[516] Indeed, Hephaestion’s first two books are nothing but Ptolemy repeated. About contemporary with Ptolemy seems to have been Vettius Valens whose astrological work is extant: Vettius Valens, Anthologiarum libri primum edidit Guilelmus Kroll, Berlin, 1908. See also CCAG passim concerning both Hephaestion and Vettius Valens, and Engelbrecht, Hephästion von Theben und sein astrologisches Compendium, Vienna, 1887.
[517] James Finlayson, Galen: Two Bibliographical Demonstrations in the Library of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, 1895. Since then I believe that the only work of Galen to be translated into English is On the Natural Faculties, ed. A. J. Brock, 1916 (Loeb Library).
[518] J. F. Payne, The Relation of Harvey to his Predecessors and especially to Galen: Harveian Oration of 1896, in The Lancet, Oct. 24, 1896, p. 1136.
[519] In the Teubner texts: Scriptora minora, 1-3, ed. I. Marquardt, I. Mueller, G. Helmreich, 1884-1893; De victu, ed. Helmreich, 1898; De temperamentis, ed. Helmreich, 1904; De usu partium, ed. Helmreich, 1907, 1909.
In Corpus Medicorum Graecorum, V, 9, 1-2, 1914-1915, The Hippocratic Commentaries, ed. Mewaldt, Helmreich, Westenberger, Diels, Hieg.
[520] Carolus Gottlob Kühn, Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia, Leipzig, 1821-1833, 21 vols. My citations will be to this edition, unless otherwise specified. An older edition which is often cited is that of Renatus Charterius, Paris, 1679, 13 vols.
[521] The article on Galen in PW regards some of the treatises as printed in Kühn as almost unreadable.
[522] Although Kühn’s Index fills a volume, it is far from dependable.
[523] Liddell and Scott often fail to allude to germane passages in Galen’s works, even when they include, with citation of some other author, the word he uses.
[524] Perhaps at this point a similarly candid confession by the present writer is in order. I have tried to do a little more than Dr. Payne in his modesty seems ready to admit of himself, and to look over carefully enough not to miss anything of importance those works which seemed at all likely to bear upon my particular interest, the history of science and magic. In consequence I have examined long stretches of text from which I have got nothing. For the most part, I thought it better not to take time to read the Hippocratic commentaries. At first I was inclined to depend upon others for Galen’s treatises on anatomy and physiology, but finally I read most of them in order to learn at first hand of his argument from design and his attitude towards dissection. Further than this the reader can probably judge for himself from my citations as to the extent and depth of my reading. My first draft was completed before I discovered that Puschmann had made considerable use of Galen for medical conditions in the Roman Empire in his History of Medical Education, English translation, London, 1891, pp. 93-113. For the sake of a complete and well-rounded survey I have thought it best to retain those passages where I cover about the same ground. I have been unable to procure T. Meyer-Steineg, Ein Tag im Leben des Galen, Jena, 1913. 63 pp.