Aretaeus of Cappadocia De causis et signis diuturnorum morborum libri duo 1

ed. Francis Adams

De causis et signis diuturnorum morborum libri duo. Aretaeus of Cappadocia. ed. Francis Adams. London. 1856.

Funding provided by National Library of Medicine History of Medicine Division.

Current edition Perseus

Περὶ αἰτίων καὶ σημείων χρονίων παθῶν (Greek) (Aretaeus. The Extant Works of Aretaeus, The Cappadocian. Adams, Francis, editor. Boston, MA: Milford House, Inc., 1972 (reprint); London: Sydenham Society, 1856.)

Translations (1)
On the Causes and Symptoms of Chronic Diseases Perseus (Aretaeus. The Extant Works of Aretaeus, The Cappadocian. Adams, Francis, translator. Boston, MA: Milford House, Inc., 1972 (reprint); London: Sydenham Society, 1856.) — 1 focus

Notes on the current edition

Περὶ αἰτίων καὶ σημείων χρονίων παθῶν

1. The changes in the text here introduced by Ermerins, are absolutely demanded by the confused state of matters as they stand in the MSS.
2. The common reading is ἱδρὼς ἄσχετος τενόντων ἐξαπίνης ἄλογος, which Ermerins alters to ἱδρὼς ἄσχετος· τενόντων πόνος ἐξαπίνης, ἄλογος; but the obvious objection to this emendation is, that it does not account for the omission of πόνος in the common text. On my own authority, I altered the passage as above; but I find that I had been anticipated by Wigan in so far.
3. This word can scarcely be the right reading; but it is difficult to find a proper substitute for it. Were I disposed to bold attempts at emendation, I should propose to substitute ἐμβρέμεται in place of it; for, considering how fond our author is of Homeric diction, nothing seems so natural as to suppose that he had in mind the celebrated passage in the Iliad, —
— ἀνέμοιο δὲ δεινὸς ἀήτης
Ἱστίῳ ἐμβρέμεται
(xv. 627) . Wigan suggests ἐγκυρκανέῃ or ἐγκυκανέῃ; but these words are at least as objectionable as the one they are intended to supply a substitute for. In the MS. in the British Museum, we read εὐεργέι νηί· and this, perhaps, is the true reading.
4. Ermerins finds great difficulty in explaining the exact meaning of the last sentence. He does not seem to have adverted that our author had in view § 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, of the seventh section of the Aphorisms of Hippocrates. See the Commentary of Galen, and the English edition, Syd. Soc. Ed. t. ii. p. 773. I must say, however, that τῶνδε seems wanting in this place.
5. Our author here has evidently in view a passage contained in the Hippocratic treatise On the Sacred Disease. See Syd. Soc. Ed. t. ii. p. 851. I cannot see the same objection to φθόνῳ, the common reading, as Ermerins does, who proposes to substitute φθόρῳ in place of it. The other, although metaphorical, is quite in the style of our author.
6. The sense evidently requires ἀθυμίην in place of θυμηδίην, the common reading. See Petit and Ermerins.
7. This passage, in all the MSS., is confessedly corrupt. I have adopted the conjectural emendation of Ermerins, although very bold, and, I must add, not quite satisfactory.
8. I flatter myself that every person who is familiar with the metaphysics of the ancients, will admit that I have improved this sentence by changing ἥδε into ἠδέ. Ermerins, not recognising the difference between the γνώμη and the νοῦς, expunges τοῦ νοῦ from the text. On the distinction between these portions or powers of the mind, see Aristotle de Anima, iii. 10, etc.; Metaphysica, pluries.
9. The text in this sentence is not in a satisfactory state, either as it is, or as altered by Ermerins, who replaces ἢν with ἄν.
10. Though I have not meddled with the text, I am much inclined to think that the true reading would be ἀυτοδίδακτος. It occurs in Aeschylus, Agamem. 964. By the way, the example referred to by the Oxford lexicographers, to prove that ἀδίδακτος is sometimes used synonymously with αὐτοδίδακτος (namely, Lucian, Hist. Conscr. 34), is not in point here. We cannot say that astronomy is untaught, in the same sense that we can say that political sagacity is so.
11. It must be admitted, that Ermerins has strong grounds for holding that ἀσαρκίη is the true reading.
12. Hippocrat. Aph. ii. 42.
13. Hippocrat. Epid iii.; and Prorrhet. ii.
14. The common reading, ἑλκέων νἑυει, having evidently no meaning, I follow Wigan and Ermerins in adopting this word. I am also indebted to the latter for various other amendments in this chapter, which I do not think it necessary to mention singly.
15. Although I have not ventured to alter the reading, it appears to me, from the distinction which our author makes above between the cerebral and spinal nerves, that he refers here to the latter, and that we ought to read, νωτιαίου μυελοῦ; or, perhaps, the former word might be dispensed with.
16. Ermerins does not hesitate to substitute αἰσθήσιος in place of κινήσιος, as fancying that the sense requires this change.
17. This can scarcely be the true reading. Should it not be ῥαγῇ ?
18. The common reading is ἱκανὰ, which appears to have no meaning. The emendation is due to Ermerins. I have adopted it; although I must be permitted to say, it is far from satisfactory. The translation given by Ermerins is:
quasi ligna ad regulam dolaret
; but it does not seem at all appropriate to the passage.
19. Ermerins does not appear to me to be warranted in substituting φθόη for πύη, contrary to the authority of all the MSS. Moreover, it seems to be excluded from this place by the terms in which our author applies φθόη to a particular state of the diseased parts — ἀλλὰ φθόην μεταλαμβάνει; i.e. but the disease assumes the peculiar name of phthoe. He is right, however, in following the suggestion of Petit, and substituting ἕλκος for ἐντὸς at the commencement.
20. I am not aware that the term ἐμπύη occurs elsewhere. Hippocrates and Galen, I believe, universally use the substantive ἐμπύημα, or the adjective ἔμπυοι- — the latter being their more common practice.
21. At first I was inclined to adopt the alteration of Ermerins, who substitutes μοι for μὴ; but, after reading Caelius Aurelianus’s description of Phthisis, I was convinced that μὴ is the preferable reading. The words of Aurelianus are:
Sequitur autem αεgrotantes febricula latens,
etc.
22. I am not satisfied with ἀνάγει in this sentence; but have not been able to find a proper substitute for it. The translation of Crassus is most suitable to the context:
ut enim recessit,
etc. Qu. ἀνέθῃ?
23. In all the MSS. and editions, except that of Ermerins, we read ἄτονος, which is unsuitable to the place.
24. Ermerins, on his own authority, substitutes πλατέαι; but the other reading is in accordance with a well-known Ionic usage. All the recent translators have fallen into the mistake of applying this passage to the abdomen; whereas a careful examination of the context will show that it is out of the question in this place. Crassus more correctly renders it thus:
digitorum ventres rugosi et lati.
Κοιλίαι in this place evidently applies to the pulps of the fingers.
25. In this passage we are under obligations to Ermerins; in particular for supplying τόνος instead of πόνος. I have not adopted his other alterations.
26. This word is most probably a false reading. See Wigan and Ermerins. The latter reads ῥοιβοειδέα, one of Wigan’s conjectural emendations. Ῥοικοειδέα and ῥεβοειδέα have also been suggested. If I thought myself warranted to make any change in the reading, it would be to adopt ῥαιβοειδέα. See Foes, Oec. Hipp.; and Galen, t. i. pp. 224, 246, ed. Daremberg.
27. The change of οὖν into οὐ, as made by Ermerins, is indispensable.
28. Although not inclined to adopt unauthorised emendations, I must say that I think this reading, on the authority of Ermerins, is a great improvement on the common reading, τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. In the mss. of Aretaeus, it is quite common to find ἀνθρώπου written ἄνω, by contraction.
29. Although I have not meddled with the text, I cannot but think that we ought to read either πῦον or ὑγρὸν, instead of πνεῦμα.
30. Surely some such word as διὰ is wanting before τῆς ὑγρασίης, or the text is otherwise at fault.
31. Ermerins suppresses the last clause of the sentence altogether, on the ground that it is superfluous and out of place. I fear this must be held to be an unwarrantable liberty on the part of an editor, whose duty it is to restore the words, but not attempt to improve the sense of his author.
32. Ermerins agrees with Petit in reading πνεύμονος. I am doubtful.
33. Wigan and Ermerins read ῥωχμὸς; but the other seems to me the preferable term. The authority of Caelius Aurelianus seems to me decisive on this point:
Gutturis stridor quem graeci rhogmon vocant.
Morb. Acut. ii. 10. See Paulus Aegineta, t. i. p. 482, Syd. Soc. Edit.
34. I am not satisfied that Ermerins was warranted in prefixing οὐ to κερχνῶδες, contrary to the authority of all the MSS.
35. I follow Wigan and Ermerins in adopting this reading in place of αἰσχρὸν ὄν.
36. I must say, I have never been able to satisfy myself with any interpretation of this passage which I have seen. Ermerins, indeed, very properly remarks, that in this sentence there is an indirect reference to a celebrated verse in the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles; namely — σμικρὰ παλαιὰ σώματ’ εὐνάζει ῥοπή — that is, A slight inclination of the scale sets old persons asleep in death. But then ἀπόφρικτοι ἁλόντες create difficulty, inasmuch as the adjective never occurs elsewhere, as far as I am aware; and, moreover, I do not see how a shivering fit should necessarily occasion death. Instead of it, I would prefer ἀπόφρακτοι; that is to say, with the meaning, being seized with obstructed respiration. Still, however, there is a difficulty, inasmuch as it would not be easy to find any authority for this participle, although the verb be not uncommon. See Liddel and Scott. One might think of ἀπόπληκτοι, which would be a very suitable term, as this is a very natural cause of sudden death in asthma.
37. Hippocrat. de Aliment.
38. I have not ventured to eject ἐς ὑγείην from this clause, as suggested by Wigan and practised by Ermerins.
39. In most of the editions there is the mark of a lacuna before these words; and Ermerins suppresses them altogether, as being redundant. No lacuna appears in any of our British MSS. which I have examined.
40. I at first changed ἐκρέει, for which there is no authority in a transitive form, into ἐκχέει. (Ermerins suppresses γὰρ, and further reads διεκρέει, to which, however, there is the same objection as to ἐκρέει.) But, upon second thoughts, by a slight change of the punctuation, I flatter myself that I have brought the text to a passable state.
41. Ermerins substitutes ἄπονον for ἄπορον, which latter word evidently is wrong. See Wigan.
42. Although I have adopted Ermerins’ change of ὠμότερον into -ην, I must say I am still not satisfied with this sentence.
43. This sentence is evidently in an unsatisfactory state.
44. The text here given, is as amended by Petit and Ermerins. In the MSS. it is much vitiated.
45. The common reading, διαφανῆ δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖσι λευκοτάτοισι ὀφθαλμοῖσι, being evidently at fault, I have not scrupled to adopt the conjectural emendation of Ermerins.
46. The common reading, κενεὴν, having scarcely any meaning. I have adopted that of Ermerins, previonsly suggested by Petit. Wigan reads, οἴδε κινέειν, which also is not unsuitable.
47. It appears to me most remarkable, that all the editors should have pronounced this passage thoroughly corrupt, and in particular that Ermerins should have gone the length of ejecting the greater part of the last clause altogether from the text. He reads thus: ἀτὰρ καὶ ἥδε μούνη ἄνευθεν τῶν ἄλλων κατὰ πρώτιστα γίγνεται πάθος. This is truly an heroical way of solving the Gordian knot! I flatter myself I have unravelled all the intricacies of the noose by a much more lenient process; namely, by merely shifting the accent of ἀπότοκοι to the penult syllable, as suggested by Petit, and placing the comma [,] before ἰλυώδεα, instead of after it, as it stood in the former editions, and putting a comma after ἄλλων, for which I have the authority of wigan. I do not hesitate to affirm, that φαρμάκων and the other words connected with it are indispensable to the full signification of the passage, as any one may be convinced who will compare the account of Cachexia given by other authors. Thus, among the causes of Cachexia enumerated by Caelius Aurelianus, we find
item ex medicaminibus saepissime potatis
— and
curatione mala medicantis.
Tard. Pass. iii. 6. And much in the same style Celsus, treating of Cachexia, says:
quod fere fit, cum longo morbo vitiata corpora, etiamsi illo vacant, refectionem tamen non recipiunt; aut cum malis medicamentis corpus affectum est.
iii. 22.
48. I do not think myself warranted in adopting the text in this place as it is remodelled by Ermerins. Even as altered by him, it appears to me to be in a most unsatisfactory state.