The Plague of Lust, Vol. 2 (of 2): Being a History of Venereal Disease in Classical AntiquityRosenbaum, Julius
History
The Plague of Lust, Vol. 2 (of 2): Being a History of Venereal Disease in Classical Antiquity
Rosenbaum, Julius
Sexually transmitted diseases -- History
[10] _Hippocrates_, Bk. II. sect. 2. edit. Kühn, Vol. III. p.
436., Καὶ ἡ Στυμαργέω ἐκ ταραχῆς ὀλιγημέρου πολλὰ στήσασα, κ. τ. λ.
(And the female slave of Stymargeos having after a few days’ disturbance
re-established much, etc.)—The same passage occurs in _Galen_, Comments
on the Epid. bk. II. edit. Kühn, Vol. XVII. A. p. 324., with an
explanation of the subject-matter, and also has Στυμαργέω.—_Ibidem_,
p. 458., ἡ _Στυμάργεω_ οἰκέτις ἡ _Ἰδουμαῖα_ ἐγένετο, κ. τ. λ. (the
female slave of Stymargeos, the Idumaean, was, etc.).—_Galen_ cites
the passage, _loco citato_ p. 467., without comment, but he likewise
reads Στυμάργεω. In two other passages, in which he comments on the
statements last quoted from Hippocrates, the text is obviously corrupt.
In “De tremore, palpitatione, convulsione et rigore” (Of Trembling,
Palpitation, Convulsion and Rigor), edit. Kühn, vol. III. p. 602, it
reads: Ἐστυμάργεω οἰκέτις, ᾗ οὐδὲ αἵμα ἐγένετο, ὡς ἔτεκε θυγατέρα, κ.
τ. λ. (a female slave of Estymargeos, in whose case flowed no blood at
all, when she gave birth to a daughter, etc.). Also _Assmann_ in his
Index to Kühn’s Edition of Galen, pp. 232 and 307., represents it by
_Estymergi ancilla_ (a female slave of Estymergus). However there can
be no doubt Ἡ Στυμάργεω οἰκέτις (The female slave of Stymargeos) ought
to be read in Galen; on the other hand we see clearly from this passage
that the text of Hippocrates is quite wrong in giving the Proper name
ἡ Ἰδουμαῖα (the Idumaean), and this, as indeed the sense too requires,
must be changed into ᾗ αἵμα οὐδὲ (in whose case not even blood); and
one is more especially convinced of this on reading the explanation
given by _Galen_, _loco citato_. Besides this, following Galen’s lead,
we should read δεῖ ἐλθεῖν for διελθεῖν and προφάσεως for προφάσιος.
Also he has ἀφορμὴν instead of ἀχὴν.—The _second_ passage of _Galen_
occurs in the “De venae sectione” (On the opening of a Vein) adv.
Erasistrat., ch. 5.: ἐκεῖνο δέ πως εἴρηται; _ἐκ τοῦ μαργέω_ οἰκέτιδος
_οὐδὲ αἵμα ἐγένετο_, ὡς ἔτεκε θυγατέρα, ἀπέστραπτο τὸ στόμα _πρός_ [τῆς
μήτρας καὶ ἐς] ἰσχίον καὶ σκέλος ὀδύνη, παρὰ σφυρὸν τμηθεῖσα _ἐράϊσε_
[ἐῤῥῄισε], καίτοι τρόμοι τὸ σῶμα _περικατεῖχον_ [πᾶν κατεῖχον]· ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ
τὴν πρόφασιν _χρὴ ἐλθεῖν_ καὶ τῆς προφάσεως _τὴν τροφήν_. (Now how is
this account given? from a female slave of Stymargeos not even blood
flowed, when she gave birth to a daughter; the mouth was distorted from
(the womb, and in) loin and leg there was pain; on being cut (bled) on
the ankle, she found relief, though shudderings ran down the (whole)
body; but we must go to the cause, and the origin of the cause). Here
too it is evident, besides the emendations already pointed out as
necessary, we must read ἐκ Στυμάργεω, as the edition of Kühn, vol. XI.
p. 161., does actually and rightly read. _Dioscorides_ may be right
so far, that the word, _strictly speaking_, is not a “Nomen proprium”
(Proper name), but in the passage named it stands for one, if only, as
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