DCLP

Introduction

Medical treatise. The two fragments (P.Lond.Lit. 170, 15x6.3 cm, and P.Mich.inv 1469, 13.6x6 cm) belong to the same roll, each preserving 24 lines respectively from the lower left part (P.Lond.Lit. 170) and the upper left part (P.Mich.inv 1469) of two different columns incomplete at the right side (but in P.Mich.inv. 1469 beyond l. 14 the losses are unsormountable). The roll was written by professional scribes in a delicate severe style datable to the 2nd half of the 2nd cent. AD or to the 3rd in. The format was generous (in P.Mich.inv. 1469 survive 2.3 cm of the upper margin and 1 cm of the left at ll. 5-7). Punctuation was effected with high points (P.Mich.inv. 1469.5,9,15,22), paragraphoi (P.Mich.inv. 1469.5,15) and diplé obelismene (P.Lond.Lit. 170.15-6); the iota adscribed is not systematic (e.g. at ll. 19, 24 but not 15 of P.Lond.Lit. 170). The treatise seems to show a complex therapy for practical cases, associating dietetic rules and pharmacological prescriptions; the subject of P.Mich.inv. 1469 is the nourishment to be given, according to their constitution, to patients who are afflicted with constipation; on the other hand, P.Lond.Lit. 170 illustrates a therapeutic treatment based on a composite remedy easy to made for everbody, combining yolk and 'the antidote of Andron', a drug already recalled by Erasistratus (Gal. Comp.med.sec.loc. 7.1 [12, 904 K]), employed by Heraclides of Tarentum and extensively quoted in Galen (e.g. Gal. Comp.med.sec.loc. 4.8 [12, 743.2f. K]).

(This papyrus has been digitally edited by Luca Iori, with former contributions by Angelica Brunazzi, as part of the Project "DIGMEDTEXT - Online Humanities Scholarship: A Digital Medical Library based on Ancient Texts" (ERC-AdG-2013, Grant Agreement no. 339828) funded by the European Research Council at the University of Parma (Principal Investigator: Prof. Isabella Andorlini). The digital edition is mostly based on the previous editions (ed.pr. = H.J.M. Milne, P.Lond.Lit. 170 + H.C. Youtie - L.C. Youtie, SB XVI 12529; ed.alt.(of P.Lond.Lit. 170 only) = I. Andorlini, YCS 28, 1985, pp. 49-56).)

Apparatus

Notes

• a.4.

  In addition to [ἀνώ]δυνος (ed.pr.), also possible is [κίν]δυνος (see P.Mich.inv. 1469.13)

• 6.

  For ἄλγη̣ κ̣α̣[τω κοιλίας] see P.Mich.inv. 1469.7,17.

• 9.

  The nominal form required by the reading αν̣τ̣ι̣ο̣ς̣ (ed.pr.) awkwardly connects with the rest of the sentence. Surely better π̣ρ̣ὸ̣ς̣ δ̣[ὲ τ]ὸ̣ μ[έγα ῥεῦμα] recalling some therapeutical prescriptions frequent in Galen and elsewhere (e.g. Gal. Comp.med.sec.loc. 4.8 [12, 742f. K]).

• 12-3.

  The expression π̣[ερὶ] / π̣[ρὸς] καταπλασμάτων does not connect satisfactorily neither to the preceding nor to the following words.

• 15-8.

  For ὅταν μὲν οὖ[ν ὁ ὀ]φ̣[θαλμὸς] [ἐπώ]δυνος (or [περιώ]δυνος) ᾖ μ̣[ιγν]ύ̣[ειν δεῖ τοῖς] καταπλάσμασ[ι τοῦτο· τὸ] see Gal. Comp.med.sec.loc. 4.8 (12, 743.2f K), where cataplasms for eyes are prescribed in case of ache. For ὅταν μὲν οὖ[ν ὁ ὀ]φ̣[θαλμὸς] [ἀνώ]δυνος ᾖ μ̣[ὴ δεῖ χ]ρ̣[ῆσθαι τοῖς] καταπλάσμασ[ι ἀλλὰ τὸ] see Hp. Vid.Ac. 9.1.3 (9, 157-8 L) who suggest cataplasms should be applied in abscence of pain.

• b.1.

  For the integration [δεῖ προσ]ενέγκασθα[ι] see Alex.Trall. 1.419 Puschm.

• 10-1.

  μέση τ[ε ὕλη προγεγραμμένη is preferable to μέση τ[ε [ε δίαιτα γε]γραμμένη in view of the use of προγεγρ- in ll. 2 and 8 and because δίαιτα usually comprehends considerably more than ὕλη (see Gal. In Hipp.Epid. III comment. 3.9 [17.1, 660 K])

• 18.

  The letter read as θ̣ is compete but awkwardly made; it may be compared with θ in ll. 1, 9. It is not a cursive α, as it appears to be, since every one of the numerous examples of that letter is angular and somewhat flattened.