Providential Ecology in Herodotus and Aristotle

(Some classic examples of thinking that divine providence is providential enough, continued from here…)

Prolific Rabbits, Savage Lions

“Well, I suppose divine providence, which is wise as far as I can tell, has made all the timid and edible animals produce many offspring so that they would not go extinct by being eaten up, while it has made all the savage and violent animals produce few offspring.

“Take the following case: the hare is hunted by everyone—beast, bird, and human. Obviously, then, it produces many offspring. It is the only creature that can conceive when it is already pregnant. Some of the young in her belly are hairy, others are bare; and some in the womb are finishing taking on their shape, others are just starting out.

“That’s one kind of case. Another is the lioness, who is very strong and bold, and bears a single cub once in her lifetime since she casts out the womb with the cub. The cause of this is the following: when the cub first begins to move about in the womb, its claws—much sharper than those of all the other beasts—tear the womb. The more it grows, the more it tears and scratches, and when it is close to being born, there is absolutely nothing healthy left of it.”

καί κως τοῦ θείου ἡ προνοίη, ὥσπερ καὶ οἰκός ἐστι, ἐοῦσα σοφή, ὅσα μὲν ψυχήν τε δειλὰ καὶ ἐδώδιμα, ταῦτα μὲν πάντα πολύγονα πεποίηκε, ἵνα μὴ ἐπιλίπῃ κατεσθιόμενα, ὅσα δὲ σχέτλια καὶ ἀνιηρά, ὀλιγόγονα. τοῦτο μέν, ὅτι ὁ λαγὸς ὑπὸ παντὸς θηρεύεται θηρίου καὶ ὄρνιθος καὶ ἀνθρώπου, οὕτω δή τι πολύγονον ἐστί: ἐπικυΐσκεται μοῦνον πάντων θηρίων, καὶ τὸ μὲν δασὺ τῶν τέκνων ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ τὸ δὲ ψιλόν, τὸ δὲ ἄρτι ἐν τῇσι μήτρῃσι πλάσσεται, τὸ δὲ ἀναιρέεται. τοῦτο μὲν δὴ τοιοῦτο ἐστί: ἡ δὲ δὴ λέαινα ἐὸν ἰσχυρότατον καὶ θρασύτατον ἅπαξ ἐν τῷ βίῳ τίκτει ἕν: τίκτουσα γὰρ συνεκβάλλει τῷ τέκνῳ τὰς μήτρας. τὸ δὲ αἴτιον τούτου τόδε ἐστί: ἐπεὰν ὁ σκύμνος ἐν τῇ μητρὶ ἐὼν ἄρχηται διακινεόμενος, ὁ δὲ ἔχων ὄνυχας θηρίων πολλὸν πάντων ὀξυτάτους ἀμύσσει τὰς μήτρας, αὐξόμενός τε δὴ πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐσικνέεται καταγράφων: πέλας τε δὴ ὁ τόκος ἐστί, καὶ τὸ παράπαν λείπεται αὐτέων ὑγιὲς οὐδέν.

Herodotus, Histories, 3.108.2-4

Hungry Dolphins

“When it comes to the mouth, as well, there are differences among kinds of fish. Some have a mouth that goes straight across and is in the front, while others have it underneath, like dolphins and selachians. And they turn belly-up when they feed. It seems nature does this not only to preserve all the other animals (when the dolphins are turned upside down, they move slowly and the other animals can get away – all such animals are carnivorous), but also so that they are not guided by gluttony for food, since if they could get their food easily, they would be destroyed because of the rate at which they would fill themselves up.”

Ἔχει δὲ καὶ περὶ τὸ στόμα διαφοράς. Τὰ μὲν γὰρ κατ' ἀντικρὺ ἔχει τὸ στόμα καὶ εἰς τὸ πρόσθεν, τὰ δ' ἐν τοῖς ὑπτίοις, οἷον οἵ τε δελφῖνες καὶ τὰ σελαχώδη· καὶ ὕπτια στρεφόμενα λαμβάνει τὴν τροφήν. Φαίνεται δ' ἡ φύσις οὐ μόνον σωτηρίας ἕνεκεν ποιῆσαι τοῦτο τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων (ἐν γὰρ τῇ στρέψει σῴζεται τἆλλα βραδυνόντων· πάντα γὰρ τὰ τοιαῦτα ζῳοφάγα ἐστίν), ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀκολουθεῖν τῇ λαιμαργίᾳ τῇ περὶ τὴν τροφήν· ῥᾷον γὰρ λαμβάνοντα διεφθείρετ' ἂν διὰ τὴν πλήρωσιν ταχέως.

Aristotle, Parts of Animals, 4.13, 696b24-32

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.
 

Prophecy and Pharmacy: Apollonius and Iarchas talk about divination as a safe way to learn about drugs

Apollonius of Tyana and his disciple, Damis, visit the Brahmin in India. Iarchas, the wisest of Brahmin, talks with them about the relationship between divination and medicine. Iarchas was first mentioned in 2.40 as the teacher of the Indian king, Phraotes, and it was the king who sent the pair off to visit him. I find the speech puzzling.

---

"After [Damis' speech] all the wise men laughed, and when the laughter had calmed down, Iarchas returned to the discussion about divination. He said that among the many good things it had produced for people, the greatest was the gift of medicine. For the wise Asclepiads would never have arrived at knowledge of it if Asclepius had not been the son of Apollo. Having mixed drugs that were appropriate for different diseases in accordance with his (i.e., Apollo's) prophecies and oracles, he (i.e., Asclepius) passed on the knowledge to his own children and he taught his followers which herbs one should use for weeping wounds, which for parched and dry ones, and what are the right proportions for the drugs we drink, the ones by which dropsical diseases are drained and blood is restrained, and by which wasting diseases and the hollows thus formed are ended. And the cures for the bites of venomous animals, and the use of venom itself for many diseases - who would say these have nothing to do with the art of divination? For I do not believe people would ever have risked mixing the most deadly things of all into drugs meant to keep us alive without the wisdom of knowing what will happen before it happens."

ἐπὶ τούτοις μὲν δὴ ἐγέλασαν οἱ σοφοὶ πάντες, καταστάντος δὲ τοῦ γέλωτος ἐπανῆγεν ὁ Ἰάρχας ἐς τὸν περὶ τῆς μαντικῆς λόγον, καὶ πολλὰ μὲν αὐτὴν ἀγαθὰ ἔλεγε τοὺς ἀνθρώπους εἰργάσθαι, μέγιστον δὲ τὸ τῆς ἰατρικῆς δῶρον· οὐ γὰρ ἄν ποτε τοὺς σοφοὺς Ἀσκληπιάδας ἐς ἐπιστήμην τούτου παρελθεῖν, εἰ μὴ παῖς Ἀπόλλωνος Ἀσκληπιὸς γενόμενος καὶ κατὰ τὰς ἐκείνου φήμας τε καὶ μαντείας ξυνθεὶς τὰ πρόσφορα ταῖς νόσοις φάρμακα παισί τε ἑαυτοῦ παρέδωκε καὶ τοὺς ξυνόντας ἐδιδάξατο, τίνας μὲν δεῖ προσάγειν πόας ὑγροῖς ἕλκεσι, τίνας δὲ αὐχμηροῖς καὶ ξηροῖς ξυμμετρίας τε ποτίμων φαρμάκων, ὑφ' ὧν ὕδεροι ἀποχετεύονται καὶ αἷμα ἴσχεται φθόαι τε παύονται καὶ τὰ οὕτω κοῖλα. καὶ τὰ τῶν ἰοβόλων δὲ ἄκη καὶ τὸ τοῖς ἰοβόλοις αὐτοῖς ἐς πολλὰ τῶν νοσημάτων χρῆσθαι τίς ἀφαιρήσεται τὴν μαντικήν; οὐ γάρ μοι δοκοῦσιν ἄνευ τῆς προγιγνωσκούσης σοφίας θαρσῆσαί ποτε ἄνθρωποι τὰ πάντων ὀλεθριώτατα φαρμάκων ἐγκαταμῖξαι τοῖς σώζουσιν.

Philostratus, Vita Apollonii, 3.44

An ancient debate on music therapy

Musical therapy has been shown to be effective at reducing pain. That might not be surprising, but it's nice that people are researching ways of dealing with pain that are not just pharmacological. What's curious to me about the passages and the debate below isn't so much that they talk about music (particularly flute music) as a way of curing the pain, or that others would deny it. I'm curious (a) why Theophrastus would have talked about musical therapy in a text on enthusiasm (a kind of frenzy of divine possession normally associated with ritual cults); and (b) whether it suggests there was a discussion going on among people like Theophrastus and Democritus (or a pseudo-Democritus - here is a great article by Matteo Martelli) about whether music causes enthusiasm, how enthusiasm is related to pain, and what it suggests about the affinity of mind and body. It'd also be nice to know why you have to play the flute right over the part of the body that's in pain.

---

"It is worth mentioning the treatment <which> Theophrastus talks about in his book On Enthusiasm. He says that music cures many of the illnesses that occur in the soul and the body, like swooning, fear and long-term mental derangement. He says flute playing in particular cures sciatica and epilepsy, just like it did for the person who went to see Aristoxenus the musician..."

Ἄξια δ' ἐστὶν ἐπιστάσεως [τὰ εἰρημένα.] <ἃ> Θεόφραστος ἐν τῷ περὶ ἐνθουσιασμοῦ ἐξεῖπεν. φησὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος τὴν μουσικὴν πολλὰ τῶν ἐπὶ ψυχὴν καὶ τὸ σῶμα γιγνομένων παθῶν ἰατρεύειν, καθάπερ λιποθυμίαν, φόβους καὶ τὰς ἐπὶ μακρὸν γιγνομένας τῆς διανοίας ἐκστάσεις. ἰᾶται γάρ, φησίν, ἡ καταύλησις καὶ ἰσχιάδα καὶ ἐπιληψίαν· καθάπερ πρὸς Ἀριστόξενον τὸν μουσικὸν ἐλθόντα [text is corrupt after this point]...

Apollonius Paradoxographus, Historiae Mirabiles c. 49.

"That music cures diseases, Theophrastus discusses in his book On Enthusiasm, where he says that those suffering from sciatica become free of the disease when someone plays a Phrygian arrangement on the flute over the affected place."

ὅτι δὲ καὶ νόσους ἰᾶται μουσικὴ Θεόφραστος ἱστόρησεν ἐν τῷ περὶ Ἐνθουσιασμοῦ ἰσχιακοὺς φάσκων ἀνόσους διατελεῖν, εἰ καταυλήσοι τις τοῦ τόπου τῇ Φρυγιστὶ ἁρμονίᾳ.

Athenaeus of Naucratis, Deipnosophistae 14.18

"I recently found a passage in a book of Theophrastus, which says that many people believe and have written down that when sciatica is especially painful, their pains are diminished if a flute-player plays a gentle melody. That flute playing, when done with skill and measure, also cures snake bites is mentioned in a book by Democritus, which is called [there's a lacuna], in which he shows that music from flutes is a cure for many human diseases. There is so great an affinity between people's bodies and minds, and for this reason as well between the illnesses and also remedies of the soul and the body."

Creditum hoc a plerisque esse et memoriae mandatum, ischia cum maxime doleant, tum, si modulis lenibus tibicen incinat, minui dolores, ego nuperrime in libro Theophrasti scriptum inveni. Viperarum morsibus tibicinium scite modulateque adhibitum mederi refert etiam Democriti liber, qui inscribitur . . ., in quo docet plurimis hominum morbidis medicinae fuisse incentiones tibiarum. Tanta prosus adfinitas est corporibus hominum mentibusque et propterea vitiis quoque aut medellis animorum et corporum.

Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights, 4.13

"Some doctors prescribe the use of music [for sciatica], as the brother of Philistion also mentions in Book 22 of On Remedies. He writes that there was a piper who would play songs over the part that was in pain, which would begin to pulse and palpitate, relieving and freeing him from the pain. Some say Pythagoras discovered this kind of remedy. But in Soranus' opinion, whoever believes that a powerful disease is removed by music and song suffers from a vain delusion."

"item alii cantelenas adhibendas probaverunt, ut etiam Philistionis frater idem memorat libro XXII De adiutoriis, scribens quendam fistulatorem loca dolentia decantasse, quae cum saltum sumerent palpitando discusso dolore mitescerent. alii denique hoc adiutorii genus Pithagoram memorant invenisse. sed Sorani iudicio videntur hi mentis vanitate iactari qui modulis et cantilena passionis robur excludi crediderunt."

Caelius Aurelianus, On Chronic Diseases, 5.23 (pp.918-20 Drabkin)

Bullshit biology: some ancient sources on the scarab beetle

So, apparently, there are no female scarab beetles. Instead, the male makes himself a womb out of dung. Not sure what to call this. Hebegenesis? Coprogenesis?

---

"The Egyptian military used to have a seal engraved in the shape of the scarab-beetle, since no female beetles exist, but all of them are male. They breed by emitting their seed into dung, which they make into a ball, since they prepare material for [the offspring's] nourishment just as much as the place for its generation."

τοῖς δὲ μαχίμοις κάνθαρος ἦν γλυφὴ σφραγῖδος· οὐ γὰρ ἔστι κάνθαρος θῆλυς, ἀλλὰ πάντες ἄρσενες. τίκτουσι δὲ τὸν γόνον <ἀφιέντες> εἰς ὄνθον, ὃν σφαιροποιοῦσιν, οὐ τροφῆς μᾶλλον ὕλην ἢ γενέσεως χώραν παρασκευάζοντες.

Plutarch, Isis and Osiris 9, (Moralia 355A 8-11)

"The scarab beetle is an un-female animal, and it sows its seed in the ball which it rolls up. Having done this and having warmed it for twenty-eight days, the day after it produces the young. The military of Egypt keep a carved scarab on their rings, because the one who made the law was hinting that those who fight for the country should be totally male in every way, since the scarab does not have a share of female nature."

Ὁ κάνθαρος ἄθηλυ ζῷόν ἐστι, σπείρει δὲ ἐς τὴν σφαῖραν ἣν κυλίει· ὀκτὼ δὲ καὶ εἴκοσιν ἡμερῶν τοῦτο δράσας καὶ θάλψας αὐτήν, εἶτα μέντοι τῇ ἐπὶ ταύταις προάγει τὸν νεοττόν. Αἰγυπτίων δὲ οἱ μάχιμοι ἐπὶ τῶν δακτυλίων εἶχον ἐγγεγλυμμένον κάνθαρον, αἰνιττομένου τοῦ νομοθέτου, δεῖν ἄρρενας εἶναι πάντως πάντῃ τοὺς μαχομένους ὑπὲρ τῆς χώρας, ἐπεὶ καὶ ὁ κάνθαρος θηλείας φύσεως οὐ μετείληχεν.

Aelian, The Nature of Animals, 10.15

"Among the Egyptians, those who are educated learn first of all the method of Egyptian writing called 'Epistolographic'. Second, they learn 'Hieretic', which the Sacred Scribes use. Last but not least, there is 'Hieroglyphic': one form, 'Kyriologic' (i.e., literal), uses the primary letters; the other is 'Symbolic'. Of the symbolic, one kind expresses things literally through imitation; one kind expresses things in a sense figuratively; another is straightforwardly allegorical, expressing things enigmatically.

"So, when they want to refer to the sun in writing they make a circle, while for the moon they make a moon-shape, and this is in accordance with expressing the form literally. In the case of figurative expression in the proper sense, they inscribe by transferring and transposing things, changing things, transforming the characters in all sorts of ways. When telling stories about the gods, they write praises of kings using anaglyphs.

"Here's an example of the third kind, the enigmatic. Now, since the other stars follow an oblique course, they represent them with the bodies of serpents, but they represent the sun with the body of a scarab beetle, since the scarab forms a round-shaped ball out of ox-dung and rolls it backwards. They say this animal lives underground for six months, while the other part of the year it lives above ground, and it fertilizes the ball and reproduces and female scarabs do not exist.

"And so everyone who theologizes about the first principles of things, both Barbarian and Greek, have obscured them, passing down the truth using enigmas and symbols, allegories, metaphors and similar kinds of figures."

Αὐτίκα οἱ παρ' Αἰγυπτίοις παιδευόμενοι πρῶτον μὲν πάντων τὴν Αἰγυπτίων γραμμάτων μέθοδον ἐκμανθάνουσι, τὴν ἐπιστολογραφικὴν καλουμένην· δευτέραν δὲ τὴν ἱερατικήν, ᾗ χρῶνται οἱ ἱερογραμματεῖς· ὑστάτην δὲ καὶ τελευταίαν τὴν ἱερογλυφικήν, ἧς ἣ μέν ἐστι διὰ τῶν πρώτων στοιχείων κυριολογική, ἣ δὲ συμβολική. τῆς δὲ συμβολικῆς ἣ μὲν κυριολογεῖται κατὰ μίμησιν, ἣ δ' ὥσπερ τροπικῶς γράφεται, ἣ δὲ ἄντικρυς ἀλληγορεῖται κατά τινας αἰνιγμούς. Ἥλιον γοῦν γράψαι βουλόμενοι κύκλον ποιοῦσι, σελήνην δὲ σχῆμα μηνοειδὲς κατὰ τὸ κυριολογούμενον εἶδος. Τροπικῶς δὲ κατ' οἰκειότητα μετάγοντες καὶ μετατιθέντες, τὰ δ' ἐξαλλάττοντες, τὰ δὲ πολλαχῶς μετασχηματίζοντες χαράττουσιν. τοὺς γοῦν τῶν βασιλέων ἐπαίνους, θεολογουμένοις μύθοις παραδιδόντες, ἀναγράφουσι διὰ τῶν ἀναγλύφων. Τοῦ δὲ κατὰ τοὺς αἰνιγμοὺς τρίτου εἴδους δεῖγμα ἔστω τόδε· τὰ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἄλλων ἄστρων διὰ τὴν πορείαν τὴν λοξὴν ὄφεων σώμασιν ἀπείκαζον, τὸν δὲ ἥλιον τῷ τοῦ κανθάρου, ἐπειδὴ κυκλοτερὲς ἐκ τῆς βοείας ὄνθου σχῆμα πλασάμενος ἀντιπρόσωπος κυλίνδει. φασὶ δὲ καὶ ἑξάμηνον μὲν ὑπὸ γῆς, θάτερον δὲ τοῦ ἔτους τμῆμα τὸ ζῷον τοῦτο ὑπὲρ γῆς διαιτᾶσθαι σπερμαίνειν τε εἰς τὴν σφαῖραν καὶ γεννᾶν καὶ θῆλυν κάνθαρον μὴ γίνεσθαι. Πάντες οὖν, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, οἱ θεολογήσαντες βάρβαροί τε καὶ Ἕλληνες τὰς μὲν ἀρχὰς τῶν πραγμάτων ἀπεκρύψαντο, τὴν δὲ ἀλήθειαν αἰνίγμασι καὶ συμβόλοις ἀλληγορίαις τε αὖ καὶ μεταφοραῖς καὶ τοιούτοις τισὶ τρόποις παραδεδώκασιν.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 5.4.21

Know your sorcerer: the Suda on different kinds of magic

More on ancient opinions about 'good' and 'bad' forms of magic. I'm not sure where the Suda is getting this way of making the distinction, but something like it is attributed to Aristotle in the proemium to Diogenes of Laertius' Lives of the Philosophers. At some point, I'll look at Apuleius' defence against the accusation that he was a magician, especially Apologia 25-7, and the discussion in cc. 29-31 about why he bought a rare fish for a crazy amount of money - not, as his accusers say, for bewitching his wife to marry him (Lindsay Watson wrote a nice article in CQ on the use of the remora in erotic binding spells), but because he was reading and translating Aristotle's works on animals and wanted to do some more hands-on inquiry. Still, witchcraft was a crime punishable by death in Roman law, and Apuleius' defence turns in part on the claim that true magic is an art of how to attend to the gods, not a kind of sorcery or art of poisoning (which is closer to a literal translation of pharmakeia, a word often translated as 'witchcraft').

---

goēteia (sorcery): magic. Sorcery, magic and poisoning (pharmakeia) differ from each other, which the Medes and Persians discovered. Magic is an invocation of beneficent demons it seems for some good outcome, like the oracles of Apollonius of Tyana. Sorcery (goēteia) is for raising the dead through an invocation — its name derives from the wailing (gooi) and lamentations that happen at funerals. Poisoning is when some death-bringing preparation is given to someone orally as a philtre.

Γοητεία: μαγεία. γοητεία καὶ μαγεία καὶ φαρμακεία διαφέρουσιν· ἅπερ ἐφεῦρον Μῆδοι καὶ Πέρσαι. μαγεία μὲν οὖν ἐστιν ἐπίκλησις δαιμόνων ἀγαθοποιῶν δῆθεν πρὸς ἀγαθοῦ τινος σύστασιν, ὥσπερ τὰ τοῦ Ἀπολλωνίου τοῦ Τυανέως θεσπίσματα. γοητεία δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ ἀνάγειν νεκρὸν δι' ἐπικλήσεως, ὅθεν εἴρηται ἀπὸ τῶν γόων καὶ τῶν θρήνων τῶν περὶ τοὺς τάφους γινομένων. φαρμακεία δὲ, ὅταν διά τινος σκευασίας θανατηφόρου πρὸς φίλτρον δοθῇ τινι διὰ στόματος.

Suda, s.v. γοητεία gamma entry 365
 

Galen on what to do with a patient who thinks the sky will fall

"I know a man from Cappadocia who had put a nonsensical thing in his head and because of it fell into melancholy. The idea he had put in his head was frankly ridiculous. His friends saw him cry and asked him about his sorrow. Sighing deeply, he answered by saying he was afraid the whole world would collapse. His worry was that the Titan, who the poets say holds up the world and is called Atlas, had become weak because of the length of time he has been holding it up, and therefore, there is a danger that the heavens will fall down to earth and smash to pieces. You have also heard from me the story of the woman who I mentioned had imagined she swallowed a snake, and the story of the man who believed that a ghost had called out to him as he passed the churchyard, and the story of the man who had farted in the presence of other people, and who wasted away and died out of shame. The physician must therefore consider it his job, besides the other dispositions of the patient, to discover the things that oppress his soul. For healing a person for whom the cause of illness lies in his spirit can only be achieved by eliminating the idea that has become fixed, but not by food and drink, or their home, bathing routine, walking and the like."

Ich kenne einen Mann aus Kappadokien, der sich eine unsinnige Sache in den Kopf gesetzt hatte und dadurch der Melancholie verfiel. Die Idee, die er sich in den Kopf gesetzt hatte, war geradezu lächerlich. Seine Bekannten sahen ihn nämlich weinen und fragten ihn nach seinem Kummer. Indem er tief seufzte, antwortete er und sagte, er sei in Angst, daß die ganze Welt einstürze. Sein Kummer sei, daß der König, von dem die Dichter erzählen, daß er die Welt trage und Atlas heiße, infolge der langen Zeit, in der er sie trage, schwach to geworden sei. Deshalb sei Gefahr, daß der Himmel auf die Erde herabstürze und sie zertrümmere. Ihr habt von mir auch schon die Geschichte der Frau gehört, von der ich erzählte, daß sie sich einbildete, eine Schlange verschluckt zu haben, und die Geschichte des Mannes, der glaubte, daß ein Toter ihn gerufen habe, als er am Kirchhof vorbeiging, und die Geschichte von dem Mann, dem in Anwesenheit von Leuten ein Wind entfahren war und der aus Scham darüber hin siechte und starb. Der Arzt muß also es als seine Aufgabe betrachten, außer den übrigen Neigungen des Kranken auch die Dinge ausfindig zu machen, die seinen Geist bedrücken. Denn die Heilung eines Menschen, dessen Krankheitsursache in seinem Geiste liegt, kann nur durch Beseitigung der fixen Idee, nicht aber durch Speisen und Getränke, durch Wohnung, Baden, Marschieren und dergleichen erreicht werden.*

Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates' Epidemics VI, 8  (487,3-23 Wenkebach/Pfaff)

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

Heraclides of Pontus on the joy of madness

“In his book On Pleasure, Heraclides of Pontus relates not unpleasantly that a most pleasant luxury occured during a fit of madness. He writes:

‘Thrasyllus from Aexone, the son of Pythodorus, once went so mad that he thought all the ships arriving at Piraeus were his own. He would register them, dispatch them, and manage their affairs. When they returned to port, he would welcome them with the kind of joy you might expect from someone who was really in charge of such great wealth. When ships were lost, he did not inquire after them, but he rejoiced at every one that was saved and recounted it with greatest delight. When his brother Crito came to visit from Sicily, he took him into custody, handed him over to a doctor, and put an end to his madness. Afterwards, Thrasyllus would tell the story, saying that he had never in his life been happier, for he felt not pain whatsoever, while the amount of pleasure he felt was overwhelming.’”

ἐν μανίᾳ δὲ τρυφὴν ἡδίστην γενομένην οὐκ ἀηδῶς ὁ Ποντικὸς Ἡρακλείδης διηγεῖται ἐν τῷ περὶ Ἡδονῆς οὕτως γράφων· ‘ὁ Αἰξωνεὺς Θράσυλλος ὁ Πυθοδώρου διετέθη ποτὲ ὑπὸ μανίας τοιαύτης ὡς πάντα τὰ πλοῖα τὰ εἰς τὸν Πειραιᾶ καταγόμενα ὑπολαμβάνειν ἑαυτοῦ εἶναι, καὶ ἀπεγράφετο αὐτὰ καὶ ἀπέστελλε καὶ διῴκει καὶ καταπλέοντα ἀπεδέχετο μετὰ χαρᾶς τοσαύτης ὅσησπερ ἄν τις ἡσθείη τοσούτων χρημάτων κύριος ὤν. καὶ τῶν μὲν ἀπολομένων οὔτε ἐπεζήτησεν, τοῖς δὲ σῳζομένοις ἔχαιρεν καὶ διῆγεν μετὰ πλείστης ἡδονῆς. ἐπεὶ δὲ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ Κρίτων ἐκ Σικελίας ἐπιδημήσας συλλαβὼν αὐτὸν παρέδωκεν ἰατρῷ καὶ τῆς μανίας ἐπαύσατο, διηγεῖτο <...> οὐδεπώποτε φάσκων κατὰ τὸν βίον ἡσθῆναι πλείονα· λύπην μὲν γὰρ οὐδ' ἡντινοῦν αὐτῷ παραγίνεσθαι, τὸ δὲ τῶν ἡδονῶν πλῆθος ὑπερβάλλειν.’ 

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 12.81 (p.223-4 Kaibel)

Draw down the moon, hide it in a mirror. On Thessalian medicine women

“Thessalian woman”: refers to medicine women, since the Thessalians are accused of being sorcerers. Even to the present day, Thessalian women are called medicine women (pharmakides). They say it's because when Medea fled, she tossed her basket of medicines (pharmaka) and there they sprouted. Attic speakers read it with a barytone accent [Thes–SA–ly instead of Thes–sa–LY]. Aristophanes: “if I bought a Thessalian woman, I could draw down the moon at night, then hide it like a mirror.” For the orb of the moon has a round shape like a mirror, and they say that people who are skilled in these kinds of things draw down the moon with it (sc. a mirror). There’s also Pythagoras’ trick with a mirror that goes like this: when the moon is full, if someone writes in blood on a mirror whatever he wishes and, while standing behind another person, proclaims against him and shows the words to the moon, if he then looks closely at the orb of the moon, then he can read all that is written on the mirror as if it were written on the moon.

Θετταλὴ γυνή: ἐπὶ τῶν φαρμακίδων. διαβάλλονται γὰρ οἱ Θετταλοὶ ὡς γόητες· καὶ μέχρι καὶ νῦν φαρμακίδες αἱ Θετταλαὶ καλοῦνται. φασὶ δὲ ὅτι ἡ Μήδεια φεύγουσα κίστην ἐξέβαλε φαρμάκων ἐκεῖ, καὶ ἀνέφυσαν. βαρυτόνως δὲ οἱ Ἀττικοὶ ἀναγινώσκουσιν. Ἀριστοφάνης· γυναῖκα πριάμενος Θετταλὴν καθέλκοιμι νύκτωρ τὴν σελήνην· εἶτα καθείρξαιμ' ὥσπερ κάτοπτρον. ὁ γὰρ τῆς σελήνης κύκλος στρογγυλοειδὴς ὡς ἔσοπτρον. καί φασι τοὺς περὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα δεινοὺς τούτῳ κατάγειν τὴν σελήνην. ἔστι δὲ καὶ Πυθαγόρου παίγνιον διὰ κατόπτρου τοιοῦτον. πληροσελήνου τῆς σελήνης οὔσης, εἴ τις ἔσοπτρον ἐπιγράψειεν αἵματι, ὅσα βούλεται, καὶ προειπὼν ἑτέρῳ σταίη κατόπιν αὐτοῦ, δείκνυσι πρὸς τὴν σελήνην τὰ γράμματα, κἀκεῖνον ἀτενίσαι πλησίον εἰς τὸν τῆς σελήνης κύκλον, ἀναγνοίη πάντα τὰ ἐν τῷ κατόπτρῳ γεγραμμένα, ὡς τῇ σελήνῃ γεγραμμένα.

Suda, theta entry 289

“You're drawing the moon down to yourself”: the Thessalian women who draw down the moon are said to lose their eyes and feet.

Ἐπὶ σαυτῷ τὴν σελήνην καθέλκεις: αἱ τὴν σελήνην καθέλκουσαι Θετταλίδες λέγονται τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν καὶ τῶν ποδῶν στερίσκεσθαι.

Suda, epsilon entry 2559

---

Socrates: First, tell me what it is you want for yourself.

Strepsiades (lying naked in bed): You’ve heard a thousand times what I want: I don't want to have to pay back any interest on my debts.

Socrates: Come now, cover yourself up. Loosen up your mind a little bit. Think about your affairs, analyze and investigate them properly.

Strepsiades: This sucks.

Socrates: Stay calm. If you get caught up in some of your thoughts, put them to the side and move on. Later on, turn your mind to them again and examine them.

Strepsiades (after thinking): ... oh, little Socrates! You’re the best!

Socrates: What is it, old man?

Strepsiades: I have a plan to get out of paying any interest!

Socrates: Show me.

Strepsiades: Alright now, tell me...

Socrates: Tell you what?

Strepsiades: ...if I bought a medicine woman, a Thessalian one, I could bring down the moon at night, then hide it in a round case like the ones we use for mirrors and keep it there.

Socrates: Ok, but how would this help you?

Strepsiades: Because if the moon didn’t rise, I wouldn't have to pay back any interest.

Socrates: Yeah, but why not?

Strepsiades: Because interest is charged by the month.

{Σω.} αὐτὸς ὅτι βούλει πρῶτος ἐξευρὼν λέγε. 

{Στ.} ἀκήκοας μυριάκις ἁγὼ βούλομαι, περὶ τῶν τόκων, ὅπως ἂν ἀποδῶ μηδενί.

{Σω.} ἴθι νυν καλύπτου, καὶ σχάσας τὴν φροντίδα λεπτὴν κατὰ μικρὸν περιφρόνει τὰ πράγματα ὀρθῶς διαιρῶν καὶ σκοπῶν.

{Στ.} οἴμοι τάλας.

{Σω.} ἔχ' ἀτρέμα· κἂν ἀπορῇς τι τῶν νοημάτων, ἀφεὶς ἄπελθε, κᾆτα τῇ γνώμῃ πάλιν κίνησον αὖθις αὐτὸ καὶ ζυγώθρισον.

{Στ.} ὦ Σωκρατίδιον φίλτατον.

{Σω.} τί, ὦ γέρον;

{Στ.} ἔχω τόκου γνώμην ἀποστερητικήν.

{Σω.} ἐπίδειξον αὐτήν.

{Στ.} εἰπὲ δή νυν μοι – 

{Σω.} τὸ τί;

{Στ.} γυναῖκα φαρμακίδ' εἰ πριάμενος Θετταλὴν καθέλοιμι νύκτωρ τὴν σελήνην, εἶτα δὴ αὐτὴν καθείρξαιμ' εἰς λοφεῖον στρογγύλον ὥσπερ κάτροπτον, κᾆτα τηροίην ἔχων.

{Σω.} τί δῆτα τοῦτ' ἂν ὠφελήσειέν σ'; 

{Στ.} ὅτι εἰ μηκέτ' ἀνατέλλοι σελήνη μηδαμοῦ, οὐκ ἂν ἀποδοίην τοὺς τόκους.

{Σω.} ὁτιὴ τί δή;

{Στ.} ὁτιὴ κατὰ μῆνα τἀργύριον δανείζεται.

Aristophanes, Clouds, ll. 737-756

“I'm amazed that this rumour has stuck so firmly to Achilles’ people (sc. the Thessalians) that even Menander, who wrote works with unrivaled subtlety, called a play “The Woman from Thessaly”, which describes these women’s tricks for bringing down the moon. I would have thought that Orpheus was the first to introduce the art from his region to his neighbours’ and that the superstition developed from medicine, if it weren’t the case that Thrace—Orpheus’ homeland—was completely free of the art of magic.”

miror equidem Achillis populis famam eius in tantum adhaesisse, ut Menander quoque, litterarum subtilitati sine aemulo genitus, Thessalam cognominaret fabulam complexam ambages feminarum detrahentium lunam. Orphea putarem e propinquo artem primum intulisse ad vicina usque superstitionis ac medicinae provectum, si non expers sedes eius tota Thrace magices fuisset.

Pliny the Elder, Natural History, 30.2.7

Two ways to talk about eggs

Two discussions of eggs: one, from Michael of Ephesus, on the egg as a boundary between death and life; another, from Aetius of Amida, on the best way to cook eggs (soft boiled, soaked in wine and fish sauce and cooked on a double-boiler).

---

Lemma: “The reason for this is that nature produces the eggs, as it were, before [their] time, because of its own incompleteness…” (Aristotle, Generation of Animals 3.8, 758b19)

"In what follows, he (sc. Aristotle) discusses the reason why insects produce at first a grub which moves itself and is generally speaking an animal; then, once the grub has grown, it turns into an egg, lacking sensation and movement; then it turns into a different animal from the grub. He says that since an insect’s nature, because of its inherent weakness, is in itself unable to nourish and complete the embryo, what it produces is incomplete. And if in addition to generating an incomplete embryo, its nature generated something lacking soul and sensation as well, the embryo would cease to exist. But if this were the case, it is quite likely that the insect-kind would be absent from the world.* So it must be for this reason that nature generates an animal that is able to be nourished from itself, and it feeds on itself until it reaches completion.** Having reached completion, it dies.*** For living and eating are granted to it so that it becomes complete, but once it has reached completion, there is no longer any point for it to eat, and so no point for it to live.**** At this moment it dies, and it is then like an egg surrounded all around by a shell.***** Later, when what is inside of this shell has been completely concocted by the climate as if by a bird and has changed into an animal, it emerges."

758b19 «Τούτου δ’ αἴτιον ὅτι ἡ φύσις ὡσανεὶ πρὸ ὥρας ᾠοτοκεῖ διὰ τὴν ἀτέλειαν τὴν αὐτῆς.»

Τὴν αἰτίαν διὰ τούτων λέγει, τίνος ἕνεκα πρῶτον μὲν σκώληξ γεννᾶται κινούμενος καὶ ὅλως ζῷον ὑπάρχων, εἶτα αὐξηθεὶς ᾠὸν γίνεται ἀναίσθητον καὶ ἀκίνητον, εἶθ’ οὕτω πάλιν ζῷον ἕτερον παρὰ τὸν σκώληκα. λέγει οὖν ὅτι ἡ τῶν ἐντόμων φύσις ἀδυνατοῦσα θρέψαι ἐν αὑτῇ καὶ τελειῶσαι τὸ κύημα διὰ τὴν οἰκείαν ἀσθένειαν, ἀτελὲς αὐτὸ γεννᾷ· ὥστ’ εἴπερ πρὸς τῷ ἀτελὲς αὐτὸ γεννᾶν καὶ ἄψυχον ἐγέννα καὶ ἀναίσθητον, ἐφθείρετο ἄν· εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, τάχιον ἂν ἐκ τοῦ παντὸς ἐξέλιπε τὸ τῶν ἐντόμων γένος. διά τοι τοῦτο γεννᾷ ζῷον ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμενον τρέφεσθαι, καὶ τρέφεται ἕως ἂν τελειωθῇ, τελειωθὲν δὲ θνήσκει· τὸ γὰρ ζῆν καὶ ἐσθίειν δέδοται αὐτῷ διὰ τὸ τέλειον γεγονέναι, ἐπειδὴ δὲ τετελείωται, οὐκέτι χρεία αὐτῷ τοῦ ἐσθίειν, ὥστε οὐδὲ τοῦ ζῆν. καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ θνήσκει, καὶ ἔστι τότε οἷον ᾠὸν κύκλῳ περιεχόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ κελύφους· εἶθ’ οὕτως τὸ ἐντὸς ὑπάρχον τούτου τοῦ κελύφους ὑπὸ τῆς ὥρας ὥσπερ ὑπὸ ὄρνιθος συμπεφθὲν καὶ εἰς ζῷον μεταβαλὸν ἔξεισιν.

Michael of Ephesus, Commentary on Aristotle's Generation of Animals 3.8, (CAG 14,3 p.153,10-25 Hayduck).

*A reductio: if nature generated embryos without soul, i.e., without life, there wouldn't be any insects in the world; but, there are insects; so, nature does not generate embryos without a soul.

**The idea is either (1) that the grub is able to feed itself, or (2) that it is able to be nourished from the whole of its own body, unlike an egg, in which one part is food (yolk) and one part becomes the animal (white). Cf. GA 2.1, 732a28-32 and Michael’s comments; 3.2, 752a27-28.

***Michael might be thinking of allegories of metempsychosis. I have yet to find whether the psuchê (butterfly) was used as a symbol of resurrection by late Byzantine Christians. Whether or not that's what he has in mind, the idea is not Aristotle’s—he nowhere says that grubs die when they become cocoons, nor does he say, as Michael takes him to, that cocoons are akinêton or without movement; rather, he says they are akinêtisanta or at rest. Elsewhere, Aristotle claims cocoons move when touched, e.g. HA 5.19, 551a19-20. Just how familiar Michael was with the HA is not clear; but Michael is nevertheless right that in the passage he is commenting on, Aristotle emphasizes the lack of motion of chrysalids throughout. And even if allegories of metempsychosis are in the background, Michael is most likely drawing the following inference: if something is alive, it has nutritive (and sensitive) soul; if something has nutritive (and sensitive) soul, then it can (move, sense), eat, and excrete residues; cocoons do none of these things; hence cocoons are not alive. The inference of course would be false: at most it would imply that cocoons are asleep. Michael, however, likely sees that there would be a deeper problem in saying cocoons are alive in this sense of 'sleeping': on the one hand, the soul of the grub and the soul of the completed animal cannot be identical, since the animals have different bodily organs, and souls and the organs they use are correlative; on the other hand, it seems implausible that the grub should have both souls simultaneously. But if it cannot have both souls simultaneously, and it must have a soul, then it must have the souls successively, and so must ‘die’ in some sense. Michael, then, thinks it is better to say that the soul the grub had has perished, while what it left behind is something alive potentially, but actually dead, namely an egg, which comes back to life when warmed by the season. Michael hints that this is what he has in mind by emphasizing that cocoons are like eggs, although he does not explicitly distinguish actual and potential kinds of living. It's telling that another commentator, Philoponus, denies caterpillars perish, and claims they merely change from one form to another (On Physics 8, CAG 16 180,19-20). This suggests people other than Michael were thinking through this problem.

****Michael’s interpretation likely relies on the familiar Arisotelian claim that nature does nothing in vain: it would be in vain for an animal whose purpose is to become an egg to continue to live.

*****A similar point is made by Plutarch, Quaest. Conv. 2.3 (Moralia 636C3-D7)

Eggs the right way, soft boiled and in cups. Detail from a 3rd century mosaic at the Hatay Archaeological Museum in Antakya, Turkey. 

"Eggs of hens and of pheasants are better, while those of geese and ostriches [literally, 'sparrow-camels'] are worse. Best for the body's nourishment are the ones called 'trembling' [i.e., soft-boiled], while runny ones nourish less, but are passed more easily. They soothe the roughness in the throat caused by shouting or an acrid humour, when they are plastered on the affected places and remain there like a poultice; they also cure roughness because their whole substance is not stinging. For the same reason, they heal roughness in the stomach, bowels and bladder. An egg boiled in vinegar, when eaten, dries the discharges in the bowels. And if you mix things suitable for dysentery or a colic disposition with it and then broil it on coals and give it to eat, you will offer no small benefit to your patients. Suitable for these dispositions are the juice of unripe grapes, unripe mulberry plastered on, ashes of snails burnt whole, and grape seeds, myrtle berries and similar things.  Boiled eggs are hard to digest, pass slowly and provide thick nourishment to the body. The ones baked in hot ashes pass even more slowly and produce even thicker humours than them. Fried eggs have the least nutrition in every respect. For when they are cooked they become greasy and produce a thick humor that is bad and full of residues. Better than boiled and baked ones are those called 'curdled': briefly soaked in oil, garum and wine, and boiled on a double-boiler to a medium consistency. Eggs thickened longer become like boiled or baked ones. The same thing should also be done in cases where eggs are poured on a frying pan, taking the frying pan off the fire when the eggs are still soft."

Ὠὰ ἀμείνω τά τε τῶν ἀλεκτορίδων ἐστὶ καὶ τῶν φασιανῶν, φαυλότερα δὲ τὰ τῶν χηνῶν καὶ στρουθοκαμήλων. κάλλιστα μὲν οὖν εἰς τροφὴν τοῦ σώματός ἐστι τὰ τρομητὰ καλούμενα, τὰ δὲ ῥοφητὰ ἧττον μὲν τρέφει, ῥᾷον δὲ ὑποχωρεῖ. τὰς δὲ ἐν τῷ φάρυγγι τραχύτητας διὰ κραυγὴν ἢ χυμοῦ δριμύτητα ἐκλεαίνει, περιπλαττόμενα τοῖς πεπονθόσι τόποις καὶ προσμένοντα ὥσπερ τι κατάπλασμα καὶ τῷ τῆς ὅλης οὐσίας ἀδήκτῳ ἐκθεραπεύοντα καὶ τὰς τραχύτητας. τῷ δὲ αὐτῷ λόγῳ καὶ τὰς κατὰ τὸν στόμαχον καὶ γαστέρα καὶ κύστιν ἰᾶται τραχύτητας· ἐν ὄξει δὲ ἑψηθὲν ὠὸν εἰ βρωθείη, ξηραίνει τὰ κατὰ γαστέρα ῥεύματα. καὶ εἰ μίξας δὲ αὐτῷ τι τῶν πρὸς δυσεντερίαν ἢ κοιλιακὴν διάθεσιν ἁρμοττόντων, εἶτα ἐπ' ἀνθράκων ταγηνίσας, δοίης φαγεῖν, οὐ σμικρὰ τοὺς κάμνοντας ὠφελήσεις. ἐπιτήδεια δέ ἐστιν εἰς ταῦτα ὀμφάκιον καὶ ῥοῦς ἐπιπαττόμενος καὶ τέφρα τῶν κοχλιῶν ὅλων καέντων γίγαρτά τε σταφυλῆς καὶ μύρτα καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια. τὰ δὲ ἑφθὰ ὠὰ δύσπεπτα καὶ βραδύπορα καὶ τροφὴν παχεῖαν ἀναδίδωσι τῷ σώματι. τούτων δὲ ἔτι μᾶλλον βραδυπορώτερά τε καὶ παχυχυμότερα τὰ κατὰ θερμὴν σποδιὰν ὀπτηθέντα. τὰ δὲ ταγηνισθέντα χειρίστην ἔχει τροφὴν εἰς ἅπαντα· καὶ γὰρ ἐν τῷ πέττεσθαι κνισσοῦται καὶ παχὺν χυμὸν γεννᾷ καὶ μοχθηρὸν καὶ περιττωματικόν. ἀμείνω δὲ τῶν ἑφθῶν τε καὶ ὀπτῶν ἐστι τὰ καλούμενα πηκτὰ μετ' ἐλαίου καὶ γάρου καὶ οἴνου βραχέος ἀναδευθέντα καὶ ἐπὶ διπλώματος ἑψηθέντα μέχρι μετρίας συστάσεως. τὰ γὰρ ἐπὶ πλέον παχυνθέντα παραπλήσια τοῖς ἑψηθεῖσι καὶ ὀπτηθεῖσι γίγνεται. τὸ αὐτὸ δὲ χρὴ ποιεῖν κἀπὶ τῶν ἐπιχεομένων ταῖς λοπάσιν ὠῶν, ἔτι ἐγχύλων ὄντων ἀπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς αἴροντας τὴν λοπάδα.

Aetius of Amida, Libri Medicinales, II 134, 201,19-202,14 Olivieri