Aromatherapy in Ancient Egypt and Greece

My friend Dora Goldsmith is an Egyptologist who works on the sense of smell in Ancient Egypt. Last year, we worked together on a project for the National Geographic Museum’s Queens of Egypt exhibition recreating an ancient Egyptian perfume known as the Mendesian (some articles about it here, here, and here). It was named after the city in Egypt where it was first produced, the town of Mendes, and we got involved when two archaeologists and historians, Robert Littman and Jay Silverstein, approached Dora with news that they had discovered a perfume factory in the ruins of the city (it’s now known as Tell Timai). Dora and I had been talking about a collaboration and this was the perfect chance: the perfume was emblematic of ancient Egyptian olfactory culture for hundreds of years, but descriptions and recipes only existed in Greek and Latin medical and scientific texts. So we had to figure out ways of working experimentally, testing different interpretations of recipes based on evidence from all kinds of sources, from archaeological studies of residues in perfume bottles to ancient Egyptian love poetry to ancient Greek medical recipes for hangovers (the Mendesian was apparently used to cure headaches).

A few weeks ago, Dora invited me to give a Zoom workshop with her on our process and on our approach to interdisciplinary collaboration. It was a great session and I learned lots from everyone there. Afterwards, she sent me one of her Ancient Egyptian Smell Kits. Before the pandemic, Dora would give hands-on workshops at Klara Ravat’s Smell Lab and the Neues Museum in Berlin where people could recreate Ancient Egyptian perfumes and even the scent of mummification. It’s nice that even when many of us cannot collaborate as we did, Dora’s managed to share this experience in new ways (my favourite is the liquid kypi). You can find out more about her educational kits and information about how to get your own here or email her if you want to place an order.

One of the workshops I went to with Dora was on making kyphi—a very complex perfume and incense used in ancient Egypt. As a thank you, I thought I’d offer a translation of what Plutarch had to say about kyphi and Egyptian aromatherapy from his book on Isis and Osiris. It is so nice to have these scents open on my desk as I am working through texts like these.

---

Egypt, Aromatherapy and the Plague

“If I also need to discuss, as I promised, the incense burned as an offering each day, one should first keep in mind that these men (sc. the Egyptians) always take affairs related to health extremely seriously: especially in their sacred practices, in their observances of purity and in their way of life, matters of health are no less present than piety. For they did not think it is right to worship what is pure and in-every-way-uninjured and unpolluted with bodies or souls that are festering and diseased.

“Indeed, since the air which we use all the time and in which we live does not always have the same condition and mixture, but at night it becomes dense and stifles the body and draws the soul into depression and anxiety as if it had become shadowy and heavy, as soon as they wake up they make incense offerings of resin, caring for and purifying the air by breaking it up, and rekindling the body’s exhausted natural spirit, as the scent contains something powerful and stimulating.

“Again during midday, when they notice the sun is forcibly drawing a very great and heavy exhalation from the earth and mixing it into the air, they make incense offerings of myrrh. For heat dissolves and disperses the turbid and murky accumulations in the air around us.

“In fact, even physicians seem to treat the plague by making a great fire and rarefying the air, and it is better rarefied if they burn fragrant woods like cypress, juniper and pine. At any rate, they say a doctor named Akron became famous at the time of the Great Plague in Athens by ordering a fire to be lit next to the sick—he helped quite a few people.

“And Aristotle says the sweet smelling breezes from perfumes and blossoms and meadows are just as important for health as for pleasure, since with their warmth and lightness they gently relax the brain which is naturally cold and frigid. If myrrh is in fact called bal by the Egyptians, and if this is best translated as ‘breaking up of congestion’, then this is evidence in support of his explanation.”

εἰ δὲ δεῖ καὶ περὶ τῶν θυμιωμένων ἡμέρας ἑκάστης εἰπεῖν, ὥσπερ ὑπεσχόμην, ἐκεῖνο διανοηθείη τις <ἂν> πρότερον, ὡς ἀεὶ μὲν οἱ ἄνδρες ἐν σπουδῇ μεγίστῃ τίθενται τὰ πρὸς ὑγίειαν ἐπιτηδεύματα, μάλιστα δὲ ταῖς ἱερουργίαις καὶ ταῖς ἁγνείαις καὶ διαίταις οὐχ ἧττον ἔνεστι [τουτὶ] τοῦ ὁσίου τὸ ὑγιεινόν. οὐ γὰρ ᾤοντο καλῶς ἔχειν οὔτε σώμασιν οὔτε ψυχαῖς ὑπούλοις καὶ νοσώδεσι θεραπεύειν τὸ καθαρὸν καὶ ἀβλαβὲς πάντῃ καὶ ἀμίαντον.

ἐπεὶ τοίνυν ὁ ἀήρ, ᾧ πλεῖστα χρώμεθα καὶ σύνεσμεν, οὐκ ἀεὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει διάθεσιν καὶ κρᾶσιν, ἀλλὰ νύκτωρ πυκνοῦται καὶ πιέζει τὸ σῶμα καὶ συνάγει τὴν ψυχὴν εἰς τὸ δύσθυμον καὶ πεφροντικὸς οἷον ἀχλυώδη γινομένην καὶ βαρεῖαν, ἀναστάντες εὐθὺς ἐπιθυμιῶσι ῥητίνην θεραπεύοντες καὶ καθαίροντες τὸν ἀέρα τῇ διακρίσει καὶ τὸ σύμφυτον τῷ σώματι πνεῦμα μεμαρασμένον ἀναρριπίζοντες ἐχούσης τι τῆς ὀσμῆς σφοδρὸν καὶ καταπληκτικόν.

αὖθις δὲ μεσημβρίας αἰσθανόμενοι σφόδρα πολλὴν καὶ βαρεῖαν ἀναθυμίασιν ἀπὸ γῆς ἕλκοντα βίᾳ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ καταμιγνύοντα τῷ ἀέρι τὴν σμύρναν ἐπιθυμιῶσι· διαλύει γὰρ ἡ θερμότης καὶ σκίδνησι τὸ συνιστάμενον ἐν τῷ περιέχοντι θολερὸν καὶ ἰλυῶδες.

καὶ γὰρ οἱ ἰατροὶ πρὸς τὰ λοιμικὰ πάθη βοηθεῖν δοκοῦσι φλόγα πολλὴν ποιοῦντες ὡς λεπτύνουσαν τὸν ἀέρα· λεπτύνει δὲ βέλτιον, ἐὰν εὐώδη ξύλα καίωσιν, οἷα κυπαρίττου καὶ ἀρκεύθου καὶ πεύκης. Ἄκρωνα γοῦν τὸν ἰατρὸν ἐν Ἀθήναις ὑπὸ τὸν μέγαν λοιμὸν εὐδοκιμῆσαι λέγουσι πῦρ κελεύοντα παρακαίειν τοῖς νοσοῦσιν· ὤνησε γὰρ οὐκ ὀλίγους.

Ἀριστοτέλης δέ φησι καὶ μύρων καὶ ἀνθέων καὶ λειμώνων εὐώδεις ἀποπνοίας οὐκ ἔλαττον ἔχειν τοῦ πρὸς ἡδονὴν τὸ πρὸς ὑγίειαν, ψυχρὸν ὄντα φύσει καὶ παγετώδη τὸν ἐγκέφαλον ἠρέμα τῇ θερμότητι καὶ λειότητι διαχεούσας. εἰ δὲ καὶ τὴν σμύρναν παρ' Αἰγυπτίοις Βὰλ καλοῦσιν, ἐξερμηνευθὲν δὲ τοῦτο μάλιστα φράζει τῆς πληρώσεως ἐκσκορπισμόν, ἔστιν ἣν καὶ τοῦτο μαρτυρίαν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς αἰτίας δίδωσιν.

Plutarch, Isis and Osiris 79 (Moralia 383A–D)

A description of Kyphi from Ancient Greece

“Kyphi is a mixture composed of sixteen ingredients: honey, wine, raisins, cyperus , resin and myrrh, aspalathus and seseli; moreover, mastic and bitumen, rush, patience dock, and in addition to these both of the junipers (one of which they call larger, the other smaller), cardamom and calamus.* These are not, however, combined in just any way, but while the sacred writings are being read to the perfumers as they mix them.

“As for the number of ingredients, because it is a square of a square [i.e. 4 x 4] and the only even number whose perimeter is equal to its area, it is completely appropriate that it is an object of wonder; even so, it must be said that this fact contributes very little to the recipe. Rather, most of the ingredients have aromatic properties that give off a sweet and pleasant exhalation because of which the air is changed and the body, by being moved softly and gently by the stream of air, takes on a balance of elements that brings on sleep; and these aromatic properties also relax and loosen without wine the pain and stress of our everyday worries as if loosening a knot. And they brighten the imagination and the part of us that receives dreams as if polishing a mirror, and they are as purifying to it as the melodies of the lyre which the Pythagoreans used to play before going to sleep in order to charm the emotional and irrational feelings in the soul and in this way heal it.

“For scents often restore our consciousness when it is weakened; often again they smooth and calm it when there are material disturbances spread because of their smoothness throughout the body, as some doctors say sleep comes about when the exhalations from our food slip smoothly, as it were, around our vital organs, touching them and producing a sort of tickling sensation.

“They use kyphi as a potion and a perfumed oil, for when taken as a drink, it seems to purify the inside of the body; as a perfumed oil, it softens the skin. In addition to this, resin and myrrh are the work of the sun, when their plants exude their tears in response to its warmth; but the ingredients of kyphi delight more in the night, as do all those whose nature is nourished by cold winds and shadows and dew and moisture. Whereas the light of the daytime is unitary and simple and the sun shows itself, as Pindar says, ‘through a deserted aether,’ the nighttime air is a blend and mixture of many lights and forces, as if seeds from every star streamed down onto one place. And so it is fitting that they make incense offerings of the former [i.e. resin and myrrh] in the daytime, since they are simple and are born from the sun; while this one [i.e. kyphi], since it is a mixture of so many different qualities, they offer at nightfall.”

τὸ δὲ κῦφι μῖγμα μὲν ἑκκαίδεκα μερῶν συντιθεμένων ἐστί, μέλιτος καὶ οἴνου καὶ σταφίδος καὶ κυπέρου ῥητίνης τε καὶ σμύρνης καὶ ἀσπαλάθου καὶ σεσέλεως, ἔτι δὲ σχίνου τε καὶ ἀσφάλτου καὶ θρύου καὶ λαπάθου, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἀρκευθίδων ἀμφοῖν (ὧν τὴν μὲν μείζονα τὴν δ' ἐλάττονα καλοῦσι) καὶ καρδαμώμου καὶ καλάμου. συντίθενται δ' οὐχ ὅπως ἔτυχεν, ἀλλὰ γραμμάτων ἱερῶν τοῖς μυρεψοῖς, ὅταν ταῦτα μιγνύωσιν, ἀναγιγνωσκομένων.

τὸν δ' ἀριθμόν, εἰ καὶ πάνυ δοκεῖ τετράγωνος ἀπὸ τετραγώνου καὶ μόνος ἔχων τῶν ἴσων ἰσάκις ἀριθμῶν τῷ χωρίῳ τὴν περίμετρον ἴσην ἄγασθαι προσηκόντως, ἐλάχιστα ῥητέον εἴς γε τοῦτο συνεργεῖν, ἀλλὰ <τὰ> πλεῖστα τῶν συλλαμβανομένων ἀρωματικὰς ἔχοντα δυνάμεις γλυκὺ πνεῦμα καὶ χρηστὴν μεθίησιν ἀναθυμίασιν, ὑφ' ἧς ὅ τ' ἀὴρ τρεπόμενος καὶ τὸ σῶμα διὰ τῆς πνοῆς κινούμενον λείως καὶ προσηνῶς ὕπνου τε κρᾶσιν ἐπαγωγὸν ἴσχει καὶ τὰ λυπηρὰ καὶ σύντονα τῶν μεθημερινῶν φροντίδων ἄνευ μέθης οἷον ἅμματα χαλᾷ καὶ διαλύει· καὶ τὸ φανταστικὸν καὶ δεκτικὸν ὀνείρων μόριον ὥσπερ κάτοπτρον ἀπολεαίνει καὶ ποιεῖ καθαρώτερον οὐδὲν ἧττον ἢ τὰ κρούματα τῆς λύρας, οἷς ἐχρῶντο πρὸ τῶν ὕπνων οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι, τὸ ἐμπαθὲς καὶ ἄλογον τῆς ψυχῆς ἐξεπᾴδοντες οὕτω καὶ θεραπεύοντες.

τὰ γὰρ ὀσφραντὰ πολλάκις μὲν τὴν αἴσθησιν ἀπολείπουσαν ἀνακαλεῖται, πολλάκις δὲ πάλιν ἀμβλύνει καὶ κατηρεμίζει διαχεομένων ἐν τῷ σώματι τῶν ἀναλωμάτων ὑπὸ λειότητος· ὥσπερ ἔνιοι τῶν ἰατρῶν τὸν ὕπνον ἐγγίνεσθαι λέγουσιν, ὅταν ἡ τῆς τροφῆς ἀναθυμίασις οἷον ἕρπουσα λείως περὶ τὰ σπλάγχνα καὶ ψηλαφῶσα ποιῇ τινα γαργαλισμόν.

τῷ δὲ κῦφι χρῶνται καὶ πόματι καὶ χρίματι· πινόμενον γὰρ δοκεῖ τὰ ἐντὸς καθαίρει, [...] χρῖμα μαλακτικόν. ἄνευ δὲ τούτων ῥητίνη μέν ἐστιν ἔργον ἡλίου καὶ σμύρνα πρὸς τὴν εἵλην τῶν φυτῶν ἐκδακρυόντων, τῶν δὲ τὸ κῦφι συντιθέντων ἔστιν ἃ νυκτὶ χαίρει μᾶλλον, ὥσπερ ὅσα πνεύμασι ψυχροῖς καὶ σκιαῖς καὶ δρόσοις καὶ ὑγρότησι τρέφεσθαι πέφυκεν· ἐπεὶ τὸ τῆς ἡμέρας φῶς ἓν μέν ἐστι καὶ ἁπλοῦν καὶ τὸν ἥλιον ὁ Πίνδαρος ὁρᾶσθαί φησιν ‘ἐρήμης δι' αἰθέρος’, ὁ δὲ νυκτερινὸς ἀὴρ κρᾶμα καὶ σύμμιγμα πολλῶν γέγονε φώτων καὶ δυνάμεων οἷον σπερμάτων εἰς ἓν ἀπὸ παντὸς ἄστρου καταρρεόντων. εἰκότως οὖν ἐκεῖνα μὲν ὡς ἁπλᾶ καὶ ἀφ' ἡλίου τὴν γένεσιν ἔχοντα δι' ἡμέρας, ταῦτα δ' ὡς μικτὰ καὶ παντοδαπὰ ταῖς ποιότησιν ἀρχομένης νυκτὸς ἐπιθυμιῶσι.

Plutarch, Isis and Osiris 80 (Moralia 383E–384C)

*Plutarch’s list of kyphi ingredients

1. μέλι (meli): honey

2. οἶνος (oinos): wine

3. σταφίς (staphis): raisins

4. κύπερον (kyperon): cyperus, probably Cyperus rotundus L.

5. ῥητίνη (rhetine): resin, probably some kind of pine resin

6. σμύρνα (smyrna): myrrh, Commiphora myrrha Engl.

7. ἀσπάλαθος (aspalathos): possibly camelthorn, Alhagi maurorum L.; or thorny trefoil, Calycotome villosa Link; or Genista, Genista acanthoclada DC

8. σέσελι (seseli): hartwort, Tordylium officinale L.

9. σχῖνος (skhinos): mastic: Pistacia lentiscus L.

10. ἄσφαλτος (asphaltos): bitumen

11. θρύον (thryon): rush

12. λάπαθον (lapathon): patience dock, Rumex patientia L.

13. ἄρκευθος μείζων (arkeythos meizon): larger juniper, Juniperus macrocarpa L.

14. ἄρκευθος ἐλάττων (akreythos elatton): smaller juniper, Juniperus communis L.

15. καρδάμωμον (karadmomon): cardamom, Elettaria cardamomum Maton

16. κάλαμος (kalamos): calamus, Acorus calamus L.

Grasshoppers

“When I was an irrational child, I would rip off the big legs of grasshoppers and I would set them down on rocks or on the ground or wherever. There, having set them down, they were completely motionless, but when I would touch one of them, it would leap up and actually move from here to there, as if it had sensation.”

ἐγὼ γὰρ οὑτωσὶ ἀλόγως παῖς ὢν ἀνέσπων τοὺς μεγάλους τῆς ἀκρίδος πόδας καὶ ἐτίθουν αὐτοὺς ἐν πέτρᾳ ἢ γῇ ἢ ὅπου ἂν ἔτυχεν· ἐν ᾧ τεθέντες ἦσαν πάμπαν ἀκίνητοι. ὁπηνίκα δ' ἡψάμην τινὸς αὐτῶν, ἥλλετο καὶ ὅλως ἐκινεῖτο ἐκ τοῦδε εἰς τόδε τὸ ὑποκείμενον, ὡς δηλονότι αἴσθησιν ἔχον.

Michael of Ephesus, Commentary on Aristotle’s Parva Naturalia, 102.19–23 Wendland

Aristotle on menstruating women and mirrors

“It is hard to believe that the man who set aside so widespread, tenacious and respectable a belief (sc. in the divine origin of prophetic dreams) accepted as fact the superstition that when a menstruous woman looks into the mirror its surface takes on a reddish tinge which may be difficult to remove.”

W.K.C. Guthrie, Review: Aristotle. Parva Naturalia. A revised text with introduction and commentary by Sir David Ross. (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1955. Pp. xi 355. Price £2.). Philosophy, 31 (118), 274-276.

“The story of the staining of the mirror by the eyes of a menstruating woman is thus a rationalization of a pre-existing superstition, the correctness of which Aristotle was not inclined to question, because he believed himself capable of explaining it.”

“Bei der Geschichte der Befleckung des Spiegels durch die Augen einer menstruierenden Frau haben wir es also mit einer Rationalisierung eines bereits vorhandenen Aberglaubens zu tun, dessen Richtigkeit Aristoteles nicht in Frage zu stellen geneigt war, weil er zu seiner Erklärung sehr wohl fähig zu sein glaubte.”

Philip van der Eijk, Aristoteles. De insomniis, De divinatione per somnum, Übersetzt und erläutert von Philip J. van der Eijk. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1994, p. 182.

Superstition

I’ve been collecting texts related to a passage On Dreams where Aristotle says menstruating women tarnish a mirror when they look at it.

I think this has to be the strangest passage in Aristotle. It is not the frighteningly casual misogyny. Aristotle could have questioned his sources, something he often does, like when he questions seers’ beliefs about prophesying by dreams or when he questions fishermen’s reports of parthenogenic fish in the second book of Generation of Animals. Instead, his credulity in this case just goes to show how deeply he believed in the corrupting influence of women. The way he says it, it’s like he’s saying the most obvious thing in the world: when menstruating women look at a very bright mirror, a cloudy, bloody spot forms on the surface. If it’s a new mirror, then getting the stain out is very difficult; if it’s an older mirror, it’s easier. Like most of the men we are about to encounter, questioning this does not come up.

But for now, let’s suppose he’s picking up a common superstition. For a superstition, it is extremely specific. It’s not a lot of detail, but still weirdly specific enough to wonder if he had polished some such mirrors himself.

First, he says the mirrors need to be very clean (i.e., bright), so probably a highly polished bronze. Second, he says the newer the mirror, the harder it is to remove the tarnish, which means it can be buffed out, it just takes some work.

In fact, one thing about Aristotle’s description that makes it different from other reports of this phenomenon (all of which were written by people after Aristotle, by the way) is this kind of detail. We’ll see Pliny’s description, which is closer to what I would expect from superstition—with all his fear-mongering about menstrual blood sterilizing trees, killing bees, and giving dogs rabies, not to mention dimming mirrors, rusting metal, and dulling the edges of swords, and all given with no attempt to explain any of this nonsense.

Philip van der Eijk, whose commentary is the only detailed look at the Aristotle passage, points to parallels similar to Pliny in Columella De re rustica XI 3, 50; Geoponica XII 20, 5 and 25, 2; and Solinus, Collectanea Rerum Mirabilium I 54-56 (PJvdE p. 184). And indeed, they simply seem to take over Pliny’s account.

Aristotle, however, focuses not just on the fact that women causes mirrors to dim, or even cause bloody spots to appear on them, but on variations of the phenomenon, both with respect to the object affected (new vs. old mirrors) and on the type of effect (easy vs. hard to remove).

There’s a part of me that wants to find some explanation for this, to start from the assumption that the phenomenon was real, even though menstrual blood had nothing to do with it.

Did women’s bronze mirrors in particular show spots of rust? Was there some ingredient common to cosmetics or bronze polish or something which got onto fingers and then onto the mirror—something like soda (sodium carbonate) or white lead (lead carbonate)?

I found a website that explains how to get all sorts of different patinas on bronze or copper using different chemicals, but nothing really stuck out. And there is absolutely no record of this phenomenon anywhere at all apart from these weird passages.

So: was what Aristotle described a common superstition among the Greeks and Romans? Not really. It’s mentioned about ten times, and even then, rarely with the detail Aristotle goes into.

Is it plausibly a real phenomenon? That bronze tarnishes, sure. But that a specific rust-red patina shows up on bronze mirrors, or on specifically the kind of bronze alloy used for mirrors in antiquity? Who knows, but I’d be very curious to find out.

Explanations

I won’t get too much into the details here. Aristotle thinks that the eyes of menstruating women act on the mirror, via the air, I guess by changing the colour of the air, which changes the colour on the surface of the mirror. How he could have felt this is a satisfactory explanation is a mystery to me. Proclus, when he reports it, associates it with the arts of magicians and sympathetic relationality. Granted, sympathy hadn’t been thought up in Aristotle’s time, but I think Proclus probably couldn’t stand Aristotle’s explanation, and so he threw a reference to it in his discussion of the cave allegory in order to help him out.

Incredibly, Michael of Ephesus doesn’t even mention it. His commentary on Aristotle’s explanation is almost as weird as Aristotle’s explanation itself. He writes as if Aristotle was talking about an echo: if a menstruating woman looks at herself in a mirror, the small detail of the red in her eyes’ will be reflected back to her (we need to keep in mind here that mirrors back then would not have had the clarity and brightness of mirrors today); but on any other surface, it would not be.

Marsilio Ficino uses another analogy. He likens it to condensation. As breath condenses on a cold piece of glass, so the visual ray, which is a spirituous substance obviously, condenses on the cold, smooth, dense mirror when it touches it leaving a spot of blood. Before and after this passage, Ficino assimilates this explanation to the explanation of the evil eye and other forms of optical contagion. In all these cases, the contagion doesn’t operate sympathetically, but more like poisoning: if the visual ray, which is vaporized blood, condenses inside the body of someone else, then the blood, which was originally harmful (as it would be if it came from a person who was ill or menstruating or whatever), causes a change for the worse.

Another thing: these explanations totally re-describe the phenomenon: Aristotle is thinking of something like tarnish or rust. Proclus, however, ends up describing something else, like looking through red glasses or something. Michael thinks the phenomenon is seeing blood spots in the eyes via the mirror. And Ficino thinks a spot of blood (not tarnish) appears on the mirror.

Now, Aristotle is not an extramissionist: he doesn’t think sight is analogous to touch, i.e., that visual rays go out of the eye and touch objects, bringing back information about them. At least he’s not usually an extramissionist—there is all the stuff in the Meteorology where he seems to be.

Aristotle also doesn’t think particles leave surfaces and then come to our eyes (the standard criticism of this view is that if they did, we could never see things as big as mountains, since they could not fit into our pupil).

Instead, he thinks objects act on the air which acts on our eyes. And here he is trying to explain that the reverse is true as well: our eyes act on the air, which acts on objects. And he thinks this happens all the time, but in mirrors it is especially noticeable since they are especially sensitive to these changes. So sensitive in fact that the image can (so to speak) burn into the mirror.

So Ficino’s explanation is not Aristotle’s, because Ficino is an extramissionist. Michael’s explanation is not Aristotle’s either (I think he’s embarrassed at the text too and trying to save it). Meanwhile, Proclus is doing his own thing, trying to make it into a kind of magical illusion.

Aristotle, however, although he doesn’t use the term, is treating the process as one akin to alchemy, where the nature of a metal is changed into something else. And by extension, whether the intends to or not, he is conceiving of women as alchemists by nature.

Texts

Aristotle, On Dreams

“A sign that the sense-organs sense even a small difference quickly is what happens in the case of mirrors, a subject which, even on its own, someone might pause to inquire into and puzzle about. At the same time, from the same facts it is clear that, just as sight is acted upon, so it also produces some effect. For in the case of very clean mirrors, when menstruating women observe their reflection, the surface of the mirror becomes like a bloody cloud. And if the mirror is new, it is not easy to wipe off a stain like this; if it is old, however, it is easier.

“The cause, as we said, is that sight is not only affected by the air, but it also produces a certain effect and change. For the eye is a bright object and has colour. Therefore, it is reasonable that during menstruation, the eyes are affected, just like any other bodily part, for they are naturally veiny. For this reason, when menstruation occurs because of a disturbance and bloody inflammation, while to us the difference in the eyes is not evident, it is nevertheless present (for the nature of semen and the menstrual fluid is the same). The air is changed by the eyes, and since the air near the mirror is continuous [with it], it produces an effect like the one it was affected with, and then it produces the effect on the surface of the mirror.

“As with cloaks, those that are especially clean are quickest to be stained. For a clean mirror accurately shows whatever it receives, and an especially clean one shows even the smallest changes. The bronze mirror, because of how smooth it is, is especially sensitive to any touch (one should think about the air’s touch like a kind of friction, like wiping-off or washing), and because it is clean, it becomes evident, no matter its size. But the cause of stains not leaving quickly from new mirrors is cleanliness and smoothness. For through them, the stain permeates both deeply and all over: deeply because of their cleanliness, all over because of their smoothness. In the case of old mirrors, however, the stain does not remain, because the stain cannot penetrate in the same way, but only superficially.

“From this it is evident that change is caused even by small differences, that sensation is quick, and that the sense-organ of colours is not only affected, but produces an effect in return. Evidence for what we’ve described are facts about wines and perfumery. For oil, when it has been prepared, quickly takes on the scents of things close by, and wines are affected in the same way. For they not only acquire the scents of things thrown into them or mixed in with them, but also the things placed near or growing near the vessels.”

ὅτι δὲ ταχὺ τὰ αἰσθητήρια καὶ μικρᾶς διαφορᾶς αἰσθάνεται, σημεῖον τὸ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐνόπτρων γινόμενον· περὶ οὗ καὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπιστήσας σκέψαιτό τις ἂν καὶ ἀπορήσειεν. ἅμα δ' ἐξ αὐτοῦ δῆλον ὅτι ὥσπερ καὶ ἡ ὄψις πάσχει, οὕτω καὶ ποιεῖ τι. ἐν γὰρ τοῖς ἐνόπτροις τοῖς σφόδρα καθαροῖς, ὅταν τῶν καταμηνίων ταῖς γυναιξὶ γινομένων ἐμβλέψωσιν εἰς τὸ κάτοπτρον, γίνεται τὸ ἐπιπολῆς τοῦ ἐνόπτρου οἷον νεφέλη αἱματώδης· κἂν μὲν καινὸν ᾖ τὸ κάτοπτρον, οὐ ῥᾴδιον ἐκμάξαι τὴν τοιαύτην κηλίδα, ἐὰν δὲ παλαιόν, ῥᾷον.

αἴτιον δέ, ὥσπερ εἴπομεν, ὅτι οὐ μόνον πάσχει ἡ ὄψις ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀέρος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ποιεῖ τι καὶ κινεῖ, ὥσπερ καὶ τὰ λαμπρά· καὶ γὰρ ἡ ὄψις τῶν λαμπρῶν καὶ ἐχόντων χρῶμα. τὰ μὲν οὖν ὄμματα εὐλόγως, ὅταν ᾖ τὰ καταμήνια, διακεῖται ὥσπερ καὶ ἕτερον μέρος ὁτιοῦν· καὶ γὰρ φύσει τυγχάνουσι φλεβώδεις ὄντες. διὸ γινομένων τῶν καταμηνίων διὰ ταραχὴν καὶ φλεγμασίαν αἱματικὴν ἡμῖν μὲν ἡ ἐν τοῖς ὄμμασι διαφορὰ ἄδηλος, ἔνεστι δέ (ἡ γὰρ αὐτὴ φύσις σπέρματος καὶ καταμηνίων), ὁ δ' ἀὴρ κινεῖται ὑπ' αὐτῶν, καὶ τὸν ἐπὶ τῶν κατόπτρων ἀέρα συνεχῆ ὄντα ποιόν τινα ποιεῖ καὶ τοιοῦτον οἷον αὐτὸς πάσχει· ὁ δὲ τοῦ κατόπτρου τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν.

ὥσπερ δὲ τῶν ἱματίων, τὰ μάλιστα καθαρὰ τάχιστα κηλιδοῦται· τὸ γὰρ καθαρὸν ἀκριβῶς δηλοῖ ὅ τι ἂν δέξηται, καὶ τὸ μάλιστα τὰς ἐλαχίστας κινήσεις. ὁ δὲ χαλκὸς διὰ μὲν τὸ λεῖος εἶναι ὁποιασοῦν ἁφῆς αἰσθάνεται μάλιστα (δεῖ δὲ νοῆσαι οἷον τρίψιν οὖσαν τὴν τοῦ ἀέρος ἁφὴν καὶ ὥσπερ ἔκμαξιν καὶ ἀνάπλυσιν), διὰ δὲ τὸ καθαρὸν ἔνδηλος γίνεται ὁπηλικηοῦν οὖσα. τοῦ δὲ μὴ ἀπιέναι ταχέως ἐκ τῶν καινῶν κατόπτρων αἴτιον τὸ καθαρὸν εἶναι καὶ λεῖον· διαδύεται γὰρ διὰ τῶν τοιούτων καὶ εἰς βάθος καὶ πάντῃ, διὰ μὲν τὸ καθαρὸν εἰς βάθος, διὰ δὲ τὸ λεῖον πάντῃ. ἐν δὲ τοῖς παλαιοῖς οὐκ ἐμμένει, ὅτι οὐχ ὁμοίως εἰσδύεται ἡ κηλὶς ἀλλ' ἐπιπολαιότερον.

ὅτι μὲν οὖν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν μικρῶν διαφορῶν γίνεται κίνησις, καὶ ὅτι ταχεῖα ἡ αἴσθησις, καὶ ὅτι οὐ μόνον πάσχει, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀντιποιεῖ τὸ τῶν χρωμάτων αἰσθητήριον, φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων. μαρτυρεῖ δὲ τοῖς εἰρημένοις καὶ τὰ περὶ τοὺς οἴνους καὶ τὴν μυρεψίαν συμβαίνοντα. τό τε γὰρ παρασκευασθὲν ἔλαιον ταχέως λαμβάνει τὰς τῶν πλησίον ὀσμάς, καὶ οἱ οἶνοι τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο πάσχουσιν· οὐ γὰρ μόνον τῶν ἐμβαλλομένων ἢ ὑποκιρναμένων ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν πλησίον τοῖς ἀγγείοις τιθεμένων ἢ πεφυκότων ἀναλαμβάνουσι τὰς ὀσμάς.

Aristotle, On Dreams, Chapter 2, 459b23–460a32*

*In the 1935 Loeb, the Greek of this passage is translated into Latin instead of English ffs!

Pliny the Elder, Natural History

“But it is not easy that anything should be discovered that is more monstrous than woman’s menstrual fluid. New wine turns sour by coming near it, crops that are touched become barren, grafts whither, seeds of the garden dry up, fruit of trees by which she sits falls off, the brightness of mirrors are dimmed by reflecting her, the edge of iron is dulled, the brightness of ivory, bee hives die, bronze and even iron are seized by rust, and the air is seized by an awful smell. Dogs become rabid by tasting it and their bite is infected by an incurable poison. In fact, bitumen, too, which has an otherwise pliable and sticky nature and which floats at certain times of the year on the lake of Judaea, which is called Asphaltites, is not able to be divided up, as it sticks to everything it makes contact with, except a thread which is infected with this slime. Also ants, the tiniest animal, and sensitive to its presence, reject the tasty fruit which it was carrying never to return to it again.”

sed nihil facile reperiatur mulierum profluvio magis monstrificum. acescunt superventu musta, sterilescunt tactae fruges, moriuntur insita, exuruntur hortorum germina, fructus arborum, quibus insidere, decidunt, speculorum fulgor aspectu ipso hebetatur, acies ferri praestringitur, eboris nitor, alvi apium moriuntur, aes etiam ac ferrum robigo protinus corripit odorque dirus aera; in rabiem aguntur gustato eo canes atque insanabili veneno morsus inficitur. quin et bituminum sequax alioqui ac lenta natura in lacu Iudaeae, qui vocatur Asphaltites, certo tempore anni supernatans non quit sibi avelli, ad omnem contactum adhaerens praeterquam filo quem tale virus infecerit. etiam formicis, animali minimo, inesse sensum eius ferunt abicique gustatas fruges nec postea repeti.

Plinii Naturalis Historia 7.64–65

Proclus, Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus

“For even the shadows [i.e., on the wall the cave], which they say the images correspond to, have a nature of this kind. For these are likenesses of bodies and shapes, and they are in total sympathy with those things from which they arise, as it is also clear from the magic arts which profess to do things with images and shadows. And why mention only their powers? For even irrational animals have them, without any rational activity. For the hyena, they say, when it wants to eat, it casts its shadow on top of a resting dog and makes the dog a meal.* And Aristotle says that when a menstruating women looks into a mirror, the mirror and the reflected image are stained with blood.”

καὶ γὰρ αἱ σκιαί, αἷς τὰ εἴδωλα συζυγεῖν φησιν, τοιαύτην ἔχουσι φύσιν· καὶ γὰρ αὗται σωμάτων εἰσὶ καὶ σχημάτων εἰκόνες, καὶ παμπόλλην ἔχουσιν πρὸς τὰ ἀφ' ὧν ἐκπίπτουσιν συμπάθειαν, ὡς δηλοῖ καὶ ὅσα μάγων τέχναι πρός τε τὰ εἴδωλα δρᾶν ἐπαγγέλλονται καὶ τὰς σκιάς. καὶ τί λέγω τὰς ἐκείνων δυνάμεις; ἃ καὶ τοῖς ἀλόγοις ἤδη ζῴοις ὑπάρχει πρὸ λόγου παντὸς ἐνεργεῖν. ἡ γὰρ ὕαινα, φασί, τὴν τοῦ κυνὸς ἐν ὕψει καθημένου πατήσασα σκιὰν καταβάλλει καὶ θοίνην ποιεῖται τὸν κύνα· καὶ γυναικὸς καθαιρομένης, φησὶν Ἀριστοτέλης, εἰς ἔνοπτρον ἰδούσης αἱματοῦται τό τε ἔνοπτρον καὶ τὸ ἐμφαινόμενον εἴδωλον.

Proclus, In Platonis rem publicam commentaria 1.290

*I’ve talked about the magic of the hyena here.

Michael of Ephesus, Commentary on Aristotle’s On Dreams

“And so this is the general idea [of what Aristotle wrote], but in the passage, “for sight, too, is a bright object and one that has colour”, ‘sight’ means the whole eye. Also, he says that “it is reasonable” that the eyes change during the period of menstruation. For since the whole body changes at that time, necessarily the eyes also change. After talking about ‘the eyes’ in the neuter, he shifts and talks about them in the masculine, saying ‘for they [masculine] are naturally veiny’. For the eyes [masculine] are veiny. He also says that, as among menstruating women, a certain bloody affection is produced around the eyes, so too it happens to us during the emission of semen. This is not obvious when we look into a mirror because of the fact that semen is naturally white.

‘The bronze mirror, because of how smooth it is, is especially sensitive to any touch.’

“The phrase ‘is especially sensitive’ can be paraphrased as, ‘it makes stains on it that are especially sensible and obvious to us.’ For just as noises are produced especially on smooth bodies because of the fact that the air on them is not broken up or in general divided up into very fine parts, so too on smooth mirrors the blemish becomes obvious because of the fact that they are continuous and unitary, so to speak, because of the extreme smoothness of the mirror. But on those that are not smooth they are not observed, since they are divided up into very fine parts because of the unevenness of the reflecting surface, and what is very fine is not easily sensed. Therefore, the smoothness is the cause of continuity, while the cleanliness is productive of the clarity. For if it were clean but not smooth, then it will not produce sensation since it is broken up into small parts due to the unevenness. It is clear that, in the case of clean mirrors, stains become visible deep down. But that sensation that is quick also apprehends the images from the sensible object quickly, this is not clear.

‘Evidence for what we’ve described are facts about wines and perfumery.’

“Having said ‘that change is caused even by small differences,’ as proof of it he adds what happens in the case of perfumery: ‘For oil, when it has been prepared, quickly takes on the scents of things close by.’ For the scent of something close by, when it changes the oil, gives it a share of its own scent.”

Ἡ μὲν οὖν διάνοια αὕτη, ἐν δὲ τῇ λέξει τῇ «καὶ γὰρ ἡ ὄψις τῶν λαμπρῶν καὶ ἐχόντων χρῶμα» ὄψιν τὸν ὅλον ὀφθαλμὸν εἴρηκε. λέγει δὲ καὶ ὅτι εὐλόγως ἐν τῷ τῶν καταμηνίων καιρῷ τὰ ὄμματα μεταβάλλει· τοῦ γὰρ σώματος ὅλου τότε μεταβάλλοντος ἀνάγκη συμμεταβάλλειν καὶ τὰ ὄμματα. εἰπὼν δὲ τὰ «ὄμματα,» τρέψας εἶπε τὴν λέξιν ἀρρενικῶς εἰπών· «καὶ γὰρ φύσει τυγχάνουσι φλεβώδεις ὄντες·» οἱ γὰρ ὀφθαλμοὶ φλεβώδεις. λέγει δὲ καὶ ὅτι, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν γυναικῶν γινομένων τῶν καταμηνίων γίνεταί τι πάθος περὶ τὰ ὄμματα αἱματικόν, οὕτω γίνεται καὶ ἡμῖν ἐν τῇ τοῦ σπέρματος προέσει. οὐ φαίνεται δὲ ἐνορῶσιν εἰς τὸ κάτοπτρον διὰ τὸ τὸ σπέρμα φύσει λευκὸν εἶναι.

ὥσπερ δὲ τῶν ἱματίων, τὰ μάλιστα καθαρὰ τάχιστα κηλιδοῦται· τὸ γὰρ καθαρὸν ἀκριβῶς δηλοῖ ὅ τι ἂν δέξηται, καὶ τὸ μάλιστα τὰς ἐλαχίστας κινήσεις. ὁ δὲ χαλκὸς διὰ μὲν τὸ λεῖος εἶναι ὁποιασοῦν ἁφῆς αἰσθάνεται μάλιστα (δεῖ δὲ νοῆσαι οἷον τρίψιν οὖσαν τὴν τοῦ ἀέρος ἁφὴν καὶ ὥσπερ ἔκμαξιν καὶ ἀνάπλυσιν), διὰ δὲ τὸ καθαρὸν ἔνδηλος γίνεται ὁπηλικηοῦν οὖσα. τοῦ δὲ μὴ ἀπιέναι ταχέως ἐκ τῶν καινῶν κατόπτρων αἴτιον τὸ καθαρὸν εἶναι καὶ λεῖον· διαδύεται γὰρ διὰ τῶν τοιούτων καὶ εἰς βάθος καὶ πάντῃ, διὰ μὲν τὸ καθαρὸν εἰς βάθος, διὰ δὲ τὸ λεῖον πάντῃ. ἐν δὲ τοῖς παλαιοῖς οὐκ ἐμμένει, ὅτι οὐχ ὁμοίως εἰσδύεται ἡ κηλὶς ἀλλ' ἐπιπολαιότερον.

«Ὁ δὲ χαλκὸς διὰ τὸ λεῖος εἶναι ὁποιασοῦν ἁφῆς αἰσθάνεται μάλιστα.»

Τὸ «αἰσθάνεται μάλιστα» ἴσον ἐστὶ τῷ ‘αἰσθητὰς μάλιστα καὶ διαδήλους ἡμῖν ποιεῖ τὰς ἐν αὐτῷ κηλῖδας’. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς λείοις σώμασι μάλιστα γίνεται ὁ ψόφος διὰ τὸ μὴ θραύεσθαι ἐν αὐτοῖς τὸν ἀέρα μηδ' ὅλως εἰς λεπτότατα κατακερματίζεσθαι, οὕτω καὶ ἐν τοῖς λείοις κατόπτροις αἱ κηλῖδες διάδηλοι γίνονται διὰ τὸ μένειν συνεχεῖς καὶ ὡς εἰπεῖν μία διὰ τὴν τοῦ κατόπτρου λειότητα. ἐν δὲ τοῖς μὴ λείοις οὐχ ὁρῶνται, ὅτι κατακερματίζονται εἰς λεπτότατα διὰ τὴν τοῦ ἐνόπτρου ἀνωμαλίαν· τὸ δὲ λεπτότατον οὐκ εὐαίσθητον. τὸ μὲν οὖν λεῖόν ἐστιν αἴτιον τῆς συνεχείας, τὸ δὲ καθαρὸν τοῦ διαδήλους γίνεσθαι. κἂν γὰρ ᾖ καθαρὸν μὴ λεῖον δέ, εἰς μικρὰ κατακερματισθὲν διὰ τὴν ἀνωμαλίαν οὐ ποιήσει αἴσθησιν. ὅτι δὲ ἐν τοῖς καθαροῖς ἐνόπτροις εἰς βάθος ἐμφαίνονται αἱ ἐν αὐτοῖς κηλῖδες, δῆλον. ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἡ αἴσθησις ταχεῖα καὶ ταχέως ἀντιλαμβάνεται τῶν ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθητῶν εἰδώλων, οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἄδηλον.

«Μαρτυρεῖ δὲ τοῖς εἰρημένοις καὶ τὰ περὶ τοὺς οἴνους καὶ τὴν μυρεψίαν συμβαίνοντα.»

Εἰπὼν «ὅτι μὲν οὖν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν μικρῶν διαφορῶν γίνεται κίνησις,» πίστιν τούτου παράγει τὰ περὶ τὴν μυρεψίαν γινόμενα. «τὸ γὰρ παρασκευασθὲν ἔλαιον ταχέως λαμβάνει τὰς τῶν πλησίον ὀσμάς·» ἡ γὰρ ὀσμὴ τοῦ πλησίον κινήσασα τὸ ἔλαιον μετέδωκεν αὐτῷ τῆς οἰκείας ὀσμῆς.

Michael of Ephesus In de insomniis commentaria, 66,4–67,9 Wendland

Marsilio Ficino, Commentary on Plato’s Symposium or On Love

“Aristotle writes that women, when they are menstruating, often make their mirror dirty with bloody specks when they look into it. I believe it happens for the following reason, because spirit [pneuma], which is the vapor of blood, appears to be blood so subtle that it escapes the eye’s observation, but when it condenses on the surface of the mirror, it becomes clearly visible. If it comes into contact with some less compact material, like a piece of cloth or wood, it cannot be seen because it does not remain on its surface, but penetrates into it. If it comes into contact with something dense but rough, like stones, bricks and the like, it is dissipated and broken up by the unevenness of its body. But on account of its hardness, the mirror keeps the spirit on the surface, on account of its evenness and smoothness, it prevents it from breaking up, and on account of its coolness, it condenses the extremely fine mist of the spirit into droplets. For the same reason, whenever we open our both and breath forcefully on glass, we sprinkle its surface with very fine saliva like dew. This is because the breath expelled from the saliva, when condensed on this material, returns to being saliva.”

Scribit Aristoteles, mulieres quando sanguis menstruus defluit, intuitu suo speculum sanguineis guttis sepe fedare. Quod ex eo fieri arbitror quia spiritus, qui vapor sanguinis est, sanguis quidam tenuissimus videtur esse, adeo ut aspectum effugiat oculorum, sed in speculi superficie factus crassior clare perspicitur. Hic si in rariorem materiam aliquam, ceu pannum aut lignum incidat, ideo non videtur quia in superficie rei illius non restat, sed penetrat. Si in densam quidem, sed asperam, sicuti saxa, lateres et similia, corporis illius inequalitate dissipatur et frangitur. Speculum autem propter duritiem sistit in superficie spiritum ; propter equalitatem lenitatemque servat infractum ; propter nitorem, spiritus ipsius radium iuvat et auget ; propter frigiditatem, rarissimam illius nebulam cogit in guttulas. Eadem ferme ratione quotiens hiantibus faucibus obnixe hanelamus in vitrum, eius faciem tenuissimo quodam salive rore conspergimus. Siquidem alitus a saliva evolans in ea materia compressus relabitur in salivam.

Marsilio Ficino, De amore: Commentarium in Convivium Platonis 7.4

Zosimus on the Demonic Origin of the Wicked Arts

“I have cited these words from the divine scriptures for the benefit of the willing. It is also fitting to cite a passage about these things from Zosimus, the philosopher of Panopolis, from his writings on the care of the gods in the ninth Book of Imhotep, which goes as follows:

‘The sacred scriptures, or indeed books, dear lady, say that there is a certain race of demons who sleep with mortal women. Hermes, too, mentioned this in his Physics, and nearly every public and secret discourse mentioned it. The ancient and divine scriptures, then, said that some angels desired mortal women and when they had descended taught them all the works of nature. This is why, they say, once the angels had fallen, they remained outside of heaven: because they taught humankind all that is wicked and of no benefit to the soul. And these same scriptures say it is from them that the giants were born. Theirs is the first tradition concerning these arts of Chemu. It was called the Book of Chemu, which is why the art, too, is called chemeia.’”

Ταῦτά τοι πρὸς ὠφέλειαν τῶν βουλομένων ἐκ τῶν θείων γραφῶν παρατέθεικα. ἄξιον δὲ καὶ Ζωσίμου τοῦ Πανοπολίτου φιλοσόφου χρῆσίν τινα παραθέσθαι περὶ αὐτῶν ἐκ τῶν γεγραμμένων αὐτῷ πρὸς θεοσέβειαν ἐν τῷ θʹ τῆς Ἰμοὺθ βίβλῳ, ἔχουσαν ὧδε·

‘φάσκουσιν αἱ ἱεραὶ γραφαὶ ἤτοι βίβλοι, ὦ γύναι, ὅτι ἔστι τι δαιμόνων γένος ὃ χρῆται γυναιξίν. ἐμνημόνευσε δὲ καὶ Ἑρμῆς ἐν τοῖς φυσικοῖς, καὶ σχεδὸν ἅπας λόγος φανερὸς καὶ ἀπόκρυφος τοῦτο ἐμνημόνευσε. τοῦτο οὖν ἔφασαν αἱ ἀρχαῖαι καὶ θεῖαι γραφαί, ὅτι ἄγγελοί τινες ἐπεθύμησαν τῶν γυναικῶν καὶ κατελθόντες ἐδίδαξαν αὐτὰς πάντα τὰ τῆς φύσεως ἔργα, ὧν χάριν, φησί, προσκρούσαντες ἔξω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἔμειναν, ὅτι πάντα τὰ πονηρὰ καὶ μηδὲν ὠφελοῦντα τὴν ψυχὴν ἐδίδαξαν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. ἐξ αὐτῶν φάσκουσιν αἱ αὐταὶ γραφαὶ καὶ τοὺς γίγαντας γεγενῆσθαι. ἔστιν οὖν αὐτῶν ἡ πρώτη παράδοσις Χημεῦ περὶ τούτων τῶν τεχνῶν. ἐκάλεσε δὲ ταύτην τὴν βίβλον Χημεῦ, ἔνθεν καὶ ἡ τέχνη χημεία καλεῖται’.

Zosimus of Panopolis, ap. Georgius Syncellus, Ecloga chronographica, 14.1–14 Mosshammer

Worse than the worst of plagues: Cassius Dio on Commodus’ reign and the second wave of the Antonine plague

“A sickness occurred greater than any I have known—in fact, two thousand often died on a single day in Rome. Many people were also killed in another way, not only in the city, but throughout practically the whole Empire, by evil men: for they would smear little needles with some deadly drugs and for a fee would inject the poison into others, a thing which also happened during the time of Domitian. And while these people died without even a word, Commodus ended up more troublesome to the Romans than all the diseases and criminals together, because among other reasons the people were forced to assign to him out of fear and by command those things which had been bestowed out of respect upon his father through a vote.

“He actually ordered that Rome’s name be changed to ‘Commodiana,’ its army called ‘the Commodians,’ and the day on which these motions were passed ‘Commodiana Day.’ Among the many names he took for himself, one was Herakles. He gave Rome the nickname, ‘Immortal Blessed Inhabited Colony of the Earth,’ since he wanted it to be thought of as his own colony. A golden statue was made in his honour, a thousand pounds in weight, along with a bull and a cow. And finally, all the months of the year were named after him, so that they were counted as follows: Amazon, Undefeated, Lucky, Pious, Lucius, Aelius, Aurelius, Commodus, August, Herakles, Roman, Excellency. For he had taken on different names at different times, but Amazon and Excellency he applied to himself constantly, to show he was absolutely in every way preeminently superior to all people—that is how preeminently insane this piece of shit turned out to be.”

γέγονε δὲ καὶ νόσος μεγίστη ὧν ἐγὼ οἶδα· δισχίλιοι γοῦν πολλάκις ἡμέρας μιᾶς ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ ἐτελεύτησαν. πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ ἄλλως οὐκ ἐν τῷ ἄστει μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ ὡς εἰπεῖν τῇ ἀρχῇ ὑπ' ἀνδρῶν κακούργων ἀπέθανον· βελόνας γὰρ μικρὰς δηλητηρίοις τισὶ φαρμάκοις ἐγχρίοντες ἐνίεσαν δι' αὐτῶν ἐς ἑτέρους ἐπὶ μισθῷ τὸ δεινόν· ὅπερ που καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Δομιτιανοῦ ἐγεγόνει. καὶ οὗτοι μὲν ἐν οὐδενὶ λόγῳ ἀπώλλυντο, ἦν δὲ ἁπάντων νοσημάτων καὶ ἁπάντων κακουργημάτων χαλεπώτερος Ῥωμαίοις ὁ Κόμμοδος, διά τε τἆλλα καὶ ὅτι ἠναγκάζοντο, ἃ τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ κατ' εὔνοιαν ἐψηφίζοντο, ταῦτ' ἐκείνῳ διὰ φόβον ἀπονέμειν ἐξ ἐπιτάγματος. Κομμοδιανὴν γοῦν τήν τε Ῥώμην αὐτὴν καὶ τὰ στρατόπεδα Κομμοδιανά, τήν τε ἡμέραν ἐν ᾗ ταῦτα ἐψηφίζετο Κομμοδιανὰ καλεῖσθαι προσέταξεν. ἑαυτῷ δὲ ἄλλας τε παμπόλλους ἐπωνυμίας καὶ τὴν Ἡρακλέους ἀπήνεγκε. τὴν δὲ Ῥώμην ἀθάνατον εὐτυχῆ κολωνίαν οἰκουμένην τῆς γῆς (καὶ γὰρ ἄποικον αὐτὴν ἑαυτοῦ δοκεῖν ἐβούλετο) ἐπωνόμασεν. καὶ ἀνδριάς τε αὐτῷ χρυσοῦς χιλίων λιτρῶν μετά τε ταύρου καὶ βοὸς θηλείας ἐγένετο, καὶ τέλος καὶ οἱ μῆνες ἀπ' αὐτοῦ πάντες ἐπεκλήθησαν, ὥστε καταριθμεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς οὕτως, Ἀμαζόνιος Ἀνίκητος Εὐτυχὴς Εὐσεβὴς Λούκιος Αἴλιος Αὐρήλιος Κόμμοδος Αὔγουστος Ἡράκλειος Ῥωμαῖος Ὑπεραίρων. αὐτὸς μὲν γὰρ ἄλλοτε ἄλλα μετελάμβανε τῶν ὀνομάτων, τὸν δ' Ἀμαζόνιον καὶ τὸν Ὑπεραίροντα παγίως ἑαυτῷ ἔθετο ὡς καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς πάντας ἀνθρώπους καθ' ὑπερβολὴν νικῶν· οὕτω καθ' ὑπερβολὴν ἐμεμήνει τὸ κάθαρμα.

Cassius Dio, Roman History, 72.14–15

Theophrastus on Art and Nature II – Natural and Artificial Ecology

“The fact that some plants also cooperate towards each other’s preservation and generation is also evident from the following considerations. Among wild plants, deciduous ones cooperate with evergreens since when their leaves decay the earth is, as it were, fertilized which is useful for both good feeding and for the germination of their seeds; while among cultivated plants, those cooperate which people sow among their plants when they want to remove excess moisture from their vines, and among their vegetables either for this reason or because there is an infestation of bugs as bitter vetch is sown among radishes to guard against aphids and whatever else similarly grows among others. For we should assume these kinds of things happen among nature’s spontaneous creations, as well, especially if art imitates nature.”

ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς φυτοῖς ἔνια συνεργεῖ πρὸς τὴν ἀλλήλων σωτηρίαν καὶ γένεσιν καὶ ἐκ τῶνδε φανερόν· ἐν μὲν γὰρ τοῖς ἀγρίοις τὰ φυλλοβόλα τοῖς ἀειφύλλοις ὅτι σηπομένων ξυμβαίνει καθάπερ κοπρίζεσθαι τὴν γῆν ὃ καὶ πρὸς εὐτροφίαν καὶ πρὸς τὴν βλάστησιν τῶν σπερμάτων χρήσιμον. ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἡμέροις ὅσα τοῖς φυτοῖς ἐπισπείρουσι τῶν ἀμπέλων ἀφαιρεῖν βουλόμενοι τὸ πλῆθος τῆς ὑγρότητος καὶ τοῖς λαχάνοις ἢ τούτου χάριν ἢ τῶν γινομένων θηρίων οἷον ταῖς ῥαφανίσι τοὺς ὀρόβους πρὸς τὰς ψύλλας καὶ εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον ἑτέροις. οἴεσθαι γὰρ χρὴ τοιαῦτα καὶ ἐν τοῖς αὐτομάτοις τῆς φύσεως ὑπάρχειν ἄλλως τε καὶ εἰ ἡ τέχνη μιμεῖται τὴν φύσιν.

Theophrastus, Causes of Plants, 2.18.1–2

“Omens like these” – plague and the fall of the Republic

More plagues and social change from Cassius Dio, this time, around 44 BCE …

“In addition to omens like these, a bright light moved across across the sky from east to west and a new star was seen for many days.* And at times the light of the sun seemed to grow dim and even disappear, at other times it appeared in three circles, and one of these was even enclosed in a fiery wreath of sheaves, a thing which, for those people, very evidently came true if ever a prophecy did: for there were three men in power—Caesar, Lepidus and Antony, I mean—and of them Caesar afterwards secured his victory.

“Now, when these things occurred, there were all kinds of oracles predicting the destruction of the Republic. Crows flew into the temple of the Dioscuri and pecked out the names of the consuls Antony and Dolabella, which were somewhere inscribed on a tablet. During the night, many dogs would gather in the city and howl, especially near the house of Lepidus, the high priest. Meanwhile, the Eridanus (i.e., the Po) flooded a large part of the surrounding countryside, and when it receded it left behind a huge number of serpents on the land; and from the sea, untold numbers of fish were thrown onto the shore at the mouth of the Tiber.

“What came next was a virulent plague, which affected practically all of Italy, and because of it, it was voted that the Curia Hostilia would be rebuilt and the place where the naumachia** had taken place would be filled in. But it seemed not even this could put a stop to the horror, since, among other things, when Vibius was performing the sacrificial rite at for New Year’s day, one of his lictors suddenly fell down and died.”

πρὸς δὲ δὴ τούτοις τοιούτοις οὖσι λαμπὰς ἀπ' ἀνίσχοντος ἡλίου πρὸς δυσμὰς διέδραμε, καί τις ἀστὴρ καινὸς ἐπὶ πολλὰς ἡμέρας ὤφθη. τότε φῶς τοῦ ἡλίου ἐλαττοῦσθαί τε καὶ σβέννυσθαι, τοτὲ δὲ ἐν τρισὶ κύκλοις φαντάζεσθαι ἐδόκει, καὶ ἕνα γε αὐτῶν στέφανος σταχύων πυρώδης περιέσχεν, ὥστ' εἴπερ τι ἄλλο, καὶ τοῦτο ἐναργέστατα αὐτοῖς ἐκβῆναι· οἵ τε γὰρ ἄνδρες οἱ τρεῖς ἐδυνάστευον, λέγω δὲ τὸν Καίσαρα καὶ τὸν Λέπιδον καὶ τὸν Ἀντώνιον, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ὁ Καῖσαρ μετὰ τοῦτο τὴν νίκην ἔλαβεν.

τότε δ' οὖν ταῦτά τε ἐγένετο, καὶ λόγια πρὸς κατάλυσιν τῆς δημοκρατίας φέροντα παντοῖα ᾔδετο. κόρακές τε ἐς τὸ Διοσκόρειον ἐσπετόμενοι τὰ τῶν ὑπάτων τοῦ τε Ἀντωνίου καὶ τοῦ Δολοβέλλου ὀνόματα, ἐνταῦθά που ἐν πινακίῳ ἐγγεγραμμένα, ἐξεκόλαψαν. καὶ κύνες πολλοὶ νυκτὸς κατά τε τὴν ἄλλην πόλιν καὶ πρὸς τῇ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως τοῦ Λεπίδου οἰκίᾳ μάλιστα συστρεφόμενοι ὠρύοντο. ὅ τε Ἠριδανὸς ἐπὶ πολὺ τῆς πέριξ γῆς πελαγίσας ἐξαίφνης ἀνεχώρησε, καὶ παμπληθεῖς ἐν τῷ ξηρῷ ὄφεις ἐγκατέλιπε. καὶ ἰχθῦς ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης ἀμύθητοι κατὰ τὰς τοῦ Τιβέριδος ἐκβολὰς ἐς τὴν ἤπειρον ἐξέπεσον.

ἐπεγένετο μὲν οὖν καὶ [ὁ] λοιμὸς ἐπ' αὐτοῖς πάσῃ ὡς εἰπεῖν τῇ Ἰταλίᾳ ἰσχυρός, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τό τε βουλευτήριον τὸ Ὁστίλιον ἀνοικοδομηθῆναι καὶ τὸ χωρίον ἐν ᾧ ἡ ναυμαχία ἐγεγόνει συγχωσθῆναι ἐψηφίσθη· οὐ μέντοι καὶ ἐνταῦθα στήσεσθαι τὸ δεινὸν ἐδόκει, ἄλλως τε καὶ ἐπειδὴ τοῦ Οὐιβίου τὰ ἐσιτήρια τῇ νουμηνίᾳ θύοντος ῥαβδοῦχός τις αὐτοῦ ἔπεσεν ἐξαίφνης καὶ ἀπέθανεν.

Cassius Dio, Roman History, 45.17.4–9

*a comet is reported to have appeared after Julius Caesar’s assassination.

**ναυμαχία (naumachia): a massive trench, commissioned by Julius Caesar in 46 BCE, was dug near the Tiber and filled with water. He had thousands of prisoners of war fight a staged sea-battle in it. What connection the senate saw between the sea battle and the ensuing plague isn’t clear to me, and my books are at the office.

Antisthenes’ Response to Athenian Racism

A while ago, I posted a racist rant from Galen against Chrysippus. There may be hundreds of years between them, but Galen admires the ancients and tries to embody Athenian self-importance. When he says, ‘as a foreigner, Chrysippus had no business telling the Athenians how to use their language,’ we see the kind of attitude Galen learned from his role-models.

Here’s a response to that Athenian attitude, from Antisthenes and Socrates:

“Antisthenes, son of Antisthenes, was an Athenian. It was said, however, that he wasn’t racially pure, which is also why, to the person who cast slurs at him, he said, ‘the mother of the gods, too, is a Phrygian.’ For Antisthenes’ mother was supposed to be a Phrygian. And it is also why, having distinguished himself at the battle of Tanagra, Socrates said that had he come from two Athenians he wouldn’t have been so noble. And Antisthenes himself mocked the Athenians for priding themselves on being ‘born of the soil’, saying ‘then, you are no better born than snails and locusts’.”

Ἀντισθένης Ἀντισθένους Ἀθηναῖος. ἐλέγετο δ᾽ οὐκ εἶναι ἰθαγενής: ὅθεν καὶ πρὸς τὸν ὀνειδίζοντα εἰπεῖν, "καὶ ἡ μήτηρ τῶν θεῶν Φρυγία ἐστίν." ἐδόκει γὰρ εἶναι Θρᾴττης μητρός: ὅθεν καὶ ἐν Τανάγρᾳ κατὰ τὴν μάχην εὐδοκιμήσας ἔδωκε λέγειν Σωκράτει ὡς οὐκ ἂν ἐκ δυοῖν Ἀθηναίων οὕτω γεγόνοι γενναῖος. καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ἐπὶ τῷ γηγενεῖς εἶναι σεμνυνομένους ἐκφαυλίζων ἔλεγε μηδὲν εἶναι κοχλιῶν καὶ ἀττελέβων εὐγενεστέρους.

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers, 6.1

Theophrastus on Art and Nature I – Pigments

Red Ochre

“A kind of red ochre is also produced from burnt yellow ochre, although it is not as good (sc. as natural red ochre). It was Kydios’ discovery. For, so they say, he became aware of it when a market burned down: he saw that the yellow ochre when half-burnt had also become red.”

γίνεται [sc. μίλτος] δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς ὤχρας κατακαιομένης ἀλλὰ χείρων, τὸ δ' εὕρημα Κυδίου. συνεῖδε γὰρ ἐκεῖνος, ὥς φασι, κατακαυθέντος τινὸς παντοπωλίου* τὴν ὤχραν ἰδὼν ἡμίκαυστον καὶ πεφοινιγμένην.

Theophrastus, On Stones, 53–54

*τινὸς παντοπωλίου: Caley translates this as ‘inn’. I’m not sure what Greek text he was using, but I think the παντοπώλιον is the place where you find everything (τὰ πάτνα) for sale (πωλεῖν).

Cyan / Lapis Lazuli

“Just as some red ochre is spontaneous and some is artificial, so with cyan, some is native, some prepared (like in Egypt*). Now, there are three kinds of cyan: the Egyptian, the Scythian and third the Cyprian. The Egyptian is best for unmixed pigments, the Scythian for those that are wetter. The Egyptian, however, is prepared. In fact, those who record the deeds of their kings also record this: a king first made liquid cyan by imitating the native kind, as gifts of fired and unfired cyan were sent as tribute from Phoenicia and other places. Meanwhile, those who grind pigments** say that Scythian cyan produces from itself four colours: the first from the finest parts is most pale, the second from the coarsest parts is darkest. These come to be by art, too, as does white lead.”

ἔστι δέ, ὥσπερ καὶ μίλτος ἡ μὲν αὐτόματος ἡ δὲ τεχνική, καὶ κύανος ὁ μὲν αὐτοφυὴς ὁ δὲ σκευαστὸς ὥσπερ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ. γένη δὲ κυάνου τρία, ὁ Αἰγύπτιος, καὶ ὁ Σκύθης, καὶ τρίτος ὁ Κύπριος. βέλτιστος δ' ὁ Αἰγύπτιος εἰς τὰ ἄκρατα λειώματα, ὁ δὲ Σκύθης εἰς τὰ ὑδαρέστερα. σκευαστὸς δ' ὁ Αἰγύπτιος. καὶ οἱ γράφοντες τὰ περὶ τοὺς βασιλεῖς καὶ τοῦτο γράφουσι, τίς πρῶτος βασιλεὺς ἐποίησε χυτὸν κύανον μιμησάμενος τὸν αὐτοφυῆ, δῶρά τε πέμπεσθαι παρ' ἄλλων τε καὶ ἐκ Φοινίκης φόρον κυάνου, τοῦ μὲν ἀπύρου τοῦ δὲ πεπυρωμένου. φασὶ δ' οἱ τὰ φάρμακα τρίβοντες τὸν Σκύθην κύανον ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ ποιεῖν χρώματα τέτταρα, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἐκ τῶν λεπτοτάτων λευκότατον, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον ἐκ τῶν παχυτάτων μελάντατον. ταῦτά τε δὴ τέχνῃ γίνεται καὶ ἔτι τὸ ψιμύθιον.

Theophrastus, On Stones, 55–56

*κύανος (cyan): a dark blue pigment. The native kind is most likely lapis lazuli. The χυτὸν κύανον is obscure, but might be a liquid form (parallel would be χυτὸς ἄργυρος, quicksilver). I translate it as ‘liquid cyan’.

**οἱ τὰ φάρμακα τρίβοντες : “the drug-grinders.” τὰ φάρμακα has a semantic range that does not map on to either ‘drugs’, ‘medicines’ or ‘poisons’. Closest thing, I guess, would be to say, ‘chemicals,’ but that’s probably a bit too specific.

Cinnabar

“There is also a native and a manufactured kind of cinnabar. The native kind around Iberia is very hard and stony, as is the one in the Kolchian regions. This, they say, is found on cliffs, which they bring down by shooting it with arrows. The manufactured kind comes only from one place in the Kilbian region (?)*, a little bit outside of Ephesus. It is a sandy ore** which they collect when shiny, like Kermes. Once this is ground to a very fine powder in stone vessels, they wash it in copper ones, and again, taking the sediment, they wash and grind it, a task that takes some skill. For from the same amount of ore, some people produce much, some little or nothing; but, they treat the washings from above, coating them one by one. The sediment below is cinnabar, while what remains on top is mostly scum.***

“They say that Kallias, an Athenian, discovered and invented the manufacturing process from the silver mines. He thought the sandy ore had gold in it because it was shiny, and so he worked on it and collected it. When he perceived it did not have any, he marveled at the beauty of the sand because of its colour, and thus he came to the manner of its manufacture. This wasn’t long ago, but about ninety years at most before Praxibolos was archon at Athens.

“It is clear from these things that art imitates nature but produces its own kinds of things. Of these, some exist for the sake of utility, others, like paints, only for the sake of appearance, and some equally for the sake of both, like quicksilver. For this has a use, as well. It is made when cinnabar is ground up with vinegar in a bronze vessel and bronze pestle. Perhaps we might discover more things like these.”

γίνεται δὲ καὶ κιννάβαρι τὸ μὲν αὐτοφυὲς τὸ δὲ κατ' ἐργασίαν. αὐτοφυὲς μὲν τὸ περὶ Ἰβηρίαν σκληρὸν σφόδρα καὶ λιθῶδες, καὶ τὸ ἐν Κόλχοις. τοῦτο δέ φασιν εἶναι ἐπὶ κρημνῶν, ὃ καταβάλλουσι τοξεύοντες. τὸ δὲ κατ' ἐργασίαν ὑπὲρ Ἐφέσου μικρὸν <ἐν Κιλβιανοῖς (?)> ἐξ ἑνὸς τόπου μόνον. ἔστι δ' ἄμμος ἣν συλλέγουσι λαμπυρίζουσαν καθάπερ ὁ κόκκος· ταύτην δὲ τρίψαντες ὅλως ἐν ἀγγείοις λιθίνοις λειοτάτην πλύνουσιν ἐν χαλκοῖς [μικρὸν ἐν καλοῖς], τὸ δ' ὑφιστάμενον πάλιν λαβόντες πλύνουσι καὶ τρίβουσιν, ἐν ᾧπέρ ἐστι τὸ τῆς τέχνης· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ ἴσου πολὺ περιποιοῦσιν, οἱ δ' ὀλίγον ἢ οὐθέν· ἀλλὰ πλύσματι τῷ ἐπάνω χρῶνται ἓν πρὸς ἓν ἀλείφοντες. γίνεται δὲ τὸ μὲν ὑφιστάμενον κάτω κιννάβαρι, τὸ δ' ἐπάνω καὶ πλεῖον πλύσμα.

καταδεῖξαι δέ φασι καὶ εὑρεῖν τὴν ἐργασίαν Καλλίαν τινὰ Ἀθηναῖον ἐκ τῶν ἀργυρείων, ὃς οἰόμενος ἔχειν τὴν ἄμμον χρυσίον διὰ τὸ λαμπυρίζειν ἐπραγματεύετο καὶ συνέλεγεν. ἐπεὶ δ' ᾔσθετο ὅτι οὐκ ἔχοι τὸ δὲ τῆς ἄμμου κάλλος ἐθαύμαζε διὰ τὴν χρόαν, οὕτως ἐπὶ τὴν ἐργασίαν ἦλθε ταύτην. οὐ παλαιὸν δ' ἐστὶν ἀλλὰ περὶ ἔτη μάλιστ' ἐνενήκοντα εἰς ἄρχοντα Πραξίβουλον Ἀθήνησι.

φανερὸν δ' ἐκ τούτων ὅτι μιμεῖται τὴν φύσιν ἡ τέχνη, τὰ δ' ἴδια ποιεῖ, καὶ τούτων τὰ μὲν χρήσεως χάριν τὰ δὲ μόνον φαντασίας ὥσπερ τὰς ἀλοιφάς. ἔνια δὲ ἴσως ἀμφοῖν ὥσπερ χυτὸν ἄργυρον. ἔστι γάρ τις χρεία καὶ τούτου. ποιεῖται δὲ ὅταν κιννάβαρι τριφθῇ μετ' ὄξους ἐν ἀγγείῳ χαλκῷ καὶ δοίδυκι χαλκῷ. τὰ μὲν οὖν τοιαῦτα τάχ' ἄν τις λάβοι πλείω.

Theophrastus, On Stones, 58–60

*<ἐν Κιλβιανοῖς (?)>: some textual confusion. Schneider seems to have transposed ἐν καλοῖς from a bit below to here and emended it to ἐν Κιλβιανοῖς (‘in the Kilbian region’). Sure, why not…

**ἄμμος = ψάμμος, as in a sandy ore (probably, maybe).

***ἀλλὰ πλύσματι … πλύσμα. Not quite clear on the process here, but probably something similar to sluicing or panning: water goes over the sandy ore, and because of the agitation, solids of different sizes or densities separate into different layers.

“I suppose the same thing happened in foreign countries as well...” Cassius Dio on the Plague at the time of Augustus

Looks like we will pass 1,000,000 confirmed cases of Covid-19 in the next few minutes. So let’s rewind.

22 BCE or so. Plague in Italy. No one left to work the land. The people want Augustus named dictator.

“The year after that, when Marcus Macellus and Lucius Arruntius were consuls, the city was flooded again when the river overflowed, and many things were struck by lightning, even the statues in the Pantheon, so that the spear fell from Augustus’ hand as well. And then, as the Romans suffered from disease and from famine—for the plague had come to all of Italy and no one worked the land; I suppose the same thing happened in foreign countries as well—they, thinking that these things had happened to them for no other reason but that they didn’t have Augustus as a consul, wished him to be appointed dictator. They locked the senate in their chamber and, threatening to burn them to ashes, they forced them to take a vote. And after this, taking the twenty-four rods, they came to Augustus, bidding him to be named dictator and to become commissioner of the grain supply, just as Pompey once had been.”

τῷ δ' ἐπιγιγνομένῳ ἔτει, ἐν ᾧ Μᾶρκος τε Μάρκελλος καὶ Λούκιος Ἀρρούντιος ὑπάτευσαν, ἥ τε πόλις πελαγίσαντος αὖθις τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐπλεύσθη, καὶ κεραυνοῖς ἄλλα τε πολλὰ ἐβλήθη καὶ οἱ ἀνδριάντες οἱ ἐν τῷ Πανθείῳ, ὥστε καὶ τὸ δόρυ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Αὐγούστου χειρὸς ἐκπεσεῖν. πονούμενοι οὖν ὑπό τε τῆς νόσου καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ λιμοῦ (ἔν τε γὰρ τῇ Ἰταλίᾳ πάσῃ ὁ λοιμὸς ἐγένετο καὶ τὴν χώραν οὐδεὶς εἰργάσατο· δοκῶ δ' ὅτι καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἔξω χωρίοις τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο συνηνέχθη) νομίσαντες οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι οὐκ ἄλλως σφίσι ταῦτα συμβεβηκέναι, ἀλλ' ὅτι μὴ καὶ τότε ὑπατεύοντα τὸν Αὔγουστον ἔσχον, δικτάτορα αὐτὸν ἠθέλησαν προχειρίσασθαι, καὶ τήν τε βουλὴν κατακλείσαντες ἐς τὸ συνέδριον ἐπηνάγκασαν τοῦτο ψηφίσασθαι, ἀπειλοῦντές σφας καταπρήσειν, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα τὰς ῥάβδους τὰς τέσσαρας καὶ εἴκοσι λαβόντες προσῆλθον αὐτῷ, δικτάτορά τε ἅμα δεόμενοι λεχθῆναι καὶ ἐπιμελητὴν τοῦ σίτου, καθάπερ ποτὲ τὸν Πομπήιον, γενέσθαι.

Cassius Dio, Historiae Romanae 54.1.1–3