Of Medicine, in Eight Books

by Aulus Cornelius Celsus

It may not be amiss, however, to take notice of a distinction Celsus makes between two kinds of professors of physic. When he is shewing the necessity of circumspection in the physician, he adds, “From[ S ] these things it may be inferred, that many people cannot be attended by one physician; and that the man to be trusted is he, who knows his profession, and is not much absent from the patient. But they, who practice from views of gain, because their profits rise in proportion to the number of patients, readily fall in with such rules, as do not require a close attendance, as in this very case. For it is easy for such as seldom see the patient, to count the days and the paroxysms: but it is necessary for him to sit by his patient, who would form a true judgment of what is alone fit to be done, when he will be too weak, unless he get food.” As his censure is so severe upon a practice, which he thought too extensive, it is natural to suppose, that his was confined to his acquaintance, and that his fortune and generosity rendered him superior to the view of living by the profession.

To all the later copies of Celsus is prefixed an index of the several editions, which makes it needless for me to give an account of them. All the older ones, printed in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, abound with numberless gross errors, that in many places utterly destroy the construction. These, Vander Linden undertook to correct, and the authorities he used for that purpose are contained in a catalogue annexed to his preface, in which he tells us he has made very few changes from his own conjecture, and none of these, but where the subject evidently required them. In the dedication he says, “Who would imagine, that after the diligent labours of so many illustrious men, as Egnatius, Cæsarius, Constantine, Stephens, Pantinus, Ronsseus, and Rubeus, I should have corrections to make in more than two thousand places?”

As it was proper I should translate from one particular edition, I chose for that purpose Linden’s; or Almeloveen’s, who has followed him almost in every letter; as these are generally esteemed by far the most correct: though it must be owned, that Linden has made many alterations without necessity, and sometimes for the worse. Where the sense was either obscure or inconsistent with the context, I have often been assisted by the more ancient editions. On such occasions I have given my authority and reasons in the notes. In passages where I found a reading in the old copies much preferable to Linden’s, but not altogether necessary upon account of the sense, I have marked it in a note, without adopting it into the next.

There are very few places, where I have ventured to alter the reading on my own conjecture, and these are all noted in the margin, where I have assigned my reasons, which, I hope, will convince the learned reader. My notes will shew in how many instances I have been obliged to the excellent epistles of Morgagni. This learned and ingenious author has, in my opinion, entered more into the spirit and true meaning of Celsus, than any of the preceding commentators[ T ].

Had there been so correct an edition of Celsus, as I think may be made, with proper judgment, from the editions and manuscripts extant, it would have shortened my labour.

That Celsus divided his books into chapters, appears from several passages: whereas no person, as far as I can find, pretends, that the marginal contents came from the author himself. The editions differ in these; but as it is of small importance, I have not troubled the reader with any remarks on that article. Where I found those of Linden evidently wrong, I have endeavoured to supply the defect.

With regard to the materia medica, the notes are drawn chiefly from Pliny and Dioscorides, whom I esteemed the best authors on that article. When I have given English names to any of the simples, I follow the most judicious moderns; though it must be remembered, that many of them cannot be determined with absolute certainty.

Through most of the compositions the text is miserably corrupted; and what is worse, I do not find, that by comparing the various editions this part can be restored. I had once some thoughts of labouring this point particularly, but as it would have been expected I should support every alteration with proper reasons, and as I despaired of executing it so, as to meet with universal approbation, and after all it would have been more a matter of curiosity than of real use, I omitted that part of my design; besides, this must have considerably increased the number of my notes, which I have endeavoured should be as few as the nature of the undertaking would admit of. For these reasons I have closely adhered to the text of Linden, without even departing from it, where the nature of the whole composition will evidently demonstrate the proportions of several ingredients to be highly incongruous.

It has been my principal care to convey the precise meaning of my author, and also to preserve the genius of his style, where the English idiom would allow. I have likewise been careful not to wrest any expression of Celsus, in order to deceive the reader into a greater opinion of his knowledge, than he really deserves. His merit is sufficiently great without pretending to find in him any discoveries, the honour of which is due to the moderns. Every man of learning, who is acquainted with the state of physic among the ancients, and knows how far it differs from the modern, must be sensible of the difficulty of translating an author so elegant and concise, with the strictness necessary in a work of this nature. Such judges, I hope, will censure the faults, which cannot escape their observation, with the candour inseparable from true criticism.

It only remains, that I return thanks to my ingenious and learned friends of the faculty, who have favoured me with their opinions on several passages, particularly to Dr. Maghie of Guy’s hospital.