Background: The Roman author Aulus Cornelius Celsus wrote an eight volume encyclopedia of medicine. His remarks on terminology are considered paradigmatic in all fields of medicine. The dermatological pathology of Celsus has so far been analyzed mainly in summary descriptions of the medical knowledge of antiquity. A modern text-based interpretation of the contributions of the author to the diagnosis and treatment of skin diseases is missing.

Objective: What kind of diagnostic and therapeutic expertise do the dermatological reports of Celsus convey?

Methods: The medical encyclopedia of Celsus has been examined for anamnestic, diagnostic, therapeutic and prognostic statements on diseases of the skin.

Results: The work of Celsus contains 31 chapters and notes in which diseases of the skin are described. By far the most are found in the fifth book which is dedicated to pharmacotherapy. The majority of the texts are divided into information on anamnesis and location, the results of the physical examination and the description of the changing aspect of the lesions under treatment. Ulcers, gangrene, erysipelas, boils and carbuncles, papules, pustules, impetigo and scabies are represented in particular detail. Elephantiasis, the so-called sacred fire and alopecia occupy a distinct position. In addition to the treatment with topically applicable remedies, the author discusses surgical measures and the use of cupping glasses.

Conclusions: Reading the dermatological reports and commentaries of the author shows that he saw in the efflorescences both isolated diseases and signs of generalized suffering. A perfect example of this evaluation is inflammatory redness. On the one hand, many of the names used by Celsus for skin diseases are firmly embodied in current terminology; on the other hand, a considerable number of appellations can not be found in modern nomenclature, despite their well-defined importance for differential diagnosis. The use of cupping heads and bloodletting was widespread within the treatment of dermatoses, because the so-called bad juices were held responsible for the development of the majority of efflorescences due to the lack of differentiated etiological knowledge of the physicians.