Fabio Calvo – Übersetzer, Herausgeber und Fälscher hippokratischer Schriften

Abstract

Fabio Calvo (c. 1440–1527) from Ravenna, friend and humanistic adviser of the painter Raphael in Rome, published the Latin first edition of the Hippocratic Corpus in 1525, one year before the Aldine edition (Greek editio princeps, 1526). Calvo’s edition was criticized early for its editorial flaws, but nevertheless regarded as a serious source for readings and text passages which are otherwise not transmitted. On subsequent Greek editions it has had an impact that has continued to some extent even to modern times. While Calvo’s text has repeatedly been identified as a source of perpetuated errors and textual interventions, there has not yet been a comprehensive summary study of his edition and its impact on later scholarship. This paper focusses on the especially problematic textual material in Calvo, i. e. intentional or unintended mistranslations, textual additions and surplus text that is not found in any of the known manuscripts. Thus, for eleven Hippocratic treatises, which are lost or were then unknown to Calvo, he amazingly (composed and) printed beginnings of their prefaces. Even for some well-known Hippocratic treatises additional introductory sections are given that are not transmitted elsewhere. Two dubious pseudo-Hippocratic writings are included in Calvo’s edition. The first one is a translation of two chapters from Aetius of Amida’s (4th century AD) Byzantine medical compilation. The second one seems to be an abridged and rearranged version of the pseudogalenic “On urines”. Pseudo-Balbus’ “De Asse” (on medical weights and measures) is included in Calvo’s print as well. For the most part of this treatise, as edited by Calvo, there is no evidence in the manuscripts known today. While a significant portion of the surplus passages in Calvo is evidently a fabrication, as this study demonstrates, the origin of the additional passages of Pseudo-Balbus’ treatise remains unclear. There has not yet been a systematic evaluation of Calvo’s edition, the possibility of discovering further textual oddities in it therefore remains.