Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:02:56.660Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IN THE TRANSLATOR'S WORKSHOP

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 August 2011

Uwe Vagelpohl
Uwe Vagelpohl*
Affiliation:
Department of Classics & Ancient History, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom
*
Email: u.vagelpohl@warwick.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq's Arabic translation of Galen's commentary on the Hippocratic Epidemics is an invaluable source for our knowledge of Galenic medicine and its transmission history, not least because much of it is extant only in Arabic. Its importance for the Arabic medical tradition is amply attested in the later medical literature. It also tells us much about the methods and self-image of contemporary translators. Throughout the translation, we find remarks by Ḥunayn discussing the quality of his source text, his own interpretation and also his attempts to reconstruct problematic or damaged passages. Based on an edition of these notes, their analysis and comparison to similar texts and Galen's own thought on editing and interpreting difficult medical texts, this article aims to situate Ḥunayn's methods in the context of the Greek-Arabic translation movement. It argues that his approach differs in important respects from that of preceding Greek-Arabic and Greek-Syriac translators and that he was indebted to Galen not just as a physician, but also as a translator and exegete.

Résumé

La traduction arabe de Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq du commentaire de Galien sur les Épidémies d'Hippocrate est une source d'importance capitale pour notre connaissance de la médecine galénique et de son histoire de transmission, notamment parce que la majeure partie n'est conservée qu'en arabe. Son importance pour la tradition médicale arabe est amplement attestée dans la littérature médicale postérieure. En plus, elle nous apprend beaucoup sur les méthodes et l'image de soi des traducteurs contemporains. Tout au long de la traduction, nous trouvons des annotations de Ḥunayn dans lesquels il parle de la qualité de son texte, de sa propre interprétation et de ses tentatives de reconstituer des passages problématiques ou endommagés. En s'appuyant sur une édition de ces notes, sur leur analyse et en les comparant à des textes similaires et à la pensée de Galien sur l’édition et l'interprétation des textes médicaux difficiles, cet article vise à situer les méthodes de Ḥunayn dans le contexte de l'histoire des traductions gréco-arabes. Il fait valoir que son approche est différente à bien des égards de celle des traducteurs gréco-arabes et gréco-syriaques précédents et qu'il était redevable à Galien non seulement en tant que médecin, mais aussi en tant que traducteur et exégète.

Type
Research Article
Information
Arabic Sciences and Philosophy , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , September 2011 , pp. 249 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I would like to thank Peter E. Pormann and Simon Swain for their helpful comments on a previous version of this article.

2 Indispensable on this issue: Gutas, Dimitri, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture (London, New York, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A somewhat different (if at times problematic) account is presented by Georges Saliba, Islamic Science and the Making of the European Renaissance, Transformations: Studies in the History of Science and Technology 16 (Cambridge/Mass., 2007), esp. chs. 1–2.

3 St-Pierre, Paul, ‘The historical nature of translation’, in Chaffey, Patrick N. et al. (eds.), Translation Theory in Scandinavia (Oslo, 1990), pp. 254–63Google Scholar, on p. 255.

4 Translation Studies, a branch of linguistics, has developed a set of analytical tools to classify and compare source texts, translations and related texts. The compilation of digital textual corpora and the widespread availability of computing resources has put the study of translations on an entirely new methodological footing; at this point, entire corpora of texts can be compared and scanned for terminological, phraseological and stylistic data.

5 Excellent examples of thorough translation analyses of individual texts are (among many others) Georr, Khalil, Les Catégories d'Aristote dans leurs versions syro-arabes (Beirut, 1948)Google Scholar; Hans Daiber, Aetius Arabus. Die Vorsokratiker in arabischer Überlieferung, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Veröffentlichungen der orientalischen Kommission 33 (Wiesbaden, 1980); Gerhard Endress, Die arabischen Übersetzungen von Aristoteles’ Schrift De Caelo, Ph.D. dissertation (Frankfurt/Main, 1966) and id., Proclus Arabus: Zwanzig Abschnitte aus der Institutio Theologica in arabischer Übersetzung, Beiruter Texte und Studien 10 (Beirut, 1973); Peter Pormann, The Oriental Tradition of Paul of Aegina's Pragmateia, Studies in Ancient Medicine 29 (Leiden, Boston, 2004); as well as Hans-Jochen Ruland's Ph.D. thesis and series of editions of shorter texts by Alexander of Aphrodisias published in the Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. I: Phil.-hist. Kl. in 1978, 1979 and 1981.

6 For an overview of the most prominent contemporary voices on translation, cf. Uwe Vagelpohl, ‘The Abbasid translation movement in context. Contemporary voices on translation’, in John Nawas (ed.), ʿAbbasid Studies II. Occasional Papers of the School of ʿAbbasid Studies, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 177 (Leuven, 2010), pp. 245–67.

7 These are not the only texts transmitted together with notes by Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq. What sets the Epidemics apart, however, is the number, size and thematic variety of the notes. In a future publication, I intend to compile and analyse in detail these and other such notes from a wider range of translations.

8 A small number of these notes have previously appeared in print, e.g. in Degen, Rainer, ‘Wer übersetzte das 6. Buch der Epidemienkommentare Galens ins Arabische? Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte der “Risāla” des Ḥunain b. Isḥāq’, Die Welt des Orients, 10 (1979): 73–92Google Scholar, on pp. 81–2 and 90.

9 The question of this text's authorship is still debated; cf. Sabine Vogt, Aristoteles. Physiognomonica, Aristoteles. Werke in deutscher Übersetzung 18/6 (Berlin, 1990), pp. 192–7.

10 Many of Ḥunayn's medical translations, extant in a number of manuscripts, remain unedited. Given the fact that a number of edited translations contain notes and remarks, I expect more relevant material to come to light.

11 Cf. Pormann, Peter E., ‘Case notes and clinicians: Galen's Commentary on the Hippocratic Epidemics in the Arabic tradition’, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 18 (2008): 247–84CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, on pp. 247–9.

12 This was an issue close to the hearts of many of Galen's predecessors and contemporaries, especially regarding the Hippocratic corpus. Galen frequently discussed this issue and also instrumentalised concerns over authenticity to weed out such texts that did not support his idealised concept of Hippocratic teachings; hence, discussions about authenticity were a very important exegetical instrument for him. Cf. Jaap Mansfeld, Prolegomena. Questions to be Settled before the Study of an Author, or a Text, Philosophia Antiqua 61 (Leiden, New York, Köln, 1994), p. 176 with n. 312.

13 See also Bröcker, Ludwig, ‘Die Methoden Galens in der literarischen Kritik’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 40 (1885): 415–38Google Scholar, on pp. 433–4 and Mewaldt, Johannes, ‘Galenos über echte und unechte Hippocratica’, Hermes, 44 (1909): 111–34Google Scholar, on pp. 119–20.

14 Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum libros I et II, ed. Ernst Wenkebach and Franz Pfaff, Corpus Medicorum Graecorum V, 10, 1 (Leipzig, Berlin, 1934), pp. 310–11.

15 For Ḥunayn's own account of the manuscript material at his disposal and the complicated translation process, see Bergsträsser, Gotthelf, ‘Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq über die syrischen und arabische Galen-Übersetzungen’, Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 17 (1925): 1–49Google Scholar, on pp. 41–2 (Arabic) and 34–5 (German).

16 A research group at the University of Warwick under the supervision of Simon Swain and Peter E. Pormann is currently preparing an edition and translation of Books 1 and 2 of Ḥunayn's Arabic version. Pormann, ‘Case notes’, pp. 263–7 discusses the manuscript situation in detail. In this article and the appendix at the end, I am going to follow Pormann's nomenclature. His E1 (Madrid, Escorial, MS árabe 804) contains Books 1–3, E2 (Madrid, Escorial, MS árabe 805) Book 6 and M (Milan, Ambrosiana, MS B 135 sup.) Book 2 and the last two and a half parts of Book 6. In addition, we have a late and partial copy of M: P (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS arabe 2846). Marginal annotations and corrections written in different hands in these manuscripts are distinguished by superscript numbers: E12, E13 etc.

17 The seventeen notes, edited and translated in the Appendix to this article, are numbered in the order of their occurrence in the Epidemics.

18 While a number of his other translations also contain notes, they are usually few in number and relatively short. The only other example of an extensively annotated text I am aware of is Ḥunayn's aforementioned translation of the pseudo-Aristotelian Physiognomics, edited by Antonella Ghersetti, Il Kitāb Arisṭāṭalīs al-faylasūf fī l-firāsa nella traduzione di Ḥunayn b. Isḥāq, Quaderni di Studi Arabi. Studi e testi 4 (Rome, 1999). We will discuss the notes in this text, also transmitted as part of the text body, below.

19 Cf. Franz Pfaff's remarks in Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum VI commentaria I–VIII, ed. Ernst Wenkebach and Franz Pfaff, Corpus Medicorum Graecorum V, 10, 2, 2 (Berlin, 1956), p. 499, n. 1. He confirms that the comment “ist nach Art der Erklärung zweifellos von Galen”.

20 The colophon in question can be found in E2, fol. 195b1–17 and M, fol. 177b14–ult.; for translations and comments, see Degen, ‘Wer übersetzte’, pp. 81–6 and Pormann, ‘Case notes’, pp. 252–7. Both discuss the relationship between this colophon and the entry on the Epidemics in Ḥunayn's Risāla, from which it is quoted. As Degen shows, it is not unusual for compilers of Arabic Galenica to supply the relevant entries from the Risāla in manuscript colophons.

21 This and the following notes refer to the Arabic texts and my English translations of Ḥunayn's statements assembled in the Appendix.

22 4, 11–14 and 17 (E1, fol. 53a12–18 and E2, fols. 16b7–12, 24b6–18, 55a16–b16, 132a7–21 and 176a22–25).

23 4 and 11–12 (E1, fol. 53a12–18 and E2, fols. 16b7–12 and 24b6–18).

24 13 (E2, fol. 55a16–b16).

25 14 (E2, fol. 132a7–21).

26 17 (E2, fol. 176a22–25).

27 4, 9–10 and 16–17 (E1, fols. 53a12–18, 135a29–b2 and 136b18–24 and E2, fols. 168a5–13 and 176a22–25).

28 4, 10 and 16–17 (E1, fols. 53a12–18 and 136b18–24 and E2, fols. 168a5–13 and 176a22–25).

29 9–10 (E1, fols. 135a29–b2 and 136b18–24).

30 16 (E2, fol. 168a5–13).

31 2–3, 5, 14 and 16 (E1, fols. 51a22–b12, 53a6–9 and 104b9–12 and E2, fols. 132a7–21 and 168a5–13).

32 3 and 14 (E1, fol. 53a6–9 and E2, fol. 132a7–21).

33 2–3, 5 and 16 (E1, fols. 51a22–b12, 53a6–9 and 104b9–12 and E2, fol. 168a5–13).

34 3 (E1, fol. 53a6–9). Ḥunayn wrote: “aḍaftu ilayhi min al-tafsīr mā ẓanantu an yušākila maḏhaba Ǧālīnūs fī tafsīrihi lahu wa-mā yaqṣidu bihi” ([I] added comments I thought corresponded to Galen's procedure in his commentary and what he meant with it).

35 6–7 (E1, fols. 105a19–b4 and 108a26–b12).

36 6 (E1, fol. 105a19–b4).

37 7 (E1, fol. 108a26–b12).

38 8 and 15 (E1, fol. 119a23–30 and E2, fol. 145a17–23).

39 8 (E1, fol. 119a23–30).

40 15 (E2, fol. 145a17–20).

41 In the following references, the fifteen notes are numbered in the order they appear in the text. I will give page and line numbers according to the Arabic edition by Ghersetti, Il Kitāb Arisṭāṭalīs. Cf. also the discussion of these notes in Mario Grignaschi, ‘La “Physiognomie” traduite par Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq’, Arabica, 21 (1974): 285–91, here: pp. 288–91.

42 6–8 and 10–13 (Il Kitāb Arisṭāṭalīs, ed. Ghersetti, pp. 13:11–16; 13:18–14:2; 14:12–17; 18:3–11; 21:13–22; 23:12–24 and 25:10–26).

43 4, 11 and 13–15 (Il Kitāb Arisṭāṭalīs, ed. Ghersetti, pp. 8:4–7; 21:13–22; 25:10–26; 28:4–5 and 39:18–40:1).

44 2–3 and 13 (Il Kitāb Arisṭāṭalīs, ed. Ghersetti, pp. 4:2–6; 5:10–8:1, including a long quote from Book 6 of Galen's commentary on Hippocrates’ Epidemics; 25:10–26).

45 2, 5–6, 9–10 and 12 (Il Kitāb Arisṭāṭalīs, ed. Ghersetti, pp. 4:2–6; 9:14–21; 13:11–16; 14:18–17:16, including a long quote from Book 2 of Galen's On mixtures; 18:3–11 and 23:12–24).

46 2 and 9 (Il Kitāb Arisṭāṭalīs, ed. Ghersetti, p. 4:2–6, referring to Galen's The Faculties of the Soul Follow the Mixtures of the Body, and 14:18–17:16, quoting Book 2 of Galen's On Mixtures). Cf. Grignaschi, ‘La “Physiognomie”’, p. 288.

47 5 and 9 (Il Kitāb Arisṭāṭalīs, ed. Ghersetti, pp. 9:14–21 and 14:18–17:16; the passage in question is on p. 17:16–18).

48 Cf. Grignaschi, ‘La “Physiognomie”’, pp. 290–1.

49 Edited by Bergsträsser, ‘Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq’, with additions and corrections in idem, ‘Neue Materialien zu Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq's Galen-Bibliographie’, Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 19 (1932): 1–108. See also the remarks by Max Meyerhof, ‘New light on Ḥunain Ibn Isḥâq and his period’, Isis, 8 (1926): 685–724.

50 Cf. Vagelpohl, ‘The Abbasid translation movement’, pp. 248–53.

51 Cf. e.g. Bergsträsser, ‘Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq’, nos. 11, 37, 53 and 84.

52 Cf. e.g. Bergsträsser, ‘Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq’, nos. 16 (on his nephew Ḥubayš), 17, 43 and 108 (on his own translations).

53 Cf. Gutas, Greek Thought, pp. 140–1.

54 Cf. Bergsträsser, ‘Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq’, nos. 10, 74.

55 Cf. e.g. Bergsträsser, ‘Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq’, nos. 13, 15, 18–19, 37, 53.

56 Cf. Bergsträsser, ‘Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq’, nos. 28, 95 and 122.

57 Cf. e.g. Bergsträsser, ‘Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq’, nos. 5, 16, 37 and 56; Gutas, Greek Thought, p. 140.

58 Ibn Abi Useibia [ʿUyūn al-anbāʾ fī ṭabaqāt al-aṭibbāʾ], ed. August Müller (Cairo, 1882), p. 191, ll. 25–28. On the contents and authenticity of the autobiographical narration Ḥunayn's remark forms part of, cf. Michael Cooperson, ‘The purported autobiography of Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq’, Edebiyât, 7 (1997): 235–49.

59 Most prominently in Bergsträsser, ‘Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq’, nos. 3, 20 and 115.

60 Cf. e.g. Sebastian Brock, ‘Towards a history of Syriac translation technique’, in René Lavenant (ed.), III. Symposium Syriacum 1980: Les contacts du monde syriaque avec les autres cultures, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 10 (Rome, 1983), pp. 1–14, on pp. 12–13.

61 Cf. Brock, ‘Towards a history’, pp. 8–9.

62 Cf. Brock, Sebastian, ‘Aspects of translation technique in Antiquity’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 20 (1979): 69–87Google Scholar, on p. 78 and also the interesting appendix to a probably late sixth century Syriac translation, in which the author asserted that “[t]his [treatise] was translated and interpreted from Greek into Syriac word for word without alteration in so far as possible, so as to indicate, not just the sense, but, by its very words, the words of the Greek; and for the most part not one letter has been added or subtracted, provided the requirements of the language have not hindered this”, quoted by Brock, ‘Towards a history’, pp. 9–10.

63 Cf. Vagelpohl, ‘The Abbasid translation movement’, p. 263 with n. 79.

64 Cf. Suermann, Harald, ‘Die Übersetzungen des Probus und eine Theorie zur Geschichte der syrischen Übersetzung griechischer Texte’, Oriens Christianus, 74 (1990): 103–14Google Scholar, on p. 105.

65 Edited by Jaroslaus Tkatsch (ed.), Die arabische Übersetzung der Poetik des Aristoteles und die Grundlage der Kritik des griechischen Textes, Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Kommission für die Herausgabe der arabischen Aristoteles-Übersetzungen 1–2 (Wien, Leipzig, 1928) and ʿAbdurraḥmān Badawī, Manṭiq Arisṭū, Dirāsāt islāmiyya 7 (Cairo, 1948–52), vol. 2, pp. 307–465 (corresponding to vol. 2, pp. 329–485 of the 1980 Kuwait reprint). Fritz Zimmermann, Al-Farabi's Commentary and Short Treatise on Aristotle's De Interpretatione, Classical and Medieval logic texts 3 (London, 1981), p. lxxvi, calls the former translation “uncommonly inarticulate” and the latter “uncommonly tortuous”, possibly due to Abū Bišr's insufficient command of Arabic. In addition, the Poetics amply demonstrate that the translator (as all other Muslim scholars before or after him) had no idea about the meaning of basic concepts such as “tragedy” and “comedy”; cf. Uwe Vagelpohl, ‘The Rhetoric and Poetics in the Muslim world’, in Ahmed Alwishah and Josh M. Hayes (eds.), Aristotle and the Arabic Tradition (Cambridge, forthcoming).

66 Cf. Strohmaier, Gotthard, ‘Ḥunain Ibn Isḥāq – An Arab scholar translating into Syriac’, Aram, 3 (1991): 163–70Google Scholar, on. pp. 166–7.

67 Cf. e.g. Bergsträsser, ‘Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq’, nos. 16, 20, 39, 49 and 88 and the discussion by Henri Hugonnard-Roche, ‘La formation du vocabulaire de la logique en arabe’, in Danielle Jacquart (ed.), La formation du vocabulaire scientifique et intellectuel dans le monde arabe, Études sur le vocabulaire intellectuel du moyen âge 7 (Turnhout, 1994), pp. 22–38, on p. 23. In rare cases, Arabic translations were also translated into Syriac; cf. Strohmaier, Gotthard, ‘Der syrische und der arabische Galen’, in Haase, Wolfgang (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 37/2 (Berlin, New York, 1994), pp. 1987–2017Google Scholar, on p. 2006.

68 Problems with their Arabic seems to have been a frequent complaint, cf. Zimmermann, Al-Farabi's Commentary, p. lxxvi on Abū Bišr. Zimmermann explains that the latter, like other early teachers of Aristotelian philosophy in Baghdad, “are likely to have come […] from convents and the least Arabicized section of the Christian community”.

69 In note 7 (E1, fol. 108a26–b12), Ḥunayn explained that a contradiction he noticed in a Galenic comment must have been introduced by an incompetent scribe and made a point of stating that, whole correcting the text, “lam arad […] al-iʿtirāḍa ʿalā Ǧālīnūs” (I did not intend to oppose Galen).

70 Cf. Uwe Vagelpohl, Aristotle's Rhetoric in the East. The Syriac and Arabic translation and commentary tradition, Islamic Philosophy, Theology and Science. Texts and Studies 76 (Leiden, Boston, 2008), pp. 212–13.

71 Strohmaier, Gotthard, ‘Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq und die Bilder’, Klio, 43/45 (1965): 525–33Google Scholar, on p. 525.

72 Cf. e.g. Cooperson, ‘The purported autobiography of Ḥunayn’, p. 242.

73 Strohmaier, ‘Ḥunain Ibn Isḥāq – An Arab scholar’, pp. 163–5.

74 Unfortunately, the potentially most important source for his methods, an independent work entitled On Exegesis (Περὶ ἐξηγήσεως), is lost. Galen summarised some of its central tenets in the introduction to his commentary on Hippocrates’ On Fractures, discussed below. Cf. Mansfeld, Prolegomena, p. 135 and 148, n. 269.

75 The following remarks rely heavily on Jaap Mansfeld's brilliant and insightful analyses of Galen's statements about reading and commenting on Hippocratic texts in ch. 5 of his Prolegomena (pp. 148–76).

76 Mansfeld, Prolegomena, pp. 149, 135 with n. 244. In the first work, Galen quotes an unnamed predecessor who defines explanation (ἐξήγησις) as “ἀσαϕοῦς ἑρμηνείας ἐξάπλωσις”. In the second, he writes: “μάλιστα μὲν οὖν ὅσον ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀσαϕές ἐστι σαϕηνίζοντες, ἔργον γὰρ τοῦτο ἴδιον ἐξηγήσεως” (Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia, ed. Karl Gottlob Kühn, vol. 17b, p. 561, ll. 4–5).

77 Mansfeld, Prolegomena, p. 163. At the very beginning of this commentary, Galen states: “Πρὸ τῆς τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἐξηγήσεως ἄμεινον ἀκηκοέναι καθόλου περὶ πάσης ἐξηγήσεως, ὡς ἔστιν ἡ δύναμις αὐτῆς, ὅσα τῶν ἐν τοῖς συγγράμασὶν ἐστιν ἀσαϕῆ, ταῦτ’ ἐργάσασθαι σαϕῆ.” (Galeni Opera, ed. Kühn, vol. 18b, p. 318, ll. 1–4.)

78 Described as “τὸ μὲν ὄντως ἀσαϕὲς αὐτὸ δι’ ἑαυτὸ τοιοῦτον ὑπάρχον” (Kühn, Galeni Opera, vol. 18b, p. 319, ll. 11–12).

79 Mansfeld, Prolegomena, pp. 150–2 with n. 274.

80 Mansfeld, Prolegomena, p. 152, n. 276.

81 For an example of his utilisation of Hippocratic statements to project Galenic doctrines onto Hippocrates, cf. In-Sok Yeo, ‘Hippocrates in the context of Galen: Galen's commentary on the classification of fevers in Epidemics VI’, in Philip J. van der Eijk (ed.), Hippocrates in Context. Papers read at the XIth International Hippocrates Colloquium University of Newcastle upon Tyne 27–31 August 2002, Studies in Ancient Medicine 31 (Leiden, Boston, 2005), pp. 433–43.

82 Mansfeld, Prolegomena, pp. 152–3. As Mansfeld demonstrates, Galen is not the first exegete to apply similarly creative methods; cf. ibid., pp. 153–4 and 155–80.

83 “καὶ γάρ μοι καὶ νόμος οὗτος ἐξηγήσεως, ἕκαστον τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ σαϕηνίζεσθαι καὶ μὴ κεναῖς ὑπονοίαις καὶ ϕάσεσιν ἀναποδείκτοις ἀποληρεῖν, ὃ τι τις βούλεται” (Galeni Opera, ed. Kühn, vol. 8, p. 958, ll. 6–8), cf. Mansfeld, Prolegomena, p. 148 with n. 270. As much as he professed its exegetical value, Galen was not always consistent in the application of the Homerum-ex-Homero principle he advocated in this passage; cf. ibid., p. 152, n. 278.

84 “εἰ μὲν οὖν μετὰ τὸ δηλῶσαι τὴν παλαιὰν γραϕὴν ἔλεγον ἡμαρτῆσθαι τὴν | λέξιν εἰκὸς εἶναι καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὑπονοεῖν αὐτοὶ τὴν Ἱπποκράτους γραϕὴν εἶναι τήνδε τινά, κἂν ἀπεδεξάμην αὐτούς, εἴ γε μετὰ τὴν ἐπανόρθωσιν ἑώρων διδάσκοντάς τι χρήσιμόν τε ἅμα καὶ τῆς γνόμης ἐχόμενον τοῦ παλαιοῦ” (Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum VI, ed. Wenkebach, p. 3, l. 11–p. 4, l. 4), cf. Mansfeld, Prolegomena, p. 139.

85 “πάντων δὲ τῶν ὑπαλλαξάντων τὰς παλαιὰς γραϕὰς τολμηρότατα τοὺς περὶ Καπίτωνα καὶ Διοσκουρίδην εὑρίσκω πράξαντας τοῦτο” (Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum VI, ed. Wenkebach, p. 4, ll. 15–17), cf. Mansfeld, Prolegomena, p. 140.

86 “ἀρεταὶ μὲν γάρ εἰσιν ἐξηγητῶν δύο αὗται, τό τε τὴν γνώμην ϕυλάσσειν τοῦ συγγράμματος καὶ τὸ τὰ χρήσιμα διδάσκειν τοὺς ἀναγνωσομένους αὐτοῦ τὰ ὑπομνήματα” (Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum libros I et II, ed. Wenkebach, p. 6, ll. 16–18).

87 In note 2 (E1, fol. 51a25).

88 For a list of the sigla used in the Appendix, cf. above, n. 16.

89 Cf. Pormann, ‘Case notes’, p. 256.

90 Cf. Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum libros I et II, ed. Wenkebach, p. 188.

91 Cf. Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum libros I et II, ed. Wenkebach, p. 351.

92 Cf. Pormann, ‘Case notes’, pp. 257–9 and Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum libros I et II, ed. Wenkebach, p. 353.

93 Cf. Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum libros I et II, ed. Wenkebach, pp. 361–2.

94 Cf. Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum libros I et II, ed. Wenkebach, p. 394.

95 Ḥunayn's note refers to the following anecdote reported by Galen: “ἀλλ’ ἔνιοί γε τῶν ἐξηγουμένων τὰ βιβλία κατεγνώκασιν εἰς τοσοῦτον τῶν ἀκροατῶν, ὥστ’ ἐγώ ποτε ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ καὶ τοιαύτης ἐξηγήσεως ἤκουσα περί τινος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Ἐπιδημιῶν ἀρρώστου γεγραμμένου κατὰ τὴν ῥῆσιν, ἧς ἡ ἀρχή· ‘Σιληνὸς ᾤκει ἐπὶ τοῦ πλαταμῶνος’. ἐν γὰρ τῷ διηγεῖσθαι τὰ συμβάντα τούτῳ καὶ τοιαύτην τινὰ ῥῆσιν ἔγραψεν ὁ Ἱπποκράτης· ‘νυκτὸς οὐδὲν ἐκοιμήθη, λόγοι πολλοί, γέλως, ᾠδή’. τούτοις οὖν ἐπεϕώνησεν ‘ἰού’ ὁ ἐξηγούμενος τὸ σύγγραμμα, ‘Σιληνὸς γὰρ ἦν.’ οἱ μαθηταὶ δ’ ἀναπηδήσαντες ἐκεκράγεσαν ὑπερθαυμάζοντες.” (Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum III, ed. Ernst Wenkebach, Corpus Medicorum Graecorum V, 10, 2.1 [Leipzig, Berlin, 1936], p. 12, ll. 15–23.)

96 Ḥunayn attempts to explain the following passage: “εἰς ταύτας γοῦν τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ οἱ πρὸ Λύκου καὶ Κοΐντου τῶν Ἱπποκράτους ἐξηγησάμενοί τι βιβλίον ἐμπειρικοὶ πάντ’ ἀνάγειν πειρῶνται, καθάπερ ἐν δράματι ϕυλάττοντες ἔνιοι τὴν οἰκείαν ὑπόκρισιν τοῦ περικειμένου προσώπου.” (Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum III, ed. Wenkebach, p. 16:23–p. 17:3.)

97 Cf. Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum VI, ed. Wenkebach, p. 42, ll. 1–2 (lemma I 23) and Galen's commentary.

98 Cf. Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum VI, ed. Wenkebach, p. 65, ll. 4–5 (lemma II 8) and Galen's commentary.

99 Referring to Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum VI, ed. Wenkebach, p. 114, l. 17–p. 115, l. 12 (lemma II 44 and Galen's commentary).

100 Cf. Degen, ‘Wer übersetzte’, p. 90 (2) and Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum VI, ed. Wenkebach, pp. 356–7.

101 Cf. Degen, ‘Wer übersetzte’, p. 90 (3) and Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum VI, ed. Wenkebach, p. 389.

102 Cf. Degen, ‘Wer übersetzte’, p. 90 (1) and Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum VI, ed. Wenkebach, pp. 443–4.

103 Cf. Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum VI, ed. Wenkebach, p. 464.

104 Cf. Degen, ‘Wer übersetzte’, pp. 81–6 and Pormann, ‘Case notes’, pp. 252–7, both with translation.

105 Cf. Degen, ‘Wer übersetzte’, pp. 87–8 and Bergsträsser, ‘Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq’, nos. 95, 96.