DCLP

Introduction

Remains of a treatise about the genital apparatus and its pathology by an unknown author (Giessen, Universitätsbibliothek P. Iand. 349). Five badly damaged papyrus fragments (fr. A: 13,8x8cm; fr. B: 7x6cm; fr. C: 6,6x4,6cm; fr. D: 5,3x4,1cm; fr. E: 8,5x6,2cm) of columns from a book roll, whose verso is probably blank. A is the sole fragment, where a margin of 1,5cm is visible on the top. Furthermore, fragments A, B and C exhibit 2 columns with intercolumnar space with a length between 1 and 1,5cm. Although fragment E is best preserved, it doesn't have a complete line, but according to very probable supplements its lines contained about 27 to 35 letters. Concerning the content, fragment E deals with the denomination of the male and female genital apparatus, while the other fragments are more difficult to classify due to their bad state of preservation; probably they contained a description of diseases and therapies also referring to the genital or possibly renal apparatus. The author of this treatise was probably predecessor of Rufus of Ephesus (anat.) and a source for Pollux (Onomastikon). Moreover, he seems to have been familiar with the doctrine of Herophilos (cf. comm. ad fr. E l. 7), but wasn't a Herophilean himself. Instead, the Erasistratean Apollonios of Memphis who wrote about the nomenclature of the exterior body parts (cf. Ps.-Gal. Introd. 10. XIV 699-700 Kühn) is believed to be the author. Another possibility mentioned in the first edition is the older Xenophon of Kos. The fragments were written parallel to the fibres in a little, but regular hand showing similarities to P.Lugd. Bat. XIX 7B and P.Lond. III 883. Based on this evidence, the pieces can be dated to the late Ptolemean period (2-1 century BC).

(This papyrus has been digitally edited by Marcel Moser 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. = K. Kalbfleisch, P.Iand. V 82; ed.alt. = G. Azzarello, "Testi Medici su Papiro", ed. I. Andorlini, Firenze 2004, pp. 237-50).)

Apparatus

Notes

• A.1.1.

  In the first edition, Kalbfleisch wanted to read χειρ- which would refer to the hands as possible subject of this fragment (he also cites ll. 2 and 14 of this column as evidence). Azzarello, however, refuses this reading and instead suggests reading σίον at the end of the line, an aquatic plant used for treating diseases of the reproductive and urinary apparatus (cf. Dsc. MM II 127).

• A.1.7-8 .

  Azzarello suggests the doubtful supplement ἐ̣ν̣ ο̣ἰ̣κ̣ή̣μ̣α̣-[τι] which could refer to a therapy providing to stay 'at home' (cf. Aet. XVI 79, 35 Zervòs).

• B.2.

  In the editio princeps, Kalbfleisch counted three additional lines before l. 1. Azzarello, however, claims that the faint traces of ink found above this line near the intercolumnar space don't belong to the column, but are rather letter imprints of fr. B col. 1. In her opinion, l. 4 could be an evidence for this assumption, since there are faint traces of the letters ν̣ω̣ at the beginning of the line which might be imprints of the last two letters in fr. B col. 1 l. 3 (ων).

• B.2.3-4.

  In this context, δύναμις might have the meaning of 'effect' (sc. of a medical substance), but it could also be possible that it refers to the 'sturdy constitution' of an individual being (cf. Hp. Aph. comm. XVIIb 649, 1-7 K).

• B.2.9.

  Although it would be tempting to read ἀφετέο̣ν̣ ('what must be let go'), the remaining traces don't permit to read the omicron. Instead, the imperative ἄφετε is more probable and not even unusual for medical treatises being used for direct appeals to the audience (cf. Ruf. Onom. 1-10 & PSI XII 1275v, 2-3).

• C.1.

  The traces of this column are so faint that they could also be just stains of ink.

• C.2.3.

  According to Azzarello, ερει̣- might belong to a form of ἐρείδω ('to press') which is used by Rufus of Ephesus concerning renal calculi (cf. ren. ves. 9, 3).

• C.2.5.

  Azzarello's supplements would suggest the mention of a 'flour-therapy' for a renal disease (cf. Ruf. ren. ves. 3, 15 & Ps.-Gal. rem. parab. III, XIV 581, 6-8 K).

• C.2.9.

  For στραγγουρία ('strong urge to urinate') in consequence of renal diseases confer Ruf. ren. ves. 3,11.

• D.5.

  μέρου[ς] κ̣εκλ̣α̣σ̣[μέ]ν̣[ου] ('broken part') suggests an orthopaedic context (cf. fr. D l. 8).

• D.6-7.

  In the first edition, Kalbfleisch supposes the text alludes to an anatomic part of the body which is more distinct in women than in men (e.g. the breasts or the pelvic bones). On the contrary, Azzarello thinks that [τὸ ἄ]ρρεν belongs to ἰσχυρο[τ]ε̣ρ̣-, while ἀσθενεστερ̣α[-?] goes together with the hypothesized τὸ θῆλυ. This case is often found in medical contexts,e.g. in the case of a male embryo being created by a majority of strong semen next to the female embryo being created by a majority of weak semen (cf. Orib. coll. XV 1, 16, 34 & Hp. genit. 6). Also in the case of renal diseases, it seems that the affliction of women is weaker than that of men.