Arabic Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms, vi.11: A Medieval Medical Debate on Phrenitis
Arabic Commentaries on the Hippocratic Aphorisms, vi.11: A Medieval Medical Debate on Phrenitis
复制标题
希波克拉底格言的阿拉伯语评论，vi.11：中世纪关于肾炎的医学辩论
DOI：
10.1163/18778372-04501001
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
0.3
通讯作者：
Nicola Carpentieri and Taro Mimura
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
N. Kawaguchi;N. Kawano;G. Okada;K. Fukuda;T. Yanagida;Kengo Miyazono;Nicola Carpentieri and Taro Mimura
本文调查了对《希波克拉底格言》第六册格言 11 的精选阿拉伯语评论，记录了长达五个世纪的关于膈炎疾病的争论。我们展示了这场争论是如何源于希波克拉底引理的一种变体传播的。这种不同的解读出现在 Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq（卒于 873 年）对《格言》和盖伦（卒于约 216 年）对该文本的评论的阿拉伯语翻译中，与盖伦关于膈炎的理论发生冲突。阿拉伯评论家提出了不同的理论来解释有问题的引理，相互交流并反驳或接受早期作者的观点。我们关注这场关于心理健康和身体的引人注目的争论的演变，特别关注关于膈炎及其病因学的新观点的出现。我们还对引理的另一种不同解读的来源提出了一个假设，正如伊本·阿比·萨迪克（Ibn Abī Ṣādiq，卒于 1068 年之后）的评论中所出现的那样。我们强调阿拉伯评论员如何逐渐将注意力从忧郁症和膈炎的不同病因转移到受影响部位的症状。我们的结论是，解释学焦点的这种转变反映出人们越来越有兴趣将这两种病理理解为具有共同重要特征的精神疾病。最后，我们的文章展示了医学评论如何出于各种（有时令人惊讶的原因）成为重新阐述医学理论的场所，以及争论和自我推销的场所。
This article surveys selected Arabic commentaries on the HippocraticAphorisms, Book Six, aphorism 11, documenting a five century-long debate on the disease known as phrenitis. We show how this debate springs from a variant transmission of the Hippocratic lemma. The variant reading, which appears in Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq’s (d. 873) Arabic translation of theAphorismsand of Galen’s (d. ca. 216) commentary on this text, clashed with Galenic theories on phrenitis. Arabic commentators formulated different theories in order to explain the problematic lemma, engaging with each other and refuting or embracing the views of earlier authors. We follow the evolution of this compelling debate on mental health and the body, paying special attention to the emergence of new ideas on phrenitis and its aetiology. We also formulate a hypothesis about the source of another variant reading of the lemma, as it appears in the commentary by Ibn Abī Ṣādiq (d. after 1068). We underscore how Arabic commentators progressively shifted their focus from the distinct aetiologies of melancholy and phrenitis to the symptoms in the affected part. We conclude that this shift in hermeneutic focus reflected an increased interest in understanding the two pathologies as mental illnesses sharing important characteristics. Finally, our article shows how medical commentaries were, for various and at times surprising reasons, venues for the re-elaboration of medical theories, as well as venues for polemic and self-promotion.