Notes on the current edition
Epidemics I and III
1.
The third book of the
Epidemics has always been regarded as a continuation of the first book. Even a casual glance will convince any reader that the two books are really one work. The Paris manuscript called A, which breaks off after the opening words of
Epidemics III, nevertheless joins these words without interruption to the end of the first book.
2.
But see note on p. 188.
3.
Galen says that the meaning of
λεπτὰ is here
small,
i. e. he thinks that there wore small particles at the bottom. Such is not the meaning of the word in Hippocrates when applied to urine.
4.
See note, p. 188.
5.
The variants indicate corruption. Can
Δηλίαν be
Delian goddess or
Delias? The form is not Ionic.
6.
Here
ῥεύματα πολλὰ must mean
many fluxes, but in
Epidemics III. iv. it means
copions fluxes.
7.
Or, with Galen’s reading,
she had a cough, but brought up no concocted suptum.
8.
The ancient commentators did not know the meaning of this word when applied to respiration, and a modern can only guess.
9.
See note, p. 188.
10.
Or,
forms.
11.
With Littré’s punctuation the meaning is,
however slight the neglect, and even when a patient was actually undergoing treatment. There were severe inflammations, etc.
12.
The word so rendered has puzzled the commentators from very early times. See the full disoussion of Littré
ad loc. The ancients interpreted either
cooped up or
altered,
faussée (Littré). See Erotian
sub voce
φωναὶ κατείλλουσαι. I think that H. used a strange word metaphorically on purpose to describe a strange alteration in the voice, which was as it were
imprisoned or (to borrow a motoring expression)
silenced.
13.
Possibly
frequent,
common. So Littré. This is one of the most doubtful cases of those difficult words in a medical context,
πολύς and
ὀλίγος in the plural. See General Introduction, p. lxi.
14.
A curious phrase. I suspect that
τὰ hides a corruption of the text.
15.
I. c. as Galen suggests in his commentary, they were like the lienteries in not causing much pain. Lientery is not particularly painful.
16.
Littré in a long and obscure note argues that only
ἄνευ πυρετῶν and not
ἐν πυρετοῖσι can belong to the preceding phrase, apparently because it is illogical to say that fever was present when the disease consisted merely of unhealthy stools. But the writer does not wish to exclude fever; he merely wishes to exclude from this class of patient tenesmus, lientery and dysentery. The commentary of Galen,
πολλοῖς ῦέ φησιν αὐτὸ τοῦτο γενέσθαι τὸ νόσημα,
τουτέστι τὸ διαχωρεῖν τὰ τοιαῦτα· καὶ γὰρ καὶ χωρὶς πυρετῶν ἐνίοις τοῦτο γενέσθαι Φησι, does not, as Littré supposes, support his contention. The phrase
καὶ χωρὶς πυρετῶν ἐνίοις τοῦτο γενέσθαι φησὶ implies
καὶ ἐν πυρετοῖς τοῦτο ἐγένετο.
17.
It is hard to separate
διέξοδοι from
τῶν πολλῶν, yet the sense seems to require it. The next sentence states that these evacuations caused no relief, evidently because they did not clear the trouble from the bowel. Now if
διέξοδοι be taken with
τῶν πολλῶν, the only possible translation is
evacuations of the many contents which were retained there, implying complete evacuation. Galen’s comment (Kéhn XVII, Part I, p. 708) bears out the former interpretation:
τὰς δὲ διεξόδους,
τουτέστὶ τὰς κενώσεις,
αὐτοῖς συμβῆναι,
πολλῶν ἐνόντων καὶ ἐπισχόντων . . . . .
καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μηδὲ τοὺς πόνους λύειν τὰ διεξιόντα.
πῶς γαρ ὀ͂όν τε λύειν αὐτά,
πολλῶν ἔτι τῶν ἐπεχομένων όντων; It should be noticed that
ἐπισχόντων is probably from
ἐπίσχω (Galen’s
ἐπεχομένων) and not from
ἐπέχω, although I cannot find a parallel for intransitive
ἐπίσχω in this sense.
18.
The writer has not expressed himself clearly in this chapter, which seems to be the roughest of rough notes. The last two sentences apparently mean:—
(
a) It was always the bowel complaints which caused most deaths. This was natural, since (
b) all attacked by bowel complaints died.
19.
The emendation of Blass permits the translator of this passage to harmonize both sense and grammar. Before it was impossible to do so.
20.
Probably
disordered bowels, a common meaning of
ταραχὴ in the
Corpus.
21.
See the preceding note.
22.
For
δύσκριτον see Foes’
Oeconomia, sub voce. It means that it was hard to see when a crisis took place, or that the crisis was not a marked one.
23.
I am often doubtful as to the meaning of
πολλοὶ in instances like these; does it refer to quantity or frequency? In these two examples either meaning would give excellent sense. See General Introduction, p. lxi.
24.
I am often doubtful as to the meaning of
πολλοὶ in instances like these; does it refer to quantity or frequency? In these two examples either meaning would give excellent sense. See General Introduction, p. lxi.
25.
It seems impossible to decide whether the adjective
χαροπός refers here to the brightness of the eyes or to their colour (blue or grey).
26.
See General Introduction, p. xlvi-li, on the humours.
Bitter bile was the same as that sometimes called
yellow.
27.
This brief phrase seems to mean that the same characteristics marked consumptive women as consumptive men.
28.
See General Introduction, p. xlvi-li, on the humours.
Bitter bile was the same as that sometimes called
yellow.
29.
See General Introduction, p. xlvi-li, on the humours.
Bitter bile was the same as that sometimes called
yellow.
30.
See General Introduction, p. xlvi-li, on the humours.
Bitter bile was the same as that sometimes called
yellow.
31.
See General Introduction, p. xlvi-li, on the humours.
Bitter bile was the same as that sometimes called
yellow.
32.
Of a good constitution.
33.
This chapter does not fit in with the context, and occurs again at the beginning of the book
περὶ κρισίμων. Ermerins brackets it.
34.
Lit.
seething or
boiling. The reference is possibly not so much to heat as to the steaming, frothy nature of the stools.
35.
The meaning apparently is that the patient was generally in a state of coma; if not comatose, he was in pain and could not sleep.
36.
This sentence shows that
περί in
περιψύχω means not
very, but
all over. The phrase may mean
slight chilliness.
37.
For
melancholy see General Introduction, p. lviii.
38.
Probably bowel trouble. See p. 250
39.
Probably bowel trouble. See p. 250.
40.
Probably trouble in the bowels.
41.
I am conscious of a slight change in diction and method in this part of the
Epidcmics. I mention four points:—
(1) The frequent use of
πυρετὸς in the plural, which is unusual when it simply means
feverishness (Cases VIII, IX, XII, XIII).
(2)
καταβαίνω is used of evacuations (Cases VII, IX
οὔρα . . .
κατέβαινεν, XII).
(3) Treatment is mentioned (Case VIII,
θερμάσματα, and
ἀγκῶνα ἔταμον, where note the personal touch).
(4)
ἱδρύνομαι used of recovery of reason, =
κατανοῶ (Case XV). The change is marked enough to lead one to suppose that these histories were composed at a different period in the writer’s life.
42.
With Blass’ reading,
Upper Market-place.
43.
What other symptoms? It is clear that some symptoms are excepted, but there is no hint what these are. As V has
τὰ δ’ ἄλλα,
but all the other symptoms were relieved, I believe that after
?̓γδόῃ has fallen out a phrase containing the symptoms which were not relieved.
44.
φαγὼμ according to this translation has no expressed object. Furthermore,
βόειον is more naturally
beef. As the words stand the above version is the natural one, but I suspect that either
βόειον should be transposed to between
δὲ and
καί, or else it is used
ἀπὸ κοινοῦ and zengmatically with both
φαγὼν and
πιών,
after eating beef and drinking cow’s milk. So Littré and, apparently, from his translation, Calvus.
45.
Or, changing the comma at
πάντων to
κακῆ,
adopting a bad regimen, he suffered great harm in every way.
46.
Here perhaps not bowel trouble.
47.
I take this, in apite of Galen, to mean
with extra long intervals between each breath. The phrase is rather care-less but scarcely tautological.
At intervals or
after a long interval are possible meanings, but inconsistent with
διὰ τέλεος later on.
48.
In many ways this case, though one of the most picturesque, is also one of the most carelessly written. Galen points out that
διὰ Χπόνον is ambiguous, and that its possible meanings are inconsistent with the rest of the description. How can the respiration be
ἀραιόν throughout, when on both the fourteenth and the twentieth days the patient was
βραχύπνοος? It is strange that the writer specifies the fourteenth day as the day when the respiration was rare and large, seeing that it had these characteristics throughout. A similar remark applies to
ἀναισθήτως εἰχε πάντων of the seventeenth day. Further,
ἀεὶ σιγῶσα of the second sentence becomes strangely
ἣ λόγοι χολλοὶ ἣ σιγῶσα διὰ τέλεος in the last. I conclude that this medical history was hastily written and never revised. A slight revision could easily have cleared away the inconsistencies, which are, as Galen seems to have seen, more apparent than real.
49.
See note, p. 188.
50.
So Littré, following Galen. Perhaps, however, it means
heart,
i. e. there was violent palpitation.
51.
Said by Galen, followed by Littré (who reads
ἥσυχος for
σιγῶν), to refer to the character of the young man when well, which interpretation to modern minds is rather inconsistent with the first sentence. They would paraphrase,
the delirium was really serious, but appeared slight because the patient was naturally self-controlled and calm. I take the meaning to be that though delirious he remained quiet and comparatively silent.