Aristotle on the Difficulty of Keeping Friends Close

As Berlin likely heads into lock-down, a note from Aristotle on friendship. I had buried this passage in a note some time ago, and felt like giving it a bit more room.

“We seek and pray for many friends, and at the same time we say 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. It is also, however, 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

Sacrifices – Plato on Diotima and the Plague of Athens

A reminder for the equinox.

“Alright, then, I'll let you go, and I'll try to describe to you the speech about Eros, which I once heard from a Mantinean woman, Diotima. She was wise about these and many other things. In fact, ten years before the plague, she held off that sickness by telling the Athenians what they needed to sacrifice. And she even taught me the art of love.”

καὶ σὲ μέν γε ἤδη ἐάσω: τὸν δὲ λόγον τὸν περὶ τοῦ Ἔρωτος, ὅν ποτ᾽ ἤκουσα γυναικὸς Μαντινικῆς Διοτίμας, ἣ ταῦτά τε σοφὴ ἦν καὶ ἄλλα πολλά—καὶ Ἀθηναίοις ποτὲ θυσαμένοις πρὸ τοῦ λοιμοῦ δέκα ἔτη ἀναβολὴν ἐποίησε τῆς νόσου, ἣ δὴ καὶ ἐμὲ τὰ ἐρωτικὰ ἐδίδαξεν—ὃν οὖν ἐκείνη ἔλεγε λόγον, πειράσομαι ὑμῖν διελθεῖν...

Plato, Symposium 201D

More on Providential Ecology from Herodotus and Plato

Yes, more providential ecology. Herodotus and Plato explain why some animals have many babies, others do not. Also, flying snakes.

Wise Gods

“And, it’s reasonable to suppose that divine providence, since it is wise, set things up so that all the timid and edible animals produce many offspring in order that they would not go extinct by all being eaten up; while all the savage and violent animals are able to produce only a few offspring.”

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.

Herodotus, Histories, 3.108.2

“[Epimetheus] devised these things, taking care that no animal species goes extinct: when he had provided them a way to avoid destroying each other, he devised protection from the seasonal weather sent by Zeus, by clothing them in thick hair and solid hides, which are enough to keep off the winter cold, and also able to ward off burning heat; and, when they go home to their lairs, these same clothes serve as a proper and natural bed-cushion for them all. And to some he gave hooves, to others claws and thick, bloodless hides. Then, he provided them with various foods: to some, grass from the earth; others, fruits from trees; others, roots. There are also those to whom he gave other animals to eat as food, and to them he bestowed few offspring, while to those consumed by them, many offspring, ensuring the survival of the species.”

ταῦτα δὲ ἐμηχανᾶτο εὐλάβειαν ἔχων μή τι γένος ἀϊστωθείη· ἐπειδὴ δὲ αὐτοῖς ἀλληλοφθοριῶν διαφυγὰς ἐπήρκεσε, πρὸς τὰς ἐκ Διὸς ὥρας εὐμάρειαν ἐμηχανᾶτο ἀμφιεννὺς αὐτὰ πυκναῖς τε θριξὶν καὶ στερεοῖς δέρμασιν, ἱκανοῖς μὲν ἀμῦναι χειμῶνα, δυνατοῖς δὲ καὶ καύματα, καὶ εἰς εὐνὰς ἰοῦσιν ὅπως ὑπάρχοι τὰ αὐτὰ ταῦτα στρωμνὴ οἰκεία τε καὶ αὐτοφυὴς ἑκάστῳ· καὶ ὑποδῶν τὰ μὲν ὁπλαῖς, τὰ δὲ <ὄνυξι> καὶ δέρμασιν στερεοῖς καὶ ἀναίμοις. τοὐντεῦθεν τροφὰς ἄλλοις ἄλλας ἐξεπόριζεν, τοῖς μὲν ἐκ γῆς βοτάνην, ἄλλοις δὲ δένδρων καρπούς, τοῖς δὲ ῥίζας· ἔστι δ᾽ οἷς ἔδωκεν εἶναι τροφὴν ζῴων ἄλλων βοράν· καὶ τοῖς μὲν ὀλιγογονίαν προσῆψε, τοῖς δ᾽ ἀναλισκομένοις ὑπὸ τούτων πολυγονίαν, σωτηρίαν τῷ γένει πορίζων.

Plato, Protagoras, 321A–B

The Mating Habits of Vipers and the Winged Snakes of Arabia*

“As for vipers and the winged snakes of Arabia, if they came about as their nature would have it, living would be impossible for human beings; in fact, however, when the vipers mate, at the very moment when the male ejaculates, once he emits the seed, the female grabs his throat, bites down, and does not let go until she has eaten through. And while the male dies in the way we just described, the female gets paid back for it by the male. Seeking revenge for their father, the offspring, while they are still in the belly, chew through their mother and eat through her womb, thus making their escape. The other snakes, however, since they are not harmful to people, lay eggs and hatch a great clutch of offspring.”

ὣς δὲ καὶ οἱ ἔχιδναί τε καὶ οἱ ἐν Ἀραβίοισι ὑπόπτεροι ὄφιες εἰ ἐγίνοντο ὡς ἡ φύσις αὐτοῖσι ὑπάρχει, οὐκ ἂν ἦν βιώσιμα ἀνθρώποισι: νῦν δ᾽ ἐπεὰν θορνύωνται κατὰ ζεύγεα καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ ᾖ ὁ ἔρσην τῇ ἐκποιήσι, ἀπιεμένου αὐτοῦ τὴν γονὴν ἡ θήλεα ἅπτεται τῆς δειρῆς, καὶ ἐμφῦσα οὐκ ἀνιεῖ πρὶν ἂν διαφάγῃ. ὁ μὲν δὴ ἔρσην ἀποθνήσκει τρόπῳ τῷ εἰρημένῳ, ἡ δὲ θήλεα τίσιν τοιήνδε ἀποτίνει τῷ ἔρσενι: τῷ γονέι τιμωρέοντα ἔτι ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ ἐόντα τὰ τέκνα διεσθίει τὴν μητέρα, διαφαγόντα δὲ τὴν νηδὺν αὐτῆς οὕτω τὴν ἔκδυσιν ποιέεται. οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι ὄφιες ἐόντες ἀνθρώπων οὐ δηλήμονες τίκτουσί τε ᾠὰ καὶ ἐκλέπουσι πολλόν τι χρῆμα τῶν τέκνων.

Herodotus, Histories, 3.108.2–3

“Megasthenes says that in India there are winged scorpions of immense size, and that their sting is similar to that of European ones. And that in the same place, there are also snakes with wings, and that they come around not during the day but at night, and they emit from themselves a urine, which, immediately produces decay when it falls on someone’s body.”

Μεγασθένης φησὶ κατὰ τὴν Ἰνδικὴν σκορπίους γίνεσθαι πτερωτοὺς μεγέθει μεγίστους, τὸ κέντρον δὲ ἐγχρίμπτειν τοῖς Εὐρωπαίοις παραπλησίως. γίνεσθαι δὲ καὶ ὄφεις αὐτόθι καὶ τούτους πτηνούς· ἐπιφοιτᾶν δὲ οὐ μεθ' ἡμέραν ἀλλὰ νύκτωρ, καὶ ἀφιέναι ἐξ αὑτῶν οὖρον, ὅπερ οὖν ἐὰν κατά τινος ἐπιστάξῃ σώματος, σῆψιν ἐργάζεται παραχρῆμα.

Aelian, Nature of Animals, 16.41

*So, I guess winged serpents are more like cobras, less like flying snakes? More curious is the contrast Herodotus implies between what an animal does by its own nature, and what it does because of divine providence. Is the idea that the divine intervenes in how animals act and interact, but doesn’t make them what they are?

Via getty images

Pseudo-Galen, what is a soul and what is a body?

“29. According to Plato, soul is a self-moving incorporeal substance. According to the Stoics, however, it is a subtle body moving out of itself according to seminal principles, while according to Aristotle, it is the actuality of a natural instrumental body potentially having life. Alternatively, soul is pneuma distributed through the whole body, through which we live and reason and act by means of the other senses, the body being its servant.*

30. Body is magnitude three times extended, having in itself height, depth and breadth.** Or, it is magnitude composed of three dimensions.”

κθʹ. ψυχή ἐστιν οὐσία ἀσώματος, αὐτοκίνητος κατὰ Πλάτωνα. κατὰ δὲ τοὺς Στωϊκοὺς σῶμα λεπτομερὲς ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ κινούμενον κατὰ σπερματικοὺς λόγους. κατὰ δὲ τὸν Ἀριστοτέλη ἐντελέχεια σώματος φυσικοῦ ὀργανικοῦ δυνάμει ζωὴν ἔχοντος. ἄλλως. ψυχή ἐστι πνεῦμα παρεσπαρμένον ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ σώματι δι' οὗ ζῶμεν καὶ λογιζόμεθα καὶ ταῖς λοιπαῖς αἰσθήσεσιν ἐνεργοῦμεν ὑπηρετοῦντος τοῦ σώματος.

λʹ. σῶμά ἐστι μέγεθος τριχῇ διάστατον ἔχον ἐν ἑαυτῷ μῆκος, βάθος, πλάτος. ἢ μέγεθος ἐκ τριῶν διαστημάτων συνεστηκός.

[Galen], Medical Definitions 29 and 30, 19.355–356 K

*cf. Anonymus Londinensis:

“‘Soul’ is said in three ways: that which pervades the whole body, and the rational part, and further the entrecheia (i.e., ἐντελέχεια, probably).”

ψυχὴ δὲ λέγεται τριχῶς·
[ἥ τε] τῶι ὅλωι σώματι παρεσπαρ-
μ̣ένη καὶ τὸ μόριον τὸ λογιστικὸν
[κ]αὶ ἔτι ἡ ἐντρέχεια. * καὶ τῆς μ(ὲν) ἐντρε-
[χ]είας ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος οὐ χρῄζομεν,
[τ]ῶν δὲ ἄλλων δύο σημαινομένων,
[κα]ὶ μᾶλλον το̣ῦ λο̣γιστ̣ικοῦ.

Anonymus Londinensis I,21-24

**Cf. Apollodorus ap. Diogenes Laertius:

“Body is defined by Apollodorus in his Physics as that which is extended in three dimensions, length, breadth, and depth. This is also called solid body.”

σῶμα δ’ ἐστίν, ὥς φησιν Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τῇ Φυσικῇ, τὸ τριχῆ διαστατόν, εἰς μῆκος, εἰς πλάτος, εἰς βάθος· τοῦτο δὲ καὶ στερεὸν σῶμα καλεῖται.

Diog. Laert. 7.175

Plato on Providence in Laws X

More on providence: the theodicy from Plato’s Laws. Plato doesn’t say the divine punishes or spites people for failing to be as virtuous as they could be. Instead, he says the cosmic ruler figures out where people with less-than-perfect characters in this life are most likely to succeed in the next one, and makes sure that’s where they end up. Didn’t make it as a good human? No problem—in the next round, maybe you can make it as a good bird or fish. The idea is that the cosmos has been set up so that we’re always given a chance to excel, not just for our own sake, but for the sake of being a part of a process of making everything as good as possible.

“Athenian: This. When the ruler of the cosmos saw that all our actions are ensouled, and that in them there is much virtue and much vice, and that soul and body, once they came into existence, were indestructible—for, had either of them been destroyed, there would never have been a generation of animals—, but they were not eternal like the customary gods, and when he saw by how much the good of the soul is always by nature beneficial, and the evil harmful—when he saw all these things, he determined where, if placed, each individual would make virtue victorious and vice defeated in the universe. And he made it so that, depending on what we are like, we must make our home always in a certain abode and ever in certain places. The causes of becoming the way we are, however, he left to our individual choices. For how we desire and what our soul is like—in just about every case, all of us for the most part come to be the way we are by this.”

ΑΘ. Ὧδε. ἐπειδὴ κατεῖδεν ἡμῶν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐμψύχους οὔσας τὰς πράξεις ἁπάσας καὶ πολλὴν μὲν ἀρετὴν ἐν αὐταῖς οὖσαν, πολλὴν δὲ κακίαν, ἀνώλεθρον δὲ ὂν γενόμενον, ἀλλ' οὐκ αἰώνιον, ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα, καθάπερ οἱ κατὰ νόμον ὄντες θεοί – γένεσις γὰρ οὐκ ἄν ποτε ἦν ζῴων ἀπολομένου τούτοιν θατέρου – καὶ τὸ μὲν ὠφελεῖν ἀεὶ πεφυκός, ὅσον ἀγαθὸν ψυχῆς, διενοήθη, τὸ δὲ κακὸν βλάπτειν· ταῦτα πάντα συνιδών, ἐμηχανήσατο ποῦ κείμενον ἕκαστον τῶν μερῶν νικῶσαν ἀρετήν, ἡττωμένην δὲ κακίαν, ἐν τῷ παντὶ παρέχοι μάλιστ' ἂν καὶ ῥᾷστα καὶ ἄριστα. μεμηχάνηται δὴ πρὸς πᾶν τοῦτο τὸ ποῖόν τι γιγνόμενον ἀεὶ ποίαν ἕδραν δεῖ μεταλαμβάνον οἰκίζεσθαι καὶ τίνας ποτὲ τόπους· τῆς δὲ γενέσεως τοῦ ποίου τινὸς ἀφῆκε ταῖς βουλήσεσιν ἑκάστων ἡμῶν τὰς αἰτίας. ὅπῃ γὰρ ἂν ἐπιθυμῇ καὶ ὁποῖός τις ὢν τὴν ψυχήν, ταύτῃ σχεδὸν ἑκάστοτε καὶ τοιοῦτος γίγνεται ἅπας ἡμῶν ὡς τὸ πολύ.

Plato, Laws 904A6–C4

Reading with Galen: when good authors say false things

Another one Maria pointed out to me.

Idola theatri

“Whenever an obviously false statement is found in the writings of an intelligent author, it’s normal for their students to become puzzled. At first, they doubt themselves and do not trust that they understand what is obvious; then, after a while, they suspect something of what they are reading is false.”

Ὁπόταν ἐν ἀνδρὸς φρονίμου συγγράμματι λόγος εὑρεθῇ προφανῶς ψευδής, εἰκότως ἀπορεῖσθαι συμβαίνει τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας αὐτόν, καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπιστεῖν, ὡς μηδὲ τὰ φανερά γινώσκουσι, εἶθ᾿ ἑξῆς ὑποπτεύειν, μή τι τῶν ὑποκειμένων ψευδὲς εἴη.

Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates’ Aphorisms 6.34, 18A.55 Kühn

The aphorism in question…

“Bald people do not get large varicose veins; bald people who do get varicose veins grow their hair back again.”

Ὁκόσοι φαλακροὶ, τουτέοισι κιρσοὶ μεγάλοι οὐ γίνονται· ὁκόσοισι δὲ φαλακροῖσιν ἐοῦσιν κιρσοὶ γίνονται, πάλιν οὗτοι γίνονται δασέες.

Aphorisms 6.34, 4.570 Littré

Before we begin: Aetius of Amida’s Medical Books

Continuing the introductions of the major medical compilations, this time Aetius of Amida’s Medical Books (Libri Medicinales).

Other People’s Introductions

If Aetius wrote an introduction to his work, it no longer exists. Instead, we get notes scribbled in manuscripts, some with summaries of the whole work, some just the first two books. One day, I might get around to posting translations of the more complete ones. For now, here’s an example of a shorter one from the title page of Codex Parisinus suppl. gr. 1240, fol. 5r:

“Aetius Amidenus’ (Comes Obsiquii) Book of 16 Medical Discussions

He has summarized from the three books of Oribasius, which he wrote to Julian, to Eustathius, and to Eunapius, and from the therapeutic [works] of Galen, Archigenes, Ruphos; furthermore, of Disocorides, Herodotos, Soranos, Philagrios, Philonos, Philoumenos, Posidonios, and some other notable ancient physicians.”

ΑΕΤΙΟΥ ΑΜΙΔΗΝΟΥ ΚΟΜΗΤΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΟΨΙΚΙΟΥ ΛΟΓΩΝ ΙΑΤΡΙΚΩΝ ις ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ

συνοπισθὲν ἐκ τῶν τριῶν βιβλίων Ὀριβασίου ὧν ἔγραψε πρὸς Ἰουλιανὸν καὶ πρὸς Εὐστάθιον καὶ πρὸς Εὐνάπιον ἔκ τε τῶν θεραπευτικῶν Γαληνοῦ καὶ Ἀρχιγένους καὶ Ῥουφου, ἔτι δὲ καὶ Διοσκορίδου καὶ Ἡροδότου καὶ Σωρανοῦ Φιλαγρίου τε καὶ Φίλωνος καὶ Φιλουμένου καὶ Ποσειδονίου καὶ ἑτέρων τινῶν ἀρχαίων ἰατρῶν ἐπισήμων.

Cod. Par. suppl. gr. 1240, fol. 5r

Sometimes, individual books get an introduction as well. Here’s an example from Parisinus gr. 2193, fol. 1r, its crimson ink here rendered reproduction-grey:

“Aetius’ first book contains material from Galen’s introductory remarks about the four orders of each kind of simple drug, and how, from their taste, smell and color, to infer the power of each of the simples.”

Τάδε ἔνεστιν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ λόγῳ Ἀετίου ἐκ τῶν Γαληνοῡ προοιμίων περὶ τῶν τεσσάρων τάξεων ἑκάστου γένους τῶν ἁπλῶν φαρμάκων καὶ ὅπως χρὴ ἔκ τε γεύσεως καὶ τῆς ὀσμῆς καὶ τῆς χροιᾶς τεκμαίρεσθαι τὴν ἑκαστου τῶν ἁπλῶν δύναμιν.

Cod. Par. gr. 2193, fol. 1r

Copy-Paste

We do have something of an introduction to the first and second of the sixteen Medical Books, although it is a bit abrupt. The first two books form a unit on pharmacology: they present excerpts of what Galen (and a few others) wrote about simple drugs of vegetable, mineral and animal origin. It is like a big list of ingredients for use in recipes, one which describes the medicinal properties of each plant, animal or stone, so that you know which to mix together for different ailments.

Galen’s and Aetius’ pharmacology have very different aims. For Galen, the study of simple drugs was about discovery: how to discover and prove the presence of different medicinal properties in different things. Aetius’ aims are practical. Taking Galen’s investigations for granted, he simply states the properties of drugs Galen has already proved. Galen did research. Aetius applies it.

In his introduction, Aetius does something new, as well, taking what Galen has written about how to use taste, smell and sight to discover the properties of plants, and producing a kind of cut-and-paste rearrangement. His goal seems to have been to teach people how to judge the quality of different herbs. Whereas Galen’s procedure was something like,

“if pennywort in general tastes like this, then pennywort has this medicinal property.”

Aetius’ is more like,

“if this particular basil or pennywort is any good, then it will taste like this.”

Galen’s procedure is pretty important if you are trying to set up a science of pharmacology. Aetius’ procedure is important if you want to know whether the cinnamon the huckster is selling you is any good.

His introduction begins like this:

“The differences of the individual activities in each drug result from the extent to which each is hot or cold, dry or wet, and made of fine or coarse parts. The extent that they reach in each of the categories mentioned is not able to be put into words, at least in terms of the most precise truth of the matter; but, we have tried to demarcate [the extent] with boundaries that are sufficiently clear for the art’s practical use [...]”

αἱ διαφοραὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἐνεργειῶν ἐν ἑκάστῳ τῶν φαρμάκων γίγνονται τῷ ἐπὶ τοσόνδε θερμὸν ἢ ψυχρὸν ἢ ξηρὸν ἢ ὑγρὸν ἢ λεπτομερὲς ἢ παχυμερὲς ὑπάρχειν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν. τὸ δὲ ἐπὶ τοσόνδε προήκειν ἐν ἑκάστῳ τῶν εἰρημένων ἄρρητόν ἐστιν πρός γε τὴν ἀκριβεστάτην ἀλήθειαν. ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς καὶ αὐτὸ περιλαβεῖν ἐπειράθημεν ὅροις σαφέσιν ἱκανοῖς εἰς τὴν χρείαν τῆς τέχνης [...]

Aetius Amidenus, Libri Medicinales, book I, proem, 17,2–7 Olivieri

Which is originally taken from the seventh book of Galen’s work On The Powers of Simple Drugs:

“What will be discussed in this and the books that remain after it are the primary powers of plants, since the order of instruction we are presenting here follows the alphabetical order with which we started. In the previous book, therefore, we got as far as the letter I; in this one, we will make a start with the letter K to the extent we mentioned before, that we will refer everything back to the principles which we demonstrated previously. For from the extent to which each drug is hot or cold, wet or dry, and made of fine or coarse parts, the differences of the particular activities result; and the extent that they reach in each of the previously mentioned categories is not able to be put into words, at least in terms of the most precise truth of the matter; but, we have tried to demarcate [the extent] with boundaries that are sufficiently clear for the art’s practical use [...]”

εἰρήσονται δ' ἐν τούτῳ τῷ βιβλίῳ καὶ τῷ μετ' αὐτὸ τῶν ὑπολοίπων φυτῶν αἱ πρῶται δυνάμεις, τὴν τάξιν τῆς διδασκαλίας κᾀνταῦθα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν τῶν γραμμάτων ποιησαμένων ἡμῶν, ἀφ' ὧν ἄρχονται. ἐν μὲν οὖν τῷ πρὸ τοῦδε μέχρι τοῦ ι προήλθομεν· ἐνταυθοῖ δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ κ ποιησόμεθα τοσοῦτον ἔτι προαναμνήσαντες, ὡς εἰς τὰς προαποδεδειγμένας ἀρχὰς ἀνάξομεν ἅπαντα· τῷ γὰρ ἐπὶ τοσόνδε θερμὸν ἢ ψυχρὸν, ἢ ὑγρὸν ἢ ξηρὸν, ἢ λεπτομερὲς ἢ παχυμερὲς ὑπάρχειν ἕκαστον τῶν φαρμάκων αἱ διαφοραὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἐνεργειῶν αὐτῶν γίγνονται, τὸ δ' ἐπὶ τοσόνδε προήκειν ἐν ἑκάστῳ τῶν προειρημένων ἄῤῥητόν ἐστι πρός γε τὴν ἀκριβεστάτην ἀλήθειαν. ἀλλ' ἡμεῖς καὶ τοῦτο περιλαβεῖν ἐπειράθημεν ὅροις σαφέσιν, ἱκανοῖς εἰς τὴν χρείαν τῆς τέχνης [...]

Galen, De simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis et facultatibus, book 7, proem, 12.2 Kühn

In Your Own Words

There is, however, one sentence in the introduction that has no parallel. It comes towards the end and might be Aetius’ own words:

“I will give a summary under separate headings of all these [capacities and activities], and likewise of several others that are especially useful, after I have finished going over, as much as possible, the general capacities and activities species by species.”

τούτων δὲ ἁπάντων ὥσπερ καὶ ἑτέρων τινῶν χρησιμωτάτων ἐν κεφαλαίῳ τὴν σύνοψιν ποιήσομαι, μετὰ τὸ διελθεῖν με κατ’ εἶδος ὡς οἷόν τε τὰς καθόλου δυνάμεις τε ἑκάστου καὶ ἐνεργείας.

Aetius Amidenus, Libri Medicinales, book I, proem, 29,28–30 Olivieri

A Prayer to Isis

Meditation for a friend who saw something else in me, who died last week.

---

“Oh holy and eternal comfort of humankind, who ever nurtures mortals with your generosity, you apply a mother’s sweet affection to the misfortunes of the wretched. Not a day or night or even a little moment goes by indifferent to your blessing.

“You protect men on land and sea. Driving away life’s storms, you reach out with your saving hand and you unwind the threads of the Fates, even those that are inextricably twisted. You calm the tempests of Fortune and you restrain the hurtful course of the stars.

“The spirits above honour you, the ones below worship you. You turn the sphere of heaven, you give light to the sun, you govern the universe, and you keep Tartarus at bay. To you, the heavenly bodies reply, the seasons return, the divine power gives praise, and the elements give their devotion.

“At your command, the winds give breath, the clouds nourish, the seeds of the earth sprout forth, and their seedlings grow. At your greatness tremble the birds moving in the sky, the beasts wandering the hills, the serpents hiding in the den, and the monsters that swim in the deep.

“My nature, however, is too feeble to speak your praises, my inheritance too meager to offer you sacrifices. My voice does not have the power to say what I feel about your greatness—nor would a thousand mouths and as many tongues, or even an eternal flow of indefatigable speech.

“I will, therefore, take care to do the only thing a pious but poor person can do: I will hold your divine expression and your most holy will in the secret places of my heart, forever keeping them and remembering.”

‘Tu quidem, sancta et humani generis sospitatrix perpetua, semper fouendis mortalibus munifica, dulcem matris affectionem miserorum casibus tribuis. Nec dies nec quies ulla ac ne momentum quidem tenue tuis transcrrit beneficiis otiosum, quin mari terraque protegas homines et depulsis uitae procellis salutarem porrigas dexteram, qua fatorum etiam inextricabiliter contorta retractas licia, et Fortunae tempestates mitigas, et stellarum noxios meatus cohibes. Te superi colunt, obseruant inferi. Tu rotas orbem, luminas solem, regis mundum, calcas Tartarum. Tibi respondent sidera, redeunt tempora, gaudent numina, seruiunt elementa. Tuo nutu spirant flamina, nutriunt nubila, germinant semina, crescunt germina. Tuam maiestatem perhorrescunt aues caelo meantes, ferae montibus errantes, serpentes solo latentes, beluae ponto natantes. At ego referendis laudibus tuis exilis ingenio et adhibendis sacrificiis tenuis patrimonio; nec mihi uocis ubertas ad dicenda quae de ta maiestate sentio sufficit, nec ora mille linguaeque totidem uel indefessi sermonis aeterna series. Ergo quod solum potest, religiosus quidem sed pauper alioquin, efficere curabo: diuinos tuos uultus numenque sanctissimum intra pectoris mei secreta conditum perpetuo custodiens imaginabor.’

Apuleius, Metamorphoses XI 25

Forever Young

A while ago, I posted a bit of the Pseudo-Lucian’s Long Lives (Macrobii), a funny little book telling the stories of famous people who lived a long life through diet and exercise. Like this one:

“Ariathes, the king of Kappadokia, lived 82 years according to Hieronymos. Maybe he would have lived longer if he hadn’t been captured and crucified during the war against Perdikkas.”

Ἀριαράθης δὲ ὁ Καππαδοκῶν βασιλεὺς δύο μὲν καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα ἔζησεν ἔτη, ὡς Ἱερώνυμος ἱστορεῖ: ἐδυνήθη δὲ ἴσως καὶ ἐπὶ πλέον διαγενέσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ πρὸς Περδίκκαν μάχῃ ζωγρηθεὶς ἀνεσκολοπίσθη.

Pseudo-Lucian, Macrobii 13

There seems to have been a whole genre on this topic in antiquity and even into the Renaissance — my sister tells me Ficino’s De vita is essentially advice about how scholars can live a long life …

Here’s another example of the genre, this time from Galen’s On Wasting Away (De marcore):

---

Actually, a contemporary philosopher wrote a book showing how it is possible for someone to stay young forever. He published the book when he was forty, but he lived until he was eighty, at which point he was so withered and dry that he himself fit the description in the Hippocratic Prognostics:

“…nose sharp, eyes hollow, temples collapsed, ears cold and drawn in and the ear lobes curled up, and the area around the forehead dry and stretched and wrinkled.” (Hipp. Prog. 2.5, 2.115 Littré)

He was laughed at for trying to teach other people how to stay young when he looked the way he did. And so he put out a second edition of On the Marvellous Eternal Youth (for that’s also what he called it throughout the book), in which he showed that it wasn’t possible for every person to stay forever young, but that one needs to have the right nature and to be given a solid foundation from their earliest upbringing. And he proclaimed that if he were in charge of raising children with a suitable nature right from the start, he would make their bodies immortal.

Now, his claim couldn’t be tested, since he would be dead before the kids he was taking care of grew up. And so everyone else thought he was extremely foolish, but not me, since I alone recognized that many reasonable men, tricked by the plausibility of the arguments, hold many other opinions that are inconsistent with what is known through experience.

There is, then, nothing that marvellous about this argument. For the claim that everything born will be thoroughly corrupted is neither a scientific nor a necessary conclusion, but only goes as far as being probable, as I have shown in On Demonstration, even if just about everyone uses this argument when they point out that it is necessary for living things to age, saying that everything born is on the path to its subsequent and necessary destruction.

καί τοί τις τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς φιλοσόφων ἔγραψε βιβλίον, ἐπιδεικνὺς ὅπως ἔνεστιν ἀγήρων τινὰ διαμεῖναι τὸ πάμπαν. ἐξέδωκε μὲν οὖν τὸ βιβλίον ἔτι τεσσαρακοντούτης ὢν, παρέτεινε δὲ μέχρι καὶ τῶν ὀγδοήκοντα ἐτῶν, καὶ ἦν οὕτως ἰσχνός τε καὶ ξηρὸς, ὡς ἁρμόζειν ἐπ' αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐκ τοῦ προγνωστικοῦ Ἱπποκράτειον ῥῆσιν, ῥὶς ὀξεῖα, ὀφθαλμοὶ κοῖλοι, κρόταφοι ξυμπεπτωκότες, ὦτα ψυχρὰ, καὶ συνεσταλμένα, καὶ οἱ λοβοὶ τῶν ὤτων ἀπεστραμμένοι, καὶ τὸ περὶ τὸ μέτωπον ξηρόν τε καὶ περιτεταμένον, καὶ καρφαλέον ἐόν. ἐπεὶ τοίνυν ἐγελᾶτο τοιοῦτος φαινόμενος, ὅτι ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους ἐπεχείρησε διδάσκειν, ὅπως ἄν τις ἀγήρως διαμείνῃ, δευτέραν ἔκδοσιν ἐποιήσατο περὶ τῆς θαυμαστῆς ἀγηρασίας, οὕτω γὰρ αὐτὴν καὶ ὠνόμασε διὰ τοῦ συγγράμματος, ἐπιδεικνὺς, ὡς οὐ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἀγήρως δύναται διαμένειν, ἀλλὰ δέοι μὲν εἰς τοῦτο καὶ φύσιν ἔχειν ἐπιτηδείαν, μάλιστα δ' ὧν ἡ πρώτη τροφὴ τοιαῦτα βάλλοιτο θεμέλια, καὶ ἐπηγγείλατο τῶν ἐπιτηδείων εἰς τοῦτο βρεφῶν εὐθὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς αὐτὸς ἐπιστατῶν, ἀθάνατα αὐτῶν ποιήσειν τὰ σώματα. καὶ ἦν ἀνεξέλεγκτον αὐτοῦ τὸ ἐπάγγελμα· πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἀνδρωθῆναι τοὺς παῖδας, οὓς παρελάμβανεν, ἔμελλεν αὐτὸς τεθνήξεσθαι. οἱ μὲν οὖν ἄλλοι πάντες ἐσχάτην μωρίαν αὐτοῦ κατεγίνωσκον, ἐγὼ δὲ οὒ, [μόνον] εἰδὼς, ὅτι πολλὰ καὶ ἄλλα δόγματα τοῖς διὰ τῆς ἐμπειρίας ἐγνωσμένοις μαχόμενα πολλοὶ τῶν λογικῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀπεφήναντο τῇ πιθανότητι τῶν λόγων ἐξαπατηθέντες. οὐκ οὖν οὐδὲ τοῦτο θαυμαστόν ἐστιν ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ. τὸ γὰρ ὅτι τὸ γεννητὸν πᾶν φθαρήσεται πάντως οὔτ' ἐπιστημονικὴν οὔτ' ἀναγκαίαν ἔχει τὴν ἀκολουθίαν, ἀλλ' ἄχρι τοῦ πιθανοῦ προϊοῦσαν, ὡς ἐν τῷ περὶ ἀποδείξεως ἀποδέδεικται, καίτοι γε τούτῳ χρῶνται τῷ λόγῳ σχεδὸν ἅπαντες, ὅσοι τὸ γηράσκειν ἀναγκαῖον ἐπιδεικνύουσι τοῖς ζώοις, ὁδὸν εἶναι φάσκοντες αὐτὸ πρὸς τὴν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἑπομένην φθορὰν τοῖς γεννητοῖς ἅπασιν.

Galen, On Marasmus (De marcore liber | Γαλήνου Περὶ μαρασμοῦ βιβλίον), 7.760–2 Kühn

*On the identity of the contemporary philosopher, Theoharides offers this note in his translation:

Philipp sounds like a cool guy. He’s often named alongside Archigenes and he seems to have written about a state of old age brought about by illness; but, it makes no sense to me to say he’s the philosopher mentioned here.

Galen mentions Philipp all over the place—Theoharides’ note points to six instances in this treatise alone. Why would he refrain from saying his name here? And if Philipp is a doctor, why here would he call him a philosopher? Am I missing something?

The other place this contemporary philosopher shows up is in Galen’s Matters of Health:

“For, it is not possible that what is born be imperishable, even if a contemporary philosopher desperately tried to show this in his incredible treatise, where he teaches the path to immortality.”

ἄφθαρτον μὲν γὰρ ποιῆσαι τὸ γεννητὸν οὐχ οἷόν τε, κἂν ὅτι μάλιστα τῶν καθ’ ημᾶς τις νῦν ἀνὴρ φιλόσοφος ἐπειρᾶτο δεικνύναι τοῦτο διὰ τοῦ θαυμασίου τούτου συγγράμματος, ἐν ᾧ διδάσκει τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς ἀθανασίας.

Galen, De sanitate tuenda 1.12, 6.63 Kühn

He shows up again at the end of Matters of Health, where Galen calls him (probably not as an insult) a sophist:

“So, if it were really possible to preserve a moist mixture of the body forever, then the argument of the sophist—the one who claimed he would make the person who believed him immortal, which I went over at the beginning—would be true. But since, as we’ve shown, it is not possible for the body to avoid nature’s path to being dried out, it is therefore necessary that we grow old and die, while the one who is the least dried out would be the longest lived.”

ὡς, εἴγε δυνατὸν ἦν ἀεὶ διαφυλάττειν ὑγρὰν τὴν κρᾶσιν τοῦ σώματος, ὁ τοῦ σοφιστοῦ λόγος, ὃν ἐν ἀρχῇ διῆλθον, ἀθάνατον ἐπαγγελλομένου ποιήσειν τὸν αὐτῷ πειθόμενον, ἀληθὴς ἦν. ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ τὴν φυσικὴν ὁδὸν τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ ξηραίνεσθαι τὸ σῶμα φυγεῖν οὐκ ἔστιν, ὡς ἐδείχθη, διὰ τοῦτο γηρᾶν ἀναγκαῖον ἡμῖν ἐστι καὶ φθείρεσθαι, πολυχρονιώτατος δ’ ἂν ὁ ἥκιστα ξηραινόμενος γένοιτο.

Galen, De sanitate tuenda 6.3, 6.399-400 Kühn

I haven’t found anyone who has noticed Galen contradicts himself in the two works. In De marcore he says there’s no necessity that what is born will die—a good position for a Platonist to hold, or at least for anyone who thinks the cosmos is created but imperishable. PN Singer told me he thinks Galen’s position in De sanitate tuenda may be meant to be restricted to non-celestial matters—that Galen is likely talking about death being necessary in the way he attributes to ‘just about everybody’ in De marcore. Still, he’s not explicit about it and I wonder if Galen put much thought into it. I mean, he’s a doctor, right? How much thought do doctor’s today put into arguments for immortality?

---

Conspiracy Theories

After a couple years’ work, Maria Βörno and I are finishing up a paper about the criteria Galen uses to decide when a work should or should not be attributed to Hippocrates. Galen’s work on this, On the Genuine and Spurious Writings of Hippocrates (Περὶ τῶν γνησίων τε καὶ νόθων Ἱπποκράτους συγγραμμάτων), is lost, but Maria is preparing a critical edition of Galen’s commentary on the seventh book of the Aphorisms, which is a great source for examples of how Galen attacks earlier Hippocratic interpreters’ attributions.

Maria found this one, where Galen invents something like a conspiracy theory explaining why the seventh book is full of spurious material (we give Kühn’s text below):

“Still, I think the people who interpolated these aphorisms composed them using these words for the following reason: to make the passage confusing, like an enigma, and need a lot of research, at which point they can position themselves as interpreters of what was said and gain the respect of the youth. Just from looking at this aphorism, it should be obvious to you that all of these unclear passages provide the sophists a pretext for garrulity.”

ἀλλ᾽ οἱ τούτους τοὺς ἀφορισμοὺς παρενθέντες δοκοῦσί μοι χάριν αὐτοῦ τούτοις συνθεῖναι, τοῦ συγκεχύσθαι τε τὸν λόγον, ὥσπερ αἴνιγμα, καὶ δεῖσθαι ζητήσεως πολλῆς, ἐν ᾗ καθιστάντες ἑαυτοὺς ἐξηγητὰς τῶν λεγομένων εὐδοκιμοῦσι παρὰ τοῖς μειρακίοις. ὅτι δὲ οἱ λόγοι πάντες οἱ ἀσαφεῖς ἀφορμὰς πολυλογίας παρέχουσι τοῖς σοφισταῖς δῆλον ἔσται σοι κατ᾽ αὐτὸν τοῦτον τὸν ἀφορισμόν.

Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates’ Aphorisms VII 69 (XVIIIA 184–185 K.)