Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Review articles

  • Published:
International Journal of the Classical Tradition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. See A. Chastagnol, “La naissance de l'ordo senatorius,”Mélanges de l'Ecole Française de Rome. Moyen âge 85 (1973), 583–607 (repr. in: C. Nicolet, ed.,Des ordres à Rome [Paris, 1984], 175–198).

    Google Scholar 

  2. See A. Chastagnol, “La fin de l'ordre équestre: réflexions sur la prosopographie des ≪derniers≫ chevaliers romains,”Mélanges de l'École Française de Rome. Moyen âge, temps modernes 100 (1988), 199–206.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See, e.g., A. Chastagnol, “L'évolution de l'ordre sénatorial aux IIIe et IVe siècles de notre ère,”Revue historique 244 (1970), no. 496, 305–14 (Italian as: “L'evoluzione dell'ordine senatorio nei secoli III e IV della nostra era,” in: A. Saitta, ed.,2000 anni di storia, vol. I.Cristiani e Barbari [Rome and Bari, 1978], 45–56; German as: “Die Entwicklung des Senatorenstandes im 3. und 4. Jahrhundert unserer Zeitrechnung,” in: H. Schneider, ed.,Sozial- und Wirtschafts-geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, Wege der Forschung 552 [Darmstadt, 1981], 293–306); “Les modes de recrutement du sénat au IVe siècle après J.-C.” in:Recherches sur les structures sociales dans l'antiquité classique (Paris, 1970), 187–211; cf. Idem., H. Schneider, ed., “Quelques problèmes de la prosopographie romaine et byzantine des IVe-Ve siècles,”Actes du VIIe Congrès de la F.I.E.C., vol. II (Budapest, 1983), 83–92=Idem,L'Italie et l'Afrique au Bas-Empire. Études administratives et prosopographiques. Scripta varia (Lille, 1987), 55–64; W. Kuhoff,Studien zur zivilen senatorischen Laufbahn im 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Ämter und Amtsinhaber in Clarissimat und Spectabilität, Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe 3: Geschichte und ihre Hilfswissenschaften 162 (Frankfurt, 1983); and A.H.M. Jones,The Later Roman Empire, 284–602. A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey (Oxford, 1964), passim.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See A. Demandt, “Der spätrömische Militäradel,”Chiron 10 (1980), 609–36; and M. Waas,Germanen im römischen Dienst im 4. Jahrhundert nach Christus (Bonn, 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  5. See W. Langhammer,Die rechtliche und soziale Stellung der Magistratus municipales und der Decuriones (Wiesbaden, 1973).

  6. See M. Reinhold, “Usurpation of Status and Status Symbols in the Roman Empire,”Historia 20 (1971), 275–302, repr. in: Idem, M. Reinhold, “Usurpation of Status and Status Symbol in the Roman Empire,”Studies in Classical History and Society, American Classical Studies 45 (new York, 2002), 25–44.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. Matthews,Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court A.D. 364–425 (Oxford, 1975), p. 211.

    Google Scholar 

  8. R. von Haehling,Die Religionszugehörigkeit der hohen Amtsträger des römischen Reiches seit Constantins I. Alleinherrschaft bis zum ende der theodosianischen Dynastie (324–450 bzw. 454 n. Chr.), Antiquitas: Reihe 3, Abhandlungen zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, zur klassischen und provinzial-römischen Archäologie und zur Geschichte des Altertums 23 (Bonn, 1978), p. 151; cf. 510.

  9. A.D. Nock,Conversion. The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo (Oxford, 1933), p. 160.

  10. E.g., E.R. Dodds,Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety. Some Aspects of Religious Experience from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine (Cambridge, 1965), p. 135 etc.; reprised, e.g., in A. Fitzgerald,Conversion through Penance in the Italian Church of the Fourth and Fifth Century (Lewiston, NY, 1988).

  11. Judith Herrin,The Formation of Christendom (Princeton, 1987), 73–4.

  12. In particular, H. Bloch, “The Pagan Revival in the West at the End of the Fourth Century,” in: A. Momigliano, ed.,The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity (Oxford, 1963), 193–218; see also L. Cracco Ruggini,Il paganesimo romano tra religione e politica (384–394 d.C.), Memorie dell'Accademia nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, Ser. VIII, 23, 1 (Rome, 1979).

  13. R.A. Markus,The End of Ancient Christianity (Cambridge, 1990), p. 43.

  14. R. MacMullen,Christianizing the Roman Empire (AD 100–400) (New Haven, 1984), 77–8.

  15. A.H.M. Jones,Constantine the Great and the Conversion of Europe (Oxford, 1948); and P. Brown, e.g. “Aspects of the Christianization of the Roman Aristocracy,”Journal of Roman Studies 51 (1961), 1–11, andThe World of Late Antiquity (New York, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  16. T.D. Barnes, “Statistics and the Conversion of the Roman Aristocracy,”Journal of Roman Studies 85 (1995) 135–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. See R. Mathisen, “Imperial Honorifics and Senatorial Status in Late Roman Legal Documents,” in: Mathisen, ed.,Law, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2001, 179–207.

  18. iura amicitiae (Apollinaris Sidonius,Epist. 4.1.5, 4.2.2, 4.3.1, 4.7.1, 4.13.1, 4.24.2, 7.6.1, 7.11.1, 7.17.1).

  19. See H.C. Teitler,Notarii en Exceptores. Een onderzoek naar rol en betekenis van notarii en exceptores in dienst van overheid en kerk in de Romeinse keizertijd (tot circa 450 A.D.) (Utrecht, 1983); English as:Notarii and Exceptores: An Inquiry into Role and Significance of Shorthand Writers in the Imperial and Ecclesiastical Bureaucracy of the Roman Empire from the Early Principate to c. 450 A.D., Dutch monographs on ancient history and archaeology 1 (Amsterdam, 1985).

  20. See thefasti in A.H.M. Jones, J. Morris, and J.R. Martindale, eds.,The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, Volume 1.A.D. 260–395 (Cambridge, 1971); and J.R. Martindale, ed.,The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, Volume II.A.D. 395–527 (Cambridge, 1980) (=PLRE I, II).

  21. S.,;, no. 35, 341

    Google Scholar 

  22. S.,;, no. 35, 203, citing R. Van Dam,Leadership and Community in Late Antique Gaul (Berkeley, 1985), p. 155.

    Google Scholar 

  23. To the studies cited elsewhere, add B. Näf,Senatorisches Standesbewusstsein in spätrömischer Zeit, Paradosis 40 (Freiburg, 1995); and D. Schlinkert,Ordo senatorius und nobilitas: Die Konstitution des Senatsadels in der Spätantike, Hermes Einzelschriften 72 (Stuttgart, 1996).

  24. E.g., Al. Cameron, “The Last Pagans of Rome,” in: W.V. Harris, ed.,The Transformations of the Urbs Roma in Late Antiquity (Portsmouth, R.I., 1999), 109–121, who downplays the extent of organized resistance.

  25. Recently, C.W. Hedrick, Jr.,History and Silence: The Purge and Rehabilitation of Memory in Late Antiquity (Austin, 2000).

  26. For methodological issues, see, e.g., N. Bulst and J.-P. Genet, eds.,Medieval Lives and the Historian. Studies in Medieval Prosopography, Proceedings of the First International Interdisciplinary Conference on Medieval Prosopography, Univ. of Bielefeld, 3–5 Dec. 1982 (Kalamazoo, 1986); N. Bulst, “Object et méthode de la prosopographie,” in: J.-P. Genet and G. Lottes, eds.,L'Etat moderne et les élites XIIIe–XVIIIe siècles. Apports et limites de la méthode prosopographique: actes du colloque international CNRS-Paris I, 16–19 octobre 1991, Histire moderne 36 (Paris, 1996), 467–488; T.F. Carney, “Prosopography: Payoffs and Pitfalls,”Phoenix 27 (1973), 156–179; M. Cesa, “Integrazioni prosopografiche tardo imperiali,”Athenaeum 64 (1986), 236–40; A. Chastagnol, “La prosopographie, méthode de recherche sur l'histoire du Bas-Empire,”Annales. Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations 25 (1970), 1229–35=Idem,L'Italie et l'Afrique au Bas-Empire (above, n. 3), 25–31; W. Eck, ed.,Prosopographie und Sozialgeschichte: Studien zur Methodik und Erkenntnismöglichkeit der kaiserzeitlichen Prosopographie. Kolloquium, Köln, 24.–26. November 1991 (Vienna, 1993); M. Heinzelmann, “Prosopographie et recherche de continuité historique: l'exemple des Ve-VIIe siècles,”Mélanges de l'École Française de Rome. Moyen âge, Temps modernes 100 (1988), 227–39; J.R. Martindale, “The Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire,” in: R. Mathisen, ed.,Late Antiquity & Byzantium=Medieval Prosopography 17.1 (1996), 169–191; R. Mathisen, “Creating and Using a Biographical Database for Late Antiquity,”History Microcomputer Review 5.2 (1989), 7–22; J. Maurin, “La prosopographie romaine: pertes et profits,”Annales. Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations 37 (1982), 824–36; F. Morgenstern,Die Briefpartner des Augustinus von Hippo: prosopographische, sozial- und ideologiegeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Bochum, 1993); D.C. Smythe, “Making Byzantine Data Conform,”Byzantinische Forschunge 24 (1996), 295–311; and L. Stone, “Prosopography,”Daedalus 106 (1971), 46–79=F. Gilbert and S. Graubard, eds.,Historical Studies Today (New York, 1972), 107–141 (German as: “Prosopographie,” in: K.H. Jarausch, ed.,Quantifizierung in der Geschichtswissenschaft [Düsseldorf, 1976], 64–97).

    Google Scholar 

  27. J.S. Russell,The Control of Late Ancient and Medieval Population (Philadelphia, 1985): based on an analysis of pubic bones, Roman and medieval women had an average of 4.2 children (p. 49); noble women, in fact, tended to have had an average of 6 children in the Middle Ages (p. 145).

  28. Life expectancy for the period AD 1–452 was approximately 35.6 years (Russell, p. 162).

  29. A very conservative estimate. Russell (p. 159) suggests that only 1/5 fo females died at birth, as compared to an even smaller number of males.

  30. SeeCorpus Juris 1.3.21 (AD 442): “Theodosius et Valentinianus AA. Thomae pp. Ad similitudinem tam episcoporum orthodoxae fidei quam presbyteri et diaconi ii, qui honorario titulo illustrem dignitatem consecuti sunt, per substitutos periculo suarum facultatum curiae muneribus satisfacere non vententur. Data V k. Mart. Constantinopoli Eudoxio et Dioscoro conss”; see also E.K. Chrysos, “Die angebliche ‘Nobilitierung’ des Klerus durch Kaiser Konstantin den Grossen,”Historia 18 (1969), 119–129; T. Klauser,Der Ursprung der bischöflichen Insignien und Ehrerechte, Bonner akademische Reden 1 (Bonn, 1948; 2. unveränd. Aufl. 1953); and P.-P. Joannou,La législation impériale et la christianisation de l'empire romain 311–476), Orientalia Christiana analecta 192 (Rome, 1972).

Literatur

  1. Vgl. p. XI: “Die Finanzierung vonTradita et Inventa wurde aus den Mitteln des DFG-Projektes ‘Nachleben der Antike’ (1995–1999) von Prof. Dr. Dr. Glenn W. Most ermöglicht.”—Zur Erklärung für Leser, die nicht zu den Eingeborenen zählen: DFG=Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

  2. Vgl. p. X.: “Einige Beiträge wurden nicht aufgenommen, viele sind durch anregungen des Kongresses neu konzipiert und verändert worden, und einige Fachgebiete sind mit weiteren Fragestellungen hinzugekommen.”—In der im allgemeinen guten technischen Aufbereitung sind einige Schnitzer stehen geblieben, die jedoch den Gesamtwert des Bandes nicht in Frage stellen [z. B. ‘Philolosophie’ p. X; oder: Boethius, der im 6. Jhdt. (524) sein Leben verlor, wird als Autor des 4. Jhdts. vorgestellt p. 218; oder der Reihen-Herausgeber W. Rüegg wird als Band-Editor vorgestellt p. 335 Anm. 37; merkwürdig auch, daß man meinte, Livius, als ob er unbekannt wäre, in zwei—sehr simplistischen—Zeilen p. 326 Anm. 22. ganz allgemein vorstellen zu müssen].

  3. Die Titel der Beiträge, im Umfang von 4 Wörtern bis zu 5 Zeilen, sind die folgenden: Alexandrine Schniewind, “Begriffsrezeption im Neuplatonisums oder: Wer ist der plotinische\(\sigma \pi o\upsilon \delta \alpha \overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\iota } o\varsigma \)?” (p. 1–17); Susanne Friede, “Alexander und Narcissus—ein Fall direkter Rezeption? Das Lied von Narcissus in der Amazonenepisode desRoman d'Alexandre, die Narcissus-Episode bei Ovid und der französischeNarcisse” (p. 19–36); Elöd Nemerkényi, “Latin Classics in Medieval Hungary. Problems and Perspectives” (p. 37–58); Jürgen Strothmann, “Caesar und Augustus im Mittelalter. Zwei komplementäre Bilder des Herrschers in der staufischen Kaiseridee” (p. 59–72); Johannes Ammann-Bubenik, “Kaiserserien und Habsburgergenealogien—Eine poetische Gattung” (p. 73–89) Simone De Angelis, “Zur Galen-Rezeption in der Renaissance mit Blick auf die Anthropologie von Juan Luis Vives. Überlegungen zu der Konfiguration einer ‘Wissenschaft vom Menschen’ in der Frühen Neuzeit” (p. 91–109); Christian Schäfer, “Die These von der natürlichen Sklaverei in antiker Philosophie und spanischer Conquista” (p. 111–130); Agnes Becherer, “Die panegyrische Inszenierung des Herrschers in der französischen Literatur der Renaissance—Versepos und Eklogendichtung” (p. 131–146); Karin Westerwelle, “Montaignes Kritik an Platos Dichtungstheorie” (p. 147–163); Christoph Röck, “Römische Schlachtordnungen im 17. Jahrhundert?” (p. 165–186); Alexander Bitzel, “Auf der Suche nach einem neuen Hektor. Zur Rezeption der Antike in der lutherischen Militärseelsorge des 17.Jahrhunderts” (p. 187–202); Ulf Scharrer, “Robert Filmer, John Milton, William Prynne und die aristotelische Theorie der Monarchie” (p. 203–216); Stefanie Arend, “Zwei Leben: Vomartifex naturae zum stoischen Weisen. Die Aktualisierung des Senecaischensecundum naturam vivere in Gryphius' DramaPapinian (1659)” (p. 217–233); Susanne Gippert, “Ovid im ‘Augustan Age.’—Joseph Addisons Metamorphosenrezeption” (p. 235–252); Sonja M. Schreiner, “Sedes Pacis Martis Austriaci—Ein panegyrisch-aitiologisches Gedicht auf Prinz Eugen von Savoyen und das Belverdere” (p. 253–270); Hendrik Müller, “Apuleius reversus—Wielands fragmentarisches Gedicht ‘Psyche’” (p. 271–280); Stefan Elit, “Übersetzen als internationaler Dichterwettstreit. Klopstocks Übersetzung horazischer Oden als doppelter poetischer Überbietungsversuch” (p. 281–295); Adelheid Müller, “‘Der Marmor ist vom feinsten Korn …’ Ästhetische Erfahrung am Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts” (p. 297–319); Imke Heuer, “Ancient Rome in Canto IV of Byron'sChilde Harold's Pilgrimage” (p. 321–338); Elke Katharina Wittich, “Das Einzelne und Ganze—Detail(un)genauigkeit und Wissenschaftsanspruch der Antikerezeption bei Karl Friedrich Schinkel” (p. 339–354); Stefanie Bahe, “Die Beuth/SchinkelschenVorbilder für Fabrikanten und Handwerker. Antike als Mittel der. Wirtschaftsförderung?” (p. 355–366); Birgitta Coers, “Zitat, Paraphrase und Invention: Zur Funktion pompejanischer Wandmalerei im Historienbild am Beispiel von J.A.D. Ingres' ‘Antiochus und Stratonice’ und Anselm Feuerbachs ‘Gastmahl des Plato’” (p. 367–388); Mischa Meier, “Chöre und Leitmotive in den Bühnenwerken Richard Wagners: Von der griechischen Tragödie zum Musikdrama” (p. 389–406); Gabrielle Sprigath, “Der Fall Xenokrates von Athen. Zu den Methoden der Antike-Rezeption in der Quellenforschung” (p. 407–428); Wolfgang Kofler, “Poggios Plautus: Poetik und Rezeption in Conrad Ferdinand Meyers NovellePlautus im Nonnenkloster” (p. 429–440); Anke Bohne, “Überlegungen zu zwei Einzelbeispielen der Rezeption des Pergamonaltares im deutschen Bürgertum am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts” (p. 441–458); Dorothea Ipsen, “Der verstellte Blick: Man sieht nur, was man weiß. Antikewahrnehmung in Reiseberichten über Griechenland um 1900” (p. 459–471); Ingo Starz, “‘Heiliger Frühling’ als Kulturformel der Moderne. Erinnerung und kultureller Raum in der Kunst der Jahrhundertwende”, (p. 473–486); Ioannis A. Panteleon, “Inventa Inventorum” (p. 487–494); Christian Welzbacher, “‘Die geheiligten Bezirke unseres Volkes’—Antikenrezeption in der Architektur des Dritten Reiches als Beispiel für das Nationalsozialistische Historismuskonzept” (p. 495–513; Marcel Remme, “Paideia. Werner Jaegers Bildungsphilosophie” (p. 515–530); Michael Beck/Benedikt Simons, “Ovid und Benjamin Britten” (p. 531–548); Gregor Damschen, “Formen der Begründung. Zur Struktur und Reichweite reflexiver Argumente bei Platon, Circero und Apel” (p. 549–573); Markus Janka, “Der Dichter, der Professor und die ‘Friedensfrau’: DieLysistrate-Bearbeitungen von Erich Fried (1979/1985) und Walter Jens (1986) in der Tradition der moderenen Aristophanesrezeption” (p. 575–599); Jochen Gindele, “Immer wieder anders und neu—Christoph Ransmayrs RomanDie letzte Welt und das Werk Ovids. Ansätze zu einem Vergleich” (p. 601–614); Helen Kaufmann, “Odysseus’ Rückkehr nach St. Lucia: Der Erzähler in D. WalcottsOmeros” (p. 615–628); Jürgen Obmann/Derk Wirtz, “Die Wiederkehr der Götter? Vorchristliche Heiligtümer, im Spiegel der Esoterik und des Neuheidentums” (p. 629–649); und Ansgar Kemmann, “Rhetorik als Disziplin—was sie war, was sie ist, und was sie sein könnte” (p. 651–663).

  4. Nemerkényi, p. 37ff.; Heuer, p. 321ff.

  5. Aus dem Vorwort p. X.

  6. Wer sich der so praktischen wie sinnleeren Wirkung des Alphabets vergewissern will wird p. 340f. bestens bedient: In der ‘Encyklopädie der bürgerlichen Baukunst’ erscheint der Begriff ‘Säule’ neben ‘Sägemühle’, das Wort ‘Metopen’ zwischen ‘Messing’ und ‘Meyerei’.

  7. Weitere Ovid-Studien finden sich auch p. 235 ff., 531ff. und in Gindeles Aufsatz, p. 601ff.; ergänzend hierzu sei verwiesen auf das Buch von Friedmann Harzer,Erzählte Verwandlung. Eine Poetik epischer Metamorphosen (Ovid—Kafka—Ransmayer), Studien zur deutschen Literatur 157, Tübingen 2000.

  8. Klopstock/Horaz, p. 281ff. [Stefan Elit]; Addison/Ovid, p. 235ff. [Susanne Gippert]; Aristophanes/Wolfgang Schadewaldt, Erich Fried, Walter Jens, p. 575ff. [Markus Janka].

  9. Vgl. Astrid Seele,Römische Übersetzer. Nöte, Freiheiten, Absichten: Verfahren des literarischen Übersetzens in der griechisch-römischen Antike, Darmstadt 1995; dazu meine BesprechungScholia Reviews NS 5 (1996) 23, http://www.classics.und.ac.za/reviews/.

  10. So formuliert p. 581 in seinem erfrischenden Artikel, p. 575ff.

  11. “Inventa, Inventorum” von Ioannis A. Pantaleon p. 487 ff., der über die Grabungskampagne 1997 in Milet berichtet. Dort hat man eines der zerstörten Fundmagazine der Altgrabung von 1899–1913 entdeckt und so “die dinglichen Hinterlassenschaften einer archäologischen Tätigkeit selbst Gegenstand einer wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung” werden lassen. Das Ergebnis ist, daß sich die Ausgrabung erwies als “von Anfang konzipiert und begriffen als stetige und nicht zu vollendende Annäherung an ein vielschichtiges Geflecht von grundsätzlich historisch relevanten Sachüberresten, von denen selbst das Geringste irgendwann einmal in einem anderen Zusammenhang Bedeutsamkeit erlangen mochte und deshalb aufbewahrt werden mußte.”

  12. Adelheid Müller, p. 297ff., mit dem Hinweis auf das “zwischen, dem Wunsch nach gelehrter

  13. Anke Bohne, p. 441ff., mit ansprechendem Material zur Verwertung des Großkunstwerkes in kleinformatigen Kopien zum Hausgebrauch im wohlhabenden Bürgertum.—Ergänzend sei hingewiesen auf Thomas Beutelschmidt/Manuel Köppen, “Entstehung-Verwertung-Aneignung. Materialien zu einer Geschichte des Pergamon-Altars”, in: R. Faber/B. Kytzler [edd.],Antike Heute, Würzburg 1992, p. 30–53, mit 14 Abbildungen.

  14. Birgitta Coers, p. 367ff., resümiert eine Reihe von Unterschieden der beiden Künstler [Ingres sucht das Urteil der Gelehrten und fügt, im Format des Ausgangsmediums, antike Bildzitate ein, während Feuerbach variiert und paraphrasiert] und schließt: “Beide treffen sich wiederum dort, wo es um das Verhältnis des Künstlers zu seinen pompejanischen Vorbildern geht: in der bewußten und funktional bedingten Auswahl, die beide vorgenommen haben.”

  15. Dorothea Ipsen, p. 459ff., setzt sich auseinander mit den Beeinflussungen durch die Geschichtsauffassungen des 19. Jahrhunderts, durch die Kunstgeschichte und durch die Literatur.

  16. Christoph Röck, p. 165ff. über die sogenannte ‘Heeresreform der Oranier’ im letzten Jahrzehnt vor 1600, mit 9 hilfreichen Skizzen zur Veranschaulichung.

  17. Alexander Britzel, p. 187ff., über die Anwendung antiker Beispiele in Trostpredigten und Erbauungsliteratur, über “Spaß und Freude an antiker Literatur und Mythologie, an kraftvollen Heldengeschichten jenseits von Simson und Gideon” [p. 201].

  18. p. 515ff.; p. 529f. werden an Jaegers Ansatz kritisiert u.a. sein Griechezentrismus, seine Bildungsaristokratie, seine uneingeschränkte Griechenidealisierung, in summa sein ‘Mandarinentum’; es wird jedoch als seine Leistung anerkannt die “Rückgewinnung der pädagogischen Dimension der platonischen Philosophie”.

  19. p. 495ff., mit sechs glänzend gewählten Abbildungen.

  20. Obmann/Wirtz, p. 629ff., in Fortführung von R. Faber/R Schlesier [edd.],Die Restauration der Götter. Antike Regligion und Neo-Paganismus, Würzburg 1986.

  21. Kemmann, “Rhetorik als Disziplin”, p. 651ff.

  22. Das geht natürlich auch nicht ohne Schattenseiten: Beispielsweise ‘gibt’ der Autor, ein Seminar (p. 662); oder: wie kreativ kann ein anderes [deutsch-sprachiges?] Seminar sein, wenn es den [nicht-deutschen] Titelcreative writing trägt (p. 659 und 663)?

  23. Auch wenn beispielsweise Medizin- oder Musikstudenten das für ihre jewieilige Disziplin als als eine banale Binsenweisheit ansehen dürften.

  24. Vgl. p. 22 und p. 535 Anm. 27.

  25. Schreiner, p. 253ff., besonders p. 255 und 269.—Allgemein zum Prosimetrum vgl. jetzt Fritz Felgentreu,Claudians Praefationes. Bedingungen, Beschreibungen und Wirkungen einer poetischen Kleinform, Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 130, Stuttgart/Leipzig 1999 samt der Besprechung durch Ludwig Fladerer inBryn Mawr Classical Review (BMCR) 2000, 10.03.

  26. Welzbacher; vgl. oben p. 283.

  27. Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, Band 13 [= Band 1 der Rezeptionsgeschichte], Stuttgart 1999, und Band 14 [= Band 2 der Rezeptionsgeschichte], ebd. 2000. Vgl. zu diesem Werk den Rezensionsartikel von Craig Kallendorf, “Rezeptionsgeschichte” Comes of Age:Der Neue Pauly and the Classical Tradition”, in dieser Zeitschrift (IJCT), 7 (2000/01), p. 58–66.

  28. Vgl. Manfred Fuhrmann, “Rezeptionsgeschichte als Lexikon. Ein Vortrag zum Erscheinen des Band 13 des Neuen Pauly” in Gießen am 22. 10. 1999 [Sonderdruck], und meine Besprechung inScholia Reviews NS 9 (2000) 22=http://www.classics.und.ac.za/reviews/.

  29. Vgl. hierzu Dirk t. D. Held,BMCR 2000, 10.5: Ein Gewinn des Bandes besteht in “…making plain the tectonic shifts of interest, interpretation and importance regarding, the classical past.”

  30. Im Technischen zeichnet sich die papierlose Forschungs-Dokumentation der Zukunft ab: Auf Veröffentlichungen im WWW verweisen p. 532 Anm. 7 und 576 Anm. 6.—Vgl. auch hier oben Anm. 10 und 28.

Literatur

  1. G. E. R. Lloyd, “The Hippocratic Question,”Classical Quarterly 25 (1975), 171–192=rpt. in Lloyd,Methods and Problems in Greek Science (Cambridge: University Press, 1991), 199–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. P.M. Fraser,Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972; 3 vols.), I, 364–369, and II, 539–551 nn. 241–329.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wesley Smith, “Galen on Coans vs. Cnidians,”Bulletin, of the History of Medicine 47 (1973), 569–585, andThe Hippocratic Tradition (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1979), 191–192.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jean Irigoin, “Tradition manuscrite et histoire du texte,” in:La Collection hippocratique et son rôle dans l'histoire de la médecine. Colloque de Strasbourg, 23–27 octobre 1972, Travaux du Centre de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques 2, (Leiden E.J. Brill, 1975), 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Vivian Nutton, “Hippocrates in the Renaissance,” in:: Gerhard Baader and Rolf Winau, eds.,Die hippokratischen Epidemien: Theorie Praxis Tradition, Sudhoffs Archiv Beihefte 27 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1989), 420–439.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Owsei Temkin, “Geschichte des Hippokratismus im ausgehenden Altertum,”Kyklos 4 (1932), 1–80. Ch. 2 (pp. 18–28) of this long essay has appeared in an English translation (by C. Lilian Temkin) as “History of Hippocratism in Late Antiquity: The Third Century and the Latin West,” in: Owsei Temkin,The Double Face of Janus and Other Essays in the History of Medicine (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, University Press, 1977), 167–177.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991; rptd. in paperback 1997.

  8. Esp. Wesley D. Smith,The Hippocratic Tradition (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1979). Smith has also published definitive editions with translations and commentaries of the famous pseudo-HippocraticLetters: Hippocrates: Pseudepigraphic Writings, Studies in Ancient Medicine 2 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990); see also Smith's edition and translation of the HippocraticEpidemics. Book 2, 4–7 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994 [Vol. VII of the current eight-volume Loeb Classical Library edition of Hippocrates]). See the review ofHippocratic Tradition by John Scarborough inAmerican Journal of Philology 103 (1982), 340–344.

    Google Scholar 

  9. This was René Théophile Hyacinthe Laënnec (1781–1826), whose 1804 medical doctoral dissertation was titledPropositions sur la doctrine d'Hippocrate relativement à médecine pratique, a tract that argued Hippocratic theory as superior to his own teacher at the medical school in Paris. In 1794, the Parisian school was reorganized as L'Ecole de Santé, but still had courses required for medical students on Hippocratic medicine and rare diseases, courses abolished in 1811 as unnecessary; in defiance of administrative rules, the medical professors continued to teach Hippocratic theory. Laënnec's stethoscope came as a fresh piece of medical technology in 1819. A good, short summary of Laënnec's life and carrer is by Frederick Heaf in C.C. Gillispie, et al., eds.,Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol. 7 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1974), 556–557. The chaotic years between the outbreak of the French Revolution (1789) and the final defeat of Napoleon (1815) were mirrored in medical education: Theodor Puschmann, “France,” in: Puschmann,A History of Medical Education, trans. by Evan H. Hare (London: H. K. Lewis, 1891; rptd. in The History of Medicine Series, New York: Hafner, 1966 [orig. published asGeschichte des medicinischen Unterrichts von den ältesten Zeiten bis zur Gegenwart (Leipzig: Veit, 1889)]), 535–554, is astute and remains valuable. More recent accounts include Charles Coury, “The Teaching of Medicine in France from the Beginning of the Seventeenth Century,” in: C. D. O'Malley, ed.,The History of Medical Education (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1970), 121–172, and Marie-José Imbault-Huart, “The Teaching of Medicine in France and More Particularly in Paris in the 19th Century (1794–1892),” in: Teizo Ogawa, ed.,History of Medical Education. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on the Comparative History of Medicine—East and West, September 17–24, 1981, Susono-shi, Shizuoka, Japan (Osaka and Tokyo: Taniguchi Foundation and Saikon Pub. Co. Ltd., 1983), 55–82 [Very full references, esp. to French sources]. Latin and Greek as foundations were frequently characterized as “anti-progressive,” and it is true that Hippocratics and Galenists did oppose much of what became basic clinical education in the hospital wards and elsewhere. Of note is the publication of Laënnec's translation from the Greek of Aretaeus of Cappadocia'sAcute and Chronic Diseases: Mirko D. Grmek, ed. with commentary, R. T. H. Laënnec, trans.,Arétée de Cappadoce Des causes et des signes des maladies aiguës et chroniques (Geneva: Droz, 2000); the translation was part of the “Laënnec papers” Nantes, but, after its completion, sometime before 1820, it was never put into print. Grmek,provides a full bibliography, and the listing is studded with numerous entries beginning “Laënnec helléniste.”

    Google Scholar 

  10. Often known simply as the “English Hippocrates,” two biographies of his life and practice have appeared; the first published in 1900 is short and innacurate, while the second is full and quite sound, both medically and historically: Kenneth Dewhurst,Dr. Thomas Sydenham (1624–1688): His Life and Original Writings (Berkely and London: University of California Press and the Wellcome Historical Medical Library, 1966). Sydenham's famousMethodus curandi febres (London: J. Crook, 1666) has been reprinted, accompanied by the translation of R. G. Latham (1848): G. G. Neynell, ed., with notes and index,Thomas Sydenham: Methodus curandi febres propriis observationibus superstructa. The Latin text of the 1666 and 1668 editions (Folkstone [Kent]: Winterdown Books, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Many translations of ‘Hippocratic’ works into Arabic remain unedited and unpublished, and the listings are substantial: Manfred Ullmann,Die Medizin im Islam, Handbuch der Orientalistik. 1. Abt.: Der Nahe und der Mittlere Osten. Ergänzungsband 6, 1. Abschnitt (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970), 25–35. Manuscript catalogues of Arabic medical works are large in number beginning with the enthusiasm for classical Arabic medical practice in the nineteenth century (the Arabs were more “scientific” than the backward Byzantines and the woefully ignorant Latin west), and one can consult these listings with profit; some of the better examples have been reprinted: Ferdinand Wüstenfeld,Geschichte der arabischen Ärzte und Naturforscher (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1840; rptd. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1963); Moritz Steinschneider,Die arabischen Übersetzungen aus dem Griechischen (4 articles originally published in 1889, 1891, 1893, and 1896; rptd. as one vol. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1960 [esp. 298–318 of the reprint]). For the supposedly ignorant Latin west, a good guide is Heinrich Schipperges,Assimilation der arabischen Medizin durch das lateinische Mittelalter, Sudhoffs Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften. Beihefte, Heft 3 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1964). Useful is Franz Rosenthal, “An Eleventh Century List of the Works of Hippocrates,”Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 28 (1973), 156–165. Temkin has highlighted the Hippocratic ideal in early Byzantine medicine (n. 7 above), and Hippocrates' influence is heavily scattered throughout the millennium of Byzantine history, suggested by the essays in John Scarborough, ed.,Symposium on Byzantine Medicine (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1985 [=Dumbarton Oaks Papers 38 (1984)]).

    Google Scholar 

  12. John Redman Coxe, M.D.,The American Dispensatory. Containing the Operations of Pharmacy Together with the Natural, Chemical, Pharmaceutical and Medical History of the Different Substances Employed in Medicine …, 4th ed. much improved (Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson & Son, 1818).

    Google Scholar 

  13. The trenchantly negative statements by R. R. Bolgar,The Classical Heritage and its Beneficiaries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954), 382, are typical of the curious rejection by humanities scholars in the mid-twentieth century; “The modern doctor, mathematician or scientist who wants to extend the boundaries of his specialty will not find much to help him in the classics. We cannot expect a new Salerno or a new rush of enthusiasm for the physiological treatises of Aristotle.” Yet Latin was basic to a medical education in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, even though it rapidly faded as a primary subject for physicians or premedical students after World War II (Bolgar may reflect the widespread Americanization of medical training [a “vulgarisation”] after 1945). This odd and defensive attitude colored many essays on the essential importance of Latin and Greek, an attitude which rapidly became interpreted as cold snobbery, thought to reflect the rigid class system which dominated the Oxbridge Universities in England, the prestige centers of learning in France, and the obviously backward educational systems of Spain, Italy, and Greece. Peter Green,Classical Bearings (London: Thames and Hudson, 1989), esp. ch. I [“Precedent, Survival, Metamorphosis: Classical Infuences in the Modern World”] summarizes the vitriolic history of pro- and anti-classics arguments since about 1850.Bearings, 19, shows Green attempting a balance in his views: “The sheer number of points at which the Classical tradition has come under attack during the past two centuries testifies eloquently to its influence—and indeed, to its staying-power.” P. 20, with nn. 19–22, collects opinions and much of the literature. Ignored by Bolgar, Green, and their sources is the prominence of Latin and less so Greek in the medical education of the United States and Germany. Suggestive are: Eric Christianson, “Medicine in New England,” in: Ronald L. Numbers, ed.,Medicine in the New World: New Spain, New France and New England (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1987), 101–153, esp. 124; Maurice Bear Gordon, M.D.,Aesculapius Comes to the Colonies (Ventnor, New Jersey: Ventnor Pub. Inc., 1949), passim [“Latin”]; C. Helen Brook, “The Influence of Europe on Colonial Massachusetts Medicine,” in: Philip Cash, Eric H. Christianson, and J. Worth Estes, eds.,Medicine in Colonial Massachusetts 1620–1820 (Boston: Colonial Society of Massachusetts, 1980), 101–116, with appendix “A Biographical Register of Men and Women from and Immigrants to Massachusetts between 1620 and 1800 Who Received Some Medical Training in Europe,” 117–143; Hans H. Simmer, “Principles and Problems of Medical Undergraduate Education in Germany During the Ninettenth and Early Twentieth Centuries,” in O'Malley, ed.,History of Medical Education (n. 9 above), 173–200, esp. 174–178; Ilo Käbin,Die medizinische Forschung und Lehre an der Universität, Dorpat/Tartu 1802–1940, Sydsvenska Medicinhistoriska Sällskapets årsskrift, Supplementum 6 (Lüneburg: Verlag Nordostdeutsches Kulturwerk, 1986]), esp. 179–186 (on Rudolf Kobert [1854–1919]). The medical school at Dorpat/Tartu (Estonia) had enormous impact on the rather advanced veterinary medicine in Czarist Russia: Leon Z. Saunders, “The Dorpat Veterinary Institute,” in: Saunders,Veterinary Pathology in Russian, 1860–1930 (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1980), 19–51. Kobert established the Pharmakologisches Institut der Kaiserlichen Universität Dorpat in 1886, and fourteen volumes were published by the Institute by 1897; toxicology was a major interest, Latin and Greek (and Arabic) were basic tools, and the historical summaries were prominent in all volumes, whether on the effects of lead, copper, zinc, cyanide, or the newly developed field of microcrystallography. Conspicuous were the “Historische Studien” issued intermittantly by the Institute; three remain fundamentally important in the History of Pharmacy and Medicine: Rudolf von Grot,Über die in der hippokratischen, Schriftensammlung enthaltenen pharmakologischen Kenntnisse (Halle, a.S.: Tausch & Grosse, 1889); A. Ch. Achundow,Die pharmakologischen Grundsätze des Abu Mansur Muwaffak bin Ali Harawi (ibid. 1893); and Felix Rinne,Das Receptbuch des Scribonius Largus (ibid. 1896). All are reprinted in the three-part [no editor]Historische Studien zur Pharmakologie der Griechen, Römer und Araber (Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, 1968). Kobert'sBeiträge zur Kenntnis der Giftspinnen (Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke, 1901), has an excellent overview of the historical assumptions about the lore of poisonous spiders [11–70: “Historisch.-Litterarisches aus alter Zeit über Spinnen-vergiftung im allgemeinen,” “Historisch-Litterarisches über die italienische Tarantel seit dem Beginne des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts,” and “Historisch-Litterarisches über Lathrodectes aus den lezten zwei Jahrhunderten”], an account never bettered; included are scorpions and solifuges, and related species. That Kobert and his colleagues at Dorpat employed the classical languages—and sources in Greek, Roman, and Byzantine natural history—as part of their primary researchin toxicology and medicine, is absolutely unmistakable.

    Google Scholar 

  14. John Redman Coxe, M.D.,The Writings of Hippocrptes and Galen. Epitomized from the Original Latin [sic]Translations (Philadelphia: Lindsay and Blakiston, 1846).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Emile Littré, ed. and trans.,Oeuvres complètes d'Hippocrate (Paris: J. B. Baillière, 1839–1861) 10 vols.; rptd [twice] by Adolf Hakkert [Amsterdam] in the 1970s and 1980s). Vol. I, p. ix: the works of Hippocrates were to be “…comme un livre contemporain.” Shortly to follow in French translation (no Greek texts, however) was Charles Daremberg's bulky two-volume French translation (no Greek texts, however) was Charles Daremberg's bulky two-volumeOeuvres anatomiques, physiologiques et médicales de Galien (Paris: J. B. Baillière, 1854–1855), a collection of translations of Galen yet to be superseded in any modern European language.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Francis Adams; trans.,The Genuine Works of Hippocrates (London: Sydenham Society, 1849; 2 vols; rptd. in numerous editions as one volume by various presses until 1960).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Published as Francis Adams, ed. [Greek text] and trans.,The Extant Works of Aretaeus the Cappadocian (London: Syndnham Society, 1856). Adams' edited Greek text was not replaced completely until 1956 [a century later!] when a newly edited series of texts (with a number of manuscript witnesses unknown to Adams) was published by C. Hude, ed. [no translation],Aretaeus, Corpus Medicorum Graecorum II (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1956, 2nd edition). For Laënnec's translation into French, see n. 11 above

    Google Scholar 

  18. Francis Adams, trans.,The Seven Books of Paulus Aegineta, subtitledWith a Commentary Embracing a Complete View of the Knowledge Possessed by the Greeks, Romans and Arabians on All Subjects Connected with Medicine and Surgery (London: Syndenham Society, 1844–1847; 3 vols.) This is Adams' most ambitious production, and the extended and detailed commentary incorporating countless references to the primary texts remains quite valuable on two, somewhat related counts: first, it provides the reader with concise information about the best “modern” techniques of surgical procedures, the latest—in the 1840s—details about drugs and pharmaceuticals, thus being a repository of historical specifics commanded by the finest European Physicians in the mid-nineteenth century; and, second, the commentary does indeed embrace a near complete cross-referencing to the ancient Greek, Roman, and medieval Arabic tracts touching on the thousands of subjects in theSeven Books, one of the best early Byzantine medical encyclopedias. Currently, scholars think that Paul of Aegina published his summary in Alexandria after the Muslim conquest of Egypt (viz. about 640), showing an aspect of how Roman and Byzantine medicine would soon fuse with classical Arabic learning and adaptations. The most recent edited Greek text is I. L. Heiberg,Paulus Aegineta, Corpus Medicorum Graecorum IX 1 and 2 (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1921–1924; 2 vols.). Even with Heiberg's solid apparatus criticus, these references fall far short of those given in the 1840s by Adams.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Greenhill's medical and related entries in William Smith, L.I.D., ed.,Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (London: John Murray, 1870; 3 vols), as well as his entries in Smith'sDictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (London: John Murray, 1882), often continue to be fundamental in tracking down exact citations in Galen and many other Greek and Roman medical practitioners. Greenhill's quotations are almost error-free, indicating he had gone through an enormous literature in Latin and Greek to ensure accuracy. As an (apparently) young man, Greenhill began to collect references from the Greek and Latin for his own medical lexicon, a project soon abandoned; one can perceive why Greenhill's sense of perfection became a barrier, since the published selections are incredibly full and informative: W. A. Greenhill, “Contributions to Medical Literary History. Adversaria Medico-Philologica,”British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review 34 (1864), 555–560; 35 (1865), 275–281; 36 (1865), 556–560; 37 (1866), 266–279; 38 (1866), 551–560; 44 (1869), 555–560; 45 (1870), 547–554; 46 (1870), 548–557; 47 (1871), 552–557; 48 (1871), 554–557; 49 (1872), 275–281; and 50 (1872), 538–541. The brief introduction (1864: 555) shows diligence, expertise, and a rare modesty: “It is unnecessary to criticise particularly each of the existing lexicons, as nothing is easier than to pick out faults in works of this kind, however excellent they may be in reality.” Note 1 lists the better medical lexica, from Stephanus' ParisDictionarium Medicum of 1564 to that of Blancardus (Steven Blankaart), theLexicon medicum Graeco-Latinum published in Leipzig (1832)[?]. Added to his numerous other achievements, Greenhill edited and translated into Latin the Byzantine Greek workOn the Structure of the Human Body [De corporis humani fabrica] by Theophilus Protospatharius (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1842), the sole modern edition of this tract; Theophilus' date is debated among specialists in Byzantine medical history, but usually the treatise is thought to come from the sixth or seventh century, although ‘Protospatharius’ is a later official title in Byzantium.

    Google Scholar 

  20. William Alexander Greenhill, M.D.,A Treatise on the Small-Pox and Measles by Abū Becr Mohammed ibn Zacarīyā ar-Rāzī (Commonly called Rhazes), Translated from the Original Arabic (London: Sydenham Society, 1848). Included are comments on significant terminologies in the Arabic (“Notes and Illustrations,” pp. 135–174), and the volume has an Arabic index as well as an English index (actually a Greek-English-Latin-to-Arabic), in the traditional manner established by the Greek-to-Syriac-to-Arabic translations produced by Hunain ibn Ishāq in ninth-century Baghdad.

    Google Scholar 

  21. This widespread circulation is represented in the confusion attending identification of revisions, editions (perhaps pirated), and publishers. I have three at hand, which will illustrate: Robley Dunglison, M.D., LL.D.,Medical Lexicon: A Dictionary of Medical Science, 12th ed., revised (Philadelphia: Blanchard and Lea, 1855);Medical Lexicon: A Dictionary of Medical Science, 2nd ed., thoroughly revised and very greatly modified and augmented (Philadelphia: Henry C. Lea, 1868); andMedical Lexicon: A Dictionary of Medical Science, new edition, enlarged and thoroughly revised by Richard J. Dunglison, M.D. (Philadelphia: Henry C. Lea, 1874 [with stamped overlabel Sabiston & Murray, Veterinary Publishers, New York]). Dunglison'sLexica were designed to be all-inclusive, suggested by the subtitles in all three editions: one reads that theLexica will explain terms in anatomy, physiology, pathology, hygiene, therapeutics, medical chemistry, pharmacology, pharmacy, surgery, obstetrics, medical jurisprudence, dentistry, climate, mineral waters, officinal formulas, formulas for dietetics, etymologies, and French and other synonyms. Robley Dunglison (1798–1869) was a prominent and well educated member of the medical profession in the first half of the ninettenth century, and was for many years Professor of Medical Jurisprudence at the Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia. Among the rare studies of his life and times, useful is Samuel X. Radbill, M.D.,The Autobiographical Ana of Robley Dunglison M.D (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1963 [=Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. Vol. 53, Pt. 8]).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ludwig Edelstein,The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation and Interpretation, Supplements to the Bulletin of the History of Medicine 1 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1943). rptd. in Owesi Temkin and C. Lilian Temkin, eds.,Ancient Medicine. Selected Papers of Ludwig Edelstein (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967), 3–63. For his ‘life and times’, one can consult Owsei Temkin, “In Memory of Ludwig Edelstein,”Bulletin of the History of Medicine 40 (1966), 1–13, with a bibliography of Edelstein's publications, now rptd. in: Temkin,“On Second Thought” and Other Essays in the History of Medicine and Science (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 250–263, and John Scarborough, “Edelstein, Ludwig,” in: Ward W. Briggs, Jr., ed.,Biographical Dictionary of North American Classicists (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1994), 333–334.

    Google Scholar 

  23. John Scarborough, “Approach to History, Use of Resources, Evaluation Techniques, Overall Philosophy” and “The Future of History of Pharmacy”,Journal of Pharmacy Teaching 8 no. 3 (2001), 71–73 and 87–89. Saul Jarcho, ed.,Essays on the History of Medicine (New York: New York Academy of Medicine/Science History Publications, 1976), esp. “Preface,” ix–xi: “In actual practice most clinical journals publish no more than occasional historical papers … unwise policy has permitted or forced a catastrophic reduction of standards at all stages of American education … the American is more and more likely to be a technician who has been trained by technicians, rather than an educated man educated by scholars … humanistic interests and humanistic research and writing are on the defensive in contemporary American medicine” (xi). Jarcho's “Cicero's Essay on Old Age,”Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 47 (1971), 1440–1445= rptd. inEssays, 58–63, is a model of concision, replete with an unusual depth of understanding of what Romansenectus was and was not. Owsei Temkin, “An Essay on the Usefulness of Medical History for Medicine,”Bulletin of the History of Medicine 23 (1949), 1–20 = rpt. in Temkin,Double Face of Janus (n. 6 above), 50–100, with full references (particularly intriguing is Temkin's lengthy quotation from Oliver Wendell Holmes' 1860 essay withits anguished sentiments [p. 100]). Temkin's concern is echoed by Lloyd G. Stevenson and Robert P. Multhauf, eds.,Medicine, Science and Culture: Historical Essays in Honor of Owsei Temkin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1968), “Introduction,” xi–xvii: “in 1939 [Henry Sigerist] indicated that forty-six of seventy-seven medical schools offered courses [in medical history] (twenty-eight of them required courses) whereas three of fourteen schools had offered courses … in 1904” (xiv). Temkin's own reminiscences, in “Introduction” toDouble Face of Janus 3–37, reflect this plowing of a lonely furrow; along the way, he notes that Hopkins itself had finally instituted a required course in 1957, even with the active influence and growing importance of the University's own Institute of the History of Medicine, founded in 1929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. As noted in reviews of myMedical Terminologies (see next note) by Lee. T. Pearcy inBryn Mawr Classical Review 4 (1993), 63–64, and by John M. Riddle inBulletin of the History of Medicine 68 (1994), 333–334.

  25. Having taught such a course here at the University of Wisconsin (Department of Classics), I was initially appalled by the available texts in print on the topic some fifteen years ago, so I wrote my own version, which presumably deals with both aspects; the book has done reasonably well. John Scarborough,Medical Terminologies: Classical Origins (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992; rptd. 1994; rptd. [corrected] in paperback asMedical and Biological Terminologies: Classical Origins, 1998). Adopted as an alternate selection by the Natural History Book Club, other reviews have been generally positive if not enthusiastic: Madeleine M. Henry inReligious Studies Review, 21 (1995), 133; Robert J. Iorillo inClassical World 88 (1994), 124; Fredric Koeppel inCommercial Appeal [Memphis, Tennessee], 28 February 1993, 358; Ivan Damjanov inModern Pathology 205 (1993), 356; John H. Dirckx inJournal of the American Medical Association 269, no. 14 (April 14, 1993), 410. Flattery is nice, but I hope readers can ascertain how enjoyable is the combination of the Classics, medicine, and medical and zoological history and etymology.

    Google Scholar 

  26. As emphasized by Stevenson and Multhauf in their “Introduction” to.

    Google Scholar 

  27. So I stated in a review of the French edition inAmerican Historial Review 99 (1994), 1661.

  28. Saul Jarcho, “Morgagni, Vicarius, and the Difficulty of Clinical Diagnosis,” in:, 87–95. Scarborough, “Future of the History of Pharmacy” (n. 23 above)Essays on the History of Medicine (New York: New York Academy of Medicine/Science History Publications, 1976), 89.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of History, University of Illinois, USA

    Ralph Mathisen

  2. School of Graduate Studies, University of Natal, South Africa

    Bernhard Kytzler

  3. School of Pharmacy and Department of Classics, University of Wisconsin, USA

    John Scarborough

Authors
  1. Ralph Mathisen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bernhard Kytzler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Scarborough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mathisen, R., Kytzler, B. & Scarborough, J. Review articles. Int class trad 9, 257–297 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02898437

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02898437

Search

Navigation