Notes on the current edition
Περὶ αἰτίων καὶ σημείων χρονίων παθῶν
1.
Petit and Wigan suggest
πνεῦμα instead of
Ῥεῦμα; but the former reading is defended by Ermerins. Though the general import of the passage be obvious, there is still something unsatisfactory in the language. Of course, reference is here made by our author to the saying of Heraclitus, as told by Diogenes Laertius. The philosopher having become dropsical, proposed a riddle to his physicians: —
if from rainy weather they could make dryness
—
εἰ δύναιντο ἐξ ἑπομβρίης αὐχμὸν ποιῆσαι.
2.
I have followed Crassus, Petit, and Wigan in suppressing
οὐ before
κακίων; and am surprised that Ermerins should have persisted in retaining the negative.
3.
I have followed Wigan and Ermerins in adopting this reading, instead of
κατὰ λόγον; which, however, does not seem to me so unsuitable as they represent.
4.
This is the reading suggested by Wigan in place of
εὐπρόσωποι.
5.
The text is not in a satisfactory state; but yet I cannot bring myself to adopt the multifarious alterations introduced by Ermerins.
6.
It seems difficult to account for this term being in the nominative, while those of all the other organs are in the accusative; yet we find it so in all the mss. and editions.
7.
The text in the last part of this chapter is corrupt. Should we not read
διὰ before
τῶν, κ.τ. λ.?
8.
The common reading is
ἐξαήρεται. Petit suggests
ἐξηεροῦνται; but Ermerins’ reading, as given above, is preferable.
9.
I have adopted
παρέοντος in place of
πορέοντος, as it agrees better with the sense of the passage, and seems to be sustained by the translation of Crassus:
Prout adventantis morbi processus est.
Ermerins reads,
ὁδοιπορέοντος.
10.
The common reading is
διαβητήσεων, which is evidently faulty. Even as corrected by Wigan and Ermerins, the sentence is still in an unsatisfactory state. See note to the translation.
11.
Dr. Ermerins improves the sense very much by substituting
πινεῦντες for
πονέοντες. It is well known that intense thirst and wasting are the characteristics of Diabetes.
12.
The ordinary reading,
ξυνῷ ὁμοβιαίῳ, being evidently faulty, there seems to be no alternative but either to adopt
πόνῳ, as suggested by Wigan, or
ὠσμῷ, according to Ermerins.
13.
Ermerins reads
πώροις, with some show of reason.
14.
I am so satisfied that the text is corrupt, that for once I felt a strong inclination to adopt the following conjectural reading of Ermerins, although, in the present instance, even he is afraid to admit it into the text: —
Παιδίοι σι δὲ πολλὸν ὑπὸ θερμοῦ τοῦ σώματος τὸ ἰλυῶδες ἐψηθὲν γενέσιος ὅκως περ τὴν ἕδρην ἴσχει. Instead of
θερμοῦ, however, I should prefer
θέρμης.
15.
I have followed the reading suggested by Wigan, and adopted by Ermerins.
Χρόνια is wanting in all the MSS., but seems indispensable.
16.
I admit there is something equivocal in the text of this remarkable sentence; but I have not ventured to alter it. Wigan reads:
Οὔτε γὰρ θρύπτεται ἤ πόσι, ἤ φαρμάκῳ ἀμφιθρύπτῳ, κ.τ. λ. Ermerins is still bolder in the liberties he uses:
Οὔτε γὰρ ὅδε θρύπτεται πόσι, οὔτε ἀσινέως τέμνεται. By the way, he might well have spared one word which he ejects, by reading
πόσι φαρμάκων. Were I to meddle with the text at all, I should propose to read as follows:
Οὔτε γὰρ θρύπτεται ἢ πόσι φαρμάκων, ἢ ἀμφιθρύπτοιτο (ἀμφιθρύπτεται̣) οὔτε ἀσινέως τέμνεται. I am willing to believe that the passage contains allusions to Lithotripsy, Lithotrity, and Lithotomy!! See Paulus Aegineta t. ii. p. 359, Syd. Soc. Ed.
17.
The last four words are added by Ermerins to supply a lacuna in the text. The lacuna is not marked in our British MSS.
18.
Ermerins ventures to erase the last three words, and also
δηλοῦσι οἱ ἄνδρες, above, from the text.
non felicissim. audax!
19.
I cannot but think that the true reading must be
μετάστασις. I do not think myself warranted, however, in making such an alteration without authority. Ermerins reads,
γονορροίην ἀπόσκηψις, which does not appear to me to be an improvement.
20.
Ermerins alters the text to
χολὴ ᾖ, πικρόχολοι; but no change seems to be required.
21.
Ermerins reads as follows:
ἡμιτελέα δὲ λείπει ἀδρανίῃ· ἡ δὲ ἀφεθεῖσα τοῦ τέλεος τῆς ἐργασίης, κ. τ.λ. I must say, I cannot recognise the necessity for this alteration, which appears to me anything but an improvement.
22.
Κύτεϊ in this clause is not a satisfactory reading; and yet I would hesitate to adopt
πάθεϊ with Wigan, or
κοιλίῃ ἐνσκήπτει with Ermerins. It is worthy of remark, that
kyte is a Scottish term for stomach. It occurs in Burns’ Poems.
23.
In this sentence I have not hesitated to adopt Petit’s suggestion, and have read
ὀδυνώδεα in place of
ἀδενώδεα. Ermerins substitutes
φαγεδαινώδεα; but for this term he can quote no authority.
24.
Hippocrat. Aph. vi. 14.
25.
The text, which is by no means in a satisfactory state, is thus attempted to be emended by Ermerins: —
ἢν δὲ ἕλκος ἐγγένηται, ἐπὶ μὲν τοῖσιν ἄνω στρόφος δακνώδης, δριμὺς, ὡς ἀπὸ χολῆς, θέρμη σμικρὴ ἄλλοτε καὶ ἄλλοτε, τὸ γὰρ πλέον ἔμπυοι.
26.
The common reading is ambiguous. Ermerins reads
ἀξύμφωνος. Perhaps our author refers to the bloody discharges from piles, which are not uncommon in old age.
27.
Ermerins reads, on his own conjectural judgment,
ὑπάλειπτον, which signifies a sort of Ocular Collyrium.
28.
Ermerins certainly does appear to improve the clause,
ἀτὰρ. ... ξυνήθεες, by transferring them to this place. Formerly the words followed
εἴδεα
29.
Ermerins suppresses this clause. I have merely ventured to add
ἢ before
χρόνιον, and altered the punctuation.
30.
Ermerins, contrary to all authority, reads
πεπνευμένῃσι, on the ground that, in ancient times, midwives alone were entrusted with the treatment of diseases of the female genital organs. This, however, was evidently not the case, as must be obvious to any one who has carefully read the Hippocratic treatise on this subject, and the other works contained in the
Gynoecia.
31.
This clause, which had puzzled all the former editors, is expunged from the text altogether by Ermerins.
32.
I have followed Petit and Ermerins in reading
βαυκαλῶσαι instead of
καυκαλῶσαι. Ermerins further suppresses
καὶ τιθηνοῦσαι.
33.
The text here is under great obligations to Ermerins.
34.
I am not aware that this word occurs elsewhere in any medical author, as applied here. I am persuaded, then, that the proper reading is
μαλάγμασι. On the malagmata or emollient plasters of the ancients, see Paulus Aegineta, Syd. Soc. Edit. b. iii. pp. 576 — 581. They were much used in uterine diseases. See Ibid b. iii. c. 68, etc.
35.
I have ventured to read
ἢ instead of
ἢν, on my own authority; and have substituted
τινι in place of
τι, on the authority of Ermerins; but have rejected his alteration of
μὴν into
μὴ, which I think spoils the passage; and have preferred
μὲν, which has the authority of the Vatican MS.
36.
Θρὶξ here is used in an unusual sense. The literal translation of the expression would be,
They are not pained a hair, or
a hair’s-breadth, i.e. in the slightest degree. Ermerins refers to Theocritus, Idyll. xiv. 9, for an example of this usage. See further Liddel and Scott’s Lexicon, under the word. This usage of it appears very forced in the present instance, and I suspect the reading to be corrupt.
37.
In the common editions, and I believe in all the MSS., we find
γύϊος, which is obviously at fault, at least as regards accentuation. Ermerins, accordingly, does not hesitate to expunge the term altogether. But to
γυιὸς I can see no objection. It is thus explained in the Lexicon of Hesychius:
Γυιὸς, χωλὸς, νοσώδης, πηρώδης. This is sufficient authority for the word, although it is not in common use. See also Liddel and Scott’s Lexicon, under the term. There are other difficulties in the remaining part of the sentence, which I cannot bring myself to remove by expunging all the difficult words, after the example of Ermerins.
38.
Though the text be not in quite a satisfactory state, I prefer leaving it as it stands, rather than adopt the slashing alterations made in it by Ermerins. He reads the last clause thus:
ἐπὶ δὲ τοῖσι κοτύλῃσι περίστροφος· ἤδη μετάβασις ἐς νώτου μύας καὶ θώρηκος. Wigan merely proposes to read
περίστροφοι ἠδὲ.
39.
The following most extraordinary reading occurs in all the MSS.:
καὶ ξυμπάντω ν τε ὁ βοῦς, ὄνος, καὶ ἡ ἰδέη (
ἰδίη, Harl.)
ἑκάστου ὀδύνη which words, in the old translation of Crassus, are rendered literally, —
Simulque omnium bos, asinus, et proprius cujusque dolor.
What can an ox or an ass have to do with an attack of Schiatica?
Fortunately the Askew MS. belonging to the Medical Society of London, has guided me to what I do not hesitate to pronounce the true reading. In the margin of this MS., opposite the corrupted words, stand the following characters, apparently in the handwriting of the amanuensis: —
ἴσ βουβῶν
That is to say,
ἴσως, βουβῶνος. Now, that
pain of the groinis a constant attendant of Schiatica, every practical physician is well aware; and, in fact, this is one of the symptoms enumerated in the best descriptions of the disease furnished by the ancient authorities. For example, Caelius Aurelianus has the following words in his chapter on Schiatica and Lumbago:
Et primo, in vertebra dolor sentitur, dehinc partis suae penetrans loca usque ad mediam natem,
ac superius ad inguen,
etc. Tard. Pass. v. 1. In like manner, Aetius describes the symptoms as follows:
πολλοῖς δὲ ἡ ὀδύνη ἐρείδεται κατὰ τοῦ βουβῶνος ὅτε καὶ ἡ κύστις μεταλαμβάνουσα τῆς δυσκολίας δυσουρίαν ἐπιφέρει. Ex. MS. in Bibl. Bodl. Cod. Canon. Graec. cix.
In a word, the substitution of
τοῦ βουβῶνος for
τε ὁ βοῦς, ὄνος, is so natural, that I feel persuaded no reasonable critic will demur to adopt it. Some other slight changes, however, are requisite in this passage, which might be effected in two or three different ways. I subjoin a few of my own attempts, some of which may perhaps be thought superior to the reading I have adopted: —
1.
καὶ ξυμπάντων τοῦ βουβῶνος [ τόπων] καὶ ἡ ἰδίη ἑκάστου ὀδύνη.
2.
καὶ ξυμπάντων τε βουβῶνος καὶ ἰδίῃ ἡ ἑκάστου ὀδύνη.
3.
καὶ ξύμπαντος τοῦ βουβῶνος καὶ ἡ ἰδίῃ ἑκάστου ὀδύνη.
4.
καὶ ἐς ξύμπαντῶν τοῦ βουβῶνος καὶ ἰδίη ἑκάστου ὀδύνη.
Every one of these specimens of an emended text brings out an appropriate meaning; namely, that
there is a general pain of the whole inguinal region, and a particular pain of every part situated therein.
I have now to state briefly the emendations of this passage proposed by preceding editors and commentators. Wigan, while he retains the vitiated reading of the MSS., adds in a note at the end:
Cert legendum
ὁμοῦ πόνος. Ita eleganter vehementia doloris describitur,
Vertebroe et dolore torquentur, qui omnes oequ.occupare proecipitur, et alium etiam insuper sentiunt, qui singulis suus et proprius videtur.
Petit’s emendation is very nearly the same:
καὶ ξυμπάντων τε ὁμοῦ πόνος, καὶ ἡ ἰδίη ἑκάστου ὀδύνη. It is adopted by Ermerins with a slight change:
καὶ ξυμπάντων τε ὁμοῦ πόνος καὶ ἰδίῃ ἑκάστου ὀδύνη.
40.
The common reading,
καὶ γὰρ οἷσι τῶν εὖ βδελυκτέων ἡδονή, has evidently no meaning. Petit and Ermerins try their hands at conjectural emendations, but in such a style as I cannot approve. Petit suggests the following as a probable substitute for the vitiated text:
καὶ γὰρ οἶσι τῶν θερμῶν, εὔτε δὲ ψυκτικῶν ἡδονή. Ermerins boldly substitutes the following sentence for the words he expunges:
καὶ γὰρ οἱ μέν τινα τουτέων φεύγουσι, τοῖσι δὲ αὖ ἐκ τῶν ἄλλοισι βδελυκτῶν ἡδονή.
41.
Ermerins ventures to introduce
οὐκ before
αὖθις; and it seems to be required.
42.
Iliad x. 437.
43.
Iliad. xxiii. 255.
44.
Iliad. xi. 680.
45.
Iliad. xx. 224.
46.
I have here adopted an emendation suggested by Bernard, and received into the text by Ermerins. In the mss. it stands thus:
ἔπειτα ὁκόσα τῇ ῤινὶ. ....... μᾶλλον δὲ τηρεῖ τῇ δε ξυνδῆσαι τῷ στόματι, ἐντίθησι πολλὸν τῇ κοιλίῃ. No meaning can be drawn from these words.
47.
The reading in the MSS. is
τριποδονίῳ, a word of no meaning. That which we have given was suggested by Wigan and is adopted by Ermerins.
48.
The common reading,
ἐρρεῖτο, has no meaning. The substitute for it was suggested by Petit and adopted by Ermerins.
49.
Iliad. xii. 463.