The Plague of Lust, Vol. 1 (of 2): Being a History of Venereal Disease in Classical AntiquityRosenbaum, Julius
History
The Plague of Lust, Vol. 1 (of 2): Being a History of Venereal Disease in Classical Antiquity
Rosenbaum, Julius
Sexually transmitted diseases -- History
To bring some sort of sense into the passage quoted above,
_Mercurialis_ would read πόρνη ὡς ἄχρωμος (like a shameless
harlot), _Dacier_ πορνείη ἄχρωμον ἄκος, (fornication is a shameless
remedy ...) and _Richard Mead_ προῤῥοὴ ἄχρωμος (an inordinate
effusion). But _Triller_[406] was the first to come to the conclusion
that the words were in the wrong order, and emends the sentence thus:
ὁ τὸν _αἰῶνα_ φθινήσας, _πορνείῃ_ ἄχρωμος, ἑβδομαῖος ἀπέθανεν,
_προϊόντων ἀπέπτων_. Ἁλμυρὰ μετὰ μέλιτος δυσεντερίης ἄκος, (he that
destroyed his life and vigour, being inordinate in fornication, died
on the seventh day, undigested matters coming from him. Salt drinks
with honey are a remedy for dysentery). This certainly makes it more
readable, particularly if πορνείη ἄχρωμος is put _before_ ὁ τὸν αἰῶνα,
inasmuch as the pallid complexion was undoubtedly a forerunner of
phthisis. His reasons, which we beg the reader to peruse for himself in
the author’s work, are at any rate to us so convincing that we do not
hesitate a moment to adopt his emendations. These have unfortunately
hitherto gone entirely unnoticed; for _Grimm_, who appears to have
taken no exception to the passage generally, has translated entirely
in accordance with the old text, and not added any note at all. The
same is the case with _Lilienhain_, who has more recently gone over the
same ground again; though both have restored instead of κενεῶνα (belly)
αἰῶνα (life) previously conjectured by _Foesius_.
Granted that by these means the last sentence is made intelligible, and
justice done Hippocrates by no longer making him recommend coition as a
remedy against dysentery, still the preceding sentence likewise stands
in need of correction. For ἴξιν obviously ἰξίαν or ἰξίας (varicosities)
must be read, which indeed was done by former translators, and long
ago suggested by Foesius; but as to ἱππουρίν, no sufficient account
has ever yet been given by any editor. The word appears to us to be
corrupt, and to have got into the text owing to the fact that in the
Manuscript, instead of προπιούντων,—which indeed no single Codex has,
the majority reading ὑποπνοιούντων, there stood in the next line
ὑποπορούντων, ὑποῤῥυόντων or ὑπποῤῥεόντων. _Cornarius_ read, περὶ ἓξ
ἔτεα _ἐξ ἱππασίης_ βουβῶνα, ἰξίας, κ. τ. λ. (for about six years, _in
consequence of riding_, inguinal swellings, varicosities, etc.), but
without assigning his reasons; in all probability however he made this
conjecture, which does not commend itself at any rate to us, with the
passage about the Scythians in his mind’s eye.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account