Do truffles come from thunder and other questions

1. Aristotle (4th century BCE, dubious)

Attributed to Aristotle in some 19th century collections of fragments, but I have no idea why. Maybe because of a tendency to assign to Aristotle things said by his student? Or maybe the collection includes the early Peripatos? Found it with a TLG search, but I didn’t find the edition it comes from. σκληρότερα might be a corruption, see e.g. the Athenaeus text below where he says that there are more truffles when the storms are σκληραί / severe.

“Truffles become harder when there is continuous thunder, as Theophrastus has said in his works on plants.”

τὰ ὕδνα βροντῶν συνεχῶν γιγνομένων σκληρότερα γίγνεται, καθάπερ Θεόφραστος ἐν τοῖς περὶ φυτῶν εἴρηκεν.

2. Diocles of Carystus (4th century BCE)

‘Diocles of Carystus says in the first book of Matters of Health: “wild plants to be boiled are beet, mallow, monk’s rhubarb, stinging nettle, orach, grape hyacinths, truffles, mushrooms.”’

Διοκλῆς ὁ Καρύστιος ἐν αʹ Ὑγιεινῶν φησιν· ‘ἄγρια ἑψήματα τεῦτλον, μαλάχη, λάπαθον, ἀκαλήφη, ἀνδράφαξυς, βολβοί, ὕδνα, μύκαι.

Athenaeus, The Sophists’ at Dinner, 2.57, 61c = Diocles Fragment 195 van der Eijk

3. Theophrastus (4th century BCE)

“The same differences (in the roots) exist among undershrubs, herbs and the rest, except that some have no roots at all, like the truffle, the mushroom, the bullfist, and the keraunion .*”

αἱ αὐταὶ δὲ διαφοραὶ καὶ τῶν φρυγανικῶν καὶ τῶν ποιωδῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων· πλὴν εἰ ὅλως ἔνια μὴ ἔχει, καθάπερ ὕδνον μύκης πέζις κεραύνιον.

Theophrastus, History of Plants, 1.6.5

*Keraunion (κεραύνιον), from the word for thunderbolt, keraunos, perhaps another kind of truffle.

“For it is not correct to call everything underground a root. For in that case the stem of the grape hyacinth and of the long onion and generally any part which is underground would be a root, also the truffle and what some people call askhios and the ouignon and any other underground plants, of which none are roots—for we must distinguish things by natural capacity and not by place.”

τὸ γὰρ δὴ πᾶν λέγειν τὸ κατὰ γῆς ῥίζαν οὐκ ὀρθόν· καὶ γὰρ ἂν ὁ καυλὸς τοῦ βολβοῦ καὶ ὁ τοῦ γηθύου καὶ ὅλως ὅσα κατὰ βάθους ἐστὶν εἴησαν ἂν ῥίζαι, καὶ τὸ ὕδνον δὲ καὶ ὃ καλοῦσί τινες ἀσχίον καὶ τὸ οὔϊγγον καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο ὑπόγειόν ἐστιν· ὧν οὐδέν ἐστι ῥίζα· δυνάμει γὰρ δεῖ φυσικῇ διαιρεῖν καὶ οὐ τόπῳ.

Theophrastus, History of Plants, 1.6.9

4. Dioscorides (1st century)

“Truffle is a root that is round with no leaves, no stem, light brown, dug up in the spring. It is both edible when raw and eaten when boiled.”

ὕδνον ῥίζα ἐστὶ περιφερής, ἄφυλλος, ἄκαυλος, ὑπόξανθος, ἔαρος ὀρυττομένη. ἐδώδιμος δέ ἐστιν ὠμή τε καὶ ἑφθὴ ἐσθιομένη.

Dioscorides, On Medical Materials, 2.145 (1.212,18–213,2 Wellmann)

5. Plutarch (1st century)

Why do some people think truffles are produced by thunder, and why do they think sleeping people are not struck by lightning?

‘Agemachos once offered us giant truffles while we were dining in Elis. Everyone there was amazed, and one person said with a smirk, “they’re surely worth the thunderstorms we’ve been having lately,” clearly poking fun at those who say truffles are produced by thunder. Indeed, there are some people who say that the earth is split by thunder, the air operating like a spike, and afterwards the truffle hunters use the cracks in the ground as a sign. From this arose a popular belief that truffles are produced by thunder rather than uncovered, as if someone were to think that snails were produced by rain instead of being lead out and made visible. Agemachos, however, held on stubbornly to the story and asked us not to think that what is wondrous is implausible. For there are many other wondrous things that come from thunder, lightning and related divine signs—things that have causes that are difficult or altogether impossible to discover.’

Διὰ τί τὰ ὕδνα δοκεῖ τῇ βροντῇ γίνεσθαι, καὶ διὰ τί τοὺς καθεύδοντας οἴονται μὴ κεραυνοῦσθαι.

Ὕδνα παμμεγέθη δειπνοῦσιν ἡμῖν Ἀγέμαχος παρέθηκεν ἐν Ἤλιδι. θαυμαζόντων δὲ τῶν παρόντων, ἔφη τις ὑπομειδιάσας ‘ἄξιά γε τῶν βροντῶν τῶν ἔναγχος γενομένων,’ ὡς δὴ καταγελῶν τῶν λεγόντων τὰ ὕδνα τὴν γένεσιν ἐκ βροντῆς λαμβάνειν. ἦσαν οὖν οἱ φάσκοντες ὑπὸ βροντῆς τὴν γῆν διίστασθαι καθάπερ ἥλῳ τῷ ἀέρι χρωμένης, εἶτα ταῖς ῥωγμαῖς τεκμαίρεσθαι τοὺς τὰ ὕδνα μετιόντας· ἐκ δὲ τούτου δόξαν ἐγγενέσθαι τοῖς πολλοῖς, ὅτι τὸ ὕδνον αἱ βρονταὶ γεννῶσιν οὐ δεικνύουσιν, ὥσπερ εἴ τις οἴοιτο τοὺς κοχλίας ποιεῖν τὸν ὄμβρον ἀλλὰ μὴ προάγειν μηδ' ἀναφαίνειν. ὁ δ' Ἀγέμαχος ἰσχυρίζετο τῇ ἱστορίᾳ καὶ τὸ θαυμαστὸν ἠξίου μὴ ἄπιστον ἡγεῖσθαι. καὶ γὰρ ἄλλα πολλὰ θαυμάσια βροντῆς ἔργα καὶ κεραυνοῦ καὶ τῶν περὶ ταῦτα διοσημιῶν εἶναι, χαλεπὰς καταμαθεῖν ἢ παντελῶς ἀδυνάτους τὰς αἰτίας ἔχοντα.

Plutarch, Table Talk (quaestiones convivales) 4.2, Moralia 664B–C

6. Galen (2nd century)

“On truffles. It is necessary to include these among the roots and vegetables, although they have no evident quality. That’s why people use them as a base for seasonings, just like they use the other ones they call bland, harmless and watery in taste. They all share in common that their nutriment, when it gets distributed to the body, has no remarkable property. Instead, the nutriment is a bit cool, while in thickness it is itself similar in quality to whatever was eaten, thicker when it comes from truffle, more watery and thinner when comes from colocynth and likewise in the case of the others.”

Περὶ ὕδνων. Ἐν ῥίζαις ἢ βολβοῖς ἀριθμεῖν ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι καὶ ταῦτα μηδεμίαν ἔχοντα σαφῆ ποιότητα. χρῶνται τοιγαροῦν αὐτοῖς οἱ χρώμενοι πρὸς ὑποδοχὴν ἀρτυμάτων, ὥσπερ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις, ὅσα καλοῦσιν ἄποια καὶ ἀβλαβῆ καὶ ὑδατώδη κατὰ τὴν γεῦσιν. ἔστι δ' ἁπάντων αὐτῶν κοινόν, ὡς μηδὲ τὴν ἀναδιδομένην εἰς τὸ σῶμα τροφὴν ἐξαίρετόν τινα δύναμιν ἔχειν, ἀλλ' ὑπόψυχρον μὲν εἶναι, τῷ πάχει δ', ὁποῖον ἄν τι καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ ἐδηδεσμένον ᾖ, παχυτέραν μὲν ἐξ ὕδνου, ὑγροτέραν δὲ καὶ λεπτοτέραν ἐκ κολοκύνθης ἐπί τε τῶν ἄλλων ἀνὰ λόγον.

Galen, On the Properties of Foods, 2.66 (6.655 Kühn = 327,16–328,3 Helmreich)

“On Truffle. Truffles are known to everyone to have a predominantly earthy substance, possessing a small number of fine particles that have been mixed in to their composition.”

Περὶ ὕδνου. Ὕδνα πᾶσι γνώριμα γεωδεστέραν οὐσίαν ἐπικρατοῦσαν, ἐν τῇ συστάσει κέκτηται βραχέος τινὸς αὐτῇ μεμιγμένου τοῦ λεπτομεροῦς.

Galen, Simple Drugs 9.19, 12.147 Kühn

7. Athenaeus of Naucratis (2nd/3rd century)

‘Truffles. These are also produced spontaneously from the ground especially in sandy places. Theophrastus says about them: “the truffle, which some call geraneion* and any other subterranean plant.” And again: “this is the creation and nature of these earth-born plants, like the truffle and the thing that grows near Cyrene which people call misy. This is considered very sweet and has the scent of meat, like the oiton that is produced in Thrace. Something peculiar is said about these. For they say that they are produced when the autumn rains occur with strong thunder, and more when there is more thunder, as this is more their proper cause. They are not perennials, but annuals. They are useful and at their peak in the spring. Nevertheless, some people suppose that they start from seed. In any case, on the shores of Mytilene they say they do not grow before there is a heavy rain that washes the seed down from Tiarai, while this is a region in which many grow. They are produced especially on the shores and wherever the land is sandy, for Tiarai is also like this. They also grow in the Abarnis around Lampsakos and in Alopekonnesos and in Elis.” Lynkeus of Samos says: “the sea sends up sea-anemone, the earth truffles.” And Matron the parodist in The Banquet: “he has sent up oysters, the truffles of Thetis the Nereid.” Diphilos says truffles are difficult to digest, but juicy and relaxing, besides being laxative, and some of them can cause you to choke, in a similar way to mushrooms. Hegesandros of Delphi says that in the Hellespont there are no truffles, no glaukiskos, and no thyme. For this reason Nausikleides said “neither spring nor friend.” Pamphilos in Dialects says that truffle-grass is the herb that grows on top of truffles, by which the truffle is discovered.’

ΥΔΝΑ. γίνεται καὶ ταῦτα αὐτόματα ἀπὸ γῆς μάλιστα περὶ τοὺς ἀμμώδεις τόπους. λέγει δὲ περὶ αὐτῶν Θεόφραστος (1, 6, 9)· ‘τὸ ὕδνον (ὃ καλοῦσί τινες γεράνειον) καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο ὑπόγειον.’ καὶ πάλιν (fr. 167 W)· ‘καὶ ἡ τῶν ἐγγεοτόκων τούτων γένεσις ἅμα καὶ φύσις, οἷον τοῦ τε ὕδνου καὶ τοῦ φυομένου περὶ Κυρήνην ὃ καλοῦσι μίσυ. δοκεῖ δ' ἡδὺ σφόδρα τοῦτ' εἶναι καὶ τὴν ὀσμὴν ἔχειν κρεώδη, καὶ τὸ ἐν τῇ Θρᾴκῃ δὲ γενόμενον οἰτόν. περὶ δὲ τούτων ἴδιόν τι λέγεται· φασὶ γάρ, ὅταν ὕδατα μετοπωρινὰ καὶ βρονταὶ γίνωνται σκληραί, τότε γίνεσθαι, καὶ μᾶλλον ὅταν αἱ βρονταί, ὡς ταύτης αἰτιωτέρας οὔσης. οὐ διετίζειν δέ, ἀλλ' ἐπέτειον εἶναι· τὴν δὲ χρείαν καὶ τὴν ἀκμὴν ἔχειν τοῦ ἦρος. οὐ μὴν ἀλλ' ἔνιοί γε ὡς σπερματικῆς οὔσης τῆς ἀρχῆς ὑπολαμβάνουσιν. ἐν γοῦν τῷ αἰγιαλῷ τῶν Μιτυληναίων οὔ φασι πρότερον εἶναι πρὶν ἢ γενομένης ἐπομβρίας τὸ σπέρμα κατενεχθῇ ἀπὸ Τιαρῶν· τοῦτο δ' ἐστὶ χωρίον ἐν ᾧ πολλὰ γίνεται. γίνεται δὲ ἔν τε τοῖς αἰγιαλοῖς μάλιστα καὶ ὅπου χώρα ὕπαμμος· καὶ γὰρ αἱ Τιάραι τοιαῦται. φύεται δὲ καὶ περὶ Λάμψακον ἐν τῇ Ἀβαρνίδι καὶ ἐν Ἀλωπεκοννήσῳ κἀν τῇ Ἠλείων.’ Λυγκεὺς ὁ Σάμιός φησιν· ‘ἀκαλήφην ἡ θάλασσα ἀνίησιν, ἡ δὲ γῆ ὕδνα.’ καὶ Μάτρων ὁ παρῳδὸς ἐν τῷ Δείπνῳ· ὄστρεά τ' ἤνεικεν, Θέτιδος Νηρηίδος ὕδνα. Δίφιλος δὲ δύσπεπτά φησιν εἶναι τὰ ὕδνα, εὔχυλα δὲ καὶ παραλεαντικά, προσέτι δὲ διαχωρητικά, καὶ ἔνια αὐτῶν ὁμοίως τοῖς μύκαις πνιγώδη εἶναι. Ἡγήσανδρος δ' ὁ Δελφὸς ἐν Ἑλλησπόντῳ φησὶν οὔτε ὕδνον γίνεσθαι οὔτε γλαυκίσκον οὔτε θύμον· διὸ Ναυσικλείδην εἰρηκέναι μήτε ἔαρ μήτε φίλους. ὑδνόφυλλον δέ φησι Πάμφιλος ἐν Γλώσσαις τὴν φυομένην τῶν ὕδνων ὕπερθε πόαν, ἀφ' ἧς τὸ ὕδνον γινώσκεσθαι.

Athenaeus of Naucratis, The Sophists at Dinner, 2.62

*γεράνειον geraneion – perhaps from geras = “old” and neios = “fallow land”?

8. Oribasius (4th century)

“On Truffles. They have no evident quality. That’s why people use them as a base for seasonings, just as they also use the other ones they call bland and watery in taste. They all share in common that their nutriment, when it gets distributed to the body, does not heat; instead, the nutriment is a bit cool, while in thickness it is similar to whatever was eaten, thicker when it comes from truffle, relatively more watery and thinner when it comes from the others.”

Περὶ ὕδνων. Οὐδεμίαν ἔχει σαφῆ ποιότητα· χρῶνται τοιγαροῦν αὐτοῖς πρὸς ὑποδοχὴν ἀρτυμάτων, ὥσπερ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὅσα καλοῦσιν ἄποια καὶ ὑδατώδη κατὰ τὴν γεῦσιν. ἔστι δ' ἁπάντων αὐτῶν κοινὸν ὡς μηδὲ τὴν ἀναδιδομένην τροφὴν εἰς τὸ σῶμα θερμαίνειν, ἀλλ' ὑπόψυχρον μὲν εἶναι, τῷ πάχει δ' ὁποῖον ἄν τι καὶ τὸ ἐδηδεσμένον <ᾖ>, παχύτερον μὲν ἐξ ὕδνου, ὑγρότερον δὲ καὶ λεπτότερον ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων ἀνάλογον.

Oribasius, Medical Collections, 2.24.1 (35,5–11 Raeder)

9. Aetius of Amida (6th century)

“Truffles possess a prevalent, quite earthy substance, with some fine material in with it.”

Ὕδνα γεωδεστέραν μὲν οὐσίαν ἐπικρατοῦσαν κέκτηται, βραχέος τινὸς αὐτῇ μιγνυμένου λεπτομεροῦς.

Aetius of Amida, Medical Books, 1.397 (142,6-7 Olivieri)

10. Paul of Aegina (7th century)

“On truffles (hydna) and mushrooms (mycetai). The truffle produces a quality-less humour, but it is rather cool and thick. Mushrooms are cold and produce phlegm and bad humours. From this group, the boleti are less harmful and quality-less when they are properly boiled, while the amanitai are of the second order.* One should stay away from the other mushrooms, since many people have died from them. Even the boleti themselves are often hazardous when eaten if they are not properly boiled.”

Περὶ ὕδνων καὶ μυκήτων. Τὸ ὕδνον ἄποιον μὲν ἔχει τὸν ἀναδιδόμενον ἐξ αὐτοῦ χυμόν, ψυχρότερον δὲ καὶ παχύχυμον. οἱ δὲ μυκῆται ψυχροί τέ εἰσι καὶ φλεγματώδεις καὶ κακόχυμοι· τούτων δὲ αὐτῶν οἱ μὲν βωλῖται ἀβλαβέστεροι καὶ ἄποιοι καλῶς ἑψηθέντες, οἱ δὲ ἀμανῖται δευτέρας εἰσὶ τάξεως. τῶν δὲ ἄλλων μυκήτων ἀπέχεσθαι δεῖ· πολλοὶ γὰρ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπέθανον. καὶ αὐτοὶ δὲ οἱ βωλῖται ἀνεφθότεροι ἐσθιόμενοι κινδύνου παραίτιοι πολλάκις γίνονται.

Paul of Aegina, 1.77 (56,1–8 Heiberg)

Commentary by Adams. On mushroom varieties, see Athenaeus, The Sophists at Dinner, 2.56–57

11. Anonymous (late byzantine source)

“On truffles. They are quality-less and watery in taste. They are similar to amanitai. The nutriment from them produce phlegm and is cold, and if someone eats too many it produces bad humour.”

Περὶ ὕδνων. Ἄποιά εἰσι καὶ ὑδατώδη κατὰ τὴν γεῦσιν. εἰσὶ δὲ παραπλήσια τοῖς ἀμανίταις. φλεγματώδης δέ ἐστιν ἡ ἐξ αὐτῶν τροφὴ καὶ ψυχρά, καὶ εἰ πλεονάσει τις ἐν αὐτοῖς κακόχυμος.

Anonymous, On Food, chapter 74

12. Pseudo-Hippocrates (late byzantine source)

“On vegetables. Truffles and amanitai and the artichoke are productive of bad humours, difficult to digest and productive of black bile.”

Περὶ λαχάνων. […] τὰ ὕδνα καὶ οἱ ἀμανῖται καὶ ἡ κινάρα κακόχυμα καὶ δύσπεπτα καὶ μελαγχολικά.

Pseudo-Hippocrates, On the Differences of Foods to Ptolemy (De alimentorum differentiis ad Ptolemaeum), 491,9–10 Delatte (in Anecdota Atheniensia 1939)

Aristotle on wine-drunk vs. beer-drunk

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

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

Athenaeus, The Sophists at Dinner, 1.61

Two Texts on Scent: Aristotle and Theophrastus

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

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

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

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

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

Theophrastus, On Scents, 4.17

Aristotle and Michael of Ephesus on how cicadas sing

Aristotle on how cicadas sing

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

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

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

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

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

*rather disturbing

**like an internal kazoo?

Michael of Ephesus on Aristotle on how cicadas sing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Aristotle on Art and Nature: Tools

“For just as sophisticated doctors and nearly everyone concerned with physical training agree that those who are to be good doctors or physical trainers need experience about nature, so too good legislators need experience of nature, perhaps even more than the former. For the former are craftsmen of only the body’s excellence; the latter who are craftsmen of the excellence of the soul and who profess to teach about the flourishing and failure of the state have in fact an even greater need of philosophy.

“For in all the other craftsmen’s arts the best tools have been discovered from nature, as in carpentry the level, straight-edge and compass (the ones, I take it, that are grasped through water and light and the rays of sunshine), relative to which when we are making a judgment we test what is adequately straight and smooth to our sensation; likewise the politician also needs to have some guidelines from nature and the truth itself relative to which he will distinguish what is just, what is noble and what is useful.”

ὥσπερ γὰρ τῶν ἰατρῶν ὅσοι κομψοὶ καὶ τῶν περὶ τὴν γυμναστικὴν οἱ πλεῖστοι σχεδὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν ὅτι δεῖ τοὺς μέλλοντας ἀγαθοὺς ἰατροὺς ἔσεσθαι καὶ γυμναστὰς περὶ φύσεως ἐμπείρους εἶναι, οὕτω καὶ τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς νομοθέτας ἐμπείρους εἶναι δεῖ τῆς φύσεως, καὶ πολύ γε μᾶλλον ἐκείνων. οἱ μὲν γὰρ τῆς τοῦ σώματος ἀρετῆς εἰσι δημιουργοὶ μόνον, οἱ δὲ περὶ τὰς τῆς ψυχῆς ἀρετὰς ὄντες καὶ περὶ πόλεως εὐδαιμονίας καὶ κακοδαιμονίας διδάξειν προσποιούμενοι πολὺ δὴ μᾶλλον προσδέονται φιλοσοφίας.

καθάπερ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις τέχναις ταῖς δημιουργικαῖς ἀπὸ τῆς φύσεως εὕρηται τὰ βέλτιστα τῶν ὀργάνων, οἷον ἐν τεκτονικῇ στάθμη καὶ κανὼν καὶ τόρνος † * τὰ μὲν ὕδατι καὶ φωτὶ καὶ ταῖς αὐγαῖς τῶν ἀκτίνων ληφθέντων, πρὸς ἃ κρίνοντες τὸ κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν ἱκανῶς εὐθὺ καὶ λεῖον βασανίζομεν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸν πολιτικὸν ἔχειν τινὰς ὅρους δεῖ ἀπὸ τῆς φύσεως αὐτῆς καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας, πρὸς οὓς κρινεῖ τί δίκαιον καὶ τί καλόν καὶ τί συμφέρον.

*Pistelli marks this passage with a crux; other editors have tried various solutions, none very satisfying. I’ve looked at the mss. available online, but they all preserve the same text. In their reconstruction of the Protrepticus, Doug and Monte think a line is missing (p.52 of the pdf here). Ronja is working on some compelling solutions to explain what’s going on philosophically. I think it might be an interpolation, τὰ μὲν … ληφθέντων being originally a marginal note: maybe Aristotle (or Iamblichus) didn’t bother giving examples of the kinds of tools “discovered from nature” and so someone early in the tradition wrote in some examples of the kinds of things he might have had in mind and this was later brought into the text.

Aristotle ap. Iamblichus, Protrepticus 10, 54,12–55,3 Pistelli

River Tales

“The Indos is a river in India, flowing with a great torrent to the land of the fish-eaters. In earlier times it was called Mausolos, from Mausolos, the son of the Sun, but changed its name for the following reason: When the mysteries of Dionysos were being performed and the inhabitants were spending their time in divine devotion, Indos, a youth of the nobility, forcibly raped Damasalkida, the daughter of King Oxyalkos, as she was carrying the sacred basket in the procession. While he was being sought by the tyrant for retribution, he threw himself in fear into the river Mausolos, which from then on came to be called Indos.

“A stone is produced in this river called [the text is corrupt], which, when it is carried by virgins, they do not fear being raped at all.

“In the same river also grows a plant called karpyle, similar to bugloss. It is excellent for jaundice when given to patients in warm water, just as Kleitophon of Rhodes reports in Book I of the Indica.

“Near to this is a mountain, called Lilaios after Lilaios the shepherd. For he, being an extremely devoted worshipper of the Moon alone, performed the prescribed mysteries in the middle of the night. The other gods, considering it a grave dishonour, sent two massive lions after him, and he died after being torn to pieces by them. The Moon, however, turned her adorer into a mountain with the same name.

“A stone is produced on this mountain called ‘clitoris.’ It is small and black, which the inhabitants wear as jewelry on their earlobes, as Aristotle reports in Book 4 of his On Rivers.”

Ἰνδὸς ποταμός ἐστι τῆς Ἰνδίας, ῥοίζῳ μεγάλῳ καταφερόμενος εἰς τὴν τῶν Ἰχθυοφάγων γῆν· ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ πρότερον Μαυσωλὸς ἀπὸ Μαυσωλοῦ τοῦ Ἡλίου μετωνομάσθη δὲ δι’ αἰτίαν τοιαύτην. Τῶν τοῦ Διονόσου μυστηρίων τελουμένων καὶ τῶν ἐγχωρίων τῇ δεισιδαιμονία προσευκαιρούντων, Ἰνδὸς, τῶν ἐπισήμων νέος, τὴν Ὀξυάλκου τοῦ βασιλέως θυγατέρα Δαμασαλκίδαν κανηφοροῦσαν βιασάμενος ἔφθειρεν· ζητούμενος δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ τυράννου πρὸς κόλασιν, διὰ φόβον ἑαυτὸν ἔβαλεν εἰς ποταμὸν Μαυσωλὸν, ὃς ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ Ἰνδὸς μετωνομάσθη.

Γεννᾶται δʼ ἐν αὐτῷ λίθος ⋯ προσαγορευόμενος, ὃν ὅταν φορῶσιν αἱ παρθένοι, κατʼ οὐδένα τρόπον τοὺς φθορέας φοβοῦνται.

Φύεται δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ βοτάνη καρπύλη καλουμένη, βουγλώσσῳ παρόμοιος· ποιεῖ δʼ ἄριστα πρὸς ἰκτέρους διὰ ὕδατος χλιαροῦ διδομένη τοῖς πάσχουσιν, καθὼς ἱστορεῖ Κλειτοφῶν ὁ Ῥόδιος ἐν α Ἰνδικῶν

Παράκειται δʼ αὐτῷ ὄρος, Λίλαιον προσαγορευομενον ἀπὸ Λιλαίου ποιμένος. Οὗτος γὰρ δεισιδαίμων ὑπάρχων καὶ μόνην σεβόμενος τὴν Σελήνην, νυκτὸς βαθείας ἐξετέλει τὰ μυστήρια τῆς προειρημένης. Βαρέως δὲ οἱ λοιποὶ θεοὶ τὴν ἀτιμίαν φέροντες, ἔπεμψαν αὐτῷ δύο λέοντας ὑπερμεγέθεις· ὑφʼ ὧν διασπαραχθεὶς τὸν βίον ἐξέλιπε. Σελήνη δὲ τὸν εὐεργέτην μετέβαλεν εἰς ὁμώνυμον ὄρος.

Γεννᾶται δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ λίθος κλειτορὶς ὀνομαζόμενος· ἔστι δὲ λίαν μελάγχρους· ὃν κόσμου χάριν οἱ ἐγχώριοι φοροῦσιν ἐν τοῖς ὠταρίοις, καθὼς ἱστορεῖ Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν δ περὶ Ποταμῶν.

Pseudo-Plutarch, On Rivers 25

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

Aristotle on the Difficulty of Keeping Friends Close

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

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

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

Eudemian Ethics 7, 1245b20-25

‘Who slept among the heroes of Sardinia’ — Aristotle on time and memory

“But surely, we recognize time whenever, marking by the before and after, we marked a change. And that’s when we say time has passed: when we have grasped in the change a perception of the before and after. We mark them by grasping that one thing is different from another, and a certain interval is different from them. For when we consider the extremes to be different, and the soul says that there are two nows—the one before, the other after—then this we also assert to be time. For what is marked by the now is thought to be time. Let us assume this.”

ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὸν χρόνον γε γνωρίζομεν ὅταν ὁρίσωμεν τὴν κίνησιν, τῷ πρότερον καὶ ὕστερον ὁρίζοντες· καὶ τότε φαμὲν γεγονέναι χρόνον, ὅταν τοῦ προτέρου καὶ ὑστέρου ἐν τῇ κινήσει αἴσθησιν λάβωμεν. ὁρίζομεν δὲ τῷ ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο ὑπολαβεῖν αὐτά, καὶ μεταξύ τι αὐτῶν ἕτερον· ὅταν γὰρ ἕτερα τὰ ἄκρα τοῦ μέσου νοήσωμεν, καὶ δύο εἴπῃ ἡ ψυχὴ τὰ νῦν, τὸ μὲν πρότερον τὸ δ' ὕστερον, τότε καὶ τοῦτό φαμεν εἶναι χρόνον· τὸ γὰρ ὁριζόμενον τῷ νῦν χρόνος εἶναι δοκεῖ· καὶ ὑποκείσθω.

Aristotle, Physics 4.11, 219a22-30

“Memory is neither a perception nor a conception; instead, it is a state or affection of a certain one of them, when time has passed. There is no memory of the now in the now, as we said; rather, perception is of the present, hope of the future, memory of the past. For this reason, all memory follows time. Thus, only those animals which perceive time can remember, and with that by which they perceive.”

ἔστι μὲν οὖν ἡ μνήμη οὔτε αἴσθησις οὔτε ὑπόληψις, ἀλλὰ τούτων τινὸς ἕξις ἢ πάθος, ὅταν γένηται χρόνος. τοῦ δὲ νῦν ἐν τῷ νῦν οὐκ ἔστι μνήμη, καθάπερ εἴρηται [καὶ πρότερον], ἀλλὰ τοῦ μὲν παρόντος αἴσθησις, τοῦ δὲ μέλλοντος ἐλπίς, τοῦ δὲ γενομένου μνήμη· διὸ μετὰ χρόνου πᾶσα μνήμη. ὥσθ' ὅσα χρόνου αἰσθάνεται, ταῦτα μόνα τῶν ζῴων μνημονεύει, καὶ τούτῳ ᾧ αἰσθάνεται.*

Aristotle, On Memory 1, 449b24-30

*note: Aristotle thinks time is something that happens to us, that affects us, like color or taste or touch.

“Neither (is there time) without change: for when we ourselves do not change our state of mind, or when we have not noticed ourselves changing, then time does not seem to us to have passed—just like it does not for those whom the stories tell slept among the Heroes in Sardinia: when they wake up,* they connect the earlier now with the later now and make them one, cutting out the interval. So, just as if the now were not different but one and the same, there would not be time, so, too, when we do not notice a difference, it does not seem that there has been an interval of time.”

Ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδ' ἄνευ γε μεταβολῆς· ὅταν γὰρ μηδὲν αὐτοὶ μεταβάλλωμεν τὴν διάνοιαν ἢ λάθωμεν μεταβάλλοντες, οὐ δοκεῖ ἡμῖν γεγονέναι χρόνος, καθάπερ οὐδὲ τοῖς ἐν Σαρδοῖ μυθολογουμένοις καθεύδειν παρὰ τοῖς ἥρωσιν, ὅταν ἐγερθῶσι· συνάπτουσι γὰρ τῷ πρότερον νῦν τὸ ὕστερον νῦν καὶ ἓν ποιοῦσιν, ἐξαιροῦντες διὰ τὴν ἀναισθησίαν τὸ μεταξύ.* ὥσπερ οὖν εἰ μὴ ἦν ἕτερον τὸ νῦν ἀλλὰ ταὐτὸ καὶ ἕν, οὐκ ἂν ἦν χρόνος, οὕτως καὶ ἐπεὶ λανθάνει ἕτερον ὄν, οὐ δοκεῖ εἶναι τὸ μεταξὺ χρόνος.

Aristotle, Physics 4.11, 218b21-29

*Two versions of the story are told by Ross in his commentary (and what follows is roughly a quotation from him, p. 597). Philoponus says sick people went to the heroes of Sardinia for treatment, slept for five days, which they didn’t remember when they woke up. Simplicius says that nine children born to Heracles died in Sardinia, did not decay, and looked like men asleep. Rohde (Rhein Mus. 35 (1880), pp. 157-163) points out the story’s affinities to legends which represent Alexander the Great, Nero, Charlemagne, Arthur, and Barbarossa as sleeping in the earth until they awake and come to revisit their people.