Rufus of Ephesus

RUFUS OF EPHESUS

(fl. late first century b.c. to mid-first century a.d. [?])

medicine.

The dates of Rufus’ birth and death are not known. According to the Suda Lexicon he lived “under Trajan”: yet he was also mentioned by the physician Damocrates, who lived during the reigns of Nero and Vespasian (see Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia, Kühn, ed., XIV, 119). Thus the report “under Trajan” appears to give too late a date for Rufus. Wellmann¹ claims that the Suda Lexicon is correct and that Damocrates was referring to another Rufus, namely, “Menius Rufus” (cited by Galen, XIII. 1010). But the existence of this latter Rufus is highly problematical. The supposition was made solely to account for the chronological discrepancy and is not convincing. (The very form of the name “Menius” is curious and suggests a corruption in the text.) Since no terminus ante quem for Rufus is known, it is even possible that he lived part of his life—or at least was born—in the first century b.c. The Latin personal name “Rufus” (that is, “red-blond”) is documented for the republican period.

It is certain that the physician Rufus was Greek: and all his writings are in Greek. His name, however, strongly indicates that he was in some way connected with Rome, although it is not known whether he was ever in Rome or even in Italy.² It has even been suggested that because of Rufus’ character and basic scientific outlook he deliberately stayed away from Rome, that “constantly sensation-seeking world capital.”³ However that may be, we know that Rufus studied and practiced medicine in his native city of Ephesus.⁴ Beyond this, it can he concluded from many statements that he must have lived for a long time in Egypt. mainly in Alexandria.⁵

The available evidence does not indicate for certain whether Rufus belonged to a medical school. Ilberg stated that he was a member of the school of the “dogmatists.”⁶ But this designation—which was already employed in antiquity—implied nothing more than those who did not belong explicitly either to skeptical philosophy or to skeptical-empirical medicine (that is, to the medical school of the empiricists), and consequently it in no way implied allegiance to a “school” in the strict sense.⁷ To describe Rufus’ medical views in general terms. one must emphasize both his Hippocratism—which was far from uncritical⁸ —and his eclecticism.⁹

Rufus’ works are notable for the exceptional richness of their clinical observations. (One branch of his clinical studies, the investigations on melancholy, has recently been explored in detail.¹⁰) His works are further characterized by the care with which he evaluated his observations, for example, in the anamnestic treatise Questions of the Physician (to the Patients). In certain areas Rufus’ knowledge undoubtedly exceeded even Galen’s, although, to be sure, Galen was the greater systematist. Yet, however thoroughly Rufus knew a subject, he remained cautious in his pronouncements, although he did not fall into the skepticism that was fashionable in his age. He never engaged in polemics, and his criticisms were extremely restrained and objective. In short, even in the brilliant intellectual world of the Hellenistic-Roman period, Rufus was undoubtedly a striking and independent medical figure.

The breadth of Rufus’ knowledge and interests is reflected in the titles of his writings, of which ninety-six genuine works (or independent sections of works) are known.¹¹ He wrote some of his works in verse (hexameters)¹² in accordance with the tradition of didactic medical poems. This tradition was still honored during Nero’s reign by physicians like Andromachus and Damocrates, who were following such Hellenistic predecessors as Nicandros.

A number of Rufus’ genuine works have been preserved. His treatise On the Naming of the Parts of the Human Body appears, from the form in which it has come down to us, to be a compilation, which perhaps was only partially written by (or taken from) Rufus.¹³ It is important to note that in this work anatomy is viewed primarily from the perspective of medical education and that Rufus deplored the fact that dissection of human corpses was no longer permitted.¹⁴ His first monograph on medical anamnesis, Questions of the Physician (to the Patients), is in H. Gärtner’s critical, annotated edition (see Bibliography). His On Kidney and Bladder Ailments will shortly appear in an edition prepared by A. Sideras: the textual criticisms have already been separately published. He also wrote Satyriasis and Spermatorrhoea and On Joint-Diseases. The genuineness of Synopsis Concerning the Pulse is questionable, and it is fairly certain that Anatomy of the Parts of the Human Body and On the Bones are not genuine works.

A series of fragments from Rufus’ other writings can be found in the great medical compilations of Oribasius and Aëtius of Amida of late antiquity. Ilberg showed that more information can be derived from these sources than even Daremberg and Ruelle were able to obtain for their great edition of Rufus’ works.¹⁵ Valuable material can also be culled from the late Latin and Arabic traditions. Here, too, it is possible to go beyond Daremberg and Ruelle. as Flashar has recently shown for the particular case of Rufus’ treatise on melancholy.¹⁶

The Arabic sources give the most detailed list of Rufus’ works.¹⁷ An examination of Ilberg’s list of titles (presently the most comprehensive list, but one he himself admitted is subject to expansion and correction) makes it clear that Rufus never addressed himself in his writings to nonmedical subjects. Thus he differed from Galen and Soranus, who wrote on philosophy, philology, and medicine. Yet, within the field of medicine the scope of Rufus’ interests was enormous. To cite only a few examples, it encompassed such topics as Living at Sea, The Purchase of Slaves, and problems of coition and potency. (He is cited as the author of a work entitled Ointment for a Powerful Erection.)

Several of Rufus’ works were translated into Late Latin, including On Joint-Diseases (De podagra). Other works were cited by Western medieval physicians, for example, Constantine the African, who mentions the treatise on melancholy. In Byzantium, Rufus was counted (along with Hippocrates, Galen, and Cheiron, the mythical centaur and teacher of physicians) among “the quieting foursome of diseases” (ηʿ τετράριθμоς τω̑ν παθω̑νγαληνо́της ), as it is expressed in the almost untranslatable baroque Greek of Byzantium.¹⁸ The Arabs esteemed Rufus and frequently cited his work.

Although Rufus has been somewhat neglected by modern historians of medicine, at least some of his writings have appeared in new critical editions (see Bibliography). But a new complete edition (including all fragments and references) is still lacking. For this, a definite decision would be necessary with regard to the genuineness of certain treatises. A comprehensive modern book on Rufus is likewise lacking.

NOTES

1. Quoted by Ilberg, Rufus von Ephesos, 36.

2. See ibid., 3.

3. Ibid., 51.

4. Ibid., 2.

5. Ibid., 2 f.

6. Ibid., 3 f.

7. See F. Kudlien. “Dogmatische Ärzte.” in Pauly-Wissowa. Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenscltaft, supp. X (1965), col. 197 f.

8. See Gärtner, Rufus von Ephesos, 102 ff.

9. Cf. Ilberg, Rufus von Ephesos, 4.

10. See H. Flashar, Melancholie und Melancholiker in den medizinischen Theorien der Antike (Berlin, 1966), 84–104.

11. See Ilberg, Rufus von Ephesos, 47–50.

12. Ibid., sec. 4, title no. 2, p. 49.

13. Ibid, 712.

14. Cf. L. Edelstein in O. and L. Temkin, eds., Ancient Medicine. Selected Papers of Ludwig Edelstein (Baltimore, 1967), 250 and 270 f.

15. Ilberg, Rufus von Ephesos, 25 ff.

16. Cf. Flashar, op. cit., 88 ff.

17. Cf. Ilberg, Rufus von Ephesos, 43 ff.

18. See H. Gossen, “Rufus no. l8,” in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, IAI (1914), col. 1212.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rufus’ major writings are collected in C. Daremberg and E. Ruelle, eds., Oeuvres de Rufus d’Ephèse (repr., Amsterdam, 1963). See also H. Gärtner, “Rufus von Ephesos: Die Fragen des Arztes an den Kranken,” in Corpus medicorum Graecorum, supp. 4 (Berlin, 1962); and A. Sideras, “Textkritische Beiträge zur Schrift des Rufus von Ephesos ‘De renum et vesicae morbis,’ “ in Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, no. 3 (1971).

On Rufus and his work, see J. Ilberg, “Rufus von Ephesos, Ein griechischer Arzt in trajanischer Zeit,” in Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Klasse der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 41 . no. 1 (1930).

Fridolf Kudlien