hudrops replaces black bile – implying a date of ca 420 – 380 BCE. The other gynecological
treatises too are thought to have taken their present shape around this time, although
they probably enshrine much older material, such as perhaps the extended series of
pharmacological recipes of Mul. I and II, Steril., Nat. Mul. and Superf., rare elsewhere in the
Corpus.
The model of the female body emerging from these diverse treatises is generally consist-
ent, and coheres with female physiology and pathology in the general works of the Corpus,
when differentiated from male physiology. However, because the word the ancient medical
writers used for “patient” (anthropos) is an unmarked term, it is possible that some Hippokrat-
ics assimilated women’s bodies to men’s to a greater extent than the gynecological authors.
The author of Mul. I castigates some doctors for “treating women as if they had men’s
diseases” (63). No evidence exists that any Hippokratic physician would have specialized as
a gynecologist.
Women were differentiated from men by the nature of their flesh. Female flesh was
spongier than the male and absorbed excess blood produced in the woman’s stomach from
the nourishment which her smaller, weaker body and less active life style could not consume.
The blood was stored in her flesh for a month to act as nourishment for a fetus should the
woman conceive. If she was not pregnant at the end of a month, the womb would draw the
blood from all over the body and evacuate it through the cervix. If the woman’s passages
were all open and the mechanism functioned properly, this acted as a very efficient purge
and prophylactic. However, the benefits of menstruation were offset by the fact that the
mechanism was liable to malfunction causing a retention of menses, potentially leading to a
variety of pathological conditions. Other specifically female conditions were caused by the
tendency of the womb to move from its position. Both the wandering womb and menstrual
retention were most easily averted by regular intercourse. This moistened and warmed
the womb, keeping the cervix and the passages throughout a woman’s body open. Thus,
unmarried girls approaching puberty were thought to be at increased risk of disease. The
healthiest result of intercourse for a woman was pregnancy. The fetus anchored the womb
in place and consumed the woman’s excess blood. It also drew the blood to itself in the
womb steadily throughout the month, thereby avoiding pain and discomfort caused by the
menses being drawn through the narrow passages to the womb all at once. Once a woman
had given birth, the abundant lochial flow broke down her body, opening up the passages
and making her menstrual mechanism more reliable in the future, another reason why it
was considered healthy for a pubescent girl to marry.
If a woman did fall ill, the attendant physician would often try to stimulate the
menses with an emmenagogue, administered as a drink or a pessary. Pessaries and
fumigations were also used to try to attract the uterus back to its normal position.
Regimen, bleeding and cauterization seem to have been employed less often to cure women
than men. The death rate for female patients of the Hippokratics is comparable to that of
male.
The Hippokratics believed that a woman contributed seed to conception much as a man
did, and argued that a child resembled one parent more than the other in those character-
istics for which they had received more or stronger seed. The theories of the embryological
treatises appear to be largely guesswork, though there is some evidence that some authors
had seen aborted fetuses. Normal childbirth is not mentioned in the gynecology of the
Corpus. Apparently, a Hippokratic doctor would only be called to attend a problematic
parturition.
HIPPOKRATIC CORPUS, GYNECOLOGICAL WORKS