Going Skythian

When they want to drink wine that’s more undiluted, the Lakonians themselves say they “go Skythian.” Khamaileon of Herakleia in On Drunkenness at any rate writes about them as follows:

“the Lakonians say that Kleomenes the Spartan went mad because he learned to drink undiluted wine, having spent time with the Skythians. That’s why, when they wish to drink more undiluted wine, they say, ‘make it Skythian.’”

καὶ αὐτοὶ δ’ οἱ Λάκωνες ὅταν βούλωνται ἀκρατέστερον πίνειν, ἐπισκυθίσαι λέγουσι. Χαμαιλέων γοῦν ὁ Ἡρακλεώτης ἐν τῷ περὶ μέθης περὶ τούτων οὕτως γράφει·

«ἐπεὶ καὶ Κλεομένη τὸν Σπαρτιάτην φασὶν οἱ Λάκωνες μανῆναι διὰ τὸ Σκύθαις ὁμιλήσαντα μαθεῖν ἀκρατοποτεῖν. ὅθεν ὅταν βούλωνται πιεῖν ἀκρατέστερον, ‘ἐπισκύθισον’ λέγουσιν».

Athenaeus of Naucratis, Deipnosophistae, 10.29

A Myrrh and Iron Gall Ink from the Magical Greek Papyri

A spell to make everyone love you, and one of the earliest recipes for iron gall ink. From Leiden Papyrus J 384, PGM 12 in Preisendanz’ collection of Magical Greek Papyri, perhaps 2nd or 3rd century CE.

“To be attractive and loveable forever. Take a root of pasithea or wormwood, and [on it] write this name in a holy way:

“Carry it and you will be attractive, loveable and extraordinary to those who look on you.

“The formula:

• 1 drachma of myrrh

• 4 drachmai of misy

• 2 drachmai of vitriol

• 2 drachmai of oak galls

• 3 drachmai of gum arabic.”

προς επιχιρειαν[1] καὶ φιλεὶάν[2] δια παντος λαβων ριζαν πασιθεαν η αρτεμισιαν επιγραφε το □[3] τουτο αγνως [see image] και φορει και εση και επιχιρεις[4] και προσφιλης και θαυμαστος τοις ορωσι σοι.

ἡ ἀναγραφή· ζμύρνης δραχμὴ αʹ, μίσυος δραχμαὶ δʹ, χαλκάνθου δραχμαὶ βʹ, κηκίδων δραχμαὶ βʹ, κόμεως δραχμαὶ γʹ.

[1] ἐπιχάρειαν Pr. [2] φιλίαν Pr. [3] ὄνομα Pr. [4] ἐπίχαρις Pr.

P. Leid. J 384, col. 12, 24,13–16 Daniel = PGM XII 397–400 = old Leiden Papyrus V (English here)

---

Notes

For the first part of the text, I’ve transcribed Daniel’s edition (no accents for the most part or punctuation), but I’ve used Preisendanz’ edition for the formula. There’s some debate about what μίσυ (misy) and χάλκανθος (khalkanthos) refer to.

Misy. In Betz’ collection, Martin translates μίσυ as “truffle.” There is a kind of truffle called μίσυ mentioned in LSJ; but Preisendanz and Christiansen both suggest it refers to a substance found in mines, the misy mentioned by Dioscorides (5.100) and Pliny (34.121–122). Preisendanz translates as “Vitriolerz” (vol, 2, p.83), one term given in Pape, and which makes more sense. In a recent article, Thomas Christiansen (p. 184) suggests misy might be the decomposed iron sulfide contained in chalco-pyrites (CuFe₂).

Khalkanthos. The word comes from χαλκός (copper) + ἄνθος (bloom). Pliny says it is prepared in Spain by collecting water from wells or mining pits, boiling it down, then putting it into a wooden reservoir and leaving cords to hang down into the water. Glass-like growths form on the cords and the are collected (34.123–124, English). He says it is known as atramentum sutorium in Latin, “shoemaker’s black,” and suggests the Greek term is evidence the substance is related to copper. Dioscorides also mentions there are different kinds of χάλκανθος, one of which, known as ἐφθόν (“boiled”) and prepared in Spain, was used to dye leather black. Christiansen (p. 182) points out this may indicate some confusion in the history of vitriols (sulfate compounds named after their glass-like appearance). After Razi, vitriols are distinguished into two kinds: blue and green. Blue vitriol corresponds roughly to copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate (CuSO₄·5H₂O) and green vitriol corresponds to iron (II) sulfate heptahydrate (FeSO₄·7H₂O). Before Razi, however, it seems they were not systematically distinguished either conceptually or physically. The substance is called “shoemaker’s black” because when combined with the tannin from oak galls used in tanning leather, the iron (II) would form a complex with the tannic acid, ferrous tannate, a black soluble pigment. When it dries, the complex reacts with oxygen in the air to form insoluble ferric tannate. This is the same reaction that makes iron gall inks so permanent. There’s a good wiki about this and lots online. I wrote about a different use of gall ink here: to write secret messages on eggs.

The first known occurence of a recipe for an iron gall ink is for an invisible ink. It’s from Philo of Byzantium, who writes about how to get secret messages out of a city under siege:

“The letters (sent by those under siege) are written in a new hat on the skin after crushing oak galls and soaking them in water. When dried, the writing becomes invisible, but if flower of copper is ground like ink in water and a sponge is soaked with it, when wiped with the sponge, they become visible.”

γράφονται δ' αἱ ἐπιστολαὶ εἰς καυσίαν καινὴν εἰς τὸν χρῶτα κηκῖδος θλασθείσης καὶ ὕδατι βραχείσης· ξηρανθέντα δὲ τὰ γράμματα ἄδηλα γίνεται, χαλκοῦ δὲ ἄνθους τριφθέντος ὥσπερ ἐν ὕδατι τὸ μέλαν καὶ ἐν τούτῳ σπόγγου βραχέντος, ὅταν ἀποσπογγισθῇ τούτῳ, φανερὰ γίνεται.

Philo of Byzantium, Belopoeica, ed. Diels and Schramm, 79

The AlchemEast team has written a great piece detailing their experiments replicating this recipe using blue and green vitriols.

Other observations

Myrrh. Christiansen thinks the myrrh here is not the raw resin, but ash from burnt resin. Burnt resins were used to make carbon inks, and this may be the case here; however, there is no mention in the recipe that the myrrh is burnt.

The Reaction. The reaction itself is pretty striking. Here's an example:

Oak gall and khalkanthos

Encouragement for the unwounded

My friend died two weeks ago. It feels like yesterday and it feels like it didn’t happen. When I left at the end of August, she gave me Isherwood’s Goodbye to Berlin. The inscription said she hoped the title was inappropriate and that I would have not just one safe journey to Prague, but many. I have a postcard still to send her.

Below, a passage which she quoted in her book on the treatment of war wounds.

***

‘…Then the Macedonians turned the battle around against the barbarians and once they were defeated, they brought the city down on top of them. This was no help to Alexander, however. He was taken from the field along with the missile: the shaft of the arrow pierced his vital organs, and the arrow bound and fixed his breastplate to his body.

‘When they tried forcing it out from the root, as it were, of the wound, the iron would not yield to them. It was lodged in the solid part of his breast in front of the heart. They did not dare to saw off the part of the shaft that was projecting out for fear it would cause excruciating pain and a rush of internal bleeding if the bone were to be split by the force.

‘Having noticed the great difficulty and hesitation, Alexander himself tried to cut the arrow off close to his body using his dagger, but his hand was too weak and heavy with numbness due to the inflammation of the wound. So he encouraged them. He commanded the unwounded to take hold and not fear. He railed against those who were in tears with concern for him, while others he called out as deserters since they did not dare to help him. And to his companions he cried out: “Let no one be wretched on my account. It will not be believed that I do not fear death if you fear for my death.”’

ἐτρέψαντο μὲν οὖν τοὺς βαρβάρους οἱ Μακεδόνες, καὶ πεσοῦσιν αὐτοῖς ἐπικατέσκαψαν τὴν πόλιν. Ἀλεξάνδρῳ δ' οὐδὲν ἦν ὄφελος· <ἀν>ήρπαστο γὰρ μετὰ τοῦ βέλους, καὶ τὸν κάλαμον ἐν τοῖς σπλάγχνοις εἶχε, καὶ δεσμὸς ἦν αὐτῷ καὶ ἧλος τὸ τόξευμα τοῦ θώρακος πρὸς τὸ σῶμα. καὶ σπάσαι μὲν ὥσπερ ἐκ ῥίζης τοῦ τραύματος βιαζομένοις οὐχ ὑπήκουεν ὁ σίδηρος, ἕδραν ἔχων τὰ πρὸ τῆς καρδίας στερεὰ τοῦ στήθους· ἐκπρῖσαι δὲ τοῦ δόνακος οὐκ ἐθάρρουν τὸ προῦχον, ἀλλ' ἐφοβοῦντο, μήπως σπαραγμῷ σχιζόμενον τὸ ὀστέον ὑπερβολὰς ἀλγηδόνων παράσχῃ καὶ ῥῆξις αἵματος ἐκ βάθους γένηται. πολλὴν δ' ἀπορίαν καὶ διατριβὴν ὁρῶν αὐτὸς ἐπεχείρησεν ἐν χρῷ τοῦ σώματος ἀποτέμνειν τῷ ξιφιδίῳ τὸν οἰστόν· ἠτόνει δ' ἡ χεὶρ καὶ βάρος εἶχε ναρκῶδες ὑπὸ φλεγμονῆς τοῦ τραύματος. ἐκέλευεν οὖν ἅπτεσθαι καὶ μὴ δεδιέναι θαρρύνων τοὺς ἀτρώτους· καὶ τοῖς μὲν ἐλοιδορεῖτο κλαίουσι καὶ περιπαθοῦσι, τοὺς δὲ λιποτάκτας ἀπεκάλει, μὴ τολμῶντας αὐτῷ βοηθεῖν· ἐβόα δὲ πρὸς τοὺς ἑταίρους «μηδεὶς ἔστω μηδ' ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ δειλός· ἀπιστοῦμαι μὴ φοβεῖσθαι θάνατον, εἰ τὸν ἐμὸν φοβεῖσθ' ὑμεῖς.»

Plutarch, On the Fortune of Alexander, Moralia 344F–345B

Pseudo-Alexander wonders why his friend Apollonius didn't ask him earlier to write a book

I was recently moving to a new city, and I had promised myself that before I did I would finish a chapter I owed for a book (very late). This is basically the conversation that was going on in my head (I’m both people in this story):

“You asked me, Apollonius, best of Asclepiads, to give you a written version of my recent class lectures on fevers. That way, if you wanted to do some studying on fevers, you would have as it were a reminder of my lesson, especially now that I’ve decided to go abroad and will be far away from you, and you might not find anyone else who would so eagerly explain to you the secrets of medicine. I’m happy to do what you ask. In fact, I was prepared to produce a lesson for you had you asked for one, both lecture and notes, and not only on fevers, but on any other medical subject—just not now, when the other things I have to do before my trip are stressing me out and making it impossible to work on these kinds of things. But I would have done it before, namely when it was possible and I had time to write up the theory after your requested it. The study of fevers is, as you know, complex and difficult to study. Lots of time is required to get a hold on it and to write it down. And you agree that the work must be worthy of both you and me, otherwise it would be pointless for me to choose to write it up and you to choose to read it.

“In fact, in the end I had let go of the idea of doing it for these reasons, except that a certain saying of ancient men—a nice one—occurred to me and persuaded me that ‘one must do right by one’s friends, even if one must debase one’s art to meet their demands, and not hold back from this very thing.’ It then seemed right to me to put the present book together as a kind of introduction, and since I promise there will be another book on the whole theory of fevers at a suitable time later on, I offer you a reminder of true friendship by means of this discussion as deposit. And so let us comply with your request and say whatever the time allows us to say, not using the breadth of the art and our facility in discourse (if ever it existed), but making use rather of the brief time we have. But let’s be lenient with one another: you for <not> already asking me ages ago when it would have been easier to receive not an introduction but a long book on fevers; and me for not ever wanting to go against friends in any way.”

 ἤιτησας ἡμᾶς, Ἀσκληπιαδῶν ἄριστε, Ἀπολλώνιε, περὶ πυρετῶν σοι τοσαῦτα διὰ γραφῆς παραδοῦναι, ὅσα σχεδὸν πὰρ ἡμῖν φοιτῶντι διὰ γλώττης παρεδηλώσαμεν, ἵν' ὥσπερ ὑπόμνημα τῆς ἡμῶν εἴη σοι διδασκαλίας, βουλομένῳ περὶ πυρετῶν θεωρεῖν, καὶ μάλιστα νυνί, ὅτε καὶ ἀποδημεῖν ἡμεῖς ἐβουλευσάμεθα, καὶ μακρὰν ἀφ' ὑμῶν γενέσθαι, σὺ δὲ οὐκέτ' ἴσως ἕξεις τὸν οὕτω σοι προθύμως τὰ τῆς ἰατρικῆς διασαφήσοντα ὄργια. ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν ἕπεσθαί σοι ῥᾴδιος, ἐφ' ἃ κελεύεις αὐτός. καὶ μὴ ὅτι περὶ πυρετῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ παντὸς ἄλλου θεωρήματος ἰατρικοῦ ἕτοιμος ἂν ἦν, σοῦ χάριν καὶ γλώττῃ καὶ γράμμασι διδασκαλίαν ποιήσασθαι, εἴγε μὴ νῦν, ὅτε πρὸς ἀλλ' ἄττα, τῆς ἐξόδου βιαζομένης, ἡμεῖς ἐπειγόμεθα, μὴ συγχωροῦντα τὴν περὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα σπουδήν, ἀλλὰ πρὸ καιροῦ, ὅτε δηλονότι οἷόν τε ἦν καὶ χρόνον ἡμῖν ἐγγενέσθαι μετὰ τὴν αἴτησιν πρὸς τὴν τοῦ θεωρήματος ξυγγραφήν, τὸ περὶ τούτων ὤφθης αἰτούμενος. πολυσχιδὴς γάρ, ὡς οἶδας, καὶ δυσθεώρητος ἡ περὶ πυρετῶν θεωρία καὶ πολλοῦ δεομένη χρόνου πρὸς κατάληψίν τε καὶ ξυγγραφήν· δεῖν δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἂν ξυμφαίης σαυτοῦ τε καὶ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν ἄξιον εἶναι τὸ σπουδαζόμενον, εἰ μὴ μάτην αὐτὸς μὲν γράφειν, σὺ δὲ ἀναγινώσκειν αἱρούμεθα.

καὶ εἴασα ἂν τελέως τοὐγχείρημα διὰ ταῦτα, εἰ μή τις λόγος παλαιῶν ἀνδρῶν καὶ καλῶς ἔχων ἐπῆλθε πείθων με, ὡς ἀνάγκη φιλίαις εἴκειν, κἂν δέῃ συγκατιέναι τὴν τέχνην, ἐπὶ ταῖς ἀξιώσεσι, μηδ' αὐτοῦ δὴ τούτου γε φείδεσθαι. ἀμέλει καὶ ἔδοξέ μοι, ὥσπερ ἐν εἰσαγωγῆς τρόπῳ, τὸ παρὸν συντάξασθαι σύγγραμμα, καὶ ἄλλο ἐπαγγελλόμενον περὶ τῆς ὅλης τῶν πυρετῶν θεωρίας, ἐν ἁρμόζοντι δῆθεν ἐσόμενον χρόνῳ, νυνὶ τουτί σοι ὡς ἐν ὑποθήκης ἐκδοῦναι λόγῳ, ἀκριβοῦς φιλίας ὑπόμνημα. καὶ δὴ λέγωμέν σοι πειθόμενοι, ἃ ἂν ὁ καιρὸς διδῷ, μὴ τῷ τῆς τέχνης πλάτει, καὶ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ περὶ τὸ λέγειν, εἴ τίς ἐστιν, εὐπορίᾳ, τοῦ χρόνου δὲ μᾶλλον χρησάμενοι τῇ βραχύτητι. ἀμφοτέροις δὲ παρ' ἀμφοτέρων ἔσται συγγνώμη, σοὶ μὲν ἤδη πάλαι αἰτήσαντι, ὅτε μὴ εἰσαγωγήν, ἀλλὰ βίβλον μακρὰν <περὶ> πυρετῶν εἰληφέναι ῥᾴδιον ἦν, ἐμοὶ δὲ φίλοις ἐφ' ὁποιῳδηποτοῦν οὐκ ἀντιβαίνειν ἐθέλοντι.

Pseudo-Alexander of Aphrodisias, Fevers 1, 81–82 Ideler =1,1–2,12 Tassinari

Literary Barbarism

“For I do not think, as some of our contemporaries urge, that everyone ought to atticize in language, even if they happen to be doctors, philosophers, geometers, musicians, or lawyers, or none of these, but generally wealthy people or merely people of means. On the contrary—I don’t think it is a good thing to blame or censure anyone for solecising. It’s better to solecise and barbarize in words than in life.”

οὐ γὰρ δὴ τοῦτ' ἀξιοῦμεν ἡμεῖς, ὅπερ ἔνιοι τῶν νῦν κελεύουσιν, ἅπαντας ἀττικίζειν τῇ φωνῇ, κἂν ἰατροὶ τυγχάνωσιν ὄντες ἢ φιλόσοφοι καὶ γεωμετρικοὶ καὶ μουσικοὶ καὶ νομικοὶ κἂν μηδὲν τούτων ἀλλ' ἁπλῶς ἤτοι πλουτοῦντές τινες ἢ μόνον εὔποροι· τοὐναντίον γὰρ ἀπαξιῶ μηδενὶ μέμφεσθαι τῶν σολοικιζόντων τῇ φωνῇ μηδ' ἐπιτιμᾶν· ἄμεινον γάρ ἐστι τῇ φωνῇ μᾶλλον ἢ τῷ βίῳ σολοικίζειν τε καὶ βαρβαρίζειν.

Galen, On the Order of My Own Books 5 (19.60–61 K.)

Galen on whether healthy living belongs to medicine or physical training

“That’s why it amazes me when I hear athletes’ trainers these days arguing that healthy living is a part of their own art. In fact, it’s not a part of true physical training at all; rather, it’s the other way around: physical training is a part of healthy living. So why should we dispute about their false art, which is not at all a part of the art concerning the body and which sells a practice that’s held in contempt not only by Plato and Hippocrates, but also by all the other doctors and philosophers?”

ᾗ καὶ θαυμάζειν ἐπέρχεταί μοι τῶν νῦν τοὺς ἀθλητὰς γυμναζόντων, ὅταν ἀμφισβητούντων ἀκούσω μέρος εἶναι τῆς ἑαυτῶν τέχνης τὸ ὑγιεινόν. ὅπου γὰρ οὐδὲ τῆς ὄντως γυμναστικῆς μέρος ἐστὶν ἀλλ' ἔμπαλιν ἐκείνη μέρος ὑγιεινοῦ, τί χρὴ περὶ τῆς τούτων κακοτεχνίας ἀμφιβάλλειν, ἣ μήτε μέρος ἐστὶν ὅλως τῆς περὶ τὸ σῶμα τέχνης ἐπιτηδεύματός τε προέστηκεν οὐχ ὑπὸ Πλάτωνος μόνον ἢ Ἱπποκράτους, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ἰατρῶν τε καὶ φιλοσόφων ἀτιμαζομένου;

Galen, Thrasybulus: whether healthy living belongs to medicine or to gymnastics 47 (5.898 K. = 99,26-100,9 Helmreich)

Bedside manner in Rome: some sayings attributed to the physician, Quintus

“We still have to go through the subject of morning and evening massage—but oh my god not in the way Quintus did. They say that when a personal trainer asked him what virtue an oil massage has, he replied, ‘getting their clothes off.’ Those words—the ones I just used—they say are a direct quote of the trainer’s question and Quintus’ answer. There’s a similar saying attributed to Quintus that’s been going around, this one about urine: that ‘learning about it is a fuller’s job.’ Then there’s the one about hot, cold, dry and wet: that ‘those are words for bathhouse attendants.’ Now, I find it hard to believe even Thessalus, never mind Quintus, would say anything like these things. They’re all just stupid jokes, in no way appropriate for a man so educated in a serious art.”

Λείπεται οὖν ἔτι περὶ τῶν ἑωθινῶν τε καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἑσπέραν τρίψεων διελθεῖν, οὐ μὰ Δία οὕτως, ὥς φασιν ἀποκρίνασθαι Κόιντον ἐρομένῳ τινὶ γυμναστῇ, τίνα δύναμιν ἔχει τὸ ὑποσυγχρίεσθαι, φάμενον ἀφανίζειν τὰ ἱμάτια. τούτοις γὰρ τοῖς ὀνόμασιν, οἷς ἐγὼ νῦν ἐχρησάμην, ἐρέσθαι τε λέγουσι τὸν γυμναστὴν ἀποκρίνασθαί τε τὸν Κόιντον. ὅμοιόν τι τοῦ Κοίντου περιφέρεται ἀπόφθεγμα τό τε περὶ τῶν οὔρων, ὡς γναφέως ἐστὶ καταμανθάνειν αὐτά, καὶ τὸ περὶ θερμοῦ, ψυχροῦ, ξηροῦ καὶ ὑγροῦ, διότι βαλανέων ἐστὶν ὀνόματα ταῦτα. ἃ ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ ἂν πεισθείην, μὴ ὅτι Κόιντον, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ τῶν ἀπὸ Θεσσαλοῦ τινα φθέγξασθαι· βωμολοχικὰ γὰρ ἅπαντ' ἐστὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα κομψεύματα καὶ οὐδαμῶς ἀνδρὶ προσήκοντα σεμνῆς οὕτω τέχνης ἐπιστήμονι.

Galen, On Matters of Health 3.13, (6.228 K. = 100,27–101,5 Koch)

Do truffles come from thunder and other questions

1. Aristotle (4th century BCE, dubious)

Attributed to Aristotle in some 19th century collections of fragments, but I have no idea why. Maybe because of a tendency to assign to Aristotle things said by his student? Or maybe the collection includes the early Peripatos? Found it with a TLG search, but I didn’t find the edition it comes from. σκληρότερα might be a corruption, see e.g. the Athenaeus text below where he says that there are more truffles when the storms are σκληραί / severe.

“Truffles become harder when there is continuous thunder, as Theophrastus has said in his works on plants.”

τὰ ὕδνα βροντῶν συνεχῶν γιγνομένων σκληρότερα γίγνεται, καθάπερ Θεόφραστος ἐν τοῖς περὶ φυτῶν εἴρηκεν.

2. Diocles of Carystus (4th century BCE)

‘Diocles of Carystus says in the first book of Matters of Health: “wild plants to be boiled are beet, mallow, monk’s rhubarb, stinging nettle, orach, grape hyacinths, truffles, mushrooms.”’

Διοκλῆς ὁ Καρύστιος ἐν αʹ Ὑγιεινῶν φησιν· ‘ἄγρια ἑψήματα τεῦτλον, μαλάχη, λάπαθον, ἀκαλήφη, ἀνδράφαξυς, βολβοί, ὕδνα, μύκαι.

Athenaeus, The Sophists’ at Dinner, 2.57, 61c = Diocles Fragment 195 van der Eijk

3. Theophrastus (4th century BCE)

“The same differences (in the roots) exist among undershrubs, herbs and the rest, except that some have no roots at all, like the truffle, the mushroom, the bullfist, and the keraunion .*”

αἱ αὐταὶ δὲ διαφοραὶ καὶ τῶν φρυγανικῶν καὶ τῶν ποιωδῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων· πλὴν εἰ ὅλως ἔνια μὴ ἔχει, καθάπερ ὕδνον μύκης πέζις κεραύνιον.

Theophrastus, History of Plants, 1.6.5

*Keraunion (κεραύνιον), from the word for thunderbolt, keraunos, perhaps another kind of truffle.

“For it is not correct to call everything underground a root. For in that case the stem of the grape hyacinth and of the long onion and generally any part which is underground would be a root, also the truffle and what some people call askhios and the ouignon and any other underground plants, of which none are roots—for we must distinguish things by natural capacity and not by place.”

τὸ γὰρ δὴ πᾶν λέγειν τὸ κατὰ γῆς ῥίζαν οὐκ ὀρθόν· καὶ γὰρ ἂν ὁ καυλὸς τοῦ βολβοῦ καὶ ὁ τοῦ γηθύου καὶ ὅλως ὅσα κατὰ βάθους ἐστὶν εἴησαν ἂν ῥίζαι, καὶ τὸ ὕδνον δὲ καὶ ὃ καλοῦσί τινες ἀσχίον καὶ τὸ οὔϊγγον καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο ὑπόγειόν ἐστιν· ὧν οὐδέν ἐστι ῥίζα· δυνάμει γὰρ δεῖ φυσικῇ διαιρεῖν καὶ οὐ τόπῳ.

Theophrastus, History of Plants, 1.6.9

4. Dioscorides (1st century)

“Truffle is a root that is round with no leaves, no stem, light brown, dug up in the spring. It is both edible when raw and eaten when boiled.”

ὕδνον ῥίζα ἐστὶ περιφερής, ἄφυλλος, ἄκαυλος, ὑπόξανθος, ἔαρος ὀρυττομένη. ἐδώδιμος δέ ἐστιν ὠμή τε καὶ ἑφθὴ ἐσθιομένη.

Dioscorides, On Medical Materials, 2.145 (1.212,18–213,2 Wellmann)

5. Plutarch (1st century)

Why do some people think truffles are produced by thunder, and why do they think sleeping people are not struck by lightning?

‘Agemachos once offered us giant truffles while we were dining in Elis. Everyone there was amazed, and one person said with a smirk, “they’re surely worth the thunderstorms we’ve been having lately,” clearly poking fun at those who say truffles are produced by thunder. Indeed, there are some people who say that the earth is split by thunder, the air operating like a spike, and afterwards the truffle hunters use the cracks in the ground as a sign. From this arose a popular belief that truffles are produced by thunder rather than uncovered, as if someone were to think that snails were produced by rain instead of being lead out and made visible. Agemachos, however, held on stubbornly to the story and asked us not to think that what is wondrous is implausible. For there are many other wondrous things that come from thunder, lightning and related divine signs—things that have causes that are difficult or altogether impossible to discover.’

Διὰ τί τὰ ὕδνα δοκεῖ τῇ βροντῇ γίνεσθαι, καὶ διὰ τί τοὺς καθεύδοντας οἴονται μὴ κεραυνοῦσθαι.

Ὕδνα παμμεγέθη δειπνοῦσιν ἡμῖν Ἀγέμαχος παρέθηκεν ἐν Ἤλιδι. θαυμαζόντων δὲ τῶν παρόντων, ἔφη τις ὑπομειδιάσας ‘ἄξιά γε τῶν βροντῶν τῶν ἔναγχος γενομένων,’ ὡς δὴ καταγελῶν τῶν λεγόντων τὰ ὕδνα τὴν γένεσιν ἐκ βροντῆς λαμβάνειν. ἦσαν οὖν οἱ φάσκοντες ὑπὸ βροντῆς τὴν γῆν διίστασθαι καθάπερ ἥλῳ τῷ ἀέρι χρωμένης, εἶτα ταῖς ῥωγμαῖς τεκμαίρεσθαι τοὺς τὰ ὕδνα μετιόντας· ἐκ δὲ τούτου δόξαν ἐγγενέσθαι τοῖς πολλοῖς, ὅτι τὸ ὕδνον αἱ βρονταὶ γεννῶσιν οὐ δεικνύουσιν, ὥσπερ εἴ τις οἴοιτο τοὺς κοχλίας ποιεῖν τὸν ὄμβρον ἀλλὰ μὴ προάγειν μηδ' ἀναφαίνειν. ὁ δ' Ἀγέμαχος ἰσχυρίζετο τῇ ἱστορίᾳ καὶ τὸ θαυμαστὸν ἠξίου μὴ ἄπιστον ἡγεῖσθαι. καὶ γὰρ ἄλλα πολλὰ θαυμάσια βροντῆς ἔργα καὶ κεραυνοῦ καὶ τῶν περὶ ταῦτα διοσημιῶν εἶναι, χαλεπὰς καταμαθεῖν ἢ παντελῶς ἀδυνάτους τὰς αἰτίας ἔχοντα.

Plutarch, Table Talk (quaestiones convivales) 4.2, Moralia 664B–C

6. Galen (2nd century)

“On truffles. It is necessary to include these among the roots and vegetables, although they have no evident quality. That’s why people use them as a base for seasonings, just like they use the other ones they call bland, harmless and watery in taste. They all share in common that their nutriment, when it gets distributed to the body, has no remarkable property. Instead, the nutriment is a bit cool, while in thickness it is itself similar in quality to whatever was eaten, thicker when it comes from truffle, more watery and thinner when comes from colocynth and likewise in the case of the others.”

Περὶ ὕδνων. Ἐν ῥίζαις ἢ βολβοῖς ἀριθμεῖν ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι καὶ ταῦτα μηδεμίαν ἔχοντα σαφῆ ποιότητα. χρῶνται τοιγαροῦν αὐτοῖς οἱ χρώμενοι πρὸς ὑποδοχὴν ἀρτυμάτων, ὥσπερ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις, ὅσα καλοῦσιν ἄποια καὶ ἀβλαβῆ καὶ ὑδατώδη κατὰ τὴν γεῦσιν. ἔστι δ' ἁπάντων αὐτῶν κοινόν, ὡς μηδὲ τὴν ἀναδιδομένην εἰς τὸ σῶμα τροφὴν ἐξαίρετόν τινα δύναμιν ἔχειν, ἀλλ' ὑπόψυχρον μὲν εἶναι, τῷ πάχει δ', ὁποῖον ἄν τι καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ ἐδηδεσμένον ᾖ, παχυτέραν μὲν ἐξ ὕδνου, ὑγροτέραν δὲ καὶ λεπτοτέραν ἐκ κολοκύνθης ἐπί τε τῶν ἄλλων ἀνὰ λόγον.

Galen, On the Properties of Foods, 2.66 (6.655 Kühn = 327,16–328,3 Helmreich)

“On Truffle. Truffles are known to everyone to have a predominantly earthy substance, possessing a small number of fine particles that have been mixed in to their composition.”

Περὶ ὕδνου. Ὕδνα πᾶσι γνώριμα γεωδεστέραν οὐσίαν ἐπικρατοῦσαν, ἐν τῇ συστάσει κέκτηται βραχέος τινὸς αὐτῇ μεμιγμένου τοῦ λεπτομεροῦς.

Galen, Simple Drugs 9.19, 12.147 Kühn

7. Athenaeus of Naucratis (2nd/3rd century)

‘Truffles. These are also produced spontaneously from the ground especially in sandy places. Theophrastus says about them: “the truffle, which some call geraneion* and any other subterranean plant.” And again: “this is the creation and nature of these earth-born plants, like the truffle and the thing that grows near Cyrene which people call misy. This is considered very sweet and has the scent of meat, like the oiton that is produced in Thrace. Something peculiar is said about these. For they say that they are produced when the autumn rains occur with strong thunder, and more when there is more thunder, as this is more their proper cause. They are not perennials, but annuals. They are useful and at their peak in the spring. Nevertheless, some people suppose that they start from seed. In any case, on the shores of Mytilene they say they do not grow before there is a heavy rain that washes the seed down from Tiarai, while this is a region in which many grow. They are produced especially on the shores and wherever the land is sandy, for Tiarai is also like this. They also grow in the Abarnis around Lampsakos and in Alopekonnesos and in Elis.” Lynkeus of Samos says: “the sea sends up sea-anemone, the earth truffles.” And Matron the parodist in The Banquet: “he has sent up oysters, the truffles of Thetis the Nereid.” Diphilos says truffles are difficult to digest, but juicy and relaxing, besides being laxative, and some of them can cause you to choke, in a similar way to mushrooms. Hegesandros of Delphi says that in the Hellespont there are no truffles, no glaukiskos, and no thyme. For this reason Nausikleides said “neither spring nor friend.” Pamphilos in Dialects says that truffle-grass is the herb that grows on top of truffles, by which the truffle is discovered.’

ΥΔΝΑ. γίνεται καὶ ταῦτα αὐτόματα ἀπὸ γῆς μάλιστα περὶ τοὺς ἀμμώδεις τόπους. λέγει δὲ περὶ αὐτῶν Θεόφραστος (1, 6, 9)· ‘τὸ ὕδνον (ὃ καλοῦσί τινες γεράνειον) καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο ὑπόγειον.’ καὶ πάλιν (fr. 167 W)· ‘καὶ ἡ τῶν ἐγγεοτόκων τούτων γένεσις ἅμα καὶ φύσις, οἷον τοῦ τε ὕδνου καὶ τοῦ φυομένου περὶ Κυρήνην ὃ καλοῦσι μίσυ. δοκεῖ δ' ἡδὺ σφόδρα τοῦτ' εἶναι καὶ τὴν ὀσμὴν ἔχειν κρεώδη, καὶ τὸ ἐν τῇ Θρᾴκῃ δὲ γενόμενον οἰτόν. περὶ δὲ τούτων ἴδιόν τι λέγεται· φασὶ γάρ, ὅταν ὕδατα μετοπωρινὰ καὶ βρονταὶ γίνωνται σκληραί, τότε γίνεσθαι, καὶ μᾶλλον ὅταν αἱ βρονταί, ὡς ταύτης αἰτιωτέρας οὔσης. οὐ διετίζειν δέ, ἀλλ' ἐπέτειον εἶναι· τὴν δὲ χρείαν καὶ τὴν ἀκμὴν ἔχειν τοῦ ἦρος. οὐ μὴν ἀλλ' ἔνιοί γε ὡς σπερματικῆς οὔσης τῆς ἀρχῆς ὑπολαμβάνουσιν. ἐν γοῦν τῷ αἰγιαλῷ τῶν Μιτυληναίων οὔ φασι πρότερον εἶναι πρὶν ἢ γενομένης ἐπομβρίας τὸ σπέρμα κατενεχθῇ ἀπὸ Τιαρῶν· τοῦτο δ' ἐστὶ χωρίον ἐν ᾧ πολλὰ γίνεται. γίνεται δὲ ἔν τε τοῖς αἰγιαλοῖς μάλιστα καὶ ὅπου χώρα ὕπαμμος· καὶ γὰρ αἱ Τιάραι τοιαῦται. φύεται δὲ καὶ περὶ Λάμψακον ἐν τῇ Ἀβαρνίδι καὶ ἐν Ἀλωπεκοννήσῳ κἀν τῇ Ἠλείων.’ Λυγκεὺς ὁ Σάμιός φησιν· ‘ἀκαλήφην ἡ θάλασσα ἀνίησιν, ἡ δὲ γῆ ὕδνα.’ καὶ Μάτρων ὁ παρῳδὸς ἐν τῷ Δείπνῳ· ὄστρεά τ' ἤνεικεν, Θέτιδος Νηρηίδος ὕδνα. Δίφιλος δὲ δύσπεπτά φησιν εἶναι τὰ ὕδνα, εὔχυλα δὲ καὶ παραλεαντικά, προσέτι δὲ διαχωρητικά, καὶ ἔνια αὐτῶν ὁμοίως τοῖς μύκαις πνιγώδη εἶναι. Ἡγήσανδρος δ' ὁ Δελφὸς ἐν Ἑλλησπόντῳ φησὶν οὔτε ὕδνον γίνεσθαι οὔτε γλαυκίσκον οὔτε θύμον· διὸ Ναυσικλείδην εἰρηκέναι μήτε ἔαρ μήτε φίλους. ὑδνόφυλλον δέ φησι Πάμφιλος ἐν Γλώσσαις τὴν φυομένην τῶν ὕδνων ὕπερθε πόαν, ἀφ' ἧς τὸ ὕδνον γινώσκεσθαι.

Athenaeus of Naucratis, The Sophists at Dinner, 2.62

*γεράνειον geraneion – perhaps from geras = “old” and neios = “fallow land”?

8. Oribasius (4th century)

“On Truffles. They have no evident quality. That’s why people use them as a base for seasonings, just as they also use the other ones they call bland and watery in taste. They all share in common that their nutriment, when it gets distributed to the body, does not heat; instead, the nutriment is a bit cool, while in thickness it is similar to whatever was eaten, thicker when it comes from truffle, relatively more watery and thinner when it comes from the others.”

Περὶ ὕδνων. Οὐδεμίαν ἔχει σαφῆ ποιότητα· χρῶνται τοιγαροῦν αὐτοῖς πρὸς ὑποδοχὴν ἀρτυμάτων, ὥσπερ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὅσα καλοῦσιν ἄποια καὶ ὑδατώδη κατὰ τὴν γεῦσιν. ἔστι δ' ἁπάντων αὐτῶν κοινὸν ὡς μηδὲ τὴν ἀναδιδομένην τροφὴν εἰς τὸ σῶμα θερμαίνειν, ἀλλ' ὑπόψυχρον μὲν εἶναι, τῷ πάχει δ' ὁποῖον ἄν τι καὶ τὸ ἐδηδεσμένον <ᾖ>, παχύτερον μὲν ἐξ ὕδνου, ὑγρότερον δὲ καὶ λεπτότερον ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων ἀνάλογον.

Oribasius, Medical Collections, 2.24.1 (35,5–11 Raeder)

9. Aetius of Amida (6th century)

“Truffles possess a prevalent, quite earthy substance, with some fine material in with it.”

Ὕδνα γεωδεστέραν μὲν οὐσίαν ἐπικρατοῦσαν κέκτηται, βραχέος τινὸς αὐτῇ μιγνυμένου λεπτομεροῦς.

Aetius of Amida, Medical Books, 1.397 (142,6-7 Olivieri)

10. Paul of Aegina (7th century)

“On truffles (hydna) and mushrooms (mycetai). The truffle produces a quality-less humour, but it is rather cool and thick. Mushrooms are cold and produce phlegm and bad humours. From this group, the boleti are less harmful and quality-less when they are properly boiled, while the amanitai are of the second order.* One should stay away from the other mushrooms, since many people have died from them. Even the boleti themselves are often hazardous when eaten if they are not properly boiled.”

Περὶ ὕδνων καὶ μυκήτων. Τὸ ὕδνον ἄποιον μὲν ἔχει τὸν ἀναδιδόμενον ἐξ αὐτοῦ χυμόν, ψυχρότερον δὲ καὶ παχύχυμον. οἱ δὲ μυκῆται ψυχροί τέ εἰσι καὶ φλεγματώδεις καὶ κακόχυμοι· τούτων δὲ αὐτῶν οἱ μὲν βωλῖται ἀβλαβέστεροι καὶ ἄποιοι καλῶς ἑψηθέντες, οἱ δὲ ἀμανῖται δευτέρας εἰσὶ τάξεως. τῶν δὲ ἄλλων μυκήτων ἀπέχεσθαι δεῖ· πολλοὶ γὰρ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπέθανον. καὶ αὐτοὶ δὲ οἱ βωλῖται ἀνεφθότεροι ἐσθιόμενοι κινδύνου παραίτιοι πολλάκις γίνονται.

Paul of Aegina, 1.77 (56,1–8 Heiberg)

Commentary by Adams. On mushroom varieties, see Athenaeus, The Sophists at Dinner, 2.56–57

11. Anonymous (late byzantine source)

“On truffles. They are quality-less and watery in taste. They are similar to amanitai. The nutriment from them produce phlegm and is cold, and if someone eats too many it produces bad humour.”

Περὶ ὕδνων. Ἄποιά εἰσι καὶ ὑδατώδη κατὰ τὴν γεῦσιν. εἰσὶ δὲ παραπλήσια τοῖς ἀμανίταις. φλεγματώδης δέ ἐστιν ἡ ἐξ αὐτῶν τροφὴ καὶ ψυχρά, καὶ εἰ πλεονάσει τις ἐν αὐτοῖς κακόχυμος.

Anonymous, On Food, chapter 74

12. Pseudo-Hippocrates (late byzantine source)

“On vegetables. Truffles and amanitai and the artichoke are productive of bad humours, difficult to digest and productive of black bile.”

Περὶ λαχάνων. […] τὰ ὕδνα καὶ οἱ ἀμανῖται καὶ ἡ κινάρα κακόχυμα καὶ δύσπεπτα καὶ μελαγχολικά.

Pseudo-Hippocrates, On the Differences of Foods to Ptolemy (De alimentorum differentiis ad Ptolemaeum), 491,9–10 Delatte (in Anecdota Atheniensia 1939)

Galen’s Commentary on Hippocrates’ Fractures

It’s almost impossible to find English translations of Galen’s Hippocratic commentaries. There’s an English translation by W. J. Lewis of Galen’s commentary on the Nature of the Human Being available at the Society for Ancient Medicine site at Cambridge; and there are English translations by Uwe Vagelpohl of Arabic translations of some of Galen’s commentaries for the Corpus Medicorum Graecorum. That’s about it for English. The situation is only marginally better for French, German, Italian and Spanish (see the CMG’s Galen catalogue).

It is frustrating because Galen’s commentaries contain a huge amount of material on Greek scholarship of the second century—not only philosophy and medicine, but literature and philology as well. They are also important parts of the reception of earlier philosophy, medicine, literature and philology, since many later scholars drew from and responded to them in Syriac, Arabic, Latin and Greek traditions. Making them more widely available in modern language translations would help to open the field up quite a bit.

As for the texts themselves, some of Galen’s commentaries have modern critical editions and are available online in Greek and / or in Arabic at the Corpus Medicorum Graecorum of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences. Some are in preparation (like Airs, Waters, Places in Arabic). Others are still to be edited, like much of the Aphorisms commentary.

A lot of in-depth scholarship is still behind paywalls. The most important study, for instance, is the 1994 contribution, “Galeno commentatore di Ippocrate” by Daniela Manetti and Amneris Roselli, to the Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (I see De Gruyter sells the article for 30 EUR). There’s also great new work by Manetti and Roselli in a few recent volumes, as well as work by (and the following are merely examples) Hans Diller, Georg Harig and Jutta Kollesch, Geoffrey Lloyd, Mario Vegetti, Paola Manuli, Heinrich von Staden and P. N. Singer. I’d add Glenn Most’s work on ancient Greco-Roman scholarship and David Sedley’s work on commentary and philosophical allegiance to the list of important resources that are not always easy to find online (less of a necessity for now while the pandemic restrictions are being relaxed). There are surely many others.

There is however a scholarly and open-access discussion of Galen’s Hippocratic commentary and Hippocratism in a piece by Jacques Jouanna called “Galen’s Reading of the Hippocratic Treatise The Nature of Man: The Foundations of Hippocratism in Galen” from the 2012 volume of his collected papers published by Brill. And there’s the wonderful 1979 book The Hippocratic Tradition by Wesley Smith that’s available online in a special electronic edition Smith revised for BIU Santé in 2002.

Lately, I’ve been posting translations of the more programmatic or weird bits of Galen’s commentaries to try to make them a bit more accessible (also to motivate me while I write a chapter on them for a handbook). This time it’s the preface to Galen’s commentary on Hippocrates’ Fractures.

Galen’s commentary on Hippocrates’ Fractures belongs to an earlier period of Galen’s Hippocratic scholarship, when he was writing mainly at the request of friends (as in last week’s post). The period includes commentaries on Aphorisms, Fractures, Joints, Prognosis, Regimen in Acute Diseases, Wounds, Injuries of the Head, and Epidemics 1. Eventually, he says he started producing commentaries for wider publication, after he came across some particularly bad but popular commentaries written by a couple of physicians named Lycos and Julian. These are commentaries on Nature of the Human Being, Epidemics 2, Epidemics 3, Epidemics 6, Humours, Nutriment, Prorrhetic, Surgery and Airs, Waters, Places.

The preface to the commentary on Fractures is unique because it contains a summary of Galen’s reflection on interpretation (exegesis) from his lost essay On Interpretation.* In that work, Galen says he defined interpretation as the ability to make what is obscure in written texts clear. He also distinguishes two kinds of interpretation according to a distinction between two kinds of obscurity: obscurity per se and obscurity relative to the audience (perhaps drawing on Platonist categorial distinction between things that exist kath’auto and pros ti). Something is obscure per se when it implies a contradiction. Something is obscure relative to an audience when the audience is unfamiliar with the subject of the discussion.

Galen thinks the result is that interpreting something that is obscure per se will be different from interpreting something that is only obscure relative to the audience. In the latter case, Galen says he’ll nearly always clarify what is relatively obscure in the case of anatomical claims, but for the most part he’ll target people who are already fairly well trained in philosophy, literature and medicine. We also find Galen’s views on what teaching at different levels consists in.

Comments on the translation welcome.

Galen’s Commentary on Hippocrates’ Fractures, preface

“Before going on to individual interpretations, it is better to have an understanding of interpretation in general: that its capacity is to make clear whatever in written treatises is obscure. To demonstrate something written down as true, or to refute it as false—even if someone alleges [the position] was defended sophistically—is distinct from interpretation, although it is customary for just about everyone who writes commentaries to do this. And, by god, there is nothing to prevent the interpreter from touching on this in moderation, but to be completely contentious about the opinions of the author is to exceed the boundaries of interpretation. Therefore, since I am not making this my aim, but what has been mentioned, I will make concise additions to the actual interpretation for the sake of making what was said plausible.

“Nevertheless, there are two different kinds of interpretation, because obscurity itself has two kinds. I think it is better to speak about this in advance; however, I will only speak briefly about these things, like a kind of summary, since they have been discussed at length in my essay On Interpretation. In that work I showed what is actually obscure being such itself through itself, and what in itself did not arise at first, but when there happened to be many differences among readers of the discussion, either in being educated and trained in argument or completely untrained, or with respect to some people being naturally sharp and intelligent, others dull and unintelligent.

“For example, in the book under discussion, On Fractures, where Hippocrates says ‘it must then be stated which of the errors of doctors one wishes to teach, which to unteach’, the passage is obscure itself through itself, since we do not expect there to be any errors that should be taught. Similar also is this one: ‘and the extension of the joint in this configuration has been bent.’ For he is saying the bent configuration of the outstretched arm has the joint at the elbow, but it seems absurd to say that the straight has been bent.

“Nevertheless, what has been said in the following way: ‘if the hinge-like part of the humerus in the cavity of the ulna is fixed in this kind of position, it makes a line with the bones of the ulna and humerus, as if the whole were one’—if someone had observed what the bones under discussion are like, there would be no obscurity; but to someone who does not know the nature of the articulation at the elbow, the passage reasonably appears obscure.

“I think it is better to interpret all such passages, because the majority of the book's readers have not learned anatomy. Nevertheless, it is fitting to pass over what is not like this, saying to those reading this book only this much about them: if you think one of the passages I have interpreted is obscure, first look into whether your book has mistakes by comparing and collating it with the most trustworthy copies. If it appears to be correct, read the same passage a second and a third time paying precise attention to it. For when I read a book together with someone in person, I am able to target the appropriate interpretation precisely, considering on each occasion the ability of the student. But when I am writing for everyone, I do not target those who are best or worst prepared. For in the former case, the interpretation will be obscure for most people; in the latter, it will be irritating for those who have to spend a long time on things that are clear.

“I think what is best, therefore, is to target one whose ability is in the middle; but when I miss this, I rather look to those who are more capable. For in general I do not think it is valuable for those whose ability is less than mediocre to read commentaries: they must be content to understand what has been said by listening many times to their teacher give the same explanations in passage after passage.”

Πρὸ τῆς τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἐξηγήσεως ἄμεινον ἀκηκοέναι καθόλου περὶ πάσης ἐξηγήσεως, ὡς ἔστιν ἡ δύναμις αὐτῆς, ὅσα τῶν ἐν τοῖς συγγράμμασίν ἐστιν ἀσαφῆ, ταῦτ' ἐργάσασθαι σαφῆ. τὸ δ' ἀποδεῖξαί τι τῶν γεγραμμένων ὡς ἀληθὲς ἢ ὡς ψεῦδος ἐλέγξαι, καὶ εἰ κατηγόρησέ τις σοφιστικῶς ἀπολογήσασθαι, κεχώρισται μὲν ἐξηγήσεως, εἴθισται δὲ γίγνεσθαι πρὸς ἁπάντων ὡς εἰπεῖν τῶν γραφόντων ὑπομνήματα. καὶ νὴ Δία οὐδὲν κωλύει καὶ τούτου μετρίως ἅπτεσθαι τὸν ἐξηγητήν. τὸ δ' ἀγωνίζεσθαι τελέως ὑπὲρ τῶν τοῦ γράφοντος δογμάτων ἐκπέπτωκε τὸν ὅρον τῆς ἐξηγήσεως. οὐ πρὸς τοῦτον οὖν τὸν σκοπὸν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸν εἰρημένον ἀποβλέπων ἐγὼ προσθήσω ταῖς ὄντως ἐξηγήσεσιν ἑκάστοτε βραχέα τῆς πίστεως ἕνεκα τῶν εἰρημένων.

οὔσης μέντοι καὶ κατὰ ταύτην τὴν ἐξήγησιν διαφορᾶς διττῆς, ὅτι καὶ τὸ ἀσαφὲς αὐτὸ διττόν ἐστιν, ἄμεινον εἶναί μοι δοκεῖ καὶ περὶ τούτου προειπεῖν, εἰρήσεται δὲ καὶ αὐτὰ ταῦτα διὰ βραχέων, οἷον ἐπιτομή τις, ὧν ἰδίᾳ λέλεκται διὰ μακροτέρων ἐν τῷ περὶ ἐξηγήσεως ὑπομνήματι. δέδεικται δὲ ἐν ἐκείνῳ τὸ μὲν ὄντως ἀσαφὲς αὐτὸ δι' ἑαυτὸ τοιοῦτον ὑπάρχον, τὸ δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ πρότερον τὴν γένεσιν οὐκ ἔχον, ἐπειδὴ τῶν ἀκουόντων τοῦ λόγου διαφοραὶ πάμπολλαι τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι κατά τε τὸ προπαιδεύεσθαι καὶ γεγυμνάσθαι περὶ λόγους ἢ παντάπασί γε ἀγυμνάστους ὑπάρχειν, εἶναί τε φύσει τοὺς μὲν ὀξεῖς τε καὶ συνετοὺς, τοὺς δὲ ἀμβλεῖς καὶ ἀσυνέτους.

αὐτίκα γοῦν ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ προκειμένῳ βιβλίῳ τῷ περὶ τῶν καταγμάτων, ἔνθα μέν φησιν ὁ Ἱπποκράτης· ῥητέον οὖν ὁκόσας ἂν ἐθέλει τῶν ἁμαρτάδων τῶν ἰητρῶν τὰς μὲν διδάξαι, τὰς δὲ ἀποδιδάξαι, τὴν ἀσάφειαν ἔχει αὐτὴ δι' ἑαυτὴν ἡ λέξις, οὐ προσδεχομένων ἡμῶν εἶναί τινας ἁμαρτίας, ἃς διδάξαι χρὴ, τοιοῦτόν ἐστι κἀκεῖνο· καὶ ἡ ἀνάτασις τοῦ ἄρθρου κέκλασται ἐν τουτέῳ τῷ σχήματι. τὸ γὰρ ἐκτεταμένης τῆς χειρὸς σχῆμα κεκλασμένον, φησὶν, ἔχει τὸ ἄρθρον τὸ κατ' ἀγκῶνα. δοκεῖ δὲ τοῦτ' ἄτοπον εἶναι κεκλάσθαι φάναι τὸ εὐθύ.

τὸ μέντοι λελεγμένον οὕτως· εἰ τοῦ βραχίονος τὸ γιγγλυμοειδὲς ἐν τῇ τοῦ πήχεος βαθμίδι, ἐν τοιουτέῳ τῷ σχήματι ἐρεῖδον, ἰθυωρίην ποιέει τοῖσιν ὀστέοισι τοῦ πήχεος καὶ τοῦ βραχίονος, ὡς ἓν εἴη τὸ πᾶν. εἰ μέντοι τις ἑώρακεν ὁποῖόν ἐστι τῶν ὀστῶν ἑκάτερον, ὑπὲρ ὧν ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν, οὐδεμίαν ἀσάφειαν ἔχει. τῷ δ' ἀγνοοῦντι τῆς κατ' ἀγκῶνα διαρθρώσεως τὴν φύσιν ἀσαφὴς εἰκότως ἡ λέξις φαίνεται.

δοκεῖ δέ μοι βέλτιον εἶναι καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα πάντα ἐξηγεῖσθαι, διὰ τὸ τοὺς πλείστους τῶν ἀναγινωσκόντων τὸ βιβλίον ἀμαθεῖς ἀνατομῆς εἶναι. τὰ μέντοι μηδὲν ἐχόντων τοιοῦτον παρέρχεσθαι προσήκει, τοσοῦτον προειπόντα περὶ αὐτῶν ἔτι τοῖς ἀναγνωσομένοις τὸ βιβλίον, ἐάν τινα λέξιν ὧν ἐξηγησάμην ἀσαφὲς ἔχειν τι νομίσῃς, ἐπίσκεψαι μὲν πρῶτον εἰ μὲν τὸ βιβλίον ἡμάρτηταί σου παραβάλλων τε καὶ ἀντεξετάζων τοῖς ἀξιοπίστοις ἀντιγράφοις· εἶτ' ἂν ὀρθῶς ἔχειν φαίνηται, δεύτερόν τε καὶ τρίτον ἀνάγνωθι τὴν αὐτὴν λέξιν προσέχων ἀκριβῶς αὐτῇ τὸν νοῦν. ἐγὼ γὰρ ὅταν μὲν παρὼν παρόντι συναναγινώσκω τι βιβλίον, ἀκριβῶς στοχάζεσθαι δύναμαι τοῦ μέτρου τῆς ἐξηγήσεως, ἀποβλέπων ἑκάστοτε πρὸς τὴν τοῦ μανθάνοντος ἕξιν. ὅταν δὲ γράφω πᾶσιν, οὔτε τοῦ ἄριστα παρεσκευασμένου οὔτε τοῦ χείριστα στοχάζομαι. τὸ μὲν γὰρ τοῖς πλείστοις ἀσαφὲς ἔσται, τὸ δὲ ἀνιᾶται χρονίζοντας ἐν τοῖς σαφέσιν.

ἄριστον οὖν ἡγοῦμαι τῶν μέσην ἕξιν ἐχόντων στοχάζεσθαι· τούτου δὲ ἀποτυγχάνων ἐπὶ τοὺς ἑκτικωτέρους ἐπόπτειν μᾶλλον. οὐδὲ γὰρ ὅλως ὑπομνήμασιν ἐντυγχάνειν ἀξιῶ, τοὺς κατωτέρους τῆς μέσης ἕξεως, οἷς ἀγαπητόν ἐστι παρὰ διδασκάλων ἀκούσασι πολλάκις τὰ αὐτὰ κατ' ἄλλην καὶ ἄλλην λέξιν ἑρμηνευόμενα συνιέναι τῶν λεγομένων.

Gal. Hipp. Frac. 18B 318–322 K.

Two reasons Galen wrote commentaries

Because his friends asked him to.

“You have two treatises [by me] which contain everything to do with critical days and crises—for I’m saying this to you, my friends, who compelled me against my better judgment to write commentaries on the works of Hippocrates. Keep in mind that I also wrote those works (sc. on critical days and crises) not intending that they would be distributed, but that they would be for you alone, but they happened to get out and into the hands of many people, just like many others I’ve written for you. That’s why I preferred not to interpret any of Hippocrates’ books in written commentaries. For whatever one needs to learn from him that is useful for the art has been written down by me in many treatises along with the appropriate interpretations [of Hippocrates].

“But since some of the passages that were not expressed very clearly [in Hippocrates’ writings] received a bad interpretation, so that none of those who wrote commentaries satisfied you, and you thought I was better than they were at figuring out Hippocrates’ thought, for this reason you asked me to provide for you in writing what you heard me say in my lectures. And I said the same thing to you earlier, that the interpretations will necessarily be uneven, since I won’t be interpreting all the passages equally, but I will speak more thoroughly about those that I haven’t mentioned in any of my other treatises, while I will speak in summary about those I’ve already gone through in detail elsewhere, so that I’m not forced to write about the same things many times.”

Δύο πραγματείας ἔχετε (πρὸς ὑμᾶς γὰρ λέγω τοῦτο τοὺς ἑταίρους, ὅσοι κατηναγκάσατέ με μὴ προῃρημένον ἐξηγήσεις γράψαι τῶν Ἱπποκράτους συγγραμμάτων), ἐν αἷς ἅπαντα περί τε κρισίμων ἡμερῶν εἴρηται καὶ κρίσεων. ἴστε δ’ ὅτι καὶ αὐτὰς οὐχ ὡς ἐκδοθησομένας, ἀλλ’ ὡς παρ’ ὑμῖν μόνοις ἐσομένας ἔγραψα. συνέβη δ’ ἐκπεσεῖν αὐτὰς καὶ παρὰ πολλοῖς εἶναι, καθάπερ καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ τῶν ὑμῖν γενομένων. ὅθεν οὐδ’ ἐξηγεῖσθαι προῃρούμην ἐν ὑπομνήμασιν οὐδὲν τῶν Ἱπποκράτους βιβλίων. ὅσα γὰρ εἰς τὴν τέχνην χρήσιμα παρ’ αὐτοῦ μαθεῖν ἔδει, γέγραπταί μοι κατὰ πολλὰς πραγματείας ἅμα ταῖς οἰκείαις ἐξηγήσεσιν.

ἐπεὶ δ’ ἔνιαι τῶν λέξεων ἀσαφέστερον εἰρημέναι μοχθηρᾶς ἐξηγήσεως ἔτυχον, ὡς ἀρέσκειν ὑμῖν μηδένα τῶν γραψάντων ὑπομνήματα, βέλτιον δὲ αὐτῶν στοχάσασθαι τῆς Ἱπποκράτους γνώμης ἐδόκουν ὑμῖν ἐγώ, διὰ τοῦτό με καὶ διὰ γραμμάτων ἠξιώσατε, παρασχεῖν ὑμῖν, ἅπερ ἐν ταῖς διὰ λόγων συνουσίαις ἠκούσατε. κἀγὼ τοῦτ’ αὐτὸ προεῖπον ὑμῖν, ὡς ἀναγκαῖον ἔσται τὰς ἐξηγήσεις ἀνωμάλους ἔσεσθαι μὴ πάσας ὁμοίως ἐξηγουμένου μου τὰς λέξεις, ἀλλὰ τελεώτερον μέν, ὑπὲρ ὧν οὐδαμόθι τῶν ἐμῶν πραγματειῶν ἐμνημόνευσα, διὰ κεφαλαίων δέ, περὶ ὧν ἤδη τελέως ἐν ἐκείναις διῆλθον, ἵνα μὴ πολλάκις ὑπὲρ τῶν αὐτῶν πραγμάτων ἀναγκάζωμαι γράφειν.

Gal. Hipp. Prog. 3.6, 18B.229–231 K. = 328,4–22 Heeg

Because he would be criticized if he didn’t.

“Well, let them say these things, but let them not falsely accuse Herophilus, nor intimidate with a sacred name those who are ignorant of Herophilus’ writings, nor use it to contrive trust in their argument. For it is shameful to dispute something on the basis of witnesses as if one were in a court of law. If you are able to argue towards a demonstration, I’ll gladly listen to you, but to call on Herophilus and the Herophileans as witnesses is to run away from a direct dispute and argument, and for fear of refutation invent evasions and deceptions.

“Clearly, false witnesses are brought in for the sake of a story, not in order to inquire into the matter further. ‘Does Herophilus say this?’ ‘Certainly not.’ ‘But doesn’t that mean you are lying?’ ‘Why don’t you show that I’m lying, show what he says.’ And then some kind of ambiguous passage is presented and there is a fight about what the passage says and what it means. Suddenly, rhetorical exercises on language and meaning are being rolled out, then others on ambiguity and, by Zeus, on inference. But they even apply the whole theory of rhetoric, as if they were practicing a speech, not bringing the subject to a conclusion. For what hasn’t been said by modern doctors about this question, some maintaining that Herophilus also knows this differentia of the pulse, others trying to show that he does not know it?

“Well, both groups have had a hard life and deserve to be pitied, the first for their ignorance, the second for their competitiveness. But we also have a hard life, since it is not enough for us to practice the proper theoretical study of the art, but we want to know what Herophilus said, what Heraclides, Chrysermus, and Hegetor interpreted incorrectly, and what Apollonius and Bacchius and Aristoxenus said. And even if we do not want to, at any rate we are forced to do it and we get to enjoy both troubles: that we get involved in this nonsense when it is unnecessary and that we unwillingly act like they do. Now it turns out that I must do one of two things: either appear to say the opposite of Archigenes, Herophilus and countless others, or show that there is no full pulse according to Herophilus.

“If, therefore, I had chosen this task, I would be just as blameworthy as they are for the vanity of the study; however, as the case stands, having refuted their opinion according to the actual truth of the matter, I will let those people leave who are interested in the practice of the art itself, since we’ve already completed our inquiry into the subject. Anyone who wants and has time to learn about ancient history, I will add the whole thing, showing that Herophilus does not use the term ‘the full pulse’ anywhere for anything.”

ταῦτ’ οὖν αὐτοὶ μὲν λεγέτωσαν, Ἡροφίλου δὲ μὴ καταψευδέσθωσαν, μηδὲ δυσωπείτωσαν ὀνόματι σεμνῷ τοὺς ἀμαθεῖς τῶν Ἡροφίλου γραμμάτων, μηδ’ ἐκ τούτου τὴν πίστιν τῷ λόγῳ ποριζέσθωσαν. αἰσχρὸν γὰρ ἐπὶ μαρτύρων ἀγωνίζεσθαι, καθάπερ ἐν δικαστηρίῳ. εἰ λέγειν ἔχεις εἰς ἀπόδειξιν, ἡδέως ἀκουσόμεθά σου. τὸ δ’ Ἡρόφιλόν τε καὶ Ἡροφιλείους καλεῖν μάρτυρας, ἀποδιδράσκοντός ἐστι τὸν ἐξ εὐθείας ἀγῶνα καὶ λόγον καὶ διαδύσεις τε καὶ μηχανὰς ἐξευρίσκοντος ἐλέγχου φόβῳ.

δῆλον, ὡς ἕνεκα τοῦ μὴ περὶ πράγματος ἔτι ζητεῖν, ἀλλ’ ἱστορίας οἱ κατεψευσμένοι μάρτυρες ἐπεισάγονται. λέγει τοῦθ’ Ἡρόφιλος; οὐ μὲν οὖν. ἀλλὰ οὐδὲ ψεύσῃ; δεῖξον πῶς ψεύδομαι, δεῖξον πῶς λέγει. κᾄπειτα λέξις, εἰ οὕτως ἔτυχεν, ἀμφίβολος προβάλλεται καὶ πόλεμος ἄμφ’ αὐτῇ συνίσταται, τί ποθ’ ἡ λέξις λέγει καὶ τί ποτε βούλεται, καὶ κατὰ ῥητὸν ἤδη καὶ διάνοιαν ἐπιχειρήματα ῥητορικὰ καλινδεῖται, καὶ κατ’ ἀμφιβολίαν ἕτερα καὶ κατὰ συλλογισμοὺς νὴ Δία. ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσαν οὕτω μεταφέρουσιν τὴν ῥητορικὴν, ὥσπερ ὑπόθεσιν μελετῶντες, οὐ τὸ προκείμενον περαίνοντες. τί γὰρ οὐκ εἴρηται τοῖς νεωτέροις ἰατροῖς εἰς τὸ πρόβλημα, τοῖς μὲν κατασκευάζουσιν ἐπίστασθαι τὸν Ἡρόφιλον καὶ ταύτην τοῦ σφυγμοῦ τὴν διαφορὰν, τοῖς δ’ ὡς οὐκ οἶδεν ἐγχειροῦσι δεικνύειν;

ἀταλαίπωροι μὲν οὖν ἑκάτεροι καὶ ἐλεεῖσθαι δίκαιοι, τῆς μὲν ἀμαθείας οἱ πρότεροι, τῆς φιλονεικίας δ’ οἱ δεύτεροι. ἀταλαίπωροι δὲ καὶ ἡμεῖς, οἷς γε οὐκ ἀρκεῖ τὴν ἰδίαν ἀσκεῖν θεωρίαν τῆς τέχνης, ἀλλὰ τί μὲν Ἡρόφιλος εἶπεν, τί δ’ Ἡρακλείδης τε καὶ Χρύσερμος καὶ Ἡγήτωρ οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἐξηγήσαντο, τί δ’ ἂν εἶπεν Ἀπολλώνιός τε καὶ Βακχεῖος καὶ Ἀριστόξενος εἰδέναι βουλόμεθα. καὶ εἰ μὴ βουλόμεθα δὲ, πάντως ἀναγκαζόμεθα καὶ διττῶν ἀπολαύομεν κακῶν, ὅτι τε φλυαροῦμεν οὐδὲν δέον ὅτι τε μὴ βουλόμενοι τοῦτο δρῶμεν, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνοι· νῦν γοῦν ἐμὲ δεῖ δυοῖν θάτερον, ἢ δοκεῖν Ἀρχιγένει τε καὶ Ἡροφίλῳ καὶ μυρίοις ἄλλοις τἀναντία λέγειν, ἢ δεικνύειν, ὅτι καθ’ Ἡρόφιλον οὐδείς ἐστι πλήρης σφυγμός.

εἰ μὲν οὖν ὡς ἔργον αὐτὸ προὐχειρισάμην, ἦν ἂν ὁμοίως ἐκείνοις ἄξιος μέμψεως ἐπὶ τῇ ματαίᾳ σπουδῇ· νυνὶ δὲ κατ’ αὐτὴν τῶν πραγμάτων τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐξελέγξας αὐτῶν τὴν δόξαν, τοὺς μὲν πρὸς αὐτὰ τὰ ἔργα τῆς τέχνης σπεύδοντας ἀπολύσω πρὸς ἐκεῖνα, συντετελεσμένης ἡμῖν ἤδη τῆς προκειμένης ζητήσεως. ὅσοι δὲ καὶ ἱστορίαν ἐκμανθάνειν παλαιὰν ἐθέλουσι, καὶ χρόνον εἰς τοῦτ’ ἔχουσιν, ἅπαντα προσθήσω, δεικνὺς ὅτι μηδαμοῦ χρῆται πρὸς μηδὲν Ἡρόφιλος τῷ πλήρει σφυγμῷ.

Gal. Dig. Puls. 4.3, 8.954–956 K.