F-lmfj — Oudenaarde, Stadsarchief, Handschriften en Zeldzame Drukken, nr. 20-5 c
- Identification: Identified / high confidence as Hippocrates, De regimine acutorum, with Galen's commentary in the medieval Latin Articella form. Sustained wording in both the large-script lemma and the small-script commentary corresponds to the 1491 Articella, image n181. A clause transposition and several wording differences prevent describing the correspondence as verbatim.
- Transcription: selected recto passages below were read by a Codex model against manuscript images with candidate transcription material and the edition available. This is source-assisted work; the frozen image-only reading is preserved separately. The assisted reading and its provenance preserve physical lines, uncertain expansions, gaps, and interlinear additions. No transcription accuracy rate or human palaeographic review is claimed.
- Verification: actual manuscript images and the actual 1491 printed page were compared for the lemma spanning r.a24–r.b4, the commentary beginning Plurimum autem at r.b5, the preceding bodily-labour discussion at r.a15–18, and the Iam aggregavit passage at r.b16–18. Full views of both sides were inspected, but the worn verso and the complete leaf were not collated. Exact section endpoints, numbering in the 1519 edition, and a particular translation layer are not established by these checks.
Manuscript and reading scope
Fragmentarium record and images; IIIF manifest. Canvas 0 is fol. [5]r and canvas 1 fol. [5]v. The catalogue description calls this an unidentified medical text with gloss, dated 1351–1400, in Northern Textualis, possibly English: one bound parchment leaf, 292 × 206 mm. These dating and origin statements are catalogue information, not independently established here.
The leaf has two columns. A large script for the Hippocratic lemma alternates with smaller commentary in the same column. The recto running title reads REG / ACUT. This layout, title, and the two independently compared text layers support describing it as a lemma-and-commentary witness. The verso is soiled; viewing it does not establish a complete reading of its obscured text.
The selected excerpts use physical column numbering: the short note at r.a20 is counted separately before the large lemma begins at r.a21. Parentheses contain proposed abbreviation expansions, [?] marks a doubtful reading, [...] unread text, and {above: ...} an interlinear addition. Ordinary u/v forms are used; these are expanded readings, not facsimiles of every abbreviation sign. Line breaks and column transitions are retained.
Image-checked assisted excerpts
Large-script lemma, lower left and upper right of the recto:
r.a24 u(n)de s(er)mone(m) h(ab)ui in acutis .s. mor-
r.a25 bis. Dandi cibu(m) s(ecundu)m utile(m) i(n)mutatione(m).
r.a26 O(portet) a(utem) ut {above: sit} p(er)mutatio sic(ut) p(re)cepi de ea
r.a27 Dein(de) ut no(n) ministret(ur) aliq(uid)[?] ex sorbitio(n)e
r.a28 don(ec) dig(er)at(ur) eg(ritu)do. au(t) appareat in
r.b01 testinis sig(num) p(ro)uocans ad dimitte(n)du(m)
r.b02 p(ro)hi(bi)tione(m) ab usu sui. (et) ad furie q(uo)q(ue)
r.b03 signe[?]. [...] appareat a loco q(ui) s(u)b
r.b04 diafragmate est. sicut dictur(us) sum.
The in belonging to intestinis is written at the end of r.a28. It should not be supplied as missing text at r.b1. The manuscript clearly has sui at r.b2, retained here even though the print has cibi. At r.b3 the abbreviated word after quoque and the following corrected construction remain unresolved; a tiny interlinear addition, possibly ad, is visible. The print's significationem is not silently substituted.
Small-script commentary immediately following the lemma, upper right recto:
r.b05 Plurimu(m) a(utem) s(er)monis mei n(on) est n(isi) i(n) p(er)mu- r.b06 [...] repletio(n)em (et) euacuatione(m). (et) iuuam(en)tu(m) q(ui)d(em) r.b07 [...] cognitio(n)em ei(us) in o(mn)ib(us) eg(ritudini)b(us). (et) fit iuua(mentum) r.b08 ip(su)m in eo in q(uo) est s(er)mo m(eu)s .s. in p(er)mut(ati)o(n)e r.b09 [...] eg(ritudini)b(us) acutis. ab usu sorbitio(n)is ad uacuit(a)te(m) r.b10 uenar(um). O(portet) e(n)i(m) ut sit p(er)mut(ati)o sic(ut) p(re)cepi de eo. De-
The worn starts of r.b6–9 are not completed from the print. The diagnostic sequence is the exposition of repletion and evacuation, its usefulness for illnesses, and the transition from sorbition to emptiness of the veins. This sustained commentary agreement provides evidence beyond shared Hippocratic lemma words.
Two further commentary anchors were checked in the manuscript and on the same edition page:
r.a15 te. (et) h(oc) est t(ra)nq(ui)llitas sto(machi). Q(uonia)m q(ua)n(do) ho(min)is cor(pus)
r.a16 laborat (et) co(m)edit {above: q(uo)d[?]} [...] g(e)n(er)ant(ur) in
r.a17 cor(pore) ei(us) h(um)ores m(u)lti. g(ra)uat(ur) (er)g(o) p(ro)p(ter) illos h(um)ores
r.a18 (et) laborat. (et) labor q(ui)d(em) s(i)g(nifica)t ap(u)d eu(m) in h(oc) loco
r.b16 Iam agg(re)gauit ipoc(ras) to(tum) s(er)mone(m) suu(m) in h(oc) ser-
r.b17 mo(n)e in su(m)ma una. (et) p(re)cepit in eo c(uius) disp(ositi)o
r.b18 est disp(ositi)o una. ut no(n) mutet regi(men) suu(m).
The first passage, before the lemma, follows the print's sequence from tranquillity of the stomach through bodily labour, generated humours, and their harmful weight. At r.a16 an interlinear abbreviation is visible; the reading around comedit remains doubtful, and the print's comedere consuevit is not supplied in the manuscript gap. The second passage identifies Hippocrates explicitly and summarizes his instructions about maintaining or changing a regimen. These are additional assisted checks, not independent blind readings.
Edition comparison and differences
The directly inspected comparison source is the NLM copy of the Articella printed at Venice by Philippus Pincius in 1491. Its item metadata explicitly describes De regimine with Galen's commentary. On image n181, headed Liber re. acu., the Hec autem lemma occupies the broad right column, followed below by Plurimum autem. The preceding commentary on labour and digestion appears in the narrow far-right column above Iam aggregavit. The agreement of sustained prose in both commentary passages supports identification with the text printed there as Galen's commentary; the claim does not rest on the running title or a medical commonplace alone.
| Check | Manuscript and edition evidence |
|---|---|
| Lemma order | The manuscript places Oportet ... ab usu sui before ad furie quoque ... sicut dicturus sum. The print puts the ad furie clause before Oportet. Both blocks are present, but their order differs. |
| Lemma wording | Manuscript r.b2 has ab usu sui; the print has ab usu cibi. Calling this a scribal error would require further evidence. |
| Correction | Manuscript r.a26 adds sit above the line after ut. Its placement is retained rather than represented as an ordinary baseline word. |
| Commentary wording | Manuscript r.b10 has de eo where the print has de ea. At r.b18 the manuscript has dispositio una, whereas the print includes una sua. |
| Diagnostic sequence | Plurimum autem sermonis mei leads through repletion/evacuation, illnesses, sorbition, and vacuitatem venarum in both witnesses; the preceding bodily-labour discussion and following Iam aggregavit passage also correspond. |
These agreements establish the work and commentary identification despite local textual differences. They do not determine a translator, an exact recension, the source of the transposition, or a manuscript's dependence on another witness.
Actual limits and remaining work
The image comparison used original-detail display of the recto and verso full images, upper and lower right recto crops, an upper left verso crop, two recto-left tiles, and the actual 1491 edition image. Cached 1491 and 1519 OCR were searched, without recovering reliable diagnostic passages. No 1519 page was collated, and no conclusion depends on an OCR no-hit. The Fragmentarium overview and the 1519 item page did not load through the web tool; the cached manuscript images were available.
Completing the verso, settling the corrections at r.a16 and r.b3, and assigning exact section endpoints require further manuscript and edition comparison. No precise Arabic-Latin translation layer, exhaustive exclusion of other commentators, or contents of a following leaf is established.
A catalogue update can securely replace “unidentified medical text with gloss” with “Hippocrates, De regimine acutorum, with Galen's commentary, in the medieval Latin Articella form,” citing the checked 1491 image and recording the selected scope of verification.