Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T13:59:31.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE USE AND ABUSE OF HIPPOCRATIC MEDICINE IN THE APOLOGY OF LUCIUS APULEIUS*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2016

Ido Israelowich
Ido Israelowich*
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University
*
Ido0572@post.tau.ac.il
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Apology of Apuleius is a rare example of a complete forensic speech in Latin from the High Roman Empire. The prosecution on the charge of magia of a renowned rhetor in the court of a Roman proconsul, who might himself have been a distinguished Stoic philosopher, offers modern scholars a remarkable opportunity to observe an encounter between scholarship and legal practice. Apuleius arrived in the city of Oea en route to Alexandria as part of a life of learning and travel. While visiting Oea, Apuleius met his old schoolfriend Sicinius Pontianus, who encouraged him to wed his recently widowed mother Aemilia Pudentilla. The reason for this unusual request was Pontianus' wish that his mother would not marry someone unsuitable. Apuleius agreed and the marriage took place. However, it left Sicinius Aemilianus, a brother of Pudentilla's first husband, and Herennius Rufinus, Pontianus' father-in-law, aggrieved and they decided to pursue Apuleius through the courts. The Apology, which Apuleius later published as a record of his defence, has long attracted scholarly interest. Two commentaries have been published, the literary aspects analysed and the authenticity of the speech scrutinized.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 66 , Issue 2 , December 2016 , pp. 635 - 644
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2016 

The Apology of Apuleius is a rare example of a complete forensic speech in Latin from the High Roman Empire. The prosecution on the charge of magia of a renowned rhetor in the court of a Roman proconsul, who might himself have been a distinguished Stoic philosopher, offers modern scholars a remarkable opportunity to observe an encounter between scholarship and legal practice.Footnote 1 Apuleius arrived in the city of Oea en route to Alexandria as part of a life of learning and travel. While visiting Oea, Apuleius met his old schoolfriend Sicinius Pontianus, who encouraged him to wed his recently widowed mother Aemilia Pudentilla. The reason for this unusual request was Pontianus' wish that his mother would not marry someone unsuitable.Footnote 2 Apuleius agreed and the marriage took place. However, it left Sicinius Aemilianus, a brother of Pudentilla's first husband, and Herennius Rufinus, Pontianus' father-in-law, aggrieved and they decided to pursue Apuleius through the courts. The Apology, which Apuleius later published as a record of his defence, has long attracted scholarly interest. Two commentaries have been published,Footnote 3 the literary aspects analysedFootnote 4 and the authenticity of the speech scrutinized.Footnote 5

The current article aims at examining Apuleius' use and abuse of Hippocratic medicine. In three places in his Apology Apuleius drew upon arguments whose origin can be traced back to the Hippocratic corpus. First, he disputed his prosecutors' claims that his roots dictated his character. This argument alluded to the Hippocratic treatise On Airs, Waters and Places. Second, Apuleius argued that the slave-boy whom his accusers alleged he bewitched suffered from epilepsy and was more in need of a physician than of a purifier. Here Apuleius was influenced by the Hippocratic work On the Sacred Disease. Third, Apuleius insisted that Pudentilla wanted to marry because she thought that continued celibacy was harmful. This argument evoked the gynaecological works of Hippocrates. Through analysing these three cases this study seeks to question how knowledgeable Apuleius, as a young representative of the intellectual elite, was of the Hippocratic corpus, and how willing Maximus' court was to admit medical arguments as supporting evidence. Apuleius used some Hippocratic ideas in support of his position, but was equally happy to dismiss others when they stood in opposition to his cause. I will argue that this use and abuse was intended, as it proved the speaker's knowledge and his skills as a rhetor. I will further suggest that the case of Apuleius reveals important clues as to the status of Hippocratic medicine amongst the educated elite during the High Empire.

As a branch of learning, medicine was indispensable to the pepaideumenoi during the second century c.e.,Footnote 6 and within medical discourse during the High Empire the Hippocratic corpus was held in the highest esteem.Footnote 7 Medical and non-medical Greek and Latin authors cited Hippocrates throughout classical antiquity as a supreme authority.Footnote 8 It is within this context that Apuleius' command of Hippocratic ideas, his expectation that the court would acknowledge their validity, and his belief that the audience would recognize his learning and skill in using them should be understood. It is noteworthy that the great Galen, Apuleius' contemporary who ascended to the highest social spheres of Asia Minor and the city of Rome, was a self-confessed admirer of Hippocrates.Footnote 9 In fact, he referred to Hippocrates as the guide of all that is good.Footnote 10 Hippocratic writings were commemorated by Galen for their pure Attic Greek in works directed at the so-called Second-Sophistic discourse.Footnote 11 Galen referred to Hippocrates on more than 2,500 occasions.Footnote 12 The prominence of Hippocrates in Galen's work cannot be overstated. More than twenty-five Galenic works bear the name of Hippocrates in their title.Footnote 13 Moreover, Hippocratic writings and Hellenistic commentaries took prominent place in Galen's and other Roman libraries.Footnote 14 The testimony of Galen to the prevalence of Hippocrates during Apuleius' lifetime in scholarly circles is particularly important owing to Galen's own repute.Footnote 15

THE FIRST INSTANCE: ORIGIN AND CHARACTER

The first place in the Apology where Apuleius engages with Hippocratic ideas occurs at the beginning of his defence. After he rebuffs the prosecutor's critique of his dandy appearance and elaborate eloquence (5–23), Apuleius refutes his accusers' insinuations regarding his place of birth. According to Apuleius, it was erroneous to assume that a birthplace determined one's character (Apol. 24):

de patria mea uero, quod eam sitam Numidiae et Gaetuliae in ipso confinio mei<s> scriptis ostendi scis, quibus memet professus sum, cum Lolliano Auito c.u. praesente publice dissererem, ‘Seminumidam’ et ‘Semigaetulum’: non uideo quid mihi sit in ea re pudendum, haud minus quam Cyro maiori, quod genere mixto fuit Semimedus ac Semipersa. non enim ubi prognatus, sed ut moratus quisque sit spectandum, nec qua regione, sed qua ratione uitam uiuere inierit, considerandum est. holitori et cauponi merito est concessum holus et uinum ex nobilitate soli commendare, uinum Thasium, holus Phliasium; quippe illa terrae alumna multum ad meliorem saporem iuuerit et regio fecunda et caelum pluuium et uentus clemens et sol apricus et solum sucidum. enimuero animo hominis extrinsecus in hospitium corporis immigranti quid ex istis addi uel minui ad uirtutem uel malitiam potest? quando non in omnibus gentibus uaria ingenia prouenere, quanquam uideantur quaedam stultitia uel sollertia insigniores? apud socordissimos Scythas Anacharsis sapiens natus est, apud Athenienses catos Meletides fatuus.

The idea that birthplace was irrelevant to a person's character (non enim ubi prognatus …) met with fierce opposition in Apuleius' time. The opposing view can be traced back to the Hippocratic corpus and was delineated in the works of scholars such as Aristotle, Posidonius and Varro. The association between origin and character was also present in the works of professional practitioners.Footnote 16 Indeed, the Hippocratic origin of this notion is found in a professional guidebook rather than a theoretical work. In the treatise On Airs, Waters and Places, the Hippocratic author instructed aspiring medical practitioners as to how they could secure their professional authority in every city and town.Footnote 17 Since most physicians in classical Greece could not acquire a significant enough clientele in just one city owing to their relatively small populations, they had to travel in pursuit of new markets. Having arrived in a new town without diplomas, a licensing system or far-reaching reputation that could vouch for their expertise, they had to adopt techniques, which could be easily recognized by laymen. The key, according to the Hippocratic author, was the ability to form an accurate prognosis.Footnote 18 The Hippocratic author of Aer. taught physicians how environment affects the human constitution and the likely resulting ailments.Footnote 19 Equipped with this knowledge, the itinerant physician could successfully compete over clients with other health-care providers.Footnote 20

The first part of the Hippocratic Aer. (1–11) discusses the various ways by which the environment can harm the body, and how to diagnose and treat them. However, the second part of the treatise (12–24), and the one relevant to Apuleius, discusses how different regions produce different characters.Footnote 21 According to the Hippocratic author, the people of Asia and Europe differ from one another owing to the impact of the environment and this difference is mental as well as physical. This view soon became commonplace. In fact, and unlike Apuleius' view (sed qua ratione uitam uiuere inierit, considerandum est), the region of origin was seen as critical not merely in the fields of medicine and ethnography but also in the more practical and less scholarly realms of architecture and military affairs. Vitruvius' De Architectura and Vegetius' Epitoma Rei Militaris indicate how widespread this Hippocratic-based ethnography was. Both Vitruvius and Vegetius composed professional guidebooks, which were handed to the emperor. As such, they must have echoed common beliefs and the imperial spirit. Vitruvius dedicated his work to Augustus, and it can be seen as reflecting the outlook of the Early Principate. Although Vegetius lived and wrote in the late fourth or early fifth century c.e., and dedicated his work to an unnamed emperor, it has been convincingly shown that he captured the air of the Late Republic and Early Principate.Footnote 22

In his first chapter on new recruits Vegetius commented on the regions from which they should be levied; the advantages and disadvantages of recruits from the country or the city; and how better ones could be recognized at selection by their face and physical posture. Vegetius explained all of these issues in medical terms and his conclusions were attributed to past authorities. According to Vegetius, all people who lived near the sun, being parched by great heat, were more intelligent but had less blood. They were therefore less capable of fighting at close quarters because they were conscious that for them every wound could be mortal. The people from the north, who were far remote from the sun, were less intelligent but had more blood. Recruits, Vegetius therefore concluded, should be levied from the more temperate regions. The plenteousness of their blood resulted in a ‘contempt for wounds and death’ but they would not be lacking in intelligence, as unintelligence ‘prevents discipline in camp and is of no little assistance with counsel in battle’.Footnote 23 Similarly, Vitruvius referred to Greek theories in order to demonstrate a prevalent assumption amongst his colleagues—that the environment influences health and must be taken into consideration when planning cities in different regions for different people.Footnote 24 Although Vegetius made no explicit reference to medical authors, he did mention some of his sources by name. Cato the Elder is referred to on several instances (1.18.10; 1.13.6; 1.15.4; 2.3.6), as is Frontinus (1.8.11; 2.3.7), Tarruntenus Paternus (1.8.1), Sallust (1.4.4; 1.9.8) and Varro (4.41.6). In addition, the similar tone of Vegetius and Vitruvius concerning the effect of the environment on the human constitution and mind has led at least one commentator to argue that Vegetius actually read Vitruvius' work.Footnote 25 Hence, this kind of ethnography, which Apuleius rebuked, was prevalent during the High Empire. His refusal to accept it and the contempt with which he discussed it must be explained.

According to Apuleius, airs, waters and places were relevant in the growing of vegetables or the making of wine (holitori et cauponi merito est concessum holus et uinum ex nobilitate soli commendare, uinum Thasium, holus Phliasium; quippe illa terrae alumna multum ad meliorem saporem iuuerit et regio fecunda et caelum pluuium et uentus clemens et sol apricus et solum sucidum). However, he argues that such determinism was inapplicable with respect to humans (enimuero animo hominis extrinsecus in hospitium corporis immigranti quid ex istis addi uel minui ad uirtutem uel malitiam potest?). Apuleius held that throughout time and in every place there were people of various qualities who grew up in similar conditions (quando non in omnibus gentibus uaria ingenia prouenere, quanquam uideantur quaedam stultitia uel sollertia insigniores? apud socordissimos Scythas Anacharsis sapiens natus est, apud Athenienses catos Meletides fatuus). It seems unlikely that Apuleius was not consciously alluding to the Hippocratic school of thought. Consequently his critique must have been viewed as a display of considerable learning, as was required of a scholar. An accomplished rhetor was expected to offer his audience such a reassessment of a known theme in his public displays.

THE SECOND INSTANCE: EPILEPSY

Apuleius made further use of Hippocratic notions during his refutation of an accusation concerning one of the household boys. It was claimed that Apuleius bewitched him by a spell in a hidden location, next to a small altar and a lamp, with only a few sympathetic witnesses. After Thallus had been subjected to a charm, he collapsed and subsequently came back to his senses no longer aware of himself.Footnote 26 Though not disputing the possibility of magic and divination per se, Apuleius said that, in the case of Thallus, the house-boy, magic was unlikely. He informed the court that to be selected a prophetic boy had to be beautiful and healthy in body, clever in mind, and fluent in speech so that the divine power could be appropriately lodged in him, as in a good temple.Footnote 27 This was not the case with Thallus.Footnote 28 In fact, Apuleius thought that Thallus needed a doctor, not a magician: ceterum Thallus, quem nominastis, medico potius quam mago indiget.Footnote 29 According to Apuleius, the reason for Thallus' strange behaviour was epilepsy: est enim miser morbo comitiali ita confectus, ut ter an quater die saepe numero sine ullis cantaminibus corruat omniaque membra conflictationibus debilitet, facie ulcerosus, fronte et occipitio conquassatus, oculis hebes, naribus hiulcus, pedibus caducus.Footnote 30

A diagnosis of epilepsy, which had both physical and mental symptoms, is an interesting one. Attempts to comprehend this illness, which Apuleius referred to by both its Latin (morbus comitialis) and its Greek (ἱερὰν νόσον) names, were central to physicians' endeavours to offer rational accounts for sickness. As such it was central to their critiques of other explanations, such as acts of invasion by gods, demons or evil spirits, and its treatment by the invocation of supposedly supernatural powers.Footnote 31 This battle between the scientific approach to epilepsy and the approach of the magicians came to prominence in the Hippocratic treatise On the Sacred Disease from about 400 b.c.e. This work is the first-known treatise that was dedicated to epilepsy, and is also one of the most important texts in the history of Greek science and the genealogy of rational thinking. The treatise's Hippocratic author launches a vigorous attack on various types of health-care providers—magicians, wizards and charlatans (μάγοι τε καὶ καθάρται καὶ ἀγύρται καὶ ἀλαζόνες)—who refer to the disease as ‘sacred’.Footnote 32 The argument made in the treatise is also akin to the rest of the Hippocratic corpus, where we habitually find somatic explanations for the disease called ‘sacred’. According to the author of On the Sacred Disease, those health-care providers who characterized this illness as divine did so in order to obscure their own ignorance and impotence.Footnote 33 The disease, just like any other ailment, had a nature, hence it had a cause (or causes), and could be treated once its nature became known and the causes identified: ἀλλὰ φύσιν μὲν ἔχει ἣν καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ νοσήματα, ὅθεν γίνεται. φύσιν δὲ αὐτῆι καὶ πρόφασιν … .Footnote 34 Epilepsy should therefore be treated with drugs and diet rather than by magic.Footnote 35

The Hippocratic treatise did not end the dispute between scientific and other types of medicine. A persistent approach to health-care in general and to the disease called ‘sacred’ in particular, which relied on religious rites, remained tenacious long after the publication of On the Sacred Disease.Footnote 36 In fact, the Latin term Apuleius used (morbus comitialis), which was the standard term for epilepsy in the Roman world, reflected a widespread Roman assumption that an epileptic attack was ominous and therefore that, when an epileptic had an episode in public, it spoiled the day of the comitia.Footnote 37 Consequently, and highly relevant to the case of Thallus, the epileptic was poorly treated in the Roman world. Pliny the Elder recorded approvingly a habit of spitting at an epileptic.Footnote 38 For Plautus the term morbus comitialis simply meant the disease, which was spat upon.Footnote 39 Apuleius described how Thallus' fellow-slaves used to spit at him and that no one dared to eat from his dish or drink from his vessel. This depiction was likely to have raised the association of epilepsy in the court. Apuleius even accounted for Thallus' absence from the court stating that the family wished to send him away for the safety of the household members, because he was contagious. Moreover, according to Apuleius' defence, long before Apuleius arrived in Oea, Thallus was often seen by physicians.Footnote 40 This medical treatment was indicative of the family's understanding that Thallus was ill.

Apuleius' need to offer a rational explanation for Thallus' condition reveals a broader ambiguity concerning epilepsy in classical antiquity, the role of physicians and the validity of their discipline more generally. Despite the rational explanation offered by the Hippocratic author of Morb. Sacr., and the willingness of later Greek, Hellenistic and Roman physicians to adopt it, other ways of accounting for epilepsy, which relied on divine intervention, prevailed throughout classical antiquity. Thus, the late antique Latin author Caelius Aurelianus recorded that in his own day some still maintained that epilepsy was called the ‘sacred disease’ because a deity sent it.Footnote 41 Others asserted that it was named as such because a demon had entered the patient's body. A third perspective was that the name originated from the inclination of the sick to turn towards the goddess of the moon, Selene.Footnote 42 Such an understanding of the nature of epilepsy meant that religious healers of various sorts were often approached by the epileptic, or, as is relevant to Apuleius' defence, that some epileptics were believed to have been affected by the malicious deeds of a magician.

Apuleius' explanation of Thallus' state of health seems to align with physicians' explanations as to the nature of the illness. Hence, the followers of Hippocrates assumed that epilepsy occurred early in life.Footnote 43 This, indeed, was the case of Thallus. Epilepsy was defined by the Alexandrian physician Erasistratus as a convulsion of the whole body, together with an impairment of the leading functions.Footnote 44 Thallus is reported as appearing so pitiful that three or four times a day he would fall without any incantations, and convulsions would leave all of his limbs powerless.Footnote 45 Moreover, Thallus often fell owing to his illness even prior to Apuleius' arrival in Oea, and habitually consulted local physicians.Footnote 46 This description and definition of epilepsy was commonplace among Apuleius' contemporary medical authors.Footnote 47 An epileptic attack, according to Seneca, had the patient fall on the ground, unconscious and not susceptible to pain.Footnote 48 Such was the diagnosis of Thallus.Footnote 49 Theodorus Priscianus also noted that after a stage of tonic convulsions the patient passes into a stage of clonic convulsions and a condition, which seems like deep sleep.Footnote 50 Apuleius described a similar picture in court, using similar terms.Footnote 51 It is noteworthy that the symptoms of epilepsy (or morbus comitialis) made diagnosis fairly simple.Footnote 52 Apuleius, the court and the prosecutors did not need an expert witness to confirm the diagnosis. This was not unusual. In fact, physicians were required to give testimony in court only in cases of suspicious death or an act of violence.Footnote 53 In the case of epilepsy, Apuleius was confident that the slaves of his accusers could give an accurate diagnosis that would suit his argument.Footnote 54 Apuleius himself admitted that the house-slave Thallus fell in his presence, but claimed that this fall was due to epilepsy rather than his incantations.Footnote 55 In support of his physiological explanation of Thallus' condition Apuleius argued that, since the boy was epileptic, he could have made him fall using a kindled jet stone.Footnote 56 This hard black asphalt from Lydia was known to be a test for epilepsy.Footnote 57 According to Apuleius, it was habitually used in the process of buying slaves in the marketplace to make sure they were not epileptics.Footnote 58 Following Plato's Timaeus, Apuleius explained the nature of epilepsy as concentration of different kinds of bile, murky gas and thick humours.Footnote 59 It is a similar account to that found in the Hippocratic treatise On the Sacred Disease. The Hippocratic and Platonic foundations of Apuleius' explanation of Thallus' illness were made explicit in his discussion of this illness' name. Apuleius claimed that it was right to follow the Greek habit of referring to it as the ‘sacred disease’ (ἱερὰν νόσον) while making explicit reference to Plato.Footnote 60

THE THIRD INSTANCE: GYNAECOLOGY

The third instance of Apuleius using a Hippocratic explanation in the course of his defence occurred when he explained why Pudentilla wished to marry again. Though she was disinclined to accept the offers of her many suitors she decided not to continue her life of solitude owing to the physical discomfort of being alone: decrepit sibi diutius in uiduitate non permanendum; quippe ut solitudinis taedium perpeti posset, tamen aegritudine[m] corporis ferre non poterat.Footnote 61 Her chastity was the cause of great pain. Apuleius provided an explicit explanation as to the origin of Pudentilla's suffering: her long life of dignified widowhood had turned her womanly organs numb: mulier sancte pudica, tot annis uiduitatis sine culpa, sine fabula, assuetudine coniugis torpens.Footnote 62 Her inner organs (we assume female reproductive organs) had become severely wounded, causing her mortal pains: diutino situ uiscerum saucia, uitiatis intimis uteri saepe ad extremum uitae discrimen doloribus obortis exanimabatur.Footnote 63 According to Apuleius, this diagnosis was confirmed by doctors and obstetricians who warned Pudentilla that her pain was caused by abstinence from conjugal relations, that her suffering would increase and that the only cure was to take a husband.Footnote 64

This explanation of Apuleius and the mention of the diagnosis of physicians and obstetricians are reminiscent of a similar medical case recorded by Apuleius' contemporary Galen. Of Galen's twenty-five recorded female patients the only discussion of the role of sexuality in health is in the treatise On the Affected Parts.Footnote 65 Here Galen described ‘hysterical’ diseases, which to Galen meant diseases related to the uterus, following the Hippocratic tradition. According to Galen, widows were most likely to be affected by hysterical diseases because they were accustomed to conjugal life and childbearing, but were forced into a life of celibacy while still menstrual. Galen introduced a case study of a long-time widow, who was cured of hysterical problems by a midwife who applied medicine to her sexual organs, causing her orgasm and the release of seed.Footnote 66 Though not present, Galen described this case as successful. The appeal of the widow to a midwife (μαῖα) bears close resemblance to the case of Pudentilla, who also thought the problem was medical. And although in this case Apuleius did not allude directly to the Hippocratic corpus, his arguments were rooted in gynaecology, which recognized Hippocrates as its founder.Footnote 67

CONCLUSION

To conclude, this article set out to examine the use and abuse of Hippocratic medicine by Apuleius in Maximus' court. It has demonstrated centrality of the forensic context. Apuleius shaped his defence with two aims in mind: to be acquitted and to promote his prestige as a rhetor. By using Hippocratic themes he was able to present his accusers as provincial in their association of origin and character; to offer more plausible explanations for the relevant events in the case of Thallus; and finally to account for the desire of Pudentilla to marry. The first (ab)use of a Hippocratic theme is presented as a refutation of a stereotype, adequate only to the uneducated. Apuleius never hinted that it belonged in the realm of medicine. The two remaining cases were presented as medical, as attested by Apuleius' allusions to physicians and midwives.

However, although Hippocratic medicine seemed to Apuleius to be offering powerful refutations of his opponents' accusations, he never suggested summoning an expert witness. The reason must have been his assurance that his, Pudentilla's and Maximus' diagnostic skills sufficed.Footnote 68 Taken together, the frequent application of Hippocratic arguments suggests that the Hippocratic corpus was an essential part of the Graeco-Roman paideia. Footnote 69 Furthermore, Apuleius' use of Hippocratic themes shows that the works of Hippocrates transcended the practical realm of medicine. This explains why some of his assertions were backed up by the verdict of doctors, while others, which were of a speculative nature, were refuted by logic and rhetoric.

Footnotes

*

This article is part of an ISF-funded research. I am grateful for its generous support.

References

1 Harrison, following Hunink, assumed that Maximus the presiding proconsul was Claudius Maximus, one of Marcus Aurelius' Stoic teachers. This assumption rests on Apuleius' constant allusions to Maximus' extensive learning and is chronologically possible. M. Aur. Med. 1.17.5; V. Hunink, Apuleius of Madauros Pro se de magia (Amsterdam, 1997), 1.18; S. Harrison, Apuleius: A Latin Sophist (Oxford, 2000), 45; but see the reservations of H.E. Butler and A.S. Owen, Apulei Apologia sive Pro se de magia liber (Oxford, 1914), 1.

2 For a summery of the case details, see K. Bradley, Apuleius and Antonine Rome (Toronto, 2012).

3 Butler and Owen (n. 1); Hunink (n. 1).

4 Helm, R., ‘Apuleius' Apologie: ein Meisterwerk der zweiten Sophistik’, Das Altertum 1 (1955), 86–108 Google Scholar; Hijmans, B.L. Jr., ‘Apuleius orator: “Pro se de Magia” and “Florida”’, ANRW 2.34.2 (1994), 1708–84Google Scholar; Harrison (n. 1).

5 Harrison (n. 1).

6 J. Jouanna, Hippocrates (Johns Hopkins, 1999), 351–2.

7 For a social history of medicine during the High Empire, see I. Israelowich, Patients and Healers during the High Empire (Johns Hopkins, 2015).

8 Cic. Att. 16.15.5; Nat. D. 3.38.91; Orat. 3.33.132; Celsus, Med. Prooem.2-3, 5–8; Plin. HN 29.1-2; Plut. Mor. 82d, 90c, 127d10, 291c, 455e, 515a, 682e, 699c, 1047d, 1091c, 1099d; Gell. NA 19.2.8; Jouanna (n. 6), 348–65.

9 For a discussion of Galen's impact on Graeco-Roman society, see G. Bowersock, Greek Sophists under the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1969), 59–75.

10 Gal. X.375 K.

11 D. Manelli, ‘Galen and Hippocratic medicine: language and practice’, in C. Gill, T. Whitmarsh and J. Wilkins (edd.), Galen and the World of Knowledge (Cambridge, 2009), 157–74.

12 Galen referred to his commentaries of Hippocratic works in XIX.9 K.

13 See Galen's own references to his commentaries of Hippocrates in Gal. XIX.49 K.; R. Flemming, ‘Commentary’, in R.J. Hankinson (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Galen (Cambridge, 2008), 323–52; H. von Staden, ‘Staging the past, staging oneself: Galen on Hellenistic exegetical tradition’, in C. Gill, T. Whitmarsh and J. Wilkins (edd.), Galen and the World of Knowledge (Cambridge, 2009), 132–56.

14 Galen's library: V. Nutton, ‘Galen's library’, in C. Gill, T. Whitmarsh and J. Wilkins (edd.), Galen and the World of Knowledge (Cambridge, 2009), 19–38; Hellenistic commentaries: von Staden (n. 13).

15 See most recently Gill, Whitmarsh and Wilkins (n. 11). See also: J. Kollesch, ‘Galen und die zweite Sophistik’, in V. Nutton (ed.), Galen, Problems and Prospects (London, 1981), 1–11.

16 On the dominance of such ethnography and the pivotal place of the Hippocratic Aer., see B. Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity (Princeton, 2004), 57–74.

17 For the image of the Greek doctor as artisan, see L. Edelstein, Ancient Medicine: Selected Papers of Ludwig Edelstein (Baltimore, 1967), 65–86; V. Nutton, Ancient Medicine (London, 2012), 87–102.

18 Edelstein (n. 17), 65–86.

19 The literature on the Hippocratic Aer. is vast. The best edition is J. Jouanna, La Maladie Sacrée (Paris, 2003), which offers an extensive introduction.

20 Hippoc. Aer. 1.1-1.3.

21 Hippoc. Aer. 12.1.

22 Vegetius' sources: N.P. Milner, Epitome of Military Science (Liverpool, 1995), xv-xvi; publication date: Goffart, W., ‘The date and purpose of Vegetius' de re militari ’, Traditio 33 (1977), 65–100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barnes, T.D., ‘The date of Vegetius’, Phoenix 33 (1979), 254–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zuckerman, C., ‘Sur la date du traité militaire de Végèce et son destinataire Valentinien II’, SCI 13 (1994), 67–75 Google Scholar; Vegetius' acquaintance with past scholarship: cf. Milner (this note), xxii.

23 Veg. Mil. 1.2, trans. Milner.

24 Vitr. De arch. 5.3.1.

25 Capitoni, U., ‘Una presenza di Vitruvio in Vegezio?’, Maia 32 (1980), 179–85Google Scholar.

26 Apul. Apol. 42.

27 Apul. Apol. 43.

28 Apul. Apol. 43: quod si ita est, nominate, quis ille fuerit puer sanus, incolumis, ingeniosus, decorus, quem ego carmine dignatus sim initiare.

29 Apul. Apol. 43.

30 Apul. Apol. 43.

31 In discussions of epilepsy (or any other named disease) in classical antiquity reservations must be applied concerning the consistency of its nosology, as well as the ability of Greek and Roman doctors both to diagnose it properly and consistently, and to refer to it by names, which are synonymous to current names. Thus, the disease called ‘sacred’ which historians of medicine associate with epilepsy, and to which Greeks and Romans referred using many names, is taken here to be epilepsy because this is how it was conceived by contemporaries. I follow this without making any claim concerning its ‘actual’ or ‘real’ nature.

32 Hippoc. Morb. Sacr. 1.4.

33 Hippoc. Morb. Sacr. 2.

34 Hippoc. Morb. Sacr. 1.1.

35 Hippoc. Morb. Sacr. 2.1.

36 The stimulating study of J. Laskaris, The Art Is Long: On the Sacred Disease and the Scientific Tradition (Leiden, 2002), does much to locate this work in its contemporary intellectual and medical environment. After an excellent overview of early healers, the transmission of medical knowledge and religious healing, Laskaris emphasizes the polemical aspects of this work. Her argument that this treatise ‘is best understood as a sophistic protreptic speech that was meant to demonstrate its author's superior understanding and treatment of that disease for the purpose of attracting students and a clientele’ (2) testifies to the exceptional nature of the work.

37 Cf. Quintus Serenus, Liber medicinalis 56: est subiti species morbi, cui nomen ab illo | haesit, quod fieri prohibet suffragia iusta. | saepe etenim membris atro languore caducis | concilium populi labes horrenda diremit; Festus, Gloss. Lat. 234.65.

38 Plin. HN 28.35.

39 Plaut. Capt. 550.

40 Apul. Apol. 44: eum tamen uos carminibus meis subuersum dixistis, quod forte me coram semel decidit. conserui eius plerique adsunt, quos ex<h>iberi denuntiastis. possunt dicere omnes quid in Thallo despuant, cur nemo audeat cum eo ex eodem catino cenare, eodem poculo bibere. et quid ego de seruis? uos ipsi uidetis. negate Thallum multo prius quam ego Oeam uenirem corruere eo morbo solitum, medicis saepe numero ostensum! negant hoc conserui eius, qui sunt in ministerio uestro?

41 Caelius Aurelianus, Morb. Chron. 1.4, par. 60.

42 Caelius Aurelianus, Morb. Chron. 1.4, par. 60.

43 Cf. Paul of Aegina, III.13 = vol. 1, p. 152 ed. Heiberg; Caelius Aurelians, Morb. Sacr. 1.4, par. 60.

44 Erasistratus, fr. 162.43-58 Garofalo.

45 Apul. Apol. 43: est enim miser morbo comitiali ita confectus, ut ter an quater die saepe numero sine ullis cantaminibus corruat omniaque membra conflictationibus debilitet.

46 Apul. Apol. 44: uos ipsi uidetis; negate Thallum multo prius, quam ego Oeam uenirem, corruere eo morbo solitum, medicis saepe numero ostensum.

47 O. Temkin, The Falling Sickness (Baltimore, 1972), 36; cf. Gal. VII.58-9 K.; XIX.414 K.; Celsus, Med. III.23.

48 Sen. De ira, 3.10.3-4; cf. Hippoc. Morb. Sacr. 7.

49 Apul. Apol. 43.

50 Theodorus Priscianus, p. 148.3-4 H.

51 Apul. Apol. 43.

52 Caelius Aurelianus, Morb. Chron. 1.4, par. 70.

53 Israelowich, I., ‘Physicians as figures of authority in the Roman courts’, Historia 63 (2014), 445–62Google Scholar.

54 Apul. Apol. 44: Maxime, XIIII seruos quos exhibemus, Thallus puer ubi sit et quam salue agat, interroga seruos accusatorum meorum.

55 Apul. Apol. 45.

56 Apul. Apol. 45: quod si magnum putarem caducum deicere, quid opus carmine fuit, cum incensus gagates lapis, ut apud physicos lego, pulchre et facile hunc morbum exploret.

57 Cf. Dioscorides, 5.149; Plin. HN 36.142; Gal. 12.203 K.

58 Apul. Apol. 45.

59 Apul. Apol. 49–50: … quorum e numero praecipuast materia morbi comitialis, de quo dicere exorsus sum, cum caro in humorem crassum et spumidum inimico igni conliquescit et spiritu indidem parto ex candore compressi aeris albida et tumida tabes fluit. Cf. Pl. Tim. 35a.

60 Apul. Apol. 50.

61 Apul. Apol. 69.

62 Apul. Apol. 69.

63 Ibid.

64 Ibid.

65 Galen's female patients: S. Mattern, Galen and the Rhetoric of Healing (Johns Hopkins, 1996), 122–4 and R. Flemming, Medicine and the Making of Roman Women (Oxford, 2000).

66 Gal. IV.498-9 K.

67 Cf. H. King, ‘Once upon a text: hysteria from Hippocrates', in S.L. Gilman, H. King, R. Porter, G.S. Rouseau and E. Showalter (edd.), Hysteria Beyond Freud (Los Angeles, 1993), 42–3.

68 Israelowich (n. 53).

69 The pivotal place of Hippocrates in second-century Greek paideia is repeatedly affirmed by Galen, Apuleius' contemporary; Flemming (n. 13); Nutton (n. 14), 19–34; Manelli (n. 11).