The De Medicina, Cornelius Celsus and Surgery in the First Century CE

Abstract

The De Medicina of Cornelius Celsus is the earliest surviving Latin medical text. Although from the time of the rediscovery of the manuscripts it was much appreciated for its Latinity, the medical science which it contains has been largely unrecognised and underappreciated by the scholarly community. A likely reason for this is that it has been widely believed that Celsus was no more than a Roman encyclopaedist with a great talent for literature and little for science. Those scholars of the early twentieth century who recognised the merit in his medical writing were persuaded that the real author must have been a Greek physician and that Celsus was no more than his translator or impersonator. This thesis has four aims. The first is to examine the evidence for these historic perceptions and traditional beliefs concerning the life and literary output of Cornelius Celsus. The second aim is, if possible, to identify an alternative history of the life and work of Cornelius Celsus. The third aim is to demonstrate the empirical scientific value of a sample of Celsus’ surgical procedures by analysing his descriptions of them in the light of modern surgical knowledge. The final aim is to demonstrate that Celsus’ text can inform modern scholars of some of the techniques and uses of Roman surgical instruments found in the documented historical and archaeological records. A very large volume of literature concerning Celsus and the De Medicina has accumulated since the discovery of the manuscripts in 1426. The author has used Marx’s 1915 edition of the De Medicina as his primary text and by using its prologomena as a lens he has been able to focus attention on some particular aspects of the history of Celsus and his works. The author has also examined scholarly works from the seventeenth to twenty-first centuries. This has included material drawn from some of the many other editions of the De Medicina including that by Grieve of 1756 and also from the archives of the Apothecaries’ Hall in London. A considerable volume of misleading, unsubstantiated and, in some cases, fraudulent literature concerning Celsus has been identified by previous researchers in the early history of the De Medicina. This material tended to enhance the social standing and literary skill of Cornelius Celsus at the expense of his scientific excellence; some of the ideas contained in that unreliable material persist to the present day. No reliable evidence has been found that Celsus was ever in Rome: nor is there evidence that he was wealthy: no reliable evidence has been found that Celsus wrote any works beyond one on agriculture, one on medicine and something on military matters. However, it is reasonable to assume that Celsus also wrote something on rhetoric on which Quintilian commented. In the later part of the first century, Pliny indicated that the De Medicina was unknown to him and an explanation for the traditional, but probably erroneous, belief that Pliny quoted from the De Medicina has been put forward. Therefore the arguments invoking Pliny which have been used in the past to discount Celsus as a medicus can themselves now be discounted. The traditional arguments dating the De Medicina to a time during the principate of Tiberius have been strengthened by some new observations; on the evidence of Lydus, Celsus lived on into the reign of Nero. The traditional view that Celsus’ origin was in the lands near the North West corner of the Mediterranean is unaltered by the current research. However, careful reading of the De Medicina reveals that Celsus’ medical training and experience owed much to Alexandria and North Africa and none to Rome or Italy. It is possible that the De Medicina is an epitome of Alexandrian medicine. An analysis of the treatments Celsus described for three surgical conditions is presented in Chapter Three. Although it can be assumed that his medical science was empirical, his surgery, when judged in the light of modern practice was reasoned, skilled and highly appropriate for contemporary circumstances. A text-based explanation of Celsus’ surgical fibula is presented for the first time. In the fourth chapter museum quality replica instruments and models designed on reasoned analysis of Celsus’ texts were tested for effectiveness using post-mortem animal material; an explanation of the method of use of the so-called Jackson Type One scalpel, and the reasons for the use and the technique of use of small sharp hooks are presented also for the first time. The conclusion to be drawn from these multiple new discoveries is that the text of the De Medicina should be accepted as a serious and important document describing many aspects of the scientific medicine of Alexandria. It is thus worthy of, and demands, much more scientific analysis and extensive study than has been the case heretofore.