Leven K H
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany.
Stud Anc Med. 2004;27:369-86.
Research in ancient medical history, Greek and Roman as well as Mesopotamian and Egyptian, is usually done by philologically trained scholars; the ability to read texts in their original language is fundamental (though not sufficient) for any substantial work. There is, however, in such works the notion that something may be missing in fully understanding medicine of a certain time and culture. Does a medical historian of ancient medicine need, in addition to his philological and historical skills, a medical education? And in what way is a 'medical approach' to ancient medicine useful? Is it possible to stand at the bedside of a Hippocratic patient as a clinician or reconstruct the 'pathocoenosis', as Mirko D. Grmek (+ 2000) coined it, of ancient Greece? The present paper outlines the problem of applying present medical knowledge to ancient sources and touches on the topic of primary perception of disease and illness. An important aspect is that disease entities change in their socio-cultural setting. Examples ranging from the supposed Lupus erythematodes of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon to cases in the Hippocratic Epidemiae and plague descriptions of Greek authors illustrate the problem of retrospective diagnosis.
对古代医学史的研究,涵盖希腊和罗马以及美索不达米亚和埃及,通常由受过语文学训练的学者进行;能够阅读原文文本是任何实质性研究的基础(尽管并不充分)。然而,在这类研究中存在一种观念,即对于全面理解特定时期和文化背景下的医学,可能存在某些缺失的东西。古代医学的医学史学家除了具备语文学和历史技能外,是否还需要医学教育?以及以“医学方法”研究古代医学有何用处?作为一名临床医生,是否有可能站在希波克拉底时代患者的床边,或者像米尔科·D·格雷梅克(2000年去世)所创造的那样,重构古希腊的“疾病群落”?本文概述了将现代医学知识应用于古代资料的问题,并涉及对疾病和病症的初步认知这一主题。一个重要方面是,疾病实体在其社会文化背景中会发生变化。从亚述国王埃萨尔哈东疑似患有的红斑狼疮,到希波克拉底《流行病》中的病例以及希腊作者对瘟疫的描述等例子,都说明了回顾性诊断的问题。