The first Socratic dialogues: Simon the Shoemaker

“Simon the Athenian, a shoemaker. When Socrates used to come to his workshop and have a conversation about something, Simon would make notes of the things he would remember. That’s why his dialogues are called ‘shoemakers.’ There are thirty-three of them bound in one book:

• On the gods.

• On the good.

• On the beautiful.

• What is the beautiful?

• On justice: books one and two.

• On virtue, that it can be taught.

• On courage: books one, two and three.

• On law.

• On popular leadership (sc. demagogy).

• On honor.

• On poetry.

• On luxuries.

• On love.

• On philosophy.

• On knowledge.

• On music.

• On poetry.

• What is the beautiful? [repeated]

• On teaching.

• On having conversations.

• On judgment.

• On being.

• On numbers.

• On taking care.

• On working.

• On greed.

• On charlatans.

• On the beauitful. [repeated]

Some add:

• On deliberating.

• On reason or on suitability.

• On wrong-doing.

They say that he was the first to present Socratic discussions (arguments?) as dialogues. When Pericles promised to support him and requested that he come to him, he responded that his free speech was not for sale.

There was also another Simon who wrote on rhetorical arts; another was a doctor during the reign of Seleucus Nicanor; and another was a sculptor.”

Σίμων Ἀθηναῖος, σκυτοτόμος. οὗτος ἐρχομένου Σωκράτους ἐπὶ τὸ ἐργαστήριον καὶ διαλεγομένου τινά, ὧν ἐμνημόνευεν ὑποσημειώσεις ἐποιεῖτο: ὅθεν σκυτικοὺς αὐτοῦ τοὺς διαλόγους καλοῦσιν. εἰσὶ δὲ τρεῖς καὶ τριάκοντα ἐν ἑνὶ φερόμενοι βιβλίῳ:

• Περὶ θεῶν.

• Περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ.

• Περὶ τοῦ καλοῦ.

• Τί τὸ καλόν.

• Περὶ δικαίου πρῶτον, δεύτερον.

• Περὶ ἀρετῆς ὅτι οὐ διδακτόν.

• Περὶ ἀνδρείας πρῶτον, δεύτερον, τρίτον.

• Περὶ νόμου.

• Περὶ δημαγωγίας.

• Περὶ τιμῆς.

• Περὶ ποιήσεως.

• Περὶ εὐπαθείας.

• Περὶ ἔρωτος.

• Περὶ φιλοσοφίας

• Περὶ ἐπιστήμης.

• Περὶ μουσικῆς.

• Περὶ ποιήσεως.

• Τί τὸ καλόν.

• Περὶ διδασκαλίας.

• Περὶ τοῦ διαλέγεσθαι.

• Περὶ κρίσεως.

• Περὶ τοῦ ὄντος.

• Περὶ ἀριθμοῦ.

• Περὶ ἐπιμελείας.

• Περὶ τοῦ ἐργάζεσθαι.

• Περὶ φιλοκερδοῦς.

• Περὶ ἀλαζονείας.

• Περὶ τοῦ καλοῦ.

οἱ δέ,

• Περὶ τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι.

• Περὶ λόγου ἢ περὶ ἐπιτηδειότητος.

• Περὶ κακουργίας.

Οὗτος, φασί, πρῶτος διελέχθη τοὺς λόγους τοὺς Σωκρατικούς. ἐπαγγειλαμένου δὲ Περικλέους θρέψειν αὐτὸν καὶ κελεύοντος ἀπιέναι πρὸς αὐτόν, οὐκ ἂν ἔφη τὴν παρρησίαν ἀποδόσθαι.

Γέγονε δὲ καὶ ἄλλος Σίμων ῥητορικὰς τέχνας γεγραφώς: καὶ ἕτερος ἰατρὸς κατὰ Σέλευκον τὸν Νικάνορα: καί τις ἀνδριαντοποιός.

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers, 2.13

From Plutarch’s “That philosophers should converse especially with those in power.”

‘To embrace Sorkanos, and to honour, share, welcome and cultivate a friendship that will be useful and fruitful to many both privately and publically, is an act that belongs to one who loves what is noble, who is political, who is a friend to people; not, as some think, one who loves reputation. On the contrary, the person who loves reputation and fears every whisper is the one who flees from and fears being known as an eager servant of those in power. Since what does a man say who is a servant and in need of philosophy? “Should I then become Simon the shoemaker or Dionysios the school teacher from being Perikles or Cato, so that one might have a discussion and sit with me as Socrates did them?” And although Ariston of Chios, when criticized by the sophists for conversing with anyone who wished, said, “I wish the wild animals, too, could understand arguments that inspire towards virtue”, will we avoid becoming acquainted with the powerful and the leaders as if they were wild and untamed?’

Σωρκανὸν ἐγκολπίσασθαι καὶ φιλίαν τιμᾶν καὶ μετιέναι καὶ προσδέχεσθαι καὶ γεωργεῖν, πολλοῖς μὲν ἰδίᾳ πολλοῖς δὲ καὶ δημοσίᾳ χρήσιμον καὶ ἔγκαρπον γενησομένην, φιλοκάλων ἐστὶ καὶ πολιτικῶν καὶ φιλανθρώπων οὐχ ὡς ἔνιοι νομίζουσι φιλοδόξων· ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὐναντίον, φιλόδοξός ἐστι καὶ ψοφοδεὴς ὁ φεύγων καὶ φοβούμενος ἀκοῦσαι λιπαρὴς τῶν ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ θεραπευτικός. ἐπεὶ τί φησιν ἀνὴρ θεραπευτικὸς καὶ φιλοσοφίας δεόμενος; Σίμων οὖν γένωμαι ὁ σκυτοτόμος ἢ Διονύσιος ὁ γραμματιστὴς ἐκ Περικλέους ἢ Κάτωνος, ἵνα μοι προσδιαλέγηται καὶ προσκαθίζῃ ὡς Σωκράτης ἐκείνῳ; καὶ Ἀρίστων μὲν ὁ Χῖος ἐπὶ τῷ πᾶσι διαλέγεσθαι τοῖς βουλομένοις ὑπὸ τῶν σοφιστῶν κακῶς ἀκούων “ὤφελεν,” εἶπε, “καὶ τὰ θηρία λόγων συνιέναι κινητικῶν πρὸς ἀρετήν”· ἡμεῖς δὲ φευξούμεθα τοῖς δυνατοῖς καὶ ἡγεμονικοῖς ὥσπερ ἀγρίοις καὶ ἀνημέροις γίγνεσθαι συνήθεις;

Plutarch, Maxime cum principibus philosopho esse disserendum, Moralia 776A–C

Perfumery is a dyer’s and witch’s art

For Walpurgisnacht. In the Gryllus (Bruta animalia ratione uti), Plutarch has Odysseus argue with a man-turned-pig (Gryllus) about whether it is better to be a human or an animal. Odysseus thinks there is nothing better than being Greek. Gryllus counters, giving considerations in favour of being a pig. For one thing, he says, they are naturally virtuous and don’t have to be taught to be good. Their sexes are equal, by which he means they share equally in traditional Greek male virtues. And, in what he takes to be a knock-down argument, he says animals have no interest in luxury, which he associates with un-virtue and the human feminine: animals can ignore gold and silver as they would any other stone, they prefer mud to finely dyed robes and tapestries, and they don’t mind smelling of dirt:

“And besides, smell does not trouble us as it does you. Incenses, cinnamons, nards, phyllas, Arabian calamuses—you are compelled to collect and combine them together using a terrible art of dyers and witches that goes by the name ‘perfumery.’ You pay a lot of money for a luxury that is unmanly, girlish and which has no real use at all.”

τἄλλα δ’ οὐκ ἐνοχλεῖ, καθάπερ ὑμῖν, τὰ θυμιάματα καὶ κινάμωμα καὶ νάρδους καὶ φύλλα καὶ καλάμους Ἀραβικοὺς μετὰ δεινῆς τινος δευσοποιοῦ καὶ* φαρμακίδος τέχνης, ᾗ μυρεψικῆς ὄνομα, συνάγειν εἰς ταὐτὸ καὶ συμφυρᾶν** ἀναγκάζουσα, χρημάτων πολλῶν ἡδυπάθειαν ἄνανδρον καὶ κορασιώδη καὶ πρὸς οὐδὲν οὐδαμῶς χρήσιμον ὠνουμένους.

*καὶ δευσοποιοῦ Bernardakis

** συμφυρᾶν Bernardakis: συμφαγεῖν Teub.

Plutarch, The use of reason by irrational animals 7 (Moralia 990B2–9 = 6.94,11–18 Bernardakis)

Venerean Arts

‘mulier recte olet ubi nihil olet’

I’ve not had much time to post recently. I’ve been working on starting up Alchemies of Scent and trying to finish a few articles and books. But I’m also getting into some material on perfumery and other arts associated with Aphrodite / Venus. I had some time to translate and find a nice photo, so I thought I would put it up.

In the Greco-Roman lineage of texts I work with, there are many references to arts and technology of elegance, luxury and playfulness. They include perfumery, dyeing, fine metal working, embroidery, garment making, garland weaving, and also singing and other arts associated with the symposium.

I’ve started referring to them as the arts of Venus, “the Venerean arts,” since Aphrodite / Venus seems to govern them in astrological texts. As a nice bonus, Eros and Psyche figure in the arts’ frescoes at the house of the Vettii in Pompeii, hinting at a connection beyond astrology.

Being a luxury art doesn’t usually carry positive connotations for the authors I study. Instead, they are associated with things these authors consider to be morally inferior or wrong: wealth, femininity, impermanence, vanity and untrustworthiness.

The association between these authors’ moral categories and the Venerean arts is likely one reason why these arts were attacked and mocked by so many Greek and Roman voices that have survived and by many people who have followed them.

For example, we’re told Solon proclaimed a law that forbade Athenian citizens from being perfumers [1]. Xenophon’s Socrates says men have no need of perfume beyond the scent of sweat and olive oil, while women have no need for any scent at all beyond what is natural [2]. Plautus, in his Ghost Story (the Mostellaria, perhaps an adaptation of an earlier Athenian play), has a character say, mulier recte olet ubi nihil olet —‘a woman smells best when she smells of nothing at all’ [3]. Seneca reports a saying that one can tell a scoundrel by the fact that he wears perfume [4]. Doctors like Athenaeus or Galen say that a luxurious lifestyle also involves unhealthy behaviours, where ‘unhealthy behaviours’ often map closely on to behaviours these same figures take to be morally wrong (the causal direction here is not always clear).

Such condemnations of the Venerean arts are pretty familiar from surviving philosophical and political writings of the period.

Despite these critiques, however, the markets continued and the arts themselves survived. Even if the promoters of Solon and Socrates would want to make it appear so, the interest in and demand for luxury goods seems not to have exclusively provoked moral concern. There are many other interesting aspects of such arts, including their place in the history of science.

Still, I think it’s interesting that so many critics of these arts survive and how loud they have been in Greco-Roman literature’s history. I’m curious why we don’t find more impartial or even positive discussions of them, as, e.g., in Theophrastus or Dioscorides. I’m also curious what the original context of the discusisons about luxury might have been, since it is not obvious, and it is perhaps even doubtful, that such critical views were held by everyone.

For now, though, I’m looking into the artists of elegance and luxury themselves: how were they seen and grouped together at different times and how did they see themselves?

One set of sources I’ve come across are 2nd century CE astrological writings—texts where Aphrodite is given provenance over certain arts and offices. The following two are in Greek language by authors from the eastern and southern Mediterranean.

Sources for Veneran Arts in Astrological Writings

Here is Vettius Valens, who was originally from Antioch and perhaps later worked in Egypt:

“Aphrodite is desire and love. She is a sign of motherhood and nurturing. She produces offices of priests, schoolmasters, those with a right to wear a gold ring, and those with the right to wear a crown; she produces cheerfulness, friendship, companionship, the acquisition of property, the purchase of ornaments, contracts on favourable terms, marriages, arts of elegance, fine voices, song writing, sweet melodies, shapeliness, painting, mixing of pigments in embroidery, dyeing, and perfumery, and the inventors or even masters of these crafts, craftsmanship or trade to do with working of emeralds, precious stones, and ivory; and along her boundaries and portions of the zodiac, she makes gold-spinners, gold workers, barbers, people fond of elegance, and people who love playfulness.”

Ἡ δὲ Ἀφροδίτη ἐστὶ μὲν ἐπιθυμία καὶ ἔρως, σημαίνει δὲ μητέρα καὶ τροφόν· ποιεῖ δὲ ἱερωσύνας, γυμνασιαρχίας, χρυσοφορίας, στεμματοφορίας, εὐφροσύνας, φιλίας, ὁμιλίας, ἐπικτήσεις ὑπαρχόντων, ἀγορασμοὺς κόσμου, συναλλαγὰς ἐπὶ τὸ ἀγαθόν, γάμους, τέχνας καθαρίους, εὐφωνίας, μουσουργίας, ἡδυμελείας, εὐμορφίας, ζωγραφίας, χρωμάτων κράσεις καὶ ποικιλτικήν, πορφυροβαφίαν καὶ μυρεψικήν, τούς τε τούτων προπάτορας ἢ καὶ κυρίους, τέχνας ἢ ἐμπορίας ἐργασίας σμαράγδου τε καὶ λιθείας, ἐλεφαντουργίας· οὓς δὲ χρυσονήτας, χρυσοκοσμήτας, κουρεῖς, φιλοκαθαρίους καὶ φιλοπαιγνίους αὐτοὺς ἀποτελεῖ παρὰ τὰ τῶν ζῳδίων αὐτῆς ὅρια καὶ τὰς μοίρας.

Vettius Valens, Anthologia 1.1.6 (3,16–26) (English)

And here is Ptolemy, from Alexandria:

“When Aphrodite causes someone’s profession, she makes them persons whose activities lie in the scents of flowers or of perfumes, in wines, pigments, dyes, spices, or adornments, as, for example, sellers of perfumes, weavers of garlands, innkeepers, wine-merchants, sellers of drugs, weavers, dealers in spices, painters, dyers, sellers of clothing.”

ὁ δὲ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης τὸ πράσσειν παρέχων ποιεῖ τοὺς παρ’ ὀσμαῖς ἀνθέων ἢ μύρων ἢ οἴνοις ἢ χρώμασιν ἢ βαφαῖς ἢ ἀρώμασιν ἢ κοσμίοις τὰς πράξεις ἔχοντας, οἷον μυροπώλας, στεφανοπλόκους, ἐκδοχέας, οἰνεμπόρους, φαρμακοπώλας, ὑφάντας, ἀρωματοπώλας, ζωγράφους, βαφέας, ἱματιοπώλας.

Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos 4.4.4

[1] Athen. Deipn. 15.34, 519 Kaibel (Greek | English)
[2] Xen. Symp. 2.3 (Greek | English)
[3] Plaut. Mostell. 1.3 273 (Latin | English)
[4] Sen. Ep. 86.11 (Latin | English)

Going Skythian

When they want to drink wine that’s more undiluted, the Lakonians themselves say they “go Skythian.” Khamaileon of Herakleia in On Drunkenness at any rate writes about them as follows:

“the Lakonians say that Kleomenes the Spartan went mad because he learned to drink undiluted wine, having spent time with the Skythians. That’s why, when they wish to drink more undiluted wine, they say, ‘make it Skythian.’”

καὶ αὐτοὶ δ’ οἱ Λάκωνες ὅταν βούλωνται ἀκρατέστερον πίνειν, ἐπισκυθίσαι λέγουσι. Χαμαιλέων γοῦν ὁ Ἡρακλεώτης ἐν τῷ περὶ μέθης περὶ τούτων οὕτως γράφει·

«ἐπεὶ καὶ Κλεομένη τὸν Σπαρτιάτην φασὶν οἱ Λάκωνες μανῆναι διὰ τὸ Σκύθαις ὁμιλήσαντα μαθεῖν ἀκρατοποτεῖν. ὅθεν ὅταν βούλωνται πιεῖν ἀκρατέστερον, ‘ἐπισκύθισον’ λέγουσιν».

Athenaeus of Naucratis, Deipnosophistae, 10.29

Literary Barbarism

“For I do not think, as some of our contemporaries urge, that everyone ought to atticize in language, even if they happen to be doctors, philosophers, geometers, musicians, or lawyers, or none of these, but generally wealthy people or merely people of means. On the contrary—I don’t think it is a good thing to blame or censure anyone for solecising. It’s better to solecise and barbarize in words than in life.”

οὐ γὰρ δὴ τοῦτ' ἀξιοῦμεν ἡμεῖς, ὅπερ ἔνιοι τῶν νῦν κελεύουσιν, ἅπαντας ἀττικίζειν τῇ φωνῇ, κἂν ἰατροὶ τυγχάνωσιν ὄντες ἢ φιλόσοφοι καὶ γεωμετρικοὶ καὶ μουσικοὶ καὶ νομικοὶ κἂν μηδὲν τούτων ἀλλ' ἁπλῶς ἤτοι πλουτοῦντές τινες ἢ μόνον εὔποροι· τοὐναντίον γὰρ ἀπαξιῶ μηδενὶ μέμφεσθαι τῶν σολοικιζόντων τῇ φωνῇ μηδ' ἐπιτιμᾶν· ἄμεινον γάρ ἐστι τῇ φωνῇ μᾶλλον ἢ τῷ βίῳ σολοικίζειν τε καὶ βαρβαρίζειν.

Galen, On the Order of My Own Books 5 (19.60–61 K.)

Aristotle on wine-drunk vs. beer-drunk

“Hellanikos says the grape vine was first discovered in Plinthine, a city in Egypt, which is why Dio from the Academy says the Egyptians became lovers of wine and drinking. They also discovered a remedy for those who, because of poverty, couldn’t afford wine, by giving them a drink made from barley. And the people who took this were given such pleasure that they sang and danced and acted in every way like those who drank lots of wine. Aristotle, however, says that those who get drunk on wine fall forward onto their faces, while those who have been drinking beer fall back onto their heads, for wine makes one’s head heavy, while beer causes stupor.”

Ἑλλάνικος δέ φησιν ἐν τῇ Πλινθίνῃ πόλει Αἰγύπτου πρώτῃ εὑρεθῆναι τὴν ἄμπελον. διὸ καὶ Δίων ὁ ἐξ Ἀκαδημίας φιλοίνους καὶ φιλοπότας τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους γενέσθαι: εὑρεθῆναί τε βοήθημα παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ὥστε τοὺς διὰ πενίαν ἀποροῦντας οἴνου τὸν ἐκ τῶν κριθῶν γενόμενον πίνειν: καὶ οὕτως ἥδεσθαι τοὺς τοῦτον προσφερομένους ὡς καὶ ᾁδειν καὶ ὀρχεῖσθαι καὶ πάντα ποιεῖν ὅσα τοὺς ἐξοίνους γινομένους. Ἀριστοτέλης δέ φησιν ὅτι οἱ μὲν ὑπ᾽ οἴνου μεθυσθέντες ἐπὶ πρόσωπον φέρονται, οἱ δὲ τὸν κρίθινον πεπωκότες ἐξυπτιάζονται τὴν κεφαλήν: ὁ μὲν γὰρ οἶνος καρηβαρικός, ὁ δὲ κρίθινος καρωτικός.

Athenaeus, The Sophists at Dinner, 1.61

Two Texts on Scent: Aristotle and Theophrastus

“Since there is an odd number of senses, and since an odd number always has a middle, it seems the sense of smell is itself in the middle between the haptic senses, i.e. touch and taste, and the mediated senses, i.e. sight and hearing. For this reason smell is also a certain affection both of things that are nourishing (for these are in the class of haptic things) and of things that are audible and visible, which is why [animals] smell in both air and water. Thus, the object of smell is something common to both of these classes, belonging to the haptic, and to the audible and transparent. That’s also why scent has reasonably been compared to a kind of dye-bath and a washing of the dry in the moist and liquid.”

ἔοικε δ' ἡ αἴσθησις ἡ τοῦ ὀσφραίνεσθαι, περιττῶν οὐσῶν τῶν αἰσθήσεων καὶ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ ἔχοντος μέσον τοῦ περιττοῦ, καὶ αὐτὴ μέση εἶναι τῶν τε ἁπτικῶν, οἷον ἁφῆς καὶ γεύσεως, καὶ τῶν δι' ἄλλου αἰσθητικῶν, οἷον ὄψεως καὶ ἀκοῆς. διὸ καὶ τὸ ὀσφραντὸν τῶν θρεπτικῶν ἐστὶ πάθος τι (ταῦτα δ' ἐν τῷ ἁπτῷ γένει), καὶ τοῦ ἀκουστοῦ δὲ καὶ τοῦ ὁρατοῦ, διὸ καὶ ἐν ἀέρι καὶ ἐν ὕδατι ὀσμῶνται. ὥστ' ἐστὶ τὸ ὀσφραντὸν κοινόν τι τούτων ἀμφοτέρων, καὶ τῷ τε ἁπτῷ ὑπάρχει καὶ τῷ ἀκουστῷ καὶ τῷ διαφανεῖ· διὸ καὶ εὐλόγως παρείκασται ξηρότητος ἐν ὑγρῷ καὶ χυτῷ οἷον βαφή τις εἶναι καὶ πλύσις.

Aristotle, On Sense and Sensible Objects, 5.27–28, 445a4–445a14

“They use aromatics for all perfumes. With some they treat the oil as with a mordant [ἐπιστύφοντες], with others they impart the scent derived from them. For in all cases they treat the oil as with a mordant [ὑποστύφουσι] in order that the oil might become more receptive to the scent, just like wool into a dye-bath. They use the weaker of the aromatics as a mordant, then later they add the one whose scent they wish to preserve. For the last one added always dominates, even if it is not much in quantity. For example, if someone were to add a mna of myrrh into a kotyle of oil, and later add two drachmas of cinnamon, the two drachmas of cinnamon would dominate.'“

Χρῶνται δὲ πρὸς πάντα τοῖς ἀρώμασι, τοῖς μὲν ἐπιστύφοντες τὸ ἔλαιον τοῖς δὲ καὶ τὴν ὀσμὴν ἐκ τούτων ἐμποιοῦντες. Ὑποστύφουσι γὰρ πᾶν εἰς τὸ δέξασθαι μᾶλλον τὴν ὀσμὴν ὥσπερ τὰ ἔρια εἰς τὴν βαφήν. Ὑποστύφεται δὲ τοῖς ἀσθενεστέροις τῶν ἀρωμάτων, εἶθ' ὕστερον ἐμβάλλουσιν ἀφ' οὗ ἂν βούλωνται τὴν ὀσμὴν λαβεῖν· ἐπικρατεῖ γὰρ ἀεὶ τὸ ἔσχατον ἐμβαλλόμενον καὶ ἂν ἔλαττον ᾖ· οἷον ἐὰν εἰς κοτύλην σμύρνης ἐμβληθῇ μνᾶ καὶ ὕστερον ἐμβληθῶσι κιναμώμου δραχμαὶ δύο, κρατοῦσιν αἱ τοῦ κιναμώμου δύο δραχμαί.

Theophrastus, On Scents, 4.17

Aristotle and Michael of Ephesus on how cicadas sing

Aristotle on how cicadas sing

“All the longer-lived insects (for all insects are bloodless) have a deep indentation under their midsection, so that they can be cooled through a finer membrane. For since they’re rather warm, they need a greater amount of cooling, for example bees (some bees even live seven years) and other insects that make a humming sound like wasps, cockchafers and cicadas.

“They in fact make the sound using pneuma, as if they were panting: for in the midsection itself, by means of the innate pneuma expanding and contracting, friction arises against the membrane; and they move this region just as animals that breath outside air with lungs and fish with gills. A similar thing also happens if one suffocates a breathing animal by holding its mouth closed*—for these animals too will make this rising movement with the lungs, except for them it does not produce sufficient cooling, while for insects it is sufficient.

“And with the friction against the membrane they produce their humming, as we said, like children do with reeds that have had holes made in them when they cover them with a fine membrane.** For this is how the singing cicadas sing: they are warmer and there is a deep indentation under their midsection, while it is no indented in those that do not sing.”

ὅσα δὲ μακροβιώτερα τῶν ἐντόμων (ἄναιμα γάρ ἐστι πάντα τὰ ἔντομα), τούτοις ὑπὸ τὸ διάζωμα διέσχισται, ὅπως διὰ λεπτοτέρου ὄντος τοῦ ὑμένος ψύχηται· μᾶλλον γὰρ ὄντα θερμὰ πλείονος δεῖται τῆς καταψύξεως, οἷον αἱ μέλιτται (τῶν γὰρ μελιττῶν ἔνιαι ζῶσι καὶ ἑπτὰ ἔτη) καὶ τἆλλα δὲ ὅσα βομβεῖ, οἷον σφῆκες καὶ μηλολόνθαι καὶ τέττιγες. καὶ γὰρ τὸν ψόφον ποιοῦσι πνεύματι, οἷον ἀσθμαίνοντα· ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ τῷ ὑποζώματι, τῷ ἐμφύτῳ πνεύματι αἰρομένῳ καὶ συνίζοντι, συμβαίνει πρὸς τὸν ὑμένα γίνεσθαι τρίψιν· κινοῦσι γὰρ τὸν τόπον τοῦτον, ὥσπερ τὰ ἀναπνέοντα ἔξωθεν τῷ πνεύμονι καὶ οἱ ἰχθύες τοῖς βραγχίοις. παραπλήσιον γὰρ συμβαίνει κἂν εἴ τίς τινα τῶν ἀναπνεόντων πνίγοι, τὸ στόμα κατασχών· καὶ γὰρ ταῦτα ποιήσει τῷ πνεύμονι τὴν ἄρσιν ταύτην· ἀλλὰ τούτοις μὲν οὐχ ἱκανὴν ἡ τοιαύτη ποιεῖ κίνησις κατάψυξιν, ἐκείνοις δ' ἱκανήν. καὶ τῇ τρίψει τῇ πρὸς τὸν ὑμένα ποιοῦσι τὸν βόμβον, ὥσπερ λέγομεν, οἷον διὰ τῶν καλάμων τῶν τετρυπημένων τὰ παιδία, ὅταν ἐπιθῶσιν ὑμένα λεπτόν. διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο καὶ τῶν τεττίγων οἱ ᾄδοντες ᾄδουσιν· θερμότεροι γάρ εἰσι, καὶ ἔσχισται αὐτοῖς ὑπὸ τὸ ὑπόζωμα· τοῖς δὲ μὴ ᾄδουσι τοῦτ' ἐστὶν ἄσχιστον.

Aristotle, On Youth and Old Age, Life and Death 15 (On Respiration 9), 475a1-20

*rather disturbing

**like an internal kazoo?

Michael of Ephesus on Aristotle on how cicadas sing

Michael of Ephesus comments on Aristotle’s explanation of why some cicadas sing and others do not. In his comments, he refers to an interpretation of the same passage by a colleague. It is not clear whether he’s talking about an interpretation that was written down, or whether it was one that was discussed between them (or maybe even in class). He does claim, however, that his colleague has written on Aristotle and he humbly claims that his colleague is a better interpreter of Aristotle than him and others. Suggests to me that Michael was not the only commentator at the time writing commentaries on this text, or at least on explanations of cicadas.

“Therefore, that is the sense of what he said. What he means by the words “in the midsection itself, by means of the innate pneuma expanding and contracting” is something like this: it so happens that friction is produced by the innate pneuma against the membrane that is at the midsection. For when the innate heat that is in the midsection expands and contracts, or opens and closes the indentations, friction against the membrane is produced by the entrapped air, i.e., friction is produced by the innate pneuma.

“With these words he seems to indicate that what makes the noise is the innate pneuma itself, and not the air shut up inside that was taken in through the slits. He therefore seems to be saying with these words that the innate breath is what produces the sound when it expands and contracts (for during the expansion, when it strikes the membrane, it makes a sound), and perhaps this is what happens. But since the animals that breath move their chest by means of the entrance of air coming in from the outside, lest someone assume that flies and all the other insects move the region under the midsection through a certain kind of air entering through the mouth, he adds:

‘A similar thing also happens if one suffocates a breathing animal by holding its mouth closed.’ (475a11).

“And in the case of singing cicadas, the thorax has an indentation, while in the case of those that do not sing, it does not have an indentation. For if their singing is due to the indentation, the [other’s] not singing is due to it not being indented. And so, I think that in [his commentary on?] the present passage [475a12], my most divine colleague does not consider that, in an [earlier] passage [where he says,] “in the midsection itself, by means of the innate pneuma expanding and contracting” [475a8], it is the innate pneuma that falls against the membrane and makes a sound. For why is no sound produced in those [insects] that do not have an indentation, even though in these cases the innate pneuma falls against the analogue of the membrane as well? But perhaps it is not necessary to condemn a man who has written down many works of philosophy and has a finer ability than me and others beyond me for getting at Aristotle’s meaning. For which reason, let his point of view have first place, and let mine be ranked wherever it is welcome to those fond of learning.”

ἡ μὲν οὖν τῶν λεγομένων πάντων διάνοια αὕτη, κατὰ δὲ τὰς λέξεις τὸ «ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ τῷ ὑποζώματι τῷ ἐμφύτῳ πνεύματι αἴροντι καὶ συνίζοντι» τοιοῦτόν ἐστι· συμβαίνει κατὰ τὸν ὑμένα τὸν ἐν τῷ ὑποζώματι ὄντα γίνεσθαι τρῖψιν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐμφύτου πνεύματος. ἐπεὶ γὰρ τὸ ἐν τῷ ὑποζώματι ὂν ἔμφυτον πνεῦμα αἶρον καὶ συνίζον, ἤτοι ἀνοῖγον καὶ κλεῖον τὰ σχίσματα, διὰ τοῦ ἐναπολαμβανομένου ἀέρος γίνεται τρῖψις πρὸς τὸν ὑμένα, δηλονότι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐμφύτου πνεύματος γίνεται τρῖψις. αὐτὸς δ’ ἔοικε διὰ τῆς λέξεως δηλοῦν, ὅτι αὐτὸ τὸ ἔμφυτον πνεῦμά ἐστι τὸ ψοφοῦν, καὶ οὐχὶ ὁ ἐναπολαμβανόμενος διὰ τῶν σχισμάτων ἀήρ. ἔοικεν οὖν διὰ τῆς λέξεως λέγειν, ὅτι τὸ ἔμφυτον πνεῦμά ἐστι τὸ ψοφοῦν ἐκτεινόμενον καὶ συστελλόμενον (ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἐκτάσει προσπῖπτον τῷ ὑμένι ποιεῖ ψόφον), καὶ ἴσως εἴη ἂν καὶ τοῦτο γινόμενον· ἐπεὶ δὲ τὰ ἀναπνέοντα δοκεῖ ὅτι τῇ τοῦ εἰσιόντος ἔξωθεν ἀέρος εἰσόδῳ κινοῦσι τὸν θώρακα, ἵνα μή τις ὑπολάβῃ, ὅτι καὶ αἱ μυῖαι καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα διά τινος ἀέρος εἰσερχομένου διὰ τοῦ στόματος κινοῦσι τὸν ὑπὸ τὸ ὑπόζωμα τόπον, ἐπήγαγε·

«Παραπλήσιον γὰρ συμβαίνει, κἂν εἴ τίς τινα τῶν ἀναπνεόντων πνίγοι τὸ στόμα κατασχών.»

καὶ τοῖς μὲν ᾄδουσι τέττιξιν ἔσχισται τὸ ὑπόζωμα, τοῖς δὲ μὴ ᾄδουσιν οὐκ ἔσχισται. εἰ γὰρ διὰ τὴν σχίσιν τὸ ᾄδειν, τὸ μὴ ᾄδειν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐσχίσθαι. ὥστε ἀξιῶ τὸν θειότατόν μου ἑταῖρον διὰ τῆς νῦν λέξεως μὴ ὑπονοεῖν ἐν τῇ λέξει τῇ «ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ τῷ ὑποζώματι τῷ ἐμφύτῳ πνεύματι αἴροντι καὶ συνίζοντι», ὅτι τὸ ἔμφυτον πνεῦμά ἐστι τὸ προσπῖπτον τῷ ὑμένι καὶ ψοφοῦν. διὰ τί γὰρ καὶ ἐν τοῖς μὴ ἔχουσι σχίσμα οὐ γίνεται ψόφος, καίτοι τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἐμφύτου προσπίπτοντος καὶ ἐν τούτοις πρὸς τὸ ἀνάλογον τῷ ὑμένι; ἀλλ' ἴσως οὐ χρὴ καταψηφίζεσθαι ἀνδρὸς πολλοὺς ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίᾳ πόνους καταβεβληκότος καὶ δυναμένου κάλλιον ἐμοῦ καὶ ἄλλων τῶν ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ τῆς Ἀριστοτέλους διανοίας ἐφάπτεσθαι. δι' ὃ ἐχέτω μὲν τὰ πρῶτα ἡ ἐκείνου ἐπιβολή, ἡ δὲ ἐμὴ τετάχθω ὅπου φίλον τοῖς φιλομαθέσι.

Michael of Ephesus, In parva naturalia commentaria, CAG 22.1, 130,31–131,8 Wendland

---

For once they say rosy-fingered Dawn, taught by love,
took Tithonos and went to the ends of the earth.
He was beautiful and young, but in time grey old age
caught him all the same, as he held on to an immortal spouse.

καὶ γάρ π̣[ο]τ̣α̣ Τίθωνον ἔφαντο βροδόπαχυν Αὔων,
ἔρωι δε̣δ̣άθ̣ειϲαν, βάμεν’ εἰϲ ἔϲχατα γᾶϲ φέροιϲα[ν, [10]
ἔοντα̣ [κ]ά̣λ̣ο̣ν καὶ νέον, ἀλλ’ αὖτον ὔμωϲ ἔμαρψε
χρόνωι π̣ό̣λ̣ι̣ο̣ν̣ γῆραϲ, ἔχ̣[ο]ν̣τ̣’ ἀθανάταν ἄκοιτιν. [12]

From Sappho’s poem on old age (or Tithonus, fr. 58). Text is Richard Janko’s, available here.

Testimony

In the English Wikipedia article on Jeanne Harvilliers, a victim of Jean Bodin burned at the stake for witchcraft on 29 April 1578, the following is written about her last words:

“Her exact words on the day of execution was [sic] described by Jean Bodin:

‘Farewell, may heaven forgive you. During my life, I was an Egyptian, a girl, a vagabond; I was banished, I was beaten with canes, I was marked with iron; I begged for bread from door to door; I was hunted from village to village like a dog. Who then would have believed my words? But today, fettered to the stake, ready to die, my words will not fall on the ground. Believe this call of truth: I am innocent of the crimes ascribed to me, I have done nothing to warrant the treatment given to me.’”

(Visited 7 May 2021. Checked 17 December 2022–still up)

The English Wikipedia article is rather new, written sometime in April 2021, and basically a translation of the French Wikipedia article. The French article, however, qualifies the quotation as Charles Gomart’s report of Jean Bodin’s report of Jeanne Harvilliers’ last words:

“Charles Gomart relate que Jean Bodin[note 1], son juge et biographe, rapporte ses utlimes paroles:*

‘Adieu, que le ciel vous pardonne. Pendant ma vie j’étais une Egyptienne, une fille, une vagabonde ; j’ai été bannie, frappée de verges, marquée d’un fer chaud ; j’ai mendié mon pain de porte, en porte ; j’ai été chassée de village en village comme un chien. Qui, alors, aurait ajouté foi en mes paroles? Mais aujourd’hui, attachée au bûcher, prête à mourir, mes paroles ne tomberont pas à terre. Ajoutez foi à ce cri de vérité : Je suis innocente des crimes qu’on m’impute, je n’ai rien fait pour mériter le traitement qu’on me fait subir!’”

Charles Gomart, a 19th century historian, wrote an essay, first published in 1849, called “La sorcière de Ribemont: épisode historique de 1579 [The Witch of Ribemont: a historical episode of 1579 ].” The essay was published a few times, twice in 1849 (here, here), once in 1850 (here), and once in 1869 as part of Gomart’s larger history of Ribemont (here).** In none of these does Gomart attribute Harvilliers’ last words to a report by Bodin. He only writes that Jeanne “made her last words heard” (he doesn’t say by whom):

“Jehanne était montée et faisait entendre ces dernières paroles:

‘Adieu, que le ciel vous pardonne. Pendant ma vie j’étais une Egyptienne, une fille, une vagabonde ; j’ai été bannie, frappée de verges, marquée d'un fer chaud ; j’ai mendié mon pain de porte, en porte ; j’ai été chassée de village en village comme un chien. Qui, alors, aurait ajouté foi en mes paroles? Mais aujourd’hui, attachée au bûcher, prête à mourir, mes paroles ne tomberont pas à terre. Ajoutez foi à ce cri de vérité : Je suis innocente des crimes qu’on m’impute, je n’ai rien fait pour mériter le traitement qu’on me fait subir!’”

Charles Gomart, “La sorcière de Ribemont: épisode historique de 1579”, La Thiérache: recueil de documents concernant l’histoire, les beaux-arts, les sciences naturelles et l’industrie de cette ancienne subdivision de la Picardie, Tome 1, Vervins: Papillon, 1849, p. 138.

The text of Gomart’s report of Harvilliers’ last words is nearly identical to the last words spoken by a fictional character, Meg Merrilies, referred to as “l’Égyptienne” (English: “the gipsy”) in the French translation of Sir Walter Scott’s second Waverly novel, Guy Mannering, ou l’astrologue, published in Paris in1826.***

“—Adieu donc! que le ciel vous pardonne! votre main a donné la force à mon témoignage. Pendant ma vie, j’étais une Égyptienne, une folle, une vagabonde; j’ai été bannie, frappée de verges, marquée d’un fer chaud. J’ai mendié mon pain de porte en porte, j’ai été chassé de village en village comme un chien égaré. Qui aurait ajouté foi à mes paroles? Mais aujourd’hui je suis une femme mourante, et mes paroles ne tomberont pas à terre comme mon sang que vous avez versé.”

Walter Scott, Oeuvres complètes: traduction nouvelle, Tome 16, Guy Mannering, ou l’astrologue, Tome 3, Paris: Gosselin, 1826, p. 167.

Meg Merrilies’ last words were originally written in a dialect of Lowland Scots and found on page 304 of volume three of the first edition of Guy Mannering; or, The Astrologer, written by the author of Waverley, published in Edinburgh in 1815:

“‘Then fareweel!’ she said, ‘and God forgive you!—your hand has sealed my evidence. When I was in life, I was the mad randy gipsy, that had been scourged, and banished, and branded—that had begged from door to door, and been hounded like a stray tike from parish to parish—wha would hae minded her tale? But now I am a dying woman, and my words will not fall to the ground, any more than the earth will cover my blood!’”

Walter Scott, Guy Mannering; or, The Astrologer, Volume 3, Edinburgh: Archibald Constable and Co., 1815, p. 304 [text only].

Here are two versions of these last words side-by-side, Merrilies’ and Harvilliers’:

Wikipedia, 2021

“‘Farewell, may heaven forgive you. During my life, I was an Egyptian, a girl, a vagabond; I was banished, I was beaten with canes, I was marked with iron; I begged for bread from door to door; I was hunted from village to village like a dog. Who then would have believed my words? But today, fettered to the stake, ready to die, my words will not fall on the ground. Believe this call of truth: I am innocent of the crimes ascribed to me, I have done nothing to warrant the treatment given to me.’”

Scott, 1815

“‘Then fareweel!’ she said, ‘and God forgive you!—your hand has sealed my evidence. When I was in life, I was the mad randy gipsy, that had been scourged, and banished, and branded—that had begged from door to door, and been hounded like a stray tike from parish to parish—wha would hae minded her tale? But now I am a dying woman, and my words will not fall to the ground, any more than the earth will cover my blood!’”

---

Notes

* English: “Charles Gomart says that Jean Bodin[note 1], her judge and biographer, gave her last words.”

“Note 1” qualifies the quotation more precisely, saying:

“C’est en fait Gomart qui en est l’auteur, n’étant pas avare d’inventions dans ses écrits (source: in Eric Thierry, Jean Bodin et la sorcière de Ribemont [archive])”

English: “It is in fact Gomart—no stranger to introducing invention into his writings—who is the author [i.e., and not Bodin].”^*

** Gomart’s essay was printed in:

(1) La Thiérache: recueil de documents concernant l'histoire, les beaux-arts, les sciences naturelles et l'industrie de cette ancienne subdivision de la Picardie. Tome 1er. Vervins: Papillon, 1849, 129-139. [here]

(2) Mémoires de la Société académique des sciences, arts, belles-lettres, agriculture et industrie de Saint-Quentin. Saint Quentin: Imprimerie de Conttenest, Libraire Grand’Place, 1849, 196-219. [here]

(3) Arthur-Martin Dinaux (ed.). Archives historiques et littéraires du Nord de la France et du Midi de la Belgique: Troisième série. Tome 1er. Valenciennes: Au bureau des archives, 1850, 277-296. [here]

(4) Charles Gomart. Essai historique sur la ville de Ribemont et son canton. Saint-Quentin, 1869, 153-171. [here]

*** At this point in Scott’s story, Merrilies is mortally wounded and trying to give testimony about a murder she witnessed. There are accordingly some differences between the French translation of Scott and Gomart’s text: the words after “aujourd’hui” have been altered to reflect the different settings; the bit about testimony (“témoignage”) is missing; and some subtle changes, e.g. from “folle” (insane woman) to “fille” (girl) and from “chien égaré” (stray dog) to “chien” (dog).

---

Notes to notes

^* The note points to an essay by historian Éric Thierry, “Jean Bodin et la sorcière de Ribemont”, in which Thierry says of Gomart that:

“Il y utilise la Démonomanie de Bodin, mais a aussi largement recours à son imagination.”

“[Gomart] uses Bodin’s Demon-mania, but has to a great extent relied on his own imagination as well.”

Éric Thierry, “Jean Bodin et la sorcière de Ribemont,” Mémoires: Fédération des sociétés d’histoire et d’archéologie de l’Aisne, T. 62, 2017, page 27.

Thierry gives an example in note 29 of page 27:

“Une prétendue citation de Bodin (Archives historiques, note 2, p. 288) est en fait extraitede l’Essai chronologique pour servir à l’histoire de Tournay d’Adrien Alexandre Marie Hoverlantde Beauwelaere (t. LXXXXIX, Tournay, Chez l’auteur, 1831, note 1, p. 363-366).”

The quotation (or a paraphrase, it’s unclear) Gomart attributes to Bodin is about devil’s marks. It occurs in note 2 on page 288 of the 1850 version of Gomart’s essay (and parallels in later versions). Gomart cites Bodin’s Démonomanie Book II, page 80, but, while that page contains a discussion of devil’s marks (in general and on Jeanne Harvilliers), the texts are very different. Thierry discovered another text, one that resembles Gomart’s more closely: a note that runs from page 363 to 366 of l’Essai chronologique pour servir à l'histoire de Tournay, Volume 99, by Adrien Alexandre Marie Hoverlant de Beauwelaere and published in 1831 (about 20 years before Gomart’s essay).

Fire and water: Jean Bodin’s use of ancient medicine to justify the murder of women for crimes of witchcraft

Walpurgisnacht, 2021

I despise Jean Bodin (c.1530–1596) more than just about any other philosopher. I usually like to stay impartial, focusing my energy instead on trying to understand why someone held certain beliefs or made a particular argument rather than thinking about what that person might have been like. Not with Bodin.

Bodin had people tortured and burned alive for witchcraft (he presided over trials as a judge and especially sought out women as victims). He wrote a work to strengthen the legitimacy of witch trials, trials which almost everyone agreed relied on evidence that would be inadmissible or at least dubious in normal circumstances. And he relentlessly attacked anyone who tried to argue against the state-sanctioned murder of women, people like Johann Weyer (1515–1588), a Dutch doctor and student of Agrippa, who argued (following a long pagan and Christian tradition) that crimes such as those in Bodin’s fantasies were not humanly possible, or at least that there were far more plausible explanations for them (Weyer says the Malleus Maleficarum, the Hammer of the Witches, another dark chapter of humanity, written by the inquisitor Heinrich Kramer around 1486 and later also attributed to Jacob Sprenger, is basically a work of “silly and often godless absurdities”).

In fact, Bodin literally stopped the press on his own book, On the Demon-Mania of Witches (De la démonomanie des sorciers, 1580), when he received a copy of Weyer’s book, On Witches (De lamiis, 1577; lamiae is an old name that was appropriated for the early modern incarnation of the witch) so that he could add an appendix attacking Weyer’s humanist arguments against burning people alive for crimes like flying through the air or fucking Satan.

I wanted to reflect a bit on this text for Walpurgisnacht, since I find Bodin’s arguments— both in their rhetoric (“Weyer is either ignorant or evil, and he’s been to university, so he is not ignorant”) and in their speciousness (“women can’t be melancholic because Hippocrates says so, therefore the only remaining possibility is that they are witches”)—sound a lot like the fanatical rhetoric I’ve come across more and more since the start of this century. Sometimes it feels as if, like global warming, it keeps getting worse.

This fanaticism is one of the qualities of his work that makes it extremely difficult for me to consider him as just another “man of his time.” He may be indistinguishable from his contemporaries as a believer in demons and witchcraft. But why does this matter? Belief in witchcraft doesn’t make you a loathsome piece of shit. Appealing to that belief when burning people alive and saying it is for their own good does. Mind you, not everyone at the time did this, and believe it or not, it wasn’t only because these non-murderers were either witches or afraid of them. It strikes me as far too apologist a position to take to say he was not alone in holding beliefs we find unlikely to be true. Try to understand his arguments, even if they are difficult, but don’t think a common belief in demons or witchcraft is reason enough to explain them.

There’s this point in his appendix against Johann Weyer where he calls Weyer a fanatic. It’s as if Bodin knows his own position is fanatical and so he makes sure to accuse his opponent of it first. His reasons couldn’t be less convincing. He thinks Weyer is a fanatic because Weyer says women tried as witches were more likely to be melancholic than in league with Satan. Weyer is a medical doctor. His opinion is the considered opinion of one who has trained professionally for a lifetime. Bodin, however, thinks that to refute Weyer, it’s enough to quote Hippocrates and Galen, as if some 1000-year-old shit he read in Greek class makes him an expert. Weyer may have been wrong, but a contemporary doctor is a better judge of this than a theologian and jurist.

Weyer wasn’t alone in thinking a non-demonic explanation might be in order. In Bodin’s own France, Montaigne was wondering the same thing:

“‘Tis now some years ago that I travelled through the territories of a sovereign prince, who, in my favour, and to abate my incredulity, did me the honour to let me see, in his own presence, and in a private place, ten or twelve prisoners of this kind, and amongst others, an old woman, a real witch in foulness and deformity, who long had been famous in that profession. I saw both proofs and free confessions, and I know not what insensible mark upon the miserable creature: I examined and talked with her and the rest as much and as long as I would, and gave the best and soundest attention I could, and I am not a man to suffer my judgment to be made captive by prepossession. In the end, and in all conscience, I should rather have prescribed them hellebore than hemlock;

Captisque res magis mentibus, quam consceleratis similis visa;

[‘The thing seemed to resemble minds possessed rather than guilty.’ Livy, viii, 18.]

“Justice has its corrections proper for such maladies. As to the oppositions and arguments that worthy men have made to me, both there, and often in other places, I have met with none that have convinced me, and that have not admitted a more likely solution than their conclusions. It is true, indeed, that the proofs and reasons that are founded upon experience and fact, I do not go about to untie, neither have they any end; I often cut them, as Alexander did the Gordian knot. After all, ‘tis setting a man’s conjectures at a very high price upon them to cause a man to be roasted alive.”

Michel de Montaigne, “Of Cripples” (Des boyteux), Essays III 11 (first published 1580), trans. Charles Cotton

Unlike Weyer or Montaigne, I’m skeptical that something disturbed in the mind of the accused was ever behind accusations of witchcraft. I think another observation of Montaigne is more likely, where he says “[t]he witches of my neighbourhood run the hazard of their lives upon the report of every new author who seeks to give body to their dreams.” The fantasies were probably not in the minds of the victims.

I agree with them, however, that Bodin’s unshakeable and certain belief, and the belief of fanatics like him, in shit like flying through the fucking air to copulate with devils and destroying some crops along the way was completely unwarranted even by the standards of knowledge professed by “all the ancient philosophers and doctors” whom Bodin pretends to admire. And honestly, even if they did fly through the air, isn’t this all a misdirection? At what point was the severity and inhumanity of the punishment simply allowed to slip in there unargued?

I’m going on too long. Here’s a translation of a part of Bodin’s attack against Weyer. I transcribed the text as well, but I’m sure I’ve made mistakes in the transcription. Best to use the new critical edition. The original is here. At this point, Bodin brings in his reading of Hippocrates, Galen and Aristotle to explain why the doctor, Johann Weyer, is wrong about medical topics. Bodin’s implication is that Weyer knows these things but is lying because he is on the devil’s side. I’m not kidding.

One might keep in the back of one’s mind that Bodin himself could be dissembling: he might not believe the witch stuff either, but think it is politically expedient, maybe to preserve certain political alliances, or to bolster the legitimacy of a mechanism for terrorizing people for political ends. But to be honest, I do not know enough about Bodin or the political situation in 16th century Europe to be able to say much about the why of his statements. I just know I hate the man.

I based my translation on the one found in Monter’s European Witchcraft (online here), which is what I use when I teach this.

There’s one more thing: Bodin mentions a trial of Jeanne Harvilliers. This is a reference to an earlier part of the book. Bodin was one of the judges in her trial: he questioned her, tortured her, and sentenced her to death for having sexual intercourse with the devil. She’s known as the “witch of Ribemont” (la sorcière de Ribemont). A television movie was made about this in the 70s. The Wikipedia entry on it contains a philologically interesting quotation about her last words. I’ll post about it next week.

---

Jean Bodin, “Refutation of the Opinions of Johann Weyer”, On the Demon-Mania of Witches, 1580, fol. 225v-227v

[Johann] Weyer agrees that witches are in communication and pacts with devils, and that they do many wicked things with the help of the devil. Nevertheless, in his book On Witches (De lamiis), at one point he says that no compact exists, at another that one could not prove it exists, at another that the confessions of witches are not to be believed, at another that they trick themselves into thinking that they have done what they say and that they are possessed by the melancholic disease. This is the disguise that ignorant people or sorcerers have used in order to help their familiars escape and increase the reign of Satan.

Until now, those who have said it was melancholia may not have believed that demons exist, nor, perhaps, that any angels exist, nor even any god. But Weyer confesses that there is a god (as also the devils confess and tremble beneath his power as we read in scripture). He also confesses throughout his writings that there are good and bad spirits that conspire and make pacts with men. One must not, therefore, attribute the transportation, bad deeds and strange actions of witches to melancholia. Much less should one make women melancholics. For antiquity has noted a peculiar fact: that no woman ever died of melancholia nor any man of extreme joy, but on the contrary many women have died of extreme joy.

And because Weyer is a doctor, he cannot ignore that the humour of women is directly contrary to the dryness of melancholia from which the madness arises, whether it comes from dry, yellow bile or from melancholic fluid, as doctors agree. For both arise from excessive heat and dryness as Galen says in On Black Bile (*melan=black, chole=bile). Women, on the other hand, are naturally cold and wet, as the same author says, and all the Greeks, Latin and Arabs agree on this very point. For this reason, Galen also says that a man, having a hot and dry mixture, when in a hot and dry region, he can fall into the melancholic disease.

At any rate, Olaus the Great, Caspar Peucer, Saxo Grammaticus and Weyer himself agree with all the Inquisitors of witches in Germany that below the arctic region where the sea is frozen, in Germany and the mountains of the Alps and of Savoy – all these regions are full of witches. It is also certain that northern peoples have as little melancholia as the people of Africa have phlegm. For one sees that all northern people are white, with green eyes, blond hair, and slender, the face red, joyous and talkative, things totally contrary to the melancholic humour.

In addition, Hippocrates in the first book of the Epidemics and Galen in the same book holds that women are generally healthier than men because of their menstrual flow which protects them from a thousand diseases. Never, says Hippocrates, have women suffered gout, ulcerations of the lungs, adds Galen (in the book On Venesection), epilepsy, apoplexis, phrenesis, lethargy, convulsions, or tremblings while they have their “flows”, or, to put it better, their menstruation and flows. And although Hippocrates says that seizures (including those caused by demonic possession, which is called the sacred disease) are natural, nevertheless he maintains that these happen only to the phlegmatic and not at all to the bilious—something Johann Weyer, being a doctor, cannot ignore.

So, we have shown that women are normally more often demoniacal than men, and that witches are often transported in body, and also often ravished in ecstasy, their souls being separated from their bodies, by means of something diabolical, leaving the body insensible and stupid.

It is even more ridiculous to say that the illness of witches comes from melancholia, seeing that illnesses arising from melancholia are always dangerous. Nevertheless, one sees witches who have practiced this occupation for 40 or 50 years, and from the age of 12, like Jeanne Harvilliers, who was burned alive on the 29 April 1578*, and Magdalena de la Cruz, Abbess of Cordoba in Spain, 1545, having had ordinary acquaintance and sexual intercourse with the devil, which lasted 40 years in the first case, and 30 in the other. It is necessary, therefore, that Weyer admit that it is a notable incongruity in him as a doctor, and an ignorance far too gross (but it is not ignorance) to attribute melancholic diseases to women, which are as little compatible with them as the praiseworthy affections of a temperate melancholic humour, affections which make men wise, serious, contemplative (as all the ancient philosophers and doctors have remarked) — qualities as little compatible with women as fire with water. And Solomon himself, who also clearly recognized the humour of women (that man of the world) said that among a thousand men he saw one that was wise, but among women he did not see a single one. Let us put aside, therefore, the fanatical error of those who make women melancholics.

What’s more, Weyer—seeing that his cloak of melancholia was removed by demonstration and self-evident truth with respect to divine and human law, and by so many stories from all the peoples of the earth, and by so many confessions, some voluntary, some forced, and so many judgments, convictions, condemnations, and executions performed for 3,000 years in every country in the world—he offered a ruse much too gross to prevent sorcerers from being put to death, saying that the devil seduces the witches and makes them believe that they are doing what he does himself.

In doing this, he pretends that he is very much against Satan; however, he saves the sorcerers, which is plainly just to mock Satan with words, but in reality establish his grandeur and his power. For he knows well that the magistrates do not have any jurisdiction nor power to seize the devils. This will not only absolve witches, but also all the murderers, thieves, and perpetrators of incest or parricide, who are compelled by the enemy of the human race to carry out their deeds. Then he offers high praise to the tax of the Papal Camera, which condemns repentant witches to pay two ducats for a pardon; and in another place he says that he maintains not only that witches should not be punished with death by the law of god, but also that there is no mention of witches in holy scripture by which he could be easily convinced. Here I call on god and his law as witness, and 1000 passages from the Bible to convince this man.

Car Wier (I. lib.2.c.4. et 8. et 34. et lib.4 c.14. et lib.5.cap.9 de Praestigiis, et Saepe alibi.) est d'accord que les Sorcieres ont communication, et paction avec les Diables, et qu'elles font beaucoup de meschancetés à layde du Diable, et neantmoins au livre de lamiis, il dict tantost qu'il ny a point de paction, et tanost qu'on ne sçauroit le prouver, tantost qu'il ne faut pas croire la confession des Sorcieres, et qu'elles s'abusent de penser faire ce qu'elles disent, et que c'est la maladie melancholique qui les tient. Voila la couverture que les ignorans, ou les Sorciers ont prise pour faire evader leurs semblables et accroistre le regne de Sathan. Par cy devant ceux qui ont dict que c'estoit la melancholie, ne pensoyent pas qu'il y eust des Demons, ny peut estre qu'il eust des anges, ny Dieu quelconque. Mais Wier confesse qu'il y a un Dieu (commes les Diables le confessent aussi, et tremblent soubz sa puissance, ainsi que nous lisons en l'escripture (Epistola Jacobi c.2)) il confesse aussi par tous ces escripts qu'il y à de bons, et malins esprits qui ont intelligence, et paction avec les hommes. Il ne falloit donc pas attribuer les transports des Sorciers, leurs malefices, et actions estranges à la melancholie, et beaucoup moins faire les femmes melancholiques, veu que l'antiquité à remarqué pour chose estrange, que jamais femme ne mourut de melancholie, ny l'homme de joye extreme, ains au contraire plusieurs (Pline liv. 7. Valere Mox. Solin.) femmes meurent de joye extreme, et puisque Wier est medecin il ne peut ignorer, que l'humeur de la femme ne soit directemeut contraire à la melancholie aduste, dont la fureur procede, soit qu'elle vienne à bile flana adusta, aut à succo melancholico, comme les medecins demeurent d'accord. Car l'un et l'autre procede d'une chaleur, et secheresse excessive comme dict Galen au livre de atra bile. Or les femmes naturellment sont froides et humides comme dict le mesme autheur, et tous les Grecs, Latins, et Arabes, s'accordent en ce point icy. Et pour cette cause Galen (in liv. de atra bile) dit aussi que l'homme estant d'un temperament chaut, et sec, en region chaude et seche, et en esté tombe en la maladie melancholique, et neantmoins Olavs le grand, Gaspar Peucerus, Saxo Grammatic, et Wier mesmes est d'accord avec tous les inquisiteurs des Sorcier d'Allemaigne que souz la region arctique, ou la mer glace, et en Allemaigne et aux mons des alpes, et de Savoye tout est plein de Sorcieres. Or est il certain que les peuples de Septentrion tiennent aussi peu de la melancholie, comme les peuples d'Afrique de la pituité. Car on voit tous les peuples de Septentrion blancs, les yeux vers, les cheveux blondz, et desliez, la face vermeille, joyeux et babilardz, chose du tout contraire à l'humeur melancholique. D'avantage Hippocratte au premier livre des maladies populaires, et Galen au mesme livre tiennent que les femmes generallement sont plus saines que les hommes, pour les flueurs menstruales, qui les garantissent de mille maladies. Jamais, dict Hippocrate, les femmes n'ont la goute, ny ulceratione de poulmons, dict Galen (in libro de Vena Sectione), ny d'epilepsies, ny d'apoplexies, ny de frenesies, ny de lethargies, ny de covulsions, ny de tremblement tant qu'elles ont leurs flueurs, ou pour mieux dire leurs menstruës, et flueurs. Et combien que Hippocrate (in libro de Mobrbo Sacro) dict que le mal-caduc, et de ceux qui estoyent assiegés des Demons, qu'on appelloit maladie sacree, est naturelle: neantmoins il soustient, que cela n'advient sinon aux pituiteux, et non point aux bilieux: ce que Jean Wier estant medecin, ne pouvoit ignorer. Or nous avons monstré que les femmes ordinairement sont demoniaques plustost que les hommes, et que les Sorcieres sont transportees souvent en corps, et souvent aussi ravies en ectase, estant l'ame separee due corps, par moyens diaboliques, demeurant le corps insensible, et stupide. Encores est il plus ridicule de dire, que la maladie des Sorcieres provient de melancholie, veu que les maladies procedans de la melancholie, sont tousiours dangereuses (Galen, in lib. de atra bile). Neantmoins on void des Sorcieres, qui ont fait ce mestier quarante, ou cinquante ans, et de l'aage de douze ans, comme Jeanne Haruilier, qui fut bruslee vive le vigntneufiesm Avrile, mil cinq cens septante huict (1578), et Magdaleine de la Croix, Abbesse de Cordouë en Espaigne, mil cinq cens quarante cinq (1545), avoyent eu accointance ordinaire, et copulation avec le Diable, qui dura quarante ans à l'une, et trente à l'autre. Il faut donc que Wier confesse que c'est une incongruité notable à luy qui est Medecin, et ignorance par trop grossiere: (mais ce n'est pas ignorance) d'attribuer aux femmes les maladies melancholiques, qui leur conviennent aussi peu que les effects loüables de l'humeur melancholique temperé, qui rend l'homme sage, posé, contemplatif, (comme tous les anciens Philosophes et Medecine on remarqué (Aristot. in Proble. sectio. 30.princip.)) qui sont qualités aussi peu compatible avec la femme, que le feu avec l'eau. Et mesmes Salomon qui cognoissoit aussi bien l'humeur des femmes, que homme du monde, dit qu'il à veu de mil (in proverbiis.) hommes un sage, mais de femmes qu'il n'en à pas veu une seule. Laissons donc l'erreur fanatique de ceux qui font les femmes malancholiques. Aussi Wier voyant que son voile de melancholie estoit descouvert par la demonstration et verité apparente partant de loix divines et humaines, par tant d'histoires de tous les peuples de la terre, par tant de confessions les unes volontaires, les autre forcees, part tant jugemens, de convictions, de condamnations, d'executions faites depuis trois mille ans en tous les pays du monde, il c'est advisé d'une ruse trop grossiere, pour empecher qu'on face mourir les Sorciers, disant (9.cap.4 et ca.ult. de Lamiis) que le Diable seduict les Sorcieres, et leur faict croire qu'elles font ce que luy mesme faict. Et en ce faisant il fait semblant, qu'il est bien fort contraire à Sathan, et ce pendant il sauve les Sorciers: qui est en bons termes se jouer avec Sathan de parolles, et en effect establir sa grandeur, et sa puissance. Car il sçait bien que les magistrats n'ont point de Jurisdiction ny de main mise sur les Diables. Que n'est pas seulement absoudre les Sorciers, ains aussi tous les meurtriers, voleurs, incestueux, et parricides, qui sont poussés par l'ennemy du genre humain à faire ce qu'ils font. Puis il loue grandement (4.cap.24. de Lamiis) la taxe de la chambre du Pape, qui condamne les Sorcieres repenties à deux ducats pour le paron: et en autre (5.lib.2.c.335 de Praestig.) lieu il dit que s'il soustenoit que non seulement les Sorcieres ne doyvent estre punies à mort par la Loy de Dieu, ains aussi qu'il n'est faicte aucune mention des Sorcieres en la S. Escripture, qu'il ne peut estre conveincu facilement. Icy j'appelle Dieu, et sa loy en tesmoignage, et mille passages (6. Exod.ca.7. et 8. et 9. et 20. Deutero. ca.18 et 4. Reg. c.9. et 21. et 23. et. 2.Parali.33. et Jefa.ca.34 et Jesa. ca. 34. et 8. et 47. Daniel.cap.2. Miche.c.3. et cap.5. Ezechiel ca.13. Num.ca.23. Hierem. ca. 19. et 23. et 27. et 50. et Acto. cap.16. Nahum. c.3.) de la Bible pour convaincre cest homme.