[396] ἕλκοντα τὰ ἴσχια (they are ulcerated on the hip-joints) is found in the text. But the meaning of both words is disputed, and by no means fixed so far. With regard to ἰσχία—we must primarily understand the mass of muscle at the lower exterior portion of the “os ilium”, secondly the whole seat, and the joint-socket (cotyla) of the upper thigh. This is the interpretation of the Etymologicon Magnum; ἰσχία, ὅτι ἴσχει τοὺς καθημένους· σημαίνει δὲ ἰσχίον τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν ὀσφῦν ὀστέον, εἰς ὃ ἔγκειται τὸ ἱερὸν ὀστοῦν, ὅπερ καὶ γλουτὸς καλεῖται, καὶ κοτύλη, παρὰ τὴν κοιλότητα· ἢ τὸ κοῖλον τοῦ γλουτοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἡ κοτύλη στρέφεται.(ἰσχία,—so called because supporting (ἴσχειν) those who sit; also ἰσχίον signifies the bone below, the loin, on which rests the os sacrum, which is also called γλουτός (rump), and also κοτύλη (joint-socket) in reference to its hollowness; or else the hollow of the rump, in which the joint-socket turns). Similar is the explanation of Suidas, Hesychius, Zonaras, the Scholiast on Homer, Iliad, V. 305, and on Theocritus, VI. 30. The general context shows that the meaning of “Joint-socket” is evidently to be preferred here.
[397] The word διαφθείρεσθαι (ruin themselves) in the text is undoubtedly written by the author with reference to the ἀνανδρία (unmanliness). Still it is surprising that what is here pointed out as injurious is in the Epidem. bk. VI. edit. Kühn, Vol. III. p. 609. recommended as salutary. The expression there is: κεδμάτων τὰς ἐν τοῖσιν ὠσὶν ὄπισθεν φλέβας σχάζειν (in cases of varicose dilatations to open the veins that are behind in the ears). Palladius in his Commentary on this passage (edit. Dietz. Vol. II. p. 143.) declares the whole sentence wrong, writing: Πᾶς οὕτος ὁ λόγος ψευδής· κέδμα γάρ ἐστι διάθεσίς τις περὶ τὴν λαγόνα, ἢ φλεγμονὴ ἢ ῥευματικὴ διάθεσις· φησὶν οὖν ὅτι καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ διαθέσει τέμνων τὰς ὄπισθεν φλέβας ὠφελήσεις· καὶ ποία συγγένεια τῆς λαγόνος καὶ τῶν ὤτων, καὶ ταῦτα τῶν ἐκεῖ ἀγγείων λεπτῶν ὄντων, καὶ τριχοειδῶν καὶ μηδὲν ἀξιόλογον κενῶσαι δυναμένων; (All this sentence is wrong; for κέδμα is really a certain condition of the parts about the flank, either inflammation or rheumatic condition.) Now they say that in this condition, by cutting the veins behind, you will do good; but what connexion is there between the flank and the ears, and especially as the vessels there are small, and like hairs, and not able to void any considerable quantity?).—Not a word is said here about the practice among the Scythians; are we to suppose Palladius was ignorant of the fact? Also in the “De Natura Ossium” (Of the Nature of Bones), (edit. Kühn, I. p. 508.) we find the operation recommended in pains of the hips, testicles, knees and knuckles; and according to a passage in the “De Morbis” (Of Diseases), bk. II. (edit. Kühn, bk. II. p. 223.) these veins should be seared, until they cease to pulsate. On the other hand in the “De Genitura” (Of Generation), (edit. Kühn, I. p. 373.) and the “De Locis in Homine” (Of certain Localities in the Body), edit. Kühn, II. p. 106.) incapacity for generation is represented as a consequence of blood-letting from these vessels. We leave to others the task of drawing the necessary conclusions in view of the unanimity of the Authors of the books named, and merely observe further that Dr. Paris (Roux Journ. de Med., Vol. XLIV. p. 355., Murray, Med. Pract. Bibliothek., Vol. III. p. 293.) while giving some observations on the diseases of the Turks, relates as following: Almost every Armenian, Greek, Jew, Turk, has a seton, and they abuse cupping to an equal extent. For a simple head-ache, they allow the first barber they come across to put a bandage round their throat, in order to retain the blood, and then with a razor make sundry cuts round about the ears, for then as much blood flows away, and without risk, as would fill a phial.
[398] In the text of Froesius it stands: καὶ μᾶλλον τοῖσιν ὀλίγα κεκτημένοισιν, οὐ τιμωμένοισιν ἤδη, εἰ χαίρουσιν οἱ θεοὶ καὶ θαυμαζόμενοι ὑπ’ ἀνθρώπων, κ. τ. λ. (to a greater extent those who possess little and therefore fail to make offerings; if that is to say the gods take pleasure in being venerated by men, etc). Coray has emended this into εἰ δὴ τιμώμενοι χαίρουσι (if that is to say the gods take pleasure in being honoured and venerated), on the grounds that τιμᾶν and θαυμάζειν (to honour, to venerate) are frequently used in conjunction with one another to express the veneration of the gods, which fact he confirms by passages from Euripides and Aristophanes. Yet this emendation can scarcely be right, even though de Mercy has also adopted it. The latest editor, Prof. Petersen of Hamburg, a professed Philologist, has undoubtedly maintained not without weighty reasons the old reading, noting Coray’s conjecture in the notes. Indeed neither is the old reading altogether correct, but can be easily restored, we think, if the words, as has already been done in our translation above, are read in the following way: οὐ τιμωμένοισιν· εἰ δὴ χαίρουσιν οἱ θεοὶ θαυμαζόμενοι,—a way of taking it that Coray had already seen to be possible, only that he preferred to read instead of οὐ τιμωμένοισιν,—ἢ τοῖσι τιμωμένοισιν, because he does not think that the words can refer at all to the poorer Scythians, as did Cornarius before him, though he translates quite correctly: “It affected to a greater extent poorer men, as being more negligent concerning the worship of the gods.” Foesius translates: “and they do not pay honour.” In fact Coray’s chief difficulty was as to the active meaning of τιμωμένοισι (i.e. “paying honour”, not “being honoured”); but this use is by no means so rare, and exactly in this sense of veneration paid to the gods by men is found in Homer, Od. XIX. 280, where we read of the Phaeacians on the occasion of Odysseus’ landing:
οἳ δή μιν περὶ κῆρι θεὸν ὣς τιμήσαντο.
(Now they honoured him from their heart as if he had been a god). The whole sense of the passage requires us to refer the words οὐ τιμωμένοισιν to the poorer Scythians, who possess little, and therefore can offer nothing to the gods, and also do not wish to do so, as is clearly shown in what follows; and it is exactly for this reason that Hippocrates says, then they ought to suffer more from the disease than the rich, if the gods practised any system of equivalent returns.
[399] Ταῦτα δὲ τοῖσί τε Σκύθῃσι πρόσεστι, καὶ εὐνουχοειδέστατοί εἰσι ἀνθρώπων διὰ τὰς προφάσιας, καὶ ὅτι ἀναξυρίδας ἔχουσι ἀεὶ καὶ εἰσι ἐπὶ τῶν ἵππων τὸ πλεῖστον τοῦ χρόνου, ὥστε μήτε χειρὶ ἅπτεσθαι τοῦ αἰδοίου, ὑπό τε τοῦ ψύχεος καὶ τοὺ κόπου ἐπιλήθεσθαι τοῦ ἱμέρου καὶ τῆς μίξιος, καὶ μηδὲν παρακινέειν πρότερον ἢ ἀνανδρωθῆναι. for translation see text above: “And this is the case ..., to resign their manly privilege.” We have it is true translated according to the text, yet we cannot possibly take this as being uncorrupted, but without for the moment being in a position to offer a complete emendation of it. The sequence of thought, if we are not altogether in error, is this: The Scythians ride continually, which of its self weakens their power of generation and desire for coition, then besides this they wear trousers, a thing that particularly struck the Greek because he did not use them himself. These trousers were so tight, that the wearer could not get at the genitals with his hand; again the genitals lay close to the body, did not hang down, could not be set in motion; at the same time they were also protected against the wind, so that no cooling process could take place; the idle repose and the constantly heightened temperature in combination weakened the genitals to such a degree that the impulse to coition was at last totally lost. Views which entirely agree with our experience of the present day, and indeed were by Faust, as is notorious, exaggerated almost to caricature. Now if Hippocrates has expressed, as is likely enough, these views in the words ὑπό τε τοῦ ψύχεος καὶ τοῦ κόπου (under the influence of cold and lassitude), the text must be corrupt, and this is what we wish to insist on. For if by the words we understand frost and lassitude, then the first at any rate is impossible; how could the Scythians suffer from frost, when they wore trousers! Then the cooling process spoken of just now must be intended by ψύχος (cold)! But if κόπος (striking, beating, so weariness, lassitude) is understood literally, in accordance with its derivation from κόπτω (to strike), in the sense of blows, shocks, and taken as referring to the genitals, especially the testicles, a negative and a verb must have been lost from the text, and this appears to us too the most probable explanation, though at the time we cannot say what verb. The matter would be at once decided, if we could translate: so that they could not put the hand to the genitals, and since these were encountered neither by the cooling wind, nor yet by the shock (against the horse’s back or the saddle), they forgot the desire for coition and coition itself, i.e. the genitals being neither fortified by the cold nor yet set in motion, do not remind the Scythians of the fact that they have such organs and must use them. The movement (κίνησις) in riding is at any rate regarded as early as Aristotle (Probl. bk. IV. 12.) as cause of the greater lasciviousness of those who ride. He asks: Quare qui equitant libidinosiores evadunt? An caloris agitationisque causa eodem afficiuntur modo, quo per coitum. Quocirca aetatis quoque accessione membra genitalia contrectata agitataque plenius augentur, quod igitur semper eo utuntur motu qui equitant, hinc fluentiore corpore praeparatoque ad concumbendum evadunt. (Why those who ride come to be more lascivious? Is it that on account of the heat and movement they are affected in the same way as by coition? Wherefore as age also advances, the genital organs being handled and moved more, are the more increased in size, so therefore because those who ride use the same movement hence they come to be of a more fluid body and one ready prepared for sexual intercourse). In Probl. 24. he is investigating the causes of the erection of the penis, and says διά τε τὸ βάρος ἐπιγίνεσθαι ἐν τῷ ὄπισθεν τῶν ὄρχεων αἴρεσθαι (now it is on account of the increase of weight in the hinder part of the testicles that it is raised). Comp. Probl. 25. Continual riding naturally stimulates the impulse, wherefore the Scythians are the first in later times to become ἀνάνδριες (unmanly), and this sooner than other riding nations because they wore trousers. However those who are better informed must decide the point!—Finally that in any case ἀνανδρωθῆναι (to be made unmanly) and not ἀνδρωθῆναι (to be made manly) must be read, any one who considers the passage at all carefully must easily see. Coray’s lucubration cannot for a moment convince us.
[400] Edit. Kühn, Vol. III. p. 218., μυθολογοῦσι δέ τινες ὅτι οἱ Ἀμαζονίδες τὸ ἄρσεν γένος το ἑωυτῶν αὐτίκα νήπιον ἐὸν ἐξαρθρέουσιν, αἱ μὲν κατὰ γούνατα, αἱ δὲ κατὰ τὰ ἰσχία, ὡς δῆθεν χωλὰ γίνοιτο καὶ μὴ ἐπιβουλεύει τὸ ἄῤῥεν γένος τῷ θήλει· χειρώναξιν ἄρα τούτοισι χρέονται, ὁκόσα ἢ σκυτίης ἔργα ἤ χαλκείης ἢ ἄλλο τι ἑδραῖον ἔργον· εἰ μὲν οὖν ἀληθέα ταῦτα ἐστί, ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ οἶδα. (Now some relate the myth that the Amazons dislocate the male sex of their offspring while still quite young, some doing it at the knees, some at the hips, with the avowed object of laming them, and so the male sex does not rise in revolt against the female; then they employ them as handicraftsmen, for such tasks as shoe-making or brassworking or other sedentary occupations. But whether this tale is true, I do not know). Gardeil also in a work that is not often met with in Germany, his “Traduction des œuvres médicales d’Hippocrate, sur le texte grec, d’après l’édition de Foes”. (Translation of the Medical Works of Hippocrates,—from the Greek text of Foesius’ edition.), Vol. I. Toulouse 1801. large 8vo., p. 162., says: “On pourroit induire d’un endroit du traité des articles, à la fin du numéro 38 (27), que ce qu’ Hippocrate rapporte ici concernant les Scythes, et ce qu’il a dit ci-dessus, numéro 23, au sujet des Sarmates ne lui étoit connu que par une tradition dont il n’étoit pas bien assuré,” (It might be inferred from a passage in the Treatise on Joints, at the end of no. 38 (27), that what Hippocrates relates here concerning the Scythians, and what he had said in a previous passage, no. 23, of the Sarmatians, was known to him only by a tradition, the authenticity of which he was not well assured of).
[401] “Censura Librorum Hippocraticorum”, (Criticism of the Works of Hippocrates), p. 181.
[402] Epidem., bk. VII. end, edit. Kühn, Vol. III. p. 705. Comp. Papst, Allg. med. Zeitung. Altenburg Jahrg. 1838. No. 60. pp. 950-952., where we have already at an earlier date developed our views on this passage.
[403] Bk. III. ch. 8., τὰς διαῤῥοίας χρονίους ἔστιν ὅτε ξηραίνει τὰ ἀφροδίσια, (On occasion indulgence in love dries up chronic diarrhœas).