Reinventing Hippocrates

(other?) women, some of which reflects a historical situation in which wealthy women were able, in large part, to control their own lives. One can also see a growing scholasticism, perhaps taking place over a generation, as the masters of Salerno adopted Greek and Arabic modes of argument and explanation. These links with the early School of Salerno are judiciously explored, with consequent modifications to the standard story. Given the fluidity of the Corpus and its redactions in the manuscript tradition, Green does not claim to be producing the original text, but merely to present the text as it was at one stage in the process of transmission, the "standardized ensemble" of around 1300. This is found in twentynine manuscripts, nine of which are used to construct the text. This is a wise decision, and one can only applaud the care and accuracy with which this has been achieved (even perhaps to a fluidity between -ocio/otio?). But there are some problems, especially when reference is made to other redactions, and the decision to have separate notes to the Latin and the translation is both cumbersome and unhelpful to those whose interest is in both. But non-Latinists can rest assured that the translation of the text before them is accurate, and problems of plant identification can be checked against Green's appendix of compound drugs and her index of plants. One cannot, however, emphasize too strongly that the text of "Trotula" as printed here differs substantially from that which appeared in print in 1544 and has since then been taken to represent Salernitan gynaecology. As Green shows, this edition is merely one phase, and an unlucky one at that, in the attempt to bring together Salernitan writings on women. Even the present edition marks a beginning, not an end, for scholars will now have to consult a variety of texts and redactions before they can pronounce with any certainty about Salernitan gynaecology. But, in return, they can be grateful to Monica Green for ensuring that, from now on, the foundations of their theories can rest on solid ground, not sand. I append three minimal notes. The source of some additions to the text, for example, chapter headings, is not always clear in the apparatus or notes. The reference to Rufus (p. 72/231), if genuine, must derive at this date from an Arabic source, possibly referring to his (now lost) treatise on selfhelp medicine. More survives of (ps.-) Cleopatra's Cosmetics than is printed by Hultsch (p. 208), mainly as mediated through Statilius Crito, and there are possibly other fragments in Arabic.