Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Plate XXXI
III AD
The authors are greatly indebted to Prof. C. E. Rmer and Dr. I. Andorlini for their
kind advice and constructive criticism as well as to G. Haaland (Oslo University Library) for
permission to publish and Andrea Gasparini (Oslo Univ. Library) for technical assistance.
1
LDAB 10246. Purchased by S. Eitrem in 1936 in Egypt. Part of a lot of fragments, a
fair number of which proved to come from Oxyrhynchus and the Oxyrhynchite villages.
2
The abbreviation sign d (= ) is visible in the penultimate line; perhaps the text was an
account or register of some sort.
3
The term is Byzantine, coined by 12th cent. grammarians, cf. Drrie and Drries 1966,
342.
638
A. MARAVELA-SOLBAKK D. LEITH
It comes from the same roll as P.Oxy. II 234, a collection of prescriptions; cf. Andorlini
1992, esp. pp. 382-84.
5
In D. Leiths PhD thesis.
6
Assigned to J. Bingen.
7
The following draws heavily on Kollesch 1973, 35-46, Ieraci Bio 1995, Andorlini 1992
& 1999 and Hanson 2003.
8
On the main traits of medical manuals cf. Andorlini 1992, 375-76 and 384-86; Ieraci
Bio 1995, 187-98.
639
Cf. the introductory remarks of Ps.Galen Def. Med. (XIX 346, 1-4 K.)
,
, (...) (...), the
anonymous author of PSI XII 1275v (II AD) |2
, (...) -|8 |
(...) and Ps.Soranus Quaest. Med. (...) et tanquam visibilis facta est
doctrina, ut per eam utiliores fiant et astutiores qui introducuntur ad medicinam quos Graeci
appellant. quapropter exordiar id ipsum vobis dicere (...) (p. 243 Rose) &
(...) et quoniam utilior videtur eis qui ad medicinam introducuntur interrogationum et
responsionum modus, quoniam format quodammodo sensus iuvenum, brevi in controversia
isagoga tradenda est illis (...) (p. 247 Rose).
Zalateo (1964) endeavoured to connect the emergence of the genre with the institution of
the , an examination for physicians wishing to become ,
apparently introduced in the 2nd cent. AD, but a scholarly majority trace its origins in
medical education of the Hellenistic period.
10
Cf. Def. Med. XIX 346, 7-8 K. ... '
.
640
A. MARAVELA-SOLBAKK D. LEITH
the question from the answer, the formal means by which this is achieved
vary: blank spaces preceding and/ or following questions (P.Ashm.Mus. s.n.,
P.Turner 14, P.PisaLit. 6, PCtYBR inv. 109v, PSI inv. CNR 85/86) which
are often written in eisthesis,11 sometimes also centred in the line (P.Aberd.
11, P.Ross.Georg. I 20, P.Genve 111v, PSI III 252, PSI XV 1510, P.Aberd.
125, P.Golenischeff, P.Strasb. gr. inv. 849); paragraphos (P.Aberd. 11,
P.Lund I 7, PSI inv. CNR 85/86), dipl (PSI III 252, P.Lund I 7, P.Mil.Vogl.
I 15) combined with colon (P.Turner 14) or high dots (PCtYBR inv. 109v)
are also employed as markers of transition. The textual variation becomes
evident in cases of catechisms which have been shown to treat the same
diseases: P.Aberd. 11 and P.Ross.Georg. I 20 overlap in their treatment of
, its typological variation and surgery, but not in the exact
phrasing; the description of restored in P.Strasb. gr. inv. 846v,
though being very close to that offered by P.Ross.Georg. I 20, presents
minor divergences of formulation;12 the discussion of the cause of apoplexy
in P.Ashm.Mus. s.n. l. 3ff. cannot be matched with its equivalent in
P.Mil.Vogl. I 15r, 20ff. Since medical catechisms do not go back to a single
original, supplements are not readily available, but have to be deduced on the
basis of parallel formulations in earlier or later medical writings discussing
the same diseases. Affinities have been detected on the Greek side with the
Ps.Galenic treatise (Def. Med. in XIX 346-462 K.) dated by
J. Kollesch to the end of the 1st cent. AD, but also with formulations in the
treatises of Rufus, Oribasius, Aetius, Paul of Aegina et al., and on the Latin
side with the catechistic work Quaestiones Medicinales transmitted under
the name of Soranus (Quaest. Med.),13 but thought to trace its origins to a
translation of the Ps.Galenic treatise in the 5th or 6th cent. AD.
The Oslo catechism
The Oslo fragment also belonged to such a manual, which occupied the back
of a recycled documentary roll, as do seven other catechistic fragments
11
641
(P.Aberd. 11, P.Genve 111v, PSI XV 1510, P.Aberd. 125, P.Strasb. gr. inv.
849, P.Oxy. LII 3654 and the unpublished Oxyrhynchite fragment).
It preserves the following text (owing to the speculative nature of our
restoration, we include suggested supplements, with discussion only in the
commentary):
.
][
] [
][
]..[
][
][
][
]. (vac.) [
][
].[
][
].[
][
][
].[
][
].[
].[
].[
][
][
][
][
10
15
20
A trace of ink in the upper margin might indicate the presence there of a
column number, a parallel being the column number in P.Turner 14, but it is
too obliterated to allow certainty. Each new lemma was evidenced by blank
space, once filled with a diagonal stroke (l. 2) and once empty (l. 8). As no
end of question/ beginning of answer is to be seen in the preserved portion of
the text, it must remain uncertain how the transition from question to answer
was evidenced formally. Traces of horizontal strokes, the first barely visible
642
A. MARAVELA-SOLBAKK D. LEITH
above l. 18 (a paragraphos ?) and the second, a much longer one (right part
of a dipl ?), above l. 20, may have functioned as section dividers.
A major impediment to the task of supplying the missing portions of text
is the lack of firm evidence concerning line length. The supplementing
proposals put forward in the present edition are informed by the following
assumptions: a) that owing to the modular variation of letters a certain
degree of variation in the number of letters per line should be expected and
b) that the possible presence of a paragraphos and a dipl above ll. 18
and 20 suggests that the amount of text lost in the lacuna at left was
relatively little (2-4 letters). Finally, as all transitions between question and
answer have been lost in the lacunae (ll. 2, 5 and 8), the manner of
evidencing answer beginning cannot be definitely decided. In our
supplementing proposals we have assumed that answer beginning either
followed directly after the question without much of a space or was
separated from it by a blank space (see comm. on ll. 2 and 5, and cf.
P.Turner 14.17 and P.Migl.Vogl. 1.15 verso 9).
The content and structure of the text is, in our opinion, likely to have been
as follows, with four ertapokriseis partly identifiable in the upper and better
preserved part of the text:
L. 1: Part of answer to a question enquiring after the nature of
haemorrhage.
Ll. 2-4: An ertapokrisis enquiring after the nature of enterokl, the
prolapse of the intestine (inguinal hernia).
Ll. 4-7: An ertapokrisis about the nature of hydrokl, a fluid-filled sack
in the scrotum.
L. 8-?: New ertapokrisis, perhaps requesting the definition of a tumourlike formation (see comm. on l. 8).
Thereafter the extensive loss of text renders the reconstruction of the
content difficult. A new question may be posed in l. 13 (of the type what is
...?) and another in l. 18 (of the type what is the cause of ...?). The
assumption is corroborated by the possible presence of a lectional sign
(paragraphos ?) above l. 18. L. 23 may have been occupied by a question
concerning a hernia in the area of the navel.
The above suggests that the Oslo fragment dealt with a variety of
different afflictions which were not systematically arranged according to the
area of the body affected as the transition from haemorrhage to a hernia and
tumour in the area of the groin would seem to make clear. This sequence
643
shows freedom and independence from that found in the Ps.Galenic Def.
Med. (in which haemorrhage is definition no. 460, enterokl no. 425 and
hydrokl no. 424) and the Ps.Soranian Quaest. Med. (which includes no
definition of haemorrhage, while enterokl and hydrokl occupy nos. 431
and 430 respectively). The Oslo fragment also displays important textual
differences from the Def. Med., especially in the level of detail incorporated
(see comm., especially on ll. 5-8). Its textual relation, on the other hand, to
the Quaest. Med. cannot be fully unveiled due to the loss of the definition of
hydrokl in ms. L (Lincoloniensis 220, 12th cent. AD) transmitting the latter
work,14 though what can be compared implies no close affinity. The material
on also appears to differ in structure and content from the only other
catechistic fragment treating diseases in this area of the body, PSI III 252.15
Simplicity of format and wording appear to be characteristic of the Oslo
manual. The questions posed were apparently short, calling mostly for a
definition; the answers were equally concise and simple. The absence of any
clearly therapeutic material should also be noted. Evidencing of lemmas was
achieved in the simplest manner, by blank spaces occasionally accompanied
by a space-filler or combined with a paragraphos/ dipl.
The script is an informal, inelegant semi-cursive. The letters are fairsized, upright capitals of irregular module, some taller and some broader.
Some are occasionally joined, but not in distorting ligatures. The impression
of inelegance is reinforced by the use of an unsharpened pen. The hand,
which bears remote reminiscences of the chancery (note the hanging at l.
5, the ligature , the hanging from the horizontal stroke of at l. 7) and
of the formal mixed style (modular contrast and the often straight left side of
and C), is datable to the third cent. AD; cf. P.Oxy. VIII 1100 (AD 209) in
Roberts 1955, pl. 20b and PSI XII 1240 (AD 222) in Pap. Flor. XII, pl.
XXVII.
14
On this manuscript see Fischer 1998, 4. We are gratefully indebted to Professor K.-D.
Fischer, who very kindly and readily made available to us the relevant sections from his
unpublished transcripts of the Ps. Soranian Quaestiones Medicinales, as preserved in its socalled insular tradition.
15
Ed. pr. L. Di Stefani; ed. post. D. Fausti in Pap. Flor. VII, 61-65. Substantial revisions
in Mavroudis 1986. A similar affection seems to be dealt with in a small papyrus fragment
preserving a recipe, P. Acad. inv. 6d, l. 3 where we find the sequence ]
[, cf. Fournet
2004, 177-179.
644
A. MARAVELA-SOLBAKK D. LEITH
Format, script and the simplicity of wording suggest that the present
fragment is likely to derive from a privately copied catechistic manual,
comparable in quality with the rather humble witnesses of the genre.
Commentary
1
The syntagm occurs twice in the definition of
in Def. Med. no. 460 (XIX 456, 14-17 K.):
,
. (...) , ,
(...). The adj. profuse (about accentuation see
Herod. De Prosodia Catholica vol. 3, 1, pp. 202.25-203.2) qualifies
in other medical texts, e.g. Hipp. De Glandulis 1.4, Gal. De
Meth. Med. xiv (X 616, 10 K.), Aet. Iatr. v 71.7 etc. There seems little doubt
that the same affliction is under discussion here, with the question
; having appeared in the previous column.
If we take the text of the Def. Med. as our guide for supplementing the
missing text, the genitive may have preceded the predicate
[, while the predicate may have been followed and
complemented by an adverbial phrase further describing the manner of
haemorrhage (e.g. vel sim. or perhaps
part of this for reasons of space). The text may have run as follows:
End of previous col.:
[
-]|
L. 1
[] [ ]
2
Diagonal stroke functioning as a space-filler, and marking a new
question. This extensive space suggests that there may have been no text lost
at line beginning.
2-4
The question is posed in l. 2 and the answer is concluded in the
missing right part of l. 4. The name of the affliction is lost, but it is defined
in part by the noun [ ] prolapse (l. 2). is the
technical term used almost exclusively for the prolapse of the intestine into
the scrotal sack () involved in the condition named , or
inguinal hernia (cf. e.g. Ps.Gal. Def. Med. XIX 447.13-16 K.; Sor. Gyn.
2.39.2.1; Gal. De Comp. Med. sec. Loc. XII 449.4-5 K.; Orib. Coll. Med.
645
50.48.1, Ecl. Med. 59.2.1; Paul. Aeg. Epit. Med. 3.44.1.5-6, 6.65.1; Aet. Iatr.
ix 28.143-146). It is used once in the Def. Med. also in the definition of
hydrenterokl, a combined condition which involves the association of the
inguinal hernia with an acquaeous cyst (Def. Med. XIX 448.1-2 K.). The
term is also used shortly afterwards in the Def. Med. to describe
the prolapse of the omentum in the condition , and of both the
intestine and the omentum in another hybrid condition,
(Def. Med. XIX 448.10-13 K.). The overwhelming association of the term
among medical writers with the condition , however, strongly
suggests that this is the subject of the ertapokrisis in the Oslo fragment.
should be rejected also on the grounds of illogicality the
question that occupies ll. 2-4 is followed by another on (ll. 5-8),
so that discussion of the combined condition is unlikely to have preceded a
definition of one of its constituent conditions. Unfortunately, the anatomical
details of the definition have been lost, but the presence of at l. 4
(which may indicate the presence of a / or
in the first part of the definition, as in Gal. De Sanit. Tuend. VI
336.12-14 K., De Aliment. Fac. VI 620.11-13 K., De Loc. Affect. VIII 348.57 K.; Ps.Gal. De Remed. Parab. XVI 385.9-11 K.; Aet. Iatr. vi 1.24-26, xi
4.15-17 etc.) must refer to a chronological development of the condition,
most likely detailing the extent of the prolapse. None of the extant
definitions or discussions of in medical literature (in Greek:
Gal. De Caus. Morb. VII 36.8-15 K., Ps.Gal. Def. Med. XIX 447.13-16 K.,
Poll. Onom. 4.203.3-4, Orib. Coll. Med. 50.41.1-43.4, Paul. Aeg. Epit. Med.
3.53.1.1-9 and 6.65.1, Leo Consp. Med. 6.11 and Joh. Act. De Diagn. 1.55.39; in Latin: Ps.Soranus Quaest. Medic. no. 431L recedens aut extensio loci
aut percussio aut eruptio membranae according to K.-D. Fischers
transcription of Lincoloniensis 220) explicitly refers to such distinct
chronological stages, which offers further evidence for the independence of
the tradition represented by the Oslo fragment, but we might speculate that
this later stage (introduced in some descriptions by , cf. Gal. De
Caus. Morb. VII 36.8-15; Joh. Act. De Diagn. 1.55.3-9) referred to a full
prolapse of the intestine into the scrotal sack, preceded perhaps by an
intermediate stage in the extent of the prolapse, or the original bursting or
stretching of the peritoneum.
A possible restoration of ll. 2-4 may be as follows:
646
A. MARAVELA-SOLBAKK D. LEITH
[ ; ]
[] [ -]
[], [ (vac.) ]
The proposed supplement at l. 2 suggests that there may not have been a
blank space, or not much of one, after the question.
5-8
The question is: [ ] [; ].
is defined in medical literature as collection of fluid in the
area of the groin. As to its precise location, medical authors are more or less
specific: Celsus discusses the tumours of the groin in De Medicina 7. 18,
prefacing it by a detailed description of the structure of the area and of the
membranes of the testicles. He tells us firstly that the testicles and the cord
as well as the veins and arteries to which the latter is attached, are encased
by the elytroeids tunic (ibid. 18, 1-2). This in turn is surrounded by the
dartos tunic (ibid. 18, 2). Between these, as well as under the elytroeids, are
found numerous membranulae encasing the veins, arteries and the cord
already mentioned. Encompassing both testicles and both their respective
tunics, is the scrotal sack, the outer covering visible to the eye (ibid. 18, 2).
Celsus refers to the elytroeids, dartos and oscheos as the ima, media and
summa tunica respectively. In the ensuing discussion of hydrokl (ibid. 18,
6-7) Celsus informs us that the fluid can be collected either in the two
locations between the three tunics or in the membranes under the elytroeids:
Integris vero membranis interdum eam partem umor distringit. Atque eius
quoque species duae sunt: nam vel inter tunicas is increscit vel in
membranis, quae ibi circa venas et arterias sunt, ubi eae gravatae
occalluerunt. Ac ne ei quidem umori, qui inter tunicas est, una sedes est: nam
modo inter summam et mediam, modo inter mediam et imam constitit.
Graeci communi nomine, quicquid est, hydrocelen appellant (...). A less
detailed description of the structure of the area is to be found in the
Ps.Galenic treatise Introductio seu Medicus (XIV 719, 5-10 K.)
,
, .
.
, .
. Galen at De Tumoribus praeter Naturam 15 (...)
,
(VII 729, 11-13 K.) locates hydrokl in the tunics
around the testicle; Ps.Galen Def. Med. no. 424
(XIX 447, 11-12 K.) merely
647
locates the collection of fluid in a part of the scrotum; Poll. Onom. 4. 203,
4-5 ,
locates it between the second and
fourth membrane; Paul of Aegina tells us that the fluid is most commonly
found inside the elytroeids around the testicle, but also under the dartos or
under the oscheos, Epit. Med. 6. 62.1, 1-23
(...).
,
,
.
,
. (...)
, . (...). Other, less useful in
this context, discussions of hydrokl are to be found at: Orib. Coll. Med. 50
43.4, 3ff., Aetius Iatr. xvi 112; Steph. In Hipp. 2.1.60ff.; Joh. Act. De Diagn.
1.55, 11-13; Leo Consp. Med. 6.12, while scribal error has caused the
definition of hydrokl in ms. L of the Ps.Soranian Quaest. Med. to be
replaced by that of enterokl.
It should be noted that the reference to the elytroeids and the oscheos in
the Oslo fragment suggest a level of detail more in line with the passages of
Celsus and Paulus. It therefore seems likely that also the dartos was referred
to in the lacuna of l. 6. A possible reconstruction of the text of ll. 5-8 is:
[ ] ; [ ]|
[ ] [ ]|
[ ] [ ??
[] (vac.)
Again, if the proposed supplement in l. 5 is correct, there may not have
been much of a blank space between question and answer. If, on the other
hand, the adjective did not form part of the definition, the presence
of a blank space may be postulated.
8-9 New question occupying the rest or part of l. 8. It is impossible to be
certain how many lines its corresponding answer which began either at the
end of l. 8 or at the beginning of l. 9 occupied.
As regards the content of the ertapokrisis: Rather than reading the
genitive at l. 9, it gives much better sense to divide ] .[, in
which case the disease in question would be described as a contortion, a
tumour of some sort (cf. Gal. In Hipp. De Vict. Acut. Comm. iv, XV 773.2-5
648
A. MARAVELA-SOLBAKK D. LEITH
- - ?
649
650
A. MARAVELA-SOLBAKK D. LEITH