This book is the result of a doctoral thesis defended at the University of Strasbourg in 2012 and prepared under the direction of Y. Lehmann. After a brief preface in which Lehmann discusses the important contribution of De medicina to the history of medicine, G. presents the lines along which his research on the De medicina of Celsus is based. He outlines an investigation of the criticism related to Celsus’ person, his writing, the transmission of his work and the relationship that he maintained with the medicine of his time.

The first of the volume's two parts is devoted to the elaboration and writing of De medicina. The first chapter deals with the place that this work occupies in ancient Greek, Alexandrian and Roman literature. First, G. analyses, from a literary point of view, the work's position at the crossroads of the encyclopedic tradition, on the one hand, and medical heritage, on the other. Second, he highlights, on the basis of strictly literary elements, the old debates concerning Celsus himself. From here, he scrutinises the status of De medicina as the only work of importance written during the reign of Tiberius. As such, De medicina represents a major continuity benchmark in the consolidation of knowledge that started under the reign of Augustus and continued under that of Vespasian.

The second chapter examines the place of De medicina in the history of medicine. Analysis of Celsus’ written sources and his personal medical experience is followed by the definition of the main features of his method. G. then considers the transitional nature of the medical knowledge presented in De medicina and highlights Celsus’ conscious knowledge of the future evolution of medicine. This approach to De medicina as an encyclopedic work inscribed in the history of medicine underscores the new characteristics of Celsian encyclopedism: its methodical and rigorous way of working, based on a deep and disparate knowledge of the medical field.

The internal organisation of De medicina is the subject of the third chapter. G. is interested in the concrete form of the work at the time of Celsus. The semantic investigation of the terms caput, liber, pars and volumen that are used by Celsus to describe De medicina in its concrete form enables G. to show that ‘Le De Medicina est divisé en huit rouleaux, contenant chacun un livre. Chaque livre est lui-même divisé en chapitres, eux-mêmes divisés en parties’ (p. 96). The description of the concrete form of the work is followed by the exploration of paratexts (e.g. table of contents, internal references, index), provided by the text, in order to facilitate its concrete manipulation and to guarantee its good understanding. The chapter ends with a consideration of referential passages and an analysis of the function of prefaces as medical histories, as theoretical optimisation or as reading guides within the economy of the work.

The last chapter of this part investigates the issues of reading and readership of the Celsian text. At first, G. points out Celsus’ interventions in order to justify his writing choices, which are determined by his attention to the overall context of the discourse and to features that will serve as keys to understanding subsequent passages. He also demands both a cursory reading and a consultative reading of his work. In addition, G. determines the identity of the broad readership for which De medicina is intended. The delineation of readership categories, which range from simple curantes to sapientes, and of readers’ motivations are related to the notions of cursive and consultative readings.

The second part of the volume investigates the techniques and the ethics of medical practice in Celsus’ work. The topic of health practitioners is developed in the first chapter. At first, G. focuses on the identity of medici and curantes. He emphasises the figure of the medicus and that of the non-professional carers or curantes. In contrast to his predecessors, G. believes that the opening of the Celsian text to non-specialists is compatible with the practice of medicine and presents an essential starting point for Celsus’ medicine. With regard to surgery, G. weighs the question of whether this discipline is achievable by any practitioner or if it requires a specialist. He also analyses the place of self-medication within the work. By ‘self-medication’ G. means the case where ‘practicien et malade sont confondus en une seule et même personne’ (p. 207), which implies the patient's freedom to choose his own therapeutics himself. This non-professional practice of medicine makes clear the place of man within the medical art and the relationship maintained by the individual with a sick body. The chapter ends with a study of translation problems concerning the caregiver, who is not necessarily a medicus, and the ‘cared person’, for example the patient.

The second chapter brings out the difficulties of medical practice. G. evokes, first, the vagaries of this practice, which result from nature or from fortune. This leads him to better understand the modalities of medicine's implementation as a conjectural medical art. Then, he underscores Celsus’ efforts to fight against the hazards of medical practice. To do this, he analyses the origin and importance of setting up general rules and exceptions and of risk taking, all of which a good caregiver must know.

The third chapter explores the distinction between, on the one hand, the classification of sick individuals according to their sex and age and, on the other hand, the consideration of the caregiver for the sick person. G. distinguishes two major categories into which sick individuals are classified by revealing the similarities and differences, from a physiological, anatomical and therapeutic point of view, between the male and female sexes. He then emphasises the relationships between the different age groups. In the last section G. concludes that consideration of the sick person justifies the practice of a friendly medicine based on trust, which allows the patient to consider death without fear and to maintain hope of salvation in the face of illness.

The fourth chapter discusses the medical dialogue between the patient and the caregiver. This dialogue takes many forms and can take place at any time in a therapeutic process. It is considered as a complement to the external signs of disease and to its immediacy, because it allows the reporting of events that occurred from the manifestation of the illness until the arrival of the caregiver.

G. conducts a careful examination of the philosophical framework of Celsus’ medicine. This book is the first comprehensive approach to Celsus’ work and takes into account all aspects from its publication by Celsus himself to its implementation by a caregiver, specialist or non-professional.