^{page 92 note 1} For a discussion of the parable see Walzer, R., ‘A Diatribe of Galen’, Harvard Theological Review (1954), p. 251,Google Scholar n. 27.

^{page 93 note 1} From the general identity of the Summary and al-Marwazi's quotation we may infer that we possess the beginning of the book in full. As noted by Kraus, Miskawayh (a tenth- to eleventh-century author) refers to this passage in his Ethics, p. 25. As his quotation does not correspond textually with the Summary, Walzer, p. 85, n. 5, inferred that Miskawayh has ‘preserved another section of the same argument’. As we now seem to possess the full text, it would appear that Miskawayh does not reproduce an additional portion of the text, but the passage is his own somewhat free paraphrase.

^{page 94 note 1} Dalaq no doubt corresponds to Greek (of which the correct translation according to Jennison, see below, n. 4, would be ‘ferret’). It is surprising that al-Marwazi does not mention that the occurs in Aristotle and Timotheus Gazaeus (see next note), both of whom are authors known to him.

^{page 94 note 2} That weasel and snake fight each other, is mentioned by Aristotle, Hist. An. 9. 6. 612 ^a 28 (quoted in Aelian, De anim. 4. 14 and Timotheus Gazaeus, ch. 39): ‘The weasel when it fights against the snake eats rue, as the snakes dislike its odour.’

^{page 94 note 3} I suppose this is the name that hides under the Arabic guise. The only other passage where I found ‘Greater’ Libya mentioned is Zosimus 5. 37.

^{page 94 note 4} I found no other reference to the use of weasels in shows. (For the weasel in general, cf. Keller, O., Die antike Tierwelt, i. 164;Google Scholar cf. also Jennison, G., Animals for Show and Pleasure in Ancient Rome (Manchester, 1937), 19, 129,Google Scholar according to whom the kept in Greek houses for the destruction of vermin was not a weasel—‘I have never heard of domesticated weasels’—but the pole-cat (Mustela putorius), which in a domesticated state is the ferret.)

^{page 95 note 1} It does not figure in the collection of Rufus' fragments, published by Daremberg, and Ruelle, (Paris, 1879).Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 2} Cf. Oribasius, ad Eunapium, preface:

^{page 96 note 1} Though it is well known that the laurel is officinal (cf., e.g., Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. ‘Lorbeer’) I found no reference to its use as a component of the theriac in classical literature. On the other hand, it figures, together with the gentian (jantiyānā), the long aristolochia (zarāwand ṭawil) and the myrrha, as a component of the ‘theriac of the four’ (tiryāq al-arba'a) mentioned by Muslim physicians (e.g. ‘Ali ibn Rabbān al-Tabarī, Firdaws al-Hikma, 451; ‘Alī ibn ‘Abbās, Kāmil al-Sinā'a, ii. 534; see also al-Khuwārizmī, , Mafātiḥ al-'Ulūm, 176,Google Scholar where read ḥabb al-ghār instead of ḥabb al-fār). This might be the theriac of Rufus, though there is no further evidence to support such an hypothesis.

^{page 96 note 2} The editor quotes the passage of al-Khuwārizmī (cf. the preceding note): ‘Cf. al-Khwárazmi, , Mafátiḥu'l-'Ulúm, ed. Vloten, van, p. 176, for the Tiryáqu'l-Arba'a and ḥabbu'l-Fár.’ As I have pointed out in the preceding note, ḥabb al-fār in al-Khuwārizmī must be corrected to ḥabb al-ghār.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 1} Finally I should like to point out that the famous passage containing a reference to the revolt of Tigidius Perennis (A.D. 185), which is so often quoted by Arab authors as evidence for Galen's date (see Kraus's introduction, pp. 13–17), is also quoted in the chronicle of Eutychius (Sa'īd b. al-Biṭrīq), patriarch of Alexandria (ninth century); see ed. Cheikho, p. 105. In effect, the great Arab writer al-Mas'ūdī (tenth century) obviously derived his knowledge of the passage (Kraus, p. 16) from Eutychius. (Kraus's assumption that there is a lacuna in the text is not borne out by Eutychius; construe: ‘in his days lived in Pergamum’.) Eutychius states that the passage stood in Book i.