Notes on the current edition
Ὀξέων νούσων θεραπευτικόν
1.
Ermerins, on the authority of one Parisian ms., reads
κάτεφθοι, to avoid the recurrence of aspirates. The other reading is retained by Littre, the latest editor of Hippocrates, t. vii. p. 176.
2.
Petit was the first to remark, that the common reading,
οὐθὲν, is inadmissible.
3.
In all the mss. and editions, the words
καὶ Ἐρετριὰς come in between the Samian earth, and Samian aster. That they have been transposed by mistake, must be quite obvious to any one who will read the account of these substances given by Dioscorides, M. M. v. 171 and Galen, de Simpl. viii. t. ii. p. 118, ed. Basil. On these medicinal earths, see further, Paulus aegineta, t. iii. pp. 83 — 85, Syd. Soc. Edit.
4.
I have ventured to transpose the negative,
μὴ, from the second clause of this sentence to the first; the sense absolutely requiring it.
5.
On this form of circumlocution, see below. Morb. Diuturn. Curat. II 7.
6.
Ermerins, in this sentence, has amended the text most felicitously, by a few slight alterations.
o, omnia si sic! The common reading is
ἤδη δὲ ἀπὶ χρονίων.
7.
The
gar of the Romans was a variety of the spelt. See Appendix to the Edinburgh Lexicon.
8.
I have ventured to read
πρήσσηται instead of
πρήσηται, on the suggestion of Petit; and to add
εὐ on my own authority — supported, indeed, by that of the Latin translation of Crassus.
9.
Ermerins boldly changes
πιηρὸν to
στερεὸν, a word bearing no resemblance whatever to the one in the text. I prefer leaving matters as they are, although I must say, I have a strong wish to expunge the words
τὰς ὠτειλὰς altogether, as being quite out of place. Our author seems to say, that in hæmoptysis it is a good thing to put flesh and fat on the patient. Of course,
πιηρὸς is intended as the Ionic of
πιαρός. Wigan uses
τὸν πῶρον instead of
τὸ πιηρὸν; but I am not aware that there is any authority for this term being applied to a cicatrix in the fleshy parts.
10.
The common reading,
συνεργὰ ἔνσεο, is evidently inadmissible. Petit suggests
ἐνστήσῃ. Ermerins has
ἂν εἴη σοι.
11.
In this clause I have found it necessary to follow the conjectural emendation of Petit, which is adopted also by Ermerins, whose annotations on this passage are highly important. The language would appear to be imitated from the Hippocratic treatise De Morbis, iii. 6.
12.
This is evidently the true reading, and not
χρέος.
13.
In this place I have deleted these two words,
ὀμφάκιον ἀκμαῖον instead of the former clause,
ὄμφακος, κ. τ.λ., as is done by Ermerins. One thing seems clear — that both cannot stand, since they are synonymous.
14.
Iliad v. 696.
15.
Τούτου here refers to the stomach. Indeed, I felt inclined to change the text to
τοῦ στομάχου. I do not approve of Ermerins' alteration to
τοῦ σώματος.
16.
I have adopted this reading from Petit and Ermerins, instead of
συνέξειν.
17.
The common reading in all the mss. is
ἄν τις πάντα, which was most felicitously amended as above by Wigan.
18.
I here adopt the ingenious conjecture of Ermerins, in place of the common reading,
ἔχειν ᾧδε.
19.
This reading, instead of the common one,
τοῦ ἀφεχή, was first suggested by Petit.
20.
The common reading is
νέει, which Ermerins makes
νέη, having adopted it from Bernard, ad Nonnum, i. p. 52. It occurs also in Cod. Harley. But neither the one nor the other furnishes any meaning suitable to the place. To my mind, there can be no doubt that the proper reading is
ζέει, which occurs in Alexander's description of inflammation of the liver, as follows: —
Ὅτι μὲν ὥσπερ ἅπασα φλεγμονὴ ἐκ ζέοντος αἵματος ἔχει τὴν γένεσιν, οὕτω καὶ ἡ ἐν τῷ ἥπατι, κ. τ.λ. (vi. 19). The meaning, then, obviously is, that in inflammations of other parts, the blood, which is the pabulum of the inflammation, has to come from another place to the part inflamed; whereas in inflammations of the liver, the blood is inflamed in the place where it is originally formed.
21.
The negative,
οὐχ, is wanting in all the mss.; but, as Wigan remarks, it is evidently required by the sense.
22.
The common reading,
στάθεα, has no meaning. I have adopted the conjectural emendation of Wigan, in preference to
στεριχθέντα, which is the reading of Ermerins.
23.
Ermerins alters the last two words to
κατ’ ἰξύων.
24.
The common reading is
ἢν ἐνστάσιες λίθων ἔωσι ἔν τε φλεγμασί, in all the editions, which is improved greatly by a very slight alteration, as above. I have ventured to make it on my own authority.
25.
The common reading,
ἄποροι, is obviously at fault. Wigan, on good ms. authority, reads
ἄπυροι, which is adopted by Ermerins. Petit suggests
ἄπυοι, which would be most suitable to the place, if it were supported by as good authority as the amendment of Wigan. It is found, indeed, in the Lexicon of Suidas; but I am not aware that it occurs elsewhere.
26.
This is a fortunate emendation of Ermerins for
ὑπερκέεται. Compare Herodotus, iii. 40.
27.
The common reading,
κοσκίνου, is evidently inadmissible. See P. AE i. iii p. 342.
28.
This word is not in the text, but some such word is evidently required; and accordingly Ermerins has supplied it.
29.
The common reading is
κατὰ μέλεα.
30.
Iliad xii. 567.
31.
Wigan suggests
ἀγκῶνα, and Ermerins accordingly receives this term into his text. Perhaps our author alludes to scarifications in the loins, or cupping, which is a practice recommended by Rufus and other ancient authorities, in diseases of the kidneys. See Paulus aegineta, Syd. Soc. Edit. t. i. p. 553.
32.
Should it not be
Θηραῖος? See Herodot. t. 150. Ed. Dindorf.
33.
This would appear to be the true reading. See Petit's Comment. and the note of Ermerins. In all the mss. it is
τριχάδα.
34.
In the mss. the reading is
Ῥοιάδα πύου. See Wigan and Ermerins; also Liddel and Scott's Lexicon.
35.
All the commentators are agreed that the common reading,
προσιόντων, cannot stand. I have followed Ermerins in adopting a conjectural emendation suggested by Petit in part.
36.
It must be admitted, that the text is not in a satisfactory state; and yet I have not seen any emendation which I can think of adopting. For
πάθεϊ, Ermerins reads
βάθεϊ, which occurs in the margin of Henisch's edition; but I am not aware that this term is ever applied to any part of the uterus. The same objection applies to his use of
τὼ πόδε in the next sentence. Were I disposed to meddle with the text at all, I should substitute
βάρεϊ.
37.
I gratefully acknowledge the benefit I have derived from many verbal emendations made by Ermerins in this chapter.
38.
The common reading,
ἐμποιήσι, is condemned by all the editors. I have adopted the ingenious emendation of Ermerins.
39.
I have adopted the ingenious emendation of Ermerins in place of the common reading,
μένῃ μήκεϊ, which is evidently at fault.
40.
I have ventured to introduce the preposition
σὺν, as something seems wanting in this clause of the sentence.