Kessel - The Syriac Epidemics

93
The Syriac Epidemics and the Problem of Its

Identification1
Grigory Kessel
In piam memoriam Raineri Degen
unayn ibn Isq (d. 873) reports that Galens Commentary on Hippocrates
Epidemics, Books One, Three and Six, was translated into Syriac by Job of Edessa
(Ayyb al-Ruhw, d. c. 835).2 Unfortunately, this Syriac translation does not
survive.3 The late antique Alexandrian commentaries on the Epidemics, Book
Six, have only partially come down to us in their original Greek. Moreover,
before now, there were no extant Syriac translations of these commentaries.4
This is not an uncommon phenomenon in the field of Syriac studies, as so many
translations perished, owing to the vagaries of transmission. But, it rarely hap-
pens that one discovers a completely unknown Syriac translation of a late an-
tique medical text. I shall argue, however, in this article that a Syriac translation
of an otherwise lost commentary on the Hippocratic Epidemics, Book Six, does
survive in a unique manuscript.
First, I shall review the scholarship on this manuscript and describe it, thereby
revealing some peculiar characteristics of the text, henceforth called the Syriac
Epidemics. Then, I shall take one lemma from the Hippocratic text as an exam-
ple, and carefully examine the commentaries on it by Galen and John of Alexan-
dria, in order to compare them to the Syriac Epidemics. This allows me to reach
positive conclusions: I shall identify the author who wrote the Greek source
1 I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to Peter E. Pormann (Warwick) who

invited me to contribute first to the conference and then to the volume; at the final stages, he
was kind enough to offer constructive criticism and greatly helped improve the text. I should
like to express warm thanks to Sebastian Brock (Oxford) and Ivan Garofalo (Siena) who read
a first draft of the paper and made some important corrections. All imperfections and errors
are solely mine. I gained access to the manuscript discussed here through a digitised microfilm
from the Arthur Vbus Collection of Syriac Manuscripts on Film, owned by the Lutheran
School of Theology at Chicago and administered by the Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago. I am deeply grateful to Stewart Creason (Oriental Institute, Chicago) who readily
assisted me in this matter.
2 See Pormann 2008a, 2527.
3 See Degen 1981 and Kessel forthcoming.
4 See Degen 1972, Gignoux 2001, Habbi 2001.
Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 3/23/12 4:55 PM
94 Grigory Kessel
of the Syriac Epidemics, as well as the translator who rendered it into Syriac.
The results of my investigation will have significant consequences not only for
Syriac studies, but also for the history of medicine in late antiquity, and for the
textual criticism of the Hippocratic Epidemics, Book Six, and the commentaries
on it by Galen and John of Alexandria.
The manuscript
The unique manuscript of the Syriac EpidemicsDamascus (Maarat dny),

Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate, MS 12/25 (henceforth MS D)was virtually
unknown to European scholarship before 1978. Arthur Vbus (d. 1988),
a renowned scholar of Syriac studies, first announced his discovery of the
manuscript during a special lecture in Toronto.5 He discovered that the
manuscript contained parts six through eight of Galens Commentary on the
Epidemics, book six.6 Vbus highlighted the importance of the finding by
stating that7
in this manuscript we have before us a very precious monument: in it

the very first record of the Graeco-Syro translation of the medical works by
such meritorious translator as Job of Edessa has come into our possession.
Thus, Vbus unequivocally concludes that MS D contains a Syriac version of

Galens commentary that was produced by Job of Edessa, an active exponent of
the Greek-Arabic translation movement of the ninth century.8 Since we have
very little evidence of the intermediary role which Syriac translations played
in the transmission of Greek medical knowledge into Arabic,9 one can appreci-
ate Vbus enthusiasm for such an extensive text as Galens Commentary on
Hippocrates Epidemics, Book Six.10 The absolute certainty of Vbus identifi-
cation arouses, nevertheless, certain doubts, especially when one learns that he
initially described the medical treatise very differently. Vbus did not identify
the translation as containing Galens Commentary on Hippocrates Epidemics,
Book Six, but rather as a work of the previously unknown Syriac author emn
of B Hzy.11
5 For the life and career of Vbus, see Kasemaa 2007.
6 Vbus 1978, 3.
7 Vbus 1978, 6.
8 On him, see Ullmann 1970, 1012 and Sezgin 1970, 2301.
9 For the possible reasons, see Brock 2004b, 1011.
10 Vbus reiterated his identification in Vbus 1988, 439.
11 Fischer 1977, plate 24, contains a reproduction of MS D, fols. 28b29a; see also Vbus
1978, 2.

The Syriac Epidemics and the Problem of Its Identification 95
Vbus was not the only one who managed to get access to and examine
MS D. The manuscript appears to be mentioned for the first time in Anton Baum-
starks (d. 1948) Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, where the learned German
scholar assumed that the codex contained the Syriac version of the Hippocratic
Epidemics.12 The Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Iniys Afrm I Barm (d. 1957),13
one of the most educated and prolific Syriac scholars of the twentieth century,
unambiguously attributed the medical treatise to an East Syriac monastic author
of the seventh century, emn d-aibh.14 emn d-aibh is documented
as having written a medical text which until very recently was considered to be
lost.15 Rainer Degen examined a few available fragments and concluded that the
manuscript contains a Syriac version of parts six (incomplete), seven and eight
of Galens Commentary on Hippocrates Epidemics, Book Six, and was copied by
emn of B Hzy sometime in the tenth century.16 Finally, one may men-
tion two available catalogue descriptions of the manuscript that were compiled
by the Syrian Orthodox bishop Yann Dlobn (d. 1969).17 In the first cata-
logue, the manuscript is listed among the manuscripts belonging to the Syrian
Orthodox St. Marks Monastery Library in Jerusalem.18 In the other catalogue,
the codex is described as an item belonging to the holdings of the Patriarchal
Library in im.19 On the basis of the colophon, Dlobn argues that a Mar
emn of al-Ahwz was the author.
The summary of the proposed identifications is as follows: the manuscript
contains 1) a Syriac version of Hippocrates Epidemics (Baumstark); 2) a medi-
cal treatise of the East Syriac author emn d-aibh (Afrm I Barm); 3) a
medical treatise of emn of B Hzy (original identification of Vbus); 4)
a Syriac version of a part of Galens Commentary on Hippocrates Epidemics,
Book Six (Vbus, Degen) that was produced by the East Syriac translator Job of
Edessa (final opinion of Vbus) and copied by emn of B Hzy (Degen); 5)
a medical treatise on the Epidemics written for emn of al-Awz (Dlobn).
Similarly, scholars dated the manuscript differently, with opinions ranging from
12 Baumstark 1922, 353, additional note to p. 231, n. 15 [Syriac version of Hippocrates].

13 On him, see Macuch 1976, 4415.
14 Barm 1987, 161, n. 4. The first Arabic edition appeared in 1943 and an English translation
in Barm 2003; on p. 187, n. 2, he indicates that the manuscript has been allocated the number
234 in the library.
15 I am currently preparing a study on the literary heritage of emn d-aibh, in which
I shall discuss all available evidence and partially reconstruct the content of emns medical
treatise.
16 Degen 1981, 151; Degen 1979, 1986 dealt with the Arabic version of the Hippocratic
Epidemics without, however, discussing MS D or the Syriac Epidemics.
17 See Macuch 1976, 4469 for information on Yann Dlobn.
18 Dlobn 1994, 4301 [no. 234]. The catalogue was originally compiled in Syriac by
Dlobn approx. in the 1920s but remained unpublished until its facsimile edition in 1994.
19 Bahnm 1959, 167; Dlobn et al. 1994, 607 [no. 12/25].

96 Grigory Kessel
the eighth to eleventh centuries: 1) AD 705 (Afrm I Barm); 2) AG20 1017

[AD 706] (Dlobns earlier catalogue); 3) AG 1024 [AD 712] (Dlobns later
catalogue), 4) ca. tenth century (Degen); and 5) AD 1024 (Vbus). The conflict-
ing opinions about the manuscript can only be resolved by studying it more
closely.21
Until the 1950s, MS D was preserved in the library of St. Marks Monastery in
Jerusalem, where it was consulted by Baumstark, Afrm I Barm and Dlobn
for his earlier catalogue. Sometime in the 1950s, it was transferred to the Patri-
archal Library, first in im and later in Damascus, where it is kept at present.
It is in the Patriarchal Library that Dlobn accessed it for his later catalogue,
and Vbus photographed it.22 A modern copy of the MS D exists, although I
was unable to see it.23
MS D was written on parchment and originally consisted of 104 folios in eleven

quires; the first quire is lost at present. The text is arranged in one column and
the number of lines per page varies from thirty-four to thirty-nine. The manu-
script is ruled with lead. All the quires are made of five bifolia and quire marks
appear regularly on the first and last page. The original foliation is preserved
throughout.24 The characteristics of its neat and regular hand suggest that it
belongs to the earliest manuscripts written in East Syrian script during the sev-
enth and eighth centuries.25 The codex is in a satisfactory condition of preserva-
tion and bears some traces of restoration.
There is one colophon in the manuscript. It runs as follows (fol. 104b):
20 AG or Anno Graecorum (in the year of the Greeks) refers to the Seleucid era that began
on 1 October, 312 BC.
21 The following description is based upon the black-and-white microfilm made by Vbus
and thus depends on its (sometimes imperfect) quality. For instance, it is not possible to
distinguish clearly a red ink that was normally used in the Syriac manuscripts for marking the
rubrics and titles. Therefore, a direct inspection of the codex is still necessary.
22 Desreumaux 1991 does not mention that MS D was formerly in the library of St. Marks
monastery in Jerusalem, whereas a few of the transferred manuscripts are nevertheless
mentioned. On fols. 2a and 103b, however, there is a seal indicating that the manuscript
belonged to this library.
23 Athanasius Y. Samuel, the late Archbishop of the Syrian Orthodox Church in the U.S.
and Canada, possessed this manuscript (Degen 1972, 121, n. 48) and it is now preserved in the
Archdiocese of the Eastern United States, Teaneck, New Jersey (personal communication of
George A. Kiraz).
24 I deduce the absence of the first quire relying on quire marks and foliation. In the present
study, I refer to the original folio numbers.
25 See plates 160 and 163 in Hatch 1946.

[]
K ~
ffjde J J ~ J J ~
J
J
]
N ~ o ~ ~
[]
K ~ ~[
The writing of the Book of Epidemics, meaning arrivals of diseases (my

d-rhn), has been finished.26 [] Everyone who will read this volume
or will copy from it, or will collate with it, let him pray on behalf of Baboy27
the sinner, who wrote [it]. Let God have mercy upon him as [He had
upon] the robber on Golgotha. The very same Baboy wrote that volume of
Epidemics for Mr emn of B Hzy from the city an.
Thus, the colophon provides us only with the name of the scribe (Baboy) and the
person who commissioned it, Mr emn, probably a bishop of the region B
Hzy in zistn.28 No date is provided.
The various dates proposed for this manuscript stem from three notes on
the last page that contain the following dates: October 1017; November 1020,
November 1024. The dating depends on the era to which these dates refer. The
Syriac Christians generally used the Seleucid era, called the era of the Greeks.29
According to this era, the three dates would correspond to AD 705, AD 708 and
AD 712. Vbus contested this interpretation on paleographical grounds and
argued that the given dates refer to the Christian era.30 Vbus view cannot
be accepted for two reasons. Firstly, as it was said earlier, the handwriting of
the manuscript clearly belongs to the period between AD 600 and AD 768. Sec-
ondly, the Christian era only began to be commonly used in East Syriac (mainly
Chaldean) manuscripts in the sixteenth century.31 Therefore, both internal and
external evidence exclude the possibility that the dates provided in the notes
refer to the Christian era.
Therefore, MS D must have been produced before AD 705 and the palaeo-
graphical evidence suggest that this happened not long before this date. In its
original with the missing quire, MS D contained the commentary of the second
half of Epidemics, Book Six. Furthermore, some characteristics of MS D, such as
handwriting, punctuation, arrangement of the text, are similar to those found in
26 See Sokoloff 2009, 704 for this rendering.

27 The name is enciphered by means of ancient numerical symbols 10-6-2-2 (I owe this
explanation to Sebastian Brock), for which see Duval 1881, xv and 145.
28 None of the known bishops of that ecclesiastical province (Fiey 1993, 835) can be
identified with the given emn.
29 Bernhard 1969, 6498.
30 Fischer 1977, plate 24.
31 Kaufhold 2008, 314.

98 Grigory Kessel
London, British Library, MS Add. 14661 (henceforth MS Add.). This manuscript

dates back to the sixth or seventh century and contains Sergius of Rayns
Syriac translation of Galens Powers of Simple Drugs.32 Although the manuscript
was brought to the British Library from the Syrian Orthodox monastery in Wd
l-Narn, Egypt, some of its paleographical and codicological characteristics are
very similar to those of early East Syriac manuscripts.33 Therefore, these two
manuscript represent, in a way, the earliest period in which scribes produced
manuscripts containing translations of Greek medical texts. This begs the ques-
tion of who authored the Syriac Epidemics in MS D and how.
Text: Preliminary observations

Firstly, an examination of the Syriac text reveals that it is a lemmatic commentary
on the Hippocratic Epidemics, Book Six. Each section starts with a lemma that
is marked by red ink; sometimes, special marks appear in the margins. The
extant text approximately begins with the commentary on lemma vi. 5.3 and
continues until the last lemma at end of Book Six.34 Thus, the surviving Syriac
text represents parts five through eight of Epidemics, Book Six.
Superficially, the text gives the impression that it is a Syriac translation of Ga-
lens Commentary on Hippocrates Epidemics, Book Six.35 Indeed, a comparison
of the two texts clearly shows that Syriac Epidemics is based upon Galens com-
mentary and occasionally follows it almost word for word. Nevertheless, the
Syriac Epidemics cannot be a translation of Galens Commentary on Hippocrates
Epidemics, Book Six, for its interpretation, although based on Galens commen-
tary, presents an independent treatise. In other words, the Syriac Epidemics is in
a certain sense a supercommentary, a commentary on Galens commentary. One
frequently comes across such explicit references to Galens text, such as Galen
said/says ( | )36; Galen accepts ( )37; Galen rejects
( 38
) . Occasionally, the opinion of Galen is commended: Galen said
well ( )39 and Galen offers a profound interpretation
( )40. The absolute authority of Galen for the author
32 See Renan 1852, 324; Wright 187072, iii. 1187; Sachau 1870b, 73; Merx 1885, 237; Bhayro
2005, 152.
33 For the history of this library, see Evelyn-White 1932, 43958 and Brock 2004a.
34 That is, it discusses the text in v. p. 316, line 3p. 356, line 15 L.
35 Ihm 2002, 1023 ( 70).
36 Fol. 14b, 15b and passim.
37 Fol. 21b and passim.
38 Fol. 14a and passim.
39 Fol. 95b.
40 Fol. 88a.

is confirmed by the use of such expressions as our interpreter Galen (

)41 or merely the interpreter ( ).42 The Syriac text is, therefore,
based on Galens Commentary on Epidemics, Book Six, but who is its author?
To answer this question and to investigate the nature and scope of the Syr-
iac Epidemics, we shall now take one Hippocratic lemma, and discuss in turn
how Galen, John of Alexandria, and the author of the Syriac Epidemics each
approached their task. By comparing these three commentaries, we will shed
new light on their interrelationship and interdependence. The choice of these
three commentaries is determined by the fact that they survive; it would also
have been interesting to compare Palladius approach, but unfortunately, his
commentary on this lemma is lost. To facilitate the discussion, I have divided the
Hippocratic lemma as well as the commentaries into corresponding sections. In
my discussion, I shall refer to them by the letter of the text: H for Hippocrates;
G for Galens commentary; J for John; and S for Syriac Epidemics. This letter is
followed by the section number. The Hippocratic lemma in question already
poses some difficulties of interpretation43:
[1] , [2] , [3] , [4] [5] -

, .
[1] Odours: pleasant, [2] noxious, [3] filling, [4] persuading. [5] Alterations,
from the sort of things which they are.
The lemma occurs in the context of a list of things to which the physician
should pay heed. At the beginning of the paragraph, we merely have the enig-
matic statement: Things from the small tablet ( ).
Paragraph seven where this lemma occurs and the next two appear to form a
homogenous section, presumably once written on this small tablet.44 The text
basically consists of a list of words in the nominative, with very few verbs.
Therefore, the exact sense often remains incomprehensible. We have such an
instance in this lemma: the word peithmenai, literally persuaded (H 4), has
already puzzled ancient interpreters and remains a crux even for modern edi-
tors.45 Apart from this difficultly, the overall sense appears to be clear: smells
may have various effects (H 14); and one should examine how and why these
smells change (H 5).
41 Fol. 13a.
42 Fol. 40a.
43 Hippocrates, Epidemics, vi. 8.7 (v. p. 344, line 19p. 346, line 1 L); translation by Smith
1994, 279 (slightly modified).
44 Manetti/Roselli 1982, 1678.
45 This sentiment also is reflected in the translation of Manetti/Roselli, 169 and 171): Odori:
che arrecano godimento, che arrecano dolore, che saziano : I cambiamenti, da che cosa, come
sono.

100 Grigory Kessel
This lemma gave rise to various interpretations, the most influential one be-
ing by Galen; it only survives in Arabic translation46:
. :
[1] [2] . :

[3] .
[4] .
.

[5] .
.
Hippocrates said: Smells which please, smells which irritate, which fill and
which are suitable.
[1] Galen said: By smells which please, [Hippocrates] means the smells
which are delightful. [2] By smells which irritate, he meant repulsive
smells such as the smells that the physicians usually bring near the
nostrils in the case of womens diseases that cause shortness of breath; this
[condition] is called uterine suffocation [anq al-raim]. [3] By smells
which fill, he meant smells which by their nature are nourishing such as
the smell of barley-mush, the smell of the hot bread, and the smell of the
wine. [4] They became engrossed in trying to find out which smells are the
smells which are suitable. For they thought that his words smells which
are suitable had the same meaning as his words smells which please.
Since he had already mentioned the smells which please, there was no
sense in mentioning smells which are suitable. [5] Therefore some people
said that by saying smells which are suitable he meant only those smells
which are useful.
Galen only comments on H 14 here. Since H 5 is missing, scholars have ques-

tioned what sort of Hippocratic text Galen used. Manetti and Roselli have ar-
gued that this omission of H 5 already occurred in the text that Galen used.
Moreover, the Arabic version of Galens commentary varies from the Greek
text of the Hippocratic work as it has come down to us. For H 13, the Arabic
version appears to reflect the Greek original, but H 4 poses some problems. Is
46 Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates Epidemics vi.8 (Madrid, Escorial, MS rabe 805,

fol. 167b, lines 1726; cf. p. 443, lines 1028 Pf).

which are suitable [allat taqau bi-l-muwfaqati] an adequate rendering for

the difficult persuading (peithmenai)?47 Galen (G 4) already noted that this
term aroused some controversy in antiquity. Apart from the difficult word per-
suading (peithmenai), Galen comments on this lemma in a fairly succinct way.
He gives a number of synonyms for the various smells (G 13). In G 2, he gives a
concrete medical example for irritating smells: they are used in treating uterine
suffocation. And in G 3, he explains the meaning of filling smells as those as-
sociated with certain foodstuffs.
Interestingly, John of Alexandria, a medical author from late antiquity, both
depends on Galen but also significantly goes beyond him48:
[0.1] , [0.3] , [0.4] [0.5] ,

.
[1.1] . [1.2]
,
, , -
, , , -
, ,
. [1.3] -
, . [1.4]
, , , -
, -
. [1.5]
, , ,
, -
. [1.6] ,
.

.
[2.1] ; . [2.2.]
, ,
. , ,
, , -
. [2.3] , -
, . [2.4]
47 Welche passen in Pfaffs translation.

48 John of Alexandria, Commentary on Epidemics, Book Six (ed. Duffy 1997, 100, line 29
104, line 9); translation, with slight modifications, by Duffy as well. The final section (4) is
lacking in the Greek text, but present in the Latin translation (ed. Pritchet 1975, 404; 148d, lines
24).

102 Grigory Kessel
,
. ,
,
.
[3.1] , -
, [3.2]

, , .
[3.3] ,
. [3.4]
;
. [3.5] ,
. [3.6]
, ,
. [3.7] ,
. ,
.
. -
. [3.8] -
.

,
, .
[4] Permutationes ex qualibus ut habent. ecce communis epilogus inquirendi
a qualibus in qualia. Oportet fieri permutationes ab odorabilibus ad fetida
aut econtrario.
Odours: pleasant, noxious, filling, persuading. Alterations, from the sort of

things which they are.
[1.1] At this point, Hippocrates discusses the subject of odours. [1.2] But
we should remind the more advanced student of what we have said on
numerous occasions, namely that our body is composed of solids, fluids
and pneumas; that the pneumas are the psychic, natural and vital; that
the solids are nourished by solids, the fluids by liquids and the pneumas
are increased and fortified by gases. [1.3] We, therefore, have a need for
pleasant and unpleasant gases, but according to the different underlying
conditions. [1.4] For example, if the disease I am dealing with is a cold one,
then I sprinkle sometimes with bugloss, sometimes with frankincense, at
other times I offer [the patient] to smell olive branches and oak branches
and in a word all the hot things. [1.5] But if there is burning heat and
considerable seething heat and the fever is burning, then I variously offer
myrtle and rose, or I sprinkle the ground with water, or perhaps I strew the

ground with vine tendrils. [1.6] Since this is true, I often employ fragrant
things in order to revive the powers [of the body]. Thus, I frequently in
cases of fainting apply fragrant substances and restore the powers; and in
these cases [I use] either warm fragrances or cold ones depending on the
different causes responsible for the fainting.
[2.1] And what does [Hippocrates] say? He says that they are filling, in the
sense that they produce fullness. [2.2] For perhaps dispersion occurs, not
just of pneumas, but also of fluids, and then I offer wine. And this wine,
to the extent that it is wine, it is moist and replenishes the fluids, but to
the extent that it is fragrant, it revives the pneumas. [2.3] But you should
also be aware of a deeper point, namely, that in the works of the art, we
have a need not only of fragrances, but also of foul smelling substances.
[2.4] Thus, for example, if the chorion recedes and is not passing out,
then the foetus is delivered with difficulty. In this situation we burn some
hair or a rag or something similar that has a foul smell and offer it to the
woman to inhale, in order to provoke nature into contradiction by means
of the malodour and then, due to the contraction, to expel the retained
[chorion].
[3.1] And the truth of this, namely, that smells, but especially fragrant
ones, revive the powers, is borne out by the noteworthy story told about
Democritus. [3.2] For at the time when Democritus, who made little of
life, wanted to remove himself from it, a festival was about to take place
in Abdera, where Democritus lived. [3.3] At that point, the Abderites
requested him not to take his life immediately in order to save the city
from going into mourning during a festival. [3.4] And when Democritus
asked them, How many days do you want me to wait? they replied, For
the four days of the festival. [3.5] So Democritus ordered a jar of honey to
be fetched and he spent the four days inhaling from it. [3.6] But as other
tell it, he ordered an oven to be brought and loaves of bread to be baked
in it, and in this way, he survived on the smell of the loaves. [3.7] Now, if
you want to believe that, go ahead. And one can state as a fact that it is
possible for a pure soul, by virtue of praying to the divinity, to remain in
the body for a longer time. Perhaps that is what Democritus did. However,
as doctors we do not accept this explanation. [3.8] In the same way, Galen
too in his capacity as a doctor criticised Thessalus as a doctor because he
promised to teach medicine in six months. The fact is that Thessalus did
not claim to be teaching this kind of medicine in six months; you should
know that he went to Egypt where he acquired the ability to cure with
the help of a higher power and this is what he said he would teach in six
months.
[4] Alterations from what kinds of things, how they are. This is a general
conclusion that enquires from what kinds of things to what kinds of

104 Grigory Kessel
things. [It means that] it is necessary that odours change either into foul
smelling substances or vice versa.
Johns commentary on this lemma is significantly longer than that by Galen.

Although the former differs from the latter, it is nonetheless based on it and
makes considerable use of its interpretations. The text of the lemma which John
quotes varies in two significant aspects from that found in the Hippocratic text
and in Galens commentary; firstly, it omits noxious (), present in
H 2 and Galen; and secondly, it includes the difficult phrase in H 5, omitted in
Galens commentary. The Latin version of the commentary has the following
list: smells, uplifting, pleasing, filling, fulfilling (Odores leuatorii, delectabiles, re-
plentes, perficientes).49 It has four adjectives, but it is difficult to see how the first
two Latin ones relate to the first two Greek ones, pleasant, noxious (,
): the former are synonyms, whereas the latter are antonyms. Be that
as it may, although we find clear signs that John knew Galens commentary, the
text of his lemma must here be of a different origin, perhaps going back to an
independent strand of the Epidemics textual tradition.
John follows Galen in his explanation of the lemma: he builds upon Galens
interpretation and aims to present comprehensively the therapeutic value of the
smells. John begins by describing how smells can affect the body (J 1). He di-
vides the body into solids, fluids, or pneumas, and further distinguishes between
psychic, natural and vital pneumas. Gases [pnemata], presumably associated
with smells, influence pneumas [pnemata]. John maintains that both good and
bad smells are necessary, thereby picking up on ideas in the Hippocratic lemma
(H 12) and in Galens commentary. John provides a few examples of the use of
different smells, couching them in terms of cold and hot. None of these exam-
ples corresponds to those mentioned by Galen (G 2); they therefore appear to
reflect the medical practice of Johns time.
In the next paragraph, John first (J 2.2) deals with filling smells (H 3). In each
case, John goes beyond Galen: he explains filling smells in terms of pneuma,
and he develops Galens example of uterine suffocation (J 2.34). Likewise, in
the next paragraph (J 3), John includes a vivid story about Democritus who
prolongs his life through fragrant smells (that of honey or that of bread, accord-
ing to two different versions). This leads John to an interesting reflection about
Methodism and religion, again absent from Galens commentary. The final para-
graph (J 4), extant only in the Latin version, deals with the end of the lemma (H
5), which is omitted in Galens commentary. It consists of a short reflection that
things necessarily change.
The Syriac Epidemics shares many features with Johns commentary50:
49 Ed. Pritchet 1975, 401; 148c, lines 1718.

50 MS D, fols. 73b74b.

N ~ . [1.1] : u u
v v .
~ . . N [1.2] .
51 ~ ~ v~ ~
J
. .
v J .52 ~ . K
K [2.1]
53 [2.2]
K K
~~ ~ J [2.3] N J
~ v ~ N vJ 54
u J [2.4] ~ v
55 . ~
[3.2] .
K . ~ ~ [3.1]
~ ~ J ~ N
:~ K ~J [3.3] .
K
K N . ~ u N
. ~ ~ N [3.4] .~
~ . N ~
u N J
N ~ [3.5] .
~ K ~ K : K
. ~ ~ J
J : N .~ K . J K
~ J
N .~ ~ K ~
v v [3.6] . K
~ . K v
~ ~K . N : K J ~ [3.7] .
~ .N J N ~J [3.8] :
vK 56 N :~ N
~ J J ~ [3.9] .
.57 [3.10] .N
. v [] :
. K K J . []
51 See Bhayro 2005, 160.

52 The word is apparently written incorrectly and should be emended to .
53 See (BL Add. 14460, fol. 68a, line 26) for (xii.
p. 130, line 1 K).
54 See ~~ (ed. Sachau 1870a, 89, line 15) for (i. p. 370,
line 7 K); ~ (ed. Sachau 1870a, 89, line 22) staying for
(i. p. 370, line 13 K).
55 See (ed. Merx 1885, 270, line 10) for (xi. p. 853, lines 1213 K);
(ed. Merx 1885, 305) for (xii. p. 116, lines 1516 K).
56 My conjecture: the manuscript reading is corrupt.
57 See (ed. Sachau 1870a, 92, line 3) for (i.384, line 16); (ed.
Merx 1885, 303, line 11) for (xii. p. 84, line 3 K).

106 Grigory Kessel
~J : ~~ [4.1]
~ [4.2] v ~ ~ v J .
. ~ 58
. ~J ~ ~ [4.3]
~ ~ [4.4] v ~
.
K v
~ [5.2] . J :~J [5.1]
.~ ~ ~

.~J J : ~J .59 ~J [6]
~ v~K ~ N ~
. ~ K ~ . K ~K
~J : . ~ ~ ~
o. J . ~ .
: ~K K o~ :~ : : : K [7.1]
~K [7.2] .~ ~ .~ J
.~~ . K . K
J
J .
60 ~ v ~~ K ~N ~
. v ~ v ~ v
61
v ~ . 62 K ~ u [7.3]
~ v ~~ u ~ .
63[] ~ ~ [7.4] u ~
Odours that are variable, [odours that] oppress.

[1.1] Hippocrates proceeds to the odours [r] mostly because they
strengthen the psychic pneuma; through breathing [they strengthen] the
vital [pneuma]; through the vital [pneuma they strengthen] the natural
[pneuma]; and through the nostrils [they strengthen] the entire body. [1.2]
For it is known that some smells increase the pneuma, some strengthen
58 My conjecture: the manuscript reading is corrupt.

59 See (ed. Merx 1885, 283, line 9) for (xii. p. 2, line 1 K);
(ed. Merx 1885, 283, line 12) for (xii. p. 2, line 4 K).
60 See (ed. Merx 1885, 270, line 7) staying for [...] (xi. p. 853, line 10 K).
61 See ~ . ~ (ed. Sachau 1870a, 91, lines 67)
for , , , (i.
p. 372, lines 23 K).
62 See (ed. Sachau 1870a, 90, line 21) for (i.
p. 371, lines 1314 K); (ed. Sachau 1870a, 91, line 4) for
(i. p. 372, line 1 K).
63 The rest of the sentence (four words) is illegible.

[it], and others cool and purify, such as [those of] roses and grape bloom.64
Those that possess a cooling and purifying power focus the mind and
strengthen the pneuma.
[2.1] We often use fragrant things65 which are applied by means of rags in
case of a certain pain that is going to be in a body. [2.2] Often an pernicious
[mabbln] pain occurs in the brain [m], whilst it is not present in the
entire body [gm].66 [2.3] The pain may be due to the corruption of the
ambient air: he [the patient] suffers because of a previous bad constitution
[kks]67 of the air which became pernicious. Or it may be due to the
corruption of unburied bodies that disturbs the air. [2.4] We apply the
fragrant substances, because they are able to contract the brain [m] in
which pernicious pain occurs, and to expel the vapour of the brain [m].68
[3.1] There are odours that nourish. The nourishing odours are those of
barley flour and bread. [3.2] That they nourish can also be illustrated by
a story such as the one that we are going to tell; for our credibility will
not suffer because we tell a story. [3.3] People say that when Democritus
became old, he wanted to depart from the body and not to remain [in it],
because he saw that [his] natural actions had weakened. [3.4] When he
decided to do that, he did not want to use a sword nor a lethal poison.
Rather [he decided] not to feed his body, and therefore did not take any
food. In this way, death would come quickly upon him. [3.5] When the
feast of the realm took place in his town, and people were preparing for
the great celebration, the sisters and relatives of Democritus came to him,
begging him to take some nourishment. They said to him: Eat, and do
not seek to die during the feast, lest we and [other] members of your
household have to mourn you profoundly, whilst the people of the town are
celebrating. When he heard this, he asks them: How many days will the
feast last, and how long do you ask me to live? They replied by saying to
him: Three days. [3.6] Then Democritus ordered that an oven be brought
to him and that bread be baked [in it] so that he could inhale the odour of
bread. He would be nourished by the odour, and live for three days. For he
did not want to distress the members of his household nor to infringe the
law. [3.7] When the three days were over, the smell ceased, and he died.
[3.8] Others say that Democritus did not inhale the smell of bread, but of
64 Syriac wnntys is a transliteration of the Greek oinnth (grape bloom); it does not
exactly correspond to (tendrils of the ivy) found in Johns commentary.
65 Syriac hrman ( Greek armata) is not an appropriate translation for the Greek
, found in Johns commentary.
66 This is one of the places where Syriac Epidemics departs considerably from Johns
commentary; see below pp. 11011 for a discussion of the discrepancies.
67 Corresponding to Greek katstasis.
68 For a detailed interpretation of the mistranslation, see below p. 118.

108 Grigory Kessel
a jar of honey that stood close to him. In this way, he smelled [it] until
the three days had passed; then he died. [3.9] I firmly believe that those
who say that he was inhaling the smell of bread are right. [3.10] Thus this
story [ta] is a demonstration [taw], provided by us after we have
composed an explanation about smelling. Therefore, we say [to sum up]
that some odours increase the psychic pneuma, and [also] other pneumas;
some fortify them; and some are a protection [tasa] against pernicious
pains.
[4.1] Having said that, let us return to the lemma. He [Hippocrates] says:
odours that are variable and oppress. It is therefore right to examine
odours which oppress and which please. [4.2] As we seek out some of them
and avoid others, we should prefer those that please and avoid those that
oppress. [4.3] Others interpret [the lemma] not like this, but say that it is
necessary to know which odours oppress and [which] please. Sometimes
we should use those that oppress for patients affected by lethargy and
nausea. [4.4] Likewise, with sharp and hot [odours], we can excite and
revive the strength.
[5.1] He [Hippocrates] says to fill. It means those [odours] that nourish.
[5.2] From here [Hippocrates] is going to demonstrate that odours are
nourishing. The [odours] of bread and barley flour are nourishing, as it
was already said that it is right to examine these odours.
[6] He says being persuaded. We say that [Hippocrates] said being
persuaded instead of suffering (an). He used a passive word instead
of an active one, as it is common among Athenians, who produced the
words. They often used the word in this way. Hippocrates used it in this
way here too: instead of saying persuading, he said being persuaded.
Therefore, persuading odours are those that delight the sick; they are the
pleasant odours.
[7.1] Alterations from everything, how they are. Some people interpret
alterations [as follows]: in this place he [Hippocrates] only talked
about nourishment, for it is necessary to examine what the changes of
nourishment are. [7.2] Others [maintain] that the phrase is to be treated
comprehensively and apply alterations to everything, both food and air.
They claim that he [Hippocrates] said that it is necessary to examine the
changes in the air: whether a cold mixture [of air] turns into a warm one;
whether a warm one turns into cold one; and whether a moist one turns
into dry, or dry into moist one. [7.3] It is necessary to examine constitutions
[kks] that change, for instance, from northern to southern and from
southern to northern. For, most of all one ought to investigate the air that
surrounds us: how does its mixture change and how it changes [further].
[7.4] Thereby there are also [].

This extract from the Syriac Epidemics covers the entire Hippocratic lemma
quoted above. After a short general introduction (S 1), the author breaks up his
discussion of the lemma into smaller units, taking the individual words in their
turn. He includes an examination of the difficult peithmenai (H 4), omitted
in Johns commentary. One can argue that the Greek text of the lemma which
underlies the Syriac Epidemics must have been identical to the Hippocratic text
here.
The author begins his interpretation of the lemma with a general introduc-
tion that aims to demonstrate how smells can affect the physical condition. He
develops the explanation by employing the concept of three pneumas (sg. r),
that is psychic (r np n), vital (r ayn) and natural (r kyany).
The interplay of these three pneumas affects the human body (S 1.2). The effect
which is produced by a smell, namely increasing, strengthening, cooling and
purifying the pneuma, may vary depending upon the smells quality (S 1.2).
Next, the author talks about fragrant smells (S 2.1), presumably the pleasant
smells (odma trpousai) mentioned in H 1. The example of uterine suffocation
(S 2.24), however, appears in Galens commentary when the latter explains
noxious (lyposai) smells (H 2). Therefore, the two lemmas may perhaps have
been conflated here. Then (S 3.1), the author turns to nourishing smells (men-
tioned in H 3), explaining that they are the smells of barley flour and bread. He
tells the story of Democritus (S 3.27) who survives a little longer on the pleas-
ant smell of baked bread, as he did not want to die during a holiday. Another
version of the story, favoured by the author, has Democritus surviving on the
smell of honey (S 3.89). Finally, the author summarises his main points (S 3.10).
Then (S 4.1), the author returns to the beginning of the Hippocratic lemma (H
12). He discusses the reviving and oppressing effects of smells and presents
two points of views on the subject (S 4.24). Moving on in the lemma (to H 3),
the author discusses the filling smells in S 5 that he had already treated in S 3.
The next word in the lemma (H 4) poses particular problems and requires
philological tools (S 6): the commentator proposes to emend the middle/passive
participle peithmenai (being persuaded) to the active participle pethousai
(persuading). Galen had already reported diverging opinions about this word,
although he did not offer this particular solution (G 45). The Syriac Epidemics
proves, however, that the reading peithmenai already existed in the Hippocratic
text by the second half of the fifth century. The author comments on the last
passage from the lemma (H 5) by presenting two possible interpretations (S 7.1
2) and appears to favour the second one: that Hippocrates talks about changes of
food and air here. Finally (S 7.3), the author mentions changes in the constitu-
tion or katstasis.

110 Grigory Kessel
Comparison of the interpretations
The Hippocratic lemma quoted here poses considerable problems for all the
commentators: the language is cryptic and the text perhaps corrupt. Galen
interpreted the lemma as referring to the therapeutic value of smells and
illustrated his points with examples. The later commentators, John and the
author of the Syriac Epidemics, adopted some of them. Most puzzling is the fact
that Galen did not quote nor comment on the last part of the lemma, although
the two later commentators did.
From the extracts quoted above one can easily see that Johns Commentary
on the Epidemics, Book Six, and the Syriac Epidemics often resemble each other.
To put it more precisely, the former consistently agrees with the latter when
the latter diverges from Galens text. For instance, the introductory section in
both later commentaries about pneumas (J 1.2; S 1.12) are similar, but no such
information is found in Galen. Likewise, both mention the example of uterine
suffocation (J 2.4; S 2.24) and the story of Democritus (J 3; S 3).
Moreover, both texts are structurally similar. As we have seen, Johns com-
mentary commences with a general introduction and then progresses to the
subject of H 12 without explicitly referring to this part of the lemma. Then,
he considers H 3 and subsequently treats H 2. Then, he narrates the story of
Democritus as an example illustrating H 3. He concludes with a discussion of
H 5. Approximately the same sequence is found in Syriac Epidemics: general in-
troduction, discussion of H 12 without direct reference to the lemma, story of
Democritus (illustrating H 3), a return to H 12, and finally discussion of H 35.
In addition to the similarities, the texts also exhibit some significant diver-
gences. From the beginning, John speaks in the first person singular, whereas
the author of the Syriac Epidemics employs a more neutral plural form, we.
Similarly, the latter is concerned with more theoretical and didactic issues (S 1,
4, 6, 7), whereas the former provides more cases of a therapeutic nature (J 1.46,
2.4). The author of Syriac Epidemics mentions roses and grape bloom as ex-
amples of smells that produce a cooling effect (S 1.2). John mentions the same
ingredients but in the context of real medical practice (J 1.5). But is this Johns
own medical practice, or does he merely report the practice of others? If Johns
commentary draws on a common source, shared with the Syriac Epidemics, as I
shall argue, then the latter appears to be the case.
On two occasions, Syriac Epidemics provides more extensive treatments than
John. The author of Syriac Epidemics gives two possible reasons why uterine
suffocation occurs (S 2.3). John, however, is more concise and limits himself
exclusively to its treatment (J 2.4). The story of Democritus is also presented
differently in the two commentaries. Syriac Epidemics has a longer version. In
John, Democritus is asked to live for four days (J 3.4), whilst in Syriac Epidemics
the period is three days (S 3.5). Both John and Syriac Epidemics mention variants

in the story (J 3.56, S 3.68), but they occur in a different order. We find this
story already in earlier Greek sources, but these versions do not shed any light
on the variations found in the two commentaries.69 Moreover, John ponders
the influence of prayer in all of this (J 3.7), something which is absent from the
Syriac Epidemics. Furthermore, whilst the author of Syriac Epidemics offers his
own opinion on both variants (S 3.9), John appears reluctant to do so. Finally in
J 3.8, John refutes the idea that medical knowledge can be taught within a short
period of time, whereas the Syriac Epidemics makes no mention of this.
Strikingly, John suggests that uterine suffocation can be treated by means of a
malodour (J 2.4), whilst the author of Syriac Epidemics argues that it is fragrant
smells which can cause contractions (S 2). Since Galen recalls this case as an ex-
ample of the use of unpleasant smells (G 2), one wonders whether the divergent
account in Syriac Epidemics presents the authentic position of its author or is
attributable to a possible corruption that a scribe or a translator has introduced.
The extracts quoted above thus show that Johns Commentary on Epidem-
ics, Book Six and the Syriac Epidemics often agree. This is more generally the
case throughout the Syriac Epidemics, although space does not permit to adduce
more parallels here. But from this wider comparison, it is clear that John draws
on the underlying Greek source of the Syriac Epidemics.70
Some general observations on the text

Both Johns Commentary on Epidemics, Book Six and the Syriac Epidemics are
in close proximity to the genre of late Alexandrian medical commentaries. For
instance, we find elements of lecture room teaching in these texts: fundamental
concepts such as pneumas are repeated; individual words explained; the
principle of division is generally applied; and earlier commentators are quoted.71
The notion of three pneumas in the introductory part (S 1.1) points specifi-
cally to the Alexandrian tradition. This concept influenced the European scien-
tific tradition profoundly.72 According to Owsei Temkin, Galen did discuss the
issue, but it was canonised later.73 unayn ibn Isq had been thought to be
the first to define it specifically in his Questions on Medicine (Masil f l-ibb),
69 Diogenes Laertius, Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, bk. ix., ch. 43; and
Athenaeus, Dinner-Table Philosphers, ii.46 e/f; see also Taylor 1999, 5466.
70 Corroborative evidence for this conclusion is provided below in the section Author.
71 On this, see Duffy 1984, esp. 223 and Pormann 2010.
72 Klier 2002.
73 Temkin 1951, 160.

112 Grigory Kessel
and subsequently it became widespread in mediaeval Islamic medicine.74 Vivian

Nutton, however, noted that the doctrine of three pneumas, presented as facul-
ties, already occurred in the Johns Commentary on Epidemics, Book Six and in
Agnellus of Ravennas Commentary on The Sects. Both authors present a seven-
fold classification of physiology. Nutton stresses the significance of this concept
for the development of Galenism, for if John here represents accurately Greek
lectures at sixth-century Alexandria, then the credit for this logical systematisa-
tion of Galens ideas rests with the Greeks, not their later interpreters.75 Nutton,
however, argues that this is not the case; rather, the sevenfold classification in
which the three pneumas occupy an independent position that was interpolated
into the Latin translation at a later stage under the influence of unayns work.76
But if the Greek original of the Syriac Epidemics was written in the second half
of the fifth century and was a source for Johns commentary, as I have argued,
then 1) the doctrine of three spirits must date back to this period; and 2) John
was not the first to discuss it, but he rather drew on an earlier exegetical tradi-
tion, reflected in the Syriac Epidemics.
The lemma from the Syriac Epidemics discussed above shows that this com-
mentary is a translation of a Greek medical treatise produced in late antique
Alexandria. The aforementioned elements are only some of the many distinctive
features of the Alexandrian commentary tradition that it contains.77 It suffices
to mention one more: the teaching was organised as a special lecture (prxis),
consisting of a general discussion (thera) and an explanation of the text (lxis).
Syriac Epidemics follows this pattern, but not consistently. In the case of some
lemmas, the author first provides a general discussion and then turns to indi-
vidual points; this also happens in the lemma under discussion here. At other
times, the author turns strait to the explanation of the text. We also find Greek
terminology used in the Syriac Epidemics. For instance, when commenting on
the beginning of Epidemcis, Book Six, section 8, the author states: Now that we
74 See Ullmann 1970, 623. For the edition of the Syriac version of the text, see Wilson/
Dinkha 2010 (a diplomatic edition based on one manuscript). Although the beginning of the
treatise that contains the main principles of the medical science is lost, one can still find
occasional references to the notion of three pneumas in other parts of the text (see above). See
below, footnote 113.
75 Nutton 1991, 514.
76 Nutton 1991, 514. Elsewhere, Nutton expressed his position even more straightforwardly:
Thus it was Arabic authors who first wrote about the three spirits ruling the body []
(Nutton 2006, 58).
77 Since the first part of the Syriac Epidemics is lost, one can argue only hypothetically
that it contained this characteristics of Late Alexandrian exegetical literature, that is a check-
list of eight preliminary questions (kephlaia) which would be addressed in a given work.
These preliminary questions are present in Johns Commentary on Epidemics, Book Six. See
Wolska-Conus 1992, esp. 812; and the discussion below in Joosses and Pormanns article, on
p. 254.

have provided a general discussion [triy] about the meaning [reyn] of this
lemma [mmr], let us proceed to the words [pegm]
. ). 78
Therefore, the Syriac Epidemics reflects the late antique medical tradition
both in approach and in diction. But how faithful was this Syriac version to the
presumed Greek original? As the Greek source is lost, we cannot answer this
question with any degree of certainty. Some noteworthy traits of the Syriac text,
however, suggest that the Greek text underwent at least a minimal editorial
interference. For example, it is not clear how we should qualify the presence of
logical79 and astronomical material,80 which is absent in Johns Commentary on
Epidemics, Book Six: was it present in the Greek original or did the translator
add it?81
To sum up: the Syriac Epidemics is a translation of a Greek medical treatise
written in late antique Alexandria; it bears a strong resemblance to Johns Com-
mentary on Epidemics, Book Six. The translator may, however, have altered the
original text.
Author
The author of the Greek original underlying the Syriac Epidemics therefore
belonged to the medical milieu of late antique Alexandria. Can we identify him
further? We know of three commentaries on Epidemics, Book Six, written in late
antique Alexandria: 1) by John of Alexandria; 2) by Palladius82; and 3) by Gesius.83
Johns commentary survives entirely in a Latin translation and partially in
Greek.84 Palladius commentary, however, has only come down to us in a number
of fragments in the Greek, whereas no traces of Gesius work have yet been
78 MS D, fol. 43b. It is worth noting that thera in the sense of vision, contemplation also
features extensively in the corpus attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite; Sergius of Rayn
produced the Syriac translation. Subsequently this term became quite popular among later
Syriac authors (Brock 1999).
79 For instance, it can be found in the commentary on the following lemmas: MS D, fols.
77ab, discussing v. p. 346, line 7 L; MS D, fols. 34b36a, discussing v. p. 326, lines 810 L;
MS D, fol. 39a, discussing v. p. 328, lines 79 L.
80 For instance, it can be found in the commentary on the following lemmas: MS D, fols.
87b88a, discussing v. p. 348, lines 1215 L; MS D, fol. 66a, discussing v. p. 342, line 4 L.
81 For the authors interest in astronomical matters, see footnote 93. As for the translator, see
Hugonnard-Roche 1997a.
82 Ihm 2002, 1779, 191.
83 Ihm 2002, 1223, 99. Two anonymous fragments from commentaries on Epidemics
VI (Roselli 1999, Duffy 1997, 1225) cannot be compared with Syriac Epidemics because the
corresponding sections of the Syriac texts are not preserved.
84 Ed. Pritchet 1975; Duffy 1997.

114 Grigory Kessel
discovered. A comparison of Syriac Epidemics with the extant commentaries

by John and Palladius demonstrates that this text is not a translation of either
of them. One remaining option is to assess whether it could be a translation
based on Gesius commentary. As we cannot compare the Greek text of Gesius
directly with the Syriac Epidemics, we rely on indirect evidence.
In the manuscript tradition, a certain John of Alexandria is identified as the
author of the commentaries on Epidemics, Book Six, and Sects for Beginners; this
John probably lived in the sixth or seventh century.85 Some scholars, however,
argued that John, the author of the Commentary on Epidemics, Book Six, drew
on Palladius commentary.86 Other scholars suggested that a possible source for
Johns commentary is the Alexandrian iatrosophist Gesius, although they were
unable to provide solid evidence to support this assertion.87
There is one indirect piece of evidence, however, which corroborates this as-
sertion. When John discusses the case of someone succumbing to consumption
because of an outflow of semen, he provides an opinion of the thrice blessed
and great sophist (triseudemon et maximus sophista) who calls consumption
of the body phthsis here (ptisicum dicit hic consumptionem corporis).88 In the
commentary to the same lemma, the author of the Syriac Epidemics states the
following89:
: ~ u ~ ~
J v u
To put it simply: because of a constant flow of semen, that is, because of

an abundant outflow of matter, the body decays. This is what Hippocrates
calls phthsis.
This is just one of the many parallels between the Syriac Epidemics and Johns
commentary. It is likely that both John and the author of the Syriac Epidemics
had a common source: Gesius commentary; this would explain the similarities,
as the two cannot depend directly on each other.
Moreover, the Syriac Epidemics also refers directly to Gesius, as in the follow-
ing instance90:
85 On the problem of distinguishing between the various Johns, see Garofalo 1999; and
Pormann 2003a.
86 Brutigam 1908, 89; Irmer 1973, 181.
87 Roselli 1999, 494, n. 8; Duffy 1997, 12.
88 Ed. Pritchet 1975, 451; 150Ba, line 48.
89 MS D, fol. 101a.
90 MS D, fol. 72a; commentary on the lemma v. 344, lines 1012 L.

J ~
J .
K J K
K u
u ~ [cis] u~
u.
J
For it is known that pains often occur at the time of purification of

menses. The iatrosophist Gesius, who is always right, says that he met
such a woman: shortly after the beginning of the menses, she felt severe
pain.
One may think that if Gesius is quoted here by name, he can hardly be the un-
derlying source. But this is simply not the case, as the example of Caelius Aure-
lianus shows: he quoted Soranus by name, but probably also simply translated
much of his work. A discussion of this complicated phenomenon, however, lies
beyond the scope of the present article.
Furthermore, we have additional external evidence that Gesius commentary
on the Epidemics was translated into Syriac. The underlying writing of two
palimpsest manuscripts appears to preserve a commentary referring to Galen
(Glns) and Gesius (Gsys). Importantly, both these manuscripts were origi-
nally produced in the eighth or ninth century and reused in Alexandria in the
late eleventh century.91 Moreover, one of them fortunately preserves part of
the title which can be emended seamlessly into Of Gesius. The Sixth [Volume
(fem.) of] Epidemics (o ~[]~ o).92 Thus, Gesius
probably can be identified as the author of this commentary.
To sum up: Gesius commentary probably was the source of the Syriac Epi-
demics, because 1) it shares a lot of material with John of Alexandrias commen-
tary; 2) Gesius is mentioned in it; and 3) because external evidence suggests that
a Syriac version of Gesius Commentary on the Epidemics existed.93
91 They are London, British Library, MSS Add. 14490 and Add. 17127; see Wright 187072, i.
15961, ii. 10201.
92 London, British Library, MS Add. 17127, fol. 21b; see also Degen 1972, 114, n. 7; Degen
1981, 160; Ihm 2002, 1245, 104.
93 A famous Syriac polymath of the thirteenth century, Gregory Bar Ebry (more
commonly known by his Latinised name Barhebraeus), provides additional, although oblique,
evidence on the circulation of Gesius works in Syriac; see Budge 1932, 57; King 2010, 175, n.
68. Moreover, the eleventh-century East Syriac Christian author Abd Allh ibn al-ayyib (see
Ullmann 1970, 1567) quoted from Gesius commentary on Galens Mixtures; Gesius includes
some astronomical material in this quotation, as does the Syriac Epidemics; see Garofalo 2008,
68, n. 7. I am indebted to Ivan Garofalo for this reference.

116 Grigory Kessel
Translator
The preceding examination has revealed a number of definitive points about

the Syriac Epidemics. It is likely that the text is a Syriac translation of a late
Alexandrian commentary on Hippocrates Epidemics, Book Six, which was
written by the iatrosophist Gesius. Bearing all these elements in mind, I would
like to propose a possible identification of the texts translator. For, in my
opinion, the distinctive features of the text suggest only one possible candidate,
namely Sergius of Rayn (d. 536).
Sergius of Rayn is a well known translator who lived and worked around
the second half of the fifth century to the beginning of the sixth century. He
introduced Aristotelian philosophy into a Syriac milieu94 and translated into
Syriac for the first time key texts of late antiquity such as the works of Galen,
Alexander of Aphrodisias On the Principles of the Universe, and the corpus of
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. These translations laid the foundation for the
development of medicine, philosophy and theology.95 Little is known about the
life of Sergius, apart from the fact that he studied philosophy and medicine at
Alexandria some time in the 470s90s.96 His teachers must have been Ammo-
nius in philosophy and Gesius in medicine.97
The image of Sergius as presented in the extant sources matches with the dis-
tinctive features of the translator of Syriac Epidemics. One of the most notable
among them is the explicit reference to the iatrosophist Gesius, who is regarded
as a great authority. Next, as we shall see, the translation techniques applied
to this text differs considerably from later approaches such as that by unayn.
Furthermore, the Syriac Epidemics is similar to Sergius other medical transla-
tions not only in translation technique but also in vocabulary. As far as I could
check, the botanical terms in the Syriac Epidemics always correspond to those
used in the Syriac translation of Galenss Powers of Simple Drugs, and Sergius
produced this version.
Some of Syriac Epidemics traits allow us to correlate the translation of this
treatise with a particular period of Sergius life. From unayns Epistle, which
records Sergius translations of Galen, we know that unayn was very critical
of the quality of Sergius translations because they did not correspond to the
standards of his time.98 While evaluating Sergius work, unayn places each
translation under one of three categories which correspond with particular peri-
94 Watt 2010.
95 The authorship of some anonymous translations (for example, Aristotles Categories) is
disputed. For an overview of Sergius life and works, see Hugonnard-Roche 1997a.
96 On Sergius, see Baumstark 1894, 35884; and McCollum 2009, 1626; Fiori 2010, 79109;
on Sergius in Alexandria, see Greatrex 2011, 3689; King 2010, 176, n. 73.
97 King 2010, 177, n. 68.
98 Brock 1991, 1512.

ods of Sergius life: a certain text was translated by Sergius 1) before his study in
Alexandria; 2) after his study in Alexandria; 3) at the peak of Sergius activity.99
As will be demonstrated below, the Syriac Epidemics reveals that its translator
did not render correctly certain sophisticated medical ideas, whereas in his later
period, Sergius became more experienced and precise, as exemplified by his Syr-
iac version of the Powers of Simple Drugs.100 Since the text contains an explicit
reference to Gesius, Sergius cannot have translated this text before he arrived
in Alexandria, for he only became acquainted with Gesius there. Therefore, Ser-
gius probably translated the Syriac Epidemics either in the course of his stud-
ies in Alexandria (ca. 47090) or shortly afterwards. Sergius may have chosen
to translate Gesius Commentary on Epidemics, Book Six, because he attended
lectures on this Hippocratic treatise, as it was part of the so-called Hippocratic
Canon, a selection of core curriculum texts presumably used in the amphithea-
tres of Alexandria.101
As I briefly mentioned earlier, we find additions by the translator, namely
Sergius, in the Syriac Epidemics. One could compare these additions with those
present in two other translations by Sergius, that of Galens Powers of Simple
Drugs and that of Alexander of Aphrodisias On the Principles of the Universe.
Whilst the former is a very accurate translation, the latter had previously been
thought to be an independent treatise by Sergius, but it is now clear that it
is a Syriac adaptation of a Greek text.102 Daniel King argued that Sergius fol-
lowed Alexanders treatise closely but also added to the text and changed it in
order to make it more acceptable and comprehensible to a Christian audience.103
Therefore, since Sergius approach was not uniform, we must establish as pre-
cisely as possible the extent of his editorial interference as regards his transla-
tion of Gesius commentary. My preliminary study suggests that although there
must be a certain level of interference, the Syriac Epidemics as a whole should
be considered a translation of Gesius commentary rather than a treatise of
Sergius.104
99 See, for instance, Bergstrsser 1925, 7, 12.

100 Unfortunately, unayn does not evaluate the quality of this translation of Sergius.
101 See Weiser 1989; Strohmaier 1991b; and Overwien 2005.
102 Miller 1994.
103 King 2010.
104 Sergius mostly translated medical texts; see Hugonnard-Roche 1997a, 1235; but he also
produced an extant commentary on Aristotles Categories; see Hugonnard-Roche 1997b.

118 Grigory Kessel
Quality of the translation
Therefore, the Syriac Epidemics is not an original Syriac composition but rather
a translation of a Greek text. Apart from its similarity to the commentary of
Johns Commentary on the Epidemics, Book Six, the grammatical nature of the
text also reveals that there was an underlying Greek text. I will mention only
one of these grammatical points: that pertaining to the quality of the translation.
The translator often provided quite inaccurate renderings. For instance, in the
example discussed above, the word metalapn (variable, being changed; S
1.1) is a somewhat strange translation for the Greek word pleasant (trpousai).
Was the translator influenced here by the word changes (metabola), which
occurs in the same lemma and which he translates with the cognate lp
(changes) (S 7.1)? This would suggest that the translator misunderstood his text
rather than that there was a textual variant in the Greek text.105
Moreover, the vocabulary used in the section on uterine suffocation (S 2) sug-
gests that the translator was not able to convey accurately the meaning of the
Greek original. Thus, quite unexpectedly, one finds (S 2.2, 2.4) m (brain /
yolk) as the rendering for chrion. Also, in the final passage (S 2.4), the under-
lying Greek text must have been to expel the retained [chorion] (
) which we find in Johns commentary (J 2.4). Yet, Sergius trans-
lated this as to secret the vapour of the brain (wa-la-mpwe l-er -m),
which is by no means a felicitous rendering. These weaknesses in Sergius
translation may at least in part be explained by the complexity of the underly-
ing Greek medical text. In fact, Sergius gained great proficiency in Greek106, and
produced more accurate versions later in his career. For instance, when translat-
ing Galens Powers of Simple Drugs, he rendered the Greek chrion (afterbirth)
consistently as l (afterbirth).107
In the Syriac Epidemics, as in Galens Commentary on Hippocrates Epidem-
ics, the Aphorisms are frequently quoted. Because unayns Syriac translation
of this text is extant, it is possible to compare the quotations of the Aphorisms in
Syriac Epidemics, that is, the version produced by Sergius, with unayns ver-
sion. The following aphorism occurs in both versions108:
, , , .
105 Manetti / Roselli 1982, 168 list no variant reading here.

106 Watt 2010, 32 and the literature cited there.
107 MS Add, fol. 47a, line 4, corresponding to xii. p. 52, line 1 K; MS Add, fol. 68a, line 26,
corresponding to xii. p. 58, line 17 K; MS Add, fol. 48a, line 11, corresponding to xii. p. 130,
line 2 K.
108 Aphorisms 3.5; translation based on that by ed. Jones 1959, 123.

If there is a north wind, then [there are] coughs, sore throats, and
constipation.
Sergius translated this as follows109:

K
K
North wind coughs, pain of the throat, constipation

And unayn renders it thus110:

K .
K .
K K . ~
In case of the northern wind, coughs, palates, constipation occur.
Although the two translations are quite similar and the differences between
them are almost impossible to convey in English, both passages reveal ap-
proaches that are characteristic to Sergius and unayn. The Greek adjective
breion (northern) designates the northern wind here. Sergius renders the
term through a Syriac cognate noun garby (northern wind). unayns ver-
sion, however, is more precise, for he provides a calque by using the correspond-
ing adjective garbyy (northern).111 unayn retains the Greek expression
n d (if)using the etymologically cognate endn, and the verb i (there
is)by using tehw (there is). Therefore, the opening words of unayns
translation are more easily understood that those in Sergius version, which
lacks both conjunction and verb.
Both versions also provide identical words for bches (coughs), namely
l, and koilai sklra (constipation), namely kars qay. The render-
ing of phrynges ([sore] throats) differs in the two translations. Sergius made
the translation easier to understand by resorting to explicitation: he translated
the simple word throats as pain of the throat (k gar). unayn, on the
other hand, produced another loan translation by employing the noun palate
(ekk). unayn, however, customarily used this word to render Greek throat
(phrynx).112
The example provided above also supplies material for comparison. In the
general introduction (S 1.1), three kinds of pneumas are mentioned, psychic
(r np n), vital (ayn), and natural (kyany). In the Syriac version
of the Questions on Medicine (Al-Masil f l-ibb), one comes across these same
109 Fol. 19b.

110 Ed. Pognon 1903, 10.
111 The same form also is employed in the Syriac version of unayns Questions on Medicine
for Students (ed. Wilson / Dinkha 2010, 408, line 12).
112 See ed. Budge 1913, 177, line 23.

120 Grigory Kessel
terms, but they are rendered as r np ny and ayny.113 In other

words, the author employed the same same suffix -y, which unayn used
to produce a literal translation of northern (breion) in the case of the Apho-
risms. Similarly, the name Hippokrts is translitterated in Syriac Epidemics as
YWPQRYS, whereas in unayns Questions on Medicine and the translations of
Aphorisms, we find the more literal YPPWQRYS.114 A similar transliteration is
found in Sergius translation of the Powers of Simple Drugs: YPQRYS.115
In sum, the traits of both translations correspond to what we know about Ser-
gius and unayns translation techniques. Thus, one can detect the followings
elements in the above examples. Sergius adds or omits words, phrases, and even
whole sentences.116 Sergius also mixes elements belonging to an earlier stage of
freer Syriac translations with the elements typically associated with the later
seventh century. unayn follows closely the grammatical categories and builds
the appropriate Syriac form by adding the suffix y.
Conclusions
Despite a complete absence of external indications such as title, author, or date,
the study of the text of Syriac Epidemics allows us to reach positive conclusions
about its author and translator:
1. The Syriac Epidemics is a lemmatic commentary on the Hippocratic Epidem-
ics, Book Six.
2. The text of the unique manuscript (MS D) is damaged and in its present state
covers the commentary on lemmas v. p. 316, line 3p. 356, line 15 L.
3. In its original form, the commentary most likely covered the entire text of
Epidemics, Book Six.
4. The present Syriac text is a translation of a commentary on Epidemics, Book
Six, by the Alexandrian iatrosophist Gesius (second half of the fifth century).
5. The translator may have adapted, and added to, the original text of Gesius,
but to what extent is yet to be determined.
6. The translator appears to be Sergius of Rayn (d. 536).
7. The commentary of Gesius was one of the sources of John of Alexandrias
Commentary on Epidemics, Book Six.
The Syriac Epidemics is significant in two ways. Firstly, it is a unique witness
of an otherwise lost Greek medical commentary that was composed by the
113 Ed. Wilson / Dinkha 2010, 356, lines 57.

114 Ed. Wilson / Dinkha 2010, 304, line 11; ed. Pognon 1903, 3.
115 Ed. Merx 1885, 263, line 3.
116 McCollum forthcoming. For the translation technique applied to the Corpus Dionysiacum,
which probably reflect a later period of Sergius translation activity, see Fiori 2010, 11834.

iatrosophist Gesius in late antique Alexandria. As such, it stands as an important

document for the history of the Alexandrian medical tradition and for the output
of Gesius in particular.117 Secondly, the Syriac Epidemics also is an important
witness to the development of medicine in the Syriac milieu, and especially
during its formative period.
Undoubtedly, this discovery of a Syriac translation of Gesius Commentary
on the Epidemics, Book Six, is important for classical studies as well as for the
history of medicine. Being a notable authority of his time, Gesius certainly com-
posed a number of medical treatises, mostly in the form of commentaries on
Galenic texts.118 By a quirk of fate, the fame of Gesius is reflected both in a few
Christian lampoons which malign his trust in the rational science of medicine
and in a few reverent references in the works of later Alexandrian scholars.119
Until today, none of his works seem to have survived.120 Therefore, the discov-
ery of an original treatise of Gesius makes it possible, for the first time, to ana-
lyse the doctrine of this late fifth-century Alexandrian iatrosophist.
The example provided in the present study clearly demonstrates the out-
standing importance of the Syriac Epidemics for the study of the history of the
Hippocratic Epidemics, Book Six. Since the manuscript of Syriac Epidemics was
written before AD 705, it is the oldest, indirect manuscript witness to Hippoc-
rates Epidemics, Book Six.121 In our discussion of one lemma, we have seen that
the Syriac Epidemics preserves the Greek lemma quite faithfully. Moreover, the
author attempted to solve a textual problem, namely the presence of the some-
what inappropriate passive form peithmenai (being persuaded).
Because the Syriac version of Gesius commentary is based on Galens com-
mentary, it is an important early witness to the text of Galens Commentary on
Hippocrates Epidemics, Book Six, for it indirectly represents the form of the text
at the end of the fifth century. Where the Greek text is missing, that is from part
six onwards, one can use the Syriac Epidemics to improve the text of the Arabic
translation, produced by unayn ibn Isq.122 Moreover, the Syriac Epidemics
also offers indirect evidence for the text of Johns Commentary on the Epidem-
ics, Book Six, as the two share a common source. As the example discussed
above shows, John often drew on previous material, presumably Gesius com-
mentary, even where he went beyond Galen. Further study of this interdepend-
117 See Pormann 2010.

118 Ihm 2001, 1225, 98104.
119 Watts 2009.
120 It was, however, suggested that the Latin commentaries attributed to Agnellus of Ravenna
might be in fact heavily based on Gesius or may be mere translations of Gesius own treatises
(Nutton 1991, Palmieri 1989 and 1993).
121 The oldest manuscript of Epidemics, Book Six, is dated to the tenth century; see Manetti /
Roselli 1982, xxvxxvii.
122 On this, see Degen 1979 and 1986.

122 Grigory Kessel
ence could yield interesting results about the identity of this mysterious John
of Alexandria. Finally, the Syriac Epidemics contains many quotations from a
variety of medical, philosophical, logical, and astronomical sources, which also
appear to be present in Johns commentary.123 This topic, too, deserves further
investigation, as it can shed light on how later authors used earlier authorities.
If my conclusion is correct and the translation is by Sergius of Rayn, then
Syriac Epidemics provides us with Sergius most extensive extant contribution
to the field of medicine, for presently, only three shorter texts from Sergius
survive.124 The Syriac Epidemics can also be used not only to study Sergius
translation technique but also to compare it with that of unayn. Since Syriac
Epidemics contains a number of quotations from Aphorisms, these quotations
may be juxtaposed with unayns extant Syriac translation of the Aphorisms,
as we have done above for one example.125 Moreover, Syriac Epidemics can play
an instrumental role in the diachronical study of Sergius translation activity.
With the exception of the much debated Book of Medicine, which apparently
is a compilation, the Syriac Epidemics has the merit of being the largest extant
medical text in Syriac.126 Therefore, Syriac Epidemics may provide important ev-
idence for the formation of medical and pharmacological terminology in Syriac.
One might endeavour to trace its influence in later, especially Eastern, Syriac
texts because it could have been one of the textbooks in the East Syriac school
movement.127
Whereas the impact of late antique Alexandrian, especially Aristotelian, phi-
losophy has been acknowledged by recent scholarship,128 there have been few
attempts to trace and analyse the influence of Alexandrian medicine on the
Syriac tradition.129 In the Syriac Epidemics, one finds direct testimony that both
123 It is worth noting in passing that Syriac Epidemics is remarkable for its great number
of quotations from Aphorisms (see above, note 108). One wonders if this frequency is due to
the Gesius personal interest in this Hippocratic text, for there is evidence that he wrote a
commentary on this text (Ihm 2001, 122, 98).
124 On the Power of Simple Medicines (Books 68), The Art of Medicine (chapters 234, 2831),
The Properties of Foodstuffs (chapters 5861); see Hugonnard-Roche 1997, 1235. In addition,
there exists a commentary on Book Three of Critical Days, which is predominantly of
astronomical content, as well as a recently discovered Judeo-Arabic version of the introduction
to Galens Commentary on the Hippocratic On the Power of Foodstuffs (Bos / Langermann 2009).
125 See pp. 11819.
126 On surveys of medical literature in Syriac, see Degen 1972, Gignoux 2001, Habbi 2001.
127 See Becker 2006.
128 Daiber 2001. The influence of Neoplatonic philosophy was by no means limited to
philosophical and theological texts. For its repercussions on one hagiographic text, see Walker
2004. See also Becker 2006, 12654, for a speech addressing the incoming class at the school of
Nisibis.
129 For instance, see the recently discovered Judeo-Arabic version of Sergius of Rayns
introduction to Galens Commentary on Hippocration Foodstuffs, which was composed

Western and Eastern Syrians were aware of the heritage of late Alexandrian
medicine.130
The significance of Syriac Epidemics should by no means be measured solely
in terms of the evidence it provides for other subjects such as classics, Arabic
studies, or history of medicine. It is of intrinsic importance to Syriac studies, as
the manuscript documents the process of the expansion of the classical tradition
into the realm of Persia and its later reception and development in Islamic civili-
sation. Although Syriac Epidemics is a Syriac translation of an Alexandrian med-
ical commentary which was produced by the West Syriac translator Sergius of
Rayn, the text is preserved in an East Syriac codex which was copied around
the year 700 for a patron who resided in the Persian province zistn.131 Thus,
this text provides a unique possibility to observe the transfer and circulation
of medical knowledge from Alexandria to Persia, that is from the late antique
Neoplatonic school to the East Syriac schools, which would initiate the Greek-
Arabic translation movement.132 This transfer is usually taken for granted or
reconstructed from its impact. The Syriac Epidemics offers primary evidence for
this process. Through it, we can see Syriac science in the making.
following the list of eight preliminaries that were standard in the Alexandrian exegetical
tradition (Bos/Langermann 2009).
130 I am planning to demonstrate elsewhere the influence of Alexandrian medicine upon the
East Syriac tradition, as exemplified by a treatise of emn d-aibh (end of the seventh
century).
131 On medicine in zistn, and particularly at Gondpr, see Pormann/Savage-Smith
2007, 201; Dols 1987, 377.
132 Angeletti 1990, Touwaide 2010.

124 Grigory Kessel


Kessel - The Syriac Epidemics

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Kessel - The Syriac Epidemics

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

93

The Syriac Epidemics and the Problem of Its

In piam memoriam Raineri Degen

1 I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to Peter E. Pormann (Warwick) who

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

The unique manuscript of the Syriac EpidemicsDamascus (Maarat dny),

in this manuscript we have before us a very precious monument: in it

Thus, Vbus unequivocally concludes that MS D contains a Syriac version of

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

12 Baumstark 1922, 353, additional note to p. 231, n. 15 [Syriac version of Hippocrates].

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

the eighth to eleventh centuries: 1) AD 705 (Afrm I Barm); 2) AG20 1017

MS D was written on parchment and originally consisted of 104 folios in eleven

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

The writing of the Book of Epidemics, meaning arrivals of diseases (my

26 See Sokoloff 2009, 704 for this rendering.

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

London, British Library, MS Add. 14661 (henceforth MS Add.). This manuscript

Text: Preliminary observations

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

is confirmed by the use of such expressions as our interpreter Galen (

[1] , [2] , [3] , [4] [5] -

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

Galen only comments on H 14 here. Since H 5 is missing, scholars have ques-

46 Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates Epidemics vi.8 (Madrid, Escorial, MS rabe 805,

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

which are suitable [allat taqau bi-l-muwfaqati] an adequate rendering for

[0.1] , [0.3] , [0.4] [0.5] ,

47 Welche passen in Pfaffs translation.

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

Odours: pleasant, noxious, filling, persuading. Alterations, from the sort of

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

Johns commentary on this lemma is significantly longer than that by Galen.

49 Ed. Pritchet 1975, 401; 148c, lines 1718.

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

51 See Bhayro 2005, 160.

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

Odours that are variable, [odours that] oppress.

58 My conjecture: the manuscript reading is corrupt.

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

Comparison of the interpretations

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

Some general observations on the text

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

and subsequently it became widespread in mediaeval Islamic medicine.74 Vivian

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

discovered. A comparison of Syriac Epidemics with the extant commentaries

To put it simply: because of a constant flow of semen, that is, because of

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

For it is known that pains often occur at the time of purification of

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

The preceding examination has revealed a number of definitive points about

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

99 See, for instance, Bergstrsser 1925, 7, 12.

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

Quality of the translation

105 Manetti / Roselli 1982, 168 list no variant reading here.

Brought to you by | Philipps-Universitaet Marburg (Philipps-Universitaet Marburg)

Sergius translated this as follows109: