animate uterus, “.. .although he admits that in some ways it behaves as if it were” (King
1998: 223; cf. Gourevitch 1984: 121–126; Dean-Jones 1991: 122, 135–136, n. 55). (10) A
book either titled A Drug from Poppy-Heads (Gale ̄n, CMLoc 7.2 [13.42–43 K.]) or Philiatros
(Mustio/Muscio, Rose, p. 3: sicut in opthalmico et chirurgumeno filiatro etiam boethematico legisti),
perhaps intended as a tersely worded counterpoint to D: So ̄ranos’ prosaic
instructions begin “take 150 poppy-heads, 20 sextarii of water.. .” (Scarborough 1995: 6).
(11) A probable five-book tract on drugs-as-cosmetics attached to a work that arranged
pharmaceuticals into “communities,” but which Gale ̄n confusedly says is “four books on
dandruff-treatments... and a single book on drug-actions” (CMLoc 1.8 [12.493–496 K.]);
the listing that follows is a kind of “head-to-heel” catalogue, partly reminiscent of K’s
Kosme ̄tika, but So ̄ranos has grouped his medicinals as botanicals and minerals. The probable
title is Peri pharmakeias (Scarborough 1985c: 394–397; 1991: 207–216). (12) A tract entitled
Ophthalmos, cited once by C I, Proble ̄mata 27 (Garzya and Masullo
2004: 49).
Lloyd (1983: 168–200) and Gourevitch (1988: –) provide succinct surveys of
So ̄ranos’ theoretical constructs and his critiques of earlier practices in gynecology and
obstetrics. He has little patience for “superstition” (a debatable term, Scarborough 2006:
12 – 15), and he is well aware that gynecology is an aspect of medicine wherein popular
beliefs fuse with the more “rational” outlooks of physicians equipped with a knowledge of
anatomy and the elements of physiology, and whose increased knowledge of female vs.
male physiologies eased the separation of the two sexes (Hanson 1991). Yet So ̄ranos’
authoritative stance occasionally obscures the role of the midwife (literate or not) in prenatal
care, and in birthing, with the necessary follow-up in care of the newborn.
Striking is So ̄ranos’ discussion of contemporary ethical controversies as they necessarily
impinged on the practice of medicine, and the tabulation of contraceptives and abortifacients
in Gyn. 1.19.60–65 (CMG 4, pp. 45–49); Burguière et al. (1988: 1.59–65) very questionably
insert the more elaborate account of such drugs as contained in A A 16.17,
21 (Zervos 1901: 18–20, 25–26). So ̄ranos provides a priceless list of recommendations: of
the two dozen substances, about three-quarters are chemically effective (Keller 1988; Riddle
1992: 25–30). So ̄ranos’ only “mechanical” means, plugging the cervix with wool, is still
used as a cheap – and fairly effective – contraceptive, although condoms were common
(Scarborough 1969: 101 with n. 50, 209). He also records the “heated dispute” between
doctors who forbid abortifacients, citing the H C, O, and those
who prescribe them “with great care” (only for the health of the woman); So ̄ranos pre-
fers prevention, and prescribes contraceptives. Later term abortions too will be occasionally
recommended, albeit rather more risky than the simples prescribed for contraception
(Riddle 1992: 46–56).
Like many Methodists, So ̄ranos did not adhere rigidly to any particular “doctrine,”
other than how a physician theorized the origins of disease and maintenance of health. To
So ̄ranos the simplest “explanation” bereft of most philosophical terminology was to assume
that a “healthy body” was a freely-flowing one, but not to the extremes observed in profuse
sweating or severe diarrhea; likewise, a “sick” body blocked the “flow,” as in the often-
diagnosed cases of constipation; thus a “healthy” body showed what Caelius Aurelianus
called a status mixtus. Some Methodists valued anatomy, and So ̄ranos’ skills in surgery
suggest he had performed dissections during his training (or, like Gale ̄n, had recorded
observations of wounded bodies), but the anatomy displayed by So ̄ranos indicates that
he followed what he had found in He ̄rophilos (e.g. the uterus and bladder are connected).
SO ̄RANOS OF EPHESOS