Geschichte u. Kultur Roms im Spiegel d. neueren Forschung ;2. Principat. Bd. 37. Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik [Reprint 2014 ed.] 3110141841, 9783110141849

Table of contents :
Vorwort
Inhalt
On the Chronology and Pneumatism of Aretaios of Cappadocia
Soranus of Ephesus: Methodicorum princeps
Rufus von Ephesos und sein Werk im Rahmen der antiken Medizin
Die Medizin des Rufus von Ephesos
Die arabische Überlieferung der Schriften des Rufus von Ephesos
Bibliographia Galeniana Die Beiträge des 20. Jahrhunderts zur Galenforschung
Les oeuvres de Galien pour les débutants ('De seeds', 'De pulsibus ad tirones', 'De ossibus ad tirones', 'Ad Glauconem de methodo medendi' et 'Ars medica'): médecine et pédagogie au IIe s. ap. J.-C.
Les definitions tripartites de la médecine chez Galien
Aux sources de la doctrine médicale de Galien: l'enseignement de Marinus, Quintus et Numisianus
Galeno commentatore di Ippocrate
Galen as a Clinician: His Methods in Diagnosis
L'immagine del medico e lo statuto epistemologico della medicina in Galeno
L'expérimentation chez Galien
Galen's Theory of Causation
Galen's Concept of Scientific Progress
Note filologiche sull'anatomia di Galeno
Galen's Anatomical Procedures: A Second-Century Debate in Medical Epistemology
Galeno e la riproduzione animale. Analisi del 'De semine'
Galien et la toxicologie
Der syrische und der arabische Galen
Il trattato sulle febbri dello ps. Alessandro d'Afrodisia
Rufus von Ephesos und sein Werk im Rahmen der antiken Medizin
Bibliographia Galeniana Die Beiträge des 20. Jahrhunderts zur Galenforschung
Galeno commentatore di Ippocrate

Citation preview

AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER R Ö M I S C H E N WELT BAND II. 37.2

RISE AND DECLINE OF T H E R O M A N WORLD VOLUME II. 37.2

AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER RÖMISCHEN WELT (ANRW) RISE AND DECLINE OF THE ROMAN WORLD H E R A U S G E G E B E N VON / E D I T E D BY

W O L F G A N G HAASE UND / AND

HILDEGARD

TEMPORINI

T E I L II: P R I N C I P A T BAND 3 7 . 2 PART II: P R I N C I P A T E VOLUME 37.2

w DE

G

W A L T E R DE G R U Y T E R · B E R L I N · N E W Y O R K 1 9 9 4

AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER R Ö M I S C H E N WELT (ANRW) G E S C H I C H T E UND KULTUR ROMS IM SPIEGEL DER N E U E R E N F O R S C H U N G

T E I L II: PRINCIPAT BAND 37: PHILOSOPHIE, WISSENSCHAFTEN, TECHNIK

2. TEILBAND: WISSENSCHAFTEN ( M E D I Z I N UND B I O L O G I E [ F O R T S . ] )

HERAUSGEGEBEN VON

W O L F G A N G HAASE

W G DE

WALTER DE G R U Y T E R · BERLIN · NEW Y O R K 1994

© Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier, das die US-ANSI-Norm über Haltbarkeit erfüllt. © Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library

of Congress

Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. English, French, German, Italian and Spanish. Later volumes have English parallel title: Rise and decline of the Roman world. The volumes of Teil II have separate titles: Politische Geschichte, Künste, Recht, Religion, Sprache und Literatur, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. Teil II edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. „Joseph Vogt zum 23. 6. 1970" (28 p.) in pocket of vol. I, 1. Includes bibliographies. Contents: T. I. Von den Anfängen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik (5 ν.) - T. II. Principat. 1. Rome — Civilization — Collected works. I. Vogt, Joseph, 1 8 9 5 - 1 9 8 6 . II. Temporini, Hildegard. III. Haase, Wolfgang. IV. Title: Rise and decline of the Roman world. DG209.T36 937 72-83058 ISBN 3-11-001885-3 (I, 1)

Die Deutsche

Bibliothek

-

CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt : (ANRW) ; Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung / hrsg. von Wolfgang Haase und Hildegard Temporini. — Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter. Teilw. hrsg. von Hildegard Temporini und Wolfgang Haase. — Teilw. mit Parallelt.: Rise and decline of the Roman world NE: Haase, Wolfgang [Hrsg.]; Temporini, Hildegard [Hrsg.]; ANRW; PT Teil 2. Principat. Bd. 37. Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik / hrsg. von Wolfgang Haase. Teilbd. 2. Wissenschaften (Medizin und Biologie [Forts]). - 1994 ISBN 3-11-014184-1

© Copyright 1994 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-10785 Berlin. Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany Satz und Druck: Arthur Collignon GmbH, Berlin Buchbinderische Verarbeitung: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin Einbandgestaltung und Schutzumschlag: Rudolf Hübler

Vorwort Der vorliegende Teilband II 37,2 ist der zweite von insgesamt vier Teilbänden (II 3 7 , 1 - 4 ) , die innerhalb des wissenschaftsgeschichtlichen Bandes II 37 im II. Teil fPrincipat') dieses Werkes Themen der Medizinund Biologiegeschichte gewidmet sind. Er enthält die Fortsetzung und den Schluß der in Teilband II 37,1 ( B e r l i n - N e w York 1993, S. 691 —922) begonnenen Reihe von Beiträgen zu einzelnen Autoren und Texten der antiken Medizin aus der Principatszeit. Bei der redaktionellen Bearbeitung dieses Teilbandes haben in Tübingen A L E X A N D E R F. W E N S L E R , J O H A N N E S G E Y E R , G U I D O SANTALUCIA und D I E T M A R V Ö G E L E und in Boston wiederum J O N D A V I D H A G U E und A L E X A N D E R I N G L E sowie neuerdings D I A N E F. P A T E R S O N geholfen. Diesen allen und außerdem der Herstellerin R E N A T E STEFAN im Verlag Walter de Gruyter sei für ihre Unterstützung vielmals gedankt. W. H.

Department of Classical Studies/ ANRW Research Center, Boston University Arbeitsstelle ANRW, Universität Tübingen

Inhalt Vorwort

V

PHILOSOPHIE, WISSENSCHAFTEN, TECHNIK

Band II. 37.2: WISSENSCHAFTEN: MEDIZIN UND BIOLOGIE Einzelne Autoren und Texte der „römischen" Medizin (Forts.) S. M . (College Station, T X ) On the Chronology and Pneumatism of Aretaios of Cappadocia

941-966

A. E. (Ann Arbor, MI) - G R E E N , M. H . (Durham, NC) Soranus of Ephesus: Methodicorum princeps

968 — 1075

OBERHELMAN,

HANSON,

A. (Göttingen) Rufus von Ephesos und sein Werk im Rahmen der antiken Medizin 1077-1253 [Indices unten S. 2 0 3 6 - 2 0 6 2 ]

SIDERAS,

(Mainz) - P R O B S T , C. F (München) Die Medizin des Rufus von Ephesos

1254-1292

M. (Tübingen) Die arabische Überlieferung der Schriften des Rufus von Ephesos

1293-1349

THOMSSEN, H .

ULLMANN,

J. (Berlin) - N I C K E L , D. (Berlin) Bibliographia Galeniana: Die Beiträge des 20. Jahrhunderts zur Galenforschung 1351 —1420 [Index unten S. 2063 - 2070]

KOLLESCH,

Vili

INHALT

D E B R U , A . (Lille)

L'état des recherches sur Galien ( 1 9 6 9 - 1 9 9 2 ) [erscheint als Nachtrag in Bd. II. 37.4] BOUDON, V. ( P a r i s )

Les œuvres de Galien pour les débutants ('De seeds', 'De pulsibus ad drones', 'De ossibus ad drones', 'Ad Glauconem de methodo medendi' et 'Ars medica'): médecine et pédagogie au II e siècle ap. J.-C 1421 - 1 4 6 7 BOUDON, V. ( P a r i s )

Les définitions tripartites de la médecine chez Galien . . . . GRMEK, M . D . (Paris) -

1468 - 1 4 9 0

GOUREVITCH, D . ( P a r i s )

Aux sources de la doctrine médicale de Galien: l'enseignement de Marinus, Quintus et Numisianus 1491 —1528 MANETTI, D . ( F i r e n z e ) -

ROSELO, A.

(Pisa)

Galeno commentatore di Ippocrate [Indici infra pp. 2 0 7 1 - 2 0 8 0 ] GARCÍA-BALLESTER, L. (Barcelona - Santander) Galen as a Clinician: His Methods in Diagnosis VEGETTI, M .

1529 - 1 6 3 5

1636-1671

(Pavia)

L'immagine del medico e lo statuto epistemologico della medicina in Galeno 1672 —1717 D E B R U , A . (Lille)

L'expérimentation chez Galien

1718-1756

HANKINSON, R . J . ( A u s t i n , T X )

Galen's Theory of Causation HANKINSON, R . J . ( A u s t i n ,

1757 - 1 7 7 4

TX)

Galen's Concept of Scientific Progress

1775 - 1 7 8 9

GAROFALO, I. ( S i e n a )

Note filologiche sull'anatomia di Galeno

1790-1833

HANKINSON, R . J . ( A u s t i n , T X )

Galen's Anatomical Procedures: A Second-Century Debate in Medical Epistemology 1834 — 1855 ACCATTINO, P. ( T o r i n o )

Galeno e la riproduzione animale. Analisi del 'De semine'

1856—1886

TOUWAIDE, A . ( M i l a n )

Galien et la toxicologie LÓPEZ F E R E Z , J . A .

(Madrid)

Galen: Language, Style, Form [ e r s c h e i n t als N a c h t r a g in B d . II. 3 7 . 4 ]

1887-1986

INHALT

IX

Der syrische und der arabische Galen

1987-2017

STROHMEIER, G . ( B e r l i n )

TASSINARI, P. (Trieste)

Il trattato sulle febbri dello ps. Alessandro d'Afrodisia . . . 2 0 1 9 - 2 0 3 4

SIDERAS, A .

(Göttingen)

Rufus von Ephesos und sein Werk im Rahmen der antiken Medizin (S. 1 0 7 7 - 1 2 5 3 ) : Indices 2036-2062 KOLLESCH, J . (Berlin) -

NICKEL, D . (Berlin)

Bibliographia Galeniana: Die Beiträge des 20. Jahrhunderts zur Galenforschung (S. 1 3 5 1 - 1 4 2 0 ) : Index 2063-2070 MANETTI, D . ( F i r e n z e ) -

ROSELLI, A. (Pisa)

Galeno commentatore di Ippocrate (pp. 1529 — 1635): Indici

2071-2080

Band II. 37.1: Vorwort

V - VII WISSENSCHAFTEN: MEDIZIN UND BIOLOGIE Allgemeines und Einführendes zur römischen Medizin

SCARBOROUGH, J . ( M a d i s o n , W I )

Roman Medicine to Galen

3 — 48

NUTTON, V. (London)

Roman Medicine: Tradition, Confrontation, Assimilation

49 — 78

JACKSON, R . P. J . (London)

Roman Medicine: the Practitioners and their Practices . . .

79 — 101

RIDDLE, J . M . ( R a l e i g h , N C )

High Medicine and Low Medicine in the Roman Empire

.

102 - 1 2 0

OBERHELMAN, S. M . (College Station, T X ) Dreams in Graeco-Roman Medicine

121 - 1 5 6

ÖNNERFORS, A. (Köln) Magische Formeln im Dienste römischer Medizin

157 — 224

χ

INHALT Z u Sprache und Literatur der römischen Medizin

ÖNNERFORS, A.

(Köln)

Das medizinische Latein von Celsus bis Cassius Felix . . . . [Register unten S. 9 2 4 - 9 3 7 ] SCONOCCHIA, S . ( T r i e s t e )

-

FLAMMINI, G . ( M a c e r a t a )

-

227 — 392

S T O K , F.

(Pisa) Aspetti della letteratura medica latina in età imperiale (I — III sec. d.C.) [erscheint als N a c h t r a g in Bd. II 37,4] S T O K , F. ( P i s a )

La medicina nell'enciclopedia latina e nei sistemi di classificazione delle artes nell'età r o m a n a PEARCY, L. T. ( M e r i o n , PA) M e d i c i n e and R h e t o r i c in the Period of the Second Sophistic

ANDORLINI M A R C O N E , I.

393 - 444 445 - 456

(Firenze)

L'apporto dei papiri alla conoscenza della scienza medica antica

458-562

Z u den medizinischen „Sekten PIGEAUD, J . ( N a n t e s )

L'introduction du M é t h o d i s m e à R o m e

565-599

STOK, F. (Pisa) La scuola medica Empirica a R o m a . Problemi storici e prospettive di ricerca

600-645

ALLEN, J . (Pittsburgh, PA) Pyrrhonism and M e d i c a l Empiricism: Sextus Empiricus on Evidence and Inference

646-690

Einzelne Autoren und T e x t e der „ r ö m i s c h e n " Medizin VALLANCE, J . ( C a m b r i d g e )

T h e M e d i c a l System of Asclepiades o f Bithynia

693-727

BOSCHERINI, S. (Firenze)

La medicina in C a t o n e e Varrone

729-755

INHALT

XI

(Bad Brückenau) Principis medicus: Antonius Musa

MICHLER, M .

(Lausanne) Le 'De medicina' de Celse. R a p p o r t bibliographique

757-785

MUDRY, PH.

....

787-799

(Lausanne) L'orientation doctrinale du 'De medicina' de Celse

800 — 818

(Köln/Siegen) Celsus im Prooemium von 'De medicina': Römische Aneignung griechischer Wissenschaft

819-841

(Trieste) L'opera di Scribonio Largo e la letteratura medica latina del 1 sec. d. C

843-922

(Köln) Das medizinische Latein von Celsus bis Cassius (S. 2 2 7 - 3 9 2 ) : Register

924-937

MUDRY, PH.

DEUSE, W .

SCONOCCHIA, S .

ÖNNERFORS, A .

Felix

Band II. 37.3: WISSENSCHAFTEN: M E D I Z I N U N D BIOLOGIE (FORTS.) (Paris) La gynécologie et l'obstétrique à l'époque impériale

GOUREVITCH, D .

(Besançon) La médecine des enfants à l'époque impériale: Doctrines, textes et traditions

BERTIER, J .

R. P. J . (London) Eye Medicine in the R o m a n Empire

JACKSON,

BURKE, P. F. (Worcester, M A )

Malaria in the Greco-Roman World. A Historical and Epidemiological Survey STOK, F. (Salerno)

Follia e malattie mentali nella medicina dell'età romana

XII

INHALT

HEINZ, W. (Tübingen)

Antike Balneologie in späthellenistischer und römischer Zeit. Zur medizinischen Wirkung römischer Bäder

KÜNZL, E. (Mainz)

Forschungsbericht zu den antiken medizinischen Instrumenten

BLIQUEZ, L . J . (Seattle, WA)

Prosthetics in Classical Antiquity: Greek, Etruscan, and Roman

LITTMAN, R. J. (Honolulu, Hawaii) Medicine in Alexandria MARGANNE-MÉLARD, M . - H . (Liège)

La médecine dans l'Egypte romaine: les sources et les méthodes

LICHTENBERG, R. (Strasbourg - Paris) La momification en Egypte à l'époque tardive BOULOGNE, J . (Lille)

Plutarque et la médecine LANGHOLF, V. ( H a m b u r g )

Lukian und die Medizin: Zu einer tragischen Katharsis bei den Abderiten (Hist, conscr. 1) KOTTEK, S. S. (Jerusalem)

Hygiene and Healing among the Jews in the Post-Biblical Period: A Partial Reconstruction

ROSNER, F. ( J a m a i c a , N.Y.)

Jewish Medicine of the Talmudic Period: Traditions and Directions

NEWMYER, S . T . ( P i t t s b u r g h , P A )

Talmudic Medicine and Greco-Roman Science: Crosscurrents and Resistance KOTTEK, S. S. (Jerusalem)

Selected Elements of Talmudic Medical Terminology, with Special Consideration to Greco-Latin Influences and Sources

AMUNDSEN, D . W. (Bellingham, WA) - FERNGREN, G . B. (Corval-

lis, Oregon) The Perception of Disease and Disease Causality in the New Testament

INHALT

FERNGREN, G . Β. (Corvallis, O r e g o n ) -

XIII

AMUNDSEN, Ο . W. (Bel-

lingham, WA) Medicine and Christianity in the R o m a n Empire: Compatibilities and Tensions

Band II. 37.4: WISSENSCHAFTEN: M E D I Z I N U N D BIOLOGIE (FORTS.) SCARBOROUGH, J . ( M a d i s o n , W I )

R o m a n Pharmacy's Greek and Hellenistic Heritages SCARBOROUGH, J . ( M a d i s o n , W I )

R o m a n Pharmacy and Pharmaceuticals CAPITANI, U . (Pisa)

La farmacologia di Plinio: note di critica testuale ed esegetica ai libri XXVIII e X X I X della 'Naturalis Historia' TouwAiDE, A. (Milan) Dioscoride - Bibliographie historique et critique des œuvres authentiques et supposées RIDDLE, J. M . (Raleigh, N C )

Dioscorides and Pharmaceutical Theory in the Empire

Roman

TOUWAIDE, A. (Milan)

L'illustration du 'Traité de matière médicale' de Dioscoride - Contribution à l'étude de la botanique et de la pharmacologie au 1er siècle de notre ère ANDORLINI M A R C O N E , I. ( F i r e n z e )

Per l'interpretazione di alcuni testi di materia medica nei papiri TOUWAIDE, A. (Milan)

La toxicologie aux premiers siècles de l'Empire à travers les deux traités attribués à Dioscoride ('Sur les animaux venimeux' et 'Sur les poisons') WAEGEMAN, M . (Gent)

Medico-Magical Thinking in the Cyranides

XIV

INHALT

LAZER, E. (Sydney)

(on palaeoanthropology and medical archaeology of R o m a n Pompeii) LONGO, O .

(Padova)

La biologia animale in età ellenistico-romana. Da Aristotele al Physiologus BODSON, L . (Liège)

Approche de la zoologie dans le monde romain ANDRÉ, J . (Paris)

Zoonymie latine: les suidés B O N A , I. ( G e n o v a )

Testi greci e latini di ittiologia e di ornitologia C A P P O N I , F. ( G e n o v a )

Il linguaggio tecnico di Plinio nei libri I X e X della 'Naturalis Historia': ittiologia e ornitologia BODSON, L . (Liège)

La zootechnie et la médecine vétérinaire dans le monde romain SCHÄFFER, J . (München)

Z u r Geschichte der Veterinärmedizin in römischer Zeit: Pathologie der Trächtigkeit und Geburt bei Haustieren VAN GUCHT, W.

(Leuven)

Stock Breeding in the R o m a n Empire (with special reference to R o m a n Egypt) KITCHELL, Κ. (Baton Rouge, LA) Bees and Beekeeping in R o m a n Times WHITE, K . D .

(London)

R o m a n Agricultural Writers II: Virgil to the 'Geoponica' ANDRÉ, J.

(Paris)

La Botanique dans le M o n d e R o m a i n HOPPE, Β. (München)

Römische Botanik: Empirie und Anwendung

STÜCKELBERGER, A . (Bern)

Urzeugung und Evolution. Antike Vorstellungen von der Entstehung und Entwicklung des Lebens

INHALT

(Leuven) The Ecology of the R o m a n World: Contemporary Views and M o d e r n Research

VAN G U C H T , W .

N A C H T R A G Z U B A N D II. 37.1:

(Trieste) - FLAMMINI, G. (Macerata) - STOK, F. (Pisa) Aspetti della letteratura medica latina in età imperiale (I - III sec. d.C.)

SCONOCCHIA, S.

N A C H T R Ä G E Z U B A N D II. 37.2:

(Lille) L'état des recherches sur Galien ( 1 9 6 9 - 1 9 9 2 )

DEBRU, A .

(Madrid) Galen: Language, Style, Form

LÓPEZ FEREZ, J. A .

Band II. 37.5: WISSENSCHAFTEN: G E O G R A P H I E ; M A T H E M A T I K ; NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN PÉDECH, P. ( R e n n e s )

Contribution des Romains à la géographie du monde antique C. H . (Seattle, WA) Strabo's 'Geography': Philosophical Approaches to Geographical Traditions

ROSEMAN,

(Madrid) - M A R T Í N E Z D I E Z , A . (Madrid) Die Darstellung der Iberischen Halbinsel bei Strabon. Ein Beispiel des Universalismus der augusteischen Epoche im Spiegel der Geographie

ALONSO-NÚÑEZ, J. M .

TRAÎNA, G .

(Roma)

L'Armenia di Strabone. Fonti, metodo, discorso geografico (Roma) La t C h o r o g r a p h i a ' di Pomponio Mela e le conoscenze geografiche dei R o m a n i in età imperiale

P A R R O N I , P.

XVI

INHALT

SiLBERMAN, A. (Âbo - Grenoble) Le "De Chorographia' de Pomponius Mela ou l'utilisation par un latin de la tradition géographique grecque SANTOS YANGUAS, Ν .

(Oviedo)

Der hispanische Beitrag zur historischen Geographie der Antike: Pomponius Mela und die Iberische Halbinsel DESANGES, J . (Paris)

Pline l'Ancien et la géographie

BERGGREN, J. L. (Burnaby, Β. C., Canada) Ptolemy's Scientific Geography CASSON, L. ( N e w York, N Y )

'Periplus Maris Erythraei' MASON, P. (Leiden)

Ethnography, Ethnology and Para-anthropology: Sextus Empiricus and Hellenistic Comparative Method LUND, A. A. (München)

Die Entdeckung des nordwestlichen Europa durch die Römer KITCHELL, K. (Baton Rouge, LA) The Image of Crete in Ancient Geographical Literature

AUJAC, G . (Toulouse)

La rose des vents, de Timosthène de Rhodes à Ptolémée

DILKE, O. A. W. (Leeds)

The Agrimensores and their Work GRILLONE, A. (Palermo)

Il 'De metatione castrorum' dello ps.-Igino

DEVINE, A. M . (Wauconda, IL)

The Tactical Authors of the Late Republic and the Principate DEVINE, A. M . (Wauconda, IL)

Aelian's 'Tactica': A Critical Edition of the 'Taktike theoria' of Aelianus Tacticus, with Prolegomenon, Translation, and Commentary

RILEY, M . (Sacramento, CA)

The Greek Terminology of the Basic Arithmetic Operations

INHALT BULMER-THOMAS, I. ( L o n d o n )

A Survey of Mathematics, 1st. cent. B.C. - 3rd cent. A.D. SESIANO, J . (Lausanne)

Arithmetik und Algebra in Hellenismus und römischer Kaiserzeit KNORR, W. R . (Stanford, CA)

Geometry, 3rd Century B.C. to 6th Century A.D. KNORR, W. R . (Stanford, CA)

Geometrie Optics, 3rd Century B.C. to 6th Century A.D. KNORR, W. R . (Stanford, CA)

Geometrie Mechanics, 3rd cent. B.C. to 6th cent. A.D. RESCIGNO, A. (Salerno)

Questioni matematiche in Plutarco BERGGREN, J . L. (Burnaby, B. C., Canada) Sphaerics from Theodosius of Bithynia to Theon of Alexandria AUJAC, G . (Toulouse)

La sphéropée, de Géminos de Rhodes à Ptolémée JONES, A. (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) Models and Tables in Ancient Astronomy from 200 B.C. to A.D. 300 LE BOEUFFLE, A. (Amiens)

L'astronomie de Pline l'Ancien RILEY, M . (Sacramento, CA)

Ptolemy's Use of his Predecessors' Data TODD, R. Β. (Vancouver, B.C., Canada) Physics and Astronomy in Post-Posidonian Stoicism: the case of Cleomedes NETHERCUT, W. R . (Austin, T X )

Astronomy — Astrology in the Time of the Caesars

GUNDEL, H . G . (Gießen)

Vom astrologischen Schrifttum der Kaiserzeit am Beispiel des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. HÜBNER, W .

(Münster/Westf.)

Ptolemäus, Apotelesmatika 1, 9: Naturwissenschaft und Mythologie RILEY, M . (Sacramento, CA)

A Survey of Vettius Valens 63

A N R W II 3 7 . 2

INHALT

XVIII

WALLIS, F. E. (Montreal, P. Q., Canada) The Roman Calendar: State Tradition and the Natural Order H0YRUP, J . (Roskilde)

Sub-Scientific Mathematics: Undercurrents and Missing Links in the Mathematical Technology of the Hellenistic and Roman World GEORGIADOU, A . ( U r b a n a , I L )

Mathematics and Technology in Hellenistic and Roman Times (4th Cent. B . C . - 3 r d Cent. A.D.)

Band II. 37.6: WISSENSCHAFTEN: NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN (FORTS.); T E C H N I K WHITE, Κ . D .

(London)

Roman Technology: Achievement and Limitation

LANDELS, J . G. (Reading)

Vitruvius' Background of Scientific Knowledge

TREVOR HODGE, Α. ( O t t a w a , C a n a d a )

Frontinus: A Study in Military History, Hydraulic Science, and Public Administration

HOPPE, B. (München)

Mineralienkunde im römischen Kulturkreis

ULLMANN, M . (Tübingen)

Xenokrates von Ephesos. Ein griechisches Steinbuch in arabischer Überlieferung

PRICE, J . ( D u r h a m , G . B . )

Roman Glass Technology CRADDOCK, P. T. (London)

Roman Non-Ferrous Metallurgy CLEERE, H . (London)

Roman Ferrous Metallurgy WILLIES, L. (Hilderston, Derbyshire, G.B.) Roman Mining and Quarrying Technology

INHALT HALLEUX, R .

XIX

(Liège)

Les origines de l'alchimie dans l'Egypte gréco-romaine

FAHLBUSCH, H . ( L ü b e c k )

-

GARBRECHT, G .

(Braunschweig)

Wasserwirtschaft und Wasserbau im Römischen Reich OLESON, J . P. (Victoria, B . C . , Canada) Social Aspects of Hellenistic and R o m a n Water-lifting Technology LAMPRECHT, H . - O .

(Köln)

Opus Caementitium. Entwicklung und Anwendung HUMPHREY, J . W. (Calgary, Alberta, Canada) An Aspect of R o m a n Building Technology of the Empire: A Study of the Design, Construction, and Administration of Public Latrines BIEGEL, G .

(Braunschweig)

Römische Technik (Baumaschinen) HOHLFELDER, R . L . (Boulder,

CO)

Harbor Technology in the Early Empire CASSON, L . ( N e w Y o r k ,

NY)

N a v a l Technology in the R o m a n World HOUSTON, G . W. (Chapel Hill, N C ) Time-Measuring Devices in the R o m a n World C U L H A M , P. ( A n n a p o l i s ,

MD)

R o m a n Information Technology: T h e Storage and Retrieval of Information WILD, J.-P.

(Manchester)

R o m a n Textile Technology

L E S Z L , W . (Pisa) -

CAVINI, W. (Firenze)

Problemi lessicali e concettuali della resa in latino della terminologia filosofica e scientifica greca

63*

P H I L O S O P H I E , WISSENSCHAFTEN, T E C H N I K (WISSENSCHAFTEN: M E D I Z I N UND BIOLOGIE)

E I N Z E L N E A U T O R E N UND TEXTE DER „ R Ö M I S C H E N " M E D I Z I N (FORTS.)

On the Chronology and Pneumatism of Aretaios of Cappadocia by

M. OBERHELMAN, College Station, Texas

STEVEN

Contents I. The Chronological Problem

941

1. The Status quaestionis

941

2. Aretaios and Archigenes

954

II. Aretaios and Pneumatism

I. The Chronological

1. The Status

959

Problem

quaestionis

The date and life of Aretaios of Cappadocia are as little known and as much disputed as those of Hippocrates. 1 The received opinion on Aretaios' life The following abbreviations will be used: DEICHGRÄBER

KARL DEICHGRÄBER, Aretaeus von Kappadozien als medizinischer Schriftsteller, Abhandlungen der sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Klasse, Band 63, H e f t 3 (Berlin, 1971).

KUDLIEN, Ä r z t e

FRIDOLF KUDLIEN, P n e u m a t i s c h e Ä r z t e , R E , S u p p l . 1 1

(1968),

1097-1108. KUDLIEN,

Galenkommentar KUDLIEN,

Poseidonios KUDLIEN,

Untersuchungen

FRIDOLF KUDLIEN, D i e h a n d s c h r i f t l i c h e Ü b e r l i e f e r u n g d e s

Ga-

lenkommentars zu Hippokrates De articulis (Berlin, 1960). FRIDOLF KUDLIEN, Poseidonios und die Ärzteschule der Pneumatiker, H e r m e s , 9 0 (1962), 4 1 9 - 2 9 .

FRIDOLF KUDLIEN, Untersuchungen zu Aretaios von Kappadokien, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, 11 (Wiesbaden, 1963).

KÜHN, Aretaios

C. G. KÜHN, Aretaios, Medicorum graecorum opera,

XXIV

(Leipzig, 1 8 2 8 ) .

KÜHN, Epistola

C. G. KÜHN, Epistola de dubia aetate Aretaei (Leipzig, 1779).

942

STEVEN

M.

OBERHELMAN

and work was formulated by MAX WELLMANN at the turn of this century: Aretaios lived in the late second or early third century A . D . and was a plagiarist w h o copied his predecessor, the physician Archigenes (fl. c. A . D . 100): „(dass) ... Aretaios kein selbständiger Schriftsteller ist, sondern dass er seine pathologisch-therapeutischen Theorien dem großen Meister seiner Schule, dem Archigenes von Apamea verdankt. Der Beweis dafür kann mit Hilfe der bei Aetius zahlreich erhaltenen Excerpte dieses Arztes erbracht werden. Der Hauptwert des Aretaios liegt.in dem tollen Ionisch, das er schreibt: er will weiter nichts als Stilist sein, und darin liegt ein weiterer Grund, weshalb er von einem leidlich verständigen Arzte verschmäht wurde,"2 FRIDOLF KUDLIEN re-examined the issue in a series of studies in the 1960s. H e arrived at just the opposite opinion: Aretaios must be dated to the mid-first century A. D . and did not copy Archigenes, but in fact was copied by him: „ Mit Sicherheit ist Aretaios, der einzige vollständig erhaltene Pneumatiker, in die Mitte dieses Jhdts. [sc. des 1. Jhdts. n. Chr.] zu setzen ... [Archigenes] war in der Tat ein so ausgesprochener Eklektiker, dass er von überall her nahm und sich beispielsweise auch nicht scheute, den Aretaios nahezu wörtlich auszuschreiben."3 REINHARDT, Kosmos

KARL REINHARDT, Kosmos und Sympathie. Neue Untersuchungen über Poseidonios (München, 1926).

REINHARDT,

CARL REINHARDT, P o s e i d o n i o s ( M ü n c h e n , 1 9 2 1 ) .

Poseidonios (1) REINHARDT,

Poseidonois (2) STANNARD

STROPPIANA

WELLMANN,

KARL RAINHARDT, Poseidonios von Apameia, der Rhodier genannt (Stuttgart, 1954). JERRY STANNARD, Materia medica and philosophic theory in Aretaeus, Sudhoffs Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften, 48 (1964), 2 7 - 5 8 . LUIGI STROPPIANA, Le cause e i sintomi delle malattie acute e croniche, I Classici della medicina dell'età greco-romana (Roma, 1973). M A X WELLMANN, A r c h i g e n e s , R E , 2 . 1 ( 1 8 9 5 ) , 4 8 4 - 8 6 .

Archigenes WELLMANN,

Aretaios WELLMANN, Schule WELLMANN, Schrift

M A X WELLMANN, A r e t a i o s , R E , 2 . 1 ( 1 8 9 5 ) , 6 6 9 - 7 0 .

MAX WELLMANN, Die pneumatische Schule bis auf Archigenes in ihrer Entwickelung dargestellt, Philologische Untersuchungen, XIV (Berlin, 1895). MAX WELLMANN, Die Schrift des Dioskurides Περί άπλών φαρμάκων: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Medizin (Berlin, 1914).

All citations of Aretaios will be from CAROLUS HUDE, Aretaeus, Corpus Medicorum Graecorum, vol. II (Berlin, 1958), second edition. 2 WELLMANN, Schule, p. 24. Cf. WELLMANN, Archigenes, p. 486, and ID., Aretaios, p. 669: „Seine Bedeutung wird im allgemeinen überschätzt; er ist kein selbständiger Arzt, und sein Verdienst besteht darin, daß er einen der hervorragendsten Arzte des Altertums, den Archigenes, seinem Werke zu Grunde legte." 3 KUDLIEN, Ärzte, pp. 1098-99.

ARETAIOS OF C A P P A D O C I A

943

It should be obvious on the basis of these quotations that the date of Aretaios' life is quite in doubt. But it is important to fix the proper chronology for this physician, for thereby we will either vindicate Aretaios as a significant contributor to the history of ancient medicine, in that his work would be a highly valuable and original document on the theories of Pneumatism, or reaffirm the low opinion that W E L L M A N N reserved for what he considered a plagiarizing copyist. 4 Aretaios' writings provide no tangible proof for dating his life. Aretaios refers or alludes to only Hippocrates and Homer. 5 Biographical details, gleaned from Aretaios' text and asserted by past medical historians to be reliable data, are highly dubious in value. For example, K O S S M A N N and W I G A N both conjectured that Aretaios travelled to Egypt, or even studied in the medical schools of Alexandria, on the basis of Aretaios' references to Nile river water, Egyptian plants, and Egyptian customs; 6 but such references can just as well, if not better, be explained by second-hand knowledge acquired through medical and pharmacological sources. WIGAN'S theory that Aretaios resided in Rome is based solely on the mention of the Italian wines Falernian, Fundan, Signine, and Surentine (6.3 [p. 128.13]) and the use of φάρ (= Latin, far: 6.2 [p. 125.16]). But Italian wines were exported to other regions of the Roman empire, 7 and Aretaios mentions other types of wines, e.g., Chian and Lesbian, in the course of his medical treatments; as for φάρ, it is referred to by most physicians of the Roman empire like Soranus and Archigenes, as well as by laypeople like Dionysius of Halicarnassus. 8 Certain remedies and medicines mentioned by Aretaios have been adduced as evidence of the era in which he lived. Five times Aretaios records a cure whose chief ingredient is snake meat and which was invented, according to ancient testimony, by Andromachus, the „Leibarzt" of the emperor Nero. 9 Elsewhere (8.5 [p. 164.25]) Aretaios refers to the compound drug of a certain 4

STROPPIANA, p . x i .

5

J. H . and Η . N . COUCH, The Literary Illustrations of Aretaeus of Cappadocia, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 3 3 ( 1 9 3 5 ) , 5 5 6 - 5 9 , and D E I C H G R Ä B E R , passim. Cf. STROPPIANA, p. ix. STROPPIANA also believes that Aretaios' anatomical observations derive from actual autopsies; and because he assumes that autopsies were not conducted in Rome, he places Aretaios as a participant in such in Egypt: „ .../ passi concernenti l'anatomia patologica trovati nella sua opera ... siano ... osservazioni eseguite con molta probabilità mentre era in Egitto, dove trascorse un certo periodo della sua vita, e forse proprio in Alessandria dove si sa che le dissezioni anatomiche sul cadavere si eseguivano con una certa frequenza ... E se Areteo può descrivere alterazioni anatomiche in maniera così precisa, si deve credere che egli abbia potuto tramandare tali rarità dopo lunghe e attente osservazioni sue da un numero non piccolo di autopsie" (pp. x x v - x x v i ) .

6

7

C f . STANNARD, p . 2 7 n . 2 .

8

If Aretaios is assumed to be a copyist of Archigenes as W E L L M A N N would have it, then I consider the attempt to recover dates, places of residency, and study at particular schools as quite a useless task, as we cannot be confident that such information does not derive from Archigenes, w h o we k n o w did live in Rome.

9

KUDLIEN, U n t e r s u c h u n g e n , p. 10, f o l l o w i n g PETIT ( c o m m e n t a r y

in KÜHN, Aretaios,

p. 366). Cf. Aretaios 8.13 (p. 1 6 9 . 6 - 9 ) and 8.7 (p. 166.21), and Galen, XIV, 32 KÜHN.

944

STEVEN

M.

OBERHELMAN

Philo; this Philo may or may not be Philo of Tarsus who, according to Celsus (6.6.3), contrived salves for ophthalmological disease. Finally, Aretaios talks on several occasions of the Mithridatium, an antidote of 54 ingredients and datable to the early first century A . D . 1 0 All these medicines, however, provide only a terminus post quem of c. A. D. 50; they offer no help in fixing a date for Aretaios' floruit. Some scholars have cited the Ionic dialect in which Aretaios wrote as evidence for dating his life. The earliest opinion on this matter was that Aretaios lived as early as the fifth century B. C. because his style seemed so similar to Hippocrates' Ionic; K Ü H N , for example, calls Aretaios „vetustus inprimis scriptor".11 WELLMANN, who sharply criticizes Aretaios' „tolles Ionisch", would relate the choice of dialect to the archaizing trend of the Second Sophistic Greek writers of the second century A. D.: „Eine weitere Einschränkung seiner [sc. Aretaios] Lebenszeit gestattet der Umstand, daß er seine Schriften in ionischer Mundart verfaßt hat. Daraus schließe ich, daß er der Zeit angehört, in der die archaisierende Richtung in der griechischen Litteratur herrschte d. h. jener Zeit, der Lukian vorwerfen konnte, daß sie ionisch schreibe, ohne es zu verstehen und in der Männer wie Kephalion seine παντοδαπαί ίστορίαι und Arrian seine 'Ινδική ionisch schrieben."12 KUDLIEN, who will insist on an earlier date for Aretaios, considers Aretaios' style as only an imitation of Hippocrates, not an a priori mark of the second century. 13 KUDLIEN supports this by noting the numerous passages „an denen Aretaios (immer ohne Namensnennung) ganze Sätze oder auch einzelne seltene "Worte aus Schriften des hippokratischen Corpus teils vollkommen wörtlich, teils etwas freier in seine eigene Darstellung verflicht..."14 The imitation of Hippocrates, KUDLIEN continues, is evident even in the descriptions of illnesses, where the brevity of paratactic phrasing reminds one of the 'Aphorisms' and 'Epidemics'. Notwithstanding WELLMANN and KUDLIEN, Aretaios' Ionic dialect does not help in determining any precise chronological date. Aretaios' style is highly artificial and not datable. Indeed, even WELLMANN labels Aretaios a „Nur10

11 12 13

14

Aretaios 7.3 (p. 1 5 3 . 2 5 - 2 6 ) ; 7.5 (p. 1 5 9 . 8 - 9 ) ; and 8.2 (p. 1 6 3 . 2 - 4 ) . Cf. STROPPIANA, p. xi. For these antidotes and cures, see G. WATSON, Theriac and Mithridatium. A Study in Therapeutics (London, 1966); cf. also Celsus, 5.23.3 and Pliny, H N , 29.24. KÜHN, Epistula, p. viii. WELLMANN, Schule, pp. 6 3 - 6 4 ; cf. WELLMANN, Aretaios, p. 669. KUDLIEN, Untersuchungen, p. 30: „Die Wahl des jonischen Dialektes ist nun freilich ohne Zweifel in erster Linie als Hippokratesimitation zu werten und nicht etwa von vornherein als Kennzeichen für Zugehörigkeit zu der archaisierenden sogenannten zweiten Sophistik..." KUDLIEN, U n t e r s u c h u n g e n , p. 3 0 .

945

ARETAIOS OF CAPPADOCIA

Stilist", while KUDLIEN admits that Aretaios is „ein bewusster Stilist",15 Moreover, both WELLMANN and KUDLIEN note the Homeric verses and allusions, but each finds literary parallels in different eras: WELLMANN in the writers of the later phase of the Second Sophistic, KUDLIEN in Greek writers of the first century A.D., notably Chariton whom he conjectures to have been Aretaios' „unmittelbarer Zeitgenosse".16 DEICHGRÄBER, who has produced the best study of Aretaios' language and style, is more cautious. He too notes how Aretaios copies and imitates Hippocrates and Homer („sein Schreiben ist Epideixis des imitatorischen Könnens"), but states, with correct circumspection, that the style is an artificial poetic/prose hybrid: „Einmal entschlossen, hat Aretaios durchgehend ionisch geschrieben, das Ionisch des Hippokrates, und da er bei seinem Meister Homerismen fand, wo es ihm angebracht zu sein schien, seiner Diktion eine erhebliche Dosis Episches beigemischt, zur ionischen Prosa Alt-Poetisches..."17 In this respect Aretaios approaches Herodotos whom, as DEICHGRÄBER points out, Aretaios follows in many ways, including the emphasis on ίστορίη, ίστορέων as a criterion of πίστις, rhetorical inclination, and narrative description. 18 At the same time, DEICHGRÄBER finds in Aretaios the traits of tragic diction: „... dieser Arzt, der nicht Nur-Arzt war, dem Menschlichen in seiner Seele einen Platz ließ, und ebenso, daß der Schriftsteller der medizinischen Pathologie, vom Pathos seines Gegenstandes ergriffen, geradezu Mitleidstragödien schrieb. Er konnte das Schamgefühl des Kranken, den Todeswunsch, die Trauer der Angehörigen nachempfinden. Seine Darstellung hat die Züge tragischer Diktion."19 In all these respects Aretaios is quite exemplary: he cannot be compared, DEICHGRÄBER asserts, with medical writers like Rufos of Ephesos, Galen, or 15

WELLMANN, S c h u l e , p . 2 4 ; KUDLIEN, U n t e r s u c h u n g e n , p . 3 0 .

16

KUDLIEN, Untersuchungen, p. 31: „Näher dürfte daher der Vegleich mit den griechischen Romanschriftstellern älteren Typs liegen, welche ebenfalls die Gepflogenheit hatten, Homerverse in ihre Prosa zu mischen...; in unserem Zusammenhang ist vor allem Chariton, als der älteste jener Gruppe, zu nennen..., von dem es bekanntlich durch Papyrusfunde gesichert ist, daß er spätestens um 100 n. Chr. gelebt hat." (For the recent state of research on Chariton see now C. Ruiz MONTERO, Chariton von Aphrodisias: Ein Überblick,

17

DEICHGRÄBER, pp. 28 and 42; see especially pp. 8 - 2 7 for detailed discussions of Aretaios' use of Hippocrates and Homer. DEICHGRÄBER points out that Hippocrates also cites Homer, but for different reasons: „Hat Hippokrates in Homer eine wissenschaftliche Autorität gesehen, so hat er diese Auffassung mit Einzelinterpretationen begründet. Hippokrates blieb in der Forschung, stützte die Autorität mit Argumenten, erklärte schon wie ein hellenistischer Philologe Homer aus Homer. Derartiges finden wir bei Aretaeus nicht: Er zitierte, sicher zugleich auch überzeugt, Homer sei σοφός und habe ein zuverlässiges medizinisches Wissen." See also HUDE'S analysis in his Praefatio, pp. viii—xxiii. DEICHGRÄBER, pp. 2 8 - 2 9 .

A N R W II 3 4 , 2 , e d . W . H A A S E [ B e r l i n - N e w Y o r k 1 9 9 4 ] , p p .

18 19

DEICHGRÄBER, p . 4 2 .

1006-54.)

946

STEVEN M. OBERHELMAN

Celsus; instead, Aretaios should be related to Tacitus and other Roman historians who, in their imitation of Cato, favored brachylogy, aphorisms, and a flair for the tragic. As for a definite date for Aretaios, DEICHGRÄBER defers judgment: he merely assigns Aretaios to the „ f r ü h e n Kaiserzeit".20 If Aretaios quotes no author by name and if his writings provide no precise chronology, we are no better off regarding external evidence. No ancient author (except for the author of the 'De simplicibus medicamentis') refers to Aretaios; our only citations come from physicians and compilers of the late empire: Philagrios (Aetius 8 . 4 7 ; 1 1 . 1 ) ; Ps.-Alexander of Aphrodisias (J. L . IDELER, Physici et medici graeci minores [Berlin, 1841; repr. Amsterdam, 1963], vol. I. pp. 92, 97, 1 0 5 ) ; and Paulus of Aegina ( 4 . 1 = I. L . HEIBERG, C M G I X . 1 , p. 3 1 7 . 2 ) . 2 1 In the 'De simplicibus' medicamentis' ('Περί άπλών φαρμάκων' or 'Περί εύπορίστων'), assigned to Dioscorides Anazarbeus, there is an important reference to Aretaios: [σαρκίους καί προσωπιάς ή φιλάνθρωπος ή σκορδονίου ον 'Ρωμαίοι πίσων] ακακίας τό σπέρμα άριστα ποιεί λιθώσιν μετά πεπρέων και oivoμέλιτος [Άρεταίος έν τοις νεφριτικοϊς εγραφεν]. 2 2 If this treatise as well as the reference are genuine, then we should not hesitate to assign a specific terminus ante quem to Aretaios' life, as Dioscorides can be dated quite securely. In his dedication to the 'De materia medica', Dioscorides mentions Laecanius Bassus, who was consul in A. D. 64 and proconsul of Asia in 7 9 - 8 0 ; 2 3 also, among the seventeen authors Dioscorides names as sources are Petronius, Sextius Niger, and Philonides, all datable to the first half of the first century A.D.; 2 4 finally, Pliny the Elder does not quote Dioscorides but Erotian does, a fact that speaks for a date of around 70 or 75. 2 5 But is the 'De Simplicibus medicamentis' a genuine work of Dioscorides? The codices and early scholars never doubted its authenticity. WIGAN, for example, placed Aretaios at the end of the first century on the basis of this passage. 2 6 In 1 7 9 5 , however, A. FABRICIUS rejected the work as spurious, 2 7 and scholars of the next century followed this opinion. WELLMANN, who edited Dioscorides' 20 21 22 23 24

25

26 27

DEICHGRÄBER, P. 5. WELLMANN, Schule, pp. 2 3 - 2 4 . De simplicibus medicamentis, 11.119 (vol. Ill, p. 298 WELLMANN [Berlin, 1914]). MAX WELLMANN, Bassus, RE, 10.1 (1918), 1 8 0 - 8 2 . K. DEICHGRÄBER, Petronius (1), RE, 19.1 (1937), 1 1 9 3 - 9 4 , and ID., Sextius Nigej, RE, 5 suppl. (1931), 9 7 1 - 7 2 , with ancient reference therein. For the latter as one of Dioscorides' sources, see MAX WELLMANN, Sextius Niger, eine Quellenuntersuchung zu Dioscorides, Hermes, 2 4 (1889), 5 3 0 - 6 9 ; WELLMANN dates Sextius to c. A . D . 1 0 - 4 0 (p. 546). For Philonides, see ERNST BERNERT, Philonides (6), RE, 20.1 (1941), 7 3 - 7 4 . For Erotian's date (second half of the first century A.D.), see COHN, Erotianus, RE, 6.1 (1907), 5 4 4 - 4 9 , and K. STRECKER, Zu Erotian, Hermes, 26 (1891), 2 6 2 - 3 0 7 . WIGAN in KÜHN, Aretaios, pp. 4 5 - 5 3 , esp. p. 51. For a history of the 'De simplicibus medicamentis', see JOHN RIDDLE, Dioscorides, Catalogue translationum et commentariorum. Mediaevel and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries, Annotated Lists and Guides, ed. F. EDWARD CRANZ, vol. IV (Washington D.C., 1980), 1 3 4 - 3 9 .

ARETAIOS OF

CAPPADOCIA

947

works, changed his mind on the authenticity of the 'De simplicibus medicamentis' on several occasions. In his RE-article on Dioscorides, WELLMANN asigned the work to an unknown author of the third or fourth century. 28 But in the preface to the second volume of his edition of the collected works of Dioscorides, he writes „...alter libellus Dioscurideus 'Περί εύπορίστων' quem quod ab Anazarbeo abjudicavi dudum paenituit."29 The fact that WELLMANN had now decided in favor of authenticity was important. WELLMANN, a few years previously in his 'Die pneumatische Schule', had assigned Aretaios to the end of the second century A.D. at the e a r l i e s t (see below); but if the 'De simplicibus medicamentis' now became a genuine work of Dioscorides, then WELLMANN'S chronology was in drastic need of revision. This was not lost on F. E. KIND who remarked in 1912: „[WELLMANN] setzt die Lebenszeit des Aretaios in den Ausgang des 2. oder in das 3.Jhdt. nach Chr. ... Bedenkt man, daß W. das Aretaioszitat in Diosc. 'Περί εύπορίστων' bei seinem Ansatz gänzlich unberücksichtigt neuergelassen hat, da er die Schrift für unecht hielt; daß er andererseits dings diese Schrift für echt erklärt...; so muß eine neue, eindringende Untersuchung über die Lebenszeit des Aretaios als unerläßlich bezeichnet werden."30

In his 1914 book, Die Schrift des Dioskurides Περί άπλών φαρμάκων: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Medizin (Berlin, 1914), WELLMANN addressed this issue. There he states that although the work itself is genuine, the passage referring to Aretaios is not - instead, it is a gloss of „eines in der botanischen resp. medizinischen Literatur beschlagenen Mannes". WELLMANN points to the nonsensical and corrupt plant-names as well as to the overall incoherence of the passage's meaning and grammar. 31 It is on this basis that WELLMANN was able to maintain the authenticity of the treatise even while adhering to his late date for Aretaios. Are WELLMANN'S points substantative enough to discount the passage as a gloss? First, the plant-names. WELLMANN would take the names as a chain of synonyms for αρκτιον, which had been mentioned previous to this passage. WELLMANN restores the nonsensical σαρκίους to σαρξιφαγές, and emends the two final words to φιλάνθρωπον and σκορδόνιον. 32 KUDLIEN attempts his own restoration of the passage, in full confidence that this is a genuine reference by Dioscorides to Aretaios. KUDLIEN insists that σαρκίους is in fact a manuscript error. Because the word directly preceding σαρκίους is αυτής, KUDLIEN claims that the initial σ in σαρκίους is due to 28 Dioskurides (12), RE, 5.1 ( 1 9 0 3 ) , 1 1 4 0 . 29 30

31 32

MAX WELLMANN, Pedanii Dioscuridis de materia medica (Berlin, 1 9 1 0 ) , vol. II, p. xxii. F. E. KIND, Bericht über die Literatur zur antiken Medizin 1 9 0 1 - 1 9 1 0 , Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, vol. 158 (Leipzig 1 9 1 2 ) , 1 7 1 . 1 owe this reference to KUDLIEN, Untersuchungen, p. 16. WELLMANN, Schrift, pp. 3 8 - 3 9 . WELLMANN, Schrift, p. 39; cf. KUDLIEN, Untersuchungen, p. 19. n. 1.

948

STEVEN

M.

OBERHELMAN

dittography: thus, άρκίους. As for the προσωπιάς, KUDLIEN notes that προσωπί[α]ς is a synonym for άρκτιον elsewhere in Dioscorides (De materia medica [vol. II, p. 261.3 WELLMANN]); the term προσωπίς, however, KUDLIEN, with reluctance, will concede to be an interpolation. KUDLIEN accepts WELLMANN'S other emendations, although even he is at a quandary over the corrupt πίσων; KUDLIEN solves the grammatical problem by assuming that a καλοϋσιν has dropped out, although this still does not address the problematic meaning of πίσων. 3 3 The final, restored form of this part of the sentence would read, as I reconstruct KUDLIEN'S arguments: άρκίους (sc. άρκτια) [και προσωπίς] ή φιλάνθρωπον Ή σκορδόνιον ο 'Ρωμαίοι πίσων . KUDLIEN concludes: „Es handelt sich also bei der ersten von WELLMANN ausgeklammerten Wortgruppe um keine Synonymenkette zu άρκτιον, sondern der Verfasser fährt einfach in seiner Aufzählung harntreibender Mittel mit der Nennung neuer Pflanzen fort." All this seems quite weak in several respects. One must explain the following: first of all, the declension of άρκίους, when we should expect άρκ[τ]ια; second, the meaning of πίσων; third, the extraordinarily corrupt state of this one passage wherein dittography, wrong declensions, nonsensical plantnames, a gloss, and a lost verb can all occur; and finally, the grammar of this phrase in relation to the entire sentence. Because of all the uncertainties, I think that this section of the sentence is, as WELLMANN supposes, a gloss; at the very least, the section is in a mutilated, if not irreparably damaged state. WELLMANN calles the Aretaios-clause a later interpolation because of the lack of any gramatical coherency with the rest of the sentence. This is perfectly sensible; however, WELLMANN goes further and assumes that an accusative object is lacking for εγραφεν and has been dropped in transmission. Accordingly, he accepts the ονομα that a poor manuscript tradition riddled with interpolations (Q) has placed after Άρεταΐος. WELLMANN takes the whole phrase then as a gloss by a later hand on the plant named πριονϊτις, which Aretaios mentions in his discussion of kidneys (8.4, p. 164.2). WELLMANN therefore restores this „auseinandergesprengte Glossem" as Άρεταΐος και άλλο ονομα έν νεφριτικοίς εγραφεν. KUDLIEN attacks this restoration as filled „mit allzuviel Unwahrscheinlichkeiten und 'Zufällen'",34 KUDLIEN considers (correctly) ονομα a marginal comment that has found its way into the Q manuscript tradition. But KUDLIEN too is forced to emend the text rather tortuously in order to correct the sentence's faulty grammar, as he claims that a particle such as ώς has been dropped because of haplography; and if ώς is indeed added, one is able „einen vollkommen korrekten Nebensatz zu erhalten",35 This sentence, as restored by KUDLIEN, would inform us that Aretaios recommended acacia-seeds, taken with pepper and honey-wine, as a remedy 33

KUDLIEN, U n t e r s u c h u n g e n , p. 1 9 n. 1.

34

See KUDLIEN, Untersuchungen, p. 20, for particulars of his arguments.

35

WELLMANN, S c h r i f t , p. 4 2 .

ARETAIOS OF

CAPPADOCIA

949

for kidney-stones. But a serious problem arises when one checks Aretaios: no such treatment is mentioned anywhere in his extant writings. KUDLIEN, however, is not disturbed by this fact: he observes that Aretaios' section on treatment of illnesses of the kidneys is not complete, and so KUDLIEN quietly states that the acacia cure was surely contained in a lost passage. Confident in his restoration of the Aretaios-reference in the 'De simplicibus medicamentis', KUDLIEN conjectures an intricate relationship betweeen Dioscorides, Aretaios, and Andromachus. Because Dioscorides not only mentions Aretaios but also dedicated this work to Andromachus, and because Aretaios refers on several occasions to Andomachus' cure of snake-meat, KUDLIEN would have all three physicians as contemporaries who knew one another personally and who worked together either in Rome or elsewhere. 36 Dioscorides, however, was the youngest of this group, and „wollte mit der ausdrücklichen

Berufung auf Aretaios in einer dem Andromachus gewidmeten Schrift den beiden älteren gegenüber seine ergebene Reverenz ausdrücken". All this is quite open to debate. KUDLIEN'S hypothesis rests upon two questionable premises: 1) that the reference in the 'De simplicibus medicamentis' is genuine and can be restored to a reasonably intelligent form, and 2) that the 'De simplicibus medicamentis' itself is genuine. But neither premise can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Besides, KUDLIEN must do more than simply restore the passage — he must explain how the Aretaios-passage became so mutilated and incoherent in the first place. STROPPIANA attempts to solve the problem of authorship for the 'De simplicibus medicamentis' by conjecturing that one of two other physicians named Dioscorides may in fact be the author. One, surnamed Phacas, had a floruit of c. 4 0 B. C.; 3 7 the other, referred to by Galen as ό νεώτερος, 3 8 may be dated to the first or second century A . D . STROPPIANA decides in favor of the latter identification on the grounds that the 'De simplicibus medicamentis' is dedicated to Andromachus. This theory has the attraction of bypassing entirely the thorny issue of authorship by Dioscorides Anazarbeus as well as the problems of the relationship between the 'De simplicibus medicamentis' and the 'De materia medica'. 3 8 3 It is, however, far too speculative: first of all, it goes against the manuscript tradition; second, as far as we know, STROPPIANA's Dioscorides was not interested in pharmacology; third, STROPPIANA must demonstrate that the names Dioscorides and Andromachus were not simply expropriated by a later compiler or forger; and finally, I personally fail to understand how a writer in the reign of Titus is „un po' più giovane" than Galen, who would be writing in the 180s. 3 9 But again, the more immediate problem with the Are36 37 38

38a

39

KUDLIEN, Untersuchungen, pp. 2 1 - 2 2 . Dioskurides (10), RE, 5.1 ( 1 9 0 3 ) , 1 1 2 9 - 3 0 . Dioskurides (11), RE, 5.1 ( 1 9 0 3 ) , 1 1 3 0 - 3 1 , for details concerning this work. For the name, see Galen XIV, 106 KÜHN; for the date, Galen XV, 21 and X I X , 63 KÜHN. See JOHN RIDDLE, Discorides on Pharmacy and Medicine, History and Science ser. 3 (Austin, T X , 1 9 8 5 ) , pp. xxvi—xxvii. STROPPIANA does mention another Andromachus ("Iunior"): see MAX WELLMANN, Andromachus (18), RE, 1.2 ( 1 8 9 4 ) , 2 1 5 4 . Andromachus wrote a book on pharmacy that Galen

950

STEVEN M. OBERHELMAN

taios-reference is not whether the 'De simplicibus medicamentis' is authentic, but whether the passage itself is. Because the proof needed to remove doubt is not forthcoming, it is best to leave aside, albeit with much regret, this potentially irrefutable testimony. Given the lack of external and specific internal evidence, it is no wonder that Aretaios has been dated so widely and differently. It is worthwhile to review the many dates advanced, before I throw caution to the wind and attempt my own chronology. Before 1 8 0 0 the received opinion was that Aretaios should be dated sometime after H i p p o c r a t e s . 4 0 A few scholars, however, considered him a contemporary of Strabo, while others placed him as a contemporary of Pliny the Elder. 4 1 PETER PETIT, who was followed by LE CLERC, 4 2 posited t w o termini post quos: Andromachus' medical cure, mentioned above, and Themison, who according to Soranus was the first medical writer to categorize tardarum passionum curationes principaliter.43 As for a terminus ante quern, PETIT points to the absence of any reference to Aretaios by Galen and conjectures on that basis that Galen preceded or at least was contemporary with A r e t a i o s . 4 4 KUDLIEN, while granting the soundness of the termini post quos, attacks the use of Galen's silence as a dangerous methodological procedure: „... wenn es zu chronologischen Zwecken verwendet wird, können sich daraus in der Wissenschaft hartnäckig weitertradierte und folgenreiche Irrtümer ergeben — schließlich hätte man auf diese Weise beispielshalber auch den älteren Plinius oder aber den Hippokratesglossator Erotian und den Hippokrateskommentator Apollonius von Kition in das 3. Jhdt. n. Chr. versetzen können, nur weil Galen nirgendwo ... ihre Namen nennt."45 refers to ( X I I I , 5 6 3 KÜHN). One could, therefore, date Aretaios via Dioscorides the Younger via Andromachus the Younger. But no evidence exists for such an identification. Also the dates for all these authors are troublesome. For example, we know only that this Andromachus is quoted by Galen (see WELLMANN'S RE-article) and that he himself refers to Heras whom Archigenes used. WELLMANN thinks that this Andromachus is referred to by Erotian, but this is only conjecture. 40 p E X I T IN KÜHN, Aretaios, p. 365; KÜHN, Epistula, p. viii n. 1.; and STROPPIANA, p. x. 4 1 KÜHN, Epistula, p. viii n. 2. 4 2 D. LE CLERC, Storia della medicina (Napoli, 1763), vol. Ill, pp. 2 9 7 - 9 8 . 4 3 KUDLIEN, Untersuchungen, p. 10, to whom I owe much of this paragraph, calls these termini „vollkommen sicher". For Themison's date and the differentiation between chronic and acute diseases, see R. FUCHS, Aus Themisons Werke über die akuten und chronischen Krankheiten, RhM, 58 (1903), 6 7 - 1 1 4 , and K. DEICHGRÄBER, Themison (7), RE, 5.A.2 (1934), 1632—38. Now cf. also J. PIGEAUD, L'introduction du méthodisme à Rome, ANRW II 37,1, ed. W. HAASE (Berlin-New York 1993), pp. 5 6 6 - 9 9 , esp. 5 6 6 70. 44 p E T J T ¡ N K Ü H N , Aretaios, p. 368. L E CLERC noticed this too (Storia, vol. III, p. 297) and offered three hypotheses: not all the books of Galen have survived and thus mention of Aretaios has simply been lost; Galen did not have the opportunity to cite all earlier physicians; and Galen and Aretaios were contemporaries. L E CLERC declined to advance any opinion on the matter. 45

KUDLIEN, U n t e r s u c h u n g e n , p . 1 1 .

ARETAIOS OF

951

CAPPADOCIA

KUDLIEN'S comment is intended to be a humorous exaggeration, although in fairness we should note that K U D L I E N himself falls occasionally into the same fallacy of argumentum ex silentio — proving an hypothesis on the basis that no evidence exists to d i s p r o v e it. Still, K U D L I E N raises a valid criticism: one should reject as a matter of course chronological theories derived from the absence of citation, for the ancient author who names his sources is, in fact, the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. 46 W I G A N , whose commentary on Aretaios' text appears in the K Ü H N edition, discusses the problem of Aretaios' date on pp. 45—53. Several pieces of evidence are cited to place the physician between Nero's reign and Hadrian's: Aretaios' use of Andromachus' cure, his Pneumatic theories, and the reference in the 'De simplcibus medicamentis'. W I G A N proceeds to state that Archigenes, because he lived after Aretaios, plagiarized Aretaios, not vice versa as W E L L MANN will insist in 'Die pneumatische Schule'. 4 7 Finally, WIGAN, addressing the issue of why Galen is silent on Aretaios, points out that the medical ideas, descriptions of illnesses, and observations in case histories in both Aretaios and Archigenes are often „iisdem fere verbis expressas". W I G A N concluded that Galen knew and used Archigenes' work, not Aretaios'; his reasons were that Archigenes wrote in Rome, used the Attic dialect, and lived after Aretaios, and that Aretaios had nothing new to offer beyond what could not be found in Archigenes. Subsequent medical historians made little advance in solving the chronological problem. K L O S E argued, with strong conviction but with little proof beyond WIGAN'S, that Aretaios lived in the first century A. D. and was copied by Archigenes. KOSSMANN placed Aretaios in the second century B . C. on the assumption that Aretaios was a pupil of Nicander of Colophon {ob. 130 A. D.). F U C H S moved Aretaios all the way forward to the fourth century A. D . W E L L M A N N reformulated the problem by positing that Aretaios lived in the late Roman empire and therefore was the plagiarist, not the plagiarized. In his RE-article on Aretaios, W E L L M A N N gives as terminus post quern for Aretaios' life Archigenes himself. 49 WELLMANN'S terminus ante quem is the 'De febribus' assigned to Alexander of Aphrodisias, wherein Aretaios is referred to several times. Because Alexander lived in the latter half of the second century, W E L L M A N N confidently labelled Aretaios Galen's contemporary. No mention is made, in the RE-article, of the 'De simplicibus medicamentis' and the Aretaiosreference therein. 4 8

46

On this point, see chapter 1 of PAUL VEYNE'S Les Grecs ont-ils cru à leurs mythes? Essai sur l'imagination constituante (Paris, Editions du Sueil, 1 9 8 3 ) . WIGAN, p. 5 3 .

48

C. W. KLOSE, Über das Leben des Aretaeus und seine auf uns gekommenen Schriften, Janus, Centrai-Magazin, 1 ( 1 8 5 1 ) , 1 0 5 - 2 6 , 2 1 7 - 4 6 ; R. KOSSMANN, Wann lebte Aretaeus von Cappadocien?, Münchener Medicinische Wochenschrift, 4 9 ( 1 9 0 2 ) , 1 2 6 5 - 6 7 ; R. FUCHS in MAX NEUBURGER and J. PAGEL, Handbuch der Geschichte der Medizin (Jena, 1 9 0 2 ) , vol. I, p. 3 6 6 .

49

WELLMANN, Archigenes, 4 8 4 .

64

ANRW II 37.2

952

STEVEN M.

OBERHELMAN

In 'Die pneumatische Schule' WELLMANN devoted an extensive discussion to Aretaios' date and his relations to Archigenes. WELLMANN rejected out of hand the Dioscorides passage because of the spurious nature of the entire treatise; 50 but WELLMANN now made as the terminus ante quem not Alexander, but Philagrios, who wrote at the beginning of the fourth century. WELLMANN finally settled on the end of the second century or the beginning of the third century for Aretaios' floruit, although nothing would prevent WELLMANN or anyone else from moving Aretaios on this basis to an even later date, say c. A.D. 300. KUDLIEN states that he was „ b e t r o f f e n e r " at this new date. He suggests that WELLMANN either forgot the reference in the 'De febribus' or opted to ignore it because of the doubtful authenticity of the treatise. I myself cannot explain WELLMANN'S oversight: for although the 'De febribus' is recognized as spurious, WELLMANN gives us an opposite opinion, and throughout his text he not only cites the work but also constructs his bibligraphical entry in such a way that no doubt seems to remain about his position on the authenticity of the 'De febribus'. 51 KUDLIEN, as we have already seen (p. 947—48 above), accepts the Aretaios-reference in the 'De simplicibus medicamentis' as trustworthy; accordingly, he is adamant about placing Aretaios in the "extraordinarily fruitful pregalenic period of ancient medicine": „Die Blütezeit des Kappadokiers kann unter keinen Umständen wesentlich nach der Mitte des 1. Jhdts. n. Chr. gelegen haben; er gehört damit endgültig als Zeitgenosse des Dioskorides und Erotian in jene außerordentlich fruchtbare vorgalenische Epoche antiker Medizin, der dann etwas später, gegen Ende des Jahrhunderts, noch die hervorragenden Ärzte Soran und Ruf us von Ephesos hinzuzurechnen sind."52 To support his theory, KUDLIEN offers as proof, beyond the 'De simplicibus medicamentis', two chronological indications from Aretaios' writings, neither of which, however, is very convincing to me. First, KUDLIEN points to Aretaios 8.13 (p. 169.10) where Aretaios writes: Κελτέων, οϊ νυν καλέονται Γάλλοι. 50

KUDLIEN, Untersuchungen, p. 14, is quite wrong when he says that in 'Die pneumatische Schule' „von Dioskorides findet sich abermals kein Wort". In fact, WELLMANN says (P. 2 4 ) „abgesehen von Pseudodioskorides, der von ihm ein Mittel gegen Nierenkrankheit erwähnt..."

51

WELLMANN, Schule, p. 2 4 n. 2: „Alexander Aphrod. in IDELERS phys. et med. gr. minores 197". That the 'De febribus' is spurious is taken for granted: SCHMIDT-STÄHLIN, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, vol. II, p. 8 3 4 ; GERCKE, Alexandros (94), RE, 1.2 ( 1 8 9 4 ) , 1 4 5 5 ; and F. E. CRANZ, Alexander Aphrodisiensis, Catalogus translationum et commentariorum, vol. I (Washington D.C., 1 9 6 0 ) , pp. 1 2 5 - 2 6 . Now cf. also P. TASSINARI, IL trattato sulle febbri dello ps. Alessandro d'Afrodisia, below in this volume (ANRW II, 3 7 , 2 ) , pp. 2 0 1 9 — 3 4 . This 'De febribus' should not be confused with the 'De febribus', which was written by Alexander Trallianus (T. PUSCHMANN, Alexander von Tralles [ 1 8 7 8 ; repr. Amsterdam, 1 9 6 3 ] ) , vol. I, pp. 2 9 1 - 4 3 9 ) .

52

KUDLIEN, U n t e r s u c h u n g e n , p. 2 2 .

ARETAIOS OF CAPPADOCIA

953

KUDLIEN asserts that the change of name from Κελτός to Γάλλος occurred during the time of Strabo, whom he quotes twice. 53 KUDLIEN offers his opinion that Aretaios' statement would make little, if any sense if written in the second century, and, therefore, he claims that a first-century date for Aretaios is proven. KUDLIEN also refers to 3.7 (p. 4 6 . 4 - 5 ) where Aretaios writes: άτάρ ήδε ξυνάγεται ες σμικρόν ή κούρη, εύτε φθίσιν εγώ κικλήσκω. KUDLIEN is of the certain opinion that φθίσις in its ophthalmological sense was „ohne Zweifel von Aretaios selbst geprägt und ... sogleich von anderen Ärzten übernommen . . . " 5 4 To support this, KUDLIEN mentions a passage in the Ps.-Galen 'Introducilo sive medicus', which KUDLIEN assigns to the Pneumatist Herodotos (first century A. D.): 55 φθίσις δε λέγεται στενουμένης της κόρης, ώς κεντήματι έοικέναι. KUDLIEN also adduces WELLMANN'S demonstration that the ophthalmologic section of the 'Introducilo' is indebted to Demosthenes, a physician of the Neronian period. 5 6 Because Demosthenes employs the same term (φθίσις) and same definition (contraction of the pupil), KUDLIEN goes so far as to conjecture that „der Arzt Demosthenes muß also ein unmittelbarer Zeitgenosse unseres Aretaios gewesen sein und von dessen Werk spätestens sehr bald nach seinem Erscheinen Kenntnis gehabt haben". KUDLIEN'S ideas are quite debatable, as one cannot prove that Aretaios is, in fact, the originator of such a definition of φθίσις; moreover, the phrase άτάρ ... εύτε φθίσιν εγώ κικλήσκω simply means, I think, that Aretaios called any medical case where stricture of the pupil occurred phthisis. Besides, KUDLIEN has entrapped himself in a circular argument: he postulates on the basis of the 'De simplicibus medicamentis' that Aretaios dates to the mid-first century A. D.; he states, accordingly, that any reference in subsequent medical authors that is similar to that in Aretaios derives from Aretaios; he then concludes, on the grounds of derivation, that Aretaios must be assigned to the mid-first century. But, in fact, because the reference in the 'De simplicibus medicamentis' cannot be demonstrated as authentic and therefore Aretaios' date is not so certain, nothing prohibits one from asserting just the opposite situation: that Aretaios was a second-century physician who consulted both the 'Introductio sive medicus' and Demosthenes and that Aretaios' use of phthisis is not original, but derivative. 53

Strabo 4.4.2: τό δέ σύμπαν φϋλον (sc. Κελτέων), ö νυν Γαλλικόν τε και Γαλατικόν καλοϋσιν; und 4.1.14: oí νεμόμενοι την Ναπβωνίτην έπικράτειαν, ους οί πρότερον Κέλτας ώνόμαζον.

54

KUDLIEN, Untersuchungen, p. 2 3 .

55

Cf. WELLMANN, Schule, pp. 14—15, and Demosthenes Περί οφθαλμών, Hermes, 38 (1903), 5 4 6 - 4 7 . WELLMANN discussed Herodotos' treatise on acute and chronic diseases in 'Herodots Werk Περί των οξέων και χρονίων νοσημάτων', Hermes, 4 0 (1905), 580— 604; WELLMANN sees in Herodotos' writings a merging of ideas from the different schools (Pneumatism, Methodism, Empiricism, and Hippocraticism): Zu Herodots Schrift 'Περί των όξέων και χρονίων νοσημάτων', Hermes, 48 (1913), 141. WELLMANN, Hermes, 38 (1903), 5 4 6 - 6 6 , with chronology on p. 557; see also WELLMANN, Demosthenes (11), RE, 5.1 (1903), 1 8 9 - 9 0 .

56

64*

954

STEVEN M .

OBERHELMAN

2. Aretaios and Archigenes The close parallels between Aretaios' writings and the fragments of Archigenes have long been noted. WELLMANN devoted a considerable part of his 'Die pneumatische Schule' to this issue (pp. 24—63), where he attempts to prove that Archigenes was the predecessor of Aretaios and had been slavishly copied by him. WELLMANN adduces a large number of parallels from Aretaios and Archigenes (as preserved in Aetius) and concludes:

„Vergleicht man diese Beschreibung des Aretaios mit der von Aetius erhaltenen Beschreibung des Archigenes, so muß die fast wörtliche Übereinstimmung jf dem in die Augen springen; dieselbe Erklärung der verschiedenen Namen, dieselbe Begründung ihrer furchtbaren Gefahr, endlich dieselbe Reihenfolge in der Beschreibung der Symptome. Diese Übereinstimmung ist um so auffallender, als die Beschreibung bei beiden so ins Einzelne geht, wie es in den sonst erhaltenen Beschreibungen derselben Krankheit nirgends der Fall ist."57 On this basis, WELLMANN insists, with absolute reasonableness, that either Aretaios copied Archigenes, or vice versa; the hypothesis of a common third source was rejected by WELLMANN as unlikely. 58 But who is the plagiarist? WELLMANN chose Aretaios for reasons that are more subjective than convincing: first, ancient authorities referred frequently to Archigenes, but hardly ever to Aretaios; second, the passages in Aetius leave a strong impression of originality; and third, in Archigenes we find much greater fullness of description of illnesses, as opposed to the parallel sections in Aretaios, the „Stilist" who wrote in „tollem

Ionisch".

KUDLIEN, as may be expected, attacks WELLMANN'S theories. His opposition rests on the assumption that he is able to fix Aretaios securely to the midfirst century A.D.:

„Die zahlreichen Parallelen zwischen Aretaios und Archigenes sollten nunmehr jedoch ... bei dem oben erwiesenen wahren chronologischen Verhältnis der beiden Ärzte mit einiger Vorsicht so gewertet werden, daß der letztere den ersteren als Quelle benutzt hat; eine andere Antwort auf die Frage einer Abhängigkeit des einen vom anderen kann es nicht geben."59 57

It should be noted that as opposed to the continuous narrative of Archigenes in Aetius, the corresponding parallels from Aretaios must be extracted throughout his work. For example, WELLMANN'S first "parallel" is Aetius 1 3 . 1 2 0 (Archigenes on elephantiasis): the sections from Aretaios are 4 . 1 3 (p. 8 7 . 1 2 - 1 6 ) ; 4 . 1 3 (p. 8 7 . 1 6 - 1 8 ) ; 8.13 (p. 1 6 8 . 1 - 3 ) ; 4 . 1 3 (p. 8 9 . 2 9 - p . 9 0 . 3 ) ; 4 . 1 3 (p. 8 7 . 2 2 - 2 7 ) ; 4 . 1 3 (p. 8 8 . 1 - 5 ) ; 4 . 1 3 (p. 8 9 . 2 1 - 2 3 ) ; 4 . 1 3 (p. 88.22—p. 89.2); 4 . 1 3 (p. 8 9 . 1 3 - 1 4 ) ; and 4 . 1 3 (p. 8 9 . 2 3 - 2 8 ) . WELLMANN'S references to Aretaios are from KÜHN'S edition and therefore differ from mine.

58

WELLMANN, Schule, p. 31: „Die dritte Annahme, schöpften, halte ich bei der bisweilen wörtlichen

59

KUDLIEN, Untersuchungen, p. 2 6 ; cf. p. 2 4 : „Das von WELLMANN so nachdrücklich behauptete chronologsiche Verhältnis Archigenes—Aretaios hat sich bei unserer Nachprüfung und Sichtung der vorliegenden Indizien als falsch erwiesen. Nicht der Apameer (sc.

daß beide aus gemeinschaftlicher Quelle Übereinstimmung für ausgeschlossen."

ARETAIOS OF

CAPPADOCIA

955

Archigenes, rather than the plundered source of Aretaios as WELLMANN had pictured him, becomes, in KUDLIEN'S eyes, a „vollkommen unselbständiger Plagiator" who transferred Aretaios' Ionic text into literary koine. If KUDLIEN'S chronology is correct, this hierarchical relationship is a fact and the issue warrants no further discussion; but as we have seen, no certain proof is forthcoming for placing Aretaios in the middle of the first century. KUDLIEN also questions the validity of WELLMANN'S unshakable confidence in Aetius. WELLMANN, in fact, showed no hesitation in accepting the Aetius passages as faithful replications of Archigenes' writings: „ ...die Quellenbeischriften in der späteren medizinischen Literatur ... in den kontrollierbaren Fällen durchaus glaubwürdig sind."60 Even in those situations when Aetius' text is contradicted by parallel passages in Oribasius, WELLMANN remained undisturbed: he simply asserts that Archigenes is Aetius' „Primärquelle", but Oribasius made use of not only Archigenes but also other sources like Antyllos. 61 KUDLIEN, however, insists that Aetius is not that reliable or accurate in his quotations - rather, Oribasius is much more trustworthy. 62 Furthermore, KUDLIEN states that WELLMANN'S parallels are not perfect and often do not agree in even broad details, because Archigenes, while plagiarizing Aretaios, often decided to supplement and revise the text. To KUDLIEN, what is, in fact, significant is not the similarities, but the d i f f e r e n c e s , between Aretaios and Archigenes; and these differences, KUDLIEN would insist, are the direct result of Archigenes' additions and corrections of Aretaios. KUDLIEN raises a valid objection. I too hesitate to place full confidence in parallels drawn from a late imperial compiler, and when I study WELLMANN'S parallels, I see, granted, some similarities, but hardly „wörtliche" correspondences. In fact, the Aetius passages are much fuller and more expansive than their counterparts in Aretaios. If the theory is that Aretaios copied Archigenes and that Aetius can be fully trusted to have transmitted Archigenes' text, we must account for Aretaios' brevity, his omission of so much material, and the greater descriptive sections on symptoms and disease causation in Archigenes. In other words, if WELLMANN'S theory is correct, we must be willing to believe that Aretaios took Archigenes' text and suppressed material, all the while refusing to supplement and correct, but still taking the time to write in „tollem Ionisch". Moreover, if, as recognized by all scholars, even WELLMANN himself, 63 Aretaios is almost unsurpassed in his accuracy for nosography, why did he omit so much of Archigenes? And if Aretaios was a copyist of Archigenes, then why did he fail miserably at his task? For plagiarism, the rule for ancient historiography as well as other fields, 64 tended not to abbreviate, but to incorArchigenes), sondern der Arzt aus Kappadokien ist mit unbestreitbarer Sicherheit der ältere gewesen." 60 61 62 63 64

WELLMANN, Schule, p. 1 1 2 . See the discussion in Schule, pp. 1 1 0 - 1 2 . See F. KUDLIEN, Galenkommentar, pp. 4 9 - 5 4 ; cf. KUDLIEN, Poseidonios, p. 4 2 2 n. 3. WELLMANN, Schule, p. 2 7 for details. T. ALLBUTT, Greek Medicine in Rome (London, 1 9 2 1 ) , pp. 2 7 2 - 7 9 ; VEYNES (above, note 4 6 ) ; and H. PETER, Wahrheit und Kunst: Geschichtschreibung und Plagiat im klassischen Altertum ( 1 9 1 1 ; repr. Hildesheim, 1 9 6 5 ) .

956

S T E V E N M.

OBERHELMAN

porate, revise, and amplify upon. In summary, before we can accept WELLMANN'S theory of plagiarism by Aretaios, we must, first, be confident of a chronology for both physicians (impossible), then place absolute trust in the veracity of Aetius' quotations and not believe that differences between Aretaios and Archigenes are due to Aetius himself (equally impossible), and, finally, explain why Aretaios, while supposedly copying word-for-word, omitted a great amount of material without offering revisions or supplements of his own. One question does remain, however: why do ancient authorities quote Archigenes, but hardly Aretaios? WELLMANN would assert that writers like Galen and the late compilers recognized that Aretaios was simply a „slavischer Abschreiber" and therefore decided to quote only the source, not the derivative. KUDLIEN, on the other hand, offers a very specious, and wholly unconvincing, argument: Archigenes shamelessly pandered to the superstitious bias of the imperial centuries and therefore was attractive to subsequent writers; Aretaios, however, was so rational and so eschewed all the „medizinischen Modeströmungen" of his age that no one was interested in him: „ Und eben diese strenge, konsequent befolgte Grundhaltung, die den Aretaios mit Notwendigkeit von den herrschenden medizinischen Modeströmungen seiner Zeit absonderte, hat augenscheinlich auch die Verbreitung seines Ruhmes verhindert, ganz im Gegensatz zu Archigenes, der nach allem, was wir übersehen können, keine Skrupel kannte, die Forderungen der Mode vorbehaltlos mitzumachen, und der auch dadurch äußerst wirkungsvoll für seinen Nachruhm zu sorgen wußte."65 I find neither WELLMANN'S nor KUDLIEN'S arguments persuasive. First of all, KUDLIEN, who, it must be noted, repeatedly accuses WELLMANN of such prejudice against Aretaios that he was blinded from perceiving the real truth concerning Aretaios' life and contributions to ancient medicine, is just as guilty of bias against Archigenes. After remarking that medicine of the first and second centuries A. D. was saturated with paranatural and superstitious remedies like amulets, magic, and folk-cures (a debatable point 66 ), KUDLIEN accuses Archigenes of being an active practitioner of this superstition and actually insinuates that Archigenes followed magical beliefs „sich mit allen Mitteln erfolgreich einen Namen zu machen". Aretaios, on the other hand, according to KUDLIEN, avoided all such folk-remedies and magical treatments, and it was this refusal to cater to the prevailing superstition that made him unattractive to ancient writers; this would explain, therefore, Aretaios' minimal influence. 67 This line 65 66

KUDLIEN, Untersuchungen, p. 2 8 ; see in general the discussion on pp. 2 7 - 2 9 . See my articles: The Hippocratic Corpus and Greek Religion, in: The Body and the Text. Comparative Studies in Medicine and Literature, Comparative Literature Series, vol. 2 2 , e d . BRUCE CLARKE a n d W E N D E L L AYCOCK ( L u b b o c k , T e x a s , 1 9 9 1 ) , 1 4 1 - 6 0 , a n d D r e a m s

in Graeco-Roman Medicine, A N R W II, 3 7 , 1 , ed. W. HAASE (Berlin-New York 1 9 9 3 ) , pp. 1 2 1 — 5 6 ; there I argue against the validity of the classifications science/magic/religion/ superstition on the grounds that they are value-laden cultural conceptualizations. 67

Aretaios' attitude is an obvious imitation of Hippocrates, as even KUDLIEN, (Untersuchungen, p. 28), admits; whether Aretaios in fact rejected such "superstitious" beliefs

ARETAIOS OF CAPPADOCIA

957

of argument is glaringly weak, as it begs for proof that a work, unless it contained superstition, would have been ignored by professionals in the field. And is Aretaios so " r a t i o n a l " ? For example, Aretaios is very emphatic on the point that the souls of the dying are capable of predicting the future (see below): but this would hardly seem rational to a Methodist physician, nor would Aretaios' statements that insanity is "divine" (ενθεος, 3 . 6 [p. 4 4 . 2 ] ) and that blood is formed from wine (8.2 [p. 1 6 3 . 1 — 2 ] ) . 6 7 a Moreover, I would hesitate to label a doctor like Galen a superstitious person. For example, although Galen did admit diagnosis from dreams, this was a medical practice that had its origins in the fourth century B. C. at the latest and was an accepted Hippocratic idea. 6 8 Granted, Galen also mentions amulets and divine cures from plants. But this is consistent with the ancients' cosmological views and with explicit statements by Herophilos and Aretaios himself, as EDELSTEIN has p r o v e d . 6 9 In the case of lithotherapy, we must decide whether their use was a concession to the p a t i e n t or actually reflected the physician's personal value-system; the former possibility is by far the more likely, given the ancient doctor's usual silence on the Asklepieia, amulets, charms, and " f o l k " pharmacological cures. In the final analysis, I must apply to KUDLIEN'S thesis here the term WESLEY SMITH used in criticizing KUDLIEN'S theories as a whole: "ill-considered." 7 0 WELLMANN'S ideas seem to me lame. Compilers would seek the fullest and most detailed account, whether it be source or derivative. N o w it must be admitted that we have only fragments of Archigenes, but from what has sur-

or whether this is a conscious imitation, is hard to recover. For Hippocrates' "rationalism," see J. STANNARD, Hippocratic Pharmacology, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 3 5 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 5 1 3 - 1 4 ; b u t cf. the revision in OBERHELMAN, C o r p u s ( a b o v e , n o t e 6 6 ) . 67a

Aretaios does reject the more bizarre cures like human blood, vulture's brain, and the heart of a shearwater (8.4 [p. 154.1-9]). But could this not be, more properly, imitation of Hippocrates? Besides, Soranus displays the same type of avoidance of such cures; see, in general, Caelius Aurelianus, De morbis acutis et chronicis, ed. I. E. DRABKIN (Chicago, 1 9 5 0 ) , especially u n d e r t r e a t m e n t s f o r epilepsy (pp. 5 1 5 - 1 7 , DRABKIN); f o r a specialized

area (obstetrics) in which Soranus avoids all "folk-cures" and "folk-beliefs," see VALERIE FRENCH, Midwives and Maternity Care in the Roman World, Helios, 13.2 (1986), 6 9 8 4 . N o w see a l s o ANN ELLIS HANSON-MONICA H . GREEN, S o r a n u s o f E p h e s u s : 68

69

o f the H i s t o r y o f M e d i c i n e , 5 ( 1 9 3 7 ) , 2 0 1 - 4 6

70

Method-

icorum princeps, below in this volume (ANRW II 37,2), pp. 9 7 7 - 1 0 0 5 . See my articles: The Diagnostic Dream in Ancient Medical Theory and Practice, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 61 (1987), 4 7 - 6 0 ; Galen, On Diagnosis from Dreams, Journal of the History of Medicine, 38 (1983), 36—47; The Interpretation of Prescriptive Dreams in Ancient Greek Medicine, Journal of the History of Medicine, 36 (1981), 4 1 6 - 2 4 , and: Dreams in Graeco-Roman Medicine, ANRW II, 37,1 (1993), pp. 1 2 1 - 5 6 . Cf. LUDWIG EDELSTEIN, Greek Medicine in Its Relation to Religion and Magic, Bulletin (reprinted in OSWEI TEMKIN a n d C . L .

TEMKIN, eds., Ancient Medicine: Selected Papers of Ludwig Edelstein [Baltimore, 1967], pp. 205—46); cf. my papers cited in note 66 above. WESLEY SMITH, The Hippocratic Tradition, Publications in the History of Science Ser. (Ithaca and London, 1979), p. 204, n. 7. For the importance to Aretaios of the physician's reputation, see JOHN SCARBOROUGH, Roman Medicine, Aspects of Greek and Roman Life (Ithaca and London, 1969), p. 141.

958

STEVEN

M.

OBERHELMAN

vived it appears that Archigenes was more complete in descriptions and cures. 7 1 Moreover, Archigenes wrote in a straightforward koine and was an Eclectic in outlook and practice. My own view is that Archigenes was more attractive to later writers because he may have been a better source, he wrote in an easy to understand koine, and he was closer to them than was Aretaios in philosophy and medical theory. This is speculation, granted, but it would explain better the preference for Archigenes by later writers than would "lack of superstition in Aretaios" or revulsion for a copyist. To conclude. Once one evaluates all data capable of establishing Aretaios' chronology, these facts remain: Aretaios must have lived sometime between the establishment of Pneumatism and our first r e l i a b l e reference to him, Philagrios; he does not refer d i r e c t l y to any author or physician, except for Homer and Hippocrates; he himself is not cited until Philagrios (again, I leave aside the 'De simplicibus medicamentis'); and many, but not exact, similarities exist between the works of Aretaios and the fragments of Archigenes. These are observations of fact, beyond which we cannot move without speculation or proof that is not forthcoming. Of course, if somehow the reference in the 'De simplicibus medicamentis' can ever be established as genuine (and this would involve a two-step process: to prove authentic first the treatise and then the passage itself), then we can safely move Aretaios to the mid-first century A. D. and the problem is wholly solved. But until then we are left with only the above statements of fact. WELLMANN'S theories, therefore, remain unproven, and K U D L I E N , although he provides much needed revision of WELLMANN'S studies and accordingly makes substantial contributions to this nebulous area, does not establish with firmness his own dating of Aretaios. I myself, like K U D L I E N , would place Aretaios' floruit in the latter part of the first century A. D., but I would do so for the reason that Aretaios is not an Eclectic like Archigenes, Herodotos, and others of the second century, but rather a full-fledged Pneumatist, as I will discuss in the next section. W E L L M A N N ended his 'Die pneumatische Schule' with the appearance of Archigenes, on the grounds that this physician inaugurated, or at least symbolized the commencement of, the Eclectic period. This is quite reasonable. But Aretaios, being not an Eclectic but a complete Pneumatist, must accordingly be placed in the first century and thereby become one of Archigenes' sources, as so stated by K U D L I E N and by medical historians before WELLMANN.

One troubling question remains, however: why does no medical writer quote Aretaios until the beginning of the fourth century? 7 2 No sure answer can 71

72

Of course, this is dangerous ground, as nearly all of our extant fragments of Archigenes are found in compilers, w h o may in fact have altered by expansion the original Archigenic text. KUDLIEN, Untersuchungen, pp. 2 9 - 3 0 , disputes this. First of all, he asserts that Demosthenes in his ophthalmology cites Aretaios; but this is based on a slightly convoluted argument: the 'Introductio sive medicus' has the same definition as Aretaios; the 'Introductio' is indebted t o Demosthenes; Aretaios is mid-first century, while Demosthenes is a little later; therefore, Aretaios is quoted by Demosthenes. Hardly convincing.

ARETAIOS OF CAPPADOCIA

959

be g i v e n if A r e t a i o s is s o early; w e c a n o n l y g u e s s . P e r h a p s A r c h i g e n e s w a s t h e m o r e i m m e d i a t e p r e d e c e s s o r o f G a l e n a n d o t h e r a u t h o r s a n d w a s t h e r e f o r e the m o r e w e l l k n o w n ; or, b e c a u s e A r c h i g e n e s w a s m o r e t h o r o u g h a n d c o m p l e t e t h a n A r e t a i o s , a u t h o r s m a y h a v e preferred t o q u o t e f r o m h i m . P e r h a p s A r e t a i o s rem a i n e d f o r t o o l o n g a n o b s c u r e a u t h o r , w r i t i n g as he d i d in a n a r c h a i z e d Ionic. P e r h a p s he n e v e r left his h o m e l a n d o f C a p p a d o c i a (if t h a t in f a c t is his c o u n t r y ) , a n d t h u s did n o t surface until after A r c h i g e n e s ' r e p u t a t i o n h a d b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d ; a c c o r d i n g l y , by t h e t i m e that A r e t a i o s finally b e c a m e n o t i c e d , o p i n i o n q u i c k l y dec i d e d t h a t A r e t a i o s ' t e x t derived f r o m A r c h i g e n e s , a l r e a d y a n influential Eclectic P n e u m a t i s t . All this is s p e c u l a t i o n , h o w e v e r . W e c a n o n l y say, in the final a n a l y s i s , t h a t A r e t a i o s f o l l o w e d t h e d o c t r i n e s o f P n e u m a t i s m a n d t h e r e f o r e lived in either t h e first or s e c o n d century, w a s c o p i e d by A r c h i g e n e s or in fact c o p i e d h i m , a n d t h a t A r c h i g e n e s w a s t h e m o r e i n f l u e n t i a l a m o n g s u b s e q u e n t writers.

II. Aretaios

and

Pneumatism73

Little o f A r e t a i o s ' w o r k h a s survived. E x t a n t in i n c o m p l e t e f o r m are t w o treatises: O n C a u s e s a n d Signs o f A c u t e a n d C h r o n i c D i c e a s e s ' ( ' Π ε ρ ί α ι τ ί ω ν

73

KuDLiEN also says that Galen refers to Aretaios in his discussion of the wandering uterus (VIII, 425 ff. KÜHN); KUDLIEN states that Galen's ενιοι is actually meant to denote a third person singular, not plural; and because the corresponding discussion in Aretaios 2.11 (p. 3 3 . 1 - 4 ) is so very close and because Aretaios is, of course, earlier than Galen, Galen becomes (for KUDLIEN) a second author who cites Aretaios. A weak argument, as it is based on the assumption that Aretaios can be proven to be Galen's predecessor or that the two did not use a common source or tradition - not to mention the assumption that ενιοι is meant to be taken as singular in meaning. In this section I will not discuss, for reasons of space, the nosography of Aretaios. Much has already been devoted to this: EUGENE J. LEOPOLD, Aretaeus the Cappadocian: His Contribution to Diabetes Mellitus, Annals of Medical History, 2 (1930), 4 2 4 - 3 5 ; E. F. CORDELL, Aretaeus of Cappadocia, Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, 20 (1909), 3 7 1 - 7 7 ; C. METTLER, History of Medicine (Philadelphia, 1947), passim (consult the index); G. ILBERG, Das neurologisch-psychiatrische Wissen und Können des Aretäus von Kappadokien, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Neurologie und Psychiatrie, 86 (1923), 227— 46; G. DIDSBURY, Considérations sur la migraine d'après Arétée de Cappadoce, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 34 (1936), 2 6 0 - 6 7 ; E.EBSTEIN, Klassische Krankengeschichten, I: Die Diphtherie bei Aretaios, Kinder-ärztliche Praxis, 2 (1931), 42—45; C. ANGELINO and Ε. SALVANESCHI, La „melancolía" dell'uomo di genio, Opuscula VIII (Genova, 1982), Appendix: Aretaeus 3,5. It is well recognized that some of the best descriptions of diseases until the modern times derive from Aretaios. The nosography is, in fact, very classical, although as OSWEI TEMKIN has shown, Aretaios' disease pictures depart from the Hippocratic Epidemics I and III and instead are quite "Cnidian": Die Krankheitsauffassung von Hippokrates und Syndenham in ihren 'Epidemien', Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin, 20 (1928), 3 2 7 - 5 2 . Rather than treating nosography, I will examine only a few areas in which Aretaios' ties to Pneumatism are evident. For fuller discussion even on these topics, see WELLMANN, Schule, pp. 1 3 1 - 2 3 1 , and STANNARD, pp. 3 0 - 5 3 .

STEVEN M. OBERHELMAN

960

καί σημείων όξέων και χρονίων παθών') in four books and O n Therapy of Acute and Chronic Diseases' ( " Ο ξ έ ω ν καί χρονίων νουσών θεραπευτικά βιβλία') also in four b o o k s . 7 4 Aretaios mentions four other works, none of which is extant: On Fevers ( 5 . p r o e m i u m [p. 9 1 . 7 : έν τοίσι άμφί πυρετών λόγοισι); O n Surgery ( 7 . 2 [p. 1 4 5 . 2 : έν τήσι χειρουργίησι); On Diseases of Women (5.3 [p. 1 0 2 . 1 9 ] : έν τοϊσι γυναικείοισι); and O n Drugs ( 5 . 4 [p. 1 0 4 . 2 4 ] : πολλόν δε τουτέων φαρμακείη ποικιλωτέρη καί πλέον καί ίδίη λέλεκται; cf. 6 . 2 [ρ. 1 2 4 . 1 1 - 1 4 ] ) . The Ps.-Alexander of Aphrodias work, 'De febribus', mentions another treatise of Aretaios, On Prophylaxis (IDELER, vol. I, p. 9 7 ) . Aretaios wrote, according to KUDLIEN, in the acme of " o r t h o d o x " („reinen") Pneumatism, that is, before the school moved into Eclecticism. 7 5 The beginnings of Pneumatism are traditionally placed in the mid-first century A. D . , but KUDLIEN moves them back a century earlier, on the grounds that Athenaios was the student of Poseidonios. 7 6 KUDLIEN adduces, in fact, several specific Stoic-Poseidonian doctrines in Aretaios: the idea that the soul of the dying is capable of prediction (2.3 [p. 2 2 . 2 7 - p . 2 3 . 3 ] and 2 . 4 [p. 2 4 . 3 - 9 ] ) ; 7 7 the concept of the ζωτική δύναμις („Lebenskraft") ( 2 . 4 [p. 2 4 . 1 4 ] ) ; 7 8 the placement of the ζωτική δύναμις in the heart, which becomes the hegemonikon („Zentralorgan");79 the m a c r o c o s m - m i c r o c o s m a n a l o g y ; 8 0 and certain medical concepts and terms like " p a l i n d r o m y . " 8 1

74

For a discussion of the history of the text, editions, and translations of the surviving Aretaian writings, see H U D E , Praefatio, pp. v-viii; LUDWIG CHOULANT, Handbuch der Bücherkunde für die ältere Medizin ( 1 8 4 1 ; repr. Graz, 1 9 5 6 ) , pp. 8 4 - 8 8 ; DEICHGRÄBER, pp. 6 - 7 ; KUDLIEN, Untersuchungen, pp. 7 - 8 , n. 1; G . A. LINDEBOOM, Boerhaave and

the ancient Greek writers on medicine, Janus,

50 (1961-62),

75-87.

75

KUDLIEN, Ärzte, p. 1 0 9 8 .

76

KUDLIEN, Poseidonios, pp. 4 1 9 - 2 9 ; Ärzte, pp. 1 0 9 7 - 9 8 , 1 1 0 4 - 0 6 ; Untersuchungen, p. 33. Cf. Ärzte, p. 1104: „So wage ich (durchaus im Bewußtsein der Problematik der Poseidonios-Frage) die These, daß das faßbarste, sicherste, eigentlichste Charakteristikum der pneumatischen Ärzteschule in der jeweiligen (tatsächlichen oder wenigstens mutmaßlichen) Verbindung zu poseidonianischen Vorstellungen und Lehren liegt." But see MAX WELLMANN, Athenaios (24), RE, 2.2 (1986), 2034. REINHARDT, Poseidonios (1), pp. 4 6 0 - 6 1 ; Kosmos, pp. 218, 223, 3 2 2 - 2 3 ; Poseidonios (2), pp. 8 0 4 - 0 5 .

77

78

REINHARDT, Poseidonios (1), p. 2 4 3 .

79

KUDLIEN, Untersuchungen, p. 34, and Ärzte, p. 1105, calls this theory a „Rückschritt ... und die Vernachlässigung vorher bereits gewonnener richtiger Erkenntnisse."' KUDLIEN, Ärzte, p. 1105 with references, and also REINHARDT, Poseidonios (2), pp. 8 0 3 04. KUDLIEN, Untersuchungen, pp. 38 with references. The problem with KUDLIEN'S date for a much earlier floruit for the beginnings of Pneumatism is that Celsus knew nothing about such a school; such is the usual objection. But PHILIPPE M U D R Y , La préface du De medicina de Celse, Bibliotheca Helvetica Romae, XIX (1982), pp. 87—88 and 91, argues that Celsus' silence on Pneumatism is not important. He points out, in fact, that Celsus did know of Aretaios. Celsus' morbi (morbos) continentium is taken by M U D R Y as a faithful translation of Aretaios' συνεκτικοί αίτίαι, and, if so, this would support KUDLIEN'S revisionist dates of 50 A. D. for Aretaios and 50 B. C. for Athenaios. He concludes (p. 91): « II

80

81

ARETAIOS

OF

CAPPADOCIA

961

In this context K U D L I E N cites as other examples of "orthodox" Pneumatism such Ps-Hippocratica as 'De alimento' ('Περί τροφής'), 82 'De corde' ('Περί καρδίης'), 83 and 'De medico' ('Περί ίητρού'). 84 All these works, as well as Aretaios' writings, reflect, in K U D L I E N ' S view, a strong revival among medical writers of Hippocratic ideas which led in turn to an archaizing Ionic dialect. 85 This seems weak for several reasons. First, K U D L I E N ' S theory is partly based upon Aretaios' Ionic style, but if we cannot date Aretaios securely, we cannot be certain whether his artificial style is due to a Hippocratic revival or to the practices of the later Second Sophistic, as W E L L M A N N believed. Second, the Ps.Hippocratica cannot be dated and may not in fact be, as in the case of the 'De alimento', Pneumatic. 86 A circular argument seems at foot here — that is, K U D L I E N dates a Hippocratic revival by Pneumatists on the basis of non-datable works, which K U D L I E N dates on the grounds that such works reflect a Hippocratic revival. Notwithstanding the weakness of K U D L I E N ' S argument, one cannot deny that Aretaios is a Pneumatist who has imitated Hippocrates in his Ionic style. 87 But he is not an Eclectic: we find no traces of either Methodism or Empiricism, except for the occasional stress on personal experience, which probably, however, should be related to Aretaios' common-sense approach to medicine rather than to an Empiricist bent. 88 Likewise unsubstantiated are assertions that Arefaudrait donc admettre que Celse adopte ... le point de vue d'une école (se. école pneumatique) qu'il ignore ou qu'il néglige. » The final answer on this issue is still forthcoming. 82

KUDLIEN, U n t e r s u c h u n g e n , p p . 3 6 - 3 7 . HANS DILLER, E i n e s t o i s c h - p n e u m a t i s c h e S c h r i f t

im Corpus Hippocraticum, Sudhoffs Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften, 29 (1936), 1 7 8 - 9 5 ( = ID., Kleine Schriften zur antiken Medizin, edd. G. BAADER and H . GRENSEMANN [Ars Medica. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Quellenkunde der Antiken Medizin 113], Berlin 1973, pp. 1 7 - 3 0 ) , dates this treatise to c. A . D . 50, b u t KUDLIEN ( P o s e i d o n i o s , p p . 4 2 1 - 2 2 , a n d U n t e r s u c h u n g e n , p p . 3 6 - 3 7 ) w o u l d h a v e it

contemporary with Athenaios, w h o m he dates to c. 50 B. C. ROBERT JOLY (Hippocrate, vol. 6.2 [Paris, 1972], pp. 1 2 9 - 3 8 ) would date it earlier and rejects many of KUDLIEN'S and DILLER'S arguments. K. ABEL, Die Lehre vom Blutkreislauf im Corpus Hippocratic u m , H e r m e s , 8 6 ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 1 9 3 - 2 0 4 , e s p e c i a l l y p p . 2 0 2 - 0 4 , w o u l d , l i k e KUDLIEN, p l a c e

the work in the first century B. C. 83

KUDLIEN, P o s e i d o n i o s , p p . 4 2 4 - 2 7 ; i n m o r e d e t a i l , ABEL ( a b o v e , n o t e 8 2 ) , p p . 2 0 5 - 1 8 .

84

KUDLIEN, Mutmassungen über die Schrift Περί ίητροϋ, Hermes, 94 (1966), 5 4 - 5 9 . While KUDLIEN grants this treatise to be early as the third century B. C. (p. 59), he is more willing to see it „als ein Zeugnis jenes 'archaisierenden ' Hippokratismus" and then states that „er spätestens im I. Jh. n. Chr. manifest wird."

85

KUDLIEN, Ä r z t e , p . 1 1 0 1 .

86

KUDLIEN, Ärzte, pp. 1 1 0 6 - 0 8 , discusses certain positions of the Pneumatists in general and of Aretaios specifically, as they relate to early Christianity, e. g., the soul-body dualism and the empathetic compassion of a physician for the dying patient. The latter idea, of course, is neither Hippocratic nor Stoic, but I fail to see the importance of these points as early Christianity did not have a favorable attitude toward medicine. G. VERBERE, L'Evolution de la doctrine du pneuma du stoïcisme à S. Augustin. Etude philosophique (Paris, 1945), pp. 1 9 1 - 2 0 6 . 5.2 (p. 1 0 2 . 2 - 3 ) : άγαθή δέ διδάσκαλος ή πείρη· χρή δέ και αύτόν π ε ι ρ ή ν εύλαβείη γαρ άπειρίη. 6.11 (ρ. 1 4 3 . 9 - 1 0 ) : χρή δέ και [τον] αύτόν τινα ξυνευπορέειν, μή πάντα άλλοτρίη ξυγγραφη προσίσχοντα τόν νόον.

87

88

962

STEVEN

M.

OBERHELMAN

taios was a Dogmatist in his physiological and anatomical descriptions, or Methodist because of his simple regimens and treatments. 8 9 Aretaios' physiology is P n e u m a t i c , 9 0 while his pharmacological praxis, drug therapy, and dietary regimens are based on Pneumatic theory and have their origins in the general Hippocratic and medical tradition. 9 1 Aretaios subscribed to the Pneumatic theory of pneuma as an all-pervading element in both the cosmos and body. Although the elements (or qualities) hot, cold, wet, and dry constitute matter through their various mixtures or blendings, pneuma is the bond that holds all things together and creates movement and function (hence pneuma as „dynamisch-materialistisch", WELLM A N N ) . 9 2 When proper mixture or harmonious balance of pneuma and the elements occurs in a body, this is eukrasia·, dyskrasia denotes an imbalance and results in illness, dissolution of pneuma, and ultimately d e a t h . 9 3 The condition of pneuma in health is called " t e n s i o n " (tonos), while the loss of tension (atonia), arising from internal or external causes (aitiai), is the upsetting of the equilibrium in the body ( 2 . 1 1 [p. 3 3 . 1 6 ] ) . 9 4 A further important Pneumatic concept in Aretaios is innate heat (έμφυτος θ έ ρ μ η ) ; 9 5 this is Stoic inorigin. 9 6 The heart is the source of life (6.1 [p. 9 2 . 2 8 ] ; cf. 6 . 1 [p. 9 7 . 1 9 - 2 2 ] ) and is the central organ of the whole body. 9 7 The heart is critical for several reasons: it dispenses the innate heat throughout the body by means of the cardio-vascular system (6.7 [p. 1 3 6 . 1 2 - 1 3 ] ) ; it stimulates the lungs' respiratory processes and draws the pneuma from the lungs; 9 8 and the aorta arises from the heart and transports the pneuma to the other o r g a n s . 9 9 Blood, by extension, is also very crucial for life, for pneuma is carried by veins to all parts of the body; moreover, blood is nutriment, the nourishment of the whole body (5.4 [p. 1 0 3 . 1 — 2 ] ) . The liver, too, is important, for all blood is produced by and originates in the liver; the liver is composed largely of blood and is therefore

89

J . L . PAGEL, G e s c h i c h t e d e r M e d i z i n , 2 n d . e d . ( B e r l i n , 1 9 1 5 ) , p . 1 0 4 . STROPPIANA is m o r e

correct when he states (p. xiv): „Dei Metodici Areteo non segue in nulla la dottrina. Non parla di stato stretto né lasso, e, quando tratta delle malattie, prescrive come regola universale di mettere in luce principalmente le cause e le sedi, spiegando con ogni possibile precisione la varietà dei sintomi; e non trascurando mai di prendere in considerazione tutto ciò che si riferisce alla costituzione dell'aria, alle stagioni, alla temperie del corpo, all'età ... Sono tutte cose che non si trovano nei Metodici. E se egli talvolta concorda con i Metodici nella terapia, ciò è perché la terapia è, in questi casi, la stessa di quella delle altre sette e non differisce da quella dei Dogmatici e degli Empirici." 9°

WELLMANN, S c h u l e , p p .

91

WELLMANN, S c h u l e , p p . 2 0 1 - 3 1 , a n d STANNARD, p p . 3 2 a n d 3 8 .

130-61.

92

WELLMANN, S c h u l e , p p . 1 3 3 ff.

93

WELLMANN, Schule, pp. 1 4 3 ff.; Aretaios: 2.3 (p. 2 3 . 7 - 1 0 ) and 4 . 1 2 (p. 8 3 . 1 2 - 1 3 ) .

94

WELLMANN, S c h u l e , p . 1 4 2 .

95

WELLMANN, S c h u l e , p . 1 3 7 ; A r e t a i o s : 4 . 1 2 (p. 8 3 . 9 ) a n d 6 . 1 1 ( p . 1 4 2 . 1 4 ) .

96

S e e STANNARD, p . 3 0 , n . 2 ; c f . WELLMANN, S c h u l e , p . 1 3 7 .

97

WELLMANN, S c h u l e , p . 9 2 ; A r e t a i o s : 2 . 1 (p. 1 5 . 1 0 - 1 5 ) a n d 2 . 3 ( p . 2 2 . 2 6 - p . 2 3 . 1 ) .

98

KUDLIEN, Poseidonios, 4 2 6 — 2 7 , and Untersuchungen, p. 3 4 .

99

W E L L M A N N , Schule, p . 1 3 9 - 4 0 .

ARETAIOS OF

CAPPADOCIA

963

susceptible to dyskrasia (6.6 [p. 134.18-21]). Of great significance also is the brain, as it is the site of sensation and the source of nerves. 1 0 0 Disease is due to a transition from eukrasia to dyskrasia. Causes, external and internal, include imbalances of humors or any of the four elements, deficiency of food in either quality or quantity, climate, wine, medicines, wounds, instruments (e.g., catheters), suppressed secretions and discharges, and other illnesses (e. g., dropsy from asthma, liver diseases from dysentery, tetanus from abortion, and paralysis from gonorrhea). Whatever the cause, the precise and proper mixture of pneuma and the four elements is disturbed, resulting in atony of the pneuma·,101 this dyskrasia must be counteracted immediately (5.1 [p. 9 7 . 1 9 - 2 2 ] ) . Ileus occurs when the pneuma is chilled and sluggish and becomes fixed in the bowels (2.6 [p. 2 5 . 1 1 - 1 3 ] ) . An abscess of the spleen arises when the abdomen is filled with thick, damp, and turbid pneuma (3.14 [p. 5 6 . 1 2 - 1 4 ] ) ; epilepsy, when the pneuma is locked up within the body and, whirling about as it were in a circle, moves everything (1.5 [p. 5.6] and 7.4 [p. 154.20-24]); hysterical asphyxia, when the pneuma is cooled (2.11 [p. 3 2 . 2 1 - p . 33.14]); lethargy, when the innate heat is congealed (5.2 [p. 9 8 . 9 - 1 0 ] ) . There are four dyskrasiai originating in imbalances of the four qualities. The dyskrasia from dryness and coolness is the cause of tetanus (1.6 [p. 6 . 6 7]); pleuritis (1.10 [p. 1 3 . 2 7 - 3 0 ] ) ; paralysis (3.7 [p. 4 6 . 1 2 - 1 3 ] ) ; cephalaea (3.1 [p. 37.22]); and melancholy (3.5 [p. 4 0 . 1 0 - 1 4 ] ) . All these diseases occur more frequently in women because they, unlike men, are by nature cold; however, their survival rate is higher because their constitution is wet as well. The elderly are especially susceptible because old age, like these illnesses, is a state of coolness and dryness. The dyskrasia from coldness and wetness gives rise to epilepsy (3.4 [p. 39.9]); 1 0 2 vertigo (3.3 [p. 3 8 . 2 - 3 ] ) ; phthisis (3.8 [p. 4 9 . 6 - 7 ] ) ; asthma (3.11 [p. 5 2 . 1 2 - 1 3 ] ) ; dropsy (4.1 [p. 6 2 . 1 1 - 1 3 ] ) ; diabetes (4.2 [p. 6 5 . 1 8 - 1 9 ] ) ; and syncope (2.3 [p. 2 3 . 4 - 5 ] ) . These diseases occur most frequently in winter (1.10 [p. 13.23—26]), often in fall, less so in spring, and very rarely in summer. Again, women more easily succumb to such illnesses because their natural mixture of qualities is cold and wet (3.11 [p. 52.13 — 14]). Children, if they become ill, survive better because their bodies by nature can be warmed rather easily (3.11 [p. 5 2 . 1 4 - 1 6 ] ) . The dyskrasia from dryness and warmness engenders cholera (2.5 [p. 2 4 . 1 5 - 2 5 . 5 ] ) ; synanche (1.7 [p. 8 . 1 1 - 1 2 ] ) ; pneumonia (2.1 [p. 1 6 . 3 - 6 ] ) ; and mania (3.6 [p. 41.20—21]). Such diseases occur most frequently in summer, sometimes in fall, rarely in spring, and only very rarely in winter. Males in 100

101

5 . 2 (p. 100.29); 5.6 (p. 1 0 8 . 1 7 - 1 8 ) ; and 6.1 (p. 9 2 . 2 8 ) . See STANNARD, p. 31, n. 4 , for references to the Stoic influences here. For Aretaios' ideas on „Qualitätenmischung"' in people according to sex and age, see WELLMANN, S c h u l e , p p . 1 4 6 - 4 7 , a n d A r e t a i o s 1 . 6 (p. 5 . 2 7 - p . 6 . 8 ) .

102 This is w h y at 7 . 4 (p. 155.29—30) Aretaios recommends that epileptics live in dry and warm areas.

964

STEVEN M.

OBERHELMAN

adolescence or maturity are very prone to attack as their nature is warm and dry; when they reach advanced age, however, they become highly immune because of the change of their qualities-mixture to cold and wet. The dyskrasia from warmness and wetness is quite rare. Aretaios mentions this imbalance but once, when he talks of sputum with blood (2.2 [p. 2 1 . 1 0 13]); there he notes that this may happen if the spring season is warm and moist, occasionally if the summer or fall is in similar conditions. Health is restored by correcting the imbalance of the dyskrasia. After the physician has conducted a preliminary examination of the patient's physiological condition 1 0 3 and has acquired a case history from questioning the patient, the proper therapy is chosen. Because surgery was advisable only in situations requiring immediate avoidance of death, on the grounds that the benefits were often outweighed by the dangers, 104 the physician commenced a series of cures and pharmacotherapies to counteract the dyskrasia. Because pneuma is carried in the blood, the first course of treatment for excessive pneuma (physa or flatus) was bleeding (5.2 [p. 9 8 . 2 1 - 2 5 ] ) and 6.11 [p. 1 4 2 . 6 - 7 ] ) . 1 0 5 Aretaios is very precise about the localization of the bleeding. For example, for cases of cephalaea and vertigo, the cut should be in the vein beside the elbow (7.1 [p. 1 4 4 . 2 0 - 2 2 ] and 7.3 [p. 1 4 9 . 1 7 - 1 8 ] ) ; in the vein next to the nose (7.3 [p. 1 4 9 . 2 3 - 2 4 ] ) ; in the vein on the forehead (7.2 [p. 145.8] and 7.3 [p. 1 4 9 . 2 2 - 2 3 ] ) ; or one may also cut the artery, either behind the ears or in front of them (7.3 [p. 1 4 5 . 1 5 - 1 9 ] ) . Cupping and rubefacients were also advised in order to expel the pneuma from specific organs or tissues. 106 The second most common procedure was purging, which like bleeding rids the body of excess pneuma,107 As STANNARD has demonstrated, this therapy of bleeding and/or purging continued for a week to ten days, during which time the patient was also subjected to psychotherapy, physiotherapy, and dietary regimen, provided that her or his constitution permitted this. The purpose of this interim treatment was two-fold: to give the patient more strength in the event that more bleeding and purging were needed, and to prepare her or him for pharmacotherapy. 108 The aim of this pharmacotherapy was to attack the imbalance of the pneuma and the qualities and to restore the eukrasia; this was accomplished by the principle "opposites are cured by their opposites." 1 0 9 The treatments — all quite conven103

Methods included auscultation of the heart, palpitation of the body, and percussion of the abdomen; meticulous noting of pulses, secretions, color of skin, breathing, and condition of pupils; and examination of specific bodily parts like the colon and rectum as well as of sputum and kidney-stones.

STANNARD, p. 3 5 with n. 2 . WELLMANN, Schule, pp. 2 6 6 - 6 9 , for details, W« WELLMANN, Schule, pp. 2 2 8 - 2 9 . 1 0 7 STROPPIANA, pp. x x x - x x x i . 1 0 8 STANNARD, pp. 3 4 - 3 5 . 1 0 9 Aretaios 5.1 (p. 9 7 . 2 5 - 2 6 ) on syncope. Cf. WELLMANN, Schule, p. 2 0 1 : „Ihr therapeutisches Verfahren war naturgemäß darauf gerichtet, die vorherrschende Qualität zu bekämpfen, die übermäßige Wärme durch kühlende Mittel, die übermäßige Kälte durch wär104

105

ARETAIOS

OF

CAPPADOCIA

965

tional and by then traditional in medical praxis - comprised animal, mineral, and vegetable substances, and were administered in standard ways: calefacients, sternutatories, fomentations, cataplasms, emetics, stomachics, epithemes, clysters, nervines, diuretics, ointments, and the like. 110 The method of selection and application of the pharmacotherapy is explained by how the substance(s) affect(s) the pneumatic constitution in the terms of cooling or warming or purging. For example, in the case of coeliac disease, which is caused by the lack of tonos of the warm pneuma, food remains undigested and the stomach becomes cooled. Treatment consists of astringents for rousing the heat of the stomach: in particular, mustard and spurge epithemes are recommended for ridding the stomach of its coolness and for restoring the heat. In addition, astringent drinks of myrtle, plaintain, and quince are ingested, as well as a beverage of ginger, pepper, and wild parsley, which warm the stomach and digestive tract. If all this fails, then the patient is administered an emetic made from radishes and a purge with white hellebore; the purpose was to purify and cleanse and to "rekindle the heat" (8.7 [p. 166.12-26]; for the cause of this disease, 4.7 [p. 74.3 — 13]). W E L L M A N N and S T A N N A R D have discussed these treatments in great detail and the reader is advised to consult their invaluable work. But I may note several cures to demonstrate that Pneumatic doctrine dictates choice of therapy. To heat and dry Aretaios recommends drug compounds made from vipers (7.3 [p. 153.23—26]); for dispersing heat, roasted swine brain (5.10 [p. 115.1-3]); for heating and drying and expelling pneuma, castoreum (5.2 [p. 100.22—23, 2 3 - 2 9 ] ) ; for restoring dryness by moistening, apples roasted in suet (6.1 [p. 93.26]); for correcting the dryness and density of the body in melancholia, head and feet of swine, hares, or goats (7.5 [p. 158.29]); for getting rid of excessive pneuma, nitron (6.1 [p. 119.13-15]); for heating and drying, pepper in forms of drinks, clysters, ointments, and cataplasms (perfect therefore for dissolving cold pneuma·. 5.2 [p. 98.10 and p. 100.24]); for cooling and congealing, nard (ideal for diabetes: 8.2 [p. 162.18-23]); cf. 6.3 [p. 129.8-12]); for removing heat and pneuma, a plaster of salt with dried mustard applied to the chest (6.1 [p. 120.20-22]). To check the loss of blood from internal bleeding, Aretaios recommends hemostatics like starch or syrups with powdered gall (6.2 [p. 124.1-9]) or astringents like salt with gruel (6.2 [p. 124.23-27]). Even from this brief survey it should be clear that Aretaios is, in all respects, a Pneumatist. Hippocraticisms are rare; for someone whom K U D L I E N considers „den pneumatischen Hippokratiker par excellence"m only twenty parallels do not_ testify to a very ardent disciple. 112 Besides, we must ask whether such parallels are appropriations, part of the general medical tradition, mende, die übermäßige Feuchtigkeit durch anfeuchtende Mittel."

durch trocknende

und die übermäßige

Trockenheit

110

O n all t h i s , s e e WELLMANN, S c h u l e , p p . 2 0 2 - 2 5 , 2 2 9 - 3 1 , a n d STANNARD, p p . 3 9 - 5 3 .

111

KUDLIEN, A r z t e , p . 1 1 0 8 .

112

See the meager list of similia given by KUDLIEN in the second edition of HUDE'S text (pp. 1 7 3 - 7 4 ) .

966

STEVEN M . O B E R H E L M A N

or, as KuDLiEN w o u l d have it, reflections of a H i p p o c r a t i s t . As WESLEY SMITH

has noted, the Pneumatists did not glean much from the Hippocratica - for example, the theory of the four humors is ignored by them - and this is certainly the case for Aretaios. 1 1 3 What is Hippocratic in Aretaios, in the final analysis, is not the medical theories or praxis, but only the style. If we may place Aretaios in the mid-first century A.D., as KUDLIEN and I have suggested (but for different reasons), then Aretaios' writings reflect Pneumatism in its acme, in its "orthodox" form if you will, for we do not see here the Eclectic tendencies that soon permeate this school. Most medical historians have bestowed encomia on Aretaios for his "graphic accuracy and fidelity of his pictures of disease [that excel all but] the Father of Medicine." 1 1 4 But we should also credit this physician for his replication of the medical sect to which he belonged so well. 113

114

(above, note 70), p. 233. F. H . GARRISON, An Introduction to the History of Medicine, with Medical Chronology, Suggestions for Study and Bibliographic Data, 4th ed. (Philadelphia, 1960), pp. 110—11. I wish to extend my thanks to my colleagues W U L F K O E P K E and C R A I G K A L L E N D O R F , w h o read over an earlier draft of this paper and offered astute and useful criticism. SMITH

Soranus of Ephesus: Methodicorum by

A N N ELLIS H A N S O N ,

and

Ann Arbor,

M O N I C A H . GREEN,

Durham,

princeps MI NC

Contents Introduction I. 'Soranus', 'Soranian', and 'Pseudo-Soranus' II. Soranus of Ephesus and Rome III. Soranus as practitioner of the Method IV. Soranus' writings

969 970 981 988 1005

A. Philosophical writings 1. O n the soul' I - I V ('Περί ψ υ χ ή ς ' δ')

1006 1006

Β. Soranus' literary and philological treatises 2. 'Lives of the physicians: sects and treatises' I - X ('Βίοι ιατρών και αιρέσεις καί συντάγματα' ι') 3. ' C o m m e n t a r y to Hippocrates' (?), ' C o m m e n t a r y to Hippocrates' Aphorisms' (?), ' C o m m e n t a r y to Hippocrates' Nature of the child' (?) 4. 'Etymologies of the body of m a n ' ("Ετυμολογίαι του σώματος του ανθρώπου')

1007

C. Medical illustrations

1023

D. Medical writings 5. ['Gynecology:] According to questioning' I—II ('Cateperotiana') 6. 'Gynaikeia' I - I V ('Γυναικεία' δ') 7. 'Seed' and 'Generation' ('Σπέρμα' and 'Ζφογονία') 8. 'Acute diseases' and 'Chronic diseases' ( " Ο ξ έ α παθήματα' and 'Χρόνια παθήματα') 9. 'Aitiologoumena', or 'Causes of diseases' ('Αίτιολογούμενα', or 'Ai παθών αίτίαι') 10. 'Commonalities' ('Κοινότητες') 11. 'Fevers' ('Πυρετοί') 12. 'Hygiene' ("Υγιεινόν') 13. 'Remedies' ('Βοηθήματα', 'Boethematicus') 14. 'Philiatros' ('Φιλίατρος') 15. 'Drugs' ('Φαρμακεία') I - I V (?) and 16. ' H a n d b o o k of pharmaceuticals' ('Μονόβιβλον φαρμακευτικόν') 17. 'The eye' ( " Ο οφθαλμός' ?; perhaps Ό ί οφθαλμοί', 'Eyes'; ' O p h t h a l micus')

1025 1029 1025 1031

1007 1018 1021

1033 1034 1035 1035 1036 1037 1038 1038 1038 1039

SORANUS OF EPHESUS: METHODICORVM 18. 19. 20. 21.

PRINCEPS

'Surgery' ('Χειρουργούμενα'; 'Chirurgumenon') 'Bandages' ("Επίδεσμοι') 'Problems' (?) 'Clysters'

V. The Nachleben

of Soranus in the West

Bibliography: Soranus, Methodicorum

princeps

I. Editions, commentaries, and translations of ancient writers cited in the text II. Modern discussions

969 1041 1041 1042 1042 1042 1061 . . . 1061 1064

Appendix: Manuscripts of Latin Translations or Adaptations of Soranus' 'Gynecology' and derivative works 1072

Introduction Historians of medicine, both ancient and modern, reserve a place for Soranus among the great medical practitioners of the Greco-Roman world, setting him in a direct line that begins with Hippocrates, extends through the early anatomists Herophilus and Erasistratus, and culminates in Galen. In spite of his lofty reputation, Soranus' medical writings have not survived intact into modern times, and nothing from Soranus' hand is free of alteration through epitomization, translation, or other fragmentation (section I). Most fully preserved in the original Greek are the first two books of his gynecological treatise, 'Gynaikeia'. Caelius Aurelianus' Latin version of 'Acute diseases' and 'Chronic diseases' can also give some impression of Soranus' Greek originals (sections I and IV D.8). Soranus' other works are known by title and/or from excerpts (section IV); there are also Soranian pseudepigrapha. The fragments of Soranus' writings and the testimonia for his life have yet to be gathered together. The remains, meager as they are, do document Soranus' wide learning and broad interests, ranging far beyond pathological medicine. They suggest a sensible and sympathetic clinician, as much concerned with patients' overall well-being as with their diseases. The remains likewise underscore how Soranus was partitioned off into "Soranus, famous gynecologist," "Soranus, most learned in philosophy," "Soranus etymologist," "Soranus medical doxographer and historian of medicine," as the writings of one and the same versatile physician of antiquity are put to a variety of uses - without thought that original versions of his works might some day disappear. Soranus is respected by subsequent medical practitioners and idolized by those who followed him as members of the Methodist sect, among whom must number his most prolific adaptor, Caelius Aurelianus. Even Galen censures Soranus largely for his employment of technical, Methodic jargon and his sloppy Methodic language, although he pillories other doctors of the Method. Galen ridicules those doctors of the Method who precede Soranus, such as Thessalus, and he carps at contemporary Methodists, such as Julianus, whom Galen met in Alexandria, and Attalus, a pupil of Soranus' practicing in Galen's Rome (section III). In contrast to the loquacious Galen, Soranus passes over his contemporaries in silence and he reveals virtu65·

970

A N N ELLIS H A N S O N -

M O N I C A H.

GREEN

ally nothing about himself, the man behind the doctor's mask (section II), even though he frequently mentions medical predecessors. Soranus' comments about the patients he attends do indicate, however, that like some doctors of Greek origin who make their way to Rome, his clientele is largely made up of Roman elite families, 1 who have come to prefer Greek practitioners and sophisticated Hellenic medicine. Soranus' writings are influential among Greek-speakers, where they continue to be read by such as Tertullian, Oribasius, Orion, and Meletius the monk (sections IV and V). Latin versions of Soranus' writings also play a role in the medicine of the western provinces, and in his Latin guise this Metbodicorum princeps, as Caelius reverently calls Soranus (Tard. pass. I i.50, CML VI,1, 458.1 BENDZ), continues to influence medical practices in the west long after Roman emperors cease to rule at Rome (section V).

I. 'Soranus

'Soranian

and 'Pseudo-Soranus '

JOHANNES ILBERG included four treatises in his edition of 'Soranus' for 'Corpus Medicorum Graecorum' in 1 9 2 7 : 2 the 'Gynaikeia' in four books (CMG IV, 1 - 1 5 2 ILBERG); two small texts preserved in the 9th/10th cent. Florentine ms. assembled by Nicetas, doctor of Spoleto (Bibl. Med. Laur.-Plut. 74,7) - 'Signs of fractures' (CMG IV, 1 5 3 - 5 8 ILBERG) and 'Bandages' (CMG IV, 1 5 9 - 7 1 ILBERG); and the 'Life of Hippocrates' that attaches to mss. of the 'Hippocratic Corpus' (CMG IV, 173—78 ILBERG). Soranus is specifically named in the Florentine ms. as author of 'Signs of fractures', and ILBERG considered the text an excerpt from the more extensive, and now lost, 'Surgery' (IV D.18). Sixty illustrations accompany 'Bandages' (IV D.19) in the Laurentian ms. and the text directly follows 'Signs of fractures'. Soranus' name also attaches to the 'Life of Hippocrates' that appears in some mss. of the 'Hippocratic Corpus'; even so, Soranus' authorship of this work has been vigorously denied and enthusiastically supported, both before and after ILBERG'S edition (IV B.2). ILBERG did not find MAX WELLMANN'S ingenious attempts to attribute the 'Anonymus Londinensis' ( = P . Brit. Lib. inv. 137 = R Lit. Lond. 165 = PACK3 2339) to Soranus convincing enough to include the text in his edition. 3 1

2 3

See e. g. Gyn. II 5 7 , where Soranus carries his discussion of child rearing only to the point where the child is turned over to a pedagogue in order for the child to be prepared by him for the parents. Soranus does not discuss the topic of child rearing, once the child has grown beyond the care of the wet nurse, because it belongs to the realm of philosophy. Praefatio V - x v ILBERG. Praefatio xi ILBERG; cf. also KIND ( 1 9 2 7 ) , col. 1 1 1 6 . See espec. WELLMANN ( 1 9 2 2 ) . WELLMANN'S arguments for Soranus as author, especially of the doxographic chapters of the 'Anonymus', have won few converts (see e.g. JONES [ 1 9 4 7 ] , 7: "The argument is very attractive, although not quite convincing..."), although GOUREVITCH (Budé I x x i x - x x x ) seems more receptive. — A new edition of the 'Anonymus Londinensis' is being prepared by MANETTI ( 1 9 8 6 ) and EADEM ( 1 9 9 0 b ) ; portions of her revised text appear in CPF 11 * and I 1 * * .

S O R A N U S O F EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

971

As mentioned above, Soranus' 'Gynaikeia' is his only work to survive in Greek, but the text, as we have it in ILBERG'S edition, has been painstakingly reconstructed out of a gynecological miscellany contained in a fifteenth century Paris ms. (Bibl. nat. Par. Gr. 2153 = Ρ), with the aid of a Latinized reflection of Soranus' treatise. 4 In Ρ the miscellaneous text is preceded by a list (pinax) of 164 gynecological maladies (218 r —219 v ). Some chapters, for which headings are given in the list, do not appear in the text of the miscellany; other headings refer to chapters the compiler draws from Book XVI of Aetius' medical compendium; still other headings, however, represent Soranus. 5 Important is the note between chapters 44 and 45 (218V), referring to polychrome illustrations which will show the fetus in the uterus in various positions, in order to guide the midwife in expelling the baby in cases of dystocia; in the text of Ρ itself, however, the pictures are omitted (IV C and D.6). 6 The process of disentangling Soranus' 'Gynaikeia' from the miscellany's conflation with Aetius begins with FRIEDRICH REINHOLD DIETZ'S discovery of ms. Ρ in 1830 and with his recognition of the ms.'s importance for retrieving Soranus. DIETZ'S findings were published posthumously in 1838; FRANCIS ZACHARY ERMERINS then took up the task of ameliorating DIETZ'S text, employing not only conjecture, but also rearranging the text on the basis of a work ERMERINS thought to be a Greek adaptation of Soranus, the gynecology of 'Moschion'; his edition of Soranus' 'Gynaikeia' appeared in 1869. In the next stage VALENTIN ROSE demonstrated that this latter work by Moschion was but a late Byzantine translation of the Latin 'Genecia' by Muscio/Mustio, a man otherwise unknown, 7 and in 1882 ROSE brought out his edition of the Latin and republished DIETZ' text of Soranus, together with ERMERINS' ameliorations. At present, the only complete edition of the Greek of Soranus' 'Gynaikeia' is that by ILBERG for 'Corpus Medicorum Graecorum' in 1927; ILBERG presented a full study of the evidence for Soranus' text in 1910, and the introduction to his edition repeats the basic information in summary form (Praefatio, C M G IV v—xv ILBERG). A new edition of the Greek text of the 'Gynaikeia', with French translation and very useful commentary, has, by this writing, completed Books I and II (BURGUIÈRE, GOUREVITCH, MALINAS in the Budé series). 4

5 6

7

Summary by ILBERG in Praefatio v - x i ILBERG; by BURGUIÈRE (Budé I xlvii-liv). See also MANETTI (1990a), 2 6 1 - 7 0 . For full discussion, see ILBERG (1910). Praefatiao x v i - x x i ILBERG; for a reproduction of folio 218 v , see ILBERG (1910), Tafel I. The corresponding folia in Ρ are partly blank, Praefatio vii-viii ILBERG; see also ILBERG (1910), 1 7 - 2 1 . Some notion of the illustrations for dystocia can be drawn, for example, f r o m illustrated copies of the 'Genecia' of Muscio, the oldest of which occur in the Brussels ms. Bibl. roy. 3 7 0 1 - 1 5 (reproduced in RADICCHI; some illustrations in WEINDLER [1908] and GREEN [1991], 1 6 3 - 6 5 ) ; sixty illustrations accompany the text of Soranus' 'Bandages' (perhaps an extract f r o m his 'Surgery', see IV D.19), in the Florentine ms Bibl. Med.-Laur. Plut. 74,7 (reproduced in ILBERG, plates I - X V ) . „... cuius incerta sunt nomen gens aetas omnia", Praefatio viii ROSE. The proper spelling of his name - Muscio or Mustio - remains a matter of debate, since the mss. differ see below section V and note 292; for the 'Cateperotiana' in particular, see IV D.5.

972

A N N ELLIS H A N S O N -

M O N I C A H. GREEN

In his edition ILBERG systematically applied the formula whereby all passages in the unique Paris ms. that also appear in the gynecology of Aetius (Book XVI) are to be discarded as interpolations which were introduced into the text of Soranus by the compiler of the text preserved in the Paris ms. P.8 ILBERG imagined that compiler to be a Byzantine physician with the good fortune to have at hand both Soranus' 'Gynaikeia' and the gynecology of Aetius (Book XVI); although the two works are quite distinct, this compiler conflated the two to make his own new production. He relied heavily on the first two books of Soranus' 'Gynaikeia' (Gyn. I and II), in which Soranus treats normal conditions of women, such as menstruation and childbirth, but less so on his third book (Gyn. III), in which he has turned to morbid conditions, and hardly at all on his fourth book (Gyn. IV) — only five chapters out of eighteen are retained from Soranus. 9 DANIELA MANETTI draws attention once again to a fragmentary, fourth-century papyrus, PSI II 117 (= PACK3 1483), for on its recto it not only offers Gynaikeia III 2—3 (94.20—95.13 ILBERG) with interesting variants incorporated into the text by ILBERG, but on its verso, additional fragments of the argument as to whether women have maladies specifically their own, lost in lacuna in ms. P. Since the publication of ILBERG'S edition, a Latin version of the 'Gynaikeia' by Caelius Aurelianus has also come to light, and the text it offers is more full than the fragment from a Leiden ms. belonging to Voss that was transcribed by R O S E . 1 0 The editors, MIRIAM and ISRAEL DRABKIN, argue that although Caelius Aurelianus' version is conflated with the Latin version by Muscio, its Latinizing is separate from and independent of Muscio. The new edition of the Greek text in the Budé series has the opportunity to take advantage of these developments since ILBERG'S edition in 1927. The Greek 'Gynaikeia', then, must take pride of place in defining 'Soranus', because the text has come to our time in best condition. 1 1 The 'Gynaikeia' is, however, a practical manual of gynecology, albeit an elegant example of its type, and it represents but one facet of Soranus' medical interests and gives only partial display to his versatility. The 'Gynaikeia' does contain striking examples of Soranus' compositional trademarks - his tendency to produce careful definitions of terms (e.g. Gyn. 1 3 6 - 4 1 , discussed in this section); his propensity to list and then contest opinions from earlier physicians, most often agreeing himself with the last opinion he surveys (e.g. Gyn. III 2—5, section 8

Cf. also

MANETTI

S ILBERG ( 1 9 1 0 ) ,

(1990a), 2 6 1 - 7 0 .

71-73.

10

R O S E , Muscio ( 1 8 8 2 ) , 1 4 2 : the Leiden ms. Voss. lat. Q . 9 fol. ult. verso (Ex genetta celti aureliani methodici siccensis) = CA Gen. 1 4 7 - 4 9 , 1 4 . 3 5 9 - 1 5 . 3 7 5 D R A B K I N S . The editors characterize the fifteen leaves of the CA Gen. ms. (now N Y Acad, of Med. ms. SAFE) as "... not exclusively a text of Caelius Aurelianus, but the result of a compilation or compilations made chiefly from two different translations and abridgments of Soranus' 'Gynaiceia', one by Caelius and the other by Mustio" (Praefatio viii D R A B K I N S ) .

11

So also

(1983) 186 and note 258; R U B E N S T E I N (1985), 121, and note 3. Because focus is 'Methodism', and not 'Soranus', he makes greater use of CA Cel. pass, and Tard. pass. In our discussion Soranus is the focus and hence his 'Gynaikeia' plays the central role — see also IV D.8. LLOYD

RUBENSTEIN'S

S O R A N U S O F EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

973

III); his predilection to decorate medical narrative with etymologies (e. g. Gyn. I 6, this section). At the same time, it is sobering to note the extent to which these same aspects of Soranus' 'Gynaikeia' are curtailed in Latin versions. As the preface by Muscio makes clear, however, he is Latinizing for midwives who do not read Greek and who require an abridged version of Soranus' 'Gynaikeia', so that it will not overtax the weaker minds of the medicae and the obstetrices.12 Caelius Aurelianus likewise claims to be producing his version of the 'Gynaikeia' for female practitioners, appealing to an age-old gender issue in medicine: although doctors of long ago have written gynecologies, women patients remain reticent before the male doctor, and employment of properly trained, female care-givers offers a better alternative. 1 3 While it remains a matter of debate how many female practitioners (maiai) are literate in Greek when Soranus lives at Rome and how many are able to flesh out their medical training with theory through the reading of Soranus, as he imagines (Gyn. I 3), 1 4 by the time of Caelius Aurelianus and Muscio, Greek-reading nurses and midwives have disappeared from the Latin west. Their texts are to service Latin-reading midwives, and the doxographies and etymologies of Soranus' Greek original are curtailed for good reason. The etymologies that decorate Soranus' discussion of the names for the uterus in the 'Gynaikeia' are, for example, nearly as flat in Muscio's Latin as they are in English: "The uterus (mêtra) is also termed hystera and delpbys. It is termed mêtra, because it is the mother {meter) of all the embryos borne from it, or because it makes (1) mothers of those who possess it; according to some others, because it possesses a (2) measuring of time (metron) in regard to menstruation and childbirth. And it is termed hystera because (3) afterwards (hysteron) it yields up its products, or because it lies after (hystera) all the entrails, if not precisely, at least broadly speaking. And it is termed delphys because it is able to procreate (4) brothers (adelphoi) and sisters (adelphai)." (Gyn. I 6). 1 5 12 13

Praefatio ROSE. For the textual problems of this preface, see IV D . 5 . CA Gen. I 1, 1.1 — 13 DRABKINS. For other references to the difficulties male doctors encounter w i t h female patients, see e . g . Hippocrates, Morb. mul. 1 6 2 , VIII 1 2 6 LITTRÉ and Herodotus' account of the Persian queen's breast tumor and her modesty before the Greek doctor D e m o c e d e s of Croton (III 1 3 1 - 3 4 ) . For the notion that female professionals are better able to minister to w o m e n in their w o m a n l y conditions, see e. g. Hyginus' story of Hagnodice, said t o be the first w o m a n to study medicine ( 2 7 4 . 1 0 — 1 3 H . J . ROSE; for w h i c h latter, s e e a l s o KING [ 1 9 8 6 ] ,

14

15

53-75).

See e. g. the discussion of Soranus' notion that maiai should be literate in the context of an argument that sets women's literacy at about half that for men, HARRIS ( 1 9 8 9 ) , 2 0 3 and 2 7 5 . As elsewhere, w e consult the English translation by TEMKIN, reissued in 1 9 9 1 in a paperback edition by Johns H o p k i n s University Press, although w e d o not always repeat its English. Rather, w e are likely, after consultation w i t h the Greek, to prefer our o w n adaptations. The same etymologies appear in the Caelius Aurelianus' ms., but have been introduced there by the compiler out of Muscio's version. Thus CA may even have suppressed the etymologies entirely at this point.

974

A N N ELLIS H A N S O N -

M O N I C A H. GREEN

Matrix quot nominibus vocatur? Matrix dicta est ab eo quod mulieres partu suo (1) matris efficiat. Grece etiam ystera appellator, id est novissima (3), eo quod novissima omnium in intestinis iaceat; aut quod annis XIIII vacua sit in virgine, post mutationem etatis (2 f ) effectum suum per partum mulieribus representat. Grece etiam delphis dicitur, quia (4) fratres efficit omnes qui ex una nascuntur (I 6 , 6 . 1 4 - 7 . 3 R O S E ) . Opinions of long-dead, Greek physicians are also pointless for late antique obstetrices, whose Latin-speaking employers might no longer be impressed by a recital of the names of Greek doctors, or by a summary of Greek medical theory from the mouth of a midwife. Although the Latin version of Caelius Aurelianus does suppress the etymological and the doxographic, his language is often quite faithful to Soranus' Greek. 16 Comparison of a specific passage shows how large the number of changes in matters of detail actually is: in the discussion of the proper time for fruitful intercourse Caelius Aurelianus' Latin retains approximately two-thirds of the Greek original's text (Gyn. I 36—41 and Gen. 1 4 6 - 5 1 ,

1 4 . 3 4 1 - 1 6 . 4 0 1 DRABKINS). M o s t o f w h a t h e o m i t s are

Soranus' stylistic niceties and his intellectual embellishments. 17 Yet from this 16

Cf. 'Introduction' to CA Gen. i x - x DRABKINS, in which three chief components of the composite Latin ms. are distinguished as Caelius Aurelianus, Muscio, and the compiler himself w h o interweaves the two: "The parts that are by Caelius are, in the main, quite literal renderings of Soranus, with large sections, especially the historical and doxographic material, omitted. Sometimes, however, we have merely a paraphrase of Soranus; on occasion, w h a t is presumably the Caelian version is considerably different from Soranus (see e.g. II 6 8 - 7 8 , below). There are also parts that seem entirely original with Caelius (e.g. the Introduction to the work 11), and many phrases and references that have n o counterpart in Soranus... Then there are numerous places where Caelius gives the Greek equivalents of the Latin terms used, a practice so common in his translations of Soranus' treatises on acute and chronic diseases (and generally in Latin versions of Greek medical works)." - RUBENSTEIN (1985), 121, and note 3, summarizes scholarly discussion up to 1985 on Caelius Aurelianus' use of Soranus and sets forth his own view - namely, that "... Caelius can be regarded as a translator. Although my account of Soranus's approach is based primarily on the Gyn., I shall accordingly refer to passages in Caelius as though they had been written by Soranus, bearing in mind that these passages were communicated through Caelius." We prefer the formulation of the Soranus/Caelius Aurelianus relationship in SCHRIJVERS (1985), passim, and especially 22—23 (below this section).

17

We have chosen this passage because much of it also appears in the Leiden-Voss ms. (above note 10). — CA Gen. omits from Soranus' Greek: 1. the graceful introduction (I 36.1, 25.11 — 16 ILBERG); 2. mention of massage (cf. also below; I 36.2, 2 5 . 1 9 - 2 0 ) ; 3. the comparison between menstruation, when it is increasing, and a hemorrhaging wound that refuses to close (I 36.6, 26.4 — 8); 4. the warning to disregard observed exceptions to the rule "derived from scientific theory" (I 36.9, 26.15 — 19); 5. the introductory sentence to the analogy between food and seed (I 37.1, 2 6 . 2 1 - 2 3 ) ; 6. the clause which looks to pregnancy after the seed is taken up (I 37.2, 2 6 . 2 6 - 2 7 ) ; 7. the discussion of children conceived during rape is drastically curtailed to a single, 13-word sentence (I 37.3, 2 6 . 2 7 33); 8. the extended analogy between food in the stomach and seed in the uterus (I 38.2—3, 27.4—14); 9. the analogy with drunkenness that concludes the section (I 38.6, 27.23—27); 10. the analogy with the farmer, carefully preparing his fields to receive seed (I 3 9 . 2 - 3 , 2 7 . 3 8 - 2 8 . 5 ) ; 11. mention of massage (I 40.1, 2 8 . 6 - 7 ; 4 0 . 1 - 2 ; 2 8 . 9 - 1 5 ) ; 12. reconciliation of contradictory advice on rubdowns from 'Hygiene' (I 40.4, 28.18 —

S O R A N U S O F EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

97S

same passage Caelius Aurelianus also excises a specific therapy, eschewing all mention of massage as an appropriate prelude (and/or postlude) to intercourse — even though he does not elsewhere excise references to massage, a form of passive exercise frequent in Methodist therapeutics (e.g. CA Gen. I 37, 11.258 DRABKINS, and Gyn. 125, 16.19 I L B E R G ) . 1 8 Soranus' own discussion of rubdowns here in the 'Gynaikeia' requires him to explain an apparent contradiction with what he has previously prescribed in his treatise 'Hygiene' (IV D.12). In that treatise, addressed to a more general audience, Soranus claims he advised " . . . t h a t the best time for intercourse is before a massage" (Gyn. 140). Soranus is at pains to make clear that in his 'Gynaikeia' he is exclusively concerned with women and with intercourse for childbearing, and, if the prime concern is conception, it is better that a woman lie quietly after intercourse so she may retain the seed that is now in her womb. 1 9 That Caelius Aurelianus might choose to omit this discussion from his Latin manual is understandable, since his audience would be unaware of the contradiction. Nonetheless, even his omissions here and elsewhere intentionally change the character of the work, and we prefer to label his 'Genecia' a version of Soranus' 'Gynaikeia', rather than a translation. The Latinizers, then, are deliberately refashioning a polished, Greek treatise on the mundane subject of gynecology and obstetrics into abridged Latin forms that suit their own purposes. Soranus supplies the Latinizers with topics to coyer in gynecology and a logical ordering in which to treat them; at the same time, Soranus' Greek text is tampered with in the process of making it Latin. Soranus' name is absent from the Latin titles, for they identify the 'Genecia' as belonging to Caelius Aurelianus, or to Muscio, and neither Latinizer appeals to Soranus by name in the body of the text with any frequency. 20

18

19 20

24). — Cf. the version in Muscio: " W h a t is the most appropriate time for a w o m a n to conceive? In the abatement of menstruation, when the desire for intercourse is present, in such a way so that her body is not full from an abundance of food, nor empty from lack of it, and after preparation of her body for commingling with her h u s b a n d " (I 33, 14.5— 10 ROSE). The comparison with Muscio at this point is perhaps unfair, for Muscio does not claim to be following the fuller 'Gynaikeia' in his first book (see IV D.5 on the 'Cateperotiana'). For a more general discussion of Caelius Aurelianus as translator of Soranus, see also SCHRIJVERS (1985), 2 2 - 2 3 . Cf. Celsus Med. II 14.1, for the prominence of massage in the therapeutics of Asclepiades of Bithynia, and I V D.12. For Asclepiades, see R A W S O N (1985), 1 7 0 - 7 8 and VALLANCE (1990) and (1993). Cf. HANSON (1991a), 2 6 0 - 6 8 . Twice in CA Gen.: I 23, 7.165 D R A B K I N S ("Soranus defines this natural function [= menstrual flows] as blood or fluid that flows naturally at definite times through the uterus, or sometimes through the vagina," cf. Gyn. 1 1 9 ; see also P I G E A U D [1982], 1 0 8 - 1 1 0 for CA's use of officium)·, and II 41, 82.534b D R A B K I N S ("But we say because of Soranus' opinion that this ['mole'] can be cured as if a chronic disease," cf. Gyn. III 38, 117.20 ILBERG, " . . . w h e r e a s we treat it even when it has become a chronic disease"). At least once in Muscio: Gen. I I xvii (55.8), 80.19 R O S E ("But our Soranus has suggested other reasons" — with noster added by the Copenhagen ms. Kgl. Bibl. 1653), but, as F R I E D E L (1892), 4 1 - 4 2 points out, the other passages in which Soranus' name is mentioned in the edition of Muscio by R O S E are ones in which R O S E found Soranus' name in the 12th cent.

976

A N N ELLIS H A N S O N -

M O N I C A H. GREEN

Further, the formats of the Latin versions amplify the erotematic, or questionand-answer, aspects largely implicit in the Greek 'Gynaikeia'. That is, the compilation Ρ punctuates the Greek treatise it presents with lemmata, or chapter headings, many of which are questions - "Who is fit to become a midwife?" (Gyn. I 3, 4.12 ILBERG).21 Subsequent editors since the compiler of Ρ introduce additional headings into the Greek text. 2 2 To take a specific example: the Greek text, as Soranus apparently once wrote it, is in harmony with the chapter heading that precedes it ("Who is fit to become a midwife?"), for it begins "This section is of use to prevent fruitless work and the teaching of unfit persons ..." At the same time, Soranus' lead sentence does not require an interrogative chapter heading, and the text proceeds clearly enough without it. In the end, it is not certain whether this or that chapter heading, many of them questions, originated with Soranus. Be that as it may, subsequent editors of the Greek text do expand erotematic format in the 'Gynaikeia', even as Latinizers earlier seem to have expanded the question-and-answer format in their various 'Genecia'. 23 Thus Caelius Aurelianus introduces a chapter heading at a point where none exists in P, and he appears to have created his new heading out of Soranus' lead sentence. "When does the state of the soul endow the developing fetus with its forms?" is seemingly drawn from "One must certainly speak about the fact that the state of the soul endows the developing fetus with its forms," the paragraph's lead sentence. 24 Muscio's Latin version is also catechistic to a degree far greater than Soranus' 'Gynaikeia'. Copenhagen ms. Kgl. Bibl. 1653, although Soranus' name is lacking in the t w o earlier mss. - the 9th/10th cent. Brussels codex Bibl. roy. 3701 — 15 and the 11th cent. Florentine Bibl. Med.-Laur. Plut. 73,1. - This latter Florentine ms. (Bibl. Med.-Laur. Plut. 73,1) also carries a short 'Liber geneciae ad Soteris obsetrix', edited by ROSE (pp. 1 3 1 - 3 9 ) . Soteris directs questions to Soranus and he responds; the topics in the discussion are 'Soranian', but the answers are not always consistent with the 'Gynaikeia' - e.g. Soteris says, "Is perpetual virginity healthful?" Soranus responds, "Yes, in every way. Sexual intercourse is a different thing for men and for w o m e n " (cf. Gyn. 130, "...since men w h o remain chaste are stronger and bigger than the others and pass their lives in better health, correspondingly it follows that for women too virginity in general is healthful"). See also below, IV D.5 and V. 21

22

23

24

Question-form dominates the lemmata in Gyn. I, with the explanative peri plus genitive becoming more and more common in the later books. M a n y of these lemmata also appear in the table of contents ( p i n a x ) in P. See ILBERG'S text, where the headings he prints without the authority of Ρ are set within angular brackets — e.g. before II 12.1, 59.9 ILBERG, where " H o w to cleanse" is added by R O S E , or before II 14.1, 60.28 ILBERG, where " H o w to swaddle" is added by E R M E R I N S . Only evidence from CA Gen. will be considered here; for Muscio and the 'Cateperotiana', see IV D.5. Chapter headings, many of them questions, also divide the text in CA Cel. pass, and Tard. Pass., and lead sentences sometimes supply the wording for such headings (cf. CA Cel. pass. I i.20, 1 4 2 . 2 - 8 B E N D Z , or III x.101, 3 5 2 . 5 - 7 B E N D Z ) . C A Gen. I 5 0 , 1 5 . 3 8 3 - 3 8 5 D R A B K I N S (Quando anime habitudo exortis tradat corporibus formas? Merito dicendum quod anime habitudo exortis tradat corporibus formas Cf. Gyn. I 39, where the lead sentence is " W h a t is one to say concerning the fact that various states of the soul also produce certain changes in the shape of the fetus?"). This material is omitted from Muscio.

S O R A N U S O F E P H E S U S : METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

977

The Latin 'Genecia', then, can be juxtaposed to the Greek 'Gynaikeia', and such juxtapositions show them to be versions and adaptations, not translations - 'Soranian', if you will, not 'Soranus'. Perhaps we might even say "near to Soranus" and "able to stand in place of Soranus" — but only if " S o r a n u s " be lost. Interventions occur in global matters of format (e. g. heightening erotematic aspects), as well as in content (e.g. curtailing etymologies, omitting historical material) and in matters of detail (e. g. omission of the therapeutic aid of rubdowns). The Latin 'Genecia' do give an impression of 'Soranus' to those who lack access to the Greek. The 'Soranian' reflections that WASZINK and others have found in Tertulliano 'On the soul' ('De anima') likewise give some indication of what Soranus' philosophical writings might have been like, and, in particular, his lost treatise on the soul. Tertullian cites Soranus by name eight times in the course of his 'De anima', drawing attention to Soranus' authority in such matters by introducing him as "that very learned author of Methodic medicine," the one who " . . . h a s himself commented very fully on the soul in four volumes, an expert in the opinions of the philosophers" (6.6); Soranus is also "the arguer," Tertullian's ally in constructing a convincing argument (38.3). 2 5 Like the Latinizers of the 'Gynaikeia', Tertullian redefines Soranus according to his own, immediate purposes, appealing to him as doctor-philosopher-advocate, yet he also introduces Soranus' name into the body of his text for the prestige and authority it brings. While Tertullian finds Soranus' 'Soul' useful, especially for refutations of earlier philosophers' views about the soul, 2 6 the Christian apologist frequently parts company with the pagan Soranus who, although " . . . he vindicated the corporeal nature of the soul, nonetheless deprived it of its immortality" (6.6). Soranus' lost treatise cannot be constructed in any detail on the basis of Tertullian; nonetheless, WASZINK also argues that Soranus has offered this Latin adaptor not only a framework and basic ordering of topics (which Tertullian expands with Christian themes), 2 7 but likewise a highly critical stance in 25 26

Cf. WASZINK, Tertullian 4 3 8 . See further below, IV A.L. WASZINK, Tertullian 3 3 * - 4 4 * argues that Tertullian is not likely to have consulted other works by Soranus, and at 2 7 8 - 7 9 he adduces many other parallels for De anima 1 9 . 7 - 8 , the infant's weeping entry into this world, beside Gyn. I I 1 1 . For Tertullian's borrowing of specific material from Soranus' 'Peri psychés', see WASZINK'S notes to chapters 5, 6 . 6 - 7 , 8 . 3 - 4 , 9.5, 12.2,14.2, 15.3, 1 7 . 2 - 4 , 19.2, 20.4, 25.2, 38.3, 43.2, 51.2,

27

54.1-2.

In general, WASZINK is less inclined than KARPP (1934) to attribute entire chapters of Tertullian's treatise to Soranus. WASZINK, Tertullian 26*-36*. Building on the earlier work of DIELS (1958 repr.), in which DIELS noted similarities in order of presentation between Tertullian and the 'Vetusta placita', WASZINK expands the discussion. He outlines Tertullian's 'De anima' as follows (pp. 1 5 * - 2 0 * , but WASZINK'S subsections are noted here only when pertinent to Soranus): Part I (Preface; I. The soul's beginning; II. Corporeality; III. Shape and Color; IV. Unity, divided into a.b.c.; V. Questions concerning unity, divided into a.b.c.d.e.; VI. Recapitulation of part I). Part II (I. Polemical part; II. Positive part; III. Digression on the doctrine of metempsychosis; IV. Continuation of the positive part). Part III (I. Growth of the soul; II. Puberty of the soul; III. Sin; IV. Sleep; V. Dream; VI. Death; VII. Fate of the soul after death; Epilogue). WASZINK concludes that Tertullian followed Soranus' order of discussion

978

A N N ELLIS H A N S O N

-

M O N I C A H.

GREEN

doxography, through which authorities are cited in order to refute them. 2 8 WESLEY SMITH has appropriately labeled Soranus' habits in the writing of doxography as "hamartography." Soranus also writes on acute and chronic diseases, and he cross-references his 'Acute diseases' twice in the 'Gynaikeia': first, to explain why he has discussed satyriasis in two different treatises. Because satyriasis occurs more often in men than in women, he has discussed the sickness in general fashion in his 'Acute diseases'; yet since it also afflicts women, he must cover the exclusively female aspects of satyriasis in a gynecological context (Gyn. III 2 5 ; cf. CA Cel. pass. III xviii 1 7 5 - 8 7 ) . 2 9 Again, in his discussion of difficult labor, readers are directed to his 'Acute diseases' in order to learn the signs of torpor and lethargy (Gyn. IV 6; cf. CA Cel. pass. II i.1 — 86, espec. 9—21). Soranus' forerunners and precursors in Methodist traditions also wrote works entitled 'Acute diseases' or 'Chronic diseases': Asclepiades of Bithynia, an 'Acute diseases' in at least three books (CA Cel. pass. I i.6; Tard. pass. II vii.109); Asclepiades' pupil Lucius, a 'Chronic diseases' in three books (Gyn. III 2); Themison of Laodicea, an 'Acute diseases' (CA Cel. pass. I xvi.155) and a 'Chronic diseases' (Gyn. III 2 4 ; cf. CA Tard. pass. I i.3). 3 0 Soranus cites from Themison's 'Chronic diseases' in the 'Gynaikeia', because, as often in Soranus' opinion, Themison has got himself confused and has violated the correct principles of the Method he enunciated elsewhere: "Themison is therefore deserving of censure when, in the third book of 'Chronic diseases', he approves of relaxing remedies in inflammation without fever, while in inflammation with fever he advises astringent remedies, the juice of black nightshade and perdikion. He is deceived by the concomitant heat into prescribing cooling remedies and later even rose oil in water, without realizing that things which increase inflammation also heighten the heat." (Gyn. III 24).

for the following (p. 3 3 * ) : Part I, sections II, IV.a & c, V.a & c (i.e. "corporeality of the soul, unity of the soul and parts of the soul, ήγεμονικόν, sense perceptions," p. 3 3 * ) ; Part II, sections I, II (i. e. "origin of the soul, the soul of the e m b r y o , " p. 3 3 * ) ; Part III, sections II, IV, VI ("puberty of the soul, sleep, death," p. 3 3 * ) . 28

WASZINK, Tertullian 2 6 * - 3 6 * , although he derives the notion that Soranus writes d o x o graphy in this fashion from the 'Acute diseases' and the 'Chronic diseases' of Caelius Aurelianus. We try here to avoid circular argument by establishing above that this style of doxographic writing is a habit of Soranus in the 'Gynaikeia'. For "hamartography," see SMITH ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 2 2 4 - 2 5 , where he cites his examples primarily from the 'Acute diseases' and the 'Chronic diseases' of Caelius Aurelianus. WASZINK stops far short of attributing all Tertullian's negative citations of previous pagan authorities to Soranus (e. g. Tertullian 3 6 * ) .

29

Norms for medical genres, with regard to what is appropriate subject matter for "thé gynecological treatise," seem to exist already by the time of the 'Hippocratic Corpus'; see IVD.12.

30

See VIETMEIER ( 1 9 3 7 ) , 5 5 — 5 6 , for the importance of 'acute' and 'chronic' diseases in Methodism, and below, IV D . 8 . For Asclepiades, see RAWSON ( 1 9 8 5 ) , 1 7 0 - 7 8 and VALLANCE ( 1 9 9 0 ) , passim·, cf. also VALLANCE ( 1 9 9 3 ) .

SORANUS

OF

EPHESUS:

METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

979

Caelius Aurelianus also Latinized Soranus' 'Acute diseases' in three books and his 'Chronic diseases' in five books. No Greek original remains against which to monitor his Latinizing in this instance. To be sure, Caelius Aurelianus speaks the prefaces in his own voice, just as he does in the 'Genecia', and he waits to mention Soranus by name until the point at which he has turned to lethargy in the second book of 'Acute diseases'; near the end of the introductory overview (beginning with an etymology that derives 'lethargy' from the Greek words lêthê, 'forgetfulness', and argia, 'idleness', and continuing with a catalog of earlier doctors' definitions of lethargy), he reports: "But Soranus, whose works I have tried to Latinize here, declares that lethargy is a swift or acute attack with acute fevers and a large, slow, hollow pulse." (Cel. pass. II i.8). It seems to us possible that Caelius Aurelianus remains closer to Soranus' original in the 'Acute diseases' and 'Chronic diseases', than he does in his 'Genecia', for in this enterprise his intended audience is a broader one in which men predominate, rather than a largely gynecological one. Thus, in contrast to his practice in the 'Genecia' - and closer to the practice of Tertullian in 'De anima' — Caelius Aurelianus frequently mentions Soranus by name in both his 'Acute diseases' and his 'Chronic diseases', reiterating his dependence upon the Methodicorum princeps and repeatedly ratifying his judgments. 31 While it is naive to suppose that Caelius Aurelianus' Latin represents every word of Soranus' Greek, or represents only Soranus' ipsissima verba,32 Soranus' work surely served Caelius Aurelianus as the most important source for the acute and 31

Cel. pass. II χ 6 5 ("these are the things of Soranus whose works I have humbly undertaken to Latinize h e r e " ) , or II x x v i i i . 1 4 7 ( " . . . b u t according to Soranus, whose very accurate judgments I am trying to write down in L a t i n " ) , cf. also II xii 8 6 , II xviii 1 1 2 , II x i x 1 2 1 , II xxii 1 3 0 , II xxvi 1 4 2 , II xxxiii 1 7 7 , II x x x i v 1 8 3 , II xxxvii 1 9 1 , II xxxvii 2 1 7 , III i 5. And in Tard. pass, praefatio 3, I iv 8 1 , II i 1 6 , II vii 9 7 , II xii 1 3 8 , III viii 1 2 2 , V ii 4 2 . As SCHANZ-HOSIUS-KRÜGER ( 1 9 2 0 ) , 2 8 6 observe, CA is open about his use of Soranus' work and makes no attempt to gloss over his debts to Soranus. See also Praefatio xi ILBERG; PIGEAUD ( 1 9 8 2 ) , 1 0 6 - 1 0 7 .

32

As SCHANZ-HOSIUS-KRÜGER ( 1 9 2 0 ) , 2 8 7 , conclude, it is difficult to specify the extent to which this is an adaptation, rather than a translation - yet they suspect a fair degree of interference and interpretation. T h e scholarly literature shows widely differing views on the matter, from ROSE ( 1 8 7 0 ) , 1 6 7 (where C A is said to be a faithful translator and all cross-refs. to other works in the text refer to Soranus' own works, not to works by CA), to LLOYD ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 1 8 6 (where he searches for the best witness to Soranus' Methodism and finds the 'Gynaikeia' " . . . b o t h more reliable and more interesting than the paraphrastic Latin versions of his 'Acute' and 'Chronic diseases' that we have from C A " ) . See also PIGEAUD ( 1 9 8 2 ) ,

105-106;

RUBENSTEIN

(1985),

121

and note 3; and, most

especially,

SCHRIJVERS ( 1 9 8 5 ) , 1 - 3 . All three offer earlier bibliography on the question. VALLANCE ( 1 9 9 0 ) , 5 and note 7, sets the burden of proof on those w h o use CA as evidence for Soranus, requiring they first establish his validity as a source. It is fair to generalize that in the 'Genecia' C A omits historical and etymological materials and otherwise vacillates between paraphrase and translation; still, in the absence of the Greek original it is not clear to what extent these same practices dominate his Latinizing in 'Acute diseases' and 'Chronic diseases'.

980

A N N ELLIS H A N S O N

-

M O N I C A H.

GREEN

chronic diseases of Methodic medicine. It is also very likely that Soranus supplies him with a formal substructure - which diseases need to be discussed under each rubric and what is the proper order for their presentation - as well as with many stylistic features (the decorative etymologies derived from Greek; the hamartographic, or fault-finding, doxographies, etc.). Particularly important for the suggestion that Caelius Aurelianus draws his doxographic accounts from Soranus is the impression the text gives of having appended onto an existing framework opinions from Asclepiades, Themison (e. g. Cel. Pass. I xiv 105—xvi 165; II xxxix 225—xl 234), and sometimes Thessalus (e.g. Tard. pass. II i.55 —62). Further, the doxographies name no one later than Soranus. 33 On the other hand, it seems equally naive not to credit Caelius Aurelianus with intervention, especially in matters of detail. We find it easier to imagine, for example, that Caelius Aurelianus' school-boy and adolescent experiences prompt him, not Soranus, to quote from Cicero's 'Tusculans' and Vergil's 'Aeneid', when explaining how melancholies are prone to anger and never cheerful. 3 4 P. H. SCHRIJVERS has provided an elegant and convincing demonstration of how to mount the argument in matters of detail: the discussion of homosexuality at 'Chronic diseases' IV i x . 1 3 1 - 3 3 does reflect Soranus' views on sexuality in his 'Gynaikeia' (the purpose of sexual congress is procreation [Gyn. I 40] and prolonged virginity is healthful for both men and women [Gyn. I 33]), but this passage also strongly suggests that Caelius Aurelianus strengthens, rearranges, embellishes with emotional and rhetorical emphases, those aspects of Soranus particularly congenial to him, as a man of his own Christian times. 35 While Caelius Aurelianus claims to be quoting from Soranus, when he labels homosexuality "a malady characteristic of a corrupted and very foul mind" {ut ait Soranus, malignae ac foedissimae mentis passio 132, 901.24—25 DRABKIN), the notion that divine providence has ordained the proper sexual roles for male and female is no doubt Caelius Aurelianus' own formulation. Methodologically speaking, it is the similarities and congruences between the 'Gynaikeia' and the Latin 'Acute diseases' and 'Chronic diseases' which heighten the likelihood that this or that represents what Soranus included in his own 'Acute diseases' and 'Chronic diseases'. All pseudo-Soranus known to us exists in Latin translation, and ROSE remains its most avid reporter and collector. 36 The important texts ('Medical 33

SMITH ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 2 2 4 , where he argues that hamartographic doxography is already the mode used by Asclepiades and that Soranus takes over the mode when he borrows Asclepiades' lists; also SMITH ( 1 9 8 9 ) , 1 0 2 — 1 0 3 , where he suggests that Soranus also updated doxographies by Alexander Philalethes ('Areskonta'). At the same time SMITH, like WASZINK, underscores the fact that Soranus is not the only writer of medical doxographies.

34

CA Tard. pass. I vi. 1 8 0 , citing Tusc. disputationes III 11 and Aeneid VIII 2 2 0 ; cf. also Cel. pass. Ill xiii.110, again citing Cicero.

35

SCHRIJVERS ( 1 9 8 5 ) , 1 - 3 and 1 7 - 2 5 . ROSE ( 1 8 7 0 ) , 1 6 9 - 7 3 ; cf. also USENER ( 1 8 7 3 ) , 4 1 2 - 1 7 , and KIND ( 1 9 2 7 ) , col. 1 1 3 0 . For the Latin texts: ROSE ( 1 8 7 0 ) , 2 4 3 — 7 4 , 'Quaestiones medicinales', or 'Isagoge' (Soranus filio karissimo salutem, from a 13th cent. London ms. Brit. Lib. C o t t o n - G a l b a E I V ) for which see FRIEDEL ( 1 8 9 2 ) , passim and ROSELLI ( 1 9 9 1 ) , 7 5 - 8 6 ; ROSE ( 1 8 7 0 ) , 2 7 5 8 0 , 'Peri sfigmon' ( S o r a n u s filio carissimo salutem, from a 9th/10th cent. Karlsruhe ms.

36

SORANUS OF EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

981

questions',37» 'Pulses', and 'Digestion') are short pieces whose titles in the mss. attribute them to Soranus. The texts present a hodgepodge of material, and except for 'Pulses', display erotematic - that is, question-and-answer — format. Distinguishing between 'Soranus' and 'Soranian' is not an easy matter, and when 'Soranian' material must be summoned to testify for 'Soranus', it requires explicit discussion as to what is 'Soranian' and on what grounds such a claim can be made. Ultimately the greatest impediment to identifying 'Soranus' - whether we want to see 'Soranus' in fragments of a Greek text, or in 'Soranian' adaptations into Latin that must stand in some way for "the lost Soranus," or in even more tenuous 'Soranian' reflections - is our ignorance of the format in which Soranus once presented his discussions and the extensiveness of his original discussion (IV B . 2 - 4 and D.5, 7—17).

II. Soranus of Ephesus and Rome Our principal source for Soranus' life are two entries under the heading 'Soranus' in 'Suda', the tenth-century lexicon — an elder Soranus and a younger Soranus.38 Both men are said to be physicians and Ephesians, and the information recorded for the two men is conventionally viewed as complementary and therefore combinable into a single vita.39 That is, for the elder there is filiation, and this Soranus is said to be the son of Menander and Phoebe. There is, as well, the suggestion of travel, perhaps in pursuit of his medical career, since Soranus maior spends time in Alexandria; this Soranus then goes on to practice medicine at Rome in the time of the emperors Trajan and Hadrian, giving a floruit of 98 — 138 A.D. The elder's writings are glossed over with the statement that he composed "many, very fine books." By contrast, the notice for Soranus minor concentrates on a listing of his treatises ('Gynaikeia' in four books, 'Lives of the physicians: sects and treatises' in ten books, 40 and "various other things") and on incidents that demonstrate how well-received these treatises are.

37

Bibl. Aug. CXX). ROSE (1870), 1 7 1 - 7 2 considers the 'Liber Sorani de digestionibus' (from a 12th cent. London ms. Brit. Lib. Sloane 1122 [986], text on pp. 1 9 3 - 9 6 ) , as perhaps a fragment from a Latin translation by CA of Soranus' 'Hygiene' (IV D.12), although its question-and-answer format, in addition to its 'Latinizing', make it, at best, only 'Soranian' (cf. section IV D.5). See also section V. Additional evidence for the 'Quaestiones medicinales' in STADLER (1906) and WALTER (1935).

38

' S u d a ' Σ 8 5 1 and 8 5 2 , IV 4 0 7 ADLER.

39

E . g . SCHEELE ( 1 8 8 4 ) , 4 - 7 ;

LACHS ( 1 9 0 2 ) , [ 2 ] - [ 3 ] ; P r a e f a t i o vii I L B E R G ; K I N D

(1927),

col. 1 1 1 4 ; T E M K I N , S o r a n u s xxiii; LESKY ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 8 9 3 ; M I C H L E R ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 5 3 8 , GOUREVITCH

40

(Bude), I xxiv. The scholarly consequences of the view that there are two medical Sorani, both from Ephesus, are examined below only with regard to IV B.2. Below, IV B.2 and D.6.

982

A N N ELLIS H A N S O N

-

M O N I C A H.

GREEN

Jejune as the details from the 'Suda' are, they assume an inordinate importance in reconstructing Soranus' life, due to lack of other information. They establish him plausibly in particular places at a specific point in time, and there seems little reason to doubt the 'Suda's' information, even if it is spread over two, distinct entries. It is likely, then, that Soranus, a physician from Ephesus in the province of Asia, spent the early portion of his adult career perfecting his medical knowledge at Alexandria, perhaps learning anatomy there and becoming acquainted with the epistemological positions of the medical sects, as well as practicing medicine in Rome as a mature adult. 4 1 In his 'Gynaikeia' Soranus appears familiar not only with Herophilus' dissections of the uterus that had been carried out in Alexandria (Gyn. 1 1 0 ; cf. III 2 - 3 ) , but also with obstetric and pediatric practices of both Alexandria and Rome. 4 2 Soranus refers to the practice of Egyptian midwives who receive neonates with scraps of thin papyrus, rather than with cloth, in order that the infant neither fall nor be squeezed unnecessarily, but rest softly (Gyn. II 6), and he contrasts the nurturing ability of Greek mothers in child rearing with the abilities of the mothers of Rome, to the detriment of the latter (Gyn. II 44). The women of Rome, Soranus claims, do not pay sufficient attention to the eager attempts of the young child to sit, stand, and walk prematurely, and this carelessness causes the tender, little limbs of Roman babies to become distorted. Soranus summarily dismisses other excuses offered for distortion of children's limbs - the chilling caused by the cold waters flowing underneath Rome, or the fact that Roman women have intercourse while drunk — in order to blame Roman mothers for their own failure to note the inappropriateness of hard surfaces for little ones to walk upon. 4 3 Caelius Aurelianus also locates Soranus in Rome, when he

41

There is, however, no need to suppose that Soranus visited all the localities mentioned in his writings: e. g. Galatia, for, when he claims that excision of the uterus makes the pigs there fatter, he introduces the statement with "they say t h a t . . . " (Gyn. 1 1 5 ; cf. Galen, De semine I 15, IV 5 7 0 KÜHN, where Galen extends the practice to the Asiatic province of Cappadocia); Germany and Scythia, for Soranus' report on the custom of "many barbarians, such as the Germans and the Scyths, and some of the Greeks" to cast a neonate into cold water in order to harden the baby and to test whether it is worth rearing (Gyn. II 12). This item is no doubt derived from ethnographic literature (cf. Arist. Pol. VII 17, 1 3 3 6 a 1 5 - 1 7 , although Aristotle attributes the custom only to unspecified barbarians). Other localities named in Soranus' preserved writings usually attach to specific materia medica.

42

For Herophilus, see VON STADEN, Herophilus. The biographer of Soranus who relies on deductions from place names may, however, feel compelled to include visits to Thrace and/or Macedonia and to the Roman province of Syria: familiarity with, and rejection of, the Thracian/Macedonian techniques for swaddling (Gyn. II 16); familiarity with, and rejection of, Syrian nurses' practice of using a hair dipped in olive oil or honey to wipe off encrustations from the throat of an infant suffering from thrush (Gyn. II 51). At the same time, Soranus may have learned of such practices in the multicultural world of Alexandria or of Rome.

43

That this is a notion common in Greek pediatric lore is suggested by Plato, who in his 'Laws' also urges that a child be swaddled until two years old and be carried until it is three in order to protect its legs from distortion (789e).

SORANUS OF EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

983

quotes Soranus' opinion and juxtaposes it to the view of Asclepiades that venesection is useful in the treatment of pleurisy, provided the patient's locale is also conducive to the treatment: "At Rome," Soranus says, "we also make use of venesection (in the treatment of all cases of pleurisy), without being wrongly influenced by differences in regions" (Cel. pass. II xxii.131 BENDZ).44 Soranus may likewise have been the source of a story Tertullian tells about a Greek woman, perhaps Soranus' contemporary, who gives birth to quintuplets at Rome (De anima 6 . 8 ) . 4 5 The story had great currency as a commonplace among rhetors and jurists, as well as with Soranus and Tertullian, and various tellings of the woman's prodigious birthing associate her with the emperors Trajan, Hadrian, or Antoninus Pius. 4 6 That the 'Suda' correctly sets Soranus' Roman practice to the end of the first century A. D. and the earlier decades of the second is bolstered by other considerations. First of all, the Roman Celsus, writing in the early first century, fails to mention Soranus in his prefatory history of medicine, but Galen, writing more than a century later, cites Soranus repeatedly, especially as a source for medicinal preparations. 47 On one occasion Galen lists Soranus among doctors of the Method no longer living. 48 He also confronts one of Soranus' pupils at Rome, a certain Attalus (almost certainly the Statilius Attalus of Heraclea, 4 9 attached as doctor to the imperial household), when the latter was attending Theagenes, the Cynic philosopher, for an inflammation of the liver. Galen pictures this Attalus as a boorish fool, making so many mistakes in his treatment

44 45

46

Cf. also VIETMEIER (1937), 3 and footnote 5. WASZINK, Tertullian 1 3 1 - 3 2 and 145, claiming Soranus as the source for Tertullian's third and fourth refutations of the notion that the soul is incorporeal. That is, Soranus is explicitly cited for the opinion that the soul must be corporeal, because it is maintained by corporeal food. WASZINK then urges that the argument which follows (that the soul is not a separate body because it is in the body and because there cannot be two bodies in one and the same place) is based on the observation that pregnant women carry one or even more children in their wombs; because of its gynecological nature, WASZINK considers the argument likely to have been drawn from Soranus. Soranus mentions multiple births (twins and triplets, Gyn. 1 4 3 ) and at Gyn. I V I cites Herophilus' 'Midwifery' ( = Τ 196 VON STADEN, Herophilus) for a woman who three times gave birth to five children with difficulty. At Digesta X X X I V v.7 Gaius identifies the woman as Serapias of Alexandria and has her presented to the emperor Hadrian; cf. also Digesta XLVI iii.36 (Salvius Julianus). Phlegon of Tralles, Mirabilia 2 9 , sets the miraculous birth under Trajan; the SHA Pius 9.3, under A n t o n i n u s P i u s . S e e BARNES ( 1 9 7 1 ) ,

47

29.

For care of dandruff, Galen cites the fourth book of Soranus' 'Drugs' (IV D . 1 5 ) and his 'Handbook of pharmaceuticals' (IV D.16) in his own pharmacological work, 'De compositione medicamentorum sec. locos' (XII 4 9 3 . 1 3 - 4 9 6 . 5 KÜHN).

4 8

De methodo med. I 1.7.5, X 5 3 . 7 - 1 0

49

BENEDUM ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 2 6 4 - 7 7 ; cf. also note to Galen, Praecog. 12.6, C M G V 8 , l , NUTTON (pp. 2 2 3 - 2 4 ) .

66

ANRW II 37.2

K Ü H N ; c f . HANKINSON, G a l e n

144-45.

132.4

984

ANN ELLIS HANSON -

MONICA H. GREEN

of Theagenes that Galen can claim Attalus and his Methodic medicine were responsible for Theagenes' death. 5 0 Nor is it surprising that Soranus journeys to Rome in search of fame and fortune, following in the footsteps of many Greek doctors before him, beginning with the Peloponnesian Archagathus, son of Lysanias, who arrived just as the Second Punic War broke out. 5 1 Roman prejudice against Greek medicine remained strong well into the second century B. C., but by the late Republic being doctored by Greeks became fashionable among the upper classes of the city. 5 2 Like other professionals of peregrine status in the service of noble households, a growing number of these Greek physicians began to acquire Roman citizenship, and the number increased markedly among those who serve JulioClaudian and Flavian emperors and their courtiers. 5 3 This tendency for peregrine physicians to receive citizenship continued into the second century A. D. If the 'Suda' is correct that Soranus' parents were Menander and Phoebe, however, there can be no question of his having been born a Roman citizen. Nonetheless, the name Soranus appears to be of Roman origin, a cognomen denoting a man from the Latin colony of Sora in the vicinity of Arpinum. Cicero mentions the learned Valerii Sorani brothers, Quintus and Decimus (Brutus 1 6 9 ) , 5 4 but it seems more likely that the physician's name derives from the cognomen of the proconsul of Asia about 6 1 - 6 3 A.D., Quintus Marcius Barea Soranus. While proconsul Barea Soranus benefits Ephesus in particular by ordering the city's harbor to be reopened through dredging. 55 Barea himself is sent to his death by Nero together with a daughter in the year following the Pisonian conspiracy, but other members of his family survive to flourish under the Flavians. 5 6 If this is the source of Soranus' name, one might suppose that his parents were members of the upper class at Ephesus and Roman sympathizers, as they bestow the name of a popular governor upon their young son. In any case, popularity of the name 'Soranus' among the citizens of Ephesus ought to have been at its height in the mid-sixties, during or very shortly after Barea's benevolent proconsulship in Asia. If the future physician, then, was born in the mid-

50 M e t h . m e d . X I V 1 , X 9 0 9 - 1 6 51

KÜHN.

P l i n y N H X X I X vi 1 2 - 1 3 . C f . SCARBOROUGH ( 1 9 9 3 ) , 2 3 - 2 4 ; N U T T O N ( 1 9 9 3 ) , JACKSON ( 1 9 9 3 ) ,

57-59;

80-81.

«

RAWSON (1985), 1 7 0 - 8 4 ; NUTTON (1986), 3 0 - 5 8 ; NUTTON (1992), 1 5 - 5 8 ; SCARBOROUGH (1993), 2 2 - 2 9 (IV. "Greek Medicine and the Romans"); NUTTON (1993), 5 3 - 6 2 (II. "Hellenization"). « See nos. 4 8 - 1 3 2 , 1 4 8 - 6 1 , 1 6 5 - 7 4 , 1 7 7 - 2 0 1 , 2 0 4 - 5 5 in the catalogue by KORPELA (1987), 1 6 4 - 2 0 0 . 5 4 Both Quintus and Decimus were orators; Quintus was an important figure in Roman scholarship (Cicero, De orat. iii 43; Pliny NH praefat. 33 and III ν 65; Aul. Gellius NA II χ 3, etc.) and was probably the Q. Valerius, philologue and polymath, treacherously killed by Pompey in 82 (Plut. Pomp. 10.4). Cf. the note by A. E. DOUGLAS, in his 1966 edition of the 'Brutus', ad 169 (p. 130). 5 5 Tacitus Annales X V I 23.1, for which see KOESTERMANN ad loc. IV 384. For the life and career of Barea Soranus, see VOGEL-WEIDEMANN ( 1 9 8 2 ) , # 6 0 , 4 2 9 - 3 9 . 56

See e. g. PIR 2 for a niece (the daughter of Barea Soranus' younger brother), Marcia Furnilla, the second wife of the emperor Titus.

SORANUS OF EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

985

sixties, he was in his thirties when the reign of Trajan begins, in his fifties at the accession of Hadrian, and in his seventies at the accession of Antoninus Pius, if he lived on beyond the floruit indicated in the 'Suda' biography. There is, however, no indication as to the length of Soranus' life other than the number of his publications. We know about twenty titles, although the extent of most works is unclear; this number is small, when compared to the vast output of Galen, an octogenarian whose productive life was long (d. ca. 213). Whether Soranus remained of peregrine status throughout his life, or eventually received Roman citizenship is unknown.57 While it seems possible to combine the 'Suda's' information on the Sorani maior and minor, physicians from Ephesus, and to consider that information as biographic material otherwise lacking, testimony on additional medical Sorani from a variety of sources does not adhere comfortably to this core. 58 Ephesian doctors are, in fact, famous throughout antiquity,59 although the other medical Sorani are associated with eastern localities outside Ephesus. For example, the notice on Soranus minor in the 'Suda' mentions at its close 'Soranus the Cilician'. The commentary has turned to the longevity of the younger Soranus' writings and evidence on the point is drawn from Asclepiodotus the philosopher (and presumably the fifth-century A. D. Neoplatonic) who, "...after he also learned medicine, admitted none of the younger physicians except Iacobus, none of the elder ones after Hippocrates except Soranus the Cilician, also known as Mallotes," from the town of Mallos. Further, a Soranus of Cos is cited twice in the 'Life of Hippocrates' (IV B.2). While this Soranus of Cos was consulting archives on the island, he discovered several facts about the life of Hippocrates: first, Hippocrates' birth date (he was born when Abriadas was sole ruler of Cos on the 27th day of Agrianius, a day still celebrated in this Soranus' lifetime); and second, the fact that Hippocrates went to live in Thessaly because of a dream. The dream-account is intended, claims the Hippocratic biography, to counter the slander against Hippocrates from Andreas, follower of Herophilus and court physician to Ptolemy IV Philopater (and murdered in the King's own tent by an agent of Antiochus III on the eve of the battle of Raphia). In his treatise 'Genealogies of the physicians' Andreas claims that Hippocrates' departure from Cos was due to his having burnt the medical archives — either at Cnidus nearby on the mainland, or on Hippocrates' native island of Cos. 60 Andreas' 57

KORPELA (1987), 200, considers Soranus of peregrine status. Thus, the nomen Julius, given to Soranus by HANKINSON, Galen xxxii, has no basis in fact. For the date of Galen's d e a t h , see NUTTON ( 1 9 8 4 ) ,

323-24.

58

E . g . KIND ( 1 9 2 7 ) , col. 1 1 3 0 .

59

For a list of doctors from Ephesus, see VIETMEIER (1937), 1 - 2 , and note 3. The mss. of the Hippocratic 'Life' read 'Cnidus' at this point (CMG IV, 175.18 ILBERG), although the biography in Tzetzes' Chiliades VII 963 says 'Cos.' PINAULT (1992 a), 7 and note 7, also prefers 'Cos'; cf. also pp. 11 — 12 for her further comments on the passage. For Andreas, see VON STADEN, Herophilus 4 7 2 - 7 7 , with testimonia and earlier bibliography; for the pseudo-scholarship that embellishes the figure of Hippocrates, see SMITH (1989), 107.

60

66·

986

A N N ELLIS H A N S O N -

M O N I C A H. G R E E N

hostile story about Hippocrates underscores how quarrels over medical epistemology between physician-followers of Herophilus and the emerging medical sect of the Empirics are being extended in Ptolemaic Alexandria to embrace even the career of Hippocrates in order to discredit the authority of the early medical writings increasingly being associated with Hippocrates' name. All that can be said about "Soranus of Cos" is that he is defending the reputation of the Father of Medicine against what he considers calumny. 61 Were the 'Suda's' reference to "Soranus Mallotes from Cilicia" and the Hippocratic biography's mention of "Soranus of Cos" subsumed within the figure of Soranus of Ephesus (both men are, after all, otherwise unknown), little in the way of new information is added to the Ephesian's biography: the Mallotes episode is intended to demonstrate that his medical writings are still circulating in late antiquity and the episode on Cos suggests a disinterested, and perhaps even gentlemanly, stance in matters of medical gossip. 6 2 Chronological difficulties, on the other hand, stand in the way of considering Soranus of Ephesus the court physician to Cleopatra VII of Egypt, although Johannes Tzetzes, writing in the twelfth century, makes the claim on two separate occasions. The false association, in turn, eventually inspired the creation of an exchange of letters between the triumvir Marcus Antonius, who is writing for advice on how to deal with Cleopatra's hyper-sexuality, and Soranus, as medical expert on women's diseases, who responds directly to the queen herself about possible remedies for her embarrassing malady. 63 The origin of this impossible juxtaposition between queen and physician has plausibly been attributed by LUDWIG SCHEELE to Tzetzes' misunderstanding of Galen, upon whom Tzetzes also relies, among others, for information about Cleopatra's suicide. 6 4 That is, Galen quotes from the 'Cosmetics' of Cleopatra and the pharmaceutical works of Soranus in close proximity in the discussions of baldness and dandruff in one of his pharmaceutical works, the 'De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos'. 6 5 Although Tzetzes is aware that Queen Cleopatra is a contemporary to the emperor Augustus, so SCHEELE'S argumentruns, he apparently concludes that Soranus is a member of the queen's entourage, because he too shared the queen's interests — in beautifying the complexion and in women's diseases. It is quite possible, however, that others made this fanciful deduction prior to Tzetzes, and that he merely reported the legend 61

For evidence from the 'Gynaikeia' on the probable stance of Soranus of Ephesus, as he confronted "the Hippocratic question," see IV B . 2 - 3 .

«

TEMKIN ( 1 9 9 1 ) , 5 2 .

63

Johannes Tzetzes, Prooem. alleg. Iliad. V 7 - 8 (BOISSONADE), mentioning only Soranus with Cleopatra, and Chiliad. VI 2 9 4 — 9 6 (LEONE), mentioning both Soranus and Rufus together with the queen; see also below, Section IV B.2. The exchange of letters is published as 'Epistolae de Cleopatra' in several seventeenth century editions of Petronius, 'Satyricon' (e.g. Amsterdem, 1 6 6 9 - 7 1 , and Paris 1 6 7 7 , ed. H. VALESIUS). We thank KLAUS-DIETRICH FISCHER for drawing our attention to these letters.

64

SCHEELE ( 1 8 8 4 ) , 7 - 1 3 ; f o r C l e o p a t r a ' s suicide, see C h i l . II 3 0 - 3 2 ; cf. G a l e n , ' D e t h e r i a c a a d P i s o n e m ' ( X I V 2 3 3 KÜHN).

65

For Cleopatra's 'Cosmetics', see XII 4 0 3 and 4 9 2 KÜHN; for Soranus, XII 4 1 4 and 4 9 3 9 5 K Ü H N ; f o r R u f u s , X I I 4 2 5 KÜHN.

S O R A N U S OF EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

987

in its developed form. 6 6 Olympias from Heracleia, the painter of female bodies, is credited in ms. Ρ with sending gynecological illustrations to Cleopatra, queen of Egypt, and this tale also points to a similar characterization of Soranus as doctor associated with Cleopatra and as an expert on women's concerns. Unfortunately, as noted above, ms. Ρ does not reproduce the illustrations, but merely notes their omission. 6 7 The Soranus episode told by the fifth-century A. D. Marcellus Empiricus in his treatise 'Medicaments' ('De medicamentis') is less easy to dismiss as fiction, as it is by no means impossible that while resident in the west Soranus visited the Roman province of Aquitania in professional capacity to cure two hundred people afflicted by the eruptive skin disease mentagra. 6 8 M A X N I E D E R MANN, an editor of Marcellus, suggests that Marcellus mangled an episode he found in the De medicina Plinii 1 18 1 ( 3 2 - 3 3 ROSE), based on the elder Pliny's account of the first outbreak of the skin disease mentagra in Italy that occurred during the middle years of the reign of the emperor Tiberius. 69 In N I E D E R MANN'S argument the text of Marcellus, Nam Soranus medicus quondam ducentis hominibus hoc morbo bus curandis in Aquitania se locavit70

laboranti-

confuses the Plinian story that Manilius Cornutus, ex-praetor and legate of Aquitania, spent 200,000 sesterces to get himself cured of mentagra - Manlius (Manilius in Pliny N H ) Cornutus praetor provinciae Aquitanicae legatus (restored from Pliny N H ) CC in hoc morbo locavit se curandum. N I E D E R M A N N draws attention to the similarities in phrasing between the Plinian and MarcelIan accounts (curandislcurandum·, Aquitania/provinciae Aquitanicae·, se locavit! locavit se) and suggests that CC, with restored, is responsible for Marcellus' ducentis hominibus. Impressive as the similarities are, the tale of the cure of Manilius (or Manlius) Cornutus, whose name is firmly attached to the Tiberian epidemic, is distinct from Marcellus' story about Soranus, who should have been doctoring others during a subsequent epidemic of the same, highly conta66

E.g. see the notice in the 9th/10th cent. Florentine ms. (Bibl. Med.-Laur. Plut. 73,1), fol. 155 r , appearing at the end of the 'Genecia Cleopatrae': 'explicit Genecia a Cleopatra facta a Sorano Lib. ΙΙΙΓ. This suggests that a legend which joins Cleopatra and Soranus is already forming in antiquity. GOUREVITCH (Budé), I x x i v - x x v also points to a coherence of motifs between the juxtaposition of queen and physician, based on c o m m o n interests in dermatology, and the story of Soranus' efforts to cure mentagra in Aquitania told by Marcellus Empiricus (see next paragraph in the text).

67

C f . ILBERG ( 1 9 0 9 ) ,

68

See also GOUREVITCH (Budé), I xxiii; cf. the visit of Themison to Milan, where he sees a respectable young matron die of satyriasis (CA Cel. pass. Ill xviii 186). NIEDERMANN ap. crit. ad De medicamentis XIX i 1, 310. NIEDERMANN'S arguments have influenced many: e.g. KIND (1927), col. 1 1 1 4 and KORPELA (1987), 200. For the elder Pliny's discussion of the first arrival of mentagra in Italy and the story of Manilius Cornutus, see N H X X V I ii 2 - i i i 4. For the date of the Italian epidemic in the reign of Tiberius, not Claudius, see SYME (1984), 1 3 7 7 and note 10. D e medicamentis X I X i . l , 3 1 0 NIEDERMANN: "Soranus the doctor once located himself in Aquitania in order to cure 2 0 0 men bothered by this disease."

69

70

426-28.

988

ANN ELLIS HANSON -

MONICA H. GREEN

gious, skin rash as much as a century later. Marcellus' story remains among the plausible incidents, even if it merely represents an early stage in the development that turns Soranus into dermatologist for men and cosmetologist and gynecologist for women. As has already been mentioned, Soranus is highly critical of previous medical authorities, citing predecessors in his 'Gynecology' largely to reject what they have said. He treats philosophers' opinions on gynecological matters in much the same fashion. Empedocles, Democritus, Aristotle, Zeno, and others are all briefly summoned for their pronouncements on fetal anatomy, menstruation, and female nature, but they are summarily dismissed as wrong. Soranus never names Plato, but he certainly revises Platonic opinions, objecting, for example, to the notion that the uterus wanders about in the female body, such as it was described in the Timaeus' (91 c l - 8 ) . Soranus stresses that the uterus is "not an animal as some people contend" (Gyn. I 8 . 2 , 7 . 1 8 - 1 9 ILBERG). He seems to recall the Timaean description of the uterus' travels in his discussion of uterine suffocation: "the uterus does not dart forth like a wild animal from its lair, attracted by sweet smells and repelled by foul ones" (Gyn. III 29.5, 1 1 3 . 3 - 5 ILBERG). He may also be consciously overturning one plank in the description Socrates gives of the good midwife at Theatetus 149 b 9 - c 2 , when he denies that it is essential for the midwife to have given birth, "as some people contend" (Gyn. 14.3, IV 5.21 ILBERG). Whenever his own gynecological experiences counsel him otherwise, then, Soranus is quick to reject previous authorities in the medical and philosophical traditions. Not only was Soranus well read in medicine and philosophy, but the elegance and clarity of his Greek style in the 'Gynaikeia' likewise point to a lifetime of learning. He also exhibits a fondness for what seem to be unique words and turns of phrase. 71 The 'Gynaikeia', however, is neither anecdotal nor personal and it affords few glimpses of the man behind the medical mask - even if it may have motivated some of the stories manufactured about Soranus in subsequent centuries. Instead, the 'Gynaikeia' portrays a physician of the Method going about his work among his female patients.

III. Soranus as practitioner of the Method Soranus' medical journey at the end of the first century A.D. from the province of Asia to Alexandria in Egypt and then to Rome is one Galen also took some fifty years later. 72 The medical climate of the caput mundi during 71 72

BURGUIÈRE (Budé), I lix-lxv. Rufus of Ephesus also journeyed from Ephesus to Alexandria, but seems not to have gone o n t o p r a c t i c e in R o m e : ' S u d a ' P 2 4 1 , IV, 3 0 1 - 3 0 2 ADLER, a n d e . g . WELLMANN ( 1 9 1 2 ) ,

4—6, DAREMBERG-RUELLE, préface iii (for DAREMBERG'S tergiversation on the matter).

SORANUS O F EPHESUS: METHOD1CORUM

PRINCEPS

989

the Principate is a sophisticated one, as various medical sects jostle each other for pride of place at the bedsides of wealthy R o m a n s . 7 3 The medical sects dispute matters of theory and practice: Is it possible for doctors to know the causes of internal diseases? and if 'hidden' causes can be known, what role ought these to play in determining therapy? The R o m a n Celsus, writing early in the first century A. D., structures his history of Hellenistic and later medicine in terms of an argument between medical Empirics, who give negative answers to these questions, and Dogmatics or Rationalists, who give positive ones. In Celsus' account the school of Methodic medicine comes later in time and represents an epistemological and therapeutic middle ground between empiric and dogmatic positions. 7 4 Doctors of the Method look for two universal qualities, called 'commonalities' (κοινότητες), in every patient's illness - excessive constriction and excessive fluidity. A combination of the two qualities is also possible, with the two either dominating at different times, or operating in different parts of the body at the same time; this combination is the 'mixed state'. 7 5 The commonalities operative in the body of a patient reveal themselves to a doctor of the Method and guide him on the path that leads him from his observation of the abnormal bodily state to the choice of therapies appropriate to counteract the abnormality, and ultimately to the cure of his patient. Galen is often directly involved in the sectarian disputes of his own day and he is notoriously unfair in his criticisms of doctors of the Method. When Galen quotes Soranus' preparations for use against dandruff, he snidely claims to "preserve Soranus' fancy way of talking," the technical language of the Method, and he notes as well that Soranus' versions of the medicaments are merely what everyone already k n o w s . 7 6 Galen claims to have tried some of Soranus' preparations himself and he recognizes other medicaments in Soranus' armory as prescriptions he has seen his students and his medical friends employ. He nonetheless commends Soranus for using water, not urine, in a compound, noting that his own practice is likewise to eschew urine for such poultices. Soranus' competence as a doctor of the Method belies many of Galen's jibes at the sect he claims is " m o s t u n m e t h o d i c . " 7 7 73

The bibliography on Methodic medicine at Rome is deservedly large, and the discussion h e r e r e l i e s h e a v i l y o n : VON STADEN ( 1 9 8 2 ) ,

LLOYD ( 1 9 8 3 ) ,

RUBENSTEIN ( 1 9 8 5 ) ,

( 1 9 8 7 ) , PIGEAUD ( 1 9 8 5 ) a n d IDEM ( 1 9 9 1 ) , GOUREVITCH ( B u d é ) , I x - x x i i , GOUREVITCH ( 1 9 9 1 ) . N o w see a l s o PIGEAUD

FREDE

xl-xlvi,

and

(1993).

74

Celsus, Praefatio 1 2 - 6 7 ; SMITH ( 1 9 8 9 ) , 7 6 - 7 7 characterizes Celsus' account here as a "balanced rendition ... of those elements of the past which were issues of debate in his own time, on which respectable practitioners had to take sides."

75

E. g. CA Tard. pass. II 2 0 2 , on phthisis. Galen De comp. med. sec. loc., XII 4 9 3 . 1 3 - 4 9 6 . 5 KÜHN; for Soranus' sloppy use of language when discussing medicaments for inflammation of the uvula, XII 9 8 7 . 1 3 - 9 8 8 . 4

76

KÜHN. 77

Galen manipulates the stem amethod- in its various adjectival and adverbial forms some thirty-eight times in his preserved writings, most often in the fourteen books of the Meth. med.

(e.g.

X

27.5

KÜHN,

51.8,

168.9,

169.7,

170.6,

204.7,

210.13,

319.18,

346.14,

3 5 3 . 1 4 , 3 8 1 . 1 4 , 3 8 3 . 4 , 3 9 0 . 9 and 17, 3 9 5 . 8 , 4 0 0 . 1 6 , 4 2 1 . 5 , 4 5 8 . 1 5 , 7 6 0 . 1 6 , 780.7).

SMITH ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 0 1 - 1 0 3 , where he underscores the polemic that pervades this work against Methodism in general and against Thessalus in particular.

Cf.

-

990

A N N ELLIS H A N S O N -

MONICA H. GREEN

The origins of the quarrels among the medical sects extend back to Alexandria and the third century B. C. The self-styled Empirics carp at the followers of Herophilus, using epistemological arguments to demonstrate that the latter's preoccupations with a theoretical physiology, based on their exploratory anatomy, and with a rigid pathology are useless for discovering the proper business of medicine - the treatment of the sick. While the labels 'Empiric' and 'followers of Herophilus' refer to two relatively cohesive groups of medical practitioners and two sects ostensibly at war over doctrinal and practical matters, Empirics tended over time to lump all their opponents under a single rubric, labeling them 'Rationalists' or 'Dogmatics'. The name is attached by them rather loosely to all doctors who do not share the Empirics' doubts about the value of medical theory to clinical practice. 78 The quarrel between Empiric and Rationalist transfers to Rome, as the number of Greek doctors arriving in the city multiplies, and their conflicts appear for us at their most intense through Galen's vitriolic lens, even as Galen claims to ground his own opinions squarely in his passion to uncover the truth. 7 9 It is quite likely that the medical climate at Rome reflects the same contentiousness that prevailed earlier in Alexandria. 8 0 That is, epistemological arguments among rival Greek physicians are but one facet of an intense competition over who is to doctor ruling families in a capital city. The prizes in the contest among medical theories are, in addition to 'truth', such desirables as power, wealth, and influence. Health-care is probably a matter of even greater concern to the valetudinarian, upper class Romans than it was to wealthy Alexandrians, 8 1 and the contest at Rome may be more intense, as Galen would have us believe. The bellicose Galen relishes such conflicts, because he sees himself as victor. For example, he relates the following story in his medical autobiography with obvious pleasure. 8 2 A kinswoman of Marcus Aurelius, perhaps the emperor's daughter, taunts Methodist physicians in attendance on the Emperor's young son Commodus, by taking Galen's hand and presenting him to them. "This is Galen who battles against you Methodists with deeds, not words," and then she flounces from the hall (Praecog. 12.7). The early history of the Method has proved difficult to write, because ancient testimony as to who first establishes the sect and who participates in its early days is complex and contradictory. 8 3 It is Soranus' Methodism we 78

VON STADEN ( 1 9 8 2 ) ,

79

E . g . Praecog. 1 . 1 1 - 2 . 1 , C M G V 8,1 7 2 . 1 3 - 7 4 . 1 2 NUTTON.

80

See e.g. Andreas, physician to Ptolemy IV, above section II. Galen apparently became acquainted with the Method in Alexandria, for he listened briefly there to Julianus' lectures (Meth. med. I 7.5) — and later attacked Julianus' criticisms of Sabinus' commentary on the Hippocratic 'Aphorisms' ( Adversus ea quae a Juliano in Hippocratis aphorismos

81

F o r s o c i a l a s p e c t s o f R o m a n m e d i c i n e , N U T T O N ( 1 9 9 2 ) , 4 5 - 4 9 ; JACKSON ( 1 9 8 8 ) , 3 2 - 5 5 ;

78-79.

enuntiata sunt libellus', C M G V 1 0 . 3 , 3 3 - 7 0 ) . Cf. SMITH ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 7 2 . BOWERSOCK ( 1 9 6 9 ) , S2 N U T T O N ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 83

59-75.

50-62.

For a history of scholarship on the Methodic sect, see, in particular, RUBENSTEIN (1985); PIGEAUD ( 1 9 9 3 ) . For A s c l e p i a d e s , s e e RAWSON ( 1 9 8 5 ) , 1 7 0 - 7 8 , VALLANCE ( 1 9 9 0 ) , sim,

a n d VALLANCE ( 1 9 9 3 ) .

pas-

S O R A N U S OF EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

991

PRINCEPS

know best, yet he affords ample testimony to the fact that his sect has an extensive past. The Method itself seems to change over time, as later practitioners refine the work of their predecessors, and the Method's debt to the epistemology and the physical theories of the various Hellenistic schools of philosophy remains a matter of debate. 8 4 Treatment is what counts in the Method, and this is where a Methodic doctor places his emphasis. Although testimony about Methodist practitioners is often hostile, this hostility also underscores how inherent in Methodism is intellectual ferment and medical flamboyance. Recent discussions of the history of Methodism tend to begin with Asclepiades of Prusias in Bithynia, a Greek doctor practicing at Rome toward the end of the second century B. C., even though the same discussions speedily add that with his idiosyncratic physiological theories and his revolutionary therapeutics, Asclepiades is but a fore-runner of the Method. 8 5 Soranus cites Asclepiades' opinions rather frequently, sometimes approving their theoretical stance, 8 6 sometimes scorning his remedies as too harsh. 8 7 Asclepiades profoundly influenced medical therapeutics at Rome, claiming that he doctored patients "safely, speedily, and pleasantly." 8 8 He popularized the notion of 'passive' exercises, such as massage and rocking - therapies that Soranus uses repeatedly for his female patients. Asclepiades also prescribed water and wine as medicaments - to such an extent that he becomes known as "the winegiver" and "the cold-water giver." 8 9 Scribonius Largus quotes Asclepiades as saying in his treatise 'Preparations' that only an inadequate doctor does not have to hand two and three remedies already prepared and ready for use in

84

Contrast, for example, the summary of the Methodic sect in WASZINK, Tertullian 2 2 * 2 5 * (representing views current in the first half of the 20th century and under heavy influence from MAX WELLMANN, in particular) with that given by those cited above, note 73.

85

E.g.

VALLANCE ( 1 9 9 0 ) ,

131-43;

( 1 9 8 5 ) , 1 7 0 - 7 8 a n d SMITH ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 86

87

88

89

for summaries

of Asclepiades'

career,

see

RAWSON

222-25.

E.g. Gyn. I 35, where Soranus wants to refute the notion that fumigations can be used to determine whether or not a w o m a n can conceive. He argues that substances on suppositories and fumigations are carried up through subsensible ducts perceivable to the intellect even in women w h o cannot conceive: "Asclepiades, in any case, says that if an unguent compounded from rue is applied to a patient with ulcerated legs, the distribution of the compound through the body will render the patient aware of its properties" ( 2 5 . 1 - 3 ILBERG). For the ducts, see LLOYD (1983), 1 9 2 - 9 3 and VALLANCE (1990), 55; for Soranus' attributing the prognostic fumigations to Euryphon and Evenor, IV B.2. Gyn. III 29, where Asclepiades' therapies for uterine suffocation (sternutatives, constricting bandages, loud shouts, vinegar clysters to the nose, sexual intercourse during remissions) are rejected along with similar therapies cited from Hippocrates, Diocles, Mantias, and Xenophon. Celsus Med. Ill 4.1; SMITH (1979), 148, suggests that Asclepiades adopts his „tuto, celeriter, iucunde", "Do it quickly, painlessly, readily, neatly" from the Hippocratic Surgery 7 (ταχέως, άπόνως, εύπόρως, εύρύθμως, III 2 9 0 . 2 LITTRÉ). Anon. Lond. xxiv 30; Pliny N H XXIII xix 32 and N H XXVI viii 14.

992

ANN

ELLIS H A N S O N

-

MONICA

H.

GREEN

each and every disease (Comp, (ep.) 8 . 3 - 6 ) . Asclepiades' success as doctor to upper class Romans is reflected by his notoriety. 90 And if notoriety be an indication of medical panache, then the so-called 'founder' of the Method, Thessalus of Tralles, cuts an even more impressive figure during the early empire. According to Galen, Thessalus began a dedicatory letter to the emperor Nero by saying that he founded a new sect, Methodism - "the only true one, because no earlier doctor offered anything useful either for preserving health or for curing disease" (Meth. med. 12.1, IV 473 KÜHN). Galen ridicules Thessalus, ostensibly for his boast that he can teach medicine to any and all in the course of six months, for Galen himself claims to have spent more than eleven years learning the medical craft he considers so complex and many-faceted. 91 Such an attitude overturns the first Hippocratic 'Aphorism' that "the life is short, but the art is long." Yet, as with Asclepiades, so too Thessalus' importance on the Roman medical scene seems to lie, at least in part, in his ability to demystify and simplify medical theory for his Roman audience and in his employment of therapies that, while logically defensible, 92 are at the same time essentially gentle and time-honored medicaments. The elder Pliny reports that " . . . no actor or charioteer was escorted by a greater crowd of fans when he appeared in public . . . " than was Thessalus (NH X X I X ν 9). Themison of Laodicea also figures in the development of the Methodist ideas at Rome, apparently as bridge figure between Asclepiades, whose pupil he is said to have been, and Thessalus. 93 Themison appears as a far less dramatic character and he failed to draw the attention of writers such as Celsus or Pliny; nonetheless, as regards medical matters, Soranus cites Themison somewhat more often than Thessalus in the 'Gynaikeia'. 9 4 Soranus may have been exposed to the Method during his days in Alexandria. 9 5 A fragmentary papyrus, found at Oxyrhynchus and most likely copied

90

Gossip about Asclepiades includes the fact that he w a s first a magister

orandi,

but gave

up that career for medicine because he found the rewards from rhetoric unsatisfactory (Pliny N H X X V I v i i . 1 2 - 1 3 ) . Cf. SCARBOROUGH ( 1 9 9 3 ) , 2 6 - 2 8 ; NUTTON ( 1 9 9 3 ) , 6 1 . 91

E . g . HANKINSON, Galen 8 4 - 9 0 , c o m m e n t a r y to M e t h . med. 1 1 . 5 - 2 . 5 , and NUTTON, note ad Praecog. 1 2 . 6 , C M G V 8 , 1 , 1 3 2 . 4 NUTTON (pp. 2 2 3 - 2 4 ) .

92

The medical principle seems to have been the time-honored one o f contraria

contrariis,

applied t o the commonalities, or bodily states: w h a t w a s t o o constricted requires relaxing remedies, while costive remedies staunch w h a t is overly fluid. 93

Pliny N H X X I X Ν 6 ; C A Cel. pass. 1 1 6 5 ; [Gal.] Introducilo

4 , X I V 6 8 4 . 1 KÜHN. Cf.

RAWSON ( 1 9 8 5 ) , 1 7 6 - 7 7 , commenting on the " e m b a r r a s s i n g " lack o f evidence for Themison's activity " . . . in the middle of the first century B. C . , which is where w e shall have to put h i m . . . " 94

Themison: Gyn. 1 1 5 (the uterus c a n be removed without bringing death); III 2 4 (censured for his remedies in the treatment o f fever); III 4 2 (censured for employing phlebotomy to divert blood in treatment of uterine hemorrhage). Thessalus: Gyn. IV 3 9 (censured for sprinkling salt on a prolapsed uterus during e x a c e r b a t i o n ) . Themison and Thessalus together: Gyn. III 2 —3 (their notion that w o m e n do not have special diseases requires refinement). In C A Cel. pass, and Tard. pass. Themison is mentioned by name even m o r e frequently.

«

WELLMANN ( 1 9 2 2 ) ,

396-429.

SORANUS OF EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

993

at the end of the second century A.D., or in the first decades of the third, contains a discussion of Methodic medicine in erotematic, or question-andanswer format. 96 The existence of the papyrus underscores the interest in Methodic medicine not only in Alexandria, but outside the capital in the century following Soranus' death. It also points to the introduction of erotematic format for the writing of isagogic manuals, designed to introduce students to the field of medicine, in the course of that same century. By the end of the first century A. D., the Methodist sect at Rome has been energized by popular and controversial figures, and it is as a physician of the Method that Soranus achieves his fame at Rome. In the judgment of Caelius Aurelianus, Soranus is the decisive figure in the development of Methodist theory and practice, and his career marks the boundary between early practitioners of the Method (veteres Methodici) and the sect in its more mature developments. 97 While the loss of Soranus' treatise 'Commonalities' (IV D.10) probably deprives us of the full explication of his views about the elements of the Method, the 'Gynaikeia' amply demonstrates what a particular, Methodist doctor thinks and does, when caring for his patients. 98 Soranus deliberately eschews discussion of theoretical topics, such as seed and generation, dubbing them 'useless' for the purposes of his 'Gynaikeia', even though his intended audience reaches beyond midwives and nurses, extending, no doubt, to male practitioners and the heads of Roman households, the patres familias, who may welcome criteria by which to judge potential care-givers for their infants and their womenfolk. Utilitarian as the 'Gynaikeia' is, Soranus' confidence and pride in the logic and consistency of the Method shows clear, as he emphasizes the deficiencies 96

See P. Oxy LII 3 6 5 4 = 2 3 6 0 . 2 PACK3 (text now joined with P. Oxy II 2 3 4 = 97 PACK3 to form a single roll) and ANDORLINI (1992), 3 7 5 - 9 0 , who offers ameliorations for both texts (in the case of LII 3654, frags. 1 + 5 + 2 are joined, frags. 7 . 2 - 4 and 8 . 1 - 3 revised); cf. ANDORLINI MARCONE (1993), 4 7 5 N° 1. The recto (P. Oxy. II 234), which will have been written a number of years prior to the copying of the medical text on its verso, bears notes that refer to a lease made in the 14th year and a mention of "the current 17th year"; the editors of the text, GRENFELL and HUNT, argue that "the current 17th year" is a regnal year of "...either Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius, or Septimius Severus." That is, the text on the recto was written in either 153/54, or 176/77, or 2 0 8 / 2 0 9 A.D. - The question-and-answer format of the text on the verso is signalled in the papyrus by ektheseis in frag. 2, line 12, and frag. 8, line 7. ANDORLINI suggests that the text was probably not written by a doctor of the Method, but by someone who is presenting Methodic medicine, along with other medical systems, in doxographic and isagogic form; the preserved portion of the papyrus is therefore but a small part of a more extensive introduction to medicine, suitable for the training of beginners. The site at which the papyrus was found, Oxyrhynchus, was the metropolis of the nome and a town that has yielded a considerable quantity of Greek literature from all periods. See TURNER (1956), 1 4 1 - 4 6 , for the suggestion that members of the scholarly community in Alexandria have holiday homes in Oxyrhynchus. For additional bibliography on P. Oxy. LII 3654, see ROSELLI (1991), 76 and note 14.

PIGEAUD (1985), 3 2 1 - 3 8 . ss LLOYD (1983), 1 8 2 - 8 7 . 97

994

A N N ELLIS H A N S O N -

M O N I C A H. G R E E N

inherent in the epistemological positions of Dogmatics and Empirics. When he describes the best midwife, Soranus says that he would like her to be trained in all branches of therapy, but she must not base her methods for determining useful treatment in either arguments from 'hidden causes' or in the certainty that continued observation of sick people will be of help to her (Gyn. I 4). The best midwife is to function as would a physician of the Method and she is " . . . to prescribe hygienic regulations for her patients, to observe the general and the individual features of each case, and from these indications to find out what is expedient, not from the causes or from the repeated observations of what usually occurs or something of the kind" (5.13 — 16 ILBERG).

To be sure, neither of the other two sects - Rationalist or Empiric — is mentioned in this passage by n a m e , " and Soranus seldom constructs doxography by merely juxtaposing opinions of the two sects. His habit is rather to introduce specific medical writers by name, to add doctrinal affiliation for them, such as "follower of Herophilus," "follower of Erasistratus," and not infrequently to mention by title the particular treatise from which he draws the opinion he cites. He names names in order to criticize and he faults adherents of rival positions, as well as those within Methodist traditions, yet often with this difference - the mistakes of the latter tend to exemplify for Soranus misapplication of the Method in the course of day-to-day medical practice, while those outside Methodist traditions begin from theoretical assumptions that are irrevocably flawed.100 Thus at Gynaikeia I 27—29 Soranus asks whether menstruation is salubrious, and what is the relationship between menstruation and childbearing. He first cites Herophilus' 'Against common opinions', a treatise that has been credited with initiating doxographic preoccupations among the

99

Empirics are mentioned as a group at Gyn. III 2, when Soranus is canvassing those who believe that there are special diseases of women (also below). Rationalists/Dogmatics are never mentioned by name in the 'Gynaikeia', although many who had been classed by Empiricists under the rubric "Dogmatist/Rationalist" are cited — Hippocrates, Herophilus, Erasistratus, etc. Cf. CA Tard. pass. I iv 129, for a similar balancing of opinions about proper medicaments for epilepsy between "those who believe in hidden causes" (Rationalists) and Empirics "who believe in trial and experience." - Similar to Gyn. 14 is the discussion in Caelius Aurelianus of improper treatments prescribed by previous physicians for epilepsy, except for the addition of ut Empirici volunt (Tard. pass. I iv 129, 5 0 6 . 1 0 - 1 3 BENDZ). Elsewhere in Caelius, cf. Cel. pass.: the reference to Rationalists/ Dogmatists, who are credited with initiating the discussion of whether or not hydrophobia is a n e w d i s e a s e (III x v 1 1 8 - 2 5 , 3 6 2 . 1 3 BENDZ); a n d t h e r e f e r e n c e t o t h e m a s p o s s e s s i n g

a rational treatment for cholera, with whom the Empiricists Serapion and Heracleides of T a r e n t u m w e r e s a i d t o a g r e e (III x x i 2 1 6 - 1 9 , 4 1 8 . 1 6 - 1 8 BENDZ). 100

CA says Soranus excuses Themison for mistakes in treatment (here, Themison is said to be following principles of Empirics, for he is switching to an opposite treatment in the course of a chronic disease), because "...Themison was deceived by the mistakes of Asclepiades, and Methodists were led astray by the then imperfect state of knowledge" (Tard, pass. I i 50, 4 5 6 . 3 1 - 4 5 8 . 3 BENDZ); cf. also Cel. pass. I xvi 155.

S O R A N U S O F E P H E S U S : METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

995

Herophileans, his followers. 1 0 1 The great Hellenistic anatomist is quoted for his observation that some hold menstruation to have positive effects on women's health. This " s o m e " ought to include Hippocratics, 1 0 2 but Soranus names none of the early physicians here. "Themison and the majority of our people," the doctors of the Method, Soranus continues, "find menstruation useful only for childbearing," and this is the view which Soranus eventually endorses. In the meantime, however, he censures Herophilus, because he found menstruation profitable for the health of women in whom good color and proper nourishment go hand in hand with menstrual flows, but harmful only for those who become paler and thinner from the loss of blood. Mnaseas too is criticized for having come to much the same opinion as Herophilus, for he claimed that menstruation was healthful for those women whose nature was comparatively constricted, but harmful to those whose nature was comparatively fluid or lax. Soranus has no interest in faulting Mnaseas' theoretical framework. Rather, Mnaseas commits an error of judgment, since he classifies certain constrictions and fluidities as 'natural' and in accordance with nature, when, in fact, they are 'pathological' and contrary to nature. Soranus has already noted this mistake by Mnaseas in the second book of his own treatise 'Commonalities' and he bothers here to underscore the fact that Mnaseas, as doctor of the Method, has reached his conclusions by way of a different theoretical process than Herophilus. 1 0 3 The most elaborate balancing of previous opinions comes at the beginning of 'Gynaikeia' III, where, prior to discussing womanly conditions that are "contrary to nature," Soranus considers whether or not women have diseases peculiarly their o w n . 1 0 4 The argument is a particularly delicate one, since Soranus is by no means attracted to old-fashioned justifications for gynecology which claim that female nature is totally different from male nature. Although this was a view that punctuated the various gynecological treatises of the 'Hippocratic Corpus', Hellenistic anatomy demonstrated that male and female bodies are made essentially from the same stuff — muscle tissue, blood, and so forth. At the same time, Soranus wants to give his own project of writing

101 102

103

104

VON STADEN, Herophilus 2 9 9 - 3 0 1 . As Soranus goes on to make clear, this positive view of menstruation that he is refuting has, by his time, been wedded to the concept of a teleologically beneficent Nature that has provided menstruation for women as a means of eliminating the surplus fluids and blood that accumulate within them because of their sedentary lifestyle. Men do not need to menstruate to achieve health, for they evacuate the fluids through the sweat of toil. For a positive view of menstruation in the Hippocratic Corpus as totally beneficial to a woman's health, see e.g. Hipp. Morb. mul. 11, VIII 1 0 - 1 4 LITTRÉ. At other times, Soranus contents himself with contrasting what " s o m e m e n " say, as opposed to what "the others" say, as, for example, on the topic whether permanent virginity is healthful (Gyn. I 3 0 - 3 2 ) , or in establishing proper definitions for the phenomenon of conception (Gyn. 142). Gyn. IV 1 - 5 , dealing with dystocia, also begins with an elaborate doxography which canvasses opinions of earlier medical authorities, but the Greek text at this point is more lacunose than here at the opening of Gyn. III.

996

A N N ELLIS H A N S O N -

M O N I C A H.

GREEN

gynecology a more logical grounding in ways that earlier writers, apparently Herophilus and the Herophileans, failed to d o . 1 0 5 "The inquiry is useful," he says, "for the sake of learning whether women require their own special therapy" (Gyn. III 2, 9 4 . 1 6 - 1 7 ILBERG). The Empirics, Diocles, the Erasistrateans Athenion and Miltiades, the Asclepiadeans Lucius and Demetrius of Apam e a 1 0 6 are then cited as physicians who assume special nosological conditions in women. Hippocrates and the gynecologies of the 'Corpus' are again conspicuous for their absence from Soranus' list, for a physician such as the author of the Hippocratic 'Diseases of women' I is clearly endorsing the notion that women have their own diseases, when he concludes that " . . . doctors also make many mistakes ... when they treat women's diseases as if they were treating the diseases of men" (Morb. mul. I 62, V I I I 126 LITTRÉ).

Soranus now lists those who reject the concept of special diseases of women — Erasistratus, Herophilus, Apollonius Mys, Asclepiades, Alexander Philalethes, 1 0 7 Themison, Thessalus, and their Methodist followers. Now come arguments in support of each position, beginning with the affirmative: popular usage implies special diseases of women, for not only do women's physicians exist, but midwives too are summoned when women suffer something men do not. Then come arguments from philosophy: Aristotle and the less well-known Zeno the Epicurean consider the female different by nature when they claim that she is inferior and imperfect, when hierarchically compared to male perfection at the top of the progression. When Soranus turns to positive arguments based on anatomy and the unique role of the uterus in reproduction, lacunae plague the Greek text (section I). Not only are the remaining, positive arguments for affirmation lost, but also portions from both the beginning and end of the counter-position. Soranus eventually endorses in general terms the view of Themison and Thessalus (that a condition peculiar to women does not exist), but he will rephrase, modify, and clarify that proposition in its details: 1 0 8 "We say that there exist in women conditions that are in accordance with nature (conception, parturition, and lactation - if one wishes to call functions such as these 'conditions'), but female conditions contrary to nature 105

Although Soranus rejects Herophilus' theoretical stance vis-à-vis the existence of "women's diseases," his debt to Herophilus and Herophileans is large. See VON STADEN, Herophilus 3 0 0 and note 2 0 9 , for the important role Soranus' 'Gynaikeia' plays as a repository for Herophilus and the Herophileans.

106

See VON STADEN, Herophilus 5 3 7 and note 34, for the view that this is the same Lucius as cited at CA Tard. pass. II 1.59, II v i i . l l l , and IV i i i . 7 8 - 7 9 , not the famous pharmacologist. For Demetrius of Apameia, an Herophilean, despite his pairing with an Asclepiadean here, see VON STADEN, Herophilus 5 0 6 - 1 1 .

107

See VON STADEN, Herophilus 5 3 2 - 3 9 for Alexander Philalethes and 5 4 0 - 5 4 for Apollonius Mys. LLOYD (1983), 187, draws attention to Soranus' tendency to conclude an account of competing views by taking a definite stand as one plank in his case that Soranus does not adhere to Sceptic principles.

108

SORANUS O F EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

997

are not different in kind, although they do differ both in presentation and localization. Insofar as generic differences are concerned, the female has her diseases in common with the male. She suffers from excessive constriction or from excessive fluidity, and her suffering is either acute or chronic; she is also subject to the same variations of the seasons, to gradations in her sickness, to weakness, and to differences in other things, such as lesions and wounds. Only insofar as localization and appearance does the female show conditions peculiarly her own, such as with the different characters of her symptoms. Therefore she is subject to treatment that is generically the same . . . " (Gyn. III 5, 9 6 . 2 2 - 9 7 . 3 ILBERG). The proofs that Herophilus, Erasistratus, the Asclepiadeans offer to argue against the notion that there are special diseases of women are theoretically invalid, because they appeal to 'hidden causes'. Herophilus appeals to anatomy ("the uterus is woven from the same things as the other parts," Τ 1 9 3 VON STADEN); the Asclepiadeans, to the elementary particles that are identical in male and female; Erasistratus, to physiology and the body's economy in processing substances consumed, alike in male and female. While these men are mistaken in basic premises, Themison and Thessalus do not err in this fashion (their proofs are lost in lacuna). Nonetheless, in common with those who endorse 'hidden causes', the Methodist forebearers have never worked out a theoretical stance that is logically consistent and they have nothing to offer the writer of a Methodist gynecology. Their belief that females partake of the same etiologies as males and require the same therapeutic practices actually obviates the need for gynecology — and thus their stance effectively deprives Soranus of a logical grounding for his gynecological treatise. Hence he must carefully restate the proposition that nosological conditions in females are generically the same (excess constriction, excess fluidity), but are nonetheless different in their particulars, such as their localization (vagina and uterus) and the character of their symptoms (amenorrhea, uterine suffocation, uterine prolapse). Soranus' own argument is logically superior, for it is not only consistent with the writing of gynecology, but also is properly phrased in accordance with the principles of the Method. The practical nature of Soranus' gynecological handbook no doubt accounts, at least in part, for the fact that medical polemic is quantitatively less in the 'Gynaikeia' than in the Latin versions of 'Acute diseases' and 'Chronic diseases' from the hand of Caelius Aurelianus. Yet it is also most likely that in the field of women's medicine there are fewer predecessors to be criticized, because the number of physicians who previously write on obstetrical, gynecological, or pediatric topics is clearly less than those who write general medicine and who are content to locate the care of women within their treatises on general medicine. Herophilus writes a 'Midwifery' and bequeaths to his Herophileans the tradition of writing on gynecological topics. 1 0 9 Prior to Soranus'

1 0 9

S e e VON STADEN, H e r o p h i l u s

449-50.

998

ANN ELLIS HANSON -

MONICA H. GREEN

'Gynaikeia', however, there is no tradition of gynecological writing among doctors of the Method. Methodic principles also determine the therapies Soranus prescribes for nosological conditions in women. Soranus begins his discussion of the upset stomach that afflicts pregnant women in the early months of pregnancy with etymological inquiry, offering several etymologies to explain how the disease kissa got its name (Gyn. 1 4 8 - 5 3 ) . Is the condition named after the bird (kissa), probably the English magpie (pica in Latin), because it varies in its plumage and its cry, just as the condition in a gravid woman results in varying appetites for her? Or is it named for the ivy plant (kissos), because the sickness wanders about in a manner that varies? 1 1 0 Etymological queries are left unanswered, as Soranus turns to treat the illness. In order to combat the nausea of pregnancy, its hypersalivation, and cravings for unnatural foods, Soranus makes use of what appears to be traditional remedies, yet he is also at pains to align his prescriptions with Methodic principles and to demonstrate how well his prescriptions accord with rigorous, Methodist logic. 1 1 1 Pregnancy is the cause of digestive troubles, a chronic ailment, because in the early days of a pregnancy the embryo, being tiny and weak, is not yet able to use up the blood that gathers in the uterus. The embryo's inability to consume and process maternal blood in its early days in utero is also noted in the earlier Hippocratic gynecologies and embryologies, since both Hippocratics and Soranus suppose that blood normally evacuated as menses continues to accumulate inside a woman during pregnancy. 112 For Soranus, the surplus blood becomes toxic through stagnation and eventually returns from the uterus back again to the stomach. Once arrived, the toxicity of the blood irritates the stomach, producing pathological symptoms of improper digestion — vomiting, ptyalism, cravings, pallor, constipation. Healthy foods no longer nourish the pregnant woman or her developing infant, but rather, they too become toxic through contact with the morbid fluids already in the stomach. The commonality, or bodily state, is one of excessive fluidity and laxness, and this indicates a need for constrictive and drying therapies. A first line of attack is to reduce the flows of blood to the stomach through a day's fast, and then on the second and third day, to draw off the blood to other parts of the woman's body. Massage and hot baths divert it from the stomach and draw the surplus blood to the

110

111

Cf. above this section and note 76, drawing attention to the criticisms Galen makes about Soranus' medicaments for dandruff (De comp. med. sec. loc., XII 4 9 3 . 1 3 - 4 9 6 . 5 KÜHN). Cf. also below, section V, for kissa/cissa in Caelius Aurelianus, Muscio, and the 'Liber ad Soteris'. The following owes a heavy debt to the meticulous discussion by MALINAS-GOUREVITCH (1991),

112

217-29.

Gyn. I 4 8 - 5 3 ; the Hippocratic author of 'Nat. pueri' assumes that the male fetus is more vigorous early on than the female and uses up more of the accumulated blood than does the female, even when small. He correlates this difference with the amount of lochial flows to be expected after the birth of a boy or girl child ( 1 8 . 1 - 2 , VII 5 0 0 LITTRÉ). Cf. LONIE, Generation ad loc. 1 9 0 - 9 4 ; an abbreviated form of the same opinion is given at Morb. m u l . I 7 2 , V I I I 1 5 2 LITTRÉ.

SORANUS OF EPHESUS: METHOD1CORUM

PRINCEPS

999

woman's skin, as her skin's redness after a rubdown makes clear. Passive exercises, such as riding in a litter or chair, followed by more strenuous exercises, cause the elimination of excess moisture through sweat. By the third day the woman is advised to "...promenade, exercise her voice and read aloud with modulations ... dance, punch a leather bag, play with a ball, have a massage" (Gyn. I 49.4, 3 6 . 1 3 - 1 5 I L B E R G ) . In cases where her stomach does not respond to gentle medicaments, more aggressive costives are introduced: the woman's extremities are bound, 1 1 3 cupping vessels are applied to her chest and back. When foods are reintroduced after the fasting of the first day, they must calm her stomach and continue the process of desiccating it, while also nourishing and strengthening the entire woman. In his review of medicaments Soranus observes that "some people" vary their treatment, taking note of whether the excess fluid is pungent and burning, or thick and viscous. "Some people" refers to traditional humoral pathologists — any and all of whom endorse medical theories that consider constituent bodily fluids important causes of diseases. Humoral pathology is the dominant strain in Greek medicine throughout antiquity and from the fifth century onward humoral physiology assumes that a balance among constituent, bodily fluids is necessary for health, but that dominance of one humor over others is the cause of disease. 114 In such a scheme the doctor monitors the fluids that exit from the bodies of the sick, considering evacuations reliable indicators as to what is causing the disease within. If, for example, a patient's urine is "pungent and burning," the body which produces such urine must be dominated by bile; this excess bile must be eliminated in order to restore the patient to health. If a woman's menses are dominated by phlegm, then surplus phlegm predominates within her body and causes her sickness. The four humors blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm are endorsed by Galen and he claims that this is Hippocrates' view; in point of fact, although the Hippocratic 'Nature of man' endorses these same four humors, the 'Corpus' as a whole displays a remarkable variety as to what are the bodily humors, how many there are, which foods cause which humors to dominate within the body, and how each humor functions in health and in sickness. In his discussion of the nausea of early pregnancy, Soranus warns that "...such conduct (i.e. noting the quality of the humors evacuated and altering treatment as the quality of the dominant humor changes) is not in accordance with the principles of the Method, for one must not consider the variety of the fluids, but only the condition of the woman's body" (Gyn. I 52, 3 8 . 1 6 - 1 7 I L B E R G ) . 113

114

For binding the extremities in CA, cf. Cel. pass. II 215 (cardiac ailments) and III 198 (cholera); in Tard. pass. II 152 (hemorrhage), III 27 and 31 (diseases of the esophagus), and IV 39 and 49 (digestive problems, similar to kissa in the pregnant woman). For a brief summary of humoral pathology from Homer to the 'Corpus', see SMITH ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 5 4 7 - 6 6 ; f r o m the ' C o r p u s ' t h r o u g h H e r o p h i l u s , s e e VON STADEN, H e r o p h i l u s ,

242—46. For the relation between bodily humors and receptacle-organs in the 'Corpus', s e e GUNDERT ( 1 9 9 2 ) , 4 5 3 - 5 5 . 67 ANRW II 37.2

1000

ANN ELLIS HANSON -

MONICA H. GREEN

The Method considers constituent bodily humors irrelevant to treatment, for the humoral theory entangles the physician in theories that cannot be proved. A humoral pathologist must not only make complicated evaluations of bodily evacuations, but he must assume etiologies of disease that are hidden from sense perceptions. Physicians of the Method ignore apparent differences in bodily humors, because the commonality of excessive fluidity inevitably and continually exhibits its need for constrictive remedies. Doctors of the Method do, however, alter the strength of their medicaments. Soranus sees menstruation as the primary function of the uterus and he considers pathological amenorrhea first among women's sicknesses that must be treated with regimen and diet (Gyn. III 6 - 1 6 ) . 1 1 5 This portion of the 'Gynaikeia' gives especially full display to the Method's precise and elaborate manipulation of medicaments, perhaps because amenorrhea plays such a vital role in pregnancy and female health. The discussion begins with differential diagnosis: the physicians' first duty is to separate out those women whose amenorrhea is physiological and in accordance with nature — the premenarchic and the postmenopausal, the pregnant, the mannish female who produces little blood, the athletic female who expends her surplus fluids in sweat and exercises and has scant surplus for menses, the obese female who turns excess nourishment to bodily fat. Among the women whose amenorrhea is pathological and contrary to nature, the cause may be generalized sicknesses that affect a woman's entire body, or sicknesses localized in her uterus, or sicknesses that affect both her body and her uterus. Soranus stresses the importance of a faceto-face interview with the patient in order to avoid aborting an early pregnancy by the prescription of harsh emmenagogues, such as his predecessors have employed (Gyn. III 12). In drawing attention to the fact that he has already indicated treatment for pathological amenorrhea in other therapeutic contexts, yet will also treat the subject again here, Soranus offers a specific example in practice of the theoretical discussion that opens 'Gynaikeia' III. Although the bodily state of a woman with pathological amenorrhea is one of excessive constriction, the fact that her illness involves her uterus demands unique and separate discussion of the treatment in a gynecological context. Even if not salubrious, normal menstruation is, after all, a prerequisite for conception (Gyn. 129). Further, many gynecological therapies have known long usage and are sanctioned by tradition, yet Soranus is concerned that the time-tried therapies he approves of also be rephrased in accordance with Methodist thinking. Soranus briefly surveys indurations and uterine closures, cacexia from undernourishment, obesity, and the elimination of blood through orifices other than the vagina (hemorrhoids, vomiting, epistaxis), and for these conditions he assumes that treatment is obvious — uterine hardness must be softened, closures opened; extremes eliminated, if the woman is too thin or too fat. He leads his patient along a path of generalized treatment to relax her constricted bodily state, invariably forking his course, as the woman's bodily strength and the virulence of her disease indicate to a doctor of the Method that he must continually choose 115

Cf. SCARBOROUGH ( 1 9 9 1 ) , 2 0 3 - 1 6 and RUBENSTEIN ( 1 9 8 5 ) , 1 3 8 - 4 2 .

SORANUS OF EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

1001

between the milder or the more potent ingredients. In the initial stage of treating amenorrhea medicaments are to be mild - most often heat, applied in a variety of ways - unless the woman's pains call for more severe measures. Treatment progresses according to three-day cycles, 1 1 6 and more active medicaments - venesection and cupping with superficial scarification - are progressively introduced in accordance with this pattern, so that the bodily disturbances the more invasive therapies cause are able to recede before treatment begins anew. Thus, intervals of rest in which the woman's body recuperates alternate with the more aggressive remedies. Once the acute stage of the sickness has passed, the woman's menstruation may return, and if it does, Soranus prescribes therapies to restore her body. Here he refers to medicaments such as the "so-called marjoram remedy for the relief of pain," but does not describe it, implying that its ingredients, its method of compounding, and its means of application are all familiar to his audience. Should the condition become longlasting and chronic, the restorative cure is followed by a cycle of therapies whose intention is to alter the woman's body and her uterus to help them withstand the sickness in the future - the "metasyncritic cure." Insofar as the treatment of amenorrhea is concerned, this means a progessively more pungent diet, combined with increasingly drastic and aggressive rubdowns and baths. In stubborn cases, when amenorrhea continues on unabated, "one must make the patient choke with white hellebore and must afterwards prescribe prolonged traveling, the use of natural waters, and, in general, diversions of the mind. For if by thus keeping on with the same things and adding more active ones the condition is at last relieved, menstruation becomes unimpeded." (Gym. ILL 16.4, 1 0 4 . 2 2 - 2 7 ILBERG). Soranus' discussion of female flux also begins with an account of the opinions of previous physicians (Gyn. III 4 3 - 4 4 ) . Two Herophileans, Alexander Philalethes and Demetrius, 1 1 7 and Asclepiades are cited for their descriptions of fluxes that emphasize differences in the color of the flow (red, white, watery), in its potency (inactive, or active and causing irritation and pain), and in its source (derived from the whole body, from the uterus, or from some other part). Such a theory of fluxes is wrong from the outset, claims Soranus, and he again rules that charting such differences is useless. According to the Method a flux is a sickness of excess fluidity and laxness, and it invariably indicates its need for constrictive therapy. The differences that do matter to Soranus, as he chooses among medicaments, are the patient's pain, whether or not the flux is causing ulcerations, whether or not the flux becomes long-lasting. Should the flux become chronic, Soranus employs simple remedies during exacerbations in order 116

117

67*

For the diatritos, see e.g. TEMKIN, Soranus xxxvi; and the note ad Praecogn. 12, C M G V 8,1, 1 3 2 . 4 NUTTON (pp. 2 2 3 - 2 4 ) . Cf. also CA Cel. pass. I Χ 7 0 - 8 0 , for treatment of phrenitis through venesection. For Demetrius of Apamea, see VON STADEN, Herophilus 5 0 6 - 1 1 , and with regard to equating Demetrius the Apamean with Demetrius the Herophilean, VON STADEN suggests that " a faint doubt ... would be appropriate" (p. 509).

1002

ANN ELLIS HANSON -

MONICA H. GREEN

to give relief; during remissions come restorative treatments to be followed by the far more intense metasyncritic ones. The theoretical stance of the Method leads its practitioners to logical and proper conclusions, and again Soranus is at pains to separate mistakes committed by the majority of doctors because of their faulty theory, from mistakes made by Methodist doctors, who err because they happen to choose a wrong treatment. Thus Thessalus is said "not to act in accordance with himself," when he joins the majority in sprinkling salt or natron on a uterus that continues to prolapse (Gyn. I V 39, 1 5 2 . 4 — 8 I L B E R G ) . Thessalus forgets his own principle that metasyncritic remedies must be reserved for times of remission, and his mistake lies in employing strong remedies during an exacerbation of uterine prolapse. In context, Soranus' dismissal of flux-cataloging by humoral physicians as useless activity proceeds logically from his discussion. What is important in his scheme is the flow's indication of an excess fluidity that calls for constrictive therapy. 1 1 8 Far more arbitrary is Soranus' labeling as useless for the midwife all discourse on medical theory or anatomy, as he does in his introductory chapters to the 'Gynaikeia' (12 and 5). Soranus admits that both subjects (medical theory and anatomy) contribute to a scholarly grasp (chrêstomatheia) 119 of the discipline of medicine, but medical theory, which Soranus equates here with the topics of seed and generation, is omitted because he finds it inappropriate to the medical genre of gynecological writing, and he does discuss the matter in the more appropriate medical genres. As noted above, the woman most fitted to become a midwife must also be literate, " . . . so that she comprehend the art of medicine also through theory," 1 2 0 and she can easily complete her education by reading Methodist theory of generation in Soranus' treatise 'Seed' (IV D.7). Insofar as anatomy is concerned, Soranus excuses himself in advance because he intends to give a brief overview of what is learned from dissection. On the one hand, anatomy cannot be directly observed from visible phenomena, and therefore its inclusion in his gynecology represents a violation of strict Methodic principles. Anatomy is, as Soranus says, useless to medical practice. On the other hand, by describing what anatomy reveals about the 118

119

120

Similar claims at Gyn. III 17 with regard to the fact that causes of uterine inflammation have no bearing on treatment and cf. III 19. LLOYD (1983), 194—96, notes passages where etiology of the disease plays a role in Soranus' argument and where a diagnosis of underlying causes influences Soranus' choice of treatment; at the same time, LLOYD also admits that Soranus stays closer to directly observable appearances than does a traditional, Dogmatic physician. The discussion that follows owes many debts to that in LLOYD (1983), 168-200. For chrêstomathês, as 'scholarly' rather than 'an adept in polite learning' (LSJ), see SHACKLETON BAILEY, commentary to Cicero, ad Att. 2 (1.6.3). LSJ glosses Soranus' pherekosmos as 'ornamental', but the word appears to be hapax legomenon. Cf. also Longinus, De sublimitate 2.3: "If, as I said, those who object to scholars' investigation (tois chrêstomathousin) would ponder these things, they would, I think, no longer consider the investigation of our subject [i. e. the sublime] extravagant or useless." For the assumption that scholarly learning enhances doctors' abilities to heal, see Clement Alex. Strom. IV 4 3 . 3 - 4 . Gyn. I 3, 4.19 ILBERG. The word technê, the discipline of medicine, appears only here in the 'Gynaikeia'.

SORANUS O F EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

1003

uterus and vagina Soranus shows that he is, in fact, knowledgeable about the subject and he thereby dispels suspicions that he is omitting something others consider useful out of ignorance (Gyn. I 5). Soranus reports the findings of Herophilus 1 2 1 as prefatory to discussing uniquely female conditions that are in accordance with nature. As GEOFFREY LLOYD emphasizes, Soranus is particularly likely to cite evidence from dissection in order to refute opinions of other authorities, 1 2 2 such as the claim that the human female possesses 'cotyledons', or breast-shaped suckers, in her uterus (Gyn. 114), and the claim that in virgins a thin membrane grows across the vagina, obstructing access to the womb (Gyn. I 1 6 - 1 7 ) . 1 2 3 LLOYD also notes that Soranus appeals to anatomy to overturn faulty practice. Thus, for example, Soranus claims that the vaginal suppositories and fumigations employed by Diocles, Evenor, and Euryphon, in order to discover whether a woman is capable of conceiving, give false information (Gyn. I 35). While Soranus has no quarrel with the notion that suppositories and fumigations permeate the skin and inner, bodily structures, he disputes the notion that the distribution of such fumes gives any information about a woman's fertility. The tests that Soranus attributes here to the early physicians Diocles, Evenor, and Euryphon appear for us in the gynecological treatises of the 'Hippocratic Corpus', where a woman's ability to conceive is gauged by the ability of pungent smells in her vagina to be conveyed upward — first into her uterus along the unimpeded reproductive channel of the vagina, and then, after traversing the pathway to the uterus also to be traveled by male seed, the odors continue along the reproductive-alimentary tube or roadway connecting the vagina-anus with nose-mouth, so that the woman eventually perceives the odors in her nose or mouth. 1 2 4 Substances permeate the body also for Soranus, but they are conveyed through sub-sensible ducts, "visible by means of reasoning." The anatomical discoveries of the Hellenistic physicians have rendered obsolete the notion of a central reproductive-alimentary tube, imagined by Hippocratics.

121

122

123

Cf. VON STADEN, Herophilus 1 6 7 - 6 8 , with Τ 1 0 6 (pp. 2 1 4 - 1 5 , on uterine, or Fallopian, tubes) and Τ I l l a (p. 217). LLOYD (1983), 1 8 2 - 2 0 0 , is here investigating Sextus Empiricus' claim that the Sceptic philosopher has closer affinities to the Methodist physicians than to other medical sects, and he concludes that while Soranus does avoid speculation about constitutive bodily elements and final causes, he is seldom led to the sceptical stance of withholding judgment, even when he must pass beyond visible evidence. For the argument that Soranus is combatting the popular notion that in virgins the mouth of the uterus is closed (as is assumed, for example, in the Hippocratic 'Morb. virginum', where an impediment blocks access to the mouth of the uterus at the vagina's interior orifice), when he denies the existence of a membrane across the vagina, see HANSON (1990), 3 2 4 - 3 0 . Soranus' explanation for the bleeding that follows defloration does not appeal to the hymen of modern anatomy, located at the exterior mouth of the vagina, but rather to the spreading and bursting of blood vessels that previously compress the sides o f t h e v a g i n a ( 1 1 6 ) . See M A L I N A S - B U R G U I È R E - G O U R E V I T C H ( 1 9 8 5 ) , 1 6 1 - 6 8 , a n d a l s o

124

Bude I, schema 14, p. 123. See e.g. Hipp. Steril. 2 1 4 , VIII 4 1 4 - 1 6 LITTRÉ, or Aphorisms V 59, IV 5 5 4 LITTRÉ. For the reproductive-alimentary tube, HANSON ( 1 9 9 1 b ) , 85 and HANSON ( 1 9 9 2 b), 3 9 - 4 0 . Cf. also section III and note 86.

1004

A N N ELLIS H A N S O N

-

M O N I C A H.

GREEN

Soranus' conviction that knowledge of anatomy is irrelevant to the practice of midwifery is also in accord with arguments mounted by the Empiric sect in opposition to Rationalist defenses of vivisection and dissection, as necessary components of medicine. Empirics argue that in addition to being cruel, neither practice reveals what is happening inside the body of a living person: vivisecting violates and changes a living body as radically as does the death that necessarily precedes dissection. 1 2 5 Even invasive medical procedures draw censure in the 'Gynaikeia', and Soranus objects to the venesection his Methodist forerunners and predecessors prescribe, twice comparing phlebotomy to menstruation, since both sap a woman's strength, but do not preserve her health. 1 2 6 Soranus repeatedly speaks out against other therapies he considers too potent, and he censures Themison for bleeding women who are afflicted with uterine hemorrhage. The notion that uncontrolled vaginal bleeding can be staunched by diverting the blood to another point of exit from the body is traditional, and the 'Hippocratic Corpus', for example, considers a nose bleed, or bloody vomit, equivalents for menstruation. 1 2 7 Soranus advises phlebotomy in cases of uterine bleeding only when acute inflammation or violent pain indicate a need for the procedure (Gyn. III 4 2 and 4 4 ) . 1 2 8 To the Christian Tertullian Soranus is 'milder', when placed in the company of Hippocrates, Asclepiades, Erasistratus, and Herophilus — as physicians who make use of a variety of instruments to excise a fetus in order to save the life of its mother (De anima 25.5). Tertullian is surveying physicians' practices in order to show that doctors also consider the fetus a living being, while it is yet in utero, and that they mercifully kill it before attempting to extract it. Like his fellows, Soranus is concerned in cases of dystocia to remove a fetus, once it becomes apparent that it is not responding to manual manipulation and is not likely to survive its birthing (Gyn. IV 9—13). Like his fellows, Soranus uses instruments of extraction - the 'fetal hook' (embryoulkos) and the 'fetal knife' (embryotomos). 1 2 9 Soranus is 'milder', not in the fact that he refrains from fetal extractions — he does not — but 'milder', especially when compared with Herophilus, characterized by

125

Celsus, Praefatio 2 3 - 2 6 and 4 0 - 4 4 ; Tertullian, De anima, 1 0 . 4 . For the likelihood that Tertullian derives his arguments against vivisection and dissection from Soranus' 'Soul' ( I V A . L ) , s e e K A R P P ( 1 9 3 4 ) , 3 1 - 4 7 , W A S Z I N K , T e r t u l l i a n 1 8 5 - 8 6 , VON STADEN, H e r o p h i l u s 2 3 4 — 3 6 , a n d c f . s e c t i o n I.

126

128

129

E . g . Gyn. 1 2 8 and 1 4 2 . Phlebotomy is prescribed for retained menses, Gyn. III 11; for uterine suffocation, Gyn. III 2 8 ; and as an abortive therapy, Gyn. I 6 5 . Aphorisms V 3 2 - 3 3 , IV 5 4 2 - 4 4 LITTRÉ. Cf. also C A Cel. pass. Ill 3 5 — 3 9 , where Asclepiades is attacked for employing phlebotomy and for making an incision in the larynx, and II 2 1 9 , where two Herophileans, as well as Asclepiades and Themison, are criticized for their remedies, including venesection — which procedure is said in the Latin not to differ from slaughter (iugulatici). Embryoulkia

( G y n . I V 9 , 1 4 0 . 4 ILBERG; I V 1 3 , 1 4 3 . 3 3 ILBERG; I V 3 5 , 1 4 7 . 2 0

Cf. also Gyn. II 2, 5 2 . 2 and 5 ILBERG, embryoulkein embryoulkos

( G y n . I V 9 , 1 4 0 . 2 6 ILBERG; I V 1 0 ,

1 4 2 . 7 ILBERG; I V 1 2 , 1 4 3 . 3 1

I L B E R G ) ; embryotomia

ILBERG).

(Gyn. IV 3, 1 3 3 . 1 0 ILBERG), and

141.7,

1 3 , 1 7 , 2 5 , 2 8 ILBERG; I V

11,

( G y n . I V 9 , 1 4 0 . 5 ILBERG; I V

13,

1 4 3 . 3 3 ILBERG) and embryotomos (Gyn. IV 11, 1 4 2 . 1 1 ILBERG). Curiously, Soranus does not mention the "fetal slayer" (embryospkaktês), cf. WASZINK, Tertullian 3 2 8 .

SORANUS OF EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

1005

Tertullian in this same passage as "the dissector even of adults." At an earlier point Tertullian refers to Herophilus as a butcher (10.4), and it is likely that he learned from Soranus not only that Herophilus vivisected, but that Herophilus ought be censured for seeking knowledge about the body in such a manner. 1 3 0 Celsus, Rufus, and Galen defend vivisection and dissection of animals as essential components of a physician's training, but Soranus contents himself with learning his anatomy from the books of Herophilus and of the Herophileans. 1 3 1 As the above samples from the 'Gynaikeia' suggest, the Method supplies Soranus with basic notions he finds congenial and flexible. Curing a patient's sickness is Soranus' principal concern. He classifies diseases as either acute, and therefore violent and short-lived, or chronic, and therefore resistant. He doctors by identifying whether a diseased patient's body is too fluid and too lax, or, on the other hand, is too constricted, and whether the disease is localized or spread in her body. He attempts the cure by a carefully graduated series of medicaments and therapies, designed to move from mild intervention to the more and more invasive. He counters excess in the body by introducing its opposite. Even though the 'Gynaikeia' is a specialized treatise, Soranus makes it an elegant production. He thinks it appropriate to name names and cite opinions from some forty earlier scientists and physicians with views on women's diseases; he decorates his prose with etymologies, thereby adding his own stamp to the notion that names for bodily parts are omens for what they represent. His unusual vocabulary and idiosyncratic views give his handbook a distinctive flavor. Soranus displays sectarian loyalties by underscoring the logical superiority of the Method and by faulting Methodist predecessors largely when they violate principles of the Method in their therapeutics. It is tempting to see Soranus the man as identical with the medical persona of the 'Gynaikeia', a detached, but caring medical authority; someone who has chosen with considerable care a medical epistemology he finds congenial — yet also someone who stands somewhat apart from the competitive medical scene of imperial Rome with its sectarian jealousies and pettiness. Soranus lacks the flamboyance of Asclepiades and Thessalus, and he exhibits none of Galen's irritating selfadvertisements. Much as we may admire the doctor of the Method who functions in the 'Gynaikeia', this is merely the persona Soranus has elected to project.

IV. Soranus'

writings

Soranus' treatises were widely read in the centuries immediately following his lifetime, although details of their subsequent fate become increasingly diffi130

131

Cf. VON STADEN, Herophilus T65, T66, T 2 4 7 and pp. 1 3 8 - 5 3 , 2 3 5 - 3 6 ; WASZINK, Tertullian 185. EDELSTEIN (1967), 2 4 7 - 3 0 1 ; for the fact that the habit of viviseeting was short-lived, e v e n a t A l e x a n d r i a , KUDLIEN ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 7 8 - 9 4 . See a l s o VON STADEN, H e r o p h i l u s 138-53.

26-30,

1006

ANN

ELLIS

HANSON

-

MONICA

H.

GREEN

cult to trace, once we leave works specifically identified as his and works that are preserved in some fashion to modern times through a Greek manuscript tradition, or in chance papyrus finds. Titles and fragments are vague entities, and it is often the case that we do not know the medical genre to which one of his treatises belongs, what its original format was, how extensive the treatise once was — even if knowledge of a title does provide a vague notion about its contents. ERNST KIND listed the treatises attributed to Soranus as they were known to him in 1927 in his survey for the 'Realencyclopädie'; his list remains authoritative, largely because it represents the most complete listing of Soranus' fragments that is readily available. 132 In what follows we repeat KIND'S numbering of Soranus' treatises and our intention is merely to update KIND'S account wherever we can.

A. Philosophical writings 1. O n the soul' I - I V ('Περί ψυχής' δ') The treatise is lost. Tertullian has the work to hand when writing his own 'De anima' and he tells us that Soranus' treatise was a thorough discussion of the soul in four books (section I). J. H. WASZINK'S edition of the 'De anima' in 1947 tries to clarify Tertullian's use of Soranus, arguing that Soranus' treatise provides Tertullian (1) with a framework and an order of discussion; (2) with doxographies that are critical of the opinions from earlier physicians and philosophers on various aspects of the soul; and (3) with specific arguments, especially at those points where Tertullian mentions Soranus by name. For example, Tertullian praises Soranus for his proofs that the soul is nourished by corporeal food and that, when failing and weak, the soul, like the body, is refreshed by appropriate nourishment (6.6). Later, Tertullian says that Soranus divides the soul into seven parts and that he, along with the philosophers who partition the soul in various ways, is actually pointing to the soul's functions, rather than its organic parts (14.2). Soranian origins may, for example, also be suspected when Tertullian reiterates views found in the 'Gynaikeia', such as the notion that the soul has its beginning in utero and matures there prior to birth, or the notion that live birth takes place in the ninth/tenth or seventh months ( 3 7 . 3 - 5 ) . Soranus himself distinguishes between the original conception of liquid seed and later retention of a solidified and articulated fetus, a being that changes over time and eventually acquires both a nature and a soul (Gyn. 143). Soranus also outlines stages of uterine development from a pathological point of view, as liquid seed moves from being a 'flow out' (ekrhoia) in its first three days after conception, to being a solid that untimely departs the uterus as a 'miscarriage' (ektrôsis), perishing after its first two or three months of gestation, and finally to a 'premature birth' ( ô m o t o k i a ) in which a formed infant 132

E . g . TEMKIN, Soranus xxiii; GOUREVITCH (Budé), I x x v and note 3 4 ; HANSON ( 1 9 9 2 a ) , 50-57.

SORANUS OF EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

1007

dies, or is atrophic and weak (Gyn. III 47). Soranus says that birth takes place around the seventh or ninth or tenth month (Gyn. II 66). The superstition that the child born in its seventh month in utero lives, but the one born in its eighth month does not, is known in Tertullian's Carthage, but Soranus' endorsement of the notion may amplify its importance to him (Gyn. I 5 6 ) . 1 3 3 Although Tertullian borrows from Soranus, he also borrows from others, and he adapts what he borrows into his own intellectual property. There are surely Soranian elements in Tertullian's 'De anima', but we can be certain only when Soranus is specifically appealed to as source.

B. Soranus' literary and philological treatises 2. 'Lives of the physicians: sects and treatises' I—Χ ('Βίοι ιατρών καί αιρέσεις και συντάγματα' ι') 'Lives of the physicians' is lost, except for Soranian elements that linger in four biographies of Hippocrates, all of late date (below). This version of the title derives from the second 'Suda' biography of Soranus, while an alternate title, 'Successions of the physicians' ('των ιατρών διαδοχαί'), is k n o w n from the scholia to Oribasius (III 687.1). 1 3 4 Both titles point to a sectarian orientation for Soranus' biographies, perhaps arranged according to the doctors w h o successively functioned as heads of the various medical sects, their followers, and their writings. 1 3 5 H o w extensive Soranus' individual biographies were is u n k n o w n , and while the 'Bios of Hippocrates' cannot be constructed in any detail f r o m the various emanations derived f r o m it, some notion of the topics 133

134

135

De anima 3 7 . 3 - 4 , where Tertullian turns to look at the times for birth, and WASZINK, Tertullian 1 2 0 - 2 1 and 4 2 6 - 2 7 . See 'Passio Sanctarum Perpetuae et Felicitatis' 15, although Felicity's child, a girl, survives her birth as a child of eight months, and HANSON (1987), 5 8 9 - 6 0 2 . For other likely borrowings from Soranus, see also, e.g. WASZINK, Tertullian 461 ad 4 3 . 1 - 8 (sleep is natural, and CA Cel. pass. II ix.5); 4 7 5 - 7 8 ad 42.2 (against the existence of the incubo as a powerful force, and CA Tard. pass. I iii.55); 527 ad 51.2—3 (death is a separation of body and soul); and 534—35 ad 52.1 (antithesis kata physin and para pbysin in distinguishing kinds of death). KIND (1927), cols. 1115 — 16, where he paraphrases the title as "The ten-volume history of medicine consisting of biographies of doctors, views of the medical sects, and compilations of their positions on various theoretical and practical questions." Also Praefatio xv ILBERG: „...librts decern." These are to be preferred to «...des vies de médecins; des principes philosophiques; des traités en neuf livres. » GOUREVITCH (Budé), I xxv. It is possible that Aetius knew an abridged version of this work under the title " 'Areskonta' of Soranus" (IX.50). LSJ, s.v. διαδοχή, for a work by Sotion, a second century B.C. Peripatetic, entitled 'Successions of the philosophers'. KIND (1927), col. 1116, approvingly cites the suggestion that Caelius Aurelianus' remark at Cel. pass. I 9 means that he intended to translate this work of Soranus, but see the app. crit. ad Caelius Aurelianus, Cel. pass. I 9, both at CML V I 1 , 2 6 . 2 6 - 2 7 BENDZ and also p. 6 DRABKIN, where both read the title of the work as 'Contra sectas', not the 'Intra sectas' of the Guinterius edition.

1008

A N N ELLIS H A N S O N

-

M O N I C A H.

GREEN

it must have included can be deduced from congruities that bind together two or more of the four, late Hippocratic 'Lives'. As a group, Soranus' 'Lives of the physicians' no doubt cohere to Hellenistic and Roman patterns for biographic narrative, 1 3 6 and follow established compositional practices, such as following biographic detail with a notice of the subject's various writings — perhaps the number of his works and their forms, 1 3 7 or a canonical list of treatises by title. 1 3 8 As noted above (section I), I L B E R G included a biography of Hippocrates in his edition of Soranus. We refer here to this biography, contained in manuscripts of the 'Hippocratic Corpus', as 'Life' (1). The oldest manuscript for the complete 'Corpus', the tenth-century Venetian Bibl. Marc. 2 6 9 ( = M), gives the full title of the life as 'Genealogy and life of Hippocrates according to Soran u s ' . 1 3 9 I L B E R G accepts 'Soranus' in the title as a reference to 'Soranus of Ephesus', not some other Soranus, such as the additional 'Soranus' whom the 'Suda' summons into being, or 'Soranus of Cos', cited in 'Life' (1) as carrying out archival research on the island (section II). 1 4 0 In his introduction ILBERG properly cautions that 'Life' (1) is but a very mutilated excerpt from Soranus' once fuller text, and, as evidence for the Soranian origins of 'Life' (1), he points to the biography's fondness for doxographic enumerations and the rarity of hiatus, both characteristics of the 'Gynaikeia' (praefatio, xiv—xv ILBERG). K I N D accepts ILBERG'S view of 'Life' ( 1 ) , and adds, as also derived from Soranus' 'Bioi', the biography of the great Hippocrates in the 'Suda'. 1 4 1 We shall refer to the 'Suda' biography as 'Life' (2). K I N D offers no reasons for his attributions, but he declares GOSSENS wrong to deny Soranian origins for 'Lives' (1) and (2) in his earlier article on Hippocrates for 'Realencyclopädie', 1 4 2 GOSSENS also refrained from arguing the point, although he was perhaps following the view of E M I L E L I T T R E that the 'Lives' of Hippocrates which come

136

Such as the lives of the philosophers, as we have them in Diogenes Laertius, or of the Greek poets, conveniently collected in LEFKOWITZ ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 1 3 9 - 7 2 . An important theme in the Hippocratic 'Lives' and the Hippocratic 'Pseudepigrapha' is Hippocrates' patriotism and his refusal to serve at the court of Artaxerxes of Persia because of his love for Greece. The theme is likewise integral to biographies of the Attic tragedians. While both Aeschylus and Euripides die away from Athens at the courts of tyrants and kings, Sophocles " . . . was so loyal to Athens that when many kings sent for him he did not want to leave his country" (Vita Soph. 10).

137

E . g . Vita Pindaris 11 and LEFKOWITZ ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 1 5 7 ; Vita Aeschyli 3 . 3 - 5 and LEFKOWITZ ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 1 5 9 ; Vita Euripidis and LEFKOWITZ ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 1 6 9 . E . g . Diogenes Laertius II 5 6 - 5 7 (Xenophon) and PINAULT ( 1 9 9 2 a ) , 1 7 and note 6 5 . 'Ιπποκράτους γένος και βίος κατά Σωρανόν. In addition to Μ , ILBERG consulted two groups of mss. to construct his Greek text: R , U, Ε, Η , β (for which latter, see LITTRE I 5 3 3 - 3 4 ) , and F, I, J. ILBERG'S app. crit. ad loc. shows that although γένος is omitted in β and word-order differs in UE, the phrase κατά Σωρανόν invariably appears. For the date of the Venice ms., Bibl. Marc. 2 6 9 , see WILSON ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 1 3 9 .

138 139

140 141

As argued e.g. by SCHEELE ( 1 8 8 4 ) , 7 and note 1. Η 5 6 4 ADLER. The 'Suda' contains biographical notices for seven doctors from Cos, all named Hippocrates, Η 5 6 4 - 6 9 . GOSSENS ( 1 9 1 3 ) , c o l .

1802.

SORANUS O F EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

1009

down to us derived from a 'Soranus of Ephesus', but not the Soranus of Ephesus, who was author of the Gynaikeia. 1 4 3 LITTRÉ'S Soranus is 'Soranus minor' of the 'Suda' biography, now deprived, however, of the 'Gynaikeia', which was a work by the 'great' Soranus. GOSSENS does attribute to the younger Soranus two additional Hippocratic 'Lives' - a garbled and misspelled Latin biography, 144 here referred to as 'Life' (3), and a verse biography of Hippocrates that Johannes Tzetzes composed for his 'Chiliades' in the twelfth century (VII 944—89), 'Life' (4). Although there is no mention of a source for the Latin life, Tzetzes says that he speaks about Hippocrates on the authority of Soranus of Ephesus (Chiliades VII 986). In his turn, the editor of the Latin biography, HERMANN SCHÖNE, argues that because of discrepancies in detail between 'Life' (3) and 'Life' (4), the former cannot derive from Soranus, even though it must be a Latin version of some lost Greek work. 'Realencyclopädie' contains other opinions about 'Lives' (1) —(4), such as that by LUDWIG EDELSTEIN in 1936 which is at odds with the opinions surveyed above. In his article on Hippocrates EDELSTEIN emphasized discrepancies among the 'Lives' and claimed that only 'Life' (4) derives from the 'Bioi' of Soranus of Ephesus (cols. 1 2 9 2 - 9 5 ) , as Tzetzes himself insists. Such a hodgepodge of opinions on the four 'Lives', variously valued as 'Soranian' and possible witnesses for Soranus' now lost 'Bioi', has come about because the evaluations took place within the context of the "Hippocratic question." Scholars have preferred to deny that one, or two, or more of the 'Lives' derive from the 'great' Soranus, because such a stance efficiently discredits any evidence the 'Lives' might offer about the historical Hippocrates and because this stance deprives of ancient authority the canons of Hippocrates' treatises that accompany 'Lives' (2) and (3). But the dynamics of the "Hippocratic question" have drastically altered in more recent scholarly discourse. It is now generally agreed, for example, that Alexandrian and post-Alexandrian testimony on Hippocrates is without historical value; that no accurate information on Hippocrates ever reached Alexandria; that because early testimony from Plato refers to no extant works by Hippocrates, knowledge about writings from his hand, if such knowledge ever existed, was early lost. 1 4 5 In short, Soranus of Ephesus, elegant writer of the preserved gynecological text, respected teacher, philosopher and historian of medicine, would have found writing a 'Bios' for Hippocrates a difficult task, unless he were content to reiterate what the medi143 LITTRÉ, Hippocrates I 3 2 - 3 3 . 144

The Latin version, from the Brussels ms. of Theodorus Priscianus, Bibl. roy. 1 3 4 2 - 5 0

145

See the summary of modern scholarship on the 'Hippocratic question' in SMITH (1979), 3 4 — 4 4 ; for the 'pseudoscholarship' that marks both Hippocratic 'Lives' and the Pseudepigrapha, see SMITH (1989), 1 0 3 - 1 0 7 , although SMITH there endows the seven lives in the 'Suda' (above, note 141) with preserving "the remains of a genuine insular succession." SMITH, Hippocrates 6 - 1 8 , convincingly expands this line of argument in his edition of the 'Pseudepigrapha', where he characterizes the Presbeutikos and Epibomios as " . . . a species of propaganda for the Asclepiads and C o s " and the earlier core around which other fictional traditions about Hippocrates coalesced.

(fol. 5 2

V

-53

V

a n d c f . f o l . 3 R ) , is p u b l i s h e d b y S C H Ö N E ( 1 9 0 3 ) ,

56-66.

1010

ANN

ELLIS H A N S O N

-

MONICA

H.

GREEN

cal historians of the Hellenistic and Roman periods were gathering and fashioning into a fictional life of Hippocrates. The information 'Lives' (1)—(4) offer is similar in quality to that in the Hippocratic pseudepigrapha, and 'Lives' (1) — (4) recount episodes also known to the apocryphal 'Letters'. Silly and vapid though these four 'Lives' may be in the context of reconstructing an historical Hippocrates, the notion that they are likely to derive from Soranus' 'Bios of Hippocrates', and therefore are likely to preserve 'Soranian' material, needs reformulation. 1 4 6 Scholars intent on discrediting the historicity of 'Lives' (1) —(4) underscore the discrepancies in details of fact that separate the 'Lives' from one another - the number of generations between Asclepius and Hippocrates, the list of Hippocrates' teachers, his age at death, the items in the canon of Hippocratic treatises. But the biography of Hippocrates, as we know the tradition in papyri of the 'Letters', remains in a state of flux throughout the Roman period, and one collection of letters clearly differs significantly from another collection. 1 4 7 Further, picking and choosing which items to include from the Hippocratic pseudepigrapha remains a prerogative of Hippocratic editors and compilers for more than a millennium after the end of antiquity. 148 Emphasis upon the similarities that bind 'Life' to 'Life' and a concentration on commonalities revitalize the claim made explicit with regard to 'Lives' (1) and (4) — that in some fashion they derive from Soranus' 'Bios of Hippocrates'. Further, only 'Life' (1) cites additional authorities for the life of Hippocrates, and the dates of these writers offer no impediment to Soranian origins. The latest authority mentioned, Areius of Tarsus, a pupil of Asclepiades of Bithynia to whom Dioscorides dedicated his 'Materia medica', lives in the first half of the first century A.D.149 The chapter dealing with the imagistic representations of Hippocrates and their interpretation is common to all four 'Lives', and is therefore particularly likely to have a Soranian core. It is invariably placed near the close of the more strictly biographic portion of each 'Life' and it precedes mention of Hippocra-

146

RUBIN ( 1 9 8 3 ) has initiated reassessment of the 'Lives' and (RUBIN) PINAULT ( 1 9 9 2 a ) ,

6 -

3 3 makes her information m o r e widely available. The discussion that appears here was written before we had access to PINAULT ( 1 9 9 2 a), and we have retained our discussion, as well as appealing to PINAULT'S arguments. O u r conclusions (all four 'Lives' rely in s o m e w a y on the H i p p o c r a t i c ' B i o s ' by Soranus o f Ephesus) are the same as hers and our methods (look to similarities, not discrepancies) similar, although w e traverse s o m e w h a t different paths, especially as regards 'Life' (1), chapter 1 3 ( 1 7 7 . 1 9 - 2 5 ILBERG). 147

See HANSON ( 1 9 8 5 ) , 2 5 - 4 7 ,

and in particular, the c h a r t on p. 3 3 that c o m p a r e s the

contents of P. Oxy. I X 1 1 8 4 V , P. Berol. inv. 7 0 9 4 " , and P. Berol. inv. 2 1 1 3 7 V + 6 9 3 4 V . Also WILSON ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 2 3 2 , for other examples o f the practice of updating texts that are in constant use. 148

SMITH, Hippocrates 3 5 - 3 9 . The first complete collection of H i p p o c r a t i c pseudepigrapha c o m e s only with the publication of the Aldine edition in 1 5 2 6 .

149

SCARBOROUGH-NUTTON ( 1 9 8 2 ) , 1 8 7 - 2 2 7 . For Areius in Tertullian's ' D e a n i m a ' , perhaps k n o w n to Tertullian via Soranus, see WASZINK, Tertullian 3 8 * — 4 2 * .

SORANUS OF EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

1011

tes' writings with which 'Lives' (2), (3), and (4) conclude. 1 5 0 The fullest account occurs in 'Life' (1), and although we would be hard pressed to point to Soranus' ipsissima verba, our guess is that 'Lives' (1) and (3) may have been conflated more extravagantly than 'Lives' (2) and (4): 'Life' (1)

'Life' (2)

'Life' (3)

'Life' (4)

"In many of the pictures and representations made of his likeness he is shown with his head covered. Some say that the covering on his head is a pilus, a closefitting cap worn as a sign of good parentage, as Odysseus is pictured as wearing; others say that his head is covered with his cloak. Men give various reasons for saying that his head was covered by his cloak, with some saying that it was for appearance's sake, because he was bald. Others say that it was because of some weakness about his head. Some report that it was because of his conviction that

"Pictures and images show him with his cloak cast over his head and with his head covered. Either this is because it was his custom to do so,

"Hippocrates is said to have been smaller than other bodies, although with a delicate head; on account of this people say that he always covered his head when he went out. As a result, most of his representations show this.

" . . . b u t he [Hippocrates] was pictured as covering his head with his cloak. They say there are four reasons for this. Either he had a pain in his head,

150

Some say it because he that the head the leading

was felt was part

RUBIN (1983), 2 9 - 3 3 also gives a detailed comparison of this same passage. For the importance of physical description in ancient biographical traditions and its likely derivation from an author's preserved works, see LEFKOWITZ (1981), 37, 89, and 114.

1012

ANN ELLIS HANSON - MONICA H. GREEN

'Life' (1) the seat of the ruling faculty in the body ought to be protected, while others take it as a sign of his love of traveling; still others attribute it to the lack of clarity in his treatises. Another group mentions his need to demonstrate how important it was to guard against injury even when one was healthy, while others claim that he was acting like a surgeon, so as to get his hands free of interference by putting the part of his cloak which flowed about his body up on top of his head."

'Life' (2)

'Life' (3) and he intended to demonstrate this.

or because he was fond of traveling,

or because this was the practice in the surgery."

Others say that because surgery requires speed in order for the hands to operate more easily with impediments cast aside, he thus took the ends of his cloak - that is, the sleeves — and by leading them inverted up to his head, showed that they must be placed there."

'Life' (4)

or it was like travellers, or he was demonstrating that it was the organ of thought,

or that it was necessary to cover one's head in the surgery.

The man did this and thus he is pictured."

Another consideration in the argument that the four 'Lives' derive from the 'Life of Hippocrates' in the 'Bioi' is Soranus' Hippocratism, because whatever the tone of Soranus' Hippocratic biography, 'Lives' ( l ) - ( 4 ) revise and rework Soranus' 'Bios' for their own productions - altering not only language and format, as their quite different projects require, but also adding whenever they saw fit and found themselves dissatisfied with what Soranus offered. Soranus is demonstrably less reverent toward the figure of Hippocrates than

SORANUS OF EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

1013

Rufus or Galen, 1 5 1 and when Soranus mentions Hippocrates in the 'Gynaikeia', he treats him in a manner similar to his treatment of other predecessors - Soranus cites Hippocrates to correct or modify him. 1 5 2 For example, he quotes Hippocrates for signs that mark a gravida as pregnant with a male (Gyn. 145): "... the gravida has better color, moves more easily, her right breast is bigger, firmer, fuller, and in particular her nipple is swollen. Whereas the gravida's signs with a female are that together with pallor, her left breast is more enlarged and in particular her nipple. [Hippocrates] has reached this conclusion from a false assumption. For he believed that a male formed if the seed were conceived in the right side of the uterus, a female, on the other hand, if in the left side. But in our physiological commentaries 'Generation' we proved this u n t r u e . . . . These things are more plausible than true, because our evidence shows us that sometimes one thing has happened, but at other times the opposite." (Gyn. 1 4 5 , 3 1 . 2 6 — 3 2 . 4 and 1 1 - 1 3 ILBERG).

These opinions of Hippocrates occur in gynecological contexts of the 'Hippocratic Corpus' in more or less the form Soranus has given them, although minor discrepancies suggest that Soranus may be writing from memory, or out of abbreviated doxography. 1 5 3 Similar is the reference at Gynaikeia III 29, that Hippocrates requires patients suffering from uterine suffocation to drink potions containing cabbage or asses' milk, but this is improper therapy. 1 5 4 Soranus claims that Hippocrates also dilates a woman's uterus during suffocation 1 5 5 with blacksmith's bellows, because he believes the uterus to be twisted by suffocation in a manner similar to obstructed intestines, but the passage does not occur in the present 'Hippocratic Corpus' - although a reed 151

F o r t h e H i p p o c r a t i s m o f R u f u s , s e e SMITH ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 2 4 0 - 4 6 ; f o r G a l e n , s e e SMITH ( 1 9 7 9 ) ,

passim;

for Soranus' quotations from the Hippocratic Corpus, see GOUREVITCH ( 1 9 9 2 ) ,

597-607. 152

153

S e e SMITH ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 2 2 4 - 2 6 , f o r t h e M e t h o d i s t c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f H i p p o c r a t e s : " [ h e ] h a d

much to offer, but ... his errors were typical of those of the medicine of the benighted past, which the new methodology was to overcome." And SMITH (1989), 1 0 2 - 1 0 3 , for the suggestion that the Hippocratic Morb. ILL and 'Affections' are being dropped from Methodist doxography on phrenitis. Good complexion, Aphorisms V 4 2 , IV 547 LIITRÉ and Steril. 216, VIII 4 1 6 . 1 8 - 2 0 LITTRÉ; enlarged breast shows on which side of the womb the fetus lies, Superfet. 19, VIII 4 8 6 LITTRÉ, and the male fetus lies on the right, Aphorisms V 4 8 , IV 5 5 0 LITTRÉ and Epidemiae II 6.15, V 136 LITTRÉ. Steril. 216 continues with up-turned nipples as a sign o f a m a l e (VIII 4 1 6 . 2 0 - 2 1 LITTRÉ). C f . a l s o GOUREVITCH ( 1 9 9 2 ) ,

154

597-98.

" S h e is t o e a t c a b b a g e " : M o r b . m u í . I I 1 2 3 , V I I I 2 6 6 LITTRÉ, o r N a t . m u l . 4 8 , V I I 3 9 2 LITTRÉ; " s h e is t o d r i n k a s s e s ' m i l k " : M o r b . m u l . II 1 2 7 , V I I I 2 7 2 - 7 4 LITTRÉ, o r N a t . m u l . 3 , V I I 3 1 4 LITTRÉ. A l s o GOUREVITCH ( 1 9 9 2 ) , 6 0 1 .

155

Also Gyn. III 2 9 . Soranus defines "uterine suffocation" (hysterikê pnix) at Gyn. III 2 6 . 1 - 2 as involving obstructed respiration, aphonia, suspension of perceptions due to some condition of the uterus and usually preceded by recurrent miscarriages, premature birth, lengthy widowhood, retention of menses, menopause, or wind in the uterus.

1014

ANN ELLIS HANSON -

M O N I C A H. GREEN

tied to an animal bladder is prescribed as a means to inflate a dislocated uterus (Nat. mul. 14, VII 332 LITTRÉ).156 Again, Soranus may be relying on his memory, for later he cites Diocles, Book II of his 'Gynaikeia', for having forced air into a dislocated uterus by means of blacksmith's bellows (Gyn. I V 3 6 . 9 ) . Hippocrates' sign that a spontaneous abortion is imminent (unexpected shrinkage of the breasts) is twice cited with approval, together with a symptom noted by Diocles - that the gravida's thighs become cold (Gyn. I 5 9 and I I I 4 8 ) . 1 5 7 Soranus also criticizes as harsh and old-fashioned gynecological views familiar in our 'Hippocratic Corpus', but he credits them to the early physician Euryphon of Cnidus. 158 He is especially horrified by Euryphon's practice of making a patient, suffering from uterine prolapse, hang by her feet from a ladder for a day and a night (Gyn. I V 3 6 . 7 ) . 1 5 9 On one occasion Soranus seems to acknowledge Hippocrates as an authority figure, appealing to him as one whose prestige would bolster his own position. The topic is abortives (Gyn. I 60). Soranus forks his way through conflicting precedents, in order to arrive at a position he finds congenial: one group of physicians invokes the famous example from Hippocrates' 'Nature of the child' (13), in which the doctor prescribes leaping to expel a conception. 1 6 0 While some doctors consider an 'expulsive' (ekbolion) synonymous with an abortive, others distinguish between 'shaking and leaping' (ekbolion) and the use of a drug (phthorion). Another group banishes all abortives, "because of Hippocra-

156

157

158

Cf. Morb. mul. II 131, VIII 278 LITTRÉ, where the reed-and-bladder device is used to inject a clyster into a dislocated uterus, not to inflate it. Aphorisms V 37, IV 5 4 4 LITTRÉ, and cf. V 5 3 , IV 5 5 0 - 5 2 LITTRÉ; Epidemiae II 1.6, V 7 6 . 1 3 - 1 4 LITTRÉ; Morb. mul. 127, VIII 70 LITTRÉ. Cf. also GOUREVITCH (1992), 599-600. And sometimes also to the even less well-known Evenor, cf. WELLMANN (1907), cols. 9 7 2 - 7 3 . In regard to using fumigations as a judge of fecundity and other similar prognoses, Soranus says at Gyn. I 35, "All this is wrong" (also above section III and note 86). Hipp. Steril. 214, VIII 414—16 LITTRÉ, advises fecundity tests that involve smells rising, but not fumigations. Soranus criticizes fumigations in the treatment of uterine suffocation, as employed by "the majority of the ancients" (Gyn. III 29): "For the uterus does not issue forth like a wild animal from its lair, taking pleasure in fragrant odors and fleeing foul smells" (Gyn. III 29, 113.3—6 ILBERG). For fumigations in the treatment of uterine dislocation in the 'Hippocratic Corpus', see Morb. mul. II 123, 125, 1 2 7 , 1 2 8 , VIII 266— 74 LITTRÉ. In regard to a retained after-birth, the sternutatives, advised by Hippocrates (Aphorisms V 4 9 , IV 550 LITTRÉ, and Epidemiae II 5.25, V 1 3 2 . 1 0 - 1 2 LITTRÉ), and the diuretic potions, advised by Euryphon (for these medicaments in Hippocratic gynecology, see GRENSEMANN [1975], 71), Soranus says "All the aforesaid things are bad" (Gyn. IV 1 5 , 1 4 5 . 1 4 ILBERG).

160

Hipp. Morb. mul. I I 1 4 4 , VIII 3 1 6 - 1 8 LITTRÉ, Steril. 248, Vili 4 6 0 - 6 2 LITTRÉ, and Nat. mul. 5, VII 3 1 6 - 1 8 LITTRÉ. GRENSEMANN (1975), 4 3 - 4 6 , 7 1 - 7 2 , 1 4 3 - 4 7 , uses Soranus' references to Euryphon and succussion to identify the earliest stratum in the gynecology of the 'Corpus'. See also GOUREVITCH (1992), 6 0 4 - 6 0 5 . See LONIE, Generation ad 13, 1 5 8 - 6 8 , including Galen's four tellings of the same story, 161 and note 277, and GOUREVITCH (1992), 599. For ekbolia in the 'Hippocratic Corpus', see HANSON (1991 b), 9 7 - 9 8 and note 10.

SORANUS OF EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

1015

tes' testimony Ί will give to no one an abortive (phthorion)',"161 The latter group prescribes abortives, but not for trivial or selfish reasons; they prescribe them mainly to save the life of the mother. With this group Soranus himself agrees. Soranus does not attempt to reconcile conflicting statements from Hippocrates, nor does he remake Hippocrates in his own image. Rather, he manipulates the contradiction over abortives within the 'Corpus' so that his own position - usually 'no', but sometimes 'yes' - has Hippocratic authority. The 'no' is for those who would hide the consequences of extra-marital liaisons or preserve youthful beauty. Soranus' relative indifference to Hippocrates is at odds with the mounting concerns expressed by medical men over the figure of Hippocrates, over which texts belong to the 'great' Hippocrates, rather than to other members of his family, and over the authentic Greek text of the 'Hippocratic Corpus'. These topics were coming to occupy the Roman medical community in the century between Erotian and Galen with increasing intensity, and at some point in the latter half of this one hundred years - "during the reign of Hadrian," according to Galen — Dioscurides brought out the first edition of the 'Hippocratic Corpus'. 1 6 2 A passage near the close of 'Life' (1) reflects a similar attitude of indifference, while seeming to acknowledge at the same time that others are preoccupied with 'Hippocratic' concerns. This statement, as we have it in 'Life' (1), may have some claim to reflecting the transition-passage Soranus employed as he moved from the thorny matter of Hippocratic biography to the perhaps more thorny matter of Hippocratic bibliography: "Much disagreement also exists about his writings, and various men pronounce various opinions. As a result, it is not easy to be clear about them because the variety of explanations clouds one's own judgment. 1 6 3 First of all, there is the problem of his name; 1 6 4 second is one's ability to moni161

162

Soranus' text of the 'Hippocratic Oath' here differs from that in Byzantine mss. of the 'Corpus', but again papyri show that the Greek text of the O a t h ' remains fluid (see e. g. the copy in the third cent. P. Oxy. X X X I 2 5 4 7 and the remarks of the editors of the text, pp. 6 2 - 6 3 : "Although nearly half of almost every line is preserved, the restoration is in many cases doubtful, since the text evidently differed widely from the textus receptus."). SMITH (1979), 2 3 4 - 4 6 , for the period from Erotian to Rufus and Galen's teachers - "we have evidence of a burgeoning Roman tradition of literary study of the Hippocratic writings which was part of a general literary revival in first-century Rome" (p. 233). Galen dates Dioscurides to the reign of Hadrian (In Hipp. Epid. VI Comm. VII, CMG V 10,2.2, p. 415). For continuing interest in Hippocrates himself, especially in his role as the father of medicine, and in the 'Hippocratic Corpus' throughout late antiquity and beyond, see passim

in TEMKIN ( 1 9 9 1 ) , ROTTEN ( 1 9 9 2 ) , a n d PINAULT ( 1 9 9 2 a ) .

Medical writers usually use the verb episkotein literally, in ophthalmological contexts where talk has turned to "overclouded vision" (e.g. Dioscurides Mat. med. II 2.6; Galen Usu part. X 12, III 8 1 6 - 1 7 Kühn; Aetius 1 9 7 ; Paul Aeg. VII xi.151). Soranus employs episkotein metaphorically at Gyn. I 37, and the verb's employment here in metaphorical sense may be, we suggest, due to Soranus. 164 Presumably, 'Life' (1) is here calling attention to the discrepancies that arise as the number of 'Hippocrateis' multiplies, in order to account for authorship of the various treatises in the 'Corpus' and as each new Hippocrates requires full nomenclature. (E.g. the 'great' 163

68

ANRW II 37.2

1016

A N N ELLIS H A N S O N

-

M O N I C A H.

GREEN

tor the character of his discourse; 1 6 5 third is the problem which results because one and the same man was writing at times more forcefully, and then again with less conviction, because of his age. 1 6 6 One could mention other reasons for unsureness." (Vita 13, 177.19—25 ILBERG). ILBERG argues that this chapter 13 replaced the list of Hippocrates' writings which Soranus once appended to his 'Life of Hippocrates'. Soranus' title for the entire collection, 'Lives of the physicians: sects and treatises', after all, promises a consideration of each subject's treatises. 1 6 7 We prefer to see chapter 13 as 'Soranian', with his presentation of Hippocratic treatises following chapter 13, although the diffidence of chapter 13 probably encourages the displacement of what Soranus offers — whether "Hippocrates wrote χ number of treatises," as in 'Life' (4); a summary ('Oath', 'Prognostic', 'Aphorisms', et al.), as in 'Life' (2); a number of treatises (72) plus an elaborate listing of titles that nonetheless fails to reach 72, as in 'Life' ( 3 ) . 1 6 8 'Life' (1)

'Life' (2)

'Life'(3)

"The works written by Hippocrates are conspicuous to all who have shared in the medical profession. As a result, they hail

"He has written, as many say, seventy-two books.

'Life' (4)

[Chapter 13, above, with coverage of H.'s treatises in lacuna] 1 6 9 "And he fifty-three books."

wrote

Hippocrates is 'son of Heracleides', but his descendant-Hippocrateis are 'son of Thessalus', 'son of Draco', 'sons of Thymbraeus', etc.) There is also disagreement surrounding the full name of the 'great' Hippocrates — was his mother as Phaenarete or Praxithea?. 165 Perhaps a reference to the debate over the Greek dialect Hippocrates used for his treatises, cf. SMITH ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 2 3 5 . PINAULT ( 1 9 9 2 a), 1 7 , interprets the text here as referring to the "diversity of styles represented by the treatises of the Hippocratic Corpus," while she sees the next point as looking to the varying quality of the treatises in the 'Corpus'. Such an interpretation seems to us to homogenize the author's second and third points. 166

167 168

169

For Dioscurides' borrowing of methods developed in Homeric criticism as a means to solve Hippocratic problems, SMITH ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 2 3 7 - 3 8 . Praefatio xiv ILBERG. Actually two lists with minor textual variations: at f. 3 R , at the close of 'Life' (3), and at ff. 5 2 V - 5 3 V , at the close of the text of Theodorus Priscianus. If Soranus does provide a list of Hippocratic titles, his list probably resembles, insofar as number of treatises, that at the beginning of Erotian's 'Hippocratic glosses', 9 . 7 - 2 1 NACHMANSON. Erotian's order for Hippocratic treatises, however, relates only to the arrangement of his own lexicon.

SORANUS OF EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

'Life' (1)

'Life' (2) them as the voice of god - and not as though they came out of the mouth of a man. Let us therefore mention them individually except for those in the first books. The first book does include the O a t h ' , the second reveals the prognostic works, and the third, the book of 'Aphorisms' that surpasses human comprehension. Place fourth in order the much mentioned and much admired book of sixty works that includes the whole of medicine's skill and knowledge."

170

68*

PRINCEPS

'Life'(3)

1017

'Life' (4)

From this list the O a t h ' of Hippocrates is found first, which we call in Greek 'Orchon'. After he the 'Oath' wrote the following four books: 'Joints', 'Fractures', 'Prognostic', and 'Regimen'. But [Heraclides] 170 of Ephesus adds, as Comarchus of Bithynia also says, that 'Regimen' was written by him. After this he wrote other books he called the 'Epidemics'. After these a theoretical work that he called 'Surgery', then 'Aphorisms'; [Bacchius], moreover, the follower of [Herophilus] mentions that after 'Aphorisms' Hippocrates wrote 'Nature of

For corruptions in the Latin text, especially in the matter of names and their accepted ameliorations, see PINAULT ( 1 9 9 2 a ) , ad loc., 5 - 3 3 .

1018

A N N ELLIS H A N S O N

'Life' (1)

' U f e ' (2)

-

M O N I C A H.

GREEN

'Life'(3)

'Life' (4)

the child'." [The Latin life offers nearly forty additional titles, some no longer preserved in our mss. of the 'Corpus'.]

We conclude that the four 'Lives' offer hints about the topics Soranus treated in his 'Bios' of Hippocrates and the order in which he discussed them, even when the views he expressed seem irretrievably lost, as is the case with Soranus' report about Hippocrates' written works. Soranus' collection of materials in his 'Lives of the physicians: sects and treatises' remains an important link between earlier medical doxographies and the later encyclopedic traditions, some of which we possess in Hesychius, 'Suda', and Tzetzes. 3. 'Commentary to Hippocrates' (?), 'Commentary to Hippocrates' Aphorisms' (?), 'Commentary to Hippocrates' Nature of the child' (?) No fragments of Hippocratic commentaries by Soranus survive, 1 7 1 and the case for Soranus as Hippocratic exegete is based on statements to that effect in late antique writers. K I N D is sceptical and supposes instead that Soranus treated questions about the authenticity of Hippocratic treatises in his 'Lives of the physicians'. 1 7 2 K I N D is certainly right to be sceptical about Soranus as commentator to Hippocrates, but reexamination of the meager evidence suggests that Soranus' name is likely to have been an intrusion into late lists of Hippocratic exegetes. Asclepiades of Bithynia is known to have written on Hippocratic treatises — a commentary in at least two books on 'Aphorisms' and a commentary on 'Surgery'. 1 7 3 Galen apparently uses Asclepiades' commentary on the Hippocratic 'Surgery' for his own commentary, but not that on 'Aphorisms', because Galen apparently takes up the habit of inspecting earlier commentaries only after his first round of Hippocratic commentaries are completed. 1 7 4 Julianus, 171 172

173

See already LITTRÉ I 1 0 5 . KIND ( 1 9 2 7 ) , col. 1 1 1 6 - 1 7 , credits WELLMANN with being the first to mount the argument, see ( 1 9 0 1 a), 1 5 4 - 5 5 and ( 1 9 0 1 b), 7, but he also implies that WELLMANN oversteps and at times misuses the evidence. CA Cel. pass. Ill 1.5, for that on Aphorisms; and Galen, In Hipp, librum de officina medici comm. I, XVIII 2 , 6 3 1 KÜHN, for that on 'Surgery', labelling it "difficult to follow" (dyslogista). Cf. SMITH ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 2 2 5 - 2 6 for Galen's other remarks on Asclepiades' commentary to the Hippocratic 'Surgery'.

i ™ SMITH ( 1 9 7 9 ) ,

129-32.

SORANUS OF EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

1019

Methodist doctor in Alexandria, wrote a treatise entitled 'Against Hippocrates' Aphorisms' in forty-eight books, in which he attacked a commentary on the 'Aphorisms' by Sabinus. Galen devotes one of his own treatises, 'Against what was said by Julianus against Hippocrates' Aphorisms', to defending Sabinus and abusing Julianus. 175 The prefaces to two late commentaries on the Hippocratic 'Aphorisms' contain statements about works of predecessors, phrased in similar fashion. Although WELLMANN gives greater authority to the Latin commentary attributed to pseudo-Oribasius, and summons the Greek one, attributed to Stephanus of Athens, only in order to bolster his argument, the chronological priority of one version over the other is by no means clear. 176 We give pride of place here to the Greek version, but largely because there is a modern edition, equipped with critical apparatus: "That ['Aphorisms'] is a genuine work of Hippocrates is affirmed by Rufus, Sabinus, 177 Soranus, Pelops, and Galen; it is so obviously genuine that the commentators have used it as a standard to decide the authenticity or spuriousness of other writings. Besides, the form of its presentation, the acuteness of its contents, and the attractiveness of its style prove that it is a work of the master mind of Hippocrates.... Soranus divided the book into three sections, Rufus into four, Galen into seven; we follow the last." (Praefatio, 3 1 . 1 1 - 1 6 and 2 7 - 2 9 WESTERINK). PEARL KIBRE

offers an English summary of the Latin as it appears in the

ms. Vendôme 172: "... the commentator, after identifying the early translator of the text as Pelops, the teacher of Galen, went on to name as commentators on ['Aphorisms'], Pelops, Licus, Suranus, Rufus, Dominus, Galen, Attalio, and many others (et multi alii)."178 The name of Sabinus has apparently disappeared entirely from the Latin tradition, in spite of Galen's statements that Pelops, Lycus, Rufus, and Sabinus all commented on Hippocratic works. 1 7 9 It is possible, then, that Soranus did comment on 'Aphorisms', but it seems far more likely that his name is an intrusion into the list of Hippocratic commentators, where he pushed Sabinus 175 176

177

178

179

SMITH (1979), 72. KIBRE (1985), 2 9 - 3 3 , summarizing arguments for dating the Latin commentary "no earlier than the seventh century" (31); for the Greek version, see WESTERINK in Step. Alex., 1 3 - 2 3 . KIBRE (1985), 31, and note 11, promises publication of an edition of the Latin preface, but apparently she did not live to see it through the press. Ms. A reads 'Ρουφίνος instead of Σαβίνος, and ms. Ζ omits Galen's name. See below for the loss of Sabinus' name from the Latin version. KIBRE (1985), 31. Cf. the Latin text of pseudo-Oribasius, as reported by KIND (1927), col. 1116: interpretes extitere Hippocratis Pelops, Lycus, Rufus, Soranus, Domnus, Galenus, Attalio, et multi alii... Soranus divisit (sc. aphorismorum librum) in partes tres, Rufus in quatuor, Galenus in septem. For the passage in Galen, see SMITH (1979), 6 4 - 6 5 .

1020

ANN

ELLIS H A N S O N

-

MONICA

H.

GREEN

totally out of the Latin list. In the Greek, a remnant of Sabinus survives in the name Rufinus, but Soranus eclipses Sabinus in the subsequent report about dividing 'Aphorisms' into three parts. K I N D experiences no difficulty with his assumption that Soranus divides 'Aphorisms' into three parts not in a commentary, but in his list of Hippocratic treatises in 'Lives of the physicians'. Nonetheless, on the one occasion when Soranus cites 'Aphorisms' by title in the 'Gynaikeia', he makes no reference to that part of 'Aphorisms' from which he derives "a pregnant woman, if bled, miscarries" (I 65, 4 8 . 1 5 - 1 6 I L B E R G ) . Hunain was making works of a number of Greek physicians available to Arabic audiences by the end of the ninth century A. D. and he mentions Soranus in notes on Galen's Hippocratic commentaries. Hunain was apparently aware of Galen's intention to produce commentaries on the Hippocratic treatises — 'Diseases of women', 'Nature of the embryo', and 'Eighth month child', a promise Galen makes in his commentary on 'Regimen in acute diseases' but apparently does not fulfill. 181 He searches for Galen's commentary to 'Nature of the embryo', and although he does not find it, he does come upon two other commentaries on the Hippocratic treatise — one in Syriac, presumed at first to be Galen's because its title gives Galen as author, but which, after closer inspection, proves to be by Pelops, and another commentary in Greek by Soranus "who belonged to the sect of the Methodici." Hunain subsequently translates the majority of this latter commentary into Arabic. 1 8 2 Again, it is possible that Hunain gives precious evidence for Soranus as Hippocratic exegete. Alternatively, it seems even more likely that the name of Soranus once again displaces the name of Sabinus — at least in the manuscript of the commentary that reaches Hunain. As his remarks make clear, Hunain knows the Hippocratic 'Nature of the embryo' as a work Galen divided into three parts, the first and third parts of which Galen claims were wrongly assigned to Hippocrates, although the second part was his. 1 8 3 Byzantine manu1 8 0

180

Hipp. Aphorisms V 3 1 , IV 5 4 2 LITTRÉ. Soranus omits the rest of Aphorism V 3 1 — " a n d all the m o r e for w o m e n whose fetus is larger." C A Cel. pass. II 1 0 . 5 6 also cites from Aphorisms' (VI 5 1 ) without indication that the treatise could be divided into numbered sections. - KIND finds additional support for this assumption in the equally dubious assumption that Soranus makes use of an arranged and numbered collection of Hippocratic writings in w h a t has been claimed to be a Latin version of Soranus' 'Seed'/'Generation' (IV D . 7 ) .

181

C M G V 1 0 , 1 , p. 2 9 7 ; cf. SMITH ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 4 2 .

182

For Hunain's notes on Galen, Arabic with German translation, see BERGSTRÄSSER (sect.

183

Traces of a tripartite division may appear in the list appended to the Latin 'Life' (3), see SCHÖNE ( 1 9 0 3 ) , 5 9 - 6 1 , lines 6 4 — 6 6 (de infantis natura = peri physeôs paidiou), line 1 1 4 (de semine = peri gonês), and line 1 1 7 (de geminis = peri physeôs paidiou [Nat. pueri] 3 1 , VII 5 4 0 - 4 2 LITTRÉ). Particularly interesting is the garbled note at 6 4 - 6 6 t o the effect that the Herophilean Bacchius says that after 'Aphorisms', Hippocrates wrote 'Nature of the child'. By contrast, another "tripartite division" is of greater concern to modern editors and c o m m e n t a t o r s - the relation between 'Generation' ( = 'peri gonês') and ' N a t u r e of the child' ( = 'peri physeôs paidiou') on the one hand and 'Diseases' IV

1 0 1 . 3 5 - 3 6 ) ; s u m m a r i e s in ULLMANN ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 7 7 a n d SEZGIN ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 6 1 .

S O R A N U S OF EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

1021

scripts of the 'Hippocratic Corpus' entitle the first part 'Peri gonês', and modern scholars often refer to the entire treatise with the double title 'Generation'/ 'Nature of the child'. Soranus himself does write a work called 'Generation' ('Zôogonia'), and the cross-references he makes to it at Gynaikeia 114 and 45 may actually foster the belief that he wrote comments to the Hippocratic treatise. That is, Soranus twice speaks about his hypomnêmata bearing the title 'Generation' ('Zôogonia'), in which he proves wrong those who think cotyledons, or "suckers," exist in the female uterus (I 14) and those who suppose a male fetus forms in the right part of the uterus (145). The potential for ambiguity and misunderstanding lies in the fact that Soranus labels his 'Generation' as 'commentaries' (hypomnêmata), perhaps with the intention of marking the work as a composition of the less formal type. 1 8 4 Thus the notion that Soranus was an Hippocratic exegete may have come from mistaken inferences about his references to hypomnêmata (that is, to 'Generation'), and in the way his name came to eclipse that of Sabinus in late lists of Hippocratic exegetes. We conclude that the evidence that Soranus commented on Hippocrates is weak. 4. 'Etymologies of the body of man' ("Ετυμολογίαι τοϋ σώματος του άνθρωπου') This version of the title is from Orion's 'Etymologicum' in the gloss on bregma ('forehead'), although alternate titles occur within Orion's dictionary and elsewhere. 1 8 5 Soranus' 'Etymologies' is lost, although the numerous fragments preserved in later 'Etymologica' and other léxica have long been known. 1 8 6 It has recently been argued that the last person to have access to

184

185

186

('peri nousôn' IV) on the other, see e.g. LONIE, Generation 4 3 - 5 3 , with earlier bibliography on the question. Galen distinguishes between 'clinical notes' (hypomnêmata) and formal treatises among the works of Hippocrates, although Galen is not always consistent, see LSJ s. v. ύπόμνημα II 5.C. Soranus himself may not recognize the distinction; he refers to his 'Boêthêmata' as 'hypomnêmata' at Gyn. III 28, but too little is known about that work (IV D.13). Nonetheless, since both references to 'Generation' in the 'Gynaikeia' include the designation hypomnêmata, the mistaken assumption that in these passages Soranus is marking himself as commentator to Hippocrates, is apparently made by subsequent readers of Soranus. Cf. IV D.7. Orion, Etym. col. 3 4 . 8 - 1 0 STURZ. 'Etymologies of man' ('Περί ετυμολογιών του ανθρώπου') in the glosses on palaistê ('palm', 'palm's-breadth'), col. 131.4 STURZ, and on phlegma ('flame', 'phlegm'), col. 159.18 STURZ. DAREMBERG-RUELLE, Rufus 2 3 7 apparently see the abbreviated title Soranus' 'Monobiblon on names' in the gloss to ioulos ('centipede'), scholia to Rufus' 'Names of the parts of the body', as pointing to yet another title. The 'Suda' sets Orion in the 5th cent. A . D . , because he dedicated his 'Synagôgê gnômôn' to Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II (Ω 188 + 189 A); cf. WENDEL (1939), cols. 1083-84. For a partial collection of fragments, see DAREMBERG-RUELLE, Rufus 2 3 8 - 4 6 ; they draw from a Vatican ms. of the Rufus scholia (238—41) and from the 'Etymologicum Orionis', 'Etymol. Gudianum', 'Etymol. Magnum' ( 2 4 1 - 4 8 ) . More extensive citations in VOIGT (1882), non vidimus, and SCHEELE (1884), also drawing on Homeric scholia and Meletius'

1022

A N N ELLIS HANSON -

M O N I C A H. G R E E N

Soranus' text, or at least to an abridged version of Soranus, was Meletius the Monk, who lived no earlier than the mid-seventh century A . D . and perhaps considerably later. 1 8 7 Meletius' borrowings from Soranus' 'Etymologies' are demonstrably independent of the Byzantine etymologists, for in the case of parallel passages, Meletius gives at times the more extensive quotation. Although Meletius never mentions Soranus in his 'Constitution of man' ('Peri physeôs anthrôpou'), his treatise may be the single most important source for recovering what we can of Soranus' lost work. 1 8 8 ROBERT RENEHAN points to an otherwise unknown fragment of tragedy, drawn by Meletius from Soranus and preserved in the etymology Meletius gives for oulon ('gum'; 8 3 . 7 - 8 CRAMER).189 RENEHAN stresses the fact that Meletius' own production is almost entirely derivative, not only in content, but even in details of wording. That is, Meletius does not personally comb classical literature for his quotations from poets (Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Aristophanes, Callimachus, etc.) and scientists (Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Heraclides, Chrysippus), but draws many of them from others, especially Soranus, either directly or indirectly. 190 Although Meletius' access to Greek texts that are later lost has long been known, RENEHAN draws particular attention to the fact that what remains unidentified among Meletius' sources is material of medical content. In this repository of Greek medical works, otherwise no longer available to us, are, in all likelihood, additional items from the 'Etymologies' of Soranus. 1 9 1 Although the quotations of Soranus in the various 'Etymologica' are only jejune listings, Soranian delight in puns is as apparent here as it is in his 'Gynaikeia': 1 9 2

187

'De natura hominis'. See KIND (1927), col. 1 1 1 7 , for RHODE'S identification of fragments of Soranus in Pollux and further work by HELMREICH on Meletius. RENEHAN (1966), 185 suggests "9th cent. A.D. ?" for Meletius' date, but admits other possibilities (from mid-7th century to late-12th or early 13th) in RENEHAN (1984), 159. For the text of Meletius, see CRAMER 1 - 1 5 7 and MIGNE, cols. 1 0 7 5 - 1 5 1 0 ; RENEHAN (1984), 1 5 9 cautions that neither text is satisfactory.

188 W e

RE IY

h e a v i l y o n SCHEELE ( 1 8 8 4 ) a n d RENEHAN ( 1 9 8 4 ) , 1 5 9 - 6 8 f o r o b s e r v a t i o n s a b o u t

M e l e t i u s ; a d d i t i o n a l b i b l i o g r a p h y in KIND ( 1 9 2 7 ) , c o l s . 1 1 1 7 - 1 8 . B o t h KIND ( 1 9 2 7 ) , c o l . 1 1 1 7 , a n d RENEHAN a r e s k e p t i c a l o f t h e a t t e m p t b y SCHEELE ( 1 8 8 4 ) , 1 7 - 2 8 , t o e m e n d

Meletius' sentence at 1.21—23 CRAMER — "'Soranus' (instead of 'Socrates' of the mss.) compiled etymologies for parts and names in his treatise 'Nature of man', more as a grammarian than a philosopher." KIND emphasizes the fact that the change to 'Soranus' misrepresents the attested titles for Soranus' 'Etymologies'; RENEHAN, the fact that Meletius' comment "more as a grammarian than a philosopher" suggests that the name in Meletius' ms. was, in fact, Socrates the philosopher, not Soranus. Either Soranus' name has been corrupted to Socrates in the transmission before it reaches Meletius, or an unknown grammarian named Socrates produced an abridgment of Soranus' work, RENEHAN (1984), 160-61. Ι « 9 RENEHAN ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 190 191 192

185-86.

SCHEELE (1884), 3 4 - 4 0 . RENEHAN (1984), 1 6 0 - 6 2 . E.g. Gyn. I 6 (above section I, for Greek names of the uterus), 1 4 8 (section III, for kissa, or the upset stomach of early pregnancy), I 57, III 36.

SORANUS OF EPHESUS: METHODICORUM

PRINCEPS

1023

"Chin (geneion): the center and projecting part of the jaw (genus). [So called] from the fact that the sexes {gene), male and female, are distinguished through it, and also [males] of immature and mature age. Thus Soranus." (col. 4 0 . 9 - 1 2 STURZ). We are ignorant of the format Soranus employed for his 'Etymologies', nor have we any means for guessing the work's extent. Nonetheless, the variety of subject matter in the various fragments points to something far richer and much more discursive than the dictionary-style of the quotations from the 'Etymologica' imply. In addition to etymologies, terms, and definitions, KIND deduces from the fragments that topics such as human origins and development, functions of the body and soul are also covered, probably in a capite ad. calcem arrangement. 1 9 3 As RENEHAN shows, Meletius' discussion of ocular tunics is similar to that in pseudo-Galen's 'Definitiones medicae', both in names of the tunics and in their ordering. "What is most characteristic of this list ... is the inclusion of the conjunctive (epipephykôs) as one of the [four ocular] tunics" ( 1 6 5 — 6 6 ) . 1 9 4 Meletius supplies additional anatomical details, and therefore his account does not derive from pseudo-Galen. Competing anatomical descriptions of the ocular tunics dominate in medical authors throughout antiquity until Byzantine times, and RENEHAN argues that a work of general anatomy must serve as common source in the matter of ocular tunics for the author of the 'Definitiones medicae' at the end of the first century A. D. and for Meletius centuries later. Soranus' 'Etymologies', which Meletius certainly used, may be that work, according to RENEHAN'S argument, rather than the specialized treatise in which Soranus discusses eyes (IV D . 1 7 ) . 1 9 5

C. Medical illustrations It is likely that illustrations of some kind graced the original Greek texts of Soranus' more therapeutically oriented works. 1 9 6 When Muscio, one of the Latin adaptors of Soranus' 'Gynaikeia', turned to the topic of fistulas in the uterus, he decided not to include in his version an illustration of the condition on the belief that it would be superfluous for midwives, "for these fistulas can confuse even the most learned physicians when they try to examine and cure

193 194

195

196

KIND (1927), cols. 1 1 1 7 - 1 8 . RENEHAN ( 1 9 8 4 ) , 1 6 3 - 6 8 , w i t h o c u l a r t u n i c s a t 6 3 . 7 - 6 5 . 3 CRAMER. A f t e r p s e u d o - G a -

len's 'Definitiones medicae' and whatever was the source for Meletius, Aerius VII.l is the earliest medical writer to give the same four tunics in the same order (RENEHAN [1984], 1 6 6 and note 40). RENEHAN (1984), 167—68, points to "signs of an original writer," in the style of the passage Meletius has borrowed on ocular tunics; cf. his note 5 0 for a turn of phrase common to Meletius and Soranus' 'Gynaikeia'. ILBERG ( 1 9 1 0 ) , 2 1 .

1024

A N N ELLIS H A N S O N -

M O N I C A H.

GREEN

t h e m . " 1 9 7 The casualness of Muscio's remark suggests that illustrations were so abundant in his Greek original of Soranus' 'Gynaikeia' that he could be selective about which pictures he wanted to incorporate into his abbreviated Latin ' G e n e c i a ' . 1 9 8 Illustrated herbáis were being produced by the second century of the Christian era, as a papyrus example makes clear, and arguments have been advanced that monochrome drawings probably decorated papyrus rolls more frequently than previously believed. 1 9 9 Lush, polychrome illustrations are found in the extant copy of 'Banda g e s ' , 2 0 0 and ms. Ρ has blank spaces where, according to its pinax, illustrations were to be found in the ' G y n a i k e i a ' . 2 0 1 The Latin tradition suggests what these illustrations might have been like. Two manuscripts of Muscio's 'Genecia' have labelled illustrations of uterine anatomy; three have between thirteen and sixteen figures of the fetus-in-utero. The fetal diagrams were also extracted from their original context and circulated independently in Latin, English, and Hebrew manuscripts (see Appendix, pp. 1 0 7 2 - 7 3 ) . 2 0 2 It is unlikely, however, that polychrome illustrations graced the practical manual in Soranus' own day. 2 0 3 Nonetheless, after the appearance of the codex, a format less likely to damage pigments during reading, colored illustrations occur with increasing frequency and in the later medieval tradition they often become quite magnificent. 2 0 4 There is debate about how many fetal pictures were meant to be included in Soranus' 'Gynaikeia' and whether they were originally part of the 'Gynaikeia' itself or make their appearance only in the shorter catechism, 'Cateperotiana' (IV D . 5 ) . 2 0 5 Modern commentators, misunderstanding the intent of the fetal pictures, have ridiculed them for their supposed inaccuracies. Yet it is clear that the illustrations were not meant to offer realistic representations of fetal development, but rather, as P's pinax itself says, to aid the midwife in her understanding of the possible ways in which the fetus might malpresent at birth.

Muscio Gen. II 2 4 ( 1 0 5 . 1 6 - 2 1 ROSE); the chapter is lost in Greek (Gyn. IV viii). See the pinax in ms. P, item 131 (ρλα', περί συριγγών), Praefatio x x ILBERG, or TEMKIN, Soranus xvi, "VIII Vgl. dazu oben S. 1226.

RUFUS

VON

EPHESOS

UND

SEIN

WERK

1231

deutlicher bei der fachlichen Auseinandersetzung mit Meinungen von Kolleg e n 1 4 9 1 läßt Rufus unvermeidlich auch eine gewisse Kritik durchschimmern. Darüber hinaus gibt es im überlieferten Werk des Rufus eine ganze Reihe von Stellen, an denen offene Kritik geübt wird. Diese Kritik zeigt verschiedene Nuancierungen, die sich von fachmännischer Beurteilung bis zu harter Verwerfung erstrecken. Für das Berufsethos und den Charakter des Rufus ist es bezeichnend, daß er in allen Fällen der Ausübung offener und zum Teil negativer Kritik zumeist in allgemeinen Sätzen spricht und keine Namen erwähnt. Die hier folgende Zusammenstellung der einschlägigen Passagen aus dem erhaltenen Werk des Rufus läßt auch die verschiedenen Abstufungen der Kritikskala deutlich erkennen.

1. Verhaltene Kritik Dezente Kritik übt Rufus etwa, wenn er seine Verwunderung darüber ausdrückt, daß man im Falle des Weins, dessen Genuß klare Vorteile und Nachteile hat, die Nachteile vorzieht, obwohl es einem doch freisteht, die Vorteile zu nutzen 1 4 9 2 . In einem aus Rufus und Galenos kontaminierten Fragment des Aetios 'Über Gedächtnisschwund' 1 4 9 3 wird zwar die Heilwirkung des weißen Elleboros bejaht, aber er wird nicht als das allerletzte Heilmittel betrachtet, „wie manche meinen, sondern man sollte richtigerweise erst damit beginnen", heißt es dann wörtlich in einem vermutlich dem Rufus entnommenen Textzusammenhang 1 4 9 4 . Ähnlich verhaltene Kritik übt Rufus auch in seiner Schrift 'Über die Gelbsucht': „Allerdings wird im allgemeinen angenommen, daß der Aderlaß weit entfernt sei, sie zu kurieren, weil das Dominierende ja die Galle, nicht das Blut sei. Doch zeigt es sich bisweilen, daß der Aderlaß für sie nützlich ist..."1495.

2. Deutliche Kritik An anderen Stellen begnügt sich Rufus nicht damit, einfach Einspruch zu erheben, sondern geht zu deutlicher Kritik über. So z. B. in einem lückenhaft überlieferten Textzusammenhang der Schrift 'Über die Nieren- und Blasenleiden', in dem Rufus die Bezeichnung Harndiarrhöe (διάρροια εις ούρα) kritisiert und als treffenderen Terminus L i u r i e (λειουρία) vorschlägt und begründet 1 4 9 6 .

1491

Vgl. dazu oben S. 1 2 2 6 ff.

1492

Siehe Orib., Coli. med. V 7 , 7 : C M G VI 1,1, S. 1 2 7 , 1 1 - 1 3 RAE.

Vgl. dazu oben S. 1 1 8 6 f. 1 4 9 4 Siehe Aet., Libri med. VI 2 3 : C M G VIII 2, S. 1 6 2 , 2 7 f. OL. Vgl. dazu auch Orib., Coli, med. VII 2 6 , 1 7 6 : C M G VI 1,1, S. 2 4 2 , 2 6 - 3 1 RAE. und J. ILBERG, Rufus 5 1 . 1 4 9 5 Siehe Ruf. Eph., De ict. 15 f.: S. 3 3 , 3 0 - 3 4 ULLM. >49 Siehe Ruf. Eph., De ren. et ves. morb. 5,2: C M G III 1, S. 1 3 2 , 4 - 9 Si. 1493

1232

ALEXANDER

SIDERAS

In seinem O n o m a s t i k o n ' unterstreicht Rufus, daß es nicht griechisch ist, die Achsel als μάλη (Achselhöhle) zu bezeichnen 1 4 9 7 . Auch die Harnröhre sollte man nicht ούρητήρ nennen, denn so bezeichnet man den Harnleiter 1 4 9 8 . Nicht gut ist ferner, den Samenleiter als κρεμαστήρ zu bezeichnen 1 4 9 9 . Rufus kritisiert zuvor die im Umlauf befindliche Terminologie und erteilt Empfehlungen, an die er sich im übrigen selbst nicht halten k á n n 1 5 0 0 .

3. Negative Kritik Den Übergang von der kritisierenden Empfehlung zum negativen Urteil bildet etwa folgende Stelle: „Daß man solche Dinge auf die Nebenhoden (παραστάται) zurückführt, ist n i c h t s e h r v e r n ü n f t i g " 1 5 0 1 . Noch deutlicher wird Rufus an anderen Stellen, an denen er keine Ratschläge gibt, sondern ausdrücklich von Irrtümern spricht. Er liefert aber fast immer fairerweise auch eine Begründung seines negativen Urteils. Man vergleiche folgende Sätze: „Und die Enden beider Beinknochen zum Fuß hin heißen σφυρά (Knöchel), αστράγαλοι (Würfel) ist dagegen f a l s c h ; denn der Fuß des Menschen hat unter dem Knöchel auch einen Würfel (αστράγαλος), wenngleich dieser nicht sichtbar ist" 1 5 0 2 ; „Andere nennen zwar λιθοειδείς (Steinähnliche) die im Bereich des Hinterkopfes nach unten verlaufenden Erhebungen, aber das ist n i c h t r i c h t i g (ούκ ορθώς); denn sie sind einigermaßen hohl und tunnelähnlich und nicht fest, wie es der Name verlangt" 1 5 0 3 ; „Klearchos 1 5 0 4 behauptet zu U n r e c h t (ούκ όρθώς), daß die äußeren, im Bereich des Rückens befindlichen Muskeln ψόαι (musculus psoas) und νευρομήτορες und άλώπεκες genannt werden" 1 5 0 5 ; „Denn in müdem Zustand den Geschlechtsverkehr zu üben, ist s c h l e c h t (πονηρόν), obwohl geglaubt wird, daß dies die Ermüdung auflöst; aber das ist n i c h t r i c h t i g (ου μήν όρθώς); denn die Schwächung der Ermüdung ist kein Heilmittel" 1 5 0 6 .

1497

Siehe Ruf. Eph., De corp. hum. part, appell. 76: S. 143,3 f. DA. Siehe Ruf. Eph., De corp. hum. part, appell. 103: S. 1 6 4 , 1 2 - 1 5 DA. 1 4 9 9 Siehe Ruf. Eph., De sat. et gon. 10: S. 6 8 , 3 - 6 DA. 1500 D ¡ e Empfehlung, den Terminus ούρητήρ nicht für die Harnröhre zu verwenden, befolgt er selbst in seiner Schrift 'Über die Nieren- und Blasenleiden' nicht; vgl. dazu A. SIDERAS, Rufus 8 0 - 8 2 . Die Empfehlung, den Samenleiter nicht als κρεμαστήρ zu bezeichnen, hält er einige Zeilen weiter in derselben Schrift nicht ein; vgl. Ruf. Eph., De sat. et gon. 13: S. 69,11 DA.: ή ευρυχωρία τοϋ λεγομένου κρεμαστήρος. Den Grund dieser scheinbaren Inkonsequenz habe ich an anderem Ort zu erklären versucht; s. A. SIDERAS, Rufus 81.

1498

1501

Siehe Ruf. Eph., De sat. et gon. 10: S. 69,1 f. DA. Ι « 2 Siehe Ruf. Eph., De corp. hum. part, appell. 124: S. 1 4 9 , 4 - 7 DA. 1503 Siehe Ruf. Eph., De corp. hum. part, appell. 139: S. 1 5 1 , 1 2 - 1 5 2 , 1 DA. 1504 Kleitarchos codd.; Vgl. dazu oben S. 1131. "05 Siehe Ruf. Eph., De corp. hum. part, appell. 192: S. 160,4 f. DA. "06 Siehe Orib., Coli. med. VI 38,24: C M G VI 1,1, S. 1 9 1 , 2 2 - 2 4 RAE.

RUFUS V O N EPHESOS U N D SEIN WERK

1233

4. Scharfe Kritik Oft begnügt sich Rufus nicht mit der bloßen Feststellung, daß etwas nicht richtig (ούκ όρθώς) gesagt oder angenommen wurde, wie im vorigen Paragraphen, sondern er steigert und verschärft seine Kritik mit Hilfe negativer Wortformen (Adjektive, Adverbien oder Verben). Auch hierbei beobachtet man in dem von Rufus jeweils gewählten Ausdruck eine Nuancierung hinsichtlich der Kritikschärfe. Man vergleiche folgende Äußerungen: „Alte Namen gibt es für diese (Schädelknochen) nicht, sondern sie wurden ihnen jetzt von einigen ägyptischen Ärzten verliehen, die s c h l e c h t G r i e c h i s c h s p r e c h e n (φαύλως έλληνιζόνχων)" 1 5 0 7 ; „Und die innere Erhebung in der Nähe der Elle, von der ja manche, wie Hippokrates sagt, u n w i s s e n d (άμαθώς) glauben, sie sei ein Auswuchs der Elle, auch diese stellt den Armkopf dar" 1 5 0 8 ; „Denn der Kyklops hat natürlich nicht aus der Luftröhre und der Lunge die Speise und das Getränk erbrochen; dies (zu behaupten) v e r r ä t ja eine s c h r e c k l i c h e I g n o r a n z u n d D u m m h e i t (τοϋτο γάρ δεινώς άμαθες καί άνόητον)" 1 5 0 9 ; „Aber es gibt keine Vene, die von der Milz (ausgehend), wie jene von der Leber, im linken Körperbereich nach oben und nach unten verläuft, sondern dies behaupten einige f ä l s c h l i c h e r w e i s e (άλλα τοϋτο ψευδόμενοι λέγουσιν)" 1 5 1 0 ; „So muß sich also der Arzt, der die Abführmittel in die Heilkunst einbezieht, auch mit den (Medikamenten-) Mischungen befassen. Denn auch wenn er sich durch Erfahrung und Hörensagen ziemlich viele Kenntnisse aneignet, aber nicht im Kopf behält, was hier gesagt wurde, und vielleicht manches andere, so scheint mir wenigstens, daß ein solcher (Arzt) k e i n e s w e g s f ä h i g e r ist, über die Abführmittel Bescheid zu wissen, als ein Laie (έμοί μέν ούδέν ίδιώτου δοκεϊ ό τοιούτος ίκανώτερος είναι γινώσκειν περί των ελατηρίων)" 1 5 1 1 ; „Wer nichts davon hält, der ist in v i e l f a c h e r H i n s i c h t ein I g n o r a n t (όστις δ' έν ούδενί ταϋτα λόγφ εχει, πολλά αγνοεί)" 1 5 1 2 . In diesen Zusammenhang gehören ferner auch folgende Beispiele aus der lateinischen Übersetzung der Schrift 'Über die Gelenkkrankheiten' 1 5 1 3 und aus der arabischen Übersetzung der Schrift des Rufus 'Über Wein' 1 5 1 4 : Illi autem, qui non observando contemnunt quae dicimus, non módicas incurrunt passiones1515·, „Doch viele Menschen sind der Ansicht, daß das lange Verweilen im Bade und das starke Schweißtreiben die Adern säubert, so daß dies 1507 1508

Siehe Ruf. Eph., De corp. hum. part, appell. 133: S. 1 5 0 , 1 4 - 1 5 1 , 2 DA. Siehe Ruf. Eph., De corp. hum. part, appell. 77: S. 1 4 3 , 6 - 8 DA. Das Adverb άμαθώς stammt nicht von Hippokrates, es ist ein Zusatz des Rufus; Vgl. den Similienapparat von G . KOWALSKI z u r Stelle.

1509

1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515

Siehe Ruf. Eph., De corp. hum. part, appell. 63: S. 141,11 f. DA. Wenn sich Rufus so scharf ausdrückt, dann scheint es, daß einige φάρυγξ und λάρυγξ verwechselt haben. Siehe Ruf. Eph., De corp. hum. part, appell. 200: S. 1 6 1 , 1 2 - 1 4 DA. Siehe Orib., Coli. med. VII 2 6 , 1 4 9 : C M G VI 1,1, S. 2 4 0 , 1 0 - 1 3 RAE. Siehe Orib., Coli. med. VII 26,201: C M G VI 1,1, S. 2 4 5 , 2 8 RAE. Vgl. dazu oben S. 1 1 5 0 ff. Vgl. dazu oben S. 1 1 8 7 f . S i e h e R u f . E p h . , D e p o d . 2 : S. 2 2 , 1 9 f. MORL.

1234

A L E X A N D E R SIDERAS

zu einem starken Trinken verhelfe. Das ist aber d a s S c h ä d l i c h s t e , was ein Weintrinker tun k a n n " 1 5 1 6 . Die voranstehenden Ausführungen dieses Kapitels haben gezeigt, in welchem hohen Maße Rufus den benutzten Quellen gegenüber seine Eigenständigkeit bewahrt, mit welcher Autorität er eigene Interpretationen fremder Aussagen vorbringt, und mit welcher Sachlichkeit er andere Meinungen erörtert, kritisiert oder widerlegt. Die zitierten Textbeispiele haben auch deutlich erkennen lassen, daß hier kein rechthaberischer Polemiker am Werk ist, sondern eine umsichtige, aber souveräne und noble Arztpersönlichkeit, die mit hohem beruflichen Ethos im Dienste der Heilkunst steht.

IV. Rufus und die spätere

Medizin

Ein derart kompetenter, selbständiger und schriftstellerisch produktiver Arzt wie Rufus von Ephesos fand bei den späteren Medizinern erwartungsgemäß große Beachtung. Im relativ - mit Ausnahme des Galenos - nicht sehr umfangreichen Teil der späteren medizinischen Literatur, der auf uns gekommen ist, wird Rufus immer wieder erwähnt, zitiert und zum Teil ausgiebig im Originalwortlaut oder in Paraphrase exzerpiert. Die wichtigsten Gewährsmänner bei den Griechen sind in dieser Hinsicht Galenos, Oreibasios und Aetios. Dazu kommen noch einige lateinische sowie mehrere arabische Übersetzungen.

A. Galenos Schon der etwas jüngere Galenos, bekannt für seine Neigung zur Polemik, hat in den verhältnismäßig wenigen Fällen, in denen er sich auf Rufus bezieht, nur Positives über ihn zu berichten. Er gibt, wie schon erwähnt, offen und anerkennend an, daß unter den jüngeren Ärzten Rufus von Ephesos am besten über die Melancholie geschrieben h a b e 1 5 1 7 . Lobend empfiehlt Galenos auch die therapeutischen Schriften des R u f u s 1 5 1 8 sowie seine Kommentare zu Hippokrat e s 1 5 1 9 , in denen er immer bemüht war, den Originalwortlaut zu bewahren 1 5 2 0 .

1516 1517 1518 1519 1520

Siehe Ruf. Eph., De vino 28 f.: S. 3 5 , 2 3 - 2 6 ULLM. Vgl. dazu oben S. 1181 mit Anm. 1018. Vgl. dazu oben S. 1098 mit Anm. 139. Vgl. dazu oben S. 1098 f. mit Anm. 147 und 154. Siehe Gal., In Hipp. Praed. libr. I comm. II 58: XVI 6 3 6 , 5 - 7 Kü.: καί oí έξηγησάμενοι τό βιβλίον οϋτως ΐσασι γεγραμμένον, δτι μή 'Ροϋφος ό Έφέσιος, άνήρ φυλάσσειν μέν αεί πειρώμενος τάς παλαιάς γραφάς. Im folgenden referiert Galenos die treffliche Kritik (ούκ άγεννώς), die Rufus diesbezüglich an Zeuxis geübt hat. Vgl. dazu oben S. 1230.

RUFUS V O N EPHESOS U N D SEIN WERK

1235

Ferner wird Rufus in den von Galenos zitierten Versen des Damokrates als ein ausgezeichneter Arzt charakterisiert 1 5 2 1 . Galenos teilt uns ferner mit, daß Rufus auch in Hexametern über die Heilkräuter geschrieben hat 1 5 2 2 , und er zitiert sogar einige Verse davon 1 5 2 3 . Darüber, daß auch sonst im umfangreichen Werk des Galenos viel rufinisches Gedankengut verstreut ist, dürfte wohl kein Zweifel bestehen. Das Ausmaß und die Art einer solchen Rezeption festzustellen, wird allerdings durch den Umstand erschwert, daß ein Großteil der Werke des Rufus verlorenging und daß Galenos seine Quellen grundsätzlich verarbeitet, ohne die benutzten Autoren in der Manier der späteren Kompilatoren zu exzerpieren und namentlich zu nennen. Darüber hinaus liegen von den erhaltenen Schriften des Rufus nur zwei in modernen Editionen vor, in denen auch die Quellen- und Rezeptionsfrage untersucht worden ist 1 5 2 4 . Aus der Schrift 'Über die Nieren- und Blasenleiden' konnten im genuinen Werk des Galenos keine wörtlichen Parallelen ermittelt werden. Dagegen konnten im pseudogalenischen Traktat 'Über Diagnose und Behandlung der Nierenkrankheiten' zahlreiche wortgetreue Zitate aus der genannten Schrift des Rufus festgestellt werden 1 5 2 5 . Entsprechendes gilt auch für die Schrift 'Über die Benennung der Körperteile' 1 5 2 6 . In einer anderen pseudogalenischen Schrift wird auch die verlorene Schrift des Rufus 'Über Melancholie' zitiert 1 5 2 7 . Damit kann natürlich die Frage der Rezeption des rufinischen Schrifttums durch Galenos keineswegs als abgeschlossen betrachtet werden. Es müssen auch die übrigen vollständig überlieferten Schriften sowie die Fragmente des Rufus unter diesem Aspekt untersucht und mit den Werken des Galenos sorgfältig verglichen werden - eine Aufgabe, die nicht leicht zu bewältigen ist. B. Oreibasios Von Oreibasios, dem wichtigsten Kompilator des Rufus sowohl hinsichtlich des Umfanges als auch hinsichtlich der Worttreue der exzerpierten Textausschnitte, ist schon im Verlauf dieser Untersuchung zum wiederholten Male die Rede gewesen, wie z. B. bei der Behandlung der Nebenüberlieferung der vollständig erhaltenen Schriften 1 5 2 8 oder bei der Besprechung der Schriftenfrag1521

Siehe Gal., De antid. II 2: XIV 119,1 f. Kü.: 'Ροϋφος μέν οϋτω δεϊν εφασκε σκευάσαι, άνήρ άριστος έκτικός τ' έν τη τέχνη.

1522

Siehe das in der vorstehenden Anmerkung 139 angeführte Zitat. Siehe Gal., De comp. med. sec. loc. I 1: XII 4 2 5 , 4 - 1 3 Kü. Auch ein schmerzstillendes Mittel hat Galenos von Rufus übernommen; s. ibid. VII 5: XIII 9 2 , 1 7 Kü. 1524 Gemeint sind die Schriften 'Über die Nieren- und Blasenleiden' und 'Ärztliche Fragestellungen'; vgl. dazu oben S. 1 1 0 2 ff. und S. 1 1 4 2 ff. 1525 Vgl. dazu A. SIDERAS, Rufus 6 6 - 6 8 . 1526 Vgl. dazu oben S. 1 1 2 2 ff. 1527 Siehe Ps.-Galen, De mei.: XIX 7 1 0 , 5 ff. Kü. 1528 Vgl. dazu oben S. 1119, 1133, 1141, 1161.

1523

1236

ALEXANDER

SIDERAS

mente des Rufus 1 5 2 9 . Somit kann hier auf eine Wiederaufnahme des bereits Gesagten verzichtet werden, zumal dort gelegentlich auch auf die Rezeptionsweise des Oreibasios hingewiesen wurde 1 5 3 0 . Die Bedeutung, die Oreibasios dem Arzt Rufus beimißt, zeigt sich einerseits an der Menge und dem Umfang der entnommenen Texte und andererseits daran, daß er ihn als den G r o ß e n bezeichnet 1 5 3 1 .

C. Aetios Auch von Aetios, dem zweitwichtigsten Kompilator des Rufus, ist schon oben im Zusammenhang mit der Nebenüberlieferung der vollständig erhaltenen Schriften sowie bei der Erörterung der Schriftenfragmente des Rufus wiederholt gesprochen worden, so daß hier ein Hinweis auf diese Stellen der Untersuchung genügen dürfte 1 5 3 2 . Dort ist ebenfalls von der Exzerptionsweise des Aetios sowie von seinem Verhältnis zu Oreibasios hinsichtlich der gemeinsamen RufusExzerpte die Rede gewesen.

D. Alexandros von Tralleis und Paulos von Aigina Auch diese beiden Kompilatoren, die im Vergleich zu Oreibasios und Aetios für das Werk des Rufus von sekundärer Bedeutung sind, wurden oben gelegentlich behandelt 1 5 3 3 .

E. Die lateinische Überlieferung Wir haben schon oben zwei lateinische Übersetzungen von Werken des Rufus besprochen 1 5 3 4 . Beide Male handelt es sich um spätere Übertragungen von Schriften des Rufus, die nicht im Original überliefert sind. Sonst fehlt es an Untersuchungen zur Frage der Rufus-Rezeption bei den Römern, wobei zu vermerken ist, daß Rufus vermutlich keinen so großen Einfluß auf die römische Medizin ausgeübt hat wie etwa sein Landsmann Soranos 1 5 3 5 .

1529 1530 1531

1532

i«3 1535

Vgl. dazu oben S. 1172, 1175, 1 1 8 0 f. usw. Dazu vgl. auch M. WELLMANN, Pneumatische Schule 104 ff. Siehe Orib., Libri ad Eun. (Praef.) 6: C M G VI 3, S. 3 1 8 , 4 f . RAE.: γέγραπται δέ και 'Ρούφφ τω μεγάλφ πραγματεία τις προς τούς ίδιώτας etc. Vgl. dazu oben S. 1096 mit Anm. 114. Vgl. dazu oben S. 1119, 1141 f., 1 1 6 7 f., 1173, 1181 f., 1186 usw. Vgl. dazu oben S. 1120, 1142, 1161, 1184. Vgl. dazu oben S. 1 1 5 0 ff. und 1166. Vgl. dazu J.ILBERG, Rufus 51.

R U F U S V O N E P H E S O S U N D SEIN

WERK

1237

F. Die arabische Überlieferung In den letzten Jahren ist unsere Kenntnis über die arabische Überlieferung der Werke des Rufus vor allem dank der Forschungsbeiträge von M . ULLMANN1536 erheblich erweitert worden. So wurde bekannt, daß außer zahlreichen kleineren und größeren Auszügen aus den Werken des Rufus auch zumindest eine ganze Schrift nur in arabischer Übersetzung vorliegt. Darüber ist schon oben am jeweils geeigneten Ort ausführlicher berichtet worden 1 5 3 7 . Die Breite der Rezeption des Rufus bei den Arabern zeigt, daß der Ephesier auch dort einen sehr guten Ruf genoß. Das geht nicht zuletzt aus dem Zeugnis des Qustä hervor, der Rufus als einen f ü h r e n d e n A r z t bezeichnet 1 5 3 8 . Die Frage der Rezeption des Rufus durch die spätere Medizin ist natürlich viel komplizierter, als daß sie sich hier auf wenigen Seiten erschöpfend hätte beantworten lassen; dafür ist sie zu vielschichtig und zu wenig erforscht. Es muß noch eine Menge in allen drei Rezeptionsbereichen, dem griechischen, dem lateinischen und dem arabischen Bereich, getan werden, um zu einem annähernd befriedigenden Ergebnis, wenn nicht zu einem abschließenden Urteil kommen zu können.

V. Sprache und Stil des Rufus

Rufus von Ephesos hat sich, wie alle späteren medizinischen Schriftsteller außer dem ionisierenden Sonderling Aretaios 1 5 3 9 , des attischen Dialektes, gena ugenommen des hellenistischen Griechisch bedient 1 5 4 0 . Sein Werk legt ein beredtes Zeugnis davon ab, daß er immer bestrebt war, den Anforderungen gerecht zu werden, „die an die wissenschaftliche Prosa auch zu seiner Zeit eindeutig gestellt wurden, einfach, schlicht, klar und deutlich (...) zu sein, rein an die Sache gebunden, immer bestimmt von dem Gesichtspunkt, für den Leser und jedenfalls den Gebildeten verständlich zu s e i n " 1 5 4 1 . Daher kümmerte sich Rufus viel weniger als etwa Galenos um Hiate und philosophische Reflexionen. Er verstand es aber, die trockene medizinische Materie durch sachbezogene 1536 Vgl. dazu das Literatur- und Abkürzungsverzeichnis s.v. ULLMANN. Siehe auch S. 1 2 0 0 mit Anm. 1 1 9 9 und 1 2 0 0 . Vgl. dazu oben S. 1 1 2 0 , 1 1 6 2 , 1 1 6 3 ff., 1 1 6 8 ff., 1 1 7 3 f. usw. Siehe darüber M . ULLMANN, Neues 2 8 . Man vergleiche auch das diesbezügliche Urteil des Ishäq ibn 'Imrän bei H . FLASHAR, Melancholie 8 9 . 1539 VGL D A Z U Z G Κ DEICHGRÄBER, Aretaeus 5. 1537 1538

1540

1541

Einige Besonderheiten der Sprache und Schreibweise des Rufus in den Traktaten 'Ärztliche Fragestellungen' und 'Über die Nieren- und Blasenleiden' sind von den letzten Herausgebern dieser Schriften notiert; s. H. GÄRTNER, Rufus 2 0 - 2 2 und A. SIDERAS, Rufus 5 1 f. So K. DEICHGRÄBER (Aretaeus 5) in verneinender Form über die unzeitgemäße „Stilauffassung" des Aretaios, was aber für die Sprache des Rufus in positivem Sinne zutrifft.

1238

ALEXANDER

SIDERAS

Einschübe und Erklärungen aufgelockert darzubieten. So ist er schon von U. V. WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF als ein „auffällig frischer Schriftsteller" bezeichnet worden 1 5 4 2 , während J. ILBERG seine „nüchterne Sachlichkeit" hervorhebt1543. Eine sprachstilistische Untersuchung zu Rufus würde sich sicherlich trotz der geringen Zahl der überlieferten Originalschriften lohnen; in diesem Rahmen sollen aber nur einige Hinweise auf die innere Struktur seiner Rede sowie auf manche sonstigen sprachstilistischen Merkmale gegeben werden, um neben dem Arzt und Menschen auch den Schriftsteller Rufus ins rechte Licht zu rükken. Über die klare Gliederung seiner Traktate haben wir schon oben im Zusammenhang mit der Erörterung des Aufbaus und des Inhalts der vollständig erhaltenen Schriften gesprochen, wobei deutlich geworden ist, daß Rufus jede Schrift je nach dem zu behandelnden Gegenstand auf eigene Weise gestaltet h a t 1 5 4 4 . Für alle Schriften gelten dennoch grundsätzlich folgende stilistische Merkmale: Nach der Besprechung einer jeden Einheit (Diagnose, Symptome, Therapiemaßnahmen usw.) folgt zumeist ein typischer rekapitulierender Satz. Um andererseits Wiederholungen zu vermeiden, macht Rufus fleißig Gebrauch von ebenfalls typischen Querverweisen. Den persönlichen Stil des Rufus prägen außerdem einige Besonderheiten seiner schriftlichen Rede, wie etwa häufig wiederkehrende Wörter und Ausdrücke, Komparative und Superlative ohne direkte Steigerung sowie seine Art der Verbindung von Sätzen und Satzgliedern.

A. Rekapitulationen Die Rekapitulationen dienen der Zusammenfassung unmittelbar vorangehender Texteinheiten; sie markieren deren Abschluß und leiten zum jeweils nächsten Besprechungspunkt über. Bei Rufus sind solche Rekapitulationen ziemlich häufig und werden oft mit einem Demonstrativpronomen (überwiegend mit Formen von ούτος, αυτή, τούτο und weniger häufig mit Formen von τοσούτος, τοσαύτη, τοσούτο) eingeleitet. Zumeist steht dabei ein μέν, das von einem ούν oder δή (einmal sogar von beiden!) begleitet wird. Manchmal folgt im selben rekapitulierenden Satz auch noch ein Modaladverb oder ein weiteres Demonstrativpronomen mit einem Verb, so daß im Grunde bei dieser Art der Rekapitulation des Rufus zwei Muster zu unterscheiden sind: ein Typ D a s ist / sind ( a l s o ) . . . und ein Typ D a s ist / sind a l s o so. Man vergleiche folgende Beispiele: Typ a: D e m o n s t r a t i v p r o n o m e n p l u s μέν, ούν, δή: „Das sind a l s o die Behandlungsmethoden im Hinblick auf die Ausscheidungen der Steine im 1542

Siehe U. v. WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF, Die griechische Literatur des Altertums (Die Kultur der Gegenwart, Teil I Abt. VIII: Die griechische und lateinische Literatur und Sprache), 3. Aufl., Leipzig-Berlin 1 9 1 2 , 2 5 0 f.

1543

Siehe J. ILBERG, Rufus, 5 0 : „Eine strenge, nüchterne Sachlichkeit beherrscht sein Schrifttum und charakterisiert seinen Stil, das Positive ist ihm wesentlich".

1544 Vgl. d a z u oben S. 1103 ff., 1123 ff., 1136 ff., 1143 ff., 1151 ff., 1163 ff.

RUFUS V O N EPHESOS U N D SEIN WERK

1239

Urin" 1545 ; „Das ist die sicherste Diagnose und Behandlung der Blasensteine" 1546 ; „Das sind a l s o (die Maßnahmen), die man im Falle der porösen Steine und einer daran erkrankten Blase zu treffen hat" 1 5 4 7 ; „Das sind a l s o bei diesem Leiden die lindernden (Medikamente)" 1548 ; „Das habe ich a l s o zum (besseren Verständnis) der folgenden Ausführungen geschrieben, und damit man im ganzen über die Leiden Bescheid weiß" 1 5 4 9 ; „ S o w e i t (sei) a l s o die Aufzählung der milden Klistiere und Injektionen" 1550 ; „Soviel aus den Fieberanfällen hervorgerufenes Gute habe ich erfahren" 1551 ; S o v i e l muß die Amme wissen und können, um (ein Kind) am Anfang im Bad zu bedienen" 1552 ; „Das sind a l s o die Heilmittel für die Haut" 1 5 5 3 . Formen von ούτος oder τοιούτος des griechischen Originals repräsentieren auch die Pronomina haec und tales in folgenden Sätzen der lateinischen Übersetzung der Schrift des Rufus 'Über die Gelenkerkrankungen': Tales ergo cibos et potiones artriticis utiles sunt1554; Haec ergo sunt catartica quae podagricis et artriticis expediunt1555; Haec est enim in inflammationibus podagrae curatio15S6. Auch diese Rekapitulationen gehören offenbar zum Typ a. Eine Variante desselben Typs stellt folgender Satz dar, bei dem das Substantiv dem Demonstrativpronomen vorangeht: „Die Lebensweise der Nierenkranken s o l l aber d i e s e sein" 1 5 5 7 . Zum zweiten Typ ( D e m o n s t r a t i v p r o n o m e n p l u s M o d a l a d v e r b oder D e m o n s t r a t i v p r o n o m e n ) sind folgende Beispiele zu zählen: „Dies

1545

1547

1548

1549

1550

1551

1552

1553

1554 1555

1557

82

Siehe Ruf. Eph., De ren. et ves. morb. 3,25: C M G III 1, S. 122,12 Si.: αύται μεν περί τάς ουρήσεις των λίθων αϊ θεραπειαι. Siehe Ruf. Eph., De ren. et ves. morb. 9,12: C M G III 1, S. 152,18 f. Si.: αύτη σαφέστατη διάγνωσις και θεραπεία των έν κύστει λίθων. Siehe Ruf. Eph., De ren. et ves. morb. 9,24: C M G III 1, S. 158,3 f. Si: {ταύτα μεν περί τούς πώρους) και τήν λιθιώσαν κύστιν πραγματευτέον. Siehe Ruf. Eph., De ren. et ves. morb. 10,7: C M G III 1, S. 160,10 f. Si: ταύτα μέν ούν τω π < άθει παρηγορικά. Siehe Ruf. Eph., De sat. et gon. 16: S. 71,3 f. DA.: ταύτα μέν ούν δια τό εφεξής τού λόγου και ίνα τις τό (σύμπαν) περί των παθημάτων είδη γέγραφα. Siehe Orib., Coll. med. Vili 24,30: C M G VI 1,1, S. 273,7 f. RAE.: τοσαύτη μέν ή περί των άπαλών κλυσμών και ένεμάτων καταρίθμησις. Siehe Orib., Coll. med. XLV 30,25: C M G VI 2,1, S. 193,7 RAE.: τοσαϋτα εγνων αγαθά έκ πυρετών γινόμενα. Siehe Orib., Coll. med. lib. inc. 38,8: C M G VI 2,2, S. 136,22 f. RAE.: τοσαϋτα χρή έπισταμένην τε και δυναμένην ύπουργείν τήν τιτθήν τα πρώτα λουτρόν. Siehe Orib., Coll. med. lib. inc. 42,5: C M G VI 2,2, S. 1 4 8 , 2 8 - 1 4 9 , 1 RAE: ταύτα μέν ούν τω δέρματι τα ίάματα. Siehe Ruf. Eph., De pod. 1 3 : S. 2 6 , 1 5 M O R L . Siehe Ruf. Eph., De pod. 19: S. 28,26 f. M O R L . Siehe Ruf. Eph., De pod. 37: S. 36,8 f. M O R L . Siehe Ruf. Eph., De ren. et ves. morb. 2,34: C M G III 1, S. 110,16 Si.: δίαιτα μέν ήδε τών νεφριτικών. Der Satz findet sich fast wörtlich in der lateinischen Übersetzung der Schrift 'Über die Gelenkkrankheiten' wieder; vgl. Ruf. Eph., De pod. 16: S. 27,11 f. M O R L . : Dieta igitur artritico talis esse debet. Man vgl. ibid. 33: S. 34,25 f. M O R L . : Prohibitiones enim istae inflammationes pedum minuunt.

ANRW II 37.2

1240

ALEXANDER SIDERAS

muß man a l s o s o machen" 1558 ; „In d i e s e m Fall verhielt es sich a l s o so" 1 5 5 9 ; „Dies verhält sich a l s o auf diese Weise" 1 5 6 0 ; „Das ist a l s o so zu erledigen" 1561 ; „Dies a l s o geschieht an sich auf diese Weise" 1 5 6 2 . Noch häufiger sind die Rekapitulationen, die mit dem bestimmten Artikel eingeleitet werden und neben μέν (ούν) ein Demonstrativpronomen (sächliche Formen von ούτος, τοιόσδε, οδε, τοσούτος) oder ein Modaladverb (ώδε bzw. οΰτω[ς]) enthalten. Demnach kann man auch bei dieser Gruppe der Rekapitulationen zwei Typen unterscheiden: Zum ersten Typ (Artikel plus Substantiv plus Demonstrativpronomen mit oder - zumeist - ohne vorangehende Präposition) gehören Sätze wie folgende: „Die N a h r u n g , die die Nierenkranken zu sich nehmen dürfen, ist a l s o diese" 1 5 6 3 ; „Die Art der Krankheit ist a l s o diese" 1 5 6 4 ; „Das W i c h t i g s t e bei der Behandlung ist a l s o dieses" 1 5 6 5 ; „Die B e w e i s g r ü n d e dafür, daß eine kältere Blase Steine entstehen läßt, sind a l s o v o n dieser Art" 1 5 6 6 ; „Die L e i d e n sind a l s o derart" 1 5 6 7 ; „Die m e i s t e n (Körperteile) des Menschen muß man a l s o so bezeichnen" 1568 ; „Den A n f a n g der Krankheit also, wann der Patient krank wurde, zu erfragen, ist für s o viele Gesichtspunkte wohl nützlich, meine ich" 1569 ; „Die Fragen, die man an den Patienten und an die Anwesenden zu richten hat, sind a l s o d i e s e und ihnen ähnliche" 1570 ; „Das W i c h t i g s t e bei der Diät ist a l s o dieses" 1 5 7 1 ; „Die nach unten reinigenden

1JS8

Siehe Ruf. Eph., De ren. et ves. morb. 2,21: CMG III 1, S. 106,2 f. Si: ταύτα μέν δή ποιεϊν ώδε. 1559 Siehe Ruf. Eph., Quaest. med. 11,58: CMG IV, S. 42,25 Gä.: τούτο μέν δή οϋτως εσχε. 15 «° Siehe Orib., Coll. med. lib. inc. 18,16: CMG VI 2,2, S. 108,7 RAE.: ταύτα μέν ούν δή τοιαύτα. 1561 Siehe Orib., Coll. med. lib. inc. 38,10: CMG VI 2,2, S. 136,35 RAE.: ταύτα μέν οϋτως ήνύσθω. 1562 Siehe Orib., Coll. med. lib. inc. 42,13: CMG VI 2,2, S. 149,23 RAE.: ταύτα μέν δή καθ' αύτά οϋτω γίνεται. 1563 Siehe Ruf. Eph., De ren. et ves. morb. 2,29: CMG III 1, S. 108,15 Si.: τα μέν ούν προσάρματα των νεφριτικών τοιάδε. 1564 Siehe Ruf. Eph., De ren. et ves. morb. 4,3: CMG III 1, S. 128,8 f. Si.: τό μέν είδος τοΰ < πάθους τοιόνδε. 1565 Siehe Ruf. Eph., De ren. et ves. morb. 4,9: CMG III 1, S. 130,12 f. Si.: τό μέν κεφάλαιον της θεραπείας τόδε. 1566 Siehe Ruf. Eph., De ren. et ves. morb. 9,17: CMG III 1, S. 1 5 6 , 3 - 5 Si.: τά μέν τεκμήρια του τήν ψυχροτέραν κύστιν λίθους τρέφειν τοιαύτ' έστίν. 1567 Siehe Ruf. Eph., De ren. et ves. morb. 11,5: CMG III 1, S. 162,8 Si.: τα μέν παθήματα τοιάδε. 1568 Siehe Ruf. Eph., De corp. hum. part, appell. 233: S. 167,10 DA.: τά μέν πλείστα του άνθρωπου οϋτω χρή καλειν. 1569 Siehe Ruf. Eph., Quaest. med. 2,14: CMG IV, S. 28,17 f. GÄ.: τήν μέν ούν άρχήν της νόσου, όπηνίκα ό άνθρωπος νοσείν ήρξατο, εις τοσαύτά φημι χρηστώς αν έρωτηθήναι. 1570 Siehe Ruf. Eph., Quaest. med.12,63: CMG IV, S. 44,5 f. GÄ.: τα μέν ούν τού νοσοϋντος και των παρόντων ερωτήματα ταύτα και ö τι τούτων έγγυτάτω έστίν. 1571 Siehe Orib., Coll. med. VI 38,11: CMG VI 1,1, S. 190,3 RAE.: τό μέν κεφάλαιον τούτο της διαίτης.

RUFUS V O N EPHESOS U N D SEIN WERK

1241

M i t t e l sind also, soviel ich weiß, diese" 1 5 7 2 ; „Die K r a n k h e i t e n , bei denen (der Elleboros) gegeben werden darf, sind a l s o diese" 1 5 7 3 , „Die F i e b e r a n f ä l l e werden a l s o durch s o l c h e (erkrankte) Körperstellen und Leiden aufgelöst" 1 5 7 4 . Zur zweiten Gruppe dieser Kategorie der Rekapitulationen (Artikel plus Substantiv plus Modaladverb) gehören Beispiele wie folgende: „Die E n t z ü n d u n g e n sind a l s o auf d i e s e Weise am besten zu behandeln" 1575 ; „Die N i e r e n l e i d e n könnte man a l s o auf d i e s e Weise am besten zur Heilung bringen" 1576 ; „Die (Blasen-) E n t z ü n d u n g e n sind a l s o auf diese Weise zu behandeln" 1577 ; „Die V o r b e m e r k u n g e n zum Thema sind a l s o s o l c h e r Art" 1 5 7 8 ; „Die K ö r p e r a n s t r e n g u n g e n könnte man a l s o auf d i e s e Weise mit Nutzen betreiben" 1579 ; „Die D i ä t ist a l s o s o l c h e r Art" 1 5 8 0 ; „Im Anbeginn muß man a l s o D e r a r t i g e s zur Kenntnis nehmen" 1581 ; „Der aus Krankheiten für Krankheiten (entstehende) N u t z e n v e r h ä l t sich a l s o auf diese Weise" 1 5 8 2 ; „Die dicke (Milch) muß man also auf d i e s e Weise verbessern" 1583 . Einige weitere Rekapitulationen werden mit einer Präposition (εις, κατά, περί, πρός) oder mit einem Modaladverb (οϋτω[ς]) eingeleitet; erstere enthalten auch noch ein Modaladverb (οϋτω[ς]), ώδε) oder ein Demonstrativpronomen. Man vergleiche folgende Beispiele: „Was also die Arten des Liegens b e t r i f f t , 1572

Siehe Orib., Coli. med. VII 26,134: CMG VI 1,1, S. 238,22 RAE.: τα μεν ούν κάτω καθαίροντα, οσα έγώ οϊδα, ταϋτά έστιν. "73 Siehe Orib., Coll. med. VII 26,182: C M G VI 1,1, S.243,24f. RAE.: τα μέν νοσήματα, οίς αν προσενεχθή, ταϋτά έστιν. 1574 Siehe Orib., Coll. med. XLV 30,41: C M G VI 2,1, S. 194,22 f. RAE.: oi μέν δή πυρετοί δια τοιώνδε και τόπων και παθημάτων λύονται. 1575 Siehe Ruf. Eph., De ren. et ves. morb. 2,1: C M G III 1, S. 98,7f. Si.: τάς μέν ούν φλεγμονάς ώδ' αν τις θεραπεύοι κάλλιστα. 1576 Siehe Ruf. Eph., De ren. et ves. morb. 5,8: C M G III 1, S. 134,8 f. Si.: τά μέν ούν νεφριτικά οϋτως αν τις κάλλιστα ίφτο. 1577 Siehe Ruf. Eph., De ren. et ves. morb. 6,9: C M G III 1, S. 138,11 f. Si.: τάς μέν φλεγμονάς θεραπεύειν οϋτως. 1578 Siehe Orib., Coll. med. VI 38,9: CMG VI 1,1, S. 189,26 RAE.: τα με ούν πρώτα τού λόγου ώδε εχει. siehe Orib., Coll. med. VI 38,15: C M G VI 1,1, S. 190,17f. RAE.: ταϊς μέν ούν ταλαιπωρίαις ώδε αν τις χρωτο προσφόρως. 1580 Siehe Orib., Coll. med. VI 38,27: C M G VI 1,1, S. 192,3 RAE.: αί μέν ούν δίαιται ώδε εχουσιν. Siehe Orib., Coll. med. VII 26,188: C M G VI 1,1, S. 244,16 f. RAE.: τα μέν δή πρώτα οϋτω χρή γινώσκειν. "82 Siehe Orib., Coll. med. XLV 30,67: C M G VI 2,1, S. 196,20 RAE. Der offenkundig falsche und unverständliche Satz τά μέν έκ νοσημάτων νοήσασιν αγαθόν ώδε εχει, den R A E D E R erstaunlicherweise drucken ließ, muß m. E. entweder τά μέν έκ νοσημάτων νοσήμασιν αγαθά ώδε εχει oder το μέν έκ νοσημάτων νοσήμασιν αγαθόν ώδε εχει heißen. Es geht doch um Krankheiten, die andere (schwerere) Krankheiten heilen (Krankheitsversetzungen); vgl. dazu oben S. 1192 ff. Siehe Orib., Coli. med. lib. inc. 31,28: C M G VI 2,2, S. 124,3 RAE.: τό μέν ούν παχύ οϋτω χρή διορθοϋσθαι. 82*

1242

ALEXANDER

SIDERAS

ergeht es ihnen s o " 1 5 8 4 ; „ H i n s i c h t l i c h der verbreiteten Krankheiten, besonders der fiebrigen, muß man d i e s und ähnliches fragen" 1 5 8 5 ; „Was die Krankheit im allgemeinen a n g e h t , muß man a l s o s o l c h e r A r t Kenntnis besitzen" 1 5 8 6 ; „In b e z u g auf das Quartanfieber verhält es sich a l s o s o " 1 5 8 7 ; „Was diese (Nahrungsmittel) b e t r i f f t , verhält es sich a l s o s o " 1 5 8 8 ; „Auf d i e s e W e i s e würde man a l s o am besten und ohne Mühe erbrechen" 1 5 8 9 ; „Wenn also die Amme eine Diät s o l c h e r A r t einhalten würde, wäre es sowohl für sie selbst als auch für den Säugling am besten" 1 5 9 0 . Man vergleiche ferner folgende Beispiele aus der lateinischen und der arabischen Übersetzung: Usque hic ergo curationem dixiÌS91; „Alle d i e s e H e i l m i t t e l nützen gegen Gelbsucht" 1 5 9 2 .

B. Querverweise Fleißigen Gebrauch macht Rufus auch von der Möglichkeit der Querverweise. Sie sind zu unterteilen in Verweise auf das bereits Gesagte bzw. Geschriebene und in Verweise auf das, was noch gesagt bzw. geschrieben werden soll. Beides geschieht, um Wiederholungen zu vermeiden und Platz zu sparen und kann sich entweder auf dieselbe Schrift oder auf andere Werke des Autors beziehen.

1. Verweise auf das bereits Geschriebene Die Verweise auf das bereits Geschriebene sind verständlicherweise häufiger als die Verweise auf das, was noch geschrieben werden soll. Die dominierende Verbalform bei den Rückverweisen (im eigentlichen Sinn) ist εΐρηται, die im erhaltenen Werk des Rufus über zwanzig Mal wiederkehrt. Ihr geht am häufigsten ein Modalabverb (zumeist ώς und nur vereinzelt ώσπερ oder καθώς) 1584

Siehe Ruf. Eph., D e ren. et ves. morb. 1,2: C M G III 1, S. 88,8 Sl.: περί μέν τάς κλίσεις τοιαύτα πάσχουσι. 1585 Siehe Ruf. Eph., Quaest. med. 10,46: C M G IV, S. 4 0 , 3 f. Gä.: Εις μέν ούν τάς κοινάς νόσους, και μάλιστα τάς πυρετώδεις, ταϋτά τε και τά όμοια έρωτητέον. Ι 5 8 6 Siehe Orib., Coll. med. VII 2 6 , 1 8 3 : C M G VI 1,1, S. 2 4 3 , 3 1 RAE.: προς μέν ούν ο λ η ν την ν ό σ ο ν οϋτω γινώσκειν = ibid. VII 2 6 , 1 8 6 : C M G VI 1,1, S. 2 4 4 , 8 RAE. 1587 Siehe Orib., Coli. med. XLV 30,18: C M G VI 2 , 1 , S. 1 9 2 , 2 6 RAE.: κατά μέν τον τεταρταίον ώδε εχει. 1588 Siehe Orib., Coll. med. lib inc. 2 0 , 5 3 : C M G VI 2 , 2 , S. 1 1 2 , 3 RAE.: περί μέν τούτων ώδε εχει. 1589 Siehe Orib., Coll. med. VIII 2 1 , 1 6 : C M G VI 1,1, S. 2 6 8 , 2 3 f. RAE.: οϋτω μέν δή τις κάλλιστα έμοί και άταλαιπώρως. (Vielleicht ist vor oder nach κάλλιστα ein αν zu ergänzen). 1590 Siehe Orib., Coli. med. lib. inc. 3 1 , 2 2 : C M G VI 2 , 2 , S. 1 2 3 , 2 6 f. RAE.: οϋτως μέν ούν ή τιτθή διαιτωμένη κάλλιστα αν ε χ ο ι και έαυτή και τω βρέφει. U ' I Siehe Ruf. Eph., D e pod. 32: S. 3 4 , 1 4 MORL. Ι * 9 2 S i e h e R u f . E p h . , D e i c t . 3 9 : S. 3 7 , 8 9 U L L M .

RUFUS VON EPHESOS UND SEIN WERK

1243

voran; man vergleiche folgende Sätze: „ . . . w i e es dort g e s a g t wurde" 1 5 9 3 ; „ . . . w i e es im Falle der (Blasen-) Lähmung g e s a g t w o r d e n ist" 1 5 9 4 ; „Wenn er aber, indem er eine Diät einhält, w i e sie b e s c h r i e b e n w u r d e . . . " 1 5 9 5 ; „...würde es nützlich sein, bei jedem einzelnen Fall so zu verfahren, wie es g e s a g t w o r d e n ist" 1 5 9 6 ; „Zuerst also, w i e g e s a g t w u r d e ,.." 1 5 9 7 ; „ . . . w i e g e s a g t . . . " 1 5 9 8 ; „ . . . w i e bei den Wurzelschnitten über sie g e s a g t w o r d e n ist" 1 5 9 9 . Man vergleiche auch folgende Sätze aus der lateinischen Übersetzung der Schrift 'Über die Gelenkerkrankungen': Optimum est ergo, ut dictum est1600; ...sicut dictum est1601. Manchmal wird εϊρηται von einem Relativ- oder Demonstrativpronomen (ά, όποία, τοϋτο, οία, οσα, τοιαύτα) begleitet; man vergleiche folgende Beispiele: „...sowie von denjenigen (Kräutern), v o n d e n e n g e s a g t wurde, daß sie die Steine zerkleinern" 1602 ; „...wird Urin von der Art ausgeschieden, w i e er bes c h r i e b e n w u r d e " 1 6 0 3 ; „Denn darüber ist schon vorher g e s p r o c h e n w o r den" 1 6 0 4 ; „...und es zeigen sich bei ihnen die Symptome, v o n d e n e n die R e d e war" 1 6 0 5 ; „Alles, was man hinsichtlich der gesamten Kunst der Reinigungsmittel besser im voraus sagen sollte, ist g e s a g t w o r d e n " 1 6 0 6 . Man vergleiche auch folgende Sätze aus der lateinischen Übersetzung der Schrift 'Über die Gelenkkrankheiten': Omnia enim haec quae dicta sunt1607; ...ea quae dicta fortiora sunt1608. Nachgestellt ist das Pronomen im folgenden Satz: „Es ist schon kurz zuvor viel D e r a r t i g e s e r w ä h n t w o r d e n " 1 6 0 9 . 1593

1594

1595 1596

1597

"98 1599

Siehe Ruf. Eph., De ren. et ves. morb. 8,2: CMG III 1, S. 144,6 Si.: ώς έκεϊ εϊρηται = ibid. 8,15: CMG III 1, S. 148,10 Si. Siehe Ruf. Eph., De ren. et ves. morb. 11,11: CMG III 1, S. 164,17 f. Si.: ώσπερ έν τη παραλύσει εϊρηται. Siehe Ruf. Eph., De sat. et gon. 27: S. 75,3 f. DA.: εί δέ, ώς εϊρηται διαιτώμενος... Siehe Ruf. Eph., De sat. et gon. 30: S. 76,3 DA.: συμφέροι αν ποιεϊν έπί έκάστω, ώς εϊρηται. Siehe Ruf. Eph., Quaest. med. 1,9: CMG IV, S. 26,17 GÄ.: πρώτον μεν δή, ώς εϊρηται... Siehe Orib., Coll. med. II 61,10: CMG VI 1,1, S. 60,8 RAE.: ... ώς εϊρηται = ibid., lib. inc. 18,18: CMG VI 2,2, S. 108,14 RAE. = Aet., Libri med. VI 23: CMG VIII2, S. 162,7 OL. Siehe Orib., Coli. med. VII 26,31: CMG VI 1,1, S. 231,21 RAE.: καθώς έν ταϊς ριζοτομίαις υπέρ αύτών εϊρηται. Über εϊρηται mit der Präposition ύπέρ s. gleich unten S. 1244 mit Anm. 1614.

LEO» S i e h e R u f . E p h . , D e p o d . 2 8 : S. 3 2 , 1 5 M 0 R L . 1 Palladius, Comm. in Hipp. Epid. VI, ed. DIETZ, II, 113. 5 1 De san. tuenda 3.3 (KÜHN, VI.228; KOCH, CMG V.4.2, p. 100). La traduction anglaise de GREEN ( 1 9 5 1 , 1 3 7 ) attribue à Quintus seulement la première de ces trois boutades, Thessalos y est pris pour un Thessalien et γραφεύς est traduit par "writer". Il est vrai que la signification de ce terme est écrivain ou peintre, mais dans ce cas Galien a probablement 49

G A L I E N ET MARINUS, QUINTOS,

NUMISIANUS

1507

Les quatre sortes de bain, l'odeur pisseuse des foulons, l'abus du massage, voilà ce qui évoque bien, en quelques traits, l'atmosphère du monde romain. Ce Graeculus semble le mépriser et, comble d'impertinence aux yeux de ses confrères, ironise même sur l'art qu'il exerce. La renommée de Quintus à R o m e est assez grande pour qu'il soit l'objet de la haine jalouse des autres médecins, cette haine dont Galien lui-même a souvent l'occasion de se plaindre pour son propre c o m p t e 5 2 . Quintus va tomber sous les coups de ses rivaux qui lancent contre lui l'accusation capable de toucher les cœurs romains, celle du meurtre impuni des malades qui se sont confiés à lui. Une telle accusation faisait courir le risque de peine capitale. On comprendrait donc que Quintus ait préféré partir de lui-même avant tout procès. Le médecin qui réussit dans ses prédictions, écrit Galien, « finit par soulever une envie pleine de haine, au point qu'on conspire contre lui, d'abord en manigançant un empoisonnement, puis en lui tendant un piège, comme celui dans lequel tomba Quintus, le meilleur médecin de son temps, qui fut chassé de la ville sous prétexte qu'il faisait disparaître ses malades ». Galien en tire la conclusion que, pour le praticien qui veut suivre la meilleure tradition des asclépiades, il n'y a que deux issues: « partir comme l'a fait Quintus » ou accepter « en bon philosophe » de vivre exposé à la calomnie, dans la peur constante d'un désastre 5 3 .

3. Commentateur d'Hippocrate La remarque ironique de Quintus sur les quatre qualités élémentaires ne semble pas avoir été une simple boutade. Hunain ibn Ishâq a connu un texte grec attribué à Galien et intitulé: « Sur le bien-fondé de la critique adressée par Quintus aux hippocratiques qui enseignaient les quatre qualités » 5 4 . Quintus a commenté les œuvres d'Hippocrate, notamment le 'Prorrhétique Γ , les 'Aphorismes' et les 'Epidémies'. Galien le cite à maintes reprises dans ses propres commentaires des écrits hippocratiques, toujours avec une certaine désapprobation. Il ne faut pas s'en étonner. Lorsqu'il commente par le menu les traités du vénérable 'Corpus Hippocraticum', Galien nomme ses prédécesseurs

« 53

écrit γναφεύς pour désigner en grec le métier romain de fullo, teinturier ou dégraisseur. C'est dans ce sens que la mention du bon mot de Quintus est interprétée aussi par BERNARDINO RAMAZZINI dans son célèbre traité 'De morbis artificum diatriba', Modène, 1 7 0 0 (chap. XV: De morbis fullonum). Par exemple De praen. ad Posth. 5 (KÜHN, XIV.625; NUTTON, C M G V.8.1, p. 9 4 ) ou De libr. propr. 1 (KÜHN, X I X . 1 5 ) . De praen. ad Post. 1 (KÜHN, X I V . 6 0 2 ; NUTTON, C M G V.8.1, p. 7 0 - 7 2 ) ; cf. GOUREVITCH, 1984, 367. Cité par SEZGIN, 1 9 6 7 , III. 137.

1508

MIRKO

D. GRMEK

-

DANIELLE

GOUREVITCH

seulement quand il ne les suit pas. S'il accorde parfois des compliments, ce n'est que d'une manière très générale et floue. En discutant de problèmes concrets, Galien préfère fustiger un auteur fautif plutôt que de chanter la louange d'un exégète astucieux. Il prétend agir ainsi non pas par amour-propre mais pour faire avancer l'enquête historique et médicale. Ses reproches sont de deux sortes: (1) son prédécesseur n'a pas restitué le sens véritable d'un texte hippocratique, soit parce qu'il n'a pas adopté la bonne leçon, soit parce qu'il n'a pas compris correctement les verba magistri, ou alors (2) il les a assortis d'explications sectaires, défectueuses ou du moins inutiles. C'est à propos d'un aphorisme du 'Prorrhétique Γ que Galien reproche à Quintus d'ignorer la bonne tradition manuscrite. Voici cet aphorisme: « Suppression d'urine chez ceux qui ont des frissons avec des accidents spasmodiques, ainsi que, en particulier, la femme qui eut un frisson, puis fut prise d'une petite sueur » 5 5 . Quintus a lu ούτως à la place de αυτή, ce qui donnait à la fin de cette phrase le sens suivant: «et ayant ainsi eu un frisson, elle transpira». Galien explique cette erreur: « Et Quintus, qui ne connaissait que cette seule version, qu'il trouvait dans des copies anciennes, comme il le dit, avoue qu'il ne comprend pas. Mais dans la plupart des copies il est écrit qu'elle aussi eut un frisson, puis fut prise d'une petite sueur', pour nous faire entendre que le mot αύτή représente le nom d'une femme qui, après un frisson, eut une petite sueur » 56 . A propos des termes έπισπασμός, πνεύμων, ξηρόν καϋμα, employés dans les 'Epidémis VI' 5 7 , Galien approuve l'opinion de Quintus selon laquelle « ce n'est pas parce que le poumon est sec et chaud que la respiration (άναπνοή) devient rapide et fréquente mais le poumon se dessèche et s'échauffe à cause d'une telle respiration ». Toutefois, si Galien reconnaît que Quintus a raison sur le fond, il le chicane sur l'emploi des termes: « Quintus a changé un peu l'ancienne leçon, comme deux auteurs coutumiers du fait, à savoir Capiton et Dioscoride » 58 . C'est à propos de la doctrine fondamentale du groupe des 'Épidémies I et III' que Galien tient à se démarquer de Quintus: « Quintus interprète mal ces livres (des 'Épidémies') et ceux des 'Aphorismes' dans lesquels Hippocrate a écrit à peu près ceci: 'Quant aux saisons, 55

57 58

Hippocrates, Prorrh. I 110 (LITTRÉ, V.544). In Hipp. Prorrhet. comm. 111.17 (KÜHN, XVI.751; DIELS, CMG V.9.2, p. 1 2 8 - 1 2 9 ) . Hippocrates, Epid. VI 5.15 (LITTRÉ, V.320). In Hipp. Epid. VI comm. V.31 (KÜHN, XVII B.302; WENKEBACH-PFAFF, CMG V. 10.2.2, p. 314); une partie de ce texte est conservée seulement en arabe.

GALTEN E T M A R I N U S ,

QUINTUS,

NUMISIANUS

1509

si l'hiver est sec et boréal, et le printemps pluvieux et austral, nécessairement il surviendra pendant l'été des fièvres aiguës, des ophtalmies et des dysenteries' 5 9 . Car Quintus dit que c'est seulement par expérience (πείρα) qu'on peut connaître ces choses, sans raisonnement à propos de la cause, se trompant d'abord en ignorant que les causes dont il a parlé dans les 'Aphorismes' en question, Hippocrate les a décrites à nouveau dans 'Des eaux, des airs et des l i e u x ' 6 0 ; et ensuite en ce qu'il a négligé la partie utile de la doctrine. En effet, les qualités des exégètes sont les deux que voici: conserver le sens du texte écrit et enseigner les choses utiles à ceux qui veulent connaître les commentaires de ce livre. Quintus n'a eu aucune de ces deux qualités dans la mesure où il ne fait pas correspondre les maladies qui ont régné avec la constitution (κατάστασις) de l'air qui nous entoure, alors que, d'une part, Hippocrate lui-même voulait les faire correspondre et que, d'autre part, nous ne pouvons ni prévoir les maladies à venir, ni empêcher celles qui s'installent, ni soigner celles qui sont là, sans connaître la disposition (διάθεσις, qui s'est emparée de notre corps du fait de la dyscrasie (δυσκρασία) de l'air qui nous entoure » 6 1 . Dès le commentaire de la toute première phrase des 'Epidémies I', Galien reprend et développe la même critique. On y précise le lieu et la saison de ces observations hippocratiques: « A Thasos, en automne ... ». Or, Galien remarque: « Selon Quintus la région n'a rien à voir avec le pronostic des maladies; il est tout à fait impossible de prédire les maladies qui vont se produire et il est seulement possible de dire 6 2 que des maladies se sont produites, l'équilibre (κράσις) des saisons conforme à la nature s'étant rompu. Et il dit à plusieurs reprises que l'idée qu'on s'en fait ne vient pas d'un raisonnement logique mais de la seule expérience (πείρα) » 6 3 . Galien passe alors à la critique des commentateurs empiriques proprement dits, dont il exclut notre auteur, malgré ce qu'il vient de lui reprocher. Il revient ensuite à Quintus pour un nouveau blâme: il n'aurait pas tenu compte de l'affirmation d'Hippocrate selon laquelle toutes les catastasies peuvent être réduites à quatre types fondamentaux 6 4 . Selon la vraie doctrine d'Hippocrate, dit Galien, le tempérament du corps et le climat jouent un rôle décisif dans l'apparition des maladies. « Quiconque donc sait cela, considérera les causes de l'apparition de chacune des maladies dans chacune des catastasies. Mais Quintus qui d'une part «

Hippocrates, Aph. III. 11 (LITTRÉ, I V . 4 9 0 ) .

60

Cf. Hippocrates, Aer. 1 0 (LITTRÉ, 11.42).

«! In Hipp. Epid. I c o m m . , P r o o e m . (KÜHN, X V I I A 6 - 7 ; WENKEBACH, C M G V . 1 0 . 1 , p. 6). 62

WENKEBACH, ( 1 9 3 4 , 1 7 ) ajoute ici διαγνώναι. N o u s pensons que ce n'est pas nécessaire c a r le verbe προγνώναι peut y être sous-entendu. Il est bien dit dans le ' P r o n o s t i c ' qu'on « prédit » aussi bien le présent que le passé et l'avenir des maladies (LITTRÉ, I I I . 1 1 0 ) .

63

In Hipp. Epid. I c o m m . 1.1 (KÜHN, X V I I I A . 2 4 - 2 5 ; WENKEBACH, C M G V . 1 0 . 1 , p. 1 7 ) .

64

Ibid., (KÜHN, X V I I A . 2 5 ; WENKEBACH, 1 7 ) .

1510

MIRKO

D.

GRMEK

-

DANIELLE

GOUREVITCH

nie, comme le font les empiriques, qu'on connaisse les causes des maladies qui se produisent ainsi, et qui d'autre part met en rapport ces causes avec la seule expérience, Quintus donc se trouvait dans l'impossibilité de découvrir les secours convenables, alors que pour cette raison précisément la connaissance de la genèse des maladies régnantes aurait été utile » 6 5 . En commentant les tremblements dont il est question dans le cas exemplaire du malade Pythion 6 6 , Galien parle avec un certain mépris des interprétations de Sabinus, maître de son maître Stratonicus, et souligne que « Quintus et Lycus ont été plus sages que lui», parce que, à l'instar des empiriques, ils n'ont pas voulu aborder ce problème 6 7 . Galien nous apprend aussi que « les empiriques ont fait avant Lycus et avant Quintus l'exégèse de quelques livres d'Hippocrate » et que Quintus a connu et utilisé les commentaires de Lycus 68 . S'il est vrai que Galien fait des rapprochements entre certaines opinions de Quintus et l'enseignement des empiriques, il prend aussi soin de ne pas confondre leurs doctrines 6 9 . Quintus enseigna l'anatomie et accepta l'essentiel de la pathologie humorale d'obédience hippocratique, mais critiqua les explications « météorologiques » de l'apparition des maladies. Comment Galien a-t-il vraiment utilisé les commentaires hippocratiques de Quintus? Quel était leur apport positif? Sur ce point, Galien est un très mauvais témoin. Son parti pris est évident. Il affirme que « Quintus et ses élèves n'ont pas compris exactement la pensée d'Hippocrate » et que, de ce fait, « très souvent leurs explications ne sont pas correctes » 7 0 . Il reconnaît que certaines opinions de Quintus ne lui sont connues que par l'intermédiaire de divers disciples qui se contredisaient manifestement. Nous en reparlerons. Dans un ouvrage dont le but était d'exalter ses propres contributions à la littérature médicale et de souligner tout particulièrement la supériorité de son exégèse du 'Corpus Hippocraticum', Galien était tout naturellement entraîné à critiquer de manière forte et globale l'apport du maître de ses maîtres. C'est en procédant ainsi qu'il devenait lui-même un fondateur qui ne le cédait qu'à Hippocrate.

4. Pharmacologue, anatomiste et maître vénérable Galien insiste sur une certaine originalité de Quintus dans l'usage de la matière médicale: 65 66 67

In Hipp. Epid. I comm. II.7 (KÜHN, XVII A.99; WENKEBACH, C M C V I O , ! , p. 52). Hippocrates, Epid. III, 1.1 (LITTRÉ, III.26). I n H i p p . E p i d . I l l c o m m . 1.4 ( K Ü H N , X V I I A . 5 1 5 ; WENKEBACH, C M C V. 1 0 . 2 . 1 , p . 2 1 ) . Cf. aussi KÜHN, X V I I A . 5 0 6 .

68

O p . c i t . , 1.4 ( K Ü H N , X V I I B . 5 0 2 e t 5 0 6 ; WENKEBACH, 1 4 e t 1 7 ) .

69

Pour la secte empirique, voir DEICHGRÄBER, 1 9 3 0 (pour la position périphérique de Quintus dans l'histoire de l'empirisme médical grec, en particulier p. 28 et 363).

70

D e o r d . libr. s u o r . ( K Ü H N , X I X . 5 7 ; MÜLLER, i n : MARQUARDT, MÜLLER SC HELMREICH, 1 8 9 1 , 11.86); cf. MORAUX, 1 9 8 5 ,

151.

G A L I E N ET M A R I N U S , Q U I N T O S ,

NUMISIANUS

1511

« Quant à l'opinion de Quintus sur le carpésium 7 1 , que j'ai entendue non seulement de la bouche de Satyrus, mais aussi de celle d'autres élèves de Quintus, il vaut mieux la rapporter. Quintus, disent-ils, quand il n'avait pas de cinnamome à sa disposition, mettait du carpésium (dans les antidotes), considérant que ce produit n'avait pas moins de puissance que la casse la meilleure » 7 2 . Apparemment, c'était une de ses manies dont on se moquait. En parlant de ces mêmes drogues, Galien se demande « si, quand on manque de cinnamome, il faut mettre une quantité double de casse. En effet, notre maître Satyrus disait en riant, comme si Quintus tenait là précisément le seul de ses propos maladroits, que font la même chose ceux qui nous ordonnent de mettre le double de casse quand nous manquons de cinnamome et ceux qui ordonnent, quand nous n'avons pas de vin de Falerne, de faire boire le double du vin qui se vend dans les tavernes » 7 3 . Oribase attribue à Quintus la recette d'un médicament composé: « Antidote de Quintus pour supprimer la douleur: mélanger du storax, de l'asarum, du suc de pavot, de la graine de jusquiame et du castoreum à du miel, en même quantité » 7 4 . D'après nos connaissances modernes, cette préparation opiacée devait être un analgésique efficace mais aussi assez dangereux. Au dire de Galien, Quintus fut un grand anatomiste, ανδρός άνατομικωτάτου 7 5 , célèbre bien que n'ayant consigné par écrit aucune de ses découvertes. C'est auprès de Marinus que Quintus aurait reçu sa propre éducation médicale 76 . Nous avons vu qu'on doit à Marinus un manuel de dissection avec un traité systématique d'anatomie, des commentaires d'Hippocrate ainsi que l'invention d'un antidote. Or, cela correspond exactement aux domaines de l'art médical où Quintus, toujours selon Galien, aurait brillé. Rien ne permet d'affirmer que Quintus ait disséqué des cadavres humains. Il a repris de Marinus l'ancienne tradition alexandrine de dissection d'animaux, 71

72

73 74

Le carpésium est une espèce de valériane, probablement Valeriana pbu L. Quant aux deux autres simples mentionnés dans ce texte, le cinnamome est la cannelle, Cinnamomum zeylanicum Blume, et la casse est Cinnamomum aromaticum Nees ( = C. cassia L.). D e antidotis 1.14 (KÜHN, XIV.71). Ce conseil de Quintus est évoqué aussi dans D e simpl. med. temp, ac fac., VII, 1 0 , 1 4 (KÜHN, XII, 15) et dans certains manuscrits d'Aetius, Libri medicinales, I (éd. Venise, 1 5 3 4 , p. 16; OLIVIERI, C M G VIII. 1, p. 101). D e a n t i d o t i s 1.14 (KÜHN, X I V . 6 9 ) . Oribase,

S y n o p s i s a d E u s t . III. 1 9 2

(DAREMBERG-BUSSEMAKER, V . 1 4 9 ; RAEDER,

CMG

VI.3.5, p. 115). 75

D e libr. propr. 2 (KÜHN, XIX.22).

76

I n H i p p . N a t . h o m . I I . 6 ( K Ü H N , X V . 1 3 6 ; MEWALDT, C M G V . 9 . 1 , p . 7 0 ) . C f . M O R A U X ,

1 9 8 5 , 6 0 - 6 1 . C'est par erreur que certains historiens tiennent Marinus pour disciple et non maître de Quintus. 99

ANRW II 37.2

1512

MIRKO

D. G R M E K

-

DANIELLE

GOUREVITCH

considérés comme anatomiquement proches de l'homme (singe, porc, chèvre). Quintus ne se contentait pas de disséquer les cadavres, mais procédait aussi à des vivisections. A propos de la dissection des organes génitaux masculins, Galien écrit: « J ' a i entendu dire que Quintus avait l'habitude de faire cette dissection sur un bouc vivant qu'il installait en position verticale pour qu'il ressemble ainsi à l'homme » 7 7 . Sans doute n'était-ce pas là seulement un procédé de recherche anatomophysiologique mais aussi un moyen de démonstration didactique. L'enseignement de Quintus, purement oral, fut recueilli par de nombreux disciples, qui le transmirent plus ou moins correctement. On ne sait pas avec précision où il enseigna, mais la liste de ses élèves fait penser qu'il fut professeur en Asie Mineure (Pergame? Smyrne?) et à Alexandrie, avant de se laisser tenter par le mirage romain. Il revint probablement se réfugier dans l'une de ces régions après son échec scandaleux 7 8 . Il séjournait à Rome au temps d'Hadrien, c'est-à-dire après 117 et avant 138. On peut établir la date approximative, ou du moins le terminus ante quem, de son décès. En rappelant une « épidémie de charbon (ανθραξ) qui eut lieu dans de nombreuses villes d'Asie », Galien dit ceci: « Moi-même, à cette époque, je me trouvais dans ma patrie ( = Pergame], faisant mes études sous la direction de Satyrus, qui lui-même était à Pergame pour la quatrième année, en même temps que Costunius Rufinus, qui avait restauré pour nous le temple du dieu Asclépios. Quant à Quintus, maître de Satyrus, il était mort peu avant » 7 9 . Les circonstances mentionnées dans ce passage permettent de dater les événements avec certitude: cette épidémie toucha l'Asie Mineure en 146/147. On peut donc penser que Quintus mourut vers 145. La compétence de Quintus en matière de pharmacologie, et d'anatomie plus encore, semble n'avoir jamais été mise en doute, même par ceux qui, comme Lycus de Macédoine, le détestaient. Lycus fut un disciple ingrat; plusieurs autres médecins qui eurent l'occasion d'écouter Quintus subirent la fascination de son enseignement oral, et, plus tard, se vantèrent devant leurs propres élèves d'avoir eu ce privilège intellectuel. S'il est difficile d'affirmer que la répugnance de Quintus à mettre par écrit ses idées et ses connaissances, notamment ses découvertes anatomiques, a eu des conséquences négatives sur le développe-

77 78

De anat. admin. X I I . 7 (SIMON, 1 . 1 5 4 - 1 5 5 et 11.113; DUCKWORTH, 1 2 4 ) . Selon SARTON ( 1 9 5 4 , 3 9 ) , Quintus serait m o r t à Pergame. C'est possible mais nullement prouvé.

79

De a n a t o m . admin. 1.2 (KÜHN, 1 1 . 2 2 4 - 2 2 5 ; GAROFALO, 1 1 ) . Cf. MORAUX, 1 9 8 5 ,

111.

Pour la description des lésions qui caractérisaient cette épidémie, voir Meth. med. XIII. 1 0 (KÜHN, X . 9 8 0 ) . Il s'agissait probablement du c h a r b o n , maladie infectieuse due à Bacteridium anthracis. Cf. GRMEK, 1 9 8 3 , 1 9 4 .

GALIEN

ET

MARINUS,

QUINTUS,

NUMISIANUS

1513

ment historique de l'art médical, il est certain qu'elle a nui à sa renommée posthume et qu'elle a contribué à l'oubli dans lequel se trouvent aujourd'hui son nom et sa doctrine.

IV. Numisianus et son fils Héracleianus

1. Numisianus, maître recherché Parmi les élèves de Quintus étaient Numisianus, Satyrus, Aificianus, Antigène et Lycus. Certaines formules de Galien, par exemple la mention de « quelques autres de l'école de Quintus et de Numisianus», laissent entendre que cette liste est loin d'être complète et que certains élèves sont restés anonymes 8 0 . Il semble que Numisianus soit le plus ancien des disciples dont le nom nous est connu 8 1 . Il est cité à côté de Quintus comme un second chef d'école. Reprenons ici la suite d'un texte cité déjà à propos de Quintus (supra, p. 1504), car elle montre bien le rôle privilégié de Numisianus: « Quintus ... n'a pas composé d'écrits anatomiques, ce qu'ont fait Marinus et aussi Numisianus qui déjà du vivant de Marinus brilla à Alexandrie. C'était un homme très érudit, avec d'excellentes idées concernant l'anatomie. Il écrivit plusieurs livres, mais peu de gens en eurent l'accès de son vivant » 8 2 . Numisianus était donc l'un des protagonistes du renouveau des recherches anatomiques à Alexandrie. Selon Galien, il est de ceux, très rares, qui ont fait vraiment progresser l'anatomie. Galien le loue à ce propos mais ne lui attribue en fait aucune découverte anatomique concrète 8 3 . Et pourtant, dans un texte que nous avons cité plus haut, Galien mentionne Numisianus, à côté de Marinus, comme le plus grand découvreur de faits anatomiques et le maître le plus illustre après un Hérophile et un Eudème 8 4 . 80

81

In Hipp. Epid. VI c o m m . IV 11 (WENKEBACH-PFAFF, C M G V . 1 0 . 2 . 2 , p. 2 1 2 ) . L'expression « école de Quintus et de Numisianus » est particulièrement intéressante. Elle se trouve dans un passage qui, tout en étant authentiquement galénique, n'est conservé que dans la version arabe, mais un autre texte, conservé en grec, corrobore ce témoignage: « . . . de ceux qui furent nos maîtres, les coryphées étaient ceux qui firent partie des élèves de Quintus et de Numisianus » (De anat. admin. IV.; KÜHN, 11.660). En plus des personnages énumérés dans notre liste, SMITH ( 1 9 7 9 , 6 8 ) compte parmi les élèves de Quintus un certain Martialius ou Martianus, médecin d'obédience érasistratéenne. Dans certains manuscrits: Nomisianos. SMITH, 1 9 7 9 , préfère la forme Numesianus. Pour un aperçu général, voir DEICHGRÄBER, 1 9 3 7 a , col. 1 3 9 8 .

8 2

D e a n a t . a d m i n . X I V . L (SIMON, 1 . 2 3 1 e t 1 1 . 1 6 7 ; DUCKWORTH,

83

SMITH, 1 9 7 9 , 6 9 , et NUTTON, 1 9 8 7 , 2 3 7 , soulignent ce désaccord entre l'appréciation élogieuse générale de l'œuvre anatomique de Numisianus et l'absence de données concernant les découvertes anatomiques.

84

Cf. supra, p. 1 4 9 3 , note 5.

99»

183).

1514

MIRKO D. GRMEK -

DANIELLE GOUREVITCH

C'est vers 151, après son séjour auprès de Pélops à Smyrne, que Galien a décidé de suivre l'enseignement direct de Numisianus. Dans ce but, il est allé à Corinthe. « A l'époque » — écrit Galien en se rapportant aux premières années de la seconde moitié du IIe siècle — « je n'avais pas encore fait la moindre découverte importante et originale. Par la suite, je me suis trouvé à Corinthe pour connaître Numisianus (Νουμισιανοϋ χάριν), qui était, lui aussi 8 5 , un très illustre 86 élève de Quintus; puis je me suis trouvé à Alexandrie et chez quelques autres peuples, auprès desquels j'entendais dire que résidait Numisianus, illustre élève de Quintus » 8 7 . La tradition indirecte de la dernière partie de ce passage est en désaccord avec le texte du principal manuscrit grec (Parisinus gr. 1849). Sur la foi de la version arabe GAROFALO corrige Ν ο υ μ ι σ ι α ν ό ν en ή Ν ο υ μ ι σ ι α ν ο ϋ . Galien se

serait donc trouvé à Alexandrie et chez quelques autres peuples auprès desquels il aurait entendu dire que résidait « un illustre élève de Quintus ou de Numisianus » 8 8 . Dans ce sens s'exprime aussi l'érudit arabe al-Mubassir (XIIIe siècle) dans sa notice sur la vie de Galien: « Il alla à Corinthe à cause d'un autre homme illustre, élève de Quintus, qui s'appelait Aificianus[?] 89 ; et, quand il apprit que des élèves illustres de Quintus et Numisianus vivaient à Alexandrie, il se rendit dans cette ville» 9 0 . Presque tous les biographes modernes de Galien affirment qu'il a connu personnellement Numisianus: il aurait assisté à ses leçons et l'aurait même suivi 85 86

A l'instar de Satyrus. Sur la foi de la traduction arabe de ce passage, GAROFALO atténue le compliment et remplace le superlatif ενδοξότατος par ενδοξός τις. Voir à ce propos NUTTON, 1987, 237. Si cette conjecture se justifie du point de vue paléographique, l'alliance d ' u n indéfini et d'un adjectif laudatif nous semble peu probable.

87

D e a n a t o m . a d m i n . I 1 (KÜHN, II. 2 1 7 ; GAROFALO, 3 ) . L a t r a d u c t i o n d e MORAUX, 1 9 8 5 ,

88

GAROFALO, 1 9 8 6 , 3 ; c f . a u s s i N U T T O N , 1 9 8 7 , 2 3 7 .

89

Les manuscrits arabes donnent ici un groupe de consonnes qui, d'après ROSENTHAL (1965, 55), suggère le n o m d'Aificianus. Il n'est pas possible d'interpréter le mot en question comme translittération arabe de Numisianus. N o t o n s que le n o m de ce dernier est mentionné dans ce même texte, à peine une ligne plus loin, de façon parfaitement identifiable. Dans les anciennes biographies arabes de Galien, il est question d ' u n certain 'rmyns, présenté comme son principal maître. Selon Ibn Abî Usaibi'a (seconde moitié du XIII e siècle), ce savant aurait été maître de Galien en médecine, mais deux érudits antérieurs, Ibn AnNadlm (X e siècle) et Ibn Al-Qiftï (première moitié du XIII e siècle), le désignent comme maître de Galien en philosophie et précisent qu'il s'agit d'un péripatéticien. Dans une 'Vita Galeni' latine, fondée sur des sources arabes, le nom du maître de Galien est transmis sous la forme ' O b i m u s ' , ce qui fait penser à la corruption du n o m d'Albinus, maître de Galien en philosophie platonicienne. Voir MUSITELLI, 1985, 238, 250, 258, 2 6 1 et 269.

90

ROSENTHAL, 1965, 55 (traduction allemande d'après les manuscrits arabes). Le texte arabe a été édité par A B D A R - R A H M A N B A D A W Î à Madrid, 1 9 5 8 .

146, est claire et cohérente, mais ne correspond pas au texte édité par KÜHN.

GALTEN ET M A R I N U S , Q U I N T U S ,

NUMISIANUS

1515

dans ses pérégrinations, en allant de Corinthe à Alexandrie et peut-être aussi lors de certains déplacements en Egypte 91 . Que l'on adopte la leçon de la tradition directe ou celle de la version arabe, on ne peut dire que Galien ait réellement fréquenté Numisianus. A la rigueur, il aurait pu le connaître d'une manière fugace. Le doute persiste sur les motifs de certains de ces voyages: espérait-il s'instruire en Egypte auprès du maître en personne ou rencontrer ses disciples et se procurer ses ouvrages? Quoi qu'il en soit, la traversée de la Méditerranée s'était faite en joyeuse compagnie, comme le montre une anecdote, dont Galien gardera longtemps le souvenir. Dans son traité' De tremore', il décrit une sorte particulière de frisson: chez des personnes qui se baignent juste après avoir mangé peut se produire un tremblement musculaire relativement léger et non accompagné de fièvre mais qui s'accentue après un exercise physique ou des mouvements brusques. Et il rapporte l'histoire suivante: «J'ai connu un jeune homme qui faisait partie de mes condisciples (συμφοιτητών) à Alexandrie, à qui cela est arrivé au moment où le bateau nous y avait conduits, au début de l'automne. Celui-ci mangea plusieurs jours d'affilée de grandes quantités de dattes fraîches et tendres, en sortant du bain et avant d'aller au bain; et de plus, il y en avait beaucoup qui n'étaient pas bien mûres. Et voici ce qui lui arriva: après la gymnastique et le bain, il commença à frissonner violemment, ce qui lui fit croire qu'il allait avoir la fièvre. Il se mit au lit et resta au calme, bien couvert sous des vêtements. Mais il passa toute la nuit sans fièvre, et le matin il se leva pour vaquer à ses occupations habituelles. Mais là-dessus il fut saisi de frisson, se mit au lit à nouveau et resta au calme jusqu'à l'heure d'aller au bain. Mais comme il était arrivé au bain, un frisson (φρίκη) plus fort le saisit: il y avait là le symptôme de rigor (ρίγος) 9 2 , quoiqu'encore peu marqué. Alors ayant pensé que de toute façon il aurait la fièvre, il se mit d'autant plus au repos. Pendant tout le jour et pendant la nuit suivante, il fit des essais; se trouvant frissonnant, s'il faisait des mouvements modérés, mais véritablement tremblant de froid, s'il faisait des mouvements plus marqués. Il suivit mes conseils sur ce qu'il fallait faire. Je me souvenais d'une femme de notre Asie à laquelle il était arrivé quelque chose du même genre, et je délivrai mon camarade de la crainte, le poussant à faire usage d'aliments, de boissons et de remèdes échauffants et capables de venir à bout de l'épaisseur de ses humeurs. C'est ainsi qu'il se rétablit» 9 3 . 91

92

93

Selon WALSH, 1927, 138, Galien aurait accompagné Numisianus dans sa remontée du Nil jusqu'à Memphis ou même Thèbes et Philae. Rien de tel ne se trouve dans la source qu'il cite à l'appui de cette affirmation. Le rigor est un tremblement fort avec sensation de froid. Galien en donne une définition clinique précise dans le début du 'De tremore' (KÜHN, V I I . 6 1 0 - 6 1 2 ) , après avoir critiqué Platon et certains médecins, notamment Athénée, qui confondaient le vrai rigor avec un frémissement simple. De tremore 7 (KÜHN, V I I . 6 3 5 - 6 3 6 ) . Pour les traductions, voir SIDER et MCVAUGH, 1979, 2 0 8 , et MORAUX, 1985, 5 3 - 5 4 (celle de MORAUX nous paraît défectueuse sur des points essentiels).

1516

MIRKO D. GRMEK -

DANIELLE GOUREVITCH

Cette histoire montre la convivialité des disciples qui appartenaient sans doute à un groupe inspiré par l'enseignement de Numisianus. Notons leur entraînement systématique à l'observation critique et contrôlée. Le condisciple de Galien crut tout d'abord que les frissons violents au sortir du bain seraient suivis d'un accès de fièvre. Cette prédiction d'inspiration hippocratique ne s'étant pas réalisée, on observa, on fit de véritables tests et on établit ainsi le lien entre l'importance des mouvements et la force des frissons. Et c'est par un procédé heuristique qui tient à la fois du raisonnement (remèdes échauffants contre un mal froid) et de l'empirisme qu'on trouva enfin un traitement efficace. Galien s'en attribue le mérite, mais nous voyons bien que le succès est dû à une façon de penser, à une mentalité, qui caractérise son groupe. Nous découvrons comme un aspect essentiel de l'enseignement de Numisianus, et, à travers lui, de Quintus, précisément cette attitude pré-expérimentale, cette méthode de tâtonnement qui accorde une place importante au hasard et qui se laisse néanmoins guider par un raisonnement doctrinal. Numisianus a vécu et enseigné principalement à Alexandrie et n'a séjourné à Corinthe que de façon temporaire (comme par exemple Satyrus à Pergame). Il est mort vers 151, soit juste avant l'arrivée de Galien à Corinthe, soit assez rapidement après cet événement.

2. Héracleianus, fils indigne Le décès de Numisianus a pu avoir lieu soit à Corinthe même, soit à Alexandrie où il serait revenu pour rejoindre sa demeure principale ou pour finir ses jours auprès de son fils Héracleianus. Numisianus n'était plus en vie au moins pendant une partie du séjour de Galien à Alexandrie, donc avant 157. Cela ressort des informations que Galien donne sur ses propres rapports avec Héracleianus. Après avoir dit que Numisianus écrivit plusieurs livres, mais que peu de gens les connurent de son vivant, Galien continue ainsi son récit: « C'est pour cette raison que, après sa mort, son fils Héracleianus désirait rester le seul propriétaire de tout l'héritage de son père et ne voulut rien montrer à personne. Et on raconte que, à l'heure de son propre trépas, il fit brûler (ces livres). Et pourtant, cet Héracleianus était l'un de ceux qui, lors de mon séjour à Alexandrie, m'avaient reçu de façon la plus hospitalière. C'est par un homme du cercle de ses amis intimes que j'ai pu l'approcher. Je lui ai toujours été extrêmement dévoué, au point que, contrairement à l'idée que j'avais au début, j'en arrivai presque à le courtiser. Mais tout cela ne m'a pas fourni les écrits de Numisianus, que bien peu de gens avaient déjà obtenus. Héracleianus traînait les choses en longueur avec ces livres et me ressortait toujours des excuses pour ces atermoiements. Il n'était pas de ceux qui ignorent ou ne comprennent pas l'anatomie. Au

GALIEN ET MARINUS, QUINTUS, NUMISIANUS

1517

contraire, il avait dans le domaine de la science anatomique des opinions qu'il m'a exposées à la façon qui correspondait à celle de Satyrus » 9 4 . C'est à Alexandrie qu'Héracleianus, fils de Numisianus, avait son propre cercle d'amis et sa propre clientèle. Galien se fit introduire dans sa maison en espérant obtenir ainsi accès aux ouvrages anatomiques confidentiels de Numisianus: il y fut reçu avec une hospitalité magnanime et y séjourna un certain temps - comme assistant ou comme simple parasite - mais ne réussit pas le coup prémédité. Le contenu des livres anatomiques de Numisianus ne lui sera pas dévoilé. Bien plus tard, certainement après qu'il eut quitté Alexandrie, Galien se laissa dire que ces précieux volumes avaient été détruits par le feu. Prétendre que cette perte fut ordonnée délibérément par Héracleianus sur son lit de mort équivalait à l'accuser non seulement d'irrespect envers la mémoire du père mais aussi de fraude scientifique.

3. Débris de l'enseignement de Numisianus Heureusement, Numisianus avait, encore de son vivant, fait connaître quelques commentaires d'Hippocrate. Établissant la liste de ses travaux, Galien cite ses propres commentaires de divers traités hippocratiques, auxquels il espère encore en ajouter de nouveaux, puis signale que les hippocratisants disposent aussi des exégèses « de notre maître Pélops, et probablement aussi de celles de Numisianus, dont seules quelques-unes sont conservées » 9 5 . On remarquera le goût de Galien pour la science écrite et son souci de la conservation et de la transmission du savoir. Des détails intéressants se trouvent dans un passage dont l'authenticité n'est pas sûre. On considère aujourd'hui que les commentaires galéniques du traité hippocratique 'Des humeurs' sont en réalité, dans la forme de la vulgate qui est éditée par KÜHN, un faux très habile. C'est l'œuvre d'un érudit italien du XVI e siècle qui a rassemblé des fragments épars de la tradition indirecte du traité galénique perdu et en a fait un collage en ajoutant des parties de son cru 9 6 . Dans un passage donc qui a été probablement rédigé à l'époque de la Renaissance mais qui pourrait néanmoins remonter à une source ancienne, Galien se penche sur le mot ερριψις. Ce terme a été employé par Hippocrate dans le traité 'De humoribus'. Selon pseudo-Galien, les explications ont foisonné: « Artémidore, qui a pour surnom Capiton, et Numisianus, qui a écrit des commentaires aux 'Aphorismes', ont eu sur le sens de ce mot une opinion 94

De anat. admin. XIV 1 (SIMON, 1.231 et 11.167; DUCKWORTH, 183). Nous remercions GÉRARD TROUPEAU pour son aide dans la traduction du texte arabe. Il faut peut-être attribuer à Héracleianus aussi ce qui dans la tradition galénique passe pour un témoignage sur Aelianus. Cf. supra, p. 1498, note 13.

95

D e o r d . libr. s u o r . ( K Ü H N , X I X , 5 7 ; MÜLLER, i n : MARQUARDT, MÜLLER &

96

1891,11.86); cf. MORAUX, 1985, 150. Voir DEICHGRABER, 1972, 3 8 - 5 5 . Cf. aussi NUTTON, 1987, 238.

HELMREICH,

1518

M I R K O D. G R M E K -

DANIELLE

GOUREVITCH

différente (des interprétations données avant eux), qu'il serait absurde et déplacé de mentionner. De la part de Capiton, cela ne m'étonne pas, puisqu'on peut trouver chez lui bien des erreurs. Mais de la part de Numisianus, cela m'étonne beaucoup, étant donné qu'il était avisé et sensé, et qu'il n'avait pas l'habitude de radoter » 9 7 . Dans des textes dont l'authenticité n'a pas été mise en doute, Galien mentionne Numisianus en commentant un passage des 'Epidémies II' (sect. V, § 1). Il y est dit que « les individus rouges, au nez pointu, aux yeux petits, sont méchants; les individus rouges, au nez camus, aux grands yeux, sont bons». Les commentateurs antiques se sont montrés très divisés sur ce passage. « Il suffit de rappeler » - écrit Galien - « ce que disent, en expliquant ce passage, les commentateurs qui se sont rapprochés le plus de la vérité. L'un d'eux est Numisianus. Il a dit que le rouge est un signe du tempérament chaud; le nez effilé et les yeux petits sont un signe du tempérament sec; si ces propriétés sont réunies, le tempérament de ces gens est chaud et sec. S'il en est ainsi, ces hommes doivent être astucieux, intelligents et perspicaces. D'après Héracleidès, l'essence de la perspicacité est un tempérament sec; celui qui possède une telle nature incline à la sournoiserie, la ruse et la tromperie » 9 8 . En continuant ce récit, Galien dit clairement qu'il a connu l'opinion de Numisianus seulement d'une manière indirecte, par l'enseignement oral de Pélops: à la lumière d'un aphorisme d'Hippocrate « devient caduc ce que mon maître Pélops a dit sur les deux sortes de couleur rouge et ce qu'il a raconté d'après son maître Numisianus » Il semble donc peu probable que Galien ait pu se référer de visu aux commentaires écrits de Numisianus. Il ne connaissait leur existence que par ouïdire 100 . Au IX e siècle, Hunain ibn Ishaq cite Numisianus parmi les sources de son traité de diététique, 'Kitàb al-Agdiya' 101 . Il est impossible de savoir s'il a eu entre les mains un texte qui passait pour l'œuvre de Numisianus ou s'il s'est servi de témoignages indirects aujourd'hui perdus. Revenons aux commentaires de la Collection hippocratique. Galien pense qu'un paragraphe des 'Epidémies VI' (sect. IV, § 8), n'a jamais été bien compris. Il trouve détestables toutes les explications qu'on en a pu donner. « Marinus aussi et Lycus, ainsi que quelques autres de l'école de Quintus et de Numisianus, ont expliqué ce passage, et dans la plus grande partie de ce qu'ils disent, l'un contredit l'autre » 1 0 2 . 97 98 99 100

In Hipp. Hum. comm. 1.22 (KÜHN, X V I . 1 9 7 ) . In Hipp. Epid. II comm. IV (PFAFF, C M G V.10,1, p. 3 4 5 - 3 4 7 ) . Ibid. IV (PFAFF, 3 4 8 ) . C f . SMITH, 1 9 7 9 , 6 9 et 1 5 2 - 1 5 3 , et NUTTON, 1 9 7 9 , 2 3 7 - 2 3 8 . C f . D . M A N E T T I - A . R O -

SELLI, Galeno commentatore di Ippocrate, dans ce même volume (ANRW II. 3 7 . 2 ) , infra, P. 1 5 8 1 S . ULLMANN, 1 9 7 0 , 102

199.

In Hipp. Epid. VI comm. I V . l l (WENKEBACH-PFAFF, C M G V.10.2,2, p. 212).

GALIEN ET M A R I N U S , Q U I N T U S ,

V. Disciples de Quintus et de

NUMISIANUS

1519

Numisianus

1. Satyrus, disciple le plus fidèle Des trois maîtres auprès desquels Galien a commencé ses études médicales à Pergame, un seul l'a impressionné de façon décisive et durable: Satyrus 1 0 3 . C'est à lui que Galien doit son intérêt pour Panatomophysiologie et son désir de concilier les résultats des investigations scientifiques alexandrines avec la tradition hippocratique. En parlant de l'utilité des recherches anatomiques, Galien évoque avec émotion ses études « sous la direction de Satyrus qui se trouvait à Pergame pour la quatrième année », au moment où sévissait une épidémie de « charbon » (c'est-à-dire vers 146—147). Cette terrible maladie rendit service à la science en permettant la mise à l'épreuve du savoir anatomique par des observations cliniques. « Ceux d'entre nous » - écrit Galien - « qui avions été spectateurs quand Satyrus faisait la dissection de telle ou telle des parties cachées 1 0 4 , nous n'avions pas de mal à les reconnaître et les distinguions bien les unes des autres 1 0 5 , en donnant l'ordre aux patients de faire tel ou tel mouvement dont nous savions par quel muscle il était produit; en contractant un peu leurs muscles et en les écartant de temps en temps pour pouvoir voir la grande artère ou le nerf ou la veine qui se trouvait tout près » 1 0 6 . Satyrus était fidèle à Quintus dans tous les détails de son enseignement, aussi bien en ce qui concerne l'exégèse d'Hippocrate, que les recherches anatomiques et la pratique pharmacologique 1 0 7 . Dans son commentaire au 'Prorrhétique Γ, Galien, en citant la phrase hippocratique « Les songes chez les phrénétiques ont de la réalité » 1 0 8 , rappelle les explications de son ancien maître: « Ceci, Satyrus, l'élève de Quintus, et que j'ai eu moi-même p o u r maître avant Pélops, l'a ainsi interprété: Parmi les choses qui sont vues réellement 103

104

Voir les notices biographiques sommaires rédigées par KIND, 1920, et par KUDLIEN, 1972. Cf. D. MANETTI-A. ROSELLI, Galeno commentatore di Ippocrate, dans ce même volume (ANRW II. 37.2), infra, p. 1589. La traduction arabe donne une autre version de ce passage: « Ceux d'entre nous qui avions regardé Satyrus, lorsque nous faisions la dissection de telle ou telle des parties cachées » ( c f . GAROFALO, 1 9 8 6 ,

105

11).

II s'agit des parties internes du corps mises à nu par une maladie qui faisait partir la peau et les chairs (voir la note 79, supra, p. 1512).

106 D E a n a t o m . a d m i n . 1 . 2 ( K Ü H N , 1 1 . 2 2 4 — 2 2 5 ; GAROFALO, 1 1 ) . 107

In H i p p . N a t . n o m . II.6 (KÜHN, X V . 1 3 6 ; MEWALDT, C M C V . 9 . 1 , p. 7 0 ) ; In H i p p . E p i d .

ILL c o m m . 1.40 (KÜHN, X V I I A . 5 7 5 ) ; D e a n t i d o t i s 1.14 (KÜHN, X I V . 7 1 ) ; D e a n a t . a d m i n . X I V . L ( S I M O N , 1 . 2 3 1 , e t 1 1 . 1 6 7 ; D U C K W O R T H , 1 8 3 ) . C f . K I N D , 1 9 2 0 , e t BOWERSOCK, 1 9 6 9 , 61-67. 108

H i p p o c r a t e s , Prorrh. 1.5 (LITTRÉ, V . 5 1 2 ) .

1520

MIRKO

D. G R M E K

-

DANIELLE

GOUREVITCH

dans les cas de phrénitis et qui sont faites par ces malades, choses dont il nous semble qu'elles sont vues et qu'elles sont faites, ce n'est pas de la réalité à proprement parler, mais ce sont tous des songes qui ont une certaine réalité » 1 0 9 . Aux yeux de Galien, Satyrus restait le meilleur témoin du véritable enseignement de Quintus: « Satyrus proclamait qu'il conservait fidèlement les doctrines de Quintus sans y ajouter ou en retrancher quoi que ce soit. Aificianus, en effet, les modifiait plutôt dans le sens du stoïcisme. Quant à moi, ayant entendu Satyrus présenter les explications de Quintus, puis, un certain temps plus tard, ayant lu quelques-unes des œuvres de Lycus, je les ai blâmés tous les deux de ne pas avoir saisi exactement la pensée d'Hippocrate. Sabinus et Rufus y avaient mieux réussi » 1 1 0 . WESLEY SMITH remarque judicieusement que les opinions de Galien se sont transformées et développées après la période de ses études médicales mais qu'il a néanmoins gardé l'empreinte de ses maîtres; l'opinion sur Quintus en tant que commentateur d'Hippocrate a pu être modifiée sur le tard par son animosité envers Lycus qui, comme Quintus, lisait les écrits hippocratiques d'une manière que Galien jugeait trop proche de celle des empiriques 111 .

2. Aificianus, personnage resté dans l'ombre Galien mentionne à trois reprises, toujours en même temps que Satyrus, un certain Aificianus 112 . Ce personnage reste mystérieux 113 . Même son nom n'est pas établi avec certitude 114 . Galien le reconnaît expressis verbis comme son maître. Il lui reproche le gauchissement de la pensée d'Hippocrate en faveur du stoïcisme. Son interprétation de l'introduction du traité hippocratique 'De l'officine du médecin' allait dans le sens de la théorie épistémologique du philo109

In Hipp. Prorrh. c o m m . 1.5 (KÜHN, X V I . 5 2 4 - 5 2 5 ) .

n o De

ord.

libr.

suor.

(KÜHN,

XIX.57-58;

MÜLLER,

in:

MARQUARDT,

MÜLLER

HELMREICH, 1 8 9 1 , 1 1 . 8 6 - 8 7 ) ; cf. MORAUX, 1 9 8 5 , 1 5 1 , et SMITH, 1 9 7 9 , 6 4 - 6 5 .

δί Voir

aussi De antidotis 1.14 (KÜHN, X I V . 7 1 ) . m

SMITH, 1 9 7 9 , 6 5 .

112

In Hipp.

Epid. ILL c o m m .

1.40

(KÜHN, X V I I A . 5 7 5 ;

WENKEBACH, C M G

V.10.2.1,

p. 1 7 - 1 9 ) ; De ord. libr. suor. (KÜHN, X I X . 5 8 ; MÜLLER, in: MARQUARDT, MÜLLER SÍ HELMREICH, 1 8 9 1 , 11.87); In Hipp. Off. med. c o m m . I (KÜHN, X V I I I B . 6 5 4 ) . N o u s ne tenons pas c o m p t e de la mention dans In Hipp. H u m . c o m m . 2 4 (KÜHN, X V I . 4 8 4 ) , car ce traité est un f a u x tardif. n 3

Voir une excellente mise au point par MORAUX, 1 9 8 3 et cf. D. MANETTI-A. ROSELLI, Galeno c o m m e n t a t o r e di Ippocrate, dans ce m ê m e volmue ( A N R W II. 3 7 . 2 ) ,

infra,

p. 1 5 9 0 s. 11 4 Les manuscrits donnent Έ φ ι κ ι α ν ό ς , Ίφικιανός et m ê m e simplement Φικιανός. L a forme Aificianus Αίφικιανός, dérivée du n o m r o m a i n Aeficius, a été restaurée par MÜLLER, sur le conseil de BERGK. Voir MORAUX, 1 9 8 3 , 8 5 .

GALIEN ET MARINUS, QUINTUS, NUMISIANUS

1521

sophe stoïcien Simias 1 1 5 . D'après un texte arabe tardif que nous avons cité plus haut (p. 1514), il aurait enseigné à Corinthe. La leçon de son nom dans ce texte est incertaine 1 1 6 , mais nous avons vu (supra, p. 1514) que l'incertitude règne à ce propos même dans les manuscrits grecs. Quoi qu'il en soit, les renseignements sûrs concernant les autres maîtres de Galien rendent assez plausible l'hypothèse qui place sa rencontre avec Aificianus vers 151 — 152.

3. Pélops, disciple de Numisianus Galien a connu et apprécié Pélops lors d'une discussion publique à Pergame où ce maître était venu exposer les idées du dogmatisme et les défendre face aux empiriques. Attiré par sa manière de parler des problèmes fondamentaux de la médecine et, sans doute, encouragé par Satyrus, Galien s'est rendu en 149 auprès de Pélops à Smyrne où il a séjourné comme son disciple au moins deux ans. Nous nous contenterons ici d'un très bref rappel de ce « second maître » de Galien. Il était disciple de Numisianus, mais ne semble avoir directement connu ni Marinus ni Quintus. Galien le mentionne assez souvent, avec chaleur et déférence, mais aussi avec des critique ponctuelles sévères 1 1 7 . Héracleianus, écrit Galien dans le passage autobiographique des 'Démonstrations anatomiques' qui est conservé seulement dans la version arabe, « avait dans le domaine de la science anatomique des opinions qu'il m'a exposées à la façon qui correspondait à celle de Satyrus, l'un des hommes qui, de l'avis général, avaient le mieux conservé les théories de Quintus. Quant à Pélops, qui était le disciple principal de Numisianus, il n'a pas expliqué [les écrits de ce dernier] et ne les a montrés à personne, car il préférait qu'on lui attribuât certaines théories qui n'étaient pas encore connues. Pélops possédait aussi des livres de grande valeur, mais après sa mort ils furent détruits par le feu sans qu'on les ait copiés auparavant, car il les tenait à la maison et reculait toujours leur publication. Les nombreux volumes de Pélops sur l'anatomie qui se trouvent entre les mains des gens ne sont que des écrits qu'il offrait à ses élèves et auxquels il ajoutait une 'Introduction à Hippocrate'. Et il les donnait quand les élèves rentraient chez eux, car il voulait que ce soit pour eux un instrument dont ils s'aideraient pour montrer, quand ils le voudraient, ce qu'ils avaient appris de lui. Mais ¡"Anatomie' de Pélops était beaucoup plus longue et beaucoup plus substantielle que ce livre qui comporte les parties en question. Mais même 1"Anatomie' n'est ni exhaustive, ni formellement achevée. De même le livre de Satyrus n'est ni achevé ni exhaustif. S'il en est ainsi avec ces 115

116 117

In Hipp. Off. med. comm. I (KÜHN, XVIII B.654). Voir MORAUX, op. cit., et SMITH, 1979, 70. Voir la note 89, p. 1514. La notice biographique rédigée par DEICHGRÄBER, 1937b, donne un bon résumé de tous les témoignages. Cf. aussi MAY, 1 9 6 8 , 1 . 3 5 - 3 6 , et D. MANETTI-A. ROSELO, Galeno commentatore di Ippocrate, dans ce même volume (ANRW II. 37.2), infra, p. 1591.

1522

M I R K O D. G R M E K

-

DANIELLE

GOUREVITCH

ouvrages, il est inutile de mentionner les autres élèves de Quintus que j'ai vivement désiré rencontrer et que j'ai trouvés tous inférieurs à Satyrus et à Pélops » 1 1 8 . Le passage se termine par une véritable invective contre Lycus de Macédoine, accusé d'être un plagiaire maladroit de Marinus. Si Galien n'a donc réussi à entendre de vive voix ni Quintus (mort vers 145) ni Numisianus (mort vers 151), il pense néanmoins avoir connu leurs doctrines d'une manière sûre, très proche de la source, c'est-à-dire par les leçons de Satyrus et d'Aificianus pour l'enseignement de Quintus et par celles de Pélops et d'Héracleianus pour l'enseignement de Numisianus. 4. Lycus de Macédoine, disciple ingrat Un personnage curieux qui mériterait à lui seul une substantielle monographie est Lycus 1 1 9 . Galien ne l'a connu que par la lecture de ses écrits et par les souvenirs qu'il a laissés dans le milieu médical romain. Selon lui, Lycus n'aurait quitté sa patrie, la Macédoine, que pour un séjour à Rome 1 2 0 . Galien reconnaît, à contre-cœur, que Lycus a bien été un disciple direct de Quintus, mais souligne dédaigneusement que cette instruction a été très courte, même pas une année entière. De surcroît, Lycus aurait aussi mal compris son maître Quintus qu'Hippocrate lui-même 121 . « Quant à Lycus » — écrit Galien — « je ne sais pas comment il se fait qu'il fût rempli d'une telle méchanceté à l'égard de Quintus quand il rapporte sa pensée, alors qu'il n'avait même pas passé avec lui une année entière. Quant à Satyrus et à Aificianus, qui avaient passé avec lui beaucoup plus de temps, ils n'ont rapporté aucune interprétation de cette sorte touchant Quintus. Et cela moi-même je le sais bien, car je les ai eus tous deux pour maîtres » 1 2 2 . Quoi qu'il en soit, ces renseignements de Galien prouvent que Quintus a non seulement exercé à Rome comme simple praticien mais qu'il a donné dans cette ville des cours comportant la lecture d'écrits hippocratiques et des démonstrations anatomiques, faites sans doute à la manière des professeurs alexandrins. En effet, s'il est vrai que Satyrus et Aificianus auraient pu l'avoir pour maître à Alexandrie ou en Asie Mineure, tel n'est pas le cas de Lycus. D e anat. admin. XIV.L (SIMON, 1.232, et 11.168; DUCKWORTH, 184). La meilleure présentation de sa vie et de son œuvre reste encore la notice de KIND, 1 9 2 7 , col. 2 4 0 8 - 2 4 1 7 . Cf. D. MANETTI-A. ROSELLI, Galeno commentatore di Ippocrate, dans ce même volume ( A N R W II. 37.2), infra, p. 1 5 8 2 ss. 120 In Hipp. Epid. VI c o m m . V.14 (WENKEBACH-PFAFF, C M G V.10.2.2, p. 286). 1 2 1 Outre le texte cité dans la note 122, voir C o m m . III in Hipp. Aph. 1 (KÜHN, X V I I Β . 5 6 2 ) ainsi que le traité Aduersus Lycum (Κ. XVIII A . 1 9 6 - 2 4 5 ; WENKEBACH, C M G V.10. 3, p. 3 - 2 9 ) . Sur ces jugements de Galien et les rapports entre Lycus et Q u i n t u s , voir SMITH, 1979, 1 2 9 - 1 3 1 . 1 2 2 In Hipp. Epid. Ill c o m m . 1.40 (WENKEBACH, C M G V.10.2.1, p. 59). 118

119

GALIEN

ET

MARINUS,

QUINTOS,

NUMISIANUS

1523

5. Antigène, disciple présomptueux C'est à Rome que Galien a connu un autre disciple peu aimable de Quintus: Antigène. Il n'est cité qu'une fois dans le corpus galénique et n'est pas connu par d'autres sources. Galien en parle à propos d'une affaire de rivalité professionnelle. A Rome, lors du traitement du philosophe Eudème, envers qui Galien se sent des obligations, les médecins engagent au chevet du malade une lutte féroce: les adversaires de Galien vont jusqu'à souhaiter la mort du patient, qui prouverait la fausseté des prédictions du médecin de Pergame et l'insuffisance de ses procédés thérapeutiques. En fin de compte Galien triompha. Il note toutefois avec une certaine amertume que, lors de cet événement, « Antigène, l'un des élèves de Quintus et l'un des assistants de Marinus, eut l'occasion de se moquer de moi, lui, qui était considéré comme le premier des médecins et qui traitait tous les gens les plus puissants » 1 2 3 . N'est-il pas significatif que Galien, après avoir dans sa jeunesse tant recherché et apprécié les disciples de Quintus, supporte mal plus tard, à Rome, l'enseignement qu'ils donnent aux autres? Son conflit avec Antigène et ses attaques contre Lycus tiennent plus au prestige personnel qu'aux différences de doctrine.

V/. Conclusion: une secte sans nom

Ainsi la recherche et l'enseignement médicaux connurent à Alexandrie dans la première moitié du II e siècle une véritable renaissance. Marinus, Quintus et Numisianus furent les promoteurs de ce renouveau qui, de maître à disciple, toucha au moins quatre générations et atteignit Pergame, Corinthe, Rome et jusqu'à la Macédoine. Cette école voulut concilier la pathologie humorale avec une conceptualisation localisatrice des maladies et tempérer les spéculations d'ordre physiologique, pathologique et pharmacologique par une observation systématisée des structures vivantes, des signes pathologiques et des effets des médicaments. Elle opéra ainsi une synthèse entre l'hippocratisme traditionnel, les découvertes anatomophysiologiques de l'époque hellénistique et le recours à l'expérience. A la différence de la première école médicale d'Alexandrie, la seconde ne s'opposa pas à la partie essentielle de l'hippocratisme. La nouveauté principale de son approche consistait précisément dans l'intégration en un système unique des découvertes sur les structures du corps humain et de l'hippocratisme classique, notamment de la théorie exposée dans le traité 'De la nature de l'homme', de ses applications pratiques exposées dans les 'Epidémies' et de la méthode clinique des traités nosologiques et pronostiques. 123

De praen. ad Posth. 3 (KÜHN, XIV.614; NUTTON, 82).

1524

MIRKO D. GRMEK -

DANIELLE GOUREVITCH

L'enseignement de Quintus et de Numisianus qui fut le pivot de cette nouvelle approche médicale attira Galien dans sa jeunesse. Sans doute celui-ci, vers la fin de sa vie, critiqua-t-il certains aspects de l'empirisme de ce groupe qu'il avait accepté plus volontiers pendant ses années d'études. Selon la répartition des sectes médicales à l'époque impériale, expliquée et analysée avec un grand soin dans plusieurs traités de Galien, il était lui-même indubitablement un « dogmatique ». Toutefois, la secte dite dogmatique ou rationnelle se distingue des autres sectes par l'absence d'un chef de file et de liens sociaux. Chez ceux que Galien appelle dogmatiques il n'y a même pas de véritable unité de doctrine. Dogmatiques sont un Hippocrate, un Erasistrate et un Quintus aussi bien qu'un Asclépiade. Les adeptes de l'humoralisme côtoient ceux du solidisme. Ce qui les unit, c'est seulement la voie d'acquisition des connaissances médicales et la manière d'appréhender et d'expliquer les phénomènes 1 2 4 . Dans les 'Définitions médicales', la « secte dogmatique » est défini comme « la science concernant les choses cachées et les actions qui en découlent dans l'art de soigner ». Mais cela ne s'accorde qu'avec une seule des cinq définitions du concept de secte qu'on trouve dans ce même ouvrage. D'après la première de ces définitions, « une secte est un ensemble d'un certain nombre d'opinions rassemblées selon les principes de l'art, et qui se rapportent à une fin unique ». Mais les quatre autres définitions exigent que, pour caractériser une secte, les opinions rassemblées soient « en accord l'une avec l'autre » 1 2 5 . Comment prétendre un accord pareil entre les opinions professées par les auteurs hippocratiques, par les anatomistes alexandrins de la première vague et par Galien luimême? La tripartition des sectes sur laquelle Galien insiste à plusieurs reprises est un artéfact philosophique qui ne correspond pas à la situation historique. Galien écrit sur ce sujet en logicien et non pas en historien. Si sa position est manifestement fausse du point de vue historique, elle n'est pour autant ni naïve ni maladroite. Bien au contraire. En réunissant sous une seule étiquette plusieurs doctrines qui diffèrent fortement l'une de l'autre, il peut, d'une part, se rattacher à Hippocrate, tout en professant des idées qui en grande partie diffèrent profondement de celles qui caractérisent les écrits du 'Corpus Hippocraticum', et, d'autre part, il peut cacher, ou du moins réduire, l'importance historique capitale de sa dette envers la seconde école alexandrine. Galien ne peut pas se proclamer père-fondateur d'un nouveau système médical, car il ne fait qu'approfondir et systématiser les idées de ses maîtres. Il met donc Hippocrate sur le piédestal, se considère comme son plus fidèle interprète et déclare être en dehors, ou plutôt au-dessus, des sectes. Il se vante de connaître à fond l'enseignement de toutes les sectes médicales de son temps et d'être donc en mesure de décider en connaissance de cause ce qu'elles ont de bon et de mauvais. Pour montrer la supériorité de l'approche anatomique par rapport aux méthodes utilisées par les empiriques et par les méthodiques, il 124

Cf. De sectis ad introducendos ( K Ü H N , 1 . 6 4 — 1 0 5 ) et le traité pseudo-galénique 'De optima secta' (KÜHN, 1 . 1 0 6 - 2 3 3 ) . Voir aussi VON STADEN, 1 9 8 2 , et W A L Z E R & FREDE, 1 9 8 5 .

125

D e f . m e d . 1 2 (KÜHN, X I X . 3 5 2 ) . C f . KOLLESCH,

1973.

GALIEN ET M A R I N U S , QUINTUS,

1525

NUMISIANUS

prend comme exemple le diagnostic et le traitement de la πλευρίτις. Cet exemple est excellent dans la mesure où il montre les avantages de la méthode alexandrine par rapport aux conceptualisations et procédés techniques des empiriques et même des méthodiques. Mais ce même exemple prouve aussi la supériorité de l'approche anatomique par rapport à la théorie et à la pratique des anciens médecins hippocratiques. Galien insiste sur le premier aspect de sa démonstration mais cache le second 1 2 6 . Bien qu'il ne soit pas considéré par Galien lui-même comme une secte médicale, le mouvement intellectuel qui s'exprime dans l'enseignement des médecins-anatomistes alexandrins de la première moitié du IIe siècle en constitue bien une dans les faits et exerça une influence décisive sur la formation du système médical qui, sous le nom de g a l é n i s m e , va dominer pendant plus d'un millénaire, tant dans la théorie que dans la pratique, la médecine de l'Occident et du Proche-Orient. Avant de se figer malheureusement, ce galénisme, loin d'être un éclectisme incolore, est une véritable philosophie de la médecine, dont les choix et les options sont parfaitements cohérents 1 2 7 .

Bibliographie BECK, ADOLF, Die galenischen Gehirnnerven in moderner Beleuchtung, Arch. Gesch. Med., 3, 1909, 1 1 0 - 1 1 4 . BOWERSOCK, GLEN W., Greek sophists in the Roman Empire, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1969. DAREMBERG, CHARLES, Exposition des connaissances de Galien sur l'anatomie, la physiologie et la pathologie du système nerveux. Thèse de médecine, Paris, Rignoux, 1841. DAREMBERG, CHARLES, Œuvres anatomiques, physiologiques et médicales de Galien, Paris, Baillière, 1 8 5 4 - 1 8 5 6 , 2 vol. DAREMBERG, CHARLES et BUSSEMAKER, CATS, Œuvres d'Oribase, Paris, Baillière, 1 8 5 1 - 1 8 7 6 , 6 vol. DAREMBERG, CHARLES et RUELLE, CHARLES E., Œuvres de Rufus d'Éphèse, Paris, Impr. Nationale, 1879. DEICHGRÄBER, KARL, Die griechische Empirikerschule, Berlin, Weidmann, 1930. DEICHGRÄBER, KARL, M a r i n o s , in: PAULY-WISSOWA, R E , X I V / 2 , 1 9 3 0 , c o l .

1796.

DEICHGRÄBER, KARL, N u m i s i a n o s , in: PAULY-WISSOWA, R E , X V I I / 2 , 1 9 3 7 a , c o l .

1398.

DEICHGRÄBER, KARL, Pelops, in: PAULY-WISSOWA, RE, XIX/1, 1937b, col. 3 9 1 - 3 9 2 . DEICHGRÄBER, KARL, Hippokrates' De humoribus in der Geschichte der griechischen Medizin, Wiesbaden, Steiner, 1972. DE LACY, PHILIP, Galen, On the doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato. Edition, translation and commentary, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1984, 3 vol. - Corpus Medicorum Graecorum V.4.2. DIELS, HERMANN, Galeni in Hippocratis Prorrheticum I commentarla III, Leipzig-Berlin, Akademie, 1 9 1 5 . - Corpus Medicorum Graecorum V.9.2. DIETZ, FRIEDRICH REINHOLD, Scholia in Hippocratem et Galenum, Königsberg, Bornträger, 1834.

126

D e l o c . äff. I I I . 3 (KÜHN, V I I I . 1 4 1 - 1 4 4 ; DAREMBERG, 1 1 . 5 4 5 - 5 4 6 ; MORAUX,

127

Depuis l'achèvement de cette étude ont paru V. NUTTON, Galen and Egypt, in: Galen und das hellenistische Erbe, Sudhoffs Archiv, Beiheft 32, 1993, 1 1 - 3 1 , et D. GOUREVITCH, Le vie della conoscenza: la medicina nel mondo romano, in M . - D . GRMEK (dir.), Storia del pensiero medico occidentale, R o m a - B a r i , Laterza, 1992, 1 2 1 - 1 6 5 .

48-49).

1526

M I R K O D. GRMEK -

DANIELLE G O U R E V I T C H

DUCKWORTH, WYNFRID L. H., Galen's On anatomical procedures. The later books. A translation by W. L. H . DUCKWORTH, edited by M. C. LYONS and B. TOWERS, Cambridge, University Press, 1962. EDELSTEIN, LUDWIG, Geschichte der Sektion in der Antike, Quell. Stud. Gesch. Naturw. Med., 3, n° 2, 1933, 5 0 - 1 0 6 . EDELSTEIN, LUDWIG, The development of Greek anatomy, Bull. Inst. Hist. Med., 3, 1935, 235-248. FRASER, PETER MARSHALL, Ptolemaic Alexandria, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1972, 2 vol. GARCÍA BALLESTER, LUIS, Galeno en la sociedad y en la ciencia de su tiempo, Madrid, Guadarrama, 1972. GAROFALO, IVAN, Galenus, Anatomicarum administrationum libri qui supersunt novem. Earundem interpretatio arabica Hunaino Isaaci filio ascripta. Tomus I, Napoli, Istituto Univ. Orientale, 1986 (distribué par Brill, Leyden). Goss, CHARLES M., On the anatomy of the nerves by Galen of Pergamon, Amer. J. Anat., 118, 1966, 3 2 7 - 3 3 6 . Goss, CHARLES M., On the anatomy of muscles for beginners by Galen of Pergamon, Anat. Record, 143, 1963, 4 7 7 - 5 0 1 . GOUREVITCH, DANIELLE, Le triangle hippocratique dans le monde gréco-romain. Le malade, sa maladie et son médecin, Rome, École Française de Rome, 1984 - BEFAR, vol.251. GOUREVITCH, DANIELLE et GRMEK, MIRKO D., Medice, cura te ipsum. Les maladies de Galien, Études de Lettres (Lausanne), 1986, 4 5 - 6 4 . GREEN, ROBERT M., Galen's Hygiene (De sanitate tuenda), Springfield, Thomas, 1951. GRMEK, MIRKO D., Les maladies à l'aube de la civilisation occidentale, Paris, Payot, 1983. GRMEK, M I R K O D . e t GOUREVITCH, DANIELLE, L ' É c o l e m é d i c a l e d e Q u i n t u s e t N u m i s i a n u s ,

in: GUY SABBAH (réd.), Mémoires VIII (Centre Jean Palerne), Études de médecine romaine, St. Etienne, 1988, 4 3 - 6 0 . ILBERG, JOHANNES, Aus Galens Praxis. Ein Kulturbild aus der römischen Kaiserzeit, Neue Jahrb. für klass. Philol., 15, 1905, 2 7 6 - 3 1 2 . - Repr. in: H.FLASHAR, Antike Medizin, Darmstadt, 1971,

361-416.

K I N D , FRIEDRICH E . , S a t y r u s , i n : PAULY-WISSOWA, R E , II/L, 1 9 2 0 , c o l . 2 3 5 . K I N D , FRIEDRICH E . , L y k o s , in: PAULY-WISSOWA, R E , X I I I / 2 , 1 9 2 7 , c o l . 2 4 0 8 - 2 4 1 7 .

KOCH, KONRAD, Galeni De sanitate tuenda, Leipzig-Berlin, Akademie, 1923. - Corpus Medicorum Graecorum V.4.2. KOLLESCH, JUTTA, Galen und seine ärztlichen Kollegen, Das Altertum, 11, 1965, 4 7 - 5 3 . KOLLESCH, JUTTA, Untersuchungen zu den pseudogalenischen Definitiones medicae, Berlin, Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1973. KOLLESCH, JUTTA, Ärztliche Ausbildung in der Antike, Klio, 61, 1979, 5 0 7 - 5 1 3 . KUDLIEN, FRIDOLF, A n a t o m i e , i n : PAULY-WISSOWA, R E , S u p p l . X I , 1 9 6 8 , c o l . 3 8 - 4 8 .

KUDLIEN, FRIDOLF, Antike Anatomie und menschlicher Leichnam, Hermes, 9 7 , 1 9 6 9 , 7 8 - 9 4 . KUDLIEN, FRIDOLF, Quintus, in: Der kleine Pauly, München, 1972, t. IV, col. 1313. KUDLIEN, FRIDOLF, Satyros, in: Der kleine Pauly, München, 1972, t. IV, col. 1573. KUDLIEN, FRIDOLF, Die Stellung des Arztes in der römischen Gesellschaft, Stuttgart, Steiner, 1986. KÜHN, CARL G., Claudii Galeni opera omnia, Leipzig, Cnobloch, 1821 — 1833, 20 vol. LITTRÉ, ÉMILE, Œuvres complètes d'Hippocrate, Paris, Baillière, 1 8 3 9 - 1 8 6 1 , 10 vol. LONGRIGG, JAMES, Superlative achievement and comparative neglect: Alexandrian medical science and modem historical research, Hist. Sci. (London), 19, 1981, 1 5 5 - 2 0 0 . MARQUARDT, JOANNES, MÜLLER, IWANUS &C HELMREICH, GEORGIUS, G a l e n i S c r i p t a m i n o r a ,

Leipzig, Teubner, 1 8 8 4 - 1 8 9 3 , 3 vol. MAY, MARGARET, T., Galen on human dissection, J. Hist. Med., 1958, 4 0 9 - 4 1 0 .

1527

GALIEN ET MARINUS, QUINTUS, NUMISIANUS

MAY, MARGARET, T., Galen, On the usefulness of the parts of the body, Ithaca (New York), Cornell Univ. Press, 1968 (contient le chapitre 'Anatomy before Galen , p. 1 3 - 3 8 ) . MEWALDT, JOHANNES, G a l e n , i n : PAULY-WISSOWA, R E , V I I / 1 , 1 9 1 2 , c o l . 5 7 8 - 5 9 1 .

MEWALDT, JOHANNES, Galenos über echte und unechte Hippocratica, Hermes, 44, 1909, 111-134.

MEWALDT, JOHANNES, Galeni in Hippocratis de natura hominis commentarla tria, LeipzigBerlin, Akademie, 1914. - Corpus Medicorum Graecorum V.9.1. MEYERHOF, MAX, Autobiographische Bruchstücke Galens aus arabischen Quellen, Arch. Gesch. Med., 22, 1929, 7 2 - 8 6 . MICHLER, MARKWART, Die alexandrinischen Chirurgen. Eine Sammlung und Auswertung ihrer Fragmente, Wiesbaden, Steiner, 1968. MORAUX, PAUL, Ein unbekannter Lehrer Galens, Zschr. Papyr. Epigr., 53, 1983, 8 5 - 8 8 . MORAUX, PAUL, Galien de Pergame. Souvenirs d'un médecin, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1985. MUSITELLI, SERGIO, Da Parmenide a Galeno. Tradizioni classiche e interpretazioni medievali nelle biografie dei grandi medici antichi, Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei, Mem. Class. Mor. Stor. Fil., Ser. 8, 2 8 , 1 9 8 5 , 2 1 5 - 2 7 6 . NUTTON, VIVIAN, The chronology of Galen's early career, Class. Quart., 23, 1973, 1 5 8 - 1 7 1 . NUTTON, VIVIAN, Galen, On prognosis. Edition, translation and commentary, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1979. - Corpus Medicorum Graecorum, V.8.1. NUTTON, VIVIAN (edit.), Galen: problems and prospects. A collection of papers submitted at the 1979 Cambridge conference, London, Wellcome Institute, 1981. NUTTON, VIVIAN, Numisianus and Galen, Sudhoffs Archiv, 71, 1987, 2 3 5 - 2 3 9 . OLIVIERI, ALESSANDRO, Aetii Amideni libri medicinales I - I V , Leipzig-Berlin, Akademie, 1935. - Corpus Medicorum Graecorum VIII. 1. PFAFF, FRANZ, Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum II commentarla V, ex versione Arabica in Germanicam linguam translata, Leipzig-Berlin, Akademie, 1934. - Corpus Medicorum Graecorum V.10.1. RAEDER, JOHANNES, Oribasii Synopsis ad Eustathium, Leipzig-Berlin, Akademie, 1926 Corpus Medicorum Graecorum VI.3.5. RIESE, WALTHER e t BOURGEY, L O U I S , L e s g r a c i e u s e t é s à l ' é g a r d d e s m a l a d e s

-

(Commentaires

de Galien sur Épidémies VI, section 4, division 7), Rev. Philos., 150, 1960, 1 4 5 - 1 6 2 . ROSENTHAL, FRANZ, Das Fortleben der Antike im Islam, Zürich-Stuttgart, Bibliothek des Morgenlandes, 1965. SARTON, GEORGE, Introduction to the history of science. Vol.1: From Homer to Omar Khayyam, Baltimore, Williams and Wilkins, 1927. SARTON, GEORGE, Galen of Pergamon, Lawrence, Univ. of Kansas Press, 1954. SEZGIN, FUAT, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums. Bd. III: Medizin, Pharmazie, Zoologie, Tierheilkunde bis ca. 430 H., Leiden, Brill, 1967. SIDER, DAVID SC MCVAUGH, MICHAEL, Galen, On tremor, palpitation, spasm and rigor, Trans. Stud. Coll. Phys. Philad., 1, 1979, 1 8 3 - 2 1 0 . SIEGEL, RUDOLPH E., Galen's system of physiology and medicine, Basel-New York, Karger, 1968. SIMON, MAX, Sieben Bücher der Anatomie des Galen. Zum ersten Male veröffentlicht, ins Deutsche übertragen und kommentiert, Leipzig, Hinrich, 1906. SINGER, CHARLES, The evolution of anatomy, New York, Dover, 1957. SMITH, WESLEY D., The Hippocratic tradition, I t h a c a - L o n d o n , Cornell Univ. Press, 1979. SMITH, WILLIAM, Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, London, Taylor, Walton and Marberly, 1854. SPRENGEL, KURT, Versuch einer pragmatischen Geschichte der Arzneykunde, 2 c é d . , Halle, Gebauer, 1 8 0 0 - 1 8 0 3 , 5 vol. - Trad, franç., Paris, 1 8 1 5 - 1 8 2 0 . STADEN, HEINRICH VON, Hairesis and heresy: the case of the haireseis iatrikai, in: Jewish and Christian selfdefinition, Philadelphia, 1982, III, 7 6 - 1 0 0 . 100

A N R W II 37.2

1528

M I R K O D. GRMEK -

DANIELLE GOUREVITCH

TEMKIN, OWSEI, Galenism. Rise and decline of a medical philosophy, I t h a c a - L o n d o n , Cornell Univ. Press, 1973. ULLMANN, MANFRED, Die Medizin im Islam, Brill, 1970. WALSH, JOSEPH, Galen's studies at the Alexandrian school, Ann. Med. Hist., N.S., 9, 1927, 132-143.

WALSH, JOSEPH, Galen clashes with the medical sects at Rome, Med. Life, 35, 1928, 4 0 8 423.

WALZER, RICHARD &C FREDE, MICHAEL, Galen, Three treatises on the nature of science: On the sects for beginners; An outline of empiricism; On medical experience, Indianapolis, Hackett, 1985. WENKEBACH, ERNST, Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum primum commentarli III, Leipzig-Berlin, Akademie, 1934. — Corpus Medicorum Graecorum V.10.1. WENKEBACH, ERNST, Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum tertium commentarla III, Leipzig-Berlin, Akademie, 1936. — Corpus Medicorum Graecorum V.10.2.1. WENKEBACH, ERNST, Galeni adversus Lycum et adversus Iulianum libelli, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1951. - Corpus Medicorum Graecorum V.10.3. WENKEBACH, ERNST & PFAFF, FRANZ, Galeni in Hippocratis epidemiarum librum VI commentarla I—VIII. Editio altera, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1956. - Corpus Medicorum Graecorum V. 10.2.2.

Galeno commentatore di Ippocrate* di DANIELA MANETTI, F i r e n z e -

AMNERIS ROSELLI, Pisa

Sommario Presentazione [A. R.]

1530

I. I commenti ippocratici di Galeno [A. R.]

1531

1. 'Fratture'/'Articolazioni'

1531

2 . 'Aforismi'

1535

3. 'Prognostico'

1538

4 . 'Umori'

1540

5. 'Epidemie' I

1540

6. 'Regime nelle malattie acute'

1542

7. O f f i c i n a del medico'

1546

8. 'Epidemie' II

1548

9. 'Prorretico' I

1550

10. 'Epidemie' III

1552

11. 'Epidemie' VI

1553

12. 'Natura dell'uomo'

1554

13. 'Arie, acque e luoghi'

1557

II. I commenti come strumento didattico e polemico [A. R.]

1557

III. La biblioteca di Galeno: le fonti dell'esegesi ippocratica

1569

2. L'erudizione [A. R.] a) Filologia omerica b) Lessici speciali ed atticisti c) Erudizione di tipo grammaticale d) Erudizione di tipo retorico e) L'erudizione delle scuole di logica

1571 1573 1574 1576 1576" 1579

3. La scuola di Quinto e i maestri di Galeno: la prassi didattica [D. M.] a) La scuola di Quinto b) I maestri di Galeno e la tradizione di scuola 4 . Gli Empirici [D. M . ]

*

1569

1. Presentazione [D. M . ]

. . . .

1580 1580 1589 1593

P e r i l o r o p r e z i o s i c o m m e n t i r i n g r a z i a m o G R A Z I A N O A R R I G H E T T I , A N T O N I O C A R L I N I , DANIELA FAUSTI, IVAN G A R O F A L O , M A R I A TANJA L U Z Z A T T O , INEKE S L U I T E R e SEBASTIANO

TIMPANARO che hanno avuto la pazienza di leggere il dattiloscritto di questo lavoro. 100»

1530

DANIELA M A N E T T I -

A M N E R I S ROSELLI

5. Rufo di Efeso [D. M.]

1600

6. Sabino [D. M . ]

1607

7. Autori usati occasionalmente da Galeno [D. M.]

1614

8. Artemidoro e Dioscoride [D. M.] a) Lezioni coincidenti attribuite ad Artemidoro e Dioscoride b) Lezioni di Artemidoro c) Lezioni di Dioscoride a) Le testimonianze dei commenti β) Le testimonianze derivate dal 'Glossario' di Galeno

1617 1619 1621 1625 1625 1629

9. Conclusioni [D. M.]

1633

Indici

2071 1. Indice degli autori e dei luoghi citati

2071

2. Indice tematico

2079

Presentazione I commenti ippocratici che Galeno compose a Roma nella maturità, e che lo impegnarono per molti anni, sono una ricchissima testimonianza sulla pratica di lettura di Ippocrate nelle scuole e fonte preziosa sulla tradizione del testo e sulla esegesi ippocratica. Essi costituiscono la prima testimonianza conservata di un corpus di commentari continui ad uno stesso autore e si affiancano al grande corpus dei commentari aristotelici. I commenti di Galeno sono caratterizzati dal fatto che, tutti insieme, rappresentano un tentativo unitario di interpretazione dei testi ippocratici ed hanno effettivamente contribuito a tramandare l'immagine di Ippocrate che Galeno attraverso di essi ha costruito. Ampiamente utilizzati dagli editori ippocratici, ai quali forniscono straordinari strumenti per la ricostruzione del testo, notizie sulle varianti e sulle interpretazioni antiche, ed in generale come fonte della più varia erudizione, i commenti galenici meritano di essere studiati nel loro complesso, come prodotti della attività della scuola e per i loro specifici intenti: in questo saggio si intende dunque riflettere sulle loro funzioni, la loro destinazione (cap. II) e sulla provenienza dei materiali che ne costituiscono l'ossatura (cap. III); sarà solo necessario premettere una serie di informazioni su ciascuno dei commentari ippocratici 1 , presentandoli secondo l'ordine cronologico della loro composizione 2 al fine di delineare la fisionomia di ciascuno di essi e di fissare alcuni punti da utilizzare nella trattazione successiva. 1

2

Le opere di Galeno verranno citate secondo l'edizione del 'Corpus Medicorum Graecorum' (CMG) e, in assenza di questa, secondo l'edizione di C. G. KÜHN, Galeni Opera Omnia, voll. I - X X , Lipsiae 1 8 2 1 - 3 3 (rist. anast. Hildesheim 1 9 6 4 - 5 ) ; i riferimenti alle edizioni esistenti e alla bibliografia essenziale vengono dati in testa alla presentazione di ogni singolo commentario. Nel secondo capitolo del suo libro 'The Hippocratic Tradition', Ithaca and London 1979, W. SMITH ha illustrato le linee generali dei singoli commentari galenici, seguendo l'ordine cronologico della loro composizione, con l'intento di mettere in luce come nasce l'interesse filologico di Galeno nei confronti degli scritti di Ippocrate: il nostro punto di vista, nel discutere la stessa materia, è dunque un po' diverso. Sulla cronologia dei commentari si vedano, dopo J. ILBERG, Über die Schriftstellerei des K l a u d i o s G a l e n o s , R h M 4 4 ( 1 8 8 9 ) , 2 2 9 - 2 3 8 , K. BARDONG, Beiträge zur H i p p o k r a t e s -

G A L E N O C O M M E N T A T O R E DI IPPOCRATE

1531

I. I commenti ippocratici di Galeno3

1. 'FrattureΊ'Articolazioni' 4 (XVIII Β 3 1 8 - 6 2 8 5 e XVIII A 3 0 0 - 7 6 7 K. é ) Si tratta dei primi due commentari ippocratici di Galeno; il primo dei due, 'Commento a Fratture', e proprio in quanto tale, è dotato di un breve ma denso und Galenforschung, Nachr. Akad. Göttingen, phil.-hist. Kl. 1942, 6 0 3 - 6 4 0 , che data il primo gruppo di commentari, fino a quello 'In Epid.'I (e cioè 'InFract.', 'In Art.', 'In Ulc.', 'In Capitis vuln.', 'In Aph.', 'In Epid.' I) tra il 175 e al più tardi l'inizio del 177, e D. PETERSON, Observations on the Chronology of the Galenic Corpus, BHM 51 (1977), 4 8 4 - 9 5 , che invece li data tra metà 175 e fine 178, o inizio 179. Sulla base di numerosi indizi è possibile stabilire con sicurezza che Galeno ha rivisto ed in qualche punto integrato i suoi commentari per la pubblicazione, per lo più introducendo rimandi ad altre sue opere, cfr. già ILBERG, cit., 230; una cronologia relativa che si basi dunque soltanto sui riferimenti incrociati ad altre opere galeniche rischia di essere estremamente incerta. Poco si sa sulla cronologia relativa delle opere esegetiche su Aristotele che Galeno stesso menziona nel suo 'De libris propriis' (Scr. min. II 117,24 ss.). Secondo la cronologia di BARDONG, cit., 635, prima di iniziare l'attività di commento ai testi ippocratici Galeno avrebbe commentato in quattro libri 'τα ιατρικώς είρημένα ' del 'Timeo' di Platone, ma l'editore del testo (H. O. SCHRÖDER, C M G Suppl. I, p. IX) data questo commentario agli ultimi anni del regno di Marco Aurelio; lo scritto è certamente posteriore a 'De placitis' dove più volte Galeno dichiara di volere destinare un commento medico al 'Timeo' (Placit. VIII, 5 CMG V 4.1.2 p. 508,6 ss.; 522,34ss.). Del 'Commento al Timeo' sono conservati frammenti in greco con excerpta da Rhazes, Serapion e Moses Maimonides. Nuovi frammenti sono stati recentemente scoperti ed editi da C. J. LARRAIN, Ein unbekanntes Excerpt aus Galens Timaios-Kommentar ZPE 85 (1991), 9 - 3 0 , e ID., Galens Kommentar zu Piatons Timaios, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1992 (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde H. 29). Il 'Commento al Timeo' ha lo stesso aspetto dei commentari ippocratici: Galeno alterna lemmi e commento, parafrasa ed illustra il testo, soprattutto la terminologia platonica (ονομάζει pp. 12,15; 13,29; 16,12 etc.), commenta Platone con Platone (p. 12,4), ma fa anche confronti con Aristotele (p. 11,12), giustifica la ignoranza della anatomia, che del resto Platone ha in comune con Omero (p. 14,28), menziona Elio Aristide (p. 33) e in un caso cita e discute una variante - έξ αύτοϋ, che ha trovato in manoscritti diversi da quelli che derivano (o rappresentano) la edizione atticiana (che hanno ύφ' έαυτοϋ) — variante che comunque Galeno ritiene andrebbe emendata in εξω έαυτοϋ (p. 13,3). Questa testimonianza è di un certo rilievo per il problema della tradizione platonica antica, vedi p. es. la discussione in A. CARLINI, Studi sulla tradizione antica e medievale del Fedone, Roma 1972, 37ss., anche se il termine άττικιανών è ricostruito congetturalmente su αττικών del ms. P. Secondo J. DILLON, Tampering with the 'Timaeus': Ideological Emendations in Plato, with Special Reference to the 'Timaeus', AJPh 110 (1989), 5 0 - 7 2 , alcune alterazioni dovute a Galeno, o almeno conservate da lui, sarebbero destinate a fare si che le speculazioni anatomiche di Platone "sound a little more sensible in the light of advances made in medicine in Hellenistic and Roman times" (71s. e n. 45). Un frammento del 'Commento ad Alim.' è forse conservato su papiro, cfr. D. MANETTI, Tematica filosofica e scientifica nel papiro fiorentino 115. Un probabile frammento di Galeno In Hippocratis De alimento, in: Studi su papiri greci di logica e medicina (Studi e Testi per il Corpus dei papiri filosofici 1), Firenze 1985, 1 7 3 - 2 0 8 . 3

Non tutti i commenti ippocratici di cui si ha notizia sono conservati e non tutti sono autentici (vedi indice di G. FICHTNER, Corpus Galenicum. Verzeichnis der galenischen und

1532

DANIELA M A N E T T I -

AMNERIS ROSELLI

proemio (pp. 3 1 8 - 2 2 ) , in cui Galeno si esprime sulla dynamis dell'esegesi (chiarire quanto è oscuro), su ciò che di essa legittimamente fa parte, sul livello del pubblico cui i commenti sono destinati, sulla diversità che intercorre tra un commento scritto ed uno orale, ed infine sulla natura del testo ippocratico che va a commentare. Tutto è enunciato in maniera piuttosto sintetica facendo riferimento ad una sua opera precedente (περί έξηγήσεως, p. 319) che può essere di supporto alla teoria e alla pratica del commento. Si ha la netta sensazione che nella prima parte del commento a 'Fratture' Galeno si prefigga lo scopo di definire e delimitare gli ambiti di pertinenza del commentario (τον öpov της έξηγήσεως) in rapporto con i commentatori contemporanei, ma anche, e soprattutto, con la sua restante produzione 'ippocratica' (vedi infra, p. 1563). In particolare secondo Galeno 'Fratture' e 'Articolazioni' risultano dalla divisione in due parti di una sola opera — il che giustifica la non perfetta rispondenza dei titoli al contenuto - e dunque hanno in comune non solo l'argomento ma anche il carattere della hermeneia. Nel proemio del commento ad 'Articolazioni' (p. 303) è sufficiente un breve accenno alla problematica affrontata nel commentario precedente: qui Galeno torna invece ad insistere sul tema della unitarietà dei due scritti.

pseudogalenischen Schriften, Tübingen 1985; cfr. anche J. KOLLESCH-D. NICKEL, Bibliographia Galeniana. Die Beiträge des 20. Jahrhunderts zur Galenforschung, in questo stesso volume [ANRW II 37,2], supra, pp. 1 3 5 1 - 1 4 2 0 , e G. STROHMAIER, Der syrische und der arabische Galen, infra, pp. 1987—2017); nella tradizione greca vi sono le falsificazioni rinascimentali del commento ad ' H u m . ' (ed. XVI 1 - 4 8 8 KÜHN), ad 'Alim.' (ed. XV 2 2 4 417 KÜHN) e ad 'Epid.' II (ed. XVII A 3 0 3 - 4 7 9 KÜHN), in quella orientale il commento al 'De septimanis' (ed. G. BERGSTRÄSSER, C M G XI 2.1) e al 'De genitura'; di autenticità incerta è il commento 'InJusiurandum' (ed. F.ROSENTHAL, BHM 30 [1956], 5 2 - 8 7 ) ; già Hunain giudicava falso un commento a 'De natura pueri' (F. SEZGIN, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, III, Leiden 1967, 124 nr. 82; R. DEGEN, Galen im Syrischen: Eine Übersicht über die syrische Überlieferung der Werke Galens, in: Galen: Problems und Prospects, ed. by V. NUTTON, London 1981, 1 3 1 - 1 6 6 , nr. 122). Sono editi 13 commenti ippocratici autentici; mentre si ha notizia di traduzioni dei commenti a 'De capitis vulnerib u s ' ( a r a b a , SEZGIN 1 2 3 n r . 7 7 e s i r i a c a , DEGEN n r . 1 0 8 ) e ' D e u l c e r i b u s ' ( s i r i a c a , DEGEN

nr. 109): alcuni frammenti greci di questi due commentari sono tramandati in Oribasio. 4

SMITH, 125—9. Una nuova edizione di questi due commenti è in preparazione a cura di D . MANETTI e A . ROSELLI: p a r a l c u n e o s s e r v a z i o n i p r e l i m i n a r i c f r . D . M A N E T T I - A . R O -

5

6

SELLI, Note per una nuova edizione dei commenti di Galeno ai trattati chirurgici di Ippocrate, in corso di stampa negli Atti del seminario sulla medicina antica in memoria di P. E. Manuli, tenutosi a Pavia il 29—30 settembre 1992. Cfr. anche A. ROSELLI, I commenti di Galeno ai trattati chirurgici (Fratture / Articolazioni ed Officina del medico): problemi di tradizione ippocratica e galenica, SCO 41 (1991), 4 6 7 - 7 5 . II commentario è mutilo, termina a Fract. 37 (102,18 Kw.); manca dunque il commento agli 11 capitoli finali sulle lesioni del braccio; frammenti sono conservati in Oribasio. Si veda anche F. KUDLIEN, Die Handschriftliche Überlieferung des Galenkommentars zu Hippokrates 'De Articulis', Ak. Wiss. Berlin, Sehr, der Sekt, für Altertumswiss. 27, 1960; Galeno non riporta né commenta i capitoli 17—29 di 'Art.' che corrispondono a 'Mochlicon' 7—19 né i capitoli finali 79 — 87 che sono anche essi molto vicini a 'Mochlicon' e sono evidentemente interpolazioni che non si trovavano nel suo testo.

G A L E N O C O M M E N T A T O R E DI IPPOCRATE

1533

Il giudizio sulle qualità letterarie del testo ippocratico è alto: si deve considerare che il lessico di Ippocrate è talvolta arcaico, e così anche lo σχήμα λέξεως, ma secondo Galeno in generale la sua hermeneia è chiara, come quella di Senofonte 7 (In Art. p. 414 s.); certi usi sintattici e certe preferenze lessicali si chiariscono al confronto con Tucidide e Platone; e in generale basta tener conto del fatto che il proposito di Ippocrate era quello di σημάναι τό λεγόμενον πράγμα (come del resto fa e ci insegna a fare Platone) e non di darsi da fare per la μικρολογία έν τοις όνόμασιν, come fanno gli emuli di Prodico (In Art. p. 685 s.). Molto spesso Galeno ritiene sufficiente che il lettore si soffermi e legga più volte il testo ippocratico perché questo gli risulti chiaro, e che quindi larghe sezioni del testo non abbiano bisogno di essere spiegate in dettaglio (vedi solo In Art. p. 303: ώς έστιν ή έρμηνεία του 'Ιπποκράτους ίκανώς σαφής έλαχίστης έξηγήσεως δεομένη τω τα πρώτα μαθήματα μεμαθηκότι και είθισμένφ λέξεως άκούειν άνδρός παλαιού) 8 . La disposizione talvolta disordinata della materia nei due trattati ippocratici doveva aver sollevato le critiche dei commentatori precedenti, ma Galeno la difende sostenendo che essa è in realtà tesa a mettere in primo piano ciò che sta più a cuore ad Ippocrate; Galeno dichiara di apprezzare una tecnica espositiva che mira a privilegiare le cose più importanti e afferma che questa è anche la sua pratica, identificandosi così con Ippocrate (In Fract. pp. 327—8), cfr. infra, p. 1535. Dal punto di vista medico per intendere questi testi è importante una conoscenza anche sommaria di anatomia, dunque Galeno frequentemente rimanda alle sue opere 'Sulle ossa', 'Sulla anatomia di Ippocrate', e 'Sul movimento dei muscoli', e anche raccomanda di mostrare ossa agli allievi; quella di spiegare sempre la terminologia anatomica, è una intenzione che viene regolarmente rispettata e che costituisce l'elemento portante di questi commenti. Le conoscenze anatomiche di Ippocrate sono spesso imprecise e superate, e tuttavia la descrizione della patologia è ancora generalmente valida e così molte delle operazioni che vengono descritte; naturalmente Galeno commenta avendo presente l'uso che ancora si fa dei testi ippocratici, ed aggiungendo molti dati che derivano anche dalla sua esperienza. Galeno, che testimonia in questi commentari un notevole interesse erudito per la terminologia anatomica degli antichi, in particolare Omero, con ogni probabilità usava lessici specialistici derivanti 7 8

Cfr. infra, p. 1577 s. L'invito a leggere due o tre volte il testo ippocratico, dopo essersi assicurati che non vi siano corruzioni fino a che non si arriva a comprenderlo (In Fract. pp. 321; 363; 577; In Art. p. 558), testimonia da una parte una pratica di lettura senza altri sussidi e dall'altra, credo, mostra che la difficoltà sta nella distinzione dei sintagmi (cfr. anche Placit. C M G V 4 . 1 . 2 p. 192,26 dove Galeno osserva che, nonostante ripetute letture, non è possibile capire qual è il senso di un passo assai intricato di Crisippo; ma diversamente da quella di Crisippo l'hermeneia di Ippocrate, secondo Galeno, è chiara). Per quelle sezioni che non richiedono esegesi, Galeno non riportava neppure integralmente i lemmi, come risulta dalla tradizione manoscritta dei due commenti, cfr. anche KUDLIEN cit., 55 ss.; e del resto Galeno segnala sistematicamente tutti i casi in cui si accinga ad omettere la spiegazione di una parte del testo (cfr. infra n. 40).

1534

DANIELA MANETTI

-

AMNERIS

ROSELLI

dalla tradizione della filologia omerica; ma cita anche i comici, Platone, gli oratori e Callimaco. In generale i problemi di lessico tecnico lo interessano molto e soprattutto in questi due commenti. Ma il commento al di là del suo fine didattico più diretto, che è quello di illustrare la terapia delle fratture e delle lussazioni 9 , è anche strumento di polemica; Galeno non perde occasione, fondandosi sul dettato del testo ippocratico, di attaccare i medici contemporanei come i Metodici, perché apprendono la techne troppo rapidamente (In Art. p. 349,1 ss.), e gli Empirici, per il tentativo di fare di Ippocrate un empirico, negandogli la έπίνοια λογική (In Art. p. 524 s. = fr. 310 DEICHGRÄBER) la quale tuttavia è sorretta e falsificata proprio dalla πείρα (ibid. p. 312) 1 0 . Ed infine, cosa che ricorrerà con una certa frequenza anche negli altri commentari, dal commento Galeno trae spunto per digressioni autobiografiche (In Art. pp. 401—4) o aneddotiche (In Art. p. 435) che hanno ad un tempo funzione didattica e polemica. Il contributo dei commentari e dei commentatori precedenti non sembra molto importante, soprattutto per quanto riguarda le questioni testuali o le interpretazioni di dettaglio, ma certo essi sono sullo sfondo: si vedano, p. es., il ricordo dell'insegnamento di Pelope (In Art. p. 541); il riferimento ad una interpretazione corrente ed affermata (οί δόξαντες άριστα τήν 'Ιπποκράτους έξηγήσασθαι λέξιν είρήσθαί φασι) di σητάνιος, a cui Galeno crede di poterne aggiungere una propria e più specifica sulla base dell'uso linguistico di Cos e dei greci d'Asia (In Art. p. 4 6 9 ) n ; la polemica contro un medico che ha corretto il testo, mostrando la cattiva educazione avuta da grammatici e retori, visto che non conosce un tratto caratteristico della hermeneia arcaica che è l'omissione di quanto è superfluo (In Fract. p. 343 s.). Più in generale in 'In Fract.' (p. 340) una affermazione di Ippocrate sulla necessità di dilungarsi sul tema del trattamento delle fratture del braccio (Fract. 1 p. 46,12 Kw.) dà a Galeno l'opportunità di parlare del disordine 'necessario' nella esposizione che è una evidente risposta alle argomentazioni di quanti non apprezzavano la distribuzione della materia in 'Fract.'/'Art.'. Nella discussione sul significato di alcuni termini riporta citazioni di autori antichi: Aristofane, fr. 630 K A S S E L - A U S T I N (In Fract. p. 3 4 7 ) ; Archiloco fr. 114 W E S T (In Art. p. 605); Euripide, Oreste 563 (In Art. p. 384); Semonide, fr. 12 D I E H L (In Art. p. 411) etc. che gli derivano dalla tradizione esegetica (infra, p. 1571 ss.) 1 2 . M a l'atteggiamento nei confronti dei commentatori precedenti di questi trattati è spesso riduttivo: se i problemi da

9

10 11

12

Ampi estratti da questi commenti s o n o entrati proprio per questo a buon diritto nella raccolta di Oribasio (cfr. Index C M G VI 2 , 2 p. 3 2 9 RAEDER). In questo senso anche le notazioni di In Fract. p. 5 4 3 . E interessante vedere che la interpretazione vulgata viene accolta ancora nel 'Glossario' (XIX 1 3 7 , 7 s s . K.); anche in altri casi l'uso del dialetto di Cos fa testo per spiegare il significato di termini ippocratici (cfr. In Epid. VI p. 7 9 , 1 5 ) . N o n so se si può concordare con SMITH, 129: "he was simply giving his own view of the text as he proceeded ... and bringing up other people's views if he remembered them, but without close reference to anyone's work".

G A L E N O C O M M E N T A T O R E DI IPPOCRATE

1535

loro individuati sono solo relativi alla terminologia, e non intaccano il senso, Galeno dichiara di considerare le loro prese di posizione di fatto irrilevanti 1 3 . Uno dei motivi ricorrenti nei commentari successivi, la volontà di attenersi al χρήσιμον, non è affrontato direttamente nella sezione proemiale del commento a 'Fratture' ma certo fin da p. 338 Galeno osserva che le indagini sulle άμφίβολοι λέξεις sono άχρηστα mentre il compito dell'esegeta è di occupare il suo tempo εις τα χρήσιμα. Il tratto più caratteristico di questi commentari sembra comunque quello della profonda identificazione con l'atteggiamento didattico di Ippocrate; spesso con una attualizzazione degli intenti dei suoi scritti (cfr. In Art. p. 575 μέμνηται δή τούτου προς τούς άξιοϋντας έπί τη πληθωρική καλουμένη συνδρομή μόνον φλεβοτομίαν ημάς π α ρ α λ α μ β ά ν ε ι ν τούτων δέ έστι και Μηνόδοτος ό εμπειρικός 1 4 ): la compresenza di trattazione teorica e polemica nel testo ippocratico autorizza Galeno a mescolare questi stessi elementi nel suo testo.

2. 'Aforismi' 1 5 (XVII Β 3 4 5 - 8 8 7 e XVIII A 1 - 1 9 5 K.) Il commento non ha un proemio in senso proprio ma l'ampia discussione del primo aforisma (XVII Β 345—56), che Galeno conduce sulla falsariga delle interpretazioni precedenti, tiene il luogo del proemio. È lo stesso aforisma ippocratico, come già hanno riconosciuto tutti i commentatori, p. 346, che ha il carattere di proemio a tutta la raccolta, e dunque darne una interpretazione significa affrontare i problemi proemiali dello stile dell'opera, della sua destinazione, della posizione degli 'Aforismi' rispetto al resto della produzione ippocratica, ed infine significa prendere posizione sulla storia della fruizione di questo testo, di cui h a n n o tentato di appropriarsi gli Empirici, ma che è un'opera dogmatica (XVII Β 347 αλλ' οτι γε δογματικός έστι ό γράψας τό βιβλίον έν ολφ τω συγγράμματι δειχθήσεται) 1 6 , secondo la tesi che Galeno intende dimostrare con questo commento. „La vita breve e la tecbne lunga" p u ò essere: a) una formula con cui si invita (προτροπή), o si dissuade (άποτροπή), o si mette alla prova (άπόπειρα

13

Osservazioni di questo genere sono frequentissime in tutti i commenti e non se ne darà più notizia.

14

Fr. 2 9 4 DEICHGRÄBER.

15

SMITH, 1 2 9 - 1 3 1 ; J. A. LÓPEZ FÉREZ, Acerca del comentario de Galeno a los Aforismos hipocráticos, in: Galeno, obra pensamiento e influencia, ed. J. A. LÓPEZ FÉREZ (Coloquio internacional celebrado en Madrid, 2 2 - 2 5 de marzo de 1988), Madrid 1991, 1 6 1 - 2 0 3 . E interessante vedere il giudizio che Galeno dà del primo aforisma in 'Adversus Iulianum' (CMG V 10.3 p. 3 4 , 1 4 ss. WENKEBACH) dove dice „devo ringraziare la sorte che mi ha messo in mano il libro di Giuliano relativo al secondo aforisma e non quello che ha dedicato al primo, che è una sorta di proemio di tutti gli altri; perché avrei dovuto scrivere qualcosa anche contro le sue interpretazioni in proposito, senza che sembrasse che avessi fatto qualcosa di importante p e r c h é lì n o n si t o c c a m a i il p r o b l e m a d e l l a t e o r i a medica".

16

1536

DANIELA MANETTI -

A M N E R I S ROSELLI

και διάκρισις) chi intende dedicarsi all'apprendimento della techne (p. 348) 1 7 ; b) una giustificazione della forma espositiva per aforismi; c) infine, una giustificazione dei numerosi errori in cui incorrono i medici. Galeno valuta assurda l'ultima ipotesi, n o n del tutto pertinente la prima e soddisfacente la seconda, e attribuisce così ad Ippocrate la consapevolezza dei suoi strumenti letterari: gli aforismi permettono di apprendere con facilità, di conservare nella memoria quanto si è appreso e di richiamare alla memoria quanto si è dimenticato. M a secondo il giudizio di Galeno i termini importanti, ed oggetto di maggior dibattito, sono πείρα e κρίσις, che costituiscono il saldo punto di appoggio per la appropriazione degli 'Aforismi' da parte degli Empirici. La seconda parte dell'aforisma (δει δέ ού μόνον έαυτόν παρέχειν τά δέοντα ποιέοντα, άλλα και τον νοσέοντα κτλ.) ha il carattere di un precetto (ώς συμβουλεύων γράφει); secondo Galeno, e forse anche in qualcuna delle sue fonti, esso stabilisce norme di comportamento per il medico, il paziente e gli assistenti e le condizioni esterne che permettono di verificare la correttezza degli 'Aforismi' stessi (p. 347 ώς ει μέλλεις έξετάζειν τε και βασανίζειν των έν τώδε τω βιβλίφ γεγραμμένων τήν άλήθειαν; ρ. 355 ει μέλλοι τις κριναι ... τά κατά τό βιβλίον εις οσον άληθείας ήκει): sarebbe insomma una premessa che Ippocrate pone a garanzia della verificabilità delle sue affermazioni (p. 356 ουδέν εύρεθήσεται ψεύδος). Su temi generali Galeno interviene anche nel proemio alla terza sezione (XVII Β 561 s.), in polemica con Lieo, che egli presenta come medico di ispirazione empirica (μηδενί δέ των κατά τάς ώρας και ήλικίας είρημένων προσθέντος πίστιν άποδεικτικήν, άλλ' εις έμπειρίαν και τήρησιν άναπέμψαντος άπαντα), nonostante che, a quanto Galeno sa, egli sia ben consapevole che bisogna indagare λογικώς. Probabilmente questo proemio è un'inserzione successiva alla redazione del c o m m e n t o 1 8 e questo potrebbe spiegare perché, nell'intento generale di sottrarre gli 'Aforismi' agli Empirici, anche Lieo venga assimilato con qualche forzatura ad un Empirico (cfr. infra, p. 1585 s.). In questa occasione Galeno riprende il tema del ' C o m m e n t o a Fratture', secondo cui έργον ίδιον del commento è chiarire ciò che è oscuro, ma ribadisce la legittimità di aggiungere la άπόδειξις di quanto è stato detto correttamente: anche questo entra per consuetudine (εστίν εθος) nel commento, ma naturalmente a Galeno serve per sostenere e difendere la sua interpretazione generale (p. 561). Di carattere diverso invece il proemio alla VII sezione (XVIII A 101 ss.). Qui si tratta di richiamare l'attenzione sulla dubbia autenticità di molti degli aforismi che la costituiscono, sulla loro disposizione disordinata e contempora17

18

PBerol. 9764, II, 7 ss. (BKT III, Berlin 1905) δεϊ δέ έν τοις ν διατρείβειν και τούς νέους έξ αρχής συνασκείν τοις [ά]να[γ]καιοτέροις π[ρ]άγμασιν του βίου βραχέος οντ[ο]ς και της τέχνης μακρης, ώς φησιν ó 'Ιπποκράτης dà un esempio di interpretazione protreptica (se si può ricondurre ad Archibio, citato a col. II, 25, l'interpretazione si data al I a. C.). Galeno ha aggiunto alla fine del commento ad Aph. I, 14 (XVII Β 415) una nota più tarda in cui dichiara di non essere stato a conoscenza del commento di Lieo al tempo della redazione del suo; più tardo è certamente un rimando al suo 'De ordine librorum suorum', come introduzione ragionata alla produzione galenica che può essere utile per una più completa comprensione di Aph. III, 3 0 (p. 647). Vedi anche infra, p. 1582.

GALENO COMMENTATORE DI IPPOCRATE

1537

neamente sullo scarso sussidio che forniscono i commenti esistenti, visto che tutti, avviandosi verso la fine, si affrettano e tralasciano anche problemi macroscopici. Galeno intende dunque mettere in rilievo le novità, anche filologiche, del suo commento. Le ultime sezioni del commento sono per ampiezza abbastanza simili alle prime — in questo Galeno mantiene il suo proposito di osservare la giusta misura nelle dimensioni del commento — ma a partire dalla quarta sezione finiscono col prevalere problemi 'filologici', mentre le questioni di grande respiro e di maggiore portata teorica (dieta, giorni critici, stagioni) sono tutte trattate nella prima parte. Coerentemente con queste premesse nel commento Galeno dà ampio spazio alle questioni generali e all'indagine sulla relazione tra osservazioni di carattere particolare e formulazioni generali; è costante il tentativo di individuare i nessi logici che legano i vari aforismi tra di loro e di rendere esplicito il piano dell'opera ippocratica. I rimandi alle altre opere ippocratiche e alle opere galeniche su singoli temi — dato che negli 'Aforismi' la materia trattata è vastissima e molto varia — sono frequenti, ed alleggeriscono il commento; vi sono anche riferimenti ad autorità anatomiche come Marino (XVIII A 1 1 3 ) e Numisiano (XVII Β 751; 837) e alle loro interpretazioni del testo. Talvolta Galeno trae occasione dal commento per prendere posizione su problemi dibattuti dai contemporanei, anche se il legame col testo commentato è molto tenue: p. es. in XVII Β 503, commentando Aph. II 22, discute e critica la distinzione, più nominalistica che sostanziale tra ϊαμα / θεραπεία e προφυλακή proposta dai medici più recenti (νεώτεροι), avvertendo che questa discussione è qualcosa in più rispetto a quanto di άληθές άμα καί χ ρ ή σ ι μ ο ν 1 9 ha già detto a commento dell'aforisma 2 0 . Soprattutto nella parte finale del commento diventa importante il problema della presenza di varianti: ne sono attestate molte, ed inoltre i commentatori precedenti h a n n o avanzato varie proposte di diversa disposizione della materia, in vista di una strutturazione più razionale dello scritto. I problemi che Galeno affronta con più frequenza sono naturalmente questioni di terminologia tecnica, come nel commento a 'Fratture' e 'Articolazioni'; gli 'Aforismi' pongono invece un nuovo problema interpretativo che diventerà per lui sempre più pressante: il problema della brachilogia ippocratica (cfr. solo XVII Β p. 778). Nella parte finale vengono delineati, anche se non sistematicamente, alcuni criteri per la critica di autenticità (Aph. V 62 e 63, XVII Β 865 e 869), e si avanzano alcune valutazioni sugli intenti degli interpolatori che sarebbero mossi da un cattivo spirito di emulazione e desiderosi di sembrare migliori interpreti q u a n d o spiegano passi particolarmente oscuri (XVIII A 184). Dei commentatori precedenti vengono nominati Bacchio erofileo e gli empirici Era-

19 20

Lo stesso nesso anche a XVIII A 102. La polemica è contro i Metodici.

1538

DANIELA MANETTI -

AMNERIS

ROSELLI

elide e Zeuxis (XVIII A 186 s.) 21 ; comunque, anche quando restano anonime, le interpretazioni dei commentatori precedenti sono sullo sfondo; è chiaro l'intento polemico: compaiono per la prima volta un atteggiamento aggressivo nei confronti di commentatori che vengono definiti ignoranti (XVII Β 755; XVIII A 101 s.) e il riferimento alla categoria dei commentatori 'più antichi' (XVIII A 113), vedi infra, p. 1633 ss. Appendice al commento agli 'Aforismi' sono due trattatelli polemici, 'Adversus Lycum' (CMG V 10.3, pp. 1—29) e 'Adversus Iulianum' (CMG V 10.3, pp. 31—70), che discutono ciascuno un aforisma ippocratico 2 2 . L'opera di Giuliano, che non era un commento, ma un προς τούς 'Ιπποκράτους αφορισμούς (p. 39), stando a Galeno, è in realtà una sorta di 'Adversus Sabinum', o meglio 'Contro le spiegazioni di Sabino' (p. 40): potrebbe anche trattarsi di una amplificazione polemica di Galeno, ma certamente i commenti di Sabino avevano avuto un impatto assai considerevole (infra, p. 1607 ss.).

3. 'Prognostico' 2 3

(XVIII Β

1 - 3 1 7 K. ; C M G

V

9.2 pp. 1 9 7 - 3 7 8

HEEG)24

Commentare il 'Prognostico' è una tappa importante per un medico che si metta sulla scia di Ippocrate; il 'Prognostico' è infatti strettamente connesso con gli 'Aforismi' e le 'Epidemie' e già alcuni commentatori (p. 371,20 ss.), come del resto intende fare anche Galeno, lo hanno commentato immediatamente prima di 'Epidemie' (ibid. e p. 209,4). Vengono cosi esplicitati sia il legame, che è generalmente riconosciuto, degli scritti ippocratici tra di loro sia la solidarietà tra scritti ippocratici e attività esegetica. In questa prospettiva inoltre Galeno giustifica i frequenti riferimenti ad altre sue opere sugli argomenti specifici del 'Prognostico', e ribadisce gli stretti rapporti che intercorrono tra monografie speciali e commenti (p. 328 ss.) 25 . In particolare risulta che Ga21

22 23

24

25

Per la costituzione del testo vedi da ultimo l'apparato ed il c o m m e n t o di H. VON STADEN, Herophilus. The Art of Medicine in Early Alexandria, Cambridge 1 9 8 9 , 83 (T 34). Cfr. infra, pp. 1 5 8 2 ss.; 1 6 0 7 . SMITH, 1 3 3 - 4 . Per contributi testuali cfr. anche A. WIFSTRAND, Eikota. Emendationen und Interpretationen zu griechischen Prosaikern der Kaiserzeit, VII, Scripta minora Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis ( 1 9 5 7 / 5 8 , 2), 3 ss. Β. ALEXANDERSON, Textkritischer Kommentar zum Hippokratischen 'Prognostikon' und Bemerkungen zu Galens 'Prognostikonkommentar', Studia Graeca et latina Gothoburgensia XXV, Göteborg 1968. Diversamente da BARDONG, 637S., ritengo che il c o m m e n t o a 'Prog.' preceda quello ad 'Epid.' I; non sembra infatti che i numerosi riferimenti in 'Epid.' I a questo c o m m e n t o siano stati tutti aggiunti successivamente ed inoltre in In Prog. p. 2 0 9 Galeno dice che anche altri commentatori, come egli intende fare, fanno seguire al c o m m e n t o al 'Prognostico' quelli ad 'Epidemie'. ALEXANDERSON, ibid., 4 4 - 6 , analizzando un passo del c o m m e n t o al 'Prognostico' (In Prog. 2 4 0 , 2 6 — 2 4 1 , 9 ) al fine di un restauro testuale, indirettamente mostra come il problema di armonizzare Aph. II, 2 3 e Prog. 5 - due luoghi ippocratici sullo stesso soggetto ed apparentemente (?) in contraddizione — sia un problema interpretativo già discusso prima di Galeno rispetto al quale Galeno prende posizione nel commentario ad Aph. (XVII Β 5 0 8 , 1 ss.), in Dieb. deer. (IX 8 9 2 , 1 4 ss. Κ.) ed infine, in forma più sintetica, nel commentario al 'Prognostico' che è il più recente dei tre scritti.

G A L E N O C O M M E N T A T O R E DI IPPOCRATE

1539

leno si rivolge ad un circolo di έταίροι che hanno già ascoltato spiegazioni orali (έν ταίς δια λόγων συνουσίαις ρ. 328,17) e che sono i destinatari sia dei commenti sia delle opere monografiche; queste ultime sono state composte in vista di una 'sistematizzazione', e in qualche caso di una necessaria integrazione, del pensiero ippocratico: proprio perché il pubblico è pensato come ristretto, e la circolazione dei suoi scritti è ipotizzata in forma piuttosto ridotta, Galeno ritiene sia legittimo rimandare nei commentari ad opere monografiche, evitando così di ripetere cose già trattate 2 6 . Come avviene nel caso degli 'Aforismi', Galeno caratterizza il primo capitolo di 'Prognostico' come capitolo proemiale, e per esso sceglie una doppia strategia interpretativa. Per chi si preoccupa soltanto dell'utile ed abbia avuto una discreta educazione, Galeno propone un brevissimo commento: qui, con una sorta di proiezione della situazione contemporanea al tempo di Ippocrate (questi avrebbe avuto a che fare con medici che erano l'equivalente dei Metodici, e che quindi negavano l'utilità della prognosi), Galeno intende le preoccupazioni ippocratiche come se fossero analoghe a quelle che si pongono al suo tempo (pp. 1 9 7 - 2 0 0 ) e analizza in positivo i tre punti toccati da Ippocrate a giustificazione della utilità della prognosi 2 7 . Dopo di che questi lettori sono invitati ad avvolgere il rotolo (έπειλίξασι τό μεταξύ του βιβλίου ρ. 200,22) fino a che non incontrino il primo lemma del capitolo seguente; per chi invece non ha né competenza linguistica né dialettica, o per chi non mira all'utile ma ai σοφιστικώτεροι των λόγων, c'è un altro tipo di esegesi, alla quale Galeno non si sottrae; riprendendo i singoli lemmi del primo capitolo offre due piccole monografie: una su πρόνοια, in cui indaga sull'uso del termine (e dei suoi derivati) da Omero, a Solone (uso giuridico del termine), agli oratori, agli stoici, e con una forte polemica con Erofilo sulla distinzione tra πρόρρησις e πρόγνωσις 2 8 ; l'altra sul termine θείον (Prog. 1 p. 194,4 ALEXANDERSON), che opportunamente non aveva discusso nel fornire la esegesi nella forma più breve: è evidente che qui Galeno fa i conti con i commentatori precedenti e le interpretazioni correnti. Cominciando il commento al secondo capitolo (p. 209) dà un quadro generale di tutto il trattato; in complesso Galeno sembra molto interessato alla definizione del quadro teorico su cui appoggerà poi il commento continuo, e, più in particolare, teorizza due livelli di comprensione dei sintomi (e del testo ippocratico): uno più basso, attingibile con il senso comune (έπιλογιστικώς) 2 9 ,

26

27

28

29

πάντα γαρ έν απασιν άποδεικνύειν άδολεσχίας έστί μάλλον ή διδασκαλίας ϊδιον (ρ. 256,2). Cfr. ρ. 197,14 (εις τρία κεφάλαια τον λόγον άνάγων) e poi all'inizio della spiegazione dei singoli lemmi p. 198,1 (τό πρώτον των κεφαλαίων), p. 199,6 (την δευτέραν χρείαν), e ρ. 2 0 0 , 7 (τό δέ τρίτον). Galeno stesso poi giudica questa polemica piuttosto fuori luogo in un commento (p. 2 0 5 , 1 ss.); ma le notazioni polemiche nei confronti di Erofilo sono importanti nell'economia del suo discorso perché gli servono a definire meglio la sua posizione rispetto ad un tema così rilevante come quello della prognosi. Pp. 2 1 1 , 1 0 s s . ; 2 1 2 , 1 ss., 2 2 1 , 1 3 s s . ; 2 2 7 , 1 9 s s .

1540

DANIELA M A N E T T I -

A M N E R I S ROSELLI

e uno più complesso (επί τον άναλογισμόν ερχεσθαι) 3 0 . La problematica del metodo scientifico è motivo ricorrente di tutto il commentario, cfr. ancora l'excursus ampio e poco motivato dal lemma a p. 340 ss., che è sostanzialmente di polemica antiempirica (in particolare p. 343 sulla παρατήρησις), e ancora a p. 377,24 ss. dove rivendica al suo metodo, in opposizione a quello empirico, un maggior succcesso, prognostico e terapeutico (= fr. 26 D E I C H G R Ä B E R ) 3 1 . Con una certa frequenza Galeno fa riferimento alla esistenza di varianti ed in alcuni casi si confronta esplicitamente con Artemidoro e Dioscoride; anche in questo commentario si mantiene costante l'interesse per questioni di lessico risolte con l'utilizzazione di materiale lessicografico.

4. 'Umori' Al primo gruppo è probabile che appartenesse anche il ' C o m m e n t o ad Umori' che Galeno in 'In Epid. Ili' (p. 6 1 , 1 1 ) cita come precedente 3 2 . L'originale è perduto ed il testo stampato nell'edizione di K Ü H N (XVI 1 - 4 8 8 ) è un falso di età rinascimentale; la tradizione indiretta, attraverso Oribasio e Moses Maimonides, ci restituisce soltanto alcuni frammenti 3 3 .

5. 'Epidemie* I 3 4 (XVII A 1 - 3 0 2

K.;

C M G V 10.1 pp. 3 - 1 5 1 WENKEBACH)

E di nuovo un commento antiempirico che si sviluppa attraverso la polemica con Quinto che ne è il mediatore (pp. 6; 17; 52); per condurre la sua polemica Galeno si appoggia contemporaneamente su 'Epidemie' I ed 'Aforismi' (in particolare III 11) ed usa argomenti affini a quelli usati nel suo commento agli 'Aforismi' XVII Β 584 e 562 (proemio alla III sezione). Forse non è casuale che quello qui viene ricondotto alla interpretazione di Quinto, nel ' C o m m e n t o agli Aforismi' venga ricondotto alla interpretazione di Lieo, in una parte che è quasi certamente un'aggiunta posteriore (vedi infra, p. 1582). 30

31

32

33

34

Per i due diversi livelli d e i r è 7 t ^ o y ^ ô ç e άεΐΐ'άναλογισμός vedi la lunga disputa in De experientia medica, cap. 2 3 ss. (ed. R. WALZER, London 1944). In Placit. IX 2 ( C M G V 4.1.2 pp. 544,30—546,3) c'è un riferimento al metodo della μετάβασις che Galeno ricava dal 'Prognostico' rinviando alla sua interpretazione del testo ippocratico. Le definizioni di άναλογισμός, έπιλογισμός, διηνεκές θεώρημα sono in [Gal.] Def. med. XIX 3 5 3 s. Κ. Che il commento ad ' H u m . ' abbia preceduto quello ad 'Epid.' I si ricava da 'In Epid.' I ( C M G V 10.1 pp. 102,24 ss. e 108,24), se non si tratta di aggiunte posteriori. Nella più tarda sistematizzazione del ' D e libris propriis' (Scr. min. II, p. 112,23) Galeno lo colloca invece nel secondo gruppo. Su tutta la questione, e con importanti notazioni su scopi e natura dei commentari ippocratici, vedi K. DEICHGRÄBER, Hippokrates' ' D e humoribus' in der Geschichte der griechischen Medizin, Abh. Ak. Wiss. Lit. Mainz, Geistes- und Sozialw. KL, 1972, nr. 14. SMITH, 133; B. ALEXANDERSON, Bemerkungen zu Galens Epidemienkommentaren, Eranos 65 (1967), 1 1 8 - 1 2 9 . Per contributi testuali al commento a 'Epidemie' I e II, cfr. anche WIFSTRAND, E i k o t a V I I (cit. a n . 2 3 ) , 2 0 ss.

G A L E N O C O M M E N T A T O R E DI IPPOCRATE

1541

Contro la appropriazione empirica Galeno ribadisce che il primo scopo del commento è quello di rispettare l'opinione dell'autore commentato: quindi in questo caso non si deve fare di Ippocrate, che è un logico, un empirico; l'altro scopo, insegnare qualcosa di utile 3 5 , che permetta cioè al medico di agire correttamente, dipende del primo. Nel proemio 3 6 che precede il commento di questo che è il primo tra i libri di 'Epidemie', che Galeno progetta di commentare, prima di arrivare al momento polemico (p. 10,21 ss.) Galeno giustifica il titolo di questi scritti, distinguendo le malattie epidemiche dagli altri vari tipi di malattia, e aggiunge una piccola monografia sulle cause; viene indicato un gruppo di opere che devono accompagnare o precedere la lettura di 'Epidemie': sono opere di carattere generale come 'Natura dell'uomo' ed 'Arie, acque e luoghi' 3 7 , le parti di 'Aforismi' relative alle stagioni e 'Prognostico'. Secondo Galeno tutte le catastasi che sono nei libri di 'Epidemie' sono da porsi in relazione con le quattro forme di catastasi definite negli 'Aforismi'; il commento è tutto teso a dare coerenza alle catastasi. In generale Galeno riscontra che nelle 'Epidemie' è trattato 'κατά μέρος' quello che in 'Prognostico' è trattato 'καθόλου'. Altrettanto forte quanto il radicamento delle 'Epidemie' in un particolare gruppo di scritti ippocratici 38 è il radicamento di questo commentario nella attività esegetica, in senso lato, di Galeno; numerosissimi sono i rimandi al 'Commento al Prognostico', appena terminato (cfr. p. 66,4), in qualche caso rimanda al 'Commento ad Umori' (pp. 102,24 e 108,24), agli 'Aforismi' (p. 106,28) e alle due monografie 'Sui giorni critici' e 'Sulle crisi' (passim), e in qualche caso vi sono anche rimandi a scritti programmati ma non ancora realizzati (p. 132,26) 3 9 . Alcuni passi di 'Epidemie' I non vengono commentati, e neppure vengono riportati i lemmi per esteso: il commento è sostituito da un rimando a questi trattati particolari 4 0 . Lo specifico del commento può essere così ridotto, come è legittimo, alla spiegazione delle λέξεις άσαφείς, includendo al massimo qualcosa sulla giustificazione teorica del testo (αιτιολογία), come del resto è pratica usuale (p. 80,1 — 9). 35

Nei commenti precedenti non mi pare sia ancora comparsa una formulazione così netta delle due άρεταί έξηγητών (p. 6,16 ss.) 36 Parzialmente conservato in greco ed integralmente in arabo; sul proemio vedi E. WENKEBACH, Das Proömium der Kommentare Galens zu den Epidemien des Hippokrates, Abh. Pr. Ak. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl., Berlin 1918, 8. 37 Due opere che Galeno finirà col commentare molto tardi. 38 Che stanno tra loro in una relazione di συμφωνία (p. 66,6). 39 Un rimando al futuro commentario al 'Prorretico' I (o si tratta del 'De cornate' ?): όταν έξηγησώμεθα την πρώτην ρήσιν του 'Προρρητικού', cfr. infra, p. 1 5 5 0 ss. 40 NEI c a s ¡ JJ omissione WENKEBACH indica lacuna, ma a p. 7 0 , 2 2 (ed apparato) e p. 100,7 (cfr. il commento p. 100,20 ss.) sembra di poter riconoscere che la omissione del testo non è dovuta alle vicende della tradizione, come del resto risulta più chiaro da p. 4 2 , 1 - 4 (altri casi di lacuna andrebbero discussi singolarmente). Dunque si riscontra un comportamento di Galeno analogo a quello dei commenti a 'Fratture' e 'Articolazioni' (cfr. supra n. 8), con la differenza che in quel caso si suppone che il lettore sia in grado di intendere senza sussidi il testo ippocratico, mentre il lettore di 'Epidemie' I può fare riferimento alle precedenti interpretazioni di Galeno.

1542

DANIELA MANETTI -

AMNERIS

ROSELLI

Una premessa di carattere generale introduce infine il commento molto sintetico delle storie cliniche che concludono il libro in quanto παραδείγματα ... των έπιτετραμμένων ... καθόλου θεωρημάτων (ρ. 126,27); Galeno ritiene che un commento più puntuale non sia necessario perché di questi casi clinici ha già trattato in altre sue opere. Si ha l'impressione che Galeno si appoggi ad una ben consolidata tradizione interpretativa di questo testo, cfr. p. 42,8 ss. (diverse interpretazioni); pp. 83,7; 94,16; 95,22 (varianti e diversa segmentazione del testo) 4 1 ; p. 102,23 (interpolazione in I 23); quello che manca è la erudizione di tipo glossografico, che si appoggia sulla citazione di autorità precedenti. 6. 'Regime nelle malattie acute' 4 2 (XV 4 1 8 - 9 1 9 K.; C M G V 9.1 pp. 1 1 7 3 6 6 HELMREICH)

Da un punto di vista didattico, afferma Galeno, la sua opera terapeutica 'De methodo medendi', più completa ed ordinata, è più utile di quanto non sia il trattato ippocratico 'Regime nelle malattie acute', ma Ippocrate è un πρώτος εύρετής e non si può pretendere da lui una sistematizzazione perfetta di una materia così vasta (p. 196,13 ss.) 43 . Il testo ippocratico era tuttavia oggetto di grosse polemiche, come risulta da più parti del commento galenico, e la lettura che Galeno ne dà viene incontro alle difficoltà che esso presenta per un pubblico che non sia esperto né della λέξις arcaica né delle tecniche della dimostrazione; Galeno anzi definisce il suo un commento φιλανθρωπότερον (p. 180,24). Non c'è proemio, e la spiegazione procede, come al solito, seguendo il testo; ma qui sono più evidenti gli elementi che costituiscono l'ossatura di tutto il commento: Galeno anticipa lo svolgimento argomentativo di intere sezioni del testo ippocratico e alla fine ne dà interpretazioni complessive e riassuntive. Egli inoltre compie uno sforzo di identificazione della unità in cui si articola lo scritto: individua così due proemi, uno 'storico e polemico' contro gli estensori delle 'Sentenze Cnidie', e uno metodologico, in cui Ippocrate pone un problema (cfr. Acut. 8 , 1 p. 3 9 , 8 8 JOLY μάλα μεν ούν ούδέ προβάλλεσθαι τά τοιαύτα 41

42

43

Talora vengono esplicitati i criteri di valutazione delle varianti; p. es. a p. 72,28 (e poi 73,23) Galeno osserva che le 'Epidemie' non sono un libro di argomento terapeutico, e che quindi la variante ποιείσθαι rispetto a σκοπείσθαι, per q u a n t o ragionevole, non è pertinente in questo contesto. SMITH, 1 3 6 - 1 4 5 ; B. ALEXANDERSON, Bemerkungen zu Galens Comm. ' N a t . h o m . ' , ' C o m m . Acut.', 'De temperamentis' und 'De placitis', Eranos 68 (1970), 62—67. Una bella analisi del metodo filologico messo in opera da Galeno in questo commento in K. DEICHGRÄBER, Ausgewähltes aus der medizinischen Literatur der Antike I, Philologus 101 (1957), 1 3 5 - 4 7 , a proposito di pp. 1 2 8 , 1 5 - 1 3 0 , 2 8 . Sulla tradizione araba cfr. R. DEGEN, Z u r arabischen Überlieferung von Galens Erklärung des Buches „Über die Diät der akuten Krankheiten", Zeitschr. für Gesch. der Arabisch-Islamischen Wissenschaften 5 (1989), 1 7 8 - 1 8 9 . Del resto anche in 'Meth. med.' (X 6 3 2 - 3 K.) Galeno sottolinea che la sua opera terapeutica sta alla terapia ippocratica, come le nuove, belle, ampie, piane strade di Traiano stanno alle precedenti strade che percorrevano l'Italia.

GALENO

COMMENTATORE

DI

IPPOCRATE

1543

ζητήματα είθισμένοι εισίν 4 4 oi ίητροί) e ne predispone la λύσις (cfr. p. 126,10 έπαινειν δέ και τον πρώτον αύτό προβαλόντα και γινώσκειν ού μάλλον τι περί των οξέων νοσημάτων ή των άλλων άπάντων προβάλλεσθαι και λύεσθαι τοϋτο τό ζήτημα), organizzando un discorso che Galeno definisce poi (p. 133,26) protreptico (προτρέπων) alla terapia delle malattie acute. Ad esso (p. 133,15 ss.) segue la sezione sulla tisana (cap. 10 ss. JOLY), dove si entra nel vivo del problema della terapia delle malattie acute e si individua un metodo che ha carattere generale 45 . La struttura del trattato ippocratico secondo Galeno rende ragione anche della molteplicità dei titoli con cui l'opera è designata ('Contro le Sentenze Cnidie', per chi si fonda sul solo primo proemio, o 'Sulla tisana', per chi pone l'accento sulla parte terapeutica) e del titolo che invece a buon diritto le spetta ('Regime nelle malattie acute'); la discussione del titolo, che di solito si trova nel proemio, è stata dunque differita per premettere l'analisi degli elementi che la rendono comprensibile. Nella prima sezione di questo proemio allargato Galeno affronta, sulla scorta di un suggerimento del testo ippocratico (Acut. 7,1—2 p. 3 8 , 2 2 ss. JOLY δια τί άρα ... οι μέν τών ιητρών ... οί δέ τίνες ... οί δ' αύ τίνες αύτών ... οί μεν ... οί δέ ...) il problema della διαφωνία tra i medici, distinguendo in primo luogo tra διαφωνία su questioni filosofiche (p. 125,9 ss.) e διαφωνία su questioni mediche: la prima è irrimediabile, ma della seconda si può venire a capo, come accade in qualsiasi techne, compresa la mantica. Lo stesso Erasistrato, che poi viene criticato a più riprese nel commento per aver attaccato due discepoli di Ippocrate sul problema della dieta nelle febbri (p. 145,19 ss. e 2 5 6 , 1 ss.), viene qui elogiato (p. 125,31 ss.) come un buon τεχνίτης che ha posto e risolto il problema indicato da Ippocrate: έπαινειν ούν χρή και τον Έρασίστρατον και τούς άλλους, οϊ προβάλλοντες τοϋτο τό ζήτημα και τήν λύσιν έγραψαν. Galeno ritiene che la prima parte di 'Acut.' sia dedicata ad impostare un 'problema', e sembra che il genere letterario del testo ippocratico gli fornisca il modello per il commento stesso; infatti qui la struttura aporética e zetematica che è tipica del commentario scolastico si intravvede in maniera più chiara: molte delle singole esegesi sono introdotte dalla formula δια τί, fenomeno che è presente sporadicamente negli altri commenti. La attenzione alla tecnica argomentativa di Ippocrate, assieme naturalmente ad una grande quantità di indicazioni oggettive sulle terapie che vengono prescritte da lui, costituisce il tessuto di tutto il commentario; Galeno ritiene che Ippocrate parli della pleurite ως έπί παραδείγματος (p. es. p. 2 6 6 , 1 4 ss.); fa molte deviazioni dal proposito fondamentale del trattato; ci sono poi sezioni più tecniche sulle qualità dei vini, dei bagni e così via, e naturalmente moltissimi rimandi alle sue precedenti trattazioni su tematiche ippocratiche e ai suoi scritti di argomento terapeutico ('Meth. med.', 'De simpl. med. fac.', e poi gli scritti 'Sulla flebotomia' etc.).

44

είθισμένοι είσίν è la lezione del lemma di Galeno e dei mss. MV, JOLY accoglie είθίδαται di ILBERG.

45

101

II che comporta subito un riferimento agli Empirici (p. 34,10 ss.). ANRW II 37.2

1544

DANIELA MANETTI -

AMNERIS

ROSELLI

Alla fine della sezione che considera autentica (cap. 68 JOLY), Galeno riprende il lemma di Acut. 1 (P. 36,7 JOLY) όκόσα δέ προσκαταμαθείν δεί τον ίατρόν μή λέγοντος του κάμνοντος, τούτων [τα] πολλά παρεϊται (sc. da parte degli estensori delle 'Sentenze Cnidie'); alla luce di tutto il testo che ha appena commentato Galeno chiarisce che le cose tralasciate dagli Cnidi, e la cui presenza caratterizza il suo Ippocrate, sono l'attenzione rivolta (σκοπός) a umori, cozione, δύναμις del paziente, φύσεις e κράσεις, εθη, e non semplicemente i luoghi affetti, le loro διαθέσεις e le cause, come vogliono coloro che fanno di Ippocrate un dogmatico, o la stagione, il luogo, l'età e gli εθη, come vogliono coloro che ne fanno un empirico (p. 268): con queste considerazioni Galeno trae il succo della lettura commentata di 'Acut.' e dà un senso a tutto il commento. La parte erudita non ha straordinario rilievo anche se spesso Galeno cita varianti e diverse interpretazioni dei commentatori precedenti (per la nota erudita sull'uso del termine χόνδρος negli scritti ippocratici e nei comici, p. 134 s., si veda più avanti p. 1545), e naturalmente non mancano le rituali prese di posizione polemica sugli scopi e la pratica dell'esegesi, si veda p.es. p. 165,9 ss. 4 6 . Il commento alla 'Appendice' affronta preliminarmente (p. 271) la discussione dei criteri di autenticità e attribuzione che sono vari e variamente classificati (infra, p. 1567); probabilmente tutti gli derivano dalla tradizione esegetica 4 7 . Il testo spurio è comunque antico (e quindi riconducibile all'ambiente ippocratico), anzi alcune (poche) cose sono dette così perfettamente che potrebbero stare anche negli 'Aforismi', lo scritto dalle formulazioni sintetiche perfette (p. 286,20). Che testi ippocratici abbiano subito interpolazioni alla fine 4 8 è del resto frequente, come dimostrano gli 'Aforismi', 'Ferite nella testa' 4 9 ed 'Epidemie' II 5 0 (271,13 ss.); in questo caso offriva il destro alla interpolazione il fatto che nella parte autentica Ippocrate ha promesso più volte di trattare della terapia delle singole malattie acute; questa trattazione, che non è degna della δύναμις di Ippocrate (p. 198,3), pur contenendo molte cose buone, va messa sullo stesso piano degli scritti 'περί νούσων' e 'περί παθών' (cfr. anche p. 237,4). 46

47

48

49 50

έπεί δ' εμπαλιν τοις άλλοις έξηγηταΐς εχει τούμόν (εκείνοι μεν γαρ έπεισκυκλοϋσι ταϊς έξηγήσεσι τα σοφιστικά ζητήματα μηδέν εις τό τέλος της τέχνης ώφελοΟντα τούς μανθάνοντας, έγώ δ ' . . . ) . Il verbo έπεισκυκλέω è, oltre che in Galeno, in Longin. 22,4, Ps. Dionys. Hal., Rhet. X 17 p. 393 REISKE e Luc., Conscr. Hist. 13 (oi πολλοί τά μηδέν προσήκοντα έπεισκυκλοϋσι), e ha connotazione per lo più negativa. SMITH, 1 3 6 - 1 3 8 , opportunamente confuta la opinione diffusa secondo la quale Galeno testimonierebbe (p. 277) che Erasistrato conosceva 'Acut.' come già costituito dalle due parti, la autentica e la spuria, rilevando che Galeno non sapeva nulla di preciso a questo proposito, ma solo faceva delle congetture sulla base della sostanziale arcaicità dello scritto non autentico. Non all'inizio, perché il fatto che le parti iniziali siano generalmente conosciute a memoria le salva dalle intrusioni di elementi spuri (p. 271,17). Notizia interessante tanto più che non disponiamo del commento galenico. Più tardi aggiungerà alla lista anche 'Natura dell'uomo' e 'Epidemie' VI.

G A L E N O C O M M E N T A T O R E DI IPPOCRATE

1545

Su questo stesso trattato ippocratico Galeno aveva scritto anche un'opera autonoma, conservata in traduzione araba, 'De diaeta in morbis acutis secundum Hippocratem' 5 1 (CMG Suppl. Or. II, pp. 7 6 - 1 1 1 LYONS)52, in cui difendeva l'Ippocrate di 'Acut.' dall'uso inconsulto che ne aveva fatto un medico amico del dedicatario dello scritto, Vittorino. Galeno in sostanza chiarisce a Vittorino un problema di esegesi ippocratica, che ha grande rilevanza nella pratica terapeutica. E una occasione per descrivere l'uso scorretto che si fa della autorità del testo ippocratico (citandolo in maniera incompleta e faziosa) e per discutere, anche con strumenti filologici, quanto si può considerare di tradizione antica, anche se non necessariamente ippocratica, come 'De victu' (che viene attribuito a Filistione, Aristone o Faone) 5 3 o il più breve dei due trattati sulle malattie 5 4 , che è tràdito tra gli scritti di Ippocrate ma è di Polibo o di Eurifonte (p. 109,19) 5 5 . La discussione verteva sulla possibilità che già in età ippocratica si conoscesse il χόνδρος, ed è svolta attraverso l'indagine sulla occorrenza del termine negli autori antichi, in particolare nei comici 5 6 . Se questo scritto è anteriore al commento, nel commento ne riprende i temi: il riferimento alla critica di Erasistrato ai discepoli di Ippocrate; i problemi della autenticità della seconda parte; la questione del titolo dell'opera e, più in particolare, il riferimento al libro che il medico metodico aveva donato a Victor 5 7 e che era stato all'origine del 'De diaeta' (p. 265,22).

51

52 53

54

55

56

57

101*

Contro un medico metodico. SMITH, 114—115, lo data dopo il 175 per gli interessi sull'autenticità degli scritti ippocratici: questo anzi sarebbe il primo scritto che dimostra una preoccupazione per questo genere di problemi. Nel 'De ordine' Galeno lo pone tra i libri terapeutici, ma osservando che starebbe bene anche tra i commentari ippocratici (Scr. min. II 109,20). II testo greco pubblicato da I. WESTENBERGER C M G V 9.1 pp. 3 6 9 - 3 9 2 è spurio. II problema dell'autenticità del trattato 'De victu' è ampiamente discusso, come όδοϋ πάρεργον, in Alim. fac. C M G V 4.2 p. 212,16 ss. dove Galeno, oltre a fornire le solite indicazioni sui possibili autori di questo testo (Filistione, Aristone, Eurifonte, Fileta), tutti comunque antichi, afferma che, mentre il secondo libro è comunque degno di Ippocrate, il primo è lontanissimo dalla sua γνώμη. Cfr. anche ibid. p. 235,4. Che sarebbe da identificare con il 'De septimanis' (?), cfr. LYONS p. 146, il quale rimanda a W. H. ROSCHER, Die hippokratische Schrift von der Siebenzahl, Paderborn 1913, I l l s . Nel commento ad Acut. (pp. 1 3 4 , 3 3 - 1 3 5 , 1 0 ) oltre a citare i comici e 'De victu' Galeno precisa che comunque Eurifonte, Faone, Filistione, Aristone sono antichi; aggiunge poi che alcuni scritti tràditi come ippocratici sono probabilmente opera di autori ancora più antichi, come è il caso di 'Fratture' ed 'Articolazioni' che si dovrebbero attribuire al nonno di Ippocrate. La discussione sulle testimonianze del termine χόνδρος nei testi ippocratici e nei comici antichi è attestata anche nel commento ad 'Acut.', p. 134,33 ss.; va notato che la discussione del commento serve a prendere posizione in una polemica esistente e non è direttamente motivata dal lemma ippocratico, infatti il termine non compare nel lemma; per χόνδρος nei comici vedi anche Ath. Deipn. III 126 a - c . Più tardi, il testo ippocratico di 'Acut.', integrato dal suo commento, è ripreso e riassunto brevemente in Placit. IX 6 (CMG V 4.1.2 pp. 5 7 2 , 1 6 - 5 7 8 , 2 2 e 5 8 0 , 2 4 - 5 8 2 , 2 5 ; in mezzo una citazione di 'Fratture'): un bell'esempio dell'uso integrato di testo e commento. Che si dovrà identificare con il Vittorino del 'De diaeta'; si tratta probabilmente di C. Aufidius Victorinus, prefetto di Roma al tempo di Commodo, cfr. LYONS 13 e n. 2.

1546

DANIELA MANETTI -

AMNERIS ROSELLI

7. Officina del medico' 5 8 (XVIII Β 6 2 9 - 9 2 5 Κ. 5 9 , integrato da CMG Suppl. Or. I p p . 10-123 LYONS)

Il commento è preceduto da un proemio che cominciava con l'illustrazione del carattere isagogico dello scritto (la parte iniziale del proemio è perduta in greco e nota solo attraverso il sommario di Ali ibn Ridwan, LYONS, p. 101); Galeno vi affronta poi il problema della mancata corrispondenza tra il titolo dell'opera, che sembra promettere una trattazione generale della chirurgia, e la scarna trattazione del solo argomento dei bendaggi, o poco più, che la costituisce. Il titolo promette qualcosa di simile ad altre opere antiche di chirurgia (di Diocle, Filotimo, Mantias) che portano un titolo affine ('κατ' ίητρεΐον' oppure 'περί των κατά ίητρεΐον') 6 0 , e di fatto propone una pratica per principianti, e che può essere benissimo sperimentata su manichini o sugli schiavi (a p. 630,8 leggere παίδων invece di παιδίων). Galeno dichiara poi (p. 630,10) di aver studiato i manoscritti dei commentatori più antichi, sulla scorta dell'esempio di altri che lo avevano già fatto, — convinto che il testo di O f f i c i n a ' fosse molto corrotto, e dunque quasi costretto ad adottare questa particolare procedura — e di aver riscontrato la presenza di molte innovazioni recenti (Artemidoro e Dioscoride) 61 , mentre, al di là di ogni aspettativa, ha potuto riscontrare una sostanziale concordia nel testo dei commentatori antichi. Sono antichi gli empirici Zeuxis ed Eraclide, Bacchio ed Asclepiade 62 . Nella parte finale del proemio torna sul carattere isagogico dell'opera, che in quanto tale comincia con un breve aforisma che è κοινόν άπάσης τέχνης προοίμιον; e subito dopo menziona le cose più importanti per chi si accinga ad apprendere l'arte medica. Un riepilogo complessivo della distribuzione della materia in O f f i c i n a ' è offerto da Galeno nel commento al primo lemma del suo terzo commentario (p. 819 ss.). Il trattato gli sembra articolato in quattro parti: il primo tema affrontato è quello dei φυσικά κριτήρια della conoscenza (e della techne medica), è dunque di carattere epistemologico, il secondo è relativo alle cose che riguardano in generale la chirurgia, i bendaggi costituiscono il terzo tema e le fratture il quarto. Che Officina' sia uno scritto di carattere isagogico viene ribadito più volte e Galeno aggiunge che esso era pensato per un pubblico che, pur essendo costituito da apprendisti, aveva una maggiore familiarità con i problemi della anatomia di quanto non ne abbiano i suoi contemporanei (p. 682) 6 3 ; il che spiega, secondo Galeno, la sua estrema ellitticità. 58 59

60

61 62 63

SMITH, 1 4 5 - 1 4 8 . Integrato dalle correzioni al testo di S. VOGT, De Galeni in libellum κατ' ίητρεΐον commentariis, Diss. Marburg 1910. Cfr. anche C. H. TH. REINHOLD, Hippokrates Komide 3, Athen 1 8 6 6 , 4 7 - 2 3 3 . Per il testo del proemio, vedi ora ROSELLI, I commenti di Galeno, cit. a n. 4 , 4 7 3 ss. Su questo tema ritornerà brevemente a p. 666, nel commentare il lemma τάδε εις χειρουργίην κατ' ίητρεΐον. Citati poi di nuovo solo a p. 729. Cfr. In Off. p. 631,15. Questa è una tematica presente anche in Α. Α. 11 (p. 71 GAROFALO = II 280 s. K.), cfr. GAROFALO in questo stesso volume.

G A L E N O C O M M E N T A T O R E DI IPPOCRATE

1547

Che l'autore dello scritto potrebbe essere Ippocrate o Tessalo è detto en passant·, non si tratta di un'opera di ampio respiro ma di una sorta di epitome, costituita da una scaletta dei temi da trattare (έν τύποις, προς ύποτυπώσει pp. 875; 879; 880); alcune ripetizioni indicano con certezza, secondo Galeno, che Officina' non era pronto per essere pubblicato. Poiché la trattazione più completa della materia è fornita da Tratture' e 'Articolazioni', che Galeno ha già commentato, sono frequenti i riferimenti a quei libri e a quei commentari; e anzi Galeno ritiene che sarebbe auspicabile che da quei trattati iniziasse la lettura della chirurgia ippocratica. Il commento è piuttosto impegnato dal punto di vista teorico nella spiegazione di quelle che Galeno intende come le prime due parti dell'opera, e che, se capisco bene, le conferiscono il carattere di opera isagogica; il commento ad Off. 1 e 2 si estende fino a p. 674. Da qui in avanti Galeno cambia lo stile del suo commento sottolineando che quanto ha detto fino a quel punto riguarda i κεφάλαια della medicina, ma non la διδασκαλία, e dunque, anche se non viene compreso correttamente non ne conseguono gravi danni per la pratica terapeutica; nella sezione iniziale si misura con la epistemologia stoica (attraverso Eficiano, infra, p. 1590 s.) ed empirica (p. 663 = fr. 57 DEICHGRÄBER) rimandando al suo scritto 'περί του κοινοϋ λόγου' 6 4 . Nella parte seguente l'esegesi è tutta rivolta alla giustificazione del testo. L'erudizione di carattere lessicografico e grammaticale è ampiamente dispiegata (vedi infra), insieme ad una serie di riflessioni sul carattere stocastico dell'interpretazione — nei casi in cui un testo assai brachilogico costringa a divinare (μαντείας ... χρήζομεν) l'intenzione del suo autore (p. 715) ed imponga di non raggiungere risultati definitivi - e sulla impossibilità di emendare tutte le corruttele e di scegliere tra le varianti attestate; è vivace la polemica contro i commentatori 'sofisti', e benché Galeno teorizzi che il commento non ha lo scopo di insegnare ai giovani ad άττικίζειν (p. 894,13 ss.) rivela di fatto di avere un interesse 'filologico' molto forte; tra le autorità antiche citate nel proemio Asclepiade potrebbe aver fornito il testo di riferimento del suo commento (infra, p. 1616); Eraclide viene citato una volta (insieme ad Asclepiade), ma si potrebbe far riferimento a lui anche in espressioni del tipo τήν γραφην ταύτην οι τε έξηγησάμενοι τό βιβλίον ϊσασι καί οί πλείστοι των εμπειρικών εχουσι (ρ. 673); per una interpretazione empirica cfr. anche p. 845 (fr. 321 DEICHGRÄBER); conformemente alle indicazioni date da Galeno nel proemio, vengono segnalate le lezioni dei manoscritti antichi (pp. 730; 8 5 3 ) 6 5 .

64

65

In Placit. C M G V 4 . 1 , 2 pp. 5 4 2 — 4 , fa un riassunto del suo commento al primo lemma, che cita nella sezione dedicata alla σύγκρισις di Ippocrate e Platone; dovrebbe essere una inserzione più tarda, cfr. DE LACY ad loc. p. 6 9 8 . Nei commenti precedenti mi sembra che gli unici rimandi a lezioni di manoscritti e commentatori antichi siano in In Aph. XVIII A 1 1 3 , in un contesto in cui compare anche il nome di Marino, e in 'In Prog.', una volta in relazione a Dioscoride ( C M G V 9 . 2 p. 2 3 1 , 3 ) , un'altra per testimoniare che non c'è una reale differenza tra le lezioni συνάγχη e κυνάγκη (p. 3 4 9 , 1 5 ) come invece vorrebbero i νεώτεροι.

1548 8.

'Epidemie'

DANIELA MANETTI II66

(CMG V

10.1

pp.

AMNERIS

155-410

ROSELLI

PFAFF67)

Il commento manca di proemio, e sembra un naturale proseguimento della interpretazione di tutto il corpus delle 'Epidemie'; Galeno si limita a distinguere il diverso carattere delle catastasi di 'Epidemie' I e III rispetto a quella che apre questo libro, e a menzionare l'attribuzione a Tessalo (p. 155 e poi 213 e 310); nel corso del commento tuttavia mette spesso in luce il fatto che il testo è difficile da interpretare perché si tratta di appunti 6 8 estremamente ellittici, che vi sono senz'altro delle interpolazioni 69 , e che comunque questo testo va letto solo dopo che si conoscono gli altri scritti ippocratici per poter ricavare dalla lettura una qualche utilità (p. 205,21). Solo all'inizio del quarto commentario, quando si accinge ad affrontare la sezione anatomica, Galeno riflette sul tema tipicamente proemiale della legittimità di inserire 'Epidemie' II (e VI) tra gli scritti che portano questo nome, meglio si chiamerebbero „Das erste und zweite Buch der Notizen des Hippokrates" oppure „Vermischte" o „zweifelhafte Aussprüche" (p. 311) perché la materia trattata è molto eterogenea e in gran parte ha poco a che vedere col genere 'Epidemie'. Questo è uno dei commentari più direttamente destinati alla interpretazione del testo che — come nel caso di 'Epidemie' VI — presenta enormi difficoltà di comprensione; un vero commentario esegetico. Il testo ippocratico è in molti casi incerto; e anche qui Galeno nota che mentre c'è una sostanziale unità nella tradizione dei commenti più antichi, i moderni hanno introdotto molte innovazioni (p. 230,12ss.); la estrema ellitticità del dettato ippocratico ha infatti dato occasione ai commentatori per le più varie interpretazioni e correzioni; Galeno inizia molto spesso il suo commento dei singoli lemmi osservando: „anche in questo caso i manoscritti portano varie lezioni; anche in questo caso i commentatori hanno cambiato il testo" e così via; riporta spesso le opinioni dei commentatori precedenti, propone egli stesso qualche soluzione, individua corruttele, ma frequentemente rinuncia a soluzioni 'oracolari' (p. 275,41 ss.) ed è consapevole di poter formulare solo ipotesi di interpretazione (p. 221,9). Galeno dichiara esplicitamente di avere a disposizione più materiale esegetico di quanto non ne avesse quando ha utilizzato 'Epidemie' II nel suo precedente scritto 'Diff. resp.' (p. 277,12 ss.); l'atteggiamento nei confronti dei suoi precursori non è comunque particolarmente polemico, soprat66 67

68

69

SMITH, 1 4 8 - 1 5 5 ; cfr. anche n. 34. II c o m m e n t o greco (XVII A 3 0 3 — 4 7 9 K.) è un falso rinascimentale. La tradizione era già mutila al tempo di Hunain; manca del tutto la quinta sezione del commento, e in alcuni casi di lacune minori Hunain dichiara di avere supplito il testo cercando di divinare quello che Galeno poteva aver detto, ma segnando in margine le parole non galeniche in m o d o da permettere, a chi eventualmente trovasse un n u o v o manoscritto, di integrare e sostituire agevolmente il testo autentico a quello congetturale (p. 3 5 1 e 353). Questa gli sembra la spiegazione possibile per il problema della non coincidenza dello stile di 'Epidemie' II c o n lo stile ippocratico di 'Fratture', 'Articolazioni', 'Malattie acute', 'Aforismi' ed altri scritti, p. 2 7 5 , 2 8 ss. Questo è particolarmente evidente nella ultima sezione di 'Epidemie' II; le sezioni del commentario di Galeno corrispondono solo parzialmente c o n quelle della edizione LITTRÉ.

GALENO COMMENTATORE DI IPPOCRATE

1549

tutto nella prima parte del commento, lo diventa nei confronti di Sabino a proposito della sua interpretazione della sezione anatomica (pp. 329; 336) e ancora a pp. 4 0 8 - 9 e, in generale, quando commenta l'ultima sezione che egli considera in gran parte spuria. Il commento di Eraclide di Taranto, che si serviva di manoscritti antichi (p. 220,40), è spesso citato ampiamente e testualmente, e in un caso (p. 2 8 4 , 1 7 ss.) il fatto che un certo segmento di testo non sia stato commentato da Eraclide, che sarebbe il primo commentatore di questo scritto, è addotto come prova del fatto che si tratta di una interpolazione. Galeno inaugura qui la prassi delle citazioni testuali dai commentatori precedenti (Eraclide, Rufo, Sabino), vedi infra. L'interesse fondamentale di Galeno - risolto o affrontato quello preliminare del testo — è medico; particolarmente impegnative per lui sono la valutazione delle catastasi e delle altre varie formulazioni mediche (aforismi, casi clinici) che convivono in 'Epidemie' II e la lunga parte dedicata alla sezione anatomica, che Galeno giudica l'unica descrizione anatomica autentica conservata negli scritti attribuiti ad Ippocrate 7 0 . L'unica deviazione significativa dalla linea esegetica pura è data da una lunga descrizione di casi di simulazione di malattia scoperti da Galeno stesso (p. 206 ss.), in cui inserisce un excursus su altri celebri casi risolti con la esperienza e grazie ad una particolare perspicacia del medico (che Galeno definisce un ben sviluppato senso comune) nel riconoscere, e nel risolvere, situazioni patologiche inconsuete, e piuttosto vicine alla malattia mentale (tra cui quello di Erasistrato che riconobbe la malattia del figlio di Seleuco) 7 1 . Un altro caso abbastanza significativo di deviazione dalla normale linea interpretativa è nella sezione finale (pp. 4 0 1 - 4 ) : lo spunto per una digressione è fornito da una spiacevole vicenda contemporanea in cui fu coinvolto Filistione, discepolo di Metrodoro ad Alessandria, il quale avendo preso per b u o n o e alla lettera il precetto terapeutico dell'assurdo testo ippocratico di Epid. II 6.2 - secondo Galeno chiaramente interpolato - , perse tutta la sua clientela e diventò esempio proverbiale di stupidità. Galeno utilizza questo esempio per sostenere che un intento degli interpolatori di testi particolarmente peregrini ed assurdi sia quello di mettere in ridicolo i commentatori, come dimostra anche il caso di Luciano che ha coperto di ridicolo grammatici e filosofi sottoponendo al loro esame falsi da lui stesso composti 7 2 . E il solito attacco contro gli interpreti che sono retori e sofisti piuttosto che interessati all'utile medico (p. 356,41 ss.). 70

71

72

Le descrizioni anatomiche che si trovano in 'Nat. hom.', nella aggiunte a 'Mochlicon' (= Oss.') e 'De locis in homine' sono infatti da ritenersi spurie secondo Galeno (p. 318,11 ss.) Di questa sezione, opportunamente depurata deü'excursus storico (testimonianze su casi clinici di Erasistrato e del suo maestro Crisippo) e di una parte rigorosamente esegetica (con discussione di una variante e menzione di Artemidoro, Dioscoride ed Eraclide di Taranto), è conservato il testo greco che è trasmesso dalla tradizione medievale come opera autonoma col titolo πώς χρή έξελέγχειν τούς προσποιουμένους νοσείν ovvero 'Quomodo simulantes sint deprehendendi' (CMG V 10.2.4, pp. 1 1 3 - 6 D E I C H G R Ä B E R - K U D L I E N ) . Cfr. G . STROHMAIER, Übersehenes zur Biographie Lukians, Philologus 1 2 0 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 1 7 — 122; C. P. JONES, Culture and Society in Lucian, Cambridge and London 1986, 19 e

1550 9. ' P r o f e t i c o '

DANIELA M A N E T T I I73 (XVI

489-840

AMNERIS ROSELLI

K.; C M G

V

9.2 pp. 3 - 1 7 8

DIELS)74

La perdita quasi integrale del proemio 7 5 — rimangono solo la parte finale relativa alla discussione del titolo, nella quale Galeno polemizza con Erofilo 7 6 , ed una brevissima sezione programmatica 7 7 — ci ha privato forse della possibilità di conoscere le ragioni addotte da Galeno per giustificare il suo commento a questo scritto (che costituisce una eccezione alla norma che Galeno si è dato di interpretare solo scritti autentici); tuttavia si possono fare ragionevoli congetture suffragate dal contenuto del commento stesso. Il Trorretico' I è un testo molto vicino ad altre opere autentiche come il 'Prognostico' e le 'Epidemie', che sarebbero state utilizzate e rielaborate dal redattore in chiave empirica; sembra che tutti i commentatori precedenti tendano a difendere comunque questo testo (βοηθειν, συναγορεύειν) 7 8 ; in questa situazione il commentario di Galeno si presenta come una appendice necessaria alla costruzione della figura dell'Ippocrate dogmatico che egli si prefigge. In altri commentari è stato sufficiente espungere alcuni passi, qui è l'intero trattato, o comunque una gran parte di esso, che deve essere messo da parte. In questa ottica sarebbe bastato solo un breve accenno alle ipotesi formulate nell'ambito della critica di autenticità 79 , ma di fatto per Galeno questa volta non si tratta della solita 'semiautenticità' (infra), siamo di fronte ad una vera falsificazione, ad un autore che, atteggiandosi ad ippocratico, raccoglie ed assembla segni e sintomi disparati (ανομοιογενή, έτερογενή, ούχ ομοιογενή, ούχ ομοειδή, ματαία έπιπλοκή σημείων) 8 0 , e compie generalizzazioni indebite n. 72 e D. CLAY, Lucían of Samosata: Four Philosophical Lives (Nigrinus, Demonax, Peregrinus, Alexander Pseudomantis), ANRW II 36,5, ed. W. HAASE, Berlin-New York 1992, 3407. 73

SMITH, 1 5 5 - 6 0 .

74

Per altri contributi testuali, Β. ALEXANDERSON, Bemerkungen zu Galens Prorrhetikonkommentar, Eranos 60 (1962), 5 6 - 6 7 . SMITH, 156, n. 78, ritiene che il testo sia conservato integralmente, ma non vedo come un discorso proemiale potrebbe cominciare con ού μήν ούδέ, ed inoltre è solo il confronto con il commento al 'Prognostico' che rende per noi comprensibile questo frammento di proemio in cui manca la formulazione del tema in discussione. Fr. 262 VON STADEN; nelle poche righe superstiti è ripresa la tematica del commento al 'Prognostico' (supra). P. 3,20—27, in cui Galeno esplicita i due compiti che si prefigge di conseguire nell'esegesi di questo testo: aggiungere al testo commentato il διορισμός là dove esso manchi, e dimostrare che nonostante il χαρακτήρ della λέξις, molti degli aforismi che vi sono contenuti non sono καθόλου. Cfr. anche In Epid. III C M G V 10.2,1 pp. 63—4. Pp. 12,26; 16,17; 52,4; 71,29; 98,11; 108,21; 152,19; 155,7. 'Prorretico' sarebbe di uno dei due figli di Ippocrate, o di qualcun altro, e sarebbe un'opera incompiuta (p. 68,1): si tratta di ipotesi correnti nella discussione sul tema della autenticità e attribuzione degli scritti ippocratici. A p. 13,27 ss. la non autenticità è presupposta a causa del carattere solecistico della λέξις. Galeno nota che invece 'Mochlicon', che è uno scritto molto stringato, ma di Ippocrate, e soprattutto gli 'Aforismi', pur allontanandosi dalla più piana ερμηνεία ippocratica, non presentano nulla di άλλόκοτον. Pp. 9 , 1 2 - 1 0 , 1 7 e ancora 11,10; 45,2; 76,11; 84,13; 89,25; 95,13; 112,29; 126,20; 128,8; 137,15; 148,1; 172,8.

75

76

77

78 79

80

GALENO COMMENTATORE

DI

IPPOCRATE

1551

usando una terminologia imprecisa, una άσύμφωνος έρμηνεία e una άήθης σύνταξις ονομάτων che determinano ulteriori difficoltà di comprensione 8 1 . Continuamente nel commento ricorrono accuse all'autore, indicato come ό συγγράψας το Προρρητικόν τοϋτο, perché non sono chiari 8 2 né il genere a cui il testo appartiene, né la sua hermeneia né la sua dianoia; e parimenti non si possono accettare le interpretazioni che ne hanno dato i commentatori, i quali generalmente hanno creduto di dover giustificare il testo, senza possedere gli strumenti per giudicarlo (pp. 1 6 , 1 6 ; 9 9 , 1 7 ) , e hanno riempito i loro commentari di illeciti confronti con testi ippocratici autentici, ma non pertinenti 8 3 . I confronti che adduce Galeno servono invece a evidenziare la diversa qualità della scrittura e del vigore teorico che separa Ippocrate da questo imitatore (cfr. p. es. p. 9 2 , 2 ss.); va sottolineato che la polemica è rivolta non solo contro il testo ma anche, e più, contro i commentatori. Essi sono ζηλωταί πολυλόγοι (p. 1 6 , 9 ) 8 4 , inesperti del metodo e non esercitati nella dialettica e nell'arte della dimostrazione; piuttosto che interpreti, profeti (p. 1 3 4 , 1 ) in disaccordo tra di loro; a giudicare dalle diverse interpretazioni e dalle numerose diverse lezioni cui Galeno fa riferimento si ha l'impressione che alcuni degli aforismi di 'Prorretico', invero piuttosto oscuri, fossero loci classici per la discussione. Anche al di là di certe esagerazioni è chiaro che Galeno doveva aver notizia di più commentari (cfr. p. es. p. 1 5 0 , 1 πολλοί των γεγραφότων εις τό βιβλίον ύπομνήματα μετά του καί διενεχθήναι προς αλλήλους κτλ.); le lezioni dei manoscritti più antichi invece spesso gli devono essere note attraverso i commentatori precedenti (come è certamente il caso di p. 1 2 8 , 2 6 una lezione antica mediata da Quinto). Sono comunque poche le autorità citate per nome e non viene mai fatto il nome di Lieo, che, secondo SMITH, 1 5 5 - 6 , è il vero bersaglio polemico di questo commento, colui che avrebbe provocato in Galeno la tardiva consapevolezza della non autenticità 'forte' del 'Prorretico': Galeno avrebbe tolto il 'Prorretico' ad Ippocrate per togliere argomenti a Lieo. Visto però che Galeno non esita ad integrare la polemica contro Lieo in alcuni commentari che aveva composto prima di conoscerlo ('Aforismi', 'Epidemie' I, cfr. infra, p. 1 5 8 2 ) , e che dal commento ad 'Epidemie' III in avanti non si astiene dall'attaccarlo con veemenza, è difficile capire la sua reticenza in questo c a s o 8 5 .

81

82 83

84

85

Cfr. pp. 3 1 , 3 ; 1 2 1 , 2 4 ss.; e 1 0 8 , 1 0 ss. dove Galeno usa la espressione alternativa σύνθεσις ονομάτων che rimanda al titolo dello scritto di Dionigi di Alicarnasso. Vedi solo p. 5 1 , 6 εστι μεν ούκ ολίγον έν ολω τφ βιβλίω τό ασαφές. Nel commento ad Epid. III ( C M G V 1 0 . 2 , 1 p. 1 3 , 4 s . ) nel riferirsi al suo commento al 'Prorretico', che Galeno definisce un commento contro i commentatori, cita contestualmente anche cattivi commenti a ' C o a c . ' ; il riferimento a questo scritto ippocratico non compare in altri commentari. Come del resto πολυλογεί γαρ έμπειρικώς ( ό ) αύτό συνθείς μή δυνάμενος εις τό καθόλου λογικώς άναγαγεϊν τά θεωρήματα (ρ. 3 3 , 7 ) . Nel Commento ad Epidemie III ( C M G V 1 0 . 2 , 1 p. 6 2 s . ) Galeno giustifica la deviazione del suo primitivo progetto di commentare di seguito tutte le 'Epidemie', attribuendo il ' C o m m e n t o al Prorretico' alla solita richiesta pressante degli amici, sconcertati da alcune affermazioni che egli aveva fatto sulla non correttezza di alcune teorie in 'Prorretico' e in 'Prognosi di Cos'. Se dunque vogliamo credere a Galeno, dobbiamo ammettere che qualche idea sulla non correttezza di questo scritto già la avesse, ed il fatto che altrove citi

1552

DANIELA MANETTI -

AMNERIS ROSELO

Questo commento è stato preceduto dalla breve monografia 'De cornate' (CMG V 9.2, pp. 1 8 1 - 9 4 MEWALDT)86, u n o scritto in forma di 'problema' sul significato del termine κώμα in Ippocrate, che nella seconda parte altro non è che il commento, in forma più ampia, del primo lemma di 'Prorretico'. Galeno fa riferimento a questo breve scritto per tre volte nel ' C o m m e n t o al Prorretico', q u a n d o incontra la parola κώμα 8 7 ; in particolare a p. 106,5 spiega la genesi dello scritto, in contemporanea al commento di Prorrh. 11, con la volontà di fondare la sua ricerca del significato preciso del termine sul confronto con opere sicuramente autentiche. Questa motivazione sembra trovata a posteriori ma non sembra sufficiente per ipotizzare, come SMITH, 116, che quando scrisse 'De cornate' Galeno non dubitava ancora della autenticità del 'Prorretico'.

10. 'Epidemie' III 8 8 (XVII A 4 8 0 - 7 9 1 K.; C M G V 10 2.1 pp. 1 - 1 8 7 WENKEBACH)

Ancora un commento senza proemio che continua la serie dei commenti ad 'Epidemie' ed inizia con la esegesi del primo caso clinico. Ma dietro questa apparente continuità di temi e di metodo si apre subito un panorama del tutto nuovo; la prima parte del commento procede infatti molto lentamente e nonostante che Galeno rimandi a tutto quello che ha già detto in opere specifiche su singoli punti, nel primo libro riesce a fatica a commentare i primi tre casi clinici. Il fatto è che Galeno deve subito mettere a fuoco una serie di problemi di carattere generale: 1 ) prendere posizione rispetto ai commentatori precedenti — sostanzialmente Sabino e Lieo - avversari con cui si misura apertamente e direttamente (cfr. infra); 2) definire quali sono i problemi centrali che si debbono affrontare commentando un testo che abbia le caratteristiche di 'Epidemie', cioè casi clinici a catastasi (è la pars construens rispetto a quella precedente); 3) risolvere più in particolare il problema del quasi totale silenzio di Ippocrate sul ricorso alla flebotomia in questo trattato: un tema che evidentemente è determinato da una polemica, forse con gli erasistratei. C'è poi un certo spazio dedicato a più riprese ad un problema speciale di questo testo e cioè alla discussione di tutta la 'bibliografia' sul problema dei 'caratteri' che si trovano alla fine della singole storie cliniche. Il secondo libro del commentario galenico ha una sorta di proemio costituito da un excursus sulla sua attività di commentatore di testi ippocratici; non sembra inizialmente nulla di più di una bibliografia ma finisce con il dedicare

86

87 88

senza alcun sospetto alcuni aforismi tratti da questo testo è piuttosto normale; non è improbabile invece, che proprio nella fase di commento, lavorando sul testo e utilizzando le interpretazioni dei commentatori precedenti, abbia maturato un giudizio più severo su tutto lo scritto. H. SCHÖNE, Zu Galens Schrift περί του παρ' Ίπποκράτει κώματος, RhM 71 (1916), 3 8 8 405. E anche nel commento ad 'Epidemie III' CMG V 10.2,1 p. 36,6. SMITH, 1 6 2 - 3 ; ALEXANDERSON (1967), cit. a nota 34, 1 2 9 - 1 3 5 . Per contributi testuali, cfr. anche WIFSTRAND, Eikota VII (cit. a n. 23), 34 ss.

GALENO COMMENTATORE DI IPPOCRATE

1553

molto spazio al suo ' C o m m e n t o al Prorretico'; Galeno giustifica la ripresa del tema in polemica con i commentatori di quel testo, che cercano di interpretarlo appoggiandosi su 'Epidemie', per poi spiegare 'Epidemie' fondandosi sul 'Prorretico' senza accorgersi di cadere nel diallelo (vedi infra): Galeno torna anche in questo proemio a polemizzare con i cattivi commentatori (a cui aveva dedicato già la piccola monografia nella prima parte del commento, allo scopo diceva - di risolvere la questione una volta per sempre), che è il vero tema di questo commento (si veda ancora a pp. 1 0 1 - 4 ) . I problemi che Galeno affronta sono solo occasionalmente di tradizione e costituzione del testo; a parte lo spostamento di una sezione alla fine della catastasi (p. 158 ss.), il testo di 'Epidemie' III era ben costituito e doveva godere di una tradizione abbastanza salda; prevalgono invece problemi di portata generale: p. es. cosa sia, e come si debba interpretare, una storia clinica. La spiegazione dei casi clinici è sempre piuttosto breve e, dopo la catastasi, la seconda serie di casi viene trattata in m o d o stringatissimo, omettendo anche la citazione integrale del lemma.

11. 'Epidemie' V I 8 9 (XVII A 7 9 3 - 1 0 0 9 e XVII Β 1 - 3 4 4 Κ.; C M G V 10.2,2 p p . 3 - 5 0 8 WENKEBACH) 9 0

Secondo Galeno il testo di 'Epidemie' VI è particolarmente corrotto per effetto del lavoro dei commentatori che lo h a n n o variamente adattato per renderlo più 'comprensibile'; egli dunque premette alla esegesi dei singoli lemmi alcune considerazioni sullo stato della tradizione, sul metodo che devono usare i buoni commentatori che vogliano correggere il testo tramandato, sullo scopo e sulla ampiezza del commento (che in questi casi rischia di essere eccessiva), sulle caratteristiche letterarie di 'Epidemie' VI rispetto agli altri scritti dallo stesso titolo; non mancano tra queste considerazioni proemiali anche riflessioni sulla congruenza del titolo rispetto al contenuto dell'opera (pp. 3 - 6 ) . Ritorna qui la problematica che costituisce la sostanza del commento a 'Epidemie' II e non è casuale che, per dare un esempio di un intervento testuale metodologicamente corretto, Galeno riproponga il caso della correzione di Eraclide di ούραί in θύραι, che aveva tanto spazio nel commento ad Epid. II 2.20 ( C M G V 10.1 p. 2 3 0 ss.). La polemica contro i commentatori è molto aspra e frequente. Su questo testo si doveva naturalmente essere esercitata quella che sempre di più si caratterizza come una filologia 'sofistica' che inganna gli allievi e propone una paideia deformata: maestri e discepoli si appassionano ai testi più oscuri (p.es. p. 430, 26 ss.; il motivo era già presente fin dal commento a 'Epidemie' II ed al 'Prorretico').

89

90

SMITH, 1 6 3 - 6 6 ; BARDONG, 639, data questo commento al 189 ma vi sono due accenni all'incendio del tempio della Pace che devono essere posteriori al 192. Altri contributi testuali in ALEXANDERSON (1967), cit. a nota 34, 1 3 5 - 1 4 5 .

1554

DANIELA

MANETTI

-

AMNERIS

ROSELLI

Galeno, consapevole del fatto che la redazione finale di 'Epidemie' VI si deve a Tessalo, non ha difficoltà ad ammettere che vi si trovino anche elementi contraddittori rispetto alla dottrina autentica di Ippocrate, e comunque si vanta di mantenere una posizione non servile rispetto alla autorità ippocratica (p. 9 1 , 1 1 ) . Sono frequenti le osservazioni di carattere metodologico rispetto ai due poli di esperienza e ragionamento: l'impegno di Galeno dal punto di vista teorico è forte. Questo è il commento più ricco di erudizione, di testimonianze sugli interventi dei commentatori precedenti (talvolta sono riportate ampie citazioni) e di notizie sulle fonti di informazione di Galeno. Esso contiene anche una serie di ampie 'monografie' - sulle febbri (pp. 4 3 - 5 ) , su ψυχή (p. 2 7 2 s s . ) , su Lieo (pp. 2 8 6 — 88), sul modo di raffreddare l'acqua in Egitto, sugli acquedotti romani (pp. 2 0 9 — 1 2 ) e così via — elementi che nei precedenti commentari di Galeno già comparivano, ma più sporadicamente; molto frequenti sono anche i riferimenti autobiografici e in generale le informazioni sulle persone che Galeno ha conosciuto e sul suo metodo di lavorare: si possono cosi ricostruire molti tratti del mondo in cui Galeno vive, delle sue relazioni personali, dei suoi interessi filologici e filosofici 9 1 .

12. 'Natura d e l l ' u o m o ' 9 2 ( X V 1 - 2 2 3 K.; C M G V 9.1 pp. 3 - 1 1 3 MEWALDT)93 Il commento è aperto da una ampia sezione proemiale (pp. 3 - 1 1 ) in cui Galeno dichiara subito la stretta relazione che esso ha con la sua precedente opera 'Sugli elementi secondo Ippocrate'; Galeno giustifica la decisione di comporre un commentario con il desiderio di dare un'interpretazione dello scritto ippocratico nella sua completezza (p. 3) riservando ad un ulteriore saggio a parte la dimostrazione della coerenza della dottrina di 'Natura dell'uomo' con la dottrina che è attestata dalla restante produzione ippocratica (p. 10). Questo ultimo scritto, intitolato 'Sulla congruenza della dottrina di Natura dell'uomo con la dottrina attestata dagli altri scritti ippocratici', viene poi citato come già concluso alla fine del commento della sezione autentica (p. 5 6 , 3 ) , sarebbe dunque stato composto parallelamente al commento, ed allo scopo di alleggerirlo di materiali che sarebbero estranei ad esso. Già questi elementi sono sufficienti ad indicare la centralità dottrinale dello scritto ippocratico e l'impegno di Galeno nell'interpretarlo. Come al solito Galeno si sofferma sulla spiegazione del titolo, riportando una ampia citazione del 'Fedro' platonico sul metodo di indagare sulla φύσις dell'anima (Platone ricorre più volte in questo c o m m e n t o ) 9 4 , e poi menzio-

91

SMITH, 1 6 6 , parla addirittura di un abbassamento del livello esegetico di Galeno; quello che la tradizione araba ci ha conservato, e che i più seri copisti greci avevano omesso di riprodurre, sarebbe infatti solo di interesse storico ma non medico.

92

S M I T H , 1 6 6 ss.

93

Note testuali in ALEXANDERSON ( 1 9 7 0 ) , cit. a nota 4 2 , 6 1 s. P. 1 8 , 2 0 ; nella sezione finale del commento alla parte autentica, pp. 5 3 — 5 6 , e altrove.

94

G A L E N O C O M M E N T A T O R E DI IPPOCRATE

1555

nando gli scritti 'περί φύσεως' dei presocratici e di Epicuro e la definizione di στοιχεΐον di Aristotele (pp. 4 - 7 ) . Quindi imposta il problema, questa volta cruciale, dell'autenticità dello scritto, riservandosi la discussione di merito sui singoli punti in fase di commento. La base di discussione è data da una citazione testuale dallo scritto (galenico?) 'Sugli scritti autentici e spuri di Ippoc r a t e ' 9 5 nel quale sono distinte, dal punto di vista tematico, le diverse parti che costituiscono ' N a t u r a dell'uomo': c'è una sezione sugli elementi e gli umori che costituiscono il corpo (capp. 1 - 8 ) , una sezione sulle malattie sporadiche ed epidemiche (9—10), una sulle vene (11), una piuttosto varia sulle malattie (12 — 15) ed ancora una sulla dieta dei sani, divisa in varie sezioni (16—22), ed infine poche righe 9 6 sulle malattie del cervello (23). Dunque uno scritto composito (dirà più oltre, p. 89, che anche il titolo non è del tutto pertinente). La parte palesemente spuria è quella sulle vene, le prime due sono del tutto aderenti alla techne ippocratica, le sezioni finali sono eterogenee e meritano un discorso separato (dirà poi che la parte sulla dieta dei sani si attribuisce a Polibo). Chi contesta la autenticità di ' N a t . h o m . ' lo fa pretestuosamente, dice Galeno, perché non è in grado di confutare altrimenti il suo scritto, evidentemente famoso e apprezzato, 'Sugli elementi secondo Ippocrate' 9 7 ; Galeno si difende delimitando i confini tra parti autentiche e spurie e rivendicando la autenticità della prima sezione — che costituisce il fondamento (οίον κρηπϊδα p. 8,20) della techne ippocratica — e che in quanto tale era già nota a Platone. La autorità del giudizio di Platone (μηδένα ζητείτω Πλάτωνος άξιοπιστότερον μάρτυρα, ρ. 55,2), che fu contemporaneo dei discepoli di Ippocrate, e visse prima del fiorire della biblioteca di Alessandria (dove sarebbe nata la pratica della pseudepigrafia, vedi infra), mette al sicuro questa parte dello scritto da qualunque sospetto, come Galeno ribadisce nel quadro riassuntivo alla fine della sezione autentica (p. 53 ss.); si noti tra l'altro che Galeno adotta la stessa strategia esegetica già messa in opera nel commento a 'Regime nelle malattie acute' che consiste nel mettere a p u n t o alcune riflessioni di portata generale al momento di passare dal commento della sezione autentica a quello di una non autentica (vedi supra). Commentando i capitoli della prima parte Galeno è tutto teso a spiegare la λέξις di Ippocrate, il contesto culturale in cui Galeno presume che egli si muovesse, ed i punti fondamentali della sua dottrina con confronti con Empe95

96

97

Cfr. infra, p. 1566, n. 129; se la citazione di questo scritto arriva fino a p. 8,6 come mi pare probabile, e non a 8,18 come vuole MEWALDT, 114 SS., allora potrebbe aver ragione SMITH, 169, n. 85, a pensare che non si tratti necessariamente di uno scritto galenico. Dirà più avanti (p. 113) che i commentatori le hanno condannate ed in effetti non sono degne di Polibo, e a maggior ragione di Ippocrate; oggi sappiamo che esse appartengono a Malattie II, cap. 12 e che si tratta di un 'richiamo' che non è stato riconosciuto come tale dai commentatori antichi. Questo dimostra che in un qualche stadio della tradizione anteriore a Galeno 'Malattie' II iniziava con l'attuale cap. 12 ed era tramandato dopo 'Nat. hom.', cfr. J. JOUANNA, Remarques sur les réclames dans la tradition Hippocratique. Analyse archéologique du texte des manuscrits, Ktema 2 (1977), 389 ss. E compie dunque la stessa operazione che Galeno ha compiuto negando la autenticità del Prorretico'.

1556

DANIELA MANETTI -

AMNERIS

ROSELLI

dock e soprattutto Platone. Poche le discussioni di carattere testuale, p. 12,26 (Nat. h o m . 1 p. 1 6 4 , 7 JOUANNA) ένεόν/εν έόν, p. 1 3 , 1 9 ss. (Nat. hom. 1

p. 164,13 JOUANNA) omissione di οΰτε γήν nella edizione di Artemidoro, e p. 25,32 (Nat. hom. 3 p. 170,10 JOUANNA) ούδ' αν τα αύτά ήμϊν ξυντελοίτο 9 8 , e tutte su questioni assai importanti dal punto di vista della interpretazione generale. Il secondo libro del commento è preceduto da brevissime considerazioni sulla attribuzione delle varie parti dell'opera; la genesi del testo composito che la tradizione ha tramandato sarebbe riconducibile alla politica libraria dei Tolomei e degli Attalidi ed alla volontà di qualcuno di fornire alle biblioteche reali un libro di dimensioni più consistenti di quanto non lo fossero i singoli trattatelli che lo compongono: tra i due testi più antichi ed autentici ('Natura dell'uomo' in senso proprio, e 'Dieta dei sani'), sarebbero poi stati aggiunti ulteriori elementi estranei. La dubbia autenticità della prima parte del cap. 9 era già stata riconosciuta da Dioscoride che la segnava con un όβελός, e la attribuiva all'Ippocrate figlio di Tessalo; il commento puntuale di Galeno si limita a mettere in luce quanto è detto ού κυρίως (59,14; 60,30 ss.). Nel caso del capitolo sulle vene il commento (p. 68 ss.) si trasforma in una violenta polemica contro coloro che non hanno pratica di anatomia e pretendono di dirimere per iscritto, con complicate argomentazioni, questioni che un minimo di esperienza risolverebbe in maniera definitiva: la non autenticità è assolutamente evidente; la dottrina esposta qui va contro quella di 'Epidemie' II e di tutte le autorità anatomiche fino ad Eracliano ed anche contro Omero; il falsario è una sorta di nuovo Prometeo che si atteggia ad inventore di cose straordinarie (p. 73,10); è dunque assolutamente illecito attribuire questo testo a Polibo, che appartiene ali 'entourage ippocratico". Lo stesso problema si pone nella sezione seguente (capp. 1 2 - 1 5 ) in cui si trovano affermazioni confrontabili con gli 'Aforismi'; in alcuni casi le corrispondenze sono imprecise, in altri in palese contraddizione; Galeno fondamentalmente polemizza con Sabino che invano difende questo testo contro l'evidenza della migliore tradizione ippocratica e del 'Timeo' di Platone, e che, di fronte ad una contraddizione non grave, attribuisce il testo a Polibo; anche qui si tratta, secondo Galeno, di un falso da ricondurre ad un 'profeta di Alessandria', uno scellerato che ha tentato di diffamare Ippocrate (pp. 88,1 ss.). Del tutto pacifico il commento all'ultima sezione (che va sotto il nome di 'Il regime salutare'); in quanto si tratta di uno scritto autonomo, Galeno fa precedere al commento un breve proemio (p. 89); Galeno accoglie la attribuzione a Polibo sulla scorta della tradizione e procede nel commento lodando la precisione della dizione. 98

99

Uno dei pochi casi in cui Galeno lamenta il silenzio degli interpreti precedenti che hanno considerato il testo ώς σαφές; J. JOUANNA, in: Hippocrate: La nature de l'homme, C M G I 1.3, Berlin 1975, 253, sospetta che si tratti di una glossa. Come è noto l'attribuzione di questo capitolo a Polibo vanta ascendenza aristotelica (Hist. Anim. Ili 3 512 b 12 ss.): sarebbe un caso di semiautenticità.

GALENO

COMMENTATORE

DI

IPPOCRATE

1557

Il commento più ampio è dedicato alla parte autentica dello scritto ippocratico; esso è fitto di riferimenti alla filosofia presocratica e platonica ('Fedro'), e contiene un ampio excursus sulle fonti di informazione accessibili a Galeno su quella materia, con riflessioni sulle cause per cui vanno perduti gli scritti degli antichi (p. 14,25 ss.) 1 0 0 . Lo strumentario filologico viene impiegato con grande consapevolezza per difendere nella sua integrità almeno la parte iniziale di un testo che è fondamentale nella interpretazione galenica di Ippocrate. E forse il caso più evidente nella produzione galenica di commentario apologetico.

13. 'Arie, acque e luoghi' (ed. di un frammento in traduzione ebraica a cura di A. WASSERSTEIN in Proc. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, vol. 6,3, 1 9 8 2 ; ed. della traduzione araba integrale in preparazione a cura di G. STROHMAIER)101. I frammenti di tradizione ebraica non sono particolarmente rilevanti per giudicare dell'atteggiamento di Galeno rispetto a questo testo ippocratico, ci si deve quindi accontentare dei riferimenti ad 'Aer.' che si trovano nella restante produzione galenica 1 0 2 . Galeno qui prenderebbe le distanze da Ippocrate, pur considerando il testo autentico, ma accogliendo le scoperte della scienza ellenistica di cui si fa testimone e mediatore presso il pubblico degli uomini colti di R o m a 1 0 3 . Il commento ad 'Aer.' avrebbe insomma meno a che fare con la educazione specifica e strettamente tecnica dei medici e più con la cultura generale (nelle misura in cui le due cose si possano distinguere).

II. I commenti come strumento didattico e polemico

Nel proemio del 'Commento a Fratture' Galeno ha disegnato i limiti entro i quali intende attenersi nel commentare i testi ippocratici. Questo è uno dei 100

Cfr. anche p. 3 6 .

101

M . ULLMANN, Galens K o m m e n t a r zu der Schrift ' D e aere aquis locis', in: C o r p u s Hippoc r a t i c u m , Colloque de M ö n s 1 9 7 5 , M ö n s 1 9 7 7 , 3 5 3 — 6 5 . Cfr. inoltre S. N O J A , U n n u o v o anello nella trasmissione della cultura classica attraverso l'Islam: il manoscritto a r a b o del c o m m e n t a r i o di Galeno ai libri περί τόπων και αέρων και ύδάτων di Ippocrate, Schede Medievali 6 - 7 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , 4 8 - 5 1 ; G. J. TOOMER, Galen on the A s t r o n o m e r s and the Astrologers, A H E S 3 2 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , 1 9 3 - 2 0 6 ; J . JOUANNA, Remarques sur la tradition arabe du c o m mentaire de Galien a u x traités hippocratiques des Airs, E a u x , Lieux et du Serment, in Galeno: o b r a , p e n s a m i e n t o . . . (cit. a η. 1 5 ) , 2 3 5 — 2 5 1 .

102

Raccolti da WASSERSTEIN, 3 s.

103

G. STROHMAIER, Hellenistische Wissenschaft im neugefundenen G a l e n k o m m e n t a r zur hippokratischen Schrift „Über die U m w e l t " , in: J . K O L L E S C H - D . NICKEL (edd.), Galen und das Hellenistische Erbe, Sudhoffs Archiv Beih. 3 2 , Stuttgart 1 9 9 3 ,

157-64.

1558

DANIELA M A N E T T I -

A M N E R I S ROSELLI

passi più frequentemente citati o parafrasati nella bibliografia sui commentari galenici 104 , e tuttavia merita ancora di essere esaminato in dettaglio. Poiché la dynamis propria del commento è quella di rendere chiaro (σαφής) quanto è oscuro, esso non ha il compito di dare dimostrazione di ciò che negli scritti commentati vi sia di vero o di falso, né di difendere l'autorità commentata da eventuali accuse, anche ingiuste, che le siano state mosse. La precisazione ha senso se questa è, secondo la valutazione di Galeno, la pratica consueta dei commentatori. Abbiamo qui la testimonianza indiretta di una attività di commento a scopo o confutatorio o apologetico, e di commentatori che si misurano con il loro testo sul piano della verità della dottrina. Galeno propone un commento neutrale, destinato esclusivamente alla chiarificazione di quanto è oscuro; è un proposito che serve a collocare colui che se ne fa portatore in una posizione di autorevolezza, al di fuori della polemica. Del resto nei commenti a 'Fratture' ed 'Articolazioni', ma meno insistentemente in quelli successivi, viene ripetutamente detto che la hermeneia ippocratica è sufficientemente chiara da non aver bisogno di esegesi, e che basta leggere con attenzione il testo più volte, fino a che non si arrivi a comprenderne il significato (sempre che ci si sia assicurati che non vi siano corruzioni testuali) 1 0 5 ; dunque il commentatore si ritira e lascia parlare il testo 1 0 6 . Apparentemente un progetto di profilo basso; tuttavia esso risulta di fatto non realizzato fin dall'inizio; subito Galeno precisa che nulla impedisce di affrontare con misura anche la valutazione della veridicità del testo, pur di evitare l'eccesso di un atteggiamento agonistico e oltranzista. La possibilità di attenersi a questi propositi dipende dalla natura dei testi ippocratici con cui Galeno deve misurarsi. Il secondo punto riguarda la definizione di σαφής e di ασαφής 1 0 7 ; i due termini si definiscono in sé e in r e l a z i o n e al fruitore del testo antico: in particolare alla sua consuetudine con i testi degli antichi, alla sua preparazione scolastica e dialettica in generale e, nel caso specifico, alla sua conoscenza della anatomia. Il che ha come conseguenza immediata la definizione del destinata104

Si veda P. MANULI, LO stile del commento. Galeno e la tradizione ippocratica, in: F. LASSERRE-PH. MUDRY (edd.), Formes de pensée dans la Collection Hippocratique, Actes du IVe Colloque intern. Hippocratique, Lausanne 1981, Genève 1983, 4 7 1 — 82, e in: G . G I A N N A N T O N I - M . VEGETTI ( e d d . ) , L a s c i e n z a e l l e n i s t i c a , N a p o l i 1 9 8 4 , 3 7 5 - 9 4 .

Nella

sua analisi dei commenti la MANULI ha privilegiato le osservazioni di Galeno sulla oscurità del testo ippocratico che in quanto tale ha bisogno di un interprete; Galeno compirebbe attraverso i commentari un'operazione culturale tesa a costruirsi un lector gratiosus che corrisponde all'ideale del medicus gratiosus·, i commenti sarebbero in sostanza giustificati secondo un codice estetico. Una valutazione complessiva dell'attività esegetica di Galeno ora in I. SLUITER, The Embarassment of Imperfection: Galen's Assessment of Hippocrates' Linguistic Merits, in corso di stampa in: PH. J. VAN DER EIJK-H. F. J. HORSTMANHOFFP. H. SCHRIJVERS (ed.), Ancient Medicine in its Socio-cultural Context, Papers Read at the Congress Held at Leiden University, 1 3 - 1 5 April 1992, Leiden 1994. IOS In Fract. XVIII Β 321; In Art. XVIII A 5 5 8 , 7 - 1 1 . 106

107

Questo principio metodologico viene enunciato più volte, cfr. p.es. In Epid. II C M G V 10.1 p. 329,32. Galeno ripropone la distinzione formulata in un precedente scritto 'Sull'esegesi', per noi p e r d u t o ; gli e s e m p i c h e a d d u c e q u i c o m u n q u e s o n o t r a t t i d a

'Fratture'.

GALENO COMMENTATORE DI IPPOCRATE

1559

rio; e, poiché si tratta di commenti scritti, è necessario definire in anticipo il lettore a cui sono rivolti, diversamente da quanto avviene nella pratica del commento orale, nella scuola, in cui l'adeguamento all'uditorio è possibile in ogni momento. Destinati o no alla pubblicazione e ad una vasta circolazione, questi commenti presuppongono una lettura individuale, o anche mediata da un interprete, ma comunque una trasmissione lontana dal rapporto diretto con l'emittente. Galeno identifica un lettore di cultura media, eventualmente medioalta, che sappia già di anatomia ed abbia consuetudine con la λέξις degli antichi 1 0 8 . Il commento relativo alle prime battute del testo è poi occasione per classificare gli scritti ippocratici: vi sono scritti la cui hermeneia è δια των κεφαλαίων μόνων, altri κατά διέξοδον έρμηνεύονται, altri sono classificabili έν τφ μεταξύ (con ulteriori gradi intermedi). Galeno legittima tutti i tre tipi di hermeneia, negando che sia lecito stabilire delle norme (νομοθετεϊν) esterne rispetto allo scopo di ciascuno di essi. Per l'esemplificazione Galeno mette a confronto T r a c t . ' / ' A r t . ' e ' M o c h l i c o n ' 1 0 9 ; essi trattano la stessa materia ma la espongono con criteri e fini diversi, rispettivamente προς σαφήνειαν e εις μνήμην (XVIII Β 326-8). Ancora, fin dall'inizio (XVIII Β 322), Galeno dichiara di escludere programmaticamente (ma poi vi saranno eccezioni) i problemi della lingua ippocratica (ai quali ha già dedicato una monografia), pur essendo questo un tipo di indagine pertinente al commento, e così le questioni relative alla definizione precisa dei significati di alcune parole (p. es. del verbo άπορέγειν: l'esempio viene sempre da 'Fratture' 1), q u a n d o sia chiaro il loro senso generale; questo in vista di un commento che abbia per suo scopo l'utile (εις τα χρήσιμα, XVIII Β 338). Il commento di Galeno si presenta dunque con precisi tratti distintivi sia rispetto al trattato, in cui si d a n n o dimostrazioni e ci si misura con un autore antico, sia al commento letterario, che, secondo Galeno, sembra non avere come scopo l'utile 1 1 0 ; il commento ai testi medici ha finalità didattiche particolari, che non sono semplicemente documentarie (e sofistiche), e presume un atteggiamento di sovrana imparzialità nei confronti della autorità commentata. Le dichiarazioni proemiali vanno però misurate sui commenti stessi. Probabilmente non è solo per un artificio retorico che Galeno insiste sul fatto di scrivere commenti su richiesta di amici. In effetti nell'esporre i suoi commenti Galeno si presenta come un maestro che parla - e scrive — per un gruppo di allievi, o meglio per un gruppo di giovani έταίροι, una sorta di circolo platonico che gli ha chiesto la sua interpretazione di Ippocrate. Diversamente da 108 P. 335; cfr. anche In Art. XVIII A 303. 109 N e l 'Commento al Prorretico', CMG V 9.2 p. 13,29, 'Mochlicon' è dato come esempio di un testo che, pur essendo di hermeneia concisa, è tuttavia comprensibile. I trattati 'προς ύπόμνησιν' per eccellenza sono 'Epidemie' II e VI. 110 Cfr. In Epid. VI CMG V 10.2,2 p. 141,1 ss. εάν γέ τις μή, καθάπερ 'Ηροδότου και Κτησίου, μόνον ώς ίστορίαν άναγινώσκη τά βιβλία των παλαιών ιατρών, άλλ' ενεκα του πλέον τι εχειν εις τά της τέχνης εργα. 102

A N R W II 3 7 . 2

1560

DANIELA MANETTI -

AMNERIS ROSELLI

quanto avviene per gli altri trattati, dai più brevi alle opere più impegnative, nessun commento è dedicato ad un personaggio preciso, che sia citato per nome 1 1 1 ; solo nel caso del 'Commento ad Umori', che tuttavia non è conservato, sappiamo, per testimonianza di Galeno (In Epid. III C M G V 10.2,1 p. 61,11), che la composizione era stata molto rapida, perché Galeno voleva consegnare il suo testo ad un amico che glielo aveva richiesto e che doveva partire. In 'De libris propriis' (Scr. min. II pp. 1 1 1 - 1 1 4 ) Galeno dà della sua produzione una immagine articolata: afferma di aver scritto i suoi primi commenti per esercizio personale e di averne in seguito dati agli amici (φίλοι) che gliene avevano fatto richiesta, aggiungendo che li aveva scritti pensando alla εξις των λαβόντων; Galeno dice anche che successivamente egli ha scritto i suoi commenti προς κοινήν εκδοσιν. In una prima fase Galeno sarebbe stato convinto che i commenti ippocratici esistenti non fossero particolarmente cattivi (e del resto non aveva con sé materiale sufficiente per documentarsi sulle interpretazioni precedenti), finisce poi coll'impegnarsi in un programma di vasta portata che ha come compito finale quello di sostituire la sua interpretazione di Ippocrate a quella (o a quelle) esistenti, come risulta chiaro dal 'De ordine librorum suorum', cap. 3. Il commento scritto deriva comunque da un adattamento del commento orale, dalla pratica della lettura, guidata da un maestro, in circoli di έταίροι; i commenti di Galeno sono l'adattamento della άνάγνωσις εν ταϊς συνουσίαις, alla quale egli stesso ha partecipato presso i suoi maestri, o in circoli nei confronti dei quali più tardi dimostra scarsa simpatia (cfr. In Epid. III C M G V 10.2,1, p. 12,16 ss., dove rievoca interpretazioni di basso livello ascoltate ad Alessandria). Ai suoi allievi Galeno si rivolge sporadicamente nel corso del commento stesso, abbandonando lo stile impersonale del commentario; e spesso si sofferma a riflettere sui problemi dell'adeguamento al diverso strumento di comunicazione; bisogna essere più brevi 1 1 2 , sacrificare alcune parti, pensare ad un uditorio più generale; i destinatari, quando parla dei commenti dei suoi contemporanei, in genere cattivi, sono indicati per lo più come νέοι e μαθηταί, mentre φίλοι, εταίροι sono più usualmente i destinatari dei suoi commenti. Alcuni maestri non hanno scritto nulla, e Galeno riflette frequentemente su questa peculiarità dell'insegnamento solo orale, che vanta nobilissime tradizioni da Pitagora e dallo stesso Platone fino a Quinto (cfr. In Nat. hom. C M G V 9.1 p. 36,16 ss.). Galeno ha scelto, a quanto sostiene solo in seconda istanza, la via della scrittura, ed immagina che i suoi commentari siano destinati sia alla lettura privata sia alla lettura nelle scuole, sotto la guida di un maestro che in alcuni casi può farsi mediatore della parola scritta. La εξις del lettore diventa un elemento stocastico 1 1 3 , e il commentario il luogo di un difficile equilibrio 111

112

113

E in genere è solo nel corso dei commenti che Galeno fa riferimento alle richieste degli amici che avrebbero motivato la composizione degli stessi. P. es. In Epid. VI CMG V 10.2,2 p. 322, ribadisce che nel commento non si devono dare dimostrazioni; ma gli esempi sono innumerevoli; quello della brevità è addirittura un topos. In Epid. I CMG V 10.1 p. 45,22 στοχαζόμενος οϋτε μόνων των εσχάτως άμαθων οϋτε μόνων των ϊκανήν έχόντων την παρασκευήν.

GALENO

COMMENTATORE

DI

IPPOCRATE

1561

tra esigenze contraddittore: spiegare tutto quello che può risultare oscuro ad un lettore che non è individuato con precisione, senza tuttavia eccedere in ampiezza; da un certo punto in avanti, rendere conto delle interpretazioni correnti, per restituire la verità, ma anche per non dare l'impressione di voler sottrarsi al confronto con gli altri interpreti. Si tratta di contemperare le esigenze di un commentario continuo, e neutrale, come Galeno si propone di fare nel proemio del 'Commento a Fratture', con le urgenze della polemica, che in alcuni di essi diventano preponderanti, e soprattutto con la necessità di fornire interpretazioni di carattere generale sulla dottrina ippocratica che sono imprescindibili per comprendere il dettato di singoli testi. Un passo del 'Commento al Prognostico' (CMG V 9.2 p. 3 2 8 , 4 - 2 2 ) può illustrare bene l'intreccio di tutti questi problemi e la strategia argomentativa di Galeno: „Avete due trattati — lo dico per voi compagni (έταΐροι) che mi avete indotto a scrivere interpretazioni degli scritti ippocratici, come non era nei miei propositi — nei quali ho detto tutto 'Sui giorni critici' e 'Sulle crisi', e sapete che neppure quelli li ho scritti per la pubblicazione, ma perché restassero solo presso di voi; ma poi è accaduto che uscissero e finissero nelle mani di molti, come anche molti altri dei miei 1 1 4 scritti. Per questo motivo non mi ero proposto di commentare nessuno degli scritti ippocratici; infatti tutte le cose utili per la techne (είς την τέχνην χρήσιμα) che si devono apprendere da Ippocrate le ho scritte in molti trattati, fornendo contemporaneamente le opportune esegesi. Ma poiché alcune delle λέξεις che sono dette in maniera piuttosto oscura (άσαφέστερον εΐρημέναι) sono state interpretate male (μοχθηράς έξηγήσεως ετυχον), e voi non eravate soddisfatti di nessuno di coloro che hanno scritto commentari, ma ritenevate che io avevo saputo cogliere meglio di loro la opinione di Ippocrate, per questo motivo mi avete chiesto di darvi anche per iscritto (και δια γραμμάτων) le spiegazioni che avevate ascoltato έν ταΐς διά λόγων συνουσίαις. E vi ho già detto che sarà necessario che le spiegazioni siano di ampiezza diversa, poiché io non spiego tutte le λέξεις allo stesso modo, ma alcune più estesamente, se non ne ho fatto mai menzione negli altri miei scritti, altre per sommi capi, se ne ho già trattato compiutamente, per non dover scrivere più volte sulla stessa materia." Il criterio di misura più volte proclamato è quello del χρήσιμον, marginale nel proemio del 'Commento a Fratture', ma solo perché è dato per scontato. La definizione di χρήσιμον merita attenzione: trattandosi di commentari a testi tecnici, utile per il lettore è quanto serve ad acquisire conoscenza dei θεωρήματα dell'autore commentato, e quello che serve a mettere in pratica la dottrina. Come si può arguire dal passo appena citato, neppure i testi ippocratici nella loro interezza sono utili per la techne·, e quando arriva a commentare 'Epidemie' VI Galeno lamenta la inopportuna scelta di Tessalo che ha pubblicato con 114

102*

Adotto la correzione ήμϊν degli editori, riproposta da ALEXANDERSON (1968) cit. a nota 24,51, invece di ύμΐν.

1562

DANIELA MANETTI -

A M N E R I S ROSELLI

eccessiva larghezza gli appunti di Ippocrate, senza selezionare ciò che non aveva nessuna utilità (e si presume che Ippocrate stesso non avrebbe poi pubblicato). Questo esclude programmaticamente dal commento medico e da ogni commento tecnico (si tratti di opere di filosofia, geometria, aritmetica, musica, astronomia cfr. In Fract. XVIII Β 518) l'interesse per le questioni linguistiche (dialettali), grammaticali, sintattiche, per le questioni di etimologia 115 e di precisione terminologia, per la erudizione di tipo storico, che sono tutti elementi che entrano di diritto nei commentari, ma che secondo Galeno sono più adatte ai commentari ad opere letterarie (In Epid. VI CMG V 10.2,2 p. 141 s.) ed appesantiscono, o talvolta stravolgono, il vero senso dei commentari ippocratici. Galeno ritiene che le questioni di terminologia abbassino il livello del commento medico (ibid. p. 167,18) e non tengano conto del fatto che la precisione terminologica (che definisce μικρολογία, λεπτουργία) ed il rigore nella scelta dei termini non erano problemi di cui si occupasse Ippocrate (In Epid. CMG V 10.1 p. 111,21 ss.), o in generale gli antichi, con la sola eccezione di Prodico, che per questo viene ripetutamente criticato da Platone (In Art. XVIII A 685 — 686) 1 1 6 ; il modello di Platone è dominante: da una parte Platone è antico quasi quanto Ippocrate e costituisce un termine di confronto per la comprensione delle intenzioni e della prassi espositiva di Ippocrate, dall'altra fornisce a Galeno parametri esegetici. Fondamentale è poi la distinzione tra sapere tecnico e sapere storico, e naturalmente Galeno tende ad escludere il secondo, cfr. In Epid. III (CMG V 10.2,1 p. 78,20ss.): „Sapere queste cose (sui 'caratteri') serve per la conoscenza storica, che invero non ha molto a che spartire con la conoscenza tecnica, ma molti. pensano che coloro che sono πολυΐστορες e πολυμνήμονες siano anche esperti nei theoremata della techne" e In Epid. VI (CMG V 10.2,2 p. 177,14): „qui non si fanno ιστορικά ζητήματα (per esempio su quale Erodico sia citato da Ippocrate), che hanno del resto una sede deputata" 1 1 7 . Più grave della intrusione di queste tematiche tra quelle pertinenti al commentario medico — esse si riscontrano infatti anche in Galeno e spesso occupano molto spazio — è la sostituzione di un commentario concentrato su questi problemi al commento medico: esso è destinato ai giovani che devono intraprendere la attività medica (In Off. XVIII Β 894,13; In Epid. VI CMG V 10.2,2 p. 105,2); se viene meno al suo scopo dichiarato cade nella categoria del commento sofistico (ibid. p. 335,19). Certi commentatori sono indicati come oi έν

116

117

In Art. XVIII A 395,3. Nel commento ad O f f i c i n a ' Galeno rileva che se si commettono errori nell'interpretazione di una parola non c'è danno per chi impara la techne medica (XVIII Β 891) perché il commento non serve ad insegnare ai giovani ad άττικίζειν ma a conoscere le cose più utili della techne medica (p. 894). Per la critica della historia vedi W. J. SLATER, Asklepiades and Historia, GRBS 13 (1972), 317-33.

G A L E N O C O M M E N T A T O R E DI IPPOCRATE

1563

Ά λ ε ξ α ν δ ρ ε ί α σοφιστεύσαντες (ibid. p. 10,11, cfr. anche I n E p i d . II C M G V 10.1 p. 400,5; In Epid. III C M G V 10.2,1 pp. 70,11 e 78,13), mentre, per contrasto, nel ' C o m m e n t o a Natura dell'uomo' C M G V 9.1 p. 88,1, si rileva che Polibo non è un 'profeta di Alessandria' ma uno che ha frequentato Ippocrate 1 1 8 . Galeno ripete spesso che quello che interessa è l'opinione di Ippocrate, non quella degli interpreti; ciò comporta il rifiuto di interpretare ad ogni costo passi troppo oscuri poiché dalla discussione di passi enigmatici non viene al lettore nessuna utilità (In Epid. VI C M G V 10.2,2 p. 406,29 ss. cfr. anche In Epid. I C M G V 10.1 pp. 99,27); ancora, nel ' C o m m e n t o ad Epidemie VI' C M G V 10.2,2 p. 413,25 ss., Galeno aggiunge che un concetto errato di paideia impone che si perda tempo ad apprendere cose di nessuna utilità; e ancora, che i maestri 'sofisti' scelgono per i giovani la spiegazione di libri oscuri, e ritengono che proprio per la difficoltà dei testi che interpretano meritano di essere pagati; e che i giovani da parte loro si abituano a tenere in maggior considerazione i testi più oscuri (ibid. p. 4 3 0 , 2 6 s s . ) 1 1 9 . L'attività di questi esegeti è una sorta di critica oracolare, paragonata alla attività dei μάντεις e dei προφήται, cfr. In Epid. III C M G V 10.2,1 p. 28,28 oi σοφισταί δέ και διά τήν τοιαύτην έ ξ ή γ η σ ι ν ώς προφήταί τίνες ύπό των μαθητών θαυμάζονται; In Epid. VI C M G V 10.2,2 p. 166,24 θαυμάζω των εξηγητών τάς μέν αίνιγματώδεις ρήσεις ... μόνων (lege μόνον) έπαγγελλομένων νοεΐν, e Galeno ovviamente la rifiuta. L'altro strumento di cui Galeno si serve per dare una dimensione accettabile ai singoli commentari continui, e svolgere con completezza il suo compito di maestro, è quello di far riferimento alle sue opere 'ippocratiche' specifiche che trattano le questioni in generale e che sono esse stesse esegesi ippocratica, ai suoi precedenti commentari e alle sue πραγματείαι. Galeno costruisce così una rete di rimandi incrociati che da una parte evita la pratica, criticata in In Off. XVIII Β 847, di rifondere gli stessi materiali in commentari diversi, dall'altra produce un corpus variamente articolato, ma molto compatto, che risulta di fatto, nonostante le frequenti recusationes, un progetto di interpretazione integrale di Ippocrate. Galeno dunque presenta i suoi commentari come uno strumento di paideia, con cui combattere contro la ignoranza, la malafede e la pratica di ingannare i giovani che sembra molto diffusa nelle scuole. Gli strumenti di cui si serve sono quelli che gli forniscono la dialettica ed una corretta tecnica filolo1,8

119

Galeno usa il termine προφήτης negli stessi contesti in cui usa il termine σοφιστής e con un chiaro tono spregiativo. Sembra tuttavia che προφήτης designasse anche il grammatico in quanto interprete dei testi, senza nessuna connotazione negativa; si vedano la testimonianza di Sext. Emp. Adv. math. I 2 7 9 ή προφήτις γραμματική e le osservazioni di F. DECLEVA CAIZZI, Sesto e gli scettici, Elenchos 13 (1992), 3 2 3 ss. Questo già in In Aph. XVIII A 184, dove si insinua che probabilmente coloro che hanno interpolato gli 'Aforismi' lo hanno fatto per complicare le cose ed apparire poi come straordinari interpreti che risolvono complicati enigmi e così sono apprezzati dai giovani; i 'sofisti' in questi casi possono risolvere i problemi aggiungendo, togliendo, cambiando (tipologia degli interventi), cosa che del resto sono soliti fare con i testi non chiari (ibid. pp. 1 8 6 - 7 ) , cfr. anche In Prorrh. C M G V 9.1 p. 99,11 ss.

1564

DANIELA MANETTI -

AMNERIS ROSELLI

gica. Possedere le tecniche della dialettica è la condizione implicita, e qualche volta anche dichiarata esplicitamente, per comprendere ed analizzare qualsiasi testo, e più ampiamente, ogni problema, come risulta evidente p.es. dal secondo libro del 'De Placitis' e dai rimandi, frequenti nei commenti, al suo trattato 'Sulla dimostrazione' 120 - e questo è probabilmente un tratto caratteristico della esposizione galenica 121 — ; qui ci soffermeremo piuttosto a tratteggiare le linee di quella che secondo Galeno è una corretta filologia 122 . Essa richiede in primo luogo la conoscenza della dottrina dell'autore che si deve commentare (sia esso Ippocrate o Erofilo 123 , o Platone) 124 - Galeno del resto si accinge a commentare Ippocrate quando ha già scritto molte delle sue monografie di argomento ippocratico —, e della sua kermeneia, vale a dire del suo stile scientifico. Per questo per Galeno è importante definire in prima istanza le forme letterarie a cui i singoli trattati ippocratici appartengono: uno scritto in forma di aforismi avrà infatti presupposti ed intenti del tutto diversi da una esposizione dettagliata e dovrà essere interpretato conseguentemente; la consapevolezza delle diverse forme letterarie cui appartengono gli scritti ippocratici fornisce un critero valido anche per la applicazione di un principio esegetico ovviamente ormai ben saldo nella pratica della interpretazione come quello di spiegare Ippocrate con Ippocrate 125 (vedi anche infra). 120

121

122

123 124

125

Cfr. SMITH, 73: "for Galen logic, philosophy, and scientific method became one with Hippocrates and Hippocratic method". II tessuto connettivo di tutti i commentari è costituito proprio dalla analisi del testo ippocratico fondata sulle tecniche della dialettica; ma il commento che più risente di questo tipo di indagine è il commento al 'Prorretico', proprio in quanto esso è totalmente privo dei necessari diorismoi, che Galeno nel proemio si propone di reintegrare (p. 3,22 ss.); la mancanza di diorismoi e la grande frequenza di solecismi sono anzi il sintomo di un livello di educazione molto bassa, e dunque la spia del fatto che l'opera non ha nulla a che fare con Ippocrate ma è il prodotto, di basso livello, di chi non ha colto l'aspetto più importante della dottrina ippocratica; e naturalmente questo testo piace a certi commentatori e ai loro allievi (άγύμναστος ... ών ό λογισμός αύτών, ρ. 99,16). Su questo tema si vedano i due fondamentali lavori di L. O. BRÖCKER, Die Methoden Galens in der literarischen Kritik, R h M 40 (1885), 4 1 5 - 4 3 8 , e I. ν. MÜLLER, Galen als Philologe, Verhandlungen der 41. Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner, München 1891, 8 0 - 9 1 . Cfr. inoltre J. A. LÓPEZ FEREZ, Galen, lector y crítico de manuscritos, in: Tradizione e ecdotica dei testi medici tardoantichi e bizantini, Atti del Convegno internazionale Anacapri 2 9 - 3 1 ottobre 1990, Napoli 1992, 1 9 7 - 2 0 9 ; A. DEBRU, Galien commentateur d'Hippocrate: le canon hippocratique, in Hippocrate et son héritage, Colloque Franco-Hellénique d'Histoire de la médecine, Fondation Marcel Mérieux, Lyon 2 - 1 2 octobre 1985, Lyon [1987], 5 1 - 5 6 . Cfr. Dign. pulsuum VIII p. 954 K. = Τ 39 VON STADEN. Sono ricorrenti gli attacchi a coloro che si mettono a commentare Ippocrate senza conoscere prima tutta la sua dottrina, cfr. p. es. In Aph. XVII Β 755. II principio di spiegare Ippocrate con Ippocrate, esemplato su quello di spiegare Omero con Omero, è presupposto e teorizzato in maniera chiara nelle due opere sul polso; in Diff. pulsuum Vili 715,11 ss. K. Galeno osserva che alla mancanza di precisione (χωρίς όρων) della λέξις degli autori antichi si supplisce attraverso la conoscenza di tutto il contesto o di tutta la loro produzione; ed esemplifica con il caso del termine omerico πίσυρες di Ψ 171: in quel verso non è chiaro qual è il suo significato, ma poiché esso ritorna in χ 110 s. dove si parla di quattro eroi che si armano e prendono πίσυρας κυνέας, è evidente

G A L E N O C O M M E N T A T O R E DI IPPOCRATE

1565

Il commentatore dovrà cercare di conoscere e conservare il testo degli autori antichi senza modificazioni: da qui scaturiscono sia la ricerca di testimoni antichi, di fatto i commenti antichi, che Galeno dichiara di aver curato soprattutto nel caso di testi che gli parevano particolarmente corrotti, sia la conseguente polemica contro le innovazioni presenti nelle edizioni e nei commenti dei νεώτεροι (vedi infra). Su questa tematica Galeno riflette nel 'Commento ad Epidemie VI', C M G V 10.2,2 p. 2 8 9 , 3 1 ss., contrapponendo la situazione del testo di 'Epidemie' VI a quella dei testi di 'Fratture', 'Articolazioni' e 'Prognostico', che invece non risultavano particolarmente corrotti o interpolati, e per la prima volta nel proemio del ' C o m m e n t o ad Officina del medico', che segna il punto di svolta verso la pratica di un commento più documentato sulla tradizione testuale e sulle interpretazioni precedenti. Galeno ha un atteggiamento conservatore 1 2 6 : dichiara che è preferibile conservare un testo anche poco comprensibile piuttosto che cambiarlo (CMG V 10.2,2 p. 121,17ss.), di attenersi sempre alla regola di cercare di spiegare il testo antico, che i cambiamenti devono essere di piccola entità e che l'origine delle corruttele deve avere una qualche verosimiglianza paleografica (si veda per tutti il caso della correzioni ούραί/θύραι, infra, p. 1597 s.); ha un repertorio ben definito di cause per cui si c o r r o m p o n o i testi antichi (p. es. In Off. XVIII Β 778 s.; In Epid. VI C M G V 10.2,2 p. 113,19 aplografia; ibid. 184,16 metacharakterismos) e in pratica si limita a pochi suggerimenti di correzione del testo. Si ha l'impressione che le molte discussioni di varianti che si trovano soprattutto nei commentari più recenti dipendano in gran parte dalla necessità di prendere posizione nei confronti delle proposte degli altri commentatori. Ed infine un buon commentatore non dovrà essere schiavo, né liberto, degli antichi (In Epid. VI C M G V 10.2,2 p. 91,11): Galeno rivendica di fatto la libertà di giudicare i testi degli antichi, ammettendo che essi contengano errori di dottrina e che spesso siano superati. Ma la prima conseguenza di questo principio si manifesta nel riconoscere la non autenticità di parte degli scritti tramandati come ippocratici, e dunque in una riduzione del corpus dell'Ippocrate autentico.

che la parola significa quattro, e sulla base di questo confronto lo spiegano (σαφηνίζουσι) tutti i grammatici antichi (in realtà negli scoli omerici a questi due versi non c'è traccia di questo confronto). In Dign. pulsuum Vili 9 5 8 , 6 K. più esplicitamente Galeno parla di un suo νόμος έξηγήσεως, che consiste in εκαστον των ανδρών έξ έαυτοϋ σαφηνίζεσθαι και μή καιναις (κεναϊς KÜHN) ύπονοίαις και φάσεσιν άναποδείκτοις άποληρείν ότι τις βούλεται che mette in guardia dai vaniloqui degli interpreti che si fondano su supposizioni peregrine e discorsi non dimostrati. Questo testo è stato stralciato negli 'Scholia' editi da P. MORAUX, Unbekannte Galen-Scholien, ZPE 2 7 (1977), 1 - 6 3 , cfr. III, 1 6 8 - 7 1 , p. 4 7 s . (ma non è stato identificato da MORAUX che pensa si tratti di un principio metodologico dello scoliasta, p. 6). Alla nota a p. 5 7 MORAUX discute i recenti contributi critici sull'origine della formula Ό μ η ρ ο ν έξ 'Ομήρου σαφηνίζειν). Oltre alla biliografia citata da MORAUX vedi anche C. SCHÄUBLIN, Homerum ex Homero, Μ Η 34 (1977), 2 2 1 - 2 7 , che menziona (p. 2 2 2 n. 5a) Galeno, 'De cómate', C M G V 9,2 p. 182,23 ss. 126 p e r u n a tipologia dei criteri di valutazione delle varianti e delle regole per la restituzione del testo vedi BRÖCKER, cit., 4 1 7 ss.

1566

DANIELA MANETTI

-

AMNERIS

ROSELO

È vero che nei commenti Galeno non si pone mai direttamente il problema della autenticità degli scritti ippocratici 1 2 7 , la sua decisione di commentare i testi più autentici (γνησιώτατα) 1 2 8 di Ippocrate si fonda sulla già avvenuta e sedimentata distinzione tra testi autentici e n o n 1 2 9 . L'interesse primo dei commenti non è quello di stabilire un canone delle opere autentiche ippocratiche, ma quello di interpretare correttamente l'Ippocrate autentico. Ciò nonostante in molti di essi il problema dell'autenticità ha grande rilevanza, e a molti livelli. E macroscopico il caso del commento al 'Prorretico': commentando il 'Prorretico', che giudica non autentico, Galeno introduce un evidente elemento estraneo e contraddittorio rispetto al suo progetto, cosicché una serie di osservazioni relative ai criteri che definiscono l'autenticità diventa la struttura portante del commento stesso; ma anche opere come 'Regime nelle malattie acute' e 'Natura

127

Un r e s o c o n t o sulla classificazione degli scritti ippocratici che s o n o considerati n o n autentici è c o n s e r v a t o nello scritto g a l e n i c o ' D e septimestri p a r t u ' , ed. R . WALZER, G a l e n s Schrift ' Ü b e r die S i e b e n m o n a t s k i n d e r ' , Rivista degli studi orientali 1 5 ( 1 9 3 5 ) ,

323-357;

1 6 ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 2 2 7 ; H . SCHÖNE, G a l e n o s ' Schrift über die S i e b e n m o n a t s k i n d e r , Q u e l l e n und Studien zur G e s c h i c h t e der N a t u r w i s s . und M e d i z i n 3/4 ( 1 9 3 8 ) , 1 2 0 - 1 3 8 ; altre osservazioni o c c a s i o n a l i su singoli scritti s o n o sparse in varie opere galeniche, nei c o m m e n t i , m a a n c h e altrove, p . e s . A l i m . fac. (cfr. supra n. 5 3 ) ; nel c o m m e n t o In Epid. II C M G V 1 0 . 1 p. 3 1 0 , 4 1 , G a l e n o fa riferimento a „ c o l o r o che h a n n o distinto i libri autentici di I p p o c r a t e da quelli n o n a u t e n t i c i " . 128

C o s ì nel c o m m e n t o ad Epidemie III C M G V 1 0 . 2 , 1 p. 6 0 ; si noti che in questo c o n t e s t o a c c a n t o a γ ν η σ ι ώ τ α τ α c o m p a r e a n c h e χ ρ η σ ι μ ώ τ α τ α ; (per il superlativo cfr. D i o n . H a l . , Lys. 1 2 , c h e a f f e r m a di aver s o t t o p o s t o ad e s a m e ( ύ π ο π τ ε ύ σ α ς τ ε και β α σ α ν ί σ α ς ) alcuni dei λ ό γ ο ι di Lisia che s o n o ritenuti πάνυ γ ν ή σ ι ο ι , e di averli trovati spuri. In ' D e ordine l i b r o r u m s u o r u m ' (Scr. m i n . II 8 6 , 1 9 ) G a l e n o dice invece di aver c o m m e n t a t o i κυριώτατα.

129

Sulla autenticità degli scritti ippocratici cfr. H . GOSSEN, R E V i l i , 2 ( 1 9 1 3 ) , 1 8 0 7 - 9 ;

L.

EDELSTEIN, R E Suppl. V I ( 1 9 3 5 ) , 1 3 0 8 , 1 3 1 3 ss. J . MEWALDT, G a l e n o s über echte und unechte H i p p o c r a t i c a , H e r m e s 4 4 ( 1 9 0 9 ) , 1 1 1 - 1 3 4 ha f o n d a t o parte delle sue a r g o m e n t a zioni per la ricostruzione di u n o scritto g a l e n i c o sull'autenticità delle opere i p p o c r a t i c h e sulla notizia fornita dal c o m m e n t o ad ' U m o r i ' , oggi r i c o n o s c i u t o non autentico; se u n o scritto di q u e s t o genere fu mai c o m p o s t o da G a l e n o (SMITH, 1 6 9 e n. 8 5 ha a v a n z a t o seri dubbi) esso aveva, s e c o n d o MEWALDT, le seguenti caratteristiche: n o n c o n t e n e v a ricerca personale di G a l e n o m a si f o n d a v a su materiali che, attraverso Erofilei ed Empirici, e r a n o arrivati fino a Q u i n t o ; più in generale, s e c o n d o MEWALDT, la critica di autenticità degli scritti ippocratici è figlia della critica o m e r i c a , e c o m e a c c a d e in quella, u n o dei suoi primi risultati sta nella individuazione di strati recenti e strati più antichi nella letteratura i p p o c r a t i c a . S e c o n d o SMITH, 1 4 4 , il p r o b l e m a dell'autenticità degli scritti ippocratici è recente, poiché n o n ce n ' è a n c o r a traccia in Celso 4 . 2 3 . 3 , che a c c e t t a c o m e t r a n q u i l l a m e n t e i p p o c r a t i c o un p a s s o di ' A c u t . ( S p . ) ' - un a r g o m e n t o c h e mi pare m o l t o debole -

mentre

il p r i m o testimone dell'esistenza del p r o b l e m a è E r o t i a n o , il quale a n n u n c i a nel suo proem i o (p. 9 , 8 NACHMANSON) di voler scrivere a parte q u a l c o s a sulla non autenticità del ' P r o r r e t i c o ' II; si noti a n c h e che E r o t i a n o termina la sua prefazione, c o n una lista di scritti che s o n o β ε β α ί ω ς (p. 9 , 2 2 ) di I p p o c r a t e . L'interesse di G a l e n o per il p r o b l e m a della autenticità degli scritti ippocratici d a t e r e b b e al 1 7 5 : ' D i f f . r e s p . ' s a r e b b e l ' o p e r a c h e per prima t e s t i m o n i a il suo m u t a t o a t t e g g i a m e n t o , SMITH, 1 1 9 . Sulla critica di autenticità delle opere i p p o c r a t i c h e vedi la sintesi di W . SPEYER, D i e Literarische F ä l s c h u n g im Heidnischen und Christlichen Altertum, H d b . d. Altertumswiss., M ü n c h e n 1 9 7 1 , 1 2 0 , e n a t u r a l m e n t e tutta la prima parte del l a v o r o per il p r o b l e m a in generale.

GALENO COMMENTATORE

DI I P P O C R A T E

1567

dell'uomo' hanno, accanto ad un nucleo certamente autentico, delle sezioni spurie, che ne costituiscono la parte finale, anzi 'Natura dell'uomo' risulta dal conglomerato di più parti eterogenee, che ovviamente pongono al commentatore problemi speciali; ed infine, opere del tipo degli 'Aforismi', o come 'Officina del medico' ed 'Epidemie' VI (ma anche 'Epidemie' III), hanno offerto un terreno particolarmente fertile per interpolazioni occasionali e sparse, anche se più frequenti nella parte finale delle singole opere. Le indicazioni sui criteri su cui Galeno fonda il suo giudizio di autenticità, e sulle cause a cui egli attribuisce la diffusione di opere (o di parti di opere) spurie, si devono ricavare da osservazioni sparse nei commenti. Si deve tuttavia tenere presente che: 1) quanto Galeno racconta nel 'De libris propriis' a proposito di falsi galenici, e dunque i processi di falsificazione correnti ai suoi tempi e legati alla modalità della diffusione libraria, possono avergli fornito un modello per spiegare analoghi procedimenti più antichi e che 2) comunque la critica di autenticità dei testi ippocratici è al tempo di Galeno ormai pratica assolutamente salda e ben costituita, in quanto è già avvenuta la sistemazione del corpus platonico e di quello aristotelico. Anche al di fuori dell'ambito della critica omerica, confronti con testi cronologicamente più prossimi a Galeno possono essere fatti con gli studi di Dionigi di Alicarnasso sul testo degli oratori (vedi in particolare il 'De Dinarcho') e quelli delle scuole filosofiche (si vedano Zenone Sidonio per la scuola epicurea e Filodemo come testimone di quanto avviene nella scuola stoica). Meno possiamo dire sui criteri utilizzati da Erofilei ed Empirici a cui faceva riferimento MEWALDT (cf. supra, η. 129). Galeno utilizza criteri a) storico-linguistici: Ippocrate non può aver scritto certi testi perché il lessico è troppo recente (p. es. In Nat. hom. C M G V 9.1 p. 8 3 , 2 7 ) ; b) di coerenza dottrinale 1 3 0 o stilistica (p. es. In Epid. II C M G V 10.1 p. 3 1 0 , 3 1 ; lo stile συγκεχυμένος di In Prorrh. C M G V 9.2 p. 8 4 , 1 1 ) ; c) di tradizione, cioè le notizie su biblioteche e cataloghi 1 3 1 e il giudizio degli antic h i 1 3 2 . Certi testi passavano per particolarmente immuni da corruttele (i tragici,

no N e [ commento a Nat. hom. C M G V 9.2 p. 5 6 , 4 , come nel De libris propriis (Scr. min. II, 1 1 3 ) , Galeno riferisce di un suo scritto in tre libri dal titolo δτι και κατά τάλλα συγγράμματα τήν αύτήν δόξαν ό 'Ιπποκράτης εχων φαίνεται τη κατά τό περί φύσεως ανθρώπου: il titolo stesso contiene una indicazione metodologica. 131

132

In In Art. XVIII A 3 7 9 osserva che il trattato 'Sulle ghiandole' ('περί αδένων ούλομελίης'), che va sotto il nome di Ippocrate, è stato scritto da ippocratici più recenti, perché non ha la dizione né l'aspetto delle opere genuine di Ippocrate e non è noto agli autori dei πίνακες; dunque un criterio esterno, e uno interno. La parte autentica di 'Nat. hom.' era già nota a Platone (cfr. In Nat. hom. C M G V 9 . 2 p. 8,31 e 5 5 , 2 ) . Cfr. Philod. De Stoicis, 6 DORANDI (Cronache Ercolanesi 12 [ 1 9 8 2 ] , 9 1 1 1 3 ) = PHerc. 3 3 9 col. X V 1 2 - X V I I , dove per dimostrare la autenticità della 'Politela' attribuita a Diogene cinico ci si appella ai seguenti criteri: 1) la tradizione delle άναγραφαί dei πίνακες e delle biblioteche, 2) le numerose citazioni negli scritti di autori precedenti, e infine 3) la coerenza interna alla produzione dello stesso autore; si aggiunge infine, la notizia di un tentativo di sottrarre a Diogene la paternità dello scritto, allo scopo di salvarlo da pesanti accuse che quello scritto gli procurava, adducendo l'argomento della omonimia.

1568

DANIELA MANETTI -

AMNERIS ROSELLI

secondo Demetrio Lacone 1 3 3 , probabilmente perché sono stati oggetto di maggiori cure filologiche), certi erano più esposti, per le loro caratteristiche letterarie, e per l'uso che se ne faceva (è il caso di alcuni scritti di Ippocrate come le 'Epidemie' e gli 'Aforismi'). M a non è solo la natura dei testi a favorire le interpolazioni, vi sono anche situazioni particolari che favoriscono la produzione di 'falsi': in parte con intenzioni buone, p.es. quella di affidare alla scrittura opere di un maestro che non ha scritto (è il caso di quanto h a n n o fatto i discepoli di Pitagora) 1 3 4 , in parte con intenzioni malevole, è quanto le fonti epicuree sostengono essere accaduto ad Epicuro (D. L. X 3 e Ath. XIII 61 l b ) ed è quanto Galeno sostiene sia accaduto ad Ippocrate (In Nat. hom. C M G V 9.1 p. 88,6). Poi ci sono gli interessi personali: mettere in giro proprie idee sotto la protezione di un nome autorevole (nel commento a 'Epidemie' II, C M G V 10.1 p. 400,16, dice che certi interpolatori sono come coloro che attribuiscono un figlio di cui è ignoto il padre ad una stirpe importante, evitando in questo m o d o che le loro sciocche formulazioni siano oggetto di derisione) 1 3 5 . C. W . M Ü L L E R ha tracciato la storia dell'impiego dei tropoi della pseudepigrafia nella tradizione neoplatonica dei commentari ad Aristotele, riscontrando un arricchimento progressivo dei motivi addotti dai commentatori, ma va precisato che sul piano dell'elaborazione teorica i commentatori aristotelici non h a n n o aggiunto nulla a quanto è già attestato in Galeno: oltre al motivo della fame di libri dei Tolomei, che si ricava dal ben noto passo del commento a 'Natura dell'uomo' (e dal commento ad 'Epidemie' III) 1 3 6 , tutti gli altri argomenti che vanno a confluire nei commentari aristotelici sono già ben testimoniati almeno fin dal I sec. e utilizzati da Galeno. La filologia ippocratica anteriore a Galeno, del resto, aveva già prodotto due concetti particolarmente preziosi per la analisi letteraria dei testi ippocratici e cioè 1 ) l'idea che gli scritti ippocratici potessero essere ricondotti non al solo Ippocrate ma anche ai suoi eredi, i figli ed i nipoti, il che corrisponde ad un concetto ampio di autenticità, e 2) la distinzione tra trattati pronti per la pubblicazione, appunti ad uso personale per conservare memoria di osservazioni e riflessioni (προς υπόμνησιν e similia) e semplici tracce di futuri trattati (υποτυπώσεις, παρασκευαί); distinzione che forniva un criterio letterario per la giustificazione di incompletezze ed oscurità di espressione che sono così frequenti in alcuni dei trattati ippocratici. Questi due strumenti h a n n o permesso che un gran numero di scritti ippocratici fossero accettati come tali, e cioè come il prodotto di un alto livello di conoscenza scientifica, ma permettono anche a 133 134

135

136

PHerc. 1012, col. XXXVI 12 (ed. P U G L I A , Napoli 1988). II motivo è utilizzato dai commentatori neoplatonici ad Aristotele, cfr. C. W. M Ü L L E R , Die Neuplatonischen Aristoteleskommentatoren über die Ursachen der Pseudepigraphie, RhM 112 (1969), 123 s.; ma anche Galeno nel commento a Nat. hom. CMG V 9.1 p. 36,19 accosta l'esempio di Pitagora e Socrate, che appartengono alla tradizione filosofica, al caso di Quinto della tradizione medica, cfr. supra, p. 1560. La nascita di pseudepigrafi può essere anche dovuta al caso, per esempio a causa delle omonimie: cfr. supra n. 132, ma questo fattore sembra avere un diverso rilievo nella vicenda degli scritti ippocratici. C f r . MÜLLER, 1 2 5 s.

GALENO COMMENTATORE DI IPPOCRATE

1569

Galeno di rifiutarsi di commentare alcune espressioni particolarmente oscure, che finiscono col non avere nessuna utilità pratica, con la motivazione che si tratta di appunti per loro stessa natura incomprensibili, o in qualche caso di interpolazioni. Nel proemio al commento dell'ultima sezione degli 'Aforismi', Galeno lamenta che i commentatori precedenti non abbiano dedicato attenzione al problema della autenticità, sebbene sia del tutto evidente che molti degli aforismi che vi sono contenuti sono spuri; a questi commentari egli contrappone il suo, che affronterà il problema ed illustrerà quanto in questa sezione vi è di utile e vero (XVIII A 102,8 αληθές άμα και χρήσιμον) 1 3 7 . La idealizzazione di Ippocrate, che Galeno indubbiamente compie attraverso i suoi commentari 1 3 8 , mi sembra che sia in realtà rivolta soprattutto a riconoscere negli scritti ippocratici quelle qualità di chiarezza espositiva che sono il corrispondente di un alto livello di scientificità, spesso non più raggiunte in seguito dai medici. La drastica riduzione del corpus dell'Ippocrate autentico, e la valorizzazione di nessi molto stretti tra alcuni dei testi ippocratici, che Galeno, sulla base del contenuto e della forma, ritiene di poter in qualche caso situare in una sorta di ordine cronologico di composizione (p. es. gli 'Aforismi' vengono d o p o le 'Epidemie'), finiscono con il creare una immagine abbastanza storicizzata di Ippocrate. Molto di quello che si trova nei commenti, al di là della consapevolezza metodologica con cui Galeno se ne appropria, gli deriva, come è ovvio, dalla tradizione esegetica precedente. Galeno ha compiuto un ampio lavoro di rielaborazione e di sintesi di materiali precedenti che tuttavia ci sono noti quasi esclusivamente dai suoi stessi commentari; nel terzo capitolo si cercherà di ricostruire e definire le fonti della erudizione galenica.

III. La biblioteca di Galeno: le fonti dell'esegesi

ippocratica

1. Presentazione La produzione di Galeno è legata alla presenza di materiale scritto e al confronto continuo con altri testi eruditi. Come è noto, in 'De libris propriis' cap. 6 Galeno divide i suoi commenti in due serie: quelli scritti per sé e quelli per la pubblicazione. I primi ('Aforismi', 'Fratture', 'Articolazioni', 'Prognostico', 'Regime nelle malattie acute', 'Sulle ferite', 'Ferite nelle testa', 'Epide137 138

Cfr. anche, in questo stesso commento, XVII Β 503,11. G. HARIG-J. KOLLESCH, Galen und Hippokrates, in: La collection hippocratique et son rôle dans l'histoire de la médecine, Colloque de Strasbourg ( 2 3 - 2 7 octobre 1972), Leiden 1975, 2 5 7 - 7 4 . Un po' diversa la posizione di G. E. R. LLOYD, Galen on Hellenistics and Hippocrateans: Contemporary Battles and Past Authorities, in: Methods and Problems of Greek Science, Cambridge 1991, 3 9 8 - 4 1 6 , e in: J. K O L L E S C H - D . N I C K E L (edd.), cit. a n. 103, 1 2 5 - 1 4 3 .

1570

DANIELA MANETTI -

AMNERIS

ROSELLI

mie' I), composti a Roma, senza avere a disposizione la sua biblioteca, tralasciano in genere di criticare i commenti precedenti, considerandolo una cosa superflua, i secondi ('Epidemie' II, III, VI, 'Umori', 'Sul nutrimento', 'Prorretico', 'Natura dell'uomo', Officina del medico', 'Arie acque e luoghi'), destinati ad una più ampia circolazione, sono invece più ricchi di erudizione e corrispondentemente di polemica. Al di là di quanto ci sia di letterario e costruito a posteriori in questa immagine che Galeno dà di se stesso, certamente essa contiene l'indicazione di un modo di lavorare che è di per sé plausibile 139 . È certo che Galeno, un appassionato bibliofilo, doveva possedere molti libri. La buona conoscenza di molti testi platonici 1 4 0 e aristotelici, come di Tucidide, di Omero e altri autori con cui ogni greco di buona cultura doveva essere familiare, non è il retaggio semplicemente di una paideia di alto livello, ma si appoggia anche su una biblioteca personale: ciò d'altra parte distingueva ogni buon intellettuale che fosse fornito di una certa ampiezza di mezzi 141 . Non c'è ragione di non credere, almeno nelle linee generali, alle notizie di fonte araba 1 4 2 su alcuni aspetti del suo patrimonio librario: Galeno avrebbe perso il suo esemplare di Anassagora nell'incendio del 192 a Roma; inoltre possedeva manoscritti di Aristotele e Andromaco e li custodiva nei magazzini dell'imperatore. Li aveva corretti sulla base dei maestri e di quelli che si rifacevano all'autorità di Platone. Aveva affrontato viaggi in città lontane, per correggere la maggior parte di loro. Di alcuni di tali manoscritti egli non possedeva nessun' altra copia 1 4 3 . Per la quantità di dottrina che profonde nei suoi commenti, Galeno è una fonte importante nelle raccolte delle testimonianze p. es. dei presocratici (DIELS) Ο degli stoici (VON ARNIM). Ma non faceva certo un ricorso continuo e diretto ai testi: l'ampia erudizione che entra nei commentari sarà già stata presente in gran parte nella tradizione esegetica ippocratica, anche là dove Galeno non esplicita le sue fonti e, in misura ancora maggiore, sarà il risultato sia 139

140

La dipendenza dalla disponibilità effettiva di fonti erudite è un problema presente nella coscienza degli autori, p.es. in Cicerone De orat. 1 . 4 4 . ( 1 9 5 ) ; Tusc. Π.2.6.; Fam. 7 . 2 8 . 2 . II caso della citazione del 'Simposio' platonico, 2 0 3 b , nel commento a 'Prorretico' (CMG V 9.2 p. 7 7 , 1 1 ss.), in cui si recupera una lezione probabilmente autentica κεκαρωμένος, di fronte alla banalizzazione βεβαρημένος di tutta la tradizione (che comprende anche POxy 8 4 3 ) , non può risultare da una citazione a memoria né pare risalire ad una tradizione lessicografica: cfr. U. VON WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF, Platon, II, Berlin 1 9 1 9 , 3 2 8 n. 3.

141

Si veda ad esempio la satira di Luciano nelF'Adversus indoctum'. Sulle biblioteche a Roma cfr. A. J. MARSHALL, Library Resources and Creative Writing at Rome, Phoenix 3 0 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 2 5 2 — 6 4 ; P. FEDELI, Biblioteche private e pubbliche a Roma e nel mondo romano, in: G. CAVALLO (ed.), Le biblioteche nel mondo antico e medievale, Roma—Bari 1 9 8 8 , 29—

142

M. MEYERHOF, Autobiographische Bruchstücke Galens aus arabischen Quellen, Sudhoffs Archiv 2 2 ( 1 9 2 9 ) , 8 5 - 8 6 . Fra questi libri, secondo un'altra fonte araba (cfr. nota precedente), si trovava anche un libro di „Rouphos über den Tberiak, über Gifte, über die Behandlung von Vergifteten, und über die Zusammensetzung der Heilmittel je nach der Krankheit und ihrer Periode", dunque un'opera medica altamente specializzata, come è del resto naturale.

64.

143

G A L E N O C O M M E N T A T O R E DI IPPOCRATE

1571

della sua educazione scolastica sia della disponibilità di strumenti già elaborati come glossari, dossografie di carattere filosofico e medico, repertori grammaticali ecc. E importante dunque disegnare almeno un quadro generale del ruolo che tali strumenti hanno avuto nel modo concreto di lavorare di Galeno. Il materiale è cosi vasto e vario che l'analisi è forzatamente selettiva e puramente esemplificativa. Quanto alle fonti specifiche dell'esegesi ippocratica, lo scopo che ci si prefigge è di tratteggiare l'ambiente in cui Galeno si è inserito, e da cui è stato condizionato, nel comporre i suoi commenti. Si è tentato di identificare le fonti di Galeno e di stabilire a quale tipo di 'scrittura' esse appartengano, cercando di separare il modo con cui Galeno le utilizza e le manipola dalle possibili deduzioni sulla loro natura e qualità. Che la possibilità di ricostruzione dell'erudizione ippocratica sia pesantemente ostacolata dal modo selettivo e spesso deformante in cui Galeno utilizza il materiale precedente, è un problema già affrontato da altri studiosi: i loro risultati sono in generale presupposti nelle pagine seguenti 1 4 4 . E noto che in Galeno le citazioni esplicite sono in genere rivolte ad una polemica e che viceversa molto di quello che egli presenta come suo è già probabilmente nella tradizione precedente. Trarre qualche conclusione sul tipo di materiale che Galeno aveva a disposizione è tuttavia possibile, specialmente se si opera un confronto fra ciò che Galeno afferma esplicitamente e ciò che si può rilevare dalla pratica concreta dei suoi commenti. L'analisi sarà articolata in sezioni dedicate a ciascun tipo di fonte, per individuarne le caratteristiche e chiarire il loro ruolo nell'attività esegetica di Galeno.

2. L'erudizione Sono stati più volte notati e studiati gli apporti di Galeno alla tradizione indiretta degli autori antichi. Galeno è infatti spesso testimone di frammenti di poeti (p. es. Esiodo 1 4 5 , Semonide 1 4 6 , e comici, tragici, poeti ellenistici), di filosofi (Crizia, Antifonte, Parmenide, Empedocle, Teofrasto, gli Stoici 147 ), e di 144

145

146

147

In m o d o speciale SMITH, cit. 123 ss.; cfr. anche F. SUSEMIHL, Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit, II, Leipzig 1891, 4 1 4 ss.; Κ. DEICHGRÄBER, Die Griechische Empirikerschule. Sammlung der Fragmente und Darstellung der Lehre, Berlin 1930, 2 3 s.; O. TEMKIN, Geschichte des Hippokratismus im ausgehenden Altertum, Kyklos 4 (1932), Iss.; P . M . FRASER, Ptolemaic Alexandria, Oxford 1972, 364ss.; HARIG-KOLLESCH, cit. a nota 138, 2 7 2 - 7 3 ; MANULI, cit. a nota 104; F. KUDLIEN, Hippokrates-Rezeption im Hellenismus, in: Die Hippokratischen Epidemien, Sudhoffs Archiv, Beiheft 27, Stuttgart 1989, 3 5 5 - 7 6 . Fr. 3 9 4 M . - W . citato nel commento ad 'Aer.'; i frr. 69, 3 1 7 e 3 1 8 gli vengono invece da Crisippo e sono citati in 'Placit.'. Fr. 12 DIEHL = 14 WEST in cui compare l'aggettivo στενυγρός: citato nel commento ad Art. (XVIII A 4 1 1 ) per spiegare στενυγροχωρίη (Art. 14 p. 137,15 KW.) e di nuovo in quello ad 'Epid.' VI (CMG V 10.2,2 p. 60) per στενυγρώσαι (Epid. VI 2.1); la spiegazione data nei commenti, che si appoggia a Semonide, è diversa da quella del 'Glossario' (XIX 140,11 K.), che invece è più vicino ad Erotiano. Per tutti questi vedi gli indici delle fonti nella singole raccolte di frammenti.

1572

DANIELA M A N E T T I -

AMNERIS ROSELLI

oratori; si tratta per lo più di testi che vengono citati perché contengono termini rari. In alcuni casi (vedi p. es. le glosse πεμφιγώδεις Epid. VI 1.14 = In Epid. VI CMG V 10.2,2, pp. 4 6 , 2 4 - 5 4 , 6 1 4 8 , e άμφιδέξιος in Aph. VII, 43 [In Aph. XVIII A 147ss.]) capita che Galeno sia la fonte superstite più ricca per quell'ampio lavoro di glossatura che ci è stato conservato spesso in forma di relitti in vari lessici o glossari. Naturalmente occorrono anche molte citazioni di testi altrimenti conservati, Platone, Tucidide, Omero 1 4 9 , e poi riferimenti agli oratori, a Senofonte, ad Erodoto 150 . Le forme attraverso cui Galeno ha attinto la conoscenza di questi autori variano: alcuni sono stati alla base della sua formazione, come è nel caso di Platone 151 e degli stoici, altri gli sono ben noti per il contenuto delle loro opere, è il caso della descrizione della peste di Atene in Tucidide 152 , di altri ha certamente solo una conoscenza indiretta attraverso la tradizione del lavoro erudito: oltre ai glossari e ai lessici speciali di cui si è detto, probabilmente monografie (p. es. sulla terminologia anatomica in Omero 1 5 3 , su γνώμη 154 , su πρόνοια 155 ) o dossografie (su φύσις 156 , sulla embriologia 157 : non mancano del resto in Galeno riferimenti espliciti alle sue fonti dossografiche, 148

149

150 151

152

153

"4

157

Qui Galeno mette probabilmente insieme una doppia tradizione esegetica; nella prima parte del commento dichiara di seguire i grammatici κατά τήν έκείνων διάταξιν (p. 47,25.) e cita una lunga serie di testimonianze poetiche (E. WENKEBACH, Dichterzitate in Galens Erklärung einer Hippokratischen Fieberbezeichnung, Abh. Ak. Wiss. Leipzig, phil.-hist. Kl. 39,1 (1928); e ID., ΠΕΜΦΙΞ. Glossographische Verszitate in neuer Gestalt, Philologus 86 (1931), 3 0 0 - 3 3 1 ; sulla glossa vedi ora anche M. S. SILK, LSJ and the Problem of Poetic Archaism: from Meanings to Iconyms, C Q 33 [1983], 306—8), mentre alla fine porta testimonianze della tradizione medica (le 'Sentenze Cnidie'). Una ampia esemplificazione dell'utilizzazione di Omero da parte di Galeno, e non solo nei commentari ippocratici, è stata presentata e discussa da P. MORAUX, Homère chez Galien, in: Stemmata. Mélanges de phil. d'hist. et d'arch. grecques offerts à J. Labarbe, 1987, 2 5 - 3 7 . MORAUX ha individuato 5 categorie di citazioni: 1) puri abbellimenti letterari, 2) materiale di derivazione lessicografica, 3) materiale introdotto a giustificare le conoscenze mediche, e più in generale scientifiche e filosofiche di Omero (del tipo della documentazione che si ritrova nel 'De vita Homeri' pseudoplutarcheo, e in gran parte attestato nel 'De placitis'), 4) testimonianze sulla bellezza fisica ed infine, 5) materiali relativi allo stile e alla compositio-, qui si è scelto di concentrare l'attenzione su passi che sono stati trascurati da MORAUX e di organizzare il discorso invece che sulla tematica delle citazioni sulla loro provenienza. Per lo più per termini rari, cfr. μετεξέτερος, In Art. XVIII A 599. Senza entrare nel merito del problema si vedano soltanto le opere che Galeno ha dedicato a Platone secondo le sue stesse indicazioni nel 'De libris propriis' 13. Galeno parla anche di un suo scritto su questo testo (cfr. VII 851,14 K.), cfr. J. ILBERG, Über die Schriftstellerei des Klaudios Galenos, R h M 52 (1897), 622; BARDONG, 612, lo attribuisce alla prima fase della produzione galenica ( 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 ) . In In Art. XVIII A 729,1 definisce il carattere delle osservazioni ippocratiche per differentiam rispetto a quelle di Tucidide che nella descrizione della peste ίστορίαν γράφει. E evidente che in In Fract. XVIII Β 519—22 Galeno discute di termini omerici, che non ricorrono nel lemma ippocratico, vedi anche In Aph. XVII Β 704. In Off. XVIII Β 656 s. In Prog. C M G V 9.2 p. 201 ss. In Nat. hom. C M G V 9.1 p. 3,20 ss. In Epid. VI C M G V 10.2,2 p. 119 s.

G A L E N O C O M M E N T A T O R E DI IPPOCRATE

1573

vedi In Nat. hom. C M G V 9.1 p. 15,23 ss.) ed infine vi sono testi che gli sono noti per essere diventati esempi canonici nella tradizione grammaticale e negli studi di retorica 1 5 8 . La interpretazione del testo ippocratico presenta in gran parte gli stessi problemi della interpretazione di altri testi antichi: nella tradizione interpretativa anteriore a Galeno sono state individuate difficoltà di ordine lessicale, di ordine sintattico 1 5 9 e più in generale di disposizione della materia (per alcuni particolari vedi oltre); esse vengono di volta in volta rilevate e, quando questo sia possibile, risolte, facendo ricorso alla autorità della produzione ippocratica (secondo il principio di spiegare Ippocrate con Ippocrate) 1 6 0 e poi a quella di altri autori antichi (Omero, per primo, e poi Tucidide 1 6 1 ); ma al di fuori di questo quadro generale, q u a n d o si entra nei dettagli, Galeno sottolinea che la hermeneia ippocratica, quale risulta definita nei suoi tratti distintivi e particolari, ha esigenze di precisione e tecnicità che sono del tutto peculiari, non si riscontrano negli altri autori e dunque va interpretata conseguentemente. Si illustrano qui, a titolo di esempio e operando una selezione drastica, alcuni casi di impiego di materiale di erudizione, in particolare di citazioni di autori, che derivano a Galeno dalla filologia omerica, dalla tradizione di studi grammaticali e retorici e dagli studi di logica, allo scopo di evidenziare, attraverso alcuni fenomeni macroscopici, la natura e la provenienza di una materia che costituisce comunque gran parte dei commentari. a) Filologia omerica La critica omerica forniva una grande quantità di strumenti a chi volesse valutare o semplicemente rendere ragione di un testo antico, ed evidentemente ne ha forniti anche ai commentatori di Ippocrate ed allo stesso Galeno; in taluni casi tuttavia Galeno rileva che le tecniche interpretative valide per O m e r o non sono del tutto adeguate a risolvere il problema del testo ippocratico. Si veda p.es. il tema ricorrente della corretta valutazione di espressioni ippocratiche apparentemente ridondanti - e che qualcuno ha inteso come tali sulla scorta della interpretazione del dettato omerico - ma che tali non sono. Nel 'De cornate' Galeno osserva che nell'espressione καταφορά νωθρά, l'aggettivo è portatore di un significato specifico e pertinente (CMG V 9.2 p. 188,36 ss.): 158 p e r u n studio aggiornato dei riferimenti e delle allusioni ad autori antichi nel 'Quod animi mores' cfr. G. E. R. LLOYD, Scholarship, Authority and Argument in Galen's Q u o d animi mores, in: P. MANULI-M. VEGETTI (edd.), Le opere psicologiche di Galeno, Atti del terzo Colloquio galenico internazionale di Pavia 1986, Napoli 1988, 11—42. 159

160 161

P.es. In Fract. XVIII Β 3 4 3 , 1 6 s s . xò συνηθέστατον είδος της έρμηνείας άπασι τοις παλαιοϊς έλλιπτικώς δηλονότι γιγνόμενον. Cfr. supra, p. 1 5 6 4 e n. 125. Per καθεστηκότες di Aph. I, 13 Galeno (In Aph. XVII Β 4 0 1 , 1 7 s s . ) rimanda a Thuc. II, 36,3; καρδιωγμός di Prog. 24, p. 2 2 8 , 1 ALEXANDERSON (In Prog. C M G V 9.2 p. 360,20) viene spiegato con il confronto con Thuc. II 4 9 , 3, dove ricorre il termine καρδία.

1574

DANIELA MANETTI -

AMNERIS

ROSELLI

non enim erat eorum qui vane imponunt nomina vir iste, nec stulte adiacet catafore hoc scilicet 'pigra nec dicit sicut Homerus 'humidum oleum ' (cfr. p. es. ζ 79 ύγρόν ελαιον) et 'lac album ' (Δ 434 γάλα λευκόν) nullius determinationis gratia (etenim omne lac est album et oleum humidum) sed unumquodque vocabulum et sillaba omnis rem aliquam significat ab eo. Ma già nel 'Commento agli Aforismi' (XVIII A 127 s.), dove analogamente doveva essere stata avanzata una interpretazione debole dell'aggettivo λευκός nel nesso λευκού φλέγματος di Aph. VII 29, Galeno, pur trovando un parallelo possibile in un'altra espressione ippocratica, questa volta effettivamente ridondante (άπλή προσθήκη), e cioè σφόνδυλοι oí κατά ράχιν di Art. 41 (164,1 Kw.), tende ad evitare la interpretazione debole; e poi ancora, molto più tardi, nel commentare αριστερός σπλήν di Epid. VI 6.4 (CMG V 10.2,2 p. 346,19), rifiuta di considerare l'aggettivo, come invece altri fanno, sullo stesso piano degli aggettivi nelle espressioni omeriche γάλα λευκόν (Δ 434; ι 246) e σύες χαμαιευνάδες (κ 243, ξ 15). La utilizzazione costante, con piccole variazioni nella scelta degli esempi, di questo tipo di interpretazione dimostra che Galeno fa riferimento ad un repertorio tradizionale che risale alla 'Retorica' aristotelica (III 1406 a 12), dove si polemizza con l'uso di epiteti nella prosa mentre γάλα λευκόν è lecito in poesia, ed ha, come ovvio, lasciato ampie tracce negli scoli omerici 162 . La legittimità del confronto con Omero è dunque da valutarsi caso per caso; nel commento ad Epid. VI CMG V 10.2,2 p. 99,26 Galeno critica coloro che interpretano il termine ερευξις come rutto di sostanze sia gassose sia liquide τήν τοϋ ποιητοϋ λέξιν έπαγόμενοι μαρτύριον, ενθα φ η σ ί ν "έρευγομένης άλός εξω" (Ρ 265) μοχθηράν όδόν έξηγήσεως ταύτην τεμνόμενοι, τα γαρ ύπό των ποιητών σ π α ν ί ω ς είρημένα κ α τ ά τ ι ν α τ ρ ό π ο ν π ο ι η τ ι κ ό ν , έάν ως κυρίως λελεγμένα τις έξηγήται, διαστρέφειν δυνήσεται και τά σαφώς είρημένα πάντα. Dunque il commentatore ippocratico saprà distinguere l'uso proprio da quello poetico e saprà scegliere i suoi confronti. Questa discussione conferma che gran parte del materiale erudito che Galeno ammette, anche con una certa frequenza, nei suoi commenti, è derivato dalla precedente esegesi ippocratica con cui Galeno si misura, molto spesso — si può supporre — assumendola tacitamente. Del resto non è infrequente che Galeno, pur consapevole del fatto che altri sono gli scopi del suo commento, ammetta di concedere qualcosa al gusto e alle richieste del suo uditorio, il che vuol dire alla prassi del commento letterario. b) Lessici speciali ad atticisti Una ricerca approfondita in questo senso richiederebbe di ripercorrere la strada tracciata da HERBST163, ci limiteremo quindi alla analisi di un paio di casi. 162

163

Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem, ree. H. ERBSE, Berlin 1 9 8 8 , VII, Index V, s.v. Rhetorica, Pleonasmus b) nomina vel adiectiva superflua, 186. Cfr. G. HERBST, Galeni Pergameni de Atticissantium studiis testimonia, Leipzig 1 9 1 1 .

GALENO C O M M E N T A T O R E DI IPPOCRATE

1575

L'aggettivo εύήθης, che Galeno trova in Fract. 37 (101,14 Kw.) e in Prog. 20 (220,11 ALEXANDERSON), è usato nel suo significato etimologico: 'di buon carattere'. Commentando il passo di 'Fratture' (XVIII Β 611) Galeno osserva che l'uso ippocratico è quello 'proprio' ([ού] κατά τό κύριον) che è l'uso nel significato etimologico τό εύ εχον τό ήθος, ma che normalmente si usa εύήθης per ήλίθιος, così come si dice γλυκεία della scrofa, nei sacrifici, un eufemismo nei confronti degli dei 1 6 4 , e καλλίας della scimmia, perché il nome della scimmia non deve essere pronunciato di prima mattina, come testimonia Callimaco (fr. 555 PFEIFFER)165; 'Suida' (κ 215) attribuisce ad un uso attico lo scambio eufemistico di καλλίας al posto di πίθηκος e cita come esempio un passo di Dinarco (fr. VI 7 CONOMIS), e Moeris, p. 143, riconduce l'uso di εύήθης in Tucidide ad uso attico. Dunque Ippocrate non ha usato il termine έν ύποκορίσει, secondo l'espressione che lo stesso Galeno impiega nel suo commentario al 'Prognostico' (CMG V 9.2 p. 331,23 ss.), dove torna l'esempio καθάπερ και ό πίθηκος καλλίας; questo, apprendiamo dallo stesso passo, è l'uso consueto (παμπόλλη χρήσίς έστι παρά τοις Έ λ λ η σ ι ) , mentre l'uso proprio è più raro (σπανιωτέρα). Poiché l'aggettivo viene usato nel suo significato proprio e più raro, Galeno appoggia la sua interpretazione con un'ampia documentazione, citando Dinarco, dalla orazione προς Δάωνα 1 6 6 (fr. LXXIII,2 CONOMIS), Demostene, De falsa leg. 102, e Platone, Resp. 400e ed Euthyd. 279d. E evidente che Galeno fa ricorso ad un repertorio di esempi che egli combina a seconda delle sue esigenze: da una parte l'uso improprio di εύήθης è confrontato con altri esempi di eufemismi, dall'altra si adducono esempi dell'uso proprio, ma r a r o 1 6 7 ; combinando le informazioni tratte da Galeno da Moeris e da 'Suida' si arriva ad evidenti fonti atticiste. Allo stesso tipo di problemi appartiene anche la osservazione in In Art. XVIII A 309,9 sul valore del verbo διισχυριείω di Art. 1 (111,4 Kw.), che, come l'omerico όψείω, è un desiderativo; anche questa valutazione è registrata negli scoli ad II. Ξ 37; in Apoll. Soph. 125,32 si legge ό δέ τύπος τής λέξεως 164

165

166 167

103

Sembrerebbe l'unica attestazione di questo uso, ma per le persone γλυκύς può anche non essere sempre usato in bonam partem, cfr. Plat. Hipp. ma. 288b. La tradizione del commento in questo punto (XVIII Β 611, 7 - 1 2 ) è molto rovinata; si deve supporre una lacuna dopo ήλίθιος e si deve correggere εύήθη (ma εύηθή nell'unico testimone P) in τυθή; l'espunzione della negazione è resa necessaria dal senso; si dovrà dunque costituire il testo in questo modo: εύηθέστερον δέ είπεν [ού] κατά τό κύριον τού εύήθους σημαινόμενον, έν φ δηλοϋται τό εύ εχον τό ήθος. εί γαρ ήλίθιος