Aristotle on wine-drunk vs. beer-drunk

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

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

Athenaeus, The Sophists at Dinner, 1.61

Two Texts on Scent: Aristotle and Theophrastus

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

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

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

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

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

Theophrastus, On Scents, 4.17

What doctors say they saw

“For instance, I have seen people who, having slit their own throats, have completely severed the windpipe. Sometimes they live, but they cannot speak unless someone closes their windpipe—then they can speak.”

εἶδον δὲ ἤδη οἳ, σφάξαντες ἑωυτοὺς, ἀπέταμον τὸν φάρυγγα παντάπασιν· οὗτοι ζῶσι μὲν, φθέγγονται δὲ οὐδὲν, εἰ μή τις συλλάβῃ τὸν φάρυγγα· οὕτω δὲ φθέγγονται·

Fleshes 18

“Firstly, when the seed enters the womb, after seven days it develops all the parts the body is going to have. Now, you might wonder how I know this, but I have seen many things in the following way. The common prostitutes who have a lot of experience with these things, when they have had sex with a man, know when they’ve conceived in the womb, and then they destroy it. When it is actually destroyed, it falls out as flesh. When you put this flesh into water and examine it in the water, you will find it has all its parts: the eye sockets, the ears and limbs, also the fingers of the hands, the legs, the feet and the toes and the genitals and the whole rest of the body is evident.”

ὁ δὲ αἰών ἐστι τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἑπταήμερος. πρῶτον μὲν ἐπὴν ἐς τὰς μήτρας ἔλθῃ ὁ γόνος, ἐν ἑπτὰ ἡμέρῃσιν ἔχει ὁκόσα περ ἐστὶν ἔχειν τοῦ σώματος· τοῦτο δέ τις ἂν θαυμάσειεν ὅκως ἐγὼ οἶδα· πολλὰ δὲ εἶδον τρόπῳ τοιῷδε· αἱ ἑταῖραι αἱ δημόσιαι, αἵτινες αὐτέων πεπείρηνται πολλάκις, ὁκόταν παρὰ ἄνδρα ἔλθῃ, γινώσκουσιν ὁκόταν λάβωσιν ἐν γαστρί· κἄπειτ' ἐνδιαφθείρουσιν· ἐπειδὰν δὲ ἤδη διαφθαρῇ, ἐκπίπτει ὥσπερ σάρξ· ταύτην τὴν σάρκα ἐς ὕδωρ ἐμβαλὼν, σκεπτόμενος ἐν τῷ ὕδατι, εὑρήσεις ἔχειν πάντα μέλεα καὶ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τὰς χώρας καὶ τὰ οὔατα καὶ τὰ γυῖα· καὶ τῶν χειρῶν οἱ δάκτυλοι καὶ τὰ σκέλεα καὶ οἱ πόδες καὶ οἱ δάκτυλοι τῶν ποδῶν, καὶ τὸ αἰδοῖον καὶ τὸ ἄλλο πᾶν σῶμα δῆλον.

Fleshes 19

“And clothes that are tied up together and fixed tightly with a stick are burnt up by themselves, as I have actually seen, as if they were burnt up by fire.”

καὶ ἱμάτια συνδεδεμένα καὶ κατεσφηνωμένα ἰσχυρῶς δορὶ κατακαίεται ὑπὸ σφέων αὐτῶν, ὡς ἐγὼ ἤδη εἶδον, ὥσπερ ὑπὸ πυρὸς ἐκκαέντα.

Nature of the Child 24

Galen on Sleep, Health and Heartbreak

More of Galen’s comments on the aphorism attributed to Hippocrates:

“The kinds of habits that influence our health: diet, shelter, work, sleep, sex, thought.”

ἔθος δὲ, ἐξ οἵων ὑγιαίνομεν, διαίτῃσι, σκέπῃσι, πόνοισιν, ὕπνοισιν, ἀφροδισίοισι, γνώμῃ.

Epidemics 6.8.23

Other cases: Maiandros, the augur who predicted his own death; a Cappadocian man who thought the sky would fall.

“In Rome, I recently saw a grammarian named Kallistos whose books were destroyed in the Great Fire that had burned the Temple of Peace. He grieved about this and could no longer sleep. First, he was taken with fever, and then, in just a short time, he wasted away until he died. I have seen quite a number of people like this—whose bodies waste away, be it from grief or from a bad mental state. I will limit myself to a few cases, because their number is too large. First, I mention the story of the mother of the lawyer Nasutus. The story of this woman is as follows. She received news that a woman she loved very much, who was seventy years old, was going by invitation to another place. She arrived there and returned home after having made the long journey. When she returned, she lay down on the bed and asked for some water to drink. The servant replied, “I'll bring it to you right away,” but she fell asleep before the servant returned with the water. By then, some time had passed without the people around the woman noticing anything. When, however, they called to her, she gave no answer. The servants were then compelled to shake her, but she did not wake up. They examined her and touched her body to see what had happened. Her whole body was cold and it was clear that she was dead. They covered her with the clothes in which she had died. When the mother of Nasutus found out about this, it went to her heart so much that she could no longer sleep the way she usually used to do, and eventually she could no longer sleep at all. Her body wasted away from insomnia. She began to have a fever and four days after the news of her friend’s death, she too passed away.”

In Rom sah ich vor kurzem einen Grammatiker, namens Kallistos, dem seine Bücher bei dem großen Brand in Rom, bei dem der Tempel, der “Tempel des Friedens” heißt, verbrannte, vernichtet wurden. Darüber grämte er sich und fand keinen Schlaf mehr. Zuerst begannen bei ihm Fieber, und dann in nicht langer Zeit siechte er dahin, bis er starb. Ich habe noch eine ganze Anzahl derartiger Menschen gesehen, deren Körper dahinsiechte, sei es aus Gram oder einer schlechten Geistesverfassung. Ich beschränke mich auf ein paar Fälle, da ihre Zahl ja zu groß ist. Zuerst erwähne ich die Geschichte der Mutter des Rechtsgelehrten Nasutus. Die Geschichte dieser Frau ist folgende: Sie erhielt die Nachricht, daß eine Frau, die sie sehr liebte und die siebzig Jahre alt war, nach einem anderen Orte auf eine Einladung hin ging. Sie war dort eingetroffen und auch wieder zurückgekehrt, nachdem sie den weiten Weg gemacht hatte. Nach ihrer Rückkehr hatte sie sich auf das Bett gelegt und verlangte etwas Wasser zu trinken. Der Diener hatte geantwortet: “Ich bringe es dir sofort.” Sie schlief aber ein, bevor der Diener mit dem Wasser zurück war. Es verging nun einige Zeit, ohne daß die Leute um die Frau etwas gemerkt hatten. Dann aber riefen sie sie an, aber sie gab keine Antwort. Die Diener sahen sich deshalb gezwungen, sie zu rütteln. Sie wachte aber nicht auf. Sie machten sich nun daran, die Sache zu untersuchen, und befühlten sie, um zu sehen, was mit ihr vorgegangen war. Ihr ganzer Körper war kalt, und es war klar, daß sie tot war. Sie deckten sie mit dem Kleid zu, in dem sie gestorben war. Als die Mutter des Nasutus dies erfuhr, ging es ihr so zu Herzen, daß sie sich nicht mehr zum Schlafen niederlegen konnte, wie sie es sonst gewöhnt war, und überhaupt keinen Schlaf mehr finden konnte. Da siechte auch ihr Körper infolge der Schlaflosigkeit dahin. Sie begann zu fiebern, und schon nach vier Tagen seit der Todesnachricht verschied auch sie.*

Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates‘ Epidemics 6.8, 486,19-487,12 Wenkebach/Pfaff

*Pfaff’s German translation of Hunayn’s school’s Arabic translation (the Greek is lost).

Galen isn’t writing for…

Egyptians and people who eat snakes.

“If we didn’t mention them in our discussion of terrestrial animals, we wouldn’t end up saying anything about the nutriment derived from snails at all. But surely it would not be reasonable to leave them out, like we did woodworms or vipers and the other snakes they eat in Egypt and in some other provinces. For none of them will read these things, and we’re never going to eat any of their foods.”

εἰ δὲ μηδ' ἐν τοῖς πεζοῖς αὐτοῦ μνημονεύσαιμεν, οὐδ' ὅλως ἐροῦμέν τι περὶ τῆς ἐκ κοχλίου τροφῆς. οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ παραλιπεῖν εὔλογον, ὥσπερ τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ξύλων σκώληκας ἐχίδνας τε καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ὄφεις ὅσα τε κατ' Αἴγυπτον καὶ ἄλλα τινὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐσθίουσιν· οὔτε | γὰρ ἐκείνων τις ἀναγνώσεται ταῦτα, καὶ ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἄν ποτε φάγοιμέν τι τῶν ἐκείνοις ἐδωδίμων.

Galen, On the properties of foods 3.2, 6.668 K = 337,13–18 Helmreich

Germans and other barbarians.

“Among the Germans, children are not raised well, but we’re not really writing this for Germans or any other wildlings or barbarians, any more than we are for bears or lions or boars or whatever other savage beasts; rather, we are writing this for Greeks and all those who were born barbarian by race but strive to emulate the Greek way of life.”

παρὰ μέν γε τοῖς Γερμανοῖς οὐ καλῶς τρέφεται τὰ παιδία. ἀλλ' ἡμεῖς γε νῦν οὔτε Γερμανοῖς οὔτε ἄλλοις τισὶν ἀγρίοις ἢ βαρβάροις ἀνθρώποις ταῦτα γράφομεν, οὐ μᾶλλον ἢ ἄρκτοις ἢ λέουσιν ἢ κάπροις ἤ τισι τῶν ἄλλων θηρίων, ἀλλ' Ἕλλησι καὶ ὅσοι τῷ γένει μὲν ἔφυσαν βάρβαροι, ζηλοῦσι δὲ τὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐπιτηδεύματα.

Galen, On Matters of Health 1.10.17, 6.52 K = 24,21–25 Koch

Randoms.

“I recommend to the educated—since it’s not going to be randoms who read this—to pay attention to those things by which they are benefitted and harmed, for in this way they will have little need of doctors as long as they stay healthy.”

ὧν τοῖς πεπαιδευμένοις (οὐ γὰρ δὴ οἱ τυχόντες γε ταῦτα ἀναγνώσονται) συμβουλεύω παραφυλάττειν, ὑπὸ τίνων ὠφελοῦνταί τε καὶ βλάπτονται· συμβήσεται γὰρ οὕτως αὐτοῖς εἰς ὀλίγα δεῖσθαι τῶν ἰατρῶν, μέχρις ἂν ὑγιαίνωσιν.

Galen, On Matters of Health 6.14.28, 6.450 K. = 197,14–17 Koch

“Implausible explanations of things that don’t happen”: Galen on Sabinus on first times

Galen talks about ancient readings, his critics, the difference between conversational and written commentary, and why he sometimes feels he has to write as much as he does.

He’s arguing against a reading of Hippocrates by Sabinus. Now Sabinus is a Hippocratic commentator, roughly contemporary with Galen, maybe a generation or two before. Galen sometimes refers to him directly, sometimes he refers to his circle. It’s not clear whether there’s anything to this. Galen thinks Sabinus’ commentaries, along with those of Rufus of Ephesus and Numisianus, are worth reading—high praise from Galen—, but here he takes issue with his comments on an aphorism about sex and gassy bellies. I’m not sure I’ve totally understood what Galen is saying about why Sabinus thinks the passage is about people just starting to have sex, but Galen thinks this is wrong. It’s not impossible that Hippocrates wrote what Sabinus thinks, however, and so Galen needs to defend his reading in another way, namely by appealing to experience. What Sabinus attributes to Hippocrates never happens, at least according to Galen, and since it doesn’t happen, it’s not something Hippocrates is likely to have said.

Thanks to David and Peter for help with the translation.

Here’s the aphorism as recorded in Wenkebach’s text (it’s different from Littré and Smith, which I also inlcude):

“For some, the belly becomes gassy when they have sex, like Damnagoras; for others, a noise in them, like Arcesilaus.”

Οἷσιν, ὅταν ἀφροδισιάζωσι, φυσᾶται ἡ γαστὴρ ὡς Δαμναγόρᾳ, οἷσι δ' ἐν τούτοισι ψόφος <ὡς> Ἀρκεσιλάῳ.

Epidemics 6.3.12 (136,11–13 Wenkebach-Pfaff)

6.3.5 (3.5 V 294,7–8 Littré) οἷσιν, ὅταν ἀφροδισιάζωσι, φυσᾶται ἡ γαστὴρ, ὡς Δαμναγόρᾳ· οἷσι δ' ἐν τούτῳ ψόφος, Ἀρκεσιλάῳ δὲ καὶ ᾤδεεν. Τὸ φυσῶδες ξυναίτιον τοῖσι πιτυρώδεσι, καὶ γάρ εἰσι φυσώδεες.

6.3.5 (236,18–21 Smith) ἔστιν οἷσιν ὅταν ἀφροδισιάζωσι φυσᾶται ἡ γαστὴρ, ὡς Δαμναγόρᾳ, οἷσι δ' ἐν τούτῳ ψόφος. Ἀρκεσιλάῳ δὲ καὶ ᾤδει. τὸ φυσῶδες ξυναίτιον τοῖσι πτερυγώδεσι, καὶ γάρ εἰσι φυσώδεις.

And here is Galen’s commentary:

‘Different people write the passage in different ways, and some add to it the phrase “when they begin”, leaving out the “for some” at the beginning and composing the sentence like this: “when they begin to have sex, the belly becomes gassy”. They want it to say that those who are beginning to have sex, i.e., those who are first trying out this activity, suffer what was indicated in the passage that follows. Now, no ancient book or commentator knows this reading. Nevertheless, Sabinus’ circle says his [i.e. Hippocrates’] account is about those beginning to have sex, even though Hippocrates mentioned one man by name, Damnagoras. This is something he usually does when he goes through something that happens only to a few people. And without anything written about these things by Hippocrates, one should have learned about the phenomenon from experience. For it is not the case that those who are beginning to have sex suffer intestines filled with gas or have a noise contained in them; it is rather that, in rare cases, some of those past their prime and who have the affection called flatulent, hypochondriac and melancholic, more often suffer from intestines filled with gas when they have sex. These same people also have a constant desire for sex.

“Well then, I have said it before many times already: whether I neglect the readings which others have offered in this passage, or whether I talk about them all, there are many people who will find fault with either of them, since they judge the appropriate length of the discussion by their own desires, not the nature of the subject matter. And of course even if I should talk about some things that have been said or written down, and leave out others, even then some of them will blame me because I should have left out some of the things that I discussed since they are clearly frivolous, while I should have discussed some of the things I left out since they are not inferior to what I did discuss. For in our day-to-day intercourse, once we have found out from those present what kind of explanation they want to hear from us, we try to adapt it [sc. the explanation] to their wishes. In a book, however, this is not possible to do. That is why in the majority of passages I generally chose not to mention variants from the ancient reading or interpretations that are altogether unusual. In some cases, however, either when the transmitted text is not altogether implausible *** The readers should keep the commentaries in mind, to mention them in each passage they are burdensome *** [the text is problematic].

‘Sabinus’ circle, then, said that those who attempt sex for the first time suffer what was described in the passage, and assuming this is true, they try to explain the cause of it; but contrary to them, some took [ἐποιήσαντο] this reading of the passage: “it is the case for some that when they have sex, the belly becomes gassy.” Those in Sabinus’ circle say, not without reason, that this happens to those who are beginning to have sex. First, <they say> big and strange changes are happening to the body (for they write like this), and because of these strange changes, epilepsy and nephritis and other chronic conditions affect them. And then <they say> that Democritus said, “man springs from man in sexual intercourse” [DK 32B]. And so for this reason, they say, there is a great deal of irritation since they are unaccustomed to semen and they are affected by the acridity; and in fact the account is common, so they say, to both women and men, and they say the cause in the case of women is clear. For the intestines lie under the womb, while the bladder lies on top of it. It is likely, then, that it holds back the excretion from both when it is stretched and engorged; and so, since the gas is continually stopped up inside, she suffers a build-up of pneuma, and since the urine is stopped, the area around the belly becomes swollen. This, then, is what Sabinus’ circle says, giving implausible explanations of things that do not happen. For these things do not happen to young people when they begin having sex, but to those called melancholic and flatulent, who experience these kinds of things after they are past their prime. For generally being filled with gas occurs because of weakness of the natural heat; when this is strong, none of these things happens.

‘In the Problemata, Aristotle also inquires into the cause on account of which melancholics are sexually excited, and he says they have a lot of gassy pneuma that collects in their hypochondrion, which is why these kinds of affection are called pneumatic and hypochondriac, and both Diocles and Pleistonicus and many other doctors say this is how they are called. It would not be a bad idea to mention a passage from what was written by Aristotle, which goes like this: “Why are melancholics sexually excited? Is it because they are full of pneuma? For semen is an outlet for pneuma. Thus, for this reason when there is much of it, necessarily one often desires to be purged, for then they are relieved” [Problemata 4.30, 880a30-33]. Thus, also for this reason, Rufus chose to write “fear” instead of “noise”, so that Hippocrates’ discussion would be about melancholics, for whom fear is particularly specific. For while their fears are different, there is always some one thing for each of them when they are moderately depressed, otherwise there are two or more, or very many, for some of them even everything. Thus, according to Rufus, the passage will be as follows: “for some, when they have sex, the belly becomes gassy, as for Damnagoras, while for some there is fear in them”; but according to the ancient commentators, it is as it has been written at the start, for I always add their reading, even if it seems to be in error according to the first copyists. For as I have said many times already, once we have said how it was discovered to have been written, we should right away offer some interpretation in addition indicating this very thing. The interpretation of Sabinus’ circle has been discussed.

‘Kapito however wrote it in this way: “It is the case for some, when they have sex, the belly becomes gassy, as for Damnagoras, while for some there is a noise in them.” Dioscorides in this way: “while for some, when they have sex, the belly becomes gassy, as for Damnagoras, for some there is a noise in them.” For he left out the letter delta. Actually, none of the interpreters agree with one another on the interpretation of the word “noise”, some saying it means intestinal rumbling, some belching, some passing gas downwards, some whichever of these is simplest, whatever movement in the intestines is perceptible to hearing, for there are some other motions and “sounds” in the intestines beyond intestinal rumbling, some like echoes, some like hissing or some such manner of noise.

‘“For Arcesilaus, it also used to become swollen.” “For Arcesilaus”, he says, not only did “the belly used to be gassy”, but also “swollen”, i.e., he had an oedema. I have said already many times that he calls all masses that are contrary to nature “oedema”, whether they are inflammatory, erysipelic, or like a hardened swelling; the moderns, however, call only the spongy mass an “oedema”. But just what kind of mass he said Arcesilaus developed is no small inquiry. He seems to me to have meant what is specifically termed such by the moderns. It is implausible that he developed an erysipelas or inflammation or hardened swelling or some other such thing around the time of sexual activities or a little later, and again in addition to not establishing it much. This whole problem has been left out by the commentators. Nevertheless, Hippocrates mentions this Arcesliaus in another place in the book, where he says: “at the onset of this, it is the case that some pass gass, like Arcesilaus.” And so it is clear that for such people the belly is full of gas and that it is caused to be emitted by the tension that arises during sex. Dioscorides wrote the passage in this way: “But for Arcesilaus bad gassiness swelled up” instead of “the gassiness smelled bad”, wanting it to be written in this way, while everyone else begins the second passage with “the gassiness”, as it is written next.’

Καὶ ταύτην τὴν ῥῆσιν ἄλλος ἄλλως γράφει καί τινες προστιθέασιν αὐτῇ τὸ “ὅταν ἄρχωνται”, τὸ κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν εἰρημένον «οἷσιν» ἀφαιροῦντες καὶ ποιοῦντες τὴν λέξιν τοιαύτην· “ὅταν ἄρχωνται «ἀφροδισιάζειν, φυσᾶται ἡ γαστήρ»”, βουλόμενοι τοὺς ἀρχομένους ἀφροδισίων, τουτέστι τοὺς πρῶτον ἐπιχειροῦντας τῷ ἔργῳ τούτῳ, πάσχειν τὰ διὰ τῆς ῥήσεως ἐφεξῆς δηλούμενα. καίτοι τὴν γραφὴν ταύτην οὔτε βιβλίον | τι παλαιὸν οὔτ' ἐξηγητὴς οἶδεν. ἀλλ' ὅμως οἱ περὶ τὸν Σαβῖνον ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρχομένων ἀφροδισιάζειν τὸν λόγον αὐτῷ εἶναί φασι, καίτοι μνημονεύσαντος αὐτονομαστὶ τοῦ Ἱπποκράτους ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, τοῦ Δαμναγόρου. τοῦτο δ' εἴωθε ποιεῖν, ὅταν ὀλίγοις τισὶ γινόμενον πρᾶγμα διέρχηται. καὶ χωρὶς δὲ τοῦ γεγράφθαι τι περὶ τούτων Ἱπποκράτει τὸ φαινόμενον ἐχρῆν ἐκ τῆς πείρας μαθεῖν. οὐ γὰρ συμβαίνει τοῖς ἀρχομένοις ἀφροδισίων «ἐμφυσᾶσθαι» τὴν κοιλίαν ἢ «ψόφον» ἴσχειν ἐν αὐτῇ, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἐνίοις ἐν τῷ σπανίῳ τῶν παρακμαζόντων τε καὶ τὸ καλούμενον πάθημα φυσῶδές τε καὶ ὑποχονδριακὸν καὶ μελαγχολικὸν ἐχόντων «ἐμφυσᾶσθαι» συμβαίνει μᾶλλον «τὴν γαστέρα», ὅταν «ἀφροδισίοις» χρήσωνται. τοῖς δ' αὐτοῖς τού<τοις> ὑπάρχει καὶ τὸ συνεχῶς ὀρέγεσθαι μίξεως.

ὅπερ οὖν πολλάκις ἤδη πρόσθεν εἶπον, ἐάν τε παραλείπω τὰς γραφὰς ἃς ἐποιήσαντο κατὰ τήνδε τὴν ῥῆσιν, ἐάν τ' εἴπω πάσας, ἑκατέρῳ μέμψονται πολλοὶ ταῖς ἑαυτῶν ἐπιθυμίαις κρίνοντες τὸ σύμμετρον ἐν τοῖς λόγοις, οὐ τῇ τῶν πραγμάτων φύσει. καὶ μέντοι κἄν | τινα μὲν εἴπω τῶν εἰρημένων τε καὶ γεγραμμένων, τινὰ <δὲ> παραλείπω, καὶ οὕτως ἔσονταί τινες οἱ μεμψάμενοί τινα μὲν τῶν εἰρημένων ὡς ἐχρῆν παραλελεῖφθαι καὶ ταῦτα ληρώδη γε ὄντα, τινὰ δὲ τῶν παραλελειμμένων ὡς ἐχρῆν εἰρῆσθαι μὴ χείρω τῶν εἰρημένων ὄντα. κατὰ μὲν γὰρ τὰς ὁσημέραι γινομένας συνουσίας ὁποίαν τινὰ βούλονται τὴν ἐξήγησιν ἀκούειν οἱ παρόντες, αὐτῶν ἐκείνων πυθόμενοι ἁρμόττεσθαι πειρῶνται ταῖς βουλήσεσιν αὐτῶν. ἐν βιβλίῳ δ' οὐκ ἔστι πρᾶξαι τοῦτο. διόπερ εἱλόμην ἐν μὲν ταῖς πλείσταις τῶν ῥήσεων ἢ μηδ' ὅλως μνημονεύειν τῶν ὑπαλλαττόντων τὴν ἀρχαίαν γραφὴν ἢ παντάπασιν ἀλλοκότως ἐξηγησαμένων. ἐπί τινων δ' ἤτοι τὰ μὴ παντάπασιν ἀπιθάνως εἰρημένα *** μεμνῆσθαι χρὴ τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας τὰ ὑπομνήματα καθ' ἑκάστην <γὰρ> τὴν ῥῆσιν ἀναμιμνῄσκειν αὐτῶν ἐπαχθές.

ὅπερ οὖν ἔλεγον οἱ μὲν περὶ τὸν Σαβῖνον ὡς τοῖς πρῴην τῶν ἀφροδισίων πειρωμένοις συμβαίνει τὰ κατὰ τὴν ῥῆσιν εἰρημένα πάσχειν, ὡς ἀληθὲς ὑποθέμενοι πειρῶνται λέγειν τὴν αἰτίαν αὐτοῦ. τινὲς δ' | ἔμπαλιν τοῖσδε τὴν γραφὴν τῆς λέξεως ἐποιήσαντο τοιάνδε· “εἰσὶν «οἷσιν, ὅταν ἀφροδισιάζωσι, φυσᾶται ἡ γαστήρ».” οἱ μὲν περὶ τὸν Σαβῖνον οὐκ ἀλόγως φασὶ τοῖς ἀφροδισιάζειν ἀρχομένοις τοῦτο συμβαίνειν· πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι μέγας ὁ ξενισμὸς γίνεται περὶ τὸ σῶμα (γράφουσι γὰρ οὕτως αὐτοί), δι' ὃν ξενισμόν φασιν ἐπιληψίαν τε καὶ νεφρίτιδας αὐτοῖς ἕτερά τε χρόνια γίνεσθαι· ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ ὅτι <Δημόκριτος> εἶπεν “ἄνθρωπον ἐξ ἀνθρώπου ἐν ταῖς συνουσίαις ἐκθόρνυσθαι”. καὶ μέντοι καὶ διότι φασὶ πολὺν ὀδαξησμὸν διὰ τὴν ἀήθειαν τοῦ θοροῦ καὶ τὴν δριμύτητα πάσχουσι, καὶ κοινοῦ γε, ὡς λέγουσιν, ὄντος τοῦ λόγου θηλειῶν τε καὶ ἀρρένων, ἐπὶ θηλειῶν φασι σαφῆ τὴν αἰτίαν εἶναι· τῇ γὰρ ὑστέρᾳ τὸ μὲν ἔντερον ὑπεστόρεσται , ἡ κύστις δ' ἐπίκειται· εἰκὸς οὖν ἐντεινομένην αὐτὴν καὶ σφριγῶσαν ἐπέχειν τὴν ἀμφοτέρων ἀπόκρισιν· ἐναπολαμβανομένης οὖν τῆς φύσης συνεχῶς ἐμπνευματοῦσθαι καὶ τοῦ οὔρου δὲ κατεχομένου τὸ ἐπιγάστριον οἰδεῖν. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν οἱ περὶ τὸν Σαβῖνον λέγουσιν, ἀπιθάνους αἰτίας ἀποδιδόντες τῶν μὴ γινομένων. οὐ γὰρ συμβαίνει ταῦτα τοῖς ἀρχομένοις ἀφροδισίων μειρακίοις, ἀλλὰ τοῖς μελαγχολικοῖς καὶ φυσώδεσιν ὀνομαζομένοις, οἳ καὶ μετὰ τὴν παρακμαστικὴν ἡλικίαν τὰ τοιαῦτα πάσχουσιν. ὅλως γὰρ τὸ φύσης ἐμπίπλασθαι δι' ἀσθένειαν γίνεται τῆς ἐμφύτου θερμάσιας. ἐρρωμένης γὰρ ταύτης τῶν τοιούτων οὐδὲν συμβαίνει.

Ἀριστοτέλης δ' ἐν τοῖς Προβλήμασι καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν ζητεῖ, δι' ἣν ἀφροδισιαστικοὺς συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι τοὺς μελαγχολικούς, ἀθροίζεσθαί τε πνεῦμά φησιν αὐτοῖς ἐν ὑποχονδρίοις φυσῶδες οὐκ ὀλίγον, διὸ πνευματώδη τε καὶ ὑποχονδριακὰ προσαγορεύεσθαι τὰ τοιαῦτα πάθη, καὶ <Διοκλῆς> δὲ καὶ <Πλειστόνικος> ἕτεροί τε πολλοὶ τῶν ἰατρῶν οὕτως ὀνομάζεσθαί φασιν αὐτά. οὐ χεῖρον δὲ καὶ λέξιν τινὰ τῶν τῷ Ἀριστοτέλει γεγραμμένων εἰπεῖν ἔχουσαν ὧδε· “διὰ τί οἱ μελαγχολικοί <εἰσιν> ἀφροδισιαστικοί; ἢ ὅτι πνευματώδεις. τὸ γὰρ σπέρμα πνεύματος ἔξοδός ἐστι. διότι οὖν πολὺ τὸ τοιοῦτον, ἀνάγκη πολλάκις ἐπιθυμεῖν καθαίρεσθαι, κουφίζονται γάρ.” διὰ τοῦτ' οὖν καὶ Ῥοῦφος [ἔλεγεν] ἀντὶ τοῦ «ψόφος» εἵλετο γρά|φειν “φόβος”, ἵνα ὁ λόγος ᾖ τῷ Ἱπποκράτει περὶ τῶν μελαγχολικῶν, οἷς ἐστιν ἰδιαίτατος ὁ φόβος· ἄλλῳ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλο φοβερόν, ἓν γοῦν τι πάντως καθ' ἕκαστον αὐτῶν, ὅταν γε τὰ μέτρια δυσθυμῶσιν, εἰ δὲ μή, καὶ δύο καὶ πλείω καὶ πάνυ πολλὰ καί τισιν αὐτῶν ἅπαντα. γενήσεται <δ'> οὖν κατὰ μὲν τὸν <Ῥοῦφον> ἡ λέξις οὕτως ἔχουσα· «οἷσιν, ὅταν ἀφροδισιάζωσι, φυσᾶται ἡ γαστήρ, ὡς Δαμναγόρᾳ, οἷσι δ' ἐν τούτοις ὁ φόβος»· κατὰ δὲ τοὺς παλαιοὺς ἐξηγητάς, ὡς ἐν ἀρχῇ γέγραπται, τὴν γὰρ ἐκείνων γραφὴν ἀεὶ προστίθημι, κἂν ἡμαρτῆσθαι δοκῇ κατὰ τοὺς πρώτους ἀντιγραψαμένους. ἄμεινον γάρ, ὡς εἶπον ἤδη πολλάκις, ὅπως εὑρέθη γεγραμμένον εἰπόντας, οὕτως ἤδη προσεπινοεῖν αὐτούς τι δηλοῦντας αὐτὸ τοῦτο. λέλεκται δὲ καὶ ἡ <τῶν> περὶ τὸν Σαβῖνον ἐξήγησις [τε].

Καπίτων δὲ οὕτως ἔγραψεν· ἔστιν «οἷς, ὅταν ἀφροδισιάζωσι, φυσᾶται ἡ γαστήρ, ὡς Δαμναγόρᾳ, οἷσι δ' ἐν τούτοισι, ψόφος». Διοσκουρίδης δὲ οὕτως· «οἷσι μὲν, ὅταν | ἀφροδισιάζωσι, φυσᾶται ἡ γαστήρ, ὡς Δαμναγόρᾳ, οἷσιν ἐν τούτοισι ψόφος». ἀφεῖλε γὰρ οὗτος τὸ δέλτα. οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ κατὰ τὴν ἐξήγησιν τοῦ «ψόφος» ὀνόματος ὡμολόγησαν ἀλλήλοις οἱ ἐξηγηταί, τινὲς μὲν βορβορυγμὸν δηλοῦσθαι λέγοντες, ἔνιοι δ' ἐρυγήν, ἔνιοι δὲ τὰς κάτω διεξιούσας φύσας, ἔνιοι δ' ὅ τι ἂν ᾖ τούτων ἁπλῶς, ἡτισοῦν ἐν τοῖς ἐντέροις κίνησις αἰσθητὴ ταῖς ἀκοαῖς, εἰσὶ γὰρ καὶ ἄλλαι τινὲς ἔξωθεν τῶν βορβορυγμῶν ἐν τοῖς ἐντέροις κινήσεις τε καὶ «ψόφοι», τινὲς μὲν ἤχοις ἐοικότες, τινὲς δὲ συριγμοῖς ἤ τινι τοιουτοτρόπῳ ψόφῳ

Ἀρκεσιλάῳ δὲ <καὶ ᾤδεε. Ἀρκεσιλάῳ>, φησίν, οὐ μόνον «ἐφυσᾶτο ἡ γαστήρ», ἀλλὰ καὶ «ᾤδει», τουτέστιν οἴδημα εἶχεν. εἴρηκα δὲ ἤδη πολλάκις οἴδημα καλεῖν αὐτὸν ἅπαντα τὸν παρὰ φύσιν ὄγκον, εἴτε φλεγμονώδης εἴτ' ἐρυσιπελατώδης εἴτε σκιρρώδης εἴη, τῶν νεωτέρων μόνον τὸν χαῦνον ὄγκον οἴδημα καλούντων. ἀλλά γε ποῖόν τινα λέγει τὸν ὄγκον γενέσθαι τῷ Ἀρκεσιλάῳ, ζήτημά ἐστιν οὐ μικρόν. ἐμοὶ μὲν οὖν δοκεῖ τὸν ἰδίως ὑπὸ τῶν νεωτέρων ὀνομαζόμενον εἰρη|κέναι. [οὐκ] ἔστι δ' ἀπίθανον ἐρυσίπελας ἢ φλεγμονὴν ἢ σκίρρον ἤ τι τῶν τοιούτων <αὐτῷ> γενέσθαι περὶ τὸν τῶν ἀφροδισίων καιρὸν ἢ σμικρὸν ὕστερον, αὖθίς τε μετ' οὐ πολὺ καθίστασθαι τοῦτο. τοῖς δ' ἐξηγηταῖς ὅλον τοῦτο παραλέλειπται τὸ σκέμμα. τοῦ μέντοι Ἀρκεσιλάου τούτου καὶ καθ' ἕτερον τόπον τοῦ βιβλίου μέμνηται ὁ Ἱπποκράτης, ἔνθα φησίν· “ἐν τῇσι προσόδοισιν <ἔστιν> οἳ <ἀπο->ψοφοῦσιν, ὡς Ἀρκεσίλαος.” εὔδηλον οὖν ὅτι τοῖς τοιούτοις φύσης ἐστὶν ἡ γαστὴρ μεστὴ καὶ ταύτην ὑπὸ τῆς γινομένης συντονίας ἐν τοῖς ἀφροδισίοις ἐκκρίνεσθαι συμβαίνει. Διοσκουρίδης δὲ οὕτως ἔγραψε τὴν ῥῆσιν· “Ἀρκεσιλάῳ δὲ κακὸν ὤδει τὸ φυσῶδες”, ἀντὶ τοῦ “κακὸν ὤζετο τὸ φυσῶδες”, ὡδὶ γεγράφθαι βουλόμενος, οἱ δ' ἄλλοι πάντες ἀρχὴν τῆς δευτέρας ῥήσεως ἐποιήσαντο “τὸ φυσῶδες”, ὡς ἐφεξῆς γέγραπται.

Galen, Commentary on Epidemics 6.3.12, 17B.25–32 K. = 136,11–140,23 Wenkebach-Pfaff

***Wenkebach or Pfaff notes the Arabic translation in the apparatus, which they translated into German:

Ich habe bei einigen Reden erwähnt, was nicht sehr weit vom Unbefriedigenden ist, oder was gesagt wurde, wie es sich nicht gehört, aber doch unverdienterweise gelobt wurde.

“In a few discussions, I have mentioned what was not very far from being unsatisfactory, or what was said in a way that was inappropriate, but undeservedly praised.”

The first part seems to translate “ἐπί τινων δ' ἤτοι τὰ μὴ παντάπασιν ἀπιθάνως εἰρημένα […]” = “in a few discussions, <I have> mentioned what was not very far from being unsatisfactory.” The next part is anyone’s guess, but it probably continued the second disjunct ἢ and a finite verb. Then a new sentence and a question whether μεμνῆσθαι goes with χρὴ or not. μεμνῆσθαι χρὴ τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας τὰ ὑπομνήματα, καθ' ἑκάστην <γὰρ> τὴν ῥῆσιν ἀναμιμνῄσκειν αὐτῶν ἐπαχθές or μεμνῆσθαι. χρὴ […] ἀναμιμνῄσκειν. If we try the latter and take out Wenkebach’s “γὰρ”, we have: χρὴ <δὲ?> τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας τὰ ὑπομνήματα καθ' ἑκάστην τὴν ῥῆσιν ἀναμιμνῄσκειν αὐτῶν ἐπαχθές. This isn’t totally intelligible, and says something like “it is necessary that those who read commentaries in each passage remember them nuisances.” This obviously isn’t right—I have no idea what to do with ἐπαχθές and I’m not sure if καθ' ἑκάστην τὴν ῥῆσιν goes with ὑπομνήματα or ἀναμιμνῄσκειν. I would like it if the passage says what Wenkebach wants it to say (or what I think he wants it to say), something like “it is necessary for the readers to keep the commentaries in mind, for to recall them in each passage would be burdensome”, but I can’t see how this would work. “Nuisance” (ἐπαχθές) seems to modify “the commentaries” (τὰ ὑπομνήματα)—I can’t see what else it might be doing.

Aristotle and Michael of Ephesus on how cicadas sing

Aristotle on how cicadas sing

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

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

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

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

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

*rather disturbing

**like an internal kazoo?

Michael of Ephesus on Aristotle on how cicadas sing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Testimony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Jehanne était montée et faisait entendre ces dernières paroles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia, 2021

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

Scott, 1815

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

---

Notes

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

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

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

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

** Gomart’s essay was printed in:

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

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

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

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

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

---

Notes to notes

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

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

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

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

Thierry gives an example in note 29 of page 27:

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

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

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

Walpurgisnacht, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Captisque res magis mentibus, quam consceleratis similis visa;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aristotle's Library

Here’s the story of what happened to Aristotle’s library after he died. From Strabo:

“From Skepsis came the Socratic philosophers Erastos, Koriskos and Neleus, Koriskos’ son , a man who was a student of both Aristotle and Theophrastos and who inherited the library of Theophrastos, which also included that of Aristotle; in fact, Aristotle had left his library to Theophrastos, to whom he also left his school, being the first person I’m aware of who collected books and who taught the Egyptian kings to arrange a library.

“Theophrastos left it to Neleus and having brought it to Skepsis, he left it to his descendants, common people who kept the books locked up without having stored them carefully. When, however, they became aware of how eagerly the Attalid kings to whom the city belonged were seeking books to add to the collection of the library in Pergamom, they concealed them underground in a kind of ditch. At some point after a long time, when they had become ruined by moisture and bookworms, his descendants sold the books of Aristotle and Theophrastos to Apellikon of Teos for a large amount of silver. Apellikon, however, was a lover of books more than a lover of wisdom, and that’s why when he sought to restore what had been eaten, he made new copies of the writing without filling things in very well and he published the books full of errors.

“The result of all this way that the ancient Peripatetics, those after Theophrastos, who basically didn’t have any books except for a few mainly exoteric ones, could not philosophize about anything in a practical way, but could only speak theses into perfume bottles (as it were); those who, on the other hand, came after the books re-appeared, they could philosophize and aristotelize better than the others, but were nevertheless compelled to say most things were likelihoods because of the great number of errors [in the texts].

“Rome contributed a lot to this too. For right after the death of Apellikon, Sulla carried off Apellikon’s library having seized Athens; and when it arrived in Rome, the grammarian Tyrannion—a fan of Aristotle—got hold of it by flattering the librarian; certain booksellers did, too, who used bad copyists and did not collate the texts, which happens in other cases, too, when books are copied for sale, both here and in Alexandria. But that’s enough about this.”

ἐκ δὲ τῆς Σκήψεως οἵ τε Σωκρατικοὶ γεγόνασιν Ἔραστος καὶ Κορίσκος καὶ ὁ τοῦ Κορίσκου υἱὸς Νηλεύς, ἀνὴρ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλους ἠκροαμένος καὶ Θεοφράστου, διαδεδεγμένος δὲ τὴν βιβλιοθήκην τοῦ Θεοφράστου, ἐν ᾗ ἦν καὶ ἡ τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους· ὁ γοῦν Ἀριστοτέλης τὴν ἑαυτοῦ Θεοφράστῳ παρέδωκεν, ᾧπερ καὶ τὴν σχολὴν ἀπέλιπε, πρῶτος ὧν ἴσμεν συναγαγὼν βιβλία καὶ διδάξας τοὺς ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ βασιλέας βιβλιοθήκης σύνταξιν.

Θεόφραστος δὲ Νηλεῖ παρέδωκεν· ὁ δʼ εἰς Σκῆψιν κομίσας τοῖς μετʼ αὐτὸν παρέδωκεν, ἰδιώταις ἀνθρώποις, οἳ κατάκλειστα εἶχον τὰ βιβλία οὐδʼ ἐπιμελῶς κείμενα· ἐπειδὴ δὲ ᾔσθοντο τὴν σπουδὴν τῶν Ἀτταλικῶν βασιλέων ὑφʼ οἷς ἦν ἡ πόλις, ζητούντων βιβλία εἰς τὴν κατασκευὴν τῆς ἐν Περγάμῳ βιβλιοθήκης, κατὰ γῆς ἔκρυψαν ἐν διώρυγί τινι· ὑπὸ δὲ νοτίας καὶ σητῶν κακωθέντα ὀψέ ποτε ἀπέδοντο οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους Ἀπελλικῶντι τῷ Τηίῳ πολλῶν ἀργυρίων τά τε Ἀριστοτέλους καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοφράστου βιβλία· ἦν δὲ ὁ Ἀπελλικῶν φιλόβιβλος μᾶλλον ἢ φιλόσοφος· διὸ καὶ ζητῶν ἐπανόρθωσιν τῶν διαβρωμάτων εἰς ἀντίγραφα καινὰ μετήνεγκε τὴν γραφὴν ἀναπληρῶν οὐκ εὖ, καὶ ἐξέδωκεν ἁμαρτάδων πλήρη τὰ βιβλία.

συνέβη δὲ τοῖς ἐκ τῶν περιπάτων τοῖς μὲν πάλαι τοῖς μετὰ Θεόφραστον οὐκ ἔχουσιν ὅλως τὰ βιβλία πλὴν ὀλίγων, καὶ μάλιστα τῶν ἐξωτερικῶν, μηδὲν ἔχειν φιλοσοφεῖν πραγματικῶς, ἀλλὰ θέσεις ληκυθίζειν· τοῖς δʼ ὕστερον, ἀφʼ οὗ τὰ βιβλία ταῦτα προῆλθεν, ἄμεινον μὲν ἐκείνων φιλοσοφεῖν καὶ ἀριστοτελίζειν, ἀναγκάζεσθαι μέντοι τὰ πολλὰ εἰκότα λέγειν διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν.

πολὺ δὲ εἰς τοῦτο καὶ ἡ Ῥώμη προσελάβετο· εὐθὺς γὰρ μετὰ τὴν Ἀπελλικῶντος τελευτὴν Σύλλας ἦρε τὴν Ἀπελλικῶντος βιβλιοθήκην ὁ τὰς Ἀθήνας ἑλών, δεῦρο δὲ κομισθεῖσαν Τυραννίων τε ὁ γραμματικὸς διεχειρίσατο φιλαριστοτέλης ὤν, θεραπεύσας τὸν ἐπὶ τῆς βιβλιοθήκης, καὶ βιβλιοπῶλαί τινες γραφεῦσι φαύλοις χρώμενοι καὶ οὐκ ἀντιβάλλοντες, ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων συμβαίνει τῶν εἰς πρᾶσιν γραφομένων βιβλίων καὶ ἐνθάδε καὶ ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ. περὶ μὲν οὖν τούτων ἀπόχρη.

Strabo, Geographica, 13.1.54