This collection of essays draws for the most part on materials presented at the 11th Celtic Conference in Classics, held from 11 to 14 July 2018 at the University of St Andrews. It is dedicated to Honorary Professor Elizabeth Craik. Each paper centres around the subject of ancient medicine. The volume can be categorised into two thematic groups. The first explores individual works in the Hippocratic Corpus, while the second discusses the historical context surrounding them, from the fifth century bce to the time of Galen. The authors of this volume come from a variety of fields, and thus each brings a different approach in analysis, which greatly expands our understanding of ancient medical texts.
J. Jouanna deals with editorial techniques of ancient medical texts, focusing on his new critical edition of the Hippocratic text Law. Contrary to the earlier textual tradition of the work, he gives precedence to one of the latest manuscripts, Ambrosianus gr. 134, dated to the fourteenth century, and thus creates a new stemma codicum. Jouanna shows variant readings from older manuscripts and previous editions, which contain syntactic difficulties, and properly justifies readings from Ambrosianus (Jouanna, Hippocrate Tome I, 2e partie: Le Serment. Les Serments chrétiens. La Loi [2020], pp. 281–2). Although the Arabic and the Latin translations of the text have been neglected by previous editors, Jouanna places emphasis on the importance of these medieval translations, since they provide us with better readings in some cases. This paper serves as a useful guideline for editors to come.
A. Roselli analyses a short Hippocratic treatise entitled On the Physician, which concerns the social and moral attitudes of physicians, arrangements of surgical equipment in the officina (ἰητρεῖον) and a short list of pathologies. Whereas J.-É. Pétrequin (Chirurgie d'Hippocrate [1847]) hypothesised that it was a fragment of a major surgical treatise, Roselli emphasises a strong unity of this treatise as a synopsis for the practice of surgery. Contrary to the view suggested by L. Dean-Jones (‘Physician: a Metapaedagogical Text’, in M. Horstmanshoff [ed.], Hippocrates and Medical Education [2010]), she argues that close examination of the text's language (such as the use of words like φορτικός and τεχνικός/ἔντεχνος) reveals a consistency of ideas. This uniformity is also supported by multiple references to words meaning ‘patients’ in this treatise.
F. Giorgianni begins with extensive historical background of the studies on the so-called Hippocratic ‘Author C’ as well as treatises ascribed to him, such as On Generation, On the Nature of the Child and On Diseases IV. Since the first designation of ‘Author C’ by H. Grensemann (Kinidische Medizin Teil I [1975]) it has been largely assumed that other texts were written by the same author, even though no definitive conclusion has ever been reached. A detailed lexicographical investigation of these texts, focusing on ἀΐσσω (including its compounds) and εὐρυχωρίη (as well as its opposite στενοχωρίη), leads to the discovery of expressions characteristic of ‘Author C’. Furthermore, Giorgianni compares descriptions in On Diseases IV to those expressed in a theory attributed to Aegimius of Elis (fourth century bce) presented in Anonymus Londiniensis with a special focus on the condition of plethora.
P. Pérez Cañizares concentrates on aphoristic sentences presented in On Affections, emphasising the supposition that it was written for a lay audience. Whereas the first part of this treatise shows an affinity with other Hippocratic nosological works, the second part, comprising mainly dietetic descriptions, is unrelated to them. While the former has been extensively studied, the latter has received less attention so far. After a detailed linguistic and content analysis of the aphoristic sentences in Chapter 44, Pérez Cañizares concludes that this treatise was reworked at different levels. By reconsidering this work within the framework of the aphoristic genre, Pérez Cañizares offers a different insight into the understanding of this problematic treatise.
R. Lane Fox and A. Meadows examine the dating of several Hippocratic treatises. Lane Fox revisits Epidemics I and III, which he examined at greater length in The Invention of Medicine (2020, pp. 148–53). In contrast to the traditional views held by most Hippocratic specialists, who date the composition of Epidemics I and III to around 410 bce, Lane Fox argues that these treatises were composed in the period between 471 and 467 bce. In archaeological terms he pays particular attention to the reference to the ‘new wall’ on Thasos, close to where the patient Hermocrates laid sick (Epidemics III 1.2), interpreting the attribute ‘new’ as ‘newly built’. Meadows, an expert numismatist, takes a different approach, focusing on the Aeginetan measures used for calibrating the dose of parsley. He suggests that several Hippocratic treatises, such as On Diseases of Women I and On Superfetation, adopting Aeginetan measures reflect the period between c. 430 and 405 bce, in which both Attic and Aeginetan measures coexisted, with the former being the enforced measurement on Athenian allies.
Nutton's chapter also deals with Epidemics, paying particular attention to how medical information concerning ‘constitutions’ was stored and organised. After examining the testimonies on how written texts were collected during Galen's time, he highlights how practices differed during the classical period. Further, Nutton comments on the importance of an earlier summary of the medical information used by the author of Epidemics I and III, and discusses the traces of the accumulated records lost in the later Epidemics. He particularly stresses the difficulties of reorganising the data. This complex and intellectually demanding process of redacting data, which involved collaboration with other physicians, is further reinforced by the absence of an analysis of communal diseases during the later period.
Totelin introduces a funerary stele from the fourth century depicting Phanostrate, an ancient midwife and physician. Totelin then illustrates connections between the phrasing of Phanostrate's epigram and several Hippocratic treatises, notably the Oath, and offers an interpretation of the limits of the art by physicians. She turns to another Athenian inscription on a statue dedicated to Asclepius, which relates to Phanostrate and her patients. Totelin's paper sheds much needed light on the work of female medical practitioners of the ancient world, which is so often overlooked.
M. Börno and S. Coughlin focus on the term κακοζηλία (‘bad style’). This term was originally used in rhetoric, and later Galen applied it as a criterion for questioning the authenticity of the Hippocratic texts without attributing any specific definition to the term. Thus, the authors delve into Galen's usage of this word in his Hippocratic commentaries. After exploring seven case studies, Börno and Coughlin underline Galen's impromptu methods for exegetical practice. Galen's use of ‘bad style’ is not a subjective criterion, but rather an objective one, by which he creates his own perfect Hippocrates.
L. Perilli explores a non-Hippocratic healing form conducted by ‘Heros Iatros’. He begins his analysis with the ambiguous term ‘the Hero Calamites’ in Demosthenes’ orations and similarly the term ‘Heros Iatros’, attested in the inscriptions. The cult of the Heros Iatros seems to have its origin in the northern part of Thrace and is associated with the so-called Thracian Rider, an indigenous healing figure who was worshipped and sometimes deified. Perilli argues that other healing cults in Attica, including the Eleusinian mysteries, have Thracian connections. This hypothesis is supported by an investigation into Apollo Iatros.
M. Meeusen moves away from Hippocrates and Galen to Book 37 of the Aristotelian Problems, in which Chapters 3, 5 and 6 are dedicated to massages. It is assumed that these chapters were written not by Aristotle, but by his disciple(s) in the Lyceum. Meeusen argues that the latter part (which he names ‘the illustrative part’) of Pr. 37.3 was extracted presumably from Diocles of Carystus, but it was never particularised into smaller problem chapters. His thorough evaluation of Pr. 37.3, Pr. 1.52 and Pr. 5.34 reveals that the redaction process of Problems caused the decontexualisation of scientific arguments.
This anthology of essays raises several significant questions and imparts useful information on different subjects of ancient medicine. Therefore, it will be of great use not only to philologists, but also to historians. It provides in-depth analyses of a significant number of previously neglected topics and raises awareness of both well-researched Greek medical texts and those that require further examination.
