Naming the Body: A Translation with Commentary and Interpretive Essays of Three Anatomical Works Attributed to Rufus of Ephesus by Carolyn J. Gersh A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Classical Studies) in the University of Michigan 2012 Doctoral Committee: Professor Sara L. Ahbel-Rappe, Chair Professor David S. Potter Professor Peter A. Railton Associate Professor Arthur Mfw Verhoogt © Carolyn J. Gersh 2012 Acknowledgements It is a pleasure to thank the many people who made this dissertation possible. I owe enormous thanks to my chair, Sara Ahbel-Rappe, whose understanding, encouraging, and personal guidance made my graduate experience at Michigan much richer. She introduced me to a range of philosophical works, and her sensitive insight into these texts made me eager to study them more. I also owe thanks to the other members of my committee, David Potter, Peter Railton, and Arthur Verhoogt. David’s wide knowledge has benefited me both in this project and in the many courses I took with him. I am grateful to Peter, whose conversations with me during an independent study have shaped large parts of this project. And Arthur, in his dual role as committee member and graduate advisor, patiently provided the encouragement necessary for me to progress through the program and ultimately finish the dissertation. Outside of the Michigan community, Ann Hanson of Yale graciously met with me and provided useful feedback. Thanks also to Vivian Nutton of UCL, who first suggested to me that Rufus was someone worthy of more attention. And Maria Pantelia graciously allowed me to reprint the Greek text from the TLG. Finally, I would like to thank my graduate cohort at Michigan as well as Jared Secord, Jason Gersh, and Attila Garstang for their friendship and support throughout this process. ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ ii Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Scholarship .......................................................................................................... 4 Rufus’ Name and Date ........................................................................................ 5 Sources ................................................................................................................ 6 Anatomical Texts before Rufus .......................................................................... 8 Chapter 1. Greek Text of Rufus’ On the Names of the Parts of the Body .................... 24 Translationslation of Rufus’ On the Names of the Parts of the Body ............... 44 Commentary on Rufus’ On the Names of the Parts of the Body ...................... 67 Greek Text of Rufus’ On the Anatomy of the Parts of the Body ...................... 80 Translationslation of Rufus’ On the Anatomy of the Parts of the Body............ 90 Commentary on Rufus’ On the Anatomy of the Parts of the Body ................. 101 Greek Text of Rufus’ On the Names of the Bones of Man ............................. 108 Translation of Rufus’ On the Names of the Bones of Man ............................. 113 Chapter 2. Rufus’ View of Humanity ......................................................................... 116 Rufus’ Use of the Monkey .............................................................................. 118 Rufus on the Sexes .......................................................................................... 128 Rufus’ Slave .................................................................................................... 140 Rufus’ Third Requirement: A Living Model .................................................. 145 Chapter 3. Rufus as a Grammarian ............................................................................ 148 The Foundational Importance of Names ......................................................... 149 Nomenclature in Rufus’ Texts ........................................................................ 154 Metaphors in Rufus’ Texts.............................................................................. 156 Comparanda: Metaphors in the Hippocratic Corpus ...................................... 158 Chapter 4. Rufus as a Sophist and Lexicographer ...................................................... 164 Lexicography and the Second Sophistic ......................................................... 168 Rufus’ Interest in Dialectical Purity ............................................................... 173 Iatrosophistry: Performative Aspects of Medicine ......................................... 174 Rufus’ Use of Personal Pronouns ................................................................... 180 Verbs of Naming in Rufus .............................................................................. 181 Visual Display in Rufus’ Texts ....................................................................... 183 Location of the Second Sophistic ................................................................... 189 Chapter 5. Glossary of Medical Terms ....................................................................... 194 Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 202 iii Introduction It is an obvious problem in ancient medicine that the surviving record from imperial physicians is patchy. We have a large corpus by Galen; some material from Soranus; and bits and pieces that have been transmitted in the later compilations. In this light, Rufus of Ephesus (fl. late 1st century CE) provides another, often overlooked, source. Though he has the misfortune of being cast in the shadows of both Galen and Soranus, the other Ephesian doctor, Rufus was a prolific teacher, anatomist, pharmacologist, and physician in his own right. He had Galen’s respect, and his popularity extended well into the Middle Ages.1 Rufus’ own medical contributions are many and wide-ranging: He is credited with discovering optic nerve fibers on the ventral surface of the brain as well as previously unknown blood vessels in the uterus. He is also particularly detailed in describing the muscles of the leg, including the gastrocnemius, soleus, and psoas. His writings span general anatomy; anatomical nomenclature; regimen; conditions of the blood and pulse; diseases of the bladder and kidney; satyriasis and gonorrhea; joints; acute and chronic diseases; fevers; gynecology; ulcers and tumors; urine; pharmacology; and melancholy. This project will focus specifically on Rufus’ anatomical works, providing translations and commentaries of the texts as well as interpretive essays on the material. 1 For Galen’s comments on Rufus, see Galen V.105 and XVI.636. 1 Rufus’ longest anatomical work, and the one on which I shall primarily concentrate is his Names of the Parts of the Body (Onom.). However, for the sake of completeness, I have also included translations of the other anatomical treatises attributed to him, On the Anatomy of the Parts of the Body (Anat.) and On the Names of the Bones of Man (Ost.). The latter two are largely derivative of the Onom, and it is unclear whether Rufus himself authored them. Daremberg includes both these in his addition, though he lists them simply as “attributed to Rufus.” Ruelle, in his introduction to the Daremberg edition, says the Anat, at the very least, may have undergone some reworking in the Byzantine period.2 Nonetheless, there are reasons for viewing Rufus’ works on nomenclature as interconnected. The opening of Anat. refers back to another work, one about the external parts. And similarly, Ost. refers to a work about the internal parts, though of course, these cross-references could easily have been added to make the works seem genuine. And beyond that, it is patently not the cases that Ost. deals solely with external parts nor that Anat. deals exclusively with internal ones. But thematically, these works are, generally, in agreement. Both discuss in detail the ocular membranes (Onom. 154.1 and Anat. 176.9) and the spermatic vessels (Onom. 1558.15 and Anat. 176.9). The differences between the blood vessels in these works are few and minor. Despite being topically anatomical, these texts reveal much about Rufus’ cultural biases; social limitations; and views about humanness, writ large. And these matters are the subject of the essays which follow my textual translations. Rufus’ overarching project in his anatomical works is actually two-fold: he aims to (1) pinpoint the parts of the human body and (2) provide names for these parts. Of course, Rufus cannot discuss the 2 Ruelle (1879), xxviii. 2 parts of the human body without first establishing what constitutes a human. And in the first essay, I explore his definition of humanness. The short explanation is that for Rufus, what is human is what is like him: male, Greek, free-born, healthy, mature but not old, and distinct from other animal species. Nonetheless, limitations of Rufus’ setting, particularly prohibitions against human dissection prevent him from analyzing models that fit his ideal. To showcase the external parts of the body, Rufus must use a slave. And for the internal parts, he must use a monkey cadaver. Yet I argue that these limitations, however frustrating for Rufus, highlight his distinctions between the ideal and the imperfect human. The second essay continues this discussion