¹ Oeuvres completes d′Hippocrate.10 vols (Paris, 1839–61).Google Scholar

² I.422–5.L.

³ Kuhn, C. G. (ed.), Cl. Galeni Opera Omnia.,22 vols (Hildesheim, 1964-1986; facs. reprint of 1821 edn).Google Scholar

⁴ Cited in Kuhlewein, H. (ed.), Hippocratis opera(Leipzig, 1894), I.xvi.Google Scholar

⁵ Loc. cit.; J. Ilberg, in Das Hippokrates-Glossar des Erotianos und seine ursprungliche Gestalt(Leipzig, 1893), p. 136, quotes the reading Littre (loc. cit.) does not appear to know this title, and assumes that and are different titles for one and the same work.

⁶ The Istanbul MS Hekimoglu Ali Pasa 691, edited and translated by F. Rosenthal, ‘An Eleventh-century List of the Works of Hippocrates’, JHistMed 28 (April 1973), 156–65.Google Scholar

⁷ Scholia ad Gal. XIX.97.K in Codex Parisinus graecus 2254, in J. Ilberg, ‘De Galeni vocum Hippocraticarum glossario’, Commentationes philologae quibus Ottoni Ribbeckio praeceptori inlustri sexagensimum aetatis magisterii Lipsiensis decimum annum exactum congratulantur discipuli Lipsienses(Leipzig, 1888), pp. 329–54, at p. 336.Google Scholar

⁸ Erotian according to Hesychius 1.90.16, quoted in E. Nachmanson, Vocum Hippocraticarum collectio cumfragmentis(Upsala, 1918), p. 20.

⁹ Ilberg (1888), pp. 334f, based on Laurentianus 74.3.Google Scholar

¹⁰ In neither passage does Galen suggest that the work he is referring to was by Hippocrates; the expression at XVIII.A.28.K appears to imply that he did not consider it to be the work of an author known to him.

¹¹ Heiberg, J. L. (ed.) (2 vols), Corpus Medicorum Graecorum,IX.2 (vol. II), pp. 129–35.Google Scholar

¹² Heiberg (loc. cit.) misattributes to 10. H. Schone, in his review of Heiberg, Gnomon3 (1927), pp. 129–138, at p. 130, points out Heiberg's error and—Ibid., and in ‘Aus der antiken Kriegschirurgie’, Bonner Jahrbiicher118 (1909), 1–11, at 8ff.—relates the gloss to .

¹³ Ilberg (1893), pp. 136f.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Loc. cit.

¹⁵ , XIX.62–157.K.

¹⁶ Ilberg (1893), pp. 136f.Google Scholar

¹⁷ ‘Handschriftliche Verbesserungen zu dem Hippokratesglossar des Galen’, Sitzungsber KoniglPreussAkWiss(1916), 197–214.Google Scholar

¹⁸ ‘Zu den Hippokratesglossaren des Erotian und Galen’, Hermes 92 (1964), 505–507; id. ‘Weitere Bemerkungen zu den Hippokratesglossaren des Erotian und Galen’, Hermes 96 (1968), 177–190. It is possible that K. Mitropoulos has expressed an opinion on the question in his (Athens, 1978), but the publication has so far proved elusive. The review by P. K. Georgountzos in Platon 31 (1979), 365–367, gives no indication of any conjectures about provenance of terms.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Although Ilberg (1888), p. 333, emends to and thus appears to have examined the sentence carefully, he does not make any suggestions as to the origin of the gloss.Google Scholar

²⁰ Foesius [F], p. 106. While the word appears both in V and in , it is onlyin the sense of ‘spindle’, but not as ‘shaft [of an arrow]’. The term in the latter sense, is also used by Paul (VI.88.2/II, p. 130, etc.); is the expression used at V.95/VII.121 (V.254 and466.L).

²¹ No mention in F. The are one of the type of arrows, or rather arrowheads, enumerated by Paul (VI.88.2/H, p. 130). It is possible that the description of different kinds of missiles is lifted from the Hippocratic work, which Paul was using, rather than being an original idea of his own.

²² F, p. 620. The dative occurs at V.46, but, given that Galen always quotes the words in the form in which they occur, it is possible that he had another passage in mind.

²³ F, p. 677 (as occurring in Galen only). Helmreich, op. cit., p. 212, emends to . The presence of this term would appear to support the hypothesis that the original Hippocratic treatise contained a discussion of different types of arrows, as there is no good reason why the end of the arrow that carried the flights should be mentioned in instructions of how to extract an arrow. (When the arrow was pushed out through a counter-opening—cf. Paul, loc. cit.—rather than pulled out, the shaft would be sawn off. Cf. Plut., Fort. Al. 345A-B, where this is done in order to remove Alexander's breastplate.)

²⁴ F, p. 88 (Galen only).

²⁵ F, p. 176, suggesting a possible mistake for

²⁶ F, pp. 413f., specifically notes that none of the five types of probe can be found in the Hippocratic Corpus.

²⁷ F, p. 462, suggests a misreading for .

²⁸ F, p. 591 (Galen only). The Kiihn edition has

²⁹ F, p. 619 (Galen only).

³⁰ Amending Kuhn's .

³¹ F, p. 658.

³² Not in Foesius. Helmreich amends to

³³ F, p. 242. The form occurs at 2.205 (VIII.392.L), but not in relation to bleeding wounds.

³⁴ F, p. 451 (Galen only).

³⁵ Op. cit., 1.424.

³⁶ I am much obliged to the anonymous reader for his helpful comments.