attalus. After he gave me his word that in three days he would show me his patient relieved of the inflammation in the liver, he started, mainly, to pour a flood of hot oil over the internal organ, even to a greater extent than before, and to plaster it even more assiduously, expecting that the therapy will take a happier course for himself as a result of diligence; and to those who inquired about Theagenes he answered with conceit that he was getting better. But things happened the way I had told him, and the man suddenly died. And, most ridiculous of all, [915] Attalus was leading a group of friends who had asked how the patient got on: he wanted to show them that he [sc Theagenes] fared so well that he was about to have a bath. And there, in full glory amidst a crowd, he [sc Attalus] arrived to the house where he [sc the patient] lay; some friends were just in the middle of washing the dead Theagenes, this being the custom—there were Cynics about, but also other philosophers. And, since nobody in the house lamented, Attalus advanced right up to the corpse, accompanied by his crowd of gazers. For

524

  ‒  

¶ndon ofim≈zontow. OÎte går ofik°thw oÎte paid¤on oÎte gunØ t“ Yeag°nei ∑n éllÉ ofl filosofoËntew mÒnoi par∞san aÈt“ f¤loi, tå m¢n §p‹ to›w teyne«si nomizÒmena prãttontew, oÈ mØn ofim≈zein ge m°llontew. OÏtv m¢n ı Yessãleiow ˆnow eÈdok¤mhsen §p‹ poll«n yeat«n §pide¤jaw 5 éphllagm°non t∞w flegmon∞w §ntÚw t«n tettãrvn ≤mer«n, …w Íp°sxeto, tÚn ênyrvpon. Ofl dÉ êlloi Meyodiko‹ mur¤ouw épokte¤nontew ıshm°rai tØn égvgØn t∞w yerape¤aw oÈd°pv ka‹ nËn Ípallãjai tolm«sin oÈd¢ peiray∞na¤ pote kùn ëpaj t∞w to›w êlloiw fiatro›w, 2 oÂw ˆntvw §spoudãsyh tå t∞w t°xnhw ¶rga, gegramm°nhw: oÏtv deusÒpoiÒn ti 10 prçgmã §stin émay¤a [916] sfodrã, ka‹ mçllon ˜tan élazon¤& mixyª. ToioËtoi m¢n oÔn §n ëpasin ofl Yessãleioi. 2

addidi

II Inscriptiones Asiae Minoris A L. Robert, La Carie II 179, No. 76 = Henzen Inscriptiones Graecae 154, No. 1: [S]tateil¤an ÉAmmmiØn3 St. ÖAttalow érx¤atrow 15 Sebast«n tØn •autoË mhttÆra B L. Robert, La Carie II 179, No. 77 = Le Bas – Waddington, Voyage archéologique III, No. 1695 = Buckler – Calder MAMA VI 117 (et Pl 21): Stat¤lion ÉArtem¤dvron érx¤atr tÚn •autoË prÒyeion St. ÖAttlo érx¤atrow Sebast«n. C L. Robert, La Carie II 220 = BMC Caria 120, No. 25 (et Pl XX 8) = Inv. Waddington 2421 = Le Bas – Waddington, Voyage archéologique III, No. 3 (ad No. 1695) = A. Engel, RevNum 1884 18, No. 11: 20 ÉAu Ka¤ T¤ A‡ ÑAdri ÉAntvn›now Seb.—St ÖAttalow érxiãtrow ÑHraklevt«n n°oiw. D L. Robert, La Carie II 220 = BMC Caria 120, No. 26 = Inv. Waddington 2422 = Le Bas – Waddington, Voyage archéologique III, No. 4 (ad No. 1695) = Fox, Engravings II, No. 77: M AÈrÆliow OÈ∞row Ka¤sar.—St ÖAttalow érxiãtrow ÑHraklevt«n n°oiw. 3

ÉAmmianØn restit Waddington > Robert: ÉAmm¤lhn Henzen: ÉAmm¤an quaerit Robert

in apparatu

  ‒  

525

Theagenes had kept neither slave nor child nor wife; only his philosophical friends were in wake by his side, and they performed the rituals due at death but had no intention of lamenting. This is how the Thessalean ass distinguished himself in front of a large public by showing the patient relieved of his inflammation, as promised, within four days. The other Methodists kill countless patients every day, and yet they have the cheek neither to alter the pattern of their treatment—not even to this day—nor to peruse, be it at least once, what has been written by the other doctors, those who took very seriously the facts of our profession. Such a fast sort of dye is ignorance, [916] especially when allied with quackery; and the Thessaleans are like this about everything.

II Inscriptions from Asia Minor A L. Robert, La Carie II 179, No. 76 = Henzen Inscriptiones Graecae 154, No. 1: Statilius Attalus, archiater of the family of Augustus, [sc erected the statue of ] Statilia Ammiane, his mother. B L. Robert, La Carie II 179, No. 77 = Le Bas – Waddington, Voyage archéologique III, No. 1695 = Buckler – Calder MAMA VI 117 (and Pl 21): Statilius Attalus, archiater of the family of Augustus, [sc erected the statue of ] Statilius Artemidorus, archiater and his own great-uncle. C L. Robert, La Carie II 220 = BMC Caria 120, No. 25 (and Pl XX 8) = Inv. Waddington 2421 = Le Bas – Waddington, Voyage archéologique III, No. 3 (ad No. 1695) = A. Engel, RevNum 1884 18, No. 11: The Emperor Caesar Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus.—The archiater Statilius Attalus, for the neoi of Heraclea. D L. Robert, La Carie II 220 = BMC Caria 120, No. 26 = Inv. Waddington 2422 = Le Bas – Waddington, Voyage archéologique III, No. 4 (ad No. 1695) = Fox, Engravings II, No. 77: The Emperor Marcus Aurelius Verus Caesar.—The archiater Statilius Attalus, for the neoi of Heraclea.

526

  ‒  -

E L. Robert, La Carie II 220 = Inv. Waddington 2406 = Le Bas – Waddington, Voyage archéologique III, No. 4 (ad No. 1695) = Imhoof-Blumer, Die kleinasiatischen Münzen I, 132, No. 4 (et Pl. V 1):a N°oiw ÑHraklevt«n.—St ÖAttalow érxiãtrow.

a

See also (according to Imhoof-Blumer) Mionnet III 138, 577 for the head and H. Thiersch, Ependyles und Ephod, 1936, Pl I 4 for the reverse.

FR 197. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(43)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, XIII xviii, p. 923 K: [xviii, 923] OÎtÉ oÔn taËta [sc tå per‹ toË ¥patÒw te ka‹ splhnÚw ka‹ t«n splãgxnvn pãntvn proeirhm°na] gign≈skousin ofl Yessãleioi, ka‹ diå toËto pãntaw ımo¤vw yerapeÊousin: oÎtÉ ˜ti pçn tÚ flegma›non 15 m°low, §ån mØ stegnÚn ¶x˙ tÚ perike¤menon •aut“ d°rma, xalò ti ka‹ mey¤hsin ¶jv t«n leptomer«n fix≈rvn, ka‹ diå toËtÉ ¶k te t«n [sc flegmon«n] katå tÚ stÒma ka‹ tØn =›na ka‹ tØn fãrugga ka‹ stÒmaxon ¶nterã te ka‹ gast°ra ka‹ tå splãgxna pãnta =e› ti prÚw toÈktÒw. OÏtv d¢ ka‹ katå tØn ¶ndon §pifãneian toË y≈rakow §kkr¤neta¤ tiw 10 ‡xvr ˜tan flegma¤n˙.

FR 198. GALENUS, DE

METHODO MEDENDI

(44)

Galenus, De methodo medendi, XIII xx–xxi, pp. 928–929 K: [xxi, 928] Prosy«men oÔn ¶ti t∞w épÚ t«n mor¤vn §nde¤jevw ˜sa mÆpv l°lektai, katabãllontew profan°stata tØn t«n Yessale¤vn a·resin: o„ mÆtÉ énatom∞w èptÒmenoi mÆtÉ §nerge¤aw µ xre¤aw efidÒtew, ˜tan ‡dvs¤ tina krokud¤zonta1 ka‹ karfologoËnta, tolm«sin Ùjurod¤nƒ katabr°xein 15 tØn kefalÆn, ≤m›n •pÒmenoi. Diå t¤ går oÈ tÚn y≈raka mçllon, e‡per2 §ndeiktik«w m¢n eÍr¤skousi tå bohyÆmata, dunatÚn dÉ §st‹ ka‹ t∞w kard¤aw pasxoÊshw frenitikÚn g¤gnesyai tÚn ênyrvpon; ÑO m¢n går ÉEmpeirikÚw §k t∞w pe¤raw fhs‹ tØn t«n toioÊtvn bohyhmãtvn eÏresin §sxhk°nai: t“ d¢ ka‹ taÊthn étimãsanti ka‹ tØn t«n §nergei«n zÆthsin 20 fugÒnti pÒyen §p∞lyen ént‹ toË y≈rakow •l°syai tØn kefalØn §p‹ t«n frenitik«n §pibr°xein; ÉAllå toËtÒ ge, tÚ ÙjurrÒdinon ˘ tª kefalª prosf°romen §p‹ t«n frenitik«n, Àsper tiw ¶lege t«n •ta¤rvn, oÈ mÒnon 1

corr ego: krokid¤zonta K

2

mçllon; E‡per K

527

  ‒  -

E L. Robert, La Carie II 220 = Inv. Waddington 2406 = Le Bas – Waddington, Voyage archéologique III, No. 4 (ad No. 1695) = Imhoof-Blumer, Die kleinasiatischen Münzen I, 132, No. 4 (and Pl. V 1): For the neoi of Heraclea.—The archiater Statilius Attalus.

FR 197. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(43)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, XIII xviii, p. 923 K: [xviii, 923] The Thessaleans do not know these facts [sc the facts presented above about the liver, the spleen, and the other internal organs] and for this reason they treat all [sc the patients] in the same way; nor do they know that any inflamed limb becomes loose if the skin around it is not tight and lets out serous liquids made of very small particles, and for this reason something flows out from the inflammations which are located in the mouth, nose, throat, stomach, intestine, belly, and all the viscera. Similarly, when the chest is inflamed, serum is secreted on its inner surface.

FR 198. GALENUS, ON

THE METHOD OF THERAPY

(44)

Galenus, On the method of therapy, XIII xx–xxi, pp. 928–929 K: [xxi, 928] Let us add what has not yet been said about the indication derived from the [sc bodily] parts, and confound the hairesis of the Thessaleans in the plainest possible way. When these people, who do not engage in anatomy and have no knowledge of the activity or function [sc of bodily parts], see someone twitch their blanket or pluck their hair, they have the cheek to drench that person’s head in rose-oil mixed with vinegar, following our example. But why not rather drench the chest—if indeed they discover remedies by means of indication, and if it is also possible for a man to become phrenitic when the orifice of his heart is affected? For the Empiricist claims to have a hold over the discovery of such remedies from experience; but if one disparages that on the one hand, on the other shuns the inquiry into the activities [sc of the bodily parts], whence did it come upon him to drench the head instead of the chest, in the case of phrenitic patients? And, as one of our colleagues has observed, this item, the roseoil mixed with vinegar which we apply to phrenitic patients on the head,

528

  ‒  -

toÁw émeyÒdouw Yessale¤ouw éllå ka‹ toÁw êllouw ëpantaw §jel°gxei faner«w [929] ˜soi katå tØn kard¤an ≤goËntai tÚ cux∞w ≤gemonikÚn Ípãrxein.

FR 199. GALENUS, DE ORDINE LIBRORUM AD EUGENIANUM

SUORUM

Galenus, De ordine librorum suorum ad Eugenianum, p. 50 K = 80–81 Müller: [50] . . . Yaumãzousi1 goËn êllow êllon fiatr«n te ka‹ filosÒfvn oÎte 5 tå aÈt«n2 memayhkÒtew oÎte §pistÆmhn éskÆsantew épodeiktikÆn, √ diakr›nai dunÆsontai toÁw ceude›w lÒgouw t«n élhy«n, éllÉ ¶nioi m¢n ˜ti pat°raw ¶sxon ≥toi gÉ ÉEmpeirikoÁw µ DogmatikoÁw µ MeyodikoÊw, ¶nioi dÉ ˜ti didaskãlouw, êlloi dÉ ˜ti f¤louw µ diÒti katå tØn pÒlin aÈt«n §yaumãsyh tiw épÚ t∞sde t∞w aflr°sevw. OÏtv d¢ kép‹ t«n 10 filosof¤aw aflr°sevn3 êllow katÉ êllhn afit¤an ≥toi PlatvnikÚw µ PeripathtikÚw µ StvÛkÚw µ ÉEpikoÊreiow §g°neto, nun‹ dÉ éfÉ o ka‹ diadoxa‹ aflr°se≈n4 efisin oÈk Ùl¤goi katå tÆnde tØn prÒfasin énagoreÊousin5 •autoÁw épÚ t∞w aflr°sevw ˜yen énatr°fontai, mãlisyÉ ˜tan épor«sin éform∞w •t°raw b¤ou.

Chartier (= Ch) K Müller (= M): yaumãsei Ambrosianus Q 3 (= Q ) editio Aldina (= A) editio Basileensis (= B) 2 M: tå •aut«n K cett edd < Q 3 M: oÏtv d¢ ka‹ t«n tØn filosof¤an aflr°sevn K cett edd: oÏtv d¢ ka‹ t«n tØn filosof¤an aflr°sevn Q 4 add M: diadoxa‹ aflr°sevn Ch K: diadoxÆ Q > A B 5 Ch K M: énagoreÊous¤ te Q > A B 1

FR 200. GALENUS, DE

PLENITUDINE

Galenus, De plenitudine, i–ii, pp. 513–517 K: 15 [i, 513] OÎte pollãkiw Ùnomãzontaw ßteron ˆnoma toË “plÆyouw” mçllon ¶stin eÍre›n ëpantaw toÁw nËn sxedÚn fiatroÊw, oÎtÉ égnooËntaw ßterÒn ti toÊtou mçllon. ÜOsoi goËn aÈt«n oÂo¤ tÉ efisi ka‹ doËnai ka‹ labe›n lÒgon, ofl ple›stoi m¢n épokr¤nontai to›w §rom°noiw ˜ ti potÉ oÔn Ùnomãzousi pl∞yow …w §n t“ prÚw t‹ l°getai toÎnoma, kayãper tÚ 20 “polÊ” te ka‹ tÚ “Ùl¤gon”, ÀstÉ oÈk e‰nai dunatÚn §n m°trƒ perilabe›n aÈtÒ: tÚ går •t°rƒ polÊ, toËtÉ §n¤ote Ípãrxei Ùlig≈teron •t°rƒ. Ka‹ §peidån §rvtÆs˙w aÈtoÁw éji«n épokr¤nesyai tÚ prçgma prÚw ˘ tÚ pl∞yow e‰nai [514] l°gousi, tin¢w m¢n fixyÊvn éfvnÒteroi g¤gnontai,

  ‒  -

529

refutes in a limpid manner not only the un-Methodical Thessaleans but [929] all those who believe that the heart is the ruling part of the soul.

FR 199. GALENUS, ON TO

THE ORDER OF MY OWN BOOKS,

EUGENIANUS

Galenus, On the order of my own books, to Eugenianus, p. 50 K = 80–81 Müller: [50] . . . People admire various doctors or philosophers at random, neither because they have studied their [sc teachings] nor because they trained in the science of demonstration, which would enable them to discern false from true arguments; but some [sc admire the ones they do] because their own fathers were Empiricists, Dogmatists, or Methodists, others because their teachers were [sc Empiricists, Dogmatists, or Methodists], and others still because their friends were [sc Empiricists, Dogmatists, or Methodists] or because some member of the hairesis in question was admired in their city. Similarly, in the philosophical haireseis, whoever became a Platonist, a Peripatetic, a Stoic, or an Epicurean did it for a different reason; and nowadays, when there are also successions of the haireseis, it is for this reason that many proclaim themselves from the hairesis which feeds them, especially when they have no other resources for their living.

FR 200. GALENUS, ON

PLETHOS

Galenus, On plethos, i–ii, pp. 513–517 K: [i, 513] It is not often that you can find a term which almost all the doctors of our time use to a greater extent than “abundance” [“plethos”], or one that they are more deeply ignorant about. Take all of those who can give and follow an account: if questioners ask them what it is that they call abundance, the majority will answer that the term is used in [sc the category of ] relation, like “much” and “little”, so that it is not possible to define it by measurement; for sometimes the very thing which is much in relation to one thing is very little in relation to another. And when you ask and expect them to tell you the thing which they claim abundance to bear its relation to, [514] some get more mute than fish, while others

530

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

tin¢w d¢ oÏtv makrã te ka‹ éllÒkota lhroËsin …w mØ parakolouy∞sai dÊnasyai to›w ÍpÉ aÈt«n legom°noiw. ÉOl¤gistoi dÉ épokr¤nontai tÚ ‘polÁ’ ka‹ ‘Ùl¤gon’ …w prÚw tØn dÊnamin noe›syai: ka‹ efi aÔyiw aÈtoÁw §pan°roio t¤ l°gousi dÊnamin, ¶nioi m¢n oÈdÉ ˜lvw épokr¤nontai, t«n d¢ tolmhsãntvn épofÆnasya¤ ti l°gei m¢n oÈde‹w oÈden‹ taÈtÒn, ofl ple›stoi d¢ pãnta mçllon µ dÊnamin •rmhneÊousin. Efi d° tiw §n aÈto›w eÍreye¤h m°xri tosoÊtou frÒnimow …w ≥toi drastikØn oÈs¤an µ afit¤an drastikØn efipe›n e‰nai tØn dÊnamin, e‰tÉ §rvthye¤h pr«ton m¢n efi ¶sti tiw oÈs¤a toiãde dioikoËsa tÚ z«on, ¶peitÉ e‡per ¶sti ka‹ t¤ potÉ §stin aÏth dielye›n, oÈk°ti oÈdÉ otow épokr¤netai §rvt≈menow tÚ époroÊmenon, éllÉ ≥toi sivpò tel°vw µ §ktop¤zei tÚn lÒgon efiw toioËton …w b°ltion ín e‡h sivpòn. Efi d¢ kôn toÊtoiw tiw eÍreye¤h m°xri tosoÊtou svfron«n …w ¥tiw m°n §stin ≤ oÈs¤a t∞w dunãmevw oÈk ¶xein efipe›n, ˜ti dÉ ¶sti §k t«n ¶rgvn tekma¤resyai, pãlin aÔ ka‹ aÈtÚw otow §rvthye‹w efi tå gegramm°na te [515] prÚw ÉAsklhpiãdou ka‹ poll«n ÉAsklhpiade¤vn te ka‹ Meyodik«n Íp¢r toË mhdem¤an e‰nai dÊnamin §n to›w z≈oiw énesk°catÒ te ka‹ dielÊsato, fa¤netai mhdÉ efi l°lektai prÚw aÈt«n §pistãmenow. ÉEke¤nvn dÉ aÔ pãlin aÈt«n ˜soi tØn dÊnamin oÈk e‰na¤ fasin, ˜ti m¢n …w prÚw taÊthn érnoËntai noe›sya¤ te ka‹ sun¤stasyai tÚ pl∞yow mçllon eÎdhlon: édÊnaton gãr §sti prÚw tØn mhdÉ ˜lvw Ípãrxousan sx°sin sust∞na¤ te ka‹ nohy∞nai tÚ pl∞yow. ÑVw prÚw tåw x≈raw d¢ t«n égge¤vn mÒnaw Ípolambãnousi tÚ polÊ te ka‹ Ùl¤gon Ípãrxein: §n¤ote dÉ oÈd¢ tØn érxØn ˜lvw Ùnomãzousi pl∞yow, oÈdÉ épÉ aÈtoË tina ken≈sevw ¶ndeijin lambãnousi, éllÉ épÚ mÒnhw stegn≈sevw, ∂n ˜ti mhde‹w aÈt«n …saÊtvw §jhge›tai d°deiktai diÉ •t°rvn. Ka‹ mØn ka‹ tr¤tow tiw êllow §st‹ xorÒw, oÎte gin≈skvn e‡tÉ ¶stin e‡tÉ oÈk ¶sti tiw dÊnamiw oÎte zhte›n ımolog«n, éllÉ §p¤ tisin §narg«w fainom°noiw shme¤oiw per‹ tÚn kãmnonta sunistam°noiw §k pe¤raw makrçw eÍr∞syai fãskvn •aut“ tØn k°nvsin. E‰tÉ §rvt≈menow ëtta potÉ [516] §sti tå shme›a taËta, diãtasin égge¤vn fhs‹ ka‹ ¶reuyow ka‹ bãrow ˜lou toË s≈matow, ˆknon te prÚw tåw kinÆseiw ka‹ tãseiw t«n mel«n. ÖEnioi dÉ aÈt«n ka‹ tØn •lk≈dh ka‹ kop≈dh prostiy°asin a‡syhsin, érgÒn te tÚn ¶mprosyen b¤on §n prosfora›w §desmãtvn te ka‹ pomãtvn ple¤osi ka‹ sunÆyvn §kkr¤sevn §poxª: §p‹ taÊt˙ goËn tª ‘sundromª’ (kaloËsi går oÏtv tÚ êyroisma t«n sumptvmãtvn) tethr∞syai flebotom¤an »feloËsan. Otoi m¢n oÔn oÈ mÒnon •autoÁw éllå ka‹ toÁw êllouw ëpantaw ényr≈pouw éfairoËntai tÚn lÒgon, §k pe¤raw eÍr∞syai pãnta fãskontew: ofl dÉ êlloi, kayãper e‡rhtai nËn dÆ, lÒgƒ te xr∞sya¤ fasi ka‹ tØn dÊnamin ofl m¢n …w oÈdÉ ˜lvw ¶stin, ofl dÉ …w ¶sti m¢n ¥tiw dÉ aÈt∞w ≤ oÈs¤a mØ gin≈skesya¤ fasin: …w Ùlig¤stouw e‰nai toÁw épofÆnasyai tolm«ntaw Ïparj¤n te ka‹ oÈs¤an dunãmevw. ÉAllå ka‹ toÊtvn oÎte tÚn ériymÚn oÎte tØn oÈs¤an ëpantew épofa¤nontai taÈtÆn, éllå ka‹ t«n épolipÒntvn ≤m›n suggrãmmata tin¢w m¢n étalaipvrÒteron …w per‹ miçw ée‹ dial°gontai t∞w tÚ z«on dioikoÊshw dunãmevw, [517]

  ‒  

531

ramble for so long, and so extravagantly off the point, that it is not possible to follow what they say. Still, few of them—very few—answer that “much” and “little” are conceived of in relation to the faculty [dunamis]; but if you ask them again what it is that they call faculty, some do not answer at all, while of those who dare to come up with something no one says the same thing as another, and most get into explanations of everything rather than of [sc the notion of ] faculty. And if there is someone among them clever enough as to say that the faculty is some efficient entity or cause, and then he is asked to explain, first, whether there is any such entity that governs the animal, and next, if there is, what that is, not even this one cracks the problem by answering the question, but either shuts up completely or goes so far astray that he would have better shut up. And if there is someone in this group prudent enough to make no claim as to what the essence of the faculty is, and yet to prove from facts that it exists, if you ask him afresh whether he has examined and found a solution to what [515] Asclepiades and many Asclepiads and Methodists wrote about there being no faculty in animals, he visibly doesn’t know whether such a claim was made by them. On the other hand, it is absolutely obvious that those among the latter who claim that the faculty does not exist deny that abundance is conceived of, and exists, qua related to it—for it is impossible for abundance to exist and be conceived of in a relation that does not exist at all. They assume that the much and the little exist only in relation to the capacity of the vessels; and sometimes they do not use the term abundance at all, nor derive any indication towards evacuation from it, but only from constriction [stegnosis]—on which we have demonstrated elsewhere that none of them explains it in the same way. Besides, there is also a third different party, which neither knows nor wants to inquire into whether there is a faculty or not, but claims that the discovery of evacuation came to them from long experience [sc gained] in [sc handling] certain symptoms, which are clearly manifest in the patient. And so, if you ask them what [516] the symptoms in question are, they reply that these consist in dilatation of the vessels, redness, heaviness in the whole body, hesitation in movement, and [sc sensations of ] tension in the limbs. Some of them also include a feeling of sore and exhaustion and a previous life-style inactive with respect to most intakes of food and drink and to the retention of habitual excretions; so it would be in this kind of “syndrome” (for this is how they call the collection of symptoms) that venesection has been observed to help. Thus these doctors deprive not only themselves but everyone else of [sc the use of ] reasoning, by claiming that everything has been discovered as a result of experience; on the other hand the others claim to use reasoning, as I was just saying, but as regards the faculty some of them [sc claim] that it does not exist at all, others, that it exists, but that they themselves do not know what its essence is; so that the doctors who dare to give an account of both the existence and the essence of the faculty are exceedingly few. Yet not even in this group does everyone give the same account of number or essence, but even some of those who have left manuals for us keep talking most idly about the faculty which governs the animal as if it were one, [517] without offering any reason; a few try to put

532

  ‒  -

oÈd°na logismÚn prostiy°ntew, ¶nioi dÉ épodeiknÊein §pixeiroËsi ka‹ ple¤ouw miçw oÈk e‰na¤ fasin. ÜVstÉ énagka›on, ˜stiw épofa¤netai pl∞yow e‰nai katå tÚ s«ma toË kãmnontow, épokexvrhk°nai m¢n ≥dh toËton épÒ te t«n ÉEmpeirik«n Ùnomazom°nvn fiatr«n épÒ te t«n 5 Meyodik«n, ≥toi dÉ …w prÚw tØn dÊnamin µ …w 1 tå égge›a l°gein tÚ ‘polÊ’. [ii] Ka‹ to¤nun ka‹ ≤m›n ı m¢n prÚw toÁw ÉEmpeirikoÊw te ka‹ MeyodikoÁw énabeblÆsyv lÒgow: §p‹ d¢ toÁw •t°rouw ‡vmen, ˜soi sÁn logism“ fasi tØn t°xnhn metaxeir¤zesyai. Ka¤toi gÉ ¶nioi t«n nËn efiw tosoËton ¥kousi tÒlmhw …w §pigrãfesyai m¢n •auto›w aflr°sevw ÙnÒmata, 10 gin≈skein dÉ oÈd¢n oÈdÉ §ke¤nvn aÈt«n oÈdÉ.2 ÉAkoËsai goËn ¶sti pollãkiw poll«n §p‹ m¢n t«n érr≈stvn legÒntvn …w mestÚw ı ênyrvpÒw §sti ka‹ flebotomht°on aÈtÒn, aÔyiw dÉ, §mpesÒntow lÒgou, MeyodikoÁw µ ÉEmpeirikoÁw ÙnomazÒntvn •autoÊw. ÉAllÉ ˜per ¶legon, §p‹ toÁw énalogism“ xrvm°nouw §lyÒntew, to›w §j aÈt«n pr≈toiw dialexy«men ˜soi 15 prÚw tØn dÊnamin ée‹ §nnooËsi tÚ polÊ.

1

add ego

2

ego: oÈdÉ §ke¤nvn (§st¤n) aÈt«n K

FR 201. GALENUS, DE

PRAECOGNITIONE

Galenus, De praecognitione, xii, pp. 661–665 K = pp. 130–132 Nutton: [xii, 661] ÉEk t«n sfugm«n diagin≈skei tØn flegmonØn t«n parisym¤vn. TÚ m°ntoi katå1 KÒmmodon2 ¶xein m°n fas¤ ti3 m°giston,4 tª dÉ élhye¤& pãmpolu le¤petai toËde. T∞w pala¤straw går épallag°ntow aÈtoË pr‹n sit¤vn Àraw ÙgdÒhw5 efis°bale yermÚw flkan«w puretÒw, ècam°nƒ d° moi 20 t«n sfugm«n flegma¤nein ti mÒrion §fa¤neto: ka‹ taËtÉ ékoÊsaw ı PeiyÒlaow yau[662]mãzein ¶fhsen efi t«n parisym¤vn6 ≤ flegmonØ tÚn sfugmÚn ±llo¤vse toË paidÒw: oÈd¢n går êllo m°row aÈtoË flegma¤nei,7 kôn toÊtƒ diano¤jaw aÈt“ tÚ stÒma keleÊei moi yeãsasyai. Fan°ntvn d¢ trax°vn8 ka‹ l¤an §ruyr«n, oÈ m°ntoi m°gan ˆgkon §xoÊshw t∞w 25 flegmon∞w, ±rÒmhn t¤w ı énatr¤caw e‡h stomatik“ farmãkƒ sfodrot°ran t∞w èrmottoÊshw9 t“ paid‹ stËcin10 ¶xonti. ToË d¢ fãntow11 •autÚn

katå postea add Laurentianus 54, 5 (= L) 2 corr Chartier (= Ch): tÚn KÒmodon L: KÒmodon Marcianus 281 (= M) 3 ti add editio Basileensis (= Bas) 4 corr Bas: meg¤sthn L M 5 ante horam sextam Nicolai uersio Latina (= Nic) 6 pariym¤vn M 7 “flegma¤nein scripserim” Nutton (= Nu) 8 d¢ tÒpvn add Bas (< locorum Nic) > K: om Nu 9 èrmozoÊshw K 10 stÊciw K 11 fan°ntow M 1

  ‒  -

533

up a demonstration and claim that they [sc the faculties] are not more than one. And so, anyone who upholds that there is abundance in the patient’s body is bound to have dissented from the [sc views of ] the so-called Empiricist and Methodist doctors and to use [sc the term] “much” either in relation to the faculty or in relation to the vessels. [ii] Well then, let us have the argument against the Empiricists and the Methodists deferred; let us proceed against the others, who claim to make use of reasoning in handling our art. What is more, some of our contemporaries have reached such level of insolence as to ascribe themselves designations of [sc membership to] a hairesis, although they know nothing whatsoever about them. One can often hear a lot of them saying, about ill people, that such and such patient is sated and needs venesection, and afterwards, when they have to account for it, they call themselves Methodists or Empiricists. But, as I was suggesting, let us proceed against those who make use of the analogism, arguing first with the ones who conceive of muchness always in relation to the faculty.

FR 201. GALENUS, ON

PROGNOSIS

Galenus, On prognosis, xii, pp. 661–665 K = pp. 130–132 Nutton: [xii, 661] He diagnoses an inflammation of the tonsils from pulse. Now, they say that [sc what I did] in the case of Commodus is absolutely remarkable; in reality, however, it is quite a long way from that. He [sc Commodus] had left the palaestra and had not eaten yet; a hot fever seized him at the eighth hour. When I took his pulse it became obvious to me that some part was inflamed; and Peitholaus, on hearing this, said that he would be surprised [662] if an inflammation of the tonsils altered the boy’s pulse; for no other part was inflamed—and at this point he opened his [sc Commodus’] mouth and bade me have a look. Since the trachea looked very red, although the inflammation had no great bulk, I asked who had rubbed [sc the throat] with a mouth-medicine containing a stronger astringent than was suitable for a child. He [sc Peitholaus] said that he himself

534

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

e‰nai tÚn énatr¤canta t“ diå m°litow ka‹ =oË12 farmãkƒ, metab∞nai m¢n §p‹ mel¤kraton §nafechm°nvn =Òdvn §k°leusa ka‹ toÊtƒ mÒnƒ xr∞syai diã te t∞w nuktÚw ka‹ t∞w §xom°nhw ≤m°raw ˜lhw pollãkiw ëma tª metÉ aÈtØn nukt¤: tª d¢ tr¤t˙ t«n ≤mer«n ßvyen, §peidØ tã te t∞w flegmon∞w §p°pauto tel°vw épÊretÒw te mikroË d ∑n13 ı pa›w, ¶peisa dÉ oÔn tÚn PeiyÒlaon efiw balane›on §ggÁw ¯n toË koit«now efisagagÒnta metÉ oÈ14 polÁ t“ katå tØn pÊelon15 Ïdati xrÆsasyai, diabrexom°nvn m¢n èpãntvn t«n êllvn mor¤vn, mÒnhw d¢ t∞w kefal∞w katantloum°nhw dacil«w traf°nti aÈt“. Per‹ tr¤thn Àran ∏ken ÉAnn¤a Faust›na16 [663] suggenØw oÔsa t“ aÈtokrãtori ¶ggista, paraitoum°nh diÒti deutera›on aÈtÚ17 oÈk e‰de:18 xy¢w går ¶fhn19 metÉ êriston §gnvk°nai per‹ toË genom°nou puretoË: ka‹ toÊtoiw ¶ti proset¤yei d∞lon e‰nai m°llontaw ≤mçw Íperbãllein tØn ÙgdÒhn Àran, kayÉ ∂n efis°balen ı parojusmÒw. Meidiãsaw oÔn ı PeiyÒlaow: “P«w dÉ oÈ m°llomen” ¶fh “tØn Yessale¤an20 Íperbãllein diãtriton; ÉAllå GalhnÚw otow,” {¶fh,}21 “yeasãmenow ßvyen fisxnÒn te 22 pur°jein ¶fh: ka‹ m°ntoi ka‹ loÊein aÔyiw •sp°raw §phgge¤lato ka‹ de›pnon par°xein ıpo›on Ígia¤nvn deipne›.” TaËtÉ ékoÊsasa23 braxÊ ti xrÒnou24 aÈtÒyi diatr¤yasa ≤ Faust›na, labom°nh t∞w xeirÚw aÍtª25 sunejÆgagen fiatrÒn tina t«n sunhkolouyhkÒtvn aÈtª Meyodik«n, pa¤zousa: “GalhnÚn” ¶fh “toËton ‡syi mØ lÒgoiw éllÉ ¶rgoiw Ím›n to›w Meyodiko›w poleme›n. Pollãkiw går ≥dh polloÁw t«n érxom°nvn pur°ttein ¶lous° te ka‹ ¶dvken o‡nou pie›n: §n¤ouw d¢ ka‹ katå tØn pr≈thn, §n¤ouw tª tr¤t˙ t«n ≤mer«n ép°lusen §p‹ tåw sunÆyeiw prãjeiw, §n √ pãntew Íme›w,26 ta›w pr≈taiw ≤m°raiw dÊo proasit∞sai keleÊsan[664]tew, Íperbãllein tåw ÍpÒptouw Àraw katakeim°nouw fulãttesye.27 Ka‹ nËn oÔn” ¶fh “tÚ t∞w §pistÆmhw b°baion §pide¤knutai, basilikoË paidÚw épodhmoËntow toË patrÚw §n ta›w pr≈taiw dÊo pur°jantow sfodr«w, …w ka‹ Íme›w xy¢w ±koÊsate, katå tØn tr¤thn ≤m°ran oÈx Íperbãllein, …w Íme›w éjioËte,28 tØn ÙgdÒhn Àran éname¤naw éllÉ ≥dh loÊsaw te ka‹ yr°caw :29 ˜ te trofeÁw aÈt“ PeiyÒlaow, ékrib°statow Ãn per‹ tå toiaËta (…w deil¤an e‰nai tØn ékr¤beian aÈtoË) diå tÚ propeirçsyai t∞w t°xnhw toË éndrÚw §pe¤syh ka‹ loËsai ka‹ yr°cai prÚ t∞w ÍpÒptou.” ÑH m¢n toiaËtÉ ¶lege diabad¤zousa m°xri toË ÙxÆmatow: §g∆ d°, melloÊshw aÈt∞w §piba¤nein aÈtoË, xvrizÒmenow e‰pon: “ÉEpo¤hsãw me polÁ mçl-

=oË corr Bas: khroË L M 13 mikroË d ∑n corr Nu: mikroË dÉ ∑n L M: mikroË de›n Bas: ∑n mikroË de›n K 14 corr Cornarius (= Co) > Nu: meyÉ o L M > K 15 corr editio Aldina (= Ald): ptÊelon L M 16 corr Nu: ÉAn¤a Faust¤nh L > K: ÉAnn¤a Faust¤nh M 17 corr Nu < Nic (eum): aÈtÚ L M > K 18 [ ]o‰de M 19 corr Ch (dixit Nic) > Nu: ¶fh K 20 corr Nu: tÚn Yessãleion L M > K 12

secluderit Nu in apparatu: om Nic 22 restit Nu in apparatu < corpus pueri totum balneauit et cibauit nequaquam Nic 23 ékoÊsasasa M 24 corr Ald: xrÒnon L M 25 •autª corr Nu: aÈtª L M > K 26 corr Nic Bas: ≤me›w L M 27 corr Nu: fulãttesyai L > K 28 éjio›te L 29 add Nu 21

  ‒  

535

rubbed [sc the throat] with a medicine made of honey and sumach; whereby I instructed him to replace it with a solution of honey and water into which he would have boiled roses, and to use nothing but this [sc solution], frequently, throughout the night, the whole of the following day, and the corresponding night. So then: since on the morning of the third day the [sc effects] of the inflammation had ceased completely and the child was almost free from fever, I persuaded Peitholaus to take him, before long, to the bath, which was in close proximity to his bedroom, and to treat him to the water in the trough, drenching all the other parts [sc except the head], then soaking the head alone, after he [sc the child] had taken a copious meal. Around the third hour Annia Faustina walked in [663]—she was a close relative of the Emperor—urging that she had not seen him [sc Commodus] for two days; for she explained that she learned about his fever [sc only] the day before, after breakfast; and she added that it was obvious we were prepared to ignore the eighth hour, at which the [sc first] paroxysm had set in. Then Peitholaus smiled and replied: “Why should we not be prepared to ignore the Thessalean diatritus? Well, Galen here,” he said “noticed this morning that the child’s body was weak and dry, so he bathed and fed him, declaring that he will not become feverish; moreover, he announced that in the evening he would bathe him again and give him a meal fit for the healthy.” On hearing this, Faustina paused for a little while; then grabbing by the hand some doctor from her escort of Methodists, she took him along and said in jest: “Galen here, you know, fights you, Methodists, not with words but with deeds. For there are now many cases where he bathed plenty of those who were beginning to get a fever, and ordered them to drink wine; and he set them free to [sc pursue] their customary activities, some on the first day, others on the third—a day on which all of you take good care that they overcome the suspected hours by lying in bed, having ordered them to fast for the first two days. [664] In point of fact”, she said, “he shows you the solidity of his knowledge even now: our Emperor’s son was in a strong fever for the first two days of his father’s departure abroad—you, too, learned of it yesterday—and yet he [sc Galen] did not wait for him [sc the boy] to overcome the eighth hour on the third day, as you deem right, but already washed and fed him; and Peitholaus, who is his [sc the boy’s] own tutor and a man of the greatest strictness about such matters (so much so that his strictness borders on cowardice), let himself persuaded to bathe and feed him before the suspected hour because he has previous experience of this man’s art.” She said these things as she was making her way towards the chariot; and just as she was about to step into it I told her, taking my leave: “You have

536

  ‒  -

lon µ prÒsyen ÍpÚ t«n fiatr«n mise›syai”, xvrisye¤w te t“ PeiyolムdihgoÊmhn pãnta,30 ka‹ m°ntoi ka‹ ˜ti diå toÁw toioÊtouw fiatroÁw ¶nagxow ¶graca tre›w31 pragmate¤aw, m¤an m¢n tØn Per‹ t∞w diaforçw32 t«n puret«n, •t°ran d¢ tØn Per‹ t«n kris¤mvn ≤mer«n, ka‹ tr¤thn tØn Per‹ t«n kr¤sevn, §pideiknÁw ÍfÉ ÑIppokrãtouw gegrãfyai tØn yevr¤an éfÉ 5 33 ∏w ên tiw progin≈skoi34 tå genhsÒmena per‹ [665] toÁw érr≈stouw. Ofl dÉ oÏtvw efis‹n éfue›w Àste mhd¢ metå t∞w §m∞w §jhgÆsevw dÊnasyai aÈtå maye›n.

pãnta ci ego: taËta Nu: te aÈtÒw L M: aÈtÚw Co Ch > K (tres): ¶graca tåw L M 32 corr Co: per‹ tåw diaforåw L M cett edd 34 corr Bass: progin≈skei L M 30

FR 202. GALENUS, DE

31

restit Nu < Nic Nu: §fÉ ∏w K

33

SANITATE TUENDA

Galenus, De sanitate tuenda, III, xiii, p. 228 K = pp. 100–101 Koch: [xiii, 228] Le¤petai oÔn ¶ti per‹ t«n •vyin«n te ka‹ katå tØn •sp°ran 10 tr¤cevn dielye›n, oÈ må D¤É oÏtvw Àw1 fasin épokr¤nasyai KÒÛnton §rom°nƒ tin‹ gumnastª t¤na dÊnamin ¶xei tÚ Íposugxr¤esyai: “Fãmenon éfan¤zein tå flmãtia”. ToÊtoiw går to›w ÙnÒmasin oÂw §g∆ nËn §xrhsãmhn §r°syai te l°gousi tÚn gumnastØn épokr¤nasya¤ te tÚn KÒÛnton. ÜOmoiÒn ti toË2 Ko˝ntou perif°retai3 épÒfyegma tÒ4 te per‹ t«n oÎrvn, …w 15 gnaf°vw5 §st‹ katamanyãnein aÈtã, ka‹ tÚ per‹ yermoË, cuxroË, jhroË ka‹ ÍgroË,6 diÒti7 balan°vn §st‹n ÙnÒmata taËta.8 àA §g∆ m¢n oÈk ín peisye¤hn,9 mØ ˜ti KÒÛnton, éllÉ oÈd¢ t«n épÚ YessaloË tina fy°gjasyai: bvmoloxikå går ëpantÉ §st‹ tå toiaËta komceÊmata ka‹ oÈdam«w éndr‹ prosÆkonta semn∞w oÏtv t°xnhw §pistÆmoni.

Àw om Marcianus 282 (= V) Reginensis 173 (= R) 2 toË V R > K Koch (= Ko): toËto Marcianus 276 (= M): toÊtƒ Scaliger, lectiones Aldinae (= Sca) 3 perif°retai corr Chartier (= Ch): perif°rontÉ V R: perif°rontew M: perif°rontai Sca 4 épofy°gmata M 5 Ko (cf Cobet Mnemos NS 10 1882 251 et 6 1887 282): graf°vw V R > K 6 Ko: per‹ toË yermoË ka‹ cuxroË ka‹ jhroË ka‹ ÍgroË V R > K 7 Ko: ˜ti Ch 8 Ko: tå toiaËta t«n Ùnomãtvn V R > K 9 ci Sca > Ko: d¤hmi V: do¤hmi R: accepto Nicolai uersio Latina (= Nic): ì §g∆ m¢n ín do¤hn K 1

  ‒  -

537

caused me to be hated by your doctors even more than I was before” and, once I took my leave, I recounted everything to Peitholaus, especially how, because of such doctors, I had just completed three treatises—one On the difference between fevers, another On critical days, and a third one On crises— demonstrating that the theory [sc starting] from which one could predict the future [sc symptoms] [665] of the ill has been laid down by Hippocrates. But these people are so dull that they cannot learn such things even with the help of my commentary.

FR 202. GALENUS, ON

PRESERVING HEALTH

[HYGENICS]

Galenus, On preserving health, III, xiii, p. 228 K = pp. 100–101 Koch: [xiii, 228] It remains then to deal with [sc the subject of ] morning and evening frictions—not, by Zeus, in the style in which Quintus is reported to have replied to a gymnast who had asked him what the function of getting anointed is: “Obviously, to spoil the clothes.” For they say that the gymnast asked, and Quintus answered, in the very words that I used just now. Another bon mot in circulation, similar to that of Quintus, is the one about urine, [sc which says] that it is a fuller’s job to examine it really well; or the one about the hot, the cold, the dry, and the wet, [sc which says] that these are the words of bath-men. Yet for my part I cannot believe, not just of Quintus, but even of some follower of Thessalus, that he uttered these things; for all such quibbles are in very poor taste and not at all suitable for someone acquainted with an art so noble.

538

  ‒   FR 203. GALENUS, DE

SECTIS

Galenus, De sectis ad eos qui introducuntur, vi–ix, pp. 79–105 K = 12–32 Helmreich:

5

10

15

20

[vi, 79] Ofl d¢ Meyodiko‹ kaloÊmenoi—oÏtv går •autoÁw »nÒmasan, Àsper oÈx‹ ka‹ t«n ¶mprosyen Dogmatik«n meyÒdƒ tØn t°xnhn metaxeir¤sasyai1 faskÒntvn—oÈ m°xri lÒgou moi dokoËsin ta›w palaia›w émfisbhte›n aflr°sesin,2 éllÉ ≥dh ka‹ t«n ¶rgvn t∞w t°xnhw pollå metakosme›n:3 o· gÉ oÎte tÒpon peponyÒta xrÆsimon oÈd¢n ¶xein fas‹n efiw yerape¤aw ¶ndeijin oÎtÉ afit¤an4 oÈyÉ ≤lik¤an {oÎyÉ Àran oÎte x≈ran}5 oÎte toË nosoÊntow t∞w dunãmevw tØn §p¤skecin µ t∞w fÊsevw µ t∞w ßjevw aÈtoË. ParaitoËntai d¢ ka‹ tåw Àraw ka‹ tåw x≈raw ka‹6 a tå ¶yh, parå mÒnvn t«n pay«n tØn ¶ndeijin toË sumf°rontow érke›n aÍto›w7 fãskontew, oÈd¢ parå toÊtvn katÉ e‰dow éllå koinª ka‹ kayÒlou tiy°menoi. [80] Ka‹ dØ ka‹ kaloËsi “koinÒthtaw” aÈtå8 dØ taËta tå diå pãntvn “diÆkonta” t«n §n m°rei, ka‹ peir«nta¤ gÉ ofl m¢n t«n katå d¤aitan9 noshmãtvn,10 b ¶nioi d¢ ka‹ pãntvn èpl«w, dÊo koinÒthtaw11 §pideiknÊnai ka‹ tina tr¤thn miktÆn. ÉOnÒmata12 dÉ aÈta›w ¶yento “st°gnvsin” ka‹ “=Êsin”, ka‹ pçn nÒshmã fasin µ stegnÚn µ =o«dew e‰nai µ §j émfo›n §pipeplegm°non. Efi m¢n går afl fusika‹ t«n svmãtvn ken≈seiw13 ‡sxointo, stegnÚn14 kaloËsin, efi d° ti mçllon f°roito, =o«dew: ≤n¤ka d¢ ka‹ ‡sxointo ka‹ f°rointo, tØn §piplokØn §n toÊtƒ15 sun¤stasyai, kayãper §pÉ ÙfyalmoË flegmainontÒw yÉ ëma ka‹ =eumatizom°nou. TØn går flegmonØn stegnÚn oÔsan pãyow, ˜ti mØ mÒnh ∑n16 c éllå sÁn t“ =eÊmati, per‹ ßna ka‹ taÈtÚn tÒpon §g°neto tÚ sÊmpan poie›n pãyow §pipeplegm°non.d “ÖEndeijin” d¢ “toË sumf°rontow” §p‹ m¢n t«n stegn«n

a

For the Arabic, see Wilkie–Lloyd in JHS 98 [1978] (= WL): Hunain avoids repetition too, but omits x≈ra at the first occurrence and Àra at the second (WL p. 168). b Cf the Arabic: “and some of them claim that these groups embrace the diseases of which the treatment is by regimen” (WL p. 168). c Cf WL: “No clear evidence of a nËn, though ‘now’ would have been clumsy here in Arabic.” d Marquardt suspected this sentence as spurious, but the Arabic translates it (WL, p. 168). Helmreich (= He) < Laurentianus LXXIV 5 (= L): metaxeir¤zesyai K 2 He < L: émfisbhte›n ta›w palaia›w aflr°sesin K 3 K He: metakosme›n o‡ontai L Mosquensis 283 (= M) Mosquensis 51 (= m) Venetus Marcianus V 9 (= V) 4 He: a‡tion K < Venetus Marcianus 282 (= v) 5 secl ego 6 ka‹ tåw Àraw ka‹ tåw x≈raw ka‹ secl He 7 He: aÈto›w omnes codd (= C) 8 He: koinÒthtaw, aÈtå K 9 He: t«n ge ofl m¢n katå d¤aitan editio Aldina (= Ald) > K 10 He: noshmãtvn èpãntvn v V > K 11 koinÒthtaw dÊo L 12 ÙnÒmata post =Êsin coll v 13 ken≈seiw t«n svmãtvn M > K: t«n svmãtvn om v 14 st°gnvsin M v 15 §n toÊtoiw m: §p‹ toÊtoiw L: §p‹ toÊtvn M 16 mØ mÒnh ∑n L V > K: mØ mÒnh nËn He 1

  ‒   FR 203. GALENUS, ON

539

SECTS

Galenus, On sects, for beginners, vi–ix, pp. 79–105 K = 12–32 Helmreich: [vi, 79] As for the so-called Methodists—for this is how they have styled themselves, as if to declare that the older Rationalists did not practise their art by a method—it seems to me that their disagreement with the traditional schools goes beyond the level of language: it is even upon the practical aspects of the profession that these people force a revolution. They claim that neither the organ affected nor the cause nor the age nor the examination of the patient’s strength, natural constitution, or present state— none of these contributes anything of use towards indicating the treatment. They also dispense with seasons, places, and habits, declaring themselves satisfied with the indication of the treatment which derives exclusively from the affections themselves, without even taking these kind by kind, but generically and universally. [80] Hence they call them “koinotetes”, assuming that such entities “underlie” all individual [sc cases]; and they attempt to demonstrate [sc that there are] two koinotetes, together with a third one which would be mixed, for the diseases encompassed by the regimen [ta kata diaita nosemata], according to some of them, or even for all diseases indiscriminately, as others would have it. They have called them “constriction” [“stegnosis”] and “flux” [“rhusis”], and they claim that every disease is either constricted or fluent or an interweaving [epiploke] of both. So then: if the natural outflows of the body are impeded, they call this “constriction”; if, on the contrary, they flow too freely, they call it “flux”. When the fluids are at the same time impeded and flowing too freely, they say that the mixed state [epipeplegmenon] resides in this very feature, as, for example, in the case of the eye which is simultaneously inflamed and weeping. For, unless it occurred on its own and not accompanied by flow, inflammation, which is a constricted state, has come to give rise in one and the same organ to a disease which, as a whole, is of a combined type. They claim that the “indication of the treatment” in constricted states consists in relaxing,

540

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

tØn xãlasin, §p‹ d¢ t«n =ovd«n tØn stãlsin Ípãrxein. GÒnatow m¢n gãr efi tÊxoi flegma¤nontow17 xalçn fasi xr∞nai, =°ousan d¢ tØn koil¤an [81] µ tÚn ÙfyalmÒn §p°xein te ka‹ st°llein, §n d¢ to›w §pipeplegm°noiw prÚw tÚ katepe›gon ·stasyai: t“ går mçllon §noxloËnti18 ka‹ tÚn k¤ndunon19 §pif°ronti, toËtÉ ¶sti t“ flsxurot°rƒ,20 e §nantioËsya¤ fasi de›n mçllon µ t“ yat°rƒ. T¤ dØ oÔn21 oÈx‹ DogmatikoÁw •autoÁw §kãlesan, §nde¤jei tå bohyÆmata porizÒmenoi; “DiÒti”, fas¤n, “ofl Dogmatiko‹ tÚ êdhlon §reun«sin, ≤me›w dÉ §n to›w fainom°noiw diatr¤bomen”. ÉAm°lei ka‹ ˜lhn tØn a·resin •aut«n22 oÏtvw ır¤zontai “gn«sin fainom°nvn koinotÆtvn”: ka‹ ·na mØ koinÚw ı ˜row e‰nai dokª23 ta›w êllaiw èpãsaiw t°xnaiw—ka‹ går kôke¤naw “gn≈seiw” e‰nai nom¤zousi “fainom°nvn koinotÆtvn”—diå toËto prostiy°asin: “ékoloÊyvn t“ t∞w fiatrik∞w t°lei”: tin¢w dÉ aÈt«n oÈk “ékoloÊyvn” éllå “sumf≈nvn” pros°yesan, ofl ple›stoi dÉ êmfv24 suny°ntew25 “gn«sin” e‰nai “fainom°nvn koinotÆtvn tØn M°yodÒn” fasi26 “sumfÒnvn27 ka‹ ékoloÊyvn t“ t∞w fiatrik∞w t°lei”: tin¢w dÉ, Àsper ka‹ ı YessalÒw, “prosex«n ka‹28 énagka¤vn prÚw Íge¤an”. TaËta29 dØ30 [82] éjioËsi mÆte Dogmatiko‹ kale›syai—mhd¢31 går de›syai toË édÆlou kayãper §ke›noi—mÆtÉ ÉEmpeiriko¤, kùn ˜ti mãlista per‹ tÚ fainÒmenon diatr¤bvsin: tª går §nde¤jei kexvr¤syai aÈt«n. OÈ mØn oÎdÉ32 §n aÈt“ t“ trÒpƒ t∞w per‹ tÚ fainÒmenon diatrib∞w ımologe›n •autoÊw fasi to›w ÉEmpeiriko›w. ÉEke¤nouw m¢n går …w égn≈stvn époxvr∞sai t«n édÆlvn, •autoÁw33 dÉ …w éxrÆstvn: ka‹ toÁw m¢n ÉEmpeirikoÁw tÆrhsin §p‹ to›w fainom°noiw, aÍtoÁw dÉ ¶ndeijin ¶xein. ÖEn tÉ oÔn toÊtoiw diaf°rein •autouw •kat°rvn34 fas¤, ka‹ mãlistÉ §n oÂw Àraw ka‹ x≈raw ka‹ ≤lik¤aw35 ka‹ tå toiaËta36 sÊmpanta perikÒptousin, êxrhsta m¢n ˆnta faner«w, …w aÈto›37 nom¤zousi, dÒjhw d¢ xãrin to›w ¶mprosyen fiatro›w tetimhm°na. Ka‹ toËtÉ e‰nai tÚ m°giston égayÚn t∞w Meyodik∞w aflr°se≈w fasi,38 ka‹ semnÊonta¤39 ge diå toËto40 ka‹ yaumãzesyai dikaioËsi: ka‹ t“ ge “braxÁn” {e‰nai}41 efipÒnti “tÚn b¤on, tØn d¢42 t¢xnhn makrãn”f §pitim«si: toÈnant¤on går ëpan aÈtØn

e

Cf the Arabic: “the resistance to the disease that afflicts him more and is more dangerous, and that is the more powerful of the two diseases, is more important than the resistance of the other”. f Aphorisms i 1. He: flegmÆnantow M v > K 18 He: dioxloËnti M v > K 19 t“ kindÊnƒ L2 He: toËto d¢ §st‹ tÚ fisxurÒteron L V: toËto d° §stin, …w t“ fisxurot°rƒ K 21 He: t¤ oÔn dØ v > K 22 He: aÈt«n L M m V 23 dokª post mØ coll L 24 dÉ aÈt«n êmfv L M 25 He: suntiy°ntew K 26 e‰nai fasi tØn M°yodÒn fainom°nvn koinotÆtvn M v > K 27 He: te ka‹ v V > K 28 He: te ka‹ v > K 29 He: diå taËta L1 m > K: taÊth v 30 dØ ka‹ M m V v > K 31 mØ v V > K 32 oÎdÉ om v > K 33 L: aÈtoÁw cett 34 •aut«n •kat°rouw v > K 35 He: Àraw ka‹ ≤lik¤aw ka‹ x≈raw K 36 He: ka‹ toiaËta v > K 37 He: §ke›noi L > K: om M v 38 fasi post égayÒn coll L 39 He: semnoËsyai K 40 diÉ aÈtÚ v: diÉ aÈtÚ toËto m 41 om v > He: post b¤on coll V 42 ka‹ tØn L 17 20

  ‒  

541

and, in states of flux, in restraining. For if the knee, for instance, comes to be inflamed, one has to relax the tendons, they urge; if the stomach is flowing, [81] or the eye, one has to stop and to restrain the fluid; whereas in dealing with interwoven states one must attend to the urgent symptom. For the state which gives greater trouble and carries danger with it (that is, the more powerful of the two components) should be attacked more vigorously, they say, than the other state. Why, then, did not these doctors call themselves Rationalists, although they arrive at their remedies through indication? “Because”, they retort, “the Rationalists explore the non-evident, while we are concerned with manifest things”. In line with this they do indeed define their whole hairesis as “an investigation [ gnosis] into manifest koinotetes”. And, in order that this definition may not be regarded as common to the rest of the arts [technai ]—for they deem them all to be, likewise, “types of investigation into manifest koinotetes”—for this reason they expand to: “[sc manifest koinotetes] consistent with the goal of medicine”. Others have expanded the definition not to “consistent with” but to “consonant with”; but most of them combine both formulations, saying that “the Method is an investigation into manifest koinotetes which are consonant and consistent with the goal of medicine”. Others, like Thessalus, say: “[sc manifest koinotetes] which are specific [ prosecheis] and necessary in relation to health”. So, [82] they consider that it should be fair to call them neither Rationalists—for they have no need for the non-evident, as those doctors have—nor Empiricists, even though they are concerned with the apparent as much as one can be—for indication divides them from that party. They declare, in fact, not to find themselves in agreement with the Empiricists about the very fashion in which their concern with the manifest is exercised. For those doctors banish non-evident matters on the grounds that they are unknowable, while they themselves dismiss them on the grounds that they are useless; moreover, what the Empiricists use in their approach to manifest things is observation, while they themselves use indication. So, they claim to differ from both parties in these respects, and, above all, in that they prune away season, age, place, and all such factors, which are patently useless, they think, but have been cultivated by doctors in the past for the sake of prestige. This they declare to be the greatest blessing of the Methodical hairesis and they give themselves airs about it, thinking that they deserve admiration. If someone reminds them that “life is short but art is long” they scold him: very much to the contrary, the short one is the latter,

542

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

m¢n braxe›an e‰nai, tÚn d¢ b¤on makrÒn. [83] ÉAfairey°ntvn går èpãntvn43 t«n ceud«w Ípeilhmm°nvn tØn t°xnhn »fele›n ka‹ prÚw mÒnaw tåw koinÒthtaw époblepÒntvn ≤m«n,44 oÎte makrån ¶ti tØn fiatrikØn oÎte xalepØn e‰nai, =ñsthn d¢ ka‹ saf∞, ka‹45 mhs‹n ©j ˜lhn {tãxista}46 gnvsy∞nai dunam°nhn. OÏtv m¢n går47 §p‹ t«n katå d¤aitan48 noshmãtvn efiw stenÚn49 komidª sun∞ktai50 tÚ pçn: …saÊtvw d¢ kép‹ t«n katå xeirourg¤an te ka‹ farmake¤an. Ka‹ går51 §n §ke¤noiw kayÒlou tinåw koinÒthtaw §jeur¤skein peir«ntai ka‹ skopoÁw Ípot¤yentai t«n fiamãtvn Ùl¤gouw tÚn ériymÒn, ÀstÉ §mo‹ m¢n doke›n52 oÈdÉ §n to›w poluyrulÆtoiw ©j mhs‹n éllå ka‹ pollÁ53 yçtton ˜lhn aÈt«n tØn t°xnhn §kmaye›n Íp∞rjen. Ka‹ xr∞ xãrin oÏtv54 gign≈skein aÈto›w t∞w suntÒmou didaskal¤aw, e‡ ge mØ ceÊdontai, ceudom°noiw dÉ55 Ùligvr¤an §gkale›n. [vii] ÑVpvw dÉ ên56 tiw mãlista doko¤h moi kr›nai dika¤vw µ tufl≈ttontaw aÈtoÁw per‹ tÚ xrÆsimon µ mÒnouw tÚ perittÚn Ùry«w feÊgontaw ≥dh frãsv. Ka‹ går57 oÈd¢ smikrÚn ¶oiken e‰nai toËto tÚ sk°mma, oÈd¢ m°xri lÒgou moi58 [84] proÛ°nai mÒnon dokoËsin,59 Àsper t«n Dogmatik«n te ka‹ ÉEmpeirik«n60 ˜soi61 per‹ t∞w pr≈thwg t∆n bohyhmãtvn eÍr°sevw filoneikoËsi,62 per‹ t∞w nËn xrÆsevw ımologoËntew éllÆloiw, éllÉ ≥toi megãla blãptesyai tå t∞w t°xnhw ¶rga prÚw t∞w Meyodik∞w aflr°sevw énagka›on µ megãlÉ »fele›syai. Ditt∞w d¢ t∞w §n to›w prãgmasi kr¤sevw oÎshw, t∞w m¢n diå toË lÒgou mÒnou,63 t∞w d¢ diå t«n fainom°nvn §narg«w, ≤ m¢n •t°ra, ≤ diå mÒnou toË lÒgou, me¤zvn µ katå toÁw efisagom°nouw §st¤n: oÎkoun aÈt∞w nËn ı kairÒw: ≤ dÉ •t°ra, ≤ diå {mÒnou} toË fa¤nesyai,64 h koinØ pãntvn ényr≈pvn Ípãrxei. T¤ oÔn kvlÊei taÊt˙ xrÆsasyai pr≈t˙,65 safe› tÉ ëma to›w efisagom°noiw oÎs˙ ka‹ prÚw aÈt«n t«n Meyodik«n tetimhm°n˙; Diå pantÚw goËn oÈd¢n êllÉ µ tÚ fainÒmenon ÍmnoËsi ka‹ toËto presbeÊousin §p‹ pant‹ ka‹ tÚ êdhlon ëpan êxrhston e‰nai l°gousi. F°re dØ pr«ton §piskec≈meya per‹ t«n prokatarktik«n kaloum°nvn66 afit¤vn, kanÒna t∞w kr¤sevw tÚ fainÒmenon tiy°menoi. Ka‹ pr«tÒw gÉ ı MeyodikÚw parely∆n ⁄de pvw leg°tv: “T¤ dÆ67 pote cÊjeiw [85] te ka‹ §gkaÊseiw ka‹ m°yaw ka‹ épec¤aw ka‹ plhsmonåw ka‹ §nde¤aw ka‹ kÒpouw ka‹ érg¤aw68 i g

But cf WL p. 168: “There is no sign, in the Arabic, of an equivalent for pr≈thw (. . .) or nËn (. . .).” h WL signal “no trace” of mÒnou in the Arabic. i The Arabic supports the reading érg¤aw (“repose”). pãntvn v 44 ≤m«n om K 45 µ ka‹ L m 46 del He: mhs‹n ©j ˜lhn tãxista K: tãxista mhs‹n ©j ˜lhn v V 47 m¢n oÔn V: m¢n om L 48 katå d¤aitan M: katå tØn d¤aitan cett 49 …w stenÒn v > K 50 sun∞xyai L2 M v > K 51 ka‹ går ka‹ M 52 ci He: doke› C 53 poll“ L 54 xãrin ˆntvw M m 55 ceudom°noiw dÉ aÈto›w M m 56 He < L1: …w dÉ ên codd cett > K 57 går om L 58 moi om L 59 dokoËsin om v > K 60 t«n dogmatik«n te ka‹ §mpeirik«n ci He: to›w dogmatiko›w te ka‹ §mpeiriko›w L: to›w §mpeiriko›w te ka‹ dogmatiko›w cett > K 61 ˜soi He < editio Goulstoni (= G): ˜sa C > K 62 L1 m v: diafvnoËsi L2 M V 63 diå lÒgou mÒnou K 64 del He < M m V v: ≤ diå mÒnou toË fa¤nesyai K 65 taÊt˙ pr≈t˙ xrÆsasyai M v > K 66 L M > He: legom°nvn v > K: Ùnomazom°nvn V 67 dÆ om L 68 ka‹ §nerge¤aw v > K 43

  ‒  

543

but life is long. [83] For if we remove everything that was erroneously supposed to benefit the profession and we concentrate on the koinotetes alone, medicine turns out to be neither long nor laborious but rapid and neat: we can learn the whole of it in six months. This is how they go about the diseases encompassed by the regimen, and so the whole lot are narrowed down to quite a trifle. When it comes to diseases belonging to surgery or pharmacy, the position is much the same. For there too they try to discover koinotetes of universal application, and they posit a limited number of aims for the remedies, so that, as far as I can see, it would be possible to get versed in the subtleties of their whole art not even in the famous six months, but much more quickly. In consequence, one should feel grateful to them for such a concise form of teaching, if they are not in error; but, if they are, one must denounce their superficiality. [vii] I will now say how, in my view, one could best reach a fair decision as to whether the Methodists do blind themselves on the matter of what is useful or rightly avoid what is superfluous, they alone among doctors. This, I should think, is not a light problem, and certainly not one that reaches merely to the level of language, [84] like the controversy between any Empiricists and Rationalists who fight over the first discovery of the remedies, whereas in fact they agree with each other about their present use: no, from the Methodical hairesis either serious damage or serious improvement is bound to come to the practical aspects of the profession. Now, there are two ways of judging things: one, exclusively through reasoning; the other, through clear perceptions. The former, the one which proceeds through reasoning alone, is too involved for beginners, and hence it would be out of place here. But the latter, the one which resorts to what is perceived, is available to everyone. Why, then, shall I not use this method for a start, since it is clear for beginners and much revered by the Methodists themselves? For the manifest is a subject on which they harp without pause, and on every occasion they worship it and declare that anything non-evident is useless. Let us, then, begin by looking into the procatarctic [ prokatarktika] causes (as they are called), taking what is manifest as a standard of our judgement. And let there be a Methodist who steps in first, speaking roughly in the following manner: “Why, Rationalists and Empiricists, are you getting so worked up about chills, [85] sunstrokes, drunkenness, indigestion, satiety, starvation, exertion, idleness, quality of foods, change of habits—to no

544

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

ka‹ §desmãtvn poiÒthtaw ka‹ §y«n Ípallagãw, Œ Dogmatiko¤ te ka‹ ÉEmpeiriko¤, mãthn polupragmone›te; PÒteron taËtÉ fiçsyai m°llete, tåw §n t“ s≈mati69 par°ntew diay°seiw, ì tØn érxØn oÈd¢ pãrestin {oÈk°ti t«n toioÊtvn oÈd°n};70 ÉAllÉ aÈtå m¢n o‡xetai, tÚ dÉ ÏpÉ aÈt«n genÒmenon §n t“ s≈mati m°nei, ka‹ toËto xr∞ fiçsyai: toËto gãr §sti tÚ pãyow. ÉEpiskept°on oÔn aÈtÚ71 oÂÒn t¤ §stin. Efi m¢n går stegnÚn xalast°on, efi d¢ =o«dew stalt°on, ÍfÉ ˜tou ín afit¤ou gegonÚw •kãteron ¬.72 T¤73 dØ oÔn ¶ti tÚ a‡tion »fele›, mÆte toË =o≈douw xalãse≈w pote74 deom°nou, mÆte toË stegnoË stãlsevw; âH75 pãntvw76 oÈd°n,77 Àw ge tÚ prçgma aÈtÚ78 de¤knusin.” ÜOmoiow dÉ ı lÒgow to›w Meyodiko›w ka‹ per‹ t«n édÆlvn ka‹ sunektik«n Ùnomazom°nvn afit¤vn. Ka‹ går kéke›na79 perittã fasin e‰nai, toË pãyouw tØn ofike¤an yerape¤an §ndeiknum°nou ka‹ xvr‹w toË gnvsy∞nai tØn afit¤an ÍfÉ ∏w §g°neto. T“ dÉ aÈt“ trÒpƒ t«n lÒgvn §p¤ te [86] tåw Àraw ka‹ tåw ≤lik¤aw ka‹ tåw x≈raw80 j metaba¤nousi, yaumãzontew kéntaËya t«n palai«n fiatr«n, efi mØ suniçsin81 oÏtvw §nargoËw prãgmatow. “ÑH gãr toi flegmonÆ”, fas¤, “pãyow oÔsa stegnÒn,82 oÈ dÆpou, y°rouw m¢n efi g°noito, t«n xal≈ntvn de›tai bohyhmãtvn, xeim«now dÉ êllvn tin«n, éllÉ §n émfot°raiw ta›w Àra›w taÈt«n: oÎdÉ §p‹ m¢n t∞w t«n pa¤dvn ≤lik¤aw83 t«n xalastik«n, §p‹ d¢ t∞w t«n presbut°rvn t«n stellÒntvn: oÎdÉ §n AfigÊptƒ m¢n t«n xal≈ntvn, ÉAyÆn˙si d¢ t«n §pexÒntvn.84 ÉAnãpalin d¢ tª flegmonª, tÚ =o«dew pãyow85 oÈd°pote t«n xal«ntvn éllÉ ée‹ t«n stellÒntvn de›tai,86 ka‹ xeim«now ka‹ ∑row ka‹ yeroËw87 ka‹ fyinop≈rou, ka‹ paidÚw ˆntow toË nosoËntow ka‹ ékmãzontow ka‹ g°rontow, ka‹ efi tÊxoi per‹ tØn Yrñkhn µ tØn Skuy¤an µ tØn ÉIvn¤an88 e‰nai ı érrvst«n.89 k OÎkoun oÈd¢n t«n toioÊtvn efiw oÈd¢n xrÆsimon e‰na¤ fasi, éllå mãthn taËta pãnta polupragmone›syai. T¤ d¢ ka‹ tå m°rh toË s≈matow §piskvp∞sai;90 l âAr oÈx‹91 ka‹ taËta mãtaia prÚw ¶ndeijin yerape¤aw; áH tolmhsãtv tiw [87] efipe›n …w §n m¢n t“ neur≈dei m°rei92 tØn flegmonØn xalast°on, §n d¢ t“ érthri≈dei µ fleb≈dei µ sark≈dei stalt°on. áH ˜lvw, e‡ ti stegnÚn ¶n tini m°rei toË s≈matow g°noito, tolmhsãtv tiw efipe›n …w oÈ xalast°on aÈtÒ, µ oÈ stalt°on tÚ =o«dew. Efi to¤nun ≤ toË m°rouw fÊsiw oÈd¢n j

The order in Arabic is that of Kühn (cf WL p. 168). But cf the Arabic version (“in whatever country he happens to be sick”, WL p. 168). l The Arabic supports it (cf WL p. 168). k

tåw §n s≈mati v > K 70 del He 71 aÈtÚ add L2 72 ¬ add L2 73 He < L1 m v: efiw t¤ L2 M V > K 74 pot¢ xalãsevw M v V > K 75 ∑ ci He: µ L M > K 76 om M v V 77 oÈd°n L2: efiw oÈd°n cett > K 78 aÈtÚ tÚ prçgma M 79 He < M m: §ke›na cett > K 80 ego: tåw Àraw ka‹ tåw x≈raw ka‹ tåw ≤lik¤aw He: tåw Àraw ka‹ tåw ≤lik¤aw ka‹ tå x≈ria v V > K 81 sun¤asin K 82 flegmonÆ, pãyow oÔsa stegnÒn, Àw fasin v > K 83 ta›w t«n pa¤dvn ≤lik¤aiw L 84 §pexÒntvn L: stellÒntvn cett 85 pãyow Ípãrxon add v > K 86 de›syai L M m V 87 H M: ka‹ yeroËw ka‹ ∑row K 88 ÉIvn¤an He < C: Afiyiop¤an Ald > K 89 e‰nai ı érrvst«n del Ma > He 90 K: §piskvp∞sai om L M m V > He 91 îrÉ oÈ v > K 92 mor¤ƒ v > K: om m 69

  ‒  

545

purpose at all? Is it these that you want to treat, ignoring the states in the body? These factors which, to begin with, are not even present? They themselves vanish, but what they engender remains in the body, and this is what one must treat; for this is the affection. Hence, one must inspect it and see what sort of thing it is. If it is constricted, one must relax it, and if it is flowing, one must repress it, no matter what particular cause produced it in either case. What purpose, then, does your cause still serve, given that the state of flux never requires relaxation and the constricted state never requires repression? Obviously no purpose at all, as the matter itself demonstrates.” Concerning the non-evident or containing [sunektika] causes (as they are called), the Methodists have a similar argument to offer. Those too are superfluous, they claim, since the disease indicates its specific treatment even without our knowledge of the cause which produced it. In the same style of argument [86] they take up one by one seasons, ages, places, wondering afresh at the doctors of the past, whether they really were not aware of such an obvious fact. For surely the inflammation, which is a constricted condition, does not require relaxing remedies if it occurs in the summer and some other remedies if it occurs in the winter; rather, it requires the same remedies in both seasons. Nor does one need procedures with a relaxing effect for patients of tender age, but with a repressant effect for patients in their old age; nor the relaxing ones in Egypt but the checking ones in Athens. Contrary to what holds for an inflammation, the state of flow never requires relaxing procedures, but always repressant ones—be it winter, summer, spring, or autumn; whether the patient is a youth, an adult, or an old man; whether he gets ill in Thracia, Scythia, or Ionia. In conclusion, they say, none of these serves any useful purpose; all is a waste of hard work. But why examine as much as the parts of the body? Are these not idle too, with respect to the indication of the treatment? Let us see who dares [87] to say that an inflammation should be relaxed when it occurs in the sinewy parts, but repressed when it occurs in the arterial, the venal, or the fleshy parts! Or, quite generally, if constriction of any sort occurs in any part of the body, would one dare to say that it should not be relaxed, or that flux should not be repressed? Well, then, if the nature of

546

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

Ípallãttei t∞w yerape¤aw tÚn trÒpon éllÉ ée‹93 m katå tÚ g°now toË pãyouw ≤ t«n bohyhmãtvn94 eÏresiw, êxrhstow faner«w ≤ toË m°rouw §p¤skeciw. ÑO m¢n dØ MeyodikÚw toioËtow …w tÊpƒ fãnai. [viii] Par¤tv dÉ §pÉ aÈt“ deÊterow ı ÉEmpeirokÒw, ⁄d° pvw l°gvn: “ÉEg∆ t«n fainom°nvn oÈd¢n o‰da pl°on95 oÈdÉ §pagg°lloma¤ ti sof≈teron œn pollãkiw §yeasãmhn. Efi m¢n dØ étimãzeiw96 tÚ fainÒmenon, Àsper tinÚw ¶mprosyen ékoËsa¤ moi dok« sofistoË, ≤m›n m¢n97 Àra prÚw toÁw tim«ntaw aÈtÚ tÚ fainÒmenon épallãtesyai, sÁ dÉ ín98 n ≥dh nik≈˙w n¤khn Kadme¤an. Efi dÉ, Àsper ka‹ katÉ érxåw ≥kousã sou, tÚ m¢n êdhlon ëpan êxrhston e‰nai fãskeiw,99 ßpe[88]syai dÉ ımologe›w100 to›w §narg°si, tãxÉ ên soi de¤jaimi101 tÚ paror≈menon ÍpomnÆsaw toË fainom°nou. Dhxy°ntew ÍpÚ kunÚw lutt«ntow ênyrvpoi dÊo prÚw toÁw sunÆyeiw fiatroÁw §poreÊyhsan fiãsevw deÒmenoi. SmikrÚn dÉ ∑n •kat°rou102 tÚ ßlkow, …w mhd¢ tÚ d°rma pçn di˙r∞syai. Ka‹ tØn yerape¤an ı m¢n ßterow aÈt«n §poie›to toË ßlkouw mÒnou, mhd¢n êllo polupragmon«n, ka‹ diÉ Ùl¤gvn103 gÉ ≤mer«n Ígi¢w ép°f˙ne tÚ m°row. ÑO dÉ ßterow, §peidØ lutt«ntÉ104 ¶gnv tÚn kÊna, tosoËton ép°dei toË speÊdein efiw oÈlØn êgein tÚ ßlkow ÀstÉ aÈtÚ105 toÈnant¤on ée‹ ka‹ mçllon efirgãzeto me›zon flsxuro›w te ka‹ drim°si xr≈menow farmãkoiw ßvw xrÒnou suxnoË, ka‹ p¤nein dÉ aÈtÚn kathnãgkazen106 §n t“ xrÒnƒ toÊtƒ fãrmaka tå107 lÊtthw fiãmata, …w ¶fasken aÈtÒw. Ka‹ dØ ka‹ oÏtvw §teleÊta tÚ sumbån108 émfot°roiw. ÑO m¢n §s≈yh te ka‹ ÍgiØw109 §g°netÉ, ı pi∆n110 tå fãrmaka: ı dÉ ßterow, oÈd¢n ¶xein kakÚn ofiÒmenow,111 §ja¤fnhw ¶deis° te tÚ Ïdvr ka‹ spasye‹w ép°yanen. âArã soi doke› mãthn tÚ prokatãrjan112 a‡tion §n toÊtoiw §reunçsyai; áH diÉ êllo ti ép°yanen [89] ı ênyrvpow plØn113 diå tØn114 Ùligvr¤an toË fiatroË, mÆte puyom°nou115 per‹ t∞w afit¤aw mhd°n, mÆte tØn tethrhm°nhn §pÉ aÈtª116 yerape¤an paralabÒntow; ÉEmo‹ m¢n går oÈ diÉ êllo ti117 fa¤netai µ diå toËto. ÉEpe‹ d¢ t“ fainom°nƒ ßpomai, parelye›n oÈ dÊnamai toioËton oÈd¢n a‡tion: oÏtv d¢ ka‹ ≤lik¤an oÈ dÊnamai paradrame›n118 oÈdÉ étimãsai:119 ka‹ går kéntaËyÉ énagkãzei

m n

The Arabic version translates ée¤ (“constantly”; WL p. 168). Cf the Arabic: “then you will have gained an empty triumph” (WL p. 168).

ée‹ om v > K (éllå ka¤) 94 bohyoÊntvn v 95 pl°on oÈd¢n o‰da v > K étimãzoiw v > K 97 ci He: ka‹ ≤m›n K < C 98 oÈdÉ ên Ald > K 99 ci He: fãskontow K < C 100 ci He: ımologoËntow K < C 101 de¤jv L M 102 ci He: •kat°rvn K < C 103 ka‹ Ùl¤gvn v > K 104 M > He: luttçn cett codd > K 105 Àste pçn L V 106 proshnãgkazen aÈtÒn v V > K 107 fãrmaka ka‹ Ch > K 108 sÊmpan L M m 109 ÍgiØw ∑n L M m V 110 ci He: p¤nvn K < C 111 ofiÒmenow kakÒn m v > K 112 prokatarktikÒn v > K 113 ênyrvpow µ M 114 tØn om L 115 punyanom°nou Ald > K 116 v V > K: §pÉ aÈt“ He 117 He: diÉ oÈd°n êllo M V: diÉ êllo oÈd°n v: diÉ êllo ti oÈd°n K 118 L2: parelye›n L1 M m 119 étimãzein v 93 96

  ‒  

547

the organ does not influence the manner in which the treatment is administered, and it is always the type of the disease that leads one to find the appropriate remedies, then the examination of the organ is obviously useless.” Such is, in rough outline, the position that a Methodist would express. [viii] Let now an Empiricist come after him and speak somehow like this: “There is nothing beyond the apparent that I know of, and nothing that I commend as being more practical than what I have witnessed many times. If you have indeed no regard for what is manifest—methinks I heard this before from a sophist—then it is time for us to turn our back, going to others, who do respect the manifest; but then yours will be a Cadmean victory. On the other hand, if you declare, as I heard you right from the start, that the whole of the non-evident is useless, and you [88] consent to follow what is visible, then I could perhaps point to your oversight, putting you in mind of what the manifest is. Two men bitten by a mad dog went to their usual doctors, seeking a cure. Each one had a small wound, such that the skin was not even completely punctured around it. Now, one of the doctors took care of the wound only, without bothering with anything else, and in a few days the limb seemed to have healed. But the other doctor, once he learned that the dog was mad, far from speeding up the cicatrisation of the wound, did exactly the opposite: for a considerable amount of time he tried constantly to enlarge it, using strong pungent drugs, and for all that time he also ordered the man (as he himself reported) to drink potions which were remedies against rabies. And now here is the outcome of the plight the two men were in. One of them, the one who drank the potions, saved his life and recovered his health. The other one, without suspecting that anything was wrong with him, all of a sudden was seized with dread of water and died in convulsions. Now, do you think that, in such cases, one searches into the procatarctic cause in vain? And why did the man die, [89] if not because of the superficiality of the doctor, who neither asked about the cause nor adopted the course of therapy sanctioned for it by observation? To me it seems that he died because of no other reason but this. Since I follow what is manifest, I cannot overlook any cause of this kind; similarly, I cannot ignore or disregard the factor of age.

548

5

10

15

20

25

  ‒  

me120 pisteÊein tÚ fainÒmenon, taÈt«n {katå pãnta}121 o pay«n oÈ pãnth122 p taÈtØn yerape¤an §deiknum°nvn,123 éllÉ ¶stin ˜te tosoËton diaf°rousan124 §n ta›w diafÒroiw ≤lik¤aiw Àste mØ125 posÒthti mÒnon µ trÒpƒ bohyhmãtvn diallãttein éllÉ ˜lƒ t“ g°nei. PleuritikoÁw goËn polloÁw ékmãzontãw te ka‹ fisxuroÁw e‰don §g∆ pollãkiw ka‹126 ÍfÉ Ím«n127 q flebotomoum°nouw, éllÉ oÈd°na t«n §n §sxãtƒ gÆr& µ komidª smikrÚn pa›da oÎyÉ Íme›w §tolmÆsate diå flebÚw kenoËn oÎtÉ êllow oÈde‹w oÈdep≈pote.128 T¤ dÉ ˜tan ÑIppokrãthw e‡p˙, “ÍpÚ kÊna ka‹ prÚ kunÚw §rg≈deew afl farmake›ai”,r ka‹ ˜tan aÔ129 pãlin, “farmakeÊein y°reow m¢n130 mçllon131 tåw ênv,132 xeim«now [90] d¢ tåw kãtv”;s PÒteron élhyeÊein Ím›n µ ceÊdesyai doke›; KayÉ •kãteron går éporÆsein Ímçw épokr¤sevw o‡omai. CeÊdesyai m¢n går efi fa¤hte, tÚ fainÒmenon étimãzete ˘ timçn prosepoie›sye: 133 fa¤netai går oÏtvw ¶xon 134 télhy°w …w ÑIppokrãthw l°gei. Efi dÉ élhyeÊein e‡poite, pros¤esye tåw Àraw,135 t ìw éxrÆstouw épefπnasye. Nom¤zv dÉ Ímçw mhd¢ pÒrrv pou t∞w ofike¤aw épodhm∞sai136 mhdÉ137 §n pe¤r& gen°syai diaforçw xvr¤vn:138 µ pãntvw139 ín ±p¤stasye toÁw140 m¢n ÍpÚ ta›w êrktoiw oÈ f°rontaw141 tåw éyrÒaw toË a·matow ken≈seiw, Àsper oÈd¢ toÁw katÉ A‡guptÒn te ka‹142 ˜lhn tØn meshmbr¤an: toÁw dÉ §n m°sƒ toÊtvn §narg∞ pollãkiw tØn143 »f°lleian §p‹ ta›w flebotom¤aiw lambãnontaw.144 TÚ d¢ mhd¢ tå m°rh toË s≈matow §piskope›syai 145 pãnu moi yaumasyÚn §fÉ Ím«n 146 katafa¤netai ka‹ dein«w êtopon, oÈ to›w élhy°si mÒnon éllå ka‹ to›w ÍfÉ Ímvn aÈt«n prattom°noiw §nant¤on.147 âV prÚw t«n ye«n, ¶nyÉ ín ≤148 flegmonØ g°nhtai taÈt∞w de›tai yerape›aw, kín [91]sk°lei kín »t‹ kín stÒmati kín Ùfyalmo›w;149 T¤ dÆpotÉ oÔn pollãkiw Ímçw §yeasãmhn tåw m¢n §n to›w sk°lesi flegmonåw ka‹ éposxãzontaw150 sm¤l˙ ka‹ épobr°xontaw151 §la¤ƒ, toÁw dÉ ÙfyalmoÁw oÈdep≈pote;152 T¤ d¢ toÁw o

Cf Arabic version: “and there is no difference between the two diseases in any way whatsoever” (WL p. 168). p Cf Arabic version, “in all ways the same” (WL p. 169). q Cf Arabic translation: “I have seen you, not to mention others” (WL p. 169). r Aph. iv 5. s Cf Aph. iv 4: FarmakeÊein y°reow m¢n mçllon tåw ênv, xeim«now d¢ tåw kãtv. t But, as expected, “there is no trace, in the Arabic, of ka‹ tåw x≈raw” (WL p. 169). énagkãzei me L2 m v V: énagkãzomai L1 M 121 secl He 122 K < cett codd: pãntote L > He 123 §xÒntvn v > K 124 diaf°rousin L M > K 125 mhd¢ v 126 ka‹ om L1 M 127 ≤m«n m v V: ≤m«n (uel Èm«n) aÈt«n L > Ald K 128 oÈd°pote L m 129 aÔ om L 130 He < M: y°reow farmakeÊein m¢n L: y°reow farmakeÊein cett codd > L 131 He: mçllon om C 132 ênv koil¤aw add L M m 133 prospoie›sye v 134 ci He: ¶xein C > K 135 Àraw ka‹ tåw x≈raw add L M m > K 136 épodhm∞sai patr¤dow add L M m > K 137 mÆtÉ v V 138 xvr¤vn diaforçw v V > K 139 pãntvw går v > K 140 corr Ald: tå C (item bis infra) 141 V > Ald: f°ronta cett 142 A‡gupton ka‹ K 143 tØn om v > K 144 corr Ald: lambãnonta C 145 §pisk°ptesyai L 146 ÍfÉ Ím«n L 147 §nant¤on om L 148 ≤ om v > K 149 L V > He: Ùfyalm“ cett > K 150 éposx¤zontaw v > K 151 L M: §pibr°xontaw cett codd 152 oÈd°pote L 120

  ‒  

549

In this, too, what forces me into obedience is the manifest: identical affections do not indicate a treatment which is identical in every respect, and sometimes the age changes it so much as to affect not just the quantity and manner of use of the remedies, but even their kind. Thus I have seen a great many patients, young and robust, who suffered from pleurisy and were treated by venesection, often even by yourselves; but neither you nor anyone else could ever boast to have let blood from someone in extreme old age or in very early childhood. And now—what would you have to say about Hippocratic aphorisms such as “medicines cause trouble during and before the Dog-days”, or “in summer you should use medicines for the upper parts, in winter [90] for the lower parts”? Do you think that they are right or wrong? I reckon that you will be at a loss for an answer either way. On the one hand, if you are to say that they are wrong, then you show disregard for the manifest, which you affected to hold in such great esteem. For the truth on these matters turns out to be just as Hippocrates formulated it. On the other hand, if you should say that they [sc the aphorisms] are right, then you let in the times of year, which you have proclaimed to be useless. I also suspect that you never travelled far from home and have little experience of the difference between various parts of the world. Otherwise you would be familiar with the fact that the populations of the North do not tolerate sudden depletions of blood; neither do the inhabitants of Egypt, nor the entire South; whereas those situated in between these regions often are visibly relieved through venesection. But what I find to be completely puzzling on your part, and positively absurd, is that you don’t examine the parts of the body: this runs not only against the truth of facts, but even against your own practice. For heaven’s sake! Does any inflammation require the same treatment wherever it be located—in [91] foot, ear, mouth, or eye? Why, then, have I often seen you lance inflammations of the foot with a scalpel and bathe them in oil, but never apply such therapy to the eyes? Why do you treat inflamed eyes with astringent drugs,

550

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

m¢n ÙfyalmoÁw to›w stÊfousin fiçsye farmãkoiw flegma¤nontaw, oÈx‹ d° ge ka‹153 tå sk°lh taÈto›w §pale¤fete; T¤ dÉ oux‹ ka‹ tå Œta flegma¤nonta to›w t«n Ùfyalm«n fiçsye bohyÆmasi; T¤ dÉ oÈx‹ ka‹ toÁw ÙfyalmoÁw to›w t«n tvn; ÉAllÉ ßteron m¢n tvn flegmon∞w, ßteron dÉ Ùfyalm«n §sti fãrmakon. ÖOjow m¢n går metå =od¤nou flegmon∞w tvn égayÚn fãrmakon, éllÉ oÈk o‰ma¤ tina tolmÆsein §gxe›n aÈtÚ flegma¤nousin Ùfyalmo›w: efi d¢ ka‹ tolmÆseien, oÈ metå smikrçw eÔ o‰dÉ ˜ti zhm¤aw peirãsetai t∞w tÒlmhw. Ka‹ gargare«now flegma¤nontow égayÚn fãrmakon ékãnyhw Afigupt¤aw ı karpÒw, égayÚn d¢ ka‹ ≤ sxistØ stupthr¤a. âArÉ oÔn taËta ka‹ Ùfyalm«n flegmainÒntvn ka‹ tvn µ pçn toÈnant¤on §sxãth blãbh; Ka‹ taËta pãnta l°gv sugxv[92]rÆsaw Ím›n t∞n pr≈thn ÍpÒyhsin, …w xrØ tØn m¢n §n to›w sk°lesin µ ta›w xers‹ flegmonØn xalçn, oÈ mØn tÆn ge t«n Ùfyalm«n µ toË gargare«now µ t«n tvn. Efi dÉ ˜ti ka‹ tØn §n to›w sk°lesin µ154 ta›w xers‹n oÈk §j ëpantow trÒpou xalast°on ÍpomnÆsaimi, tãxÉ ín gno¤hte, efi svfronÆsete, ˜son èmrtãnete. ÖEstai155 d¢ ka‹ nËn ı lÒgow énãmnhsiw toË fainom°nou: t«n går §p‹ mhdemiò plhgª flegmhnãntvn156 ıtioËn m°row éllÉ aÈtomãtvw Íparjam°nvn, t∞w157 plhyvrik∞w kaloum°nhw diay°sevw158 paroÊshw, oÈde‹w xrπzei xalãsevw toË mor¤ou prÚ t∞w toË ˜lou s≈matow ken≈sevw: oÈ mÒnon går oÈd¢n mei≈seiw, éllå ka‹ prosaujÆseiw tØn oÔsan flegmonØn efi toËto drãseiaw ˜yen §n toÊtƒ m¢n t“ kair“ tå stÊfonta ka‹ cÊxonta t“ m°rei159 prosf°romen, ≤n¤ka dÉ ín tÚ ˜lon s«ma ken≈svmen 160 thnikaËta ka‹ tÚ flegma›non mÒrion én°xetai t«n xal≈ntvn. Efi dÉ Ímçw mØ pe¤yv taËta l°gvn, ˜per ¶fhn érxÒmenow toË lÒgou, kairÚw ín e‡h moi prÚw toÁw tim«ntaw tÚ fainÒmenon {aÈtÚ}161 épallãttesyai.” [ix, 93] TaËtÉ efipÒntow toË ÉEmpeirikoË parely∆n ı DogmatikÚw œd°162 pvw leg°tv: “Tãxa m¢n eÔ fronoËnt¤ soi ka‹ taËtÉ ∑n flkanå per‹ toË mÆyÉ ≤lik¤an mÆyÉ Àran mÆte x≈ran éllå mhd¢ prokatarktikÚn a‡tion mhd¢163 m°row ti toË s≈matow êxrhston Ípolambãnein. Efi d° se164 mÆpv p°peiken ı ÉEmpeirikÚw ÍpomimnÆskvn t«n fainom°nvn éllã tinow ¶ti ka‹ lÒgou d°ei,165 toËtÒn moi dok« prosyÆsein §g∆ ka‹ tØn ÍpÒyes¤n sou t∞w aflr°sevw épode¤jv sayrån oÔsan.166 ÉAkoÊv m¢n går Ím«n legÒntvn ‘gn«sin fainom°nvn koinotÆtvn’: §rvt«n167 dÉ •kãstote, per‹ t¤ mãlisyÉ ≤ koinÒthw aÏth sun¤statai ka‹ p«w aÈtØn168 gnvrioËmen,169 oÈd°pv ka‹ nËn moi dok«170 gn«nai dÊnasyai. TÚ dÉ a‡tion: êxri171 t«n Ùnomãtvn éllÆloiw ımologe›te, per‹ t«n pragmãtvn diaferÒmenoi. Tin¢w m¢n172 går Ím«n ta›w katå fÊsin173 §kkr¤sesi

oÈx‹ d¢ ka‹ m v V > K 154 µ V > He ka‹ cett codd > K 155 ¶stv M flegmainÒntvn L M 157 t∞w om L1 158 diay°sevw kaloum°nhw v > K 159 t“ m°rei post stÊfonta coll L 160 ken≈svmen tÚ ˜lon s«ma L M 161 aÈtÚ om m v V > He: aÈtÚ tÚ fainÒmenon M: tÚ fainÒmenon aÈtÚ L > K 162 …d¤ L 163 L > He: µ cett codd > K 164 d° se L1: d° ge L2 165 d°oi V: d°˙ L2 M m v 166 oÔsan om v > K 167 §rvt«n He < C: §rvt« Ch > K 168 aÈtØn L 1: aÈto‹ L 2 169 gnvrioËmen L2: gnvr¤somen L1 170 dok« L2: dokoËsi L1 171 ˜te m°xri M 172 m¢n om v > K 173 He: ta›w parå fÊsin L2 > K 153 156

  ‒  

551

but do not rub the legs, too, with these unguents? Why don’t you treat the inflamed ears with the same remedies as the eyes, the eyes with the same remedies as the ears? No question of it; there is one medicine against ear inflammation, another against eye inflammation. For wine vinegar with rose oil is a good medicine against ear inflammation, but I doubt that anyone will venture to pour it upon inflamed eyes; and even if he should, I know too well what price he will have to pay for his foolhardiness. A good medicine for an inflamed uvula is the fruit of the Eyptian acacia; another one is cloven alum. But are these good also for inflamed eyes or ears? Are they not, on the contrary, extremely harmful? I say all this having [92] granted your first premiss, namely that one should bring relaxation upon an inflammation in the legs or hands, but certainly not upon one in the eyes, uvula, or ears. If I urge you to recall that not even the inflammation of the feet or hands should invariably be relaxed, you will perhaps realise, if you have any sense, the extent to which you are mistaken. So, my argument will be, again, a reminder of what the manifest is: when inflammations, in any part whatsoever, have arisen not from some lesion but spontaneously, because the state of abundance [ plethorike diathesis] (as it is called) is present, no one will want to relax the affected part before having depleted the whole body; for if you were to do it that way you would not only fail to ameliorate the existing inflammation, you would positively aggravate it. For this reason, in a situation like that we apply onto the affected organ astringents with a cooling effect, and only when we have emptied the whole body does the inflamed part withstand the relaxing medicines. If I don’t persuade you by these arguments, then, as I said at the beginning of my address, it is time for me to go to those who have real respect for the manifest.” [ix, 93] When the Empiricist has finished, let a Rationalist take the floor and speak in the following manner: “On the point that neither age, season, and place, nor at any rate the procatarctic cause or any affected part of the body is useless, maybe even the above arguments should suffice, if you are in your right mind. If, on the other hand, the Empiricist has not yet convinced you by forcing you to remember what is manifest, and the job also demands some reasoning, well, then I think that I can provide this additional part; and I will demonstrate that the hypothesis on which your creed lies is unsound. I hear you speaking about the ‘investigation into manifest koinotetes’; I ask you each time: In what does the koinotes itself chiefly consist? How do we recognise it? But not even up to this day do I seem to be able to understand. The reason is that you agree with each other so far as the words go, but you have different views about the facts. Some of you measure constrictedness and flow by the criterion of natural secretions: when the secretions are impeded you call the disease

552

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

parametroËsi tÚ stegnÚn ka‹ tÚ =o«dew, fisxom°nvn m¢n aÈt«n ‘st°gnvsin’ Ùnomãzontew tÚ pãyow, ém°trvw dÉ §kkrinom°nvn ‘=Êsin’. ÖAlloi d° tinew §j Ím«n, oÈk Ùl¤gow xorÒw,174 §n aÈta›w t«n svmãtvn ta›w diay°sesi175 [94] tå pãyh fas‹n e‰nai ka‹ m°mfonta¤ ge dein«w to›w efiw tÚ kenoÊmenon épobl°pousin. ÉEmo‹ dÉ ˜ph dokoËsin •kãteroi sfãllesyai tãxÉ ín ≥dh dhl≈saimi. Gign°syv176 dÉ ≤m›n ı lÒgow prÚw §ke¤nouw prÒteron,177 ˜soi ta›w katå fÊsin178 §kkr¤sesi kr¤nousi tå pãyh. Yaumãzv går aÈt«n,179 efi mÆyÉ fldr«tãw pote mÆtÉ oÔra mÆtÉ §m°touw mÆte diaxvrÆmata ple¤v t«n180 katå fÊsin e‰don §n ta›w nÒsoiw xrhst«w kenoÊmena, ka‹ tÚ pãntvn étop≈taton, efi mÆdÉ §k =in«n aflmorrag¤an pot¢ kr¤nasan181 §yeãsanto. TaÊthw182 m¢n går183 oÈ tÚ posÚn mÒnon, éllÉ ˜lon tÚ g°now parå fÊsin,184 fldr≈tvn dÉ µ oÎrvn µ ˜sa katå gast°ra µ diÉ §m°tvn ırmò tÚ m¢n g°now oÈ parå fÊsin, oÏtv ge mØn êmetrÒn §st¤ pote tÚ pl∞yow185 ÀstÉ §g∆ m¢n e‰dÒn186 tinaw efiw tosoËton fldr≈santaw êxri toË ka‹ tå gnãfala187 diabr°jai, ka‹ êllouw188 d¢ katå gast°ra kenvy°ntaw Íp¢r triãkonta kotÊlaw: éllÉ oÈk §dÒkei toÊtvn oÈd¢n paÊein, ˜ti tÚ lupoËn §kenoËto. Ka¤toi t“ ge ta›w katå fÊsin §kkr¤sesin efiw ëpanta kanÒni xrvm°nƒ [95] kvlut°on189 ∑n tå toiaËta sumpt≈mata.190 DiÚ ka‹ piyan≈tero¤ pvw e‰na¤ moi dokoËsin191 ofl tåw diay°seiw §n aÈto›w to›w s≈masi192 tåw koinÒthtaw Ípotiy°menoi.193 Yaumãzv d¢ ka‹ toÊtvn ˜pvw aÈtåw fainom°naw §tÒlmhsan efipe›n. Efi går mØ tÚ =°on §k t∞w koil¤aw ≤ =Êsiw §st¤n, éllÉ ≤ diãyesiw t«n svmãtvn §j ∏w tÚ =°on, oÈk §nd°xetai d¢ taÊthn oÈdemiò t«n afisyÆsevn fa¤nesyai, p«w ín e‰en afl koinÒthtew ¶ti fainÒmenai;194 Ka‹ går §n k≈lƒ195 dunatÚn tØn t∞w =Êsevw diãyesin e‰nai ka‹ §n lepto›w §nt°roiw ka‹ per‹ tØn n∞stin196 ka‹ {per‹}197 tØn gast°ra ka‹ tÚ mesãraion ka‹ êlla pollå toË §ntÒw, œn oÈd¢n oÎtÉ aÈtÚ dunatÚn afisyÆsei labe›n oÎte tÚ pãyow oÈtoË. P«w oÔn ¶ti ‘fainÒmenai’ l°gointÉ ín afl koinÒthtew, efi mÆ ti êra ka‹198 tÚ diå shme¤vn gnvr¤zesyai ‘fa¤nesya¤’ tiw §y°loi kale›n; ÉAllÉ efi toËto, t¤ni t«n palai«n fiatr«n ¶ti diaf°rousin oÈk o‰da. P«w d¢ tax°vw ka‹199 u §n u

Cf Arabic translation: “they promise to teach us this art quickly in six months” (WL p. 169). oÈk Ùl¤gow xorÒw om v > K 175 §n ta›w loipa›w t«n svmãtvn diay°sesi v > K 176 He: gen°syv L2: g¤netai L1 177 He: prÒterow m: prot°rvw L1 v: prot°rouw V 178 ta›w parå fÊsin L2 v > K 179 He: aÈtoÁw L M m > K 180 toË M m 181 He: kr¤nasyai Ch > K 182 taÊt˙ L1: toËto L2 183 m°n ge v > K 184 parå fÊsin Ípãrxei add V > K 185 §st¤ pote tÚ pl∞yow He: §st‹n ˜lon pote tÚ pl∞yow L2 (pote add): tÚ pl∞yow pote V (§sti om): §st‹n ˜lon tÚ pl∞yow L M: §st‹n ˜te tÚ pl∞yow m 186 o‰da M > K 187 ka‹ gnãfala v > K: ka‹ tå knãfala M 188 êllouw d¢ He: êllouw ka‹ L > K: êllouw v 189 kvlut°on L M > He: kvlut°a v V > K 190 sÊmpanta L M m V 191 moi L > He: moi om codd cett > K 192 §n to›w s≈masin aÈto›w v > K: aÈto›w om V 193 §pitiy°menoi v > K 194 p«w ín e‰en afl koinÒthtew ¶ti fainÒmenai L m > He: p«w ín afl koinÒthtew ¶ti fainÒmenai l°gointÉ ên v > K: p«w ín ¶ti fainÒmenai l°gointÉ ên afl koinÒthtew; L m: p«w ín e‰en afl koinÒthtew ¶ti fainÒmenai M 195 kÒlƒ M 196 n∞stin L2: kÊstin L1 197 om M > del He 198 efi mÆ ti êra V > He: efi mÆ ti M m L2 v: efi mÆpv L1 > K 199 K: tax°vw ka‹ del He: ka‹ tax°vw ka‹ add L M m 174

  ‒  

553

‘constriction’, and you call it ‘flow’ when there is secretion beyond due measure. But others among you, and not a small group, declare that diseases consist in the bodily states themselves [94] and raise strong complaints against those of their colleagues who pay attention to the evacuated matter. Perhaps I should now explain how, in my opinion, both parties seem to be wrong. Let me take it up, first, with the Methodists who judge the diseases by the canon of natural secretions. I wonder whether they never witnessed, in the course of a disease, to the elimination of sweat, urine, vomit, or faeces in immoderate quantities, yet with beneficial effects; or whether they never saw (and this would be very strange indeed) how nosebleeding provokes the crisis of a disease. Abnormal in this case is not just the quantity, but the kind of elimination itself. As for sweat, urine, and all the matter discharged through the bowel or by vomiting, these are not of an abnormal kind, but the quantity sometimes is so immoderate that I myself have seen patients sweating until their pillows were all soaked, or releasing more than thirty kotylai through the bowel; and I decided not to stop these processes, because what was being evacuated was the thing that caused the pain. Nevertheless, if you were to use natural secretions as a general standard, [95] such manifestations would have to be stopped. For this reason the Methodists who posit that the koinotetes are states in the bodies themselves sound slightly more plausible. But when it comes to their group, here I am puzzled again: how could they dare to call the koinotetes manifest? For if flow is not what flows from the internal cavity, but the bodily state which engenders what flows, and if it is not possible for that state to be manifest to any of the senses, how could the koinotetes still be manifest? You may find the state of flux in the colon, in the small intestine, in the large intestine, in the womb, in the mesentery membrane, and in many of the other internal organs which it is not possible to grasp by the senses—either the organ or its disease. In what sense would one say that the koinotetes ‘are manifest’, unless perhaps one is prepared to call ‘being manifest’ the fact that something is recognised through signs? But if they do that, I am at a loss to tell in what respect they differ from the traditional doctors. And how can they profess to teach their art from A to

554

5

10

15

20

25

  ‒  

©j mhs‹n200 §pagg°llontai tØn t°xnhn §kdidãskein; OÈ går ên, o‰mai,201 smikrçw d°ointo meyÒdou prÚw tÚ gn«na¤ ti t«n §kfeugÒntvn tØn a‡syhsin, éllå t“ toËto [96] kal«w §rgasom°nƒ202 ka‹ énatom∞w xre¤a t∞w ßkaston t«n §ntÚw …w ¶xei fÊsevw §kdidaskoÊshw,203 ka‹ fusik∞w yevr¤aw oÈ smikrçw, ·na tÒ tÉ ¶rgon •kãstou ka‹ tØn xre¤an §pisk°chtai: pr‹n går taËyÉ eÍrey∞nai204 t«n §n t“ bãyei toË s≈matow mor¤vn oÈdenÚw205 oÂÒn te diagn«nai tÚ pãyow. T¤ de› l°gein ˜ti ka‹ dialektik∞w206 §ntaËya xre¤a megãlh, ·nÉ §k t¤nvn t¤ pera¤netai saf«w efidªw ka‹ mØ parakrousyªw pote sof¤smasi mÆyÉ ÍfÉ •t°rou207 mÆyÉ ÍfÉ •autoË; Ka‹ går ka‹ ≤mçw aÈtoÁw êkont°w208 ¶stin {fide›n} ˜te sofizÒmeya.209 Ka‹ mØn ka‹ oÂÒn t¤ §stin ≤ =Êsiw ≤d°vw ín aÈtoÁw §ro¤mhn,210 efi211 dial°gesyai memayÆkesan.212 OÈ går dØ toËtÒ ge mÒnon213 érke›n ≤goËmai tÒ tisin §j aÈt«n efirhm°non, ˜ti diãyes¤w tiw parå fÊsin ≤ =Êsiw §sti. T¤w går ≤ diãyesiw efi mØ mãyoimen, oÈd¢n ín oÈd°pv pl°on efide¤hmen, îrã ge xãlas¤w tiw µ malakÒthw µ éraiÒthw. OÈd¢214 gãr ¶stin ékoËsa¤ ti215 saf¢w oÈd¢n216 aÈt«n legÒntvn éllÉ ˜ti ín §p°ly˙,217 nËn m¢n toËto, aÔyiw dÉ §ke›no, pollãkiw d¢ ka‹ [97] pãntÉ ëma, Àsper oÈd¢n diaf°ronta: ka‹ e‡ tiw §pixeirÆseie didãskein aÈtoÁw ˜p˙218 diaf°rei taËta éllÆllvn ka‹ …w ßkaston aÈt«n fld¤aw de›tai yerape¤aw,219 v oÈ mÒnon oÈx Ípom°nousin220 ékoÊein éllå ka‹ to›w palaio›w §piplÆttousin …w mãthn tå toiaËta diorizom°noiw. OÏtvw étalaip≈rvw ¶xousi per‹ tØn221 t∞w élhye¤aw zÆthsin. ÉAllÉ oÈdÉ ˜ti t“ m¢n xalar“ tÚ suntetam°non §st‹n §nant¤on, t“ d¢ malak“ tÚ sklhrÒn, t“ dÉ érai“ tÚ puknÚn ékoÊein én°xontai: ka‹ …w parå taËta pãnyÉ ßterÒn t¤ §sti tÚ §p°xesyai tåw fusikåw §kkr¤seiw ka‹ tÚ =e›n: ka‹ …w222 ÍfÉ ÑIppokrãtouw taËta pãnta {pãlai} di≈ristai.223 w Propet«w d¢ per¤ te toÊtvn aÈt«n épofa¤nontai ka‹ tØn flegmonÆn, oÏtv d¢ kaloËsi tÚn sklhrÚn ka‹ ént¤tupon ka‹ ÙdunhrÚn ka‹ yermÚn ˆgkon, •to¤mvw pãnu ka‹ ésk°ptvw stegnÚn e‰nai pãyow fasin. E‡tÉ aÔyiw •t°raw flegmonåw §pipeplegm°naw

v

Cf Arabic translation: “each of them requires a particular treatment” (WL p. 169). Cf Arabic translation: “Hippocrates already epitomised these things” (the word translated “already” would sometimes be added “for the sake of euphony”, WL p. 169). w

mhs‹n ©j M 201 o‰mai om L M m V 202 §rgasom°nƒ ci He: §rgazom°nƒ L M v > K: §rgasam°nƒ V m 203 didaskoÊshw v 204 eÍrey∞nai taËta v V > K 205 oÈd¢n L1 206 dialektik∞w m¢n L > K 207 ÍpÉ êllou v > K 208 ci He: êkontaw C > K 209 fide›n del He: ¶stin fide›n ˜te sofizÒmeya K: ¶stin fide›n pote sofizom°nouw Marquardt 210 ±r≈mhn L1 211 e‡ ge V 212 H M: memayÆkasin K 213 toËtÒ ge mÒnon M v: aÈtÒ ge mÒnon V: mÒnon toËto L m: mÒnon toËto aÈtÚ L2 214 oÈd¢ M m: oÈd¢n L: oÈ V > K 215 ti om L 216 oÈd¢n V m M > He: oÈd¢ ka‹ L 217 §p°ly˙ V m M > He: §p°lyoi L > K 218 ˜p˙ M m V > He: ˜pvw L v > K 219 yerape¤aw L2 M m V: yevr¤aw L1 > K 220 oÈ Ípom°nousin V > K 221 prÚw L > K 222 ka¤toi ge V 223 pãlai del He: pãnta pãlai di≈ristai K: pãnta di≈ristai pãlai M 200

  ‒  

555

Z in no less than six months? To determine something which escapes senseperception, they would need quite an impressive method, I am sure; if one is to do it [96] well he must use anatomy, which would teach him all about the nature of every organ inside, and a considerable amount of physical theory, in order to examine the function and use of each organ; for unless he has explored these subjects he will not be able to diagnose the disease of any of the organs hidden in the depth of the body. And do I have to say how greatly indeed he would need logic, to see clearly what follows from what and not to be deceived by faulty reasoning, by others or by himself? For it does happen sometimes that we trick even ourselves, unawares, by fallacious arguments. In particular, if they know to discuss logically, I would be very keen to ask them what kind of thing flow is. For I am not satisfied that it is enough to say, as some of them do, that flow is an unnatural state. If we are not told what sort of thing the state is, our knowledge of it will never increase by one inch: is it some sort of relaxedness, or softness, or looseness of texture? For, so far as the Methodists are concerned, it is impossible to get a clear statement when they speak; they say the first thing that comes into their head—now this, now that, and often [97] everything lumped together in one, as if no differences existed. And if you take pains to explain to them how these things differ from each other, and how it is that each one requires its own separate therapy, far from consenting to listen to you, they would even incriminate the ancients for having created such distinctions in vain. So light is the mood in which they approach the search for the truth. They do not bear to be told even that the tense is opposite to the relaxed, the hard to the soft, the dense to the rare; that the holding back and the flowing of natural secretions is something distinct from these processes; and that all of them have already been defined by Hippocrates. They practise rashness in these matters, and have not the slightest hesitation to declare without inquiry that inflammation—for this is the name they give to a protuberance which is hard, resistant, and accompanied by pain and heat—is a constricted affection. But then they call

556

5

10

15

20

25

  ‒  

Ùnomãzousin, Àsper tåw §n Ùfyalmo›w, ˜tan metå =eÊmatow Œsi, ka‹ tåw §n parisym¤oiw ka‹ gargare«ni ka‹ oÈran¤skƒ ka‹ oÎloiw. [98] E‰yÉ Ípot¤yentai pÒrouw toÁw m¢n éraioÁw gegon°nai toÁw d¢ memuk°nai, ka‹ diå toËtÉ émfÒtera tå pãyh pepony°nai. Tin¢w dÉ oÈk ÙknoËsi per‹ ßna ka‹ taÈtÚn pÒron ëma224 sun¤stasyai l°gein =Êsin te ka‹ st°gnvsin, ˘ mÆdÉ §pino∞sai =ñdion: oÏtvw §p‹ pçn225 tÒlmhw ¥kousin. ÉOl¤goi d° tinew §j aÈt«n, Ípome›nai dunhy°ntew §p‹ pl°on Íp¢r èpãntvn toÊtvn226 ékoËsa¤ te ka‹ diask°casyai, mÒliw pot¢ metagnÒntew §p‹ tÚ élhy°steron227 tr°pontai. ToÊtoiw m¢n oÔn ka‹ ˜soi metÉ ékribe¤aw tinÚw boÊlontai maye›n ti per‹ t«n pr≈tvn ka‹ gennik«n pay«n fid¤& g°graptai. TÚ d¢ nËn {e‰nai} to›w efisagom°noiw xrÆsimon228 brax°a prÚw aÈtoÁw229 efipe›n d¤kaion. EÈja¤mhn230 dÉ ên ti kôke¤nouw231 épÉ232 aÈt«n ˆnasyai. G°noito dÉ ín toËto efi, toË filoneike›n épostãntew, aÈtÚn tÚn lÒgon §jetãseian233 §fÉ •aut«n.234 ÖExei d¢ ı lÒgow œde: ≤235 kaloum°nh ka‹ prÚw aÈt«n §ke¤nvn flegmonØ parå fÊsin ˆgkow §st‹n ÙdunhrÚw ka‹ ént¤tupow ka‹ sklhrÚw ka‹ yermÒw, oÈd¢n ti mçllon éraiÒteron §rgazom°nh katå tÚn [99] •aut∞w lÒgon µ puknÒteron •autoË tÚ m°row µ sklhrÒteron,236 éllå mestÚn =eÊmatow perittoË ka‹ diå toËto tetam°non. OÈ mÆn pãntvw,237 e‡ ti t°tatai, toËto puknÒteron µ sklhrÒteron g°gonen238 •autoË. Mãyoiw dÉ ín §p¤ te burs«n aÈtÚ {ka‹ seir«n}239 x ka‹ flmãntvn ka‹ plokãmvn, efi pãnth diate¤nein §pixeirÆsaiw. OÏtv d¢ ka‹ ≤240 ‡asiw t«n peplhrvm°nvn241 k°nvs¤w §stin: §nant¤on går toËto tª plhr≈sei. Kenoum°noiw dÉ eÈyÁw242 ßpetai to›w mor¤oiw xalarvt°roiw g¤gnesyai. Tãsiw m¢n dØ to›w peplhrvm°noiw §j énãgkhw Àsper to›w kenoum°noiw ≤ xãlasiw243 ßpetai: pÊknvsiw dÉ µ éra¤vsiw oÈk244 •j énãgkhw, éllÉ oÈd¢ =Êsiw µ §p¤sxesiw. OÎte gãr, efi éraiÒn, ≥dh ti ka‹ =e›n •j aÈtoË pãntvw énagka›on: t¤ gãr, efi paxÁ ka‹ Ùl¤gon e‡h tÚ periexÒmenon; OÎtÉ,245 efi puknÒn, ‡sxesyai: tÚ går polÁ ka‹ leptÚn ka‹ diå pukn«n §kre› t«n pÒrvn. B°ltion oÔn ∑n ka‹246 aÈtoÁw tåw t«n palai«n éna-

x

There is no equivalent of ka‹ seir«n in the Arabic.

ëma pÒron v > K 225 §fÉ ëpan v V 226 toÊtvn èpãntvn L 227 élhy°steron L M m: élhy¢w v V > K 228 ego: tÚ d¢ nËn e‰nai to›w efisagom°noiw xrÆsimon He < G: tÚ d¢ nËn e‰nai to›w efisagom°noiw xrÆsimon K: t“ d¢ nËn to›w efisagom°noiw xrÆsimon M 229 prÚw aÈtoÁw brax°a K 230 hÈjãmhn v > K 231 kôke¤noiw K 232 ÍpÉ M m 233 H M: §jetãsaien K 234 •aut«n M: •autoË L1 m: •auto›w v: •autÚ L2 235 œde ci He: …w L M v > K: oÏtvw: …w m: oÏtvw G 236 µ sklhrÒteron µ puknÒteron •autoË tÚ m°row V > K: sklhrÒteron post lÒgon coll v: •autoË om M 237 pãntvw ante toËto coll v > K 238 puknÒteron g°gonen µ sklhrÒteron v > K 239 ka‹ seir«n post burs«n add L1 M m del L2: aÈtÚ ka‹ seir«n post burs«n add v: aÈtÚ om He: ka‹ seir«n om K He 240 ≤ om L m 241 t«n flegmainÒntvn v: t«n peplhrvm°nvn flegmon«n L1: t«n peplhrvm°nvn ka‹ flegmainÒntvn L2 M m 242 L > He: kenoum°noiw dÉ aÈto›w eÈyÁw cett codd > K 243 ≤ xãlasiw post Àsper coll L M 244 L > He: oÈd°teron cett cod > K 245 oÈd¢ L M 246 ka‹ om M v 224

  ‒  

557

some inflammations combined—for instance eye inflammations, ear inflammations when they are accompanied by flow, or inflammations of the tonsils, uvula, palate, or gums. [98] Then they postulate poroi [= channels], of which some have come to be open, others shut, and this would be why the two affections have occurred together. Some Methodists do not shrink even from claiming that there is flow and constriction at the same time in one and the same channel, which is not easy even in imagination; with this one they reach the summit of impertinence. A few of them, however, are more capable of listening to the end and then reflecting on such objections, and sometimes they change their mind and veer towards something more like the truth. I have written a separate book for them, and for any Methodist who may wish to learn some accurate facts about basic and generic affections. In the present book it is appropriate to tell them, albeit in a brief form, anything which might be of use for beginners. And I would like to hope that they may draw no less profit from such remarks. This would happen if they decided to put aside their querulous inclinations and to deploy the argument itself in their own minds. Now, the argument holds that the thing which all, Methodists included, call inflammation is an unnatural distension, painful, resistant, hard, and hot; and it does not, of its own, make the affected part any rarer, [99] harder, or denser, but [sc it makes it] full of superfluous liquid and thus overstretched. Surely, if something is stretched to the limit, it is not the case that it has become any denser or harder. You may find this if you try to stretch thoroughly hides, straps of leather, or braids of hair. And so, the remedy for repleted things is evacuation; for this is the process contrary to repletion. Being evacuated, the parts become at once more relaxed. Indeed tension follows necessarily in repleted things, just as relaxation follows necessarily in emptied things. But condensation and rarefaction do not follow necessarily, nor do flow and stoppage. For if something is rare, it does not follow that there should be any flow from it as a result; in fact how could that happen if, say, the matter contained in it were thick and small in quantity? Nor, if the thing is dense, does it follow that there should be any stoppage; for what comes in great quantity and light volume can squeeze even through narrow channels. Hence it would be better if the Methodists read, like everybody, the books of the ancients and learned in how many ways what was previously

558

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

gnÒntaw b¤blouw247 memayhk°nai katå pÒsouw trÒpouw tÚ prÒteron §n t“ mor¤ƒ stegÒmenon aÔyiw §kkr¤netai. Ka‹ går éraioum°nou toË [100] peri°xontow aÈtÒ, ka‹ aÈtoË toË periexom°nou leptunom°nou248 te ka‹ ple¤onow gignom°nou249 ka‹ sfodrÒteron kinoum°nou ka‹ ÍpÒ tinow t«n §ktÚw §felkom°nou µ prÒw tinow t«n §ntÚw »youm°nou ka‹ oÂon énarroibdoum°nou {prÒw tinow t«n §ntÒw}.250 y Efi d° tiw taËta pãnta pare‹w m¤an afit¤an ≤go›to ken≈sevw251 e‰nai tØn éra¤vsin t«n pÒrvn, dÒjei mhd¢ tå fainÒmena gin≈skein. ÖErion goËn252 µ spoggiån253 ≥ ti t«n oÏtvw érai«n ır«men §narg«w,254 efi m¢n Ùl¤gon §ntÚw •aut«n ÍgrÚn255 ¶xei,256 st°gonta ka‹ mØ meyi°nta, tÚ pl°on dÉ épox°onta. T¤ dÆpotÉ oÔn oÈx‹ kép‹ t«n Ùfyalm«n ka‹ t«n muktÆrvn ka‹ toË stÒmatow ka‹ t«n êllvn t«n oÏtvw érai«n taÈtÚ257 toËtÉ §nenÒhsan, …w §nd°xoitÒ pote t“ plÆyei t∞w periexom°nhw §n aÈto›w ÍgrÒthtow, oÈk érai≈sei t«n pÒrvn,258 §kre›n ti; Ka‹ m¢n dØ259 ka‹ kerãmouw e‡domen pollãkiw260 éraioËw oÏtvw …w dihye›syai261 tÚ Ïdvr. ÉAllÉ efi m°litow §gx°oiw oÈ dihye›tai: paxut°ra går ≤ toË m°litow oÈs¤a t«n toË kerãmou pÒrvn. OÎkoun oÈd¢ toËtÉ épeikÚw ∑n §nno∞sai, …w diå leptÒthta pollãkiw §kre› ti, kín mhdÉ aÈtÚ tÚ pe[101]ri°xon s«ma {tetrhm°non}262 z §k t∞w fÊsevw ¬: éllÉ oÈdÉ ˜ti pollãkiw ≤ fÊsiw,263 ¥per dioike› tÚ z«on, ırmª sfodrot°r& xrhsam°nh tÚ perittÚn ëpan §k°nvse {diÉ aÈtoË},264 kayãper §kyl¤casã te ka‹ épvsam°nh, xalepÚn ∑n265 §nno∞sai t“ gÉ ékrib«waa to›w t∞w266 t°xnhw ¶rgoiw …milhk≈ti: tå pollå går afl kr¤seiw267 t«n noshmãtvn œd° pvw g¤gnontai. Ka‹ par¤hmi tåw loipåw t«n kenoum°nvn afit¤aw, …saÊtvw d¢ ka‹ t«n fisxom°nvn ‡saw tÚn ériymÒn, §nant¤aw268 taÊtaiw oÎsaw: oÈ gãr §sti t«n §ke¤nvn éko«n ı toioËtow lÒgow êkousma. àO d° moi dokoËsi tãxÉ ên pote sunÆsein, §p‹ toËtÉ aÔyiw §pãneimi:269 tÚ dÊnasya¤ pote =eumat¤zesyai tÚn ÙfyalmÒn µ polloË toË =eÊmatow270 µ leptoË gegonÒtow µ ÍpÚ t∞w fÊsevw diå toËde toË m°rouw épvyoum°nou, mhd¢n aÈt«n t«n svmãtvn parå tÚ katå fÊsin élloiÒteron §xÒntvn: ka‹ xrØ dhlonÒti tÚ m¢n leptÚn =eËma

y

According to WL, the whole sequence ka‹ oÂon ktl has no equivalent in Arabic. Cf the Arabic: “even though the body that contains it has not altered its nature” (and WL p. 169, who also point out, quite rightly, that “the point at issue appears to be the widening of the pores, rather than the body being pierced or perforated”). aa ÉAkrib«w has no equivalent in the Arabic translation (WL p. 169). z

He: toÁw t«n palai«n énagnÒntaw tåw b¤blouw K: tå t«n palai«n énagnÒntaw M: t«n palai«n énagnÒntaw v 248 leptunom°nou om K 249 genom°nou K 250 del M > He: énarroibdoum°nou prÒw tinow t«n §ntÒw K 251 ken≈sevw ≤go›to v > K 252 oÔn L 253 M m > He: spogg¤on cett codd > K 254 §narg«w ır«men v > K 255 ÍgrÚn §ntÚw •aut«n L 256 ¶xoi v 257 aÈtÚ toËto L M m 258 pÒrvn v: svmãtvn L M m 259 ka‹ m¢n dØ L2: ka‹ mØn L1 260 pollãkiw L2: pot¢ L1 261 dihye›n L1 M 262 del ego 263 ≤ fÊsiw om K 264 del He 265 t¤ oÔn post épvsam°nh add L v > t¤ dØ oÔn M 266 t∞w om v > K 267 afl går L > …milhk≈ti tå pollã: afl går kr¤seiw K 268 ka‹ §nant¤aw L M 269 §pãneimi dhl≈svn add L M m (expunxit L) 270 =eÊmatow v: =°ontow L M m 247

  ‒  

559

arrested within a part of the body is eventually released. For this happens when the texture of its envelope becomes loose, [100] but also when what is contained grows thinner itself, or larger in quantity, or receives an unusually strong motion, or is drawn by something outside or pushed (and, as it were, sucked) by something inside. If one ignores all these alternatives and believes that the rare texture of the channels is the unique cause of the evacuation, one would appear not to be familiar with what is manifest. For we see plainly that if wool, sponge, or any object endowed with a loose texture of a similar kind has only a small amount of liquid in it, it holds it without letting anything off, but it spills out a large amount. Why, then, did they not become aware of the same phenomenon in relation to the eyes, the nostrils, the mouth, and the other organs endowed with a loose texture of a similar kind: that something might conceivably flow from them sometimes because of the quantity of the liquid which they contain, rather than because of the loose texture of the channels? We often see, don’t we, jars which are so thin that water percolates through them. But if one fills them with honey, that does not percolate: the substance of honey is too dense for the channels of the vase. It would certainly not have been unhelpful to notice this fact—that something often flows because of its lightness, even if the containing [101] body, for its part, was not out of its natural condition; and, at any rate, a person solidly acquainted with a good deal of medical data should have recognised without effort that nature, which governs the living creature, often uses an unusually powerful commotion to eliminate all that is superfluous, as if she got rid of it by squeezing it out. For this is how the crises of diseases generally occur. I pass over the remaining causes of evacuations, as well as those of retentions—which are equal in number, being opposite to the former. For that kind of argument would not be instructive hearing for the present listeners. Instead, I shall come back to a point which, I think, the Methodists might perhaps understand—the fact that there can be flow from the eye either because the liquid is abundant or because it is thin or because nature pushes it out through that organ, when the bodies themselves [sc of the eyes?] have nothing beyond a natural alteration: clearly, one must thicken the liquid when

560

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

paxÊnein, tÚ d¢ polÁ kenoËn, tØn dÉ ırmØn t∞w fÊsevw, §ån271 §n kair“ g°nhtai, d°xesyai, mhd¢n per‹ tå s≈mata t«n Ùfyalm«n aÈtå pragmateuÒmenon, ˜ti272 mhd¢ t∞w =Êsevw ∑n a‡tia. TÚ [102] dÉ o‡esya¤ tina m¢n flegmonØn stegnÚn e‰nai pãyow, •t°ran dÉ §pipeplegm°nhn, oÈk o‰dÉ ˜pvw273 svfronoÊntvn §st¤. Pr«ton m¢n går §pelãyonto t«n sfet°rvn lÒgvn, …w oÈ tª ken≈sei krit°on tÚ =o«dew µ ta›w §pisx°sesi tÚ stegnÒn, éllÉ efiw aÈtåw t«n svmãtvn tåw diay°seiw xrØ bl°pein. ÜOtan oÔn katå pçn274 ˜moiai tugxãnvsin atai, ka‹ mhden‹ fa¤nhtai diaf°rein ≤ nËn flegmonØ t∞w prÒsyen êllƒ gÉ µ t“ t∞w m¢n éporre›n ti, t∞w dÉ oÎ,275 p«w oÈ dein«w276 êtopon §pipeplegm°nhn m¢n taÊthn, stegnØn dÉ §ke¤nhn e‰nai nom¤zein; ÖEpeita d¢ p«w oÈd¢ toËyÉ, ˜per ∑n proxeirÒtaton, §p∞lyen aÈto›w log¤sasyai,277 ˜ti mÆtÉ §n xeir‹ mÆtÉ §n pod‹ mÆtÉ §n pÆxei278 bb mÆtÉ §n brax¤oni mÆtÉ §n knÆm˙ mÆtÉ §n mhr“ mÆtÉ §n êllƒ tin‹ m°rei toË s≈matow sustån279 fyh pot¢ flegmon∞w e‰dow toioËton oÂon280 §ktÚw époxe›n ti, mÒnaiw d¢ ta›w §n t“ stÒmati ka‹ to›w Ùfyalmo›w ka‹ ta›w =is‹n Ípãrxei281 toËto; PÒteron ı ZeÁw pros°taje ta›w koinÒthsin èpãsaiw282 ta›w §pipeplegm°naiw Àste mhdep≈pote283 [103] mhdem¤an aÈt«n efiw êllo mhd¢n éfikne›syai t«n toË s≈matow mor¤vn284 éllÉ Ùfyalmo›w285 mÒnon ka‹ =in‹286 ka‹ stÒmati poleme›n; ÑH flegmonØ m¢n går287 ëpanta dÊnatai katalambãnein ˜sa ge tå t∞w gen°sevw aÈt∞w a‡tia d°xesyai p°fuken. T“ dÉ e‰na¤ tina m¢n éraiå tØn fÊsin, tinå d¢288 puknã, t«n m¢n époxe›ta¤ ti toË =eÊmatow, §n d¢ to›w289 ‡sxetai. Ka‹ går efi plhr≈seiaw éskÚn µ êllo ti t«n oÏtv stegan«n290 oÈs¤aw Ígrçw, oÈd¢n éporre›: spoggiån dÉ ≥ ti291 t«n oÏtvw érai«n eÈyÁw ëpan tÚ perittÚn époxe›tai. T¤ dØ292 oÔn xalepÚn ∑n §nnoÆsantaw aÈtoÁw ˜sƒ293 tÚ êllo d°rma pçn stegan≈terÒn294 §sti toË katå toÁw ÙfyalmoÁw ka‹ toÁw mukt∞raw ka‹ tÚ stÒma, tª t«n mor¤vn fÊsei tØn afit¤an énaye›nai, par°ntaw §piplokØn ka‹ lÆrouw makroÊw; ÜOti går toËyÉ oÏtvw ¶xei295 dhloËsin afl meyÉ •lk≈sevw §n to›w êlloiw mor¤oiw gignÒmenai flegmona¤: ka‹ går ka‹ §pÉ §ke¤nvn296 éporre› tÚ leptÒteron,297 cc Àsper §n Ùfyalmo›w ka‹ =in‹ ka‹ stÒmati: ßvw dÉ ín épay¢w ¬ ka‹ pãnt˙298

bb

Cf WL p. 169: The order in the Arabic is: xeir‹ pÆxei brax¤oni pod‹ knÆm˙

mhr“. cc

The Arabic seems to support the reading leptÒteron (“the most tenuous of what is in them”, WL p. 169).

§ån L M: ín M v 272 ˜ti m: ëte L V > K: ì M 273 o‰da p«w L M 274 kayÉ ëpan v 275 tÚ m¢n éporre›n ti, tÚ dÉ oÎ K 276 deinÒn K 277 log¤zesyai L 278 mÆtÉ §n pÆxei om L M m 279 sustån om v > K 280 oÂon L2: Àste L1 281 Ípãrxein L > K 282 taÊtaiw èpãsaiw L2 283 mhd°pote L1 v 284 mhd¢n t«n toË s≈matow éfikne›syai mor¤vn K < v 285 éllÉ §n Ùfyalmo›w v > K 286 =is‹ M m 287 går om L m 288 tå m¢n éraiå tØn fÊsin, tå d¢ m v > K 289 §n d¢ to›w He: to›w d¢ M: t«n d¢ L m 290 stegan«n égge¤vn add L M 291 dÉ ≥ ti L2: d¢ ka¤ ti L1 M m: d¢ ka‹ v > K 292 dØ om L 293 ˜sa L2: ˜son L1: ˜son ge Ald > K 294 stegnÒteron m v 295 oÏtv toËtÉ ¶xei v > K 296 H M: kéke¤nvn K 297 leptÒteron L m > He: leptomer°w v > K 298 pãntvw Ald > K 271

  ‒  

561

it is thin, evacuate it when it is excessive, and allow the natural commotion to take its course if it sets in at the right time, without worrying about the bodies themselves of the eyes, unless they had caused the flux. [102] But to believe that one inflammation is a constricted affection and another [sc inflammation] is of the mixed sort [epipeplegmene]—I fail to see how sensible people should come to such a view. In the first place, the Methodists stamp here on their own principle, according to which flux is not to be judged by evacuation, nor constriction by the retentions of fluid; rather, one should look at the states of the bodies themselves. So, when these happen to be, on the whole, similar, and the present inflammation does not appear to differ from the previous one in anything except the fact that in one case something flows off and in the other it does not, how can it not be utterly preposterous to think that one inflammation is of the mixed type and the other is of the constricted type? In the second place, why did it not occur to them to take in an all too obvious factor—namely, that one has never seen the kind of inflammation accompanied by external flow arising in the hand, in the foot, in the forearm, in the arm, in the shank, in the thigh, or in any other part of the body, but this phenomenon occurs only in inflammations of the mouth, eyes, and nostrils? Or is it maybe that Zeus issued an order such that none of the mixed koinotetes [103] may ever go to any other part of the body, but wage their war exclusively against the eyes, the nostrils, and the mouth? Certainly inflammation can seize any of the organs which are naturally susceptible to the causes of its generation. But since, by nature, some of these organs have a rare texture and others have a dense texture, from some of them something flows, whereas in others it is held back. For if you fill a hide or some water-proof recipient like it with a liquid substance, nothing will drop off; but if a sponge or a similarly pervious recipient, any excess will be spilt out at once. Why, then, should it be difficult for the Methodists to realise how much more water-tight any kind of skin is, compared with that of the eyes, nostrils, and mouth, and hence to ascribe the cause of flow in inflammations to the nature of the organs, writing off their interweaving [epiploke] and a lot of waffle? That this is how the matter stands is clearly indicated by inflammations in other parts of the body, which occur in conjunction with ulceration; for there,

562

5

10

15

20

  ‒  -

steganÚn299 tÚ d°rma, toË mhd¢n époxe›syai toËtÉ a‡tion, oÈ tÚ t∞w [104] flegmon∞w e‰dow. ÜVsper aÔ300 pãlin, efi m°liti deÊseiaw µ Ígrò p¤tth, mØ301 pãnu tÚ pl∞yow ém°trƒ, spoggiån µ ¶rion, oÈd¢n éporre› diå tÚ t∞w ÍgrÒthtow pãxow, µ Ïdati m¢n ≥ tini t«n oÏtv lept«n, éllÉ §lax¤stƒ, toÊtvn302 oÈd¢n pãlin éporre›, diå tØn ÙligÒthta toË ÍgroË:303 katå taÈtÚn o‰mai lÒgon oÈ diå pantÚw §kxe›ta¤ ti304 t«n Ùfyalm«n, µ diå tÚ pãxow t∞w ÍgrÒthtow µ t“305 mØ peritteÊein, Àsper ge ka‹306 §p‹ t«n katå fÊsin §xÒntvn. ÜVstÉ §nd°xetai taÈtÚn e‰dow t∞w flegmon∞w, mhden‹ diaf°ron êllƒ ge plØn t“ pãxei t∞w §pirreoÊshw oÈs¤aw, Ùfyalm¤an §rgãsasyai xvr‹w =eÊmatow, ∂n ofl sof≈tatoi Meyodiko‹ ‘stegnØn’ Ùnomãzousi ka‹ diaf°rein o‡ontai t∞w ‘§pipeplegm°nhw’, §pilanyanÒmenoi t«n fid¤vn lÒgvn, oÓw ênv ka‹ kãtv metaf°rousi, svmatikåw307 éjioËntew e‰nai tåw kataskeuåw t«n pay«n, oÈk §n to›w Ígro›w sun¤stasyai. P«w oÔn, ˜tan m¢n308 §n to›w s≈masin ≤ aÈtØ diãyesiw ¬,309 oÈden‹ êllƒ ge diaf°rousa mÒn˙ d¢ tª t«n Ígr«n fÊsei lept«n µ pax°vn ˆntvn, ßphtai pot¢ m¢n éporre›n ti pot¢ dÉ §p°xesyai,310 [105] diaferoÊsaw ÍpolambãnetÉ e‰nai tåw koinÒthtaw; OÏtv m¢n dØ ka‹ tÚ §pipeplegm°non Ím«n édianÒhtÒn §sti. Tå dÉ êlla pãnta tå311 katå m°row oÈk §n to›w katå d¤aitan mÒnon éllå kôn to›w katå xeirourg¤an te ka‹312 farmake¤an ˜sa sfãllesye tãxÉ ín aÔyiw mãyoite,313 efi mhd°pv314 diå toÊtvn §pe¤syete. Nun‹315 dÉ, §pe‹ to›w efisagom°noiw flkanå ka‹316 taËta, katapaÊsv tªde317 tÚn parÒnta lÒgon.”

stegnÒn L1 M m v > K 300 …sper d¢ L M m 301 mØ om K 302 toÊtvn L m > He: toÊtƒ M v > K 303 oÈd¢n pãlin éporre›, diå tØn ÙligÒthta toË ÍgroË om v > K 304 tini v > K 305 tÚ L1 M: diå tÚ L2 306 Àsper ka‹ m v > K 307 §n to›w s≈masin L M 308 ˜tan ≤ m¢n M m v: ˜tan efi m¢n K 309 ¬ om L1 M m v 310 ‡sxesyai v > K 311 pãnta tå om v > K 312 ka‹ §n add v 313 mãyoite m v: mayÆsete L 314 mÆpv v > K 315 nËn L M 316 ka‹ post §pe‹ transp Ald > K 317 œde katapaÊsv L 299

FR 204. GALENUS, DE

SIMPLICIUM MEDICAMENTORUM

TEMPERAMENTIS ET FACULTATIBUS

(1)

Galenus, De simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis ac facultatibus, III ix, p. 558 K: [ix, 558] . . . ÉAllÉ ÍpÚ peritt∞w sof¤aw ÑHrÒdotow ı fiatrÚw oÈd¢ tÚ sÁn ˆjei =Òdinon, ˘ dØ kaloËsin fid¤vw “ÙjurÒdinon”, ımologe› cÊxein ≤mçw: 25 e‰t,’ énamnhsye‹w tÒ ge tosoËton, …w §n ta›w érxa›w t«n frenitik«n

  ‒  -

563

too, the thinnest matter in them flows off, just as in the case of the eyes, nose, and mouth. As long as the skin is sound and completely water-proof, the cause of there being no flow is precisely this condition, not the [104] type to which the inflammation belongs. In the same way again, if you dip a sponge or a piece of wool into a rather moderate amount of honey or raw pitch, nothing will flow off, because of the density of the liquid; alternatively, if you dip it in water or some other liquid equally light, but only in a very tiny amount, nothing will flow off, because of the smallness of the quantity of liquid. It is, I believe, by virtue of the same principle that weeping eyes do not characterise every single inflammation—either because of the density of the liquid or because its quantity is not in excess; this is just what happens when the eyes are in their natural state too. Thus it is possible that the same kind of inflammation, being different from another in no respect other than the density of the suppurating substance, produces ophthalmia unaccompanied by flow, which the ever so wise Methodists call ‘constricted’, taking it to differ from the ‘mixed’ one—forgetful as they are of their own principles, on which they go back and forth at discretion, and which lay down that the constitutional factors of the diseases are bodily, and not to be found in the fluids. Well then, supposing that the state itself was in the bodies, when one state does not differ from another, and the fact that sometimes there is flow and sometimes there isn’t depends exclusively on the nature of the fluids—which can be thin or thick—[105] how come that you assume the koinotetes to be different? And so your mixed state, too, is inconceivable. As for your other numerous and specific errors, not only those related to [sc the affections encompassed by] the regimen but also to the [sc affections] in surgery and pharmacy, perhaps you will hear about them in the fullness of time, if the points made above have not convinced you already. But now, since they are sufficient for the beginners, I shall bring the present argument to a close at this very point.”

FR 204. GALENUS, ON

THE BLENDINGS

AND POWERS OF SIMPLE MEDICINES

(1)

Galenus, On the blendings and powers of simple medicines, III ix, p. 558 K: [ix, 558] . . . Under his excessive wisdom, Herodotus the doctor does not agree that the rose-oil with vinegar—what is called by the specific name “oxurhodinon”—cools us; but then, remembering this much—that he uses it himself during [sc periods of ] beginning in [sc cases of ] phrenitic disease—

564

  ‒  -

noshmãtvn aÈtÚw aÈt“ xr∞tai, ka‹ sune‹w t∞w §nantiolog¤aw—…molÒghtai går ÍpÚ pãntvn sxedÚn t«n fiatr«n êxri ka‹ t«n émf‹ tÚn énaisyhtÒtaton YessalÚn …w épokroÊesyai xrØ ka‹ cÊxein §n érxª mçllon µ yerma¤nein ka‹ xalòn—oÈ “cÊxein” fhs‹n éllå “stÊfein” aÈtÒ.

FR 205. GALENUS, DE

SIMPLICIUM MEDICAMENTORUM

TEMPERAMENTIS ET FACULTATIBUS

(2)

Galenus, De simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis ac facultatibus, V x–xi, pp. 740–742 K: 15 [x, 740] ÑH m¢n dØ t«n malattÒntvn farmãkvn dÊnamiw aÈtãrkvw moi dedÆlvtai: per‹ d¢ t«n sklhrunoÊntvn §fej∞w d¤eimi. XrØ to¤nun e‰nai taËta cuxrå ka‹ Ígrã. [. . .] Efi m¢n dÆ ti ka‹ cÊxei ka‹ jhra¤nei, sklhrÊnei m¢n ka‹ toËto pãntvw, éllÉ oÈk ¶sti t«n fid¤vn sklhruntik«n: pÆjei går mçllon µ ken≈sei sklhrÚn g¤gnetai s«ma,1 10 kayÒti ka‹ prÒsyen §l°gomen. E‡ ti dÉ §k toË tØn sÊmfuton ÍgrÒthta mØ kat°xein sklhrunyª, jhrÚn mçllon toËto prosagoreÊomen µ sklhrÒn: ka‹ ≤ ‡asiw aÈtoË d¤ans¤w te ka‹ Ïgrans¤w §sti ka‹ oÈ mã[741]lajiw, Àsper ka‹ toË suntetam°nou m¢n ≤ ‡asiw xãlas¤w §sti, toË kexalasm°nou d¢ sÊntasiw. [xi] TaËta dÉ ırçtai saf«w p«w §sti ka‹ §p‹ toË d°rma15 tow m°n—Àsper ka‹ prÚw ÑIppokrãtouw e‡rhtai: “D°rmatow sklhroË mãlyajiw, suntetam°nou d¢ xãlasiw”a—oÈ mØn éllå kôp‹ t«n êryrvn pollãkiw. ÑH m¢n oÔn xãlasiw Ígrany°ntvn ém°trvw t«n émfÉ aÈtå sund°smvn épotele›tai ka‹ t«n tenÒntvn, ≤ d¢ sÊntasiw oÈk°yÉ èpl«w éllÉ e‡ ti jhrainom°nvn §p‹ pl°on µ cuxom°nvn µ flegmainÒntvn µ 20 skirroum°nvn. KatÉ êryra m¢n oÏtvw: §p‹ d¢ toË d°rmatow oÈx oÏtv mÒnon éllå ka‹ t«n §ntÚw aÈtoË mu«n kayÉ ıntinaoËn trÒpon efiw ˆgkon aÈjanom°nvn, Àste ka‹ diå polusark¤an tis‹n §kte¤netai pollãkiw: ˜ti d¢ kôn ta›w flegmona›w taÈtÚ toËto pãsxei l°lektai prÒsyen. ÜOyen oÎyÉ èpl«w ßn ti t«n xalastik«n §stin e‰dow bohyhmãtvn éllå tå m¢n 25 Ígra¤nonta xalò, tå d¢ yerma¤nonta, tå d¢ malãttonta, tå d¢ kenoËnta, tå d¢ toÁw parå fÊsin ˆgkouw kaya¤ronta, tå d° tina toÊtvn katå suzug¤an §rgazÒmena. [742] YessalÚw d¢ ka‹ ofl épÉ aÈtoË sxedÚn ëpantew Àsper §n êlloiw pollo›w oÏtv kôn toÊtoiw sugx°ousi ka‹ tåw prosha

Cf the Hippocratic treatise on Humours, i 1: Yerm“ afiÒnhsiw, pur¤h toË s≈matow ëpantow µ m°reow, d°rmatow sklhroË mãlyajiw, suntetam°nou xãlasiw, neÊrvn sustellom°nvn pãresiw, sark«n pladar«n §kxÊmvsiw, fldr«tow êfodow: Ígr∞nai, prosklÊsai oÂon =›naw, kÊstin, fÊsaw, sark«sai, èpalËnai, t∞jai, minuy¤sai, xroiØn énakal°sai, xroiØn énaskedãsai. 1

add ego

  ‒  -

565

and realising the contradiction—for it is agreed among almost all the doctors, including the followers of the most senseless Thessalus, that at the beginning one must drive away and cool rather than heat and relax—he declares that it is not the case that it [sc the oxurhodinon] “cools”, but that it “contracts”.

FR 205. GALENUS, ON

THE BLENDINGS

AND POWERS OF SIMPLE MEDICINES

(2)

Galenus, On the blendings and powers of simple medicines, V x–xi, pp. 740–742 K: [x, 740] I have given sufficient explanations concerning the power [dunamis] of softening medicines; in what follows I shall speak about that of hardening medicines. Now those must be cold and humid. [. . .] If some [sc substance] has both a cooling and a drying effect, it, too, produces hardening, to be sure, but it does not belong with the specific hardening [sc substances]; for the body becomes hard through freezing rather than evacuation, as has been explained before. And if something [sc in the body] becomes hard as a result of not retaining its congenital humidity, we say that it is dry rather than hard; its cure consists in moistening or watering, not in softening [741]—just as the cure of what is tense consists in relaxing and [sc the cure] of what is relaxed [sc consists in] drawing it up. [xi] How this works can be seen clearly in the case of the skin—as also Hippocrates noted: “For the hard skin, softening; for the skin which is drawn up, relaxing”—and especially, very often, in the case of the joints. For relaxation results when the ligaments and the sinews around them have become immoderately moistened; and tension does not result unqualifiedly, but when they [sc the joints] become excessively dry, cold, inflamed, or indurated. This is how it is with the joints; as for the skin, [sc tension results] not just like this but also when the muscles beneath, acquire bulk one way or another, just as it [sc the skin] often extends in some people because of excessive flesh: it has been explained earlier that the very same thing happens in inflammations too. Hence, there is not just one class of relaxing medicines, unqualifiedly; on the contrary, some relax by moistening, others by softening, some by emptying, others by cleansing unnatural tumours, others still by doing some of these operations jointly. [742] Well, in these matters as in everything else Thessalus and nearly all of his followers

566

  ‒  -

gor¤aw ka‹ tå prãgmata, tÚ §pelyÚn ébasan¤stvw grãfontew: ˜yen ka‹ ≤m›n, §peidån tå proke¤mena suntel°svmen, énagka›on ‡svw grãcai pot¢ prÚw aÈtoÊw.

FR 206. GALENUS, DE

SIMPLICIUM MEDICAMENTORUM

TEMPERAMENTIS ET FACULTATIBUS

(3)

Galenus, De simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis ac facultatibus, V xiii–xiv, p. 749 K: [xiii, 749] . . . YessalÚw dÉ ı skaiÒtatow Àsper efiw têlla t∞w t°xnhw 5 Íbr¤zei plhmmel«w oÏtv ka‹ taËta [sc tÚ §kkayartikÚn µ §kfraktikÚn t«n pÒrvn] diasÊrein §pixeire›, mhd¢n e‰nai nom¤zvn fãrmakon fid¤vw ≤patikÚn µ nefritikÚn µ pleuritikÒn. [xiv] ÉAllå tå m¢n §ke¤nou plhmmelÆmata diÉ •t°rvn grammãtvn §pede¤jamen: §n d¢ t“ parÒnti lÒgƒ tåw Ípolo¤pouw t«n èpl«n farmãkvn §jeghsÒmeya dunãmeiw, épÚ t«n 10 éraivtik«n te ka‹ énastomvtik«n aÔyiw érjãmenoi.

FR 207. GALENUS, DE

SIMPLICIUM MEDICAMENTORUM

TEMPERAMENTIS ET FACULTATIBUS

(4)

Galenus, De simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis ac facultatibus, V xxiv–xxv, pp. 780–783 K: [xxiv, 780] ÉEpe‹ d¢ ka‹ épÚ mor¤vn toË s≈matow tinåw §l°gomen »nomãsyai dunãmeiw, oÈ xe›ron ín e‡h ka‹ per‹ toÊtvn dielye›n. OÎte gãr, …w ín ofihye¤h tiw, §p‹ pãntvn èrmÒttousi t«n pay«n toË m°rouw oÎtÉ §fÉ •nÚw oÏtv tinÚw …w ßteron Ùn∞sai mhd°n: éllÉ ≥toi t“1 pleistãkiw 15 µ t“ mãlista §nerge›n §p‹ toËd° tinow toË m°rouw épÉ aÈtoË tØn proshgor¤an ¶sxon. “ÉOfyalmika‹” m¢n §peidØ ka‹ mãlista ka‹ pleistãkiw §pÉ Ùfyalm«n aÈta›w xr≈meya, kayãper t“ ge diå =Òdvn kollur¤ƒ ka‹ t“ diå pomfÒlugow ka‹ t“ kn¤kƒ prosagoreuom°nƒ ka‹ t“ liban¤ƒ ka‹ to›w êlloiw ëpasin, oÂw ¶nesti m¢n xrÆsasyai ka‹ tvn pasxÒntvn ka‹ 20 stomãtvn ka‹ =inÚw afido¤ou te ka‹ ßdraw, oÈ mØn oÎyÉ oÏtv pollãkiw oÎyÉ oÏtvw »fel¤mvw. ÑHpatikåw dÉ aÔ ka‹ splhnikåw ka‹ pleuritikåw ka‹ stomaxikåw §peidØ ka‹ taÊtaw ßkaston t«n efirhm°nvn »feloÊsaw ır«men mãlistã te ka‹ pleistãkiw. ÜHtiw dÉ afit¤a t∞w »fele¤aw [781] §st‹n §n tª t∞w Yerapeutik∞w meyÒdou pragmate¤& =hyÆsetai, kayÉ ∂n 1

ego: tÒ K

  ‒  -

567

confound both the names and the facts, writing what comes [sc to their mind], untested; hence we, too, should perhaps write something against them when we shall have completed what lays before us.

FR 206. GALENUS, ON

THE BLENDINGS

AND POWERS OF SIMPLE MEDICINES

(3)

Galenus, On the blendings and powers of simple medicines, V xiii–xiv, p. 749 K: [xiii, 749] . . . The very stupid Thessalus tries to destroy these things too [sc that which produces cleansing or opens up the channels]—just as he outrageously violates the other [sc facts] of our art—by thinking that there is no medicine specifically [sc designed] for the liver, the kidneys, or the lungs. [xiv] But we have exposed his outrages in other books; in the present discussion we will give a detailed account of the powers of simple medicines, starting afresh from those which produce rarefaction [ta araiotika] and opening [ta anastomotika].

FR 207. GALENUS, ON

THE BLENDINGS

AND POWERS OF SIMPLE MEDICINES

(4)

Galenus, On the blendings and powers of simple medicines, V xxiv–xxv, pp. 780–783 K: [xxiv, 780] Since we said that some powers [dunameis] are named from the parts of the body, it would not be inappropriate to review them [sc the powers in question] as well. For they do not suit all the affections in one part, as one might think, or even some single [sc affection], so as to benefit nothing else; it is rather the case that it [sc a given power] has got its appellation on the basis of acting upon such and such a part either very frequently or for the most part. [sc We say] “ophthalmic” [sc powers] because we use them for the eyes for the most part, and very frequently— for instance the eye-salve made of roses, of pompholux, of what is called safflower, of frankincense, and all the others, which it is also possible to use for affected ears, stomach, and nose, or for the genital organ or seat, but of course not so frequently and not with equivalent benefits. Again, [sc we call some powers] hepatic, splenitic, pleuritic, or abdominal because we observe that these, likewise, bring benefit to each of the [sc parts] referred to, for the most part and very frequently. What the cause of the benefit [781] is will be explained in the treatise on The method of therapy, where we shall also give detailed accounts of all other [sc matters] concerning the use

568

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

ka‹ têlla pãnta per‹ t∞w t«n farmãkvn xrÆsevw §p°jimen: ÀstÉ oÈd¢n ¶ti mhkÊnein §ntaËya, plØn e‡per êra per‹ t∞w t«n Ùnomãtvn braxÁ §pishmÆnasyai xrÆsevw ∂n êlloi t° tinew t«n nevt°rvn fiatr«n §poiÆsanto kainotomoËntew, oÈx ¥kista d¢ ka‹ ofl kaloÊmenoi Meyodiko¤. [xxv] TÚ m¢n går staltikãw tinaw ÍpÉ aÈt«n l°gesyai dunãmeiw, µ sfiggoÊsaw µ sunagoÊsaw µ épvyoum°naw ≥ ti toioËton ßteron, oÎtÉ êtopon oÎtÉ ésaf°w. ÜOtan d¢ metasugkritikãw tinaw e‰nai l°gvsin Ïlaw µ dunãmeiw, oÎte saf°w §sti tÚ legÒmenon oÎtÉ élhy¢w oÎte t∞w aflr°sevw aÈt«n ofike›on, o·ge feÊgein fas‹n tØn épÚ t«n Dogmatik«n ÍpolÆcevn ¶ndeijin: érke›n går aÈto›w tåw fainom°naw koinÒthtaw.2 TÚ dÉ, §ktrepom°nvn t«n pÒrvn toË s≈matow §k toË katå fÊsin efiw tÚ parå fÊsin, §n fidiÒthti t∞w trop∞w aÈt«n sun¤stasya¤ tina pãyh dogmatikÆ tiw Ípolhc¤w §stin. ÜEpetai d¢ taÊt˙ ka‹ tÚ t«n toioÊtvn pay«n [782] metasugkritikãw tinaw e‰nai dunãmeiw, élloioÊsaw dhlonÒti tØn parå fÊsin t∞w sugkr¤sevw ≤m«n poropoi¤an. OÏtvw går dØ ka‹ xr«ntai to›w ÙnÒmasin ofl per‹ tÚn YessalÒn: e‰tÉ §p‹ t«n xron¤vw =eumatizom°nvn paralambãnousi tåw toiaÊtaw dunãmeiw, oÎyÉ ˜ti t«n pÒrvn éllo¤vsiw §n to›w toioÊtoiw g¤gnetai pãyesin épode¤jantew oÎyÉ ˜ti tãde tå fãrmaka metasugkr¤nein p°fuken tØn ≤marthm°nhn poropoi¤an §pide›jai dunãmenoi. Diå t¤ gãr, Œ prÚw ye«n, tÚ nçpu ka‹ ≤ yac¤a ka‹ tÚ pÊreyron ¥ te t∞w kappãrevw =¤za ka‹ èpl«w ˜sa ka¤ein p°fuken, efi xron¤seien ımiloËnta t“ s≈mati, metasugkr¤nei tØn poropoi¤an; ÜOti m¢n går »fele›tai tå =eumatikå mÒria prÚw t«n toioÊtvn farmãkvn §narg«w fa¤netai. Diå t¤ dÉ »fele›tai, prÒblhmã §sti t∞w fusik∞w yevr¤aw. ÑHme›w m¢n oÔn famen Ígrån ka‹ cuxrån e‰nai tØn krçsin aÈt«n, ka‹ diå toËto de›syai t«n yermainÒntvn te ka‹ jhrainÒntvn. ÖAlloi dÉ êllhn tØn afit¤an §roËsin, …w ín ka‹ tÊxvsi per‹ t«n stoixe¤vn toË s≈matow Ípolambãnontew. OÈ mØn prosÆkei ge fy°ggesyai [783] tÚ t∞w metasugkr¤sevw ˆnoma t«n éfÉ •t°raw aflr°sevw égom°nvn oÈden‹ plØn ˜soi tå t«n z≈vn s≈mata sugkr¤mata nom¤zous¤ te ka‹ Ùnomãzousin §j ˆgkvn étÒmvn µ §lax¤stvn µ émer«n µ ımoiomer«n: ka‹ oÈd¢ toÊtoiw ëpasi éllÉ ˜soi, kayãper ı YessalÚw §n t“ KanÒni, t∞w t«n pÒrvn élloi≈sevw tå toiaËta t«n noshmãtvn énatiy°asin: oÈ går √ MeyodikÒw §sti toËto l°gvn ı YessalÒw—époxvre› går ˜tan …w MeyodikÚw ≤m›n dial°ghtai t∞w épÚ t«n édÆlvn §nde¤jevw—éllÉ √ DogmatikÒw, épÚ m¢n t«n aÈt«n ÉAsklhpiãdei stoixe¤vn érxÒmenow, oÈ mØn ékolouy«n ge pãnt˙: éllÉ oÈ nËn ge kairÚw Íp¢r t«n toioÊtvn §p‹ pl°on diej°rxesyai. Tå m¢n går aÈt«n §stin ofikeiÒtera tª Yerapeutikª meyÒdƒ, tå dÉ §n to›w per‹ t∞w katå Yem¤svna ka‹ YessalÚn aflr°sevw ékrib°steron efirÆsetai.

2

kainÒthtaw K

  ‒  

569

of medicines; so that here we need not enlarge upon anything, except perhaps to make a brief remark on the use of words that some of the recent doctors have made, introducing innovations—not least those who call themselves Methodists. [xxv] Well, the fact that they call some powers astringent, tightening, contracting, repelling, or anything of this sort is neither bizarre nor unclear. But when they claim that some substances or powers are “metasyncritic”, what is being said is neither clear nor true—and is not proper to their hairesis, in so far as they claim to avoid the [sc kind of ] indication [sc which derives] from assumptions of the Dogmatists; for [sc they say that] the manifest koinotetes are sufficient for them. But [sc to say] that, when the channels of the body are changed from the natural to the unnatural, it is on the basis of the specific character of their change that some affections occur—this is [sc to make] a dogmatist assumption. It follows from it, in particular, that there are powers which are “metasyncritic” for such affections, [782] changing, to be sure, the unnatural opening up of channels [ poropoiia] in our constitution. For this is how the followers of Thessalus make use of words; next, they transfer this sort of powers onto chronic states of discharge, without either showing that there is any alteration of the channels in such affections or being capable to show that it is in the nature of such and such medicines to change [metasunkrinein] the deviant opening up of channels. But, by the gods, why is it that mustard, thapsia, pellitory, caper-root, and everything, indiscriminately, which by nature burns, if left to tarry in the body, should change the opening up of its channels? Now the fact that the parts which suffer from discharge do benefit from medicines of this sort is clear and manifest. But the reason why they benefit is a problem of physical theory. For instance, we claim that their [sc the parts’] temperament [krasis] is moist and cold and that for this reason they require heating and drying [sc substances]. Others will appeal to a different explanation, according to the assumptions they happen to make about the elements of the body. But certainly no one from those trained in a different hairesis has a right to utter [783] the word “metasyncrisis”, except those who consider the animal bodies to be compounds of particles—indivisible, smallest, without parts, or with homogeneous parts— and call them as such; and not even all of them, but only those who, like Thessalus in the Canon, ascribe diseases of this kind [sc chronic states of discharge] to the change of the channels; for it is not as a Methodist that Thessalus says this—since whenever he talks to us in his Methodist persona he departs from the [sc notion of an] indication [sc derived] from non-evident things—but as a Dogmatist, starting as he does from the same elements as Asclepiades but failing to follow [sc him] all the way through; but this is not the right moment for me to delve into such issues in greater detail. For some of them are in place rather in the Method of therapy, while others will be expounded with greater accuracy in the [sc books] dealing with the hairesis of Themison and Thessalus.

570

  ‒   FR 208. GALENUS, DE

THERIACA AD

PISONEM

Galenus, De theriaca ad Pisonem, xiv, pp. 277–280 K:

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

[xvi, 277] Meyodik«n ¶legxow êxrhston e‰nai nomizÒntvn tÚ efid°nai tåw t«n nÒsvn afit¤aw: ka‹ pãlin tå xrÆsima t∞w yhriak∞w diej¤hsi. Ka‹ tÚn ÍdrofÒbon d°, tÚ kãkiston1 t«n noshmãtvn, toËto tÚ fãrmakon pollãkiw [278] épallãttein e‡vye ka‹ yaumas¤vw éntagvn¤zesyai tª t«n tosoÊtvn kak«n sundromª. OÈ går mÒnon aÈto›w tÚ s«ma jhra¤netai ka‹ sp≈menon g¤netai §n¤ote ka‹ puretÚn drim°vw ¶ndoyen ka¤etai, éllå ka‹ gn≈mh2 paranoe›, ka‹ tÚ xalep≈taton aÈto›w f°rei sÊmptvma. TÚ går Ïdvr foboËntai ka‹ diå m¢n tØn pollØn jhrÒthta toË ÍgroË §piyum¤an ¶xousi ka‹ toË pie›n ép°xontai, diå d¢ tØn parakopØn tÚ »fel∞sai dunãmenon oÈk §pinooËsi. FeÊgontew går tÚ Ïdvr ka‹ foboÊmenoi t“ ofikt¤stƒ yanãtƒ époynÆskousi kak«w: §fÉ œn mãlistÉ §g∆ ka‹ toÁw MeyodikoÁw teyaÊmaka. ÉAxrÆstouw går afit¤aw prÚw tåw yerape¤aw e‰nai l°gontew oÈk o‰dÉ ˜pvw ka‹ yerapeÊein pot¢ toÊtouw dÊnantai, èploË toË dÆgmatow ˆntow ka‹ ımo¤ou fainom°nou t“ ÍpÚ toË mØ luss«ntow dedhgm°nƒ kunÒw. T¤na går ka‹ yerape¤aw trÒpon aÈto›w §nde¤jetai éperisk°ptvw ır≈menon tÚ traËma toË s≈matow, mØ §jetazom°nhw ÍpÉ aÈt«n t∞w ¶ndon afit¤aw oÎshw ka‹ to›w m¢n Ùfyalmo›w toË MeyodikoË mØ ırvm°nhw, ÍpÚ d¢ toË LogikoË fiatroË mÒnƒ t“ logism“ ka‹ tª §je[279]tãsei ékrib«w §jeuriskom°nhw; DiÚ ka‹ ı Meyodik“ yerapeÊonti kak«w §mpes∆n êyliow Àsper élÒgƒ tin‹ ka‹ aÈt“ ˆnti yhr¤ƒ pãntvw teynÆjetai, ékoloÊyvw épollÊmenow aÈtoË tª aflr°sei, §pe‹ diå tØn ékolouy¤an toË dÒgmatow §jetãzein tØn afit¤an oÈ boÊletai. ÑO dÉ eÈtux«w t“ metå lÒgou yerapeÊonti prosely∆n oÎte to›w oÏtv ponhro›w sumpt≈masin èl≈setai =&d¤vw ka‹ tÚn yãnaton §kfeÊjetai diå tØn toË LogikoË fiatroË t°xnhn. Paralab∆n går aÈtÚn ı toioËtow fiatrÚw eÈy°vw ékrib«w §jetãsei ıpo›Òw tiw ∑n aÈtÚn ı katedhdok∆w kÊvn. Efi går ékoÊseiw ˜ti fisxnÚw m¢n ka‹ katãjhrow t“ s≈mati, ka‹ to›w ˆmmasin §j°ruyrow, ka‹ tØn oÈrån pareim°now ka‹ tÚn éfrÚn §k toË stÒmatow ¶xvn =°onta, mãyoiw d¢ ˜ti ka‹ tØn gl«ttan ¶jv e‰xe probeblhm°nhn ka‹ Àsper xolª3 kexrvsm°nhn, §mp¤ptvn te to›w §ntugxãnousi ka‹ élÒgvw tr°xvn, e‰ta pãlin afifn¤dion •stãnai y°lvn ka‹ dãknvn metÉ Ùrg∞w tinow manikvt°raw éproorãtouw aÈtoË genom°nouw, efi taËtÉ ékoÊseiw4 oÏtvw ¶xonta, eÈy°vw m¢n sunÆseiw lutt«nta gegon°nai tÚn kÊna. Yera[280]peÊseiw dÉ oÈx èpl«w oÏtvw Àsper ı MeyodikÚw tÚ traËma, éllÉ eÈy°vw m¢n aÈtÚ ka‹ me›zon §rgãs˙ peritem∆n tØn sãrka §k pol-

1

ego: tÚn kãkiston K

2

ego: gn≈m˙ K

3

ego: xolÆn K

4

ego: ékoÊs˙w

571

  ‒   FR 208. GALENUS, ON

THE THERIAC, TO

PISO

Galenus, On the theriac, to Piso, xiv, pp. 277–280 K: [xvi, 277] Refutation of the Methodists’ belief that it is unnecessary to know the causes of diseases; he rehearses once more the benefits of the theriac. It has become a current and frequent practice to avert even hydrophobia, the most wretched of diseases, [278] by this medicine [sc the theriac], thus struggling wonderfully against a collection [sundrome] of evils of such proportions. For not only the [sc patients’] body dries out, shakes in convulsions every now and then, and burns inside with sharp fever; no, the mind suffers derangement too, bringing upon them a symptom which is hardest to bear. For they fear water: on the one hand, they have a desire for liquid because of their high degree of dryness, yet they refrain from drinking; on the other hand, because of their delirium, they don’t work out what it is that could bring them succour. And they die the most lamentable death, running away from water and dreading it; and in these cases I am, again, puzzled by the Methodists. For, given their claim that causes are useless for therapy, I don’t understand how they can possibly treat these [sc patients], since the bite is simple and looks identical with that of someone bitten by a dog who is not mad. Well, what kind of therapy will the visible bodily wound indicate to them without investigation, if they don’t search for the cause that lies inside, although that is not visible to the Methodist’s eyes but discovered by the Rationalist doctor only through reasoning and rigorous investigation? [279] Therefore the unfortunate [sc patient] who is unlucky enough to fall into the hands of a Methodist, [sc one who acts] as if he himself were another irrational beast, will be sure to die, his destruction being a matter of consistency with his [sc the Methodist’s] hairesis—since it is on account of consistency with his doctrine that he refuses to investigate the cause. On the contrary, the [sc patient] who has the good fortune to approach someone who administers treatment with the assistance of reason will not be easily consumed by symptoms as destructive [sc as the ones described above] and, thanks to the Logical doctor’s art, will escape death. For upon taking him [sc the patient] under his care, such a doctor will immediately make a thorough investigation as to what sort of dog it was that had bitten him. For if you get the report that he [sc the dog] was lean and excessively dry in his [sc whole] body, prominently red in the eyes, had a drooping tail, and foam was steaming out of his mouth—and suppose you also learn that his tongue was hanging out and looking as if painted in bile; that he would attack passers-by for no reason and run away, then want to stop of a sudden; and that he would bite with rabid fury people whom he had never set eyes on before—if you get a report of this sort, you will immediately realise that the dog was mad. [280] You will not treat the wound indiscriminately, like the Methodist, but you will immediately enlarge it, cutting the flesh around

572

  ‒  -

loË toË diastÆmatow ka‹ kukloter¢w aÈtoË tÚ sx∞ma poi«n, ·na mØ =&d¤vw §pouloËsyai dÊnhtai5 éllÉ ¶xoi6 éneƒgÒta tÚn pÒron efiw polÁ toË xrÒnou tÚ m∞kow, toÈlãxiston efiw tåw tettarãkonta ≤m°raw, ka‹ §j°lyoi diå toÊtou fiÚw toË kunÒw.

5

corr ego (an dÊnaito?): dÊnatai K

6

an ¶x˙?

FR 209DUB. GALENUS, IN HIPPOCRATIS APHORISMOS COMMENTARII Galenus, In Hippocratis Aphorismos Commentarii, IV, lxix, pp. 750–751 K: 5 [lxix, 750] ÑOkÒsoisin oÔra pax°a, yromb≈dea, Ùl¤ga, oÈk épur°toisi, pl∞yow §pelyÚn §k tout°vn leptÚn »fel°ei: [751] mãlista d¢ tå toiaËta ¶rxetai oÂsin §j érx∞w diå tax°vn ÍpÒstasin ¶xei.a OÈx èpl«w e‡rhken oÔra pax°a éllå pros°yhke ka‹ yromb≈dea, duo›n yãteron §ndeiknÊmenow: ≥toi toË pãxouw tÚ posÚn µ tÚ t∞w Ípostãsevw 10 én≈malÒn te ka‹ diespasm°non, …w ka‹ katå perigrafÆn tina fa¤nesyai pollåw sustãseiw aÈt«n Àsper yrÒmbouw. ÖEnioi m¢n oÔn oÈ “yromb≈dea” grãfousin, éllå “borbor≈dea”, kayãper ka‹ ı NoumisianÚw ka‹ ı DionÊsiow. Efi m¢n ka‹ dusvd¤an tinå sunendeiknÊmenoi diå t∞w l°jevw, pl°on ti t«n êllvn dhloËntew, efi dÉ …w toË pãxouw tÚ posÒn, 15 oÈd¢n perittÒteron §n t“de didãskontew. ÜO ge mØn sÊmpaw lÒgow toË ÑIppokrãtouw oÈ fa¤netai per‹ dusvd«n oÎrvn gignÒmenow éllå mÒnvn Ùl¤gvn te ka‹ pax°vn, …w §k t∞w éntiy°sevw ¶stai d∞lon.

a

Cf Aphorisms iv 49: ÑOkÒsoisin oÔra pax°a, yromb≈dea, Ùl¤ga, oÈk épur°toisi, pl∞yow §lyÚn §k tout°vn leptÚn »fele›: mãlista d¢ tå toiaËta ¶rxetai oÂsin §j érx∞w µ diå tax°vn ÍpÒstasin ‡sxei.

FR 210. GALENUS, IN HIPPOCRATIS DE UICTU ACUTORUM COMMENTARII (1) Galenus, In Hippocratis De uictu acutorum Commentarius, I xxiv, pp. 476–478 K = 144–145 Helmreich: [xxiv, 476] Ka‹ ˜sƒ1 ín ple¤vn ≤ kãyarsiw 2 g¤gnhtai, tos“de xrØ ple›on 3

  ‒  -

573

and giving it circular shape through a large aperture, so that it would not be able to come to cicatrisation easily but may instead bear a channel to be opened [sc in it] for a long period of time—forty days at the shortest; and the dog’s venom would run out through it.

FR 209DUB. GALENUS, COMMENTARIES

TO

HIPPOCRATES’ APHORISMS

Galenus, Commentaries to Hippocrates’ Aphorisms, IV, lxix, pp. 750–751 K: [lxix, 750] In cases where urine is thick, full of clots, and scanty, and they [sc the patients] are not without fever, when a copious amount of thin [sc urine] comes out it relieves them; [751] and such [sc discharges] come out especially in those cases where [sc urine] forms a sediment very quickly after the beginning [sc of the disease]. He [sc Hippocrates] did not say, indiscriminately, that urine is thick, but also added “full of clots”, pointing out one of two possible things: either the quantitative aspect of thickness or the irregularity and disorder of the sediment—since many of the formations in it [sc urine] would appear on the outside like clots. Now, some [sc commentators], for instance Numisianus and Dionysius, do not write “full of clots” [thrombodes] but “full of mud” [borborodes]. Well, if what they mean by their expression is also some [sc kind of ] bad smell, they over-interpret; but if [sc they mean] that [sc the word refers to] the quantitative aspect of thickness, they do not teach us anything too remarkable by this. Besides, the whole argument of Hippocrates appears not to be concerned with urine that has a bad smell, but only with urine which is scanty and thick, as will be clear from the disjunction.

FR 210. GALENUS, COMMENTARIES ON HIPPOCRATES’ REGIMEN IN ACUTE DISEASES (1) Galenus, Commentary on Hippocrates’ Regimen in acute diseases, I xxiv, pp. 476–478 K = 144–145 Helmreich: [xxiv, 476] The greater the purging [sc of the bowels] is, the more [sc gruel ] we

574

  ‒  

didÒnai m°xri kr¤siow,4 mãlista5 d¢ kr¤siow Íperbol∞w 6 dÊo ≤mer°vn, oÂs¤ ge µ pempta¤oisin µ •bdoma¤oisin µ §nata¤oisi dok°ei7 kr¤nein,8 …w ka‹ tÚ êrtion ka‹ tÚ perissÚn9 promhy¢w ¬.10 a Metå d¢ toËto t“ m¢n =ofÆmati §w tÚ prv˛ 11 xrhst°on, Ùc¢12 d¢ §w sit¤a metabãllein.b 5 “Kr¤sin” nËn13 e‡rhken ≥toi tØn tele¤an lÊsin toË nosÆmatow µ tØn14 efiw tosoËton éjiÒlogon metabolØn …w ≥dh kindÊnou pantÚw §ktÚw kayesthk°nai: §pimetre›n dÉ éjio› tª kr¤sei dÊo ≤m°raw, ·na ka‹ tåw §n ért¤aiw15 ka‹ tåw §n peritta›w16 ≤m°raiw periÒdouw t«n parojusm«n fulaj≈meya: sumba¤nei går §n¤ote, yarsÊnontaw17 …w lelum°[477]nou18 10 toË nosÆmatow ékrib«w, e‰ta diaithy°ntaw émel°steron,19 éformØn énamnÆsevw toË katå per¤odon gignom°nou20 parojusmoË parasxe›n. ÉAsfal¢w goËn §sti fulãttein êxri duo›n21 ≤mer«n tØn ékr¤beian t∞w dia¤thw √ xr≈menow ı kãmnvn ∑n, kùn ≥dh22 dokª23 kekr¤syai tÚ nÒshma:24 parelyous«n d¢ t«n metå tØn kr¤sin duo›n ≤mer«n ésfal¢w ≥dh25 15 diaitçn èdrÒteron oÈd¢ tÒte26 tØn metabolØn éyrÒan27 poioum°nouw,28 éllÉ ßvyen m¢n t“ =ofÆmati xrvm°nouw, Ïsteron d¢ proÛoÊshw t∞w ≤m°raw ≥dh ka‹ sit≈dh trofØn prosf°rontaw. EÎdhlow oÔn §sti mÆtÉ

a

This coincides with the reading of the Hippocratic mss ad l. Littré conjectured

promhyÆs˙, with the following comment: “Je n’ai pas hésité à introduire, même sans autorité de manuscrit, promhy≤s˙ [sic] au lieu de promhy¢w ¬ du texte vulgaire. (. . .) l’idée de prévoyance se porte sur êrtion et perittÒn; ce qui ne donne

aucun sens. Il faut donc, de toute nécessité, reporter l’idée de prévoyance sur le médecin” etc (II, p. 252). Littré’s conjecture also appealed to Jones, who commented in his edition, ad l: “The MS. reading can be kept only if promhy°w be given a passive meaning (‘carefully guarded against’). Not finding a parallel to this I have adopted the reading of Littré.” However, the agreement of the Galenic mss with the Hippocratic mss seems to support the original reading over Littré’s conjecture. b Cf Regimen in acute diseases xiii: Ka‹ ˜sƒ ín ple¤vn ≤ kãyarsiw g¤gnhtai, tos“de xrØ ple›on didÒnai êxri kr¤siow: mãlista d¢ kr¤siow Íperbol∞w dÊo ≤mer°vn, oÂs¤ ge µ pempta¤oisin µ •bdoma¤oisin µ §nata¤oisin doke› kr¤nein, …w ka‹ tÚ êrtion ka‹ tÚ perissÚn promhy¢w ¬. Metå d¢ t“ m¢n =ofÆmati tÚ prv˛ xrhst°on, Ùc¢ d¢ §w sit¤a metabãllein.

Helmreich (= He) < Athous Laurae V 70 (= A) Athous Iberon 4304.189 (= B): Reginensis 173 (= R) Scorialensis S II 5 (= S): ıkÒsƒ Monacensis 469 (= M) > K 2 ≤ kãyarsiw ple¤vn M Triuultianus 685 (= T) 3 pl°on M 4 kr¤siow Athous Iberon 4309 (= C): kr¤sevw cett 5 ka‹ mãlista M 6 Parisinus 2165 (= P): ÍperbolØn B: ÍperbolØ cett 7 M: dok°ei cett 8 codd: kr¤nesyai Ch > K 9 He: perittÒn codd > K 10 promhy¢w ¬ codd 11 §w prv˛ A B M S 12 §w Ùc¢ C R > K 13 kr¤sin oÔn T 14 A B M S > He: ≥toi tØn R Marcianus 281 (= V) > K 15 ért¤oiw A B T V: ta›w ért¤oiw Mosquensis 465 (= D) 16 tåw §n peritta›w B M T > He: tåw §n ta›w perissa›w cett codd > K 17 R > He: yarsÆsantaw A B C M > K: yarrÆsantaw S 18 ka‹ lelum°nou V 19 émel°stera S 20 genom°nou B 21 dÊo B: om S 22 kùn ≥d˙ . . .: transp inter •sti et fulãttein B C R V > K: om D 23 doke›n M 24 tÚ nÒshma A M S: tÚn kãmnonta C R > K 25 ésfal°w ≥dh He: ≥dh ésfal°w V > K: ésfal°w d¢ ≥dh A M S T 26 tÒte om M 27 He < codd: éyrÒvw edd 28 poioÊmena M 1

  ‒  

575

must administer, up to the [sc day of ] the crisis, and especially for two days after the crisis in those cases where [sc the disease] seems to reach the crisis on the fifth, the seventh, or the ninth day, so that both the even and the odd day be kept under watch; after this, one should administer gruel in the mornings, replacing it with cereals in the evenings. Here he [sc Hippocrates] calls “crisis” either the complete resolution of the disease or a significant change, great enough to put [sc the patient] outside any danger; and he advises us to count two more days over and above the crisis in order to guard against the regular returns [ periodoi ] of paroxysms on both even and odd days; for it happens sometimes that [sc the patients] give occasion for a recrudescence of the paroxysm, which occurs periodically, when they have been too confident that the disease was completely resolved, [477] thus becoming careless about their regimen [diaita]. Therefore it is safe to keep up [sc the standard of ] strictness in the regimen that the patient is put onto for up to two [sc more] days, even if the disease seems to have already passed the point of crisis; and, when the two days after the crisis have passed, it is safe to feed him more abundantly, yet without making the change all at once but by administering thick gruel in the morning and bringing in cereals later on, when the day is advanced. And he [sc Hippocrates] makes it perfectly clear that he does not admi-

576

  ‒  -

êllo ti didoÁw29 to›w kãmnousi prÚ t∞w efirhm°nhw êrti proyesm¤aw mÆtÉ êrton, éllå ptisãn˙ diå pantÚw érkoÊmenow, Àsper oÈk ¶stin …w §mpiplãntow30 éllå mçllon §gkale›n (e‡ tiw boÊloito) leptÒteron µ prosÆkei31 diait«ntow. ÉAllÉ oÎte leptÒteron oÎyÉ èdrÒterÒn §sti toË prosÆkontow 5 oÏtv diaitçn, éllÉ ékrib«w32 tÚ m°son t«n Íperbol«n33 ka‹ êriston. ÉApÒdeijiw d¢ toË m°son Ípãrxein aÈtÚ ≤34 t«n §gkaloÊntvn ténant¤a filonik¤a:35 toÊtvn går ofl m¢n per‹ tÚn36 Yes[478]salÚn §gkaloËsin …w §mpiplãnti37 toÁw kãmnontaw, ofl d¢38 per‹ tÚn ÉEras¤straton …w limagxonoËnti t“ ÑIppokrãtei. Tå går efiw ÉApoll≈nion ka‹ D°jippon 10 toÁw ÑIppokrãtouw39 mayhtåw efirhm°na katå tÚ pr«ton Per‹ puret«n ÉErasistrãtƒ40 tØn diabolØn t∞w limagxon¤aw efiw ÑIppokrãthn tÚn didãskalon énaferom°nhn ¶xei. ToÊtoiw oÔn mçllÒn §sti suggnvst°on,41 …w efikÒta l°gousi: toÁw dÉ §mpiplãnai fãskontaw aÈtÚn éj¤ouw e‰nai YessaloË42 nomist°on, êndraw oÎtÉ êllo ti t«n ÑIppokrãtouw gnÒntaw 15 oÎtÉ aÈtå taËta43 tå per‹ dia¤thw aÈt“44 efirhm°na.

êllo didoÁw A T 30 §mpiplãntow He: §mpipl«ntow R S 31 µ prosÆkei om A S T 32 éllå kr¤sevw S 33 m°shn Íperbol«n aÈtØn M 34 ≤ A M S > He: ka‹ ≤ B R V > K 35 S > He: filoneik¤a cett 36 tÚn om A M S 37 He < D: §mpipl«nti A S T > K: §mpimpl«nti V: §pipl«nti M: §mpipl«nta R 38 d¢ om B 39 flppokrate¤ouw B 40 §rasistrãtou S 41 He < A M S: gnvst°on R: sugxvrht°on B V > K 42 yettaloÁw S 43 aÈtå taËta A M R S: aÈtå pãnta T: om B V 44 A S T: aÈtoË M: om B R V > K 29

FR 211. GALENUS, IN HIPPOCRATIS DE UICTU ACUTORUM COMMENTARII (2) Galenus, In Hippocratis De uictu acutorum commentarius, I xvii, pp. 763–764 K = 286–287 Helmreich: [xvii, 763] Tå d¢ Ùj°a pãyea1 flebotomÆseiw2 µn fisxurÚn fa¤nhtai tÚ nÒshma ka‹ ofl ¶xontew ékmãzvsi3 tª ≤lik¤˙ ka‹ =≈mh parª aÈt°oisin.a Otow ı lÒgow êjiÒw §stin ÑIppokrãtouw, yaumãzv d¢ p«w oÈk ¶gracen aÈtÚn §n ÉAforismo›w: §n Ùl¤g˙ går tª4 l°jei dÊnam¤w §sti pollÆ,5 20 kayãper §n to›w ÉAforismo›w.6 Per‹ goËn t«n7 flebotom¤aw xr˙zÒntvn a

Cf Regimen in acute diseases, Appendix, Ch. 3: Tå Ùj°a pãyea flebotomÆseiw µn fisxurÚn fa¤nhtai tÚ nÒshma ka‹ ofl ¶xontew ékmãzvsi tª ≤lik¤˙ ka‹ =≈m˙.

pãyh A S T 2 flebotomÆseiw aÈyhmerÒn add A S toi B R T V 5 B M R T > He: megãlh A V > K om C S 7 goËn t∞w M 1

3 6

ékmãzousi A M 4 gãr §n Ùl¤g˙ . . . ÉAforismo›w

  ‒  -

577

nister bread or anything else to the patients before the appointed time; he confines himself to [sc using] ptisane all throughout that period, so that one cannot bring accusations against him (if one desires to do so) on the grounds that he was in the habit of filling the patient, but rather on the grounds that he used to put him on a more meagre diet than is appropriate. But this manner of feeding [sc the patients] is neither more abundant nor more meagre than is appropriate; it is an exact middle between extremes, and it is the best. Even the rivalry between accusers from opposite camps constitutes proof of the fact that it [sc Hippocrates’ manner of feeding the patients] represents a middle: for the followers of Thessalus [478] accuse Hippocrates of filling the patients, whereas the followers of Erasistratus, of starving them. For the things said by Erasistratus in the first book of On fevers against Hippocrates’ pupils Apollonius and Dexippus contain a slander about starving which refers to their teacher, Hippocrates. Now we should admit that these people make the more plausible assertions; as for those who claim that he [sc Hippocrates] fills [sc the patients], we should think of them as people who are on a par with Thessalus, since they have absolutely no knowledge of anything that Hippocrates said—not even [sc the things he said] on the regimen.

FR 211. GALENUS, COMMENTARIES ON HIPPOCRATES’ REGIMEN IN ACUTE DISEASES (2) Galenus, Commentary on Hippocrates’ Regimen in acute diseases, I xvii, pp. 763–764 K = 286–287 Helmreich: [xvii, 763] You will treat acute affections by venesection if the disease seems to be severe and the patients are at the peak of their youth and they have strength. This sentence is worthy of Hippocrates, and I am surprised that he did not include it in the Aphorisms; for [sc here], just as in the Aphorisms, a lot of meaning is [sc compressed] in a brief expression. Doctors have frequently

578

  ‒  -

e‡rhtai pollãkiw8 to›w fiatro›w, œn tå dokoËnta piyan≈tata per‹ flebotom¤aw ésfal«w e‡rhtai diå duo›n bibl¤vn9 ÍpÉ §moË10 gegramm°nvn: tÚ m¢n oÔn ßteron aÈt«n §pig°graptai Per‹ flebotom¤aw, §n ⁄ tå pãnta xrÆsima didãsketai,11 tÚ dÉ ßteron {Per‹ flebotom¤aw prÚw ÉEras¤s5 traton, §n ⁄ tå dokoÊnta}12 g°graptai (…w ¶fhn) to›w fiatro›w to›w tÉ13 ÉEmpeiriko›w ka‹ Dogmatiko›w. Ofl dÉ ém°yodoi Yessãleioi,14 kayãper ka‹ têlla [764] xvr‹w épode¤jevw èpl«w l°gousin, oÏtv ka‹ tØn flebotom¤an épefÆnanto xalastikÚn e‰nai boÆyhma: tÚ xalastikÚn dÉ aÈtÚ diafÒrvw §jhgoËntai, kay∆w d°deikta¤ moi diå t«n §m«n Ípomnh10 mãtvn Per‹ tªw Meyodik∞w aflr°sevw §piskeptom°nƒ.15 bubl¤oin M 10 ÍpÉ aÈtoË A 11 didãskontai M 12 suspicatur Schoene deleuit He 13 tÉ om M 14 corr Aldus: yessãlioi codd 15 §piskopoum°nv S: §piskeptom°nou B: §piskeptÒmenow M 8

pollå S

9

FR 212. GALENUS, IN HIPPOCRATIS LIBRUM EPIDEMIARUM COMMENTARII

PRIMUM

Galenus, In Hippocratis librum primum Epidemiarum Commentarius, II xxv, pp. 118–120 K = 61–62 Wenkebach: [xxv, 118] Ofl d¢ dØ sunex°ew1 m¢n tÚ ˜lon2 ka‹ oÈd¢n §kle¤pontew, parojunÒmenoi d¢ pçsi tritaiofu°a trÒpon, m¤an {m¢n}3 Ípokouf¤zontew ka‹ m¤an parojunÒmenoi,4 pãntvn biaiÒta[119]toi t«n tÒte genom°nvn ka‹ makrÒtatoi5 ka‹ metå pÒnvn meg¤stvn genÒmenoi: prh°vw érxÒmenoi 15 ka‹ tÚ ˜lon §pididÒntew afie‹6 ka‹ parojunÒmenoi 7 ka‹ énãgontew §p‹ tÚ kãkion, smikrå diakouf¤zontew ka‹ taxÁ pãlin §j §pisx°sevw biaiot°rvw parojunÒmenoi, §n kris¤moisin …w §p‹ tÚ polÁ kakoÊmenoi. ÑR¤gea d¢ pçsin étãktvw ka‹ peplanhm°nvw §g¤neto,8 §lãxista d¢ ka‹ ¥kista toÊtoisin.a a

Cf Epidemics I ii 7: Ofl d¢ dØ sunex°ew m¢n tÚ ˜lon ka‹ oÈd¢n §kle¤pontew, parojunÒmenoi d¢ pçsi tritaiofu°a trÒpon, m¤an Èpokouf¤zontew ka‹ m¤an parojunÒmenoi, pãntvn biaiÒtatoi t«n tÒte genom°nvn ka‹ makrÒtatoi ka‹ metå pÒnvn meg¤stvn genÒmenoi: prh°vw érxÒmenoi tÚ dÉ ˜lon §pididÒntew afie‹ ka‹ parojunÒmenoi ka‹ énãgontew §p‹ tÚ kãkion, smikrå diakouf¤zontew ka‹ taxÁ pãlin §j §pisx°sevw biaiot°rvw parojunÒmenoi, §n kris¤moisin …w §p‹ tÚ polÁ kakoÊmenoi. ÑR¤gea d¢ pçsin m¢n étãktvw ka‹ peplanhm°nvw §g¤neto, §lãxista d¢ ka‹ ¥kista toÊtoisin, éllÉ §p‹ t«n êllvn puret«n me›zv.

junex°ew Monacensis 231 (= M) Marcianus Venetus 1053 (= V) 2 Ofl d¢ dØ sunex°ew m¢n tÚ ˜lon ßvw toË §lãxista d¢ ka‹ ¥kista toÊtoisin Parisinus 2174 (= 1

Q ) 3 del Wenkebach (= W) < corrector P (Aldinus, Ioannes Clemens medicus Londinensis = P2): m¤an m°n K 4 corr W: §piparojunÒmenoi Archetypus codicum Graecorum (= O) 5 W < P2: makrÒteroi O 6 ée‹ M 7 add Scorialensis Arab. 804 (Huniani uersio = H) P2 8 corr W: §g¤nonto O > K

  ‒  -

579

raised the subject of those who need venesection; what I considered to be their most convincing [sc statements] on venesection is safely recorded in two books that I wrote: one is entitled On venesection, and you [sc can] find in it instruction about everything useful; the other (as I said) was written both for Empiricist and Dogmatist doctors. As for the un-Methodical Thessaleans, they pronounced venesection to be a relaxing remedy in just the same fashion in which they make claims about everything else, [764] indiscriminately and without demonstration; moreover, they explain the relaxing itself in different ways, as has been shown by me in the commentaries where I examine The Methodist hairesis.

FR 212. GALENUS, COMMENTARIES ON HIPPOCRATES’ EPIDEMICS, BOOK I Galenus, Commentary on Hippocrates’ Epidemics, Book I, II xxv, pp. 118–120 K = 61–62 Wenkebach: [xxv, 118] But those [sc fevers] which were continuous all the way through and never intermitted, but in all the cases exacerbated in the manner of the tritaiophueis [= tertian-natured fevers]—easing up for one day, then exacerbating on the next—were the severest [119] and longest of all the ones that occurred at that time, and they were accompanied by the greatest pains: mild at the beginning, they invariably increased all at once, and on critical days they exacerbated and got worse; they gave way slightly for short spells, only to break into paroxysm more violently after the abatement; in most cases, on the critical days they worsened. Shivering fits occurred disorderly and irregularly in all [sc the cases], but in these [sc in the cases of tritaiophueis fevers] they were shortest and fewest.

580

  ‒  -

Efi mØ9 pros°gracen aÈtÚw ˜pvw ofl tÒte genÒmenoi pureto¤, “parojunãmenoi pçsi tritaiofu°a trÒpon”, toÁw parojusmoÁw §poioËnto,10 megãlhn ín ≤m›n épor¤an Íp°lipe zhtoËsin eÍre›n t¤naw Ùnomãzei tritaiofue›w. ÉEpe‹ dÉ aÈtÚw e‰pe tÚn trÒpon t«n tritaiofu«n,11 oÈk°ti per‹ prãgma5 tÒw §stin ≤ zÆthsiw éllå per‹ shmainom°nou toË “tritaiofuØw” ÙnÒmatow.12 ÉEpisunãptetai d¢ toÊtƒ ka‹ tÚ per‹ toË trita¤ou te ka‹ ≤mitri[120]ta¤ou ka‹ t∞w •kat°rvn diaforçw, ékriboËw trita¤ou ka‹ oÈk ékriboËw éllÉ ≥toi13 braxÊ ti14 paraujhy°ntow µ pl°on µ §p‹ ple›ston: êxri te pÒsou toÊtvn ßkastow §kte¤netai ka‹ t¤w m¢n ı m°gaw 10 ≤mitrita›Òw §sti, t¤w dÉ ı m°sow, t¤w dÉ ı mikrÒw. ÉAgay¤nƒ goËn ˜lon bibl¤on g°graptai 15 pr«ton per‹ ≤mitrita¤vn, tÚ shmainÒmenon nËn16 ÍpÚ t∞w proshgor¤aw taÊthw §pejhgoum°nƒ. ÉEån d¢ ka‹ tå to›w Meyodiko›w gegramm°na per‹ aÈtoË di°rxvmai nËn µ tå metå taËta ÍpÉ ÉArxig°nouw oÈx ëpaj, éllå pleonãkiw §n ple¤osi prag15 mate¤aiw efirhm°na, metå toË ka‹ diakr¤nein ˜sa kal«w µ mØ kal«w efirÆkasi, tr¤a moi nom¤zv bibl¤a plhrvyÆsesyai. TÒ ge mØn efiw tå t∞w t°xnhw ¶rga xrÆsimon e‡rhtai m¢n ≥dh kén 17 to›w Per‹ t«n puret«n diaforçw: efiw d¢ tå parÒnta b°ltiÒn §sti sunãcai18 tÚ lelegm°non e‰dow19 toË puretoË tª katastãsei.

mØ om M 10 ofl tÒte genÒmenoi pureto‹ parojunãmenoi pçsi tritaiofu°a trÒpon toÁw parojusmoÁw §poioËnto W < H: ofl tÒte genÒmenoi pureto‹ tetagm°nouw toÁw parojusmoÁw §poioËnto Q: ofl tÒte genÒmenoi tetagm°noi pureto‹ toÁw parojusmoÁw §poioËnto M V: ofl tÒte genÒmenoi tetagm°nouw pureto‹ toÁw parojusmoÁw §poioËnto M > K 11 W: tritaiofu°vn O K 12 éllå per‹ shmainom°nou toË restit W: éllÉ Àsper shmainom°nou toË M V > K: éllÉ …w per‹ shmainom°nou toË O 13 éllÉ ˜ti K 14 bracÊ tini O 15 W < H (et uide infra, p. 228 K: ÉAgay›now . . . b¤blion ˜lon ¶grace tÚ pr«ton per‹ ≤mitrita¤ou) g°graptai pr«ton per‹ ≤mitrita¤vn K 16 W: nËn om K 17 W < H: om K: per‹ om V 18 sunãcai H Q M: suggrãcai M V Q 19 W: tÚ legÒmenon e‰dow K 9

FR 213. GALENUS, IN HIPPOCRATIS LIBRUM EPIDEMIARUM COMMENTARII (1)

SEXTUM

Galenus, In Hippocratis librum sextum Epidemiarum Commentarius, II ix, pp. 907 + 909–914 K = 65 + 67–69 Wenkebach: 20 [ix, 907] ÖAllon xumÒn, mØ tÚn fiÒnta, êgein, tÚn d¢ fiÒnta sunekxumoËn:

  ‒  -

581

Had he himself [sc Hippocrates] not recorded how the fevers of that time, those which “in all cases exacerbated in the manner of the tritaiophueis”, developed their paroxysms, he would have left us with the big problem of making investigations in order to discover which ones he calls tritaiophueis. But since he himself specified the manner of the tritaiophueis, our investigation is no longer concerned with a fact, but with what is meant by the name tritaiophues. Linked with this [sc problem of meaning] is also the one concerning the tertian, the semitertian, [120] the difference between them, the tertian which is exact and the tertian which is not exact but has increased—a little bit, more, or as much as possible: up to what limit does each one of these extend? What is a big semitertian, what is a middling one, what is a small one? There is a whole book on semitertians written by Agathinus, namely the first of his On fevers, where he explains what is meant nowadays by this name. But if, on top of making distinctions between correct and incorrect claims, I review now what the Methodists wrote on the subject and what Archigenes subsequently said—not once but many times and in a great number of treatises—I think I will fill up three books. Now, what is of use for the practice of our art has already been said, both in the [sc books on] Crises and in [sc those on the] Kinds of fever; for the time being, it is better to relate the kind of fever under discussion to the [sc Hippocratic] constitution.

FR 213. GALENUS, COMMENTARIES ON HIPPOCRATES’ EPIDEMICS, BOOK VI (1) Galenus, Commentary on Hippocrates’ Epidemics, Book VI, II ix, pp. 907 + 909–914 K = 65 + 67–69 Wenkebach: [ix, 907] Draw another humour, not the one that runs, and, together with it, help out

582

  ‒  

Ùrgãsasyai1 tÚ ˜moion {oÂon ÙdÊnh ÙdÊnhn paÊei}2 a tå énÒmoia, efi =°pei ênv 3 éry°nta, kãtvyen lÊein ka‹ tå §nant¤a taËta, oÂon kefal∞w kãyarsiw, flebotom¤h,4 ˜te oÈk efikª éfair°etai.b [909] . . . ÉAllå taËta m¢n eÈkatafrÒnhta ka‹ smikrã, kayãper ka‹ 5 pãnyÉ ˜sa per‹ t∞w l°jevw §jÆghtai,5 t∞w t«n pragmãtvn élhye¤aw fulattom°nhw. ÉEån d¢ kéke›na kin∞tai, feukt°on ≤m›n §sti tåw toiaÊtaw grafåw, Àsper kéntaËya, sxedÚn èpãntvn t«n §jhght«n prosiem°nvn yerape¤aw tinåw §n¤ote diå t«n ımo¤vn g¤nesyai ka‹ mØ diå pantÚw ÍpÚ t«n §nant¤vn: [910] ˜per aÈtÚw ı ÑIppokrãthw ÍponoÆsaw tinåw ofiÆsesyai 10 diÉ •nÚw parade¤gmatow §nede¤jato tØn épãthn aÈt«n, §n ÉAforismo›w grãcaw: “ÖEstin ˜kou §p‹ tetãnou êneu ßlkeow n°ƒ eÈsãrkƒ y°reow m°sou6 cuxroË polloË katãxusiw §panãklhsin y°rmhw poi°etai, y°rmh d¢ taËta =Êetai.”c CuxrÚn går pãyow ˆnta tÚn t°tanon ımo¤ƒ bohyÆmati dÒjei tiw lÊesyai cuxrÚn Ïdvr katax°vn aÈt“. TÚ dÉ oÈx oÏtvw ¶xei: 15 yermas¤aw7 går §panãklhsin poihsãmenon »fele›: …w e‡ ge mØ poiÆsaito taÊthn, §sxãtvw blãcei. ÜVsper d¢ toËto dokoËn e‰nai boÆyhma cuxrÚn t“ yerma¤nein »fele› pote pãyow cuxrÚn tÚn t°tanon, oÏtvw ßtera

a

Cf pp. 907–18 K of the commentary, where Galen condemns the notion that

ÙdÊnh ÙdÊnhn paÊei. Since, however, the difficult Hippocratic original (sometimes

reconstructed from this quotation) is itself uncertain, it is conceivable, although unlikely, that the text which came to feature in Galen’s lemma contained an idea strongly rejected by him in the commentary. b Cf Epidemics vi 2.1: ÖAllon xumÒn, mØ tÚn fiÒnta, êgein, tÚn d¢ fiÒnta sunekxumoËn: Ùrgãsasyai [Manetti < Galen+Hunain: §rgãsasyai Smith < mss] tÚ ˜moion tå énÒmoia [Manetti: tÚ ˜moion, oÂon ÙdÊnhn paÊei tå énÒmoia Smith < mss]. äHi =°pei, ênvyen éry°nta kãtvyen lÊein, ka‹ tå §nant¤a taÈtã [Manetti: äHi =°pei ênvyen éry°nta, kãtvyen lÊein, ka‹ tå §nant¤a tÚ aÈtÒ Smith], oÂon kefal∞w kãyarsiw, flebotom¤h, ˜te oÈk efikª éfair°etai. Cf the translations offered by Smith and Manetti: “Induce another humour, not the one running, help evacuate the one running, produce a similar condition, just as dissimilars stop pain. Where it inclines upward, being elevated, resolve it below, and in the opposite case the same thing, for example, purging the head, phlebotomy, when the removal is not random.”/ “Estrarre un altro umore, non quello che scorre, di quello che scorre favorire la secrezione; mescolare il simile, il dissimile, secondo la direzione in cui scorre, se si è sollevato in alto, aprire dal basso, e in caso contrario con un criterio analogo, per esempio la purificazione della testa, la flebotomia, se non si estrae il sangue a sproposito.” c Cf Aphorisms v 21. But the plural taËta (which has no antecedent) might be emended to toËton (cf Jones ad l), or even to t°tanon. restit W < Scorialensis Arab. 805 (Huniani uersio = H) Glossarium Hippocraticum s v (XIX 129 K): §rgãsasyai (glossema) Marcianus Venetus Graecus 283 (= U) codices Hippocratici ad ed. Littraei adhibiti (= Hipp) codices in Palladii in Hippocratem et Galenum Scholiis edendis primum excussi a F. R. Dietz (= Pall) K 2 secl ego 3 W < U H: µn =°p˙ ênvyen Chartier (= Ch) > K 4 corr editio Aldina (= Ald): blebotom¤a U 5 corr W: §jÆghntai U > K cett edd 6 corr editio Basileensis (= Bas): m°son U Ald 7 corr Cornarius (= Co): yermas¤a U Ald 1

  ‒  

583

the one that runs; blend in the similar; if dissimilars tend to be lifted up, resolve them [sc by bringing them] down, and the other way round—as for instance [sc in the case of ] the purging of the head and venesection, when the removal is not done in vain. [ix, 909] . . . But, like all the [sc mistakes] which can be explained through diction, these are easy to dismiss and unimportant, as long as the truth of the facts is preserved. But when this is shaken as well we should avoid such writings, as is the case here: nearly all the exegetes accept that some [sc forms of ] healing sometimes come about through similars—and not, without exception, through opposites. [910] But Hippocrates himself, anticipating that there would be people to think this, has pointed out their deceit in the Aphorisms when he wrote: “In tetanus unaccompanied by a wound, when the patient is young and sturdy and the time is midsummer, there are cases where a soaking in cold water produces a return of the [sc bodily] heat, and heat relieves them.” Now, given that tetanus is a cold affection, if one soaks it in cold water one will seem to produce its resolution by a remedy similar [sc to it]. But this is not how the case stands; in fact it [sc the remedy] brings benefit because it has produced a return of the heat; so much so that, if it were to fail to produce it, it would be damaging in the extreme. And just as this remedy, which seems to be a cold one, sometimes benefits tetanus—a cold affection—through heating, other [sc reme-

584

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

yerma¤nonta katå sumbebhkÚw cÊxei, diaforoËnta tØn pur≈dh yermas¤an. Ka¤ moi per‹ toÊtvn §n ˜l˙ tª t∞w Yerapeutik∞w meyÒdou pragmate¤& g°graptai, diå t«n §nant¤vn bohyhmãtvn t“ pãyei tØn yerape¤an §pideiknÊnti g¤nesyai diå pantÒw. Ofl d¢ diÉ ÙdÊnhw me¤zonow ≤goÊmenoi yerapeÊesyai tØn §lãssona m°gistÒn ti paror«sin. OÈ går ≤ ÙdÊnh tØn yerape¤an §rgãzetai t∞w ÙdÊnhw, éllå tÚ sÁn tª ÙdÊn˙ boÆyh[911]ma toË poioËntow aÈtØn pãyouw. ÖEmayew går …w oÈdenÚw sumpt≈matow ≤ yerape¤a g¤netai pr≈tvw, éllÉ ée‹ t∞w §rgazom°nhw aÈtÚ diay°sevw. Efi d° tiw oÈd°pote m¢n pr≈tvw, §n¤ote d¢ 8 sumbebhkÚw fa¤h tå ˜moia t«n ımo¤vn e‰nai yerapeutikã, diå m°svn t«n pr≈tvw §nant¤vn, élhy∞ t° fhsi: ka‹ memãyhkaw §pisthmonik«w aÈtÚ diã te t∞w Yerapeutik∞w pragmate¤aw ka‹ pros°ti diå t«n Efiw toÁw ÉAforismoÁw Ípomnhmãtvn. àO d¢ l°gous¤ tinew, …w kaÊsaw tiw fisx¤on …w §p‹ t«n fisxiadik«n diÉ ÙdÊnhw ÙdÊnhn fiãsato, prÒdhlon ¶xei tØn étop¤an. OÈ går diå tØn ÙdÊnhn §yerapeÊyh tÚ pãyow éllå diå tØn kaËsin, √ sumb°bhke katå tÊxhn ÙdÊnh. Ylãsaw g° to¤ tiw µ tem∆n µ ˜pvw •t°rvw efiw ÙdÊnhn égag∆n tÚ mÒrion oÈk ín fiãsaito. Ka¤toi gÉ e‡per ∑n ≤ ÙdÊnh t∞w »fele¤aw afit¤a, diå pantÚw ín §yerãpeuen9 fisxiãdaw. OÏtv d¢ ka‹ tÚn Ùdun≈menon ÙdÒnta diÉ Ùdontãgraw komisãmenÒw tiw én≈dunon efirgãsato tÚn ênyrvpon oÈ diå tØn genom°nhn ÙdÊnhn §jai[912]roum°nou10 toË ÙdÒntow, éllå diå tØn §ja¤resin √ sunup∞rxen ≤ ÙdÊnh. ÑVw e‡ ge ka‹ xvr‹w ÙdÊnhw ∑n §jele›n aÈtÒn, ımo¤vw ín ı kãmnvn én≈dunow §g°neto, kayãper ge, ka‹ xvr‹w §jair°sevw §ån yl¤bvn tiw µ diakin«n aÈtÚn ÙdunÆs˙, tÚ m¢n êlghma sfodrÒteron poiÆsei,11 oÈd¢n dÉ »felÆsei.12 ÑEkat°rvw13 to¤nun eÎdhlÒn §stin énvfel∞ to›w Ùdunvm°noiw e‰nai tØn ÙdÊnhn ˜son §fÉ aÍtª. Diã te går t«n énvdÊnvn bohyhmãtvn pollå yerapeÊetai t«n Ùdunvm°nvn14 mor¤vn, §fÉ •t°rvn te pollãkiw ÙdÊnai megãlai diå t«n prosferom°nvn ¶jvyen ginÒmenai paËlan oÈdem¤an to›w diã ti pãyow Ùdunvm°noiw §pif°rousin. àEn går mÒnon §st‹ tÚ fi≈menon, ˜per ín §kkÒpt˙ tØn diãyesin ıpvsoËn, §ãn te xvr‹w ÙdÊnhw §ãn te sÁn taÊt˙: katå d¢ tÚn aÍt∞w15 lÒgon ÙdÊnh paÊein ÙdÊnhn oÈ p°fuken, éllå toÈnant¤on ëpan parojÊnein. ToËto m¢n oÔn tÚ parãdeigma faner«w §sti k¤bdhlon: §fÉ ßteron d° ti metabãntew16 œn efirÆkasi ka‹ tØn katÉ §ke›no moxyhr¤an yeas≈meya.17 Fas‹n oÔn ¶meton §m°[913]tƒ yerapeÊesyai pollãkiw ka‹ klust∞ri drime› diaxvrÆmata dakn≈dh. ÖEsti d¢ kéntaËya m¤a m¢n ‡asiw: §kkÒcai tØn diãyesin ÍfÉ ∏w ≥toi

corr Co: §yerapeÊein Ald (“per errorem” W) > §yerãpeuse Bas §jairoum°nou (et §ja¤resin infra) ci W: dairoum°nou (et dia¤resin) Ch > K cett edd 11 ci W: §po¤hse U > K cett edd 12 ci W: »f°lhsen U > K cett edd 13 corr W: •kat°rvse U > cett edd 14 corr Ald: »dunom°nvn U 15 corr W: aÈt∞w K 16 corr Ald: metabãntiw (sic) U 17 corr Ch: yeasÒmeya U: yeasãmeya Ald Bas 8

10

add Bas

9

(“per errorem” W)

  ‒  

585

dies] too, although heating, [sc can] by accident have a cooling effect when they dissipate the feverish heat. I have written about these [sc phenomena] throughout the whole treatise of the Method of therapy, demonstrating that an affection is healed, without exception, through opposites. But those who hold that the smaller pain is healed through the greater overlook something of the greatest importance. For it is not pain that achieves the healing of pain; [sc what achieves it is] the remedy, accompanied by pain, [911] of the affection that produces it [sc pain]. You have learned that healing is never, primarily, of a symptom, but always of the state that produces it. If one is to claim that similars sometimes have a healing effect on similars by accident—namely through the intermediates between primary opposites—and never primarily, then his claim is true; you have learned this in scientific manner [epistemonikos] from my treatise On [sc the method of ] therapy, and also from my Commentaries on the Aphorisms. What some people claim, namely that if one has applied cautery to the hip-joint, as they do for patients with sciatica, then one has healed pain through pain, is of a glaring absurdity. For the affection was not healed through pain but through cautery, which happens to be followed by pain. For if you bruised the part, cut it, or put it through pain by some other method, it would not heal. Moreover, if pain were the cause of the benefit, then it [sc pain] would heal [sc cases of ] sciatica without exception. Similarly, you relieve from pain a man who is in pain by extracting his tooth with the forceps, not because of the pain which arises when the tooth is extracted, [912] but because of the extraction with which the pain is associated. If it were possible to extract it [sc the tooth] without pain, the patient would have been equally freed from pain; conversely, if one will inflict pain on the tooth without an extraction, by squeezing and shaking it, the pain will grow stronger but there will be no benefit. Either way it is clear that pain, just by itself, brings no benefit to those who are in pain. Indeed many parts that are in pain are healed through painkillers; with others, it is often the case that the great pains due to what is administered externally give no respite to [sc patients] who suffer pain through some affection. For only one thing cures: the thing which removes the state, no matter how that be—without pain or accompanied by it; pain, by its own principle, does not tend to stop pain, but on the contrary to exacerbate it. In conclusion, this illustration [sc of the pain principle] is obviously misleading; let us move on to some other [sc illustration] from the ones they adduced and take stock of their unsoundness there as well. Now, they say frequently that vomiting [913] is healed by vomiting, and smarting stools [sc are healed] by a sharp clyster. Here again there is just one healing, namely the removal

586

  ‒  -

nauti≈deiw efis‹n µ sunex«w §j¤stantai18 d daknÒmenoi.19 G¤gnetai d¢ toËto ditt«w, …w §mãyete:20 kayÉ ßna m¢n trÒpon §kkenvsãntvn ≤m«n toÁw xumoÁw ˜soi tÆn te naut¤an ka‹ tØn t«n §nt°rvn d∞jin efirgãsanto, kayÉ ßteron d¢ pecãntvn21 te ka‹ metabalÒntvn22 efiw poiÒthta xrhstØn 5 µ §pikerasãntvn. ÉEde¤xyh d¢ kép‹ toÊtvn ≤ ‡asiw ÍpÚ t«n §nant¤vn gignom°nh.23 TÒ te går ˜lvw §kken«sai tÚn24 éllÒtriÒn te ka‹ parå fÊsin xumÚn §nant¤on §st‹ t“ ‡sxein:25 ¥ te katå poiÒthta metabolØ diå t∞w §nant¤aw g¤gnetai poiÒthtow. ÉAllÉ oÈ xrØ zhte›n §ntaËya, dedeigm°nou kayÉ ˜lhn tØn YerapeutikØn m°yodon {toË}26 ée‹ diå t«n §nant¤vn g¤g10 nesyai tØn yerape¤an. ÉEpe‹ d¢ 27 pollãkiw ÍpÒ te28 t«n ÉEmpeirik«n ka‹ t«n Meyodik«n lÒgvn paragÒmenoi29 diabãllein §pixeiroËsin aÈtÒ, paraplhs¤ouw l°gontew lÒgouw oÂw êrti [914] di∞lyon, ‡svw êmeinÒn §sti, metå tÚ sumplhr«sai tØn §jÆghsin toË prokeim°nou, poi∞sa¤ ti bibl¤on §n ⁄ deixyÆsetai tå §nant¤a t«n §nant¤vn fiãmata Ípãr15 xonta mÒna pr≈tvw te ka‹ kayÉ •autã. Katå sumbebhkÚw går ka‹ falakrÚw fiatrÚw falakrÚn êrrvston ˜moiow ˜moion fiçsyai dÊnatai ka‹ fojÚw fojÚn ka‹ xvlÚw xvlÒn. TÚ d¢ genhsÒmenon bibl¤on §pigrafÆsetai Per‹ toË kal«w ÍpÚ 30 ÑIppokrãtouw efir∞syai tå §nant¤a t«n §nant¤vn Ípãrxein fiãmata.

d

ÉEjan¤stantai was restored by Wenkebach from Galen’s explanation of dakn«dew as tÚ sunex«w §jan¤stasyai in his commentary to Epidemics i, 1.2 (ko¤liai tarax≈deiw, xl≈deiw, Ùl¤goiw ékrÆtoisi, lepto›si, dakn≈desi, puknå én¤stanto—“Bowels disordered, with bilious, scanty, unmixed, thin, smarting stools, causing the patient to get up often”; Jones’ translation).

ci W: §j¤stantai U > K cett edd 19 corr Ch: dakn≈menoi U 20 W: ¶maye Ch > ¶mayew K 21 pemcãntvn H Co > W: pemcãntvn U > edd 22 corr W: metaballÒntvn U > K 23 corr Ald: ginom°nhn U 24 W: tØn allÒtrion K 25 corr Ald: tÚ ‡sxein U 26 secl W 27 add W < H 28 ci W: épÒ te U > K cett edd 29 ci W: énagÒmenoi U > K cett edd 30 add W 18

FR 214. GALENUS, IN HIPPOCRATIS LIBRUM EPIDEMIARUM COMMENTARII (2)

SEXTUM

Galenus, In Hippocratis librum sextum Epidemiarum Commentarius, II xxvi, p. 941 K = 85–86 Wenkebach: 20 [xxvi, 941] ÜOsoi tritaiofue›w, toÊtoisin ≤ nÁj dÊsforow ≤ prÚ toË parojusmoË.a a

Cf Epidemics vi 2.10: ÑOsoi tritaiofue›w, toÊtoisin ≤ nÁj dÊsforow ≤ prÚ toË

  ‒  -

587

of the state because of which [sc patients] are nauseous or go to stool continuously, being gnawed with pain. This, as you learned, happens in two ways: one, when we evacuate the humours which produced nausea or smarting in the gut; the other, when we stimulate their [sc the humours’] coction and change their quality, making them good, or we mix something in addition. In these [sc procedures], too, the cure was shown to be brought about by opposites. Indeed, to evacuate completely an inimical and unnatural humour is the opposite of retaining it; and a change in quality comes about through the opposite quality. But we need not investigate [sc such matters] here, because it has been demonstrated in the whole of the Method of therapy that healing always comes about through opposites. Yet since many [sc doctors] who are persuaded by Empiricist and Methodist arguments often attempt to discredit this [sc principle] by adducing arguments similar to the ones I have just [914] reviewed, it might be better, once I complete the exegesis of the [sc Hippocratic treatise] at hand, to write a book in which it will be shown that the only remedies of opposites, primarily and in themselves, are opposites. For it is by accident that a baldheaded doctor is able to cure a baldheaded patient—a similar [sc to cure] a similar— or a sugarloaf-headed doctor [sc to cure] a sugarloaf-headed patient, or a lame doctor [sc to cure] a lame patient. My forthcoming book will be entitled On the correctness of Hippocrates’ dictum that opposites are the remedies of opposites.

FR 214. GALENUS, COMMENTARIES ON HIPPOCRATES’ EPIDEMICS, BOOK VI (2) Galenus, Commentary on Hippocrates’ Epidemics, Book VI, II xxvi, p. 941 K = 85–86 Wenkebach: [xxvi, 941] For tertian-natured patients [= tritaiophueis], the night before the paroxysm is difficult.

588

  ‒  -

T¤naw pot¢ l°gei tritaiofue›w §zÆthtai:1 diÒti ka‹ per‹ t«n ≤mitrita¤vn te ka‹ t«n parektetam°nvn trita¤vn .2 àEn går mÒnon …molÒghtai to›w nevt°roiw3 fiatro›w §n tª t«n efirhm°nvn Ùnomãtvn §jhgÆsei, tÚ katå t«n ékrib«n trita¤vn …w §ntÚw t«n d≈deka …r«n aÈtÚn perigrã5 fesyai, tåw dÉ Ípolo¤pouw4 Àraw épur°touw e‰nai. T∞w går t«n Meyodik«n éllokÒtou5 xrÆsevw toË t«n “≤mitrita¤vn” ÙnÒmatow oÈd¢ memn∞syai kalÒn. E‡per dÉ ı ékribØw trita›ow §lãttona t«n d≈deka …r«n ¶xei tÚn parojusmÒn, ı p°nte ka‹ d°ka Àraw parojunÒmenow 6 ëpanta tÚn ÍpÒloipon xrÒnon ¶xvn7 épÊreton ÙnomasyÆsetai trita›ow èpl«w, êneu 10 prosyÆkhw: efi d¢ boÊloitÒ tiw ékribologe›syai, trita›ow oÈk ékribÆw.

parojusmoË, ≤ d¢ §pioËsa eÈforvt°rh …w §p‹ to‹ polÊ, and Aphorisms ii 13: ÑOkÒsoisi kr¤siw g¤netai, toÊtoisin ≤ nÁj dÊsforow ≤ prÚ toË parojusmoË, ≤ d¢ §pioËsa eÈforvt°rh …w §p‹ to‹ polÊ. (But the sequence ≤ d¢ §pioËsa eÈforvt°rh …w §p‹ to‹ polÊ got inserted into the codices of the Epidemcs from the text of the Aphorisms:

cf Wenkebach ad l ).

ci W in apparatu (§zÆthsai uel zht∞sai ): §jÆghtai U 2 lacunam post trita¤vn significauit W, ex interpretatio Arabica “(weil auch über . . .): Streit herrscht und es nötig ist, es zu untersuchen, damit man erkenne, was das ist, was er mit jedem einzelnen dieser Namen meint” 3 corr Bas: neot°roiw U 4 corr Ch: Ípole¤pouw U 5 corr Bas: éllolÒtvn U 6 add W (uel ëpantã te addendum putans) 7 ¶xvn xrÒnon Ch > K 1

FR 215. GALENUS, IN HIPPOCRATIS PROGNOSTICUM COMMENTARIUS Galenus, In Hippocratis Prognosticum Commentarius, I i, pp. 1–2 K = 197 Heeg: [i, 1] TÚn fihtrÚn1 dok°ei moi êriston e‰nai prÒnoian §pithdeÊein.a ÜOti m¢n2 ént‹ t∞w progn≈sevw e‡rhke tØn “prÒnoian” êntikruw d∞lon: §pif°rvn goËn fhsi “progin≈skvn3 går ka‹ prol°gvn parå to›si

a

Opening sentence of the Hippocratic Prognostic.

corrector Palatini 157 (= P1) > K Heeg (= H): fiatrÒn Palatinus 157 (= P) m¢n oÔn add Supplementa Parisini (Fortenbl.) 2266 (= Fp) > Chartier (= Ch) §pif°rei goËn progin≈skvn Fp 1

2 3

˜ti

H:

  ‒  -

589

It has been examined what [sc kind of fevers] he [sc Hippocrates] calls tritaiophueis [= tertian-natured]; since also about semitertians and protracted tertians, . For in so far as the interpretation of the above mentioned names is at stake, only one thing is agreed upon among the contemporary doctors, namely that in exact tertians it [sc the paroxysm] is confined, as it were, within twelve hours and the remaining hours are free from fever. As for the Methodists’ bizarre use of the word “semitertians”, it would not be proper to mention it. If the exact tertian has a [sc kind of ] paroxysm which lasts under twelve hours, then one [sc a tertian] which has a paroxysm of fifteen hours and is free from fever for all the remaining time will be called “tertian” indiscriminately, without any addition; or, if one wants to speak very accurately, one would call it a non-exact tertian.

FR 215. GALENUS, COMMENTARY

ON

HIPPOCRATES’ PROGNOSIS

Galenus, Commentary on Hippocrates’ Prognosis, I i, pp. 1–2 K = 197 Haag: [i, 1] It is best, I think, that the doctor should exercise foresight. It is immediately obvious that by “foresight” [“pronoia”] he [sc Hippocrates] meant prognosis [ prognosis]; for he goes on to say, “as he [sc the doctor] prognosticates [ progignoskein] and makes predictions by the side of the ill”.

590

  ‒  -

nos°ousin.” ÉEd°hse dÉ aÈt“ prooim¤ou4 katå toËto5 tÚ sÊggramma, ka¤toi gÉ oÈ pãnu ti6 pro[2]oim¤oiw xrvm°nƒ, diã tinaw …w efikÚw fiatroÁw t«n katÉ aÈtÒn—oÂoi ka‹ nËn efisi t«n MeyodikoÁw •autoÁw ÙnomazÒntvn—fiatroË m¢n ¶rgon e‰nai fãskontaw7 ≥toi fulãttein tØn oÔsan 5 Íge¤an8 (…w §p‹ t«n ÍgiainÒntvn) µ énalambãnein tØn diefyarm°nhn (…w §p‹ t«n nosoÊntvn), mãntevw d¢9 tÚ prol°gein tÚ genhsÒmenon. ÉEpide¤knusin oÔn ı ÑIppokrãthw diå toË prooim¤ou xrÆsimon fiatr“ tÚ progin≈skein Ípãrxon,10 efiw tr¤a kefãlaia tÚn lÒgon énãgvn: ©n m¢n ˜ti toÁw nosoËntaw eÈpeiyest°rouw11 ßjei to›w ÍfÉ •autoË prostattom°noiw,12 10 deÊteron dÉ ˜ti proeid∆w tå sumbhsÒmena to›w kãmnousin §k polloË prÚw aÈtå13 paraskeuãsetai,14 ka‹ tr¤ton ˜ti toË yanãtou15 t«n nosoÊntvn éna¤tiow ÍpolhfyÆsetai aÈtÒw.16 BoÊletai dÉ oÈd¢n ∏tton Ípãrxein aÈt“ toËto,17 tÚ ka‹ t∞w Íge¤aw afit¤ƒ nom¤zesyai.18 Prossx«men19 oÔn ≥dh20 ta›w =Æsesi diÉ œn kataskeuãzei t«n efirhm°nvn kefala¤vn 15 ßkaston.21

H: toË prooim¤ou add Fp > Ch K 5 tÒde Rheginensis 175 (= R) 6 ti R P: toi F 7 H < R P Fp: fãskontew editio Aldina (= Ald) > K cett edd 8 H cett edd < R: Íg¤eian P Fp 9 H cett edd < R P: mãntevw går Fp 10 H < P: Ípãrxei R Fp: Ípãrxein K cett edd 11 eÈpeiyest°rouw toÁw nosoËntaw P 12 K H cett edd < P Fp: prattom°noiw R 13 aÈtÚ Fp 14 paraskeuãzetai R Fp 15 H < R P Fp: ˜ti yanãtou Ald > K cett edd 16 H: ÍpoleifyÆsetai corr R1: ÍpolhfyÆsetai R P Fp: aÈtÚw éna¤tiow ÍpolhfyÆsetai transp Ald > K 17 R > K H: toÊtƒ P Fp 18 H: a‡tion nom¤zesyai Ald > K cett edd 19 prossx«men R P: proskop«men Fp 20 ín ≥dh P 21 H: §j œn ßkaston t«n efirhm°nvn kefala¤vn kataskeuãzei Ald > K cett edd 4

p

FR 216. GALENUS, SYNOPSIS

LIBRORUM SUORUM DE PULSIBUS

Galenus, Synopsis librorum suorum de pulsibus, xvi, pp. 474–476 K: [xvi, 474] ÜOtan oÔn §pÉ êrrvston ˘n oÈ prÒsyen §yeãsv metaklhye‹w efis°ly˙w, §piskÒpei pr«ton m¢n efi êrrhn µ yÆleia, deÊteron dÉ §p‹ toÊtoiw tØn ≤lik¤an, e‰ta tÚ peri°xon ıpo›on—efiw går toËtÉ énãgetai tÚ kayÉ Àran ka‹ x≈ran ka‹ katãstasin—§fej∞w d¢ tØn ofike¤an fÊsin 20 aÈtoË: ka‹ sunye‹w ëpanta ka‹ stoxasãmenow ıpo›Òn tina [475] sfugmÚn efikÚw ∑n ¶xein aÈtÚn ıpÒyÉ Íg¤aine, gn≈s˙ tÚ m°geyow t∞w efiw tÚ parå fÊsin §ktrop∞w. ÉEån d¢ ka‹ têlla ˜sa katå tå Per‹ kr¤sevn ÍpomnÆmata l°lektai prostiyªw tª fid¤& t«n sfugm«n ımoi≈sei, plhs¤on éf¤j˙ t∞w ékribestãthw gn≈sevw ˜lhw t∞w katå tÚn kãmnonta diay°sevw, oÂon 25 eÈy°vw §n ta›w §pishmas¤aiw. ÜOtan oÔn pr«ton §pisk°c˙ tinã, tØn émfibol¤an §pidiÒrize to›w êlloiw shme¤oiw: œn ©n m¢n §st‹ ka‹ pr«ton

  ‒  -

591

Although not one to make much use of introductions, he [sc Hippocrates] needed an introduction for this treatise, [2] because of some of the doctors they probably had around his time—such as those we have now, who call themselves Methodists—who claimed that the doctor’s job is either to guard health when it is present (as in the case of the healthy) or to restore it when it has been damaged (as in the case of the ill); as for making predictions about what will happen, this would be a diviner’s job. Thus throughout the introduction Hippocrates shows that prognosticating is useful for the doctor, and he brings his argument under three headings: first, that he [sc the doctor] will make the ill more obedient to his own orders; second, that, if he knows what will happen to the patients, he will prepare for it long in advance; third, that he himself will be held not guilty of his patients’ death. And he [sc Hippocrates] wishes for him [sc the doctor] no less to be thought of as a cause of health. So let us turn our attention to the statements from which he constructs each of the headings we mentioned.

FR 216. GALENUS, SYNOPSIS

OF MY OWN BOOKS ON PULSE

Galenus, Synopsis of my own books on pulse, xvi, pp. 474–476 K: [xvi, 474] Now, when you go on call to see a patient whom you have not examined before, notice in the first place whether he is male or female; second to this, [sc notice] his age; afterwards, [sc notice] the quality of the surrounding air—for this is what the [sc data] of season, place, and constitution are measured by; next, [sc notice] his particular nature. Once you have collected all this and conjectured the kind of [475] pulse he was likely to have in health, you will know the extent of his deviation to the unnatural. If, to the [sc establishment of a] specific resemblance of his pulse, you also add all that has been said in the commentary On crises, you will come near to a very exact recognition of the whole state of the patient, as would happen immediately in [sc weather] forecasts. So when you examine someone for the first time, resolve your uncertainty by further distinctions, with the help of other signs: the first among these is to apply your hand, which

592

  ‒  -

tØn xe›ra katå toË y≈rakow §pitiy°nta summ°trvw oÔsan yermØn §pisk°casyai t∞w yermas¤aw tØn poiÒthta. Dakn≈dh går eÍr≈n tina, pur°ttein fÆseiw tÚn kãmnonta, ka‹ mÆpv diå toË sfugmoË toËto beba¤vw gnvr¤s˙w. Efi d¢ katecugm°now pvw ı y≈raj fa¤noito—sugkatacÊxetai går §n¤ote 5 t“ pãnti s≈mati katã tinaw §pishmas¤aw—oÈ xrØ paraxr∞ma, bastãsanta tØn xe›ra, katå fÊsin ¶xein épofÆnasyai tÚn ênyrvpon, éllÉ §p‹ pl°on §çsai katå toË y≈rakow §pikeim°nhn, §n toÊtƒ te pros°xein, e‡ tiw §k toË bãyouw én°rxetai drime›a yermas¤a: mÒnon goËn ≥rkei [476] Yem¤svni tekmÆrion e‰nai toË pur°ttein tÚn ênyrvpon ≤ §k toË 10 bãyouw énaferom°nh yermas¤a.

FR 217. GALENUS, THRASYBULUS Galenus, Ad Thrasybulum liber utrum medicinae sit an gymnasticae hygiene, xxix, pp. 859–860 K = III p. 71 Helmreich: [859] ÉEpid°deiktai dÉ •t°rvyi p«w ên tiw, Ípokeim°nou toË t°louw, tØn t°xnhn aÈtoË katå m°yodon §jeur¤skoi:1 ka‹ xrØ prÒteron §n §ke¤nƒ gumnãsasyai t“ lÒgƒ tÚn ékrib«w y°lonta to›w §nest«sin ékolouye›n. E‡setai går §narg«w ÍpÚ m¤an te ka‹ taÈtØn yevr¤an êmfv p¤ptonta 15 tå mÒria, tÚ ÍgieinÚn ka‹ tÚ yerapeutikÒn. ÉEg∆ dÉ ín efiw tÒde tÚ grãmma pãnta metaf°rvn tå [860] diÉ •t°rvn §p‹ ple›ston ±kribvm°na, lãyoimÉ ín §mautÚn Íp¢r tåw Menemãxou ka‹ MhnodÒtou b¤blouw épote¤naw aÈtÒ.

1

§jeur¤skei Parisinus 2164 (= P) editio Aldina (= Ald)

FR 218. HIERONYMUS, EPISTULAE Hieronymus, Epistula liii ad Paulinum Presbyterum, vi = pp. 14–5 Labourt: [14] Haec a me perstricta sunt breviter—neque enim epistularis angustia 20 euagari longius patiebatur—ut intellegeres te in scripturis sanctis sine praeuio et monstrante semitam non posse ingredi. Taceo de grammaticis, rhetoribus, philosophis, geometricis, dialecticis, musicis, astrologis, medicis, quorum [15] scientia mortalibus uel utilissima est et in tres partes scinditur: tÚ dÒgma, tØn m°yodon, tØn §mpeir¤an. Ad minores ueniam artes, et quae non tam lÒgƒ 25 quam manu administrantur. Agricolae, caementarii, fabri, metallorum lignorumque caessores, lanarii quoque et fullones et ceteri qui uariam supellectilem et uilia opuscula fabricantur absque doctore non possunt esse quod cupiunt.

  ‒  -

593

should be moderately hot, onto the thorax and to examine the quality of the [sc patient’s] heat. If you find something mordant [sc in it], you will say that the patient is feverish, even if you did not yet recognise this securely from the pulse. And if the thorax appears to have chilled—for sometimes it does get chilled together with the whole body, in accordance with certain forecasts—you should not withdraw your hand immediately, declaring that the patient is all right; allow it to lie on the thorax for longer, and in the meanwhile take notice whether a sharp heat rises from the depth [sc of the body]; for Themison, heat rising from the depth, just by itself, was sufficient [476] as a sign that the patient was feverish.

FR 217. GALENUS, THRASYBULUS Galenus, To Thrasybulus, whether hygenics belongs to medicine or gymnastics, xxix, pp. 859–860 K = III p. 71 Helmreich: [859] It has been shown somewhere else how one would go about discovering one’s art according to method, once the aim is set before him; and if you wish to follow the present [sc arguments] you must train in that [sc form of ] reasoning first. For you will get a clear understanding of the fact that both parts [sc of medicine], hygenics and therapeutics, fall under one and the same study. But if I were to transfer into this book all that [860] has been explained extensively and accurately in other [sc books], I would, unawares, make it more prolix than the books of Menemachus and Menodotus.

FR 218. HIERONYMUS, LETTERS Hieronymus, Letter liii to Paulinus the Presbyter, vi = pp. 14–5 Labourt: [14] I am glancing at these matters briefly—for the narrow boundaries of a letter would not bear a longer digression—so that you understand that you cannot enter the holy scriptures without a guide and instructor. I shall not mention the grammarians, orators, philosophers, geometers, dialecticians, musicians, astrologers, doctors, whose [15] science is enormously beneficial to mankind and falls into three parts: “dogma” [= belief ], “methodos” [= method], “empeiria” [= experience]. But let me bring up the humbler arts, which are served not by “logos” [= reasoning] as much as by the hand. Farmers, masons, smiths, quarry-workers and wood-hewers, woolworkers, fullers, and others, who do furniture of all sorts and humble works, are not able to be what they wish [sc to be] without a teacher.

594

  ‒  - FR 219. IOANNES ALEXANDRINUS, COMMENTARIA IN LIBRUM DE SECTIS GALENI

Ioannes Alexandrinus, Commentaria in librum De sectis Galeni, Prooemium, 2 ra, pp. 15–16 Pritchet: [2 ra] Sed nunc uideamus qui medicinam constituerunt et eos1 auctores secundum sectas suas nominemus. Empiricam namque sectam Serapion et Apollonius Senior et Apollonius Iunior et Eraclitus Nicomachus Glaucias2 Menedotus3 Sextus Afer, Logicam sectam Ypocras4 Praxagoras5 Diocles Era5 sistratus Crisippus Herofilus6 Leufastus Asclepiades7 Galenus:8 illi Empiricam, isti Logicam constituerunt. Methodicam sectam Themison9 Thesalus10 Dionysius Manaseus Philon11 Olimpicus12 Soranus13 Menemachus14 Auidianus15 inuenerunt. Ergo medicine multe sunt secte.

eius R (= Parisinus lat. 6865) 2 Gautica P (= Editio Papiensis, 1515) 3 Menedoctus P 4 Hippocras P 5 Paragoras P 6 Herofilus P: Erophilus Pritchet < codd 7 Asclepiades P: Asclipiades Pritchet < codd 8 Galenus P: Galienus Pritchet < codd 9 Thesion P 10 Thesilus P 11 Phylon P 12 om E (= Refurtensis F 280) 13 Seranus P: om E U (= Vaticanus Urbinas lat. 247) 14 Menemacus P: om E 15 om E 1

FR 220. ISIDORUS HISPALENSIS, ETYMOLOGIAE Isidorus Hispalensis, Etymologiae, IV iii–iv: [iii] De inuentoribus medicinae. Medicinae autem artis auctor ac reper10 tor1 apud Graecos perhibetur Apollo. Hanc2 filius eius Aesculapius laude uel ope ampliauit. Sed postquam fulminis ictu Aesculapius interiit, interdicta fertur medendi cura; et ars simul cum auctore defecit latuitque per annos pene3 quingentos, usque ad tempus Artaxerxis regis Persarum. Tunc eam reuocauit in lucem Hippocratis Asclepio patre genitus in insula Coo. 15 [iv] De tribus haeresibus medicorum. Hi itaque tres uiri totidem haereses inuenerunt. Prima Methodica inuenta est ab Apolline, quae remedia sectatur et carmina. Secunda Enpirica, id est experientissima,4 inuenta est ab Aesculapio, quae non indiciorum signis sed solis constat experimentis. Tertia Logica, id est rationalis, inuenta est ab Hippocrate. Iste enim,5 dis-

ac repertor Lindsay < Bernensis 101 (= B) Leidensis (Voss. lat. F. 74) (= C) Basileensis F. III 15 (= D) Harleianus Latinus 2686 (= H) Toletanus Matritensis (Tol. 15. 8) (= T): aut inuentor Karolinus Wolfenbuttelanus (Weissenburg. 64) (= K) 2 hac C1: ac T 3 Lindasay < codd: om T: fere corr Vercellensis 202 (= V) 4 Lindsay < B D H K: experimentis simul T 5 his etenim T 1

  ‒  -

595

FR 219. JOHN OF ALEXANDRIA, COMMENTARIES TO GALEN’S BOOK ON SECTS John of Alexandria, Commentaries to Galen’s book On sects, Prooemium, 2 ra, pp. 15–16 Pritchet: [2 ra] And now let us see who established medicine, and let us name the authorities in question according to their [sc respective] way of belief [secta]. Well, for the Empirical way of belief, it was Serapion, Apollonius the Elder, Apollonius the Younger, Heraclitus, Nicomachus, Glaucias, Menedotus, Sextus Afer; for the Logical way of belief, it was Hippocrates, Praxagoras, Diocles, Erasistratus, Crisippus [= Chrysippus], Herophilus, Leufastus, Asclipiades [= Asclepiades], Galen: the former established the Empirical [sc secta], the latter, the Logical. As for the Methodist way of belief, it was Themison, Thesalus [= Thessalus], Dionysius, Manaseus [= Mnaseas], Philo, Olimpicus [= Olympi(a)cus], Soranus, Menemachus, and Avidianus who discovered it. In conclusion, medicine has many ways of belief.

FR 220. ISIDORUS

OF

SEVILLA, ETYMOLOGIES

Isidorus of Sevilla, Etymologies, IV iii–iv: [iii] The founders of medicine. Now, according to the Greeks, the father and discoverer of medicine is Apollo. His son Aesculapius made it prosper through his fame or ability. But Aesculapius perished stricken by a thunderbolt, and afterwards the study of healing was forbidden; the [sc medical] art disappeared together with its father and remained hidden for almost five hundred years, down to the age of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians. It was brought back into the light around that time by Hippocrates, whose father was Asclepius and who was born on the island of Cos. [iv] The three haireseis of the doctors. The first one, the Methodist, was founded by Apollo; it uses remedies and music. The second one, the Empiricist— that is, the one which uses experience to the greatest extent—was founded by Aesculapius; it does not deal with the signs of indications, but solely with the things experienced. The third one, the Logical—that is, rationalist— was founded by Hippocrates. For he, having removed the qualities attached

596

  ‒  -

cussis aetatum regionum6 uel aegritudinum qualitatibus, artis curam rationabiliter persecutus7 est, infirmitatum per quam causas ratione adhibita perscrutetur {curam rationabiliter perscrutatus est}.8 Enpirici enim experientiam solam sectantur; Logici experientiae rationem adiungunt; Methodici nec ele5 mentorum rationem obseruant nec tempore nec aetas nec causas9 sed solas morborum substantias.

om K 7 prescrutatus T U C1 B C D H 9 om T 6

8

om Lindsay < K T: infirmitattum . . . est om

FR 221DUB. IUUENALIS, SATURAE A Iuuenalis, Saturae, x, 217–226: Praeterea minimus gelido iam in corpore1 sanguis febre calet sola, circumsilit agmine facto morborum omne genus, quorum si nomine quaeras 10 promptius expediam quot amauerit Oppia2 moechos, Quot Themison3 aegros autumno occiderit uno, quot Basilus socios, quot circumscripserit4 Hirrus pupillos, quot longa uiros exorbeat uno Maura die, quot discipulos inclinet Hamillus.

B Scholia in Iuvenalem uetustiora, p. 175 Wessner, ll. 9–21 (= 57r, 57v): 15 217d Praeterea mi(nimus) g(elido iam in corpore sanguis): ut Vergilius (Aen. v 395) “gelidus tardante senecta sanguis habet”. 219 Morborum omne genus: id est omne genus aegritudinis, ut Terentius (Phorm. 574) dicit “rogas? senectus ipsa morbus est”. 220 (Promptius expediam quot amauerit) Eppia moechos: facilius dicam nomina uel 20 numerum moechorum, quos amauit Eppia. 221s Quot Themison a(egros autumno occidit uno): archiater illius temporis, cui detrahit. 222 Quot Basilus5 (socios): aduocatum (dicit) illo tempore praeuaricatorem. 223d (Quot longa uiros) exorbeat uno (Maura die): hanc ostendit ore fuisse im25 puram. 224d (Quot discipulos inclinet) Hamillus: magister infantum corruptor.

Montepessulanus 125 (= P): iam corpore Parisinus 7900 (= G) Vaticanus Vrbinas 661 (= U) 2 P: ippia p (= corr P): eppia G U: yppia v (= codicum lectio ulgata) 3 P: uel themisius P adscr 4 P: sepserit p (super scribserit) 5 basilius Sangall. 870 (olim D 476) (= S) 1

  ‒  -

597

to ages, places, and diseases, followed by rational means the study of an art through which he might, with the help of reason, discern the causes of complaints. For the Empiricists follow experience alone; the Logical doctors add reason to experience; the Methodists pay attention neither to considerations regarding the [sc primary] elements nor to time, age, and causes, but only to the essence of the diseases.

FR 221DUB. JUVENAL, SATIRES A Juvenal, Satires, x, 217–226: Besides, fever alone enlivens now his [sc the old man’s] blood, which is already scanty in his cold body; and an entire host of diseases troops in to assail him; if you ask their names, I would more readily produce complete lists of the adulterers loved by Oppia, of the ill that Themison killed in one single autumn, of the allies defrauded by Basilus and orphans ensnared by Hirrus, of the men done with by lanky Maura in one single day, or of the pupils abused by Hamillus.

B The older scholia to Juvenal, p. 175 Wessner, ll. 9–21 (= 57r, 57v): 217d Besides, fever alone enlivens now his blood, which is already scanty in his cold body: as Virgil (Aeneid v 395), “the blood turns cold with protracting old age”. 219 An entire host of diseases: that is, every kind of disease, as Terentius puts it (Phormio 574), “How can yow ask? Old age is by itself a disease”. 220 I would more readily produce complete lists of the adulterers loved by Eppia: I would more easily give the names or numbers of the paramours whom Eppia loved. 221s The ill that Themison killed in one single autumn: archiater of that time, whom Juvenal discredits. 222 The allies defrauded by Basilus: ( Juvenal says) an advocate of those days, who practiced collusion. 223d The men done with by lanky Maura in one single day: Juvenal indicates that she had a foul mouth. 224d The pupils abused by Hamillus: a teacher who seduced infants.

598

  ‒  - FR 222. MACER FLORIDUS, DE

UIRIBUS HERBARUM

(1)

Macer Floridus, De uiribus herbarum, vi [= Plantago], 265–266 = p. 38 Choulant: [38] Composuit librum Themison1 de uiribus eius In quo praeclaris celebrauit laudibus illam.2

Temeson l (= Lipsiensis Paulin. 112) m (= Lipsiensis Paulin. 1220) dd (= editio Basileensis 1530) ee (= editio Friburg. Brisg.): Themeson p (= Dresdensis 160) hh (= editio Basileensis 1559): Temison g (= Guelferbitanus Extrauag. 268) y (= Guelferbitanus 58.6) 2 Composuit . . . illam om a (= Notae manu Martyni–Lagunae) 1

FR 223. MACER FLORIDUS, DE

UIRIBUS HERBARUM

(2)

Macer Floridus, De uiribus herbarum, lvi [= Elleborus albus], 1825–1832 = p. 103 Choulant: [103] Plinius ut scribit, Themison1 donare solebat Ellebori dragmas geminas; tribuisse sequentes 5 Bis binas etiam2 confirmat. Non tamen ipse Pondere quo iubeat sumi statuisse uidetur. Cum tamen Ellebori nigri iubeat dare dragmam Quattuor aut scrupulos, mihi significare uidetur Albi dimidium pondus tantummodo dandum, 10 Quod longe nigro uiolentius esse fatetur.3

a b (= Guelferbitanus 60.15): Temison d (= Guelferbitanus 55.5) p etiam a: bis etiam binas d: bis binis etiam m 3 esse uidetur l

1

2

Gingiuias

FR 224. ORIBASIUS, AD EUNAPIUM (1) Oribasius, Ad Eunapium, iv 44 = V pp. 453–454 Raeder: [453] Per‹ parvt¤dvn. [. . .] Tåw m°ntoi metr¤aw parvt¤daw, §fÉ œn mÆte pl∞yÒw §sti tÚ §pirr°on mÆtÉ ÙdÊnh b¤aiow mÆtÉ §kpuÆsevw prosdok¤a, =&d¤vw fiasÒmeya pur¤& diÉ ëlmhw1 ka‹ kataplãsmasi ka‹ farmãkoiw 1

diÉ ëlmhw Raeder (= Ra): dÉ ëlmhw Marcianus Graecus 294 (= V)

599

  ‒  - FR 222. MACER FLORIDUS, ON

THE POWERS OF PLANTS

(1)

Macer Floridus, The powers of plants, vi [= The plantain], 265–266 = p. 38 Choulant: [38] Themison wrote a book about its [sc the plantain’s] properties, In which he bestowed great praises on it.

FR 223. MACER FLORIDUS, ON

THE POWERS OF PLANTS

(2)

Macer Floridus, The powers of plants, lvi [= Elleborus albus], 1825–1832 = p. 103 Choulant: [103] As Pliny writes, Themison used to prescribe Two drachmae of hellebore; and he [sc Pliny] asserts that his [sc Themison’s] followers had allowed As much as twice two [sc drachmae]. Yet he himself [sc Pliny] does not appear to have stated To what amount he would order [sc the patients] to take it. However, since he prescribes that we administer Four drachmae or scrupuli of black hellebore, he seems to me to imply That we should administer only half of [sc that] amount of the white [sc hellebore], Because it is reputed to be much more aggressive than the black.

FR 224. ORIBASIUS, TO EUNAPIUS (1) Oribasius, To Eunapius, iv 44 = V pp. 453–454 Raeder: [453] Tumours of the parotid gland. [. . .] As for moderate tumours of the parotid gland, where what flows is not much and there is neither violent pain nor fear of suppuration, we shall cure these easily with the help of steaming in sea-water [sc vapours] and of diaphoretic plasters and

600

  ‒  -

diaforhtikvt°roiw, oÂã efisin ¥ te Mnas°ou ka‹ ≤ diå xuloË, ka‹ toÊtvn malak≈terai afl khrvto[454]eide›w, ka‹ diå boutÊrou ka‹ ofisÊpou.

FR 225. ORIBASIUS, AD EUNAPIUM (2) Oribasius, Ad Eunapium, iv 122 = V p. 492 Raeder: [492] TÚ Mnas°ou mãlagma: liyargÊrou: s gÉ §la¤ou palaioË: s bÉ 5 khroË: s aÉ Ùjugg¤ou palaiou: s aÉ frukt∞w: go stÉ

FR 226. ORIBASIUS, COLLECTIONES

MEDICAE

(1)

Oribasius, Collectiones medicae, vii 22 = I pp. 220–221 Raeder: [220] Menemãxou: per‹ bdell«n. “Prosbãllontai to›w peponyÒsi tÒpoiw 10 afl bd°llai µ to›w sÊnegguw élip°sin: épostr°fei går aÈt«n tØn ˆrejin tÚ ¶laion. Efiw stenÒthta d¢ kalãmou stenoË mØ dianta¤vw1 tetrhm°nou kayi°menai µ p«ma2 kala[221]m¤skou ≥ ti ˜moion. TÚ d¢ pl∞yow aÈt«n lhpt°on3 §k dÊo megey«n, toË te tÒpou ka‹ toË pãyouw. ÉAfairo›nto dÉ ín4 §la¤ou yermoË to›w xe¤lesin aÈt«n parastaxy°ntow.5 TÚ d¢ dhk15 tikÚn6 t«n èl«n7 §p‹ t«n •lkoum°nvn §kklit°on.8 TÚ d¢ metå tØn éfa¤resin §pirr°on §piteye‹w §p°xei dãktulow. TÚ d¢ pl∞yow t∞w §kkr¤sevw §mfa¤netai m¢n ka‹ tª diory≈sei9 t«n bdell«n, §narg°steron d¢ g¤netai sunaxy°n, ˜tan xvrisye›sai t«n svmãtvn épem°svsi tÚ aÂma. Stragg«w10 dÉ aÈt«n §mfuom°nvn, émukt°on §pipola¤vw11 toÁw tÒpouw oÂw prosã20 gontai: geusãmenai går a·matow Ùr°gontai mçllon aÈtoË.”

Ra < C2 (= corr Cantab. Coll. S. Ioan. A 6): diant°vw codd 2 corr Ra: pÒma codd 3 lept°on A Parisinus Gr. 2189) 4 bis A (= Neapolitanus III D 20) 5 parastaxy°ntaw A 6 deiktikÚn C N 7 corr C2: êllvn codd 8 corr Bussemaker– Daremberg (= BD) > Ra: §kklht°on A N: §klht°on C 9 diy≈sei A 10 corr Matthaei: strãggow codd 11 Ra: §pipol°vw codd 1

601

  ‒  -

medicines—such as the [sc plaster] of Mnaseas, the [sc plaster] of juice and, softer than these, the ones that resemble cerates, [454] both the one [sc prepared] with butter and the one [sc prepared] with sheep-wool grease.

FR 225. ORIBASIUS, TO EUNAPIUS (2) Oribasius, To Eunapius, iv 122 = V p. 492 Raeder: [492] The emollient plaster of Mnaseas: three litrae of litharge; two litrae of old olive oil; one litra of bees-wax; one litra of old swine fat; six ounces of phrukte.

FR 226. ORIBASIUS, MEDICAL

COLLECTIONS

(1)

Oribasius, Medical collections, vii 22 = I pp. 220–221 Raeder: [220] [sc Excerpts] from Menemachus: leeches. “Leeches are applied to the affected parts or to the nearest non-fatty parts; for oil puts them off. They are sent [sc into the body] along the diameter of a narrow tube, not perforated lengthways, or [sc along] the mouth of a phial [221] or something like that. We should derive their [sc the leeches’] number from two magnitudes, [sc that of ] the place [sc affected] and [sc that of ] the affection. They [sc Leeches] are removed by forcing hot olive-oil through their lips. We must protect the wounded patients from the pungency of salts. The flow [sc which continues] after their [sc the leeches’] removal is checked by pressing [sc it] with the thumb. The abundant character of the secretion shows even in the straightening of the leeches; but it appears more clearly once it [sc the secretion] has been drawn, when they [sc the leeches], separated from the body, will vomit the blood. As they get implanted one after another, the places to which they are applied must be lightly scarified; for once they tasted blood they would reach after more.”

602

  ‒  - FR 227. ORIBASIUS, COLLECTIONES

MEDICAE

(2)

Oribasius, Collectiones medicae, x 14 = II p. 58 Raeder: [58] ÉEk t«n Menemãxou: per‹ yil≈yrou. “TÚ d¢ c¤lvyron §lÆfyh m¢n §k kommvtik∞w. ÉEpipola¤vw1 d¢ tØn sãrka émÊssei: d∞lon ¶k te toË foinigmoË ka‹ t∞w Ïlhw kaustik∞w2 oÎshw: §mbradÊnan dÉ •lko› ka‹ fluktaino›3 tØn §pifãneian. ÉApole¤petai d¢ t∞w §nerge¤aw toË dr≈pakow: 5 toËto m¢n går §ò tØn sãrka truferãn, ı d¢ dr≈paj eÈtrofvt°ran poie› ka‹ muvdest°ran. ÉOxlhrå dÉ §st‹n ≤ xr∞siw aÈtoË: proaposm∞ja¤4 te går §k toË s≈matow de› tÚ §lai«dew (oÈk ín5 går ëcaito) ka‹ xrÒnon g¤nesyai §n tª xrÆsei: diÚ ka‹ tåw prostãdaw6 §n aÂw paralambãnetai7 deÆsei metr¤vw éleeinåw e‰nai prÚw tÚ mØ kataluy∞nai t∞n dÊnamin.”

corr Ra: §pipolevw codd 2 kautik∞w A C 3 corr BD > Ra: flukta¤nei A: floikta¤nei C 4 prosaposm¤jai codd 5 corr N ex oÈ 6 Ra: prÚw pÒdaw C A2: pastãdaw ci BD 7 paralambãnetai §pilouss¤aw add C A2 1

FR 228. ORIBASIUS, COLLECTIONES

MEDICAE

(3)

Oribasius, Collectiones medicae, x 41 = II pp. 78–79 Raeder: 10 [78] GalhnoË: per‹ t«n metasugkritik«n kaloum°nvn bohyhmãtvn. “Pãntvn t«n §p‹ ple›ston xronizÒntvn pay«n, ˜tan mhd¢n énÊ˙1 tå bohyÆmata, tØn ‘metasugkritikØn’ ÍpÚ t«n Meyodik«n Ùnomazom°nhn yerape¤an ëpantew sxedÚn2 efi≈yasi poie›syai. ÉEg∆ dÉ §fÉ œn ≥toi [79] duskras¤a tiw Ígrå ka‹ cuxrå to›w pãsxousi mor¤oiw §st¤n, aÈtØ3 kayÉ 15 •autØn 4 diå cuxrÒthta toioÊtvn xum«n gegenhm°nh, tå diå nãpuow ka‹ yac¤aw ka‹ t«n ımo¤vn aÈto›w prosf°rv fãrmaka: {ka‹}5 ta›w jhra›w d¢ ka‹ yerma›w oÈ prosf°rv. To›w m°ntoi 6 dunam°noiw gnvr¤zein tåw diay°seiw ≤ katafugÆ, kayãper §p‹ tØn kaloum°nhn flerån êgkuran, efiw toiaËta7 g¤netai fãrmaka, ka‹ diå toËto pollãkiw énÊousi 20 tÚ d°on8—˜ti to›w ple¤stoiw t«n ényr≈pvn afl toiaËtai diay°seiw §noxloËsi moxyhr«w diaitvm°noiw.”9

corr BD > Ra: aÏth codd 4 add BD Ra e Galeno del BD Ra < G 6 add BD Ra < G 7 efiw tå toiaËta add BD < G (= G) 8 énÊousi d¢ d°on C 9 corr BD Ra < G: toÁw ple¤stouw . . . diaitoum°nouw codd 1

éno¤h A 5

2

skedÚn C

3

603

  ‒  - FR 227. ORIBASIUS, MEDICAL

COLLECTIONS

(2)

Oribasius, Medical collections, x 14 = II p. 58 Raeder: [58] Excerpts from Menemachus: the depilatory. “The depilatory has been borrowed from cosmetics. It scratches the skin, superficially: this is obvious both from the reddening and from the fact that its [sc the depilatory’s] material is corrosive; if it were to remain for a long time it would generate wounds and blisters on the surface skin. Its activity is inferior to that of the pitch-plaster; for the present one leaves the flesh tender, whereas the pitch-plaster makes it healthier and more muscular. It is troublesome to use: for any oil must be whipped off the body beforehand (otherwise it would not catch), and the application is time-consuming; for this reason even the porch where it is used will have to be heated by the sun, so that it [sc the depilatory] may not loose its power.”

FR 228. ORIBASIUS, MEDICAL

COLLECTIONS

(3)

Oribasius, Medical collections, x 41 = II pp. 78–79 Raeder: [78] [sc Excerpts] from Galen: the remedies called metasyncritic. “For all the affections which become basically chronic, when the remedies bring no succour, almost all [sc the doctors] are in the habit of applying the therapy which the Methodists call ‘metasyncritic’. In cases where there is [79] humid or cold duskrasia in the affected parts, be it generated on its own or from the coldness of the humours in question, I for one administer medicines made of mustard, thapsia, and suchlike; but I do not administer them in cases of dry and hot [sc duskrasia]. Those, however, who are not capable of recognising the states take refuge in such medicines as if they were the so-called sacred anchor; and often the reason why they accomplish the right thing is that in most cases such states give trouble to people because they pursue the wrong regimen.”

604

  ‒  - FR 229. ORIBASIUS, COLLECTIONES

MEDICAE

(4)

Oribasius, Collectiones medicae, xlv 29 = III pp. 184 + 187 Raeder: [184] ÉEk t«n Filoum°nou: t¤w yerape¤a §lefantiãsevw. [187] “Ka¤toi ge Yem¤svn pçn êleimma polemi≈taton to›w §lefanti«sin1 e‰na¤ fhsi, lÒgƒ ka‹ oÈx‹ tª pe¤r& prosesxhk≈w: malãssetai m¢n går ÍpÚ t«n éleimmãtvn ≤ sÊgkrisiw, aÈxmhrå d¢ m°nousa ka‹ per¤jhrow =Ægnutai 5 =&d¤vw: Àste toÁw katå t∞w §pifane¤aw ˆxyouw dusaly«w •lkoËsyai parå tØn afit¤an taÊthn sumba¤nei.”

1

§lefant¤vsin R (= Vaticanus Graecus 1885)

FR 230. ORIBASIUS, COLLECTIONES

MEDICAE

(5)

Oribasius, Collectiones medicae, xlix 1 = IV p. 4 Raeder: [4] ÉEk t«n ÑHliod≈rou: per‹ diaforçw katartism«n. “Tre›w efisin afl genika‹ ka‹ …sane‹ ılosxere›w diafora‹ t«n katartism«n. Ofl m¢n går aÈt«n l°gontai palaistriko‹ trÒpoi, katå1 tÚ ple›ston diå cil«n 10 xeir«n teleioÊmenoi: ésyene›w ˆntew eÈyetoËsin §p‹ t«n eÈaf«n svmãtvn, paidik«n te ka‹ gunaike¤vn, §pÉ érrenik«n te t«n ¶ti toÊtvn2 fisxurot°rvn ˜tan ¶ti ¬ prÒsfata 3 ÙlisyÆmata. Ofl d¢ Meyodiko‹ katartismo¤, diå t«n koin«n toË b¤ou §rgale¤vn sunteloÊmenoi, t«n palaistrik«n trÒpvn efis‹n fisxurÒteroi: eÈyetoËsi dÉ §p‹ pãntvn érrenikoter«n yhlei«n, 15 §pÉ érr°nvn t«n ≥dh fisxurot°rvn4 §p¤ te t«n neanik«n svmãtvn ka‹ t«n ≥dh katå posÚn kexronikÒtvn Ùlisyhmãtvn. Ofl dÉ Ùrganiko‹ katartismo‹ toÊtvn efis‹ praktik≈teroi: ka‹ går §p‹ t«n xron¤vn eÈyetoËsi ka‹ §p‹ t«n éylhtik«n svmãtvn, pãnta te ˜sa yerapeutå5 ÙlisyÆmata mØ dÊnantai ofl Meyodiko‹6 trÒpoi katart¤sai, taËta diå t«n Ùrganik«n7 20 katart¤zetai.”

katå om R 2 t«n ≥dh BD 3 add BD > R 4 ci ego: érrenik«n te ka‹ t«n ¶ti toÊtvn fisxurot°rvn BD: §p‹ pãntvn éndr«n, yelei«n §pÉ érr°nvn t«n ≥dh fisxurot°rvn Ra 5 …w éyerãpeuta R1 6 meyoliko‹ R 7 corr BD > Ra: Ùrgãnvn 1

codd

605

  ‒  - FR 229. ORIBASIUS, MEDICAL

COLLECTIONS

(4)

Oribasius, Medical collections, xlv 29 = III pp. 184 + 187 Raeder: [184] Excerpts from Philumenus: treatment of elephantiasis. [187] “It is true that Themison claims that any unguent is extremely inimical to patients who suffer from elephantiasis, but [sc in so doing] he was paying heed to reasoning rather than experience; for a collection [sc of pus] is softened by oily unguents, whereas if you leave it parched and all dry it breaks loose more easily; thus it is for this reason that surface tubercles come to develop stubborn ulcerations.”

FR 230. ORIBASIUS, MEDICAL

COLLECTIONS

(5)

Oribasius, Medical collections, xlix 1 = IV p. 4 Raeder: [4] Excerpts from Heliodorus: the differentia of settings for the limb. “There are three differentiae of the settings [sc for the limb], both within the genus and, as it were, absolutely. Some of them are known as wrestling modes, since they are achieved for the most part with bare hands; being weak, they are suitable for delicate bodies, those of children and women, and for male bodies which are still stronger than theirs, when the fractures are recent. The Methodist settings are stronger than the wrestling modes, as they are achieved through the common instruments of [sc everyday] life; they are suitable for all the female [sc bodies] which are more like those of males, for male [sc bodies] which are still quite strong, for vigorous young bodies, and for fractures which have already become chronic to some extent. The instrumental settings are more efficacious than the above; for they are suitable both for chronic [sc fractures] and for athletic bodies, and all the curable fractures which the Methodist modes cannot set are set through the instrumental [sc modes].”

606

  ‒  - FR 231. ORIBASIUS, ECLOGAE

MEDICAMENTORUM

Oribasius, Eclogae medicamentorum, xcii 7 = IV pp. 270 + 271 Raeder: [270] KoinÒterai §pispastika‹ sklhr¤aw dialÊousai, ımo¤vw ka‹ tåw skirrvye¤saw flegmonãw. [271] TÚ Mnas°ou: liyargÊrou, §la¤ou palaioË, pimel∞w Íe¤aw palaiçw ‡sa ımoË ßce. Tin¢w t“ §la¤ƒ ka‹ t“ l¤pei prosecoËsin, ßvw cugª, élya¤aw s aÉ µ 5 go stÉ.

FR 232. ORIBASIUS, SYNOPSIS

AD

EUSTATHIUM (1)

Oribasius, Synopsis ad Eustathium, i 34 = V p. 26 Raeder: [34] < ÉEk t«n>1 GalhnoË:2 per‹ t«n metasugkritik«n kaloum°nvn bohyhmãtvn. “Pãntvn t«n §p‹ ple›ston xronizÒntvn pay«n, ˜tan mhd¢n énÊ˙ tå bohyÆmata, tØn ‘metasugkritikØn’3 ÍpÚ t«n Meyodik«n Ùnomazom°nhn4 yerape¤an ëpantew sxedÚn efi≈yasi poie›syai. ÉEg∆ dÉ §fÉ œn 10 ≥toi duskras¤a tiw Ígrå ka‹ cuxrå to›w pãsxousi mor¤oiw §st¤,5 tå diå nãpuow6 ka‹ yac¤aw ka‹ t«n ımo¤vn aÈto›w prosf°rv fãrmaka: ta›w jhra›w d¢ ka‹ yerma›w oÈ prosf°rv. Pollãkiw dÉ oÈk énÊousi tÚ d°on ofl mØ7 diagign≈skontew tåw diay°seiw, ˜ti to›w ple¤stoiw t«n ényr≈pvn afl cuxra‹ ka‹ Ígra‹ diay°seiw §noxloËsi moxyhr«w diaitvm°noiw.” add BD > Ra 2 om P (= Parisinus Graecus 2188) 3 metasukritikØn P mazom°nvn P 5 §sti d¢ add P 6 tå nãpuow P 7 ofl oÈk P 1

FR 233. ORIBASIUS, SYNOPSIS

AD

EUSTATHIUM (2)

Oribasius, Synopsis ad Eustathium, iii 56 = V p. 83 Raeder: 15 [83] Mãlagma Mnas°ou: §la¤ou s aÉ khroË s aÉ1 liyargÊrou s gÉ st°atow Íe¤ou s aÉ frukt∞w go stÉ.

20 1

mãlagma . . . s aÉ om P

4

Ùno-

  ‒  - FR 231. ORIBASIUS, SELECTION

607

OF MEDICINES

Oribasius, Selection of medicines, xcii 7 = IV pp. 270 + 271 Raeder: [270] More common drawing-in medicines which break up indurations, as well as hardened inflammations. [271] [sc The medicine] of Mnaseas: boil together equal parts of litharge, old olive oil, and lard from an old sow. In the oil and fat, some people boil previously one litra or six ounces of marsh-mallow until it dries out.

FR 232. ORIBASIUS, SYNOPSIS

FOR

EUSTATHIUS (1)

Oribasius, Synopsis for Eustathius, i 34 = V p. 26 Raeder: [34] Excerpts from Galen: the remedies called metasyncritic. “For all the affections which become basically chronic, when the remedies bring no succour, almost all [sc the doctors] are in the habit of applying the therapy which the Methodists call ‘metasyncritic’. In cases where there is humid or cold duskrasia in the affected parts, I for one administer medicines made of mustard, thapsia, and suchlike; but I do not administer them in cases of dry and hot [sc duskrasia]. But those who do not recognise the states often fail to accomplish the right thing, because in most cases cold and humid states give trouble to people when they pursue the wrong regimen.”

FR 233. ORIBASIUS, SYNOPSIS

FOR

EUSTATHIUS (2)

Oribasius, Synopsis for Eustathius, iii 56 = V p. 83 Raeder: [83] The emollient plaster of Mnaseas: one litra of olive oil; one litra of bees-wax; one litra of litharge; one litra of swine fat; six ounces of phrukte.

608

  ‒  - FR 234. ORIBASIUS, SYNOPSIS

AD

EUSTATHIUM (3)

Oribasius, Synopsis ad Eustathium, iii 75 = V p. 87 Raeder: [87] ÉEk t«n Filoum°nou:1 tÚ Mnas°ou kleid¤on: khk›dow Ùmfak¤tidow, Ípokist¤dow, stupthr¤aw stroggÊlhw, ékak¤aw, =oË toË §p‹ tå ˆca, sid¤vn jhr«n, sel¤nou sp°rmatow: énå go aÉ fijoË dru˝nou: < dÉ émmvniakoË: < dÉ 5 p¤sshw jhrçw: < bÉ khroË: < dÉ §la¤ou murs¤nou µ sxin¤nou:2 go dÉ. De›3 d¢ tåw khk›daw ka‹ tå s¤dia4 ßcein o‡nou5 ku yÉ m°xri leifyª tÚ 10 tr¤ton m°row, e‰ta kÒcai ka‹ s∞sai6 prÚw tå loipå sÁn t“7 o‡nƒ, tÚ dÉ émmvniakÚn ˆjei leia¤nein m°xri melit≈douw sustãsevw, tÚn fijÚn d¢ metå brax°ow §la¤ou malãssein, e‰ta tØn p¤ssan ëma ka‹ tÚn khrÚn suntethkÒta8 metå toË Ípoleipom°nou9 §la¤ou §pixe›n pçsi ka‹ lea¤nein, ¶peita kÒptein §n ˜lmƒ m°xriw •nvyª.

filoum°nvn P 2 sxin¤nou µ murs¤nou P 3 xrØ P P 6 kÒce . . . s∞se P 7 t“ om P 8 sunthk°tv P 1

codd

FR 235. ORIBASIUS, SYNOPSIS

AD

4

ka‹ tå s¤dia om P 5 o‡nv corr BD: époleipom°nou

9

EUSTATHIUM (4)

Oribasius, Synopsis ad Eustathium, iii 103 = V pp. 95–96 Raeder: 15 [95] PodagrikÚw ı PrÒklou. ÉIçtai podãgran ka‹ fisxiãda1 ka‹ kayÒlou pãsaw éryr¤tidaw ka‹ pÒnouw pãntaw §pÉ §niautÚn pinÒmenow,2 ka‹ pçsan3 a‡syhsin ékribest°ran épergãzetai kaya¤rvn prñvw diÉ oÎrvn,4 ka‹ tÚ ˜lon s«ma ÍgieinÒteron kataskeuãzei:5 fiçtai6 ka‹ §pilhc¤aw, sk¤rrouw ¥patow ka‹ splhnÒw:7 xama¤druow: go yÉ8 20 kentaure¤ou leukoË9 §gkãrpou: go hÉ10 ka‹ prÚw fisxiãda A (= Laurentianus Graecus 74, 17) 2 ka‹ pÒnouw pãntaw §pÉ §niautÚn pinÒmenow om A 3 ka‹ prÚw pçsan add A 4 ékribest°ran épergãzetai kaya¤rvn prñvw diÉ oÎrvn om A: épergãzhtai P 5 ÍgieinÒteron kataskeuãzei om A 6 fiçtai d¢ add A 7 oÏtv fiçtai pãnta pÒnon ka‹ tØn a‡syhsin ékribest°ran §rgãzetai kaya¤rvn prãvw diÉ oÎrvn éllå ka‹ pÒdaw fiçtai §pÉ §niautÚn pinÒmenow ka‹ fisxiãda d¢ ka‹ éryr¤tida ka‹ §pilhc¤an ka‹ ¥pata ka‹ spl∞naw post splhnÒw add A 8 hÉ A 9 leptoË A > BD 10 bÉ A 1

  ‒  - FR 234. ORIBASIUS, SYNOPSIS

FOR

609

EUSTATHIUS (3)

Oribasius, Synopsis for Eustathius, iii 75 = V p. 87 Raeder: [87] Excerpts from Philumenus: the kleidion of Mnaseas: unripe oak-galls, hypocist, round stupteria, acacia, sumach for cooking, dry pomegranate-peels, celery seeds: one ounce of each; four drachmae of oak-mistletoe; four drachmae of gum-ammoniac; two drachmae of dry pitch; four drachmae of bees-wax; four ounces of myrtle-oil or mastich-oil. You should boil the oak-galls and the pomegranate-peel in nine kyathoi of wine until the quantity is reduced to a third, then pound and sift them before the others, in the wine, emulsify the gum-ammoniac in vinegar to the consistency of honey, soften the mistletoe with a small [sc quantity of ] olive oil, melt together the pitch and bees-wax and pour them, with the rest of the oil, over all [sc the ingredients], make an emulsion [sc out of them], then pound them in a kneading-trough until they form one [sc substance].

FR 235. ORIBASIUS, SYNOPSIS

FOR

EUSTATHIUS (4)

Oribasius, Synopsis for Eustathius, iii 103 = V pp. 95–96 Raeder: [95] Proclus’ medicine for podagra. If drunk over [sc a period of ] one year, it [sc Proclus’ medicine] cures podagra, sciatica, and in general any [sc kind of ] disease and pain in the joints; it makes all the senses more alert by purging [sc them] mildly through urination, and it sets the whole body in a healthier condition; it also cures epilepsia and indurations in the liver or spleen: nine ounces of germander; eight ounces of white centaury bearing fruit;

610

  ‒  -

éristolox¤aw makrçw11 Ùrein∞w: go zÉ gentian∞w étrÆtou:12 go stÉ ÍperikoË: go eÉ petrosel¤nou: go gÉ foË: go gÉ 5 égarikoË: go aÉ m°litow: k bÉ. KÒpte ka‹ s∞ye fid¤&13 ßkaston ka‹ m¤jaw mãlasse14 t“ m°liti ka‹ kÒcaw plãsse trox¤skouw énå < aÉ. ÑH d¢ xr∞siw ka‹ pÒsiw eÈp°ptƒ per‹ 10 Àran tr¤thn metå tÚ diakexvrhk°nai tØn gast°ra. ÉAni°syv15 dÉ Ïdati yerm“16 kuãyoiw dus¤, ka‹ lab∆n badiz°tv µ afivre¤syv. ÑH dÉ érxØ t∞w pÒsevw mØ §n y°rei gen°syv, éllÉ ¶n tini t«n êllvn …r«n. Diãsthma d¢ prÚw tÚ loutrÚn µ tØn trofØn œrai tre›w ¶stvsan. ÉApeptÆsanti d¢17 pãntvw fulakt°a m¢n18 ≤ pÒsiw, énaplhroÊsyv dÉ ı t«n toË §niautoË 15 ≤mer«n ériymÒw. ÖEstv dÉ 19 ≤ d¤aita eÎxumow, eÎpeptow, mØ plhsmonØn §rgazom°nh. [96] Krãmbhn dÉ §sy¤ein to›w éryritiko›w20 parain«: ¶xei gãr ti éntipay°w:21 o‡nƒ d¢ summ°trƒ xr∞syai de›22 ka‹ summ°trvw kekram°nƒ metå tØn trofÆn.

11 15 19

makrçw om P 12 étrÊtou P 13 kÒcaw ka‹ s∞saw fid¤vw P 14 mãlasson P §ni°syv P 16 Ïdatow yermoË A > BD 17 épeptÆsanti m¢n P 18 mØn BD dÉ om P 20 éyrhtiko›w P 21 éntipaxy¢w P 22 de› del BD

FR 236. ORIBASIUS, SYNOPSIS

AD

EUSTATHIUM (5)

Oribasius, Synopsis ad Eustathium, ix 4 = V p. 276 Raeder: [276] Per‹ fy¤sevw. [. . .] XrÒnou d¢ parelyÒntow, §p‹ tåw khrvtåw 20 metabat°on tåw diå boutÊrou ka‹ dafn¤nou1 ka‹ kupr¤nou ka‹ ‡revw: metå d¢ taËta malãgmati xrhst°on, tÚ m¢n pr«ton t“ diå2 tessãrvn §k khroË ka‹ terebiny¤nhw ka‹ ‡revw ka‹ Íss≈pou3 ‡svn, metå d¢ taËta §mplãstrƒ tª Mnas°ou: =eumatizom°nvn d¢ t«n tÒpvn, tØn diÉ fite«n prosakt°on.

ka‹ dafn¤nou om Laurentianus Graecus 74, 15 (= F) ktl om P

1

2

t«n diå P

3

Íss≈pou

  ‒  -

611

seven ounces of long birth-wort from the mountains; six ounces of unperforated gentian; five ounces of huperikon; three ounces of parsley; three ounces of phou; one ounce of agarikon; two kotyloi of honey. Pound and sift each [sc ingredient] separately, mix them and soften them with honey, pound them, and shape little pills of one drachma each out of them. If you have a good digestion, you should make use of it [sc the medicine] and drink it around the third hour after evacuating the bowels. Dissolve it in two kyathoi of warm water, and take a walk or let yourself swing [sc in a hammock] after you swallow it. Don’t start drinking it during the summer but during some other season. There should be an interval of three hours before the bath or the meal. If you suffer at all from indigestion, drink it with great care, and conflate the number of days in the year. Have a regimen which is rich in good juices, easy to digest, and does not produce satiety. [96] To those afflicted with diseases of the joints I do recommend eating cabbage, for it has a counter-action of a kind; and with their food they should take a moderate amount of wine, moderately mixed [sc with water].

FR 236. ORIBASIUS, SYNOPSIS

FOR

EUSTATHIUS (5)

Oribasius, Synopsis for Eustathius, ix 4 = V p. 276 Raeder: [276] Consumption. [. . .] After a period of time, we should move on to [sc using] cerates made of butter, bay-oil, henna-oil, and iris; after this we should use an emollient plaster—first, the one of four equal parts, made of bees-wax, turpentine, iris, and hyssop; next, the emollient plaster of Mnaseas; and, when the places begin to suffer from flux, we should resort to the [sc plaster] of willows.

612

  ‒  -

FR 237+DUB. PALLADIUS, IN GALENI DE

SECTIS COMMENTARIUM

Palladius, In Galeni De sectis commentarium, Codex Laurentianus Pluteus 74, 11, fol. 208r = 24 p. 77 Baffioni: [77] SunestÆsanto tØn ÉEmpeirikØn ÖAkrvn ı ÉAkragant›now, Fil›now ı K“ow, Serap¤vn ı ÉAlejandre›ow, S°jtow ı ÉApoll≈niow: tØn LogikØn ÑIppokrãthw, Diokl∞w, PrajagÒraw, FilÒtimow, ÉEras¤stratow, ÉAsklh5 piãdhw: tØn MeyodikØn Yem¤svn ı LaodikeÊw, Y°ssalow, M°nendow,1 S≈ranow.

M°nendow pro Men°maxow puto (uide et Temkin BHM 3 1935 p. 419, n. 72a, “wrong spelling of Menemachus or of Menendus”) 1

FR 238. PAULUS AEGINETA, EPITOMAE

MEDICAE

(1)

Paulus Aegineta, Epitomae medicae, III xv, 3 = I pp. 158–159 Heiberg: [3, 158] Per‹ §fiãltou.1 TÚn §fiãlthn ofl m¢n épÉ2 éndrÚw3 »nomãsyai l°gousin µ4 épÚ toË fantasioËsyai toÁw §n aÈt“ ginom°nouw …w §fallom°nou tinÒw: Yem¤svn d¢ diå toË dekãtou5 t«n ÉEpistolik«n pni10 gal¤vna prosvnÒmasen, [159] ‡svw épÚ toË pn¤gein.

per‹ §fiãltou Parisinus Graecus 2207 (= C) Parisinus Graecus 2216 + 2217 (= E) Parisinus Graecus 2292 (= F) Patmiacus 208 (= G): per‹ toË §fiãltou Parisinus Graecus 2205 (= A) Parisinus Graecus 2206 (= B) Parisinus Graecus 2208 (= D) Laurentianus Graecus LXXIV 29 + Florentinus Bibl. nat. 44 (= H) Athous Vatop. 535 (= K) Athous Lawr. G 90 (= M) 2 ÍpÚ K in marg 3 éndrÒw tinow add D 4 l°gousin ofl d¢ C G: l°gousin ofl d¢ ka‹ D 5 §n t“ dekãtƒ D 1

FR 239DUB. PAULUS AEGINETA, EPITOMAE

MEDICAE

(2)

Paulus Aegineta, Epitomae medicae, III xxii, 22 = I pp. 179 + 180 Heiberg: [22, 179] Per‹ propt≈sevw. [180] ÉAristeÊei d¢ katå tåw propt≈seiw ka‹ tå ßlkh pãnta tÚ ÉOlumpiakÚn µ ÖOlumpow kaloÊmenon, metå xuloË

613

  ‒  - FR 237+DUB. PALLADIUS, COMMENTARY

ON

GALEN’S ON

SECTS

Palladius, Commentary on Galen’s On sects, Codex Laurentianus Pluteus 74, 11, fol 208r = 24 p. 77 Baffioni: [77] Those who founded the Empirical [sc hairesis] are Acron of Agrigentum, Philinus of Cos, Serapion of Alexandria, Sextus of Apollonia; the Logical [sc hairesis], Hippocrates, Diocles, Praxagoras, Philotimus, Erasistratus, Asclepiades; the Methodist [sc hairesis], Themison of Laodicea, Thessalus, Menendus [= Menemachus?], Soranus.

FR 238. PAULUS

OF

AEGINA, MEDICAL

EPITOME

(1)

Paulus of Aegina, Medical epitome, III, xv, 3 = I pp. 158–159 Heiberg: [3, 158] Nightmare. Some people argue that nightmare [ephialtes] has been named after a man, or after the fact that those who are caught in it imagine that something springs upon them; but Themison in book x of his Letters has called it “pnigalion”, [159] probably from “choking” [ pnigein].

FR 239DUB. PAULUS

OF

AEGINA, MEDICAL

EPITOME

(2)

Paulus of Aegina, Medical epitome, III xxii, 22 = I pp. 179 + 180 Heiberg: [22, 179] Prolapse. [180] Also good for prolapses and all wounds is the so-called Olympiac or Olympos, with juice of olives, knot-grass, or polium:

614

  ‒  -

§la¤aw µ polugÒnou µ pol¤ou: tå dÉ aÈtå taËta ka‹ to›w ¥loiw èrmÒzei ka‹ to›w staful≈masi1 pr‹n µ leukvy∞nai:2 leukvy°nta3 dÉ µ4 tulvy°nta t«n éniãtvn §st¤n.

1

D

ka‹ to›w staful≈masi C2 in marg: om F G 4 går µ D

2

leukany∞nai D E

FR 240. PAULUS AEGINETA, EPITOMAE

MEDICAE

3

leukany°nta

(3)

Paulus Aegineta, Epitomae medicae, III xxiii, 13 = I pp. 192 + 193 Heiberg: [13, 192] Per‹ parvt¤dvn.1 [193] Tåw d¢ sklhrunye¤saw ≥dh malãttei 5 ¥ te Mnasa¤ou ka‹ ≤ ÉAriobarzãniow: kall¤sth d¢ ka‹ ≤ diå toË xuloË toË linosp°rmou. PrÚ d° ge toÊtvn kataplãttein aÈtåw2 toË émmvniakoË, mignÊntaw to›w kataplãsmasi p¤sshw Ígrçw µ st°atow taure¤ou µ bdell¤ou µ stÊrakow µ §lafe¤ou mueloË.

1

parvt¤dow A E

2

corr M ex aÈtoÁw

FR 241. PAULUS AEGINETA, EPITOMAE

MEDICAE

(4)

Paulus Aegineta, Epitomae medicae, III xxxi–xxxii, 1–2 = I pp. 216 + 217 Heiberg: [1, 216] Per‹ §mpÊvn ka‹ fy¤sevw. [2, 217] Kataplass°syvsan d¢ katÉ 10 érxåw1 t«n én°sevn to›w diå linosp°rmou ka‹ gÊrevw diÉ éfecÆmatow tÆlevw µ malãxhw, §la¤ou te ka‹ m°litow ka‹ fÊllvn élya¤aw. XrÒnou d¢ parelhluyÒtow, §p‹ tåw khrvtåw metabat°on tåw diå boutÊrou ka‹ kupr¤nou ka‹ dafn¤nou ka‹ ‡revw: ka‹ tª Mnasa¤ou d¢ xrhst°on §mplãstrƒ.

1

katå tåw érxåw D K

615

  ‒  -

such [sc substances] are also suitable for warts and for staphylomas, before they turn white: if they have turned white or callous, it [sc the disease] belongs in the class of incurable diseases.

FR 240. PAULUS

OF

AEGINA, MEDICAL

EPITOME

(3)

Paulus of Aegina, Medical epitome, III xxiii, 13 = I pp. 192 + 193 Heiberg: [13, 192] Tumours of the parotid gland. [193] In cases where it [sc the tumour] is already hardened, the [sc plaster] of Mnaseas or that of Ariobarzanis softens it; also extremely good is the [sc plaster] made of flaxseed juice. Before [sc applying] these, plaster them [sc the hardened tumours] in gum-ammoniac, having mixed into the plasters raw pitch, oxen suet, bdelion, storax, or deer-marrow.

FR 241. PAULUS

OF

AEGINA, MEDICAL

EPITOME

(4)

Paulus of Aegina, Medical epitome, III xxxi–xxxii, 1–2 = I pp. 216 + 217 Heiberg: [1, 216] Suppurations and consumption. [2, 217] At the beginning of remissions, make sure that they [sc the suppurations which have developed into consumption] are covered in plasters made of flaxseed and pollen [sc treated] in a decoction of fenugreek or mallow, olive-oil, honey, and marshmallow. When time has passed, we should turn to cerates made with butter, henna-oil, bay-oil, and iris; the plaster of Mnaseas is also to be used.

616

  ‒  - FR 242. PAULUS AEGINETA, EPITOMAE

MEDICAE

(5)

Paulus Aegineta, Epitomae medicae, III xlvi, 1 + 6 = I pp. 249 + 254 Heiberg: [1, 249] Per‹ t«n toË ¥patow pay«n. [6, 254] T∞w d¢ flegmon∞w §rusipelat≈douw genom°nhw,1 tØn yerape¤an ¶mprosyen efirÆkamen. ÉApostãsevw d¢ genom°nhw, sunerght°on tª surrÆjei kataplãttonta2 m¢n t“ trisp°rmƒ3 metå =ht¤nhw, mãnnhw, p¤sshw, élya¤aw =iz«n,4 peris5 terçw kÒprou, spurãyvn afig«n, propot¤zonta5 d¢ éf°chma pol¤ou, kapnoË toË §n ta›w kriya›w épotritvy°n, éf°chma6 ylãspevw7 µ kixvr¤ou ka‹ xama¤druow =¤zhw:8 surrÆjevw d¢ genom°nhw, mel¤kratÒn te ka‹9 tå §p‹ t«n •lkvy°ntvn nefr«n efirhm°na, ¶jvyen d¢ tØn Mnasa¤ou10 ka‹ tå loipå malaktikå ka‹ tØn ÑIkes¤ou11 §piyet°on µ tØn diå t«n fite«n.12 oÎshw E (gr. genom°nhw in marg.) 2 kataplãttontaw D 3 tÚ tr¤spermon D metå p¤tthw mãnnhw élya¤aw =¤zhw D 5 propot¤zontaw D 6 pol¤ou, kapnoË toË §n ta›w kriya›w épotritvy°n, éf°chma om D 7 pol¤ou ylãspevw K: pol¤ou E 8 =¤zhw pin°tv insertuit B3 9 te èrmÒsei ka‹ D 10 metå tØn Mnasa¤ou K: toË Mnasa¤ou C F G 11 ego: tØn flk°sion Heiberg (= He) 12 diÉ fit°vn ¶mplastron D 1 4

FR 243. PAULUS AEGINETA, EPITOMAE

MEDICAE

(6)

Paulus Aegineta, Epitomae medicae, III lxiv, 1+3 = I pp. 279 + 281 Heiberg: 10 [1, 279] Per‹ flegmon∞w Íst°raw ka‹ paregkl¤sevw. [3, 281] PrÚw d¢ tåw1 metå sklhr¤aw flegmonåw tØn tetrafãrmakon2 =od¤nƒ lÊsaw prost¤yei µ ¶gxei. Ka‹ tåw paregkl¤seiw d¢ katå m¢n toÁw parojusmoÁw §mfer«w ta›w flegmona›w yerapeut°on, §n d¢ ta›w én°sesi ka‹ parakma›w malaktikvt°roiw, xronisãntvn3 d¢ to›w metasugkritiko›w, ¶jvyen d¢ 15 sklhr¤aw oÎshw malãgmasi xrhst°on: t“ diå melil≈tvn, t“ Mnas°ou, tª ÑIkes¤ou,4 tª mhl¤n˙5 Sarap¤vnow µ tª pur¤nh. tåw om K 2 tÆn te fãrmakon K 3 xrhst°on xronisãntvn D G: xrhst°on ka‹ xronisãntvn F: ka‹ xronisãntvn A B E H K M: xronisãntvn d¢ to›w metasugkritiko›w om interpretatio Latina (= a) 4 flkes¤ƒ D 5 mhl¤nou K: mhl¤n˙ tª D

1

617

  ‒  - FR 242. PAULUS

OF

AEGINA, MEDICAL

EPITOME

(5)

Paulus of Aegina, Medical epitome, III xlvi, 1 + 6 = I pp. 249 + 254 Heiberg: [1, 249] Affections of the liver. [6, 254] If an inflammation of the nature of an erysipelas develops, we have prescribed the treatment [sc in the pages] above. If a suppurating inflammation develops, one should encourage its breaking out by plastering it in the trispermon [= plaster of three seeds] with resin, manna, pitch, marsh-mallow roots, dove’s dung, and goat’s dung, and by administering a draught of a decoction of polion boiled down to a third amidst smoke from barley-corns, a decoction of thlaspis, chicory, and germander root; when it [sc the suppurative inflammation] breaks out, one should [sc administer] hydromel and the [sc medicines] that I mentioned for wounded kidneys and apply externally the [sc plaster] of Mnaseas and the other emollient [sc plasters], the [sc plaster] of Hicesius, and the [sc plaster] of willows.

FR 243. PAULUS

OF

AEGINA, MEDICAL

EPITOME

(6)

Paulus of Aegina, Medical epitome, III lxiv, 1 + 3 = I pp. 279 + 281 Heiberg: [1, 279] Inflammation and displacement of the uterus. [3, 281] In cases where the inflammation is accompanied by an induration, dissolve the tetrapharmakos [= four-drugs compound] in rose-oil, then apply it or pour it over. As for cases of displacement of the uterus, during [sc periods of ] paroxysm they should be treated in the same way as the inflammations [sc of the uterus]; during [sc periods of ] remission and during [sc phases of ] decline, [sc they should be treated] by milder medicines; if they become chronic, [sc they should be treated] by metasyncritics; if there is an external induration, we should use emollient plasters: the one made of melilot, the [sc plaster] of Mnaseas, the [sc plaster] of Hicesius, Sarapion’s [sc plaster] of quince, or the bread-plaster.

618

  ‒  - FR 244. PAULUS AEGINETA, EPITOMAE

MEDICAE

(7)

Paulus Aegineta, Epitomae medicae, III lxxvii, 1 + 5 = I pp. 296 + 298 Heiberg: [1, 296] Per‹ fisxiãdow. [5, 298] Ka‹ to›w §pÉ §niautÚn d¢ pinom°noiw tin¢w §xrÆsanto potÆmasin:1 §j2 œn §sti tÒ te diå tessãrvn: xama¤druow li aÉ gentiãnhw go yÉ3 éristolox¤aw stroggÊlhw go4 yÉ 5 phgãnou sp°rmatow5 jhroË je aÉ. TaËta kÒcanta6 de›7 ka‹ sÆsanta didÒnai kayÉ •kãsthn ≤m°ran koxliar¤ou pl∞yow nÆstei te ka‹ eÈp°ptƒ meyÉ Ïdatow cuxroË kuãyvn bÉ §pÉ §niautÒn, µ ßvw ín ≤ nÒsow paÊshtai. Ka‹ tÚ diÉ •ptå d¢8 suntiy°menon 10 ka‹ ≤ PrÒklou9 legom°nh taÈt∞w efisin10 §paggel¤aw.

pot¤asin E: pot¤smasin D 2 §j om D 3 go yÉ om D 4 énå go D 5 sp°rma G 6 kÒcaw F: kÒcat G 7 kÒcanta d¢ D K: de› om A B E F G M et a 8 d¢ om K 9 ≤ PrÒklou D > He: ≤ PrÒklou d¢ add A B E F G K M 10 §stin G 1

FR 245. PAULUS AEGINETA, EPITOMAE

MEDICAE

(8)

Paulus Aegineta, Epitomae medicae, III lxxviii, 20 + 22 = I pp. 306 + 307–308 Heiberg: [20, 306] Per‹ t«n §p‹ aflmatik“ xum“ =eumatizom°nvn. [22, 307] ÉEpeidØ d° tinew énagkãzousin ≤mçw ka‹ ta›w efirhm°naiw éntidÒtoiw xr∞syai1 [sc tå §pÉ §niautÚn pinÒmena fãrmaka], toË m¢n aÈtoË g°nouw ÍparxoÊsaw ‡syi tÆn te diå2 toË damasvn¤ou ka‹ tØn ÉAgaphtoË3 kaloum°nhn tÆn 15 te êtakton ka‹ tØn •ptãeidon4 ka‹ tØn [308] PrÒklou tÆn5 te diå toË6 skord¤ou7 ka‹ tØn diå korall¤ou ka‹ •t°raw ple¤onaw:8 ésfalest°ra d¢ pas«n ka‹ ¶ti9 diå10 ple¤onow pe¤raw §st‹n ≤ diå toË korall¤ou, ka‹ p≈rouw ≥dh sustãntaw §n to›w êryroiw dialÊsasa.11 ToÊtvn d¢ pas«n ka‹ tåw dunãmeiw ka‹ tÚn trÒpon t∞w xrÆsevw ka‹ tØn12 §p‹ taÊ20 taiw parafulakØn13 §n t“ Per‹ farmãkvn eÍrÆseiw. kexr∞syai D 2 diå om D F 3 tØn toË ÉAgaphtoË D: ÉAgaphtoË . . . PrÒklou tÆn om F 4 eptahdvn Fragmenta Mosquensia codd. Bibllioth. S. Synodi 125, 379, 387 (= L): §ptãoidon K: Ùktãeidon A B E M D in marg. et a 5 ka‹ toË PrÒklou de tin L 6 toË om L 7 D K L e corr B: skÒrdou A E G M: croco a: koural¤ou D 8 ßtera ple¤ona G 9 ka‹ ¶ti om F: ¶ti om D K L 10 toË diå L: diå om F 11 di°luse D 12 ka‹ t«n L 13 parafulakÆ L 1

619

  ‒  - FR 244. PAULUS

OF

AEGINA, MEDICAL

EPITOME

(7)

Paulus of Aegina, Medical epitome, III lxxvii, 1 + 5 = I pp. 296 + 298 Heiberg: [1, 296] Sciatica. [5, 298] Some [sc doctors] have also used potions which are drunk over [sc a period of ] one year; one of these is the [sc potion] made of four [sc ingredients]: one litra of germander; nine ounces of gentian; nine ounces of round birth-wort; one sextarius of rue seeds, dried. Pound and sift them, then administer on an empty and well-digesting stomach, in the dose of a spoonful, with two kyathoi of cold water, every day, over [sc a period of ] one year or until the disease is over. The [sc potion] made of seven [sc ingredients] and the so-called [sc potion] of Proclus have the same recommendation [epangelia].

FR 245. PAULUS

OF

AEGINA, MEDICAL

EPITOME

(8)

Paulus of Aegina, Medical epitome, III lxxviii, 20 + 22 = I pp. 306 + 307–308 Heiberg: [20, 306] Patients suffering from discharge with respect to the humour of blood. [22, 307] Since some [sc doctors] compel us also to use the above mentioned antidotes [sc potions prescribed over periods of one year], you should know that in this same class belong the[sc antidote] made of damasonion, the one known as [sc the antidote] of Agapethus [= “the desirable”], “the irregular”, the [sc antidote] of seven [sc ingredients], the [sc antidote] [308] of Proclus, the [sc antidote] made of skordion, the [sc antidote] made of coral, and many others; the safest of all, and [sc thus established] by a greater number of tests, is the one made of coral, which also dissolves the chalk-stones already formed in the joints. You will find in the treatise on Medicines the actions and the mode of use of all these [sc antidotes], as well as preventive [sc measures] against them.

620

  ‒   FR 246. PAULUS AEGINETA, EPITOMAE

MEDICAE

(9)

Paulus Aegineta, Epitomae medicae, VII v, 2 = II pp. 280–281 Heiberg:

5

10

15

20

25

[2, 280] ÉOjÊmeli1 tÚ2 ÉIoulianoË:3 phgãnou go gÉ4 Ùrigãnou go gÉ5 yÊmou kÒmhw go dÉ énÆyou go aLÉ6 ‡revw go aÉ7 mandragÒrou =¤zhw go aLÉ8 égarikoË go bÉ9 d&d«n10 lipar«n go ibÉ kÒkkou Knid¤ou go dÉ layur¤dvn11 go gÉ élupiãdow go gÉ12 polupod¤ou go bÉ fÊllou go aÉ13 kÒstou go aÉ14 nardostãxuow go aÉ15 =°ou PontikoË go [281] aLÉ sk¤llhw go gÉ16 ékt∞w ékremÒnvn go gÉ17 kan≈pou,18 ˜ §stin ékt∞w floiÒw, go gÉ ésãrou go aÉ19 glÆxvnow go gÉ §piyÊmou go bÉ20 §llebÒrou go bÉ21 ékÒrou go bÉ22 s¤ou23 go aÉ ém≈mou go aÉ ÍperikoË go aÉ24 kum¤nou go aÉ25

C D Laurentianus Graecus LXXIV 2 (= J): Ùjum°litow K M Laurentianus Graecus LXXIV 26 (= R): ˆjow F 2 C J: toË D B (e corr): om A F K M R 3 fiouliãnion F J 4 go gÉ om D F J 5 Ùrigãnou go gÉ om M: Ùrigãnou énå go gÉ C F 6 marãyrou go aLÉ add J: marãyrou =¤zan go aLÉ add F 7 ‡revw go aÉ om C F: ‡revw go dÉ J 8 mandragÒrou =¤zhw go aLÉ om F J 9 égarikoË go bÉ om F 10 d&d¤vn F J 11 layur¤dow F J 12 énå go gÉ D: skammvn¤aw énå go gÉ J 13 go aÉ om D 14 go aÉ om D F J 15 énå go aÉ D F: énå go gÉ J 16 go gÉ om D: l≈tou pr¤smatow J2: Ùpt∞w F 17 go gÉ om D F J 18 kan≈pou om F 19 ésãrou énå go aÉ F J: êsarow énå go aÉ D 20 go bÉ om D F J 21 §llebÒrou m°lanow go bÉ F: go bÉ om C D 22 ékÒrou énå go bÉ C D F J 23 és¤ou C D B (e corr) 24 go aÉ om C D F J 25 kum¤nou énå go aÉ C D F: ésãrou énå go aÉ J 1

621

  ‒   FR 246. PAULUS

OF

AEGINA, MEDICAL

EPITOME

(9)

Paulus of Aegina, Medical epitome, VII v, 2 = II pp. 280–281 Heiberg: [2, 280] Julian’s oxymel: three ounces of rue; three ounces of origanum; four ounces of Cretan thyme leaves; one and a half ounces of dill; one ounce of iris; one and a half ounces of mandrake root; two ounces of agarikon; twelve ounces of greasy resins; four ounces of kneoron berries; three ounces of lathurides; three ounces of alupias; two ounces of polypody; one ounce of phullon; one ounce of kostos; one ounce of spike-nard; one ounce and a half of Pontic rheon; [281] three ounces of squill; three ounces of elder-tree branches; three ounces of kanopon [= elder-bark], which is the bark of the elder-tree; one ounce of asaron; three ounces of pennyroyal; two ounces of epithumon; two ounces of hellebore; two ounces of sweet flag; one ounce of sion; one ounce of amomon; one ounce of huperikon [= St John’s wort] one ounce of cumin;

622

  ‒  -

én¤sou go bÉ26 ˆjouw go iÉ m°litow go eÉ. Tåw botãnaw épÒbrejon §n t“ ˆji §p‹ gÉ ≤m°raw,27 e‰ta •cÆsaw ßvw tÚ 5 pl°on toË ≤m¤sevw énalvyª, §p¤bale28 tÚ m°li ka‹ sir≈saw prÒspleke tåw layur¤daw ka‹ tÚn kÒston ka‹ tÚn Kn¤dion kÒkkon 29 ka‹ tÚ nardÒstaxu leivy¢n ka¤, efi boÊlei, metå tÚ t°leon30 •chy∞nai tÚ ÙjÊmeli. ÑH tele¤a dÒsiw31 go aÉ, µ ka‹32 prÚw tØn dÊnamin. Poie› d¢33 podagriko›w pãyesin,34 §pilhptiko›w, ka‹ §fÉ œn ken«sa¤ te35 ëma ka‹ §kfrãjai 10 toÁw paxe›w deÒmeya xumoÁw.

go aÉ R 27 ≤m°raw g A F 28 §p¤balle C J M 29 tÚn kÒkkon tÚn Kn¤dion F J 30 metå t°leon R 31 dÒsiw ≤ tele¤a F J 32 µ ka‹ ego < D: µ cett codd > He 33 d¢ om F 34 pãyesin ka‹ J: paye›sa F 35 te om J 26

FR 247. PAULUS AEGINETA, EPITOMAE

MEDICAE

(10)

Paulus Aegineta, Epitomae medicae, VII xi, 59 = II p. 313 Heiberg: [59, 313] ÑH PrÒklou1 podagrikØ ka‹2 prÚw3 fisxiãdaw:4 xama¤druow5 go yÉ6 kentaur¤ou go hÉ 7 éristolox¤aw go zÉ gentian∞w go stÉ ÍperikoË go eÉ8 petrosel¤nou MakedonikoË go dÉ mÆou go gÉ égarikoË go bÉ9 foË10 go aÉ11 m°litow ÉAttikoË12 kotÊlai13 bÉ.

15

20

prÚw kokl F 2 ka‹ om F 3 prÚw om J 4 fisxãdaw D: fisxiadikoÊw F: fisxiadikÆ J 5 xamaidr¤ou F 6 go yÉ om F 7 énå go yÉ F 8 bÉ F 9 petrosel¤nou MakedonikoË go dÉ mÆou go gÉ égarikoË go bÉ om F J (inser J2): MakedonikoË om J2: m°ou: B K M R 10 fugoË F 11 go aÉ om F 12 ÉAttikoË om F J 13 kox D: kuãyouw R: go F J 1

623

  ‒  -

two ounces of anise; ten ounces of vinegar; five ounces of honey. Steep the plants in vinegar for three days, then boil them until more than a half is consumed, throw the honey in, filter them, then mix in the lathurides, the kostos, the kneoron berries, the spike-nard, emulsified—also, if you like, [sc you may add them] after the boiling of the oxymel has been completed. The perfect dose is of one ounce, or [sc it varies] according to the [sc patient’s] strength. It is efficient for affections related to podagra and erysipelas, and for those in which we need to evacuate thick humours at the same time as we make room for their removal.

FR 247. PAULUS

OF

AEGINA, MEDICAL

EPITOME

(10)

Paulus of Aegina, Medical epitome, VII xi, 59 = II p. 313 Heiberg: [59, 313] Proclus’ [sc antidote] for gout and for sciatica: nine ounces of germander; eight ounces of centaury; seven ounces of birth-wort; six ounces of gentian; five ounces of huperikon; four ounces of Macedonian parsley; three ounces of meon; two ounces of agarikon; one ounce of phou; two kotylae of Attic honey.

624

  ‒  - FR 248DUB. PAULUS AEGINETA, EPITOMAE

MEDICAE

(11)

Paulus Aegineta, Epitomae medicae, VII, xvi, 24 = II p. 339 Heiberg: [24, 339] ÖOlumpow µ ÉOlumpiakÒn:1 ékak¤aw, nardostãxuow, libãnou: énå < hÉ xalkoË kekaum°nou ka‹ peplum°nou, st¤mmevw2 kekaum°nou ka‹ peplum°nou, cimuy¤ou kekaum°nou ka‹ peplum°nou, kadm¤aw:3 énå4 < ibÉ smÊrnhw, Ùp¤ou pefvgm°nou:5 énå < dÉ 5 krÒkou < eÉ fioË justoË < gÉ l¤you sxistoË, lep¤dow §ruyr¤nhw,6 luk¤ou ÉIndikoË, Ùmfak¤ou: énå < aÉ7 kastor¤ou, =Òdvn ênyouw: énå < bÉ 10 foinikobalãnvn < dÉ ımo¤vw tå Ùstç8 t«n foin¤kvn kekaum°na: ériym“ eÉ kÒmmevw go eÉ Ïdvr ˆmbrion.9 15 ÖEstvsan dÉ efiw tÚ Ïdvr §mbrexÒmena tr¤a nuxyÆmera: kalãmou érvmatikoË, Íoskuãmou sp°rmatow, =Òdvn jhr«n: énå < dÉ fÊllou < aÉ.

tÚ ÉOlumpiakÒn D 2 tÆlevw D: st¤mmevw . . . peplum°nou om D 3 cimiy kadm¤aw add J2 4 énå om K 5 pefvgm°nou om D 6 ego: §ruyrçw He 7 énå dÉ J 8 t«n Ùst«n D 9 Ïdati Ùmbr¤ƒ D 1

FR 249. PAULUS AEGINETA, EPITOMAE

MEDICAE

(12)

Paulus Aegineta, Epitomae medicae, VII xvii, 21 = II p. 353 Heiberg: [21, 353] ÑH Mnas°ou diaforhtikÆ: khroË, Ùjugg¤ou1 xoire¤ou: énå2 li aÉ kolofvn¤aw go stÉ liyargÊrou li bÉ o‡nou kaloË li3 dÉ.

20

1

éjugg¤ou R: st°atow F

2

énå om A B K M R

3

ko J: ko li A

625

  ‒  - FR 248DUB. PAULUS

OF

AEGINA, MEDICAL

EPITOME

(11)

Paulus of Aegina, Medical epitome, VII, xvi, 24 = II p. 339 Heiberg: [24, 339] The Olympos or Olympiac: acacia, spike-nard, frankincense: eight drachmae of each; copper, burnt and washed, stimmi, burnt and washed, ceruse, burnt and washed, calamine: twelve drachmae of each; myrrh, parched poppy-juice: four drachmae each; five drachmae of saffron; three drachmae of scraped rust; split stone, scales of eruthrina, Indian lukion, omphakion: one drachma each; castor, rose-flower: two drachmae each; four drachmae of dates; similarly, the stones of the dates, burnt: five in number; five ounces of gum; rain-water. In the water, dip and leave for three days and nights [sc the following ingredients]: calamus, henbane seed, dry roses: four drachmae of each; one ounce of phullon.

FR 249. PAULUS

OF

AEGINA, MEDICAL

EPITOME

(12)

Paulus of Aegina, Medical epitome, VII xvii, 21 = II p. 353 Heiberg: [21, 353] The diaphoretic [sc plaster] of Mnaseas: bees-wax, swine fat: one litra of each; six ounces of Colophonian gum; two litrae of litharge; four litrae of good wine.

626

  ‒  - FR 250(+DUB). PETROCELLUS SALERNITANUS, PRACTICA

Petrocellus Salernitanus, Practica, Epistola [= Quot annis latuit medicina], IV pp. 188–189 De Renzi: [188] Petesion, id est demonstratio quot annis latuit medicina: et de ipso certauerunt antiqui auctores, et peritissimi medici sagaciter dixerunt per annos mille CCCtos post diluuium latuit medicina usque in tempus Artaxis regis Persarum. Tunc Apollo et filius eius Esculapius, Asclepius, et Ypocras— 5 illi IIIIor artem medicinalem inuenerunt et ipsius differentias, id est Methoycam, Empyricam, Loycam et Theopericam. Apollo inuenit Methoycam que est cyrurgia, id est ferramentorum incisio. Esculapius inuenit Empyricam que est farmaceuticum, id est omnis ratio medicaminum. Asclepius inuenit1 Loycam, que est legis et uite. Ypocras inuenit Theopericam que est prog10 nosticum, id est preuisio egritudinum. [. . .] [189] Qui constituerunt Empyricam sectam? Agron, Agranus, Sylon, Rapion, et Apollo. Qui constituerunt Methoycam secta? Mision, Scaron, Micannacus, et Soranus. Qui constituerunt Dogmaticam? Ypocras, Aristarcus, Asclepius et Galienus. In quot partes diuiserunt medicinam? In duas, theuriticon et practicon. Theuriticon 15 diuiditur in tres partes . . .

1

ego: inuenis De Renzi

FR 251. PHILUMENUS, DE

COELIACIS

Philumenus, De coeliacis, Fr. 3 = p. 68 Puschmann: [68] Emplastra autem sunt ad haec quae faciunt, qualia sunt diiteas 1 et panacea2 et Hicesii et magis omnibus3 Mnaseae; dicitur4 autem et “clidion”, cuius confectionem ubi De rheumate uentris scripsimus tradidimus.

daytheos editiones uetustae (= EV: Lugdunum 1504, Pavia 1520, Venezia 1522) Panacias EV 3 omnium Codex Casinensis 97 (= MC) Codex Parisinus 6682 (= P 82) 4 datur P 82 EV

1 2

  ‒  -

627

FR 250(+DUB). PETROCELLUS SALERNITANUS, PRACTICS Petrocellus Salernitanus, Practics, Letter [= The number of years during which medicine was hidden], IV pp. 188–189 De Renzi: [188] Petesion, that is, demonstration concerning the number of years during which medicine was hidden: the ancient authors disagreed on this [sc subject] too, and the most expert doctors claimed, astutely, that medicine was hidden for [sc a period of ] one thousand and three hundred years after the flood, until the age of Artaxis [= Artaxerxes], king of the Persians. Then Apollo and his son Esculapius, Asclepius, and Hippocrates—these four men discovered the medical art and its categories, that is, the Methoyst [= Methodist], the Empyrist [= Empiricist], the Loyc [= Logical], and the Theoperic. Apollo discovered Methoyst [sc medicine], which is surgery, that is, cutting by means of iron instruments. Esculapius discovered Empyrist [sc medicine], which is pharmacy, that is, the whole system of medicines. Asclepius discovered the Loyc [sc medicine], which deals with regulation and life [sc -style]. Hippocrates discovered the Theoperic [sc medicine], which is prognostic, that is, the foreseeing of maladies. [. . .] [189] Who formed the Empyrist secta? Agron, Agranus [= Acron of Agrigentum], Sylon, Rapion [= Serapion], and Apollo. Who formed the Methoyst secta? Mision [= Themison?], Scaron, Micannacus [= Menemachus?], and Soranus. Who formed the Dogmatist secta? Hippocrates, Aristarcus, Asclepius, and Galienus [= Galen]. In how many parts did they divide medicine? In two, the theoretical [sc part] and the practical [sc part]. They divided the theoretical [sc part] into three parts . . .

FR 251. PHILUMENUS, COMPLAINTS

OF THE BOWELS

Philumenus, Complaints of the bowels, Fr. 3 = p. 68 Puschmann: [68] There are also plasters efficient for this condition—for instance the diiteas [= the willow-plaster], the panakea [= all-heal plaster], the plaster of Hicesius, and, best of all, the plaster of Mnaseas, also known as “kleidion”; we have presented its mode of preparation in [sc the work] where we deal with Flux of the stomach.

628

  ‒  - FR 252. PHILUMENUS, DE

RHEUMATE UENTRIS

Philumenus, De rheumate ventris, Fr. 1 = p. 22 Puschmann: [22] Sed et alii emplastra faciunt quae sunt styptica. Optima autem sunt quale est Mnseae clidion et di oenanthes.1 Epithema clidion igitur hoc modo conficitur: gallae asianae, hypocistidos, stypteriae rotundae, acaciae et roris2 quo coqui utuntur et sidii sicci, apii seminis, uisci quercini, guttae ammoniaci 5 ana unciam unam, picis siccae, cerae ana uncias duae, olei myrtini aut sicyonii ana uncias tres.3 Gallam quidem et sidia in uini cyathis tribus coques, donec ad tertiam partem reuertatur, et sic tundes et miscebis cum ceteris speciebus in uino, 10 ubi coctae sunt;4 ammoniacum uerum cum aceto teres ad mellis spissitudinem; uiscum autem cum modico oleo remollies et sic pice et cera resoluta5 simul cum reliquo oleo superfundes et teres in mortario, donec omnia misceantur, et uteris.6

dydyon et diamantes et ynaseus EV 2 roris pro rhuris 3 drachm. Parisinus 6681 (= P 81) 4 coquitur MC 5 resolutam EV 6 et teres . . . et uteris restit Puschmann e P 81+P 82 1

FR 253(+DUB). PHILUMENUS, DE

UENENATIS ANIMALIBUS

(1)

Philumenus, De uenenatis animalibus, i, p. 5 Wellmann: [5] T«n dÉ §mpesÒntvn efiw tÚn ÍdrofÒban oÈd°na ‡smen perigenãmenon, 15 efi mØ kayÉ flstor¤an pareilÆfamen deÊteron:1 ka‹ går EÎdhmow perigegen∞sya¤2 tinã fhsi, 3 ofl m¢n l°gousi t“ pãyei dhxy°nta peripese›n ka‹ svy∞nai, ofl d¢ f¤lƒ Ídrofobi«nti proskarterÆsanta proyÊmvw ka‹ sumpay«w efiw tØn ımo¤an §mpese›n diãyesin ka‹ pollå kakopayÆsanta svy∞nai. TÚ m¢n oÔn pãyow §st‹n érgal°on, 20 prÚ d¢ t∞w katape¤raw aÈtoË polloÁw ka‹ aÈto‹ peries≈samen ka‹ ÍpÉ êllvn fiatr«n svy°ntaw ¶gnvmen.

add Wellmann (= W) < D (= Pseudo-Dioscorides: editio Sprengeliana cum codd Laurentiano 74, 23 (= F) Scorialense S I 17 (= M) Marciano Veneto 728 (= V)): ßna µ dÊo A (= editio Basileensis 1538): ëpaj µ deÊteron uel solum deÊteron Krumbacher 2 D > W: perigenesyai P (= Vaticanus Graecus 284) 3 D > add W 1

629

  ‒  - FR 252. PHILUMENUS, FLUX

OF THE STOMACH

Philumenus, Flux of the stomach, Fr. 1 = p. 22 Puschmann: [22] Others make astringent plasters too. But the best among these are the kleidion of Mnaseas and the di’ oinanthes. The application [sc of the] kleidion, then, is prepared in the following manner: gall-apple, hypocist, round alum, acacia, sumach of the kind used in cooking, dried pomegranate peels, parsley seed, oak-mistletoe, a spot of gum-ammoniac: one ounce of each; dry pitch and wax: two ounces of each; myrtle oil or Sicyonian oil: three ounces. You will boil the gall-apple and the pomegranate peels in three cups of wine until the quantity is reduced to a third; then you will pound them and mix the other substances in the wine they have boiled in; you will rub the gum-ammoniac with vinegar, to the consistency of honey; you will soften the mistletoe with a little oil; and, once you have thus dissolved the pitch and wax, you will pour them, together with the rest of oil, grind everything in a mortar until all the constituents mix up well, then you will use the medicine.

FR 253(+DUB). PHILUMENUS, VENOMOUS

CREATURES

(1)

Philumenus, Venomous creatures, i, p. 5 Wellmann: [5] We do not know of anyone who survived from among those who fell pray to hydrophobia, unless we accept one, maybe two cases, in accordance with the case records [historia]: for some say that Eudemus survived; as for Themison, one version has it that he caught the disease by being bitten, and escaped, while another version purports that it was because he devoted himself oversympathetically to the treatment of a hydrophobic friend that he fell into the same state as he, and after much suffering he escaped. In conclusion, it is a difficult affection; but, if it is [sc caught] before the first onset, many patients at that stage have been saved, both by us and, to our knowledge, by other doctors.

630

  ‒   FR 254. PHOTIUS, BIBLIOTHECA (1)

Photius, Bibliotheca, Codex 164, pp. 107a–b Bekker = II pp. 135–6 Henry:

5

10

15

20

25

[107a] ÉAnegn≈syh GalhnoË Per‹ aflr°sevn. Per‹ aflr°sevn d¢ t«n katå tØn fiatrikØn tØn sÊstasin §sxhkui«n dialambãnei, ka¤ fhsi tre›w katÉ fiatrikØn kayolikåw aflr°seiw sust∞nai, tÆn te kaloum°nhn LogikØn ∂n ka‹ DogmatikØn §ponomãzei ¶ti d¢ ka‹ énalogistikÆn, deut°ran d¢ tØn kaloum°nhn ÉEmpeirikÆn, ¥tiw ka‹ thrhtikØ ka‹ mnhmoneutikØ §pikale›tai, tr¤thn d¢ tØn MeyodikÆn. Diaf°rousi dÉ éllÆlvn atai êlloiw1 te ka‹ t“ trÒpƒ t∞w eÍr°sevw. ÑO m¢n går DogmatikÚw lÒgƒ kexrhm°now ka‹ tåw meyÒdouw t∞w fiatre¤aw eÍr¤skvn tØn t°xnhn sun¤sthsin, ı dÉ ÉEmpeirikÚw oÈk°ti t“ lÒgƒ éllå tª pe¤r& ka‹ tª thrÆsei: ı d¢ MeyodikÚw §paggellÒmenow ka‹ lÒgƒ2 ka‹ pe¤r& kexr∞syai, ékrib«w d¢ mhdet°rƒ xr≈menow, efikÒtvw émfo›n dio¤sei. Efiw gÉ d¢ tmÆmata diaire›tai tÚ parÚn bibl¤on. Ka‹ §n m¢n t“ pr≈tƒ tØn sÊstasin t∞w ÉEmpeirik∞w ka‹ Dogmatik∞w énagrãfei, §n ⁄ ka‹ ıpo¤a ≤ •kãsthw oÈs¤a didãskei: §n d¢ t“ deut°rƒ efisãgei tåw dÊo diafiloneikoÊsaw aflr°seiw éllÆlaiw ka‹ t«n prvte¤vn émfisbhtoÊsaw: §n d¢ t“ gÉ tmÆmati tØn kaloum°nhn efisãgei MeyodikØn ta›w proeirhm°naiw dus‹ maxom°nhn kéke¤naw prÚw taÊthn, •kãsthw t«n tri«n tå ofike›a proballom°nhw d¤kaia ka‹ speudoÊshw efiw tØn katå t«n Ípolo¤pvn n¤khn. ÉEn oÂw ka‹ tÚ tr¤ton épart¤zetai tm∞ma. D∞lon dÉ ˜ti tÚ bibl¤on toËto t«n katå tØn fiatrikØn énagnvsmãt«n pãntvn protãttesyai Ùfe¤lei, [107b] e‡per de› maye›n po¤a pas«n ér¤sth a·resiw, e‰yÉ oÏtv taÊt˙ kexr∞syai. E‡h dÉ ín oÈd¢ kur¤vw fiatrikÚn tÚ bibl¤on éllå prooim¤ou tÒpon §p°xon ka‹ filosof¤& mçllon énake¤menon. D∞lon dÉ ˜ti, ˜sa gÉ §p¤ te l°jei ka‹ suntãjei, kayarÒn §sti ka‹ eÈkrin°w. ToÊtvn gãr §stin §n pçsin ı GalhnÚw frontistÆw, efi ka‹ §n pollo›w aÈtoË t«n suggrammãtvn ékairolog¤aiw ka‹ parektropa›w ka‹ t“ t«n periÒdvn sxoinotene› fort¤zvn3 tå bibl¤a sugxe›: ka‹ skoto› t«n gegramm°nvn tÚn noËn tÆn te sÊmfrasin oflone‹ diakÒptvn ka‹ efiw ékhd¤an êgvn diå toË makroË lÆrou tÚn ékroatÆn. äVn t°vw tÚ parÚn bibl¤on épÆllaktai.

Marcianus Graecus 450 (= A) e corr (= A2) Marcianus Graecus 451 (= M) “quid prius praeb. A non liquet” Henry 2 ka‹ lÒgƒ A M6: t“ lÒgƒ (?) M 3 A: front¤zvn M 1

  ‒   FR 254. PHOTIUS, THE

LIBRARY

631

(1)

Photius, The library, Codex 164, pp. 107a–b Bekker = II pp. 135–6 Henry: [107a] Read: Galen, On sects [haireseis]. He deals with the haireseis which have established themselves in medicine; he says that in medicine there are three general haireseis: the one known as Logical, which he also terms Dogmatist and analogical; secondly, the one known as Empiricist, which is also styled “observational” [teretike] and “mnemonistic” [mnemoneutike]; thirdly, the Methodist [sc hairesis]. These differ from each other in many respects, but especially in their method of discovery. For the Dogmatist [sc doctor] uses reasoning to discover even the methods of treatment, and this is how he builds up his art [techne]; whereas the Empirical [sc doctor] [sc uses] experience and observation, not reasoning; as for the Methodist [sc doctor], he claims to use both reasoning and experience, but, since he uses neither of them distinctly, he will differ considerably from both [sc the Dogmatist and the Empiricist]. The book under discussion is divided into three sections. In the first section he [sc Galen] draws an outline of the Empiricist and Dogmatist [sc haireseis]: he shows us there what the very essence of each one is. In the second [sc section] he presents the two haireseis confronting each other and contending for the first prize. In the third section he presents the [sc hairesis] called Methodist engaging in combat with the previous two and those [sc two], in turn, engaging in combat with it: each one of the three is promoting its own truths and striving to defeat the others. This completes the third part. Obviously this book ought to be prescribed before any other reading in medicine, [107b] at least if one is to learn what is the best hairesis of all, then [sc how] to follow it accordingly. The book would not be primarily medical; it fills the place of an introduction [sc to medicine], and belongs rather to [sc the genre of ] philosophy. Obviously it is pure and well composed, at least where diction and syntax are at stake. For Galen is concerned about these [sc features] all throughout [sc his writings], although in many of his treatises he wrecks [sc whole] books by overburdening them with pieces of irrelevant verbosity, digressions, and the prolixity of his [sc rhetorical] periods: he obscures the meaning of what he wrote, chops up, as it were, the continuous structure [sc of the argument], and drives the reader to exhaustion with his protracted waffle. Yet, for the present, the book under discussion is free of these [sc faults].

632

  ‒   FR 255. PHOTIUS, BIBLIOTHECA (2)

Photius, Bibliotheca, Codex 218, pp. 174b–175a Bekker = III pp. 134–5 Henry: [174b] Tr¤th d¢ [sc t∞w fiatrik∞w metaxeir¤se≈w te ka‹ yevr¤aw sunagvgÆ] aÈt“ [sc ÉOreibas¤ƒ] diespoÊdastai: …w ka‹ aÈtÚw §ke›now prooimiazÒmenow l°gei, suntom¤an aÈt“ t∞w deut°raw peri°xousa pragmate¤aw. 5 EÈstay¤ƒ d¢ t“ ufl“ tÚ bibl¤on énafvne›: yÉ di˙rhm°non lÒgoiw, §n oÂw §sti t«n pay«n fiãmata ˜sa tÚ eÈpÒriston ka‹ prÒxeiron Ípot¤yetai: tÚ m°ntoi xeirourgikÚn e‰dow pantel«w aÈt“ katå taÊthn tØn sunagvgØn pare›tai. [. . .]a [175a] Ka‹ §n m¢n t“ aÉ dialambãnei per¤ te t∞w katå tå gumnãsia profulak∞w ka‹ aÈt«n t«n gumnas¤vn, ken≈se≈n te 10 kayÒlou ka‹ §p‹ m°rouw, t«n te diÉ §pino¤aw ka‹ ˜svn ≤ fÊsiw kur¤a: per¤ te é°rvn ka‹ loutr«n, aÈtofu«n te ka‹ t«n §k t°xnhw: ka‹ per‹ fldr≈tvn, na‹ dØ ka‹ per‹ kataplasmãtvn, per¤ te t∞w efiw ¶laion ka‹ Ídr°laion §mbãsevw, ka‹ ˜sa tÚ d°rma dãknonta µ êllvw diaforoËnta t«n xronizÒntvn pay«n tØn metasugkritikÆn, …w ín MeyodikÚw1 fa¤h 15 énÆr, épergãzetai yerape¤an.

a

In the paragraph which I omit Photius commented on the limited usage of Oribasius’ collection and the dangers of relying on it alone when one does not already have a medical training: ÖEsti d¢ tÚ parÚn bibl¤on prÚw m¢n énãmnhsin

to›w katå tåw fiatrikåw prãjeiw te ka‹ yevr¤aw sunhskhm°noiw oÈ faÊlhn par°xon tØn xre¤an, ka‹ mçllon prÒxeiron. To›w dÉ §k pr≈tvn efiw mãyhsin t∞w t°xnhw diå t∞sde t∞w sunÒcevw §lye›n ±lpikÒsin e‰pon ín …w §pÉ Ùl¤gon e‡h tÚ lusitel¢w par°xon, efi mØ tÚ katÉ aÈtØn ém°yodÒn te ka‹ éprosdiÒriston toÁw épeirÒteron per‹ taËta diakeim°nouw ka‹ •toimÒteron prÚw tåw yerape¤aw xvroËntaw efiw tåw meg¤staw blãbaw t«n kamnÒntvn, §syÉ ˜te d¢ ka‹ t«n ÍgiainÒntvn, §pÉ aÈt«n t«n ¶rgvn e‰don sunvyoum°nouw. PlØn éllÉ ¶n ge to›w efirhm°noiw lÒgoiw yÉ t«n oÉ bibl¤vn tØn sÊnocin perigrãfei. 1

Bekker > W: meyodik«w M: meyodikØn A

  ‒   FR 255. PHOTIUS, THE

LIBRARY

633

(2)

Photius, The library, Codex 218, pp. 174b–175a Bekker = III pp. 134–5 Henry: [174b] There is also a third one [sc collection concerning the practice and theory of medicine] which he [sc Oribasius] has endeavoured to produce: as he himself explains in the introduction, it contains a summary of his second manual. He dedicates the book to his son Eusthatius; it is divided into nine books, which deal with all that is supposed [sc to constitute] the common and available [sc kind] of remedies for affections; but he leaves the surgical kind [sc of remedies] completely out of this collection. [. . .] [175a] In book i he deals with prophylactics in the sphere of exercise and with exercise itself; with evacuations, general or local, designed [sc by the doctor] or governed by nature; with airs and baths—natural [sc baths] and artificial [sc baths]; with perspirations; with plasters, of course; with embasis [= plunging] in oil and in oil mixed with water; and with all the [sc medicines] which, by biting the skin or producing dispersion in some other way, promote what a Methodist would call the metasyncritic treatment of chronic affections.

634

  ‒   FR 256(+DUB). PLINIUS, NATURALIS

HISTORIA

(1)

Plinius, Naturalis historia, I, Auctores:a A Libro iv: Ex auctoribus: Catone Censorio. M. Varrone. M. Agrippa. Divo Augusto. Varrone Atacino. Cornelio Nepote. Hygino. L. Vetere. Mela Pomponio. Licinio Muciano. Fabricio Tusco. Ateio Capitone. Ateio philologo. Externis: Polybio. Hecataeo. Hellanico. Damaste. Eudoxo. Dicaearcho. Timosthene. 5 Eratosthene. Ephoro. Cratete grammatico. Serapione Antiochense. Callimacho. Artemidoro. Apollodoro. Agathocle. Timaeo Siculo. Myrsilo. Alexandro Polyhistore. Thucydide. Dosiade. Anaximandro. Philistide Mallote. Dionysio. Aristide. Callidemo. Menaechmo. Aglosthene. Anticlide. Heraclide. Philemone. Xenophonte. Pythea. Isidoro. Philonide. Xenagora. Astynomo. 10 Staphylo. Aristocrito. Metrodoro. Cleobulo. Posidonio.

B Libro viii: Ex auctoribus: Muciano. Procilio. Verrio Flacco. L. Pisone. Cornelio Valeriano. Catone Censorio. Fenestella. Trogo. Actis. Columella. Vergilio. Varrone. Lucilio. Metello Scipione. Cornelio Celso. Nigidio. Trebio Nigro. Pomponio Mela. Mamilio Sura. Externis: 15 Iuba Rege. Polybio. Herodoto. Antipatro. Aristotele. Demetrio physico. Democrito. Theophrasto. Euanthe. copa qui ÉOlumpion¤kaw. Hierone Rege. Attalo Rege. Philometore Rege. Ctesia. Duride. Philisto. Archyta. Phylarcho. Amphilocho Athenaeo. Anaxipoli Thasio. Apollodoro Lemnio. Aristophane Milesio. Antigono Cymaeo. Agathocle Chio. Apollonio Pergameno. Aristandro 20 Athenaeo. Bacchio Milesio. Bione Solense. Chaerea Athenaeo. Diodoro Prieneo. Dione Colophonio. Epigene Rhodio. Euagone Thasio. Euphronio

a

Throughout this fragment I reproduce the text as edited by Jean Beaujeu in Volume I of the Budé Pliny (Paris, 1950); for details see Beaujeu’s apparatus ad l and his list of the mss and sigla at the head of that volume.

635

  ‒   FR 256(+DUB). PLINY, NATURAL

HISTORY

(1)

Pliny, Natural history, I, Sources: A To Book iv: Sources: Cato the Censor. M. Varro. M. Agrippa. Augustus the Divine. Varro of Atax. Cornelius Nepos. Hyginus. L. Vetus. Mela Pomponius. Licinius Mucianus. Fabricius Tuscus. Ateius Capito. Ateius the scholar. Foreign sources: Polybius. Hecataeus. Hellanicus. Damastes. Eudoxus. Dicaearchus. Timosthenes. Eratosthenes. Ephorus. Crates the philologist. Serapion of Antioch. Callimachus. Artemidorus. Apollodorus. Agathocles. Timaeus Siculus. Myrsilus. Alexander Polyhistor. Thucydides. Dosiades. Anaximander. Philistides of Mallos. Dionysius. Aristides. Callidemus. Menaechmus. Aglaosthenes. Anticlides. Heraclides. Philemon. Xenophon. Pytheas. Isidorus. Philonides. Xenagoras. Astynomus. Staphylus. Aristocritus. Metrodorus. Cleobulus. Posidonius.

B To Book viii: Sources: Mucianus. Procilius. Verrius Flaccus. L. Piso. Cornelius Valerianus. Cato the Censor. Fenestella. Trogus. Official records. Columella. Vergilius. Varro. Lucilius. Metellus Scipio. Cornelius Celsus. Nigidius. Trebius Niger. Pomponius Mela. Mamilius Sura. Foreign sources: King Iuba. Polybius. Herodotus. Antipater. Aristotle. Demetrius the natural philosopher. Democritus. Theophrastus. Euanthes. Scopa, author of Olympic victors. King Hieron. King Attalus. King Philometor. Ctesias. Duris. Philisto. Archytas. Phylarchus. Amphilochus of Athens. Anaxipolis of Thasos. Apollodorus of Lemnos. Aristophanes of Miletus. Antigonus of Cymae. Agathocles of Chios. Apollonius of Pergamum. Aristander of Athens. Bacchius of Miletus. Bion of Soli. Chaereas of Athens. Diodorus of Priene. Dion of Colophon. Epigenes of Rhodes. Euagon of Thasos. Euphronius of Athens. Hegesias of

636

  ‒  

Athenaeo. Hegesia Maroneo. Menandris Prieneo et Heracleote. Menecrate poeta. Androtione qui de agricultura scripsit. Aeschrione qui item. Lysimacho qui item. Dionysio qui Magonem transtulit. Diophane qui ex Dionysio epitoma fecit. Archelao Rege. Nicandro.

C Libro x: Ex auctoribus: 5 Manilio. Cornelio Valeriano. Actis. Vmbricio Meliore. Masurio Sabino. Antistio Labeone. Trogo. Cremutio. M. Varrone. Macro Aemilio. Melisso. Muciano. Nepote. Fabio Pictore. T. Lucretio. Cornelio Celso. Horatio. Deculone. Hygino. Sasernis. Nigidio. Mamilio Sura. Externis: Homero. Phemonoe. Philemone. Boetho qui ÉOrniyogon¤an. la qui de 10 auguriis. Aristotele. Theophrasto. Callimacho. Aeschylo. Hierone Rege. Philometore Rege. Archyta Tarentino. Amphilocho Atheniense. Anaxipoli Thasio. Apollodoro Lemnio. Aristophane Milesio. Antigono Cymaeo. Agathocle Chio. Apollonio Pergameno. Aristandro Athenaeo. Bacchio Milesio. Bione Solense. Chaerea Atheniense. Diodoro Prieneo. Dione Colophonio. 15 Democrito. Diophane Nicaeense. Epigene Rhodio. Euagone Thasio. Euphronio Athenaeo. Iuba. Androtione qui de agricultura. Aeschrione qui item. Lysimacho qui item. Dionysio qui Magonem transtulit. Diophane qui ex Dionysio epitoma fecit. Nicandro. Onesicrito. Phylarcho. Hesiodo.

D Libro xi: Ex auctoribus: Marco Varrone. Hygino. Scrofa. Saserna. Celso Cornelio. Aemilio Macro. 20 Vergilio. Columella. Iulio Aquila qui de Etrusca disciplina scripsit. Tarquiti qui item. Vmbricio Meliore qui item. Catone Censorio. Domitio Calvino. Trogo. Melisso. Fabiano. Muciano. Nigidio. Mamilio. Oppio. Externis: Aristotele. Democrito. Neoptolemo qui Melitourgikã. Aristomacho qui item. Philisco qui item. Nicandro. Menecrate. Dionysio qui Magonem transtulit. 25 Empedocle. Callimacho. Attalo Rege. Apollodoro qui de bestiis uenenatis. Hippocrate. Herophilo. Erasistrato. Asclepiade. Themisone. Posidonio Stoico. Menandris Prieneo et Heracl. Euphronio Athenaeo. Theophrasto. Hesiodo. Philometore Rege.

  ‒  

637

Maronea. Menander of Priene and Menander of Heraclea. Menecrates the poet. Androtion, author of On agriculture. Aeschrion ditto. Lysimachus ditto. Dionysius, translator of Mago. Diophanes, epitomatist of Dionysius. King Archelaus. Nicander.

C To Book x: Sources: Manilius. Cornelius Valerianus. Official records. Umbricius Melior. Masurius Sabinus. Antistius Labeo. Trogus. Cremutius. M. Varro. Aemilius Macer. Melissus. Mucianus. Nepos. Fabius Pictor. T. Lucretius. Cornelius Celsus. Horatius. Deculo. Hyginus. The Sasernae. Nigidius. Mamilius Sura. Foreign sources: Homer. Phemonoes. Philemon. Boethus, author of Ornithogony. Hylas, author of Auguries. Aristotle. Theophrastus. Callimachus. Aeschylus. King Hieron. King Philometor. Archytas of Tarentum. Amphilochus of Athens. Anaxipolis of Thasos. Apollodorus of Lemnos. Aristophanes of Miletus. Antigonus of Cumae. Agathocles of Chios. Apollonius of Pergamum. Aristander of Athens. Bacchius of Miletus. Bion of Soli. Chaereas of Athens. Diodorus of Priene. Dion of Colophon. Democritus. Diophanes of Nicaeae. Epigenes of Rhodes. Euagon of Thasos. Euphronius of Athens. Iuba. Androtion, author of On agriculture. Aeschrion ditto. Lysimachus ditto. Dionysius, translator of Mago. Diophanes, epitomatist of Dionysius. Nicander. Onesicritus. Phylarchus. Hesiod.

D To Book xi: Sources: Marcus Varro. Hyginus. Scrofa. Saserna. Celsus Cornelius. Aemilius Macer. Vergilius. Columella. Iulius Aquila, author of The customs of the Etruscans. Tarquitis ditto. Umbricius Melior ditto. Cato the Censor. Domitius Calvinus. Trogus. Melissus. Fabianus. Mucianus. Nigidius. Mamilius. Oppius. Foreign sources: Aristotle. Democritus. Neoptolemus, author of Instructions on honey-making. Aristomachus ditto. Philiscus ditto. Nicander. Menecrates. Dionysius, translator of Mago. Empedocles. Callimachus. King Attalus. Apollodorus, author of On venomous animals. Hippocrates. Herophilus. Erasistratus. Asclepiades. Themison. Posidonius the Stoic. Menander of Priene and Menander of Heraclea. Euphronius of Athens. Theophrastus. Hesiod. King Philometor.

638

  ‒  

E Libro xii: Ex auctoribus: M. Varrone. Muciano. Vergilio. Fabiano. Seboso. Pomponio Mela. Flauio Procilio. Hygino. Trogo. Claudio Caesare. Cornelio Nepote. Sextilio Nigro qui Graece de medicina scripsit. Cassio Hemina. L. Pisone. Tuditano. Antiate. Externis: 5 Theophrasto. Herodoto. Callisthene. Isigono. Clitarcho. Anaximene. Duride. Nearcho. Onesicrito. Polycito. Olympiodoro. Diogneto. Nicobul. Anticlide. Charete Mytilenaeo. Menaechmo. Dorotheo Athenaeo. Lyco. Antaeo. Ephippo. Dinone. Adimanto. Ptolemaeo Lag. Marsya Macedone. Zoilo item. Democrito. Amphilocho. Aristomacho. Alexandro Polyhistore. 10 Iuba. Apollodoro qui de odoribus. Heraclide medico. Bore medico. Archedemo item. Dionysio item. Democle item. Euphrone item. Mneside item. Diagora item. Iolla item. Heraclide Tarentino. Xenocrate Ephesio.

F Libro xiii: Ex auctoribus: M. Varrone. Muciano. Vergilio. Fabiano. Seboso. Pomponio Mela. Fabio Proculo. Hygino. Trogo. Claudio Caesare. Cornelio Nepote. Sextio Nigro 15 qui Graece de medicina scripsit. Cassio Hemina. L. Pisone. Tuditano. Antiate. Externis: Theophrasto. Herodoto. Callisthene. Isigono. Clitarcho. Anaximene. Duride. Nearcho. Onesicrito. Polycito. Olympiodoro. Diogneto. Nicobul. Anticlide. Charete Mytilenaeo. Menaechmo. Dorotheo Atheniense. Lyco. 20 Antaeo. Ephippo. Dinone. Adimanto. Ptolemaeo Lagi. Marsya Macedone. Zoilo item. Democrito. Amphilocho. Aristomacho. Alexandro Polyhistore. Iuba. Apollodoro qui de odoribus scripsit. Heraclide medico. Botrye item. Archdemo item. Dionysio item. Democle item. Euphrone item. Mneside item. Diagora item. Iolla item. Heraclide Tarentino. Xenocrate Ephesio.

  ‒  

639

E To Book xii: Sources: M. Varro. Mucianus. Vergilius. Fabianus. Sebosus. Pomponius Mela. Flavius Procilius. Hyginus. Trogus. Claudius Caesar. Cornelius Nepos. Sextius Niger, author of On medicine in Greek. Cassius Hemina. L. Piso. Tuditanus. Antias. Foreign sources: Theophrastus. Herodotus. Callisthenes. Isigonus. Clitarchus. Anaximenes. Duris. Nearchus. Onesicritus. Polyclitus. Olympiodorus. Diognetus. Nicobulis. Anticlides. Chares of Mitylene. Menaechmus. Dorotheus of Athens. Lycus. Antaeus. Ephippus. Dinon. Adimantus. Ptolemaeus Lagus. Marsyas of Macedon. Zoilus ditto. Democritus. Amphilochus. Aristomachus. Alexander Polyhistor. Iuba. Apollodorus, author of On scents. Heraclides the doctor. Botrys the doctor. Archedemus ditto. Dionysius ditto. Democles ditto. Euphron ditto. Mnesides ditto. Diagoras ditto. Iollas ditto. Heraclides of Tarentum. Xenocrates of Ephesus.

F To Book xiii: Sources: M. Varro. Mucianus. Vergilius. Fabianus. Sebosus. Pomponius Mela. Fabius Proculus. Hyginus. Trogus. Claudius Caesar. Cornelius Nepos. Sextius Niger, author of On medicine in Greek. Cassius Hemina. L. Piso. Tuditanus. Antias. Foreign sources: Theophrastus. Herodotus. Callisthenes. Isigonus. Clitarchus. Anaximenes. Duris. Nearchus. Onesicritus. Polyclitus. Olympiodorus. Diognetus. Nicobulis. Anticlides. Chares of Mitylene. Menaechmus. Dorotheus of Athens. Lycus. Antaeus. Ephippus. Dinon. Adimantus. Ptolemaeus son of Lagus. Marsyas of Macedon. Zoilus ditto. Democritus. Amphilochus. Aristomachus. Alexander Polyhistor. Iuba. Apollodorus, author of On scents. Heraclides the doctor. Botrys ditto. Archedemus ditto. Dionysius ditto. Democles ditto. Euphron ditto. Mnesides ditto. Diagoras ditto. Iollas ditto. Heraclides of Tarentum. Xenocrates of Ephesus.

640

  ‒  

G Libro xiv: Ex auctoribus: Cornelio Valeriano. Vergilio. Celso. Catone Censorio. Sasernis patre et filio. Scrofa. Marco Varrone. Decio Silano. Fabio Pictore. Trogo. Hygino. Flacco Verrio. Graecino. Attico Iulio. Columella. Masurio Sabino. Fenestella. Tergilla. Maccio Plauto. Fabio Dossenno. Scaevola. Lucio Aelio. Ateio Capitone. 5 Cotta Messalino. Lucio Pisone. Pompeio Lenaeo. Fabiano. Sextio Nigro. Vibio Rufino. Externis: Hesiodo. Theophrasto. Aristotele. Democrito. Hierone Rege. Philometore Rege. Attalo Rege. Archyta. Xenophonte. Amphilocho Athenaeo. Anaxipoli Thasio. Apollodoro Lemnio. Aristophane Milesio. Antigono Cymaeo. Agathocle 10 Chio. Apollonio Pergameno. Aristandro Athenaeo. Bacchio Milesio. Bione Solense. Chaerea Atheniense. Cheresto item. Diodoro Prieneo. Dinone Colophonio. Epigene Rhodio. Euagone Thasio. Euphronio Athenaeo. Androtione qui de agricultura scripsit. Aeschrione qui item. Lysimacho qui item. Dionysio qui Magonem transtulit. Diophane qui ex Dionysio epitomas fecit. Asclepiade 15 medico. Erasistrato. Commiade qui de conditura uini scripsit. Aristomacho qui item. Hicesio qui item. Themisone medico.1 Onesicrito. Iuba Rege.

H Libro xv: Ex auctoribus: Fenestella. Fabiano. Vergilio. Cornelio Valeriano. Celso. Catone Censorio. Sasernis patre et filio. Scrofa. M. Varrone. D. Silano. Fabio Pictore. Trogo. Hygino. Flacco Verrio. Graecino. Attico Iulio. Columella. Masurio Sabino. 20 Tergilla. Cotta Messalino. L. Pisone. Pompeio Lenaeo. Maccio Plauto. Fabio Dossenno. Scaevola. L. Aelio. Ateio Capitone. Sextio Nigro. Vibio Rufino. Externis: Hesiodo. Theophrasto. Aristotele. Democrito. Hierone Rege. Philometore Rege. Attalo Rege. Archyta. Xenophonte. Amphilocho Athenaeo. Anaxipoli

Themisone medico Moneus rescriptus (= M) Florentinus Riccardianus 488 (= R) e corr (= R2) Brunn, De auctorum indicibus Plinianis, Bonn 1856 (= Brunn) Beaujeu (= Be): Themisone Parisinus Latinus 6797 (= d): Erasistrato. . . . Themisone medico om Parisinus Latinus 6795 (= E) Leidensis Lipsii 7 (= F) R1 vett om 1

  ‒  

641

G To Book xiv: Sources: Cornelius Valerianus. Vergilius. Celsus. Cato the Censor. The Sasernae, father and son. Scrofa. Marcus Varro. Decius Silanus. Fabius Pictor. Trogus. Hyginus. Verrius Flaccus. Graecinus. Iulius Atticus. Columella. Masurius Sabinus. Fenestella. Tergilla. Maccius Plautus. Fabius Dossennus. Scaevola. Lucius Aelius. Ateius Capito. Cotta Messalinus. Lucius Piso. Pompeius Lenaeus. Fabianus. Sextius Niger. Vibius Rufinus. Foreign sources: Hesiod. Theophrastus. Aristotle. Democritus. King Hieron. King Philometor. King Attalus. Archytas. Xenophon. Amphilochus of Athens. Anaxipolis of Thasos. Apollodorus of Lemnos. Aristophanes of Miletus. Antigonus of Cumae. Agathocles of Chios. Apollonius of Pergamum. Aristander of Athens. Bacchius of Miletus. Bion of Soli. Chaereas of Athens. Cherestus ditto. Diodorus of Priene. Dinon of Colophon. Epigenes of Rhodes. Euagon of Thasos. Euphronius of Athens. Androtion, author of On agriculture. Aeschrion ditto. Lysimachus ditto. Dionysius, translator of Mago. Diophanes, epitomatist of Dionysius. Asclepiades the doctor. Erasistrates ditto. Commiades, author of Instructions on wine-making. Aristomachus ditto. Hicesius ditto. Themison the doctor. Onesicritus. King Iuba.

H To Book xv: Sources: Fenestella. Fabianus. Vergilius. Cornelius Valerianus. Celsus. Cato the Censor. The Sasernae, father and son. Scrofa. M. Varro. D. Silanus. Fabius Pictor. Trogus. Hyginus. Verrius Flaccus. Graecinus. Atticus Iulius. Columella. Masurius Sabinus. Tergilla. Cotta Messalinus. L. Piso. Pompeius Lenaeus. Maccius Plautus. Fabius Dossennus. Scaevola. L. Aelius. Ateius Capito. Sextius Niger. Vibius Rufinus. Foreign sources: Hesiod. Theophrastus. Aristotle. Democritus. King Hieron. King Philometor. King Attalus. Archytas. Xenophon. Amphilochus of Athens. Anaxipolis of

642

  ‒  

Thasio. Apollodoro Lemnio. Aristophane Milesio. Antigono Cymaeo. Agathocle Chio. Apollonio Pergameno. Aristandro Athenaeo. Bacchio Milesio. Bione Solense. Chaerea Athenaeo. Cheresto item. Diodoro Prieneo. Dinone Colophonio. Epigene Rhodio. Euagone Thasio. Euphronio Athenaeo. Androtione 5 qui de agricultura scripsit. Aeschrione qui item. Lysimacho qui item. Dionysio qui Magonem transtulit. Diophane qui ex Dionysio epitomas fecit. Asclepiade medico. Erasistrato item. Commiade qui de conditura uini. Aristomacho qui item. Hicesio qui item. Themisone medico. Onesicrito. Iuba Rege.

I Libro xvii: Ex auctoribus: Cornelio Nepote. Catone Censorio. M. Varrone. Celso. Vergilio. Hygino. 10 Sasernis patre et filio. Scrofa. Calpurnio Basso. Trogo. Aemilio Macro. Graecino. Columella. Attico Iulio. Fabiano. Mamilio Sura. Dessio Mundo. C. Epidio. L. Pisone. Externis: Hesiodo. Theophrasto. Aristotele. Democrito. Theopompo. Hierone Rege. Philometore Rege. Attalo Rege. Archelao Rege. Archyta. Xenophonte. 15 Amphilocho Atheniense. Anaxipoli Thasio. Apollodoro Lemnio. Aristophane Milesio. Antigono Cymaeo. Agathocle Chio. Apollonio Pergameno. Bacchio Milesio. Bione Solense. Chaerea Atheniense. Cheresto item. Diodoro Prieneo. Dione Colophonio. Epigene Rhodio. Euagone Thasio. Euphronio Athenaeo. Androtione qui de agricultura scripsit. Aeschrione qui item. Lysimacho 20 qui item. Dionysio qui Magonem transtulit. Diophane qui ex Dionysio epitoma fecit. Aristandro qui de portentis scripsit.

J Libro xviii: Ex auctoribus: Masurio Sabino. Cassio Hemina. Verrio Flacco. L. Pisone. Cornelio Celso. Turranio Gracile. D. Silano. M. Varrone. Catone Censorio. Scrofa. Sasernis patre et filio. Domitio Caluino. Hygino. Vergilio. Trogo. Ouidio. Graecino. 25 Columella. Tuberone. L. Tarutio qui Graece de astris scripsit. Caesare dictatore qui item. Sergio Plauto. Sabino Fabiano. M. Cicerone. Calpurnio Basso. Ateio Capitone. Mamilio Sura. Attio qui Praxidica scripsit.

  ‒  

643

Thasos. Apollodorus of Lemnos. Aristophanes of Miletus. Antigonus of Cumae. Agathocles of Chios. Apollonius of Pergamum. Aristander of Athens. Bacchius of Miletus. Bion of Soli. Chaereas of Athens. Cherestus ditto. Diodorus of Priene. Dinon of Colophon. Epigenes of Rhodes. Euagon of Thasos. Euphronius of Athens. Androtion, author of On agriculture. Aeschrion ditto. Lysimachus ditto. Dionysius, translator of Mago. Diophanes, epitomatist of Dionysius. Asclepiades the doctor. Erasistratus ditto. Commiades, author of Instructions on wine-making. Aristomachus ditto. Hicesius ditto. Themison the doctor. Onesicritus. King Iuba.

I To Book xvii: Sources: Cornelius Nepos. Cato the Censor. M. Varro. Celsus. Vergilius. Hyginus. The Sasernae, father and son. Scrofa. Calpurnius Bassus. Trogus. Aemilius Macer. Graecinus. Columella. Iulius Atticus. Fabianus. Mamilius Sura. Dessius Mundus. C. Epidius. L. Piso. Foreign sources: Hesiod. Theophrastus. Aristotle. Democritus. Theopompus. King Hieron. King Philometor. King Attalus. King Archelaus. Archytas. Xenophon. Amphilochus of Athens. Anaxipolis of Thasos. Apollodorus of Lemnos. Aristophanes of Miletus. Antigonus of Cumae. Agathocles of Chios. Apollonius of Pergamum. Bacchius of Miletus. Bion of Soli. Chaereas of Athens. Cherestus ditto. Diodorus of Priene. Dinon of Colophon. Epigenes of Rhodes. Euagon of Thasos. Euphronius of Athens. Androtion, author of On agriculture. Aeschrion ditto. Lysimachus ditto. Dionysius, translator of Mago. Diophanes, epitomatist of Dionysius. Aristander, author of Portents.

J To Book xviii: Sources: Masurius Sabinus. Cassius Hemina. Verrius Flaccus. L. Piso. Cornelius Celsus. Turranius Gracilis. D. Silanus. M. Varro. Cato the Censor. Scrofa. The Sasernae, father and son. Domitius Calvinus. Hyginus. Vergilius. Trogus. Ovidius. Graecinus. Columella. Tubero. L. Tarutius, author of On the stars in Greek. Caesar the dictator, ditto. Sergius Plautus. Sabinus Fabianus. M. Cicero. Calpurnius Bassus. Ateius Capito. Mamilius Sura. Attius, author of Praxidica.

644

  ‒   Externis:

Hesiodo. Theophrasto. Aristotele. Democrito. Hierone Rege. Philometore Rege. Attalo Rege. Archelao Rege. Archyta. Xenophonte. Amphilocho Athenaeo. Anaxipoli Thasio. Apollodoro Lemnio. Aristophane Milesio. Antigono Cymaeo. Agathocle Chio. Apollonio Pergameno. Aristandro Athenaeo. 5 Bacchio Milesio. Bione Solense. Chaerea Atheniense. Cheresto item. Diodoro Prieneo. Dinone Colophonio. Epigene Rhodio. Euagone Thasio. Euphronio Athenaeo. Androtione qui de agricultura scripsit. Aeschrione qui item. Lysimacho qui item. Dionysio qui Magonem transtulit. Diophane qui ex Dionysio epitomen fecit. Thalete. Eudoxo. Philippo. Callippo. Dositheo. Parmenisco. 10 Metone. Critone. Oenopide. Conone. Euctemone. Harpalo. Hecataeo. Anaximandro. Sosigene. Hipparcho. Arato. Zoroastre. Archibio.

K Libro xx: Ex auctoribus: Catone Censorio. M. Varrone. Pompeio Lenaeo. C. Valgio. Hygino. Sextio Nigro qui Graece scripsit. Iulio Basso qui item. Celso. Antonio Castore. Externis: Democrito. Theophrasto. Orpheo. Menandro qui BiÒxrhsta scripsit. Pythagora. 15 Nicandro. Medicis: Hippocrate. Chrysippo. Diocle. Ophone. Heraclide. Hicesio. Dionysio. Apollodoro Citiense. Apollodoro Tarentino. Praxagora. Plistonico. Medio. Dieuche. Cleophanto. Philistione. Asclepiade. Crateua. Petronio Diodoto. Iolla. Erasistato. Diagora. Andrea. Mneside. Epicharmo. Damione. Dalione. 20 Sosimene. Tlepolemo. Metrodoro. Solone. Lyco. Olympiade Thebana. Philino. Petricho. Miccione. Glaucia. Xenocrate.

L Libro xxi: Ex auctoribus: Catone Censorio. M. Varrone. Masurio. Antiate. Caepione. stino. Vibio Rufino. Hygino. Pomponio Mela. Pompeio Lenaeo. Cornelio Celso. Calpurnio Basso. . Vagio. Licinio Macro. Sextio Nigro qui Graece 25 scripsit. Iulio Basso qui item. Antonio Castore.

  ‒  

645

Foreign sources: Hesiod. Theophrastus. Aristotle. Democritus. King Hieron. King Philometor. King Attalus. King Archelaus. Archytas. Xenophon. Amphilochus of Athens. Anaxipolis of Thasos. Apollodorus of Lemnos. Aristophanes of Miletus. Antigonus of Cumae. Agathocles of Chios. Apollonius of Pergamum. Aristander of Athens. Bacchius of Miletus. Bion of Soli. Chaereas of Athens. Cherestus ditto. Diodorus of Priene. Dinon of Colophon. Epigenes of Rhodes. Euagon of Thasos. Euphronius of Athens. Androtion, author of On agriculture. Aeschrion ditto. Lysimachus ditto. Dionysius, translator of Mago. Diophanes, epitomatist of Dionysius. Thales. Eudoxus. Philippus. Callippus. Dositheus. Parmeniscus. Meton. Crito. Oenopides. Conon. Euctemon. Harpalus. Hecataeus. Anaximander. Sosigenes. Hipparchus. Aratus. Zoroaster. Archibius.

K To Book xx: Sources: Cato the Censor. M. Varro. Pompeius Lenaeus. C. Valgius. Hyginus. Sextius Niger, author of works in Greek. Iulius Bassus ditto. Celsus. Antonius Castor. Foreign sources: Democritus. Theophrastus. Orpheus. Menander, author of Things useful for life. Pythagoras. Nicander. Doctors: Hippocrates. Chrysippus. Diocles. Ophion. Heraclides. Hicesius. Dionysius. Apollodorus of Citium. Apollodorus of Tarentum. Praxagoras. Plistonicus. Medius. Dieuches. Cleophantus. Philistion. Asclepiades. Crateuas. Petronius Diodotus. Iollas. Erasistatus. Diagoras. Andreas. Mnesides. Epicharmus. Damion. Dalion. Sosimenes. Tlepolemus. Metrodorus. Solon. Lycus. Olympias of Thebes. Philinus. Petrichus. Miccio. Glaucias. Xenocrates.

L To Book xxi: Sources: Cato the Censor. M. Varro. Masurius. Antias. Caepio. Vestinus. Vibius Rufinus. Hyginus. Pomponius Mela. Pompeius Lenaeus. Cornelius Celsus. Calpurnius Bassus. C. Valgius. Licinius Macer. Sextius Niger, author of works in Greek. Iulius Bassus ditto. Antonius Castor.

646

  ‒   Externis:

Theophrasto. Democrito. Orpheo. Pythagora. Magone. Menandro qui BiÒxrhsta scripsit. Nicandro. Homero. Hesiodo. Musaeo. Sophocle. Anaxilao. Medicis: Mnesitheo qui de coronis. Callimacho qui item. Phania physico. Timarito. Simo. Hippocrate. Chrysippo. Diocle. Ophione. Heraclide. Hicesio. Dionysio. 5 Apollodoro Citiense. Apollodoro Tarentino. Praxagora. Plistonico. Medio. Dieuche. Cleophanto. Philistione. Asclepiade. Crateua. Petronio Diodoto. Iolla. Erasistrato. Diagora. Andrea. Mneside. Epicharmo. Damione. Dalione. Sosimene. Tlepolemo. Metrodoro. Solone. Lyco. Olympiade Thebana. Philino. Petricho. Miccione. Glaucia. Xenocrate.

M Libro xxii: Ex auctoribus: 10 Iisdem quibus priore libro et praeter eos Chrysermo. Eratosthene. Alcaeo.

N Libro xxiii: Ex auctoribus: C. Valgio. Pompeio Lenaeo. Sextio Nigro qui Graece scripsit. Iulio Basso qui item. Antonio Castore. M. Varrone. Cornelio Celso. Fabiano. Externis: Theophrasto. Democrito. Orpheo. Pythagora. Magone. Menandro qui BiÒxrhsta. Nicandro. Homero. Hesiodo. Musaeo. Sophocle. Anaxilao. Medicis: 15 Mnesitheo. Callimacho. Phania physico. Timaristo. Simo. Hippocrate. Chrysippo. Diocle. Ophione. Heraclide. Hicesio. Dionysio. Apollodoro Citiense. Apollodoro Tarentino. Praxagora. Plistonico. Medio. Dieuche. Cleophanto. Philistione. Asclepiade. Crateua. Petronio Diodoto. Iolla. Erasistrato. Diagora. Andrea. Mneside. Epicharmo. Damione. Dalione. Sosimene. Tlepolemo. 20 Metrodoro. Solone. Lyco. Olympiade Thebana. Philino. Petricho. Miccione. Glaucia. Xenocrate.

  ‒  

647

Foreign sources: Theophrastus. Democritus. Orpheus. Pythagoras. Mago. Menander, author of Things useful for life. Nicander. Homer. Hesiod. Musaeus. Sophocles. Anaxilaus. Doctors: Mnesitheus, author of On wreaths. Callimachus ditto. Phanias the natural philosopher. Timaristus. Simus. Hippocrates. Chrysippus. Diocles. Ophion. Heraclides. Hicesius. Dionysius. Apollodorus of Citium. Apollodorus of Tarentum. Praxagoras. Plistonicus. Medius. Dieuches. Cleophantus. Philistion. Asclepiades. Crateuas. Petronius Diodotus. Iollas. Erasistratus. Diagoras. Andreas. Mnesides. Epicharmus. Damion. Dalion. Sosimenes. Tlepolemus. Metrodorus. Solon. Lycus. Olympias of Thebes. Philinus. Petrichus. Miccio. Glaucias. Xenocrates.

M To Book xxii: Sources: The same as for the preceding book, and also: Chrysermus. Eratosthens. Alcaeus.

N To Book xxiii: Sources: C. Valgius. Pompeius Lenaeus. Sextius Niger, author of works in Greek. Iulius Bassus ditto. Antonius Castor. M. Varro. Cornelius Celsus. Fabianus. Foreign sources: Theophrastus. Democritus. Orpheus. Pythagoras. Mago. Menander, author of Things useful for life. Nicander. Homer. Hesiod. Musaeus. Sophocles. Anaxilaus. Doctors: Mnesitheus. Callimachus. Phanias the natural philosopher. Timaristus. Simus. Hippocrates. Chrysippus. Diocles. Ophion. Heraclides. Hicesius. Dionysius. Apollodorus of Citium. Apollodorus of Tarentum. Praxagoras. Plistonicus. Medius. Dieuches. Cleophantus. Philistion. Asclepiades. Crateuas. Petronius Diodotus. Iollas. Erasistratus. Diagoras. Andreas. Mnesides. Epicharmus. Damion. Dalion. Sosimenes. Tlepolemus. Metrodorus. Solon. Lycus. Olympias of Thebes. Philinus. Petrichus. Miccio. Glaucias. Xenocrates.

648

  ‒  

O Libro xxiv: Ex auctoribus: C. Valgio. Pompeio Lenaeo. Sextio Nigro qui Graece scripsit. Iulio Basso qui item. Antonio Castore. Cornelio Celso. Externis: Theophrasto. Apollodoro. Democrito. Orpheo. Pythagora. Magone. Menandro qui BiÒxrhsta scripsit. Nicandro. Homero. Hesiodo. Musaeo. Sophocle. 5 Anaxilao. Medicis: Mnesitheo. Callimacho. Phania physico. Timaristo. Simo. Hippocrate. Chrysippo. Diocle. Ophione. Heraclide. Hicesio. Dionysio. Apollodoro Citiense. Apollodoro Tarentino. Praxagora. Plistonico. Medio. Dieuche. Cleophanto. Philistione. Asclepiade. Crateua. Petronio Diodoto. Iolla. Erasistrato. Diagora. 10 Andrea. Mneside. Epicharmo. Damione. Sosimene. Tlepolemo. Metrodoro. Solone. Lyco. Olympiade Thebana. Philino. Petricho. Miccione. Glaucia. Xenocrate.

P Libro xxv: Ex auctoribus: . Valgio. Pompeio Lenaeo. Sextio Nigro qui Graece scripsit. Iulio Basso qui item. Antonio Castore. Cornelio Celso. Fabiano. Externis: 15 Theophrasto. Apollodoro. Democrito. Iuba. Orpheo. Pythagora. Magone. Menandro qui BiÒxrhsta scripsit. Nicandro. Homero. Hesiodo. Musaeo. Sophocle. Xantho. Anaxilao. Medicis: Mnesitheo. Callimacho. Phania physico. Timaristo. Simo. Hippocrate. Chrysippo. Diocle. Ophione. Heraclide. Hicesio. Dionysio. Apollodoro Citiense. 20 Apollodoro Tarentino. Praxagora. Plistonico. Medio. Dieuche. Cleophanto. Philistione. Asclepiade. Crateua. Petronio Diodoto. Iolla. Erasistrato. Diagora. Andrea. Mneside. Epicharmo. Damione. Sosimene. Tlepolemo. Metrodoro. Solone. Lyco. Olympiade Thebana. Philino. Petricho. Miccione. Glaucia. Xenocrate.

  ‒  

649

O To Book xxiv: Sources: C. Valgius. Pompeius Lenaeus. Sextius Niger, author of works in Greek. Iulius Bassus ditto. Antonius Castor. Cornelius Celsus. Foreign sources: Theophrastus. Apollodorus. Democritus. Orpheus. Pythagoras. Mago. Menander, author of Things useful for life. Nicander. Homer. Hesiod. Musaeus. Sophocles. Anaxilaus. Doctors: Mnesitheus. Callimachus. Phanias the natural philosopher. Timaristus. Simus. Hippocrates. Chrysippus. Diocles. Ophion. Heraclides. Hicesius. Dionysius. Apollodorus of Citium. Apollodorus of Tarentum. Praxagoras. Plistonicus. Medius. Dieuches. Cleophantus. Philistion. Asclepiades. Crateuas. Petronius Diodotus. Iollas. Erasistratus. Diagoras. Andreas. Mnesides. Epicharmus. Damion. Sosimenes. Tlepolemus. Metrodorus. Solon. Lycus. Olympias of Thebes. Philinus. Petrichus. Miccio. Glaucias. Xenocrates.

P To Book xxv: Sources: C. Valgius. Pompeius Lenaeus. Sextius Niger, author of works in Greek. Iulius Bassus ditto. Antonius Castor. Cornelius Celsus. Fabianus. Foreign sources: Theophrastus. Apollodorus. Democritus. Iuba. Orpheus. Pythagoras. Mago. Menander, author of Things useful for life. Nicander. Homer. Hesiod. Musaeus. Sophocles. Xanthus. Anaxilaus. Doctors: Mnesitheus. Callimachus. Phanias the natural philosopher. Timaristus. Simus. Hippocrates. Chrysippus. Diocles. Ophion. Heraclides. Hicesius. Dionysius. Apollodorus of Citium. Apollodorus of Tarentum. Praxagoras. Plistonicus. Medius. Dieuches. Cleophantus. Philistion. Asclepiades. Crateuas. Petronius Diodotus. Iollas. Erasistratus. Diagoras. Andreas. Mnesides. Epicharmus. Damion. Sosimenes. Tlepolemus. Metrodorus. Solon. Lycus. Olympias of Thebes. Philinus. Petrichus. Miccio. Glaucias. Xenocrates.

650

  ‒  

Q Libro xxvi: Ex auctoribus: M. Varrone. C. Valgio. Pompeio Lenaeo. Sextio Nigro qui Graece scripsit. Iulio Basso qui item. Antonio Castore. Cornelio Celso. Externis: Theophrasto. Apollodoro. Democrito. Iuba. Orpheo. Pythagora. Magone. Menandro qui BiÒxrhsta scripsit. Nicandro. Homero. Hesiodo. Musaeo. 5 Sophocle. Xantho. Anaxilao. Medicis: Mnesitheo. Callimacho. Phania physico. Timaristo. Simo. Hippocrate. Chrysippo. Diocle. Ophione. Heraclide. Hicesio. Dionysio. Apollodoro Citiense. Apollodoro Tarentino. Praxagora. Plistonico. Medio. Dieuche. Cleophanto. Philistione. Asclepiade. Crateua. Petronio Diodoto. Iolla. 10 Erasistrato. Diagora. Andrea. Mneside. Epicharmo. Damione. Sosimene. Tlepolemo. Metrodoro. Solone. Lyco. Olympiade Thebana. Philino. Petricho. Miccione. Glaucia. Xenocrate.

R Libro xxvii: Ex auctoribus: C. Valgio. Pompeio Lenaeo. Sextio Nigro qui Graece scripsit. Iulio Basso qui item. Antonio Castore. Cornelio Celso. Externis: 15 Theophrasto. Apollodoro. Democrito. Aristogitone. Orpheo. Pythagora. Magone. Menandro qui BiÒxrhsta scripsit. Nicandro. Medicis: Mnesitheo. Callimacho. Timaristo. Simo. Hippocrate. Chrysippo. Diocle. Ophione. Heraclide. Hicesio. Dionysio. Apollodoro Citiense. Apollodoro Tarentino. Praxagora. Plistonico. Medio. Dieuche. Cleophanto. Philistione. 20 Asclepiade. Crateua. Iolla. Erasistrato. Diagora. Andrea. Mneside. Epicharmo. Damione. Sosimene. Tlepolemo. Metrodoro. Solone. Lyco. Olympiade Thebana. Philino. Petrico. Miccione. Glaucia. Xenocrate.

  ‒  

651

Q To Book xxvi: Sources: M. Varro. C. Valgius. Pompeius Lenaeus. Sextius Niger, author of works in Greek. Iulius Bassus ditto. Antonius Castor. Cornelius Celsus. Foreign sources: Theophrastus. Apollodorus. Democritus. Iuba. Orpheus. Pythagoras. Mago. Menander, author of Things useful for life. Nicander. Homer. Hesiod. Musaeus. Sophocles. Xanthus. Anaxilaus. Doctors: Mnesitheus. Callimachus. Phanias the natural philosopher. Timaristus. Simus. Hippocrates. Chrysippus. Diocles. Ophion. Heraclides. Hicesius. Dionysius. Apollodorus of Citium. Apollodorus of Tarentum. Praxagoras. Plistonicus. Medius. Dieuches. Cleophantus. Philistion. Asclepiades. Crateuas. Petronius Diodotus. Iollas. Erasistratus. Diagoras. Andreas. Mnesides. Epicharmus. Damion. Sosimenes. Tlepolemus. Metrodorus. Solon. Lycus. Olympias of Thebes. Philinus. Petrichus. Miccio. Glaucias. Xenocrates.

R To Book xxvii: Sources: C. Valgius. Pompeius Lenaeus. Sextius Niger, author of works in Greek. Iulius Bassus ditto. Antonius Castor. Cornelius Celsus. Foreign sources: Theophrastus. Apollodorus. Democritus. Aristogiton. Orpheus. Pythagoras. Mago. Menander, author of Things useful for life. Nicander. Doctors: Mnesitheus. Callimachus. Timaristus. Simus. Hippocrates. Chrysippus. Diocles. Ophion. Heraclides. Hicesius. Dionysius. Apollodorus of Citium. Apollodorus of Tarentum. Praxagoras. Plistonicus. Medius. Dieuches. Cleophantus. Philistion. Asclepiades. Crateuas. Petronius Diodotus. Iollas. Erasistratus. Diagoras. Andreas. Mnesides. Epicharmus. Damion. Sosimenes. Tlepolemus. Metrodorus. Solon. Lycus. Olympias of Thebes. Philinus. Petrichus. Miccio. Glaucias. Xenocrates.

652

  ‒  

S Libro xxxi: Ex auctoribus: M. Varrone. Cassio Parmense. Cicerone. Muciano. Caelio. Celso. Trogo. Ovidio. Polybio. Sornatio. Externis: Callimacho. Ctesia. Eudico. Theophrasto. Eudoxo. Theopompo. Polyclito. Iuba. Lyco. Apione. Epigene. Pelope. Apelle. Democrito. Thrasyllo. Nicandro. 5 Menandro comoedo. Attalo. Sallustio Dionysio. Andrea. Nicerato. Hippocrate. Anaxilao.

T Libro xxxiii: Ex auctoribus: Domitiano Caesare. Iunio Gracchano. L. Pisone. M. Varrone. Coruino. Attico Pomponio. Caluu Licinio. Cornelio Nepote. Muciano. Boccho. Fetiale. Fenestella. Valerio Maximo. Iulio Basso qui de medicina Graece scripsit. 10 Sextio Nigro qui item. Externis: Theophrasto. Democrito. Iuba. Timaeo historico. Qui de medicina metallica scripst: Heraclide. Andrea. Diagora. Botrye. Archedemo. Dionysio. Aristogene. Democle. Mneside. Attalo medico. Xenocrate item. Theomnesto. Nymphodoro. Iolla. Apollodoro. Pasitele qui mirabilia opera scripsit. Antigono 15 qui de toreutice scripsit. Menaechmo qui item.

U Libro xxxiv: Ex auctoribus: L. Pisone. Antiate. Verrio. M. Varrone. Cornelio Nepote. Messala Rufo. Marso poeta. Boccho. Iulio Basso qui de medicina Graece scripsit. Sextio Nigro item. Fabio Vestale. Externis: Democrito. Metrodoro Scepsio. Menaechmo qui de toreutice scripsit. Xeno20 crate qui item. Antigono qui item. Duride qui item. Heliodoro qui Atheniensium anathemata scripsit. Pasitele qui mirabilia opera scripsit. Timaeo. Qui de medicina metallica scripserunt: Nymphodoro. Iolla. Apollodoro. Andrea.

  ‒  

653

S To Book xxxi: Sources: M. Varro. Cassius of Parma. Cicero. Mucianus. Caelius. Celsus. Trogus. Ovidius. Polybius. Sornatius. Foreign sources: Callimachus. Ctesias. Eudicus. Theophrastus. Eudoxus. Theopompus. Polyclitus. Iuba. Lycus. Apion. Epigenes. Pelops. Apelles. Democritus. Thrasyllus. Nicander. Menander the comediographer. Attalus. Sallustius. Dionysius. Andreas. Niceratus. Hippocrates. Anaxilaus.

T To Book xxxiii: Sources: Domitianus Caesar. Iunius Gracchanus. L. Piso. M. Varro. Corvinus. Atticus Pomponius. Calvus Licinius. Cornelius Nepos. Mucianus. Bocchus. Fetialis. Fenestella. Valerius Maximus. Iulius Bassus, author of On medicine in Greek. Sextius Niger ditto. Foreign sources: Theophrastus. Democritus. Iuba. Timaeus the historian. Authors who recorded antidotes made of minerals: Heraclides. Andreas. Diagoras. Botrys. Archedemus. Dionysius. Aristogenes. Democles. Mnesides. Attalus the doctor. Xenocrates ditto. Theomnestus. Nymphodorus. Iollas. Apollodorus. Pasiteles, author of works on Marvellous things. Antigonus, author of The art of sculpture. Menaechmus ditto.

U To Book xxxiv: Sources: L. Piso. Antias. Verrius. M. Varro. Cornelius Nepos. Messala Rufus. Marsus the poet. Bocchus. Iulius Bassus, author of On medicine in Greek. Sextius Niger ditto. Fabius Vestalis. Foreign sources: Democritus. Metrodorus of Scepsis. Menaechmus, author of The art of sculpture. Xenocrates ditto. Antigonus ditto. Duris ditto. Heliodorus, who recorded The votive offerings of the Athenians. Pasiteles, author of works on Marvellous things. Timaeus. Authors who recorded antidotes made of minerals: Nymphodorus.

654

  ‒  

Heraclide. Diagora. Botrye. Archedemo. Dionysio. Aristogene. Democle. Mneside. Xenocrate Zenonis. Theomnesto.

V Libro xxxv: Ex auctoribus: Messala oratore. Messala Sene. Fenestella. Attico. M. Varrone. Verio. Nepote Cornelio. Deculone. Muciano. Melisso. Vitruuio. Cassio Seuero. 5 Longulano. Fabio Vestale. Externis: Qui de pictura scrips: Pasitele. Apelle. Melanthio. Asclepiodoro. Euphranore. Heliodoro qui anathemata Athenis scripsit. Metrodoro qui de architectonice scripsit. Democrito. Theophrasto. Apione grammatico. Qui de metallica medicina scrips: Nymphodoro. Iolla. Apollodoro. 10 Andrea. Heraclide. Diagora. Botrye. Archedemo. Dionysio. Aristogene. Democle. Mneside. Xenocrate Zenonis. Theomnesto.

X Libro xxxvi: Ex auctoribus: M. Varrone. C. Galba. Cincio. Muciano. Nepote Cornelio. L. Pisone. Q. Tuberone. Fabio Vestale. Annio Fetiale. Fabiano. Seneca. Catone Censorio. Vitruuio. Externis: 15 Theophrasto. Pasitele. Iuba Rege. Nicandro. Sotaco. Sudine. Alexandro Polyhistore. Apione Plistonice. Duride. Herodoto. Euhemero. Aristagora. Dionysio. Artemidoro. Butorida. Antisthene. Demetrio. Demotele. Lycea.

  ‒  

655

Iollas. Apollodorus. Andreas. Heraclides. Diagoras. Botrys. Archedemus. Dionysius. Aristogenes. Democles. Mnesides. Xenocrates son of Zeno. Theomnestus.

V To Book xxxv: Sources: Messala the orator. Messala the Elder. Fenestella. Atticus. M. Varro. Verrius. Cornelius Nepos. Deculo. Mucianus. Melissus. Vitruvius. Cassius Severus. Longulanus. Fabius Vestalis. Foreign sources: Authors of The art of painting: Pasiteles. Apelles. Melanthius. Asclepiodorus. Euphranor. Heliodorus, who recorded The votive offerings of the Athenians. Metrodorus, author of The art of architecture. Democritus. Theophrastus. Apion the philologist. Authors who recorded antidotes made of minerals: Nymphodorus. Iollas. Apollodorus. Andreas. Heraclides. Diagoras. Botrys. Archedemus. Dionysius. Aristogenes. Democles. Mnesides. Xenocrates son of Zeno. Theomnestus.

X To Book xxxvi: Sources: M. Varro. C. Galba. Cincius. Mucianus. Cornelius Nepos. L. Piso. Q. Tubero. Fabius Vestalis. Annius Fetialis. Fabianus. Seneca. Cato the Censor. Vitruvius. Foreign sources: Theophrastus. Pasiteles. King Iuba. Nicander. Sotacus. Sudines. Alexander Polyhistor. Apion Plistonices. Duris. Herodotus. Euhemerus. Aristagoras. Dionysius. Artemidorus. Butoridas. Antisthenes. Demetrius. Demoteles. Lyceas.

656

  ‒  - FR 257. PLINIUS, NATURALIS

HISTORIA

(2)

Plinius, Naturalis historia, XIV xxi, 114–115: [xxi, 114] Omnia [sc genera ficticii uini] ab Themisone1 summo auctore damnata. [115] Et Hercules coactus usus eorum uideri potest, nisi si quis naturae opus esse credit aromatiten et2 ex unguentis uina composita, aut ut biberentur genuisse eam fructices. Ista3 sunt cognitu4 iucunda sollertiae5 5 humanae6 nomine7 omnia exquirentis.8 Nihil quidem ex iis9 anno durare, praeterquam quae uetustate ipsa fieri diximus, et plura ne tricenis quidem diebus, non erit dubium.

Parisinus Latinus 6797 (= d): themissone Vaticanus Latinus 3861 (= D): themisione Parisinus Latinus 6795 (= E) Arundelianus 98 (= l): themissione Leidensis Lipsii 7 (= F) Parisinus 6796 A (= e) 2 aromatiten et “verba fortasse inserta” quaerit André (= An) 3 D > Rackham (= Ra): ita An: ita sta F e 4 l: cognita D2 e: cognito D1 E F d Vindobonensis 234 (= a) 5 D F d e > An: solertia E: sollertia a l > Ra 6 d > An: humane e: humana D E F: humani codd vett > Ra 7 D F d e > An: homine E a: nomini l: animi codd vett > Ra 8 D F d e > An: exquirenti E a l: exquirente Ra 9 his Ra 1

FR 258DUB. PLINIUS, NATURALIS

HISTORIA

(3)

Plinius, Naturalis historia, XX, ix, 18–19: [ix, 18] Est et rapo uis medica. [. . .] [19] Democritus in totum ea1 abdicauit in cibis propter inflationes. Diocles magnis laudibus tulit, etiam uenerem 10 stimulari ab iis2 professus; item Dionysius,3 magisque si4 eruca condirentur, tosta quoque articulorum dolori5 cum adipe prodesse.6

ea E Parisinus Latinus 6796 A (= p): eum Parisinus Latinus 6800 (= g): om d Toletanus 47–14 (= T) 2 ab his E p d T 3 dyonisius codd 4 magisque si Parisinus Latinus 10318 (= Q ): magis quasi E p d T: magis quam si g 5 dolore E 6 corr Gelenius, editio Basileensis 1554 (= Ge): prodest E p g d T: prosunt S (= Variae lectiones a Detlefseno editae)] 1

  ‒  - FR 257. PLINY, NATURAL

HISTORY

657

(2)

Pliny, Natural history, XIV xxi, 114–115: [xxi, 114] Themison, whose authority is of the first rank, has disapproved of all these [sc artificial wines]. [115] And, by Hercules, it may seem that their use is contrived, unless one thinks that aromatic wines made from the ingredients of perfumes are a work of nature, or that shrubs were created in order to be drunk. Wines such as these are pleasant to learn about on behalf of man’s ingeniosity, which probes into everything. But none of them keeps for a whole year (except for those where we have shown that old age itself contributes to the making)—in fact most of them do not keep even for a month; and there is no doubt about that.

FR 258DUB. PLINIUS, NATURAL

HISTORY

(3)

Pliny, Natural history, XX, ix, 18–19: [ix, 18] The turnip, too, has medicinal power. [. . .] [19] Democritus eliminated it altogether from food, on account of [sc its producing] flatulence. Diocles accepted it on the highest terms and even claimed that one is driven to sex by them [sc such foods]; and so did Dionysius, [sc claiming that this is the case] especially if it [sc the turnip] is seasoned with rocket [eruca], and [sc that], when roasted and mixed with animal fat, it is also good for pain in the joints.

658

  ‒  - FR 259DUB. PLINIUS, NATURALIS

HISTORIA

(4)

Plinius, Naturalis historia, XX, xliv, 112–114: [xliv, 112] Apio gratia in uolgo est. [. . .] [113] Verum apud eruditos non aliud erutum terra in maiore sententiarum uarietate1 est. Distinguitur sexu. Chrysippus feminam esse dicit crispioribus foliis et duris, crasso caule, sapore acri et feruido; Dionysius2 nigriorem, breuioris3 radicis,4 uermiculos gig5 nentem. Ambo neutrum ad cibos admittendum—immo omnino nefas namque id defunctorum epulis feralibus dicatum esse;5 uisus quoque claritati inimicum. [114] Caule feminae uermiculos gigni,6 ideoque eos qui ederint sterilescere, mares feminasue, in puerperiis uero ab eo cibo comitiales fieri qui ubera hauriant;7 innocentiorem tamen esse marem. Eaque causa est ne inter 10 nefastos frutex damnetur.

auctoritate g et vett 2 dyonisius marem g et vett: post dionysius lacunam ind Mayhoff Plinius III, Leipzig 1892 (= Ma) 3 g et vett > Ra: breuem E p d T > An 4 post radicis lacunam ind Ma > An 5 corr Ge: ipse E p d T: ipsius g et vett 6 caule . . . gigni uncis incl Ma 7 hauriant corr Ma > Jones (= Jo) et An: hauriunt codd 1

FR 260DUB. PLINIUS, NATURAL

HISTORY

(5)

Plinius, Natural history, XX, lxxxiii, 219: [lxxxiii, 219] Atriplex et siluestre est et statiuum;1 accusatum a Pythagora2 tamquam faceret hydropicos morbosque regios et pallorem, concoqeretur3 difficillime, ac ne in hortis quidem iuxta4 id nasci quicquam nisi languidum culpauit. Addidere Dionysius et Diocles plurimos gigni ex eo morbos; nec5 15 nisi mutata saepe aqua coquendum; stomacho contrarium esse; lentigines et papulas gignere.

et statiuum om Jo 2 apytagora p g: a Pythagora André + van der Eijk Diocles Fr 216 (= Ei): Pythagorae Urlichs Vindiciae Plinianae II 1866 (= Ur) Ma Jo 3 corr Hardouin, editio Parisina 1685 (= Ha): conqueretur Leidensis Vossianus f. 61 (= V) E: conqueritur p g d: conquaeritur T: coqueretur corr Sillig, Plinius III 1853 (= Si) 4 vett: iuste cett 5 nunc V 1

  ‒  - FR 259DUB. PLINIUS, NATURAL

HISTORY

659

(4)

Pliny, Natural history, XX, xliv, 112–114: [xliv, 112] Parsley is valued by common folk. [. . .] [113] Yet no other product of the soil stands in greater divergence of opinion from the learned. It can be divided [sc into different kinds] according to gender. Chrysippus claims that the female [sc species] has curlier and vigorous leaves, a thicker stem, sour and pungent taste; Dionysius, that it is darker, with shorter roots, and breeds grubs. Neither of them accepts either [sc species] as foods—in fact [sc they deem] it to be forbidden [sc to eat it], for it [sc parsley] is consecrated to the funeral banquets of the dead; besides, [sc they claim], it is bad for eye-sight. [114] [sc They say] that the stalk of the female [sc species] breeds grubs and for this reason those who ate it, male or female, become sterile, and that, among the new born, those who have sucked breasts [sc nourished] with this food become epileptic; but [sc they note] that the male [sc species] is less damaging. And this is the reason why the shrub [sc of the parsley] should not be classified among the forbidden [sc species].

FR 260DUB. PLINIUS, NATURAL

HISTORY

(5)

Pliny, Natural history, XX, lxxxiii, 219: [lxxxiii, 219] Orache can be wild or cultivated; Pythagoras condemned it on the grounds that it might cause dropsy, epilepsia, and pallor and would be extremely difficult to digest, and [sc he said] that, in its proximity, nothing would even grow in the garden without wilting. Dionysius and Diocles added that several diseases arise from it; that it should not be boiled without changing the water frequently; that it is averse to the stomach; and that it produces freckles and pimples.

660

  ‒  - FR 261DUB. PLINIUS, NATURALIS

HISTORIA

(6)

Plinius, Naturalis historia, XXII, xxxi, 67: [xxxi, 67] Asphodelum de clarissimis herbarum, ut quod “heroin”1 aliqui appelauerint.2 Hesiodus et in siluis3 nasci dixit; Dionysius4 marem ac feminam esse. Defectis corporibus et phthysicis constat bulbos eius cum tisana decoctos5 aptissime dari,6 panemque ex iis7 cum farina subactis saluberri5 mum esse. Nicander et contra serpentes ac scorpiones uel caulem (quem authenticum uocauimus) uel semen uel bulbos dedit in uino tribus drachmis substrauitque somno contra8 hos metus.a

a

Cf Nicander, Theriaca 534.

vett {= V e T x (= pars prior Luxenburgensis 138) f (= Chiffletianus Dalecampii)}: heroneon d Florentinus Riccardianus 488 (= R) E g: hereon V 2 V d R: appellauerunt E p: appellauere Codex Luxemburgensis 138, pars altera (= X) 3 E2 g: fluuis R: fluuis V d: fuluis E1 4 R E1: dyonisium V d g 5 V d E2: decocto g: decoctis R E1 6 V d R E1: mederi E2 g 7 R: his V d E g > An 8 et contra R E g: econtra V d 1

FR 262. PLINIUS, NATURALIS

HISTORIA

(7)

Plinius, Naturalis historia, XXV xxiii, 56–58: [xxiii, 56] Album1 [sc helleborum] optimum quod celerrime mouet strenumenta, sed multum terribilius nigro, praecipue si2 quis apparatum poturo10 rum3 apud antiquos legat contra horrores, strangulatus, intempestiuas somni uires,4 singultus infinitos aut strenumenta, stomachi5 dissolutiones, tardiores6 uomitus aut longiores, exiguos aut nimios. Quippe alia dare soliti quae concitarent uomitiones, ipsumque helleborum extrahere7 medicamentis aut clysteribus, saepius etiam sanguine uenis emisso. [57] Iam uero et cum pros15 pere cedat, terribili uisu uariis coloribus uomitionum et post uomitiones obseruatione8 alui, balinearum9 dispensatione, totius corporis cura, antecedente omnia haec magno10 terrore famae,11 namque tradunt absumi carnes,12 si

d E a g Lucensis (= H): eximium R V 2 d E a g H: praecipues R: praecipue est V 3 potuum d 4 R: aures 5 d E a g H: stoma R V 6 E a g X: tardiores om R V d 7 corr Jan (Plinius Leipzig 1859): extraherent codd 8 vett: obseruationem cett codd 9 R V: balnearum d: buslinearum E a g X 10 vett: magna cett codd 11 V d: fame R: famem E a 12 R V d: carne E a > Ma An: carnem g X > Jo 1

  ‒  - FR 261DUB. PLINIUS, NATURAL

HISTORY

661

(6)

Pliny, Natural history, XXII, xxxi, 67: [xxxi, 67] Asphodel belongs with the most famous plants, so much so that some called it “the [sc plant] of heroes”. Hesiod said that it grows in the woods too; Dionysius, that it can be male and female. It is agreed that its bulbs, boiled down in barley gruel, are extremely fit for use against [sc patients with] enfeebled bodies or suffering from phthisis, and that the bread made by kneading them with flour is of the healthiest kind. Nicander also used to prescribe the stalk (the one I have specified as being the true one), the seed, or the bulbs against snakes and scorpions, in [sc doses of ] three drachmae administered in wine, and he used to spread them under [sc the patient] during sleep, as a measure against the threat posed by them [sc by snakes and scorpions].

FR 262. PLINY, NATURAL

HISTORY

(7)

Pliny, Natural history, XXV xxiii, 56–58: [xxiii, 56] The best kind of white hellebore is that which provokes sneezing as quickly as possible; but it is much more frightening than the black variety, especially if one comes across the panoply of precautions advertised in the ancients’ works for patients who prepare to drink it—precautions against shaking, choking, irresistible sleep at odd times, endless convulsive sighs or sneezes, atony of the stomach, insufficient or excessive vomit, coming in very slow or prolonged attacks. For this reason the doctors of old used to prescribe other substances for the stimulation of vomiting, whereas the hellebore was itself drawn out through drugs, injections, and, more frequently, even through blood-letting. [57] Besides, even when successful, the treatment is terrifying to witness, given the various colours of the excreted matter and all that one has to undertake afterwards—close inspection of the stomach, observance of [sc the number of ] baths, charge over the whole body of the patient—while the great terror inspired by hellebore’s reputation exceeds all these worries; for they say that meat is devoured if you

662

  ‒  -

coquatur13 una. Sed antiquorum uitium erat quod14 propter hos metus parcius dabant, cum celerius erumpat quo largius sumitur. [58] Themison15 binas—non amplius—drachmas datauit.16 Sequentes et quaternas dedere claro17 Herophili praeconio, qui helleborum fortissimi ducis18 similitudini19 5 aequabat: concitatis enim intus omnibus20 ipsum in primis exire.21

E a g H: quoquatur R V: coquantur d 14 E a g X: quo R V d 15 E a g X: thebison R V d 16 R V E: ditauit a: dedit d 17 R V d: quare clare E g X: qua de re clare a 18 R V d: dulcis E a g X 19 R V d: similitudine E a g X 20 E a g X: omnium R V d 21 E a g X: in primis exire om R V d 13

FR 263. PLINIUS, NATURALIS

HISTORIA

(8)

Plinius, Naturalis historia, XXV xxxix, 80: [xxxix, 80] Celebrauit et Themiso1 medicus uulgarem herbam, plantaginem, tamquam inuentor uolumine de ea edicto. Duo eius genera: minor2 angustioribus foliis et nigrioribus,3 linguae pecorum similis, caule4 anguloso in terram inclinato, in pratis nascens; altera5 maior,6 foliis laterum7 modo inclusa, 10 quae,8 quia septena sunt, quidam eam “heptapleuron” uocauere. Huius et caulis9 cubitalis est et ;10 in umidis nascitur multo efficacior. Mira11 uis in siccando densandoque corpore, cauterii uicem optinens. Nulla res aeque sistit fluctiones (quas Graeci “rheumatismos” uocant).

corr Si: themisso R V E a g: temiso d: temisso X 2 d E a g X: minora R V foliis et nigrioribus om E a 4 V d a g X: caula R: calae E 5 R V d: alterum a: alter E g x 6 maius a 7 E a g X: lacerum R V d 8 vett: quaeque R E: que quae d: queque V a: qioque g: om X 9 caulis om R V d 10 locus corruptus uapi R V d E a: napi similis g X 11 R V d: mira om E a g X 1 3

FR 264. PLINIUS, NATURALIS

HISTORIA

(9)

Plinius, Naturalis historia, XXIX i–v, 1–6: [i, 1] Naturae1 remediorum atque multitudo instantium ac praeteritorum2 15 plura de ipsa medendi arte cogunt dicere, quamquam non ignaros3 nulli4

V d T r (= R corr): natura E > An Jo: totum naturae R 2 V2 r d E: praeceptorum V1 3 V > Ernout (= Er) An: ignarus sim E r Jo: ignoros R: ignoros d T 4 V T: nullis R d E 1

  ‒  -

663

cook hellebore with it. But the mistake made by doctors in the past was to administer it in too small doses as a result of these apprehensions; because the more of it one takes, the more quickly it is eliminated. [58] Themison used to prescribe eight grams of it and not more. His successors went up to as much as sixteen grams in some of their prescriptions, going by Herophilus’ famous appraisal—he used to compare hellebore with the mightiest general: having roused everything inside, it marches out itself in the first rows.

FR 263. PLINY, NATURAL

HISTORY

(8)

Pliny, Natural history, XXV xxxix, 80: [xxxix, 80] Likewise, the doctor Themison has brought into public knowledge an ordinary herb, the plantain, by writing a treatise on it, as if it were his own discovery. There are two kinds of it: a smaller one, with narrower and darker leaves; it resembles cattle’s tongue; the stem is angular and bent downwards; it grows in meadows. The other one is larger, almost hidden by lateral leaves, and, because these are seven in number, some people have called the plant “heptapleuron”. The stem in this species can reach even one cubit high ; it grows much better in damp soil. It has an astonishing power to dry and brace the body, producing the same effect as the knife by which we stamp the cattle. Nothing equals it in stopping the [sc states of ] flux (which the Greeks call “rheumatismoi”).

FR 264. PLINY, NATURAL

HISTORY

(9)

Pliny, Natural history, XXIX i–v, 1–6: [i, 1] The properties of medicines and the great number of those used nowadays or in the past compel us to expand on the healing art itself, although we are not unaware of the fact that no work on the subject was

664

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

ante haec Latino sermone5 condita, ancepsque ac lubricum6 esse rerum omnium nouarum initium et talium7 utique8 tam sterilis gratiae tantaeque difficultatis in promendo. [2] Sed quoniam9 occurrere uerisimile est omnium qui haec noscant10 cogitationi quonam modo exoleuerint in medicinae usu11 quae iam parata12 atque pertinentia erant, mirumque et indignum protinus subit nullam artium inconstantiorem fuisse aut13 etiamnunc saepius mutari cum sit fructuosior ulla: dis primum inuentores suos adsignauit et caelo dicauit,14 [3] nec non et15 hodie multifariam16 ab oraculis medicina petitur. Auxit deinde famam etiam crimine, ictum fulmine Aesculapium fabulata, quoniam Tyndareum17 reuocauisset ad uitam; nec tamen cessauit narrare alios reuixisse opera sua. Clara Troianis temporibus, a quibus18 fama certior, uolnerum tamen dumtaxat remediis. [ii, 4] Sequentia eius, mirum dictu, in nocte densissima latuere usque ad Peloponnesiacum bellum. Tunc eam reuocauit in lucem Hippocrates, genitus in insula Coo, in primis clara ac ualida et Aesculapio dicata. Is, cum fuisset mos19 liberatos morbis scribere in templo eius dei quid auxiliatum20 esset, ut postea similitudo proficeret, exscripsisse ea traditur atque, ut Varro apud nos credit, templo cremato is21 instituisse medicinam hanc quae “clinice” uocatur. Nec fuit postea quaestus modus, quoniam Prodicus,22 Selymbriae natus, e discipulis eius, instituit23 quam uocant “iatralipticen”24 et unctoribus25 quoque medicorum ac mediastinis26 uectigal inuenit. [iii, 5] Horum placita Chrysippus ingenti garrulitate mutauit, plurimumque et ex Chrysippo discipulus eius Erasistratus, Aristotelis filia genitus. Hic Antiocho rege sanato centum talentis donatus est a rege Ptolemaeo,27 filio eius, ut incipiamus et praemia artis ostendere.28 [iv] Alia factio, ab experimentis se29 cognominans30 “empiricen”, coepit in Sicilia, Acrone Agragantino Empedoclis physici31 auctoritate commendato. [v, 6] Dissederuntque hae scholae,32 et omnes eas damnauit Herophilus, in musicos pedes uenarum pulsu discripto33 per aetatum gradus. Deserta deinde et haec secta est, quoniam necesse erat in ea34 litteras scire. Mutata et quam postea Asclepiades, ut rettulimus, inuenerat. Auditor eius Themison35 fuit

d E: sermo nec V r: ser nec R 6 d T: iudicium Detlefsen (= De) Jo 7 et italium V: et talium R d t: et alium r: principium Ge > De Jo: exordium Ma: artium Warmington 8 nec aliud: vett 9 quaestionem Ma 10 d T E: noscunt V R 11 usu om V R 12 V d: temperata E 13 V R d T: ut E r 14 V E: dictavit R d: ditavit T 15 E: non nec V R d1: non d2 16 R E: multifaria V d T 17 V R d T: tyndaridem cum E 18 V R d T > An: quibus E > Jo 19 E r: mos om V R d 20 qui auxiliatus V R E d T 21 vett > An: his E: om cett > Jo 22 Herodicus ci Dalecampius, editio Lugdunensis 1587 (= Dal): prodicus d vett > An Jo: prodigus V: proditus R E 23 V R d: instituisse E: institusset vett 24 latralipticen V1: iatraliptice V2 E 25 Broterius, editio Parisina 1779 (= Br): reunctoribus V2 E r e: cultoribus V1: et ultoribus d: et ultoris R 26 Caesarius, editio Coloniensis 1524 (= Ca): media e in eis R: medias in eis r: media est in eis cett 27 R d E: ptolomeo V 28 E: praemio artis tendere V R d 29 se om V1 R d T 30 V R E r2: cognominant d T r1 31 chysippi E: chrysici r (in ras): chrisici V2 32 De: hae discolae V: hae discole d: e scole R E: ex scola r: eae scholae vett 33 V: discerpto E 34 eas V R d 35 d: temison V R: themiston E r 5

  ‒  

665

written in Latin prior to this, and that to begin anything novel is a hazardous and slippery enterprise, especially in a topic such as this one, so barren of charm and so difficult to bring forth. [2] But, since anyone who has some acquaintance with these things would probably light upon the question of how it happened that remedies which have already been found, and proved to be sound, are now by-passed in medical practice, one immediately realises that it is both amazing and outrageous that no art has been more unstable, or changes more frequently even in our time, although none is more useful. In the beginning, medicine ranked its inventors among the gods and assigned them a place in heaven; [3] and, certainly, even today medical treatment is sought from oracles in many places. Next, medicine grew in fame even through an offence—for it spread the legend that Aesculapius was struck by lightning for having brought Tyndareus back to life; and, even so, it did not cease to tell us that others had come back to life through its own agency. In the times of Troy, which have left a more reliable record, medicine was notorious, yet for no more than the treatment of wounds. [ii, 4] Strange to say, the sequel lies hidden in complete darkness and ignorance, down to the Peloponnesian War, when Hippocrates recalled medicine into daylight; he was born at Cos, one of the most celebrated and powerful islands, itself dedicated to Aesculapius. In those days there was a custom for people who recovered from an illness to inscribe in the temple of that god the treatment which had brought them succour, so that analogy may prove helpful in future cases. According to tradition, Hippocrates copied down those accounts and (as is accepted by Varro among our authorities), when the temple perished in fire, he founded the kind of medicine which is called “bed-side” [klinike]. From that point onwards there was no limit to the gains derived from medicine, seeing that Prodicus [= Herodicus?], born in Selymbria, one of the disciples of Hippocrates, founded what is called “iatraliptics” and devised means of income even for anointers and drudgers in the service of doctors. [iii, 5] Chrysippus, with floods of words, abolished the doctrines of these men; Erasistratus, his pupil and a son of Aristotle’s daughter, imposed in turn an even greater departure from Chrysippus. This one cured king Antiochus and received one hundred talents from king Ptolemy, his son—if we are also to embark on the display of prizes won by the medical art. [iv] Another party which called itself “Empirical”, from experience [experimenta], arose in Sicily, where, under the influence of the natural philosopher Empedocles, Acron of Agrigentum was received with approval. [v, 6] These factions [scholae] disagreed with each other and all of them incurred the blame of Herophilus— the man who correlated the beating of various types of pulse with musical measures, in the order of the succeeding ages. Afterwards this secta was abandoned as well, because instruction was necessary in it too; and the secta which Alcibiades founded later on, as we have related, was equally changed. Themison was one of his pupils and started by enrolling on his

666

  ‒  -

seque36 inter initia adscripsit illi, mox procedente uita37 sua et38 placita mutauit. Sed et illa Antonius Musa, eiusdem39 auctoritate40 diui Augusti, quem contraria medicina graui periculo exemerat.

V R d T: fuisse que E r 37 vett: uitia cett 38 V R T > Er An Jo (an et sua?): ad sua E De: sua d vett 39 codd > Er An: euiusdem auditor Jo: eiusdem excidisse putat Ma 40 R d: auctoritatem V E 36

FR 265. PLINIUS, NATURALIS

HISTORIA

(10)

Plinius, Naturalis historia, XXIX v, 7–10: 5

10

15

20

[v, 7] Multos praetereo medicos celeberrimosque ex iis Cassios, Carpetanos,1 Arruntios,2 Rubrios. Ducena quinquagena HS annua his3 mercedes4 fuere apud principes. Quintus Stertinius imputauit principibus quod sestertiis quingenis annuis contentus esset, sescena enim sibi quaestu urbis fuisse enumeratis domibus ostendebat. [8] Par et fratri eius merces a Claudio Caesare infusa est, censusque, quamquam exhausti operibus5 Neapoli exornata, heredi trecenties HS reliquere; quantum aetate eadem6 Arruntius solus. Exortus deinde est Vettius Valens, adulterio Messalinae Claudii Caesaris nobilitatus, pariterque eloquentiae7 adsectatores et potentiae8 nanctus, nouam instituit sectam. [9] Eadem aetas Neronis principatu ad Thessalum transiliuit, delentem cuncta placita et rabie quadam in omnis aeui medicos perorantem, quali prudentia ingenioque aestimari uel uno argumento abunde potest,9 cum monumento10 suo, quod est Appia uia, “Iatronicen” se inscripserit. Nullius histrionum equorumque trigarii comitatior11 egressus in publico erat, cum Crinas Massiliensis, arte geminata ut cautior religiosiorque, ad siderum motus ex ephemeride mathematica cibos dando horasque obseruando, auctoritate eum praecessit, nuperque centies HS reliquit, muris patriae moenibusque aliis paene non minore summa extructis. [10] Hi regebant fata, cum repente ciuitatem Charmis ex eadem Massilia inuasit, damnatis non solum prioribus medicis uerum et balneis, frigidaque etiam hibernis algoribus lauari persuasit—mersit aegros in lacus.12

V1 R d T: calpetanos V2 Jo: alpitanos E: calpitanes r 2 E r: Arbuntios V R: arbutios d T 3 E > De Er An: annualis V: annuales d T Jo: anulis R: annua r: annuae iis Ma 4 V D r T: mercede his E r 5 E r: operis V R d 6 von Jan, editio Teubneriana 1859 ( Jan) Ma Jo Er An: ad eam aetatem Ge: athenaidem V2 r: athenade R: athena dens d: at nadens V1: athena id est E vett: athenaidi De 7 d E > An: eloquentia V R > Jo 8 potentiam Jo 9 vett: porta est E r: reperta est V2 10 abunde potest cum monumento om V1 R1 d 11 R E: comitatiore V d T 12 V d: latus R E: “mersit aegros in lacus fortasse glossema” Er 1

  ‒  -

667

side, and yet in spite of this he revised the doctrine at a further stage, as he was getting old; but his own version was in turn swept aside by Antonius Musa, with the support of no lesser person than the late Emperor Augustus, whom he had released from a very dangerous illness by resorting to the opposite [sc kind of ] medicine.

FR 265. PLINY, NATURAL

HISTORY

(10)

Pliny, Natural history, XXIX v, 7–10: [v, 7] I pass over many doctors, and very famous ones among them, such as a Cassius, Carpetanus, Arruntius, or Rubrius. These got from the emperors annual fees of two hundred and fifty thousand sesterces. Quintus Stertinius claimed that the emperors were in his debt, since he contented himself with five hundred thousand sesterces to the year; for he could show, by counting up the houses, that another six hundred thousand was coming in from his patients in town. [8] As for his brother, Claudius Caesar poured an equal fee over that one too; and the two of them, although considerably diminished in their riches because they over-adorned Naples with public buildings and works of art, left to a heir, between them, a fortune of thirty million sesterces—just as much as Arruntius, among their contemporaries, was worth on his own. Next sprang up Vettius Valens: he became notorious through adultery with Messalina, Claudius Caesar’s wife; won over adherents for his eloquence as well as his power; and founded a new sect. [9] Under the reign of Nero, the same generation of men rushed over to Thessalus: this one undertook to abolish every single doctrine and, as if in a state of frenzy, delivered harangues against the doctors of all times—with what great good sense and natural talent one can amply appreciate, above all, from just one piece of evidence: on his tomb, which lies in Via Appia, he bestowed upon himself the title of “Iatronikes” [= Conqueror of doctors]. None of the Thespians, no driver of a three-horse chariot was escorted by larger crowds on his apparitions in public, when Crinas of Massilia lumped in another art: he was a more circumspect and superstitious character and outstripped him [sc Thessalus] in influence by administering the nutriment and calculating the timetable from an astronomical calendar, in conformity with the motions of the stars; and he recently left ten million sesterces, after having raised an almost equivalent sum for the city walls and other fortifications. [10] These men were the masters of our destinies, when suddenly Charmis, another one from Massilia, invaded the city and convicted not only the doctors before him, but also the baths; he prompted people to wash in cold water even in freezing winter, plunging the sick into pools.

668

  ‒  - FR 266. PLINIUS, NATURALIS

HISTORIA

(11)

Plinius, Naturalis historia, XXIX viii, 20–21: [viii, 20] Non deseram Catonem tam ambitiosae1 artis inuidiae a me obiectum aut senatum illum qui ita censebat, idque non criminibus artis arreptis,2 ut aliquis exspectauerit. Quid enim uenenorum fertilius3 aut unde4 plures testamentorum insidiae? Iam uero et adulteria etiam in5 principum domibus, 5 ut Eudemi6 in Liuia Drusi Caesaris, item Valentis in qua dictum est regina. Non sint7 artis ista, sed hominum; [21] non magis haec Vrbi timuit Cato, ut equidem credo, quam reginas.

R d: ambitiose T E: ambitione V 2 arpeptis Jo 3 V d E: feralius R 4 d E vett: feralius V R 5 in om V R 6 ci Hermolaus Barbarus (Castigationes Plinianae Roma 1492): eunde codd 7 d E: sunt V R 1

FR 267DUB. PLUTARCHUS, QUAESTIONES

CONUIUALES

(1)

Plutarchus, Quaestiones conuiuales, ii 6 [= Diå t¤ peÊkh ka‹ p¤tuw ka‹ tå ˜moia toÊtoiw oÈk §nofyalm¤zetai]11–2, 640B–D: [1, B] S≈klarow •sti«n ≤mçw §n kÆpoiw ÍpÚ toË KhfisoË potamoË perirreom°noiw §pede¤knuto d°ndra pantodap«w pepoikilm°na to›w 10 legom°noiw §nofyalmismo›w:2 ka‹ går §k sx¤nvn §la¤aw énablastanoÊsaw •vr«men ka‹ =oiåw §k murr¤nhw: ∑san d¢ ka‹ drÊew ép¤ouw égayåw §kf°rousai ka‹ plãtanoi mhle«n dedegm°nai ka‹ suka› more«n §mbolãdaw, êllai te m¤jeiw fut«n kekrathm°nvn êxri karpogon¤aw. Ofl m¢n oÔn êlloi prÚw tÚn [C] S≈klaron ¶paizon …w t«n poihtik«n sfigg«n ka‹ ximair«n teratvd°stera g°nh ka‹ yr°mmata bÒskonta: Krãtvn d¢ 15 proÎbalen ≤m›n diapor∞sai per‹ t∞w afit¤aw diÉ ∂n mÒna t«n fut«n tå §latt≈dh3 d°xesyai tåw toiaÊtaw §pimij¤aw oÈ p°fuken: oÎte går k«non oÎte kupãritton µ p¤tun µ peÊkhn §ktr°fousãn ti t«n •terogen«n ırçsyai. [2] ÑUpolab∆n d¢ F¤lvn ¶fh: “LÒgow tiw ¶stin, Œ Krãtvn, 20 parå to›w sofo›w, bebaioÊmenow ÍpÚ t«n gevrgik«n. TÚ går ¶laion e‰na¤ fasi to›w futo›w pol°mion ka‹ tãxistÉ ín épol°syai futÚn ˘ boÊloio xriÒmenon §la¤ƒ, kayãper tåw mel¤ttaw. Tå dÉ efirhm°na d°ndra p¤ona ka‹ p°peiran ¶xei [D] tØn fÊsin, Àste p¤ssan épodakrÊein ka‹

corr Bernardakis, ed. Teubner 1892 (= Bern): §nofyialm¤zeyai Vindobonensis Graecus 148 (= T) 2 corr Stephanus (= St): §n Ùfyalmiw T: §n Ùfyalmo›w Parisinus 1672 (= E) 3 ci Pohlenz (= Po): §lai≈dh T: d&d≈dh Paton (= Pa) 1

669

  ‒  - FR 266. PLINY, NATURAL

HISTORY

(11)

Pliny, Natural history, XXIX viii, 20–21: [viii, 20] I will not forsake Cato, exposed by me as he is to the hatred of such an interested profession [ars], nor will I forsake the venerable Senate of the good old days, which advised in the same spirit; but I will make my defence without seizing upon the record of scandals achieved by medicine, as one might expect me to do. For what is a more fertile [sc source] of poisons? Whence come more numerous plots for the hunt of wills? Nay, on top of it, medicine breeds adultery too, and even in the sovereigns’ houses—for instance that of Eudemus with Livia, Drusus Caesar’s wife, or that of Valens with the imperial wife already mentioned. Let us not blame the art, but the men, for deeds such as these; [21] Cato had no more worries about these [sc deeds], on behalf of Rome, than he had about royal women, I believe.

FR 267DUB. PLUTARCH, SYMPOSION

QUESTIONS

(1)

Plutarch, Symposion questions, ii 6 [= Why the fir-tree, the pine-tree, and similar trees cannot be grafted], 1–2, 640B–D: [1, B] Once when Soclarus was entertaining us in his gardens girdled by the river Cephisus, he showed us trees which had been embellished in all sorts of ways by what is called grafting procedures; for we could see olives shooting from mastich trees and pomegranates from myrtle trees, and there were oak trees bearing nice pears, plane trees holding graftings of apples, and fig trees [sc holding graftings] of mulberries and other combinations of trees, mastered to the point of fruit-bearing. Everyone in Soclarus’ company [C] teased [sc him] for tending specimens and creatures more outof-the-world than the poets’ sphinxes and chimeras; but Crato proposed that we make a problem for discussion out of the cause why, of all the plants, only the fir-like ones are not naturally adapted to receive such combinations; for, [sc he said], one would not see the konos, the cypress, the pine, or the fir-tree growing a scion of some different species. [2] Philo produced an answer, saying: “There is an explanation [sc for this phenomenon] among the learned, Crato, and it is corroborated by farmers. For they say that olive oil is inimical to plants: any plant you wish would die in no time if rubbed in olive oil, just like the bees. The trees we are talking about are by nature fat and juicy [D] to the point of oozing pitch

670

  ‒  -

=ht¤nhn: ˜tan d¢ plhgª, ta›w diakopa›w o‡koyen Àsper4 fix«raw5 sunãgei: ¥te dów aÈt«n §laihrån éf¤hsin fikmãda ka‹ perist¤lbei tÚ liparÚn aÈtª: diÚ ka‹ prÚw tå êlla g°nh dusm¤ktvw ¶xei, kayãper aÈtÚ tÚ ¶laion.”

Wilamowitz (= Wi): Àsper o‡koyen T: Àsper •lkvy°ntÉ Hutten, ed. Tübingen 1798 (= Hut) 5 T: fix«ra corr Madvig (= Ma)

4

FR 268DUB. PLUTARCHUS, QUAESTIONES

CONUIUALES

(2)

Plutarchus, Quaestiones conuiuales, iv 1 [= Efi ≤ poik¤lh trofØ t∞w èpl∞w eÈpeptot°ra]1–3, 660D–663C: 5 [1, D] T∞w oÔn tettãrthw t«n sumpotik«n zhthmãtvn dekãdow ≤m›n pr«ton ¶stai tÚ per‹ t∞w poik¤lhw trof∞w zhthy°n. ÉElafhbol¤vn går ˆntvn efiw ÑUãmpolin §p‹ tØn •ortØn éfikoum°nouw ≤mçw eflst¤a F¤lvn ı fiatrÚw §k paraskeu∞w tinow, …w §fa¤neto, neanik∞w.1 ÉId∆n d¢ t«n paid¤vn 2 ëma t“ Fil¤nƒ3 tÚ n°on4 êrtrƒ xr≈menon êllou d¢ 10 mhdenÚw deÒmenon: “âVÉ Hrãkleiw” ¶fh “toËtÉ êrÉ ∑n to legÒmenon: ‘§n d¢ l¤yoiw §mãxonto, l¤yon dÉ oÈk ∑n énel°syai.’”a [E] Ka‹ énepÆdhsen5 ofisÒmenow ti t«n xrhs¤mvn §ke¤noiw, e‰yÉ ∏ke metå xrÒnon suxnÚn fisxãdaw aÈto›w tinaw ka‹ turÚn kom¤zvn. ÉEmoË dÉ efipÒntow ˜ti toËto sumba¤nei to›w tå perittå ka‹ polutel∞ paraskeuazom°noiw, émele›n 15 ka‹ span¤zein t«n énagka¤vn ka‹ xrhs¤mvn: “OÈ går §memnÆmhn” e‰pen ı F¤lvn “˜ti S≈sastron6 ≤m›n Ípotr°fei7 {ı}8 Fil›now, ˜n fasi mÆte pÒtƒ xrhsãmenon êllƒ mÆtÉ §d°smati plØn {µ}9 gãlaktow diabi«sai pãnta tÚn b¤on: éllÉ §ke¤nƒ m¢n §k metabol∞w érxØn gen°syai t∞w toiaÊthw dia¤thw efikÒw: tÚn dÉ ≤m°teron éntistrÒfvw t“ ÉAxille› tr°fvn 20 ı Xe¤rvn otow eÈyÁw épÚ t∞w gen°sevw [F] énaimãktoiw10 xoiw11 trofa›w, oÈk êkran épÒdeijin12 °xei13 §n é°ri ka‹ drÒsƒ {l°gousi}14 a

Cf Athenaeus x 457 B.

neanik∞w corr Reiske (= Re): neanik«w T “fort. recte cf. 686d” Hubert (= Hu) in apparatu 2 t«n paid¤vn Wyttenbach, ed. Oxford 1797 (= Wy): tÚ paid¤on codd: to›n paid¤oin Hoffleit (= Ho) in apparatu 3 Fil¤nƒ corr Re: f¤loni codd 4 tÚ n°on corr Re > Hu Ho: tÚn n°on T: tÚ ne≈teron Hartman De Avondzon des Heidendoms i2 p. 181: tina n°on Warmington (= Wa): mÒnon uel tÚn ßteron suspicat Ho: an tÚn ßna ego 5 corr editio Basileensis (= Bas) éntepÆdhsen T 6 S≈straton Xylander (= Xy): S≈straton uel Svs¤straton “(utrum Pythagoreus: Iambl. v. Pyth. 267?)” Re 7 corr Bas: Ípotr°fein T 8 del Hut: nÉ ı Po 9 del Bern 10 corr St: énaimãtoiw T 11 lacunam suppl Wy 12 Hu > Ho: oÈk akrån épode¤jeien ci Be: oÈk efiw makrån épode¤jein ¶oiken ci Po 13 suppl Post > Ho: ¶xei codd Hu 14 om Ho: …w l°gousi uel kayãper l°gousi toÁw t°ttigaw Bern 1

671

  ‒  -

and resin; when struck, they collect in the clefts serous liquids from within, as it were; pine-wood releases an oily liquid and the fatty element in it glitters all around; hence it [sc this kind of tree], just like the olive oil itself, is without affinity to the other kinds.”

FR 268DUB. PLUTARCH, SYMPOSION

QUESTIONS

(2)

Plutarch, Symposion questions, iv 1 [= Whether food which is varied is easier to digest than food which is simple], 1–3, 660D–663C: [1, D] The first in our fourth group of ten symposion questions will be the inquiry concerning food of a varied kind. For it was the Elaphebolia, and, when we arrived at Hyampolis for the feast, Philo the doctor entertained us with a service which, as it turned out, was most splendid. Noticing that one of the boys in Philinus’ company was eating bread and taking nothing else, he [sc Philo] exclaimed: “By Hercules! This is what they mean by saying: ‘They fought amongst stones, but to lift a stone was impossible.’” [E] Then he dashed out to get them [sc his guests] some of the basic ingredients and returned after a considerable time, bringing them some dried figs and cheese. I remarked that this is what happens to those who get worked up about the excessive and extravagant items: they neglect the necessary and basic ones, and run out of them. “Yes,” he replied, “I had forgotten that Philinus is rearing among us a Sosastrus, who, they say, led his whole life without taking any drink or food other than milk; only that in that case the man presumably embarked on a regimen of this sort by way of changing it [sc an earlier one], whereas in the case of our [sc Sosastrus], this Cheiron here has fed him—unlike Achilles—on bloodless and soulless foods from the moment he was born; and doesn’t he [F] offer a remarkable exhibition of someone living on air and drew, like the cicadas?” “But

672

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

kayãper ofl t°ttigew sitoum°nou;” “ÑHme›w m¢n oÔn” ı Fil›now e‰pen “±gnooËmen ÑEkatomfÒnia deipnÆsontew15 Àsper §pÉ ÉAristom°nouw: §pe‹ par∞men16 ín ˆca t«n lit«n ka‹ ÍgiainÒntvn, Àsper élejifãrmaka, prÚw oÏtv polutele›w ka‹ flegmainoÊsaw17 trap°zaw periacãmenoi: [661A] ka‹ taËta, sou18 pollãkiw ékhkoÒtew ˜ti t«n poik¤lvn tå èplå mçllon eÎpeptÉ §st‹n ka‹19 eÈpÒrista.” Ka‹ ı Mark¤vn prÚw tÚn F¤lvna: “Diafye¤rei sou, F¤lonow,” ¶fh “tØn paraskeuÆn, épotr°pvn ka‹ dedittÒmenow toÁw daitumÒnaw: éllÉ ín §moË dehyªw, §gguÆsomai prÚw aÈtoÁw Íp¢r soË tØn poik¤lhn trofØn eÈpeptot°ran e‰nai t∞w èpl∞w, Àste yarroËntaw épolaÊein t«n parakeim°nvn.” ÑO m¢n oÔn F¤lvn §de›to toË Mark¤vnow oÏtv poie›n. [2] ÉEpe‹ dÉ ≤mçw pausãmenoi toË deipne›n prosekaloÊmeya20 tÚn Fil›non §piy°syai tª kathgor¤& t∞w poik¤lhw [B] trof∞w: “‘OÈk §mÚw’” e‰pen “‘ı mËyow’b, éllÉ oÍtos‹ F¤lvn •kãstote l°gei prÚw ≤mçw ˜ti pr«ton m¢n tå yhr¤a trofa›w monoeid°si ka‹ èpla›w xr≈mena mçllon Ígia¤nei t«n ényr≈pvn: ˜sa d¢ siteÊousi kaye¤rjantew, §pisfal∞ prÚw tåw nÒsouw §st‹n ka‹ =&d¤vw ta›w »mÒthsin èl¤sketai diå tÚ miktÆn tina ka‹ sunhdusm°nhn trofØn prosf°resyai.21 DeÊteron oÈde‹w g°gonen oÏtv t«n fiatr«n parãtolmow §n kainotom¤& ka‹ éndre›ow Àste poik¤lhn trofØn pur°ttonti prosenegke›n: éllå tØn èpl∞n ka‹ êknison …w Íp°koon mãlista tª p°cei prosf°rousin. De› går paye›n tØn trofØn ka‹ metabale›n krathye›san ÍpÚ [C] t«n §n ≤m›n dunãmevn. [. . .] Efi d¢ dØ22 dok« pa¤zein, taËtÉ §ãsaw §p‹ tå F¤lvnow êneimi. Pollãkiw går ékoÊomen aÈtoË [E] l°gontow …w §p‹23 poiÒthti24 trof∞w g¤gnetai tÚ dÊspepton ,25 ≤ 26 polumig¤a blaberÚn ka‹ gÒnimon éllokÒtvn poiotÆtvn, ka‹27 de› tÚ sÊmfulon §k pe¤raw labÒnta xr∞syai ka‹ st°rgein. Efi d¢ fÊsei dÊspepton oÈd¢n éllå pl∞yÒw §sti tÚ tarãsson ka‹ fye›ron, ¶ti mçllon o‰mai tå pantodapå taËta ka‹ poik¤la feukt°on, oÂw ért¤vw ≤mçw ı F¤lvnow ÙcopoiÚw Àsper ént¤texnow aÈtoË katefãrmatten. [. . .] [F] ÉEntaËya d¢ ka‹ toË Svkrãtouw ëma mnhmoneut°on, parakeleuom°nou mØ pein≈ntaw §sy¤ein énape¤yei, …w oÈd¢n éllÉ µ tÚ pantodapÚn ka‹ poik¤lon eÈlabe›syai ka‹ dedi°nai t«n sit¤vn parainoËntow.”c [. . .] [3, 662A] ToË d¢ Fil¤nou taËtÉ efipÒntow, ı Mark¤vn ¶fh [B] doke›n aÈt“ tª Svkrãtouw §n°xesyai katarò mØ mÒnon toÁw tÚ lusitel¢w épÚ toË kaloË

b c

Euripides, fr. 484. Cf Xenophon, Memorabilia i 3. 6.

corr Meziriacus (= Me): deipnÆsantew T 16 corr Leonicus (= Le): parÉ ≤m›n T corr editio Aldina (= Ald): flegmonoÊsaw T 18 corr Wy: oÈ codd 19 ka‹ corr Wy > Ho: µ T: eÈpÒrista add Wi: eÈpÒkrita ci Pa: ka‹ + eÈpÒrista Hu: “eÎtrepta (cf 912b.c) uel potius eÈprÒsoista (cf duspr. 668e) Hutten, cum non uideantur posse coniugi tå èplç—ka‹ () eÈpÒrista” Hu in apparatu 20 corr Ziegler (= Zie): proekaloÊmeya T 21 corr St: prof°resyai T 22 corr Re: mØ cod 23 §pe‹ Wy: efi Me 24 poikilÒthti ci Re: poiÒthti add Bern 25 add Hut 26 add Hut Ma: ≤ Bern 27 del Ma 15 17

  ‒  

673

we did not know”, protested Philinus, “that we were going to feast for the Hecatomphonia, as if at Aristomenes’; in that case we would have brought along foods of the frugal and healthy sort, by way of antidotes, to hang them on [sc like amulets] against such luxurious and over-satiating dishes; and [661A] all the more so as we have often heard you [sc say] that simple foods are easier both to digest and to provide than the varied sort.” Then Marcion addressed Philo thus: “Philinus sabotages your feast by making the guests turn away from it in fear; but, if you ask me, I will give them pledge on your behalf that food which is varied is easier to digest than simple [sc food], so that they may take heart and enjoy what is set before them.” And Philo asked Marcion to do so. [2] When the eating was over we called upon Philinus to apply himself to the condemnation [B] of varied food, but he said: “The cause is not mine; it is Philo here who tells us on every occasion, to begin with, that the beasts, who live on foods that are simple and of one single kind, are healthier than the humans; and that those which they feed in pens are prone to diseases and are easily taken by fits of indigestion because they are given food which is of a mixed kind and made to please the palate. Secondly, there has never been a doctor so foolhardy in his inventiveness, or so daring, as to administer varied food to a feverish patient; no, they administer [sc food of ] the simple kind, which has no fat, as that is the most conducive to digestion. For food must be acted upon [C] and change, being subjected to our powers [dunameis]. [. . .] But, if I seem to be joking, I drop these [sc analogies] and [E] get back to Philo’s [sc statements]. We often hear him say that being hard or easy to digest depends on the quality of the food, that a combination of many [sc elements] is harmful and generates unwanted qualities, and that we must get what is suitable [sc to what] from our experience, then abide by it and bear with it. If nothing is hard to digest by nature, but multitude [sc of qualities] is what produces disturbance and damage, then all the more, I think, should one avoid these luxurious and varied [sc dishes] with which Philo’s cook has just about drugged us, like his artistic rival. [. . .] [F] Here one should also recall Socrates, who advises us to avoid those foods which tempt people to eat them when they are not hungry: all he is doing is to urge us to be on our guards against, and suspicious of, foods of a luxurious and varied kind. [. . .] [3, 662A] When Philinus had said all this, Marcion [B] said that, to his mind, the curse of Socrates encompasses not only those who separate what is noble from what is profitable, but also

674

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

xvr¤zontaw, éllå ka‹ toÁw 28 ≤donØn diistãntaw épÚ t∞w Ígie¤aw …w éntitattom°nhn aÈtª ka‹ polemoËsan, oÈx‹ mçllon sunergoËsan: “Smikrå gãr” ¶fh “ka‹ êkontew …w biaiotãtƒ t«n Ùrgãnvn élghdÒni prosxr≈meya: t«n dÉ êllvn oÈde‹w ín oÈd¢ boulÒmenow épÒsaito tØn ≤donÆn, éllå ka‹ trofa›w ka‹ Ïpnoiw ka‹ per‹ loutrå ka‹ éle¤mmata ka‹ katakl¤seiw ée‹ pãrestin ka‹ sunekd°xetai ka‹ sunektiyhne›tai tÚn kãmnonta, poll“ t“ ofike¤ƒ ka‹ katå fÊsin §jamauroËsa29 tÚ éllÒtrion. [C] Po¤a går élged≈n, t¤w ¶ndeia, po›on dhlhtÆrion oÏtv =&d¤vw ka‹ éfel«w nÒson ¶lusen …w loutrÚn §n kair“ genÒmenon ka‹ o‰now doye‹w deom°noiw; Ka‹ trofØ parelyoËsa meyÉ ≤don∞w eÈyÁw ¶luse tå dusxer∞ pãnta ka‹ kat°sthsen efiw tÚ ofike›on tØn fÊsin, Àsper eÈd¤aw ka‹ galÆnhw genom°nhw. Afl d¢ diå t«n §pipÒnvn boÆyeiai mÒgiw ka‹ katå mikrÚn énÊousi, xalep«w oÔn ≤mçw diabãloi30 Fil›now, efi mØ tå flst¤a •kãterÉ §parãmenoi tØn ≤donØn feÊgoimen, éllå peir–meya tÚ ≤d°vw ka‹ Ígiein«w §mmel°steron µ …w ¶nioi filÒsofoi tÚ ≤d°vw ka‹ kal«w sunoikeioËn. EÈyÁw oÔn per‹ tÚ pr«ton, Œ Fil›ne, t«n §pixeirhmãtvn doke›w moi dieceËsyai, tå yhr¤a t«n ényr≈pvn èploust°raiw trofa›w xr∞syai ka‹ mçllon Ígia¤nein Ípotiyem°now. OÈd°teron går élhy°w §stin: éllå t“ m¢n afl parÉ EÈpÒlidow a‰gew éntimarturoËsin ÍmnoËsai tØn trofØn …w pammig∞ ka‹ poik¤lhn oÔsan.d [. . .] TÚ d¢ deÊteron ÜOmhrow éyete› mçllon31 §mpe¤rvw, tå loimikå pãyh pr«ton ëptesyai t«n élÒgvn épofainÒmenow.e [. . .] [F] Ka‹ mØn ka‹ tª t«n nosoÊntvn dia¤t˙ kal«w §po¤eiw tå eÎpepta ka‹ dÊspepta tekmairÒmenow: ka‹ går pÒnow ka‹ gumnãsia ka‹32 tÚ diaire›n tØn trofØn [663A] eÎpepta33 m°n §stin, oÈx èrmÒzei d¢ to›w pur°ttousi. TØn d¢ mãxhn ka‹ tØn diaforån t∞w poik¤lhw trof∞w élÒgvw §ded¤eiw. [. . .] [B] Efi dÉ ˜lvw tÚ miktÚn éyete›w ka‹ poik¤lon, Œ Fil›ne, mØ deipn¤zonta mhdÉ ÙcopoioËnta [C] mÒnon loidÒrei F¤lvna toËton, éllå polÁ mçllon ˜tan mignÊ˙ tåw basilikåw ka‹ élejifarmãkouw §ke¤naw dunãmeiw, ìw ‘ye«n xe›raw’ »nÒmazen ÉEras¤stratow: di°legxe34 tØn étop¤an ka‹ perierg¤an, ımoË metallikå ka‹ botanikå ka‹ yhriakå ka‹ tå épÚ g∞w ka‹ yalãtthw efiw tÚ aÈtÚ sugkerannÊntow.”35

d e

Cf Eupolis, fr 14 Kock (also quoted by Macrobius, Saturnalia vii 5.8). Cf Iliad i 46–50.

add Bern 29 corr St: §jamauroËnta T 30 diabãloi add Po 31 mãla ci Re 32 gumnãsia diå Franke (= Fr): gumnãsia efiw Hu in apparatu 33 “sunergã uel sim . . . an eÎpepta hoc loco sensu actiuo idem atque peptikã” Hu in apparatu < Hut 34 corr Le: dÉ §l°gxei T 35 corr Turnebus (= Tu): sugkerannÊntaw T 28

  ‒  

675

those who cut off pleasure from heath, as if it were opposite and hostile to it rather than being, to a greater extent, a contributor to it. “For we resort to pain only a little and unwillingly, as to the most violent of our means; as for the other [sc means], no one ever could remove [sc the element of ] pleasure from them, even if one wished: it is always present there—in food, in sleep, in getting bathed or anointed, in reclining—and it takes the patient along and assists in nursing him, dissolving what is alien through the abundance of what is one’s own [C] and in accordance with nature. What kind of pain, what [sc form of ] deprivation, what sort of poisonous [sc drug] can solve a disease as easily and simply as a bath taken on the nick of time, or wine administered when the patients needed it? Food too, if taken with pleasure, can solve all the complaints and restore nature to its proper course, as when good weather and calm waters return. But the remedies which work through pain accomplish little with great labours, they enforce themselves viciously and do violence to nature. Hence, Philinus should not condemn us if we don’t run away from pleasure both sails on: we will try instead to unite the pleasant and [D] [sc the] healthy more harmoniously than some philosophers [sc unite] the pleasant and the noble. Now straight to your first proof, Philinus: I think that you are mistaken when you assume both that beasts live on simpler foods than the humans and that they are healthier. For neither [sc proposition] is true: the goats of Eupolis testify against the [sc first] one when they praise their food as being all-blended and varied. [. . .] [E] As for the second [sc proposition], Homer strikes it off the record pretty well when he represents pestilential affections as attacking the irrational creatures in the first place. [. . .] [F] You did particularly well to assess what is easy and what is hard to digest on the basis of the diet of ill people; for effort, exercise, and the division of nourishment [sc into meals] [663A] are conducive to an easy digestion, and yet they do not suit the feverish. There is no good reason why you should expect conflict and disagreement from varied food. [. . .] [B] But if you wholly reject that which is mixed and varied, Philinus, then don’t blame our Philo here only for his [sc manner of ] entertaining and cooking, [C] but especially his mixing up of those kingly antidotal powers [dunameis] which Erasistratus has branded ‘the hands of gods’: do expose his queerness and futility when he blends into the same [sc compound] mineral, vegetable and animal [sc ingredients] from land and sea.”

676

  ‒  - FR 269DUB. PLUTARCHUS, QUAESTIONES

CONUIUALES

(3)

Plutarchus, Quaestiones conuiuales, vi 2 [= PÒteron ¶ndeia poie› tÚ pein∞n ka‹ dic∞n pÒrvn metasxhmatismÒw] 1–2, 687B–E:

5

10

15

20

[1, 687B] Lexy°ntvn d¢ toÊtvn, ofl per‹ F¤lvnÉ fiatro‹ tØn pr≈thn y°sin §k¤noun: §nde¤& går oÈ g¤nesyai tÚ d¤cow, [C] éllå pÒrvn tin«n1 metasxhmatism“. ToËto m¢n går ofl nÊktvr dic«ntew, ín §pikatadãryvsi, paÊontai toË dic∞n mØ piÒntew: toËto dÉ ofl pur°ttontew, §ndÒsevw genom°nhw µ pantãpasi toË puretoË lvfÆsantow, ëma ka‹2 toË dic∞n épallãttontai. Pollo›w d¢ lousam°noiw, ka‹ nØ D¤É §m°sasin •t°roiw, lÆgei tÚ d¤cow. äVn ÍpÉ oÈdenÚw aÎjetai tÚ ÍgrÒn, éllå mÒnon ofl pÒroi parãsxont°w3 ti t“ metasxhmat¤zesyai, tãjin •t°ran ka‹ diãyesin. ÉEkdhlÒteron d¢ toËto g¤netai per‹ tØn pe›nan. ÉEndee›w går ëma pollo‹4 g¤gnontai ka‹ énÒrektoi t«n nosoÊntvn: §n¤oiw dÉ §mpiplam°noiw oÈdÉ ©n afl Ùr°jeiw xal«sin, éllå ka‹ katate¤nousi ka‹ param°nousin. [D] ÖHdh d¢ pollo‹ t«n épos¤tvn, §la¤an èlmãda lambãnontew µ kãpparin geusãmenoi, tax°vw én°labon ka‹ parestÆsanto tØn ˆrejin. äVi ka‹ mãlista d∞lÒn §stin ˜ti pãyei tin‹ pÒrvn, oÈx ÍpÉ §nde¤aw, §gg¤netai tÚ pein∞n ≤m›n: tå går toiaËta br≈mata tØn m¢n ¶ndeian §latto› prostiyem°nhw trof∞w, poie›:5 oÏtvw afl t«n §fãlmvn brvmãtvn eÈstom¤ai ka‹ drimÊthtew §pistr°fousai6 ka‹ puknoËsai tÚn stÒmaxon µ pãlin éno¤gousai ka‹ xal«sai dektikÆn tina trof∞w eÈarmost¤an perieirgãsanto per‹ aÈtÒn, ∂n ˆrejin kaloËmen. [2] ÉEdÒkei dÆ moi taËta piyan«w m¢n §gkexeir∞syai, prÚw d¢ tÚ m°giston §nantioËsyai t∞w fÊsevw t°low, §fÉ ˘ pçn êgei z“on ˆrejiw, [E] énaplÆrvsin toË §ndeoËw poyoËsa ka‹ tÚ §kle›pon ée‹ toË ofike¤ou di≈kousa.

codd et edd: {pÒrvn} tin¤ Doebnerus (= Do) 2 Bern: ka‹ ëma T 3 par Hu Ho: parasxÒntew T: pãsxontew Tu St: par°sxon, pãsxontew Wy 4 polÊ Xy 5 ci Tu: poioËsin ci Hu: lacunam ante poioËsin T 6 §pistÊfousai Junius 1

FR 270DUB. PLUTARCHUS, QUAESTIONES

CONUIUALES

(4)

Plutarchus, Quaestiones conuiuales, viii 9 [= Efi dunatÒn §sti sust∞nai nosÆmata kainå ka‹ diÉ ìw afit¤aw] 1, 731A–B: [731A] F¤lvn ı fiatrÚw diebebaioËto tØn kaloum°nhn §lefant¤asin oÈ 25 prÚ polloË pãnu xrÒnou gn≈rimon gegon°nai: mhd°na går t«n palai«n

677

  ‒  - FR 269DUB. PLUTARCH, SYMPOSION

QUESTIONS

(3)

Plutarch, Symposion questions, vi 2 [= Is hunger and thirst created by emptiness or by change in the shape of the channels?] 1–2, 687B–E: [1, 687B] When these points had been made, Philo and the doctors in his company attacked the primary hypothesis: for it is not because of emptiness that thirst comes about, [C] but because of change in the shape of some channels. Thus, for instance, if people who are thirsty in the night fall asleep, they stop being thirsty, although they have not drunk; and feverish people are instantly freed from thirst when the fever abates or ceases completely. With many people, thirst disappears after a bath; with others, would you believe it, after vomiting. In these people moisture is not increased by anything: it is the channels alone which, being affected through having their shape changed, produce a different order and state. This becomes more obvious in the case of hunger. For many of the ill are simultaneously empty and without appetite; whereas in others, although we feed them, the appetites, far from being appeased, rather expand and persist. [D] Besides, many of those who were disgusted with food recovered and restored their appetite by taking a pickled olive or by tasting a caper. This shows better than anything that we experience hunger through an affection of the channels, and not because of emptiness; for such foods diminish the [sc state of ] emptiness, since they offer nourishment, yet they make you hungry; thus the tasty and pungent properties of foods steeped in brine either corrected and contracted the stomach or opened and relaxed it, creating in it a [sc state of ] harmony with, and receptivity to, food—which we call appetite. [2] I thought that this [sc explanation] had been handled with persuasion, but that it conflicts with the most important of nature’s ends: that for the sake of which appetite leads every creature [E] when it [sc nature] craves after the replenishment of what is empty and always pursues that which is missing from what is her own.

FR 270DUB. PLUTARCH, SYMPOSION

QUESTIONS

(4)

Plutarch, Symposion questions, viii 9 [= Whether, and from what causes, new diseases can appear] 1, 731A–B: [731A] Philo the doctor put in the claim that what is called elephantiasis had not been known for a long time; for none of the ancient doctors gave

678

  ‒  -

fiatr«n toË pãyouw toÊtou1 pepoi∞syai lÒgon, efiw ßtera mikrå ka‹ gl¤sxra ka‹ dusye≈rhta to›w pollo›w §ntay°ntaw.2 ÉEg∆ d¢ ka‹ mãrtun aÈt“ pare›xon §k filosof¤aw ÉAyhnÒdvron, §n t“ prot°rƒ t«n ÉEpidhmi«n flstoroËnta pr«ton §n to›w katÉ ÉAsklhpiãdhn xrÒnoiw oÈ 5 mÒnon tØn §lefant¤asin éllå ka‹ tÚn ÍdrofÒban §kfan∞ gen°syai. Yaumãzontew oÔn ofl parÒntew efi n°a pãyh tÒte pr«ton ¶sxen §n tª fÊsei g°nesin ka‹ stasin,3 oÈx ∏tton ’onto yaumãsion e‰nai tÚ laye›n thlikaËta sumpt≈mata xrÒnon tosoËton: §rrÊhsan d° pvw mçllon ofl ple¤ouw §p‹ tÚ deÊteron …w ényr≈pinon mçllon, ¥kista tØn 10 fÊsin ¶n ge toÊtoiw filÒkainon e‰nai ka‹ n°vn pragmãtvn Àsper §n pÒlei t“ s≈mati dhmiourgÚn éjioËntew.

1

corr Bas: toËto T

2

§ntay°tvn Re

3

ci Re: stãsin codd

FR 271. PRISCIANUS, EUPORISTON Theodorus Priscianus, Euporiston III, xxvi [= De epaticis], p. 174 Rose: [xxvi, 174] Epatis indignantis1 molesta querimonia est, cuius ad curam adiutoria magis etiam2 styptica conueniunt. Saepe enim3 nonnulli Methodici calidis tantummodo uel4 chalasticis adiutoriis imminentes ipsam epatis sub15 stantiam dissoluerunt. Oportet itaque in fomentis uel cataplasmatibus cerotariis et emplastris aliqua styptica5 chalasticis admiscere, ut est6 oenanthe, nardinum oleum uel melinum, mala cydonia cocta uel Thebaici dactyli et cetera similia.7

Vaticanus reginae 1143 (= V) Bruxellensis 1342–50 (= B) > Rose (= Ro): indignatio Barberinus IX 29 (= r) Berolinensis (Pseudo-Theodori) lat. qu. 198 (= b) 2 Ro < V B: magis b: etiam Gelenius, ed. Basileensis 1532 (= Gel) 3 Ro < r V B: etenim b > Gel 4 r V B > Gel Ro: et b 5 Ro: stiptica V B b: constringentia r > Gel 6 V B > Gel Ro: sunt b 7 Ro < V B b: issimilia r 1

  ‒  -

679

an account of this affection, although on other [sc subjects] they came up with laborious details, hard to understand by most people. I offered him even a witness from [sc the side of ] philosophy: Athenodorus, who noted in book i of his Epidemics that not only elephantiasis but also hydrophobia became manifest for the first time in the days of Asclepiades. The attending [sc guests] were puzzled about the possibility that new affections appeared and took shape then, for the first time, in the natural world, but they considered it to be no less of a puzzle for symptoms of such kind to escape notice for so long; still, the majority inclined rather towards the second [sc possibility] as being rather human, because they thought that, where these [sc diseases] are concerned, nature would hardly desire novelty and create new states of affairs in the body, as [sc one would] in a city.

FR 271. PRISCIANUS, COMMON

MEDICINES

Theodorus Priscianus, Common medicines III, xxvi [= Liver conditions], p. 174 Rose: [xxvi, 174] When the liver is upset there is an insufferable complaint, for the treatment of which styptic remedies are indeed most suitable. Indeed some Methodists have often destroyed the very substance of the liver by approaching [sc it] with remedies that are exclusively hot or chalastic. Thus one should mix some styptic [sc substances] with the chalastic [sc ones] into fomentations, plasters of wax, and emollients—[sc styptics] such as the oinanthe, spikenard oil or oil of apples, cooked quinces, Theban dates, and the like.

680

  ‒   FR 272. PSEUDO-DEMOCRITUS, LIBER

MEDICINALIS

Pseudo-Democritus, Liber medicinalis lxxxa [= De purgatione.1 Galeni ]:2 [lxxx, 1] Qui sani sunt corpore, in purgationibus debilitantur, et qui chymo malo3 utuntur,4 ad Hippocratis uerba5 reuertuntur.6 Quibus ergo7 purgatio apta est,8 considerandum est qui humores deponendi sint9 et species10 cuius sint11 uirtutis12 et13 quae species14 quem humorem deponere possint.15 [2] 15 Et ideo16 si non fuerint purgati17 in uarias incidunt18 aegritudines.19 Qui autem20 purgandi21 studium gerunt,22 his23 aptum est uernum et autumnus.24 Epilempticae25 et asmaticae26 passiones 27 in quibus28 flegma deponendum29 est.30 artriticis uero colericus 31 in hieme32 deponendus33 est, si tamen34 cum rubore35 fuerint;36 si37 autem minus, flegma

a

Based on the Latin translation of Oribasius’ Synopsis to Eustathius, i 16. I owe my awareness of this material to Klaus-Dietrich Fischer, who also handed to me his yet unpublished version of the pseudo-Democrituts chapter (text and apparatus). I follow here his text (with a few departures in punctuation); my apparatus is heavily based on his new readings. The text was first edited (with an apparatus, but from fewer mss) by J. Heeg in Abhandlunger der königlich preussischen Akademie der Wiiessenschaften, 1913, Nr. 4 (“Pseudodemokritische Studien”), pp. 32–3. More information on the mss (including their sigla) can be found in Fischer’s paper “Der Liber medicinalis des Pseudo-Democritus”, in Tradición e innovación de la medicina latina de la antigüedad y de la alta edad media. Acta del IV Coloquio Internacional sobre los “textos médicos antiguos”, Manuel Enrique Vásquez Buján ed, Santiago de Compostela 1994, pp. 45–56. purgationibus clm 16 487 (= M) clm 23 535 (= O) 2 gallieni Vaticanus Latinus 4417 (= V): gaueni Vallicellianus B. 61 (= R): om M: titulum om Augiensis CXX (= A) 3 et qui chymo malo Fischer (= Fi): et si cibo malo A M > Heeg (= He): et si cybo malo V: qui malo cibo R: si malo chimo O 4 utantur A M O V > He: uitantur Parisinus Latinus 14 025 (= P) 5 ypocratum sententiam P 6 reuertuntur M: ad Hippocratis uerba reuertuntur om O R 7 quibus uero P 8 in voce apta est deficit R: purgatio conuenit P 9 sint corr Fi: sunt A M O V > He 10 et de species A V 11 A O > Fi: sunt M V P > He 12 uirtutes A V 13 et O P > Fi: uel A M V > He 14 quae species om O 15 possit M 16 possint. Ideo A O > Fi: possint, quia M > He 17 purgati non fuerint P 18 incedunt A V: incident P 19 infirmitates M 20 qui cum M V: ergo qui P 21 purgationis P 22 appetunt P 23 his om M P 24 uernum et autumnus Fi: uernum et autumpnum O: uerno et autumno He: uernum et autumno A: uernu et autumno V: uerno aut autumno M: tempus uerni et autumni P 25 ut epilemptice He (< P?): epilepticas M 26 asimaticae V: asmaticas M 27 sunt suppl Fischer 28 in om A O V > He: et quibus P 29 deponenda A O V > He 30 purgare (post est) add M 31 in artriticis uero colericus humor suppl et restit Fi: artriticus uero et colericus He: arteticus uero et colericus M: arteticus uero colericus P: artreticis si uero colericus A: araticis uero colericus V: artriticis uero colericis O 32 ex hiccine corr M: hyeme O V 33 deponendum ex deponenda corr O 34 est. Si tamen He 35 robore V 36 O > Fi: fuerit A M V > He 37 lacunam ante si He statuit 1

681

  ‒   FR 272. PSEUDO-DEMOCRITUS, MEDICAL

BOOK

Pseudo-Democritus, Medical book lxxx [= On purgation. [sc Excerpts] from Galen]: [lxxx,1] Healthy people are weakened by purgings, and those who suffer from a bad humour fall back on the words of Hippocrates. So then: in the case of people for whom purgation is adequate, we should examine which humours are to be eliminated, what quality the kinds [sc of purging medicines] possess, and which kind can eliminate which humour. [2] Thus, if they [sc the patients] have not been purged, they fall into various diseases. Now for those who wish to be purged, spring and autumn are adequate [sc times of administration]. Epilepsy and asthma are affections in which phlegm should be eliminated. In patients with arthritis, on the other hand, it is the bilious humour that should be eliminated in winter, at least if their condition is characterised by redness [sc of the skin]; but if not, then phlegm

682

  ‒  -

deponendum38 est. [3] Quos autem39 purgare uoluerimus,40 primo rebus malacticis41 utantur, ut possint omnem constrictionem soluere et meatus aperire, ut42 flegma43 deducant44 et humorem. Ergo si spissi fuerint45 et non fuerint derarati,46 magis enfraxin47 quam euacuationem faciunt.48 [4] Denique49 5 Methodici non praecurantes50 dederunt51 catartica et inclusi sunt52 humores;53 alios asmaticos, alios uero54 podagricos55 fecerunt.56 [5] Si in unum locum57 se dederit58 humor,59 non purgatio60 sed loci61 adhibendum est adiutorium. [6] Quae autem62 purgant medicamina, acredine sua urunt63 uentris .64 Vnde his commiscendae sunt bene olentes species.

deponenda A V > He: deponendi ex deponendum corr O 39 quos autem A O > Fi: quos cum M > He: quos V 40 uolueris O P 41 res malacticas A V 42 ut O > Fi: et M > He: om A V 43 flegmam A V 44 deducant O > Fi: deducat A V: deducere M > He 45 si spissus fuerit humor O 46 et non fuerint derarati A M > Fi: om O: fuerint om cett codd > del He 47 enfraxin O: infraxim A emfraxim M P: EMFRAJIS opilatio uel occlusio pororum M in marg. 48 fatiunt V: facient M: facit O 49 denique que A V: et si non sicut O: qui denique P 50 Fi < O: procurantes A M V > He: curantes P 51 lacunam ante dederunt statuit He 52 A M O > Fi: et includentes He 53 humoribus A V 54 alios uero O: et alios M: aliis uero A 55 podagritos O 56 fecere M 57 in unum locum corr Fi: in uno loco A M O V > He 58 se dederit A > Fi: se dedit V: sederit M O > He: sederint P 59 humores P 60 purgatio He Fi: purgacionem A O: purgationi M 61 loco M 62 qui autem A M V: quia P 63 urinam purgant O 64 suppl Fischer e Oribasio (I 16 5): uentres M > He: uentrem P: e uentris usque ad finem om O 38

FR 273. PSEUDO-DIOSCORIDES, DE

IIS QUAE UIRUS EIACULANTUR ANIMALIBUS

(1)

Pseudo-Dioscorides, De iis quae uirus eiaculantur animalibus, Prooemium, pp. 51–55 Sprengel: [51] Yaumãzein dÉ §stin §p‹ t«n Meyodik«n, o·tinew oÈ sugxvroËsin1 afit¤an e‰nai2 tØn fyoropoiÚn §niem°nhn dÊnamin3 t«n éfÉ aÍt∞w4 ginom°nvn

“lacunae cod. interpositum habet èpl«w” (Sprengel [= Sp]) 2 sugxvroËsin afiti≈menoi Florrentinus Laurentianus 74, 23 (= L) 3 dÊnamin §k add Athous Magnae Laurae V 75 (= A) 4 éfÉ aÍt∞w corr ego: épÉ aÍt∞w Touwaide (= To): épÉ aÈt∞w Sp 1

  ‒  -

683

should be eliminated. [3] Now those whom we intend to purge should first of all be treated by emollient medications, in order to be able to resolve any constriction and open the channels, so as to drive off the phlegm or the [sc other] humour. In consequence, if they [sc the channels] are condensed and have not been rarefied, the result is emphraxis [= obstruction] rather than evacuation. [4] A case in point is that the Methodists administered purgatives without preliminary treatment and kept the humours in; they made some [sc patients] suffer from asthma, others, from podagra. [5] If the humour moves to one [sc particular] place, we should not apply purgation but a local remedy. [6] But the medicines which can purge burn the orifice of the stomach with their pungency. Hence we should mix with them those kinds [sc of purging medicines] which have an agreeable smell.

FR 273. PSEUDO-DIOSCORIDES, CREATURES WHO EMIT POISON (1) Pseudo-Dioscorides, Creatures who emit poison, Preface, pp. 51–55 Sprengel: [51] There is reason to be puzzled by the Methodists, who do not agree that the damage-making power [ phthoropoion dunamin] [sc of the venom]

684

5

10

15

20

  ‒  

Ùxlhr«n, éllå trÒpon5 mÒnon6 7 a énoÆtvw: oÏtv 8 t“ ÙnÒmati pros°xousi. “FyoropoiÚw” går ka‹ parÉ aÈto›w êntikruw ≤ §niem°nh dÊnamiw prosagoreÊetai: tÚ d¢ “fyoropoiÚn” e‰na¤ ti9 afit¤aw,10 oÈk êllou tinÚw ¶rgon11 §stin. Fas‹ d¢ tÚ m¢n12 ˆnoma tÚ13 “mãrsippow” ka‹ tÚ14 “énakalÊptein” to›w loipo›w15 pçsi paraplÆsion Ípãrxein §fÉ œn m°rh tinå t«n l°jevn oÈx ˜ti katå dÊnamin éllå16 katå cilØn perie¤lhptai17 tØn §kforãn:18 ¶n te går t“19 “mãrsippow” ka‹ t“20 “énakalÊptein”, …w tåw kur¤aw21 ka‹ prohgoum°naw oÈk ¶xei shmas¤aw, oÏtv ka‹ §n t“ “fyoropoiÚn”22 parelkÒntvw23 ka‹ oÈ katå dÊnamin §nt°taktai.24 Metaba¤nousi dÉ §ntaËya §p‹ tåw t«n afit¤vn diaforãw,25 ka‹ l°gousin ˜ti t«n afi[52]t¤vn tinå m°n §sti prokatãrjanta,26 ì poiÆsanta pãyow xvr¤zetai27—oÂon kÒpow ka‹28 cÊjiw,29 ¶gkausiw, ka‹30 tå31 paraplÆsia— tå d¢32 sunektikã, diå tÚ poie›n tÚ pãyow ka‹ param°nein33—tout°stin œn m¢n parÒntvn tå épotel°smata pãrestin aÈjanom°nvn dÉ aÎjetai34 ka‹ meioum°nvn meioËtai ka‹ pausam°nvn paÊetai: ka‹ aÈtotel∞ dÊnatai e‰nai,35 kayÉ •autå paraktikå36 t«n épotelesmãtvn. Ka‹ toiaËtai m¢n t«n afit¤vn afl dokim≈tatai diafora¤,37 tÚ d¢38 fyoropoiÚn oÈdem¤&39 toÊtvn Ípotãssesyai40 p°fuke. ProkatarktikÚn m¢n går41 oÎk §stin, §peidÆper poi∞san42 tÚ pãyow aÈtÚ param°nei43 ka‹ toË s≈matow oÈ xvr¤zetai.44 SunektikÚn dÉ45 oÈk ín l°goito: 46 ple›ston m¢n går toËto pãresti,47 kayãper ÍpÚ48 luss«ntow kunÚw dedhgm°nƒ49

a

Maybe this is the lacuna referred to by Sprengel but placed (by mistake?) a couple of lines above (see note 1). Discussion with Jonathan Barnes (to whom I owe many precious suggestions concerning the present text and translation) strengthened my conviction that something is missing at this point. The sequence énoÆtvw oÏtv which follows cannot be right. trÒpvn e corr Neo-Eboracensis Bibliothecae Pierpont Morgan M 652 (= M) mÒnon L > Sp: m°n To < A M (cf Sp in apparatu, “uulgo m°n”) 7 lacunam inter mÒnon et énoÆtvw statui 8 énoÆtvw: oÏtv diuidi et suppleui: trÒpon m°n: énoÆtvw oÏtv To: trÒpon mÒnon, énoÆtvw oÏtv Sp 9 ti om L 10 afit¤aw A > Sp To: oÏtvw L M 11 L > Sp: êllou ¶rgou tinÒw A M > To 12 m¢n om L 13 tÚ A > Sp: om L M > To 14 tÚ A > Sp: t“ To: t«n L 15 to›w loipo›w A > Sp: ka‹ to›w loipo›w L M > To 16 éllå ka‹ L 17 perie¤leptai L M 18 §kfyorãn L 19 §n ka‹ går tÚ A 20 ka‹ §n t“ L: ka‹ tÚ corr e ka‹ t“ secunda manu A 21 efiw tåw kur¤aw M: …w om L: …w tåw kair¤aw editio Aldina (= Ald) 22 corr To: fyoropoie›n codd Sp 23 parelkÒntow A 24 ka‹ dÊnamin m¢n tetãxyai L M 25 diafyorãw L M 26 tå prokatãrjanta L 27 xvr¤z(ein) L 28 ka‹ om To 29 To < L M: kÒpow ka‹ cÊjiw Sp 30 ka‹ om L M 31 tå om L 32 tå d¢ om L 33 param°nhn M 34 aÈjãnetai L 35 e‰nai om L M 36 ci ego: paraginÒmena L > Sp To: periginÒmena A M 37 afl dokim≈tatai t«n afit¤vn diafora¤ colloc To 38 d¢ om L 39 To: oÈdemiò Sp 40 Ípotãssetai L (“ut uidetur”, To) 41 gãr om To 42 poi∞san ci ego: po¤hsin L M > To: om A > Sp 43 tÚ pãyow aÈtÚ param°nei A M > Sp: aÈtÚ param°nein tÚ pãyow L: tÚ pãyow aÈtÚ param°nei To 44 xor¤zetai M 45 dÉ om L 46 suppl ego 47 pãresti toËto ka‹ L: “forte hic éllaxÒyen omissum” notauit Sp in apparatu 48 ÍpÚ add ego: ÍpÚ add To 49 dedhgm°nƒ corr ego: dedhgm°non A: dedeigm°non M: dedhgm°nvn To 5 6

  ‒  

685

injected into the body is a cause of the disturbances which result from it, but only a kind thoughtlessly; for this is how they use the word. For they, too, call the injected power “damage-making”, and outspokenly at that; but if there be such a thing as the “damage-making”, that is a matter of causation, not of anything else. Now, they say that the word “poultice” and the word “uncover” are similar to all others in which some parts of the word are not included according to their meaning, but merely by sound; and, just as there are no principal and leading senses in “poultice” or “uncover”, so in “damage-making” too, one part is inserted superfluously and not by virtue of meaning. From here they move on to the differentiae [= kinds] of causes: they say that some [52] of the causes are procatarctic [ prokatarxonta], namely those which withdraw once they have produced the affection—for example fatigue, chilling, heat, and the like— while other causes are containing [sunektika] on account of the fact that they both produce the disease and, abide—in other words, if they are present, the effects are present; if they increase, the effects increase; if they diminish, the effects diminish; and, if they cease, the effects cease; also, they can be complete [autotele], since each one is producive of the effects all by itself. Well, these are the kinds of cause most widely recognised; but the damagemaking does not belong naturally to any of them. It is not a procatarctic cause because, once it has produced the affection, it stays on and does not withdraw from the body. But you could not say that it is a containing cause; for it is present for the most part—as happens for instance in the

686

5

10

15

20

  ‒  

g¤netai. Efi d¢ mØ prokatarktikÚn g¤netai50 mhd¢ sunektikÒn, oÈdÉ aÈtotel¢w oÈd¢ suna¤tion ín e‡h.51 Efi52 dÉ §k mhdemiçw53 diaforçw54 t«n afit¤vn êgein dunhsÒmeya tÚ fyoropoiÒn,55 sugxvroËmen aÈtÚ56 mhdÉ a‡tion Ípãrxein. ToioÊtvn d¢ legom°nvn ka‹ ˆntvn,57 tÚ58 m°n tina t«n Ùnomãtvn [53] §n aÈto›w59 mØ ¶xein m°rh shmantikå60 t«n pragmãtvn éllå katå cilØn tØn §kforån61 pepoihm°na62 sugxvrht°on, tÚ d¢63 mØ pãnta Ípolhpt°on64 toiaËta Ípãrxein, éllå pantel«w Ùl¤ga. OÎte65 tÚ “poie›n”66 §n t“ “fyoropoi“”67 paraplhs¤vw to›w paraleifye›sin68 §jenÆnegktai: kurivtãthn dÉ ¶xei tØn shme¤vsin.69 ÑVw går tÚ t∞w “fyorçw” ˆnoma t∞w §p‹ tÚ xe›ron metabol∞w shmantikÒn §stin, oÏtv ka‹ tÚ “poie›n” paralhpt°on.70 Mhd¢n dÉ §n t“ “fyorån” dhloËn71 b toÊtou dÉ oper72 §jakoÊousi73 pãntew, tel°vw êshmon g¤netai toÎnoma ka‹ paraplÆsion t“ {paid‹} “skindacÒw”.74 c Efi75 didÒasin épÚ t∞w fyorçw Ígie›76 g¤nesyai tØn nÒson, sugxvroËsi dhlonÒti ka‹ §p‹ toË77 poie›n, efi mÆ ti fyorçw78 épergastikÒn §sti: pçn d¢ tÚ poioËn ka‹ épergazÒmenÒn ti kayÉ ßkaston a‡tion de¤knutai79 t«n Ípokeim°nvn80 §n to›w s≈masin, §p¤ te t«n §niem°nvn ka‹ t«n yanas¤mvn81 farmãkvn. ÉAllå ka‹ Ípop¤ptein82 oÈ fasi83 d ta›w t«n afit¤vn diafora›w.84 Peplã[54]nhntai85 d¢86 kéntaËya,87 dia¤resin ékrib∞ oÈk88 efilhfÒtew:89 l°getai d¢ ka‹ parå to›w Dogmatiko›w a‡tion Ípãrxein ka‹ taÈtÚ90 katå m°n ti paraskeuastikÒn, katå d° ti sunektikÒn,91 …w boub≈nvn ßlkow ka‹ boub≈nvn puretÒw, ka‹ tÚ sune-

b

The new punctuation was suggested to me by David Sedley. This conjecture was suggested to me (separately) by Vivian Nutton and Jonathan Barnes. d Conjecture suggested by Jonathan Barnes. c

g¤netai om L 51 A > Sp: dÉ ín e‡h To 52 efi om M 53 d¢ §k mhdemiçw A > Sp: §k mØ d¢ §k miçw L: d¢ om To 54 diafyorçw L 55 êgein dunhsÒmeya L 56 aÈt« M 57 ka‹ t«n ˆntvn L 58 tÚn L 59 §n aÍto›w To 60 simantikå M 61 §kfyorån L 62 pepoihm°na Sp: perieilhmm°na To (sine animaduersione) 63 tÚ d¢ ego: ˜ti d¢ codd > Sp: < PrÚw toÊtouw =ht°on > ˜ti add To (et om d¢ ) 64 Ípolhpta¤on (sic) M 65 To < L M: oÈd° A > Sp 66 poie›n A > Sp: poion M > -poiÒn To: fyoropoiÒn L 67 codd > Sp: fyoropoiÒn corr To 68 Ípolhfye›sin corr e Ípoleifye›sin A > To 69 sime¤vsin M: shmas¤an A 70 paraleipt°on L 71 mhd¢n dÉ §n t“ fyorån dhloËn ego: mhy¢n §n t“ fyorån ¶xein dhloËn A: mhy¢n tÚ fyorån dhloËsa M: mhd¢n tÚ fyorån dhloËsa L: mhd¢n §n t“ fyorån ¶xein dhloËn: Sp: mhy¢n tØn fyorån dhl«sai: To 72 toÊtou dÉ oper A > Sp: toËyÉ ˜per To 73 §jakolouyoËsin L 74 ego: t“ paid‹ ¶xein d¤cow codd > Sp To 75 ≥ L M 76 corr Sp To: Ígi∞ codd 77 §p‹ toÊtou L 78 L > Sp: diafyorçw To 79 A > Sp: de¤knusyai To 80 S: t«n Ípoke¤menon A: tÚ Ípoke¤menon To 81 A: t«n §niem°nvn ka‹ yanas¤mvn Sp To 82 éllÉ Ípop¤ptein To 83 ego: ti fasi codd > Sp To 84 A > Sp: tåw t«n afiti«n diaforãw To: diafyorãw L 85 peplãnhtai L 86 dØ A 87 kanteËyen To 88 dia¤resin ékrib∞ oÈk L > Sp: dia¤resin oÈk …lÒklhron (corr secunda manu e ılÒklhron) A: dia¤resin oÈk ılÒklhron To 89 efilefÒtow L 90 ego: ka‹ aÈtÒ codd Sp To 91 katå d° ti sunektikÒn om A 50

  ‒  

687

case of someone bitten by a mad dog. Surely if it is neither a procatarctic cause nor a containing cause, it could not be “complete” or “co-operant” [sunaition]. But if we cannot bring the damage-making under any of the differentiae of causes, we agree that it is not a cause. These being the arguments and the facts, [53] one must agree that some words contain parts which do not refer to objects but are created by association of meaningless sounds; on the other hand, one must not assume that all words are like this, but only a very limited number of them. Nor is “-making” [ poiein] in “damage-making” uttered in the same way as those parts which are passed over [sc as meaningless]: it has its most proper meaning. For the word “damage” [ phthora] signifies a change for the worse; and one must take “-making” [ poiein] in exactly the same way. If it [sc “-making”] indicates nothing of what everyone takes it to mean in relation to “damage”, the word [sc “damage-making”] is completely meaningless, like “borogroves”. If they [sc the Methodists] grant that disease arises in the healthy man from damage [ phthora], obviously they must grant as much also in the case of making [ poiein], unless there is something which is producive of damage. Anything that makes or produces something in accordance with each kind of cause is shown to be one of the things present in bodies; and this applies both in the case of injected [sc medicines] and in that of lethal poisons. Next, they claim that it [sc the damage-making] does not fall under the differentiae of causes. [54] But they err on that subject as well, as they have not got hold of a rigorous division. For the Dogmatists, too, claim that there are causes such that the same one is preparatory in some respect, containing in another—for instance, ulceration in relation to swollen glands and fever in relation to swollen glands—as well as [sc the kind of cause]

688

  ‒  -

fistãmenon t“92 épotel°smati93 xvrizÒmenÒn te,94 …w95 pt«ma katãgmatow: ka‹ kayÒlou dÉ, ˜tan ti katå tØn •autoË fÊsin a‡tion Ípãrx˙,96 mØ peri°xhtai97 dÉ ¶n tini diair°sei plØn dia¤resin ¶xoi:98 moxyhrÒn ti d°, oÈx‹ toËto99 e t∞w t«n ımogen«n perig°graptai fÊsevw a‡tion.100 ÜOti 5 d¢ tÚ fyoropoiÒn §stin a‡tion §l°gxetai m¢n101 ka‹ épÚ toÈnÒmatow, de¤knutai dÉ §narg°steron102 §p‹ t«n sumbainÒntvn.103 T¤ går 104 f a‡tion Íp°labon e‰nai105 metå106 tØn §k107 toË daketoË108 plhgØn µ tØn109 §piginom°nhn ÍpÚ toË z–ou dÊnamin ka‹ tÚn efiw tå s≈mata ballÒmenon fiÒn;110 MÆte cÊjin mÆtÉ ¶gkausin mÆtÉ §kkopØn mÆtÉ épec¤an mÆtÉ éllÒ 10 ti paraplÆsion parãpan111 ¶xontew afitiçsyai. ÉEpe‹ d¢ ka‹ ta›w diafora›w xa¤rousi t«n afit¤vn, tå m¢n kaloËntew sunektikå tå d¢ proka[55]tarktikã, lekt°on aÈto›w112 ˜ti kayÉ ßteron dØ113 toÊtvn a‡tiÒn114 §sti, ka‹ prokatarktikÚn115 =hyÆsetai {dÉ}116 épÚ toË proãgein toË épotel°smatow ka‹ toË pro#pÒstasin117 lambãnein toË s≈matow, sunektikÚn dÉ 15 §peidØ118 t«n pay«n parÒntvn ka‹ aÈtÚ pãresti ka‹ xvrisy°ntow aÈtoË xvr¤zetai ka‹ tå sumba¤nonta per‹ aÈtÒ.119

e

Another solution might be to adopt the version of A, substituting …w for ka¤: moxyhrÚn m°n, oÈx‹ d¢ …w a‡tion ktl (“that is unsound; on the other hand, it [sc the thing in question] is not cancelled as a cause . . .”). Suggested to me by Vivian Nutton.

f

tÚ M 93 corr ego: épotelesmatik“ codd > Sp To 94 xvrizÒmenÒn ti L ßvw M 96 Ípãrxei M 97 mØ peri°rxetai M 98 plØn dia¤resin ¶xoi A: om S: plØn dia¤resin ¶xei To 99 ego: moxyhrÚn m°n, oÈx‹ d¢ ka‹ A > Sp: moxyhr«w oÈx‹ d¢ tÚ m¢n To 100 L: a‡tion t∞w t«n ımogen«n perig°graptai fÊsevw A > Sp To 101 A > Sp: ±l°gxeto d° To 102 §nerg°steron M 103 sumbãntvn To 104 add ego 105 Íp°labon doke›n L: Ípolab≈n M 106 meyÉ ë M 107 §k om L 108 daketoË om L 109 µ tØn om L M 110 ˜n L M 111 To: parãpan om L > Sp 112 A > Sp: lekt°on dÉ aÈto›w M > To: deikt°on aÈto›w L 113 dØ A > Sp: d° M > To: om L 114 a‡tion om M 115 ka‹ prokatarktikÚn ci ego: tÚ prokatarktikÒn L > Sp: prokatarktikÒn To 116 deleui 117 prÚw ÍpÒstasin L 118 §peidØ A > Sp: ep‹ L M: §pe¤ corr T 119 aÈtÒn L M 92 95

FR 274. PSEUDO-DIOSCORIDES, DE

IIS QUAE UIRUS EIACULANTUR ANIMALIBUS

(2)

Pseudo-Dioscorides, De iis quae uirus eiaculantur animalibus, i, p. 59 Sprengel: [59] T«n dÉ §mpesÒntvn efiw tÚ pãyow mhd°na ‡smen perisvy°nta, efi mØ kayÉ flstor¤an pareilÆfamen perigen°syai ßna ka‹ deÊteron: ka‹ går EÎdhmow perigegen∞sya¤ tinã fhsi: ka‹ Yem¤svna ofl m¢n l°gousi t“

  ‒  -

689

which comes into existence along with its effect and withdraws—for instance, a fall in relation to a fracture. In general, whenever something is a cause by virtue of its own nature, it should not be included in a differentia [= division] unless it has a differentia: it is unsound [sc to do so], and the thing in question is not described as a cause of entities which are naturally of the same kind. That the damage-making is a cause is proved by the word itself; but it is in the facts that this is more clearly demonstrated. For what cause would they [sc the Methodists] assume after an injury [sc received] from a noxious animal, other than the power emitted by the creature and the venom spread into the body? They cannot allege as a cause heat, fatigue, indigestion, or anything of that sort. But, since they are prepared to use the different kinds of causes, calling some of them containing, others procatarctic, [55] they ought to say that it [sc the damage-making] features as a cause in each of these [sc categories]; and it will be called procatarctic from the fact that it leads the way for the effect and takes hold of the substance which preexists in the body, but containing because it is always present when the symptoms are present, and, if it withdraws, so do the effects related to it.

FR 274. PSEUDO-DIOSCORIDES, CREATURES WHO EMIT POISON (2) Pseudo-Dioscorides, Creatures who emit poison, i, p. 59 Sprengel: [59] We do not know of anyone who survived from among those who fell pray to the affection [sc hydrophobia], unless we accept that, in accordance with the case records [historia], one or two have survived it: for some say that Eudemus survived; as for Themison, one version has it that he caught

690

  ‒  -

pãyei dhxy°nta peripese›n ka‹ svy∞nai, ofl d¢ f¤lƒ Ídrofobi«nti proskarterÆsanta proyÊmvw ka‹ sumpay«w efiw tØn ımo¤an §mpese›n diãyesin ka‹ pollå kakopayÆsanta svy∞nai. TÚ m¢n oÔn pãyow §st‹n érgal°on, prÚ d¢ t∞w pe¤raw aÈtoË polloÁw ka‹ aÈto‹ peries≈samen, 5 ka‹ ÍpÉ êllvn fiatr«n svy°ntaw ¶gnvmen.

FR 275. PSEUDO-GALENUS, DEFINITIONES

MEDICAE

Pseudo-Galenus, Definitiones medicae, p. 353 K: [xiv, 353] ÉIatrik∞w aflr°seiw afl pr«tai dÊo ÉEmpeirikØ ka‹ LogikØ ka‹ tr¤th MeyodikÆ. Doke› d¢ ka‹ tetãrthn a·resin §jeure›n ÉAgay›now ı LakedaimÒniow, ∂n »nÒmasen ÉEpisunyetikÆn, ¶nioi dÉ ÉEklektikÆn, ßteroi tØn ÑEktikÆn. 10 [xv] ÖEstin ≤ ÉEmpeirikØ a·resiw t«n pleistãkiw ka‹ katå taÈtÚ ka‹ …saÊtvw pvw •vram°nvn. [xvi] LogikØ a·res¤w §stin §pistÆmh per‹ édÆlvn ka‹ ¶rga tå §n t“ fiatreÊein taÊt˙ •pÒmena. [xvii] ÑH MeyodikØ a·resiw gn«siw fainom°nvn koinotÆtvn prosex«n 15 ka‹ énagka¤vn t“ t∞w fiatrik∞w t°lei. KoinÒthtaw d¢ l°gei tÚ stegnÚn ka‹ tÚ =o«dew1 ka‹ tÚ §pipeplegm°non.

1

corr ego: Ùrr«dew K

FR 276. PSEUDO-GALENUS, DE

MELANCHOLIA

Pseudo-Galenus, De melancholia, ii pp. 710–711 K: [710] Poseidvn¤ou. ÉEfÉ œn tÚ aÂma pleonãzein fa¤noito, §j érx∞w eÈyÁw fl°ba t°mnein prosÆkei tØn §n égk«ni, ka‹ mãlista §fÉ œn sunÆyeiw §kkr¤seiw efis‹ toË a·matow §pesxhm°nai. ÉEp‹ d¢ gunaik«n aÂw 20 §kle¤pei tå katamÆnia, tØn §n t“ sfur“ fl°ba t°mnein xrÆ, kenoËn dÉ ßkaston1 prÚw dÊnamin: §fÉ œn dÉ ≤ kakoxum¤a mçllon pleonekte›, prodiaitÆsaw tÚn pãsxonta kãyaire tª flerò ÑRoÊfou µ ÉArxig°nouw µ ÉIoÊstou. Efi dÉ êmfv pleonãzoi,2 [711] proflebotomÆsaw kãyaire. Metå d¢ taËta dialip∆n ≤m°raw tinåw klust∞rsi tØn koil¤an kenoËn, pr«ton 25 m¢n diå xuloË pitÊrvn ka‹ kentaur¤ou toË mikroË ka‹ éfron¤trou ka‹ m°litow, met°peita d¢3 ka‹ polupod¤ou =¤zaw teylasm°naw sun°cein to›w

1

an ≤kãsthn?

2

corr ego: pleonãzei K

3

corr ego: met°peitã te K

  ‒  -

691

the disease by being bitten, and escaped, while another version purports that it was because he devoted himself oversympathetically to the treatment of a hydrophobic friend that he fell into the same state as he, and after much suffering he escaped. In conclusion, it is a difficult affection; but if it is [sc caught] before the first onset, many patients at that stage have been saved, both by us and, to our knowledge, by other doctors.

FR 275. PSEUDO-GALENUS, MEDICAL

DEFINITIONS

Pseudo-Galenus, Medical definitions, p. 353 K: [xiv, 353] The first two haireseis in medicine are the Empiricist and the Logical; the third one is the Methodist. It is thought that Agathinus the Lacedaemonian founded even a fourth hairesis, which he called Episunthetike [= Eclectic]; some [sc call] it Eklektike [= Selective], others Hektike. [xv] The Empiricist hairesis is [sc the hairesis] of what has been seen many times in the same [sc circumstances] [sc to remain] identical. [xvi] The Logical hairesis is a [sc form of ] knowledge about non-evident matters and the actions which follow from it in [sc the domain of ] healing. [xvii] The Methodist hairesis is an investigation into manifest koinotetes which are relevant and necessary to the goal of medicine. By koinotetes is meant the constricted, the fluid, and the mixed [sc state].

FR 276. PSEUDO-GALENUS, ON

MELANCHOLIA

Pseudo-Galenus, On melancholia, ii pp. 710–711 K: [710] [sc Excerpt from] Poseidonius. In cases where blood appears to be in excess, the thing to do is to open the vein at the elbow right from the start, especially in cases where the usual discharges of blood are blocked. In the case of women whose menses have stopped, we should open the vein at the ankle and empty out each one according to the [sc patient’s] strength; in cases where it is rather corrupt humours [kakochumia] that are in excess, submit the patient to a preliminary regimen, then purge him by [sc using] the antidote of Rufus, Archigenes, or Iustus. If the patient has an excessive amount of both [sc blood and kakochumia], [711] perform a preliminary venesection, then purge him. Leave [sc him] for a couple of days after this, then evacuate the bowel with a clyster—with bran-juices, fever-few, washing soda, and honey to begin with; later on, boil some

692

  ‒  -

pitÊroiw µ §p¤yumon. Metå d¢ tre›w ≤m°raw toË4 klust∞row dot°on aÈto›w tØn diÉ élÒhw pikrãn, proseilhfu›an prÚw to›w êlloiw pçsi ka‹ §piyÊmou. Skeuãzein dÉ aÈtØn …w Yem¤svn boÊletai: élÒhw m¢n bal∆n < bÉ5 mast¤xhw d¢ ka‹ krÒkou ka‹ nãrdou stãxuow, kinnam≈mou te µ kass¤aw: 5 tÚ diploËn: ésãrou ka‹ karpobalsãmou: •kãstou énå oÈgg¤an m¤an: prostiy°nai d¢ toÊtoiw: ka‹ §piyÊmou oÈgg¤aw bÉ ka‹ sxo¤nou ênyouw oÈgg¤aw aÉ 10 ka‹ didÒnai d¢ koxliar¤ou megãlou tÚ pl∞yow metå melikrãtou. Dot°on dÉ aÈto›w §k diasthmãtvn Ùl¤gvn deÊteron µ tr¤ton, e‰ta pãlin diaitÆsaw ka‹ énalab∆n tåw dunãmeiw d¤dou pãlin tØn flerån ÑRoÊfou µ ÉArxig°nouw µ ÉIoÊstou.

4

ci ego (cf Fr 2): t∞w K

5

corr ego: rÉ K

FR 277. PSEUDO-GALENUS, DE

OPTIMA SECTA

(1)

Pseudo-Galenus, De optima secta, vii–ix + xi, pp. 117–126 + 131 K: 15 [vii, 117] ÉEpe‹ oÔn pçw lÒgow ka‹ pçn ye≈rhma to›w tris‹ toÊtoiw kr¤netai tre›w dÉ efis‹n §n fiatrikª aflr°seiw, ¥ te t«n Logik«n ka‹ t«n ÉEmpeirik«n ka‹ t«n Meyodik«n, f°re, to›w krithr¤oiw toÊtoiw xr≈menoi §piskec≈meya ka‹ tåw [118] aflr°seiw, ·na tª Ígiª prosy≈meya. ÉAnagka›on d¢ tå koinå t«n aflr°sevn pr«ton §ky°syai ka‹ tå ‡dia §ke¤nvn •kãsthw, 20 e‰yÉ oÏtvw •j∞w tØn §p¤krisin aÈt«n poiÆsasyai. ÖEsti to¤nun koinå t«n tri«n aflr°sevn taËta: ˜ti xrÆsima tå fainÒmena yevrÆmata, énalogismÒw, tÆrhsiw, flstor¤a, ımo¤ou metãbasiw: ˜tÉ êkritow flstor¤a: oÈ1 paradekt°a tå ˆrgana, ı trÒpow t∞w prosagvg∞w t«n 25 bohyhmãtvn: ˜tÉ §j êllvn êlla katalambãnetai: ˜ti, taÈt«n peristãntvn, taÈtå poiht°on: tÚ diå prosy°sevn ka‹ éfair°sevn tØn Íge¤an thre›syai ka‹ tåw 30 nÒsouw yerapeÊesyai: tÚ de›n §kkl¤nein tØn t«n blaptÒntvn xr∞sin prÒw te Íge¤aw tÆrhsin ka‹ nÒsvn épallagÆn:

1

add ego: oÈ K

693

  ‒  -

crushed polypody-root and epithumon into the bran as well. Three days after the clyster we should give the patients the bitter [sc antidote] of aloes, adding some epithumon to all the other [sc ingredients]. Prepare it as Themison indicates, taking: two [sc ounces] of aloes; a double amount of mastich, crocus, spikenard, and cinnamon or cassia; asaron and balsam-fruit: one ounce of each. Also add to these: two ounces of epithumon; one ounce of schoinos flower, and administer in the dose of a large spoonful, with hydromel. You should make the patients take it two or three times, at short intervals; then, once you have put them through the regimen and rebuilt their strength, readminister the antidote of Rufus, Archigenes, or Iustus.

FR 277. PSEUDO-GALENUS, ON

THE BEST SECT

(1)

Pseudo-Galenus, On the best sect, vii–ix + xi, pp. 117–126 + 131 K: [vii, 117] Now, given that every argument and every proposition is verified by [sc one of ] these three criteria [kriteria]; on the other hand, given that in medicine there are three haireseis—that of the Logicians, that of the Empiricists, and that of the Methodists—let us employ these criteria to examine [118] the haireseis too, in order to adhere to the one which is sound. First we should lay down what is common to the haireseis and what is specific to each, then on this basis we should proceed to make our verification of them. So, here are the theses shared in common by the three haireseis: that the useful things are: theorems which are manifest, the analogismos, observation, historia [= case records], and the transition to the similar; that historia is not subject to verification; that the instruments and manner of coming upon the remedies are not transmissible; that things are grasped from things other than themselves; that in identical circumstances one should do identical operations; the thesis that it is by means of additions and subtractions that one preserves health and cures illness; the thesis that one should redirect what is damaging and use it towards the preservation of health and the removal of disease;

694

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

tÚ tØn pe›ran dunatØn ka‹ xrÆsimon e‰nai prÚw tØn katãlhcin t∞w prosagom°nhw Ïlhw: trÒfima går ka‹ êtrofa ka‹ kayartikå ka‹ fyartikå pe¤r& kate¤lhptai. [viii] ÉEp‹ toÊtƒ t“ koin“ ofl m¢n ÉEmpeiriko‹ memenÆkasin, oÈ mÒnon tåw dunãmeiw éllå ka‹ tå sumf°ronta [119] pe¤r& eÍr∞syai l°gontew. Ofl d¢ Meyodiko‹ §p‹ koin“ t“ proeirhm°nƒ l°gous¤ ti diaf°ron parå toÁw ÉEmpeirikoÊw. Fas‹ går plØn toË tåw dunãmeiw t«n prosferom°nvn §kmaye›n ßteron oÈd¢n xrÆsimon §k t∞w pe›raw perig¤gnesyai. OÈd¢n går t«n sumferÒntvn aÈt«n §k thrÆsevw dÊnatai lambãnesyai èpl«w, t«n sumferÒntvn épÒ tinvn fainom°nvn §ndeiknum°nvn.2 Ofl d¢ Logiko‹ m°soi toÊtvn kexvrÆkasin. OÎte går3 pãnta tå sumf°ronta §k thrÆse≈w fasi lambãnesyai, …w l°gousin ofl ÉEmpeiriko¤, oÈ mØn oÈdÉ §k t∞w §nde¤jevw eÍr¤skesyai, …w o‡ontai ofl Meyodiko¤, éllÉ ì m¢n §k thrÆsevw eÍr¤skesyai, …w tå yanãsima ka‹ fiobÒla, ì dÉ §j §nde¤jevw, §fÉ œn tå a‡tia eÍr¤skesyai. ÑOmognvmonoËsi to¤nun ofl Meyodiko‹ to›w Logiko›w kayÉ ˜son o‡ontai §j §nde¤jevw tÚ sumf°ron lambãnesyai, √ dÉ épÚ diaferÒntvn diafvnoËsin. Ofl m¢n går Meyodiko‹ épÚ fainom°nvn tin«n §ndeiknÊmena o‡ontai tå sumf°ronta lambãnesyai: ofl d¢ Logiko‹ épÚ fainom°nvn m¢n oÈdam«w, épÚ d¢ kekrum[120]m°nvn. ÉEpe‹ går épÉ afit¤vn tåw §nde¤jeiw éjioËsi g¤gnesyai tå dÉ a‡tia √ a‡tiã §stin oÈ fa¤netai, d∞lon …w oÈk épÚ fainom°nvn aÈto›w afl §nde¤jeiw g°noitÉ ên: ıdhge›n t° fasi tå fainÒmena prÚw tØn t«n §pide¤knusyai dunam°nvn katãlhcin. KatÉ aÈtÚ oÔn pãlin sumfvnoËsin ofl ÉEmpeiriko‹ to›w Logiko›w, épÚ mhdenÚw fainom°nou toË sumf°rontow ¶ndeijin g¤gnesyai l°gontew. ÜEteron d¢ koinÚn toËto ka‹ ımologoÊmenon ëpasin fiatro›w, tÚ tå fainÒmena eÎxrhstÉ e‰nai. Ofl m¢n ÉEmpeiriko‹ §p‹ tÚ thr∞sai tå §p‹ to›w fainom°noiw fas‹n eÎxrhsta Ípãrxein tå fainÒmena, diå tÚ e‰nai tÆrhsin §p¤ tisin aÈt«n ka‹ ˜tÉ ¶stin4 §j aÈt«n tå ˆnta sumf°ronta katalabe›n. Ofl d¢ Meyodiko‹ …w §nde¤knusyai dunam°na sumf°ronta5 tå fainÒmena eÎxrhstÉ e‰na¤ fasin. Pãlin §ntaËya koinÚn m¢n ÉEmpeiriko›w ka‹ Meyodiko›w tÚ mØ kekrumm°non §k t«n fainom°nvn katalambãnesyai éfÉ o tØn ¶ndeijin t«n sumferÒntvn g¤gnesyai. T«n dÉ ÉEmpeirik«n prÚw toÁw LogikoÁw koinÒn §sti tÚ §p‹ to›w fainom°noiw tå sumf°ronta thre›n. To›w d¢ Logiko›w ka‹ [121] Meyodiko›w koinÚn tÚ §p‹ to›w fainom°noiw xrÆsima katalambãnesyai. Ofl m¢n oÔn Meyodiko‹ aÈtÒ fasi tÚ sumf°ron §k t«n fainom°nvn katalambãnesyai, ofl d¢ Logiko‹ tå §nde¤knusyai tÚ sumf°ron dunãmena §k t«n fainom°nvn fas‹n eÍr¤skesyai, sumf°ron d¢ mhd°n. PrÚw d¢ toÁw ofiom°nouw §k t«n prodÆlvn afiti«n sumf°ron eÍr¤skesya¤ ti …w §p‹ toÁ skÒlopow, =ht°on ˜tÉ oÈx …w épÚ t«n fainom°nvn éllÉ …w épÉ afiti«n eÍr¤skesyai tÚ

ci ego: fainom°nvn tethrhm°nvn K 3 ego: OÏtv gãr K 4 ego: §st¤n K 5 tå ˆnta sumf°ronta katalabe›n . . . tå sumf°ronta transposui et addidi: tå §nde¤knusyai dunãmena katalabe›n . . . …w ˆnta sumf°ronta K

2

  ‒  

695

the thesis that experience is a powerful and serviceable tool for grasping the [sc nature of the] stuff that is being administered; for one grasps through experience what it is that nourishes or does not nourish, cleanses or corrupts. [viii] The Empiricists stick with this [sc last] common thesis and claim that not only the actions [sc of medicines] are [119] discovered through experience, but also what is beneficial. The Methodists hold something different from the Empiricists concerning the common thesis mentioned above. They say, namely, that nothing useful arises from experience, apart from the fact that one learns thoroughly about the action of the medicines that are administered. None of the beneficial things themselves can be derived indiscriminately from observation, since what is beneficial is indicated on the basis of certain manifest things. The Logicians take an intermediate position between the two. That is, they claim that not all the beneficial things are taken from observation, as the Empiricists claim, nor, to be sure, discovered through indication, as the Methodists believe, but some are discovered through observation, for instance the poisons and the venoms, some through indication, namely the phenomena for which the causes can be discovered. Thus the Methodists agree with the Logicians in so far as those believe that the beneficial is taken from indication, but they disagree in so far as those believe that it [sc the beneficial] is taken from different things. For the Methodists think that the indication of beneficial things is taken from certain manifest things; whereas the Logicians think that it is never taken from manifest things, but from hidden things. [120] And indeed, since they [sc the Logicians] are of the view that indications derive from causes, and since causes qua causes are not manifest, it is clear that, to their mind, indications would not derive from manifest things; and they say that manifest things lead the way [hodegein] towards our apprehension of the things which can indicate. Hence the Empiricists, in turn, agree with the Logicians on this point, since they claim that no indication of what is beneficial derives from a manifest thing. Another common thesis agreed upon by all doctors is this: that manifest things are useful. The Empiricists hold that manifest things are useful in the observation of [sc features] of manifest things, since observation is of some of these features they have, and because we can get the beneficial from them. The Methodists contend that manifest things are useful in so far as they are capable of indicating the beneficial. Again, what is common here between the Empiricists and the Methodists is the view that it is not the case that one grasps from manifest things that which is hidden, from which the indication of what is beneficial would arise. On the other hand, the Empiricists share with the Logicians the view that in manifest things one observes what is beneficial. And the Logicians and [121] the Methodists share the view that what is useful is grasped in relation to manifest things. But the Methodists claim that the beneficial itself is grasped from manifest things, whereas the Logicians claim that it is the things capable of indicating what is beneficial, but not the beneficial [sc itself ], that is discovered from manifest things. Against those who believe it to be the case that some beneficial thing is discovered from evident causes, as for instance the thorn, we should say that in such instances the beneficial is discovered from them not in their capacity of manifest things, but in their capacity of

696

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

sumf°ron §p‹ toÊtvn. TÚ dÉ a‡tion √ a‡tiÒn §stin oÈ fa¤netai éllÉ §k t«n sumptvmãtvn katalambãnetai. ÉEån goËn tª §pifane¤& proske¤menon camm¤on µ skolÒpion mØ lupª mÆdÉ efiw a‡syhsin ≤mçw êg˙, oÈ katalambãnomen. OÈ gãr §stin a‡tiÒn tinow ˜ ti mØ6 poioËn. ÜO ti m°n §stin a‡tion fa¤netai7 …w a‡tion: tå går prÒw t¤ pvw ¶xonta kayÉ ˘ prÒw t¤ pvw ¶xei oÈ fa¤netai,8 aÈtå d¢ tå prÒw ti fa¤netai, oÂon patØr doËlow édelfÚw ka‹ tå toiaËta: aÈtå m¢n ßkasta fa¤netai, afl d¢ prÚw ßtera sx°seiw aÈt«n oÈ fa¤nontai. [ix, 122] ÉEpe‹ to¤nun tã te kritÆria paraded≈kamen t«n lÒgvn ka‹ tå koinå ka‹ ‡dia t«n aflr°sevn §pelhlÊyamen, •j∞w énagka›on ín e‡h tØn §p¤krisin •kãsthw t«n aflr°sevn poiÆsasyai, ¶peiyÉ oÏtvw tª Ígie› dÒj˙ prosy°syai. Ofl m¢n oÔn ÉEmpeiriko‹ ka‹ Meyodiko‹ éntil°gontew to›w Logiko›w êxrhstÒn fasin e‰nai tØn t«n kekrumm°nvn katãlhcin: mhd¢n går épÚ kekrumm°nvn xrÆsimon eÍr¤skesyai. PrÚw toËto dÉ épant«sin ofl Logiko‹ fid¤vw prÚw •kat°ran a·resin, ka‹ pr«tÒn ge prÚw toÁw ÉEmpeirikoÊw fasin ˜tÉ oÈk §parke› tå fainÒmena prÚw tÚ thr∞sai §pÉ aÈto›w tå sumf°ronta. Xre¤a går ka‹ t«n kekrumm°nvn: épÚ går toÊtvn afl t«n sumferÒntvn §nde¤jeiw g¤gnontai. TekmÆrion dÉ—aÈto›w går Íme›w oÈk §p‹ pçsi to›w fainom°noiw thre›tÉ éllÉ §p¤ tisin—…w ín pl°on ti §xÒntvn t«n fainom°nvn §fÉ oÂw thre›n de›, ˘ oÈ fa¤netai. Efi d¢ toËto, eÎxrhstÉ ín e‡h tå kekrumm°na. Tå oÔn fainÒmena ≥toi …w fainÒmena prÚw eÏresin t«n sumferÒntvn lambãnetai ka‹ pãntÉ ¶stai xrÆsima, µ oÎ. TÚ m¢n oÔn pãnta l°gein [123] xrÆsimÉ e‰nai ép¤yanon. Efi d¢ mØ pãntÉ §st‹ xrÆsima, énãgkh toË fa¤nesyai pl°on ti tå xrÆsimÉ ¶xein, ˜per oÈk afisyÆse≈w §sti katalambãnein éllå lÒgou. T“ d¢ lÒgƒ tå kekrumm°na katalambãnetai: xrÆsimow êra lÒgow ka‹ tå kekrumm°na. Efi går tå fainÒmena √ fainÒmenÉ §sti mØ diaf°rei éllÆlvn, dhlonÒti µ ˜mo¤vw ëpanta prÚw tÆrhsin ì9 ka‹ §fÉ •auto›w xrhsimeÊei, Àste ka‹ §p‹ to›w §lax¤stoiw to›w te parelhluyÒsi ka‹ to›w §nest«sin e‡hn ên [sc tÆrhs¤w tiw], µ10 toËtÉ édÊnaton. P«w går ín §p‹ tª strvmnª ka‹ tª kl¤n˙ §fÉ √ katekl¤yh ı nos«n ka‹ to›w ımo¤oiw tÆrhs¤w tiw; FanerÚn oÔn …w oÈk §p‹ to›w fainom°noiw …w fainÒmenÉ §stin ≤ tÆrhsiw g¤gnetai—ımo¤vw går ín §p‹ pçsin §g¤gneto— éllÉ §fÉ •t°rƒ tini, ˘ oÈ fa¤netai. Efi d¢ toËto, xrÆsimÉ ín e‡h tå kekrumm°na. “ÉAllå ka‹ pÒyen” fas‹ “katalambãnetai ˜tÉ §p‹ m¢n to›sd° tisi to›w fainom°noiw dunatÒn §sti thre›n, §p‹ d¢ to›sdÉ oÈk ¶ti; OÈ =ñdion går toËtÉ épÉ aÈt«n t«n fainom°nvn kayÉ ˜son fa¤netai §stÉ efid°nai. Pãntew går ín §g¤gnvskon ka‹ ofl fidi«tai §fÉ oÂw fainom°noiw [124] xrØ tØn tÆrhsin poie›syai, ka‹ oÈd¢n di°feren Ím«n ≤ §mpeir¤a t∞w t«n fidi≈tvn épeir¤aw. Efi d¢ mØ prosp¤ptei pçsin §fÉ oÂw fainom°noiw

corr ego: ˜ ti dÆ K 7 add et corr ego: a‡tion fa¤nontai K tai K 9 corr ego: prÚw tÆrhsin ˜ K 10 corr ego: efi K 6

8

corr ego: fa¤non-

  ‒  

697

causes. And the cause, in so far as it is a cause, is not manifest, but is grasped from the symptoms. So, if a grain of sand or a thorn which adheres to the surface of the skin neither gives us pain nor produces any sensation in us, we do not grasp it. For something which does not act in some way is not the cause of anything. But that which is a cause is not manifest qua cause. For things which stand in a certain relation to others are not manifest in so far as they stand in a certain relation; the things themselves which constitute the relatives are manifest, for instance a father, a slave, a brother, and suchlike: each one of them is manifest, but their relations to other things are not manifest. [ix, 122] Now then: since we have taught about the means for testing arguments, and have gone through what is common and what is specific to the haireseis, we should proceed to make our verification of them, then make up our minds in this way, on the basis of a sound judgement. In their attack on the Logicians, the Empiricists and the Methodists declare that the apprehension of hidden things is useless; for nothing useful is discovered from hidden things. On this point the Logicians return specific answers to each hairesis; first they say, against the Empiricists, that manifest things do not suffice for the observation of what is beneficial in their case. One needs hidden things as well; for it is from these that the indications of what is beneficial arise. The proof—since you yourselves do not make observations upon the whole range of manifest things, but only upon some of them—[sc is this]: in so far as the manifest things upon which observations have to be drawn contain something of greater value, that thing is not manifest. And, if this is so, hidden things are useful. In consequence, either it is or it is not the case that manifest things are taken qua manifest in the discovery of what is beneficial and will be useful, all of them. But it is not plausible to say [123] that all are useful. And if not all are useful, then necessarily the useful ones contain something of greater value than being manifest—specifically, something that cannot be grasped through perception, but through reason. But it is hidden things that are grasped through reason; hence, both reason and hidden things are useful. For if manifest things do not differ from each other in so far as they are manifest, clearly either everything which pertains to them is useful for observation, so that there would be some [sc observation to make] even about the smallest details of past and present; or this is impossible. But how could there be an observation about the cover or the bed where the patient lies, or about any such thing? It is obvious, then, that observation is not made about manifest things qua manifest—in that case it would be made about all of them—but about something else, which is not manifest. And, if this is so, hidden things are useful. “Besides, what is the source from which we grasp” they ask “that it is possible to make [sc useful] observations about some of the things that are manifest, whereas about others it is not? For it would not be easy to learn this just from the manifest things, in so far as they are manifest. In that case, everyone down to the layman would know which manifest things [124] should be observed, and your experience would not differ from the laymen’s inexperience. If, on the contrary, it does not

698

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

de› tåw thrÆseiw poi∞sai, mÒnoiw d¢ to›w texn¤taiw katalhptÒn §sti toËto, tå sumf°rontÉ §p‹ to›w fainom°noiw oÈx …w fainÒmenÉ §sti thre›tai. ÜOti går tÒde m¢n tÚ fainÒmenon §fÉ o thre›n §sti, tÒde oÈk, ¶ti fa¤netai11 éllå k°kruptai. XrÆsimon d¢ pãnu §st‹ toËtÉ efid°nai, diÒper xrÆsimÉ §sti tå kekrumm°na.” PrÚw d¢ to›w efirhm°noiw, §peidÆper ofl ÉEmpeiriko‹ l°gousin §p‹ to›sde to›w progegenhm°noiw ka‹ to›sde to›w §nest«si de›n tåw thrÆseiw poie›syai (diå toËto gãr toi ka‹ polupragmonoËsi tå parelhluyÒta), êpeira12 dÉ §sti ka‹ tå parÒnta, §pÉ épe¤roiw d¢ thre›n oÈ dunatÒn, dhlonÒti édÊnaton ín e‡h ≤ toiaÊth tÆrhsiw. PrÚw d¢ toÁw MeyodikoÊw, tå fainÒmenÉ §ndeiktikå t«n sumferÒntvn e‰nai ofiom°nouw, taËta l°gousin ofl Logiko¤. “Tå fainÒmenÉ §j •aut«n §sti katalhptã: ka‹ to›w fidi≈taiw oÔn fane›tai. ÉEpeidØ d¢ ka‹ §nde¤knuntai afl koinÒthtew 13 sumprosp¤ptei d¢ to›w §ndeiknum°noiw tå §j [125] aÈt«n lambanÒmena, dhlonÒti to›w fidi≈taiw §nde¤jontai afl koinÒthtew ka‹ oÈde‹w t«n fidi≈tvn dio¤sete.” ÜOti dÉ épÚ t«n pay«n ≤ ¶ndeijiw t«n sumferÒntvn oÈ g¤gnetai diå toÊtvn ¶stÉ §pide›jai.14 TaÈtoË pãyouw oÂon flegmon∞w per‹ diaf°rontaw tÒpouw ÍparxoÊshw oÂon per‹ ÙfyalmoÁw µ ∏par µ stÒmaxon, oÈ t∞w aÈt∞w yerape¤aw éllå diafÒrvn d°ontai. ÉOfyalm“ m¢n går flegma¤nonti ˆpiÒn §sti katÉ êllhla, stomãxƒ d¢ ka‹ ¥pati êllo ti. TÚ dÉ ¶laion t“ Ùfyalm“ kakvtikÒn, tå dÉ êlla m°rh flegma¤nonta parhgore›. D∞lon oÔn ˜tÉ oÈk épÚ t«n pay«n sumf°ronta lambãnetai. TÚ går aÈtÚ §p‹ pãntvn parelambãnetÉ ín boÆyhma, taÈtoË pãyouw ˆntow, e‡per tÚ pãyow §ndeiktikÚn §g¤gneto t«n sumferÒntvn. ÖEsti d¢ ka‹ oÏtvw énaskeuãsai tÚ ér°skon t“ Meyodik“: taÈtoË pãyouw per‹ taÈtÚn ˆntow tÒpon, per‹ tØn diaforån t∞w afit¤aw diafÒrou yerape¤aw ofl ênyrvpoi d°ontai, oÂon §pÉ fisxour¤aw. ÉEån m¢n går ¬ l¤yow, liyotÒmƒ xr≈meya: §ån d¢ pl∞yow oÎrou, kayet∞ri: §ån d¢ flegmonÆ, kataplãsmati. [126] Efi dÉ épÚ t«n pay«n afl §nde¤jeiw t«n sumferÒntvn §g¤gnonto, •nÚw Ípokeim°nou pãyouw m¤a ín ka‹ aÍtØ yerape¤a parelambãneto. OÈ paralambãnetai d¢ m¤a yerape¤a taÈtoË pãyouw Ípokeim°nou: oÈk êrÉ épÚ t«n pay«n afl §nde¤jeiw t«n sumferÒntvn g¤gnontai. [. . .] [131] ÑEj∞w to¤nun tå ‡dia •kãsthw aflr°sevw §ky°menoi, tØn ént¤rrhsin prÚw •kãsthn aÈt«n, l°gv dØ t«n ÉEmpeirik«n ka‹ Meyodik«n, poihsÒmeya.

add ego: tÒde oÈk ¶ti fa¤netai K 12 ego: poie›syai. Diå. . . . parelhluyÒta. ÖApeira K 13 add ego 14 ego: §st‹n §pide›jai K 11

  ‒  

699

occur to everyone which manifest things should be observed but this can only be grasped by people instructed in the art, then what is beneficial is observed in manifest things not in so far as they are manifest; for the fact that this thing here is the manifest thing from which observations can be drawn but that other one is not is no longer manifest; it is hidden. And it is extremely useful to know this—the reason why hidden things are useful.” In addition to the above [sc one might say that], since the Empiricists claim that one should make observations about past and present circumstances (for this is why they meddle with the past), but on the other hand even the present circumstances are infinite and it is not possible to observe infinite series, it is clear that such an observation would be impossible. Against the Methodists, who believe that manifest things are indicative of what is beneficial, the Logicians raise the following arguments. “Manifest things are graspable by themselves; in consequence, they will also be manifest to laymen. Moreover, since the koinotetes indicate and what derives from [125] them falls into the class of indicated things, it is clear that the koinotetes will indicate to the laymen, and you will not be any different from the laymen.” The fact that the indication of beneficial things does not derive from the affections can be proved through the following arguments. When the same affection, for instance an inflammation, occurs in different places, for instance in the eyes, liver, or womb, they [sc the places in question] do not require the same therapy but different ones. For an inflamed eye, one remedy among others is poppy-juice; for the womb and the liver it is something else. Oil is troublesome for the eye, but on other inflamed parts it has a soothing effect. Hence it is clear that what is beneficial does not derive from the affections. For we would employ the same remedy for all of them when the affection is the same, if the affection were indicative of what is beneficial. It is also possible to refute the Methodist view in the following way: even when the same affection occurs in the same place, people need different therapies on account of the different nature of the cause [sc of the affection]; take for instance retention of urine. If the cause were a stone, we would use the knife for cutting stones; if the quantity of urine, a pessary; if an inflammation, a plaster. [126] If the indications for what is beneficial were to derive from the affections, the received therapy would be one and the same. But it is not the case that just one treatment is employed, even when the affection is the same; therefore it is not the case that the indications for what is beneficial derive from the affections. [. . .] [131] And now that we have presented the views specific to each hairesis we shall proceed to make our refutation of each one—I mean that of the Empiricists and that of the Methodists.

700

  ‒  - FR 278. PSEUDO-GALENUS, DE

OPTIMA SECTA

(2)

Pseudo-Galenus, De optima secta, xii, pp. 132–133 K: [xii, 132] . . . ÑOmologoËsin ofl ÉEmpeiriko‹ ˜tÉ oÈk §p‹ pçsi to›w fainom°noiw sumpt≈masi tØn tÆrhsin poioËntai. OÎte går §p‹ janyÒthtow, f°re, µ leukÒthtow µ simÒthtow µ grupÒthtow thre›n fasi. Ka¤toi ka‹ §p‹ xrvmãtvn diaforån throËs¤ tina …w §p‹ t«n fikterik«n, ka‹ §p‹ sxÆmatow 5 …w §p‹ t«n katagmãtvn ka‹ t«n §jaryrÆsevn, éllÉ oÎtoi ge ka‹ §p‹ to›w proeirhm°noiw. “ÜVsper går” fas‹n [133] “ofl épÉ §nde¤jevw tå sumf°ronta lambãnein l°gontew oÈ pãntÉ §nde¤knusyai l°gousin”—o· te går Meyodiko¤ tina t«n fainom°nvn §nde¤knusya¤ fasi ka‹ oÈ pãnta, o· te Logiko‹ t«n kekrumm°nvn ka‹ oÈ pãnta—oÏtv ka‹ ofl ÉEmpeiriko‹ oÈk §p‹ pçsi to›w sumpt≈masi tØn tÆrhsin éllÉ §p¤ tisi poie›sya¤ 10 fasin. OÎte går tå gegonÒta pãnta oÎte tå parÒnta xrÆsimÉ o‡ontai prÚw tÆrhsin e‰nai. OÂon d°dhkta¤ tiw ÍpÚ kunÚw luttÒntow: polupragmone› parely∆n ı ÉEmpeirikÚw mÒnon efi ÍpÚ lutt≈ntow, t«n dÉ êllvn t«n progegonÒtvn §jetãzei oÈdÉ ßn.

FR 279. PSEUDO-GALENUS, DE

OPTIMA SECTA

(3)

Pseudo-Galenus, De optima secta, xxi–l, pp. 162–223 K: 15 [xxi, 162] ÉEpe‹ oÔn …w §n kefala¤ƒ énteirÆkamen to›w ÉEmpeiriko›w, •j∞w prÚw toÁw MeyodikoÁw =ht°on. XrØ d¢ tÚn éntil°gontÉ aÈto›w tå m¢n koinå t«n aflr°sevn sugxvre›n, tÚ d¢ diallãtton §ke¤nvn énaire›n. Ofl m¢n oÔn ÉEmpeiriko‹ tÚ épÉ §nde¤jevw tå sumf°ronta lambãnesyai peirãsontai édÊnaton épofa¤nein, , 20 éntil°gontew1 to›w Meyodiko›w: “ÑHme›w d¢ tÚ épÉ §nde¤jevw tå sumf°ronta lambãnein dunatÚn e‰nai sugxvrÆsomen, tÚ m°ntoi épÚ fainom°nvn tØn ¶ndeijin g¤gnesyai oÈk ¶ti sugxvrÆsomen aÈto›w. ÖEti kôke›no sugxvrÆsomen to›w Meyodiko›w, tÚ épÚ sumptvmãtvn mÆyÉ •nÚw mÆte pleiÒnvn ¶ndeijin g¤gnesyai: §ke›no dÉ oÈk ¶ti sugxvrÆsomen, tÚ pantãpasin 25 êxrhstÉ e‰nai tå sumpt≈mata. Doke‹ går ≤m›n pollãkiw dhlvtikå g¤gnesyai tå sumpt≈mata t«n tÚ sumf°ron §nde¤jasyai dunam°nvn, efiw dÉ ¶ndeijin pantãpasin êxrhstÉ e‰nai tå sumpt≈mata.” ToioÊtouw tinåw ofl Meyodiko‹ prof°rontai lÒgouw. Fas‹ går ˜ti: “TaÈt«n sumptvmãtvn ˆntvn diaferÒntvn d¢ t«n pay«n §fÉ oÂw tå sumpt≈mata, oÈ taÈtª 30 yerape¤& xr≈meya, oÂon §p‹ [163] fren¤tidow t∞w te katå st°gnvsin t∞w

1

add ego: épofa¤nein, éntil°gontew K

701

  ‒  - FR 278. PSEUDO-GALENUS, ON

THE BEST SECT

(2)

Pseudo-Galenus, On the best sect, xii, pp. 132–133 K: [xii, 132] . . . The Empiricists admit that they do not make observations upon [terein] all the manifest symptoms. For they claim that they do not take notice of [terein] yellowness or whiteness, snubness or hookedness. It is true that they make some observations about differences in colour, as for instance in the case of patients with jaundice, or about differences in shape, as for instance in cases of fracture or dislocation; but not also in relation to the symptoms mentioned above. “Just as those [133] who claim to get beneficial things from indication do not claim that everything gives them indications,” they explain—for the Methodists say that some, but not all, the manifest things indicate, and the Logicians, that some, but not all, the hidden things indicate—the Empiricists say, in similar fashion, that they do not observe all the symptoms but only some of them. For they think that not all the circumstances, past or present, are useful in the process of making observations. Suppose for instance that someone was bitten by a mad dog: the Empiricist will turn up and make a fuss only about whether the dog was mad; he will pay no attention to any other past event.

FR 279. PSEUDO-GALENUS, ON

THE BEST SECT

(3)

Pseudo-Galenus, On the best sect, xxi–l, pp. 162–223 K: [xxi, 162] Now, after having compendiously refuted the Empiricists, we should proceed to argue against the Methodists. Their opponent must grant them the views held in common by the haireseis and attack the points where they differ. Thus, in arguing against the Methodists, the Empiricists will attempt to show that it is impossible for beneficial things to be obtained from indication, while the Logicians will attempt to show that it is impossible for the indication [sc of what is beneficial] to arise from the manifest: “We will grant them that it is possible to obtain the beneficial things from indication, but we will not grant them, further, that indication arises from manifest things. We will also grant the Methodists the point that no indication arises from symptoms, be it a single one or a group of them; but we will not grant the further point that symptoms are entirely useless. For in our judgement symptoms may often reveal the things capable of indicating the beneficial; it is for indication [sc itself ] that the symptoms are totally useless.” The Methodists advance some arguments such as follows. They reply: “When the symptoms are the same but the affections of which they are symptoms differ, we do not employ the same therapy—for instance in the case of [163] phrenitis due to constriction and phrenitis due to flux.

702

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

te katå =o«dew. Ka‹ pãlin, taÈt«n ˆntvn pay«n diaferÒntvn d¢ t«n sumptvmãtvn, taÈtª yerape¤&” fas‹ “xr≈meya, …w §p‹ pleur¤tidow ka‹ fren¤tidow, §ån émfot°ra katå st°gnvsin tå pãyh Ípãrx˙. ÉEpe‹ oÔn ka‹ taÈt«n sumptvmãtvn ˆntvn diaferoÊs˙ égvgª xr≈meya ka‹ diaferÒntvn ¶stÉ ˜te taÈtª, diå toËtÉ êxrhsta pantãpasin e‰nai prÚw yerape¤an tå sumpt≈mata. ÉAnairoum°nvn går t«n pay«n, sunanaire›tai ka‹ tå sumpt≈mata, ka¤, sunistam°nvn, sun¤statai.” Ka‹ diå toËto tå m¢n pãyh xrÆsimÉ e‰na¤ fasin (§fÉ oÂw sunistam°noiw taËta g¤gnetai ka‹ luom°noiw lÊetai), tå d¢ sumpt≈matÉ êxrhsta: oÈdem¤an fisxÁn §pÉ aÈt«n ¶xontai. Efi d¢ ka‹ §ndeiknÊnai fas‹ tå sumpt≈mata, oÈd¢n sumf°ron éllå blaberÒn ti mçllon §nde¤knutai, …w ı puretÚw tÚ cÊxein µ nØ D¤a ge prosf°rein pÒton, µ §piyum¤a o‡nou ka‹ balane¤ou tÚ didÒnai o‰non ka‹ efiw balane›on épãgein. “ÉEpe‹ oÔn tå m¢n sumpt≈mata ≥toi oÈd¢n §nde¤knutai µ oÈd¢n tÚ xrÆsimon éllå ka‹ mçllon §piblab°w, diå toËto tå m¢n [164] sumpt≈mata” fas‹ “divyoÊmeya, tå d¢ pãyh …w tÚ sumf°ron ende¤jasyai dunãmena prosi°meya.” ÉErvt«si de ka‹ toioÊtouw tinåw lÒgouw prÚw ¶ndeijin toË mØ e‰nai tå sumpt≈mata t«n sumferÒntvn.2 Efi taÈtÚ §nãntion oÈk §nde¤knutai, ofl d¢ dusforoËntew §p‹ stegn≈sei ka‹ =Êsei t«n §nant¤vn d°ontai,3 épÚ dusfor¤aw ¶ndeijiw t«n sumferÒntvn oÈ g¤gnetai. ÉAnastr°cai d¢ prÚw aÈtoÊw §sti toËton tÚn lÒgon ka‹ de›jai ˜tÉ oÈd¢ pãyow §nde¤knutai oÏtvw. Efi 4 ofl stegnoÊmenoi tÚ s«ma ÍpÚ krÊouw ka‹ diafyorçw diafÒrvn d°ontai, tÚ dÉ aÈtÚ diafÒrvn §ndeiktikÚn oÈ g¤gnetai, oÈx Ípode¤knusin ≤ st°gnvsiw tÚ sumf°ron. ÖAllvw §rvt«sin oÏtvw ofl Meyodiko¤. Efi tå diãfora taÈtÚ oÈk §nde¤knutai, ofl d¢ pur°ssontew ka‹ bÆsontew taÈtÚ ¶stÉ ˜tÉ §nde¤knuntai, épÚ puretoË ka‹ bhxÚw ¶ndeijiw oÈ g¤gnetai. ÑHme›w dÉ oÏtvw énastr°comen. Efi ka‹ ofl strebloÊmenoi ka‹ xal≈menoi ÍpÚ xol∞w taÈt«n d°ontai, tå d¢ diãfora taÈtÚ oÈk §nde¤knutai, ÍpÚ stegn≈sevw ka‹ =Êsevw tÚ sumf°ron oÈx Ípode¤knutai. ToiaËta m¢n oÔn tina [165] prÚw tÚ êxrhstÉ §pide›jai tå sumpt≈mata prof°rontai ofl Meyodiko¤. [xxii] ÑHme›w d¢ pr«ton m¢n §pide¤jomen ˜ti diÉ œn prãttousin aÈto‹ ımologoËsi mØ e‰nai êxrhsta pantãpasi tå sumpt≈mata. TØn d¢ xre¤an ∂n par°xetai tå sumpt≈mata prohgoum°nvw §n tª §ky°sei t∞w Logik∞w aflr°sevw Ípode¤jomen. ÜOti to¤nun xrÆsima prÚw yerape¤an tå sumpt≈mata nom¤zousin e‰nai ofl Meyodiko‹ §k t«ndÉ ín g°noito d∞lon. ÉAjioËsin aÈto‹ toÁw ıpvsoËn parapa¤ontaw §n skÒtƒ katakl¤nein, §ãn te diå =Êsin §ãn te diå st°gnvsin parapa¤vsin. TÚ går f«w o‡ontai paraÊjein tØn parakopÆn. ToÁw d¢ lhyargikoÁw oÈk §n skÒtƒ5 katalk¤nein fas‹ de›n, §ãn te diå st°gnvsin §ãn te diå =Êsin kataf°rvntai. TÚ går skÒtow o‡ontai sullambãnein tª kataforò.

2 5

add ego: tå sumpt≈mata t«n sumferÒntvn K ci ego: oÈk §n aÈt“ K

3

ego: d°ontai: K

4

add ego

  ‒  

703

Again, when the affections are the same but the symptoms differ,” they say, “we employ the same therapy—as for instance in the case of pleuritis and phrenitis, if both these affections are due to constriction. Therefore, if we take a different course [sc of treatment] even when the symptoms are identical but we can sometimes take the same course although they are different, [sc we claim that], on these grounds, symptoms are entirely useless for therapy. Indeed, if the affections are removed, the symptoms are also removed together with them, and, if those subsist, they subsist.” And for this reason they claim the affections to be useful (these [sc the symptoms] appear in relation to their [sc the affections’] presence and disappear when they [sc the affections] disappear), and the symptoms to be useless: they have no power with respect to them [sc the affections]. They say that, if nonetheless the symptoms indicate, they do not indicate anything beneficial but rather something damaging, as for instance fever indicates cooling or indeed applying water, and the desire for wine or bathing indicates giving wine or taking [sc the patient] to the bathroom. “In conclusion, since the symptoms indicate either nothing or something which is not at all useful but rather damaging, for this reason [164] we reject the symptoms and we accept the affections as capable of indicating the beneficial.” In order to show that symptoms are not [sc indicative] of beneficial things, they also challenge us with some arguments such as follows. If the same does not indicate the opposite, but those who experience malaise [sc when they are] in constriction or in flux need opposite things, then there is no indication of beneficial things from malaise. But one should turn this argument on the Methodists and demonstrate that, by such reasoning, nor does an affection indicate. If people whose body is constricted from frost or corruption [sc of the humours] need contraries, and the same is not indicative of opposites, then constriction does not indicate what is beneficial. The Methodists challenge us in another way along the following line. If different things do not indicate the same, and it happens sometimes that feverish patients and coughing patients indicate the same, there is no indication from fever and coughing. And we reply in the following way. If both those who are tight and those who are loose under the effect of bile need the same things, but different things do not indicate the same, then the beneficial is not indicated by constriction and flux. Such [165] are the arguments advanced by the Methodists for the view that symptoms are useless for indication. [xxii] Now, we will demonstrate in the first place that, by what they do, they themselves admit that the symptoms are not entirely useless. As for the service that the symptoms render, we will reveal it in the course of the exposition on the hairesis of the Logicians. So then: it might be clear from the following that the Methodists consider the symptoms useful for therapy. They deem it right that any sort of delirious patients should repose in the dark, no matter whether they are delirious through constriction or through flux. For they believe that light intensifies the delirium. And they say that patients who suffer from lethargia must not lie in the dark, no matter whether the lethargic attack is due to constriction or to flux. For they believe that darkness encourages the lethargic attack. “How come”, we ask,

704

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

“P«w potÉ oÔn” fam°n, “efi mhd¢n §nde¤knutai tå sumpt≈mata, toÁw diå st°gnvsin parapa¤ontaw §n skÒtei katakl¤nete, toË skÒtouw §pite¤nontow tØn st°gnvsin, ka‹ [166] pãlin toÁw diå =Êsin lhyargikoÁw §n aÈgª, ÍpÚ taÊthw §piteinom°nhw t∞w =Êsevw;” ÉEp‹ går t«n toioÊtvn émele›n m¢n §o¤kasi pantãpasi t«n pay«n, pros°xein d¢ cilo›w to›w sumpt≈masi. P«w oÔn ín e‡h6 êxrhsta ëge tosaÊthn fa¤netai fisxÁn ¶xonta Àste ka‹ émele›n énagkãzei t«n Ípokeim°nvn skop«n, ka‹ oÈ mÒnon émele›n éllå ka‹ toÈnant¤on prãttein t«n épÚ t«n skop«n §ndeiknum°nvn; ÑH m¢n går st°gnvsiw xalòn §nde¤knutai, ofl dÉ efiw tÚ skÒtow parapa¤ontaw sugkle¤ontew oÈ xal«si, stegn«si d°, toÈnant¤on: ka‹ t∞w =Êsevw st°llein §ndeiknum°nhw, ofl d¢ toÁw diå =Êsin lhyargikoÁw §w aÈgØn êgontew taÈto›w §pite¤nousi tØn =Êsin. PrÚw taËta l°gousin: “OÈk §peidØ tÚ sÊmptvma §nde¤knutai taËta paralambãnomen, éllÉ §peidØ éntede¤knuto7 ≤m›n tÚ sÊmptvma ka‹ {oÈ} kvlÊei8 paralambãnein ˜per ı skopÚw §pide¤knusi.”9 TÚ går “éntendeiknÊmenon”10 l°gousin §nde¤knusyai m¢n tÚ sumf°ron, mØ §pitr°pein d¢ prãttein ˜per ÍpagoreÊei tÚ pãyow. PrÚw toËtÒ famen ≤me›w ˜tÉ, efi tå éntendeiknÊmenÉ11 êxrhstÉ §sti, ka‹ ≤ dÊ[167]namiw ≤ mØ §«sa pollãkiw ˘ §nde¤knutai ı skopÚw paralambãnein êxrhstow ín e‡h. ÉAllå tØn dÊnamin §piskope›n de›, xrhs¤mou tinow ≤m›n §j aÈt∞w efiw yerape¤an12 paragenom°nou, ka¤toi éntende¤knutai ka‹ ≤ dÊnamiw. “ÜVsper oÔn tØn dÊnamin éntendeiknum°nhn eÎxrhston e‰nai nom¤zete, énagka›Òn §stin Ím›n ka‹ tå sumpt≈mata ımologe›n xrÆsimÉ e‰nai.” PrÚw toÊtƒ d¢ ka‹ gelo¤vw tÚ skÒtow §p‹ t«n frenitik«n paralambãnousin. Efi går tÚ skÒtow §pite¤nei tØn st°gnvsin, §piteinom°nh dÉ ≤ st°gnvsiw §pite¤nei tØn parakopÆn: §pite¤netai går ka‹ én¤etai tå sumpt≈mata to›w pãyesin. DhlonÒti toÈnant¤on prãttousin µ de›: paraÊjontew13 går tÚ pãyow paraÊjousi ka‹ tØn parakopÆn. ÑO m¢n oÔn per‹ t«n sumptvmãtvn toioËtÒw §sti lÒgow. [xxiii] ÜOti dÉ oÈk §nde¤knutai tå pãyh tÚ sumf°ron, …w o‡ontai ofl Meyodiko¤, diÉ œn aÈto‹ §peir«nto épofãnein êxrhsta tå sumpt≈mamta, diå taÈt«n ≤me›w {˜ti mhdÉ §nde¤knutai tå pãyh tÚ sumf°ron}14 Ípode¤jomen. Fam¢n går ˜ti, taÈt«n ˆntvn pay«n diaferous«n d¢ [168] t«n afit¤vn, oÈ taÈtª yerape¤& xr≈meya. ÉIsxour¤a går ßn ti pãyow §st‹n éllÉ, ín m¢n diå l¤yon g°nhtai, liyotomoËmen, ín d¢ diå flegmonÆn, kataplãssomen, ín d¢ diå Íperdiãtasin kÊstevw, kayet∞ri xr≈meya µ Àsper ı ÉEras¤stratow énastÆsantew §p‹ gÒnata tÚn érrvstoËnta éfron¤trƒ êkron toË oÈrht∞row prosacãmenoi: ka‹ tå •j∞w. Efi d° gÉ épÚ t«n pay«n afl §nde¤jeiw t«n sumferÒntvn §gg¤gnontai, taÈtoË ˆntow 15 pãyouw, ka‹ 16 sumf°rontow taÈtoË aÍta‹ §nde¤jeiw §gg¤gnontai: oÈ g¤gnontai d° {oÈk ín tå diaf°ronta pãyh tÚ aÈtÚ §nede¤knunto}.17 Nun‹ d°, t∞w m¢n aÈt∞w oÎshw afit¤aw t«n d¢ pay«n diaferÒntvn, taÈtØn yerape¤an paralambãnomen. Xol°ra går ka‹ ‡kterow diaf°ronta ego: oÔn e‡h ên K 7 ego: éntede¤knuto K 8 secl ego: ka‹ oÈ kvlÊei K 9 corr ego: §pede¤knusi K 10 ci ego: éntideiknÊmenon K 11 ci ego: éntideiknÊmena K 12 corr ego: efiw yerape¤aw K 13 ego: paraÊjonta K 14 secl ego 15 add ego 16 add ego 17 add ego 6

  ‒  

705

“if symptoms indicate nothing, why is it that you make patients who are delirious on account of constriction lie in the dark, although darkness heightens constriction, and, [166] conversely, you make patients who suffer from lethargia on account of flux lie in the light, although flux is heightened by that?” For in situations of this sort they seem to ignore the affections completely and to pay attention to the bare symptoms. Well then, how could something be useless when it has such power as to force us to ignore the underlying aims [skopoi ], and not only to ignore them but also to do the opposite of what is indicated by the aims? For constriction indicates relaxing, yet by confining delirious patients to dark places they [sc the Methodists] do not relax them—on the contrary, they constrict them; and, although flux indicates constricting, by dragging lethargic patients into the light they impose more flux upon them. To this objection they [sc the Methodists] reply: “It is not because the symptom indicates these things that we make use of them, but because the symptom conveyed to us the opposite indication, and this [sc fact] prevents us from making use of what the aim indicates.” For they say that “the opposite indication” [to antendeiknumenon] on the one hand indicates what is beneficial, on the other hand does not allow the performance of what the affection suggests. We retort to this that, if the things which convey the opposite indication are useless, then the [167] [sc bodily] strength [dunamis] should be useless too, because it often does not permit us to make use of what the aim indicates. But the strength must be examined, since we get from it something which is useful for therapy; furthermore, the strength, too, conveys an opposite indication. “In conclusion, since you judge that the [sc bodily] strength is useful by conveying the opposite indication, you are forced to agree that the symptoms are useful too.” Besides, they ridiculously employ darkness in the case of phrenitics. For if darkness intensifies constriction, once constriction is intensified, it intensifies the delirium; for the symptoms are intensified and relieved along with the affections. Obviously they [sc the Methodists] do the opposite of what should be done: by augmenting the affection they also augment the delirium. Such, then, is the line of argument concerning the symptoms. [xxiii] That the affections do not indicate what is beneficial, as the Methodists believe, we will demonstrate through the same arguments through which they have been trying to show that the symptoms are useless. For we assert that, when the affections are the same and [168] the causes differ, we do not employ the same therapy. For instance, retention of urine is the same affection; but if it comes about because of a stone we cut for the stone, if as a result of inflammation we apply plasters, if through excessive tension of the bladder we use a pessary or, like Erasistratus, we sit the patient on his knees and rub the end of the urinary duct with washing soda; and so on. If the indications towards beneficial things derive from the affections, when the affection is the same, there would also be the same indications towards the same beneficial thing; but this is not the case. And now the next point: when the cause is the same but the affections differ, we employ

706

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

pãyh—sxedÚn ımologoËsi ka‹ aÈto‹ ˜ti tÚ m¢n stegnÚn tÚ d¢ =o«dew— éllÉ §pÉ émfot°rvn k°nvsin paralambãnomen. ÉEpe‹ oÔn énairoum°nvn t«n afiti«n sunanaire›tai ka‹ tå payÆmata ka‹ sunistam°nvn sun¤statai, ka‹ ¶ti diafÒrvn m¢n ˆntvn t«n afit¤vn, kùn taÈtå pãyh ¬, diafÒrƒ xr≈meya tª yerape¤&, t«n [169] dÉ aÈt«n18 ˆntvn afit¤vn, kùn tå pãyh diãfora ¬, taÈtª yerape¤& xr≈meya. Diå toËto tã te pãyh ka‹ tå a‡tia ka‹ toÁw peponyÒtaw tÒpouw §jetãzomen. ÖEsti d¢ ka‹ §k t«nde Ípode›jai tÚ ˜moion ÍpÚ diaferous«n afiti«n taÈtÚ pãyow gignÒmenon, oÂon stegnÒn. PËr te går prospesÚn Ípopukno› tØn §pifãneian: ka‹ krÊow ımo¤vw. ÉAllã, ka¤toi taÈtoË pãyouw ˆntow, diafÒrƒ yerape¤& xr≈meya diå tØn diaforån t«n afiti«n. TÚ m¢n går épÚ purÚw katantlÆsesi ka‹ kataplãsmasi to›w tåw §sxãraw épost∞sai dunam°noiw fi≈meya, tÚ dÉ épÚ krÊouw puriãmasi,19 goggÊlhw époj°smasi ka‹ ımo¤oiw tis¤n. Efi d¢ xalastikØn fÆsousin épÉ amfot°rvn ka‹ taÈtØn égvgØn paralambãnesyai, fÆsomen ˜tÉ, efi mhd¢n diaf°rousa ≤ égvgÆ, ka‹ §nallãttontew oÈd¢n èmartÆsomen éllå ka‹ tÚn épÚ purÚw puriãsomen taÈto›w ka‹ tÚn épÚ krÊouw kataplãsomen ka‹ to›w prÚw tåw §sxãraw poioËsi farmãkoiw xrhsÒmeya §pÉ aÈtoË. ÉAllÉ oÈ poioËmen toËto: blãptontai gãr. DiÒper oÈ taÈtØn yerape¤an e‰nai =ht°on. ÖEti ka‹ taÈtÚ a‡tion diãfora épo[170]tele› pãyh. Diå går pl∞yow ofl m¢n flegma¤nousin, ≤ d¢ flegmonØ st°gnvs¤w §stin: êlloi dÉ aflmorragoËsin, afl dÉ aflmorrag¤ai =Êseiw efis¤: éllå parå tØn diaforån t«n pay«n oÈk §jallãssetai ≤ yerape¤a. K°nvsiw går §pÉ émfot°rvn lÊsiw §nant¤a t“ pãyei. OÈ går épÚ t«n époteloum°nvn éllÉ épÚ t«n époteloÊntvn,20 …w ka‹ aÈto‹ ımologoËsi, xrØ tåw §nde¤jeiw g¤gnesyai. Tå d¢ parad°xontai m¢n …w a‡tia ofl Meyodiko¤, §peidØ t«n sumptvmãtvn §st‹ poihtikã: “ÉAllÉ oÈx‹ …w a‡tia {e‰nai}”21 fas‹n “§nde¤knutai, éllÉ …w koinÒthtew. OÈd¢n d¢ kvlÊei taÈtÚ” fas‹n “ka‹ …w a‡tion e‰nai ka‹ …w koinÒthta ka‹ …w ßtera. ÑVw går tÚ m∞lon geustÚn ka‹ ıratÚn ka‹ èptÒn §stin, ˜tan d¢ l°gvmen glukÁ e‰nai oÈ kayÉ ˜son tª èfª Ípop¤ptei glukÁ l°gomen, oÏtv ka‹ tå pãyh: oÈd¢n kvlÊei e‰nai m¢n •t°rvn épotel°smata, e‰nai d¢ ka‹ poihtikã tinvn. ÉAllÉ ˜tan” fas‹ “l°gvmen §nde¤knusyai aÈtã, oÎtÉ √ épotel°smatÉ §stin oÎtÉ √ poihtikã tinvn §nde¤knusyai l°gomen, éllÉ …w koinÒthtaw.” ÑVw oÔn tå sumpt≈mata ofl [171] Meyodiko‹ diå tÚ épÚ diaferÒntvn g¤gnesyai taÈtå ka‹ épÚ taÈt«n diaf°ronta oÈd¢n §nde¤knusyai sumf°ron l°gousin, oÏtv ka‹ ≤me›w, §peidÆper ır«men ÍpÚ diaferÒntvn afit¤vn taÈtå pãyh gignÒmena ka‹ épÚ taÈtvn diaf°ronta, êxrhstã famen aÈtå prÚw ¶ndeijin t«n sumferÒntvn e‰nai.

ego: ÉEpe‹ oÔn . . . sun¤stastai. Ka‹ ¶ti . . . tª yerape¤&. T«n dÉ aÈt«n K 19 corr ego: puri≈masi K 20 colloc ego: OÈ går épÚ t«n époteloÊntvn, éllÉ épÚ t«n époteloum°nvn K 21 secl ego 18

  ‒  

707

the same therapy. For instance, cholera and jaundice are different affections— even they [sc the Methodists] are more or less agreed that one is constricted and the other fluid—yet with both of them we employ evacuation. So then: since, if the causes are removed, the affections are also removed together with them, and if the former persist the latter persist, surely when the causes are different we employ a different therapy even if the affections are identical, whereas when [169] the causes are identical we employ the same therapy even if the affections are different. For this reason we pay heed to affections, causes, and affected parts. And it is also possible from these [sc premisses] to demonstrate in similar fashion that the same affection—for instance constriction—arises from different causes. For fire makes the skin dense when it falls on it; but frost acts in a similar way. And yet, although the affection is the same, we use a different therapy according to the difference between causes. Namely, we shall treat the affection due to fire with douches and poultices which can remove scabs, and the one due to frost with vapour-baths, turnip-scrapings, and suchlike. And if they [sc the Methodists] want to say that they employ a relaxing course of therapy, identical in both cases, we shall reply that, if the course does not differ at all, we will do no harm by substituting one for the other: we will put the patient whose affection is due to fire into the same vapour-baths [sc as the other one], and we will plaster the patient whose affection is due to frost and use on him the medicines designed for scabs. But we do not do it; for they [sc these medications] produce damage. In consequence, one should not say that the therapy is the same. Moreover, even the same cause produces different [170] affections. For instance, some people get inflamed on account of satiety [ plethos], and inflammation is [sc a form of ] constriction; yet others bleed, and bleedings are [sc forms of ] flux; but the therapy does not change along with the difference between affections. For opposite to the affection, in both cases, is evacuation—a [sc form of ] relaxing. The indications ought to come not from the effects produced but from the things which produce the effects, as they [sc the Methodists] themselves agree. The Methodists recognise those things as causes because they produce the symptoms, but: “They do not indicate qua causes”, they claim, “but qua koinotetes. Nothing” they declare “prevents the same thing’s existing both as a cause and as a koinotes, as well as something else. Take an apple: it can be tasted, seen, and touched; but when we say that it is sweet it is not in so far as it falls under the sense of touch that we call it sweet. The same goes for the affections; nothing prevents them, on the one hand, from resulting from other things and, on the other, from producing something. But” they argue “when we say that they indicate, we do not mean [sc that they do] it in so far as they result from, or produce, something else, but in so far as they are koinotetes.” Now, just as the Methodists claim that the symptoms [171] do not indicate anything beneficial on the grounds that identical ones arise from different [sc affections] and different ones from identical [sc affections], so we, in our turn, observing that identical affections come about from different causes and different affections from identical causes, claim that they [sc the affections] are useless for the indication of beneficial things.

708

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

OÈ går ©n §nde¤knutai ée‹ taÈtÒ: fisxour¤aw oÔn oÎshw, dhlonÒtÉ ée‹ ín taÈtª yerape¤& xr≈meya. ÑVw oÔn aÈto‹ tÚ ¶reuyow mØ §nde¤knusyai l°gousi, tÚ e‰dow épotel°smatow e‰nai nom¤zontew, oÏtv ka‹ ≤me›w tå pãyh êxrhstÉ e‰nai prÚw ¶ndeijin §roËmen ıt¢ m¢n afiti«n ıt¢ dÉ épotelesmãtvn. Ka¤toi ên fa¤h22 tiw prÚw aÈtoÊw: “P«w oÈk §nde¤knutai tÚ ¶reuyow tØn éllo¤vsin aÍtoË;23 Ka‹ går ka‹ koinÒthta yevre›syai ÍpÉ aÈtoË: §p‹ pleiÒnvn går diaferÒntvn ırçsyai. ÖEsti dÉ ≤ koinÒthw tautÒthw §n ple¤osin. Efi to¤nun ka‹ §nde¤knutai ka‹ koinÒn §sti pleiÒnvn, diå t¤ oÈk épÚ toÊtou ka‹ t«n toioÊtvn sumptvmãtvn saf«w fainom°nvn poie›sye tåw §nde¤jeiw éllÉ épÚ t«n pay«n, stegnÒthtow ka‹ =Êsevw oÈdam«w fai[172]nom°nvn; Ka‹ énepide¤knutai ˜per pãyow §st¤: geloiÒtaton pãyow éna¤syhton e‰nai l°gein. Efi m¢n oÔn ≤ =Êsiw ka‹ ≤ st°gnvsiw mÒnai ∑san koinÒthtew, e‰xen ên tina piyanÒthta tÚ taÊtaw l°gein §nde¤knusyai mÒnaw. ÉEpeidØ ka‹ tå sumpt≈matÉ §sti koinå pleiÒnvn, diå t¤ mØ ka‹ épÚ t«n sumptvmãtvn ¶ndeijiw g¤gnetai sumferÒntvn;” Ofl d° fasin: “ÉAllÉ ˜ti mÆ efisi prosex∞ ka‹ énagka›a to›w fiatreÊousi koinÒthtew,24 diå toËto paraitoÊmeya tå sumpt≈mata. T«n går aÈt«n ˆntvn pay«n diaferÒntvn d¢ t«n sumptvmãtvn, taÈtª yerape¤& xr≈meya, ka‹ diaferÒntvn t«n pay«n diaferoÊs˙ égvgª xr≈meya, Àw pou d°dektai.” “Diå taËta dØ ka‹ ≤me›w ır«ntew” fÆsomen “ka‹ §p‹ t«n pay«n tÚ ˜moion tugxãnein ˜per Íme›w §p‹ t«n sumptvmãtvn parefulãjete, …w êxrhsta nËn aÈtå paraitoÊmeya.” ÉEk perious¤aw gãr §sti ka‹ toËto kataskeuãsai, ˜ti êxrhstow ≤ katãlhciw t«n pay«n. ÉEparke› går prÚw yerape¤an afit¤aw katãlhciw, tÒpou §p¤gnvsiw toË §noxloum°nou, ka‹ dunãmevw m°tron, efi d¢ st°gnvsiw µ =Êsiw perittÒn [173] fhmi katalambãnein. ÉAllÉ otow m¢n ı lÒgow Ïsteron efirÆsetai, ˜tan diej¤vmen ¥ntina xre¤an ≤ katãlhciw t«n pay«n par°xetai. [xxiv] ÉEke›no d¢ xrØ l°gein prÚw toÁw MeyodikoÊw, ˜ti tå pãyh tÚ poiht°on oÈk §nde¤knutai éllå tØn êrsin µ peria¤resin •aut«n, ˜per ên tiw ka‹ eÎjaito. ToËto d¢ ka‹ to›w fidi≈taiw §st‹ prÒdhlon ka‹ to›w élÒgoiw z–oiw, ˜ti tå m¢n pãyh tØn peria¤resin §nde¤knutai, ≤ dÉ Íge¤a tØn tÆrhsin. Ofl d¢ texn›tai oÈ taÊthw t∞w §nde¤jevw d°ontai éllå boÊlontai efid°nai taËta diÉ œn ≤ peria¤resiw t«n pay«n ¶stai ka‹ ≤ t∞w Íge¤aw tÆrhsiw. Xre¤an oÔn ¶xousi t«n §ndeiknum°nvn tå katå m°row sumf°ronta ka‹ diÉ œn ên tiw Íge¤aw tÊxoi ka‹ sunthrÆseien aÈtÆn. ToÊtƒ gãrtoi ka‹ ofl texn›tai t«n fidivt«n diaf°rousin, efi taËta katalambãnousin ëper §nde¤knutai tå katå m°row sumf°ronta. Efi d° gÉ épÚ t«n pay«n ≤ ¶ndeijiw t«n sumferÒntvn §g¤gneto, aÈto‹ ín ofl ¶xontew aÈtå diÉ œn ¶dei tØn [174] Íge¤an peripoiÆsasyai ±p¤stanto. ÉAllå toËto m¢n égnooËsin, ˘ dÉ

22

ego: fa¤h ên K

23

ego: aÈtoË K

24

add ego: to›w fiatreÊousi koinÒthtew K

  ‒  

709

For the same thing does not always give us just one indication; otherwise, it is clear that we would use the same therapy whenever retention of urine occurred. Thus, just as they say that flush does not indicate, considering it to belong in the class of effects [apotelesmata], likewise we, in return, will say that the affections are useless for indication, be it of the causes or of the effects. Moreover, one might object to them [sc the Methodists]: “Why is it that flush does not indicate its own alteration? It is in fact a koinotes that one perceives through its agency; for it [sc a koinotes] is observed in a plurality of things which are different. A koinotes is sameness in a plurality. Hence, if it [sc flush] indicates and is common to a plurality of things, why don’t you take your indications starting from this and suchlike symptoms which are clearly manifest, but [sc you take them] starting from the affections, although constriction and flux are never [172] manifest? On the other hand, [sc the sort of thing which] is an affection shows clearly: it would be most ridiculous to say that an affection is not perceptible. So then: if flux and constriction were the only existing koinotetes, it would have a certain amount of plausibility to say that they alone indicate. But since symptoms, too, are common to a plurality of things, why is it that the indication of beneficial things does not also come from symptoms?” But they [sc the Methodists] retort: “Because they are not specific [ proseches] and necessary for doctors, as the koinotetes are—this is why we dismiss the symptoms. For when the affections are identical but the symptoms differ, we employ the same therapy, while when the affections differ we take a different course, as has been argued.” “For this reason, then”, we shall reply, “we too, taking notice that something similar to what you have observed in the case of symptoms happens also in the case of affections, dismiss them now as useless.” For it is superfluous to elaborate on this point as well—that the grasping of the affections is useless. Sufficient for therapy are the grasping of the cause, the recognition of the affected place, and the measuring of the faculty [dunamis]; [173] I should say that to grasp whether there is constriction or flux is superfluous. But this argument will be developed later, when we review the question of the specific benefit that the grasping of affections provides. [xxiv] Against the Methodists we should make the following point: that the affections do not indicate what should be done, but their own lifting or removal, which one might as well pray for. This fact—that affections indicate removal, whereas health indicates preservation—is perfectly obvious both to laymen and to irrational beasts. Professional people, on the other hand, are not at a loss for such a kind of indication, but want to know the things through which the removal of affections and the preservation of health will occur. Consequently, they are in need of things which indicate what is beneficial in individual cases and by what means one could arrive at health and preserve it. For this is what distinguishes professional people from laymen: whether or not they grasp the things that indicate what is beneficial in individual cases. Now, if the indication of what is beneficial were to derive from the affections, then those who suffer from them would themselves know by what means [174] health should be achieved. But of this they are ignorant, while on the other hand they know what the

710

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

§nde¤knutai tÚ pãyow ‡sasin. ÉEpeidØ går tØn êrsin §nde¤knutai, o·de p°mpousin §p‹ toÁw fiatroÁw toÁw dunam°nouw énele›n tå pãyh. [xxv] ÖEsti25 d¢ ka‹ §k t«n prosagom°nvn bohyhmãtvn §pign«nai ˜ti oÈ tå pãyh éllå tå a‡tia tØn yerape¤an §nde¤knutai. Tå går bohyÆmata ÍpenantioËntai oÈ to›w gignom°noiw éllå to›w poioËsin: …w ≤ k°nvsiw t“ plÆyei §nant¤a §st¤, pãyei dÉ oÈden¤, oÂon flegmonª µ puret“. ÉAnairoum°nou d¢ toË plÆyouw ÍpÚ t∞w ken≈sevw, sunanaire›tai ka‹ tÚ genÒmenon ÍpÚ toË plÆyouw pãyow. OÈk §peidØ d¢ sunanaire›tai t“ poioËnti tÚ pãyow tÚ boÆyhma t“ pãyei Ípenant¤on ¬. ÖEsti d¢ ka‹ §k t∞w sugkr¤sevw t«n §piferom°nvn sumptvmãtvn épÒ te toË plÆyouw ka‹ t∞w ken≈sevw gn«nai ⁄tini tÚ boÆyhma Ípenant¤on §st¤: tÚ m¢n går pl∞yow tª perious¤& bare›, ≤ d¢ k°nvsiw meioËsa tØn perious¤an énaire› tÚ bãrow, ¶peita tÚ pl∞yow ˘ diate¤nei tå égge›a: ≤ d¢ k°nvsiw efiw sÊmptvsin êgei. Ka‹ têlla bohyÆmata prÚw tå a‡tia [175] eÏroiw ín ÍpenantioÊmena, prÚw d¢ tÚ pãyow oÈd°n. ÖEti d¢ ka‹ §k toÊtou ên tiw mãyoi ˜ti, efi m¢n ≤ st°gnvsiw boÆyhma oÈd°n, oÈdÉ ≤ =Êsiw, éllå mçllon pãyow ti §nde¤knutai. Tª d¢ stegn≈sei §nant¤a §st‹n ≤ =Êsiw: oÈ k°nvsin éllå =Êsin §nde¤knutai ≤ st°gnvsiw. ÑOmo¤vw d¢ ka‹ ≤ =Êsiw st°gnvsin §nde¤jetai. ÜOper oÔn paralambãnomen, taÈtÚn §nde¤knutai pãyow. Tå dÉ a‡tia tå blãptonta toÈnant¤on aÍt«n26 §nde¤knutai: ka‹ ˜per §nde¤knutai taËta paralambãnomen. DiÒper oÈ tå pãyh éllå tå a‡tia tÚ sumf°ron §nde¤knutai. ÜOti m¢n oÔn tå sumpt≈mata oÈk ¶stin êxrhsta pantãpasi ka‹ tå pãyh oÈx oÂã tÉ §stin §nde¤knusyai tÚ sumf°ron— tå dÉ a‡tia §nde¤knutai—aÈtãrkvw Ípod°deiktai. [xxvi] ÑEj∞w §piskept°on e‡te fa¤nontai afl koinÒthtew ìw Ípot¤yentai ofl Meyodiko‹ e‡te ka‹ mÆ, ka‹ efi afl §nde¤jeiw épÚ t«n koinotÆtvn dÊnantai g¤gnesyai µ oÎ. ÑOrizÒmenoi to¤nun “tØn fiatrikØn” katå tØn aÈt«n dÒjan “gn«sin” e‰nai “t«n fainom°nvn koinotÆtvn”, tÚ d¢ “fainÒmenon” [176] oÈx …w diÉ afisyÆsevw katalhptÚn e‰nai l°gousi: oÈdem¤a går diãyesiw diÉ afisyÆsevw katalambãnetai: éllå “fainÒmenon” §ke›noi l°gousi tÚ §j aÍtoË katalhptÒn, kùn mØ Ípop¤pt˙ ta›w afisyÆsesi. SxedÚn går tÚ §narg¢w §ke›noi “fainÒmenon” l°gousi. De› m¢n oÔn tÚn éntil°gonta ka‹ toËto paradeiknÊein, ˜tÉ oÈk ‡sasi to›w ÑEllhniko›w ÙnÒmasi xrÆsasyai. ÜIna d¢ mØ dok«men l°jei prospl°kesyai, sugxvrÆsantew aÈto›w tÚ fainÒmenon …w §ke›noi l°gousin, §pide¤jomen ˜tÉ oÈk §j •aut«n efisin afl koinÒthtew katalhpta¤. Ka‹ pr«tÒn ge tÚn t∞w aflr°sevw aÈt«n êrjanta YessalÚn §pide¤jomen shme›a §ky°menon27 t«n koinotÆtvn, …w oÈk §j •aut«n dhlonÒti katalambãnesyai pefukui«n. “ÉEn går t“ kãmnonti tØn st°gnvsin” fhs‹ “katalambãnein §st‹n §k toË dusdiafÒrhtÉ e‰nai tå s≈mata.” ÑOmo¤vw d¢ ka‹ t∞w =Êse≈w tina gnvr¤smata §kt¤yetai. ÉAllÉ ‡svw fÆsousin ˜ti: “PrÚw êndra” (ka‹ oÈx‹ prÚw tØn a·resin aÈt«n) “éntil°gete”. ÉEãsantew oÔn tÚn YessalÚn §pide¤jomen tÚ proke¤menon. Pr«ton oÔn koin“ tinÉ §pixeirÆmati §p‹ t«n dÊo diay°sevn [177] xrhsÒmeya, ÍpodeiknÊntew ˜tÉ oÈ fa¤nontai oÈdÉ §j •aut«n efisi katalhpta¤, ¶peita

25

corr ego: §st¤ K

26

ego: aÈt«n K

27

ci ego: §ky°menoi K

  ‒  

711

affection indicates. And, since it indicates removal, such people send for doctors who can destroy the affections. [xxv] Even on the basis of the medicines which are prescribed is it possible to acknowledge that the causes, and not the affections, indicate the therapy. For remedies are opposite, not to the things that happened, but to the thing that determines them; for instance, evacuation is opposite to satiety [ plethos], not to any affection like inflammation or fever. Once you destroy satiety through evacuation, together with it you also destroy the affection generated by satiety. But from the fact that the affection disappears along with what has produced it it does not follow that the medicine would be opposite to the affection. We can also find out what the medicine is opposed to from the comparison of the symptoms which develop under satiety and under evacuation: satiety burdens with surplus, evacuation diminishes the surplus and thereby relieves— first, the burden, next, the satiety which distends the vessels; for evacuation leads to contraction. And you will find that the other medicines are [175] opposed to the causes but none of them to the affection. Here is yet another argument from which one might learn that, if constriction indicates no medicine, nor does flux; it only indicates some affection. The opposite of constriction is flux; constriction does not indicate evacuation but flux. Likewise, flux will indicate constriction. Thus the very thing that we get indicates an identical affection. But the causes, which are damaging, indicate their own contrary; and we get the very thing which they indicate. In consequence, it is not the affections but the causes that indicate the beneficial. So, it has been sufficiently demonstrated that the symptoms are not completely useless, and that the affections are not capable of indicating the beneficial—the causes indicate it. [xxvi] Next we must examine whether the koinotetes which the Methodists postulate are manifest or in fact they are not, and whether the indications can derive from the koinotetes or not. So then: giving the definition that “medicine is an investigation into manifest koinotetes”, as they do according to their doctrine, they claim that “the manifest” [176] is not [sc to be understood as] something graspable through sense-perception; besides, no state is grasped through sense-perception. These people call “manifest” what is graspable per se, even if it would not fall under the senses. Roughly speaking, they call “manifest” [to phainomenon] the evident [to enarges]. So, if you argue with them, you should also point out that they have not learnt to use Greek words properly. But we shall grant them the [sc concept of the] manifest in the sense they use it, so that we may not create the impression of fastening upon language; then we shall demonstrate that the koinotetes are not graspable per se. We will show for a start that Thessalus, the man who founded their hairesis, has set signs for the koinotetes, on the supposition that they were not, of course, naturally designed to be grasped by themselves. “Constriction can be grasped in the ill” he observes “from the fact that bodies have difficulty in excreting.” And he sets some marks also for flux, in the same way. But maybe they [sc the Methodists] will object: “You argue against an individual!”—not against their haireseis. So we shall leave Thessalus and prove what we proposed ourselves to. First, we shall use some common argument for both states, [177] showing that they [sc the koinotetes] are neither manifest nor graspable

712

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

ka‹ fid¤& •kat°ran t«n diay°sevn de¤jomen mØ §j •aut«n katalambanom°nhn. ÑOmologoËsi to¤nun ka‹ aÈto‹ ˜tÉ oÈ pçsa pÊknvsiw s≈matow oÈdÉ §poxØ épokr¤sevw st°gnvs¤w §stin. Ofl går égro›koi §n ta›w sugkr¤ses¤n efisin, oÈ mØn §n stegnÒthtÉ efisin. Ka‹ ≤ §poxØ d¢ t«n ofike¤vn oÈk ¶sti st°gnvsiw: §peidån ka‹ kãyarsiw gunaikÚw diå tØn kÊhsin §p°xhtai, §poxØ m°n §sti sunÆyouw épokr¤sevw, st°gnvsiw dÉ oÈk ¶sti. ÖEti dÉ oÈ pçsÉ éra¤vsiw svmãtvn ka‹ épÒkrisiw =Êsiw §st¤n. Ofl går pa›dew ka‹ tå gÊnaia ka‹ o·tinew èbrod¤aitoi êndrew katå fÊsin efis‹n éraio¤. Ka‹ épÒkris¤w tiw oÈ =Êsiw §st‹n ≤ t«n perittvmãtvn: éllÉ oÈd¢ toÁw diå koil¤aw µ oÎrvn µ fldr≈tvn µ aflmorragi«n krinom°nouw §n =Êsei e‰nai §roËsin: §n¤stasyai går aÈtoÁw tª §kkr¤sei ¶dei. ÉEpe‹ oÔn oÈ pçsa pÊknvsiw ka‹ §poxØ st°gnvs¤w §stin, oÈd¢ pçsÉ éra¤vsiw µ ¶kkrisiw =Êsiw, d∞lon ˜ti aÈto›w m¢n to›w sumpt≈masi pros°xonti [178] cilo›w édÊnatÒn §stin =Êsin µ st°gnvsin katalabe›n: §j •t°rvn dÉ §pikr¤nein aÈtå de›. ÑVw går ka‹ têlla sumpt≈matÉ, e‡te katå fÊsin §st‹n e‡te parå fÊsin, oÈk §j •aut«n éllÉ §j •t°rvn katalambãnetai, oÏtvw oÈd¢ st°gnvsiw ka‹ =Êsiw. TÚ d¢ legÒmenon diå toÊtvn ín g°noito d∞lon. Tå katå fÊsin sumpt≈mata prÚw tå parå fÊsin pollØn ¶xei tØn ımoiÒthta. Tå går aÈtå oÂw m¢n katå fÊsin oÂw d¢ parå fÊsin—oÂon tÚ m°lan xr«ma tÚ parå fÊsin ˜moiÒn §sti t“ katå fÊsin: ≤m›n m¢n går parå fÊsin, to›w ÉIndo›w d¢ katå fÊsin. Ka‹ tå sxÆmata d¢ tå parå fÊsin ¶oike to›w katå fÊsin: êlloi går êllvn ¶jaryroi pefÊkasi mçllon, ka‹ =‹w Ùje›a ka‹ Ùfyalmo‹ ko›loi oÂw men yanatikå sumpt≈mata, êlloiw d¢ taÈtå taËta katå fÊsin. Ka‹ k¤nhsiw ka‹ ékinhs¤a, ín m¢n ÍpÚ proair°sevw g°nhtai, katå fÊsin, ín dÉ éproair°tvw, parå fÊsin. ÉEk d¢ toÊtvn eÎdhlon ˜tÉ aÈto›w m¢n to›w sumpt≈masi mÒnoiw oÈx oÂÒn tÉ §st‹ pros°xontaw gnvr¤zein tÚ katå fÊsin ka‹ tÚ [179] parå fÊsin, éllå de› §pÉ §n¤vn m¢n tØn §pif°rousan afit¤an §jetãsai, …w §p‹ t∞w kinÆsevw, pÒteron ÍpÚ proair°sevw µ éproair°tvw. Ka‹ §p‹ toË xr≈matow: §pe‹ går tÚ xr«ma épÚ t«n xum«n, §pifa¤netai dÉ épÚ toË xr≈matow tÚ aÂma, de› skope›n efi katå fÊsin ¶xei tÚ aÂma. ÖOcei dÉ §k t∞w xre¤aw: ín går tØn loipØn ëpasan xre¤an tÚ aÂmÉ énempÒdiston par°xhtai ka‹ mÆte diate¤n˙ mÆte barª, fÆseiw katå fÊsin e‰nai tÚ xr«ma. TÚ sx∞ma, efi katå fÊsin §st¤n, épÚ t∞w toË m°louw xre¤aw katalÆc˙, …w §p‹ to›w §jaryrhye›sin. ÖEnia dÉ §k toË tÒpou §n ⁄ g¤gnetai efi katå fÊsin §st‹ katalambãnetai. OÏtv ka‹ ≤ pÊknvsiw ka‹ ≤ éra¤vsiw: oÂw m¢n katå fÊsin §st¤n, oÂw d¢ parå fÊsin. ÑH m¢n går t«n gerÒntvn pÊknvsiw aÈto›w m¢n katå fÊsin, paid¤oiw d¢ parå fÊsin: ≤ dÉ aÔ t«n paid¤vn éra¤vsiw aÈto›w m¢n katå fÊsin, g°rousi d¢ parå fÊsin. Ka‹ diagvgª b¤vn pepÊknvnta¤ tinew (…w ofl égro›koi) ka‹ katå peristãseiw êlloi, ka‹ ˜mvw katå fÊsin diãkeintai. Diå toËtÉ oÈx oÂÒn [180] tÉ efiw tØn pÊknvsin t«n svmãtvn cilØn ka‹ tØn =Êsin

  ‒  

713

per se, next, we shall also prove separately, of each state, that it is not grasped per se. So then: even they [sc the Methodists] agree that not every condensation of the body or retention of secreted matter is [sc a form of ] constriction. For instance, country folk suffer from constipation, not from constriction. And the retention of one’s own substances is not constriction; when the woman’s menses are suppressed because of conception, that is the retention of a habitual secretion, not [sc a form of ] constriction. Nor is any rarefaction of the body, or any secretion, [sc a form of ] flux. For children, women, and men who have a delicate constitution are naturally thin. And a secretion which is of residual matter is not [sc a form of ] flux: in particular, they [sc the Methodists] will not say that the patients who come to the point of crisis through the bowel or through urine, sweat, or haemorrhage are in a state of flux; for one ought to gear them towards secreting. So, since not every condensation or retention is constriction and not every rarefaction or secretion is flux, it is clearly impossible for the observer of the bare symptoms themselves [178] to grasp flux or constriction; one must determine these on the basis of other things. For the other symptoms, either natural or unnatural, are not grasped by themselves but from other things; and constriction and flux are just the same. The point would be made clear through the following illustrations. Natural symptoms bear a strong resemblance to unnatural ones. The explanation is that the same symptoms are natural in some [sc relations] but unnatural in others; for instance, the colour black which is unnatural is similar to the one which is natural: it is unnatural in us but natural in the Indians. Unnatural shapes, too, resemble natural ones: for some people are by nature more loose in their joints than others; and a sharp nose or goggled eyes are lethal symptoms in some, while in others the very same symptoms are natural. Motion and rest, too, are natural if they come about voluntarily, but unnatural if they are involuntary. These facts make it clear that it is impossible for those who observe mere symptoms to recognise from them what is natural and what [179] is unnatural; in some cases they must examine the cause which brought them about—for instance, in the case of movement, [sc they must examine] whether it comes from choice or involuntarily. The same holds for colours: since colour is consequent upon the humours and blood shows by its colour, one should examine whether blood is in a natural state. You will see this from its function: if the blood performs all its functions unimpeded and neither swells out nor grows heavy, you will say that its colour is natural. As for shape, you will grasp whether it is natural from the limb’s use, as for instance in the case of dislocations. With other [sc symptoms] one grasps whether they are natural from the place where they occur. So it is with condensation and rarefaction: in some places they are natural, in others they are unnatural. For the shrinking of old people is natural in them and unnatural in children, and, in turn, the rarefaction of children is natural in them and unnatural in the old. It is also the case that some people become dense [sc in their bodies] through life-style, such as country folk, or others through difficult circumstances, and they are none the less natural for it. For this reason it is not possible [180] to grasp the states

714

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

épobl°pontaw katalambãnein tåw diay°seiw. De› d¢ ka‹ prÚw ßterÒn ti ka‹ taËtÉ énaf°rontaw §pikr¤nein e‡te katå fÊsin e‡te pãyh §st¤n. L°gousi går ˜ti tª summetr¤& ka‹ émetr¤& diakr¤nomen tå katå fÊsin sumpt≈mata épÚ t«n parå fÊsin. ÜOtan m¢n går summ°trvw tÚ s«ma pukn≈se≈w te ka‹ érai≈sevw ¶x˙, Ígia¤nei tÚ j“on: ıpÒtan d° ti aÈt«n §pitay¢n §kbª tØn summetr¤an, nose›n énãgkh. ÑRht°on oÔn prÚw aÈtoÁw ˜ti tÚ sÊmmetron ka‹ êmetron ßteron parå tåw diay°seiw. Efi d¢ tª émetr¤& kr¤noito tå pãyh, oÈk §j •aut«n katalhptå e‰nai ımologe›tai. E‰ta oÍtvs‹28 tÚ sÊmmetron ka‹ tÚ êmetron oÈ fa¤netai, éllÉ §k t«n épotelesmãtvn katalambãnetai. áAn m¢n går »felª, sÊmmetrÒn §sti: ín d¢ blãpt˙, êmetron. P«w oÔn, toËto sÊmmetron ka‹ êmetron mØ fainÒmenon, tå §k toÊtou katalambanÒmena fa¤noitÉ ên; Efi d¢ dØ ka‹ prÚw tØn dÊnamin tÚ sÊmmetron ka‹ êmetron kr¤noito, oÈdÉ oÏtv prÒdhlon ín [181] e‡h tÚ êmetron: ≤ går dÊnamiw oÈ fa¤netai. ToË dÉ ém°trou mØ fainom°nou, dhlonÒti oÈdÉ afl koinÒthtew fa¤nontai. Ka‹ går atai émetr¤ai tin°w efisin. ÖEti te =ht°on prÚw aÈtoÁw ˜tÉ oÈd¢n t«n katå fÊsin parå fÊsin fa¤netai, éllÉ …w m¢n katå fÊsin µ parå fÊsin fa¤netai. TÚ går êlghma ka‹ êlla toioutÒtropa parå fÊsin fa¤netai. Ofl dÉ fiatro‹ boÊlontai katalabe›n oÈx o‰ã §sti parå fÊsin éllÉ …w ¶sti. ÑR‹w går Ùje›a ka‹ Ùfyalmo‹ ko›loi pçsin ényr≈poiw fa¤netai: efi d¢ katå fÊsin µ parå fÊsin, to›w fiatro›w mÒnon. TaÊt˙ går diaf°rousin ofl fiatro‹ t«n fidivt«n, ˜tÉ §p‹ to›w fainom°noiw kekrumm°non ti katalambãnein dÊnantai, ˘ oÈk ¶ti dÊnantai ofl fidi«tai katalabe›n. ÖEpeita parå fÊsin oÈ fa¤netai, ka‹ afl koinÒthtew parå fÊsin efis¤n, dhlonÒti oÈ fa¤nontai. ÖAjion d¢ kôke›no §nno∞sai: e‡ tiw p≈pote t«n ényr≈pvn metep°mcatÒ tina t«n fiatr«n …w ÍpÚ puknÒthtow µ éraiÒthtow ém°trou éni≈menow. Efi d¢ mhde‹w efiw a‡syhsin ∑lye t«n koinotÆtvn, p«w eÎlogÒn [182] §sti l°gein fa¤nesyai aÈtãw; MØ fainom°nvn d¢ t«n koinotÆtvn, p«w o‡ontai tØn t°xnhn “tØn gn«sin” e‰nai “fainom°nvn koinotÆtvn”; [xxvii] NËn dÉ fid¤vw prÚw •kat°ran t«n diay°sevn §roËmen: ka‹ pr«ton per‹ t∞w stegn≈sevw =ht°on. TØn to¤nun st°gnvsin pÊknvs¤n fasin e‰nai ka‹ §poxØn t«n §kkr¤sevw deom°nvn. ÉAnãgkh to¤nun tå §pexÒmena µ »f°limÉ e‰nai µ blaberå µ mhd°tera. ÉEån m¢n oÔn »f°lima ¬, êlogÒn §stin §kkr¤nein aÈtã. ÉEån d¢ mhd°tera, dhlonÒti oÈd¢ pãyow §st¤n. Le¤petai oÔn l°gein ˜tÉ, §peidån blãpt˙ tå §pexÒmena, st°gnvs¤w §stin. àA de blãptei a‡tiã §stin. ÉEk prokatalÆcevw oÔn t«n afit¤vn29 tÚ stegnÚn katalambãnetai. ÜIna går efid«men ˜ti stegnÒn, de› proegnvk°nai ˜ti tå §pexÒmena blãptei. Tª d¢ t«n blaptÒntvn katalÆcei ka‹ ≤ t«n afiti«n sumprosp¤ptei §p¤gnvsiw. Mçllon dÉ ≤ t«n blaptÒntvn

28

ci ego: e‰ta oÏtvw: efi

29

corr ego: afiti«n K

  ‒  

715

by looking at the bare condensation of the bodies, or at flux. One must judge whether they are natural things or affections by referring them to something else as well. As a matter of fact they [sc the Methodists] claim that we distinguish natural from unnatural symptoms through proportion and disproportion. For whenever the body is in a proportionate condition of density and rarity the animal is healthy; whenever one of them [sc density or rarity] is intensified and upsets the proportion, of necessity he becomes ill. Well, one should argue back that the element of proportion and disproportion is something different from, and above, the states. But, if the affections are to be judged by disproportion, then it is agreed that they are not graspable per se. Next: by the same token, the proportionate and the disproportionate are not manifest, but are grasped from their effects. For, if something brings benefit, it is proportionate; if it causes damage, it is disproportionate. And if this element of proportion or disproportion is not manifest, how could the things grasped from it be manifest? Indeed, even if the proportionate and the disproportionate were tested in relation to the faculty, what is disproportionate would not become [181] obvious by this method; for the faculty is not manifest. But, since the disproportionate is not manifest either, it is clear that the koinotetes are not manifest. For they, too, are disproportions of some sort. One should also say against them [sc the Methodists] that none of the natural things is manifest as being unnatural; it is manifest as something natural rather than unnatural. For [sc only] pain and other things of the same sort are manifest as being unnatural. Now, the doctors wish to grasp, not the kinds of things that are unnatural, but the fact that they are so. A sharp nose or goggling eyes are manifest to all people; but whether they [sc such features] are natural or unnatural is manifest only to the doctors. For this is where doctors differ from laymen—in that they are capable of grasping, in manifest things, something hidden which the laymen cannot reach within their grasp. Since what is unnatural is not manifest, and the koinotetes are unnatural, it is clear that they are not manifest. It is also worth reflecting on the following question. Has anyone ever sent for the doctor because he was troubled with his immoderate density or rarity? But if nothing about the koinotetes reaches the senses, how can it be in order [182] to say that they are manifest? And if the koinotetes are not manifest, how can they believe that medicine is “an investigation into manifest koinotetes”? [xxvii] Now we shall deal with each state individually; and we should start from constriction. Well, they [sc the Methodists] say that constriction is a condensation and retention of matter which needs [sc to be eliminated through] secretion. Necessarily the retained matter is beneficial, damaging, or neither. So, if it is beneficial, it is irrational to eliminate it through secretion. If it is indifferent, there is obviously no affection. It remains to say that, when the retained matter is damaging, there is [sc a case of ] constriction. But that which damages is a cause. Therefore the constricted is grasped from the previous apprehension of the causes. For in order to know that it is constricted we must have previous knowledge that the retained matter causes damage. A recognition of the causes takes place at the very same time as the grasping of the damaging things; or, rather, the recognition of the damaging things is a grasping of causes.

716

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

§p¤gnvsiw afiti«n §sti katãlhciw. Pãlin dÉ aÈtå tå blãptonta, ëper §st‹n a‡tia, oÈk §j •aut«n katalambãnetai. OÈ mÒnon oÔn ≤ st°gnvsiw [183] fa¤netai,30 éllÉ oÈdÉ §ke›nÉ §j œn ≤ st°gnvsiw katalambãnetai. [xxviii] TØn d¢ =Êsin ırizÒmeno¤ fasin e‰nai êmetron éra¤vsin t«n svmãtvn ka‹ épÒkrisin t«n Ípomon∞w deom°nvn. ÜOti m¢n oÔn êmetrow éra¤vsiw §j aÍt∞w oÈ katalambãnetai d°deiktai. Tå dÉ épokrinÒmena, e‡te de› Ípom°nein e‡te ka‹ mÆ, pÒyen katalambãnousin; ÉEj •aut«n går oÈ p°fuke katalambãnesyai: d∞lon ˜tÉ oÈdÉ ≤ =Êsiw aÈtÒyen ín katalambãnoito. ÜIna m¢n går tØn =Êsin §pign«men, de› prokatalabe›n tÚ ofike›on: tÚ dÉ ofike›on §k t∞w xre¤aw kriy∞nai de›: tØn d¢ xre¤an épÚ t«n épotelesmãtvn poll«n, ka‹ toÊtvn §j •aut«n, mØ katalambanom°nhw t∞w =Êsevw, gignvskom°nvn.31 P«w oÔn eÎlogon fa¤nesyai aÈtØn l°gein; Ka‹ sxedÚn ˜per ofl Logiko‹ duskol≈tatÒn fasin e‰nai katalambãnein, toËto ofl Meyodiko‹ fa¤nesyai l°gousin. OÈden‹ går µ ÙnÒmati diaf°rei ≤ ÍpÚ toÊtvn kaloum°nh =Êsiw t∞w ÍpÚ t«n érxa¤vn suntÆjevw Ùnomãzomenhw. [184] OÏtv d¢ dusdiãkrita ofl érxa›oi §nÒmizon e‰nai sÊnthj¤n te ka‹ ¶kkrisin, …w ı m¢n ÉEras¤stratow ka‹ êntikruw tØn xalepvtãthn t∞w kr¤sevw ımologe›. L°gei dÉ oÏtvw: “XalepÚn d¢ pãnu §st‹ diakr¤nein ¶kkris¤n te ka‹ sÊnthjin.” ÑO dÉ ÑIppokrãthw per‹ tØn eÈfor¤an ka‹ dusfor¤an énap°mpei tØn kr¤sin, l°gvn: “áHn m¢n oÂa de› kaya¤resyai kaya¤rvntai, jumf°rei te ka‹ eÈfÒrvw f°rousi.”a DÊo oÔn palai«n éndr«n per‹ t«n prvte¤vn ımillvm°nvn ka‹ émfot°rvn ımognvmonoÊntvn per‹ toË dusdiãkriton e‰nai ¶kkrisin épÚ suntÆjevw, ka‹ toË m¢n oÈd¢ shme›on t∞w §kkr¤sevw §kyem°nou éllå mÒnhn tØn xalepÒthta toË prãgmatow Ípode¤jantow, toË dÉ §p‹ kanÒna duskatãlhpton énenegkÒntow tØn kr¤sin, ofl Meyodiko‹ toËto fa¤nesyai nom¤zousin. ÖEti dÉ, §p‹ t«n katå tÚ êdhlon diaforoum°nvn, pÒyen katalambãnein fÆsousin tØn =Êsin; ÉApÚ går t∞w sumpt≈sevw oÈ dÊnantai, ˜ti sÊmptvsiw oÈ mÒnon §p‹ =Êsei kenoum°nvn t«n svmãtvn g¤gnetai éllå ka‹ §p‹ stegn≈sei §mmÆnvn §pexom°nvn. Ka‹ går diÒgkvsiw oÈk §p‹ [185] stegn≈sei mÒnon §pexom°nvn t«n épokr¤sevw deom°nvn g¤gnetai éllå ka‹ §p‹ =Êsei, xeom°nvn t«n Ígr«n ka‹ diateinÒntvn tå s≈mata. ÜOti dÉ oÈ taÈtÒn §sti sÊmptvsiw afisyhtØ ka‹ =Êsiw d∞lon ín §k toËde g°noito. Efi ≤ sÊmptvsiw afisyhtØ tª d¢ sumpt≈sei §nant¤a §st‹n ≤ diÒgkvsiw, ka‹ ©n •n‹ §st‹n §nant¤on,32 tª =Êsei oÈx ≤ diÒgkvsiw éllÉ ≤ st°gnvsiw §nant¤on ¶stai. ÉEån d¢ l°gvsin ˜ti taÈtÒn §sti tª stegn≈sei ≤ diÒgkvsiw, §pide¤jai de› aÈto›w tØn t«n ˜rvn §nantiÒthta. L°gousi går tØn st°gnvsin p¤lhsin ka‹ sf¤gjin t«n svmãtvn e‰nai. ÖEsti to¤nun sf¤gjiw ka‹ p¤lhsiw t«n svmãtvn ≤ st°gnvsiw. ÑH d¢ diÒgkvsiw xÊsiw ka‹ diãtas¤w §sti t«n svmãtvn. Diate¤netai d¢ tå s≈mata µ diå plÆyow µ diå xÊsin. Fa¤netai oÔn ˜tÉ oÈ taÈtÒn §sti st°gnvsiw ka‹ diÒgkvsiw. ÉEån dÉ ımolog«sin ßterÒn ti a

30 31

Aphorisms i 2. add ego (an oÈ mÒnon oÈ ≤ st°gnvsiw fa¤netai?): ≤ st°gnvsiw fa¤netai K ci ego: gignvskom°nhw K 32 ego: §nant¤on: K

  ‒  

717

And again, the damaging things themselves, in so far as they are causes, are not grasped by themselves. Then it is not just constriction that [183] is not manifest; the things from which constriction is grasped are not manifest either. [xxviii] In defining flux, they [sc the Methodists] say that it is a disproportionate rarefaction of bodies and a secretion of matter which ought to stay in. Now, it has been shown that a disproportionate rarefaction cannot be grasped per se. As for the secreted matter, whence do they grasp whether it should stay in or not? For it [sc the secreted matter] is not of a nature to be grasped per se; neither could flux be grasped by itself, clearly. For in order to recognise flux we must have a previous grasp of what is proper for the body; that which is proper must be discerned from the function; the function, in turn, from its many results—and these are known by themselves, without flux being grasped. So how can it be all right to say that flux is manifest? Roughly speaking, the Methodists claim to be manifest what the Logical doctors claim to be the most problematic to grasp. For what they call flux is in no way different, except in name, from what the ancients used to call colliquescence [= wasting] [suntexis]. [184] The ancients thought that colliquescence and secretion are so difficult to tell apart that Erasistratus confesses straightaway that this is the hardest distinction to make. As he puts it, “It is extremely difficult to distinguish between secretion and colliquescence.” But Hippocrates refers the distinction to one between easy and difficult evacuation, saying: “If they [sc patients] are purged of what they should be purged, that is good for them and they bear it with ease.” So here are two of the ancients who compete for the first place: both admit that it is extremely difficult to distinguish secretion from colliquescence; one of them set no sign for secretion, having only pointed out the difficulty of the matter, the other referred the distinction to a canon, because it is hard to grasp; yet the Methodists think that this is a manifest thing. But what will they claim to grasp flux from, in the case of things which get dispersed invisibly? They cannot say that it is from the [sc body’s] shrivelling [sumptosis], because shrivelling occurs not only in conditions of flux, when the body is being evacuated, but also in conditions of constrictedness, when menses get suppressed. Equally, for that matter, swelling [dionkosis] [185] occurs not only in conditions of constrictedness, when matter which needs to be evacuated is retained, but also in conditions of flux, when humid matter flows and distends the body. It would become clear from the following that perceptible shrivelling and flux are not the same thing. If shrivelling is perceptible and the opposite of shrivelling is swelling, and if [sc only] one thing is the opposite of any one thing, the opposite of flux will be not swelling but constriction. But if they [sc the Methodists] wish to say that swelling is identical with constriction, they need to prove the opposition between terms. For they say that constriction is a compression and tightness of bodies. So [sc any] tightness and compression of bodies is constriction. Now swelling is a pouring of liquid and dilatation of bodies. But bodies dilate either under satiety or under pouring [sc of liquid]. It is obvious, then, that constriction and swelling are not the same thing. And if they [sc the Methodists] agree that shrivelling is

718

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

tØn sÊmptvsin t∞w =Êsevw e‰nai ka‹ tØn diÒgkvsin t∞w stegn≈sevw e‰nai, l°gousin ˜tÉ oÈk §k toÊtvn katalambãnontai afl koinÒthtew: ka‹ ımologoËsin ˜tÉ §j •t°rvn ka‹ oÈk §j •aut«n afl diay°seiw katalambãnontai, e‡per §k sumpt≈[186]sevw ka‹ diogk≈sevw katalambãnousin ëper ßterã §sti t«n diay°sevn. [xxix] L°gousi d° tinew §p‹ t«n katå tÚ êdhlon diaforoum°nvn katalambãnein tØn =Êsin §k toË malakå ka‹ eÎyrupta ka‹ §kteyhlusm°na e‰nai tå s≈mata. PrÚw oÓw =ht°on ˜tÉ oÈkoËn, §ån sklhrå ¬ tå s≈mata ka‹ peritetam°na, oÈk §roËsi m¢n =Êsin: énãgkh dÉ aÈtØn ımolog∞sai. ÉEån oÔn toioËto¤ tinew Œsin êrrvstoi o·ouw §kt¤yetai ı ÉIppokrãthw, ÍpÚ t∞w §sxãthw §nde¤aw efiw toËto perihgm°noi Àste tÚ d°rma ¶xein sklhrÚn ka‹ peritetam°non ka‹ têlla oÂa §p‹ t«n diaforoum°nvn Ípãrxei, îrã ge tª §p‹ t«n diaforoum°nvn égvgª xrhsÒmeya; ÑOmolog∞sai énãgkh. P«w oÔn §k t∞w manÒthtow =Êsiw katalambãnetai; Ka‹ går peritãsevw ka‹ sklhrÒthtow ÍparxoÊshw, oÈd¢n ∏tton =Êsiw §st¤n. [xxx] ÑEj∞w dÉ ˜ti, kùn fa¤nvntai afl koinÒthtew, oÈd¢n sumf°ron §nde¤knuntai diå toÊtou ên tiw §nde¤jeie, [187] diaf°rein l°gvn tÚ aÈtå tå koinå §nde¤knusyai µ épÚ t«n koin«n katalambãnesyai tå §nde¤jasyai dunam°na. Ofl m¢n oÔn Meyodiko‹ l°gousin aÈtå tå koinå §nde¤knusyai: ≤me›w d° famen tØn t«n koin«n katãlhcin xrhsimeÊein prÚw tØn t«n §p‹ m°rouw §nde¤jasyai dunam°nvn §p¤gnvsin. Ka‹ tå yevrÆmata trÒpon tinå koinå ˆnta tØn t«n §p‹ m°rouw katãlhcin Ípode¤knusin. ÉEn går t“ “kÒpoi aÈtÒmatoi frãzousi nÒsouw”b katalambãnomen tØn sx°sin toË §p‹ m°rouw aÈtomãtou kÒpou prÚw tÚ pl∞yow. Metalambãnein går de› tÚ “nÒsouw” katå tÚ parÚn efiw tÚ pl∞yow. ÑH oÔn toË kayÒlou §p¤gnvsiw tØn toÊ33 katãlhcin par°xetai toË §p‹ m°rouw §nde¤jasyai34 tÚ sumf°ron dunam°nou. [xxxi] OÈ de› dÉ o‡esyai ˜ti ≤me›w Ípolambãnomen diå t«n yevrhmãtvn éntikrÁ tå §ndeiktikå t«n sumferÒntvn katalambãnesyai. OÈ går tå yevrÆmata t«n kekrumm°nvn §st‹ dhlvtikå œn xre¤an prÚw tØn yerape¤an …w §ndeiknum°nvn ¶xomen, éllå tØn sx°sin mhnÊei t«n kekrumm°nvn prÚw tå fainÒmena. OÏtv dÉ ín §pimel°steron [188] tØn t«n yevrhmãtvn xre¤an katamãyoimen, §pÉ aÈtoË toË “kÒpoi aÈtÒmatoi frãzousi nÒsouw” stÆsantew tÚn lÒgon. ÜOti to¤nun kÒpow aÈtÒmatÒw §stin §nargØw ka‹ ofl fidi«tai ‡sasin. ÜOti d¢ diå toË aÈtomãtou kÒpou pl∞yow dhloËtai ofl m¢n fidi«tai égnooËsi—k°kruptai gãr—ofl d¢ texn›tai ‡sasin, §k toË yevrÆmatow kateilhfÒtew tØn toË “aÈtomãtou” prÚw tÚ “pl∞yow” sx°sin. ÉApÚ går t∞w sx°sevw aÈtoË toË aÈtomãtou kÒpou prÚw tÚ pl∞yow kinhye‹w35 efiw36 tÚ ye≈rhma ka‹ katalambãnvn ˜tÉ épot°lesmã §sti toË pl∞youw ı autÒmatow kÒpow sun°sthsen aÈtÒ. ÉEpe‹ går t«n afiti«n

b

Aph. ii 5.

compl ego: tØn toË K 34 transp ego: §p‹ m°rouw katãlhcin par°xetai toË §nde¤jasyai K 35 prÚw tÚ pl∞yow kinhye‹w transp ego: kinhye¤w, prÚw tÚ pl∞yow K 36 efiw ci ego: sunist«n K 33

  ‒  

719

something different from flux and swelling [sc something different] from constriction, then [sc implicitly] they say that the koinotetes are not grasped from these; on the other hand, they agree that the states are grasped from things other than themselves, not per se, if from [186] shrivelling and swelling they grasp things which are different from the states. [xxix] Some say that, in the case of things which get dispersed invisibly, we grasp the [sc state of ] flux from the fact that bodies are soft, crumbling, and enfeebled. To these people we should reply that, if bodies are hard and distended, surely they will not call that flux, and yet they will be compelled to acknowledge the state [sc of flux]. For if we come across patients such as Hippocrates describes, who under extreme famine are brought to the point where their skin is hard and distended, and they have the rest of the symptoms characteristic to cases of dissipation, shall we not employ the course of treatment employed in cases of dissipation? They are bound to admit that we shall. Then, in what sense is flux grasped from looseness of texture? For even when there is contraction and hardness, the case is none the less one of flux. [xxx] Next, one could prove that, even if the koinotetes were manifest, they would not indicate anything beneficial, by arguing [187] that there is a difference between the proposition that common features [koina] themselves indicate and the proposition that what has the power to indicate is grasped from common features. Now, the Methodists claim that common features themselves indicate, whereas we claim that the grasp of common features is useful for the recognition of the things which have the power to indicate in individual cases. Theoretical propositions, too, having in some way a common character, show the grasping of such things [sc which have the power to indicate] in individual cases. For in the proposition “[sc attacks of ] spontaneous fatigue show diseases” we grasp the relation between an individual case of spontaneous fatigue and satiety [ plethos]. That is, in the present case we must substitute “satiety” for “diseases”. So the recognition of the universal affords the grasp of that element which can indicate what is beneficial in individual cases. [xxxi] One should not think that we assume that the things which indicate the beneficial are grasped directly from theoretical propositions. For theoretical propositions do not make clear the hidden things which we need for therapy on account of the fact that they [sc the hidden things] indicate, but they hint at the relation of the hidden towards the manifest things. Here is how we could make a more careful [188] examination of the use of theoretical propositions, dwelling upon the [sc example provided by the] proposition “attacks of spontaneous fatigue show diseases”. Even laymen know that spontaneous fatigue is obvious. But that spontaneous fatigue signifies satiety is a fact which laymen ignore—for it is hidden—while professional people know it, since they have grasped from the theoretical proposition the relation between “spontaneous” and “satiety”. For he [sc Hippocrates] composed the theoretical proposition once he had moved on to it from the relation between spontaneous fatigue itself and satiety, grasping the fact that spontaneous fatigue is an effect of satiety. For, since he was acquainted with some very

720

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

dittÆn tina genikvtãthn diaforån ±p¤stato, ka‹ ˜ti t«n afiti«n ì m¢n §ktÒw §stin ≤m›n ì dÉ §n aÈto›w to›w s≈masin, énagka›on §nÒmisen e‰nai, ıpÒtan ti t«n §ktÚw paralupª, mØ ín êllvw ≤mçw §noxle›syai, efi mØ §n to›w s≈masin Ípãrxei tÚ a‡tion. ÉEpe‹ d¢ t«n §n t“ s≈mati tå baroËnta katå pleonasmÚn oÈs¤aw bare› ÀstÉ, efi sÊmmetron, oÎte bare› oÎte lupe›, [189] sunye‹w efiw ßna logismÚn taËtÉ, §po¤hse tÚ ye≈rhma toËto, “kÒpoi aÈtÒmatoi frãzousi pl∞yow”. ÉAfÉ œn går logism«n kinhye‹w ı sustÆsaw tÚ ye≈rhma sun°sthsen, épÚ taÈt«n xrØ ka‹ tØn xre¤an toË yevrÆmatow Ípode¤knusyai. ToËto to¤nun tÚ kayolikÚn dhlo›, ˜tÉ, ˜pou ín ¬ kÒpow aÈtÒmatow, §ke› pãntvw37 pl∞yow. OÈ m°ntoi épÚ toË yevrÆmatow kat°labe tÚ pl∞yow éllå tØn sx°sin toË kÒpou prÚw tÚ pl∞yow: §k d¢ t∞w sx°sevw tÚ pl∞yow. TrÒpon oÔn tina diå toË kÒpou kat°labe tÚ pl∞yow: ·na d¢ diÉ aÈtoË katelãb˙ tÚ ye≈rhma, g°gonen a‡tion.38 Ka‹ t«n êllvn d¢ yevrhmãtvn taÈtØn xre¤an skopoËntew eÍrÆsomen. ÑHme›w m¢n oÔn oÏtv kayÒlou ka‹ oflone‹ koinØn katãlhcin ≤goÊmeya xrhsimeÊein. [xxxii] Ofl d¢ Meyodiko‹ tåw koinÒthtaw aÈtåw o‡ontai §nde¤knusyai tå sumf°ronta. TÚ m¢n går stegnÚn pãyow §nde¤knusya¤ fasi tÚ de›n xalòn, tÚ d¢ =o«dew tØn staltikØn égvgØn §pizhte›n, ka‹ tåw loipåw d¢ koinÒthtaw Ípot¤yentai diaf°ronta fanerå §nde¤knusyai [190] per‹ œn efirÆsetai: ˜ti dÉ oÈk §nde¤knuntai afl koinÒthtew diå toÊtvn parastÆsomen. äVn énairey°ntvn ofl nosoËntew Ígie›w g¤gnontai, toÊtvn §st‹n énairetikå 39 bohyÆmata. äVn dÉ §st‹n énairetikå prohgoum°nvw 40 bohyÆmata, épÚ toÊtvn ¶ndeijiw t«n sumferÒntvn g¤gnetai. ÉAnairetikå dÉ §st‹ prohgoum°nvw tå bohyÆmata t«n §p‹ m°rouw afiti«n: ka¤, efi êra noshmãtvn tå §p‹ m°rouw §stÉ a‡tia, tå a‡tia nosÆmatvn §nde¤knutÉ ín tÚ sumf°ron,41 ka‹ oÈx afl koinÒthtew t“ e‰nai koinÒthtew tÚ sumf°ron §nde¤knuntai. Ka‹ efi tå paralambanÒmena bohyÆmatÉ énairetikå t«n §ndeijam°nvn, épÚ t«n §p‹ m°rouw bohyhmãtvn énairoËntai afl koinÒthtew. T∞w d¢ koinÒthtow énairoum°nhw, ofl katÉ §ke›non tÚn kairÚn ÍpÚ taÈt∞w koinÒthtow nosÆsantew Ígie›w ín §g°nonto, oÈdenÒw tinow ÍpÉ aÈt∞w énairey°ntow. Efi dÉ ˜per §nde¤knutai toËtÉ énaire›tai, afl d¢ koinÒthtew §nde¤knuntai, d∞lon ˜tÉ afl koinÒthtew énaireyÆsontai. PrÚw toËto l°gousin ofl Meyodiko‹ ˜ti: “TØn koinÒthta ≤me›w taÈtØn ka‹ m¤an l°gomen e‰nai oÈx ˜ti ßn t¤ §sti s«ma sunaf¢w [191] aÈtÚ •aut“, e‡ tiw §p‹ pleiÒnvn yevro›to, éllÉ √ taÈtÚ e‰dÒw §stin.” ÑVw går ka‹ ≤ ényrvpÒthw koinÒthw tiw l°getai e‰nai, oÈk ¶ti d¢ s«ma ©n ≤nvm°non e‰ta §p‹ pãntvn t«n ényr≈pvn yevre›tai éllÉ ımoiÒthw tiw §n ple¤osin, oÏtv ka‹ per‹ t∞w koinÒthtÒw fasi de›n Ípolambãnein. “ÜVsper oÔn” fas‹n “•nÚw ényr≈pou énairou-

corr ego: pantÚw K 38 ego: katelãb˙, tÚ ye≈rhma g°gonen a‡tion K 39 add ego 40 add ego 41 ka¤, efi êra . . . sumf°ron ego: ka‹ efi êra noshmãtvn, tå §p‹ m°rouw êrÉ a‡tia, ka‹ efi êra nosÆmatÉ §nde¤knuntÉ ín tÚ sumf°ron K 37

  ‒  

721

basic division of the causes into two kinds and with the fact that some of the causes lie outside of us and some lie in the bodies themselves, he thought it to be a matter of necessity that, whenever something from the outside gives us pain, nothing else should disturb us unless there is a cause within our body. And since, out of those [sc causes] which lie within the body, the ones that produce heaviness do so by surplus of substance, so that, if something is well-balanced, it produces neither heaviness nor pain, [189] he [sc Hippocrates], fusing all these pieces into one single reasoning, created this proposition: “[sc attacks of ] spontaneous fatigue show diseases”. For the reasoning-steps through which the man who composed the proposition was moved to compose it must be the very same ones from which the function of the proposition is traced out. So this is what the universal makes clear: that, whenever there is spontaneous fatigue, the case in question at any rate involves satiety. From the proposition he [sc Hippocrates] did not grasp satiety, to be sure, but the relation which fatigue has with satiety; and, from the relation, [sc he grasped] satiety. In some way, then, he grasped satiety with the help of fatigue; in order for him to grasp the proposition from that, it [sc satiety] became a cause. If we seek, we shall find that the rest of the theoretical propositions have the same function. In conclusion, we hold that this kind of grasp, [sc of the] universal and (as it were) common, is beneficial. [xxxii] But the Methodists hold that the koinotetes themselves indicate the things which are beneficial. For they claim that the constricted affection indicates that one must relax [sc it] and that the flowing affection demands an astringent course of treatment, and they assume that the other koinotetes indicate various manifest things [190] that we shall mention; as for counter-evidence to the effect that the koinotetes do not indicate, we will produce it through the following arguments. Remedies are destructive of those things which, once destroyed, the ill become healthy. It is from the things which remedies are primarily destructive of that the indication of what is beneficial arises. But remedies are primarily destructive of individual causes; and so, if it is of diseases that individual causes are [sc causes], then it is the causes of diseases that indicate the beneficial, and it is not the case that the koinotetes, by being koinotetes, indicate the beneficial. On the other hand, if the remedies employed are destructive of the things which have indicated them, then the koinotetes are destroyed by individual remedies. And if a koinotes were destroyed, the people taken ill by the same koinotes at a given time would become healthy, without anyone having been killed by it. If the thing which is destroyed is the very thing which indicates, and if the koinotetes indicate, then it is clear that the koinotetes will be destroyed. The Methodists reply against this that: “We claim a koinotes to be one and the same not because it is some body, one and continuous [191] with itself, if one were to look at it in a plurality, but in so far as it is of the same species.” For they claim that we should think about the [sc notion of ] koinotes in just the same way as about [sc that of ] humanhood: humanhood may be said to be a koinotes of a kind, and yet it is not thereby seen in all humans as one unified body, but as a sort of similarity in a plurality. “So”, they say, “when one human being is destroyed, it

722

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

m°nou oÈ sunanaire›tai ≤ ényrvpÒthw ∂n §p‹ pãntvn ır«men éllÉ êra ≤ •nÒw tinow ényrvpÒthw, oÏtvw ka‹ §p‹ m°rouw koinÒthtow énairoum°nhw oÈx ≤ §p‹ pãntvn koinÒthw énaire›tai éllÉ ≤ §p‹ m°rouw mÒnon.” ÑRht°on oÔn prÚw aÈtoÁw ˜tÉ, e‡per afl koinÒthtew kayÉ ˘ koinÒtht°w efisin §nde¤knuntai tÚ sumf°ron, ka‹ ≤ ényrvpÒthw koinÒthw oÔsa §nde¤knutÉ ín tÚ sumf°ron. OÈd¢n dÉ ≤ ényrvpÒthw §nde¤knutai: oÈdÉ oÔn êllh tiw koinÒthw §ndeiktikØ ín e‡h sumf°rontow. ÖEti dÉ, e‡per ≤ koinÒthw tautÒthw §st‹n §n ple¤osi ka‹ afl koinÒthtew kayÉ ˘ koinÒtht°w efisin §nde¤knunto, ka‹42 ≤ dusfor¤a ka‹ ≤ §ruyrÒthw §p‹ pleiÒnvn pay«n yevroum°nh §de¤knuntÉ ên [192] ti sumf°ron: oÈd¢n dÉ §nde¤knuntai: oÈdÉ afl loipa‹ êra koinÒthtew fÊsin ¶xousin §ndeiktikÆn. ÉEpizht∞sai d¢ xrØ ka‹ toËto parÉ aÈt«n, pÒteron afl koinÒthtew pãyh efis‹n µ oÎ. Efi m¢n pãyh, p«w oÈde‹w p≈potÉ æsyetÉ aÈt«n; ÉAllå puretoË m¢n ka‹ flegmon∞w ka‹ bãrouw ka‹ diatãsevw éntilambãnontai ênyrvpoi ka‹ toÁw fiatroÁw diå taËta metap°mpontai: stegnÒthtow d¢ ka‹ =ovd¤aw oÈde‹w p≈potÉ æsyeto. OÈd°, må D¤É, ¶pemp° tiw ka‹ prÚw fiatrÚn …w ÍpÉ ém°trou stegn≈sevw µ érai≈sevw §noxloÊmenow. Efi d¢ mÆ §sti pãyh, p«w épÚ t«n pay«n tåw §nde¤jeiw g¤gnesyai l°gousi, t∞w stegn≈sevw ka‹ =ovd¤aw oÈk ˆntvn pay«n; ÖEti te kôke›no =ht°on, ˜tÉ, e‡per afl koinÒthtew fÊsin e‰xon §ndeiktikÆn, pãntvn ín mãlista ≤ t«n koinotÆtvn koinÒthw §nede¤knutÉ ên. Ka‹ går t∞w stegn≈sevw ka‹ =Êsevw ımoiÒthw tiw, kayÉ ˘ koinÒtht°w efisin émfÒterai. OÈd¢n dÉ §nde¤knutai aÏth: oÈdÉ êra afl loipa¤. OÈ mÒnon d¢ dÊo koinÒthtãw fasin e‰nai éllå ka‹ ple¤ouw: ka‹ êl[193]law m¢n §n dia¤t˙, êllaw §n xeirourg¤&: ka‹ §n m¢n dia¤t˙ tÚ stegnÚn ka‹ tÚ =o«dew ka‹ tÚ §pipeplegm°non m°geyow. Ka‹ kairoÁw t«n noshmãtvn e‰nai t°ssaraw, érxØn §p¤dosin ékmØn ka‹ parakmÆn: ka‹ tÚ ÙjÁ ka‹ tÚ xrÒnion ka‹ tØn §p¤tasin ka‹ tÚ diãleimma. ÉEn d¢ xeirourg¤&, tÚ fÊsei éllÒtrion tÒpƒ kair“ ka‹ êlla ple¤ona. ÉAllÉ oÈ nËn ékribologe›syai per‹ t«n §n xeirourg¤& skop«n xrÆ: époxrÆsei går prÚw tÚ proke¤menon ofl §n dia¤t˙ 43 aÈt«n §ktey°ntew skopo¤. [xxxiii] PareisÆgagon d¢ tåw efirhm°naw koinÒthtaw oÈx ¶xontew §n to›w prãgmasi diejagvgÆn. ÉEpe‹ går ±koloÊyei aÈt“ ‘tinoËn xrÆsyai staltik“ §p‹ pãshw =Êsevw ka‹ ‘tinoËn xalastik“ §p‹ pãshw stegn≈sevw, oÈx eÍr¤skontew dÉ §ndeiktikÚn t∞w diaforçw t«n bohyhmãtvn pareisÆgagon ka‹ tåw efirhm°naw koinÒthtaw, ·na parå tØn toÊtvn diaforån diaf°rousa yerape¤a eÍr¤skhtai. L°gousin oÔn ˜ti tØn diaforån t«n bohyhmãtvn atai afl koinÒthtew §nde¤knuntai. Per‹ går tÆn tinvn toÊtvn sÊnodon diallãttousa ≤ yerape¤a eÍr¤sketai. [xxxiv, 194] De¤jomen dÉ ˜tÉ oÈden t«n efirhm°nvn §ndeiktikÚn e‰nai dÊnatai bohyhmãtvn: ka‹ pr«tÒn gÉ, ˜ti tÚ m°geyow t«n koinotÆtvn oÈk §nde¤knutai m°geyow bohyhmãtvn §k t«ndÉ ên tiw mãyoi. ÉEn ta›w yerape¤aiw deÒmeyÉ oÈx èpl«w meg°youw

42

ego: §nde¤knunto: ka¤ K

43

add ego

  ‒  

723

is not the humanhood that we see in all which is destroyed together with it, but only the humanhood of one single individual; likewise, when the individual koinotes is destroyed, it is not the koinotes in all that is destroyed, but only the individual one.” One should answer against them that, if the koinotetes indicate the beneficial in so far as they are koinotetes, then humanhood too, being a koinotes, should indicate the beneficial. But humanhood indicates nothing; nor could any other koinotes be indicative of the beneficial. What is more, if a koinotes is identity in a plurality and it is in so far as they are koinotetes that the koinotetes would indicate, then malaise or flush, which are seen in a plurality of affections, would indicate [192] something beneficial; but they indicate nothing; therefore it is not the case that the remaining koinotetes have an indicative nature. One must also take up with them the following point: whether the koinotetes are affections or not. If on the one hand they are affections, why is it that no one ever perceived them? People are aware of fever, inflammation, heaviness, or distension, and they send for doctors because of them; yet nobody ever had a perception of constriction or flux. Nor, by Zeus, did anyone ever call the doctor because he was troubled with disproportionate constriction or rarefaction. If, on the other hand, they [sc the koinotetes] are not affections, why do they [sc the Methodists] claim that the indications come from the affections, although constriction and flux are not affections? And one should also notice this: if the koinotetes had an indicative nature, it is the koinotes of the koinotetes that would indicate above all. For there must be some similarity also between constriction and flux, in so far as both of them are koinotetes. But this [sc koinotes] indicates nothing; nor, therefore, does the rest of them. They [sc the Methodists] claim that there are not only two koinotetes but even more; some [193] occur in dietetics [diaita], others in surgery. The ones in dietetics are the constricted, the fluid, and the mixed [epipeplegmenon] quantity; and [sc they claim that] the four phases of diseases, too, are [sc koinotetes]— namely the beginning, development, culmination, and decline—and [sc so are] the acute and the chronic, paroxysm, and remission. In surgery, [sc they use the notions of ] what is alien by nature, by place, by time—and many others. But this is not the place for us to rehearse their aims in surgery with any accuracy; the aims set out by them in dietetics will be enough for our present concern. [xxxiii] They [sc the Methodists] have introduced the mentioned koinotetes because they did not have a way of handling the actual things. For, since it followed that one could use any astringent in every case of flux and any relaxant in every case of constriction, they did not discover what is indicative of the difference between remedies, and introduced the mentioned koinotetes in order that the difference in treatment may be discovered from their difference. They claim therefore that it is these koinotetes that indicate the difference between remedies. For treatment is found to vary at the gathering-point of such entities. [xxxiv, 194] We will prove that none of the mentioned [sc koinotetes] can be indicative of the remedies; for a start, one could learn from the following [sc considerations] that the quantity of the koinotetes does not indicate the quantity of the remedies. In treatments, we do not need the quantity of remedies

724

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

bohyhmãtvn (pãnta går tå bohyÆmata sÁn pos“ meg°yei efis¤n), éllå toËde toË meg°youw. TÚ d¢ m°geyow t«n koinotÆtvn oÈk §nde¤jetai tÚ toËde toË bohyÆmatow m°geyow éllÉ ëpl«w m°geyow. De› dÉ, …w ¶fhn, oÈx èpl«w m°geyow t«n bohyhmãtvn paralambãnein éllå phl¤kon tÒde ti m°geyow. áAn går èpl«w m°geyow paralambãnvmen, §peidØ pãnta bohyÆmata sÁn pos“ meg°yei noe›tai, pãnta tå bohyÆmata paralhcÒmeya ka‹ édiaforÆsvmen—˜per §st‹n élog≈taton. Efi de, toË meg°youw t«n koinotÆtvn èpl«w m°geyow bohyÆmatow §ndeiknum°nou, aÈto‹ tÒde ti tÚ m°geyow paralambãnousi, oÈx ˜per ı skopÚw §nde¤knutai toËto paralÆcontai. ÑO går skopÚw koin«w m°geyow §nde¤knutai, aÈto‹ d¢ tÒde ti tÚ m°geyow paralambãnousin. [195] ÉEroËsi dÉ ‡svw ˜tÉ oÈk §peidØ katå m°row §st‹ tÚ m°geyow prosãgomen éllÉ §pe‹44 koinÒthtow §st¤: tÚ dÉ aÈtÚ sumb°bhke ka‹ koinÚn e‰nai ka‹ §p‹ m°rouw. PrÚw toËto d¢ ka‹ §roËmen ˜tÉ, efi ≤ koinÒthw §pide¤knusi ka‹ ˘ §nde¤knutai oÈk §p‹ m°rouw, édiafore›n de›,45 §peidØ m°geyow par°petai pant‹ bohyÆmati. TaÈtÚn d¢ toËton lÒgon §st‹ ka‹ §p‹ tåw koinÒthtaw metaf°rein. [xxxv] ÑEj∞w dÉ ˜tÉ oÈdÉ ofl t«n noshmãtvn kairo‹ §nde¤knuntai tÚ sumf°ron Ípode¤jomen. PrÚw d¢ toË lÒgou toÊtou per‹ t∞w t«n kair«n diaforçw Ùl¤ga xrØ diejelye›n. DÊo to¤nun kair«n diafora‹ parå to›w fiatro›w l°gontai: ofl m¢n noshmãtvn ofl d¢ bohyhmãtvn. ÉEnteËyen ín eÎdhlow ka‹ ≤ yerape¤a g°noito: tåw kinÆseiw t«n afiti«n kairoÁw e‰nai l°gousin. Efis‹ d¢ kinÆsevw diafora‹ t°ssarew: érxØ §p¤dosiw ékmØ ka‹ parakmÆ. TaËta dÉ §st‹ ka‹ t«n kair«n ÙnÒmata. ToÁw d¢ t«n bohyhmãtvn kairoÁw toÁw §pithde¤ouw xrÒnouw efiw parãlhcin aÈt«n e‰nai [196] l°gousin. Efis‹ dÉ §pitÆdeioi xrÒnoi §n oÂw tå m¢n épaitoËnta tØn parãlhcin toË bohyÆmatow pãresti, t«n d¢ kvluÒntvn oÈd°n §sti. [xxxvi] O‡ontai dÉ ofl pollo‹ toÁw t«n bohyhmãtvn kairoÁw ka‹ noshmãtvn Ípostãsesi m¢n mØ diaf°rein, §pino¤& d¢ mÒnon. Fas‹ går ˜ti per‹ taÈtÚn xrÒnon ka‹ ı toË bohyÆmatow kairÚw ka‹ ı toË nosÆmatow sun¤statai. ÖEn tini går kair“ ˆntow toË nosÆmatow ı toË bohyÆmatow kairÚw eÍr¤sketai. “ÉEnd°xetai d¢” fas‹ “taÈtÚ prÚw têllo ka‹ êllo énaferÒmenon diafÒrvw l°gesyai. ÑVw går énãbasiw ka‹ katãbasiw, m¤a oÔsa ka‹ aÍtØ ıdÒw, parå tØn sx°sin t«n énabainÒntvn ka‹ katabainÒntvn ıt¢ m¢n énãbasiw kale›tai ıt¢ d¢ katãbasiw, oÏtv ka‹ §p‹ t«n kair«n ¶xei. EÂw m¢n går ka‹ aÍtÒw §stin ˜ te toË nosÆmatow kairÚw ka‹ ı toË bohyÆmatow. ÖAllvw m¢n går prÚw tØn k¤nhsin toË afit¤ou §st‹n énaf°ronta l°gein kairÚn nosÆmatow, êllvw d¢ prÚw tØn eÈkair¤an t∞w prosagvg∞w t«n bohyhmãtvn kairÚn toË bohyÆmatow.” Sumba¤nein d° fasin émfot°rouw toÁw [197] kairoÁw ëma sun¤stasyai: ka‹ édÊnatÒn §stin êneu kairoË 46 nosÆmatow §klambãnein kairÚn 47 bohyÆmatow. [xxxvii] ÑRht°on oÔn prÚw aÈtoÁw ˜tÉ, efi aÍto¤ efisi

44 46

ci ego: éllÉ efi K 45 ego: ka‹ ˘ §nde¤knutai, oÈk §p‹ m°rouw édiafore›n de› K add ego 47 add ego

  ‒  

725

unqualifiedly (for all the remedies come in a certain quantity), but the quantity of this particular [sc remedy] in front of us. Now the quantity of the koinotetes will not indicate the quantity of this particular remedy, but quantity unqualifiedly. Yet, as I said, what we must use is not the quantity of remedies unqualifiedly, but some particular given quantity. For in case we use quantity unqualifiedly, given that all remedies are conceived of as having a certain quantity, we shall use all the remedies without making any difference [sc in quantity], which is most irrational. On the other hand, if, although the quantity of the koinotetes indicates the quantity of the remedy unqualifiedly, they [sc the Methodists] use a particular quantity, they will not use the very thing which the aim indicates. For the aim indicates quantity in general, whereas they use a particular quantity. [195] Maybe they will reply that we introduce quantity not in so far as it is a particular; but, because it is [sc the quantity of ] a koinotes, the same thing turns out to be both general and particular. To this we will reply in turn that, if the koinotes indicates and what is indicated is not a particular, it [sc what is indicated] must be undifferentiated, since quantity accompanies every remedy. One can also apply the same reasoning to the koinotetes. [xxxv] Next we will prove that the phases of diseases do not indicate what is beneficial. But before running through this argument we must explain a few facts about the differentia between phases. Now, doctors talk about phases of two different kinds: those of the diseases and those of the remedies. They say that therapy, too, would be easy to see from this stand-point; for the movements of the causes are phases. There are four different kinds of movements: the beginning, the increase, the culmination, and the decline. But these are also the names of the phases. As for the phases of the remedies, they say that these consist in periods [chronoi ] which are suitable for taking them [sc the remedies in question]. [196] Suitable times are those during which the factors which require the taking of the remedy are present and there is none of the factors which should forbid it. [xxxvi] The majority think that the phases of remedies and those of diseases do not differ in their real nature, but only in our notion of them. They say, namely, that both the phase of a remedy and that of a disease are related to the same period of time. For it is because the disease has reached a certain phase that the phase of the remedy is discovered. “It is possible” they observe “to speak in different senses about the same, according as it is related to one thing or to another. For instance, ascent and descent is one and the same route, but it is called now ascent, now descent, because of the relation [sc towards it] of those who climb up and, respectively, of those who climb down; and it is the same with the phases. The phase of the disease and the phase of the remedy is one and the same. For it is possible to speak, in one sense, about the phase of the disease, namely when you relate it to the movement of the cause, and, in a different sense, about the phase of the remedy, namely in relation to appropriateness in administering remedies.” They claim that the phases [197] of both kinds coexist, and that it is impossible to get the phase of the remedy without [sc working out] the phase of the disease. [xxxvii] One should counter them by saying that, if the phases of remedies and of

726

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

kairo‹ t«n bohyhmãtvn ka‹ t«n noshmãtvn, §xr∞n §n ëpanti kair“ nosÆmatow e‰nai ka‹ kairÒn 48 bohyÆmatow: oÈk §n ëpanti d¢ kair“ nosÆmatow prosãgomen tå bohyÆmata. “ÉArxom°nvn går” fhs‹ “t«n noÊsvn, ≥n ti dok°˙ kin°ein, k¤nei: ékmazous«n dÉ, ≤sux¤hn ¶xein b°ltion.”c Ouk êra aÍto‹ kairo¤ efisi noshmãtvn ka‹ bohyhmãtvn. Pollãkiw d¢ paralambãnomen bohyÆmata o‰on kãyarsin µ flebotom¤an oÈk ˆntow m¢n nosÆmatÒw tinow, Ípopteuom°nou dÉ ¶sesyai—Àsper ém°lei ofl xeirourgo‹ §p‹ t«n khlotomoum°nvn: ˜tan ır«sin aÈtoÁw periplhye›w ˆntaw, paralambãnousi flebotom¤aw. Ka‹ ı ÑIppokrãthw d¢ paraine› “lÊein tØn êkran eÈej¤an mØ brad°vw”:d ≤ d¢ lÊsiw diå bohyhmãtvn g¤gnetai. Efi dÉ ékm∞w paroÊshw t«n noshmãtvn oÈk efis‹ kairo‹ t«n [198] bohyhmãtvn ka‹ mØ ˆntvn noshmãtvn efis‹ kairo‹ 49 bohyhmãtvn, fanerÚn ˜tÉ oÈk §pino¤& mÒnon éllå ka‹ Ípostãsei diaf°rousin. ÖEti dÉ §n •n‹ kair“ nosÆmatow ple¤onaw paralambãnei tiw bohyhmãtvn kairoÊw. ÉEn går parakmª, f°re, nosÆmatow klustØr paralambãnetai ka‹ êleimma ka‹ katãplasma ka‹ trofÆ. ToÊtvn dÉ •kãstou ‡diÒw §sti kairÒw. Ka‹ §n ple¤osi d¢ noshmãtvn kairo›w taÈtÚ ¶stÉ ˜te boÆyhma §kkr¤nomen: §n érxª går t«n noshmãtvn flebotom¤a paralambãnetai ka‹ §n §pidÒsei. ÉEk toÊtvn oÔn fa¤netai ˜ti katå tØn ÍpÒstas¤n §st¤ tiw t«n kair«n diaforã. PrÚw d¢ to›w efirhm°noiw kôke›no gign≈skein de›, ˜ti t«n m¢n noshmãtvn t°ssar°w efisi kairo¤, érxØ §p¤dosow ékmØ ka‹ parakmÆ, t«n d¢ bohyhmãtvn oÈk efis‹n otoi kairo¤. OÎte går érxØ oÎtÉ §p¤dosiw oÎtÉ ékmØ oÎte parakmØ kairo¤ efisin bohyÆmatow. ÜEti tÉ ofl m¢n kairo‹ t«n noshmãtvn grãfontai—ofl kayÒlou ka‹ ofl §p‹ m°rouw. Ofl d¢ t«n bohyhmãtvn, ofl m¢n kayÒlou énagrãfesyai dÊnantai, ofl dÉ §p‹ m°rouw oÈk ¶ti, diå toi[199]aÊthn tinÉ afit¤an. Ofl m¢n t«n noshmãtvn kairo‹ t«n te kayÒlou ka‹ t«n §p‹ m°rouw •n‹ ka‹ taÈt“ §pikr¤nontai krithr¤ƒ ka‹ tÚ kritÆrion énagrãfesyai dÊnatai. Ofl d¢ t«n bohyhmãtvn kairo‹ oÎte taÈtÚ kritÆrion ¶xousin, oÎte t«n §p‹ m°rouw kair«n dunatÒn §sti énagrãcai tå kritÆria. ÜOpvw d°; NËn Ípode¤jomen. Ofl kairo‹ t«n noshmãtvn kr¤nontai tª poiò kinÆsei toË afit¤ou, ka‹ ¶stin érxØ énãbasiw ékmØ ka‹ parakmÆ, ëper t«n noshmãtvn kairoÁw kaloËmen, ÙnÒmata t∞w poiçw kinÆsevw toË afit¤ou. ÉEån dÉ ≤ mØ oÔsa prÒteron k¤nhsiw §n ≤m›n êrxhtai sun¤stasyai ka‹ éniò sunistam°nh, tØn toiaÊthn k¤nhsin érxØn nosÆmatow l°gomen: §ån dÉ §p‹ tÚ me›zon ≤ k¤nhsiw prokÒpt˙, §p¤dosin: §ån d¢ stãsin lãb˙ ≤ §p¤dosiw, ékmØn Ùnomãzomen: §ån d¢ mei«ntai afl kinÆseiw, parakmØn prosagoreÊomen. ÉEpe‹ oÔn t«n kair«n taÈtã §stin tå ÙnÒmata t«n te kayÒlou noshmãtvn ka‹ t«n §p‹ m°rouw parojusm«n, ka‹ taÈtã §sti kritÆria: §k går t∞w poiçw kinÆsevw toË afit¤ou [200] g¤gnontai: d∞lon …w oÂÒn

c d

48

Aph. i 29. Cf Aph. i 3: tØn eÈej¤hn sumf°rei mØ brad°vw. add ego

49

add ego

  ‒  

727

diseases are identical, it should also be the case that a phase of the remedy corresponds to each phase of the disease; but we do not administer remedies at each phase of a disease. “When diseases are beginning” he [sc Hippocrates] says, “if you think that something should change, change it; but when they will reach their height it is better to do nothing.” Hence, the phases of diseases and of remedies are not identical. We often adopt remedies such as purgation or venesection when there is no disease, but we suspect that one may develop in the future—so do surgeons, for instance, with patients for an operation of hernia: whenever they see them being too full, they proceed to venesection. Hippocrates too advises us to “break down extreme vigour without delay”; and the breaking comes about through remedies. If there are no phases of [198] remedies during the culmination of diseases but there are phases of remedies when there are no diseases, it is obvious that they [sc the two kinds of phase] differ not only in our notion of them, but also in their real nature. Moreover, during a single phase of a disease one resorts to several phases of remedies. For—just think—during the decline of a disease we may use the syringe, an unguent, a plaster, and nourishment. But there is a particular phase of each one of these. On the other hand, there are times when we choose the same remedy throughout most of the phases of a disease; venesection, for instance, is used both at the beginning of diseases and during their development. From these facts it appears, then, that there is some difference between phases according to their real nature. Apart from what has been said, one should also acknowledge the following fact: there are four phases of the diseases— the beginning, the development, the culmination, and the decline—but there are no such phases of the remedies. In other words, it is not the case that beginning, development, culmination, or decline are phases of a remedy. In addition, the phases of diseases, both the general and the individual ones, possess written accounts. But when we come to the phases of remedies, the general ones can be written down, but not so the individual ones— and this is due to some [199] reason such as follows. The phases of diseases, whether [sc considered] in general or in individual cases, are determined in relation to one and the same criterion; and the criterion can receive a written account. But the phases of remedies do not have the same criterion, nor is it possible to give a written account of the criteria of particular phases. How so? We will show it presently. The phases of diseases are determined by reference to a certain kind of motion of the cause, and beginning, development, culmination, and decline, by which we designate the phases of diseases, are names of certain kinds of motion of the cause. If a motion which previously was not there begins to take shape within us and distresses us when it has taken shape, we call such a movement the beginning of a disease; if it continues to make progress, we call it development; if the development comes to a halt, we give it the name of culmination; if the motions diminish, we call it decline. So, since the names of the phases both in the case of the general diseases and in the case of individual paroxysms [sc of a disease] are identical, the criteria [sc by reference to which they are determined] are also identical; for they originate in a certain kind of motion of the cause; [200] and it is clearly possible to

728

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

tÉ §st‹n émfot°rouw toÁw kairoÁw énagrãfein. OÏtv går l°gomen énagrãfesyai ßkasta—oÂon tå a‡tia toÁw peponyÒtaw tÒpouw ka‹ tå ˜moia— ˜tan ofl skopo‹ §j œn katalambãnetai tå §p‹ m°rouw énagrãfesyai dÊnvntai. ÜOti d¢ tå diastÆmata t«n noshmãtvn oÈk efis‹n ofl kairo¤, oÈdÉ §k diasthmãtvn ofl kairo‹ lambãnontai (oÎte går50 t«n kayÒlou noshmãtvn oÎte t«n §p‹ m°rouw), §k toË mØ §p‹ pãntvn kair«n taÈtå diastÆmatÉ e‰nai, tÚ dÉ aÈtÚ “kairoÁw” l°gesyai, d∞lÒn §stin. ÜOti d¢ diaf°rousin ofl kairo‹ t«n yÉ ˜lvn noshmãtvn ka‹ t«n §p‹ m°rouw parojusm«n d∞lon §k toË §n •n‹ kair“ toË kayÒlou nosÆmatow ple¤onaw sun¤stasyai kairoÁw t«n §p‹ m°rouw parojusm«n. ÉEn érxª går efisbol∞w nosÆmatow §p‹ m°rouw tiw parojusmÚw ka‹ êrxetai ka‹ §pid¤dvsi ka‹ ékmãzei ka‹ parakmãzei: ka‹ ékmãzontow dÉ ≥dh toË ˜lou nosÆmatow, §p‹ m°rouw parojusmÒw51 tiw érxØn lambãnei. P«w m¢n oÔn ofl t«n noshmãtvn kairo‹ émfÒteroi énagrãfesyai dÊnantai e‡rhtai. ToÁw d¢ t«n bohyhmãtvn kairoÁw p«w oÔn ¶stin émfot°rouw énagrãcai nËn Ípode¤jomen. [xxxviii, 201] Ofl t«n bohyhmãtvn kairo‹ lambãnontai oÈk §k t∞w toË afit¤ou kinÆsevw ka‹ t∞w oÈs¤aw: taÈtÚ går ín ée‹ parelambãneto, oÂon §n pãs˙ érxª nosÆmatow flebotom¤a. Ka‹ ı efip∆n dÉ: “ÉArxom°nvn t«n noÊsvn, ≥n ti dok°˙ kine›n, k¤nei: ékmazous«n dÉ, ≤sux¤hn ¶xein”e oÈk épÚ toË kairoË ırm«menow §kkr¤nei tå bohyÆmata. ÖHdei går ˜ti katå tåw érxåw t«n noshmãtvn ≤ dÊnamiw oÈ kayπrhtai, ka‹ diå toËtÉ oÈk §mpod¤zei tª paralÆcei t«n bohyhmãtvn: §n d¢ tª toË nosÆmatow ékmª kekmhku›a ≥dh tØn épÚ t«n bohyhmãtvn k¤nhsin oÈ f°rei. OÈk épÚ toË kairoË to¤nun ırm≈menow ı ÑIppokrãthw éllå parå t∞w dunãmevw tØn t«n bohyhmãtvn §kkr¤nei parãlhcin. OÈd¢ mØn §k toË diastÆmatow t«n katå nosÆmata kair«n, Àw tinew o‡ontai, ı toË bohyÆmatow kairÚw eÍr¤sketai. Katå polÁ går diaferÒntvn t«n diasthmãtvn, po¤vn ên tiw ÍpagÒreusin “diãsthma” fa¤h oÈk ¶stÉ efipe›n. Lambãnontai to¤nun ofl kairo‹ t«n m¢n kayÒlou bohyhmãtvn ¶k te t∞w parous¤aw t«n épaitoÊntvn tå bohyÆmata—taËta dÉ §st‹ [202] tå a‡tia—ka‹ §k t∞w épous¤aw toË kvlËsai dunam°nou—toËto dÉ §st‹n ésy°neia dunãmevn. Ofl dÉ §p‹ t«n §p‹ m°rouw bohyhmãtvn kairo‹ oÈk §k toÊtvn mÒnvn éllå ka‹ §j •t°rvn, ëper grãfesyai édÊnatÒn §sti. ÉEpe‹ går mãlista m¢n §n ta›w én°sesi paralambãnetai tå bohyÆmata—tÒte går tÚ épaitoËn pãrestin ka‹ ≤ dÊnamiw én°xetai—oÈ taÈtÚ d¢ t∞w én°se≈w §sti diãsthma §p‹ pãntvn. ÉAllÉ ¶stv gÉ ©j …r«n tÚ diãsthma t∞w én°sevw. Po›on oÔn tina toÊtvn …r«n tãjomen kairÚn toË §p‹ m°rouw bohyÆmatow, oÈx ımo¤vw èpãntvn diakeim°nvn; ÖEstv går épaite›n tØn per¤stasin flebotom¤an ka‹ ≤ dÊnamiw mØ §nantioÊsyv: ˜son §p‹ toÊtƒ xrØ paralabe›n tØn flebotom¤an; ÜAma dÉ 52 tina metå tØn flebotom¤an

e

50

Aph. ii 29 (also quoted above, p. 197 K). ego: lambãnontai. OÎte gãr K

51

ci ego: parojusmoË K

52

add ego

  ‒  

729

write down the phases of both [sc the general and the individual diseases]. For this is when we say that each thing—for instance the causes, the affected parts, and suchlike—receives a written account: when the aims from which the particulars are grasped can receive a written account. That the phases do not consist in the intervals [diastemata] of the diseases, and that the phases are not grasped from the intervals (neither those of general diseases nor those of individual diseases) is clear from the fact that the intervals are not the same in all the phases, yet they [sc the phases] are identically called “phases”. That the phases of whole diseases and those of individual paroxysms are different is clear from the fact that more phases of the individual paroxysms are grouped in one single phase of the general disease. For, at the beginning of the irruption of a disease, some particular paroxysm begins, increases, culminates, and declines; and, when the whole disease already reached the culmination point, some [sc other] particular paroxysm begins. So it has been explained why both kinds of phases of the diseases can receive a written account. Now we will show why not both kinds of phases of the remedies can receive a written account. [xxxviii, 201] The phases of the remedies are not grasped from the movement and substance of the cause; for in that case we would always adopt the same procedure— for instance, at the beginning of any disease, venesection. Also, when he [sc Hippocrates] advises us: “When diseases are beginning, if you think that something should change, change it; but when they will reach their height it is better to do nothing”—it is not by starting from the phase that he makes distinctions between remedies. For he knew that, at the beginning of a disease, the [sc patient’s] strength has not yet been ruined and hence does not stand in the way of administering remedies, while during the period of culmination of a disease it [sc the strength] is already exhausted and does not bear the movement coming from the remedies. In consequence, Hippocrates does not start from the phase; it is on the basis of the [sc patient’s] strength that he makes distinctions in the administration of remedies. Next, the phase of the remedy is not discovered from the interval of the phases in a disease, as some think. For, since the intervals differ greatly from each other, it is not possible to say in relation to which ones one would use the notion of “interval”. Thus the phases of general remedies are derived from the presence of those things which require the remedies— and the causes are [202] such things—and from the absence of what could hinder [sc the remedies]—and the weakness of the [sc patient’s] strengths is such a thing. As for the phases of individual remedies, they do not derive solely from these, but also from other [sc factors], which it is not possible to record. Consider: whereas remedies are administered mainly during periods of remission—for then that which requires them is present and the [sc patient’s] strength allows it—the interval of remission is not the same for all. But let there be an interval of remission of six hours. Which one of these hours shall we appoint as the phase of the particular remedy, if not all of them [sc of the patients] react in the same way? Further, let us assume that the [sc patient’s] circumstances require venesection, and let his strength not stand against it: in what quantity must one let blood in this case? Moreover, it may be appropriate to administer some food to a patient after

730

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

ka‹ trofØn paraye›nai diå tÚ mØ f°rein ésit¤an tÚn kãmnonta, •t°rƒ dÉ asit∞sai sumf°rei: êlloi dÉ Ïpnou prÚ t∞w flebotom¤aw d°ontai êlloi dÉ êllvw, ëper ëpantÉ énagrãfein §st‹n édÊnaton. ÉEn oÔn tosaÊt˙ poikil¤&, po›Òn tiw m°row Àraw kairÚn èrmÒzonta pant‹ §pitãjei [203] bohyÆmati, µ po›Òn tiw skopÚn énagrãfoi §j o lhfye¤h ín ı §p‹ m°rouw kairÒw; OÈk ¶stÉ efipe›n: êlla går §pÉ êllvn tå sump¤ptontÉ §stin. ÉEpe‹ to¤nun ka‹ tå diastÆmata t«n én°sevn §n oÂw paralambãnomen tå bohyÆmata oÈk ‡sa §p‹ pas«n én°sevn, ka‹ afl peristãseiw énÒmoiai, ka‹ tå sumpt≈mata diaf°ronta, kayÉ ßkaston d¢ toÊtvn §jallãssetai ka‹ ı §p‹ m°rouw kairÚw toË bohyÆmatow: d∞lon …w énagrãfein m¢n skopÒn tina §j o lhfye¤h ín édÊnatÒn §stin. ÑO dÉ §festhk∆w §k t«n parÒntvn te ka‹ épaitoÊntvn tå bohyÆmata ırm≈menow ka‹ §k t∞w épous¤aw t«n §mpod¤zein dunam°nvn ka‹ §k sullogism«n t«n metå toËtÉ ÙfeilÒntvn paralambãnesyai bohyhmãtvn, §klÆcetai stoxasmÚn t«n §p‹ m°rouw kair«n toË bohyÆmatow: mÆpotÉ oÔn skopo‹ Ípostãsei oÈ diaf°rousi. ÉEpe‹ oÔn ofl skopo‹ §j œn m¢n ofl kayÒlou kairo‹ t«n bohyhmãtvn lambãnontai énagrãfontai, §j œn dÉ ofl §p‹ m°rouw katalambãnontai énagrãfesyai oÈ dÊnantai, diå toËtÉ eÈlÒgvw l°gousi t«n m¢n kayÒlou bohyhmãtvn toÁw kairoÁw éna[204]grãfesyai, t«n dÉ §p‹ m°rouw mhk°ti. ToÊtou d¢ faneroË gegonÒtow, eÎdhlow ín e‡h ka‹ katå toËto ≤ diaforå t«n katå tå nosÆmata kair«n ka‹ t«n katå tå bohyÆmata. Efi går ka‹ mÆdÉ Ípostãsei di°feron, ımo¤vw ín to›w t«n noshmãtvn kairo›w ka‹ ofl t«n bohyhmãtvn émfÒteroi énagrãfesyai §dÊnanto. DiaferÒntvn d¢ t«n skop«n §j œn ofl kairo‹ lambãnontai, katå polÁ ka‹ toÁw kairoÁw diaf°rein éllÆlvn eÎlogon. ÑVw går ofl skopo‹ t«n katå tå nosÆmata kair«n Ípostãsei diaf°rousi t«n katå tå bohyÆmata skop«n, oÏtv ka‹ aÈtoÁw toÁw kairoÁw Ípostãsei diaf°rein piyanÒn §sti. TaËta m¢n oÔn per‹ t«n kair«n §xr∞n proegnvk°nai. [xxxix] ÉEnde¤knusyai d¢ toÁw kairoÁw ofl Meyodiko‹ ”Æyhsan épÚ toiaÊthw tinÒw afit¤aw. ÑE≈rvn toÁw kairoÁw mØ pãntaw §pithde¤ouw ˆntaw prÚw parãlhcin trof∞w µ bohyÆmatow, éllå katå m¢n kairoÊw tinaw »fel¤mvw taËta paralambanÒmena, katÉ êllouw d° tinaw §piblab«w, 53 ”Æyhsan katå tØn diaforån t«n kair«n toËtÉ épantòn. AÈtÒyen oÔn ka‹ trof∞w skopoÁw54 ka‹ 55 bohyhmãtvn kairoÁw Íp°la[205]bon e‰nai. ÉEjhpãthse d¢ ka‹ tÚn YessalÚn ÑIppokrãthw efip≈n: “ÑOkÒtan ékmãz˙ tÚ nÒshma, tÒte ka‹ tª leptotãt˙ dia¤t˙ énagka›on xr∞syai.”f ÑUp°labe går aÈtÚn §k toË kairoË ırm≈menon tØn poiÒthta t∞w trof∞w efilhf°nai, mØ suneid∆w tÚn trÒpon t∞w téndrÚw §pibol∞w. OÈ går tÚn kairÚn skopÚn poihsãmenow tØn toiaÊthn

f

53

Aph. i 8: ÑOkÒtan ékmãz˙ tÚ nÒshma, tÒte leptotãt˙ dia¤t˙ énagka›on xr∞syai. add ego

54

compl et transp ego: ka‹ skopoÁw trof∞w K

55

add ego

  ‒  

731

venesection, because he cannot bear starvation, or it may be appropriate to starve another; some patients need sleep before venesection, others need different things, and it is impossible to record all of these in writing. Then, given such great variety, which part of an hour will one appoint as the phase which accommodates any [203] remedy, or what kind of account will one give of the aim from which the individual phase should derive? Impossible to say; different things occur in each case. So, since the intervals of the remissions during which we administer the remedies are not equal in all remissions, the circumstances [sc of the patients] are dissimilar, and the symptoms differ, it is also the case that the individual phase of the remedy changes according to each of the above; clearly it is impossible to produce some account of the aim such that it [sc the individual phase of the remedy] might derive from it. The doctor in charge will start from the things which are present and require the remedies, from the absence of things which can hinder [sc the remedies], and from deductions about the remedies which it is beneficial to take later, and he will make a conjecture as to the individual phases of the remedy; and so, it is more likely that the ends do not differ in their real nature. In conclusion, since those aims from which the general phases of remedies derive do receive written accounts, whereas those from which the individual ones derive cannot receive written accounts, it is with good reason that doctors claim to give written accounts of the phases of general remedies, [204] but not of individual ones. Once this is evident, by virtue of it the distinction between phases in diseases and phases in remedies should also become clear. For if they were not different in their nature as well, both [sc kinds of ] phase of the remedies could receive written accounts, as is the case with the phases of the diseases. But, since the aims from which the phases derive are different, it is reasonable [sc to think] that the phases, too, are different from each other to a great extent. For the aims of the phases of diseases differ in their real nature from the aims [sc of the phases] of remedies; and it is plausible that the phases themselves differ in their real nature just in the same way. This is the preliminary knowledge that [sc we said] one ought to have about phases. [xxxix] Now, the Methodists formed the belief that phases indicate for some reason such as the following. They kept noticing that not all the phases are favourable to the ingestion of food or remedies, but such things are ingested with benefit during some phases and at the cost of injuries during other phases; and they formed the impression that this turns on the difference between phases. And so they supposed that it is here [sc in the difference between the phases of diseases] that both the aims of food and the phases of remedies [205] originate. The words of Hippocrates: “When a disease is culminating, then it is necessary to use the lightest regimen [diaita]”—deceived even Thessalus. For he [sc Thessalus], without understanding the upshot of the man’s principle, supposed that he could grasp the quality of the food by starting from the phase. Well, he [sc Hippocrates] did not recommend this kind of regimen because he made the phase an aim, but because he deduced from the phase the dimensions of the [sc patient’s] strength, and, from the strength, the quality of food.

732

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

§jÆtaze prosforãn, éllÉ épÚ m¢n kairoË tå m°tra t∞w dunãmevw, épÚ d¢ t∞w dunãmevw tØn poiÒthta t∞w trof∞w efilhf≈w.56 ToËto d¢ d∞lon §j œn §pif°rei pepo¤hke: “Suntekma¤resyai går” ¶fh “tÚn nos°onta, efi §jark°sei.”g KvlÊousi m¢n går ofl kairo‹ pollãkiw paralambãnein tÚ épaitoÊmenon ÍpÚ dunãmevw, oÈd°pote d¢ kairÚw Ípode¤knusi tÚ poiht°on. [xl] ÉEpe‹ oÔn tÚ m¢n épaithtikÒn tinow skopÒw §sti toË épaitoum°nou, tÚ d¢ kvlËon ≤mçw paralabe›n tÚ épaitoÊmenon oÈk ín e‡h skopÒw: diå toËto ka‹ ı kairÒw, kvlÊvn ≤mçw ¶stÉ ˜te paralambãnein tÚ épaitoÊmenon, oÈk ín e‡h skopÒw. Efi gãr tiw tå kvlutikå pãnta sko[206]poÁw yÆsetai, ka‹ tØn dÊnamin skopÚn ken≈sevw énagkasyÆsetai l°gein e‰nai ka‹ tØn57 deil¤an toË kãmnontow ka‹ pat°ra ka‹ despÒthn. Ka‹ går taËta pollãkiw plÆyouw ˆntow kvlÊei paralambãnein k°nvsin— ka‹ dÊnamiw mØ f°rousa tØn éfa¤resin, ka‹ diå deil¤an ı nos«n mØ §pitr°pvn, ka‹ patØr kvlÊvn ka‹ édelfÚw µ despÒthw. ÜVsper oÔn taËta skopoÁw oÈk ên tiw e‡poi noËn ¶xvn, oÏtvw oÈd¢ toÁw kairoÊw, diÒti bohyÆmasin µ prosfora›w xr∞syai kvlÊousin ≤mçw pollãliw, skopoÁw fÆsomen e‰nai. Kak«w oÔn, §re› tiw, fhs‹n ı ÑIppokrãthw: “ÉEn érxª t«n noÊsvn, ≥n ti dok°˙ kin°ein, k¤nei: ékmazous«n dÉ, ≤sux¤hn êgein b°ltiÒn §stin.”h OÈ kak«w, fÆsomen. OÈ går tØn érxØn skopÚn poihsãmenow éjio› katå tØn érxØn t«n noshmãtvn tå bohyÆmata prosf°rein, éllÉ épÚ t∞w érx∞w ˜ti mhd°pv meme¤vtai tå m°tra t∞w dunãmevw shmeioËtai ka‹ ˜ti f°rein dÊnatai tØn éfa¤resin tekma¤retai. ÑH dÉ ékmØ ésy°neian ÍpagoreÊei t∞w dunãmevw. Katå går tåw ékmåw fisxurå m¢n tå a‡tia, ésyenØw dÉ ≤ dÊnamiw: diå toËto ≤sux¤an êgein éjio›. [207] DÒjei m¢n går eÎlogon e‰nai katå tåw ékmåw t«n noshmãtvn, ıpÒte mãlistÉ §nisxÊei tå a‡tia, tØn peria¤resin aÈt«n poie›syai. ÉAllÉ efi m¢n ∑n pãnt˙ éblab¢w tÚ boÆyhma prosf°rein, toËtÉ ín §g°neto. ÖExei dÉ oÈx oÏtvw. Tå går bohyÆmata pr«ton m°n, diÒti pãnta parå fÊsin §st¤n, énagka¤vw ka‹ tØn dÊnamin paralupe› prosagÒmena. DeÊteron dÉ, §peidØ lupe› tå ofike›a 58 sump°plektai to›w nosopoio›w afit¤oiw katå tåw periair°seiw t«n afiti«n, oÈd¢n ∏tton t«n éllotr¤vn µ t«n ofike¤vn me¤vsiw g¤gnetai. [xli] Pr«ton d¢ de› tØn fÊsin t«n bohyhmãtvn ka‹ tØn xre¤an ∂n par°xetai mØ égnoe›n. Tå går bohyÆmata kayÉ aÍtå oÈx o‰ã 59 §sti poie›syai tØn t«n afit¤vn60 éna¤resin: de›tai d¢ sunergazoÊshw t∞w fÊsevw, ka‹ sxedÚn mÒnhn tØn éformØn ka‹ tØn érxØn tª fÊsei §nd¤dvsi: tå d¢ loipå ≤ fÊsiw diÉ •aut∞w §kteg

Cf Aph. i 9: Suntekma¤resyai d¢ xrØ ka‹ tÚn nos°onta efi §jark°sei tª dia¤t˙ prÚw tØn ékmØn t∞w nÒsou ka‹ pÒteron §ke›now épaudÆsei prÒteron ka‹ oÈk §jark°sei tª dia¤t˙ µ ≤ noËsow prÒteron épaudÆsei ka‹ émblune›tai. (“We should

also consider the patient—whether he will stand the regimen at the culminating point of the disease, and whether he will be the first to give in and not stand the regimen or the disease will be the first to give in and abate.”) h Aph. ii 29 (also quoted at pp. 179 K and 201 K supra). ci ego: efilhf∞nai K afiti«n K 56

57

ci ego: ka‹ diå K

58

add ego

59

add ego

60

ci ego:

  ‒  

733

He made this clear in what follows. “One should also pay heed to the question whether the patient is strong enough [sc for the regimen]”—he said. For it is often the case that the phases prevent the administration of what is asked for by the [sc patient’s] strength; but a phase never indicates what ought to be done. [xl] So then: since that which asks for something is the aim of that which is asked for, that which prevents us from taking what is asked for could not be the aim; for this reason the phase, which sometimes prevents us from taking what is asked for, could not be the aim. For if someone postulates that all the preventing things are [206] aims, he will be forced to admit that the aim of evacuation is, neither more nor less, the [sc patient’s] strength, or even the patient’s fear, his father, or his master. For in cases of satiety these [sc factors] often prevent [sc the patient] from undergoing evacuation, because his strength does not bear the removal [sc of matter], or because the patient does not yield through fear, or because his father, brother, or master would not allow it. One would not call such things aims if one has any sense; so by the same token we will not say that the phases are aims, since they often prevent us from using remedies or food. Then, one might conclude, Hippocrates was wrong to say: “When diseases are beginning, if you think that something should change, change it; but when they reach their height it is better to do nothing.” He was not wrong, we shall reply. For he advises us to administer the remedies at the beginning of a disease not because he has identified the beginning with the aim; but concerning the beginning he takes notice of the fact that the dimensions of the [sc patient’s] strength are not yet diminished, and he conjectures that they [sc the patients] can bear the removal [sc of matter]. Culmination implies the weakening of the [sc patient’s] strength. For during periods of culmination the causes are strong, the strength is weak; this is why he [sc Hippocrates] advises us to do nothing. [207] Of course, it would seem reasonable to work at the removal of the causes during the culmination of a disease, when they thrive most. And it would indeed be so, if administering a remedy were completely innocuous. But this is not how things happen. In the first place, remedies, once taken, necessarily bring damage to the [sc patient’s] strength as a side-effect, since all of them are unnatural. Secondly, since they damage what is proper to the body and, in the process of eliminating the causes that generate disease, get entangled with them, a diminution of things proper to the body takes place no less than one of things alien to it. [xli] First of all, one should not be ignorant about the nature of remedies and the function they serve. For remedies cannot produce the removal of the causes all by themselves, but require the co-operation of nature; roughly speaking, they give nature only a push and a start, and nature alone achieves the rest. So, when nature is

734

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

le›. ÉIsxurå m¢n oÔn Ípãrxousa ka‹ t∞w t«n bohyhmãtvn kak¤aw én°xetai ka‹ tØn t«n ofike¤vn peria¤resin eÈfÒrvw f°rei ka‹ tå lu[208]poËntÉ aÈtØn §jvye›n dÊnatai: ylibom°nh dÉ, ˜per sumba¤nei katå tåw ékmåw mãlista, ÍpÚ t«n prosagom°nvn bohyhmãtvn mçllon kakoËtai ka‹ épÚ t∞w t«n ofike¤vn periair°sevw ésyenest°ra g¤gnetai ka‹ Ípop¤ptei mçllon to›w afit¤oiw ka‹ §jvye›n tå nosãzonta katÉ oÈd°na dÊnatai trÒpon. ÜOtan dÉ ≤ fÊsiw §ntaye›sa tå lupoËnta §j«sai mØ dunhyª, megãlvw ÍpÉ aÈt∞w t∞w §ntãsevw §klÊetai. Diå taËta to¤nun katå tåw érxåw t«n noshmãtvn ı ÑIppokrãthw “µn ti d°˙ kine›n, kine›n” éjio›, katå d¢ tåw ékmåw “≤sux¤hn êgein”. [xlii] TãxÉ oÔn §k toÊtou tiw ofihyÆsetai tØn dÊnamin ÍpagoreÊein tÚ sumf°ron. Mãyoi dÉ ên tiw ˜ti mhd¢n ≤ dÊnamiw de¤knutai boÆyhma diå toÊtvn. E‡per ≤ dÊnamiw aÈtãrkhw Ípãrxousa boÆyhmã ti §nde¤knutai §p‹ t«n ÍgiainÒntvn, diÒti aÈtãrkhw §st‹n §nde¤jetai tÚ boÆyhma. ÉAllå mØn oÈdÉ §p‹ t«n ÍgiainÒntvn boÆyhmÉ §nde¤knutai. OÈdÉ êrÉ §p‹ t«n nosoÊntvn ka‹ ≤ sÊmmetrow sumf°ron §nde¤jetai. ÉEpe‹ to¤nun §fÉ œn §nde¤jetai dÊnamiw [209] oÈ pãresti tÚ épaitoËn, oÈ paralambãnomen boÆyhma: d∞lon dÉ ˜tÉ oÈd¢n §nde¤knutai sumf°ron ≤ dÊnamiw. De› går tÚn skopÚn tå parÒntÉ §nde¤knusyai. ÜOti d¢ kvlËsai m°n, …w ¶fhn, tÚ épaitoÊmenon paralabe›n, ≤ dÊnamiw dÊnatai: skopÚw d¢ bohyÆmatow oÈk ¶stin. [xliii] àOn d¢ lÒgon ≤ dÊnamiw ¶xei §p‹ t«n bohyhmãtvn, toËton §p‹ t«n prosfor«n ofl kairo¤: ˘n dÉ §p‹ t«n bohyhmãtvn ¶xei tå épaitoËnta a‡tia, toËton §p‹ t«n prosfor«n ≤ dÊnamiw. ÜOti dÉ ≤ dÊnamiw tØn Ùl¤ghn prosforån épaite› ka‹ oÈx ı kairÒw, ≤ §p¤tasiw dhlo›—oÂon to›w61 §j érrvst¤aw énalambãnousin Ùl¤ghn trofØn prosf°romen, ¥nper épaite› ≤ dÊnamiw: efi d° gÉ ≤ §p¤tasiw tØn Ùl¤ghn §ndeiknÊoito62 trofÆn, ¶dei toÊtouw §òn §mfore›syai. MØ går parÒntow toË ÍpodeiknÊntow tØn Ùl¤ghn trofØn skopoË, gelo›ow ı paralambãnvn tÚ mØ épaitoÊmenon. ÉAllå tØn érxØn §nde¤knusya¤ fasi tÚ de›n sust°llein. ÉEp‹ pãntvn oÔn d∞lon ˜ti tØn sustolØn paralhcÒmeya katÉ érxãw, ka‹ [210] §p‹ t«n toÁw élfoÁw ka‹ tåw leukåw §xÒntvn, m°xri t∞w §pitãsevw. ParateinoÊshw dÉ §p‹ xrÒnon t∞w érx∞w, dhlonÒti katatakÆsetai ı tª toiaÊt˙ égvgª xr≈menow. ÉAllÉ ‡svw fÆsousi prÚw ≤mçw: “Diå po¤an afit¤an Íme›w §n érxª, f°re, to›w peripneumoniko›w ka‹ to›w ımo¤vw toÊtoiw nosoËsin Ùj°vw katÉ érxåw oÈ prosf°rete, ka¤toi katÉ érxåw ≤ dÊnam¤w §stin flkanÆ;” “ÜOti” fÆsomen “kvlÊei ≤mçw prosf°rein ı kairÒw, épaitoÊshw t∞w dunãmevw. OÈx‹ sust°llein oÔn §nde¤knutai. ÉAllÉ ˜per épaite› ≤ dÊnamiw oÈk §«sa ≤mçw paralambãnein §ndeiktikÚn toÈnant¤ou oÈk ên tiw élÒgvw ye›to.”

61

ci ego: dhlo›: §j œn to›w K

62

corr ego: §nde¤knutai K

  ‒  

735

strong, it holds out against the noxiousness of the remedies, bears with ease the removal of things proper to the body, and is capable of getting rid of the [208] things that harm it; but when it is in bad shape, which happens mostly during periods of culmination, it tends rather to suffer harm from the remedies ingested, it gets even weaker from the removal of things proper to the body, it falls to a greater extent under the domination of the causes, and it cannot on any account get rid of the things that make it sick. And, when nature strains itself to get rid of the things that harm it without being capable to do it, it is greatly devastated by the strain itself. So this is why Hippocrates advises us, if something needs changing during the initial phase of a disease, to change it, but “to do nothing” during their culmination. [xlii] Maybe from this one will form the impression that the [sc patient’s] strength dictates the beneficial. In that case, one could learn from the following arguments that the strength indicates no remedy whatsoever. If the strength, when it is self-sufficient, indicates some remedy for healthy people, it would be on account of being self-sufficient that it will indicate the remedy. But in fact it does not indicate a remedy for healthy people. Hence it will not indicate what is beneficial for the ill, even when it is satisfactory. Besides, since that which asks [sc for the remedy] is not present in what the [sc patient’s] strength will indicate, [209] we do not use a remedy; and it is clear that the strength will not indicate anything beneficial. For the aim must indicate things which are present. The [sc patient’s] strength is not the aim of the remedy because, as I said, it is capable of preventing us from grasping what is required. [xliii] The phases bear the same relation towards food as the [sc patient’s] strength bears towards the remedies, and the strength bears the same relation towards food as the requiring causes bear towards the remedies. The period of increase [epitasis] makes it clear that what requires a light regimen is the [sc patient’s] strength and not the phase: for instance, to those who are recovering from illness we bring a light regimen, which their strength requires; but if what indicated the light regimen were the increase, we would have to allow the patients to get full. For if the aim which points to light regimen is not present, it would be ridiculous to take what is not required. But they [sc the Methodists] claim that the beginning indicates the need to contract. So, it is clear that during the initial phase and right until development we will adopt contraction in all cases—even [210] for patients suffering from leprosy or elephantiasis. However, it is perfectly obvious that, if the duration of the initial phase is protracted, the man put on such a course will melt away. But maybe they [sc the Methodists] will confront us: “Come! What is the reason why you don’t administer [sc food] straight from the beginning to patients who suffer from inflammation in the lungs or are affected in similar ways, although at the beginning they have sufficient strength?” “The reason”, we shall reply, “is that the phase prevents us from employing it, although the [sc patient’s] strength requires it. Therefore it [sc the phase] does not indicate contracting. As for that which the strength requires without allowing us to make use of it, one would not be unreasonable in supposing that thing to be indicative of the contrary.” Likewise, the other

736

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

ÑOmo¤vw d¢ ka‹ ofl êlloi kairo‹ kvlÊousin µ §pitr°pousi xr∞syai to›w épaitoum°noiw, §peidØ mçllon µ ∏tton §n aÈto›w ≤ dÊnamiw ≥meiptai. OÈ m°ntoi aÏth §nde¤knuta¤ ti sumf°ron. ÜOtan d¢ l°gvsi tØn m¢n ékmØn Ùl¤ghn épaite›n trofÆn, tØn d¢ parakmØn poikilvt°ran, punyãnesyai de› aÈtoÁw p«w xrÆsontai to›w skopo›w ín dÊo tin¢w Œsin ofl nosoËntew, ı m¢n ÍpÚ peripneumon¤aw ka‹ §n [211] parakmª, ı dÉ ÍpÉ Ùfyalm¤aw, ¶ti dÉ ékmãzei tÚ nÒshma: pÒteron t“ peripneumonik“ ple¤ona yarsÆsousi doËnai ka‹ poikil≈tera mçllon toË ÍpÉ Ùfyalm¤aw §noxloum°nou; ÉAllÉ oÈk ín yarrÆseian prosenegke›n tØn poikilvt°ran trofÆn. Efi d¢ toËto, d∞lon …w oÈk §k t«n kair«n ≤ poikil¤a ka‹ ≤ Ùl¤gh trofØ lambãnetai éllÉ §k t«n m°trvn t∞w dunãmevw. [xliv] ÉAporÆseie dÉ ên tiw kôke›no, p«w o‡ontai tÚn kairÚn toË nosÆmatow pot¢ m¢n tØn posØn pot¢ de tØn poiån trofØn §nde¤knusyai, ka‹ p«w éjioËsin63 ofl Meyodiko‹ pot¢ m¢n tØn diaforån §nde¤knusyai t«n boyhmãtvn, pot¢ d¢ tØn diaforån épaite›n t«n bohyhmãtvn. ÜOtan går f«si tØn m¢n §p¤dosin Ùl¤ghn épaite›n trofÆn, tØn dÉ érxØn filanyrvpot°ran, tØn d¢ parakmØn poikilvt°ran, tÆn te poiÒthta ka‹ posÒthta t∞w trof∞w §nde¤knusyai toÁw kairoÁw t«n noshmãtvn fas¤n. ÜOtan d¢ f«sin: “ÑH m¢n érxØ kvlÊein aÎjesyai §nde¤knutai, ≤ dÉ §p¤dosiw tÚ éperi°rgvw st°llein ka‹ xalòn, ≤ dÉ ékmØ §p‹ t“ parhgorik≈[212]teron êgein, ≤ d¢ parakmØ tÚ sunerge›n tª lÊsei”, diaforån t«n bohyhmãtvn toÁw kairoÁw épaite›n ımologÆsousi. P«w oÔn oÈk êtopÒn §sti l°gein taÈtÚ ka‹ diaf°ron mhdem¤an diaforån proseilhfÚw §nde¤knusyai; PrÚw toËto dÉ §roËsin ‡svw ˜ti ka‹ katå toÁw LogikoÁw taÈtÚ tå diaf°rontÉ §nde¤knutai. ÑH går xolØ parakeim°nh tØn peria¤resin •aut∞w blãptousa §nde¤knutai. ÑRht°on d¢ prÚw aÈtoÁw ˜ti tØn éna¤resin •aut∞w ≤ xolØ mÒnon §nde¤knutai, ple¤onew d¢ trÒpoi énair°sevw: µ går periairoËmen µ katak¤rnamen aÈtÆn. “ÖEpeita dÉ ≤ m¢n xolØ” fÆsomen “katÉ êllo diafÒrvn fa¤netai e‰nai §ndeiktikÆ: kayå m¢n går bare›, tØn peria¤resin: kayå d¢ dãknei, tØn katãkrasin.” Ofl d¢ kairo¤, oÈdem¤an toiaÊthn diaforån ¶xontew, p«w ín épaito›en tå diaf°ronta oÈk ¶stÉ efipein. [xlv] ÜOti d¢ kairÚw oÈk §nde¤knutai poiÒthta trof∞w µ posÒthta maye›n §nteËy°n §stin. ÜOper §nde¤knutai tÚ g°now, toËto ka‹ tØn posÒthtÉ énagka›Òn §stin §nde¤knusyai. ÖAneu m¢n går diaforçw ßkaston t«n §ndei[213]knum°nvn toË épaitoum°nou g°now §nde¤knutai. Diaforån d¢ proseilhfÚw taÈt“ g°nei diaf°ron §nde¤jetai. ÉEpe‹ oÔn tÚ g°now t∞w prosforçw §nde¤knutai, katÉ §ke¤nhn ≤ dÊnamiw ka‹ tØn posÒthta ka‹ tØn poiÒthtÉ §nde¤jetai. Xvr‹w m¢n går diaforçw tÚ g°now t∞w prosforçw §nde¤knutai. Diaforån d¢ proseilhfu›a ka‹ tÚ §n t“

63

ci ego: kay∆w éjioËsin K

  ‒  

737

phases prevent or encourage us to use what is required, because the strength has suffered greater or smaller transformations during their course. Nevertheless, it [sc the strength] does not indicate anything beneficial. When they [sc the Methodists] say that the [sc period of ] culmination requires a light regimen and the [sc period of ] decline a more varied regimen, we should ask them what use they will make of the aims on two hypothetical patients: one afflicted with lung inflammation and going through [211] [sc the period of ] decline, the other afflicted with ophthalmia, while the disease is still culminating: will they have the cheek to give the patient with the lung inflammation a larger quantity and variety of food than to the patient troubled by ophthalmia? But they would not have the cheek to administer the more varied food [sc to the patient in question]. And, in this case, it is clear that variety or light food are not derived from the phases, but from the magnitude of the [sc patient’s] strength. [xliv] One might also puzzle about the following question: how can they imagine that the phase of the disease indicates now the quantity, now the quality of the remedies, and how can the Methodists expect it at one time to indicate the difference between remedies, at another time to require the difference between remedies. For when they say that the [sc period of ] increase requires a light regimen, the [sc period of ] beginning a more generous one, and the [sc period of ] decline a more varied one, they claim that the phases of diseases indicate the quantity and the quality of food. But when they say: “The [sc period of ] beginning indicates that we prevent it from developing, the [sc period of ] increase indicates that we simply constrict or relax, the [sc period of ] culmination indicates that we act by the gentlest [212] possible means, and the [sc period of ] decline indicates that we contribute towards deliverance”, they will admit that the phases require a differentiation among remedies. At any rate, how can it not be absurd to say that the same thing, without having acquired any differentia, also indicates what is different? To this objection they will perhaps retort that, according to the Logicians, too, the same indicates different things. For bile which is present and produces damage indicates its own removal. You should object to them that the bile indicates merely its own taking away; but there are several ways of taking it away: we shall either remove it or temper it. “Thus,” we shall say, “bile appears to be indicative of different things under different aspects: of removal, in so far as it is heavy; of tempering, in so far as it is mordant.” As for the phases, since they contain no such differentia, it is not possible to explain how they might require different things. [xlv] One can learn from here that the phase does not indicate the quality or the quantity of food. The very thing that indicates the genus necessarily indicates the quantity as well. For each of the things without a differentia which indicate [213] what is required indicates the genus. When the thing in question has acquired a differentia, it will indicate what is differentiated within the genus in question. So, since it indicates the genus of the food [ prosphora], the [sc patient’s] strength will, under the same aspect, indicate both the quantity and the quality of food. For, without [sc containing] a differentia, it indicates the genus of food. Once it has acquired a differentia,

738

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

g°nei diãforon §nde¤jetai. Fa¤netai d¢ ka‹ ÑIppokrãthw skopÚn t∞w pos∞w trof∞w tØn dÊnamin poi«n diÉ œn: “Tå aÈjanÒmena ple›ston ¶xei” fhs‹ “tÚ ¶mfuton yermÒn. Ple¤sthw oÔn de›tai trof∞w: efi d¢ mÆ, tÚ s«ma énal¤sketai.”i Ka‹ tØn poiÒthta §k t∞w katå dÊnamin diaforçw lambãnein d∞lÒn §stin. Fhs‹ gãr pou: “S›tow n°oisi m¢n êkrvw ékmãzousin émetãblhtow, g°rousi dÉ §w t°low metabeblhm°now.”j ÉEk toÊtvn m¢n oÔn fanerÒn §stin …w ≤ dÊnamiw êneu m¢n diaforçw tÚ genÚw t∞w prosforçw épaite›, metå diaforçw d¢ tØn poiÒthta. KairÚw dÉ oÎte poiÒthta trof∞w §nde¤knutai oÎte posÒthta. ÖEti to¤nun, e‡per ofl kairo‹ t«n noshmãtvn §nde¤knuntai tØn [214] poiÒthta ka‹ tØn posÒthta t∞w trof∞w, ≥toi §p‹ taÈt«n Ípomonª ≥toi §p‹ tª énair°sei toËtÉ §nde¤jontai. TÚ går §ndeiknÊmenon µ tØn tÆrhsin •autoË µ tØn éna¤resin §nde¤knutai. Efi m¢n to¤nun tØn ¶ndeijin ofl kairo‹ t∞w pos∞w ka‹ poiçw poioËntai trof∞w katå tÚ diam°non, p«w oÈ gelo›Òn §sti l°gein tØn posØn ka‹ poiån trofØn prosf°rein ·na sunthrÆsvmen toÁw kairoÁw t«n noshmãtvn; Efi dÉ §p‹ tª énair°sei tª aÈt«n tØn ¶ndeijin ofl kairo‹ poioËntai, de› tØn posØn ka‹ poiån trofØn §nantiÒthtã tina fa¤nesyai prÚw toÁw kairoÁw ¶xousan: mÒna går tå §nant¤a t«n §nant¤vn efis‹n énairetikã. To›w d¢ kairo›w oÈk ¶stin oÈyÉ ≤ posØ oÈ ≤ poiå trofØ §nant¤a: oÎtÉ érxØ oÎtÉ §p¤dosiw oÎtÉ ékmØ oÎte parakmØ .64 Ple¤osi går taÈtÚ a‡tion oÈk §nantioËtai: ©n går •n‹ p°fuken §nantioËsyai mÒnon. Katå d¢ taÈtÚn lÒgon de¤jomen mhd¢ tØn t«n bohyhmãtvn diaforån §nde¤knusyai toÁw kairoÁw t«n noshmãtvn. Efi går mÆtÉ §p‹ tª Ípomonª aÈt«n tØn ¶ndeijin ofl kairo‹ [215] poioËntai mÆtÉ §p‹ tª énair°sei, diÒti ple¤osin oÈk ín g°noito ©n §nant¤on ka‹ êllow trÒpow oÈk ¶stin §nde¤jevw, d∞lon …w oÈd¢n ofl kairo‹ 65 sumf°ron §nde¤knuntai. ÉAllå ka‹ efiw tØn fÊsin t«n §nant¤vn épobl°caw tiw e‡setai ˜ti mhdÉ §nant¤on. Tå går §k taÈtoË g°nouw ple›ston éllÆlvn éfest«ta §nant¤a §st¤. KairÚw d¢ trof∞w µ posÒthtow oÈx ÍpÚ taÈtÚ tãssetai g°now. ÜOti m¢n oÔn oÎte tØn poiÒthtÉ oÎte tØn posÒthtÉ oÎte tåw diaforåw t«n bohyhmãtvn épÚ t«n kair«n ¶sti66 labe›n, aÈtãrkvw ≤m›n épod°deiktai. [xlvi] NËn dÉ §nde¤jomen tØn érxØn tØn tÚ kvlËon aÎjesyai mØ §ndeiknum°nhn—˜per §nde¤knusyai nom¤zousin ofl Meyodiko¤. Poll«n går noshmãtvn ëma tª érxª tØn ékmØn épolambanÒntvn, …w époplhj¤aw ka‹ t«n Ùj°vn noshmãtvn, t¤ ên tiw fa¤h tØn érxØn §n to›w toioÊtoiw nosÆmasin §nde¤knusyai; TÚ m¢n går kvlÊsein aÎjesyai oÈk §nde¤jetai: ëma går tª érxª tØn ékmØn

i

Aph. I 14. Cf. Nutriment 41: Sit¤on n°oisin ékrosap°w, g°rousin §w t°low metabeblhm°non, ékmãzousin émetãblhton. (“Food should be, for the young, superficially concocted; for the old, completely transformed; for those at the peak of their bloom, unaltered”—and cf Jones’ translation: “Food for the young partly digested, for the old completely changed, for the adults unchanged”). j

64

addidi

65

addidi

66

ego: §sti K

  ‒  

739

it will also indicate what is differentiated within the genus. Hippocrates, too, appears to make the [sc patient’s] strength an aim of the quantity of food, through the [sc following] words. “Growing creatures have innate heat to the utmost”, he observes; “therefore they need the largest amounts of food; otherwise their body pines away.” And it is clear that he derives quality, too, from the difference relative to the [sc patient’s] strength. For he says somewhere: “For young people at the peak of their bloom, food should be unaltered; for old people, it should be completely transformed.” From all this it is obvious, then, that the [sc patient’s] strength requires the genus of food without a differentia, but requires its quality with a differentia. The phase indicates neither the quality nor the quantity of food. Moreover, if the phases of diseases indicate the [214] quality and the quantity of food, they will indicate it either for their preservation or for their removal. For that which indicates indicates either its own preservation or its own removal. Now, if it is with a view to subsisting that the phases make an indication about how much and what sort of food [sc there should be], is it not ridiculous to claim that we administer so much food of such and such sort in order to preserve the phases of a disease? On the other hand, if the phases make an indication with a view to their own removal, then food, which is of a given quantity and quality, must seem to bear some opposition to the phases; for only opposites can remove opposites. But it is neither the case that the quantity or the quality of food is opposed to the phases, nor that the beginning, development, culmination, and decline are opposed to food of a given quantity and quality. For the same cause is not opposed to several items: any single thing is designed by nature to oppose just one single thing. We will show, through the same argument, that the phases of diseases do not indicate the difference between remedies. For if it is neither with a view to their preservation nor with a view to their removal that the phases make an indication [215]—since one thing could not become opposite to many things; and yet there would be no other way of indicating— it is clear that the phases indicate nothing beneficial. But one will learn that it [sc the phase] is not an opposite even by examining the nature of opposites: opposites are things furthest apart from each other within the same genus. But the phase does not fall under the same genus as food or quantity. In conclusion, we have sufficiently demonstrated that it is not possible to grasp the quality, the quantity, or the differences between remedies from the phases. [xlvi] Now we will prove that the beginning [sc of a disease] does not indicate what the Methodists believe it to indicate, namely that we prevent increase. Given that many diseases, such as apoplexia and acute diseases, take a short-cut into their culminating phase just as they start, what might one claim that the beginning indicates in such diseases? For it will not indicate that we prevent increase: one will admit that the disease has taken a short-cut into its culminating phase right from the

740

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

épeilhf°nai tÚ [216] nÒshma l°jei. µ mhd¢n67 §nde¤knusyai tØn érxØn §p‹ to›w toioÊtoiw nosÆmasin µ êllo ti ka‹ oÈx‹ tÚ kvlÊein aÎjesyai: mhd¢n oÔn §nde¤knusyai l°gein gnÒnta tÚn skopÚn geloiÒtaton. Efi dÉ êllo ti §nde¤jetai ka‹ oÈx ˜per aÈto‹ nom¤zousin, étÒpvw ¶fasan aÈto‹ tØn érxØn tÚ kvlÊein aÎjesyai épaite›n. [xlvii] AÏth dÉ ≤ épãth g°gonen aÈto›w éfÉ •t°raw ceudoËw ÍpolÆcevw: nom¤zontew går pçn nÒshma diå t«n tessãrvn épi°nai ka‹ toËto …w élhy¢w •auto›w y°menoi, toÊtƒ68 ékÒlouyon ”Æyhsan de›n e‰nai tÚ tØn érxØn t«n noshmãtvn épaite›n tØn k≈lusin t∞w §pidÒsevw. Ka‹ toËtÉ oÔn l°lhyen aÈtoÊw—˜tÉ oÈ pçn nÒshma ka‹ êrxei te ka‹ §pid¤dvsi ka‹ ékmãzei ka‹ parakmãzei. Tå m¢n går Ùj°a t«n noshmãtvn, …w ≤ époplhj¤a, ëma tª prosbolª tØn ékmØn épolambãnei. Ka‹ tå krinÒmena d¢ t«n noshmãtvn ßna kairÚn tØn parakmØn épot°mnetai: afl går kr¤seiw per‹ tØn ékmØn lÊousi tå nosÆmata ¶tÉ §p‹ tÚ me›zon §pididÒnta. Ka‹ diå bohyhmãtvn ¶stÉ69 §n érxª lËsai tÚ nÒshma [217] ka‹ Ípot°mnesyai toÁw loipoÁw kairoÁw t«n noshmãtvn. Efi to¤nun ¶stÉ70 §n érxª ken«sa¤ te tÚ nÒshma ka‹ lËsai diå bohyhmãtvn, diå t¤ pote tØn érxØn tÚ kvlÊein aÎjesyai o‡dasin §nde¤knusyai ka‹ oÈx‹ tØn me¤vsin mçllon µ tØn éna¤resin; ÉEån d¢ l°gvsin tØn me¤vsin ka‹ tØn éna¤resin t«n noshmãtvn §nde¤knusyai mØ tØn érxØn éllå tØn diãyesin: “Diå t¤ oÔn” fÆsomen prÚw aÈtoÊw “oÈx ˜per ≤ diãyesiw éllÉ ˜per ≤ érxØ §nde¤knutai paralambãnete;” Diå går tÚ ÍpÚ t∞w diay°sevw épaitoÊmenon ka‹ tÚ ÍpÚ t∞w érx∞w §ndeiknÊmenon g¤gnetai: ı går mei«n µ énair«n tØn nÒson ka‹ tØn §p¤dosin kvlÊei g¤gnesyai. ÉAllÉ ‡svw fÆsousin ˜ti prosexest°ra ≤ t∞w érx∞w oÔsa koinÒthw énagkãzei ≤mçw ˜per aÈtØ §nde¤knutai paralambãnein prosex«w tÚ poiht°on ÍpagoreÊousa, ≤ d¢ diãyesiw, tÚ de›n énaire›n tåw nÒsouw épaitoËsa, diÉ œn xrØ toËto poie›n oÈk §nde¤knutai: diÉ œn d¢ xrØ kvlÊein tØn §p‹ m°rouw—œn tÚ kvlÊein aÎjesyai §nde¤knutai µ tÚ diÉ œn—§j •t°rvn lambãnetai: [218] katå taËta d¢ ka‹ ≤ diãyesiw tØn éna¤resin mÒnon §nde¤knutai t«n noshmãtvn: tÚ d¢ diÉ œn xrØ toËto poie›n §j •t°rou …w ¶oike de› labe›n. 71 DiÚ kre›ttÒn §sti mØ tª érxª éllå ka‹ tª diay°sei xr∞syai skop“. ÖEpeita kôke›no prÚw aÈtoÁw =ht°on, ˜ti fa¤netai kayÉ ≤mçw pçsÉ érxØ §piplokÆ tiw e‰nai. “DÊo går koinÒthtew efiw taÈtÚn sun°rxontai, ¥ tÉ érxØ ka‹ ≤ diãyesiw, ka‹ •kat°ra t«n koinotÆtvn diãforÒn ti §nde¤knutai: prosexest°ra d¢ ka‹ énagkaiot°ra koinÒthw Ím›n e‰nai doke› mçllon ≤ érxØ diÒti taÊt˙ pros°xete. D∞lon oÔn §k toÊtvn ˜ti tå pãyh pãnta koinotÆtvn efis‹n §piploka¤. Pçsa går diãyesiw ¶n tini kair“ g¤gnetai. KoinÒthw oÔn oÈx ı kairÚw mÒnon, éllå ka‹ ≤ diãyesiw. Kak«w oÔn poie›te m¤an §piplokØn nom¤zontew e‰nai t«n

add ego: l°jei, µ mhd°n K K 71 lacunam hic statui 67

68

ci ego: toËto K

69

ego: §st‹n K

70

ego: §st‹n

  ‒  

741

beginning. [216] Therefore in such diseases the beginning necessarily indicates either nothing or something different from preventing increase. Now, if you know the aim, it would be extremely ridiculous to say that it [sc the beginning] indicates nothing. But if it indicates something different from what they [sc the Methodists] believe, it is absurd on their part to have claimed that the beginning requires [sc us] to prevent the increase. [xlvii] This mistake arose in their mind from another false assumption: judging, namely, that any disease would go through the four stages, they laid down this proposition as being true, and on this basis assumed that its consequent must be [sc the proposition] that the beginning of diseases requires the prevention of their increase. Hence, another fact that escaped their notice is that not every disease has a [sc period of ] beginning, a [sc period of ] increase, a [sc period of ] culmination, and a [sc period of ] decline. For acute diseases such as apoplexia go into the culminating phase right from the fist paroxysm. On the other hand, diseases which come to a crisis get rid of one phase, namely decline; for crises break diseases at their culmination point, when they are still in the process of expanding. Also, with the help of remedies it is possible to annihilate a disease at the initial stage, [217] cutting off the remaining phases of diseases. If it is possible, then, to expel and annihilate the disease at the initial phase with the help of remedies, why are they [sc the Methodists] convinced that the initial phase indicates prevention of increasing, rather than diminution or removal? If they intend to say that it is the state, not the initial phase, that indicates the diminution or removal of diseases, we shall ask them: “Then why don’t you pay heed to what the state indicates, instead of what the initial phase indicates?” After all, the thing indicated by the initial phase comes about through the agency of the thing required by the state; for that which diminishes or removes the disease also prevents its [sc period of ] development from taking place. But maybe they will reply that the koinotes of the beginning, which is more specific [ proseches], compels us to pay heed to what it indicates by hinting specifically [ prosechos] at what should be done, whereas the state, although requiring that we must remove the disease, does not indicate the means through which we should do it: the means through which we should prevent the individual disease—the things whose prevention from developing is indicated, or the corresponding procedures— are grasped from other things; [218] accordingly, the state indicates only the removal of diseases; but when it comes to the means through which we should do it, it seems that we should grasp these from something else. For this reason it is better to use as an aim not the initial phase, but the state itself. Next, one should also object to them [sc the Methodists] that every beginning seems to us to be a mixture of some sort. “For there are two koinotetes that come together in one, the beginning and the state, and each of the koinotetes indicates something different; but the initial phase seems to you to be more specific and more necessary because you focus on it. Now, it is clear from the above that all the affections are mixtures of koinotetes. For any state occurs during some phase [kairos]. Therefore not only the phase is a koinotes, but also the state. For this reason, you make a mistake when you think that there is just one interweaving [epiploke] of

742

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

pay«n ka‹ mØ pãnta tå pãyh §piplokåw e‰nai l°gontew.” [xlviii] ÖEti ka‹ toËto tÚ dÒgma t«n Meyodik«n eÎhy°w §stin, tÚ de›n ée‹ katÉ érxåw t«n noshmãtvn to›w st°llousi kexr∞syai: tØn dÉ afit¤an §nteËyen e‡lhfe tÚ [219] dÒgma. Polla‹ flegmona‹ diå t«n stellÒntvn katÉ érxåw ka‹ épokroum°nvn kay¤stantai. Pçsa d¢ flegmonØ katÉ aÈtoÁw st°gnvs¤w §sti. ÖAtopon oÔn §fa¤netÉ e‰nai tÚ tå §stegnvm°na diå t«n puknoÊntvn kay¤stasyai. Ka‹ ≤m«n legÒntvn diå t∞w t«n lupoÊntvn épokroÊsevw tØn épokatãstasin g¤gnesyai t«n flegmon«n,72 épobl°cai mØ dunãmenoi, pãmpan fas‹ de›n tØn érxØn diå t«n stellÒntvn êgein. “OÈk épokrouÒmeya går tå a‡tia, éllÉ ·na duspay∞ kataskeuãsvmen tå s≈mata. ÑH går sustolØ” fas‹ “ka‹ ≤ sf¤gjiw t«n svmãtvn duspay°stera tå s≈mata kataskeuãzousa kvlÊei ëcasyai tå nosÆmata. OÈ går diå mei≈sevw t«n noshmãtvn mÒnon kvlÊetai” fas‹n “≤ §p¤dosiw éllå ka‹ diå duspãyeian t«n svmãtvn.” ÑRht°on oÔn prÚw aÈtoÁw ˜tÉ édÊnaton diå sunaujÆsevw t«n blaptÒntvn duspay∞ kataskeuãsai tå s≈mata: êllvw te prÚ toË nose›n xrØ duspãyeian to›w s≈masi peripoie›n. Efiw går tÚ mØ g¤gnesyai nÒson t∞w duspaye¤aw deÒmeya. PeponyÒtvn [220] d¢ t«n svmãtvn, éna¤resin de› poie›syai t«n diatiy°ntvn. ÉEpeidØ dÉ ≤ stegnØ diãyesiw pÊknvs¤w §sti ka‹ dusdiaforhs¤a t«n svmãtvn, tå d¢ st°llonta pukno› tØn §pifãneian ka‹ dusdiafÒrhton épergãzetai, d∞lon …w sunergÆsei mçllon tª §pidÒsei t«n stegnoum°nvn tå st°llonta ≥per §nantivyÆsetai. Ka‹ ˜per tÚ pãyow §n to›w ofike¤oiw kairo›w m°geyow ín épeilÆfei, toËtÉ §n érxª diå t«n bohyhmãtvn parag¤gnetai. Fa¤nontai d¢ ka‹ toÈnant¤on t“ ÍpÚ t∞w érx∞w épaitoum°nƒ paralambãnontew. ÑH m¢n går érxØ tÚ kvlËon aÎjesyai §nde¤knutai, ≤ d¢ poiÒthw t«n prosagom°nvn tª §pidÒsei sunerge›n ¶oike. Duo›n yãteron: µ tª érxª …w kak«w §ndeiknum°n˙ prosekt°on, µ ≤ poiÒthw t«n prosagom°nvn oÈk §pÉ égay“ prosãgetai. [xlix] TÚ m¢n to¤nun §pÉ »fele¤& katå tåw érxåw t«n flegmon«n tå st°llonta prosãgesyai pçw ên tiw ımologÆseien: êjion d¢ zht∞sai parÉ aÈt«n toË genom°nou tØn afit¤an. TÚ m¢n går duspãyeian l°gein §k t«n stel[221]lÒntvn parag¤gnesyai gelo›Òn §stin, …w Ípede¤jamen. May°tvsan d¢ parÉ ≤m«n ˜ti tª épokroÊsei t«n lupoÊntvn ka‹ metagvgª efiw •t°rouw épaye›w tÒpouw meio› ka‹ lÊei tåw nÒsouw tå st°llonta t«n bohyhmãtvn. PrÚw dÉ ¶ti ka‹ toËto =ht°on, tÚ73 tØn érxØn mØ §nde¤knusyai tå kvlutikå t∞w aÍt«n74 aÈjÆsevw bohyÆmata: taËta d¢ katÉ aÈtoÁw ∑n tå st°llonta. Afl érxa‹75 t«n noshmãtvn ≥toi poiÒthtã tina k°kthntai µ oÎ. TÚ m¢n oÔn l°gein épo¤ouw e‰nai tåw érxåw t«n noshmãtvn gelo›on: oÈ går ín efiw a‡syhsin parag°nointo efi mØ e‰xon poiÒthta. ÖHtoi oÔn ≤ t«n érx«n poiÒthw •t°ra §st‹ parÉ •kãsthn t«n diay°sevn, µ •kãsthw érx∞w poiÒthw édiãforow t∞w katÉ

ci ego: t«n fainom°nvn K 73 ego: ÖEti ka‹ toËto =ht°on prÚw tÒ K 74 ego: aÈt«n K 75 taËta . . . érxa‹ ego: TaËta d¢ katÉ aÈtoÁw: µn tå st°llonta afl érxa‹ K 72

  ‒  

743

affections, instead of saying that all the affections are interweavings.” [xlviii] Also foolish is the Methodists’ belief that one should always use constrictive procedures at the beginning of diseases. This belief has been condemned on the following grounds. [219] Many inflammations subside during the initial stage with the help of constrictive and repelling procedures. On the other hand, any inflammation is, according to them [sc the Methodists], a [sc form of ] constriction. Thus it would seem absurd that what has fallen into a state of constriction should subside with the help of astringents. And, while we say that in the case of inflammations recovery comes about through the expulsion of painful things, they, unable to concentrate properly [sc on the subject], claim that one must subject any initial period to constrictive procedures. “We do not expel the causes, of course, but [sc we do it] in order to render the body resistant [duspathes]. For the contraction and the tightening of bodies, by rendering the bodies resistant, prevent diseases from catching on with them. The evolution of diseases is prevented not only by diminishing them”, they opine, “but also through the resistance of the body.” Well, one should argue against them that it is not possible to render the body resistant by intensifying the damaging factors; one should build bodily resistance towards getting ill in some other way. For we do need resistance in order not to fall ill. On the other hand, when the body has been affected, [220] we must proceed to the removal of what puts it into that state. Since the constricted state consists in condensation and in the body’s difficulty to disperse [sc matter], and constrictive procedures condense the skin and create difficulty to disperse [sc matter], it is obvious that constrictive procedures will promote rather than hinder the evolution of constricted states; whatever magnitude the affection might have reached during its own phases, it is fully realised during the initial stage, with the assistance of remedies. They [sc the Methodists] appear to do the very opposite of what is required by the initial stage. For the initial stage indicates that we prevent increase, but the quality of the things administered seems to promote development. There are only two possibilities: either one should watch the initial stage, as it may give the wrong indication; or the quality of the administered remedies does not work for the good. [xlix] Now, anyone would agree that constrictive medicines work for the benefit of inflammations during the initial period; but it is worth asking from them [sc the Methodists] an explanation of what happens. To say that resistance results from constrictive [221] medicines is ridiculous, as we have pointed out. Let them hear from us that remedies of the constrictive sort diminish and annihilate diseases by expelling what is painful and transferring it to other parts, which cannot be affected. Besides, one should note that the initial phase does not indicate remedies which prevent their own multiplication; but constrictive remedies, according to them [sc the Methodists], would be of just that sort. The initial phases of diseases either are endowed with quality or are not. To say that the initial phases of diseases are without quality would be ridiculous: for they would not reach our perception if they did not possess quality. In consequence, either the quality of the initial phases is different from [sc that of ] every single state, or the quality

744

5

10

15

20

25

  ‒  -

aÈtØn diay°sevw. Efi m¢n oÔn •t°ra §st‹ t«n érx«n poiÒthw, énafa¤neta¤ tiw aÏth toË pãyouw •t°ra koinÒthw, ∂n §ke›noi par∞kan: efi dÉ aÍtÆ §stin •kat°raw t∞w érx∞w poiÒthw ¥per ka‹ t∞w katÉ aÈtØn diay°sevw, diå t¤ mØ §n érxª t«n noshmãtvn prÚw m¢n tØn st°gnvsin tª xal≈s˙ égvgª, prÚw d¢ tØn =Êsin tª stelloÊs˙ xrhsÒmeya; ÖAlo[222]gon går prÚw tØn érxØn •t°rvw ≤mçw ·stasyai, …w oÈ taÈtØn poiÒthta kekthm°nhn tª diay°sei ∏sper érxÆ §stin. [l] ÜOti d¢ gelo›Òn §stin o‡esyai §k t∞w staltik∞w égvg∞w duspãyeian to›w s≈masi parag¤gnesyai diÉ ∏w puknoËtai ka‹ st°lletai tå s≈matÉ §nteËyen ên tiw mãyoi. Efi ≤ pÊknvsiw ka‹ ≤ sustolØ ka‹ ≤ sklhrÒthw t«n svmãtvn duspaye¤aw ∑n afit¤a, ofl flegma¤nontew ka‹ §skirrvm°noi ka‹ tÚ d°rma sklhrÚn ka‹ peritetam°non ÍpÚ t∞w §sxãthw §nde¤aw ¶xontew duspay°steroi ín ∑san t«n ÍgiainÒntvn. Ofl går Ígia¤nontew malak≈tera ka‹ éraiÒtera tå s«matÉ ¶xousi, ka‹ mçllon gÉ ˜son ín Ígia¤nvsin. ÖEtÉ, efi tª sklhrÒthti ≤ duspãyeia §kr¤neto, toÁw g°rontaw sklhrÒtera tå s≈mata t«n pa¤dvn ¶xontaw duspayest°rouw ¶dei nom¤zesyai. Efi går ¥nper ofl Meyodiko‹ §k t°xnhw duspãyeiãn fasi peripoie›n taÊthn §k fÊsevw ¶xousi, p«w oÈk eÎlogon ∑n duspayest°rouw e‰nai t«n n°vn; [li, 223] ÉAgnooËsi dÉ ofl Meyodiko‹ p«w de› diakr¤nein ényr≈pou duspãyeian, diÒper oÈd¢ peripoie›n aÈtØn dunÆsontai. OÈ går Àsper l¤you ka‹ sidÆrou ka‹ jÊlou ka‹ t«n ımo¤vn tª sklhrÒthti ka‹ èpalÒthti kr¤nein tØn t«n ényr≈pvn duspãyeian xrÆ, éllå t“ flkanå e‰nai tå s≈mata tåw •aut«n xre¤aw par°xesyai énempod¤stvw. T“ goËn boulom°nƒ peripoie›n duspãyeian oÈx‹ de› skope›n ˜yen sklhrÚn tÚ s«mÉ ¶stai éllÉ ˜yen afl dunãmeiw t«n mer«n paraujhyÆsontai ka‹ tå m°rh énempod¤stvw tåw fid¤aw xre¤aw par°jetai.

FR 280. PSEUDO-GALENUS, DE

REMEDIIS PARABILIBUS

Pseudo-Galenus, De remediis parabilibus, pp. 367–368 K: [xx, 367] Per‹ t«n katå tÚ stÒma t∞w koil¤aw pay«n ka‹ t«n aÈto›w §upor¤stvn. Afl toË stÒmatow t∞w koil¤aw flegmona‹ ka‹ toË ¥patow d°ontai t∞w t«n stufÒntvn paraplok∞w. Efi m¢n går ÍpÚ t∞w xalastik∞w mÒnhw yerapeÊontai, k¤ndunon §pãgousi per‹ t∞w zv∞w: ka‹ égvg∞w 30 toËto pãntvn m¢n t«n ÉEmpeirik«n ÍpÚ t∞w pe¤raw dedidagm°nvn ka‹ §p‹ t«n ¶rgvn t∞w t°xnhw fulattÒntvn, oÈk Ùl¤goi t«n nËn Meyodik«n mur¤oiw m¢n stomaxiko›w sugkop∞w1 a‡tioi gegÒnasin, oÈk Ùl¤gouw d¢ 1

ego (cf Fr 136): stomaxik∞w sugkop∞w K

  ‒  -

745

of every single initial phase is indistinguishable from [sc that of ] the correlative state. Now, then: if the quality of the initial phases is different, this [sc quality] turns out to be some other koinotes, different from [sc that of ] the affection—one which those doctors [sc the Methodists] overlooked; on the other hand, if the quality of every single initial phase is identical with [sc that of ] the correlative state, why shall we not, during the initial phase of diseases, use a relaxing course of treatment for constriction and a constrictive one for flux? [222] It would be absurd to take a different approach to the initial phase, as if it did not possess the same quality as the state whose initial phase it is. [l] One might learn from the following arguments that it is ridiculous to imagine resistance in bodies as resulting from an astringent course of treatment, through which the body is condensed and made to shrink. If the cause of resistance were condensation, contraction, and hardness, then people afflicted with inflammations or scyrrhus, or having their skin hard and distended from severe famine, would be more resistant than those in good health. For healthy people have bodies which are softer and rarer, and this is so even in proportion to their health. Moreover, if resistance were measured by hardness, we ought to think that old people are more resistant, since they have harder bodies than children have. So, if they possess from nature the very resistance which the Methodists claim to engineer from art, how can it not make good sense [sc to say] that they are more resistant than the young? [li, 223] The Methodists do not know how they should recognise a man’s resistance because they will not be able to create it. For one should not judge the resistance of humans, like that of a stone, of a piece of metal or wood, or of anything of that sort, by [sc the measure of ] hardness or softness, but by the bodies’ adequacy in discharging their functions without impediment. In conclusion, the doctor who wants to create resistance should not focus on how the body would become hard, but on how the activities of the parts would increase and the parts would perform their specific functions without impediment.

FR 280. PSEUDO-GALENUS, COMMON

MEDICINES

Pseudo-Galenus, Common medicines, pp. 367–368 K: [xx, 367] Concerning the affections at the opening of the stomach and the remedies [sc for them] that are easy to provide. Inflammations at the opening of the stomach and [sc inflammations of the] liver require an admixture of astringents. Indeed, if they are treated by a relaxing course alone, they put in jeopardy the [sc patient’s] life; and, although all the Empiricists have been taught this fact by experience and guard [sc it] among the results of the [sc medical] art, not a few among the contemporary Methodists are responsible for the swooning of thousands of patients afflicted by disorders of the stomach, and they kill quite a number of patients with

746

  ‒  -

kaÈt«n ≤patik«n énairoËsi mÒn˙ tª égvgª tª xalastikª xr≈menoi, …w luy∞nai pollo›w tÚ ∏par. Efi to¤nun e‡tÉ ¶laion e‡h tÚ §pantloÊmenon to›w peponyÒsi tÒpoiw e‡te katãplasma, parapl°kein ti t«n stufÒntvn, oÂon éc¤nyion µ nãrdinon mÊron [368] µ élÒhn µ mÆlinon ¶laion µ 5 kud≈nion én°contew. Ka‹ khrvta›w d¢ xrhst°on diå t∞w élÒhw ka‹ mast¤xhw ka‹ khroË ka‹ nãrdou.

FR 281. PSEUDO-GALENUS, DE UICTUS RATIONE IN MORBIS ACUTIS EX HIPPOCRATIS SENTENTIIS Pseudo-Galenus, De uictus ratione in morbis acutis ex Hippocratis sententiis, pp. 195–198 K = 377–378 Westenberger: [iv, 195] . . . ÉArxØn1 går 2 pãnu èmãrthma ≤ diãtritow:3 ka‹ §xr«nto prÚw4 ÑIppokrãthn5 taÊt˙.6 Mãrtuw aÈtÚw ÑIppokrãthw, pãlin §n t“ prÚw tåw Knid¤aw gn≈maw efip≈n: “O‰da 10 d¢7 toÁw fihtroÁw8 tå §nanti≈tata µ …w de›9 poioËntaw. BoÊlontai går pãntew10 11 érxåw t«n noÊsvn protarixeÊsantew12 13 dÊo µ tre›w µ ka‹ ple¤ouw ≤m°raw oÏtvw prosf°rein tå =ofÆmata ka‹ tå potã.”a Ka‹ oÈ m°mfetai ˜ti tinåw én°teinon m°xri t«n efirhm°nvn ériym«n,14 éllÉ ˜ti pãntaw. Ka‹ går aÈtÚw énate¤nei 15 ka‹ [196] m°xri tri«n ka‹ tettãrvn ≤mer«n, éllå toÁw deom°nouw. “ToÁw dÉ ékatastãtouw t«n puret«n §òn, m°xri ín st«sin:15 {ka‹}16 ˜tan17 d¢18 st«sin,19 épant∞sai {oÏtvw prosf°rei går =ofÆmata ka‹ tå potå} dia¤t˙ {§p‹} proshkoÊs˙.20”b Ka‹ éjio› tØn tr¤thn ka‹ tØn tetãrthn eÈlabe›syai: atai går afl ≤m°rai mãlista “t¤ktousi tåw paligko-

a

Regimen in acute diseases Ch. xxvi. RegAcut Appendix Ch xx, abbreviated (katå fÊsin yevr°vn at the end, “considering them according to [sc the patient’s] nature”, is missing). b

érxØn corr Westenberger (= We) < in morborum principiis Caius (= Ca): érxØ Laurentianus Graecus 74, 4 (= L) Marcianus Graecus App. class. v 4 (= M): §n érxa›w K 2 add We 3 corr We: ≤ diatr¤th L > K: ≤ diå tr¤th M 4 prÚw corr Ch: prÚ L M 5 add Kalbfleisch (= Kalb) + W: prÚw ÑIppokrãthn K 6 W: aÈtÒn K 7 W: o‰da d¢ ka‹ Venetus Graecus 269 (codex Hippocraticus = M > K 8 fiatroÁw M 9 de›w L M 10 pãntew L M: ëpanew M Venetus Graecus 276 (codex Hippocraticus = V ) 11 add K We < codices Hippocratici (= Hipp): om L M 12 protarixeÊsantaw M 13 add K We < Hipp: om L M 14 W: t«n efirhm°nvn ≤mer«n ériym«n K 15 m°xri ín st«sin We: ka‹ hnist«si L: ka‹ ∑n fist«si M: katast«sin K 16 del We 17 ıpÒtan Hipp 18 ge M 19 katast«sin K 20 del et emend We: épant∞sai dia¤t˙ ka‹ yerape¤˙ tª proshkoÊs˙ Hipp > K: ëpantew oÏtvw prosf°rei går =ofÆmata ka‹ tå potå ka‹ ¶ti §p‹ proshkoÊsh L M (proskoÊsh) 1

  ‒  -

747

diseases of the liver, too, by using only the relaxing course, so that in most cases the liver is wrecked. Now, whether it is oil or a plaster that you cover the affected parts in, do mix into it some astringent, for instance wormwood oil, spikenard oil, [368] aloes, apple oil, or quince oil, boiling it again. You should also use cerates made of aloes, mastich, wax, and spikenard oil.

FR 281. PSEUDO-GALENUS, ON REGIMEN IN ACUTE DISEASES, FROM HIPPOCRATES’ ASSERTIONS Pseudo-Galenus, On regimen in acute diseases, from Hippocrates’ assertions, pp. 195–198 K = 377–378 Westenberger: [iv, 195] To begin with, the diatritus [= three-days period] is not altogether a mistake; in fact Hippocrates and his followers used it with those who required it. Proof of this stands Hippocrates himself, who in the book directed against Cnidian precepts declares: “I know that doctors do the very opposite of what they should be doing: at the beginning of diseases, all of them start by fasting the patients to maceration for two, three, or even more days, and it is in such circumstances that they want afterwards to administer the gruel and the drink.” Yet he does not find fault with them because they extended [sc the period of fasting] for some [sc of the patients], but because [sc they do so] for all of them. For he himself extends the period of fasting up to as many as [196] three or four days, but [sc only] for those who need it. “Concerning irregular fevers, leave them alone, until they may settle; when they do settle, counter them by a suitable regimen.” He also advises us to beware the third and fourth day, for it is these, above all, that “breed festerings”—“they make the patients equally

748

  ‒  

tÆsiaw21”c ka¤, …w aÈtÒw fhsin, “•terorrepe›w poi°ousi toÁw22 kãmnontaw”d—“23 §w ékayars¤hn24 ırmò ka‹ ˜sa efiw puretoÊw”.e Ka¤ fhsin …w “polloË êjion toËto tÚ mãyhma:25 t¤ni går oÈk §pikoinvne› t«n §pikairotãtvn §n tª t°xn˙,26 oÈ katå tå ßlkea27 5 mÒnon éllå ka‹ 28 tîlla nosÆmata ßlkea e‰nai: ¶xei gãr tina §pie¤keian ka‹ otow ı lÒgow.29”f ÖIdvmen oÔn ka‹ tå •j∞w diÉ œn 30 sunhgore› to›w énate¤nousin §p‹ ple¤ouw ≤m°raw: “Ka‹ ‡svw ti ka‹ efikÚw dok°ei aÈt°oisin e‰nai megãlhw t∞w metabol∞w genom°nhw31 t“ s≈mati m°ga ti kãrta ka‹ 10 éntimetabãllein. [197] 32 eÔ ¶xei mØ Ùl¤gon,33 Ùry«w m°ntoi 34 ≤ metabolÆ.35”g 36 énate¤nonta ka‹ m°xri tr¤thw,37 éllÉ Ùry«w 38 texnik«w, tout°sti tÚn deÒmenon39 40 ÍpomenoËnta, ˜tan Ípobãll˙ {tÚ m¢n g°now}41 tÚ m°geyow t∞w diay°sevw, ≤ Àra, ≤ x≈ra, ≤ ≤lik¤a, tå t∞w 15 prohghsam°nhw dia¤thw.h 42 bebaiÒteron t∞w metabol∞w §pπnese toËto,43 tÚ ,44 i ·na mØ per‹45 tåw pr≈taw ≤m°raw éfel∆n tåw prosforãw,j ˜te ka‹ ı kãmnvn lambãnein ±dÊnato ka‹ ≤ fÊsiw dioike›n46 tå lhfy°nta, per‹ tØn ékmØn metabolª

c

Cf Fractures 31 (tÚ §p¤pan går ≤ tr¤th ka‹ tetãrth ≤m°rh §p‹ to›si ple¤stoisi t«n trvmãtvn t¤ktei tåw paligkotÆsiaw (“on the whole, the third and the fourth

day breed festerings in the case of most wounds”). d RegAcut Appendix xxi. e Fract. 31, continued from above. Cf the whole sentence as rendered by Kuhn:

Atai går afl ≤m°rai, …w aÈtÒw fhsin, mãlista t¤ktousi tåw paligkotÆsiaw ka‹ ˜sa §w flegmonØn ka‹ §w ékayars¤hn ırmò ka‹ ˜sa efiw puretoÊw e‰si ka‹ •terorrep°aw poie› toÁw kãmnontaw. f

Fract. 31. RegAcut Chs xxvi–xxvii (Ùry«w m°ntoi ge metabibasst°h replacing Ùry«w m°ntoi poiht°h ka‹ beba¤vw). h Cf the same sentence as printed in Kuhn: éllÉ Ùry«w texnik«w toËto poie› ˜tan g

tÚ m¢n g°now ka‹ tÚ m°geyow t∞w diay°sevw ka‹ tØn Àran ka‹ x≈ran ka‹ ≤lik¤an ka‹ t∞w prohghsam°nhw dia¤thw fid°an skope›n Ípobãll˙. i Cf. Aphorisms i 10, ¶mprosyen d¢ piot°rvw diaitçn. j Cf the passage given by Kuhn: ka‹ afl d∞lai t∞w dia¤thw metabol∞w ka‹ bebaiÒtata¤ efisin §nde¤jeiw. Tª metabolª thre¤syv toËto tÚ mØ parå tåw pr≈taw ≤m°raw oÏtvw éfele›n tåw prosforãw ktl. palinkÒtouw (sic) M 22 tåw L M 23 om L M 24 §skatars¤hn L M: ékayars¤hn Hipp 25 ka¤ mãla polloË êjion toËto mãyhma, e‡per ti ka‹ êllo add K < Hipp 26 §n fiatrikª K < Hipp 27 ¶llesi L: ßllhsi K 28 om L M 29 ¶xei gãr tina ka‹ otow ı lÒgow §pie¤keian K 30 add ego 31 metabol∞w ginom°nhw Hipp 32 om L M 33 Ùl¤gv 34 om L M 35 t∞ metabol∞ L M: post metabolØ ka‹ ¶k ge t∞w metabol∞w ≤ prÒsarsiw t«n geumãtvn ¶ti mçllon add K < Hipp 36 suppl We 37 Ùry«w går t∞w metabol∞w genom°nhw t“ s≈mati tÚn énate¤nonta ka‹ m°xri tr¤thw ≤m°raw §pa¤nei Ch > K 38 suppl We 39 ci We: t«n dÊo m¢n tÚn L M 40 add We 41 tÚ m¢n g°now L M: del Kalb > We 42 add We 43 corr We: t∞ metabol∞ ±d°syh toËto L M 44 add We 45 per‹ om M 46 corr We: di≈kein L M: di≈kein ka‹ sump°ptein K 21

  ‒  

749

prone to turn out well or badly”—“and all that stirs inflammation, foulness, and fevers.” And he claims that “this piece of learning is of great value; for is there, among the things most vital to our art, one that it does not apply to—not only in relation to wounds, but to many other diseases? Unless one claims that the other diseases are wounds too—and there is something reasonable even in this proposal.” But let us also examine, next, why he [sc Hippocrates] does not approve of those [sc doctors] who extend the period of fasting to more days: “Perhaps they consider it appropriate, when a great change has occurred in the body, to counteract it by some other very great [sc change]. [197] Now, change has some benefit, and not a slight one; but the change should lead in the right direction.” He [sc Hippocrates] certainly approves of the [sc doctor] who extends the period of fasting even up to three days, provided that he does it correctly and in accordance with the rules of the art, that is to say, [sc he does it] to one [sc patient] who needs and bears it, and [sc he does it] when the magnitude of the disease, the season, the place, and the [sc patient’s] age and previous regimen [diaita] encourage [sc this treatment]. On the other hand, he recommended the following [sc course] as being safer that change: “to administer a richer regimen” at the beginning, so that you would not deprive the patient of food during the first days, when it might have been possible for him to assimilate it and for nature to distribute what was assimilated, and then around development, when you see his strength collapsing

750

  ‒  -

kataluom°nhn47 ır«n tØn dÊnamin,k e‰ta maxom°naw aÈtª poiªw , ˜te48 mØ dÊnatai mhd¢ =ofÆmata dioike›n49 ı kãmnvn, tÒte50 pi°zvn te aÈtÚn ka‹ pn¤gvn ta›w trofa›w.51 ÉIde›n goËn ¶sti toÁw lÒgƒ m¢n MeyodikoÊw, ¶rgƒ dÉ émeyÒdouw t«n fiatr«n, tÚn o‰non tÒte ka‹ [198] 5 tå kr°a didÒntaw ka‹ Àsper52 efiw êcuxon êggow efisx°ontaw53 tåw trofãw. T“ m¢n oÔn kal«w katå tØn érxØn énate¤nanti54 m°nei ka‹ katå tØn ékmØn ≤ dÊnamiw •st«sa, t“ d¢55 parå tÚ d°on ta›w énatãsesi xrhsam°nƒ56 per‹ tØn érxØn katãgnutai,57 tå m¢n ÍpÚ t∞w nÒsou, tå dÉ ÍpÚ t∞w étexn¤aw biasye›sa. ÉEm°mcato 58 ka‹ §n êlloiw toÁw 10 toioÊtouw t«n fiatr«n efip≈n: “T¤ går 59 ∑n kakÒn, efi tå60 §p¤xeira61 t∞w émay¤hw62 §kom¤zonto ofl tå t∞w t°xnhw kak«w63 dhmiourgoËntew; NËn d¢ to›sin oÈd¢n afit¤oisi64 t«n kamnÒntvn, oÂw65 oÈx flkanØ §fa¤neto ≤ toË nose›n lÊph, efi mØ pros°lyoi ka‹66 toË fihtroË67 épeir¤h.”l

k

Cf the sequence in Kuhn: Àste per‹ tØn ékmØn metabolª §gxeire›n kataluom°nhn ır«nta tØn dÊnamin ktl. l Cf Precepts 1: T¤ går ín ∑n kakÒn, efi tå §p¤xeira §kom¤zonto ofl tå t∞w fihtrik∞w ¶rga kak«w dhmiourgoËntew; NËn d¢ to›w énait¤oiw §oËsi t«n kamnÒntvn, ıkÒsoiw oÈx flkanØ §fa¤neto §oËsa toË nos°ein b¤h, efi mØ sun°lyoi tª toË fihtroË épeir¤˙. metabol∞w kataluom°nhw M 48 maxom°naw aÈtª poiªw prosy°seiw, ˜te We: maxom°naw aÈt poie›w, ˜te L M: maxom°nhn aÈtØn poie›w, ˜te Ch > K (˜ti) 49 corr W: di≈kein L M > K 50 pot¢ L M > K 51 We: peisãntvn aÈtoË ka‹ pn¤gontew L: peisãntvn aÈt«n ka‹ pn¤gontaw M: pe¤santow aÈtoË ka‹ pn¤gontow K 52 didÒnta Àsper M 53 corr We (qui infundunt Ca): §kx°ontaw L M > K 54 ci We: énate¤nonti L M > K 55 tÚ d¢ M 56 xrhsom°nƒ M 57 corr Ch: katãgnoito M: katãgnoit L: frangitur Ca 58 add We 59 ín Hipp: om L M 60 ci We: e‰ta L: e‰t M: µn tå Hipp 61 We: §p‹ xre¤a L M: §pixe¤ria K 62 t∞w émay¤hw om Hipp 63 ofl tå t∞w fihtrik∞w ¶rga kak«w Hipp > K 64 We: to›sin oÈd¢n afit¤oisi L: to›sin oÈd¢n a‡tioi efisin M: to›sin énait¤oisin Hipp: to›sin énait¤oisi §oÊsi K 65 ıkÒsoisin Hipp > K 66 We: §fa¤neto §oËsa ≤ toË nos°ein b¤h, efi mØ jun°lyoi tª Hipp: §fa¤neto §oËsa toË nos°ein b¤h, efi mØ jun°lyoi ≤ K 67 fiatroË M 47

FR 282. PSEUDO-GALENUS, MEDICUS (1) Pseudo-Galenus, Introductio seu Medicus, i–ii, pp. 674–678 K: [i, 674] P«w eÏrhtai ≤ fiatrikÆ. ÜEllhnew t«n texn«n tåw eÍr°seiw µ 15 ye«n pais‹n énatiy°asin, µ tisin §ggÁw aÈt«n, oÂw pr«toi ofl yeo‹ pãshw t°xnhw §koin≈nhsan. OÏtvw oÔn ka‹ tØn fiatrikØn pr«ton m¢n ÉAsklhpiÚn parÉ ÉApÒllvnow toË patrÒw fasin §kmaye›n ka‹ ényr≈poiw metadoËnai, diÚ ka‹ doke› eÍret∞w gegon°nai aÈt∞w: prÚ d¢ ÉAsklhpioË t°xnh m¢n

751

  ‒  -

under the change, you would not give him supplementary food to fight it [sc the change], oppressing the patient and choking him with food at a time when he is not able to cope even with gruel. For one can see the Methodists—in name, but in fact the most un-Methodical of doctors— administering sometimes even wine and [198] meat, and cramming food [sc into their patients] as if into lifeless containers. Thus, if in the beginning you make a good use of the period of fasting, the [sc patient’s] strength will survive, assisting throughout culmination; but if you use the periods of fasting contrary to what is right, around the beginning [sc things] will break down, overpowered partly by the disease and partly by [sc the doctor’s] want of skill. He [sc Hippocrates] criticised doctors of this type also in other places, saying: “Would it be wrong if the bad practitioners of our art were to receive punishments for their ignorance? As things are now, [sc there is harm] for those of their patients, not in the least guilty, whose suffering through illness would not have been so terrible, it appears, had not the doctor’s lack of skill added to it.”

FR 282. PSEUDO-GALENUS, THE

DOCTOR

(1)

Pseudo-Galenus, Introduction [sc to medicine] or The doctor, i–ii, pp. 674–678 K: [i, 674] How medicine was invented. The Greeks ascribe the invention of the arts either to sons of the gods or to others in their propinquity, to whom the gods, for the first time, gave a share in their full art. And so, with medicine, they say that Asclepius was the first to learn it from his father Apollo and to pass it on to humankind, and for this reason he is accepted to have been its discoverer: before Asclepius men did not possess

752

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

  ‒  

fiatrikØ oÎpv ∑n §n ényr≈poiw, §mpeir¤an d° tina ofl palaio‹ e‰xon farmãkvn [675] ka‹ botan«n, oÂa parÉ ÜEllhsi Xe¤rvn ı K°ntaurow ±p¤stato ka‹ ofl ÍpÚ toÊtou paideuy°ntew ¥rvew, ˜sa te efiw ÉArist°a ka‹ Melãmpoda ka‹ PolÊeidon énaf°retai. Parå dÉ Afigupt¤oiw ∑n m¢n ka‹ ≤ t«n botan«n xr∞siw ka‹ ≤ êllh farmake¤a, …w ka‹ ÜOmhrow marture› l°gvn: “Afigupt¤h g∞ ple›sta f°rei, ze¤dvrow êroura / Fãrmaka, pollå m¢n §sylå memigm°na, pollå d¢ lugrã.”a ÉEk d¢ t∞w §n ta›w tarixe¤aiw énasx¤sevw t«n nekr«n pollå ka‹ t«n §n xeirourg¤& parå to›w pr≈toiw fiatro›w eÍr∞syai doke›. Tinå dÉ §k peript≈se≈w fasin §pineno∞syai, …w tÚ parakente›n toÁw Ípokexum°nouw §k toË peripese›n: a‰ga ¥tiw Ípoxuye›sa én°blecen Ùjusxo¤nou §mpage¤shw efiw tÚn ÙfyalmÒn. Ka‹ tÚ klÊzein dÉ épÚ t∞w ‡be≈w fasin eÍrey∞nai, plhroÊshw tÚ per‹ tÚn trãxhlon d°rma, …w klust∞row êskvma, yalass¤ou Ïdatow ka‹ Neila¤ou, ka‹ diå toË =ãmfouw §nie¤shw •autª ˆpisyen. Fhs‹ d¢ ka‹ ÑHrÒdotow ı flstoriogrãfow tÚ palaiÚn §n ta›w triÒdoiw prot¤yesyai toÁw [676] nosoËntaw, toÁw d¢ peripesÒntaw to›w aÈto›w nosÆmasin Ífhge›syai oÂw xrhsãmenow ßkastow §yerapeÊyh, ka‹ oÏtvw §k t∞w t«n poll«n pe¤raw sunhran¤syai tå t∞w fiatrik∞w.b ÉAllÉ aÏth m¢n êlogow ≤ pe›ra ka‹ oÎpv logikÆ. Tele¤an dÉ fiatrikØn ka‹ to›w •aut∞w m°resi sumpeplhrvm°nhn, tØn m¢n …w élhy«w ye¤an ÉAsklhpiÚn mÒnon eÍre›n, tØn dÉ §n ényr≈poiw toÁw ÉAsklhpiãdaw parå toÊtou diadejam°nouw to›w ¶peita paradoËnai, mãlista dÉ ÑIppokrãt˙,1 ˘w pãntvn ÍperÆnegke ka‹ pr«tow efiw f«w §jÆnegke tØn tele¤an parÉ ÜEllhsin fiatrikÆn. [ii] T¤new érxa‹ fiatrik∞w. ÉArxa‹ oÔn t∞w fiatrik∞w tre›w: ≤ m¢n eÍr°sevw, ≤ dÉ §k toË sustÆsasyai tØn t°xnhn, ≤ dÉ ÍfhgÆsevw. EÍr°sevw m¢n oÔn èpl«w t∞w §n tª fiatrikª ≤ palaiotãth ka‹ êneu lÒgou érxØ ≤ pe›ra, …w parå Afigupt¤oiw ka‹ pçsi barbãroiw. ToË dÉ efiw sÊsthma t°xnhw égage›n, …w tØn t«n ÉAsklhpiad«n fiatrikÆn, taÊthw dÉ érxØ lÒgow ka‹ pe›ra. ÑUfhgÆsevw d¢, Àw fhsin [677] ÉAyÆnaiow, µ paradÒsevw, kay≈w tinew l°gousin, érxØ ≤ fusikØ yevr¤a. ÑApl«w d¢ ka‹ ÑIppokrãthw ¶fh: “ÉArxØ toË §n fiatrikª lÒgou ≤ fÊsiw pr≈th.”c ÉApÚ går toË fusiologe›n êrxontai ofl Dogmatiko‹ §peidØ §k t«n katå fÊsin ka‹ tå parå fÊsin dÊnantai efid°nai: êneu d¢ toË gn«nai tÚ katå fÊsin, tÚ parå toËto ¶xon oÈx oÂÒn tÉ §p¤stasyai. Ka‹ §n t“ yerapeÊein ımo¤vw d°ontai t∞w fusiolog¤aw, §peidØ épÚ t∞w fusik∞w dunãmevw t«n prosferom°nvn bohyhmãtvn tÚ katãllhlon aÈt«n prÚw tå pãyh lambãnousin. Ofl d¢ katå tåw êllaw aflr°seiw paraithsãmenoi tÚ fusiologe›n êrxontai •kãteroi éfÉ œn tØn ßjin toË prosf°rein tå bohyÆmata periepoiÆsanto: ofl m¢n Meyodiko‹ §k t∞w t«n koinotÆtvn §nde¤jevw, ofl dÉ ÉEmpeiriko‹ §k t∞w katå tØn pe›ran thrÆsevw. ÜVsper

Cf Odyssey iv 229–30: Afigupt¤h: tª ple›sta f°rei ze¤dvrow êroura / Fãrmaka, pollå m¢n §sylå memigm°na, pollå d¢ lugrã. a

c

Cf Herodotus i 197; see also Fr 264, [3]. Cf Places in man, Ch 2: FÊsiw d¢ toË s≈matow érxØ toË §n fihtrikª lÒgou.

1

ego: ÑIppokrãthw K

b

  ‒  

753

an art of medicine yet—the ancients had some experience of drugs [675] and herbs such as Chiron the Centaur and the heroes educated by him learned from the Greeks, as well as that [sc kind of experience] ascribed to Aristeus, Melampus, and Polyeidus. But the Egyptians, apart from the usage of herbs, mastered the handling of every kind of remedy, as Homer testifies by saying: “The life-giving mother-land of Egypt bears the greatest store. Of drugs: many of them have a healing power when you prepare them, many are baneful.” On the other hand, it is believed that the first doctors also made many discoveries in surgery, as a result of ripping open the embalmed mummies of dead people. They say that some things were found by chance—for instance, the couching of patents with cataract [sc was found] from a chanceevent: a goat afflicted with cataract recovered her sight when sea-rush got stuck into her eye. Also the use of the clyster, they say, was discovered from the ibis, who fills the skin around the neck, like the bulb of a clyster, with sea-water or water from the Nile, and injects it into its own body from behind, through the beak. Herodotus the historian writes that in the old days diseased people were displayed at cross-roads, [676] and those who had met with the same diseases recounted by what means each one was cured; in this fashion, the data of medicine were contributed to from the experience of many. But this [sc kind of ] experience was irrational and not yet guided by reason. As for the completed medicine, which has all its proper parts filled in, [sc it is reported that] Asclepius alone invented that kind of it which is truly divine; but the Asclepiads received from him the kind which exists among men, and they transmitted it to their successors— above all, to Hippocrates, who surpassed everyone and was the first to bring the whole of medicine into light among the Greeks. [ii] The founding principles of medicine. Now, medicine has three founding principles: that of discovery, that which derives from organising the art, and that of interpretation. Generally speaking, the oldest [sc form of the] principle of discovery in medicine, albeit one devoid of reasoning, is experience— such as is found among the Egyptians and all the barbarians. As for leading [sc something] into the organised whole of an art, on the example of the medicine of the Asclepiads, the principle consists in reasoning together with experience. The principle of interpretation, as [677] Athenaeus calls it, or of tradition, according to the language of others, consists in the investigation of nature. Hippocrates, too, has said, unqualifiedly: “In medicine, the first beginning of reasoning is nature.” For the Dogmatists begin to make investigations about nature when they are able to tell apart unnatural things from natural ones; and without knowing what is natural it would not be possible to recognise what deviates from it. Similarly, they need natural philosophy [ phusiologia] in their practice of therapy too, since it is from the natural property of the proposed remedies that they [sc doctors] derive their correlations to the affections. Doctors who belong to the other haireseis and reject [sc the principle of ] making inquiries about nature start in each case from those things from which they acquired the skill of proposing remedies: the Methodists start from the indication given by the koinotetes, the Empiricists, from the observation of one’s experience. For just as, for

754

  ‒  -

går to›w Dogmatiko›w érxØ toË §n fiatrikª lÒgou ≤ fÊsiw, oÏtv to›w ÉEmpeiriko›w érxØ ≤ pe›ra, ≤ pleistãkiw ka‹ ée‹ katå tå aÈtå ka‹ …saÊtvw ¶xousa. ÉApÚ taÊthw går ka‹ ≤ flstor¤a êrxetai ka‹ [678] katå taÊthn ≤ toË ımo¤ou metãbasiw. To›w d¢ Meyodiko›w érxØ ≤ katå 5 tå fainÒmena toË ımo¤ou yevr¤a, µ gn«siw fainom°nvn koinotÆtvn.

FR 283. PSEUDO-GALENUS, MEDICUS (2) Pseudo-Galenus, Introductio seu Medicus, iii–iv, pp. 678–684 K:

10

15

20

25

30

[iii, 678] PÒsai afl aflr°seiw §n fiatrikª ka‹ t¤na xarakthr¤zonta aÈtãw. Aflr°seiw dÉ §n fiatrikª tre›w, LogikØ ÉEmpeirikØ MeyodikÆ. LogikØ m¢n ≤ fusiolog¤an par°xousa ka‹ tåw afit¤aw t«n nÒsvn §jetãzousa ka‹ shmei≈sei prÚw eÏresin t«n afit¤vn xrvm°nh tÆn te yerape¤an §j œn ÍpagoreÊousin afl afit¤ai, paralambãnousa kayÉ Ípenant¤vsin. Tå går §nant¤a t«n §nant¤vn §st‹n fiãmata. T°ssara oÔn §st‹ tå xarakthr¤zonta tØn LogikØn a·resin: fusiolog¤a, afitiolog¤a, shme¤vsiw ka‹ t°tarton tÚ ÍpagoreÊein aÈto›w1 tå a‡tia tåw2 yerape¤aw. ÉEmpeirikØ dÉ §stin ≤ efiw tåw sundromåw t«n sumptvmãtvn t«n sunedreuÒntvn §p‹ t«n nosoÊntvn éfor«sa ka‹ tØn katãllhlon prÚw tå sumpt≈mata yerape¤an tethrhku›a, oÎte d¢ pãyow efidu›a oÎtÉ afit¤aw §jetãzousa, érkoum°nh d¢ tª §p‹ t«n sumptvmãtvn katå pe›ran t«n prosferom°nvn thrÆsei, xrvm°nh d¢ [679] ka‹ flstor¤& tª t«n propepeiram°nvn ka‹ tª toË ımo¤ou metabãsei épÚ toË pepeiram°nou §p‹ tÚ épe¤raston, ˜moion d¢ katå tÚ fainÒmenon e‰dow. ÜOsvn te går aÈto‹ diå t∞w t«n aÍt«n3 pe¤raw t∞w §p‹ poll«n ka‹ pleistãkiw ka‹ ée‹ katå taÈtå ka‹ …saÊtvw §xoÊshw §peirãyhsan, µ peripesÒntew katå tÊxhn parefÊlajan ka‹ taÈtå ée‹ ka‹ …saÊtvw ¶xonta, yarroËntew toÊtoiw xr«ntai, oÈ polupragmonoËntew tåw §k t«n poiotÆtvn dunãmeiw aÈt«n. PepisteÊkasi d¢ ka‹ to›w palaiotãtoiw, énagracam°noiw tå diå pe¤raw ÍfÉ aÍto›w4 tethrhm°na: ∂n kaloËsin “flstor¤an”. Xr«ntai d¢ ka‹ tª toË ımo¤ou metabãsei, metaba¤nontew §p‹ tå mÆpv efiw pe›ran aÈto›w §lyÒnta, ıpÒtan ˜moia fa¤nhtai tª katå tÚ prÒxeiron fid°&—…w malãxh ka‹ bl¤ton ka‹ teËtlon ka‹ lãpayon: §p¤ te t«n dhmhtr¤vn, …w xÒndrow ka‹ ˆruza ka‹ traktÒn:5 ka‹ pãlin §n to›w ékrodrÊoiw, …w êpiow ka‹ m∞lon kud≈nion. Xarakthr¤zei oÔn ka‹ tØn ÉEmpeirikØn a·resin taËta:

ego: aÈta›w K ego: trãktuon K 1

2

ci ego: t∞w K

3

ego: t«n aÈt«n K

4

ego: aÈto›w K

5

ci

755

  ‒  -

the Dogmatists, the principle of reasoning in medicine is nature, for the Empiricists the principle is experience, which in most cases, if not always, remains the same in identical circumstances. For it is the case both that the recording of cases [historia] starts from it [sc experience], and that [678] the transition to the similar takes place under its guidance. For the Methodists, the principle consists in the contemplation [theoria] of what is similar in manifest things, or the recognition of manifest koinotetes.

FR 283. PSEUDO-GALENUS, THE

DOCTOR

(2)

Pseudo-Galenus, Introduction [sc to medicine] or The doctor, iii–iv, pp. 678–684 K: [iii, 678] How many haireseis there are in medicine, and their distinctive features. In medicine there are three haireseis—Logical, Empiricist, and Methodist. The Logical hairesis offers a natural philosophy [ phusiologia], researches into the causes of diseases, uses sign-inference [semeiosis] for the discovery of the causes, and derives the therapy, through opposition [hupenantiosis], from what the causes suggest [hupagoreuein]. For opposites are remedies to their opposites. Hence four items characterise the Logical school: natural philosophy, causal explanation [aitiologia], sign-inference, and, fourthly, the fact that the causes suggest the forms of therapy to them [sc to the Logical doctors]. The Empiricist hairesis is the one that looks at the collections [sundromai ] of symptoms present in the ill and has tested through observation the therapy which corresponds to the symptoms, without either knowing the affection or researching into causes: it contents itself with the observation of what is applied to the symptoms in accordance with experience; and it also uses [679] the record [historia] of what has been tested by previous experience and the transition of the similar, from what has been tested by experience to what lies outside of it but is similar in so far as its manifest form is concerned. For they [sc the Empiricists] use with confidence all the things they tested through their own experience—provided that the experience was made in many circumstances and repeated many times, yet always remained the same and unchanged—and all the things they encountered by chance, afterwards making sure that they always remained the same and unchanged; and they [sc the Empiricists] have no truck with the faculties [dunameis] [sc related] to qualities. They also trust the most ancient doctors, in so far as those have put on record their own observations, conducted through experience; this is what they [sc the Empiricists] call “case recording” [historia]. And they make use of the transition of the similar, which they transfer to what has not yet reached their experience, whenever that thing looks similar in its perceptible form—for instance mallow, blite, beet, and dock; or, among the plants of Demeter, spelt groats, rice, and trakton; or again, among the fruit trees, pear or quince. Here are, in conclusion, the items which characterise the Empirical hairesis:

756

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

tÚ efiw tåw sundromåw éforòn t«n sumptvmãtvn, mÆte efiw pãyow mÆte efiw a‡tia: deÊteron ≤ §p‹ ta›w sundroma›w tÆrhsiw [680] t«n diå pe¤raw èrmozÒntvn: tr¤ton flstor¤a t«n propepeiram°nvn: t°tarton ≤ toË ımo¤ou metãbasiw. MeyodikØ dÉ §stin ≤ koinÒthsin pros°xousa ka‹ tª toË ımo¤ou yevr¤&. Pãnta går tå §p‹ m°rouw pãyh efiw dÊo kayolikå énãgousin, e‡w te tÚ stegnÚn ka‹ tÚ =o«dew, ì kaloËsi koinÒthtaw. Gnvr¤zousi dÉ aÈtåw épÚ t«n per‹ tÚ s«ma ginom°nvn diay°sevn, kayÉ •kãteron fainom°nvn ka‹ oÈk édÆlvn: diÚ oÈ d°ontai shmei≈sevw: oÂon tÚ m¢n stegnÚn §k toË pepukn«syai tÚ s«ma pçn ka‹ §pisx°syai aÈtoË tØn diãrroian ka‹ pçsan fainom°nhn ¶kkrisin parapod¤zesyai, tÚ d¢ =o«dew §k toË tÆn te §pifãneian toË s≈matow érai«dew ka‹ tåw afisyhtåw §kkr¤seiw §pitetãsyai kayÉ ıtioËn m°row toË s≈matow. DittÚn oÔn yerape¤aw e‰dow §nde¤knutai aÈto›w tå genikå dÊo pãyh, xalòn m¢n tå stegnã, st°llein d¢ tå =o≈dh: ˜tan dÉ §pipeplegm°na ¬, prÚw tÚ katepe›gon ·stasyai. KoinÒthtaw d¢ pãsaw m¢n fainom°naw l°gousin: toÊtvn d¢ tåw m¢n payhtikåw, …w tÚ stegnÚn ka‹ =o«dew: tåw d¢ [681] yerapeutikåw, …w tÚ xalòn ka‹ st°llein: tåw d¢ kairikåw, érxØn, §p¤dosin, ékmØn, parakmÆn. Afl dÉ §n xeirourg¤aiw koinÒthtew katå tØn toË éllotr¤ou Ípeja¤resin. DittÚn d¢ tÚ éllÒtrion: ≥toi går ¶jvy°n §stin µ t«n §n t“ s≈mati. TÚ m¢n ¶jvyen èploËn, tr¤a dÉ e‡dh t«n §n s≈mati. ÉAllå tÚ m¢n ¶jvyen, …w skÒloc ka‹ b°low ka‹ pçn ˜per éllÒtrion, §nde¤knutai tØn tele¤an §ja¤resin. T«n dÉ §n t“ s≈mati tÚ m¢n t“ tÒpƒ éllÒtrion, …w ÍpÒxuma ka‹ §jãryrhma ka‹ kãtagma, ëper §nde¤knutai tØn metãyesin µ épokatãstasin efiw tÚn ‡dion tÒpon. TÚ d¢ t“ meg°yei éllÒtrion, …w tå épostÆmata pãnta ka‹ ofl ˆgkoi ofl per‹ ˆsxeon, ékroxordÒnew te ka‹ fÊmata ka‹ kondul≈mata, ëper §nde¤knutai: tå m¢n diair°sei mÒn˙ xr∞syai, tå d¢ periair°sei tele¤& t«n peritt«n. TÚ d¢ tª §lle¤cei éllÒtrion, oÈx …w peritteËon éllÉ …w §nde°w, oÂon tå kolob≈mata pãnta …w §p‹ t«n xeil«n ka‹ Ùfyalm«n (diÚ kaloËnta¤ tinew lag≈fyalmoi ka‹ lag≈xeiloi), ımo¤vw d¢ ka‹ afl sÊriggew ka‹ ˜sa ÍpÒfora ka‹ kÒlpoi ka‹ ßlkh ka‹ pãnta tå toiaËta ˜sa katÉ ¶ndeian, tÚ énaplhroËsyai §pizhte› ka‹ §nde¤knu[682]tai. ÖEsti d¢ parå tåw §n xeirourg¤aiw t°ssaraw koinÒthtaw ka‹ tÚ legÒmenon profulaktikÚn e‰dow, ˘ ka‹ aÈtÚ efiw koinÒthta tãttetai, §p‹ t«n dhlhthr¤vn ka‹ tojik«n ka‹ fiobÒlvn pãntvn ka‹ daket«n, pthn«n te ka‹ xersa¤vn ka‹ §nÊdrvn. KoinÚn går

  ‒  

757

the [sc principle of ] looking at sundromai of symptoms, not at an affection or its causes; secondly, the observation, made over the range of “syndromes”, [680] of what is empirically suitable; thirdly, the recording [historia] of what has been tested by previous experience; fourthly, the transition of the similar. The Methodist [sc hairesis] is the one which holds fast to the koinotetes and to the contemplation of what is similar. For they reduce all the individual affections to two universal ones, namely the constricted [to stegnon] and the fluid [to rhoodes], which they call koinotetes. They recognise these [sc the koinotetes] from the states that arise in the body, which in both cases are manifest and not hidden; for this reason they do not need sign-inference; for instance, they recognise the constricted [sc state] from the fact that the whole body has become dense, its flow is checked, and every manifest secretion is blocked; and they recognise the fluid [sc state] from the fact that the surface of the body is porous, and in every part of the body the perceptible secretions are intensified. In consequence, the two generic affections indicate to them [sc the Methodists] a two-fold kind of therapy: relaxing what is constricted and checking what is fluid, and, when these things are interwoven, attending to the urgent symptom. They [sc the Methodists] claim that all the koinotetes are manifest. Some of them, such as the constricted and fluid, are related to the affection [ pathetikai ]; others [681], such as relaxing and checking, are related to the treatment [therapeutikai ]; others, such as the beginning, the development, the culmination, and the decline, are related to time [kairikai ]. As for the koinotetes [sc at work] in surgery, these are [sc conceived of ] in relation to the removal of what is alien. The alien is of two sorts: either it is external or it belongs to what is within the body. The external sort is simple, whereas the sort [sc that belongs to what is] within the body comes in three kinds. The external [sc things that are alien], for instance a thorn, an arrow, or anything that is foreign, indicate their complete removal. Out of the internal [sc things that are alien], that which is alien by place, for instance a cataract, a dislocation, or a fracture, indicates a change of position and a return to the proper place. That which is alien by size, for instance all abscesses, tumours on the scrotum, warts, tubercles, or callous lumps, indicate the following: some of them, that we only cut them open; others, that we achieve a complete extirpation of the residues. That which is alien by deficiency, by way of being, not more, but less than enough—for instance, all the parts which are shortened, such as may happen to the lips or eye [sc -lids] (this is why some people are said to be “hare-like” about their lids or lips); likewise, ulcers and fistulous formations of all sorts, sinus, wounds, and all such deficiencies—call for, and indicate, being filled up. [682] Apart from the four koinotetes involved in surgical interventions, there is also the kind [eidos] called prophylactic, which is assigned to another koinotes which is assigned to another koinotes—one that governs over destructive substances [deleteria]: all the poisons and the venoms emitted by biting animals, be they of the sky, land, or water. For the genus common to all is the damage-making

758

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

pãntvn g°now tÚ e‰nai tå fyoropoiã: oÈx ÍpagÒmena t“ stegn“ µ =o≈dei éllå ßteron parå taËta tÚ g°now. DiÚ ka‹ ≤ yerapeutikØ aÈt«n koinÒthw •t°ra parÉ §ke¤nhn, ≤ profulaktikØ legom°nh. Xarakthr¤zei oÔn ka‹ tØn MeyodikØn a·resin pr«ton m¢n ≤ toË ımo¤ou yevr¤a §p‹ t«n fainom°nvn, éllÉ oÈk §p‹ t«n édÆlvn, …w §n tª Logikª aflr°sei. TaÊt˙ går ka‹ dior¤zetai, §pe‹ ka‹ §n §ke¤n˙ §st‹n ≤ toË ımo¤ou yevr¤a, éllÉ §p‹ t«n édÆlvn. DeÊteron ˜tÉ §k toË §n to›w fainom°noiw ımo¤ou énãgei efiw tå kayÒlou pãnta tå §p‹ m°rouw, tã te pãyh ka‹ tå bohyÆmata ka‹ toÁw kairoÊw. ÉAllÉ oÈx …w ofl ÉEmpeiriko‹ to›w fainom°noiw mÒnon pros°xousin: ·stantai dÉ §n to›w §p‹ m°rouw ka‹ oÈd¢n kayolikÚn ‡sasin. Tr¤ton [683] tÚ §k t∞w t«n koinotÆtvn §nde¤jevw tØn yerape¤an lambãnein ka‹ mÆte tå a‡tia aÈtoÁw ÍpagoreÊein, …w toÁw LogikoÊw, mÆte tª §p‹ ta›w sundroma›w thrÆsei t«n diå pe¤raw èrmozÒntvn érke›syai, …w toÁw ÉEmpeirikoÊw. [iv] T¤new pro°sthsan t«n tri«n aflr°sevn. Pro°sthsan d¢ t∞w m¢n Logik∞w aflr°sevw ÑIppokrãthw K«ow, ˘w ka‹ aflresiãrxhw §g°neto ka‹ pr«tow sun°sthse tØn LogikØn a·resin, metå d¢ toËton Diokl∞w ı KarÊstiow, PrajagÒraw K«ow, ÑHrÒfilow XalkhdÒniow, ÉEras¤stratow X›ow, Mnhs¤yeow ÉAyhna›ow, ÉAsklhpiãdhw BiyunÒw, KianÒw, ˘w ka‹ Prous¤aw §kale›to. T∞w dÉ ÉEmpeirik∞w pro°sthse Fil›now K«ow, ı pr«tow aÈtØn épotemnÒmenow épÚ t∞w Logik∞w aflr°sevw, tåw éformåw lab∆n parå ÑHrof¤lou, o ka‹ ékoustØw §g°neto. Y°lontew dÉ éparxa˝zein •aut«n tØn a·resin, ·na ¬ presbut°ra t∞w Logik∞w, ÖAkrvna tÚn ÉAkragant›nÒn fasin êrjasyai aÈt∞w. Metå Fil›non §g°neto Serap¤vn ÉAlejandreÊw, e‰tÉ ÉApoll≈nioi dÊo, patÆr te ka‹ uflÒw, ÉAntioxe›w. MeyÉ oÓw MhnÒdotow ka‹ S°jstow, o„ ka‹ [684] ékrib«w §krãtunan aÈtÆn. Meyodik∞w dÉ ∑rje m¢n Yem¤svn ı LaodikeÁw t∞w Sur¤aw, parÉ Asklhpiãdou toË LogikoË §fodiasye‹w efiw tØn eÏresin t∞w Meyodik∞w aflr°sevw. ÉEtele¤vse dÉ aÈtØn YessalÚw ı TrallianÒw. Ofl d¢ metå toÊtouw Mnas°aw, DionÊsiow, PrÒklow, ÉAnt¤patrow: diestas¤asan d¢ per¤ tinvn §n aÈtª ÉOlumpiakÚw ı MilÆsiow ka‹ Men°maxow ı ÉAfrodiseÁw ka‹ SvranÚw ı ÉEf°siow. ÉEg°nonto d° tinew ka‹ ÉEpisunyetiko¤, …w Levn¤dhw ı ÉAlejandreÊw, ka‹ ÉEklekto¤, …w ÉArxig°nhw ı ÉApameÁw t∞w Sur¤aw.

  ‒  

759

[ta phthoropoia]; they do not come under constriction and flux, but have another genus, apart from these. For this reason the koinotes related to their therapy, too, is different from theirs [sc from the koinotetes related to the therapy of constriction and flux]: it is the so-called prophylactic koinotes. So what characterises the Methodist hairesis is, in the first place, the contemplation of what is similar in manifest things—and not in hidden things, as in the Logical hairesis. This is in fact how one [sc hairesis] is distinguished from the other, because in that one [sc the Logical hairesis] there is also contemplation of the similar, but in hidden things. Secondly, [sc what characterises the Methodist hairesis is the fact] that, on the basis of what is similar in manifest things, it reduces all the individual entities—affections, remedies, and phases—to universal entities. But they [sc the Methodists] are not exclusively intent on the manifest, like the Empiricists; those ones stop at the manifest and have no knowledge of anything universal. Thirdly, [sc what characterises the Methodists is the fact] [683] that they derive their therapy from the indication furnished by the koinotetes, neither invoking causes, like the Logicians, nor staying satisfied with the observation, made over the range of sundromai, of what is empirically suitable, like the Empiricists. [iv] The leaders of the three haireseis. The leaders of the Logical hairesis were: Hippocrates of Cos, who was both the founder of the Logical hairesis and its first head; and, after him, Diocles of Carystus, Praxagoras of Cos, Herophilus of Chalcedon, Erasistratus of Chios, Mnesitheus of Athens, Asclepiades of Bithynia, also said to be of Prousias [sc -on-theSea] or Cius. The [sc first] leader of the Empirical hairesis was Philinus of Cos, who severed it initially from the Logical hairesis and took his start from Herophilus, as he was in fact his disciple. But in their desire to bestow antiqueness to their own hairesis, so that it may be older than the Logicians’, they [sc the Empiricists] claim that it was Acron of Acragas who founded it. Philinus was succeeded by Serapion of Alexandria; next came the two Apollonii of Antiochia, father and son, and after them Menodotus and Sextus, [684] who consolidated it [sc the hairesis] thoroughly. The founder of the Methodist hairesis was Themison of Laodicea in Syria, whom Asclepiades the Logician set on the way towards the invention of the Methodist hairesis. It was Thessalus of Tralles who completed it. After them came Mnaseas, Dionysius, Proclus, Antipater; within the hairesis, Olympiacus of Miletus, Menemachus of Aphrodisias, and Soranus of Ephesus were at variance on certain points. There were also some Syncretist doctors [Episuntheticoi ], such as Leonidas of Alexandria, and some Selective doctors [Eklektikoi ], such as Archigenes of Apamea in Syria.

760

  ‒   FR 284. PSEUDO-GALENUS, MEDICUS (3)

Pseudo-Galenus, Introductio seu Medicus, v, pp. 684–686 K:

5

10

15

20

25

30

[v, 684] Efi §pistÆmh ≤ fiatrikØ µ t°xnh. Tin¢w t«n Logik«n, œn §sti ka‹ ÉEras¤stratow, Íp°labon tÚ m°n ti §pisthmonikÚn ¶xein tØn fiatrikÆn, oÂon tÚ afitiologikÚn ka‹ fusiologikÒn, tÚ d¢ stoxastikÒn, oÂon tÚ yerapeutikÚn ka‹ tÚ shmeivtikÒn. Ofl d¢ Meyodiko‹ ka‹ diÉ ˜lou §pistÆmhn aÈtØn épokaloËsin. DiÆmarton dÉ êmfv toË élhyoËw, ka‹ mãlista ofl Meyodiko¤. ÉEpistÆmh gãr §sti “gn«siw éraru›a ka‹ beba¤a ka‹ émetãptvtow ÍpÚ lÒgou”.a AÏth dÉ oÈd¢ parå to›w filosÒfoiw §st¤, mãlistÉ §n t“ fusiologe›n: [685] polÁ d¢ dØ mçllon oÈk ín e‡h §n fiatrikª. ÉAllÉ oÈdÉ ˜lvw efiw ényr≈pouw ¶rxetai. DiÚ t°xnh efikÒtvw ín l°goito ≤ fiatrikÆ. T°xnh gãr §sti “sÊsthma §gkatalÆcevn ka‹ dianoi«n, poiÒn te ka‹ posÚn suggegumnasm°nvn,1 prÒw ti t°low neuous«n xrÆsimon t“ b¤ƒ”.b “KatalÆceiw” oÔn ka‹ aÏth ¶xousa ényrvp¤naw ka‹ taÊtaw flkanåw t“ plÆyei …w “sÊsthma” aÈt«n e‰nai, êllvw te ka‹ “suggegumnasm°naw”, tout°sti prosexe›w éllÆlaiw ka‹ sun&doÊsaw, oÈx‹ ésunartÆtouw, fidi≈tatÉ ín t°xnh Ùnomãzoito—§farmÒzontow aÈtª toË ˜rou t∞w t°xnhw ka‹ 2 e‡w ti “xrÆsimon t“ b¤ƒ” “neÊousin” afl §n aÈtª katalÆceiw. ÉEp‹ går tÚ s–zein ka‹ Ígiãzein toÁw ényr≈pouw par∞lyen efiw tÚn b¤on. Ditt∞w dÉ oÎshw texn«n diaforçw—afl m¢n går toË kayÉ •autåw t°louw ée‹ tugxãnousin, …w tektonikØ ka‹ nauphgikØ ka‹ ofikodomikÆ, afl dÉ §f¤entai m¢n toË •aut«n t°louw, …w skopoË, oÈk ée‹ dÉ aÈtoË tugxãnousin éllÉ …w §p‹ tÚ polu: diÚ ka‹ stoxastika‹ l°gontai— toÊtvn ín e‡h ka‹ fiatrikÆ, …w =htorikØ ka‹ [686] kubernhtikØ ka‹ tojikÆ. ÖEsti d¢ ka‹ •t°ra diaforå t«n texn«n, dittØ ka‹ aÈtÆ. Afl m¢n går §n t“ g¤nesyai tÚ e‰nai ¶xousin, metå d¢ tÚ paÊsasyai t∞w §nerge¤aw oÈd¢n aÈt«n épot°lesma de¤knutai, …w ÙrxhstikØ ka‹ kiyaristikØ ka‹ palaistrikØ ka‹ pçsa mousikØ t°xnh. Afl dÉ §n t“ §nerge›n oÈd¢n ¶xousin ˜lvw fainÒmenon ¶rgon, éllÉ …w ên tinow m°llontow ¶sesyai paraskeuastika¤, metå d¢ tÚ épost∞nai t∞w §nerge¤aw, tÒtÉ aÈt«n tÚ épot°lesma fa¤netai, …w égalmatopoihtikØ ka‹ zvgraf¤a ka‹ tektonikØ ka‹ t«n êllvn œn Ïsteron §pim°nei tå ¶rga. ToÊtvn dÉ ín e‡h ka‹ ≤ fiatrikÆ. ÉEn går t“ yerapeÊein oÈd°pv aÈt∞w diade¤knutai tÚ t°low, §nistam°nhw ée‹ prÚw tåw nÒsouw: ˜tan d¢ suntel°s˙ tåw yerape¤aw, tÒte Ígi∞ tÚn ênyrvpon ép°fhnen. a

Cf Sextus Empiricus at Adversus Mathematicos vii 150 (§pistÆmhn m¢n e‰nai tØn ésfalØn ka‹ beba¤an ka‹ émetãyeton ÍpÚ lÒgou katãlhciw) and Stobaeus ii 73–4 (e‰nai d¢ tØn §pistÆmhn katãlhcin ésfal∞ ka‹ émetãptvton ÍpÚ lÒgou, SVF iii

112 = Long–Sedley 41H1). Cf Olympiodorus, In Platonis Gorgiam 12.1 (SVF i 73 = Long–Sedley 42A4): ZÆnvn d° fhsin ˜ti “t°xnh §st‹ sÊsthma §k katalÆcevn suggegumnasm°nvn prÒw ti t°low eÎxrhston t«n §n t“ b¤ƒ” (apparatus in Long–Sedley ii, p. 259). b

1

ci ego: suggegumnasm°non K

2

add ego

761

  ‒   FR 284. PSEUDO-GALENUS, THE

DOCTOR

(3)

Pseudo-Galenus, Introduction [sc to medicine] or The doctor, v, pp. 684– 686 K: [v, 684] Whether medicine is a science [episteme] or an art [techne]. Some of the Logicians, and Erasistratus among them, supposed that medicine has on the one hand some scientific component, such as causal explanation and natural philosophy, on the other hand some conjectural component, such as therapy and sign-inference. But the Methodists call it a science all the way through. Both parties veered astray from the truth, and mostly the Methodists. For science consists in “knowledge that is sufficient, certain, and not to be changed by reason”. This kind of thing is not found among philosophers, especially in their speculations on natural philosophy; [685] and it would be far less plausible to find it in medicine. As it is, it does not visit mortals at all. Therefore, it would be reasonable to say that medicine is an art. An art is “a systematic collection of cognitions [katalepseis] and thoughts [dianoiai ], which have been organised together in a certain manner and number and which tend towards some goal useful for life”. So, since it [sc medicine], too, has “cognitions” accessible to mortals, and since these are in sufficient bulk for it to be a “systematic collection” of them, and above all they are “organised together”—that is, they are relevant and consonant with each other, not disconnected—it would be most proper to call medicine an art; and all the more so as the definition of an art also fits in with the fact that the notions which operate in medicine do “tend towards” something which is “useful for life”. For it is in order to save people and keep them in good health that it came into their life. So, since there is a division of the arts into two branches—some of them, like architecture, ship-building, or house-building, always meet their own goal, whereas others aim at their own goal or aim, yet do not meet it always but only in most cases, and for this reason they are described as conjectural—medicine would be classified among the latter, together with rhetoric, [686] navigation, and archery. But there is also another division of the arts, again into two branches. For some of them have their being in becoming, and when their activity has ceased there is no result to exhibit: so is dancing, flute-playing, wrestling, and the whole [sc province of the] art of the Muses. Others, on the contrary, have on the whole no visible outcome in the exercise of the activity; instead, they seem to engineer the future existence of something, and it is when the activity has stopped that their result becomes visible: so is sculpture, painting, architecture, and the other arts whose products survive afterwards. Medicine, too, would belong among these arts. For its aim is not yet transparent in the exercise of therapy, when it is always engaged in fighting diseases; but, once the therapy is completed, then it [sc the end] reveals itself to be the healthy man.

762

  ‒  - FR 285. PSEUDO-GALENUS, MEDICUS (4)

Pseudo-Galenus, Introductio seu Medicus, vii–viii, pp. 690–691 K: 5

[viii, 690] Efi énagka¤a ≤ efiw tå p°nte m°rh t∞w fiatrik∞w dia¤resiw. TÚ m¢n oÔn fusiologe›n énagka›Òn §stin, ˜tÉ oÈx oÂÒn te tå parå fÊsin efid°nai mØ prÒteron §pistãmenon tå katå fÊsin: parå går tØn toÊtvn fÊsin [691] sun¤statai tå nosÆmata. TÚ dÉ afitiologe›n ka‹ payologe›n ka‹ aÈtå énagka›a: tÚ m¢n ·na tåw afit¤aw t«n pay«n ‡dvmen prÚw ìw 10 de› §n¤stasyai, tÚ dÉ ·na ka‹ aÈtå 1 pãyh gnvr¤zvmen tå katvnomasm°na to›w palaio›w ka‹ tåw katastãseiw aÈt«n. EÎxrhstow d¢ ka‹ ≤ t«n sumptvmãtvn sunedreuÒntvn to›w pãyesin §p¤gnvsiw: épÚ går t∞w toÊtvn suneleÊsevw, ∂n sundromØn kaloËsin ofl ÉEmpeiriko¤, tå pãyh efidopoie›tai.2 ÉAllÉ ofl m¢n ÉEmpeiriko‹ §p‹ ta›w sundroma›w §tÆrh15 san tå prÚw ßkaston sÊmptvmata èrmÒzonta: to›w d¢ Meyodiko›w tå pãyh §nde¤knutai tØn yerape¤an, …w to›w Logiko›w tå a‡tia. 1

suppl ego

2

corr ego: efidopoioËntai K

FR 286. PSEUDO-PLUTARCHUS, FRAGMENTA Pseudo-Plutarchus, Fragmenta, 215, k = p. 135 Sandbach: [215, k] ÜOti ka‹ ˜soi gal∞n foboËntai µ saËron µ xel≈nhn, oÓw efid°nai aÈtÒw: ka‹ ı Tiber¤ou, édelfidoËw êrktouw yhr«n ka‹ l°ontaw, ˜mvw 20 élektruÒna oÈdÉ fide›n ±dÊnato: farmakop≈lhn d° tina efid°nai ÍpÚ m¢n drakÒntvn ka‹ ésp¤dvn mhd¢n pãsxein, mÊonta d¢ feÊgein m°xri bo∞w ka‹ §kstãsevw: Yem¤svn dÉ ı fiatrÚw tå m¢n êlla pãyh pãnta metexeir¤zeto, tÚn d¢ ÍdrofÒbon e‡ tiw ka‹ »nÒmase mÒnon §tarãtteto ka‹ ˜moia ¶pasxe to›w ÍpÉ aÈtoË katexom°noiw: œn afit¤an e‰nai tØn 25 énãmnhsin t∞w propaye¤aw.

FR 287. PSEUDO-SORANUS, QUAESTIONES

MEDICINALES

(1)

Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales iv, Codex Londinensis Cottonianus Galba E IV, 239b = p. 247 Rose: [iv, 239b] Ars medicinae disciplinis subiacet an non? Logicis seu Dogmaticis haec ars subiacere uidetur disciplinis, Methodicis uero disciplinis non uidetur subiacere sed custodire disciplinas.

763

  ‒  - FR 285. PSEUDO-GALENUS, THE

DOCTOR

(4)

Pseudo-Galenus, Introduction [sc to medicine] or The doctor, vii–viii, pp. 690–691 K: [viii, 690] Whether the division of medicine into five parts is necessary. Now, the part which deals with natural philosophy is necessary, because it would not be possible to know what is unnatural without knowing, first, what is natural; for the diseases arise in violation to the nature of the latter. [691] The parts [sc of medicine] which deal with causal explanation and with pathology are also necessary: the former, in order that we know the causes of the diseases we must fight; the latter, in order that we also recognise the affections named by the ancients and their conditions. Also useful is the recognition of the symptoms which inhere in the affections; for it is on the basis of their reunion, which the Empiricists call “sundrome”, that the affections are specifically characterised. Now the Empiricists have observed in the sundromai what symptoms go with each; for the Methodists, the affections indicate the therapy, just as, for the Logical doctors, the causes [sc indicate it].

FR 286. PSEUDO-PLUTARCH, FRAGMENTS Pseudo-Plutarch, Fragments, 215, k = p. 135 Sandbach: [215, k] That some people fear weasels, lizards, or tortoises—he has came across such people himself; that Tiberius’ [sc nephew], who used to hunt bears and lions, could not stand the sight of a cock; and [sc that] he had met an apothecary who would be unmoved by serpents and cobras but would run away in shrieks of distraction from a fly. Themison the doctor handled any disease except hydrophobia: if one as much as mentioned it, he would get disturbed and experience [sc symptoms] similar to [sc those displayed by] patients attacked by it; and [sc that] the cause of these [sc phenomena] is the recollection [anamnesis] of previous experience.

FR 287. PSEUDO-SORANUS, MEDICAL [SC AND ANSWERS] (1)

QUESTIONS

Pseudo-Soranus, Medical questions [sc and answers] iv, Codex Londinensis Cottonianus Galba E IV, 239b = p. 247 Rose: [iv, 239b] Is the art of medicine subordinate to scientific rules or not? The Logicians or Dogmatists think that this art is subordinate to scientific rules, whereas the Methodists do not think that it is subordinate to scientific rules but rather that it preserves the scientific rules.

764

  ‒  - FR 288. PSEUDO-SORANUS, QUAESTIONES

MEDICINALES

(2)

Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales xiii, Codex Londinensis Cottonianus Galba E IV, 239b = p. 249 Rose: [xiii, 239b] Quid est secundum Methodicos medicina? Secundum Methodicos: medicinam dicere uolunt koinotÆtvn1 et necessariorum consequentium uitiorum generalem comprehensionem; per quam sequentium aegritudinum utilitas ad curam inuenitur, per quam ostendi potest quae partiles sint2 simi5 litudines et dissimilitudines; per quam inducuntur utilitates humani corporis. Cum maxime a nobis haec recusanda est.3

corr Rose (= R): cenoticum corr coenoticum cod sit cod

1

2

corr R: sunt cod

FR 289. PSEUDO-SORANUS, QUAESTIONES

MEDICINALES

3

corr R:

(3)

Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales xlvi, Codex Londinensis Cottonianus Galba E IV, 240a = p. 253 Rose: [xlvi, 240a] Quid est “aresconta”? “Aresconta”1 autem dicuntur ea quae aut per definitionem aut per descriptionem placere uidentur, ea scilicet quae in singulis accommodatiora sunt et quibus plerique consentiunt. His autem 10 utuntur Empirici2 et Methodici; et3 plus definitionibus4 quidem utuntur Dogmatici, descriptionibus uero Empirici; Methodici autem diuersis modis, nunc definitionibus modo, 5 etiam descriptionibus in quibus uolunt ostendere uel exprimere quae subiacent. Deinde analogismo utuntur Dogmatici.

arisconta cod cod 5 add ego 1

2

imperici cod, hic et infra

3

corr R: eo cod

FR 290. PSEUDO-SORANUS, QUAESTIONES

4

difinitionibus

MEDICINALES

(4)

Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales xlix, Codex Londinensis Cottonianus Galba E IV, 240b = p. 253 Rose: [xlix, 240b] Quot sunt medicinae? Tres: Empirica, Dogmatica, et Methodica.

  ‒  - FR 288. PSEUDO-SORANUS, MEDICAL [SC AND ANSWERS] (2)

765

QUESTIONS

Pseudo-Soranus, Medical questions [sc and answers] xiii, Codex Londinensis Cottonianus Galba E IV, 239b = p. 249 Rose: [xiii, 239b] What is medicine according to the Methodists? According to the Methodists: they want to say that it [sc medicine] is the general understanding of the koinotetes and of the necessary injuries which follow [sc from them]: through it [sc this understanding] one discovers what is beneficial for the treatment of the diseases which follow [sc upon the koinotetes]; through it it is possible to show which are the individual similarities and dissimilarities; through it one establishes what is beneficial for the human body. But we should deny these [sc claims] as strongly as possible.

FR 289. PSEUDO-SORANUS, MEDICAL [SC AND ANSWERS] (3)

QUESTIONS

Pseudo-Soranus, Medical questions [sc and answers] xlvi, Codex Londinensis Cottonianus Galba E IV, 240a = p. 253 Rose: [xlvi, 240a] What means “areskonta” [= maxims]? We call “areskonta” what appears to be agreed upon either by definition or by description, namely those [sc propositions] which, taken one by one, have greater applicability, and to which most people give their consent. It is these that the Empiricists and the Methodists use; the Dogmatists in fact make greater use of definitions, while the Empiricists, of descriptions; as for the Methodists, they use contrasting means—now definitions only, now also descriptions, through which they try to make clear or convey the underlying issues. Finally, the Dogmatists use the analogism.

FR 290. PSEUDO-SORANUS, MEDICAL [SC AND ANSWERS] (4)

QUESTIONS

Pseudo-Soranus, Medical questions [sc and answers] xlix, Codex Londinensis Cottonianus Galba E IV, 240b = p. 253 Rose: [xlix, 240b] How many [sc kinds of ] medicine are there? Three: Empiricist, Dogmatist, and Methodist.

766

  ‒  - FR 291. PSEUDO-SORANUS, QUAESTIONES

MEDICINALES

(5)

Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales cxxvii–cxxx [= De diversis febribus], Codex Londinensis Cottonianus Galba E IV, 242a–242b = pp. 261–262 Rose: [cxxvii, 242a] Quid est hemitritica febris? Quae non cessat et tamen quaedam interualla habet. Hemitritaeorum tamen Methodici tres differentiae dicunt quarum unam1 maiorem alteram mediam tertiam minorem dicunt. [cxxviii] Quid est minor hemitritaeus? Qui incipit die et optinet partem quandam 5 noctis et ita soluitur, uel qui e contrario incipit a nocte et die finitur. [cxxix] Quid est medius2 hemitritaeus? Qui a die incipit et optinet totam noctem et partem futuri diei et ita soluitur. [cxxx] Quid est maior hemitritaeus? Iuxta Methodicos, qui incipit a die et optinet totam noctem et futurum diem et partem noctis, uel qui e contrario a nocte incipit et ad diem pro10 trahitur. Hippocrates uero ideo [242b] hemitritaeum dicit quia unum diem grauem habet cum acutissimis febribus, alium leuem.

1

corr R: una codd

2

ego: inedius R

FR 292. PSEUDO-SORANUS, QUAESTIONES

MEDICINALES

(6)

Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales clxxxvii [= De signis passionum], Codex Londinensis Cottonianus Galba E IV, 243a = p. 266 Rose: [clxxxvii, 243a] Quid est accessio? Motus uitiorum et agitatio causarum earundem1 secundum tempus initiorum. Iuxta Methodicos uero conuersio corporis ad peius per interualla quae dantur.

1

ego: earumque R

FR 293. PSEUDO-SORANUS, QUAESTIONES

MEDICINALES

(7)

Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales cxciv [= De signis passionum], Codex Londinensis Cottonianus Galba E IV, 243b = p. 267 Rose: 15 [cxliv, 243b] Quid est “epithesis”?1 Superpositio. Superpositio accessio aegri-

  ‒  - FR 291. PSEUDO-SORANUS, MEDICAL [SC AND ANSWERS] (5)

767

QUESTIONS

Pseudo-Soranus, Medical questions [sc and answers] cxxvii–cxxx [= On the various [sc kinds of ] fever], Codex Londinensis Cottonianus Galba E IV, 242a = p. 262 Rose: [cxxvii, 242a] What is a semitertian fever? It is the kind [sc of fever] which does not cease but has nonetheless some periods of abatement. However, the Methodists claim that the semitertian is of three kinds, and they call one of these major, another one medium, and the third one minor. [cxxviii] What is a minor semitertian? It is one which starts during the day, holds for some part of the night, and then disappears; or one which starts on the contrary in the night and stops on the [sc next] day. [cxxix] What is a medium semitertian? It is one which starts during the day, holds for the whole night and a part of the next day, and then disappears. [cxxx] What is a major semitertian? According to the Methodists, it is one which begins during the day and lasts for the whole night, for the forthcoming day, and for a part of the [sc second] night; or, conversely, one which begins in the night and extends over the day. As for Hippocrates, the reason why he [242b] called it semitertian is that it alternates between being severe and accompanied by most violent fevers during one day, mild during another.

FR 292. PSEUDO-SORANUS, MEDICAL [SC AND ANSWERS] (6)

QUESTIONS

Pseudo-Soranus, Medical questions [sc and answers] clxxxvii [= On the symptoms of the affections], Codex Londinensis Cottonianus Galba E IV, 243a = p. 266 Rose: [clxxxvii, 243a] What is a paroxysm? [sc It is] a movement of the morbid [sc elements] and a stirring of the causes themselves during the initial periods [sc of diseases]. As for the Methodists, according to them [sc it is] the body’s change to the worse during pre-established periods of time.

FR 293. PSEUDO-SORANUS, MEDICAL [SC AND ANSWERS] (7)

QUESTIONS

Pseudo-Soranus, Medical questions [sc and answers] cxciv [= On the symptoms of the affections], Codex Londinensis Cottonianus Galba E IV, 243b = p. 267 Rose: [cxliv, 243b] What is an “epithesis”? [sc It is] an attack [superpositio]. An

768

  ‒  -

tudinis est uel motus uitiorum et agitatio causarum earundem secundum tempus initiatarum. Iuxta Methodicos uero conuersio corporis ad peius per interualla quae dantur.

1

R: epythesis codd

FR 294. PSEUDO-SORANUS, QUAESTIONES

MEDICINALES

(8)

Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales cxcvii [= De signis passionum], Codex Londinensis Cottonianus Galba E IV, 243b = p. 267 Rose: [cxlvii, 243b] Quid ostendit diuturnos morbos?1 Ut in accessionibus similiter 5 eos ut acutos curemus. Cum autem minui coeperint, metasyncritica (id est recorporatiua)2 adhibenda est cura. Cum ergo per gratiam haec constare uideantur, circa morbos et causae uitia et symptomata3 (id est accidentia) assidue diligentiam adhibeamus ne deteriorentur. Dogmatici quidem aiunt debere nos curarum qualitatem sumere a causis morborum ex quibus 10 efficiuntur, Methodici uero ab ipsis uitiis, id est ex strictura, fluxione, et complexione,4 Empirici autem de concursionibus uel accidentibus—id est symptomatibus.5

d. m. cod 2 R: metasincretica i. recuperatiua cod 3 R: sinptomata cod ego: ex strictura fluxionis et complexionis R 5 R: sintomatibus cod 1

FR 295. PSEUDO-SORANUS, QUAESTIONES

MEDICINALES

4

ci

(9)

Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales li, Codex Carnotensis 62 (115), Fol. 5v = pp. 363–364 Stadler:a [363] 1 Methodica autem neque elemena

The only printed edition of this text remains so far that of Hermann Stadler in Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 5 1906, pp. 361–68. But a new edition is under preparation by Klaus-Dietrich Fischer, who pointed out this text to me and let me use his own trannscripion of Chartres 62, accompanied by his apparatus. He also made valuable corrections, suggestions and comments on an earlier version of my fragment. My text is based on that of Fischer, but in a few places it departs from the uncorrected codex as transcribed by him.

  ‒  -

769

attack is a paroxysm [accessio] of the disease, or a movement of the bad things and a stirring of the causes themselves during the initial periods [sc of diseases]. As for the Methodists, according to them [sc it is] the body’s change to the worse during pre-established periods of time.

FR 294. PSEUDO-SORANUS, MEDICAL [SC AND ANSWERS] (8)

QUESTIONS

Pseudo-Soranus, Medical questions [sc and answers] cxcvii [= On the symptoms of the affections], Codex Londinensis Cottonianus Galba E IV, 243b = p. 267 Rose: [cxlvii, 243b] What is the indication in chronic diseases? That we treat them, during paroxysms, in the same way as [sc we treat] acute [sc diseases]. But as soon as they [sc the paroxysms] have started to diminish, we should apply matasyncritic (that is to say, recorporative) treatment. Since, then, these [sc medications] are clearly for benefit, we should apply strenuous care that the diseases, the causes of damage, and the symptoms (that is, the accidentals) do not get worse. Now the Dogmatists claim that we should derive the quality of the remedies from the diseases’ causes, of which they [sc the diseases] are the result; the Methodists, from the bad things themselves, that is, from stricture, flux, and [sc their] combination; whereas the Empiricists, from clusters [sc of signs] or from accidentals—that is to say, from symptoms.

FR 295. PSEUDO-SORANUS, MEDICAL [SC AND ANSWERS] (9)

QUESTIONS

Pseudo-Soranus, Medical questions [sc and answers] li, Codex Carnotensis 62 (115), Fol. 5v = pp. 363–364 Stadler: [363] Methodist [sc medicine] does not appeal to elements [sc -theory], to

770

5

10

15

20

  ‒  -

torum ratione utitur nec temperantiis2 aut temporibus, nec aetatibus, nec causis. Quapropter et qui a3 Themisone4 oriuntur naturarum inspectionem inutilem putauerunt nec non etiam anatoma5 respuerunt,6 esse7 enim haec omnia superflua dixerunt {esse}.8 Solas9 autem cenotetas, id est uitiorum substantias communes, accipiunt. Cenoteta10 autem sunt11 res12 quae apparent in medicina per quandam necessitatem in his omnibus quae similia uidentur, et comprehensio huiusmodi rerum per similitudinem aut dissimilitudinem13 :14 sicut15 in uitiis quidem stegnon et roodia, idest strictura et fluxibile;16 in temporibus autem 17 acutum et diuturnum;18 in adiuuamentis—idest medicaminibus—autem19 stalticum et calasticum20 .21 Coenotetas22 autem, idest communitates, dicunt esse uitiorum tres: stignopatia,23 id est constrictio; roodia, idest fluxio; epylochin [364] (§piplokÆ), idest commixtio et alia plura quae sunt omittenda uel admittenda.24 Quid est stegnotes?25 Constrictio naturalium fluxionum, omnium uel plurimorum [sic], cum difficili euaporatione corporis .26 Quid est roodia? Abundans {habundans}27 naturalis defluxio eorum quae minime defluunt.28 Quid est ephyploce?29 Horum omnium30 communis,31 id est32 fluxiones et strictiones,33 in unum concursus. Oportere autem strictionem34 quidem laxare, fluxionem uero constringere; in epiploce autem35 ei rei maxime resistere quae uidetur36 urguere.

add secunda manus (= m2) 2 ci Stadler (= Sta): temperantias cod: temperantia m2 3 que ana corr m2 4 Themisone corr Sta; themison. cod 5 anatoma corr Sta: animona cod: anathoma corr m2 6 respuerunt esse add m2 7 Fischer (= Fi) < cod: respuerunt, enim Sta 8 del Fi 9 corr m2: sola cod 10 cenotecae corr m2 11 pst corr Fi 12 Cod > Fi: al. sunt III in marg: tres Sta 13 pro similitudine et dissimilitudine corr m2 14 est add ego 15 restit Fi: om Sta 16 cod > Fi: fluxio corr m2 17 add m2 > Fi 18 acutus et diuturnus morbus corr m2 19 autem post adiuuamentis transp Sta 20 staltica et calastica corr m2: chalasticum corr Sta 21 add m2 in marg 22 coenoticas m2 23 stignopathia corr Sta 24 stignopathia . . . 25 stignotes m2 26 add m2 27 secl Stadler admitttenda in ras. add m2 28 29 defluunt corr m2: defluit cod ephyploce? LVI add in marg m2 30 RP. com31 commune corr m2 32 id est expunctum m2 33 Fi: fluxionis mixtio m2 in marg Sta 34 cod: instrictionem Sta 35 aut Sta 36 Sta: uidentur cod 1

FR 296. PSEUDO-SORANUS, QUAESTIONES

MEDICINALES

(10)

Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales, Codex Carnotensis 62 (115), 149.3C = p. 50 Fischer: [149.3C] Methodici autem sic responderunt, febrem esse qui ex alto surgit1 calor contra naturam, cum uitio stricturae uel fluxionis aut complicationis. 1

Ftscher: exsurgit cod

  ‒  -

771

[sc humoural] mixtures, to times [sc of the year], to ages, or to causes. For this reason those who sprang from Themison considered the examination of natures to be useless—in fact they rejected even dissection; for they claimed that all these things are superfluous. They accept the koinotetes alone, that is, the common substances of the morbid states [uitia]. Now the koinotetes are entities in medicine which are manifest [apparent] by virtue of some necessity, in all the things which appear to be similar; and the grasp of this kind of things takes place through similarity and dissimilarity. Within the range of complaints, they [sc the Methodists] have postulated what is stegnon and roodia, that is, constriction and flux; within the range of durations [sc they have postulated] what is oxea and chronia, that is, acute and chronic; and within the range of remedies—that is, of medicines—[sc they have postulated] remedies which are staltika and chalastika—that is, checking and relaxing. As for the koinotetes, that is, the communitates, they [sc the Methodists] claim that there are three of them in relation to the morbid states: stegnopathia, that is, constriction; rhoodia, that is, flux; epylochin [364] (§piplokÆ), that is, [sc their] mixture; there are numerous other [sc features] which should be ignored or accepted. What is stegnotes? The checking of all or most natural processes of flux, accompanied by the hard dissipation of the body. What is rhoodia? An abundant natural outflow of things which [sc normally] flow out minimally. What is ephyploce? The common running together in one of all those, that is, of [sc the features of ] flux and constriction. And [sc they claim that] in constriction one must relax, in flux, conversely, constrict, whereas in epiploche one should apply maximum resistance to the [sc feature] which shows to have dominant force.

FR 296. PSEUDO-SORANUS, MEDICAL [SC AND ANSWERS] (10)

QUESTIONS

Pseudo-Soranus, Medical questions [sc and answers], Codex Carnotensis 62 (115), 149.3C = p. 50 Fischer: [149.3C] But the Methodists gave the following answer: fever is an unnatural heat which mounts from the depths [sc of the body], accompanied by the morbid state [uitium] of stricture, of flux, or of [sc their] combination.

772

  ‒  - FR 297. PSEUDO-SORANUS, QUAESTIONES

MEDICINALES

(11)

Pseudo-Soranus, Quaestiones medicinales, Codex Carnotensis 62 (115), 160.8C = p. 52 Fischer: [160.8C] Methodici autem stricturam et fluxum generaliter necnon etiam complexionem causantur [esse febres].

FR 298DUB. SCHOLIA GRAECA

IN

HOMERI ILIADEM

I Homerus, Ilias xi 113–115: ÑVw d¢ l°vn §lãfoio taxe¤hw nÆpia t°kna =hid¤vw sun°aje lab∆n kratero›sin ÙdoËsin 5 §ly∆n efiw eÈnØn èpalÒn t° sfÉ ∑tor éphÊra . . .

II Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem, xi 115: A Scholia Townleyana (T): Codex Townleianus, BM Burney 88 = L 115c Erbse (V p. 385 Maass): “ÑApalÒn t° sfÉ ∑tor”: ka‹ ÉAnt¤patrow ı fiatrÚw sunaÊjesya¤ fhsi t“ s≈mati tØn cuxÆn. B Scholia exegetica et Veneta (b): a Codex Venetus Graecus 821 [= B], Codex Laurentianus pluteus 32, 3 [= C], Codex Escorialensis Graecus 291 (U I 1) [= E3] = III p. 461 10 Dindorf, p. 148 Erbse (testimonia): “ÑApalÒn t° sfÉ ∑tor éphÊra”: oÏtvw ÉAristot°lhw ka‹ ÉAnt¤patrow ı fiatrÚw sunaÊjesya¤ fasi t“ s≈mati tØn cuxÆn. b Codicis Veneti Graeci 821 manus recentior [= *B] = III p. 461 Dindorf, p. 148 Erbse (testimonia); SVF III p. 251, fr. 50: 15 “ÑApalÒn t° sfÉ ∑tor éphÊra”: oÏtvw ÉAristot°lhw ka‹ ÉAnt¤patrow ı fiatrÚw sunaÊjesya¤ fasi t« s≈mati tØn cuxØn ka‹ summeioËsyai pãlin.

  ‒  - FR 297. PSEUDO-SORANUS, MEDICAL [SC AND ANSWERS] (11)

773

QUESTIONS

Pseudo-Soranus, Medical questions [sc and answers], Codex Carnotensis 62 (115), 160.8C = p. 52 Fischer: [160.8C] As for the Methodists, they give as causes [sc of fever] [sc the state of ] stricture and [sc the state of ] flux, and also the [sc state resulting from their] combination.

FR 298DUB. THE GREEK SCHOLIA

TO

HOMER’S ILIAD

I Homer, The Iliad, xi 113–115: As a lion rapidly crushes the new-born babies of a swift hind, seizing them with strong teeth when he comes to their lair, and robs them of their tender heart . . .

II The Greek Scholia to Homer’s Iliad, xi 115: A Scholia Townleyana (T): Codex Townleianus, BM Burney 88 = L 115c Erbse (V p. 385 Maass): “Their tender heart”: Antipater the doctor, too, claims that the soul grows together with the body. B Scholia exegetica et Veneta (b): a Codex Venetus Graecus 821 [= B], Codex Laurentianus pluteus 32, 3 [= C], Codex Escorialensis Graecus 291 (U I 1) [= E3] = III p. 461 Dindorf, p. 148 Erbse (testimonia): “Robs them of their tender heart”: thus Aristotle and Antipater the doctor claim that the soul grows together with the body. b Codicis Veneti Graeci 821 manus recentior [= *B] = III p. 461 Dindorf, p. 148 Erbse (testimonia); SVF III p. 251, fr. 50: “Robs them of their tender heart”: thus Aristotle and Antipater the doctor claim that the soul grows, then diminishes again, together with the body.

774

  ‒  -

c Codex Escorialensis Graecus 509 (V I 12) [= E4], Codex Leidensis (Vosianus Graecus 64 [= Le] = p. 148 Erbse (testimonia); SVF III p. 251, fr. 50: ToËtÉ §k¤nhse toÁw StvÛkoÁw ka‹ ÉAnt¤patron §n t“ Per‹ cux∞w deut°rƒ l°gein ˜ti sunaÊjetai t“ s≈mati ≤ cuxØ ka‹ summeioËtai pãlin. C Eusthatius, Ad Homeri Iliadem, III p. 166 van der Valk: ÉEn d¢ t“ “èpalÚn ∑tor” fas‹n ofl palaio‹ ˜ti ÉAnt¤patrow ı fiatrÚw sullog¤zetai tØn cuxØn t“ s≈mati sundiat¤yesyai, …w ka‹ sunaÊjesyai aÈt“ ka‹ summeioËsyai, èpaloË m¢n ˆntow toiaÊthn oÔsan, tele¤ƒ dÉ 5 ˆnti sunteleioum°nhn ka‹ sumfy¤nousan fy¤nonti. D Scholia Homeri Parisina, Anecdota Graeca Parisina III p. 14 Cramer = C

FR 299DUB. SCHOLIA

IN

ORIBASII, COLLECTIONES

MEDICAS

(1)

A Oribasius, Collectiones medicae, xliv 14 [ÉEk toË ÑRoÊfou: per‹ boub«now] = III pp. 131–132 Raeder: [131] Boub∆n ı m¢n §p‹ ta›w tuxoÊsaiw afit¤aiw faner«w parå trãxhlon ka‹ masxãlaw ka‹ mhroÁw énistãmenow êneu te puretoË ka‹ sÁn puret“: énãgkh d¢ tÚn §p‹ boub«ni puretÚn frik≈dh e‰nai, ka‹ efi mhd¢n êllo suna¤tion ¬1 lÊesyai =ad¤vw êneu kindÊnou: per‹ toÊtou DhmÒkritÒw 10 fhsin ˜ti, molÊbdou metå foinikh¤ou2 periafy°ntow, [132] µ tÚ parãpan éfl°gmantow g¤netai ≥ poll“3 dØ =h˝zei. Ofl d¢ loim≈deiw kaloÊmenoi boub«new yanatvd°statoi ka‹ ÙjÊtatoi, ofl mãlista per‹ LibÊhn ka‹ A‡gupton ka‹ Sur¤an ır«ntai ginÒmenoi: œn memnhmoneÊkasin ofl per‹ tÚn DionÊsion tÚn KurtÒn.

B Scholia in Oribasii Collectiones medicas, xliv 14 = III p. 132 Raeder, Schol R2: 15 KurtÒn. ÑO F¤lvn §n t“ * y Per‹ bibliotÆkhw ktÆsevw ka‹ ÜErmippow4 §n t“ / Per‹ t«n diå paide¤an5 semnhy°ntvn §ndÒjvn6 éndr«n fiatr«n ka‹ ı SvranÚw §n ta›w T«n fiatr«n diadoxa›w fasin ˜ti ka‹ ÙjutÒnvw

e‡h BD (= Bussemaker–Daremberg 2 corr Ra: foiniki¤ou R (= Vaticanus Graecus 1885) 3 corr BD: poll«n R 4 Raeder (= Ra): ßrmhppow codd 5 Ra: paid¤an codd 6 Ra: eÈdÒjvn codd 1

  ‒  -

775

c Codex Escorialensis Graecus 509 (V I 12) [= E4], Codex Leidensis (Vosianus Graecus 64 [= Le] = p. 148 Erbse (testimonia); SVF III p. 251, fr. 50: This [sc line] has led the Stoics and Antipater in the second book of his [sc treatise] On the soul to claim that the soul grows, then diminishes again, together with the body. C Eusthatius, Ad Homeri Iliadem, III p. 166 van der Valk: With reference to [sc the words] “tender heart”, the ancients say that Antipater the doctor reasons that the soul is affected in sympathy with the body, so that it grows and diminishes together with it: if it [sc the body] is tender, it [sc the soul] is the same, and when it [sc the body] is fully realised or perishing it [sc the soul] is fully realised or perishes together with it. D Scholia Homeri Parisina, Anecdota Graeca Parisina III p. 14 Cramer = C

FR 299DUB. SCHOLIA

TO

ORIBASIUS, MEDICAL

COLLECTIONS

(1)

A Oribasius, Medical collections, xliv 14 [[sc Excerpts] from Rufus: boubones] = III pp. 131–132 Raeder: [131] The [sc kind of ] boubo due to chance causes, which is visibly located on the neck, under the arm-pits, or on the thighs, is either accompanied by fever or not feverish; the fever which accompanies a bubo is of necessity spasmodic, and if there is no other contributing cause [sunaition], it disappears easily and without danger. This is the one of which Democritus said that, if a piece of Phoenician lead is attached to it, [132] it will go completely uninflamed or, much rather, it will heal. But the boubones called pestilential, especially those seen to develop in the areas of Lybia, Egypt, and Syria, are lethal to the highest degree and extremely acute; those are discussed by Dionysius Cyrtus and his disciples.

B Scholia to Oribasius, Medical collections, xliv 14 = III p. 132 Raeder, Schol R2: Cyrtus. Philo in Book ix of his Acquisition of a library, Hermippus in Book v of his Famous medical men distinguished through their learning, and Soranus in his Successions of doctors say that “Kurtós” [= Cyrtus] is pronounced both as an

776

  ‒  -

e‡rhtai “KurtÒw”, …w “fojÒw”, diå svmatikØn ésy°neian, barutÒnvw d°, …w “·ppow”, “pÊrgow”, §pe‹ §k mesoga¤ou pÒlevw t∞w AfigÊptou legom°nhw KÊrtou Ípãrxein ≥, …w fas¤ tinew, diå tÚ èl¤skesyai toÁw éntil°gontaw aÈtoË Àsper toÁw fixyËw ÍpÚ t«n èlieutik«n kÊrtvn.7

7

Ra: kurt«n cod

FR 300. SCHOLIA

IN

ORIBASII, COLLECTIONES

MEDICAS

(2)

Scholia in Oribasii Collectiones medicas, xliv 21 [= ÉEk t«n M°ghtow: per‹ sur¤ggvn] = III p. 142 Raeder: 5 Sid≈nion tÚn M°ghta e‰na¤ fhsin: êlloi d¢ mayhtØn aÈtÚn e‰nai Yem¤svnow énagrãfousin.

FR 301. SENECA, EPISTULAE Seneca, Epistulae, xcv 9–10: [9] Adice nunc quod artes quoque pleraeque, immo ex omnibus liberalissimae, habent decreta sua, non tantum praecepta, sicut medicina. Itaque alia est Hippocratis secta, [10] alia Asclepiadis, alia Themisonis. Praeterea 10 nulla ars contemplativa sine decretis suis est, quae Graeci vocant “dogmata”, nobis vel “decreta” licet appellare vel “scita” vel “placita”, quae et in geometria et in astronomia invenies. Philosophia autem et contemplativa est et activa; spectat simul agitque.

777

  ‒  -

oxytone, like “phoxós” [= pointed], because of [sc his] bodily weakness, and as a barytone [sc “Kúrtos”], like “híppos” [= horse] or “púrgos” [= tower], because he was from a city in the middle of Egypt called Cyrtus, or, as some authorities claim, because he used to catch his opponents like fish in fishing-pots [kúrta].

FR 300. SCHOLIA

TO

ORIBASIUS, MEDICAL

COLLECTIONS

(2)

Scholia to Oribasius, Medical collections, xliv 21 [= [sc Excerpts] from Meges: abscesses] = III p. 142 Raeder: They say that Meges was a Sidonian; and some put him down as a disciple of Themison.

FR 301. SENECA, LETTERS Seneca, Letters, xcv 9–10: [9] To this you should add that most of the arts, and in fact the most liberal of them all, have not mere maxims, but bodies of doctrine of their own. Take medicine, for instance: the secta of Hippocrates is one thing, [10] the secta of Asclepiades is something else, the secta of Themison is yet another, different thing. Besides, no theoretical art exists without its own body of doctrine—the Greeks call these “dogmata”, and we may use terms such as “doctrines”, “principles”, or “teachings”—of the sort that you find in geometry or astronomy. But philosophy is both theoretical and practical; it examines and acts at the same time.

778

  ‒  - FR 302DUB. SERUIUS, IN VERGILII GEORGICA

A Vergilius, Georgica, i 215–6: . . . tum te quoque, Medica, putres accipiunt sulci et milio uenit annua cura.

B Seruius, In Vergilii Georgica, i 215 = p. 181 Thilo:a [215] “Medica, putres accipiunt sulci” ad ipsam herbam apostropham facit. Haec autem herba1 a Medis2 translata est in Graeciam quo tempore eam 5 inuaserunt. Huius plena Venetia est, et, ut dicit Dionysius,3 trium foliorum est, semper uirens.4 Quod autem ait “putres sulci” naturam ipsius herbae respicit: nam uno anno frequenter seritur et sexies aut amplius secatur et postea5 aliquot annis sponte procreatur. Quod etiam sequens indicat uersus:6 nam dicendo “milio uenit annua cura” ostendit Medicae curam non 10 esse annuam. Haec autem herba uulgo dicitur scylla.7 Putres subacti uel initio anni (id est uere) uel post annum: quidam enim Medicam post decennium seri dicunt.

a

Cf Isidorus, Or. xvii 4.8.

om Leidensis, olim Lemouicensis (= L) 2 a medicis L 3 Caroliruhensis 116 (= A) Parisinus 7959 (= P): dionisius Bernensis 363 (= B) Vaticanus 3317 (= V) Hamburgensis 52 (= H) 4 semper putrens B 5 ut postea L 6 sensus L 7 A P: scilla Reginensis 1497 (= R) sylla B L: silla V H: an sicilia? uide Thilo ad l et Plin. NH XVIII 140, XXIV 185

1

FR 303. SEXTUS EMPIRICUS, PYRRHONEIAI

HYPOTYPOSEIS

Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrhoneiai Hypotyposeis, i 34 (= Efi ≤ katå tØn fiatrikØn §mpeir¤a ≤ aÈtÆ §sti tª sk°cei): [236] ÉEpe‹ d¢1 ka‹ tª §mpeir¤& tª katå tØn fiatrikØn aflr°sei tØn aÈtØn l°gous¤ tinew e‰nai tØn skeptikØn filosof¤an, gnvst°on ˜ti, e‡per ≤ 15 §mpeir¤a §ke¤nh per‹ t∞w ékatalhc¤aw t«n édÆlvn diabebaioËtai, oÎte ≤ aÈtÆ §sti tª sk°cei oÎte èrmÒzoi ín t“ Skeptik“ tØn a·resin §ke¤nhn énalambãnein. Mçllon d¢ tØn kalloum°nhn M°yodon, …w §mo‹ doke›, dÊnaitÉ ín meti°nai: [237] aÏth går mÒnh t«n katå fiatrikØn aflr°sevn §pe‹ d¢ Parisinus 1964 (= E) Parisinus 1963 (= A) Berolinensis Phil. 1518 (= B): §pe‹ dØ Laurentianus 85, 11 (= L): §peidØ d¢ Monacensis 439 (= M) 1

  ‒  -

779

FR 302DUB. SERUIUS, ON VERGIL’S GEORGICS A Vergil, Georgics, i 215–6: . . . it is now that the flabby furrows take you, plant from Media, and the millet receives its annual care.

B Seruius, On Vergil’s Georgics, i 215 = p. 181 Thilo: [215] “The flabby furrows take you, plant from Media” is an address to the herb itself. Now this herb passed into Greece from the Medes, at the time of their invasion. Venice has plenty of it, and, as Dionysius says, it has three leaves and is always green. What [sc the phrase] “flabby furrows” means is related to the nature of this herb: for it is sown in abundance in one year and cut off six or more times, and afterwards it grows spontaneously for several years. The next line indicates precisely this: for by saying “the millet receives its annual care” it reveals that the care of the plant from Media is not annual. Now the popular name of this herb is scylla. [sc Furrous] are brought to be “flabby” either at the start of the year, that is in the spring, or after one year: there are even people who claim that the plant from Media is sown after ten years.

FR 303. SEXTUS EMPIRICUS, OUTLINES

OF

PYRRHONISM

Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, i 34 (= Whether Medical Empiricism is the same as Scepticism:) [236] Since there are people who say that Sceptical philosophy is the same as the Empiricism practised by the medical hairesis, one should pay heed to the following fact: if that brand of Empiricism makes confident assertions about the inapprehensibility of nonevident matters, then it is not the same as Scepticism, nor would it be adequate for the Sceptical philosopher to embrace that creed. It would rather be possible, I think, to take up with the so-called Method. [237] For of all medical haireseis that one alone does

780

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

per‹ m¢n t«n édÆlvn doke› mØ propeteÊesyai, pÒteron katalhptã §stin µ ékatãlhpta l°gein aÈyadeiazom°nh, to›w d¢ fainom°noiw •pom°nh épÚ toÊtvn lambãnei tÚ sumf°rein dokoËn, katå tØn t«n skeptik«n ékolouy¤an. ÉEl°gomen går2 §n to›w ¶mprosyen ˜ti ı b¤ow ı koinÒw, ⁄ ka‹ ı SkeptikÚw xr∞tai, tetramerÆw §stin, tÚ m°n ti ¶xvn §n ÍfhgÆsei fÊsevw, tÚ dÉ §n énãgk˙ pay«n, tÚ dÉ §n paradÒsei nÒmvn te ka‹ §y«n, tÚ dÉ §n didaskal¤& texn«n. [238] ÜVsper oÔn katå tØn énãgkhn t«n pay«n ı SkeptikÚw ÍpÚ m¢n d¤couw §p‹ pÒyow ıdhge›tai, ÍpÚ d¢ limoË §p‹ trofÆn, ka‹ §p¤ ti t«n êllvn ımo¤vw, oÏtv ka‹ ı MeyodikÚw fiatrÚw ÍpÚ t«n pay«n §p‹ tå katãllhla ıdhge›tai, ÍpÚ m¢n stegn≈sevw §p‹ tØn xaÊnvsin, …w katafeÊgei tiw épÚ t∞w diå cËxow §pitetam°non pukn≈sevw §p‹ él°an, ÍpÚ d¢ =Êsevw §p‹ tØn §poxØn aÈt∞w, …w ka‹ ofl3 §n balane¤ƒ fldr«ti poll“ perirreÒmenoi ka‹ §kluÒmenoi §p‹ tØn §poxØn aÈtoË parag¤nontai ka‹ diå toËto §p‹ tÚn cuxrÚn é°ra katafeÊgousin. ÜOti d¢ ka‹ tå fÊsei éllÒtria tØn êrsin4 aÈt«n fi°nai katanagkãzei prÒdhlon, ˜pou ge ka‹ ı kÊvn skÒlopow aÈt“ katapag°ntow §p‹ tØn îrsin aÈtoË parag¤netai. [239] Ka‹ ·na mØ kayÉ ßkaston l°gvn §kba¤nv tÚn ÍpotupvtikÚn trÒpon t∞w suggraf∞w, pãnta o‰mai tå ÍpÚ t«n Meyodik«n oÏtv legÒmena Ípotãssesyai dÊnasyai tª §k t«n pay«n énãgk˙, t«n te katå fÊsin .5 PrÚw t“ ka‹ tÚ édÒjastÒn te ka‹ édiãforon t∞w xrÆsevw t«n Ùnomãtvn koinÚn e‰nai t«n égvg«n. [240] ÑVw går ı SkeptikÚw 6 xr∞tai tª “oÈd¢n ır¤zv” fvnª ka‹ tª “oÈd¢n katalambãnv”, kayãper efirÆkamen, oÏtv ka‹ ı MeyodikÚw “koinÒthta” l°gei ka‹ “diÆkein” ka‹ tå paraplÆsia éperi°rgvw. OÏtv d¢ ka‹ tÚ t∞w “§nde¤jevw” ˆnoma édojãstvw paralambãnei ént‹ t∞w épÚ t«n fainom°nvn pay«n t«n te katå fÊsin ka‹ t«n parå fÊsin ıdhgÆsevw §p‹ tå katãllhla e‰nai dokoËnta, …w ka‹ §p‹ d¤couw ka‹ §p‹ limoË ka‹ t«n êllvn Ípem¤mn˙skon.7 [241] ÜOyen ofikeiÒthtã tina ¶xein tØn égvgØn tØn katå fiatrikØn t«n Meyodik«n prÚw tØn Sk°cin, mçllon t«n êllvn katå fiatrikØn aflr°sevn ka‹ …w prÚw sÊgkrisin §ke¤nvn, oÈx èpl«w, =ht°on §k toÊtvn ka‹ t«n paraplhs¤vn toÊtoiw tekmairom°nouw.8 TosaËta ka‹ per‹ t«n parake›syai dokoÊntvn tª katå toÁw SkeptikoÁw égvgª diejelyÒntew, §n toÊtoiw épart¤zomen tÒn te kayÒlou t∞w Sk°cevw lÒgon ka‹ tÚ pr«ton t«n Ípotup≈sevn sÊntagma.

Mutschmann (= Mu): ka‹ §k°gomen går cett edd 3 ofl om E A B 4 ci Pappenheim (= Pa): fÊsin L M E A B: naturam translatio Latina, Parisinus 14700 fol. 83–132 (= T): lÊsin Bury (= Bu) 5 add Stephanus 6 suppl Mu e T inopinabiliter 7 Mu: Ípomimn∞skon L: ÍpomimnÆskvn E A B M 8 L M T (argumentantes) > Mu: tekmairom°noiw E A B > Bu 2

  ‒  

781

not, it seems, vault headlong upon nonvident matters, presuming to say whether they are apprehensible or inapprehensible, but follows the manifest and derives from it what seems to be beneficial, in harmony with Sceptical practice. For we have said in the preceding chapters that ordinary life—and the Sceptic deals with it as much as anyone else—branches out in four directions: first, the guidance of nature; secondly, the compelling force of the affections [ pathe]; thirdly, the inherited character of laws and customs; fourthly, training in the arts. [238] So, just as the Sceptic is led by thirst to drink, by hunger to food and so on, in virtue of the compelling force of the affections [ pathe], in the same way the Methodist doctor is led by affections [ pathe] to their correlates: on the one hand, a constricted state leads him to a relaxed state—as when one seeks a warm shelter in reaction to the stiffening produced by intense cold; on the other hand, a state of flux leads him to stop it—as when people in a hot bathroom, who get themselves dripping with sweat and completely relaxed, proceed to stop it and seek after cold air as a result. It is perfectly obvious, too, that things which are alien to nature necessitate the occurrence of their elimination; this is why, for instance, a dog with a thorn stuck into its paw proceeds to remove the thorn. [239] But let me not take it point by point, outstepping the limits imposed by the compendiousness of my work: it seems to me that all the assertions of this sort which the Methodists make can be subsumed under the compelling force of the affections [ pathe], either natural or unnatural. In addition, the Sceptics and the Methodists have in common an element of freedom from belief and indifference in their use of words. [240] For just as the Sceptical philosopher uses expressions such as “I determine nothing” or “I apprehend nothing” without holding any beliefs, as we have shown, so the Methodist, too, talks of “koinotes”, “underlying”, and the like in a way which is free from futile speculations. Thus he uses even the notion of “indication” without holding beliefs about it, in the sense of a guidance offered by manifest affections [ pathe], either natural or unnatural, to affections which seem to correspond to them—as I have indicated in the case of thirst, hunger, and the rest. [241] It should be said in conclusion that, from this and similar evidence, we argue that the medical persuasion of the Methodists has a certain affinity with Scepticism; has it to a greater extent than the rest of the medical haireseis; and has it by contrast with them, not unqualifiedly. Having thus completed the survey of the persuasions which seem to overlap with that of the Sceptics, here we put an end to the general presentation of Scepticism and to the first book of the Outlines.

782

  ‒  - FR 304. SORANUS, GYNAIKEIA (1)

Soranus, Gynaikeia, I iv [= T¤w fÊsiw mÆtraw ka‹ gunaike¤ou afido¤ou] 15 = p. 10 Ilberg, I p. 13 Burguière–Gourevitch:a [iv 15] TØn m°ntoi ge mÆtran oÈx Ípolhpt°on kuriÒthta prÚw tÚ z∞n ¶xein: oÈ går prop¤ptei mÒnon, §pÉ §n¤vn d¢ ka‹1 épokÒptetai d¤xa toË yãnaton aÈta›w2 §penegke›n, …w flstÒrhken Yem¤svn: §n Galat¤& d¢ tåw w eÈtrofvt°raw g¤gnesya¤ fasi metå tØn §ktomØn t∞w mÆtraw.

The text of this fragment features in book XXIV of Oribasius’ Collectiones medicae, Ch. 31 (a very accurate reproduction of the entire section from Soranus on the uterus and vagina; cf. vol. III Raeder, pp. 41–45, ÉEk t«n SvranoË. Per‹ m°traw ka‹ afido¤ou gunaike¤ou—the reference to Themison is on p. 44, ll. 26–27). The same chapter appears in Oribasius’ inedita (see the Soranus excerpt in vol. III of Bussemaker and Daremberg’s edition of Oribasius, pp. 369–378). But Oribasius does not provide additional material on Thessalus, as suggested in Burguière– Gourevitch’ edition of Soranus, nn 56 and 58, p. 76 (“XXIX 31” must be a misprint for XXIV 31: book XXIX of Oribasius is entirely lost). 1

Ilberg (= I): ka‹ om Bourguière–Gourevitch (= BG) Orib 1

2

aÈta›w I: aÈtØn BG
I: Ùxle› P > BG 15 corr Rose (= Ro): »fele› P 16 tØn kãyarsin ofl Ípolambãnont°w fasin BG 17 ci Kind > I BG: §n m°row a·matow P: o m°row a·matow ci Ka: §nergoÊntow a·matow ci I in apparatu 18 add I 19 corr Di: kekayarm°naiw P 20 I: §pimept°on P 6

  ‒  

785

from different premisses that for some women menstruation is beneficial for health, for others harmful. Now the [sc doctors in the] first group contend that nature is provident on man’s behalf: thus she [sc nature] noticed that, while males eliminate superfluous matter through [sc physical] exercise, females accumulate a considerable amount [sc of it] because they lead an indoors and sedentary life, and she made provisions that they do not endanger themselves: she invented a way of driving out the superfluous matter through menstruation. Hence, when menstruation is rather irregular, [sc this phenomenon] is accompanied by heaviness in the head, dimness of vision, pain in the joints and in the fundus of the eyes, sympathetic pain in the lower back and lower abdomen, distress, tossing about in bed, stomach upset, occasionally chills and fever; and each of these [sc symptoms] disappears when menstruation returns. [28] In answer to these [sc doctors] we should say that nature’s being provident is a matter of disagreement, the settling of which is heavier than that of the matter at issue: is it the case that nature, in her being provident on man’s behalf, is able to measure their appetites so that they do not take excessive food, in other words to prevent the formation of superfluous matter? For if it belongs to her to eliminate excess material by providential design, it should also belong to her to prevent the formation of excess material. And even supposing that she created menstruation by providential design, she did not contrive it for the preservation of health, but for begetting. Hence, she did not bestow [sc the function of ] menstruation upon [sc females] who are either not yet able to conceive, like the infants, or no longer able to conceive, like those past their prime; she made this function cease within the limits of its usefulness. When menstruation is checked, the body is oppressed with the constriction which prevents the flow of menstrual blood. In consequence, even the menses’ bringing out has seemed useless, because it does not break [sc the state of ] constriction or any of its symptoms, whereas if constriction is destroyed it [sc menstruation] reappears, as does the excretion of faeces and sweat. Disease is very different from health; therefore what is helpful for breaking an affection is not of good use also in preserving health. Thus venesection does not preserve health, in spite of the fact that it destroys constriction. Now those who assume that menstruation is not beneficial for begetting argue that menstruation occurs because the uterus is wounded; but any wound is unnatural; and none of the unnatural things is productive of natural activity, so it [sc menstruation] is not useful for pregnancy either. At any rate, there are women who get pregnant without having had any menses at all, and there are women who get pregnant before menstruation and start having menses after pregnancy. These [sc doctors], too, ought to be taken to task; for menstruation does not occur because the uterus is wounded, but through transudation and profuse perspiration, in the same way in which the gums, for instance, bleed without being wounded, when we rub them, or [sc in the same way in which it happens that], in fractures without wounds, we find the straps soaked in blood when we change [sc the bandages]. Next, it is false [sc to say] that there are women who get pregnant without having menses at all; for they do have menses—

786

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

  ‒  

går efi mØ diÉ a·matow, diã tinow goËn êllhw Ígras¤aw kaya¤rontai, kayãper ka‹ t«n élÒgvn z–vn tinã. Metå d¢ tØn sÊllhcin §pikaya¤ronta¤ tinew épÉ êllvn mer«n, …w ¶mprosyen §de¤jamen, ka‹ oÈk §j §ke¤nvn oÂw tÚ sp°rma prosp°fuken. [29] ÑHrÒfilow d¢ pot¢ m¢n ka¤ tisin t«n gunaik«n blaberãn fhsin e‰nai tØn kãyarsin—ka‹ går énempod¤stvw tinåw Ígia¤nein mØ kayairom°naw ka‹ pollãkiw toÈnant¤on kayairom°naw »xrot°raw g¤nesyai ka‹ fisxnot°raw ka‹ pay«n lambãnein éformãw—pot¢ d¢ ka‹ §p¤ tinvn »f°limon, Àste prÒteron éxrooÊsaw ka‹ étrofoÊsaw Ïsteron ka‹ metå tØn kãyarsin eÈxro∞sa¤ te ka‹ eÈtrof∞sai. Mnas°aw d¢ tåw m¢n sfodrÚn ¶xein tÚ katå fÊsin, tåw dÉ émudrÒn,21 ka‹ t«n émudrÚn tåw m¢n stegnÒteron, tåw d¢ =ovd°steron. Ta›w m¢n oÔn stegnÒteron §xoÊsaiw tÚ katå fÊsin ÍgieinÆn fhsin e‰nai tØn kãyarsin, ta›w d¢ =ovd°steron oÈx ÍgieinÆn: ˘n trÒpon ka‹ tØn flebotom¤an to›w m¢n stegnopayoËsin èrmÒzein diaxal«san, to›w d¢ =eumatizom°noiw blaberån e‰nai diå tÚ sunaÊjein tØn eÈdiaforhs¤an. LelhyÒtvw dÉ otow efisãgei tå katå DionÊsion, stegnÒn ti ka‹ =o«dew Ùnomãzvn “katå fÊsin”, ˜per oÈx Ígi°w §stin, …w §n t“ deut°rƒ Per‹ koinotÆtvn §pelog¤syh. TÒ ge mØn “stegnÒteron katå fÊsin” ka‹ t∞w mikrotãthw22 payhtik∞w stegn≈sevw émudrÒterÒn §stin. ÑVw oÔn oÈ mÒnon to›w =eumatizom°noiw §piblabØw ≤ flebotom¤a kay°sthken, éllå ka‹ to›w émudr«w stegnopayoËsin t“ ple¤ona t∞w »fele¤aw tØn blãbhn §pitele›n, kaloum°nhw t∞w dunãmevw prÚw tØn sunanalhc¤an,23 oÏtvw ka‹ ≤ kãyarsiw §piblabØw g°noitÉ ín oÈ mÒnon ta›w =ovd°steron tÚ katå fÊsin §xoÊsaiw, éllå ka‹ ta›w stegnÒteron. Koinª d¢ prÚw toËton ka‹ prÚw HrÒfilon lekt°on ˜ti blãptei m¢n ≤ kãyarsiw prÚw tÚ Ígia¤nein èpãsaw,24 ≥dh d¢ t«n m¢n eÈpayest°rvn kayãptetai mçllon, dialanyãnei d¢ tÚ blaberÚn aÈt∞w §fÉ œn duspay∞ tå s≈mata k°kthntai.25 Tåw oÔn ple›onaw t«n mØ kayairom°nvn eÈtonvt°raw26 yevroËmen, Àsper tåw éndr≈deiw te ka‹ ste¤raw: ka‹ tåw parÆlikaw27 d¢ tÚ mhk°ti kaya¤resyai prÚw tÚ Ígia¤nein oÈd¢n édike›, pãnth d¢ toÈnant¤on tåw pollåw yhlut°raw28 kay¤sthsin ≤ toË a·matow épãntlhsiw. ÖEdei d¢ ka‹ tåw mÆpv kayairom°naw t«n pary°nvn ∏tton Ígia¤nein: efi d¢ t∞w Íge¤aw met°xousin énellip«w, mÆpote29 m¢n30 prÚw tÚ Ígia¤nein ≤ kãyarsiw oÈ sumbãlletai, prÚw mÒnon d¢ tÚ paidopoie›n: xvr‹w går t∞w kayãrsevw sÊllhciw oÈ31 g¤netai.

corr Reinhold (= Re): émudr«n P 22 corr Er: tØn smikrotãthn P 23 I < Er: ésunallhc›an P: ésunanalhc¤an Di: énalhc¤an BG 24 corr Go: ëpasa P 25 corr Er: k°xrhtai P 26 corr Di: eÈtonvst°raw P 27 corr Di: parelik¤an P 28 corr Ro: yhlutoÊw P: yhluntoÊw Er: §klÊntouw Go: yhlukãw BG 29 corr Ro > BG: mhdÆpote P: mØ dÆpote Kind > I: oÈd°pote Er 30 mØn Kind 31 oÈ del Er: ante oÈ lacunam statuit Di 21

  ‒  

787

if not of blood, then at least of some other fluid, as do some of the irrational animals. And there are women who after pregnancy have supplementary menstruation from other parts [sc of the body], and not from those to which the seed is naturally attached. [29] Herophilus claims that there are on the one hand women for whom menstruation is harmful—for some women enjoy unblemished health while they have no menses, and when they do, on the contrary, they often grow paler and thinner and get the seeds [aphormai ] of affections—and there are on the other hand women for whom it [sc menstruation] is beneficial—for instance women who were pale and meagre before [sc menstruation] acquire a healthy complexion and thrive later on, after menstruation. Mnaseas claims in turn that some women are naturally strong and others naturally weak, and that, among the weak ones, some are more constricted, others more relaxed. So then: menstruation is healthy for those who are naturally more constricted, but it is not healthy for those who are relaxed; in the same way, venesection is suitable for [sc patients] affected by constriction because it relaxes [sc them], but it is harmful for [sc patients] affected by flux, since it increases the freedom of passage [sc through the bodily channels]. This one [sc Mnaseas] introduces the notions of Dionysius without realising it, since he calls “natural” a [sc form of ] constriction and relaxation which are not healthy—as I have pointed out in the second book of [sc the treatise] on The koinotetes. In fact, what is “naturally more constricted” is weaker than even the smallest constriction related to an affection. Now venesection is damaging not only for [sc patients] affected by flux, but also for [sc patients] mildly affected by constriction—by virtue of the fact that the harm it accomplishes is greater than the benefit, because what is required for recovery is [sc bodily] strength; in just the same way, menstruation is damaging not only for [sc women] who are naturally more relaxed, but also for [sc women] who are [sc naturally] more constricted. Both against him [sc Mnaseas] and against Herophilus one should say that, where health is concerned, menstruation is harmful for all [sc the women], but as a matter of course it attacks rather those susceptible to disease, whereas with the ones whose body is resistant to disease its harmfulness remains hidden. We see in fact that most of the [sc women] who do not have menses, for instance manly or sterile [sc women], are in better shape; and not having menses any longer does not affect the health of women past their prime—much to the contrary, the blood’s drawing off makes many [sc a woman] more feminine. Besides, [sc girls] who do not yet have menses would have to be less healthy; but, if they enjoy a perfect health, menstruation does not contribute to their health— it contributes only to begetting; for pregnancy does not occur without menstruation.

788

  ‒   FR 306. SORANUS, GYNAIKEIA (3)

Soranus, Gynaikeia, III i [= Efi ¶stin ‡dia pãyh gunaik«n] 1–5 = pp. 94–97 Ilberg, III pp. 2–5 Burguière–Gourevitch:a

5

10

15

20

25

[i 1] ÑH sk°ciw prote¤netai ka‹ oÏtvw, efi ¶stin ‡dia pãyh yhlei«n, parÉ ˜son §st‹n e‰dow m¢n ≤ gunÆ, g°now d¢ tÚ y∞lu. TÚ dÉ “‡dion” l°getai m¢n pollax«w, prÚw d¢ tå parÒnta dix«w: tÒ te mØ •t°rou (kayÉ ˘ shmainÒmenon §sy∞tã tiw fid¤an e‰na¤ fhsin …w fidiÒkthton) ka‹ tÚ mØ éllÒtrion (kayÉ ˘ shmainÒmenon •kãterow t«n édiair°tvn édelf«n ‡dion l°gei tÚ1 xvr¤on µ tÚ éndrãpodon ka¤toi2 ka‹ toË •t°rou3 pãntvw Ípãrxonta).4 Per‹ toË prot°rou d¢ t«n shmainom°nvn §st‹n ≤ sk°ciw. “Pãyow” d¢ l°getai tÚ m¢n katå fÊsin (oÂon tÚ sullambãnein ka‹ épot¤ktein ka‹ gãla poie›n), tÚ d¢ parå fÊsin (oÂon pur°ttein): ka‹ toË “parå fÊsin” tÚ m¢n …w kayÒlou ka‹ genikÒn (oÂon tÚ stegnÒn), tÚ d¢ merikÚn ka‹ ÍpobebhkÒw (oÂon tÚ frenitikÚn µ lhyargikÒn). ÉEn°sthken d¢ mãlista ı lÒgow 5 toË parå fÊsin, kayÒlou te ka‹ katå m°row. [2] ÑH d¢ zÆthsiw eÎxrhstow ßneka toË maye›n efi ka‹ fid¤aw tinÚw yerape¤aw xrπzousin afl guna›kew. Ka‹ geg°nhtai d¢6 diafvn¤a: tin¢w m¢n går Ípolambãnousin ‡dia pãyh g¤gnesyai gunaik«n, kayãper ofl épÚ t∞w ÉEmpeir¤aw ka‹ Diokl∞w §n t“ pr≈tƒ t«n Gunaike¤vn ka‹ t«n ÉErasistrate¤vn ÉAyhn¤vn7 8 ka‹ Miltiãdhw, t«n ÉAsklhpiade¤vn d¢ LoÊkiow9 §n t“ tr¤tƒ10 t«n Xron¤vn ka‹ DhmÆtriow ı ÉApameÊw, tin¢w d¢ mØ g¤nesyai, kayãper katå toÁw ple¤stouw ÉEras¤stratow ka‹ ÑHrÒfilow, …w paraseshme¤vtai, ka‹ ÉApoll≈niow ı MËw §n t“ pr≈tƒ ka‹ tr¤tƒ 11 t∞w aflr°sevw ka‹ ÉAsklhpiãdhw katå toÁw ple¤stouw12 ka‹ ı FilalÆyhw ÉAl°jandrow, Yem¤svn te ka‹ YessalÚw13 ka‹ ofl14 épÉ aÈt«n. [3] Efiw m°ntoi tØn sunhgor¤an toË ‡dia pãyh g¤nesyai gunaik«n toiaËtã tina f°retai.15 Gunaike¤ouw tinåw l°gomen fiatroÁw ˜ti tå gunaik«n yerapeÊousi pãyh, ka‹ ma¤aw §n ta›w nÒsoiw ı b¤ow16 e‡vyen parakale›n, ˜tan afl guna›kew ‡diÒn ti pãsxvsin ka‹ ˘ mØ koinÒn §stin prÚw toÁw êndraw: fÊsei te tÚ y∞lu toË êrrenow diaf°rei m°xri toË ka‹ ÉAristot°lhn ka‹ ZÆnvna tÚn ÉEpikoÊreion efipe›n étel¢w m¢n e‰nai tÚ

a

A portion of this text is preserved in a papyrus edited by Lodovicus De Stefani (= p), where the first lacuna below is marked. Cf Ilberg, “Praefatio”, p. x. As Ilberg comments, the lacuna surely contained either the name of another Erasistratean or the title of a work by Athenion. l°gei tÚ Er: leg°tv P 2 ka¤toi Go: ka‹ tÚ P 3 ka‹ toË •t°rou Go: kat°teron P: kayÉ ßteron Er: kayÉ •kãteron Re 4 Ípãrxonta ci Ka: Ípãrxontow P: Ípãrxon Go 5 add Ermerins 6 d¢ P: dØ Er 7 p > I BG: ÉAyhnaivn P: ÉAyÆnaiow Ro 8 “lacunam decem fere litteras”, I 9 d¢ LoÊkiow restit I e lacuma in p: §laioÊsiow P: ı ÉElaioÊsiow Er 10 ci Er: triskaidekãtv P 11 suppl Ro > I: Er: BG 12 corr Ro: ple¤onaw P 13 yetalÚw P 14 ofl om P 15 corr Er: f°resyai P 16 I < p: ı b¤ow §n ta›w nÒsoiw P > BG 1

  ‒  

789

FR 306. SORANUS, GYNAECOLOGY (3) Soranus, Gynaecology, III i [= Are there affections specific to women?] 1–5 = pp. 94–97 Ilberg, III pp. 2–5 Burguière–Gourevitch: [i 1] Another [sc matter for] inquiry which lies ahead of us is this: in so far as woman represents the species and man represents the genus, are there, or are there not, affections specific to females? Now “idion” [= “specific”] is said in many ways, and, with respect to the present subject, in two ways: of that which does not belong to another (in this sense, one says that a garment is idion [= one’s own] in so far as it is owned individually); and of that which is not alien (in this sense, each of two brothers with joint property calls the land or the slave idion [= his own], although it belongs just as much to the other). Our inquiry is about [sc idion in] the first sense. “Affection” is said either of something natural (for instance getting pregnant, giving birth, or breast-feeding) or of something unnatural (for instance being feverish); as for “what is unnatural”, on the one hand it is [sc predicated] universally and it belongs to the genus (for instance constriction), on the other hand it is individual and subordinate [sc to the genus] (for instance phrenitis or lethargy). Our argument is concerned mainly with what is unnatural, taken [sc both] universally and individually. [2] The [sc present] investigation is useful for the purpose of learning whether women do indeed need any specific therapy. And there is disagreement; for some [sc doctors] assume that there are affections specific to women, as do the Empiricists, Diocles in book i of his Gynaecology, Athenion, and Miltiades among the Erasistrateans, and, among the Asclepiadeans, Lucius in book iii of his Chronic affections and Demetrius of Apameia; whereas others [sc assume] that there are not, as do, according to most [sc authorities], Erasistratus and Herophilus—as I have noted; Apollonius Mys in books i and iii of his [sc treatise] On the hairesis; Asclepiades—according to most [sc authorities]; Alexander Philaletes, Themison, Thessalus, and their followers. [3] So here are some arguments such as are adduced in defence of the existence of diseases specific to women. We say that some doctors are [sc doctors] of women because they treat affections of women, and in cases of illness it is current practice in ordinary life to call upon the midwifes whenever the [sc ill] women suffer from something specific, which they do not share with men; and the female is by nature different from the male, so much so that Aristotle and Zenon the Epicurean said that the

790

5

10

15

20

25

30

  ‒  

y∞lu, t°leion dÉ e‰nai tÚ êrren:17 ˘ d¢ tª ˜l˙ fÊsei diaf°rei, toËto ka‹ fid¤aw §pid°xetai18 pe¤seiw.19 ÖEti ge mØn ≤ mÆtra m°row ‡dion gunaik«n, ka‹ tå §nergÆmata t∞w mÆtraw §p‹ mÒnvn toÊtvn §st¤n, oÂon kãyarsiw, sÊllhciw, épÒtejiw 20 Pãyh dÉ •ptå pr«ta ka‹ èplç: diÒper oÈd¢n ‡dion ÍpostÆsetai pãyow gunaik«n. Ka‹ ÑHrÒfilow §n t“ Maivtik“ fhsi tØn Íst°ran §k taÈt«n to›w êlloiw m°resi pepl°xyai ka‹ ÍpÚ taÈt«n dunãmevn dioike›syai ka‹ taÈtåw parakeim°naw21 ¶xein Ïlaw ka‹ ÍpÚ taÈt«n afiti«n22 nosopoie›syai, kayãper plÆyouw, pãxouw, diaforçw t«n ımo¤vn: oÈd¢n oÔn ‡dion pãyow gunaik«n plØn toË ku∞sai ka‹ toË tÚ kuhy¢n §kyr°cai ka‹ époteke›n ka‹ tÚ gãla pepçnai ka‹ tå §nant¤a toÊtoiw. Ofl dÉ ÉAsklhpiãdeioi kataskeuãzontew …w oÈd°n §stin pãyow ‡dion gunaik«n fasin ˜ti tÚ y∞lu to›w êrresin23 §k taÈt«n sugk°kritai stoixe¤vn—Àsper t«n ˆgkvn—ka‹ ÍpÚ taÈt∞w afit¤aw nosopoie›tai— toËtÉ ¶stin t∞w §nstãsevw: taÊthn24 går t«n ple¤stvn pay«n25 sunektikØn e‰na¤ fasin—ka‹ diaÈt«n26 yerapeÊesyai27 poioum°nvn te ka‹ prosferom°nvn: oÈd¢n oÔn ‡dion pãyow yhlei«n, koinØ går aÈt«n ka‹ ≤ fusiolog¤a ka‹ ≤ afitiolog¤a ka‹ ≤ yerape¤a. Yem¤svn28 d¢ ka‹ YessalÒw, §pe‹29 parå tåw §n to›w êlloiw m°resin toË s≈matow diå toËtÒ fasi mØ e‰nai ‡dion pãyow gunaik«n. [4] Ka‹ toÊtoiw m¢n sunainoËmen, §jamartãnein d¢30 31 toÁw êllouw32 ta›w épode¤jesi. Fam¢n går oÎte ti33 triplek¢w e‰nai ≤m«n tÚ s«ma ka‹ dioike›syai m¢n ta›w Ïlaiw,34 c afit¤an d¢ prokatarktikØn m¢n plhy≈ran e‰nai toË a·matow, sunektikØn d¢ tØn met°ras¤n te ka‹ sfÆnvsin: pãyh dÉ •ptå katå g°now 35 oÈk élhy°w, …w par¤stamen diå poll«n §n •t°roiw. E‰ta parå tØn poiån t«n pr≈tvn sumplokØn §nd°xetai m°row §p‹ yhlei«n gegon°nai ti diãforon36 (ka‹ går tå loipå m°rh diaf°ronta katå polÁ diå t∞w poiçw sugkr¤sevw t«n égge¤vn ı ÉEras¤stratÒw fhsi gegon°nai): kín mØ diaf°r˙ t«n êllvn, §nd°xetai pãsxein aÈtÚ37 diafÒrvw, ˜ti ka‹ taÈtÚ m°row pot¢ m¢n stegnopaye›,38 pot¢ d¢ =eumat¤zetai. Tå dÉ ˜moia ka‹ prÚw ÑHrÒfilon lekt°on39 ka‹ prÚw ÉAsklhpiãdhn kataceu-

c

Cf Anonymus Londinensis col xxii, ll. 49–52: éllå går Ïlhn Íperbãleto trofÆn te ka‹ pneËma: dÊo går pr«ta ka‹ kuri≈tatã §stin oÂw dioike›tai tÚ z«on, Àw fhsin ı ÉEras¤stratow. I < p: t°leion d¢ tÚ êrren P > BG 18 fid¤aw §pid°xetai BG < P: fid¤an §ped°jato p > I 19 pe¤seiw corr Di > I BG: pÆsin P: peisin p 20 toÊtvn oÔn tå lipÒnta g°graptai §n t“ t°lei “ka‹ sfÆnvsin” post épÒtejiw habet P (secl Re I): +toÊtvn oÔn tå lipÒnta g°graptai §n t“ t°lei < metå > ka‹ sfÆnvsin + compl BG 21 peregkeim°naw Er 22 corr Ro: afit¤vn P 23 corr Di: a‡resin P 24 corr Di: taÊthw P 25 ci Er: kayÉ œn P 26 suppl Er > I: diÉ aÈt«n P > BG 27 yerapeÊetai Ro 28 yem¤ssvn P 29 ci Re > BG: §p‹ P > I: ¶ti Di 30 d¢ del Ro 31 suppl I > BG 32 toÁw êllouw famen add Re 33 ci Ro: oÎte tÚ P 34 ci Ro > I: diakekr›syai m¢n tåw Ïlaw P > BG (transl “et que sa bonne marche [sc du corps] soit fonction des substances en jeu”) 35 add I 36 ti diãforon ci Ro: §pidiãforon P 37 corr Ro: aÈtv P: aÈt«n Er 38 corr Di: stegnopaye›n P 39 post lekt°on lacunam statuit Ro 17

  ‒  

791

female is imperfect while the male is perfect; but that which is different by its whole nature will also have its own weaknesses. Besides, the uterus is a part specific to women, and the activities of the uterus, for instance menstruation, conception, and parturition, exist only in relation to them And there are seven primary and simple diseases; therefore no existing disease will be specific to women. And Herophilus argues in his Maieutics that the uterus is woven from the same [sc fabric] as the other parts, governed by the same forces, avails itself of the same substances, and is made to suffer disease by the same causes, for instance abundance [ plethos], thickness, disagreement between similars; in consequence, no affection is specific to women except getting pregnant, growing the embryo, giving birth, producing milk, and the opposites of these [sc affections]. In trying to prove that there is no affection specific to women, the followers of Asclepiades argue that the female is composed of the same elements [stoicheia] as the male—for instance the onkoi—and is made to suffer disease by the same cause—that is to say, enstasis [= obstruction]; for this, they claim, is the containing cause of most affections—and she is treated by having the same things done and administered; in conclusion, there is no affection which is specific to the females; for their physiology, aetiology, and therapy is common [sc with those of men]. As for Themison and Thessalus, since (. . .) those in the other parts of the body and for this reason they claim that there is no such thing as an affection specific to women. [4] We agree with these [sc doctors] and we declare that the others make mistakes in their arguments. For we hold that it is not the case that our body is some sort of threefold thing, that it is governed through the substances [sc it assimilates], and that the preliminary [ prokatarktike] cause [sc of disease] is the abundance [ plethora] of blood, while the containing [sunektike] cause is its [sc the blood’s] transfusion and obstruction; and it is not true that the affections are seven according to the genus, as I show in detail in other [sc works]. Besides, along with the specific interweaving of the primary [sc constituents], some part may have developed in women which is different (for Erasistratus claims that the other parts differ a great deal too, owing to the specific combination of the vessels); and even if it is not different from the other [sc parts], it may be affected differently, since even the same part is now affected by constriction, now suffering from flux. Similar arguments should be raised also against Herophilus; and against Asclepiades, who is

792

  ‒  -

dÒmenon m¢n t«n stoixe¤vn, kataceudÒmenon d¢ ka‹ t∞w afit¤aw. E‰ta ka‹ tØn ¶nstasin oÈ pãntvn, éllå t«n ple¤stvn sunektikØn e‰na¤ fhsin diå tÚ tÚn boÊlimon ka‹ 40 Ïdrvpa ka‹ tÚn prÚw tª ÍpeklÊsei puretÚn ÍpÉ êllhw afit¤aw sun°xesyai. DÊnatai to¤nun ˜son §fÉ41 •aut“42 5 sust∞na¤ ti pãyow ‡dion gunaik«n oÈx ÍpÉ §nstãsevw43 ginÒmenon,44 …w §p‹ t«n dustoki«n. [5] Katå cilØn m¢n oÔn tØn épÒfasin pãntew otoi kal«w ±n°xyhsan, katå d¢ tåw épode¤jeiw §sfãlhsan. ÑHme›w m°ntoi katå fÊsin ‡dia pãyh l°gomen gunaik«n (oÂon tÚ sullambãnein ka‹ épot¤ktein ka‹ galaktourge›n, efi taËta boÊleta¤ tiw tå ¶rga pãyh 10 prosagoreÊein), parå fÊsin d¢ katå g°now m¢n oÈdam«w, katÉ e‰dow d¢ ka‹ katå m°row. ÜOson m¢n går §p‹ to›w énabebhkÒsi, koin«w to›w êrresi nose› tÚ y∞lu stegnopayoËn ka‹ =eumatizÒmenon Ùj°vw µ xron¤vw tãw tÉ aÈtåw t«n kair«n diaforåw Ípom°non ka‹ tÚ m°geyow t∞w nÒsou ka‹ tØn éton¤an t∞w dunãmevw ka‹ tåw §n to›w éllotr¤oiw ßlkes¤ te ka‹ 15 traÊmasi diaforãw: ˜son dÉ §p‹ to›w katå m°row ka‹ efidikØn ¶xousi tØn parallagÆn, fid¤oiw k°xrhtai pãyesi, toËtÉ ¶stin sumptvmãtvn xarakt∞rsi diafÒroiw. ÜOyen ka‹ ÍpÚ taÈtØn katå g°now êgetai yerape¤an, ˜per platÊteron diå t«n •j∞w =hyhsom°nvn ¶stai katano∞sai.

40

Er

suppl Re

41

ÍfÉ P

42

corr Go: •aut«n P

43

corr Er: §ntãsevw P

44

genÒmenon

FR 307. SORANUS, GYNAIKEIA (4) Soranus, Gynaikeia, III iv [= Per‹ flegmon∞w Èst°raw] 24 = p. 108 Ilberg, III p. 25 Burguière–Gourevitch: [iv 24] Puret«n dÉ §pigenom°nvn, oÈk §jallakt°on tØn §pim°leian, 20 peirat°on dÉ ˜pvw tå m¢n §n parojusmo›w prãsshtai, tå dÉ §n én°sesin1 drò tØn §jallagØn t∞w prohghsam°nhw afit¤aw, oÈk §jallassom°nhw t∞w §pimele¤aw.2 DiÚ ka‹ Yem¤svn memptÚw §p‹ m¢n3 t∞w xvr‹w puret«n flegmon∞w xalastikå dokimãsaw4 diå toË tr¤tou t«n Xron¤vn, §p‹ d¢ t∞w metå puret«n tå staltikã,5 strÊxnou ka‹ perdik¤ou xulÒn, épa25 thye‹w diå6 tØn sunedreÊousan pÊrvsin tå cuktikå paralabe›n, Ïsteron d¢ ka‹ ÍdrorrÒdinon, mØ §pistÆsaw ˜ti diÉ œn §pite¤netai tå flegma¤nonta, diå toÊtvn ≤ pÊrvsiw aÎjetai. DiÚ ka‹ katÉ §ke›non aÈtÚn diå toioÊtvn de› parhgore›n tå sumpt≈mata, diÉ œn oÈ parojÊnomen7 tØn

1 3 5

cor I: §nan°sein P: §n én°sei cett 2 corr Ro: §jallãssomen tØn §pim°leian P I: m¢n ante memptÚw transp Re: om BG 4 corr Er: xalastikåw dokimas¤aw P corr Er: tåw staltikãw P 6 …w diå add Ro 7 corr Er: parojÊnei m¢n P

  ‒  -

793

wrong both about the elements and about causation. But then he [sc Asclepiades] says that enstasis is the containing cause not of all, but of most [sc diseases]—given that ravenous hunger, dropsy, and fever from exhaustion are produced by another cause. Thus on his view it is possible for an affection specific to women to exist without being brought about by enstasis, as in the case of women with painful delivery. [5] All these [sc doctors] are perfectly correct in their bare denial [sc of affections specific to women], yet they produced the wrong arguments. As for us [sc the Methodists], we hold the view that there are natural affections specific to women (for instance conception, parturition, lactation—if you want to call these activities “affections”), but that unnatural [sc affections] are not [sc specific to women] at the level of the genus but at the level of the species and of the individual. For with respect to the former the female shares her illness with the male: she is affected either by constriction or by flux, either acutely or chronically, and she is subject to the same variations of the seasons, to the intensity of the disease, to loss of resistance, and to variations related to external wounds and injuries. But with respect to those [sc affections] which differ from individual to individual and at the level of the species, she does have specific affections—that is to say, different sets of characteristic symptoms. Hence she is subjected to the same general treatment, which it will be possible to place in a broader perspective as a result of what I am going to say next.

FR 307. SORANUS, GYNAECOLOGY (4) Soranus, Gynaecology, III iv [= Inflammation of the uterus] 24 = p. 108 Ilberg, III p. 25 Burguière–Gourevitch: [iv 24] If fevers develop as well, one should not change the treatment, but make sure that what is appropriate during paroxysms is performed, and that what is done during remissions produces change in the antecedent cause [aitia proegesamene] without the treatment being altered. Thus even Themison lets himself in for criticism when, in book of iii of his Chronic affections, he recommends relaxants for the [sc type of ] inflammation which is not accompanied by fever and, for the [sc type of ] inflammation which is accompanied by fever, astringents [sc such as] the juice of black nightshade or that of the perdikios: he is deceived by the concomitant [sc symptom of ] heat into prescribing cooling [sc medicines]—even rose oil with water later on—without realising that [sc substances] which increase inflammations also make the heat go up. This is why, according to [sc Themison] himself, we should allay the symptoms by [sc methods] which do not

794

  ‒  -

diãyesin. Paraitht°on d¢ ka‹ ˜sa t«n érxa¤vn8 tin¢w prÒsyeta drim°a par°labon, ¶laion metå phgãnou ka‹ ofisuphr«n9 §r¤vn épobr°gmatow, boÊturÒn te ka‹ êrton metå =od¤nou ka‹ selin¤nou10 ka‹ Ùjela¤ou: pçn går tÚ drimÁ ka‹ dhktikÚn §rey¤zei {går}11 tåw flegmonåw efiw §p¤tasin.

8

t«n érxai«n BG (per errorem?)

Er > I > BG

9

ofissvphr«n P

10

corr Ro: selÆnou P

11

secl

FR 308. SORANUS, GYNAIKEIA (5) Soranus, Gynaikeia, III xi [= Per‹ mÊlhw] 38 = p. 117 Ilberg, III pp. 40–41 Burguière–Gourevitch: 5 [xi 38] TØn d¢ proeirhm°nhn diãyesin ofl m¢n …w éyerãpeuton kat°lipon, ofl d¢ tØn érxom°nhn mÒnon ÍpÆgagon to›w bohyÆmasin, ≤me›w d¢ ka‹ nËn1 …w kexroniku›an yerapeÊomen nÒson. De› d¢ mØ émele›n, éllÉ §n m¢n ta›w §piy°sesin, ìw katalambãnomen §k bãrouw ple¤onow ka‹ nark≈douw sunaisyÆsevw µ fyorçw sit¤vn ka‹ égrupn¤aw d¤xa prodÆlou 10 tinÚw afit¤aw gegenhm°nhw, paralambãnein2 ka‹3 kataplãsmata yermå xalastikã, sikÊaw, katasxasmÒn, bd°llaw, pur¤aw, §gxumatismoÁw pra#ntikoÁw énetikoÊw, pessoÁw malaktikoÊw, §gkayismoÊw, khrvtåw metÉ élya¤aw ≤chm°naw4 ka‹ gluk°ow §la¤ou µ kupr¤nou ka‹ mãlagma tÚ diå xul«n µ tÚ Mnas°ou5 ka‹ trofåw eÈxÊmouw te ka‹ eÈxÊlouw ka‹ 15 tØn efiw toÁw mouw diå telam«now énãlhcin, efiw §pikoufismÚn t∞w diå tÚn kataspasmÚn6 a ÙxlÆsevw. TaËta m¢n oÔn §n to›w parojusmo›w paralambãnein.7

a

They seem to translate, however, kataspasmÒn (“traction”, not “scarification”).

ka‹ mÊlhn Ka 2 corr Er: paralambãnontew P 3 ka‹ del Er 4 ±chm°naw P: ≤chm°nhw Er 5 mnasa¤ou P 6 I: katasxasmÒn BG 7 paralambãnomen Ro 1

FR 309. SORANUS, GYNAIKEIA (6) Soranus, Gynaikeia, III xii [= Per‹ aflmorragoÊshw Íst°raw] 42 = p. 121 Ilberg, III p. 46 Burguière–Gourevitch: [xii 42] TØn d¢ flebotom¤an, ∂n êlloi te par°labon ka‹ Yem¤svn meta-

  ‒  -

795

exacerbate the state. We should also reject all the pungent pessaries which some of the ancients used: oil with an infusion of rue and greasy wool, [sc or] butter and bread with rose oil, parsley, and [sc a mixture of ] oil and vinegar; for any [sc medicine] which is pungent and biting irritates inflammations and makes them develop.

FR 308. SORANUS, GYNAECOLOGY (5) Soranus, Gynaecology, III xi [= “Mule”] 38 = p. 117 Ilberg, III pp. 40–41 Burguière–Gourevitch: [xi 38] Some have abandoned the state mentioned above as incurable and others have subjected it to remedies only in the incipient phase, but we treat it even at the present stage, when it is a full-blown chronic disease. One should not neglect it, but during paroxysms—which we grasp from the increased [sc feeling of ] heaviness and a benumbed [sc state of ] consciousness, the food’s getting corrupt, and insomnia produced without any observable cause—[sc we should] administer hot relaxing plasters, cuppingglasses, incision, leeches, steaming, injections with a calming and relaxing effect, pessaries with a softening effect, sitz-baths, cerates boiled in marshmallow and sweet olive oil or henna oil, and the emollient plaster of juices or that of Mnaseas, as well as food of good humours and of good juices, and [sc the patient’s] suspension on a large stripe [sc running] across the shoulders, to relieve the distress due to the incision. So this is what we [sc should] do during paroxysms.

FR 309. SORANUS, GYNAECOLOGY (6) Soranus, Gynaecology, III xii [= Haemorrhagia of the uterus] 42 = p. 121 Ilberg, III p. 46 Burguière–Gourevitch: [xii 42] But we reject venesection, which some, including Themison, have

796

  ‒  -

gvg∞w ßneka t∞w Ïlhw, épodokimãzomen: xalò m¢n går ≤ flebotom¤a, pÊknvsin1 2 ka‹ sustolØn tÚ aflmorragoËn épaite›, ka‹ oÈ de› metãgein tØn Ïlhn éllå kat°xein. ÉEpisfal¢w d¢ ka‹ tÚ flebotome›n, ˜ti mØ krathye¤shw m¢n t∞w forçw toË a·matow §k t∞w flebotom¤aw énãgkh tãxion tØn kãmnousan épol°syai, …w ín ÍpÚ3 dipl∞w dapanh5 ye›san4 aflmorrag¤aw, krathye¤shw dÉ oÏtvw Àste flegmonØn Ïsteron …w épÚ skulmoË ple¤onow §pig¤nesyai, katãllhlon5 trÒpon ı k¤ndunow. Efi m¢n går flebotomÆsaimen, suntÒmvw épol°somen6 tØn guna›ka metå flebotom¤an ka‹ aflmorrag¤an: pãlin dÉ efi mØ flebotomoËntew7 éf°loimen 10 aÂma flegmon∞w megãlhw ÍparxoÊshw, éboÆyhton periocÒmeya tØn kãmnousan: oÈd¢n går oÏtv diakÒptei tÚn8 §n flegmonª k¤ndunon …w flebotom¤a.

corr Di: pukn«w: sÁn P 2 d¢ add Er > I > BG 3 I: épÚ BG 4 corr Di: dapanhye¤shw P 5 katÉ §pãllhlon Ro 6 corr Re: épol°saimen P 7 flebotomoËntew efi mØ transp Ro 8 diakÒptei tÚn ci Re: diakÒptoito P 1

FR 310. SORANUS, GYNAIKEIA (7) Soranus, Gynaikeia, IV xv [= Per‹ propt≈sevw m°traw] 39 = pp. 151–152 Ilberg: [xv 39] Efi d¢ polÁn ¶jv xrÒnon me¤nasa fa¤noito ÍpÒleukow1 ≥dh katecËxyai, pot¢ d¢ ka‹ prodÆlvw flegma¤nein ka‹ perivdune›n µ katå 15 parãlusin propeptvk°nai, yerm“ Ïdati µ Ídrela¤ƒ 2 µ xul“ tÆlevw •fy∞w µ linosp°rmou µ molÒxhw ka‹ oÏtvw épentãssein: ín d¢ tÚ m°geyow 3 épaitÆs˙, ka‹ flebotome›n ka‹ to›w êlloiw xr∞syai xalastiko›w—diå tØn parãlusin {µ tÚ m°geyow t∞w flegmon∞w}.4 Efi d¢ xron¤seien Àste sunex«w prop¤ptein,5 Ùjukrãtƒ peri20 plÊnein yerm“ ka‹ §gkay¤zein t“ Ùjukrãtƒ §fÉ flkanÚn xrÒnon, ¶peita tå proeirhm°na poie›n pãnta, ≥goun sikÊaw koÊfaw ka‹ tå §piy°mata tã te diå foin¤kvn,6 mÆlvn Kudvn¤vn, ka‹ pãntvn ≥dh t«n stÊfein dunam°nvn, µ tå7 diÉ fite«n ka‹ t«n taÈtÚ poie›n dunam°nvn.8 E‰ta tØn ˜lhn sÊgkrisin tonoËn t“ énalhptik“ kÊklƒ xr≈menon, Ïsteron d¢ t“ 25 metasugkritik“: foin¤ssein d¢ tå per‹ tÚ §fÆbaion ka‹ tØn ÙsfÁn ka‹ tÚ §pigãstrion paroptÆsei, smÆgmasin drim°sin, sinapism“,9 pesso›w to›w

suppl I < Mustio, fomentanda add Ro secl Rose > I corr Di: prÚ p¤ptein P 6 foin¤kvn ka‹ est: om P add Ro 7 tå corr Ro: tØn P 8 t«n taÈtÚ poie›n dunam°nvn corr Ro: to›w taÈtÚ poie›n dunam°noiw P 9 sinapism“ Re: ë poie› P: ékÒpoiw ka‹ Ro: µ to›w Er 1

ÍpÒleukow ci Kind (pallida, Mustio): loipÚn P 3

4

5

2

  ‒  -

797

adopted for the removal of matter; for venesection relaxes, whereas haemorrhagia requires thickening and contraction, and one should not remove the matter but check it. Venesection is even unsafe because, if on the one hand the flow of blood does not stop as a result of venesection, the patient is bound to perish more quickly, consumed, as it were, by a double haemorrhage; if, on the other hand, it stops in such a way that an inflammation develops later on, apparently from increased irritation, the danger comes from the opposite direction. For, if we are to perform venesection, we shall kill the woman immediately, in-between venesection and haemorrhagia; but again, if we do not remove the blood by performing venesection when there is a great inflammation, we shall allow the patient to go without help; for nothing undercuts the danger [sc inherent] in inflammation as efficaciously venesection does.

FR 310. SORANUS, GYNAECOLOGY (7) Soranus, Gynaecology, IV xv [= Prolapse of the uterus] 39 = pp. 151–152 Ilberg: [xv 39] If, however, the uterus has remained outside for a long time and appears to be whitish and to have already cooled, and sometimes visibly inflamed and full of pain, or to have prolapsed from paralysis, bathe it in hot water, in oil mixed with water, or in juice of boiled fenugreek, linseed or mallow, and reduce it in this way; but, if the proportions of the inflammation require it, perform venesection and use the other relaxants, because of the paralysis. If it [sc the affection] is chronic, so that it [sc the uterus] prolapses continuously, wash it thoroughly with hot diluted vinegar and give [sc the patient] a sitz-bath in diluted vinegar for as long as is necessary, then use all [sc the procedures] discussed above, that is: dry cupping, plasters made of dates, of quinces, and of all [sc the substances] which can produce contraction, or plasters made of willow and of [sc substances] which have the same action. Afterwards tone up the whole system by using the analeptic cycle, then the metasyncritic cycle; irritate the pubic region, the lower back, and the lower abdomen by paroptesis, by pungent unguents, mustard plasters,

798

  ‒  -

diå n¤trou ka‹ staf¤dow 10 èl«n ka‹ pçsi to›w §k t«n metasugkritik«n §skeuasm°noiw Íl«n. Ofl ple›stoi d¢ sunex«w prop¤ptousan aÈtØn èls‹n11 µ n¤trƒ sumpãsantew oÏtvw épvyoËsin: ˜per ka‹ YessalÚw §nÒmisen, 12 ékoloÊyvw aÍt“.13 Tå går metasugkritikå de› para5 labe›n §n diale¤mmati14 {µ ˜te}15 mçllon µ §n §piy°sei, ˜te16 prop°ptvken17 ≤ mÆtra.

èls‹n ci Er: élÒhn P 12 oÈk add Sch 13 aÈt“ P 14 ci Er: §n d¢ éll¤mmati P 15 del Er 16 µ §n §piy°sei ˜te Ro: §st‹n §piy°seiw µ ˜te P 17 corr Di: prosp°ptvken P 10

add I

11

FR 311. STEPHANUS, COMMENTARII IN PRIOREM GALENI LIBRUM THERAPEUTICUM AD GLAUCONEM (1) Stephanus, Commentarii in priorem Galeni librum Therapeuticum ad Glauconem, I pp. 238 + 240 Dietz: [238] ÑIppokrãthw m¢n ka‹ toËto pr«tow èpãntvn œn ‡smen g°grafen — ka‹ tå •j∞w.a [240] ÑAllÉ §peidØ prÚw filÒsofon dialegÒmenow tÚn GlaÊkvna g°nouw 10 §mnhmÒneuse ka‹ diafor«n ka‹ efid«n étÒmvn, §n oÂw §ke›now diep°plastÒ ge ka‹ §spargãnvto ka‹ taËta sxedÚn efipe›n §tr°feto, parå Plãtvnow aÈtå manyãnvn: diå toËtÒ fhsin ˜ti “tØn toÊtvn ÍpÒmnhsin §poiÆsamen, oÈx ·na se didãjv tå sã—toËto går ín e‡h gelo›on—éllÉ ˜ti {mØ}1 ka‹ prÚw tØn t«n didaskom°nvn §paggel¤an ≤ toiaÊth diairetikØ xrh15 simeÊei m°yodow ka‹ ˜ti diÉ aÈt∞w 2 katÉ aÈt∞w ptaismãtvn afl t«n fiatr«n épotux¤ai g¤nontai œn ±j¤ouw maye›n tåw afit¤aw. NËn goËn êkoue,” fhs¤n. “ÑH t«n diair°sevn diafvn¤a ka‹ ≤ t«n poll«n fiatr«n a

Cf Galen, De methodo medendi ad Glauconem, Ch. 1, p. 3 K: Efiw ˜son går §j¤statai t∞w fÊsevw ßkaston, efiw tosoËton ka‹ meg°youw [sc tå nosÆmata] ¥kei. TÚ dÉ ˜son §j¤statai gn«nai dunatÚn mÒnƒ t“ tÚ katå fÊsin ékrib«w §pistam°nƒ. ToËtÉ oÔn égnooËntew §pÉ aÈt«n, ·na mØ pantãpasin épor«men, §p‹ tÚ koinÚn éfiknoÊmeya. Pl°on d° ti kôn toÊtƒ t«n ét°xnvn ı texn¤thw ¶xei. Ka‹ t¤ tÚ pl°on; ÑIppokrãthw m¢n ka‹ toËto pr«tow èpãntvn œn ‡smen g°grafen. “For its [sc the disease’s] mag-

nitude is proportional to its distance from each individual nature. And only the man with a thorough understanding of what is natural can know this—to the extent that it can be known. So, when we are ignorant of it [sc of the individual nature], we appeal to what is common, in order not to go completely astray. But the professional man (technites) is superior to laymen even in this. And what does his superiority consist in? This is another thing that Hippocrates has written before anyone else we know.” 1

del Dietz (= Di)

2

add ego

  ‒  -

799

pessaries made of soda, raisins, salt, and anything prepared from metasyncritic substances. Most [sc doctors] push back a continuously prolapsing uterus by sprinkling it with salt or soda; even Thessalus adopted this [sc practice], although he was not consistent with himself. For metasyncritic remedies ought to be administered during remission rather than during the paroxysm, [sc which is] when the uterus is prolapsed.

FR 311. STEPHANUS, COMMENTARIES TO BOOK ONE OF GALEN’ METHOD OF HEALING TO GLAUCON (1) Stephanus, Commentaries to book one of Galen’s Method of healing to Glaucon, I pp. 238 + 240 Dietz: [238] This is another thing that Hippocrates has written before anyone else we know— and so on. [240] But, since it was in addressing a philosopher that he [sc Galen] referred to the [sc notions of ] genus, differentiae, and indivisible species, in which he [sc Glaucon] had been trained and swathed from the cradle as he was, one might say, fed on them, learning them from Plato, he [sc Galen] says: “I have recalled these [sc notions] not in order to tutor you in your own field—for that would be ridiculous—but because such a method of division is indeed useful towards the presentation of my teachings, and because the doctors’ failings—the causes of which you were interested in learning—are due to it and to their errors in it. Now listen”, he says. “Disagreement about kinds [diaireseis], and the failure of many doctors, result in three ways

800

  ‒  

épotux¤a §k toË moxyhroË t∞w diair°sevw g¤netai katå trÒpouw tre›w, tin«n m¢n érkesy°ntvn to›w pr≈toiw g°nesi, mhk°ti aÈtå temÒntvn efiw ßtera e‡dh katå m°row, Àsper oÔn ka‹ ofl Meyodiko‹ pepoiÆkasi, stegnÚn mÒnon ka‹ =o«dew ka‹ §pipeplegm°non éjioËntew efid°nai ka‹ mhk°ti 5 taËta diairoËntew. Tin¢w m¢n tå g°nh die›lon: étel«w m°ntoi pro∞lyen aÈto›w ≤ dia¤resiw ka‹ oÈd¢ m°xri t«n étÒmvn, Àsper oÔn ofl per‹ tÚn ÉEras¤straton fa¤nontai pepoihkÒtew. ÖAlloi d¢ ka‹ êllvw die›lon, éntiy°ntew oÈsi≈desi diafora›w tåw épÚ sumbebhkÒtvn, Àsper ém°lei ka‹ ÉArxig°nhw §po¤hsen. ÉEke›now går ¶legen ˜ti t«n puret«n ofl m°n 10 efisi sfodro‹, ofl d¢ xrÒnioi: ¶sti d¢ tÚ m¢n sfodrÚn t∞w oÈs¤aw t«n puret«n ofike›on: t∞w går yermÒthtÒw §sti xarakthristikÒn, ¥tiw §st‹n oÈs¤a toË puretoË: tÚ d¢ xrÒnion sumbebhkÒw: sumb°bhke går to›w pureto›w µ §p‹ polÁn µ §pÉ Ùl¤gon §kte¤nesyai xrÒnon. ÖElege to¤nun ˜ti t«n puret«n ofl m°n efisi sfodro‹, ofl d¢ xrÒnioi, d°on t“ m¢n sfodr“ tÚ 15 émudrÚn éntitiy°nai, t“ d¢ xron¤ƒ tÚ ÙligoxrÒnion. OÏtvw oÔn per‹ tåw diair°seiw sfallÒmenoi ka‹ tØn t«n aflr°sevn sunestÆsanto diafvn¤an.”b

b

Cf Galen, MMG, pp. 3–4 K: ÑIppokrãthw m¢n ka‹ toËto pr«tow èpãntvn œn ‡smen g°grafen. ÑUpemnÆsanto dÉ §p‹ pl°on t«n metÉ aÈtÚn ˜soi t«n §ke¤nou sun∞kan grammãtvn, œn eÂw ∑n ka‹ Mnhs¤yeow ı ÉAyhna›ow, énØr tã tÉ êlla flkanÚw pãnta tå t∞w t°xnhw ka‹ efiw ˜son xrØ meyÒdƒ tØn fiatrikØn t°xnhn éske›n, oÈdenÚw §pign«nai deÊterow. Otow ı Mnhs¤yeow épÚ t«n pr≈tvn ka‹ énvtãtv gen«n érjãmenow éjio› t°mnein aÈtå katÉ e‡dh te ka‹ g°nh ka‹ diaforãw. E‰tÉ aÔyiw tå temnÒmena t°mnein ımo¤vw kôke›na pãlin …saÊtvw, ¶stÉ ín §p¤ ti toioËton e‰dow éfik≈meya meyÉ ˘ t°mnontew, éxr‹w o tÚ temnÒmenon, efiw ©n t“ ériym“ ka‹ êtomon ≥dh teleutÆsomen. TaËtÉ érke› moi prÒw g° se diå brax°vn ì boÊlomai dedhl«syai. Ka‹ går ín e‡hn gelo›ow, e‡ se didãskoimi tå så Àsper oÈx‹ parå Plãtvnow aÈtå pãlai memayhkÒta. OÈd¢ går Àste didãjai s° t¤ pvw per‹ t∞w katå tØn toiaÊthn dia¤resin meyÒdou tØn ÍpÒmnhsin §poihsãmhn, éllÉ ˜ti moi prÚw tÚn §fej∞w lÒgon ëpanta xrhs¤mhn [K: xrÆsimon] aÈtØn ¶sesyai nom¤zv: ka‹ tØn afit¤an œn •kãstote sfallom°nouw ıròw toÁw ple¤stouw t«n fiatr«n éjioËnt¤ soi maye›n, oÈk §n∞n êllvw §nde¤jasyai. Ka‹ går ka‹ tå katå tåw êllaw aflr°seiw sfãlmata ka‹ ˜sa nËn §p‹ t«n nosoÊntvn ofl pollo‹ t«n fiatr«n èmartãnousi pr≈thn ka‹ meg¤sthn afit¤an ¶xei tÚ moxyhrÚn t∞w diair°sevw. Ofl m¢n går §p‹ t«n pr≈tvn ka‹ énvtãtv gen«n m°nousin, érkoÊmenoi ta›w épÚ toÊtvn §nde¤jesin: ofl d¢ m°xri m°n tinow ¶temon, oÈ mØn prÒw ge tÚ t°low §j¤konto: pollo‹ d¢ ka‹ moxyhra›w §xrÆsanto diair°sesin. “This is another thing that Hippocrates has written before anyone else we know. From among his followers, it is mostly those who understood his writings that explained it; and one of them was Mnesitheus of Athens, a man versed in all the aspects of the [sc medical] art, and second to none in his awareness of the extent to which medicine needs method. This Mnesitheus started from the first and highest genera and considered dividing them by species, genera, and differentiae, then dividing again the results of the divisions in the same way, and then again—until we reach the kind of species after the division of which we shall make what has been divided so far end in [sc something] numerically one and indivisible. This is sufficient for conveying my meaning to you briefly. For it would be ridiculous if I were to tutor you in your own field, as if you had not learned these things long ago, from [sc the study of ] Plato. For I have not written these comments in order to teach you the method of this kind of division, but because I think that it will

  ‒  

801

from the unsoundness of the division [diairesis]. Some [sc doctors] content themselves with the first genera and do not divide them any further into their particular species; this is what the Methodists have done, judging that one should have knowledge only of the constricted [sc state], the fluid [sc state], and the mixed [sc state], and failing to divide these any further. Others did divide the genera, but their division came out in incomplete form, without reaching the indivisible [sc species]; the Erasistrateans appear to have done that. Others divided in other [sc erroneous] ways, and especially by balancing accidental differentiae against essential ones; Archigenes for one did this. He said, namely, that some fevers are violent, others chronic; but violence belongs in the essence of fevers—for it is a mark of the heat, which in turn constitutes the essence of fevers—whereas chronicity is accidental; for fevers just happen to stretch over a long or a short [sc period of ] time. So he said that among fevers some are violent, others chronic, when he should have balanced weak against violent and shortlived against chronic. Thus those who made mistakes about divisions also perpetrated the disagreement between the [sc medical] haireseis.”

802

  ‒  -

prove useful for the entire subject to come, and [sc because] there was no other way of showing you, who are interested in learning it, the reason why you see most of the doctors making mistakes every time. Indeed the mistakes made in the other haireseis, and all the errors that the majority of doctors exert on the patients, have their primary and principal cause in the unsoundness of [sc their] division. Some 5 [sc doctors] remain within the first and highest genera, contenting themselves with the indications derived from them; others have made divisions up to a point, but did not reach the end; and many have used unsound divisions.”

FR 312. STEPHANUS, COMMENTARII IN PRIOREM GALENI LIBRUM THERAPEUTICUM AD GLAUCONEM (2) Stephanus, Commentarii in priorem Galeni librum Therapeuticum ad Glauconem, I pp. 243 + 245 Dietz: [243] ÉArj≈meya oÔn épÚ t«n puret«n, §peidØ ka‹ sÁ t∞w toÊtvn fiãsevw mãlista ±j¤ou soi tØn m°yodon lexy∞nai—ka‹ tå •j∞w.a 10 [245] ToÁw to¤nun §fhm°rouw puretoÁw oÈk ¶sti xalepÚn yerapeËsai, éllå ka‹ pãnu =ñdion. EÈyÁw går metå tØn toË parojusmoË parakmØn loutro›w m¢n keleÊomen aÈtoÁw xrÆsasyai kép‹ tØn sunÆyh d¤aitan aÈtoÁw épãgomen. Ofl d¢ Meyodiko‹ oÈx oÏtvw pvw, éllå toÊtouw paraa

Cf MMG, pp. 6–7 K: ÉArj≈meya oÔn épÚ t«n puret«n, §peidØ ka‹ sÁ t∞w toÊtvn fiãsevw mãlista ±j¤ou soi tØn m°yodon lexy∞nai: ka‹ pr«ton e‡pvmen per‹ t«n èploustãtvn, oÓw ÑIppokrãthw §fhm°rouw kale›. Otoi dÉ efisin o· te diå kÒpouw ginÒmenoi ka‹ m°yaw ka‹ Ùrgåw ka‹ lÊpaw ka‹ yumoÁw ka‹ tåw êllaw front¤daw t∞w cux∞w tåw suntÒnouw. Ka‹ ofl §p‹ boub«si d¢ pureto‹ toÊtou toË g°nouw efis¤, plØn efi mØ xvr‹w ßlkouw faneroË g°nointo: thnikaËta går Ïpopto¤ t° efisi ka‹ oÈdam«w §pieike›w. Ka‹ égrupn¤a d¢ pollãkiw ≥negken èploËn puretÒn, Àsper oÔn ka‹ cÊjiw pot¢ ka‹ ¶gkausiw. Otoi pãntew ofl pureto‹ =òsta luy∞nai dÊnantai: xrØ går §p¤ te loutrå tax°vw êgein aÈtoÁw ka‹ tØn êllhn tØn sunÆyh d¤aitan. ÑVw ˜soi ge tØn poluyrÊllhton diãtriton §p‹ pãntvn t«n toioÊtvn §kd°xontai, drimut°rouw pollãkiw efirgãsanto toÁw puretoÊw, ka¤ ti ka‹ êllo prosejamartãnontew, Àsper oÔn ıròw toÁw polloÁw aÈt«n kayÉ •kãsthn e‡sodon èmartãnontaw, …w ka‹ xeiropo¤hta ˆntvw §rgãsasyai nosÆmata. “So let us start from fevers, since you too asked above all that their method of treatment should be explained; and let us first discuss the simplest ones, which Hippocrates calls ‘quotidian’. These are the fevers which come about through fatigue, and also through great anger, pain, emotion, and other disturbances of the soul [sc when they are] in intense form. Fevers in cases of swollen glands belong to this genus too, unless they are not accompanied by a manifest wound; for in such cases they are suspicious and not at all right. Insomnia, too, has often engendered a simple fever, just as much as chill or heat. All these fevers can be solved quickly; for we have to take them [sc the patients] immediately to the bath and to the rest of their customary regimen. So those who admit of the much discussed diatritus in all the cases of this sort have often made the fevers more acrid, and they make other mistakes in addition; thus you find many of them making mistakes on each visit, so that they literally produce man-made diseases.”

  ‒  

803

FR 312. STEPHANUS, COMMENTARIES TO BOOK ONE OF GALEN’ METHOD OF HEALING TO GLAUCON (2) Stephanus, Commentaries to book one of Galen’s Method of healing to Glaucon, I pp. 243 + 245 Dietz: [243] So let us start from fevers, since you too asked above all that their method of treatment should be explained—and so on. [245] Hence is it not difficult to treat quotidian fevers; on the contrary, it is quite easy. For immediately after the decline of the paroxysm we order them [sc the patients] to take baths and we set them back to their customary regimen. The Methodists, however, do not [sc proceed] in this way,

804

  ‒  -

labÒntew keleÊousin §p‹ tre›w ≤m°raw ésite›n, fulãttesyai tÚn diå tr¤thw éjioËntew parojusmÒn. ÑUpolambãnousi går ëpanta sxedÚn tå nosÆmata diå tr¤thw parojÊnein. Otoi to¤nun m°gista toÁw oÏtv kãmnontaw blãptousi, drimut°rouw aÈtoÁw •aut«n époteloËntew, ka‹ tª 5 épÚ toË puretoË drimÊthti tØn épÚ t∞w ésit¤aw §pitiy°ntew duskras¤an. OÈ mÒnon d¢ toËto pta¤ousin éllÉ, ·na ti dÒjvsi poie›n, efi mØ mãthn éni°nai per‹ tÚn kãmnonta, kataionÆses¤ te xr«ntai éka¤roiw ka‹ §mbroxa›w ka‹ kataplãsmasin, ÍfÉ œn oÈd¢n mÒnon ı kãmnvn Ùn¤nata éllå ka‹ blãptetai: ka‹ diå toËtÒ fhs‹n ÍpÉ aÈt«n ı GalhnÚw xeiro10 po¤hton g¤gnesyai tÚ nÒshma.

FR 313. STEPHANUS, COMMENTARII IN PRIOREM GALENI LIBRUM THERAPEUTICUM AD GLAUCONEM (3) Stephanus, Commentarii in priorem Galeni librum Therapeuticum ad Glauconem, I p. 256 Dietz: [256] Otoi mÒnoi pãntvn t«n puret«n stegnÒn efisi pãyow.a ToËtÉ oÈk éka¤rvw pros°yhken ı GalhnÒw, éllå prÚw toÁw MeyodikoÁw époteinÒmenow, o· ge pãnta tå pãyh ¶legon e‰nai µ stegnÚn µ =o«dew µ §pipeplegm°non, Àsper §n t“ Per‹ aflr°sevn e‡rhken. ÜApanta m¢n 15 puretÚn stegnÚn pãyow Ípelãmbanon e‰nai. DiÒ fhsi prÚw aÈtoÁw ˜tÉ, efi de› puretÚn kale›n stegnÚn nÒshma, mÒnon toËton de› kale›n tÚn §p‹ pukn≈sei diå d°rmatow gignÒmenon. a

Cf. MMG, p. 13 K: Ofl dÉ §p‹ pukn≈sei toË d°rmatow ginÒmenoi pureto¤—puknoËtai d¢ toËto µ cuxÒmenon µ poiÒthtow aÈt“ strufn∞w éyrÒvw prospesoÊshw, oÂÒn ti ka‹ t“ lousam°nƒ §n Ïdati t“ stupthri≈dei §g°neto—otoi mÒnoi pãntvn t«n puret«n stegnÒn efisi pãyow. ÖEnesti dÉ aÈtoÁw tª èfª diagin≈skein, Àsper ka‹ toÁw aÈxm≈deiw t«n puret«n ka‹ toÁw §p‹ to›w kÒpoiw ka‹ toÁw §pÉ §gkaÊsesin. OÈd¢ går ín ≤ toÊtvn pÊknvsiw èfØn gegumnasm°nhn dialãyoi. “As for the fevers

which occur in cases of thickening of the skin—and it [sc the skin] thickens when it is chilled or when a harsh quality gets in contact with it all at once, as happens for instance when you take a bath in water which contains alum—of all the fevers, only these represent a constricted affection. It is possible to diagnose them by touch, as in the case of the squalid fevers, or of those which occur in fatigue or heat. For the thickening which characterises them would not escape a well-trained [sc sense of ] touch.”

  ‒  -

805

but, as soon as they take charge of them [sc the patients in question], they order them to abstain from food for three days: they take themselves to be watching for the paroxysm of the third day. For they presuppose that nearly all the diseases have paroxysms on the third day. Therefore these [sc doctors] do the greatest damage to the category of patients under discussion, because they make them more acrid than they were before, and they compound the acridity resulting from fever with the duskrasia resulting from abstention from food. And this is not the only blunder they make; in order to appear to do something and not to [sc appear to] neglect the patient idly, they use inappropriate fomentations, infusions, and plasters, which not only do not benefit the patient but positively harm him; and this is why Galen declares that the disease gets worse under them.

FR 313. STEPHANUS, COMMENTARIES TO BOOK ONE OF GALEN’ METHOD OF HEALING TO GLAUCON (3) Stephanus, Commentaries to book one of Galen’s Method of healing to Glaucon, I p. 256 Dietz: [256] Of all the fevers, only these represent a constricted affection. Galen did not add this [sc comment] irrelevantly but by way of alluding to the Methodists, who argued that all the affections are [sc something] constricted, fluid, or combined, as he [sc Galen] has explained in the [sc treatise] On sects. And they hypothesised that any fever is a constricted affection. In consequence, it is in answer to them that he replies that, if we must call fever a constricted affection, we should restrict it only to the [sc kind] which occurs in relation to the thickening of the skin.

806

  ‒  

FR 314. STEPHANUS, SCHOLIA

IN

HIPPOCRATIS PROGNOSTICON

Stephanus, Scholia in Hippocratis Prognosticon, i, 2 Duffy = I pp. 57–58 Dietz: [57] TÚn fihtrÚn dok°ei moi êriston e‰nai . . .a

5

10

15

20

25

ÖAjion épor¤aw ˜ti p«w ı ÑIppokrãthw, mØ efivy∆w §n to›w ofike¤oiw suggrãmmasi prooimiãzesyai, nËn prooim¤ƒ k°xrhtai. Ka‹ l°gomen ˜ti diå toÁw MeyodikoÁw t“ prooim¤ƒ ±nagkãsyh xrÆsasyai, ·na épode¤j˙ énagka¤an tØn prÒgnvsin. ÉEke›noi går pãnt˙ énπroun tØn prÒgnvsin l°gontew mhd¢n ˜lvw lusiteloËsan t“ fiatr“. ÖEfaskon går ˜ti fiatroË §pistÆmonÒw §sti tÚ tØn Íge›an fulãttein ka‹ tÚ tØn diafyare›san Íge›an énakal°sasyai: tÚ d¢ progin≈skein mãnte≈w §stin µ profht«n tinvn. ÑO oÔn ÑIppokrãthw y°lvn §l°gjai toÁw MeyodikoÁw ka‹ énagka¤an épode›jai tØn prÒgnvsin t“ prooim¤ƒ §xrÆsato, §k tri«n sullogistik«n épode¤jevn skeuãzvn aÈtÒ. Ka‹ pr≈th §st‹n aÏth: ı fiatrÚw §j œn prol°gei pãntvw gin≈skei tØn fÊsin toË Ípokeim°nou nosÆmatow: ı d¢ gin≈skvn tØn fÊsin toË Ípokeim°nou nosÆmatow eÈpeiye›w épergãzetai toÁw nosoËntaw: ı eÈpeiye›w toÁw nosoËntaw poi«n eÈxer«w ka‹ tax°vw épallãttei tÚn kãmnonta t∞w nÒsou: ı toioËtow fiatrÒw, §j œn prol°gei, eÈxer«w ka‹ tax°vw fiçtai tÚn kãmnonta. DeÊteron sullogismÚn l°gei toioËton: ˜ti ı progign≈skvn fiatrÚw proeutrep¤zetai: ı d¢ proparaskeuazÒmenow oÈ tarãttetai: ı mØ tarattÒmenow nikò tÚn [58] ég«na: ı nik«n tÚn ég«na toË fid¤ou skopoË perig¤netai, ˜stiw §st‹ t∞w fiãsevw— otow går ı skopÚw t“ fiatr“, ‡asiw. Ka‹ går ı progin≈skvn tåw parå fÊsin diay°seiw tåw mÆpv genom°naw, melloÊsaw dÉ ¶sesyai, §kkÒptei ka‹ oÈk §ò gen°syai. Efi d¢ ka‹ g°nvntai, kín mØ pãnt˙ dunÆshtai aÈtåw §kkÒcai, éllÉ ˜mvw tÚ sfodrÚn ka‹ tÚ m°geyow aÈt«n kayaire› ka‹ metriãzei. OÏtvw goËn pollãkiw progin≈skontew m°llontaw parojusmoÁw efisbãllein metå sugkop∞w µ lipoyum¤aw µ paraforçw, par°xontew trofåw µ bohyÆmasin §pithde¤oiw paresxhkÒtew, µ pãnt˙ oÈ sunexvrÆsamen gen°syai µ, ka‹ §ån §g°nonto, Ífeim°nvw ka‹ metr¤vw §g°nonto. Tr¤ton d¢ sullogismÚn oÈk°tÉ épÚ toË t°louw t∞w t°xnhw lambanÒmenon éllÉ épÚ toË éna¤tion ka‹ éneÊyunon aÍtÒn te ka‹ tØn t°xnhn diathre›n.

a

This is the famous first sentence of the Hippocratic Prognostic: TÚn fihtrÚn dok°ei moi êriston e‰nai prÒnoian §pithdeÊein. “It is best, I think, that the doctor should

exercise foresight” (cf also Fr 214).

  ‒   FR 314. STEPHANUS, NOTES

ON

807

HIPPOCRATES’ PROGNOSTIC

Stephanus, Notes on Hippocrates’ Prognostic, i, 2 Duffy = I pp. 57–58 Dietz: [57] It is best, I think, that the doctor . . . It is well worth raising the question why Hippocrates, who was not in the habit of introducing his own treatises, this time, for some reason, wrote an introduction. Our answer is that he was forced to write the introduction because of the Methodists, [sc namely] in order to prove that prognosis is necessary. Indeed those doctors have annulled prognosis completely, arguing that the business of a competent doctor is to preserve health and to summon it back when it is damaged; but making predictions is the business of a soothsayer or prophet of sorts. Thus Hippocrates wrote an introduction because he wanted to refute the Methodists and to prove that prognosis is necessary, and he composed it out of three syllogistic proofs. The first one is this: the doctor knows perfectly the nature of the underlying disease on the basis of what he foretells; but one who knows the nature of the underlying disease makes the ill co-operative; and one who makes the ill co-operative relieves a patient from his disease easily and fast; such a doctor cures the patient easily and fast on the basis of what he foretells. The second syllogism makes the following claim: the doctor who knows in advance takes measures in advance; but one who is prepared in advance does not get disturbed, one who does not get disturbed wins the [58] contest, and one who wins the contest attains his specific aim, which is healing—for this is the doctor’s aim: healing. The man who foresees unnatural states which have not yet come to be, but are about to come to be, prevents them or does not allow them to come to be. If, however, they have come to be, even if he cannot prevent them completely, nevertheless he reduces and attenuates their violence and their great proportions. Thus it is often the case that we foresaw the coming of future paroxysms accompanied by syncope, lipothymia, or frenzy, and by providing food or having submitted [sc the patient] to the usual remedies either we did not allow them [sc the paroxysms] to develop at all or, even if they did, they were subdued and moderate. As for the third syllogism, he [sc Hippocrates] no longer derives it from the goal of the [sc medical] art [techne], but from keeping himself and his art guiltless and irreproachable. For he argues that

808

  ‒  -

Fhs‹ går ˜ti ı progin≈skvn fiatrÚw prol°gei toÁw svyhsom°nouw µ teynhjom°nouw: ı oÏtvw prol°gvn fiatrÚw tå m°llonta ¶sesyai, éna¤tion •autÒn te ka‹ tØn t°xnhn kay¤sthsin.b b

The rest of Stephanus’ comment is worth quoting for the sake of context. ÉEån går progn“ ı fiatrÚw ˜ti periesthkÒw §sti tÚ nÒshma, pãnta tå d°onta diaprãttetai, ka‹ k°xrhtai taxÁ ka‹ flebotom¤& ka‹ kayãrsei ka‹ •t°roiw ple¤stoiw bohyÆmasin. Efi d¢ progn“ ˜ti Ùl°yriÒn §sti tÚ nÒshma, oÈdÉ ˜lvw §gxeire› t“ nosoËnti parathroÊmenow tÚ fãskon =htÚn ˜ti “to›w ÍpÚ t«n noÊsvn kekrathm°noiw oÈ de› §gxeire›n”, ka‹ tÚ “fÊsevw éntiprattoÊshw pãnta keneã”. Ka‹ loipÚn oÈk §fãptetai, ·na mhdÉ ˜lvw ofl loidore›n speÊdontew t«n fidivt«n efiw tÚ ginÒmenon m°mcin §piyÆsvsin, ˜ti tuxÚn “efi mØ §flebotomÆyh, oÈk ín ép°yn˙sken”. fhs‹n ı GalhnÚw ˜ti ésaf«w p°frastai tÚ =htÒn, éllå diå tÚ saf¢w de› ≤mçw §n Íperbat“ oÏtvw énagn«nai: “Doke› moi êriston e‰nai prÒnoian §pithdeÊein tÚn fiatrÒn.” Fam¢n oÔn ˜ti tÚ “doke›” katå dÊo shmainom°nvn f°retai: pr«ton m¢n katå toË §ndoiastikoË, Àsper ín e‡pvmen “dok« tãde bouleÊesyai Ímçw”. F°retai [59] d¢ ka‹ katÉ êllou shmainom°nou, ˜tan mØ ¬ §ndoiastikÒn, oÂon …w ín e‡pvmen ˜ti “doke› t“ ye“ tÒde ti poi∞sai”, “doke› t“ basile›”, ka‹ thnikaËta oÈ katå toË §ndoiastikoË aÈtÚ lambãnomen, éllÉ ˜ti dÒgma pepo¤htai ka‹ pãntvw toËto genÆsetai ˘ ¶dojen aÈt“. OÏtvw oÔn ka‹ §ntaËya ı ÑIppokrãthw tÚ “doke›” §j°laben ént‹ toË dÒgma tiy°nai.

FR 315DUB. SUDA, LEXICON Suda, Lexicon, 2472, Proklos = p. 210 Adler: [2472] PrÒklow, ı ProklÆiow xrhmat¤saw: Yem¤svnow1 Laodike¤aw t∞w 5 Sur¤aw flerofãnthw. ÖEgrace Yeolog¤an,2 Efiw tÚn parÉ ÑHsiÒdƒ t∞w Pand≈raw mËyon, Efiw tå xruså ¶ph, Efiw tØn Nikomãxou EfisagvgØn tØn ériymhtikÆn, ka‹ êlla tinå gevmerikã. 1

Yem¤svnow uel Yemist¤vnow ci Bernhardy: Yemes¤vnow Adler: Yemis¤vnow Parisinus 2 Ad: Yeolog¤aw Vossianus Fol. 2

2623

FR 316. TACITUS, ANNALES (1) Tacitus, Annales, iv 3: [3] Ceterum plena Caesarum domus, iuuenis filius, nepotes adulti moram cupitis adferebant, quia1 ui tot simul corripere intutum; dolus interualla 1

et quia codd > Fisher: del et Nipperdey (= Ni)

  ‒  -

809

a doctor who knows in advance warns [sc his patients] in advance whether they will escape or die; and a doctor who warns [sc his patients] like this, in advance, about what will happen establishes both himself and his art as being guiltless.

FR 315DUB. SUDA, LEXICON Suda, Lexicon, 2472, Proklos = p. 210 Adler: [2472] Proclus, [sc also] known as Procleius: hierophant of Themison of Laodicea in Syria. He has written a Theology, a [sc commentary] On the story of Pandora in Hesiod, one On golden words, one On Nicomachus’ Introduction to arithmetics, and some other [sc works] on geometry.

FR 316. TACITUS, ANNALS (1) Tacitus, Annals, iv 3: [3] But the imperial house teeming with Caesars—a young son, grown-up grand-children—delayed the fulfilment of his [sc Seianus’] desires, since it would have been unsafe to attack that many of them at once, by sheer

810

  ‒  -

scelerum poscebat. Placuit tamen occultior uia et a Druso incipere, in quem recenti ira ferebatur. Nam Drusus inpatiens aemuli et animo commotior orto forte iurgio intenderat Seiano manus et contra tendentis os uerberauerat. Igitur cuncta temptanti promptissimum uisum ad uxorem eius Liuiam 5 conuertere, quae soror Germanici, formae initio aetatis indecorae, mox polchritudine praecellebat. Hanc ut amore incensus adulterio pellexit, et postquam primi flagtii potitus est (neque femina amissa pudicitia alia abnuerit), ad coniugii spem, consortium regni et necem mariti impulit. Atque illa, cui auunculus Augustus, socer Tiberius, ex Druso liberi, seque ac maiores et 10 posteros municipali adulterio foedabat, ut pro honestis et praesentibus flagitiosa et incerta exspectaret. Sumitur in conscientiam Eudemus, amicus ac medicus Liuiae, specie artis frequens secretis. Pellit domo Seianus uxorem Apicatam, ex qua tres liberos genuerat, ne paelici suspectaretur. Sed magnitudo facinoris metum, prolationes, diuersa interdum consilia adferebat.

FR 317. TACITUS, ANNALES (2) Tacitus, Annales, iv 8–11: 15 [8] Igitur Seianus maturandum ratus deligit uenenum quo paulatim inrepente fortuitus morbus adsimularetur. Id Druso datum per Lygdum spadonem, ut octo post annos cognitum est. [. . .] [10] In tradenda morte Drusi quae plurimis maximaeque fidei1 auctoribus memorata sunt retuli: sed non omiserim eorundem temporum rumorem, ualidum adeo ut nondum exolescat. 20 [. . .] [11] Haec, uulgo iactata, super id quod nullo auctore certo firmantur, prompte refutaueris. [. . .] Ordo alioqui sceleris, per Apicatam Seiani proditus, tormentis Eudemi ac Lygdi patefactus est. Neque quisquam scriptor tam infensus exstitit ut Tiberio obiectaret, cum omnia alia conquirerent

corr Ritter: maximaeque fideis Laurentianus pluteus lxviii. 1 (= M): maximeque fidis Beroaldus 1

  ‒  -

811

violence; cunning requested intervals of time between his crimes. Nevertheless he chose an even subtler course, starting with Drusus, with whom he had recently quarrelled. For Drusus was intolerant of a rival and possessed with a rather impulsive temper; in a chance argument between the two, he raised his hand towards Seianus and, just as Seianus was raising his in response, hit him in the face. Hence Seianus weighed all the elements of the situation and decided that the most practical way forward was to attract the support of Drusus’ wife Livia: she was the sister of Germanicus; unattractive as a young girl, she turned into a stunning beauty with age. Feigning a great passion for this woman, Seianus lured her into adultery and, once he succeeded in accomplishing this first infamy (and a woman who has abandoned her decency would not refuse other things), he planted in her mind a prospective marriage with him, partnership in ruling the empire, and the assassination of her husband. And she, a niece of Augustus, sister of Germanicus, and mother of Drusus’ sons, defiled herself, her ancestors, and her descendants with an adulterer of low provincial birth, so as to exchange the distinguished position she actually enjoyed for a disreputable one in the uncertain future. Eudemus, Livia’s friend and doctor, who was able to have many solitary sessions with her under the cover of his profession, was taken into confidence. Seianus thrust out of house his wife Apicata, from whom he had three sons, lest his mistress would mistrust him. But the proportions of the crime caused anxiety, adjournments, and strategies sometimes in conflict with each other.

FR 317. TACITUS, ANNALS (2) Tacitus, Annals, iv 8–11: [8] In consequence, Seianus deemed that it was high time to act, and he chose a poison which would slink in slowly enough to create the appearance of ordinary disease. This poison was administered to Drusus by Lygdus, a eunuch, as was revealed eight years later. [. . .] [10] In the treatment of Drusus’ death I have followed a tradition which was recorded by the greatest number of authors, including those of the highest credibility; yet I should not leave out of account a piece of gossip of that time, so influential that it has not run out credit even today. [. . .] [11] Such rumours, ventured among the crowds, are not confirmed by any author and, in addition to this fact, anyone would find it easy to reason against them. [. . .] In any event, the details of the murder, disclosed by Seianus’ wife Apicata, came fully to light when Eudemus and Lygdus were put on the rack. Nor was there to be found even one single chronicler so embittered as to lay the crime on Tiberius—although they all were on every possible track and

812

  ‒  

intenderentque. Mihi tradendi arguendique rumoris causa fuit ut claro sub exemplo falsas auditiones depellerem peteremque ab iis quorum in manus cura nostra uenerit ne2 diuulgata (atque incredibilia3 auide accepta) ueris neque in miraculum corruptis antehabeant.

2

ne add Rhenanus

3

M2: incredibili M: secl Ni

  ‒  

813

attempted everything else to discredit him. My own reason for recording and censoring this piece of hearsay was to repudiate false rumours with the help of a clear example, and to ask those into whose hands my work may have fallen not to prefer a version which has spread around (for in fact what is incredible commands eager acceptance) to sober truths, untransformed into a fantasy tale.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES congius (Lat. congius) ≅ 3.25 l = 6 sextarii, 72 kyathoi drachma/denarius (drãxmh, dhnãrion, Lat. denarius) = a handful ≅ 4 gr (= 1/7 of an uncia) hemina (≤m¤na) = Sicilian measure, equivalent to a kotyle (but ≤m¤na basilikÆ = ≤mikotÊlion) holke (ılkÆ) or “silver drachma” (drãxmh érgurã) = 3.3 to 3.6 gr ≅ a “handful” (drachma) kochliarion (koxliãrion) = a spoonful konche (kÒgxh) = a shellful/spoonful kotyle (kotÊlh) = liquid measure containing 6 kyathoi or half a sextarius/xestes (ie nearly half a pint) kyathos (kÊayow) = a cup (approx 0.045 l); 1/12 of a pint or sextarius/ xestes litra (l¤tra, Lat. as or libra) ≅ 327 gr (≤ 3/4 an English pound); 12 ounces mina (mnç, Lat. mina) = 100 drachmae/denarii (400 gr) mystron (mÊstron) = a spoonful obol (ÙbolÒw) = a “nail”, ie 1/6 of a “handful” (drachma/denarius) sextarius/xestes (j°sthw, Lat. sextarius) = 12 kyathoi, 1/6 of a congius; ≅ a pint (0.54 l) triens, quadrans, sextans = 3/4, 1/4, 1/6 of an uncia (≅ 9, 7, and 4.50 gr respectively) triens denarii, quadrans denarii, sextans denarii = 1/3, 1/4, 1/6 of a drachma/ denarius (≅ 1.33, 1, and 0.66 gr respectively) triobol (triÒbolon, tri≈bolon) = three obols uncia (oÈgg¤a, Lat. uncia [sc librae]) ≤ an ounce (≅ 27 gr) = 1/12 of a litra