Critical and Historical Approach to Theophilus&rsquo; <i>De Urinis

Abstract

In classical Greek medicine, neither Hippocrates nor Galen considered the condition of the urine to be an important sign of systemic diseases, and they did not relate its characteristics to definite illnesses, except in obvious cases of urinary tract disease. In their teaching, urine was used together with other physical signs as a prognostic indicator. With Theophilus, however, uroscopy gained an important role, and the appearance of the urine became pathognomic of specific diseases. De Urinis owed its popularity to this new approach and to its didactic character, as it was written as a practical handbook. After the 12th century, De Urinis occupied an assured position among the few ancient medical treatises that in Latin translation formed a worldwide teaching canon for medieval and Renaissance medical schools.

Theophilus’ <i>Auctoritas:</i> The Role of <i>De urinis</i> in the Medical Curriculum of the 12th–13th Centuries

“…It is worth noting that only with Stephen, Magnus and Theophilus [7] the classical humoral theory is used as a substrate for the examination of the physiologic and pathologic emission of urine in a theoretical context underlying the notion of humoral cotion, for example. Thus the works of these authors are collocated automatically in an intermediate position between the texts of high doctrinal value produced by Hippocrates and Galenwhich, however, lack a unifying and systematic treatment of urine -and those of epitomes, the short manuals in which there is little space for any theoretical background, but which in simple language provide the practicing physician with the constant correlation obtained between the state of urine and pathology according to a cause-effect relationship.…”

“…Similarly, Theophilus thus intended to write a treatise which would fill the gap left by Hippocrates and Galen on the topic of urology and would be rich in semeiotic detail bringing it close to minor medical texts (but the description of the color, consistency and suspensions of urine is much richer than anything found in the epitomes), while at the same time supported by a precise theory -that of urine as 'colamentum sanguinis' which makes it distinctive and characteristic [7].…”

“…It is almost impossible to trace a biography on the basis of the historical sources, and it is also difficult to place him in a well-defined chronological period [25]. Theophilus has been conventionally placed in the 7th century AD, but he may have lived in the 9th and perhaps even in the 10th century.…”

The <i>Per&igrave; ouron</i>Treatise of Stephanus of Athens: Byzantine Uroscopy of the 6th-7th Centuries AD

“…Among the works dedicated to the study of urine, one of the Stephanus o f A thensand Byzantine Uroscopy most notable is the Peri ouron by Theophilus, a brief but doctrinally coherent manual, which enjoyed widespread circulation throughout the Middle Ages. Theophilus first describes the for mation of urines in the kidney as percolation of blood [10].…”

Uroporphyria: Some Notes on Its Ancient Historical Background

“…On the other hand, black or dark urine may be considered as a sign of a massive hemolytic crisis, associated with nosological patterns such as those described in Epidemics I and III, mainly referring to hemoglobinuria, myoglobinuria or Falciparum-induced hemolytic crisis. The ancient authors (see for instance the pseudogalenic lore on urines) generally explain both the dark color and the unfavorable prognosis on the basis of the presence of black bile or very cooked blood, in a theory destined to be maintained almost unchanged up to Theophilus and later authors [2,3].…”