Michael of Ephesus on providence and good behaviour

I'm writing a paper on Michael of Ephesus on providence. I've looked at his views on providence before, but I've started to take it a bit more seriously. Michael uses providence in a few places in his commentaries on Aristotle's biology, and he uses it, as you might expect, as a deus (natura?) ex machina to explain things Aristotle does not (maybe it's more precise to say that he uses providence to complete explanations which Aristotle had left incomplete). On the one hand, I'm interested in in figuring out what Michael thinks providence is - is it a version of the Christian God, or nature, or νοῦς? - but I'm also trying to figure out what his rules are for using it in his commentaries. The way he uses it doesn't seem to be arbitrary (there are times he doesn't use it when he could) and this makes me wonder if he's drawing on an earlier tradition, or following his own philosophical or cultural intuitions. Here is one of these appeals, about why some animals have testes and some do not. NB: I think the fact that Michael refers to providence in this passage should not distract us from what he is actually trying to do, and that is to explain animal mating behaviour in terms of the contribution the behaviour makes to the survival of the species. Also: contrary to what Aristotle and Michael say, fish and snakes do in fact have testes.

Aristotle: "Nature does everything because of necessity of because of the better..."

"If nature does everything either because of necessity or because of the better, then this part [i.e., the testicles] would also exist for one of these reasons. Now, that testicles are not necessary for generation is obvious, since then all animals that generate would have them; but in fact, snakes, birds, and fish do not have testicles, for they are observed when they are mating and they have ducts filled with milt. It remains, then, that they are present for something better. It is a fact that, for most animals, there is just about no other function than [producing] seed and fruit, as is the case for plants. And just as in matters of nutrition animals with straight intestines are more ravenous* in their desire for food, so too those that do not have testicles but only ducts, or which have testicles but have them internally, they are all quicker with respect to the activity of mating. Those animals which need to be more moderate**, just as before the intestines are not straight, also here the ducts have coils so that their desire is not either ravenous or sudden.*** Testicles have been designed for this reason, for they make the movement of the spermatic residue slower."****

εἰ δὴ πᾶν ἡ φύσις ἢ διὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον ποιεῖ ἢ διὰ τὸ βέλτιον, κἂν τοῦτο τὸ μόριον εἴη διὰ τούτων θάτερον. ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον πρὸς τὴν γένεσιν φανερόν· πᾶσι γὰρ ἂν ὑπῆρχε τοῖς γεννῶσι, νῦν δ' οὔθ' οἱ ὄφεις ἔχουσιν ὄρχεις οὔθ' οἱ ἰχθύες· ὠμμένοι γάρ εἰσι συνδυαζόμενοι καὶ πλήρεις ἔχοντες θοροῦ τοὺς πόρους. λείπεται τοίνυν βελτίονός τινος χάριν. ἔστι δὲ τῶν μὲν πλείστων ζῴων ἔργον σχεδὸν οὐθὲν ἄλλο πλὴν ὥσπερ τῶν φυτῶν σπέρμα καὶ καρπός. ὥσπερ δ' ἐν τοῖς περὶ τὴν τροφὴν τὰ εὐθυέντερα λαβρότερα πρὸς τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν τὴν τῆς τροφῆς, οὕτω καὶ τὰ μὴ ἔχοντα ὄρχεις πόρους δὲ μόνον ἢ ἔχοντα μὲν ἐντὸς δ' ἔχοντα, πάντα ταχύτερα πρὸς τὴν ἐνέργειαν τῶν συνδυασμῶν. ἃ δὲ δεῖ σωφρονέστερα εἶναι, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖ οὐκ εὐθυέντερα, καὶ ἐνταῦθ' ἕλικας ἔχουσιν οἱ πόροι πρὸς τὸ μὴ λάβρον μηδὲ ταχεῖαν εἶναι τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν. οἱ δ' ὄρχεις εἰσὶ πρὸς τοῦτο μεμηχανημένοι· τοῦ γὰρ σπερματικοῦ περιττώματος στασιμωτέραν ποιοῦσι τὴν κίνησιν.

Aristotle, Generation of Animals 1.4, 717a12-32 (Peck's Loeb edition here)

* λαβρότερα | 'more ravenous' The word λάβρος can describe violent surges of water and wind, also people and animals. LSJ suggest 'furious' or 'violent', or 'impetuous'; Peck translates it as 'violent'. The sense, however, is clearly that the animals have strong appetites: their intestines are shorter, and without twists and turns to slow down the food and residues, they are never full for long. I like 'ravenous' here: we use it in English (although it is a bit affected) to describe strong appetites + 'ravenous' comes from the archaic ravin ('an act of rapine or robbery'), which is a direct borrowing from French ravine ('impetuosity', violence', 'force'), from which we get ravine, i.e., 'a violent rush of water' and by extension the gorge it travels through. From the Latin rapina, 'to rob', 'plunder', etc. In the Michael passage, I translate it as "(more) impulsive".

** δεῖ σωφρονέστερα | 'need to be more moderate' More of a moral term than λάβρος. Peck translates 'have to be more sober'. But it's the δεῖ that's caused people to pause: why do some animals need to be more moderate in their appetites? Why couldn't all animals be ravenous and impetuous? Aristotle does not tell us why; he just mentions that testicles cause the seminal ducts to double back, 'like stone weights on a loom (a35-6: καθάπερ τὰς λαιὰς προσάπτουσιν αἱ ὑφαίνουσαι τοῖς ἱστοῖς)'.

*** πρὸς τὸ μὴ λάβρον μηδὲ ταχεῖαν εἶναι τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν This is a statement of the final cause - testicles cause the ducts to coil in order to steady the animal's desire. The relationship between desire and lack or excess might be in the background: desire for food is an impulse to fill something that has been emptied beyond what is natural; and the desire for sex is an impulse to empty something that has been filled to excess. However, if this were the case, it's not clear to me why slower moving semen would cause an animal to have less desire. Aristotle is vague about the details of the analogy, and Michael will focus mostly on trying to make sense of it.

**** στασιμωτέραν ποιοῦσι τὴν κίνησιν Peck translates 'makes the motion steadier'. στάσιμος is an absence of κίνσις, i.e., movement as flow (e.g. Plato, Sophist 256b6-7; Hippocrates, Nature of Women 1.10). Potter translates it as 'constipated' in his Loeb translation of Nature of Women. The idea again is that the residues don't flow out as quickly as they would if the ducts were straight.

Michael on Aristotle on pudic providence

"What comes to be by nature, comes to be by necessity or the better. "Necessity" means that which is found in every kind, and without which it is not possible for something to come to be. "Better" [means] that which is not like this. Since testicles are not found in every [kind] of male, and generation also occurs without them, they do not exist because of necessity, but because of the better.

Just as, in matters of nutrition, [animals] with straight intestines are more ravenous…

"In what follows he sets out the reasons because of which, among [animals] that have testicles and do not have testicles, (i) some have them, (ii) others do not have them; and of those that have them, (i.b) some have them internally, like birds, but (i.a) others externally. He says, then, that just as "animals with straight intestines" are "more impulsive with respect to desire for food", because the residue comes out more quickly because of their straight intestines, while those that do not have straight intestines are more self-controlled and take less nourishment, "the same applies to (ii) [animals] that do not have testicles but only passages", like fish, "or (i.b) [animals] that have [testicles] but internally",  like birds. Hence, (ii) [animals] that do not have testicles at all are quicker than all other [animals] with respect to the task of mating; (i.b) while [animals] that have [testicles] internally are slower and more self-controlled with respect to this kind of task than those that do not have testicles, but they are more impulsive and faster than (i.a) the ones that have them externally.

"First, we should say why [nature] has designed some [animals] to be naturally self-controlled and has made the testicles of these kinds external, some [naturally] more impulsive and [made their testicles] internal, but others it has utterly neglected and did not assign testicles, and for this reason they are also most impulsive of all. But on this point we should say briefly that [nature] did not neglect them, but that it has regarded them by an even greater magnitude. For since (as he will say going on) they are not able to engage in contact for a long time because they live in water, [nature] has not given [them] testicles in addition to the other things (which he is going to speak about later). For in the case of animals that have testicles, the emission of semen comes about slowly because of the reasons which we will learn. But let this much have been said as an introduction. We must discuss what was mentioned, and then the cause according to which (i.a) firstly, those that have external testicles are especially self-controlled, (i.b) second those [that have] internal [testicles] are even less so, and (ii) most undisciplined of all are those that do not have any [testicles]. And so, we must move on to Aristotle's answer.

"One should note that since nature desires that animals and all other things exist eternally and aims at this, whatever things were not able to be preserved eternally as the same thing numerically, for them [nature] decreed eternity by means of always generating others from others. But since continuous mating causes dissolution of the body* for reasons he will mention in the present book when he talks about what the nature of semen is—since then [continuous mating] imparts weakness, and it is normal for death to follow dissolution in the majority of cases, all those animals that naturally bear few offspring (he will also talk about the reasons for their bearing few young in the present book and in those that follow this one)—all those, then, that naturally bear few offspring have come to be more self-controlled than the others by nature's forethought, so that the animals are not dissolved and destroyed by mating many times each day, and this kind of animal is not suddenly eradicated. Those animals that bear offspring, but [bear] more than those that bear few and a fewer number than those that bear very many, are less moderately self-controlled than those that bear few offspring. For even though they [i.e., the individual animals] should happen to be destroyed from frequent mating, still, because of the fact that they bear more than two or three offspring (it is sometimes possible [for them to bear] even more than seventeen**), such a kind will not be left out of the whole. For this reason, then, [nature] designed these to be less self-controlled. But those that bear altogether many offspring, what necessity is there to regard them? For it is clear that they will not be lacking, since heaps of them are produced. This, then, is the reason that some are more self-controlled, others less, and others not at all."

τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως γινόμενα τὰ μὲν γίνεται διὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον, τὰ δὲ διὰ τὸ βέλτιον. ἀναγκαῖον δὲ λέγεται τὸ ἐν ἅπαντι τῷ γένει εὑρισκόμενον, καὶ οὗ ἄνευ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται γενέσθαι τι, βέλτιον δὲ τὸ μὴ τοιοῦτον. ἐπεὶ δὲ οἱ ὄρχεις οὔτε ἐν ἅπαντι τῷ τῶν ἀρρένων εὑρίσκονται γένει, γίνεται δὲ γένεσις καὶ χωρὶς αὐτῶν, οὔκ εἰσι διὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ βέλτιον.

[35] 717a23 «Ὥσπερ δὲ ἐν τοῖς περὶ τροφὴν τὰ εὐθυέντερα λαβρότερα.»

Ἐντεῦθεν τὰς αἰτίας ἐκτίθεται, δι' ἃς τὰ ἔχοντα ὄρχεις καὶ τὰ μὴ [6.1] ἔχοντα τὰ μὲν ἔχει, τὰ δ' οὐκ ἔχει, καὶ τῶν ἐχόντων τὰ μὲν ἐντὸς ἔχει, ὥσπερ οἱ ὄρνιθες, τὰ δ' ἐκτός. φησὶν οὖν ὅτι, ὥσπερ «τὰ εὐθυέντερα λαβρότερά» ἐστι «πρὸς τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν τῆς τροφῆς» διὰ τὸ θᾶττον ἐξέρχεσθαι τὸ περίττωμα διὰ τὴν εὐθυεντερίαν, τὰ δὲ μὴ εὐθυέντερα σωφρονέστερα καὶ [5] ὀλιγοτροφώτερα, «οὕτω καὶ τὰ μὴ ἔχοντα ὄρχεις, πόρους δὲ μόνον», ὡς οἱ ἰχθύες, «ἢ ἔχοντα μὲν ἐντὸς δέ» [717a23-25], ὡς οἱ ὄρνιθες· τὰ μὲν οὖν μηδ' ὅλως ἔχοντα ὄρχεις εἰσὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐργασίαν τοῦ συνδυασμοῦ ταχύτερα πάντων, τὰ δ' ἔχοντα μὲν ἐντὸς δὲ βραδύτερα πρὸς τὴν τοιαύτην ἐργασίαν τῶν μὴ ἐχόντων ὄρχεις καὶ σωφρονέστερα, λαβρότερα δὲ καὶ ταχύτερα τῶν αὐτοὺς [10] ἐχόντων ἐκτός.

ῥητέον δ' οὖν ἡμῖν πρῶτον μέν, τίνος ἕνεκεν τῇ φύσει πεφρόντισται τοῦ τὰ μὲν εἶναι σώφρονα καὶ πεποίηκε τῶν τοιούτων τοὺς ὄρχεις ἐκτός, τὰ δὲ λαβρότερα καὶ ἐντός, τῶν δὲ καὶ παντελῶς κατωλιγώρηκε καὶ οὐκ ἀπέδωκεν ὄρχεις, καὶ διὰ τοῦτό εἰσι καὶ πάντων λαβρότατα. ῥητέον δὲ πρὸς τοῦτο συντόμως ὅτι οὐδὲ τούτων κατωλιγώρησεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ [15] μᾶλλον κατὰ πολὺ πεφρόντικεν· ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἐν ὕδατι ὄντα οὐ δύνανται ἐπὶ πολὺ ἐνδιατρίβειν, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς προϊὼν ἐρεῖ, τῇ ἁφῇ, οὐ δέδωκε πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις οἷς μέλλει λέγειν λόγοις περὶ τούτων ὄρχεις· ἐν γὰρ τοῖς ἔχουσιν ὄρχεις βραδεῖα δι' ἃς μαθησόμεθα αἰτίας ἡ πρόεσις τοῦ σπέρματος γίνεται. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν οὕτως προλελέχθω· ἡμῖν δὲ τὰ εἰρημένα ῥητέον καὶ ἔτι [20] τὴν αἰτίαν καθ' ἣν συμβαίνει πρώτως καὶ μάλιστα σώφρονα εἶναι τὰ ἐκτὸς ἔχοντα τοὺς ὄρχεις, δευτέρως δὲ καὶ ἧττον τὰ ἐντός, πάντων δὲ ἀκολαστότατα τὰ μηδ' ὅλως τούτους ἔχοντα· καὶ οὕτως τὴν Ἀριστοτέλους ῥῆσιν μετιτέον.

ἰστέον οὖν ὡς ἐπειδὴ ἡ φύσις τοῦ ἀεὶ εἶναι ζῷα καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ἐφίεται καὶ τούτου στοχάζεται, ὅσα οὐκ ἠδυνήθη φυλάξαι ἀεὶ τὰ [25] αὐτὰ τῷ ἀριθμῷ, τούτοις ἐπρυτάνευσε τὴν ἀιδιότητα διὰ τοῦ ἀεὶ ἄλλα ἐξ ἄλλων γίνεσθαι. ἀλλ' ἐπεὶ ὁ συνδυασμὸς ὁ συνεχὴς ἔκλυσιν τοῦ σώματος ἐμποιεῖ δι' ἃς ἐρεῖ αἰτίας ἐν τῷ παρόντι βιβλίῳ, ὅταν περὶ τῆς φύσεως τοῦ σπέρματος λέγῃ τίς ἐστιν, ἐπεὶ οὖν ἔκλυσιν ἐμποιεῖ, τῇ ἐκλύσει δὲ φιλεῖ ὡς τὰ πολλὰ παρέπεσθαι θάνατον, ὅσα τῶν ζῴων ὀλιγοτόκα πέφυκεν [30] (ἐρεῖ δὲ καὶ τῆς τούτων ὀλιγοτοκίας τὰς αἰτίας ἐν τῷ παρόντι βιβλίῳ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐφεξῆς τούτου) ὅσα οὖν πέφυκεν ὀλιγοτόκα, γέγονε σωφρονέστερα τῶν ἄλλων προνοίᾳ φύσεως, ὅπως μὴ πολλάκις τῆς ἡμέρας συνδυαζόμενα ἐκλύηται καὶ φθείρηται καὶ τάχιον ἐκποδὼν γένηται τὸ τοιοῦτον γένος. ὅσα δὲ τίκτει μέν, ἀλλὰ πλείω μὲν τῶν ὀλιγοτόκων, ἐλάττω δὲ κατὰ πολὺ [35] τῶν πάνυ πολλὰ τικτόντων, ἧττόν ἐστι σωφρονέστερα τῶν ὀλιγοτόκων· εἰ γὰρ καὶ συμβαίη αὐτοῖς φθορὰ ἐκ τοῦ πολλάκις συνδυάζεσθαι, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ [7.1] πλείω τοῖν δυοῖν καὶ τριῶν τίκτειν, ἔστι δ' ὅτε καὶ τῶν ἑπτὰ καὶ δέκα, οὐκ ἐπιλείψει τὸ τοιοῦτον γένος ἐκ τοῦ παντός. διὰ τοῦτο οὖν ἧττον ἐφρόντισε τοῦ σώφρονα εἶναι ταῦτα. τῶν δὲ πάμπαν πολλὰ τικτόντων τίς ἡ ἀνάγκη τούτων φροντίσαι; δῆλον γὰρ ὡς οὐκ ἐπιλείψουσι σωρηδὸν γινό[5]μενα. ἡ μὲν οὖν αἰτία τοῦ τὰ μὲν εἶναι σώφρονα μᾶλλον τὰ δ' ἧττον τὰ δ' οὐδ' ὅλως αὕτη.

Michael of Ephesus, In de generatione animalium commentaria 1.4 (CAG 14.3, 5,35-7,6 Hayduck)

*ἔκλυσιν τοῦ σώματος | dissolution of the body.  The idea is not articulated in Aristotle in quite the way Michael thinks it is, but it's a common belief that too much sex will weaken and destroy the body.

**ἔστι δ' ὅτε καὶ τῶν ἑπτὰ καὶ δέκα.   This is rather specific.

Soda and onions

Continuing with Aetius of Amida's pharmacy and its parallels: onions.

Philumenus on onions as a cure for bites of all kinds.

"For dog bites or people bites, apply a poultice of fine salt mixed with honey until the bite is filled. Some also add onion and vinegar and then use it."

πρὸς οὖν κυνόδηκτα καὶ ἀνθρωπόδηκτα ἅλας λεῖον σὺν μέλιτι κατάπλασσε, ἄχρις οὗ πλήρη ᾖ. τινὲς δὲ καὶ κρόμμυον προσμίσγουσιν καὶ ὄξους καὶ οὕτως χρῶνται.

Philumenus, On poisonous animals and their remedies [De venenatis animalibus eorumque remediis], 5.6 (10,7-9 Wellman)

Galen on onions.

"The onion belongs to the fourth degree of things that heat. Its substance is composed of rather large particles, which is why it also opens up hemorrhoids when it is applied; when used full strength with vinegar in the sun, it washes away skin lesions; and when rubbed on bald spots, it stimulates the hair faster than alcuonium. If one separates off its juice, whatever remains is a considerably earthy, hot substance, but the juice itself is a watery and airy hot substance. Thus, when it is used as a salve against thick humours, it benefits cataract sufferers and those who are short-sighted. Due to its mixture, the onion generally causes flatulence when eaten, and for this reason, those which are drier in their mixture cause less flatulence."

Κρόμμυον ἐκ τῆς τετάρτης ἐστὶ τάξεως τῶν θερμαινόντων. ἡ δ' οὐσία παχυμερής ἐστιν αὐτοῦ μᾶλλον, ὅθεν καὶ τὰς αἱμοῤῥοΐδας ἀναστομοῖ προστιθέμενον καὶ σὺν ὄξει καταχριόμενον ἐν ἡλίῳ τοὺς ἀλφοὺς ἀποῤῥύπτει καὶ παρατριβόμενον ἀλωπεκίαις θᾶττον ἀλκυονίου παρορμᾷ τὰς τρίχας. εἰ δ' ἀποχωρίσειεν αὐτοῦ τις τὸν χυλὸν, ὅσον μὲν ὑπόλοιπον ἱκανῶς ἐστι γεώδους οὐσίας θερμῆς, αὐτὸς δ' ὁ χυλὸς ὑδατώδους τε καὶ ἀερώδους θερμότητος. οὕτω οὖν καὶ τοὺς ὑποχεομένους καὶ ἀμβλυώττοντας ἐπὶ πάχει χυμῶν ὀνίνησιν ὑπαλειφόμενος. ἐκ δὲ τῆς τούτου κράσεως ὅλον τὸ κρόμμυον φυσῶδές ἐστιν ἐσθιόμενον, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὅσα ξηρότερα τὴν κρᾶσιν ἀφυσότερα.

Galen, On the mixtures and capacities of simple drugs, 7.58 (XII 48-49 Kühn)

Oribasius' concise summary.

"Onion belongs to the fourth rank of things that heat. Its substance is composed of thick particles."

Κρόμμυον ἐκ τῆς τετάρτης ἐστὶ τάξεως τῶν θερμαινόντων· ἡ δὲ οὐσία παχυμερής ἐστιν.

Oribasius, Collectiones medicae, 15.1.10.79 (260,26-28 Raeder)

Aetius' entry based on Galen.

"Onion belongs to the fourth degree of things that heat. Its substance is composed of very large particles, whence it also opens up hemorrhoids when it is applied; when used full strength with vinegar in the sun, it washes away skin lesions; and when rubbed on bald spots, it stimulates the hair faster than alcuonium. When eaten, it heats the body with its acridity and thins thick and sticky humours in it. It fills the abdomen with air because its substance is composed of very thick particles."

Κρόμυον ἐκ τῆς τετάρτης ἐστὶ τάξεως τῶν θερμαινόντων· ἡ δὲ οὐσία αὐτοῦ παχυμερὴς μᾶλλον, ὅθεν καὶ τὰς αἱμορροίδας ἀναστομοῖ προστιθέμενον καὶ σὺν ὄξει καταχριόμενον ἐν ἡλίῳ τοὺς ἀλφοὺς ἀπορρύπτει καὶ παρατριβόμενον ἀλωπεκίαις θᾶττον ἀλκυονίου παρορμᾷ τὰς τρίχας. ἐσθιόμενον δὲ θερμαίνει μὲν τὸ σῶμα τῇ δριμύτητι καὶ λεπτύνει τοὺς ἐν αὐτῷ παχεῖς καὶ γλίσχρους χυμούς· ἐμπνευματοῖ δὲ τὴν γαστέρα διὰ τὸ παχυμερὲς τῆς οὐσίας.

Aetius of Amida, Libri medicinales, I 232 (97,14-20 Olivieri)

Cf. Dioscorides, De materia medica, 2.151 (p.155 in Beck), which mentions many of the other uses of onions as well, adding to what is said above that it's useful for blisters on the feet (when it is mixed with chicken fat, hardness of hearing, sore throats, and stuffy noses, but that it causes headaches. He leaves out the part about people bites. Oddly, none of these passages mention the fact that onions make your cry, a fact that Aristotle's school was rather interested in:

(pseudo-)Aristotle on why onions cause tears, while garlic does not.

"Why is it that only onions cause the eyes to sting so excessively? People even say it got its name because of this, since [κρόμμυον] makes the pupil close [τὴν κόρην συμμύειν]. Marjoram doesn't, nor do other things which are acrid. Thus, watercress [lit. "up the nose"], because it is hotter, causes more drying than the colliquescence that it produces, since it produces tears in those who eat it; it does not, however, [produce tears] when it is brought close by, because it does not give off any thin vapour, for it is too dry and hot. Marjoram and similar hot things are dry and mild, but what is going to produce tears needs to be stinging, moist and sticky. For this reason, olive oil produces tears, although its stinging is weak. For because of its stickiness and fineness, it produces pain when it penetrates [the flesh], and produces liquefaction because of the pain. The onion has a similar capacity, hence the moisture and vapour from it is hot, fine and sticky. Thus, when it is brought close by, because of the kind of vapour that it is and because it carries with it a fine moisture, it produces tears; when it is eaten, the exhalation passes through […there is a lacuna here…]. Garlic is hot and acrid and has moisture, but it is not sticky, so it does not produce tears.

Διὰ τί τὸ κρόμμυον μόνον οὕτως περιττῶς δάκνει τὼ ὀφθαλμώ (διὸ καὶ τοὔνομά φασι τοῦτ' ἔχειν αὐτό, ὡς τὴν κόρην ποιεῖν συμμύειν), ἡ δὲ ὀρίγανος οὔ, οὐδ' ἄλλα δριμέα ὄντα; καὶ γὰρ τὸ ἀνάρρινον μᾶλλον δάκνον οὐ ποιεῖ ὁμοίως δακρύειν προσφερόμενον, τὸ δὲ προσφερόμενον καὶ κατατρωγόμενον. ἢ ὅτι διαφοραὶ πολλαὶ ἀκολουθοῦσιν ἑκάστοις τῶν δριμέων, ἃ ποιεῖ τὴν ἰδίαν ἑκάστου δύναμιν; τὸ μὲν οὖν ἀνάρρινον διὰ τὸ θερμότερον εἶναι ξηραντικώτερόν ἐστι τῆς γινομένης ὑπ' αὐτοῦ συντήξεως, ἐπεὶ ποιεῖ γε δάκρυον ἐσθίοντι· προσφερόμενον δὲ οὔ, ὅτι οὐκ ἀπατμίζει ἀπ' αὐτοῦ λεπτόν τι· ξηρότερον γάρ ἐστι καὶ θερμότερον. ἡ δὲ ὀρίγανος καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα θερμὰ ξηρά ἐστιν ἠρέμα. δεῖ δὲ τὸ μέλλον δάκρυον ποιήσειν δηκτικὸν καὶ ὑγρὸν εἶναι καὶ γλίσχρον. διὸ καὶ τὸ ἔλαιον ποιεῖ δακρύειν, ἀσθενῆ ἔχον δῆξιν· διὰ γλισχρότητα γὰρ καὶ λεπτότητα παραδῦνον ποιεῖ τὸν πόνον, καὶ τὴν σύντηξιν διὰ τὸν πόνον. τὸ δὲ κρόμμυον τοιαύτην ἔχει τὴν δύναμιν ὥστε καὶ τὸ ὑγρὸν καὶ τὴν ἀτμίδα αὐτοῦ θερμὴν καὶ λεπτὴν καὶ γλίσχραν εἶναι. ὥστε προσφερόμενον μέν, διὰ τὸ τὴν ἀτμίδα τοιαύτην εἶναι καὶ συναφιέναι ὑγρότητα λεπτήν, ποιεῖ δακρύειν, ἐσθιομένου δὲ ἡ ἀναθυμίασις διιοῦσα ... τὸ δὲ σκόροδον θερμὸν μὲν καὶ δριμύ ἐστι καὶ ὑγρότητα ἔχει, ἀλλ' οὐ γλίσχρον· διὸ οὐ ποιεῖ δακρύειν.

Pseudo-Aristotle, Problemata, 21.22, 925a27-925b12

Alexis on knowing frivolous things.

"You don’t know what you're talking about. Run over and have a conversation with Plato and become enlightened about soda and onions."

λέγεις περὶ ὧν οὐκ οἶσθα· συγγενοῦ τρέχων
Πλάτωνι καὶ γνώσῃ λίτρον καὶ κρόμμυον.

Alexis, Ancylion ap. Diogenes Laertius, Vita philosophorum, 3.37

"When the soul is inflamed", part II

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The double difference of mushrooms

"There is a double difference with mushrooms. For they are either edible or they are poisonous. They are like this for many reasons. For either they grow up alongside rusted warts, or putrefying rags, or creeping animals' caves, or particularly harmful plants. And some kinds of mushrooms have a slippery scum, and when they are stored after being picked quickly become poisonous, since they are putrefying. Some, however, are not like this, but make for pleasant tasting stock. Nevertheless, if they are eaten in too great a quantity, they, too, are harmful because they are not easily digested, either choking or bringing on nausea. Everyone who drinks it is aided by soda and oil, or lye with brine, or a decoction of savory or oregano, or bird droppings taken with vinegar, or by licking a lot of honey. They are nutritious and hard to dissolve. People for the most part are restored after evacuating them along with bodily residues."

μυκήτων διαφορὰ δισσή· ἢ γὰρ βρώσιμοί εἰσιν ἢ φθαρτικοί. παρὰ πολλὰς δὲ αἰτίας γίνονται τοιοῦτοι· ἢ γὰρ ἥλοις κατιωμένοις ἢ ῥάκεσι σεσηπόσιν ἢ ἑρπετῶν φωλεοῖς παραφύονται ἢ δένδρεσιν ἰδίως βλαπτικοῖς. ἔχουσι δὲ καὶ γλινώδη οἱ τοιοῦτοι ἐπίπαγον, κατατεθέντες δὲ μετὰ τὸ ἀφαιρεθῆναι ταχέως διαφθείρονται σηπόμενοι· οἱ δὲ μὴ τοιοῦτοι, ζωμοποιοὶ ἡδεῖς. πλεονασθέντες μέντοι καὶ οὗτοι βλάπτουσι δυσπεπτούμενοι, πνίγοντες ἢ χολέραν ἐπάγοντες. βοηθοῦνται δὲ πάντες ποτιζόμενοι νίτρῳ καὶ ἐλαίῳ ἢ κονίᾳ μετ' ὀξάλμης ἢ θύμβρας ἀποζέματι ἢ ὀριγάνῳ ἢ ὀρνιθείᾳ κόπρῳ μετ' ὄξους   πινομένῃ ἢ μέλιτι πολλῷ ἐκλειχομένῳ. τρόφιμοι δέ εἰσι καὶ δυσδιάλυτοι· ὁλοσχερεῖς δὲ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ σὺν τοῖς περιττώμασιν ἀποδίδονται.

Dioscorides, De materia medica, 4.82

"Mushrooms are considerably cold and moist, whence they also come close to having a noxious capacity. And some of them are certainly deadly, especially those whose nature is mixed with some putrefactive quality."

Μύκης ψυχρὸν καὶ ὑγρὸν ἱκανῶς φυτὸν, ὅθεν καὶ δηλητηρίου δυνάμεως ἐγγὺς ἥκει. καί τινές γε ἐξ αὐτῶν καὶ ἀναιροῦσι, καὶ μάλισθ' ὅσοι τὴν φύσιν ἐπίμικτον ἔχουσιν σηπεδονώδει τινὶ ποιότητι.

Galen, On simple drugs, 7.12.25 (XII 79,17-80,2 Kühn)

"Mushrooms are considerably cold and moist in their mixture and come close to having a noxious capacity."

Μύκητες ψυχροὶ καὶ ὑγροὶ τὴν κρᾶσιν ἱκανῶς καὶ δηλητηρίου δυνάμεως ἐγγὺς ἥκουσιν.

Oribasius, Collectiones medicae, XV 1.12.87 (266,5-6 Raeder)

"Mushrooms are a considerably cold and moist food, whence they also come close to having a noxious capacity and some of them are also deadly."

Μύκητες ψυχρὸν καὶ ὑγρὸν ἱκανῶς ἔδεσμα, ὅθεν καὶ δηλητηρίου δυνάμεως ἐγγὺς ἥκουσι καί τινες αὐτῶν καὶ ἀναιροῦσι.

Aetius of Amida, Libri medicinales, I 284 (112,14-15 Olivieri)

"Diocles of Carystus, in the first book of Matters of Health, says: ‘wild plants to be boiled: beetroot, mallow, docks, nettles, orach, grape-hyacinth, truffles, mushrooms'."

Διοκλῆς ὁ Καρύστιος ἐν αʹ Ὑγιεινῶν φησιν· ‘ἄγρια ἑψήματα τεῦτλον, μαλάχη, λάπαθον, ἀκαλήφη, ἀνδράφαξυς, βολβοί, ὕδνα, μύκαι.’

Athenaeus of Naucratis, Deipnosophistae (epitome), 2.57, 61c  = fr. 195 van der Eijk

"Kephisodoros, a student of Isocrates, in his books against Aristotle (four books, in fact), criticizes the philosopher because he did not consider it worthwhile to produce a work collecting proverbs, although Antiphanes made a whole play entitled, “Proverbs”, from which these words are cited:

'Actually, if I eat any of your stuff, I'd look like I was eating raw mushrooms or sour apples or some other food that chokes a person.'

Mushrooms are produced earth-born and there are few of them that are edible. Many, in fact, are liable to suffocate (=choke) you. That’s why Epicharmus said jokingly:

'You're suffocating me like mushrooms drying out my mouth'."

ὅτι Κηφισόδωρος ὁ Ἰσοκράτους μαθητὴς ἐν τοῖς κατὰ Ἀριστοτέλους (τέσσαρα δ' ἐστὶ ταῦτα βιβλία) ἐπιτιμᾷ τῷ φιλοσόφῳ ὡς οὐ ποιήσαντι λόγου ἄξιον τὸ παροιμίας ἀθροῖσαι, Ἀντιφάνους ὅλον ποιήσαντος δρᾶμα τὸ ἐπιγραφόμενον Παροιμίαι· ἐξ οὗ καὶ παρατίθεται τάδε·

«ἐγὼ γὰρ εἰ τῶν ὑμετέρων φάγοιμί τι, μύκητας ὠμοὺς ἂν φαγεῖν <ἐμοὶ> δοκῶ καὶ στρυφνὰ μῆλα κεἴ τι πνίγει βρῶμά τι.»

φύονται δὲ οἱ μύκητες γηγενεῖς καί εἰσιν αὐτῶν ἐδώδιμοι ὀλίγοι· οἱ γὰρ πολλοὶ ἀποπνίγουσιν. διὸ καὶ Ἐπίχαρμος παίζων ἔφη·

«οἷον αἱ μύκαι ἄρ' ἐπεσκληκότες πνιξεῖσθε.»

Athenaeus of Naucratis, Deipnosophistae (epitome), 2.56-2.57, 60e-f

Notes from Cambridge on Amber and Land Crocodiles

The first two books of Aetius of Amida's medical text are about 'materia medica': what are the pharmacological effects of various plants, animals and minerals and (to a lesser extent) how do we judge the potency of a given sample of a drug? Most of the time, the entries are taken from Galen's Mixtures and Capacities of Simple Drugs and Capacities of Foods. Sometimes we come across entries from other people who wrote on 'materia medica', like Dioscorides. Less frequently, there are bits and pieces from some lost works of authors we don't know from any other source.

The entry on amber, for instance, is not given a parallel by the books' editor, Olivieri. It seems, however, that it may have been taken from a pseudo-Dioscorides, who wrote a work called "On Stones".

Here's the passage from Aetius.

"Amber, soukinon or lingourion. When drunk, it cures urinary problems and helps stomach problems. Also, golden-amber drunk with mastic cures stomach pain."

Ἤλεκτρον ἢ σούκινον ἢ λιγγούριον. Πινόμενον ἰᾶται δυσουρίαν καὶ στομαχικοὺς ὠφελεῖ, καὶ ὁ χρυσήλεκτρος δὲ πινόμενος σὺν μαστίχῃ ἀλγήματα στομάχου ἰᾶται.

Aëtius of Amida, Libri medicinales II 35 (167,23-25 Olivieri)

And here's the parallel passage from pseudo-Dioscorides:

"Stone of amber, or lyngourion, or soukhinon. When drunk, this cures urinary problems and helps stomach problems as well as pallor. And amber drunk with mastic cures stomach pains."

Λίθος ἠλέκτρου ἢ λυγγούριον ἢ σούχινον. Πινόμενος οὗτος ἰᾶται δυσουρίαν καὶ στομαχικοὺς ὠφελεῖ καὶ ὠχριάσεις· καὶ τὸ ἤλεκτρον δὲ σὺν μαστίχῃ πινόμενον ἀλγήματα στομάχου ἰᾶται.

Pseudo-Dioscorides, On Stones c.10 (Volume 2, Part 1, p.180,13-15 Rulle)

There are a few little differences in them. The biggest: Pseudo-Dioscorides has "καὶ ὠχριάσεις· καὶ τὸ ἤλεκτρον" while Olivieri's text of Aetius has "καὶ ὁ χρυσήλεκτρος". But we can explain this, I think, by assuming there was a mistake in the transmission of Aetius. Maybe a copyist misread (or misheard?) "ὠχριάσεις" as "ὠ χριάσεις" or as "ὁ χρυς καὶ ἤλεκτρον" (like the 'iotacism' we see in "λυγγούριον" > "λιγγούριον" - upsilons at some point started to sound like iotas), correcting it to χρυσήλεκτρος: "golden-amber" (the stuff is mentioned by Pliny, but what other kind of amber is there?).

Some Renaissance editors seem to have had the same opinion. Olivieri notes that the ψ-family of mss. has "καὶ ὠχρούς". Not sure how that happened, but to me it suggests someone thought it appropriate to amend the text, and emended it (or restored it) to something awfully close to On Stones, in which amber is a cure for pallor.

On Pallor

Aristotle discusses pallor in the context of a discussion on predication, i.e., when we say someone 'is pale' as opposed to something less permanent, like 'turned pale' or 'looking pale'.

"All those circumstances that have taken their start from certain affections that are difficult to change and are permanent are called 'qualities'. For when pallor or darkness are produced in a person's natural composition, they are called a quality, because we are said to be a certain quality in accordance with them; and when pallor or darkness have occurred because of a long illness or a sunburn and are they are not easily returned to their previous state or even remain throughout life, they are also called qualities, since we are likewise said to be a certain quality because of them. But whichever [circumstances] come about from something that easily disperses and quickly returns to its  previous state are called 'affections', because people are not said to be a certain quality because of them. For someone who turns purple because of shame is not called 'purple'; someone who turns pale because of fear is not called 'pale', rather one is said to have been somehow affected. These kinds of things, therefore, are called affections, not qualities."

ὅσα μὲν οὖν τῶν τοιούτων συμπτωμάτων ἀπό τινων παθῶν δυσκινήτων καὶ παραμονίμων τὴν ἀρχὴν εἴληφε ποιότητες λέγονται· εἴτε γὰρ ἐν τῇ κατὰ φύσιν συστάσει ὠχρότης ἢ μελανία γεγένηται, ποιότης λέγεται,  – ποιοὶ γὰρ κατὰ ταύτας λεγόμεθα, –  εἴτε διὰ νόσον μακρὰν ἢ διὰ καῦμα [τὸ αὐτὸ] συμβέβηκεν ὠχρότης ἢ μελανία, καὶ μὴ ῥᾳδίως ἀποκαθίστανται ἢ καὶ διὰ βίου παραμένουσι, ποιότητες καὶ αὐταὶ λέγονται,  – ὁμοίως γὰρ ποιοὶ κατὰ ταύτας λεγόμεθα. –  ὅσα δὲ ἀπὸ ῥᾳδίως διαλυομένων καὶ ταχὺ ἀποκαθισταμένων γίγνεται πάθη λέγεται· οὐ γὰρ λέγονται ποιοί τινες κατὰ ταῦτα· οὔτε γὰρ ὁ ἐρυθριῶν διὰ τὸ αἰσχυνθῆναι ἐρυθρίας λέγεται, οὔτε ὁ ὠχριῶν διὰ τὸ φοβεῖσθαι ὠχρίας, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον πεπονθέναι τι· ὥστε πάθη μὲν τὰ τοιαῦτα λέγεται, ποιότητες δὲ οὔ.

Aristotle, Categories c.8, 9b19-33 (link to English text of  Edghill at classics.mit)

So, there are naturally or unnaturally pale people, and then there are people who are affected by pallor due to fear or some other cause.

But what kind of affection was pallor? Posidonius thought (according to someone someone once thought was Plutarch) it was brought about by an affection of the soul that has effects in the body:

"Posidonius says some [affections] are psychic, others bodily. And some are not [affections] of the soul, but are bodily ones connected with the soul; while others are not [affections] of the body but are psychic ones connected with the body. Psychic [affections] on their own are [affections] in judgment and estimation, things like desire, fear, anger. Bodily [affections] on their own are fever, chill, compression, rarefaction. Bodily [affections] connected with the soul are lethargy, melancholy, mental suffering, hallucinations, giddiness. Finally, psychic affections connected with the body are trembling, pallor and changes of countenance following fear and pain."

Ὅ γέ τοι Ποσειδώνιος τὰ μὲν [sc. παθήματα] εἶναι ψυχικά, τὰ δὲ σωματικά, καὶ τὰ μὲν οὐ ψυχῆς, περὶ ψυχὴν δὲ σωματικά, τὰ δ' οὐ σώματος, περὶ σῶμα δὲ ψυχικά φησι, ψυχικὰ μὲν ἁπλῶς τὰ ἐν κρίσεσι καὶ ὑπολήψεσιν οἷον ἐπιθυμίας λέγων, φόβους, ὀργάς, σωματικὰ δ' ἁπλῶς πυρετούς, περιψύξεις, πυκνώσεις, ἀραιώσεις, περὶ ψυχὴν δὲ σωματικὰ ληθάργους, μελαγχολίας, δηγμοὺς, φαντασίας, διαχύσεις, ἀνάπαλιν δὲ περὶ σῶμα ψυχικὰ τρόμους καὶ ὠχριάσεις καὶ μεταβολὰς τοῦ εἴδους κατὰ φόβον ἢ λύπην.

pseudo-Plutarch, De libidine et aegritudine, 6.1-9

Hippocrates and Baltic Amber

There is a nice write up on ancient sources that talk about the origins of amber from the Getty.

The people at "Amber Artisans" (first google hit when I searched for "amber medicinal properties" on 26. February 2018) claim that,

"Natural Baltic Amber has unique properties unlike any other amber in the world. Famous Hippocrates (460-377 BC), father of medicine, in his works described medicinal properties and methods of application of Baltic amber that were later used by scientists until the Middle Ages."

I've not been able to find any mention of the stuff in any Hippocratic work, and I do not think Baltic amber in particular would have been easy to come by in Cos or Athens back then. Still, I did learn from this site that Baltic amber contains higher concentrations of succinic acid, a name which must come from sucinum, a Latin word for amber. The Greek version of this word is second in Aetius' list of synonyms.

A note on soukhinon.

The story behind soukhinon is hard to track down. Ἤλεκτρον was associated with an ability to attract bits of straw and dry grass, and there are lots of stories about the etymology of its name. I haven't found any etymologies for soukhinon, however, and LSJ take it simply as a synonym for amber:

LSJ: σούκῐνος, η, ον,

made of amber (Lat. sucinum), Artem.2.5 (v.l. σούνιχοι): cf. σουγχῖνος, σούχινον.

σούκινος· εὐνοῦχος, Hsch.

LSJ: σουγχῖνος, ὁ, =

sucinum, amber, Gp.15.1.29: cf. σούκινος.

LSJ are referring in the last entry to the Geoponica, a very late Byzantine collection of facts about agriculture. Here's the section:

"Amber (lit. electrion stone), or sounkhinos, draws to itself all kinds of things that are straw-like and light, except for basil."

ὁ ἠλεκτριωνὸς λίθος, ἤτοι σουγχῖνος, πάντα τὰ ἀχυρώδη καὶ κοῦφα ἕλκει πρὸς ἑαυτόν, πλὴν ὠκίμου.

Geoponica, 15.1.29 (435,20-22 Beckh)

Another of their references is to an ancient dream interpretation manual, the Oneirocritica, by Artemidorus, written a good bit earlier, around Galen's time. Artemidorus mentions the stone in the context of rings that appear in dreams:

"Rings of soukinoi, ivory and whatever others there happen to be are good [signs] only for women."

σούκινοι δὲ καὶ ἐλεφάντινοι καὶ ὅσοι ἄλλοι δακτύλιοι γίνονται γυναιξὶ μόναις συμφέρουσιν.

Artemidorus, Oneirocritica, 2.5.10-12 (here's an old, elegant edition)

Pliny also discusses amber, and he mainly refers to it as sucinum, giving  electron and lyngourion as Greek synonyms  (more on lyngourion  below).

He mentions one story which he says is told by the Greeks about the origin of amber. He is not convinced by the story, but the connection between amber and lightning is wildly suggestive. Here is what he says:

"When Phaeton had been hit by a thunderbolt, his sisters, who in grief changed into poplar trees, shed tears of electron every year onto the shores of the stream of Eridanus, which we call Padus (i.e., the Po). They are called 'electron', because the sun is said to be the 'Elector'…"

Phaëthontis fulmine icti sorores luctu mutatas in arbores populos lacrimis electrum omnibus annis fundere iuxta Eridanum amnem, quem Padum vocavimus, electrum appellatum, quoniam sol vocitatus sit Elector […]

Pliny, HN 37.31.3-5 (available at Bill Thayer's LacusCurtius)

Amber and the Lynx

The Po flows over the ancient region of Liguria, which Pliny points out is where Theophrastus thought amber got its other name, λυγγούριον, i.e., the stone from Liguria. Theophrastus, however, tells a better story about this  name for amber. (Pliny attributes this story to someone named "Demostratus").

This etymology begins from the name, λυγγούριον, which just means lynx urine :

"It (i.e., a stone he talked about just before called 'smaragdos') is strange in its power, and so is lyngourion. For one thing, small signet rings are carved from it and these are extremely hard, as if they were stone. For another, they are attractive, just like amber, and some say it attracts not only straw and dried leaves, but also copper and iron if they are in thin pieces, as Diocles said. It is very translucent and cold. The stones from wild [lynx] are better than those from tame ones, and those from males better than from females, since they differ in their food, their exercising or not exercising, and generally in the nature of their body, so that one is drier and the other moister. Those who are experienced find it by digging it up. For the lynx hides [its urine] and piles earth on top of it whenever it urinates."

Αὕτη τε δὴ περιττὴ τῇ δυνάμει καὶ τὸ λυγγούριον· καὶ γὰρ ἐκ τούτου γλύφεται τὰ σφραγίδια καὶ ἔστι στερεωτάτη καθάπερ λίθος· ἕλκει γὰρ ὥσπερ τὸ ἤλεκτρον, οἱ δέ φασιν οὐ μόνον κάρφη καὶ φύλλα ἀλλὰ καὶ χαλκὸν καὶ σίδηρον ἐὰν ᾖ λεπτός, ὥσπερ καὶ Διοκλῆς ἔλεγεν. ἔστι δὲ διαφανῆ τε σφόδρα καὶ ψυχρά. βελτίω δὲ τὰ τῶν ἀγρίων ἢ τὰ τῶν ἡμέρων καὶ τὰ τῶν ἀρρένων ἢ τὰ τῶν θηλειῶν ὡς καὶ τῆς τροφῆς διαφερούσης, καὶ τοῦ πονεῖν ἢ μὴ πονεῖν, καὶ τῆς τοῦ σώματος ὅλως φύσεως, ᾗ ξηρότερον τὸ δ' ὑγρότερον. εὑρίσκουσι δ' ἀνορύττοντες οἱ ἔμπειροι· κατακρύπτεται γὰρ καὶ ἐπαμᾶται γῆν ὅταν οὐρήσῃ.

Theophrastus, On Stones, 28.1-10 (p.23 Caley and Richards)

Bill Thayer has up at LacusCurtius Philip Smith's entry on electrum in A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, ed. Murray, London 1875, pp.450-451. Worth checking out here.

Land Crocodiles

Here is one last passage, which Christine Salazar had translated (my take on it is below). It is an excerpt from Galen, but Aetius' abridgment is wonderfully straightforward for a medical text.

"On goose, hawk, stork and land-crocodile excrement. The excrement of geese, hawks, storks and the rest, which some crazy people write about, is not useful, a judgment that has come from experience. Land-crocodile excrement, on the other hand, is not easy to come by."

Περὶ κόπρου χηνὸς καὶ ἱέρακος καὶ πελαργῶν καὶ χερσαίων κροκοδείλων. Ἡ δὲ τῶν χηνῶν καὶ ἱεράκων καὶ πελαργῶν κόπρος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν, περὶ ὧν οἱ ληρήσαντες ἔγραψαν, ἄχρηστός ἐστιν, ὡς τῇ πείρᾳ ἐκρίθη. ἡ δὲ τῶν χερσαίων κροκοδείλων καὶ δυσπόριστος.

Aëtius of Amida, Libri medicinales, II 119 (195,22-25 Olivieri)

Just one question on this: what is a land crocodile?

"When the soul is inflamed", part I

(edit: the sequel can be found here)

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Galen on jargon and bad style

 

Galen does not like Archigenes' jargon

"The next thing Archigenes says, i.e., 'when there is a narrowing, the nerves have "full pains",' he said using affectatious language. It explains nothing more than what comes after it, where he says the pains are 'least diffuse'."

Tὸ δ’ ἐφεξῆς εἰρημένον ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀρχιγένους, ὅτι καὶ στενοχωρίας πλήρεις ἔχει τὰ νεῦρα τοὺς πόνους, κακοζήλως μὲν εἴρηται τῇ λέξει. δηλοῖ δ’ οὐδὲν πλέον τοῦ μετ’ αὐτό, καθ’ ὅ φησι καὶ ἥκιστα κεχυμένους. 

Galen, De locis affectis II 8,15 (CMG V 6,1,1 340,12-14 Gärtner = VIII 100 K)

'κακοζηλία' - comes from rhetoric. The adjective seems to have been floating around for a while, but at some point it was appropriated (perhaps by pseudo-Demetrius) to describe bad style in speech. It's usually translated, 'affectation', although I find that doesn't really capture it. In a strict sense, kakozêlia means "a zeal for all that is bad": it describes any expression which exceeds the boundaries of eloquence and passes into the absurd. There are a few nice examples in pseudo-Demetrius (below). Lucian seems to have extended it to describe over-acting. Hermogenes gives a summary explanation of what it is about affectation we find so wrong. And there's a discussion of it in Quintillian, Institutio Oratoria 8.3.56, which I'm leaving out. All these writers seem to agree that affectation causes an expression to fail. The tension it causes between the seriousness of the author's intent and the silliness or baseness of their execution ends up making the result seem too implausible to be taken seriously. 

Pseudo-Demetrius

"186. [...] Just as the frigid style is closely connected to the magnificent, so there is a certain defective style closely connected with the refined. Following the colloquial expression, I call it "affectation" (kakozelon). Like all the other styles, it occurs in three aspects of style.

187. In thought, like the guy who talked about "the Centaur riding itself", or, that time Alexander wanted to compete in a race at the Olympics, and someone said, "Alexander, run along the name of your mother!"

188. It occurs in words as, for example, "somewhere, a sweet-faced rose was laughing": the 'laughing' metaphor is out of place and does not fit at all, and the compound 'sweet-faced' – no one of sound judgment would put that in a poem. Another example is someone who once said, "the pine was whistling at the gentle breeze." But enough about diction.

189. The composition, e.g. the anapaestic and especially those resembling lamentable and undignified meters, like the Sotadean one, because of its softness: "after searching in the burning heat, cover up" and "waving the spear of Ash Pelian to the right over his shoulder", instead of "waving  the Pelian spear of Ash over his right shoulder." The line seems transformed somehow, like those who the fables tell us transform from men into women. So much concerning affectation."

186. [...] καθάπερ δὲ τῷ μεγαλοπρεπεῖ παρέκειτο ὁ ψυχρὸς χαρακτήρ, οὕτως τῷ γλαφυρῷ παράκειταί τις διημαρτημένος. ὀνομάζω δὲ αὐτὸν τῷ κοινῷ ὀνόματι κακόζηλον. γίνεται δ' αὖ καὶ οὗτος ἐν τρισίν, ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ πάντες.

187. Ἐν διανοίᾳ μέν, ὡς ὁ εἰπὼν «Κένταυρος ἑαυτὸν ἱππεύων», καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ βουλευομένου Ἀλεξάνδρου δρόμον ἀγωνίσασθαι Ὀλυμπίασιν ἔφη τις οὕτως· «Ἀλέξανδρε, δράμε σου τῆς μητρὸς τὸ ὄνομα».

188. Ἐν δὲ ὀνόμασιν γίγνοιτ' ἂν οὕτως, οἷον «ἐγέλα που ῥόδον ἡδύχροον»· ἥ τε γὰρ μεταφορὰ ἡ ἐγέλα πάνυ μετάκειται ἀπρεπῶς, καὶ τὸ σύνθετον τὸ ἡδύχροον οὐδ' ἐν ποιήματι θείη ἄν τις ἀκριβῶς σωφρονῶν. ἢ ὥς τις εἶπεν, ὅτι· «λεπταῖς ὑπεσύριζε πίτυς αὔραις»· περὶ μὲν δὴ τὴν λέξιν οὕτως.

189.  Σύνθεσις δὲ †ἀναπαιστικὴ καὶ μάλιστα ἐοικυῖα τοῖς κεκλασμένοις καὶ ἀσέμνοις μέτροις, οἷα μάλιστα τὰ Σωτάδεια διὰ τὸ μαλακώτερον· «σκήλας καύματι κάλυψον», καὶ «σείων μελίην Πηλιάδα δεξιὸν κατ' ὦμον» ἀντὶ τοῦ «σείων Πηλιάδα μελίην κατὰ δεξιὸν ὦμον»· ὁποῖα γὰρ μεταμεμορφωμένῳ ἔοικεν ὁ στίχος, ὥσπερ οἱ μυθευόμενοι ἐξ ἀρρένων μεταβαλεῖν εἰς θηλείας. τοσάδε μὲν καὶ περὶ κακοζηλίας.

Demetrius [sp.?], De elocutione 3.186-189 (156,5-158,3 Rhys Roberts)
 

Lucian

"Just as in rhetoric, so in pantomime there can be, to use the popular phrase, "affectation", when an actor goes beyond the appropriate measure of the performance and exceeds the limit of what is required. For example, if one needs represent something great, what is performed is something monstrously big; if soft, by exaggeration it becomes effeminate; and manliness is raised up to wildness and beastliness."

Γίνεται δέ, ὥσπερ ἐν λόγοις, οὕτω δὲ καὶ ἐν ὀρχήσει ἡ πρὸς τῶν πολλῶν λεγομένη κακοζηλία ὑπερβαινόντων τὸ μέτρον τῆς μιμήσεως καὶ πέρα τοῦ δέοντος ἐπιτεινόντων, καὶ εἰ μέγα τι δεῖξαι δέοι, ὑπερμέγεθες ἐπιδεικνυμένων, καὶ εἰ ἁπαλόν, καθ' ὑπερβολὴν θηλυνομένων, καὶ τὰ ἀνδρώδη ἄχρι τοῦ ἀγρίου καὶ θηριώδους προαγόντων. 

Lucian, De saltatione, §82 (ed. Harmon, Cambridge, Mass., 1936)

Hermogenes

"An expression becomes 'affected' either by what is impossible, inconsistent (i.e., incompatible), base, sacrilegious, unjust, or contrary to nature – those styles that cause us to dismiss a story and toss it out because it is incredible. In fact, this is why we say a piece is successful as long as it is likely, since when something is found to go beyond what is likely, it always ends up being in bad taste and dismissed. In these cases, we say 'this is not likely to have happened', either because it is impossible, or because it is shameful, etc."

Τὸ δὲ κακόζηλον γίνεται ἢ κατὰ τὸ ἀδύνατον ἢ κατὰ τὸ ἀνακόλουθον, ὃ καὶ ἐναντίωμά ἐστιν, ἢ κατὰ τὸ αἰσχρὸν ἢ κατὰ τὸ ἀσεβὲς ἢ κατὰ τὸ ἄδικον ἢ κατὰ τὸ τῇ φύσει πολέμιον, καθ' οὓς τρόπους καὶ ἀνασκευάζομεν μάλιστα τὰ διηγήματα ἐκβάλλοντες ὡς ἄπιστα. Διά τοι τοῦτό φαμεν καὶ τὰς διασκευὰς μέχρι τοῦ εἰκότος προχωρεῖν, ὡς, εἰ παρὰ τὸ εἰκὸς εὑρεθείη τι, πάντως καὶ κακόζηλον ἐσόμενον καὶ ἐμπεσούμενον τῇ ἀνασκευῇ· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ λέγομεν ‘οὐκ εἰκὸς τόδε πραχθῆναι’, ἢ ὅτι ἀδύνατον ἢ ὅτι αἰσχρὸν καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς.

Hermogenes, Περὶ εὑρέσεως, 4.12

Galen on how to avoid kakozelia and sound like Hippocrates

Galen, In Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum 3, commenting on Hippocrates, De morbis popularibus, 3.2.11 (102,26-103,16 Wenkebach = XVIIA 638-9 K)

In my commentary on the Prorrhetikon I already pointed out the reason why what's written there as evidence for these conditions are bad signs. I will mention them now in order to jog our memories, although I'll refrain from writing the same thing again. It says in the Prorrhetikon, "squinting of the eyes that comes from a throbbing of the loins is a bad sign", and so in this passage they [i.e., some other interpreters] recall "the woman" mentioned in the passage in the Prorrhetikon. Surely, as it has been shown, the [signs written down in the Prorrhetikon] are all bad signs, since we know that, generally speaking, a squinting of the eyes is not a good sign, whether it comes from a sudden throbbing of the loins or anywhere else, in addition to the fact that the passage is written with bad style and is far from Hippocrates' diction. For [Hippocrates] would not say, "from a throbbing of the loins", but as he does in the text of the Prognostics, "the pains with fever arise about the lower back and the lower places."

τὰ δ' ὡς μαρτυροῦντα τούτοις ἐν τῷ Προρρητικῷ γεγραμμένα φθάνω δείξας ἐν τοῖς εἰς ἐκεῖνο τὸ βιβλίον ὑπομνήμασιν ὅπως ἐστὶ μοχθηρά. μνημονεύσω μέντοι νῦν κἀκ τούτων τινῶν ἀναμνήσεως ἕνεκα, καίτοι παρῃτημένος τὰ τοιαῦτα γράφειν. εἰρημένου τοίνυν ἐν τῷ Προρρητικῷ «ἐξ ὀσφύος ἀναδρομῆς ὀφθαλμῶν ἴλλωσις κακόν», διὰ τοῦτο «τῆς γυναικὸς» ταύτης ἀναμιμνῄσκουσιν ἐν τοῖς περὶ ταύτης τῆς ἐν τῷ Προρρητικῷ ῥήσεως. ἔστι μὲν οὖν, ὡς ἐδείχθη, τὰ τοιαῦτα πάντα μοχθηρά, γινωσκόντων ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ καθόλου τὴν διαστροφὴν τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν οὐκ ἀγαθὸν εἶναι σημεῖον, ἐάν τ' ἐξ ὀσφύος ἀναδρομῆς ἐάν θ' ὁπωσοῦν γένηται, μετὰ τοῦ κακόζηλον εἶναι τὴν ἑρμηνείαν καὶ πόρρω τῆς Ἱπποκράτους λέξεως. οὐ γὰρ ἂν εἶπεν “ἐξ ὀσφύος ἀναδρομῆς”, ἀλλ' ὡς ἐν τῷ Προγνωστικῷ κατὰ τήνδε τὴν λέξιν· “αἱ δὲ σὺν πυρετῷ ὀδύναι γινόμεναι περὶ τὴν ὀσφὺν καὶ τὰ κάτω χωρία, ἢν τῶν φρενῶν ἅπτωνται τὰ κάτω ἐκλείπουσαι, ὀλέθριον κάρτα.”

Hippocrates, De morbis popularibus 3.2.11

Another woman after a miscarriage around the fifth month, the wife of Hicetas, was seized with fever. At the beginning she had alternations of coma and sleeplessness; pain in the loins; heaviness in the head. Second day. Bowels disordered with scanty, thin stools, which were uncompounded. Third day. Stools more copious and worse; no sleep at night. Fourth day. Delirium; fears; depression. Squinting of the right eye; slight cold sweat about the head; extremities cold. Fifth day. General exacerbation; much wandering, with rapid recovery of reason; no thirst; no sleep; stools copious and unfavourable throughout; urine scanty, thin and brackish; extremities cold and rather livid. Sixth day. Same symptoms. Seventh day. Death.

«Ἑνδέκατος ἄρρωστος. Ἑτέρην ἐξ ἀποφθορῆς περὶ πεντάμηνον Ἱκέτεω γυναῖκα πῦρ ἔλαβεν. ἀρχομένη δὲ κωματώδης ἦν καὶ πάλιν ἄγρυπνος, ὀσφύος ὀδύνη, κεφαλῆς βάρος. δευτέρῃ κοιλίη ἐπεταράχθη ὀλίγοισι, λεπτοῖσιν, ἀκρήτοισι τὸ πρῶτον. τρίτῃ πλείω καὶ χείρω, νυκτὸς οὐδὲν ἐκοιμήθη. τετάρτῃ παρέκρουσε, φόβοι, δυσθυμίαι. δεξιῷ ἴλλαινεν, ἵδρου [τὰ] περὶ κεφαλὴν ὀλίγῳ ψυχρῷ, ἄκρεα ψυχρά. πέμπτῃ πάντα παρ|ωξύνθη, πολλὰ παρέλεγε καὶ πάλιν ταχὺ κατενόει· ἄδιψος, ἄγρυπνος, κοιλίη πολλοῖσιν ἀκαίροισι διὰ τέλεος· οὖρα ὀλίγα, λεπτά, ὑπομέλανα· ἄκρεα ψυχρά, ὑποπέλιδνα. ἕκτῃ διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν. ἑβδόμῃ ἀπέθανε.»

'Hippocrates', Prorrheticon 1.69 V 526,13 Littré (Galen doubts this was written by Hippocrates)

Squinting of the eyes from a throbbing in the loins is a bad sign.

Ἐξ ὀσφύος ἀναδρομὴ, ὀφθαλμῶν ἴλλωσις, κακόν.

Advice for having children

From the works of Athenaeus. Preparation for Producing Children.

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

ἐκ τῶν Ἀθηναίου. παρασκευὴ πρὸς παιδοποιΐαν.

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

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