This paper focuses on three famous hexameters allegedly uttered by Apollo in Delphi for Emperor Julian by means of the emperor’s physician Oribasius. Since the nineteenth century, this text, in which Apollo announces the destruction of his temple and the silence of the oracle, has been the subject of numerous interpretations. Some scholars regard it as a genuine oracle produced in Delphi and intended for the pagan Emperor Julian while he was in Antioch (362–3). Others argue that it is a Christian forgery and piece of anti-pagan propaganda written shortly after Julian’s death. In this chapter, I first discuss the literary context of this oracle’s quotation in the Artemii Passio, an anonymous and fictitious seventh-century hagiographical work. I argue that we cannot date the text to the fourth century, because its attribution to the lost Church History of Philostorgius appears to be spurious and is not grounded. Second, I analyse the anonymous hagiographer’s construction of this episode and compare it to similar late Byzantine pseudo-oracles about the fate of pagan temples in order to provide a new interpretation of this prophecy.

While there are some studies on medical tools in antiquity, none of them deals with medical machines. These are mainly depicted in two treatises of the Hippocratic corpus that deal with bone reduction. The texts, On Fractures and On Articulations, which are two of the oldest works in the Hippocratic corpus, are premised on the idea that the body’s treatment is better achieved with rational, practical means that build a relationship of trust between the physician and the patient. Accordingly, the function and use of the Hippocratic machines by physicians is critically approached with a view to investigating the way medical machines interact with this leading doctrine of Hippocratic medicine. By differentiating between Hippocratic bone machines and simple medical tools used in bone reductions, the chapter concludes that bone-reduction machines, in contrast to simple medical tools, are mainly identified through the great amount of power they can release, which could be both beneficial and harmful for the patient, depending, in most of the cases, on the way the physician uses the machine. Moreover, the use of machines, by enhancing the physician’s craft, jostles it; mechanical bone reduction depends less on the physical power of the physician’s body (hands etc.), his knowledge and skill and more on the power of the machine.

The epilogue explores the evidence for dissection and anatomical literature in Late Antiquity. It addresses the seeming hiatus in anatomical activity after Galen, introducing the topic via Vesalius’ retrospective thoughts, which blame Galen’s enervating authority. It starts with fourth-century evidence, pictorial and textual, observing that Galen, while a dominant voice, was not the lone authority; major figures considered include Vindicianus, Nemesius of Emesa, Oribasius, and Gregory of Nyssa. It then turns to the fifth to seventh centuries, addressing the medical curriculum in Alexandria and the evidence from Stephanus of Athens and Paul of Aegina. Finally, it contrasts the absence of evidence for anatomical activity in the Late Antique West after the seventh century with the modest but more vibrant interest in the East, addressing the question of whether human dissection reemerged as an option in Byzantium in this period; major figures considered include Meletius, Theophilus Protospatharius, Michael Choniates, and George Tornikios. The epilogue ends with Hunayn ibn Ishaq and his Syriac and Arabic translations, representing the beginning of the next chapter in anatomical history.