Galen: On antecedent causes

bone chisel. Intriguing in the latter context is the mention of "instrumentists" (organikoi) (e.g. pp. 60ff, 158), whose activities as technicians were sometimes the subject of criticism by medical writers, since, on occasion, their quest to perfect surgical tools seems to have taken precedence over the best interest of the patient. Their inventiveness may, perhaps, be seen, too, in certain particularly ingenious surviving surgical instruments. The content of the papyri is sufficiently interesting to render unnecessary any attempt to push their evidence too far. Thus Marganne is wisely and refreshingly cautious throughout, most notably in her avoidance of attributing the texts to named medical authors (e.g. pp. 65-6), a temptation that past editors have often found too great to resist. Nevertheless, in one case, the early third century AD P Monac. 2.23 (pp. 96ff), there is no room for doubt, since the fragmentary text concludes with words declaring it to be the fourth book of the Surgery of Heliodorus (c. AD 60-140). Although preserving only twenty-six incomplete lines, the papyrus is of the utmost importance since it is the only directly transmitted text of Heliodorus that has survived, and it sheds light both on a unique surgical matter and on Heliodorus' overall approach to surgery. In fact, Marganne reveals that most of the papyri incorporate information that is either unique or is the earliest occurrence of a surgical matter. By underlining how incomplete is our evidence for Greco-Roman surgery the papyri therefore serve to encourage caution and humility in the interpretation of all evidence for the history of classical medicine. But above all Marganne skilfully demonstrates how immensely illuminating and instructive they are, and we look forward to more of the same! In 1937 Kurt Bardong published the first edition of Galen's treatise On antecedent causes from a fourteenth-century Latin word-for-word (and extremely accurate) translation by Niccolo da Reggio. The timing of its appearance did not favour widespread consultation, and, for all its many interesting ideas, the tract has remained largely unknown. Twenty years ago, Jim Hankinson embarked on a re-edition for his Cambridge PhD thesis, including the first ever English translation and a detailed commentary, which now appears in print after yet further revisions and expansions. The textual basis of this edition is in general sound and the translation clear. Reports of manuscript readings, when checked, are accurate, and Hankinson's choice of readings and emendations is judicious (p. 118, …