Greek Medical Literature and its Readers

From Hippocrates to Islam and Byzantium

Petros Bouras-Vallianatos, Sophia Xenophontos, Petros Bouras-Vallianatos, Sophia Xenophontos

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Edition: 1
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351205252
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: European History
• Index: History

This volume focuses on the relationship between Greek medical texts and their audience(s), offering insights into how not only the backgrounds and skills of medical authors but also the contemporary environment affected issues of readership, methodology and mode of exposition. One of the volume's overarching aims is to add to our understanding of the role of the reader in the contextualisation of Greek medical literature in the light of interesting case-studies from various – often radically different – periods and cultures, including the Classical (such as the Hippocratic corpus) and Roman Imperial period (for instance Galen), and the Islamic and Byzantine world. Promoting, as it does, more in-depth research into the intricacies of Greek medical writings and their diverse revival and transformation from the fifth century BC down to the fourteenth century AD, this volume will be of interest to classicists, medical historians and anyone concerned with the reception of the Greek medical tradition.

Chapters 3, 6, and 9 of this book are freely available as downloadable Open Access PDFs at http://www.taylorfrancis.com under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

Part I

The Classical world

1 Alcmaeon and his addressees

Revisiting the incipit^*

Stavros Kouloumentas

Alcmaeon’s (fifth century BC) incipit constitutes one of the few surviving prefaces of early Greek prose and the longest verbatim quotation from his treatise conventionally called On Nature. It consists of a formal introduction of the author, a reference to three addressees, and a statement concerning the limits of human knowledge in contrast to the clarity attained by the gods. The text is preserved by Diogenes Laertius (third century AD) in his history of Greek philosophy, a work that lays special emphasis on the lives of the philosophers and summarises their main doctrines:

ἦν δὲ Πειρίθου υἱός, ὡς αὐτὸς ἐναρχόμενος τοῦ συγγράμματός φησιν· “Ἀλκμαίων Κροτωνιήτης τάδε ἔλεξε Πειρίθου υἱὸς Βροτίνῳ καὶ Λέοντι καὶ Βαθύλλῳ περὶ τῶν ἀφανέων περὶ τῶν θνητῶν σαφήνειαν μὲν θεοὶ ἔχοντι, ὡς δὲ ἀνθρώποις τεκμαίρεσθαι” καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς.¹ [unpunctuated asyndeton]

The incipit is probably drawn from works which Diogenes Laertius often uses as his source: Callimachus’ (third century BC) Tables, an elaborate catalogue of the holdings of the Alexandrian library that divided authors into classes and listed the representatives of each genre alphabetically along with some information concerning their life and writings, and Demetrius of Magnesia’s (first century BC) On Poets and Authors of the Same Name, a biographical handbook with similar content.² The fact that Diogenes Laertius declares that he quotes from the very beginning of Alcmaeon’s treatise and that the fragment contains traces of the Doric (ἔχοντι) and Ionic (Κροτωνιήτης … Πειρίθου … ἀφανέων) dialects is a strong indication of its genuineness. The other words, however, are preserved in the Attic dialect (e.g. σαφήνειαν instead of the Ionic σαφηνείην or the Doric σαφανείαν), an indication that Alcmaeon’s wording was modified in part during the scribal transmission.

There are several difficulties that complicate our effort to unravel the function and meaning of the incipit. First of all, two textual problems should be examined: the asyndeton in the middle of the fragment (περὶ τῶν ἀφανέων περὶ τῶν θνητῶν) and the syntactically incomplete statement at the end (ὡς δὲ ἀνθρώποις τεκμαίρεσθαι).³ But in addition to this, we have to conjecture as to how the incipit is connected with the other known sections of Alcmaeon’s treatise, which focus on microcosmic structures and processes. It is also unclear whether the incipit was constructed for oral or written presentation and whether it was intended to persuade a target group, such as friends, students, or members of a Pythagorean group, of Alcmaeon’s views.

The aim of this chapter is to reassess these interconnected problems by surveying the existing literature and taking into account the fragmentary evidence concerning Alcmaeon’s doctrines, his alleged connection with the Pythagoreans, and the opening sections of contemporary philosophical and medical treatises. I shall suggest that Alcmaeon’s reference to three addressees may well be polemical, as was common in the archaic era, and that his incipit can be seen as providing evidence for the clash between empiricism and inspiration in early Greek thought.

Alcmaeon and his audience

Different suggestions have been proposed concerning the punctuation and interpretation of the fragment (see Table 1.1), as well as the relationship between Alcmaeon and the figures referred to in the incipit.

To begin with, Reiske suggests that the asyndeton should be divided into two parts with the conjunction “or”.⁴ On this reading, the reference to “things that are non-manifest” is followed by an additional phrase, probably inserted by Diogenes Laertius into Alcmaeon’s text, which specifies that these things are subject to death. Other scholars delete the second part of the asyndeton in order to produce a smoother text. Wachtler, for instance, argues that the phrase περὶ τῶν θνητῶν has been interpolated by a careless scribe who thought that Alcmaeon draws a contrast between ἀθάνατα and θνητά (a common polarity in ancient literature), and he attempts to reconstruct the original linguistic form of the fragment by transforming all words into Ionic.⁵ Wachtler thus believes that περὶ τῶν θνητῶν should be deleted and περὶ τῶν ἀφανέων should be replaced by περὶ τῶν ἀθηήτων (“concerning things that are unseen”). Although a few scholars accept this drastic emendation, Cobet (who produced the first critical edition of the text of Diogenes Laertius) and others agree that the phrase περὶ τῶν θνητῶν can hardly go back to Alcmaeon.⁶

Gomperz attempts to interpret the incipit from a different perspective. He suggests that the first part of the asyndeton indicates the topic of the discourse and so functions as a sort of title, while the second part constitutes the beginning of Alcmaeon’s demonstration. He thus divides the asyndeton into two parts with a semicolon: “concerning things non-apparent: Concerning mortals (or things mortal) the gods [alone] have precise insight”.⁷ In Gomperz’s view, the discourse was not a fixed account but embodied a general introduction to medical issues given by Alcmaeon to three disciples on a particular occasion. This suggestion is built on the assumption that Alcmaeon was a sort of teacher who offered private lectures. We thus possess extracts from Alcmaeon’s notes or written records of his students. Nevertheless, Diogenes Laertius clearly refers to a prose work that has a systematic content and reports that Alcmaeon was the first to compose a treatise On Nature, a claim found in other authors too (DK 24 A1–2). Indeed, the fact that Alcmaeon introduces himself by mentioning both his origin and his father’s name is a strong indication that the discourse was not confined to a small and select group.⁸ Alcmaeon’s intention is to make his ideas available to a wide public.

Table 1.1 The punctuation and translation of Alcmaeon’s fragment

Reiske (in Wachtler 1896)	Ἀλκμαίων Κροτωνιήτης τάδε ἔλεξε Πειρίθου υἱὸς Βροτίνῳ καὶ Λέοντι καὶ Βαθύλλῳ· περὶ τῶν ἀφανέων <ἤ> περὶ τῶν θνητῶν σαφήνειαν μὲν θεοὶ ἔχοντι, ὡς δὲ ἀνθρώποις τεκμαίρεσθαι …	–
Cobet (1850)	Ἀλκμαίων Κροτωνιήτης τάδ᾽ ἔλεξε, Πειριθόου υἱὸς, Βροντίνῳ καὶ Λέοντι καὶ Βαθύλλῳ· Περὶ τῶν ἀφανέων, [περὶ τῶν θνητῶν] σαφήνειαν μὲν θεοὶ ἔχοντι· ὡς δὲ ἀνθρώποις τεκμαίρεσθαι …	Alcmaeon Crotoniates haec dixit, Pirithoi filius, Brontino et Leonti et Bathyllo: De invisibilibus, [de mortalibus] manifestam quidem scientiam habent dii; quantum vero conjicere hominibus licet (tr. Cobet).
Wachtler (1896)	Ἀλκμαίων Κροτωνιήτης τάδε ἔλεξε, Περίθου υἱός, Βροντίνῳ καὶ Λέοντι καὶ Βαθύλλῳ· περὶ τῶν ἀθηήτων {περὶ τῶν θνητῶν} σαφηνείην μὲν θεοὶ ἔχουσι· ὡς δὲ ἀνθρώποις τεκμαίρεσθαι …	–
Gomperz (1928)	Ἀλκμαίων Κροτωνιήτης τάδε ἔλεξε Πειρίθου υἱὸς Βροτίνῳ καὶ Λέοντι καὶ Βαθύλλῳ περὶ τῶν ἀφανέων· περὶ τῶν θνητῶν σαφήνειαν μὲν θεοὶ ἔχοντι, ὡς δὲ ἀνθρώποις τεκμαίρεσθαι …	Alkmaion of Kroton, the son of Peirithoos, spoke thus to Brotinos and Leon and Bathyllos concerning things non-apparent: Concerning mortals (or things mortal) the gods [alone] have precise insight; but as far as men may judge by indications (tr. Gomperz).
Diels-Kranz (1951–2)	Ἀλκμαίων Κροτωνιήτης τάδε ἔλεξε Πειρίθου υἱὸς Βροτίνῳ καὶ Λέοντι καὶ Βαθύλλῳ· περὶ τῶν ἀφανέων, περὶ τῶν θνητῶν σαφήνειαν μὲν θεοὶ ἔχοντι, ὡς δὲ ἀνθρώποις τεκμαίρεσθαι …	Alkmaion aus Kroton sprach folgendes, er, des Peirithoos Sohn, zu Brotinos und Leon und Bathyllos: Über das Unsichtbare wie über das Irdische haben Gewißheit die Götter, uns aber als Menschen ist nur das Erschließen gestattet (tr. Diels-Kranz).
Gemelli Marciano (2007)	Ἀλκμαίων Κροτωνιήτης τάδε ἔλεξε Πειρίθου υἱὸς Βροτίνῳ καὶ Λέοντι καὶ Βαθύλλῳ· περὶ τῶν ἀφανέων περὶ τῶν θνητῶν σαφήνειαν μὲν θεοὶ ἔχοντι, ὡς δὲ ἀνθρώποις τεκμαίρεσθαι …	Alcméon de Crotone, fils de Pirithos, a dit ces choses à Brotinos, Léon et Bathyllos : sur les choses invisibles concernant les mortels les dieux possèdent la certitude, mais dans la mesure où aux hommes, [il est possible] de tirer des indices (tr. Gemelli Marciano).
Dorandi (2013)	Ἀλκμαίων Κροτωνιήτης τάδε ἔλεξε Πειρίθου υἱὸς Βροτίνῳ καὶ Λέοντι καὶ Βαθύλλῳ περὶ τῶν ἀφανέων· περὶ τῶν θνητῶν σαφήνειαν μὲν θεοὶ ἔχοντι, ὡς δὲ ἀνθρώποις τεκμαίρεσθαι …	Alcmaeon of Croton, the son of Peirithus, said these words to Brotinus and Leon and Bathyllus concerning things that are non-manifest: the gods possess clear knowledge concerning things that are mortal, but insofar as humans may judge from signs (tr. Kouloumentas).

Other scholars, including Burnet, Diels-Kranz, and Marcovich (the Teubner editor of the text of Diogenes Laertius), place a comma between the two parts of the asyndeton, thus supposing that we should understand an “and” or “as well as” coordinating the second part with the preceding part. This seems to be an appropriate way to punctuate the asyndeton for the two parts may well be supplementary: what is hidden refers to beings and processes that are mortal. The term ἀφανέα literally means “non-manifest”, and so it is sharply contrasted with things which are visible through the sensory organs, especially the eyes that constitute the best medium for the research based on autopsy. It also has the connotations of “obscure” and “uncertain” for what cannot be seen is beyond our limited powers of comprehension. To cite some examples, invisible structures include the secret thoughts of the gods which cannot be understood by humans (Solon, fr. 17, ed. West); the depths of Tartarus (Pindar, fr. 207, ed. Snell-Maehler); distant things in the heavens and under the earth whοse nature is perplexing (On Ancient Medicine, 1);⁹ non-manifest and difficult diseases about which a doctor can only conjecture (On Winds, 1);¹⁰ and obscure natural phenomena (Herodotus, 2.24). The term θνητά designates beings which are subject to death, namely humans, animals, and plants (Plato, Sophist, 265c1–2), in contrast to ἀθάνατα which designates immortal beings, such as the gods (DK ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Figures
• Contributors
• Preface
• Note to the reader
• Introduction
• Part I The Classical world
• Part II The Imperial world
• Part III The Islamic world
• Part IV The Byzantine world
• Index