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)

Galen rants against Chrysippus because he’s a immigrant

As part of a project at the Einstein Centre Chronoi on time and ancient medicine, Peter N. Singer, Orly Lewis and I have been reading through Galen’s writings on the pulse. We came across a passage where Galen goes on a racist rant against the philosopher, Chrysippus. Galen tells us that Chrysippus moved to Athens from the town of Soli in Cilicia (in modern day Turkey), and for that reason, has no business using Attic Greek in novel ways. Galen seems to be alluding to (and rejecting) a hypothetical defence of Chrysippus’ language, one based on a story that must have been making the rounds. The story is an attempt to give the etymology of the word “solecise”. It claims that the citizens of Soli, a town supposedly founded by Solon, the legendary Athenian ruler, originally spoke Attic, but over time, spoke a corrupted dialect. Here is how Diogenes Laertius tells it:

When he (sc. Solon) left that place, he arrived in Cilicia and founded a city, which he called Soli after himself. And he settled a few Athenians there, who over time corrupted the language and were said to “solecise.”

ἐκεῖθέν τε ἀπαλλαγεὶς ἐγένετο ἐν Κιλικίᾳ, καὶ πόλιν συνῴκισεν ἣν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ Σόλους ἐκάλεσεν: ὀλίγους τέ τινας τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἐγκατῴκισεν, οἳ τῷ χρόνῳ τὴν φωνὴν ἀποξενωθέντες σολοικίζειν ἐλέχθησαν.

Diog. Laert. 1.51

Here is Galen:

For among other things, [the Pneumatist] school also claims that you should betray your state more quickly than you betray your beliefs. But if you keep quiet while they are making decrees and you don’t say anything in opposition, and then allow them to discuss something, they immediately blurt out something contrary to their own decree. This is very much in line with the forefather of their sect, Chrysippus. For he makes decrees about terminology more than Solon set down laws for the Athenians to write on their wooden tablets. He’s the one who first confused these things, and when you ask his successors who follow his decrees, ‘why on earth isn’t he consistent with his own edicts?’, they say, ‘he is speaking loosely.’ ‘Well then, my my fine fellows, is it possible for people to speak loosely without falling into error by doing so?’ ‘It’s possible,’ they say, since what else could they say when they are, as the saying goes, trapped in a well? Well, why on earth don’t they allow other people [to speak loosely]? Or is it only possible for Chrysippus and his followers to do so? By the gods, why? Because, obviously, he was from the race of Atticans, from the line of Kodros and Erechtheus. But if he really was from this race, then he would not have debased, so to speak, the currency of the customary language of their ancestors. And in fact, the worst thing is that Chrysippus wasn’t born in Athens and wasn’t raised there. Instead, he shows up, fresh off the boat from Cilicia, and before he properly learns any Greek, he makes decrees to the Athenians about terminology, like “the jay imitating the siren”—as if I should say a jay, rather than a jackdaw, or a crow, or another more appropriate word to use for someone so shameless.

τά τε γὰρ ἄλλα καὶ ἡ αἵρεσις αὐτῶν θᾶττον πόλιν ἢ δόγμα φησὶ χρῆναι προδιδόναι, ἀλλ' ἐὰν σιωπήσῃς νομοθετούντων καὶ μηδόλως ἀντείπης, εἶτ' ἐπιτρέψῃς περί τινος διαλέγεσθαι, παραχρῆμα ταῖς ἑαυτῶν νομοθεσίαις ἐναντία φθέγγονται. πολὺ δὲ τοῦτ' ἔστι παρὰ τῷ προπάππῳ τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν Χρυσίππῳ. νομοθετεῖ μὲν γὰρ ὀνόματα πλεῖον ἢ Σόλων Ἀθηναίοις ἱστᾷν τοῖς ἄξοσι νομίσματα. συγχεῖ δ' αὐτὸς πρῶτος αὐτά. καὶ εἰ ἔροιο τοὺς διαδόχους αὐτοῦ τῆς νομοθεσίας, τί δή ποτε οὐκ ἐμμένει τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ παραγγέλμασι, καταχρῆται, φασίν. ἔξεστιν οὖν, ὦ βέλτιστοι, καταχρῆσθαι, καὶ οὐχ ἁμαρτάνουσιν οἱ τοῦτο ποιοῦντες; ἔξεστι, φασί. τί γὰρ ἄλλο εἰπεῖν ἔχουσιν, ὅταν ἐν φρέατι, τοῦτο δὴ τὸ τοῦ λόγου, συσχεθῶσι; τί δή ποτ' οὖν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀνθρώποις οὐκ ἐπιτρέπουσιν; ἢ μόνῳ Χρυσίππῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀπ' αὐτοῦ τοῦτο δρᾷν ἔξεστι; διὰ τί πρὸς τῶν θεῶν; ὅτι δηλαδὴ γηγενὴς Ἀττικὸς ἦν τῶν ἀμφὶ Κόδρον τε καὶ Ἐρεχθέα. ἀλλ' εἰ τῶν τοιούτων ὄντως ἦν, οὐκ ἂν παρεχάραττεν οἷον νόμισμά τι τὸ τῆς παλαιᾶς φωνῆς ἔθος. νυνὶ δὲ τὸ δεινότατον οὔτε γεννηθεὶς Ἀθήνῃσιν οὔτε τραφεὶς, ἀλλὰ χθὲς καὶ πρώτως ἥκων ἐκ Κιλικίας, πρὶν ἀκριβῶς αὐτὸν ἐκμαθεῖν ἡντιναοῦν Ἑλλάδα φωνὴν, Ἀθηναίοις ὑπὲρ ὀνομάτων ἐπιχειρεῖ νομοθετεῖν ἃ κίττα τὰν σειρῆνα μιμουμένα, ἵνα κίτταν εἴπωμεν, μὴ κολοιὸν, μηδὲ κόρακα, μηδ' ἄλλο μηδὲν ὧν οἰκειότερον ἦν εἰπεῖν τὸν οὕτω θρασύν.

Galen, De differentia pulsuum, 2.10 (8.630-8.632 Kühn)

Aristotle and Solon on acting our natural age

“For the end containing the time of each animal, beyond which there is no time in accordance with nature, has been called the age of each them.”

ὸ γὰρ τέλος τὸ περιέχον τὸν τῆς ἑκάστου ζωῆς χρόνον, οὗ μηθὲν ἔξω κατὰ φύσιν, αἰὼν ἑκάστου κέκληται.

Aristotle, De caelo 1.9, 279a23-30

“At seven years, a child, when he is still young and immature, loses the first set of teeth he has grown. When the god grants him another seven years, the child shows signs of coming puberty. At the third, as the body grows, the chin grows a beard, while the blush of the skin begins to change. At the fourth seven-year period, everyone is at their best in strength, and by it men make a trial of the excellence they have. At the fifth, it is time for a man to be reminded of marriage and to seek for a generation of children to come after him. At the sixth, a man’s mind is training in all things, and likewise he no longer wishes to do foolish things. At the seventh seven-year period, he is best in mind and speech, and at the eighth as well—in all, fourteen years. At the ninth, he is still powerful, but his speech and wisdom are softer in extent of excellence than they were. But if someone, having completed the measure, gets to the tenth (i.e., 70 years), he would not receive the fate of death at the wrong season.”

παῖς μὲν ἄνηβος ἐὼν ἔτι νήπιος ἕρκος ὀδόντων φύσας ἐκβάλλει πρῶτον ἐν ἕπτ' ἔτεσιν. τοὺς δ' ἑτέρους ὅτε δὴ τελέσηι θεὸς ἕπτ' ἐνιαυτούς, ἥβης †δὲ φάνει† σήματα γεινομένης. τῆι τριτάτηι δὲ γένειον ἀεξομένων ἔτι γυίων λαχνοῦται, χροιῆς ἄνθος ἀμειβομένης. τῆι δὲ τετάρτηι πᾶς τις ἐν ἑβδομάδι μέγ' ἄριστος ἰσχύν, ἧι τ' ἄνδρες πείρατ' ἔχουσ' ἀρετῆς. πέμπτηι δ' ὥριον ἄνδρα γάμου μεμνημένον εἶναι καὶ παίδων ζητεῖν εἰσοπίσω γενεήν. τῆι δ' ἕκτηι περὶ πάντα καταρτύεται νόος ἀνδρός, οὐδ' ἔρδειν ἔθ' ὁμῶς ἔργ' ἀπάλαμνα θέλει. ἑπτὰ δὲ νοῦν καὶ γλῶσσαν ἐν ἑβδομάσιν μέγ' ἄριστος ὀκτώ τ'· ἀμφοτέρων τέσσαρα καὶ δέκ' ἔτη. τῆι δ' ἐνάτηι ἔτι μὲν δύναται, μαλακώτερα δ' αὐτοῦ πρὸς μεγάλην ἀρετὴν γλῶσσά τε καὶ σοφίη. τὴν δεκάτην δ' εἴ τις τελέσας κατὰ μέτρον ἵκοιτο, οὐκ ἂν ἄωρος ἐὼν μοῖραν ἔχοι θανάτου.

Solon, fragment 27 West