Who Are ‘the Ancients’?

doi:10.4000/methodos.5089

Navigation – Plan du site

Sommaire - Document suivant

18 | 2018
Usages contemporains de Descartes

Analyses et interprétations

Who Are ‘the Ancients’?

Jordi Crespo Saumell

https://doi.org/10.4000/methodos.5089

Résumés

Français English

Qui sont « les Anciens » ? Dans cet article nous allons examiner la signification de l’expression « les Anciens » dans le papyrus médical appelé Anonyme de Londres, en essayant de lui donner une juste attribution. L’examen contextuel des deux occurrences de ce terme révèle que le rapprochement avec les Aristotéliciens, proposé par la plupart des interprétations, est plutôt plausible. Cette conclusion est basée sur deux éléments : d’abord d’étroites analogies avec quelques textes d’Aristote, puis l’usage qui a été fait de cette même expression dans les traités médicaux contemporains de la rédaction du papyrus. La recherche semble démontrer que, dans le premier cas, par l’expression « les Anciens » l’auteur du papyrus ferait allusion à Aristote et non aux Platoniciens, et dans le second, qu’il pourrait s’agir d’une allusion aux philosophes présocratiques, soit Héraclite soit Empédocle.

Haut de page

Entrées d’index

Mots-clés :

Anonymus Londiniensis, Aristote, Platon, Hippocrate, division, Galien

Keywords:

Anonymus Londiniensis, Aristotle, Plato, Hippocrates, diaeresis, Galen

Haut de page

Plan

1. Introduction

2. A Striking Resemblance

3. The Simile of the Sun and the Sea in Aristotle’s On Sleep and Waking

4. The Simile of the Sun and the Sea in the Anonymus Londiniensis

5. Who Are ‘the Ancients’?

6. The Issue’s Further Fortune. Galen on the Formation of Urine

7. Conclusions

Haut de page

Texte intégral

PDF Partager par e-mail

1. Introduction

1 P. Brit. Lond. inv. 137 = MP³ 2339 or LDAB 3964.
2 Daniela Manetti (1994), « Autografi e incompiuti : il caso dell’Anonimo Londinese P. Lit. Lond. 165 (...)
3 The editio princeps by H. Diels in 1893 would be eventually used by H. Beckh and F. Spät and W. H. (...)

1The Anonymus Londiniensis is a Greek literary papyrus1 of medical content written at a certain point during the last quarter of the first century CE2^.The 39 preserved columns in the papyrus, containing an average of 49 lines (c. 1920 lines in total), turn the Anonymus Londiniensis into the longest papyrus of its kind to come down to us. From its discovery to the present the Londiniensis papyrus has been subject to 4 different editions and to several translations into modern languages3.

4 Vivian Nutton (1996), « s.v. Anonymus Londinensis », in Hubert Cancik & Helmuth Schneider (eds.), D (...)
5 Cols. I, 1-IV, 17. Antonio Ricciardetto (2016), L’Anonyme de Londres. P.Lit.Lond. 165, p. LI-LVIII. (...)
6 Cols. IV, 18-XXI, 8? Cfr. Antonio Ricciardetto (2016), L’Anonyme de Londres. P.Lit.Lond. 165, p. LV (...)
7 Cfr. Antonio Ricciardetto (2016), L’Anonyme de Londres. P.Lit.Lond. 165, p. LIX.
8 Abas?, Alcamenes of Abidos, Heracleodorus?, Niny? the Egyptian, Timotheus of Metapontum, Thrasymach (...)
9 Cols. IV, 20-XIV, 11.
10 Cols. XIV, 12-XVIII, 8.
11 Cols. XIV, 12-XXI, 8?
12 Cols. XXI, 18-XXXIX, 32. Cfr. Antonio Ricciardetto (2016), L’Anonyme de Londres. P.Lit.Lond. 165, p (...)

2The Londiniensis conveys more than a single writing. As regards “the main writing” in the Londiniensis, the contents on the recto of the papyrus have been generally divided in three different sections4. The first one5, nosological, consists of a list of definitions of medical concepts about disease. The second section6, etiological, recollects the opinions on the causation of disease held by 20 ancient authors7, seven of them unattested elsewhere8. Furthermore, the whole of the etiological theories reported in the second section neatly fall into two major criteria: one finds first expounded the opinions attributing the disease to the residues of the food (περισσώματα)9; and, on the other hand, starting by a long paraphrase of the Timaeus10, the opinions of the authors who put the causation of disease down to the constitutive elements in the body (στοιχεῖα)11. In the third section12, physiological, the scribe addresses some questions concerning the distribution of the air and the nutrients in the body, this latter giving place to a discussion on the theory of the emanations.

13 The first addition is a supplement to ll. 46 – 47 in col. XXV and was written behind cols. XXIII-XX (...)

3Apart from this, on the verso of the papyrus there are three more writings, which turns the Anonymus Londiniensis into an opistographic papyrus. This feature alone does not make it unique; what makes the difference is the fact that the different kinds of writing on the verso of the Londiniensis belong to three different hands. The first of such opistographic writings consists of two notes that the scribe of the Londiniensis wrote on the verso in his aim to supplement the argument he was developing on the recto13. As to the other two aforementioned types of writing, the verso of the Londiniensis papyrus has preserved also the blurred and tiny traces of some words in a prescription. In the third place, on the verso of the Anonymus Londiniensis there is also the rescript of an edict of the emperor Marcus Antonius in which are collected the grants bestowed to a body of (crowned) winners in the frame of some kind of sacred games.

2. A Striking Resemblance

14 Since in the Londiniensis their names are sometimes clearly stated (e.g. Erasistratus, Herophilus, (...)

4In the third section of the Anonymus Londiniensis, the scribe of the papyrus deals with a series of topics concerning different physiological processes. To do so he analyses the anatomical places supposedly involved in each one (the stomach in digestion, the lungs in respiration, the heart and the brain in sleep and waking etc.), and sometimes presents the views maintained by earlier authorities — each identifiable to a greater or less extent14 — with regard to the process at issue, this being the case we are about to study in the present article.

15 Αs opposite to οἱ νεώτεροι (i.e. the Stoics). Cfr. Diels (1893), Anonymi Londinensis ex Aristotelis (...)

5In cols. XXIX, 50-XXX, 40 the scribe takes into consideration the role played by the bladder in the formation of urine, and in the middle of the query he makes reference to a particular group, the Ancients15, whose opinion about the matter is featured with an image that, as will be shown, proves fruitful from many points of view. Cols. XXIX, 50-XXX, 40 read as follows:

16 The Greek text reproduces the edition of the Anon. Lond. by A. Ricciardetto in Antonio Ricciardetto (...)

50 ὑ̣π̣[ὲ]ρ̣ τοῦ διὰ τῆc κύcτεωc|[ἀπο]κ̣[ρ]ινο[μέ]νου διάcταcιc γεγένηται|[π]αρὰ τοῖc ἀρχαίοιc τ(ῶν) φιλοcόφων·|[οἱ] μ(ὲν) γ(ὰρ) εἶπ̣[ο]ν ἐν τῶι προcφερομένῳ|| col. XXX ὑγρῶι ἐνυπάρχειν φ[ 7/8 ].|δε καὶ νόcτιμον καὶ [ ±9 τ]ὸ̣ μ̣(ὲν)|νόcτιμον ἀναλαμβ̣[άνεcθαι].[.].|μάτ(ων) καὶ π(ροc)τίθεcθαι το[ῖc cώ]μ̣α̣c̣ιν, τ̣ὸ| 5 δὲ φαῦλον φέρεcθαι ε[ἰc] κ[ύc]τ̣ι̣ν καὶ κ̣ατὰ|τὰc ἀπουρήcειc ἀποκρ̣[ί]ν̣ε̣c̣θ̣[αι] ε̣ἰ̣c̣ τ̣ὸ̣ ἐ̣κ̣τό̣(c).| Οἱ δὲ ἔφαcαν πᾶν μ(ὲν) ὑγρὸ̣ν ο̣.[…]η̣c̣τ̣..|ἑαυτῶι (εἶναι), ἤδη δὲ κατὰ [τ]ὰc προcφορὰ̣c̣|αὐτοῦ τὸ μ(ὲν) ἀναδίδ[οc]θαι καὶ π(ροc)τ̣[ίθ]ε̣c̣θ̣α̣ι̣| 10 τοῖc cώμαcιν, τὸ δὲ κ̣[(ατα)φέρε]c̣θ̣α̣ι̣ ε̣[ἰ]c̣|τοὺc κατὰ τὴν κύcτιν [τόπουc καὶ διὰ]|τῆc ἐν τούτοιc ἐνυπαρχο̣[ύcηc] δυνά[μεωc ἔνθ]ε̣ν|ἀποκρίνεται δριμύ τε κ̣[αὶ ἁλμυρόν].|Ταύτῃ γ(ὰρ) τὸ οὖρον ἑλκοῦν̣ [τε καὶ δά]κ̣ν̣ο̣(ν)| 15 ὅτι (ἐcτὶ) δριμύ τε καὶ ἁλμυρόν. [Ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖ]| νο ῥητέον ὅτι ἐπὶ τοῦ πρώτ[ου ἐκκει]|μένου γίνονται οἱ πλείου[c τ(ῶν) ἀρχαί]ω̣ν|καὶ εἰc τοῦτο ὑποδείγματι χρῶν[ται τῇ θα]|λάccῃ καὶ τῶι ἡλίωι· οὗτο[c γ(ὰρ) τῶι ἄναμ]| 20 μα νοερὸν ἐκ θαλάc[cηc εἶναι ἀπὸ]|τοῦ νοcτίμου τοῦ κ(ατὰ) τὴν θ̣[άλαccαν]|τρέ[φ]εται, ἀναλαμβάνων μ[ὲν τὸ λεπτόν, τὸ δὲ]|ἀργότερον καὶ παχύτερον κ[αὶ ἁλμυρὸν (κατα)λεί]|πων ἐν τῆι θαλάccηι. Ἀπ̣ο̣φ̣[έρεται δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ]| 25 τοῦ π(ροc)φερομένου ὑγροῦ τὰ τ[ρέφοντα ἡμᾶc]·|ἀπὸ γ(ὰρ) τούτου τὸ μ(ὲν) νόcτιμον̣ [καὶ λεπτὸν]|ἀναδίδοται εἰc τὰ cώμα[τα ἡμῶν, τὸ δὲ]|φαυλότερον καὶ ἀργότερον cκύ̣[βαλον διὰ]|τὴν κύcτιν εἰc τὸ ἐκτὸc ἀπ̣οκρ̣[ίνεται].| 30 Τούτων οὕτωc ἐκκειμμέν(ων) α̣[ |οὐκ ἔχομ(εν) παγίωc εἰπεῖν πε̣[ρὶ τοῦ ὑγροῦ]|τοῦ ἀποκρινομένου κ(ατὰ) τὰ ἀπου[ρήματα, πό]|τερον τὸ ἀλλότριόν (ἐcτι) τὸ ἀποκρ[ινόμενον ἐπὶ]|τῶ̣ι ἐ̣ν τῶι ὑγρ̣ῶι κ̣α̣ὶ̣ [ | 35 ἐνυπάρχειν ἀχρεῖον ὑγρὸν, [ἢ ἐν τῆι]|κύcτει μεταβάλλει̣ π̣(ρ̣ὸ̣c̣) τ̣ο̣c̣α̣[ |κεῖνο δὲ λέγομ(εν), ὅτι ἀπὸ τοῦ π̣[(ροc)φερομ(έν)ου]|ὑγροῦ ἀποκρίνεται κατὰ̣ τὰ ϲ[ώματα]| ὑγρὸν δριμύ τε καὶ ἁλμυρόν. Ḳ[αὶ ταῦτα μ(ὲν)]| 40 ⤚περὶ τῆc διοικήcεωc τῆc κ(ατὰ) τὴν [κύcτιν.|16.

17 The translation (slightly modified) relies on William H. S. Jones (1947), The Medical Writings of A (...)

« [first is the section] 50 dealing with what is evacuated by way of the bladder, concerning which there has been a special controversy even among the old scientists. For some have said that in the fluid taken col. XXX [a dual nature] exists [of the following kind. Fluid they say contains both] the beneficial and [the bad, of which] the beneficial is absorbed [through the pores] and is added to our bodies, while 5 the bad is carried below and by urination is excreted outside. Others have said that all fluid [is homogeneous itself, and only] on its being taken is a part absorbed and added to 10 our bodies, while that which is not absorbed is carried to the parts about the region of the bladder, whence, being changed by the power that is inherent in these parts, it becomes pungent and salt and is excreted. 15 For clearly the urine is pungent and salt just because the bladder sucks it through these parts. With regard to that matter is must be said that it is to the first [option] here indicated that the majority of the ancients incline. As an analogous case bearing upon the point they make use of the sea and the sun. For the sun, by reason of being 20 an intelligent ball of fire out of the sea, is nourished from the nutritious part in the sea, taking in the part that is fine, but leaving in the sea the more sluggish, the grosser and the salt portion. In a similar manner 25 from the fluid that we take in there is taken away the parts that nourish us. For from this fluid the nutritive and fine part is absorbed into our bodies, while the inferior and more sluggish becomes refuse and is eliminated outside through the bladder. 30 With this exposition of the matter […], we are still at a loss and cannot say for certain about the fluid that is eliminated as urine, whether the eliminated part is the unsuitable part, which was originally present in the [ingested] fluid [and is thought] to be present as a naturally useless fluid; or whether it is that which, when it gets into the bladder, changes [for the worse]. But this we do say, that from the fluid taken in there is excreted from our bodies a fluid that is pungent and salt. 40 So much for the physiology of the bladder »17.

6Before coming to grips with the details in the passage, we should like briefly to emphasise something that to our knowledge — as far the Anonymus papyrus is concerned — nobody has signalled, and that is the notable resemblance between the above passage in the Anonymus and the next one:

18 Aristotle Mete. II 3, 357a 24-b 9. This fragment is collected in DK Empedocles 31[21]B 55 [Diels (1 (...)

« ὁμοίως δὲ γελοῖον κἂν εἴ τις εἰπὼν ἱδρῶτα τῆς γῆς εἶναι τὴν θάλατταν οἴεταί τι σαφὲς εἰρηκέναι, καθάπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς· πρὸς ποίησιν μὲν γὰρ οὕτως εἰπὼν ἴσως εἴρηκεν ἱκανῶς (ἡ γὰρ μεταφορὰ ποιητικόν), πρὸς δὲ τὸ γνῶναι τὴν φύσιν οὐχ ἱκανῶς· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐνταῦθα δῆλον πῶς ἐκ γλυκέος τοῦ πόματος ἁλμυρὸς γίγνεται ὁ ἱδρώς, πότερον ἀπελθόντος τινὸς μόνον οἷον τοῦ γλυκυτάτου, ἢ συμμειχθέντος τινός, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς διὰ τῆς τέφρας ἠθουμένοις ὕδασιν. φαίνεται δὲ τὸ αἴτιον ταὐτὸ καὶ περὶ τὸ εἰς τὴν κύστιν περίττωμα συλλεγόμενον·καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνο πικρὸν καὶ ἁλμυρὸν γίγνεται τοῦ πινομένου καὶ τοῦ ἐν τῇ τροφῇ ὑγροῦ γλυκέος ὄντος. εἰ δὴ ὥσπερ τὸ διὰ τῆς κονίας ἠθούμενον ὕδωρ γίγνεται πικρόν, καὶ ταῦτα, τῷ μὲν οὔρῳ συγκαταφερομένης τοιαύτης τινὸς δυνάμεως οἵα καὶ φαίνεται ὑφισταμένη ἐν τοῖς ἀγγείοις ἁλμυρίς, τῷ δ' ἱδρῶτι συνεκκρινομένης ἐκ τῶν σαρκῶν, οἷον καταπλύνοντος τὸ τοιοῦτον ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ ἐξιόντος ὑγροῦ, δῆλον ὅτι κἀν τῇ θαλάττῃ τὸ ἐκ τῆς γῆς συγκαταμισγόμενον τῷ ὑγρῷ αἴτιον τῆς ἁλμυρότητος. ἐν μὲν οὖν τῷ σώματι γίγνεται τὸ τοιοῦτον ἡ τῆς τροφῆς ὑπόστασις διὰ τὴν ἀπεψίαν· »18.

19 Aristotle, Meteorologica, Thomas Ethelbert Page, Edward Capps, William Henry Denham Rouse, Levi Arn (...)

« It is equally absurd for anyone to think, like Empedocles, that he has made an intelligible statement when he says that the sea is the sweat of the earth. Such a statement is perhaps satisfactory in poetry, for metaphor is a poetic device, but it does not advance our knowledge of nature. For it is by no means clear how salt sweat is produced in the body from sweet drink — whether, for example, it is simply by the loss of its sweetest constituent or whether it is due to the admixture of something else, as in the case of waters strained through ashes. The cause appears to be the same as that which makes the residue that collects in the bladder bitter and salty though our drink and the liquid in our food is sweet. If then the cause in both cases is the same as that which makes water filtered through ashes bitter, and if some substance like the salty deposit we see in chamber-pots is carried through the body with the urine, and secreted in sweat from the flesh, being washed out of the body as it were by the water on its way out, then the admixture of some substance from the earth must be responsible for the saltness of the water in the sea also. Now in the body the sediment of food caused by failure to digest is such a substance. » 19.

20 Cfr. e.g. Aristotle Sens. IV 441b 1-8; Resp. XXI 480b 5-6 respectively.
21 I ought my gratitude to the reviewers of Methodos, since it was in the light of some of their remar (...)

7Contrarily to what it may seem at first glance, from the description in the Meteorologica, it is clear that Aristotle’s contention is that a dual nature exists in the fluids taken, so that every liquid consists of a valuable and a useless part. Accordingly tears, sweat, urine, or whatever other salty residual liquid the body might produce is said to be in the liquids we ingest. Furthemore, when Aristotle addresses the theoretical principle of the qualitative transformation of a substance, either through assuming the properties of the substances that it touches, or through being acted upon by the places through or in which it passes or remains (as we see it expounded, for instance, in Anon. Lond. col. XXIV, 39-48), Aristotle assigns such kind of argument to « the old natural philosophers (physiologists) », by this meaning that the explanation is in a way outdated and should not be taken seriously20. Thereby, Aristotle’s position in this regard might have easily given place to the opinion held by those who in the Anonymus papyrus are classed as the philosophers constituting a first group of opinion21.

22 The scribe of the Londiniensis papyrus neither assents nor shares the opinion of those who bring up (...)
23 Apart from the cited passage above, Aristotle notes elsewhere that Empedocles expressed himself in (...)

8We do not claim that cols. XXIX, 50-XXX, 40 in the Anonymus depend entirely on this passage from Aristotle’s Meteorologica, but it cannot be denied nevertheless that in contrasting and comparing their respective contents what comes out is a strong air of familiarity between one and the other: Empedocles plays the role of the Ancients in the papyrus, the salt in the sea can be equated to the saltiness of sweat; likewise, if the image of the sun and the sea on which the Ancients draw to give an account of the phenomenon is for the scribe unhelpful in explanatory terms22, Aristotle also considers the Empedoclean metaphor absurd since it contributes nothing to the progress of knowledge23. The sun, that is true, does not appear in Aristotle; its place is occupied instead by the earth.

3. The Simile of the Sun and the Sea in Aristotle’s On Sleep and Waking

24 Aristotle Sens. IV 442a 5-8.
25 Aristotle Somn. Vig. III 457b 30-458a 6. I. Tacchini is of the opinion that the image could have be (...)

9In On Sense and Sensible Objects24 Aristotle provides a preliminary description of the digestive process in plain material terms, that is, deprived of every kind of metaphor. There, Aristotle talks about the expansion of heat and explains that this very heat modifies the food in such a manner that it extracts from it what is light and leaves behind what is harsh and bitter owing to its own weight. As regards digestion, thus, in the first instance the account given by Aristotle is no doubt built up on mere physical categories (heat, expansion, attraction, heaviness etc.); but when he goes on to set out the natural causation of sleep and waking25 then — somehow belying what he has stated in the above-mentioned passage drawn from the Meteorologica — Aristotle has recourse to a simile with an evident poetical turn (perhaps because he found it formulated in that way in some source concerning Heraclitus).

26 Col. VI, 32. This notion (and kindred ones) is used in Aristotle Somn. Vig. III 456b 4, 19, 20, 34; (...)
27 At Mete. I 4, 341b 7-13 Aristotle expounds that there are two main kinds of exhalation, one vapour- (...)
28 DK Heraclitus 22[12]A 1[Diels (1951), p. 141, 29-30], 22[12]A 11[Diels (1951), p. 146, 25-26]; Diog (...)
29 Cfr. also Aristotle PA II 7, 652b 35-653a 8. Hippocrates Vict. I 10 [VI p. 484, 17-19 Li.]: « κατὰ (...)

10A closer look at the picture as it is presented by Aristotle reveals that the philosopher underpins his account of the digestive process by way of analogy. In brief: the bodily heat is able to get nutrients from raw food in the same manner as the heat of the sun acts upon matter in the sea. The key term featuring Aristotle’s description is ἀναθυμίασις26, that is to say, ‘exhalation’27. There is a strong likelihood that Aristotle borrowed this notion from Heraclitus28, though the Stagirite assigned to the concept the physiological nuance we actually read in On Sleep and Waking. Aristotle might have found it useful at the time to expound on how he imagined sleep to come about. However it might be, it turns out that sleep and waking reproduce in small scale what occurs and can be observed in the atmosphere29.

4. The Simile of the Sun and the Sea in the Anonymus Londiniensis

30 For further implications of this point cfr. § 5.
31 Col. XXX, 19-20: « τῶι ἄναμ]|μα νοερὸν ».Diels (1893), p. 83: « Stoice sol ». Cfr. DK Heraclitus (...)
32 Armelle Debru (1996), Le corps respirant, p. 189 n. 46; Philip Jan Van der Eijk (2005), « The Heart (...)
33 Constituting a kind of common place in the medical literature of the Imperial period, medical autho (...)

11As to the use of the same simile in the Anonymus papyrus, the scribe remarks that the image under consideration is not genuine at all, even though quite ancient30. This notwithstanding, what matters here is that, in contrast to Aristotle’s in On Sleep and Waking, in the Londiniensis papyrus the metaphor based on the action of the heat of the sun31 upon the sea is used not with a view to explaining sleep (and waking) but to portraying the way that waste matter is expelled after the digestive process32, once the body has obtained and taken in the nutrients from the food33.

34 Col. XXIX, 51-52: « διάcταcιc γεγένηται|[π]αρὰ τοῖc ἀρχαίοιc τ(ῶν) φιλοcόφων », (« there has been a (...)
35 Cols. XXIX, 50-XXX, 39.
36 Cols. XXIX, 53-XXX, 6: « [οἱ] μ(ὲν) γ(ὰρ) εἶπ̣[ο]ν ἐν τῶι προcφερομένῳ||ὑγρῶι ἐνυπάρχε (...)
37 Col. XXX, 7-13: « Οἱ δὲ ἔφαcαν πᾶν μ(ὲν) ὑγρὸ̣ν ο̣.[…]η̣c̣τ̣..|ἑαυτῶι (εἶναι), ἤδη δε (...)

12The scribe of Anonymus Londiniensis underlines in the first place the extant disagreement among ancient philosophers34 regarding the qualities they attribute to liquids and the way they recounted that the intake and distribution of liquids in the body takes place. From the report in the Londiniensis35 it follows that while some authors posited that every liquid consisted of a valuable and a useless part36, others stated that every liquid was entirely profitable, it being only the excess that is finally expelled. To this description the latter further added that urine got its corrosive and salty properties on the way through the places it passed37. The scribe stresses that most of the ancient philosophers are for the first explanation and remarks as well that to support their position on this concern the philosophers, physicians, or physicists in the former group often used to set forth the simile of the reciprocal influx between the sun and the sea.

38 Col. XXIII, 36-38.
39 Col. XXV, 40-43: « ὅ δὴ π(ρὸc) τ̣[ῆc ἐ]ν |τῷ κ̣[ό]λωι ἰδιότητοc ἀποκοπροῦτ̣α̣[ι. », (« scil. a smal (...)
40 Cfr. col. XXIII, 12-42. The belief in the passage of the liquids into the lungs is an old doctrine, (...)

13We should like to draw attention to another fact about the problem the scribe addresses. While in the Londiniensis it is definitely admitted that the air we breath out is warm by virtue of the heat in the places it passes through38, the scribe does not make any definite statement when the time comes to extrapolate the argument to the particular case of liquids and urine, an omission which apparently cannot be attributed to his ignorance of the issue at hand. In fact, the scribe of the Londiniensis is perfectly aware of the “epistemological device” consisting in explaining a phenomenon by virtue of the purported property (ἰδιότηc) intervening in a particular anatomical place. Thus, for instance, as to the formation of the excrements and the sperm, he admits that it is the specific faculty residing in the colon and in the seminal ducts that operates in the food (τροφή) that has not been absorbed, this respectively being transformed into stool or into seed according to the place where the nourishment may be39. Yet, adding even more difficulty to the query, in col. XXIX, 34 ff. the scribe of the Londiniensis papyrus affirms that not the whole food we ingest actually becomes assimilated, but he states that along the digestive process a kind of selection between what is suitable and what is rejectable in the food operates, the rejectable part being transformed into excrements. This last remark could well lead us to assume that the scribe might have held a different appreciation of how the digestion of the liquids40 came about with respect to that of solid food; and secondly, that the scribe’s view — at least as regards the assimilation of solid food — was closer to the opinion contended by most of the ancient philosophers.

41 It is likely that the scribe introduces at this point an abridged version of the description of the (...)
42 Col. XXX, 17: « οἱ πλείου[c τ(ῶν) ἀρχαί]ω̣ν ».
43 Col. XXX, 31-40.

14Either way, the author of Anonymus Londiniensis is somewhat reluctant to accept the existence of a certain power (δύναμις) in the body accounting for the mutation in the qualities of the liquids we ingest; he does not affirm either in this effect that the transformation is actually in rebus due to the very nature of the liquids41 — as it seems that ‘most of the ancient (scil. philosophers)’42 believed. The scribe refrains from taking sides on this point, rather contenting himself with giving a “phenomenological” description of the situation, so that in the papyrus the question remains obscure and is left in a fog. If we were expecting a physical cause accounting for the change in the qualities of the liquids we take, what we shall find instead is just the can that the scribe has kicked down the road: from the liquid we take another liquid with different properties is expelled, being almost impossible to state, in the scribe’s opinion, whether it is because of the liquid as such or due to some faculty allegedly in the bladder43.

15If we were asked for an answer other than the foggy unknown factor with which the scribe leaves us at this point, we could give two almost completely different ones, the first older than the writing in the Anonymus and the second later. The first explanation is to be found in the fragment from Meteorologica quoted in the beginning of this paper; the second is expounded in section 5 below.

5. Who Are ‘the Ancients’?

16Now, from the Londiniensis we have learned that the change experienced in liquids we take in was accounted for in two major ways. We would like to make a further point in light of the supposed Aristotle’s disagreement with the partisans of the second kind of explanation, those who believed that all fluid is homogeneous and is transformed by the inherent power in the parts of the body where the liquid is collected before being excreted.

44 I.e. in col. II, 22: « [ο]ἱ̣ δὲ νεώτεροι, τ̣[οῦ]τ᾽(ἔcτιν) οἱ Cτωικοί » Cfr. also col. II 30, (...)
45 In the third section, for example, the scribe’s disdain for the Stoics could have roots in the fact (...)
46 In this sense, there is a significant contrast in the use of the first person of the plural by the (...)
47 Col. II, 22-30: « [ο]ἱ̣ δὲ νεώτεροι, τ̣[οῦ]τ᾽(ἔcτιν) οἱ Cτωικοί,|κατὰ φύc[ι]ν̣ πάθ̣οc οὐ (...)

17The analysis of the state of affairs is at this juncture a bit complicated, but we shall strive to present it as clearly as possible. First, we depart from the single certain premise in the papyrus: in the first section of the Londiniensis papyrus the scribe equates a group that he terms ‘the Young Ones / the Moderns’ with the Stoics44. In the first section of the Anonymus Londiniensis the scribe disregards the Stoics. There seem to be several reasons for the contempt he shows for the Stoics45, but in the first section the main one appears to be that he does not seem really concerned with the Stoic classification of the affections, rather he gives the impression that such a question is an insignificant detail to be dispatched brusquely46, leaving the matter for the Stoics themselves47.

48 Col. I, 2: « τ(ῶν) ἀρχαίων »; cols. I, 25; II, 18-19, [36]. The first occurrence of such denomin (...)
49 Col. II, 18-19: « Αὕτη [μ](ὲν) ἡ τε[χ]νολογία [τ(ῶν)] ἀρχαίων (ἐcτίν),|οἷc καὶ ἡμεῖc (...)
50 CPF Stoici 3T, p. 790. This opposition often occurs in Galen. Jacques Jouanna (2012d), « Galen’s Re (...)

18On the other hand, the Stoics are placed in opposition to another group, ‘the Ancients’48, who, by contrast, deserve the scribe’s respect given that he states that he is following their methodology49. As a matter of fact, the antipathy between the Ancients and the Moderns is a kind of locus communis in the philosophical discussions from the 1^st century BC to the 2^nd century CE50. In the Anonymus Londiniensis the expression ‘the Ancients’ refers to an indeterminate group of authorities who are generally opposed to ‘the Young ones / the Moderns (ones)’ (i.e. the Stoics); but, who in fact are ‘the Ancients’ in the first section?

51 Diels (1893), p. 98: « Dicunt esse Peripatetici »; Antonio Ricciardetto (2016), L’Anonyme de Londre (...)
52 CPF Stoici 3T, p. 797. T. Dorandi sharpens his hypothesis and proposes that, rather than a way to c (...)
53 As to the post quem for the Anonymus Parisinus, it is comprised between 40 – 60 CE. Cfr. Manetti (1 (...)
54 Cfr. Anonymi medici : De morbis acutis et chroniis. Studies in Ancient Medicine, vol. XII, Leiden / (...)
55 Galen De fac. nat. II, 9 [II p. 140, 15-16 K.].
56 Galen De fac. nat. III, 10 [II p. 178, 12 K.].
57 Galen In Hipp. Nat. Hom. comment. Praef. 5 [XV p. 5, 11 – 12 K.] = [CMG V 9, 1 p. 5, 10 – 12 Mewald (...)

19It is believed that it is a term used to designate the Peripatetics51, yet whereas the scribe identifies unequivocally the ‘Young ones/Moderns’ with the Stoics, the equation of ‘the Ancients’ with Aristotle or the Peripatetics is in a narrow sense hypothetical because in the first section52 the scribe never reveals to whom he is referring by the appellation « [τ(ῶν)] ἀρχαίων ». In this way, for example, in the Anonymus Parisinus — the codex that has transmitted a medical work almost coeval to the Anonymus papyrus53 — by the expressions « οἱ ἀρχαῖοι », « οἱ παλαιοὶ », or « κατὰ τοὺ τέccαρα » is meant ‘according to the opinion of Erasistratus, Diocles, Praxagoras, and Hippocrates’54. In Galen the expressions « πολλοῖς ἄλλοις τῶν παλαιῶν »55 or « οἱ παλαιοὶ »56 are used to make reference in a quite indistinct way to ‘Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Praxagoras, and Diocles’, or to ‘Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Diocles, Praxagoras, and Philotimus’. Another significant expression used also by Galen but this time applied to ‘Empedocles, Parmenides, Melissus, Alcmaeon, and Heraclitus’ is « τῶν παλαιῶν φιλοσόφων »57. In this passage the works of these five ancient philosophers are confronted to Epicurus, the founder of another post-Socratic school.

58 Tiziano Dorandi (2016), « Elementi ‘diairetici’ nella sezione iniziale dell’Anonymus Londiniensis ( (...)
59 Τhe first attestation of the word φύσις in Greek literature occurs in the Odyssey X 304, and it is (...)
60 Beside medicine, rhetoric is deemed as the τέχνη for excellence. Fritz Steckerl (1945), « Plato, Hi (...)
61 Jacques Jouanna (1993), « La nascita dell’arte medica occidentale », in Mirko Dražen Grmek (ed.), S (...)
62 Likewise, the participants in Plato’s Sophist take the decision of applying the method based on the (...)
63 At Phdr. 271a 7 Plato claims that the body is πολυειδές. Such claim raises the question about what (...)
64 This topic has been addressed earlier in Phdr. 268ª-c apropos of the fake physician who knows about (...)
65 Werner Jaeger (1957), « Aristotle’s Use of Medicine as Model of Method in His Ethics », The Journal (...)
66 Galen In Hipp. Nat. Hom. comment. Praef. [XV p. 4, 7-5, 10 K.] = Praef. (4/6) [CMG V 9, 1 p. 4, 20- (...)
67 Fridolf Kudlien (1989), « Hippokrates-Rezeption im Hellenismus », in Gerhard Baader & Rolf Winau (e (...)
68 Hippocrates [I p. 294, 563 Li.]; [II p. XVI, XXXVII-XXXVIII Li.]; William Henry Samuel Jones (1984) (...)
69 Fritz Steckerl (1945), « Plato, Hippocrates, and the Menon Papyrus », Classical Philology 40 (3), p (...)
70 In particular with Airs, Waters, Places and Epidemics I-III. Cfr. Mario Vegetti (1995), La Medicina (...)

20Moreover, T. Dorandi has added that the expression « [τ(ῶν)] ἀρχαίων » could be also a reference to the Academics58. As regards this latter opinion, Dorandi brings up into discussion the parallelism between the method of division that Plato attributes to Hippocrates and the procedure that the author of the Londiniensis follows when, in the first section of the papyrus, he sets himself the task of classifying the different kinds of affections. The method described in Phaedrus 269c-272a is linked to a particular method which Phaedrus endorses as a necessary condition for scientific knowledge. The value of such method resides in the fact of its being applicable to the knowledge of any object (φύσις)59 whatsoever; and as far as the medical art60 is concerned, then also to the body. What does this method consist of? Many scholars have provided insight into this query looking for the cornerstones of Plato’s epistemology61. In short, it is agreed that the backbone of the procedure abides in the division or diaeresis (διαίρεσις)62. The task is basically bound to the decomposition of the body, to divide the body in its different εἴδη, this meaning “typologies” or “kinds”63. The method ascribed to Hippocrates is to do with the classification of the different constitution types in order to establish a coherent causal link between such constitutions and the kinds of food or remedies that suit each one the most64. The moot point in the passage is the verisimilitude in the description given by Phaedrus; that is to say, to clarify how far Plato’s mention of the method followed by Hippocrates is actually represented in the Hippocratic collection. From a skeptical position it has been objected, on the one hand, that none of the books in the Corpus Hippocraticum conveys the methodology assigned to Hippocrates at Phaedrus 270 c-d65. The reference to Galen is believed, on the other, to be an allusion to the book entitled The Nature of Man66. W. D. Smith and F. Kudlien have suggested that Plato’s reference to Hippocrates is possibly bound up with Regimen67. On this argument there are some who maintain, following É. Littré68, that in the Phaedrus one may see the traces of Ancient Medicine (especially ch. XX)69, or likewise, that the method praised by Plato presents points in common with other treatises in the Hippocratic collection70.

21Anyhow, the only firm statement that can currently be given is that in the first section two philosophical trends are mentioned and opposed: ‘the Young ones/the Moderns’ (expressly equated to the Stoics) and ‘the Ancients’, which is likely to be a collective noun for the Peripatetics.

71 Col. XXIX, 52, perhaps also in col. XXX, 17.
72 Antonio Ricciardetto (2016), L’Anonyme de Londres. P.Lit.Lond. 165, p. CVII.
73 Col. XXX, 16-19: « [Ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖ]|νο ῥητέον ὅτι ἐπὶ τοῦ πρώτ[ου ἐκκει]|μένου γίνονται οἱ (...)
74 For the fragments recollecting the simile of the sea and the sun assigned to the Stoics see SVF I f (...)

22The point in question now is whether ‘the Ancients’ in the first section of the Anonymus papyrus are the same as or constitute a group other than « τοῖc ἀρχαίοιc τ(ῶν) φιλοcόφων » (i.e. the ancient philosophers)71 in the third section. It is generally deemed that they are not, that there is no coincidence in this sense since constituting an almost identical denomination for two different groups72. The paradoxical and striking point in this respect is that according to the Anonymus Londiniensis the use of the simile based on the effect of the sun on the sea is an argument typically adduced by the majority of ancient philosophers, more concretely, those who affirmed (like Aristotle in his Meteorologica) that ingested fluid has a dual nature73; but, as a matter of fact, such simile is attested in several passages from the Stoics74, this being contradictory to the way the Stoics are termed in the papyrus (i.e. οἱ νεώτεροι, as opposite to ‘the Ancients’). In view of this, the expression ‘the ancient philosophers’ can barely be taken or understood as referring neither to the Peripatetics nor to the Stoics. Moreover, we have seen in the fragment from Aristotle’s Meteorologica above that Empedocles was ridiculed because, in presenting things in a metaphorical way, he could not make any effective contribution to the explanation of the phenomena. It has been demonstrated furthermore that the image in question is deeply rooted in Heraclitus’s philosophy. Thereby, unless we admit that the scribe made a mistake or simply disclosed categories in an inaccurate way, the analysis of the facts apparently heads towards the following provisional conclusions:

231) The reaffirmation that the collective termed « τοῖc ἀρχαίοιc τ(ῶν) φιλοcόφων » in col. XXIX, 52 (and perhaps also in col. XXX, 17) might not necessarily coincide with the so-called « [τ(ῶν)] ἀρχαίων » in col. II, 18.

242) Given that, apropos of the nature of urine, the scribe of the Anonymus papyrus does not align with the Ancients (to our mind, with Aristotle) nor with the others but suspends judgement and avoids siding with either; the scribe’s indetermination in this subject accounts anew for his “doctrinal independence”.

253) The expression « τοῖc ἀρχαίοιc τ(ῶν) φιλοcόφων » could be then a way to make reference to those who in contemporary terminology are called ‘pre-Socratic philosophers’, i.e. physicians in the original sense of the term, that is, those ancient authorities in whose theories medical practice, physics, and speculation were still indissolubly intermingled. More concretely, to sharpen our hypothesis a little, since the metaphor based on the sun and the sea is attributed indistinctly to both, the expression could refer either to Heraclitus or to Empedocles.

6. The Issue’s Further Fortune. Galen on the Formation of Urine

75 Galen De fac. nat. I 17 [II p. 70, 4-71, 16 K.].
76 Mirko Dražen Grmek (1997), Le chaudron de Médée. L’expérimentation sur le vivant dans l’Antiquité, (...)

26As has been pointed out, another possible answer to the origin and the formation of urine was provided by Galen a couple of generations after the writing in the Londiniensis. The physician of Pergamon treated in detail this subject in his work On the Natural Faculties. According to Galen, the separation of the blood from the urine takes place in the kidneys, and this is not by means of any filtering in the kidneys but by a proper faculty in the organism. Apart from Erasistratus and Asclepiades, Galen particularly criticises the opinion advanced by Lycos of Macedonia to whom urine was the superfluity of nutriment in the kidneys. Galen is manifestly reluctant to admit such a position75, and he argues that most of the liquid we ingest — prescinding from what is excreted with the dejections, the sweat, and the invisible transpiration (perspiration) — is expelled in the form of urine76. Leaving out of consideration the fact that Galen introduces the primordial role of the kidneys in the process, in considering his remarks and objections it looks as if Galen’s view concerning this particular question is closer to Aristotle and to the theory that in the Anonymus is ascribed to ‘the Ancients’.

77 Galen De fac. nat. I 13 [II p. 36, 11-37, 17 K.]. Mirko D. Grmek (1997), Le chaudron de Médée, p. 1 (...)

27In the same Galenic treatise77 we find the thorough narration of a vivisection in order to demonstrate the role played by the bladder and the ureters in the origin and formation of urine. The text is as follows:

« διελεῖν χρὴ τὸ πρὸ τῶν οὐρητήρων περιτόναιον, εἶτα βρόχοις αὐτοὺς ἐκλαβεῖν κἄπειτ᾽ ἐπιδήσαντας ἐᾶσαι τὸ ζῷον· οὐ γὰρ ἂν οὐρήσειεν ἔτι. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα λύειν μὲν τοὺς ἔξωθεν δεσμούς, δεικνύναι δὲ κενὴν μὲν τὴν κύστιν, μεστοὺς δ᾽ ἱκανῶς καὶ διατεταμένους τοὺς οὐρητῆρας καὶ κινδυνεύοντας ῥαγῆναι κἄπειτα τοὺς βρόχους αὐτῶν ἀφελόντας ἐναργῶς ὁρᾶν ἤδη πληρουμένην οὔρου τὴν κύστιν. ἐπὶ δὲ τούτῳ ‖ φανέντι, πρὶν οὐρῆσαι τὸ ζῷον, βρόχον αὐτοῦ περιβαλεῖν χρὴ τῷ αἰδοίῳ κἄπειτα θλίβειν πανταχόθεν τὴν κύστιν. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν οὐδὲν ἔτι διὰ τῶν οὐρητήρων ἐπανέλθοι [ποτὲ] πρὸς τοὺς νεφρούς. κἀν τούτῳ δῆλον γίγνεται τὸ μὴ μόνον ἐπὶ τεθνεῶτος ἀλλὰ καὶ περιόντος ἔτι τοῦ ζῴου κωλύεσθαι μεταλαμβάνειν αὖθις ἐκ τῆς κύστεως τοὺς οὐρητῆρας τὸ οὖρον. ἐπὶ τούτοις ὀφθεῖσιν ἐπιτρέπειν ἤδη τὸ ζῷον οὐρεῖν λύοντας αὐτοῦ τὸν ἐπὶ τῷ αἰδοίῳ βρόχον, εἶτ᾽ αὖθις ἐπιβαλεῖν μὲν θατέρῳ τῶν οὐρητήρων, ἐᾶσαι δὲ τὸν ἕτερον εἰς τὴν κύστιν συρρεῖν καί τινα διαλιπόντας χρόνον ἐπιδεικνύειν ἤδη, πῶς ὁ μὲν ἕτερος αὐτῶν ὁ δεδεμένος μεστὸς καὶ διατεταμένος κατὰ τὰ πρὸς τῶν νεφρῶν μέρη φαίνεται, ὁ δ' ἕτερος ὁ λελυμένος αὐτὸς μὲν χαλαρός ἐστι, πεπλήρωκε δ᾽ οὔρου τὴν κύστιν. εἶτ' αὖθις διατεμεῖν πρῶτον μὲν τὸν πλήρη καὶ δεῖξαι, πῶς ἐξακοντίζεται τὸ οὖρον ἐξ αὐτοῦ, καθάπερ ἐν ταῖς φλεβοτομίαις τὸ αἷμα ».

78 Galen (1952), On the Natural Faculties, Thomas Ethelbert Page, Edward Capps, William Henry Denham R (...)

« One has to divide the peritoneum in front of the ureters, then secure these with ligatures, and next, having bandaged up the animal, let him go (for he will not continue to urinate). After this one loosens the external bandages and shows the bladder empty and the ureters quite full and distended — in fact almost on the point of rupturing; on removing the ligature from them, one then plainly sees the bladder becoming filled with urine. When this has been made quite clear, then, before the animal urinates, one has to tie a ligature round his penis and then to squeeze the bladder all over; still nothing goes back through the ureters to the kidneys. Here, then, it becomes obvious that not only in a dead animal, but in which is still living, the ureters are prevented from receiving back the urine from the bladder. These observations having been made, now one loosens the ligature from the animal’s penis and allows him to urinate, then again ligatures one of the ureters and leaves the other to discharge into the bladder. Allowing, then, some time to elapse, one now demonstrates that the ureter which was ligatured is obviously full and distended on the side next to the kidneys, while the other one — that from which the ligature had been taken — is itself flaccid, but has filled the bladder with urine. Then, again, one must divide the full ureter, and demonstrate how the urine spurts out of it, like blood in the operation of venesection (…) »78.

7. Conclusions

28To sum up, we saw in the first place that structural analysis revealed surprising coincidences between a passage in Aristotle’s Meteorologica and the simile based on the sun and the sea in Anonymus papyrus cols. XXIX, 50-XXX, 40. Albeit we cannot be certain of a straightforward textual dependance between the Aristotelian text and the papyrus, the account in the Anonymus Londiniensis could well have been written under the influence of the Meteorologica.

79 Aristotle Somn. Vig. III 458a 21-25.

29The study also revealed that the same metaphor was used to explain two different but connected physiological processes, both involving digestion: while Aristotle used the metaphor of the sun and the sea to bolster his theory of the natural causation of sleep and waking79, it was utilised by the scribe of the Londiniensis to expound the opinion held by the majority of the “ancient philosophers” about the way they envisaged the nature of urine. Afterwards, we have shown how the matter was later handled by Galen.

80 Cfr. notes 25-28 above.

30Lastly, after having compared and contrasted some feasible referents to the expression ‘the Ancients’ in the first and third sections of Anonymus Londiniensis alongside its corresponding occurrences in Meteorologica and the On Sleep and Waking, we showed that the denomination « [τ(ῶν)] ἀρχαίων » in col. II, 18 could be a reference to the Peripatetics; and secondly, we proved that the expression « τοῖc ἀρχαίοιc τ(ῶν) φιλοcόφων » in the third section could be a way to designate a group other than the Peripatetics; the pre-Socratic philosophers in general, and for lexical and textual reasons80, to Heraclitus in particular.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Editions, Partial Editions, and Translations of the Anonymus Londiniensis

CPF Stoici 3T = (1992), « Stoici* », in Leo Samuele Olschki, Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini. Testi e lessico nei papiri di cultura greca e latina, Parte I Autori Noti vol. 1*** (Platonis Testimonia - Zeno Tarsensis), Firenze, L. S. Olschki, p. 786-796.

Diels, Hermann (1893), Anonymi Londinensis ex Aristotelis Iatriciis Menoniis et aliis medicis Eclogae, in Hermann Diels & Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borussicae (eds.), Supplementum Aristotelicum III. 1, Berlin, G. Reimer=http://galen.bbaw.de/epubl/online/wa_anon_lond.php (3. 2. 2017).

Jones, William Henry Samuel (1947), The Medical Writings of Anonymus Londinensis, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Reprinted anastatically (1968), Amsterdam, A. M. Hakkert, reedited (2011), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press= [Transl. Jones (1947)].

Manetti, Daniela (2011), Anonymus Londiniensis: De Medicina, Daniela Manetti (ed.), 2011, Berlin, Bibliotheca Teubneriana.

Ricciardetto, Antonio (2014), L’Anonyme de Londres. Édition et traduction d’un papyrus médical grec du Ier siècle, Liège, Presses Universitaires de Liège.

— (2016), L’Anonyme de Londres. P.Lit.Lond. 165, Brit. Lib. inv. 137. Un papyrus médical grec du Ier siècle après J.-C., Paris, Les Belles Lettres.

Editions and Translations of Classical Authors, Compilations of Ancient Sources and Papyri

Anonymi medici (1997), Anonymi medici: De morbis acutis et chroniis. Studies in Ancient Medicine vol. XII, Leiden New York, E. J. Brill, 1997 = [Garofalo (1997)].

Aristotle (1982), Meteorologica, Lucio Pepe (ed.), Napoli, Guida editori = [Pepe (1982)].

— (1952), Meteorologica, Thomas Ethelbert Page, Edward Capps, William Henry Denham Rouse, Levi Arnold Post & Eric Herbert Warmington (eds.), Cambridge (MA) / London Loeb Classical Library = [Transl. Lee (1952)].

— (1957), « On Respiration », in Thomas Ethelbert Page, Edward Capps, William Henry Denham Rouse, Levi Arnold Post & Eric Herbert Warmington (eds.), On the Soul. Parva Naturalia. On Breath, Cambridge (MA) / London, Loeb Classical Library, p. 430-481.

— (1957), « On Sense and Sensible Objects », in Thomas Ethelbert Page, Edward Capps, William Henry Denham Rouse, Levi Arnold Post & Eric Herbert Warmington (eds.), On the Soul. Parva Naturalia. On Breath, Cambridge (MA) / London, Loeb Classical Library, p. 214-283.

— (1957), « On Sleep and Waking », in Thomas Ethelbert Page, Edward Capps, William Henry Denham Rouse, Levi Arnold Post & Eric Herbert Warmington (eds.), On the Soul. Parva Naturalia. On Breath, Cambridge (MA) / London, Loeb Classical Library, p. 318-345.

— (1961), Parts of Animals, in Thomas Ethelbert Page, Edward Capps, William Henry Denham Rouse, Levi Arnold Post & Eric Herbert Warmington (eds.), 1937, Parts of Animals. Movement of Animals. Progression of Animals Cambridge (MA) / London, Loeb Classical Library, p. 52-434.

Diels, Hermann (1951), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker: griechisch und deutsch vol. I, Walther Kranz (ed.), 1903, Berlin, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung = [Diels (1951)].

Diogenes Laertius (1999), Vitae philosophorum (libri I-IX) vol. I, Miroslav Marcovich (ed.), Stuttgart / Leipzig, Bibliotheca Teubneriana = [Marcovich (1999)].

Galen (1821), « Quod optimus medicus sit quoque philosophus », in Carl Gottlob Kühn (ed.), Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia vol. I, Leipzig, Carl Cnobloch, p. 53-63.

— (1821), « De facultatibus naturalibus (libri I-III) », in Carl Gottlob Kühn (ed.), Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia vol. II, Leipzig, Carl Cnobloch, p. 1-214.

— (1823), « De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis (libri I-IX) », in Carl Gottlob Kühn (ed.), Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia vol. V, Leipzig, Carl Cnobloch, p. 181-805.

— (1823), « De alimentorum facultatibus », in Carl Gottlob Kühn (ed.), Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia vol. VI, Leipzig, Carl Cnobloch, p. 453-748.

— (1828), « In Hippocratis de natura hominis commentarii (libri I-II) », in Carl Gottlob Kühn (ed.), Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia vol. XV, Leipzig, Carl Cnobloch, p. 1-173.

— (1828), « In Hippocratis librum de acutorum victu commentarii (libri I-IV) », in Carl Gottlob Kühn (ed.), Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia vol. XV, Leipzig, Carl Cnobloch, p. 418-919.

— (1914), « Galeni In Hippocratis De natura hominis commentaria (libri III) », in Johannes Mewaldt (ed.), 1828, Corpus Medicorum Graecorum vol. V 9, 1, Academia Berolinensis Havniensis Lipsiensis, Bibliotheca Teubneriana, p. 1-113 = [CMG V 9, 1 Mewaldt] = http://cmg.bbaw.de/epubl/online/cmg_05_09_01.php?p=51 (22. 3. 2017).

— (1952), On the Natural Faculties, Thomas Ethelbert Page, Edward Capps, William Henry Denham Rouse, Levi Arnold Post & Eric Herbert Warmington (eds.), 1916, Cambridge (MA) / London, Loeb Classical Library [Transl. Brock (1952)].

Grensemann, Hermann (1975), Knidische Medizin. Teil I: Die Testimonien zur ältesten knidischen Lehre und Analysen knidischer Schriften im Corpus Hippocraticum, Berlin / New York, Walter de Gruyter.

Hippocrates (1840), « Des airs, des eaux et des lieux », in Émile Littré (éd.), Œuvres complètes d’Hippocrate vol. II, Paris / London, J. B. Baillière, p. 12-93.

— (1840), « Du régime dans les maladies aiguës », in Émile Littré (éd.), 1840, Œuvres complètes d’Hippocrate vol. II, Paris / London, J. B. Baillière, p. 225-377.

— (1849), « Du régime salutaire », in Émile Littré (éd.), Œuvres complètes d’Hippocrate vol. VI, Paris / London, J. B. Baillière, p. 72-87.

— (1953), « Regimen I », in Thomas Ethelbert Page, Edward Capps, William Henry Denham Rouse, Levi Arnold Post & Eric Herbert Warmington (eds.), 1931, Hippocrates vol. IV, Cambridge (MA) / London, Loeb Classical Library, p. 223-295 = [Transl. Jones (1953)].

Plato (1960), « Phaedrus », in Thomas Ethelbert Page, Edward Capps, William Henry Denham Rouse, Levi Arnold Post & Eric Herbert Warmington (eds.), 1914, Plato with an English Translation vol. I: Euthyphro. Apology. Crito. Phaedo. Phaedrus, Cambridge (MA) / London, Loeb Classical Library, p. 412-579.

— (1961), « Timaeus », in Thomas Ethelbert Page, Edward Capps, William Henry Denham Rouse, Levi Arnold Post & Eric Herbert Warmington (eds.), 1929, Plato with an English Translation vol. VII: Timaeus. Critias. Cleitophon. Menexenus. Epistles, Cambridge (MA) / London, Loeb Classical Library, p. 16-253.

Plutarch (1955), Moralia vol. V, 3, Curt Ernst Hermann Hubert & Max Pohlenz (eds.), Leipzig, Bibliotheca Teubneriana = [Pohlenz (1955)].

— (1957), Plutarch’s Moralia in Fifteen Volumes vol. XII (920a-999b), in T. E. Page (eds.), Cambridge (MA) / London, Loeb Classical Library = [Transl. Cherniss - Helmbold (1957)].

SVF I = (1964), Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta vol. I: Zeno et Zenonis discipuli, collected by Iohannes von Arnim, 1905, Stuttgart, Bibliotheca Teubneriana = [von Arnim (1964a)].

SVF II = (1964), Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta vol. II: Chrysippi Fragmenta. Logica et Physica, collected by Iohannes von Arnim, 1903, Stuttgart, Bibliotheca Teubneriana = [von Arnim (1964b)].

Studies, Monographs, Articles, Papers, and Notes

Bastianini, Guido (1995), « Tipologie dei rotoli e problemi di ricostruzione », Papyrologica Lupiensia 4 (Atti del V seminario internazionale di papirologia. Lecce 27-29 Giugno 1994), p. 21-42.

Cavallo, Guglielmo (2008), La scrittura greca e latina dei papiri, Pisa / Roma, Fabrizio Serra.

Crespo Saumell, Jordi (2017a), « New Lights on the Anonymus Londiniensis Papyrus », Journal of Ancient Philosophy 11 (2), p. 120-150.

— (2017b), « Plato, the Medicine, and the Paraphrase on the Timaeus in the Anonymus Londiniensis Papyrus », Rhizomata 5 (2), p. 148-176.

Debru, Armelle (1996), Le corps respirant. La pensée physiologique chez Galien, Leiden / New York / Köln, E. J. Brill.

Del Corso, Lucio (2008), Oltre la scrittura. Variazioni sul tema per Guglielmo Cavallo, Paris, Centre d’études byzantines, néo-helléniques et sud-est européennes (E.H.E.S.S.).

Dorandi, Tiziano (2016), « Elementi ‘diairetici’ nella sezione iniziale dell’Anonymus Londiniensis (P.Br.Libr. inv. 137 I-IV 17) », Papyrologica Florentina (E sì d’amici pieno. Omaggio di studiosi italiani a Guido Bastianini per il suo settantesimo compleanno) 45 (1), p. 199-205.

Grmek, Mirko Dražen (1997), Le chaudron de Médée. L’expérimentation sur le vivant dans l’Antiquité, Le Plessis-Robinson, Institut Synthélabo pour le progrès de la connaissance.

Harrauer, Hermann (2010), Handbuch der griechischen Paläographie. Textband, Stuttgart, A. Hiersemann.

Jaeger, Werner (1957), « Aristotle’s Use of Medicine as Model of Method in His Ethics », The Journal of Hellenic Studies 77 (1), p. 54-61.

Jones, William Henry Samuel (1984), « General Introduction », in George Patrick Goold (ed.), Hippocrates vol. I: Ancient Medicine. Airs, Waters, Places. Epidemics 1 and 3. The Oath. Precepts. Nutriment, Cambridge (MA) / London, Loeb Classical Library, p. IX-LXIX.

Jouanna, Jacques (1977), « La collection Hippocratique et Platon (Phèdre 269c –272a) », Revue des Études Grecques 90, p. 15-28.

— (1992), Hippocrate, Paris, Arthème Fayard.

— (1993), « La nascita dell’arte medica occidentale », in Mirko Dražen Grmek (ed.), Storia del pensiero medico occidentale 1. Antichità e medioevo, Roma / Bari, Gius. Laterza & Figli Spa, p. 3-72.

— (2012a), « Egyptian Medicine and Greek Medicine », in Philip Jan Van der Eijk (ed.), Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen. Selected Papers, Leiden / Boston, Brill, p. 3-20.

— (2012b), « Air, Miasma and Contagion in the Time of Hippocrates and the Survival of Miasmas in Post-Hippocratic Medicine (Rufus of Ephesus, Galen and Palladius) », in Philip Jan Van der Eijk (ed.), Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen. Selected Papers, Leiden / Boston, Brill, p. 121-136.

— (2012c), « The Theory of Sensation, Thought and the Soul in the Hippocratic Treatise Regimen: its Connections with Empedocles and Plato’s Timaeus », in Philip Jan Van der Eijk (ed.), Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen. Selected Papers, Leiden / Boston, Brill, p. 195-227.

— (2012d), « Galen’s Reading of Hippocratic Ethics », in Philip Jan Van der Eijk (ed.), Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen. Selected Papers, Leiden / Boston, Brill, p. 261-285.

— (2012e), « Galen’s Reading of the Hippocratic Treatise The Nature of Man: The Foundation of Hippocratism in Galen », in Philip Jan Van der Eijk (ed.), Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen. Selected Papers, Leiden / Boston, Brill, p. 313-333.

— (2016), Mais qui est donc l’auteur de l’Anonyme de Londres ?, paper read and handed out during the « DIGMEDTEXT. Final Conference on Greek Medical Papyri. Text, Context, Hypertext » held at the Università degli Studi di Parma, Parma 2-4. 11. 2016, p. 1-11.

Kirk Geoffrey Stephen & Raven, John Earle (1957), The PreSocratic Philosophers. A Critical History with a Selection of Texts, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Kranz, Walther (1944), « Platon über Hippokrates », Philologus 96, p. 193-200.

Kudlien, Fridolf (1989), « Hippokrates-Rezeption im Hellenismus », in Gerhard Baader & Rolf Winau (eds.), Die Hippokratischen Epidemien. Theorie – Praxis – Tradition. Verhandlungen des V^e Colloque International Hippocratique 10-15. 9. 1984, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, p. 355-376.

Lloyd, Geoffrey Ernst Richard (2000), « Filosofía y medicina en la antigua Grecia: modelos de conocimiento y sus repercusiones », Asclepio. Revista de Historia de la Medicina y de la Ciencia 52 (1), p. 111-125.

López Eire, Antonio (1996), « À propos des substantifs en -σις dans le Corpus Hippocraticum », in Renate Wittern & Pierre Pellegrin (eds.), Medizin der Antike. Hippokratische Medizin und antike Philosophie. Verhandlungen des VIII. International Hippokrates-Kolloquiums in Kloster Banz/Staffelstein vom 23. bis 28. September 1993 vol. I, Hildesheim / Zürich / New York, Olms Weidmann, p. 385-394.

Manetti, Daniela (1994), « Autografi e incompiuti : il caso dell’Anonimo Londinese P. Lit. Lond. 165 », Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100, p. 47-58.

— (1996), « Ὡς δ`αὐτὸς Ἱπποκράτης λέγει. Teoria causale e ippocratismo nell’Anonimo Londinese (VI 43ss.) », in Renate Wittern & Pierre Pellegrin (eds.), Medizin der Antike. Hippokratische Medizin und antike Philosophie. Verhandlungen des VIII. International Hippokrates-Kolloquiums in Kloster Banz/Staffelstein vom 23. bis 28. September 1993 vol. I, Hildesheim / Zürich / New York, Olms Weidmann, p. 295-310.

— (1999), « Aristotle and the Role of Doxography in the Anonymus Londinensis (PBrLibr inv.137) », in Ph. J. Van der Eijk (ed.), Ancient Histories of Medicine. Essays in Medical Doxography and Historiography in Classical Antiquity, Leiden / Boston / Köln, Brill, p. 95-143.

— (2003), « Il ruolo di Asclepiade di Bitinia nell’Anonimo Londinese », in Antonio Garzya & Jacques Jouanna (éds.), Transmission et ecdotique des textes médicaux grecs. Actes du IV^eColloque International (Paris, 17-19 mai 2001), Napoli, M. D’Auria, p. 335-347.

— (2016), « La sezione sulle definizioni dell’Anonimo Londinese (P.Br.Libr. inv. 137) », Papyrologica Florentina (E sì d’amici pieno. Omaggio di studiosi italiani a Guido Bastianini per il suo settantesimo compleanno) 45 (1), p. 525-531.

Nutton, Vivian (1990), « The Patient’s Choice: A New Treatise by Galen », The Classical Quarterly 40 (1), p. 236-257.

— (1996), « s.v. Anonymus Londinensis », in Hubert Cancik & Helmuth Schneider (eds.), 1996, Der Neue Pauly vol. I, Stuttgart / Weimar, J. B. Metzler, p. 718-719.

— (2004), Ancient Medicine, London / New York, Routledge.

Prince, Brian (2014), « The Metaphysics of Bodily Health and Disease in Plato’s Timaeus », British Journal for the History of Philosophy 22 (5), p. 908-928.

Ricciardetto, Antonio (2012), « La lettre de Marc Antoine écrite au verso de l’Anonyme de Londres (P. Lit. Lond. 165, Brit. Libr. inv. 137 = MP³ 2339) », Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 58, p. 43-60.

Schuhl, Pierre Maxime (1960), « Platon et la médecine », Revue des Études Grecques 73, p. 73-79.

Sedley, David (2017), « Philosophical Authority in the Ancient World » paper read and handed out during the international conference Allegiance, System, and Use of Texts. On auctoritas of the Master and Dealing with Authoritative Texts in Platonism and Epicureanism in the Hellenistic and Imperial Age held at the University of Würzburg, Würzburg 16-18. 2. 2017, p. 1-12.

Steckerl, Fritz (1945), « Plato, Hippocrates, and the Menon Papyrus », Classical Philology 40 (3), p. 166-180.

Tacchini, Isabella (1996), « Pepsis: ricerche intorno all’utilizzazione di un modello esplicativo », in Mario Vegetti & Silvia Gastaldi (eds.), Studi di Storia della Medicina antica e medievale in memoria di Paola Manuli, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, p. 88-100.

Van der Eijk, Philip Jan (1999), « The Anonymus Parisinus and the Doctrines of “the Ancients” », in Philip Jan Van der Eijk (ed.), Ancient Histories of Medicine. Essays in Medical Doxography and Historiography in Classical Antiquity, Leiden / Boston / Köln Brill, p. 295-331.

— (2005), « The Heart, the Brain, the Blood and the Pneuma: Hippocrates, Diocles and Aristotle on the Location of Cognitive Processes », in Philip Jan Van der Eijk (ed.), Medicine and Philosophy in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 119-136.

Vegetti, Mario (1995), La Medicina in Platone, Venezia, Il Cardo.

Wiesner, Jürgen (1978), « The Unity of the Treatise De Somno and the Physiological Explanation of Sleep in Aristotle », in Geoffrey Ernest Richard Lloyd & Gwilym Ellis Lane Owen (eds.), Aristotle on Mind and the Senses. Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium Aristotelicum, Cambridge / New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 241-280.

Haut de page

Notes

1 P. Brit. Lond. inv. 137 = MP³ 2339 or LDAB 3964.

2 Daniela Manetti (1994), « Autografi e incompiuti : il caso dell’Anonimo Londinese P. Lit. Lond. 165 », Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100, p. 57. From a paleographical point of view, the way the scribe of Anon. Lond. writes the letter alpha tallies with the typology 16α for documentary papyri. Cfr. Hermann Harrauer (2010), Handbuch der griechischen Paläographie. Textband, Stuttgart, A. Hiersemann, p. 146. Albeit this sole hint does not unmistakably mean that the Londiniensis papyrus was written at some point in the third quarter of the first century CE, this chronology has been confirmed by way of other comparative arguments. Tiziano Dorandi (2016), « Elementi ‘diairetici’ nella sezione iniziale dell’Anonymus Londiniensis (P.Br.Libr. inv. 137 I-IV 17) », Papyrologica Florentina (E sì d’amici pieno. Omaggio di studiosi italiani a Guido Bastianini per il suo settantesimo compleanno) 45 (1), p. 199. It has been adduced that the “main hand” on the recto of Anon. Lond. shares many points in common either with the first (m¹) or the fourth hand (m⁴) distinguished in P. Lit. Lond. 108, Brit.Lib. inv. 131^v = MP³163 or LDAB 391, that is to say, the papyrus of the later first / earlier second century CE which transmits Aristotle’s Ἀθηναίων πολιτεία. Cfr. Daniela Manetti (1994), « Autografi e incompiuti : il caso dell’Anonimo Londinese », p. 48; Guido Bastianini (1995), « Tipologie dei rotoli e problemi di ricostruzione », Papyrologica Lupiensia 4 (Atti del V seminario internazionale di papirologia. Lecce 27-29 Giugno 1994), p. 32-33; Guglielmo Cavallo (2008), La scrittura greca e latina dei papiri, Pisa / Roma, Fabrizio Serra, p. 57-58; Lucio Del Corso (2008), Oltre la scrittura. Variazioni sul tema per Guglielmo Cavallo, Paris, Centre d’études byzantines, néo-helléniques et sud-est européennes (E.H.E.S.S.).p. 17; Antonio Ricciardetto (2016), L’Anonyme de Londres. P.Lit.Lond. 165, Brit. Lib. inv. 137. Un papyrus médical grec du I^er siècle après J.-C., Paris, Les Belles Lettres, p. CXXVIII.

3 The editio princeps by H. Diels in 1893 would be eventually used by H. Beckh and F. Spät and W. H. S. Jones in their respective translations into German (1896) and into English (1947). In 2011, D. Manetti published a new edition of the papyrus without translation; and in 2014 and 2016 two new editions of the Londiniensis came to light by A. Ricciardetto, both accompanied with a French translation.

4 Vivian Nutton (1996), « s.v. Anonymus Londinensis », in Hubert Cancik & Helmuth Schneider (eds.), Der Neue Pauly vol. I, Stuttgart / Weimar, J. B. Metzler, p. 718-719; CPF Aristoteles 37T, p. 347. For a detailed review of these three sections see Antonio Ricciardetto (2016), L’Anonyme de Londres. P.Lit.Lond. 165, p. LI-CXIV.

5 Cols. I, 1-IV, 17. Antonio Ricciardetto (2016), L’Anonyme de Londres. P.Lit.Lond. 165, p. LI-LVIII. The first four columns have been studied separately by D. Manetti, who has also given a translation into Italian. Cfr. Daniela Manetti (2016), « La sezione sulle definizioni dell’Anonimo Londinese », p. 525-527; see also Tiziano Dorandi (2016), « Elementi ‘diairetici’ nella sezione iniziale dell’Anonymus Londiniensis », p. 199-205.

6 Cols. IV, 18-XXI, 8? Cfr. Antonio Ricciardetto (2016), L’Anonyme de Londres. P.Lit.Lond. 165, p. LVIII-XCVIII.

7 Cfr. Antonio Ricciardetto (2016), L’Anonyme de Londres. P.Lit.Lond. 165, p. LIX.

8 Abas?, Alcamenes of Abidos, Heracleodorus?, Niny? the Egyptian, Timotheus of Metapontum, Thrasymachus of Sardis, and Phasitas of Tenedos. Cfr. cols. VIII, 35-IX, 4; VII, 40-VIII, 10; IX, 5-19; IX, 37-X, ?; VIII, 11-34; XI, 42-XII, 8; XII, 36-XIII, 9 respectively.

9 Cols. IV, 20-XIV, 11.

10 Cols. XIV, 12-XVIII, 8.

11 Cols. XIV, 12-XXI, 8?

12 Cols. XXI, 18-XXXIX, 32. Cfr. Antonio Ricciardetto (2016), L’Anonyme de Londres. P.Lit.Lond. 165, p. XCVIII-CXIV. In the last section of the Anon. Lond., the body and its functions are studied by means of a juxtaposition of Herophilus’s, Erasistratus’s, Asclepiades’, and Alexander Philalethes’ views. Cfr. Nutton (1990), « The Patient’s choice : a New Treatise by Galen », The Classical Quartely 40 (1), p. 247.

13 The first addition is a supplement to ll. 46 – 47 in col. XXV and was written behind cols. XXIII-XXΙV. The second addition supplements ll. 19-21 in col. XXIV and was written behind cols. XXII-XXΙII. Cfr. Antonio Ricciardetto (2016), L’Anonyme de Londres. P.Lit.Lond. 165, p. 185-186. The second major addition can be found in the translation into German but not in the English translation. Both additions were written on the same κόλλημα where the medical prescription was penned. Antonio Ricciardetto (2016), L’Anonyme de Londres, p. CXIX n. 388. In his former edition of the Anonymus, and in a way coinciding with Manetti’s previous readings, A. Ricciardetto deciphered the last words in both additions as « τούτου ἐχό(μενα) » and « τ̣[…]χ̣εχθε̣ιc() » respectively. Cfr. Daniela Manetti (2011), Anonymus Londiniensis: De Medicina, Daniela Manetti (ed.), Berlin, Bibliotheca Teubneriana, p. 95-96; Antonio Ricciardetto (2014), L’Anonyme de Londres. Édition et traduction d’un papyrus médical grec du Ier siècle, Liège, Presses Universitaires de Liège, p. 38. On the 3^rdDecember 2015, A. Ricciardetto told me with enthusiasm about the new readings he found during his last autopsical exam of the papyrus in London. He could get make a much better decipherment of the last word in the second addition; thus, he could make π̣[ροcε]ν̣εχθε̣ῖ̣c̣(α) from the initial τ̣[…]χ̣εχθε̣ιc() which unmistakably led him to reveal that the scribe had given a clear deictic, referential, or ostensive meaning to the word προcενεχ̣θ̣εῖcα in col. XXIV, 20. Antonio Ricciardetto (2016), L’Anonyme de Londres. P.Lit.Lond. 165, p. 66. This new reading casted much more light upon the addition, for now the sentence took on the following sense: ‘See inside (scil. of the papyrus) “προcενεχ̣θ̣εῖcα” ’. After his realization Ricciardetto thought that perhaps the same operation could be applied to the first addition, and it was in this way that, analogously, he changed the original τούτου ἐχό(μενα) for a more accurate τούτ(ων) ο(ὕτωϲ) ἐχό(ντων) which was an unmistakable reference to Τού]|των οὕτωc ἐχόντ(ων) in col. XXV, 46-47. Ricciardetto (2016), L’Anonyme de Londres. P.Lit.Lond. 165, p. 65.

14 Since in the Londiniensis their names are sometimes clearly stated (e.g. Erasistratus, Herophilus, Alexander Philalethes etc.) but on other occasions these remain anonymous because only a generic denomination is given (e.g. the Empirics, the Ancients, the Stoics, etc.).

15 Αs opposite to οἱ νεώτεροι (i.e. the Stoics). Cfr. Diels (1893), Anonymi Londinensis ex Aristotelis Iatriciis Menoniis et aliis medicis Eclogae, in Hermann Diels & Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borussicae (eds.), Supplementum Aristotelicum III. 1, Berlin, G. Reimer, p. 114.

16 The Greek text reproduces the edition of the Anon. Lond. by A. Ricciardetto in Antonio Ricciardetto (2016), L’Anonyme de Londres. P.Lit.Lond. 165, p. 42-43. Col. XXX, 15-24 was edited, translated into Italian, and commented on by D. Manetti in CPF Stoici 3T, p. 796-797.

17 The translation (slightly modified) relies on William H. S. Jones (1947), The Medical Writings of Anonymus Londinensis, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Reprinted anastatically (1968), Amsterdam, A. M. Hakkert, reedited (2011), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press = [Transl. Jones (1947)], p. 115-117.

18 Aristotle Mete. II 3, 357a 24-b 9. This fragment is collected in DK Empedocles 31[21]B 55 [Diels (1951), p. 332]. Τhe separation of the heavy from the light by virtue of the forces governing the cosmos could perfectly have been a tenet addressed by Empedocles. For instance, at On the Face Which Appears in the Orb of the Moon XII, 926e 1-11 [Pohlenz (1955), p. 46] Plutarch wrote: (« So look out and reflect, good sir, lest in rearranging and removing each thing to its ‘natural’ location you contrive a dissolution of the cosmos and bring upon things the ‘Strife’ of Empedocles — or rather lest you arouse against nature the ancient Titans and Giants and long to look upon that legendary and dreadful disorder and discord <when you have separated> all that is heavy and <all> that is light: The sun’s bright aspect is not there descried, No, nor the shaggy might of earth, nor sea as Empedocles says. »). Transl. Cherniss - Helmbold (1957), p. 83.

19 Aristotle, Meteorologica, Thomas Ethelbert Page, Edward Capps, William Henry Denham Rouse, Levi Arnold Post & Eric Herbert Warmington (eds.) (1952), Cambridge (MA) / London Loeb Classical Library = [Transl. Lee (1952)], p. 149.

20 Cfr. e.g. Aristotle Sens. IV 441b 1-8; Resp. XXI 480b 5-6 respectively.

21 I ought my gratitude to the reviewers of Methodos, since it was in the light of some of their remarks that I came to realise that I had misunderstood the fragment extracted from Aristotle’s Meteorologica.

22 The scribe of the Londiniensis papyrus neither assents nor shares the opinion of those who bring up such poetical argument to the explanation.

23 Apart from the cited passage above, Aristotle notes elsewhere that Empedocles expressed himself in verses. Aristotle Mete. II 1, 353b 12-14. At Mete. II 3, 357a 5-9 Aristotle states that those who, like Empedocles, maintain that the sea is what remains of humidity on the earth do not take account of the original cause for the salty of the sea.

24 Aristotle Sens. IV 442a 5-8.

25 Aristotle Somn. Vig. III 457b 30-458a 6. I. Tacchini is of the opinion that the image could have been borrowed from Hippocrates Aer. VIII [II p. 32, 19-34, 10 Li.]. Cfr. Isabella Tacchini (1996), « Pepsis: ricerche intorno all’utilizzazione di un modello esplicativo », in Mario Vegetti & Silvia Gastaldi (eds.), Studi di Storia della Medicina antica e medievale in memoria di Paola Manuli, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, p. 94. The fact remains that the term ἀναθυμίασις is unattested in the Corpus Hippocraticum, and we should add that ἀναθυμίασις is deemed to be an Aristotelian term. Cfr. Armelle Debru (1996), Le corps respirant. La pensée physiologique chez Galien, Leiden / New York / Köln, E. J. Brill, p. 189; Jacques Jouanna (2012b), « Air, Miasma and Contagion in the Time of Hippocrates and the Survival of Miasmas in Post-Hippocratic Medicine (Rufus of Ephesus, Galen and Palladius) », in Philip Jan Van der Eijk (ed.), Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen. Selected Papers, Leiden / Boston, Brill, p. 132. What is undeniable is that the same image is taken in Aristotle PA II 7, 652b 33-653a 22. Cfr. JürgenWiesner (1978), « The Unity of the Treatise De Somno and the Physiological Explanation of Sleep in Aristotle », in Geoffrey Ernest Richard Lloyd & Gwilym Ellis Lane Owen (eds.), Aristotle on Mind and the Senses. Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium Aristotelicum, Cambridge / New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 260.

26 Col. VI, 32. This notion (and kindred ones) is used in Aristotle Somn. Vig. III 456b 4, 19, 20, 34; 457a 26, 29; 457b 14, 458a 3, 7, 10. The term ἀναθυμίασις occurs only in books posterior to Meteorologica I-III (it should be remembered that Meteorologica IV could have preceded Meteorologica I-III). Lucio Pepe (ed) (1982), Aristotle, Meteorologica, Napoli, Guida editori, p. 161, 168 n. 46. The stem of the substantive ἀναθυμίασις is -θυμ, which is in turn related to the Latin fumus. The concept ἀναθυμίασις is a good example of the way the ancient Greek formed abstract nouns by adding the suffix -σις. The Greek action nouns in -σις are of two kinds: nouns of object or instrument, and nouns of action. While those of the first type are concrete nouns, those of the second type are said to be abstract nouns which correspond to hidden but active forces. Apart from the names built on the addition of the suffix -μα, the addition of -σις is the main procedure used in Ionian Greek to give account of an abstract action or the result (materialization) of an abstract action. As regards the first possibility, ἀναθυμίασις could take the meaning of “action of going upwards of a substance by taking a smoky appearance (i.e. evaporation)”, whereas if we consider the second possibility, ἀναθυμίασις — by way of a metonymic shift — would rather take on the meaning of “object into which the action of going upwards by taking a smoky appearance is materialised (i.e. vapor)”. In contrast to those in -μα (with a much more resultative value), the nouns in -σις are always closer to the sense of development of the verbal action, what confers a progressive and continuous nuance to the substantive. Cfr. Antonio López Eire (1996), « À propos des substantifs en -σις dans le Corpus Hippocraticum », in Renate Wittern & Pierre Pellegrin (eds.), Medizin der Antike. Hippokratische Medizin und antike Philosophie. Verhandlungen des VIII. International Hippokrates-Kolloquiums in Kloster Banz/Staffelstein vom 23. bis 28. September 1993 vol. I, Hildesheim / Zürich / New York, Olms Weidmann, p. 385, 387-389; Jacques Jouanna (2012c), « The Theory of Sensation, Thought and the Soul in the Hippocratic Treatise Regimen: its Connections with Empedocles and Plato’s Timaeus », in Philip Jan Van der Eijk (ed.), Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen. Selected Papers, Leiden / Boston, Brill, p. 226.

27 At Mete. I 4, 341b 7-13 Aristotle expounds that there are two main kinds of exhalation, one vapour-like and another more air-like. What interests us here is that according to the details recounted by Aristotle at Mete. IV 9, 387a 22-387b 14, the translation of ἀναθυμίασις as ‘evaporation’ could be inaccurate. To Aristotle only those bodies which contain humidity can emit exhalations, and when they are acted upon by heat or fire it happens that humidity is not evaporated separately from the body itself, rather it seems that Aristotle believes that a change of physical state takes place; so that Aristotle makes a distinction between evaporation and exhalation.

28 DK Heraclitus 22[12]A 1[Diels (1951), p. 141, 29-30], 22[12]A 11[Diels (1951), p. 146, 25-26]; Diogenes Laertius Vitae philosophorum IX 9-10 [Marcovich (1999), p. 637, 22-638, 12]; Geoffrey Kirk & John Earle Raven (1957), The PreSocratic Philosophers. A Critical History with a Selection of Texts, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 202 fr. 227. At Sens. V 443a 22-23 Aristotle recollects a purported Heraclitean saying in which the term ἀναθυμίασις is linked to the Ephesian philosopher. Hippocrates Vict. I 4, 5 [VI pp. 474, 8-478, 6 Li.] are chapters undeniably imbued with Heraclitean thought. It is plain, in addition, that chaps. XV, XXIV, XLV of the Hippocratic treatise titled On Nutriment were also written under the influence of Heraclitus’s philosophy. Cfr. Jones (1984), p. XXIV-XXVI. As a matter of fact, and ever since Galen, the treatise On Nutriment has been considered spurious. Cfr. Galen De alim. facul. I 1 [VI p. 473, 1-17 K.]; In Hipp. Acut. comment. I 17 [XV p. 455, 12-456, 4 K.]. Grensemann (1975), p. 7-8 ffr. 6a, 6b. However, it must be borne in mind that the word ἀναθυμίασις is only attested from Aristotle onwards. Jacques Jouanna (2012a), « Egyptian Medicine and Greek Medicine », p. 132 n. 21.

29 Cfr. also Aristotle PA II 7, 652b 35-653a 8. Hippocrates Vict. I 10 [VI p. 484, 17-19 Li.]: « κατὰ τρόπον αὐτὸ ἑωυτῷ τὰ ἐν τῷ σώματι τὸ πῦρ, ἀπομίμησιν τοῦ ὅλου, μικρὰ πρὸς μεγάλα καὶ μεγάλα πρὸς μικρά· », (« In a word, all things were arranged in the body, in a fashion conformable to itself, by fire, a copy of the whole, the small after the manner of the great and the great after the manner of the small »). Transl. Jones (1953), p. 247. Cfr. Jacques Jouanna (1993), « La nascita dell’arte medica occidentale », in Mirko Dražen Grmek (ed.), Storia del pensiero medico occidentale 1. Antichità e medioevo, Roma / Bari, Gius. Laterza & Figli Spa, p. 40-41; Jouanna (2012c), « The Theory of Sensation, Thought and the Soul in the Hippocratic Treatise Regimen: its Connections with Empedocles and Plato’s Timaeus », in Philip Jan Van der Eijk (ed.), Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen. Selected Papers, Leiden / Boston, Brill, p. 196, 204. Τhe Hippocratic sentence reflects Plato’s claim at Ti. 88c 5-d 1 as regards the benefits of gymnastic: « τὸ τοῦ παντὸς ἀπομιμούμενον ».

30 For further implications of this point cfr. § 5.

31 Col. XXX, 19-20: « τῶι ἄναμ]|μα νοερὸν ».Diels (1893), p. 83: « Stoice sol ». Cfr. DK Heraclitus 22[12] 12 [Diels (1951), p. 146, 27-28].

32 Armelle Debru (1996), Le corps respirant, p. 189 n. 46; Philip Jan Van der Eijk (2005), « The Heart, the Brain, the Blood and the Pneuma: Hippocrates, Diocles and Aristotle on the Location of Cognitive Processes », in Philip Jan Van der Eijk (ed.), Medicine and Philosophy in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 142.

33 Constituting a kind of common place in the medical literature of the Imperial period, medical authors often centered on the means by which the residues of the ingested food were excreted, once this had been duly transformed and profited in the body. Ricciardetto (2012), « La lettre de Marc Antoine écrite au verso de l’Anonyme de Londres (P. Lit. Lond. 165, Brit. Libr. inv. 137 = MP³ 2339) », Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 58, p. 59.

34 Col. XXIX, 51-52: « διάcταcιc γεγένηται|[π]αρὰ τοῖc ἀρχαίοιc τ(ῶν) φιλοcόφων », (« there has been a special controversy even among the ancient scientists — scil. concerning what is evacuated through the bladder — »). Transl. Jones (1947), p. 115.

35 Cols. XXIX, 50-XXX, 39.

36 Cols. XXIX, 53-XXX, 6: « [οἱ] μ(ὲν) γ(ὰρ) εἶπ̣[ο]ν ἐν τῶι προcφερομένῳ||ὑγρῶι ἐνυπάρχειν φ[ 7/8 ].|δε καὶ νόcτιμον καὶ [ ±9 τ]ὸ̣ μ̣(ὲν)|νόcτιμον ἀναλαμβ̣[άνεcθαι].[.].|μάτ(ων) καὶ π(ροc)τίθεcθαι το[ῖc cώ]μ̣α̣c̣ιν, τ̣ὸ|δὲ φαῦλον φέρεcθαι ε[ἰc] κ[ύc]τ̣ι̣ν καὶ κ̣ατὰ|τὰc ἀπουρήcειc ἀποκρ̣[ί]ν̣ε̣c̣θ̣[αι] ε̣ἰ̣c̣ τ̣ὸ̣ ἐ̣κ̣τό̣(c) |», (« For some have said that in the fluid taken col. XXX [a dual nature] exists [of the following kind. Fluid they say contains both] the beneficial and [the bad, of which] the beneficial is absorbed [through the pores] and is added to our bodies, while 5 the bad is carried below and by urination is excreted outside. »). With slight modifications, transl. Jones (1947), p. 115.

37 Col. XXX, 7-13: « Οἱ δὲ ἔφαcαν πᾶν μ(ὲν) ὑγρὸ̣ν ο̣.[…]η̣c̣τ̣..|ἑαυτῶι (εἶναι), ἤδη δὲ κατὰ [τ]ὰc προcφορὰ̣c̣|αὐτοῦ τὸ μ(ὲν) ἀναδίδ[οc]θαι καὶ π(ροc)τ̣[ίθ]ε̣c̣θ̣α̣ι̣|τοῖc cώμαcιν, τὸ δὲ κ̣[(ατα)φέρε]c̣θ̣α̣ι̣ ε̣[ἰ]c̣|τοὺc κατὰ τὴν κύcτιν [τόπουc καὶ διὰ]|τῆc ἐν τούτοιc ἐνυπαρχο̣[ύcηc] δυνά[μεωc ἔνθ]ε̣ν|ἀποκρίνεται δριμύ τε κ̣[αὶ ἁλμυρόν]. », (« Others have said that all fluid [is homogeneous itself, and only] on its being taken is a part absorbed and added to 10 our bodies, while that which is not absorbed is carried to the parts about the region of the bladder, whence, being changed by the power that is inherent in these parts, it becomes pungent and salt and is excreted. »). With slight modifications, transl. Jones (1947), p. 115.

38 Col. XXIII, 36-38.

39 Col. XXV, 40-43: « ὅ δὴ π(ρὸc) τ̣[ῆc ἐ]ν |τῷ κ̣[ό]λωι ἰδιότητοc ἀποκοπροῦτ̣α̣[ι. », (« scil. a small part of the nutriment) passes out as excrement owing to the peculiar characteristic of the colon »); or in l. 43: « π[ρὸ]c τῆc ἰδιότητοc τῆc ἐν τοῖc c[περ]ματικ(οῖc)|πόροιc », (« scil. the sperm) is brought about by the peculiar characteristic in the spermatic passages »). Transl. Jones (1947), p. 99. Cfr. Daniela Manetti (2003), « Il ruolo di Asclepiade di Bitinia nell’Anonimo Londinese », in Antonio Garzya & Jacques Jouanna (éds.), Transmission et ecdotique des textes médicaux grecs. Actes du IV^eColloque International (Paris, 17-19 mai 2001), Napoli, M. D’Auria, p. 337.

40 Cfr. col. XXIII, 12-42. The belief in the passage of the liquids into the lungs is an old doctrine, and a disputed concern among the physicians of the 5^th and the 4^th century BC. In the Cnidian school such a belief was widespread and admitted (hence we find it in Hippocrates Morb. I 12, a treatise generally put to the Cnidian school), while it came straightforwardly rejected among the Hippocratic physicians. From Cnidos the doctrine was transferred to the Sicilian school, and it is likely there that Plato (Ti. 70c-d) came to know about that.

41 It is likely that the scribe introduces at this point an abridged version of the description of the formation of urine according to Asclepiades of Bithynia — a theory that Galen strongly refuted and bitterly criticised in De fac. nat. I 13 [II p. 30, 6-44, 11 K.]. Cfr. Daniela Manetti (2003), « Il ruolo di Asclepiade di Bitinia nell’Anonimo Londinese », p. 343 n. 18.

42 Col. XXX, 17: « οἱ πλείου[c τ(ῶν) ἀρχαί]ω̣ν ».

43 Col. XXX, 31-40.

44 I.e. in col. II, 22: « [ο]ἱ̣ δὲ νεώτεροι, τ̣[οῦ]τ᾽(ἔcτιν) οἱ Cτωικοί » Cfr. also col. II 30, 39. Diels (1893), p. 115. However, as T. Dorandi has well noted, this not suffices to make clear whether it is a reference to the Stoics in a block, to the contemporary Stoics of the scribe, or, indeed, to the contemporary Stoics of the source(s) that the scribe used. Tiziano Dorandi (2016), « Elementi ‘diairetici’ nella sezione iniziale dell’Anonymus Londiniensis (P.Br.Libr. inv. 137 I-IV 17) », Papyrologica Florentina (E sì d’amici pieno. Omaggio di studiosi italiani a Guido Bastianini per il suo settantesimo compleanno) 45 (1), p. 205. Of course, such appellation always depends on the temporal line. I am thankful to Dr. Michiel Meeusen (King’s College, London) for having made me reflect on this point. Thus, for instance, in The Obsolescence of Oracles XLVII 436d-e by the expression « οἱ δὲ νεώτεροι » Plutarch clearly makes allusion to the first pre-Socratic physicians (φυσικοὶ), for, on the immediate context, they are considered the young generation that comes after the first theologians and poets who did not enquire on the natural causes.

45 In the third section, for example, the scribe’s disdain for the Stoics could have roots in the fact that the belief in the sole presence of pneuma in the arteries — which is false in the eyes of the author of Anon. Lond. — is grounded in Stoic philosophy. Daniela Manetti (1999), « Aristotle and the Role of Doxography in the Anonymus Londinensis (PBrLibr inv.137) », in Ph. J. Van der Eijk (ed.), Ancient Histories of Medicine. Essays in Medical Doxography and Historiography in Classical Antiquity, Leiden / Boston / Köln, Brill, p. 133.

46 In this sense, there is a significant contrast in the use of the first person of the plural by the scribe just after having expounded the view of the Stoics in col. II, 30-31: « ἀλ(λὰ) τα[ῦ<τα> τ]ο̣ῖc μ(ὲν) μελήcει,|ἡμῖν δὲ̣ [λ]εκτέον », (« but the point must be left to the younger school. We, however, must »). Transl. Jones (1947), p. 27. Jouanna’s remark about the use of the grammatical person serves him to shore up his firm conviction that the scribe was a doctor. Thereby, after having summarily expounded the way the Stoics classified the affections, the scribe writes apropos of this that he leaves the concern to the Stoics, and he goes on to ratify that he is only concerned with those affections relevant to medicine. Jacques Jouanna (2016), Mais qui est donc l’auteur de l’Anonyme de Londres ?, paper read and handed out during the « DIGMEDTEXT. Final Conference on Greek Medical Papyri. Text, Context, Hypertext » held at the Università degli Studi di Parma, Parma 2-4. 11. 2016, p. 5. Col. XXI, 15-17 is in fact the passage on which J. Jouanna focuses when he claims that: « la raison pour laquelle il refuse de se livrer à l’étude de l’âme pour se consacrer à l’étude du corps [...] nous livre un renseignement décisif sur l’auteur [...] Cela implique donc que l’auteur n’est pas un philosophe, mais un médecin, bien qu’il n’ignore pas la philosophie ». Jouanna (2016), p. 8-9.

47 Col. II, 22-30: « [ο]ἱ̣ δὲ νεώτεροι, τ̣[οῦ]τ᾽(ἔcτιν) οἱ Cτωικοί,|κατὰ φύc[ι]ν̣ πάθ̣οc οὐδὲν κ̣[(ατα)λεί]πουcιν|ψυχῆc. [Π]ά̣ν̣[τ]ω̣c̣ γ(άρ) φ̣(αcιν) ἐμφ̣[αίν]εcθαι τὸ|25 παρὰ φύ[cι]ν ἐκ̣ τ̣ῆc πάθο[υc φ]ωνῆc ἧι|καὶ τὸ π[ά]θοc ἀ[π]έ̣δ̣ο̣cα̣ν· τ̣[ὸ π]άθοc (ἐcτὶν)|ὁρμὴ πλ[εο]ν̣άζουcα, τῆc ὁρμ̣ῆc αὐτοῖc|ἐξακου̣[ο]μένηc οὐχὶ ἀντὶ τῆc ὑπερ|τάcεω[c], ἀλ(λὰ) ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀπειθὲc (εἶναι) τῶι αἱ|30 ⸏ροῦντι [λ]ό̣γωι· ἀλ(λὰ) τα[ῦ<τα> τ]ο̣ῖc μ(ὲν) μελήcει », (« But the younger school, that is to say the Stoics, allow as according to nature no affection of the soul. For into the term, they say, is introduced contrariety to nature from the word “an affection”, in virtue of their definition of affection, namely “impulse in excess”, impulse being understood by them not in the sense of over-straining, but in the sense of a refusal to listen to the reason that convicts it. But the point must be left to the younger school. »). Transl. Jones (1947), p. 27.

48 Col. I, 2: « τ(ῶν) ἀρχαίων »; cols. I, 25; II, 18-19, [36]. The first occurrence of such denomination in ancient Greek medical literature is in Acut. I [II p. 226, 10 Li.], where Hippocrates reproaches the author(s) of the book entitled Cnidian Sentences for not having paid enough attention nor been concerned with regimen: « οὐδὲ περὶ διαίτης οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ξυνέγραψαν οὐδὲν ἄξιον λόγου ». Jacques Jouanna (1993), « La nascita dell’arte medica occidentale », in Mirko Dražen Grmek (ed.), Storia del pensiero medico occidentale 1. Antichità e medioevo, Roma / Bari, Gius. Laterza & Figli Spa, p. 3. Cfr. also William Henry Samuel Jones (1947), The Medical Writings of Anonymus Londinensis, p. 27 n. 18.

49 Col. II, 18-19: « Αὕτη [μ](ὲν) ἡ τε[χ]νολογία [τ(ῶν)] ἀρχαίων (ἐcτίν),|οἷc καὶ ἡμεῖc ἑπόμεθα· », (« This terminology is that of the Ancients, whose followers we too are »). Transl. Jones (1947), p. 27. The preference the scribe professes for the views of the Ancients is also corroborated a short while later in col. XXVIII, 37-43. However, I am thankful to one of the reviewers of this article for having let me note that this sentence could also mean (« We borrow the technical term from them »).

50 CPF Stoici 3T, p. 790. This opposition often occurs in Galen. Jacques Jouanna (2012d), « Galen’s Reading of the Hippocratic Treatise The Nature of Man: The Foundation of Hippocratism in Galen », in Philip Jan Van der Eijk (ed.), Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen. Selected Papers, Leiden / Boston, Brill, p. 261.

51 Diels (1893), p. 98: « Dicunt esse Peripatetici »; Antonio Ricciardetto (2016), L’Anonyme de Londres. P.Lit.Lond. 165, p. CVII.

52 CPF Stoici 3T, p. 797. T. Dorandi sharpens his hypothesis and proposes that, rather than a way to call either the Academic or the Peripatetic philosophers, this could be a reference to Plato’s immediate disciples. Tiziano Dorandi (2016), « Elementi ‘diairetici’ nella sezione iniziale dell’Anonymus Londiniensis (P.Br.Libr. inv. 137 I-IV 17) », p. 202 n. 16.

53 As to the post quem for the Anonymus Parisinus, it is comprised between 40 – 60 CE. Cfr. Manetti (1999), p. 97. The Anon. Lond. would be thus a bit later than the Anonymus Parisinus. Cfr. Vivian Nutton (2004), Ancient Medicine, London / New York, Routledge, p. 206.

54 Cfr. Anonymi medici : De morbis acutis et chroniis. Studies in Ancient Medicine, vol. XII, Leiden / New York, Brill.VI 1 (1), IX 1 (1), XI 1 (1), XII 1 (1), XIII 1 (1), XIV 1 (1), XV 1 (1), XVII 1 (1), XX 1 (1), XXIII 1 (1), XLI 1 (1), XLIII 1 (1), XLVII<I> 1 (1), IL 1 (1), L 1 (1), LI 1 (1) [Garofalo (1997), p. 38, 18; 64, 17; 80, 28; 84, 14; 88, 24; 94, 8; 102, 4; 110, 5; 120, 13-14; 132, 22; 210, 9; 218, 8; 242, 21; 246, 7; 250, 4; 258, 4 respectively]. Cfr. also Van der Eijk (1999), « The Anonymus Parisinus and the Doctrines of “the Ancients” », in Philip Jan Van der Eijk (ed.), Ancient Histories of Medicine. Essays in Medical Doxography and Historiography in Classical Antiquity, Leiden / Boston / Köln Brill, p. 312-324; Vivian Nutton (2004), Ancient Medicine, p. 124.

55 Galen De fac. nat. II, 9 [II p. 140, 15-16 K.].

56 Galen De fac. nat. III, 10 [II p. 178, 12 K.].

57 Galen In Hipp. Nat. Hom. comment. Praef. 5 [XV p. 5, 11 – 12 K.] = [CMG V 9, 1 p. 5, 10 – 12 Mewaldt]. Cfr. Jacques Jouanna (2012e), « Galen’s Reading of the Hippocratic Treatise The Nature of Man: The Foundation of Hippocratism in Galen », in Philip Jan Van der Eijk (ed.), Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen. Selected Papers, Leiden / Boston, Brill, p. 325, 327-328. In the De plac. Hipp. et Plat. I 5 (258) [V p. 751, 9-752, 1 K.] by the expression ‘τῶν παλαιῶν’ Galen quotes Diocles, Hippocrates and Empedocles as the model of doctors who treat men for the love of men and not for the love of money or reputation. Jouanna (2012d), p. 281-282. Along the same lines, in the In Hipp. Nat. Hom. comment. II 6 [CMG V 9, 1 p. 70, 5 Mewaldt], by the expression ‘τῶν ἀρχαίων’ Galen refers to a long list of doctors who preceded him (i.e. Diocles, Praxagoras, Erasistratus, Pleistonicus, Philotimus, Mnesitheus, Dieuches, Chrysippus, Aristogenes, Medeius, and Euryphon) in order to rebuke the argument of those who believe that there are eight vessels leading from the head down into the lower parts of the body. Cfr. Jacques Jouanna (2012e), « Galen’s Reading of the Hippocratic Treatise The Nature of Man: The Foundation of Hippocratism in Galen », p. 322.

58 Tiziano Dorandi (2016), « Elementi ‘diairetici’ nella sezione iniziale dell’Anonymus Londiniensis (P.Br.Libr. inv. 137 I-IV 17) », p. 200-201; Davis Sedley (2017), « Philosophical Authority in the Ancient World », paper read and handed out during the international conference Allegiance, System, and Use of Texts. On auctoritas of the Master and Dealing with Authoritative Texts in Platonism and Epicureanism in the Hellenistic and Imperial Age held at the University of Würzburg, Würzburg 16-18. 2. 2017, p. 1: « A fragment from a contemporary comedy (scil. with Plato) by Epicrates (fr. 11, 1-17, also quoted by Athenaeus in Deipnosophists II 59) describes a lesson in botanical taxonomy given by Plato in the Academy grove, in which he sets his pupils a task in the method of division: classify the pumpkin ». In general one gets the impression that the author of the Anon. Lond. has Plato and Aristotle in high esteem, while considers Erasistratus, Herophilus, and Asclepiades as dialectical adversaries. Cfr. Daniela Manetti (1996), « Ὡς δ`αὐτὸς Ἱπποκράτης λέγει. Teoria causale e ippocratismo nell’Anonimo Londinese (VI 43ss.) », p. 298, 300; (1999), « Aristotle and the Role of Doxography in the Anonymus Londinensis (PBrLibr inv.137) », p. 141; Antonio Ricciardetto (2016), L’Anonyme de Londres. P.Lit.Lond. 165, p. CXIV-CXVII. Daniela Manetti judges the contents in the columns devoted to Plato as appertaining to the Platonic-Academic tradition in a wide sense, and in some way, connected with the medical dogmatic tradition, which traces in turn a line that extends to Herophilus. Cfr. Daniela Manetti (2003), « Il ruolo di Asclepiade di Bitinia nell’Anonimo Londinese », p. 336. My aim is not to debunk Manetti’s viewpoint, but in my opinion it is a rather an Aristotelian influence what gave shape to the Londiniensis, a subject which I have studied in detail in some recent articles. Cfr. Jordi Crespo Saumell (2017a), « New Lights on the Anonymus Londiniensis Papyrus », Journal of Ancient Philosophy 11 (2), p. 124-137; (2017b), « Plato, the Medicine, and the Paraphrase on the Timaeus in the Anonymus Londiniensis Papyrus », Rhizomata 5 (2), p. 169.

59 Τhe first attestation of the word φύσις in Greek literature occurs in the Odyssey X 304, and it is directly related to the medical art. Cfr. Jacques Jouanna (2012e), « Galen’s Reading of the Hippocratic Treatise The Nature of Man: The Foundation of Hippocratism in Galen », p. 325, 328. For the variety of meanings that the term φύσις takes on Plato’s dialogues see Kranz (1944), p. 195. The passage from the Phaedrus apparently means that it is impossible to obtain true knowledge of the body prescinding from that of the whole universe (ἄνευ τῆς τοῦ ὅλου φύσεως). The sentence yields a double interpretation: a meteorological reading (more leant towards medicine), and a cosmological one (more bent on speculative reasoning). As to this second interpretation, the essential point to note is that the creation of the human body is not carried out by the Demiurge, but by some minor subordinate entities to which the Begetter commands the task. Apart from this difference, the assemblage of the human body is made according to the physical principles applied to the construction of the world body (e.g. Ti. 42e); hence the correspondence between the cosmos and the body. However, as J. Jouanna has contended, both interpretations could be mistaken, for Jouanna is of the opinion that neither interpretations fit the intended meaning of φύσις in the Phaedrus. Cfr. Jacques Jouanna (1977), « La collection Hippocratique et Platon (Phèdre 269c-272a) », Revue des Études Grecques 90, p. 15-16, 22; (1992), Hippocrate, Paris, Arthème Fayard, p. 89. Cfr. Geoffrey Ernst Richard Lloyd (2000), « Filosofía y medicina en la antigua Grecia: modelos de conocimiento y sus repercusiones », Asclepio. Revista de Historia de la Medicina y de la Ciencia 52 (1), p. 112-113.

60 Beside medicine, rhetoric is deemed as the τέχνη for excellence. Fritz Steckerl (1945), « Plato, Hippocrates, and the Menon Papyrus », Classical Philology 40 (3), p. 166. In the Phaedrus both arts are constantly intertwined; thus, medicine works on bodies precisely the same way that rhetoric does on souls. Walther Kranz (1944), « Platon über Hippokrates », Philologus 96, p. 196; Pierre Maxime Schuhl (1960), « Platon et la médecine », Revue des Études Grecques 73, p. 76.

61 Jacques Jouanna (1993), « La nascita dell’arte medica occidentale », in Mirko Dražen Grmek (ed.), Storia del pensiero medico occidentale 1. Antichità e medioevo, Roma / Bari, Gius. Laterza & Figli Spa, p. 64.

62 Likewise, the participants in Plato’s Sophist take the decision of applying the method based on the diaeresis with a view to finding a definition (ὁρισμός) of what, by contrast to ‘philosopher’ and to ‘politician’, should be intended by ‘sophist’. Since being applicable to whatever subject-matter, the partakers in the Sophist consider the method of division as the proper procedure to attain true knowledge.

63 At Phdr. 271a 7 Plato claims that the body is πολυειδές. Such claim raises the question about what did Plato mean by εἴδη in that particular context (presumably something like “type, constitution type, etc.”). Jacques Jouanna (1977), « La collection Hippocratique et Platon (Phèdre 269c-272a) », Revue des Études Grecques 90, p. 25. Ιt is worth reporting what Galen wrote on this point, since he put the majority of healing failures down to the ignorance of his contemporary colleagues at classifying in species and genres the different ailments: « καὶ μέν γε ὡς ἐκ τοῦ μὴ γιγνώσκειν κατ᾽εἴδη τε καὶ γένη διαιρεῖσθαι τὰ νοσήματα, συμβαίνει τοῖς ἰατροῖς ἁμαρτάνειν τῶν θεραπευτικῶν σκοπῶν ». Galen Quod opt. med. [I p. 54, 7-9 K.].

64 This topic has been addressed earlier in Phdr. 268ª-c apropos of the fake physician who knows about the remedies and their properties but ignores to whom those should be administered, precisely because he is not acquainted with the different constitution types.

65 Werner Jaeger (1957), « Aristotle’s Use of Medicine as Model of Method in His Ethics », The Journal of Hellenic Studies 77 (1), p. 54. Thus, in the Phaedrus Hippocrates could be just « a name without works ». Jacques Jouanna (1977), « La collection Hippocratique et Platon (Phèdre 269c –272a) », p. 17. Plato is credited with having deliberately written arguments containing mistakes or missed opportunities for rebuttals; these gaps are usually explained on grounds of the supposition that Plato wanted to draw readers in and to encourage them to correct his mistakes. Brian Prince (2014), « The Metaphysics of Bodily Health and Disease in Plato’s Timaeus », British Journal for the History of Philosophy 22 (5), p. 913.

66 Galen In Hipp. Nat. Hom. comment. Praef. [XV p. 4, 7-5, 10 K.] = Praef. (4/6) [CMG V 9, 1 p. 4, 20-5, 9 Mewaldt]. Cfr. Jacques Jouanna (2012e), « Galen’s Reading of the Hippocratic Treatise The Nature of Man: The Foundation of Hippocratism in Galen », p. 329-331.

67 Fridolf Kudlien (1989), « Hippokrates-Rezeption im Hellenismus », in Gerhard Baader & Rolf Winau (eds.), Die Hippokratischen Epidemien. Theorie – Praxis – Tradition. Verhandlungen des V^e Colloque International Hippocratique 10-15. 9. 1984, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, p. 357.

68 Hippocrates [I p. 294, 563 Li.]; [II p. XVI, XXXVII-XXXVIII Li.]; William Henry Samuel Jones (1984), « General Introduction », in George Patrick Goold (ed.), Hippocrates vol. I: Ancient Medicine. Airs, Waters, Places. Epidemics 1 and 3. The Oath. Precepts. Nutriment, Cambridge (MA) / London, Loeb Classical Library, p. XXXV.

69 Fritz Steckerl (1945), « Plato, Hippocrates, and the Menon Papyrus », Classical Philology 40 (3), p. 174; Jacques Jouanna (1992), Hippocrate, p. 88. In the same vein, J. Jouanna states: « Ainsi la méthode prônée par l’Ancienne médecine est, jusque dans les termes, singulièrement proche de celle de l’Hippocrate du Phèdre ». Jacques Jouanna (1977), « La collection Hippocratique et Platon (Phèdre 269c –272a) », p. 27.

70 In particular with Airs, Waters, Places and Epidemics I-III. Cfr. Mario Vegetti (1995), La Medicina in Platone, Venezia, Il Cardo, p. XV, 121.

71 Col. XXIX, 52, perhaps also in col. XXX, 17.

72 Antonio Ricciardetto (2016), L’Anonyme de Londres. P.Lit.Lond. 165, p. CVII.

73 Col. XXX, 16-19: « [Ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖ]|νο ῥητέον ὅτι ἐπὶ τοῦ πρώτ[ου ἐκκει]|μένου γίνονται οἱ πλείου[c τ(ῶν) ἀρχαί]ω̣ν|καὶ εἰc τοῦτο ὑποδείγματι χρῶν[ται τῇ θα]|λάccῃ καὶ τῶι ἡλίωι· ». Col. XXX, 15-24 corresponds to CPF Stoici 3T, p. 796-797.

74 For the fragments recollecting the simile of the sea and the sun assigned to the Stoics see SVF I fr. 141 [von Arnim (1964a), p. 39]; SVF I fr. 501 [von Arnim (1964a), p. 112]; SVF II fr. 579 [von Arnim (1964b), p. 179]; SVF II fr. 593 [von Arnim (1964b), p. 183]; SVF II fr. 652 [von Arnim (1964b), p. 196]; SVF II fr. 690 [von Arnim (1964b), p. 201].

75 Galen De fac. nat. I 17 [II p. 70, 4-71, 16 K.].

76 Mirko Dražen Grmek (1997), Le chaudron de Médée. L’expérimentation sur le vivant dans l’Antiquité, Le Plessis-Robinson, Institut Synthélabo pour le progrès de la connaissance, p. 111.

77 Galen De fac. nat. I 13 [II p. 36, 11-37, 17 K.]. Mirko D. Grmek (1997), Le chaudron de Médée, p. 167.

78 Galen (1952), On the Natural Faculties, Thomas Ethelbert Page, Edward Capps, William Henry Denham Rouse, Levi Arnold Post & Eric Herbert Warmington (eds.), 1916, Cambridge (MA) / London, Loeb Classical Library. [Transl. Brock (1952)], p. 59-61.

79 Aristotle Somn. Vig. III 458a 21-25.

80 Cfr. notes 25-28 above.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Jordi Crespo Saumell, « Who Are ‘the Ancients’? », Methodos [En ligne], 18 | 2018, mis en ligne le 08 mars 2018, consulté le 31 août 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/methodos/5089 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/methodos.5089

Haut de page

Auteur

Jordi Crespo Saumell

PhD in Philosophy, Epistemology and History of Culture, Università degli Studi di Cagliari

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page

Sommaire - Document suivant

Index

Numéros en texte intégral

Tous les numéros

La revue

Appels à contribution

Informations

Lettres d’information

La Lettre d’OpenEdition

Revue soutenue par l’Institut des sciences humaines et sociales (InSHS) du CNRS, 2023-2025

Methodos

Who Are ‘the Ancients’?

Résumés

Entrées d’index

Mots-clés :

Keywords:

Plan

Texte intégral

1. Introduction

2. A Striking Resemblance

3. The Simile of the Sun and the Sea in Aristotle’s On Sleep and Waking

4. The Simile of the Sun and the Sea in the Anonymus Londiniensis

5. Who Are ‘the Ancients’?

6. The Issue’s Further Fortune. Galen on the Formation of Urine

7. Conclusions

Bibliographie

Notes

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Auteur

Jordi Crespo Saumell

Droits d’auteur

Navigation

Index

Numéros en texte intégral

Tous les numéros

La revue

Appels à contribution

Informations

Suivez-nous

Lettres d’information

Affiliations/partenaires