Pelagonius and Latin Veterinary Terminology in the Roman Empire 9004102817, 9789004102811

Citation preview

PELAGONIUS AND LATIN VETERINARY TERMINOLOGY IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE by

JN. Adams

EJ. BRILL LEIDEN • NEW YORK • KOLN 1995

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Adams, JN. Games Noel) Pelagonius and latin veterinary terminology in the Roman Empire / by JN. Adams. p. cm. - (Studies in ancient medicine ; v. 11) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and indexes. ISBN 900410281 7 (alk. paper) 1. Pelagonius, Ars veterinaria. 2. Pelagonius-Language-Grammar. 3. Veterinary medicine-Early works to 1800. 4. Latin language, Vulgar- Lexicology. 5. Veterinary medicine-Terminology. 6. Latin language- Medical Latin. 7. Latin language, Vulgar. I. Title. II. Series SF743.A33 1995 636'.0014-dc20 95-3754 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahm.e Ada.tnS,J.N.: Pelagonius and latin veterinary terminology in the Roman Empire / JN. Adams. - Leiden ; New York ; Koln : Brill, 1995 (Studies in ancient medicine ; Vol. 11) ISBN 90--04- l 028 l- 7

NE:GT

ISSN 0925-1421 ISBN 90 04 10281 7

© Copyright1995 by EJ. Brill, Leiden,TheNetherlands All rightsreseroed. No part of thispublicationmay be reproduced, translated,storedin a retrievalsystem,or transmittedin arryform or by arrymeans,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,withoutpriorwritten permission .fromthepublisher. Authorizationto photocopyitemsfor internalorpersonal use is grantedby EJ. Brill providedthat the appropriate fees arepaid directfyto TheCopyright ClearanceCenter,222 RosewoodDrive,Suite 910 DanversMA 01923, USA. Feesaresuqjectto change. PRINfED

IN THE NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS Preface ................................................................................ ....... Abbreviations ............. .................................................................. I. Introduction: Pelagonius, veterinary treatises,

V11

ueterinarii............................................................................. Self-help: non-specialist treatment of animals ............ Latin veterinary treatises: addressees, readership, patients ........................................... .................... ............ 'Pelagonian' and 'non-Pelagonian' elements in the Ars Veterinaria attributed to Pelagonius ........................ Pelagonius and Apsyrtus ............................................... Some names of diseases ............................................... Anatomical terms .......................................................... The language of Pelagonius .........................................

I 66

149 209 239 361 430

1.

430

II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII.

Syntax .....................................................................

2. Word order ............................................................ 3. Morphology and word formation ......................... 4. Vocabulary ............................................................. 5. General conclusions ............................................... and technical IX. Epilogue: Pelagonius, ueterinarii terminology ......................... ........................................... Bibliography ............................................................................... Index ..........................................................................................

1x

103

489 496 569 642 662 672 685

PREFACE This work in effect comprises two books in one. My original intention was to write a monograph on the text and language of the veterinary treatise of Pelagonius. The identification by P.-P. Corsetti of a second manuscript of much of the treatise rendered my early efforts out of date. I also came to realise that, since the structure of veterinary practice in the modern world is largely irrelevant to that of antiquity, it would be inadequate to describe the language of an ancient veterinary treatise without attempting to place that language in its wider veterinary context. I have therefore collected information about ueterinarii in the Roman world, about the form and content of veterinary treatises, about types of treatment, magical vs. practical, about the relationship between laymen and 'professionals' as healers, and about the expected readership of the extant Latin treatises. It is also shown that the work of Pelagonius was subject to the attentions of late redactors. Since the text has been tampered with in transmission, it is unacceptable to treat the Latin of the treatise as the homogeneous product of a single author. I am very much indebted to various friends and scholars. Pro( K.-D. Fischer has discussed countless problems with me, provided me with numerous items of bibliography, and read parts of my work at several stages. He will recognise his influence throughout the book. Over many years I submitted technical veterinary questions to Dr John A. Baker, of the Department of Veterinary Pathology, University of Liverpool. His replies came back with unfailing rapidity, and he constantly shed a great deal of light on problems of interpretation in the ancient treatises. Dr P.-P. Corsetti has had a profound influence on the study of Pelagonius by his discovery of a new manuscript. We have corresponded on textual and linguistic matters, and I have benefited greatly from his acute observations. Dr D.R. Langslow read the chapters on pathological and anatomical terminology, and offered many pertinent criticisms. My colleague Dr D.M. Bain has read the whole manuscript, making numerous corrections, and he has given his advice on problems in the Greek Hippiatrica.Finally, Dr P. Flury, of the ThesaurusLinguaeLatinae,generously provided me with much information not yet published in the TU.

Vlll

PREFACE

The manuscript was typed, many times over, by Amanda Herod, with characteristic high competence and also politeness. She never once expressed any attitude, by as much as a look or a pattern of intonation, to the material she was typing.

ABBREVIATIONS

CHG FEW LSJ

OLD REW TU

CorpusHippi.atricorum GrO£corum (see Bibliography, s.v. OderHoppe) W. von Wartburg, Franzosisches erymologisches Worterbuck (Bonn, 1928- ) H.G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon9, revised by H.S. Jones (Oxford, 1940, with a Supplement, 1968) 04iJrd.LatinDictionary(Oxford, 1968-82) 3 W. Meyer-Lubke, Romanischeserymologisches Worterbuch (Heidelberg, 1935) ThesaurusLinguO£Latinae(Leipzig, 1900- )

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION: PELAGONIUS, VETERINARY TREATISES, VETERINARII l . Introduction If horses, mules and donkeys were to the economy of the Roman Empire what motor vehicles are to modem economies, then it would seem to follow that the ancient horse doctor was as important in his time as the motor mechanic is today. The analogy is not exact, but there can be no doubt that horse doctors did have an economic role. They have tended to be disregarded by historians. This disregard cannot be put down to lack of information, though it has to be said that ueterinariirarely find their way into literature. Several long veterinary treatises written in Latin survive from the late Empire (those of Pelagonius and Vegetius, and the anonymous Mulmnedicina Chironis), and extensive excerpts of Greek hippiatric writers of the Imperial period are extant in the Greek hippiatric corpus. These works are not 'veterinary' in the comprehensive modem sense, but are concerned mainly with the equine animals, on which economic activity, the army, and the cursuspublicuswere dependent. The Latin treatises have not been neglected, but neither have they been fully exploited. They have information to impart not only about Vulgar Latin, as a manifestation of which the MulomedicinaChironishas been intensively studied (e.g. by Ahlquist and Grevander), but also about the role and status of horse doctors, the relationship between the horse owner and the horse doctor in caring for animals, the status conferred by horse-ownership, attitudes to the other equidae, methods of treatment (magical vs. empirically based), and also about the manner in which practical texts were transmitted. The textual transmission of Pelagonius has been quite unlike that of literary classics. Scribes did not seek to preserve the original wording intact, and remedies have been added to (or removed from) the text by those using and copying it. The extant text can be described as a compilation, whose form and content have been altered in transmission. Those studying the language of the Latin veterinary treatises have,

2

CHAPTER ONE

as I have hinted above, tended to use the treatises as sources of evidence about Vulgar Latin. But at least two of the Latin veterinary writers (Pelagonius, Vegetius) were certainly not uneducated, and our Chironis, knowledge of the Latinity of the third treatise, the Mulmnedicina depends on two profoundly corrupt late manuscripts. Neither Pelagonius nor indeed the MulmnedicinaChironiscan be treated merely as had their own technical vosamples of substandard Latin. Veterinarii cabulary, as was recognised by those who came into contact with them (see the testimoniabelow, sect. 5). In this book I will be devoting as much attention to veterinary Latin as a possible 'technical language', as to its other, non-technical, characteristics. It is recognised that veterinary technical terminology has been little studied. 1 Did ueterinariihave a distinctive pathological vocabulary, or were they dependent on doctors for their technical terms? What were the sources of their pathological and anatomical vocabularies? Can their special language, if such existed, be characterised from its morphological and syntactic features, or only from its lexical? Pelagonius will be central to this book. Vegetius in a sense is the least interesting of the Latin veterinary writers, in that his material is derived almost exclusively from the Mulomedicina Chironis and Chironishas attracted more attention than Pelagonius. The Mulomedicina Pelagonius, but it is a work which, in its present textual state, poses many insoluble problems of interpretation. Pelagonius has become a more promising subject of study now that the identification (by Corsetti ( 1989)) of a second manuscript has illuminated the textual tradition. He is also a writer with attitudes and a personality, which emerge, if only in a shadowy form, from some of the epistles with which he prefaced each chapter . The book deals mainly with the language of Pelagonius, both technical and non-technical, but it is intended to be more than a study of one writer's language. Technical terminology in particular cannot be elucidated from any one writer, and in Chapters VI and VII I have accordingly exploited all the extant works which deal with veterinary medicine. I have sought to place the treatise of Pelagonius in its literary, social and scientific context, and have made the assumption that the language of a veterinary text should not be considered in isolation from the content, sources and readership of that text. Der kleinePau[yII, 1159 (s.v. 'Hippiatrika'), 'Die Terminologie der H. ist oft sehr interessant und bediirfte einer Gesamtaufarbeitung'. 1

INTRODUCTION

3

For that reason the early chapters deal with such subjects as the purpose and intended readership of veterinary treatises, their general the sources of Pelagonius, and the content, the role of the ueterinarius, textual transmission of his work. If the work is a compilation, how much of it comes from the hand of Pelagonius himself? To what extent has his original wording been altered? The present chapter sets out in succinct form some basic information about Pelagonius and related veterinary writers, about the form of Pelagonius' treatise, its components, magical and naturalistic, and finally about the disparate group of practitioners whom I designate usually as ueterinarii.

2. Pe/,a,gonius and the relationshipqf his treatiseto otherveterinarytreatises Pelagonius (Saloninus), author of an Ars ueterinariawhich survives in the MS. Florence,Bihl. Riccardiana 1179 (R) (1485) and in part in Einsiedeln,Stiftsbibl.305 (514), s. VIII-IX (E),2 is mentioned in extant literature only by Vegetius (Mul. 1.prol. 2-3), 3 who made extensive use of the Ars ueterinariain compiling his Mulomedicina.Vegetius wrote his other treatise Epitoma rei militarisat some time between 383 and 450, possibly under Theodosius I (379-95). 4 Certain aspects of Pelagonius' lexical choice associate him closely with the period of Vegetius (see below, p. 571 on ueterinariuslmulomedicus, and p. 373 on tergus/ dorsum),and it is a reasonable supposition that he wrote in the later fourth century. Pelagonius dedicated his treatise to a certain Arzygius,

2

Pelagonius was edited in the Teubner series by Ihm (1892), and has been re-edited recently by Fischer (1980a). On E, see Corsetti (1989); also Adams (1992c). Editions of the text have been rendered out of date by Corsetti's identification (1989) of the Pelagonius transmitted by E, but it would be no easy matter to produce a new edition, because in places R and E read like different redactions of the work rather than different copies of the same text. E had long been known to contain a Latin de medendimethodo.Even though Lowe reproduced translation of Galen, Ad Gl,auconem a page of the Pelagonius in his CodicesLatini AntiquioresVII, no. 876, the author went unrecognized. Valentin Rose, however, clearly knew of the Pelagonius in E. In he quotes part of Pel. his edition of Theodorus Priscianus, index 523, s.v. mal,andriosi, frg. 227 bis (Corsetti (1989), 49) with the note 'Pelag.c. XVI (cod.E)'. 3 For useful surveys of what is known of Pelagonius, see Fischer (1981a), id. (1989). 4 See Barnes, Sabbah, Milner, xxv-xxix, and especially Onnerfors (1993c), 148-52, who gives a full review of earlier literature. Though the terminuspost quern and terminusantequernapply to the Epitomarei militaris,they obviously provide a rough guide to the date of the Mulomedicina.

4

CHAPTER ONE

who has been tentatively identified 5 with Betitius Perpetuus Arzygius, consularisTusciaeet Vmhriaeafter 366 (GIL VI.1702 = /LS 1251), but the identity of all the addressees in the work remains uncertain. 6 An intriguing question which must be faced is whether Pelagonius was a practising ueterinarius, or a man of letters with an amateur's inter7 est in horses. I will return to this question later. Pelagonius drew on a variety of sources. The agricultural treatise of Columella has sections in books VI and VII on veterinary medicine, 8 and these were extensively used by later writers on the subject,9 perhaps most notably by Palladius, whose fourteenth book De ueterinaria medicina consists largely of excerpts from Columella. Pelagonius took over passages from book VI (but not VII) virtually verbatim, 10 and he also made an attempt to imitate Columella's style.11 Celsus' encyclopaedic work entitled Artes12 contained five books on agriculture: 13 Col.1.1.14 'non minorem tamen laudem meruerunt nostrorum temporum uiri Cornelius Celsus et Julius Atticus, quippe Cornelius t,otumcorpusdisciplinae quinquelibriscompl.exus est'. The fragments 14 show that the agricultural books dealt with veterinary medicine. They were used by Columella. In four places Pelagonius cites Celsus (22.3, 31.2, 185.1, 287-8), but the first of these citations raises the possibility that he may not have known the work of Celsus at first hand. The citation is embedded in a quotation of Columella (=Col. 6.5.5). The remaining (brief) quotations were not mediated through Columella, but they may be derived from a lost Latin veterinary work (or works).15 An important source of Pelagonius was the Greek veterinary writer 5

By Jones, Martindale, Morris, I, 689. See Fischer (1989), 81. Could Astyrius (c.9), for example, be L. Turcius Tusciaeet Vmbriae342, praefectus urbi362--64 (GIL VI.1768 Apronianus Asterius, cOTTectm = /LS 1229)? See Fischer we. cit. 7 See Fischer (1981a), 288, id. (1981c),219-20 (he was an amateur),Jocelyn (1982), 54 (a professional). 8 For horses, see 6.30---34,oxen, 6.4-18, calves, 6.25, mules, 6.38, sheep, 7.5 and goats, 7.7. 9 Namely Pliny, Apsyrtus, Eumelus, Gargilius Martialis, the MuwmedicinaChironis (note 778, 946) and Vegetius. I have collected some evidence in Adams (1984), 29. 1° For a list, see Fischer (1980a), 145. Pelagonius' quotations of Columella have been discussed by Hoppe (1928), 22-28; also Adams (1991). 11 See Fischer (1981a), 289, Adams (1991), 77-85, and also below, p. 214. 12 On the title, see Jocelyn (1986), 303 with n. 38. 13 See Jocelyn (1986), 303 with n. 39. 14 Collected by Marx (1915), 5-13 (especially 9-11). 15 Cf. Fischer (1981a), 289. 6

INTRODUCTION

5

Apsyrtus, 16 parts of whose work survive as excerpts in the Greek hippiatric corpus (henceforth CHG in this book). 17 I shall deal in detail with the relationship between Pelagonius and Apsyrtus in Chapter V. 18 Apsyrtus was also a source of the MulomedicinaChironis.19 He presents himself as a imncx-cp6~of some status. He was constantly written to for advice by named persons. 20 In particular, he often 21 who had apparently written to him for inadvised other imttcx-cpo{, formation. 22 He was therefore a man of repute within the profession, somewhat like a modern consultant, or at least that is the light in which he attempted to portray himself. Pelagonius, as we shall see, was to adopt the same convention of presenting veterinary advice in the form of epistles to named addressees. There are various passages in the text of Pelagonius which correspond to some passages attributed to a certain Eumelus in the Greek hippiatric corpus. 23 Eumelus is a shadowy figure. 24 He wrote before

16

On whom see Bjorck (1932), 64-70. By the 'Greek hippiatric corpus' I mean the CorpusHippiatricorum Graecorum edited in two volumes in 1924 and 1927 by E. Oder and K. Hoppe. The date of this late collection remains uncertain (see Doyen (1981), 269-72, Doyen-Higuet (1984), 115). The collection went through various recensions, four of which are referred to by the letters M, B, D (C and L) and RV (Doyen-Higuet (1984), 115). In this book I usually cite the B recension, otherwise referred to as the HippiatricaBerolinensia (here Hipp. Ber.), the oldest witness to which is the ornamented Berlin manuscript BerolinensisGraecus134 (Phillippicus1538), possibly of the ninth century (see Doyen (1981), 262-63, Doyen-Higuet (1984), 115). B does not however represent the oldest stage of the collection, though it is given prominence by Oder-Hoppe. M is the oldest known recension (Doyen-Higuet (1984), 115). See further Fischer (1979b), 372 with n. 6, on M as a more reliable representative of the original collection than the Berlin version. 18 See also Hoppe (1928), 31-39. There is no precise date for Apsyrtus; the period A.D. 150-250 has been suggested (see most recently Doyen-Higuet (1984), 1123, Fischer (1988), 196-7). 19 The correspondences are extensive. See, for example, Mul. Chir. 115-20 = Hipp. Ber. 1.3-8, Mul. Chir. 245-48 = Hipp. Ber. 9.1-2, Mul. Chir. 343 = Hipp. Ber. 21.1-2, Mul. Chir.344-53 = Hipp.Ber. 2.1-9. Further correspondences may be found testimoniorum at Oder-Hoppe I, 456. by consulting the conspectus 20 E.g. Hipp. Ber. 8.1, CHG I, p. 48, 24.l, p. 121, 36.l, p. 194, 44.l, p. 215, 68.l, p. 263, 75.1, p. 286. 21 E.g. Hipp. Ber. 10.6, p. 59, 12.l, p. 74, 19.l, p. 93, 20.l, p. 95, 22.l, p. 103, 26.3, p. 125, 26.18, p. 131, 27.1, p. 140. Sometimes the addressee is described instead as iatp6i; (Hipp. Ber. 42.1, p. 210, 69.1, p. 268). 22 Note in particular Hipp. Ber. 42.l, p. 210, 50.1, p. 226, 101.1, p. 347. 23 The main passages of Pelagonius are 106, 171, 193, 194, 199, 204, 205, 206, 214, 253, 254, 312, 313, 362, 394, 402, 403, 404. See further Adams (1984), 30 n. 1. 24 See Bjorck (1932), 56-9, Adams (1984), 7. 17

6

CHAPTER ONE

Apsyrtus (see Aps., Hipp. Ber. 2.7, CHG I, p. 17.10),25 and made use of Columella. 26 He is usually assumed to have been a source of Pelagonius, 27 but I have argued (1984) that (a) the 'Eumelus-passages' in Pelagonius are in a distinctive, classicising style quite unlike that of Pelagonius himself as evidenced in the epistles at the start of chapters; that (b) Pelagonius did not draw on Eumelus nor Eumelus on Pelagonius; but that (c) both the Greek and the Latin passages in question come from a lost Latin veterinary writer. I refer to this hypothetical work throughout as the lost Latin veterinary source used by Pelagonius and Eumelus. A feature of the lost work is that stylistically it was undoubtedly very similar to Celsus (see p. 475). Celsus himself can be ruled out as the lost source, because one of the derivative passages in Pelagonius (199) has a quotation from Columella (199.2 'sunt et gallae tritae remedia nee minus sucus marrubi cum fuligine', = Col. 6.13.2). Celsus antedates Columella. The lost source obviously postdates Columella (and thus Celsus).28 The quotation from Columella, along with the stylistic affinities with Celsus, suggests that the lost writer was a student of the agricultural works of both Celsus and Columella. Could it be that three of the four brief citations by Pelagonius of Celsus (see above) are derived from this lost source? Numerous passages in Pelagonius are very similar to passages in 29 the pseudonymous late Latin veterinary work the Mulorn£du:ina Chironis, and the question must obviously be asked whether the one work drew on the other. 30 Hoppe has shown that both drew on a common source (or sources?).31 Whether this source was the same (in 25

See also Doyen-Higuet (1984), 113 n. 33. For correspondences, see Ihm, 7-9. 27 See Hoppe (1928), 28-31. 28 For full details, see Adams (1984). 29 For a brief review of the known facts about this work, see now Fischer (1989), 77-80. Particularly worth consulting is Fischer (1985), with full bibliography on the work down to 1984 at 272-77; see also Fischer (1988), 199--200. One important point which can be made about the Mulomedicinais that it was used as a source by Vegetius (see below), and must therefore pre-date the late fourth/ early fifth century. It is not out of the question that it was composed well before the time of Vegetius. The author's standard term for 'horse doctor' was the early Imperial ueterinarius, whereas both Pelagonius and Vegetius preferred mulomedicus, which was already current at the time of Diocletian's Prices Edict (AD. 301) (see p. 571 for details). 30 As a clear example of a correspondence I mention Pel. 256 = Mul. Chir.61618 (see Hoppe (1927), 212, Adams (1984), 29). The similarity extends to a haphazard alternation between the two synonyms unguisand ungula(see Adams (1982a), 97). 31 Hoppe (1927), 203-216, id. (1928), 7-22, id. (1933), 506-7. 26

INTRODUCTION

7

whole or in part) as the lost Latin veterinary writer referred to in the previous paragraph is unclear. 32 The Mulomedicinaof Vegetius was, as we saw, written after Pelagonius' Ars ueterinaria, since Vegetius used (and indeed named) _Pelagonius as one of his sources. Vegetius' other major source was the Mulomedicina 33 Chironis. Pelagonius and Chiron were not his only sources, 34 but to a large extent the work is a compilation of passages from these two writers. The most original parts of the treatise are the prefaces to each book, in which Vegetius (himself a horse-breeder) reveals some and its of the attitudes of wealthy horse-owners to medicinaueterinaria practitioners. Inevitably, since he drew so heavily on Pelagonius, Vegetius has a good deal to tell us about the text of Pelagonius. It has been something of a minor industry to compare passages of Vegetius with the corresponding passages of his sources (particularly 35 Such comparisons are supposedly diagnostic of the Mulomedicina). usages which Vegetius considered to be 'vulgar' in the source, in that he appears to make constant changes to the Latinity of the passages which he took over. But while this method may have its benefits for the study of Vulgar Latin, the identification of a second manuscript of Pelagonius (E: see above) has thrown new light on the relationship between Pelagonius and Vegetius. In numerous places where V egetius might previously have been thought to have departed from the Latin of Pelagonius, it is now clear that he had a different version of the text of his source from that preserved in R. Vegetius constantly agrees with E against R (see below, p. 171). There appear to have been at least two recensions of Pelagonius available in late antiquity, that represented by E (and Vegetius), and that by R (and the Greek translation: see below). It follows that when Vegetius seems to have changed Pelagonius (in passages preserved uniquely in R), one must avoid making the automatic assumption that he has 'improved' the Latin of his source. The truth may be that he had a different version from that extant in R.36 32

See Adams (1984), 29. For a list of correspondences, see Lommatzsch, 339-42. 34 Fischer (1991), 36H5, notes that in Vegetius' account of malisat 1.2-20 there are sections which do not come from the Mulmnedicinaor Pelagonius. 35 See in particular Grevander (1926), 60-107; also (e.g.) Lofstedt (1956), 12, 234, Vaananen (1981a), 187-88, 212-13. 36 Similar caution is advisable in comparing Vegetius with the Mulmnedicina Chironis. The latter work was edited by Oder in 1901 using the only manuscript known at the time (cod.Monacensislatinus243, s. XV; herein M; for further details, see Fischer 33

8

CHAPTER ONE

In the brief discussion above of some of Pelagonius' sources it has been implied that the Ars ueterinaria is something of a melange,comprising passages taken verbatim or translated literally from a variety of sources. 37 The identification of E and its revelation that different recensions of the text existed has established decisively what had been previously suggested, 38 namely that the work has been subject to late editorial tampering. It undoubtedly contains not only material inserted by Pelagonius himself from various sources, but also material added to the original work by late redactors. It is a compilation, the textual tradition of which is further complicated by the fact (which will be amply demonstrated in later chapters) that scribes copying such practical texts were indifferent to any ideal of preserving the original author's words intact. 39 A comparison of R and E shows that scribes made constant minor changes to the wording of their source (altering willy-nilly, for example, imperatival verb-forms: see p. 205). The Ars ueterinariaas a compilation will be discussed in detail in Chapter IV. Pelagonius was translated into Greek at some time in late antiquity. 40 The Greek translation has not been highly regarded, since it

(1985), 257); this corrupt manuscript cannot be trusted as a witness to the character of the author's Latinity, though it has to be said that Vegetius (1.prol. 3) ascribes to 'Chiron' eloquentiaeinopia and sermonisuilitas. Recently a second manuscript (here referred to as B; has been identified in Basel (still unedited: see Sackmann), but first impressions suggest that it is not so important for the Mul. Chir.as E is for Pelagonius (but for a correct reading in B which is not in M, at Mui. Chir. 230, see below, p. 414). In this book I usually quote Oder's text of the Muwmedicina,but the readings of both manuscripts are given where appropriate. 37 A good deal of the material in the Ars ueterinaria must have been taken from written sources, but not necessarily all of it. Note 27 'aliud, quod apud Tuscos scimusprofuisse tritici farinam amatores asturconum egodidici';also 185.3 'nos experiundo cum aqua frigida datam'. However assertions made in the first person cannot always be trusted (see p. 133). For a claim by Pelagonius (in an epistle to Festianus) that he has consulted 'many authors' in search of remedies, see 115 'sollicito tibi de singulis curis pecorum etiam ad dolorem uentris uel ad strofum remedia exquisita de multis auctoribus mittenda curaui'. This response, apparently to a request from a patron, is similar to a remark by Vegetius, 4.prol. 2 'cedens itaque familiarium honestissimae uoluntati ex diuersis auctoribus enucleata collegi pedestrique sermone in libellum paruissimum contuli'. On the sources of Pelagonius, see in general Fischer ( 1981a), 289-90. 38 See in particular Fischer ( 1981a), 290--94. 39 A nice example of a practical (medical) text which survives in various recensions is provided by the Pl!JsicaPlinii.See most recently Adams and Deegan. 40 On the translation, see Hoppe (1927), 216-19, id. (1928), 1-6, Fischer (1979b), 371-75 (suggesting that 'the Hippiatricamay reflect at times two, rather than one, Greek versions of Pelagonius' (373); against, Jocelyn (1982), 54). The text of the

INTRODUCTION

9

displays misunderstandings of the Latin, 41 but with the identification of E it can at least now be seen that it often agrees with R against E and Vegetius (see Chapter IV). It was therefore based on just one of the two identifiable recensions. I would stress in conclusion that my purpose in this section has been to identify veterinary works related more or less directly to not to offer a full survey of what is known Pelagonius' Ars ueterinaria, about veterinary treatises in antiquity. 42 The relationship between Pelagonius, his known sources and other late veterinary treatises is set out in the diagram on the next page.

3. 7hefonn of Pelagonius'treatise 3.1 7he epistolary Jonn The literary form of Pelagonius' treatise was derived from that of Apsyrtus. 43 Each chapter seems to have begun with an epistle addressed to one of Pelagonius' patrons, identifying the disease to be dealt with, noting its symptoms, and initiating the discussion of its treatment. 44 There may then have followed a series of recipes offering drug treatments for the disease. The format of the treatise has, however, been substantially changed in transmission, as has become

Greek can be found scattered throughout Oder-Hoppe. On the protracted controversy, now resolved, whether Pelagonius wrote in Latin or Greek , see also Fischer (l98la), 286. 41 See Fischer (1980a), XVI-XVII, Hoppe (works cited in previous note). 42 For surveys of ancient veterinary medicine with various different orientations, see Fischer (1981a), 286- 88, id. (1981c), 215-19, id. (1988), with the general items listed in the bibliography at 208, Bodson (1984), with general bibliography on the history of veterinary medicine. Among writers on the subject earlier than those mentioned in this section, I would draw attention to Aristotle, who gives a brief list of horse diseases (HA. 7.24, 604a23- 604b31), and the Carthaginian Mago, whose work was translated into both Greek and Latin (Heurgon, Fischer (1988), 193). Further evidence relevant to writings about the treatment of animals may be found in the t,estimonia collected at the end of this chapter (sect. 5), and in Chapter II (most notably the evidence of Cato and Varro). 43 This point has often been made by Fischer: e.g. (1981a), 288, (1981c), 220, (1989), 81. 44 Sections regarded as 'epistles' in this book are listed below, p. 151 n. 5. It should be noted that one of the new passages identified in E by Corsetti (1989, 55)-that which he numbers 529 bis- has characteristics which suggest that it originally formed part of an epistle: see Adams (1992c), 494-96.

......

Celsus

''

Columella

Apsyrtus

''

Lost Latin source =(?) common to Pelagonius and Mul. Chir.

0

''

''

' ...

Lost Latin source common to Pelagonius and Eumelus

Unknown sources (?)

I

Late editorial insertions

0

~

at least one other source (on malis)

Greek translation

Vegetius

INI'RODUCTION

11

particularly clear with the identification of E.45 Whereas some epistles seem to be intact (e.g. 163), others have been either lost or abbreviated (see p. 149). Nevertheless enough remains to allow us to form some idea of Pelagonius' use of the epistolary convention. Apsyrtus' work, which has itself been broken up and no doubt much altered within the Greek hippiatric corpus, originally consisted of a series of epistles addressed to a variety of named persons, many of them described as btmatp6~ (see p. 5). These persons in many cases seem to have consulted Apsyrtus for advice (e.g. 24.1, p. 121 eypa\jfOµevrov 1t l:te iatpq> xa{petv. eypa'lfCX~µot eneprot&v, n&~ od ~0110eto0at t&v 11t1tffiV tO'U~atµa pto~Tiocrtouµicpi\mdi1t1t6Tt1 x,aipnv. eypa'lf«~ µ01 cruµ~E~T\KEva1crou tip 11t1tcpEv tip 1toOt tip Eµ1tpocr0icp d~ to EVtO~µEpo~ tf\~ 07tAf\~EVtft EK