filename: \Texts\Genecia Cleopatre

file created: August 18, 2011

latest update: March 6, 2015

Genecia Cleopatre1

I’ve created this file today (18 August 2011) because Iolanda Ventura’s discovery of yet another
s. xii copy of the text (in Leipzig 1212) made me realize that I had no single file that summarized
all the basic info on the text or what, in particular, I thought had happened with it in the
11th/12th century -- looking at my complete lists of MSS today, I see that the only copy of
Version 1 (the full, late antique text) made in this period is the Copenhagen MS, which is equally
the “bottleneck” version in the transmission in Muscio’s Genecia -- I suspect that I’ll be able to
prove now that Version 2 (which makes its sudden appearance in s. xii MSS) derives from the
text as found in the Copenhagen MS, which adds a new level of intrigue to the identity of the De
genecia attributed to Constantine by his Cassinese biobibliographers – note that the list of MSS
given here reflects in some instances re-datings that have come from new work for the
“Medicine in the Long 12th Century” project2

Summary:
The Latin Gynaecia (Genecia) associated with Cleopatra’s name has never been edited.
As I established in 1987, the Genecia Cleopatre was woven into a composite treatise in 1566, the
Harmonia gynaeciorum by Caspar Wolff, which jumbled together the Genecia Cleopatre, the De
passionibus mulierum A and B, and portions of Muscio’s Pessaria. The Harmonia was published
within the larger Gynaeciorum collection in Basel, 1566; Basel, 1586-88; and Strasbourg, 1597.3
It remains the only printed version of the text, and even though several scholars have announced
plans to edit the work, the Genecia Cleopatre remains neglected. (I examined it in extenso in my
1985 PhD dissertation; see below.)
In its original form, the Genecia Cleopatre is a late antique text in 43 chapters covering a
variety of gynecological topics. Pessaries are frequently employed, several of which are named
and described in detail. The preface (whose text is obviously corrupt) suggests that this work was
addressed to her daughter by Theodote, who was medica to Cleopatra and her sister Arsenoe.
Later garblings of the text led to suggestions that the work was by Cleopatra herself.
In the later 11th century, a “short form” comes into view. The text was pared down to
about two-thirds its original size. This abbreviated form often circulated with two other
abbreviated and edited texts that come into view at the same time (and often in the same MSS): 
the “A” version of the De passionibus mulierum (which seems to be a Latin version of the Greek
1
I decided to use this orthography from now on, since it (or the alternate, Genetia) is the version documented in
12th-century MSS. On the general etymology and orthography of the term, see Green 1987, p. 308.
2
On the “Medicine in the Long 12th Century” project, see the “New Research – Medicine in the Long 12th
Century” section of my Academia.edu page: https://asu.academia.edu/MonicaHGreen/New-Research---Medicine-in-
the-Long-12th-Century.
3
For more on this massive compendium of writings on women’s medicine, see Green 2008, chapter 6 and Conclu-
sion; and Helen King, Midwifery, Obstetrics and the Rise of Gynaecology: The Uses of a Sixteenth-Century Com-
pendium, Women and Gender in the Early Modern World series (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007).
Genecia Cleopatre (6/22/23) Page

gynecological text associated with the name Metrodora), and the Non omnes quidem (an
adaptation of Muscio’s Gynaecia). This abbreviated form of the text renders the original, longer
form obsolete, and that original form of the text is not recopied until new humanist activity in the
15th century brings new scrutiny to the early medieval manuscripts.

Published Descriptions of the ‘Genecia Cleopatre’ and Its Manuscript Tradition

I. Basic Description of the Text and Its Genesis – the following comes from my 1985 PhD
dissertation, pp. 156-160 (plus notes on pp. 184-188):

The Gynaecia commonly attributed to Cleopatra is among the most original

gynecological treatises to appear in the early Middle Ages, and it proved to be a very
popular and influential work in subsequent centuries. Unfortunately, the attention it has
received from modern scholars has not been commensurate with its importance, and it is
still sorely in need of a critical edition. [84] Both its date and place of origin are
unknown, and probably will only be determined on the basis of linguistic evidence.[85]
The question of the attribution to Cleopatra is problematic, to say the least.
Although virtually all manuscript versions of the treatise bear the simple title Gynaecia
Cleopatrae (the Gynecology of Cleopatra) there is confusion even in the earliest extant
manuscripts whether the treatise pretends to be written by Cleopatra herself, by a female
physician, Theodote, in her service, or is a Latin translation of the writings of one (or
both) of these women.[86] The Gynaecia Cleopatrae may very well have some genuine
affiliations with Cleopatra (who acquired a reputation for medical skill even in her own
lifetime),[87] or with Egypt (the "pessary made by Erasistratus which the queen was
accustomed to use and which she praised highly" is intriguing).[88] Nevertheless, the
Latin version in which we have it probably dates from no earlier than the fourth century.
The Gynaecia Cleopatrae bears some elements of Hippocratic gynecological
theory although it may, in fact, represent an attenuated form of Soranic material rather
than deriving directly from the Hippocratic tradition.[89] Yet overall, it is one of the most
theory-free gynecological treatises of the early medieval period. The Gynaecia has no
explicit anatomical descriptions, and surprisingly little knowledge of the operative
conception of female anatomy can be gleaned from inadvertent remarks. Aside from a
few disorders which include "pains in the eyes" among their symptoms,[90] there seems
to be no sense of any direct connections bettoleen the womb and other major bodily
organs. Even in the case"of uterine suffocation (here referred to as "suppressiones uulue")
the symptoms amount to nothing more than an inability to speak, with absolutely no
mention of a "wandering womb" or even of the bifold odoriferous therapy. (A simple
suffumigation is all that is recommended.)[91]
It would even be hard to classify the underlying theory of the Gynaecia as strictly
humoral. While certainly there is nothing to suggest any Methodist notions of pores or
constricted versus lax states, still the few references to humors indicate that there is no
sense of differentiation between different kinds of humors--a concept already nascent in
the Hippocratic corpus and well developed by the second century A.D. Admittedly, some
diseases are classified as "humorosa matrix" (cap. 1), "humorosa uulua" (cap. 6), or
"humores malos" (cap. 8), while in other cases women may feel themselves afflicted by a
humor ("ut putent se ab humore molestari")[92] or are unable to conceive because
"humores" prevent the semen from being retained.[93]
Genecia Cleopatre (6/22/23) Page

The Gynaecia Cleopatrae seems as concerned with promoting conception and

birth as it is with preventing them. There are recipes and prescriptions for both retaining
the embryo and preventing the male's semen from flowing out (cap. 21), for making a
sterile woman fertile (cap. 29), for carrying the fetus to term (cap. 30), for aiding labor
(cap. 31), and several pessaries ad concipiendum (cap. 42). Interspersed among these aids
to fecundity--with no sense of incongruity nor any apologies--are prescriptions for
contraceptives and abortifacients (capp. 12, 24, 25, and 28). There is even a charm to
terminate a pregnancy, complete with an antidote should the woman wish to conceive
again.[94]
Other categories addressed in the Gynaecia Cleopatrae include ulcers, tumors
and obstructions of the womb, afflictions of the breasts, hypermenorrhea, and retention of
the menses (or at least this disorder is implied by the numerous prescriptions for
emmenagogues).[95] As for its therapeutics, the Gynaecia Cleopatrae relies heavily on
fumigations, potions, and especially pessaries. The Gynaecia contains no obstetrical
recommendations whatever.
In sum, the Gynaecia Cleopatrae is (in comparison, say, with the Hippocratic
gynecological treatises) short, condensed, well-organized and largely non-theoretical--
properties which may very well have been conducive to its popularity in an age
demonstrating "a near predilection for abbreviations of practical nature and small size,
albeit of slight scientific value."[96]
At least two other works are closely associated with the Gynaecia Cleopatrae.
The first, De pessis Cleopatrae, is a random collection of pessaries. Though I have not
yet noted any exact correspondences between the De pessis and the Gynaecia
Cleopatrae, some apparent similarities in vocabulary and materia medica suggest a
common source.
The Liber Geneciae ad Soteris obsetrix, a conglomerate treatise consisting of six
books, has far more obvious (albeit bewildering) connections with the Gynaecia
Cleopatrae than does the De pessis. Both Books I and V of the Liber ad Soteris duplicate
the preface to the Gynaecia Cleopatrae (see note 86 above), while Book VI contains a
recipe for a "pessary to promote conception invented by Cleopatra [in order to insure] the
succession of the king."[97] [The analysis then goes on to suggest the commonalties of
parts of the Ad Soteris obsetrix with the work of Soranus.]
Notes #84-97:
84. Mirko Grmek of Paris and Gerhard Baader of Berlin have independently announced
plans to produce such an edition. [update: Grmek died in 2000; nothing has
appeared from Baader.]
85. Other than the very obvious connections with Egypt that the use of Cleopatra's name
implies, there is no textual reference in the Gynaecia Cleopatrae itself to indicate
where it was composed (or if originally composed in Greek, where it was translated
into Latin). Its connections with North Africa seem stronger than those with Italy, at
least in so far as we can judge by its later manuscript transmission.
First of all, as we will see in the following chapter, the Hippocratic gynecological
treatises (which most certainly came from Italy) never achieved a widespread
circulation and are extant only in manuscripts produced in France. None of the
manuscripts in which they appear contain any of the African gynecological treatises,
indicating that the treatises produced in Africa and those from North Italy had
different fortunes.
The Gynaecia Cleopatrae, however, circulated only in conjunction with the
African treatises, especially that of Muscio (cf. Table 2). This is not to imply that the
Genecia Cleopatre (6/22/23) Page

African and Italian traditions never intermingled. Cassiodorus mentions Caelius

Aurelianus and the Latin translations of Galen and Hippocrates in the same breath,
while the Liber ad Mecenatem itself is evidence of the conjunction of Ravennan work
(the De conceptu) with that of an African author, Vindicianus, whose embryological
work forms the second part of the Liber (see pp. 142-144 above).
In Laurentian 73.1, the association of the Gynaecia Cleopatrae with African
material is most apparent. The Gynaecia follows immediately after the Liber Apulei
Platonici, a pseudonymous fourth-century treatise of African origin, which the
Gynaecia resembles in that it also makes entirely fictitious claims of authorship. (See
Linda Voigts, "The Significance of the Name Apuleius to the Herbarium Apulei,"
BHM 52 [1978], 214-227.) The Gynaecia Cleopatrae is then followed by a Liber
geneciae ad Soteris obsetrix (another treatise drawn from Soranus; see text below).
This latter treatise begins with an excerpt (slightly rephrased) from the preface to the
Gynaecia Cleopatrae (see following note). The rest of the manuscript contains a work
De signa matricis quando in loco suo non est (see below), the Gynaecia of,
respectively, Muscio, Vindicianus, and Theodorus Priscianus, and finally a tract, De
pessis, also ascribed to Cleopatra.
The association of the Gynaecia Cleopatrae with other gynecological works of
known African origin is further demonstrated by a twelfth-century catalogue entry
from the abbey of Saint-Amand (near Amiens). Entry 211 describes the contents of a
single codex ("in uno volumine") which, besides several Constantinian treatises,
comprises: Liber genetiae Aureliani Siccensis. Liber Cleopatrae de genetiis. Liber
Muscionis de pessariis (cited in L.D. Reynolds, Texts and Transmission: A survey of
the Latin Classics [Oxford, 1983], p. 34). The Gynaecia Cleopatrae thus circulated
not only with Muscio but with Caelius Aurelianus as well.
All this evidence is circumstantial, to be sure, and as I already suggested, it will
only be in conjunction with linguistic evidence that a final determination can be made.
86. The Prologue to the Gynaecia Cleopatrae in Laurentian 73.1 (fol. 149vb) reads as
follows:
INCIPIT PROLOGUS CLEOPATRAE
Desideranti tibi filia carissima habere uolenti commentarium curationis mulierum
facere laboraui. at elegi preclarissimos libros duos theodotem. meothicum meum
quem magno ac diligenti studio ex greco in latino sermonem causas transtuli. et ideo
encausto scripsi quod bonis in memoria semper durare. memineris. mei [gloss: me]
tibi sepius precepisse et iusiurandum a te exigisse. nulli talem gloriosam rem facile
credideris. Nam si eam. perdideris tua culpa queraris cupiditas 'iutem hominum non
habent certa fidem theodote patia[r?] medica reginarum. cleopatres. et arsone. haec
remedia medicinalia quam quibus semper usa sum et ubique. experta scripsi. et in
populo tradidi. ut posteritatis meae beneficia huius uterque[?] apud feminis duraret
ante omnia de eius uitiis quae mulieribus accidere solent. indicandum esse credidi
quod in matrice humores multi sunt. EXPLICIT PROLOGUS . . . (NB: The
punctuation is that of the manuscript and not my own.)

Compare this prologue to that introducing the first book of Ad Soteris (fol. l55ra):
Theodote pante medica reginarum cleopatrae et tarsenoe [!] ac remedia singula
medicinalis quibus semper usa est et ubique expert conscripsit. et in populi tradidit. Ut
posteritatis suae memoriae beneficio his duobus utantur in quibus docent. Unde humor
ad uulua respondit. Et pessaria diversa et nomen eorum. sed potions obsetricalis
exponet. [my emphasis].
Genecia Cleopatre (6/22/23) Page

The fifth book of the Ad Soteris (De pessariis et potionibus et de terapeutica) bears the
subtitle "DE MEDICAMINA LICICE AD TEUDOTEN MEDICOS ET EUMETICOS"
(my emphasis), and is prefaced by yet another version of the Gynaecia Cleopatrae
prologue, this time with the phrase: "et elegi pretiosos libros secundum teodote et
emeticum et cleopatrem . . ." (fol. 164vb).

The only evidence I have found regarding this question of authorship within the
Gynaecia Cleopatrae itself is a reference in chapter 19 (fol. 152ra) to a pessary
"which I always used and [which] my sister Arsinoe tried" (quod ego semper usa sum
et experta tarsenoe [!] soror mea). This use of the first person together with the phrase
"soror mea" applied to Arsinoe obviously implies that Cleopatra herself is the author.

Of course, whether attributed to the last Ptolemaic queen of Egypt or her

physician, such an attribution of a Latin treatise would undoubtedly be fictitious since
Cleopatra, or someone of her court, would surely have written in Greek, not in Latin
(which, as emphasized repeatedly in this chapter, was not commonly used for medical
writing until the late fourth century A.D.). Indeed, the other medical works bearing
Cleopatra's name (see following note) were written in Greek.

87. The associations of Cleopatra's name with medicine are numerous:

1. Plutarch's life of Anthony mentions her interest in concocting poisons.
2. A writing ascribed to her on cosmetics was cited as a source for the Kosmetika of
Kriton (first or second century A.D., a personal physician to Trajan in Rome); cf.
Ullmann (1970), p. 71.
3. A De ornatu attributed to Cleopatra is referred to by Galen in Book I of his De
compositione medicamentorum secundum locos (cf. KUhn XII 403.16, 432.12,
446.1).
4. A treatise on weights and measures bearing her name is still extant in Greek (Diels,
p. 24).
5. Greek treatises on hair-dressing and hair-cutting are also attributed to her; cf. P. N.
Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972), vol. II, p. 548, n. 306.
6. A Book on Aphrodisiacs attributed to Cleopatra is cited by Qusta ibn Luqa (820-
912 A.D.); cf. Ullmann (1970), p. 128.
7. Ibn al-Jazzar, in his book on simples, cites (inter alios) Cleopatra as one of his
sources; cf. Ullmann (1970), pp. 268-269.
8. A treatise on weights and measures ascribed to Cleopatra had great influence in the
Arabic world; Ullmann (1970), p. 319.
9. Sezgin, pp. 54-55, writes: "Cleopatra, queen of Egypt (first century, B. C.), became.
known in Greek as well as Arabic medicine as a physician [Arztin], and not only
alchemical but also medical writings were ascribed to her. Yaḥya an-Naḥwi
mentioned her in [his] History of Medicine. Al-Biruni used a book ascribed to her
in his Kitab aṣ-Ṣaidana: “fi kitab Qulubaṭra malikat Miṣr."
10. Abu Sulaiman Muhammad as -Sijistani (10th cent.) refers to her in his Ṣiwan al-
Ḥikmah as "Cleopatra, a woman physician, from whom Galen took many
medicines and several treatments, especially in the affairs of women" (my
emphasis). (The same information is repeated almost verbatim by Ibn abi
Usaibi'ah.) See D.N. Dunlop (ed.)., Muntakhab Ṣiwan al-Ḥikmah (The Hague:
Nout'on, 1979), p. 23. [I am indebted to Basim Musallam for this reference.]
Genecia Cleopatre (6/22/23) Page

88. Laurentian 73.1 (fol. 151vb): "Pessus quem Erasistratus fecit quem [sic] utebatur
regina [which one?} et laudabat magnifice."
89. The Laurentian copy of the Gynaecia ends "Explicit Genecia a Cleopatra facta a
Sorano lib. IIII" (fol. 155ra). The Liber ad Soteris, with which the Gynaecia
Cleopatrae is closely associated, is unquestionably drawn in part from the Soranic
tradition--a fact which may explain the copyist's subscription to the Cleopatra text.
See discussion of the Liber ad Soteris below.
90. E.g., cap. 1, De humorose matrice, refers to "oculi eorum dolebunt"; in cap. 2 on
pains of the womb or vulva, the signs include "oculorum anguli dolebunt"; or cap. 3:
"Si contingat muliere dum dormit cum uiro suo oculorum dolore sustine" (Laur. 73.1,
fol. 150ra-150rb).
91. Laurentian 73.1, fol. 154ra, cap. 35: "Ad suppressiones uulue huius autem periculi
hec signum erit. Frequenter et linguam retinet. ut nec facile loqui possit. Hanc facies
sufficione opobalsamii modicum et cedriam scrip. v. galbanus. piperis grana. x. picis
liquidum modicum. Prius vero galbanum in aceto agro infundis. et post omnia
commiscis. et teris in uinum ut mollefit. et repone cum fuerit necesse in carbone pones
et odore ei satietur. mire curabis eam."
92. Cap. 5, Laur. 73.1, fol. 150rb.
93. Cap. 21, Laur. 73. 1, fol. 152rb: "impeditur autem ab humoribus propter ea non potest
semen continere."
94. Cap. 28, Laur. 73.1, fol. 153rb-153va: "Cum ceperit muliere eadem hora antequam
aut ipsa sumat aut sanguinem eius purgatur. Tollis carbonem uiuum et extinguis illum
in sanguinem eius et ibi ter dicis extingo conceptionem huius mulieris. et nomen eius
dicis ad omnem coitum uirili ex hac die uel ex hoc hora quam ipsa uoluerit. Saluis
mentruis. eius ita recte suis temporibus purgetur. Deinde ipsa buxide in lenteolo
involuis et diligenter ligas et abscondis eam in non aperiatur. ita ut ilIa nec sol nec
luna. aliquando uideat. Nam si aliquando uolueris ut iterum concipias redisignata[?]
ipsa buxide et eiecto carqone soli aut lune ostende et statim concipiet."
95. Ulcers: capp. 33, 34, 37; tumors: capp. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20; breasts: capp. 32,
41; hypermenorrhea: cap. 36; emmenagogues: capp. 22, 23, 26, 27.
96. Beccaria (1956), p. 25: "una netta predilezione per Ie riduzioni di carattere pratico e
di poca mole, anche se di scarso valore scientifico."
97. Laur. 73.1, fol. 171rb: "Pessarium ad concipiendum a Cleopatra inventum pro regis
successionem quae causas filiorum per annos plurimos laborabat." Another pessary
also claims to have regal origins: on fol. 171vb is a styptic pessary said to be used by
"regina flauina priscilla," whoever she might have been.

Statements on the Genecia Cleopatre from my 1987 study of the Genecia attributed to
Constantine the African, pp. 300-301:
“Version A [of the De passionibus mulierum], the shortest and undoubtedly
earliest version of the text, first occurs in manuscript in the first half of the twelfth
century. Although it is usually anonymous, Version A is sometimes attributed to
Priscianus, Cleo- [p. 301] -patra, or Galen.8 It is this version which was published in the
Renaissance in the Opera omnia of both Constantine and Galen.9
Version B, which likewise first appears in the twelfth century, was variously
attributed in the manuscripts to Priscianus, Theodorus Priscianus, Galen, and
Trotula, and in print to Priscianus and Cleopatra.10
[notes 8-10]
8 The manuscripts of Version A currently known to me are the following (the attributed
Genecia Cleopatre (6/22/23) Page

author is in parentheses): Cambridge, St. John's College, DA, s. 12 1 (anon.); Oxford,

Bodleian Lib., Laud misc. 567, s. 121 (anon.); Florence, Bibl. Med.-Laur., Strozzi 88,
s. 12 (anon.); Paris, B.N., nouv. acq. lat. 603, ca. 1190-1220 (fragment, anon.); New
York, New York Academy of Medicine, MS SAFE, ca. 1230-50 (Priscianus); Paris,
B.N., lat. 7056, ca. 1240-70 (Cleopatra); Madrid, Bibl. nac., 4234, s. 13 (anon.); Paris,
B.N., lat. 6865, ca. 1345-53 (Galen); Vatican, Bibl. Apost., Vat. Pal. lat. 1100, s. 142
(anon., though a latter hand attributes it to Galen); Dresden, Sachsische Landesbibl.,
Db 92.93, s. 15 (Galen).
9 The text of Version A of the De passionibus mulierum in the Opera Constantini
frequently differs from all known manuscripts of the work. Bloch (Monte Cassino, 1:
129) has noted the liberty with which Henricus Petrus altered his texts, and the editor
alone may bear responsibility for the peculiarities and omissions of his text.
A much more standard text of Version A appears in numerous Renaissance
editions of Galen's Latin Opera omnia, where it often bears the title "Liber Galieni de
gyneciis, hoc est de passionibus mulierum, translatus a Nicolao de Regio de Calabria
de greco in latinum." See Richard Durling, "A Chronological Census of Renaissance
Editions and Translations of Galen," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes
24 (1961), 230-305, at p. 285. Since at least seven manuscripts antedate him by half a
century or more, the fourteenth-century translator Niccolo da Reggio could not
possibly have translated the work. No such attribution can be found in the
manuscripts; it first occurs in the editio princeps of Galen's Latin Opera (Venice,
1490).
The attribution to Galen is equally spurious. While the De passionibus mulierum
may ultimately derive from a Greek original, it is neither Galenic (a fact recognized as
early as 1541-42 in the second Giunta [Venice] edition of Galen's Latin Opera) nor
does it bear any relation to the Greek text with which Diels identified it: Hermann
Diels, "Die Handschriften der antiken Arzte. I. Teil: Hippokrates und Galenos,"
Abhandlungen der kiiniglichen preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist.
Klasse (1905), Abh. 3, p. 118. The three Greek manuscripts which, according to Diels,
contain a Galenic gynecological work in fact contain excerpts from the medical
encyclopedia of the sixth-century Byzantine writer, Aetius of Amida, or, in the case of
Paris, B.N., graec. 2153, a conflation of Aetius and the second-century Gynaecia of
Soranus. On Vatican, Bibl. Apos., Barb. graec. 127, see V. Capocci, Codices
Barberiniani Graeci, 1 (Vatican City, 1958),209; on Paris, B.N., graec. 2153, see
Johannes Ilberg, Sorani Gynaeciorum Libri IV . . . , Corpus medicorum Graecorum 4
(Leipzig, 1927). I am grateful to Ann Hanson for identifying the text in Paris, B.N.,
graec. 2270, for me. On the general question of Galen's gynecological work, see
Monica H. Green, "The Transmission of Ancient Theories of Female Physiology and
Disease through the Early Middle Ages" (Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University,
1985), chap. 1.
10 Manuscripts of Version B: Cambridge, St. John's College, DA, s. 12 1 (fragment,
Priscianus); Bamberg, Staatsbibl., cod. med. 3 (L.IIl.ll), s. 12 (Theodorus Priscianus);
Vatican, Bibl. Apost., Borgh. 86, s. 12 (Priscianus); Glasgow, Glasgow Univ., Hunter
435 (V.5.5), s. 12-13 (Priscianus); Madrid, Bibl. nac., MS 4234, s. 13 (Galen);
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson C.671, s. 13 (Galen); Cambridge, Trinity
College, MS 903 (R.14.30), s. 13 (Trotula); Paris, B.N., lat. 7029, s. 14 (Priscianus);
Oxford, Magdalen College, MS 164, s. 15 (Theodorus).
The preface to Version B appears in Caspar Wolff's Harmonia gynaeciorum
(published in several editions of the larger collection entitled Gynaeciorum [Basel,
Genecia Cleopatre (6/22/23) Page

1566; Basel, 1586-88; and Strasbourg, 1597]) under the names of both Priscianus and
Cleopatra. In the latter case, it is said to be book 1 of an alleged two-book Gynaecia
Cleopatrae. Close examination of Wolff's labeling of the various excerpts in the
Harmonia reveals that all the chapters attributed to Priscianus come from Version A
of the De passionibus mulierum. The so-called Cleopatrae liber prior, on the other
hand, seems to be a compilation of Version B of the De passionibus mulierum, the
standard text of the Gynaecia Cleopatrae (here considered the latter half of the
supposedly two-volume work, hence the numerous excerpts said to be drawn "ex
Cleopatrae lib. priore et posteriore"), and a collection of medical recipes similar to (if
not identical with) the Pessaria associated with Muscio's Gynaecia. On the
association of the treatise with the name "Priscianus," see n. 21 below.

There are also other refs. to the Genecia Cleopatre in Green 1987 passim.

Statements on the Genecia Cleopatre from my 1990 study on attitudes towards sexuality
and reproduction in the works of Constantinus Africanus (p. 53); here I am concerned to
show what parts of the original text survived the pruning that turned the longer original
Genecia into the abbreviated version that was redacted in the late 12th century:
The Gynaecia Cleopatrae is a relatively short treatise (approximately twenty
pages in typescript) and deals with very practical gynecological concerns. In terms of the
number of chapters assigned to each topic, the Gynaecia seems equally concerned with
promoting conception and birth as with preventing them. There are recipes and
prescriptions for both retaining the embryo and preventing the male's semen from
flowing out of the womb after intercourse, for making a sterile woman fertile, for
carrying the fetus to term, for aiding labor, and several pessaries 'to aid conception'.
Interspersed among these aids to fecundity-with no sense of incongruity nor any apology-
are prescriptions for contraceptives and abortifacients. There is even a charm to terminate
a pregnancy, complete with an antidote should the woman wish to conceive again. 26 Only
one early medieval manuscript of the full text survives, but even the incomplete copy
(which may have been produced at Monte Cassino) includes the two chapters on inducing
abortions.27
At some point before the early twelfth century, an abbreviated version of the
Gynaecia Cleopatrae was made in which it was pared down to about two-thirds its
original size. This abbreviation was not a simple matter of omitting whole chapters; on
the contrary, only three chapters of the original forty-three were omitted in their entirety.
Rather, the abbreviations are of a more purposeful nature and fall readily into four major
categories, none of which could be considered moralistic. 28 Taken together, these
categorical omissions indicate that the abbreviator, for whatever reason, went through the
treatise line-by-line and systematically deleted material he or she considered expendable.
What were not deleted, however, were the prescriptions for abortifacients and
contraceptives which might just as easily have been targeted for excision. Nor have such
questionable sexual practices as masturbation been purged from the text. In the case of
the Gynaecia Cleopatrae, therefore, a later redactor has quite deliberately chosen to
retain and transmit material which could have only been considered anathema to official
Catholic morality.
Notes:
26. See Green, 'Transmission' (n. 18 above), pp. 156-60 and accompanying notes, for
further information on the origin, authorship, and content of this text.
27. Florence, Bibl. Medicea-Laurenziana, plut. 73, cod. 1, S. 9/10; and Copenhagen, Det
Genecia Cleopatre (6/22/23) Page

Kgl. Bibliotek, Gamle Kgl. Samling cod. 1653, s. 11. Professor Francis Newton has
suggested to me that the latter manuscript, written in Beneventan script, may have been
composed at Monte Cassino (personal communication, 17 July 1988). [Note: I
mistakenly omitted acknowledgement here of the other early medieval copy of the
Genecia Cleopatre, that in Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique, MS 3701-15, s.
ix med. (W. France), ff. 32r-33v.]
28. These are: (1) results or reassurances of the efficacy of certain medicaments
prescribed; (2) instructions on how to prepare or administer medicaments, adverbial
clauses, and other statements directly addressed to the attending medical practitioner; (3)
passages which provide synonyms or give descriptive information about medicaments not
immediately relevant to their use; (4) alternate or substitute prescriptions, together with
an occasional individual ingredient. See Green, 'Transmission', pp. 228-30.

Medieval vernacular translations of the Genecia Cleopatre:

No complete vernacular translations of the Genecia Cleopatre have been identified. The
Wellcome Library in London misidentified an Italian text as the Genecia Cleopatre (London,
Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, MS 532, Miscellanea Medica II, ff. 64r-70v, ca.
1465), but the text was correctly identified by me as an Italian translation of the Trotula in 1997
(see Green 1997, p. 101). Additionally, a late 14th- or early 15th-century English translator of the
Trotula drew on not only a French version of the Liber de sinthomatibus mulierum (the first of
the three Trotula texts), but also the Latin texts of the abbreviated Genecia Cleopatre and the
Non omnes quidem. This work, The Knowyng of Womans Kynde and Chyldyng, was edited by
Alexandra Barratt in 2001.

Passing references to the Genecia Cleopatre have also appeared in my other publications, as
follows (see Bibliography below for full references):
Green 1996a – passing refs. to the Genecia Cleopatre, including a note (p. 133) that in the
Liber de sinthomatibus mulierum 2 (one of the Trotula treatises), a reviser added
Cleopatra’s name to the list of authorities from which the author had ostensibly drawn
his material. See also p. 163 for bizarre corruptions of Cleopatra’s name, finally
stabilizing in deo prestante in the revised and standardized ensembles (p. 166).
Green 1996b – passing refs. to the Genecia Cleopatre as found in manuscripts of the Latin
Trotula texts.
Green 1997 – passing refs. to the Genecia Cleopatre as found in manuscripts of the various
vernacular versions of the Trotula texts.
Green 1998 – Thomas of Cantimpré’s references to “Cleopatra” as an authority on obstetrics
(see below) were incorporated into a French text (which also has Dutch and Italian
versions) called Secrés des dames, which (this study argues) was known to the French
writer Christine de Pizan. Cleopatra’s name was distorted into “Alex patrix.”
Green 2000a – passing ref. to a modified version of the Genecia Cleopatre on p. 64
Green 2000b – see “General Descriptions” below
Green 2000c – passing refs.
Green 2008a – see Index under both “Cleopatra” and “(pseudo-) Cleopatra”; especially
valuable here is the explanation (on p. 147) of why the 13th-century Dominican
encyclopedist, Thomas of Cantimpré, included a section on obstetrics in his
encyclopedia—which actually comes from Muscian material--as being the teachings of
Genecia Cleopatre (6/22/23) Page

Cleopatra, a ‘physician of queens’ (medica reginarum), to her daughter. The book also
has various references to Cleopatra’s name being invoked in medieval contexts,
ostensibly to lend credibility to claims being made about female diseases or female
nature.
Green 2008b – passing refs.
Green 2011 – this listing of gynecological literature in England in the 11th-14th centuries
includes several references to the Genecia Cleopatre.

II. General Descriptions and Lists of MSS – the following are updated versions of the entries
for the “Cleopatra” texts from my 2000 handlist of medieval European texts on women’s
medicine (Green 2000b in Bibliography below; updated/corrected entries are marked in
red):

Cleopatra (pseudo-), Gynaecia – a late antique text in 43 chapters covering a variety of

gynecological topics; pessaries are frequently employed, several of which are named and
described in detail; the preface (whose text is obviously corrupt) suggests that this work was
addressed to her daughter by Theodote, who was medica to Cleopatra and her sister Arsenoe; cf.
Liber geneciae ad Soteris obs[t]etrix
Inc. (pref.): Desideranti tibi filia carissima et habere uolenti commentarium curationis mulierum facere laboraui. et
elegi preclarissimos libros duos theodoten. meothicum meum quem magno ac diligenti studio ex greco in latinum
sermonem causas transtuli . . .; (text): Signa de humorose matrice. Haec signa erunt: oculi eorum [!] dolebunt . . .
Expl.: (XLIII. Cerotum ad dolore vel vulnus) . . . et facies cerotum et uteris. Explicit Genecia a Cleopatra facta a
Sorano lib. IIII.
MSS:
Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique, MS 3701-15, s. ix med. (W. France), ff. 32r-33v
Copenhagen, Det Kongelige Bibliotek, Gamle Kgl. Samling, MS 1653, 1058-1080 (Beneventan, at Monte
Cassino), ff. 28v-31v
Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek, cod. lat. P.34 (N. 78), an. 1457-58 (copied by physician Hermann
Heyms, fl. 1427-1472), ff. 203v-230r [unclear if this is long version or short (given the length, it may
have been the Cleopatra-Dpm A-Non omnes quidem complex); alas, it was partially destroyed during
World War II and the only remaining portion does not include the Cleopatra text: http://digital.slub-
dresden.de/id337794197]
Florence, Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, Plut. 73, cod. 1, s. ix med/ix3/4 (St. Ambrose, Milan), ff. 149vb-
155ra
Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 756 (Vict. 49), s. xv (excerpts)
*Paris, Académie de Médecine, MS 469 (1348), s. xix copy of Florence, Bibl. Laur.-Med. Plut. 73, cod. 1
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica, MS Vat. lat. 6337, anno 1494 (Italy), ff. 40r-47v (apograph of Florence 73.1)
Lit.: Green 1985

Cleopatra (pseudo-), Pessaria – a collection of 20 different pessaries, some of which are named;
portions of this text are found within the Gynaecia Cleopatrae
Inc.: Primum quemadmodum pessaria fiunt, uel quae uocentur aut quam rem prosint. Ergo differentiae eorum tales
sunt. Prior est pessus qui dicitur scoleps, qui et triondon appellatur . . .
Expl.: . . . Brussels: (Pessarium ad menstrua provocandum) . . . et uteris ad supradictas causas. Florence: . . .
medulle cervine ÷ II, croco ÷ l.
MSS:
Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, cod. med. 2 (L.III.6), s. ix/x (Italy), ff. 5r-11r
Florence, Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, Plut. 73, cod. 1, s. ix med/ix3/4 (St. Ambrose, Milan), ff. 221ra-
222rb
Genecia Cleopatre (6/22/23) Page

*Paris, Académie de Médecine, MS 469 (1348), s. xix copy of Florence, Bibl. Laur.-Med. Plut. 73, cod. 1
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. lat. 6337, anno 1494, ff. 141v-143v (an apograph of the
Florence ms)
Vendôme, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 175, s. xi ex. (Vendôme), ff. 99v-101r
Lit.: Green 1985.

Cleopatra (pseudo-), Genecia (abbreviated version) – a shortened version of the fuller Genecia
Cleopatre; preceded in most mss by a list of 35 chapters; earliest mss date from the early 12th
cent., suggesting redaction in the late 11th cent. (probably in S. Italy); often circulates as the
first of a three-part group with De passionibus mulierum A and the Muscian adaptation, Non
omnes quidem.4
Inc. (pref.): Desideranti tibi filia karissima et habere uolenti commentarium curationis mulierum facere
laboraui . . .; (text): Oculorum dolor, caput sub calidum, uertigo occulta dolent. CURA. Adipem anserinum et
butirum cum aniso trito . . .
Expl.: [cap. 35] Ad mamillarum dolorem uel si ad partus doluerint. . . . Ceram et adipem porcelle uirginis recentem
simul tere, et olei rosei quod sufficit, et linteo inductum impone.
MSS:
Bethesda (Maryland), National Library of Medicine, MS 33 (518), an. 1473 (Germany), ff. 96va-99vb
(rearranged, with new material added)
Cambridge, St John’s College, cod. D.4 [James 79], s. xii1 (Italy), ff. 171r-173r
——, Trinity College, MS R.14.30 (James 903), s. xiii ex., ff. 211r-214r (with a fictitious preface, Epistola
quedam breuis ascari)5
Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek, cod. lat. P.34 (N. 78), an. 1457-58 (copied by physician Hermann
Heyms, fl. 1427-1472), ff. 203v-230r [unclear if this is long version or short (given the length, it may
have been the Cleopatra-Dpm A-Non omnes quidem complex); alas, it was partially destroyed during
World War II and the only remaining portion does not include the Cleopatra text: http://digital.slub-
dresden.de/id337794197]
Florence, Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, MS Strozzi 88, s. xii (Italy), ff. 114r-117r
Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 1212, s. xii ex., ff. 35vb-41vb [need to confirm if this is long version or
short; the length seems too long for the short, but the date makes me suspect that this might be the
Cleo/Dpm A/Non omnes combo]
Luxembourg, Bibliothèque Nationale de Luxembourg, MS 30, part 4, s. xiii1, f. 120r (end of text only)6
Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, MS 4234 (olim L 163), s. xii2 (France?), ff. 28v-31r
Munich, Staatsbibliothek, Clm 19429, s. xii ex./xiii in., excerpted recipes
New York, New York Academy of Medicine, MS SAFE, s. xiii med. (France), ff. 85rb-86va
Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Ashmole 1432, s. xv ex. (Italy), ff. 187v-188v
——, ——, MS e Musaeo 219 (SC 3541), s. xiv in. (England), ff. 87Av-87Dr
—— ——, MS Laud misc. 567, s. xii med. (England), ff. 58v-60v
——, Merton College, MS 324, s. xv1 (England), ff. 94r-96v
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS lat. 7056, ca. 1240-1260 (England or N. France), ff. 86va-88rb
——, ——, MS nouv. acq. lat. 603, s. xiii1 (Italy?), ff. 51rb-54ra (selections)
Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS 1481 (olim V.2.8), s. xiii (Italy), ff. 14rb-17va
Uppsala, Universitetsbibliotek, MS C 662, s. xiv (France), ff. 45ra-46ra
Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria, I.VI.24, s. xii ex., ff. 192v-196r. This MS was lost in the Turin
library fire in 1904.
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica, MS Borghesiana 86, s. xii2 (Italy), ff. 71r-73v (excerpts) [this had previously
been listed under copies of the full text of the Genecia Cleopatre]
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. lat. 5371, s. xii ex., ff. 20r-22r
4
On the De passionibus mulierum A and the Non omnes quidem, see the entries in Green 2000b.
See my essay, “The Possibilities of Literacy and the Limits of Reading: Women and the Gendering of Medical
5

Literacy,” in Women’s Healthcare in the Medieval West: Texts and Contexts (2000), Essay VII, pp. 1-76, p. 64.
6
My thanks to Iolanda Ventura and Thomas Falmaigne for bringing this important MS to my attention.
Genecia Cleopatre (6/22/23) Page

Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS 2504, s. xii ex., ff. 48rb-49ra (through cap. 18)
Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek, M. p. med. q. 2, s. xiii2 (Germany), ff. 57va-62rb (with new material added)
Lit.: Green 1985; Green 1987; Green 1990.

Bibliography:
Barratt 2001. Alexandra Barratt, ed., The Knowing of Woman’s Kind in Childing: A Middle
English Version of Material Derived from the ‘Trotula’ and Other Sources, Medieval
Women: Texts and Contexts, 4 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2001).
Green 1985. Monica H. Green, “The Transmission of Ancient Theories of Female Physiology
and Disease Through the Early Middle Ages,” PhD dissertation, Princeton University,
1985.
Green 1987. Monica H. Green, “The De genecia Attributed to Constantine the African,”
Speculum 62 (1987), 299-323. This was republished with some minor corrigenda in
Women’s Healthcare in the Medieval West: Texts and Contexts (Aldershot: Ashgate,
2000), as Essay III.
Green 1990. Monica H. Green, “Constantinus Africanus and the Conflict Between Religion
and Science,” in The Human Embryo: Aristotle and the Arabic and European
Traditions, ed. G. R. Dunstan (Exeter: Exeter University Press, 1990), pp. 47-69.
Green 1996a. Monica H. Green, “The Development of the Trotula,” Revue d’Histoire des
Textes 26 (1996), 119-203.
Green 1996b. Monica H. Green, “A Handlist of the Latin and Vernacular Manuscripts of the
So-Called Trotula Texts. Part I: The Latin Manuscripts,” Scriptorium 50 (1996), 137-
175.
Green 1997. Monica H. Green, “A Handlist of the Latin and Vernacular Manuscripts of the
So-Called Trotula Texts. Part II: The Vernacular Texts and Latin Re-Writings,”
Scriptorium 51 (1997), 80-104.
Green 1998. Monica H. Green, “‘Traittié tout de mençonges’: The Secrés des dames,
‘Trotula,’ and Attitudes Towards Women’s Medicine in Fourteenth- and Early
Fifteenth-Century France,” in Marilynn Desmond, ed., Christine de Pizan and the
Categories of Difference (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998), pp. 146-
78.
Green 2000a. Monica H. Green, “The Possibilities of Literacy and the Limits of Reading:
Women and the Gendering of Medical Literacy,” in Women’s Healthcare in the
Medieval West: Texts and Contexts (2000), Essay VII, pp. 1-76.
Green 2000b. Monica H. Green, “Medieval Gynecological Texts: A Handlist,” in Women’s
Healthcare in the Medieval West: Texts and Contexts (2000), Appendix, pp. 1-36.
Green 2000c. Monica H. Green, “From ‘Diseases of Women’ to ‘Secrets of Women’: The
Transformation of Gynecological Literature in the Later Middle Ages,” Journal of
Medieval and Early Modern Studies 30 (2000), 5-39.
Green 2008a. Monica H. Green, Making Women’s Medicine Masculine: The Rise of Male
Authority in Pre-Modern Gynaecology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).
Green 2008b. Monica H. Green, “Rethinking the Manuscript Basis of Salvatore De Renzi’s
Collectio Salernitana: The Corpus of Medical Writings in the ‘Long’ Twelfth Century,”
in La ‘Collectio Salernitana’ di Salvatore De Renzi, ed. Danielle Jacquart and Agostino
Genecia Cleopatre (6/22/23) Page

Paravicini Bagliani, Edizione Nazionale ‘La Scuola medica Salernitana’, 3 (Florence:

SISMEL/Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2008), 15-60.
Green 2011. Monica H. Green, “Making Motherhood in Medieval England: The Evidence
from Medicine,” in Motherhood, Religion, and Society in Medieval Europe, 400-1400:
Essays Presented to Henrietta Leyser, ed. Conrad Leyser and Lesley Smith (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2011), pp. 173-203.
Hanson and Green 1994. Ann Ellis Hanson and Monica H. Green, “Soranus of Ephesus:
Methodicorum princeps,” in Wolfgang Haase and Hildegard Temporini, general editors,
Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Teilband II, Band 37.2 (Berlin & New
York: Walter de Gruyter, 1994), pp. 968-1075.