Easter foods to have avoided

“Lambs have flesh that is extremely moist and phlegmy, while the flesh of adult sheep is more productive of residues and bad humours. The flesh of she-goats produces bad humours accompanied by acridity; but the worst is the flesh of he-goats, both with respect to good humours and digestion, followed by that of rams, then that of bulls. In all these cases animals that have been castrated are better. Old animals are the worst relative to digestion and good humours and nourishment, so that even in the case of pigs, although they have a moist temperament, the old ones are sinewy and dry, and for this reason their flesh is difficult to digest. The flesh of hares meanwhile is productive of thicker blood and better for good humours than the flesh of cattle or sheep.”

ὑγροτάτην δ' ἔχουσι καὶ φλεγματώδη σάρκα καὶ οἱ ἄρνες. ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν προβάτων ἡ σὰρξ περιττωματικωτέρα τέ ἐστι καὶ κακοχυμοτέρα. κακόχυμος δὲ καὶ ἡ τῶν αἰγῶν μετὰ δριμύτητος. ἡ δὲ τῶν τράγων χειρίστη καὶ πρὸς εὐχυμίαν καὶ πρὸς πέψιν, ἐφεξῆς δ' ἡ τῶν κριῶν, εἶθ' ἡ τῶν ταύρων. ἐν ἅπασι δὲ τούτοις τὰ τῶν εὐνουχισθέντων ἀμείνω. τὰ δὲ πρεσβυτικὰ χείριστα πρός τε πέψιν καὶ πρὸς εὐχυμίαν καὶ θρέψιν, ὥστε καὶ τῶν ὑῶν αὐτῶν, καίτοι γε ὑγρῶν ὄντων τὴν κρᾶσιν, οἱ γηράσαντες ἰνώδη καὶ ξηρὰν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο δύσπεπτον ἔχουσι τὴν σάρκα. καὶ τοῦ λαγωοῦ δ' ἡ σὰρξ αἵματος μέν ἐστι παχυτέρου γεννητική, βελτίων δ' εἰς εὐχυμίαν ἢ κατὰ βοῦς καὶ πρόβατα.

Galen, On the properties of foods 3.1, 6.663–664 K.

Cat Bites

“For the bites of lions, leopards and bears.

“Their bites are terrible as are the ones of those like them. Because these animals, ferocious and hooked-clawed as they are, entwine their piercing claws when they attack, bodies end up ripped to pieces. With relentless gnawing, they not only tear the flesh apart, but sometimes even shatter the bones, which also sever the adjacent nerves. Clearly, then, the parts of the body that encounter such great misfortunes are susceptible to the dangers of gangrene—for even the parts that remain attached suffer sepsis and bring on wide-spread ulceration.

“Therefore, wash out these kinds of wounds with vinegar. Remove and extract the bits of body and bone that have come off while washing. Then one must use plasters. And following the suppuration of the parts of the body that have been torn apart, provide follow-up treatment with sterilizing gauze and promote scaring (as with ordinary wounds). The plasters suitable for this are those catalogued under Prepared with salt and the like, whichever ones are the same.”

Πρὸς τὰ τῶν Λεόντων δήγματα καὶ Παρδάλεων καὶ Ἄρκτων

Δεινὰ δὲ καὶ τούτων καὶ τῶν τούτοις παραπλησίων τὰ δήγματα· ὅτι ἄλκιμα ὄντα ταῦτα τὰ ζῶα καὶ γαμψώνυχα συμπλέκεται, ὅπου δ' ἂν ἅψηται, καταπείροντα τοὺς ὄνυχας, διασπαράττει τὰ σώματα· τῇ δὲ ἐπιμονῇ τῆς μασήσεως οὐ μόνον τὰς σάρκας διασπαράττει ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ὀστᾶ ἐνίοτε κατάγνυσιν, ὑφ' ὧν καὶ τὰ παρακείμενα νύσσεται νεῦρα· εὔδηλον οὖν ὡς τὰ ταῖς τοιαύταις καὶ τοσαύταις συμφοραῖς περιπεσόντα σώματα οὐκ ἐκφεύγει τὸν τῆς ἀλλοτριώσεως κίνδυνον· καὶ γὰρ μένοντα σῆψιν ἀναδέχεται καὶ νομὰς ἐπιφέρει.

Ὄξει δ' οὖν καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα τῶν τραυμάτων ἐκπλύνοντες καὶ περιελόντες καὶ κομισάμενοι τὰ ἀποπλυνόμενα σώματα καὶ τὰ ὀστᾶ, ἐμπλάστροις χρὴ παραλαβεῖν· καὶ μετὰ τὴν διαπύησιν τῶν σπαραχθέντων σωμάτων, τοῖς ἀνακαθαίρουσιν ἐμμότοις ἀποθεραπεύειν καὶ εἰς οὐλὴν ἄγειν, ὡς τὰ κοινὰ ἕλκη. Ἔμπλαστροι δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἁρμόδιοι, αἱ δι' ἁλῶν ἐπιγεγραμμέναι καὶ αἱ παραπλήσιοι, οἵα ἐστὶν αὕτη.

Aetius of Amida, Medical Books 13.3, 265,23–266,11 Zervos

Aromatherapy for Headaches and Heartache

Some late antique aromatherapies for after a New Year’s celebration.

The text below on perfume ingredients comes from a treatise found in an 18th century manuscript at Athens: ms. no. 1494 , fol. 46–52. The treatise is called “On the Capacities of Foods” (Περὶ τροφῶν δυνάμεως), a title it shares with a work by Galen, Symeon Seth, and with sections from the compilers Oribasius, Aetius of Amida and Paul of Aegina. The contents, however, as Delatte points out (Anecdota atheniensia, 466–467), have little in common with the work of Galen or anyone else from the Greek or Latin tradition. It must be fairly late, since many of the ingredients listed below—musk, ambergris, camphor and clove—do not show up in Greek medical texts until very late in antiquity or the early middle ages (Donkin 1999, 2).

On Perfumes

Musk is hot and dry in nature. It is suitable for those who have a moist and cold mixture. It disperses every headache produced from phlegm. It is also beneficial for weakness of the heart, heartache and frailty. It is not suitable for those who have a hot mixture.

Amber [i.e., ambergris*] is hot by nature and strengthens the head. It pleases the heart and the stomach.

Camphor is moist and cold. It is beneficial for hot ailments of the head and the rest of the body. If someone drinks of it more than one should it produces sleeplessness. And it cools the kidneys, diminishes semen and generates incurable ailments in the parts of the body.

Sandalwood is cold and dry. It is beneficial for hot ailments of the liver and strengthens it, and it cools its hot bad-mixture.

Aloewood is hot and dry. It is also beneficial for weakness of the head and the stomach, especially when it is quite cool, and for the blockage of the stomach, also when it is quite cool, and for blockage of the liver and the rest of the parts of the body when they occur because of coolness and moisture.

Saffron is cold and dry. It is not good for the stomach and causes pain and heaviness in the head and causes sleep; but, it pleases the heart.

Clove leaf is hot and dry. They strengthen the stomach and the heart.

Walnuts** are hot and dry. The have the capacity and activity of clove leaf.

Rose perfume is also moist. It stops headache from heat or from drinking too much wine, and both strengthens the heart and is good for frailty.

*ἄμπαρ (amber) is the name for the waxy substance found washed up on beaches, which we recognize to be a secretion from the bile duct of sperm whales. ἤλεκτρον (electron) is the name of the fossilized resin we call amber (also often found on beaches).

**The name “κάρυα βασιλικά” normally refers to walnuts, but this is probably not the correct identification in this case given: (1) the description of them as ‘hot and dry’ (neither walnuts, κάρυα βασιλικά, nor hazelnuts, κάρυα ποντικὰ ἢ λεπτοκάρυα, are normally listed as hot); and (2) the previous entry is καρυόφυλλον, which everyone I’ve consulted believes is “clove leaf.” My guess is it’s a confusion for κάρυα ἀρωματικά or κάρυα μυριστικά, which are likely some other aromatic nut or nut-like spice (e.g. nutmeg or clove).

Περὶ μύρων.

Μόσχος θερμὸς καὶ ξηρός ἐστι τὴν φύσιν· ἁρμόζει δὲ τοῖς ἔχουσι κρᾶσιν ὑγρὰν καὶ ψυχράν. διαλύει δὲ πᾶσαν ὀδύνην κεφαλῆς γινομένην ἀπὸ φλέγματος. ὠφελεῖ δὲ καὶ εἰς τὴν ἀδυναμίαν τῆς καρδίας καὶ τὸν καρδιωγμὸν καὶ ὀλιγωρίαν. οὐχ ἁρμόζει δὲ τοῖς ἔχουσι τὴν κρᾶσιν θερμήν.

ἄμπαρ ἐστὶ θερμὸν φύσει καὶ ἐνδυναμοῖ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον· τὴν καρδίαν καὶ τὸν στόμαχον εὐφραίνει.

καμφορὰ ὑγρὰ καὶ ψυχρά ἐστιν· ὠφελεῖ εἰς τὰ θερμὰ νοσήματα τῆς κεφαλῆς καὶ τοῦ λοιποῦ σώματος· εἰ δέ τις πίῃ ἐξ αὐτῆς πλέον τοῦ δέοντος ποιεῖ ἀγρυπνίαν. καὶ ψύχει τοὺς νεφροὺς ἐλαττοῖ τε τὴν γονὴν καὶ τίκτει εἰς τὰ μόρια νοσήματα ἀθεράπευτα.

σάνταλόν ἐστι ψυχρὸν καὶ ξηρόν· ὠφελεῖ εἰς τὰ θερμὰ νοσήματα τοῦ ἥπατος καὶ ἐνδυναμοῖ αὐτὸ καὶ ψύχει τὴν θερμὴν δυσκρασίαν αὐτοῦ.

ξυλαλόη ὑπάρχει θερμὴ καὶ ξηρά· καὶ ὠφελεῖ εἰς τὴν ἀδυναμίαν τῆς κεφαλῆς καὶ τοῦ στομάχου καὶ τὴν πολλὴν αὐτοῦ ψῦξιν εἴς τε τὴν ἔμφραξιν στομάχου καὶ τὴν πολλὴν αὐτοῦ ψῦξιν εἴς τε τὴν ἔμφραξιν τοῦ ἥπατος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν μορίων τὴν ἐκ ψυχρότητος καὶ ὑγρότητος γινομένην.

κρόκος ὑπάρχει ψυχρὸς καὶ ξηρός· ἀδικεῖ τὸν στόμαχον καὶ ποιεῖ ὀδύνην καὶ βάρος εἰς τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ ὕπνον· εὐφραίνει δὲ τὴν καρδίαν.

καρυόφυλλον ὑπάρχει θερμὸν καὶ ξηρόν· ἐνδυναμοῖ τὸν στόμαχον καὶ τὴν καρδίαν.

κάρυα βασιλικά εἰσι θερμὰ καὶ ξηρά· ἔχουσι δὲ δύναμιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν τὴν τοῦ καρυοφύλλου.

ῥοδόσταγμα ψυχρὸν ὑπάρχει καὶ ὑγρόν· παύει τὸν ἐκ θέρμης πόνον κεφαλῆς ἢ ἀπὸ πολυποσίας οἴνου ἐνδυναμοῖ τε τὴν καρδίαν καὶ ὠφελεῖ εἰς τὴν ὀλιγωρίαν.

Anonymous, On the Capacities of Foods printed in Delatte, Anecdota atheniensia, p. 475–476

Aristotle on Ctesias on the Manticore and Unicorn

Ctesias of Knidos was a Greek physician and writer of tales and legends from far-away lands. He is often compared negatively to Herodotus. Herodotus, it is said, wrote histories. Ctesias wrote something else entirely.

He lived sometime in the fifth and fourth centuries. Originally from Knidos, a Greek city in what is now south-western Turkey, he likely practiced medicine as an Asclepiad. At some point in the fifth century he was brought to the Persian Court as a physician, although the circumstances of his move are not clear. Some sources refer to him as physician at the court of Artaxerxes II, a prominent post. If these sources are right, it explains his familiarity with the Persian kingdom. In all, he likely stayed and travelled with the court for 17 years.

When he returned to Knidos at the beginning of the fourth century, he wrote a work called the Indica, the first Greek-language description of the lands, people, animals and plants east of Persia, almost a century before reports would come back from Alexander’s expedition. The book circulated widely. It contained fantastic tales about the strangeness of the lands to the east at the end of the earth—tales Ctesias’ audience would have desired because of how weird and terrifying they were, but whose reality they could (most of the time) safely ignore because of how remote they were. The bestiary he introduced to the Greek world and ultimately to ours includes not just the manticore and the unicorn, but also a bird that can speak in human tongues and a race of half-human, half-dog people called the Cynocephaloi.

I find it especially interesting that his stories are repeated by Aristotle. Aristotle’s History of Animals includes several animals he took from Ctesias’ writings, even though he says Ctesias is not not worth believing (οὐκ ἀξιόπιστος). There is a puzzle here. Aristotle calls Ctesias an untrustworthy source, but at the same time he includes his observations, often without comment and, even more puzzling, often without any indication they are not to be trusted.

The unicorn is one example. Ctesias is clearly Aristotle’s source for his discussion of the unicorn. We know this based on what Aristotle says about the unicorn’s knucklebones and because of the proximity of Aristotle’s unicorn discussion to one about the manticore, which Aristotle says he took from Ctesias. It looks like Aristotle was jotting down notes as he was reading Ctesias’ work.

It is curious, then, that Aristotle does not cite Ctesias as his source for the unicorn passage. Moreover, he gives no indication the report is questionable or not to be trusted. In fact, he doesn’t make it look like a report at all. So the question is: what does the fact that he includes accounts of animals from foreign lands based on the testimony of someone he does not trust mean for Aristotle’s way of collecting facts and doing science?

It’s a question that’s been raised a lot before, and one I think is always worth raising again. What is Aristotle’s attitude to his sources of information about the natural world beyond his experience? And why does he think some stories are worth believing and not others?

(Not-quite) Biogeography

“Animals differ according to place. In certain places, some animals do not exist at all; in some places, they do exist, but they are smaller, or shorter-lived, or they do not thrive. And sometimes a difference like this occurs in neighbouring places, for example, in areas of Miletus that neighbour each other, in one place cicadas exist, in another they do not. There is a river that runs through Cephalenia, where on one side cicadas exist, but on the other they do not. In Boeotia, many moles live around the Orchomenos, but in neighbouring Lebadiake, there aren’t any; even if someone introduces them, they do not wish to make their burrows there. In Ithaca, hares (if someone releases them after introducing them) are not able to live, but are observed dead, turned towards the sea where they had been brought in. In Sicily, there are no horse-ants, while in Cyrene, croaking frogs did not exist before. In all of Libya, there are no wild pigs, no deer, no wild goats. And in India, as Ctesias — who isn’t worth believing — says, there are neither wild nor tame pigs, but massive bloodless [animals] all covered in scales.”

Διαφέρει δὲ τὰ ζῷα καὶ κατὰ τοὺς τόπους· ὥσπερ γὰρ ἔν τισιν ἔνια οὐ γίνεται παντάπασιν, οὕτως ἐν ἐνίοις τόποις γίνεται μὲν ἐλάττω δὲ καὶ ὀλιγοβιώτερα, καὶ οὐκ εὐημερεῖ. Καὶ ἐνίοτε ἐν τοῖς πάρεγγυς τόποις ἡ διαφορὰ γίνεται τῶν τοιούτων, οἷον τῆς Μιλησίας ἐν τόποις γειτνιῶσιν ἀλλήλοις ἔνθα μὲν γίνονται τέττιγες ἔνθα δ' οὐ γίνονται, καὶ ἐν Κεφαληνίᾳ ποταμὸς διείργει, οὗ ἐπὶ τάδε μὲν γίνονται τέττιγες, ἐπ' ἐκεῖνα δ' οὐ γίνονται. Ἐν δὲ Πορδοσελήνῃ ὁδὸς διείργει, ἧς ἐπ' ἐκεῖνα μὲν γαλῆ γίνεται, ἐπὶ θάτερα δ' οὐ γίνεται. καὶ ἐν τῇ Βοιωτίᾳ ἀσπάλακες περὶ μὲν τὸν Ὀρχομενὸν πολλοὶ γίνονται, ἐν δὲ τῇ Λεβαδιακῇ γειτνιώσῃ οὐκ εἰσίν, οὐδ' ἄν τις κομίσῃ, ἐθέλουσιν ὀρύττειν. Ἐν Ἰθάκῃ δ' οἱ δασύποδες, ἐάν τις ἀφῇ κομίσας, οὐ δύνανται ζῆν, ἀλλὰ φαίνονται τεθνεῶτες πρὸς τῇ θαλάττῃ ἐστραμμένοι, ᾗπερ ἂν εἰσαχθῶσιν. Καὶ ἐν μὲν Σικελίᾳ ἱππομύρμηκες οὐκ εἰσίν, ἐν δὲ Κυρήνῃ οἱ φωνοῦντες βάτραχοι πρότερον οὐκ ἦσαν. Ἐν δὲ Λιβύῃ πάσῃ οὔτε σῦς ἄγριός ἐστιν οὔτ' ἔλαφος οὔτ' αἲξ ἄγριος· ἐν δὲ τῇ Ἰνδικῇ, ὡς φησὶ Κτησίας οὐκ ὢν ἀξιόπιστος, οὔτ' ἄγριος οὔτε ἥμερος ὗς, τὰ δ' ἄναιμα καὶ τὰ φολιδωτὰ πάντα μεγάλα.

Aristotle, History of Animals 8.28, 605b22-606a10

At the Bodleian in Oxford. MS. Bodley 764, Folio 25r 13th century. This post is an excuse to put up pictures from this manuscript.

Aristotle on Ctesias on the Martichora, or the Manticore

“There is such a thing, if we must trust Ctesias. He says that the beast among the Indians, whose name is ‘martichora,’ has triple-rows of teeth on both sides. In size, he says it is as big as a lion, equally hairy, and having smaller feet. Its face and ears are human-like, its eyes shining blue, its colour like cinnabar. Its tail is similar to that of a land-scorpion, and in it, it has a stinger and it can shoot the spines like arrows. Its cry is like the sound of a shepherd’s-pipe and a war-trumpet at the same time, and it runs as quickly as a deer. It is savage and a man-eater.”

Ἔστι δέ τι, εἰ δεῖ πιστεῦσαι Κτησίᾳ· ἐκεῖνος γὰρ τὸ ἐν Ἰνδοῖς θηρίον, ᾧ ὄνομα εἶναι μαρτιχόραν, τοῦτ' ἔχειν ἐπ' ἀμφότερά φησι τριστοίχους τοὺς ὀδόντας· εἶναι δὲ μέγεθος μὲν ἡλίκον λέοντα καὶ δασὺ ὁμοίως, καὶ πόδας ἔχειν ὁμοίους, πρόσωπον δὲ καὶ ὦτα ἀνθρωποειδές, τὸ δ' ὄμμα γλαυκόν, τὸ δὲ χρῶμα κινναβάρινον, τὴν δὲ κέρκον ὁμοίαν τῇ τοῦ σκορπίου τοῦ χερσαίου, ἐν ᾗ κέντρον ἔχειν καὶ τὰς ἀποφυάδας ἀπακοντίζειν, φθέγγεσθαι δ' ὅμοιον φωνῇ ἅμα σύριγγος καὶ σάλπιγγος, ταχὺ δὲ θεῖν οὐχ ἧττον τῶν ἐλάφων, καὶ εἶναι ἄγριον καὶ ἀνθρωποφάγον.

Aristotle, History of Animals 2.1, 501a24-b1

At the Bodleian in Oxford. MS. Bodley 764, Folio 22r

Aristotle on the Indian Donkey, or the Unicorn

“Some animals have horns, others do not. The majority of those that have horns are naturally cloven-hooved, like the ox, the stag and the goat. We have not observed any single-hooved, two-horned animals. But there are a few animals that are single-horned and single-hooved, like the Indian donkey. The oryx is single-horned and double-hooved. And the Indian donkey is the only single-hooved animal that has a knucklebone.”*

Ἔστι δὲ καὶ τὰ μὲν κερατοφόρα τῶν ζῴων τὰ δ’ ἄκερα. Τὰ μὲν οὖν πλεῖστα τῶν ἐχόντων κέρατα διχαλὰ κατὰ φύσιν ἐστίν, οἷον βοῦς καὶ ἔλαφος καὶ αἴξ· μώνυχον δὲ καὶ δίκερων οὐθὲν ἡμῖν ὦπται. Μονοκέρατα δὲ καὶ μώνυχα ὀλίγα, οἷον ὁ Ἰνδικὸς ὄνος. Μονόκερων δὲ καὶ διχαλὸν ὄρυξ. Καὶ ἀστράγαλον δ’ ὁ Ἰνδικὸς ὄνος ἔχει τῶν μωνύχων μόνον.

Aristotle, History of Animals 2.1, 499b15-20

*Aristotle does not name his source, but Aelian attributes the same claim to Ctesias and I bet Aristotle is getting it from him.

Aelian on the Indian Donkey, or Unicorn

“I have heard that in India there are wild donkeys as big as horses. The rest of their body is white, but the head is very nearly purple and their eyes exude a deep blue colour. They have a horn on their forehead almost a meter long and the lower part of the horn is white, the upper part a deep, dark red, and the middle a dreadful black.

I hear the Indians drink from these colourful-patterned horns — not all of them, but the mightiest of the Indians — and on sections of them they inlay gold as if adorning the arms of a beautiful statue with bracelets. They say the one who has tasted from this horn becomes ignorant and unburdened of incurable diseases. He is not seized by convulsion or what is called the sacred disease nor destroyed by poisons. Even if he had drunk something harmful earlier, he vomits this up and he becomes healthy.

It is believed that the other donkeys across the whole world, both tame and savage, and the other single-hoofed beasts, do not have knucklebones and do not have bile in the liver. But Ctesias says the horned Indian donkey has knucklebones and is not without bile. The knucklebones are said to be black, and if someone grinds them up, they are even like this inside.

They are swifter not only than donkeys, but even horses and deer. They start with a slow pace, but bit by bit they get faster, and to pursue them is, to put it poetically, to chase the uncatchable. When the female gives birth and leads the newborns around, the fathers, who heard with them, also guard the offspring. The donkeys spend their time in most desolate of the plains of India. When the Indian people go on a hunt for them, the [parents] let the tender and still young [offspring] graze behind them, while they fight for them, and go meet the enemy horsemen and strike with their horns. Their horns are so strong. Nothing can withstand a strike from them; instead, they give way and are broken in two, and sometimes they’re shattered and made useless. In the past, they have hit the horses’ ribs, even tearing them open and spilling their vital organs. That is why the horsemen dread getting close to them – the penalty for getting to close is a most pitiable death, and both they and the horses are destroyed. They are able to kick terribly as well. And their bite goes down so deep, that everything they get hold of is ripped off. When full grown, one cannot catch them alive; instead, they are shot with javelins and arrows, and when the Indians have stripped their horn from the corpse, they handle them in the way I mentioned. The meat from the Indian donkey is inedible; the reason: it is naturally very bitter.”

Ὄνους ἀγρίους οὐκ ἐλάττους ἵππων τὰ μεγέθη ἐν Ἰνδοῖς γίνεσθαι πέπυσμαι. καὶ λευκοὺς μὲν τὸ ἄλλο εἶναι σῶμα, τήν γε μὴν κεφαλὴν ἔχειν πορφύρᾳ παραπλησίαν, τοὺς δὲ ὀφθαλμοὺς ἀποστέλλειν κυανοῦ χρόαν. κέρας δὲ ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῷ μετώπῳ ὅσον πήχεως τὸ μέγεθος καὶ ἡμίσεος προσέτι, καὶ τὸ μὲν κάτω μέρος τοῦ κέρατος εἶναι λευκόν, τὸ δὲ ἄνω φοινικοῦν, τό γε μὴν μέσον μέλαν δεινῶς.

ἐκ δὴ τῶνδε τῶν ποικίλων κεράτων πίνειν Ἰνδοὺς ἀκούω, καὶ ταῦτα οὐ πάντας, ἀλλὰ τοὺς τῶν Ἰνδῶν κρατίστους, ἐκ διαστημάτων αὐτοῖς χρυσὸν περιχέαντας, οἱονεὶ ψελίοις τισὶ κοσμήσαντας βραχίονα ὡραῖον ἀγάλματος. καί φασι νόσων ἀφύκτων ἀμαθῆ καὶ ἄπειρον γίνεσθαι τὸν ἀπογευσάμενον ἐκ τοῦδε τοῦ κέρατος· μήτε γὰρ σπασμῷ ληφθῆναι ἂν αὐτὸν μήτε τῇ καλουμένῃ ἱερᾷ νόσῳ, μήτε μὴν διαφθαρῆναι φαρμάκοις. ἐὰν δέ τι καὶ πρότερον ᾖ πεπωκὼς κακόν, ἀνεμεῖν τοῦτο, καὶ ὑγιᾶ γίνεσθαι αὐτόν.

πεπίστευται δὲ τοὺς ἄλλους τοὺς ἀνὰ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ὄνους καὶ ἡμέρους καὶ ἀγρίους καὶ τὰ ἄλλα μώνυχα θηρία ἀστραγάλους οὐκ ἔχειν, οὐδὲ μὴν ἐπὶ τῷ ἥπατι χολήν, ὄνους δὲ τοὺς Ἰνδοὺς λέγει Κτησίας τοὺς ἔχοντας τὸ κέρας ἀστραγάλους φορεῖν, καὶ ἀχόλους μὴ εἶναι· λέγονται δὲ οἱ ἀστράγαλοι μέλανες εἶναι, καὶ εἴ τις αὐτοὺς συντρίψειεν, εἶναι τοιοῦτοι καὶ τὰ ἔνδον.

εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ ὤκιστοι οἵδε οὐ μόνον τῶν ὄνων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἵππων καὶ ἐλάφων: καὶ ὑπάρχονται μὲν ἡσυχῆ τοῦ δρόμου, κατὰ μικρὰ δὲ ἐπιρρώννυνται, καὶ διώκειν ἐκείνους τοῦτο δὴ τὸ ποιητικὸν μεταθεῖν τὰ ἀκίχητά ἐστιν. ὅταν γε μὴν ὁ θῆλυς τέκῃ, καὶ περιάγηται τὰ ἀρτιγενῆ, σύννομοι αὐτοῖς οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν φυλάττουσι τὰ βρέφη. διατριβαὶ δὲ τοῖς ὄνοις τῶν Ἰνδικῶν πεδίων τὰ ἐρημότατά ἐστιν. ἰόντων δὲ τῶν Ἰνδῶν ἐπὶ τὴν ἄγραν αὐτῶν, τὰ μὲν ἁπαλὰ καὶ ἔτι νεαρὰ ἑαυτῶν νέμεσθαι κατόπιν ἐῶσιν, αὐτοὶ δὲ ὑπερμαχοῦσι, καὶ ἴασι τοῖς ἱππεῦσιν ὁμόσε, καὶ τοῖς κέρασι παίουσι. τοσαύτη δὲ ἄρα ἡ ἰσχὺς ἡ τῶνδέ ἐστιν. οὐδὲν ἀντέχει αὐτοῖς παιόμενον, ἀλλὰ εἴκει καὶ διακόπτεται καὶ ἐὰν τύχῃ κατατέθλασται καὶ ἀχρεῖόν ἐστιν. ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἵππων πλευραῖς ἐμπεσόντες διέσχισαν καὶ τὰ σπλάγχνα ἐξέχεαν. ἔνθεν τοι καὶ ὀρρωδοῦσιν αὐτοῖς πλησιάζειν οἱ ἱππεῖς: τὸ γάρ τοι τίμημα τοῦ γενέσθαι πλησίον θάνατός ἐστιν οἴκτιστος αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἀπόλλυνται καὶ αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ ἵπποι. δεινοὶ δέ εἰσι καὶ λακτίσαι. δήγματα δὲ ἄρα ἐς τοσοῦτον καθικνεῖται αὐτῶν, ὡς ἀποσπᾶν τὸ περιληφθὲν πᾶν. ζῶντα μὲν οὖν τέλειον οὐκ ἂν λάβοις, βάλλονται δὲ ἀκοντίοις καὶ οἰστοῖς, καὶ τὰ κέρατα ἐξ αὐτῶν Ἰνδοὶ νεκρῶν σκυλεύσαντες ὡς εἶπον περιέπουσιν. ὄνων δὲ Ἰνδῶν ἄβρωτόν ἐστι τὸ κρέας: τὸ δὲ αἴτιον, πέφυκεν εἶναι πικρότατον.

Aelian, On the Nature of Animals 4.52