This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
Click on a word to bring up parses, dictionary entries, and frequency statistics
1 In all the former editions, instead of τε πολλὴ, we read τὰ πολλὰ and, with the exception of that of Dr. Ermerins, all have καὶ before βληχρή. The Latin translation of this clause by Wigan, Kuhn, and Ermerins, is this: “Nausea præcipué quidem post cibum, sed quæ per abstinentiam quoque lenté continuat,” which is evidently very loose and vague. That of Crassus is far more strict and accurate: “Nausea frequentius quidem e cibis, non minimé tamen et ab inedia pusilla quædam nausea sequitur.” The English translation of the text as it formerly stood would run thus: “Nausea for the most part, indeed, after food; but also, not unfrequently, slight nausea after abstinence.” It appears to me, however, that the meaning is so much improved by the slight change I have ventured to make, that I flatter myself no argument is required to prove it to be the true reading. The contrast between πολλὴ in the one case, and βληχρὴ in the other, is most suitable to the sense. That the repetition of καὶ is legitimate in this clause of the sentence, will not be questioned by any one who is familiar with the style of Galen. See, for example, De Locis Affectis, v.i., prope initium; t.iii ... 296, ed. Basil.
2 The common reading in the mss. is εἴδεος, which is evidently inadmissible. Petit, in his Commentary, suggests that the true reading is δέος ᾑ. Wigan also prefers πλησίον εἴη δέος. Ermerins accordingly reads πλησίον ἔῃ δέοσμ. None of these editors, however, refers to any authority for this expression, which appears to me quaint and unnatural — “but if the dread of a paroxysm be at hand.” I prefer ἤδη on the authority of many parallel passages, as for example — πλησίον δὲ ἤδη τοῦ φρενίζειν ὄντες, Galen, de loc. affect. iii.; ἐνστάντος δὲ ἤδη τοῦ συμπτώματος, P. ae. iii. 5, in the chapter on epilepsy. Ermerins very properly restores it, in another passage of our author, where ἥδε had been substituted for it (Sympt. diut. morb ... 9). Indeed ἤδη, in such cases, occurs frequently in the works of our author.
Moreover, in the margin of the celebrated Reiske's copy of Henisch's edition, there is found this emendation — ἤδη δέος. See G. Dindorf's Appendix to Kuhn's edition. The Latin translation of Crassus would agree very well with the reading I propose; while it is unsuitable to the text when δέος is admitted: “Quum vero accessio appropinquat.”3 The common reading in the mss. is καὶ ἐς τὴν ἡμετέρην σημασίην διώσατο. In the margin of the edition of Henisch we find ἡμέρην, which is adopted by Wigan. Ermerins transposes τὴν from before ἡμέρην, as above.
4 Dr. Ermerins, on pure conjecture, substitutes ξυνηγμέναι, as I think unnecessarily. Ἀνειμέναι may be interpreted literally, “inclining,” i ... “drawn upwards.” See Foes Oec. Hippocrat., under ἀνιοῦται. Would not ἀνιέμεναι be a suitable reading? I have translated the passage accordingly.
5 The common reading before Ermerins was καὶ ἡ πνίξ. I have cheerfully adopted, also, his emendation of νυγμὸς into μυγμὸς, as suggested by Petit; and only wonder that neither of them refers to the Eumenides of aeschylus (l. 116) as an authority for this meaning of the term.
6 homer, Iliad. iv. 421, et seq.
7 Hippocrat. Aph ... 2.
8 The common reading is θανάτου ἡ φύσις, to which Ermerins adds ἥδε, which I have substituted for ἡ, so as to produce a suitable reading with little violence to the text.
9 The common reading, κακόν τι, is obviously at fault. The present reading is adopted by Ermerins, only using ἰγνύῃ in place of ἰγνύη. Still there is something unsatisfactory in the text. Ἰγνὺς and ἰγνύη are applied, in strictness, to the back part of the thigh at its lower extremity.
10 Ermerins adopts this reading, partly on the suggestions of Petit, and partly from the margin of Henisch. It is also the reading of the Askew ms. The common reading is ἕλκει. Neither the one nor the other is quite satisfactory.
11 I have followed Wigan and Ermerins in interchanging the places of συνάγχη and κυνάγχη as they stood in all the mss. I have also, like them, substituted ὁκόσοις for ὁκόσον; and have added ἐς before ἅπερ, on the authority of Ermerins. But all this patchwork still leaves the sentence in a very unsatisfactory condition.
12 Ermerins has substituted the two words above for ἀπετάθη and ἀπολυθὲν, which have no proper signification in this place. It must be admitted, that although some improvement, the substituted terms are not quite suitable; as it can scarcely be said, that an internal disease is “driven outwards” by an external application.
13 The common reading is ἐπάνηξε. The other word occurs in the Codex Philipp., and is no doubt the true reading.
14 Hippocrates, Aphor. iii ... We are indebted to Ermerins for changing ἐρυθριῶσι into ἐρυθριώσῃ.
15 The common reading is ἔῃ instead of ἀὴρ; ἐς instead of ἡ; and ἐδωδὴν instead of ἐδωδή. Ermerins merely changes the ἔῃ into ἥδε. I trust every candid and learned reader will admit, that I have greatly improved the meaning by the slight changes which I have ventured to make. From the translation of Crassus, it may be inferred that he had read ἀὴρ, or at least had seen the necessity of introducing it into the text: “Aer enim spirando siccus adducitur.” I need scarcely add, that in the old Ionic, which our author affects, ἀὴρ is often put in the feminine gender. This was also the case in old Latin. See A. Gellius, xiii. 19.
16 ermerins suppresses the words ἀπὸ τῶν κριθέων; but this seems an unwarrantable liberty. By a small alteration I have made, the text becomes sufficiently amended. On the ancient Zythi, see Appendix to the Edinburgh Greek Lexicon.
17 Ermerins has ingeniously substituted the last two words for ἐμπόνων, a vocable of doubtful meaning.
18 Wigan and Ermerins read θερμῆς τῆς ἀναπνοῆς; but the alteration seems to me uncalled for. I should prefer ὑπὸ τῆς θερμῆς ἀναπνοῆς to their reading.
19 Hippocrat. de Morbis, iii. 16, t. vii ... 144, ed. Littr.
20 The negative seems to be required here. See Petit and Ermerins.
21 This is the reading in the Askew ms., which is approved of by Ermerins. There are considerable variations in the other editions.
22 ermerins suppresses ἢ πτύσις, as I think, unnecessarily.
23 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.
24 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.
25 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.
26 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 ... near the pubes), as is first noticed by Procopius (de Bello Persico, 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 ... and the other authorities quoted at P. aeginet ... i ... 232, Syd. Soc. Edit.
27 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.
28 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.
29 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.
30 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 ... incoherent.” See Liddel and Scott's Lexicon under ἄλλος, for this meaning of the word.
31 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 Pneuma, below. Therap ... i.
32 Ermerins places the words ἀτὰρ ἱδροῖ ὥνθρωπος after Ρ῾ιγώδεες, but the necessity for this change is not very clear.
33 should we not read ἤ? See the Notes of Wigan and Ermerins, which explain the difficulties about the text without removing them.
34 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.
35 hippocrat. de Aliment.
36 i have followed Ermerins in substituting ὦν for ὧν, and τοῖσιν for τισίν. Still neither the reading nor the punctuation is satisfactory.
37 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.
38 hippocrat. Aph. iv. 63; iv. 62; Epidem. iii. 1, 2.
39 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 ... 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.
40 the common reading is πρώην καθ᾽ ἓν, which can scarcely admit of any interpretation. See Petit, Wigan and Ermerins.
41 This word is supplied by Ermerins on his own conjecture. Certainly some such term seems to be wanting in this place.
42 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.
43 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 ben.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.
44 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 ... 10; Curat. Morb. Diut ... 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 ... 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.
45 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.
46 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, Oec. Hipp.
47 Ermerins judiciously adopts the suggestion of Wigan, and substistutes σπλῆνα for σπλάγχνα, the common reading.
48 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.
49 This is, undoubtedly, the true reading, and not πηλικωτέρησι, which has no suitable meaning. See Wigan and Ermerins.
The Extant Works of Aretaeus, The Cappadocian. Aretaeus. Francis Adams LL.D. Boston. Milford House Inc. 1972 (Republication of the 1856 edition).
National Library of Medicine History of Medicine Division provided support for entering this text.
This text was converted to electronic form by Data Entry and has been proofread to a high level of accuracy.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.