Notes on the current edition
Περὶ αἰτίων καὶ σημείων ὀξέων παθών
1.
Ermerins suppresses
ἢ πτύσις, as I think, unnecessarily.
2.
Wigan is not satisfied with
τῆς ὁδοῦ; and Ermerins does not hesitate to expunge these words, as being a gloss on the text. Instead of doing this, I should rather be disposed to read,
τῆς ἐξόδου.
3.
The common reading is
ἀναθέσει. Ermerins reads
ἢ ἐντάσι ἄχθεος ἀναθέσει, a very equivocal emendation. My conjectural reading, I feel confident, will be admitted to be the true one by any impartial critic.
4.
The reading in all the mss. is,
ὢ κύφων οὗ — words which evidently have no meaning. Ermerins accordingly erases them, with the three following —
κακοῦ ἐστι οὔνομα — altogether. This, I think, will generally be admitted to be too bold a procedure. The emendation suggested by Fabricius and Mattaire, and adopted by Wigan (namely,
ὠκυφόνοὐ, is so plausible, and requires so little change of the characters, that I should have had no hesitation in adopting it, provided there were any authority for it; but this, I fear, is not the case. I have therefore ventured to substitute
ὠκυτάτου in place of it; and I am persuaded that, upon mature consideration, it will be approved of by every competent judge. I need scarcely remark, that it is of common occurrence in the works of the medical authorities, and that it is very applicable in this place.
5.
I must own, that I feel somewhat disposed to follow the suggestion of Wigan, and read
ἥβης: for it is well known that pestilential buboes occur principally in the groin (i.e. near the pubes), as is first noticed by Procopius (
δε βελλο περσιξο, 22, 23). I am not aware, moreover, that any of the ancient authorities refer the pestilential buboes to the liver, but to the glands of the groin. See Agathias, Hist. v. and the other authorities quoted at P. Aeginet t. i. p. 232, Syd. Soc. Edit.
6.
Were I disposed to indulge in conjectural emendation, I should certainly not hesitate in this place to read,
ἐξ ἴσης τῇ ἀρχῇ. I wonder the present unsatisfactory reading has escaped the animadversions of all the editors and commentators.
7.
Ermerins transposes all this clause,
ἐξήρανται. . . . . . στόμαχος, to the beginning of the chapter, after
δέρματος. I find difficulty in reconciling myself to this change; indeed, in either place, the meaning of these words is not clear.
8.
There has been much difference of opinion respecting these two words. I regard the construction as an Attic anacoluthon, of which many examples occur in our author's works, and in those of aelian and Arrian, who were about his age. Ermerins mentions that Kün was disposed to regard them as belonging to the Glossema. This, I know, was suggested to him by the late Dr. Kerr, of Aberdeen, whose correspondence with Kün I saw at the time it took place, about thirty years ago.
9.
This conjectural emendation of Petit, which is adopted by Ermerins and Wigan, is an ingenious substitute for the common reading,
ἄλλο φασὶ, which evidently has no meaning. A still more simple emendation, however, would be,
ἄλλο φάσθαι — that is to say, the spectators
fancy that they speak strange, i.e. incoherent.
See Liddel and Scott's Lexicon under
ἄλλος, for this meaning of the word.
10.
Ermerins does not hesitate to expunge the word
ὑγροῖσιν altogether; but this seems to me an unwarrantable liberty. By the addition of one short word,
ὡς, and a little transposition, I flatter myself that I have greatly improved the text. Petit proposes to read
ἰλυώδεσι ὑγροῖσι, but without referring to any medical authority for such an expression. In illustration of the general meaning of this sentence, see an important passage on the
πνευμα, below. Therap. I. i.
11.
Ermerins places the words
ἀτὰρ ἱδροῖ ὥνθρωπος after
Ῥιγώδεες, but the necessity for this change is not very clear.
12.
Should we not read
ἤ? See the Notes of Wigan and Ermerins, which explain the difficulties about the text without removing them.
13.
Ermerins deserves great credit for his ingenious emendation of this passage. The common reading is
πλάδος and
ἴσχον, from which no suitable meaning can be drawn. In the Askew ms. we read
ἰσχνὸν and
κώλω. In it, by the way, the iota subscriptum is generally wanting.
14.
Hippocrat. de Aliment.
15.
I have followed Ermerins in substituting
ὦν for
ὧν, and
τοῖσιν for
τισίν. Still neither the reading nor the punctuation is satisfactory.
16.
Ermerins reads
ἀπολελημμένη, introduces
ἢ before
χωλώδεα and
διαδιδοῦσα after
βραχέα. But, after comparing the chapter of Paulus aegineta on hepatic diseases (iii. 46), I resolved not to alter the text.
17.
Hippocrat. Aph. iv. 63; iv. 62; Epidem. iii. 1, 2.
18.
Ermerins reads
ἀκμαίη. But the common reading is quite in accordance with the usage of our author, and is retained by Ermerins himself in chap. x. of this book, near the end. It is, in short, an Attic anacoluthon, very common in the works of that age, such as those of aelian and Arrian.
19.
The common reading is
πρώην καθ’ ἓν, which can scarcely admit of any interpretation. See Petit, Wigan and Ermerins.
20.
This word is supplied by Ermerins on his own conjecture. Certainly some such term seems to be wanting in this place.
21.
Ermerins reads
καύσου ἰδέην, which, no doubt, makes very good sense; but the common reading appears quite satisfactory. It is but justice to Ermerins to add, that he improves the next clause of the sentence very much by a change in the punctuation.
22.
It appears to me that all the translators have misunderstood the meaning of these words,
ἐς δὲ ὄλεθρον εὐήθεες, which Henisch and Boerhaave translate,
ad mortem vero inferendam bene habiles sunt:
Wigan and Ermerins, —
ægrum tamen facile interimunt.
Moffat rather oddly, —
well calculated for bearing an attack.
Now the literal meaning of the words obviously is,
they are innocent as regards death;
which surely can imply nothing but that the affections of the kidneys are not naturally deadly. (See Liddel and Scott's Lexicon under the word.) In fact, whoever will read the context carefully must see that this meaning is the only one in accordance with it, and with what is said below, namely, that the majority of cases are not fatal. Ermerins, in this instance, vitiates the text by meddling with it, and substituting
γὰρ for
δὲ after
ἐπίκαιρον.
23.
Here, again, nearly all the translators and editors have misunderstood the meaning of the passage from not perceiving that
σώματος is here applied not to the whole body, but to the organ or part of the body of which the author is treating, namely, the kidneys. It would be superfluous to multiply references to passages in which Aretæus applies
σῶμα to a particular part of the body. See Morb. Diut. i. 10; Curat. Morb. Diut. i. 13; also Galen, De Locis Affectis, i.9. Indeed Aristotle applies it expressly to the kidneys, in the sense of the fleshy part of the organ, or viscus,
H. A. i. 17, 15. The meaning of the passage in question, therefore, evidently is, that
no mischief from sympathy arises in this case, owing to the peculiar nature of the affected viscus itself, but the retention of the urine produces most horrible mischief.
Wigan translates the passage thus, —
reliqui corporis species, nullo affectus ex consensu, perturbatur.
Boerhaave thus: —
quandoquidem ex consensu affectionis ob formam corporis provenientis nulla creatur offensio;
and Ermerins thus:
quo facto nullum quidem malum oritur propter cæterarum partium cum renis subitantia consensum.
Of these translations that of Ermerins approaches nearest to the true import of the passage. The other two have no distinct meaning.
24.
The text in all the mss. is evidently vitiated. I have adopted the emendations partly of Wigan and partly of Ermerins. The reforms of the latter are sometimes too radical for my conservative judgment.
25.
In all the mss. the common reading is
φλεγμονὰς, from which no suitable meaning can be elicited. Ermerins introduces many changes; thus he reads, —
αὐτέην καὶ ὑστέρη φλεγμήνασὰ ἂν πιέζει; and, in the next clause he erases
τὸ εὐθὺ. By merely changing
φλεγμονὰς into
-ὴ, I am persuaded that a legitimate reading is obtained.
Ἀναπιέζω is a Hippocratic term. Art. 807, ed. Föes. It is to be borne in mind that the
φλεγμονὴ of the ancients was a Phlegmon rather than an inflammation; i.e. it was
ὄγκος ὀδυνηρός. See Föes,
οεξ. ηιππ.
26.
Ermerins judiciously adopts the suggestion of Wigan, and substistutes
σπλῆνα for
σπλάγχνα, the common reading.
27.
As suggested by Wigan and Ermerins, there appears evidently to be a lacuna in the text here. None, however, occurs in any of our British mss.
28.
This is, undoubtedly, the true reading, and not
πηλικωτέρησι, which has no suitable meaning. See Wigan and Ermerins.