Theophrastus on Art and Nature I – Pigments

Red Ochre

“A kind of red ochre is also produced from burnt yellow ochre, although it is not as good (sc. as natural red ochre). It was Kydios’ discovery. For, so they say, he became aware of it when a market burned down: he saw that the yellow ochre when half-burnt had also become red.”

γίνεται [sc. μίλτος] δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς ὤχρας κατακαιομένης ἀλλὰ χείρων, τὸ δ' εὕρημα Κυδίου. συνεῖδε γὰρ ἐκεῖνος, ὥς φασι, κατακαυθέντος τινὸς παντοπωλίου* τὴν ὤχραν ἰδὼν ἡμίκαυστον καὶ πεφοινιγμένην.

Theophrastus, On Stones, 53–54

*τινὸς παντοπωλίου: Caley translates this as ‘inn’. I’m not sure what Greek text he was using, but I think the παντοπώλιον is the place where you find everything (τὰ πάτνα) for sale (πωλεῖν).

Cyan / Lapis Lazuli

“Just as some red ochre is spontaneous and some is artificial, so with cyan, some is native, some prepared (like in Egypt*). Now, there are three kinds of cyan: the Egyptian, the Scythian and third the Cyprian. The Egyptian is best for unmixed pigments, the Scythian for those that are wetter. The Egyptian, however, is prepared. In fact, those who record the deeds of their kings also record this: a king first made liquid cyan by imitating the native kind, as gifts of fired and unfired cyan were sent as tribute from Phoenicia and other places. Meanwhile, those who grind pigments** say that Scythian cyan produces from itself four colours: the first from the finest parts is most pale, the second from the coarsest parts is darkest. These come to be by art, too, as does white lead.”

ἔστι δέ, ὥσπερ καὶ μίλτος ἡ μὲν αὐτόματος ἡ δὲ τεχνική, καὶ κύανος ὁ μὲν αὐτοφυὴς ὁ δὲ σκευαστὸς ὥσπερ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ. γένη δὲ κυάνου τρία, ὁ Αἰγύπτιος, καὶ ὁ Σκύθης, καὶ τρίτος ὁ Κύπριος. βέλτιστος δ' ὁ Αἰγύπτιος εἰς τὰ ἄκρατα λειώματα, ὁ δὲ Σκύθης εἰς τὰ ὑδαρέστερα. σκευαστὸς δ' ὁ Αἰγύπτιος. καὶ οἱ γράφοντες τὰ περὶ τοὺς βασιλεῖς καὶ τοῦτο γράφουσι, τίς πρῶτος βασιλεὺς ἐποίησε χυτὸν κύανον μιμησάμενος τὸν αὐτοφυῆ, δῶρά τε πέμπεσθαι παρ' ἄλλων τε καὶ ἐκ Φοινίκης φόρον κυάνου, τοῦ μὲν ἀπύρου τοῦ δὲ πεπυρωμένου. φασὶ δ' οἱ τὰ φάρμακα τρίβοντες τὸν Σκύθην κύανον ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ ποιεῖν χρώματα τέτταρα, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἐκ τῶν λεπτοτάτων λευκότατον, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον ἐκ τῶν παχυτάτων μελάντατον. ταῦτά τε δὴ τέχνῃ γίνεται καὶ ἔτι τὸ ψιμύθιον.

Theophrastus, On Stones, 55–56

*κύανος (cyan): a dark blue pigment. The native kind is most likely lapis lazuli. The χυτὸν κύανον is obscure, but might be a liquid form (parallel would be χυτὸς ἄργυρος, quicksilver). I translate it as ‘liquid cyan’.

**οἱ τὰ φάρμακα τρίβοντες : “the drug-grinders.” τὰ φάρμακα has a semantic range that does not map on to either ‘drugs’, ‘medicines’ or ‘poisons’. Closest thing, I guess, would be to say, ‘chemicals,’ but that’s probably a bit too specific.

Cinnabar

“There is also a native and a manufactured kind of cinnabar. The native kind around Iberia is very hard and stony, as is the one in the Kolchian regions. This, they say, is found on cliffs, which they bring down by shooting it with arrows. The manufactured kind comes only from one place in the Kilbian region (?)*, a little bit outside of Ephesus. It is a sandy ore** which they collect when shiny, like Kermes. Once this is ground to a very fine powder in stone vessels, they wash it in copper ones, and again, taking the sediment, they wash and grind it, a task that takes some skill. For from the same amount of ore, some people produce much, some little or nothing; but, they treat the washings from above, coating them one by one. The sediment below is cinnabar, while what remains on top is mostly scum.***

“They say that Kallias, an Athenian, discovered and invented the manufacturing process from the silver mines. He thought the sandy ore had gold in it because it was shiny, and so he worked on it and collected it. When he perceived it did not have any, he marveled at the beauty of the sand because of its colour, and thus he came to the manner of its manufacture. This wasn’t long ago, but about ninety years at most before Praxibolos was archon at Athens.

“It is clear from these things that art imitates nature but produces its own kinds of things. Of these, some exist for the sake of utility, others, like paints, only for the sake of appearance, and some equally for the sake of both, like quicksilver. For this has a use, as well. It is made when cinnabar is ground up with vinegar in a bronze vessel and bronze pestle. Perhaps we might discover more things like these.”

γίνεται δὲ καὶ κιννάβαρι τὸ μὲν αὐτοφυὲς τὸ δὲ κατ' ἐργασίαν. αὐτοφυὲς μὲν τὸ περὶ Ἰβηρίαν σκληρὸν σφόδρα καὶ λιθῶδες, καὶ τὸ ἐν Κόλχοις. τοῦτο δέ φασιν εἶναι ἐπὶ κρημνῶν, ὃ καταβάλλουσι τοξεύοντες. τὸ δὲ κατ' ἐργασίαν ὑπὲρ Ἐφέσου μικρὸν <ἐν Κιλβιανοῖς (?)> ἐξ ἑνὸς τόπου μόνον. ἔστι δ' ἄμμος ἣν συλλέγουσι λαμπυρίζουσαν καθάπερ ὁ κόκκος· ταύτην δὲ τρίψαντες ὅλως ἐν ἀγγείοις λιθίνοις λειοτάτην πλύνουσιν ἐν χαλκοῖς [μικρὸν ἐν καλοῖς], τὸ δ' ὑφιστάμενον πάλιν λαβόντες πλύνουσι καὶ τρίβουσιν, ἐν ᾧπέρ ἐστι τὸ τῆς τέχνης· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ ἴσου πολὺ περιποιοῦσιν, οἱ δ' ὀλίγον ἢ οὐθέν· ἀλλὰ πλύσματι τῷ ἐπάνω χρῶνται ἓν πρὸς ἓν ἀλείφοντες. γίνεται δὲ τὸ μὲν ὑφιστάμενον κάτω κιννάβαρι, τὸ δ' ἐπάνω καὶ πλεῖον πλύσμα.

καταδεῖξαι δέ φασι καὶ εὑρεῖν τὴν ἐργασίαν Καλλίαν τινὰ Ἀθηναῖον ἐκ τῶν ἀργυρείων, ὃς οἰόμενος ἔχειν τὴν ἄμμον χρυσίον διὰ τὸ λαμπυρίζειν ἐπραγματεύετο καὶ συνέλεγεν. ἐπεὶ δ' ᾔσθετο ὅτι οὐκ ἔχοι τὸ δὲ τῆς ἄμμου κάλλος ἐθαύμαζε διὰ τὴν χρόαν, οὕτως ἐπὶ τὴν ἐργασίαν ἦλθε ταύτην. οὐ παλαιὸν δ' ἐστὶν ἀλλὰ περὶ ἔτη μάλιστ' ἐνενήκοντα εἰς ἄρχοντα Πραξίβουλον Ἀθήνησι.

φανερὸν δ' ἐκ τούτων ὅτι μιμεῖται τὴν φύσιν ἡ τέχνη, τὰ δ' ἴδια ποιεῖ, καὶ τούτων τὰ μὲν χρήσεως χάριν τὰ δὲ μόνον φαντασίας ὥσπερ τὰς ἀλοιφάς. ἔνια δὲ ἴσως ἀμφοῖν ὥσπερ χυτὸν ἄργυρον. ἔστι γάρ τις χρεία καὶ τούτου. ποιεῖται δὲ ὅταν κιννάβαρι τριφθῇ μετ' ὄξους ἐν ἀγγείῳ χαλκῷ καὶ δοίδυκι χαλκῷ. τὰ μὲν οὖν τοιαῦτα τάχ' ἄν τις λάβοι πλείω.

Theophrastus, On Stones, 58–60

*<ἐν Κιλβιανοῖς (?)>: some textual confusion. Schneider seems to have transposed ἐν καλοῖς from a bit below to here and emended it to ἐν Κιλβιανοῖς (‘in the Kilbian region’). Sure, why not…

**ἄμμος = ψάμμος, as in a sandy ore (probably, maybe).

***ἀλλὰ πλύσματι … πλύσμα. Not quite clear on the process here, but probably something similar to sluicing or panning: water goes over the sandy ore, and because of the agitation, solids of different sizes or densities separate into different layers.

“I suppose the same thing happened in foreign countries as well...” Cassius Dio on the Plague at the time of Augustus

Looks like we will pass 1,000,000 confirmed cases of Covid-19 in the next few minutes. So let’s rewind.

22 BCE or so. Plague in Italy. No one left to work the land. The people want Augustus named dictator.

“The year after that, when Marcus Macellus and Lucius Arruntius were consuls, the city was flooded again when the river overflowed, and many things were struck by lightning, even the statues in the Pantheon, so that the spear fell from Augustus’ hand as well. And then, as the Romans suffered from disease and from famine—for the plague had come to all of Italy and no one worked the land; I suppose the same thing happened in foreign countries as well—they, thinking that these things had happened to them for no other reason but that they didn’t have Augustus as a consul, wished him to be appointed dictator. They locked the senate in their chamber and, threatening to burn them to ashes, they forced them to take a vote. And after this, taking the twenty-four rods, they came to Augustus, bidding him to be named dictator and to become commissioner of the grain supply, just as Pompey once had been.”

τῷ δ' ἐπιγιγνομένῳ ἔτει, ἐν ᾧ Μᾶρκος τε Μάρκελλος καὶ Λούκιος Ἀρρούντιος ὑπάτευσαν, ἥ τε πόλις πελαγίσαντος αὖθις τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐπλεύσθη, καὶ κεραυνοῖς ἄλλα τε πολλὰ ἐβλήθη καὶ οἱ ἀνδριάντες οἱ ἐν τῷ Πανθείῳ, ὥστε καὶ τὸ δόρυ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Αὐγούστου χειρὸς ἐκπεσεῖν. πονούμενοι οὖν ὑπό τε τῆς νόσου καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ λιμοῦ (ἔν τε γὰρ τῇ Ἰταλίᾳ πάσῃ ὁ λοιμὸς ἐγένετο καὶ τὴν χώραν οὐδεὶς εἰργάσατο· δοκῶ δ' ὅτι καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἔξω χωρίοις τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο συνηνέχθη) νομίσαντες οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι οὐκ ἄλλως σφίσι ταῦτα συμβεβηκέναι, ἀλλ' ὅτι μὴ καὶ τότε ὑπατεύοντα τὸν Αὔγουστον ἔσχον, δικτάτορα αὐτὸν ἠθέλησαν προχειρίσασθαι, καὶ τήν τε βουλὴν κατακλείσαντες ἐς τὸ συνέδριον ἐπηνάγκασαν τοῦτο ψηφίσασθαι, ἀπειλοῦντές σφας καταπρήσειν, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα τὰς ῥάβδους τὰς τέσσαρας καὶ εἴκοσι λαβόντες προσῆλθον αὐτῷ, δικτάτορά τε ἅμα δεόμενοι λεχθῆναι καὶ ἐπιμελητὴν τοῦ σίτου, καθάπερ ποτὲ τὸν Πομπήιον, γενέσθαι.

Cassius Dio, Historiae Romanae 54.1.1–3

“Whoever wants to become a good person” – some advice from Galen

I get frustrated with people when I go outside these days (especially when I go looking for flour). I think anxiety has ways of making its presence felt even if (or maybe especially if) I’m not attending to it. Now, normally I find reading Galen pretty frustrating as well, but these bits are helpful reminders of the necessity of empathy.

“Whoever wants to become a good person, let them keep this in mind: that they are, necessarily, very much unaware of their own errors.”

ὅστις οὖν βούλεται καλὸς κἀγαθὸς γενέσθαι, τοῦτο ἐννοησάτω, ὡς ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν αὐτὸν ἀγνοεῖν πολλὰ τῶν ἰδίων ἁμαρτημάτων.

Galen, On the Affections and Errors of the Soul, 1.2, 5.5 K.

“We have, as Aesop used to say, two bags hanging from our necks, one, in front, full of the wrongs of others, one, behind, full of our own, and for this reason we always see the wrongs of others, while we are incapable of seeing our own.”

δύο γάρ, ὡς Αἴσωπος ἔλεγε, πήρας ἐξήμμεθα τοῦ τραχήλου τῶν μὲν ἀλλοτρίων τὴν πρόσω, τῶν ἰδίων δὲ τὴν ὀπίσω, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὰ μὲν ἀλλότρια βλέπομεν ἀεί, τῶν δ' οἰκείων ἀθέατοι καθεστήκαμεν.

Galen, On the Affections and Errors of the Soul, 1.2, 5.6 K.

“It’s normal for pretty much everyone to hate those who speak the truth.”

ἅπασιν ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ἀνθρώποις ἔθος εἶναι μισεῖν τοὺς τἀληθῆ λέγοντας.

Galen, On the Affections and Errors of the Soul, 1.3, 5.10 K.

“And indeed, we should consider the one who reveals each of our offenses our deliverer and our greatest friend. Even if it appears to you that they criticize you falsely, still, the right thing to do is to show yourself to be free from anger. For, in the first place, it’s possible that they can see your mistakes better than you can, just as you, too, can see theirs; and in the second case, because, even if they should criticize you falsely, they will have awoken you to a more accurate examination of what you are doing.”

καὶ μέντοι καὶ [τὸν] σωτῆρα ἐκεῖνον | καὶ φίλον μέγιστον ἡγεῖσθαι τὸν μηνύσαντα τῶν πλημμελουμένων ἕκαστα· εἶθ' ὅτι, κἂν ψευδῶς σοι φαίνηταί ποτ' ἐγκαλέσας, ἀόργητον προσήκει φαίνεσθαι, πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι δύνατόν ἐστιν ἐκεῖνον σοῦ βέλτιον ὁρᾶν ἕκαστον ὧν ἁμαρτάνων τυγχάνεις, ὥσπερ καί σε τῶν ἐκείνου τι, δεύτερον ὅτι κἂν ἐπηρεάσῃ ποτὲ ψευδῶς, ἀλλ' οὖν ἐπήγειρέ σε πρὸς ἀκριβεστέραν ἐπίσκεψιν, ὧν πράττεις.

Galen, On the Affections and Errors of the Soul, 1.5, 5.24–5 K.

“Those who couldn't be cured” – Galen on the Armenian Bolus and the Great Plague

Galen exercises some troubling reasoning about cures…

“During the Great Plague, another kind of earth was given to me, rather desiccating, ochre in colour, from Armenia’s border with Cappadocia. The supplier called it a stone, not earth, and it can easily be pulverized, like lime (I’m referring to slaked lime, obviously). But also, like lime, there is no sandy quality in Armenian earth. For after being ground up in a mortar and pestle, it becomes as fine and free of gravel as lime and Samian star, although it is not as light as the star. Thus, it’s denser and less airy than it, and that’s why to more careless observers it has the appearance of being a stone.

“But it makes no difference for the present whether we use the term stone or earth, as long as you know it is very desiccating. It is especially suitable in cases of dysentery, fluxes of the belly, spitting of blood, catarrh, and moreover for putrefying ulcers in the mouth. And indeed, it is a great help for those experiencing fluxes from the head into the chest; thus, it also is of great benefit to those who have chronic breathing difficulties caused by this kind of thing.

“And, of course, it also helps all those who suffer from consumption. For it dries their ulcer so that they no longer cough, unless they seriously neglect their regimen or if the environment undergoes a sudden change towards a bad mixture. It even seems to me, just as we have often seen in the case of fistulas, not only in other parts of the body, but near the anus as well, that they are protected and closed up by using the desiccating drug itself alone, without the insertion of a suppository that clears the filth or the callous of the fistula, so, too, it would also happen in the case of an ulcer that occurs in the lungs. For this condition, when it is moderate and not too great, is evidently benefited through desiccating drugs, so that some of those who had these fistulas seemed completely cured. Actually, of those people who traveled from Rome to Libya for the same sort of reason, some believed they were completely healthy and in fact lived without any problems for some years, then later on, because they did not take sufficient precautions to keep a preventative routine, the disease came back. Well, as I was saying, these people the bolus of Armenia evidently cured, as, in fact, it also cured those who stayed in Rome, and, even more those with chronic breathing difficulties.

“And during that Great Plague, which was similar in form to the one that happened during the time of Thucydides, all those who drank this drug were cured very quickly, while, all those whom it did not help died. They weren’t helped by anything else, either, which makes it clear that it only failed to help those who couldn’t be cured.

“It is taken as a drink with a light-bodied wine: moderately mixed, if the person doesn’t have a fever at all or was only briefly feverish; very watery, if he is more feverish. The fevers that accompany plague are not very hot. As for ulcers that need drying, why bother mentioning how powerful the Armenian bolus itself is? As I said, you can call it a stone, like my supplier called it, or a type of earth, as I do, since it is moistened by moisture.”*

ἐδόθη δ' ἡμῖν ἐν τῷ μεγάλῳ τούτῳ λοιμῷ, καὶ ἄλλη τις ἐξ Ἀρμενίας τῆς ὁμόρου Καππαδοκίας γῆ ξηραντικωτέρα, τὴν χρόαν ὠχρά· λίθον δ' αὐτὴν ὠνόμαζεν, οὐ γῆν, ὁ δοὺς, καὶ ἔστιν εὐλειοτάτη, καθάπερ καὶ ἡ τίτανος. ὀνομάζω δ' οὕτω δηλονότι τὴν κεκαυμένην πέτραν. ἀλλὰ καὶ ὥσπερ ἐκείνης οὐδὲν ἐμφέρεται ψαμμῶδες, οὕτως οὐδὲ τῆς Ἀρμενίας. μετὰ γὰρ τὸ θραυσθῆναι τῷ δοίδυκι κατὰ τὴν θυίαν, οὕτως ἐστὶ λεία καὶ ἄλιθος ὥσπερ ἡ τίτανος καὶ ὁ Σάμιος ἀστὴρ, οὐ μὴν ὁμοίως γε κούφη τῷ ἀστέρι. διὸ καὶ πεπύκνωται μᾶλλον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἧττον ἀερώδης ἐστὶν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο φαντασίαν ἀποφαίνει τοῖς ἀμελέστερον ὁρῶσι λίθος εἶναι.

διαφέρει δ' οὐδὲν ὡς πρὸς τὰ παρόντα λίθον ἢ γῆν αὐτὴν ὀνομάζειν, εἰδότας ἄκρως ξηραίνουσαν. ἐπί τε γὰρ δυσεντεριῶν καὶ τῶν κατὰ γαστέρα ῥευμάτων, αἵματός τε πτύσεως καὶ κατάῤῥου καὶ προσέτι τῶν κατὰ τὸ στόμα σηπεδονωδῶν ἑλκῶν ἁρμόττει μάλιστα. καὶ μέντοι καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ κεφαλῆς εἰς θώρακα ῥευματιζομένους ὀνίνησι μεγάλως, ὥστε καὶ τοὺς διὰ τὴν τοιαύτην αἰτίαν συνεχῶς δυσπνοοῦντας ἰσχυρῶς ὠφελεῖ.

καὶ μέντοι καὶ ὅσοι φθόῃ κάμνουσιν, καὶ τούτους ὀνίνησιν. ξηραίνει γὰρ αὐτῶν τὸ ἕλκος, ὡς μηδὲ βήττειν ἔτι, πλὴν εἰ κατὰ τὴν δίαιταν ἁμαρτάνοιεν ἀξιολόγως ἢ τὸ περιέχον ἐξαιφνίδιον εἰς δυσκρασίαν μεταπέσοι. καί μοι δοκεῖ, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν συρίγγων ἐθεασάμεθα πολλάκις, οὐ μόνον ἐν ἄλλοις μορίοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἕδραν ἄνευ τοῦ κολλύριον καθεῖναι τὸν ῥύπον ἢ τὸν τύλον ἐξαιροῦν τῆς σύριγγος, αὐτῷ μόνῳ τῷ ξηραίνοντι φαρμάκῳ προστελλομένας τε καὶ κλειομένας αὐτὰς, οὕτω κᾀπὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν πνεύμονα συμβαίνειν ἕλκους. φαίνεται γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο διὰ τῶν ξηραινόντων φαρμάκων ὁμοίως ὀνινάμενον, ὅταν τε μέτριον ᾖ καὶ μὴ μέγα λίαν, ὥστ' ἔδοξαν ἔνιοι τῶν ἐχόντων αὐτὰ τελείως ἀπηλλάχθαι, καὶ τῶν γ' εἰς τὴν Λιβύην ἀπὸ Ῥώμης διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν πορευθέντων ἔνιοι τελείως ἐπείσθησαν ὑγιεῖς εἶναι, καὶ μέχρι γέ τινων ἐτῶν ἀμέμπτως διήγαγον, εἶθ' ὕστερόν ποτε πάλιν ἀφυλακτότερον αὐτοῖς διαιτηθεῖσιν ὑποστροφὴ τοῦ νοσήματος ἐγένετο. τούτους οὖν, ὡς ἔφην, ἡ ἐκ τῆς Ἀρμενίας βῶλος ἐναργῶς ὠφέλησε καίτοι γ' ἐν Ῥώμῃ διατρίβοντας, ἔτι τε μᾶλλον τοὺς δυσπνοοῦντας συνεχῶς.

ἐν δὲ τῷ μεγάλῳ τούτῳ λοιμῷ παραπλησίῳ τὴν ἰδέαν ὄντι τῷ κατὰ Θουκυδίδην γενομένῳ πάντες οἱ πιόντες τούτου τοῦ φαρμάκου διὰ ταχέων ἐθεραπεύθησαν, ὅσους δ' οὐδὲν ὤνησεν ἀπέθανον πάντες, οὐδ' ὑπ' ἄλλου τινὸς ὠφελήθησαν, ᾧ καὶ δῆλον ὅτι μόνους τοὺς ἀνιάτως ἔχοντας οὐκ ὠφέλησε.

πίνεται δὲ μετ' οἴνου λεπτοῦ τὴν σύστασιν, κεραμένου μετρίως μὲν, εἰ ἀπύρετος εἴη παντάπασιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἢ βραχὺ πυρεταίνοι, πάνυ δ' ὑδαροῦς, εἰ πυρέττοι μειζόνως. οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ σφοδροὶ κατὰ τὴν θερμασίαν εἰσὶν οἱ λοιμώδεις πυρετοί. περὶ δὲ τῶν ξηρανθῆναι δεομένων ἑλκῶν τί δεῖ καὶ λέγειν ὁπηλίκην ἔχει δύναμιν ἡ Ἀρμενικὴ βῶλος αὕτη; καλεῖν δ' ἔξεστί σοι, καθάπερ ἔφην, καὶ λίθον αὐτὴν, ὡς ὁ δοὺς ὠνόμαζεν, καὶ γῆν, ὡς ἂν ἐγὼ φαίην, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τέγγεται τοῖς ὑγροῖς.

Galen, Simple Drugs, 9.1 (XII.189–192 K.)

*Thanks to PN Singer for help with this one.

This mineral has quite a story. It is still sold as a drug today. No links, but here’s an entry on it from the 18th century. It is also used as a pigment and as a medium in gilding and bookbinding.

Sacrifices – Plato on Diotima and the Plague of Athens

A reminder for the equinox.

“Alright, then, I'll let you go, and I'll try to describe to you the speech about Eros, which I once heard from a Mantinean woman, Diotima. She was wise about these and many other things. In fact, ten years before the plague, she held off that sickness by telling the Athenians what they needed to sacrifice. And she even taught me the art of love.”

καὶ σὲ μέν γε ἤδη ἐάσω: τὸν δὲ λόγον τὸν περὶ τοῦ Ἔρωτος, ὅν ποτ᾽ ἤκουσα γυναικὸς Μαντινικῆς Διοτίμας, ἣ ταῦτά τε σοφὴ ἦν καὶ ἄλλα πολλά—καὶ Ἀθηναίοις ποτὲ θυσαμένοις πρὸ τοῦ λοιμοῦ δέκα ἔτη ἀναβολὴν ἐποίησε τῆς νόσου, ἣ δὴ καὶ ἐμὲ τὰ ἐρωτικὰ ἐδίδαξεν—ὃν οὖν ἐκείνη ἔλεγε λόγον, πειράσομαι ὑμῖν διελθεῖν...

Plato, Symposium 201D

Pseudo-Galen, what is a soul and what is a body?

“29. According to Plato, soul is a self-moving incorporeal substance. According to the Stoics, however, it is a subtle body moving out of itself according to seminal principles, while according to Aristotle, it is the actuality of a natural instrumental body potentially having life. Alternatively, soul is pneuma distributed through the whole body, through which we live and reason and act by means of the other senses, the body being its servant.*

30. Body is magnitude three times extended, having in itself height, depth and breadth.** Or, it is magnitude composed of three dimensions.”

κθʹ. ψυχή ἐστιν οὐσία ἀσώματος, αὐτοκίνητος κατὰ Πλάτωνα. κατὰ δὲ τοὺς Στωϊκοὺς σῶμα λεπτομερὲς ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ κινούμενον κατὰ σπερματικοὺς λόγους. κατὰ δὲ τὸν Ἀριστοτέλη ἐντελέχεια σώματος φυσικοῦ ὀργανικοῦ δυνάμει ζωὴν ἔχοντος. ἄλλως. ψυχή ἐστι πνεῦμα παρεσπαρμένον ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ σώματι δι' οὗ ζῶμεν καὶ λογιζόμεθα καὶ ταῖς λοιπαῖς αἰσθήσεσιν ἐνεργοῦμεν ὑπηρετοῦντος τοῦ σώματος.

λʹ. σῶμά ἐστι μέγεθος τριχῇ διάστατον ἔχον ἐν ἑαυτῷ μῆκος, βάθος, πλάτος. ἢ μέγεθος ἐκ τριῶν διαστημάτων συνεστηκός.

[Galen], Medical Definitions 29 and 30, 19.355–356 K

*cf. Anonymus Londinensis:

“‘Soul’ is said in three ways: that which pervades the whole body, and the rational part, and further the entrecheia (i.e., ἐντελέχεια, probably).”

ψυχὴ δὲ λέγεται τριχῶς·
[ἥ τε] τῶι ὅλωι σώματι παρεσπαρ-
μ̣ένη καὶ τὸ μόριον τὸ λογιστικὸν
[κ]αὶ ἔτι ἡ ἐντρέχεια. * καὶ τῆς μ(ὲν) ἐντρε-
[χ]είας ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος οὐ χρῄζομεν,
[τ]ῶν δὲ ἄλλων δύο σημαινομένων,
[κα]ὶ μᾶλλον το̣ῦ λο̣γιστ̣ικοῦ.

Anonymus Londinensis I,21-24

**Cf. Apollodorus ap. Diogenes Laertius:

“Body is defined by Apollodorus in his Physics as that which is extended in three dimensions, length, breadth, and depth. This is also called solid body.”

σῶμα δ’ ἐστίν, ὥς φησιν Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τῇ Φυσικῇ, τὸ τριχῆ διαστατόν, εἰς μῆκος, εἰς πλάτος, εἰς βάθος· τοῦτο δὲ καὶ στερεὸν σῶμα καλεῖται.

Diog. Laert. 7.175

Reading with Galen: when good authors say false things

Another one Maria pointed out to me.

Idola theatri

“Whenever an obviously false statement is found in the writings of an intelligent author, it’s normal for their students to become puzzled. At first, they doubt themselves and do not trust that they understand what is obvious; then, after a while, they suspect something of what they are reading is false.”

Ὁπόταν ἐν ἀνδρὸς φρονίμου συγγράμματι λόγος εὑρεθῇ προφανῶς ψευδής, εἰκότως ἀπορεῖσθαι συμβαίνει τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας αὐτόν, καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπιστεῖν, ὡς μηδὲ τὰ φανερά γινώσκουσι, εἶθ᾿ ἑξῆς ὑποπτεύειν, μή τι τῶν ὑποκειμένων ψευδὲς εἴη.

Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates’ Aphorisms 6.34, 18A.55 Kühn

The aphorism in question…

“Bald people do not get large varicose veins; bald people who do get varicose veins grow their hair back again.”

Ὁκόσοι φαλακροὶ, τουτέοισι κιρσοὶ μεγάλοι οὐ γίνονται· ὁκόσοισι δὲ φαλακροῖσιν ἐοῦσιν κιρσοὶ γίνονται, πάλιν οὗτοι γίνονται δασέες.

Aphorisms 6.34, 4.570 Littré

Before we begin: Aetius of Amida’s Medical Books

Continuing the introductions of the major medical compilations, this time Aetius of Amida’s Medical Books (Libri Medicinales).

Other People’s Introductions

If Aetius wrote an introduction to his work, it no longer exists. Instead, we get notes scribbled in manuscripts, some with summaries of the whole work, some just the first two books. One day, I might get around to posting translations of the more complete ones. For now, here’s an example of a shorter one from the title page of Codex Parisinus suppl. gr. 1240, fol. 5r:

“Aetius Amidenus’ (Comes Obsiquii) Book of 16 Medical Discussions

He has summarized from the three books of Oribasius, which he wrote to Julian, to Eustathius, and to Eunapius, and from the therapeutic [works] of Galen, Archigenes, Ruphos; furthermore, of Disocorides, Herodotos, Soranos, Philagrios, Philonos, Philoumenos, Posidonios, and some other notable ancient physicians.”

ΑΕΤΙΟΥ ΑΜΙΔΗΝΟΥ ΚΟΜΗΤΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΟΨΙΚΙΟΥ ΛΟΓΩΝ ΙΑΤΡΙΚΩΝ ις ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ

συνοπισθὲν ἐκ τῶν τριῶν βιβλίων Ὀριβασίου ὧν ἔγραψε πρὸς Ἰουλιανὸν καὶ πρὸς Εὐστάθιον καὶ πρὸς Εὐνάπιον ἔκ τε τῶν θεραπευτικῶν Γαληνοῦ καὶ Ἀρχιγένους καὶ Ῥουφου, ἔτι δὲ καὶ Διοσκορίδου καὶ Ἡροδότου καὶ Σωρανοῦ Φιλαγρίου τε καὶ Φίλωνος καὶ Φιλουμένου καὶ Ποσειδονίου καὶ ἑτέρων τινῶν ἀρχαίων ἰατρῶν ἐπισήμων.

Cod. Par. suppl. gr. 1240, fol. 5r

Sometimes, individual books get an introduction as well. Here’s an example from Parisinus gr. 2193, fol. 1r, its crimson ink here rendered reproduction-grey:

“Aetius’ first book contains material from Galen’s introductory remarks about the four orders of each kind of simple drug, and how, from their taste, smell and color, to infer the power of each of the simples.”

Τάδε ἔνεστιν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ λόγῳ Ἀετίου ἐκ τῶν Γαληνοῡ προοιμίων περὶ τῶν τεσσάρων τάξεων ἑκάστου γένους τῶν ἁπλῶν φαρμάκων καὶ ὅπως χρὴ ἔκ τε γεύσεως καὶ τῆς ὀσμῆς καὶ τῆς χροιᾶς τεκμαίρεσθαι τὴν ἑκαστου τῶν ἁπλῶν δύναμιν.

Cod. Par. gr. 2193, fol. 1r

Copy-Paste

We do have something of an introduction to the first and second of the sixteen Medical Books, although it is a bit abrupt. The first two books form a unit on pharmacology: they present excerpts of what Galen (and a few others) wrote about simple drugs of vegetable, mineral and animal origin. It is like a big list of ingredients for use in recipes, one which describes the medicinal properties of each plant, animal or stone, so that you know which to mix together for different ailments.

Galen’s and Aetius’ pharmacology have very different aims. For Galen, the study of simple drugs was about discovery: how to discover and prove the presence of different medicinal properties in different things. Aetius’ aims are practical. Taking Galen’s investigations for granted, he simply states the properties of drugs Galen has already proved. Galen did research. Aetius applies it.

In his introduction, Aetius does something new, as well, taking what Galen has written about how to use taste, smell and sight to discover the properties of plants, and producing a kind of cut-and-paste rearrangement. His goal seems to have been to teach people how to judge the quality of different herbs. Whereas Galen’s procedure was something like,

“if pennywort in general tastes like this, then pennywort has this medicinal property.”

Aetius’ is more like,

“if this particular basil or pennywort is any good, then it will taste like this.”

Galen’s procedure is pretty important if you are trying to set up a science of pharmacology. Aetius’ procedure is important if you want to know whether the cinnamon the huckster is selling you is any good.

His introduction begins like this:

“The differences of the individual activities in each drug result from the extent to which each is hot or cold, dry or wet, and made of fine or coarse parts. The extent that they reach in each of the categories mentioned is not able to be put into words, at least in terms of the most precise truth of the matter; but, we have tried to demarcate [the extent] with boundaries that are sufficiently clear for the art’s practical use [...]”

αἱ διαφοραὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἐνεργειῶν ἐν ἑκάστῳ τῶν φαρμάκων γίγνονται τῷ ἐπὶ τοσόνδε θερμὸν ἢ ψυχρὸν ἢ ξηρὸν ἢ ὑγρὸν ἢ λεπτομερὲς ἢ παχυμερὲς ὑπάρχειν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν. τὸ δὲ ἐπὶ τοσόνδε προήκειν ἐν ἑκάστῳ τῶν εἰρημένων ἄρρητόν ἐστιν πρός γε τὴν ἀκριβεστάτην ἀλήθειαν. ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς καὶ αὐτὸ περιλαβεῖν ἐπειράθημεν ὅροις σαφέσιν ἱκανοῖς εἰς τὴν χρείαν τῆς τέχνης [...]

Aetius Amidenus, Libri Medicinales, book I, proem, 17,2–7 Olivieri

Which is originally taken from the seventh book of Galen’s work On The Powers of Simple Drugs:

“What will be discussed in this and the books that remain after it are the primary powers of plants, since the order of instruction we are presenting here follows the alphabetical order with which we started. In the previous book, therefore, we got as far as the letter I; in this one, we will make a start with the letter K to the extent we mentioned before, that we will refer everything back to the principles which we demonstrated previously. For from the extent to which each drug is hot or cold, wet or dry, and made of fine or coarse parts, the differences of the particular activities result; and the extent that they reach in each of the previously mentioned categories is not able to be put into words, at least in terms of the most precise truth of the matter; but, we have tried to demarcate [the extent] with boundaries that are sufficiently clear for the art’s practical use [...]”

εἰρήσονται δ' ἐν τούτῳ τῷ βιβλίῳ καὶ τῷ μετ' αὐτὸ τῶν ὑπολοίπων φυτῶν αἱ πρῶται δυνάμεις, τὴν τάξιν τῆς διδασκαλίας κᾀνταῦθα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν τῶν γραμμάτων ποιησαμένων ἡμῶν, ἀφ' ὧν ἄρχονται. ἐν μὲν οὖν τῷ πρὸ τοῦδε μέχρι τοῦ ι προήλθομεν· ἐνταυθοῖ δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ κ ποιησόμεθα τοσοῦτον ἔτι προαναμνήσαντες, ὡς εἰς τὰς προαποδεδειγμένας ἀρχὰς ἀνάξομεν ἅπαντα· τῷ γὰρ ἐπὶ τοσόνδε θερμὸν ἢ ψυχρὸν, ἢ ὑγρὸν ἢ ξηρὸν, ἢ λεπτομερὲς ἢ παχυμερὲς ὑπάρχειν ἕκαστον τῶν φαρμάκων αἱ διαφοραὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἐνεργειῶν αὐτῶν γίγνονται, τὸ δ' ἐπὶ τοσόνδε προήκειν ἐν ἑκάστῳ τῶν προειρημένων ἄῤῥητόν ἐστι πρός γε τὴν ἀκριβεστάτην ἀλήθειαν. ἀλλ' ἡμεῖς καὶ τοῦτο περιλαβεῖν ἐπειράθημεν ὅροις σαφέσιν, ἱκανοῖς εἰς τὴν χρείαν τῆς τέχνης [...]

Galen, De simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis et facultatibus, book 7, proem, 12.2 Kühn

In Your Own Words

There is, however, one sentence in the introduction that has no parallel. It comes towards the end and might be Aetius’ own words:

“I will give a summary under separate headings of all these [capacities and activities], and likewise of several others that are especially useful, after I have finished going over, as much as possible, the general capacities and activities species by species.”

τούτων δὲ ἁπάντων ὥσπερ καὶ ἑτέρων τινῶν χρησιμωτάτων ἐν κεφαλαίῳ τὴν σύνοψιν ποιήσομαι, μετὰ τὸ διελθεῖν με κατ’ εἶδος ὡς οἷόν τε τὰς καθόλου δυνάμεις τε ἑκάστου καὶ ἐνεργείας.

Aetius Amidenus, Libri Medicinales, book I, proem, 29,28–30 Olivieri

Forever Young

A while ago, I posted a bit of the Pseudo-Lucian’s Long Lives (Macrobii), a funny little book telling the stories of famous people who lived a long life through diet and exercise. Like this one:

“Ariathes, the king of Kappadokia, lived 82 years according to Hieronymos. Maybe he would have lived longer if he hadn’t been captured and crucified during the war against Perdikkas.”

Ἀριαράθης δὲ ὁ Καππαδοκῶν βασιλεὺς δύο μὲν καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα ἔζησεν ἔτη, ὡς Ἱερώνυμος ἱστορεῖ: ἐδυνήθη δὲ ἴσως καὶ ἐπὶ πλέον διαγενέσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ πρὸς Περδίκκαν μάχῃ ζωγρηθεὶς ἀνεσκολοπίσθη.

Pseudo-Lucian, Macrobii 13

There seems to have been a whole genre on this topic in antiquity and even into the Renaissance — my sister tells me Ficino’s De vita is essentially advice about how scholars can live a long life …

Here’s another example of the genre, this time from Galen’s On Wasting Away (De marcore):

---

Actually, a contemporary philosopher wrote a book showing how it is possible for someone to stay young forever. He published the book when he was forty, but he lived until he was eighty, at which point he was so withered and dry that he himself fit the description in the Hippocratic Prognostics:

“…nose sharp, eyes hollow, temples collapsed, ears cold and drawn in and the ear lobes curled up, and the area around the forehead dry and stretched and wrinkled.” (Hipp. Prog. 2.5, 2.115 Littré)

He was laughed at for trying to teach other people how to stay young when he looked the way he did. And so he put out a second edition of On the Marvellous Eternal Youth (for that’s also what he called it throughout the book), in which he showed that it wasn’t possible for every person to stay forever young, but that one needs to have the right nature and to be given a solid foundation from their earliest upbringing. And he proclaimed that if he were in charge of raising children with a suitable nature right from the start, he would make their bodies immortal.

Now, his claim couldn’t be tested, since he would be dead before the kids he was taking care of grew up. And so everyone else thought he was extremely foolish, but not me, since I alone recognized that many reasonable men, tricked by the plausibility of the arguments, hold many other opinions that are inconsistent with what is known through experience.

There is, then, nothing that marvellous about this argument. For the claim that everything born will be thoroughly corrupted is neither a scientific nor a necessary conclusion, but only goes as far as being probable, as I have shown in On Demonstration, even if just about everyone uses this argument when they point out that it is necessary for living things to age, saying that everything born is on the path to its subsequent and necessary destruction.

καί τοί τις τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς φιλοσόφων ἔγραψε βιβλίον, ἐπιδεικνὺς ὅπως ἔνεστιν ἀγήρων τινὰ διαμεῖναι τὸ πάμπαν. ἐξέδωκε μὲν οὖν τὸ βιβλίον ἔτι τεσσαρακοντούτης ὢν, παρέτεινε δὲ μέχρι καὶ τῶν ὀγδοήκοντα ἐτῶν, καὶ ἦν οὕτως ἰσχνός τε καὶ ξηρὸς, ὡς ἁρμόζειν ἐπ' αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐκ τοῦ προγνωστικοῦ Ἱπποκράτειον ῥῆσιν, ῥὶς ὀξεῖα, ὀφθαλμοὶ κοῖλοι, κρόταφοι ξυμπεπτωκότες, ὦτα ψυχρὰ, καὶ συνεσταλμένα, καὶ οἱ λοβοὶ τῶν ὤτων ἀπεστραμμένοι, καὶ τὸ περὶ τὸ μέτωπον ξηρόν τε καὶ περιτεταμένον, καὶ καρφαλέον ἐόν. ἐπεὶ τοίνυν ἐγελᾶτο τοιοῦτος φαινόμενος, ὅτι ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους ἐπεχείρησε διδάσκειν, ὅπως ἄν τις ἀγήρως διαμείνῃ, δευτέραν ἔκδοσιν ἐποιήσατο περὶ τῆς θαυμαστῆς ἀγηρασίας, οὕτω γὰρ αὐτὴν καὶ ὠνόμασε διὰ τοῦ συγγράμματος, ἐπιδεικνὺς, ὡς οὐ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἀγήρως δύναται διαμένειν, ἀλλὰ δέοι μὲν εἰς τοῦτο καὶ φύσιν ἔχειν ἐπιτηδείαν, μάλιστα δ' ὧν ἡ πρώτη τροφὴ τοιαῦτα βάλλοιτο θεμέλια, καὶ ἐπηγγείλατο τῶν ἐπιτηδείων εἰς τοῦτο βρεφῶν εὐθὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς αὐτὸς ἐπιστατῶν, ἀθάνατα αὐτῶν ποιήσειν τὰ σώματα. καὶ ἦν ἀνεξέλεγκτον αὐτοῦ τὸ ἐπάγγελμα· πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἀνδρωθῆναι τοὺς παῖδας, οὓς παρελάμβανεν, ἔμελλεν αὐτὸς τεθνήξεσθαι. οἱ μὲν οὖν ἄλλοι πάντες ἐσχάτην μωρίαν αὐτοῦ κατεγίνωσκον, ἐγὼ δὲ οὒ, [μόνον] εἰδὼς, ὅτι πολλὰ καὶ ἄλλα δόγματα τοῖς διὰ τῆς ἐμπειρίας ἐγνωσμένοις μαχόμενα πολλοὶ τῶν λογικῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀπεφήναντο τῇ πιθανότητι τῶν λόγων ἐξαπατηθέντες. οὐκ οὖν οὐδὲ τοῦτο θαυμαστόν ἐστιν ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ. τὸ γὰρ ὅτι τὸ γεννητὸν πᾶν φθαρήσεται πάντως οὔτ' ἐπιστημονικὴν οὔτ' ἀναγκαίαν ἔχει τὴν ἀκολουθίαν, ἀλλ' ἄχρι τοῦ πιθανοῦ προϊοῦσαν, ὡς ἐν τῷ περὶ ἀποδείξεως ἀποδέδεικται, καίτοι γε τούτῳ χρῶνται τῷ λόγῳ σχεδὸν ἅπαντες, ὅσοι τὸ γηράσκειν ἀναγκαῖον ἐπιδεικνύουσι τοῖς ζώοις, ὁδὸν εἶναι φάσκοντες αὐτὸ πρὸς τὴν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἑπομένην φθορὰν τοῖς γεννητοῖς ἅπασιν.

Galen, On Marasmus (De marcore liber | Γαλήνου Περὶ μαρασμοῦ βιβλίον), 7.760–2 Kühn

*On the identity of the contemporary philosopher, Theoharides offers this note in his translation:

Philipp sounds like a cool guy. He’s often named alongside Archigenes and he seems to have written about a state of old age brought about by illness; but, it makes no sense to me to say he’s the philosopher mentioned here.

Galen mentions Philipp all over the place—Theoharides’ note points to six instances in this treatise alone. Why would he refrain from saying his name here? And if Philipp is a doctor, why here would he call him a philosopher? Am I missing something?

The other place this contemporary philosopher shows up is in Galen’s Matters of Health:

“For, it is not possible that what is born be imperishable, even if a contemporary philosopher desperately tried to show this in his incredible treatise, where he teaches the path to immortality.”

ἄφθαρτον μὲν γὰρ ποιῆσαι τὸ γεννητὸν οὐχ οἷόν τε, κἂν ὅτι μάλιστα τῶν καθ’ ημᾶς τις νῦν ἀνὴρ φιλόσοφος ἐπειρᾶτο δεικνύναι τοῦτο διὰ τοῦ θαυμασίου τούτου συγγράμματος, ἐν ᾧ διδάσκει τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς ἀθανασίας.

Galen, De sanitate tuenda 1.12, 6.63 Kühn

He shows up again at the end of Matters of Health, where Galen calls him (probably not as an insult) a sophist:

“So, if it were really possible to preserve a moist mixture of the body forever, then the argument of the sophist—the one who claimed he would make the person who believed him immortal, which I went over at the beginning—would be true. But since, as we’ve shown, it is not possible for the body to avoid nature’s path to being dried out, it is therefore necessary that we grow old and die, while the one who is the least dried out would be the longest lived.”

ὡς, εἴγε δυνατὸν ἦν ἀεὶ διαφυλάττειν ὑγρὰν τὴν κρᾶσιν τοῦ σώματος, ὁ τοῦ σοφιστοῦ λόγος, ὃν ἐν ἀρχῇ διῆλθον, ἀθάνατον ἐπαγγελλομένου ποιήσειν τὸν αὐτῷ πειθόμενον, ἀληθὴς ἦν. ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ τὴν φυσικὴν ὁδὸν τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ ξηραίνεσθαι τὸ σῶμα φυγεῖν οὐκ ἔστιν, ὡς ἐδείχθη, διὰ τοῦτο γηρᾶν ἀναγκαῖον ἡμῖν ἐστι καὶ φθείρεσθαι, πολυχρονιώτατος δ’ ἂν ὁ ἥκιστα ξηραινόμενος γένοιτο.

Galen, De sanitate tuenda 6.3, 6.399-400 Kühn

I haven’t found anyone who has noticed Galen contradicts himself in the two works. In De marcore he says there’s no necessity that what is born will die—a good position for a Platonist to hold, or at least for anyone who thinks the cosmos is created but imperishable. PN Singer told me he thinks Galen’s position in De sanitate tuenda may be meant to be restricted to non-celestial matters—that Galen is likely talking about death being necessary in the way he attributes to ‘just about everybody’ in De marcore. Still, he’s not explicit about it and I wonder if Galen put much thought into it. I mean, he’s a doctor, right? How much thought do doctor’s today put into arguments for immortality?

---

Conspiracy Theories

After a couple years’ work, Maria Βörno and I are finishing up a paper about the criteria Galen uses to decide when a work should or should not be attributed to Hippocrates. Galen’s work on this, On the Genuine and Spurious Writings of Hippocrates (Περὶ τῶν γνησίων τε καὶ νόθων Ἱπποκράτους συγγραμμάτων), is lost, but Maria is preparing a critical edition of Galen’s commentary on the seventh book of the Aphorisms, which is a great source for examples of how Galen attacks earlier Hippocratic interpreters’ attributions.

Maria found this one, where Galen invents something like a conspiracy theory explaining why the seventh book is full of spurious material (we give Kühn’s text below):

“Still, I think the people who interpolated these aphorisms composed them using these words for the following reason: to make the passage confusing, like an enigma, and need a lot of research, at which point they can position themselves as interpreters of what was said and gain the respect of the youth. Just from looking at this aphorism, it should be obvious to you that all of these unclear passages provide the sophists a pretext for garrulity.”

ἀλλ᾽ οἱ τούτους τοὺς ἀφορισμοὺς παρενθέντες δοκοῦσί μοι χάριν αὐτοῦ τούτοις συνθεῖναι, τοῦ συγκεχύσθαι τε τὸν λόγον, ὥσπερ αἴνιγμα, καὶ δεῖσθαι ζητήσεως πολλῆς, ἐν ᾗ καθιστάντες ἑαυτοὺς ἐξηγητὰς τῶν λεγομένων εὐδοκιμοῦσι παρὰ τοῖς μειρακίοις. ὅτι δὲ οἱ λόγοι πάντες οἱ ἀσαφεῖς ἀφορμὰς πολυλογίας παρέχουσι τοῖς σοφισταῖς δῆλον ἔσται σοι κατ᾽ αὐτὸν τοῦτον τὸν ἀφορισμόν.

Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates’ Aphorisms VII 69 (XVIIIA 184–185 K.)