The aim of this article is to draw the attention of scholars of ancient medicine to the need to consider the works of humanists in interpreting and editing medical treatises. Because humanists, especially those who had studied medicine and botany in the Italian universities, had acquired both a theoretical knowledge of ancient writings on medicine and a practical expertise in botany that allowed them to identify the plants mentioned in the major ancient sources such as Dioscorides, Theophrastus, Pliny and to understand their lexical uses in the Byzantine treatises on uroscopy. Such is the case for the word chyménè, which is nowadays completely misunderstood, as our examination of Theophilus Protospatharius’ De urinis (ca. seventh-ninth century) will show. That word, while obscure to the first translators of this treatise, such as Ambrogio Leone (1519), was correctly interpreted by the humanists Onorio Belli (1593), Claude Saumaise (1629) and Bodaeus de Stapel (1644), who were also the first to show us that the Latin version of Theophilus’ treatise on Urines had become corrupted in the course of the centuries.

本文的目的是引起古代医学学者的注意，即需要考虑人文主义者在解释和编辑医学论文中的著作。因为人文主义者，尤其是那些在意大利大学学习过医学和植物学的人文主义者，既获得了关于古代医学著作的理论知识，又获得了植物学方面的实践专长，这使他们能够识别出主要的古代资源（例如薯os科植物）中提到的植物， Theophrastus，Pliny并了解其在尿道镜检查的拜占庭论文中的词汇用法。chyménè一词就是这种情况，如今我们对Theophilus Protospatharius的De urinis的研究已经完全被误解了。（大约在七世纪）。这个词虽然使本论文的第一批译者（例如安布罗吉奥·利昂（Ambrogio Leone，1519年））晦涩难懂，却被人文主义者奥诺里奥·贝利（Onorio Belli，1593年），克劳德·索马伊斯（Claude Saumaise，1629年）和波达乌斯·德·斯佩佩尔（Bodaeus de Stapel，1644年）正确地解释了。首先向我们展示，西奥菲勒斯的《小便》专着的拉丁文版本在几个世纪中已经遭到破坏。