Aristotle on Ctesias on the Manticore and Unicorn

Ctesias of Knidos was a Greek physician and writer of tales and legends from far-away lands. He is often compared negatively to Herodotus. Herodotus, it is said, wrote histories. Ctesias wrote something else entirely.

He lived sometime in the fifth and fourth centuries. Originally from Knidos, a Greek city in what is now south-western Turkey, he likely practiced medicine as an Asclepiad. At some point in the fifth century he was brought to the Persian Court as a physician, although the circumstances of his move are not clear. Some sources refer to him as physician at the court of Artaxerxes II, a prominent post. If these sources are right, it explains his familiarity with the Persian kingdom. In all, he likely stayed and travelled with the court for 17 years.

When he returned to Knidos at the beginning of the fourth century, he wrote a work called the Indica, the first Greek-language description of the lands, people, animals and plants east of Persia, almost a century before reports would come back from Alexander’s expedition. The book circulated widely. It contained fantastic tales about the strangeness of the lands to the east at the end of the earth—tales Ctesias’ audience would have desired because of how weird and terrifying they were, but whose reality they could (most of the time) safely ignore because of how remote they were. The bestiary he introduced to the Greek world and ultimately to ours includes not just the manticore and the unicorn, but also a bird that can speak in human tongues and a race of half-human, half-dog people called the Cynocephaloi.

I find it especially interesting that his stories are repeated by Aristotle. Aristotle’s History of Animals includes several animals he took from Ctesias’ writings, even though he says Ctesias is not not worth believing (οὐκ ἀξιόπιστος). There is a puzzle here. Aristotle calls Ctesias an untrustworthy source, but at the same time he includes his observations, often without comment and, even more puzzling, often without any indication they are not to be trusted.

The unicorn is one example. Ctesias is clearly Aristotle’s source for his discussion of the unicorn. We know this based on what Aristotle says about the unicorn’s knucklebones and because of the proximity of Aristotle’s unicorn discussion to one about the manticore, which Aristotle says he took from Ctesias. It looks like Aristotle was jotting down notes as he was reading Ctesias’ work.

It is curious, then, that Aristotle does not cite Ctesias as his source for the unicorn passage. Moreover, he gives no indication the report is questionable or not to be trusted. In fact, he doesn’t make it look like a report at all. So the question is: what does the fact that he includes accounts of animals from foreign lands based on the testimony of someone he does not trust mean for Aristotle’s way of collecting facts and doing science?

It’s a question that’s been raised a lot before, and one I think is always worth raising again. What is Aristotle’s attitude to his sources of information about the natural world beyond his experience? And why does he think some stories are worth believing and not others?

(Not-quite) Biogeography

“Animals differ according to place. In certain places, some animals do not exist at all; in some places, they do exist, but they are smaller, or shorter-lived, or they do not thrive. And sometimes a difference like this occurs in neighbouring places, for example, in areas of Miletus that neighbour each other, in one place cicadas exist, in another they do not. There is a river that runs through Cephalenia, where on one side cicadas exist, but on the other they do not. In Boeotia, many moles live around the Orchomenos, but in neighbouring Lebadiake, there aren’t any; even if someone introduces them, they do not wish to make their burrows there. In Ithaca, hares (if someone releases them after introducing them) are not able to live, but are observed dead, turned towards the sea where they had been brought in. In Sicily, there are no horse-ants, while in Cyrene, croaking frogs did not exist before. In all of Libya, there are no wild pigs, no deer, no wild goats. And in India, as Ctesias — who isn’t worth believing — says, there are neither wild nor tame pigs, but massive bloodless [animals] all covered in scales.”

Διαφέρει δὲ τὰ ζῷα καὶ κατὰ τοὺς τόπους· ὥσπερ γὰρ ἔν τισιν ἔνια οὐ γίνεται παντάπασιν, οὕτως ἐν ἐνίοις τόποις γίνεται μὲν ἐλάττω δὲ καὶ ὀλιγοβιώτερα, καὶ οὐκ εὐημερεῖ. Καὶ ἐνίοτε ἐν τοῖς πάρεγγυς τόποις ἡ διαφορὰ γίνεται τῶν τοιούτων, οἷον τῆς Μιλησίας ἐν τόποις γειτνιῶσιν ἀλλήλοις ἔνθα μὲν γίνονται τέττιγες ἔνθα δ' οὐ γίνονται, καὶ ἐν Κεφαληνίᾳ ποταμὸς διείργει, οὗ ἐπὶ τάδε μὲν γίνονται τέττιγες, ἐπ' ἐκεῖνα δ' οὐ γίνονται. Ἐν δὲ Πορδοσελήνῃ ὁδὸς διείργει, ἧς ἐπ' ἐκεῖνα μὲν γαλῆ γίνεται, ἐπὶ θάτερα δ' οὐ γίνεται. καὶ ἐν τῇ Βοιωτίᾳ ἀσπάλακες περὶ μὲν τὸν Ὀρχομενὸν πολλοὶ γίνονται, ἐν δὲ τῇ Λεβαδιακῇ γειτνιώσῃ οὐκ εἰσίν, οὐδ' ἄν τις κομίσῃ, ἐθέλουσιν ὀρύττειν. Ἐν Ἰθάκῃ δ' οἱ δασύποδες, ἐάν τις ἀφῇ κομίσας, οὐ δύνανται ζῆν, ἀλλὰ φαίνονται τεθνεῶτες πρὸς τῇ θαλάττῃ ἐστραμμένοι, ᾗπερ ἂν εἰσαχθῶσιν. Καὶ ἐν μὲν Σικελίᾳ ἱππομύρμηκες οὐκ εἰσίν, ἐν δὲ Κυρήνῃ οἱ φωνοῦντες βάτραχοι πρότερον οὐκ ἦσαν. Ἐν δὲ Λιβύῃ πάσῃ οὔτε σῦς ἄγριός ἐστιν οὔτ' ἔλαφος οὔτ' αἲξ ἄγριος· ἐν δὲ τῇ Ἰνδικῇ, ὡς φησὶ Κτησίας οὐκ ὢν ἀξιόπιστος, οὔτ' ἄγριος οὔτε ἥμερος ὗς, τὰ δ' ἄναιμα καὶ τὰ φολιδωτὰ πάντα μεγάλα.

Aristotle, History of Animals 8.28, 605b22-606a10

At the Bodleian in Oxford. MS. Bodley 764, Folio 25r 13th century. This post is an excuse to put up pictures from this manuscript.

Aristotle on Ctesias on the Martichora, or the Manticore

“There is such a thing, if we must trust Ctesias. He says that the beast among the Indians, whose name is ‘martichora,’ has triple-rows of teeth on both sides. In size, he says it is as big as a lion, equally hairy, and having smaller feet. Its face and ears are human-like, its eyes shining blue, its colour like cinnabar. Its tail is similar to that of a land-scorpion, and in it, it has a stinger and it can shoot the spines like arrows. Its cry is like the sound of a shepherd’s-pipe and a war-trumpet at the same time, and it runs as quickly as a deer. It is savage and a man-eater.”

Ἔστι δέ τι, εἰ δεῖ πιστεῦσαι Κτησίᾳ· ἐκεῖνος γὰρ τὸ ἐν Ἰνδοῖς θηρίον, ᾧ ὄνομα εἶναι μαρτιχόραν, τοῦτ' ἔχειν ἐπ' ἀμφότερά φησι τριστοίχους τοὺς ὀδόντας· εἶναι δὲ μέγεθος μὲν ἡλίκον λέοντα καὶ δασὺ ὁμοίως, καὶ πόδας ἔχειν ὁμοίους, πρόσωπον δὲ καὶ ὦτα ἀνθρωποειδές, τὸ δ' ὄμμα γλαυκόν, τὸ δὲ χρῶμα κινναβάρινον, τὴν δὲ κέρκον ὁμοίαν τῇ τοῦ σκορπίου τοῦ χερσαίου, ἐν ᾗ κέντρον ἔχειν καὶ τὰς ἀποφυάδας ἀπακοντίζειν, φθέγγεσθαι δ' ὅμοιον φωνῇ ἅμα σύριγγος καὶ σάλπιγγος, ταχὺ δὲ θεῖν οὐχ ἧττον τῶν ἐλάφων, καὶ εἶναι ἄγριον καὶ ἀνθρωποφάγον.

Aristotle, History of Animals 2.1, 501a24-b1

At the Bodleian in Oxford. MS. Bodley 764, Folio 22r

Aristotle on the Indian Donkey, or the Unicorn

“Some animals have horns, others do not. The majority of those that have horns are naturally cloven-hooved, like the ox, the stag and the goat. We have not observed any single-hooved, two-horned animals. But there are a few animals that are single-horned and single-hooved, like the Indian donkey. The oryx is single-horned and double-hooved. And the Indian donkey is the only single-hooved animal that has a knucklebone.”*

Ἔστι δὲ καὶ τὰ μὲν κερατοφόρα τῶν ζῴων τὰ δ’ ἄκερα. Τὰ μὲν οὖν πλεῖστα τῶν ἐχόντων κέρατα διχαλὰ κατὰ φύσιν ἐστίν, οἷον βοῦς καὶ ἔλαφος καὶ αἴξ· μώνυχον δὲ καὶ δίκερων οὐθὲν ἡμῖν ὦπται. Μονοκέρατα δὲ καὶ μώνυχα ὀλίγα, οἷον ὁ Ἰνδικὸς ὄνος. Μονόκερων δὲ καὶ διχαλὸν ὄρυξ. Καὶ ἀστράγαλον δ’ ὁ Ἰνδικὸς ὄνος ἔχει τῶν μωνύχων μόνον.

Aristotle, History of Animals 2.1, 499b15-20

*Aristotle does not name his source, but Aelian attributes the same claim to Ctesias and I bet Aristotle is getting it from him.

Aelian on the Indian Donkey, or Unicorn

“I have heard that in India there are wild donkeys as big as horses. The rest of their body is white, but the head is very nearly purple and their eyes exude a deep blue colour. They have a horn on their forehead almost a meter long and the lower part of the horn is white, the upper part a deep, dark red, and the middle a dreadful black.

I hear the Indians drink from these colourful-patterned horns — not all of them, but the mightiest of the Indians — and on sections of them they inlay gold as if adorning the arms of a beautiful statue with bracelets. They say the one who has tasted from this horn becomes ignorant and unburdened of incurable diseases. He is not seized by convulsion or what is called the sacred disease nor destroyed by poisons. Even if he had drunk something harmful earlier, he vomits this up and he becomes healthy.

It is believed that the other donkeys across the whole world, both tame and savage, and the other single-hoofed beasts, do not have knucklebones and do not have bile in the liver. But Ctesias says the horned Indian donkey has knucklebones and is not without bile. The knucklebones are said to be black, and if someone grinds them up, they are even like this inside.

They are swifter not only than donkeys, but even horses and deer. They start with a slow pace, but bit by bit they get faster, and to pursue them is, to put it poetically, to chase the uncatchable. When the female gives birth and leads the newborns around, the fathers, who heard with them, also guard the offspring. The donkeys spend their time in most desolate of the plains of India. When the Indian people go on a hunt for them, the [parents] let the tender and still young [offspring] graze behind them, while they fight for them, and go meet the enemy horsemen and strike with their horns. Their horns are so strong. Nothing can withstand a strike from them; instead, they give way and are broken in two, and sometimes they’re shattered and made useless. In the past, they have hit the horses’ ribs, even tearing them open and spilling their vital organs. That is why the horsemen dread getting close to them – the penalty for getting to close is a most pitiable death, and both they and the horses are destroyed. They are able to kick terribly as well. And their bite goes down so deep, that everything they get hold of is ripped off. When full grown, one cannot catch them alive; instead, they are shot with javelins and arrows, and when the Indians have stripped their horn from the corpse, they handle them in the way I mentioned. The meat from the Indian donkey is inedible; the reason: it is naturally very bitter.”

Ὄνους ἀγρίους οὐκ ἐλάττους ἵππων τὰ μεγέθη ἐν Ἰνδοῖς γίνεσθαι πέπυσμαι. καὶ λευκοὺς μὲν τὸ ἄλλο εἶναι σῶμα, τήν γε μὴν κεφαλὴν ἔχειν πορφύρᾳ παραπλησίαν, τοὺς δὲ ὀφθαλμοὺς ἀποστέλλειν κυανοῦ χρόαν. κέρας δὲ ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῷ μετώπῳ ὅσον πήχεως τὸ μέγεθος καὶ ἡμίσεος προσέτι, καὶ τὸ μὲν κάτω μέρος τοῦ κέρατος εἶναι λευκόν, τὸ δὲ ἄνω φοινικοῦν, τό γε μὴν μέσον μέλαν δεινῶς.

ἐκ δὴ τῶνδε τῶν ποικίλων κεράτων πίνειν Ἰνδοὺς ἀκούω, καὶ ταῦτα οὐ πάντας, ἀλλὰ τοὺς τῶν Ἰνδῶν κρατίστους, ἐκ διαστημάτων αὐτοῖς χρυσὸν περιχέαντας, οἱονεὶ ψελίοις τισὶ κοσμήσαντας βραχίονα ὡραῖον ἀγάλματος. καί φασι νόσων ἀφύκτων ἀμαθῆ καὶ ἄπειρον γίνεσθαι τὸν ἀπογευσάμενον ἐκ τοῦδε τοῦ κέρατος· μήτε γὰρ σπασμῷ ληφθῆναι ἂν αὐτὸν μήτε τῇ καλουμένῃ ἱερᾷ νόσῳ, μήτε μὴν διαφθαρῆναι φαρμάκοις. ἐὰν δέ τι καὶ πρότερον ᾖ πεπωκὼς κακόν, ἀνεμεῖν τοῦτο, καὶ ὑγιᾶ γίνεσθαι αὐτόν.

πεπίστευται δὲ τοὺς ἄλλους τοὺς ἀνὰ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ὄνους καὶ ἡμέρους καὶ ἀγρίους καὶ τὰ ἄλλα μώνυχα θηρία ἀστραγάλους οὐκ ἔχειν, οὐδὲ μὴν ἐπὶ τῷ ἥπατι χολήν, ὄνους δὲ τοὺς Ἰνδοὺς λέγει Κτησίας τοὺς ἔχοντας τὸ κέρας ἀστραγάλους φορεῖν, καὶ ἀχόλους μὴ εἶναι· λέγονται δὲ οἱ ἀστράγαλοι μέλανες εἶναι, καὶ εἴ τις αὐτοὺς συντρίψειεν, εἶναι τοιοῦτοι καὶ τὰ ἔνδον.

εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ ὤκιστοι οἵδε οὐ μόνον τῶν ὄνων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἵππων καὶ ἐλάφων: καὶ ὑπάρχονται μὲν ἡσυχῆ τοῦ δρόμου, κατὰ μικρὰ δὲ ἐπιρρώννυνται, καὶ διώκειν ἐκείνους τοῦτο δὴ τὸ ποιητικὸν μεταθεῖν τὰ ἀκίχητά ἐστιν. ὅταν γε μὴν ὁ θῆλυς τέκῃ, καὶ περιάγηται τὰ ἀρτιγενῆ, σύννομοι αὐτοῖς οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν φυλάττουσι τὰ βρέφη. διατριβαὶ δὲ τοῖς ὄνοις τῶν Ἰνδικῶν πεδίων τὰ ἐρημότατά ἐστιν. ἰόντων δὲ τῶν Ἰνδῶν ἐπὶ τὴν ἄγραν αὐτῶν, τὰ μὲν ἁπαλὰ καὶ ἔτι νεαρὰ ἑαυτῶν νέμεσθαι κατόπιν ἐῶσιν, αὐτοὶ δὲ ὑπερμαχοῦσι, καὶ ἴασι τοῖς ἱππεῦσιν ὁμόσε, καὶ τοῖς κέρασι παίουσι. τοσαύτη δὲ ἄρα ἡ ἰσχὺς ἡ τῶνδέ ἐστιν. οὐδὲν ἀντέχει αὐτοῖς παιόμενον, ἀλλὰ εἴκει καὶ διακόπτεται καὶ ἐὰν τύχῃ κατατέθλασται καὶ ἀχρεῖόν ἐστιν. ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἵππων πλευραῖς ἐμπεσόντες διέσχισαν καὶ τὰ σπλάγχνα ἐξέχεαν. ἔνθεν τοι καὶ ὀρρωδοῦσιν αὐτοῖς πλησιάζειν οἱ ἱππεῖς: τὸ γάρ τοι τίμημα τοῦ γενέσθαι πλησίον θάνατός ἐστιν οἴκτιστος αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἀπόλλυνται καὶ αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ ἵπποι. δεινοὶ δέ εἰσι καὶ λακτίσαι. δήγματα δὲ ἄρα ἐς τοσοῦτον καθικνεῖται αὐτῶν, ὡς ἀποσπᾶν τὸ περιληφθὲν πᾶν. ζῶντα μὲν οὖν τέλειον οὐκ ἂν λάβοις, βάλλονται δὲ ἀκοντίοις καὶ οἰστοῖς, καὶ τὰ κέρατα ἐξ αὐτῶν Ἰνδοὶ νεκρῶν σκυλεύσαντες ὡς εἶπον περιέπουσιν. ὄνων δὲ Ἰνδῶν ἄβρωτόν ἐστι τὸ κρέας: τὸ δὲ αἴτιον, πέφυκεν εἶναι πικρότατον.

Aelian, On the Nature of Animals 4.52

How to market soap in antiquity

We have quite a few ancient recipes for cosmetics attributed to Cleopatra. Maybe Cleopatra wrote them, or maybe they were marketing gimmicks by booksellers. Ancient marketplaces were not much different from today’s. (Here’s a nice book by Claire Holleran on street markets in Rome. More about these markets here.)

Then again, I guess in another way ancient marketplaces were different, because there didn’t seem to be as many safety regulations. Don’t prepare any of these things for use on the body. I can say from experience that it is not a good idea. I don’t endorse any of the claims made by the compilers, either that these are Cleopatra’s recipes (they almost certainly aren’t) or that they do what they say they do. They are not safe and these recipes are purely for historical interest.

(inspired by Laurence Totelin’s reconstruction of Metrodora’s deodorant at concoctinghistory.)

Cleopatra’s routine

Measures:

• λίτρα = pound = 12 ounces = 327.5g

• Γο = ounce = 8 drachme = 27.3g

• ⋖ = drachme = 3.4g

1. Cleopatra’s Sweet Smelling Soap

Source: Aëtius of Amida, Medical Books, Book 8, Chapter 6 (408,18-21 Olivieri)

Ἄλλο σμῆγμα Κλεοπάτρας βασιλίσσης πολυτελὲς εὐῶδες. κόστου σμύρνης τρωγλίτιδος ἴρεως ναρδοστάχυος ἀμώμου φύλλου κασσίας σχοίνου ἄνθους ἀνὰ Γο α` μυροβαλάνου λίτρας δ` νίτρου ἀφροῦ λίτρας β` κόψας σήσας χρῶ· ποιεῖ εἰς ὅλον τὸ σῶμα.

English Translation

“Another soap, Queen Cleopatra’s, very expensive and fragrant.

• One ounce each of:

  • Costus root

  • Troglodytic myrrh [sc. from Eastern Africa]

  • Iris

  • Spikenard

  • Nepal cardamom

  • Cassia leaves

  • Flowers of camel grass

• 4 pounds of the perfume-nut

• 2 pounds of foam of soda

Grind, sift and use. Works on the whole body.”*

*note: it doesn’t

2. Cleopatra’s Anti-Dandruff Shampoo

Source : Galen, Compound drugs according to place, Kühn XII 492

Καὶ τὰ τῇ Κλεοπάτρᾳ πρὸς ἀχῶρας γεγραμμένα ἐφεξῆς εἰρήσεται κατὰ τὴν ἐκείνης αὐτῆς λέξιν. πρὸς ἀχῶρας. τήλει λεπτῇ ἑφθῇ, μέλανος τεύτλου χυλῷ βεβρεγμένῃ, ἐκκλυζέσθω ἡ κεφαλὴ ἢ τεύτλου ἀφεψήματι ἢ γῇ κιμωλίᾳ βεβρεγμένῃ τούτοις ἐκκλυσαμένῃ, καταχριέσθω μυρσίνῃ λείᾳ μετ' οἰνελαίου, ἄνωθεν δὲ ἐπιτιθέσθω φύλλα τεύτλου.

English translation

“And in what follows I will quote in her very own words the things Cleopatra wrote against dandruff :

‘For Dandruff

• Boiled fine fenugreek

• Steeped juice of black beets

After washing with this preparation, the head is to be washed thoroughly either with a decoction of beets or wet cimolian earth. Wash it out using a paste made of myrtle with wine and oil, and place leaves of beet on top of the head.’”

3. Face Soap and Brightening Cream

Source: Aëtius of Amida, Medical Books, Book 8, Chapter 6 (407,15-21 Olivieri)

Σμήγματα προσώπου καὶ στιλβώματα. ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐν τῇ ἀφαιρέσει τῶν ἐπιχρίστων πειρῶνται τὴν ὄψιν σμήχειν, χρηστέον ταῖς ὑπογεγραμμέναις σκευασίαις. Σμῆγμα λαμπρυντικὸν προσώπου. λιβάνου ἀφρονίτρου κόμμεως ἀνὰ ⋖ δ` ἀμύγδαλα λελεπισμένα μ` σεμιδάλεως ⋖ κδ` κυαμίνου ἀλεύρου ⋖ ιβ` ἀναλάμβανε ὠοῦ τῷ λευκῷ καὶ ἀνάπλασσε τροχίσκους καὶ χρῶ δι' ὕδατος ἀνιὼν ἐν βαλανείῳ καὶ χωρὶς βαλανείου.

English translation

“Facial soap and brightener. When you are removing makeup and trying to clean the face, use this preparation:

‘Soap for brightening the face

• Four drachme each of:

  • Frankincense

  • Foam of soda

  • Gum arabic

• 40 Peeled almonds

• Wheat flour, 24 drachme

• Bean flour, 12 drachme

Mix up with egg white and form into small balls.

Use with water when going in the bath or out of the bath.”*

*note: absolutely don’t

Plato on Providential Ecology

Disobedient Stomachs

“What comes next needs to be pursued along the same lines, and that is: how has the rest of our body come to be? It would be more fitting than anything else if it had been composed following a rationale like the following: those who were putting our kind together were aware of the intemperance for food and drink that would exist within us, and that we would want much more than what is moderate or necessary because of our gluttony. Therefore, to prevent wasting away swiftly through disease and the immediate and complete coming to an end of the incomplete race of mortals, the gods, foreseeing these problems, set up a receptacle, called the “lower belly,” to serve as a container for surplus food and drink; and they coiled the entrails around as they made them, in order to prevent food from passing through too quickly, a situation which would quickly compel the body to need even more food and produce insatiable desire, a gastric-gluttony on account of which the whole race would be rendered unphilosophical, uncultured and disobedient to what is most divine in us.”

τὸ δ᾽ ἑξῆς δὴ τούτοισιν κατὰ ταὐτὰ μεταδιωκτέον: ἦν δὲ τὸ τοῦ σώματος ἐπίλοιπον ᾗ γέγονεν. ἐκ δὴ λογισμοῦ τοιοῦδε συνίστασθαι μάλιστ᾽ ἂν αὐτὸ πάντων πρέποι. τὴν ἐσομένην ἐν ἡμῖν ποτῶν καὶ ἐδεστῶν ἀκολασίαν ᾔδεσαν οἱ συντιθέντες ἡμῶν τὸ γένος, καὶ ὅτι τοῦ μετρίου καὶ ἀναγκαίου διὰ μαργότητα πολλῷ χρησοίμεθα πλέονι: ἵν᾽ οὖν μὴ φθορὰ διὰ νόσους ὀξεῖα γίγνοιτο καὶ ἀτελὲς τὸ γένος εὐθὺς τὸ θνητὸν τελευτῷ, ταῦτα προορώμενοι τῇ τοῦ περιγενησομένου πώματος ἐδέσματός τε ἕξει τὴν ὀνομαζομένην κάτω κοιλίαν ὑποδοχὴν ἔθεσαν, εἵλιξάν τε πέριξ τὴν τῶν ἐντέρων γένεσιν, ὅπως μὴ ταχὺ διεκπερῶσα ἡ τροφὴ ταχὺ πάλιν τροφῆς ἑτέρας δεῖσθαι τὸ σῶμα ἀναγκάζοι, καὶ παρέχουσα ἀπληστίαν, διὰ γαστριμαργίαν ἀφιλόσοφον καὶ ἄμουσον πᾶν ἀποτελοῖ τὸ γένος, ἀνυπήκοον τοῦ θειοτάτου τῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν.

Plato, Timaeus 72E-73A

‘I wasn’t paying attention’ - Things Aristotle said, part II

Aristotle’s apophthegmata in Diogenes Laertius. Continued from last time.

“When asked what the upshot of philosophy was, he said, ‘the fact that I do without orders what others do because of a fear of the law.’

When asked how students might make progress, he said, ‘when the people urging on the ones who are ahead do not wait for the ones who are behind.’

To the talkative person who’d inundated him with a long story and then asked, ‘has my babbling annoyed you?,’ he said, ‘oh god no, I wasn’t paying attention.’

To the person who accused him of doing a favour for a no-good man – for it is also told in this way – he said, ‘I didn’t do it for a man, but humanity’.

When asked how we should treat our friends, he said, ‘the way we wish they would treat us.’

He said justice is a virtue of soul distributive of something according to worth.

He used to say, ‘the best provision for old age is education.’

In the second book of his Memoirs, Favorinus says that he used to say all over the place, ‘for the one who has friends, there is no friend;’ it’s also in the seventh book of the Ethics.*

These, then, [are the sayings that] have been attributed to him.”

[20 cont.] ἐρωτηθεὶς τί ποτ' αὐτῷ περιγέγονεν ἐκ φιλοσοφίας, ἔφη, “τὸ ἀνεπιτάκτως ποιεῖν ἅ τινες διὰ τὸν ἀπὸ τῶν νόμων φόβον ποιοῦσιν.” ἐρωτηθεὶς πῶς ἂν προκόπτοιεν οἱ μαθηταί, ἔφη, “ἐὰν τοὺς προέχοντας διώκοντες τοὺς ὑστεροῦντας μὴ ἀναμένωσι.” πρὸς τὸν εἰπόντα ἀδολέσχην, ἐπειδὴ αὐτοῦ πολλὰ κατήντλησε, “μήτι σου κατεφλυάρησα;” “μὰ Δί',” εἶπεν· “οὐ γάρ σοι προσεῖχον.”

[21] πρὸς τὸν αἰτιασάμενον ὡς εἴη μὴ ἀγαθῷ ἔρανον δεδωκώς – φέρεται γὰρ καὶ οὕτως – ”οὐ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ,” φησίν, “ἔδωκα, ἀλλὰ τῷ ἀνθρωπίνῳ.” ἐρωτηθεὶς πῶς ἂν τοῖς φίλοις προσφεροίμεθα, ἔφη, “ὡς ἂν εὐξαίμεθα αὐτοὺς ἡμῖν προσφέρεσθαι.” τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἔφη ἀρετὴν ψυχῆς διανεμητικὴν τοῦ κατ' ἀξίαν. κάλλιστον ἐφόδιον τῷ γήρᾳ τὴν παιδείαν ἔλεγε. φησὶ δὲ Φαβωρῖνος ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν Ἀπομνημονευμάτων ὡς ἑκάστοτε λέγοι, “ᾧ φίλοι οὐδεὶς φίλος”· ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ ἑβδόμῳ τῶν Ἠθικῶν ἐστι. καὶ ταῦτα μὲν εἰς αὐτὸν ἀναφέρεται.

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, 5.20-21

*Looks like he means the work we call the Eudemian Ethics. Aristotle does not quite say what is reported in the text of Diogenes (he says ‘many friends’ instead of just ‘friends’), and he doesn’t say it ‘all over the place;’ also, it seems Aristotle, too, was quoting an apophthegm when he wrote it. Here’s the passage (it’s quite beautiful):

“We say we seek and pray for many friends, and at the same time that ‘there is no friend for the one who has many friends.’ Both are right. It is within the realm of possibilities for many people to live together in community and share in each other’s experience. This would be the most choiceworthy thing of all; but it is also the most difficult, and for this reason, it is necessary that the activity of sharing our experiences be kept among only a few people. And so not only is it difficult to make many friends (since you need to get to know one other), but also to enjoy the friends one has.”

καὶ τὸ ζητεῖν ἡμῖν καὶ εὔχεσθαι πολλοὺς φίλους, ἅμα δὲ λέγειν ὡς οὐθεὶς φίλος ᾧ πολλοὶ φίλοι, ἄμφω λέγεται ὀρθῶς. ἐνδεχομένου γὰρ πολλοῖς συζῆν ἅμα καὶ συναισθάνεσθαι ὡς πλείστοις αἱρετώτατον: ἐπεὶ δὲ χαλεπώτατον, ἐν ἐλάττοσιν ἀνάγκη τὴν ἐνέργειαν τῆς συναισθήσεως εἶναι, ὥστ᾽ οὐ μόνον χαλεπὸν τὸ πολλοὺς κτήσασθαι (πείρας γὰρ δεῖ), ἀλλὰ καὶ οὖσι χρήσασθαι.

Eudemian Ethics 7, 1245b20-25

Earlier in the Eudemian Ethics 7, 1238a9-10, Aristotle says something a bit different. Like the previous passage, he says it’s hard to have lots of friends because it takes time to really cultivate a friendship; but he also adds that he thinks it’s just not possible to feel affection for more than one person at a time. This is a strong claim. In Nicomachean Ethics 8.6, 1158a10-11, it’s even stronger. He says humans by nature can’t love more than one person at a time. Does he really think this? Given the quotation above it’s hard to see how—maybe he’s not too committed to it, maybe I’m missing something.

The Nicomachean Ethics also gives a bit more context to the claim about the time it takes to make a friend:

πολλοὺς δ' ἅμα τῷ αὐτῷ ἀρέσκειν σφόδρα οὐ ῥᾴδιον, ἴσως δ' οὐδ' ἀγαθοὺς εἶναι. δεῖ δὲ καὶ ἐμπειρίαν λαβεῖν καὶ ἐν συνηθείᾳ γενέσθαι, ὃ παγχάλεπον.

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 8.6, 1158a13-15

There is a difference of opinion among translators about the passage. It’s been moved in opposite directions:

1. “It is not easy for many people to please the same person a great deal at the same time, nor, perhaps, that they be good people.” (Ross takes it this way)

2. “It is not easy for the same person to please many people a great deal at the same time, and perhaps there are not many good people.” (Crisp in the Cambridge translation takes it this way)

The first says something like, “it’s hard to really enjoy lots of people at the same time,” and while I sort of see what this might mean, I admit I don’t totally get it. One thing Ross might be thinking is that Aristotle is making a logical point. It’s like he’s saying, ‘if any one of those people were actually pleasing, there wouldn’t need to be so many of them.’

Or maybe he’s thinking we only have so much attention we can give to everything going on in our lives. If there are too many things going on, at some point we have no more attention to give, so if lots of people are trying to please the same person at the same time, that person won’t be able to be exceptionally pleased by any one of them. And if, to become a true friend, you need to be exceptionally pleasing, then it would be hard for any of those people to become friends (as in the ‘no friend for the one with friends’ saying).

The second says something like, “it’s hard to be all things to all people,” especially since (as he goes on to say), “one needs to become deeply acquainted and develop intimacy” to be a friend, “and this is very difficult.” This puts the emphasis on the fact that, again, time and attention are finite, and the more we divide them, the less we have for any one person.

The reason people take the passage in two ways is in part grammatical. The clause is in indirect speech and the verb ἀρέσκειν can take both a dative and an accusative (i.e., one can be pleasing to X (dative) or simply please X (accusative)). Our sentence has nouns in both cases (πολλούς, as a substantive, ‘many people’; τῷ αὐτῷ, ‘the same person’). So either πολλούς is the subject of ἀρέσκειν and τῷ αὐτῷ is a personal dative (‘that many people are pleasing to the same person is not easy’); or, πολλούς is the object of ἀρέσκειν and τῷ αὐτῷ goes with οὐ ῥᾴδιον (‘it is not easy for the same person to please many people...’).

Passages like this can expose a translator’s intuitions about things seemingly familiar.

Aphrodite Kallipygos

“Back then, people were such libertines that they even dedicated a temple to Aphrodite Kallipygos.* Here’s why:

A man from the country had two beautiful daughters, and one day, when they were feeling competitive with each other, they went out to the highway to see which of them had a nicer butt. When a young man who had an elderly father happened to pass by, the two each put on a show for him, and he, having watched, picked the older one’s as nicer. But he also fell in love with her and once he returned to the city, he became bedridden and told his younger brother what had happened. The next thing you know, his brother went to the country, too, and when he saw the girls, he fell in love with the other one. Well, their father pleaded with them to choose more respectable spouses, but since he could not convince them, he brought the girls from the country to brothers, where they persuaded their father to accept them, and he married them to his sons. And so they were called ‘kallipygoi’ by the people of the city, as Kerkidas of Megalopolis says in the Iambics:

‘There was a pair of nice butts among the women of Syracuse.’

And since the sisters had gotten hold of some wealth, they dedicated a temple to Aphrodite, calling the goddess ‘Kallipygos,’ as Arkhelaos also mentions in his Iambics.”

*καλλίπυγος / kallipygos / callipyge (latin) : combination of kalli (nice) and pygē (butt). Somewhere, I heard Sufjan Stevens mention the word, and I wanted to track down the story.

οὕτω δ' ἐξήρτηντο τῶν ἡδυπαθειῶν οἱ τότε ὡς καὶ Καλλιπύγου Ἀφροδίτης ἱερὸν ἱδρύσασθαι ἀπὸ τοιαύτης αἰτίας. ἀνδρὶ ἀγροίκῳ ἐγένοντο δύο καλαὶ θυγατέρες· αὗται φιλονικήσασαί ποτε πρὸς ἑαυτὰς προελθοῦσαι ἐπὶ τὴν λεωφόρον διεκρίνοντο ποτέρα εἴη καλλιπυγοτέρα. καί ποτε παρίοντος νεανίσκου πατέρα πρεσβύτην ἔχοντος ἐπέδειξαν ἑαυτὰς καὶ τούτῳ· καὶ ὃς θεασάμενος ἔκρινε τὴν πρεσβυτέραν· ἧς καὶ εἰς ἔρωτα ἐμπεσὼν ἐλθὼν εἰς ἄστυ κλινήρης γίνεται καὶ διηγεῖται τὰ γεγενημένα τῷ ἀδελφῷ ἑαυτοῦ ὄντι νεωτέρῳ. ὃ δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐλθὼν εἰς τοὺς ἀγροὺς καὶ θεασάμενος τὰς παῖδας ἐρᾷ καὶ αὐτὸς τῆς ἑτέρας. ὁ δ' οὖν πατὴρ ἐπεὶ παρακαλῶν αὐτοὺς ἐνδοξοτέρους λαβεῖν γάμους οὐκ ἔπειθεν, ἄγεται ἐκ τοῦ ἀγροῦ τὰς παῖδας αὐτοῖς, πείσας ἐκείνων τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ζεύγνυσι τοῖς υἱοῖς. αὗται οὖν ὑπὸ τῶν πολιτῶν καλλίπυγοι ἐκαλοῦντο, ὡς καὶ ὁ Μεγαλοπολίτης Κερκιδᾶς ἐν τοῖς Ἰάμβοις ἱστορεῖ λέγων·

ἦν καλλιπύγων ζεῦγος ἐν Συρακούσαις.

αὗται οὖν ἐπιλαβόμεναι οὐσίας λαμπρᾶς ἱδρύσαντο Ἀφροδίτης ἱερὸν καλέσασαι Καλλίπυγον τὴν θεόν, ὡς ἱστορεῖ καὶ Ἀρχέλαος ἐν τοῖς Ἰάμβοις.

Athenaeus, The Sophists’ Table (Deipnosophistae), 12.80 (p.223 Kaibel)

This epithet for Aphrodite shows up in Clement of Alexandria as well, where he tries to disparage the pagan gods as prudishly as only Clement of Alexandria can:

“Isn’t Baldheaded Zeus the one worshipped in Argos, while in Cyprus, it’s another one, Zeus the Avenger? Don’t the Argives sacrifice to Aphrodite who Does Obscene Things,* the Athenians to Aphrodite the Prostitute, and the Syracusans to Aphrodite of the Nice Butt—the one the poet Nicander called ‘of the Nice Bum’? I’ll not even mention Dionysus the Piglet-Tickler.* The Sicyonians revere this one, assigning Dionysus to the womanly part, worshipping the prince of hubris as the ephor of shame.”

Οὐχὶ μέντοι Ζεὺς φαλακρὸς ἐν Ἄργει, τιμωρὸς δὲ ἄλλος ἐν Κύπρῳ τετίμησθον; Οὐχὶ δὲ Ἀφροδίτῃ περιβασοῖ μὲν Ἀργεῖοι, ἑταίρᾳ δὲ Ἀθηναῖοι καὶ καλλιπύγῳ θύουσιν Συρακούσσιοι, ἣν Νίκανδρος ὁ ποιητὴς «καλλίγλουτόν» που κέκληκεν; Διόνυσον δὲ ἤδη σιωπῶ τὸν χοιροψάλαν· Σικυώνιοι τοῦτον προσκυνοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῶν γυναικείων τάξαντες τὸν Διόνυσον μορίων, ἔφορον αἴσχους τὸν ὕβρεως σεβάζοντες ἀρχηγόν.

Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus 2.39.2-3

*The scholiast is helpful on some of the obscure terms:

Scholia In Clementem Alexandrinum

περιβασοῖ: doer of obscene things. These are epithets of Aphrodite.

29, 7 περιβασοῖ] ἀσχημοποιῷ· ἐπίθετα δὲ ταῦτα τῆς Ἀφροδίτης.

χοιροψάλαν: according to Polemon in his letter to Attalus, Dionysus Piglet-Tickler is worshipped in Sicyon of Boeotia. It is a variation on the tickler (i.e., ‘plucker’) of piglets. ‘Piglet’ means a woman’s genitals.

29, 10 χοιροψάλαν] χοιροψάλας Διόνυσος ἐν Σικυῶνι τιμᾶται τῆς Βοιωτίας, ὡς Πολέμων ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἄτταλον ἐπιστολῇ. ἔστι δὲ μεταλαμβανόμενον ὁ τὸν χοῖρον ψάλλων, τοῦτ' ἔστι τίλλων· χοῖρος δὲ γυναικεῖον αἰδοῖον.

Endings

“Zeus, god of the gods, who rules with force of law, was able to see these things clearly. When he realized that good people were reduced to struggling, he wanted to grant them justice so that they might take control of themselves and return to harmony. He assembled all the gods together into their most honoured home, which, set at the centre of the entire cosmos, looks down upon all who share in creation, and once he had assembled them, he said:”*

θεὸς δὲ ὁ θεῶν Ζεὺς ἐν νόμοις βασιλεύων, ἅτε δυνάμενος καθορᾶν τὰ τοιαῦτα, ἐννοήσας γένος ἐπιεικὲς ἀθλίως διατιθέμενον, δίκην αὐτοῖς ἐπιθεῖναι βουληθείς, ἵνα γένοιντο ἐμμελέστεροι σωφρονισθέντες, συνήγειρεν θεοὺς πάντας εἰς τὴν τιμιωτάτην αὐτῶν οἴκησιν, ἣ δὴ κατὰ μέσον παντὸς τοῦ κόσμου βεβηκυῖα καθορᾷ πάντα ὅσα γενέσεως μετείληφεν, καὶ συναγείρας εἶπεν:

Plato, Critias, 121B7-C5

*To the right is the last column of the Critias, written on parchment in one of the oldest manuscripts of Plato we have, Parisinus gr. 187 f. 151r. This manuscript is at the Bibliothèque nationale de France, and it’s been been dated to around 850-875 CE.

The Critias ends mid-sentence. The Atlantans’ story is never resolved. Maybe Plato died before he finished it, maybe he couldn’t think of what Zeus was supposed to say. To mark this the copyist writes the εἶπεν (“he said”) with a colon in the centre of the last line—two dots bordering on universes of possibilities.

"Let him whip me when I'm not around" - Things Aristotle said, part I

Part I of the apophthegmata attributed to Aristotle by Diogenes Laertius.

“These very nice sayings are attributed to him:

When asked what profit is gained by those who tell lies, he said: ‘that whenever they speak the truth, they are not believed.’

Once, he was reproached because he gave charity to a lowly person, so he said, ‘I gave charity to a man, not a way of life.’

He always used to tell his friends and students, whenever and wherever he happened to be lecturing, that ‘as light comes to sight from the air, so it comes to the mind from mathematics.’*

Very often, referring to the Athenians, he said, ‘they discovered wheat and laws: they used the wheat, not so much the laws.’

He used to say, ‘the roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.’

When asked what gets old quickly, he said, ‘gratitude.’

When asked what is hope, he said, ‘a waking dream.’

When Diogenes offered him a dried fig, he knew if he didn’t take it, Diogenes would have some joke ready to go. So he took it and said, ‘Diogenes ruined the fig as well as the joke.’ Another time he offered them, he took them and, raising them up as if they were children, he said, ‘Great Diogenes!’

He said three things are required for education: nature, study, and practice.

When he heard that someone was saying bad things about him behind his back, he said, ‘let him whip me when I’m not around.’

He used to say beauty was a better recommendation than any letter. Some people say Diogenes defined it this way, but he said good looks are ‘a gift from god,’ Socrates, ‘a short-lived tyranny,’ Plato, ‘an advantage of nature,’ Theophrastus, ‘a silent deception,’ Theocritus, ‘a penalty made of ivory,’ Carneades, ‘a king without a body-guard.’

When asked how the educated differ from the uneducated, he said, ‘as much as the living from the dead.’

He used to say, ‘education is an adornment in good times and a refuge in bad ones;’ and that children’s teachers are more valuable than those who only gave them birth: for the one gives you a chance to live, the other to live well.

To someone who bragged that he was from a great city, he said, ‘one needn’t look into this, but rather, who is it who is worthy of a great heritage.’

When asked what a friend is, he said, ‘one soul dwelling in two bodies.’

He used to say, ‘there are two kinds of people: those who are as restrained as someone who will live forever, and those who are as excessive as someone who will die tomorrow.’

To the person who was curious why we spend so much time in the company of what is beautiful, he said, ‘that’s a blind man’s question.’”

*or perhaps, “studies”

[17] Ἀναφέρεται δ᾽ εἰς αὐτὸν καὶ ἀποφθέγματα κάλλιστα ταυτί. ἐρωτηθεὶς τί περιγίνεται κέρδος τοῖς ψευδομένοις, "ὅταν," ἔφη, "λέγωσιν ἀληθῆ, μὴ πιστεύεσθαι." ὀνειδιζόμενός ποτε ὅτι πονηρῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐλεημοσύνην ἔδωκεν, "οὐ τὸν τρόπον," εἶπεν, "ἀλλὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἠλέησα." συνεχὲς εἰώθει λέγειν πρός τε τοὺς φίλους καὶ τοὺς φοιτῶντας αὐτῷ, ἔνθα ἂν καὶ ὅπου διατρίβων ἔτυχεν, ὡς ἡ μὲν ὅρασις ἀπὸ τοῦ περιέχοντος [ἀέρος] λαμβάνει τὸ φῶς, ἡ δὲ ψυχὴ ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων. πολλάκις δὲ καὶ ἀποτεινόμενος τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ἔφασκεν εὑρηκέναι πυροὺς καὶ νόμους: ἀλλὰ πυροῖς μὲν χρῆσθαι, νόμοις δὲ μή.

[18] Τῆς παιδείας ἔφη τὰς μὲν ῥίζας εἶναι πικράς, τὸν δὲ καρπὸν γλυκύν. ἐρωτηθεὶς τί γηράσκει ταχύ, "χάρις," ἔφη. ἐρωτηθεὶς τί ἐστιν ἐλπίς, "ἐγρηγορότος," εἶπεν, "ἐνύπνιον." Διογένους ἰσχάδ᾽ αὐτῷ διδόντος νοήσας ὅτι, εἰ μὴ λάβοι, χρείαν εἴη μεμελετηκώς, λαβὼν ἔφη Διογένην μετὰ τῆς χρείας καὶ τὴν ἰσχάδα ἀπολωλεκέναι: πάλιν τε διδόντος λαβὼν καὶ μετεωρίσας ὡς τὰ παιδία εἰπών τε "μέγας Διογένης," ἀπέδωκεν αὐτῷ. τριῶν ἔφη δεῖν παιδείᾳ, φύσεως, μαθήσεως, ἀσκήσεως. ἀκούσας ὑπό τινος λοιδορεῖσθαι, "ἀπόντα με," ἔφη, "καὶ μαστιγούτω." τὸ κάλλος παντὸς ἔλεγεν ἐπιστολίου συστατικώτερον.

[19] οἱ δὲ οὕτω μὲν Διογένην φασὶν ὁρίσασθαι, αὐτὸν δὲ θεοῦ δῶρον εἰπεῖν εὐμορφίαν: Σωκράτην δὲ ὀλιγοχρόνιον τυραννίδα: Πλάτωνα προτέρημα φύσεως: Θεόφραστον σιωπῶσαν ἀπάτην: Θεόκριτον ἐλεφαντίνην ζημίαν: Καρνεάδην ἀδορυφόρητον βασιλείαν. ἐρωτηθεὶς τίνι διαφέρουσιν οἱ πεπαιδευμένοι τῶν ἀπαιδεύτων, "ὅσῳ," εἶπεν, "οἱ ζῶντες τῶν τεθνεώτων." τὴν παιδείαν ἔλεγεν ἐν μὲν ταῖς εὐτυχίαις εἶναι κόσμον, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἀτυχίαις καταφυγήν. τῶν γονέων τοὺς παιδεύσαντας ἐντιμοτέρους εἶναι τῶν μόνον γεννησάντων: τοὺς μὲν γὰρ τὸ ζῆν, τοὺς δὲ τὸ καλῶς ζῆν παρασχέσθαι. πρὸς τὸν καυχώμενον ὡς ἀπὸ μεγάλης πόλεως εἴη, "οὐ τοῦτο," ἔφη, "δεῖ σκοπεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅστις μεγάλης πατρίδος ἄξιός ἐστιν."

[20] ἐρωτηθεὶς τί ἐστι φίλος, ἔφη, "μία ψυχὴ δύο σώμασιν ἐνοικοῦσα." τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἔλεγε τοὺς μὲν οὕτω φείδεσθαι ὡς ἀεὶ ζησομένους, τοὺς δὲ οὕτως ἀναλίσκειν ὡς αὐτίκα τεθνηξομένους. πρὸς τὸν πυθόμενον διὰ τί τοῖς καλοῖς πολὺν χρόνον ὁμιλοῦμεν, "τυφλοῦ," ἔφη, "τὸ ἐρώτημα."

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, 5.17-20

Pseudo-Alexander on why oil doesn't mix with water, how the soul is joined to the body, and why the head is like a little heaven

Why doesn't oil combine together with other liquids?

Because, since it is viscous and dense and unified and not cut up into fine parts like other liquids, it does not have space for another liquid to move into it and combine with it.

Some things that are joined, however, are joined with one another by mixture, like the qualities of the elements. They have primary qualities that are completely concealed and that produce other [qualities], but are able to be separated and liberated by nature once again. Honey-wine and sour-wine imitate nature, since to our perception they seem to exist as a mixture. In truth, however, and with respect to their substantial nature, they are not like the elements.

Other things are joined by juxtaposition, like water and oil; still others are joined by combination, like barley with wheat; others by cementing, like stone with stone; others by adhesion and similar processes, like blood with flesh or marrow or bone; others by nailing, like wood to wood because some nails were fitted between them; others, by attachment and weaving together, like links in a chain.

But in the case of ensouled things, as in the case of wrestlers*, the soul is not joined with the body in any these ways. That would be too absurd. Instead, the soul joins the body through a kind of suitable medium, which is to some extent receptive of the nature of both. And it [sc. the medium] embraces both a created and contrived thing and combines the incorporeal with the corporeal, the immortal with the corruptible, the pure with the impure, the divine with the earthly, as the discussion will show.

For when the blood is concocted in the liver and changed by the localized balanced proportion of heat and moisture, it generates a vapory pneuma. When this rises with the blood through the hollow-vein towards the heart, as it is heated and refined more, it [sc. the pneuma] becomes air-like. And again, when it is sent up through the carotid artery towards the base of the brain, being guided there by nature’s providence, casting off the immoderate boiling in accordance with a certain peculiar natural quality accompanying the coldness of the brain, the pneuma becomes aitherial, which is the soul’s instrument for activity.

So, just as wild horses are chastened by a bridle, so this [pneuma] is bridled by a certain irrational natural capacity. Furthermore, it is indeed through respiration that the air that has come into the heart is refined and goes up through the arteries towards the head, and it is made nourishment of the aetherial and psychic pneuma. If [the air] meets a body, let it strengthen the body; but if it meets finest, purest, most radiant [pneuma], then [let it strengthen] the rational soul, being somehow a corporeal incorporeal, an intermediate bound between extremes of contrary substance.

When this pneuma is properly stable, in everything it does, it manages, with the soul, to act rationally [κατὰ λόγον]. But when it is cooled immoderately and compressed and thickened, it becomes unsuitable for the intense activity of the soul [and] makes the activities idle and sluggish. When it has been cooled and thickened extremely immoderately, the generated body also causes the soul to depart due to the unsuitability of the substance, as in the case of lethargy, torpor and a draught of cold poison. On the other hand, when it is heated immoderately and is moved more than is needed, it causes the soul to act immoderately in accordance with the soul’s displacement [κατὰ τὰς ἐκστάσεις τῆς ψυχῆς] in [cases of] phrenitis. When this affection becomes even stronger, after it is exhausted, it will make the soul depart again by not preserving their being bound together.

Consider with me a different work of god. For since it was fated that it [sc. the soul] be confined from the heavenly and divine body to an earthly body, [the god] contrived the descent in shape, structure and colour. For the head itself it formed into a sphere, just like a little heaven. It arranged the brain—bright and without excess, having given seven passages to it representing the number of the movers of the stars—to rise above the whole body. For heaven, too, rises above everything in the world of coming to be and passing away.

*the image is of two people embracing and holding on to one another.

Διὰ τί τὸ ἔλαιον οὐδενὶ τῶν ὑγρῶν ἀναμίγνυται;

ὅτι γλίσχρον ὂν καὶ παχυμερὲς καὶ ἡνωμένον καὶ μὴ τεμνόμενον εἰς λεπτὰ μόρια καθάπερ τὰ ἄλλα ὑγρά, οὐ δίδωσιν χώραν ἑτέρῳ ὑγρῷ ἐγκαταβληθῆναι εἰς αὐτὸ καὶ ἀναμιχθῆναι αὐτῷ·

τὰ δὲ ὁμιλοῦντα ἑαυτοῖς ὁμιλεῖ τῶν κατὰ τὴν κρᾶσιν, ὡς αἱ ποιότητες τῶν στοιχείων παντελῶς ἔχουσαι τὰς πρώτας ποιότητας ἀφανιζομένας καὶ ἑτέρας γεννωμένας, δυναμένας δὲ πάλιν ὑπὸ φύσεως χωρισθῆναι καὶ σωθῆναι. τὸ δὲ μελίκρατον καὶ τὸ ὀξύκρατον μιμεῖται τὴν φύσιν, τῇ αἰσθήσει μὲν νομιζόμενα κατὰ κρᾶσιν, εἶναι μὴ ὄντα δὲ κατὰ ἀλήθειαν· καὶ πρὸς τὴν φύσιν οὐσιωδῶς, ὥσπερ τὰ στοιχεῖα.

τὰ δὲ κατὰ παράθεσιν, ὡς ὑδρέλαιον· τὰ δὲ κατὰ μῖξιν, ὡς κριθὴ πυροῖς· τὰ δὲ κατὰ κόλλησιν, ὡς λίθος λίθῳ· τὰ δὲ κατὰ πρόσφυσιν καὶ ὁμοίως, ὡς αἷμα σαρκὶ ἢ μυελῷ ἢ ὀστῷ. τὰ δὲ κατὰ γόμφωσιν, ὡς ξύλον ξύλῳ διὰ γόμφων τινῶν ἐν μέσῳ βαλλομένων. τὰ δὲ κατὰ ἀντοχὴν ἑαυτῶν καὶ περιπλοκήν, ὡς κρίκος κρίκῳ.

ἐπὶ δὲ ἐμψύχων, ὡς ἐπὶ παλαιόντων, κατ' οὐδένα τούτων τῶν τρόπων μίγνυται ἡ ψυχὴ σώματι. διὰ τὸ πολλὴν ἐπάγεσθαι ἀτοπίαν [mss. ἀντοπίαν], ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον κατ' ἐπιτηδειότητα ὁμιλεῖ σώματι ψυχὴ διὰ μέσου τινός, ὅπερ ἀμφοτέρων ἀναδεχόμενον φύσιν ποσῶς· καὶ προσφιλεῖ γινόμενον καὶ σοφιζόμενον, ἀμφότερον μίγνυσι τὸ ἀσώματον τῷ σώματι, τὸ ἀθάνατον τῷ φθαρτῷ, τὸ καθαρὸν τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ, τὸ θεῖον τῷ γηΐνῳ, ὡς ὁ λόγος δείξει·

ἐν γὰρ τῷ ἥπατι τοῦ αἵματος πεττομένου καὶ μεταβαλλομένου ὑπὸ τῆς αὐτόθι συμμέτρου θερμότητος καὶ ὑγρότητος, γεννᾶται πνεῦμαἀτμοειδές· τοῦτο δὲ διὰ τῆς κοίλης φλεβὸς ἀνιὸν μετὰ τοῦ αἵματος πρὸς καρδίαν, καὶ ἐπὶ πλέον θερμαινόμενον καὶ λεπτυνόμενον, γίνεται ἀεροειδές· καὶ πάλιν ἀναπεμπόμενον διὰ τῶν καρωτίδων ἀρτηριῶν πρὸς τὴν βάσιν τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου κατὰ πρόνοιαν φύσεως ἐκεῖσε παιδαγωγούμενον κατ' ἰδιότητά τινα φυσικὴν ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου ψυχρότητος ἀποβαλὸν τὴν ἄμετρον ζέσιν, γίνεται πνεῦμα αἰθεροειδές, ὅπερ ὄργανόν ἐστι ψυχῆς πρὸς ἐνέργειαν·

ὥσπερ ἄγριος ἵππος ὑπὸ χαλινοῦ σωφρονιζόμενος, οὕτω δὲ τοῦτο χαλιναγωγούμενον ὑπό τινος ἀρρήτου φυσικῆς δυνάμεως· ἔτι γε μὴν διὰ τῆς ἀναπνοῆς ὁ εἰσιὼν ἀὴρ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ λεπτυνόμενος καὶ ἀνιὼν διὰ τῶν ἀρτηριῶν πρὸς ἐγκέφαλον, καὶ αὐτὸ τροφὴ καθίσταται τοῦ αἰθεροειδοῦς καὶ ψυχικοῦ πνεύματος· ὅπερ εἰ μὲν σῶμα τυγχάνει, προσωκείτω τῷ σώματι, εἰ δὲ λεπτότατον καὶ καθαρότατον καὶ διαυγέστατον φιλιοῦται, ψυχῇ λογικῇ σῶμα ἀσώματόν πως ὑπάρχον καὶ δεσμὸς ἔμμεσος τυγχάνει τῶν ἄκρων ἐναντίαν οὐσίαν ἐχόντων·

τοῦτο τὸ πνεῦμα καλῶς μὲν εὐσταθοῦν διάγει ψυχῇ πάντα κατὰ λόγον ἐνεργεῖν· ἀμέτρως δὲ ψυχόμενον καὶ πιλούμενον καὶ παχυνόμενον καὶ ἀνεπιτήδειον γινόμενον πρὸς ἐνέργειαν σύντονον ψυχῆς ποιεῖ τὰς πράξεις ἀργοτέρας καὶ νωθροτέρας· ἀμετρότατα δὲ ψυχθὲν καὶ παχυνθὲν καὶ σῶμα γενόμενον παρασκευάζει ταύτην ἀφίστασθαι διὰ τὸ ἀνεπιτήδειον τῆς οὐσίας, ὡς ἐπὶ ληθάργων καὶ κάρων καὶ πόσεως ψυχρῶν δηλητηρίων· πάλιν δὲ θερμανθὲν ἀμέτρως καὶ πλέον τοῦ δέοντος κινούμενον, παρασκευάζει ψυχὴν ἀμετρότερον ἐνεργεῖν κατὰ τὰς ἐκστάσεις τῆς ψυχῆς ταῖς φρενίτισιν· ἔτι δὲ πλέον τοῦτο παθὸν καὶ ἐκδαπανηθὲν ποιήσει πάλιν ψυχὴν ἀφίστασθαι τῷ μὴ εὐπορεῖν τοῦ δεσμοῦντος ἀμφότερα.

θεώρει δέ μοι ἕτερον ἔργον θεοῦ· ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ταύτην ἔμελλεν ἀπὸ σώματος οὐρανίου καὶ θείου κατακλείειν σώματι γηΐνῳ, σοφίζεται τὴν κάθοδον σχήματι, κατασκευῇ, χρώματι. αὐτὴν μὲν γὰρ τὴν κεφαλὴν σφαιροειδῆ διετύπωσε, καθάπερ μικρὸν οὐρανόν· τὸν δὲ ἐγκέφαλον λαμπρὸν καὶ ἀπέριττον ἔταξε δεδωκὼς αὐτῷ πόρους ἑπτὰ τῶν κινουμένων ἀστέρων τὸν ἀριθμὸν διατυπώσας. ὑπερέχειν δὲ τοῦ παντὸς σώματος· καὶ γὰρ ὁ οὐρανὸς ὑπερέχει πάντα τὰ ἐν γενέσει καὶ φθορᾷ.

Pseudo-Alexander, Problems, 2.67

Providential Ecology in Herodotus and Aristotle

(Some classic examples of thinking that divine providence is providential enough, continued from here…)

Prolific Rabbits, Savage Lions

“Well, I suppose divine providence, which is wise as far as I can tell, has made all the timid and edible animals produce many offspring so that they would not go extinct by being eaten up, while it has made all the savage and violent animals produce few offspring.

“Take the following case: the hare is hunted by everyone—beast, bird, and human. Obviously, then, it produces many offspring. It is the only creature that can conceive when it is already pregnant. Some of the young in her belly are hairy, others are bare; and some in the womb are finishing taking on their shape, others are just starting out.

“That’s one kind of case. Another is the lioness, who is very strong and bold, and bears a single cub once in her lifetime since she casts out the womb with the cub. The cause of this is the following: when the cub first begins to move about in the womb, its claws—much sharper than those of all the other beasts—tear the womb. The more it grows, the more it tears and scratches, and when it is close to being born, there is absolutely nothing healthy left of it.”

καί κως τοῦ θείου ἡ προνοίη, ὥσπερ καὶ οἰκός ἐστι, ἐοῦσα σοφή, ὅσα μὲν ψυχήν τε δειλὰ καὶ ἐδώδιμα, ταῦτα μὲν πάντα πολύγονα πεποίηκε, ἵνα μὴ ἐπιλίπῃ κατεσθιόμενα, ὅσα δὲ σχέτλια καὶ ἀνιηρά, ὀλιγόγονα. τοῦτο μέν, ὅτι ὁ λαγὸς ὑπὸ παντὸς θηρεύεται θηρίου καὶ ὄρνιθος καὶ ἀνθρώπου, οὕτω δή τι πολύγονον ἐστί: ἐπικυΐσκεται μοῦνον πάντων θηρίων, καὶ τὸ μὲν δασὺ τῶν τέκνων ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ τὸ δὲ ψιλόν, τὸ δὲ ἄρτι ἐν τῇσι μήτρῃσι πλάσσεται, τὸ δὲ ἀναιρέεται. τοῦτο μὲν δὴ τοιοῦτο ἐστί: ἡ δὲ δὴ λέαινα ἐὸν ἰσχυρότατον καὶ θρασύτατον ἅπαξ ἐν τῷ βίῳ τίκτει ἕν: τίκτουσα γὰρ συνεκβάλλει τῷ τέκνῳ τὰς μήτρας. τὸ δὲ αἴτιον τούτου τόδε ἐστί: ἐπεὰν ὁ σκύμνος ἐν τῇ μητρὶ ἐὼν ἄρχηται διακινεόμενος, ὁ δὲ ἔχων ὄνυχας θηρίων πολλὸν πάντων ὀξυτάτους ἀμύσσει τὰς μήτρας, αὐξόμενός τε δὴ πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐσικνέεται καταγράφων: πέλας τε δὴ ὁ τόκος ἐστί, καὶ τὸ παράπαν λείπεται αὐτέων ὑγιὲς οὐδέν.

Herodotus, Histories, 3.108.2-4

Hungry Dolphins

“When it comes to the mouth, as well, there are differences among kinds of fish. Some have a mouth that goes straight across and is in the front, while others have it underneath, like dolphins and selachians. And they turn belly-up when they feed. It seems nature does this not only to preserve all the other animals (when the dolphins are turned upside down, they move slowly and the other animals can get away – all such animals are carnivorous), but also so that they are not guided by gluttony for food, since if they could get their food easily, they would be destroyed because of the rate at which they would fill themselves up.”

Ἔχει δὲ καὶ περὶ τὸ στόμα διαφοράς. Τὰ μὲν γὰρ κατ' ἀντικρὺ ἔχει τὸ στόμα καὶ εἰς τὸ πρόσθεν, τὰ δ' ἐν τοῖς ὑπτίοις, οἷον οἵ τε δελφῖνες καὶ τὰ σελαχώδη· καὶ ὕπτια στρεφόμενα λαμβάνει τὴν τροφήν. Φαίνεται δ' ἡ φύσις οὐ μόνον σωτηρίας ἕνεκεν ποιῆσαι τοῦτο τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων (ἐν γὰρ τῇ στρέψει σῴζεται τἆλλα βραδυνόντων· πάντα γὰρ τὰ τοιαῦτα ζῳοφάγα ἐστίν), ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀκολουθεῖν τῇ λαιμαργίᾳ τῇ περὶ τὴν τροφήν· ῥᾷον γὰρ λαμβάνοντα διεφθείρετ' ἂν διὰ τὴν πλήρωσιν ταχέως.

Aristotle, Parts of Animals, 4.13, 696b24-32

Galen on Hippocrates in Stobaeus: a fragment of Antyllus? or, Antyllus and the Pneumatist School

(a short essay for my 36th birthday)

I came across this text in Stobaeus' Eclogae. It's a characterization of Hippocrates' beliefs about medicine, purportedly from Galen, but I doubt this attribution is correct. (I'll explain why in a minute.)

Jouanna made an edition of it in 2008 with French translation and discussion [J. Jouanna, « Un Galien oublié: "Caractéristiques propres à Hippocrate" (Stobée, Anthologie 4.37.14), avec une nouvelle édition », Storia della tradizione e edizione dei medici greci. Atti del VI Colloquio internazionale, Paris 12-14 aprile 2008, Collectanea 27, Napoli, M. D'Auria, 2010, p. 199-229], but I couldn't find an English translation or discussion of it, so I translated it here.

I think lots can be said about it, and I hope this gives more people a chance to take a look.

The text comes from a section of the Eclogae on regimen or healthy way of life (περὶ ὑγείας καὶ τῆς περὶ τὴν διαμονήν αὐτῆς προνοίας = Eclogae 4.37). The section includes quotations from Pythagoras, Alcmaeon, Plato, Plutarch, Aristoxenus, "Socrates", "Gorgias", and "Hippocrates" — quite a weird mix.

There is one other author, who is quoted more than the others (eight times total): the doctor and surgeon, Antyllus. And four of these fragments of Antyllus' writings come immediately after this passage, on differences in the air according to things like time of day, time of year, and geography. (Air was often thought to be a cause of disease: more famously in extreme cases, like the miasmata, i.e., the gases given off when things rot and decay; sometimes in cases we don't think too much about today, like the effects of morning or afternoon air; and sometimes in cases we still think about, like smokey or dirty city air.) Is there a connection between this text and the Antyllus fragments that follow it?

The text presents a series of claims about medicine which are "believed by Hippocrates" ("ἀρέσκει δὲ αὐτῷ" and variants). First, we are given Hippocrates' beliefs about physiology (and in what texts he wrote about them). Physiology here begins with whatever things are 'evident' (ἐναργῆ), and that means the primary division is that of the body into solids, liquids and gases. These are in turn associated with tissues (solids), pneuma and the four humours (liquids). Next, we get a statement of his beliefs about correlations among humours, times of life of a human being, seasons of the year, times of day, and about the basis of those correlations in different mixtures of the qualities hot, cold, moist and dry. Then, a discussion of the differences in qualities (hot cold moist dry) of men and women, of the function of the humours, his views on reproduction, and the relationship between bodily axes (right / left, up / down). Last come his views on pathology, followed by therapy and prognostics, and especially the importance of knowing critical days and affected parts.

In Hense's text of the Eclogae, he prints "Galen's" ("Γαληνοῦ'), and there is nothing in the critical apparatus to suggest it was attributed to any other author. Hense, who edited Stobaeus for Teubner in the early 1900s, writes: "ecl. cum lemm. hab. S, om. M A. Gesnerum fere sequitur Charterius." I think what he is saying is that the title is missing in manuscripts M and A (although maybe it means the whole thing is missing in M and A?), and also that Chartier, who included it in his edition of Galen of 1638/9, followed Gesner's 1559 edition of Stobaeus (or followed him in attributing it to Galen? or what? I don't know how to read these properly). I haven't checked M (codex Mendozae Escurialensis LXXXX Σ II 14) or A (codex Parisinus Graecus 1984) to see what they say, but it would be worth doing.

Whether or not Galen's name is in the manuscripts, I think it is pretty unlikely that this text comes from him. It seems to me to contradict some basic commitments Galen ascribes to Hippocrates, particularly about the elements and about the relationship between the seasons of the year, times of life, the humours, and the four-qualities. For example, in Mixtures 1.3-4, Galen says that the attempts to find strong correlations, like the ones in our passage, result from a lack of scientific training, and he suggests the passages from Hippocrates' writings, which others use to support the correlations, are misinterpreted. (Of course, someone might object to what I’ve just said: Galen does not state explicitly what he thinks Hippocrates' views on this relationship are, only that it is incorrect to think there is in fact a strong correlation between seasons and bodily mixtures, and that in each season only one quality dominates. But in response I think we could say, the fact Galen thinks these people get it wrong is a pretty strong indication he thinks Hippocrates would not commit such an error.)

Regarding the elements, Galen wrote a whole book explaining that the primary elements according to Hippocrates are earth, air, water and fire, which are not elements evident to perception. I have not come across any passages where Galen attributes the three-fold division of the body (into solid parts, liquid parts, and pneumata) to Hippocrates, although he writes of other doctors who did. I've written about these passages here before.

My hunch then is that this text is not from Galen, but that it comes either from Antyllus, or from some book (or passage in a book) incorrectly ascribed to Galen. Antyllus because he is the medical source Stobaeus relies on the most and the fragments we have from him generally agree with the beliefs ascribed to Hippocrates in this text. A pseudo-Galenic work because there are many instances of texts, like the Introductio or Definitiones, carrying Galen's name even though they were not written by him. It could also come from an earlier compilation with a similar incorrect attribution.

Because of the correspondence between this text and the passages from Antyllus that come after, I'd like to think it's from him. Antyllus is an interesting thinker and writer, but he is mysterious. This makes my claim a bit hard to prove. There are lots of fragments preserved in Oribasius, but we have almost no other evidence about him. The best we can say is that he probably lived after Archigenes (fl. around the time of Trajan), since Archigenes' name shows up in a passage attributed to Antyllus in Oribasius (Coll. med. 9.23.18 at the end). That would put him at the earliest around 100 CE. And we can say, since Oribasius quotes him, that it is very likely that he lived before Oribasius (who was born early fourth century). That would put him at the latest around the 350s or so. Somewhere in those 250 years, we can find Antyllus.

I have an ulterior motive in wanting to attribute the text to Antyllus. What I find interesting about this text is how similar it sounds to views scholars often ascribe to the Pneumatist school of medicine, of which Antyllus is often said to be a member. I think historians of medicine too often assume that the Pneumatists were a more distinctive group of doctors than they actually were. I have read that the Pneumatists shared a unique set of beliefs, beliefs that differ markedly from their contemporaries. These are beliefs about the composition of the human being (either out of three kinds of parts, solids, liquids, gases; or out of the four qualities, hot cold moist and dry); beliefs about analogies between the seasons, times of life and bodily humours; beliefs about the causes of diseases and their treatment through opposites; and I have heard people say that the Pneumatists had an interest in developing a way of doing medicine which followed the doctrines of "Hippocrates".

There is however very little evidence tying these beliefs and practices specifically to the doctors called 'Pneumatist' in our sources. Texts like the pseudo-Galenic Introductio and Definitiones, and even the Anonymus Londinensis, show that these characteristics were common to a lot of doctors in the 00s and 100s CE. On the other hand, what our sources say was distinctive about the Pneumatists is in fact very little: we are told they, following the Stoics, believe pneuma controls health and disease, that they follow Hippocrates, and that Hippocrates identifies pneuma with the innate heat. That's it.

When people claim Antyllus is a Pneumatist, they almost never offer any evidence. When they do, the evidence tends not to be very convincing. I think there are two reasons for this. First, there are no complete writings by Antyllus which survive, no contemporary discussions about him and we have no precise evidence for when he lived. He is an obscure figure in the history of medicine, and any evidence we have is going to be controversial and require a lot of interpretation and speculation. That's fine - the same goes for most ancient authors - but I also think it means we should be a bit more careful.

Second, Antyllus does not call himself a Pneumatist in any of the fragments we have. This means the evidence usually comes from places where Antyllus mentions some Pneumatist authors, or where he mentions things that sound Pneumatist in the fragments. People especially point to cases where he uses the word 'pneuma.' But the fact that he adopts views from Athenaeus or discusses Archigenes does not make him a Pneumatist any more than it makes Galen one. Neither does the fact that Antyllus occasionally talks about pneuma or "tension" (tonos - a Stoic and Pneumatist technical term, but the word is by no means limited to them) make him a Pneumatist any more than it makes one of Caelius Aurelianus (who uses Latin equivalents for both but calls himself a Methodist). Just about everyone in antiquity after Aristotle who writes about living things mentions pneuma, and no one thinks they're all Pneumatists.

This, then, is the unconvincing evidence. There is, however, some better evidence that Antyllus is a Pneumatist doctor. For one thing, he fits the description of some people whom Galen calls the "followers of Athenaeus". (I've placed the text from Galen at the end of this piece.) I have also found some striking similarities between a fragment of Athenaeus preserved in Aetius and some fragments of Antyllus preserved in Oribasius' Medical Collections (and in their parallels in this section of Stobaeus). In fact, Antyllus takes over whole sentences from Athenaeus, always without attribution, and he expands on them as if he were trying to explain or refine Athenaeus' views.

Nevertheless, I do not find even this evidence all that persuasive. Athenaeus was followed by lots of people, but that does not imply each follower was committed to the all or even the most central of the ideas associated with him: that pneuma controls health and disease. I haven't found any evidence for this belief in the fragments of Antyllus. Given this lack of evidence and given we don't know Antyllus' dates, it's even harder to place him among the Pneumatists. He may have been a later medical writer who liked what Athenaeus had to say, or both he and Athenaeus may have been drawing on the same source material. We just don't know.

I admit that whether Antyllus was a Pneumatist or not is not a terribly important historical question. I guess the question of whether he wrote this particular text isn't that important either. Still, whoever it was who wrote the characateristics of Hippocrates, it's a nice example of the ideal of a "Hippocratic" medicine, an ideal which was developed and promoted in the 00s and 100s CE (and after), and which has endured until today. It's only recently that historians of medicine like Philip van der Eijk began to try to understand this ideal: scholars who raise the question of how and why the idea of "the Hippocratic" was constructed and how it rose to such prominence. Along with other texts like the pseudo-Galenic Introductio, I think this little fragment (which I'd still like to think was written by Antyllus) tells part of this story.

Stobaeus, Eclogae, 4.37.14 (Vol. 5, 883,2-886,6 Hense)

Galen’s “Characterizations of Hippocrates”

He says that it is clearly his opinion that the elements of the art are those which are evident. So, he says "human beings and all animals are composed from solids, liquids and pneumata." The nature of plants are not without a share of the three-fold kind of these things; however, it lives, increases, reproduces and grows by their composition in accordance with nature, and it becomes diseased, decays, dies and withers by their imperfection and dissolution.

He refers the composition of the solid parts to bones, nerves and cartilage, and further membrane, artery and vein. For in some [of his writings] he also says these belong to the solid kind. Following what is reasonable, he shares the opinion the principle of their assembly and formation is the head. He has also devoted to [the subject of] the nature of the solid parts the [books] On Fractures, On Joints, and those similar to them; while to the pneumata, [he devoted] the book called (peculiarly) On Winds; to the liquids, [he devoted] the [books] On Humours, On the Nature of the Human Being, and [he wrote about them] here and there in other works. These are blood and phlegm, and the two biles, yellow and black. [He says] the nature of blood is moist and hot, its colour red, and its quality sweet. Phlegm is cold and moist, white and salty. Yellow bile is hot and dry, ochre and bitter, while the other is cold and dry, black and sea-weedy.

It is also his opinion that the age of a person and the seasons of the year alike are divided into four. Each of the humours mentioned exceed the others in amount at the proper age and season of each of them. So in the time of childhood and in the season of spring, blood exceeds the others. In the time of the prime of life and in the season of summer, yellow bile. In the time past one's prime and in the autumn, black [bile]. And [in the time of] of old age and in winter, phlegm. For the natures of humours resemble those of the seasons. Therefore, the spring is hot and moist, like blood, and the summer is hot and dry. Fall is cold and dry, while winter is cold and wet, in proportion with the humours. The day is also divided in accordance with them, both in number and nature, as if in a small proportion. Generally, the natures of men differ from those of women. For the former tend towards hotter and drier, the latter towards colder and wetter. There is a smaller difference in kind for each of these and relative to one another, following the locations of the places, the particular qualities of the airs, and how people lead their lives. Each of the humours in the nature of a human being provides a special use. So blood nourishes, heats, moistens and is productive of good complexion. Yellow bile holds the body and the pores together, lest it be relaxed, stimulates perception, completes concoction, and provides easy passages for excretions. Black [bile] is a seat and, as it were, pedestal of the other humours. Phlegm [provides] for rapidity of movement to the nerves, membranes, cartilage, and tongue.

He thinks the seed contributes to reproduction, that of the male and of the female equally, and that it comes from all the parts of the body. And that males are generated on the right side of the womb, females on the left. The [parts] on the right side [of the body] are dominant relative to those on the left, and the upper [parts] relative to the lower ones.

And he thinks, concerning the causes of diseases, that some are from violent blows, some are from the environment, while the majority come from the liquids we mentioned, according to excess and defect, and change in quality or change from place to place [in the body]. 

It is also his belief that one [should] use remedies from things which are contrary to the causes [of the disease]. Of diseases, some are by nature acute, some chronic, some unclear. Acute diseases come about for the most part from bile and blood, and occur in the prime of life, and in summer and spring. Chronic diseases come from phlegm, black bile, and occur in the elderly and in winter. Unclear diseases are those which have mixed causes. And further, he makes prognoses about which of them one can recover from and which are fatal. He also thinks prognosis and prediction are both necessary for the art and that they differ from one another. For, sometimes the doctor only needs to make a prognosis, but sometimes it is safe to predict. He divides prognosis into past and present symptoms, as many have an uncertain quantity, and into future ones. 

It is also his opinion that one recognize the critical days. For the most part, the odd-numbered days belong to acute diseases, the even-numbered ones to chronic [diseases]. And those in the summer time, in youths, in the right-side parts [of the body], and in the upper parts [occur on] odd-numbered days, while in the case of their contraries, on even-numbered days. And further, he recommends knowing the places affected primarily, the recognition of which contributes no small part to indication and therapy.

Γαληνοῦ χαρακτηριάζοντα εἰς Ἱπποκράτην (=II p. 72 Chart.)

Τὰ τῆς τέχνης στοιχεῖα σαφῶς ἀρέσκειν αὐτῷ λέγει τὰ ὅσα ἐναργῆ. συνέστηκεν οὖν, φησίν, ὅ τε ἄνθρωπος καὶ τὰ σύμπαντα ζῷα ἐκ στερεῶν ὑγρῶν καὶ πνευμάτων. οὐκ ἀμοιρεῖ δὲ οὐδ' ἡ τῶν φυτῶν φύσις τῆς τούτων τριγενείας, ἀλλὰ ζῇ τε καὶ αὔξεται καὶ γεννᾷ καὶ φύεται τῇ τούτων συστάσει κατὰ φύσιν, νοσεῖ δὲ καὶ φθίνει καὶ θνῄσκει καὶ αὐαίνεται τῇ τούτων πλημμελείᾳ καὶ διαστάσει.

τὴν μὲν οὖν τῶν στερεῶν σύστασιν ὀστοῖς ἀνατίθησι καὶ νεύροις καὶ χόνδροις, ἤδη δὲ καὶ ὑμένι καὶ ἀρτηρίαις καὶ φλεψί· καὶ γὰρ ταῦτα τοῦ στερεοῦ γένους ἔν τισιν εἶναι λέγει. τῆς δὲ τούτων συμπηγίας καὶ διαπλάσεως, ἑπόμενος τῷ εὐλόγῳ, τὴν κεφαλὴν εἶναι ἀρχὴν συνδοκεῖ. ἀνατέθεικε δὲ τῇ τῶν στερεῶν φύσει τό τε περὶ ἀγμῶν καὶ τὰ περὶ ἄρθρων καὶ τὰ τούτοις ὅμοια· τῷ δὲ πνεύματι τὸ περὶ φυσέων ἰδίως ἐπιγραφόμενον σύγγραμμα· τοῖς δ' ὑγροῖς τὸ περὶ χυμῶν καὶ τὸ περὶ ἀνθρώπου φύσεως, ἤδη δὲ καὶ σποράδην ἐν ἄλλοις· ἔστι δὲ ταῦτα αἷμα καὶ φλέγμα, χολὴ διττή, ξανθὴ καὶ μέλαινα. εἶναι δὲ τὸ μὲν αἷμα τὴν φύσιν ὑγρὸν καὶ θερμὸν καὶ τὴν χρόαν ἐρυθρόν, τὴν δὲ ποιότητα γλυκύ· τὸ δὲ φλέγμα ψυχρὸν καὶ ὑγρὸν καὶ λευκὸν καὶ μᾶλλον ἁλμυρόν· τὴν δὲ ξανθὴν χολὴν θερμήν τε καὶ ξηρὰν καὶ ὠχρὰν καὶ πικράν, τὴν δὲ ἑτέραν ψυχρὰν καὶ ξηρὰν καὶ μέλαιναν καὶ φυκώδη.

ἀρέσκει δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ τὰς ἡλικίας διαιρεῖν εἰς δʹ καὶ τὰς ὥρας τοῦ ἔτους ὁμοίως. πλεονάζειν δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων χυμῶν ἕκαστον ἐν τῇ ἡλικίᾳ καὶ τῇ ὥρᾳ τῇ οἰκείᾳ ἑκάστου. καὶ ἐν μὲν τῇ τῶν παίδων ἡλικίᾳ πλεονάζειν τὸ αἷμα, καὶ τῇ ὥρᾳ τοῦ ἔαρος· ἐν δὲ τῇ τῶν ἀκμαζόντων τὴν ξανθὴν χολήν, καὶ ὥρᾳ θέρους· ἐν δὲ τῇ τῶν παρηβώντων τὴν μέλαιναν, καὶ φθινοπώρῳ· ἐν δὲ τῇ τῶν γερόντων τὸ φλέγμα, καὶ χειμῶνος· ἐοικέναι γὰρ τὰς τῶν χυμῶν φύσεις ταῖς τῶν ὡρῶν. τὸ γοῦν ἔαρ θερμόν τε καὶ ὑγρόν, ὡς τὸ αἷμα· καὶ τὸ θέρος θερμόν τε καὶ ξηρόν· τὸ δὲ μετόπωρον ψυχρόν τε καὶ ξηρόν· ὁ δὲ χειμὼν ψυχρὸς καὶ ὑγρός, ἀναλόγως τοῖς χυμοῖς· κατὰ ταὐτὰ δὲ καὶ τὴν ἡμέραν διαιρεῖ, καὶ τῷ ἀριθμῷ καὶ τῇ φύσει, ὡς ἐν μικρᾷ τῇ ἀναλογίᾳ. καθόλου γε τὰς τῶν ἀνδρῶν φύσεις πρὸς τὰς τῶν γυναικῶν διαφέρειν. εἶναι γὰρ τοὺς μὲν ἐπὶ τὸ θερμότερον καὶ ξηρότερον, τὰς δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ ψυχρότερον καὶ ὑγρότερον. ἐν ἑκάστου δὲ τούτων γένει καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἔχειν μικροτέραν διαφοράν, παρά τε τὰς τῶν χωρίων θέσεις καὶ τὰς τῶν ἀέρων ἰδιότητας καὶ τὰς τῶν διαιτημάτων ἀγωγάς. παρέχειν δὲ καὶ τῶν χυμῶν ἕκαστον ἐν τῇ φύσει τοῦ ἀνθρώπου χρείαν ἐξαίρετον. καὶ τὸ μὲν αἷμα τρέφειν καὶ θερμαίνειν καὶ ὑγραίνειν καὶ εὐχροίας εἶναι ποιητικόν· τὴν δὲ ξανθὴν χολὴν συνέχειν τὸ σῶμα καὶ τοὺς πόρους μὴ ἐᾶν ἐκλύεσθαι, καὶ μυωπίζειν τὴν αἴσθησιν, καὶ συντελεῖν τῇ πέψει, καὶ τὰς ὁδοὺς τῶν ἐκκρίσεων παρέχειν εὐπετεῖς· τὴν δὲ μέλαιναν ἕδραν καὶ οἱονεὶ βάθρον τῶν ἄλλων χυμῶν· τὸ δὲ φλέγμα νεύροις ὑμέσι καὶ χόνδροις καὶ ἄρθροις καὶ γλώττῃ πρὸς τὸ εὔδρομον τῆς κινήσεως.

δοκεῖ δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ σπέρμα πρὸς ζῳογονίαν τό τε τοῦ ἀνδρὸς καὶ τὸ τῆς γυναικὸς ἐπίσης συντελεῖν καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν μελῶν φέρεσθαι τοῦ σώματος. καὶ τὰ μὲν ἄρρενα ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς τῆς μήτρας, τὰ δὲ θήλεα ἐν τοῖς ἀριστεροῖς γεννᾶσθαι. ἰσχύειν δὲ καὶ τὰ δεξιὰ ὡς πρὸς τὰ ἀριστερά, καὶ τὰ ὑπερκείμενα ὡς πρὸς τὰ ὑποκείμενα.

δοκεῖ δ' αὐτῷ καὶ τὰς αἰτίας τῶν νοσημάτων ἃς μὲν ἐκ πληγῶν βιαίων, ἃς δὲ ἐκ τοῦ περιέχοντος εἶναι· τὰς δὲ πλείστας ἐκ τῶν ὑγρῶν τῶν εἰρημένων κατὰ πλῆθος καὶ ἔλλειψιν καὶ μεταβολὴν τὴν κατὰ ποιότητα ἢ τὴν ἐκ τόπου εἰς τόπον.

ἀρέσκει δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ τὰ βοηθήματα εἰσφέρειν ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων ἱσταμένων ταῖς αἰτίαις. τῶν δὲ νοσημάτων ἃ μὲν εἶναι φύσει ὀξέα, ἃ δὲ χρόνια, ἃ δὲ ἐνδοιαστά. γίνεσθαι δὲ ὡς πολὺ ἀπὸ χολῆς καὶ αἵματος καὶ ἡλικίας ἀκμαζούσης καὶ θέρους καὶ ἔαρος τὰ ὀξέα· τὰ δὲ χρόνια ἀπὸ φλέγματος καὶ μελαίνης χολῆς καὶ ἐν πρεσβύταις καὶ χειμῶνι· τὰ δ' ἐνδοιαστά, ὁπόσα μεμιγμένας ἔχει τὰς αἰτίας. ἤδη δὲ καὶ τίνα αὐτῶν σωτήρια καὶ τίνα θανατικά, προγινώσκει· βούλεται δὲ καὶ τὴν πρόγνωσιν καὶ τὴν πρόρρησιν ἀναγκαίαν τε εἶναι πρὸς τὴν τέχνην καὶ διαφέρειν ἀλλήλων. ὅπου μὲν γὰρ προγνῶναι χρὴ μόνον τὸν ἰατρόν, ὅπου δὲ καὶ προειπεῖν ἀσφαλές. διαιρεῖ δὲ τὴν πρόγνωσιν εἴς τε τὰ προγεγονότα καὶ τὰ ἐνεστῶτα τῶν συμπτωμάτων, ὁπόσα † ἔχει πόσην ἀδηλότητα, καὶ εἰς τὰ μέλλοντα.

ἀρέσκει δ' αὐτῷ καὶ τὰς κρισίμους ἡμέρας ἐπεγνωκέναι. γίνεσθαι γὰρ ὡς τὸ πολὺ τὰς μὲν περιττὰς κριτικὰς τῶν ὀξέων νοσημάτων, τὰς δὲ ἀρτίους τῶν χρονίων. καὶ τὰς μὲν θέρους καὶ ἐπὶ νέων καὶ τῶν δεξιῶν μερῶν καὶ τῶν ὑπερκειμένων τὰς περισσάς· τὰς δὲ ἀρτίους ἐπὶ τῶν ἐναντίων. ἤδη δὲ καὶ τοὺς πρωτοπαθοῦντας τόπους εἰδέναι παραινεῖ, ἐκ τῆς τούτων ἐπιγνώσεως οὐ μικρὰν συμβαλλομένης μοῖραν εἰς σημείωσίν τε καὶ θεραπείαν.

Galen, Mixtures 1.3 (8,28-10,3 Helmreich = I 522-523K)

When attacking these kinds of arguments [against the non-existence of hot/wet diseases], some of the followers of Athenaeus of Attalia force the issue, saying there is nothing wrong with a wet and hot condition, and asserting that no illness has been discovered that is wet and hot; rather, in every case [illness] is either hot and dry like fever, cold and wet like dropsy, or cold and dry like melancholia. And they also mention at this point the seasons of the year, asserting that the winter is wet and cold, the summer dry and hot, and the autumn cold and dry, while the spring, they say, is well-mixed, [being] at the same time a hot and wet season.

And so they also say that, of the ages of life, youth is well-mixed and [is] both hot and wet. They consider the good balance of it [sc. youth] to be shown also from [the fact that] the activities of nature are strong especially at this time. And then they also say that death leads the bodies of animals to dryness and cold—at any rate, corpses are called "alibas" because they no longer possess any "libas", i.e., moisture: at the same time, they have been desiccated due to the departure of the hot and solidified by the cooling. 'But if,' they say, 'death is such, then necessarily life, being the opposite of this, will be both hot and wet.' And they say, 'if life is something hot and wet, it is also altogether necessary that the mixture most resembling it [sc. life] be best. But if [it is best], it is altogether clear [that it is] as well-mixed as possible. Therefore, in regard to the same thing, it follows that a well-mixed [person?] has a wet and hot nature and good-mixture is nothing other than the prevalence of the wet and the hot.'

These, then, are the arguments of those around Athenaeus. In a way, the opinion of the philosopher Aristotle and of Theophrastus seems to be the same, and also after them, of the Stoics, so that we are embarrassed by the majority of witnesses. But concerning Aristotle, how he used to understand hot and wet mixture, perhaps, if it is needed, I will explain as the argument proceeds. For they seem to me to have misunderstood him.

πρὸς δὴ τοὺς τοιούτους λόγους ἀπομαχόμενοί τινες τῶν ἀπ' Ἀθηναίου τοῦ Ἀτταλέως ὁμόσε χωροῦσιν οὔτε κατάστασιν ὑγρὰν καὶ θερμὴν μέμφεσθαι λέγοντες οὔθ' εὑρεθῆναί τι νόσημα φάσκοντες ὑγρὸν καὶ θερμόν, ἀλλὰ πάντως ἢ θερμὸν καὶ ξηρὸν ὑπάρχειν ὡς τὸν πυρετόν, ἢ ψυχρὸν καὶ ὑγρὸν ὡς τὸν ὕδερον, ἢ ψυχρὸν καὶ ξηρὸν ὡς τὴν μελαγχολίαν. ἐπιμέμνηνται δ' ἐνταῦθα καὶ τῶν ὡρῶν τοῦ ἔτους, ὑγρὸν μὲν καὶ ψυχρὸν εἶναι τὸν χειμῶνα φάσκοντες, ξηρὸν δὲ καὶ θερμὸν τὸ θέρος καὶ ψυχρὸν καὶ ξηρὸν τὸ φθινόπωρον, εὔκρατον δ' ἅμα καὶ θερμὴν καὶ ὑγρὰν ὥραν εἶναί φασι τὸ ἔαρ.

οὕτω δὲ καὶ τῶν ἡλικιῶν τὴν παιδικὴν εὔκρατον θ' ἅμα καὶ θερμὴν καὶ ὑγρὰν εἶναί φασιν. δηλοῦσθαι δὲ τὴν εὐκρασίαν αὐτῆς νομίζουσι κἀκ τῶν ἐνεργειῶν τῆς φύσεως ἐρρωμένων τηνικαῦτα μάλιστα. καὶ μὲν δὴ καὶ τὸν θάνατόν φασιν εἰς ξηρότητα καὶ ψῦξιν ἄγειν τὰ τῶν ζῴων σώματα. καλεῖσθαι γοῦν ἀλίβαντας τοὺς νεκροὺς ὡς ἂν οὐκέτι λιβάδα καὶ ὑγρότητα κεκτημένους οὐδεμίαν, ἐξατμισθέντας θ' ἅμα διὰ | τὴν ἀποχώρησιν τοῦ θερμοῦ καὶ παγέντας ὑπὸ τῆς ψύξεως. ἀλλ' εἴπερ ὁ θάνατος, φασί, τοιοῦτος, ἀναγκαῖον ἤδη τὴν ζωήν, ὡς ἂν ἐναντίαν οὖσαν αὐτῷ, θερμήν τ' εἶναι καὶ ὑγράν· καὶ μὴν εἴπερ ἡ ζωή, φασί, θερμόν τι χρῆμα καὶ ὑγρόν, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα καὶ τὴν ὁμοιοτάτην αὐτῇ κρᾶσιν ἀρίστην ὑπάρχειν· εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, παντί που δῆλον, ὡς εὐκρατοτάτην, ὥστ' εἰς ταὐτὸ συμβαίνειν ὑγρὰν καὶ θερμὴν φύσιν εὐκράτῳ καὶ μηδὲν ἄλλ' εἶναι τὴν εὐκρασίαν ἢ τῆς ὑγρότητός τε καὶ θερμότητος ἐπικρατούσης.

οἱ μὲν δὴ τῶν ἀμφὶ τὸν Ἀθήναιον λόγοι τοιοίδε. δοκεῖ δέ πως ἡ αὐτὴ δόξα καὶ Ἀριστοτέλους εἶναι τοῦ φιλοσόφου καὶ Θεοφράστου γε μετ' αὐτὸν καὶ τῶν Στωϊκῶν, ὥστε καὶ τῷ πλήθει τῶν μαρτύρων ἡμᾶς δυσωποῦσιν. ἐγὼ δὲ περὶ μὲν Ἀριστοτέλους, ὅπως ἐγίγνωσκεν ὑπὲρ θερμῆς καὶ ὑγρᾶς κράσεως, ἴσως ἄν, εἰ δεηθείην, ἐπὶ προήκοντι τῷ λόγῳ δείξαιμι· δοκοῦσι γάρ μοι παρακούειν αὐτοῦ.