Venerean Arts

‘mulier recte olet ubi nihil olet’

I’ve not had much time to post recently. I’ve been working on starting up Alchemies of Scent and trying to finish a few articles and books. But I’m also getting into some material on perfumery and other arts associated with Aphrodite / Venus. I had some time to translate and find a nice photo, so I thought I would put it up.

In the Greco-Roman lineage of texts I work with, there are many references to arts and technology of elegance, luxury and playfulness. They include perfumery, dyeing, fine metal working, embroidery, garment making, garland weaving, and also singing and other arts associated with the symposium.

I’ve started referring to them as the arts of Venus, “the Venerean arts,” since Aphrodite / Venus seems to govern them in astrological texts. As a nice bonus, Eros and Psyche figure in the arts’ frescoes at the house of the Vettii in Pompeii, hinting at a connection beyond astrology.

Being a luxury art doesn’t usually carry positive connotations for the authors I study. Instead, they are associated with things these authors consider to be morally inferior or wrong: wealth, femininity, impermanence, vanity and untrustworthiness.

The association between these authors’ moral categories and the Venerean arts is likely one reason why these arts were attacked and mocked by so many Greek and Roman voices that have survived and by many people who have followed them.

For example, we’re told Solon proclaimed a law that forbade Athenian citizens from being perfumers [1]. Xenophon’s Socrates says men have no need of perfume beyond the scent of sweat and olive oil, while women have no need for any scent at all beyond what is natural [2]. Plautus, in his Ghost Story (the Mostellaria, perhaps an adaptation of an earlier Athenian play), has a character say, mulier recte olet ubi nihil olet —‘a woman smells best when she smells of nothing at all’ [3]. Seneca reports a saying that one can tell a scoundrel by the fact that he wears perfume [4]. Doctors like Athenaeus or Galen say that a luxurious lifestyle also involves unhealthy behaviours, where ‘unhealthy behaviours’ often map closely on to behaviours these same figures take to be morally wrong (the causal direction here is not always clear).

Such condemnations of the Venerean arts are pretty familiar from surviving philosophical and political writings of the period.

Despite these critiques, however, the markets continued and the arts themselves survived. Even if the promoters of Solon and Socrates would want to make it appear so, the interest in and demand for luxury goods seems not to have exclusively provoked moral concern. There are many other interesting aspects of such arts, including their place in the history of science.

Still, I think it’s interesting that so many critics of these arts survive and how loud they have been in Greco-Roman literature’s history. I’m curious why we don’t find more impartial or even positive discussions of them, as, e.g., in Theophrastus or Dioscorides. I’m also curious what the original context of the discusisons about luxury might have been, since it is not obvious, and it is perhaps even doubtful, that such critical views were held by everyone.

For now, though, I’m looking into the artists of elegance and luxury themselves: how were they seen and grouped together at different times and how did they see themselves?

One set of sources I’ve come across are 2nd century CE astrological writings—texts where Aphrodite is given provenance over certain arts and offices. The following two are in Greek language by authors from the eastern and southern Mediterranean.

Sources for Veneran Arts in Astrological Writings

Here is Vettius Valens, who was originally from Antioch and perhaps later worked in Egypt:

“Aphrodite is desire and love. She is a sign of motherhood and nurturing. She produces offices of priests, schoolmasters, those with a right to wear a gold ring, and those with the right to wear a crown; she produces cheerfulness, friendship, companionship, the acquisition of property, the purchase of ornaments, contracts on favourable terms, marriages, arts of elegance, fine voices, song writing, sweet melodies, shapeliness, painting, mixing of pigments in embroidery, dyeing, and perfumery, and the inventors or even masters of these crafts, craftsmanship or trade to do with working of emeralds, precious stones, and ivory; and along her boundaries and portions of the zodiac, she makes gold-spinners, gold workers, barbers, people fond of elegance, and people who love playfulness.”

Ἡ δὲ Ἀφροδίτη ἐστὶ μὲν ἐπιθυμία καὶ ἔρως, σημαίνει δὲ μητέρα καὶ τροφόν· ποιεῖ δὲ ἱερωσύνας, γυμνασιαρχίας, χρυσοφορίας, στεμματοφορίας, εὐφροσύνας, φιλίας, ὁμιλίας, ἐπικτήσεις ὑπαρχόντων, ἀγορασμοὺς κόσμου, συναλλαγὰς ἐπὶ τὸ ἀγαθόν, γάμους, τέχνας καθαρίους, εὐφωνίας, μουσουργίας, ἡδυμελείας, εὐμορφίας, ζωγραφίας, χρωμάτων κράσεις καὶ ποικιλτικήν, πορφυροβαφίαν καὶ μυρεψικήν, τούς τε τούτων προπάτορας ἢ καὶ κυρίους, τέχνας ἢ ἐμπορίας ἐργασίας σμαράγδου τε καὶ λιθείας, ἐλεφαντουργίας· οὓς δὲ χρυσονήτας, χρυσοκοσμήτας, κουρεῖς, φιλοκαθαρίους καὶ φιλοπαιγνίους αὐτοὺς ἀποτελεῖ παρὰ τὰ τῶν ζῳδίων αὐτῆς ὅρια καὶ τὰς μοίρας.

Vettius Valens, Anthologia 1.1.6 (3,16–26) (English)

And here is Ptolemy, from Alexandria:

“When Aphrodite causes someone’s profession, she makes them persons whose activities lie in the scents of flowers or of perfumes, in wines, pigments, dyes, spices, or adornments, as, for example, sellers of perfumes, weavers of garlands, innkeepers, wine-merchants, sellers of drugs, weavers, dealers in spices, painters, dyers, sellers of clothing.”

ὁ δὲ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης τὸ πράσσειν παρέχων ποιεῖ τοὺς παρ’ ὀσμαῖς ἀνθέων ἢ μύρων ἢ οἴνοις ἢ χρώμασιν ἢ βαφαῖς ἢ ἀρώμασιν ἢ κοσμίοις τὰς πράξεις ἔχοντας, οἷον μυροπώλας, στεφανοπλόκους, ἐκδοχέας, οἰνεμπόρους, φαρμακοπώλας, ὑφάντας, ἀρωματοπώλας, ζωγράφους, βαφέας, ἱματιοπώλας.

Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos 4.4.4

[1] Athen. Deipn. 15.34, 519 Kaibel (Greek | English)
[2] Xen. Symp. 2.3 (Greek | English)
[3] Plaut. Mostell. 1.3 273 (Latin | English)
[4] Sen. Ep. 86.11 (Latin | English)

Contained within the limits of the stars: the cycles of our common matter

Aristotle on the astral limits of life

“It is reasonable that for everything, the times of gestation, generation and life wish to be measured by natural periods. By a period, I mean day, night, month, year and the times measured by these, and in addition the periods of the moon. The periods of the moon are full moon, new moon and the mid-point of the times in between. For at these points the moon contributes to the sun, and the month is a period shared by them both. The moon is a principle because of its association with the sun and participation in its light. It becomes like another, lesser sun. That’s why it contributes to all processes of generation and completion. For heating and cooling up to a certain proportion produce generation, and after this corruption; and the movements of these stars contain their limits, of both the beginning and the end. For just as we observe that the sea and whatever has the nature of wetness are either at rest or in process of change depending on the movement or stillness of the winds, while the air and the winds depend on the period of the sun and the moon, so too the things that grow from them and are in them necessarily follow them.* For it is in accordance with reason that the periods of the less powerful things follow those of the more powerful. For the winds have a kind of life, as well, both a coming-to-be and a process of decline. Of the revolution of these stars, perhaps they have some other principles. Nature wants, therefore, to count generations and endings by the numbers of the stars, but it can’t do so precisely, because of the indeterminateness of matter and because there are many principles which, since they impede natural generation and corruption, are often causes of things that occur contrary to nature.”

* also the most important differentiae of the matter in spontaneous generation.

εὐλόγως δὲ πάντων οἱ χρόνοι καὶ τῶν κυήσεων καὶ γενέσεων καὶ τῶν βίων μετρεῖσθαι βούλονται κατὰ φύσιν περιόδοις. λέγω δὲ περίοδον ἡμέραν καὶ νύκτα καὶ μῆνα καὶ ἐνιαυτὸν καὶ τοὺς χρόνους τοὺς μετρουμένους τούτοις, ἔτι δὲ τὰς τῆς σελήνης περιόδους. εἰσὶ δὲ περίοδοι σελήνης πανσέληνός τε καὶ φθίσις καὶ τῶν μεταξὺ χρόνων αἱ διχοτομίαι· κατὰ γὰρ ταύτας συμβάλλει πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον· ὁ γὰρ μεὶς κοινὴ περίοδός ἐστιν ἀμφοτέρων. ἔστι δὲ ἡ σελήνη ἀρχὴ διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον κοινωνίαν καὶ τὴν μετάληψιν τὴν τοῦ φωτός· γίγνεται γὰρ ὥσπερ ἄλλος ἥλιος ἐλάττων· διὸ συμβάλλεται εἰς πάσας τὰς γενέσεις καὶ τελειώσεις. αἱ γὰρ θερμότητες καὶ ψύξεις μέχρι συμμετρίας τινὸς ποιοῦσι τὰς γενέσεις, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τὰς φθοράς· τούτων δ' ἔχουσι τὸ πέρας καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ τῆς τελευτῆς αἱ τούτων κινήσεις τῶν ἄστρων. ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ θάλατταν καὶ πᾶσαν ὁρῶμεν τὴν τῶν ὑγρῶν φύσιν ἱσταμένην καὶ μεταβάλλουσαν κατὰ τὴν τῶν πνευμάτων κίνησιν καὶ στάσιν, τὸν δ' ἀέρα καὶ τὰ πνεύματα κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τῆς σελήνης περίοδον, οὕτω καὶ τὰ ἐκ τούτων φυόμενα καὶ τὰ ἐν τούτοις ἀκολουθεῖν ἀναγκαῖον· κατὰ λόγον γὰρ ἀκολουθεῖν καὶ τὰς τῶν ἀκυροτέρων περιόδους ταῖς τῶν κυριωτέρων. βίος γάρ τις καὶ πνεύματός ἐστι καὶ γένεσις καὶ φθίσις. τῆς δὲ τῶν ἄστρων τούτων περιφορᾶς τάχ' ἂν ἕτεραί τινες εἶεν ἀρχαί. βούλεται μὲν οὖν ἡ φύσις τοῖς τούτων ἀριθμοῖς ἀριθμεῖν τὰς γενέσεις καὶ τὰς τελευτάς, οὐκ ἀκριβοῖ δὲ διά τε τὴν τῆς ὕλης ἀοριστίαν καὶ διὰ τὸ γίγνεσθαι πολλὰς ἀρχὰς αἳ τὰς γενέσεις τὰς κατὰ φύσιν καὶ τὰς φθορὰς ἐμποδίζουσαι πολλάκις αἴτιαι τῶν παρὰ φύσιν συμπιπτόντων εἰσίν.

Aristotle, Generation of Animals 4.10, 777b16–778a6

Athenaeus of Attalia: late Hellenistic medical elaboration

“From Athenaeus’ works:

‘In the springtime, then, the air is wet and hot, in the summer hot and dry, in the autumn cold and dry, and in the winter wet and cold. Again, in each of the seasons, there are three differences: first, middle and last. Middle times have the purest mixture; the first and last ones are made like the adjacent time. And monthly, the moon produces four differences in the air: the first seven-day period, from new-moon until the seventh, it seems like the spring, moist and hot. The second seven-day period until full moon resembles summer; the third seven day period when the moon is waning is cold and dry; and the fourth and last is cold and wet. And during each day, there are differences of the air. For dawn is wet and hot like the spring. For this reason, the bodies of both healthy and sick persons loosen, so that this period of time is most manageable even for those who are feverish. The middle times of the day are likened to summer, those during the afternoon autumn, and around evening winter. And of night, the first resembles evening, the middle seems like winter, and correspondingly the others.’”

ἐκ τῶν Ἀθηναίου.

«ἐν μὲν οὖν τῇ ἐαρινῇ ὥρᾳ ὑγρὸς καὶ θερμὸς ὁ ἀήρ, ἐν δὲ τῇ θερινῇ θερμὸς καὶ ξηρός, ἐν δὲ τῇ φθινοπωρινῇ ψυχρὸς καὶ ξηρός, ἐν δὲ τῇ χειμερινῇ ὑγρὸς καὶ ψυχρός. πάλιν δὲ ἐν ἑκάστῃ τῶν ὡρῶν τρεῖς διαφοραὶ γίγνονται· πρώτη καὶ μέση καὶ ὑστάτη. τὰ μὲν οὖν μέσα τὴν εἰλικρινεστάτην τῆς ὥρας ἔχει κρᾶσιν· τὰ δὲ πρῶτα καὶ ὕστατα τῇ γειτνιώσῃ ὥρᾳ ἀφομοιοῦνται. καὶ ἡ σελήνη δὲ κατὰ μῆνα ἐργάζεται διαφορὰς δ ἐν τῷ ἀέρι· ἡ μὲν οὖν α ἑβδομὰς ἀπὸ νεομηνίας μέχρι τῆς ζ παρέοικε τῷ ἔαρι ὑγρὰ καὶ θερμή. ἡ δὲ β´ ἑβδομὰς μέχρι πανσελήνου θερινῇ παραπλήσιος· ἡ δὲ τρίτη ἑβδομὰς φθινούσης σελήνης ψυχρὰ καὶ ξηρά· ἡ δὲ τετάρτη καὶ τελευταῖα ψυχρὰ καὶ ὑγρά. καὶ καθ' ἑκάστην δὲ ἡμέραν διαφοραὶ τοῦ ἀέρος γίγνονται· ὁ μὲν γὰρ ὄρθρος ὑγρὸς καὶ θερμὸς ὡς τὸ ἔαρ· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τὰ σώματα ἀνίεται καὶ τῶν ὑγιαινόντων καὶ τῶν νοσούντων, ὥστε καὶ τοῖς πυρέσσουσιν ὁ καιρὸς οὗτος εὐφορώτατος· τὰ δὲ μέσα τῆς ἡμέρας θέρει παρείκασται, τὰ δὲ κατὰ τὴν δείλην φθινοπώρῳ, τὰ δὲ περὶ ἑσπέραν χειμῶνι καὶ τῆς νυκτὸς δὲ τὰ πρῶτα τῇ ἑσπέρᾳ παρείκασται· τὰ δὲ μέσα χειμῶνι παρέοικε καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἀκολούθως.»

Aëtius Amidenus, Libri medicinales 3.162 (332,1–17 Olivieri)

Michael of Ephesus restates the obvious

“The moon, he says, is the principle of the month. For having passed the sun after conjunction, it takes its start. In the text, ‘contain their limits, of both the beginning and the end,’ ‘their’ refers to heating and cooling. For the principle and generation of heat is the waxing of the moon and the sun’s approach towards the northern zodiac, while of cold, the waning of the moon and the retreat of the sun towards the south. And as the sea changes according to the motion of the winds, while the winds, as it says in the Meteorology, are generated according to the periods of the sun and the moon, so too the things that come to be out of water and the others, also the things that are in them, necessarily follow the movements of these stars. For fish, oysters, and crustaceans thrive at the waxing moon, but suffer the opposite at the waning of the moon. And the ground sprouts and plants blossom, and animals are vigorous and procreate at the approach of the sun, but pass away at its retreat. And all the others come-to-be with their cycles. But it’s not the right time to talk about them. He says the winds, earth and seas, are less powerful, and the sun, moon, and the rest of the stars are more powerful.”

ἡ δὲ σελήνη, φησίν, ἐστὶν ἀρχὴ τοῦ μηνός· διελθοῦσα γὰρ τὸν ἥλιον μετὰ τὴν σύνοδον ἀρχὴν ὁ μὴν λαμβάνει. ἐν δὲ τῇ λέξει τῇ «τούτων δ' ἔχουσι τὸ πέρας καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ τῆς τελευτῆς» τὸ «τούτων» περὶ τῆς θερμότητος καὶ ψυχρότητος εἴρηται. ἀρχὴ μὲν γὰρ καὶ γένεσίς ἐστι θερμότητος ἥ τε τῆς σελήνης αὔξησις καὶ ἡ τοῦ ἡλίου πρὸς τὰ βόρεια ζῴδια προσέλευσις, ψύξεως δ' ἐκείνης μὲν ἡ μείωσις, τοῦ δὲ ἡλίου ἡ πρὸς τὰ νότια ἀναχώρησις. καὶ ὥσπερ ἡ θάλασσα μεταβάλλει κατὰ τὴν τῶν πνευμάτων κίνησιν, τὰ δὲ πνεύματα γίνεται, ὡς ἐν τοῖς Μετεώροις εἴρηται, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τῆς σελήνης περίοδον, οὕτως καὶ τὰ ἐκ τῶν ὑγρῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων γινόμενα καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς ὄντα ἀκολουθεῖν ἀναγκαῖον τῇ τῶν ἀστέρων τούτων κινήσει. εὐθηνοῦσι μὲν γὰρ ἰχθύες, ὄστρεια, μαλακόστρακα ἐν τῇ αὐξήσει, πάσχει δὲ τοὐναντίον ἐν τῇ μειώσει τῆς σελήνης· καὶ βλαστάνει γῆ καὶ φυτὰ ἀνθεῖ, ζῷα δὲ ἡβᾷ καὶ γεννᾷ τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου προσελεύσει, φθίνει δὲ τῇ τούτου ἀποχωρήσει, καὶ τἆλλα πάντα γίνεται ταῖς τούτων περιόδοις, περὶ ὧν νῦν λέγειν οὐ καιρός. ἀκυρότερα δὲ λέγει πνεύματα, γῆν, θάλασσαν, κυριώτερα δὲ ἥλιον, σελήνην καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀστέρας.

Michael of Ephesus, Commentary on Aristotle’s Generation of Animals, 210,5–23 Hayduck

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

(a short essay for my 36th birthday)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Galen’s “Characterizations of Hippocrates”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"When the soul is inflamed", part II

... Galen discusses the opinions of Aristotle, Plato and the Stoics on the relationship between nature, soul, vital breath and innate heat. Some physicians, perhaps the Pneumatists, were interested in finding the Stoic view already articulated by Hippocrates, particularly in a work called On Sevens, and in Epidemics 6, which is being discussed here. I've added paragraph breaks to make the text easier to read. This is a continuation from part i...

---

In fact, some of those who wrote commentaries on the book under discussion say the word 'born' was written in the sense of 'becomes better'. They suppose it [sc. the soul] becomes better over time for those who are concerned about science and wisdom. This discussion, however, is neither medical nor is it consistent with what comes next, for it is clear from the following quotation that 'produced' is said about the substance of [the soul]: "when it is inflamed together with disease, the soul also consumes the body." The word 'inflamed' would seem to indicate Hippocrates thinks the substance of the soul is the innate heat, which he uses as a cause of natural activities in many other places.

On this point, there is also a great difference of opinion among philosophers. Some believe the substance of the soul and of nature are identical, some of these ones positing its existence in pneuma, others in a specific quality of the body. Certain people think it is not one substance, but claim each of them is distinct and differ not just in a small way in species, but wholly in kind. In this case, they think that the substance of nature is perishable, while that of the soul is imperishable.

Now, Aristotle and Plato introduce both capacities using one word, not only calling that by which we think and remember 'soul', but also the capacity in plants by which they are nourished, increased and preserved until they dry out over time. For the Stoics, on the other hand, it is customary to refer 'nature' to that by which plants are governed, 'soul' that by which animals are. They posit that the substance of both is the co-natural pneuma, and they think these differ from each other by quality: the pneuma of the soul is drier, that of nature more moist, but both require not only food in order to persist, but also air.

Whoever thinks the person who introduced this opinion is Hippocrates, according to what was mentioned in On Sevens, say the word 'born' is mentioned concerning the production in them of additional stuff from both substances, of food and air, since it is clearly observable and we know the usefulness of each of them. For it has been proven that respiration preserves the balance of the innate heat, while ingestion of food replenishes the flowing-out of bodily substance. Moreover, if the soul is a kind of form of the body, it would be appropriate to say that 'it is born until death.'  

Now, if there is some other substance, then concerning the one called 'nature', which Aristotle calls 'threptic', Plato 'epithumetic', what was said would be true; but it would not be true in the case of the 'dianoetic' soul. Certainly, that the innate heat, to which Hippocrates very often refers bodily functions, is inflamed, not only when it is no longer able to complete its previous activities or nourish us —which is its most important function—but also when it destroys and consumes like fire does, this is clear to us when we look carefully at the text and when we see the colliquesence of the body produced by excessively hot fevers.

Left out of the whole discussion is the third 'soul' or 'capacity' or whatever you might want to call it, which Plato called 'spirited'. It is good to mention this so that nothing is left out of our discussion about the soul. One kind of innate warmth, by which blood is produced, is contained in the liver. But a different, greater warmth has been received by the heart for the production of emotion. For if there is some use for it, as it has been pointed out in On the Opinions of Hippocrates and Plato, the one warmth needs respiration, the other transpiration. For thus it is customary for doctors to call what occurs through the artery along its whole body a 'double-activity', sending out residues at systole, drawing in outside air at diastole.

τῶν μέντοι γραψάντων ὑπομνήματα τοῦ προκειμένου βιβλίου τινὲς ἀντὶ τοῦ βελτίων γίνεται τὸ «φύεταί» φασιν εἰρῆσθαι. γίνεσθαι δ' αὐτὴν ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ βελτίονα νομίζουσι τοῖς προνοουμένοις ἐπιστήμης τε καὶ σοφίας, ἀλλ' οὔτε ἰατρικὸς ὁ λόγος οὔθ' ὁμολογῶν τοῖς ἐπιφερομένοις. ὅτι γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτῆς εἴρηται τὸ «φύεται», δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ φάναι· «ἢν δ' ἐκπυρωθῇ, ἅμα τῇ νούσῳ καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ <καὶ> τὸ σῶμα φέρβεται». καὶ δόξειε δ' ἂν ἐνδείκνυσθαι τὸ «ἐκπυρωθῇ» ῥῆμα τὴν οὐσίαν τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεῖσθαι τὸν Ἱπποκράτην τὸ ἔμφυτον εἶναι θερμὸν, ὃ καὶ τῶν φυσικῶν ἔργων αἰτιᾶται πολλαχόθι.

μέγιστον δ' ἐνταῦθα κινεῖται δόγμα διαπεφωνημένον καὶ αὐτοῖς τοῖς φιλοσόφοις. ἔνιοι μὲν ἡγοῦνται μίαν οὐσίαν εἶναι ψυχῆς τε καὶ φύσεως, οἱ μὲν ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τιθέμενοι τὴν ὕπαρξιν αὐτῶν, οἱ δ' ἐν τῇ τοῦ σώματος ἰδιότητι. τινὲς δὲ οὐ μίαν, ἀλλ' ἰδίαν ἑκατέρᾳ τὴν οὐσίαν εἶναί φασι καὶ οὐ σμικρῷ γ' <εἴδει> τινὶ διαφερούσας, ἀλλ' ὅλῳ τῷ γένει, ὅπου γε καὶ τὴν μὲν τῆς φύσεως φθαρτὴν εἶναι ἡγοῦνται, τὴν δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς ἄφθαρτον.

Ἀριστοτέλης μὲν οὖν καὶ Πλάτων ὑπὸ μίαν προσηγορίαν ἀμφοτέρας ἄγουσι τὰς δυνάμεις, οὐ μόνον ᾗ λογιζόμεθα καὶ μεμνήμεθα ψυχὴν καλοῦντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς φυτοῖς, ᾗ τρέφεταί τε καὶ αὔξεται καὶ διασῴζεται, μέχρι περ ἂν ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ ξηρανθῇ. τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς δ' ἔθος ἐστὶ φύσιν μὲν ὀνομάζειν, ᾗ τὰ φυτὰ διοικεῖται, ψυχὴν δὲ ᾗ τὰ ζῷα, τὴν οὐσίαν ἀμφοτέρων μὲν τίθενται τὸ σύμφυτον πνεῦμα καὶ διαφέρειν ἀλλήλων οἴονται ποιότητι. ξηρότερον μὲν γὰρ πνεῦμα τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς, ὑγρότερον δὲ τὸ τῆς φύσεως εἶναι, δεῖσθαι δ' ἄμφω πρὸς διαμονὴν οὐ τροφῆς μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀέρος.

καὶ ὅσοι γε τοῦ δόγματος τούτου νομίζουσιν ἡγεμόνα τὸν Ἱπποκράτην γεγονέναι, καθάπερ ἐν τῷ Περὶ ἑβδομάδων εἴρηται, τὸ «φύεσθαι» λέγουσιν εἰρῆσθαι κατὰ τῆς γινομένης ἐν αὐτοῖς προσθέσεως ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν οὐσιῶν, τῆς τε <τροφῆς καὶ> τοῦ ἀέρος, <ὡς> ἐναργῶς φαίνεται καὶ τὴν ἑκατέρου χρείαν ἐπιστάμεθα (δέδεικται γὰρ ἡ μὲν ἀναπνοὴ τὴν συμμετρίαν τῆς ἐμφύτου θερμασίας φυλάττειν, ἡ δὲ τῶν σιτίων προσφορὰ τὸ διαρρέον τῆς σωματικῆς οὐσίας ἀναπληροῦν) καὶ, εἴπερ εἶδός τι τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή, προσηκόντως ἂν λέγοιτο «φύεσθαι μέχρι τοῦ θανάτου». 

εἰ δ' ἐστὶν ἑτέρα τις αὐτῆς <ἡ> οὐσία, <περὶ ταύτης> τῆς φύσεως, ἣν Ἀριστοτέλης μὲν ὀνομάζει θρεπτικὴν, ἐπιθυμητικὴν δὲ Πλάτων, ἀληθὲς ἂν εἴη τὸ εἰρημένον, οὐκ ἀληθὲς δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς διανοητικῆς ψυχῆς. ὅτι μέντοι τὸ ἔμφυτον θερμόν, ᾧ μάλιστα ἀναφέρει τὰ σωματικὰ τῶν ἔργων ὁ Ἱπποκράτης, ἐκπυρωθὲν οὐ μόνον οὐκέτι δύναται τὰς ἔμπροσθεν ἐνεργείας ἐπιτελεῖν οὐδὲ τρέφειν ἡμᾶς, ὅπερ ἦν ἔργον αὐτῷ κυριώτατον, ἀλλὰ διαφθείρει τε καὶ τήκει καθάπερ τὸ πῦρ, εὔδηλόν ἐστι τῷ λόγῳ σκοπουμένοις ἡμῖν καὶ τὰς <γινομένας> ὑπὸ τῶν διακαῶν πυρετῶν συντήξεις τοῦ σώματος ἐναργῶς ὁρῶσι.

παραλελειμμένης δὲ κατὰ τὸν εἰρημένον λόγον ἅπαντα τῆς τρίτης ψυχῆς ἢ δυνάμεως ἢ ὅπως ἂν ἐθέλῃς ὀνομάζειν αὐτήν, ἣν ὁ Πλάτων ἐκάλει θυμοειδῆ, καὶ περὶ ταύτης ἄμεινόν ἐστιν εἰπεῖν ἕνεκα τοῦ μηδὲν ἔτι ὑπολείπεσθαι κατὰ τὸν περὶ ψυχῆς λόγον. θερμασία μέν τις ἔμφυτος ἐν ἥπατι περιέχεται, καθ' ἣν αἷμα γεννᾶται· θερμασία δὲ ἑτέρα πλείων ἐστὶ κατὰ τὴν καρδίαν εἰς θυμοῦ γένεσιν ἡμῖν δοθεῖσα. καὶ γὰρ <εἰ> χρεία τούτου τίς ἐστιν, ὡς ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τῶν Ἱπποκράτους καὶ Πλάτωνος δογμάτων ἐπιδέδεικται, δεῖται μὲν αὕτη ἡ θερμασία τῆς ἀναπνοῆς, ἡ δ' ἑτέρα τῆς διαπνοῆς. οὕτω γὰρ ὀνομάζειν ἔθος ἐστὶ τοῖς ἰατροῖς τὴν διὰ τῶν ἀρτηριῶν γινομένην καθ' ὅλον τὸ σῶμα διττὴν ἐνέργειαν, ἐκπεμπουσῶν αἰθαλῶδες περίττωμα κατὰ τὴν συστολὴν, ἑλκουσῶν δὲ τὸν πέριξ ἀέρα κατὰ τὴν διαστολήν.

Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates' Epidemics 6, 5.5 (272,10-274,11 Wenkebach = XVIIB 249-253 Kühn)

"When the soul is inflamed", part I

(edit: the sequel can be found here)

While I've been collecting the fragments of Athenaeus of Attalia, I've also been tracking down texts about the Pneumatist school of medicine. They are pretty elusive, and this makes me wonder whether it was a medical 'school' in the normal sense (like the 'Rationalists' , Empiricists', or 'Methodists'). I'm also curious about the idea of 'belonging to a school' and how what it meant to doctors changed during the first and second centuries.

Galen's commentary on Epidemics 6 is a good place to go to with these questions. It contains lots of discussions of people Galen disagrees with, and some of them sound pretty close to people he calls "Pneumatikoi" in other places. He never names them in the commentary, which means I need to file them away as possible testimonies. Still, whether or not the "τινές" – the "some people" – Galen talks about here are Pneumatists, this passage is further evidence that Epidemics 6 and its interpretation was an important locus for the revival of Hippocratean medicine, and for bringing medicine, natural philosophy and ethics closer together.

I'll post this comment on Epidemics 6.5.2 in two parts. The first part deals with medical views on the soul and its relation to pneuma (or spirit), as well as Galen's thoughts on the soul's importance for medicine. The second records the views of Platonists, Aristotelians and Stoics on the soul.

---

Lemma: A person's soul is ever born until death, but when the soul is inflamed with disease, it consumes the body.

Ἀνθρώπου ψυχὴ αἰεὶ φύεται μέχρι θανάτου· ἢν δὲ ἐκπυρωθῇ ἅμα τῇ νούσῳ καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ, τὸ σῶμα φέρβεται.

'Hippocrates', Epidemics 6.5.2 (V 314,14-15 Littré)

Galen's Commentary: One needs the power of prophecy more than any method, if one is going to figure out what the person who wrote [the word] "born" intended it to mean. One can take it in the sense of "begotten", like Asclepiades later understood it; or one can take it in the sense of "increased"; or, one can take it, as some people did, in the sense of "preserved", since we engage in nutrition and respiration—for all those who consider the soul to be pneuma say it is preserved by an exhalation of the blood and the air drawn through the trachea into the body during inspiration. Obviously, it is impossible for us to maintain that any of these claims are true, without first having identified the substance of the soul precisely. If, therefore, as in the case of On Sevens, in which the book's author clearly stated his opinion about the substance of the soul, it was likewise mentioned in some of the other books which are agreed to be the genuine works of  Hippocrates, then I would have to say something about the word "born". Since, however, Hippocrates nowhere in the genuine books states his opinion clearly [...Wenkebach marks a lacuna...] whatever the word "produced" means.

In addition to my ignorance about this, I myself am not convinced that I can know the substance of the soul with any certainty. That the brain controls perception and voluntary movement for all the parts of an animal, I have demonstrated in The Opinions of Hippocrates and Plato. I am convinced, moreover, that the pneuma in the ventricles [of the brain] is a primary kind of psychic instrument, which it would be rather rash for me to claim is the substance of the soul. Whether the whole nature of the brain arose out of the mixture of the four elements to form some specific quality of the substance, because of which it becomes the primary source of perception and voluntary movement in animals (and obviously also of imagination, memory and thought), or whether some further incorporeal capacity is fastened to us at the brain by a craftsman and then separated again from us when we are dying, I have no sound demonstration. But I also think that those who have an opinion about this have a larger share than mine of rashness rather than wisdom.

And in fact, I think it is superfluous for doctors to know the substance of the soul. For those who practice the art of medicine in a rational way, it is enough to know that as long as the natural mixture of the brain itself and the pneuma in its ventricles is preserved, then the animal is able to live. When the pneuma in the ventricles is completely destroyed, or is diverted a good deal from its natural mixture along with the substance in the brain, then either psychic disease or death necessarily follow. When the doctor knows these things, he will provide for their good-mixture and for the subsistence <of the pneuma>, always according to the methods we mentioned in the notes on Matters of Health (De sanitate tuenda) and The Therapeutic Method (Methodus medendi), all of which I showed Hippocrates had discovered first.

For this reason, then, I think the present passage is not genuine, but was written by someone, as it were, not too far removed, perhaps even his son Thessalus. They say he strung together his father's writings, which he found written on papyrus, parchment and writing-tablets, and inserted passages like these ones along with them.

Μαντείας δεῖ μᾶλλον ἤ τινος μεθόδου, καθ' ἣν εὑρήσει τις, ὅ τί ποτε σημαίνειν βουληθεὶς ἔγραψε τὸ «φύεται». δύναται μὲν γὰρ ἀκούεσθαι καὶ <ἀντὶ> τοῦ "γεννᾶται", καθάπερ ὁ Ἀσκληπιάδης ὕστερον ὑπέλαβε, δύναται δὲ καὶ <ἀντὶ> τοῦ "αὐξάνεται", δύναται δ', ὥσπερ τινὲς ἤκουσαν, ἀντὶ τοῦ "διασῴζεται", τροφῇ καὶ ἀναπνοῇ χρωμένων ἡμῶν· ὅσοι γὰρ οἴονται τὴν <ψυχὴν> εἶναι πνεῦμα, διασῴζεσθαι λέγουσιν αὐτὴν ἔκ τε τῆς ἀναθυμιάσεως τοῦ αἵματος καὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν εἰσπνοὴν <ἀέρος> ἑλκομένου διὰ τῆς τραχείας ἀρτηρίας εἴσω τοῦ σώματος. οὐκ ἄδηλον δ' ἐστὶ καὶ ὡς οὐδὲν ὧν εἶπον ἀποφήνασθαι δυνατὸν ἡμῖν ἐστι διατεινομένοις, ὡς ἀληθὲς εἴη, μὴ πρότερον οὐσίαν ψυχῆς ἀκριβῶς ἐξευροῦσιν. εἰ μὲν οὖν, ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ Περὶ ἑβδομάδων ὁ γράψας τὸ βιβλίον ἐκεῖνο σαφῶς ἀπεφήνατο περὶ ψυχῆς οὐσίας, οὕτως καὶ κατ' ἄλλο τι τῶν ὁμολογουμένων γνησίων Ἱπποκράτους συγγραμμάτων ἦν εἰρημένον, εἶχον ἄν τι κἀγὼ λέγειν περὶ τοῦ «φύεται» ῥήματος. ἐπεὶ δ' οὐδαμόθι τῶν γνησίων βιβλίων Ἱπποκράτης ἀπεφήνατο σαφῶς ***, ὅ τί ποτε σημαίνει τὸ «φύεται» ῥῆμα.

πρὸς δὲ τῷ τοῦτ' ἀγνοεῖν οὐδ' αὐτὸς ἐμαυτὸν πέπεικα ψυχῆς οὐσίαν ἐπίστασθαι βεβαίως. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ ὁ ἐγκέφαλος αἰσθήσεώς τε καὶ κινήσεως τῆς καθ' ὁρμὴν ἡγεμών ἐστι τοῖς τοῦ ζῴου μορίοις ἅπασιν, ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τῶν Ἱπποκράτους καὶ Πλάτωνος δογμάτων ἀποδέδειγμαι. πέπεισμαι <δὲ> καὶ πρός γε τούτῳ τὸ κατὰ τὰς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα πρῶτόν τι τῶν ὀργάνων εἶναι τῶν ψυχικῶν, ὅπερ ἦν μοι προπετέστερον ἀποφηναμένῳ ψυχῆς οὐσίαν εἰπεῖν. εἴτε δὲ ἡ ὅλη τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου φύσις ἐκ τῆς τῶν τεττάρων στοιχείων κράσεως εἰς τοιαύτην <τῆς> οὐσίας ἦλθεν [ἢ] ἰδιότητα, καθ' ἣν αἰσθήσεώς τε καὶ κινήσεως τῆς καθ' ὁρμὴν ἀρχηγὸς ἔσται τῷ ζῴῳ καὶ δηλονότι <καὶ φαντασίας> καὶ μνήμης τε καὶ νοήσεως, εἴτε τις ἄλλη δύναμις ἀσώματος ὑπὸ τοῦ δημιουργήσαντος ἡμᾶς ἐνδεῖταί τε τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ καὶ χωρίζεται πάλιν ἀποθνῃσκόντων, οὐδεμίαν ἔχω ἀπόδειξιν βεβαίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἀποφηναμένους περὶ τούτων ἡγοῦμαι πλεονεκτεῖν ἐμοῦ προπετείᾳ μᾶλλον ἢ σοφίᾳ.

καὶ μέντοι καὶ περιττὸν εἶναι νομίζω τοῖς ἰατροῖς ἐπίστασθαι ψυχῆς οὐσίαν. ἀρκεῖ γὰρ γινώσκεσθαι τοῖς τὴν ἰατρικὴν τέχνην λογικῶς μεταχειριζομένοις, ὡς, ἡ κατὰ φύσιν κρᾶσις αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου καὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὰς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ πνεύματος ἄχρι περ ἂν διασῴζηται, ζῆν δυνάμενον τὸ ζῷον. ἐὰν δὲ ἤτοι τὸ κατὰ τὰς κοιλίας πνεῦμα διαφθαρῇ παντάπασιν ἢ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν κράσεως ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἐκτραπῇ, μετὰ τῆς κατὰ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον <οὐσίας ἀναγκαῖον αὐτῇ ἢ ψυχικὴν νόσον ἢ θάνατον> ἀκολουθῆσαι. ταῦτα γὰρ γινώσκων ὁ ἰατρὸς τῆς τ' εὐκρασίας αὐτῶν καὶ τῆς ὑπάρξεως προνοήσεται <τοῦ πνεύματος> ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰς εἰρημένας μεθόδους ὑφ' ἡμῶν ἔν τε τοῖς Ὑγιεινοῖς καὶ τοῖς Θεραπευτικοῖς ὑπομνήμασιν, ἃς ἔδειξα πάσας Ἱπποκράτην πρῶτον εὑρηκότα.

διὰ τοῦτ' οὖν οὐδὲ γνησίαν νομίζω τὴν προκειμένην ῥῆσιν εἶναι, παρεγγεγράφθαι δ' ὑπό τινος ὥσπερ καὶ ἄλλας οὐκ ὀλίγας, ἴσως δὲ καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ Θεσσαλόν, <ὃν> ἀθροῖσαί φασι τὰς ὑπογραφὰς τοῦ πατρὸς εὑρόντα γεγραμμένας ἐν χάρταις τε καὶ διφθέραις καὶ δέλτοις, καὶ τοιαύτας τινὰς παρεντεθεικέναι ῥήσεις.

Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates' Epidemics 6, 5.5 (270,21-272,9 Wenkebach = XVIIB 246-249 Kühn)

Advice for having children

From the works of Athenaeus. Preparation for Producing Children.

"Those entering into the production of children should be in a very strong state with respect to soul and body. That is, the soul [must be] tranquil and neither in pain, distress, nor seized with some other passion, while the body [must be] healthy and in no way generally diminished. It is not from those who are tranquil and healthy, but those who are sick that sicknesses arise [in offspring], both in the whole body and in each part of it. For this reason, in fact, it is useful to prepare by regimen, making use of exercises that are sufficient and separate from any bad passions, and of foods that are easy to digest, productive of good humors, nutritious, and moderately wet and warm, [while] refraining from those that are too hot: acidic juice, rue, cardamom, rocket, savory, onion, garlic, generally, foods that are pungent, sour, bitter and salty. And in addition, let them behave well with respect to these things even on the days beforehand, so that the semen that is collected is sufficient and has been concocted, and so that an impulse and suggestion for sex should truly be inflamed, because the body is excited. For those who constantly have sexual intercourse gather seeds that are raw and unripe, as Andreas says. In general, one should give an interval [between periods] of pregnancy to those women planning on producing children. For, in general women who are constantly pregnant become very malnourished and grow very ill in their bodies, and the offspring they give birth to are in about the same state. The equivalent appears to happen also in the case of plants. For plants that frequently bear and produce much fruit also grow old faster, while plants that are sterile and produce little fruit [grow old] after a longer period of time. Thus, trees which often produce a great amount of fruit decayed due to the abundance, because their nature was exhausted on the fruit."

ἐκ τῶν Ἀθηναίου. παρασκευὴ πρὸς παιδοποιΐαν.

«τοὺς δ' ἐπὶ παιδοποιΐαν ἰόντας καὶ ψυχῇ καὶ σώματι χρὴ διακεῖσθαι κράτιστα· τοῦτο δ' ἐστὶ τῆς μὲν ψυχῆς εὐσταθούσης καὶ μήτε λύπαις μήτε μερίμναις σὺν πόνοις μήτε ἄλλῳ πάθει κατεχομένης, τοῦ δὲ σώματος ὑγιαίνοντος καὶ κατὰ μηδὲν ἁπλῶς ἐλασσουμένου· ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν εὐσταθῶν καὶ τῶν ὑγιεινῶν οὐχί, ἀλλὰ τῶν νοσερῶν, [ὑγιεῖ καὶ] νοσερὰ καθ' ὅλον τε τὸν ὄγκον καὶ καθ' ἕκαστον αὐτοῦ μέρος· διὸ καὶ προδιαιτᾶσθαι χρήσιμον, γυμνασίοις μὲν αὐτάρκως καὶ χωρὶς πάσης κακοπαθείας κεχρημένους, τροφαῖς δ' εὐκατεργάστοις καὶ εὐχύμοις καὶ εὐτρόφοις καὶ μετρίως ὑγροτέραις καὶ θερμοτέραις, ἀπεχομένους τῶν θερμαντικωτέρων, ὀποῦ, πηγάνου, καρδάμου, εὐζώμου, θύμβρας, κρομμύων, σκορόδων, κοινῶς τῶν δριμέων καὶ ὀξέων καὶ πικρῶν καὶ ἁλυκῶν. καὶ πρὸς τούτοις εὐτακτείτωσαν δὴ καὶ ταύτας τὰς ἔμπροσθεν ἡμέρας, ὅπως ἱκανόν τε καὶ πεπεμμένον ὑπάρχῃ τὸ συνηγμένον σπέρμα, καὶ ὁρμὴ καὶ ὑπόμνησις καῇ γε περὶ τῆς μίξεως, ὀργῶντος τοῦ σώματος· οἱ γὰρ συνεχῶς πλησιάζοντες ὠμὰ καὶ ἄωρα τρυγῶσι τὰ σπέρματα, καθά φησιν Ἀνδρέας. καθόλου δὲ ταῖς παιδογονίας προνοουμέναις διάλειμμα δοτέον τῆς συλλήψεως· αἱ γὰρ συνεχῶς καθόλου συλλαμβάνουσαι αὐταί τε ἀτροφώταται καὶ κακοφυέστεραι γίνονται τοῖς σώμασι καὶ τὰ βρέφη τίκτουσι καὶ αὐτὰ παραπλήσια. τὸ δ' ἀνάλογον ἔοικε συμβαίνειν καὶ περὶ τὰ φυτά· τὰ γὰρ πολύφορα καὶ πολύκαρπα καὶ αὐτὰ θᾶττον καταγηρῶσιν, τὰ δὲ στεριφὰ καὶ ὀλιγόκαρπα χρονιώτερα. πολλάκις οὖν ὑπερκαρπήσαντες δένδροι δι' εὐθένειαν εὐρωτίασαν διὰ τὸ ἐξαναλῶσαι τὴν φύσιν εἰς τοὺς καρπούς.»

Oribasius, Collectiones medicae (libri incerti) 23 (115,33-116,20 Raeder)

Athenaeus of Attalia's Advice on Old Age

In this fragment, Athenaeus give his reflections on the kind of person we should strive to be in old age if we want to remain healthy. Works on "dietetics" (Περὶ ὑγιεινῆς διαίτης) or lifestyle were common in the ancient world; but, Athenaeus pushes the field quite far into all areas of human life. Here, he speaks to the physical, psychological, and social aspects of old-age and he advocates for changes in lifestyle that will best preserve the health of both mind and body. In this respect, his advice sounds remarkably modern.

Athenaeus of Attalia On Healthy Regimen in Old Age

"Old age requires a more exact regimen and additional aids. For the psychic and physical capacities [ψυχικαί τε καὶ φυσικαὶ δυνάμεις] which hold us together and preserve us lose their strength, their functions are brought to an end, and the body wrinkles and becomes malnourished, loose and dry. Whenever, therefore, the capacity which keeps the body straight, which offers resistance against the things that cause us injury from outside , and which fights against certain spermatic principles and natural necessities [κατά τινας σπερματικοὺς λόγους καὶ φυσικὰς ἀνάγκας], should give way under foot [i.e., decline], the body is easily affected and easily injured, requiring [only] a small cause and chance influence for harm.

"At the start, then, from an early age, one should also take precautions for the time of old age. For as those who wear out their cloak in the summer spend the winter in tatters, so those who, in their youth, neglect their bodily strength suffer the clothes of old age with great difficulty. And at this age especially, one should strive after gentleness and magnanimity, since such a person is not burdensome to everyone, but is longed for by all and cared for with goodwill and sympathy. Endeavour to have people living with you who are pleasing and not irksome, with whom it is the sweetest custom to engage in desirable conversation. And spend time in delightful places, and, in general, always live in good cheer. But, if this is not possible, for the most part, [give yourself time] to be at leisure. And be engaged in the care of oneself rather than [caring] for others, so that, of the urgent symptoms in each season that have to do with the care of the body, none should be deemed worthy of postponing. For, as having grown weary in the course of time, old age requires more rest.

"Best is the old age of those who carry-on in culture and rational studies, because of their diligence and the self-control of this way of life, because of the tranquility of their soul, and because they are always at leisure and find relief in their own works and the works of their predecessors. For what better companion might a man of reason discover for himself, or with what might he occupy himself that is even more pleasant, if he has given up the study of such great people? How great is the joy and how much the elation a soul receives, inquiring together with the predecessors of philosophy and medicine, and with the other champions of universal learning, and frequently trying one’s hand in [these inquiries] alongside them?"

τοῖς δὲ παρακμάζουσιν ἁρμόζει δίαιτα ὑφειμένη καὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος, τά τε γυμνάσια, ὁποῖά ποτε ἂν ᾖ, κατὰ λόγον ἀεὶ τούτων ὑφαιρετέον, τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτῶν μειουμένης. καὶ τὰς τροφὰς ἐκ προσαγωγῆς συσταλτέον, τῆς ἕξεως αὐτῶν ἀρχὴν ψύξεως λαμβανούσης. τὸ δὲ γῆρας ἀκριβεστέρας μὲν διαίτης, περισσοτέρας δ’ ἐπικουρίας δεόμενον τυγχάνει· αἱ γὰρ συνέχουσαι καὶ διασῴζουσαι ἡμᾶς ψυχικαί τε καὶ φυσικαὶ δυνάμεις μαραίνονται, καὶ τὰ τούτων ἔργα καταλύονται, καὶ τὸ σῶμα ῥακοῦται καὶ ἄτροφον καὶ χαῦνον καὶ ξηρὸν γίνεται. ὅταν οὖν ἡ μὲν διευθύνουσα τὸ σῶμα δύναμις καὶ τοῖς ἔξωθεν λυμαινομένοις ἡμῖν ἀντερείδουσα καὶ μαχομένη κατά τινας σπερματικοὺς λόγους καὶ φυσικὰς ἀνάγκας ὑπὸ πόδας χωρῇ, τὸ δὲ σῶμα εὐπαθὲς ὑπάρχον καὶ εὐαδίκητον, μικρᾶς αἰτίας χρεία καὶ ῥοπῆς τῆς τυχούσης πρὸς βλάβην.

ἄνωθεν μὲν οὖν ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἡλικίας καὶ προνοητέον τοῦ γήρως χρόνῳ· ὡς γὰρ οἱ τὴν χλαῖναν ἐν τῷ θέρει κατατρίψαντες ἐν τῷ τρίβωνι τὸν χειμῶνα διάγουσιν, οὕτως οἱ ἐν τῇ νεότητι τὴν ῥώμην καταλύσαντες τὸν τοῦ γήρως χιτῶνα σφόδρα δυσκόλως φέρουσιν. ζηλωτέον δ’ ἐν τῇδε τῇ ἡλικίᾳ μάλιστα πραότητι καὶ μεγαλοψυχίᾳ· ὁ γὰρ τοιοῦτος ἀβαρὴς καὶ ποθεινὸς παρὰ πᾶσι καὶ ἐπιμελείας τυγχάνων μετ’ εὐνοίας τινὸς καὶ συμπαθείας. σπουδάζειν δὲ καὶ τοὺς συζῶντας ἔχειν εὐαρεστουμένους καὶ μὴ ὀχληρούς, μεθ’ ὧν ὡς ἥδιστα εἰώθει καὶ ὁμιλιῶν ἐνάρχεσθαι ποθεινῶν καὶ ἐν τόποις ἐπιτερπεστέροις διατρίβειν καὶ καθόλου ζῆν μετ’ εὐθυμίας τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον· εἰ δὲ μή γε, τὸν πλεῖστον ἑαυτὸν σχολάζειν καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ μᾶλλον ἢ πρὸς τὴν ἑτέρων ἀσχολεῖσθαι θεραπείαν, ἵνα μηδὲν ὑπερθέσεως ἠξιῶται τῶν καθ’ ἕκαστον καιρὸν κατεπειγόντων πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἐπιμέλειαν· τὸ γὰρ γῆρας ὥσπερ κεκοπιακὸς ἐν τῷ προεληλυθότι χρόνῳ ἀναπαύσεως δεῖται περισσοτέρας.

ἄριστον δὲ γῆρας τῶν ἐν παιδείᾳ καὶ μαθήσει λογικῇ διαφερόντων, διά τε τὴν προσοχὴν καὶ τὴν νῆψιν τῆς διαίτης καὶ διὰ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς εὐστάθειαν καὶ διὰ τὸ σχολάζειν ἀεὶ καὶ προσαναπαύεσθαι τοῖς τε ἑαυτῶν καὶ τοῖς τῶν προγενεστέρων πόνοις· τίνα γὰρ εὕροι νοῦν ἔχων ἀνὴρ συνομιλητὴν ἑαυτοῦ βελτίονα, ἢ τίσιν ἂν ἥδιστα συνδιατρίβοι παρεὶς τὰς τοιαύτας καὶ τηλικούτων ἀνδρῶν πραγματείας; πηλίκον δὲ χάρμα καὶ πόσον ἔπαρμα ψυχὴ λαμβάνει, συζητοῦσα τοῖς προγενεστέροις τῶν φιλοσόφων τε καὶ ἰατρῶν καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῖς προϊσταμένοις τῶν ἐγκυκλίων μαθημάτων καὶ παρεγχειροῦσα τούτοις πολλάκις;

Athenaeus of Attalia, ap. Oribasius, libri incerti 39 (CMG VI 2,2 140,9-141,9 Raeder)

Habituation and the health of mind and body

Athenaeus of Attalia was one of the first doctors we know to work out a unified medical theory that covered both mental and physical health and habits. Before Athenaeus it was more often the business of philosophers to talk about good and bad mental habits, and of doctors to talk about physical habits like eating and exercise. Athenaeus, however, consciously brings philosophy and medicine together into one discipline, speaking interchangeably about habits of either mind or body. He calls the effects of these behaviours, "habituation", and our habituation in turn determines what things are good for us and what things are bad.

Athenaeus thinks of habituation as a kind of "state" or "innate disposition", but he also calls it (perhaps following Aristotle) "second nature", probably to emphasize that its effects on both body and mind can be quite permanent. There's a long tradition in Greco-Roman thought that treats art as something subordinate to nature; however, physicians (and farmers) were well aware that art can get the upper hand. Here, Athenaeus explains how. His thoughts were preserved by Oribasius.

"From the works of Athenaeus. On Habituation.

"Habituation is a state of the soul or body established over time with respect to benefit or harm when we are healthy or sick. For habit over time establishes something through itself in the soul and in the body, and this sometimes makes something beneficial, sometimes [something] harmful. Not only is it strong in times of health, but it often extends even into times of illness. And a habit that lasts for a long time is like an acquired nature. For this reason, if any self-mover undergoes a change [?], it is dangerous and introduces disease. Of these [changes], changes of place make a big difference: for change from healthy [places] to more diseased ones produces a greater and more serious alteration, while the [change] from diseased [places] to healthy ones [produces] a smaller [alteration] in both magnitude and duration. Indeed, every change, especially a sudden one, and most especially one which is not customary and unusual, alters bodies for the worse for the reason we gave. Habituation is so powerful that those who have been seized by it cannot exist separately [from it], being held in its bonds. An athlete, for example, has difficulty recovering: if he wishes to return to his original way of life by suddenly abolishing his acquired disposition, just like a second nature, then he will quickly be destroyed, because a way of life continued for a long time is (so to speak) a powerful form of being accustomed. Thus, a sudden departure from habit makes a great difference. For this reason it drives out of their proper place of rest those who do not abolish the earlier habituation gradually and by means of another, different habituation."

Ἐκ τῶν Ἀθηναίου. Περὶ συνηθείας.[1]

Συνήθειά ἐστιν ἕξις ψυχῆς ἢ σώματος ἐν χρόνῳ κατεσκευασμένη πρὸς ὠφέλειάν τε καὶ βλάβην ὑγιαινόντων τε καὶ νοσούντων· τὸ γὰρ ἔθος ἐν χρόνῳ κατασκευάζει τι δι’ ἑαυτοῦ περὶ τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ τὸ σῶμα, καὶ τοῦτό ποτε μὲν ἐπ’ ὠφέλειαν[2] ποιεῖ τινα, ποτὲ δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ βλάβην. καὶ οὐ μόνον ἐφ’ ὑγιαινόντων ἰσχύει, διατείνει δὲ πολλάκις καὶ πρὸς τοὺς νοσοῦντας. τὸ δὲ πολυχρόνιον ἔθος οἷον φύσις ἐστὶν ἐπίκτητος· διὸ πᾶν τὸ κινοῦν ἑαυτὸ μεταβάλλει, ἐπισφαλὲς καὶ προσαγωγὸν εἰς νόσον. τούτων δὲ διαφέρουσιν αἱ μεταβολαὶ τῶν τόπων· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἐξ ὑγιεινῶν εἰς νοσερώτερα μεταβολὴ μείζονα ποιεῖ τὴν ἀλλοίωσιν καὶ χαλεπωτέραν, ἡ δ’ ἐκ νοσερῶν εἰς ὑγιεινὰ ἐλάσσονα καὶ τῷ μεγέθει καὶ τῷ χρόνῳ. πᾶσα μέντοι μεταβολή, καὶ μάλιστα αἰφνίδιος, καὶ ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα ἀσυνήθης καὶ ξένη, ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον μετακινεῖ τὰ σώματα δι’ ἣν ἀπεδώκαμεν αἰτίαν. οὕτως δ’ ἰσχυρὸν ἡ συνήθεια, ὥστε τοὺς ληφθέντας ὑπ’ αὐτῆς μηδὲ χωρισθῆναι δύνασθαι δεσμῷ κατεχομένους· δυσανάληπτος γὰρ ἀθλητής, εἰ θέλει πρὸς τὸν πρῶτον ἐπανελθεῖν βίον αἰφνιδίως τὴν ἐπίκτητον διάθεσιν ὥσπερ δευτέραν τινὰ φύσιν καταλύων, συντόμως ἀναλυθήσεται· οἷον γὰρ τρόπος ὁ πολυχρόνιος ἐθισμὸς ἰσχυρός. οὕτως ὁ αἰφνίδιος ἐξεθισμὸς μεγάλας ἔχει τὰς διαφοράς· διόπερ ἐξίστησι τῆς ἰδίας καταπαύσεως τοὺς μὴ ἐκ προσαγωγῆς καὶ δι’ ἑτέρας πάλιν συνηθείας τὴν προτέραν καταλύοντας συνήθειαν.

Athenaeus ap. Oribasius, libri incerti 17 (CMG VI 2,2 106,8-29 Raeder)

[1] cf. Sextus Empiricus, PH 1.146.3-4: ἔθος δὲ ἢ συνήθεια (οὐ διαφέρει γάρ) πολλῶν ἀνθρώπων κοινὴ πράγματός τινος παραδοχή. Sextus treats "habituation" and "habit" as synonyms, whereas Athenaeus considers habituation to be the result of habits over a long period of time.

[2] Must be ἐπ ὠφελειᾳ / ἐπὶ βλάβῃ

Athenaeus of Attalia on meats by season

I once read somewhere that there are antecedents to Aristotle's system of animal classification in Greek classifications of kinds of foods. And it isn't hard to find references in the Historia Animalium to kinds of animals that are edible, kinds which are more or less nutritious, and the times of year when they are particularly good to eat. For example, HA v. 30 notes male cicadas are better to eat before mating, while female cicadas are better to eat after mating. And HA viii. 13 notes that fish that live close to the shore are more nutritious than those that live in the deep sea. I find it difficult to understand how these categories would have been useful for the biologist; and Aristotle himself doesn't mention them much at all when he gets into the causal treatises on animals.

But even if Aristotle is not ultimately interested in them, it is possible the culinary categories in the Historia Animalum are coming from Aristotle's sources. And in Greek medicine we find such categories playing an important role in works on nutrition. In these contexts, they help to answer a fundamental question: what foods are healthy, when are the healthiest, and how can I know?

Today, it seems we tend to associate the "when" question with fruits and vegetables. But, animals, too, are seasonal foods. There's even a Huffington Post article on this from a few years ago. Animals are better or worse for eating at different times, just like apples and cucumbers. And even though food production does not rely as much on natural cycles as it did, there are still traces of this knowledge in foods we associate with seasonal holidays: e.g., goose at Christmas, or lamb at Pesach or Easter.

Here is an example of a medical text concerning seasonal meats. It is from Oribasius' Medical Collections, but it seems to come originally from Athenaeus of Attalia, which would put it sometime around the end of the first century BCE and the beginning of the first century CE.

"Pigs <after> spring-time are very bad until the setting of the Pleiades in autumn, but from then until spring are excellent. Goats are very bad throughout the winter, but during the spring they start to get better until the setting of Arcturus. And sheep, these are worst throughout the winter, but after the [spring] equinox fatten-up until the summer solstice; cattle, on the other hand, [fatten-up] when the grass goes to seed, while the spring is ending, and all summer long. Of birds, some are excellent throughout the winter, namely whichever appear during the winter: the blackbird, thrush and ringdove. Throughout the autumn, francolins, also blackcaps, fig-pecker and greenfinch, and quails are then fattest. Chickens throughout the winter are not in quite their best shape, especially at the time of the south winds. The turtle dove is best at autumn."

Σύες μὲν <μετὰ > τὴν ἐαρινὴν ὥραν εἰσὶ κάκιστοι μέχρι Πλειάδος δύσεως φθινοπωρινῆς, τὸ δ’ ἐντεῦθεν μέχρι ἦρος κάλλιστοι. αἶγες δὲ τὸν μὲν χειμῶνα κάκισται, τοῦ δ’ ἦρος ἄρχονται κρείσσους γίνεσθαι μέχρι Ἀρκτούρου δύσεως. πρόβατα δὲ καὶ ταῦτα τὸν μὲν χειμῶνα κάκιστα, μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἰσημερίαν πιαίνεται μέχρι τροπῶν θερινῶν· αἱ δὲ βόες, ὅταν ἡ πόα ἐκκαρπῇ ἦρός τε παυομένου καὶ τῷ θέρει παντί. τῶν δ’ ὀρνίθων οἱ μὲν κατὰ χειμῶνα κάλλιστα ἔχουσιν, ὅσοι γε ἐπιφαίνονται χειμῶνος, ὁ κόσσυφός τε καὶ ἡ κίχλα καὶ φάσσα· οἱ δ’ ἀτταγῆνες κατὰ τὸ φθινόπωρον καὶ μελαγκόρυφοι συκαλίς τε καὶ χλωρὶς καὶ ὄρτυγες τηνικαῦτα πιότατοι. ἀλεκτορίδες τὸν μὲν χειμῶνα οὐ πάνυ εὐσωματοῦσι καὶ μάλιστα ἐν νοτίοις· ἡ δὲ τρυγὼν ἐν φθινοπώρῳ καλλίστη. τῶν δ’ ἰχθύων οἱ μὲν ἐν τῇ κυήσει κάλλιστοι, κάρις, κάραβος καὶ τὰ μαλάκια, τευθίς, σηπία, τὰ δ’ ὅταν ἄρχηται ἐπωάζεσθαι, ὥσπερ οἱ κέφαλοι, ὑπερπλησθέντες δ’ οὗτοι τῶν κυημάτων λεπτοὶ καὶ ἄτροφοι καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον τεκόντες. ὁ δὲ θύννος πιότατος μετ’ Ἀρκτοῦρον, θέρους δὲ χείρων.

Oribasius, Collectiones Medicae I 3, CMG VI 1,1 8,27-9,7 Raeder

Advice for autumn weather

“At times when it varies between hot and cold on the same day, one must expect the illness of autumn.”

Ἐν τῇσιν ὥρῃσιν, ὅταν τῆς αὐτῆς ἡμέρης ὁτὲ μὲν θάλπος, ὁτὲ δὲ ψῦχος γένηται, φθινοπωρινὰ τὰ νουσήματα προσδέχεσθαι χρή.

Hippocrates, Aphorisms III 4, IV 483 Littré

“When it comes to the weather in late autumn, one must be extremely cautious, since it is variable. Therefore, you mustn’t go walking around barefoot in the early morning and the afternoon, and you mustn’t jump into cold water naked. You also mustn’t go harvesting crops without your tunic on, even if you think the cold air is pleasant and gratifying—it is so difficult to prepare for bad weather, especially when the damage slips in with what seems pleasant. Stay away from the cool breezes coming off of rivers and lakes—they not only cool you down, but they also moisten your dispositions. And make sure to guard against rich foods, like thick and astringent new wines, crackers made from very fine flour, dates, raisins, eggs, snails, grape hyacinths, very meaty fish, sliced sausages, lamb, and mutton. Also, don’t forget to get a bit of exercise.”

τὰς δ’ ἐν τῷ μετοπώρῳ πολλῷ μᾶλλον δεῖ εὐλαβεῖσθαι· γίνονται γὰρ μετ’ ἀνωμαλίας. δεῖ τοίνυν μήτε ἀνυποδέτους περὶ τὸν ὄρθρον καὶ τὸ δείλης διάγειν μήτε ἀσκέπως εἰς ψυχρὸν ὕδωρ ἐμβαίνειν μήτε ἀχίτωνας θερίζοντας διὰ τὸ κεχαρισμένον καὶ ἡδὺ τῆς ψύξεως· τοσοῦτον γὰρ τὸ κακὸν δυσφύλακτον ὅσῳπερ καὶ τὴν ἡδονὴν ὑποδύεται τὸ βλάπτον. ἐκκλιτέον δὲ καὶ τὰς ὑπαίθρους κοίτας καὶ τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν ποταμῶν καὶ λιμνῶν ἀποπνεούσας αὔρας· οὐ γὰρ μόνον ψύχουσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑγραίνουσι τὰς ἕξεις. φυλακτέον δὲ καὶ τὰ πολύτροφα καὶ τὰ παχυντικὰ τῶν προσφερομένων, οἷον οἶνον νέον καὶ παχὺν καὶ στυπτικόν, ἄρτον σεμιδαλίτην ἄζυμον, φοίνικας, σταφίδας, ὠά, κοχλίας, βολβούς, ἰχθύων τοὺς πολυσάρκους, ταρίχων τοὺς τεμαχιστούς, κρεῶν τὰ ἄρνεια καὶ προβάτεια. οὐκ ἀμελητέον δ’ οὐδὲ τῶν γυμνασίων.

Athenaeus of Attalia in Oribasius, Medical Collections libri incerti 41, CMG VI 2,2 148,4-16 Raeder

“Autumn is less hot than summer, but less cold than winter. Thus, it is not simply hot or cold, since it is both, and neither of them in excess. But there is a different problem with it, one Hippocrates also mentioned in the Aphorisms, when he says: “whenever it varies between hot and cold on the same day, one must expect the illnesses of autumn” (Aphorisms III 4). And surely this is what makes autumn most likely to bring about illness: the variability of the mixture. So, it is not right to call it cold and dry, since it is not observed to be cold in itself, like winter, but compared with summer it is colder. And yet it is not evenly well mixed, like the spring, but it is different from that season in that it does not have a consistent good mixture and evenness through the whole day. For it is much hotter during midday than at dawn or dusk. Also, unlike spring, it is not precisely balanced between wet and dry, but it tends towards dryness. It has less dryness than summer, but not as much as it lacks heat. Clearly, then, as autumn is not to be called simply, as those others say, cold and dry. It has neither in extreme; sure, the dry does predominate over the wet, and one might rightly call it dry. But with respect to the difference between hot and cold, it is a mixture of both and it is variable.”

Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ φθινόπωρον ἧττον μὲν ἢ τὸ θέρος θερμόν, ἧττον δ' ἢ ὁ χειμὼν ψυχρόν. ὥστε ταύτῃ μὲν οὔτε θερμὸν ἁπλῶς οὔτε ψυχρόν, ἀμφότερα γάρ ἐστι, καὶ οὐδέτερον ἄκρως. ἕτερον δέ τι πρόσεστιν αὐτῷ κακόν, ὅπερ ἐπεσημήνατο καὶ Ἱπποκράτης ἐν Ἀφορισμοῖς εἰπών· ‘ὁκόταν τῆς αὐτῆς ἡμέρης ὁτὲ μὲν θάλπος, ὁτὲ δὲ ψῦχος ποιέῃ, φθινοπωρινὰ τὰ νοσήματα προσδέχεσθαι χρή’. καὶ τοῦτό γ'ἐστὶ τὸ μάλιστα νοσῶδες ἐργαζόμενον τὸ φθινόπωρον, ἡ ἀνωμαλία τῆς κράσεως. οὐκ ὀρθῶς οὖν εἴρηται ψυχρὸν καὶ ξηρόν, οὐ γάρ ἐστι ψυχρὸν αὐτὸ καθ' αὑτὸ θεωρούμενον, ὥσπερ ὁ χειμών, ἀλλὰ τῷ θέρει παραβαλ|λόμενον ἐκείνου ψυχρότερον. οὐ μὴν οὐδ' ὁμαλῶς εὔκρατον, ὡς τὸ ἔαρ, ἀλλ' ἐν τούτῳ δὴ καὶ μάλιστα διενήνοχεν ἐκείνης τῆς ὥρας, ὅτι τὴν εὐκρασίαν τε καὶ τὴν ὁμαλότητα διὰ παντὸς ἴσην οὐ κέκτηται. πολὺ γὰρ θερμότερόν ἐστι κατὰ τὴν μεσημβρίαν ἢ κατὰ τὴν ἕω τε καὶ τὴν ἑσπέραν. ὑγρότητος δὲ καὶ ξηρότητος οὐκ ἀκριβῶς μέν ἐστι μέσον, ὡς τὸ ἔαρ, ἀλλ' ἐπὶ τὸ ξηρότερον ῥέπει. λείπεται δὲ κἀν τούτῳ τοῦ θέρους, οὐ μὴν τοσοῦτόν γ' ὅσον θερμότητι. δῆλον οὖν, ὡς οὐδὲ τὸ φθινόπωρον ἁπλῶς οὕτω ῥητέον, ὡς ἐκεῖνοι λέγουσι, ψυχρόν τ' εἶναι καὶ ξηρόν. ἄκρως μὲν γὰρ οὐδέτερόν ἐστιν, ἐπικρατεῖ δ' ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ξηρὸν τοῦ ὑγροῦ καὶ δικαίως ἂν λεχθείη ταύτῃ μὲν ξηρόν, ἐν δὲ τῇ κατὰ θερμότητα καὶ ψυχρότητα διαφορᾷ μικτὸν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν καὶ ἀνώμαλον.

Galen, De temperamentis i 4, I 527-528 Kühn