The Hippocratic Treatises "On Generation", On the Nature of the Child, "Diseases IV": A Commentary [Reprint 2011 ed.] 9783110863963, 9783110079036

Citation preview

The Hippocratic Treatises " O n Generation", " O n the Nature of the Child", "Diseases IV"

W G DE

ARS MEDICA Texte und Untersuchungen zur Quellenkunde der Alten Medizin Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Geschichte der Medizin der Freien Universität Berlin Begründet von H e i n z G o e r k e und Konrad Schubring f

II. Abteilung Griechisch-lateinische Medizin Herausgegeben von GERHARD BAADER · FRIDOLF KUDLIEN · CHARLES

LICHTENTHAELER

Band 7

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 1981

The Hippocratic Treatises "On Generation" "On the Nature of the Child" "Diseases IV"

A Commentary by IAIN M .

LONIE

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 1981

Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft

Redaktion: K L A U S - D I E T R I C H FISCHER

CIP-Kurztitelaufnahme

der Deutschen

Bibliothek

Lonie, Iain M[alcolm]: T h e H i p p o c r a t i c treatises " O n generation", " O n the nature of the c h i l d " , "Diseases IV [ f o u r ] " : a c o m m e n t a r y / by Iain M . Lonie. — Berlin ; N e w Y o r k : de G r u y t e r , 1981. (Ars medica : Abt. 2, Griech.-latein. Medizin ; Bd. 7) I S B N 3-11-007903-8 N E : Ars medica / 02

Library

of Congress

Cataloging

in Publication

Data

Lonie, Iain Μ . , 1932T h e H i p p o c r a t i c treatises, " O n g e n e r a t i o n , " " O n the nature of the c h i l d , " "Diseases I V . " (Ars medica. II. Abteilung, Griechisch-lateinische Medizin ; Bd. 7, 2) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. H i p p o c r a t e s . 2. O n generation. 3. O n the nature of the child. 4. H u m a n reproduction — Early w o r k s to 1800. 5. Diseases IV. 6. Diseases — Causes and theories of causation — Early w o r k s to 1800. 7. Medicine, G r e e k and R o m a n . I. H i p p o c r a t e s . II. O n generation. English. 1981. III. O n the nature of the child. English. 1981. IV. Diseases IV. English. 1981. V. Title. VI. Series. [ D N L M : W Z 292 A781 B d . 7 T . 2 ] R126.H7G334 610'.938 81-9896 I S B N 3-11-007903-8 AACR2

ISSN 0571-1355

© 1981 b y Walter de G r u y t e r & C o . , vormals G . J. Göschen'sche Verlagshandlung • J. Guttentag, Verlagsbuchhandlung • G e o r g Reimer · Karl J. T r ü b n e r · Veit & C o m p . , Berlin 30, Genthiner Straße 13 Printed in G e r m a n y Alle Rechte, insbesondere das der U b e r s e t z u n g in f r e m d e Sprachen, vorbehalten. O h n e ausdrückliche G e n e h m i g u n g des Verlages ist es auch nicht gestattet, dieses Buch oder Teile daraus auf p h o t o m e c h a n i s c h e m Wege ( P h o t o k o p i e , M i k r o k o p i e , X e r o k o p i e ) zu vervielfältigen. Satz u n d D r u c k : A r t h u r Collignon G m b H , Berlin; Bindearbeiten: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin.

TO G. Ε. R. L L O Y D

PREFACE All pre-Socratic philosophers expressed views on human generation, but these views survive only in fragmentary form, usually without the context of the arguments which were used to support them. " O n Generation'V'On the Nature of the Child" is the only extant text prior to Aristotle which discusses this topic in detail. Although it has within this century received considerable attention in scholarly articles, it and the related text "Diseases IV" are still far from accessible. The present commentary is the first which these treatises have received since the 16th und 17th centuries respectively, and the translation of "Diseases IV" is the first to appear in English. The work was undertaken for two purposes: in the hope that it would throw some light on the ways in which Greeks of the 5th and early 4th centuries reasoned about the natural world, and also in the hope that a detailed study of the text would reveal its affiliations with other texts in the Hippocratic Collection, as well as illuminating the intellectual background of a Greek medical writer of that period. It was therefore intended that the commentary should have, on certain topics, some of the functions of a concordance, which might be useful to future commentators upon other texts: the Index locorum is, accordingly, extensive. Much of the groundwork for a detailed study had been done by Regenbogen, Diller, Lesky, Müller, Lloyd and others; and, with the appearance in 1970 of a new text by Robert Joly, the time seemed propitious for a commentary which would incorporate the work of these scholars. A first draft was completed as long ago as 1971. Inevitably, relevant work has appeared since then, and the commentator's own views on a number of points have changed. In subsequent revision certain details have been updated, without altering the original design or the assumptions upon which, at that time, it seemed appropriate to base the work. The Greek text which is the subject of translation and comment is that of Littre, modified considerably by Joly's edition (whose chapter subdivisions have been adopted) and, occasionally, by the commentator himself. Passages in which there is a divergence from Littre are indicated and explained in the commentary. In the translation the obelus is used as a warning signal: these are passages where the underlying text is neither Littre's nor Joly's but the commentator's, and where the offered alternatives could not, in his opinion, yield a meaningful translation. Question marks where they occur indicate literal translation of a text which does not make sense but where no alteration suggested itself.

VIII

Preface

The commentator wishes to thank some of the many people who have encouraged and assisted him from the work's inception and who have contributed to its improvement and made its publication possible. Among these are the Director of the Institut für Geschichte der Medizin der Freien Universität Berlin, Prof. Dr. med. Dr. phil. Rolf Winau; the publisher Walter de Gruyter and Co. for including the book in the series "Ars medica"; the editors of the subseries, Priv.-Doz. Dr. Gerhard Baader, Prof. Dr. Fridolf Kudlien and Prof. Dr. Charles Lichtenthaeler for their help in reading the proofs, and especially Dr. Baader for much assistance both formal and informal over the years; Dr. Klaus-Dietrich Fischer for the invaluable combination of meticulousness and commonsense which he has displayed throughout in the thankless task of editorial assistant (in which task he was firmly guided by Dr. Baader, who also deserves thanks for his part of the work on the indexes and the compilation of the exhaustive bibliography); Joseph A. M . Sonderkamp, M. A. (then stud, phil.), who worked through the first part of the manuscript, and stud. med. Michael Giehl, who helped to see the book through the press; and the secretaries of the Institut, Mrs. Lieselotte Hübel und Mrs. Brigitte Zierau, for producing a wonderfully clean typescript to work from. He is also deeply grateful to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for its generous help in financing the publication of this book; to the University of Otago, New Zealand, and to the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst for making possible a visit from New Zealand to Berlin in 1971; and to The Wellcome Trust for a generous grant in 1971 and for a current Research Fellowship which has enabled him to find the necessary time for final revision. On a less tangible level he would like to thank his former colleagues at the University of Otago for much warm encouragment in the work's early stages. His final debt of gratitude is to Dr. Geoffrey Lloyd, Reader in Ancient Philosophy and Science and Fellow of King's College in the University of Cambridge, whose work both provided and maintained the original impetus, and to whom the book is therefore dedicated.

CONTENTS Bibliography

XI

Translation O n Generation

1

O n the N a t u r e of the Child

6

Diseases IV

21

Introduction 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

The unity of the treatise and the identity of the author The intention of the work and its audience Relation to other treatises in the Collection The theory of f o u r constituent h u m o u r s and D e natura hominis Relation of the treatise to the pre-Socratic philosophers Date of the treatise The author's scientific method (a) Statements and implied statements about method (b) The use of analogy

43 51 51 54 62 71 72 72 77

Appendix 1. Vascular systems in this treatise and in the remainder of the Hippocratic Collection 2. Does the oldest venous system in Greek medicine begin the veins in the head?

87 94

Commentary O n Generation

99

O n the N a t u r e of the Child

146

Diseases IV

257

Indexes General index

375

Index of Greek words

383

Index locorum

386

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. E d i t i o n s and T r a n s l a t i o n s Aelianus (Ael.) D e natura animalium

(ΝΑ)

D e n a t u r a a n i m a l i u m libri X V I I . E x r e c o g n i t i o n e RUDOLPHI HERCHERI ( C l a u d i i A e l i a n i

De

n a t u r a a n i m a l i u m l i b r i X V I I , V a r i a h i s t o r i a , E p i s t o l a e , F r a g m e n t a ex r e c o g n i t i o n e RUDOLPHI HERCHERI, Leipzig

vol.

1;

=

Bibliotheca

scriptorum

Graecorum

et

Romanorum

Teubneriana),

1864

O n t h e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f A n i m a l s . W i t h an E n g l i s h T r a n s l a t i o n b y ALWYN FABER SCHOLFIELD (=

The

Loeb

Classical

Library

vols.

446,

448,

449),

Cambridge/Mass,

and

London

1958-1959

Aeschylus (A.) Collected Works S e p t e m q u a e s u p e r s u n t t r a g o e d i a e . E d i d i t DENYS PAGE ( = S c r i p t o r u m c l a s s i c o r u m b i b l i o t h e c a Oxoniensis), Oxford

1972

Individual W o r k s Agamemnon (A.) A g a m e m n o n . E d i t e d w i t h a C o m m e n t a r y b y EDUARD FRAENKEL, O x f o r d

1950

Fragments (Fr.) I n : T G F pp.

1-128

D i e F r a g m e n t e d e r T r a g ö d i e n des A i s c h y l o s . H r s g . v o n HANS JOACHIM M E T T E ( =

Deutsche

A k a d e m i e der Wissenschaften zu B e r l i n . Schriften der S e k t i o n für A l t e r t u m s w i s s e n s c h a f t

15),

Berlin 1959

Aetius (Aet.) D e placitis p h i l o s o p h o r u m ( D e p l a c . p h i l o s . ) In: D o x . G r . pp.

268-444

Georgius Agricola (Agricola) D e re m e t a l l i c a libri X I I ( m e t a l l . ) D e re m e t a l l i c a libri X I I , J o h a n n e s F r o b e n , B a s l e 1 5 5 6 ( R e p r i n t B r u s s e l s 1 9 6 7 ) D e re m e t a l l i c a . T r a n s l a t e d f r o m t h e f i r s t L a t i n E d i t i o n o f 1 5 5 6 b y H E R B E R T CLARK H O O V E R and L o u HENRY H O O V E R , L o n d o n

1912

Alcaeus (Ale.) I n : A n t h o l o g i a l y r i c a G r a e c a , v o l . 1, f a s c . 4 , p p . 8 6 — 1 5 9 I n : P o e t a r u m L e s b i o r u m f r a g m e n t a . E d i d e r u n t EDGAR LOBEL et DENYS PAGE, O x f o r d pp.

1955,

111-291

I n : S a p p h o et A l c a e u s . F r a g m e n t a e d i d i t EVA-MARIA V O I G T , A m s t e r d a m 1 9 7 1 , p p .

175-355

XII

Bibliography

Alcman (Alcm.) In: Anthologia lyrica Graeca, vol. 2, fasc. 1, pp. 6 - 4 2 In: Poetae melici Graeci, pp. 1—91

Anacreon (Anacr.) In: Anthologia lyrica Graeca, vol. 1, fasc. 4, pp. 160 — 192 In: Poetae melici Graeci, pp. 171—235

A n o n y m u s Londinensis (Anon. Lond.) A n o n y m i Londinensis ex Aristotelis Iatricis Menoniis et aliis medicis eclogae. Consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum regiae Borussicae edidit HERMANNUS DIELS ( = Supplement u m Aristotelicum, vol. III 1), Berlin 1893 T h e M e d i c a l W r i t i n g s of A n o n y m u s L o n d i n e n s i s b y WILLIAM HENRY SAMUEL JONES ( =

Cambridge Classical Studies), Cambridge 1947

Anthologia lyrica Graeca Edidit ERNESTUS DIEHL ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), fasc. 1 - 3 , 3rd ed., Leipzig 1 9 4 9 - 1 9 5 2 ; vols. 1 - 2 , 2nd ed., Leipzig 1 9 3 6 - 1 9 4 2 . Cf. Alcaeus, Alcman, Anacreon, Archilochus, H i p p o n a x , Solon

Apollonius Rhodius (A. R.) Argonautica. Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit HERMANN FRANKEL ( = Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis), O x f o r d 1961 Scholia on Apollonius Rhodius (Schol. A. R.) Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium vetera. Recensuit CAROLUS WENDEL, Berlin 1935

Archilochus (Archil.) F r a g m e n t s . T e x t e e t a b l i p a r FRANGOIS LASSERRE, t r a d u i t et c o m m e n t e p a r ANDRE BONNARD

( = Collection des Universites de France), Paris 1958 In: Anthologia lyrica Graeca, fasc. 3, pp. 1—48 In: Iambi, vol. 1, pp. 1 - 1 0 8

Aristaenetus (Aristaenet.) In: Epistolographi Graeci. Recensuit, recognovit, adnotatione critica et indicibus instruxit RUDOLPHUS HERCHER, P a r i s 1873, p p .

133-171

Aristides Quintilianus (Aristid. Q u i n t . ) D e musica libri tres. Edidit REGINALD PEPYS WINNINGTON-INGRAM scriptorum Graecorum et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), Leipzig 1963

(=

Bibliotheca

Aristophanes (Ar.) A r i s t o p h a n e . T e x t e e t a b l i p a r VICTOR COULON et t r a d u i t p a r HILAIRE VAN DAELE ( = C o l l e c -

tion des Universites de France), vol. 1, 3rd ed., Paris 1948; vols. 2 - 5 , Paris 1 9 4 8 - 1 9 5 4

Bibliography

XIII

Aristotle (Arist.) Collected Works Aristoteles. Graece ex recognitione IMMANUELIS BEKKERI ( = Aristotelis opera edidit Academia regia Borussica, vols. 1—2), vols. 1—2, Berlin 1831 Individual Works De anima (de An.) De anima. With Translation, Introduction and Notes by ROBERT DREW HICKS, London 1907 De anima. Edited, with Introduction and Commentary by DAVID ROSS, O x f o r d 1961 De caelo (Cael.) De caelo libri quattuor. Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit DONALD JAMES ALLAN (= Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis), Oxford 1936 Du ciel. Texte etabli et traduit par PAUL MORAUX ( = Collection des Universites de France), Paris 1965 De generatione animalium (GA) De generatione animalium. Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit HENDRIK JOAN DROSSAART LULOFS (= Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis), Oxford 1965 Generation of animals. With an English translation by ARTHUR LESLIE PECK ( = The Loeb Classical Library vol. 366), Cambridge/Mass, and London 1942 Historia animalium (HA) Historia animalium. By D'ARCY WENTWORTH THOMPSON (The Works of Aristotle. Translated i n t o E n g l i s h u n d e r t h e E d i t o r s h i p of J O H N ALEXANDER SMITH a n d WILLIAM DAVID ROSS, v o l .

4), Oxford 1910 Historia animalium. With an English translation by ARTHUR LESLIE PECK ( = The Loeb Classical Library vols. 437, 438), Cambridge/Mass, and London 1965, 1970 Meteorologica (Mete.) Metereologicorum libri quattuor. Recensuit indicem verborum addidit FRANCIS HOWARD FOBES, C a m b r i d g e / M a s s . 1919

Meteorologica. With an English Translation by HENRY DESMOND PRITCHARD LEE ( = The Loeb Classical Library vol. 397), Cambridge/Mass, and London 1952 De partibus animalium (PA) In: Parts of animals. With an English Translation by ARTHUR LESLIE PECK and Foreword by FRANCIS H U G H ADAM MARSHALL. M o v e m e n t of a n i m a l s . P r o g r e s s i o n of a n i m a l s . W i t h a n

English Translation by EDWARD SEYMOUR FORSTER ( = The Loeb Classical Library vol. 323), Cambridge/Mass, and London 1937, pp, 1 - 4 3 4 Physica (Ph.) Physics. A revised Text with Introduction and Commentary by WILLIAM DAVID ROSS, Oxford 1936 Problemata (Pr.) Aristotelis quae feruntur Problemata physica. Edidit CAROLUS AEMILIUS RUELLE, recognovit HERMANNUS KNOELLINGER, editionem post utriusque mortem curavit, praefatione ornavit IOSEPHUS KLEK ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana), Leipzig 1922 Problems. With an English Translation by WALTER STANLEY HETT ( = The Loeb Classical Library vols. 316, 317), vols. 1 — 2, Cambridge/Mass, and London 1936/37 Rhetorica ad Alexandrum (Rh. Al.) In: Problems Books X X I I - X X X V I I I . With an English Translation by WALTER STANLEY HETT. Rhetorica ad Alexandrum. With an English Translation by HARRIS RACKHAM ( = The Loeb Classical Library vol. 317), Cambridge/Mass, and London 1937, pp. 257—449, 456

XIV

Bibliography

Aristoxenus of Tarentum (Aristox.) In: Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar. Hrsg. von FRITZ WEHRLI, vol. 2, Basel 1945, pp. 7 - 4 1 PAUL MARQUARD: Die harmonischen Fragmente des Aristoxenus, Berlin 1868 Elementa harmonica. Recensuit ROSETTA DA RIOS ( = Scriptores Graeci et Latini consilio Academiae Lynceorum editi), Rome 1954

Athenaeus of Naucratis (Ath.) Dipnosophistarum libri XV. Recensuit GEORGIUS KAIBEL ( = Bibliotheca Graecorum et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), vols. 1—3, Leipzig 1887—1890

scriptorum

Caelius Aurelianus (Cael. Aur.) Acutarum sive celerum passionum (acut.) In: O n Acute Diseases and on Chronic Diseases. Edited and Translated by ISRAEL EDWARD DRABKIN ( = The University of Chicago. Committee on Publications in Biology and Medicine), Chicago 1950, pp. 2 - 4 3 9

C A F Austin = C o m i c o r u m Graecorum fragmenta in papyris reperta. Edidit COLINUS AUSTIN, Berlin and N e w York 1973

C A F Kock = C o m i c o r u m Atticorum fragmenta. Edidit THEODORUS KOCK, vols. 1 - 3 , Leipzig 1850 — 1888

Callimachus (Call.)

C a l l i m a c h u s . E d i d i t RUDOLFUS PFEIFFER, O x f o r d

1949-1953

Celsus (Cels.) A. Cornelii Celsi quae supersunt. Recensuit FRIDERICUS MARX ( = C o r p u s Medicorum Latin o r u m I), Leipzig and Berlin 1915 Censorinus (Cens.) D e die natali liber. Recensuit FRIDERICUS HULTSCH ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), Leipzig 1867

Cicero (Cie.) Academica (ac.) Academicorum reliquiae cum Lucullo (Scripta quae manserunt omnia, fasc. 42). Recognovit OTTO PLASBERG ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), Leipzig 1922 De natura deorum (nat. deor.) D e natura deorum libri tres. With Introduction and C o m m e n t a r y by JOSEPH BICKERSTETH MAYOR. T o g e t h e r w i t h a N e w C o l l a t i o n of t h e E n g l i s h M s s . b y JOHN HOUGHTON SWANSON,

Cambridge 1 8 8 0 - 1 8 8 5 D e natura deorum libri III. Edited by ARTHUR STANLEY PEASE, Cambridge/Mass. 1955-1958

Bibliography

XV

Volcher Coiter (Coiter) ADELMANN, HOWARD BERNHARDT: T h e

"De

ovorum

gallinaceorum

generationis

primo

exordio progressuque, et pulli gallinacei creationis o r d i n e " of Volcher Coiter. Translated and Edited with N o t e s and Introduction. Annals of Medical History N . S . 5 (1933) pp. 327—341, 444-457 In: Volcher Coiter ( = Opuscula selecta Neerlandicorum de arte medica, vol. 18), Amsterdam 1955, pp. 2 6 - 5 5

Columella (Colum.) L. Iuni Moderati Columellae opera quae exstant. Recensuerunt VILELMUS LUNDSTRÖM, AKE JOSEPHSON, STEN HEDBERG ( = Collectio scriptorum veterum Upsaliensis), Uppsala, Leipzig and G ö t e b o r g 1897-1968

Corpus Hippocraticum (Hp.) Collected and Selected Works Hippocratis Coi medicorum omnium longe principis Octoginta volumina, quibus maxima ex parte a n n o r u m circiter duo millia Latina caruit lingua, Graeci vero, Arabes & prisci nostri medici pluribus tarnen utilibus praetermissis scripta sua illustrarunt, nunc tandem per Magistrum FABIUM CALVUM Rhavennatem virum u n d e c u m q u e doctissimum latinitate donata, Clementi VII. pontifici maximo dicata ac novissime in Iucem aedita, Rome 1525 Hippocratis Coi medici vetustissimi, et o m n i u m aliorum principis, libri omnes ad vetustos codices s u m m o studio collati & restaurati fab IANO CORNARIO], Basle 1538 Hippocratis . . . Opera quae ad nos extant omnia. Per JANUM CORNARIUM . . . Latina lingua conscripta . . ., Basle 1546 Hippocratis et aliorum medicorum veterum reliquiae. Mandatu academiae regiae disciplinarum quae Amstelodami est edidit FRANCISCUS ZACHARIAS ERMERINS, vols. 1—3, Utrecht 1859-1864

Magni Hippocratis medicorum o m n i u m facile principis Opera omnia quae extant in VIII sectiones ex Erotiani mente distributa. N u n c recens Latina interpretatione et annotationibus illustrata ANUTIO FOESIO Mediomatrico medico authore, Frankfurt am Main 1595. Cf. Foesius Oeconomia Hippokrates. Sämmtliche Werke. Ins Deutsche übersetzt und ausführlich commentiert von ROBERT FUCHS, v o l s . 1 - 3 , M ü n c h e n

1895-1900

Hippocratis [Opera]. Volumen I 1. Edidit JOHAN LUDVIG HEIBERG ( = C o r p u s Medicorum Graecorum I 1), Leipzig and Berlin 1927 Hippocrate. Texte etabli et traduit ( = Collection des Universites de France), Paris 1967ff.: VI 1 D u regime. Texte etabli et traduit par ROBERT JOLY Paris 1967; VI 2 Du regime des maladies aigues, Appendice, De l'aliment, D e l'usage des liquides. Texte etabli et traduit par ROBERT JOLY, Paris 1972; XI D e la generation, De la nature de l'enfant, Des maladies IV, D u foetus de huit mois. Texte etabli et traduit par ROBERT JOLY, Paris 1970; XIII Des lieux dans l ' h o m m e , D u systeme des glandes, Des fistules, Des hemorro'ides, De la vision, Des chairs, De la dentition. Texte etabli et traduit par ROBERT JOLY, Paris 1978 H i p p o c r a t e s . W i t h a n E n g l i s h T r a n s l a t i o n b y WILLIAM HENRY SAMUEL JONES a n d EDWARD

THEODORE WITHINGTON ( = The Loeb Classical Library vols. 147—150), vols. 1—4, Cambridge/Mass, and London 1923 — 1931 Die Werke des Hippokrates. Die hippokratische Schriftensammlung in deutscher Ubersetzung hrsg. von RICHARD KAPFERER, vols. 1 - 5 , Stuttgart 1934 — 1943 Hippocratis Opera quae feruntur omnia. Recensuit HUGO KUEHLEWEIN ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), vols. 1—2, Leipzig 1894—1902 CEuvres completes. Traduction nouvelle avec le texte grec en regard collationne sur les manuscrits et toutes les editions; accompagnee d ' u n e introduction, de commentaires

XVI

Bibliography

medicaux, de variantes et de notes philologiques; suivie d'une table generale des matieres, par £ M I L E LITTRE, v o l s . 1 - 1 0 , P a r i s

1839-1861

Hippocratis Coi O p e r a omnia cum variis lectionibus non m o d o hucusque vulgatis, verum ineditis potissimum, partim depromptis ex Cornario et Sambuci codicibus in Caesarea Vindobonensi bibliotheca hactenus adservatis et ineditis, partim ex aliis eiusdem bibliothecae manuscriptis libris ac denique ex Mediceis Laurentianis manuscriptis libris collectis studio et opera STEPHANI MACKII, vols. 1 - 2 , Vienna 1 7 4 3 - 1 7 4 9 Hippocratis Coi Opera quae extant Graece et Latine veterum codicum collatione restituta, novo ordine in quattuor classes digesta interpretationis Latinae emendatione, et scholiis illustrata a HIERONYMO MERCURIALI Foroliviensi, vols. 1 - 2 , Venice 1588 ' Ι π π ο κ ρ ά τ η ς κ ο μ ί δ η CAROLI Η . TH. REINHOLD, vols. 1 - 2 , Athens 1 8 6 5 - 1 8 6 6 Magni Hippocratis Coi Opera omnia Graece et Latine edita et ad omnes alias editiones accomodata industria ac diligentia JOANNIS ANTONIDAE VAN DER LINDEN, vols. 1 - 2 , Leyden 1665 W I T H I N G T O N see JONES

Hippocratis Coi Asclepiadeae gentis sacrae coryphaei viginti duo commentarii tabulis illustrati, Graecus contextus ex doctissimorum virorum codicibus emendatus, Latina versio IANI CORNARII innumeris locis correcta, sententiae insignes per locos communes methodice digestae THEODORI ZVINGERI Basiliensis studio et conatu, Basle 1579 Individual Works' 1 ' De aere, aquis, locis (Aer.) Hippokrates. Uber die U m w e l t . Hrsg. und übersetzt von HANS DILLER ( = C o r p u s Medicorum Graecorum I 1 , 2 ) , Berlin 1970 Περί άέρων, υ δ ά τ ω ν , τ ό π ω ν . Traite d'Hippocrate Des airs, des eaux et des lieux. Traduction nouvelle, avec le texte grec collationne sur deux manuscrits, des notes . . ., un discours preliminaire, un tableau comparatif des vents anciens et modernes . . . par ADAMANTIOS CORAY [ = KORAES], P a r i s 1800

D e carnibus ( C a m . ) Hippokrates. Über Entstehung und Aufbau des menschlichen Körpers. In Gemeinschaft mit den Mitgliedern des philologischen Proseminars Berlin hrsg., übersetzt und kommentiert von KARL D E I C H G R Ä B E R . M i t e i n e m s p r a c h w i s s e n s c h a f t l i c h e n B e i t r a g v o n E D U A R D SCHWYZER,

Leipzig 1935 D e corde (Cord.) Liber Hippocraticus D e corde. Editus cum prolegomenis et commentario. Specimen litterarium inaugurale quod . . . facultatis examini submittet FREDERICUS CAROLUS UNGER, Phil. Diss. Leiden 1923 = UNGER, FREDERICUS CAROLUS: Liber Hippocraticus Π Ε Ρ Ι Κ Α Ρ Δ Ι Η Σ . Mnemosyne 51 (1923) pp. 1 - 1 0 1 D e arte Die Apologie der Heilkunst. Eine griechische Sophistenrede des fünften vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts. Bearbeitet, übersetzt, erläutert und eingeleitet von THEODOR GOMPERZ, 2nd ed., Leipzig 1910 Epistulae (Ep.) PUTZGER, GUALTHARIUS: Hippocratis quae feruntur epistulae ad codicum fidem recensitae ( = Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum Jahresbericht des kgl. Gymnasiums in W ü r z e n , Ostern 1914), Würzen 1914 De genitura/De natura pueri ( G e n i t . / N a t . Puer.) Hippocrates on Intercourse and Pregnancy: an English Translation of O n Semen and O n the Development of the Child, by TAGE U. H . ELLINGER, with an Introduction by ALLAN F. GUTTMACHER, N e w York 1952

* Editions not included in the Collected and Selected works of Hippocrates listed above.

Bibliography

XVII

H i p p o c r a t i s . . . Π ε ρ ί γ ο ν ή ς . D e genitura. Π ε ρ ί φΰσι,ος π α ι δ ι ο ύ . D e natura pueri. I n t e r p r e t e JOANNE GORRAEO. Accesserunt eiusdem annotationes in eosdem libellos, Paris 1545 Observationes in libellum Lactantii Firmiani, qui D e opificio Dei inscribitur, a IODOCO WILLICH . . . dictatae. Item Hippocratis libellus D e genitura interprete IODOCO WILLICH, Strasbourg 1542 (Translation and N o t e s : p p . 7 0 - 9 2 ) De hebdomadibus (Hebd.) Die hippokratische Schrift von der Siebenzahl in ihrer vierfachen Uberlieferung z u m erstenmal hrsg. und erläutert von HEINRICH ROSCHER ( = Studien zur Geschichte u n d K u l t u r des Altertums, vol. 6, 3 - 4 ) , P a d e r b o r n 1913 I u s i u r a n d u m (Iusi.) In: Edelstein O a t h pp. 2 f . D e morbis I ( M o r b . I) Die hippokratische Schrift D e morbis I. Ausgabe, Ü b e r s e t z u n g und E r l ä u t e r u n g e n v o n RENATE WITTERN ( = Altertumswissenschaftliche Texte u n d Studien, vol. 3), H i l d e s h e i m and N e w Y o r k 1974 D e morbis II ( M o r b . II) Partially ed. in: J o u a n n a H i p p o c r a t e p p . 28 — 83 D e morbis III ( M o r b . III) H i p p o k r a t e s . U b e r die Krankheiten III. H r s g . , übersetzt u n d erläutert von PAUL POTTER ( = C o r p u s M e d i c o r u m G r a e c o r u m I 2,3), Berlin 1980 D e m o r b o sacro ( M o r b . Sacr.) Die hippokratische Schrift " U b e r die heilige K r a n k h e i t " . H r s g . , übersetzt u n d erläutert von HERMANN GRENSEMANN ( = Ars medica. Texte u n d U n t e r s u c h u n g e n zur Q u e l l e n k u n d e der Alten Medizin. Schriftenreihe des Instituts f ü r Geschichte der Medizin der Freien Universität B e r l i n , 2. A b t . h r s g . v o n KARL DEICHGRÄBER, H A N S DILLER, H E I N Z G O E R K E , v o l . 1), B e r l i n

1968

D e natura hominis ( N a t . H o r n . ) VILLARET, OSKAR: H i p p o c r a t i s D e natura hominis liber ad codicum fidem recensitus, Phil. Diss. Göttingen 1911, Berlin 1911 H i p p o c r a t e . La nature de l ' h o m m e . Edite, traduit, et c o m m e n t e par JACQUES JOUANNA ( = C o r p u s M e d i c o r u m G r a e c o r u m I 1,3), Berlin 1975 D e natura mulieris ( N a t . Mul.) Die hippokratische Schrift D e natura muliebri. Ausgabe u n d textkritischer K o m m e n t a r v o n HELGA TRAPP, Phil. Diss. H a m b u r g 1967 (typescript) D e natura pueri see D e genitura D e octimestri partu ( O c t . ) In: H i p p o k r a t e s . U b e r A c h t m o n a t s k i n d e r . U b e r das Siebenmonatskind (unecht). H r s g . , übersetzt u n d erläutert von HERMANN GRENSEMANN ( = C o r p u s M e d i c o r u m G r a e c o r u m I 1,2), Berlin 1968 P r o g n o s t i c u m (Prog.) Die hippokratische Schrift P r o g n o s t i k o n . U b e r l i e f e r u n g u n d Text von BENGT ALEXANDERSON ( = Studia Graeca et Latina G o t h o b u r g e n s i a X V I I ) , S t o c k h o l m , G ö t e b o r g and U p p s a l a 1963 D e septimestri partu (Septim. [Sp.]) see D e octimestri partu D e superfetatione (Superf.) H i p p o k r a t e s . U b e r N a c h e m p f ä n g n i s , Geburtshilfe u n d Schwangerschaftsleiden. H r s g . , übersetzt und erläutert von CAY LIENAU ( = C o r p u s M e d i c o r u m G r a e c o r u m I 2,2), Berlin 1973 De vetere medicina (VM) H i p p o c r a t e . L'ancienne medecine. I n t r o d u c t i o n , traduction et c o m m e n t a i r e par ANDRE-JEAN FESTUGIERE ( = S t ü d e s et commentaires IV), Paris 1948, p p . 1 - 2 2

XVIII

Bibliography

Charles Darwin T h e Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, L o n d o n 1868

Demosthenes (D.) Orationes (Or.) Orationes. Vols. I —II 1. Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit SAMUEL HENRY BUTCHER; vols. II 2 — III. Recognovit brevique adnotatione instruxit WILLIAM RENNIE ( = Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis), O x f o r d 1903 — 1931

Diocles of Carystus In: Wellmann Fragmente pp. 117—207

Diodorus Siculus (Diodor. Sic.) Bibliotheca historica. Ex recensione et cum adnotationibus LUDOVICI DINDORFII ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), vols. 1—4, Leipzig 1866-1867 Bibliotheca historica [I —IV], Recognovit FRIDERICUS VOGEL ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), vol. 1, Leipzig 1888 Diodorus of Sicily. With an English Translation by CHARLES HENRY OLDFATHER (vols. 1 —6), CHARLES LESTER SHERMAN ( v o l . 7), CHARLES B R A D F O R D W E L L E S ( v o l . 8), RUSSEL M O R T I M E R

GEER (vols. 9 and 10), FRANCIS R. WALTON (vols. 11 and 12). With a General Index to D i o d o r u s b y RUSSEL MORTIMER GEER ( v o l . 12, p p . 3 0 5 - 6 7 5 ; = T h e L o e b C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y ,

vols. 279, 303, 340, 375, 377, 384, 389, 390, 409, 422, 432), Cambridge/Mass, and L o n d o n 1933-1967

Diogenes Laertius (D. L.) Vitae p h i l o s o p h o r u m . Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit HERBERT STRAINGE LONG ( = Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis), vols. 1 - 2 , O x f o r d 1964

Dioscorides (Dsc.) D e materia medica libri quinque. Edidit MAX WELLMANN, Berlin 1 9 0 6 - 1 9 1 4

Dox. Gr. = Doxographi Graeci. Collegit, recensuit prolegomenis indicibusque instruxit HERMANNUS DIELS, B e r l i n 1879

Empedocles (Emp.) In: Bignone pp. 387—515 In: VS I pp. 2 7 6 - 3 7 5

Epicurus (Epicur.) Epicurea. Edidit HERMANNUS USENER, Leipzig 1887 O p e r e . A cura di GRAZIANO ARRIGHETTI ( = Biblioteca di cultura filosofica 41), 2nd ed., Turin 1973

Bibliography

XIX

Erotian (Erot.) Vocum Hippocraticarum collectio cum fragmentis. Recensuit ERNST NACHMANSON ( = Collectio scriptorum veterum Upsaliensis), Göteborg and Uppsala 1918

Etymologicum Magnum (EM) Etymologicon magnum seu verius lexicon saepissime vocabulorum origines indagans ex pluribus lexicis scholiastis et grammaticis anonymi cuiusdam opera concinnatum. A d codd. mss. recensuit et notis variorum instruxit THOMAS GAISFORD, O x f o r d 1848 Etymologicum magnum genuinum. Symeonis Etymologicum una cum magna grammatica. Etymologicum magnum auctum. Synoptice ediderunt FRANCISCUS LASSERRE — NICOLAUS LIVADARAS, vol. I f f . , Rome 1979ff.

Eupolis (Eup.) In: C A F Kock vol. 1, pp. 2 5 8 - 3 6 9 In: C A F Austin pp. 8 4 - 1 1 9

Euripides (Eur.) Fabulae. Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit GILBERTUS MURRAY ( = Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis), vol. 1, Oxford 1902; vol. 2, 3rd ed., O x f o r d 1913; vol. 3, 2nd ed., O x f o r d 1913 Supplementum Euripideum. Bearbeitet von HANS VON ARNIM ( = Kleine Texte f ü r Vorlesungen und Ü b u n g e n , hrsg. von HANS LIETZMANN, 112), Bonn 1913 N o v a fragmenta Euripidea in papyris reperta. Edidit COLINUS AUSTIN ( = Kleine Texte f ü r V o r l e s u n g e n u n d Ü b u n g e n , b e g r ü n d e t v o n HANS LIETZMANN, h r s g . v o n KURT ALAND, 1 8 7 ) ,

Berlin 1968

Hieronymus Fabricius of Aquapendente (Fabricius) ADELMANN, HOWARD BERNHARDT: The Embryological Treatises of H i e r o n y m u s Fabricius of Aquapendente. The Formation of the Egg and of the Chick [De Formatione Ovi et Pulli]. T h e Formed Fetus [De Formato Foetu], A Facsimile Edition, with an Introduction, a Translation and a C o m m e n t a r y ( = Cornell Publications in the H i s t o r y of Science), Ithaca, N e w York 1942

FGrH = Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker von FELIX JACOBY, vols. 1—2, Berlin 1923 — 1930; vol. 3, Leyden 1 9 5 4 - 1 9 5 8

Galen (Gal.) Collected Works Opera omnia. Editionem curavit CAROLUS GOTTLOB KÜHN ( = Medicorum Graecorum opera quae exstant. Editionem curavit CAROLUS GOTTLOB KÜHN, vols. 1—20), Leipzig 1821 — 1833 Selected Works Scripta

minora.

Recensuerunt

IOANNES

MARQUARDT,

IWANUS

MUELLER,

GEORGIUS

HELMREICH ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), vols. 1—2, Leipzig 1884-1901

XX

Bibliography

Individual W o r k s Adversus Lycum (Adv. Lyc.) In: Galeni adversus Lycum et adversus Iulianum libelli. Edidit ERNESTUS WENKEBACH ( = C o r p u s Medicorum Graecorum V 10,3), Berlin 1951, pp. 1—29 D e alimentorum facultatibus (De alim. facult.) In: D e sanitate tuenda. D e alimentorum facultatibus. D e bonis malisque sucis. De victu attenuante. D e ptisana. Ediderunt

(KONRADUS K O C H ) , GEORGIUS HELMREICH,

(CAROLUS

KALBFLEISCH, OTTO HARTLICH) ( = C o r p u s Medicorum Graecorum V 4,2), Leipzig and Berlin 1923, pp. X X V I I - X L I , 1 9 9 - 3 8 6 De anatomicis administrationibus (De anat. admin.) Sieben Bücher Anatomie. Zum ersten Mal veröffentlicht nach den Handschriften einer arabischen Übersetzung aus dem 9. J h d t . n. C h r . , ins Deutsche übertragen und kommentiert von MAX SIMON, vols. 1 — 2, Leipzig 1906 O n Anatomical Procedures. Translation of the Surviving Books with Introduction and N o t e s by CHARLES SINGER ( = Publications of the Wellcome Historical Medical M u s e u m , N e w Series, N o . 7), L o n d o n , N e w York and T o r o n t o 1956 O n Anatomical Procedures. The Later Books. A Translation by the Late WYNFRIED LAURENCE H E N R Y DUCKWORTH.

Edited

by

MALCOLM

C A M E R O N LYONS a n d

BERNHARD

TOWERS, Cambridge 1962 D e bonis malisque sucis (De bonis mal. sucis) In: D e sanitate tuenda. D e alimentorum facultatibus. D e bonis malisque sucis. D e victu a t t e n u a n t e . D e p t i s a n a . E d i d e r u n t (KONRADUS KOCH), GEORGIUS HELMREICH,

(CAROLUS

KALBFLEISCH, OTTO HARTLICH) ( = C o r p u s Medicorum Graecorum V 4,2), Leipzig and Berlin 1923, pp. X L I I - X L V I I , 3 8 7 - 4 2 9 D e causis procatarcticis (De causis procat.) De causis procatarcticis libellus a NICOLAO REGINO in sermonem Latinum translatus. Ad codicum fidem recensuit in Graecum sermonem retro vertit KURT BARDONG ( = C o r p u s Medicorum Graecorum. Supplementum II), Leipzig and Berlin 1937 D e consuetudinibus (De consuet.) D e consuetudinibus. Edidit IOSEPH MARIA SCHMUTTE. Versionem Arabicam ab HUNAINO confectam in linguam Germanicam vertit FRANZ PFAFF. Additum est n o v u m fragmentum ex Procli in Platonis Timaeum commentariis haustum quod ex versione Arabica reddidit FRANZ PFAFF ( = C o r p u s Medicorum Graecorum. Supplementum III), Leipzig and Berlin 1941 In: Scripta

minora.

Recensuerunt

IOHANNES MARQUARDT,

IWANUS M U E L L E R ,

GEORGIUS

HELMREICH ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), vol. II ex recognitione IWANI MUELLER, Leipzig 1891, pp. 9—31 D e facultatibus naturalibus (De facult. natur.) In:

Scripta

minora.

Recensuerunt

IOHANNES MARQUARDT,

IWANUS M U E L L E R ,

GEORGIUS

HELMREICH ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), vol. Ill ex recognitione GEORGII HELMREICH, Leipzig 1893, pp. 1 0 1 - 2 5 7 D e libris propriis (De libr. propr.) In:

Scripta minora.

Recensuerunt

IOHANNES MARQUARDT,

IWANUS M U E L L E R ,

GEORGIUS

HELMREICH ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), vol. II ex recognitione IWANI MUELLER, Leipzig 1891, pp. 9 1 - 1 2 4 D e placitis Hippocratis et Platonis (De plac. H i p p , et Plat.) O n the Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato. Edition, Translation and C o m m e n t a r y by PHILIPP DE LACY ( = C o r p u s Medicorum Graecorum V 4,1,2), Berlin 1 9 7 8 - 1 9 8 0 D e respirationis usu (De resp. usu) Π Ε Ρ Ι Χ Ρ Ε Ι Α Σ Α Ν Α Π Ν Ο Η Σ libellus. Scripsit RUDOLFUS NOLL, Phil. Diss. Marburg 1915 D e sanitate tuenda (De san. tuenda) In: D e sanitate tuenda. D e alimentorum facultatibus. D e bonis malisque sucis. D e victu

Bibliography attenuante.

De

ptisana.

Ediderunt

KONRADUS K O C H ,

XXI (GEORGIUS HELMREICH,

CAROLUS

KALBFLEISCH, OTTO HARTLICH) ( = C o r p u s Medicorum Graecorum V 4,2), Leipzig and Berlin 1923, pp. V I I - X X V I , 1 - 1 9 8 D e venae sectione adversus Erasistrateos Romae degentes (De venae sect. adv. Erasistrateos) O n phlebotomy against the Erasistrateans in Rome (Galeni de venae sectione adversus Erasistrateos Romae degentes). Ed. with Introduction, Critical notes, Translation and C o m m e n t a r y by RONALD FRED KOTRC, Phil. Diss. Washington 1970 De usu partium (De usu part.) D e usu partium libri XVII. Ad codicum fidem recensuit GEORGIUS HELMREICH ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), vols. 1—2, Leipzig 1907— 1909 O n the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body. Translated from the Greek with an Introduction and C o m m e n t a r y by MARGARET TALLMADGE MAY ( = Cornell Publications in the H i s t o r y of Science), vols. 1 - 2 , Ithaca, N e w York 1968 D e uteri dissectione (De uteri dissect.) Über die Anatomie der G e b ä r m u t t e r . H r s g . , übersetzt und erläutert von DIETHARD NICKEL ( = C o r p u s Medicorum Graecorum V 2,1), Berlin 1971 In Hippocratis De vitu acutorum commentaria IV (In H i p p . Acut, c o m m e n t . ) In: In Hippocratis D e natura hominis. In Hippocratis De victu a c u t o r u m . D e diaeta Hippocratis in morbis acutis. Ediderunt (IOHANNES MEWALDT), GEORGIUS HELMREICH, (IOHANNES WESTENBERGER) ( = C o r p u s Medicorum Graecorum V 9,1), Leipzig and Berlin 1914, p p . X X V I - X X X V I I I ,

115-366

In Hippocratis D e natura hominis commentaria (In H i p p . N a t . Horn, c o m m e n t . ) In: In Hippocratis D e natura hominis. In Hippocratis De victu a c u t o r u m . D e diaeta H i p p o c r a t i s in m o r b i s a c u t i s . E d i d e r u n t

IOHANNES ME-WALDT, (GEORGIUS

HELMREICH,

IOHANNES WESTENBERGER) ( = C o r p u s Medicorum Graecorum V 9,1), Leipzig and Berlin 1914, pp. I X - X X V ,

1-113

In Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum p r i m u m commentaria III (In H i p p . Epid. I comment.) In Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum primum commentaria III. Edidit ERNST WENKEBACH ( = C o r p u s Medicorum Graecorum V 10,1), Leipzig and Berlin 1934 In Hippocratis Epidemiarum VI commentaria (In H i p p . Epid. VI c o m m e n t . ) In Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum VI commentaria I—VIII. Ediderunt ERNST WENKEBACH et FRANZ PFAFF. Excerpta a MOSE MAIMONIDE e Galeni commentariis in Epid. libr. I, II, III, VI sumpta addiderunt KARL DEICHGRAEBER et KARL-HEINZ DELLER ( = C o r p u s Medicorum Graecorum V 10,2,2), 2nd ed., Berlin 1956 In Hippocratis Epidemiarum libros commentaria. Indices nominum et verborum Graecorum c o m p o s u e r u n t ERNST WENKEBACH et KONRAD SCHUBRING ( = C o r p u s M e d i c o r u m G r a e c o r u m

V 10,2,3), Berlin 1955 Kommentare zu den Epidemien des Hippokrates. Indizes der aus dem Arabischen übersetzten N a m e n und Wörter verfaßt von FRANZ PFAFF F- Die als sogenannte Simulantenschrift griechisch überlieferten Stücke des 2. Kommentars zu Epidemien II. Hrsg. von KARL DEICHGRÄBER u n d FRIDOLF KUDLIEN ( = C o r p u s M e d i c o r u m G r a e c o r u m V 1 0 , 2 , 4 ) , B e r l i n 1960

In Hippocratis Prognosticum commentaria (In H i p p . Prog, c o m m e n t . ) In: In Hippocratis Prorrheticum I. D e comate secundum H i p p o c r a t e m . In Hippocratis Prognosticum.

E d i d e r u n t ( H E R M A N N U S DIELS, IOHANNES MEWALDT), IOSEPHUS H E E G ( =

C o r p u s Medicorum Graecorum V 9,2), Leipzig and Berlin 1914, pp. X V I I I - X X I X , 1 9 5 - 3 7 8 Q u o d optimus medicus sit q u o q u e philosophus ( Q u o d opt. medic.) In: Scripta

minora.

Recensuerunt

IOHANNES MARQUARDT,

IWANUS M U E L L E R ,

GEORGIUS

HELMREICH ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), vol. II ex recognitione IWANI MUELLER, Leipzig 1891, pp. 1 - 8

Bibliography

XXII

Pseudo-Galenus (Ps.-Gal.) A n animal sit q u o d est in utero (An animal) Galeni qui fertur libellus EI Ζ Ω Ι Ο Ν T O Κ Α Τ Α Γ Α Σ Τ Ρ Ο Σ . Scripsit HERMANNUS WAGNER, Phil. Diss. M a r b u r g 1914 D e diaeta in m o r b i s acutis secundum H i p p o c r a t e m (De diaeta in m o r b . acut.) I n : In H i p p o c r a t i s D e natura hominis. In Hippocratis D e victu a c u t o r u m . D e diaeta Hippocratis

in m o r b i s

acutis.

Ediderunt

(IOHANNES MEWALDT,

GEORGIUS

HELMREICH),

IOHANNES WESTENBERGER ( = C o r p u s M e d i c o r u m G r a e c o r u m V 9,1), Leipzig and Berlin 1914, p p . X X X I X - X L , 3 6 8 - 3 9 2 I n : O n the Parts of Medicine. O n Cohesive Causes. O n Regimen in Acute Diseases in Accordance with the Theories of H i p p o c r a t e s . First Edition of the Arabic Versions with English Translation by MALCOLM CAMERON LYONS. T h e Latin Versions of O n the Parts of M e d i c i n e e d . b y H E R M A N N SCHOENE a n d O n C o h e s i v e C a u s e s e d . b y KARL KALBFLEISCH, r e e d i t e d b y JUTTA K O L L E S C H , D I E T H A R D N I C K E L a n d G O T T H A R D STROHMAIER ( =

Corpus

M e d i c o r u m G r a e c o r u m . Supplementum O r i e n t a l e II), Berlin 1969, p p . 74 — 111

Aulus Gellius (Gell.) N o c t e s Atticae. Recognovit brevique a d n o t a t i o n e critica instruxit PETER KENNETH MARSHALL ( = Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis), O x f o r d 1968

Gregory of Nazianzus Scholia on the O r a t i o n s of G r e g o r y of N a z i a n z u s (Schol. G . N a z . or.) I n : P G 36, Paris, pp. 9 0 3 - 9 1 6

William Harvey Exercitationes de generatione animalium Exercitationes de generatione animalium. Q u i b u s accedunt quaedam de p a r t u , de m e m b r a n i s ac h u m o r i b u s uteri, de conceptione, L o n d o n 1651 I n : T h e W o r k s of William H a r v e y , M . D . Translated f r o m the Latin with a Life of the A u t h o r by ROBERT WILLIS, L o n d o n 1847 ( = T h e S y d e n h a m Society), L o n d o n 1847, pp. 143 — 586

Heraclitus (Heraclit.) Heraclitus. T h e Cosmic Fragments. Edited with an I n t r o d u c t i o n and C o m m e n t a r y GEOFFREY STEPHEN K I R K , C a m b r i d g e

by

1954

Heraclitus. Greek Text with a Short C o m m e n t a r y by MIROSLAV MARCOVICH. Editio maior, Merida (Venezuela) 1967 I n : VS I p p . 1 3 9 - 1 9 0

Hero of Alexandria Pneumatica ( P n e u m . ) I n : O p e r a quae supersunt, vol. 1: Pneumatica et automata. Recensuit GUILELMUS SCHMIDT ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum G r a e c o r u m et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), Leipzig 1899, pp. 1—333

Herodotus Historiae. Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit CAROLUS HUDE ( = Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis), vol. 1—2, 3rd ed., O x f o r d 1927

Bibliography

XXIII

Hesiod (Hes.) Theogonia. Opera et dies. Scutum. Edidit FRIEDRICH SOLMSEN. Fragmenta selecta ediderunt REINHOLD MERKELBACH e t MARTIN LITCHFIELD WEST ( = S c r i p t o r u m c l a s s i c o r u m b i b l i o t h e c a

Oxoniensis), O x f o r d 1970

Himerius (Him.) Declamationes et orationes cum deperditarum fragmentis. Recensuit ARISTIDES COLONNA ( = Scriptores Graeci et Latini consilio Academiae Lynceorum editi), R o m e 1951

H i p p o c r a t e s see C o r p u s H i p p o c r a t i c u m

Hipponax (Hippon.) In: Anthologia lyrica Graeca, fasc. 3 pp. 8 0 - 1 1 8 In: Iambi, vol. 1, pp. 1 0 9 - 1 7 1

Homer (Horn.) Ilias (II.) Homeri O p e r a : tomi I —II Iliadis libros continentes. Recognoverunt brevique adnotatione c r i t i c a i n s t r u x e r u n t DAVID BINNING M O N R O e t THOMAS WILLIAM ALLEN ( = S c r i p t o r u m c l a s s i -

corum bibliotheca Oxoniensis), 3rd ed., O x f o r d 1920 Odyssea ( O d . ) H o m e r i O p e r a : tomi III —IV Odysseae libros continentes. Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit THOMAS WILLIAM ALLEN ( = Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis), 2nd ed., O x f o r d 1 9 1 7 - 1 9 1 9 H o m e r i Odyssea. Recognovit PETER VON DER MÜHLL ( = Editiones Helveticae, Series Graeca, 4), Basle 1946 Scholia on H o m e r ' s Iliad (Schol. H o r n . II.) Scholia Graeca in H o m e r i Iliadem (Scholia vetera). Recensuit HARTMUT ERBSE, Berlin 1969— 1977

Iambi = Iambi et elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati. Edidit MARTIN LITCHFIELD WEST, vols. 1 - 2 , Oxford 1971-1972

Pseudo-Iamblichus (Ps.-Iamb.) Theologumena arithmeticae (Theolog. Arithm.) Theologumena arithmeticae. Edidit VICTORIUS DE FALCO ( = Graecorum et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), Leipzig 1922

Bibliotheca

scriptorum

I b n Sahdä al-Karhl (Karhl) Kitäb al-ajinna li-buqrät. Hippocrates: O n Embryos ( O n the Sperm & O n the N a t u r e of the Child). Edited and Translated with Introduction, C o m m e n t a r y and Glossary by MALCOLM CAMERON LYONS a n d JOHN NICHOLAS MATTOCK ( = A r a b i c T e c h n i c a l a n d S c i e n t i f i c T e x t s ,

vol. 7), Cambridge 1978

XXIV

Bibliography

John of Alexandria (Joh. Alex.) In Hippocratis D e natura pueri scholion (In H i p p . N a t . Puer. schol.) In: Apollonii Citiensis, Stephani Palladii, Theophili, Meletii, Damascii, Ioannis, aliorum Scholia in Hippocratem et Galenum. Ε codicibus mss. Vindobonens. Monacens. Florentin. Mediolanens. Escorialens. etc. primum Graece edidit FRIDERICUS REINHOLDUS DIETZ, vol. 2, Königsberg 1834, pp. 2 0 5 - 2 3 5

Pseudo-John Philoponus (Ps.-Io. Philop.) In Aristotelis libros de generatione animalium commentaria (In Arist. G A comment.) In libros de generatione animalium commentaria. Consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum regiae Borussicae edidit MICHAEL HAYDUCK ( = Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca edita consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum regiae Borussicae, vol. 14,3), Berlin 1903

Isocrates (Isoc.) Isocrate ( = Collection des Universites de France), vol. 1. Texte etabli et traduit par GEORGES MATHIEU et EMILE BREMOND, 2 n d e d . , P a r i s 1 9 5 6 ; v o l . 2 . T e x t e etabli et t r a d u i t p a r GEORGES MATHIEU

et EMILE BREMOND,

Paris

1961; vol.

3. T e x t e etabli et t r a d u i t p a r

GEORGES

MATHIEU, 3rd ed., Paris 1960; vol. 4. Texte etabli et traduit par GEORGES MATHIEU et £MILE BREMOND, Paris 1962

Orationes. Recognovit, praefatus est indicem n o m i n u m addidit GUSTAVUS EDUARDUS BENSELER. Editio altera curante FRIDERICO BLASS ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), vols. 1—2, Leipzig 1 8 7 9 - 1 8 8 9

Lactantius (Lact.) Divinae institutiones (inst.) Divinae institutiones et epitome divinarum institutionum. Recensuit SAMUEL BRANDT (L. Caeli Firmiani Lactanti Opera omnia recensuerunt SAMUEL BRANDT et GEORGIUS LAUBMANN, vol. 1; = C o r p u s Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum editum consilio et impensis Academiae Litterarum Caesareae Vindobonensis, vol. 19), Prague, Vienna, Leipzig 1890

Lucian (Luc.) Lucianus ex recensione CAROLI IACOBITZ, vols. 1—4, Leipzig 1836—1841 Luciani O p e r a . Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit DONALD MACLEOD ( = Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis), vol. 2, O x f o r d 1974

Lucretius (Lucr.) D e rerum natura libri sex. With N o t e s and a Translation by HUGH ANDREW JOHNSTONE MUNRO, 4th ed., (vol. 1): Translation, vol. 2: Explanatory notes, Cambridge 1886-1891 De rerum natura libri sex. Edited with Prolegomena, Critical Apparatus, Translation and C o m m e n t a r y b y C Y R I L BAILEY, O x f o r d

1947

Lysias (Lys.) Discours. Texte etabli et traduit par L o u i s GERNET et MARCEL BIZOS ( = Collection des Universites de France), vol. 1, 3rd ed., Paris 1955; vol. 2, 2nd ed., Paris 1955

Bibliography

XXV

Macrobius (Macr.) Convivia primi diei Saturnaliorum (sat.) Saturnalia. Apparatu critico . . . instruxit IACOBUS WILLIS ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), 2nd ed., Leipzig 1970 Commentarii in Ciceronis somnium Scipionis (somn.) Commentarii in somnium Scipionis. Edidit IACOBUS WILLIS ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), 2nd ed., Leipzig 1970

Oribasius (Orib.) Collectionum medicarum reliquiae. Edidit IOANNES RAEDER ( = C o r p u s Medicorum Graecorum VI 1, 1 - 2 ; VI 2, 1 - 2 ) , vols. 1 - 4 , Leipzig and Berlin 1 9 2 8 - 1 9 3 3 Synopsis ad Eustathium. Libri ad Eunapium. Edidit IOANNES RAEDER ( = C o r p u s Medicorum Graecorum VI 3), Leipzig and Berlin 1926

Papyrus Ebers (Eb.), Papyrus Smith (Sm.) In: HERMANN GRAPOW: Die medizinischen Texte in hieroglyphischer Umschreibung autographiert ( = G r u n d r i ß der Medizin der Alten Ägypter V), Berlin 1958 I n : H I L D E G A R D VON D E I N E S , H E R M A N N

GRAPOW, WOLFHART WESTENDORF:

Übersetzung

der medizinischen Texte ( = G r u n d r i ß der Medizin der Alten Ägypter IV 1), Berlin 1958 The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus. Published in Facsimile and Hieroglyphic Transliteration with Translation and C o m m e n t a r y

in t w o V o l u m e s b y JAMES HENRY BREASTED ( =

The

University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Publications, vols. 3 - 4 ) , Chicago 1930 Die alt-ägyptische Chirurgie. Die chirurgischen Abschnitte des Papyrus Ε. Smith und Papyrus Ebers. Ubersetzt und mit Erläuterungen versehen von BENDIX EBBELL ( = Skrifter utgitt av Det N o r s k e Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, II. Hist.-filos. Kl. 1939, N o . 2), O s l o 1939 The Papyrus Ebers. T h e Greatest Egyptian Medical D o c u m e n t . Translated by BENDIX EBBELL, C o p e n h a g e n 1 9 3 7

The Hibeh Papyri (PHib.) The Hibeh Papyri. Part I. Edited with Translation and N o t e s by BERNHARD PYNE GRENFELL and ARTHUR SURRIDGE HUNT ( = Egypt Exploration F u n d . G r a e c o - R o m a n Branch), L o n d o n 1906; Part II. Edited with Translations and Notes by ERIC GARDINER TURNER with the Collaboration in the Edition of N o . 198 of MARIE-THERESE LENGER ( = Egypt Exploration Society), L o n d o n 1955

The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (POxy.) The O x y r h y n c h u s Papyri. Parts I f f . Edited with Translations and N o t e s by BERNARD PYNE GRENFELL a n d ARTHUR SURRIDGE H U N T et al. ( = E g y p t E x p l o r a t i o n F u n d .

Graeco-Roman

Branch), L o n d o n 1898 ff.

Paul of Aegina (Paul. Aeg.) Paulus Aegineta. Edidit JOHAN LUDVIG HEIBERG ( = C o r p u s Medicorum Graecorum IX 1,2), Leipzig and Berlin 1 9 2 1 - 1 9 2 4

PG = Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca accurante JACQUES-PAUL MIGNE, vols. 1 — 161, Paris 1857-1866

Bibliography

XXVI

Philistion of L o c r o i (Philist.) I n : Wellmann F r a g m e n t e p p . 109 — 116

Philo of B y z a n t i u m (Ph.) Mechanicae syntaxis libri quartus et quintus. Recensuit RICHARDUS SCHOENE, Berlin 1893 Philons B e l o p o i i k a (Viertes Buch der Mechanik). Griechisch und deutsch von HERMANN DIELS und ERWIN SCHRAMM ( = A b h . Preuss. A k a d . Wiss. 1918, Phil.-hist. KL., N o . 16), Berlin 1919 Index v e r b o r u m a Philone B y z a n t i o in Mechanicae syntaxis libris quarto q u i n t o q u e a d h i b i t o r u m . C o m p o s u i t MAXIMILIANUS ARNIM ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum G r a e c o r u m et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), Leipzig 1927

Pindar (Pi.) C a r m i n a cum fragmentis. Post BRUNONEM SNELL edidit HERVICUS MAEHLER ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum G r a e c o r u m et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), vols. 1—2, L e i p z i g 1971 — 1975

Plato (PI.) Collected W o r k s O p e r a . R e c o g n o v i t brevique adnotatione critica instruxit IOANNES BURNET ( = classicorum bibliotheca O x o n i e n s i s ) , vols. 1 - 5 , O x f o r d 1900—1907

Scriptorum

Individual W o r k s Phaedo ( P h d . ) BLUCK, RICHARD STANLEY: Plato's Phaedo. Α Translation of Plato's Phaedo with Introduction, N o t e s and A p p e n d i x ( = International L i b r a r y of P s y c h o l o g y , P h i l o s o p h y and Scientific M e t h o d ) , L o n d o n 1955 T i m a e u s (Ti.) CORNFORD, FRANCIS MACDONALD: Plato's C o s m o l o g y . T h e T i m a e u s of Plato Translated with a R u n n i n g C o m m e n t a r y ( = International Library of P s y c h o l o g y , P h i l o s o p h y and Scientific M e t h o d ) , L o n d o n 1937

Pliny the Elder (Plin.) N a t u r a l i s historia (nat.) N a t u r a l i s historiae libri X X X V I I . Post LUDOVICI IANI o b i t u m recognovit et scripturae discrepantia adiecta edidit CAROLUS MAYHOFF ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum G r a e c o r u m et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), Leipzig 1897—1909 H i s t o i r e naturelle. T e x t e etabli, traduit et c o m m e n t e par JEAN BEAUJEU et al. ( = Collection des Universites de France), Paris 1950ff.

Plutarch (Plut.) D e cupiditate divitiarum ( D e cup. div.) In:

Plutarchi

Moralia,

vol.

III.

Recensuerunt

WILLIAM

ROGER

PATON,

MAX

POHLENZ,

(WILHELM SIEVEKING) ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum G r a e c o r u m et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), L e i p z i g 1929, p p . 3 3 2 - 3 4 6 Q u a e s t i o n e s convivales ( Q u a e s t . conviv.) In: Plutarchi Moralia, vol. I V : Recensuit et emendavit CURT HUBERT ( = scriptorum G r a e c o r u m et R o m a n o r u m Teubneriana), Leipzig 1971, p p . 1—335

Bibliotheca

Bibliography

XXVII

T a b l e - T a l k . I n : P l u t a r c h ' s M o r a l i a ( = T h e L o e b C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y v o l s . 4 2 4 , 4 2 5 ) , vol. 8 : With an E n g l i s h T r a n s l a t i o n

by

HOFFLEIT ( B o o k s 4 - 6 ) ,

PAUL AUGUSTUS CLEMENT ( B o o k s

Cambridge/Mass,

and L o n d o n

HERBERT

BENNO

1 9 6 9 ; v o l . 9 : W i t h an

1—3) a n d

English

T r a n s l a t i o n b y EDWIN LEROY M I N A R , J R . ( B o o k s 7—8) a n d FRANCIS H E N R Y SANDBACH ( B o o k

9), C a m b r i d g e / M a s s , a n d L o n d o n 1961, p p . 1 - 2 9 9

Poetae melici Graeci Alcmanis, Stesichori, Ibyci, Anacreontis, Simonidis, Corinnae, p o e t a r u m m i n o r u m reliquias, c a r m i n a p o p u l a r i a et c o n v i v a l i a q u a e q u e a d e s p o t a f e r u n t u r edidit DENYS LIONEL PAGE, O x f o r d 1962

Pollux (Poll.) O n o m a s t i c o n . Ε c o d i c i b u s a b i p s o collatis d e n u o edidit et a d n o t a v i t ERICUS BETHE ( = L e x i c o g r a p h i G r a e c i recogniti et a p p a r a t u critico instructi I X 1—3), v o l . 1, 2 n d e d . , L e i p z i g 1900; v o l . 2, L e i p z i g 1 9 3 1 ; v o l . 3, L e i p z i g 1937

Praxagoras (Praxag.) T h e F r a g m e n t s of P r a x a g o r a s of C o s a n d H i s S c h o o l . C o l l e c t e d , E d i t e d a n d T r a n s l a t e d b y FRITZ STECKERL ( = P h i l o s o p h i a A n t i q u a . A Series of M o n o g r a p h s o n A n c i e n t P h i l o s o p h y ed. b y WILLEM JACOB VERDENIUS a n d JAN HENDRIK WASZINK, v o l . 8), L e i d e n

1958

Proclus (Procl.) In P i a t o n i s r e m p u b l i c a m c o m m e n t a r i i (In PI. R . c o m m e n t . ) In P l a t o n i s rem p u b l i c a m c o m m e n t a r i i . E d i d i t GUILELMUS K R O L L ( = B i b l i o t h e c a s c r i p t o r u m G r a e c o r u m et R o m a n o r u m T e u b n e r i a n a ) , v o l s . 1—2, L e i p z i g 1899 — 1901

R u f u s of E p h e s u s ( R u f . ) CEuvres de R u f u s d ' E p h e s e . T e x t e c o l l a t i o n n e sur les m a n u s c r i t s t r a d u i t p o u r la p r e m i e r e f o i s en fran$ais avec u n e i n t r o d u c t i o n . P u b l i c a t i o n c o m m e n c e e p a r CHARLES DAREMBERG, c o n tinuee et t e r m i n e e p a r CHARLES £MILE RUELLE, Paris 1879

Scholia See u n d e r the a u t h o r c o m m e n t e d u p o n .

Seneca (Sen.) Naturales quaestiones (nat.) N a t u r a l i u m q u a e s t i o n u m libri V I I I . E d i d i t ALFRED GERCKE. E d i t i o s t e r e o t y p a editionis anni 1907 c u m a d d e n d i s ( L . A n n a e i S e n e c a e O p e r a o m n i a q u a e s u p e r s u n t , v o l . 2 ; =

Bibliotheca

s c r i p t o r u m G r a e c o r u m et R o m a n o r u m T e u b n e r i a n a ) , S t u t t g a r t 1970 Q u e s t i o n s naturelles.

Texte

etabli et traduit par PAUL OLTRAMARE ( =

Collection

des

U n i v e r s i t e s de F r a n c e ) , v o l s . 1—2, P a r i s 1929

Septuaginta S e p t u a g i n t a . V e t u s t e s t a m e n t u m G r a e c u m auctoritate A c a d e m i a e s c i e n t i a r u m

Gottingensis

e d i t u m , v o l . I f f . , G ö t t i n g e n 1931 f f . S e p t u a g i n t a id est V e t u s t e s t a m e n t u m G r a e c e iuxta L X X i n t e r p r e t e s . E d i d i t ALFRED RAHLFS, v o l s . 1 - 2 , S t u t t g a r t 1935

XXVIII

Bibliography

Simplicius (Simp.) In Aristotelis physicorum libros commentaria (In Ph.) In Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuor priores commentaria. Consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum regiae Borussicae edidit HERMANNUS DIELS ( = Commentaria Graeca edita consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum regiae Borussicae, vol. 9), Berlin 1882 In Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuor posteriores commentaria. Consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum regiae Borussicae edidit HERMANNUS DIELS ( = Commentaria Graeca edita consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum regiae Borussicae, vol. 10), Berlin 1895

Solon (Sol.) In: Iambi, vol. 2, pp. 1 1 9 - 1 4 5 I n : Anthologia lyrica Graeca, fasc. 1, pp. 20—47

Sophocles (Soph.) Collected Works Sophocle. Texte etabli par ALPHONSE DAIN et traduit par PAUL MAZON ( = Collection des Universites de France), vols. 1 - 3 , Paris 1 9 5 9 - 1 9 6 0 Tragoediae. Edidit ROGER DAVID DAWE ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana), vols. 1 - 2 , Leipzig 1975 — 1979 Individual W o r k s Antigone (Ant.) Sophocles. The Plays and Fragments with Critical Notes, Commentary and Translation in English Prose by RICHARD CLAVERHOUSE JEBB, part III: T h e Antigone, 3rd ed., Cambridge 1900

Soranus of Ephesus (Sor.) Gynaeciorum libri I V , D e signis fracturarum, D e fasciis, Vita Hippocratis secundum Soranum. Edidit IOANNES ILBERG ( = Corpus Medicorum Graecorum IV), Berlin and Leipzig 1927 Gynecology. Translated with an Introduction by OWSEI TEMKIN with the Assistance of N I C H O L S O N J O S E P H EASTMAN, L U D W I G EDELSTEIN a n d A L A N FRANK G U T T M A C H E R ( =

Publi-

cations of the Institute of the History of Medicine. T h e Johns Hopkins University, 2nd series: Texts and Documents, vol. 3), Baltimore 1956

Strabo (Str.) Geographica. Recognovit AUGUSTUS MEINEKE ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana), vols. 1—3, Leipzig 1866 Geographie. Introduction par GERMAINE AUJAC et FRANCOIS LASSERRE. Texte etabli et traduit p a r G E R M A I N E A U J A C , R A O U L BALADIE e t FRANGOIS LASSERRE ( = C o l l e c t i o n d e s U n i v e r s i t e s

de France), vol. i f f . , Paris 1969ff.

Strato of Lampsacus (Strat.) Straton von Lampsakos. Hrsg. von FRITZ WEHRLI ( = Die Schule des Aristoteles, vol. 5), 2nd ed., Basle and Stuttgart 1969 I n : Gottschalk Strato pp. 1 0 3 - 1 2 6

Bibliography

XXIX

TGF = Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Recensuit AUGUSTUS NAUCK, 2nd ed., Leipzig 1889

Theopompus of Chius (Theopomp. Hist.) I n : Hellenica Oxyrhynchia cum Theopompi et Cratippi fragmentis. Recognoverunt brevique a d n o t a t i o n e c r i t i c a i n s t r u x e r u n t BERNARDUS PYNE G R E N F E L L e t A R T U R U S SURRIDGE H U N T ( =

Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis), O x f o r d 1909, pp. I —LVI

Theophrastus (Thphr.) Collected Works Opera quae supersunt omnia. Ex recognitione FRIDERICI WIMMER ( = Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana), Leipzig 1854—1862 Opera quae supersunt omnia Graeca. Recensuit Latine interpretatus est, indices rerum et verborum absolutissimos adjecit FRIDERICUS WIMMER, Paris 1866 Individual Works D e causis plantarum ( C P ) D e causis plantarum. With an English Translation by BENEDICT EINARSON and GEORGE KONRAD KARL LINK ( = T h e Loeb Classical Library vol. 471), vol. 1, Cambridge/Mass, and London 1976 Historia Plantarum ( H P ) I n : Enquiry into Plants and Minor Works O n Odours and Weather Signs. With an English Translation by Sir ARTHUR HORT ( = The Loeb Classical Library vols. 70, 79), vols. 1—2, London 1961, vol. 1; vol. 2 pp. 1 - 3 2 1 D e igne (Ign.) Theophrastus D e igne. A Post-Aristotelian View of the Nature of Fire. Edited Introduction, Translation and Commentary by VICTOR COUTANT, Assen 1971 D e lapidibus (Lap.)

with

D e lapidibus. Edited with Introduction, Translation and Commentary by DAVID EDWARD EICHHOLZ, O x f o r d 1965 O n Stones. Introduction, Greek Text, English Translation and Commentary [by] EARLE R A D C L I F F E C A L E Y J O H N [ a n d ] FRANK CASEY RICHARDS ( =

Graduate School

Monographs),

C o l u m b u s / O h i o 1965 D e sensu (Sens.) I n : GEORGE MALCOLM STRATTON: T h e Greek Physiological Psychology before Aristotle, London 1917, pp. 6 6 - 1 5 1

Vindicianus Afer (Vindic.) Fragmentum ex codice Bruxellensi 1348 — 1359 f. 48 r (med.) In: Wellmann Fragmente pp. 208—234

Thucydides (Thuc.) Historiae. Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit HENRICUS STUART JONES. Apparatum criticum correxit et auxit JOHANNES ENOCH POWELL ( = Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis), Oxford 1942

XXX

Bibliography

Xenophon (X.) O p e r a omnia. Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit EDGAR CARDEW MARCHANT, vols. 1—5 ( = Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis), O x f o r d 1900 — 1950; vol. 2: C o m m e n t a r i i , O e c o n o m i c u s , C o n v i v i u m , Apologia Socratis, 2nd ed., O x f o r d 1921

2. Secondary Literature ABEL, KARLHANS: Die Lehre vom Blutkreislauf im C o r p u s H i p p o c r a t i c u m . H e r m e s 86 (1958) pp.

192-219

A d e l m a n n , M a l p i g h i = ADELMANN, HOWARD BERNHARDT: Marcello Malpighi and the Evolution of E m b r y o l o g y (= Cornell Publications in the H i s t o r y of Science), Ithaca/New Y o r k 1966 Anastassiou R e v . J o l y = ANASTASSIOU, ANARGYROS: [ R e v . ] H i p p o c r a t e . T o m e X I : De la generation; De la nature de l'enfant; Des maladies IV; Du foetus de huit mois. Texte etabli et traduit par ROBERT JOLY. Paris: Les Belles Lettres 1970. 189 ζ . T. Doppels. ( C o l l . des U n i v . de France). G n o m o n 45 (1973) pp. 5 2 9 - 5 4 0 Anastassiou R e v . W i t t e r n = ANASTASSIOU, ANARGYROS: [ R e v . ] Renate W i t t e r n : Die hippokratische Schrift De morbis I. A u s g a b e , Ubersetzung u n d Erläuterungen. Hildesheim/New Y o r k : O l m s 1974. C X X I I , 249 S. ( A l t e r t u m s w i s s . Texte u n d Studien. 3). G n o m o n 49 (1977) pp. 666—676 ARTELT, WALTER: Studien zur Geschichte der Begriffe " H e i l m i t t e l " und " G i f t " . Urzeit — H o m e r — C o r p u s H i p p o c r a t i c u m ( = Studien zur Geschichte der M e d i z i n , vol. 23), Leipzig 1937 BALDRY, HAROLD CAPARNE: Embryological Analogies in Pre-Socratic C o s m o l o g y . The Classical Q u a r t e r l y 26 (1932) pp. 2 7 - 3 4 BEAZLEY, JOHN DAVIDSON: Attic R e d - F i g u r e Vase-Painters, vols. 1 - 3 , 2nd ed., O x f o r d 1963 BECK, THEODOR: Das wissenschaftliche Experiment in der hippokratischen B ü c h e r s a m m l u n g , in: Verhandlungen der 49. Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in Basel vom 24. bis 27. September 1907, Leipzig 1908, pp. 1 9 7 - 2 0 1 BERGER, ERNST: Das Basler Arztrelief. Studien z u m griechischen Grab- und Votivrelief um 500 v. C h r . u n d zur vorhippokratischen Medizin ( = Veröffentlichungen des A n t i k e n m u s e u m s Basel, vol. 1), Basle 1970 BIGNONE, ETTORE: I poeti filosofi della Grecia. Empedocle. Studio critico. T r a d u z i o n e e c o m m e n t o delle testimonianze e dei frammenti (= II pensiero greco, vol. 11), T u r i n , Milan and R o m e 1916 BLACK, MAX: M o d e l s and Metaphors. Studies in L a n g u a g e and P h i l o s o p h y , Ithaca/New Y o r k 1962 BLERSCH, KONRAD: W e s e n und Entstehung des Sexus im Denken der Antike ( = Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, hrsg. von OTTO WEINREICH, vol. 29), Stuttgart and Berlin 1937 BOISACQ, £MILE: Dictionnaire e t y m o l o g i q u e de la langue grecque etudiee dans ses rapports avec les autres langues indo-europeennes, Heidelberg and Paris 1938 BOLLACK, JEAN: E m p e d o c l e , v o l s . 1 - 3 , 2 , P a r i s

1965-1969

BOURGEY, LOUIS: Observation et experience chez les medecins de la Collection hippocratique ( = Bibliotheque d'histoire de la philosophie), Paris 1953 BURKERT, WALTER: Lore and Science in Ancient P y t h a g o r e i s m . Translated b y EDWIN LEROY MINAR J R . , C a m b r i d g e / M a s s .

1972

CHAMOUX, FRANQOIS: C y r e n e sous la monarchic des Battiades ( = Bibliotheque des ecoles frangaises d ' A t h e n e s et de R o m e , vol. 177), Paris 1953 CHANTRAINE, PIERRE: Dictionnaire e t y m o l o g i q u e de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots, vols. 1 - 4 , Paris 1 9 6 8 - 1 9 8 0 . COBET = COBET, CAREL GABRIEL: A d Aristaeneti, q u e m vocant, epistolas. M n e m o s y n e 9 (1860) pp. 1 4 8 - 1 7 0

Bibliography

XXXI

DANA, RICHARD HENRY: TWO Years before the Mast, N e w Y o r k 1840 Deichgräber Epidemien = DEICHGRÄBER, KARL: Die Epidemien und das Corpus H i p p o c r a ticum. Voruntersuchungen zu einer Geschichte der koischen Ärzteschule ( = A b h . Preuss. Akad. Wiss., Phil.-hist. KL., 1933, N o . 3), Berlin 1933; mit einem Nachwort und Nachträgen vermehrter photomechanischer Nachdruck, Berlin and N e w Y o r k 1971 Deichgräber Prophasis = DEICHGRÄBER, KARL: Π Ρ Ο Φ Α Σ Ι Σ . Eine terminologische Studie. Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und der Medizin 3 (1933) pp. 209-225 Deines-Westendorf Wörterbuch

=

D E I N E S , H I L D E G A R D VON a n d W O L F H A R T

WESTENDORF:

Wörterbuch der medizinischen Texte ( = Grundriß der Medizin der Alten Ägypter V I I 1.2), Berlin 1 9 6 1 - 1 9 6 2 DELATTE, ARMAND: Les harmonies dans L'embryologie hippocratique, in: Melanges Paul T h o m a s . Recueil de memoires concernant la philologie, dedie ä Paul T h o m a s , Bruges 1930, pp. 1 6 0 - 1 7 1 DE LEY, HERMAN: Pangenesis versus Panspermia. Democritean notes on Aristotle's Generation of Animals. Hermes 108 (1980) pp. 1 2 9 - 1 5 3 DEMONT, PAUL: Remarques sur le sens de Τ Ρ Ε Φ Ω . Revue des etudes grecques 91 (1978) pp. 358-384 DENNISTON, JOHN DEWAR: T h e G r e e k Particles, 2 n d e d . , O x f o r d

1966

Diels Excerpte = DIELS, HERMANN: Ü b e r die Excerpte von Menons Iatrika in dem Londoner Papyrus 137. Hermes 28 (1893) pp. 4 0 7 - 4 3 4 Diels Leukipp = DIELS, HERMANN: Ueber Leukipp und D e m o k r i t , in: Verhandlungen der 35. Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner zu Stettin 1880, Leipzig 1881, pp. 96-109 Diepgen Frauenheilkunde = DIEPGEN, PAUL: Die Frauenheilkunde der Alten Welt ( = Handbuch der Gynäkologie, hrsg. von WALTR STOECKEL, vol. 12,1), Munich 1937 Diepgen Geschichte = DIEPGEN, PAUL: Geschichte der Medizin. Die historische Entwicklung der Heilkunde und des ärztlichen Lebens, vols. 1—2,2, Berlin 1949 — 1955 Diller Lehre = DILLER, HANS: Die Lehre vom Butkreislauf, eine verschollene Entdeckung der Hippokratiker? Sudhoffs Arch. Gesch. Med. 31 (1938) pp. 2 0 1 - 2 1 8 = Diller Schriften pp. 31-45 Diller Ό ψ ι ς άδηλων = DILLER HANS: Ό ψ ι ς άδηλων τά φαινόμενα. Hermes 67 (1932) pp. 14—62; reprinted in: H . D . , Kleine Schriften zur antiken Literatur, hrsg. von HANS-JOACHIM N E W I G E R u n d HANS SEYFFERT, M u n i c h

1971, pp.

119-143

Diller Rev. Pohlenz = DILLER, HANS: [Rev.] Max P o h l e n z : Hippokrates und die Begründung der wissenschaftlichen Medizin, Berlin 1938 — Hippokratesstudien, Göttingen 1937. G n o m o n 18 (1942) pp. 6 5 - 8 8 = Diller Schriften pp. 1 8 8 - 2 0 9 Diller Schrift = DILLER, HANS: Eine stoisch-pneumatische Schrift im Corpus Hippocraticum. Sudhoffs Arch. Gesch. Med. 29 (1936) pp. 1 7 8 - 1 9 5 = Diller Schriften pp. 1 7 - 3 0 Diller Schriften = DILLER, HANS: Kleine Schriften zur antiken Medizin. Hrsg. von GERHARD BAADER, HERMANN GRENSEMANN (Ars medica. T e x t e und Untersuchungen zur Quellenkunde der Alten Medizin. Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Geschichte der Medizin der Freien U n i v e r s i t ä t B e r l i n , 2 . A b t . hrsg. v o n KARL DEICHGRÄBER, HANS D I L L E R , H E I N Z

GOERKE,

vol. 3), Berlin, N e w Y o r k 1973 Diller Wanderarzt = DILLER, HANS: Wanderarzt und Aitiologe. Studien zur hippokratischen Schrift Π Ε Ρ Ι Α Ε Ρ Ω Ν Υ Δ Α Τ Ω Ν Τ Ο Π Ω Ν ( = Philologus Suppl. bd. 2 6 , 3 ) , Leipzig 1934 DITTMER, HANS-LOUIS: Konstitutionstypen im Corpus Hippocraticum, eingeleitet durch einen kurzen Uberblick über die Zusammensetzung und über ihr Verhältnis zu Hippokrates, Phil. Diss. Jena 1939, Würzburg-Aumühle 1940 DÖNT, HILDE: Die Terminologie von Geschwür, Geschwulst und Anschwellung im C o r p u s Hippocraticum, Phil. Diss. Wien 1967 ( = Dissertationen der Universität Wien 5), Vienna 1968 DUMORTIER, JEAN: Le vocabulaire medical d'Eschyle et les ecrits hippocratiques ( = Collection d'etudes anciennes publiee sous la patronage de l'Association Guillaume Bude), 2nd ed., Paris 1975

Bibliography

XXXII

Edelstein O a t h = The Hippocratic O a t h . Text, Translation and Interpretation by LUDWIG EDELSTEIN ( = Supplements to the Bulletin of the History of Medicine. Editor: HENRY ERNEST SIGERIST, N o . 1), B a l t i m o r e 1943 ELWIN, HARRY VERRIER H O L M A N : T h e Baiga. W i t h a F o r e w o r d b y J o h n HENRY

HUTTON,

L o n d o n 1939 FASBENDER, HEINRICH: E n t w i c k l u n g s l e h r e , Geburtshülfe und Gynäkologie in den hippokratischen Schriften. Eine kritische Studie, Stuttgart 1897 FLASHAR, HELLMUT: Melancholie und Melancholiker in den medizinischen Theorien der Antike, Berlin 1966 Foesius Oeconomia = FOESIUS, ANUTIUS: Oeconomia Hippocratis alphabeti serie distincta, in qua dictionum apud Hippocratem o m n i u m , praesertim obscurarum, usus explicatur & velut ex amplissimo penu depromitur ita ut lexicon Hippocrateum merito dici potest, Frankfurt am Main 1588 FORBES, ROBERT JAMES: Studies in Ancient Technology, vols. 1—9, 2nd ed., Leyden 1964-1972

FRANKEL, HERMANN: Wege und Formen frühgriechischen Denkens. Literarische und philosophiegeschichtliche Studien, hrsg. von FRANZ TIETZE, 3rd ed., Munich 1968 FRANK, ERICH: Plato und die sogenannten Pythagoreer. Ein Kapitel aus der Geschichte des griechischen Geistes, Halle (Saale) 1923 FRANKENSTEIN, KUNO: Aryster, in: R E , Suppl. bd. 3, Stuttgart 1918, cols. 163f. FRÄSER, PETER MARSHALL: P t o l e m a i c A l e x a n d r i a , O x f o r d 1972

Fredrich Περί φ ύ σ ι ο ς α ν θ ρ ώ π ο υ = FREDRICH, CARL: De libro Περί φ ύ σ ι ο ς ά ν θ ρ ω π ο υ pseudippocrateo, Phil. Diss. Göttingen 1894 Fredrich Untersuchungen = FREDRICH, CARL: Hippokratische Untersuchungen ( = Philologische

Untersuchungen,

hrsg.

von

ADOLF

KIESSLING

und

ULRICH

VON

WILAMOWITZ-

MOELLENDORFF, v o l . 15), B e r l i n 1899

FREUD, SIGMUND: G e s a m m e l t e W e r k e . C h r o n o l o g i s c h g e o r d n e t , h r s g . v o n ANNA FREUD, EDWARD BIBRING, W .

HOFFER, ERNST KRIS, Ο .

ISAKOWER, L o n d o n o r F r a n k f u r t a m

Main

1952-1968 FRISK, HJALMAR: Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch ( = Indogermanische Bibliothek, 2. Reihe), vols. 1 - 3 , Heidelberg 1969-1972 GEMMILL, CHALMERS LAUGHLIN: Silphium. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 40 (1966) pp. 295-313 GEURTS, PETRUS MELCHIOR MARIA: D e e r f e l i j k h e i d in d e o u d e r e G r i e k s c h e

wetenshap,

Nijmegen and Utrecht 1941 GILBERT, MARGARET SHEA: B i o g r a p h y of t h e U n b o r n , L o n d o n 1939

GILLESPIE, C . M . : The Use of Ε ί δ ο ς and ' Ι δ έ α in Hippocrates. The Classical Quarterly 6 (1912) pp. 1 7 9 - 2 0 3 GOSSEN, JOHANNES: D e G a l e n i l i b r o q u i Σ Υ Ν Ο Ψ Ι Σ

ΠΕΡΙ ΣΦΥΓΜΩΝ

inscribitur,

Phil.

Diss. Berlin 1907 Gottschalk Lucretius = GOTTSCHALK, HANS B.: Lucretius on the 'Water of the Sun'. Philologus 110 (1966) pp. 3 1 1 - 3 1 5 Gottschalk Strato = GOTTSCHALK, HANS Β.: Strato of Lampsacus: Some texts. Edited with a C o m m e n t a r y by HANS B. Gottschalk. Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, Literary and Historical Section, 11 (1964-1966) pp. 9 5 - 1 8 2 Grensemann Knidische Medizin = GRENSEMANN, HERMANN: Knidische Medizin Teil I: Die Testimonien zur ältesten knidischen Lehre und Analysen knidischer Schriften im C o r p u s Hippocraticum ( = Ars medica. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Quellenkunde der Alten Medizin. Schriftenreihe des Instituts f ü r Geschichte der Medizin der Freien Universität Berlin, begründet

von

HEINZ

GOERKE u n d

KONRAD

SCHUBRING f ,

2.

Abt.

hrsg.

von

BAADER, KARL DEICHGRÄBER, H A N S DILLER, v o l . 4 , 1 ) , B e r l i n a n d N e w Y o r k

GERHARD

1975

Grensemann Polybos = GRENSEMANN, HERMANN: Der Arzt Polybos als Verfasser hippokratischer Schriften ( = Abh. Akad. Wiss. Lit. [Mainz], Geistes- u. soz. wiss. KL, 1968 pp. 5 3 - 9 5 [ = N o . 2]), Mainz 1950

Bibliography Guthrie

Anaximenes

=

GUTHRIE,

WILLIAM

KEITH

XXXIII CHAMBERS:

Anaximenes

and

to

κ ρ υ σ τ α λ λ ο ε ι δ έ ς . T h e Classical Q u a r t e r l y 50 [ N . S . 6] (1956) p p . 4 0 - 4 4 Guthrie Beginning =

GUTHRIE, WILLIAM KEITH CHAMBERS: In the Beginning. S o m e

Greek

Views on the O r i g i n s of L i f e and the Early State of M a n , L o n d o n 1957 Guthrie History =

GUTHRIE, WILLIAM KEITH CHAMBERS: A H i s t o r y of G r e e k

Philosophy,

vols. 1 - 5 , C a m b r i d g e 1 9 6 2 - 1 9 7 8 HÄHNEL, RUTH: D e r künstliche A b o r t u s im Altertum. S u d h o f f s A r c h . G e s c h . M e d . 29 (1936) pp.

224-255

HARIG,GEORG: B e m e r k u n g e n z u m Verhältnis der griechischen zur altorientalischen M e d i z i n , in: C o r p u s H i p p o c r a t i c u m . Actes du C o l l o q u e hippocratique de M ö n s (22—26 s e p t e m b r e 1975), edites par ROBERT JOLY (Editions universitaires de M ö n s , Serie sciences humaines IV), Möns

1977, pp.

77-94

H A R R I S , C H A R L E S R E G I N A L D S C H I L L E R : T h e H e a r t a n d t h e V a s c u l a r S y s t e m in A n c i e n t

Greek

Medicine f r o m A l c m a e o n to G a l e n , O x f o r d 1973 Heidel A n a x i m a n d e r = HEIDEL, WILLIAM ARTHUR: O n A n a x i m a n d e r . Classical Philology 7 (1912) pp. 2 1 2 - 2 3 4 Heidel H i p p o c r a t e a = HEIDEL, WILLIAM ARTHUR: H i p p o c r a t e a I. H a r v a r d Studies in Classical Philology 25 (1914) p p . 1 3 9 - 2 0 3 Heidel Medicine = HEIDEL, WILLIAM ARTHUR: H i p p o c r a t i c Medicine, its Spirit and M e t h o d , N e w Y o r k 1941 HEINIMANN, FELIX: N o m o s und Physis. H e r k u n f t und B e d e u t u n g einer Antithese im griechischen D e n k e n des 5. J a h r h u n d e r t s ( = Schweizerische Beiträge zur A l t e r t u m s w i s s e n s c h a f t 1), Basle 1945 HELMREICH, GEORG: Handschriftliche Studien zu Meletius ( = A b h . Preuss. A k a d . W i s s . , Phil.-hist. K L , 1918 N o . 6), Berlin 1918 HOFMANN, JOHANN BAPTIST: E t y m o l o g i s c h e s W ö r t e r b u c h des G r i e c h i s c h e n , M u n i c h

1949

HOLWERDA, DOUWE: C o m m e n t a t i o de vocis quae est Φ Υ Σ Ι Σ vi atque usu praesertim in graecitate Aristotele anteriore, G r o n i n g e n 1955 HOPKINS, KEITH: C o n t r a c e p t i o n in the R o m a n E m p i r e . C o m p a r a t i v e Studies in Society and H i s t o r y 8 (The H a g u e 1965) p p . 1 2 4 - 1 5 1 ILBERG, JOHANNES: D i e Ä r z t e s c h u l e von K n i d o s ( = Ber. Verh. Sächs. A k a d . Wiss. L e i p z i g , Phil.-hist. Klasse 76, 1924, vol. 3), L e i p z i g 1925 J a c o b y H e k a t a i o s = JACOBY, FELIX: H e k a t a i o s , [ N o . 3], in: R E , vol. 7 [: 1], Stuttgart 1912, cols. 2 6 6 7 - 2 7 6 9 JAEGER, WERNER: D i o k l e s von K a r y s t o s . D i e griechische M e d i z i n u n d die Schule des Aristoteles, 2nd e d . , Berlin 1938 J o l y C h r o n o l o g i e = JOLY, ROBERT: Sur une Chronologie des traites cnidiens du C o r p u s hippocratique. E p i s t e m e 6 (1972) p p . 3 — 11 J o l y fidition = JOLY, ROBERT: Sur une nouvelle edition de " L a nature de l ' h o m m e " . L'antiquite classique 38 (1969) p p . 1 5 0 - 1 5 7 J o l y N i v e a u = JOLY, ROBERT: L e niveau de la science h i p p o c r a t i q u e . C o n t r i b u t i o n Ä la Psychologie de l'histoire des sciences, Paris 1966 J o l y N o t i c e G e n . = JOLY, ROBERT: N o t i c e , in: H i p p o c r a t e X I : D e la generation, D e la nature de l'enfant, D e s maladies I V , D u fcetus de huit mois. T e x t e etabli et traduit par ROBERT JOLY ( = Collection des Universites de France), Paris 1970, p p . 9—39 J o l y N o t i c e Vict. = JOLY, ROBERT: N o t i c e , in: H i p p o c r a t e V I 1: D u regime. T e x t e etabli et traduit par ROBERT JOLY ( = Collection des Universites de France), Paris 1967, p p . I X — X X X I V J o l y Recherches = JOLY, ROBERT: Recherches Sur le traite p s e u d o - h i p p o c r a t i q u e D u regime ( = Bibliotheque de la faculte de philosophie et lettres de l'Universite d e Liege, vol. 156), Paris 1960 J o l y Systeme = JOLY, ROBERT: L e s y s t e m e cnidien des h u m e u r s , in: L a Collection hippocratique et son role dans l'histoire de la medecine. C o l l o q u e de S t r a s b o u r g (23—27 o c t o b r e 1972) organise par le C e n t r e de recherche sur la G r e c e antique, avec le c o n c o u r s des

XXXIV

Bibliography

facultes de philosophie et des langues classiques ( = Universite des sciences humaines de Strasbourg. Travaux du Centre de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grece antique 2), Leiden 1975, p p . 1 0 7 - 1 2 7 Jouanna H i p p o c r a t e = JOUANNA, JACQUES: Hippocrate. Pour une archeologie de I'ecole de Cnide ( = Collection d'etudes anciennes), Paris 1974 KAHLENBERG, WILHELM: Die zeitliche Reihenfolge der Schriften π ε ρ ί γονής, περί φ ΰ σ ι ο ς π α ι δ ι ο ύ und π ε ρ ί ν ο ύ σ ω ν 4 und ihre Zusammengehörigkeit. Hermes 83 (1955) pp. 252—256 KAHN, CHARLES HEFFALUMP: Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology, N e w York 1960 KEUS, ALFONS: U b e r philosophische Begriffe und Theorien in den hippokratischen Schriften, Phil. Diss. Bonn 1914, Köln 1914 KOLLER, HERMANN: Α ί μ α . G l o t t a 45 (1967) p p .

149-155

Kudlien Beginn = KUDLIEN, FRIDOLF: Der Beginn des medizinischen Denkens bei den Griechen. Von H o m e r bis Hippokrates ( = Bibliothek der Alten Welt), Zürich and Stuttgart 1967 Kudlien Poseidonius = KUDLIEN, FRIDOLF: Poseidonios und die Ärzteschule der Pneumatiker. Hermes 90 (1962) p p . 4 1 9 - 4 2 9 Kudlien Sklaven = KUDLIEN, FRIDOLF: Die Sklaven in der griechischen Medizin der klassischen und hellenistischen Zeit ( = Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei, im Auftrag der Kommission f ü r Geschichte des Altertums der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der L i t e r a t u r , h r s g . v o n J O S E P H V O G T u n d H A N S U L R I C H INSTINSKY, v o l . 2 ) , W i e s b a d e n

1968

Kudlien Uterus = KUDLIEN, FRIDOLF: The Seven Cells of the Uterus: The Doctrine and its Roots. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 39 (1965) pp. 4 1 5 - 4 2 3 K ü h n e r - G e r t h = KÜHNER, RAPHAEL: Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, 2. Teil, 3. Aufl. von BERNHARD GERTH, vols. 1—2, H a n n o v e r and Leipzig 1898 — 1904 KUHN, THOMAS SAMUEL: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago and London 1962 LAMPE, GEOFFREY WILLIAM H U G O : A P a t r i s t i c G r e e k L e x i c o n , O x f o r d

1961

LANGHOLF, VOLKER: Die parallelen Texte in Epidemien V und VII, in: Corpus H i p p o craticum. Actes du Colloque hippocratique de M ö n s (22—26 septembre 1975), edites par ROBERT JOLY ( = Editions universitaires de M ö n s , Serie sciences humaines IV), Möns 1977, pp.

264-274

LESKY, ERNA: Die Zeugungs- u n d Vererbungslehren der Antike und ihr Nachwirken ( = Abh. Akad. Wiss. Lit. [Mainz], Geistes- u. soz. wiss. Kl., 1950 pp. 1 2 2 5 - 1 4 2 5 [ = N o . 19]), Mainz 1951 Lichtenthaeler Etudes = LICHTENTHAELER, CHARLES: La medecine hippocratique I: Methode experimentale et methode hippocratique. E t u d e comparee preliminaire ( = Etudes sur le raisonnement clinique), Lausanne 1948; La medecine hippocratique II—V: D e l'utilite actuelle d ' u n retour ä Hippocrate. Introduction ä l'etude de la medecine hippocratique. De l'etiologie du chaud inne hippocratique. D e l'origine sociale de certains concepts scientifiques et philosophiques grecs. Le premier aphorisme d ' H i p p o c r a t e et ses premisses, Boudry and Neuchätel 1957; Sixieme etude hippocratique: Sur la vocation universitaire de l'histoire de la medecine. L e f o n inaugurale. Le troisieme epidemique d'Hippocrate vient-il vraiment apres le premier? Geneva and Paris 1960; Quatrieme serie d'etudes hippocratiques (VII—IX): Sur l'authenticite, la place veritable et le style de 1' " e p i l o g u e " du I I P epidemique. — De l'economie du Pronostic d ' H i p p o c r a t e . Le logos mathematique de la premiere clinique hippocratique. Essai de synthese, Geneva and Paris 1963 Littre Introduction = LITTRE, EMILE: Introduction, in: (Euvres completes d'Hippocrate, traduction nouvelle. Avec le texte grec en regard, collationne sur les manuscrits et toutes les editions; accompagnee d'une introduction, de commentaires medicaux, de variantes et de notes philologiques; suivie d'une table gέnerale des matieres, vol. 1, Paris 1839, pp. 1 - 5 5 4 Lloyd Experiment = LLOYD, GEOFFREY ERNEST RICHARD: Experiment in Early Greek Philosophy and Medicine. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 190 [N.S. 10] (1964) pp. 5 0 - 7 2

Bibliography

XXXV

L l o y d P o l a r i t y = LLOYD, GEOFFREY ERNEST RICHARD: P o l a r i t y a n d A n a l o g y . T w o T y p e s of

A r g u m e n t a t i o n in Early Greek T h o u g h t , C a m b r i d g e 1966 Longrigg Galen = LONGRIGG, JAMES: Galen on Empedocles (Fragment 67). Philologus 108 (1964) pp.

297-300

Longrigg Κ Ρ Υ Σ Τ Α Λ Λ Ο Ε Ι Δ Ω Σ

= L O N G R I G G , JAMES: Κ Ρ Υ Σ Τ Α Λ Α Ο Ε Ι Δ Ω Σ . T h e C l a s s i c a l

Q u a r t e r l y 59 [N.S. 15] (1965) p p . 2 4 9 - 2 5 1 Longrigg P h i l o s o p h y = LONGRIGG, JAMES: P h i l o s o p h y and Medicine. Some Early Interactions. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 67 (1963) p p . 147—175 Lonie C o s = LONIE, IAIN MALCOLM: COS versus C n i d u s and the Historians. H i s t o r y of Science 16 (1978) pp. 4 2 - 7 5 , 7 7 - 9 2 Lonie Excursus = LONIE, IAIN MALCOLM: O n the Botanical Excursus in D e natura pueri 2 2 - 2 7 . H e r m e s 97 (1969) pp. 3 9 1 - 4 1 1 Lonie H e a r t = LONIE, IAIN MALCOLM: T h e Paradoxical Text ' O n the H e a r t ' . Medical H i s t o r y 17 (1973) pp. 1 - 1 5 , 1 3 6 - 1 5 3 Lonie Treatise = LONIE, IAIN MALCOLM: T h e H i p p o c r a t i c Treatise Π ε ρ ί δ ι α ί τ η ς ό ξ έ ω ν . S u d h o f f s Arch. G e s c h . Med. 49 (1965) p p . 5 0 - 7 9 Lonie Treatises = LONIE, IAIN MALCOLM: T h e Cnidian Treatises of the C o r p u s H i p p o c r a t i c u m . T h e Classical Q u a r t e r l y 59 [ N . S . 15] (1965) p p . 1 - 3 0 MCGIBBON, DONALD: Pleasure as the " C r i t e r i o n " in D e m o c r i t u s . Phronesis 5 (1960) p p . 75-77

MALINOWSKI, BRONISLAW: T h e Sexual Life of Savages in N o r t h - W e s t e r n Melanesia. An E t h n o graphic A c c o u n t of C o u r t s h i p , Marriage, and Family Life a m o n g the Natives of the T r o b r i a n d Islands, British N e w Guinea. With a Preface by HAVELOCK ELLIS, 3rd ed., L o n d o n 1932 MANETTI, DANIELA: Valore semantico e risonanze culturali della parola Φ Υ Σ Ι Σ ( D e genitura, D e natura pueri, D e morbis IV). La parola del passato 28 (1973) p p . 426 — 444 MANI, NIKOLAUS: Die historischen G r u n d l a g e n der L e b e r f o r s c h u n g ( = Basler V e r ö f f e n t lichungen zur Geschichte der Medizin u n d der Biologie, hrsg. von HEINRICH BUESS, vols. 9.21), Basle and Stuttgart 1 9 5 9 - 1 9 6 7 MANWAYRING, HENRY: T h e Seaman's D i c t i o n a r y , or an Exposition and D e m o n s t r a t i o n of all Parts and Things belonging to a Shippe, together with an Explanation of all T e r m s and Phrases used in the Practique of Navigation, L o n d o n 1644 MICHLER, MARKWART: Die praktische Bedeutung des normativen Physis-Begriffes in der hippokratischen Schrift D e fracturis — D e articulis. H e r m e s 90 (1962) p p . 385—401 Miller Divine = MILLER, HAROLD WILLIAM: T h e C o n c e p t of the Divine in D e m o r b o sacro. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 84 (1953) p p . 1 — 15 Miller D y n a m i s = MILLER, HAROLD WILLIAM: D y n a m i s and Physis in O n ancient medicine. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 83 (1952) p p . 184 — 197 M O U N T F O R D , JAMES FREDERICK a n d R E G I N A L D PEPYS W I N N I N G T O N - I N G R A M : M u s i c , i n : T h e Oxford

Classical

Dictionary,

ed.

by

NICHOLAS

GEOFFREY

LEMPRIERE

HAMMOND

and

H O W A R D HAYES SCULLARD, 2 n d e d . , O x f o r d 1 9 7 0 , p p . 7 0 5 — 7 1 3

MUGLER, CHARLES: Les origines de la science grecque chez H o m e r e . L ' h o m m e et l'univers p h y s i q u e ( = £ t u d e s et commentaires 46), Paris 1963 MÜLLER, CARL WERNER: Gleiches zu Gleichem. Ein Prinzip frühgriechischen D e n k e n s ( = Klassisch-philologische Studien, hrsg. v o n HANS HERTER u n d WOLFGANG SCHMID, vol.

31),

Wiesbaden 1965 MURI, WALTER: Melancholie u n d schwarze Galle. M u s e u m Helveticum 10 (1953) p p . 21—38 N a c h m a n s o n Erotianstudien = NACHMANSON, ERNST: Erotianstudien ( = A r b e t e n utgifna med u n d e r s t ö d af Vilhelm E k m a n s universitetsfond 19), Uppsala and Leipzig 1917 Needham Embryology

=

NEEDHAM, N O E L JOSEPH TERENCE MONTGOMERY: A H i s t o r y

of

E m b r y o l o g y , 2 n d ed., Revised with Assistance of ARTHUR HUGHES, C a m b r i d g e 1959 N e e d h a m Science =

NEEDHAM, N O E L JOSEPH TERENCE MONTGOMERY: S c i e n c e a n d

Civili-

sation in China. W i t h the Research Assistance of WANG LING and others, vols. 1—5,3, Cambridge 1954-1976

Bibliography

XXXVI

Nestle Hippocratica = NESTLE, WILHELM: Hippocratica. Hermes 73 (1938) pp. 1 - 3 8 Nestle M y t h o s = NESTLE, WILHELM: V o m M y t h o s zum Logos. Die Selbstentfaltung des griechischen D e n k e n s von H o m e r bis auf die Sophistik und Sokrates, 2nd e d . , Stuttgart 1942 N i c k e l E t h i k = NICKEL, DIETHARD: Ärztliche Ethik und Schwangerschaftsunterbrechung bei den Hippokratikern. N T M 9,1 (1972) pp. 7 3 - 8 0 NORDEN, EDUARD: D i e antike Kunstprosa. V o m V I . Jahrhundert v. C h r . bis in die Zeit der Renaissance, 3rd ed., Leipzig and Berlin 1915 OLCK, FRANZ: Butter, in: R E , vol. 3 [: 1], Stuttgart 1897, cols. 1 0 8 9 - 1 0 9 2 ONIANS, RICHARD BROXTON: T h e Origins of European Thought about the B o d y , the M i n d , the Soul, the W o r l d , T i m e and Fate. N e w Interpretations of G r e e k , R o m a n and Kindred Evidence also of S o m e Basic Jewish and Christian Beliefs, 2nd ed., Cambridge 1954 OPPERMANN, HANS: Herophilos bei Kallimachos. Hermes 60 (1925) pp. 14 — 32 PAGE, DENYS LIONEL: Thucydides' Description of the Great Plague at Athens. T h e Classical Quarterly 47 [ N . S . 3] (1953) pp. 9 7 - 1 1 9 PARRY, ADAM: T h e Language o f Thucydides' Description of the Plague. University o f L o n d o n . Institute of Classical Studies. Bulletin 16 (1969) pp. 1 0 6 - 1 1 8 PETERSEN, CHRISTIAN: Hippocratis nomine quae circumferuntur scripta ad temporis rationes disposita. Pars I ( = Index lectionum in G y m n a s i o academico anno 1839 habendarum), H a m b u r g 1839 PLOSS,

HERMANN H E I N R I C H ,

MAX

BARTELS a n d

P A U L BARTELS: W o m a n .

A

Historical,

Gynaecological and Anthropological C o m p e n d i u m ( = Das Weib in der Natur- und Völkerkunde), vols. 1—3, ed. (and translated) by ERIC JOHN DINGWALL, L o n d o n 1935 PLAMBÖCK, GERT: Dynamis im C o r p u s Hippocraticum ( = A b h . Akad. Wiss. Lit. [Mainz], Geistes- u. soz. wiss. K l . , 1964, pp. 5 9 - 1 1 0 [ = N o . 2]), Wiesbaden 1964 Pohlenz Hippokrates = POHLENZ, MAX: Hippokrates und die Begründung der wissenschaftlichen Medizin, Berlin 1938 Pohlenz Hippokratesstudien = POHLENZ, MAX: Hippokratesstudien. N a c h r . G e s . Wiss. Göttingen, Phil.-hist. K L , Neue Folge, Fachgruppe I , vol. 2 (1937) pp. 6 7 - 1 0 1 ( = N o . 4) Pohlenz N o m o s = POHLENZ, MAX: N o m o s und Physis. Hermes 81 (1953) pp. 418—438 RE

=

Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. N e u e Bearbeitung

b e g o n n e n v o n G E O R G WISSOWA, f o r t g e f ü h r t v o n W I L H E L M K R O L L u n d K A R L MITTELHAUS,

hrsg. von KONRAT ZIEGLER (f), 1. Reihe, Stuttgart 1 8 9 4 - 1 9 6 3 ; 2. Reihe, Stuttgart 1 9 1 4 - 1 9 7 2 ; Suppl. bd. 1 - 1 4 , Stuttgart 1 9 0 3 - 1 9 7 4 REGENBOGEN, OTTO: Eine Forschungsmethode antiker Naturwissenschaft. Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Mathematik I 2 (1930) pp. 1 3 1 - 1 8 2 ; reprinted in: O . R . , Kleine Schriften, hrsg. von FRANZ DIRLMEIER, Munich 1961, pp. 141 — 194 REICH, KLAUS: D e r historische Ursprung des Naturgesetzbegriffs, in: Festschrift Ernst Kapp zum 70. Geburtstag am 21. Januar 1958 von Freunden und Schülern überreicht, H a m b u r g 1958, pp. 1 2 1 - 1 3 4 REICHE, HARALD Α . T . : Empedocles' Mixture, Eudoxan A s t r o n o m y and Aristotle's Connate Pneuma. With an Appendix " G e n e r a l because f i r s t " , a Presocratic M o t i f in Aristotle's T h e o l o g y , Amsterdam 1960 REINHARD, FELIX: Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe der altägyptischen Papyri I . I I . Sudhoffs A r c h . Gesch. Med. 9 (1915) pp. 3 1 5 - 3 4 4 , 10 (1916) pp. 1 2 4 - 1 6 1 Reinhardt Poseidonios = REINHARDT, KARL: Poseidonios, [ N o . ] 3, in: R E , vol. 22 f : 1], Stuttgart 1953, cols. 5 5 8 - 8 2 6 R I C H T E R , GISELA M A R I E AUGUSTA a n d M A R J O R I E JOSEPHINE M I L N E : S h a p e s a n d N a m e s

of

Athenian Vases ( = T h e Metropolitan Museum of Art), N e w Y o r k 1935 R o s c h e r H e b d o m a d e n l e h r e n = ROSCHER, WILHELM HEINRICH: D i e H e b d o m a d e n l e h r e n d e r

griechischen Philosophen und Ärzte. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie und Medizin ( = A b h . Sachs. G e s . W i s s . , Phil.-hist. K l . , 24), Leipzig 1906 RUDBERG, GUNNAR: Stratonica, Eranos 4 9 (1951) pp. 31 — 34

Bibliography

XXXVII

Schmidt Rev. J o l y = SCHMIDT, VOLKMAR: [ R e v . ] Hippocrate, D u regime. T e x t e etabli et trad, par ROBERT JOLY. Paris: Les Belles Lettres 1967. X X X I V , 142 z . T . Doppels. ( C o l l . des Univ. de France). G n o m o n 45 (1973) pp. 1 1 - 1 8 SCHNEIDER, JOHANN GOTTLOB: Griechisch-Deutsches W ö r t e r b u c h b e y m Lesen der griechischen profanen Scribenten zu gebrauchen, vols. 1—2, 3rd ed., Leipzig 1 8 1 9 ; Supplement-Band zu allen drey Auflagen, Leipzig 1821 SCHÖNER, ERICH: D a s Viererschema in der antiken Humoralpathologie. M i t einem V o r w o r t und einer Tafel von ROBERT HERRLINGER ( = Sudhoffs A r c h . B e i h . , vol. 4 ) , Wiesbaden 1964 SCHUBRING, KONRAD: ZU Aufbau und Lehre der hippokratischen Schrift D e locis in h o m i n e . Berliner Medizin 15 (1964) pp. 7 3 9 - 7 4 4 SCHUMACHER, JOSEPH: Antike Medizin, vol. 1: Die naturphilosophischen Grundlagen der Medizin in der griechischen Antike, Berlin 1940 SCHWYZER, EDUARD: Griechische G r a m m a t i k ( = H a n d b u c h der Altertumswissenschaft, 2. A b t . , 1. Teil, vols. 1—4), vol. 1, 2nd ed., Munich 1 9 5 3 ; vol. 2 vervollständigt und hrsg. von A L B E R T D E B R U N N E R , M u n i c h 1 9 5 0 ; v o l . 3 v o n DEMETRIUS J . GEORGACAS, 2 n d e d . , 1 9 6 0 ; v o l . 4 v o n F R I T Z R A D T , h r s g . v o n STEFAN RADT, M u n i c h

Munich

1971

SENN, GUSTAV: U b e r H e r k u n f t und Stil der Beschreibungen von Experimenten im C o r p u s Hippocraticum. Sudhoffs A r c h . G e s c h . Med. 22 (1929) pp. 2 1 7 - 2 8 9 SIEGEL, RUDOLPH E . : Clinical Observation in Hippocrates. A n Essay on the Evolution o f the Diagnostic A r t . J o u r n a l of the M o u n t Sinai Hospital N e w Y o r k 31 (1964) pp. 2 8 5 - 3 0 3 SIGERIST, HENRY ERNEST: A H i s t o r y o f Medicine, vols. 1 - 2 , N e w Y o r k 1 9 5 1 - 1 9 6 1 SIMONIUS, SIMON: Synopsis brevissima novae theoriae de humoralium febrium natura, Leipzig 1577 SMITH, WESLEY D . : Galen on Coans and Cnidians. Bulletin o f the H i s t o r y o f Medicine 4 7 (1973) pp. 5 6 9 - 5 8 5 Snell Ausdrücke = SNELL, BRUNO: Die Ausdrücke für den Begriff des Wissens in der vorplatonischen Philosophie (σοφία, γνώμη, σύνεσις, ι σ τ ο ρ ί α , μάθημα, έπι,στήμη) ( = P h i l o l o g i s c h e U n t e r s u c h u n g e n , h r s g . v o n A D O L F KIESSLING u n d U L R I C H VON W I L A M O W I T Z MOELLENDORFF, v o l . 2 9 ) , B e r l i n

1924

Snell Begriffsbildung = SNELL, BRUNO: Zur naturwissenschaftlichen Begriffsbildung im Griechischen. Philosophischer Anzeiger 3 (1929) pp. 2 4 3 - 2 6 0 ; reprinted under the title: Die naturwissenschaftliche Begriffsbildung im Griechischen, in: B . S . , D i e Entdeckung des Geistes. Studien zur Entstehung des europäischen D e n k e n s bei den Griechen, 3rd ed., H a m b u r g 1955, pp. 2 9 9 - 3 1 9 Snell Mind = SNELL, BRUNO: T h e Discovery of the Mind. T h e G r e e k Origins of European T h o u g h t . Translated with Addition of one Essay, from the 2nd edition by THOMAS G . ROSENMEYER, O x f o r d

1953

Solmsen Nerves = SOLMSEN, FRIEDRICH: G r e e k Philosophy and the Discovery of the Nerves. Museum Helveticum 18 (1961) pp. 1 5 0 - 1 6 7 , 1 6 9 - 1 9 7 Solmsen System = SOLMSEN, FRIEDRICH: Aristotle's System o f the Physical W o r l d . A Comparison with his Predecessors ( = Cornell Studies in Classical Philology, ed. by HARRY C A P L A N , JAMES N U T T O N , G O R D O N MACDONALD K I R K W O O D , F R I E D R I C H SOLMSEN, v o l . 3 3 ) ,

I t h a c a / N e w Y o r k 1960 Solmsen Tissues = SOLMSEN, FRIEDRICH: Tissues and the Soul. Philosophical Contributions to Physiology. T h e Philosophical Review 59 (1950) pp. 4 3 5 - 4 6 8 Solmsen Vital Heat = SOLMSEN, FRIEDRICH: T h e Vital H e a t , the I n b o r n Pneuma and the Aether. T h e J o u r n a l of Hellenic Studies 77 (1957) pp. 1 1 9 - 1 2 3 SOPHOCLES, EUANGELIOS APOSTOLIDES: G r e e k Lexicon o f the R o m a n and Byzantine Periods (from B . C . 146 to A . D . 1100), vols. 1 - 2 , 2nd ed., C a m b r i d g e / M a s s . 1887 SOUILHE, JOSEPH: fitude sur le terme δύναμις dans les dialogues de Platon, These de lettres Paris 1919 SPARKES, BRIAN ANDREW a n d LUCY T A L C O T T : B l a c k a n d P l a i n P o t t e r y o f t h e 6 t h , 5 t h a n d 4 t h

Centuries B . C . ( = T h e Athenian Agora. Results of Excavations C o n d u c t e d by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, vol. 12, 1 - 2 ) , Princeton 1970

Bibliography

XXXVIII

SPOERRI, WALTER: Späthellenistische Berichte über Welt, Kultur und Götter ( = Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, hrsg. von BERNHARD WYSS, vol. 9), Basle 1959 STEIER, AUGUST: Silphion, in: R E , 2. Reihe, vol. 3 [: 1], Stuttgart 1927, cols. 103 — 114 STEUER,

ROBERT

OTTO

and JOHN

BERTRAND

DE C U S A N C E

MORANT

SAUNDERS:

Ancient

Egyptian and Cnidian Medicine. The Relationship of their Aetiological Concepts of Disease, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1959 STIER, H A N S E R I C H : Ν Ο Μ Ο Σ

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ.

P h i l o l o g u s 83 [ Ν . F . 37] (1928) p p .

225-258

STROHMAIER, GOTTHARD: Demokrit über die Sonnenstäubchen. Ein neues Fragment in arabischer Überlieferung. Philologus 112 (1968) pp. 1 — 19 STRONG, DONALD EMRYS: Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate, London 1966 STRUVE, C A R O L U S LUDOVICUS: O p u s c u l a selecta. E d i d i t IACOBUS T H E O D O R U S STRUVE, v o l s .

1 - 2 , Leipzig 1854 SUDHOFF, KARL: Zur Geschichte der Lehre von den kritischen Tagen im Krankheitsverlaufe (1901). Sudhoffs Arch. Gesch. Med. 21 (1929) pp. 1 - 2 2 Temkin Hippokratismus = TEMKIN, OWSEI: Geschichte des Hippokratismus im ausgehenden Altertum. Kyklos (Leipzig) 4 (1932) pp. 1 - 8 0 Temkin Rev. Lesky = TEMKIN, OWSEI: [Rev.] Erna Lesky: Die Zeugungs- und Vererbungslehren der Antike und ihr Nachwirken. Verl. d. Akad. d. Wiss. u. d. Lit. in Mainz; in K o m m , bei Steiner, Wiesbaden 1951, 201 S. (Abh. Mainz, Geistes-u. soz. wiss. Kl. 1950, 19). Gnomon 27(1955) pp. 1 1 5 - 1 1 9 Temkin Zusammenhang = TEMKIN, OWSEI: Der systematische Zusammenhang im Corpus Hippocraticum. Kyklos (Leipzig) 1 (1928) pp. 9 - 4 3 Theiler Naturbetrachtung = THEILER, WILLY: Zur Geschichte der teleologischen Naturbetrachtung bis auf Aristoteles, 2nd ed., Berlin 1925 Theiler Νόμος = THEILER, WILLY: Νόμος ό πάντων βασιλεύς. Museum Helveticum 22 (1965) pp. 6 9 - 8 0 VAN BROCK, NADIA: Recherches sur le vocabulaire medical du grec ancien. Soins et guerison ( = £tudes et commentaires 41), Paris 1961 VIEDEBANTT, OSKAR: K o t y l e , [ N o . ] 1, in: R E , v o l . 11 [: 1], S t u t t g a r t 1922, c o l s . 1 5 4 2 - 1 5 4 6

Vlastos Anaxagoras = VLASTOS, GREGORY: The Physical Theory of Anaxagoras. The Philosophical Review 59 (1950) pp. 3 1 - 5 7 Vlastos Equality = VLASTOS, GREGORY: Equality and Justice in Early Greek Cosmologies. Classical Philology 42 (1947) pp. 156-178 Vlastos Ethics = VLASTOS, GREGORY: Ethics and Physics in Democritus, Part One. P h i l o s o p h i c a l R e v i e w 54 ( 1 9 4 5 ) p p . 5 7 8 - 5 9 2

Vlastos Rev. Cornford = VLASTOS, GREGORY: [Rev.] Francis Macdonald Cornford: Principium sapientiae. The Origins of Greek Philosophical Thought. Cambridge U P 1952. Gnomon 27 (1955) pp. 6 5 - 7 6 VOGEL,CLAUS: Die Entstehung der hippokratischen Viersäftelehre, Phil. Diss. Marburg 1956 (typescript) WALCOT, PETER: Five or Seven Recesses? The Classical Quartely 59 [N.S. 15] (1965) p. 79 WASSERSTEIN, ABRAHAM: Greek Scientific Thought. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 188 [N.S. 8] (1962) pp. 5 1 - 6 3 WEBSTER, THOMAS BERTRAM LONSDALE: F r o m P r i m i t i v e to M o d e r n T h o u g h t in A n c i e n t

Greece, in: Acta Congressus Madvigiani Hafniae 1954. Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Classical Studies, vol. 2 (The Classical Pattern of Modern Western Civilization: Formation of the Mind, Forms of Thought, Moral Ideas), Copenhagen 1958, pp. 29 — 46 Wellmann Dexippos = WELLMANN, MAX: Dexippos [ N o . ] 7, in: R E , vol. 5 [: 1], Stuttgart 1903, cols. 294f.

Bibliography

XXXIX

Wellmann Fragmente = WELLMANN, MAX: Die Fragmente der sikelischen Ärzte A k r o n , Philistion und des Diokles von Karystos ( = Fragmentsammlung der griechischen Ärzte hrsg. v o n MAX WELLMANN, v o l . 1), B e r l i n 1901

Wellmann Schrift = WELLMANN, MAX: Die Schrift π ε ρ ί ίρής ν ο ύ σ ο υ des C o r p u s H i p p o craticum. Sudhoffs Arch. Gesch. Med. 22 (1929) pp. 2 9 0 - 3 1 2 Wellmann Spuren = WELLMANN, MAX: Spuren Demokrits von Abdera im C o r p u s Hippocraticum. Archeion 11 (1929) pp. 2 9 7 - 3 3 0 WENDEL, CARL: Die Uberlieferung der Scholien zu Apollonios von Rhodos ( = A b h . Ges. Wiss. Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Kl., 3. Folge, N o . 1), Berlin 1932 WEST, MARTIN LITCHFIELD: Three Presocratic Cosmologies. The Classical Quarterly 57 [N.S. 13] (1963) pp.

154-176

Wilamowitz Lesefrüchte = WILAMOWITZ, ULRICH VON: Lesefrüchte ( C L X X I —CLXXX). Hermes 58 (1923) pp. 5 7 - 8 6 ZELLER, EDUARD: G r u n d r i ß

der

Geschichte

der

griechischen

B e a r b e i t u n g v o n WILHELM NESTLE, 14th e d . , A a l e n 1971

Philosophie.

In

neuer

TRANSLATION

On Generation 1. 1 All things are governed by law. The sperm of the human male comes from all the humour in the body: it consists of the most potent part of this fluid, which is secreted from the rest. The evidence that it is the most potent part which is secreted is the fact that even though the actual amount we emit in intercourse is very small, we are weakened by its loss. What happens is this: there are veins and nerves which extend from every part of the body to the penis. When as the result of gentle friction these vessels grow warm and become congested, they experience a kind of irritation, and in consequence, a feeling of pleasure and warmth arises over the whole body. 2 Friction on the penis and the movement of the whole man cause the fluid in the body to grow warm: becoming diffuse and agitated by the movement it produces a foam, in the same way as all other fluids produce foam when they are agitated. But in the case of the human being what is secreted as foam is the most potent and the richest part of the humour. f T h i s humour is diffused from the brain into the loins and the whole body, but in particular into the spinal marrow: for passages extend into this from the whole body, which enable the humour to pass to and from the spinal marrow.f 3 Once the sperm has entered the spinal marrow it passes in its course through the veins along the kidneys (sometimes if there is a lesion of the kidneys, blood is carried along with the sperm). From the kidneys it passes via the testicles into the penis — not however by the urinary tract, since it has a passage of its own which is next to the urinary tract. Those who have nocturnal emissions have them for the following reason: when the humour in the body becomes diffuse and warmed throughout — whether through fatigue or through some other cause — it produces foam. As this is secreted, the man sees visions as though he were having intercourse, for the fluid is precisely the same as that which is emitted in intercourse. However, erotic dreams and the nature and effects of this whole complaint, and w h y it is a precursor of insanity, is no part of my present subject. So much then for that. 2. 1 The reason that eunuchs do not have intercourse is that their spermal passage is destroyed. This passage lies through the testicles themselves. Moreover, the testicles are connected to the penis by a mass of slender ligaments, which raise and lower the penis. These are cut off in the operation, and that is why eunuchs are impotent. In the case of those whose testicles are crushed, the spermal passage is blocked, for the testicles are damaged; and the ligaments, becoming calloused and insensitive as a result

2

Translation

VII 472-476

Li.

of the damage, are no longer able to tighten and relax. 2 Those on the other hand who have had an incision made by the ear, can indeed have intercourse and emit sperm, but the amount is small, weak and sterile. For the greater part of the sperm travels from the head past the ears into the spinal marrow: now when the incision has formed a scar, this passage becomes obstructed. In the case of children, their vessels are narrow and blocked, and therefore prevent the passage of sperm, so that the irritation cannot occur as it does in the adult. Hence the humour in the body cannot be agitated sufficiently to secrete sperm. 3 Girls while they are still young do not menstruate for the same reason. But as both boys and girls grow, the vessels which extend in the boy's case to the penis and in the girl's to the womb, open out and become wider in the process of growth; a way is opened up through the narrow passages, and the humour, finding sufficient space, can become agitated. That is why when they reach puberty, sperm can flow in the boy and the menses in the girl. Such is my explanation of these facts. 3. 1 The sperm is, as I say, secreted from the whole body — from the hard parts as well as from the soft, and from the total humour. This humour has four forms: blood, bile, water, and phlegm. All four are innate in man, and they are the origin of disease. (I have already discussed these forms, and why both diseases and their resolutions come from them.) I have now dealt with the subject of sperm: its origin, how and why it originates, and in the case of those who do not have sperm, why this is so; and I have dealt with menstruation in girls. 4. 1 In the case of women, it is my contention that when during intercourse the vagina receives friction and the womb is disturbed, an irritation is set up in the womb which produces pleasure and heat in the rest of the body. A woman also emits something from her body, sometimes into the womb, which then becomes moist, and sometimes externally as well, if the womb is open wider than normal. Once intercourse has begun, she experiences pleasure throughout the whole time, until the man ejaculates. If her desire for intercourse is excited, she emits before the man, and for the remainder of the time she does not feel pleasure to the same extent; but if she is not in a state of excitement, then her pleasure terminates along with that of the man. 2 What happens is this: if into boiling water you pour another quantity of water which is cold, the water stops boiling. In the same way, the man's sperm arriving in the womb extinguishes both the heat and the pleasure of the woman. Both the pleasure and the heat reach their peak simultaneously with the arrival of the sperm in the womb, and then they cease. If, for example, your pour wine on a flame, first of all the flame flares up and increases for a short period when you pour the wine on, then it dies away. In the same way the woman's heat flares up in response to the man's sperm, and then dies away. The pleasure experienced by the woman during intercourse is considerably less than the man's, although it lasts

VII 476-478

Li.

O n Generation

3

longer. The reason that the man feels more pleasure is that the secretion from the humour in his case occurs suddenly, and as the result of a more violent disturbance than in the woman's case. 3 Another point about women: if they have intercourse with men their health is better than if they do not. For in the first place, the womb is moistened by intercourse, whereas when the womb is drier than it should be it becomes extremely contracted, and this extreme contraction causes pain to the body. In the second place, intercourse by heating the blood and rendering it more fluid gives an easier passage to the menses; whereas if the menses do not flow, women's bodies become prone to sickness. I shall explain w h y this is so in m y 'Diseases of Women'. So much then for that subject. 5. 1 When a woman has intercourse, if she is not going to conceive, then it is her practice to expel the sperm from both partners whenever she wishes to do so. If however she is going to conceive, the sperm is not expelled, but remains in the womb. For when the womb has received the sperm it closes up and retains it — this happens because the orifice of the womb contracts under the influence of moisture. Then both what is provided by the man and what is provided by the woman is mixed together. If the woman is experienced in matters of childbirth, and takes note when the sperm is retained, she will know the precise day on which she has conceived. 6. 1 Now here is a further point. What the woman emits is sometimes stronger, and sometimes weaker; and this applies also to what the man emits. In fact both partners alike contain both male and female sperm (the male creature being stronger than the female must of course originate from a stronger sperm). Here is a further point: if both partners (a) produce a stronger sperm, then a male is the result, whereas if (b) they both produce a weak form, then a female is the result. But if (c) one partner produces one kind of sperm, and the other another then the resultant sex is determined by whichever sperm prevails in quantity. 2 For suppose that the weak sperm is much greater in quantity than the stronger sperm: then the stronger sperm is overwhelmed and, being mixed with the weak, results in a female. If on the contrary the strong sperm is greater in quantity than the weak, and the weak is overwhelmed, it results in a male. It is just as though one were to mix together beeswax with suet, using a larger quantity of the suet than of the beeswax, and melt them together over a fire. While the mixture is still fluid, the prevailing character of the mixture is not apparent: only after it solidifies can it be seen that the suet prevails quantitatively over the wax. And it is just the same with the male and female forms of sperm. 7. 1 Now that both male and female sperm exist in both partners is an inference which can be drawn from observation. Many women have borne daughters to their husbands and then, going with other men, have produced sons. And the original husbands — those, that is, to whom their wives bore

4

Translation

VII 478-482

Li.

daughters — have as the result of intercourse with other women produced male offspring; whereas the second group of men, who produced male offspring, have with yet again other women produced female offspring. 2 N o w this consideration shows that both the man and the woman have male and female sperm. For in the partnership in which the women produced daughters, the stronger sperm was overwhelmed by the larger quantity of the weaker sperm, and females were produced; while in the partnership in which these same women produced sons, it was the weak seed which was overwhelmed, and males were produced. 3 Hence the same man does not invariably emit the strong variety of sperm, nor the weak invariably, but sometimes the one and sometimes the other; the same is true in the woman's case. There is therefore nothing anomalous about the fact that the same women and the same men produce both male and female sperm: indeed, these facts about male and female sperm are also true in the case of animals. 8. 1 Sperm is a product which comes from the whole body of each parent, weak sperm coming from the weak parts, and strong sperm from the strong parts. The child must necessarily correspond. If from any part of the father's body a greater quantity of sperm is derived than from the corresponding part of the mother's body the child will, in that part, bear a closer resemblance to its father; and vice versa. The following cases however are impossible: (a) the child resembles its mother in all respects, and its father in none; (b) the child resembles its father in all respects, and its mother in none; (c) the child resembles neither parent in any respect. 2 N o : it must inevitably resemble each parent in some respect, since it is from both parents that the sperm comes to form the child. The child will resemble in the majority of its characteristics that parent who has contributed a greater quantity of sperm to the resemblance — that is, sperm from a greater number of bodily parts. And so it sometimes happens that although the child is a girl she will bear a closer resemblance in the majority of her characteristics to her father than to her mother, while sometimes a boy will more closely resemble his mother. All these facts too may be regarded as evidence for my contention above, that both man and woman have male and female sperm. 9. 1 Another thing which sometimes happens is that children are undersized and sickly, although both parents are large-bodied and strong. If this occurs subsequently to the birth of several children who are healthy like their parents, then it is clear that the child contracted its sickliness in the womb; the womb was more open than normal, and some of the child's nutriment from the mother escaped, hence the weakness of the child — and of course all living things fall sick to a degree in proportion to their normal strength. 2 If on the other hand all the children born to a particular mother are weakly, the cause is the constriction of the womb. For if the

VII 482-484

Li.

O n Generation

5

space in which the embryo is nurtured is not adequate, obviously it will be undersized, since it will have insufficient space to grow in. Whereas if (a) it has plenty of space and (b) contracts no sickness, then it is reasonable to expect that a large offspring will be born to large parents. 3 It is similar to what happens if you place in a narrow vessel a cucumber which has finished flowering but is still young and still growing from the bed. The cucumber will grow to a size and shape equal to the inside of the vessel. But if you place it in a large vessel — one which is large enough to take a cucumber but which does not greatly exceed the natural size of the plant —, then the cucumber will grow to a size and shape equal to the interior of this vessel: in its growth it attempts to rival the space in which it grows. In fact, it is generally true that all plants will grow in the way one compels them to. It is the same with the child: if he has plenty of space during his period of growth, he becomes larger; whereas if the space is confined, he will be smaller. 10. 1 When the child is deformed in the womb, I consider that this occurs (a) as the result of a contusion. The mother has received a blow in the part where the embryo is, or has had a fall, or suffered some other violence. A deformity results in the place where the contusion occurred. When the contusion is extensive, the membrane enveloping the embryo is broken, and it is aborted. 2 (b) Children may be deformed in another way: if there is some constriction in that region of the womb which corresponds to the part in which the embryo is deformed, it must be the case that deformity occurs there as a result of the embryo's movement in the constricted space. A similar thing happens to trees which have insufficient space in the earth, being obstructed by a stone or the like. They grow up twisted, or thick in some places and slender in others, and this is what happens to the child as well, if one part of the womb constricts some part of its body more than another. 11. 1 The children of deformed parents are usually sound. This is because although an animal may be deformed, it still has exactly the same components as what is sound. But when there is some disease involved, and the four innate species of the humour from which the seed is derived form sperm which is not complete, but deficient in the deformed part, it is not in my opinion anomalous that the child should be deformed similarly to its parent. So much then for this subject: I shall now return to my main argument.

6

Translation

VII 486-488

Li.

On the Nature of the Child 12. 1 If the seed which comes from both parents remains in the womb of the woman, it is first of all thoroughly mixed together — for the woman of course does not remain still — and gathers into one mass which condenses as the result of heat. Next, it acquires breath, since it is in a warm environment. When it is filled with breath, the breath makes a passage for itself in the middle of the seed and escapes. Once this passage of escape for the warm breath has been formed, the seed inspires from the mother a second quantity of breath, which is cool. It continues to do this throughout the whole period: 2 the warmth of its environment heats it, and it acquires cold breath from the mother's breathing. In fact everything that is heated acquires breath: the breath breaks a passage for its escape to the outside, and through this break the object which is being heated draws a second lot of cold breath, by which it is fed. The same process occurs with wood, or with leaves, or with food and drink, when they are heated vigorously. 3 You can see what happens from the case of burning wood — any kind of wood will behave in the same way, but green wood in particular. It will expel air where it has been cut, and when this air gets outside, it eddies around the cut. This is a matter of common observation, and the inference is obvious: the air in the wood, since it is hot, draws to itself cold air to feed upon, at the same time as it expels air. If this were not the case, then neither would the air eddy as it is expelled. F o r everything which is heated is fed by a proportionate quantity of cold. N o w when the moisture in the wood is heated, it becomes air which then passes outside. As this air is expelled, the heat in the wood draws in cold air to replace it and to nourish itself. 4 Green leaves also do the same when they are burned, for they contain air; and this air breaks a passage out for itself and escapes, eddying as it goes and making a crackling sound at the place where the air is also drawn in. Legumes, cereals and nuts also form air when they are heated, and this air makes a fissure and escapes; 5 and if these materials are moist, the greater the quantity of air released, and the larger the fissure. However, there is no need to labour the point that everything which is subjected to heat both emits air, and draws in the nutriment of cold air by the same passage. Such then are the proofs which I adduce in support of the contention that the seed, heated in the womb, both contains and emits breath. However there is a second source of breath for the seed: this is the breathing of the mother; for when the mother breathes in cold air from the outside, the seed gets the benefit of it: the seed is made warm by the warmth of its environment, and so it both contains and emits breath. 6 As it inflates, the seed forms a membrane around itself; for its surface, because of its viscosity, stretches around it without a break, in just

VII 488-492

Li.

O n the Nature of the Child

7

the same way as a thin membrane is formed on the surface of bread when it is being baked: the bread rises as it grows warm and inflates, and as it is inflated, so the membraneous surface forms. In the case of the seed, as it becomes heated and inflated, the membrane forms over the whole of its surface, but the surface is perforated in the middle to allow the entrance and exit of air. In this part of the membrane there is a small projection, where the amount of seed inside is very small; otherwise the seed in its membrane is spherical. 13. 1 As a matter of fact I myself have seen an embryo which was aborted after remaining in the womb for six days. It is upon its nature, as I observed it then, that I base the rest of my inferences. It was in the following way that I came to see a six day old embryo. A kinswoman of mine owned a very valuable singer, who used to go with men. It was important that this girl should not become pregnant and thereby lose her value. N o w this girl had heard the sort of thing women say to each other — that when a woman is going to conceive, the seed remains inside her and does not fall out. 2 She digested this information, and kept a watch. O n e day she noticed that the seed had not come out again. She told her mistress, and the story came to me. When I heard it, I told her to jump up and down, touching her buttocks with her heels at each leap. After she had done this no more than seven times, there was a noise, the seed fell out on the ground, and the girl looked at it in great surprise. 3 It looked like this: it was as though someone had removed the shell from a raw egg, so that the fluid inside showed through the inner membrane — a reasonably good description of its appearance. It was round, and red; and within the membrane could be seen thick white fibres, surrounded by a thick red serum; while on the outer surface of the membrane were clots of blood. In the middle of the membrane was a small projection: it looked to me like an umbilicus, and I considered that it was through this that the embryo first breathed in and out. 4 From it, the membrane stretched all around the seed. Such then was the six day embryo that I saw, and a little further on I intend to describe another observation which will give a clear insight into the subject. It will also serve as evidence for the truth of my whole argument — so far as is humanly possible in such a matter. So much then for this subject. 14. 1 The seed, then, is contained in a membrane, and it breathes in and out. Moreover, it grows because of its mother's blood, which descends to the womb. F o r once a woman conceives, she ceases to menstruate, except in some cases where a very small amount appears, no more than a token, during the first month — otherwise the child will be unhealthy. The blood instead descends from the whole body of the woman, and surrounds the membrane on the outside. 2 This blood is drawn into the membrane along with the breath, where the membrane is perforated and projects; and by coagulating, it causes the increase of what is to become a living thing. In

8

Translation

VII 492-496

Li.

due course, several other thin membranes form within the original one, these being formed in the same way as the first. Like it, they too extend from the umbilicus, and there are connexions between them. 15. 1 At this stage, with the descent and coagulation of the mother's blood, flesh begins to be formed, with the umbilicus, through which the embryo breathes and grows, projecting from the centre. The reason that a pregnant woman does not suffer from the fact that the menses have ceased to flow, is that the blood is no longer agitated by a monthly loss occurring all at once. Instead, it flows gently into the womb in small amounts each day, without causing discomfort. And it flows each day, rather than all at once every month, because the embryo in the womb draws it continually from the body, in proportion to its strength. 2 Its respiration also works in the same w a y : respiration is at first slight, and the amount of blood flowing from the mother is slight as well. As respiration increases, the embryo draws the blood to itself more vigorously, and the amount flowing into the womb increases in quantity. The reason why women who are not pregnant experience pain when the menses do not flow is this: 3 in the first place, the blood in the body is set in agitation each month, by the following cause. There is a great difference in temperature between month and month. N o w a woman's body is more moist than that of a man, and is therefore sensitive to this change; and as a result her blood becomes agitated, fills up her veins and flows away from her. This is simply a fact of woman's original constitution. 4 The result of all this is that when a woman is emptied of blood, she conceives; whereas if she is full of blood, she does not conceive. It is when the womb and veins are empty that women conceive; hence the most favourable time for conception is just after menstruation, and the reason is as I have stated. Now when the blood is agitated and secreted, but instead of flowing a w a y , flows into the womb and the womb does not release it, then the womb is heated by the blood which lingers in it, and in turn heats the rest of the body. 5 Sometimes too the womb will discharge blood into the veins, and these becoming filled, grow painful and cause swellings. There is sometimes a danger that a woman will be actually crippled when this happens. Sometimes the womb settles against the bladder, and by pressing upon it and closing it, causes a strangury; or sometimes it settles against the hip or the lumbar regions, causing pain there. 6 In some cases, the blood has been known to remain in the womb for as long as five or six months, where it corrupts and becomes pus. Some women pass out this pus through the vagina, while in other cases it forms a tumour in the groin, so that the pus is expelled in that w a y . In fact, women suffer many maladies of this kind when their menses do not flow, but this is not the proper place to discuss them: you will find them described in my 'Diseases of Women'. I will now pick up my argument where I left it off.

VII 496-iOO

Li.

On the Nature of the Child

9

16. 1 Once the flesh is formed, the membranes continue to grow commensurately with the embryo. These form pockets, particularly the outside membranes. Into these pockets passes whatever blood is left over and serves no useful purpose after the embryo has drawn it from the mother by respiration and used it to grow with. When these membranes form pockets and fill with blood, they are called the "chorion". 17. 1 As the flesh grows it is formed into distinct members by breath. Each thing in it goes to its similar — the dense to the dense, the rare to the rare, and the fluid to the fluid. Each settles in its appropriate place, corresponding to the part from which it came and to which it is akin. I mean that those parts which came from a dense part in the parent body are themselves dense, while those from a fluid part are fluid, and so with all the other parts: they all obey the same formula in the process of growth. 2 The bones grow hard as a result of the coagulating action of heat; moreover they send out branches like a tree. Both the interior and exterior of the body now begin to separate into parts more distinctly. The head begins to project from the shoulders, and the upper and lower arms from the sides. The legs separate from each other, and the sinews spring up around the joints. The mouth opens up. The nose and ears project from the flesh and become perforated; while the eyes are filled with a clear liquid. The sex of the genitals becomes plain. 3 The entrails too are formed into distinct parts. Moreover, the upper portions of the body now respire through the mouth and nostrils, with the result that the belly is inflated and the intestines becoming filled with air from above cut off respiration through the umbilicus and put an end to it. A passage outside is formed from the belly and intestines through the anus, and a similar passage through the bladder. Now the formation of each of these parts occurs through respiration — that is to say, they become filled with air and separate, according to their various affinities. 4 Suppose you were to tie a bladder on to the end of a pipe, and insert through the pipe earth, sand and fine filings of lead. N o w pour in water, and blow through the pipe. First of all the ingredients will be thoroughly mixed up with the water, but after you have blown for a time, the lead will move towards the lead, the sand towards the sand, and the earth towards the earth. N o w allow the ingredients to dry out and examine them by cutting around the bladder: you will find that like ingredients have gone to join like. N o w the seed, or rather the flesh, is separated into members by precisely the same process, with like going to join like. So much, then, on that subject. 18. 1 By now the foetus is formed. This stage is reached, for the female foetus, in 42 days at maximum, and for the male, in 30 days at maximum. This is the period for articulation in most cases, take or give a little. And the lochial discharge too after birth is usually completed within 42 days, if the child is a girl. At least this is the longest period which completes it, but it

10

Translation

VII 500-504

Li.

would still be safe even if it took only 25 days. If the child is a boy, the discharge takes 30 days — again the longest period, but there is no danger even if it takes only 20 days. 2 During the latter part of the period the amount which flows is very small. In young women, the discharge takes a smaller number of days; more, when women are older. It is the women who are having their first child who suffer the most pain during the birth and during the subsequent discharge, and those who have had fewer children suffer more than those who have had a greater number. N o w then, the reason for the discharge after birth is this: the earlier period of gestation — up to 42 days for a girl, and 30 for a boy — is the period when the least amount of blood flows to increase the growth of the embryo, while after this period the amount increases right up to the time the woman gives birth. We must expect then that the lochial discharge will correspond and flow out in accordance with the number of these days. 3 The woman's birth-pangs begin in the following way: her blood is agitated and becomes very warm through the movement of the infant who is sturdy by this time. Once the blood is agitated, there issues first of all (after the child) a thick bloody serum: this opens up a way for the blood, as in the case of " t h e water on the table". This purgation then flows each day, up to the time that I have stated; the initial amount being one and a half Attic measures, more or less, and so on proportionately until the flow ceases. 4 If the woman is in a good state of health and is likely to remain so, the blood flows as it does from a sacrificial animal, and clots quickly. But if her health is bad, the flow is less, unhealthy in appearance, and is slow to coagulate. In such cases, if the pregnant woman has a disease which is not constitutional, she will die during the lochial period. If the lochial flow does not begin immediately during the first period of days, whether she is in good health or not, but subsequently the flow comes in a rush, whether induced by medication or spontaneously, the flow will be in proportion to the number of days during which it did not flow at all. For if a woman is not thoroughly purged of the lochia, she becomes gravely ill with a risk of dying, unless she is treated swiftly and the purgation is eventually induced. 5 The reason that I have introduced these details is to show that the limbs are differentiated at the latest, in the case of girls, in 42 days, and 30 days for boys; and I take as evidence for this assertion the fact that the lochial discharge lasts for 42 days after a girl, and for 30 after a boy, these being the maximum periods. And now I shall state the whole thing over again, for the sake of clarity. I maintain that the flow is proportionate, because while the seed is in the womb, the amount of blood which flows into the womb from the mother who carries a female child is least during the initial period of 42 days, the period within which the limbs are differentiated. From this time, the flow increases. And again, in the case of a male child, the same thing happens, only this time the period is thirty days. 6 Here is further

VII 504-508

Li.

O n the Nature of the Child

11

evidence for the truth of these facts: in the days immediately following the receipt of seed in the womb, the quantity of blood flowing from the mother into the womb is very small, and subsequently it increases. F o r if a large amount were to flow all at once, the embryo could not breathe, but would be choked by the large flow of blood. In the purgation, on the other hand, the proportion is inverse; for here the flow is greatest in the initial period, and it then decreases until it finishes. 7 Many women have miscarried with a male child a little earlier than 30 days, and the embryo has been observed to be without limbs; whereas those that were miscarried at a later time, or on the thirtieth day, were clearly articulated. So too in the case of female embryos which are miscarried, the corresponding period being 42 days, articulation is observed. So both the earlier and the later miscarriages show, both by reason and by hard fact, that the period of articulation is, for a girl, 42 days, and for a boy, 30. The evidence is to be found both in abortion and in lochial purgation; 8 the cause is that the female embryo coagulates and is differentiated later, since the female seed is both weaker and more fluid than the male; so that it necessarily follows in accordance with this argument that the female coagulates later than the male. This is also why purgation takes longer after a female birth than after a male birth. I now return to the point where I left off. 19. 1 Once the embryo's limbs are articulated and shaped, as it grows its bones become both harder and hollow, this too being effected by breath. Once the bones are hollow, they absorb the richest part of clotted blood from the flesh. In due course the bones at their extremities branch out, just as in a tree it is the tips of the branches which are last to shoot forth twigs. It is in the same way that the child's fingers and toes become differentiated. 2 Further, nails grow on these extremities, because all the veins in the human body terminate in the fingers and toes. N o w of these veins, the largest are those which are in the head, and next to these, those in the legs and in the upper and lower arms. But it is in the feet and hands that both the veins and the nerves are thinnest and most numerous and most closely packed together, and the bones too. This is particularly true of the fingers and toes. 3 N o w it is because the fingers and toes have bones, veins and nerves which are small and closely packed that the nails, which are also thin and solid, grow out of them. Their effect is to cut short the extremities of the veins, preventing them from growing any further, or one from being longer than another. So that it is perfectly natural that the nails, being at the body's extremities, should be solid, for what they come from is solid. 20. 1 The hair takes root in the head at the same time as the nails grow. Hair grows in the following way: it grows longest and most abundant where the epidermis is most porous and where the hair can receive the right amount of moisture for its nutrition. Where the epidermis becomes porous subsequently, there too the hair grows subsequently — namely, on the chin, the pubes, and other such places. 2 Both the flesh and the epi-

12

Translation

VII 508-510

Li.

dermis become porous at the time when sperm first makes its appearance; and at the same time the veins open out more than they did previously. For during childhood, the veins are narrow, and do not give passage to the sperm. The same is true of menstruation in girls: in their case, the way is opened for menstruation and the passage of sperm at the same time. N o w when the epidermis becomes porous, pubic hair begins to grow both in girls and boys, the hair now having sufficient moisture for its nutriment. 3 The explanation of the growth of hair upon a man's chin is the same: here too the epidermis becomes porous, when moisture coming from the head flows into it. F o r both during intercourse and during the intervening times, the hair has the proper amount of moisture for its nutriment; but this is so most of all when the moisture in its course from the head during intercourse is delayed by its arrival at the chin, which projects forward of the breast. 4 The evidence that hair grows where the epidermis is most porous is this: if you were to burn the epidermis just enough to raise a blister, which you then healed, the epidermis on the scar would become dense and would not grow hair. The reason that those who are made eunuchs while they are still children, neither become pubescent nor grow hair on their chins, but are hairless over their whole body, is that no passage is opened for the sperm, and therefore the epidermis does not become porous anywhere on the body (I have stated earlier that the passage for the sperm is cut off in eunuchs). 5 Women also are hairless on their chin and over the body, because during intercourse their bodily fluid is not agitated to the same extent as in men, and therefore does not make the epidermis porous. Those who are bald are so because their constitution is phlegmatic: for during intercourse the phlegm in their heads is agitated and heated, and impinging upon the epidermis burns the roots of their hair, so that the hair falls out. F o r the same reason, eunuchs do not become bald, because they do not experience the violent movement of intercourse which would heat the phlegm and cause it to burn the hair-roots. 6 The explanation of grey hair is that after moisture has been agitated in the body over a long period, the whitest part of the moisture is separated off and arrives at the epidermis: the hair grows whiter because the moisture which it attracts is whiter than it was previously while the epidermis is whiter in places where the hair is white. Those too who have a white head of hair from birth show a whiter epidermis where the hair is white; for it is there that the whitest part of the bodily fluid is. In fact, the complexion of the skin and the colour of the hair correspond to the colour of the moisture which the flesh attracts — white, or red, or black. Having said so much on this subject, I return to the remainder of my discourse. 21. 1 The embryo starts to move once the extremities of the body have branched and the nails and hair have taken root. The time which it takes for this to happen is three months for males, and four for females. That at least

VII 510-514

Li.

On the Nature of the Child

13

is generally the case, although some infants start to move earlier. The reason w h y a male embryo starts to move earlier is its greater strength; moreover, the male is compacted earlier, since the seed from which it comes is stronger and thicker. 2 As soon as the embryo has started to move, the mother's milk makes its appearance: her breasts swell, and the nipples grow erect, although so far the milk does not flow. The appearance and the flow of milk occurs later in those women whose flesh is of a dense texture, and earlier in those who have loose-textured flesh. The cause of lactation is as follows: when the womb becomes swollen because of the child it presses against the woman's stomach, and if this pressure occurs while the stomach is full, the fatty parts of the food and drink are squeezed out into the omentum and the flesh. 3 The process is the same as when you smear a hide with large quantities of oil and, after giving the hide time to absorb the oil, you squeeze it, and the oil oozes out again under pressure. In exactly the same w a y , the stomach, containing the fatty portions of food and drink, percolates the fat into the omentum and the flesh, under the pressure of the womb. If the woman's flesh has a loose texture, she feels the effect of the percolation all the sooner; but later, if her flesh is not of this type. Moreover, pregnant animals, provided they are not diseased, grow fatter than animals which are not pregnant, although their food and drink is exactly the same. This is also true of pregnant women. 4 N o w from this fatty substance, which is warmed and white in colour, that portion which is made sweet by the action of heat coming from the womb, is squeezed into the breasts. A small quantity goes to the womb as well, through the same vessels: for the same vessels and others similar to them extend alike to the breasts and the womb. When it arrives in the womb, it has the appearance of milk, and the embryo uses a small quantity; while the breasts are filled with it and swell. 5 When the child is born, it is the act of suckling itself which causes the milk to flow into the breasts, once the whole process has been set going initially. For in fact, when the breasts give suck, the veins into them become wider and in this way attract the fatty substance from the stomach and pass it along into the breasts. It is similar to the case of a man who enjoys intercourse frequently: the veins become larger, thereby inducing him to further intercourse. 22. 1 Nutrition and growth depend on what arrives from the mother into her womb; and the health or disease of the child is relative to that of the mother. In just the same w a y , plants growing in the earth receive their nutriment from the earth and the condition of the plant depends on the condition of the earth in which it grows. N o w when a seed is planted in the earth, it is filled with moisture from it (the earth contains many different varieties of moisture, which is why it can nurture plants). 2 Once the seed is filled with moisture, it becomes inflated and swells. N o w there is a virtue or power in the seed: when the lightest part of this virtue is condensed and compressed by breath and the moisture in the seed, it turns

14

Translation

VII 514-518

Li.

into green shoots and breaks the seed open. This is what happens at first: the shoots sprout upwards, but once they have sprouted, then the moisture in the seed is no longer sufficient for their nutrition. So the seed and its shoots break open in a downward direction: the seed is forced to release downward that part of its virtue which has been left behind owing to its weight. 3 Once the plant has taken firm root below and begins to derive its nutriment from the earth, then the whole seed is absorbed by the plant and disappears, excepting the husk, which is the most solid part of the seed. Eventually this too rots in the earth and disappears. After a time, some of the shoots send out branches. N o w the plant, since it comes from a seed, that is, from something moist, while it remains tender and moist and strives to grow upwards and downwards, cannot put forth fruit. The reason is that its natural capacity is not strong and rich enough to be compacted. 4 But when time has made the plant firm and rooted it, it develops broad veins running upwards and downwards, so the substance it draws from the earth is no longer watery, but thicker and more fatty and greater in quantity. This substance is heated by the sun, and seethes into the tips of the plant, where it becomes fruit of the same kind as what it came from. 5 The reason for the abundance of fruit, despite its small origin, is that every plant draws from the earth more virtue than did the seed from which it originated, and this virtue erupts not simply in one place, but in many; and once the fruit has broken out, it is nurtured subsequently by the plant, which attracts substance from the earth and passes it to the fruit. It is the sun which ripens and firms the fruit, by evaporating its more watery part. So much then for those plants which grow out of seeds, from the earth and water. 23. 1 When trees are grown from slips, on the other hand, what happens is this: the sapling has a fracture at its lower end (where it was broken off from the parent tree), the end which is placed in the earth. This end sends out roots in the following way: when the plant is in the earth, and draws up moisture from the earth, it swells and becomes full of breath, though this is not yet the case with the part projecting above the earth. 2 But in the lower part, the breath and moisture cause the heaviest portion of the plant's virtue to condense and to break forth in a downward direction; from it, there grow delicate roots. Once the plant has taken root below, it draws moisture from the root and imparts it to the portion above the ground. And so in its turn the upper portion too swells and acquires breath; and such of the virtue of the plant as is light condenses and grows out in the form of shoots: thereafter it grows both upwards and downwards. So the process of sprouting in the case of plants grown from seeds is just the opposite to the process in plants grown from slips: the shoots grow upward from the seed before the roots grow downward, whereas the tree takes root first, and only later puts out leaves. 3 The reason is that there is a quantity of moisture

VII 518—522

Li.

On the Nature of the Child

15

in the seed itself, and since the seed is wholly contained in the ground, it has, initially, sufficient nutriment to feed its shoots until it becomes rooted. This is not the case with the sapling, for it does not grow from something else which provides the leaves with their initial nutriment; instead, the sapling is like the tree, which has its greatest bulk above the earth, and so cannot be filled with moisture above the earth, without some great virtue coming from below to transmit moisture to the upper parts. So that at first the slip must necessarily sustain itself from the earth by means of its roots, and only subsequently transmit upwards the moisture which it attracts from the earth, and so blossom into leaves, and grow. 24. 1 I shall now describe what causes the plant to branch as it grows. Once it has drawn an excessive amount of moisture from the earth, this superabundance causes it to break out at the point where there is most, and it is here that the plant branches. The reason that it increases in size both vertically as well as laterally is that the earth below its surface is warm in winter, and cool in summer. This is because in winter the rain falling from the sky makes the earth moist and, since moisture is heavy, compressed upon itself. Accordingly, the earth becomes more dense, and, because it has no large pores, it is unventilated. That is why the earth under its surface is warm in the winter. 2 Dung too is warmer when it is compressed than if it is loosely packed, and in general, substances which are moist and compressed grow warm spontaneously and are quick to rot because they get burnt up by the heat: their compression prevents the air from penetrating them. Whereas if they are dry, and loosely packed, they grow warm and rot much less easily. Corn and barley too, if they are moist and packed together, are more likely to grow warm than when they are dry and lie loosely. Leather garments also if you tie them together and compress them very tightly are consumed spontaneously as though by fire. This is something I have observed myself. In fact, you only have to consider to realize that everything which is compressed upon itself grows warmer than what is loosely packed, the reason being that these substances cannot be ventilated and cooled by the wind. 3 N o w the case is the same with the earth: under its surface it is d£nse and compacted upon itself as a result of the weight of moisture in it, and so it is warm during winter since it has no ventilation for its heat. N o w when rain falls upon the earth, and then sends forth an exhalation, this exhalation is obstructed by the earth's density, and is forced back into the water. This is why springs during the winter are both warmer and flow more abundantly than during the summer: the air exhaled from the water goes back into the water, since the earth is dense and the air cannot penetrate it. 4 This large quantity of water breaks out and flows where it can, and makes a broader passage for itself than if it were only a small quantity. (For water in the earth does not remain at rest, but regularly flows downwards.) Whereas if it were the case that the earth during winter offered the air exhaled by the water a passage through itself, the

16

Translation

VII 522-524

Li.

water flowing from the earth would be less in quantity, and springs would not be abundant during winter. I have mentioned all these facts to show that the earth under its surface is warmer during winter than during summer. 25. 1 N o w for the reason why during the summer the earth is colder under its surface than in winter, (i) During summer the earth is porous and light, because the sun strikes it more hotly and evaporates its moisture (the earth of course always has some moisture in itself, in smaller or larger quantities), (ii) All winds come from water — you can deduce the truth of this from the fact that winds always blow off rivers and clouds, and clouds are simply water cohering together in the air. 2 So then: the earth is porous and light during the summer, and it contains water. This water flows downwards, and as it does so it exhales from itself a constant stream of air. This air permeates the earth, which is light and porous, and cools it; and the water itself is chilled at the same time. 3 What happens is the same as if you were to compress tightly a skin containing water, and having made a breathing hole for the water with a needle point, or perhaps something a little larger, to hang the whole skin up and cause it to oscillate. You will find that no breath, but only water, passes through the perforation: the reason being that the water does not have a sufficiently wide passage to exhale air. N o w this corresponds to water in the earth during winter. 4 But if before hanging up the skin and causing it to oscillate you make a wide passage for the water, it will be the case that air passes through the perforation; for the air (which comes from the water as it moves) will have a sufficiently wide passage to escape through the skin, and that is why the air passes through the hole. This, then, is the case with the water in the earth during summer. It has a sufficiently wide passage, since the sun has made the earth porous by drawing up its water, and the air, which is cold because it comes from the water, penetrates the porous and light earth, and in this way makes the earth cool beneath its surface in summer. Furthermore the water, which is the cause of the coldness of the air in the earth, receives this air back into itself as well as emitting it into the earth. 5 In the same way too, drawing water from a well keeps the air in motion like a puff of wind, and causes it to chill the water; whereas if the water is not drawn during the summer but is left standing, because of its density it does not admit the air from the earth to the same extent, nor does it emit it into the earth. Instead, when it is allowed to remain stagnant in the well and is not moved about, it is warmed by the sun and the air superficially at first, then the heat is transmitted down through successive layers. 6 This is why well-water which is not drawn in the summer is warmer than that which is drawn (note that springs which come from deep underground are always cold in the summer). When in the winter water is drawn from the earth, it is initially warm — the earth itself being warm —

VII 124-528

Li.

On the N a t u r e of the Child

17

but as time passes it becomes cold: this is obviously due to the effect of the air, which is cold, for the wind aerates the water, allowing breath to penetrate it. In the same way water which, is drawn from a well during summer is cold initially, and then grows warm: the reason being that it is chilled by the air which circulates through the porous earth; whereas once it has been drawn and left standing for a while, it is observed to grow warm, because the air is warm. Water which is left undisturbed in a well during summer grows warm for the same reason. So much, then, on this subject. 26. 1 To return, then, to my original point, that the earth below its surface is cool in summer, warm in winter, while above the surface the opposite is true. Now if a tree is to be sound, it must not receive two lots of heat simultaneously, nor two lots of cold: if it receives heat above the ground, it must receive cold below the ground, and vice versa. 2 The roots distribute to the tree whatever they attract, while the tree distributes whatever it attracts to the roots: there is thus a dispensation of heat and cold. Just as when a man takes into his stomach those foods which cause heat when they are digested, he requires a compensatory cooling from drink, so too in the case of a tree the lower parts must compensate the upper, and vice versa. This is in fact the reason w h y a tree grows both upwards and downwards: it is because it receives nutriment from above as well as from below. 3 While it is still very tender, it does not bear fruit: so far, it has no thick and fatty virtue capable of producing fruit. But after a time, its veins become sufficiently wide to draw thick and fatty substance from the ground. The sun then melts this substance, lightening it, and causing it to surge into the tree's extremities and become fruit. The sun also evaporates the thin portion of the moisture from the fruit, while it sweetens the thicker part by warming and ripening it. 4 The reason w h y some kinds of tree do not bear fruit is that they contain insufficient fatty substance to contribute to fruiting. Trees cease to grow once time has made them solid, and they have taken firm hold below with their roots. Some trees, however, grow from grafts implanted into other trees: they live independently on these, and the fruit which they bear is different from that of the tree on which they are grafted. 5 This is h o w : first of all the graft produces buds, for initially it still contains nutriment from its parent tree, and only subsequently from the tree in which it was engrafted. Then, when it buds, it puts forth slender roots into the tree, and feeds initially on the moisture actually in the tree on which it is engrafted. Then in course of time it extends its roots directly into the earth, through the tree on which it was engrafted; thereafter it uses the moisture which it draws up from the ground, and that is how it is nurtured — from the ground. There is therefore nothing anomalous in the fact that grafts bear different fruit: it is because they live from the ground. I have said so much about trees and their fruit since I could not leave my account incomplete.

18

Translation

VII 528-532

Li.

27. 1 But to return now to the main argument which was my reason for introducing these matters. I maintain, then, that all plants which grow in the ground live off the moisture which comes from the ground, and that the character of the plant depends on the character of this moisture. N o w it is in just the same w a y that the child in the womb lives from its mother, and it is on the condition of health of the mother that the condition of health of the child depends. But in fact, if you review what I have said, you will find that from beginning to end the process of growth in plants and in humans is exactly the same. So much for that subject. 28. 1 The child while it is in the womb has its hands tucked against its chin, while its head lies near its feet. However it is not possible to decide with any accuracy whether its head is above or below — not even if you actually see the child in the womb. The child is held in its place by the membranes which extend from the umbilicus. 29. 1 N o w I come to the observation which I promised to describe a little earlier — one which will make the matter as clear as is humanly possible to anyone who wishes to know that the seed is contained in a membrane which has an umbilicus in the centre, and that the seed initially draws breath into itself and expires it, and that membranes extend from the umbilicus. Furthermore (if you accept the evidence which I am about to give) you will find that the growth of the infant is from beginning to end exactly as I have described it in my discourse. 2 If you take twenty or more eggs, and place them to hatch under two or more fowls, and on each day, starting from the second right up until the day on which the egg is hatched, you take one egg, break it open, and examine it, you will find that everything is as I have described — making allowance of course for the degree to which one can compare the growth of a chicken with that of a human being. 3 You will find for instance that there are membranes extending from the umbilicus — in fact, that in every point all the phenomena I have described in the human child are to be found in a chicken's egg also. Yet if a man had not actually seen it, he would find it hard to believe that there is an umbilicus in a chicken's egg. But it is so; so much, then, for that. 30. 1 When it is time for the mother to give birth, what happens is that the child by the spasmodic movements of its hands and feet breaks one of the internal membranes. Once one is broken, then the others of course are weaker, and these break too in order of their proximity to the first, right up till the last one. When the membranes are broken, the embryo is released from its bonds, and emerges from the womb all bunched together. For nothing has any strength to hold it once the membranes fail, and when the membranes have carried away, the womb itself cannot hold the child back — in fact even the membranes in which the child is enwrapped are not fastened very strongly to the womb. 2 Once the child is on its w a y , it forces a wide passage for itself through the womb, since the womb is soft.

VII 532-536

Li.

O n the Nature of the Child

19

It advances head first — that is the natural position, since its weight measured from above the navel is greater than it is below. 3 It is in its tenth month in the womb that it acquires an access of force sufficient to rupture the membranes, and that is when the mother gives birth. If however the child suffers some violent injury, the membranes are ruptured and it emerges earlier than the appointed time. Another case in which the mother may give birth to her child earlier than the tenth month is when the nutriment coming from the mother to the child gives out sooner than that time. But those women who imagine that they have been pregnant longer than ten months — a thing I have heard them say more than once — are quite mistaken. This is how their mistake arises: it can happen that the womb becomes inflated and swells as the result of flatulence from the stomach, and the woman of course thinks that she is pregnant. And if besides her menses do not flow but collect in the womb, 4 and there is a continuous flow into the womb (accompanied sometimes by the gas from the stomach, while sometimes the menstrual blood grows heated as well) — then she is especially likely to imagine she is pregnant. After all, her menstruation has ceased and her belly is swollen. Then it sometimes happens that the menses break forth either spontaneously, or because a further flow into the womb carries down with it what was already there; the wind is discharged; and in many cases immediately after the loss of the menses the womb gapes and is turned down towards the vagina. N o w if they have intercourse with their husbands then, they conceive on the same day or a few days afterwards. Women who are inexperienced in these facts and their reasons then reckon their pregnancy to include the time when their menses did not flow and their wombs were swollen. 5 But in fact it is impossible for pregnancy to last longer than ten months, and I shall explain why. The nutriment for growth which the mother's body provides is no longer sufficient for the child after ten months are up and it is fully grown. It is nurtured by drawing the sweetest part of the blood towards itself, although it is fed to some extent from the milk as well. O n c e these are no longer sufficient and the child is already big, in its desire for more nutrimenstruation has ceased and her belly is swollen. Then it sometimes happens ment than is there, is tosses about and so ruptures the membranes. 6 This occurs more frequently in women who are bearing their first child: with them, the supply of nutriment for the child tends to give out before the ten months are up. This is the reason: the menstrual flow of some women is sufficiently abundant, while with other women the flow is less. (If this is always the case, it is the result of the constitution which she has inherited from her mother.) N o w it is the women whose menses are small in quantity who also provide their infants with insufficient nutriment towards the end of their term when the infant is already large, and so cause it to toss about and bring on birth before ten months are up.

20

Translation

VII 536-538

Li.

The reason is their small flow of blood. Usually too these women cannot give milk: this is because they have a dry constitution and their flesh is densely packed. 7 My assertion then is that what brings on birth is a failure in food supply (excepting cases of actual injury). My evidence for this is as follows: Consider the way in which a chicken develops from the yolk of the egg. The egg is made warm by the sitting of the hen, and its content is set in motion by the same cause. N o w through being heated, the content of the egg acquires breath, and then a second quantity of cold breath from the surrounding air, through the shell — the egg-shell is porous, allowing sufficient air to be drawn through it for what is contained in the egg. The chicken grows inside the egg, and becomes articulated in approximately the same way as the child, as I have already said. 8 Now the chicken itself originates from the yolk, but it gets its nutriment and growth from the white — a fact which is quite obvious to anyone who has studied the matter. When the supply of nutriment from the egg gives out, then not having enough to live on, it looks for more and moves about violently in the shell, and ruptures the membranes. When the hen notices the violent motion of the chick, she pecks at the shell and hatches it: this is on the twentieth day. It is clear that this is what happens, because when the hen breaks open the egg-shell there is practically no moisture left inside: it has all been used up by the chicken. 9 It is the same with the child: once it has reached a certain size, and its mother can no longer provide enough nutriment, in its search for more nutriment the infant tosses about until it ruptures the membranes, and being released in this way it emerges all at once. This occurs within a maximum of ten months. By the same principle animals both domestic and wild give birth at the proper time for each species, and no later: for there must necessarily be a definite time for every species of animal, at which the food supply becomes insufficient for the embryo and then gives out, and the animal gives birth. Those which have a smaller amount of nutriment for their embryos give birth earlier, while those which have a larger amount, later. So much, then, on that subject. 10 Once the membranes are ruptured, if the infant's momentum is in the direction of the head, the birth is easy for the mother. But if it comes sideways, or feet first (this happens if its momentum inclines it in this direction, either because the size of the womb has given it space to move, or because the mother has not kept still at the beginning of her birth-pangs) the birth is difficult; and often fatal, either to the mother or to the child or both. 11 In childbirth it is the women who are having their first child who suffer the most, because they have had no experience of the pain; apart from the general discomfort of the body, they suffer most in the loins and the hips, because these become distended. Those who have more experience of bearing children suffer less: much less, if they have had a large number of children.

VII 538-542

Li.

O n the Nature of the Child

21

If the embryo moves in the direction of the head, the head is first to emerge, followed by the limbs, with the umbilical cord, to which the chorion is attached, coming last of all. 12 After all these comes a bloody serum, which is secreted from the head and the rest of the body in consequence of violence, pain and heat. This serum opens up a way for the purging of the lochia: the lochia follow the serum and flow for the period already stated. The lochial discharge empties the veins, and in consequence of this the breasts collapse, along with those other parts of the body which contain much fluid. This occurs to the least extent after the birth of the first child, but subsequently to a greater extent, after more children have been born. 31. 1 Twins are produced from one act of intercourse. The womb contains a number of pockets, crooked in shape, at varying distances from the vagina. Animals which produce large litters have a greater number of these chambers than those which give birth to small litters, and this is true of animals both domestic and wild, and birds. N o w when it happens that the sperm on its arrival in the womb is divided into two chambers, neither of which releases it into the other, then each of these separate portions in each chamber forms a membrane and comes alive in just the same way as I have said the undivided seed does. 2 The evidence that it is from one act of intercourse that twins are born is given by the dog, the pig, and other animals which produce two or more offspring from one act of intercourse; each separate embryo in the womb is contained in its own chamber and its own membrane as we can see for ourselves — and these animals generally produce all their offspring on the one day. In the same way, when a woman has twins as the result of one intercourse, each is contained in its own chamber and has its own chorion, and she bears both of them on the same day, one emerging first, and then the other, each with its chorion. 3 As for the fact that twins are born of which one is male, the other female, I maintain that in every man and in every woman — in fact in every animal - there exist both weaker and stronger varieties of sperm. N o w the sperm does not come all at once: it comes out in two or three successive spasms. It is not possible that the first and the last lot should always be of even strength. The chamber which receives thicker and stronger sperm will contain a male, while that which receives sperm which is more fluid and weaker will contain a female. If strong sperm enters both, both will contain male offspring; if the sperm is weak, then both will contain female offspring. With that I bring my whole account to its end.

22

Translation

VII 542-546

Li.

Diseases IV 32. 1 The sperm, coming from all parts of the body both of the man and the woman to produce a human being, and falling into the uterus of the woman, coagulates; and after a time a humanoid form develops from it. Both woman and man contain in their bodies four varieties of humour: it is from these that diseases originate, except for those diseases which are the result of violence. These varieties are phlegm, blood, bile and water: they contribute to the sperm neither its smallest nor its weakest part, and when the animal is born it contains as many varieties of humour, both healthy and unhealthy, as its parents had. 2 I shall show how in the case of each of these varieties an excess or deficiency occurs in the body, and this is the cause of disease; furthermore, that the crises of diseases occur on odd days; and what the initial causes of disease are, and how each of these acts upon the body to produce disease; and what is the cause of feverish shivering, and why this is followed by fever. 33. 1 First, then, I intend to show how an excess or deficiency of bile, blood, water or phlegm occurs. It originates from food and drink, in the following way: the stomach, when it is filled, is the source of all the body's nourishment; but when it is empty, it draws upon the whole of the body, which thus wastes away. There are also four other sources, from which each of these humours goes to the body, when the sources have drawn from the stomach; and these sources in turn, when they are emptied, draw upon the body. Also the body draws, independently, upon any contents there may be in the stomach. 2 N o w the source of blood is the heart; of phlegm, the head; of water, the spleen; of bile, the receptacle upon the liver. These are the four sources of these humours, apart from the stomach. O f them, the most hollow are the head and the spleen, these having the most space in them — but I shall show this more fully later on. Here is a further point: all foods and all drinks contain a greater or a lesser quantity of bilious, watery, bloody, or phlegmatic substance, 3 this in fact being the reason why different foods and drinks differ in their effect upon health. So much, then, for that. N o w whenever a man eats or drinks anything, the body attracts to itself the humour I have mentioned from the stomach, while the four sources likewise attract it from the stomach through the veins. Each kind of humour attracts its like, and distributes it to the body, just as in the case of plants each kind of humour attracts its like. 34. 1 For the earth contains innumerable virtues of all kinds, for it provides every individual plant which grows in it with a humour similar to that humour which each plant possesses congenitally and which is akin to that plant — so that each plant draws from the earth nutriment such as the plant itself is. The rose, for example, draws from the earth the humour of that kind which is present in the earth; garlic draws from the earth a humour

VII 546-548

Li.

Diseases IV

23

to match its own virtue; and each and every other plant draws from the earth according to its own nature. For if this were not so, plants would not be like the seeds from which they grew. 2 But if for a particular plant the cognate humour in the soil is excessive, that plant becomes diseased; while if the humour is deficient, then the plant withers. But if from the beginning there is no cognate humour in the earth for the plant to draw, it cannot sprout at all. N o w the following enables one to appreciate the fact that a plant will not even begin to sprout, if it does not have its natural humour. Ionia and the Peloponnese are very advantageously situated in relation to the sun and the seasons, and the sunshine is quite sufficient to let things grow. 3 Yet it is impossible — and many have made the experiment — to grow silphium either in Ionia or in the Peloponnese. The reason is that in neither of these regions is there any humour of a kind which can support the plant. The fact that there are many other cultivated plants which some regions cannot support, even though they have quite sufficient sun, while other regions grow them spontaneously, can be understood also from the following circumstance: namely the extent to which even very close localities differ from each other in the sweetness of the wine which they produce, even though the amount of sunlight is the same. For while in the one locality the earth has a humour which will make wine sweet, in the other locality it does not. 4 There are plants too which grow wild in one place, and in abundance, whereas if you transplant them no further away than a six-foot span, they will not grow at all; for the earth to which they are transplanted does not have a humour similar to that which the former earth gave them when they were growing wild. For some regions are too acrid for them, others too moist, others too sweet, or too dry, or too bitter: in fact the differences are innumerable, for the virtues in the earth are innumerable. It is because of these differences that the various kinds grew totally unlike each other in the beginning, unless they were members of the same species. 5 N o w in my opinion all these kinds were wild: but men domesticated them, training them to bear fruit each according to its seed. For a particular humour will draw from the earth one which is similar to it, and the plant is supported and grows by these, and no kind of plant is like any other kind, for it draws from the earth neither the same quantity nor the same kind of humour. Each kind of food or drink which is of vegetable origin draws many virtues from the earth into itself, and in every one of them there is something phlegmatic and sanguineous (and watery and bilious). This then is my proof for the fact that the body draws through the sources I have mentioned from the food and drink entering the stomach, each humour attracting its like through the veins. 35. 1 I shall give a further indication as follows, that each thing attracts in the way I have said, demonstrating at the same time how phlegm (increases) in the body. When a man eats cheese or something pungent, or eats or drinks

24

Translation

VII 548- 552 Li.

anything else which is phlegmatic, it immediately runs up to the mouth and the nostrils. W e all see that this happens; and it is only to be expected, from the cause which I am about to give. 2 I maintain that whatever phlegmatic substance there is in food or drink, is after its arrival in the stomach partly attracted by the body and partly by the head, which is hollow and sits upon the body like a cupping instrument. The phlegm, being viscous, travels bit by bit into the head. N o w this fresh access of phlegm which is produced from the food remains in the head, while the phlegm which was there before is forced out in proportion to the quantity of the fresh phlegm: this is why a man hawks up phlegm when he has eaten or drunk something phlegmatic. 3 A further point: if, when a man has eaten or drunk something phlegmatic, phlegm is not discharged in proportion to its increased quantity, either through the mouth or through the nostrils, then it must either remain in the head or descend from the head into the body or go to the stomach. It would be best for it to go to the stomach, for in that case it would be evacuated along with the faeces; and if it were abundant in quantity, it would make the faeces moist, though it would not do this if its quantity were small. 4 If ( m u c h of it) were to remain in the head, it would cause the head much pain, being in the veins; while it would not do this if the quantity were small. It would however give some sign of its presence, to a greater or lesser extent. If on the other hand it reaches the body, it mingles there with the other humour; and if its quantity is large, the body immediately feels its presence; but not if the quantity is small, in view of the size of the body, provided that no other supply of humour has remained in the body. If eventually a second lot of phlegm arrives, it causes harm; 5 whereas if the body passes it to the bladder and the stomach, and these discharge it, then the body is not harmed by it. This, then, is m y account of h o w the head draws phlegm from the stomach, like going towards like; I have at the same time explained how and why an excess of it arises in man from food and drink. 36. 1 I shall now speak of bile, and how and why an excess arises in the body, and h o w it is attracted by the receptacle which is on the liver. When a man eats or drinks something bitter, or in general anything which is bilious and light, the bile on the liver increases, and the liver — the " h e a r t " , as children call it — immediately suffers pain. This is a matter of c o m m o n observation, and it is apparent that the cause is the food or the drink. 2 N o w while the body attracts to itself from its food all the humour which I have described, the receptacle on the liver attracts whatever bilious substance is there. If the quantity of bile becomes large suddenly, a man feels pain in his liver, and the quantity discharged from his bowels is increased. F o r when this happens, owing to its excess some of the bile that was already present passes into the stomach and causes griping; then some of it passes out via the bladder, and some via the stomach, and in this way very little remains in the man and the pains cease. 3 But if neither evacuation

VII >52-556

Li.

Diseases IV

25

occurs, first of all the bile that was there previously is distributed to the body. If its quantity is large, it mingles with the rest of the fluid in the body, and gives immediate indication of its presence there; if on the other hand it is small, the body in view of its size does not feel it, provided that no other supply remains over in the body. If eventually more bile accrues, it does the man greater harm; otherwise, the body filters it through and discharges it and all that is of a bilious nature. 4 f F o r one lot of food or drink acts as a purge for another: in the same way, harmful substances as well act as a purge one for the other, for arriving in the stomach they have the function by their own power of expelling what they have overcome, and thus rendering it harmless.f But when more bile makes its appearance in the body from the food entering the stomach, disease results from it. I have indicated in this (account) how and why an excess of bile arises in the body from food and drink, and that the receptacle on the liver attracts by affinity bilious substance from food and drink. 37. 1 N o w I shall speak of water, and the manner in which an excess arises in the body, and the way in which the spleen attracts it to itself. I maintain that when a man drinks too much, the spleen as well as the body attracts the water from the stomach; and if it draws too much, the man experiences pain immediately: this is a thing noticed by those individuals who are splenetic. When the spleen attracts the water, it is best if the water which was originally in the spleen is percolated into the bladder and the stomach, and these filter it away. 2 F o r the water from the spleen is not purged through the upper passages of the body, except for such quantity as there may be in the vessels leading from the spleen: on the contrary, its way of purgation is into the stomach and the bladder. But if these do not allow it to flow easily, and do not filter it out, the water passes from the spleen into the lower regions of the body, where it mingles with the rest of the humour. And if its quantity is small, the man will not feel it, but it will be filtered from the body into the bladder and the stomach through the veins: 3 for there are many of these extending from the body, and they draw upon the lower regions once they become drier than they were previously. But if another lot of water accrues and is not filtered out through the stomach and bladder, the spleen swells and the lower regions become painful. So much then for the way in which an excess of water arises in the body from drink, and how the spleen attracts it. 38. 1 I shall now speak of blood, and the way in which it comes to be in excess in the body. When a man eats or drinks something of a blood-like nature, the body as a whole attracts it, and so does the heart. N o w even if the quantity attracted by the heart is excessive, the heart does not suffer pain, for it is a hard and dense thing, and for this reason it is not pained. Moreover, thick veins, called the jugulars, extend from it, and into these the blood-like substance is rapidly distributed if it is excessive; and they, when they are filled, rapidly pass it on to the head and the body. So when a man eats or

26

Translation

VII 556-558

Li.

drinks anything which is of a blood-like nature, the jugulars immediately swell and the face becomes flushed. 2 But if an excessive quantity of blood from food and drink accrues to the heart and body, and mixes with the other fluid, then unless some of it is discharged via the stomach or the bladder, it causes pain by mixing with the other humour in the body. If the amount which accrues is small, the body does not feel it and it is eventually passed on to the stomach or the nostrils: these parts expel it and it is rendered harmless. But if from being a small amount it increases, then it causes disease. 3 I have now explained how an excess of blood arises. That makes four — blood, bile, phlegm and water — and I have shown for all of them how and why an excess arises in the body from foods and drinks. N o w here is the sign that the excess does come about from food and drink: if a man eats and drinks in small quantities, it does not bring on any illness. So much then for that subject. But I have also incidentally touched upon the way in which these humours become deficient — sufficiently at least to make the matter clear for an intelligent person. But I shall make it more clear later on. 39. 1 The sources which I have named continually supply the body when they are full; but when they become empty "("they are suppliedf from it; and the stomach does the same. The case is similar to what it would be if one were to pour water into three or more bronze cauldrons, having first set them together on a perfectly level surface and having joined them together as neatly as possible by fitting pipes into the holes; and if one were then to pour water slowly into one of the vessels until all were filled by the water. For the water will flow from the first into the others until they are filled. Then, when they are full, if you draw off the water from one, the water will flow back in turn from the other vessels into this one, and the vessels will empty again in the same way as they received the water. 2 N o w it is the same with the body: when food and drink enter the stomach, the body draws them off from the stomach and is filled along with its reservoirs. When on the other hand the stomach is emptied, the fluid is returned, in the same way as the first bronze cauldron received back water from the others. For there are many veins, closely packed together, which extend throughout the body, some being narrow and some wide. As long as a man is alive, these veins are open, receiving and discharging new fluid; but when he dies, they close up and become narrow. 3 N o w so long as a man is alive, the body draws upon the stomach, when the stomach contains anything; so also do the sources, and, when they are filled, they dispense to the body. For if it were not the case that the body drew upon the fluid in the stomach, f b u t it was the sources alone which dispensed to the b o d y f , the body would have less than sufficient nutriment, because the sources would not keep on supplying nutriment to the body. As for the sources themselves, if they did not exist, we would be unable to distinguish clearly between the pleasant and the

VII 558-S62

Li.

Diseases IV

27

unpleasant in eating and drinking, for the following reason. 4 Each of these sources, since they are small and in the body's interior, indicates in virtue of its own peculiar power to the rest of the body what in each case is bilious or phlegmatic or blood-like or watery in what is eaten or drunk, even before the body itself has perceived it. For if there is an excess of any of these substances in drinks or foods, we do not find them enjoyable; whereas we find those foods enjoyable which we have the most need of in respect of these substances. 5 N o w if we are in need of food or drink, then in this case the body too will draw from the sources until the humour becomes less than sufficient. And it is then that a man has the desire to eat or drink something of a nature to fill up that portion and bring it into equilibrium with the others. This is why, even after we have eaten or drunk a large amount, we sometimes still desire a food or a drink, and will eat nothing else with pleasure, except that particular thing which we desire. But when we have eaten, and the humour in the sources and in the body is brought into equilibrium as far as possible, then the desire ceases. So much, then, for that subject. 40. 1 A further point is that bile alone is separated off from food and drink into the reservoir upon the liver. The veins here are weak and narrow, and cannot attract the other humour, which is thick and heavy; moreover there is not enough space for the other humour in this reservoir. It is besides, more than any other, naturally akin to bile; and for this reason it is not liable to any disease apart from what is called "heartburn". 2 The head and heart and spleen on the other hand have a share in all humour. While, unless they are diseased, each naturally has the greatest share in its own humour from among those I have mentioned — the head, of phlegm, the heart, of blood, the spleen, of water — the veins do attract other humour into them as well, for the veins are thick, wide, and convoluted, so that when they attract, the other humour follows on bit by bit. T o the heart are connected the jugular veins: they are thick, and material passes into them quickly when the heart receives an excess, and they in turn distribute it to the rest of the body. Also the heart itself is sufficiently hard and dense not to suffer any harm from the humour: for this reason, no disease occurs in the heart. 3 The head and spleen on the other hand are particularly prone to disease: they are affected both by their natural humours, when they receive an excessive amount of these, and by the other humour as well. F o r they have numerous thick veins leading into them, and these are of a very venous and hollow kind, so that they have space for the other humour as well, as it enters them little by little and mingles with their natural humour. Just as there is more space in a large vessel than in a small one, so it is with the head and the spleen: they of all these reservoirs have the most space. When their veins become filled with humour, then from this humour disease arises in them. So much then for that subject.

28

Translation

VII

562-566

Li.

41. I I shall now give a more detailed explanation of the way in which each form of this humour decreases in the body. I have shown that there are four humours which cause harm to man, and that they have four sources. N o w there are four ways by which a man purges himself of each: the mouth, the nostrils, the rectum and the urethra. When there is an excess of one of these humours, and the humour is causing distress, then if a man is purged by one of these passages, no illness from the humour oppresses him. 2 And if the stomach is not full, with the general liquescence from the body some of the humour flows down into the stomach and is then expelled through one of the places I have mentioned; and in this way the amount of fluid decreases in the body. For as I said before, the body supplies the stomach when the stomach is empty, and is supplied by it when the stomach is full. That then is my explanation of how and why the substances which cause man suffering decrease. 42. I I shall now explain how and why a man is healthy. When he eats and drinks and the humour arrives in the body, it mingles in the way I have described with the other humour, both that which is in the body and that which is in its source. N o w on the day on which it arrives, it remains in the body; and on the following day, a second lot of humour is added to it. We now have two days, and there are two humours in the body: one humour has been there two days, and the other, one. 2 N o w while the humour which arrived on the second day remains in the body because it is thick, the first lot is concocted by the body-heat and is dissolved, and becoming thin, it arrives in the stomach on the second day: it is constantly being pushed onward by the more recent humour. When it arrives in the stomach, it digests the food which is there, and makes the body's blood from this food. As it remains (in the stomach), in the course of time it becomes fetid. On the third day it is evacuated with the faeces and the urine, in a quantity exactly equal and corresponding and balanced with its original quantity. f A n d even if only a part of it goes (to the stomach)f, nevertheless the humour remains in the body according to the calculation I have given, 3 and on the third day too the portion which was left behind is made to flow into the stomach by the next lot of humour, in greater quantity and more fetid. It carries down with it both the digested food and any morbid substance in the body, and in its turn is expelled along with it. The saltiness of the urine is a sign that it carries away morbid substance also from the body. Food is always expelled on the second day and humour on the third, and that is how health comes about. So much then for the way in which men are healthy. 43. 1 But if this humour were evacuated each day or on the second day, the food evacuated from the stomach would not be in such a fetid state as it is, but it would be as though it were boiled merely; while the urine would be in a similar state to what we drank. Moreover, the body would be continually emptied, and every time a man defecated or urinated he would immediately feel the need of food and drink in a quantity proportionate to

VII 566-568

Li.

Diseases IV

29

what he had discharged to keep up his strength, since in that case there would be insufficient humour left in the body, for it would be passed out along with the faeces on the second day or on the same day. And this would be so if he ate: 2 but if he did not eat he would become weakened through being empty and would be unable to put on weight, if the humour were evacuated on the second day: for an insufficient amount would be left in the body. But as it is, we are in fact in good physical condition through evacuating; and even if we go without food for two days, we can still go about and do things; and being empty for this length of time does not bring us to the last stage of weakness — for it is the humour remaining in the body which gives us our strength. I have now stated how and w h y it is impossible for the humour which accrues to the body to be evacuated either on the same day or even on the following day. 44. I I maintain that if the humour remains in the body for longer than three days, and if a further large quantity of humour accrues, the veins are filled and grow heated and become obstructed, and illness makes its appearance in the man, either greater or less: it will be less, and appear later, during the winter, and will be greater and appear earlier during the summer. That is m y account of what happens if the humour remains in the body. 2 But if the food passed through, we would find that the body did not benefit from sufficient humour, and men would be thin and weak. But as it is, the food and drink do remain in the body, and as long as they remain, the body is supplied by drawing gradually from the stomach, and becomes filled. That is my explanation of w h y it is impossible that food should pass out on the same day. 3 However, if food remains in the stomach for a longer period than necessary, and more food supervenes upon it, the body is then surfeited, and the veins are under pressure from the surfeit, and the body suffers from heat and discomfort: this happens more rapidly in summer, but later in the winter. For during the summer man's environment is warm, and the breath which he inspires is warmer; and if, while the stomach is already heated, a man breathes in air which is excessively warm, then it is no wonder if the result is fever. 4 Whereas in winter the air he breathes in is cold, and the body is much more able to tolerate a surfeit caused by evacuating too little. That is my account of what happens if food remains too long in the stomach; and I have also touched upon the whole subject of humour and eating, the difference which the greater and the lesser make to the illness of man. I shall however give a clearer explanation in due course. 45. 1 I shall now return to the subject of health, and (to my statement) that the body is supplied by the humour contained in food and drink, and in the case of a healthy man, both the food and the humour is passed out according to the account I have given. N o w if more humour is passed out than is gained from food and drink, then the man grows thin. More is passed out than is acquired for the following reason.

30

Translation

VII 568-572

Li.

(i) If a man remains at rest and does no work, then there is some illness in his body, though he is not particularly aware of it, because the quantity of health(y substance) over and above this is large. N o w the illness is of this kind: 2 when there is a slight excess of one of these four humours of the body, the body becomes heated, but gradually, so that we do not notice it particularly. The body then suffers a liquescence into the stomach, which makes his food seem unpleasant to the man. (If one humour is more abundant than another, then fever results from this sort of case; but that is a subject which I shall discuss in more detail a little later.) There are cases too when a man becomes thin even when he finds food pleasant, but the reason is the same. N o w in these circumstances, a greater quantity of humour passes out than is replaced; and this is the reason why a man becomes thin when he rests. 3 (ii) However, the body also becomes heated when men work, and as it becomes heated through effort, the humour in it too becomes diffuse and thin; it is then useless and flows down into the stomach and bladder, and these filter it out. Some of it is also transpired out, through the porosity within the body, and some of it remains inside to become sweat which is then expelled over the body (surface). (The exercises practised by youths have the same effect too as work.) 4 f N o w if the humour is less than what has passed out previously, and no more is added from drinks and foods as well, for that reason a man becomes thin. (The humour) becomes less, if the man is unable to eat and moreover to drink anything besides to correspond to his previous effort or exercise, but (eats and drinks) less. But it is through eating that he acquires peak condition (for this reason. . . But if he does not eat, fever results for this reason: ) f when a man becomes dried out during the period in which the humour is in the body, and when during the work he has done previously more of one humour has been lost than another, as the case may be, so that one humour greatly predominates over the others, this is plethora. 5 And if the predominance is very great, fever results in such a case; but if the predominance is small, so too is the fever. In this case the body is able to tolerate the heat, because the quantity of moisture is greater, (and) the patient recovers. For it is by fever that the body is heated. And if the noxious humour is small in quantity, the fever continues for two days and remits on the third, in the same way. But if it is larger in quantity, it continues correspondingly for four days, and remits on the fifth. Thus diseases reach their crises on these days, if the fever remits. 46. 1 It is on the odd days that men recover from illness; it is also on these days that they die. Why that is so, I will explain later: for the moment, I wish to explain how fever leaves a man. N o w I maintain that if a fever coming from the body attacks a man, the malignant humour must necessarily pass out from the body either on the third day or on some other odd day, consistently with the account I have given. That is, the humour does not depart from the body until a fresh access of healthy humour comes from the

VII 572-576

Li.

Diseases IV

31

stomach. 2 For it is on the middle and subsequent day that the body draws from the stomach what it has put into it on the preceding day — unless the stomach has already filtered that out and acquired a fresh lot of humour — and this is injurious to a man. If the fever leaves him on the third day, this occurs in the same way as I have described it to do on the same day; and this is how it happens that a fever coming from the body remits on the third day. 3 And I maintain further, that if fever departs on the fifth or seventh or ninth day, the manner is the same as on the third day. For the fuel of fever is in the four reservoirs which I described some time back; and when the healthy humour prevails by reason of its greater quantity, the patient recovers. The reason that fever departs on odd days is that while the body draws from the stomach on even days, it discharges again into the stomach on odd days, and the stomach filters it out — if the man is in a healthy state. And this is the necessary cause why fevers reach their crises on odd days, and it accounts for the recovery of the man on those days. 4 I also maintain that invalids feel most discomfort on odd days for the following reason, and that this is only to be expected. When a man is fevered, he is in a state of disturbance; and the sign is the chill which runs over his body, now here and now there: this would not occur unless the humour were in a state of disturbance and had a greater or lesser quantity separated off from it which prevails now here, and now there. N o w the greatest disturbance in an invalid occurs on the odd days, and it is precisely then that chill occurs. What happens is this: a portion of the injurious humour is vanquished by the most recent access of humour, and is pushed out of the body by it. It then travels to the lower stomach which, receiving a greater quantity of the injurious humour than before, thereby has its heat increased. 5 This occurs chiefly in the crisis of a disease. If the body discharges into the stomach in small quantities, and the amount of the injurious humour is not large, both stomach and body are able to endure the heat during crisis; the man recovers, when the malignant humour departs, especially if the fever's fuel is exhausted and the healthy (humour) prevails. This is the reason why the invalid recovers, and the causes are those I have already given. 47. 1 N o w I will state why it is that men die on odd days. I maintain that if the amount of injurious humour in the body is large, there is an excessive disturbance, and a large quantity arrives in the stomach. The body, being unable to endure the heat, (?) draws upon it: there must inevitably be "("difficulty in breathingf, and being too weak — since all its fluid has become diseased — to draw in (sufficient) breath to cool the contents of the stomach, all the vital element in its humour is exhaled and so the man dies. 2 For there is no second, and healthy, quantity of humour to prevail over the morbid, since it is all consumed by the morbid and converted into fever and exhaled. Hence the suffering is greatest on odd days: this is a fact familiar to everyone. Here furthermore is a sign that the fluid is distributed on precisely

32

Translation

VII 576-578

Lt.

these days: none of those patients suffering from continuous fever who have in the past been purged on even days, have been purged in excess. But all those who were given a strong purgative on odd days, were purged in excess, and many actually died as a result of the excessive purging. Previous physicians, at any rate, were greatly in error on this point: they would purge on odd days and kill off their patients, because of their ignorance. For the fluid in the invalid's body is in a state of greater disturbance on odd days, because the body releases its humour into the stomach then. And if you disturb even further what is already disturbed, by tossing a purge into it, it is hardly surprising if a man dies as the result of such treatment. 48. 1 Moreover, it is principally on these days that wounds become inflamed. When the humour is disturbed, it enters all the veins and fills them, when disease arrives in the wound. And if the wound is treated so that the pus, which is thrust out by the humour which arrives in the course of the disturbance, can find an exit, then the wound is drained. If however the patient is not treated, the pus finds no exit but remains there along with the humour which has arrived; and this causes pain by swelling the flesh around the wound. If the wound is in the legs, this humour distends the veins in the joints of the leg; or the veins in the arm-joints, if the wound is in the arms; and this is the cause of glandular swellings. 2 When fever occurs in these cases, and there is no other ill in the patient, the cause is in the humour being more oily than it should. This fills the veins, which then causes pain and heat in the wound; the wound, being heated, heats the rest of the body, and this is how heat comes about in wounds. For what heats both body and wounds is the disturbance of the humour; fatigue has a similar effect. 3 The inflammation of wounds subsides on the fifth day, or rather, in conformity with the order of these days, on the third, fifth, seventh, ninth, or eleventh, depending upon the size of the wounds. This brings the first period to completion. The second period begins with the third day (after the end of the first period), i. e. on the fourteenth day from the first; and it is on the fourteenth day that inflammation subsides in the largest wounds. The foregoing account states that diseases reach their crises on odd days; that the humour, in the case of a healthy man, passes out on the third day; and that the faeces pass out on the second. These events, occurring on the third day as they do, bear mutual witness to each other that the facts are so. With that, my whole account is rounded off. 49. 1 I wish now to state in greater detail why it is that men become diseased: in this account I shall be describing the initial causes of disease, and the effects which each of these bring about. I maintain that if there remains in the stomach an excess of food which is already digested, and if more food is added while the man is still unpurged, then the body, being filled with both the previous and the more recent quantity of humour, becomes heated, and the result is a fever. When fever arises in this way, it is not desperate nor violent, so long as the injurious humour is equal in quantity or exceeds by

VII 578-582

Li.

Diseases IV

33

only a small amount. If this is so, and the patient is in good strength, and takes a suitable diet, then he recovers. 2 (There is only one disease which arises from all the humour, and it has seven symptoms: the patient suffers a mild and dry cough, the belly is hard because of the faeces inside, his head feels heavy, he vomits, is fevered, and his urine is unhealthy. These are the seven symptoms of the disease which arises from all the humour.) But if the bowels are not moved, and one humour prevails over the others by much, the patient will fare "("worsef. And if, for the fever which comes from all the humour, a suitable diet is not administered, the fever will persist, corresponding to the degree in which it prevails over the other humours, in the following way. 3 As the body is heated, it is principally the watery humour which is evaporated as a result, and this is the humour most opposed to fever. What is left is the oily and light substance, which is bilious, and which provides the best fuel for fever. The way in which it is evaporated is this: if you pour water and oil into a bronze cauldron, and burn a large fire under it for a long time, the amount of the water will decrease very considerably, by being evaporated from the vessel, while the oil will decrease by only a small amount. This is because the water, because of its rarity, can be made thin and light by the fire, and so evaporates; while the oil, because it coheres and is dense, cannot be rarefied and evaporate to the same extent. 4 So it is with man too. As the body is heated, the water is evaporated out, while the bile, which is coherent and dense, is not rarefied and evaporated out to the same extent. The bile, then, is left behind in the body, and causes it to become still more heated, for it provides a more abundant and more efficient fuel for the fever, and either by (?) dispersing over the body or by settling in one place, it increases the gravity of the disease. This, then, is what happens to the man if he is not purged and treated. 50. 1 flf one humour prevails over the others, but by no great quantity — whether its increase was sudden or whether it accumulates little by little — the rest of the body has sufficient strength to support thisf until some initial cause supervenes. If then the man is not purged of the excess of humour, disease arises from it in the following way. 2 There are three initial causes from which diseases arise. One of these, and its effects upon the body, I have already described, when I explained how and why a man falls ill when he is not purged. The second cause is when the weather is unfavourable and contrary to regimen. The third is when some violence occurs: I mean by violence a fall or a wound or contusion or a blow or fatigue, and anything of that kind. 3 Of these causes, the most important is violence, if the violence is great, but not otherwise; the second in importance is when a man is not purged; and the third is weather unfavourable to health. We should be on our guard against these: each of them has the effects on the body which I shall describe. 4 In the case of a wound, it is quite obvious that the flesh has been lacerated and that there is a sore; and I call this a disease.

34

Translation

VII 582-586

Li.

Where contusion occurs through a fall or a blow or some similar accident, and swelling follows, the blood is heated immediately by the violence and runs into the open veins. Owing to its quantity, it can find no exit, and it condenses. It is this that causes the swelling, and the swelling remains until the patient is either purged through the places I have described, or exit is given to the blood through the swelling itself, whether by surgery or not, and whether the blood has become purulent through the passing of time or not. 5 Fatigue as well has a similar effect: "fWhen men suffer from fatigue, in whatever part of the body the fatigue is greatest, there is a deposit there which becomes heated, and causes pain. N o w if (the humour) prevails over these places, and considerable excess arises")", and the belly and bladder cannot quickly get rid of this excess, fever results. But fever does not result if the previous humour is brought back into equilibrium. But if, in the fatigue, it remains in the body, exceeding the other humours in quantity, then it gets the upper hand. So much then concerning violence and the nature of its effects in the body. Here, then, are two initial causes of disease, violence and plethora which, if men are not purged, heat the body. 51. 1 When the weather conditions become unfavourable, they prevail over the humour in man and heat it, to the point at which disease arises, or cool it, whichever may be the case. I will speak first of all about heating. I say that if there is present in the man some morbid element such as I have previously mentioned, and the weather conditions being unfavourable, the man is heated, all the fluid in his body becomes heated and disturbed. N o w if the man is not purged, then as a result of the disturbance an amount is secreted which is excessive. 2 This condition is similar to what the Scythians do with mare's milk. They pour it into wooden bowls and agitate it; when it is agitated, it becomes foamy and separates; and the fatty part, which they call butter, being light is separated and rises to the surface. The heavy and thick portion settles downwards: they separate this off and dry it, and when it is coagulated and dry, they call it mare's-milk cheese ("hippake"). The whey of the milk remains in the middle. 3 It is the same in the case of man: when all the humour in his body is agitated, all the humours are separated by the causes I have mentioned: the bile, since it is lightest, separates to the top; blood comes next; then phlegm; while water is the heaviest of these fluids. In these circumstances, at the beginning of the agitation whatever fluid is most abundant in the disease goes to the place where there is most of it. Then, when a space is formed in the agitation, the humour becomes separated and either ranges freely about the body, heating it; or it comes to a stand somewhere in the body, and along with the other fluid which is already there it causes discomfort and heat. 4 The heated portion heats the rest of the body as well, and the result is fever. Fever comes more from bile, phlegm, and blood: these are the hottest, and when any one of them settles somewhere in the body, the disease is usually given its

VII 586-590

Li.

Diseases IV

35

name from that part and called after it. Water on the other hand does not give rise to acute or long-lasting fever, water being a poor fuel for fire (fever). So much then for that. 5 But until it is set into agitation, the humour which is in excess cannot separate, but ranges up and down mixed with the rest of the fluid, for all parts are filled. It is during the agitation that a void is made, more in some places than in others, and the humour occupies the larger space. And the hostile humour — in the case where it comes to a stand — no longer mingles with the other humour, until it is reduced to equal power with it. N o w neither the humour nor what comes from it to the disease can be reduced, until the place is purged by the appropriate means. 6 If the noxious humour is large in quantity, the remaining humour also, though it was previously healthy, is used up and consumed by the disease, and so the man dies in the following way (for the healthy humour is used up in addition when the disease no longer has sufficient fuel, but all that fuel has been consumed by the humour in the affected place): first it incorporates the part near to it, then it spreads to the part further away, and so on until it is all consumed and it has no nutriment left in the body — its nutriment being the humour which is light. 7 Just as putrefaction, if there is great heat, occurs at first to a small extent and then, when there is no longer sufficient nutriment in that place for the putrefaction, it spreads further in the body, beginning from the nearest sound portion, until all the flesh is corrupted, and when it has spread over the whole body, its nutriment is consumed: so too the disease, when there is insufficient nutriment left in the place where it begins, advances further, beginning from the nearest part; and when it has advanced over the whole body, its nutriment is consumed, and there is no sound humour left to prevail over it. When this happens, the man dies. 8 Furthermore, when during the agitation (the morbid humour) occupies a larger space, and instead of becoming fixed it ranges about the body, then it is no longer mixed with the rest of the humour, but this is consumed by the disease unless the patient is purged. Then the veins become overfilled, and being exceedingly full they cannot release until they have enough space to do so. It is similar to what happens in the case of a violent blow: the blood runs up under the blow, which has emptied the veins. Then, when the flesh is saturated like a sponge, it does not release the blood but contains it, until a void forms somewhere in it. For once the blood has collected it blocks its own passage by its accumulation. 9 It is similar to what happens when one takes a leather oil flask with a narrow neck and fills it with oil and inverts it so that the mouth is straight downwards. The oil will be unable to flow out, for it chokes the entrance by its accumulation and pressure. Then if one tilts the flask, a void will form at the blocked mouth, where the oil can flow out. Water on the table, too, will do the same thing. In the same way, then, when the excess of fluid in the body as a result of its agitation occupies a space and fills the veins, it does not escape from them until an empty space is formed by the disease's consumption of its own nutriment.

36

Translation

VII 590-594

Li.

I have described, then, the case in which there is some element productive of disease in the body, while the other (humours) too are present in abundance; and how the initial causes from which diseases come bring about heat and agitation in the fluid, and so lead to disease. 52. 1 f l shall now describe the effects on the body of unfavourable weather conditions, when they prevail over the fluid in the body (and chill i t ) . f I maintain that a portion of the body's humour, when it liquefies to the point of generating disease, gathers together and becomes condensed, while the rest dilates and separates out. This condition is similar to what happens in the case of milk. If one adds fig-juice to milk, it chills the milk, coagulating and condensing it, while the whey surrounds the coagulated part. 2 N o w in a man also, when unhealthy chilling occurs the humour condenses and coagulates, and around this in turn is mixed the other humour, so much of it as is in excess in the rest of the body. N o w if this enters the stomach, it disturbs the faeces and causes griping in the stomach, after which it passes out without causing great harm. But if it does not enter the stomach, it becomes fixed in some part of the body, wherever it finds the greatest space. 3 Accordingly it ranges about, looking for space; and that part of the water which is separated off from the coagulated mass sinks downward, being the coldest and heaviest element in the body, and by ranging about the bones and sinews, brings the body even more into inflammation. In fact it is clear that it is principally about the sinews and bones that the water causing the chill is to be found. For it is in the bony parts of his body that a man feels chill the most; and his hair bristles because the skin contracts and becomes drier than it was, as a result of the departure of the water from there and its collection around the bones (?). 4 From there, only the place where it is at first cannot create chill, from which shivering too arises(?). O f the rest of the fluid, that which is evenly coagulated is spread over the whole body. But the part which is in excess, provided that the stomach is not full and the noxious humour is small in quantity, may pass to the stomach and do no great harm: sometimes inducing no fever at all, at other times only a mild and harmless fever, until the noxious humour is expelled with the faeces. But if the stomach is full, and it contains a large amount of noxious humour, there is a risk of disease arising if the noxious humour settles on the patient's side, or on one of the viscera, or heats up any other place(?) where it may have first caused trouble. 5 (?) T o those ( . . . ) since (the water) is about the bones and close to the marrow ( . . . ) first of all the place itself, next its neighbourhood, then it spreads further, and the stomach in addition receives from it, being warm. Then both the stomach and the noxious humour heat (it) even more. The coagulated humour dissolves as it is heated, beginning with that part of it which is near the affected part, and as it dissolves, it mingles with the water (?). Then more void is opened up in the coagulated (humour) of the body(?) and the chill lasts until the water is reunited with the other humour.

VII 594-596

Li.

Diseases I V

37

53. 1 And that is how fever is produced: that is to say, the noxious substances by settling in the place compel the body, being heated, to admit fever; and (this fever), being heated by the noxious humour and by the stomach prevails over the water, and so it is that fever (arises) after chill, in cases where the excessive humour settles somewhere in the body. 2 But in cases where it ranges about, fever arises after chill in the following way. The humour ranges principally about the stomach, both the upper and the lower, for it is there that there is most space. As it moves about, the parts nearest to it are the first to become heated, both the stomach and the viscera. Then the remaining humour as well is affected by the heat and dissolves and mingles with the water. It is then that fever arises after chill, in cases where the noxious humour ranges about but does not settle anywhere in the body. 3 I have now stated how morbid chill arises, and when and how and from what cause fever occurs after it, and what the initial causes of disease are, and what kind of disease each of them induces in the body. (And I have stated) how and why diseases reach their crises on odd days, and what is the cause of health in men and what the cause of disease; and how bile and phlegm increase and decrease; and I have demonstrated as many other things which naturally occur in man as this discourse of mine allowed. Having said so much, I now bring it to an end. 54. 1 Now I shall discuss flat worms. I maintain that these are produced in the infant while it is still in the womb: for once it has emerged from the womb the faeces do not remain in the intestines for a long enough time for them to form a creature of such size by a lengthy process of decomposition. F o r a man, if he is to be healthy, must excrete each morning from what he has eaten the night before; whereas a creature of this size could not be formed even if he did not excrete for many days on end. 2 But in fact, a large number of these worms are produced while the child is still in the womb, in the following way. A burning pus is formed from the milk — which is itself formed from an excess of blood which has putrefied in consequence of its sweetness — and a living creature is engendered in it. Round worms as well are engendered in it, in the same way. Here is a sign that this is so: as soon as children are born, womenfolk give them the same purgatives in morsels to expel the faeces from the gut before it becomes overheated, and also to widen the gut. When they have done this, many infants expel both flat and round worms along with their first faeces. And if they expel them, then they are in fact generated in the womb. 3 Round worms reproduce, but not the flat worm, although men say that they do. For when a man has the flat worm he excretes from time to time something like a cucumber seed in his faeces, and it is this that men say is the offspring of the worm. In my opinion however these men are mistaken in saying so: one creature could not produce offspring in such quantity, and there is not room enough in the gut to nurture them up to full size. But as the child grows after birth, the worm grows with him in his gut from the food

38

Translation

VII 596-600

Li.

entering the stomach, and eventually it reaches the size of the gut, in some cases at puberty, in others subsequently, and in others again a little before. 4 When it matches the gut in size, it still keeps on growing; and the parts which exceed the length of the gut separate off at the anus along with the faeces, and what is expelled is like a cucumber seed, or often even larger. In some cases, when men are travelling on foot or labouring, the gut becomes heated and the worm descends and projects from the anus, (?) and it does this and either separates off or goes back inside. 5 Here are the signs that I am correct in my contention that the flat worm does not generate. If a man who is treated for worm and given a purgative potion is properly prepared before treatment, the whole creature is expelled in a ball, and the man is cured. But if he is given the purge straightaway, then a section of two or three cubits' length or even longer is broken off from the worm; and for a long time after no sign appears in the faeces: but subsequently the worm increases again. 6 N o w these facts are the evidence that the worm does not generate, but is merely broken off. In appearance it is like a white shred from the intestine. Its symptoms are these: the patient from time to time excretes what looks like cucumber seeds. If he has gone without food, the worm attacks his liver and causes pain: sometimes when this happens there is a flow of saliva to the mouth, and sometimes not. If the worm attacks the liver violently, it may in some cases cause speechlessness, and there is an abundant flow of saliva from the mouth; later this stops, but from time to time there is much griping in the stomach, the pain sometimes reaching the back, for it settles here too. 7 Sometimes ( . . . ) . These are the symptoms of flat worm. A further point is that anyone who has this creature does not suffer any serious harm from it all the time he has it, but if he falls ill, he recovers only with difficulty. For the worm pre-empts a portion of all that goes into the stomach. If the patient is treated in the right way, he recovers; but if he is not treated, although the worm does not pass out spontaneously, it will not bring death, but it lasts out the patient's lifetime. So much then for the origin of flat worm, and for the signs of its presence and of the disease. 55. 1 Stone. The initial cause of this disease is milk, when the milk on which the infant is suckled is impure. This impurity occurs in the nurse, when her nutriment is phlegmatic, and her food and drink is impure: for everything which arrives in the stomach contributes to the milk. The situation is as follows: if the nurse is unhealthy, and suffers from an excess of bile or water or blood or phlegm, the child's milk too becomes bad, since the nurse's body and stomach contribute to the milk: any superfluity in the body is transferred to the milk. 2 And the child, if it draws milk from the nurse which is not pure but, as I said, bilious, becomes weak and liable to disease; and as long as it continues to drink milk which is bad and unhealthy, it is injured by whatever is present in the milk. N o w when the milk with

VII 600-604

Li.

Diseases IV

39

which the infant is suckled is impure and contains earthy and phlegmatic substance, and the veins leading from the stomach to the bladder are wide and have the capacity to attract, fthe milk from the nurse passes into the infant's stomach, and all that the veins can filter into the bladder passes there in exactly the same state in which it came from the nursef. Now if there is any impurity in the milk, what is absorbed by the bladder becomes stone in the following way. 3 If impure water is shaken up in a cup or bronze bowl and then allowed to stand, a considerable sediment will form in the middle. Now sediment from impure urine forms in the bladder in the same way; and it is not urinated out because it is in the hollow of the bladder, and in particular it does not pass out in urination because the revolution causes it to collect together in a compact mass. It then becomes coagulated by the phlegm, which is in a crude state: the phlegm mixes with the sediment and acts as a glue. First a light dust forms, to which sandy'substance adheres as it arrives, the glue being the phlegm in the bladder which comes from the milk; the mass increases in size, while any fluid left over in the process of agglutination is passed out. 4 Eventually the sediment becomes solid and stone-like. In just the same way iron is formed when stones and earth are heated up together. That is, in the first firing the stones and earth are bound together by the scoria; then in the second or third firing the scoria melts and passes out of the iron; and one can see this happening. But the iron stays behind in the fire, collapses together as the scoria leaves it, and so becomes solid and dense. Similarly with the sediment in the bladder: the phlegm acts as a glue, what melts is passed out by the urine, while the sediment collapses together and grows dense and solid like the iron. 5 The resultant solid mass is driven up and down in the bladder, causing pain where it strikes against the bladder; and sometimes when it strikes violently and lacerates the bladder it carries material away with it. What is thus carried away assists the agglutination of the sandy substance as it arrives. This then is how stone in the bladder originates from the milk. •(•Sometimes stone appears too if (. . . ) or some other arises from thisf. For from time to time when the child urinates, it will suddenly seize the urethra. 6 If on the other hand, the child is already grown, and the stone is caused by his eating earth, he does not have the trouble until he can raise food by himself to his own mouth. So much then for that. The disease has five symptoms: the patient feels pain when he wishes to urinate; the urine flows a little at a time, as in strangury; it is tinged with blood, as a result of the stone lacerating the bladder; the bladder is inflamed — this of course cannot be observed directly, but it is the prepuce which shows the sign — and occasionally fragments of sand are passed. The reason for this is as follows: it is sometimes the case that two or even more small stones (are formed) by the same process as that by which I have explained the formation of one. 7 Or it may also happen in the following way: once the stone is formed and there is room in the depth of the bladder for the

40

Translation

VII 604-608

Li.

sand which arrives separately, then if this sand as it arrives does not adhere to the stone, but is too heavy and too great in quantity to adhere in this way, a second stone is formed, and others similarly. N o w as these collide in the agitation, sandy particles are broken off and passed in the urine. This is also sometimes the case when sand comes down into the bladder and does not adhere at all. 56. 1 Some assert that what we drink goes into the lung, and from the lung to the rest of the body. Those who say this are misled, and they are misled by the following fact, namely that the lung is a cavity with a windpipe attached to it. Of course, if the lung were not a cavity and there were no windpipe attached to it, animals would be voiceless; for it is from the lung's cavity to which the pipe is attached that we emit sound, and the lips and tongue articulate this sound. However, I have given a better account of this in (my discussion of) pneumonia. 2 N o w I shall encounter the opinion of those men who say that drink goes into the lung. The fact is that drink goes into the stomach, and the rest of the body draws it from the stomach. You must give note to what I am about to say, for I shall give the following proofs that drink does not go into the lung, but into the stomach, (i) If drink goes into the lung, when the lung became full a man could not easily breathe, nor could he give voice, because there would be nothing to resonate in the lung if it were full. That is my first proof. 3 (ii) Secondly, if drink went to the lung, our food, being dry, would not be digested to the same extent. That makes two proofs, (iii) Moreover, when we drink purgative medicines, it is the stomach that is evacuated, (iv) Furthermore all purgative medicines, whether they purge upwards or downwards or both, have all the same effect, for they all burn strongly; indeed when the more powerful happen to touch any tender part of the body, they wound it, while even the milder forms if they are used to anoint any part of the skin, cause trouble there. 4 N o w if any of these medicaments arrived in the lung, it would I imagine cause very great harm — as indeed the phlegm coming from the head causes ulceration in a very short time. For the lung is a soft and delicate thing, and if it is ulcerated, the patient will be in a bad way, for more than one reason. But the stomach is not ulcerated by the medicament, because the stomach is tough like hide. Indeed the Libyans, or most of them, use the hides of their domestic animals as garments, and their stomachs as sacks: the stomach is a strong thing.· 5 (v) Then again, when men fortify themselves with dark wine, their faeces are dark. That makes ffivef proofs, (vi) When we eat garlic or anything else strong-smelling, our urine smells of it. f T h a t makes six.f (vii) O n e can also consider the following fact. If anyone were to drink cyceon, or take barley broth or something of that kind, and it were to enter his lung, we would hardly expect him to survive it at all, even for a short time. 6 For when even a small amount of phlegm enters the lung or the windpipe, the result is an acute and uncontrollable fit of coughing. But even supposing that

VII 608-612

Li.

Diseases IV

41

the man did live after drinking the cyceon or taking the broth, then, as the broth was being digested, I imagine that the body would suffer great and intense heat and pain, so that (?) if he were to evacuate as he should, if drink passed into the lung ( . . . ( ? ) ) . 7 That makes seven proofs. Moreover, how could milk feed babies, if it went to the lung? I give this as an additional proof — indeed I would not have advanced any of these proofs in support of my argument, were it not for the fact that it is a very generally held opinion that drink goes into the lung, and against an opinion strongly held one is obliged to advance many proofs, if one is going to turn the hearer from his former opinion and persuade him by what one says. 8 N o w the reason that drink does not go into the lung, but into the stomach, is that the gullet is joined to the stomach, and the gullet in man is always open, so the drink goes into it; while simultaneously there lies over the windpipe something like an ivy-leaf, which would not permit anything encountering it to pass down it into the lung in drinking. So much then for that. 57. 1 So the drink passes into the stomach, and when the stomach is full the spleen draws from it and distributes what it draws into the veins and the omentum; and also downwards, into the scrotum and the legs and the feet. And when disease supervenes upon the large quantity of water ( . . . ) f r o m the stomach, and whenever a man drinks, what he drinks passes continually into the spleen. The disease may in some cases occur without fever, f w h e n there is a burning heat in the stomacht and the patient thirsts, and the bladder and stomach do not filter it out as they should, and the patient moreover takes an unsuitable diet. 2 The spleen then, in a morbid state, draws upon the drink in the stomach, and disease arises. The scrotum becomes transparent; and the collar-bones, neck and chest lose flesh: the disease melts it away, and it flows into the stomach. The lower parts of the body are filled with water; the stomach loses its appetite; the patient suffers now from constipation and now from diarrhoea; the bladder does not filter out the fluid as it should. Usually chills run all over the body; sometimes fever seizes the patient as well; in some cases the face swells and in some cases not. 3 In some patients, when the disease is long-lasting, the lower legs break open and water flows out. The patient suffers from insomnia, and general weakness of the body but in particular of the lumbar regions. When he eats or drinks in excess, even if it is only a little, he feels pain in his spleen; and his breathing is always short and rapid. These are the symptoms of dropsy. It may occur around the stomach alone, with or without fever. The belly becomes swollen, the legs are ( n o t ) filled with water, but the upper parts of the body grow thin. f F o r those in this statef all the symptoms are milder, and as well there is no water in the legs, and the discomfort is correspondingly less.

42

Translation

VII 612-614

Li.

4 Now this is the cause of dropsy which occurs around the stomach alone: when there is an abundant accumulation of water, which initially finds no passage downwards, but a mass of it is cut off in the veins, then, since it finds no ventilation either upward or downward, it comes to a stand. It is similar to what happens if one closes off a large narrow-necked vessel and quickly inverts it, then slowly removes the cover from its mouth — the water will not flow out. For it has no ventilation, but is blocked by the air inside: 5 the air being inside fills up the vessel and causes resistance to the air outside. Thus any outflow of the water will be prevented by the air which fills up the vessel and at the same time by the outside air, which rests against it. But if you tilt the vessel gently, or bore a hole in its base, the air will leave the vessel; and as the air passes outside, so too will the water. It is the same with the water in the body. If at the beginning of the disease a passage for air through the veins is formed, either upwards or downwards, the water goes into the legs and the feet. Otherwise it remains packed around the stomach alone. So much then for that. 6 Women also suffer from dropsy — on the uterus, on the stomach, and on the legs: the symptoms, too, are all the same. I have described the disease in 'Diseases of Women'. These are the three forms of disease which come from water in the body. They are all quick to become severe, and quick to increase; but the severity is even greater when the body suffers liquescence as the result of another disease, and ends up in this one. Now if the disease overtakes the man suddenly, he will die, since his illness has already lasted a long time. When as well the bowels (do not) flow easily, he dies especially quickly, while still perfectly capable of perceiving and speaking. So much then for dropsy, both its origin and its symptoms.

INTRODUCTION 1. The unity of the treatise and the identity of the author In the manuscript tradition, Nat. Puer. follows immediately upon Genit., of which it is, as the end of chapter 11 shows, the continuation. Morb. IV however occurs separately and it is possible, though by no means certain, that this was the state of affairs as early as Erotian's time 1 . Littre was the first modern editor to print them together, although initially he hesitated, since the last words of Nat. Puer. seemed to indicate the definite conclusion of a complete treatise. But comparison of a similar formula occurring w i t h i n the treatise 2 seemed to him to remove this objection, and he printed Morb. IV as a continuation of Nat. Puer., since the initial words of Morb. IV seemed to be a clear back reference to Nat. Puer. Littre's change has become generally accepted 3 , and today we read Genit./Nat. Puer. — Morb. IV as one continuous treatise. An editor might well tremble at the prospect of reversing such a judgement by Littre, but he is in duty bound to examine the evidence. And the evidence for the view that Genit./Nat. Puer. and Morb. IV were ever initially intended, or were subsequently issued together, as one continuous treatise, is surprisingly meagre. Only one protest has been made in recent years, by Wilhelm Kahlenberg 4 . It is unfortunate that Kahlenberg's strategy should have been to attack the view that the author is one and the same man: of course if he is not one and the same man, then the book cannot originally have been a unity; but the presumed identity of the author is much more difficult to demolish than the presumed unity of the work. I do not think that Kahlenberg succeeds in demolishing it, but this is not to say that the unity of the book is thereby proved. In part, Kahlenberg is answering the argument of Regenbogen, who in his "Eine Forschungsmethode antiker Naturwissenschaft" 43 argued in favour of the unity of the work by arguments which tend only to suggest the identity of the author. In what follows I shall argue first against the unity of the work, and nothing else; and secondly for the

Cf. Nachmanson Erotianstudien p. 313 and pp. 407—409. 48,3. 1 0 4 , 1 9 f . Joly = VII 578,7f. Li. 3 However, Fredrick Untersuchungen p. 48 η. 1 thought that Morb. IV was earlier, though by the same author, on the grounds of chapter 3; J o l y Notice Gen. p. 12 believes that the two works were originally distinct, but later combined (with the addition of Morb. IV 32 as a linking passage) and issued as one w o r k . 4 Kahlenberg pp. 2 5 2 - 2 5 6 . 4a Regenbogen pp. 1 5 8 - 1 6 5 . 1

2

44

Introduction

identity of the author, and nothing else, using in each case only the arguments appropriate to that case. N o w since the content of Morb. IV does not depend for its intelligibility upon the content of Genit./Nat. Puer., and nobody has ever maintained that it does, the only reason for printing Morb. IV as continuous with Nat. Puer. is that the initial words of Morb. IV are unintelligible except as a continuation of Nat. Puer. If the reader will consider this statement, he will find that this truly is the only reason. Are these initial words intelligible in any other way? I believe that they are: they might well have stood at the beginning of an independent work, which prefaced an account of physiology and pathology with a brief reference to the origin of the human being. The author would have been one of those who are attacked in De vetere medicina for believing that it is impossible to understand medicine unless one understands "what man is, and how he came to be and was composed in the first place" 5 . His particular point here is that man has present in him from birth "four kinds of fluid", and he says just sufficient about man's origin to make this point. The aorists έπάγη, έγένετο are normal in this kind of context 6 ; they need not and should not be taken as a backward reference. The absence of a connecting particle suggests that this is the beginning of a distinct work; though admittedly, a particle might have been removed after Morb. IV had been separated from the preceding treatise. I do not think, if we were not in the habit of reading Morb. IV in the position in which it appears in Littre, that the beginning would strike us as in any way more abrupt and inexplicable than the beginnings of Hippocratic treatises often are: it is certainly less odd than the beginning of Genit. 7 The content of Morb. IV does not in any way depend upon that of Genit./Nat. Puer., apart from this brief reference to the origin of man; nor is Nat. Puer. incomplete without Morb. IV. The addition of Morb. IV to Genit./Nat. Puer. makes it of very unwieldy length in comparison with other theoretic treatises in the Collection 8 . There seems therefore to be no reason for mistrusting the manuscript tradition 9 , in which Genit./Nat. Puer. and Morb. IV are quite distinct

5 6 7

8 9

VM 20. 5 1 , 1 0 - 1 2 Hbg. = I 2 4 , 6 - 8 Kw. = I 620,11 f. Li. Cf. note on chapter 32. Kahlenberg p. 254 suggested that the initial sentence might have been added subsequently; similarly Joly in his edition p. 84 n. 2. The resultant beginning έχει δέ καί ή γυνή the woman too has . . . to my mind would be abrupt and inexplicable: ές το σπέρμα . . . συνέρχεται into the seed . . . comes together would sound strange if there were not an initial reference to conception. The cumulative handbooks Morb. II and III and Int. are not properly comparable here. It had better be made clear that my argument does not assume that "the tradition" has the validity of Mosaic Law. The tradition merely reflects the view or prejudice of some arranger who thought that Morb. IV went best together with Morb. I, II, III (which is in

The unity of the treatise and the identity of the author

45

works. In all such questions the onus of proof is upon those who, like Littre, depart from the tradition. N o reason for doing so has appeared. A connected question is the relation of chapters 54—57 to the rest of Morb. IV. These four apparently haphazard chapters on helminth infection, stone, and dropsy (prefaced by a discussion on whether liquids reach the lung or not) have at best the air of being tacked on to the previous discussion, though (if Morb. IV is a continuation of Nat. Puer.) it might be argued that the first two chapters have a kind of relevance, since they deal with diseases in children 1 0 . They are too haphazard in subject to be the beginning of a systematic treatise on diseases, though they might be the d i s i e c t a m e m b r a of such a treatise, whether planned or completed. The reference to a discussion of pneumonia in chapter 56 may indicate a further part of such a treatise. The end of a work is liable to extraneous additions: Nat. Horn, is a case in point. Possibly that is the case here. But until we know more of the early history of Hippocratic texts, how they were put together and by whom, and in what sense they were published, if at all, it seems idle to attempt an answer. O n the question of the authorship of these four chapters, although Kahlenberg 1 1 argues that, since ΰ δ ρ ω ψ in chapter 57 ( = the disease) is used in a different sense from its consistent use ( = a humour) elsewhere in Morb. IV, the author of 54—57 must be distinct from the author of Morb. IV 32—53, this seems to be stretching the evidence. ' Ύ δ ρ ω ψ is in fact an inherently ambiguous word: does for example such an expression as ΰ δ ρ ω ψ έν ττ) μήτρη refer to the humour or the disease 12 ? O n the positive side, there are several indications which suggest that the author is the same man who wrote the preceding chapters: the analogy (a particularly striking and interesting one) in chapter 55; the artificial demonstration in chapter 57 (where the pneumatic theory seems to have some affiliations with pneumatic theory earlier in Morb. IV); and in chapter 54 the ascription to the liver of pains which are elsewhere in the Collection described as "heartburn" (καρδιωγμός) 1 3 .

10 11 12

13

any case a heterogeneous collection). Littre was quite right not to respect it: he was wrong merely, or rather unjustified, in assuming that he had sufficient grounds for regarding the work as a unity. But it should be noted that the position of Morb. IV in the tradition does raise a difficulty for those who (with Joly) believe that Morb. IV was composed separately but subsequently in some sense "published" as a unity together with Genit./Nat. Puer. H o w did it thereafter become separated again? Cf. Joly Notice Gen. p. 12. Kahlenberg p. 255. Cf. the commentary on chapter 37, where I have argued that ΰδρωψ originally refers to watery substance, and by metonymy to the disease in which that watery substance is the most striking symptom. Cf. the author's criticism of this term in chapter 40.

46

Introduction

In language, note the use of μήτραι in chapters 54 and 57, and ίστόριον in chapter 56; the latter use is distinctive of this author 1 4 . The question of the identity of the author is of course quite distinct, although it has not been kept distinct by those (except for Joly) who have argued for or against the unity of the work. In chapter 3 the author of Genit. refers to a doctrine of four innate humours, blood, bile, water (ύδωρ) and phlegm. He says that he has discussed these, and the origin of disease and the crises of disease in them. The reference can only be to Morb. IV. These words however are missing in the recentiores; they are present in Μ and V, although in Μ they are added in the margin by a second hand. For these reasons Kahlenberg 1 5 suspects them; he also remarks that the style is unlike the other self-citations of the author, being without any adverbial qualification, and that the third humour is called ΰδωρ instead of ΰδρωψ as it regularly is in Morb. IV. " D a s dürfte wohl kaum derselbe Autor getan haben" 1 6 . If however the words do not originate from the author himself, then we shall have to say the same of the later reference to the humours in chapter l l 1 7 . This latter sentence would hardly be intelligible if there had been no previous reference to the humours. The variation ΰδωρ for ΰδρωψ seems to me insignificant 18 . The lack of any definite ascription in the reference is a little more suspicious: in other self-citations the author uses an adverbial expression such as όλίγω πρότερον 1 9 , if the reference is to another passage in the same work, or a title if the reference is to a passage in a different work. But there are in any case only a few instances; and an exception here cannot seriously count against the authenticity of the passage. There is therefore no cogent reason for rejecting the passage; and if it is retained, we must conclude for the identity of the author of Genit./Nat. Puer. and Morb. IV. This seems to me all that one should be required to do, for in this case the onus of proof is surely upon those who reject the statement of 14

If these chapters belong to the original form of the publication, and if Nachmanson in his edition is correct in assigning Erotian's gloss κηρίων (Voc. Hipp. coll. Κ 58) to chapter 54, then of course the separation, in Erotian's time, of Morb. IV from Nat. Puer. follows automatically.

15

Kahlenberg p. 253; cf. also Wellmann Spuren p. 318 n. 104. Kahlenberg p. 254. 11,1. 5 2 , 6 f . Joly = VII 4 8 4 , 1 6 f . Li. τοϋ υγρού τέσσαρες ιδέαι there are four forms of the fluid. In fact Müller p. 117 n. 39 did propose to excise τέσσαρες . . . υπήρξαν. Cf. the variation between the two words in the manuscripts at Mul. I 60. VIII 118,9 Li. and see the introductory note to chapter 37. (i) by adverbial indication: Nat. Puer. 1 3 , 4 . 5 6 , 7 f . Joly = VII 4 9 2 , 2 f . Li.; 2 9 , 1 . 7 7 , 1 4 f . Joly = VII 5 3 0 , 3 f . Li.; 3 0 , 7 . 8 1 , 4 f . Joly = VII 536,14 Li.; Morb. IV 3 3 , 2 . 8 5 , 1 4 f . Joly = VII 544,12 Li. (ii) by title of work: Genit. 4 , 3 . 4 7 , 2 8 Joly = VII 476,15 f. Li.; Nat. Puer. 15,5.58,21 f. Joly = VII 4 9 6 , 9 f . Li.; Morb. IV 56,1.119,26 Joly = VII 6 0 6 , 3 f . Li.; 57,6.124,1 f. Joly = VII 612,21 f. Li.

16 17

18

19

The unity of the treatise and the identity of the author

47

identity in chapter 3. But since the question has been raised, a few remarks may be in place. The author of chapter 57 refers to himself as the author of γ υ ν α ι κ ε ί α νοσήματα, as does the author of Genit./Nat. Puer. (twice). In all three cases the passage can be identified, and they all occur in parts of Mul. I which have characteristics in common with each other 2 0 . There is no disparity in doctrine between G e n i t . / N a t . Puer. and Morb. IV. Wellmann 2 1 argued (against the unity of the work, not against the identity of the author) that there are different views in G e n i t . / N a t . Puer. and in Morb. IV about the blood vessels, the former beginning them in the head and the latter beginning them in the heart, which is π η γ ή τοϋ αίματος the source of blood. I believe that this rests on a misunderstanding, which is discussed in the appendix on vascular systems and in the introductory note to chapter 38. The vascular system used by the author is common to both treatises and it does not begin the veins in the head, and to say that the heart is the source of blood, in the sense in which the gall bladder is the source of bile, is not to adopt a view that the veins (which in any case convey all four humours) have their αρχή in the heart as opposed to the head. The antithesis between head and heart as source of blood vessels is an unreal one, which appears to rest on a misunderstanding of Aristotle. Gert Plamböck 2 2 attempts to make a distinction between the concept of δύναμις in chapters 22—27 and in chapter 34. It is doubtful whether this distinction can be maintained 2 3 and even if it could, it would at the most indicate two different sources for these chapters, not that the works in which they occur were composed by two different authors. A more cogent argument against the identity of the author is given by Kahlenberg 2 4 . H e refers to the obscurity of the exposition in M o r b . IV in contrast to the clarity of the two preceding treatises, an obscurity which has generated a markedly more corrupt text. Anyone w h o has worked through Morb. IV and attempted to make sense of its garbled explanations, by no means all of which can be attributed to corruption, will appreciate the force of this objection. There is a radical difference here, which at times seems to go deeper than the many similarities which exist between the texts. The author of Genit./Nat. Puer. expounds his material with confident, even with over-confident, ability, whereas the author of Morb. IV is continually enmeshed in the tangle of his own explanations. Again and again he simply fails to make himself clear.

20 21 22 23 24

Cf. below section 3: Relation to other treatises in the Collection, pp. 51—53. Wellmann Spuren p. 318. Plamböck pp. 100-106. Cf. the introductory note to chapters 22—27. Kahlenberg p. 255.

48

Introduction

While recognizing fully the force of this objection, I do not think it is sufficiently cogent to be set against the evidence of chapter 3. The objection does not apply to the whole of Morb. IV, but only to the chapters from 42 onwards: the author's theory of critical days and fever. Are there any reasons for his lapse from grace in this part? I believe that there are. Behind the intellectual constructs of Genit./Nat. Puer. there is a considerable history of the thought of the best minds in Greece. The hypotheses of this treatise are conceived within categories for which the author is not himself responsible, but which were laid down by far greater intellects than his. Much is his own, but this is only to say that he ingeniously elaborates within a framework of thought of which he is not the master architect. It is the existence of this framework of thought which enables him to invent as well as he does. But for the physiology and pathology of Morb. IV he is to a much greater extent on his own than he is for the embryology of Nat. Puer. Accordingly his hypotheses are more arbitrary; they have less internal coherence; there is no master plan to contain and order their wild proliferation. But where he can find a model, we meet the same clarity and coherence that we meet in Nat. Puer. There is nothing wrong, in this respect, with the statement of the humoral theory, supported by the analogy of chapter 34 and by the mechanistic model of ch'apter 39. Positive arguments in favour of identity of authorship are clear enough even on a superficial reading. They are the similarity of style and method, and the similarity of language. Such similarities can never prove identity of authorship, but that is not the purpose here. The proof is the author's own statement, and there is no need for those who believe in the identity of the author to adopt a posture of defence: that is for those who deny it. However, some details may help. The r e p e a t e d (as opposed to the occasional) use of analogies and demonstrations is as characteristic of Morb. IV as it is of Genit./Nat. Puer., in contrast to the rest of the Hippocratic Collection. In chapter 39, the model is artificially constructed, as it is in chapter 17 and chapter 24; apart from these passages, construction of artificial models is rare in the Hippocratic Collection. The word ίστόριον ( = τεκμήριον) is peculiar to this series in the Collection (8 instances in Genit./Nat. Puer. [Genit. 1,1.44,3 Joly = VII 470,3 Li.; 8,2.50,12 Joly = VII 482,1 Li.; Nat. Puer. 13,4.56,9 Joly = VII 492,4 Li.; 18,5.62,22 Joly = VII 502,20 Li.; 18,6.63,9 Joly = VII 504,9 Li.; 29,1.77,22 Joly = VII 530,22 Li.; 30,7.80,23 Joly = VII 536,6f. Li.; 31,2.83,9 Joly = VII 540,9 Li.]; 1 in chapter 54 of Morb. IV [54,6.115,27 Joly = VII 598,8 Li.] and 6 in chapter 56 [56,2.120,4.9 Joly = VII 606,7.12 Li.; 56,3.120,12 Joly = VII 606,13 Li.; 56,5.121,1.3 Joly = VII 608,3.4 Li.; 56,7.121,14 Joly = VII 608,14 Li.]). Τεκμήριον occurs only once (Nat. Puer. 13,1.55,6 Joly = VII 490,1 Li.): contrast Aer. (6 times: 8,3.40,16 Di. = II 34,3 Li.; 8,10.42,22 Di. = II 38,25 Li.; 9,6.46,4 Di. = II 64,18 Li.; 16,7.64,1 Di. = II 72,22 Li.; 21,3.72,7 Di. = II 76,9 Li.), Morb. Sacr. (twice: 2,6.68,17 Gr. = VI 364,21 Li., and 4,3.70,44f. Gr. = VI 368,6 Li.). Similarly

The unity of the treatise and the identity of the author

49

ίστορέω be a proof of occurs once in Nat. Puer. (18,7.63,26 Joly = VII 504,23 Li.) and once in Morb. IV (48,3.104,18 Joly = VII 578,7 Li.); it occurs nowhere else in this sense. Πονέω used actively is peculiar to Nat. Puer. (once: 15,1.57,6 Joly = VII 492,23 Li.), Morb. IV (6 times: 46,4.102,6 Joly = VII 574,10 Li.; 52,4.112,17 Joly = VII 592,8 Li.; 52,5.113,4.5 Joly = VII 592,18.19 Li.; 53,1.113,9 Joly = VII 592,22 Li.; 53,2.113,15 Joly = VII 594,8 Li.) and Mul. I (5. VIII 30,3 Li.; 8. VIII 34,19 Li.; 3 6 . V I I I 86,13 Li.; 3 8 . V I I I 94,13 Li.). Μελεδαίνω occurs once in Nat. Puer. (18,4.62,18 Joly = VII 502, 16 Li.), 4 times in Morb. IV (48,1.103,17 Joly = VII 576,13 Li.; 49,4. 106,20 Joly = VII 580,20 Li.; 54,7.116,16.17 Joly = VII 598,22.23 Li.); it is a word which is otherwise confined almost exclusively 25 to the gynaecological works 2 6 . The same is true of the plural μήτραι habitual in Genit./ Nat. Puer. and occurring twice in Morb. IV (though in chapters 54 and 57); it is a use characteristic of that section of the gynaecological works with which the author of Nat. Puer. can most certainly be identified 27 . Regenbogen 28 carefully collected some valuable information on stylistic features: what follows rests on an examination of his instances from this point of view. One of the most striking characteristics of this author is his habit of marking the transitions and the conclusions in his argument: 1. The phrase έχει δέ οΰτω και τόδε, or γίνεται δέ και τόδε, έχει γαρ οΰτω etc. occurs 7 times in Genit./Nat. Puer., 8 times in Morb. IV. 2. έρέω with acc. or dependent clause: four times in Genit./Nat. Puer., twice in Morb. IV. Θέλω ειπείν, and έθέλω δέ άποφήναι: once in Genit./Nat. Puer. and twice in Morb. IV. Μέλλω έρεΐν: once in Genit./ Nat. Puer. and three times in Morb. IV. 3. Concluding formulae (ταϋτα δέ μοι ες τοΰτο ειρηχαι or άποπέφανται, with variants) 15 times in Genit./Nat. Puer. and 23 times in Morb. IV. 4. Regenbogen 29 noted a peculiarity in the description of experiments or demonstrations by which if the first protasis is εί + opt., a second protasis is ήν + subj. This peculiarity 30 occurs twice in Nat. Puer. 3 1 and twice in Morb. IV 3 2 . 25

26 27

28 29 30

31

32

A few instances occur elsewhere, but the number in G e n i t . / N a t . Puer. is sufficiently high to be a distinguishing characteristic. Cf. van Brock pp. 241 f. and Grensemann Knidische Medizin p. 102. Cf. below p. 52. — These two latter instances do not in themselves indicate anything more than the vocabulary of a school rather than that of a particular individual. Cf. Regenbogen pp. 1 5 8 - 1 6 5 , 1 7 6 - 1 8 0 . Regenbogen p. 179. It does not, so far as I can see, occur elsewhere in the Collection where more than one protasis is used in the description of an experiment, e.g. Carn. 9 , 5 . 10,26 — 11,2 De. = VIII 5 9 6 , 9 - 1 5 Li. 17,4. 6 0 , 8 - 1 6 Joly = VII 4 9 8 , 1 7 - 2 4 Li. and 2 5 , 3 f . 7 3 , 1 7 - 7 4 , 2 Joly = VII 5 2 2 , 2 0 - 5 2 4 , 6 Li. 39,1. 9 2 , 1 5 - 2 4 Joly = VII 5 5 6 , 1 7 - 5 5 8 , 2 Li. and 51,9. 1 1 0 , 2 1 - 2 7 Joly = VII 5 8 8 , 1 7 - 2 2 Li. But in 57,5. 1 2 3 , 2 0 - 2 2 Joly = VII 612,13f. Li. optative is followed by optative.

50

Introduction

There are on the other hand some differences in style, perhaps significant, between Genit./Nat. Puer. and Morb. IV. Instructions for a demonstration may be of the form "if anyone does so-and-so" or "if you do so-and-so". The first is the most common, but in Nat. Puer. there are 3 instances of an irregularity by which both forms are combined (17,4.60, 8 - 1 6 Joly = VII 498,17-24 Li.; 25,3f. 73,17-74,2 Joly = VII 522,20524,6 Li.; 29,2f. 77,23-78,8 Joly = VII 530,10-19 Li. where the change from third to second person even occurs w i t h i n the same sentence) 33 . This irregularity disappears altogether in Morb. IV, where the second person is not used. Although both use έρέω (see above), the device by which an introductory έρέω is continued by φημί occurs o n l y in Morb. IV, where there are 7 instances (Morb. IV 35,2.87,25 Joly = VII 548,16 Li.; 37,1.90, 1 1 - 1 3 Joly = VII 522,20f. Li.; 46,1.100,25 Joly = VII 572,2f. Li.; 47,1.102,16f. Joly = VII 574,13 Li.; 51,1.108,2 Joly = VII 584,7f. Li.; 52,1.111,9-11 Joly = VII 590,5-7 Li.; 54,1.114,6f. Joly = VII 594,18f. Li ·)· To these instances noted by Regenbogen 34 add a possibly significant difference in vocabulary: αισθάνομαι (of experiencing a sensation) occurs three times in Nat. Puer. (15,3.57,21 Joly = VII 494,12 Li.; 21,3.67,25 Joly = VII 512,13 Li.; 30,8.81,11 Joly = VII 536,20 Li.), but not at all in Morb. IV, where instead έσαΐω occurs nine times (35,4.88,18 Joly = VII 550,9 Li.; 36,3.89,22 Joly = VII 552,8 Li.; ^7,1.90,16 Joly = VII 552,24 Li.; 37,2.91,1 Joly = VII 554,9 Li.; 38,2/91,28 Joly = VII 556,4 Li.; 39,4.93,20 Joly = VII 568,16 Li.; 45,2.99,15 Joly = VII 568,18 Li.; 52,5.112,24 Joly = VII 592,14 Li.). Such minor differences might well occur in two works written by the same author, but at different times. The reference in Genit. 3,1.46,16 Joly = VII 474,9 Li. to Morb. IV is in the present tense. This brings us to the question of the relative times of composition. Δεδήλωται means that the author has a l r e a d y done something: namely he has written, or delivered as a lecture, Morb. IV. Ilberg 35 suggested sensibly that we ought not to pay too much attention to tenses in such references, which may be to courses of lectures regularly repeated. Thus δεδήλωται would not preclude that the author intended to redeliver Morb. IV at some future date. But it would make it very unlikely that he went on i m m e d i a t e l y to deliver the lecture course " O n disease" after Nat. Puer. The tense of δεδήλωται implies that at the time of writing (or speaking) there does exist the work Morb. IV; it does not necessarily imply that Morb. IV was composed first, although it may have been. We simply 33 34 35

The same irregularity occurs in Cord. 2. IX 80,13 — 16 Li. Regenbogen pp. 1 5 8 - 1 6 5 . Ilberg pp. 19f.

Relation to other treatises in the Collection

51

have not the means to decide. Incidentally, while δεδήλωται is unambiguous in reference to a particular audience at a particular time, the same is not true of a future tense. Είρήσεται (ε'ίρηται V) γαρ έν τοϊσι γυναικείοισι νοσήμασιν in chapter 15 (15,6.58,21 f. Joly = VII 496,9f. Li.) might mean I shall deal with this subject when I come to discuss the diseases of women or it might mean a discussion will he found in "Diseases of Women". For this reason, even where we can trust the manuscripts, not much will be gained by poring over the tenses of these references.

2. The intention of the work and its audience Genit./Nat. Puer. and Morb. IV have a general resemblance to those treatises in the Hippocratic Collection in which the author offers a theoretical and idiosyncratic discussion of general topics in physiology and nosology: De natura hominis, De carnibus, De flatibus, De morbo sacro, De locis in homine. However, while these latter might be regarded as pieces d'occasion, directed to an occasional audience, the former imply some consistency of programme and therefore some consistency of audience. This is suggested by the reference the author makes to other works: to Diseases of Women, to Morb. IV (in Genit. 3), and to a work, or a section of a work, on pneumonia. He can assume either a familiarity in his audience with these, or at least the possibility of a future occasion at which the same audience will be present. The condition which best satisfies this state of affairs is an extended course of instruction in medical subjects, given to the same audience, and lasting over a considerable time. It would be easy today to make the inference that the author is a teacher at an established medical school, but we should remember that in the fifth and fourth centuries extended courses on quite technical subjects were given by sophists to nonprofessional audiences. In this connexion it is relevant to remark that the author does not, either in the sections of Mul. I which are demonstrably his own, or in the discussion of separate diseases in chapters 54 — 57, prescribe any therapy: contrast for example the remainder of Mul., or Int., where therapy is given in great detail.

3. Relation to other treatises in the Collection The author is identical with the author of certain sections in Mul. I, to which he refers on three occasions (chapters 4 and 15 ~ Mul. 1 2 — 5; chapter 57 ~ Mul. I 61), while other sections of Mul. I in turn refer back to this treatise (Mul. I 1 ~ chapter 30; Mul. I 44 and 73 ~ chapter 21). There are in addition passages in Mul. I which are close to or identical in doctrine with passages in this treatise but which do not specifically refer to such

52

Introduction

passages: Mul. 124; Mul. 125 3 6 ; Mul. 136 and 72 37 ; Mul. 11 and 73 38 ; Mul. I 21 3 9 ; Mul. I 32 40 . The degree of similarity in these passages varies considerably, some suggesting no more than the common doctrines of a school, while in others the relation seems closer than this. Mul. I 24 shares the doctrine of conception that appears in Genit./Nat. Puer. (the relation between pleasure and conception, cf. chapter 4; the belief that both partners contribute sperm; the belief that the most favourable time for conception is immediately after menstruation). Mul. I 25 takes for granted the theory of embryonic nutrition described in chapter 14; Mul. I 36 and 72 both contain parallel passages to passages in chapter 18: in chapter 72 the parallel passage contains the author's belief about the differential period of lochial flux after the birth of a boy and after the birth of a girl. These periods, forty-two and thirty days, are quite peculiar to him. The theory of menstruation which appears (and is illustrated by a characteristic demonstration) in Mul. I 1 is implied by the theory of l a c t a t i o n described in chapter 21 (to which Mul. I 73 explicitly refers): in other words, there is a coherent doctrine of menstruation/lactation (and possibly of nutrition as well) which is common to Mul. I and to Nat. Puer. In Mul. I 21 the explanation of abortion by a failure in food supply to the embryo implies the same theory about the term of pregnancy as is described in chapter 30. Mul. I 32 holds the same theory of the function of respiration as chapter 47: this theory, however, that respiration cools the body, is probably common ground for the medical writers 4 1 . N o w it is most remarkable that all these sections of Mul. I 4 2 have distinguishing characteristics quite apart from their relation to Nat. Puer. These characteristics have been noted by Hermann Grensemann; Grensemann 4 3 shows that the gynaecological works in the Collection are compilations divisible into three strata which he calls A, B, and C (the latest). The distinguishing characteristics of C are the absence of therapeutic prescriptions, though aetiology and symptoms are described, and certain peculiarities of language (e.g. καταμήνια is preferred to έπιμήνια, εστίν οτε to ενίοτε, ατε to οία, αί μήτραL to ή μήτρη or ή ύστερη, κάρτα to σ φ ό δ ρ α ; the word ίκμάς is more frequent than elsewhere in the Collection;

36 37 38 39 40 41 42

43

Cf. commentary on chapter 15,5. Cf. commentary on chapter 18,4 and introductory note to that chapter. Cf. commentary on chapter 21, introductory note. Cf. commentary on chapter 30,2. Cf. commentary on chapter 47,1. Wellmann Fragmente pp. 70 — 73 and others regard it as specifically Sicilian. Except chapter 44. But that contains only the reference to Nat. Puer., followed by prescriptions for treatment in suppression of milk. The reference is not organically connected with the rest of the chapter, and might have been added by an editor on the model of the same reference in chapter 73. Grensemann Knidische Medizin pp. 80—115.

Relation to other treatises in the Collection

53

and the adjective ίκμαλέος occurs only here and in N a t . Puer.). These characteristics are shared by Mul. C with Genit./Nat. Puer. and Morb. IV, and they separate Mul. C sharply from A and B. Grensemann does not venture to date C, except in so far as he puts it later than either Β or A; A, the earliest, being composed by Euryphon, whose birth Grensemann places at 500 B. C . or earlier 44 . Apart from these passages of Mul. I the author cannot be identified with the author of any other work in the Collection. There are however some works which have some kind of relation to him, either direct or indirect. These are Vict., Nat. Horn., C a m . , Morb. Sacr., Aer., and O c t . There are similarities of doctrine in De victu which are sufficiently close to suggest influence by one treatise upon the other. But it is difficult to decide which is prior. The passages are Vict. I 6—8 4S , 28—29, 30, and Vict. II 66. Vict. I 6—8, though obscure, seems to combine a theory of pangenesis, embryological nutrition, and embryological structure in a way similar to N a t . Puer. Vict. I 28—29 and 30 contain the theory, otherwise peculiar to Genit., that both male and female secrete bi-sexual sperm. Vict. I 30 has an account of the generation of twins which is essentially the same as that in Nat. Puer. 31. Finally there are close resemblances between the physiology of Vict. II 66 and chapter 45 46 . The most striking similarity is in the theory of bi-sexual sperm, which is also used in Vict., as it is in N a t . Puer., to account for twins of opposite sex. In Vict. I 28—29 the theory of bi-sexual sperm is made the basis of an elaborate typology of male and female physical types. There is no suggestion of such a typology in Genit., so it may be that Vict. I represents a subsequent elaboration of the theory found (and perhaps stated for the first time) in Genit. The recent tendency 4 7 has been to give Vict, a fairly late date, certainly in the fourth century, and perhaps after 350, although the latest editor assigns the work to the end of the fifth century 4 8 . For the relation between Morb. IV and N a t . Horn., see the section on humoral theory. C a m . 19 has an account of an aborted embryo which is certainly untrue. It appears to be an invention modelled upon chapter 13 of N a t . Puer., from which the author of C a m . has borrowed the circumstance of abortion by prostitutes, the phrase (not otherwise characteristic of C a m . ) τοϋτο δέ τις ötv θαυμάσειεν οκως εγώ ο ι δ α one might wonder how it is that I know this (19.20,5 De. = VIII 610,2f. Li.), and the discussion of whether and how a woman can tell she has conceived 49 . In the same chapter 44 45 46 47 48 49

Grensemann Knidische Medizin pp. 195—202. Discussed in the commentary on chapter 17, introductory note. Cf. the commentary on chapter 45. Cf. Kirk Heraclit. pp. 2 6 - 2 9 . Joly Notice Vict. X I V - X V I . Cf. Genit. 5.

54

Introduction

of C a m . the inflammation of wounds is used to make a point about critical days, just as it is in Morb. I V 4 8 5 0 . Although in Morb. IV the author criticizes the methods of other physicians, these physicians cannot be identified with any of the authors of other treatises in the Collection. There is in chapter 28 a possible direct criticism of O c t . , on the position of the embryo in the womb. Grensemann 5 1 has argued recently in favour of the tradition which ascribed this work to Polybus, who is also the author of Nat. Horn. If this is so, and if Nat. Horn, is, as I shall argue 5 2 , subsequent to Morb. IV, then the author is contemporary with Polybus. Genit./Nat. Puer. and Morb. IV are associated with both Morb. Sacr. and Aer. by the doctrine of pangenesis, which is accepted in all three but not mentioned elsewhere in the Collection. In addition the structure of the argument in chapter 54 is parallel to the argument structure which is characteristic of Morb. Sacr. and Aer.; and there are besides more general similarities. Influence by a common source, presumably Democritus, is the most likely hypothesis here. Common authorship is of course excluded, notably by the form of the humoral theory in Genit./Nat. Puer. and Morb. IV, which is unique. The same theory also distinguishes it from Morb. I, II and III, Int., and Aff. It has however sufficient in common with the pathology of these works to make it highly probable that the author was working within the tradition to which these texts seem to belong 5 2 1 . 4. The theory of four constituent humours and De natura hominis The treatise De natura hominis develops a theory that man is composed 5 3 of four humours: blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. These components in man are mutually interdependent, in the same way in 50

Influence in this latter point is quite uncertain. But if there is influence, then it would tend to indicate that the author of Carn. read Nat.Puer. and Morb. IV together. On the possible date of Carn. see Grensemann Poly bos pp. 63 f., who suggests a date not earlier than Aristotle.

51

Grensemann Polybos pp. 58—95. Cf. introductory note to chapters 33—41. Grensemann Knidische Medizin pp. 113 — 115 finds no reason for supposing that the author ("author C " ) is himself a member of the Cnidian school. N o r is he included among the authors directly studied by Jouanna, Hippocrate et l'Ecole de Cnide (Paris, 1974), although Jouanna notes that the gynaecological works share the techniques of exposition which he believes to be the only reliable criterion for attributing texts to the school of Cnidus (Jouanna Hippocrate pp. 501—502). The wider question of the meaningfulness and value of the whole concept of a " s c h o o l " of Cnidus cannot be entered upon here. See the article of W . D . Smith, Galen on Coans and Cnidians (1973); and of I. M. Lonie, Cos versus Cnidus and the historians (1978).

52 S2a

53

Cf. e . g . Nat. Horn. 5,1. 174,11 Jou. = VI 40,15 Li.: α άν φήσω τον ανθρωπον είναι (those things) which I say man is.

The theory of four constituent humours and De natura hominis

55

which the hot, the cold, the moist and the dry in the cosmos at large are mutually interdependent: they must all exist simultaneously within man, for if one were lacking, all would be, and man could not survive 54 . They are the grounds of man's existence, but they are also the grounds of man's healthy or normal existence, when they are in equilibrium. But when one predominates over the others, they may also be the cause of disease. They are related to the four seasons, in such a way that each predominates according to the particular season with which it is associated: blood with spring, yellow bile with summer and black with autumn, phlegm with winter. If we accept Galen's attribution of Nat. Horn, to Polybus, the sonin-law of Hippocrates, the work can be approximately dated to 400 B. C. 5 5 . In Genit./Morb. IV there is also a theory that man is composed of four humours, blood, bile, phlegm, and water (hydrops). As in Nat. Horn., life depends on the simultaneous presence of these four humours; as in Nat. Horn., they are the grounds of man's health as well as of his disease. The difference between the theories lies in the humours themselves (hydrops in Morb. IV as opposed to black bile in Nat. Horn.); in their association with seasons in Nat. Horn., but not with organs, while in Morb. IV they are associated with organs and not with seasons; and in the emphasis which Morb. IV places upon their nutritional significance. But if we give due weight to the aspect that there are four necessary and sufficient constituent parts of man, upon which not only his liability to disease but also his healthy or normal state depends, then the similarity between the two theories appears far greater than any difference in detail. For no other treatise in the Collection deals clearly in terms of f o u r humours, and no other treatise states of any humour that it is an elementary constituent of man, the ground of his health as well as of disease. The problem then concerns the relations, if any, between the treatises. Is one dependent upon the other, and if so, which author thought of a theory of four constituent humours first? Is the hydrops of Morb. IV merely an idiosyncratic variation on the black bile of Nat. Horn. 56 ? Or does Morb. IV represent the older version? Or are the two treatises independent? Or are they rather, not independent, but both implicated in the complex network of fifth century scientific thought? The answer which will be suggested here will prefer the last alternative, with the qualification that while both authors may have conceived their theories independently and contemporaneously, the author of Nat. Horn, is posterior in the statement of it, and in this statement shows 54 55

56

Cf. Nat. Horn. 7 , 7 - 1 0 . 1 8 4 , 1 6 - 1 8 6 , 1 2 Jou. = VI 4 8 , 2 0 - 5 0 , 1 3 Li. Even Fredrich Untersuchungen pp. 51—56, who thought that the ascription to Polybus rested on a mistake, agreed with this approximate date. His arguments against the authorship of Polybus are rejected by Deichgräber Epidemien pp. 105 — 112, by Grensemann Polybos pp. 60—62, and by Jouanna in the introduction to his edition of Nat. Horn. pp. 55—59. Jouanna dates the treatise between 410—400 B . C . (ib. pp. 5 9 - 6 1 ) . Cf. Fredrich Untersuchungen p. 48.

56

Introduction

influence by Morb. IV. The real problem is therefore how a theory of four constituent humours, the ground of health as well as of disease, arose towards the end of the fifth century. The answer here is simple and unsurprising. If we remember that philosophers from Thales onward had consistently posed the question of what things are made of, and that Empedocles in particular, the most influential figure in biological thought in the fifth century, had described man as well as everything else as being composed of four elements, earth, air, fire and water; if we add to this the tendency in Greek cosmological thought from Anaximander onward to think in terms of equilibrium between opposing powers, and Alcmaeon's theory of health as a particular instance of that equilibrium between opposites, then it would be surprising if some such theory as that of Nat. Horn, or Morb. IV did not appear in the fifth century. In fact the influence of Empedocles is particularly obvious upon the Sicilian doctor Philistion, who held that man was composed of earth, air, fire and water (Anon. Lond. X X 25). In the present case however we have to do with a theory not of four elements but of four elemental or component humours. The distinction is significant for the relation between medicine and philosophy. The medical writers were not prepared to adopt holus bolus the concepts of philosophers: they preferred to work with their own specifically medical concepts, believing that in this way greater certainty could be reached. The treatise " O n Ancient Medicine" (VM) is quite explicit in its rejection of the "hypotheses" of philosophy, which have no guarantee in experience; and the author of Nat. Horn, shares this hostility towards the intrusion of philosophic figments into the field of medicine. Accordingly, he states his humoral theory in reaction to the speculations of philosophers or of those influenced by philosophers. The reader will not find me saying that man is

composed of air or fire or water or earth or anything which is not manifestly present in man51. Both the unitarian hypothesis, that man is composed of one substance only, and the hypothesis that man is composed of cosmic elements at all, are to be rejected, and rejected on the grounds of specifically medical experience. But of course Greek speculative medicine could hardly avoid being governed, to a very large extent indeed, by the concepts and the categories of pre-Socratic philosophy. "Equilibrium" is one such concept, and component elements one such category. What both VM and Nat. Horn, reject is the application to medicine of specific cosmological doctrines, while they accept, perhaps unconsciously, the general intellectual framework which cosmologists had constructed. It is assumed by the author of Nat. Horn, that the question "what thing or things is man made o f ? " is a meaningful question, and this is a philosophic assumption.

57

Nat. Horn. 1,1. 164,5-7 Jou. = VI 3 2 , 4 - 6 Li.

The theory of four constituent humours and D e natura hominis

57

But for the identification of those things, the medical writers 5 8 turned to their own traditions. Here they found, well-established, the concept of bodily humours, which had a significant and venerable role in pathology and physiology. For them, the humours became the constituent elements of the human body. This account of the matter will surprise nobody: the influence of Empedocles' theories upon Nat. Horn, has been generally accepted since Fredrich 5 9 . But the way in which the influence worked has not been clearly enough conceived or stated: in particular, that the whole concept of constituent elements is philosophical rather than medical, and that its adoption by the medical writers involved a significant change, or rather development, in the concept of a " h u m o u r " . Thus Fredrich's celebrated analysis of the development assumes that all that requires to be explained is how the number of the humours grew to become four. But an indispensable preliminary question concerns the nature of these humours. Rather than attempt a definition of the concept " h u m o u r " , it would be better to consider what sort of questions this concept is meant to answer, and what sort of characteristics are ascribed to humours. The question is of course "why do men fall sick?", but the sickness of men involves some paradoxes and contradictions. It is often quite apparent why men fall sick: something other than themselves affects them, they have received some blow or wound. In other cases, they become ill for no apparent reason; a popular primitive explanation is that here, too, something external must have been the cause — something must have entered them from outside, and must therefore be conjured out again. Yet is this really a very satisfactory explanation? After all, the manifestations of disease are, in a different form, also the manifestations of health: the same substances are involved, some symptoms of fever are akin to symptoms which betoken heightened powers, a coma is similar to sleep. There is, too, man's peculiar liability to fall sick: as if he carried with him from birth the elements of disease. Sometimes it is health and strength which seem to require explanation, rather than disease and weakness. If, with these considerations in mind, we turn to the characteristics ascribed to humours in Greek medicine, we find that they admit of a certain degree of polarization. The negative characteristics are that humours cause and are the substance of disease; they are intruders, entering the body from without; health is retrieved by their expulsion; they are nutritionally useless; they are responsible for unhealthy or abnormal 58

59

Of whom the author of Nat. Horn, is, on his own evidence, not the first, since he argues against those ίητροί who, while avoiding the mistake made by the philosophers, made an analogous mistake in assuming that man is composed of only one h u m o u r . Cf. Fredrich Untersuchungen pp. 28—32; Villaret in his edition of N a t . Horn. pp. 6 5 f . , Jouanna in his edition of Nat. Horn. pp. 43f., Diepgen Geschichte pp. 81 f., Deichgräber Epidemien pp. 108,110f.; Fredrich περί φύσιος άνθρωπου p. 21 gives some striking resemblances between the author's language and that of Empedocles.

58

Introduction

constitutions. The positive characteristics are that humours sustain life and produce health; they are native to the body; death is caused by their complete expulsion; they are nutritionally indispensable; they are responsible for normal and healthy constitutions. These characteristics cannot be separated, either in the sense that only positive characteristics are ascribed to one humour, and only negative characteristics to another; or in the sense that only positive characteristics are ascribed to humours by one school or one author, only negative by another. All humours, that is to say, have both positive and negative characteristics. Consider for example what is called a phlegmatic constitution, which is caused by the presence of a larger amount of phlegm than in other constitutions. Such a constitution is perfectly normal. Yet it is more prone than others to diseases of a particular kind, namely those associated with phlegm; more liable to be adversely affected by climatic conditions of a particular kind. Again, blood is the carrier of life and heredity. It is nourished by foods, cereals and wine, which are good in themselves (thus the gods in Homer have no blood because they do not consume cereals and wine — and for the same reason they are immortal); when we lose it we die. O n the other hand, blood also causes disease, foods which contain it may be bad, and in some cases we must lose it, through blood-letting, in order to live. Again, in some treatises all diseases are attributed to bile and phlegm, which when they are "disturbed", "set in movement" (κινεΐσθαι), "settle" (στηρίζειν) in a particular part of the body and cause disease, until the disease is cured by removal of the offending substance; yet in these same treatises bile and phlegm are said to be native to the body. These contrary characteristics are of great significance in the development of a theory of constituent humours 6 0 . Broadly speaking, the positive characteristics of humours made it possible for them to be regarded as constituent elements in the body, once the question "what are the elements of which man is composed?" had been raised. Humours are probably as old as Greek medicine itself; perhaps older. They seem to be present (with the same contradictory character-

60

W e also find interesting attempts to explain away the contradictions. Thus the author of Morb. II 4 objects to the term have blood in excess (ϋπεραιμεϊν): how, he asks, can there be too much of a good thing? Morb. II 4. VII 10,17 Li. (Jouanna Hippocrate p. 4 6 , 2 ; commentary p. 540). There is also a tendency to regard blood as a cause of disease only when it is acted upon, and corrupted, by the villainy of other substances (however, see most recently on this point Jouanna Hippocrate pp. 244—247 and notes). Thrasymachus of Sardis, according to Menon (Anon. Lond. X I 4 2 - X I I 8), even explained bile and phlegm as morbid corruptions arising from blood. The contradictions inherent in the concept of " h u m o u r " survive to Galen. It is useful to compare, in this respect, Galen's confused and confusing attempt to differentiate between natural and abnormal humours in De facult. natur. 2 , 8 f . 1 7 8 , 2 2 - 2 0 4 , 7 Η . = II 1 0 7 , 5 - 1 4 2 , 4 Kühn (I owe this reference to Dr. Andrew Wear).

The theory of four constituent humours and D e natura hominis

59

istics) in Egyptian medicine 61 and they are certainly present, as bile and phlegm 62 , in what seems to be the oldest stratum of Greek medicine. There, they are connected with particular parts of the body: phlegm with the head, and bile with the liver, or the gall-bladder on the liver. Here we already have in embryo the doctrine of humoral sources which appears in Morb. IV. Fredrich 6 3 argued that the four humours grew by accretion and differentiation from the original two, bile and phlegm, present in the earliest 61

62

For phlegm, see Papyrus Ebers (Eb 296 5 2 , 1 - 7 = E b 102 [ 2 5 , 3 - 5 ] , V p. 188 Grapow = IV 1 p. 108 Deines — Grapow—Westendorf = pp. 39. 48 Ebbell); Papyrus Edwin Smith (SM Case 43 [ 1 4 , 2 2 - 1 5 , 6 ] , V p. 342 Grapow = IV 1 p. 196 D e i n e s - G r a p o w Westendorf and Case 47 [ 1 6 , 1 6 - 1 7 , 1 5 ] , V p. 346 Grapow = IV 1 p. 198 D e i n e s Grapow—Westendorf). See also Deines—Westendorf Wörterbuch part 2 pp. 812—814. Fredrich Untersuchungen pp. 3 5 f . traced the development of these from Euryphon and Herodicus, the presumed composers or editors of the Κνίδιαι Γνώμαι (Cnidian Sentences). Herodicus, according to Menon (Anon. Lond. IV 40—V 14) said that diseases originate from two fluids, which are the product of residues (περισσώματα) in the stomach. According to Fredrich, Herodicus' two fluids came later to be identified with bile and phlegm. But Menon deserves very little credence here. Περίττωμα is of course an Aristotelian word; more important is the probable fact that the ascription of the idea to Herodicus-is a result of Menon's schematization of the evidence: the antithesis "are diseases caused by elements, or by residues?" will not fit the medical writers that we know, and it is improbable that it fitted the writers whom Menon knew. Apart from the question of the reliability of Anon. Lond., the concept of humours which produce disease certainly antedates the fifth century and Euryphon. Bile is mentioned in a fragment of Archilochus (Fr. 96 Diehl), who lived in the seventh century, and in a fragment of Hipponax (Fr. 51 Diehl), who lived in the sixth century, cf. commentary on chapter 36,1. The theory that diseases are caused by two humours, bile and phlegm, has long been regarded as characteristic of the Cnidian school. But this belief depends upon the assumption that Morb. I and Aff. represent the original doctrine of that school. Both J o u anna (Hippocrate pp. 262—360) and Grensemann (Knidische Medizin pp. 205—216) have recently advanced plausible reasons for supposing that these texts are relatively late (i.e. early fourth century), and Jouanna in particular regards the two-humour theory as a later development within the Cnidian school, along with the interest in humoral pathology which is present in the first eleven chapters of Morb. II and in Int. However, Jouanna recognizes that humours are present in Morb. II 12 — 75, which he and Grensemann regard as standing nearest to the Cnidiae Sententiae, and as therefore representing the earliest discernible stratum of the school. In this text, humours are treated, as Jouanna puts it (Hippocrate p. 143), "quantitatively" rather than "qualitatively": humours produce disease by their presence in excess (Hippocrate pp. 136—148). While this text is, as Jouanna rightly emphasizes, far from explicit on aetiology, it does at least imply a more or less systematic view on the matter. This is that there is a number, not necessarily determinate, of fluids in the body, which cause disease when their quantity is excessive. Since these fluids include, as well as bile and phlegm, blood (Morb. II 17. 48,23 Jou. = V I I 30,18 Li.) and water (e.g. Morb. II 15. V I I , 26,24 L i . ; Morb. II 29. 78,6f. J o u . = VII 46,47 Li.), they must have been regarded as at least partly beneficent (cf. note 60 above), and, of course, as congenital. That is, this early work shares the assumption about humours for which I have argued in the text.

63

Fredrich Untersuchungen pp. 45f.

60

Introduction

discernible stratum of Cnidian medicine. Blood was added, and bile differentiated into black and yellow bile. Even if this account is true, the process is not an automatic historical development. It is important that the search for constituent humours marks a revolution in medical science, a new way of looking at the human body, and this revolution was the result of philosophic development in the fifth century. The question of differentiation usually arises in connexion with the origin of black bile. Fortunately, we do not have to deal directly with this highly complex question 6 4 . For if we ask, does the choice in Morb. IV of hydrops as a fourth humour suggest that black bile was not yet available as a candidate (or alternatively, does the author choose hydrops because black bile had already been claimed?) 6 5 , the answer is that he chose hydrops because in his version of the humoral theory it is essential that each humour be assigned to a specific organ. N o w the connexion of water with the spleen was a matter of observation as well as of theory (cf. commentary on chapter 37). Indeed, if we consider his theory more closely, its starting point is rather in the conception of four humoral reservoirs than in the conception of four humours alone. Of these, the head (phlegm) and the liver or gallbladder (bile) were already given by tradition; so too was the spleen, if we remember the connexion of the oldest system of blood vessels, the hepatitis/splenitis system, with that organ 6 6 . The choice of water (hydrops = water as present in the body) is therefore quite understandable; more so perhaps than the choice of black bile by the author of N a t . Horn. 6 7 . The answer to the question why Nat. Horn, chooses black bile is probably that he found a prior connexion between diseases associated with a black variety of bile, and the season autumn or late summer. With the new attitude to the humours as constituent parts of the human body goes a new attitude to their nutritional aspect. N o doubt they had always been considered as present in food and drink (since bile and phlegm cause disease, and some foods cause disease too), but only as neutral or, if in excess, as disease producing agents. N o w , however, they 64 65

66

67

See Müri p p . 2 1 - 3 8 ; Flashar p p . 2 1 - 4 9 ; J o l y Edition p p . 1 5 0 - 1 5 7 . Vogel p . 14 n. 2 7 a simply identifies water and black bile; but the evidence in favour of this is tenuous, and the evidence against it is s o l i d : A f f . 36. VI 246,8 — 11 Li. mentions f o u r h u m o u r s , bile, phlegm, black bile a n d water. C f . Schöner p . 41, and Flashar p. 42. T h e identification of h y d r o p s with black bile was evidently c o m m o n in the 16th century, the intention p r e s u m a b l y being to bring this author in line with the doctrine of N a t . H o r n . It w a s effectively refuted by Simon Simonius p p . 138 — 143. F o r the hepatitis/splenitis s y s t e m , cf. A p p e n d i x . Spleen, liver and head already figure in the account of disease given by H e r o d i c u s of C n i d u s , according to A n o n . L o n d . V 28—33. Müri p . 2 7 finds signs of uneasiness in N a t . H o r n , about the choice of black bile as an independent h u m o u r . Water is frequently regarded as a h u m o u r in Cnidian texts: the passages are collected by J o l y S y s t e m e p p . 114—120. J o l y argues that a doctrine of f o u r h u m o u r s , bile, phlegm, b l o o d and water, was characteristic of G r e e k medicine f r o m the earliest times, and does not m a k e its first appearance in M o r b . IV.

T h e theory of f o u r constituent h u m o u r s and D e natura hominis

61

are the agents of nutrition: food without their presence (and in combination: cf. commentary on chapters 33 f.) would not be food at all. In their presence in the body as ίκμάδες — a word which seems to contain the notion of nutritional substance (cf. note on chapter 33) — they keep the body alive. This aspect of humoral theory is more intelligible in Morb. IV, which associates it with a theory of digestion and nutrition, than it is in Nat. Horn.: a fact which in itself argues for the priority of Morb. IV. The analogy which both draw with plant-nutrition is much more understandable in the context of Morb. IV than it is in Nat. Horn. 6 8 . Yet even so, Morb. IV in its presentation of the theory is still influenced by the older attitude to the humours as disease producing agents. In chapters 35—38 the author demonstrates their presence in foods by describing the h a r m f u l effects which certain foods have when taken in excess. The development outlined in the previous pages might have occurred at any time after the influence of Empedocles came to be generally felt; it could not have occurred independently, since the philosophic conception of four constituents makes no sense, historically speaking, without the prior conception of Empedocles. The medical corollary of Empedocles' theory is the identification of the traditional humours with constituent elements: what made this possible was the presence, in the traditional view of humours, of positive characteristics. Because of these characteristics it was easy to conceive the humours as the ingredients of man, upon which his normal or healthy state, as well as his very existence, depended. So that even if it could be shown that a particular humour, such as black bile, was recognized as an independent humour in writing prior to Nat. Horn., this would not in itself indicate that the four humours theory of N a t . Horn, was also present in the mind of the writers concerned. It is n o t t h e r e c o g n i t i o n of t h i s o r t h a t h u m o u r as e x i s t i n g w h i c h c o u n t s , b u t t h e t h e o r e t i c a l u s e t o w h i c h t h a t h u m o u r is p u t . O n e would therefore also have to find evidence — which given the nature of the treatises Epid. and Acut, would be difficult to find — that the humours were regarded as constituent parts of the human body. There seems no a priori reason why this should not have been the case, in any writer working after say 450. But in the absence of such evidence, the question of the precise originator of the four-humoral theory is formally insoluble. Such evidence as we have indicates the author of Morb. IV. But for all we know, he in turn may have been influenced by some earlier statement of the theory which appears in Nat. Horn. What is perhaps of more interest is the way in which the theory of four humours exemplifies the stimulating effects of Greek philosophy on Greek medical science. It may be described in this way: the philosopher provides the categories within which the medical scientist can order his experience. 68

See introductory note o n chapters 33—41.

62

Introduction

On this last point, experience, the foregoing analysis has said little. It is not intended that the factor of experience should be ignored. Many interesting suggestions towards the origin of humoral theory in observation have been made 69 . Obviously the humoral theory owes a great deal to careful observation. But whatever precise observations may be suggested for its origin, these will explain only the belief in the existence of particular humours, phlegm, yellow bile, black bile, hydrops. Such clinical observations will not account for the emergence of the idea that man is c o m p o s e d of humours, and that the humours are four in number. For that we must look to the history of philosophy. 5. Relation of the treatise to the pre-Socratic philosophers References to pre-Socratic philosophers by name are not common in the Hippocratic Collection, and where they do occur, the contexts are polemic and the author expresses or implies disagreement with the views of the philosopher named. N o philosopher is mentioned by the present author. His interest is to construct a theory about reproduction and embryology, that is, about matters which had been repeatedly discussed since the beginning of Greek philosophy, and his manner in doing this is eclectic and comprehensive. H e will therefore attempt to give a place in his general theory to different views which in themselves may be quite opposed: e. g. in chapter 1 the pangenesis theory (held by Democritus and, probably, by Anaxagoras), that sperm is derived from the whole body, is combined with the encephalo-myelogenic theory, that it is derived from the head or brain via the spinal marrow (Alcmaeon and the Pythagoreans). This tendency to agree with everyone makes it peculiarly difficult to exclude the influence of any particular philosopher. In chapter 1 for example, as well as the philosophers mentioned above we must take into account Diogenes of Apollonia, who described sperm as a foam which arises from blood. It is also the case that there is a great deal of common ground between the philosophers of the fifth century. This common ground is of two kinds: they shared general assumptions 70 , which for them had the status of laws, about natural processes such as "separating out", or the belief that "the h o t " is nourished by "the cold", or the effects of heat or cold upon substances; and in matters of particular detail, as opposed to fundamental theories about the constitution of substance, they felt free to borrow and adapt. Indeed it was the existence of generally accepted propositions, and generally accepted methods of explanation, that made it possible for writers 69

70

C f . Sigerist vol. 2 p. 320; Siegel p. 279, and the extremely laudable attempt of Vogel to apply the findings of contemporary haematology to the history of medicine (pp. 25—27); for the objections, scientific as well as philological, to this attempt, see Flashar p. 41 n. 44. C f . Heidel Medicine pp. 8 6 - 9 6 .

Relation of the treatise to the pre-Socratic philosophers

63

like the present author to construct particular theories without themselves being originative scientists. Thus wherever there is a clear similarity between a doctrine expressed by the author, and a doctrine known to have been held by one or other pre-Socratic philosopher, we cannot certainly establish the influence of that philosopher, if there is no reason why the view should not have been held by another, and perhaps earlier, philosopher as well 71 . For example, the author's account of the growth of hair in chapter 19 is parallel with Democritus' account of the growth of horn in animals. Yet both are similar to Empedocles' account of the growth of nails, and the theory could have been borrowed from Empedocles by Anaxagoras or Diogenes of Apollonia just as well as by Democritus. The same is true, to a lesser extent, of the account of prolific birth in chapter 31. Here the author seems to be using an account which is definitely ascribed to Democritus in the tradition: it is highly probable, as we shall see, that he did derive it from Democritus, but there is no a p r i o r i reason why the same explanation should not have been used by Anaxagoras or by Diogenes. For at least the elements of the explanation are already present in the tradition before Democritus. It is a fallacious procedure to read back into early Greek science the conditions under which modern scientific advance occurs. In the fifth and fourth centuries B. C. there were no universally recognized and accepted advances in knowledge, nor was there any definite system for recording and publishing such advances, had they been made. There was again no sharp distinction, as there is today, between the working scientist and the layman, however well informed. Scientific inquiry was carried on in an atmosphere of more or less public debate, from which no one was theoretically excluded. If it is true that Socrates, in order to discover precisely the view of Anaxagoras, must have recourse to Anaxagoras' published work 7 2 , it is also true that he already knew something about Anaxagoras; in the next century Plato's views on so important a subject as "The G o o d " were given in a lecture, and evidently a popular lecture; and the success of Aristophanes' satire in "The Clouds" presumes a widespread general acquaintance with at least the topics, and perhaps the methods and jargon too, of scientific enquiry. In the light of such conditions, it is very difficult indeed to be precise about questions of influence. The quest for precision may in fact be self-defeating: for as soon as we have found a theory which is expressly attributed in the tradition to a particular philosopher, which is sufficiently individual to make it unlikely that it was held by others, and which recurs with the same degree of individuality (and this is not often the case) in a Hippocratic writer, then the question inevitably arises, who has influenced

71 72

The point was stated emphatically by Heidel Medicine p. 18. Cf. Plato Phd. 98b.

64

Introduction

whom 7 3 ? N o t entirely self-defeating, however: if the theory concerned shows signs of having been adapted to answer a particular question, which it was not originally intended to answer, then we can be reasonably certain that the influence works in one direction only. A case in point is the theory, mentioned above, about prolific birth in animals 74 . This is expressly attributed by Aelian 7 5 to Democritus and it has two distinct features which give it the required degree of individuality: the manifold character of the uterus in prolific animals, and the filling of the separate uterine cavities by semen emitted in successive acts of copulation. Both features recur in Nat. Puer. 31, where the mention of the " m a n y " cavities in the uterus of some animals would be mystifying (since the author is explaining the birth of twins in humans) if we did not know of Democritus' theory; and where the successive acts of copulation in Democritus' version have become the emission of semen in successive spasms during one act of copulation, in order to mesh Democritus' explanations with the theory, which is apparently the author's own, of bisexual sperm 7 6 . This instance satisfies the criteria for establishing that influence has occurred, and it indicates the direction of the influence. We can deduce from it that Democritus is at least one influence upon the author, and this is no small gain. For although there is no other instance, so far as I can see, which satisfies these criteria to the same extent, once we can be sure that Democritus influenced the author in one case, then other instances where we may suspect without being able to demonstrate such influence acquire from it a circumstantial value. The remarkable doctrine of pangenesis, which the author uses as the basis of his account of reproduction, might seem to be another instance where influence by Democritus can be established. Wellmann 7 7 , arguing from the fact that it is expressly 7 8 attributed to Democritus, and that 73

Unless of course the theory is the exclusive consequent of some more general theory which we know was held by that particular philosopher, e . g . Democritus' atomism or Anaxagoras' "seeds". But I know of no such case in the Hippocratic Collection.

74

Cf. commentary on chapter 31. — Max Wellmann in his important and influential, but often imprecise article "Spuren Demokrits von Abdera im Corpus Hippocraticum" (Wellmann Spuren p. 305) places it in the vanguard of a whole regiment of instances where Democritus may have influenced the author. They are discussed in the commentary, along with others not mentioned by Wellmann. Since apart from the first their value is at best circumstantial, only the more significant will be included here.

75

Aelian N A 12,16 = VS 68 A 151. Cf. Aelian's expression (loco citato) δίς τε καί τρίς ταϋτα τά ζώα έπιθόρνυχαι these animals mount twice or even three times with the ές δίς καί τρίς άποβράσσεται (the sperm) is ejaculated twice or three times of Nat. Puer. 31,3. 83,20f. Joly = VII 540,19 Li. It is possible that Aelian mistook Democritus' meaning, in which case the resemblance is even closer. What Democritus said about the production of monstra (Arist. GA 4,4. 796 b, 30—34 = VS 68 A 146) might be used to support either interpretation.

76

77 78

Wellmann Spuren pp. 3 0 6 - 3 0 9 . Aetius 5,3,6 = VS 68 A 141.

Relation of the treatise to the pre-Socratic philosophers

65

Aristotle who devotes a long passage 79 to its refutation records arguments in its favour, some (but not all) of which also occur in Genit., concluded that Democritus was the common source of Genit. and of Aristotle. Pangenesis is also closely associated with Democritus by Erna Lesky 8 0 who, thinking partly of its revival in an atomistic form by Darwin in the 19th century, aigues that the theory makes most sense in the context of atomism, and that therefore Democritus is the real parent of the theory 8 1 . Wellmann and Lesky may be justified at least to this extent, that the direct association of pangenesis with Democritus in Aetius as against, say, Anaxagoras, does suggest that Democritus must have been explicit on the matter, and that he therefore supported it with arguments; but the impression left by the passage in Aristotle is that he is arguing not against a particular opponent but against a well-known view which had been frequently canvassed and supported by various arguments in more or less public debate. His interest need not n e c e s s a r i l y be to demolish a particular opponent (some time dead), whose identity he sinisterly conceals under the appellation "certain persons"; surely his main concern is to refute a prevalent view about reproduction which was a considerable rival to his own theory. G A 1, 17f. 721a, 30—724a, 13 reflects many discussions, not one; and it is very likely that the case stated there for pangenesis represents Aristotle's own amalgam from various sources 8 2 — including his own memory —, of which Genit. itself could be one. That it is not the only one is suggested by the argument from acquired characteristics (επίκτητα), which does not occur in Genit., but which does occur (though as a deduction rather than as an argument 8 3 ) in Aer. And that one of Aristotle's sources is Democritus is suggested by two features: (i) In G A 1, 18. 723a, 23—b,3 Aristotle mounts an argument 79 80 81

Aristotle GA 1 , 1 7 - 1 8 . 721 b, l l - 7 2 4 a , 13. Lesky pp. 1 2 9 4 - 1 2 9 7 . Although she admits (p. 1276) that Anaxagoras must have held it as well she is otherwise curiously silent about his possible role. This is a consequence of her general approach to the nature of scientific debate in the fifth century, which she sees as continuous and progressive in the nineteenth-century manner. While this is possibly true of the major problems of philosophy, it may be dangerous to apply it to subsidiary questions like reproduction and embryology. Cf. the strictures on this point made by Temkin Rev. Lesky p. 118 n. 5 and passim.

82

As in all questions of Quellenforschung (in the case of Cicero for example), scholars have often projected into the past an image of their own methods of work. But Aristotle was not a modern research student, who sits before a desk piled high with carefully docketed volumes, in fear and trembling lest he should inadvertently miss a reference. The fact for example that he does not refer to the hypothesis of bi-sexual sperm does not necessarily imply, as Blersch p. 17 would have it, that he was ignorant of Genit., which must t h e r e f o r e be later than Aristotle.

83

This is true also of the arguments as they appear in Genit., where pleasure (ηδονή) for example is contained (chapters 1 and 4) in the statement of the theory rather than adduced as an argument in its support. But it would hardly be beyond Aristotle's acumen to see that these references to pleasure really are arguments.

66

Introduction

against pangenesis upon the hypothesis, borrowed from Empedocles, that sexual differentiation takes place in the womb .If we accept this hypothesis (ει τοϋτο θήσομεν οΰτως 723 a, 31) it cannot be the case, he says, that the actual male or female genital parts are already in the sperm. N o w this is precisely the explanation of sexual differentiation which Aristotle elsewhere expressly ascribes to Democritus (and it does of course in itself imply pangenesis), (ii) Aristotle's opponents claimed that tendons and bones already exist in the sperm, a statement which Aristotle professes to be beyond him (723 a, 21). Compare Aetius 5, 3, 6 = VS 68 A 141: Democritus said that sperm is secreted from the whole body, that is, from its principal parts such as bones, flesh, and sinews. But this is hardly sufficient to justify us in reading the arguments in Aristotle back into Democritus in t o t o , and in regarding Democritus as the direct or indirect source for Genit. Pangenesis was no doubt in the air at the time the author wrote: it is taken for granted in Morb. Sacr. and Aer., it was probably held, and evidently without a great deal of fuss, by Anaxagoras 8 4 , and the author of Genit. himself seems to reflect a controversy of the"time when he admits, in chapter 11, that deformities are not in all cases inherited 85 . Certainly the theory is given a systematic statement in Genit., but for all we know, the systematization may be the author's own. This is apparently true of the clever modification of pangenesis by which sperm of bi-sexual potency is attributed both to male and female. This was held, for the male, by Anaxagoras — but it is vain to look for the source of an idea which could easily have been suggested by the practice of

84

85

The evidence consists of two passages, (i) According to the scholiast on Gregory Nazianzene (or. 43. 36,911 B —C Migne = VS 59 Β 10) he held the view, which today would be called preformationist, that all the parts of the body (but the scholiast's list includes veins and arteries, which cannot go back to Anaxagoras) are present in the seed, invisible at first because of their smallness, but gradually increasing in size, (ii) He, along with Democritus and Alcmaeon (sic) objected to Hippon's demonstration from the spinal marrow of an animal slaughtered immediately after copulation that sperm originates from the spinal marrow. Anaxagoras claimed that not only the marrow, but that also the flesh and fat was considerably diminished (Censorinus 5,2—5 = VS 24 A 13). If the anecdote is true, Anaxagoras was certainly a pangeneticist. The theory could certainly be deduced, almost inevitably, from his general physical theory, though the pre-Socratics did not always make inevitable deductions. It must be conceded however that if Anaxagoras held the theory, he did not make it explicit, nor did he provide supporting arguments, since (i) the absence of any reference to Anaxagoras in the doxography, which mentions Democritus, would otherwise be very surprising; (ii) Aristotle mentions Anaxagoras by name in such a way as to distinguish him from those who held the theory (cf. GA 1,18. 723 a, 5—9); (iii) an aspect of the theory in the form in which Aristotle criticizes it is that the female as well as the male provides sperm. Now whatever we are told elsewhere in the tradition, Aristotle at least seems to have held that for Anaxagoras only the male provides the sperm, and the female the locality (with which however Censorinus I.e. and 6,6—8 = VS 59 A 111 are in conflict). As though he were answering Aristotle's objection in GA 1,18. 723 b,5: some children who are not deformed are born to deformed parents.

Relation of the treatise to the pre-Socratic philosophers

67

Greek stockbreeders, and of which the mathematic attractions are obvious. The less happy attempt to combine pangenesis with the belief that sperm comes from the head and/or the spinal marrow may be equally original. But notice that the two beliefs are also held simultaneously by the author of Aer. Pangenesis then cannot be used as an argument for the influence of Democritus. Yet in the light of Democritus' influence elsewhere in the treatise (chapter 31), we are justified in entertaining a suspicion that his hand may be seen here too. This suspicion is strengthened when we turn from the author's genetic theory to his embryology. The embryological theory of chapters 12—31 is systematically related to the author's genetic theory, since his account of the articulation, nutrition and growth of the embryo implies its pangenetic origin. The ingredients of the sperm, which comes from all parts of the parents' bodies, having settled into their appropriate places66, are nourished by blood which descends from all parts of the mother's body. Thus the theory of chapter 17 is really inseparable from the genetics of chapters 1—8. Moreover the mechanics of the process of articulation and growth are explained by the respiration of the infant: thus chapter 12 which describes the origin of embryonic respiration is in turn inseparable from the theory of chapter 17. It is exceedingly difficult to disentangle the pre-Socratic affiliations of this "pneumatic embryology". Two things should be noted at the start, (i) The account of embryology is framed by and related to two observations, the aborted embryo and the clutch of eggs, which we have no reason for disbelieving to be the author's own, although he does not expressly say that they are. (ii) Into the account of embryonic nutrition is woven an account of menstruation whose affiliations are specifically medical and which reappears in the chapters of a gynaecological treatise written by the same author. Thus "pneumatic embryology", whatever its source, has been stated in a form and supported by arguments which bear the author's own signature. The articulatory force which is ascribed to breath or ρ neu ma immediately suggests the intelligent and creative powers which Diogenes assigned to air 8 7 . Diogenes cannot be automatically excluded on the grounds of a statement attributed to him that infants do not respire when they are born, since we are also told that, for him, semen contains breath. A slightly more cogent argument against Diogenes is the thoroughgoing mechanism which appears in chapters 12 and 17: the process is entirely chemical and physical, and there is no trace whatsoever of the conscious intelligence which Diogenes ascribed to " a i r " , and which is recognized, for example, in Morb. Sacr. But we are bound to be exceedingly cautious here: I have argued in the 86 87

Nat. Puer. 17,1. 59,12 Joly = VII 496,20 Li. But it might also suggest Democritus, cf. Aetius 5 , 4 , 3 = VS 68 A 140 Στράτων καϊ Δημόκριτος και την δΰναμιν (sc. τοϋ σπέρματος) σώμα· πνευματική γάρ Strato and Democritus (say that) the power (of the sperm) is corporeal: for it is of pneuma.

68

Introduction

commentary on chapter 12 that there is no reason why Diogenes should not have used his principle in a mechanistic way, and indeed there is every reason why he should have done so. Thus the mechanistic attitude of chapters 12 and 17 is not in itself an argument against Diogenes. But it is an argument, and I think a very strong one, when we consider (i) how thoroughly it is in accord with the author's method of explanation throughout the whole treatise, where, except perhaps for the initial remark about νόμος, there is not the slightest reference to the divine (θείον) aspect of things, and which, in its totality, seems to me to be utterly opposed to the attitude which we know to have been Diogenes'; (ii) the systematic coherence between the author's embryology and the theory of pangenesis, which Diogenes did not hold, although it is of course not impossible that the author could have borrowed a pneumatic account of embryology from Diogenes and amalgamated it with a theory of pangenesis; (iii) the fact that the principle of like to like in chapter 17 is expressed and illustrated in a mechanistic form which is reminiscent of Democritean atomism 88 . These three considerations, while they tend to exclude Diogenes, are at the same time in favour of Democritus as the dominant influence upon the author's embryology. Direct evidence for Democritus' own embryology is scanty, but there is nothing in it which is inconsistent with the attribution of the author's theory to him, and there is some agreement in detail. Democritus held that there was ζ power (δύναμις) in the seed, and that this was pneumatic (πνευματική) 8 9 ; we are not told how the power manifested itself, but it is exceedingly tempting to guess. Again, he held like the present author, and in contrast with the other pre-Socratic philosophers, that the umbilicus was formed first in the embryo 9 0 ; he also said that the external parts are formed first, and the internal subsequently, which agrees with chapters 16 and 17. It is significant that the agreement between Nat. Puer. and Democritus is all on points which are essential to the pneumatic embryology of the former. The figure of Anaxagoras is by contrast rather shadowy here, although he cannot altogether be excluded. He too held a theory according to which all the elements are present from the beginning in the sperm, and the embryo grows by addition of like to like parts 91 : this is so similar to chapter 17 that if we assume the influence of Democritus upon that chapter, we must also admit that Democritus restated Anaxagoras' theory 9 2 . Anaxagoras held that the parts of the embryo are formed by innate heat 9 3 ; although we are not told 88 89 90 91

92

93

Cf. Müller p p . 113 — 122 and the commentary on chapter 17. Aetius 5,4,3 = VS 68 A 140. VS 68 Β 148. Arist. G A 1,18. 723a,9 —17. But cf. the immediately preceding passage cited in note 84 above. Which is n o t unlikely: cf. his restatement, in an atomistic f o r m , of Diogenes' theory about the magnet: G u t h r i e History vol. II p p . 372f. Censorinus 6,2 = VS 59 A 109.

Relation of the treatise to the pre-Socratic philosophers

69

how this is done, it might very well be by the generation of breath from innate heat 94 , in which case we would have something very like the pneumatic embryology of Nat. Puer. The author's embryology has other affiliations. Mention has been made above of the account of the growth of nails, which is parallel to Democritus' account of the growth of horns, but which may ultimately go back to Empedocles; so too may the account of lactation. Here we have to deal with explanations at a secondary level which were common ground among the pre-Socratics. Pythagorean number theory has certainly influenced the articulation periods given for male and female embryos in chapter 18, and probably too the account of the six-day embryo in chapter 13. As with the author's genetic theory, so too in his embryology the predominant resemblance is to Democritus; but if the author has in fact borrowed from Democritus, he has also borrowed and adapted from elsewhere, from his own medical knowledge as well as from other pre-Socratic philosophers, and he has related the theory to two observations which are, for all that we Can tell, entirely his own. ' The pre-Socratic affiliations of the botanical excursus in chapters 22—27 and chapters 33—34 are extraordinarily complex. There is the initial question whether the same theory of plant physiology underlies both passages: I have argued in the commentary on these sections that it does. There is the further complication that 22—27 is an amalgam of two disparate elements: a theory of plant growth and nutrition, and a theory about subterranean waters and subterranean temperatures. The amalgam may be due to the author himself, or to an earlier source: there is some evidence that a similar combination of theories was held by the botanist Cleidemus. The theory about subterranean waters has elements which suggest Anaxagoras on the one hand and Democritus on the other; Müller 95 has given grounds for supposing that chapter 34 (which he believes to be distinct from 22—27) goes back ultimately to Anaxagoras, whereas I have argued in the commentary on chapter 34 that these reasons cannot be made sufficiently precise to exclude Democritus, and that there is other evidence in the passage which indicates Democritus. The question of source or sources for these chapters must at least remain open, and is probably insoluble; but this very insolubility does suggest an interesting reflection about the nature of fifth century science. Much of the material of the botanical theory is the common intellectual property of the age: to disentangle its separate elements would be rather like attempting to disentangle the separate influences upon a contemporary writer of the Freudian school. The botanical theory, like the genetic and embryological theory, bears witness to lively and complex contemporary discussion. 94 95

Suggested by Heidel pp. 50f. Müller p p . 1 2 9 - 1 5 1 .

70

Introduction

Pre-Socratic affiliations are, from the nature of the subject matter, less apparent in Morb. IV, although they certainly exist. They are however much more general than in the two earlier sections of the treatise. I have indicated in the section on humoral theory the general debt of this theory to pre-Socratic philosophy. The debt of the author's hydraulic and pneumatic demonstrations is probably more specific; in the latter case the influence may be from Diogenes, although there is no direct evidence. The reference to Scythian practices in chapter 51 almost certainly comes from the ethnographical writings of Hecataeus. But the most striking feature of Morb. IV is the mechanistic expression which the author gives to Alcmaeon's theory of health as equilibrium. There is a notable contrast here between the author's mechanical model for his humoral theory and the abstract expression of humoral theory in Nat. Horn. Like Lord Kelvin, the author is happy only when he can make a model of his theory: everything must be visualized, everything must be carried on by thrust and attraction, by the balance or displacement of fixed quantities. This power to visualize, this habit of mechanical thought, is reminiscent of Democritus. It is apparent too in his mechanical explanation of the periodicity of disease. This is like the explanation of the periodicity of menstruation in Nat. Puer., and both may be contrasted with the numerical account given by other authors. If the influence of Democritus seems to me to pervade the whole treatise, it is more because of this generally mechanistic approach than of any particular feature. But it must again be stressed that the other pre-Socratics, both individually and generally, have been laid under contribution. Indeed, what is remarkable about the author is his ability to combine disparate elements into a coherent whole which, to me, seems to be his own. He is, and remains, a medical writer rather than a philosopher; in particular his theory of the four constituent humours is a specifically medical theory in the sense explained by the author of Nat. Horn. For this theory at least we must allow the author some originality; and it is moreover a theory which he has systematically combined with a theory of genetics and embryology which he derived from elsewhere. The author is in other words a doctor, who makes use of non-medical science in order to articulate his specifically medical experience. It was the existence of a large measure of agreement over aims, methods and principles in the science of the fifth century which enabled him to do this. If we are dissatisfied with the meagre harvest yielded by a discussion of sources, we can console ourselves with the reflection that the very conditions which make that harvest meagre reveal to us the complexity and the richness of the scientific armory which the author had at his disposal.

Date of the treatise

71

6. Date of the treatise The influence of Democritus suggests as a convenient date p o s t q u e m the acme of Democritus, i. e. around 420 B. C., although it may be as much as twenty years later. A date during the Peloponnesian War would be consistent with the author's style, with his habits of thought and argument, with his scientific vocabulary, and with his similarity in these and other respects to other works in the Collection, notably to Morb. Sacr. and Aer., which are usually dated about 420. In its level of artifice, its sentence and paragraph construction and its vocabulary, the author's style is comparable, though vastly inferior, to that of Herodotus: granted that a writer, particularly in a technical subject, may be oldfashioned in style, it seems to me simply inconceivable that such a chapter as chapter 12 with its repetitions and "Ringkomposition" could have been written much after the beginning of the fourth century. Contrast for example the style of Xenophon with that of the pseudo-Xenophontean "Polity of the Athenians". Nat. Puer. 13, whose narrative technique is so strikingly reminiscent of Herodotus, could hardly have been written towards the middle of the fourth century, except as a tour de force in archaism. At the same time the author displays a limited amount of "Kunstsprache". The rather pedantic formulae with which he begins or ends a section can be paralleled in Gorgias as well as in Herodotus (also of course in Aristotle); but the stylistic devices otherwise characteristic of Gorgias are relatively few, although where they occur they are clearly recognizable as such 96 . Apart from style, the structure of certain of the author's arguments is paralleled in Aer. and in Morb. Sacr. and in Democritus 97 , as well as his doctrine. But above all it is something that may be called the style of his science — the kind of questions he raises, the kind of answers he gives, and his manner of giving them — which is most akin to the late fifth century: it is a perfect example of that science which was so elaborately parodied by Aristophanes in "The Clouds" in 424 B . C . Aristophanes, whose target was wider than Diogenes of Apollonia, is an invaluably sensitive recording instrument in this matter. 96

97

For the lecturer's style in Gorgias, see the examples given in chapter 3 (note on όκόθεν . . . διότι); for Kunstsprache, cf. the examples of homoeoteleuton and sentence balance cited by Regenbogen p. 161, who also gives examples of characteristic λέξις εΐρομένη. The most striking of the latter is the sudden shift to direct speech in chapter 13,1. 55,10 — 13 Joly = VII 490,5—7 Li. I am not aware of any example of this later than the fifth century. Cf. the commentary on chapter 54.

72

Introduction

7. The author's scientific method (a) Statements and implied statements about

method

The modern scientist is generally supposed 98 to proceed by formulating a hypothesis to deal with a problem or area of problems; predictions based upon this hypothesis are then tested by a series of experiments designed to falsify them and the hypothesis. If after exhaustive testing it is not falsified, then its probability is increased to that extent. Greek science, so far as it was experimental at all, tended to design its "experiments 9 9 " (we must be content to leave the word vague) in order to confirm its hypotheses — unless the hypothesis was that of someone else, in which case the experiment is refutatory. These experiments indeed tend to be demonstrations, intended to confirm the consequent of an hypothesis (if A, then B; but B, therefore A). This procedure is of course fallacious. It is doubtful whether, even in that limited and fallacious sense, the present author can be regarded as an experimental scientist. At several points in the commentary it is suggested that his primary intention is rather to give an account (λόγος), to "tell a story" about the process of reproduction, physiology, and pathology. That, it seems to me, is the most useful way to regard the matter. It explains why he apparently regards as a positive virtue the ad h o c formulation of subsidiary hypotheses to account for facts which would tend to falsify his main hypothesis. From the point of view of modern scientific method this is a vice, because if carried on consistently it means that the hypothesis can never be falsified, and can therefore have no value as information. It is a virtue, or seems to be, from the author's point of view, because it enables him to account for everything, to make the story as full and detailed as possible. To estimate his achievement fairly by his own standards, we should not neglect the possibility that the very ingeniousness of an account was a prima facie guarantee of its truth. This seems an odd attitude to us; no doubt it is, but there are indications that it was shared by other Greeks of his time. The reasons are remote and somewhat impalpable: they have to do with the relation between the scientist and the poet, and the belief, in the poet's case, in divine inspiration (the fact that I can tell my story at all indicates that it was somehow "there"). This possibility should be kept 98

I am aware that such statements made by classical philologists have usually been rash: they very quickly acquire an air which may politely be termed old-fashioned or, impolitely, plain ignorant. Yet this ignorance about scientific procedure is not confined to classical philologists: it has sometimes been detected in working scientists as well. In any case, my concern is not with what the author does not do, but with what, so far as one can see, he intends to do; and with guarding him against irrelevant criticism based on a misunderstanding of these intentions. It makes no difference to this concern if my statement is w r o n g ; and if it is wrong it will, I hope, be mentally corrected by the reader.

99

The most valuable recent publication on Greek experimentation is Lloyd Experiment (1966), where earlier literature is cited.

T h e author's scientific m e t h o d

73

in mind in the discussion which follows: for although the author will be found to be using evidence in ways which are intelligible to us (it is true because it corresponds to such and such an observation), these ways may have a slightly different significance for him. The observation is caught up in the fabric of the design, becomes a further element in the complexity of that design, and in t h i s way confirms the truth of the account. Thus in some cases 1 0 0 the relevance of the observation itself depends on the truth of the causal account which it is apparently intended to confirm. From our point of view, this is formally vicious, a logical blunder, but we should be wary of assuming that this is so from the author's point of view. Here the "awkward fact", explained away by a subsidiary hypothesis, and the confirmatory observation, have the same status: both are ingredients in the account. This may explain why the author never regards an observation as something which might be used to falsify his own (as opposed to a rival) account; and it also helps us, I think, to understand his use of analogy 1 0 1 . The various devices by which the author tells his story — usually references to, or comparisons with, observable phenomena — can be regarded sometimes as confirmatory evidence, sometimes as the heuristic devices which suggested the form to be taken by the story, sometimes as mere illustrations, and often enough as all three. It will not help our understanding of the author's mind merely to assume, in a particular case, that a reference to observable phenomena is meant as "evidence" to " p r o v e " his theory, and then to complain that it is not, and does not 1 0 2 . T o give such an account, tell such a story, as the author proposed was an extraordinarily difficult undertaking, although he was far from being without resource in the level of science at his time. It was also, historically speaking, a valuable undertaking. The naive young man in Plato's dialogues must say at least s o m e t h i n g , however foolish and ignorant, before Socrates' work can begin. And it may well prove to be the case, in the course of the dialogue — and in the course of history — that something of what was said had a positive value. This is to state the case at its worst. In fact, our author is neither naive, nor foolish, nor ignorant. H e makes certain explicit statements about 100

101

102

C f . remarks on chapter 18 and chapter 47 below, for an instance in N a t . H o r n . cf. L l o y d Polarity p p . 7 4 f . In this connection s o m e remarks m a d e by K u h n p. 80 might mutatis mutandis be applied to the present author. There is a certain disparity between the aims of the critic and the aims of the historian. Naturally the critic wishes to evaluate the w o r k of a particular scientist as science, f r o m his o w n point of view. B u t in doing so he m a y neglect the m e t h o d s p r o p e r to the historian. T h e historian m a y c o m m i t the contrary error of attempting on historical g r o u n d s to explain away everything. A n d it is only too easy, when c o n f r o n t e d b y a particularly glaring example of illogicality, to a s s u m e that, so bad it seems, it m u s t be s o m e h o w intended. T h e same problem arises in the discussion of literature.

74

Introduction

method, and certain other statements which imply conviction about method. First, the explicit statements. Although I have said above that the most profitable way of regarding his intention is to regard it as the intention to tell a story, the author certainly believed that it was a true story (άληθής λόγος), and he had reasons for so believing and for expecting his audience so to believe. In chapter 13 he promises to give a means of deciding (διάγνωσιν), manifest (έμφανέα) to anyone wanting to know (είδέναι) about this matter, and evidence for my whole account, that it is true (ίστόριον παντί τω έμφ λόγω ότι εστίν άληθής) so far as truth is attainable in such a matter for a human being (13, 4. 56, 7 - 1 0 Joly = VII 492, 2 - 5 Li.). The evidence is that of the clutch of twenty eggs; and in describing it in chapter 29 he is quite explicit that it is evidence that the account of the development of the child is as I say it is (εύρήσει έχοντα πάντα κατά τον έμον λόγον), although he adds so far as it is legitimate to compare (συμβάλλειν) the nature and growth of a bird to that of a man (29, 2. 78, 2 - 4 Joly - VII 530, 14f. Li.). We could hardly desire him to be more articulate about his method, about its certainties and also about its restrictions. Wrong he may have been; he was not naive, if to be naive means to be totally unaware of the requirements of the situation. He is aware that there are dangers, but we must allow him to have considered them and rejected them. The words he uses in these passages may be followed up in their various connexions. Thus, for example, συμβάλλειν occurs in conjunction with εμφανής again in 7, 1. 49, 1 - 3 Joly = VII 478, 16f. Li. (though here it means "to conclude, put two and two together, on the basis of visible evidence"). In 8, 2. 50, 12f. Joly = VII 482, 1 Li. we find ίστόριον again with λόγος (in the dative) evidence for my account·, and in 30, 7. 80, 21. 23 Joly = VII 536, 5. 6f. Li. τούτω τω λόγω . . . ίστόριον occurs, with έμφανής further down 1 0 3 . All these passages, and others to which the commentary refers, have methodological significance. What they amount to is that the truth of an account can be established if it is compared with visible evidence, due regard being taken (a) of the legitimacy of the comparison (b) of the limitations of human reason (the latter restriction is however more like an affirmation of certainty: cf. the commentary on chapter 13,4). The author's ultimate criterion is observability, and he makes continual reference to this (see the index s. v. έμφανής, άφανής, φανερός, δήλος, όρώ). In the case discussed above, the observed phenomenon is a comparison, but this is by no means always so. For example in chapter 7 (Genit. 7, 1. 49, 1 —3 Joly = VII 478, 16f. Li.) the manifest phenomenon on which the author bases his conclusion is a fact or an alleged fact about the

103

30,8 . 81,7 Joly = VII 536,16 Li.

The author's scientific method

75

productivity of alternating couples: the relation between the theory and the fact is a deductive inference, not an inductive inference based on analogy. Besides these passages there are others where a consciousness of method is implied. It is implied, I believe, in the care with which the author constructs his argument in chapter 12. The author first states the theory that the sperm, in the moist and warm environment of the mother's womb, acquires breath (πνεΰμα ϊσχει 104 ), which forces an exit for itself, and then inspires cool breath through the breach. The author then refers to the occurrence of the same process in three distinct (for him) c l a s s e s of substance: wood, leaves, and edible substances. The behaviour of burning wood is then described, in particular the behaviour of the smoke or steam which issues from it. This is marked as an observed phenomenon (τοϋτο γινόμενον όρέομεν we see this happening105) from which an inference as to cause is drawn (δήλος οΰν ό έκλογισμός the inference is clear106) in the form" if not A, then not B; but B, therefore A". The same behaviour is then established in the case of the other categories of substance, from which the author concludes inductively the general law πάντα . . . όκόσα θερμαίνεται πνεΰμα άφίησι, και έτερον ψυχρον κατά τοϋτο άντισπα 1 0 7 everything that is heated releases breath and draws in cold breath to replace it. Finally the foregoing series is described as cogent proofs (άνάγκαι 1 0 8 ), for the author's proposition about sperm. Here we have the induction of a general law from a series of similar instances, which law is then applied to the case under investigation. It is clear that the author is aware of the dangers of hasty generalization, for the instances he chooses are meant as representative instances, drawn from three separate categories; and he remarks that a further enumeration of instances is unnecessary (τί δει μακρηγορεΐν 1 0 9 , there is no need to speak at excessive length), which also indicates that he is aware of the possibility of a further enumeration. The above case is complex, for it includes not only the induction of a general law and its application, but also an inference (έκλογισμός) about the nature of a process from one observed phenomenon. Such inferences are common in his work: he frequently uses the word σημήιον sign to describe the nature of the phenomenon from which the inference is drawn. See for example chapter 20 (inability of hair to grow on scar tissue is a "sign" that hair grows only where the skin is porous); chapters 35—38 (the immediate appearance in recognizable form of the humours phlegm, bile etc. after food

104 105 106 107 108 109

Nat. Nat. Nat. Nat. Nat. Nat.

Puer. Puer. Puer. Puer. Puer. Puer.

12,1. 12,3. 12,3. 12,5. 12,5. 12,5.

53,4 Joly = VII 486,3 Li. 53,21 Joly = VII 486,17f. Li. 53,21 Joly = VII 486,18 Li. 54,13 f. Joly = VII 4 8 8 , 6 - 8 Li. 54,15 Joly = VII 488,8 Li. 54,13 Joly = VII 488,6 Li.

76

Introduction

containing these humours has been consumed is a "sign" 1 1 0 that the four principal organs secrete these humours); chapter 42 (the saltiness of the urine is a "sign" that it conveys harmful substances away from the body); chapter 46 (shivering fits in fever are a "sign" of the internal disturbance during fever); chapter 47 (the disastrous effects of purging on odd days are a "sign" that the fluid in the body is especially disturbed on these days); chapter 54 (expulsion of round and flat worms immediately after birth is a "sign" that these are engendered during gestation); chapter 55 (the condition of the prepuce is a "sign" that the bladder is inflamed). In medical usage, σημήιον is symptom, and in several of the instances noted above, σημήιον is in fact a pathological symptom upon which the inference is based. Thus in chapter 55 the author explicitly says But this (sc. the inflammation) cannot be seen (αφανές): its symptom is (in) the prepuce111. For us, these two processes, the induction of a general law, and inference as to cause from the observation of a particular phenomenon, are quite distinct 112 ; but they need not have been distinct for the author. A consideration of chapter 24 suggests that they were not. Here too a general law that all (organic) substances (especially if they are moist) become hot when they are compressed, is induced from a series of instances 113 . One of these instances is especially marked as a personal observation of the author, whereas in chapter 12 the mark of observation is used in connexion with the particular inference as to cause (24, 2. 72, 3f. Joly = VII 520, 10 Li. ώς έγώ ήδη εϊδον as I myself have already seen ~ 12, 3. 53, 21 Joly = VII 486, 17f. Li. τοΰτο γινόμενον όρέομεν we see this happening). The similarity of language with which he describes two different intellectual processes suggests that the author would have simply grouped together both induction of general laws and causal inferences from particular phenomena as arguments from the seen to the unseen 114 . An awareness of method is also implicit in the care with which the author sets out a complicated argument in chapter 18; the argument is repeated "for the sake of clarity". The author is aware of its difficulty, and he wants his audience to be clear about it, for on it depends the truth of his account 115 . Here again, the pattern is that of causal inference from

110

111 112

113

114 115

σημήιον 35,1. 87,19 Joly = VII 548,11 Li., cf. έμφανές36,1. 89,7Joly = VII 550,22 Li., διεσήμαινον 36,4. 90,6f. Joly = VII 552,16f. Li., έσαιουσι 37,1. 90,16 Joly = VII 552,24 Li., σημήιον 38,8. 92,6 Joly = VII 556,10 Li. 55,6. 119,4 Joly = VII 604,6 Li. H . Diller Ό ψ ι ς άδήλων p. 124 conveniently describes the latter type of argument as "semiotic". See below. The manner in which these instances are built up is very similar to that in chapter 12: there is clearly a homogeneity of style and thought here, which is the author's own, even though chapter 24 may ultimately derive from another source. However, the relation between the two requires further discussion: see below, p. 82. Cf. 18,6. 63,9f. Joly = VII 504,8f. Li.

The author's scientific method

77

observation (or alleged observation: unfortunately the author in this instance cannot be acquitted of partially adjusting the facts to suit his theory). Two observations (ίστόρια) are given to support the contention that articulation for the male embryo is completed in 30 days, for the female in 42. One of these, the observation of aborted embryos, is straightforward enough; but the other, the different periods of lochial flow after male and female births, depends for its validity not only upon the truth of the fact, but also upon the truth of the cause which the author alleges. The argument does not precisely beg the question (it depends, rather, on acceptance of the author's whole account of embryonic nutrition), but it leaves an impression that one of the author's criteria for the truth of an account is the degree of m u t u a l implication between the causal account itself and the evidence alleged for that account. This impression is confirmed by a remark in Morb. IV at the end of chapter 48 that these things, occurring in periods of three days, bear witness to each other (ιστορεί άλλήλοισιν) that my account is a true one116. The facts referred to are the occurrence of crises in fever in three-day periods, and the expulsion of humours from the body every second day. Strictly, the first (an allegedly observed fact) should be described as the observation on which the second is based as an inference. But since the theory is itself the causal explanation of what is observed, the author speaks of mutual implication, and is apparently quite content to do so. One could almost say that the coherence between the parts of an account is regarded as a criterion of its truth, and this may well be true of a fifth century Greek, for whom a clear account (σαφής λόγος) also tends to be a true one 117 . These passages should warn us against accepting too simple an account of the author's use of evidence. Yet as we have seen there are also passages which suggest a (from our point of view) straightforward enough attitude: the truth of an account depends ultimately upon factors outside the account itself. These factors are the degree of positive confirmation by observed phenomena, either through direct causal inference or through the application of an induced general law. (b) The use of analogy

The role of general law in the author's method is involved with his use of analogy. Something concerning this has been said above, where it was suggested that from the point of view of method the author probably made 1,6 117

48,3. 104,18f. Joly = VII 578,7 Li. Cf. Lloyd Polarity p. 83: ". . . much less attention was paid to the criterion of verifiability than to such considerations as the abstract clarity, simplicity, and comprehensiveness of a t h e o r y " ; Lloyd however is discussing doctrines based on opposites, which may be a special case. Wasserstein pp. 51—63 has some valuable remarks upon the dependence of observations for their validity upon the theories they are meant to confirm.

78

Introduction

no distinction between causal inference from a particular observation, and the induction of a general law. Such induction is associated, in chapter 12, with an analogy between the seed in the womb and burning substances. But analogy frequently occurs without any explicit induction, and since it is such a marked feature of the author's work, it requires separate discussion. What precisely is the role of analogy? There are altogether, evenly distributed throughout this group of treatises, between 26 and 29 comparisons 118 . Although such comparisons appear elsewhere in the Collection, the frequency in this author is far higher than in any other. Some of these comparisons are very short, no more than a clause (e. g. in 12, 6. 54, 23 Joly = VII488, 15 Li. a membrane forms like (the crust) upon bread when it is baked·, or 17, 2. 59,17 Joly = VII498, 3f. Li. the bones branch like a tree), sometimes they are more elaborate, and in one extreme case the analogy extends over several chapters (chapters 22 — 27). Several of them are in the form of a process, with instructions for carrying out the process (e. g. 6, 2. 48, 2 3 - 2 7 Joly = VII478, 1 1 - 1 4 Li. It is just as if one were to take separate quantities of wax and fat, and heat them over a flame, . . . then allow them to harden . . .); and some of these in turn involve the construction of a piece of apparatus which may be quite complicated. The style in which these comparisons are made is formulaic and stereotyped. An initial question should be raised about the status of these latter comparisons. Should the analogies which are in the form of instructions be regarded as a type distinct from those which are drawn from ordinary observation? O n the face of it, observing the formation of a crust upon bread might seem to be a very different kind of activity from taking materials and subjecting them to a process, and observing the result. From one point of view they are certainly distinct. The process with instructions reminds us very much of what we should call an experiment; and while there is no example in the present group of treatises which could indisputably be called an experiment, there occur elsewhere indisputable experiments which are formally very similar 119 . But I am not concerned here with the history of experimentation (which would certainly have to take these instances into account), but with what they are in themselves, and with the author's presumed attitude to them. From this point of view they are not, I think, a distinct type. The process by which the Scyths make butter, described in chapter 51, might be recast as a set of instructions, so too could the process 118

119

The precise number is indefinite, since in two or three cases the comparison could either be regarded as one comparison with different aspects, or two different comparisons. E . g . the analogy growth of plant: growth of embryo, used in chapters 17, and 19, and developed in 22—27; or the chick in the egg, used for different purposes in chapter 29 and chapter 30. I have treated each separate use as a separate comparison. Cf. the experiment attributed to Erasistratus in Anon. Lond. XXXIII 43 —51; and the style in which Hero's experiments are described.

The author's scientific method

79

of iron smelting described in chapter 55; and conversely, if the process in chapter 49 was (as it may well be) a common household method of removing water from oil, it could have been described as such. The regularity with which these comparisons are used suggests that they are systematic, and have a methodological importance: that they are not merely ornaments, but an essential part of the author's argument. G . S e n n 1 2 0 came to the conclusion that some of these demonstrations, which he described as unambiguous experiments, had their original place in a handbook of physical experiments, probably Pythagorean in origin, from which the author took them, often without understanding them, and applied or misapplied them to his account, his purpose being to impress or delight the reader. They are there as ornaments, no more; and frequently inappropriate ornaments. Senn was speaking specifically of the demonstrations, but clearly the other comparisons too could be regarded in the same way, their function being merely to entertain and divert the reader, as in oldfashioned theories about Homer's use of similes. O t t o Regenbogen protested against this attitude in his essay " E i n e Forschungsmethode antiker Naturwissenschaft". Including both types of comparison he regarded them as a distinct and definite method of research: thus he refers to "die Stereotypie der wissenschaftlichen Verfahrungsweise, die Gleichförmigkeit einer immer wieder angewendeten Beweismethode, die aus einer bestimmten Untersuchungsmethode sich e r g i b t " 1 2 1 . This method consists in that "ein Vorgang nicht anschaulicher Art wird einem zweiten, anschaulichen, verglichen, dergestalt, daß der erste durch den zweiten eine besondere Beleuchtung empfängt" 1 2 2 . The author regards his comparisons as proofs (άνάγκαι) of the truth of his account; but they are at the same time the heuristic devices which have enabled him to formulate this account. As Regenbogen vividly puts it, they are both the scaffolding ("Baugerüst") of the hypothesis which the author erects and its support ("Stützung") 1 2 3 . T h e motto of the author's method is Anaxagoras' principle οψις άδηλων τά φαινόμενα, what is apparent gives us insight into what is unseen, and the author applies his method in a systematic way, of which the outward sign is the comparative invariability of the formulae with which he introduces his comparisons. Regenbogen's case is much stronger than Senn's; it is argued with greater cogency and better philological equipment. There is no question of finding a via m e d i a between these two extreme views (which may be taken as typical), for Senn's has little to recommend it. But there is the question of whether Regenbogen gives an entirely satisfactory account of what the author is doing: the nature of his scientific activity.

120 121 122 123

Senn pp. 2 6 8 - 2 8 0 . Regenbogen p. 134. Regenbogen p. 135. Regenbogen p. 144.

80

Introduction

Even a cursory reading of this group of treatises shows to us that it contains three elements. The author gives causes for the events he describes; he provides arguments, usually containing an appeal to observation, in support of the Tightness of his description; and he offers comparisons. These elements are quite distinct, for a cause may be given without any argument being offered that it is the true cause; and an argument may and often does occur in passages where there is no comparison. If we consider first the ascription of causes, we can see that the author's account is above all a causal account, not simply a narrative of events. The density of sentences beginning for this reason, on account of this, this is the cause and so on (δια ταϋτα, δια τόδε, αίτιον, γαρ introducing a causal statement) is astonishingly high, as inspection will show. Some chapters are a network of such statements, and indeed it is a distinguishing characteristic of the author's style. These statements are frequently in themselves unsupported by any appeal to observation, although the general account of which they are a part may be; hence any account we give of the author's activity must contain them as a primary and distinct element. Secondly, where an e x p l i c i t appeal is made to observation to support a particular thesis of the author — i . e . where the evidential value of the observation is stressed by such words as σημήιον, εμφανής, όρώ etc. —, the observation is not always an analogy. Indeed, in this author at least, it usually is not. H e makes, in this sense, explicit appeal to observation in 17 separate cases; of these, only 5 involve an analogy 124 ; conversely there are 21—24 cases of analogy where the observation is not explicitly given evidential value (i. e. the analogy might, for all the author says about it, be treated as merely illustrative). This at least indicates that the author did not associate the appeal to observation with analogy more than he did with other kinds of argument.

124

7 , 1 - 2 . 4 9 , 1 - 1 4 Joly = VII 4 7 8 , 1 6 - 4 8 0 , 1 Li.; 13. 5 4 , 4 - 5 6 , 1 2 Joly = VII 4 8 8 , 2 2 - 4 9 2 , 6 Li.; 20,4. 6 5 , 2 7 - 6 6 , 2 Joly = VII 5 0 8 , 1 5 - 1 8 Li.; 31,2. 8 3 , 8 - 1 6 Joly = VII 5 4 0 , 8 - 1 6 Li.; 3 5 - 3 8 . 8 7 , 1 9 - 9 2 , 1 1 Joly = VII 5 4 8 , 1 1 - 5 5 6 , 1 4 Li. (I treat these chapters as one instance, since the argument is parallel in each of them); 42,3. 96,26—28 Joly = VII 564, 1 1 - 1 3 Li.; 46,4. 101,25-102,1 Joly = VII 5 7 2 , 2 3 - 5 7 4 , 1 Li.; 47,2. 1 0 3 , 2 - 8 Joly = VII 5 7 4 , 2 4 - 5 7 6 , 3 Li.; 54,2. 1 1 4 , 1 9 - 2 5 Joly = VII 5 9 6 , 5 - 1 0 Li.; 54,5f. 1 1 5 , 1 8 - 2 8 Joly = VII 5 9 8 , 1 - 9 Li.; 55,6. 119,4 Joly = VII 604,6 Li. With analogy: 1 2 , 2 - 4 . 5 3 , 1 5 - 5 4 , 1 2 Joly = VII 4 8 6 , 1 3 - 4 8 8 , 1 6 Li.; 24,2. 7 1 , 2 8 - 7 2 , 7 Joly = VII 5 2 0 , 7 - 1 3 Li.; 13,4. 5 6 , 7 - 1 2 Joly = VII 4 9 2 , 2 - 6 Li. ( = 29. 7 7 , 1 4 - 7 8 , 9 Joly = VII 5 3 0 , 3 - 1 9 Li.); 30,7. 8 0 , 2 1 - 2 3 Joly = VII 5 3 6 , 5 - 7 Li. (cf. εμφανές 30,8. 81,7 Joly = VII 536,16 Li.); 55,4. 1 1 8 , 3 - 1 3 Joly = VII 6 0 2 , 6 - 1 3 Li. (cf. όψει όράται t o γενόμενον 55,4. 118,9f. Joly = VII 602,10f. Li.). I have not included 1,1. 44,3 Joly = VII 470,6 Li., 18,5. 6 2 , 2 2 - 6 3 , 1 Joly = VII 502, 2 0 - 5 0 4 , 2 Li., and 18,6. 6 3 , 9 - 1 2 Joly = VII 5 0 4 , 8 - 1 1 Li. in the former category, because it seems to me that ίστόριον does not stress the factor of observation to the same degree as does σημήιον. Ultimately it does refer to observation, but although its use in this author often coincides with σημήιον, its reference is somewhat wider.

T h e author's scientific method

81

I have referred in the preceding section to the presence of causal inferences from a particular observation. That these arguments are a distinct type in the Hippocratic Collection was demonstrated by Hans Diller 1 2 5 . Referring for example to Aer. 8, where the author attempts to demonstrate the loss of the most subtle and salubrious part of water as a consequence of freezing, by measuring the quantity of water in a vessel before freezing and after subsequent melting, Diller remarks that this is an appeal to observation, but it is not an analogy. He collects several examples of the same kind, which he calls "semeiotic" as opposed to analogical. The number could be increased from the present treatise which Diller did not discuss. There are 14 altogether and in 10 of these the evidential value of the observation is explicitly stressed. This distinction between types of argument was not made by Regenbogen, and it indicates an ambiguity in his account. He gives the impression that in this author analogical argument and argument based on observation are convertible terms, which is not the case. However it may not have been his intention to limit his case to analogical argument: indeed one of his chief examples is the argument in chapter 18 from the duration of lochial flux to the period of articulation for male and female embryos, where no analogy appears. Nevertheless, it is true that some analogies (5 in the present group of treatises) do include an explicit appeal to observation (i. e. they are explicitly given evidential, as opposed to merely illustrative value), and it might be argued that these analogies are intended to function as ίστόρια, or arguments based on an appeal to observation 1 2 6 . N o w the children of different sex born to the alternating couples in chapter 7 furnish an argument for the existence of bi-sexual seed — for what other hypothesis could explain the phenomenon? And the immediate manifestation of phlegm or bile after eating a particular kind of food is an argument for the existence of phlegm or bile in that food — for where else could it come from 1 2 7 ? What then is the factor in a comparison which might constitute it as evidence for the truth of the account in which it occurs? The answer has already been suggested above, in the discussion of chapter 1 2 1 2 8 . That chapter associates with the explicit appeal to observation the induction of a general law. Perhaps then chapter 12 can be seen as a common term between those semeiotic arguments which stress the evidential value of the observation, but which are not analogical, and the comparisons which do not stress the evidential value of the observation. What is made explicit in the

125 126

127 128

Diller Ό ψ ι ς άδηλων pp. 1 2 3 - 1 3 2 . After all whereas the semeiotic argument by its very nature is almost bound to stress the fact that it is an appeal to observation as evidence, no such necessity applies to the form of the analogical argument. C f . chapters 3 5 - 3 8 . C f . p. 75.

82

Introduction

analogy of chapter 12 may be implicit in all the other analogies used by the author: they are not merely illustrations, but serve as actual arguments for the truth of the account. In chapter 12, the reference to general law is explicit: the seed in the womb behaves like a piece of green wood when it burns, for all burning substances produce and release hot pneuma which is replaced by cold pneuma, the cold serving as fuel for the hot. But generalizations are made in connexion with other analogies as well. In chapter 9, where the effect of the womb on the embryo is compared to the effect of the size and shape of a vessel upon a vegetable growing in the vessel, the author adds and this is so for all plants: they grow in the way they are compelled to grow (9, 3. 51, 9f. Joly = VII 482, 20f. Li.). Again, in chapter 30 the statement that there must be a fixed period of gestation for all animals both domestic and wild (30, 9. 81, 22 Joly = VII 53 8,1 f. Li.) is associated with the analogy of what happens to the chick in the egg. Here too there is the same tendency to distribute a generalization over several categories as there is in chapter 12. Conversely, in chapter 1 the general law is referred t o w i t h o u t a specific analogy: fluid in the body produces foam just as all other fluids produce foam when they are agitated (1, 2. 44, 13 Joly = VII 470, 13f. Li.). This example is particularly revealing for the relation between a general law and an analogous instance, since the general law might, without significant change either in phrasing or in logic, be replaced by a particular analogy, e. g. "just as milk foams when it is agitated". Contrast chapter 12, where a membrane forms around the embryo like the crust upon baking bread (12, 6. 54, 23f. Joly = VII488, 15f. Li.). Here the analogy appears, but not the general law (which in this case, and in several others, might have been difficult to formulate). Most of the instances used by the author are in this last category, but the instances given above indicate that where analogy is used, there is an implicit appeal to the evidential value of the observation: the analogy serves as evidence for the truth of the account, in virtue of the status of the analogue as an instance of a generally valid law 129 .

129

The relation between general law, analogy, and semeiotic inference from a particular observation might be further explored in Aer. 8 (40,7—44,2 Di. = II 32,17—36,19 Li.). Here three semeiotic arguments are used (the deposit of salt left after evaporation; the observation that when a man sits in the sun, only those parts of his body which are covered sweat; and the diminution in quantity of water which has been allowed to freeze). N o analogy is used, but it is easy to see how these arguments might be restated in analogical form. Besides this, two generalizations are associated with the observations: the sun attracts the most subtle part of water not only in the case of lake water, but also from the sea and in fact from everything which contains moisture; and, further down, the clearest and lightest part of water is left behind and sweetened by the warmth and concoction of the sun, and everything else which is cooked always becomes sweeter. In this example, the similarity between the semeiotic argument and the analogical argument is particularly close.

The author's scientific method

83

Two remarks made by the author suggest his awareness of the use of analogy as a distinct method. In chapter 29 he states the restriction so far as it is legitimate to compare the growth of a bird to that of a man (29, 2. 78, 3f. Joly = VII 530, 14f. Li.); and in chapter 27, at the end of the botanical excursus, he says if anyone considers what I have said about these matters, he will find that from beginning to end the whole process of growth is the same (παραπλησίην) both for plants which grow from the earth, and for man (27, 1. 77, 4—7 Joly = VII 528, 22—24 Li.). Unfortunately the caution suggested in the first statement is not always shown by the author himself; but at least he is aware that comparisons may or may not be legitimate, and presumably he has criteria of legitimacy, even if he does not always apply them. The second remark is somewhat mystifying. There is not in fact a close analogy between the growth of the embryo as the author describes it and the growth of a plant. For although the growth of bones and joints is compared to the branching of a tree 1 3 0 , and the growth of fingers and toes at a late stage in the process is compared to the way in which twigs appear last on the extremities of a branch 1 3 1 , the growth of the plant is not governed by r e s p i r a t i o n , which is the most important feature of the account of embryonic growth, nor is there anything to correspond, in the case of the infant, to the way in which vertical growth in the plant is regulated by heat and cold (26, 1 f. 75, 6 - 2 1 Joly = VII 526, 6 - 1 9 Li.). Admittedly, the latter process may have appeared to the author to be sufficiently like the process of respiration (which also involves heat and cold); also the plant, like the infant, grows by the attraction of fluid and (if we add the evidence of chapter 34), the attraction of similars is a factor in the growth of plants, just as it is in the growth of the human embryo. Besides, the germination of the plant through pneuma is very similar to the production of the umbilicus in the embryo. Possibly these are the features which impressed the author with the closeness of the analogy. But in any case, the botanical excursus of chapters 22—27 is a particularly illuminating example of the author's use of analogy, since the growth of plants is i t s e l f e x p l a i n e d by reference to the general principles or laws which underly the embryology. The analogy is " c l o s e " because it provides an example of the successful explanatory use of such principles in a different department of nature. It too is therefore an ίστόριον of the truth of the author's account, and its evidential value depends on the existence of general principles or laws. The use of analogy as evidence is not incompatible with other functions. There are several of these, and in any particular case of analogy the uses shade into one another, instead of being sharply distinct. This often makes them difficult to analyse. One of these functions is illustration: the

130 131

17,12. 59,17 Joly = VII 498, 3f. Li. 19,1. 6 4 , 1 2 - 1 4 Joly = VII 5 0 6 , 6 - 8 Li.

84

Introduction

analogy illustrates the process described in the same ways that a poet's simile illustrates a narrative or descriptive passage, or his metaphor conveys all the subtle interconnexions and implications of a situation. For the poet, as well as the scientist, aims at the exact. When the poet is also a scientist, we can see the identity of aim with particular clearness: the work of Lucretius is full of examples of this kind. It may be, not simply more " p o e t i c " in a conventional sense, but more e x a c t to say "she melted into tears" than to say "she started to c r y " — she may have been cold, unable to weep,' the warmth of old memories has called forth her tears, this may presage a hopeful change, like that of spring: consider, in this respect, the simile in Homer O d . τ 203—209. Thus in chapter 21, where the author describes how the pressure of the womb on the omentum forces it to exude milk into the breast, the general principle which gives the analogy its confirmatory value is that pressure causes displacement; so general a principle might be illustrated in a wide variety of ways, but the author chooses a process and materials which give an exact impression of the process he means: the exudation of previously absorbed oil from a hide under pressure. This illustrative function appears clearly in chapter 51, in which the separation of the four humours resulting from disturbance caused by heat is illustrated by comparison with a process of butter and cheese making used by the Scyths. The example is rather recherche, for there were examples nearer at hand, and the principle which it exemplifies — that the movement of a homogeneous mass results in the separating out (άπόκρισις) of distinct elements — is one of the oldest in Greek science, and it is taken for granted without illustration by the author in chapter 1. But the choice of the analogy here is dictated by the particular similarity of the process to what it illustrates: three distinct elements are separated — although the correspondence would have been closer if there had been four. Here the analogy is neither heuristic — although some such comparison may have originally suggested the idea to Anaximander or whoever used it first —, nor is it evidential, except in a minor way. It is mainly illustrative, and the churning process might be described as an illustrative model. This function explains why the author sometimes uses analogy where it is strictly unnecessary: in chapter 9 for example. For given that the womb is a container, and that what it contains is a growing embryo, then the author does not need either to confirm or to illustrate his statement that the womb may constrict or otherwise affect the growth of the embryo. But the example of the cucumber in the vessel makes his meaning more precise, particularly in the respect that (as he alleges) the plant strives in its growth to match (9, 3. 51, 4 f . Joly = V I I 482, 16 Li.) the size of the container. This illustrative function is particularly obvious in those comparisons which involve the construction of a piece of apparatus: they provide a model, analogous to a diagram, of an obscure and complex process. But since they can be at will repeated, under varying conditions, they also

The author's scientific method

85

approach the status of tests or experiments. There is no evidence however that the author intended them in that way: for him they remain models. The relationship between described process, analogue, and general principle might be set out in this way: General principle A, Exemplifies

Analogue

y'

\

• Illustrates

Confirms

ο Statement

N o w one side of the triangle will be more important, now another, sometimes (as in chapter 12) all three. To illustrate, and to provide evidence by reference to a general principle, are probably not distinct functions from the author's point of view. Both might be regarded as giving clarity and coherence to the account, and the account which is clear and coherent (σαφής λόγος) is p r i m a f a c i e true or at least plausible. Analogy contributes to this plausibility in yet another way, by something that might be called a semantic function. At its simplest level, the analogy may provide words and phrases to convey an idea for which no distinct terminology exists. The baby is born with limbs, with fingers and toes. The process by which these are differentiated out from a formless mass of flesh is not one which is normally described. The author chooses the word "branching" (όζοϋσθαι, διοζοϋσθαι 19, 1. 64, 12 Joly = VII 506, 7Li.; 19, 1. 64, 14 Joly = VII 506, 9 Li.; cf. 17, 2. 59, 17Joly = VII 498, 3 Li.), and it is difficult to see what other word he could have chosen. The use of analogy here is simply an instance of the way in which language normally extends its range of meaning by metaphor. But we can see, in a larger instance, how this characteristic of language enables the author to produce a scientific description — or, if we like, inevitably misleads him into an erroneous theory. The metaphor may be implicit in such language (often uncompromising enough material) as he already disposes of to build his account. The instance is that of fever. H o w can one get a notion of, and describe, what goes on in the body when a patient sweats, shivers, feels hot to the touch, tosses and turns? N o w fever in Greek is simply "fire" (πΰρ): some unfortunate speaker of Greek must have said, long ago, the equivalent of "I'm on fire": or more likely "The fire has got into me" (meaning not simply "I'm very hot" but "I am hot with a heat unlike all, different from any, other heat ever experienced in my body"). This makes it easy to construct a theory of fever as a process, simply by applying the semantic associations 132 (some of which are themselves metaphorical) of fire. Thus 132

Discussing a rather different case Max Black calls them "associated commonplaces" (Black p. 40); the whole chapter is valuable.

86

Introduction

fire burns fuel, spreads (νέμεται: perhaps itself a metaphor from the slow progression forward of a herd of grazing animals, which includes both the notion of movement and the notion of being fed on something), is extinguished or "stifled" and so on. All these things can be, or are automatically, said of fire qua fever. For this reason the author's account of fever is a whole sustained metaphor; and it is notable that he uses only one minor comparison in those chapters (chapters 42—49). Fever being like fire, or a kind of fire, one need ask no more why fever behaves in the way it does, or the way in which the author says that it does. This is to look at the matter from the point of view of the audience. But for the author also, the similarity between fire and fever, given in the language, enables him to construct a plausible account of it. He, too, need " a s k no more". Analogy is often a way of blocking further enquiry: this is indeed its chief disadvantage. NOTE: The reader may feel that more should have been said in the foregoing section about the author's observation of the clutch of eggs. It is indeed strikingly successful in itself, and it puts the author at the beginning of a development which includes the names of Aristotle, Aldrovandus and Coiter, Fabricius ab Aquapendente, Harvey and von Baer. But I am concerned here with (a) the extent to which the author is conscious of his method, and (b) what can be said about his use of analogy in general. From this point of view, despite the success of the observation and its historical importance, it is only one instance among several. I hope however that justice has been done to the experiment in the commentary itself, where it will be seen how closely the author's account of embryological development depends upon his observation of what goes on in the hatching egg. Often indeed that account only becomes clear when we think in terms of the developing chick, as it was described by Coiter (because the conditions under which he observed correspond more closely to the author's conditions than those implied in a modern textbook account) and illustrated in the famous plates of Fabricius. But to lay too great a stress on this particular observation, at the expense of the others, would give a false impression of the author's science. From the point of view of method, what is the most interesting aspect of the observation is its intricate interlacing of observed fact (e.g. the multiple membranes) with quite traditional dogmas about physical processes in general, and embryological processes in particular. The author has indeed observed, and observed closely, but always within a conceptual context without which his observations would have been meaningless, and without which he could not have "told the story" of the development of the child, however firmly grounded upon observation that story may be. The whole passage deserves deep meditation by anyone interested in the history and method of science (and not merely of early Greek science), and I hope that some assistance towards this end has been provided in the commentary.

APPENDIX 1. Vascular systems in this treatise and in the remainder of the Hippocratic Collection "Die Notwendigkeit, sich den Bau des Körpers so vorzustellen, daß er der Säftelehre entspricht, bestimmt fast alle anatomischen Betrachtungen, auch anderer Organe." — O . Temkin 1 . The author of Genit. gives no definite description of a venous system. Veins and nerves extend from all parts of the body to the penis in males, and to the womb in females2. In females there is also a vascular connexion between the womb and the breasts3. The spinal marrow is similarly connected to all parts of the body 4 . Passages (όδοί), which may be regarded as veins, extend from the spine, alongside the kidneys, and through the testicles to the penis5. The spine is further connected to the head by vessels which pass alongside the ears6. Veins terminate in the fingers and toes; here they are very slender, while in the rest of the body they are thicker (παχύταται), being largest in the trunk and the head, then in the legs and arms7. In Morb. IV there are vessels extending throughout the body, some thinner, some thicker 8 ; the four main reservoirs of the humours are connected with the stomach and with the remainder of the body by these vessels (ib.). The heart is the source of blood (τω αί'ματι πηγή) 9 . From the heart extend thick (παχεΐαι) veins, called σφαγιαι 10 ; these lead off any surplus of blood to the head and to the rest of the body. The one thing that is clear in these passages is that the author is only interested in a venous system so far as it provides for intercommunication between all parts of the body. It is therefore quite possible that his descriptions of veins may have been formulated ad hoc, to satisfy his requirements in a particular passage. Such an apparently unscientific procedure would not be surprising in the Hippocratic Collection, and it

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Temkin Zusammenhang p. 30. Genit. 2,3. 4 6 , 3 - 5 Joly = VII 4 7 2 , 2 0 - 2 2 Li.; cf. N a t . Puer. 2 0 , 2 . 6 5 , 1 4 - 1 6 Joly = VII 5 0 8 , 4 - 6 Li. Nat. Puer. 21,4. 6 8 , 7 - 9 Joly = VII 5 1 2 , 1 9 f . Li. Genit. 1,2. 4 4 , 1 6 - 2 0 Joly = VII 4 7 0 , 1 3 - 1 6 Li. Genit. 1,3. 4 4 , 2 0 - 4 5 , 2 Joly = VII 4 7 0 , 1 6 - 2 0 Li.; 2,1. 4 5 , 1 2 f . Joly = VII 4 7 2 , 6 Li. Genit. 2,2. 4 5 , 1 9 - 2 2 Joly = VII 4 7 2 , 1 2 - 1 5 Li. Nat. Puer. 19,2. 6 4 , 1 6 - 2 2 Joly = VII 5 0 6 , 1 0 - 1 4 Li. Morb. IV 39,2. 9 3 , 3 - 5 Joly = VII 5 5 8 , 6 f . Li. Morb. IV 33,2. 8 5 , 8 f . Joly = VII 5 4 4 , 7 f . Li.; 40,2. 94,22 Joly = VII 5 6 0 , 1 6 f . Li. Morb. IV 40,2. 9 4 , 2 6 f. Joly = VII 560,20 f. Li.

88

Appendix

would be quite consistent with the tendency in these authors to multiply hypotheses, which hypotheses are then in their turn used as evidence guaranteeing the correctness of the author's general theory. We need not make this assumption however if it can be shown that what the author says about veins is quite consistent, allowing for some modifications, with one particular system described elsewhere. Venous systems are described or referred to, in greater or less detail, in the following passages: Artie. 45. 171,18-172,3 Kw. = IV 190,7-11 Li.; Epid. II 4,1. 120,13-124,8 Li.; Nat. Horn. 11,1-5. 192,15-196,10 Jou. = VI 58,1-60,14 Li.; Loc. Horn. 3. VI 280,10-282,25 Li.; Morb. Sacr. 3 , 3 - 7 . 68,26-39 Gr. = VI 366,10-25 Li.; Cam. 5 , 1 - 4 . 6,22-8,8 De. = VIII 590,5-24 Li.; Alim. 31. 144,15-17 Joly = IX 110,1-3 Li.; Oss. 1 - 7 . IX 168,2-174,3 Li. and 11-19. IX 182,1-196,11 Li.; Cord. passim 11 . Certain of these passages are automatically excluded from consideration. The doctrine in Cord, that the heart is centre of the vascular system, together with the physiology associated with that doctrine, are inconsistent with Genit. Nor does Genit. show any trace of the distinction between veins and arteries which is recognized with more or less clarity in Carn. 5, Artie. 45, Epid. II 4,1, Alim. 31, Oss. 1 — 7. The systems which might be consistent with Genit. are those in Loc. Horn., Oss. 11, Morb. Sacr., Nat. Horn. (Polybus), and, outside the Collection, that of Diogenes of Apollonia 12 . Most of these systems are mutually inconsistent, but certain details of each resemble Genit. Polybus 13 recognizes the σφάγιαι of Genit., calling them σφαγίτιδες: these pass by the ears, run along the spine, through the loins to the testicles, thence to the legs. On the other hand, Polybus does not mention any connexion of these with the heart, which is essential in Morb. IV, while the name prevents us from identifying them with the veins running past the ears in Genit. 2. Two of Polybus' pairs of veins are connected with the liver and the spleen, which organs are important in Morb. IV. Moreover, Polybus 14 provides for communication between the stomach and all other parts of the body in language very similar to that of Morb. IV 39 1 S ; but this passage seems to include a distinction between what Polybus calls the thick (παχεΐαι) veins, and those which distribute the food from the stomach: such a distinction would be quite foreign to the physiology of Morb. IV. Loc. Horn. 3 similarly provides for a communication of vessels with each other 16 . Another similarity to Genit. appears in Loc. Horn. 3. VI 282, 8 - 1 5 Li.: two veins pass by the ears, emptying into the hollow vein (κοίλην φλέβα), which in turn passes 11 12 13 14 15 16

Cord. 1 - 1 2 . IX 80,1-92,4 Li. VS 64 Β 6. Nat. Horn. 11,2. 194,4-8 Jou. = VI 5 8 , 7 - 1 2 Li. Nat. Horn. 11,5. 196,7-10 Jou. = VI 6 0 , 1 1 - 1 4 Li. Morb. IV 3 9 , 1 - 5 . 92,12-94,9 Joly = VII 556,15-560,6 Li. Loc. Horn. 3. VI 282,22f. Li.

Vascular systems in the Hippocratic Collection

89

through the heart and separates again into the loins and the thighs: when these veins are cut, a man becomes sterile. However it is not this pair of veins, but another pair 1 7 which is connected with the genitals, via the spine and kidneys, and which when damaged causes haematuria. And on the whole Loc. Horn. 3 is distinct f r o m Genit. in its scheme of pairs of veins which unite in, and separate from, the hollow vein which is central to the whole system. There are some similarities again between Oss. 14 and 15 18 and Genit. The main vessel 19 in Oss. is bound to the spine like ivy (έγκισσεύεται, Oss. 14. IX 186,21 Li.), and veins run from all parts of the body into the spine, conveying what is most subtle and most pure20. Thereafter this central vein is connected with the kidneys, bladder, testicles and epididymi (not recognized in Genit.), and finally it becomes the penis. In women it is connected with the womb. With this system the author connects a sexual physiology which closely resembles that of Genit. Moreover this vein passes through the heart in its course downward f r o m the head via the lungs; and in its return course upwards it divides into two branches, of which one passes through the liver, the other through the spleen 21 . But the author associates his venous system with the belief that fluids pass into the lung 2 2 ; and in general, his concept of one central vein passing through the body, of which all others are branches and tributaries, distinguishes his system sharply from that of Genit.; so too does the physiology which his system implies (cf. Littre's remarks on chapter 19 23 ). The systems of Loc. Horn., Oss. and N a t . Horn, appear to be individual systems, although they have certain features in common. Between the first two and Genit. there are significant inconsistencies. The inconsistency between Genit. and N a t . Horn, is rather less, but still present. Wellmann 2 4 showed that the system described by Diogenes and in Morb. Sacr. 3 agree point for point, allowing for the fact that Morb. Sacr. does not aim at completeness. Using Wellmann's comparison, we can find a similar agreement between Diogenes' system and the relevant passages of Genit./Nat. Puer./Morb. IV. 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24

Loc. Horn. 3. VI 2 8 2 , 3 - 6 Li. Oss. 1 4 - 1 5 . IX 186,17-190,9 Li. I understand the author in chapters 12 — 19 to be describing one principal vein, to which the phrases ή φλέψ (Oss. 12. IX 182,10 Li. and 14. IX 186,17 Li.), ή άρχαίη φλέψ (Oss. 13. IX 184,14 Li. [? the original vein, the one which the author was originally describing at the beginning of the previous chapter]), αύτής (Oss. 15. IX 188,8 Li.), έκείνη (Oss. 16. IX 190,10 Li.), αύτη (Oss. 17. IX 192,3 Li.) at the beginning of each chapter refer. Harris assumes that the author is describing different vessels: see his discussion (Harris pp. 5 0 - 7 3 ) . Oss. 14. IX 186,23 f. Li. Oss. 18. IX 192,17-194,20 Li. Oss. 13. IX 184,14-186,16 Li. Contrast Morb. IV 56, where this belief is refuted. Littre Hippocrate vol. IX p. 197. Wellmann Schrift p. 295.

90

Appendix

Diogenes (YS 64 Β 6)

Morb. Sacr. 3,2-8

II 63,1 f. δύο μέγισται

3,3. 68,27 Gr. = VI 366,11 f. Li. δύο δε παχεΐαι

II 63,4f. άνω εις την κεφαλήν παρά τάς κλείδας δια των σφαγών

3,6. 68,33 Gr. = VI 366,17f. Li. άνω φέρει διά της κληίδος ές τά δεξιά τοϋ αύχένος

II 63,5f. από δέ τούτων καθ' άπαν το σώμα φλέβες διατείνουσιν II 63,8 μέγισται μεν δύο εις την καρδίαν

3,6. 68,32 Gr. = VI 366,16f. Li. άπέσχισται δέ και ές την καρδίην

II 63,11 καλείται ή μεν σπληνΐτις, ή δέ ήπατΐτις II 63,14-17 έτεραι δέ λεπτότεραι άπο των πρώτων φλεβών τείνουσιν άπο μεν της δεξιάς εις το ήπαρ, άπο δέ της άριστεράς εις τον σπλήνα και τους νεφρούς

3,3. 68,27f. Gr. = VI 366,12 Li. ή μεν άπο ήπατος, ή δέ άπο τού σπληνός

II 64,9f. αί δ' εις τήν κεφαλήν τείνουσαι διά τών σφαγών φαίνονται έν τφ αύχένι μεγάλαι

3,6. 68,34f. Gr.= VI 366,19f. Li. ώστε κατάδηλος έ σ τ ι . . . το μεν παχύτατον και μέγιστον και κοιλότατον ές τον έγκέφαλον τελευτφ

II 64,J3f. τελευτώσι δέ παρά το οΰς έκάτεραι

3,6. 68,34 Gr. = VI 366,19 Li. παρ' αύτο δέ το οΰς κρύπτεται

Vascular systems in the Hippocratic Collection

91

Genit. 1 - 2 / N a t . Puer. 19/Morb. IV 38-39 Morb. IV 38,1. 91,17 Joly = VII 554,21 Li. παχεΐαι φλέβες Morb. IV 38,1. 91,20 Joly = VII 554,23 Li. πιμπλάμεναι tfj κεφαλή . . . διδόασιν Morb. IV 38,1. 91,18 Joly = VII 554,22 Li. at σφάγιαι καλεόμεναι Morb. IV 39,2. 93,3f. Joly = VII 558,6f. Li. φλέβες . . . δια παντός τοϋ σώματος

Morb. IV 38,1. 91,17f. Joly = VII 554,21 Li. εξ αυτής (sc. τής καρδίης) παχεΐαι φλέβες τείνουσιν

[spleen, liver, in Morb. IV]

Nat. Puer. 19,2. 64,18f. Joly = VII 509,11 f. Li. παχύταται μεν είσιν . . . αί έν τή κεφαλή

Genit. 2,2. 45,21 f. Joly = VII 472,13-15 Li. χωρεί γαρ το πλείστον (sc. τοϋ γόνου) άπο τής κεφαλής, παρά τά ουατα ες τον νωτιαΐον μυελόν

92

Appendix

Diogenes (YS 64 Β 6)

Morb. Sacr. 3 , 2 - 8

II 65,4-12 έτεραι δ' είσιν αι άπό έκατέρας τείνουσαι δια τοϋ νωτιαίου μυελοϋ είς τους όρχεις λεπταί, έτεραι δε υπό το δέρμα και δια της σαρκός τείνουσιν είς τους νεφρούς, και τελευτώσιν είς τους όρχεις τοις άνδράσι, ταϊς δέ γυναιξιν είς τάς υστέρας . . . αύται δέ σπερματίτιδες καλούνται.

3,4. 68,29f. Gr. = VI 366,14 Li. παρ' αυτόν τον νεφρόν και την ψόην

II 63,13f. άπό δέ τούτων λεπται και πολύοζοι έπι την άλλην χείρα και δακτύλους II 65,8-10 αϊ δέ φλέβες αί μεν πρώται έκ της κοιλίας εύρύτεραί είσιν, έπειτα λεπτότεραι γίγνονται κτλ.

The system described by Diogenes is not his own, since it uses a terminology already established when he wrote 241 , and moreover implies a theory of reproduction in which the female as well as the male secretes sperm, which is inconsistent with the theory held by Diogenes himself. It seems to be taken from a medical source which was interested in the venous system from the point of view of therapy 25 or diagnosis. This is a characteristic which is shared by several of these descriptions: cf. Nat. Horn. 11,6. 196,10-13 Jou. = VI 60,14-17 Li.; Loc. Horn. 3. VI 282,6 Li.; Oss. 12. IX 182,21-184,5 Li. and Genit. itself (Genit. 1,3. 44,21-45,1 Joly = VII 470,17—19 Li.). Wellmann ascribed the system to Alcmaeon; but while Alcmaeon may have held it, there is no reason to suppose that he invented it. This system, the hepatitis/splenitis system, seems indeed to have been generally accepted in the Cnidian treatises. There it appears, as one would expect, in connexion with therapy and aetiology. The hepatitis

241 25

Cf. VS 64 Β 6. II p. 65,5-12 Diels-Kranz and Diels' note on line 11. Cf. VS 64 Β 6. II p. 65,If. Diels-Kranz.

Vascular systems in the Hippocratic Collection

93

Genit. 1 - 2 / N a t . Puer. 19/Morb. IV 3 8 - 3 9 Genit. 1,2. 44,16f. Joly = VII 470,13f. Li. τείνει γαρ καΐ ες τούτον (sc. τον νωτιαΐον μυελόν) έκ παντός τοΰ σώματος Genit. 1,3. 44,21-45,2 Joly = VII 470,17-19 Li. παρά τους νεφρούς· ταύτη γαρ ή όδός έστι δια φλεβών . . . παρά δε των νεφρών ερχεται δια των όρχίων μεσάτων

Nat. Puer. 19,2. 64,16-18 Joly = VII 506,10f. Li. τελευτώσι γαρ αί φλέβες . . . πάσαι ες τους δακτύλους τών ποδών και τών χειρών

Nat. Puer. 19,2. 64,18-21 Joly = VII 506,11-14 Li. παχύταται μεν είσιν αί έν τω σώματι φλέβες έν τή κεφαλή, έπειτα . . . λεπτόταται

and splenitis are named and described in Morb. I 26 and 2 8 26 and in Int. 18 the author speaks of the hollow veins which extend from the head along the neck (σφαγαί), through the spine into the heel and the mid-part of the great toe These veins are full of blood (VII 210,7—12 Li.). He is describing a disease which he calls nephritis; the pain in the disease follows the course of the vein (as it is explicitly said to do in Morb. I 26), and in his therapy he includes a recommendation of cautery all along the vein. In Int. 19 he says that another form of this disease comes from the vein on the left (από της άριστερής φλεβός; VII 214,5 Li.). This variety is associated with pain in the spleen; the two veins are obviously the hepatitis and splenitis of the passage from Diogenes. Descriptions of the places in which pain is felt in the Cnidian treatises seem to be dependent on the course which these veins were thought to follow: thus in Morb. Ill 15,1. 82,24f. Po. = VII 136,13f. Li. pain in pneumonia travels under the shoulder blade and to the collar bone and to the nipple (cf. Diogenes, VS 64 Β 6).

26

M o r b . I 26. 7 8 , 8 - 1 1 Wi. = VI 1 9 4 , 7 - 9 Li.; 28. 8 2 , 8 - 1 0 Wi. = VI 1 9 6 , 1 4 - 1 6 Li.

94

Appendix

A similar course of pain is described in Int. 25. VII 230, 8—10 Li.: here the disease is dropsy originating from the spleen, and the pain follows the course of the splenitis. In his therapy the author includes bleeding from the i n n e r vein of the left elbow (VII 250,5f. Li.). With this precise instruction, cf. Diogenes 27 . Similarly the author of Aff. 20. VI 230,8 Li. advises frequent bleeding from the splenitis in affections of the spleen. The system is also associated with the uro-genital system in Morb. I 26. 78,19—21 Wi. = VI 194,16f. Li. 2 8 and Morb. Ill 16,5. 88,11-13 Po. = VII 144,7-9 Li., just as it is in Diogenes and in Genit. These treatises are practical manuals, not theoretical discussions like Morb. Sacr. and Genit. Correspondingly, the use of the splenitis/hepatitis system made by these latter is somewhat different. They do not need to be precise about the system, except where it suits their polemic or explanatory purpose. Thus, just as the author of Morb. Sacr. can refer to the system in explaining how it is that the most important diseases, including epilepsy, come from the head, and can say vessels extend to the head from all parts of the body (Morb. Sacr. 3,3. 68,26f. Gr. = VI 366,10f. Li.); so too can the author of Genit. use it to support the theory of pangenesis: veins extend to the penis from all parts of the body (Genit. 1,1. 44,6f. Joly = VII 470,5f. Li.), or to explain the part played by the spine in generation (Genit. 1,2. 44,16f. Joly = VII 470,13f. Li.). There are of course traces of the splenitis/ hepatitis system in other, non-Cnidian treatises; in Nat. Horn, for example. The speculations of later writers seem to have developed from the system; in particular, as Fredrich 29 showed, the later distinction between veins and arteries developed out of the distinction between the splenitis and the hepatitis, for the latter became the vena cava. We can see the process beginning already in Morb. Sacr. It is not surprising that there should be points of agreement between all these works. But the closest agreement is between Diogenes, Morb. Sacr. and Genit. The system they have in common is the splenitis/hepatitis system of the Cnidian treatises, a system which is older than any of them, and which is clearly related to therapeutic usage. In particular, the existence of this system is not without relevance to the humoral theory of Morb. IV, which lays especial emphasis on the spleen. 2. Does the oldest venous system in Greek medicine begin the veins in the head? Aristotle in H A 3 , 2 . 5 1 1 b , 11—513a, 14 in turning to the question of the disposition of veins in the body, gives in his usual manner a survey of 27 28 29

VS 64 Β 6. II p. 6 5 , 1 - 2 D i e l s - K r a n z . Cf. Morb. II 44. VII 62,4 Li. Fredrich Untersuchungen pp. 66—75.

Does the oldest venous system begin the veins in the head?

95

preceding theories. He quotes from Syennesis of Cyprus (cf. Oss. 8. IX 174,3 — 12 Li.), Diogenes of Apollonia, and Polybus ( = Nat. Horn. 11,1-6. 192,15-196,15 Jou. = VI 58,1-60,20 Li. [= Oss. 9. IX 174,13 — 178,2 Li.]). H e then remarks The above quotations sum up pretty well the statements of all previous writers. Furthermore, there are some writers on Natural History who have not ventured to lay down the law in such precise terms as regards the veins, but who all alike agree in assigning the head and the brain as the starting point (αρχή) of the veins30. Littre detected in this passage a possible relevance to the problem of dating treatises in the Hippocratic Collection. Those treatises which make the vessels originate in the heart are post-Aristotelian. Littre notes 3 1 that Aristotle is not quite accurate in saying that Diogenes made the vessels originate in the head; nevertheless he accepts Aristotle's dictum as being in the main true. The point which was remarked upon by Littre was again noticed by Fredrich in his valuable study of the problem of venous systems in the Hippocratic Collection 32 : i.e. that Diogenes places the centre of his system in the κοιλίη, not the head 33 . Fredrich introduced several other important qualifications to the simple statement of Aristotle. He distinguishes 34 four kinds of venous system in the Hippocratic Collection: (1) those in which the blood vessels are supposed to originate in the head; (2) those in which the κοιλίη is the centre; (3) those in which the heart is regarded as significant, without being the origin; (4) those which lead all blood vessels from the heart. Fredrich continues to regard the first group as the oldest, although the original reason for doing so (Aristotle's statement) has been considerably damaged. Fredrich suggested 35 that this oldest system might go back to Alcmaeon; his grounds were the supposed distinction made by Alcmaeon between veins which contain blood (αίμορρόοι φλέβες) and those which do not 3 6 , and the importance which Alcmaeon ascribed to the head in his theory of sense perception. This suggestion was received enthusiastically by Wellmann 37 , who identified the system in Morb. Sacr. with that of Alcmaeon. More recently, the view that the oldest system of blood vessels begins in the head is taken for granted by E. Lesky 38 . Of the three authors whom Aristotle quotes, only one, Polybus, begins the vessels in the head; Syennesis, depending on the MS. reading one

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Thompson Arist. H A 3,3. 513a, 7 - 1 2 . Cf. also PA 3,4. 6 6 5 b , 2 7 f . Littre Hippocrate vol. I p. 220; cf. vol. IX pp. 1 6 3 - 1 6 5 . Fredrich Untersuchungen pp. 57—80. Fredrich Untersuchungen p. 63. Fredrich Untersuchungen p. 74. Fredrich Untersuchungen p. 67. Cf. VS 24 A 18. Wellmann Schrift pp. 295f. Lesky pp. 1 2 3 7 - 1 2 4 2 .

96

Appendix

prefers, begins either with the navel or the eye: the former is better 3 9 ; but even if we adopt the latter reading, the eye cannot be an άρχή in Aristotle's sense. If Aristotle wished to support his case by quoting these three authors, his choice was singularly inept. But in fact it is doubtful whether he did quote them to support such a case: the remark on those who begin the vessels in the head comes after the quotations, and is not necessarily to be interpreted, with Fredrich and others, as referring to them. Even if we do so interpret it, it would not be surprising to find Aristotle falsifying, or rather schematizing the evidence, in order to bring out by contrast the precise nature of his own view ("previous thinkers hold that the head is άρχή of the blood vessels, but in fact it is the heart"). A good example occurs in Resp. 1.470b,6, discussed by Abel 4 0 . We can perhaps leave Aristotle in peace, and see what other evidence there is for theories which begin the vessels in the head, and whether such theories are early. We find such evidence in Polybus, in Loc. Horn., and in Oss. 11 — 19. I X 182,1 — 196,11 Li. All these passages might be regarded as beginning the course of blood vessels in the head — although none actually makes the statement that any vessel has its άρχή in the head. None of these passages is early, although they all undoubtedly include earlier material: that is to say, where they agree with Diogenes, who does not begin the vessels in the head. Polybus was Hippocrates' son-in-law and pupil, according to the tradition. Oss. is a compilation in existence as such by 200 B . C . 4 1 , of which chapters 11—end are a self-contained and independent part whose doctrines are inconsistent with those of chapters 1 — 7. It may be early, but the vocabulary, style and eclecticism of its doctrine suggest a relatively late date. Loc. Horn, is certainly late: cf. the study by Konrad Schubring 4 2 . But is it even accurate to say that these, later, passages begin the course of the blood vessels in the head? N o t one of them says that the blood vessels have their origin, άρχονται, in the head. Indeed Oss. 11 disclaims any knowledge of where his principle vessel begins, ήρκται ( I X 182,5 Li.). Rather, they use such expressions as άπό (έκ) της κεφαλής (κορυφής) άφικνεΐται (φέρεται) it comes (travels) from (out of) the head (the crown) (cf. e. g. Loc. Horn. 3. VI 280,11 L i . ; Nat. Horn. 11,1. 192,16Jou. = VI 58,2 Li.). That is to say, they begin their description of the course of the blood vessels with the head, which is a very different matter from saying that these vessels have their origin, in an anatomical, physiological, or embryological sense, in the head. And where would a Greek medical writer more naturally begin a descrip-

39

40 41 42

Cf. D. W . Thompson's comment on H A 3,2. 5 7 1 b , 2 5 in his translation. MSS. vary between έκ τοϋ όφθαλμοϋ from the eye, and έκ τού όμφαλοΰ from the navel. Abel p. 200. Cf. Abel p. 204. Schubring pp. 7 3 9 - 7 4 4 .

Does the oldest venous system begin the veins in the head?

97

tion of the course of the blood vessels than from the head — in the timehonoured system a capite ad calcem 4 3 ? There is then no positive evidence that any Greek medical or scientific writer, and certainly any early writer, ever held the theory that the blood vessels originate in the head. The view that such a theory ever was held, is the product of an historical schematization by Aristotle — fertile like so many of his historical schemes in propagating error. There is however evidence against the existence of such a theory. In Morb. Sacr. 3 the author begins his account of epilepsy by saying that the brain is the cause of this disease, just as it is of the other most important diseases*4. The description of the veins which follows — and which, as Wellmann showed, is identical with the system of Diogenes — gives his reasons for this statement: it is brought in with that intention, and its details are selected for that purpose. We might then expect the author to say "all the veins begin in the brain". He does nothing of the sort: what he says instead is that vessels extend to the brain from all parts of the body 4 5 . But if this is evidence for a theory that all the vessels begin in the brain, what are we to make of the statement by the author of Genit. 1 that veins extend from all parts of the body to the penis 4 6 ? The oldest venous system in early Greek medicine of which we know is the hepatitis/splenitis system, described by Diogenes but not invented by him, and used in various ways by the authors of Morb. Sacr., Genit., and the Cnidian treatises. It does not begin the blood vessels in the head: if they begin anywhere, they begin in the spleen and the liver — as indeed the author of Morb. Sacr. says 4 7 . But in truth, early writers were probably not interested in the typically Aristotelian question of άρχαί.

43

44 45

46 47

Cf. Diller Lehre p. 2 1 8 : the author of Oss. "kann . . . wenn auch nicht sein Adersystem, so doch dessen Beschreibung . . . im Kopf beginnen lassen." Morb. Sacr. 3 , 1 . 68,21 f. Gr. = VI 3 6 6 , 5 f . Li. In Morb. Sacr. 17,7. 8 6 , 3 f . Gr. = VI 3 9 2 , 1 7 f . Li. the author makes the same remark of the heart. F o r the genuineness of chapters 14—17 see Grensemann in his edition of Morb. Sacr. pp. 9 8 - 1 0 1 . Genit. 1,1. 4 4 , 6 f . Joly = VII 4 7 0 , 5 f . Li. Morb. Sacr. 3,3. 6 8 , 2 7 f . Gr. = VI 366,12 Li.

COMMENTARY

On Generation Chapter 1 The author begins with a causal account of the production and origin of sperm. Sperm is drawn from all parts of the body, being secreted as the result of a physiological disturbance caused by the movement of copulation. This secretion is conveyed to the spinal marrow and from there to the genital organs by vessels which extend there from all parts of the body. None of the physiological processes described in this chapter can have been directly observed. The author's account is made up of a number of elements which were available to him in the science of his time; these elements certainly originate in some kind of observation, but it is perhaps more important that they have become sufficiently established for him to take them for granted with no more than an occasional appeal to observation 1 . In the first place he avails himself of a basic principle which has wide application in early Greek scientific theory: disturbance (κίνησις, κλόνησις) of matter in a fluid state results in the secretion or separating off (άπόκρισις) of part of that matter. The earliest recorded use of this principle is in Anaximander who used it to explain how the "opposites" from which the world is formed are separated off from the indeterminate mass (άπειρον) which pre-exists the world. The cause is the "eternal motion" of the άπειρον 2 . We cannot tell whether Anaximander himself felt bound to justify this assumption, but it is unlikely that he did, since later writers also employed it without comment so far as we know. In Anaxagoras 3 it is the revolution (περιχώρησις) initiated by Mind which causes the separating off (άποκρίνεσθαι) of the dense from the rare, the hot from the cold, the bright from the dark, and the dry from the moist 4 . Democritus apparently referred to the vortex and movement which distinguished (διακρίνασαν) and established the whole in its present order (VS 68 A 69); in Diogenes of Apollonia the motion of the whole (τοΰ παντός κινουμένου) set up a process of rarefaction and condensation which led to the separation of different densities (VS 64 A 6); here Diogenes seems to have been influenced by Anaximenes, who employed the principles of rarefaction and condensation but, like all these thinkers, ascribed this process to eternal movement (VS 1 2 3 4

Cf. Introduction pp. 62 f. VS 12 A 10. VS 59 Β 12. Cf. VS 59 Β 13 and VS 59 Β 9 where the separating force is caused by the speed of the revolution.

100

Commentary

13 A 5.6). The author of Cam. 2, perhaps writing under the influence of Diogenes, says that when all things were disturbed (δτε έταράχθη πάντα Cam. 2,1.2,12 De. = VIII 584,12 Li.), first aether or fire departed to the outermost revolution, while earth sank downward; air took up a central place, and water the place closest to the earth. The ultimate basis of the principle was no doubt in everyday observation: scum or foam forming on top of disturbed liquids, as the author says here, or the churning of butter, described in chapter 51 s . Although the parallel between the secretion of sperm and the separating out of Anaximander's opposites is close, it is unlikely that the author draws directly upon him. The explanation of disease as the separation of a particular humour which is caused by disturbance (κίνησις in this sense is a technical term) was common medical doctrine, particularly in Cnidian pathology 6 . A humour which is separated in this way is regarded as potent and harmful, since its power is no longer checked by being compounded with other humours or powers (δυνάμεις) 7 . There is a good example in Morb. IV 46,4. 101,28-102,1 Joly = VII 572,25-574,1 Li.: This would not have happened, had not the fluid been disturbed (έταράσσετο); so that secretion (άπεκρίνετο) took place in a greater or lesser quantity, which dominated (έκράτει) now in one place and now in another. Here the three moments τάραξις —» άπόκρισις —» επικράτεια are given in succession. It is perhaps this theory of δύναμις which explains the author's view that sperm is most powerful ίσχυρότατον Genit. 1,1. 44,3 Joly = VII 470,5 Li. But the pre-Socratics tended to think that whatever is separated out first has peculiar properties of life and potency 8 or even of divinity 9 . Even in Aristotle, semen has a mystic property which is related to the "divine" aether 10 . A further assumption which is not found in Anaximander, but is common in medical writers, is the causal relation between heat and disturbance.

5

6

7 8

9 10

Where the only reason that the author needs to go as far afield as Scythia for his example is that he wants a process as analogous as possible to the separating out of his four humours: that there were similar analogies closer at hand is shown by Solon 25,6f.: ούκ αν κάτεσχε δήμον ούδ' έπαΰσατο πρίν ά ν τ α ρ ά ξ α ς πϊαρ έ ξ ε ΐ λ ε ν γάλα He would not have held the commons in check, nor ceased until by whipping up the milk he had extracted the cream. Cf. Nat. Puer. 15,3. 57,22-24 Joly = VII 494,13-15 Li. as an explanation of menstruation; Morb. IV 46,4. 101,28-102,1 Joly = VII 572,25-574,1 Li. - For examples in other treatises, see Aff. 12. VI 220,8-12 Li.; Morb. I 26. 7 6 , 2 - 1 9 Wi. = VI 192,11-26 Li.; Morb. II 5. VII 12,19-14,7 Li. The clearest account occurs in VM 14. Cf. the γόνιμον θερμοϋ τε και ψυχρού that which is productive of heat and cold of Anaximander (VS 12 A 10). The aether or fire which is first separated in Cam. 2,1 is immortal and conscious. Arist. GA 2,3. 7 3 6 b , 3 5 - 7 3 7 a , 1.

O n Generation

101

Compare again chapter 46 and chapter 51. (The process is reciprocal: in Nat. Puer. 18,3.61,20-22 Joly = VII 500,20-502,1 Li., Nat. Puer. 20,5.66,11-14 Joly = VII 5 1 0 , 2 - 5 Li. and Morb. IV 48,2.104,7-9 Joly = VII 576,24—26 Li. it is the disturbance which causes heat.) The connexion heat —» disturbance is particularly common in Cnidian pathology, e. g. Morb. I 27. 8 0 , 2 - 1 0 Wi. = VI 194,19-196,1 Li.; Int. 30. VII 2 4 4 , 6 - 8 Li.; Int. 39. VII 260,23-262,3 Li.; cf. Lonie Treatises pp. 24-28. The author, then, explains the secretion of sperm by appealing to principles of wide application in the medical theory with which he is acquainted. The scientific account of sexual generation grows up in a context of general physiology and pathology. The application however is not necessarily original to the author: it seems to have been made already by Diogenes of Apollonia. According to that medical scientist and philosopher, sperm is a foam of blood which arises from a disturbance (τάραξις) produced by innate heat (εμφυτον θερμόν VS 64 A 24). The physiological explanation of the production of sperm is supported by an anatomical assumption: all the parts of the body are interconnected by vessels. We find the same assumption made in support of the physiology of chapters 3 5 - 4 0 ; see especially 39,2.93,3—8 Joly = VII 588, 6—10 Li. There the assumption is a necessary condition of the author's humoral theory, as it is in other treatises as well 11 ; indeed it would hardly be possible to hold a humoral theory at all without making such an assumption. The form in which it appears here is closely parallel to the form in which it appears Morb. Sacr. 3, where the author assumes that veins extend from all the body to the brain (Morb. Sacr. 3,3.68,26f. Gr. = VII 366,10f. Li.), just as the present author assumes that they extend to the genitals. In both cases the assumption is made in the course of formulating a physiological theory in which the organ concerned has a particular importance. Here if anywhere there was an opportunity to confirm or refute the possible truth of such a theory; but we must remember that in the fifth and fourth centuries anatomical beliefs were, at least in the case of humans, almost as unverifiable as beliefs about physiology; moreover, what could be observed through dissection in the case of animals, and accidentally in the case of humans, would tend to confirm the belief. The author now makes a further assumption whose purpose is less easy to understand: the spinal marrow is connected with the whole body, from which it receives the "foam" or sperm. In particular, material from the brain flows into the marrow. This upsets the economy of the author's theory, and the easiest way to explain it is as an eclectic combination of two prevalent beliefs about the origin of sperm: (i) the belief that it is derived from all parts of the body, the pangenesis doctrine 12 , and (ii) the belief that 11 12

Cf. Temkin Zusammenhang pp. 29—32. Cf. introductory note to chapter 3.

102

Commentary

it is drawn from the brain and spinal marrow. The fullest description of the latter is in Plato, Ti. 73 b—d; cf. ib. 91a—d. The belief is a primitive one 13 , and it is not confined to Europe. In Greece, it seems to have been given its first scientific formulation by Alcmaeon of Croton (VS 24 A 13), but it may also have been held by the early Pythagoreans, to whom it is attributed, not very reliably, by Alexander Polyhistor: sperm is a drop (σταγόνα) from the brain, containing a warm exhalation (VS 58 Β 1 a). The philosopher Hippon of Rhegium, according to Censorinus, claimed to support it by observation of the spinal marrow in animals killed after copulation 14 . All that we are told about Alcmaeon in Aetius is that he described sperm as a portion of the brain (Aetius 5,3,3 = VS 24 A 13); Erna Lesky 15 argues that this must be related to the general importance of the brain in Alcmaeon's system and in particular to the vascular system, which following Wellmann 16 she attributes to him, and according to which all the blood-vessels begin in the head 17 . According to Lesky, the oldest theory of generation in Greek science is thus the encephalo-myelogenic theory as she conveniently calls it; it was formulated by Alcmaeon in relation with the oldest vascular system; and it continues to leave traces even after the success of the pangenesis theory which displaced 18 it. The present passage is an example of the inconsistent survival of the encephalo-myelogenic theory, and so are the remarks on eunuchs in Genit. 2,2.45,19—24 Joly = VII 472,12—16 Li. and Nat. Puer. 20,3f. 65,20-66,7 Joly - VII 508,9-23 Li. 19 . We might regard the passage as a serious blemish, a case in which the author sacrifices the coherence of his theory to his preference for an ancient doctrine. Yet it seems to me to be consistent with the general character of his work. His intention is, rather, to account for the facts as he had learned them from previous science, and to fit those facts into a more comprehensive framework. To express it in modern terms, the encephalomyelogenic theory becomes for him a special case of the wider theory of pangenesis, in which the brain is only one of four sources in the production of sperm; while by the encephalo-myelogenic theory this function is peculiar to the brain. The author's attempt to account for this occurs in chapter 20. There the growth of beards in men is explained by the fluid which descends from the head in sexual intercourse (Nat. Puer. 20,3.65,22f. Joly = VII 508,11 f. Li.). Later in the chapter this fluid is identified with

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Onians pp. 1 0 8 - 1 1 0 . Cens. 5,2 = VS 38 A 12. Lesky pp. 1237f. Wellmann Schrift pp. 295f. Cf. however, Appendix on "Vascular Systems in the Hippocratic Collection". Cf. Lesky pp. 1237-1247. For further instances of the survival, cf. Morb. II 5. VII 1 4 , 4 - 6 Li. with Morb. II 1. VII 8,3f. Li.; Pseudo-Arist. Pr. 10,57. 8 9 7 b , 2 5 f .

O n Generation

103

phlegm 2 0 . In other words, phlegm is an essential ingredient of sperm, and so far Alcmaeon was correct. H e was even correct in supposing that the head had a particular importance in the production of sperm, since the greatest part of the sperm comes from the brain (Genit. 2,2.45,21 f. J o l y = V I I 472,13f. Li.). There is a clue to the author's reasoning here in [Aristotle] Pr. 1,50.865a, 3 3 f . : semen is a phlegm-like substance 21 . In the same way, the encephalo-myelogenic theory is correct in giving a special function to the spine, but incorrect in supposing that this function is to produce or even merely to convey semen. Its function, which is analogous to the function of the reservoirs πηγαί described in Morb. IV 33, is to collect and to distribute. The author may have been further influenced in his desire to incorporate the earlier theory by the fact that it was one of the assumptions of Cnidian pathology: in Morb. II 51. V I I 7 8 , 1 4 - 2 2 Li. an affection of the spine is described, in which the symptoms are based on the theory 2 2 . 1,1 Νόμος μεν πάντα κρατύνει: the author appears to be echoing Pindar Νόμος πάντων βασιλεύς Law is king of all. . . 2 3 . The phrase was frequently echoed and quoted in the fifth and early fourth centuries, and it was used to convey varying ideas 24 . Here it is no more than a piece of hackneyed literary embellishment 25 , a c a p t a t i o placed at the beginning of the work and comparable to the pompous (and irrelevant) introductions to Virg. 2 6 and Nat. Mul. 2 7 . O . Temkin 2 8 finds the statement characteristic of the whole Hippocratic Collection in "die Forderung einer strengen G e setzmäßigkeit und die Einsicht in die Existenz einer solchen Gesetzmäßigkeit", and similar remarks have been made by Ilberg 2 9 , Regenbogen 3 0 ,

20 21

22

23

24

25

26 27 28 29 30

Nat. Puer. 2 0 , 5 . 6 6 , 1 0 - 1 7 Joly = VII 5 1 0 , 1 - 7 Li. Cf. Aph. 6,2. IV 562,11 f. Li. for the connexion of semen with phlegm; it was presumably this observation which lent support to the theory in the first place. Cf. also Int. 13. VII 1 9 8 , 2 5 - 2 0 0 , 1 1 Li. - In Oss. 14f. - in particular 15. I X 1 9 0 , 1 - 7 Li. — there is a similar attempt to combine the theory of pangenesis, though not in its humoral form, with the spine as a centre of collection and distribution. The treatise appears to be a late compilation, and its independent value is dubious. Frg. 169a Maehler: full text published first by Lobel in 1961 ( P O x y . 2450. X X V I pp. 141-154). Heinimann p. 82 and n. 61; for the meaning in Pindar cf. Stier p. 238, Theiler Νόμος pp. 6 9 - 7 6 . In his commentary (pp. 144—149) on Genit. p. 144, Zwinger pointed out that it forms the (second) half of a hexameter verse. It cannot have appeared in quite this form in that position in a hexameter; it might however be a fragment of lyric verse. Κρατΰνειν in this sense is probably poetic. 1. VIII 4 6 6 , 2 - 5 Li. 1. 70,2f. Trapp = VII 312,2f. Li. Temkin Zusammenhang p. 11. Ilberg p. 10. Regenbogen pp. 139, 160 and 161.

104

Commentary

Bourgey 31 and Nestle 32 . This is no doubt true, but the characteristically recurring word which expresses such an attitude in this author is ανάγκη, a word whose range of implication is almost entirely opposed to the quasitheological implications of νόμος when used with a cosmological reference 33 . His attitude is rather that of the atomist Leucippus, VS 67 Β 2: ουδέν χρήμα μάτην γίνεται, άλλα πάντα έκ λόγου και ύπ' άνάγκης nothing occurs haphazardly, but all things in an accountable way and as the result of necessity. Compare with this way of putting it Nat. Puer. 30,9.81,21—25 Joly = VII 538,1—4 Li.: and in conformity with this same account (κατά τοϋτον τον λόγον) both in the case of domesticated and of wild animals, parturition occurs within the time at which each (sc. species) gives birth and no later: for there is necessarily (άνάγκη) a time for each species at which the nutriment will become insufficient for the embryo . . . The time is not fixed by an arbitrarily imposed law, but is a factor of the size of the animal concerned, and the quantity of the nutriment: so too in his account of menstrual periodicity and of articulation periods and critical periods in fever. For this author it is mechanical necessity, άνάγκη, which governs all things, not an ordainment, νόμος; but literary associations and the desire to make a dramatic beginning have led him into choosing the words he uses. We should be wary of reading back into him an 18th century, and still more a modern, concept of natural law. There are good reasons why νόμος in the fifth and even in the fourth century is unlikely to mean natural law 34 . 1,1 ά π ο παντός τοϋ ύγροϋ: For the author's theory of pangenesis, cf. introductory note on chapter 3, pp. 115 — 117. 1,1 το ίσχυρότατον . . . άποκρίνεται: Cf. Morb. IV 32, 1. 84, 8f. Joly = VIII 542, 9f. Li.: (these humours) contribute neither the smallest nor the weakest part to the sperm. The author's humoral theory and his genetic theory are closely associated, an association which is important for the character and tendency of the treatise. 1,1 ίστόριον . . . άσθενέες γινόμεθα: It is possible that the phenomenon was used as an argument in favour of pangenesis: there is a trace of such a use in [Arist.] Pr. 4, 21. 879a, 4—10, although it is not included in the four

31 32 33

34

Bourgey p. 178 n. 1. Nestle Mythos p. 241 n. 177. Cf. Heraclitus VS 22 Β 114; Euripides Hec. 799 — 805; note κρατών in the latter passage and cf. the Ν ο ϋ ς κρατεί of Anaxagoras VS 59 Β 12, and Diogenes of Apollonia VS 64 Β 5 and Β 8. Cf. Reich pp. 121 — 134 where references to earlier discussions will be found; and on the whole subject of natural law see Needham Science vol. II pp. 518 — 583.

On Generation

105

arguments for pangenesis mentioned by Aristotle himself in G A 1,17. 721 b, 5 - 7 2 2 a, 1 3S . 1,1 φλέβες και νεΰρα: The two words are coupled elsewhere in the Hippocratic Collection 3 6 ; it was perhaps a habitual phrase which causes the misleading impression here that the congestion (πληρευμένοισιν) refers to nerves (νεύρα) as well as to veins (φλέβες). This is not the case: φλέβες, in the Hippocratic Collection, are vessels which carry fluid of any kind, or air 3 7 ; when the fluid is blood, the φλέβες are sometimes qualified by the adjective αίμορρόοι blood carrying. They are naturally hollow, κοΐλαι 3 8 , and as such are distinguished from νεΰρα, which are solid, στερεά 3 9 . Although νεΰρα are referred to as hollow in two passages 40 , these passages seem to be an aberration from the usual description, ν ε ΰ ρ α are variously tendons, ligaments, nerves, and even muscles: in view of the vague anatomy of the Hippocratic Collection it is often difficult to decide which. In Oss. 11. IX 182, 2 Li. their function is to cause bending (κάμψιν) flexion (ξύντασιν) and extension (έκτασιν); in Mul. I 4. VIII 26, 22 Li. coagulation of blood around the νεΰρα causes ataxia and lameness 41 , in Flat. 8. 96, lOf. Hbg. = VI 102, 9 Li. when they are relaxed by the heat of fever they cause a loosening of the joints. In the same way, they are regarded as tendons in the present treatise (Genit. 2, 1. 45, 1 3 - 1 9 = VII 472, 6 - 1 2 Li.). A clear distinction between tendons and nerves, with some recognition of the true function of the latter, did not occur until the advances in anatomical knowledge which were made from the third century onwards 4 2 , although, much earlier, Alcmaeon had referred to vessels (πόροι) which convey sensation to the brain 4 3 . At least in Greek there is a distinction between "vessels" on the one hand and "nerves" etc. on the other, but this is not the case in some languages. In ancient Egypt one word (mt) covered the whole complex, and this is also the case e. g. among the Trobriand Islanders. 35

36

37 38

39

40

41 42

43

For Aristotle's own explanation, see G A 1,19.726b, 12f.; for the significance of ίστόριον evidence cf. note on chapter 7,1. Nat. Puer. 19,2.3.64,21 f. 26 Joly = VII 506,14f. 18 Li.; Morb. I 10.26,3 Wi. = VI 158,2 Li.; Art. 11.11 130,16 Kw. = IV 110,12 Li.; De Arte 10.16,5 Hbg. = VI 18,8 Li. Thus in Nat. Puer. 2 2 , 4 . 6 9 , 2 0 - 2 2 Joly = VII 5 1 6 , 5 - 7 Li., plants have φλέβες. Hence the expression in 40,3.95,7f. Joly = VII 560,28 Li. φλεβώδεα . . . και έγκοιλα vein-like . . . and hollow. Cam. 3,3.4,9 De. = VIII 586,10 Li.; in this passage the author a s s u m e s that φλέβες are hollow while νεΰρα are solid, and explains the fact by reference to his principles of hot and cold. Cf. άκοίλια Loc. Horn. 4. VI 284,1 Li. De Arte 10,16,8 Hbg. = VI 18,12 Li. says that they, like everything else in the body, have θαλάμαι cavities; Liqu. 2.87,4 Hbg. = VI 124,3 Li. refers to a νεϋρον εναιμον nerve containing blood, which Erotian glossed Voc. Hipp. Coll. Ν 7 as φλέψ. Cf. Mul. II 154. VIII 330,1 Li. Cf. Galen D e plac. Hipp, et Plat. 7,3,5. 4 4 0 , 1 5 - 1 9 D e Lacy = V 6 0 2 , 3 - 1 1 Kühn; D e loc. aff. 3,14. VIII 2 1 2 , 2 - 1 8 Kühn. Cf., in general, Littre Introduction pp. 2 3 3 - 2 3 6 .

106

Commentary

1,1 ες το αίδοΐον: cf. Morb. II 1. VII8, 4 Li. των φλεβών αϊ αγουσιν εις το αίδοΐον the veins which lead to the genitals, where there is a direct connexion between the head and the genitals. 1.1 κνησμός εμπίπτει: the author clearly regards the role of κνησμός irritation in the whole process as significant: it is mentioned again in Genit. 2, 2. 45, 25 Joly = VII4, 72, 17 Li. and Genit. 4, 1. 46, 22 Joly = VII474, 15 Li. The expression in all three places suggests that κνησμός is a necessary stage in the production of heat and κλόνησις. But it is difficult to see how this could be so and, in the author's general physiological theory, heat is the direct consequence of movement. We must take into account here the author's tendency to state first the consequence that he regards as most important, or the fact which is uppermost in his mind. Irritation and pleasure are really by-products of the whole process, although they are inseparable from it: they are regarded as important here and in chapters 2 and 4 because they contain an argument for the theory of pangenesis 44 . They were used in this way by the earlier supporters of the theory 4 5 , and in chapter 4 of the present treatise they are used as an argument that the female also emits semen 46 . The word κνησμός (also occurring in this context in Aristotle) probably has a precise meaning in the theory: it refers to the itch or irritation caused by a loss of small particles of tissue. The verb κναίειν means to scrape, and κνήσματα are particles removed in this way 47 . The argument recorded by Aristotle, and implied in chapter 4, is probably to be attributed to Democritus and associated with his atomism 48 . Democritus VS 68 Β 127 may serve as a commentary on the present passage: ξυόμενοι άνθρωποι ήδονται καί σφιν γίνεται απερ τοις άφροδισιάζουσιν. People experience pleasure while scratching themselves, an experience that is the same as that of people making love49. The language here may have a specifically atomistic significance: what is lost in scratching art particles (ξύσματα), a word which Democritus may have used elsewhere to refer to atoms or to molecules (VS 67 A 28). There may therefore be a quite precise physical reference behind the author's use of κνησμός 5 0 . 1.2 άφρέει: cf. Morb. IV 51, 2. 108, 11 Joly = VII 584. 14 Li. Diogenes of Apollonia called sperm a foam (άφρός) of blood and derived the word άφροδίσια sexual intercourse from it 51 . 44

45 46 47 48 49

50 51

Contrast the explanation of sexual pleasure in Oss. 15.IX 190,3—9 Li. which is not used systematically as part of a general theory about generation. Cf. Arist. G A 1 , 1 7 . 7 2 1 b , 1 5 - 1 7 ; Ps.-Arist. Pr. 4,15.878b, 2 - 7 . 4 , 1 . 4 6 , 2 1 - 4 7 , 1 Joly = VII 4 7 4 , 1 4 - 1 8 Li.; cf. below pp. 120f. Cf. e. g. Nat. Puer. 17,4.60,10 Joly = VII 498,19 Li. Cf. Wellmann Spuren p. 306. The expression is echoed, perhaps unintentionally, in Arist. G A 1,20.728 a, 14, where it refers to masturbation. See H . de Ley, Hermes 108 (1980) p. 132 n. 18. See Strohmaier, particularly p. 8. VS 64 A 24 and Β 6 (particularly p. 6 5 , 1 9 - 2 4 ) .

O n Generation

107

1,2 πιότατον: the word implies both a tendency to float on the surface, and strength: cf. note on chapter 36,1, p. 286. 1.2 ΐτείνουσι . . .άποχωρέειν: something is seriously wrong with this passage. The subject of τείνουσι is missing, so is the subject of διαχέει (which must be corrected to διαχεΐται with Ε and H 2 ). Joly reads τείνει and, with Ο , διαχωρεΐ. Ermerins in his edition despaired of the whole passage and excluded it as a corrupt marginal note. και έξ αύτού τείνουσιν όδοί may very well be a later addition, inserted to explain (unnecessarily) και άποχωρέειν; this addition would lead to the removal of an original όδοί after τού σώματος (or after γαρ). Further και δ ι α χ ε ΐ τ α ι . . . μυελόν may have been displaced from after πιότατον, the gap being subsequently filled by έρχεται ές τον νωτιαΐον μυελόν. Thus the original text could have been something like ά π ο κ ρ ί ν ε τ α ι . . . πιότατον και διαχεΐται εκ τοϋ εγκεφάλου ές την οσφύ ν και ές παν τό σώμα και ές τον μυελόν· τείνουσι γαρ ές τοϋτον έκ παντός τοϋ σώματος όδοί, ώστε και έπιέναι τοϋ ύγροϋ ές αυτόν και άποχωρέειν. 1.3 παρά τους νεφρούς: The author is using the vascular system described by Diogenes 52 : one pair of veins extends from the "hepatitic" and "splenitic" veins into the spinal marrow and thence directly into the testicles; another pair i n t o t h e k i d n e y s and thence into the testicles in males, and the uterus in females. These are called σπερματίτιδες spermatic veins53, and are presumably the ones which the author refers to here 54 . 1,3 αίμα ξυμφέρεται: sc. along with the sperm. A condition of haematospermia is mentioned in Int. 47. VII 282, 7 Li., although the kidneys are not affected there. H a e m a t u r i a caused by a lesion of the kidneys is described in Int 16. VII 204, 17—21 Li. 5 5 and it may be this condition of which the author is thinking. In any case the observation is characteristic of his medical interests: a more extensive example occurs in the long gynaecological digression of chapter 15. In chapter 18 a contrary instance occurs: medical experience is explicitly used to prove an embryological point. 1,3 δια τών όρχίων: for this author the testes have two separate functions: they are a passage for sperm, and they are also (cf. the following chapter) concerned in some way with erection. The first function is implied elsewhere in the Collection, in the injunction Superf. 31. 90, 13 — 17 Lienau = " VS 64 Β 6. 53 VS 64 Β 6, p. 65,1 If. 54 Cf. Appendix p. 92; he may be thinking of the ureters. It would be interesting to know whether some Greeks shared the belief of the Trobrianders, that the kidneys have some part in the production of sperm; cf. Malinowski pp. 140f. 55 Cf. Int. 15.VII 2 0 4 , 1 - 4 Li.; Aph. 4,75.1V 530,4f. Li.; Aph. 4,78.1V 530,lOf. Li.; Loc. Horn. 3.VI 2 8 2 , 2 - 6 Li.

108

Commentary

V I I I 5 0 0 , 7—10 Li. to bind the right testicle if a female child is desired, and the left if a male child is desired 56 ; although no doubt more popular notions are at work here as well 57 . It is curious that for Aristotle as well the testes have two separate functions: they are first a passage for sperm, and secondly they provide tension for the seminal ducts, like the weights which weavers attach to the warp 58 . Galen in De sem. 1, 12 — 15. IV 555, 14—566, 15 Kühn gives a more enlightened discussion of their function: his knowledge depends in part upon the anatomical researches of Herophilus, although Herophilus himself did not believe that sperm was made in the testes 59 . There was of course no obvious reason why the testes should have anything to do with the p r o d u c t i o n of sperm, and according to some systems of belief the evidence is against it. This is true of the present author: according to him women too, who have no testes, produce semen. This was the reason against the production of sperm in the testes, given to Malinowski by the Trobriand Islanders 60 ; and the same argument is used by a central Indian people, the Baiga 61 . The Baiga add that the function of the testes is to produce erection " b y means of a cord". This was evidently also the belief of the Trobrianders, since they castrated their domestic boars, just as it is the belief of the present author. 1,3 μεσάτων: Regenbogen 62 includes this word with other instances of poetic vocabulary in this author. 1,3 οί έξονειρώσσοντες: The affection was regarded as symptomatic in the Hippocratic Collection: Epid. IV, 57. V 196, 5 - 8 Li. and Epid. VI 8, 29. V 354, 6—9 Li. as a symptom in fever; Morb. II 51. VII 78, 14—18 Li. relates it to a disease of the spine 63 ; in Mul. II 175. VIII 358, 1 Li. it occurs in an affection of the womb. The same physiological explanation is given in [Aristotle] Pr. 3, 33. 876a, lOf.; 4, 5. 877a, 5 - 9 and 5, 31. 884a, 6 - 1 5 and it presumably underlies the prescription of στρύχνος nightshade (?) in Vict. II 54, 4. 52, 23 f. Joly = VI 558, 18f. Li. where the reason given is that this herb has a c o o l i n g effect. The pattern of argument here is characteristic of the author: he adduces an apparent exception which in fact supports his case (although there is no intercourse, the physiological process is the same) 64 . But he may 56 57 58 59

60 61 62 63 64

Cf. also Epid. VI 4,21.V 312,lOf. Li. Cf. Lesky p. 1284. G A 1 , 4 . 7 1 7 a , 11 —717b,13; 5 , 7 . 7 8 7 b , 1 9 - 7 8 8 a , 1 6 . Galen De sem. 1,15.1V 5 6 5 , 1 5 - 1 7 Kühn; for further references see Lesky pp. 1 4 0 1 - 1 4 0 7 ; 1383-1387. Malinowski p. 140. Elwin p. 217. Regenbogen p. 159. Cf. also Int. 43.VII 2 7 4 , 7 f . Li. and 47.VII 2 8 2 , 1 7 f . Li. Cf. introductory note to chapter 2.

O n Generation

109

have another reason for mentioning the phenomenon: it appears from Aristotle GA 2, 4. 739a, 20—23 that its occurrence in women had been used as one of the arguments that females, as well as males, emit semen. For the reference to dreams, Wellmann 65 compares Lucretius 4, 1030; both passages may have been suggested by Democritus. 1,3 υπό ταλαιπωρίης: for fatigue as a cause of heat, resulting in a similar disturbance, cf. Morb. IV 45, 3. 99, 23f. Joly = VII 568, 25f. Li. and Morb. IV 54, 4. 115, 1 4 - 1 6 Joly = VII 596, 23f. Li. The former passage explains the physiology: when the body becomes heated as a result of effort or fatigue, the humour in it becomes diffuse (διαχέεται Morb. IV 45, 3. 99, 26 Joly = VII 570, 1 Li.: cf. διακεχυμένον here). Fatigue is the cause of nocturnal emissions in [Aristotle] Pr. 5, 31. 884a, 6—15 (paralleled in Theophrastus Lass. Fr. 7, 16) where the explanation is the same as it is here. 1,3 Προ μανίης: so Μ and V; the recentiores have λαγνείης sexual intercourse, which is adopted in all early editions. Support for λαγνείης (avant l'epoque du co'it Littre VII 473, 7) might be found in Lucretius 4, 1030 — 1036: tum quibus aetatis freta primitus insinuatur/semen ubi ipsa dies membris natura creavit/conveniunt simulacra foris e corpore quoque/nuntia praeclari vultus pulchrique coloris,/qui ciet irritans loca turgida semine multo,/ut quasi transactis saepe omnibus rebus profundant/fluminis ingentis fluctus vestemque cruentent. /Later on those, into the channel of whose life the vital seed is passing for the first time, when the ripeness of time has created it in their limbs, there come from without idols (i. e. visual images causing dreams) from every body heralding a glorious face or beautiful colouring, which stir and rouse their members swelling with much seed, and often, as though all were over, they pour forth huge floods of moisture and soil their clothes66 and in Aristotle's remark 67 that these dreams occur in youths just before puberty is complete: γίνεται γαρ και τοις νέοις των αρρένων τοις μέλλουσι μεν μηθέν δέ προϊεμένοις, ή τοις προϊεμένοις άγονον for this happens to those male youths who are on the point of emitting semen but emit nothing, or those who do emit something already, which is not fertile. But it is unlikely that μανίης is a mistake for λαγνείης, in view of λαγνεύοντι and λαγνείη immediately above. That there was a connexion between erotic dreams and insanity is suggested by Vict. I 35, 11. 33, 18—21 Joly = VI 520, 1 7 - 1 0 Li. εί δέ τινι πλέον έπικρατηθείη το ύδωρ ύ π ο τοϋ πυρός, όξείη ή τοιαύτη ψυχή άγαν, και τούτους όνειρώσσειν ανάγκη- καλέουσι δέ αυτούς ύπομαινομένους· έστι γαρ έγγιστα μανίης τό τοιούτον those in whom fire prevails over water have a soul which is excessively sharp, and inevitably have erotic dreams. Such men are called sub-manic, for such a 65 66 67

Wellmann Spuren p. 319. Bailey Lucr. vol. I p. 415. Arist. G A 2 , 4 . 7 3 9 a , 2 4 - 2 6 .

110

Commentary

condition is very close to mania68. The verb might simply mean "dream" here, but the tendency of the passage suggests that erotic dreams are meant. Cf. further Morb. Sacr. 69 μαινόμεθα μεν υπό ύγρότητος. δταν γαρ ύγρότερος της φύσιος fj άνάγκη κινεΐσθαι we become insane through moisture; for when (the brain) becomes more moist than natural it necessarily becomes (more) mobile; and the connexion between moisture and nocturnal emission in [Aristotle] Pr. 5, 31. 884a, 6—15; in Rufus of Ephesus 70 sexual intercourse is recommended as a cure for, among other things, melancholy and other varieties of madness, and erotic dreams. Chapter 2 Having described the physiology of reproduction, the author now goes on to confirm it by examining three contrary instances in which reproduction does not occur: in eunuchs, in those who have suffered an incision by the ear, and in children before puberty. All three cases can be explained on the principles of chapter 1: they are therefore evidence for the correctness of those principles. A similar pattern of argument occurs in chapter 20. After explaining the phenomenon of baldness by reference to the effect of sexual intercourse on the humours, the author then mentions the converse case of eunuchs, who do not engage in sexual intercourse, and therefore do not become bald. It is interesting that the same pattern occurs in Democritus: Aelian71 records Democritus' explanation of the growth of horns in animals; this is followed (chapter 20) by an explanation of the contrary instance (which may be described as a paradox, θαΰμα: cf. note on chapter 7, 3 θαυμάζειν), cattle which are hornless. The attitude seems to be that the more phenomena a theory can explain, the better the theory is: therefore the converse instance is welcomed for the opportunity it gives of extending the range of the explanation, and thereby increasing its plausibility. Logically, this is quite correct; and in such cases the converse instance may be adduced explicitly as proof of the hypothesis: that is, as an exception which proves the rule. There are instances of this logical manoeuvre in this as in other Hippocratic writers 72 . It is tempting to see the influence here of Democritus' passion for the discovery of causal explanations (αιτιολογία) 73 . Such cases must be distinguished logically from cases in which the author cites an exception which is then explained by the introduction of a 68 69 70 71 72 73

F o r the reading adopted here see Schmidt p. 14. Morb. Sacr. 1 4 , 6 . 8 2 , 4 8 f . Gr. = VI 388,6f. Li. Cf. Oribasius Syn. 6 , 3 8 , 1 - 8 . 1 1 8 9 , 6 - 2 6 Raeder. Ael. N A 1 2 , 1 8 - 2 0 = VS 68 A 1 5 3 - 1 5 5 . These are discussed below, in the note on chapter 54,3. VS 68 Β 118; Heinimann p. 14 n. 2 argues against Diller's attempt to refer the αίτίαι of Aer. to the Democritean school; but see Nestle Hippocratica p. 36.

On Generation

111

subordinate hypothesis. An example occurs in chapter 9: after describing (chapter 8) the conditions which determine resemblance between children and their parents, and stating that the child must resemble both parents in at least some respect, the author then turns to a contrary instance (a child of weak constitution is born from parents who share a strong constitution), and explains the exception by introducing the further hypothesis that in this case the cause lies in the condition of the womb 7 4 . But it may be doubted whether the author was aware of the logical distinction between the two types of explanation. In view of his zest for providing such explanations, he may have regarded both the converse instance (where the same hypothesis works under significantly altered conditions), and the exception which requires the introduction of a subordinate hypothesis, as alike providing further grist for his mill. In the first instance, the impotence of eunuchs, the explanation is in terms of the physiology and anatomy described in chapter 1: it therefore becomes a converse instance whose tendency is to confirm that anatomy and physiology. The second instance is more complex. There are four references in the Hippocratic Collection to incision behind the ear: the present passage; Aer. 22, 1 - 8 . 72, 1 0 - 7 4 , 11 Di. = II 76, 1 2 - 7 8 , 19 Li.; Epid. VI 5, 15. V 320, 1 Li. and Loc. Horn. 3. VI 282, 14f. Li.; apart from these passages, the word κέδματα (the condition which the operation was supposed to cure) also occurs in Epid. VII122. V 468, 1 Li. and Morb. 1 3 . 8 , 1 3 Wi. = VI144, 11 Li.; Morb. I 3. 10, 2 Wi. = VI 144, 18 Li.: the lexicographers were in doubt over its meaning. In view of the rarity of the operation, it is likely that the four passages in which it is mentioned are related. Of these, the aphorism in Epid. VI is clearly derived from Aer. 22, while the treatise Loc. Horn, is a derivative compilation 75 . The question of priority is therefore between Aer. 22 and Genit. 2. It is highly probable that Aer. 22 is the earlier, for two reasons: (1) its account is fully circumstantial, since it attributes the method to a particular race, the Scythians; (2) in Aer. the result of the operation is complete impotence; in Genit. the impotence is partial. It looks as if the change has been made by the author of Genit. to fit it in with his general theory 76 . If the two passages are related, and Aer. is prior, we have a case in which the author of Genit. willingly adduces a piece of rather recondite information, in order to increase the comprehensiveness of his theory; a fact which is relevant for his attitude to scientific explanation. The result of the incision is of course to be explained by the encephalo-myelogenic theory, which he has already incorporated into the pangenesis theory 7 7 . 74

75 76 77

Cf. chapter 26 where plant grafts, which are an exception to the author's theory of fruiting, are explained by the introduction of a further hypothesis which succeeds in bringing them under the same general rule. For the character of this work, cf. Schubring pp. 739—744. Cf. Heinimann p. 197 n. 82; Heinimann however regards Aer. 22 as a later interpolation. Cf. Lesky pp. 1 2 3 8 - 1 2 4 1 .

112

Commentary

The third contrary instance is that of children before puberty. Here again the explanation is in terms of the anatomy and physiology of chapter 1: in the child, the vessels are too narrow for disturbance to occur. As the child grows up, the vessels open (στομοϋνται Genit. 2, 3. 46, 6 Joly = VII 472, 22 Li.) so as to permit an easy passage78 (cf. also chapter 20). 2,1 οι δέ εύνοϋχοι: the passage is symmetrical. Two facts are to be explained: the sterility of eunuchs, and their impotence. The first is explained by the hypothesis that the testes are passages, the second by the hypothesis that there are tendons between the testes and penis. The difficulties in the passage are first, the reading of Μ and V: έστι δ' αυτών των όρχίων 79 , and second, the fact that the explanation is completed at χρηστοί, and what follows, if έκτριβέντων is taken to refer to castration, is inconsistent with this explanation. We must therefore understand έκτριβέντων not of complete castration, but of some other kind of injury, and the δέ as adversative. Cf. Fuchs' translation: Bei denjenigen hingegen, welche sich an dieser Stelle durch Quetschung verletzen . . . 8 0 ; Kapferer's: Bei denen andererseits, bei denen diese (Samengänge) aufgerieben werden . . , 8 1 . Mercurialis, living in a less refined age, understood the passage: nonnunquam vero testes ferreis quibusdam instrumentis constricti, ita teruntur, ut simul omnia eorum vasa etc. . . . Hunc postremum modum intellexit Hippocr. ignoratum, velpraetermissum, ab interprete82. 2,1 άμαλδύνεται: the word is confined in the Collection to the present treatise and to Mul. It is used in Nat. Puer. 17, 3. 60, 4 Joly = V I I 4 9 8 , 1 3 Li. of the cutting off of respiration through the navel during the development of the embryo; in Mul. I 6. VIII 30, 20 Li. of the weakening of an embryo; in Mul. I 8. VIII 34, 9 Li. of the destruction of sperm (perd sa vertu, Littre); in Mul. II 201. VIII 384, 3 Li. of the darkening of vision in hysterical suffocation. It occurs in the Iliad 83 ; and in Democritus VS 68 Β 202 (in the sense of neglect or of squander). Regenbogen 84 notes its occurrence here and 78 79

80 81

82

83 84

Cf. also Nat. Puer. 20,2. 6 5 , 1 1 - 1 6 Joly = VII 5 0 8 , 2 - 6 Li. δ' might be δι', in which case a connective is lacking, which the recentiores duly supply (γάρ); but the whole passage looks like a marginal note; cf. δια των όρχίων μεσάτων Genit. 1,3. 45,1 f. Joly = VII 470,22 Li. Fuchs Hippokrates vol. I p. 210. Kapferer Hippokrates part 16 p. 20; Kapferer refers to Aer. 22, but it seems that a different kind of injury is meant there. Mercurialis Hippocrates vol. II p. 15 n. 6. — The stockbreeders of antiquity knew of several methods of castration, including the one in question: cf. Columella 6,26,1 and Septuaginta Le. 22,24. Strabo 13,4,1 describes an accidental case of a child injured in this way. Aristotle H A 3,1. 510b,1—3 mentions τρίψις as well as complete excision. The interpretation of the passage given in the commentary is supported by the Arabic version: see Lyons-Mattock Karhl H p . Genit. 1 p. 2,18—25 and commentary p. 87. Horn. II. Μ 18. Regenbogen p. 159.

On Generation

113

in Mul. I and II, as peculiar in the Hippocratic Collection; it is perhaps significant that the same word is found in Democritus. 2,1 ταϋτα . . ,άποτέμνεται: perhaps this is the case in Archilochus Fr. 198 Lasserre-Bonnard = 22 West ίνας δέ μεδέων (μελέων (των μεσών) West) άπέθρισεν (-ε West) shore away the tendons of his genitals. 2.1 όδός . . . έμπέφρακται: Obstruction of passages is a very frequent explanation in Greek medicine. It is perhaps the most common pathological hypothesis of the Cnidian treatises Morb. I and II, Aff., and Int., but it is also used in non-Cnidian treatises, notably Morb. Sacr. It was also used by Plato 85 and in the Problemata 86 ; it appears in Erasistratus' theory of plethora 87 ; and it was made a universal principle of explanation by Asclepiades of Bithynia 88 . Asclepiades was the first medical writer to make a systematic application of atomism to medicine; and it is possible that atomistic influences are at work in the present treatise. Wellmann 89 notes that the words εϋρους admitting easy passage and ευρυχωρία space in the present chapter suggest atomism, and compares the use by Democritus 9 0 of the concept in botanical explanation 91 . The words are in fact surprisingly frequent in the treatise; more significant than this however is the fact that the principle has been thought out and is applied systematically to various phenomena. For example, in chapter 21, 5. 68, 14—18 Joly = VII 514, 1 —5 Li. it appears that the widening of vessels results in an attractive force: this is applied to lactation, and the author then remarks that the same process occurs in the seminal passages. This resembles the principle of προς τό κενούμενον ακολουθία or h o r r o r v a c u i which was used so extensively by Erasistratus and which he seems to have derived, in the first instance, from Strato of Lampsacus, whose theory of matter was particulate. There is however no explicit use of atomism in Genit., although it is quite possible that in the concept of ευρυχωρία the author is making use of a mechanistic principle which had originally been thought out in connexion with atomism 92 . 2.2 λεπτά τα φλέβια οντα: A slight difficulty is caused by the author's way of expressing himself: the final result (κωλύει την γονήν ievai prevents

85 86 87

88 89 90 91

92

Ε. g. Ti. 73e; 7 9 c - d . E. g. 1,52.865b,26-28; 3,13.872b,34-36; 37,3.966a,23-25. Cf. Galen De usu part. 6,17.1 359,6-16 He. = III 493,5-13 Kühn; De plen. 6.VII 537,18-539,12 Kühn; De venae sect. adv. Erasistrateos 8.XI 2 3 6 , 3 - 8 Kühn. Cf. Caelius Aurelianus acut. 1,14,106. Wellmann Spuren p. 319 and n. 107. VS 68 A 162. Cf. its use in the botany of chapter 22,4.69,22 Joly = VII 516,7 Li. and 26,3.75,25 Joly = VII 526,22 Li. Cf. further note on chapter 21,5 and introductory note to chapters 33—41.

114

Commentary

the passage of sperm) is put first, as though it were the immediate result ol the narrowness ancf congestion of the vessels. In fact, the immediate result, as the context makes clear, is the prevention of κλόνησις agitation; δια ταύτα hence refers back to λεπτά τά φλέβια όντα the vessels are narrow. With λεπτά τά φλέβια όντα cf. Morb. Sacr. 8, I f . 74, 1 7 - 2 0 Gr. = VI 374, 21—376, 2 Li., where the same cause is given for the fatality of epileptic seizures in young children. 2,3 έπι τάς μήτρας: the plural is habitual in this author, except for one instance 93 , as it is in those parts of Mul. which Grensemann identifies as C. 9 4 . The alternatives are ύστερη (sing, and pi.) and γαστήρ 9 5 . Schwyzer 96 considers the plural "bedeutungslos", and compares the variation between singular and plural in σάρξ, στέρνον, στήθος, στόμα, φρήν etc. However the expression in Vict. I 30. 24, 14 Joly = VII 504, 19 Li. άμφοτέρας τάς μήτρας indicates how the theory of the u t e r u s b i c o r n i s i . e . the belief that the human uterus has two "horns" or recesses 97 may have influenced or confirmed a purely linguistic tendency. 2,3 στομοΰνται: here and in the similar passage in Nat. Puer. 20, 2. 65, 13 Joly = VII 508, 4 Li. the word means open out (along their length, so as to permit the passage of fluid). Aristotle uses άναστομούσθαι in this sense in GA 3, 1. 751 a, 1 f.: έλκει γάρ τό ύγρον ή ύστερα θερμανθεϊσα και οι πόροι άναστομοϋνται the uterus growing warm, attracts the moisture and the passages open out, where the meaning of άναστομοϋνται is precisely the same as is expressed by άναχαλάται τά φλέβια the vessels are open (sc. after menstruation) in Mul. 117. VIII 56, 21 Li. Cf. Vict. II 56, 7. 58, 2 - 5 Joly = VI 568, 1 7 - 1 9 Li.: τά όξέα ού πληροί, διότι τά στόματα των φλεβών άνέωξέ τε και διεκάθηρε sharp substances . . . do not congest, because they open and clean the mouths of the veins·, and Oct. 3, 7. 86, 21 Gr. = VII458, 7 Li. Xenophon uses άναστομόω Cyr. 7, 5, 15 for clearing out a trench along its whole length.

93

94 95

96 97

Nat. Puer. 13,1.55,4 joly = VII 488,22 Li., where probably μητρώοι as read in Gal. De foet. form. l.IV 654,1 Kühn should be adopted. Cf. Grensemann Knidische Medizin pp. 93 — 101. In the expressions έν γαστρί εχειν, έν γαστρϊ λαμβάνειν which are conventional in this as well as in other authors and in which according to Dumortier p. 17 there is a reference to the external appearance. In Deichgräber H p . Carn. p. 93 and note 4. For this belief see the note on chapter 31, pp. 254f., and Diepgen Frauenheilkunde pp. 131-133. Galen De anat. admin. 12,2.1pp. 142-144 (II pp. 104f.) Simon = pp. 113-115 Duckworth has a different explanation of the variation between singular and plural: the uterus is single in respect of its neck and its external membraneous covering, although there are in fact two uteri and these can be be plainly seen in the pig, the dog, and prolific animals generally. Cf. D. Nickel in his edition of Galen's De uteri dissect, pp. 82f.

On Generation

115

2,3 και δίοδος δια στενών γίνεται: a way is opened through the narrow passages; es bildet sich ein Paß durch die engen Stellen (Fuchs 98 ). Ermerins" excised και όδος, perhaps rightly. Chapter 3 The author ends this section of his treatise by referring to his initial statement that sperm comes from the total fluid in the body 1 0 0 . The same statement is made in Aer. 14, 5. 58, 2 0 - 2 2 Di. = II 60, If. Li. and Morb. Sacr. 2, 5. 68, 15—17 Gr. = VI 364, 19f. Li. Among the philosophers it is explicitly ascribed to Democritus 101 who may have been the first to give it a systematic statement 102 . The theory is described and criticized by Aristotle GA 1, 17f. 721b, 6—724a, 13: Aristotle does not name the person or persons who held the view. In Morb. Sacr. 1. c. pangenesis 1023 is used to explain the hereditary origin of epilepsy, which is regarded as a particular case of the general 98 99 100

101

Fuchs Hippocrates vol. I p. 211. Ermerins Hippocrates vol. II p. 483. Cf. also Genit. 8,1.49,21 Joly = VII 480,8 Li.; Nat. Puer. 1 l,1.52,6f. Joly = V I I 4 8 4 , 1 6 f . Li., 17,1.59,12-14 Joly = VII 496,19-498,1 Li. and Morb. IV 32,1.84,1 f. Joly = VII 542,3 f. Li. Aetius 5,3,6 = VS 68 A 141. - Wellmann Schrift p. 298 attributed the theory to Alcmaeon on the basis of Censorinus 5,2f.; he was followed by Diller Wanderarzt p. 58 and Pohlenz Hippokrates p. 44 η. 1. But Censorinus contradicts Aetius 5,3,3 that the sperm is εγκεφάλου μέρος part of the brain, which fits in much better with the importance which Alcmaeon allotted to the brain, and which also fits in with Pythagorean views. Lesky p. 1236 therefore rejects Wellmann's suggestion, and explains the Censorinus passage as a confusion. Nevertheless we should perhaps keep an open mind on the question of who "invented" the pangenesis view. It may have been quite generally held — however inconsistently — among the philosophers; it may even have been a popular and primitive view. The opinion of Bollack pp. 113f., that it was maintained by Empedocles, is not absurd. In the passage quoted by Bollack on p. 216 (Arist. GA 1,18. 722b,6—17) Aristotle appears, if anything, to distinguish Empedocles from those who hold the pangenesis theory; on the other hand, Aristotle also remarks (ib. 721 b, 10f., quoted by Bollack p. 214) that pangenesis and the view that both female and male contribute sperm (which we do know that Empedocles held) in a sense go together. Pangenesis may be one of several instances in which Democritus seems to have given a more explicit articulation to ideas already expressed, in some form, by Empedocles.

So Lesky pp. 1296 f., on the grounds that the theory is at its most intelligible when based on atomism; cf. however Pohlenz Nomos p. 436 who favours Anaxagoras; for the evidence in favour of Anaxagoras see Introduction § 5. i02a This v e r y convenient term is used by Lesky to describe the various forms of the view that "the seed comes from all parts of the body" which are to be found in Hippocratic writers and the testimonia on Democritus. The term itself was first used by Charles Darwin: " I venture to advance the hypothesis of Pangenesis, which implies that the whole organization, in the sense of every separate atom or unit, reproduces itself. Hence ovules and pollengrains . . . include or consist of a multitude of germs thrown off from each separate atom of the organism." (The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol. II p. 359, London 1868). 102

116

Commentary

principle that constitutions are inherited: since the seed comes from all parts of the body, healthy from the healthy parts, and morbid from the morbid, the epileptic child inherits both the general phlegmatic constitution which makes him liable to the disease and the particular lesion which causes it. In Aer. 1. c. it is used to explain the inheritance of an acquired characteristic: the peculiarly shaped head of the tribe known as the Makrokephaloi. The author compares it to the inheritance of baldness, eye-pigmentation, deformities, and form (μορφή) or constitution in general. In both treatises the authors merely make use of a theory which they seem to regard as established, whereas it is the purpose of Genit. to establish it; it is therefore tempting to regard Genit. as the earlier work, on which Morb. Sacr. and Aer. depend. All three however might depend on a common source, possibly Democritus, since he alone among the pre-Socratic philosophers is credited with the theory 1 0 3 . Lesky 104 suggests that the hypothesis was taken over from Democritus by the medical writers, who based it on their humoral theory, while in Democritus it was based on the body tissues. If so, this would be an interesting example of a specifically medical application of a more general theory. It is true that emphasis is laid on the humours in Genit., rather than on the tissues, yet as Lesky herself points out 1 0 5 , this is not so in Aer. But even in Democritus, molecular structures from the tissues must have been conveyed in some way, presumably in a fluid. In fact Democritus does seem to have held a form of humoral theory: he used it for example in his account of the growth of horns in animals, where references to the porosity of the skull suggest that he also had atomism in mind 1 0 6 . There is nothing against supposing that the particular form of the theory in Genit., and its association with humours, may have been already present in Democritus. Moreover, the tissue interpretation and the humoral interpretation are by no means mutually exclusive. In Genit. the tissues must in fact originate from the humours, both in generation and in nutrition. Conversely, the humours which (presumably) compose the sperm derived from all p a r t s of t h e b o d y in chapters 1, 3 and 32 must be derived directly from the tissues, since in chapter 11 the inheritance of a deformity is explained on the hypothesis that the humours in sperm are drawn directly from the malformed part; while in 14—17 the embryo's nutriment is the mother's blood, itself a humour, which evidently contains the tissue forming elements. But the question does indicate a certain vagueness of expression, and perhaps also of conception, in the author's view of the relation between

103

104 105 106

O n the relation between Genit. and Morb. Sacr. cf. Pohlenz Hippokrates p. 44 n. 1, pp. 106f.; Diller Rev. Pohlenz p. 75 = Schriften p. 198; Heinimann p. 194 n. 73; Lesky p. 1304 n. 2. Lesky p. 1301. Lesky p. 1324. VS 68 A 153; cf. Guthrie History vol. II p. 466.

O n Generation

117

humours and tissues 107 . Moreover Lesky 108 is undoubtedly correct in saying that the theory, whether it is based on humours or on tissues, does imply a corpuscular theory of matter. But it is not necessary that this theory should be expressed, as the example of Democritus shows. The great advantage of the pangenesis theory, as one can see from the use made of it in the Hippocratic writers, is that it provided a m e c h a n i s m to explain how inheritance could occur. 3,1 τέσσαρες ίδέαι: For the author's humoral theory, see note on chapter 32. For ιδέα, είδος = kind, type, variety, cf. Morb. IV 57, 6. 124, 2f. Joly = VII 612, 12f. Li. τρεις ίδέαι των νουσημάτων ά π ό τοϋ ΰδρωπος three forms of disease arising from water. The meaning is common in the Hippocratic Collection 109 . Where the word is applied to humours, it refers to their outward appearance, but their difference in pathological effect may be closely associated. Thus in Nat. Horn. 5, 1 - 4 . 174, 11-178, 9 Jou. = VI 40, 15-44, 2 Li. the four humours differ both in their appearance (τάς ιδέας), which the author explains by difference in colour (χρώματα); and in their power (δύναμιν), which is explained as hot, cold, dry, moist: these qualities are significant for their pathological effect. In Nat. Puer. 21, 4. 68, 10 Joly = VII 512, 21 Li. ίδέην τοϋ γάλακτος seems to include both the outward appearance and the quality or power of milk; and that is probably the meaning here. In Int. 20. VII214, 18 f. Li. the many forms of phlegm certainly refer to pathological effect, since the author goes on to describe the diseases which are caused by them. 3,1 τοσαύταςγαρ ιδέας έχει ξυμφυέας: cf. Genit. 11,1. 52, 7Joly = VII 484, 17f. Li.: τέσσαρες ίδέαι έοΰσαι όκόσαι εν φύσει υπήρξαν the four innate species of the fluid. For the doctrine that the humours are innate, cf. e. g. Morb. I 2. 6, 9f. Wi. = VI 142, 17f. Li. καΐ ή μεν χολή και το φλέγμα γινομένοισί τε συγγίνεται, και ενι άει εν τω σώματι ή πλέον ή έλασσον both bile and phlegm are innate in man when he is born, and are always 107

Müller p. 117 n. 39 suggests a distinction between ύ γ ρ ό ν = all four h u m o u r s and ύ γ ρ ό ν = the fluid conglomerate of all seed particles. Sense (i) w o u l d appear in Genit. 3 , 1 . 4 6 , 1 3 Joly = VII 474,6 Li.; N a t . Puer. 1 7 , 1 . 5 9 , 1 2 . 1 4 Joly = VII 4 9 6 , 1 9 , 4 9 8 , 1 Li.; sense (ii) in Genit. 1,1.44,2 Joly = VII 470,5 Li.; Genit. 1 1 , 1 5 2 , 6 f . Joly = VII 4 8 4 , 1 7 Li. w h e r e according to Müller τ έ σ σ α ρ ε ς ίδέαι is a later addition. I d o not think this h y p o t h e s i s will w o r k : apart from the doubtful case of chapter 11, Müller can give o n l y one example for the second sense, and the fact that the author in chapter 3 (sense i) so clearly reverts ( R i n g k o m p o s i t i o n ) to his initial statement in chapter 1, sense (ii), seems to m e to tell against this example t o o . T o ύ γ ρ ό ν in chapter 17 probably does n o t mean fluid but pliant, soft·, i. e. it is here o n e of the "opposites", like π υ κ ν ό ν and ά ρ α ι ό ν . T h e passage is merely explicative of the principle t ö δ μ ο ι ο ν ώς τ ό δ μ ο ι ο ν : the principle applies to a l l tissues (cf. και τ α λ λ α N a t . Puer. 1 7 , 1 . 5 9 , 1 4 f . Joly = VII 498,1 f. Li.).

108

Lesky pp. 1 2 9 4 - 1 3 0 0 . C f . Gillespie pp. 1 7 9 - 1 9 7 .

109

118

Commentary

present in the body in greater or lesser quantity110 and Nat. Horn. 7, 8. 186, 4 Jou. = VI 50, 5 Li.: the humours are innate συγγεγονότων. The distinction between disease-producing factors which act from "within" and those which act from "without" is based on this doctrine 1103 ; so is the theory of constitutional types in both Cnidian and Coan works 1 1 1 . Although the distinction between "congenital" and "inherited" in the Hippocratic Collection is not clear 112 and physicians do not seem to have concerned themselves much with the question whether a condition is merely present from birth (e. g. caused by an intrauterine lesion) or inherited, in the present treatise at least the doctrine of innate humours is solidly based on a theory of inheritance, and the inheritance of disease is in its turn based on humoral theory. Thus in chapter 11, a child may be unsound because the humour which he inherits from his parents is unsound. It might seem to follow that any passage which bases the actual inheritance of disease or constitution on humoral theory (as Morb. Sacr. 2 does) cannot be earlier than the systematic attempt represented by Genit., to base humoral theory on genetic theory. But Greek science is not always so logical, and a writer may well have believed that humours are inherited without necessarily holding any genetic views on how they are inherited. Cf. further the commentary on chapter 11 and chapter 30, and on the whole question of inheritance see E. Lesky pp. 1333 — 1343, and for a sceptical view of the evidence P. Μ. M. Geurts pp. 170-189. 3,1 δεδήλωται δέ μοι: the reference is to chapters 32—53. For the difficulties involved, see Introduction section 1. 3,1 διακρίσιες: the noun in this sense does not occur elsewhere in the Collection; διακρίνειν occurs in Morb. II 71. VII 108, 24 Li. and Coac. 134. V 610, 11 Li. 3,1 όκόθεν . . . διότι: for the style, cf. Gorgias, Hel. 5 (VS 82 Β 11): όστις μεν οΰν και δι' ότι και όπως άπέπλησε τον έρωτα κτλ. who it was got Helen and why, and how he fulfilled his passion . . . Regenbogen 113 notes other similarities with Gorgias: e. g. Hel. 15 (VS 82 Β 11): την δέ τετάρτη ν αίτίαν τω τετάρτω λόγω διέξειμι I shall discuss the fourth accusation in the fourth speech; Palamedes 21 (VS 82 Β 11 a) δια των προειρημένων δέδεικται has been demonstrated in what has been said before (cf. Genit. 2, 3. 46, 9f. Joly = VII 474, 3f. Li.: ταύτα δέ μοι οΰτως άποπέφανται thus have I 110

In Nat. Horn. 7,8. 186,4 Jou. = VI 50,5 Li. the humours are ξυγγεγονότες innate, as they are in Oct. 3,3. 36,4 Gr. = VII 456,12 Li., which H . Grensemann Polybos p. 86 considers is also by Polybus. 1103 Cf. note on chapters 49 — 53, p. xxx. 111 Cf. Dittmerpp. 2 6 - 3 1 . 112 Keus p. 68 n. 3, Geurts pp. 183-185, Lesky p. 1337 n. 1. 113 Regenbogen p. 164.

O n Generation

119

explained these facts); Palamedes 37 (VS 82 Β 11a): εΐρηται τά παρ' έμοϋ, και παύομαι My part has been spoken, and I come to an end. Although this stylistic mannerism seems particularly characteristic of the author of Genit., its occurrence, both in Gorgias and, a century later, in Aristotle's άκροάσεις, shows that it belongs to a particular genre rather than to a particular author or even to a particular date: it is the style of the lecturer, which no doubt had its origin in Gorgias and his like. Chapter 4 and 5 The author has explained the emission of semen in the male partner (in chapters 1—3) and he now attempts to establish that the same process occurs in the female, as a necessary preliminary to his account of sexual determination and his explanation of the similarities between children and parents (in chapters 6 — 11). What sex a child will have, and whether it will take after its father or its mother, are obviously matters of human concern, and it is not surprising that most Greek scientists should have attempted to explain how these things occur. In particular, the question of what the mother contributes to the formation of her child has an obvious importance socially, legally, and economically, as well as on a more personal level. The kind of relevance this question had is illustrated by the passage in the Eumenides of Aeschylus (657—666) in which Apollo supports the case of Orestes by the argument that it is the father who forms the embryo, while the mother nourishes and preserves it. The scientific formulation of this view is that only the male parent contributes semen, and this was the doctrine held by Anaxagoras 114 , Hippon 115 , Diogenes of Apollonia 116 , and some Pythagoreans 117 . The contrary view, that both partners contribute seed, was held by Alcmaeon 118 , Parmenides119, Empedocles 120 and Democritus 121 , the author of Vict. I 1 2 2 , and it also appears in Mul. I (C) 1 2 3 . In the case of these thinkers the evidence is usually insufficient for us to tell what motives decided the adoption of one or the other view; what evidence we do have indicates that the doctrine was made part of the scientist's general doctrine of sexual generation, and was

114

115 116 117 118 119

• 20 121 122 123

Cf. VS 59 A 107; so Lesky pp. 1277f.; but Joly Recherches pp. 7 8 - 8 0 disagrees and prefers the evidence of Cens. 5,4 = VS 64 A 27. Cf. VS 38 A 14. Cf. VS 64 A 27. Cf. Diog. Laert. 8 , 2 8 . 4 0 4 , 1 3 - 1 8 Long = VS 58 Β l a . I 4 5 0 , 2 - 5 Diels-Kranz. Cf. VS 24 A 14. Cf. VS 28 Β 18. Cf. VS 31 Β 63. Cf. VS 68 Β 142. Cf. Vict. I 2 7 , 1 . 2 1 , 1 5 - 1 7 Joly = VI 5 0 0 , 8 f . Li. Cf. Mul. I 8.VIII 3 4 , 9 f . Li., 17. VIII 56,21 f. Li., 24.VIII 6 2 , 2 0 f . Li.

120

Commentary

used as a basis to account for sexual differentiation and inherited similarities. This is certainly so in Genit.: the view that both parents contribute semen is a systematic element in the author's whole theory of reproduction. The present chapter is closely reasoned: in it, the author takes as evidence for his view that the female partner also emits semen, the nature of the pleasure (ήδεται) which she feels in the sexual act. In chapter 1, pleasure and heat are associated with the disturbance of fluid which causes the secretion of semen. In the present chapter the author takes this association for granted, and presents as it were a kind of graph in which the co-ordinates are the production of semen and intensity of pleasure. When this intensity reaches its highest point, then the discharge occurs: Genit. 4, 1. 47, 4f. Joly = VII 474, 21 Li., Genit. 4, 2. 47, 18f. Joly = VII 476, 6 - 8 Li. If the woman is already in a condition of desire, she discharges before the man, and this is followed by a subsiding of pleasure (ουκ έτι ομοίως ήδεται). Otherwise, her pleasure and the man's coincide (συντελέει τω άνδρι ήδομένη Genit. 4, 1. 47, 5f. Joly = VII 474, 22 Li.). Extinction of pleasure in the woman is compared to the effect of cold water added to boiling water. But since this parallel obscures the point the author wishes to make, he immediately replaces it with another analogy, one which is not without poetry: if you extinguish a flame by pouring wine on it, the immediate result is that the flame leaps up and is actually increased, and only then does it go out. So in the woman, the immediate effect of the discharge of the man's semen is an increase of pleasure: or, in other words, and this is the author's point, the discharge of the man's semen causes the discharge of the woman's, except in the case mentioned above, when the woman όργςι μίσγεσθαι, which is probably regarded as exceptional. The author now adds a qualification: the pleasure of the woman is (a) less intense, and (b) lasts longer, and the reason is that (a) the disturbance which leads to secretion is stronger in the man and (b) the secretion is "sudden" in his case (and presumably more gradual in the woman's case). This qualification, it should be noted, both equates pleasure with the production of semen, and the highest point of that pleasure with its discharge: it is thus a confirmation of the author's general argument in the chapter, namely that the woman's experience of pleasure is evidence that she produces semen. That this is the argument is shown by the testimonium on Democritus (VS 68 A 142: και το θήλυ προίεσθαι σπέρμα . . . δια τοϋτο και ορεξιν έχει περι τάς χρήσεις (He says) that the female too emits sperm . . . this is why she has desire for intercourse). This is confirmed by Aristotle GA 1, 20 . 727b, 33—36: Some think that the female contributes sperm in coitus, because they experience a pleasure comparable (παραπλησίαν) to the male's, and at the same time a, moist secretion (where the word παραπλησίαν may indicate the same comparative argument as appears in the present chapter). Cf. also GA 1, 17. 721b, 15 — 17: one of the arguments used to support the theory of pangenesis is the extent of sexual pleasure: the fact that

O n Generation

121

it affects all parts of the body indicates that semen is produced from all parts of the body. Diocles also held the view that the female produces sperm, and supported it with the same argument 1 2 4 ; and the argument reappears in the pseudo-Aristotelian Historia Animalium X (636b, 15; 637a, 36; 637b, 30; according to G. Rudberg pp. 31 f. the book is probably to be associated with Strato [Fr. 95 Wehrli]. For Strato cf. Gottschalk Strato p. 150.). We encounter it again in Lucretius 4, 1192 — 1232 where a vivid description of the woman's pleasure is followed (1209) by a reference to female semen and theory of prevalence (uicit 1210 = κρατεί) of female over male or male over female seed. There is thus the same order of argument in Lucretius as in these chapters of Genit.: cf. chapters 6—9 with Lucretius 4, 1209 — 1232. Notice in the present chapter how the author emphasizes his point by repetition of the words ήδεται, ηδονή. 4,1 άπο τοΰ σώματος: the course of the female sperm is not described in detail, unlike the course of male sperm. Thus we cannot tell whether the author recognized the ovaries and uterine tubes, and attributed to them the same function (that of channels) as he attributed to the testes in males. It is however not impossible that he did. While it is true that Aristotle, in his description of the anatomy of the uterus, seems unaware of them, he did draw an analogy between the two-fold or bicornuate uterus in the female and the testes in the males (GA 1, 3. 716b, 32f.), and it is also the case that elsewhere he refers to the practice of some pigbreeders who spayed sows in order to fatten them by r e n d e r i n g t h e m i n f e r t i l e 1 2 5 . The language in which Aristotle describes the operation shows that those who performed it were conscious of an analogy to castration in males; but what was removed in the operation is described by a singular noun ή καπρία. This is elsewhere 126 compared to the substance discharged by mares "impregnated by the wind", and mares in heat, which is like semen, but much thinner (λεπτότερον!) than that of the male 127 . Further down, he remarks 128 that pigbreeders put the boar to the sow several times in succession, because the sow drops the καπρία after intercourse. It seems at least clear that stock-breeders were aware that there was something in common between the uterus, or a part of it, and the testes, and that this was associated with the belief in a functional similarity (female semen). But we cannot tell whether

124 125

126 127 128

Cf. Wellmann Fragmente p. 36 on Vindic. med. 25. H A 9,50.632a,21 f. Cf. Sor. G y n . 1,15,1.10,23-36 lib.; Galen D e semine 1,15.1V 5 7 0 , 1 - 6 Kühn and D e anat. admin. 12,1.1 pp. 137f. (II pp. lOOf. Simon = p p . 109f. D u c k w o r t h ) where Galen in describing the operation says that it shows that they must know the situation of the ovaries; Columella 7,9,5 (who however merely says "vulvae ferro exulcerantur"; Pliny nat. 8,209 vulva recisa). H A 6,18.572a, 1 7 - 2 9 . Cf. also H A 6,18.572b, 27. H A 6,18.573b, I f .

122

Commentary

stock-breeders were specifically aware of the ovaries. There may however have been a background to Herophilus' discovery. 4.1 μέχρις αν [αυτήν] μέθη: until he ejaculates·, so the majority of translators; cf. μεθίει above. 4.2 ώσπερ ει τις έπι φλόγα: Willich 129 remarks 'ut in sacrificiis Homericis perspicitur, quoties σπονδή fiebat' as can be seen in the sacrifices described in Homer, when a libation is poured, which indicates the source of the analogy. From the author's point of view, the analogy is a kind of evidence for the process described (cf. Introduction section 7[b]), although in this case, as often, it is hard to see what the tertium comparationis is. 4,2 πλείονα δέ χρόνον ή ό άνήρ: ή, lacking in Μ and V, is necessary for the consistency of the argument. 4.2 διότι δέ μάλλον: Joly wishes to punctuate with an interrogation after ήδεται, but cf. Mul. I 1. VIII 12, 12f. Li. where a similar anacoluthon occurs with οτι. 4.3 μάλλον ύγιαίνουσιν: in the gynaecological treatises, intercourse is recommended several times for therapeutic reasons, e. g. Nat. Mul. 40. 106, 14f. Trapp = VII 384, 14f. Li. (oblique displacement of womb along with retention of the menses); Nat. Mul. 43. 108, 2f. Trapp = VII 388, 2f. Li. (here one of the symptoms is that the cervix has contracted upwards άνακεχώρηκεν); Mul. II 141. VIII 314, 19f. Li. and 175. VIII 358, 8 Li. Retention of the menses is involved in all these cases. For the notion of health as a state admitting of the 'more and less' cf. van Brock pp. 162-165 who mentions this passage. As well as being semantically in order however, it is consistent with the author's conception of disease as an imbalance of humours, which may in some cases be slight. Cf. chapters 51—53. 4,3 ξηραι δέ: Littre's supplement is necessary for the meaning, as well as consistent with the eiromene lexis of this whole passage. 4,3 ού ξηραί: overdrying is one of the main principles in later Cnidian pathology. Cf. Aff. 1. VI 208, 8—10 Li.: Diseases are caused by bile and phlegm when there is an excess of dryness or moisture or heat or cold in the body 130 . The author's theory in the present passage is fully illustrated in Mul. I 2. VIII 14, 8 - 1 6 , 2 Li. and Mul. I 7. VIII 32, 1 - 1 9 Li. Note in particular Mul. I 7. VIII 32, 4f. Li. αύανθεΐσαι αί μήτραι. . . στρέφονται the uterus being dried . . . is twisted·, 7. VIII 32, 6 Li. εύρυχωρίη space; 7.

129 130

Willich Genit. p. 82. Compare also Morb. 1 2 . 6 , 5 - 8 Wi. = VI 1 4 2 , 1 3 - 1 7 Li. F o r the relatively late date of these texts in the development of the Cnidian school, see Jouanna Hippocrate pp. 2 6 2 - 3 6 0 .

O n Generation

123

VIII 32, 8f. Li. έρχονται άνω προς την ικμάδα (the uterus) moves upward toward the moisture131. If on the contrary the womb is too moist because of an excess of phlegm, a woman is reluctant to have intercourse 132 . For the same reason, ΰγρότης moisture, the Scythian women are not prolific 133 . 4,3 έν τησι γυναικεί/ησι νούσοισι: for the relation to Mul. see Introduction section 3 pp. 51 —53. Ilberg 134 refers the remark to Mul. 11 —3. Chapter 5 With the completion of this chapter the author has told us virtually all he ever does tell us about the mechanics of conception. It is not very much, particularly if we compare it with the discussion of this specific question in Soranus 135 . The author is unclear about precisely when and where conception occurs. Obviously it is not simply a result of the encounter between male and female sperm, for both may subsequently be lost 136 . For conception to occur, the two kinds of sperm must remain in the womb, and, presumably, long enough for the respiratory process described in chapter 12 to begin. Where does the encounter occur — do the two kinds of sperm meet outside the womb, and are they then both drawn 1 3 7 into the womb? ή γονή πεσοϋσα τοϋ ανδρός ές τάς μήτρας the man's sperm falling into the womb Genit. 4, 2. 47, 8 Joly = VII 474, 24 Li. suggests that the encounter takes place in the womb itself; on the other hand the contingency 138 in which the female sperm is sometimes emitted outside the womb indicates that the contrary may be the case. So at least Aristotle understood the matter: in GA 2, 4. 739b, 16—20 he criticized the belief that the female emits sperm on the ground that i f e x h y p o t h e s i the sperm is emitted outside the womb, it must then be drawn back into it, which is superfluous, whereas nature does nothing that is superfluous. The view which Aristotle rejects reappears in pseudo-Aristotle H A 10, which is quite definite on the point that female sperm is emitted outside the womb and then attracted in by breath (τω πνεύματι) 139 . It was probably part of the stock-in-trade of the whole female sperm theory; but the present author is vague on the point. 5,1 άπ άμφοτέρων: Cf. Nat. Puer. 12,1.53,2 Joly = VII 486,1 Li. άπ άμφοΐν. 131 132 133 134 135 136

137 138 139

Cf. also Mul. I 32.VIII 76,1 —22 Li. where the same theory is applied to the foetus in utero. Cf. Mul. I 57.VIII 114,8-13 Li. Cf. Aer. 21,2.72,If. Di. = II 7 6 , 2 - 4 Li. Cf. Ilberg p. 19 n. 5. Cf. Sor. Gyn. 1,43.30,10-31,5 lib. Cf. Temkin Sor. Gyn. pp. 42f. Cf. Genit. 5,1.48,2f. Joly = VII 476,18 Li.; Nat. Puer. 12,1.53,2 Joly = VII 486,1 Li.; Nat. Puer. 13.55,11-13 Joly = VII 490,6f. Li. Cf. note on chapter 5,1 below. Mentioned in Genit. 4,1.46,24-47,1 Joly = VII 474,16-18 Li. H A 10,5.637a, 15-20; cf. H A 10,2.634b, 3 3 - 3 5 .

124

Commentary

5,1 όκόταν ή γυνή έθελήστ]: Mercurialis 1 4 0 in his note on the passage referred to the method of contraception described in Aristotle H A 7,3. 583 a, 22—24, and one might compare the similar methods described in Soranus Gyn. 1 , 6 1 , I f . 46,4—12 lib. or the artful devices of courtesans in Lucretius 4,1269—1276. For an instance of simple expulsion of the semen after intercourse (or at least the belief in its possibility) see the account quoted in Ploss-Bartels vol. II p. 63. But there seems no reason why the author should mention deliberate expulsion here, and it is in contradiction with chapter 13, where the girl, although she had heard much else, does not seem to have heard about so indispensable a part of her professional knowledge. J o l y 1 4 1 is therefore suspicious of the phrase; Μ . K. Hopkins also in his valuable study 1 4 2 finds it mystifying. Perhaps it is a gloss on the strange προς τφ εθει according to custom's^ αί γαρ μήτραι δεξάμεναι: the womb is not passive in conception: cf. Mul. I 18. V I I I 58,3f. Li. ήν δέ ύγρότερον ή τό στόμα των ύστερέων, ού δύνανται είρύσαι τον γόνον if the mouth of the womb is too moist, it cannot attract the semen, Mul. II 166. V I I I 344,14 Li., and the belief is of course implied in the word συλλαμβάνειν grasp ( = concipere, "conceive", which literally means take hold of); Aer. 21,2.72,2 Di. = II 76,3f. Li. even says ξυναρπάζειν αί μήτραι τον γόνον the womb seizes the seed. VM 22.53, 8 - 2 1 Hbg. = I 2 7 , 2 - 1 9 Kw. = I 6 2 6 , 1 4 - 6 2 8 , 5 Li. explains the attractive power of the uterus by its shape. 5,1 ειδήσει ή ήμερη: an example occurs in chapter 13; for the belief in general cf. the introductory note to that chapter, p. 161. But the formula for knowledge of conception which is implied here and in chapter 13 is quite simple and is given in Superf. 26.82,15f. Ln. = V I I I 4 9 0 , 6 f . Li.: a woman

will know (that she has conceived) if the man says that he has ejaculated, but the woman is unaware of it because she still feels dry. That the belief was general is implied in pseudo-Aristotle H A 10,5.636b,39—637a, 1, who

refers to those women who believe that they have not conceived unless they feel dry, the sperm they have received having disappeared. The sperm is attracted immediately into the womb.

Chapters 6—8 These chapters form a connected argument which is highly characteristic of the author's scientific method. His main intention is to give an account of sexual differentiation and of inherited similarities, which here include secondary sexual characteristics. Within this intention he (i) solves a 140 Mercurialis Hippocrates vol. II p. 16 n. 10. 141 142

P. 48 n. 1 in his edition. Hopkins p. 130 n. 18.

On Generation

125

particular problem, by (ii) an eclectic combination of the hypotheses available to him at the time. The result is a systematic scientific theory, but although particular details of the theory may be supported by analogy, it is not intended that the whole should be tested by experiment. The theory is regarded as true because it accounts, in a connected way, for the phenomena: the author's attitude is similar to that of the Atomists in accounting for the Eleatic problem about change, in an area where experiment was out of question. I

THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM. A c c o r d i n g to A l c m a e o n , the sex

of a child is determined by the quantity of semen contributed by either parent. VS 24 A 14 (Censorinus 6,4): ex quo parente seminis amplius fuit, eius sexum repraesentari dixit Alcmaeon, Alcmaeon said that the child reproduces the sex of that parent who contributed the most semen. After Alcmaeon this quantitative principle is used in various ways and in combination with various hypotheses to account for both sexual differentiation and for inherited similarity. For example Parmenides, according to Censorinus, said that the form (habitus) of the child is determined by whichever parent wins the victory (VS 28 A 54). ' F o r m ' here apparently refers to similarity, since Parmenides seems to have explained sexual differentiation by origin of the semen from the right or left side 1 4 3 . Again Empedocles, according to Aristotle 1 4 4 said that sex was determined according to cold and heat in the womb 1 4 5 . Democritus, again according to Aristotle 1 4 6 accounted for difference in sex by the prevailing of the semen which came from one or the other parent; but in the case of Democritus, as Aristotle is careful to point out, this is combined with the theory of pangenesis: sex is determined by the part of the parent from which the seed comes. The difficulty in all such accounts (apart from the theory of Democritus) is put clearly by Aristotle: Further, they cannot explain with any ease how it is that at the same time a female offspring takes after the father and a male offspring after the mother; . . . those who maintain that it all depends upon whether more or less semen comes from either the male or the female, and that this is why one offspring is formed as a male, and another as a female, these people, I am sure, are not in a position to show how the female is going to take after the father and the male after the mother, since it

143

144 145

146

Cf. Lesky p. 1271; she gives good reasons for supposing that the elaborate theory reported by Lactantius (VS 28 A 54), in which both sex and physiological type are determinated by a permutation of sexually determining seed with sexually determining position in the womb, is a later elaboration which is not to be attributed to Parmenides himself. GA 4,1.764a, 1 - 6 = VS 31 A 81. From the commentary of Ps.-John Philoponus on this passage (pp. 166,24 — 167,5) it appears that the function of cold and heat was to determine which sexually determining seed should prevail; cf. Longrigg Galen p. 300 n. 2. GA 4,1.764a, 6 - 1 1 = VS 68 A 143.

126

Commentary

is impossible for more semen to come from both parents at one and the same time (GA 4,3.769a, 15-23) 1 4 6 a . The difficulty is stated even more clearly by Galen (Galen is referring to the theory of Strato, which seems to have been identical with that of Alcmaeon): To think that a male animal is born when the male sperm prevails, is sufficiently plausible, but it is at variance with the fact that females are often very similar to their fathers, while many males are like their mothers. Perhaps, then, it would be better to say that it is not simply through prevailing of the different sperms that male and female come to be, but in relation to the differentiated parts. But this again, as I have said, is in conflict with the fact that it is not only in the genital parts that the difference lies, but in the whole body (De sem. 2,5. IV 629,13—630,5 Kühn). Galen thus includes, and rejects, the variant explanation proposed by Democritus. These are later formulations. But it is clear that the author of Genit. is aware of the problem, and here attempts to satisfy it. II T H E S O L U T I O N . In doing this, he makes a systematic use of four principles, all of which were available to him from previous embryological theory: (a) the theory of pangenesis (Democritus); (b) the doctrine that both parents contribute semen (Alcmaeon, Parmenides, Empedocles, Democritus); (c) the principle of prevalence (επικράτεια) (Alcmaeon, Parmenides, Empedocles, Democritus); and (d) "sexual bi-potence" (Lesky's term): the doctrine that a parent may provide both male and female sperm. This view was held, for the male parent, by Anaxagoras: (Anaxagoras and other physiologers) say that sperm comes from the male while the female provides the place; and that the male (sperm) comes from the right and the female from the left; and that males are in the right side of the womb and the females in the left (Aristotle GA 4,1.763 b, 3 2 - 3 4 = VS 59 A 107); but not, so far as we are told, by Democritus. The apparent originality 146b of the author lies in his combination of (d) with (b) and with (a), and this originality is decisive. For by combining it with both he produced a more comprehensive theory than any other scientist of his era, including Democritus. Alcmaeon, by the combination of (b) and (c), could not produce a theory which would account s e p a r a t e l y for sexual differentiation and specific resemblances between parent and child. The theory of pangenesis (a) as it was used by Democritus did make such a separate account possible, for Democritus could then make a specific use of Peck Arist. GA p. 415. 146bUnless he was preceded by Empedocles. This would be the consequence of accepting the evidence of Censorinus 5,4 ( = VS 31 A 81), since Censorinus attributes to Empedocles as well as to Anaxagoras the view that male sperm comes from the right etc. The statement has been rejected by Lesky p. 1261 and by Lloyd Polarity p. 60 n. 19; Bollack however (vol. 1 pp. 223 f.; vol. 2 p. 251 and vol. 4 p. 560) accepts it, and regards Empedocles as constructing a theory of resemblances of a similar elaboration to that of Vict. I 28—29.

1461

O n Generation

127

the principle of epikrateia (c): a girl may be born who resembles her father, because while the mother's contribution prevails in those parts which determine sex, the contribution of the father prevails in most other parts 1 4 7 . It might be thought that this was sufficient. But what Democritus' theory will not account for is the possession of secondary sexual characteristics, an inadequacy which is illuminated by the passage of Galen quoted above. Males differ from females not only in the genital parts, but in the whole body (Galen De sem. 2,5. IV 630,5 Kühn). The refinement added by (d) is that the theory can now account for the formation of a girl, for example, who in most respects is as it were the feminine counterpart of her father, or a boy who is the masculine counterpart of his mother. This is possible because not only does the seed come from each part of the body, but e a c h p a r t is a l s o sexually bi-potential 148 . An important qualification of the theory is that a complete replica of either parent is impossible on assumption (b), as the author points out. While he would presumably regard this as a confirmation of his theory, since perfect replicas do not in fact occur, his statement indicates an obscurity in his theory. Total prevalence of one parent's seed cannot occur, but the author gives no reason for the impossibility. This omission is part of a wider one: we are not told why it is necessary that seed from both parents must encounter before conception can occur. For the author of Genit. fertilization seems to be a basic fact, a necessity (ανάγκη) of nature which need not and indeed cannot be further enquired into. Yet Empedocles 149 at least had seen the difficulty: each parent provides the half necessary to make up the whole. 6,1 δτε μεν ίσχυρότερον: cf. Genit. 7,3.49,14-16 Joly = VII 480,1—3 Li.: χωρέει δε ουκ ά ε ι . . . ίσχυρον . . . αλλ' άλλοτε άλλοϊον (the seed) does not always come strong from the same man nor always weak, but sometimes one and sometimes the other. What is actually emitted (μεθιέμενον χωρέει) on a particular occasion will be male or female, but not both. This is also the case in Vict. I 27 — 30 150 , which shares the view of sexual bi-potence. There is however, a modification of this in the case of twins of differing sex: see chapter 31 and Commentary p. 254. Note that the author mentions the woman first: this is important, because the unique feature of his theory, and therefore uppermost in his

147

148 149 150

C f . Lesky p. 1314: " Z u der rein mengenmäßigen Epikratie tritt also auch eine regional bestimmte hinzu, die erst die Pangenesislehre ermöglichen konnte, weil sie als einzige Zeugungslehre die Verbindung des Keimgutes mit allen Körperteilen b e h a u p t e t . " Cf. Genit. 8 , 1 . 4 9 , 2 0 - 5 0 , 3 Joly = VIII 4 8 0 , 7 - 1 3 Li. VS 31 Β 63. Cf. Joly Recherches pp. 80f.; Joly observes that the doctrine is closely connected with the dualistic theory of this treatise viz. that men are formed f r o m fire and water. This should be borne in mind in any consideration of the relative priority of the respective treatises.

128

Commentary

mind, is the fact that the woman can produce male-determining sperm, rather than that the man can produce female-determining sperm. The latter hypothesis was already held by Anaxagoras. The same priority is given to the woman in the case described in chapter 7. 6,1 ίσχυρότερον . . . άσθενέστερον: cf. Nat. Puer. 31,3.83,22—25 Joly = VII 540,20—23 Li., where the male seed is described also as thicker or more solid (παχύτερη), and the female seed as more fluid or thinner (υγρότερη). In Nat. Puer. 18 the female seed is again described as άσθενεστέρη . . . και υγρότερη, and the fact is used to explain the slower formation of the female embryo 1 5 1 . The converse view for the male seed is found in Nat. Puer. 21,1.67,8 Joly = VII 510,24 Li. (ίσχυροτέρης και παχύτερης). The same two pairs of terms to characterize male and female seed are used in a report of Hippon's views 152 , and it is possible that the characterization of male and female sperm as thick or thin goes back to Alcmaeon 153 . Thickness and thinness or solidity and fluidity may imply warmer and colder respectively; in which case we have a trace of the belief, which (along with the contrary belief) is general in the Hippocratic Collection, as well as in the pre-Socratics, that males have a warmer and drier constitution, females a colder and moister constitution. The author makes use of the principle that the tendency of heat is to solidify the embryo (Nat. Puer. 12,1.53,3f. Joly = VII 486,3 Li. [γονή] . . . παχύνεται θερμαινόμενη the seed thickens in consequence of heat) and the same must be true in the passage referred to above in chapter 18, where the female embryo takes longer to coagulate because it is moister. Yet the author is not consistent, for he also makes use of the opposed belief that females are moister and warmer in Mul. I 1. VIII 12,21 f. Li. which is almost certainly written by him 1 5 4 ; and the same belief is implied in chapter 15, where cf. note (pp. 172f.) 155 . Such contradictions point to the eclectic nature of Genit., but they are also typical of Greek science generally; and even so great a systematizer as Aristotle will at times employ conflicting principles in different parts of his work. 6,1 ανάγκη γαρ: V and Μ read ούν, which at first sight gives a better sense. But γαρ is not explicable as a corruption of ούν, and the meaning must be the male (seed) is stronger than the female (seed): for it must be from a stronger seed that (the male animal) comes. The argument is archaic: for άνάγκη used in the same way to refer to an ultimate necessity based on

151 152 153 154 155

Nat. Puer. 18,8.64,1-4 Joly = VII 504,24-27 Li. VS 38 A 14. Cf. VS 24 Β 3 and Blersch pp. 5 - 7 . Cf. Introduction, p. 52. Lesky (p. 1267) goes so far as to say that this view is characteristic of the Cnidian school, in contrast to the Coan.

129

O n Generation

φύσις or the nature of things, cf. Nat. Horn. 3 , 2 - 4 . 1 7 2 , 2 - 1 2 Jou. = VI 38,7—18 Li. "male" and "strong" are similarly equated without argument in Genit. 4,2.47,19 Joly = VII 476,8 Li. 6,1 ην μεν άπ' αμφοτέρων: there is a difficulty in the interpretation of the following passage. Blersch 156 and Lesky 157 take it to mean that sex is determined when both partners contribute male-determining sperm, or when one produces male-determining and the other female-determining sperm but in varying quantities so that the balance is swung to one side or the other. There are thus actually six cases, as Lesky 157 makes clear in the following schema: 1. M+

2. F+

Μ

M-

FF

3. and 4. M± F+ Ε Μ or F

5. and 6. M± F+ Ε F or Μ

(+ = male-determining sperm, — = female-determining sperm, Ε = επικράτεια prevalence, on the side of the male partner in 3 and 4, and on the side of the female in 5 and 6). If that is the author's meaning, then the sentence όκότερον . . . γίνεται, covering cases 3 — 6, is certainly very cryptic and abrupt. This is uncharacteristic of the author's style where an important point is involved, and at the very least one would expect another conditional sentence: "but if from the one, stronger seed comes, and from the other, weaker . . .". In such a repetitious context a lacuna caused by haplography would be an easy hypothesis. A clue to the original form of the sentence, and, in any case, to what the author means may be found in Vict. I 30,2.24,21 f. Joly = VI 506,3f. Li.: όκόταν δε το μεν θήλυ, τό δε άρσεν (sc. άποκριθή) όκότερον άν έκατέρου κράτηση, τοιούτον έπαύξεται when on the one hand female and on the other male sperm is secreted, then whichever prevails over the other, such is the nature of the infant that grows. 6,1 όκότερον δ' άν κράτηση κατά πλήθος: The use of the principle of έπικράτεια in embryological theory is extensive, as I have remarked above 158 . So far as the evidence goes, it was first used in this way by Alcmaeon 159 . Alcmaeon is a likely author for the use, since he seems to have been responsible for its introduction into medicine, where it was subsequently given a very wide application indeed. Alcmaeon's theory was that health consists in the equilibrium (ισονομία) of opposing factors or opposites, particularly the opposites hot and cold, moist and dry. When 156 157 ,5S 159

Blersch p. 20. Lesky p. 1306. Cf. p. 126. VS 24 A 14.

130

Commentary

any one of these opposites gains sovereignty (μοναρχία) over the other, then illness results. The concept of κράτος, επικράτεια is employed in precisely this way by the present author 1 6 0 and it is all but universal in the Hippocratic Collection 161 . In particular it is closely associated with humoral theory in which diseases are explained by the prevailing of one humour over the others. Although Alcmaeon was perhaps the first to use it systematically in medical theory, its use in cosmology preceded him. It is already present in the cosmology of Anaximander 162 . It seems to have originated as a social and political analogy; this at least is suggested by the language of Anaximander and of Alcmaeon 163 . In the present passage, seed of one sex prevails over the other in quantity (cf. Genit. 6,2.48,20 Joly = VII 478,8 Li. πολλω πλέον το ασθενές the weak sperm is much greater in quantity). In what sense then is male seed "stronger"? Presumably (cf. note on 6,1 above p. 128) the meaning is more concentrated·, in VM 14 the powers (δυνάμεισ) or humours (χυμοί) cause harm when they are undiluted. Early scientists often do not make it clear in a particular case whether they regard επικράτεια as quantitative or qualitative 164 ; in fact it was not until Plato and Aristotle that these categorical distinctions were precisely formulated. The distinction is made very plain in the Pr. 1,42.864a, 36—b, 5 oil and honey purge, not by quality (τφ ποιώ) but by quantity (τω ποσω). Hence they are not φάρμακα — for it is not as powers (i. e. by the possession of a particular quality) that they purge (ουδέ γαρ δια δύναμιν καθαιρεί). Yet earlier scientists were certainly aware of the distinction (as in the present passage and in VM 14) even when they do not express it precisely. 6,2 μιχθέν τω άσθενεϊ ές θήλυ περιηνέχθη: the meaning is unclear, probably because of a confusion between the categories of quantity and quality. If it is meant that the element which is defeated is a s s i m i l a t e d to the element which prevails, this would agree with a similar passage in Vict. I 28,3.23,4f. Joly = VI 502,13f. Li. το δέ θήλυ μειοΰται και διακρίνεται ές άλλην μοίρην the female (seed) decreases and is segregated into the other portion; it would also evade the objection to pangenesis which Aristotle subsequently raised 165 that if sperm is drawn from all parts of both parents, two creatures should be born instead of one. Yet if the author does mean 160 161

162 163

164 165

See introductory note to chapters 49—53. Cf. in particular VM, Morb. Sacr., Vict. I and II, Morb. I, Nat. Horn.; a useful list of passages is given by Keus pp. 58—66. VS 12 Β 1. Cf. the valuable article "Equality and Justice in Early Greek Cosmologies" by G. Vlastos (1947), and Lloyd Polarity p. 216 n. 1 on the expression μοναρχία. Cf. Vlastos Equality p. 159 on Empedocles. GA 1,18.722b, 6 - 8 .

O n Generation

131

that one ingredient is assimilated to the other, this is inconsistent with the following analogy (on which see below). Perhaps then περιηνέχθη means results in a female as its end product. 6,2 ώσπερ εϊ τις: Joly 1 6 6 assuming that the author wishes to demonstrate that one kind of sperm is completely assimilated to the other, so that the end product is entirely and homogeneously male or female, finds a serious inadequacy in the analogy: for when the mixture hardens (corresponding to the formation of the embryo) it becomes clear that there are two ingredients of which one predominates. It is not necessary to make this assumption (cf. preceding note), and indeed it seems to be excluded by chapter 8, where the author says that it is impossible for a child to resemble one parent in all respects, and the other in no respect (which should be the result of complete assimilation). With the thought and language of the analogy, cf. VM 14. According to that chapter homogeneous substances can be formed from different ingredients: they are in fact the result of excellent κρασις. A humour or "power" does no harm to man when it has been well tempered (εν κέκρηται) and it has nothing untempered or powerful (ίσχυρόν) but it is one simple whole (δλον εν τε γέγονε και άπλοϋν ΥΜ 14.46,15-17 Hbg. = I 16,25f. Kw. = I 604,9 — 11 Li.). With this passage we can compare one earlier in the chapter: When these ingredients are mingled and tempered together, they are neither manifest (φανερά) nor do they injure the subject; but once one of them is secreted and stands by itself, then it is manifest (φανερόν) and it does injure the subject (VM 14.46,1—4 Hbg. = I 16,5— 9 Kw. = I 602,12—14 Li.). The analogy in the present work is precisely similar to the two cases described here. When suet and wax are melted down together they are, so long as their state is fluid, an homogeneous mixture: that is to say, one ingredient is not manifest (ού διάδηλον γίνεται Genit. 6,2.48,25 Joly = VII 478,13 Li., cf. VM φανερόν). But when they harden, the predominating ingredient does become manifest (εμφανές γίνεται, δτι . . . Genit. 6,2.48,26 Joly = VII 478,14 Li.). A very similar analogy is mentioned in an embryological context by Aristotle, who in G A 4,3.769a,27—34 described a theory according to which semen is mixed together from a large number of ingredients, but the mixture is homogeneous (μίαν ούσαν) as the result of perfect κρασις (cf. VM 14). But if a portion of this fluid is taken, it will contain more of one ingredient than of another. As it hardens, the predominating ingredient becomes manifest 167 . N o w the theory in Aristotle is a theory of general resemblances, not of sexual dif166 167

Joly Niveau p. 112. Aristotle does not state this explicitly, but this is the interpretation we must give to his use of his own terminology, "potentially" and "in actuality": this use is consistent with his o w n theory of mixture, in which the ingredients of a c o m p o u n d exist in it "potentially". But on this passage see now (1980) H . de Ley in Hermes 108 (1980), pp. 1 4 6 - 1 5 2 .

132

Commentary

ferentiation; and the analogy in Genit. would explain resemblances in precisely the same way. For although the overall character will be male or female (i.e. will include both primary and secondary sexual characteristics), in any particular p a r t the contribution of one parent may prevail over another, irrespective of sex 168 . A similar analogy is used by the author in Vict. I 29,2. 24,1—8 Joly = VI 504,7—13 Li. to illustrate his theory of sexual determination (apparently an elaborated version of that of Genit.). In this case the analogy is that of burning charcoal added to cold charcoal, the strong to the weak. The whole mass is ignited and becomes homogeneous; and one coal is no longer distinguishable from another 169 . 6,2 έπήν δέ παγη: the expression suggests that the analogy is embryological, since πήγνυσθαι, συμπήγνυσθαι coagulate and συνίστασθαι be composed are frequently applied to the embryo at conception. Cf. Nat. Puer. 18,8. 64,1 Joly = VII 504,25 Li. τό θήλυ πήγνυται the female (embryo) coagulates·, Morb. IV 32,1. 84,2f. Joly = VII 542,4f. Li. το σπέρμα . . . έπάγη the seed . . . coagulated·, Aer. 19,9. 70,2 Di. = 73,8 Hbg. = II 72,20 Li.; 23,2. 76,11 Di. = 76,1 Hbg. = II 84,1 Li.; 23,3. 76,16 Di. = 76,6 Hbg. = II 84,7 Li.; VM 20. 51,12 Hbg. = I 24,17f. Kw. = I 620,12 Li.; Vict. I 27,3. 22,4 Joly = VI 500,20 Li. and Vict. I 28,1. 22,7 Joly = VI 500,23 Li. (συνίστασθαι). Ε. Lesky 170 points out that the concept can be traced back to Milesian cosmology and it becomes a technical term in the pre-Socratics. It occurs frequently in the fragments of Empedocles 171 ; and it is applied to the embryo in Democritus 172 and in Anaxagoras 173 . See most recently Demont pp. 358—384. Paul Demont discusses the semantic relations between πήγνυμι ("coagulate"), αυξάνω ("increase") and τρέφω, which includes both meanings, as well as the conventional translation "nourish". His discussion is illuminating for the author's conception of embryonic growth and articulation.

168

169

170 171 172 173

Vlastos (Anaxagoras p. 35 n. 22) attributes the theory in Aristotle to Anaxagoras. It is in fact an application of Anaxagoras' doctrine (VS 59 Β 12) that a thing is most like that of which it has most in it. This of course does not preclude the possibility that the author of Genit. or Democritus may have derived an analogy f r o m Anaxagoras and applied it to his own different generative theory (Wellmann Spuren p. 307 refers it to Democritus). The fire analogy is apparently suggested by the author's theory that seed contains a vital principle, ψ υ χ ή ; and for him ψ υ χ ή is fiery. Cf. Lesky p. 1308 n. 2 and p. 1309 n. 1; cf. also Nestle Hippocratica p. 20 n. 2. VS 31 Β 56.75.86.107; cf. Lloyd Polarity p. 275 n. 1. VS 68 A 152; this passage f r o m Aelian is full of Democritean terminology. VS 59 Β 4.

O n Generation

133

Chapter 7 7,1 ξυμβάλλεσθαι τοΐσιν έμφανέσι γινομένοισι: The words 1 7 4 are a clear echo of Anaxagoras' famous maxim, οψις των άδηλων χά φαινόμενα from the seen we derive insight into the unseen, which was quoted with approval by Democritus 174a . The principle was taken up with enthusiasm by the Hippocratic writers as well as others: cf. in particular VM 22. 53,12f. Hbg. = I 27,8f. Kw. = I 626,18f. Li.: καταμανθάνειν δε δει ταϋτα έξωθεν έκ τών φανερών one should derive an understanding of these things from what is externally manifest; and Vict. I 11,1. 13,3f. Joly = VI 486, 12f. Li.: οι δέ άνθρωποι έκ τών φανερών τα άφανέα σκέπτεσθαι ουκ έπίστανται men do not understand how to examine the unseen from the manifest115. Cf. also Gorgias Hel. 13 (VS 82 Β 11) who refers to the method of the μετεωρολόγοι i.e. the scientists. A close parallel to the present passage occurs in Herodotus 2,33,2 καΐ ως εγώ συμβάλλομαι τοϊσι έμφανέσι τα μή γινωσκόμενα τεκμαιρόμενος κτλ. as I conclude, inferring what is unknown from what is manifest . . . The "unknown" here are the source, length and course of the Nile; what is "manifest" is the source of the Danube. Herodotus argues from the known characteristics of the one river to the unknown characteristics of the other 176 . Anaxagoras' maxim would have found approval in the medical writers, since it so exactly formulated their own experience in diagnosis and prognosis. Internal processes cannot be observed, but their signs (σημεία, τεκμήρια) can. This is neatly illustrated in Morb. IV 55,6.119,4 Joly = VII 604,6 Li. Inflammation of the bladder is included in a list of symptoms. The author adds: but this cannot be observed (άφανές). The sign (σημήιον) is (in) the foreskin (άκροποσθίη) 1 7 7 . This strictly medical procedure becomes a general and consciously employed scientific method in Morb. IV e. g. 36: certain kinds of food and drink increase the amount of bile in the body: the evidence is immediate pain in the liver and we see

174

For έμφανης, cf. Nat. Puer. 29,1.77,15 Joly = VII 530,4 Li.; Nat. Puer. 30,8.81,7 Joly = VII 536,16 Li. and Morb. IV 36,1.89,7 Joly = VII 550,22 Li. all of which illustrate the present passage. 1741 VS 59 Β 21 a. 175 The author goes on to specify "the manifest" as the arts and crafts (τέχνοα), which are similar to the nature of man (Vict. I l l , 1 . 1 3 , 4 f . Joly = VI 486,13 Li.). See the comments of Diller on this passage (Diller Ό ψ ι ς άδηλων p. 40 = pp. 141 f.). Diller regards Anaxagoras' principle as the formulation of the analogical method, which drew its material from human activity and was therefore "anthropocentric", and as such, superseded by the more abstract argumentation of Democritus for whom man is a phenomenon on the same level as other phenomena. 176 Discussed by Lloyd Polarity pp. 342—345. 177 Cf. Morb. I 22.66,12 f. Wi. = VI 186,4f. Li. Ό τ α ν δ' ή νοϋσος έμφανης γένητοα, καϊ ή π ύ ο ν ή αίμα πτΰωσιν when the disease becomes manifest, that is, when pus or blood is expectorated: the disease becomes manifest by producing symptoms.

134

Commentary

(είσείδομεν) that this occurs, and it is clear (εμφανές) that it is caused by food or drink (Morb. IV 36,1.89,7f. Joly = VII 550,22f. Li.). The same argument is used for phlegm in chapter 35, where it is described as a σημήιον; and the author adds we can all see (όρέομεν) that this occurs (Morb. IV 35,1.87,24 Joly = VII 548,15 Li.). In neither of these passages is analogy employed; but in chapter 30 the analogy of a chicken pecking its way through an egg is adduced as an argument that the child is born when it no longer has sufficient nutriment. The analogy is called ίστόριον, and the author adds and this is manifest (έμφανές) to anyone who has ever given the matter any attention (Nat. Puer. 30,8.81,7f. Joly = VII 536,16f. Li.). The words έμφανές and ίστόριον (the word means, approximately, "evidence which has been found by deliberate enquiry") both occur in the famous "experiment" with the clutch of eggs in chapter 29; and in chapter 31 a ίστόριον is followed by και ταΰτα αύτοι όρέομεν γινόμενα and we ourselves observe these things happening (Nat. Puer. 31,2.83,12 Joly = VII 540,12 Li.). In short, a ίστόριον is anything observed, whether an analogy or not, on which an inference is based. The method of argument in the present chapter is that of chapter 18, where the period of lochial discharge is described as ίστόριον for the period of formation in the embryo. In that passage as in this, the relevance of the ίστόριον and the validity of the inference depend on acceptance of the author's general theory. 7,1 πολλαί γαρ γυναίκες: the following argument is best regarded as a logical construct, presumably based on some degree of empirical evidence, though it seems unlikely that the author can have personally encountered or even heard of many such instances as he described 178 . The use or misuse of statistical evidence is such a commonplace today that it is hard for us to think back to a time when one or at most a few striking instances could serve to justify a general principle. Yet this seems to have been the case, particularly in medical theory: the very detailed lists of symptoms set down in the Cnidian treatises are described in a way which suggests that they may be expected in all cases of the disease. But the extreme detail of some of them indicates that they rest on personal experience of a particular case, which is then generalized 179 . Controlled observation was virtually

178

It was a commonplace (though certainly not in the schematic f o r m given it in this passage) that a change of partner may result in a change f r o m infertility to fertility, and f r o m girl children to boy children (et vice versa). Cf. Arist. H A 7,6.585b, 1 0 - 1 4 , G A 4,2.767a, 23—28, Lucretius 4,1248 — 1259. The passage in Lucretius is closest, because although it is concerned with fertility and not the sex of the offspring, like the present passage it requires a minimum of four partnerships.

179

Cf.Lonie Treatises p. 11 and see Deichgräber Epidemien pp. 127—131 on the way in which particular observations set d o w n in Epid. V become generalizations in Epid. VII. But see n o w V. Langholf pp. 264—274 on the relation between books V and VII of the Epidemics.

On Generation

135

unknown, and this is perhaps connected with the archaic attitude which will use an anecdote not merely to illustrate a proverb or general maxim, but also to guarantee its truth 1 8 0 . Although the argument is not an analogy, it works in the same way as an analogy — or as an anecdote chosen to illustrate a moral maxim already assumed to be true. We must remember here that anecdotes and similes were the only intellectual models available to Greek scientists on which to pattern their arguments: it is therefore not particularly enlightening, though true, to object that most of these arguments beg the question. The present argument has a limited validity for cases 1 and 2 (sex determined by coincidence of male-determining [m] and female-determining [f] sperm), but none at all for 3—6 (sex determined by επικράτεια of m over f or vice versa) since in the four different marriages, the decisive factor might have been the different relative dominance of the partners, i.e. the results could be explained on the older επικράτεια theory, without supposing that male and female both have male and female sperm. But after all it may have been cases 1 and 2 that were uppermost in the author's mind, since it is here that the originality of his hypothesis lies. If that is so, then the argument runs: sex is determined when both partners coincide in producing male or female sperm 1 8 1 . In the first marriage (girls) both partners (Mj and F j ) have a consistent tendency to produce f rather than m. In the second marriage both partners (M 2 and F]) have produced m rather than f. The variable of a second marriage therefore indicates that F] can at different times produce m as well as f. N o w M j with F 2 also produced m, so that the same conclusion holds for the man 1 8 2 . For the way in which the author's mind works, it is instructive to compare the argument in Nat. Horn. 5 and 6 that the four humours are the primary constituents of the body: if you administer a drug that purges bile, then bile will appear, if a drug which purges phlegm, then phlegm will appear, and so on. If the drug is strong enough, then it will purge each of the four humours in succession, and the patient dies. This 'experiment' would be informative only on the assumption which the author sets out to prove, namely that these four humours are the primary constituents of the body 1 8 3 .

180

181

182 183

If the author of Genit. is also the author of parts of Mul. I and II he would have had more opportunity than most to learn of such cases as he recounts. Lesky (p. 1306) thinks that he was led to his theory of sexually bi-potent sperm by the case of chapter 7, which he had observed in the course of his general practice. Cf. Genit. 6,1.48,17f. Joly = VII 478,6f. Li. ήν μεν άπ' άμφοχέρων χό σπέρμα ίσχυρότερον ελθη, άρσεν γίνεται· ήν δε άσθενές, θήλυ if both partners produce a stronger sperm, then a male is the result, whereas (if they both produce) a weak form then a female (is the result). The third case (M2+F3—>f) adds nothing further, and is presumably included for symmetry. Cf. Lloyd Experiment pp. 75 and 78 f.

136

Commentary

["The other woman argument" 1 8 3 a : This is not a proof of the author's theory in the sense that no other explanation is possible. Admittedly it makes the point that even where one partner in a marriage appears to be dominant in determining the sex of the children, this dominance is not invariable. But there could be other explanations of this than those the author offers — for instance, a hierarchy of sex-determination could be set up: F 2 < Mi < Fi < M 2 < F 3 But the author does not, or does not choose to, see this possibility. He assumes that the explanation lies, not so much in quantity as in kind of sperm. If both partners emit the same kind of sperm, then the sex of the child will also be of that kind. Ringing the changes with different partners, both show themselves capable of producing the other kind of sperm, but, in the extreme case cited, always in agreement with the partner of the moment: F2 Mj F! M2 F3 1 € * C I I I 1 I m

f

m

f

The model demonstrates the author's theory neatly, while the fact that it fails to prove it unequivocally does not seem to concern him.] The same example, involving a minimum of four partnerships, is used in Lucretius 4,1248—1259 to illustrate mutual compatibility in conception, but not the existence of bi-sexual sperm. It perhaps derives either from the present passage or, what is more likely, from its source. Cf. Mercurialis in his note on the passage 184 : "Lucretius qui primus latino idiomate rerum naturas explanavit, omniaque ab antiquis philosophis et medicis excerpsit, plurima certe ab Epicuro, aliqua a Democrito, nonnulla etiam ab Hippocrate sumpsit, nam de filiorum cum progenitoribus similitudine ita in quarto libro Hippocratis opiniones secutus fuit, ut non aliunde quam ab ipso, et praesertim ex hoc libro mutuasse videatur. . . .". Lucretius who was the first to expound natural philosophy in Latin and gathered everything from ancient philosophers and physicians, borrowed of course most from Epicurus, some from Democritus, but something too from Hippocrates: for in his fourth book, on the subject of the similarity between children and their parents, he follows Hippocrates' opinions so closely that it is apparent that he borrowed from no other source than him, and in particular from this very text (i.e. Nat. Puer.).

1833 184

1 owe this note to my wife. Mercurialis Hippocrates vol. II p. 16 n. 12.

O n Generation

137

7,3 θαυμάζειν: the train of thought is: the sexual bi-potency of both male and female is so far from being a paradox (θαϋμα) that it is an instance of a general l a w which applies to animals as well, so far as their breeding can be observed (i.e. domestic animals, τοΐσι κτήνεσιν); and it is the onlyhypothesis which can explain such facts as the author has described. The thought is similar in Nat. Puer. 2 6 , 5 . 7 6 , 2 0 - 2 2 Joly = V I I 5 2 8 , 1 3 - 1 5 L i . : there should be no sense of paradox (μή θαυμάζειν) in the fact that grafted trees bear fruit different from that of the tree on which they are grafted. F o r while this might seem a contradiction of the principle that all plants draw a specific fluid from the ground, which explains their characteristics, it is not so, for the grafted plant will be found eventually to draw its fluid direct from the ground also: i. e. it is an instance of the general rule. Here θαύμα is associated with an apparent exception to the general rule, as it is also in Genit. 1 1 , 1 . 5 2 , 5 - 1 0 Joly = V I I 4 8 4 , 1 6 - 2 0 Li. Cf. further Morb. Sacr. I , 3 - 5 . 6 0 , 4 - 1 0 Gr. = VI 3 5 2 , 5 - 1 1 Li.: men think that the cause of epilepsy is divine, because of their inexperience and the strangeness (θαυμασιότητος) of the disease, in that (6τι) it is unlike other diseases. But in fact, the author goes on, other diseases are no less strange, and the laws which govern them will be found to apply to epilepsy too. The relation between θαϋμα, a general law, and observation, is further illustrated in Nat. Puer. 2 9 , 3 . 7 8 , 7 f . Joly = V I I 530,18f. Li.; Mul. 1 2 5 . V I I I 6 8 , 1 4 f . Li., and Steril. 213. V I I I 414,15f. Li. 7,3 τοΐσι κτήνεσιν: for the comparison with animals cf. Nat. Puer. 2 1 , 3 . 6 8 , 1 - 3 Joly = V I I 5 1 2 , 1 4 - 1 6 Li., 2 9 , 2 . 7 7 , 2 3 - 7 8 , 4 Joly = V I I 530, 1 0 - 1 5 Li., 3 1 , 1 . 8 2 , 2 5 - 8 3 , 3 J o l y = V I I 5 4 0 , 1 - 4 Li. In 29 the author expresses a restriction: so far as one can compare (ξυμβάλλειν, a word characteristic of analogical argument) the nature of a bird to the nature of a human being. Cf. further Morb. Sacr. 3 , 2 . 6 8 , 2 4 f . G r . = VI 366,7f. L i . :

the human brain is double, just as it is in all other animals; and Morb. Sacr. I I , 3 f . 7 8 , 7 8 - 8 1 Gr. = VI 3 8 2 , 6 - 1 0 Li. where the author confirms his theory of epilepsy by dissecting goats. Chapter 8 Chapter 8 describes the author's theory of resemblances which is based, like the theory ascribed by Aristotle to Democritus, on the hypothesis of pangenesis and of partial or specific επικράτεια. However, the chapter is not separate from 6 and 7: at its end the author says: Such are my

proofs for my previous statement that both in the woman and in the man there is male sperm and female sperm (Genit. 8,2.50,12—14 Joly = V I I 4 8 0 , 2 0 - 4 8 2 , 2 Li.). It is this that is the most original point in the author's theory, and it is therefore in this that he is most interested. The author begins the chapter by repeating both the principle of pangenesis and the principle of sexual bi-potence: the seed comes from every

138

Commentary

part of the body both in male and female, and female seed comes from the female parts and male seed from the male parts. The child necessarily corresponds. Then follows a statement of the theory of partial επικ ρ ά τ ε ι α 1 8 5 : according to which parent contributes most seed from a specific part, the child resembles that parent in that part. O n the hypothesis that both parents contribute, it is a necessary inference (ανάγκη) that the child must have resemblances to b o t h parents in at least some respect. But it is an empirical fact (και εστίν οτε . . .) that girls may have a general resemblance to their fathers, and boys to their mothers. This fact is regarded as evidence (ίστόριον) for the author's hypothesis of sexual bi-potency in parents. In the case of a girl who resembles her father, what has happened is that her sex has been determined — according to chapter 6 — by the contribution of female sperm from both parents, while the likeness is caused by the prevalence of her father's contribution. This could not have been the case if her father had contributed only male sperm: on the older hypothesis of Alcmaeon and Empedocles sex-determination and resemblance could not be separated (Aristotle's objection), while sex-determination by the principle of partial epikrateia should logically result merely in a female whose secondary characteristics are masculine, being determined by the general prevalence of her father's contribution 1 8 6 . 8,1

και έν αύτη σφι: the first four words of the chapter are corrupt.

8,1 άπο τών άσθενέων άσθενής . . .: Littre refers to Aer. 14,5.58,21 f. Di. = II 6 0 , I f . Li. από τε τών ύγιηρών ύγιηρος από τε τών νοσερών

νοσερός (the seed comes) healthy from the healthy parts, and diseased from the diseased161. But here, as in Morb. Sacr. (note 187), the point is a different one: the inheritance of characteristics, particularly diseased characteristics, and that point is not relevant here, άσθενής and ισχυρή here must refer to sex, as they do in chapter 6 1 8 8 . Cf. however Genit. 9,1.50,15f. J o l y = V I I 482,3 Li. λεπτά και άσθενέα, and note on that passage, p. 141. 8,1 άποδιδοσθαι: Nat. Puer. 18,5.63,2 Joly = VII 504,3 Li., άνταποδίδοσθαι (the time the embryo takes to become fully formed corresponds to the period of lochial discharge). 8,1 ουκ άνυστόν: the same point is stated twice, first negatively then positively 1 8 9 . Lesky 1 9 0 suggests that the repetition has a special point: the 185 186 187 188 189

190

Cf. introductory note to chapters 6—8. Cf. Lesky p. 1315. Cf. also Morb. Sacr. 2 , 5 . 6 8 , 1 6 f . Gr. = VI 364,20 Li. So too Lesky p. 1306 n. 1. F o r οΰκ άνυστόν as the negative form of άνάγκη cf. Nat. Puer. 31,3.83,21 Joly = VII 540,19 Li.; Parmenides VS 28 Β 2 , 7 ; Empedocles VS 31 Β 12,2 (άνήνυστον); Melissus VS 30 Β 7 , 3 ; Anaxagoras VS 59 Β 5; cf. Lloyd Polarity pp. 4 2 3 f . Lesky p. 1314.

On Generation

139

author is consciously stressing the objection, voiced later by Aristotle 191 , to the view that sex is determined by the overall quantity (rather than by specific quantities) of semen contributed by each partner. If this was the case then a girl would have to be like her mother in all respects: the author emphatically denies this possibility. 8,2 και έστιν δτε: a new step in the argument. Having shown that a child must resemble each parent in some respect, the author proceeds to cases where the resemblances are cross-sexual. — It is a disadvantage of λέξις είρομένη that it does not mark clearly the stages in a progressive argument; and this no doubt made it difficult to construct such an argument as well as to express it. 8,2 καΐ ταΰτά μοι και τοσαΰτά έστιν ίστόρια: for the expression cf. note on chapter 3, pp. 118f. Strictly there are only two ίστόρια, that of the preceding sentence and chapter 7; but the remark probably refers to the whole connected passage, chapters 6—8. Chapters 9 - 1 1 Since on the theory of pangenesis the characteristics of the child are determined by those of both parents, the birth of an undersized child of weak constitution to parents of large build and strong constitution seems to contradict the general rule. The author explains the exception by introducing a further hypothesis (for this kind of manoeuvre, cf. introductory note to chapter 2). A child may have a weak constitution (chapter 9), or it may be actually crippled (chapter 10): in both cases the explanation is referred to the period of gestation, and the fault is explained by the anatomy of the womb or an injury received by the mother. The womb fails to close properly, so that the child's nutriment escapes; or the womb is malformed. The general idea that the environment provided by the mother partly determines the characteristics of a child to be is no doubt as old as midwifery itself and is the rational basis of numerous superstitions; it was used by Empedocles, who explained the determination of sex by uterine temperature. This distinction between constitutional deficiencies (λεπτον γενέσθαι undersized) and deformities (πήρωσις) caused by injury to the mother is made clear in chapter 11, where the author notes that in exceptional cases some deformities may themselves be constitutional. The distinction itself probably originates from an earlier distinction in medical aetiology, that of "internal" and "external" cause of disease. This seems to have been drawn by Alcmaeon 192 ; thereafter it is frequent in medical literature, where it is 191

GA 4,3.769a, 1 9 - 2 3 . 192 y s 24 Β 4; the whole passage is translated by Guthrie (History vol. I p. 346) as follows: Alcmaeon taught that what preserves health is equality between the powers — moist and dry,

140

Commentary

related to humoral theory (as possibly it already was in Alcmaeon), the internal cause being the humours ahd the external cause anything which acted on the humours 1 9 3 . In Genit. chapters 10 and 11 deformity may be caused externally 194 or internally, from the humours 1 9 5 . In chapter 11 an inherited affliction is explained by the author's genetic theory. Sperm coming from a particular part may convey all the characteristics of that part, including a peculiar deformity. This is the way in which the author of Aer. explains the shape of head in the Μακροκέφαλοι Longheads196. Aristotle 1 9 7 remarks that inheritance of acquired characteristics (τά επίκτητα) was alleged as a supporting argument by those w h o held the theory. Aristotle denies that this ever occurs; but it appears from chapter 11 that this objection had been made before, and that the author is attempting to take account of the objection in a modified form of the theory. Since the means by which inheritance occurs are the humours, it became possible to explain the inheritance of diseases to which particular constitutional types (phlegmatic, choleric etc.) were thought to be liable. This is actually done in Morb. Sacr. where the author explains the inheritance of epilepsy in humoral terms 1 9 8 .

193

194

195

196

197 198

cold and hot, bitter and sweet and the rest — and the prevalence of one of them produces disease, for the prevalence of either is destructive. The active cause of disease is excess of heat or cold, the occasion of it surfeit or insufficiency of nourishment, the seat of it blood, marrow or the brain. Disease may also be engendered by external causes such as waters or local environment or exhaustion or torture or the like. Health on the other hand is the blending of the qualities in proper measure. Cf. Morb. IV 32,1.84,5-7 Joly = VII 542,6-8 Li.: four humours . . ., from which all those diseases which are not caused by violence (άπο βίης) arise; Morb. IV 50,2.106,16—22 Joly = VII 582,1—6 Li., and see Lonie Treatises p. 26 n. 2, p. 27 n. 1. βιαίου παθήματος προσγενομένου when some violence is suffered Genit. 10,1.51,15 f. Joly = VII 484,3 Li.: cf. βίαιον Morb. IV 50,2.106,22 Joly = VII 582,6 Li. There is an interesting similarity in Aer. 19 where the same distinction is used in a genetic context. The author remarks that the Scythians, because of the evenness of their climate, are very similar in constitution to each other, men to men, and women to women. For, since the seasons are much the same, no destruction or damage occurs in the coagulation of the sperm (έν τη τοϋ γόνου ξυμπήξει) unless (i) some violence or (ii) disease occurs (ήν μή τίνος άνάγκης βιαίου χΰχχ) ή νόσου 19,9.68,20—70,3 Di. = II 72,17—21 Li.). Here too the polarity of external-internal cause is used to explain an exception to the general rule. But it is striking that the general rule (constitutional similarity of individual Scyths) is not based on the doctrine of pangenesis which was used in Aer. 14 but on the genetic effects of seasonal change. The author is presumably silent about pangenesis, since its use here would prejudice his general thesis, that constitution depends on environment. Cf. introductory to chapter 3. — Would the author of Genit. have forborne to mention so striking a confirmation if he had known it? GA 1,17.721b, 2 8 - 3 0 . Heinimann pp. 194—196 thinks that this is not so, but see the arguments brought against him by Lesky pp. 1341 — 1343. Her interpretation of the passage in Morb. Sacr. seems to me to be undoubtedly correct; and it is a precise parallel to Genit. 11.

O n Generation

141

9,1 λεπτά καί άσθενέα . . . παχέων τε και ισχυρών: in chapters 6 and 8 ασθενής weak ισχυρός strong refer to sex, whereas here the author is discussing constitution. Yet here too there may be a sexual reference, in which case the author has in mind the same question as Vict. I 28—29: namely the birth of children who possess secondary characteristics belonging to the opposite sex. For the pairing λεπτός/άσθενής, παχύς/ισχυρός referring to sex, cf. Hippon VS 38 A 14 ίσχυρόν . . . άσθενέστερον, followed by Censorinus' Latin: tenuioribus densioribus ( = λεπτοτέρων . . . παχύτερων; Cens. 6,5). 9,1

τοιούτον: V reads τοιούτων, Μ also, with correction to τοιούτον.

9,1 τι της αύξης: ή for τι is a common mistake, deriving from uncials: cf. e.g. Morb. Sacr. 1,27.64,56 Gr. = VI 358,14 Li. But there is merit in Joly's original suggestion ή . . . παρίει: cf. Mul. I 25. VIII 64,18f. Li. παραμεθίασί τε της αύξης τού εμβρύου the womb lets some of the embryo's nutriment escape (sc. when it is open). 9,1 των μητρέων χανουσέων μάλλον: the condition is mentioned several times in the gynaecological treatises: e.g. Nat. Mul. 13.79,12 Trapp = VII 330,12 Li. ήν αί μήτραι παρά φύσιν χάνωσι if the uterus gapes unnaturally199·, Nat. Mul. 45. 109,1 Trapp = VII 390,1 Li.: άναχάνη. In these passages, inability to retain the semen and conceive is mentioned as a particular result. But in Mul. I 28. VIII 72,1—3 Li. appearance of the menses during pregnancy is described, the result being abortion or a sickly infant (νοσώδεα τά έμβρυα γίνεται). That passage is presumably based on an earlier chapter: if the menses continue to appear regularly, the woman is bound to become thin and weak . . . In such cases, the womb is more open (κεχήνασιν) than it should be, letting the nutriment (αύξης) of the embryo escape, Mul. I 25. VIII 66,3f. Li. Then the author describes, with some similarities of language, the embryological doctrine of Genit. 14 in which the mother's blood both forms the chorion and feeds the embryo. The result of the condition, he goes on, is that the child in the womb becomes thin and weak (λεπτόν τε και ασθενές, Mul. I 25. VIII 66,3f. Li.). 9.1 νοσέει δε των ζ φ ω ν : the interpretation given by Zwinger in his commentary on the passage 200 to this mystifying remark is surely correct: "quo robustius est animal, eo copiosius nutrimentum requirit". The child is originally stronger than usual, and it needs only a slight deficiency in nutriment to make him more stunted than usual. 9.2 εύρυχωρίην: cf. Genit. 2,3.46,7 Joly = VII474,If. Li. Wellmann 2 0 1 suggests that the word is characteristic of Democritus. 199 200 201

Parallel passage with variations in Mul. II 166.VIII 344,12 — 17 Li. Zwinger Hippocrates p . 149. Wellmann Spuren p. 319.

142

Commentary

9,2 άνάγκη έστί: a good example of the original sense of άνάγκη, here used to refer to a mechanistic cause. If the embryo has insufficient room, it is " b o u n d " to be undersized: no further analysis of the cause is necessary. Cf. Genit. 10,2.51,21 Joly = VII 484,7 Li.; Oct. 2,8.84,17 Gr. = VII 454,15 Li. της άνάγκης της έν τη γαστρί lapression qu'ils subissaient (Littre); Äff. 31. VI 242,19f. Li.: φλεβίοισι . . . έν άνάγκη πεφυκόσι πλείστη les plus etroitement serrees (Littre). Cf. Aer. 14,3.58,16 Di. = II 58,19 Li.: the Μακροκέφαλοι by binding their children's heads, compel them (άναγκάζουσιν) to grow vertically. In Superf. 27 smallness of the womb is given as a cause of abortion. 9.2 επιεικές έστι: the word is carefully chosen. If the womb is constricted, it will be a necessary consequence (άνάγκη) that the child is undersized. Otherwise the likely or fitting state of affairs is that large parents have large children; it will not n e c e s s a r i l y be so. 9.3 εϊ τις σίκυον: the analogy is a good example of οψις των άδηλων τά φαινόμενα. The infant in the womb cannot be observed, but the cucumber can; and what it shows is that the size of growth (cf. ίσος) and the final shape (cf. ομοιος) are controlled by the size of the container. The author chooses two cases, to illustrate two different points: the first container is smaller than the natural size (φυσιος) of the cucumber, the second container is slightly, but no more, larger than the natural size. What is illustrated in the first case is that a container may l i m i t the growth of what it contains; in the second case, that to some extent it will increase growth, for in its growth it competes (έρίζει) with the vessel (Genit. 9,3.51,8f. Joly = VII 482,19 Li.). The common factor between the analogy and what it illustrates is the assumption that the womb is essentially a vessel (which is itself an analogy). Cf. Mul. I 33. VIII 78,4—7 Li. where difficult deliveries caused by the position of the infant are compared to the difficulty of extracting a fruit-stone from a narrow-necked oilflask. The weakness of the analogy lies in the fact that the womb dilates, while the jar does not 2 0 2 . The use of the second case might justify us in regarding it as a proper experiment, undertaken in a spirit of discovery; but the following two passages from Theophrastus suggest that the author is making his own application of facts which were familiar to Greek vegetable gardeners. In H P 7,3,5 Theophrastus says the position also contributes to growth; at least when celery is transplanted, they suggest that one should hammer in a peg of whatever size one wishes to make the celery . . . some things again come to resemble in, their shape even the position in which they grow: thus the bottle-gourd becomes like in shape to the vessel, in which it has been planted (ή γαρ σικύα όμοιοσχήμων γίνεται έν φ άν τεθη άγγειω) 2023 . Here both 202

Cf. Joly Niveau p. 80. » Hort Thphr. H P vol. l i p . 81.

202

O n Generation

143

shape and size are in question; a related passage in C P 5,6,7 confirms that these devices were adopted to increase the size of the plants, and adds a mechanistic reason. The nutriment (τροφή) being confined and enclosed by the surrounding vessel moves towards what attracts it and ensures an easy passage for it, for the container acts as a kind of channel. This happens in the case of animals too . . . That this is the explanation behind the passage in Genit. also is indicated by chapter 14 and chapters 17—19, where the mechanics of embryonic nutrition and growth are described. The parallel in Theophrastus thus explains what Genit. 9 does not make sufficiently clear: the infant cramped in its growth by the womb is not only undersized but also c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y weak (ασθενής), because it has not received enough nutriment; whereas conversely, in a more spacious womb, it would be both larger and stronger, because, as with the gourd and the celery, the larger space actively encourages the flow of more nutriment towards it. That this is the thought of the passage is confirmed by pseudo-Aristotle Pr. 10,12.892a,6—22 where in discussing the birth of dwarfs the author distinguishes between the effects of inadequate space and inadequate nutriment. In the first case, the dwarfs preserve the same proportions as their parents; but in the second case, they have limbs like children (892a, 19f.) — that is, they are incompletely developed (ατελείς, 892a, 19). 9,3 άρυστήρα: the analogy with the uterus would suggest that this is a jug-shaped vessel, with a large belly and narrow neck. But both the derivation of the word (from the verb άρύω to draw or ladle) and the ancient evidence are against this; indeed a passage in Athenaeus 2 0 3 shows that it was sometimes used as an alternative word for κύαθος, a wine ladle which is nowhere near the desired shape. Galen 2 0 4 tells us that the arytenoid cartilage of the larynx was so called from its similarity of shape to the άρύταινα; this means (if άρύταινα is identical with άρυστήρ) that the άρυστήρ was roughly conical or pyramidal in shape. The only other helpful piece of information is Herodotus 2,168,2 which tells us that four άρυστήρες per diem of wine was the ration for Pharaoh's bodyguard: it must therefore have been small, as one would expect. However, a small, roughly pyramidal vessel might well have been inverted over the growing fruit in a cucumber bed, and perhaps it is some such practice that the passage in Theophrastus cited above refers to. In that case however the analogy between the uterus and the άρυστήρ is not close in point of shape 2 0 5 . Ath. Dipnosoph. 1 0 , 2 3 . 4 2 4 b . c . D e usu part. 7,11.1 4 0 2 , 1 0 - 1 4 H . = III 5 5 3 , 6 - 1 1 K ü h n . 205 'J'h e άρυστήρ as such does not occur in T h e Athenian Agora vol. X I I 2: Brian A . Sparkes and Lucy Talcott: Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th centuries B C , Princeton, N . J . , 1970 nor in J o h n Davidson Beazley, Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, 2nd. ed., vol. 1 - 3 , O x f o r d 1963 nor in Gisela Marie Augusta Richter and Marjorie Josephine Milne, Shapes and Names of Athenian Vases, N e w Y o r k 1935 nor do these give any shape 203

204

144

Commentary

9,3 της φύσιος τοϋ σικύου: for φύσις = natural size cf. Vict. IV 91,1-107,13 Joly = VI 658,7 Li.; Hdt. 4,50,2: (ό 'Ίστρος) . . . όλίγω τε μέζων της έωυτοϋ φύσιος γίνεται (the Danube) . . . becomes a little greater than its own nature; Holwerda p. 10. 10,1 βιαίου παθήματος: cf. Nat. Puer. 30,7.80,22f. Joly = VII 536,6 Li. ήν μη τι αύτώ (sc. τω έμβρύω) βίαιον πάθημα προσπέση unless some violence befalls it (the embryo). 10,1 τοϋ ύμένος ραγέντος: for the membrane, see Nat. Puer. chapters 12-14. 10.1 φθείρεται: a full list of such causes of abortion is given in Mul. I 25. VIII 66,15 where note ή πληγη ή πηδήση if (the patient) suffers a blow, or if she jumps206. Cf. also the cases described in Epid. VII 41. V 408,11 - 1 9 Li., VII 73. V 432,18f. Li., VII 97. V 450,24-452,3 Li. 10.2 έπήν εν τησι μήτρησι . . . στενόν ή: the text has been unjustly suspected. Ermerins removed κατά, and Joly alters έπηρώθη deformed to ήρθρώθη articulated objecting to the "anticipation maladroite" of έπηρώθη. This is perhaps a matter of taste: the text of Μ and V seems to me inelegant but by no means exceptionally so for this author, έπηρώθη can be taken easily enough to mean where he originally received the deformity. It is precisely the author's anxiety to distinguish the case in this chapter (a local and partial deformity) from the case in the preceding chapter, that leads him into such inelegance. I see no reason for departing from Μ and V here 207 . 10,2 ώσπερ και των δένδρων ασσα: the author systematically supports his discussion of πήρωσις with a botanical analogy, as he has done in the previous chapter. This observation too is recorded in Theophrastus 208 . Wellmann suggests a common source in Democritus; and the parallels between the botany of Democritus and of Nat. Puer. are striking 209 . The point of the analogy lies in τη μεν π α χ ύ τή δέ λεπτόν thick in some places and slender in others·, the child is not weakly in his whole constitution, but imperfectly developed in a particular part. 11,1 O n the theory that sperm comes from all parts of the body, there is no reason why a parent malformed in some part should not normally beget a perfectly formed child, for the malformed limb (το πεπηρωμένον) does not lack any constituent (άριθμός: literally number) which the naturally approximately corresponding to the arytenoid cartilage. — I am indebted to my colleague D r . A. F. Stewart for help in this matter. See further Frankenstein cols. 163 f. 206 Cf. Genit. 13,2.55,16f. Joly = VII 490,lOf. Li. 207 Cf. Anastassiou Rev. Joly p. 537. 208 H P 1,6,4. 209 Wellmann Spuren p. 327. - Cf. commentary on chapters 22—27 and chapter 34.

O n Generation

145

formed limb should possess. But if (as might well be the case) some a i l m e n t should attack the malformed part (ot = τ ω πεπηρωμένω), then the humours coming from that part will also be affected, and the malformation will be transmitted to the offspring. It is only through a direct affection of the humours themselves — note the emphasis on τοϋ υγρού α ύ τ ο ϋ — that this can occur. This argument reflects a more sophisticated form of the pangenesis theory than appears in Aer. 14. There the author says γίγνονται . . . έκ διεστραμμένων στρεβλοί distorted children are born from distorted parents (14,5.58,22f. Di. = II 60,2—4 Li.) which the present author denies is the case normally (ώς έπι πλεϊον). Presumably the objection had occurred to him, or to someone, that a deformed parent often does beget a normal child 2 1 0 . He is able to solve the problem in terms of the humoral theory (which is not connected with pangenesis in Aer.): he makes the acute distinction, which is itself a considerable step forwards, between external shape and inner constitution, the latter being dependent on the humours. Cf. Littre's translation (vol. V I I p. 485): lapartie mutiUe

a exactement la meme constitution que la partie saine. The passage however indicates a vagueness in the theory which Aristotle makes use of in his criticism of Democritus. He asks 2 1 1 whether the semen is drawn from the uniform parts (όμοιομερή: i.e. the tissues) only, or from the non-uniform parts (i.e. the organs which the tissues compose), or from both? In the first case, the facts of inherited similarity will not be explained; the second case will imply the first also, since the tissues are prior to the organs which they compose; and the third case is absurd, since the semen will then come from the tissues a n d the assemblage of these tissues 212 . 11,1 πεπηρωμένων: πήρωσις covers the notion both of mutilation and deformities, but the argument of the passage shows that only the latter is meant here. The sense is given by Aer. 14,5.58,23 Di. = II 60,3f. Li. έκ διεστραμμένων στρεβλοί distorted e.g. clubfootedness and the like. But pseudo-Galen 2 1 3 , if he is referring to this passage, seems to understand it in the sense of mutilation rather than deformity. 11,1 τον άριθμόν πάντα: cf. Alexander Polyhistor in Diogenes Laertius 8,29 (VS 58 Β l a . I 4 5 0 , 6 - 8 Diels-Kranz) the embryo is formed (μορφοΰσθαι) in forty days, and has in itself πάντας τους λόγους της ζ ω ή ς all the formulae for life (the context is Pythagorean). Joly understands πάντα as neut. pi., but cf. Isocrates 11,16: Busiris included all the elements

212

This objection is repeated by Aristotle GA 1 , 1 8 . 7 2 4 a , 4 - 6 . GA 1,18.722a, 1 6 - 3 1 . However the sentence έπήν . . ,πεπηρωμένον is awkward and the text may be at fault. Müllerp. 1 1 8 n . 39 suggests that τ έ σ σ α ρ ε ς . . . υπήρξαν is a later addition. See Introduction section 1, p. 46.

213

An animal 2 . 4 , 2 0 - 2 2 Wg. = X I X 1 6 3 , 7 - 1 2 Kühn.

210 211

146

Commentary

(άπαντας τους αριθμούς) for good government. O n the meaning of αριθμός here and in similar passages (a numerically arranged system, or its parts) see W. Burkert pp. 265f. 11,1 και τοϋ ύγρού: Joly excises και, but it is easier to change δε after θαϋμα to δή. 11,1 όκόσα έν φύσει υπήρξαν: the four forms of fluid . . . which constitute man. For the particular force of φύσις here, cf. Nat. Horn. 4,1.172,13-15 Jou. = VI 38,19-40,2 Li.: the body of man contains blood, phlegm, yellow and black bile, and this is the constitution (φύσις) of his body, and through these humours he is healthy or sick. For the expression cf. Nat. Puer. 15,3.57,24 Joly = VII 494,14f. Li. καί πως τούτο (menstruation) έν τή αρχή τή φύσει (sc. της γυναικός) ύπήρξεν this is simply a fact of woman's original constitution; Mul. I 17. VIII 56,14f. Li.: ήν μή f| έν τή άρχαίτ) φύσει τουτέων τι unless these conditions belong to them by constitution. Cf. further Nat. Puer. 30,6.80,12f. Joly = VII 534,21 f. Li. 11,1

ου θαύμα: cf. note on chapter 7, p. 137.

11,1 άναβήσομαι. . . ελεγον: chapters 9—11, on exceptions to the general rule and their explanation, are thus to be regarded as a digression.

On the Nature of the Child Chapters 12—31 These chapters form a unity, covering the whole period of gestation from conception (chapter 12) to parturition (chapter 30); chapter 31, on the exceptional case of twins, is added as an appendix. Regenbogen 214 has pointed out that the structure of chapters 13—29 is a guide to the author's method. The embryological account is framed by two observations (ίστόρια). The first of these is described in chapter 13; and the second, announced in that chapter, is described in chapter 29. In chapter 13 the author claims to have seen a six-day embryo, and he says from its nature as it appeared to my judgement then, from these indications, I draw the rest of my inferences (τεκμήρια; Nat. Puer. 13,1.55,5—7 Joly = VII 490,1 f. Li.). Evidently these "inferences" form the content of the succeeding chapters. At the end of the chapter he promises to offer further evidence, which is to bear witness to the truth of his whole account. This is duly given in chapter 29 in the description of observations made upon a clutch of eggs. The truth 214

Regenbogen pp. 141 f.

On the Nature of the Child

147

of his account then is based on the two [στόρια which frame it 2 1 5 , and the author's embryology is an inference from the " s e e n " to the " u n s e e n " . In other words, it is a clear application of the principle formulated by Anaxagoras: Ό ψ ι ς των αδήλων τά φαινόμενα the appearences (are) an insight into what is unseen. What the author claims to have observed in chapter 13 and chapter 29 are no more than stages in embryonic development. The actual process must remain "unseen". However, granted that the embryo passes from stage to stage like the chicken in the egg, h o w does this process occur? The author is obliged to construct his explanation from prevalent cosmological and biological assumptions, particularly in the important chapters 12 and 17. Moreover, the purpose of the botanical excursus in chapters 22—27 is not so much to provide ίστόρια in the sense of chapters 13 and 29, since the botanical processes described are themselves imaginary constructions. Its purpose is rather to provide a general confirmation of the author's embryology by showing that similar processes may be plausibly supposed to occur in different departments of nature. O n c e again, as in Genit., the author's aim seems to be to construct a systematically coherent theory, rather than to provide detailed experimental evidence for the truth of his account. It is misleading to describe, as Regenbogen 2 1 6 does, his embryology as an "hypothesis", since that word implies an account drawn up in such a way as to invite confirmation or refutation. T o the author's mind, the systematic nature of his theory is itself the guarantee of the truth of that theory.

Chapter 12 With this chapter, marked in the manuscripts as the beginning of D e natura pueri, the embryological section of the treatise begins. Dealing as it does with the very beginning of life, it is, scientifically, the boldest and most dramatic chapter in the work. The author's awareness of its importance is expressed in his style: the basic idea is repeated three times, with an increasing addition of detail; and between the second and third statements of the theory he adds a series of άνάγκαι proofs of its correctness. This series shows the same tendency to repeat the basic idea. The style of the chapter, in its repetitions and in its accumulation of detail, is archaic: there is a close parallel in Empedocles 2 1 7 where the author is also concerned to give clear expression to a basic principle.

215

216 217

Cf. Regenbogen p. 140: "Man kann wohl sagen, daß in diesen beiden Beobachtungen der Anlaß zur Konzeption des ganzen Gedankenganges — wenigstens vom Περί φύσιος παιδιού — gelegen h a t . " This is probably an overstatement. Cf. Regenbogen p. 142: "wissenschaftliche Hypothesenbildung." VS 31 Β 17.

148

Commentary

The basic principle here is that the embryo "acquires breath": this is repeated once more in chapter 29, a useful summary of the points which the author regards as most important. In itself, the statement means very little, since the author wrote in a milieu in which the equation of breath with life was traditional and popular. His task as a scientist is to explain how this occurs, and why it should be breath that differentiates the animate from the inanimate: not merely to record the apparent fact, but to explain it, to give the αίτιον cause. In chapter 17, breath is the agent which explains how a living thing grows organically, not simply by accretion: αυξανομένη ύπο τοϋ πνεύματος άρθροϋται as the flesh grows it is formed into distinct members by breath (Nat. Puer. 17,1.59,9f. Joly = VII 496,17 Li.). In that chapter the author offers a mechanical analogy to describe how this articulation occurs. The organism grows through the tendency of like particles to congregate, and breath is the motive force which directs this tendency. The whole process is one of mechanical necessity (ανάγκη). In the present chapter, which deals with the initial production of breath, the author's attitude is similarly mechanical. Breath, or life, is not a mysterious principle, somehow conveyed from generation to generation: it is produced spontaneously in the embryo itself, in precisely the same way as it is produced in inanimate bodies. The author bases this on the generalized principle that all bodies produce breath when heated (Nat. Puer. 12,5.54, 13f. Joly = VII 488,7 Li.) 218 . More specifically, the author means that all m o i s t u r e produces breath when heated: when the moisture contained in the wood is heated, it becomes breath (πνεϋμα γ ε ν ό μ ε ν ο ν ) which passes outside (Nat. Puer. 12,3.54,3f. Joly = VII 486,22f. Li.). But in fact all the substances which the author mentions contain moisture, since they are vegetable products, and the earth from which they grow is full of moisture 219 . The principle that the effect of heat on moisture is to produce breath is not an ad hoc hypothesis. Here again the author follows his usual method of employing commonly accepted doctrines. According to Theophrastus, both Anaximander 220 and Diogenes 221 held that winds (πνεύματα) were originally caused through evaporation by the sun's heat of the moisture on the earth. Heraclitus apparently held the same doctrine 222 , and 218

219

220 221 222

For the same tendency to generalize a principle f r o m a series of particular observations, cf. N a t . Puer. 2 4 , 2 . 7 1 , 2 3 - 2 5 Joly = VII 5 2 0 , 3 - 5 Li. and M o r b . Sacr. 1 3 , 6 - 1 0 . 8 0 , 1 6 - 8 2 , 2 6 G r . = VI 384,17—386,6 Li., where the identical effect of the south wind on all moist substances is used to explain its particular effect on human beings. Cf. chapters 22, 25, 34: the doctrine is associated with Diogenes of Apollonia (VS 64 A 17.18.24) and it is used in M o r b . Sacr. 13 in precisely the same way as it is here, namely to explain the effects of heat and cold upon certain substances. The reasoning in the two passages is remarkably similar. VS 12 A 27. VS 64 A 17. VS 22 A 1,10.

On the Nature of the Child

149

so did Xenophanes, for whom the sea is the source of moisture, the source of wind. (VS 21 Β 30,1). This meteorological doctrine is taken for granted by the author himself in Nat. Puer. 25,1.73,7f. Joly = VII 522,12 Li.: all winds come to us from water223. It is of course a particular application of the general pre-Socratic principle of evaporation, or exhalation (άναθυμίασις), which was used in cosmogony as well as in meteorology. It may indeed have been applied to the soul by Heraclitus: in VS 22 Β 12 and Β 36, soul (ψυχή: cf. the "breath" of our author) is an άναθυμίασις of moisture; but these fragments may be Stoic in origin. The author would have found the principle confirmed on a humbler level; the jets of steam produced by green wood on a fire, or the rising of bread in an oven; and these are analogies which he used in the present chapter, although for different purposes. The same principle is used by the author in various connexions. According to the pathology of chapters 44—47, as a result of overheating, fluid in the body becomes rarefied and some of it is transpired through the pores in the form of breath: Morb. IV 45,3.99,28-100,1 Joly = VII 570,3 Li. τό δέ τι αυτής δ ι α τ μ έ ε ι έξω, δια τοϋ ένδον άραιώματος some of it is transpired out, through the porosity within the body. In chapter 47 the author adds a remark which is significant for his embryology: the evaporation may even cause death, because what is lost is the finest and most subtle part of the fluid, that part which is life-giving (τό ζωτικόν 2 2 4 ). Again, in chapter 49, an experiment is offered to demonstrate that water has a quicker rate of evaporation than oil. Water διατμέει, i. e., it is turned into breath. The principle is applied to botany in chapter 22: a seed in the ground is filled with fluid, and as a result it inflates (φυσάται) and swells. Further down the word πνεύμα breath is used 225 . In all these passages the author makes systematic use of a generally accepted principle, which is applied to embryology in chapter 12. There is nothing unique about the appearance of life in the embryo: it is a matter of chemistry. Once breath is produced in the embryonic mass, it forces an exit. Here the general model may be meteorological. In Anaximander, thunder and lightning are caused by air bursting out of clouds 226 , and this was adopted by Anaximenes 227 . Anaximander's description of heavenly bodies as being visible through breathing vents (έκπνοαί) in their envelopes of air, is also relevant 228 . Such explanations became a matter of popular science 229 . After the rupture is made, the heat in the embryo attracts cold air from the 223 224 225 226 227 228 229

For the idea in Homer cf. Mugler pp. 57f. Morb. IV 47.102,23-25 Joly = VII 574,19f. Li. Nat. Puer. 22,1 f. 68,24-69,5 Joly = VII 514,8-17 Li. VS 12 A 23. VS 13 A 7 and A 17. VS 12 A 11,4. Cf. Aristophanes' Clouds (Ar. N u . 372-378, 404—407) which also caricatures the analogies used to support these explanations, e. g. Ar. N u . 385—391.

150

Commentary

mother as fuel (τροφή), and it goes on doing this (Nat. Puer. 12,1.53,9 Joly = V I I 486,8 Li.). The process of respiration, by which the embryo grows and is articulated, has begun.

Mechanism vs. Vitalism. The two cardinal features of the author's theory about the origin of life are (i) that breath is spontaneously generated by the same processes as generate it in any inanimate substance; and (ii) that the embryo actually respires during gestation, and it is this process that explains the formation of its parts. The theory is therefore, in modern terms, mechanistic or, in Platonic-Aristotelian terms, it works with contributory or auxiliary causes and conditions 2 3 0 rather than with final causes. The author is doing precisely what Plato in the tenth book of the Laws accused his predecessors of doing: he is producing life and genesis out of elements which are themselves lifeless (αψυχα, 889b). In embryology, the analogy to this judgment is found in Aristotle's De generatione animalium 231 . While we cannot suppose that the author is taking part in a controversy which arose after his time, it is at least fair to say so much: mechanism, in his work, is on the verge of being a conscious attitude. T o be fully conscious, such an attitude would have to be formed in deliberate opposition to alternative ways of regarding the phenomena. Are there any traces of such alternative ways in the embryological theories of the fifth century? Diogenes of Apollonia, according to Simplicius and Vindicianus 232 held the doctrine that semen contains breath; and, since semen is a foam arising from blood, it appears that this breath is conveyed from the parent. Since for Diogenes air is "divine" and "governs all things" 2 3 3 , it might be that here we have a vitalistic principle used in his theory of generation, to which the theory of Genit., that breath is spontaneously created in the embryo, would be the opposed mechanistic hypothesis. Unfortunately, the question cannot be so simple. Even in Aristotle, except for the passage mentioned above, the production of πνεϋμα in semen is "mechanistic". Semen itself is a residue of nutriment (as it is in fact in Genit.); it is a compound of water and πνεϋμα, and the πνεϋμα itself is simply hot air (GA 2,2.736a, 1). This hot air is produced, as it is according to Aristotle's predecessors, by the action of heat on fluid. The passage reads: As for

πνεϋμα, its presence (sc. in the semen) is the result of necessity (!), because liquid substance and hot substance are present, one being active and the 230 231 232 233

συναίτια: Plato Ti. 46d, cf. Phd. 99b. GA 2,3.736b, 3 0 - 7 3 7 a , l . VS 64 Β 7. Cf. VS 64 Β 5.

On the Nature of the Child

151

other being acted upon (GA 2,6.742 a, 1 4 - - 1 6 ) 2 3 4 . O n e might therefore argue a fortiori that, since Aristotle could hold simultaneously a "mechanistic" theory of the production of πνεύμα and a vitalistic theory about its function, so too could Diogenes — or, for that matter, the author of Genit. And although it is difficult to believe that Diogenes, for whom " a i r " is "divine" and "deathless", could also have spoken of it as a kind of gas produced by chemical means, it is not impossible 2 3 5 . O n e way in which he might have done so is suggested by another passage in which Aristotle is discussing spontaneous generation: earth contains water, water contains πνεϋμα, and πνεϋμα contains vital heat, so that, concludes Aristotle, in a way all things are full of soul ( G A 3,11.762a, 18—21). O r , as Morb. Sacr. puts it, all things are equally divine and equally human 2 3 6 . Since this theological attitude is quite compatible with, and even demands, the explanation of all phenomena on naturalistic principles, there is no reason why it could not have been shared by the author of Genit. But for practical purposes his attitude is mechanistic. This mechanism however does not lie in his assumption that biological phenomena are not essentially different from other phenomena, and that they are all explicable on the same physical principles. As we have seen, this tendency is common to all pre-Socratic thought. What distinguishes the author is the systematic thoroughness of his explanation, and in particular, his determination to account for every detail in the embryological process in terms of m o v e m e n t s caused by pressure and impact. This determination, which appears at its most uncompromising in the articulation theory of chapter 17, seems to allow no room for Diogenes' divine air, by which all things are governed (κυβερνάσθαι VS 64 Β 5), and which is the soul and life (ψυχή, ib.) of all living things. We are on slightly firmer ground with a piece of evidence about Democritus. In Aetius we are told that both Democritus and Strato held that the power (δύναμις) in the seed is corporeal, since it is pneumatic (VS 68 A 140). As we shall see in chapter 17, it is probable that the theory of articulation through the agency of pneuma derives from Democritus. The association with Strato on this point is significant, since we know that Strato was a mechanist who referred all change to an unconscious " n a t u r e " working by means of "natural weights and movements" (Cie. ac. 2,121; for Strato's concept of nature, cf. Wehrli, Straton Frg. 32—39 and 234 p e c k Arist. G A p. 211. Peck p. 579 offers a complicated explanation of this remark, but surely Aristotle is saying no more here than that the action of heat upon moisture necessarily produces πνεϋμα: in other words tfie usual pre-Socratic doctrine. So at least Solmsen Vital Heat p. 121 n. 25 seems to take it. 235

236

Diels in fact does attribute a similar theory recorded in Aristotle (Mete. 2 , 2 . 3 5 5 a , 21—25) to Diogenes (VS 64 A 9). Miller Divine pp. 1 — 15 in fact ascribes the theology of Morb. Sacr. to Diogenes: air is divine, and all things contain air.

152

Commentary

commentary). He may therefore, in embryology, have been influenced by a mechanistic approach in Democritus which he found congenial. Whether Democritus explained the origin of this pneumatic power in the seed in the same way as the present author can only be conjectured. We would be in a better position to decide the question of his attitude if we could determine how much of his pneumatic embryology is original. That the embryo breathes pre-natally is expressly denied for Empedocles by Aetius 237 , and implicitly denied in Aetius' account of Diogenes' theory of post-natal breathing: Diogenes says that embryos are born without life (άψυχα) but that they are warm (ενθερμα δέ Diels). Then as soon as the embryo is delivered, its innate heat draws the cold into the lung (VS 64 A 28). A similar account is given for Philolaus by the Menon Papyrus 238 . Yet Aetius may be wrong about Diogenes: the articulatory function of air is a theory which we might well expect to find in Diogenes, for whom air is conscious, divine and purposive. Aristotle, who has several points of contact with Diogenes, ascribes the same function to πνεύμα 2 3 9 . O n the other hand, Jaeger and Reiche 240 consider that both connate πνεύμα in Aristotle and its articulatory function go back to Empedocles via the "Sicilian" school of medicine. Bollack too considers that the embryo respires in Empedocles (vol. 1 p. 240 n. 4; vol. 4 p. 438) and indeed regards embryonic breath as having the same articulatory function as in chapter 17 of the present treatise (vol. 4 p. 439), but this goes far beyond the evidence. The most we can say with certainty is that, as Jaeger points out, Empedocles' theory of four elements automatically involves the presence at least of elemental air in the embryo: it would be transmitted with the seminal mixture from the parent. Whether Empedocles gave it any embryologicjl function must surely remain undecided. Yet two pieces of evidence suggest a connection with the Hippocratic treatise: one is the statement of Rufus of Ephesus that the amniotic membrane was first so named by Empedocles 241 ; presumably therefore Empedocles made some use of the membrane in his embryology as the present author does; the other is a remark by Soranus that sanguineous and pneumatic material is conveyed to the embryo by four vessels, and that Empedocles thinks these are implanted in the liver (VS 31 A 79). 237

238 239 240 241

Aetius 5,15,3 = Dox. Gr. p. 425,23-426,4 'Εμπεδοκλής [μή] είναι μεν ζ φ ο ν τ ό έμβρυον, άλλ° απνουν ύπάρχειν έν xfj γαστρί· πρώτην δέ άναπνοήν τοϋ ζώου γίνεσθαι κατά την άποκΰησιν, της μεν έν τοις βρέφεσιν υγρασίας άποχώρησιν λαμβανούσης, προς δέ τό παρακενωθέν έπεισόόου τοϋ έκτος- άερώδους γινομένης εις τά παρανειχθέντα των άγγείων Empedocles says that the embryo is alive, hut while in the uterus does not respire. Its first breath is drawn at birth, when the moisture which is in infants retreats, and the outside air enters into the open vessels to fill up the vacuum. But cf. Aetius 4,22,1 = VS 31 A 74. Anon. Lond. XVIII 8 - 2 8 . GA 2,6.741 b,37-742a,8. Jaeger p. 216, Reiche pp. 6 1 - 6 5 . Cf. VS 31 Β 70.

On the Nature of the Child

153

Respiration and Combustion A further element in the theory, which the author drew from the common pre-Socratic stock, is the analogy between respiration and combustion. The heat which the embryo derives from the maternal environment produces breath, which it expels, and thereafter attracts cold air as nutriment or fuel (τροφή). For (here we have another generalized principle or "law") everything hot is fed by a proportionate quantity of cold (Nat. Puer. 12,3.54,2f. Joly = VII 486,21 f. Li. πάν γαρ το θερμον τω ψυχρώ τρέφεται τω μετρίω). The analogy between animal heat and fire, which this theory of respiration assumes, is indeterminably old: the famous simile in the Odyssey 2 4 2 , in which the exhausted and sleeping Odysseus is compared to a fire damped down and preserved by a covering of ash, is merely one of the more striking instances. It is given philosophical form in Heraclitus' identification of the soul or life with fire; and the theory of respiration as a kind of combustion is at least as old as the "Sicilian" school of medicine 243 . It was a bold hypothesis, and one which was very rich in experimental possibilities 244 . In what sense is air a fuel (τροφή) as distinct from the material which is burnt? That fire needs air, and that there is a quantitative relation between the amount of air and the heat of the fire was a technological observation which might have been suggested by observing any stove with a draughtregulating mechanism: the baker's oven, the potter's kiln, or the charcoalburner's stove. The operation of the last is applied to respiration by Aristotle, Iuv. 5.470a,5—15 24S . Aristotle does not seem to have been very interested in the phenomenon of combustion for its own sake; the passage is the most extensive discussion we possess, although he had evidently treated the matter in the Problems 246 . Since it was Aristotle's practice in scientific matters of marginal interest to rely heavily on pre-Socratic theories 247 , it is perhaps reasonable to use the passage in De iuventute as an indication of pre-Socratic views of combustion. Aristotle's subject here is natural heat in bodies and the causes of its extinction. In the case of fire there are two ways in which it can be put out: by dying down (μάρανσις) and by extinction 242 243

244

245 246

247

O d . ε 488-490. Cf. Wellmann Fragmente pp. 71 and 100; Philistion fr. 6 Wellmann = Gal. De resp. usu 1,2. 1,11-14 Noll = IV 471,6 Kühn; Diocles fr. 15 Wellmann = Gal. De resp. usu 1,2. 1,11-14 Noll = IV 471,6 Kühn. As Galen saw: if it could be discovered what it is that happens to flames under such conditions when they are extinguished, it might also be discovered what benefit it is that heat in living things derives from respiration (De resp. usu 3,3. 14,11 — 14 Noll = IV 487,17—488,2 Kühn). Cf. PA 2,8.654a,5-8. Not in the pseudo-Aristotelian Problemata where in 1,55.866a,5—30 the theory is not altogether consistent with De iuventute. Cf. Solmsen System e. g. pp. 407-412 and pp. 452f. on 'exhalation'.

154

Commentary

(σβέσις) 2 4 8 . Both however involve a failure of fuel. E x t i n c t i o n occurs through fire's opposite, which stops the digestive process (πέψιν) of fire, and hence prevents fire from receiving fuel 2 4 9 . D y i n g d o w n on the other hand occurs because there is insufficient air to cool the fire, which therefore becomes too hot and uses up its fuel before the exhalation can form250. All this is then illustrated by the πνιγεύς or damper which, if removed and replaced alternately, will keep the fire alive for a long time. If there is too much air, the coldness in the air "extinguishes" the fire; if there is too little, the fire dies down because it does not receive enough fuel; and that is why the damper is necessary to regulate the supply of air. In this double theory there is the same ambiguity about air as there is in Nat. Puer. 12. Air both cools fire, and provides fuel for flames as άναθυμίασις 2 5 1 . The two functions seem very different until we remember the term τροφή, nutriment or fuel. In pre-Socratic cosmology, elements "feed o n " their opposites. In the theory of combustion recorded in Iuv. there is an attempt to explicate this simple dogma in more detail. Fire feeds on its opposite, the cold, but how? Presumably there must be some functional relation between heat and cold, and this Aristotle attempts to find in the concept of άναθυμίασις. Yet the attempt is not successful, because the function of air still remains ambiguous between cooling and feeding. The author's theory of combustion however has not reached this degree of explication, although there are some similarities to the theory in Aristotle. H e does not even attempt to explain, as Aristotle does, how air can be both a fuel, and a moderator. Combustion appears again in the pathology of chapter 47. Here the fuel of fever is a morbidly affected humour. As a result of weakness, the patient may be unable to breathe in sufficient air to cool and moderate the heat. In that case, healthy humour cannot prevail over (έπικρατέει) the morbid, but itself becomes fuel: the fire, with nothing to moderate it, spreads, and all that is vital in the fluid is expired (Morb. IV 47,1.102.23 f. Joly = V I I 574,19f. Li.). Consistently with this, in chapter 44 the author notes that a patient will be able to sustain plethora better in winter than in summer, because in summer the surrounding air is warm and therefore less 248 249

250

251

Cf. also Resp. 8 , 4 7 4 b , 1 3 - 2 5 and Pr. 3 , 2 6 . 8 7 5 a , 4 - 8 . I offer the following interpretation of this mysterious passage: fire (which according to G C 2 , 3 . 3 3 0 b , 2 5 — 2 9 is an excess of heat, . . . a boiling up of the hot and dry) is essentially an exhalation (άναθυμίασις) from the object which burns. It is really this exhalation which is aflame, although the object itself is consumed (cf. G C 2,4.331 b,25f. and Arist. Mete. 4 , 9 . 3 8 8 a , 2 ) . Fire's opposite of course puts an end to the heat, and hence to the exhalation — in other words, to flame's fuel, in the strict sense. I.e., the exhalation is partly composed of air (cf. again G C 2 , 4 . 3 3 1 b , 2 5 f . and G A 3,11.761 b,18—21); if the air supply is cut off, no exhalation can form, and hence there is no fuel to keep the flame alive. That air is in itself a fuel is denied by Aristotle in Resp. 6.473 a , 3 - 6 .

On the Nature of the Child

155

able to cool the heat which plethora causes. This theory is reminiscent of Aristotle's discussion of μάρανσις, the first stage of which is an actual increase in heat. But unlike Aristotle's theory, the fuel of fever is not air — or rather, an exhalation partly composed of air — but a humour. Again, Aristotle's concept of fire being stifled by its opposite (έναντίον) corresponds to the author's remark 2 5 2 that τό ΰδρωποειδές (watery humour) is most inimical (πολεμιώτατον) to fever, and if the patient is not properly treated, this will evaporate and the fever will grow more intense. Here however air is not mentioned at all. Formation of the embryo In the account given for Diogenes of the initial post-natal breath, the first movement is inspiration, which cools the internal heat. In the present treatise, the process of ante-natal breathing is started by expiration: this forms the projecting navel of the embryonic sac, through which the embryo draws nutriment; the initial expiration and the theory of embryonic nutrition via the navel therefore go together. Ante-natal breathing also accounts for the formation of the membrane (ύμήν). The general model is the egg (chapter 29 and chapter 3 0 , 7 . 8 0 , 2 3 - 8 1 , 1 Joly = VII 5 3 6 , 7 - 1 1 Li.): a model which was to have great significance for future embryological theory 2 5 3 . The model had been used earlier: it is probably to be found in the spiny integuments (φλοια) from which, according to Anaximander, the first animals were born 2 5 4 . But there are good grounds for supposing that the same model was applied by the pre-Socratics to the larger processes of cosmogony. It was certainly so applied in the Orphic myth of the world-egg; and it is perhaps more than accidental that the word φλοΐον used in the report about Anaximander's integuments is .also used to describe the sphere of flame surrounding το γόνιμον θερμού τε και ψυχροΰ the seed of the hot and cold, from which the world is formed in his cosmogony. Although the analogy given in that passage is with the bark of a tree, it is quite possible that Anaximander also thought of this as similar to a skin or membrane. In any case, the word ύμήν is used three times in Diogenes Laertius* account of Leucippus' cosmogony 2 5 5 to describe the integument

252 253 254

255

Morb. IV 4 9 , 3 . 1 0 5 , 1 8 f . Joly = VII 580,4f. Li. Cf. Needham Embryology p. 17. VS 12 A 30. - Cf. the σηπεδόνας οίόνπερ χιτώνα ς pustules like membranes from which life originated in C a m . 3,1.2,21—4,1 De. = VIII 586,2—4 Li. and the σηπεδόνας ΐιμέσι λεπτοίς περιεχομένας pustules . . . surrounded by thin membranes in the zoogony of Diodorus Siculus 1,7,3. The latter passage is indeed included among the fragments of Democritus (VS 68 Β 5. II 135,4 — 19 Diels-Kranz) from the 5th edition on. The arguments of W . Spoerri against this ascription are conclusive (see especially pp. 117—129), but certainly the zoogony contains pre-Socratic material. Diogenes Laertius 9 , 3 2 . 4 5 3 , 1 5 . 1 7 . 2 0 Long = VS 67 A 1.

156

Commentary

of atoms which surrounded the world in its formation: it seems certain that the word was used by Leucippus himself. Perhaps the closest analogy is the Pythagorean theory of cosmogony in which the primal monad as it were inhales (άναπνέοντι) air from the surrounding Unlimited and so grows by division 256 . N o doubt these cosmological speculations reflected back upon the analogy which had originally suggested them. In any case, it is clear that the author's account of the initial embryological process does not rest upon one simple comparison between the egg and the embryo. It is carefully constructed from diverse elements, and it presupposes a considerable amount of speculation in various fields. Here, as elsewhere, the author's concern has been to make a rational and systematic use of all the knowledge available to him. What scientist of the second rank could do more? 12,1 παχύνεται θερμαινόμενη condenses as the result of heat: for the principle that heat coagulates and solidifies, cf. chapter 17 (Nat. Puer. 17,2. 59,16 Joly = VII 498,2f. Li.), where the formation of bones is explained in the same way; in chapter 22 (Nat. Puer. 22,5. 70,2f. Joly = VII 516,15f. Li.) the sun ripens and hardens (στερεοί) fruit by drawing out the moisture; in chapter 18 (Nat. Puer. 18,5. 64,1 - 4 Joly = VII 504,24-27 Li.) female sperm coagulates later than male, because it is more moist. In the embryology of Vict. I 9 fire has the same effect: the embryo is dried and hardened by movement and by fire (9,1. 10,19f. Joly = VI482,18f. Li.). The fire which is enclosed in the embryo consumes the internal fluid as fuel; those parts however which are naturally solid are not consumed, but become bone and sinew. The principle was easily suggested by observation, e. g. by the potter's kiln, and it seems to have been commonly assumed in pre-Socratic thought. It appears particularly in Empedocles, Fr. 73 (VS 31 Β 73), where Love makes living things from earth and water and gave them to swift fire to harden (θοω πυρι δώκε κρατύναι). The analogy here may be the kiln or the baker's oven 257 . Observation also suggested the contrary principle, that heat melts substances: cf. chapter 42 (Morb. IV 42,2. 96,12-14 Joly = VII 562,27—564,1 Li.), where fluid in the body is ripened and made thin by heat (πεφθεΐσα ύπο της θέρμης διακέχυται και λεπτή γενομένη); cf. chapter 45 (Morb. IV 45,3. 99,26 Joly = VII 570,1 Li.) and chapter 52 (Morb. IV 52,5. 113,3 Joly = VII 592, 17f. Li.). Conversely, it may be cold that solidifies:cf. chapter 52 (Morb. IV 52,1. 111,15-17 Joly = VII 590,10-12 Li.). We should not regard this as a pointless contradiction: the fact that heat both solidifies and melts was noticed by Aristotle also, who attempted to explain it by the presence of earth in those substances which are solidified by heat 256

257

Arist. Ph. 4,6.213b,22.27. - For further evidence see Baldry p. 27 and Guthrie Anaximenes p. 40, but cf. Longrigg Κρυσταλλοειδής p. 249. Cf. Bignone p. 427.

On the Nature of the Child

157

(PA 2,2. 649a, 2 9 - 3 3 ; Mete. 4,10. 388b,7-22; 4,5. 382b,31-4,7. 383b,19; GA 2,2. 735a,35f.). The author of Cam. 3 also systematically explains the diverse action of heat by the composition of the substances: the general tendency of heat is to liquefy, but where the fatty (το λιπαρόν) or the viscous (το κολλώδες) are present in the substance, heat solidifies 258 . The same idea is implied by the present author's use of the principle. 12.1 έν θερμω έοϋσα in a warm environment·, this is followed in the MSS by the phrase έπειτα της μητρός πνεούσης secondly, through the mother's breathing: Ermerins removed έπειτα. In fact the whole clause should be bracketed. The breath which the embryo derives from its mother is cold breath which is not drawn in until the aperture in the embryo is formed, and the author has not yet reached this stage in his description. I regard the clause as a misunderstanding, based on Nat. Puer. 12,2. 53,10f. Joly = VII 488,10 Li. 12.2 πνεϋμα ψυχρόν . . . αφ' οΰ τρέφεται: cf. Cam. 6,2. 8,19 D e . V I I I 592,11 Li.: και τροφή έστι τω θερμω τό ψυχρόν the cold is food for the hot, where the same theory of combustion is found, and a similar illustration is used (the flickering of a flame in a room without draught indicates that it attracts pneuma). 12.3 δήλος . . . έκλογισμός: the language is characteristic of fifth-century science. The behaviour of smoke escaping from burning wood is the observed fact (όρέομεν άει we commonly see) from, which inference (έκλογισμός) is drawn, and which gives clarity or certainty (δήλος) to that inference. So the author of Flat. (3. 9 3 , 4 - 7 Hbg. = VI 9 4 , 8 - 1 1 Li.) opposes οψις sight to λογισμός inference: air is αφανής invisible to sight, but λογισμω φανερός apparent to inference. 12,3 τω μετρίω: proportionate. If the cold air was disproportionate in quantity, the heat would be extinguished. Diogenes of Apollonia used the same principle to explain the fact that, although fishes breathe air, they die on dry land. The reason is that the quantity of air on land is excessive, while in the water it is μέτριον (VS 64 A 31). 12,3 και τήδε έξιόντος: Ermerins' correction is both easy and necessary: it is πνεϋμα which goes outside, not τό θερμόν. 12,5 πάντα γαρ κτλ.: for the author's tendency to generalize on the basis of a few observations, cf. chapter 1 (Genit. 1,2.44,13 — 15 Joly = VII 470,10-12 Li.); chapter 24 (Nat. Puer. 24,2. 71,23-25 Joly = VII 5 2 0 , 3 - 5 Li. and 24,2. 7 2 , 4 - 6 Joly = VII 520,1 If. Li.). Cf. also Morb. Sacr. 13,6. 80,16-19 Gr. - VI 384,17-20 Li. and Aer. (8,5. 4 2 , 1 - 3 Di. = II 34,16-18

258

Cam. 3,8. 6 , 2 - 5 De. = VIII 5 8 8 , 1 0 - 1 3 Li.

158

Commentary

Li.). Regenbogen 2 5 9 remarks "Wir haben somit unvollkommen fundierten Induktionsschluß vor uns."

einen

allerdings

12.5 ά ν ά γ κ α ι προσηγμέναι: equivalent to ίστόρια έπάγεσθαι adduce evidence in chapter 56 (Morb. IV 56,7. 121,20f. Joly = VII 608,19 Li.). Cf. chapter 34 (Morb. IV 34,5. 87,15 Joly = VII 548,7f. Li.). 12.6 ώσπερ έπ' άρτω όπτωμένψ: baking includes both the activity of the potter and of the bread-maker, hence it is often difficult to be certain whether an author is thinking of the potter or the baker (e. g. in Empedocles, VS 31 Β 73 and VS 31 Β 34). But here the baking of bread is more closely specified, since the author wishes to illustrate the formation of the membrane by the formation of a crust on bread. 12,6 απέχει τι λεπτόν: Joly's correction τι for το is certainly right. For απέχειν project (and not as Littre and Ermerins translate), cf. Arist. PA 2,9. 655a,32. (Similarly in N a t . Puer. 13,3. 56,3 Joly = VII 490,18 Li. λεπτόν τι.) 12,6 όλίγιστον: i. e. it forms a blister or bubble full of air on the surface of the embryo. Chapter 13 This famous chapter should be taken very closely with chapter 12. In it, the author describes his personal observation of what he regarded as an embryo of six days. Methodologically, this is the observation upon which the theoretical account of chapter 12 is based; psychologically, the observation may in fact have suggested, at least to some extent, the author's theory to him. Only, however, to some extent: we have seen that in chapter 12 there are elements which go back to the earliest Greek cosmological thought; and by the whole tradition in which he worked the author was predisposed to interpret his observation in a particular way. The relation between theory and observation is a complex one here, and is somewhat different from that of other theoretical works in the Collection, such as Carn. or Flat. In those treatises, although their authors make a frequent and regular appeal to experience, the manner in which they do it suggests not so much that their theories are intended as an interpretation of these observations, as that the observations are mentioned as incidental confirmation of the truth of their theories. The appeal to experience is a kind of guarantee of good faith; and it has often been noticed that the theory is pursued into detail far beyond what the observation might reasonably be held to suggest. This of course is sometimes true of Genit. as well: indeed the present chapter might be considered a case in point, in which after a detailed and complicated theoretical account, an appeal is made, in the manner of 259

Regenbogen p. 145.

On the Nature of the Child

159

other dogmatic treatises, to an actual observation which has only a limited confirmatory value. (It might confirm that the embryo in its initial stages has a membrane and an umbilicus, but not that the embryo is formed in the way the author says it is, nor that the embryo respires through the umbilicus.) However, the careful structure of chapters 12—29, to which Regenbogen 2 6 0 drew attention, suggests that the author is using observation here in a more systematic way than as a mere guarantee of good faith. O n e must always consider, not how frequently a particular author appeals to experience, but the way in which he makes this appeal. In this light, it seems to me that the author's attitude is considerably different from that of C a m . or Flat. The author makes the scope and intention of his observation as clear as he can. The points he singles out for remark in the allegedly six-day embryo are that it is egg-like, being enclosed by a membrane like that of a shelled egg; that it has an umbilicus; and that the membrane begins from the umbilicus, from which it extends all round the embryo. These are precisely the points upon which he comments in the egg described in chapter 29, where he lays particular emphasis on the umbilicus. The difference between the two chapters is that in chapter 29 the author speaks of a clutch of twenty or more eggs: in other words, while chapter 13 is meant to confirm the initial state of the embryo described in chapter 12, chapter 29 is meant to confirm the whole process of development described in the intervening chapters, provided that, the author is careful to add, one can justifiably compare a human being to a chicken. From his point of view, this comparison is justified by the similarity of the six-day human embryo to the egg. As he might have put it, like effects proceed from like causes. Thus the two observations, as he says in both chapters, taken together bear witness to the truth of his whole account. What gives this guarantee is the fact of personal observation: the author has seen these things himself, therefore he knows them to be true. This is stressed in both chapters, and the insistence is characteristic of Ionian inquiry. Thus Herodotus (e. g. 2,99,1) is careful to distinguish between the value of what he knows through personal observation and of what he has merely heard. The tradition goes back at least as far as the famous fragment

34 of Xenophanes (VS 21 Β 34): Certain truth has no man seen, nor will there ever be a man who knows (from immediate experience) about the gods and about everything of which I speak; for even if he should fully succeed in saying what is true, even so he himself does not know it, but in all things there is opinion261, where the verb for know (είδώς, οίδε) implies personal observation (following the interpretation of Hermann Frankel 2 6 2 . Fränkel usefully compares the attitude of Xenophanes to that of V M 1). 260 Regenbogen p. 142. 261 262

Guthrie History vol. I p. 395. Fränkel pp. 3 4 2 - 3 4 5 .

160

Commentary

Such a systematic and conscious use of observation is unparalleled in the whole Hippocratic Collection, with the exception of VM. Although the author is not quite constructing an hypothesis to await experimental confirmation in the modern sense (as Regenbogen 263 says, the observation is used both as the scaffolding by means of which the building is constructed and as the framework which holds the building up), he comes very near it. It is very clear that what he chiefly lacks is a developed logic, such as came with Plato and Aristotle. From the form of the embryo as it appeared to me then, I draw the rest of my inferences26*. The author's embryology is thus explicitly based on observation: but how honest is this observation? and how accurate? The question of honesty is one which must be raised. Hippocratic authors did not always resist the temptation to make an impressive rhetorical display, particularly in those works which are written in the form of popular lectures. Some treatises appear to have been written by sophists, who as a class were notorious for their courting of popular admiration; and although we can probably acquit the author of this particular charge, it is true that this chapter is written in a lively style, reminiscent of Herodotus, which aims partly at entertainment. And there is a distinct trace of complacency in the author's manner, although this is understandable enough. Probably both the liveliness and the complacency are sufficiently explained by his sense of the importance of his message. A more serious consideration is that in Cam. 19 2 6 5 there is a very similar passage in which the author is certainly lying. He claims to have procured the abortion of a seven-day embryo, not once, but several times; and in each case, he says, the embryo was already fully formed. He claims to have seen, by immersing the embryo in water, the facial features, the limbs including fingers and toes, and the genitals. The passage is quite clearly tendentious, and the author's motive is to support his theory that human growth and development proceed in seven-day periods 266 . The passage is probably an imitation of the present chapter, to which it bears circumstantial resemblances (so too Littre 2 6 7 and Grensemann 268 ). Grensemann points out that while the six days of Genit. 13 depend on chance (notice though that the periods of 30 and 42 days given in this treatise for the articulation of female and male embryos respectively are multiples of six 2 6 9 ), the seven days of Cam. depend on theory. Is the present passage similarly tendentious? The factors which might cause suspicion are (i) the ease with which the abortion is produced; and (ii) the fact that, whatever the 263 Regenbogen p. 144. 264 265 266 267 268 269

Nat. Puer. 13,1. 5 5 , 5 - 7 J o l y = V I I 490,1 f. Li. C a m . 19,1. 2 0 , 3 - 1 8 D e . = V I I I 6 0 8 , 2 2 - 6 1 0 , 1 6 Li. C a m . 1 9 , 2 - 7 . 2 0 , 1 8 - 2 2 , 2 1 D e . = V I I I 6 2 0 , 1 6 - 6 1 4 , 1 7 Li. Littre Hippocrate vol. V I I I p. 578. Grensemann, edition of O c t . pp. 6 4 f . C f . also below note on chapter 13,1.

O n the Nature of the Child

161

author may have seen, what he describes cannot be a human embryo at the end of six days, (i) might possibly be explained by a rare chance; for (ii) various explanations have been offered, such as a menstrual clot 2 7 0 or a uterine mole 2 7 1 . It is at least possible that the author did see something; and that his observation of it was governed by what he expected to find. This would be all the more likely, if he had in fact made his observations on the clutch of eggs previously to the experience he describes here (and his explicit comparison, just at this point, with an egg suggests that this is the case) — although this would make the relation between theory and observation less scientifically impressive. But one confusing factor should be removed from our minds, and that is the girl's assertion about when she conceived. The belief that women could tell the precise occasion upon which conception occurred is both widespread in the gynaecological treatises and untrue 272 . Once the reliability of the girl's statement is dismissed, there is a very slight possibility that what the author saw may really have been a human embryo at the end of a month or a longer period 273 . His description could quite easily be interpreted to fit such an embryo: in particular, the umbilicus which so impressed him might well be the yolk sac, with the amnion extending (έτέτατο) 274 from it; and it is tempting to interpret the white and thick fibres appearing within the membrane (έν δέ τω ύμένι . . . ίνες λευκαι και παχέαι) 275 as the somites 276 . The most important point however is that we allow the author to have seen something, and to have made an honest attempt at describing it. If this is in fact so — and the passage gives one the impression of honesty — then the relation between theory and observation in chapters 12—29 is of great significance for early Greek science. Galen was impressed by the passage, and quotes from it four 277 times . He evidently accepts the author's accuracy, although it was also 270 271

272

C f . Charles R o b i n , quoted in Littre Hippocrate vol. V I I pp. 463—467. Guttmacher in Ellinger H p . Genit. Nat. Puer. pp. 115 — 117 accepted by Sigerist vol. II p. 230. C f . Genit. 5,1. 4 8 , 8 - 1 0 J o l y = V I I 4 7 6 , 2 3 - 2 5 L i . ; Mul. I 1 0 - 1 7 . V I I I 4 0 , 1 2 - 5 8 , 2 Li. where it is constantly implied; Steril. 2 2 0 . V I I I 4 2 4 , 1 6 f . L i . ; according to Gal. D e facult. natur. 3,3. 2 0 9 , 3 - 1 7 Helmr. = II 149,12 — 150,8 Kühn, the mouth of the uterus closes, the whole uterus contracts around the sperm, and this is accompanied by a distinct perception in the woman, particularly during the first days. C f . Sor. G y n . 1,44,1 — 3. 31,6—26 lib. and Diepgen Frauenheilkunde p. 145.

273

Although the author was familiar with early miscarriages: cf. Nat. Puer. 18,7. 63,17—23 J o l y = V I I 5 0 4 , 1 6 - 2 0 Li.

274

N a t . Puer. 13,4. 5 6 , 5 f . J o l y = V I I 4 9 0 , 1 9 - 4 9 2 , 1 Li. Nat. Puer. 13,3. 5 5 , 2 2 - 5 6 , 1 J o l y = V I I 4 9 0 , 1 5 f . Li. I find the following quite independent description of these in a popular introduction to embryology (Gilbert p. 29): "Shining through the thin skin over the back appear about thirty-eight consecutive blocks of tissue."

275 276

277

Gal. D e s e m . 1,4. I V 5 2 4 , 1 8 - 5 2 6 , 6 Kühn; De foet. form. 1. I V 6 5 3 , 1 4 - 6 5 5 , 5 K ü h n ; Adv. Lyc. 7,3. 2 4 , 2 0 - 2 8 W . = X V I I I A 2 3 6 , 5 - 1 5 Kühn; D e facult. natur. 2 , 3 . 1 6 3 , 1 6 - 2 2 Helmr. = II 8 6 , 6 - 1 2 Kühn.

162

Commentary

convenient for him to do so; for in the first of these passages he wishes to argue, against Aristotle, that a membrane is formed almost immediately after conception; while in the second case his thesis is that the blood vessels are the first parts to be formed in the embryo's development, and he therefore interprets the thick white fibres as the lineaments of veins and arteries (φλεβών και άρτηριών ύπογραφήν) 2 7 8 . In the third passage 279 , evidently quoting from memory, he confuses the external αίμάλωπες or blood clots with the white ινες fibres which are inside the transparent membrane, since he says that the blood clots still retain the whiteness which existed in the original sperm. In these passages 277 it suits his polemic purposes to accept that what is described is a six-day embryo. What he says about the excerpt from Hippocrates is worth quoting: While it will instruct us by the accuracy of its observation, it will also delight us by its tempering of narrative with style, thus giving a brief remission and respite to the vehemence of the treatise, and joining pleasure with profit, that our vigour may be increased for a more intense concentration upon the remainder of the book260. The story of the musician-girl is also quoted, with significant variations, in pseudo-Iamblichus Theolog. Arithm. 46. 61,15 — 62,7. Iamblichus or his source makes it a pregnancy of seven days. Cf. also Macrobius (Macr. somn. 1,6,64). Aristaenetus, a writer of erotic epistles in the 6th century A.D. plagiarized the passage for his own purposes 281 . The passage in Aristaenetus has too many variations to be of value for the text here, although Cobet 2 8 1 a based an emendation on it. This chapter, along with chapters 14 and 16, should be compared with Volcher Coiter's day to day account of his observation of the hatching chick: the description of the developing embryo certainly owes a great deal to the author's similar observation, and I suggest Coiter's account because he worked without modern technical aids and without a modern scientific background: his observations therefore will give us a better idea of what our author might have seen 282 . 13,1 εξ ημέρας: see introductory note. Whether the period given was an invention by the girl or the author, the number 6 is suspicious. It was of great importance in Pythagorean number theory, being regarded as a 'perfect' number (i. e. composed of the sum of its factors). Philolaus associated it 278

De foet. form. 2. IV 655,7-10 Kühn. I. e. Gal. Adv. Lyc. 7,3. 24,20-28 W. = XVIII A 236,5-15 Kühn. 280 Gal. De sem. 1,4 IV 5 2 5 , 2 - 7 Kühn. 281 Aristaenet. 1,19 p. 150 Hercher. 281a Cobet p. 162, cf. also Ermerins Hippocrates vol. II p. 492 and Joly Nat. Puer. ad loc. 282 The Latin text of Coiter, with English translation, is most easily accessible in Opuscula Selecta Neerlandicorum de Arte Medica vol. 18 (1955) pp. 26—55; cf. also Howard B. Adelmann, The "De ovorum gallinaceorum generationis primo exordio progressuque, et pulli gallinacei creationis ordine" of Volcher Coiter. Translated and edited with notes and introduction. Annals of Medical History N . S. 5 (1933) pp. 327-341 and 444-457. 279

O n the N a t u r e of the Child

163

with the life-principle (ψύχωσις VS 44 A 12), and it was made the basis of a particular embryological theory concerning the seven-month child. The theory is recorded in a number of places (e. g. Aristides Quintilianus 283 and Proclus 284 ; see Delatte p. 167 for further references) but the earliest authority for it is the Roman writer Varro reported in Censorinus (Cens. 9,1 — 11,12). The seven-month child passes through four periods; for the first six days, its form is a milky fluid; for the next eight, a sanguineous fluid; during the next nine, flesh is formed; and during the next twelve (i. e. at thirty-five days) it becomes fully formed. Thirty-five when multiplied by six, the 'fundamentum gignendi' or base of generation, becomes two hundred and ten days, which is seven months. Moreover, the proportions involved (6:8; 6:9; 6:12) correspond to the musical intervals of the fourth, fifth, and the octave 28S . Delatte considers that the theory belongs to early Pythagoreanism. If this is so, it would be hard to believe that the choice of the number six in the present chapter was not suggested by it, even though the author's theory of development contradicts the Pythagorean theory. For further possible evidence of Pythagorean influence see introductory note to chapter 18. 13,1 αυτός ειδον: cf. Nat. Puer. 24,2. 72,3f. Joly = VII 520,10 Li.; Nat. Puer. 29,3. 78,7 Joly = VII 530,18 Li. ήν τις μηδέπω είδε, θαυμάσει if α man had not actually seen it, he would find it hard to believe. Ειδον is rather stronger than "I have seen": it means something like "I am witness" 2 8 6 ; and what is "seen" in this sense becomes an ίστόριον (visible) evidence (the word comes from the same root). Cf. chapter 31 (Nat. Puer. 31,2. 83,8 — 13 Joly =VII 540,8 — 13 Li.), where ίστόριον is followed by και ταύτα αυτοί όρέομεν γινόμενα we ourselves see this happening. The use of ειδον in the present passage indicates that the author is introducing an ίστόριον; and the care with which he tells the story is no mere literary flourish, but a means of establishing the circumstances of an important piece of evidence. The value given here to personal observation is part of the spirit of Ionian science; but for quite practical reasons a physician was likely to be especially conscious of its importance 287 . In Mul. I 40 ειδον is used of the observation of a particular, named, patient 288 . 283 284 285

286 287

288

Aristid. Q u i n t . 3,18. Procl. In R. II 3 3 , 1 4 - 3 4 , 2 Kroll. Cf. further Delatte p p . 166—168. Burkert pp. 263 f. suggests the b o o k of Philolaus as a likely source for such embryological theories in the Hippocratic treatises. Since Philolaus was born about the mid-fifth century, and possibly earlier, this might give a date fairly late in the fifth century for the origin of these theories. C f . Snell Ausdrücke p . 25. Cf. an interesting passage in A r t . 1. 1 1 1 , 1 - 1 1 3 , 7 K w . = IV 7 8 , 1 - 8 0 , 1 9 Li.; cf. Bourgey pp. 2 2 8 - 2 3 0 . Mul. I 40. VIII 96,8 Li.; cf. also Mul. I 62. VIII 126,12 Li.

164

Commentary

13,1 τά λ ο ι π ά τεκμήρια ποιεϋμαι: = τά λοιπά τεκμαίρομαι. Kühner-Gerth vol. I p. 106.

Cf.

13,1 γ υ ν α ι κ ό ς οίκείης: this reading had already caused consternation in antiquity, as we can gather from the entry in Erotian 2 8 9 : οίκείης· δούλης, οί δε βίας (ιδίας Nachmanson ex Foesio). Οίκείης cannot be stretched to mean slave·, the alternative reading ιδίας makes the matter worse, since it is then the physician's own wife (cf. Calvus: coniugis meae quaedam ancilla 290 ) who is the brothel-keeper. Wilamowitz 2 9 1 suffering from the same scruples as the lexicographer, proposed Κίας (= Κείης) as a welcome solution 2 9 2 . But whatever later feelings about the matter may have been, we do not know enough of the milieu from which our physician came to be certain that a kinswoman who kept girls for entertainment would be a shameful secret. There were brothels and brothels: some of them, like the one kept by Nicarete 2 9 3 , were very select maisons. In comedy, the brothel keeper is universally reviled, but usually by the frustrated lover. The embarrassment indicated by the passage in Erotian (and by the reading οίκέτις in Galen 293a ) suggests that οίκείης was the reading. Α γυνή οίκείη is a kinswoman, just as ά ν δ ρ α οίκήιον in H d t . 1,108,3 means kinsman; and the passage provides an interesting insight into the values of some sections of the ancient world. 13,1 μουσοεργός: evidently a technical term: the girl was a singer, as opposed to a dancing girl (όρχηστρίς, Lucian Am. 10) or to a flute girl (αύλητρίς) 2 9 4 . 13,1 έπήν γυνή κτλ.: the abrupt transition to direct speech is noted by Regenbogen 2 9 5 as thoroughly characteristic of λέξις είρομένη: cf. the examples given by Norden 2 9 6 and Frankel 2 9 7 . It is a clear indication of the approximate date of the treatise (cf. Introduction, section 6). 13,1 και εφρασε: several of the case histories in the Epidemics are concerned with slaves; the physician was presumably called in by the owner, as seems to be the case here. Cf. Epid. IV 38. V 180,5 Li. τη οίκέτιδι, ήν νεώνητον έοϋσαν κατεΐδον 2 9 8 the newly purchased slave girl whom I 289

Erot. Voc. Hipp. coll. Ο 10 Nachmanson; cf. Nachmanson Erotianstudien p. 311. A maid who happened to belong to my wife. 291 Wilamowitz Lesefruchte pp. 79f. 292 Cf. the confusion between Κείαν and οίκείαν in the manuscripts of Himerius (Him. Or. 47, 117), where Κείαν is the correct reading; and Him. Or. 12, 141, where Wernsdorf corrects οικείας to Κείας. 293 Demosth. Or. 59, e.g. 18-20; 2 6 - 2 7 ; 29. 2931 De foet. form. 1. IV 654,4 Kühn. 294 Cf. Ath. Dipnosoph. 4,2.129a. 295 Regenbogen p. 161. 296 Norden vol. I pp. 3 7 - 4 1 . 297 Frankel pp. 8 0 - 8 2 . 298 This p a s s a g e js discussed by Kudlien Sklaven pp. 18—23. 290

On the Nature of the Child

165

visited. The present passage is, incidentally, the only direct evidence we have that the author was himself a physician. 13.1 έξέρχεται ή γονή: for this as a cause of failure to conceive, cf. Mul. I 10. VIII 40,12-42,8 Li.; 112. VIII 48,8-10 Li.; I 13. VIII 50,14f. Li.; I 16. VIII 5 4 , 1 - 3 Li.; Steril. 220. VIII 424, 14-21 and passim. The sperm is that of both parents: cf. Genit. 5,1. 48,2f. Joly = VII 476,18 Li. 13.2 έκελευσάμην: this contradicts the celebrated injunction against abortion in the Oath, and in this respect the passage had aroused discussion as early as Soranus (Gyn. 1,60,1—4. 45,1 — 19 lib.): one solution was that "Hippocrates" ordered the girl to jump, so as to avoid the interdiction against φθόρια in the Oath. Edelstein 299 argues that the attitude of the Oath is exceptional, but the evidence in R. Hähnel j 'Der künstliche Abortus im Altertum' 3 0 0 , which Edelstein cites, does not seem to support his contention that "many physicians prescribed and gave abortive remedies" (Edelstein p. II) 3 0 1 . The present passage can give us no information about the Hippocratic Oath: for while on the one hand the author shows no consciousness that his conduct might be criticized in any way, on the other hand the fact that the girl (and her future child) was a slave and not a free-born citizen might havfe been the crucial point in deciding his attitude. We cannot tell. 13,2 προς πυγην πηδήσαι: Galen De sem. 1,4. IV 525,17 Kühn; De foet. form. 1. IV 654,12 Kühn has προς την γην; Iamblichus has προς γην υψηλά 3013 ; but the reading of Μ is confirmed by Soranus Gyn. 1,60,1. 45,8 lib. Littre explains it by reference to a well-known Lacedaemonian dance: cf. Aristophanes Lysistrata 82 γυμνάδδομαι γαρ και ποτι πυγάν αλλομαι / do gymnastics and leap touching the rump. The numbering of the leaps (see following note) is significant: Pollux (4,102. 231,8f. Bethe) who describes the exercise says they had to leap and touch their buttocks with their feet, and the leaps were counted. This is then certainly the exercise which is referred to here. 299 300 301

301a

Edelstein Oath pp. 1 0 - 1 8 . Hähnel pp. 2 2 4 - 2 5 5 . The passages cited by Hähnel deal for the most part with the causes of abortion, but one can no more argue from this that the Hippocratic physicians induced abortion than one could argue from their knowledge of what might poison a patient that they connived at poisoning patients. Abortions are regarded as unfortunate accidents (κακά . . . ά π ο άτυχίης) in Morb. I 8. 2 2 , 1 0 - 1 5 Wi. = VI 1 5 4 , 1 6 - 2 1 Li., and the cases in Mul. 125. VIII 6 4 , 2 5 - 6 8 , 1 8 Li. are cases of involuntary abortion (διαφθείρουσιν ακουσαι). Nat. Mul. 32 and 95 (Nat. Mul. 32. 8 8 , 1 7 - 9 0 , 2 Trapp = VII 3 4 8 , 1 7 - 3 5 2 , 2 Li. and 95. 1 2 0 , 1 5 - 1 7 Trapp = VII 412,15—18 Li.) prescribe means of expelling the embryo along with the chorion (έκβόλιον εμβρύου και ύστερων) but these are apparently cases where the embryo is dead or the woman's life in endangered. Apart from these two ambiguous passages there is nothing to support Edelstein's view, nor the similar view of Diepgen Frauenheilkunde p. 300; see also Nickel's criticism, Nickel Ethik pp. 74 — 80. Ps.-Iambi. Theol. Arithm. 46.62,4 de Falco.

166

Commentary

13.2 έπτάκις ήδη έπεπήδητο: so Littre, following Galen 301b . Μ and V read επτά τοι ήδη έπεπήδητο. The original reading is probably indicated by the επτά δέ οί πεπήδητο of pseudo-Iamblichus (Theolog. Arithm. 46. 62,4 de Falco). 13.3 οίον ει τις ωού ώμοϋ: it is a little difficult to believe that the author is not in fact describing an urihatched egg. Cf. the following description from Coiter (p. 30): "Quinto die (!) deprehendimus secundam membranam totius ovi substantiam ambientem, et multis venis perfusam, ita a putaminis membrana liberam et validam ut absque offensione cum ovi substantia extrahi potuerit. Aperta hac membrana, globulum sanguineum pulsantemque vidi profundius solito subsidisse. Sumpsi utriusque gallinae quinti diei ovum, et in altero apparuit tantum globulus pulsans adhuc informis, sanguine utcunque circumfusus cum suis venis (the author's αίμάλωπες ?) . . . In albumine visae sunt partes dissimilares, quarum quaedam tenues ad candorem (cf. ίνες λευκαί) accedentes, quaedam crassiores (παχεΐαι!)". On the fifth day we observed that the second membrane, surrounding the whole substance of the egg and perfused with many veins, was so free from the shell membrane and so strong that, without injury, it could be removed together with the substance of the egg. When this membrane was opened, I saw that the sanguineous, pulsating globule had sunk more deeply than usual. I took an egg of the fifth day from each hen. There appeared in one of them merely the still formless pulsating globule which was, however, surrounded by blood vessels . . . In the albumen dissimilar parts were seen. Some were thin and approached glossy whiteness, others were denser302. At least the author's description must have been influenced by his observation of the egg. But what, in the egg, corresponds to the umbilicus? The punctum saliens? Yet this, although its movement might have suggested to the author the movement of breathing, cannot be described as "projecting". See further note on chapter 29. 13,3 ήν δέ και έρυθρον και στρογγύλον: Galen tendentiously took the subject to be το ένδον, and identified it with the liver (De foet. form. 3. IV 662,13—16 Kühn). But the connexion of the sentences clearly shows that the subject is the whole, egg-like, conceptus, as Galen probably knew quite well. Galen's error was repeated by Riolan the Younger (cf. Adelmann Malpighi vol. Ill p. 1318). 13,3 ίνες: like νεϋρα, the word is ambiguous, and is sometimes to be translated sinews, sometimes fibres. Here certainly the latter are meant: the former appears to have been the ancient and popular usage (cf. Aristophanes Pax 86 ίνες άρθρων the sinews of the joints) although it perhaps also appears 301t> 302

De foet. form. 1. IV 654,12f. Kühn. Adelmann Coiter p. 445.

On the Nature of the Child

167

in the Collection: Flat. 12. 99,12 Hbg. = VI 110,4 Li. (Heiberg however prefers the reading of Α φινός to M's ίνες adopted by Littre). Plato uses the word for fibrine in the blood (Ti. 82 c—d). The most instructive passage is Arist. H A 3,6. 515b,27—32. Fibres are intermediate between sinew (νεΰρον) and blood vessel. Some fibres have fluid, viz. ichor, and they extend from the sinews to the blood vessels and vice versa. There is also another kind of fibres, which occurs in blood, but not in the blood of every animal. If the fibres are taken out of the blood it does not congeal. . .303. 13,3 αίμάλωπες: cf. Nat. Puer. 19,1. 64,12 Joly = VII 506,6 Li. bones draw into themselves τοϋ αίμάλωπος το πιότατον the fattest part of blood clot(f). The meaning is uncertain, but the word is used to signify (probably) blood clot in Coac. 542. V 708,4 Li. and in later writers, which would agree with its meaning here and in chapter 19. But it can also mean a contusion; and similar words such as άγχίλωψ (a swelling on the tear duct), θυμάλωψ (a piece of charcoal or a glowing cinder) suggest the meaning "small concentrated mass of blood". See however Schwyzer vol. I p. 426 n. 4 on the termination — ωψ. 13.3 την πνοήν. . . . ποιέεσθαι το πρώτον: it is unlikely that the author means that he observed breathing, though he may have observed movement, if he is describing the 'punctum saliens'. Rather, the remark indicates a certain confusion between observation and inference from observation. This confusion is also present in the ambiguity of such words as τεκμήριον or ίστόριον 3 0 4 ; in the Hippocratic Collection generally, it is often hard to distinguish precisely between what is observed and what is inferred, and this endemic confusion goes a long way to explain what often seems to us a loose use of evidence. 13.4 άλλην διάγνωσιν: in chapter 29. For the sense of the word, see note there. 13,4 ώς ειπείν άνθρωπον: cf. Nat. Puer. 29,1. 77,14f. Joly = VII 530,3f. Li. which repeats the present passage; Vict. I 1,1. 1,3 f. Joly = VI 466,3 Li. όκόσα δυνατόν ανθρωπινή γνώμη περιληφθήναι all that can be comprehended at least by human reason. The contrast between human and divine knowledge is common in the pre-Socratics and later (see the excellent study by Bruno Snell, The discovery of the mind, chapter 7); here and in chapter 29 it is used with a particular 303 304

Peck Arist. H A vol. 1 pp. 1 8 9 - 1 9 1 . Cf. Webster p. 36: "Tekmerion and semeion seem to me to be used indiscriminately by the doctors, Herodotos, and Thucydides for comparisons, constructions, and collections of instances, and may signify either the argument or a piece of evidence (or symptom) on which the argument is based."

168

Commentary

significance. In both passages the author is reporting a personal observation: now empirical knowledge is precisely the knowledge that men can have, in contrast to inferential knowledge where men, being no more than human, can have no absolute certainty. The author is again stressing, not the uncertainty of his inferences, but the certainty of the empirical basis of those inferences. H e has personally observed: therefore the degree of his certainty is äs high as it can be for a man. The significance of the remark here is illustrated by Alcmaeon, Fr. 1 (VS 24 Β 1): Concerning things unseen, the gods have certainty; whereas to us as men, conjecture (τεκμαίρεσθαι: cf. τεκμήριον here) only is possible. The remarks of Snell are useful: "Here the ancient distinction between two types of knowledge, the human and the divine, has become associated with the contrast between things visible and invisible . . . . A physician, accustomed to diagnose an illness from its symptoms, Alcmaeon succeeded in formulating the universal value of his medical procedure" 3 0 5 . See also Schumacher 306 , who credits Alcmaeon with the origin of analogical argument. 13,4 δτι δε: Littre explains the passage as an anacoluthon. Cf. Nat. Puer. 31,2. 83,8 Joly = VII 540,8 Li. and 31,3. 83,17 Joly = VII 540,16 Li. For similar examples elsewhere in the Hippocratic Collection cf. Norden vol. I p. 49. Chapters 14 — 16 The egg-like embryo of chapter 12 was the initial stage in the process of gestation, and its respiration provides the mechanism of embryonic growth. The present chapters introduce the nutrient material from which the embryo grows: this is the mother's blood which becomes flesh or tissue (σάρξ) by coagulation. This blood is attracted inside the embryonic membrane by the respiratory process: the relation between blood-flow and embryonic respiration is described in chapter 15 and will be made more precise in chapters 17 and 18 307 . Further membranes form around the embryo by the process described in chapter 12, and these become the chorion. In chapter 15 the author makes an attempt, which is not altogether successful, to relate his embryological theory to his theory of menstruation. The latter is found partly here, and partly in Mul. I 1. VIII 10,2-14,7 Li., which is certainly by the same author. The theory of menstruation is in turn based on the digestive theory of Morb. IV, a striking indication of the systematic nature of the author's work 3 0 8 . According to Mul. I 1, women's flesh is more loosely textured and porous than that of men (άραιοσαρ305 306 307

308

Snell Mind pp. 146f. Schumacher p. 73. For the principle involved, and its relation to the principle of attraction, see introductory note to chapters 33—41. See note on 15,4 όκόταν δέ χαραχθέν.

O n the Nature of the Child

169

κοτέρην, Mul. I 1. VIII 12,6 Li.). By the principle of attraction, which the author employs extensively in his pathology, a woman therefore draws more blood from the food in the stomach than a man. (This is illustrated by a demonstration with wool and linen placed over a narrow-necked vessel filled with water: the wool absorbs more than the linen, because it is loose and soft.) A woman therefore always has a surplus of blood which, if she is to remain healthy, must be expelled periodically; while a man, who absorbs only as much as is necessary for nutriment, is not under this necessity. Mul. I 1 does not explain why this blood is expelled periodically: this is done in chapter 15 of the present treatise. Here the author makes use of the effects of climate, as he does in the pathology of chapters 51 and 52. The principle is the same as that of chapter 1: heat produces disturbance (τάραξις) of fluid in the body, which in turn leads to secretion (άπόκρισις). In the present chapter, this is also apparently the effect of cold, which is inconsistent with chapter 52. It must be remembered however that in the Hippocratic Collection any sudden change whether from cold to heat or from heat to cold can have an effect on the humours: for example in Morb. Sacr. it is cold which causes phlegm to flow 3 0 9 . Menstruation, or the discharge of the blood surplus which the woman builds up, occurs monthly because it is from month to month that changes in temperature become apparent. The woman is also more sensitive to such changes because she is "moister" than the man: Mul. I 1 explains why. Characteristically, the author seeks a mechanistic explanation of that mysterious phenomenon, the regular appearance of menstruation: it is simply the automatic result of monthly changes in temperature. Yet it would have been easy for him, and in accord with traditional ways of thinking, to regard the regularity itself of the phenomenon as a sufficient explanation: all things must have their due season, as the poet Archilochus 309a among others observed. Contrast with the author's attitude that shown in Septim. 9. VII 448,5 — 7 Li.: The menses make their appearance in women, provided that they are healthy, in each month, which shows that the month has a power all of its own over bodies (ώς έχοντος τοϋ μηνός ίδίην δύναμιν έν τοϊσι σώμασι). That remark is made in a Pythagorean context, in which the author provides a numerical explanation of critical days. For him, as for the Pythagoreans, it is number itself which governs physical phenomena, whereas for the present author number is simply a means of describing physical phenomena: it has no causative power in itself. In exactly the same way, he gives a mechanistic explanation of the periodicity of disease (Morb. IV 46—48): the appearance of crises on odd days is simply a result of the digestive processes that go on in the body; whereas in Septim. which also discusses the same phenomenon, the explanation is mathematical. In this 309 309a

Morb. Sacr. 10,3. 76,50-52 Gr. = VI 378,15-17 Li. Archil. Fr. 250 Lasserre-Bonnard.

170

Commentary

respect, the attitudes of the two authors could hardly be more sharply distinguished. O n the other hand, the explanation of a phenomenon by a combination of climatic with constitutional (woman is "by nature" moister than man) factors is characteristic of Aer. and Morb. Sacr. But his thoroughgoing mechanism is peculiar to himself. Notice also that he does not associate menstruation with the waning of the moon, as Empedocles evidently did (VS 31 A 80) and Aristotle (GA 2,4. 738a,16-26 and 4,2. 767a, 2f.). Aristotle however does relate the period of the waning of the moon to changes in temperature: the month is colder and moister then. Possibly then the belief that climatic change causes the regularity of menstruation goes back to Empedocles. So much for the theory of menstruation: its main points are its relation to the author's beliefs about nutrition, and its attempt to explain by reference to climatic periodicity. The theory is now related to embryology. When a woman is not pregnant, there is no daily flow of the surplus blood to the womb, except during actual menstruation. But when she is pregnant, there is such a regular flow, and the reason is that the embryo attracts it. The rate of flow is governed by the embryo's respiration rate, which is at first small, but which becomes more vigorous as the embryo grows. As the embryo grows, it also requires more nutriment (this reciprocal process is important for the argument of chapter 18). However, from conception onwards the embryo draws a sufficient quantity of blood to prevent the monthly discharge; but even so, during the first four to six weeks a surplus is built up in the body of the mother, and this is expelled after birth in the form of the lochia 310 . Chapter 14 14,1 αΰξεται: the author assumes that blood is the agent of nutrition. F. Solmsen 311 in connexion with Plato's Timaeus, rightly emphasizes the importance of this view, and enquires after its originators. H e concludes that it must have been physicians of the first third of the fourth century (since it is already present in Carn. 13), perhaps of the school of Empedocles. But why not Empedocles himself? The belief is in fact implicit in his identification of milk with a corruption of blood, on which see the commentary on chapter 21.

3,0

311

Mul. I 34. VIII 78,11 — 16 Li. which remarks that during pregnancy so much blood is taken by the embryo that the mother grows pale and weak, suggests that the embryo uses more than the normal quantity of blood discharged in the menses (cf. Fasbender p. 86 n. 2). The same statements about the small amount of blood used initially by the embryo, and the condition of the mother during the later stages of pregnancy are repeated in Arist. GA 4,6. 775b, 10-13. Solmsen Tissues p. 454.

On the Nature of the Child

171

14,1 κατιόν τό αίμα: cf. Mul. I 25. VIII 64,19—66,1 Li. κατέρχεται γαρ έπήν έν γαστρι εχη ή γυνή, ά π ο παντός τοϋ σώματος αίμα έπι τάς μήτρας κατ' ολίγον, και περιιστάμενον κύκλω περι τό έν τησι μήτρησιν έόν αΰξει κείνο. When the woman is pregnant, blood descends from the whole body to the womb little by little, and encircling what is in the womb causes it to grow. For the further correspondence between Mul. I 25 and chapter 9, see the commentary on that chapter. 14.1 από παντός τοϋ σώματος: the origin of nutrient menstrual blood from all parts of the body, along with the origin of semen from all parts of the body, is essential to the author's genetic and embryological theories. See chapter 17. 14.2 τό μέλλον ζωον εσεσθαι: it is called successively γονή, σαρξ (cf. below, and chapter 16) and, after articulation, παιδίον (chapter 18). 14,2 υμένες . . . πολλοί: this is exactly what he would see in the chick, and he has perhaps simply transferred his observation to the case of the human embryo. Compare Coiter's account (p. 30): "Vigesimo die fuit pullus effectus, et in putamine quattuor reperiebantur membranae sive tunicae, in una parte sibi mutuo annexae, quarum duae interiores multas venas et arterias continebant". On the twentieth day the chick was fully formed. Within the shell were found four membranes or tunics attached to one another at one place. The inner two of these membranes contained many veins and arteries2·12. Adelmann ad loc.: "Probably the (1) inner and (2) outer shell membranes (3) the inner layer of the allantois fused with the amnion, and (4) the outer layer of the allantois fused with the chorion. The latter two are fused in the region of the so-called yolk-sac umbilicus" 3 1 3 . But obstetric observation would certainly have contributed: with τεταμένοι. . . ά π ο τοϋ ομφαλού extending from the umbilicus cf. Mul. I 46. VIII 108,lOf. Li. τέταται γαρ τό χόριον έκ τοϋ ομφαλού τού παιδίου the chorion extends from the umbilicus. 14,2 πηγνυμένου, σάρξ: for πήγνυσθαι cf. note on chapter 6. A form of the belief that the tissues are made of coagulated blood may be behind the following remark in Steril. 213. VIII 412,3—6 Li.: If the menses are unhealthy . . . there is no conception. For coagulation is prevented by the morbid state of the blood and the blood descending from the body liquefies the sperm, because it is morbid. A further remark in the same chapter suggests that the author also shares the belief that the embryo breathes: If menstruation is excessive in quantity, the woman does not conceive . . . (or) if she conceives, the large quantity of blood descending suddenly to the womb stifles (αποπνίγει) the embryo (Steril. 213. VIII 412,21—25 Li.). This 312 313

Adelmann Coiter p. 448. Adelmann Coiter pp. 455 f. n. 89.

172

Commentary

implies the doctrine of the present chapter. For the language and the idea, cf. also Plato Ti. 82 d σάρκες δέ (sc. γίγνονται) άπο τοϋ παγέντος (sc. αίματος) flesh (sc. arises) from the compacting of the blood313a. 14.2 ομφαλός . . . δι' ού πνέει και την αΰξησιν ισχει: this appears to be the belief of Empedocles (VS 31 A 79). According to Wellmann 314 it was adopted by Democritus, but the evidence seems insufficient. Certainly Democritus agrees with the author in supposing that the umbilicus is the first part to be formed in the embryo 3 1 5 . Chapter 15 15,1 βύζην: glossed by Erotian (Voc. Hipp. coll. Β 12) and by Galen (Ling. s. diet, exolet. expl. XIX 90,4 Kühn) as άθρόως and πυκνώς. The word also occurs in Mul. I 5. VIII 28,13 Li. and chapter 1 of the same treatise has βεβυσμένον compacted (Mul. I 1. VIII 12,11 Li.). 15,1 άρμω: from Erotian (Voc. Hipp. coll. A 34). That it belongs here see Nachmanson Erotianstudien p. 309. It is another linguistic feature shared with the gynaecological treatises: cf. Mul. I 4. VIII 26,1 Li.; Mul. I 36. VIII 88,16 Li.; Steril. 213. VIII 408,9 Li.; Steril. 213. VIII 408,14 Li.; besides these passages it occurs once in Cord. 12. 56,2 U. = IX 90,14 Li. It should be noticed however that the three latter passages are all concerned with the closing of an aperture in the body, άρμω qualifying μεμυκέναι in the first two, and κλεϊσθαι in the third: cf. Unger H p . Cord. p. 100. 15.3 ύγρότερον: the view that females are moister than males is repeated in Nat. Puer. 18,8. 64,2f. Joly = VII 504,25f. Li-.ή γονή άσθενεστέρη εστί και υγρότερη της θηλείης ή τοϋ άρσενος the female seed is both weaker and more fluid than the male; cf. Nat. Puer. 31,3. 83,24 Joly = VII 540,22 Li. and note on chapter 6. It is shared by the author of Aer. (Aer. 10,6. 48,22 Di. = II 46,7 Li.; Aer. 10,12. 52,4 Di. = II 50,9f. Li.). Does moister here imply 'colder'? The usual view is that the female constitution is both more moist and more 'cold' than the male (e. g. Vict. I 34,1. 29,3-10 Joly = VI 512,13-19 Li.). This was Aristotle's view, and it is sometimes ascribed to Empedocles as well, who however only seems to have said that females were more cold, in contrast to Parmenides, who said that they were warm. "Moister" in the present passage must be interpreted in the light of the menstruation theory of Mul. I 1: woman is moister because she has more blood, and we are told there that this blood is hotter than in a man (Mul. I 1. VIII 12,21 f. Li.).

3132 314 315

Cornford PI. Ti. p. 336. Wellmann Spuren p. 306. Cf. Guthrie History vol. II p. 467.

O n the Nature of the Child

173

Wellmann 316 and Lesky 317 think that this is the Cnidian view. Whether this is true or not, the view was not maintained consistently. While it is present in this passage and in Mul. 11, it is not present in the passages in chapters 18 and 31 mentioned above, since the greater fluidity of female seed is there given as the reason why it takes longer to coagulate: i. e. it requires more heat, and therefore it must be colder (cf. Nat. Puer. 12,1. 5 3 , l - 4 J o l y = VII 4 8 6 , 1 - 3 Li. ή γονή . . . παχύνεται θερμαινόμενη the seed condenses as the result of heat). It is possible that the author consciously restricts moist-cold to the embryo, the female after birth being moist and warm; but it is more likely that we have an unnoticed contradiction here; a typical result of his eclecticism. In any case, chapters 18 and 31 can hardly be used to support the view that the female is warmer as well as moister, though this may have been the author's view elsewhere. So far as menstruation at any rate is concerned the author would have shared the view of Parmenides (Arist. PA 2,2. 648a,29—31 = VS 28 A 52): Parmenides and certain others say that women are hotter than men, arguing that the menstrual flow is due to heat and abundance of blood. Possibly these "certain others" are identical with those mentioned by Aristotle GA 4,1. 765b,19—22: Some consider that the female is warmer than the male, because of the menstrual flow. For blood is warm, and what has more blood is warmer. Wellmann 318 identifies these people with Democritus, with no good grounds. Guthrie 3 1 9 notes that the author of Vict, uses the menstrual flow to draw a conclusion precisely opposed to that of Parmenides 320 . 15,3 έν τή αρχή τή φύσει ύπήρξεν: for the language, cf. Morb. IV 34,2. 86,10-13 Joly = VII 546,6—8 Li. where έξ αρχής originally and κατά φύσιν by nature are virtually equivalent. Cf. further Alim. 2. 140,6 Joly = IX 98,5 Li. Similarly the adjective άρχαΐος is often joined with φύσις 3 2 1 : cf. e. g. Mul. 117. VIII 56,14f. Li.: neither a womb which is excessively dry, nor one which is excessively moist will conceive, unless this condition is constitutional (έν τή άρχαίτ] φύσει). 15,3 ήν μεν άποκενώνται κτλ.: cf. Mul. I 17. VIII 56,15—58,2 Li.: days immediately after menstruation are the most decisive (κυριώταται) conception. Mul. 1 1 1 . VIII 46,5 however prescribes the time when menses are still flowing but are reaching the end. This belief is based theory, which is given in Mul. I 24. VIII 64,1—5 Li.: for at that time mouth of the womb is widest, and it is rigid after menstruation, and

the for the on the the

316 W e ] I m a n n Spuren p. 313. 317

Lesky p. 1267. 318 Wellmann Spuren p. 313. 319 Guthrie H i s t o r y vol. II p. 79. 320 For a discussion of the polarity moist/warm or moist/cold applied to females, and the assumptions behind it, see Lloyd Polarity pp. 58f.. 321 Holwerda p. 54 n. 1.

174

Commentary

vessels attract the sperm. Whereas in the preceding time, the mouth of the womb is more closed, and the veins, being full of blood, do not attract the sperm to the same extent. Cf. Steril. 213. VIII 412,13 Li., possibly by the same author, immediately before menstruation, since the veins are full of blood, they do not receive the semen. Cf. Fasbender pp. 86f. 15,4 μάλιστα λαμβάνουσιν: so V: Μ omits μάλιστα but it is restored in the margin. Comparison with Mul. 117 and I 24 quoted above indicates that μάλιστα is correct. 15,4 όκόταν δέ ταραχθέν: the condition described is borrowed from the author's general pathology, and is in fact plethora. Cf. the description in chapters 49 and 51, and Mul. I 1. VIII 14,5 Li., where the word πληθώρη is used. 15.4 χαλώσι: this, the reading of V and M 1 seems slightly preferable to χανώσι, the point being that the uterus does not, as it normally should, 'let go' of the menses. Cf. Mul. I 61. VIII 124,16f. Li. αί μήτραι . . . μή χαλάσωσι τά έπιμήνια the uterus . . . does not release the menses. Was the reading originally χαδώσι contain (cf. Genit. 9,3. 51,6 Joly = VII 482,17 Li.)? The meaning would then be that there is more blood than the uterus can hold, so that it must eventually discharge it back into the veins (Nat. Puer. 15,5. 5 8 , 7 - 9 Joly = VII 494, 2 3 - 2 5 Li.). 15.5 έστι δέ οτε: the following conditions are described in greater detail in Mul. I 2—5: χωληθήναι Mul. I 4. VIII 26,22 Li.; στραγγουρίην Mul. I 2. VIII 18,3 Li.; ϊσχια . . . όσφύν Mul. I 2. VIII 18,11 Li.; μήνας πέντε ή εξ Mul. I 2. VIII 16,6 Li. where the condition becomes incurable by the sixth month; πύος γίνεται: this condition appears after two or three months in Mul. I 2. VIII 18,19-20,4 Li.; κατά τον βουβώνα ώς φϋμα: Mul. I 2. VIII 20,11 — 14 Li. describes the production and appearance of the growth, and censures ignorant physicians for using surgery on it. 15.5 κλείουσι: καίουσι burn, the reading of M, seems excluded by the sense: cf. Mul. I 2. cited above; although συγκαίειν burn up is associated with strangury in Aer. 9,4. 44,23 Di. = II 38,16 Li. 15.6 εΐρήσεται: V reads ειρηται, but cf. chapter 4 ad fin. The tense is in any case of little significance: for the relation between the two works cf. Introduction, sections 1 and 3.

Chapter 16 16,1

τού . . . ένέοντος: Μ adds αίματος, which looks like a gloss.

16,1 μάλιστα οί εξωθεν: again suggested by observation of the chick. Cf. Coiter's observation on the twelfth day (p. 30): "Secunda (sc. membrana,

O n the N a t u r e of the Child

175

i.e. the inner shell membrane) totam ovi substantiam ambit; deprimitur et constringitur, pro ovi imminutione et contractione" The second membrane surrounds the entire substance of the egg. It is depressed and contracted for the diminution and contraction of the egg322. This suggests that the author's κολπούνται form pockets refers to the cavity thus formed between outer and inner shell membrane. 16,1 καί οι αϋξη γεγένηται: this seems closest to the reading of Μ και ή αυξη έγγένηται. έγγένηται cannot be right. For οί cf. Mul. I 34. VIII 78,13 Li. αύξη οι γίνεται (though θ omits οι). But the whole text here is very uncertain. Μ omits the negative: and although the passage makes no sense without it, it was also evidently omitted in the text before the commentator in Dietz, who may be as early as the sixth century. H e says δτι το χρηστον αίμα έξαναλίσκεται εις το χόριον· εί δέ μή χρηστόν, τότε ουκ εις το χόριον, άλλ' εις τους άλλους ύμένας, άλλαντοειδή καί άμνεϊον. That the good blood flows into the chorion. But if it is not good, then it does not flow into the chorion but into the other membranes, the allantoid and the amnion323. This may confirm the antiquity of M's readings, but the conclusion is not very comforting, if Μ is wrong. 16,1 αποκρίνεται: Diepgen 324 identifies this with the amniotic fluid. But in that case, the author's failure to mention it in chapter 30 would be surprising, since he would have no reason for assuming its existence except through its appearance at birth. If, on the other hand, the ΰδρωψ αίματώδης bloody water which he mentions in Nat. Puer. 30,12. 82,15 Joly = VII 538,20 Li. and in Nat. Puer. 18,3. 61,23 Joly = VII 502,2 Li. (called ίχώρ αίματώδης) is the amniotic fluid, it cannot be identified with the surplus blood here, since in that passage it is a discharge from the whole of the body, and not from the membrane about the infant. (See further note on από τε της κεφαλής Nat. Puer. 30,12. 82,16 Joly = VII 538,20f. Li., where it is suggested that the author's assumption that the chorion is filled with surplus blood may have interfered with his observation of the actual time of appearance of the amniotic fluid, and also prompted an erroneous explanation of the origin of this fluid.) A more likely supposition therefore is that he is describing what he has observed in the egg. Cf. again Coiter (9th day) p. 30: "vidi secundinam venarum tum multitudine, tum magnitudine auctam, denique et copia sanguinis solito turgidiorem, tramandaverat etiam sanguinis tenuissimi nonnihil" etc. On the ninth day I observed that the secundine had increased with respect to the number and size of the veins. 322 323

324

Adelmann Coiter p. 446. Ps.-Io. Philop. In H i p p . N a t . Puer. schol. II p. 225,4—6 Dietz. The identity and date of this author are quite uncertain: see O . Temkin, "Geschichte des H i p p o k r a t i s m u s im ausgehenden A l t e r t u m " , Kyklos 4 (1932) pp. 6 6 - 7 1 . Diepgen Frauenheilkunde p. 150.

176

Commentary

In short, it was more distended with blood than usual; some very thin blood had even transuded325. 16,1 χόριον: here refers to the whole complex of membranes. In this sense the word first occurs in the sophist Antiphon (VS 87 Β 36): έν φ το έμβρυον αυξάνεται τε και τρέφεται, καλείται χόριον that in which the embryo grows and is nurtured, is called the chorion. Aristotle in several places distinguishes between chorion and the other membranes (υμένες): GA 2,4. 739b,31; 2,7. 745b,35; 2,7. 746a, 18; H A 6,10. 565b, 10f.; the distinction appears to be that between our chorion on the one hand and the amnion and allantois on the other. The present author no doubt observed these distinct membranes, at least in the case of the chick (see note on υμένες πολλοί in Nat. Puer. 14,2. 56,22f. Joly = VII 492,15f. Li. and introductory note to chapter 29), but has no established terminology to express them. Yet Rufus of Ephesus says that the amnion was so named by Empedocles (Ruf. Onom. 229 = VS 31 Β 70). The author may not have known of it or, if he did, may have regarded it as a metaphor. This latter possibility is a distinctly interesting one. Diels translates "Schafhaut". This may be correct; but the word is used in Od. γ 444 to refer to a bowl in which blood is collected in a sacrifice. This is precisely the function given to the pouches of the membranes in chapter 16. It would be like Empedocles to have used such a metaphor (cf. Bollack vol. 3 p. 435). Probably χόριον is a word which comes from midwifery, since it is well established in the gynaecological treatises, e.g. Superf. 8,1. 76,7 Ln. = VIII 480,13 Li.; Mul. I 46. VIII 106,6 Li. etc. Antiphon in the passage above is introducing a technical term to the lay public. Chapters 1 7 - 2 0 These chapters present the first coherent theory in Western science of the articulation and development of the embryo. As with other of the author's theories, the elements already exist in earlier thinkers, but here unfortunately our evidence is more than usually fragmentary. Because of the limitations of the Placita, we cannot reconstruct a coherent theory of embryological development even for Empedocles, whose biology is exceptionally well reported. But this lack may not be entirely due to the nature of the sources. It is hard to see how earlier thinkers could have been in a position to produce a coherent theory. Empedocles for example may have, and no doubt did, describe the stages by which the embryo is formed; and he certainly described the material composition of separate parts. But to the question "how, by what processes, is a human being formed in the womb?" he cannot have given a clear answer. What sort of answer he 325

Adelmann C o i t e r p p . 445 f.

O n the Nature of the Child

177

would have given can be seen from the following fragments (though they are not necessarily embryological): Fr. 71: If your conviction is lacking in any respect about these things, how through the mingling of water and earth, the air and the sun, the forms and colours of mortal things came to he, as many as now exist joined together by Aphrodite . . . (VS 31 Β 71). Fr. 86: From which divine Aphrodite formed the untired eye . . . (VS 31 Β 86). Fr. 96: . . . these elements, divinely joined together in the fastenings of Harmonia, became white bones (VS 31 Β 96). Here it is Love who forms the organism, and it is not possible to see any more detailed explanation behind the mythic language. Elsewhere it is Chance: Simplicius (Simp, in Phys. 2,4. 331,3 Diels) tells us that Empedocles says that the most of the parts of animals come to be from Chance (άπο τύχης; VS 31 Β 85). For other pre-Socratics, the fragments and testimonia leave us even less well informed on this point. There is a good reason for this: the basis of any theory of organic growth in the fifth century, or later, is a theory about the cause of motion. For Empedocles, this cause was Löve and Strife; for Anaxagoras, it was Intellect. But it needs only a moment's reflection to see that such metaphysical causes can do no more than state that an organism has a particular form, that it preserves or develops this form in its growth. For a developed embryological theory a different kind of cause was required, and this cause was offered by Democritus, whose influence on this part of the treatise is in consequence rather clearer than it is elsewhere. No-one before Democritus was really in a position to explain how a thing could grow organically: it is very strange that the Stoics 326 should have later chosen to attack atomism on precisely this point at which it was strongest. Democritus appears to have asked himself why the embryo remains in the mother's womb. And the answer he gave, which earned an unjustified rebuke from Aristotle 327 , was in order that its parts may be moulded after the fashion of the parts of its mother328. The terms of the answer show the direction from which Democritus looked at embryology: how, by what processes, is the child formed in the shape of its parent? N o w this is also the question which the author of the treatise asks himself. The gist of the answer is contained in chapter 17, where the principle is explained and illustrated. It is then developed into detail in chapters 19 and 326

For the atomistic account of organic growth, see especially Lucr. 2,710—719; for the Stoic criticism, see Cie. nat. deor. 2,93 (the chance fall and collision of atoms cannot account for the order and arrangement of the world, which the Stoics regard as a living being). T h e development of cybernetics has put the modern reader in a better position to appreciate the merits of the atomistic explanation. What Lucretius is describing in this and in similar passages is a homeostatic system.

327

Arist. G A 2,4. 740a,36. Peck Arist. G A p. 197.

328

178

Commentary

20; while chapter 18 is a parenthesis on the reasons for differential development of male and female embryos. The basis of the author's embryology is the theory of pangenesis, including the modification of bi-sexual sperm, and it is not intelligible without that theory: genetics and embryology are here systematically combined. The semen which forms the nucleus of the embryo comes from all parts of the body of both parents. This is one of two supporting columns of the theory; the other is the statement that the maternal blood which nurtures the embryo by conversion into tissue (σάρξ) also comes from all parts of the mother's body. What unites these two columns is the principle of the attraction of like or identical parts. Because of this, the infant grows by accretion, like proceeding to like parts. But what makes this growth o r g a n i c is the potential existence in the semen, by pangenesis, of the human form. The theory is distinctly "preformationist". This aspect requires closer examination. The author says that of the substances provided in the mother's blood each goes to its appropriate place (ές χώρην ιδίην) according to its kinship with the part from which each originated (Nat. Puer. 17,1. 59,12f. Joly = VII 496,19f. Li.). Unfortunately, the theory of the "appropriate place" is not further explained. But its importance is obvious, since it explains how the embryo becomes an organic structure, repeating the structure of its parents, and not merely a chance assemblage of parts homogeneous with those of its parents. There is evidently a structural pattern which exists in the womb from conception onwards; and this pattern can only be provided in the semen, which must therefore convey the structure of the animal as well as its initial ingredients. Evidence that any Greek scientist prior to Aristotle was aware of the importance of structure in embryology is rather scanty, although something can be made of it. Aristotle's embryology was, of course, dominated by the idea of structure because of his philosophical preoccupation with the concept of form. For Aristotle, the semen which the male provides imposes a form upon the menstrual material provided by the female: the sperm is as it were a craftsman who uses his hands to make something according to a plan which is in his head. In Aristotle's own terminology, sperm is both the efficient and the formal cause of generation (cf. in particular G A 1,22. 730b,2-32). Aristotle's insistence upon form goes back through Plato to the Pythagoreans, for whom all things were "numbers", either materially or structurally or both. It is hard to believe that the Pythagoreans did not apply this to embryology, in such a way that the "numerical" structure of man is already present in the sperm; but we have no direct evidence. In the account of Alexander Polyhistor (which may however be a post-Aristotelian and eclectic form of Pythagoreanism) we are told that the embryo has in itself all the formulae (λόγους) of life, which are connected and held to-

O n the Nature of the Child

179

gether according to harmonic ratio (κατά τους της αρμονίας λόγους), each (part) coming successively into being (έπιγινομένων) at the appointed time (Diog. Laert. 8,29. 404,21—23 Long). This looks like a structural embryological theory. Certainly in early Pythagoreanism man, along with everything else, was assigned a formulaic number, and it is possible that such a number might have been used in embryological theory, in the manner indicated by Alexander, to serve as a kind of structural blueprint for the development of the embryo 3 2 8 3 . There is a little more evidence for the views of Anaxagoras, whose theory of seeds of all things (σπέρματα πάντων χρημάτων, VS 59 Β 4) has embryological implications, but in his case there is no reason to suppose that these were structural. According to Fr. 4, man and all other living things are formed from these seeds (VS 59 Β 4). Anaxagoras' theory was intended as an answer to the problem raised by Parmenides, how anything could be said to come into existence from what was non-existent. Anaxagoras echoed this in his question how can hair come from not-hair, and flesh from not-fleshf (VS 59 Β 10). Whether Anaxagoras himself asked this question with relation to nutrition or to embryology (it is applied to embryology by the writer who quotes it) would make little difference: as chapter 17 shows, the two problems are related. But in fact it appears from Aristotle 3 2 9 that Anaxagoras did apply the principle to embryology in a way similar to the theory of chapter 17: Again, how are these parts which were drawn from the whole of the parent's body going to grow ? Anaxagoras gives a reasonable answer; he says that the flesh already present is joined by flesh that comes from the nourishment330. Here the flesh already present would be the flesh in the semen, which according to Anaxagoras' theory must contain a portion of everything; and it is apparently joined, as in Genit., by the menstrual blood which likewise contains a portion of everything. There is no direct evidence that Anaxagoras' seed contains the s t r u c t u r e of the developed animal as well as its ingredients. But R. J o l y 3 3 1 has argued convincingly that Vict. I 6 — 8 depends upon Anaxagoras' theory; and in these chapters there is a striking parallel to the theory of the 'appropriate place' (e. g. Vict. I 6,2. 8,4 Joly = VI 478,15 Li. χώρην δέ έκαστον φυλάσσει την έωυτοϋ each part keeps to its own place; Vict. I 6,3. 8,13f. Joly = VI 4 7 8 , 2 3 - 4 8 0 , 1 Li. ού γαρ δύναται το μή όμότροπον έν τοΐσιν άσυμφόροισιν χωρίοι,σιν έμμένειν for it is impossible that what is not of the same kind should remain in a place that does not suit it and similar expressions). Despite the obscurity of the passage, Joly and others have shown beyond reasonable doubt that the

328a Pythagorean influence upon the embryology of O c t . and Carn. is certain: see Burkert pp. 262—264, who thinks that the book of Philolaus is the most likely source. 3 2 9 Arist. G A 1,18. 7 2 3 a , 9 - 1 1 . 3 3 0 Peck Arist. G A p. 197. 3 3 1 J o l y Recherches pp. 31—35.

180

Commentary

context is embryological. The passage then combines pangenesis, a theory of embryological nutrition and a theory of structure in a way similar to chapter 17. If Joly is right in arguing that Vict. I 6 — 8, along with much else in this treatise, contains Anaxagorean views, it would be reasonable to credit Anaxagoras with a structural embryology. Presumably however he would have had to refer the existence of such a structure to the activity of Mind, which sets all things in order (διακοσμεί: cf. Vict. I 6,1. 7,17f. Joly = VI 478,7f. Li. τά δ' άλλα πάντα, και ψυχή ανθρώπου, και σώμα όκοϊον ή ψυχή διακοσμέεται everything else, both man's soul and his body like his soul, is set in order). For there is no element in Anaxagoras' theory of matter as such which could account for an original structure in the conceptus, before embryonic growth begins. With Democritus however the case is different. Democritus' atoms differ among themselves in shape, size, position and arrangement. These two last characteristics gave him at least the opportunity to develop a theory of molecular structures, and he does in fact seem to have done this to some extent. What we are told about his theory of reproduction in this respect is interesting. Fr. 32 reads: Intercourse is a minor fit of apoplexy. For a man leaps forth from the man and is divided off and torn away from him by a kind of stroke (VS 68 Β 32). It is exceedingly tempting to see a form of the homunculus theory here, and to suppose that the seed which, according to Democritus, comes from all parts of the body and which actually contains particles of sinew and bone, if the statement in Aristotle GA 1,18. 723a,22 is to be applied to Democritus, does so in a structure corresponding to that of the parent. Lesky in fact describes Democritus' theory in these terms: "Den Zeugungsakt hat sich Demokrit als eine schlagartige Ablösung eines in seinen atomaren Bestandteilen bereits präformierten Keimes aus dem Elternkörper gedacht" 332 . Clearly we cannot be certain that Democritus did think in this way; but we can at least say that of existing theories, that of Democritus was the best suited to explain organic structure. Yet the line between Anaxagoras and Democritus here is a very thin one. We can draw it by saying that while both philosophers have, or seem to have, the elements for a structural theory of embryology (pangenesis plus a 'like to like' account of embryonic growth), the origin of that structure must be referred by Anaxagoras to a transcendental cause (Νοΰς), while Democritus is in a position to give a thoroughgoing mechanistic explanation. Whether he did so or not may perhaps appear from what follows. Organic growth in the embryo does not simply occur spontaneously, as it would if the author had merely appealed to the traditional principle that there is a mutual attraction between like things. This attraction itself requires explanation; to provide this explanation, the author

332

Lesky p. 12%.

On the Nature of the Child

181

makes use of a force which is motive and directive: the pneuma which attracts and controls the flow of nutrient blood by the embryo's respiration, and which also separately articulates the parts. In fact the use of pneuma gives a particular mechanistic form to the principle of like to like; to understand this it is necessary to discuss the history of the principle and some of its applications. In what follows I depend closely upon C. W. Müller, Gleiches zu Gleichem, Wiesbaden 1965. Like towards like, τό ομοιον ώς τό ομοιον Nat. Puer. 17,1. 59,10f. Joly = VII 496,18 Li. The author is echoing Homer: always the god brings a man together with his fellow (lit. brings a man together with his like)333. That "birds of a feather flock together" is proverbial in Greek literature, and it came to be extensively used in Greek science as a principle of physical explanation. Müller finds small evidence of its use by the Milesians: in his opinion it was the logic of Parmenides which first gave it the status of a principle which could thereafter be applied in very diverse ways 334 . This may well be true: the debt of all Greek scientific as well as philosophic thought to Parmenides is inexhaustible. However, it is in Empedocles that we first clearly find it used as an independent cause of motion: this is important, since its use in the present treatise represents a reaction against the kind of use made by Empedocles (and possibly by the author himself elsewhere in the treatise). The use in Empedocles is illustrated most clearly by Fr. 62, where he says of the origin of the whole-natured forms of his primitive zoogony that these did fire send up, in its desire to come to its like (VS 31 Β 62). Here the attraction of likes is a motive principle, which Empedocles seems to have regarded as independent of the forces of Love and Strife (so Müller pp. 27—42). Fire, along with the other elements, is animate in Empedocles; and in his terms this is a sufficient explanation of the attraction of likes (in Homer, and often proverbially, it is given a psychological form: it is men of like mind or character that the god brings together). Nevertheless, Empedocles seems to have sought for a mechanical explanation as well: this appears in his theory of sensation, in which the reason for the fact that by fire we know fire (VS 31 Β 109) is that the elements are porous, and substances whose pores are symmetrical can mingle, while others cannot. In Anaxagoras on the other hand there is no such attempt to give a mechanistic explanation of the principle, although he uses it in his cosmogony. In the revolution which is set up and controlled by Mind, the elementary particles or "seeds" are sorted into groups through the tendency of things which are akin to move towards each other (τά συγγενή φέρεσθαι προς άλληλα: Simplicius' formulation [Simp, in Ph. 1,2. 27,13 Diels = VS 59 A 41-]). This tendency is not further explained, although since it is Mind which controls the revolution, and therefore Mind 333 334

Horn. O d . ρ 218. Müller pp. 1 - 2 5 .

182

Commentary

which associates like things, Anaxagoras may have thought that a mechanistic explanation was made unnecessary by this combination of the psychological and the physical (cf. Müller p. 68). Again, Anaxagoras appealed to the principle in his theory of nutrition: all nutrition and growth is by the accretion of like substances, but Anaxagoras does not explain why one substance should attract its like. Diogenes of Apollonia also uses the principle in his explanation of magnetism: the magnet simply attracts (ελκειν) what is akin (συγγενές) and repels what is not akin (VS 64 A 33). Democritus makes an extensive use of the principle, but his attitude to it is markedly different 335 from that of earlier thinkers, and is a considerable scientific advance. As with Anaxagoras, the congregation of like to like is a congregation of like particles; but in Democritus this is explained as a quite mechanical effect of movements impelling the particles to sort themselves out into categories of shape and size. For animals flock together with animals of the same species — doves with doves, cranes with cranes, and similarly in the case of the other non-rational animals. The same is true of inanimate things, as one may observe (όράν) in the case of seeds shaken in a sieve or pebbles on beaches. In the one case, with the revolution (δϊνον) of the sieve, lentil, barley, and wheat grains arrange themselves separately; while in the other case, with the movement of the surge, long pebbles are pushed (ωθούνται) into the same place with other long pebbles, and round pebbles with round pebbles, as though the similarity in these things had something which brought them together (VS 68 Β 164). Here the analogy illustrates how the principle works in Democritus. An external cause of motion is necessary (movement of the sieve or of the waves), and the rest follows quite mechanically: the pebbles are simply "pushed" into their position 336 . This survey suggests that chapter 17 owes its use of the principle to Democritus rather than to Empedocles or Anaxagoras: both in the embryological process and in the demonstrative analogy the outside force of pneuma is necessary for the process to occur at all (Müller p. 119). In other words, the principle of "like to like" is not brought in without further explanation: the author has aimed at, and partly succeeded in, giving a fully mechanistic account of embryology. The "like to like" principle is used in a similarly subordinate way in the humoral theory of chapters 33—41; cf. introductory note to these chapters. The similarity to Democritus inevitably suggests the question how the author conceived the elements or ingredients which go to make up the embryo. Here again, as with the analogous 335

336

The difference f r o m Empedocles' use has often been pointed out: its best expression is in Zeller-Nestle vol. I 2 p. 1100 η. 1. Apart f r o m Miiller's discussion (Müller pp. 7 6 - 8 0 ) see also Spoerri p. 29. See further the discussion in Müller pp. 76 — 80; he rightly discounts the importance of the last words in the fragment.

On the Nature of the Child

183

question of the constitution of semen (cf. note on chapter 3), we are not in a position to decide. Müller 337 regards the author's πυκνόν, άραιόν and ύγρόν as referring to bone, flesh, and the humours respectively; this is possible, but the parallels he quotes are not precisely similar, and it seems more likely that the author is merely giving some examples of differently constituted substances to illustrate the principle "like to like". Müller also refers to "Partikelchen" 3 3 8 contained by the nutrient blood: certainly the author's embryology implies logically some form of atomism, as does his genetic theory, but he does not make it explicit. Lesky 339 is more cautious on the language of this passage: "Der Präformationsgedanke in seiner scharfen demokritischen Prägung ist . . . . zurückgetreten vor der Auffassung, daß nur allgemein stofflich bestimmte Gefüge anlagemäßig vererbt werden". The demonstration The author demonstrates the process he has been describing by the construction of a piece of apparatus. If you place scrapings of lead along with grains of sand and particles of earth in a bladder filled with water to which a blowpipe has been attached; and then, after blowing into the bladder, you drain the water and break the bladder open, you will find that the three ingredients have separated into layers, like to like. This demonstration has been discussed by Senn 340 , Regenbogen 341 , and most recently by Müller 342 and by Lloyd 343 . Senn regards it as originally a Pythagorean experiment in sedimentation, conducted without the blowpipe, which is unnecessary, and borrowed and adapted by the author as a rhetorical embellishment to his theory, to which, in Senn's opinion, it does not satisfactorily correspond. Regenbogen by contrast groups it with those observations of analogical phenomena of which the author makes systematic use in order to gain an insight into the "unseen" processes of the body. Müller emphasizes its close correspondence in detail to the author's theory, without which, he says, it is hardly intelligible. Lloyd usefully groups it along with other observations in the Hippocratic Collection where special research or even the construction of apparatus is involved, as opposed to everyday observation; for example, the demonstration in Mul. I 1 and the interconnected vessels of chapter 39, with which it is enlightening to compare the present chapter. Müller seems to be correct as against Senn: 337 338 339 340 341 342 343

Müllerp. 115. Müllerp. 114. Lesky p. 1303. Senn pp. 242-245. Regenbogen p. 138. Müller pp. 115-118. Lloyd Polarity p. 351.

184

Commentary

the correspondence of theory and demonstration is indeed very close. The following table is adapted from his description 344 . Bladder Blowpipe 3 ingredients suspended in water Blowing Drying of water Opening of bladder

Membranes Navel Particles of semen in fluid form Embryonic respiration Solidifying of embryo Bursting of embryonic membranes

Müller further notes that the movement of like to like particles does not occur spontaneously, but it is a mechanical result of the action of blowing: the demonstration, like the theory, uses the principle of like to like in its Democritean form. Senn's view that the demonstration is adapted from another context therefore seems untenable. We may go even further than this, and suggest that the demonstration is original with the author. For the apparatus which he describes is nothing else than a very familiar piece of therapeutic apparatus, which he himself would often have had occasion to construct and to use in his gynaecological practice. It is in fact a douche or enema, such as is described in Mul. II 131. VIII 278,16f. Li. and elsewhere (see Littre's note ad loc.). He has adapted this practical apparatus to a theoretic purpose. This fact is worth dwelling on. It strongly suggests that the deliberate construction of experimental or demonstrative apparatus came to Greek science from the side of Greek medicine. That the Greek physician should have been technically minded is not in itself surprising. He was often required during the course of his practice to construct and use therapeutic equipment — sometimes as a means of impressing the vulgar — and he did not have the aversion to using his hands that one might expect in a speculative Greek philosopher, if we can believe Plato and Aristotle. What is surprising, and admirable, is the insight which saw the theoretic possibilities of such apparatus. But such insights in the history of thought are usually prompted by the intellectual milieu in which they occur. Empedocles illustrated an anatomical structure by comparing the parts of the eye to the parts of a lantern; and, in his famous account of breathing, illustrated a physiological process by the analogy of a girl playing with a klepsydra or siphon. N o w the klepsydra, though not specifically constructed for the purpose, was a piece of technical apparatus. It is not so long a step from Empedocles' klepsydra, which is being used for its normal purpose, to the author's douche, which is not. It is a momentous step all the same. What is the precise function of the apparatus? Is it experimental, 344

Müller pp. 117f.

On the Nature of the Child

185

designed to test as well as to demonstrate the possibility of the author's hypothesis? O r is it simply a demonstration model, designed to illustrate the author's meaning? I doubt whether this question can be answered precisely. The ancestor both of this passage and of the passage in Empedocles is, as has long been noted, the Homeric simile (on which see Lloyd Polarity pp. 183 — 192). The main purpose of a simile is to illustrate — and what is illustrated may be something obscure in itself — and the present passage has this purpose too; but unlike the simile its intention is also to emphasize the p o s s i b i l i t y of a process occurring as well as to illustrate the nature of the occurrence. It is something between an illustration and an ίστόριον evidence. It goes further than an illustration, in the way described; but it is also not quite like the ίστόρια of chapters 13 and 29 in that it cannot also have suggested the theory which it describes. Yet even so, like the model of interconnected vessels in chapter 39, it incorporates and organizes processes which are themselves open to commonplace observation. Finally, what can be said about the origin of the theory of chapter 17? Müller has argued convincingly that the form of the principle "like to like" which the author uses is in its mechanistic assumptions closest to Democritus among the pre-Socratics; and this mechanistic interpretation is not a mere detail, but is essential to the whole theory of articulation. Again, this theory is itself systematically dependent upon the genetic theory of chapters 1 — 11, which seems to owe a considerable debt to Democritus. O n the negative side, there is nothing in the detail of chapter 17 which conflicts with the little we know of Democritus' own embryological theory. Like the author, Democritus held that the umbilicus was the first part to be formed in the embryo (he compared its purpose to that of an anchor: VS 68 Β 148; cf. VS 68 A 145). He also held that the external parts (τά εξω) are formed before the internal (VS 68 A 145): the author is careful to make the same point (Nat. Puer. 1 7 , 2 - 3 . 5 9 , 1 7 - 2 5 Joly = VII 4 9 8 , 4 - 1 1 Li.; cf. Wellmann 3 4 5 ). According to Democritus, the seed contained pneuma (VS 68 A 140), although we are not told that he held that the embryo breathes 3 4 6 . N o r again are we told that in Democritus the embryo receives its nutriment through the umbilicus. What we are told is that the embryo sucks milk from the fleshy protuberances in the uterus, called cotyledons (VS 68 A 144). But of course the embryo must originally have been fed in some other way; it is hard to imagine what this could have been, if not through the umbilicus, although we should not simply assume that Democritus said that the nutriment was blood. (Whether the present author also held the cotyledon theory is an independent question which does not affect the present argument; for a discussion, see notes on chapter 21.) There would perhaps 345 Wellmann Spuren p. 311. 346 Wellmann Spuren p. 312 assumes this without evidence.

186

Commentary

be little doubt about the origin of the theory of articulation if Aristotle 347 had not been so reticent in the following passage: As for the differentiation of the various parts: this is not due, as some suppose, to any natural law that 'like makes its way to like'348. Aristotle sometimes refers to Democritus in this anonymous way; Wellmann 349 assumes that he is doing so here, and is followed more cautiously by Müller 350 . Müller however remarks that we cannot exclude the possibility that Aristotle here and elsewhere refers to a writer unknown to us, possibly even to the writer of the present treatise. We should remember also that there is a reason for supposing that the demonstration by bladder and blowpipe may have originated with the author. There is not sufficient evidence to answer any of these questions. A debt to Democritus seems quite probable; and it is possible that Democritus took over from Anaxagoras a structural account of embryonic growth since the latter must surely have held some views on the matter, and restated it more satisfactorily in a mechanistic form, while accounting at the same time for the original structure in the conceptus, as Anaxagoras could not. It is worth quoting a remark by Schumacher 351 here. After pointing out the similarity between the atomistic use of the like to like principle, and the views of Empedocles and Anaxagoras on nutrition and growth, he says " O b und wie weit diese Theorie bekannten Anschauungen der Ärzte, vor allem den Autoren der Hippokratischen Schriften tatsächlich zugrunde lag, ist nicht festzustellen, da diese die Grundlagen ihrer Theorien oft nicht ausdrücklich darlegen, noch viel weniger aber Namen nennen." The atomistic tendency of the present chapter struck Gassendi, who referred to it in conjunction with the Epicurean account presented in Diogenes Laertius 10,74 352 . 17,1 το δμοιον ώς τό ομοιον: Müller p. 9 η. 2 says "Die Stelle steht unter dem Eindruck von Od. ρ 218 (ώς αίεί τον όμοιον άγει θεός ώς τον όμοΐον), wie der singulare Gebrauch des ώς bei einem Neutrum zeigt." For the precise meaning of όμοιος (of the same kind) see his very valuable note on p. 13. Ό μ ο ι ο ς e q u a t e s things, in relation to their form and appearance; while ίσος does so in relation to number, size, or intensity. Ό μ ο ι ο ς may cover various degrees of likeness, similarity, sameness: Müller remarks (p. XIII n. 19) "Wenn . . . . im Griechischen durch ein und dasselbe Wort alle Grade der Gleichheit von der bloßen Ähnlichkeit bis hin zur Identität ausgedrückt werden können, so äußert sich darin ein offensichtliches Desinteresse an Differenzierung und Gradunterschieden gegenüber 347

Arist. GA 2,4. 740b,12-14. Peck Arist. GA p. 199. 349 Wellmann Spuren p. 311. 350 Müller pp. 121 f. 351 Schumacher p. 139. 352 Cf. Adelmann Malpighi vol. II p. 807. 348

O n the Nature of the Child

187

dem allein bemerkenswerten Faktum der Einheit und Selbigkeit." The tendency of όμοιος to equal "same" goes a long way to explain why the principle should have seemed self-evident to some Greek thinkers. The distinction between similarity and identity was problematic in Greek logic. Why, they might have asked, should the "same" things not go together? 17,1 κατά τό ξυγγενές: cf. Morb. IV 34,1. 85,28 Joly = VII 544,24 Li.; Morb. IV 34,2. 86,8 Joly = VII 546,4 Li. and Morb. IV 34,2. 86,11 Joly = VII 546,7 Li. where the word is also associated with the principle of like to like. The word is used by Simplicius in his account of Anaxagoras's use of the principle (VS 59 A 41): έκεΐνος γάρ φησιν έν τη διακρίσει τοϋ άπειρου τά συγγενή ψέρεσθαι προς άλληλα he says that in the separating out of the indefinite, kindred things are borne towards each other·, and also in his account of Democritus (VS 68 A 38): πεφυκέναι γάρ το ομοιον ύπο τοϋ ομοίου κινεϊσθαι και φέρεσθαι τά συγγενή προς άλληλα for it is natural that like should he moved by like and that kindred things should be borne towards each other. 17,1 άφ' ου και έγένετο: cf. the similar expressions applied to plant nutrition in chapters 22 and 34; and to human nutrition in Carn. 13,3. 14,7f. De. = VIII 600,11 f. Li.: ή δ έ τ ρ ο φ ή έπειδάν άφίκηται ές εκαστον, τοιαύτην άπέδωκε τήν ιδέην εκάστου, όκοϊά περ ήν When the nutriment arrives at each part, it produces the form of each part from which that nutriment came. Articulation and nutrition are governed by the same principle. 17.1 και τάλλα: i. e. the other like substances of which parts of the body are composed. 17.2 υπό τής θέρμης πηγνύμενα: for the hardening effect of heat, cf. note on chapter 12. The same explanation of the formation of bone occurs in Carn. 3,7. 4 , 2 6 - 6 , 5 De. = VIII 588,5-13 Li.; Vict. I 9 , 1 - 3 . 10,13-11,23 Joly = VI 482,13-484,16 Li. In Empedocles (VS 31 Β 96) the composition of bone is four parts of fire to two of earth and one each of air and water. Presumably the fire explains the solidity of bone. 17,2 διοζοΰται ώς δένδρον: cf. Nat. Puer. 19,1. 64,12-15 Joly = VII 506,6—9 Li. The botanical analogy is developed in chapters 22—27. In this particular instance one can see how the author uses a similarity in shape to suggest a similarity of process. Possibly the same idea underlies τά οΰατα αφίσταται (the ears project) below, with which compare Empedocles' description of the ear as a fleshy shoot (σάρκινον όζον VS 31 Β 99; cf. VS 31 A 86). 17,2 ή τε κεφαλή: its formation was placed first by Anaxagoras (VS 59 A 108) and possibly by Alcmaeon (cf. VS 24 A 13).

188

17,2

Commentary

τά νεύρα: here = tendons and ligaments.

17,2 έπαίσσεται: ελίσσεται winds around V. έπαίσσεται is the lectio difficilior. Cf. άίσσει in a similar sense Epid. II 4,1. V 122,15 Li. and Carn. 5,3. 8,1 De. = VIII 590,16 Li. 17,2 τάς φύσιας των άρθρων: for this use of φύσις cf. Holwerda p. 114: "procul dubio hie φύσις appellatur id quod alibi κοτύλη dicitur." He cites Fract. 37. II 101,17 Kw. = III 540,16 Li.; 37. II 102,6 Kw. = III 544,3 Li.; 37. 102,8 Kw. = III 544,4 Li.; 40. II 104,2 Kw. = III 546,13 Li. and Art. 57. II 202,14 Kw. = IV 246,14 Li. 17,2 αύτοστομούται: this is the reading of Μ and V. Zwingerus translated "os per se diducitur" the mouth opens up of its own accord or of itself. So too the Arabic translator (Lyons- Mattock Karhi Hp. Nat. Puer. 2 p. 13, 23). Such a verb seems unlikely: on the other hand, a reference to the formation of the mouth is needed here, since all the other apertures in the head are mentioned, while further down the mouth is already formed. Other editors have taken νεύρα as the subject (Joly αυτά στομούται; in the material prepared for the Hippokrates-Lexikon Hamburg the reading is αυτού στομούται), but why should this be said of νεύρα? 17.2 τετρήνεται: this is possibly a technical term in such contexts, since Aristophanes Th. 18 uses it of the formation of the ear in a passage which parodies scientific language. Cf. Carn. 15,1. 14,31 De. = VIII 602,19 Li. τά τρήματα των ούάτων the borings of the ears·, Aer. 9,8. 4 6 , 1 3 - 1 5 Di. = II 42,3—5 Li. where it is applied to the urethra. 17.3 ή τε κοιλίη φυσάται: this detail may again have been suggested by observation of the chick. Coiter says that on the 18th day "Pullus fuit . . . ventricosus" the chick was. . . potbellied1353 and later speaks of the "ventriculus qui admodum creverat" the stomach, which had grown very much353. 17,3 έπιλαμβάνει πνοήν: cf. again Coiter (20th day): "umbilici foramen occlusum erat" the umbilical opening was closed353; the author has evidently not noticed that this would also involve the cessation of nutrition by blood through the umbilicus, since this is governed by the rate of respiration. Yet this is clearly not his intention since (a) according to Nat. Puer. 30,5. 80,3f. Joly = VII 534,14 Li. the blood supply continues up to parturition; and (b) how would the infant, who continues to grow, be nourished in the period (from two to three months; see chapter 21) between articulation and quickening, the time at which milk is produced? In Oct. 3,5. 86,13 — 15 Gr. = 12,3. 177,5 Joly = VII 456,21-458,1 Li. the umbilicus is the food passage for the embryo, and also the means of attachment to the womb (τη μήτρη προσέχεται διά τουτέων, και κοινωνεί των έσιόντων by these it is 353

Adelmann Coiter p. 448.

On the Nature of the Child

189

attached to the womb, and has a share in the things which enter). All other passages are closed, and do not open until parturition. It is also this author's opinion that the embryo breathes in the womb (Oct. 3,3. 86,4—8 Gr. = 12,2. 176,12-17 Joly = VII 456,11-15 Li.); presumably therefore this is through the navel until parturition. 17,3

άμαλδύνει: cf. note on chapter 2.

17.3 κύσσαρον: άρχός is the usual word in the Collection; in the present treatise cf. Morb. IV 54,4. 115,18 Joly = VII 596,24 Li. Κύσσαρος seems to occur only here and in pseudo-Galen 354 where it is glossed in reference to the present passage. 17.4 και γαρ εί θέλοις: for similar passages, where a deliberate piece of research (however slight) is undertaken, cf. Genit. 4,2. 47,6 — 9 Joly = VII 474,22-25 Li. and Genit. 4,2. 47,11-15 Joly = VII 4 7 6 , 1 - 5 Li.; Genit. 6,2. 48,23-28 Joly = VII 478,11-15 Li.; Genit. 9,3. 51,2-12 Joly = VII 482,14-22 Li.; Nat. Puer. 21,3. 67,19-68,3 Joly = VII 512,7-16 Li.; Nat. Puer. 29,2. 77,23-78,4 Joly = VII 530,10-15 Li.; Nat. Puer. 25,3f. 73,17-74,2 Joly = VII 522,20-524,6 Li.; Morb. IV 39,1. 92,15-24 Joly = VII 556,17-558,2 Li.; Morb. IV 49,3. 105,21-106,1 Joly = VII 580,7-13 Li.; Morb. IV 51,9. 110,21-28 Joly = VII 588,17-22 Li.; Morb. IV 5 7 , 4 - 5 . 123,12-23 Joly = VII 612,6-15 Li.; Mul. I 1. VIII 12,9-16 Li.; Cam. 8,2. 10,9-12 De. = VIII 594,14-17 Li.; C a m . 9,5. 10,26—11,2 De. = VIII 596,9—15 Li. Some of these instances are discussed in Lloyd Polarity pp. 345—360. The closest parallel to the present passage is in chapter 39, which similarly requires the actual construction of a model. All these instances are an important subdivision of the larger number of passages in which external observations are used to provide analogies for unseen physiological processes. The language is formulaic, usually ώσπερ ει τις + optative or occasionally present indicative (with future indicative in the apodosis) . . . ούτω δή και; θέλειν or έθέλειν occurs here and in chapter 29 355 . 17,4 αύλίσκον προσδήσαι προς κύστιν: the instrument is used in Mul. II 131. VIII 278,16f. Li.: όκόταν ώδε εχη, χρή προσδήσαι τή κύστει αύλίσκον, και έγκλύζειν ελαιον θερμον ες τάς υστέρας in such a case, one must bind a pipe to a bladder, and inject warm oil into the uterus. In Steril. 222. VIII 430,3 — 16 Li. it is called a clyster, and very detailed instructions are given for its construction and use (in this case the αύλίσκος is formed from the bladder itself, which the author says must be a sow's bladder); in Aff. 21. VI 232,3—6 Li. a wineskin (άσκιον) is used, to which an αύλίσκος pipe is attached; the wineskin is then inflated (cf. the present chapter) and 354 355

Ps.-Gal. An animal 5. 14,12f. Wg. = X I X 176,8 Kühn. O n the language, cf. Regenbogen pp. 178 f.

190

Commentary

used as an enema. Clearly it was a well known piece of apparatus. For the practical skill required by the physician, cf. the ingenious instruments of the surgical treatises, and the elaborate obstetric apparatus described in Superf. 8,2. 76,11-17 Ln. = VIII 480,18-24 Li. 17,4 μολίβόου κνήσματα: lead of course was used for a wide variety of purposes in the ancient world, and it was familiar to the sculptor and the builder among others; but it was also familiar to the practising physician. In Ulc. 13. VI 416,8f. Li. it is used in a powdered form as an antiseptic; it is frequently recommended in Haem. and Fist.; and it was also used by the gynaecologist (Mul. I 105. VIII 228,20 Li.), particularly in the form of a plummet (μόλυβδος, μολύβδιον) for opening the mouth of the womb, e.g. Mul. 111. VIII 46,10 Li.; Steril. 221. VIII 426,9 Li. Chapter 18 The differential development of male and female embryos. The belief that male embryos both develop and quicken more rapidly than female was general in antiquity. Galen says that "almost all physicians" were agreed in the opinion, and he quotes the statement of Rufus that Diogenes of Apollonia was the sole exception 356 . Extant evidence suggests that the belief, at least in its scientific form, goes back to Empedocles who, according to Oribasius (VS 31 A 83), believed that the male is articulated earlier than the female, and that the parts on the righthand side are formed earlier than those on the left. This is the natural corollary of his theory that males are formed in the right-hand and warmer side of the womb, and that males are constitutionally warmer than females: compare Aristotle's statement that in the womb the female is articulated within a longer period than the male . . . for the female is weaker (ασθενέστερα) and colder in constitution (φύσιν) . . . Articulation is concoction, and it is heat that concocts, and what is warmer is more easily concocted (Arist. GA 4,6. 775a, 11 — 18). The same explanation is implied here in Nat. Puer. (18,8. 6 4 , l - 3 J o l y = VII 504,24-26 Li.): The reason that the female coagulates and becomes articulated later is that the seed of the female is weaker and more fluid. Steril. (233. VIII 446,17 Li.) assigns a later q u i c k e n i n g to females, but the doctrine here, and the periods given, are those of Nat. Puer. 21, to which the passage is probably related. Two other treatises in the Collection give varying periods for articulation, but no distinction is made between male and female (Vict. I 26,1—2. 20,17—21,6 Joly = VI 498,13-23 Li.; Alim. 42. 145,22-146,5 Joly = 1X112,12-116, 2 Li.). Septim. 9. VII 450,2—10 Li. says that females articulate more slowly

350

Gal. In Hipp. Epid.VI comment. 2,47. 122,3-9 Wenk. = XVII A 1006,8-15 Kühn.

On the Nature of the Child

191

than males because of their affinity (φιλότης) to the womb: the language and the idea suggests influence by Empedocles (cf. Müller p. 139). It is also likely that the belief in differential development was a popular superstition, arising out of the perennial desire for sex-prognosis. The author then shares the opinion of Empedocles both about the fact itself, and, apparently, about its cause (αίτιον: Nat. Puer. 18,8. 64,1 Joly = VII 504,24 Li.) in the degree of heat which is required for the embryo to "coagulate". He does not, however, explain the connexion, if there is one, between the theory of pneumatic articulation described in the preceding chapter and the belief that articulation depends upon heat, or concoction as Aristotle puts it in the passage cited above ( G A 4,6. 775 a, 17f.). While these two views are certainly not incompatible (and in chapter 17 the bones are hardened by " h e a t " [Nat. Puer. 17,2. 59,16 Joly = V I I 4 9 8 , 2 f . Li.], while the drying of the ingredients of the bladder in the demonstration model presumably corresponds to the effect of heat in corpore vivo), they do however seem to originate from entirely different conceptions of the process. The author says each of these (parts) is arti-

culated by breath: that is (γαρ) all are separated according to their affinities through the effects of inflation (Nat. Puer. 17,3. 6 0 , 6 f . Joly = V I I 498, 15—17 Li.), which really leaves no room for articulation by heat. The author's eclecticism is manifest here. A possible way of reconciling the two accounts would be to suppose that since articulation depends upon respiration according to chapter 17, and the male embryo is articulated earlier than the female according to chapter 18, the male embryo must respire more powerfully than the female. Since respiration is equivalent to combustion (chapter 12), a deeper and/or more rapid rate of respiration would indicate the presence of greater heat. If this was the author's view, he does not say so; and it would conflict with his apparent assumption that the female is warmer than the male (cf. note on ύγρότερον Nat. Puer. 15,3. 57,22 Joly = V I I 494,13 Li.). It is possible that he simply failed to notice the disparity between the two theories of articulation: he may well have been preoccupied with his attempt, to be discussed below, to accomodate the theory of differential development into his general embryological theory. It is characteristic of his method that he is not content merely to state the view that the male embryo is articulated earlier: he gives ίστόρια, or evidence drawn from observation, that the facts are as he says they are. The unseen process is explained by the seen result. But what observed phenomenon could correspond to the completion within a fixed period of an unseen process? Clearly it must be some observed process which also appears to extend over a fixed period; moreover that period must be long enough to correspond with traditional beliefs about articulation. Since nothing of the kind can be observed during pregnancy, might it not be observed subsequently to parturition? N o w in his gynaecological practice

192

Commentary

the author had found, or thought that he had found, a corresponding process: that of lochial discharge. If it were the case that this lasts longer after a female birth than after a male, it might be taken as evidence that articulation also takes longer in the case of a female embryo; always on the assumption that articulation corresponds to the reaching of a certain definite size in the embryo. The author rests the validity of the argument from the duration of lochial flux upon his general theory of embryonic growth: i.e. that the material which forms the embryo is menstrual blood (chapters 14 and 15), and that the efficient cause of articulation is embryonic respiration (chapter 17). During gestation, the mother does not menstruate (chapter 14), although she continues in the normal way (cf. Mul. I 1) to receive a surplus of blood or blood-forming matter from her food or drink. Much of this surplus is consumed by the growth of the embryo. However, the embryo's consumption of menstrual blood is governed by the rate of its breathing, and when the embryo is small and weak, its breathing is slight (Nat. Puer. 15,1-2. 57,9-16 Joly = VII 4 9 4 , 3 - 8 Li.). Only when the embryo is fully articulated is it also strong enough and large enough to consume the whole quantity of menstrual blood: before this time, the quantity would be excessive, and the embryo would be suffocated (Nat. Puer. 18,6. 63,9—14 Joly = VII 504,8—13 Li.). Therefore the mother, during the first weeks of pregnancy will build up a surplus of menstrual blood which must be discharged after birth. The alleged facts that this takes thirty days in the case of a male birth, and forty-two in the case of a female birth; and that the flow decreases proportionately (κατά λόγον) over this period, are therefore regarded as evidence for the differential development of male and female embryos. The theory is ingeniously related to the author's general embryological theory. Moreover its use of the idea of proportionate quantities (Nat. Puer. 18,2. 61,18 Joly = VII 500,18 Li. δει άποδοθήναι [the discharge] must correspond) is interesting. The idea of compensation was common enough in legal and ethical contexts, from which it seems to have been applied to cosmology (e.g. Anaximander VS 12 Β 1; Heraclitus VS 22 Β 90) 357 . Somewhat closer to the interest of the present author is Empedocles' famous klepsydra fragment (VS 31 Β 100), in which the amount of water entering or leaving the siphon is said to correspond (αΐσιμον ΰδωρ lines 15 and 21, which Diels translated as das entsprechende Maß Wasser) to the amount of air entering or leaving it; this is then applied to the physiology of respiration. In the present case there is even an attempt to associate the principle of άνταποδίδοσθαι correspondence with a precise 357

Cf. also the intransitive use of άνταποόιδόναι in Plato Phd. 72 a, 12 and 72 b, 8, a passage which incorporates concepts of change held by the physical philosophers (cf. R. S. Bluck ad loc.).

O n the Nature of the Child

193

measurement (1 V2 κοτύλαι; Nat. Puer. 18,3. 62,4 Joly = VII 502,4f. Li.), although this is not developed, and the author's interest in the quantity is rather as a symptom of the normal or healthy state, i.e. it is diagnostic. Unfortunately, the figures of thirty and forty-two days given for the lochial discharge are far too long. One would expect the author as a practising physician to have been aware of this, and Robert Joly 3 5 8 suggests that he shows such an awareness in his concession that the period of flow may in some cases last for only 20 to 25 days without danger; compare too his remark that the period is longer in older women than in younger. The question is an important one, since his account of differential development is made to depend on allegedly observed fact. To some extent it may do so, granted the limits of observation in ancient science; but it is also likely that he was influenced by a priori considerations. One of these may have been popular belief. According to Censorinus chapter 11,7 most women who have given birth are heavy for forty days after parturition and do not retain their blood; while their infants during this time are weakly, prone to disease, do not yet smile, and are in danger. For this reason, when that day has passed, they keep holiday, calling it the Fortieth (τεσσαρακοσταΐον) 3 5 9 . The period of forty days is by no means uncommon in the beliefs of other, non-Greek peoples, about the puerperium 3 6 0 . Such popular beliefs and the medical beliefs which seem to have been associated with them 3 6 1 might well have suggested the general length of the period; and even more arbitrary considerations (from our point of view) might have suggested the precise number 42. 42 is a multiple of 7, hence its appearance as a critical day (instead of the usual 40) 362 in the Pythagorean passage in Oct. 1. But it is probably more significant that both 42 and 30 are multiples of 6, which was the fundamentum gignendi in the Pythagorean embryology described in Censorinus (Cens. 11,4): this theory may have influenced both the author's observation of the 'six-day' embryo (cf. note on chapter 13) and his observation of the lochial flow. The author's theory however is not identical with that theory, according to which the infant (apparently both male and female) is fully articulated at 35 days (=6 + 8 + 9 + 1 2 ) . There is

358 359

360 361

362

Joly Niveau p. 114. Cf. also Epid. VII 97. V 452,2f. Li.: appearance of an aborted e m b r y o 40 days more or less after the accident which caused the abortion. Such statements are obviously quite unreliable. Cf. Ploss and Bartels vol. 3 pp. 135f. For the importance of the tesseracontad or 40-day period in embryology, see O c t . passim, particularly chapters 2,4,7 and 9: the first 40 days after conception, the 40 days between the breaking of the membranes in the eighth month and birth, and the first 40 days after birth are all critical. For the alternative method of reckoning critical days see Gal. Syn. libr. de puls. 17. IX 480,17—481,2 K ü h n and Grensemann on O c t . 1 = chapter 9 Li. (Grensemann H p . O c t . pp.9f.)-

194

Commentary

however a musical theory described by Aristoxenus 362a in which the numbers 30 and 42 are significant. In this passage, the musical tone is divided into 12 segments; and one consequence of this assumption is that the interval of the fourth, which consists of two tones 4- 1 semitone, can be analysed into 12 + 12 + 6=30, while the interval of the fifth, which consists of 3 tones + 1 semitone, can be analysed into 12 + 12 + 12 + 6 = 42 363 . Whatever the origin of the numbers, the author cannot be acquitted of arbitrariness, since the figures he gives clearly do not rest on observation; but he has, as in his account of menstruation and of critical days (cf. commentary on chapter 15) attempted to give a mechanistic explanation of these figures. The lochia last from 30 to 42 days because it happens to take that long for the infant to develop. It is just a little unfortunate that the facts are quite otherwise. A parallel passage occurs in Mul. I 72. VIII 152,3 — 15 Li.: it appears to be an abbreviated form of the present passage (Nat. Puer. 18,1. 60,23-61,7 Joly = VIII 5 0 0 , 4 - 9 Li.). Comparison suggests that the present passage is the earlier, and it would therefore be dangerous to use the passage in Mul. I as evidence that the period of lochial flow given there was written without tendency, and rests on observation, however mistaken. It is more likely that the period was based on the author's embryological theory. 18,1 ές τούτο: i. e. articulation (διάκρισις των μελέων Nat. Puer. 18,5.62,20 Joly = VII 502,18 Li.) as described in the previous chapter. 18.1 το μεν θήλυ: other figures given for the period of articulation are 40 days, 2, 3, or 4 months (Vict. I 2 6 , 1 - 2 . 20,19-21,6 Joly = VI 498,14-23 Li.); 40 days, with a longer period for females (Oct. 1,10—12. 80,16—24 Gr. = VII 450,2-10 Li.); 35,40,45 or 50 (Alim. 42. 145,22-146,1 Joly = IX 112,12-114,2 Li.); 4 months (Diogenes of Apollonia VS 64 A 26); 60 days (Hippon VS 38 A 16). There is clearly nothing like general agreement on the period. 18.2 μάλιστα δέ πονέονται: cf. chapter 30, note on και μάλλον τοϋτο πάσχουσιν, for the reasons for this and the previous statement. Zwinger however understood him to mean that young women (and those who are πυκνοσαρκότεροι thicker fleshed in chapter 30) require more blood as nutriment for their own flesh (Zwinger Hippocrates ad loc.). 18,2 ελάχιστον αιμα: the reason for this statement is given in Nat. Puer. 18,6. 63,12-14 Joly = VII 504,11-13 Li.: too much would suffocate the infant, and according to the previous chapter the rate of flow is governed by the infant's respiration. Aristotle, although he does not share the author's 3621

363

Aristox. Harm. 1. 21,32-27,13 Meib. = 30,9-38,11 Marquard = 28,3-35,13 Da Rios; 2. 50,15-52,32 Meib. = 72,16-76,13 Marquard = 62,15-65,20 Da Rios. See Frank pp. 153-161.

O n the Nature of the Child

195

view that the infant respires, still considers that a troublesome surplus of "residue" is built up in the mother during the early stages of pregnancy (GA 4,6. 775b, 9 - 1 3 ) . 18.2 δει . . . άποδοθήναι: since mechanical "necessity" is involved, this is a passage where one would have expected the author to use the word ανάγκη. But the choice of δει, implying a quasi-moral obligation, is determined by the notion of "recompense" contained in άποδοθήναι. 18.3 Ί" τ α 0 α χθέ ν δε κτλ.: the original text is hardly to be restored. It was perhaps something as follows: και ταραχθέντος, πρώτον μεν έρχεται έξω [μετά τό παιδίον] ίχώρ παχύς αίματώδης και ύφήγησις έγένετο τούτω . . .; {Once the blood is agitated, there issues first of all a thick bloody serum; this opens up a way for the blood . . .) and so I have translated. The parallel passage in Nat. Puer. 30,12. 82,15 Joly = VII 538,20 Li. says nothing about blood appearing first, and the author's doctrine excludes it. It is the ichor which appears first, and which opens the way for the lochia. I suspect that the trouble was caused firstly by the insertion of δέ after μετά as in V, through the inadvertence of a scribe influenced by πρώτον μεν. Once μετά δέ was in the text, it would lead in turn to the change to ταραχθέν. But I also think that μετά τό παιδίον itself may not have been in the original text. The author is not really concerned here with the child but with the lochia, and the apparent omission may have troubled some literal minded reader, especially if he referred to chapter 30, where the child of course is mentioned. 18,3 ταραχθέν . . . έρχεται έξω: evidently when blood is disturbed it normally seeks an exit (Nat. Puer. 15,4-6. 5 8 , 3 - 2 1 Joly = VII 494,20—496,8 Li.). In the present instance, it is preceded by ichor. 18,3 ίχώρ παχύς: probably (cf. commentary on chapter 30) the amniotic fluid, not physiologically distinguished from the lochia (cf. Fasbender pp. 130f.). 18,3 ύφήγησις έγένετο τούτψ: cf. with the whole passage Nat. Puer. 30,12. 82,15-19 Joly = VII 538,20-24 Li. The mechanics are explained in Morb. IV 51,9 in connexion with pathology: oil will not flow out of a narrow-necked flask when it is inverted, the reason being the density of the fluid which blocks the aperture; however if one inverts the vessel slowly, the blockage is relieved and the oil will flow. Here the watery fluid is supposed to have the same effect on the lochia, which are dense. In Morb. IV 51 the same example of water on the table (Morb. IV 51,9. 110,28 Joly = VII 588,22 Li.) is referred to. Senn 364 following Beck 365 thinks that what is 364 365

Senn pp. 248-256. Beck p. 199 (as quoted by Senn p. 255).

196

Commentary

meant is a demonstration of air pressure, which is described in Morb. IV 57; Heidel 366 thought that the water is led to the edge of the table by a finger, whence it flows off (so too Gorraeus 367 , who seems to have taken it for granted). The correct explanation of the expression is probably to be found in the commentator (Ps.-Io. Philop. In Hipp. Nat. Puer. schol. II p. 231,4—7 Dietz): If you put oil into water on the table, and move the water with your finger or if it moves by itself, you see that the water, being of subtle parts (λεπτομερές) draws (έλκει) the oil which is of thicker parts (παχυμερέστερον). The language, with its reference to parts or particles, suggests an atomistic origin for the demonstration. Cf. Morb. IV 35,2. 87,28-88,1 Joly = VII 548,18-20 Li. and note, where the same idea of attraction is used. 18.3 πλήθος Α τ τ ι κ ή κοτύλη: distinguished from the Aeginetan cotyle (e.g. Morb. II 38. VII 54,8 Li.). The amount was 0.226 litres (cf. Viedebantt 368 ). A similar attempt at measurement is made in Mul. I 6. VIII 30, 8—10 Li. where the normal menstrual flow is given as 2 cotylae per day. It is applied to bleeding from the nose in a particular case described in Epid. V 14. V 214,2 Li.; cf. Epid. V 18. V 218,10 Li. Such measurements are of course common in prescriptions. 18.4 αίμα οίον από ίερείου: m e n s t r u a l blood in a healthy woman is described by the same expression in Mul. I 6. VIII 30,16f. Li. Sacrificial animals are of course in prime condition, and their blood is of a good colour and coagulates rapidly. Healthy menstrual blood and lochial blood are the same thing for this author, and the lochia are in any case a form of menstruation: cf. Fasbender p. 225 n. 4. 18,4 νόσημα μή ξυγγενές: the passage is mystifying, but the clue to it may perhaps be found in Mul. I 25 — 34 (which belong to Grensemann's C-stratum; for the structure of these chapters see especially Grensemann Knidische Medizin pp. 93-98). This is a series of chapters which deal with νοσημάτων των έν γαστρί έχουσών diseases of the pregnant (Mul. I 25. VIII 64,12 Li.); each chapter begins with εί δέ γυνή έν γαστρί έχουσα if a woman, being pregnant... or a similar expression. In chapter 26 the case of a woman who is bilious, χολώδης during pregnancy is discussed: her lochia too after birth will be bilious, and she requires careful treatment if she is to survive. Chapter 29 discusses the corresponding case of a woman who is φλεγματώδης phlegmatic, and chapter 30 of a woman who is σπληνώδης splenetic. Thus 366 367 368

Heide] Hippocratea pp. 166-169. Gorraeus H p . Nat. Puer. ad loc. (Nat. Puer. 18,3). Cf. Viedebantt col. 1547.

On the Nature of the Child

197

the general doctrine of these chapters is that an unhealthy condition during the pregnancy, if it is caused by one of the humours, will have an effect on the lochia after parturition: they will either be bilious, phlegmatic, hydropic, or they will be suppressed altogether, in which case the woman dies. N o w in all these cases the fact that the woman is χολώδης etc. is not regarded as normal, for she is described as being in an unhealthy state (φλαύρως έχει το σώμα Mul. I 26. VIII 70,5f. Li.). Thus one might speak of the disease, as the author does here, as μή ξυγγενές, not constitutional (Nat. Puer. 18,4. VII 502,10 Li.), but caused by a temporary and abnormal excess of bile, phlegm, or hydrops 3 6 9 . Presumably the woman who is c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y bilious is not affected to the same extent. For the general idea that no untoward effects are to be expected from a constitutional condition, compare Mul. I 17. VIII 56,14f. Li. quoted on chapter 15. If this is the correct interpretation, then the reading of Μ, έν, must be preferred to the έον of V, and the punctuation must be νόσημα έχη μή ξυγγενές, έν τή λοχίη καθάρσει άπόλλυται. In Mul. I 36. VIII 86,20f. Li. (which again belongs to the C-stratum: Grensemann Knidische Medizin p. 97) shortly after the above passage, there is a parallel sentence to Nat. Puer. 18,4. 62,13 — 15 Joly = VII 502,12f. Li.: ήν δέ οι ραγή ή κάθαρσις εϊτε και ύπό φαρμάκων εϊτε και αυτόματη if her purgation breaks forth, whether by medicaments or spontaneously (with ραγή cf. the doubtful έσσυθή of the present passage). 18,4 εις ά π α ξ : "iuxta dierum rationem procedet quibus non una vice procedit" in proportion to the number of days during which it did not flow all at once. So Cornarius Hippocrates, followed by the other translators. Zwinger Hippocrates refers to chapter 15 βύζην κατά μήνα a massive flux occurring once a month·, and that this must be the meaning of εις άπαξ is shown by the use of the phrase in Nat. Puer. 15,1. 57,10 Joly = VII 494,3 Li. and Nat. Puer. 18,6. 63,13 Joly = VII 504,12 Li. There is no difficulty in taking it in this way: the author's point is that however long the delay in the appearance of the lochia, they must still flow for the period he has given. 18.4 αύτις [αύτη]: for αύτις, eventually cf. Nat. Puer. 19,1. 64,12 Joly = VII 506,7 Li., Nat. Puer. 22,2. 70,16 Joly = VII 514,24 Li. αύτη is best regarded as a variant introduced through misunderstanding. 18.5 διάκρισις τών μελέων: διάκρισις in this sense occurs also in Superf. 1,3. 72,12 Ln. = VIII 476,12 Li. The verb is common enough (Epid. I I 2 , 1 9 . V 92,4 Li.; Epid. II 3,17. V 116,15 Li.; Vict. I 26,1. 20,19 Joly - VI 498,14 Li.). 369

For the distinction between constitutional and abnormal states of the humours, cf. introductory note to chapter 55.

198

Commentary

18.5 το δεύτερον: in this second statement of his argument, the author begins with the idea of compensatory quantities which is its basis (άνταποδίδοσθαι, which the good Zwinger, puzzled by the evident circularity, took to refer to a species of argument, translating "Dico enim, reciprocam demonstrationem fieri posse" I say that a converse demonstration is possible). 18.6 ετερον δ' ίστόριο\ a second argument: Since ex hypothesi the surplus of blood is largest at the beginning of the period of articulation, and smallest at its end, this must be the reason why the lochia flow most abundantly immediately after birth, and then taper off. The argument is desperately strained, and common observation of the flow of liquids should have suggested that a gradual decrease in rate of flow is a normal phenomenon. 18.7 και. λόγψ και ανάγκη: Regenbogen p. 141 takes λόγψ to refer to the calculation based on the period of lochial flow, and ανάγκη to refer to the inference drawn from the observed case of abortions. (In general, Regenbogen desires to restrict the meaning of ανάγκη in this author rather too precisely to proofs which rest upon observed analogy.) For this use of λόγος, cf. κατά λόγον Nat. Puer. 18,6. 63,8 Joly = VII 504,8 Li. and Morb. IV 46,4. 101,25 Joly = VII 572,23 Li. 18,7 ίστορέουσι: cf. Morb. IV 48,3. 104,18f. Joly = VII 578,7 Li.: ταϋτα ίστορέει άλλήλοισιν ότι ούτως έχει these things bear witness to each other that this is the case. The meaning give evidence that, bear witness that is unusual but not unparalleled: cf. Aeschylus A. 676. It does not occur elsewhere in the Collection.

Chapters 1 9 - 2 0 The author continues his account of the development of the embryo, with a description of the formation of bones, nails, and hair. To his account of the growth of hair, he adds a discussion of the comparative hairlessness of eunuchs and women, since this phenomenon provides him with a contrary case whose explanation confirms his general theory. At the end of chapter 20 there is a brief digression on baldness and grey hair, from which he returns to his narrative (Έλεύσομαι δ' αύθις εις το έπιλειπές τοϋ λόγου I return to the remainder of my discourse). The two chapters thus have a pattern similar to that of chapters 1—2 and are an instance of one of the author's characteristic logical manoeuvres: see the introductory note to chapter 2. Aristotle (Arist. GA 2,6. 745a,1) groups sinews and bones together with nails, hair, hoofs and horns as parts which grow from seminal residue. Nails and hair are mentioned as distinct parts along with other parts of the body by Empedocles, VS 31 A 78 (Aetius): flesh, sinews, nails and bones; and by Anaxagoras VS 59 A 45 (Simplicius): flesh, bones, veins, sinews,

O n the Nature of the Child

199

hair, nails, feathers and horns. An explanation of their growth must have been a regular feature of embryological accounts. The author's explanation is incomplete, but it can be supplemented from other accounts: he is clearly drawing on other sources here, which can be traced to some extent. Appealing to the analogy plant/man, which he has already used, the author explains the branching of the fingers and toes as analogous to the branching of a tree. Although he gives no further explanation of how branching occurs in man, we are perhaps justified in referring to his later account (chapter 24) of branching in trees. There, the explanation given is that the sap of the tree (ίκμάς) breaks out in places where it has collected, and branches grow at these points. Does this explanation apply, as well as to the fingers and toes, to the nails at their extremities ? The stress which the author lays upon veins in his account suggests that this might be so; on the other hand, sinews and bones are also mentioned, and it is by the density of all three that the density of nails is explained, as though nails were some kind of composite from veins, sinews and bones. Plato too explains nails as a web (καταπλοκή) composed of tendons, skin, and bone (but not veins) in Timaeus 76d,2—e,6. The idea of a composite web is peculiar to the present passage and Plato, but it may have been originally suggested by Empedocles' (VS 31 A 78) account of the growth of nails: He says that nails are produced from the tendons (νεύρα) which are chilled where they encounter the air. The chilling in Empedocles implies that the tendons become dry, and Plato's constituents too become hard when they are dried. Since in Empedocles the nails are hardened by cold, they presumably have some fluid in them. This is certainly the case with hairs in chapter 20: hair will only grow on the porous parts of the skin (as is shown by the fact that hair does not grow on a scar), because only where the skin is porous can they receive the fluid (ίκμάς) necessary for their nutriment (τροφή). N o w this explanation of the growth of hair is very similar to Democritus' account of the growth of horns in animals, which is preserved in Ael. N A 12, 18—20 (= VS 68 A 153—155). Fluid (ίκμάς) rises from the stomach through veins to the head; it penetrates the skull which is thin and porous, and, encountering the cold outside 370 , solidifies into horn. The case of bulls which are hornless is explained on the grounds that their skull is insufficiently porous. In this account, the hardening of the horn is caused by refrigeration, like the hardening of nails in Empedocles' account of nail growth.

370

Our author does not mention the effect of cold. But that it is implied was apparently seen by the compilator of Vindicianus (Vindic. med. 11) which is partly a summary of the present chapter: Naturale nutrimentum per laxatas vias corporis exiens aeris frigidi tactu nimia densitate coactum in capillos venit. The natural nutriment, passing out through the open passages of the body and being compressed and condensed by the contact of the cold air, emerges as hair.

200

Commentary

Finally, the same theory is applied to hair in Plato (Ti. 76c) and Aristotle (GA 5,3 — 5. 781 b,30—785b,15: a book which demonstrably owes a considerable amount to Democritus and to Empedocles). There, although hair, like horn and hooves, is an earthy excrescence, it also contains a great deal of fluid. For example, hair grows thickest on the head because it is there, owing to the proximity of the brain, that the concentration of fluid is greatest (Arist. GA 5,3. 782b,9—18); in particular, horses alone of animals grow grey because the thinness of the bone makes it easy for the stream of fluid to flow to the hair (cf. Arist. GA 5,5. 785a,7—25). Coarse hair, as well as the hard spines of sea urchins, is explained by the drying and hardening effect of refrigeration (Arist. GA 5,3. 783a,15-783b,2). In Arist. PA 2,15. 658b,20—26 the eyelashes grow at the ends of blood vessels and have precisely the same function as is ascribed to n a i l s in chapter 19: the eyelashes are placed at the ends of small blood vessels, which have to stop where the skin itself comes to an end. Thus, owing to the fact that the moisture which comes off is corporeal in composition, hair must be formed at these places even on account of a necessary cause such as this, unless some function of nature impedes by diverting the moisture to another use371. Taken together, then, these passages imply precisely the same explanation of the growth of hair as Democritus gave for the growth of horn; this is the explanation which is implied by chapter 20 and possibly by the account of nails in chapter 19. 19,1 τά . . . όστέα: these have already been formed, in the process of articulation described in chapter 17, from elements already present in the original semen (το πυκνόν the dense Nat. Puer. 17,1. 59,11 Joly = VII 496,18 Li.). 19,1 όκόταν δέ διαρθρωθώ κτλ.: Μ and V read τό παιδίον and έπισκληρότερα (έτι σκληρότερα Ε and Η 2 ). I would prefer τοϋ παιδιού and ετι σκληρότερα, taking τε with the following καί. The bones are already hard (Nat. Puer. 17,2. 59,16 Joly = VII 498,2 Li.): they become even harder, and έπίσκληρος does not mean quite the same as σκληρός. Moreover σκληρός is an odd word to apply to the shape of the limbs (ε'ίδεα). 19,1 ύπό τοϋ πνεύματος: for the action of pneuma in causing cavities, cf. Nat. Puer. 17,3. 60,2 Joly = VII 498,12 Li.: ή τε κοιλίη φυσήται (φυσάται Joly) the belly is inflated. 19,1

κοίλα δέ έόντα ελκει: cf. note on chapter 21.

19,1 αίμάλωπος: cf. note on chapter 13,3. Aristotle also considers that the marrow is a form of blood: Arist. PA 2,6. 651 b,20, where he notes that in the embryo the marrow has a blood-like appearance. 371

Peck Arist. PA pp. 191 f.

On the Nature of the Child

201

19.1 διοζοϋται: for the implicit analogy plant/ man, cf. introductory note on chapters 22—27. Similarly Empedocles described the ear as fleshy shoot (σάρκινον όζον VS 31 Β 99). 19.2 τελευτώσι. . . αί φλέβες: the fact that the vessels are said to end in the hands, and feet, along with the fact that the vessels in the head are said to be the largest in the body, might suggest that the author is adopting a vascular system in which all the vessels begin in the head. Such a system is attributed by Aristotle (Arist. H A 3,3. 513a, 14) to his predecessors; and is generally held today to be the oldest vascular system in Greek medical writing, possibly going back to Alcmaeon. Cf. however the appendix on 'Vascular Systems in the Hippocratic Collection'. 19.2 αί εν τη κεφαλή: this is consistent with Morb. IV 40,3. 95,6 Joly = VII 560,27 Li.; they are referred to by Diogenes (VS 64 Β 6): a t δ' εις την κεφαλήν τείνουσαι δια των σφαγών φαίνονται εν τω αύχένι μεγάλαι those which extend through the throat into the head appear large in the neck; and described also in Morb. Sacr. 3,3. 68,27 Gr. = VI 366,12 Li. They are the σφαγίαι of Morb. IV 38,1. 91,18 Joly = VII 554,22 Li. where notice their connexion with the h e a d . 19.3 άπολαμβάνουσι: cf. Aristotle's view that the nails are protective shields (σκεπάσματα) for the extremities (PA 4,10. 687b,25). 20,1 ώστε μή θαυμάζειν: on θαυμάζειν cf. note on chapter 7; and ού θαύμα έστιν Morb. IV 44,3. 98,20f. Joly = VII 566,25f. Li. and Morb. IV 47,3. 103,16 Joly - VII 576,9 Li. 20,1 της φύσιος : here = growth; follows. Cf. Holwerdapp. 11 If.

cf. φύονται, which immediately

20,1 άραιοτάτη: άραιός is also applied to the skull in Aelian's account of the growth of horns in animals (Ael. N A 12,18—20; cf. Democritus VS 68 A 153 — 155). The skin or bone must be loose-textured, or porous, to let the fluid through. Cf. Arist. GA. 5,3. 782b,8—ll:/or the same cause, too, our hair is thickest on the head: the skin there is thickest and situated over the largest amount of fluid, and besides that it is very loosely-knit (εχει μανότητα πολλήν). 20.1 ύστερον αραιή γίνεται: obviously, if hair grows only where the skin is more porous, and some hair makes its appearance later than other hair, then those parts of the skin must also become porous later. As usual, the facts must be made to correspond to the hypothesis. 20.2 στομούται: Genit. 2,3. 46,5f. Joly = VII 472, 22 Li.: εύροαι γ ί ν ο ν τ α ι . . . και στομούνται become permeable and open up.

202

Commentary

20,3 άπο της κεφαλής: as in chapter 2, and with the same intention of explaining an awkward fact, the author makes use of the 'encephalo-myelogenic' theory of the origin of sperm. 20.3 όκόταν χρόνος έγγένηται κτλ.: The translation of Calvus is a guide to the meaning: "cum humiditas, quae de capite in coitu descendit, aliquantisper immoretur, et in mento quod a pectore distat". Since the moisture which descends from the head in coitus is delayed for a little time, namely in the chin which is at a distance from the breast (Cornarius: "ad mentum a pectore distans" to the chin which is at a distance from the breast, though he reads άπέχων in his text; Zwinger: "in mento extra pectus prominente" in the chin which juts out beyond the breast, which gives the right picture, and one which is familiar from Greek vase painting). We must, I think, read άπέχον as in V, but place άπέχον άπό των στηθέων after γένειον. For άπέχειν = project, cf. note on chapter 12,6; and for χρόνος έγγίνεσθαι, of intervening time or delay, cf. Nat. Puer. 25,6. 75,1 Joly = VII 526,2 Li. 20.4 πυκνή: the contrary of άραιή. For the observation, cf. [Arist.] Pr. 4,4. 876b,39—877a,4: animals which emit semen become drier and rarer (αραιότερα), conditions which favour the growth of hair. This is clear because hair does not grow on scars; for scars are dense and not rare; nor does it grow on boys and women; for both are moist and not dry312. The relation between growth of hair and dryness is not found in the present treatise, however; it also appears to contradict Aristotle (GA 5,3. 783 b, 9—18): the chief cause of baldness is a deficiency of warm fluid. 20,4 εΰνοϋχοι: obviously a test case, although what it confirms is not the author's explanation, but merely the relation between sexual maturity and secondary hair. 20,4 έπι τφ ξύμπαντι δέρματι: this is the reading of Μ and V, although Zwinger's correction σώματι, adopted by Ermerins, is attractive. 20.4

όλίγω πρότερον: cf. Genit. 2,1. 45,11 f. Joly = VII 472,5f. Li.

20.5 ούχ όμοίως κλονεόμενον: this might seem an ad hoc explanation, but see Genit. 4,2. 47,18f. Joly = VII 476,7f. Li. 20,5 όκόσοι δέ φαλακροί: not quite a digression, but rather an exception to what has just been stated, since it was a commonly accepted belief that baldness in men is related to a high degree of sexual activity (cf. Arist. GA 5,3. 7 8 3 b , 2 7 - 3 7 and Pr. 4,18. 878b,23-32). The author here explains it by reference to humoral constitution, thereby preserving both his theory and the traditional belief about baldness. Baldness is similarly regarded as constitutional in Aer. 14,5. 58,22 Di. = II 60,2f. Li.; and although 372

Hett Arist. Pr. p. 113.

On the Nature of the Child

203

h u m o r a l constitution is not mentioned there, it is in the parallel passage Morb. Sacr. 2,4. 68,12f. Gr. = VI 364,16 Li. (έκ φλεγματώδεος φλεγματώδης a phlegmatic child is born from a phlegmatic parent) which like Aer. 14,5 is based on pangenesis. 20,5 φλεγματώδεες: cf. σπληνώδεες Morb. IV 37,1. 90,17 Joly = VII 554,1 Li.; χολώδης, ύδρωποειδής, αίματώδης, φλεγματώδης M o r b . IV 55,1. 117,2f. Joly = VII 600,8f. Li., where the words however refer to persons having an abnormal amount of these humours rather than to persons of normal constitutional type (cf. commentary ad loc.). 20,5 έν τη κεφαλή: the reservoir of phlegm. Cf. chapter 35 and commentary. 20,5 θερμαινόμενον . . . καίει: for the relation between phlegm and heat, cf. commentary on chapter 35. In the present passage however phlegm burns because it is heated by disturbance, and is the prevalent h u m o u r in that part of the body:cf. Morb. II48. VII 72,19f. Li. where falling hair in phthisis is explained by a flow of phlegmatic matter (αλμη lit. brine) in the head, which occurs when the head is heated. Aristotle gives precisely the opposite explanation of baldness: the brain, which is in any case cold, is cooled further by sexual intercourse (Arist. G A 5,3. 783b,28f. and cf. also [Arist.] Pr. 4,18. 878b,23-32). 20.5 ού γίνονται φαλακροί: cf. Aph. 6,28. IV 570,5 Li. The same belief is mentioned in Arist. GA 5,3. 7 8 4 a , 6 - 1 1 and in [Arist.] Pr. 10,57. 897b, 23—26. The explanation there, as here, is ultimately based on the encephalomyelogenic theory. 20.6 αί δέ πολιαί: men become grey either as the result of ageing, or of constitution (έκ γενετής). In either case the cause is the same, the complexion of the humour. And this is also the cause of all coloration in hair. Aristotle similarly relates greyness to fluid (Arist. GA 5,4, especially 5,4. 784 b,35—785 a,4) but he makes use of the theory of coction: the old are colder, and the fluid in the hair being insufficiently concocted, putrefies, and the whiteness is putrescence. The author's explanation of differences in the colour of hair is the same as his explanation of the specific differences of plants in chapter 34, which is offered as an analogy to his humoral theory. Possibly both explanations come from the same source. Chapter 21 Quickening and lactation The time between the limit of articulation (30 and 42 days) and quickening (3 and 4 months) is taken up in the separation of the extremities

204

Commentary

and the growth of nails and hair. Presumably the embryo is also growing generally during this time. In a sense, however, the child is not fully articulated until the time of quickening: this no doubt accounts for the later period of full articulation given by the authors cited on chapter 18, but for reasons of his own, connected with the period of lochial discharge, the author of Genit. distinguishes between articulation and quickening. Quickening and lactation coincide, as they do in Mul. I 71. VIII 150,1 f. Li. = Steril. 233. VIII 446,10 Li. where the same differential periods for quickening are given 373 . There, the symptom of mola uteri is that no milk appears and no movement is felt at the expected times. In the present chapter the author gives the reason for the coincidence in time between the two events. Similarly in Mul. I 27. VIII 70.18—21 Li. the collapse of the breasts and the failure of milk to appear in the 7th or 8th month is a sign that the embryo is dead or at least very weak. The same doctrine underlies this chapter. The author's theory of lactation is incompletely expressed in the present chapter, but a full and more or less consistent account of it can be reconstructed with the aid of passages from Mul. I. It will be useful to refer to Aristotle's account in Arist. GA 4,8. 776a,15—777a,27 as a standard, since that account turns out to be identical in most respects with that of the present author. According to Aristotle, milk is a concocted form of the residue of menstrual blood. When the embryo is fully articulated, although it continues to grow, its rate of growth slows down, and it requires a correspondingly smaller amount of nutriment, which is formed from menstrual blood. A surplus of menstrual blood is therefore collected, and this flows to the breasts which Aristotle, like the author of Genit., believes to be connected by vessels to the womb. There, it is concocted and sweetened into milk. For this reason, women who are suckling do not menstruate, nor do they conceive; or if they do, the lactation ceases (this is false). In the present chapter of Genit., the author does not mention menstrual blood. What is squeezed out into the omentum and the flesh, and eventually becomes sweetened into milk, is the richest or fattiest (πιότατον) part of the food and drink which passes into the stomach. That this, however, is simply blood 'or a form of blood is shown by two passages, Mul. I 1 and 73 (where the author refers to his account of lactation in the present treatise). In Mul. I 73. VIII 154,2—5 Li. the author explains why there is no menstruation during the time a mother is feeding her child: the sweetest part of the moisture which comes from food and drink (τό γ λ υ κ ύ χ α τ ο ν τ ο ϋ ύ γ ρ ο ϋ

373

Epid. II 6,17. V 136,8f. Li. agrees. More correctly Epid. II 3,17. V 118,9-11 Li. places lactation at the end of the 8th month (cf. Empedocles VS 31 Β 68 cited below).

O n the Nature of the Child

205

άπο των αιτίων και των ποτών) is diverted and drawn (έκθηλάζεται) into the breasts; and the rest of the body is bound to become more empty and less full of blood. Here milk is identified with the blood (or blood-like substance) which comes from the food in the stomach. And the explanation is the same as Aristotle's. Compare Mul. I 1. V I I I 12,17—21 Li. where after describing the absorption demonstration referred to in the introductory note on chapters 14—16, the author says: in the same way a woman, being of rarer texture, draws a greater amount of fluid from the stomach for her body and draws it more rapidly, than a man; and having more porous flesh, when her body is filled with blood, she suffers pain unless some of it is evacuated, because her flesh becomes full and heated. Here the fluid (ίκμάς: cf. Mul. I 73 VIII 154,8 Li. ίκμάς άπο της κοιλίης fluid from the stomach) drawn from the food in the stomach is identified with menstrual blood. So too the author states in Morb. IV 42,2. 9 6 , 1 5 - 1 7 Joly = V I I 5 6 4 , 2 - 4 Li. that blood is formed from the contents of the stomach by concoction. In other words, the nutriment of the embryo during articulation, menstrual fluid and milk, are all forms of the same substance, which is drawn from the stomach. In the case of milk, this substance undergoes ripening or concoction as it does in Aristotle (γλυκαινόμενον άπο της θέρμης being sweetened by heat Nat. Puer. 2 1 , 4 . 6 8 , 5 J o l y = V I I 5 1 2 , 1 7 Li.). A notable and characteristic difference from Aristotle's account is the author's m e c h a n i s t i c explanation of how the substance passes from the stomach into the omentum and the tissues: it is squeezed out by the pressure of the enlarged womb upon the stomach, this pressure no doubt being increased by the movement of the infant. We can compare the explanation of deformity by constriction of the womb in chapter 9, and the explanation of earth temperature by pressure in chapter 24. The author might have made use of the principle of attraction into a porous substance, as he does in the analogous account of menstruation in Mul. I 1, and also, speaking either loosely or inconsistently, at the end of the present chapter. Presumably however he uses pressure here to explain why milk is white: it is a fatty substance which is extracted from sanguineous matter by pressure·, and it is no doubt the same as τοΰ αίμάλωπος το πιότατον the richest part of blood-clot of chapter 19 (Nat. Puer. 19,1. 64,12 Joly = VII 506,7 Li.), which forms the white and fatty substance of marrow. The milk is stored both in the breasts, which begin to swell in this time, and in the tissues generally, which is why women at this stage of pregnancy grow fatter. (This is the point of the remark about domestic animals at Nat. Puer. 21,3. 6 8 , 1 - 3 Joly = VII 512, 14f. Li.; though the author could have made himself clearer here.) After birth, when the womb no longer exerts pressure on the stomach, the fatty substance stored in the tissues is attracted into the breasts by the distention of the veins consequent upon suckling. The identification of milk with a form of blood was made by Empedocles (VS 31 Β 68): On the tenth day of the eighth month, (the

206

Commentary

blood)374 becomes a white pus (πύον λευκόν). The fragment is quoted by Aristotle (Arist. GA 4,8. 777a,7-15), who criticizes Empedocles for stating that milk is putrefied, rather than concocted, blood. It is possible that the theory of lactation both in Genit. and in Aristotle is substantially that of Empedocles. There may be a trace of the same theory in Mul. II 133. VIII 280,12-284,2 Li., especially 280,17f., 282,3-6.10.16-18: sometimes, if the mouth of the womb is closed, the menses will travel to the breasts and cause them to swell. This passage at least illustrates the connexion of the womb and the breasts by blood vessels, referred to both by the present author and by Aristotle (Arist. GA 4,8. 776b,31 των αυτών πόρων [the milk-forming residue gathers in all the empty spaces which are on] the same channels). Compare also Aer. 4,8. 30,22 — 32,2 Di. = II 22,2 — 8 Li.: in the regions where water is hard, the amount of menstrual discharge is small, women have difficulty in giving birth, and after birth, difficulty in raising the infant since their milk is diminished because of the hardness of the water. The same doctrine is implied in Epid. II 3,17. V 118,lOf. Li. τ ά γ ά λ α κ τ α , άδελφά των έπιμηνίων milk, which is related to the menses and in Aph. 5,39. IV 544,15 f. Li. A similar description of the breasts and the process of lactation appears in Gland. 16. VIII 570,15—572,17 Li.; the chapter seems to be late and derivative. The present chapter is referred to by the author of Mul. I 44. VIII 102,6 Li. and Mul. I 73. VIII 152,22 as his own. 21.1 τω μεν άρσενι τρεις μήνες κτλ.: Mul. I 71. VIII 150,9f. Li.: το μεν γαρ άρσεν τρίμηνον, τό δε θήλυ τετράμηνον την κίνησιν έχει the male quickens at three month, the female at four. 21.2 πυκνοσάρκοισι: consistently with the principle of Mul. I 1. VIII 10,2—14,7 Li. that women absorb more fluid because their flesh is more porous. In Nat. Puer. 30,6. 80,18-21 Joly = VII 536,2-5 Li., where see note, women with small menstruation are usually lacking in milk as well, because they are dry and have dense flesh (ξηρότεραι και πυκνοσαρκότεραι). 21,2 Δι' ανάγκην: the word is linked with a mechanistic explanation. Cf. ανάγκη in Genit. 9,2. 50,25 Joly = VII 482,11 Li. and note, where the cause is constriction of the womb.

374

The MSS. in Aristotle read γ ά λ α milk: αίμα blood is the correction of Kranz. Vogel pp. 44—47 has an interesting suggestion by Prof. Dr. Friedrich Müller (oral communication) who proposes the reading μηνός έν όγδοάττ) δεκάτου on the 8th day of the 10th month, and refers the fragment to a manifestation in the lochial fluid just after birth. But it would be surprising if Aristotle was mistaken about the context of the line which he quotes.

On the Nature of the Child

207

21.2 το έπίπλοον: the omentum; see further Morb. IV 57,1. 122,6 J o l y = V I I 160,2 Li. In Nat. Mul. 20. 8 4 , 5 - 9 Trapp = V I I 3 4 0 , 5 - 9 Li. there is a similar relation of pressure between womb and omentum. 21.3 ώσπερ δέρμα: a technological analogy. Leather was anointed to keep it soft (Plin. nat. 15,34; Lucian Anach. 24); possibly the excess oil was then removed by pressure. The analogy is inadequate (cf. R . Joly Niveau, p. 82), if it is intended to illustrate how pressure separates oil from other substances. Possibly however the author means that τ ο πιότατον the fattest part is first absorbed by the stomach wall, as the oil is absorbed by the leather, and then squeezed out under pressure. In this case, the leather is equated with the stomach wall, rather than with the stomach and its contents. (The author regards the stomach as a leathery substance [ώσπερ δέρμα] in Morb. IV 5 6 , 4 . 1 2 0 , 2 3 - 2 7 Joly = VII 6 0 6 , 2 3 - 6 0 8 , 1 Li.) This is a more natural way in which to understand the analogy, though the separation of τ ο πιότατον is still left unexplained. Perhaps the stomach wall acts as a filter. The opposite process is described in a Homeric simile, II. Ρ 389—395, in which a hide anointed with oil is stretched by men standing around it in a circle: the result is that the natural moisture (ίκμάς) of a hide is forced out, while the oil sinks in. 21,3 τό πΐαρ: cf. Nat. Puer. 26,4. 76,5 Joly = V I I 528,1 Li. where it is the same as the πίειρα δύναμις which causes fruit in trees. LSJ s. v. πιαρός suggests πΐαρ for πιαρόν in Nat. Puer. 21,5. 68,16 J o l y = V I I 514,3 L i . , but this is contrary to both Μ and V and is rejected by J o l y . The word is epic; it occurs also in Mul. II 205. V I I I 396,7 Li. and Ulc. 15. VI 418,9 Li. 21.3

κήν άραιόσαρκος: cf. note on πυκνοσάρκοισι above.

21.4 γλυκαινόμενον άπό της θέρμης: heat sweetens liquids and juices: the generalization is probably drawn from the case of fruit ripened by the sun. Cf. Nat. Puer. 26,3. 3 f . J o l y = V I I 526,26 Li. πέσσων ό ήλιος και θερμαίνων γλυκαίνει the sun sweetens (the juice) by ripening and warming it. This is also the effect of sun on water in Aer. 8,5. 4 2 , 2 f . Di. = II 34,16 - 1 8 Li.: γλυκαίνεται υ π ό τοϋ ηλίου καιόμενόν τε και έψόμενον it is sweetened by being heated and cooked by the sun where it is made into a general principle: γίνεται δέ και τάλλα πάντα [τα] έψόμενα άει γλυκύτερα

everything else that is cooked grows sweeter. The effect of cold is the opposite; hence water which comes from melted ice has lost τό μεν αύτού λαμπρόν και κούφον και γλυκύ its bright, light and sweet (qualities) (Aer. 8,8. 42, 16f. Di. = II 3 6 , 7 f . Li.). The scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius 4,269 attributes to Democritus a theory that the Nile flows from a sea in the south, but is freshened by the effect of heat over its long course (άπογλυκαίνεσθαι . . . υπό τοϋ καύματος άφεψόμενον VS 68 Α 99). In Aristotle (Arist. G A 4,8. 776a,28) sweetness and concoction go together, and in Morb. II 47. V I I 66,4f. Li. the sweetening of sputum is a sign of suppuration.

208

Commentary

21,4 και ές τάς μήτρας: nourishment by blood continues however, up till the time of birth: cf. Nat. Puer. 30,5. 80,3f. Joly = VII 534,14 Li. and Morb. IV 54,2. 114,15-18 Joly = VII 5 9 6 , 1 - 3 Li.; Ps. Gal. An animal 3. XIX 167,1 — 8 Kühn, if that passage refers to the present treatise, implies that both processes of nutrition go on together. Have we here a trace of the belief ascribed to Democritus and Epicurus by Aetius (VS 68 A 144); to Diogenes and Hippon by Censorinus (Cens. 6,3); and by Aristotle (Arist. GA 2,7. 746a, 19-27) to certain unnamed authors, that the infant in the womb is nourished by suckling at a fleshy protuberance (σαρκίδιόν τι)? The theory is found in Carn. 6,3. 8,19-21 De. = VIII 592,11-13 Li. and is ascribed to Hippocrates by Ps. Gal. An animal 3. XIX 167,5—11 Kühn. Diocles identifies these protuberances with the cotyledons on the wall of the womb (Fr. 27. 129,10-15 Wellmann). The cotyledons are mentioned in Mul. I 58. VIII 116,5—12 Li. and in Nat. Mul. 17. 82,14-20 Trapp = VII 336,14-20 Li. (cf. Aph. 5,45. IV 548,1—4 Li.): they are therefore presumably known to the present author. Both passages state that miscarriage results when the cotyledons are filled with phlegm: according to the latter passage this is because as the embryo gets larger, it can no longer be retained; according to the former, it is because the embryo does not develop (φώννυται), since there is a flux (άπορρεΐ: presumably of menstrual blood). If the two passages are independent, which seems doubtful, then the cotyledons are concerned both with the supply of menstrual blood and with the anchorage of the child in the womb: that is to say, with the two functions which are ascribed to them both by Aristotle and by Galen, for whom the cotyledons are the terminals of blood vessels to which the placenta is attached (Arist. GA 2,7. 745b,23-746a, 11; Gal. De sem. 1,7. IV 537,10-538,5 Kühn; Gal. De uteri dissect. 10,8. 54,3f. Nickel = II 905,1 f. Kühn [at κοτυληδόνες . . . δεσμός άσφαλής τω χορίω προς την μήτραν γεγενημέναι the cotyledons form a strong mooring to the womb for the chorion]). The functions ascribed to the cotyledons in Mul. I and Nat. Mul. are not n e c e s s a r i l y incompatible with the theory of suckling, although they make it unlikely and, indeed, superfluous: the small quantity of milk which is mentioned in Nat. Puer. 21,4. 68,7 Joly = VII 512,18 Li. might pass to the embryo via the blood vessels. Wellmann however 375 considers that Democritus' doctrine appears in the present passage. Democritus' reason was that the infant knows how to suck as soon as it is born; this is coupled with another reason by the author of Carn., namely that the newly born infant has fecal matter in its intestine. This is also mentioned by the present author in Morb. IV 54,2. 114,14-25 Joly = VII 596,1 — 10 Li., who ascribes the occasional presence of parasites in it to a corruption arising from the milk and the blood. He may then be aware of the 37S

Wellmann Spuren p. 312.

O n the Nature of the Child

209

argument used in C a m . , and possibly of Democritus' argument as well. Moreover, if we are to take the remark in chapter 17, that respiration through the umbilicus is cut off, literally and with its full implication (cf. commentary ad loc.), the infant must be fed, whether with milk or with blood or with both, through the mouth. But I am inclined to think that the remark in chapter 17 is an unnoticed contradiction; and if the author did hold the belief about cotyledons, his silence about so striking a doctrine is very odd. 21,4 φλέβι,α τ α ύ τ ά : a connexion between breasts and uterus is assumed also in Mul. II 133. VIII 280,17f. Li. and Aph. 5,50. IV 550,5f. Li. (see below on the use of the cupping instrument). Galen who, like Aristotle, shared the present theory of lactation, describes the course of these vessels in Gal. De ven. art. dissect. 8. II 813,9 — 12 Kühn; Gal. De usu part. 14,4. II 293,17-26 Η . = IV 1 5 4 , 6 - 1 4 Kühn; Gal. De usu part. 14,8. II 3 1 0 , 8 - 1 8 Η . = IV 176,1-10 Kühn; Gal. De usu part. 16,10. II 419,16-420,3 Η . = IV 3 2 2 , 4 - 1 6 Kühn. 21.4 ίδέην ισχει: these two words are omitted both in Μ and V. But they were certainly read by the source of Vindicianus (perhaps Soranus: cf. Wellmann Fragmente p. 8; Jaeger p. 189); for the summary of this chapter in Vindicianus (Vindic. med. 10) ends with the words: pinguities . . . . lactis accipit qualitatem ( = ίδέην) the fat . . . . acquires the quality of milk. The passage is significant for the relation between Μ and V and the recentiores since it seems very unlikely that the reading of the recentiores here is a correction based on Vindicianus. 21.5 και όκόταν τέκη: since after the infant is born, the pressure on the stomach is removed, the author has to look for another explanation of how the milk passes into the breasts. H e appeals to the contrary mechanistic principle of attraction: as a result of suckling, the veins leading into the breasts become wider, and correspondingly attract more fluid (i.e. the principle of horror vacui; this is also the explanation given in Mul. I 73. VIII 154,2 — 5 Li.). The same principle is used in N a t . Puer. 19,1. 64,11 f. Joly = VII 506,5 f. Li. to explain the filling of the bones with marrow, in the plant physiology of chapters 22 — 27 (cf. especially N a t . Puer. 22,4. 6 9 , 2 2 - 2 4 Joly = VII 5 1 6 , 7 - 9 Li. and N a t . Puer. 26,3. 75,24-76,1 Joly = VII 526,21—23 Li.) and in the physiology and pathology of chapters 33 and following, and it is in general usually implied by the word ελκειν attract. It is widespread in Greek science, but as far as the medical writers are concerned, it could well have been suggested by their use of the σικύη or cupping instrument. This was a bell-shaped instrument which when heated and placed on the surface of the body would attract fluid; it was also used in the reduction of dislocations. Thus in Morb. IV 35,2. 87,27f. Joly = VII 548,18f. Li. the author explains the attraction of phlegm to the head by the fact that the head is hollow like a σικύη cupping glass. In VM 22. 53,8 — 11

210

Commentary

Hbg. = I 27,2—6 Kw. = I 626,14—17 Li. the organs of the body which, like the σικύη, are hollow and taper towards one end, have the greatest attractive power; e.g. the bladder, the head, and the womb. Plato (Pi. Ti. 79 e) mentions the σικύη among other phenomena whose real cause, in his opinion, is not attraction but circular thrust (περίωσις or άντιπερίστασις): the passage suggests that the σικύη was a commonly used example of attraction. Aristotle (Arist. GA 2,4. 737b,28—35) mentions certain persons who believe that sperm is drawn towards the genitals in the way that fluid is drawn by the cupping glass; he denies this, but later (Arist. GA 2,4. 739b, 9—13) says that at conception the uterus, being warm, draws in the semen in the same way that conical vessels which have been washedout with something warm, draw water up into themselves when they are turned mouth downwards376. This is the theory which is implied in VM 22, and which seems to have been held by Diocles of Carystus 3 7 7 . All these passages suggest that the theory of attraction in the medical writers may have been prompted by observation made in the course of their practice. O n the cupping instrument, see Festugiere Hp. VM pp. 66f. and the valuable series of illustrations in Berger pp. 62 — 85; the two kinds used are described in Medic. 7. 22,21 - 23,8 Hbg. = IX 212,10-214, 12 Li. For further discussion of the principle of attraction, see commentary on chapters 33—41. In relation to the present passage, Aph. 5,50. IV 550,5f. Li. is particularly interesting: a σικύη cupping glass, as large as possible, is placed upon the b r e a s t in order to inhibit menstruation. 21,5 ά π ο της κοιλίης: i.e. the tissues around the stomach, where the substance has been stored. It is possible however that the author means that after parturition the milk is drawn directly from the food in the stomach, though this would be less consistent. 21,5 εύροώτερα: cf. Morb. IV 40,2. 94,23f. Joly = VII 560,17-19 Li.: έλκουσι δέ και της άλλης ίκμάδος αί φλέβες ές έωυτάς, εύρέαι και παχέαι και έλικοειδεΐς έοΰσαι the veins attract the other humour as well into themselves, being wide, thick and convoluted. The same principle appears in Vict. I 35,3. 30,12-14 Joly = VI 514,19-21 Li.: the effect of wrestling, massage, and similar exercises is to make the vessels more hollow, with the resultant danger of plethora. 21,5 την λαγνείην: cf. Ps. Gal. Ling. s. diet, exolet. expl. XIX 117,If. Kühn: δηλοΐ ποτε και αύτο το σπέρμα, ώς έν τω περί παίδων φύσεως· ούτως δέ και τό λάγνευμα. Λαγνείη sometimes also means the sperm itself, as in the book on the Nature of the Child. The same is true of τό λάγνευμα, which Foesius refers to the present passage. 377

Peck Arist. GA p. 191. Wellmann Fragmente pp. 36f.

On the Nature of the Child

211

Chapters 22—27 The botanical excursus In the previous chapter the author has mentioned the intrauterine nutrition of the embryo, and he now passes quite naturally to a general consideration of the embryo's nutrition: the constitution or state of health of the child will depend on that of the mother, and the corresponding quality of the nutriment which passes into the womb. This statement is illustrated by the analogy of a plant in the earth: the characteristics (including both quality within a particular species, and differences between species) of the plant will depend on those of the earth in which it is implanted. This must be the meaning of Nat. Puer. 22,1. 68,26f. Joly = VII 514,1 I f . Li. For the earth contains in itself moisture of every kind (παντοίην), so that it nourishes plants. It is also implied in Nat. Puer. 26,4. 76,8—12 Joly = VII 528,4—6 Li., where the author, explaining why grafts do not bear fruit similar to the parent tree, says that this is because they are nourished not from the sap in the tree, but from the ground through their own roots. This can only mean that they draw from the ground that specific fluid which they require, and which is distinct from the fluid drawn by the parent tree from the same patch of ground. The difficulty which the author attempts to resolve here is only a difficulty on the assumption that the specific characteristics of plants depend on their specific fluid. The meaning becomes clearer if we can use chapter 34 to illustrate the present chapter: there it is stated definitely that each plant in order to grow according to kind requires a specific moisture from the soil. There are countless potencies (δυνάμιας) of every kind (παντοίας) in the soil; and the soil affords to each plant a fluid similar to that which is originally in the plant, so that the rose draws from the ground a fluid such as the rose itself is in potency (δυνάμει). This is why plants grow according to the kind of their seeds. If the necessary fluid is lacking from the soil, then the plant will not grow there at all; and according to the variety in the moisture of the soil, so too the plant will vary (cf. what is said here Nat. Puer. 22,1. 68,23 Joly = VII 514,9 Li.: και οκως αν ή γη εχτ) the condition of the earth with the expression ύγιείης ή άσθενείης health or disease applied to the child): some soils for example produce sweeter grapes than others 378 . 378 j c ; t e chapter 34 in illustration: it is not necessary to use it to support the interpretation of 22—27, although I myself believe it would be justifiable to use it in such a way. Plamböck pp. 103 — 106 attempts to separate the doctrine of the two passages; and he argues that they show two fundamentally different conceptions, in that chapter 34 contains a preformation theory (the nature of the plants is determined by the chemical pattern of each specific ίκμάς) which is rejected by the author of chapter 22, for whom δύναμις is not a mere ingredient in the fluid, but is or contains a 'vis formans'. I agree that different ideas are at play in the two passages, and certainly δΰναμις is used with a sense of its own in chapter

212

Commentary

The author is anxious to show that this hypothesis is true of all plants, whether grown from seeds (chapter 22), cuttings (chapter 23), or grafts378® (chapter 26). Grafts, at first sight, might seem to constitute an exception, since they apparently do not grow directly from the soil; but in fact they prove the general rule since they do eventually form a direct connexion with the ground, and so can draw their own specific fluid from it. The common feature of the two parts of the analogy is therefore the concept of nutritive moisture ίκμάς in the case of the plant, and blood in the case of the embryo. Its pattern is as follows: Embryo Mother Blood Constitution of Embryo

= = = =

plant earth ίκμάς quality and specific kind of plant.

But the author has also in mind a variant of this analogy. He is clearly concerned with the question of fruiting, which he explains both in chapter 22 and chapter 26. The real difference between plants is shown in the fact that they bear different fruits: this is because different kinds of plants are so constituted as to draw different fluid from the soil, and this fluid when ripened and concocted by the sun becomes fruit. In the same way, the child is the fruit of the womb, and as the mother is, so will the child be. But in both analogies, the ultimate explanation is the fluid in the ground. However, the chapters develop, particularly in 24 and 25, to a general excursus on plant physiology, and the author has a more comprehensive analogy in mind than the particular one from which he begins. This is stated in chapter 27: the analogy between plants and humans extends to the whole process of growth (την φύσιν πάσαν). Yet this analogy, if such it is, is vague: there are not the detailed points of contact between plant and human such as, for instance, the author supposes to exist between the egg and the embryo in chapter 29. Apart from the general similarity between embryonic and plant nutrition, the only similarities are, in germination, the mechanistic process by which the moisture in the seed breaks out into shoots (cf. the formation of the umbilicus in chapter 12), and the branching of the plant in chapter 24, which is supposed to be similar to the growth of the extremities which branch (όζωθή Nat. Puer. 21,1. 67,2 Joly = VII 22; but apart from the terminological difficulty I do not see that the two passages are incompatible, and they are far from proving that common authorship of Morb. IV and Nat. Puer. is an 'impossibility' (Plamböck p. 106). The differences pointed out by Plamböck can be explained by the different orientation of the two chapters: 2 2 - 2 7 and 34 respectively raise and answer different questions. For the inconsistency in the use of δΰναμις in chapter 34, and for the problem of its source, see introductory note and commentary on that chapter. 378> p o r th e classification implied here, which reappeared in Aristotle's lost work De Plantis, see the discussion of the sources of the botanical theory, p. 237 below.

On the Nature of the Child

213

510,18 Li.) and of the bones which branch like a tree (διοζοϋται ώς δένδρον Nat. Puer. 17,2. 59,17 Joly = VII 498,3 Li.) in the embryo. Even here, the negative analogy is stronger than the positive analogy, since in the case of the plant there is nothing to correspond to the mechanism of chapter 17: the plant does not r e s p i r e , although the process of germination by pneuma may be compared to the formation of the umbilicus; and the author cannot appeal to the principle of like to like to explain the formation of different p a r t s in the plant, although of course he uses this principle to explain specific differences between plants (each plant has a specific δύναμις which explains why it draws from the ground a distinct moisture which is akin to or contains this δύναμις power: cf. also chapter 34). In fact, chapters 22—27 are not an analogy in the sense of an argument from the seen to the unseen: the botanical processes are in any case themselves 'unseen'. But these chapters are not merely a decorative illustration either. They are included because of their tendency to confirm: they show that the same sort of explanation can be successfully applied in different provinces of nature. Plants are less like animals than they are like each other, but, once this is granted, their process of germination and growth is intelligible in the same way and by the same methods; and indeed they offer some quite striking resemblances. These chapters are a valuable indication of one of the ways in which science developed during the fifth century. The analogy as an argument from the seen to the unseen tends to lose its force in proportion as both processes can be explained by the same principles. The analogy loses its heuristic value and becomes instead a second confirmatory instance of the working of these principles. Once a universal formula has been found by which all processes in different departments of nature can be explained, then the older kind of analogy tends to fade, although initially such an attitude may encourage the formation of analogies. It is perhaps not an accident of the tradition that there are very few such analogies recorded for Democritus, as Diller has remarked 3 7 9 . For it was Democritus above all who viewed all phenomena on the same level, as all theoretically explicable on atomistic terms. Yet this tendency really begins with Empedocles, whose elemental theory gave him the means of regarding all manifestations of nature as similar. The excursus on botany is in this way a general confirmation of the validity and success of the author's approach to embryology. But it does nevertheless begin from a traditional and primitive resemblance. The conception of the earth as mother is as old as mythology 3 8 0 . The comparison between the child in the mother and the plant in the earth may be a quite spontaneous invention of the human mind, at least in some cultures: 379 380

Diller Ό ψ ι ς άδηλων p. 37. Cf. Guthrie Beginning pp. 11—28.

214

Commentary

Freud 3 8 1 quotes the instance of a four-year-old child who drew the same comparison as the present chapters: even more interesting is the fact that in the child's case it was a genuine inference from the seen to the unseen, since she apparently knew nothing of the process of conception. But however traditional and indeed natural such comparisons may be, they cannot become scientifically fruitful until they are set in a more comprehensive intellectual framework. They require to be based on a general theory of the composition and the formative processes of things. The title of the first Greek biologist goes to Empedocles: this is clear from the extensive use made of him both by Aristotle and by Theophrastus in their biological writings. This is not accidental: the width of the range of the phenomena discussed by Empedocles is the natural result of his theory of 'roots' or elements. If all things are made up of four elements in varying proportions, then the conceptual barrier between different k i n d s of things is removed; for all things, at least in their composition, must be akin. From these (elements) sprang (έβλάστησε) everything that was and is and will be: trees, and men and women, the beasts, the birds, and fish who are nurtured in water, and the long-lived gods . . . (VS 31 Β 21,9-12). And in VS 31 A 23 natural phenomena are compared to the trees, and men and women etc. that a painter produces by mixing the same pigments in different proportions. For Empedocles, all nature is akin: this belief is both religious and scientific. The theory of elements provided a conceptual ground from which a fruitful use of analogy could grow. It is therefore not surprising that Empedocles' use of analogy is both frequent and striking. In VS 31 Β 82 he says The same are hair and leaves and the thick feathers of birds and scales upon strong limbs382. The fragment is quoted by Aristotle (Arist. Mete. 4,9. 387a, 32— 387b, 6) to illustrate that different substances such as bones and hair and what Aristotle calls woody materials may be grouped together by analogy, although they have no common name. Probably, then, the analogy in Empedocles too rests upon compositional similarity, though as Lloyd 3 8 3 points out, Empedocles may have had analogy of function in mind as well. In any case, Empedocles seems to have developed the mythical comparison between plant and animal, particularly in respect of embryology. The ear is called a fleshy shoot (σαρκινόν όζον, VS 31 Β 99): although we are ignorant of the context, the metaphor can hardly refer to anything but the process of growth (cf. Genit. chapter 19). The converse analogy appears in VS 31 Β 79: tall olive trees bring forth eggs, which is quoted with approval both by Aristotle (Arist. GA 1,23. 731a,1-5) and Theophrastus (CP 1,7,1) on the ground that the seed, like the egg, contains its own nutriment (Theo381 382 383

Freud vol. 12 pp. 3051. The same analogy underlies Alcmaeon VS 24 A 15; cf. Lloyd Polarity pp. 323f. Lloyd Polarity p. 335.

On the Nature of the Child

215

phrastus may merely be repeating Aristotle, and we cannot conclude from either that this was the particular similarity which Empedocles had in mind). The precise analogy of Genit. 22—27 earth: tree :: mother: embryo is also found in an abstract of Empedocles' botanical theory recorded by Aetius (VS 31 A 70), a passage which has several close resemblances to the present chapters: Empedocles says that trees were the first living things to grow out of the earth, before the sun was spread around and day and night were distinguished. Owing to the matching of the elements in their mixture, they combined the formula for male and female. They grow by being pushed up by the heat in the earth, so that they are parts of the earth just as embryos in the belly are parts of the womb. Fruits consist of the excess of water and fire in the plants. Those that have insufficient moisture lose their leaves in summer, as it evaporates, but those that have more, like the laurel, olive and palm, retain them. Differences in flavour are due to the composition of the soil, and the different ways in which the plants draw the homoeomerous substances from that which nourishes them. So with vines, it is not the differences in the vine that make a drinkable wine, but differences in the soil that sustains them384. (Müller 3 8 5 suggests that the last part Differences in flavour etc. is erroneously ascribed to Empedocles, and should refer to Anaxagoras, whose name has dropped out.) Notice that the analogy is used here, as it is in Genit., to illustrate the p r o c e s s of growth 3 8 6 . For Empedocles then, as for the author of Genit., the embryo is rooted in the womb as trees are rooted in the ground. The 'roots' are presumably the umbilical cord, since according to Empedocles it is through this that the embryo is nourished (VS 31 A 79). This analogy is certainly used by Democritus, who compares the umbilical cord successively to an anchor, which keeps the embryo from being tossed about and drifting, then to a hawser, and finally to a slip (κλήμα) for the future fruit which is being engendered (VS 68 Β 148). A similar analogy appears again in Oct. ( 3 , 5 - 7 . 8 6 , 1 3 - 2 2 Gr. = 12. VII 4 5 6 , 2 0 - 4 5 8 , 9 Li.), where the author explains that the umbilicus, by which the embryo is attached to its mother, is the sole channel of nutriment, while the embryo is in the womb; at birth, however, the umbilicus withers and closes and dries

384

385 386

Guthrie History vol. II p. 208. Guthrie is translating the text of Diels. F o r a different text and interpretation see Bollack Empedocle vol. 2 p. 217 and vol. 4 p. 505. Müller p. 70. The comparison has a religious aspect, since according to Empedocles' theory of transmigration, souls may pass from animals to plants and vice versa; and if we can trust Pseudo-Aristotle (Ps.-Arist. De Plantis 1,1. 815a, 1 5 - 2 1 ; 1,2. 817a, 1 - 3 = VS 31 A 70), Empedocles, along with Anaxagoras, believed that plants feel desire, pleasure and pain, as well as being bi-sexual. Furthermore, the analogy is aided by the similarity between the bisexual trees and the first animals, the whole-natured forms, also bi-sexual, which in the beginning grew up from the earth like plants. F o r the subsequent history of the analogy between plant and animal in Europe, see Adelmann Malpighi vol. 3. pp. 1092—1103.

216

Commentary

up. And just as in plants which grow from the earth, their fruit when it is ripe is detached and falls away at the stalk, so too when the embryo becomes mature and full-grown, the umbilicus closes up and the other passages open . . . All these passages are concerned with the nutriment and development of the embryo; so too are the comparisons of Genit. 9 and 10, in which the embryo is respectively compared to a cucumber attached by its stalk to the parent vine and to a tree. The analogy is continued by Aristotle, GA 2,4. 740a, 24-27. The embryo makes use of the uterus, that is, of the mother who retains it, just as a plant makes use of the earth, in order to get nourishment. In Arist. GA 2,4. 740b,8—10 the embryo is described as drawing its nourishment through the umbilicus, as a plant does through its roots (cf. Arist. GA 2,7. 745b,26). Galen also repeats the analogy, Gal. De sem. 2,4. IV 625,8-17 Kühn. Δύναμις in chapters 22—27 The author conceives δύναμις as some kind of substance. It is characterized as light or heavy (Nat. Puer. 22,2. 69,2 Joly = VII 514,14 Li.; Nat. Puer. 22,2. 69,9 Joly = VII 514,21 Li.), thick and fatty (Nat. Puer. 22,3. 69,19 Joly = VII 516,5 Li.; Nat. Puer. 26,3. 75,23 Joly = VII 526,20 Li.), it suffers condensation (Nat. Puer. 22,2. 69,1 Joly = VII 514,14 Li.), can be attracted (Nat. Puer. 22,5. 69,27 Joly = VII 516,11 Li.), and the term ρύσις, flow or fluid, can be substituted for it (Nat. Puer. 26,3. 76,1 Joly = VII 526,23 Li.). On the other hand, it is not quite identical with the moisture (ίκμάς) which the seed draws from the earth; it is sometimes distinguished from that fluid (cf. Nat. Puer. 23,3. 71,5 Joly = VII 518,14 Li.), which in its turn has certain effects upon the δύναμις. But in one passage, the fluid in the earth is itself described as δύναμις (Nat. Puer. 22,5. 69,28 Joly = VII 516,12 Li.). This substantial conception of δύναμις is quite unparalleled in the Hippocratic Collection: no other treatise uses the word in the same way (for the instances, see Souilhe pp. 31-57). The use occurs however in Theophrastus: cf. e.g. CP 1,12,1; 1,17,1; 5,1,4; 5,2,1. The author has done some violence to ordinary language in order to solve a particular problem. On the other hand, contemporary medical theory does point the way to his own peculiar concept of δύναμις. The association (though not the identification) of δύναμις with some kind of substance, in particular fluid substance, is found in VM. The theory of that treatise is that the 'nature' of man, his φύσις, is composed of a mixture of numerous simple substances (cf. VM 14. 45,26-46,1 Hbg. = I 16,2-5 Kw. = I 602,9-11 Li., where some of them are listed: ενι γαρ έν άνθρώπω και άλμυρόν και πικρον καΐ γλυκύ και οξύ καΐ στρυφνόν και πλαδαρον και αλλα μύρια παντοίας δυνάμιας έχοντα πλήθος τε και ίσχύν. For there exists in man the salty, the

On the Nature of the Child

217

bitter, the sweet, the sharp, the astringent, the insipid, and countless others, which have the most diverse powers both in quantity and in strength.). So long as they remain mixed, in κράσις, none of them is manifest. But when one is separated from the rest, it does become manifest, and can be recognized by its power or effect (δύναμις). The same constituents are present in foodstuffs, and the study of medicine is simply the empirical study of the effects of these δυνάμεις on the body. Although the author of VM does not, as is sometimes said, simply i d e n t i f y these substances with δυνάμεις 387 , his language does occasionally suggest that they are so identified, so that he will sometimes speak of the substance as h a v i n g δυνάμεις (e.g. VM 15. 47,8-10 Hbg. = 1 1 8 , 3 - 5 Kw. = I 606,13-15 Li.: ού γάρ το θερμόν έστιν το την μεγάλην δύναμιν εχον, άλλα τό στρυφνον και το πλαδαρον και τάλλα, οσα μοι εΐρηται but it is not the hot which has great power, but the astringent and the insipid and the others I have mentioned) but sometimes also of the δυνάμεις as if they were themselves substances (e.g. VM 14. 46,13f. Hbg. = I 16,21f. Kw. = I 604,7 Li.: τάραχος και άπόκρισις των άμφι το σώμα δυναμίων disturbance and secretion of the powers in the body). The reasons for the ambiguity are easy to understand, and they are clearly set out by H. W. Miller 388 . The substances of which the author speaks are such that they can only be known and talked about in virtue of their effects: so far as we know them they are δυνάμεις. For the author it is an unavoidable manner of speaking. The ambiguity persists as late as Aristotle, though for a different reason. In GA Aristotle repeatedly distinguishes between the substance of sperm (τό σώμα τοΰ σπέρματος) and its δύναμις (e.g. Arist. GA 1,21. 729b,5; 2,3. 736a,26-32; 4,4 . 772a,8), where only the latter is the cause of procreation. But it turns out that this δύναμις too is a substance, though one of a special kind, connate pneuma (σύμφυτον πνεύμα) 389 . Now these δυνάμεις are further associated with χυμοί, a word which means both flavours and, in the medical sense, humours. Cf. VM 22. 53,3 Hbg. = 126,20f. Kw. = 1626,8f. Li. δύναμιν μέν είναι τών χυμών τάς άκρότητάς τε και ίσχύν by powers I mean the extreme properties and the strength of humours. One can only recognize a χυμός by the way it tastes, i. e. its δύναμις 390 . In his turn, the author of VM owes much to the theory of Alcmaeon (VS 24 Β 4) that health is an ισονομία τών δυνάμεων, an equilibrium of powers. It was a short step from associating δύναμις with χυμός or with any kind of natural fluid substance, to speaking of the 387 388 389

390

Cf. Plamböck pp. 79 - 82. Miller Dynamis pp. 190-196. For δύναμις in Arist. GA see Peck's introduction to his Loeb edition, pp. xlix-lv; Peck takes the view that in VM and other Hippocratic treatises δΰναμις is equivalent to a substance. See Miller Dynamis p. 193 and notes.

218

Commentary

substance as a δύναμις. But since the word δύναμις could hardly lose altogether its primary meaning of power, potency, presumably the step would only be taken by someone who wished to emphasize this aspect of a substance. That explains the peculiar use by our author. His problem is to explain how a seed grows into a developed plant of a particular kind. His general theory is that plants grow from a specific fluid, which forms the actual substance of all parts of the plant, including its fruit. Obviously not all this fluid can be contained in the seed: some of it must be drawn from the ground. But what ensures that the plant will draw upon the right fluid? It must be something originally contained in the seed and plant itself — just as human semen contains a nucleus which ensures, like part to like part, accretion from the nutrient blood. The seed has a δύναμις in it which makes it grow in the way it does: it is something like a 'natural faculty' or principle of growth and differentiation 391 . But in this theory, unlike later faculty-theories, δύναμις is still conceived as a substance. Materially it is identical with the fluid in the ground, which is why it can be described as a Qvoiqflux, while the fluid in the ground can be described as δύναμις. But it is a special kind of fluid, one which behaves in a peculiar way. Since its behaviour is the most significant thing about it, it is called δύναμις, by a sufficiently intelligible extension of the term. This semantic process is of course aided by the general tendency in archaic Greek thought to conceive what we should regard as abstracts in material terms: in a sense, the author here is returning to a more primitive use of language. Both the general theory, and the way in which the term might be extended, are illustrated by Morb. IV 34,1. 8 6 , 1 - 4 Joly = VII 544,25-27 Li.: the rose draws from the ground a moisture (ίκμάδα) of such a kind as it is itself in power (δυνάμει). It is interesting that the theory is conceived mechanistically: the behaviour of the δύναμις is explained, even though incompletely, in the terms of compression and condensation (συστρέφεσθαι), explosion (ρήγνυσθαι), lightness and heaviness. Chapter 22 22,1 ύγιείης η άσθενείης: the reference seems to be to constitutional strength or weakness rather than to hereditary disease. For άσθενής in this sense, weak or sickly cf. chapter 9. The general constitutional characteristics of the child will depend on those of the mother, just as the characteristics of a plant will depend on the condition of the earth, οκως άν ή γη εχτ) κτλ. (e. g. one kind of soil will grow better grapes than another: cf. chapter 34). But the author regards this variation of quality in plants according to ίκμάς moisture as a special instance of the variation in k i n d .

391

Cf. Keus pp. 56f. and Plamböck p. 101.

O n the Nature of the Child

219

22.1 ίκμάδα παντοίην, ώστε τρέφειν τά φυόμενα: the significance of παντοίην of every kind is that specific plants require specific k i n d s of fluid. The author is here assuming the doctrine of chapter 34. 22.2 φυσάται: the ground in which the seed is planted, at the end of winter, is still warm (cf. chapter 24). Warmth and moisture together produce pneuma, as they do in chapter 12. Hence the swelling of the plant. 22,2 αναγκάζεται: here the word is associated with compression. Cf. ανάγκης Nat. Puer. 24,1. 71,11 Joly = VII 518,19 Li. and see note onGenit. 9,2. Müller p. 137 n. 101 thinks that this passage excludes Diogenes as a source, for Diogenes held that plants are not hollow and do not admit air (VS 64 A 19). The present author is talking of seeds of course, not of the fully developed plant; but his doctrine seems to imply that plants too have pneuma in them. However, the passage on Diogenes is probably a confusion: Diogenes and Anaxagoras according to Aristotle (Arist. Resp. 2. 470b,30) said that all things breathe; and it is not really credible that Diogenes should have denied that plants have hollows in them. 22,2 συστραφεϊσα: cf. Morb. IV 50,4. 107,9 Joly = VII 582,17 Li.: the regular word for either a collection of material (phlegm in Morb. Sacr. 5,6. 54.12 Gr. = VI 370,1 Li.; gravel in the bladder, Aer. 9,3. 44,20 Di. = II 38.13 Li.; blood in the breasts, Aph. 5,40. IV 544,17f. Li.) or for condensation; sometimes it is used in both senses. It appears frequently in meteorological contexts; and it may be that here the author has based his account of germination on meteorological theories such as appear in Aer. 8 where the language is very similar. There, rain is caused by the most subtle and lightest (λεπτότατον και κουφότατον) of evaporated moisture, which, concocted and sweetened (γλυκαίνεται) by the sun, is gathered together and condensed (άθροισθη και ξυστραφη) by the w i n d ; it then breaks out where most of it has been condensed (καταρρήγνυται f| άν τύχη πλείστον ξυστραφέν). A similar interest in meteorology is shown by the present author in Nat. Puer. 25,1. 73,11 Joly = VII 522,14 Li.: τά νέφεα δ' εστίν ΰδωρ συνεχές εν ήέρι clouds are water cohering together in the air. The suspicion that the author was influenced by meteorological theory is increased by a fragment of the sophist Antiphon (VS 87 Β 79), where the formation of hail is explained by the collection and condensation of moisture under the force of the wind (έπυκνώθη καΐ σ υ ν ε σ τ ρ ά φ η υ π ό τε τ ο ϋ π ν ε ύ μ α τ ο ς ε ί λ ο ύ μ ε ν ο ν και ύπο της βίας). The notion that the germinal δύναμις is condensed by wind and moisture is difficult to explain otherwise. For συστρέφεσθαι in meteorological contexts, cf. also Empedocles (the moon is άέρα συνεστραμμένον, νεφοειδή condensed air, cloud-like (VS 31 A 60); pseudo-Aristotle De mundo (νέφος δ' εστί πάχος άτμώδες συνεστραμμένον, γόνιμον ύδατος a cloud is a misty substance,

220

Commentary

condensed until it is thick, and productive of water·, Arist. Mu. 4. 394 a, 27); Theophrastus (fire may be caused έκ δέ αύτοϋ τού αέρος έν τοις νέφεσι συστροφη και θλίψει by the condensation and friction of air in clouds391·, Thphr. Ign. 1). 22,2 κουφοτάτη: practically equivalent to δύναμις . . . πίειρα Nat. Puer. 22,3. 69,19 Joly = VII 516,5 Li. For the connotation of κοϋφος, cf. note on Morb. IV 36,1. 22,2 τό τε σπέρμα και τά φύλλα: the seed together with its shoots, which are now considered as an extension of the seed. 22.2 βιώμενον (sc. τό σπέρμα) υπό τών φύλλων: the force is the need of the shoots for more nutriment, but the author makes no attempt to explain the process. The s h o o t s broke out because the δύναμις was compressed by πνεύμα and ΐκμάς, but that process cannot occur here, since it is lack of ίκμάς which (somehow) causes the growth of roots. In chapter 23, roots are produced by cuttings because the raw end of the cutting absorbs moisture, and the heavier and lower part of the δύναμις is consequently compressed and breaks out in roots. But in the present case it is hard to see how the shoots of themselves could cause such compression. It is therefore tempting to take δια την βαρύτητα with μεθίησι rather than with υπολείπεται: cf. the meteorology of Aer. 8,6. 42,11 f. Di = II 36,2f. Li.: (clouds) υπό βάρεος καταρρήγνυται και δμβροι γίνονται break downward through weight, and so rain comes about. However, this is unlike the author's style; and if he thought that weight had something to do with the growth of roots, he does not make it clear. At the back of his mind he may have had something like Empedocles' theory that plants, being a mixture of fire and earth, grow upward and downward because of the natural movement of those bodies (Arist. De an. 2,4.415b,28). The passage very clearly illustrates, in fact, the inadequacies of attraction (ελκειν) as a mechanistic principle, in contrast to the principle of thrust (ώθεΐν). Cf. introductory note on chapter 17. 22.3 έξ ής τό σπέρμα συστραφήσεται: the parallel passage in Nat. Puer. 26,3. 75,23f. Joly = VII 526,19f. Li., reads οΰ γάρ έστιν αύτω πίειρα δύναμις ούδέ παχέα, ήτις ές καρπόν συμβάλλεσθαι οίη τέ έστιν it has no thick and fatty potency capable of producing fruit·, Regenbogen p. 165 therefore identifies σπέρμα seed with καρπός fruit·, but this can hardly be the meaning of σπέρμα. Plamböck says that what is meant must be "der sich neu bildende Same" (Plamböck p. 44 n. 1); but the author's interest in these chapters appears to be in the fruit rather than in the seed contained in the fruit, and its introduction here would be very abrupt. Perhaps τό σπέρμα 392

The meteorology in its turn may be related to cosmogony; cf. with the theory of Aer. 8 the cosmogonical theory in Diodorus Siculus 1, 7, 1—2. There are several resemblances both in the theory and in the language.

On the Nature of the Child

should be deleted, and συστραφήσεται be taken impersonally, condensation to be produced from it.

221

for

22,4 φλέβας . . .ευρείας: for the principle of attraction cf. chapter 2, chapter 21 and notes; introductory note to chapters 33—41. Because the veins become wider, they attract denser fluid and in greater quantity. Democritus made use of the veins of plants in his plant physiology: straight plants grow quicker and are shorter lived than crooked plants, since in the latter the veins (πόροι) are more twisted, and the nutriment is therefore distributed more slowly in the upper part of the plant (VS 68 A 162).

22.4 κατά τό ξυγγενές εξ όκοίου και έγένετο: by όκοίου does the author mean the plant or the seed? Probably the seed: cf. Nat. Puer. 22,5. 69,28 Joly = VII 516,12 Li., where εξ ού έγένετο refers to the seed; and in chapter 34 (Morb. IV 34,1. 8 6 , 5 - 7 Joly = VII 546,2 Li.) εί γαρ μή τοΰτο οΰτως είχεν, ουκ αν έγένετο τά φυόμενα όμοια τοϊσι σπέρμασι if this were not so, plants would not be like the seed from which they grow. This is a question which is particularly associated with the atomists (Democritus VS 68 A 69 = Arist. Ph. 2,4. 196a,31 — 33 where Aristotle is referring to the view of the atomists ού γαρ ό τι έτυχεν έκ τοϋ σπέρματος εκάστου γίγνεται, αλλ' έκ μεν τοϋ τοιουδί έλαία, έκ δέ τοιουδι άνθρωπος not just anything grows from each seed, but from one seed grows an olive, from another a man). The atomists used the fact that particular plants grow from particular seeds in the demonstration of their principle that 'nothing comes from nothing' (cf. Epicurus ap. D . L. 10,38: nothing comes from what is not. For otherwise, everything might come from everything, without need of seeds; Lucr. 1,160 nil semine egeret nothing would be in need of seed, and cf. the whole passage 159—214). Atomism of course provided an explanation of the phenomenon. But the question must certainly have been raised already by Anaxagoras, who may be the ultimate source of the doctrine in chapter 34. In the present passage the implied explanation is that plants fruit according to kind because there is a specific δύναμις in the seed, which is supplemented, as the author goes on to explain, by a similar δύναμις from the ground. Cf. once again Morb. IV 34,1. 86,3f. Joly = VII 544,27-546,1 Li. και το σκόροδον έλκει από της γης ίκμάδα τοιαύτην, οίόν περ και αύτό δυνάμει έστίν garlic draws from the earth such humour as it is itself in respect of potency where the meaning of δυνάμει is explained in Morb. IV 34,5. 87,9 Joly = VII 548,2 Li.: έλκει γάρ έκ της γης ή όμοίη ίκμάς την όμοίην for aparticular humour will draw from the earth one which is similar to it. For the whole expression κατά . . . έγένετο cf. note on Nat. Puer. 17,1. 59,13 Joly = VII 496,20 Li. 22.5 και στερεοί: for this effect of heat, cf. Nat. Puer. 17,2. 59,16Joly = VII 498,2 Li. Here the reason is given: heat removes the moisture. 22,5

άπό της γης και ύδατος: i. e.from the moisture (ίκμάς) in the earth.

222

Commentary

Chapter 23 23,1 έκ φυτευτηρίων: the most general word for a plant, taken from whatever part of the parent: cf. Thphr. H P 2,2,4: where it is used as a general term to include shoots which are torn off (παρασπάς), suckers (παραφυάς) and other unspecified varieties of cutting. But έκλάσθη broken off here suggests that the author was thinking of παρασπάς in particular. Pseudo-Galen however (Ps. Gal. Ling. s. diet, exolet. expl. XIX 154,3 Kühn), probably from this passage, glossed it as ι ώ ν εις την γην φυτευομένων ξύλων billets of wood planted in the earth. 23,1 τρώμα ισχει: the connexion of this fact with what follows is not stated explicitly, but the scar apparently explains why cuttings, as opposed to seed, grow roots first. The author draws attention to this fact, and his theory is designed to explain it. This scar makes it possible, by the force of attraction (έλκειν), for the cutting to draw in moisture into its lower or underground part. 23,1 το δε ύπέρ τής γης: the distinction between the parts of a plant which are above, and those which are below the ground is fundamental to the author's plant physiology, both in the present chapters and in the theory of chapter 26: it is thus one of the features which give systematic coherence to the whole excursus. 23.1 δση ην βαρύτατη: cf. Nat. Puer. 22,2. 69,2 Joly = VII 514,14 Li.; Nat. Puer. 22,2. 69,9 Joly = 514,21 Li. where lightness and heaviness respectively are applied to the δύναμις. The relative weight of the δύναμις explains its position in the seed or the cutting; here too there is possibly a trace of Empedocles' allocation of earth, which moves downwards, to the roots of plants and fire or aether to their leaves. 23.2 ές το ά ν ω . . . ές το κάτω: further explained in chapters 24 and 26. The author evidently considers growth in a plant as a combination of m o v e m e n t s in opposed directions (ές το άνω, ές το κάτω): it is a mechanistic attempt to explain plant form. This conception of growth is far from being an obvious one; it is quite different from the conception of growth as overall increment which appears in the author's embryology, although of course it is not opposed to that conception but rather combined with it. It is highly probable that this conception, and the division of plants into upper and lower portions which is associated with it, ultimately goes back to Empedocles. Aristotle (Arist. De an. 2,4. 415 b,28) reproves Empedocles for explaining growth in plants by the natural downward movement of earth and the upward movement of fire; and this is further explained by Thphr. CP 1,12,5, who (in a discussion of plant growth) states that Empedocles allotted earth to the roots, and aether to the shoots. Evidently then Empedocles explained the growth of plants as an instance of

O n the Nature of the Child

223

the general tendency of elements to separate under the influence of Strife. The concept of growth as opposed movement thus makes sense within the frame of Empedocles' system; and it is difficult to see how it could have arisen otherwise. 23,3 έν τη yfj παντι έόντι: as in the cutting, δύναμις in the seed also is divided into upper and lower portions. But since the seed is wholly subterranean, moisture can enter it directly from the earth in its upper portions as well, to cause the necessary condensation of the δύναμις. The author has not however explained why the seed must send up shoots before it puts down roots. 23,3 ού γαρ γίνεται έξ έτερου: the 'something else' is the seed, which contains ικμάδος πλήθος a quantity of moisture. 23,3 άνάγκη εστίν: the cutting must first find nutriment to maintain itself (i. e. prevent itself from withering), and t h e n produce leaves.

Chapters 24—26 These chapters form an excursus within the excursus: they are designed to explain the vertical growth of plants by a geophysical theory about the temperature of earth, and are not strictly necessary to the author's illustration of embryological growth by plant growth. However they are systematically coherent with the surrounding chapters, and probably come from the same source. That source, in turn, was itself eclectic and combined the geophysical theory with its own theory of plant physiology (cf. note on chapter 26). The plant grows in a vertical plane because of the differential temperature of the earth in summer and winter. The earth is warm in winter because the winter rains make it sodden, and the weight of the water which it contains causes it to become compressed, so that it has no ventilation (διαπνοή). Now it is an observed fact, says the author, that substances which are moist and compressed become heated: in all such cases the reason is that the compressed substances cannot breathe the cold in (άναπνέειν ψυχρόν). In the same way, the earth grows warm in winter because it has no ventilation of the hot (διάπνοος τοΰ θερμού). When rain falls upon the earth and there is an exhalation from it, the exhalation (πνοή) cannot find a passage through the earth, but is forced back into the water. Hence springs are both warmer and more abundant in winter than they are in summer. In summer on the other hand, evaporation makes the earth porous and light. It contains moisture, for there is always more or less water in the earth. N o w all breezes come from water, and the water as it passes downwards through the earth generates breezes: these in their course through the porous earth cool it, and the water itself becomes chilled at the same time (συμψύχεται).

224

Commentary

The whole system is then illustrated by a demonstration model, and the theory summarized in Nat. Puer. 25,4. 7 4 , 2 - 9 Joly = VII 524,6-12 Li., where the text is garbled but the general meaning is clear from what follows. This is the example of well water. If wells are kept disturbed by being drawn upon, the movement creates a wind, which cools the water. If the well is undisturbed however, it will gradually grow warm from the heat of the sun; whereas springs which come from deep in the earth are always cold in the summer. The effect of air on the water is further illustrated by the example of well water drawn in winter and in summer, and left to stand in the outside air. In winter the water will be warm initially, until the wind cools it; the converse will be the case in summer. It will be seen that the argument, so far as it is intended to demonstrate why the earth is warm in winter, is circular. The reason which the author gives no less than five times in the chapter is lack of ventilation But while this may explain why the heat cannot escape, or why the outside air cannot cool it, it will not do as an explanation for the original generation of heat. The explanation works only upon the assumption that the earth is warm initially; but this is not what the author says. Thus the question of ventilation is otiose in chapter 24; whereas it is thoroughly integral to the theory of chapter 25. It is also clear that the theory is more concerned with the temperature of subterranean water than it is with its avowed purpose, to explain the temperature of the earth. Admittedly, subterranean water has an essential function in the explanation of earth temperature in the summer; but it has no such function in the winter, and chapter 24 seems rather designed to explain the temperature of subterranean water by the conditions in the earth, than the temperature of the earth by the behaviour of water. The behaviour and temperature of subterranean water was a matter which greatly interested Greek scientists. Oenopides of Chios, a younger contemporary of Democritus, attempted an explanation (cf. Sen. nat. 4a,2,26), and also referred to it in connexion with his account of the flooding of the Nile (VS 41,11). It may also have been discussed by Anaxagoras (VS 59 A 42) and Diogenes of Apollonia (VS 64 A 18). It appears again in Aristotle (Mete. 1,12. 348b,3); Theophrastus (Ign. 16 = Fr. 3 p. 55 Wimmer); Strato (cf. Sen. nat. 6,13,2-4); and Cleanthes (cf. Cie. nat. deor. 2,25, with Mayor's note). Finally Lucretius (Lucr. 6,840-847) recorded an atomistic explanation of the phenomenon, which is worth quoting here because of its striking parallels to the present explanation. The passage introduces an explanation of the apparently miraculous behaviour of the fountain of Ammon in Libya. Again during summer the water in wells becomes colder, because the earth is rarefied by heat and rapidly sends out into the air whatever seeds of heat it happens to have. The more then the earth is drained of heat, the colder becomes the water which is hidden in the earth. Again when all the earth is compressed by cold and contracts and so to say congeals, it then, you are to

O n the Nature of the Child

225

know, while it contracts, presses out into the wells whatever heat it contains itself*93. In explaining the nocturnal heat of the fountain of Ammon, Lucretius says that at night the earth is contracted by the cold and squeezes out its particles of fire into water. The Lucretian passage may very well go back to Democritus 394 ; and it is tempting to see in the present passage a non-atomistic variant of the theory in Lucretius. This is not unlikely, but it should be noticed that in the process of adaptation the theory has become garbled. In particular, we cannot simply equate pneuma in chapters 24 and 25 with Lucretius' particles of fire: pneuma in these chapters is consistently cold, not hot; and the earth is cool in summer not because, as in Lucretius, the heat escapes, but because pneuma cools it (the theory has been misunderstood by Senn pp. 245—248 who assumes that all that is in question is the escape of heat). The result is that the author has to find an explanation of the initial heat of the earth, which in the theory in Lucretius is unnecessary. He attempts to do it, symmetrically with chapter 25, by the concept of ventilation; but as we have seen, this will not work. Such garbling would be an almost inevitable consequence of applying a theory meant to explain the varying temperature of subterranean water, to the explanation of the temperature of the earth itself: the parallels cited above suggest that this is what has happened 395 . Chapter 24 24,1 υπ' ανάγκης τοιήσδε: followed by ύπο τοϋ πλήθεος φήγνυσιν the superabundance causes it to break out. 'Ανάγκη again refers to physical pressure: cf. note on chapter 9,2. 24,1 το κάτω της γης: the author of Aer. 7,8. 38,2-6 Di. =1130,5—9 Li. assumes a similar (not necessarily identical) explanation, when he remarks that water which flows from hills is warm in winter and cold in summer, and hence comes from deep subterranean sources. 24.1 ουκ εχει διαπνοήν ούδεμίην: the author does not make it clear whether this means transpiration or expiration: the word covers both. But cf. διάπνοος . . . τοϋ θερμοϋ ventilation for its heat below. 24.2 και γαρ ή κόπρος: the author gives a brief survey of separate instances, leading to a generalization (cf. commentary on chapter 12). So far as I have been able to discover, these observations are not repeated elsewhere, although Theophrastus (Thphr. Ign. 1,1) mentions compression (θλίψις) as one cause of combustion.

393 394 395

Munro Lucr. p. 173. Cf. Gottschalk pp. 311-315. For further discussion, cf. Lonie Excursus pp. 406 f.

226

Commentary

24,2 ίκμαλέα και πεπιεσμένα: cf. νοτερά και βεβυσμένα moist and packed together below, and contrast ξηρά καΐ άραιώς κείμενα dry and lying loosely. The language (καί) as well as what the author has already said suggests that the moisture is the direct cause of the compression, and only indirectly of the heat. 24,2 έκθερμαίνεται . . . συγκαιόμενα σήπεται: i. e. it is burnt in the sense that it corrupts or ferments: the author does not mean that it bursts into flames. Cf. below κατακαίεται. . . ώσπερ υπό πυρός are consumed as though by fire. Καίειν and συγκαίειν are both used in the Collection to refer to inflammation. There may be a reminiscence of this passage in Galen, De differ, febr. 5,12. VII 375,11-13 Kühn: οτι δε και τά μή διαπνεόμενα σήπεσθαι πέφυκεν, επί των έκτος απάντων έστί θεάσασθαι καρπών τε καί σπερμάτων, ήδη δε καί ιματίων that it is the nature of things which are not ventilated to putrefy, can be seen in the external instances of fruits and seeds, and also of garments. 24,2. ού γαρ δίεισι τό πνεΰμα: the language is ambiguous, since in itself the phrase might mean letting through, allowing to permeate as in Nat. Puer. 25,4. 74,5 Joly = VII 524,8 Li.: διίησι το πνεΰμα, άτε ψυχρόν έον where πνεΰμα is cold; or letting through and out (cf. διάπνοος τοΰ θερμοϋ ventilation for its heat below) in which case πνεΰμα is hot. There is a similar vagueness in διαπνοήν above; and the ambiguity may have led the author (and others) to suppose that he was giving a more symmetrical and coherent explanation than he does. 24,2 βεβυσμένα: Μ and V read βεβρεγμένα soaked, but (i) cf. ίκμαλέα καί π ε π ι ε σ μ έ ν α moist and compressed above, and the contrasted ξηρά . . . καί μανώς κείμενα dry and lying loose below; (ii) βεβυσμένος occurs also in Mul. I 1. VIII 12,11 Li. written by the same author; cf. also βύζην Nat. Puer. 15,1. 57,7 Joly = VII 492,23 Li. and Mul. I 5. VIII 28,13 Li. 24,2 ιμάτια κτλ.: On this vexed and intriguing passage, see especially C. L. Struve, vol. II pp. 153 — 157. Struve followed the reading δορικά (which he supposed to be from δορά skin, hide) and translated δορικά ιμάτια as Pelze, although the adjective is not attested. On δωρικά he says that the adjective Dorian applied to garments refers always to the style or cut, not to the material, which is what is needed here 396 . Schneider 397 disagreed, and 396

397

Zwingerus in his Hippocrates edition ad loc., though he reads δ ο ρ ι κ ά (vestium pellicearum garments made of hide) notes " D o r i c a r u m vestium mentionem facit H e r o d , lib. 5 ( = H d t . 5,87,3 — 5,88,1) ex materia f o r s i t a n c o m b u s t i b i l i c o n t e x t a r u m " / i e i W o i K j mentions Doric garments in Book 5, which were woven from a material possibly combustible• The Dorian chiton was certainly woollen, as opposed to the Ionian chiton of linen; but in this passage H e r o d o t u s is concerned with the cut, not with the material. Schneider Supplement s.v.

On the Nature of the Child

227

referred to Thphr. Lap. 68 (a cargo of garments in a ship became wet, and ignited spontaneously). But Struve argued strenuously that what is needed here is not an example of a material becoming wet from outside causes and then igniting (without pressure), but a material which is already moist and which ignites as a result of pressure. (Struve is influenced here by contemporary theories about spontaneous combustion.) So far as the logic of the passage is concerned, Struve seems to be right: hides with their natural moisture (called ίκμάς in Homer, Ii. Ρ 392: cf. ίκμαλέα above) fit in much better with the other examples given than do woollen or linen garments. His objections to δωρικά are conclusive; we are therefore left with the reading δορικά, which we must either regard with Struve as a hitherto unattested adjective from δορά skin, hide, or adopt the readings proposed by Littre κ α τ ε σ φ η ν ω μ έ ν α δ ο ρ ί fortement

serrees a Vaide d'un baton, o r b y I l b e r g 3 9 8 ,

which are both more ingenious than convincing (Kahlenberg [in the manuscript edition held at the Hippokrates-Lexikon in Hamburg] adopts δορικά, referring to Struve). 24,2 κατεσφηνωμένα: possibly κατεσφηκωμένα should be read: cf. Anacreon r r g . 388 Page καλύμματ' έσφηκωμένα where the reference seems to be to some kind of g a r m e n t , and the meaning here and in other passages (e. g. Horn. II. Ρ 52) is bound tightly. There is however one case in which garments might be "wedged", which would otherwise seem to be an odd thing to do. This is in the stowage of bales of cotton or wool or hides in a ship's hold to save space. The process is, or was, known as "steeving" (cf. Latin stipare) and is described in Manwayring's Seaman's Dictionary, London 1644, p. 102: "Also the Merchants call the stowing of their Cottons (which they force in with skrewes so much that the Decks will rise 6, or 8, inches) Steveing of Cottons". R. H . Dana, Two Years Before the Mast, N e w York: Harper, 1840, chapter 29 described the process as applied to hides (cf. δορικά): these were forced into the ship's hold between layers of hide already stowed by means of "two long, sharp spars, called steeves" which were wedged-shaped at one end. Cargoes of cotton which were treated in this way had a reputation for causing fire by spontaneous combustion in the 19th century. Thus Schneider's 397 reference to Theophrastus De lapidibus may be on the right lines (cf. preceding note). 24,2

ώς εγώ ήδη είδον: hence this is an ίστόριον(ΰί. note on chapter 13,1).

24,2 ύπο σφών αυτών: this should be taken with θερμότερα rather than with πεπίεσται as Littre takes it. Cf. κατακαίεται ύπό σφών αυτών above. 24,2 άναπνεΐν . . . άνεμων: the correction διαπνέειν in Ε and Η 2 was presumably influenced by διάπνοος below, but it is wrong. The remark 398

Ilberg p. 13 n. 2; Ilberg explains the reading as arising from a double dittography ισχυρός (ροσκα) κατακαίεται, and δορικά simply disappears.

228

Commentary

corresponds to the remark about well-water in the following chapter Nat. Puer. 25,6. 74,24f. Joly = VII 524,24f. Li. έξαερούται. . . υπό τοΰ άνεμου, και το πνεϋμα δι' αυτού διηθεί the wind aerates the water, allowing breath to penetrate it. Compressed substances are warm both because they are not cooled by the outside air (άναπνεΐν), and because their heat cannot escape (διάπνοος τού θερμοϋ below). 24,3 αλλ' όκόταν πέση: this clause gives the ground for the preceding statement: although there is water in the ground, and although it generates pneuma, this pneuma cannot cool the earth as it does in the summer, but instead, it is forced back into the water. Notice that here pneuma is assumed to be cold. 24,3 άποπνέη . . . άπ' αυτού: for the reason given in the following chapter Nat. Puer. 25,1. 73,7f. Joly = VII 522,12 Li.: τά δέ πνεύματα ήμϊν έστι πάντα άφ' ύδατος all winds come from water. 24,3 και δια τούτο: what follows to the end of the chapter has nothing to do with the author's main point, that the earth is warmer in winter than in summer. It is concerned instead with the warmth of subterranean water, which is probably what the theory was originally designed to explain. 24.3 θερμότεραι . . . και μέζους: cf. in the theory about subterranean reservoirs described and criticized by Aristotle (Mete. 1,13. 349b,2 —35) the remark διο και μ ε ί ζ ο υ ς άει τού χειμώνος ρεΐν ή τοΰ θέρους rivers always flow more abundantly in winter than in summer which is one of the points which that theory was designed to explain. The theory may be that of Anaxagoras, who held that river water comes from hollows in the earth (VS 59 A 42). 24.4 το ύδωρ πολύ έόν: this might simply be ascribed to infiltration from the greater rainfall in winter, as in the theory reported in Aristotle above. But it seems from what the author goes on to say, that it is the pneuma itself which causes the springs to increase. This is easy to understand if we compare the demonstration model used in chapter 25. When the wineskin was compressed, the water would jet out with greater force from the aperture so that it would appear to have greater volume. A confusion between pressure and volume should not surprise us in an author whose conception of hydrostatics was so shaky (cf. commentary on chapter 18). Chapter 25 25,1 τού θέρεος γαρ αραιή: Lucr. 6,841: rarescit . . . terra calore heat rarefies the earth. 25,1 ελκοντος . . . της ίκμάδος: this phrase, characteristic of chapters 22 and 23, is thus associated with the present theory also.

On the Nature of the Child

229

25,1 έχει δέ ύδωρ κτλ.: the author marshals the facts on which his theory is based, (i) The earth always contains a quantity of water; (ii) water and moisture generate air currents. These two facts are relevant for the preceding chapter also: that they are mentioned here for the first time suggests that the theory of chapter 25 is prior in formulation to that of chapter 24. 25.1 ύδωρ συνεχές condensed: for this meaning, cf. the cosmogony in Diodorus (D.S. 1,7,1—2 = VS 68 Β 5,1) το δέ ιλυώδες και θολερον . . . είλούμενον δ' εν έαυτώ σ υ ν ε χ ώ ς και σ υ σ τ ρ ε φ ό μ ε ν ο ν the turbid slime being condensed and compacted in a continuous mass, i. e. without intervals of space between its parts (the translation by C. W. Oldfather in the Loeb edition, which takes είλούμενον to mean revolving and συνεχώς as continually seems to be mistaken in the light of the passages cited above on συστραφεΐσα Nat. Puer. 22,2. 69,2 Joly = VII 514,15 Li.). 25.2 και τότε: the facts are applied to the present case: cf. Fraenkel on Aeschylus'Agamemnon (A.A. 184). 25.2 συμψύχεται: not by evaporation of heat, as in Lucretius, but by the reciprocal action of the pneuma, which is itself cold. This is explained and illustrated in Nat. Puer. 2 5 , 5 - 6 . 74,9-75,5 Joly = VII 524,11-526,5 Li. 25.3 έχει δέ οΰτως: this demonstration, designed to simulate subterranean conditions, is somewhat awkward, but there is no need to assume with Senn pp. 245—248 that it is borrowed from another context and misapplied here. The main difficulty is that the aperture through which the water flows is meant to represent a subterranean channel, which in winter because of the pressure of the earth and the greater quantity of water (cf. the preceding chapter Nat. Puer. 2 4 , 3 - 4 . 72,16-24 Joly = VII 520,20-522,5 Li.) is filled to its whole capacity with water, while in summer it is only partly filled with water. This is a little difficult to understand from the author's words, but it would have been even more difficult for the author to simulate more closely the conditions he wishes to describe. As with the demonstration model in chapter 17, there is no reasen to suppose that it was not originally designed for its context; although the type of demonstration may well have been suggested by similar demonstrations of air pressure (cf. Aristotle's reference to Anaxagoras and others who torment wineskins to demonstrate the strength of air, Arist. Ph. 4,6. 213a,22.). Precisely the same model — a bladder filled with air and with water — was used by the followers of Erasistratus to demonstrate the way in which an artery may be said to let blood pass through itself, but not out of itself, when severed (according to the belief of Erasistratus that the arteries contain only pneuma, and not blood). The passage occurs in Anonymus Londinensis XXVII 10—17. The coincidence both in the model itself, and in the linguistic ambiguity noted above in chapter 24 is striking (note on Nat. Puer. 24,2. 71,25f. Joly = VII 520,5 Li. ού γαρ δίεισι τό πνεύμα). It is another of those tantalizing threads

230

Commentary

which suggest a connexion between this group of treatises and the school of Strato, of whom Erasistratus was a pupil. For a further instance, see the introductory note to chapter 57. Wellmann, who noticed several such instances, explained them by the hypothesis that Nat. Puer. was written around 350, by the Cnidian Aethlius, who was the teacher of Chrysippus the younger, who in turn was the teacher of Erasistratus. Thus the work mediates between Democritus on the one hand and Strato and Erasistratus on the other (Wellmann Spuren pp. 303f. and p. 329). 25.3 αίωρέοι: Senn p. 245 translates this as emporheben, but the natural way to take the word is cause to oscillate; cf. the passage from Mul. I 68. VIII 144, 16 Li. quoted in LSJ s. v. αίωρέω, in which delivery is induced by strapping the mother to a couch, which is then raised and oscillated (σείειν και αίωρέειν έπΐ της κλίνης φερομένην Mul. I 68. VIII 144, 16 Li.). This interpretation makes better sense: what the author wishes to do is to simulate the conditions inside the earth where the water is in movement (Nat. Puer. 25,2. 73,13 Joly = V I I 522,16f. Li. ΰδωρ ρεΐ έ ς τ ά κατάντεα the water flows downward·, so here, Nat. Puer. 25,4. 73,26 Joly = VII 524,4 Li. τοΰ ύδατος κινευμένου the water as it moves). The most convenient course would be to move the water about by swinging the wineskin. 25.4 εύρυχωρίη γαρ κτλ.: the following passage is deeply corrupt, although its general tendency is clear: it is a restatement, after the analogy, of the theory stated at the beginning of the chapter Nat. Puer. 25,1—2. 73,3 —17 Joly = V I I 522,8—20 Li. Διεΐσα (διίησι Joly) may stand, since the anacoluthon διεΐσα (sc. ή γη) — αυτής το κ ά τ ω is not difficult. But άτε ψυχρόν έόν because it is cold cannot be an explanation of διεΐσα: certainly άτε must go, and perhaps the whole clause. The second occurrence of •ψυχρόν έόν being cold in V and Μ might perhaps be changed, with Littre, into ψυχρόν έστιν is cold, the mistake being explained by ψυχρόν έόν immediately above. But the chief difficulty is with μάλλον, which Littre hesitantly changed into αίτιον. Joly retains μάλλον and understands ψυχρόν after it, but there are several objections to this: (i) why not ψυχρότερον colder} (ii) such an ellipse, if followed immediately by a n e w member of the comparison (here τοΰ πνεύματος), seems contrary to Greek usage; (iii) what is stressed at the beginning of the chapter, and illustrated, is that water causes pneuma, and moreover that the coldness of water is due to the reciprocal effect of the pneuma upon it (συμψύχεται): whereas μάλλον ψυχρόν would mean that the water is already cooler than the pneuma which it liberates, which may be true but is no part of the author's theory. Μάλλον must be athetized: Littre's αίτιον, though it cannot be accepted, is at least in accord with the author's argument. A comparison with the beginning of the chapter suggests that there may have originally been some reference to the m o v e m e n t of the water (e. g. χωρέον, ρέον), which we miss here. Finally αύτο άφίησιν releases into itself is very strange, although it does appear to be

On the Nature of the Child

231

what the author means (cf. συμψύχεται above, and what is said about well water below). It is not surprising that so contorted an argument should have generated corruption. An intelligible text might be preserved bybracketing ατε . . . ύδατος and μάλλον . . . έόντος, but I am at a loss to explain precisely how such interpolations might have occurred. 25,5 και αμα: the demonstration has shown that εύρυχωρίη space is the condition for movement of air within the earth; this is now supplemented by an observational experiment to show the effect of this air movement on temperature. Although the earth is cool in the summer, well-water if left standing will grow warm; but if it is continually disturbed by being drawn, it will be cold. This is a rudimentary controlled experiment, though the author somewhat obscures its neatness by adding observations of the effect of outside air on warm and cold water. 25,5

διακινέει τό πνεϋμα: just as does the movement of water in the earth.

25.5 πυκνον έον: a new factor added somewhat transparently to account for the fact that well-water is subterranean and should therefore be cooled by the earth in summer. But the effect of leaving it standing is that it becomes dense and unreceptive of pneuma. Cf. Aer. 7,2. 34,19—21 Di. = II 2 6 , 1 2 f . Li., where stagnant (στάσιμα) marshy water is warm, thick (παχέα) and malodorous in summer. 25.6 Αϊ τε πηγαί: added as a confirmatory contrast to well-water which is not deep, but near the surface, and which unless it is disturbed will grow warm in summer. 25,6 έξαεροϋται γαρ ύπο τοϋ άνεμου: but what if there is no wind? Here observation is adapted to suit the theory. The author evidently intends "water drawn from the earth in winter", and left to cool, to correspond to the "well water which is cooled by disturbance"; therefore the cause of coolness must be air movement. This in turn is illustrated by the coolness of well water in summer, which is explained by subterranean currents of air; finally the author adds that well-water which is not disturbed by drawing does however become warm in summer. The lack of logical clarity is partly due to the fact that well-water is itself subterranean water, and partly to a rhetorical desire for symmetry. This passage, like others, illustrates the difficulties of expressing a scientific theory prior to the formulation of clear logical patterns. Chapter 26 (a) Vertical growth in plants In chapter 24 the author had raised the question of the upward and downward growth of plants, a question which had originally been raised by

232

Commentary

Empedocles in the context of his elemental theory. This growth is now stated to depend on the opposed temperature of earth and air both in summer and in winter: the plant will not grow if its upper and lower parts are simultaneously hot or simultaneously cold. If 'the hot' comes from the upper part, then 'the cold' must come from the lower, and vice versa. As in the author's account of germination and of the differences between growth from seeds and growth from cuttings, the distinction between the upper and lower parts of plants is fundamental to his plant physiology, a distinction which goes back to Empedocles (Arist. De an. 2,4. 415b, 28—416a,2 andThphr. CP 1,12,5 = VS 31 A 70.1296,27-32 Diels-Kranz). The author's theory of plant growth however is not based on the natural movement of elements, although this may have suggested it. N o r again is it based on the concept of κράσις, temperature in the strict sense. Although growth (αΰξησις), as well as health both in plant and man is sometimes said in the Hippocratic Collection to depend on κράσις, and although the botanist Menestor seems to have taken the theory of κρασις from Empedocles' zoology and applied it to botany (Thphr. CP 1,21,6), the author here is saying something more than that the overall temperature of plants must be a mean between the extremes of hot and cold if they are to flourish (ήν μέλλη ύγιαίνειν). N o doubt this is part of his meaning. But the hot and the cold here are not simply degrees of temperature: they are substantial nutriment of the plant, its τροφή (Nat. Puer. 26,2. 75,21 Joly = VII 526,18 Li.), which is attracted (έλκυσωσι, Nat. Puer. 26,2. 75,14 Joly = VII 526,12 Li.) by one part of the plant and distributed to the other; they are compared to the hot food and cold drink which pass into the human stomach, and which are both the very substance of nutriment. The author's meaning is illuminated rather by the remark in chapter 12: the hot is nourished by proportionate cold Nat. Puer. 12,3. 54,2f. Joly = VII 486,21 f. Li. Plant growth is a kind of combustion: we remember that Empedocles thought of plants as a kind of fire rising from the earth. Notice that two opposed principles of nutrition and growth are combined here. According to Aristotle (Arist. de An. 2,4. 416a,29; cf. Arist. Ph. 9,7. 260a,29) the two prevailing views of nutrition were that it is by similars (τω όμοίφ), and by opposites (τω έναντίω). In his account of the embryo's growth and nutrition, the author has used the first principle: the embryo grows by accretion of like substance. This is also implicitly (and explicitly, if we compare chapter 34), the theory of plant nutrition in the present chapters. The plant attracts (έλκειν) from the ground a fluid which is similar in nature to the plant which attracts it. In the present passage however nutrition is regarded as a kind of combustion, and is therefore by opposites. It is not uncommon for the two views to appear side by side in the same work (cf. Müller p. 129 and the passages cited there); moreover, as Müller points out, the two views are not ultimately opposed, since in the case of nutrition by opposites, the opposite substance is a s s i m i 1 a t e d. There is however a contradiction in that nutrition

On the Nature of the Child

233

by simple accretion of like substance can be fitted into a mechanistic theory such as seems to lie behind chapter 17, whereas it is not so easy to do this with the theory of nutrition by opposites: this rests rather on an analogy with combustion which is itself left unexplained. O n these grounds alone one may reasonably expect that the theory of plant growth comes from a different source than that of the theory of embryonic growth in chapter 17. We are not obliged by anything which the author says to suppose that growth of the upper and lower parts occurs simultaneously: in fact, if the process is analogous to combustion, this growth could not occur simultaneously. Some light is therefore thrown on the meaning of tRe theory by a passage in Theophrastus (CP 1,12,1-10). Theophrastus raises the question whether germination (cf. chapter 22 of the present treatise) and growth (αΰξησις) of the upper and lower parts of the plant occur at the same time or at different times. Some say that the roots grow during autumn and winter, the stem and branches in spring and summer; and that this makes sense, because after planting it is the roots which grow first, for there must be some means by which the plant can gain its nutriment (cf. chapter 23). The theory is plausible, Theophrastus goes on, in that the upper parts are prevented from growth by the coldness of the surrounding air, while the lower parts being protected by the earth and enclosed, together with their moisture and nutriment, by the heat through antiperistasis, are increased by these . . . Evidence is provided by corn which when it is compressed by the winter puts down firmer roots, which they call "to spread crab-wise", on the grounds that the virtue (δύναμιν) 399 , that is, the nutriment, from the upper parts is diverted into the lower parts. Theophrastus goes on to criticize this view for its division of the nutritive faculty, and he includes in his criticism Empedocles' allocation of earth to the roots and fire to the shoots of plants. The question of the actual origin of this view must be left aside for a moment 400 : but its similar dependence upon a theory (cf. the word άντιπερίστασις) about differing earth temperatures suggests that it may be identical with the theory of chapter 26. If that is so, then the theory of the present chapter is that heat is the agent by which plants are nourished: in the 399

400

It is striking that the author or authors whom Theophrastus is quoting here use this word in the same sense ( = humour, sap, or fluid) as it is used in the present chapters, and which is otherwise unparalleled except in Theophrastus himself: CP 5,1,4 ήθροισμένης της γονίμου δυνάμεως καϊ ύγρότητος the generative virtue and moisture being condensed·, Thphr. CP 5,2,1; 1,17,1. Possibly the theory belongs to Cleidemus, who appears to have written between Anaxagoras and Diogenes. For his interest in plant temperature in relation to the seasons, cf. Thphr. CP 1,10,3. The theory outlined in Thphr. CP 3,23, where Cleidemus is again mentioned, seems to have both resemblances to and differences from the present theory: planting is bad at the winter solstice, because the ground is moist, heavy, and vaporous, and is like badly carded w o o l (cf. the comparisons in chapter 24 of the present treatise). It cannot attract and distribute vapours (άτμίδας); but the reason given is that it is insufficiently warm, which conflicts with the theory of chapter 24.

Commentary

234

summer, it draws up fluid from the roots, just as it does when plants fruit; while in the winter, subterranean warmth draws fluid from the upper parts down to the roots (though the author does not say so, this is presumably why some plants become dry and lose their leaves in winter: so too Empedocles [VS 31 A 70]; Menestor however gave lack of heat as the cause [Thphr. CP 1,21,7]). There is possibly a trace of the same theory in Democritus: according to him, the roots of straight plants are weaker than those of crooked plants, because owing to the straigbtness of their veins (εύθυπορία), changes in heat and cold in the upper part of the plant are immediately felt by the roots, which cannot support these changes (ταχύ γαρ έκ τοϋ άνω διιέναι και το ψύχος και την άλέαν επί τάς ρίζας δια την εύθυπορίαν for the cold and heat rapidly penetrate to the roots from above, because of the straigbtness of their veins, Thphr. CP 2,11,8 = VS 68 A 162). What is interesting in this passage is the mention of heat and cold, of the upper and lower parts of the plants, and the use of straightness and crookedness, width and narrowness, of veins as explanation. Cf. the theory of fructification in the present passage. (b) The theory of fructification This seems once again to be a development from the views of Empedocles, according to whom fruits were residues (περιττώματα: the term itself is Aristotelian) of the moisture and fire in plants (VS 31 A 70). This idea too was picked up by Menestor: those plants which blossom and fruit early do so because their sap (όπός)) is warm (Thphr. CP 1,21,7 = VS 32,5.1 376,4—7 Diels-Kranz). The author's theory however is supported by an implicit analogy between maturity in plants and maturity in human beings: plants can only fruit when they draw a thick (παχείην) fluid from the ground, and they can only do this when they reach a certain size so that their veins are wide (εύρεΐαι). Compare the idea in chapter 2 that width of veins is the necessary condition of sexual maturity in humans; and the passage from Democritus cited above. Wellmann 401 further suggests an analogy between the author's theory of fruiting and Democritus' theory of the growth of horns in animals. 26.1 άλλα ην μεν κτλ.: Regenbogen p. 161 notes the characteristically rhetorical parallel sentence structure, and compares Genit. 9,3. 51,11 f. Joly = VII 482,21 f. Li.; Morb. IV 34,1. 8 6 , 2 - 4 Joly = VII 544,26-546,1 Li.; Morb. IV 34,2. 86,7-10 Joly = VII 546,3-6 Li. 26.2 το δένδρεον τησι ρίζησι: But what does the plant give to the roots? It is natural to supply ο τι αν έλκυση whatever it attracts: this could only be 401

Wellmann Spuren p. 323.

O n the Nature of the Child

235

air. On the other hand, the parallel in Theophrastus suggests that it is sap (which is presumably already there) that is drawn from the upper part of the plant. But I doubt whether the ambiguity is a real one in the terms of fifth-century science. What comes from the upper part of the plant is "the cold", and "the cold" comes from the air. 26,2 ταμιείη καί ψυχρού και θερμού: an (even) dispensing of cold and hot, so that neither is in excess. The meaning here is very exactly illustrated by Plato (Ti. 84 d): the lung is the steward or dispenser (ταμίας) of breath to the body. Illness arises when its passages are choked, so that in some places no breath enters, in others too much enters (πλεΐον ή το προσήκον). Cf. also C a m . 5,2. 6,29 De. = V I I I 590,12 Li.: the heart ταμιεύει dispenses pneuma. The same idea of dispensing seems to be present in Vict. 110,1. 12,3 Joly = VI 484,20 Li. where the belly is called ταμιεΐον (treasury, storehouse) of dry and moist; possibly too in Democritus (VS 68 Β 149) κακών ταμιεΐον . . . καί θησαύρισμα a magazine and treasury of evils (of the stomach) in a passage which bears some resemblance to the physiology of Morb. IV (cf. note on Morb. IV 33,1). The necessity of a mutual tempering or κρασις of cold and hot for g r o w t h , although it has a special meaning here, was a not uncommon idea. Cf. Aer. 12, on the climate of Asia and its effects on plants, animals and man, particularly Aer. 12,4. 54,14—16 Di. = 1 1 54,1—3 Li. την δ έ α ΰ ξ η σ ι ν και ήμερότητα παρέχει πλείστον απάντων όκόταν μηδέν ή έπικρατέον βιαίως, άλλα παντός ίσομοιρίη δυναστεύη growth and cultivation are most

of all present when there is no factor which tyrannizes but equality is lord over all·, Vict. 1 1 6 5 , 1 - 2 . 6 5 , 1 3 - 1 9 Joly = V I 5 8 2 , 2 - 6 Li., where the author compares the use of oil (which warms) with dust (which cools) in exercises during winter and summer: εν μεν τ ω χειμώνι τό έλαιον α ύ ξ ι μ ώ τ ε ρ ο ν . . . ή δε κόνις εν τ ω θέρει α ύ ξ ι μ ώ τ ε ρ ο ν in winter it is oil which promotes growth more, and in summer, dust. The reason is that in winter, oil keeps the body's warmth in, while dust in the summer cools the body and prevents it from heating to excess. As in the present chapter, it is warmth which causes increase, but it must be a tempered warmth. A similar idea of κρασις lies behind the embryology of Vict. I (cf. in particular I 7 and 8). That κράσις promotes growth in particular, is of course an aspect of its function in preserving health in general (cf. Schumacher p. 201, who refers to the present chapter). 26,4 οφθαλμοί: since the tree in which they are engrafted seems to take the place of the earth, grafts would upset the author's theory. If the fluid comes from the tree, then grafts should produce the same fruit as the tree in which they are engrafted. The fact they do not is ζ paradox (θαύμα) which has to be explained. Therefore grafts too must form a direct connexion with the earth. For the pattern of argument, cf. introductory note on chapter 2. 'Οφθαλμοί are buds (Alcm. 43; X . Oec. 19,10; Thphr. H P 1,8,5) and the

236

Commentary

author is referring to the process of bud-grafting (inoculation) as distinct from the grafting of scions. The method of bud-grafting is described in Columella (arb. 26,7—9). Theophrastus (CP 1,6,1) says that for grafts the tree in which they are emplanted takes the place of the earth (ώσπερ γη χρήται); he agrees with the present passage in saying that it is the generative moisture which the graft already possesses which causes it to germinate, but he says that this moisture becomes adapted (άρμόττεται) to the sap of the tree, in such a way that while using the tree's sap as τροφή nourishment, the graft still produces its own form of germination (την οίκείαν βλάστησιν). 26,5 πρώτον μεν βλαστάνειν: i. e. the bud behaves as the seed does (chapter 22), not as the slip does (chapter 23). In fact, bud-grafting was regarded as an extension of seed-grafting by Pliny (nat. 17,99f.; cf. his source Columella 5,11). 26,5 μεθίησιν . . .ρίζας: a minor example of inference from the seen to the unseen. The inference is wrong: grafting succeeds through the coalescence of the cambium, but the ancient world knew nothing of cells. 26,5 ώστε μή θαυμάζειν: for the association of θαύμα with an apparent exception to the general rule, cf. note on chapter 7,3. 26,5 έτερόκαρπα: pears and apples, olives and figs, are most frequently mentioned; Columella says that the trees must be similar in respect of their bark (Colum. 5,11,1), but later claims to have discovered a method of grafting by which a scion from any tree can be implanted in any other kind of tree (Colum. 5,11,13—15), though the example he describes is the grafting of figs to an olive tree. Pliny (nat. 17,120) claims to have seen a tree at Tivoli growing nuts, berries, grapes, pears, figs, pomegranates, and apples of various kinds, but he adds that the tree did not live long. More soberly, he remarks (Plin. nat. 17,104) that the trees should flower at the same seas9n and have the same kind of bark, so that they have an affinity in their sap (cf. Theophrastus C P 1,6,1 who makes the same points). Chapter 27 27,1 φύσιν: used as in Nat. Puer. 29,1. 77,20 Joly = V I I 530,8 Li., to mean process of origin and growth, γένεσις cf. Empedocles (VS 31 Β 8): there

is no φύσις of all mortal things, nor ending in wretched death, but only the mingling and the separation of what has been mingled, but men apply the word φύσις to these (processes). Holwerda in his "Conspectus locorum" however lists the present passage under his I 15 A ( = ποΐά έστιν), and the examples in chapter 29 under I 12 C ( = τί έστι). But in the present case at least, why should the author say that the general characteristics of man are like those of a plant? He is clearly thinking of the processes of growth in each case, and this is the fundamentum comparationis.

On the Nature of the Child

237

O n the source of the botanical theory The structural basis of these chapters is a division of the subject matter into growth from seed (chapter 22), growth from plants (chapter 23) and growth from grafts (chapter 26); this is a division which recurs in Aristotle (Arist. H A 5,1. 539a,16-23; Arist. GA 1,1. 715b,26-30 and in Aristotle's lost De Plantis); but there is no reason to suppose that this division was original with him. Aristotle's classification is as follows: Plants Grown from seed (άπο σπέρματος)

Grown "spontaneously" (αυτόματα) 1 . ι—: 1 Taking nutriment Epiphytic from the ground (έν έτέροις (έκ της γης λαμβάνει έγγίνεται φυτοις) την τροφήν)

The structure as it is used in Aristotle appears to belong to a theory about plant generation. There is also probably a connexion with the antithesis wild/cultivated which seems to have received discussion in contemporary botanical theory: see the note on chapter 34,5. Using this structure, the author describes a theory which is coherent and, within the expected limits, consistent. It seems designed to explain a number of questions — how seeds germinate, the difference between seeds, cuttings, and grafts, why plants differ specifically, how fruiting occurs, why plants grow upward and downward. The range of these questions is interesting: the general character of the passage is reminiscent of the botanical theories of Empedocles as they are recorded in Aetius; the latter three questions were questions which Empedocles also asked; moreover the whole passage begins with an analogy between the plant in the earth and the child in the womb which Empedocles also made. However, a more detailed examination of the chapters suggests that the theory they contain is a development along lines originally suggested by Empedocles, rather than a mere repetition of his doctrines. Thus Empedocles' question about the upward and downward growth of plants, which he explained by the natural movement of the elements earth and fire, has been retained and has to some extent determined the form of the answer, although that answer does not directly owe anything to Empedocles' elemental theory. It is based instead on a geophysical theory about earth temperature, which appears to have been designed originally to answer questions other than botanical. Moreover the whole theory is marked by a

238

Commentary

leit-motif to which the author refers continually: plants grow fruit, and maintain their specific differences because they attract (ελκειν) each a specific fluid (ικμάς) from the soil. It is this which gives its coherence to the theory: it provides a unitary principle to which all the questions raised by the author can be referred; and while it is certainly not without a basis in Empedocles himself, its constant use seems to give the theory a character of its own. It appears likely then that someone took Empedocles' botanical theories and developed them in his own way: the result appears in chapters 22—27. The name of Diogenes of Apollonia has been mentioned in this connexion for a long time: originally by Petersen 4 0 2 , then by Diels 4 0 3 , who argued that chapter 34 was influenced by Diogenes, and who in fact prints part of that chapter as an example of Diogenes' "Nachwirkung" (VS 64 C 36 = H p . Morb. IV 34,1. 8 5 , 2 5 - 8 6 , 1 Joly = V I I 5 4 4 , 2 2 - 2 5 Li.); Diels also argued 4 0 4 that the present chapters depend on Diogenes. Diels' chief evidence was the prevalence of the word ίκμάς fluid, and of ΐκμάδα ελκειν attract fluid, and the use of the like-to-like principle. Regenbogen in his discussion of the passage 4 0 5 suggests, though tentatively, that chapters 22—27 represent a reworking of Empedocles' botanical theories by Diogenes. Recently however Müller 4 0 6 has questioned the value of Diels' evidence: the word ίκμάς fluid, which in any case occurs not in the fragments of Diogenes, but only in the testimonia, is of very general use in the Hippocratic Collection, in Plato, in Aristotle, and in testimonia about other pre-Socratics (including Democritus); it is found in passages where no-one has ever suggested influence by Diogenes and, conversely, it does not occur in passages where the influence of Diogenes has never been in doubt. This scepticism about Diogenes' influence on the Hippocratic Collection is shared by K a h n 4 0 7 ; Müller 4 0 8 himself considers that the influence on chapter 34 is ultimately Anaxagoras (though he does not believe that Morb. IV and Nat. Puer. are from the same author); in his opinion, influence by Diogenes on chapter 22 is excluded by the contradiction between Nat. Puer. 2 2 , 1 - 2 . 6 8 , 2 6 - 6 9 , 1 Joly = V I I 514,12f. Li. and VS 64 A 19. See however note ad loc. Certain of the concepts both in chapters 22—27 and chapter 34 could have come from any pre-Socratic, including, of course, Diogenes: there is nothing unique about the theory of like-to-like, or the belief that plants are nourished by fluid in the ground. In particular, there are striking parallels in chapters 22—27 with Democritus, as Wellmann has pointed out. Yet 402 403 404 405 406 407 408

Petersen pp. 30f. Diels Leukipp p. 106 n. 33. Diels Excerpte pp. 4 2 6 - 4 2 9 . Regenbogen pp. 1 7 1 - 1 7 5 . Müller pp. 1 3 4 - 1 3 7 . Kahn p. 107 η. 1. Müller p. 137 n. 10.

On the Nature of the Child

239

chapters 22—27 and the coherence of these chapters with chapter 34 suggest that the botanical theory, however disparate the sources of its elements, was given its form by one hand. But it would be rash to look for a name. The examples of Menestor, Cleidemus, and Hippon show that there were scientists in the fifth century who had a particular interest in botany, as well as those like Anaxagoras, Diogenes, and Democritus who included botanical investigation in their general theories. Any of these or any of their pupils could have been responsible for the form of the theory as it appears here. The description of the same or a very similar theory in Theophrastus (CP 1,12) — where it is possibly to be connected with the name of Cleidemus — shows at the least that there were developed botanical theories in existence. In my opinion however the occurrence of two separate theories, each of which explained the growth of plants by making use of a further theory about the differing temperatures of the earth in summer and winter, is beyond the bounds of coincidence. O f course Theophrastus may be referring to the present passage, but this is unlikely since he gives details which are not to be found there but which are quite consistent with the theory. O n the other hand, although chapters 22—27 and chapter 34 have the appearance of being borrowed from elsewhere rather than worked out by the author himself, they have many similarities in doctrine to other passages of Genit., and there is very little in them which is incompatible with the author's other theories. Müller's arguments for Anaxagoras in chapter 34 are weighty; I do not think that chapters 22—27 can reasonably be separated from chapter 34; the traces of Democritus in chapters 22—27 pointed out by Wellmann are impressive, and to these should be added the similarity between the geophysical theory of chapters 24 and 25 and the atomistic theory in Lucretius. O n the whole the best, though still a very shaky, hypothesis would be influence by Democritus with the not unlikely proviso that Democritus made extensive use of pre-Socratic botanical theories (such as those of Cleidemus) which go back ultimately to Empedocles. In matters of particular detail, as opposed to basic physical principles, there was a great deal of common ground among the pre-Socratic philosophers.

Chapter 28 This brief remark on the position and posture of the child in the womb seems to be directed against those who shared the view of O c t . 2,1—6. 82,17—04,11 G r . = 10. V I I 4 5 2 , 1 6 - 4 5 4 , 9 Li. that the child is upright in the womb until parturition, when it turns upside down. The argument is that since the child is curled around with his head resting against his feet, the distinction between upright and inverted has no meaning. Hence even if you could see (a hypothetical case) into the womb, you would not be able to say exactly whether the child was upright or not.

240

Commentary

28,1 άτρεκείη: cf. Morb. IV 39,3. 93,16 Joly = V I I 558,17 Li., Morb. IV 49,1. 104,21 Joly = VII 578,9 Li. The word is Homeric and Ionic, used frequently by Herodotus and in the Collection, but not otherwise in prose except in late authors. It is an indication of the date of the treatise. 28,1 πότερον την κεφαλήν άνω: contrast the words of O c t . 2,5. 84,2f. Gr. = V I I 452,16f. L i , φύεται γαρ πάντα άνω την κεφαλήν έχοντα all

embryos grow with their heads uppermost. 28,1 οί υμένες: for these, see chapter 16. In Septim. 1. V I I 436,2—15 Li. they loosen in the seventh month, and are broken in premature deliveries; cf. Septim. 4. V I I 442,7f. Li. on the change of position in the seventh month.

Chapter 29 This chapter fulfils the promise made in chapter 13, to describe a second observation which bears witness to the truth of my whole account (Nat. Puer. 13,4. 56,9f. Joly = V I I 492,4f. Li.). The development of the chick embryo, unlike that of the human embryo, can be observed over the whole period of incubation. The inference that the human embryo develops in the same way is justified by the observation in chapter 13, that the human embryo has an "umbilicus", through which it breathes, and that membranes extend from this. These are precisely the features which the observation of the chick embryo is alleged to support (Nat. Puer. 29,1. 77,16—19 Joly = V I I 530,5—7 Li.). Thus the whole account of the intervening chapters is suspended from the two observations of chapter 13 and chapter 29 taken together. However, the author presents this account in the form of a n a r r a t i v e , in which the successive stages in the development of the embryo are linked together causally; and in the details of this narrative, as well as in the causes which he assigns for each stage of development, the author goes far outside the limits set by observation. While from one point of view we may regard the author as a scientist who deliberately employs the method of inference from the seen to the unseen, from another, and equally valid, point of view, he resembles a man telling a story, who employs all the arts of the story-teller to lend circumstantiality and " t r u t h " to his account. Law-court practice, as well as historical narrative and, no doubt, ordinary fiction, would provide him with familiar models of such a procedure. This latter aspect should warn us against the danger of approximating him too closely to his modern scientific counterpart. In this respect, the position which he gives to the description of the observation is significant: he places it at the e n d of the whole account, which is the proper position for the narrative simile or comparison. Literary artifice here is a motive equally strong as rational enquiry; and the author takes care to rouse the audience's expectation by referring to the observation long before he gives it.

O n the Nature of the Child

241

We cannot be certain that the author himself carried out the series of observations which he describes. H e does not actually claim to have done so, as he does with the observation of chapter 13, although his remark that anyone who has not observed it will be surprised that there is an umbilicus in the egg (Nat. Puer. 29,3. 78,7f. Joly = VII 530,18f. Li.) may perhaps imply this. The observation must in any case have been made before his time, by chance or by design, and both Alcmaeon (VS 24 A 16) and Anaxagoras (VS 59 Β 22) had been interested in the embryology of the chick. But clearly someone, whether the author himself or a predecessor, had gone to the trouble of observing a clutch of eggs systematically; and the author's description is the first account which we possess. It is this systematic character of the observation, undertaken for a particular purpose and carried out through the whole period of incubation, which gives it its interest for the historian of science, and which marks it out as something rather different from the unsystematic and incidental observations which the author describes elsewhere. The experiment itself, whether personally performed by the author or merely reported, is deservedly famous; and it is one which was subsequently carried out by Aristotle (GA 3,2; H A 6,3) and by modern observers from the 16th century onwards 4 0 9 beginning with Aldrovandus. There are however two significant differences between these later observations and the author's account. The first is that, beginning with Aristotle, the observation is directed by a series of clearly formulated questions or problems to which an answer is sought; thus the whole procedure of enquiry is controlled by a logical framework. The second difference, which is a consequence of the first, is that observation is much more detailed than it is in our author. H o w closely then has the author observed, and what use has he made of his observation? Although he says that the whole process of embryonic growth, from beginning to end, corresponds to what can be observed in the case of the chick, and although he states in Nat. Puer. 30,7.81,3f. Joly = VII 536,12f. Li. that the process of articulation is identical in the chick and in the human embryo, what he stresses here is the production of membranes extending from the umbilicus. And in fact, in the case of the human embryo, it is only the formation of these extra-embryonic structures that he describes in any real detail (chapters 14 and 16) since the actual process of articulation is described very vaguely, while the formation of the organs is hardly mentioned, and the vascular system not at all. N o w in the case of the chick embryo, it is precisely the extra-embryonic structures — amnion, chorion, allantois and yolk-sac — which would be most striking to the naked eye; and I suggest that in chapters 14 and 16 what we have is a reasonably accurate description of the formation of these structures in the chick, which is simply transferred to the human embryo. He appears to have observed the growth 409

Needham Embryology pp. 8 3 - 9 0 , 9 8 f „ 113-122.

242

Commentary

of the amnion and the chorion: it is not clear how far he was able to distinguish them, but if he did, this may have led to his belief that many membranes grow subsequently to, and inside, the initial outer membrane, which is probably the chorion. In any case, this belief, as well as the belief in the production of cavities (κολποΰνται), would be suggested b.y the growth of the allantois (in Nat. Puer. 16,1. 59,2f. Joly = VII 496,12f. Li. αΰξονται . . . κολποΰνται . . . μάλιστα οί εξωθεν (the membranes) form pouches, particularly the outside membranes could well describe the allantoic cavity). Also the gradually shrinking yolk-sac might have been regarded as another, and subsequent, membrane within the main outer membrane. He stresses the fact that all these membranes extend (τεταμένοι είσί) from the umbilicus, and this description corresponds well with what can be observed in the case of the chick; indeed it is difficult to see how it could have arisen otherwise. If this is so, then the author has based his description of the initial stages of the embryo on actual observation of the egg: it is a good example of inference from the seen to the unseen. But he did not carry his observation much further, to an actual dissection of the chick embryo and inference from that dissection. In view of the difficulties involved he is perhaps not altogether to be blamed for that. But the deficiencies of his observation, as well as its strengths, may be estimated if the reader compares Aristotle's outstanding description of the chick embryo (Arist. H A 6,3. 561 a,4— 562b,2). 29,1 διάγνωσιν ... ότι: (grounds for) the judgement that... ci. Isoc. 3,47 διεγνωκότες δτι μέγιστόν έστι των άγαθών άρετή have judged that the greatest of goods is virtue; Vict. Ill 69,2. 7 8 , 4 - 6 Joly = VI 606,6f. Li. προδιάγνωσις μεν . . . διάγνωσις δέ τών σωμάτων τί πέπονθε, πότερον κτλ. a means of judging what is wrong with the body, with which cf. Epid. I 23. 199,8 Kw. = 10. II 668,14 Li. διεγινώσκομεν I formed my judgements (i. e. about the nature and course of diseases). In Isoc. 1,34 διάγνωσις occurs, as here, in a context of inference from the seen to the unseen: βουλευόμενος παραδείγματα ποιοϋ τά παρεληλυθότα τών μελλόντων· το γαρ άφανές έκ τοΰ φανερού ταχίστην έχει την διάγνωσιν in your deliberations use the past as examples of the future; for the visible gives the quickest means of judging the unseen. 29,1 ως άνυστον κτλ.: cf. note on chapter 13,4. The implication of confidence in his observation is the same here as there. 29,1 την πνοήν ελκει: cf. Nat. Puer. 30,7. 80,24-27Joly = VII 536,8-10 Li.: the hen warms the egg by sitting on it, this generates warm pneuma in the egg, which then breathes in cool air. Strictly speaking, the author cannot have o b s e r v e d this. Yet the mechanics of pneuma are so intimate a part of his theory that he does not distinguish it from the details which are

On the Nature of the Child

243

guaranteed by observation alone. Cf. the similar remark in Nat. Puer. 13,3. 5 6 , 3 - 5 Joly = VII 490,17-19 Li. 29.1 φύσιν: process of growth: cf. Nat. Puer. 27,1. 77,5 Joly = VII 528,23 Li. But it shades into the meaning nature of a thing, what a thing is (τί έστι) in Nat. Puer. 29,2. 78,4 Joly = VII 530,15 Li. below. Holwerda understands both instances in this chapter in the latter sense. 29.2 ώά εΐκοσιν ή πλείονα: cf. Coiter 410 in the year 1564 in the month of May at Bologna, being instigated by that excellent professor of philosophy outstanding in varied sciences and arts, Dr. Ulysses Aldrovandus and by other doctors and students, I ordered 2 broody fowls to be brought and under each of them I caused 23 eggs to be placed and in the company of these persons I opened one every day so that we could see firstly the origin of the veins and secondly what organ is formed first in the animal4103. Coiter was familiar with the present passage as well as with Aristotle's description. 29.3 θαυμάσει: that there is an umbilicus in the egg is a θαϋμα paradox (cf. note on chapter 7,3), because in mammals the function of the umbilicus seems to be to unite the child to the mother and to serve as the passage to nutriment. But the chicken in the egg is obviously not attached to the mother, and it gets its nutriment elsewhere. The paradox is expressed by Aristotle (Arist. GA 3,2. 754 a,5—8): in the case of the viviparously produced animals, the uterus is in the mother; but with the oviparously produced ones, it is the other way round — the mother is in the uterus, as you might say, because in this case that which comes from the mother (the nourishment) is the yolk411. But what is the author referring to? If the punctum saliens, this would explain the association with (the movement of) respiration. But the punctum saliens is extremely small and cannot be described as projecting. Aristotle too thought that the egg had an umbilicus (Arist. GA 3,2. 752b,1-9): Now at the outset a portion of this membrane (sc. the outer shell membrane) at the pointed end of an egg, is like an umbilical cord, and while the egg is still small, it sticks out (άπέχζι) like a pipe. It can be clearly seen in small, aborted eggs . . . the fetation still has a blood-like appearance, and has a small tail like an umbilical cord (στόλον μικρόν όμφαλώδη) running through it; as the fetation gets larger, this tail gets twisted round more and becomes smaller; when (the fetation) has reached its complete development, this terminus finishes up as the pointed end of the egg412. Fabricius of Aquapendente (cf. e.g. De Formatione Ovi et Pulli 2 p. 12413) denied the existence and even the 4,0

Adelmann Coiter p. 444. 4ioj Needham Embryology p. 104. 411 Peck Arist. G A pp. 2 9 5 - 2 9 7 . 412 p ^ k Arist. G A p. 285 w h o in a footnote refers the passage to the chalazae. 413 Fabricius De formatione ovi 2 p. 394 Adelmann.

244

Commentary

possibility of such an umbilicus. Yet cf. William Harvey Exercitationes de Generatione Animalium l i p . 50: I have farther seen another hen's egg covered with a shell everywhere except at the extremity of the sharp end, where a certain small and soft projection remained, very likely such as was taken by Aristotle for the remains of an umbilicus414. Harvey and Aristotle however appear to be referring to different phenomena. But another possibility, and one which, in view of the evidently unsystematic nature of the author's observations, seems to me most likely, is that he is referring-to the chick foetus itself, as observed on about the sixth day. Fabricius in the legend attached to his Sixth Figure describes it as Foetus . . . qui conglobatus apparet 415 , the fetus, which . . . appears to form a rounded mass416 and includes the vasa umbilicalia (i. e. the vitelline vessels) extending from it. Whatever the observed correlate, the author is emphatic about it, and indeed his whole theory of embryology depends upon it.

Chapter 30 Parturition The structure of the passage is circular ("Ringkomposition") cf. chapters 22—27. The infant by its restlessness breaks the membranes which retain him; in normal circumstances this cannot happen later than the tenth month; this is because it is the exhaustion of the child's food supply that causes it to be restless; the evidence (ίστόριον) for this is what happens in the case of the egg; thus, the child's food supply giving out, it becomes restless, and breaks the membranes in the tenth month. This structure indicates how closely the two aspects of the author's theory of birth — that the initiative comes from the child, and that it is caused by a failure of nutriment — depend on his observation of the hen's egg. But unlike the theory of chapters 12—29, where the observation provided him with his only available means of inference, in this theory his enthusiasm has apparently led him to a contradiction of other, more easily obtained observations. He makes no mention of uterine contractions. It is surprising that he should ignore them so completely, since they are certainly known in the medical writings (to say nothing of the experience of any mother or midwife); and, although this is less certain, something at least seems to have been known about their function. In Mul. I 34, a chapter which is otherwise related to the present

414 415 416

Willis Harvey p. 206. Fabricius D e f o r m a t o foetu p. 444 ( = fig.) Adelmann. Adelmann Fabricius p. 231.

O n the N a t u r e of the Child

245

treatise (cf. note on chapter 14), cardialgia, apparently during labour 4 1 7 is explained by the contraction of the stomach and of the uterus in particular, around the embryo (της κοιλίης περιστελλομένης άμφΐ τό εμβρυον, μάλιστα δέ της ύστέρης Mul. I 34. VIII 80,4f. Li.); further down 4 1 8 the author refers to contraction (ξυνέλκεται) of the uterus along with the bladder and bowels, which in this case is presumably involuntary. Art. 57. 202,5 Kw. = IV 246,9 Li. speaks of the wanderings and contractions (συντάσιας) of the uterus; cf. also Mochl. 23. 257,20 Kw. = IV 366,1 Li. In Septim. 4. VII 442,20f. Li., αϊ τε ώδϊνες . . . και οί πόνοι (which Joly translates les douleurs et les souffrances), the latter word is perhaps to be taken in the sense labour (so Diepgen Frauenheilkunde p. 165 but cf. Septim. 3. VII 438,17 Li., where this cannot be the meaning); and in any case, the expressions ώ δ ΐ ν α έμποιέειν bring about labour pains, Superf. 4,2. 74,16 Ln. = VIII 478,14 Li.; έγείρειν ώδΐνας encourage labour pains (Pi. Tht. 148d, 1; cf. 151 a,8) suggest a knowledge of the function of contractions. Such knowledge was certainly possessed by Galen (see the admirable passage Gal. De facult. natur. 3,3. 207,17-211,10 Helmr. = II 147,13-152,11 Kühn; and Gal. De facult. natur. 3,12. 234,2—25 Helmr. = II 183,10—184,14 Kühn, where the contingency of abortion is mentioned); and though Galen could have acquired it from vivisection of animals, it is just as likely that he acquired it from the experience of midwives; indeed certain features of the former passage suggest that this is the case 419 . Either the present author was ignorant of the existence and function of uterine contractions or he chose to disregard it: the former case is the more likely 420 , since it could easily have been accommodated to his theory that the birth process is initiated by a failure in food supply. It is not an essential part of that theory that the infant forces its own way out of the womb (presumably with help from the mother), although this makes the analogy between the infant and the chick closer. Indeed the chapter as a whole (cf. below on the author's uncertainty about the time of appearance of the amniotic fluid) leaves one with a considerable doubt as to whether the author had actually observed childbirth. The same theory of a failure in food supply is used to explain abortion in Mul. 121. VIII 60, 10 Li.; and according to Aph. 5,31. IV 542,13 f. Li., if a 417

418

4,9

420

This is what έπίτεξ seems to mean: cf. H d t . 1,111. Possibly however the author is describing merely the latter stages of pregnancy, in which case περιστελλομένης must have some other meaning than uterine contractions. H o w e v e r the part of this chapter which belongs to the C-Stratum ends at VIII 80,5 Li. according to Grensemann Knidische Medizin p. 97. See further Diepgen Frauenheilkunde p. 165. Fasbender pp. 126—128 is sceptical that there is any clear knowledge in the Hippocratic works of the function of uterine contractions; the actual process of birth is attributed to " d e m D r u c k , den das Kind auf die mütterlichen Teile ausübt und der Dehnung, die es an letzteren b e w i r k t " (Fasbender p. 128). The evidence of Mul. I 34, cited above, though probably by the same author, is ambiguous.

246

Commentary

pregnant woman is bled, she aborts, and this is more likely if the embryo is large. What the theory will not explain is of course cases of still-birth (cf. Gal. De facult. natur. 3,3. 210,18-23 Helmr. = II 151,12-16 Kühn cited below). 30,1 ξυμβαίνει τότε: for the rupture of the membranes, cf. Oct. 5,3. 90,7—9 Gr. = 1. VII 436,12 — 14 Li. where the membranes become loosened and break in the seventh month. The reason there is simply the rapid growth of the child and its violent movement; nothing is said about failure of nutriment. 30,1 άκιδνοτέρην: Regenbogen p. 159 cites this word along with other examples of poetic vocabulary in the same author. It is a Homeric word, occurring there always in the comparative. The positive occurs Mul. I 12. VIII 48,21 Li.; the comparative Mul. I 52. VIII 112,3 Li. 30,1 λύεται τού δεσμού: cf. Oct. 6,2. 92,1 f. Gr. = VII 438,19 Li. εκ τού άρχαίου ένδέσμου έκλυθέν (the embryo) being freed from its original bond. 30,1 χωρέει έξω κλονηθέν: cf. the parallel phrase Nat. Puer. 30,9. 81,20 Joly = VII 536,27 Li. χωρέει όμού έξω which suggests that κλονηθέν here means bunched together, all at once. For this meaning cf. Apollonius Rhodius 2,133 κλονέονται, of bees swarming. 30,1 ού γαρ έτι έχει κτλ.: the different confusions of Μ and V indicate a corruption in the archetype, where some words may have been missed out and added in the margin without sufficiently clear indication of their place; Μ and V have in different ways made the best they could of it. The original reading might have been ού γαρ έτι έχει σθένος των ύμένων προδόντων καΐ τούτων άπεχθέντων ούδέ αί μήτραι δύνανται έτι τό παιδίον ϊσχειν, and so I have translated: For nothing has any strength to hold it once the membranes fail, and when the membranes have carried away, the womb itself cannot hold the child back. 30.1 ούδέ αί μήτραι: that is, the author denies the view set out in Oct. 6,1. 90,20-22 Gr. = 3. VII 438,12-14 Li., that when the membranes have been ruptured in the seventh month, those embryos which are not born immediately pass ες τό ύπεϊξαν (whatever that may mean; see the note of Joly ad loc.) and there wait out the time. In that case it is no longer the membranes which retain them but, apparently, the womb itself. 30.2 βιήται και εύρύνει: cf. Mul. I 1. VIII 10,10f. Li.: τάς μήτρας μάλλον στομοϋσθαι οία τού παιδιού χωρήσαντος δια σφέων και β ί η ν και πόνον παρασχόντος the uterus becomes more open since the child is advancing through it and causingviolence and pain (to the mother). This is apparently the author's explanation for the opening of the uterine orifice;

On the Nature of the Child

247

Galen comments on its occurrence in still-birth as an unexplained wonder of nature (Gal. De facult. natur. 3,3. 210,18-23 Helmr. = II 151,12-16 Kühn). 30,2 ήν κατά φύσιν ir): cf. Mul. I 69. VIII 146,3 Li. οκως κατά φύσιν ΐη έπι κεφαλήν so that it may advance headfirst, the natural (position). Κατά φύσιν for natural position is frequent in the surgical works: cf. Michler pp. 385-401. 30,2 δεκάτω μηνί: according to a Pythagorean theory (Cens. 11) this amounts to 274 days; according to Septim. 4. VII 442,14f. Li. seven periods of 40 days each ( = 280 days). These numbers are based on highly theoretical considerations, from which the present author is free. He has sought for a straightforward mechanical explanation. For his attitude to number, see introductory note to chapters 14—16. 30.2 ήν . . . λήξτ): cf. Mul. I 21. VIII 60,8 Li.: the principal cause of abortion in the third or fourth month is έπήν παραμεθίωσι τής αύξης τω έμβρύω αί μήτραι when the uterus lets escape the embryo's (means of) growth. 30.3 πλείονα χρόνον: Oct. 4,6. 8 8 , 1 1 - 1 4 Gr. = VII 4 6 0 , 4 - 7 Li. mentions birth in the eleventh month, but explains it by the fact that if conception occurs at full moon or later, the period of 280 days must fall in the eleventh month (cf. Fasbenderp. 105; Diepgen Frauenheilkunde p. 163). The present author is either unaware of this explanation, or chooses to ignore it; he denies that birth can occur in the eleventh month, and offers a physiological explanation of the illusion. 30,3 πνεύμα λάβωσιν: a condition often mentioned in the gynaecological works, though no passage quite corresponds to this one. It is mentioned as occurring during, after, or outside pregnancy, and is associated with various causes and symptoms. Cf. Nat. Mul. 10. 76,22 Trapp = VII 324,22 Li.; Nat. Mul. 11. 77,19 Trapp = VII 326,19 Li.; Nat. Mul. 41. 106,16 Trapp = VII 384,16 Li.; Nat. Mul. 64. 114,11 Trapp = VII 400,11 Li.; Mul. I 25. VIII 66,21-68,1 Li.; Mul. I 34. VIII 80,5 Li.; Mul. I 57. VIII 114,8 Li.; Mul. II 177. VIII 358,19 Li.; Mul. II 179. VIII 362,3 Li.; Mul. II 202. VIII 386,17 Li.; Mul. II 211. VIII 406,11 Li.; Loc. Horn. 47.VI 344,16f. Li. The closest example is Nat. Mul. 11. 77,19 Trapp = VII 326,19 Li., where it is associated with retention of menses among other things, gives the illusion of pregnancy, and lasts up to ten months. Cf. the adjective άνεμαΐον windy, wind-egg in Plato (Tht. 151 e), of an illusory pregnancy; and the ύπηνέμια (φά), wind-eggs, eggs produced without impregnation, which are described by Aristotle (GA 3,1. 750b,3—8). The gynaecological terms are άνεμος (literally) wind, ήνεμωθήναι to be (filled) with wind. 30,3 και f| χρονιώτερα: cf. Nat. Puer. 15,4. 58,6 Joly = VII 494,22 Li. τού αίματος χρονίζοντος the blood lingering (in the uterus).

248

Commentary

30.3 αίει διαρρεΐ: i. e. there is a c o n t i n u a l flow into the uterus, instead of the massive disturbance that occurs each month in the normal menstruation. Cf. chapter 15, where the distinction is quite clear. 30.4 αϊ μήτραι έχανον: as a result of menstruation, and the most favourable time for conception. Cf. commentary on chapter 15. 30.5 ότι δέ οΰκ έστι χρονιώτερον: the evidence that birth is initiated by the failure in food supply to the embryo is of two kinds: (i) the tendency in women who are having their first child (cf. below), and in women of a dry constitution, to give birth early; (ii) the observation (ίστόριον) that the chick is hatched when its food supply is exhausted. Cf. the similar combination of reasoning with observation in chapter 18. 30,5 ή τροφή και ή αϋξησις: for the theory of embryonic nutrition, see commentary on chapter 18. The following passage is quoted by Galen (In Hipp. Aph. comment. 5,37. XVII Β 828,8-15 Kühn) with some slight differences. 30,5 τοΰ αίματος . . . το γλυκύτατον: thus nutrition by blood (and therefore respiration through the umbilicus which is associated with it) should continue up until birth. But cf. note on chapter 17,3 (έπιλαμβάνει... πνοή ν). 30.5 ποθέον . . . άσκαρίζει: in Mul. I 32. VIII 76,1—22 Li. restlessness of the embryo through deficiency of nutriment causes hysterical suffocation: in its search for moist nutriment the embryo presses upward against the liver and hypochondria, which are moist (ίκμαλέα). It tosses about: the verb άσκαρίζειν occurs twice in Hipponax (Hippon. 12,2 D. = 19,2 West and POxy. 2175,12 = 104,12 West). The first passage reads τίς όμφαλητόμος σε τον διοπλήγα εψησε κάπέλουσε άσκαρίζοντα; what cord-cutter (or midwife), you madman, wiped you clean and washed you, when you came kicking from the womb? The word is either peculiar to the Ionic dialect (not Attic: cf. Addenda to LSJ) or a technical term of midwifery: the context in Hipponax suggests the latter. 30.6 κ α ι . . .τοϋτοπάσχουσι μάλλον: although the reason which the author goes on to give seems to apply to women of a certain constitution rather than to those who are having their first child, he probably means it to apply to both. In Nat. Puer. 18,2. 61,8-10 Joly = VII 500,lOf. Li. he remarks that the lochial discharge is of shorter duration in younger women than in older; this would imply, according to his theory about the relation between the lochia and menstruation, that younger women also menstruate less. That this is his meaning is confirmed by a comparison of Mul. 11, which refers to the present chapter. There he says that a woman who has not given birth is more prone to maladies connected with menstruation. The reason is that the lochial discharge and the dissolution (καταρραγή) consequent upon

On the Nature of the Child

249

parturition cause the blood vessels to become wider and to open out more (τάς φλέβας μάλλον σχομοϋσθαι και εύροωτέρας γίνεσθαι ές τά καταμήνια: Mul. 11. VIII10,8f. Li.). The same reason is given in Mul. I 73. VIII 154,6 Li. for shortage of milk (έπιλείπει το γάλα προ τοϋ καιρού): such women are πυκνόσαρκοι thick-fleshed (cf. πυκνοσαρκότεραι in the present passage Nat. Puer. 30,6. 80,20 Joly = VII 536,4 Li.), and the milk does not arrive owing to the narrowness of the passage (Mul. I 73. VIII 154,5-8 Li.). 30,6 έν φύσει και έν γένει μητρφον: the condition is constitutional, being inherited from her mother421. For έν φύσει constitutional, cf. Aer. 14,4. 58.19 Di. = II 58,23 Li. τοϋ δε χρόνου προϊόντος, έν φύσει έγένετο with the advance of time, it became natural (sc. the shape of the head among the Macrocephali); Mul. I 6. VIII 30,17f. Li. those women who constitutionally menstruate longer than four days and in great quantity are thin, and the children they carry become thin and weak (ήσι δέ έν φύσει έστι πλέονας καθαίρεσθαι τεσσάρων ήμερων) 422 . Superf. 21. 80,17-19 Ln. = VIII 486,17—488,3 Li.: if a woman is fat and phlegmatic παρά φύσιν contrary to her natural constitution, she will be unable to conceive; but if this condition is constitutional (φύσει), she will. For γένει, cf. Morb. Sacr. 2,4. 68,2 Gr. = VI 364,15 Li.: epilepsy άρχεται δέ ώσπερ και τάλλα νουσήματα κατά γένος has its origin, like other diseases, in inheritance, where what follows makes the meaning of κατά γένος quite clear. (In the same passage, Morb. Sacr. 2,6. 68,18 Gr. = VI 366,1 Li., epilepsy is said to be constitutional [φύσει γίνεται] in the phlegmatic. Cf. Lesky p. 1336.) For the question of inherited, as opposed to congenital, constitutions in the Hippocratic Collection, see note on chapter 3,1. Geurts cited there is sceptical that such a distinction exists, but agrees that inheritance is referred to in the present passage423. What the woman inherits is not only a particular kind of constitution (cf. ξηρότεραι drier, πυκνοσαρκότεραι thicker fleshed Nat. Puer. 30,6. 80.20 Joly = VII 536,4 Li.) but also a tendency affecting a particular part, the womb; and, quite properly according to the pangenesis theory, it must be from her mother that she inherits it (μητρφον), by the principle of partial and local epikrateia (cf. notes on chapters 6—8 and chapter 11 ) 424 . The case is analogous to that of epilepsy, which is attributed both to the phlegmatic constitution and to a lesion affecting a particular part, the brain, both of which are inherited (Lesky p. 1336; she thinks that the present passage, as 421

422 423 424

I cannot agree with Heidel Hippocratea p. 170 that έν φύσει καΐ έν γένει are to be taken with άεί γίνεται rather than with μητρφον. Cf. Holwerda pp. 60f. Geurts p. 182. Heidel Hippocratea p. 170 misunderstands the author's theory of inheritance; see commentary on chapters 6 and 7.

250

Commentary

well as Morb. Sacr. 2, is based on the humoral form of the pangenesis theory). 30.6 άγαλάκτους μάλλον: cf. Mul. I 73. VIII 152,22-154,8 Li. cited above, and note on chapter 21. Presumably this would also apply to πρωτότοκοι women bearing their first child; there may be a reference to this in Epid. II 3,17. V 118,9 Li. Πρωτοτόκων τά γάλακτα κτλ. though the text there is corrupt, and Galen's commentary has a gap at the relevant point. 30.7 ίστόριον τόδε: the development of the chick has been used as evidence for the whole theory of chapters 12—28; it is now used again as evidence for the theory of parturition. 30,7 γίνεται έκ τοϋ χλωροϋ τοϋ φοϋ: this was the view of Alcmaeon (VS 24 A 16) and Anaxagoras (VS 59 Β 22); it was probably also the popular view. Aristotle (GA 3,2. 752 b, 25 = VS 24 A 16) says that it was held because of the similarity in colour between the white and milk, and in fact Anaxagoras called the white bird milk. Aristotle's own view rests on equally a priori, though more systematic grounds: the white is the principle of nutriment which governs the growth of the animal's form, the yolk is the earthy substance which provides for increase in size (Arist. GA 3,1. 751b,1—7; cf. Arist. GA 2,6. 744b,32—36; for the distinction between'the two kinds of nutriment Arist. HA 6,3. 561 a,24—26). Needham comments: "Had the author not been strongly attached to this erroneous view he could not have failed to notice the unabsorbed yolk-sac which still protrudes from the abdomen of the hatching chick, and if he had given this fact a little more prominence he could hardly have come to enunciate the general theory of birth which appears in the above passage" 425 . He probably did not fail to notice the yolk-sac, but identified it rather with the umbilicus which is so important for his theory of embryonic development. He goes on immediately to refer to this theory in the present passage; cf. the next note. 30,7 θερμαίνεται: i. e. the chick embryo is formed by the same process of heat generating pneuma as occurs in the human embryo (chapter 12). The respiratory process thus set up is presumably meant to account for the articulation of the chick in approximately the same way (τρόπω τω αΰτφ και παραπλησίφ) as it accounts for the articulation of the human embryo (chapter 17). The passage shows that the clutch of eggs serves as an ίστόριον for the author's whole embryology, not merely for the initial and final phases. Here again the author does not differentiate between what he observed and his inferences from that observation (e. g. πνεύμα ίσχει the content of the egg acquires breath etc.). Cf. Nat. Puer. 29,1. 77,18 Joly = VII 530,6 Li. and note. 425 Needham Embryology p. 18.

On the Nature of the Child

251

30,7 α π ό της μητρός κινέεται: the movement of the egg by the hen corresponds, in the case of the human embryo, to the movement caused by the mother inside the womb and the consequent mingling together of male and female seed (Nat. Puer. 12,1. 54,2f. Joly = VII 486,2 Li. πρώτον μεν μίσγεται όμοϋ, ατε της γυναικός οΰκ άτρεμεούσης it is first of all thoroughly mixed together, for the woman does not remain still). The author omits to say anything about the formation of the egg and the process of fertilization. 30.9 άνάγκη: for the implied concept of natural law, see note on chapter 1,1. 30.10 ήν δέ πλάγιον κτλ.: in Mul. I 33. VIII 7 8 , 1 - 3 Li. these positions occur when labour is long lasting (ήν ώδις έχη, και έπι πολλόν χρόνον άποφυγεϊν ή γυνή τοϋ παιδίου μή οϊη τε ή if the mother is in labour and is unable to deliver her baby for a long time): the implied explanation is the same as in the present chapter, the movement of the mother during the labour. The author uses the analogy of an olive stone transversally wedged in an oil bottle. 30,10 υπό εύρυχωρίης: the explanation is characteristic of the author. Although it is not used in the passage cited in the foregoing note, it is implicit in the analogy of the olive stone. It is also used to account for displacement of the uterus in the similar passage in Mul. I 7. VIII 32,6 Li. 30,10 πολλαΐ δέ ήδη κτλ.: cf. Mul. I 33. VIII 78,8 Li. πολλάκις ή αί μητέρες άπώλοντο, ή τά παιδία, ή και άμφω in many cases the mothers died, or the children, or both. 30,10 μάλιστα πονέουσιν αι πρωτοτόκοι: for the importance of this passage in later obstetrics, cf. Fasbender pp. 129f.; Diepgen Frauenheilkunde p. 137. The author evidently assumes that after the first birth the pelvis is p e r m a n e n t l y widened through the distention of the hip bones (διίσταται τά ϊσχια). 30,12 ΰδρωψ . . . αίματώδης: the ίχώρ π α χ ύ ς thick and bloody serum of chapter 18,3, where see note; cf. ύφήγησις opens a way there with άφηγήσατο here. For the word ΰδρωψ in this sense cf. Pseudo-Arist. H A 7,9. 587a,6, a passage which, unlike some of that compilation, is clearly independent of the present one. Cleophantus, the Alexandrian physician, used the term ΰδρωψ for the membrane itself (Sor. Gyn. 4,53. 130,1—3 lib.). In Morb. IV the word is used for one of the four humours (cf. note on chapter 37,1). 30,12 από τε της κεφαλής: the same doctrine is implied in Mul. I 36. VIII 84,12f. Li. ήν δέ άπό κεφαλής έλθόν τό ρεύμα ές την λοχείην κάθαρσιν τροπή και πολλά συθή, ρηίζει if the flow coming from the head is diverted into the lochia, and much of it flows, the woman is relieved.

252

Commentary

The author is probably referring to the amniotic fluid. If so, he is wrong both about its origin and, more strangely, about the time of its appearance. This is because of his assumption in chapter 16 that the chorion is filled with surplus blood. Therefore to account for the appearance of a watery fluid during parturition he has to devise what is clearly an ad hoc explanation (άποκριθείς κτλ.). Here his humoral theory assists him: the fluid, like any other bodily fluid, must come from the body in general and from a particular part of the body. The remarks of Fasbender pp. 130f. and pp. 185—188 are useful here: the humoral theory was an obstacle in the way of any clear idea of the amniotic fluid or any clear distinction between this fluid and the lochia. The author of Pseudo-Arist. H A 7 was better informed both about the origin of the amniotic fluid (Pseudo-Arist. HA 7,7. 586a,28—30: between the membranes is a watery or bloody fluid, which women call πρόφορος) and about the time of its appearance (Pseudo-Arist. H A 7,9. 587a,6f.: π ρ ώ τ ο ν μεν οΰν ΰδρωψ έξέρχεται . . . ε π ε ι τ α το εμβρυον/Vrsi water comes out. . . then the child). 30,12 αποκριθείς ύπό βίης τε και πόνου και θέρμης: the 'violence' is that of the infant on its way out: cf. Mul. 11. VIII 10,1 Of. Li., where the child is described as causing violence (βίην) and pain (πόνος) in its delivery. 30,12 όδόν άφηγήσατο: the principle of "the water on the table", already referred to in chapter 18,3, where see note. Heidel Hippocratea p. 169 suggested ύφηγήσατο here. 30,12 οϊ τε μαζοί. . . καταρρήγνυται: as the consequence of the loss of the amniotic fluid and the lochia. This is evidently the passage to which Mul. 11. VIII 10,6.8 Li. refers: καταρρήγνυται. . . ύπ' οτευ δε γίνεται, ε'ίρηταί μοι έν τη φύσει τοϋ παιδίου τ ο ΰ έν τ ό κ ω . (the breasts) collapse . . . I have explained why in The Nature of the Child when it is in birth. Chapter 31 Twins Empedocles had explained the production of twins and triplets by a super-abundance of sperm and its subsequent division (κατά πλεονασμον και περισχισμον τοϋ σπέρματος VS 31 Α 81 = Aet. 5,10,1); but he did not explain how the division occurred (VS 31 A 81 = Cens. 6,9—10). As in single births, sex was determined by the temperature of that part of the womb where the embryo grew: male or female twins are born according to whether both lots of sperm settled in a warm or cold place, and twins of opposite sex if one lot of sperm settled in a warm region, the other in a cold region. Democritus, although there is no explanation of the production of twins recorded for him, held a theory about prolificity in animals such as the sow and the bitch which is very similar in detail and in the language in which

O n the N a t u r e of the Child

253

it is recorded to the theory of the present chapters. Aelian N A 12,16 (=VS 68 A 151) says: λέγει Δημόκριτος· πολύγονα είναι ΰν και κύνα και την αίτίαν προστίθησι λέγων, δτι πολλάς έχει τάς μήτρας καΐ τους τόπους τους δεκτικούς τοϋ σπέρματος, ό τοίνυν θορος ουκ έκ μιάς όρμής άπάσας αύτάς έκπληροϊ, άλλα δίς τε και τρις ταύτα τά ζώα έπιθόρνυται, ίνα και συνέχεια πληρώση τά τού γόνου δεκτικά. Democritus says that the sow and the bitch are prolific and he adds the explanation that they have many uteri and places to receive the seed. Now the semen does not fill all these at one impulse (or, from one attempt); but these animals discharge for cover) two or three times, so that the continuancy may fill the parts which receive the semen426. Cf. Pseudo-Arist. Pr. 10,14. 892a,38-892b, 3 δια τί τά μεν πολύτεκνα των ζώων, οίον ύς, κύων, λαγώς, τά δέ ου, οίον άνθρωπος, λέων; ή ότι τά μεν πολλάς μήτρας και τόπους εχει, ους και πίμπλασθαι επιθυμεί και εις α σχίζεται ή γονή, τά δέ τουναντίον. Why are some living creatures prolific, like the sow, the bitch and the hare, but others, like man and the lion not ? Is it that the former have many wombs and places which the sperm hastens to fill and into which it is divided, while the latter are the opposite? (cf. further Arist. GA 4,4. 771b, 27, which in view of its mention of cotyledons should probably be added to Diels' testimonia VS 68 A 151). Wellmann 427 saw the influence of Democritus upon the present chapter, and this is a good deal more acceptable than some of Wellmann's suggestions. What makes it acceptable is the combination of two elements present in Democritus' theory, the manifold structure of the womb and the emission of semen in successive quanta. The suspicion that Democritus is the source is confirmed when we examine the beginning of chapter 31, which reads very oddly unless we suppose that the author is referring in the first words to animals, not to humans; for if the human uterus had "many cavities" instead of two, multiple birth would be just as common in humans as it is in animals. That is, the author has borrowed and adapted a theory about multiple birth in animals, in order to apply it to the birth of t w i n s in humans, and his opening words betray the adaptation. This was correctly understood by Gorraeus, who paraphrases the argument: Videmus animalium quaedam vulvas sive uteros continere multos, totidemque formandi loculamenta, quibus quoniam impleri percupiunt, accidit ut tot etiam pariant, quot semine genitali referta loculamenta habuerint. Itaque cum in muliebri utero duo sint eiusmodi sinus: si in eos genitura semel inserta sit atque divisa, geminos quoque parit 428 . We see that some animals have many uteri, and as many receptacles for forming offspring; and when these animals 426

For the development of the view in late antiquity and the Middle Ages see Kudlien Uterus pp. 415—423. In Pseudo-Iamb. Theolog. Arithm. 46. 61,5 D e Falco, the sperm is emitted seven times. •»27 Wellmann Spuren pp. 304f. 428 G o r r a e u s H p . G e n i t . / N a t . Puer. a d l o c . (Nat. Puer. 31).

254

Commentary

desire to be filled, it comes about that they produce as many offspring as they have receptacles filled with sperm. And so, since there are two cavities of this kind in the woman's uterus, if the seed is placed and divided into these, she produces twins also. Whereas in Democritus' theory the successive amounts of semen are used quantitatively, to explain the number of offspring, the present author uses them qualitatively also, to explain differences in sex. This is necessary for him, in view of his belief in sexually bi-potent sperm: for supposing that twins of opposite sex are born, both with a predominant resemblance to the father, then it would follow that the father must have emitted both male and female determining sperm at the same time. (Democritus on the other hand, who held that sex was determined by partial or local epikrateia, need not have specified that the successive quanta of semen differed in quality, but only that in the one case, the father's contribution prevailed in the sexual parts, and in the other case, the mother's.) The same explanation of twin birth appears in Vict. I 30,1—2. 24.9-25,4 Joly = VI 504,14—506,7 Li., where it is freed from association with multiple birth in animals and where the assumption that the human uterus has two and no more than two compartments is correspondingly clearer than in the present chapter. The passage provides a useful commentary: The cause is chiefly the nature of the womb in woman. For if it has grown equally on either side (άμφοτέρωσε) of its mouth, and if it opens equally, and also dries equally after menstruation, it can give nourishment, if it conceives the secretion of the man so that it immediately divides into both parts of the womb (άμφοτέρας τάς μήτρας) equally429 (Vict. I 30,1. 24.10-15 Joly = VI 504,14-19 Li.). The words άμφοτέρωσε and άμφοτέρας τάς μήτρας suggest that the author is basing his theory on the anatomy of the uterus bicornis twohorned uterus (cf. commentary on chapter 2,3); this is made more likely by Superf. 1,1. 72,5 Ln. = VIII 476,3 Li. which assumes without comment that a superf etation may occur in one of the two horns (sc. of the womb): έν τω κέρατι τω έτέρψ 4 3 0 and by Praxagoras' and Phylotimus' later distinction between the human uterus, which is δίκολπος with two sinuses, and the uterus of prolific animals such as the sow, which is πολύκολπος with many sinuses (Gal. De uteri dissect. 3,2. 38,9f. Nickel = II 890, 16—18 Kühn = Praxagoras Frg. 12 Steckerl); though this might of course be a development of the present passage. Unfortunately it is impossible to tell how ancient the connexion between twin births and the uterus bicornis is; or whether the theory of chapter 31 is subsequent or prior to it. N o r can we tell how old the belief in a uterus bicornis itself is. I suspect it is at least 429

Jones Hippocrates vol. IV p. 271. 430 The original foetus b.eing in the other: cf. Lienau ad loc. Lienau dates the writing to the mid-fourth century.

O n the Nature of the Child

255

as old as Parmenides, since it is suggested by his belief that boys are nurtured on the right and girls on the left side of the womb. But the earliest explicit references (apart from H p . Superf.) are in the fourth century: in Diocles (Diocl. Frg. 27 Wellmann = Gal. De uteri dissect. 3,2. 38,4f. Nickel) 431 and in Aristotle (Arist. HA 3,1. 510b, 18f.; GA 1,3. 716b, 32 —717a, 10). What is scientifically interesting about the theory is that it explains multiple births by the configuration of the womb. The background to this belief is the popular belief about the general influence of the maternal environment on the child; Parmenides' (VS 28 Β 17) and Anaxagoras' (VS 59 Β 107) belief that it was the right and the left sides of the womb which determined sex; and Empedocles' (VS 31 A 81) belief that it was the temperature of different areas of the womb. Compare also the views of the present author in chapters 9 and 10 about the influence of the womb on the child: the explanation of multiple births is really an extension of this, and it is similarly mechanical. There is an early example, though in mythic form, of the belief that multiple birth is determined by the structure of the uterus. It occurs in the mythographer Pherecydes of Syros as reported by Damascius (VS 7 A 8). The cosmogonic divinity Chronos made from his seed fire and pneuma and water, from which when they were distributed into five recesses (έν πέντε μυχοίς διηρημένων) the older gods were born. Parallels with Near Eastern cosmogonies strongly suggest that some kind of cosmic womb is meant 4 3 2 . Perhaps the wombs, if they are such, are separate; but μυχοί suggests recesses in one chamber rather than entirely separate chambers. If Pherecydes did think of his five μυχοί as recesses in one womb, then the situation is parallel to that of multiple birth: five gods are born because five recesses divide the seed between them. 31,1 άφ' ένος λαγνεύματος: excluding the case of superfetation, which the author does not discuss. It is discussed however in Vict. I 31 immediately after the account of twins. 31,1 κόλπους . . . συχνούς: for the language of the whole passage, cf. Aelian (Ael. N A 12,16 = VS 68 A 151) and the Pseudo-Arist. Pr. 10,14. 892a,38—892b,3 quoted above. Κόλπος sinus, cavity is a common poetic

431

432

Nickel Gal. De uteri dissect, p. 70 in discussing this passage of Galen denies that there is any reference to the uterus bicornis: he refers to Sor. Gyn. 1,14,2. 10,14—1911b. according to whom Diocles' κεραΐαι are (not horns but) μαστοειδείς έκφΰσεις breast-like growths inside the womb, with which the embryo is suckled. Yet the word κεραΐαι, used elsewhere for the yardarms of a ship, is so apt for the "horns" of the uterus bicornis that I find it hard to believe that Diocles could not have meant this, particularly since the word κεράτια occurs in Aristotle. Cf. West p. 159; but see also Walcot p. 79.

256

Commentary

metaphor for the womb. The sentence is quoted by Pseudo-Gal. An animal 2. XIX 164,12f. Kühn. 31,1 τηλοτέρω: why this detail? Possibly there is some connexion with the prescription for ensuring a male birth in Superf. 31. 90,13 Ln. = VIII 500,6 Li.: ώθέειν ώς μάλιστα εως άν έκμιαίνηται thrust deeply until ejaculation occurs. 31,1 σχισθεΐσα: cf. Pseudo-Arist. Pr. 10,14. 892b,3 σχίζεται ή γονή the seed is divided. 31,1 έν έκατέρψ κόλπω ύμενοϋται: that each embryo has a separate membrane inevitably follows from the fact that it is formed in a separate compartment of the uterus. But in any case, for the author the formation of the membrane and the formation of the embryo itself are the same thing, at least in the initial stages. The author's view is at variance with that of Superf. 14. 78,17f, Ln. = VIII 484,7f. Li., according to which the twins are enclosed in one chorion. 31.1 ζωοΰται: Apart from the phrase in Nat. Puer. 14,2. 56,21 Joly = VII 492,14f. Li. το μέλλον ζφον έσεσθαι what is to become a living being, the author gives no indication that he has any interest in the later, classic, problem of when life begins, and whether the foetus may be said to be alive. Strictly speaking, it should not be a problem for him, in view of his mechanistic approach; see introductory note to chapter 12. 31.2 ίστόριον: the evidence, which could be easily derived from the breeding of domestic animals, indicates that multiple birth is not a form of superfetation. That this was the belief of some is suggested by the author's insistence upon the point that twins are begotten in one act of copulation (άφ° ένος λαγνεύματος). Aristotle regarded multiple birth as a kind of superfetation, whether there was one act of copulation or not (Arist. GA 4,5. 773b,6-7). 31,2 και δύο: the most familiar example in the Greek world would be goats. Cf. Arist. HA 6,19 . 573b, 19f. 31.2

αύτοι όρέομεν: cf. note on chapter 13,1.

31.3 άσθενέστερον και ίσχυρότερον: i.e. female- and male-determining sperm; cf. note on chapter 6,1. 31,3 ουκ ες άπαξ: cf. Aelian on Democritus (Ael. NA 12,16 = VS 68 A 151); possibly Aristotle (Arist. GA 4,4. 769b,30 = VS 68 A 146) refers to the same phenomenon. In any case, Democritus was interested on other grounds in the spasm which accompanies intercourse: see VS 68 Β 32 and cf. introductory note on chapter 17.

Diseases IV

257

31,3 άποβράσσεται: the word is apt, in view of the author's theory of the production of semen (chapter 1): it refers to the production of foam or scum in liquids which are agitated (see the examples cited in LSJ). Έ κ βράσσω occurs in Int. 1. V I I 166,12 Li. (the invalid throws up clots of blood), Mul. II 113. V I I I 242,10 Li. and Gland. 4. V I I I 558,14 Li. 31,3 άπας τέλος εχει: as Regenbogen p. 159 points out, these words cannot be used as an argument against the unity of the three treatises: he compares Morb. IV 48,3. 1 0 4 , 1 5 - 2 0 Joly = VII 5 7 8 , 4 - 8 Li.

Diseases IV Chapters 32—57 I refer the reader to the Introduction for my view that these chapters form a separate treatise, rather than a continuation of De Natura Pueri. The subject of this text is general physiology and pathology, and the author outlines the plan of the treatise in chapter 32. First he develops a theory according to which health and disease in man depend upon the presence in the body of four humours, which are congenital, and to each of which an anatomical "reservoir" or "source" is ascribed (chapters 33—41). O n the basis of this theory chapters 42—48 explain the "critical days", so important in Hippocratic medicine, by the derivation of each humour from the process of digestion, and the presence of this humour in the body over a three day period. Chapters 49 — 53 then give a general account of pathology which is based on the physiology of the preceding chapters. At the end of this section, in chapter 53, the author states that he has brought his whole account to an end·, but four additional chapters follow, presumably added subsequently either by the author himself or by a later hand, and these are a kind of appendix which discusses three individual maladies, flatworm, calculus and dropsy, the last being preceded by a discussion of the question whether drink passes into the lung. Thus apart from the last four chapters the whole text has a coherent plan. However, this pattern is occasionally obscured, partly by the digressions which are a common feature of Ionic discursive prose, and partly by the fact that some of the author's "evidence" for the physiology described in chapters 4 2 - 4 8 is the pathological conditions which that physiology is designed to explain. Chapter 45 is a particularly clear example of this tendency. In this treatise the author's expression is frequently involved, clumsy and obscure, and the obscurity is increased by a considerable amount of textual corruption, which may itself have been generated by the awkwardness of style. This corruption is further compounded by the fact that we do not have the Vatican manuscript for this treatise, but only the Mar-

258

Commentary

cianus. There are many passages which require drastic emendation to yield an intelligible sense, but unfortunately the obscurity of the author's expression, and the absence of one of the chief textual witnesses, combine to make emendation a more than usually hazardous business. The physiological and pathological theories developed by the author are certainly interesting documents of ancient science, but it is at times all too obvious that in these matters the author lacked the kind of speculative background which he possesses for the topics discussed in De Natura Pueri. Accordingly he allows his imagination to run free, unchecked by the logical and observational controls which operate in the other treatise. In general, the work gives the impression of a man intoxicated by ideas which he has not had the patience to work out with rigour. The sad state of the text, which requires much tedious explication, is largely due to this fact. 32,1

άπό πάντων των μελέων: cf. chapter 3.

32,1 έπάγη . . . έγένετο: Regenbogen considered that these tenses could refer only to the preceding treatise. But they are quite normal in descriptions of the formation of the human body: cf. further down the alternation επειδή . . . έγένετο . . . έχει and VM 20. 51,10-12 Hbg. = I 2 4 , 6 - 8 Kw. = I 620,1 If. Li. In Carn. the aorist is used consistently throughout: cf. the remarks of Schwyzer in pp. 80 — 82 of Deichgräber's edition. 32,1 φύσις ανθρωποειδής: this can only mean a humanoid form. For the concrete sense given to φύσις, see Holwerda p. 68, who explains it as 'ossium carnisque massam', citing among other parallels Euripides (Antiop. 21,54 von Arnim). But here the meaning is rather ordered structure: cf. Sor. Gyn. 1,43,3. 30,22 lib. who distinguishes between the σπέρμα sperm and the φύσις which it becomes; and Gal. De facult. natur. 2,3. 161,12—15 Helmr. = II 83,11 —13 Kühn who makes the same distinction; Manetti also understands the meaning as "form", and helpfully compares other passages in which the author is careful to avoid calling the fetus "human" in the full sense: Nat. Puer. 14,1. 56,21 Joly = VII 492,14f. Li. τό μέλλον ζωον έσεσθαι what is to become a living thing; and Nat. Puer. 15,1. 57,9 Joly — VII 494,2 Li. το έν τήσι μήτρησιν ένέον that which is in the womb (Manetti pp. 437f.). 32,1

ιδέας: cf. chapter 3,1 and note.

32,1 άφ' ών αί νοϋσοι γίνονται: almost a formula. Cf. Aer. 10,12. 52,7—10 Di. = II 50,12-14 Li. χολής . . . αίματος . . . άφ 5 ων ταύτα τα νοσεύματα αύτοΐσι γίνεται bile . . . blood . . . from which these diseases arise·, Aff. 1. VI 208,7f. Li. νουσήματα τοΐσι άνθρώποισι γίνεται άπαντα ύπο χολής καΐ φλέγματος all diseases arise in man from bile and phlegm, and in particular Morb. I 2. 6 , 5 - 8 Wi. = VI 142,13-17 Li.

Diseases IV

259

According to Nat. Horn. 4 , 1 - 3 . 172,13-174,10 Jou. = VI 38, 19—40,14 Li. the humours are the ground of a healthy or normal condition as well as the cause of disease (δια ταϋτα άλγέει και υγιαίνει); and this is the view of the present author also (cf. Morb. IV 42,1. 96,4 Joly = VII 562,20 Li. δκως δε καΐ δια τί ό άνθρωπος υγιαίνει how and why man is healthy). Cf. Arist. Ph. 2,2. 194a,23: health is the form, of which bile and phlegm are the matter. For the whole idea that an understanding of the normal as well as of the abnormal condition of the human body depends upoh an understanding of its original composition, cf. Carn. 1,2. 2,5—9 De. = VIII 584,4—8 Li.: Nor is there any need to discuss meteorology except in so far as I shall explain in the case of men and other living things how they were born and came to be (δκως εφυ και έγένετο) and what the soul is and what health and disease is, and what is good in man and what is bad, and what causes his death. Similarly Vict. I 2,1. 2,8—15 Joly = VI 468,6 — 12 Li. All these passages illustrate the point of view which is (apparently) attacked in VM 20: that it is impossible to understand medicine unless one understands what man is, and how he came to be and was composed in the first place (VM 20. 51,1 If. Hbg. = I 2 4 , 6 - 8 Kw. = I 620,1 I f . Li.). 32,1 όκόσα μή ά π ο βίης: for the use of this distinction see introductory note to chapters 9—11, chapter 50 and notes. It also appears in the similar passage Morb. I 2 referred to above. For the meaning of βίαιον cf. Morb. IV 50,2. 106,21 Joly = VII 582,6 Li. 32,1 κατά τους τοκήας: for the relation between the author's theory of inheritance and his humoral theory, cf. note on chapter 3,1. 32.1 ύγιηροϋ τε και νοσεροϋ: the doctrine of hereditary lesions which is presented in chapter 11. 32.2 καΐ πλείω και έλάσσω . . . γίνεται: = chapters 33—41. For the idea, cf. Nat. Horn. 2,5. 170,6f. Jou. = VI 36,15f. Li. τεκμήρια παρέξω, και άνάγκας άποφανώ, δι' ας εκαστον (sc. humour) αΰξεταί τε και φθίνει εν τω σώματι I shall give evidence and reveal the causes through which each humour increases and dwindles in the body. In that treatise the causes are seasonal, whereas here they are dietetic; but both share the assumption that disease is caused by the preponderance of one humour over another. 32,2 δτι . . . ήμέρησι: = chapters 42—48 (see introductory note to these chapters). 32,2

τίνες άρχαί: = chapters 49—52.

32,2 ρίγος πυρετώδες: cf. chapters 52 and 53. The resume given here is repeated in reverse order at the end of chapter 53.

260

Commentary

Chapters 33—41 The theory of the four humours There are four humours (ικμάδες) in the human body. These humours are congenital, as the author states in Morb. IV 32,1. 84,7—11 Joly = VII 542,8-11 Li. (cf. Genit. 3,1. 46,14f. Joly = VII 474,8f. Li.: man has these forms of humour in him from birth), and frequently implies elsewhere (see note on Morb. IV 40,3. 95,4f. Joly = VII 560,25 Li. άπό των φύσει έόντων). To each of these humours corresponds, an organic reservoir: the head, the gall-bladder, the heart, the spleen. Each of these reservoirs draws from the food in the stomach that humour to which it is akin: the head attracts phlegm, the gall-bladder bile, the heart blood and the spleen water. Each of these humours is present in greater or less quantity in all foodstuff. The reservoirs attract primarily, but not exclusively (except in the case of the gall-bladder) their own cognate humour. The function of the reservoirs is to provide for an equilibrium of humours in the body. This equilibrium is both local and temporal: that is to say, when the body is functioning normally, any deficiency in any part will be automatically adjusted by the interchange between the reservoirs and the body; and, since the reservoirs store the humours, they are able to replenish any nutriment which may become deficient between one meal and the next. The conceptual framework of the whole theory is Alcmaeon's definition of health as an equilibrium, ισονομία, between opposing powers. This concept is general in Greek medicine: the author has given it a particular application, and his application is governed by the choice of two models for the theory. The first is botanical: the reservoirs draw upon the nutriment received into the stomach as plants draw upon the moisture contained in the earth, each plant drawing upon a congenial variety of moisture by the principle of the attraction of likes. The second model is hydrostatic: the reservoirs are like (in some respects) a system of interconnected vessels in which a fluid maintains automatically an equilibrium of level. The second model will be considered in detail in the commentary on chapter 39; before discussing the plant physiology of chapter 34, we must look at it in the context of the humoral theory which it is intended to illustrate. The aspect of that theory which it explicitly illustrates is the attraction of likes. This principle has already been used in the embryology of chapter 17; in both places, it is not taken as an ultimate principle of explanation, but given a mechanistic grounding. It may be discerned from chapter 40 that the reservoirs attract the humours which they do attract because of their structure and the structure of the veins leading to them. Thus the gall-bladder will attract only bile, because its veins are narrow, while the other three, which have broader veins, can attract other humours besides those which are congenial to them. It seems in any case to be an essential part of the theory that a reservoir attracts primarily its own

Diseases IV

261

humour, but subsequently others as well; and the author's insistence on this point is no doubt to be explained by the general assumption in Hippocratic pathology that diseases are caused by humours getting into places where they do not belong. One humour follows another (έπεσθαι έτερον έτέρφ της άλλης ίκμάδος Morb. IV 40,2. 94,25 Joly = VII 560,19f. Li.); if we ask why does it so, the answer seems to be given in Morb. IV 35,2. 87,27-88,1 Joly = VII 548,18-20 Li.: the head . . . attracts (thephlegm), and the phlegm, being viscous, follows bit by bit into the head (punctuating with Ermerins, but omitting τοϋτο: τό δέ ή κεφαλή . . . έλκει· το δε φλέγμα άτε γλίσχρον έόν, έπεται [τοϋτο] το έτερον δια τοϋ έτερου ες την κεφαλήν.). One portion of the same humour follows another by getting — to speak in atomistic terms, which is probably what we have to do with here — "hooked on". N o doubt the explanation is the same when a different humour follows the original and congenial humour, although the author does not say so. The same process occurs in plants, for each plant attracts not only its congenial humour or "power", but other powers as well (this, as we shall see, involves a considerable difficulty in the theory). Nothing is said in the plant physiology itself of the mechanism by which this occurs. The three elements of this theory — attraction of a humour by its like, the subsequent attraction of other humours, and the analogy, illustrating both points, with plant nutrition — occur in combination in Nat. Horn. 6,3. 180,8-182,3 Jou. = VI 44,18-46,8 Li. The author of that passage is attempting a proof that four and no more than four humours exist in the human body by referring to the action of purges which attract phlegma or bile when these purges are applied in excess, so that the patient is overpurged (ύπερκάθαρσις Nat. Horn. 6,2. 180,1 Jou. = VI 44,12 Li.) and dies. The purge draws first the humour to which it is akin, and then in succession the remaining humours until finally the patient vomits blood and dies. This is illustrated by the nutrition of plants, which draw from the earth substance naturally akin (κατά φύσιν), and subsequently other substances as well. It is unlikely that the two passages are entirely independent. If they have a common source, then that source must have combined a theory about humours with a theory of plant nutrition; if there is no common source, then surely Nat. Horn, is dependent on Morb. IV, which includes much further botanical detail. This detail cannot have been devised ad hoc, for an examination of the structure of chapter 34 shows quite clearly that the botany is adapted from a source whose tendency differs markedly from that of the author himself. It is therefore time to look at the argument of chapter 34. According to this argument, the only way in which to account for the specific differences of plants — and incidentally, for the fact that only a specific plant will grow from a specific seed, which it must resemble in character — is to suppose that the earth contains a variety of fluids, each

262

Commentary

of which is capable of nurturing a specific kind of plant. The fact that this is so — i.e. that the nature of the fluid in the soil is the necessary (and sufficient?) condition for the growth of a specific plant — is shown by the following consideration. Silphium, which grows spontaneously in Libya, cannot be grown even by careful cultivation in Ionia and/or the Peloponnese. Yet Ionia and the Peloponnese have sufficient sunlight in comparison with Libya. Therefore the necessary condition for the growth of silphium cannot be the amount of sun (the climatic conditions). Therefore it must be the nature of the soil. The fact that silphium grows wild in Libya is a consideration which strengthens the argument a fortiori: even without cultivation it grows in Libya; even with cultivation it cannot grow anywhere else. The argument is confirmed (see note on ότι δε πολλά και, αλλα below) by a reference to further instances of the same kind as silphium; then by the evidence of the differing flavour of grapes from neighbouring vineyards (showing the degree of proximity within which the character of the soil may change) and by a reference to wild plants which will not grow when transplanted, even by a short distance. The author then repeats his conclusion that the differing character of plants depends upon the differing character of the soil. The argument is now formally complete: the author then makes a remark, which does not seem to be a part of the argument, about the difference between wild and cultivated plants. He then states that each plant used for nutriment draws many "powers" from the earth, and that in each edible plant there is present phlegmatic and sanguineous substance. Finally he repeats the proposition which stands at the end of the preceding chapter (Morb. IV 33,3. 85,18-24 Joly = VII 544,16-21 Li.): I have adduced, then, this compelling proof for the fact that the body draws through the sources I have mentioned from the food and drink entering the stomach, each humour attracting its like through the veins. There are a number of strange features in this argument, not the least of which is the apparent contradiction in the final detail. For if the specific character of a plant depends on its drawing a specific fluid from the soil, it damages this conclusion considerably to say that each plant draws many "powers" from the earth: unless indeed there is a distinction between moisture (ίκμάς) and power (δύναμις), such that each distinct fluid contains a variety of powers. Since in some plants at least these powers are identical (for all edible plants contain at least [see note on 34,5 below] phlegmatic and sanguineous substance), we must also suppose that what makes each fluid distinct is the unique proportion and/or combination of the powers which it contains. It has been taken for granted 433 that this is the author's meaning: this may indeed be so, but if we accept the conclusion we must also 433

Müller pp. 1 2 9 - 1 3 4 especially pp. 132f.; Plamböck p. 104.

Diseases IV

263

recognize that the author's terminology is so imprecise as to give the opposite impression. Thus he says at the beginning of the chapter that the earth contains all sorts of powers (δυνάμεις), for each plant draws a congenial moisture (ίκμάς) from the soil. This looks more like an equation of the terms ίκμάς and δύναμις than a distinction between them, and the author confirms this impression by going on to say that the rose etc. draws on a moisture such as it is itself in power, Morb. IV 34,1. 86,4 Joly = VII 546,1 Li. where δυνάμει in power is semantically equivalent to the όμοίην (ίκμάδα) similar moisture of Morb. IV 34,1. 85,28 Joly = VII 544,24 Li. The same semantic equivalence between the two terms reappears in Morb. IV 34,4. 87,4f. Joly = VII 546,24f. Li. compared with Morb. IV 34,5. 8 7 , 9 - 1 1 Joly = VII 548,4f. Li. (because there are countless powers (δυνάμιες) in the earth, plants are dissimilar ~ because each plant draws a congenial moisture (ίκμάς) from the earth, no plant is similar to another). Here ίκμάς and δύναμις are interchangeable. The difficulty is not insurmountable, for this author can often be imprecise in his use of language, but it should not be simply ignored, least of all by those who wish to impose upon him a precision of argument in other respects. Another difficulty in the passage is the tendency, or tendencies, of its argument. It is used to "compel the conclusion" (cf. ανάγκην, Morb. IV 34,5. 87,15 Joly = VII 548,7 Li.) that each of the four reservoirs attracts a congenial humour. But it cannot have been originally intended for that purpose, f o r it is itself an a r g u m e n t , f r o m t h e seen to t h e u n s e e n , f r o m t h e p h e n o m e n a of t h e v a r i e t y of p l a n t l i f e t o t h e h y p o t h e s i s of a v a r i e t y of f l u i d s o r p o w e r s (or b o t h ) in t h e soil. There is associated with this argument a subordinate argument whose lineaments are not very clear, which has to do with the reality or otherwise of the distinction between "wild" and "cultivated" in plants (cf. note on άγρια κτλ. below). The presence of this sub-argument is presumably the explanation of the incoherence with its context of Morb. IV 34,5. 8 7 , 6 - 8 Joly = VII 546,26-548,2 Li. These features of the theory in chapter 34 indicate that it has been borrowed by the author from another context. The source of this context has been much debated. It has already been argued that its doctrine, that each plant is nourished by a specific fluid, is present by implication in chapters 22—27 (see the introductory note on these chapters, p. 211 and note 378), and it would be unwise, in view of the remarks made above on the use of ίκμάς and δύναμις, to posit a radical distinction between the two passages in the case of δύναμις. It therefore seems a reasonable procedure to regard both passages as illustrating different aspects of the same botanical theory. N o w both aspects appear in a passage in the doxography (Aet. 5,26,4 = VS 31 A 70) which describes the theory of Empedocles. If we could accept this, then it would be easy enough to attribute the whole theory in essence to Em-

264

Commentary

pedocles, though mediated by some later philosopher or scientist, perhaps Diogenes 434 . Unfortunately the question has become complicated by Miiller's contention 435 that the latter part of the testimonium should probably be referred to Anaxagoras. Müller further has strong, though I think not conclusive, objections to Diels' arguments for Diogenes 436 , and he argues for Anaxagoras as the (ultimate) source of chapter 34 (which he regards as describing a doctrine different from that of chapters 22—27). Müller argues that the author's theory of plant nutrition implies Anaxagoras' general theory of nutrition, in which the nutrient parts already exist in a preformed state in the nutriment; it also implies his physical doctrine of an irreducible variety of things, existing ab origine; and the doctrine that everything contains a portion of everything else. But this is somewhat exaggerated: the author nowhere says that all the parts of a plant already exist in its nutriment, but only that the nurturing fluid is "like", "akin to", the plant; nor does he say that everything (in this case, every ικμάς moisture) contains a portion of everything else (i.e. all possible δυνάμεις powers), but only that all e d i b l e and p o t a b l e plants contain many powers, including phlegmatic and sanguineous (and presumably choleric and watery) substance. These restrictions are important, for although they still exclude Diogenes, they nevertheless reduce the individuality of the theory in chapter 34 to a level at which it may be equally compatible with the physical theory of Democritus and with what may be conjectured about his theory of plant nutrition. We are faced with the same hesitation between Anaxagoras and Democritus as occurred in connexion with chapter 17; nor is this surprising when we remember that there is a great deal of common property in the pre-Socratics generally 437 and that the relation between Democritus and Anaxagoras is sometimes such that Democritus' theories may be regarded as restatements, in atomistic form, of those held by Anaxagoras 438 . Neither Democritus nor Anaxagoras, and still less Diogenes, can be shown to be the exclusive influence on chapter 34. But the area of consistency between Democritus and chapter 34 can at least be enlarged. Thus we know that Democritus explained the growth of silphium in some parts of the earth 434

435 436 437

438

So Regenbogen pp. 171 — 176; the evidence for Diogenes is contained in Diels Leukipp p. 106 n. 33 and Diels Excerpte pp. 426—434, and repeated by Pohlenz Hippokrates p. 95 and by others. Müller pp. 70f. Müller pp. 134-137. This probably applies to much material that scholars have regarded as emanating from Diogenes (cf. Müller's demonstration of the prevalence of ΐκμάς and its congeners in Greek science pp. 134—136 and notes). This is not of course to deny that specific influence by Diogenes can be established in some cases, e. g. on Morb. Sacr. This can be true of Democritus' relation to Diogenes also: cf. in this respect their theories on magnetism (VS 68 A 165 and VS 64 A 33) and the remarks of Guthrie History vol. II p. 373.

Diseases IV

265

and not in others by the character of the earth in those parts (cf. note on Morb. IV 34,3. 86,20 Joly = VII 546,14 Li. below). We know too that he explained the difference between χυλοί flavours by the shape of their component atoms, but said that each χυλός is never composed of o n e kind of atom alone, but of a mixture of several kinds, in which one predominates (Thphr. Sens. 67 = VS 68 A 135). Mutatis mutandis (and the mutanda are not very large, since χυλοί flavours and χυμοί humours in plants and animals are often enough the same thing and both words cover the meanings savour, sap, juice and humour) this might be taken as a description of the relation between ίκμάς and δυνάμεις if the interpretation that one ίκμάς moisture contains many δυνάμεις powers is the correct one. If it is further permissible to use evidence from Lucretius as evidence for the fifthcentury atomists, then those atomists held a theory of at least animal nutrition in which like is nourished by like (cf. Lucr. 2,711—717 From all the foodstuffs (sc. which the different species eat) those atoms which are appropriate to each (kind of) animal are absorbed into their frames, where they join on and match their trajectories (sc. to other, similar, atoms). But we see that nature expels those atoms which are incompatible onto the earth, while many too are driven invisibly from the body by impacts, these being the ones which were unable to join on or to harmonize with and imitate those movements which give life.). Finally, we have noticed that the argument of chapter 34 is an argument from the diversity of plant life to an original diversity in the soil. This form of argument is typical of atomistic theory. Lucretius (2,333—380) argues from the diversity of sensible phenomena to a diversity of original substance. In Lucr. 2,398—407 the variety of tastes indicates the variety of the atoms in the substances which stimulate those tastes (cf. the passage from Theophrastus cited above). In 2,581—699 Lucretius refers to the diversity of atoms contained within the e a r t h : notice especially lines 586—588 et quodcumque magis vis multas possidet in se/ atque p o t e s t a t e s ( = δυνάμεις), ita plurima principiorum/ in sese genera ac varias docet esse figuras the more powers and qualities a thing has in it, the more does it show that it has in itself many kinds of atoms in different combinations. But this is true not only of the earth itself, but of every distinct kind of matter. This is demonstrated by an argument from n u t r i t i o n in Lucr. 2,661-672: we find different kinds of animals (that is, creatures with differing atomic structures and therefore with differing atomic needs) feeding on the same kind of grass. This latter argument is reminiscent of the contention in chapter 34 that the same plant draws many powers from the earth. Thus the consistency with Democritus of chapter 34 is at least as great as it is with Anaxagoras. Such consistency, however great, can never demonstrate a source relationship, unless all other possible sources can be excluded. In view of the many concepts shared in common with the preSocratics such exclusion is in this case, as often, impossible. N o r , in dealing

266

Commentary

with this question, should our model be one of individual lines of descent, but rather of a network. All these thinkers — Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Diogenes, the atomists, and at least some of the Hippocratic writers — were at some time contemporary, and none of them were likely to have been completely passive recipients. It is a matter of probabilities, and in view of the mechanistic cast given to the physiological doctrine in Morb. IV (cf. the similar situation with chapter 17) the balance of probability seems to be on the side of Democritus. Müller has shown that there is no reason for preferring Diogenes to Anaxagoras; accepting this, I hope I have shown that there is no reason for preferring Anaxagoras to Democritus. It would be foolish to claim more. The theory of attraction The head . . . attracts (the phlegm), and the phlegm, being viscous, follows bit by bit into the head (Morb. IV 35,2. 87,27-88,1 Joly = VII 548,18—20 Li.). This sentence is the key of the whole humoral theory: it states the principle of attraction by space or void (εύρυχωρίη), which is used systematically in all three parts of the treatise. The concept of εύρυχωρίη is used very diversely: space in the body permits the disturbance of humour which results in secretion of the semen (chapter 2); in the womb it permits the infant to grow properly and it explains not only the shape, but the size as well, of the cucumber which grows in a bottle (chapter 9). It explains how bones become filled with marrow (chapter 19), and how the breasts become filled with milk (chapter 21). In botany, it explains how plants grow by the attraction of sap into their veins (chapter 22). It explains subterranean warmth in winter and coolness in summer (chapter 25), and it accounts for the alteration of the child's position in the womb prior to birth. It is basic to the pathology of chapters 50—53. These uses are not, apparently, all the same. We would say that the explanation of lactation, for example, by the porous tissue of the breasts, is not the same as the explanation of embryonic movement in the womb; for in the one case space exerts a positive attractive force, while in the other it simply provides the conditions in which movement is possible. Yet we should be wary of separating the positive and the negative uses too sharply: for in chapter 9, the size of the bottle in which the growing cucumber is contained not merely allows it to grow to its natural size, but encourages it to grow a little larger, i.e. space itself seems to exert some kind of attractive force. That which is hollow or contains empty space (εύρυχωρίη, κοίλος, εύρύς, κενός) attracts (έλκειν) matter to fill it; and not only to fill it but even to overfill it, as in the pathology of chapters 50—53. But has the author only o n e principle of attraction? In the author's embryology the embryo attracts its constituent material, but this is by breathing, which in its turn is a form of combustion, the tendency of the hot to attract, and feed on, the

Diseases IV

267

cold (chapter 12). A variety of this form of attraction is the attraction of moisture by the heat of the sun. Again, moisture is attracted by what is dry (Morb. IV 37,3. 91,5 Joly = V I I 554,11 Li.). But above all, in the case of the humoral theory, the main principle of attraction would seem to be something entirely different, the attractive force exerted upon likes by likes. This after all is what the botanical analogy of chapter 34 illustrates; and this is what is stressed just as much as the attraction by empty space (cf. Morb. IV 35,5. 88,25f. Joly = V I I 550,15 Li. and Morb. IV 36,4. 90,9 Joly = V I I 552,19 Li.). O n the other hand, in chapter 33 and chapter 40 it is the spaciousness of the head and spleen particularly which is emphasized, and which in chapter 40 is used to explain why a reservoir will attract not only its cognate humour, but also others. Clearly then, attraction by empty space is regarded as the stronger force, since it can attract unlike as well as like things, and the role played by attraction of similars is subordinate to this. Its role in the humoral theory is identical with its role in the embryology of chapter 17. There, the main attractive force was the respiration of the embryo, and the attraction of likes was used to explain why the material attracted by respiration finds its proper place in the formation of the embryo. So too in the humoral theory: the main attractive force is the empty space in the four reservoirs but why the head, for example, tends to attract phlegm more than (but not exclusively of) other humours, is explained by the attraction of likes. And as in the case of chapter 17, there may here too be a purely mechanistic principle underlying the attraction of likes. So much, then, is consistent and systematic. It might seem to us that the kind of attraction exerted by respiration and combustion is quite different in principle from the attraction by void. The author however may have regarded both as instances of the same principle: the following evidence indicates how this might have been possible. Aristotle ( G A 2,4. 7 3 9 b , 9 : cited in chapter 21) compared the attraction of semen by the (warm) uterus to the attractive action of conical vessels which have been warmed. The principle here is attraction by warmth, which Aristotle uses also in a meteorological context (Cael. 4. 312b, 13) and which seems to have been accepted by his pupils (cf. Arist. Mete. 4,1. 3 7 9 a , 2 5 and Thphr. Vent. 47). The same principle of warmth is used in Morb. I 15. 40,13 Wi. = V I 168,13 Li.: cited on chapter 35, where although the cupping instrument is not mentioned, it seems likely that the author had it in mind: the head being hollow and placed above, when it is warmed by the κοιλίη 4 3 9 draws up phlegm into itself. F o r attraction by warmth in this treatise, cf. also Morb. I 27. 8 0 , 2 - 1 0 Wi. = VI 1 9 4 , 1 9 - 1 9 6 , 1 Li. and Morb. I 29. 8 6 , 6 - 1 8 Wi. = 439

Lit. cavity. The word refers to the whole area inside the body's trunk, which is sometimes divided into upper and lower cavities.

268

Commentary

VI 198,24-200,10 Li. Cf. also Fiat. 10. 98,2 Hbg. = VI 106,10 Li. N o physician used to handling these instruments could simply disregard the factor of warmth in the action, and when subsequently Strato of Lampsacus offered a different explanation of its action, he still found it necessary to account for this factor: the heat expelled the air, thus creating a vacuum (for the evidence, see Gottschalk Strato, text, pp. 109,18—110,2 Gottschalk [ = Fr. 67 Wehrli]; commentary, Gottschalk Strato p. 147). N o w Aristotle in an earlier passage (GA 2,4. 737b,28—35) mentions those who believe that the sexual parts draw the residue (i. e. semen) like cuppingglasses, and that we exert force by means of the pneuma . . . The reason given for this view is that our discharge of these residues is accompanied by the collecting of the pneuma440. Someone 441 therefore explained the action of the cupping instrument in terms of pneuma. We have no reason to believe that our author did so. Yet he did explain some forms of attraction by pneuma, and, in all probability, the action of the cupping instrument by heat. The two passages from Aristotle indicate how this might be one and the same explanation: for breathing, in our author, is, like combustion, the attraction of cold air by the hot 4 4 2 . Thus he could have regarded the attraction of humours by their reservoirs as explicable by the body's heat. H e does not, however, say so; and the terms in which he speaks of ευρυχωρία (empty) space (e. g. in the case of the cucumber in the bottle) suggest that he was content to regard it as an attractive principle in its own right. And this is after all characteristic of his method throughout: he does not base his physiology on one properly thought out physical theory, but draws his principles from where it suits him, without concerning himself unduly over their consistency. After Aristotle, such a light-hearted attitude was no longer possible: it is instructive to contrast Erasistratus, who based his physiology on a consistent and coherent physical theory, namely, that of Strato. Thus horror vacui in Erasistratus achieves a status of scientific respectability which is denied to its grandparent, the author's principle of ευρυχωρία (empty) space. Chapter 33 33,1 ή κοιλίη . . . πηγή: cf. Democritus VS 68 Β 149 αν δε σαυτον άνοιξης ενδοθεν, ποικίλον τι και πολύπαθες κακών ταμιεΐον εύρήσεις 440 441

442

Peck Arist. G A p. 179. Evidently Diogenes (Vindic. med. 3 = VS 64 Β 6 where Vindicianus ascribes to Diogenes the belief that inhalation separates a part out from the blood and forces it into the seminal canals). It is interesting that Diogenes explained the first breath drawn by new-born babes as attraction by innate heat (Aet. 5,15,4 = VS 64 A 28); and the breathing of fishes by the void created in their mouths by expulsion of water through their gills (Arist. Resp. 2.471 a, 2 - 4 = VS 64 A 31).

Diseases IV

269

και θησαύρισμα, ώς φησι Δημόκριτος, ουκ εξωθεν έπιρρεόντων, άλλ' ώσπερ εγγείους και αύτόχθονας πηγάς εχόντων if you open your inside, you will find a various and manifold storehouse and treasury of evils, as Democritus puts it, which do not flow in from outside, but have as it were innate springs in their own ground, where possibly the words εγγείους . . . πηγάς innate . . . ground also repeat Democritus. A number of Democritus' fragments show a liking for highly metaphorical language, while on the other hand the present author seems conscious of some novelty in the use of the word πηγή (source, reservoir). Cf. Morb. IV 39,1. 92,12 Joly = VII 556,15 Li.: these sources, as I have named them (ώνόμασα). Manetti p. 431 cites this passage as "un indizio dello sforzo linguistico dell' autore nell' esporre la sua dottrina". Moreover, the passage quoted from Plutarch above agrees very well with the author's doctrine that the four reservoirs are internal sources of disease. 33.1 ελκει δέ και αυτό το σώμα: throughout the following chapters the author lays particular stress on the fact that the body as well as the reservoirs draws directly upon the stomach: cf. Morb. IV 35,2. 87,27 Joly = VII 548,17f. Li.; Morb. IV 36,2. 89,8f. Joly = VII 550,23 Li.; Morb. IV 37,1. 90,14 Joly = VII 552,22f. Li.; Morb. IV 38,1. 91,13f. Joly - VII 554,18 Li. The reason is given in Morb. IV 39,3. 93,11-14 Joly = VII 558,12-15 Li. 33.2 τω μεν δή αιματι: for the relation between humours and reservoirs, see commentary on chapters 35 — 38. 33,2

όλίγω ύστερον: cf. chapter 40.

33.2 έν τοΐσι βρωτοΐσι: cf. Morb. IV 34,5. 87,12-18 Joly = VII 548,5 — 10 Li. where these substances are regarded as powers. The passage does not necessarily imply the doctrine of Anaxagoras έν παντι πάντα in each thing there is (a hit of) every thing (e. g. VS 59 Β 6), for presumably to be edible simply means to contain something which is nutritious, and not all materials are edible. The fact that each kind of food contains all f o u r humoral substances might in itself suggest Anaxagoras' physical theory; but a much more interesting possibility is that for food to be food at all, it must replenish all four reservoirs at once. Nutriment is the s u m of four substances: an individual substance is not nutriment at all. Ν = (a + b + c + d). 33.3 της ίκμάδος: The word is difficult to translate. It occurs in Genit. 5,1. 48,7 Joly = VII 476,21 Li. of the moisture in sperm; in chapter 20 passim of the moisture in the body which provides nutriment for the growth of hair; and throughout chapters 22—27 of the moisture in the earth which provides nutriment for plant growth and fructification. The word is widespread, both within and outside the Hippocratic Collection. It covers two concepts which overlap without coinciding: (i) it refers to moisture

270

Commentary

present in substances, usually organic, which is not necessarily apparent but may become so by being exuded or drawn out; (ii) moisture regarded especially as nutriment, (i) is its earliest recorded use: it occurs in Horn. II. Ρ 392 of the natural moisture in a bull's hide which is forced to the surface when the hide is artificially distended. Hence its suitability to describe sweat (Ajer. 8,2. 40,15f. Di. = II 34,2f. Li.; Hdt. 3,125,4; Arist. PA 3,5 668b, 4). Etymologically too the word suggests something which is filtered out or exuded, such as urine or sweat (cf. Boisacq, Frisk, Hofmann, Chantraine s.v.). The earliest recorded use of sense (ii) is Hdt. 4,185,3, who describes the central region of Libya as desert, waterless, without beast or rain or timber, and it has no moisture (ίκμάδος) in it at all. The last clause is best regarded as a kind of summary: without rain, there can be no animal or plant life, because the soil will have no nutrient moisture to support that life. In the present author, ίκμάς has the implication "nutrient" (cf. Nat. Puer. 20,1. 65,8f. Joly = VII 506,26 Li. the hair receives the right amount of moisture (ίκμάδα) for its nutriment). Here he might have used the word τό ύγρόν fluid: indeed he does do so in Morb. IV 36,3. 89,21 Joly = VII 552,7 Li. where μιχθεΐσα τω αλλω ύγρω mingled with the rest of the fluid corresponds to μέμικται τη άλλη ίκμάδι, is mingled with the rest of the moisture in Morb. IV 35,4. 88,17f. Joly = VII 550,8 Li.; there is a similar variation between ίκμάς and ύγρόν in chapter 41. But a comparison of the use of the two words in chapter 41 and the following chapters indicates that the tendency is towards Ικμάς, except where the author is thinking of the h a r m f u l effects of humour, in which case his tendency is to use ύγρόν. Let Morb. IV 46,4. 102,3—5 Joly = VII 574,3f. Li. serve as an example: άπο τοϋ ύ γ ρ ο ϋ τοϋ πονέοντος εξωθείται τ ι . . . ύπο της ν ε ο τ ά της ί κ μ ά δ ο ς νικώμενον some of the fluid (ύγρόν) causing the pain is displaced by the most recent humour (ίκμάς). Here the morbid humour is ύγρόν, and the fresh nutriment, which has a beneficial effect, is ίκμάς. O f course this illustrates a tendency only, and it is easy to find counter examples. But in the main, ίκμάς for him is that substance which is extracted from food and p r o v i d e s s t r e n g t h (Morb. IV 43,2. 97,19f. Joly = VII 566,4 Li.). In Aff., ίκμάς in the sense τροφή nutriment is used almost as a technical term: cf. Aff. 52. VI 262,7—9 Li. ή δέ ίκμάς άπ' αυτών (sc. τά άσθενέα των αιτίων) τω σώματι ασθενής γίνεται, και ούτε αΰξην ούτε ίσχύν άξίην λόγου παρέχει the ίκμάς from foods which are weak is weak in its effect upon the body, and provides no significant increase in size nor strength·, similarly Aff. 52. VI 262,11 f. Li. This precision of meaning even separates it from its original sense "moisture": cf. Aff. 51. VI 260,12 — 14 Li. The ίκμάς which comes from dry foods, being dry, has a drying effect on the body. Finally, for the equation of ίκμάς with τροφή cf. Aristotle PA 3,14. 674 a, 14: what is expelled from the body after digestion is τροφή έξικμασμένη which is food which has had its moisture removed. The ίκμάς here is clearly nutrient substance.

Diseases IV

271

Chapter 34 34,1 δυνάμιας παντοίας καΐ άναρίθμους: for the language cf. Nat. Puer. 22,1. 68,26f. Joly = VII 514,11 f. Li. έχει γαρ έν έωυτη ή γη ίκμάδα παντοίην, ώστε τρέφειν τά φυόμενα the earth contains all kinds of moisture, which is why it can nurture plants·, VM 14. 45,26—46,1 Hbg. = I 16,2-5 Kw. = I 602,9—11 Li. ενι γαρ έν άνθρώπω καί πικρόν και άλμυρόν και γλυκύ και οξύ καί στρυφνόν και πλαδαρόν καί άλλα μυρία, παντοίας δυνάμιας έχοντα πλήθος τε και ίσχύν for there is in man both the bitter and the briny and the sweet and the sharp and the sour and the watery and innumerable others, having every kind of potency in number and in strength·, VM 11. 48,26-49,1 Hbg. = I 20,13-16 Kw. = I 612, 12—14 Li. ahX έστι και πικρόν καί θερμον το αυτό, και θερμον καί όξύ, καί άλμυρόν και θερμον καί άλλα μυρία, καί πάλιν γε ψυχρόν μετά δυναμίων έτερων. There is (in the same thing) both the bitter and the hot, and the hot and the sour, and the hot and the briny, and innumerable others; and again the cold, along with other potencies·, Nat. Horn. 6,3. 180,12f. Jou. = VI 44,23 f. Li. ένι (sc. έν τί) γή) δε καί όξύ καί πικρόν καί γλυκύ καί άλμυρόν καί παντοΐον, there is (in the earth) both the sharp and the bitter and the sweet and the briny and every kind; Anaxagoras VS 59 Β 4 ένεΐναι πολλά τε καί παντοία έν πάσι τοις συγκρινομένοις καί σπέρματα πάντων χρημάτων και ιδέας παντοίας έχοντα καί χροιάς καί ήδονάς that there is in all the things which are mixed together many things of all kinds; they are the seeds of all things, having shapes and colours and savours of every kind. Cf. further Cam. 13,3. 14,7-11 De. = VIII 600,13-15 Li. where the context is also one of nutrition by similars. If παντοίας of every kind is understood strictly, these passages do imply, as Müller suggested, the physical doctrine of Anaxagoras, in which the diversity of things in the world is irreducible4423. G. Vlastos 443 detects the influence of Anaxagoras in the passages from VM quoted above; J. Longrigg (Philosophy pp. 159 — 165) however while accepting the resemblance thinks that the influence worked the other way. Anaxagoras seems to have held that there were humours (χυμοί), in the earth (VS 59 A 90). Menestor (VS 32,7) also said that the flavours, χυμοί, of plants were indefinite in number; but this was because of the indefinitely varying degrees of coction and mixture of their innate humour (έμφυτον ύγρόν). 34,1 δυνάμιας: for the concept, see introductory note to chapters 22—27; for the question whether in this chapter δύναμις is equivalent to or distinct from ίκμάς, cf. introductory note above.

442

> Müller pp. 65f. Vlastos Rev. Cornford p. 67 n. 2.

443

272

Commentary

34,1 οίον και αυτό κτλ.: Littre's text is doubtful. Ermerins proposed οϊην and έωυτω; the latter is not necessary, but the former is 444 , though the corruption is difficult to explain. The author is trying to express a difficult concept, for which he tries several alternatives further down: each plant contains a humour which is "like" the plant, in the sense that it is akin to it (συγγενής Morb. IV 34,1. 86,11 Joly = VII 546,7 Li.), or natural to it (κατά φύσιν, Morb. IV 34,1. 86,12 Joly = VII 546,8 Li.), but not "like" the plant in the sense that it resembles it (does the second όμοίην conceal οίκείην?). There is a similar awkwardness of expression i n N a t . Puer. 17,1. 59,12f. Joly = VII 496,20 Li. κατά το συγγενές, άφ' ού και έγένετο corresponding to the part from which it came and to which it is akin and Nat. Puer. 22,4. 69,25f. Joly = VII 516,10 Li. His difficulty points very clearly to an early date for the treatise. 34,1 σκόροδον: chosen as an example no doubt because of its pungency: the flavour of garlic is a good example of what is meant by δύναμις. 34,1 οϊόν περ και αυτό δυνάμει εστί: to ask whether δύναμις is here equivalent to the ίκμάς which the plant is said to possess above is to force a precision on the author's language of which it is not capable. The phrase certainly means such as the plant is in character (ihrem Wesen nach Müller p. 130); but on the other hand a plant's character is defined by the humour which it contains and the similar humour which it draws from the ground. Δυνάμει here vacillates between the concrete and the abstract (again an indication of relatively early date). 34.1 ομοια τοΐσι σπέρμασιν: it is the fluid (or the δύναμις in the fluid), which gives a plant its specific character, and thereby ensures a continuity of character between seed, plant, and fruit. Cf. on Nat. Puer. 22,4. 69,25 f. Joly = VII 516,10 Li.; the similarity of progeny to the parent was an argument employed by the atomists. For the form of the argument, cf. introductory note on chapter 43 and the reference to Diller there. 34.2 ή γάρ Ί ω ν ί η κτλ.: The text in Μ reads τού ηλίου των ώρέων ουκ ήκιστα καίεται which is obviously corrupt, and has generated confusion in the recentiores. Coray proposed ού κάκιστα κέεται with και before ώρέων 4443 . N o w this is precisely what the author ought not to say. The climate of Ionia is celebrated for its temperate character (κρήσις των ώρέων Aer. 12,4. 54,13 Di. = II 52,19 Li.) in Aer. 12 and in Hdt. 1,142 (the source of both passages is probably in Hecataeus: Jacoby Hekataios col. 2680). But what the author wants to say, and does indeed go on to say, is that Ionia and the Peloponnese are sufficiently h o t to be comparable to Libya (hence the specification of the Peloponnese, i. e. southern Greece). 444 444a

Οϊην has been accepted in Joly's recent edition. Coray H p . Aer. vol. II p. 399.

Diseases IV

273

Libya is the land where it is always summer (Hdt. 2,26); whereas the climate in Ionia is "spring-like" (Hp. Aer. 12). Nevertheless, I think that Coray's emendation is what the author, however inconsistently, actually wrote (perhaps under the influence of Aer. 12), and that the reading of Μ represents the emendation of someone who noticed the inconsistency. Otherwise the presence of των ώρέων in the text is very difficult to explain. For the genitives with κείται, cf. Aer. 10,8. 50,9f. Di. = II 48,3 f. Li. όκόσαι. . . κέονταί τε μή καλώς των πνευμάτων και τοϋ ηλίου such (cities) as do not have a good situation in respect of winds and sun. 34,3 σίλφιον: this plant has not yet been identified (despite the confidence of the lexicons). Thapsia garganica, Ferula tingitana, Ferula asafoetida, have all been suggested. It was highly valued both as a drug and as a condiment, and it was a royal monopoly in Cyrene; so the author's assertion that repeated attempts were made to grow it elsewhere is no doubt true. It is mentioned as early as Solon and was regarded as a celebrated feature of Cyrene, to judge from Herodotus (Hdt. 4, 169 and 192). For a description see Theophrastus (HP 6,3,1—7); other references are collected and a discussion of the various identifications is given by Steier pp. 103 — 114; with which cf. Chamoux pp. 246—263, and, most recently, Gemmill pp. 295 — 313. Gemmill accepts the identification Ferula tingitana. What is interesting so far as the present passage is concerned is the number of times which Theophrastus mentions it as an example of a plant which is wild by nature (cf. the antithesis wild/cultivated throughout the present passage): Thphr. H P 3,2,1; 6,3,3 'ίδιον δέ το φεύγειν την έργαζομένην (sc. γην) it has the peculiar characteristic of shunning cultivated ground·, Thphr. CP 1,16,9; 3,1,4. In Thphr. H P 1,3,5 silphium is not mentioned, but the other plants (κάππαρις caper and Θέρμος lupine) which Theophrastus uses elsewhere as examples along with silphium are mentioned. In the last passage, and in Thphr. H P 3,2,1 the argument is against Hippon's denial of a real distinction between wild and cultivated; since there appears to be a reference to Hippon's theory in the present chapter (see below on 34,5), it is likely enough that the Theophrastean passages, with their use of silphium, reflect a controversy about the reality of the distinction wild/cultivated which is familiar to the present author. 34,3 ού γαρ έστιν: there is an odd parallel in Sophocles, Oedipus Coloneus 694—698: neither in Asia (= Ionia) nor in the great Dorian island of Pelops ( = the Peloponnese) have I heard of such a plant (sc. as the olive planted by Athena on the rock of the Acropolis) growing spontaneously (αύτοποιόν). 34,3 δτι δέ πολλά και άλλα: the fact that there are many other plants which some regions cannot support even when they are cultivated, although there is quite sufficient sunshine, whereas other regions grow them

274

Commentary

spontaneously . . . That this is the sense of θεραπευμάτων, and not medicaments as LSJ translate, is argued by Müller p. 134 n. 86. A contrast with αύτόμαται spontaneous is meant; the antithesis wild/cultivated is the same as in the passage about silphium above. Compare with the whole passage Theophrastus (HP 3,2,1—2). The construction of the whole sentence is illogical. The fact that neighbouring soils produce grapes of differing quality supports the conclusion that neighbouring soils contain different kinds of fluid; not the conclusion that some plants will not grow in a particular soil, even where the climatic conditions are the same. In fact this latter proposition is not a conclusion at all, but a premiss in the argument. It is as if the author had intended to say "and the fact that there are many other instances of the same kind (as silphium) supports my conclusion about fluids in the soil. A further piece of evidence is the different quality of grapes grown in neighbouring soils". Instead of proceeding in this way he has made a sort of logical anacoluthon, and conflated the two different parts of the argument. In view of the author's methods of arguing elsewhere, I do not think that there is anything at fault with the text. Yet such an anacoluthon may well have arisen if the author was in fact adapting an argument which had been originally applied to a different purpose. 34,3 πολλά και άλλα: examples are caper and lupine mentioned by Theophrastus in the passage cited above (Thphr. H P 1,3,5). There is a similar argument in VS 68 A 99 a: Democritus says that neither frankincense nor sulphur nor silphium nor nitre nor alum nor bitumen nor any other important and wonderful things occur in many places in the earth. In this way, therefore, it is easy to perceive this at any rate, that by making the sea a part of the world he maintains that it is produced in the same manner as the wonderful and most unexpected things in nature, on the view that there are not many differences in the earth . . .44s. 34.3 διαφέρει ες την ήδυοινίην: cf. Empedocles (if it is he, and not Anaxagoras) in the last part of VS 31 A 70. I 296,23—26 Diels-Kranz, cited in the introductory note above, p. 263. 34.4 όκόσον όργυιήν: as with χώρος κάρτα πλησιάζων even a very close locality above, the shortness of this distance is an integral part of the argument that the soil contains innumerable powers. An όργυιή was 1/100 of a stade; or 6 feet: Hdt. 2,149. 445

Grenfell—Hunt P H i b . p. 63. Diels—Kranz add the explanation: "Weil nur auf engem Raum die homogenen Figuren sich treffen (wie bei den faulenden Stellen des Meeres), kommen diese besondern Stoffe auch auf der Erde nur in einzelnen Gegenden v o r " (VS 68 A 99a. II 108 D i e l s - K r a n z ) . This strongly suggests that an atomistic explanation underlies the doctrine of specific fluids in the present chapter: cf. introductory note to the chapter.

Diseases IV

275

34,4 τά μεν ίωδέστερα κτλ.: sc. της γης. The adjectives refer to qualities of the soil, not to the plants 446 . 34,4 τά γένεα . . . πρώτον: this remark on the origin from the earth of the diversity of plant life conflicts with what we are told about Anaxagoras by Theophrastus (Thphr. H P 3,1,4 = VS 59 A 117) that he explained the spontaneous growth of plants by seed falling from the air. Democritus seems to have opposed Anaxagoras' belief that living things came from the air, saying that earth was the origin (see Lucr. 5,793 —796). 34.4 ουδέν έτερον έτέρω δμοιον: Müller (p. 133 n. 82) quotes Anaxagoras VS 59 Β 4 σπερμάτων άπειρων πλήθος ουδέν έοικότων άλλήλοις· ουδέ γαρ των άλλων ουδέν έοικε το ετερον τω έτέρω seeds indefinite in number and in no way like each other: for no one of them is at all like any of the others and VS 59 Β 12 έτερον δέ ουδέν έστιν δμοιον οΰδενί no thing is in any way like another thing. But the atomists also laid emphasis on the dissimilarity of phenomena (cf. introductory note). 34.5 "Αγρια δέ μοι δοκεϊ κτλ.: this sentence interrupts the course of the argument, which continues perfectly logically in έλκει γαρ εκ της γης κτλ. for a particular humour will draw from the earth etc. What the sentence means, and why the author should have written it here, is a mystery the key to which is probably buried with the original source. There are certain tantalizing clues: (i) the antithesis between cultivated and wild recurs throughout the whole passage; (ii) Theophrastus (HP 3,2,1—2) after citing, among other plants, silphium as an example of a plant which is wild by nature, remarks that Hippon however denied the distinction between wild and cultivated, saying that all plants are both tame and wild, tame when they are cultivated (θεραπευόμενον) and wild when they are not: the sentence before us seems to be a fragment of such a controversy; (iii) the substance of the sentence occurs also in Aer. 12,6. 56,1—4 Di. = II 54,10—13 Li. τά τε ώραϊα αυτόθι πολλά εικός γίνεσθαι, όσα τε ά π ό σπερμάτων και όκόσα αύτη ή γη άναδιδοϊ [φυτά], ων τοϊσι καρποϊσι χρέονται άνθρωποι ήμεροϋντες εξ άγριων καΐ εις έπιτήδειον μεταφυτεύοντες the harvests (sc. in Asia) are likely to be plentiful both those from seed and those which the earth bestows of her own accord, the fruit of which men use, turning wild to cultivated and transplanting them to a suitable soil447; the distinction in that passage between spontaneous growth and growth from seed recurs in Nat. Horn. 6,3. 180,lOf. Jou. = VI 44,21 Li. τά φυόμενά τε και σπειρόμενα those plants which grow (spontaneously) and those which are grown, a passage which is closely related to the present one; (iv) there is a possible

446 447

Cf. Anastassiou Rev. Joly p. 539. Jones Hippocrates vol. I p. 107.

276

Commentary

relevance in Theophrastus' ( H P 2,2) discussion of the differences that occur in plants and shrubs according to whether they are wild or cultivated, grown from seed or otherwise, transplanted or not; he mentions for instance the case of trees which being transplanted no longer bear fruit (HP 2,2,8). See also Pseudo-Arist. Pr. 20,12. 924a,1—23 where the difference between wild and cultivated is explained by corruption, as opposed to concoction, in the soil (Menestor? Cf. Thphr. C P 6,3,5 - VS 32,7). Plato makes a remark similar to the present passage: originally only the wild kinds of plants existed (τά των αγρίων γένη), but through cultivation they have become domesticated (Pi. Ti. 77a). Plato's language suggests that the original controversy was whether there is a generic difference between wild and domestic varieties. 34,5 καρποφορέειν κατά το σπέρμα: cf. the passage from Aer. cited above. The meaning is that trees in a wild state will either not produce fruit at all, or the fruit will not be very good. For the inferior quality of fruit from wild trees, cf. Theophrastus (Thphr. H P 2 , 2 , 6 ; 3,2,3). 34,5 έλκει δέ έκαστον: for the question whether this is part of the theory contained in the early part of the chapter, see introductory note above. Its appearance here is certainly very abrupt, and leaves one with the impression that the author has wrenched the theory of plant physiology into the service of his own doctrine that each nutrient material contains all the four humours, without noticing that that theory is thereby torn apart. Joly ad loc. regards it as a contradiction. Müller p. 131 and n. 79 proposes άλλας others after πολλάς many and ΰδρωποειδέος και χολώδεος και after φλεγματώδεος και (cf. Morb. IV 33,2. 85,15f. Joly = VII 544,14 L i . ; the error arose through homeoteleuton). The second is a necessary emendation; the first is possible, but if it is accepted, it should be noted that it makes it even more difficult to draw a distinction between ίκμάς and δύναμις, as Müller pp. 1 2 9 - 1 3 2 wishes to do. 34,5 ανάγκην . . . προσηγαγομένην: cf. Nat. Puer. 12,5. 54,15 Joly = V I I 488,8 Li. There too analogy is regarded as "compelling proof". Cf. Introduction § 7. 34,5 ελκει τό σώμα . . . ή όμοίη ίκμάς: Joly adds καί, but I see no difficulty, particularly in view of the author's archaic style, in understanding ή όμοίη ικμάς as an apposition to τό σώμα. Chapters 35—38 The author has stated in chapter 33 that there are four reservoirs in the body, one to each of the four humours which are derived from nutriment. The present chapters describe in detail how each reservoir draws on its associated humour, but their primary purpose is to show how an e x c e s s of

Diseases IV

277

each humour occurs (πλείων γίνεται Morb. IV 35,4. 88,26f. Joly = VII 550,16 Li.; 36,1. 89,2 Joly = VII 550,17 Li.; 36,4. 90,7 Joly = VII 552,17 Li.; 37,1. 90,12Joly =VII 552,20 Li.; 37,3. 91,9Joly = VII 554,15 Li.; 38,1. 91,12 Joly = VII 554,16 Li.; 38,3. 92,2 Joly = VII 556,7 Li.). Since it is excess which causes harm, the chapters fulfil the author's promise in chapter 32 (/ shall show how, in the case of each of these forms, they are increased and diminished in the body, and through this men are ill Morb. IV 32,2. 84,11-13 Joly = VII 542,11-13 Li.). That he is thinking primarily of their harmful effects is confirmed in Morb. IV 38,3. 9 2 , 6 - 8 Joly = VII 556, 10-12 Li. and Morb. IV 41,1. 95,18f. Joly = VII 562,7f. Li. τέσσαρα . . . σ ι ν ε ό μ ε ν α four fluids which cause harm to man. The general cause of disease then is plethora of one or more of the humours. Plethora is a result of overeating (Morb. IV 38,3. 92,7f. Joly = VII 556,1 If. Li.), which interferes with the automatic adjustments of the three-day digestive cycle described in chapters 42—48 (δκως δέ και δια τί ό άνθρωπος υγιαίνει how and why a man is healthy). This cycle is the physiological basis of the present chapters. Chapter 35 Phlegm Φλέγμα from φλέγειν burn is used by Homer (II. Φ 337) with the meaning burning, heat (cf. καϋμα), but otherwise its use appears to be medical. The earliest reference to φλέγμα as a humour occurs in H d t . 4, 187, where Herodotus refers to a custom of the Libyan nomads who cauterize the heads or temples of their children, in order that they may not be continually troubled by phlegm flowing down from the head. Evidently the nomads were prone to running noses. According to a related passage 448 in Aer. 20, the Scythian nomads practise cautery because of the moistness (ύγρότης) of their constitution. N o w the constitution of the Scyths is clearly phlegmatic, although the word is not directly used of them. We hear of phlegm descending from the brain, because of the moistness of (phlegmatic) constitutions in Aer. 10,6. 48,21 f. Di. = II 46,6f. Li.; cf. Aer. 3,4. 28,5 Di. = II 16,6f. Li. and the physiology of Morb. Sacr., a work closely related to Aer. So that by 430, and probably even earlier if Hecataeus is the source, φλέγμα is an established medical term used to describe a catarrhal flow, the product of moisture, which comes from the head. In the classic formulation of Nat. Horn., phlegm is characterized as cold and moist, and there are already traces of this in Aer. and Morb. Sacr. (cf. Morb. Sacr. 15: phlegm chills the brain while bile heats it). Since no Greek could ignore the connexion between φλέγμα and φλέγειν (despite 448

Probably both come f r o m Hecataeus; cf. Heinimann p p . 172 — 178.

278

Commentary

Fredrich Untersuchungen p. 41), this caused some scandal, or so we can deduce from Prodicus' proposal to substitute the word βλέννα, and from later echoes of the same controversy (cf. Soranus in EM 795, 46) 449 . Φλέγμα must originally mean, in a medical context, inflammation, and there are several instances of this use in the Collection (φλέγμα = inflammation in Ulc. 1. VI 400,9 Li.; Morb. II 26. VII 42,17 Li.; 27. VII 44,6 Li.; 32. VII 48,20 Li. and 71. VII 108,4 Li.). See Fredrich Untersuchungen p. 38 and Jouanna Hippocrate p. 99 and p. 106. The fact that it can be used in this way tout court suggests that it was its original meaning. Jouanna in fact (Hippocrate pp. 92 — 108) uses the presence of this meaning in certain passages of Morb. II (Morb. IIA) and its absence in others (Morb. II B) as one of the criteria for dating earlier and later parts of that text. This semantic development from φλέγμα = heat, inflammation, to φλέγμα = 'the agent which causes the inflammation', is a plausible one, although in view of a general tendency in these texts to use the name of a disease and a substance causing that disease in semantically equivalent contexts, we cannot be certain that the development was ever completed. In Fist. 7. VI 454,4—6 Li. for example, φλέγμα signifies the humour and the inflammation simultaneously. In this development, there is no logical reason why the agent should itself be regarded as hot, but the natural tendency would be to suppose that it is. The word φλέγμα gives rise to the word φλεγμαίνειν (to be inflamed), and a state of inflammation is also the e f f e c t (distinguished from the agent) of φλέγμα in several passages (Morb. II 8. VII 16,8 Li.; Aff. 4. VI 210,24-212,24 Li.; Int. 6. VII 180,3-7 Li.; Gland. 7. VIII 562,10—12 Li.). In a number of passages besides, φλέγμα is regarded as a heating agent in general, and in some of these it is itself regarded as hot: Int. 47. VII 282,3 — 6 Li. its effect on the blood is to make it hot; Int. 24. VII 228,1 f. Li. it produces καϋμα, burning, in the liver; and in Int. 22 there is the phrase ύπο τού καύματος τοϋ έν τω φλέγματι by the agency of the burning heat in the phlegm (Int. 22. VII 220,20 Li.) 450 . In Int. 449

450

Despite Fredrich Untersuchungen p. 36, the association of the word phlegma with the humour must be earlier than Herodicus of Cnidus. Fredrich's valuable attempt to establish a history of Greek humoral theory is unfortunately vitiated by the respect which he accords to the Anonymus Londinensis as an historical source; but this compilation should be treated far more circumspectly than it usually has been by historians of Greek medicine. One consequence of Fredrich's account is that, if we accepted it, we should have to date O n Ancient Medicine (whose author according to Fredrich does not know of phlegma as a humour, because he does not use the name) earlier than Herodotus 4,187 (or his source) and Aer. and Morb. Sacr. — and indeed considerably earlier. I imagine that this would be unpalatable to most scholars. Joly however in a criticism of Jouanna's argument explains this expression as the result of a morbid condition which has heated the phlegm, itself naturally cold (Joly Chronologie p. 5). If this is correct, the same explanation would apply to chapter 20 of the present treatise, where phlegm is said to burn (καίει, Nat. Puer. 20,5. 66,13 Joly = VII 510,4 Li.) when it has been heated as the result of disturbance.

Diseases IV

279

10. VII 188,26—190,2 Li. an accumulation of phlegm in the head heats the head (cf. also Morb. I 15. 3 8 , 1 - 3 Wi. = VI 166,6-8 Li.; Morb. II 3. VII 10,6—8 Li.; Mul. I 61. VIII 124,If. Li. if there is a burning sensation (καύμα) in the belly because of phlegm descending into it). But alongside these passages there exists a strong contrary tendency to regard φλέγμα, despite its name, as having a chilling effect and as being itself cold. Contrary qualities may be ascribed to φλέγμα within the same treatise: contrast Aff. 24. VI 2 3 6 , 5 - 8 Li. with Aff. 4. VI212,5f. Li.; Morb. I 24. 70,17f. Wi. = VI 188,19 Li. and Morb. I 34. 92,16 Wi. = VI 204,12f. Li. with Morb. I 15. 3 8 , 1 - 3 Wi. = VI 166,6-8 Li.; Morb. II 8. VII 16,15f. Li. with Morb. II 3. VII 10,7 Li. It is not plausible to explain such examples as reflecting different chronological stages in a semantic evolution. It seems rather to be the case that the writers of these texts are not interested in systematically assigning temperature qualities to the humours. In the present treatise for example, bile, phlegm, and blood are jointly opposed, as comparatively warm humours, to ΰδρωψ which is cold (Morb. IV 51,4. 109,3 - 9 Joly = V I I 5 8 6 . 5 - 1 0 Li.) but even here, where one might expect it, there is no attempt to relate humours to temperature qualities systematically. The author is simply discussing fever, of which he says that ΰδρωψ is not a cause. (In Morb. IV 52,3. 112,1—4 Joly = VII 520,20-22 Li. however, ΰδρωψ, although ψυχρότατον, coldest, may cause φλεγμονή, inflammation.) The same may be said of Morb. I 24. 70,17f. Wi. = VI 188,19 Li. In some passages, it is true, the heat which is ascribed to φλέγμα may be explained by a morbid condition (cf. Joly Chronologie p. 5). But in view of the original association with heat which is inherent in the word, it is not this which requires explanation, but the tendency to regard φλέγμα as cold. Since this tendency seems to be chronologically prior to Nat. Horn, (where it may partly be explained by the schematic correlation of the four humours with the four seasons) it must be explained independently of Nat. Horn. The explanation may be sought in two directions. One is that in a system which makes large use of the effects of chilling and heating by humours in the causation of disease, and which a l s o attributes disease to a single pair of humours, bile and phlegm, there will inevitably be a case in which either of these humours causes chilling. The other is that phlegm as a matter of observation is associated with respiratory complaints, and these are in fact prevalent in winter; while gastro-intestinal complaints, which are associated with bile, are prevalent in summer. This may be the original reason for the association of phlegm with cold and bile with heat which we can see beginning in Morb. Sacr. cited above. 35,1

τυρόν: cheese is φλεγματώδης in Aff. 55. VI 266,5 Li.

35,1 δριμύ: cf. τυρον δριμύν in Mul. II133. VIII 298,6 Li.; φλέγμα δριμύ in Mul. I 25. VIII 66,9f. Li. The ingredients of the cyceon drink, which include cheese, are described as φλεγματώδεα in Plato R. 3. 406a. To

280

Commentary

δριμύ is one of the cardinal tastes distinguished by the Greek vocabulary. Democritus (VS 68 A 135 = Thphr. Sens. 65—67) distinguished όξύς sharp, sour, γλυκύς sweet, στρυφνός astringent, πικρός bitter, αλμυρός salty, δριμύς pungent and others which Theophrastus does not specify. The author of VM (VM 14 and 18) mentions, πικρός, άλμυρός, όξύς, γλυκύς, στρυφνός, πλαδαρός (insipid) and δριμύς. More helpfully, attempts to order them are made by Plato and by Aristotle. Plato Ti. 65b—66c arranges them in associated pairs of greater or lesser intensity: στρυφνά — αυστηρά astringent - rough, πικρά - άλυκά bitter - salty, δριμέα — οξέα pungent — sharp, to all of which sweetness is opposed. Aristotle (de An. 2,8. 421a,26—30 and Sens. 4.442a,11—29) orders them on a continuous scale between the poles γλυκύς and πικρός, the intervening members being mixtures of these two opposites: γλυκύ λιπαρόν δριμύ αύστηρόν στρυφνόν οξύ άλμυρόν πικρόν i. e. sweet, oily, pungent, rough, astringent, sharp, salty, bitter. Theophrastus (CP 6,1,2) has a variation on this in which δριμύς comes between στρυφνός and άλμυρός, while όξύς comes after πικρός. Vict. II 54,2. 52,7f. Joly = VI 558,4f. Li. ascribes δριμύτης to the radish (and says in fact that this quality dissolves phlegm), while Mul. II 136 includes radish (ραφανίς), onion (κρόμμυον) and cress (κάρδαμον) among τα δριμέα. Aristophanes (V. 146) and Theophrastus (Ign. 72) describe the smoke of figwood as δριμύς {pungent or acrid). Theophrastus (CP 6,1,3) says it is καυστικον ή θερμαντικόν burning or warming, and Democritus said that το δριμύ heats (θερμαίνειν, Thphr. Sens. 67). This heating effect may be the key of the association, in some works of the Collection, between δριμύ and φλέγμα. Thus although the author of VM does not use the word φλέγμα, he describes the flow of κόρυζα rheum as δριμύ and as causing heat (cf. VM 18. 49,8f. Hbg. = I 21,1 f. Kw. = I 614,1-3 Li. and 19. 50,4 Hbg. = I 22,9 Kw. = I 616,13 Li.). Φλέγμα (= both the humour and inflammation) is δριμύ in Fist. 7. VI 454,8 Li., Flat. 10. 97,22 Hbg. = VI 106,4 Li. and 10. 98,6 Hbg. = VI 106,14 Li.; and Gland. 7. VIII 562,7 Li. and 12. VIII 566,3 Li. refer to a δριμύ Qt^apungent rheum flowing from the head, which inflames (φλεγμαίνειν). In Mul. 118 the effect of pungent substances is, to inflame, φλεγμαίνειν (cf. Mul. 190. VIII 214,14 Li.); in Mul. 125. VIII 66,9 Li. φλέγμα is δριμύ (cf. Mul. I 57. VIII 114,17 Li.). Herodicus of Cnidus distinguished two humours, one being οξεία and the other πικρά (Anon. Lond. V 12—34) which according to Fredrich Untersuchungen p. 36 became the later phlegm and bile. N o w πικρός is commonly associated with bile, while όξύς, though not identical with δριμύς, is semantically similar to it (cf. Plato mentioned above). On the other hand, δριμύς is associated with b i l e in Aer. 10,12. 52,7f. Di. = II50,13f. Li., Acut. (Sp.) 1,1. 68,3 Joly = II 394,2 Li., Epid. Ill 14. 231,18 Kw. = III 98,4 Li.; and even in Mul. I 26, probably by the same author, urine which is δριμύ is one of the symptoms of a complaint caused entirely by bile (cf. Mul. I 63. VIII 128,7 Li.). Yet in the preceding chapter, it is p h l e g m which is δριμύ while bile and δριμύ are again associated in Morb. II 66. VII 100,11 Li.

Diseases IV

281

35,1 αύτίκα οι έπιθέει: certainly not the normal effect of eating cheese (even fetta!), but the author is probably referring to the running nose and watering eyes caused by very pungent flavours (described by Plato as the effect of δριμέα in Ti. 66a,1), and using this familiar experience as evidence for his physiological theory, 35.1 πάντες όρέομεν: i. e. this is an ίστόριον apiece of observed evidence for the truth of the account, as in Morb. IV 36,1. 89,7 Joly = VII 505,22 Li. and Morb. IV 37,1. 90,16f. Joly = VII 552,24-554,1 Li. Cf. note on chapter 13,1. 35.2 ώσπερ σικύη: the author alludes to a physiological explanation which is given in more detail in Morb. I (15. 40,18-42,3 Wi. = VI 168,13-18 Li.; on the text see Anastassiou Rev. Wittern p. 673) and in Morb. II11. VII18, 14—18 Li. = 80,5—18 Jouanna; cf. Jouanna Hippocrate p. 325, n. 1. In both passages, the head attracts because it is hollow and becomes h e a t e d : heat is also implied in the present passage by the comparison with the physician's gourd (σικύη), since these were heated (for the σικύη cf. note on chapter 21,5 and introductory note to chapters 33-41). All three passages presumably have a common source. There is a kind of pun here, impossible to translate: the head is like a gourd (σικύη) in shape, and it is like the physician's cup (σικύη) in its capacity to attract fluid. 35.2 άποχρέμπτεται. . . φλέγμα: for expectoration as κάθαρσις cf. Vict. II 62,3. 63,4f. Joly = VI 576,22f. Li. καθαίρεται . . .μύσσεταί τε και χρέμπτεται (sc. το ύγρόν) the fluid is purged (by) blowing the nose and hawking. The author is evidently not describing the normal digestive process of Morb. IV 42,2. 96,14f. Joly = VII 564,1 f. Li. in which the humour already present in the organ enters the κοιλίη, being thrust out from its reservoir by the newly absorbed humour. The present case is an excessive absorption of humour, such as is described in Morb. IV 44,1. 97,25 Joly = VII 566,9 Li. ή άλλη προσγένηται πολλή πιμπλαμένη or if a further large quantity (of humour) accrues. So too in the three following chapters, where the immediate effect of consuming χολώδες etc. is pain or discomfort of some kind. The reason is that it is only the excessive cases which provide him with the necessary ίστόρια for connecting the humours with their specific organs. It is therefore this desire to provide ίστόρια which governs the form of these chapters, one of the many characteristics which Morb. IV shares with the preceding treatise. 35.3 άριστον . . . ές την κοιλίην: the normal process according to the physiology of chapter 42. 35.4 πολλόν άν πόνον: e. g. the pain caused by phlegma in the head in Morb. II 8. VII 16,5 and 11 Li. In the condition described in that chapter, the veins in the head become heated and attract phlegm, which is evidently what causes the pain. In other respects however the pathology of the two

282

Commentary

chapters differs, and in Morb. II the excess of phlegm is not ascribed to diet as it is here. 35,4 άρχή ύπολείποιτο: Joly Hp. Morb. IV p. 88 translates a moins qu'ilne lui reste quelque autre principe (de maladie) which is correct, but the phrase requires some explanation. 'Υπολείποιτο means the same as it does in Morb. IV 43,1. 97,11 Joly = VII 564,22 Li. ικμάδος μή υπολειπόμενης έν τφ σώματι άρκεούσης unless sufficient humour remains in the body (sc. to support life). In the present passage however the reference is to the harmful effect which occurs when there is already a considerable amount of a particular humour present in the body, and more is added to it (cf. introductory note to chapters 35—38). When the digestive system is functioning properly, this previous humour would be expelled according to the process which the author describes in chapter 42; when it is not functioning properly, the result is plethora, as described in chapter 44 (particularly Morb. IV 4 4 , 2 - 3 . 98,12-17 Joly = VII 566,19-22 Li.). The connotation of αρχή is therefore humour (see W. A. Heidel Anaximander p. 219 n. 5, although the actual instances which he gives from chapter 51,3 rest on a misinterpretation [see note ad loc.]); what the word actually means however is initial cause, and the author uses it here because such a residue of humour in the body does in fact function as a cause of disease (the predisposing cause, αιτία προηγουμένη, as it was called in later terminology). This is described in chapter 51, particularly Morb. IV 51,1. 108,2-8 Joly = VII 584,8-13 Li., where see note. The same explanation applies to the corresponding passage of the next chapter (Morb. IV 36,3. 89,22f. Joly = VII 552,8 Li.) ήν μή τις και άλλη άρχή ύπογένηται unless another cause of disease already exists there. Chapter 36 36,1 χολής: in the Iliad (Horn. II. Π 200-206), Achilles reminds his followers of how they used to accuse him, saying that his mother must have nourished him with χόλος instead of milk: if they were not to be allowed to fight the Trojans, they would have preferred to return to Greece, since evil χόλος had entered Achilles' heart. Χόλος, of which χολή is simply the Ionic-Attic form, means anger in Homer, but it is also in this passage the substance of anger, or the substance that causes the manifestation of anger by entering the heart. The passage testifies to an old, but still conscious, usage of χολός = a physiological substance (cf. Onians pp. 84f.). The same concrete use of χολή appears in Aeschylus (Ch. 183f.), and presumably it survived in demotic Attic (Aristophanes); although in Attic prose the word disappeared (the only instance in the Attic orators is Pseudo-Demosthenes, Adv. Aristogit. 1,27. 778,8), perhaps because of the technical sense it acquired. The change is symbolized by the purely medical context of Acut.

Diseases IV

283

42,1. 54,1—4 Joly = II 312,3—6 Li.: an access of bilious substance causes patients to become πικροί, bad-tempered. Here the substance and its emotional effect are quite distinct. In Archilochos Fr. 96 Diehl (χολήν γαρ ούκ εχεις έφ' ήπατι you have no bile upon your liver) the reference is probably to anger; but in Hipponax Fr. 51 Diehl (ώμειξεν αίμα και χολήν έτίλησεν he pissed blood and passed thin bilious stools) the word appears in its strictly physiological sense as early as the second half of the sixth century, when Hipponax wrote. (It may be purely accidental that phlegma as a humour is not attested equally early.) Both in medical and lay contexts bile is characterized by its bitter taste and its bright yellow colour (πικρότης . . . ήν . . . ξανθήν χολήν καλέομεν the bitterness which we callyellow bile; VM 19. 50,14f. Hbg. = 123,1 f. Kw. = I 618,6f. Li.; cf. Sophocles Fr. 770 Nauck; and the adjective χολοβάφινος yellow-dyed4S1.) Etymologically, the word means yellow (Boisacq s. v.). In Arist. de An. 3. 425b,1, Aristotle uses the bitterness and yellowness of bile as a familiar example of distinguishing characteristics. So the adjective πικρόχολος of bitter bile appears alongside the more common χολώδης bilious to signify a type of constitution; it may be that πικρόχολος has a specialized meaning, but it seems more likely that there was a felt need to provide an adjective, corresponding to μελαγχολικός of black bile, and *ξανθοχολικός of yellow bile would have been semantically objectionable, because of the significance of the radical (cf. Acut. 16,1. 63,10f. Joly = II 358,1 f. Li. where the two adjectives are opposed, and see the remarks of Joly Edition pp. 152f.). The author of VM uses the expression ξανθή χολή yellow bile in such a way as to suggest that it is already an established term for himself and his colleagues (cf. Joly Edition p. 153). Does this mean that the present author, who does not qualify χολή, is writing before the implied distinction between yellow and black bile, or is unaware of it, or chooses to ignore it? Not necessarily, since χολή unqualified is used in Coan works where it would be rash to deduce (although some have) that the distinction had not yet been made. Although this must have been the case originally, so far as the Hippocratic texts are concerned Galen may well be right in saying that it was a convention, not only of medical writers, but of ordinary Greeks as well, to use the word "bile" without qualification to refer to yellow bile; and in therefore implying that such usage does not preclude the existence of black bile (cf. Gal. De simpl. medicament, temp. 10,13. XII 275,13 — 18 Kühn; De alim. facult. 3,38,7. 382,3-6 Helmr. = VI 742,12-15 Kühn; De tumor, praeter nat. 9. VII 722,4-8 Kühn; In Hipp. Nat. Horn, comment. 1,30. 41,15-17 Mew. = XV 77,12-15 Kühn; In Hipp. Epid. VI comment. 4,4. 194,13f. Wenk. = XVII Β 129,11-14 Kühn). 451

It is tempting to take κροκοβαφής σταγών Aeschylus Α. 1121 f. = bile, but the context, though corrupt, is against it. See Fraenkel ad loc.

284

Commentary

There is a further point worth noting about the use of the noun χολή: it tends to be restricted to aetiological contexts and is for this reason relatively rare in the Epidemics which are concerned with symptoms rather than with aetiology. Bile is actually o b s e r v e d only in discharges, so that in these works the word appears mainly as the adjective χολώδης, bilious, of stools etc. (Contrast χολή in Epid. II 31. V 138,12—18 Li. where the context is aetiological.) Where pure bile is observed as a symptom, the author usually says so: cf. e.g. Art. 31. II 149,13f. Kw. = IV 146,9 Li. ύποχωρέειν . . . χολώδεα ά κ ρ η τ α unmixed bilious stools; and the adjective άκρητόχολος of unmixed bile. The great use of bile is as the cause of fever. Anaxagoras regarded the gall-bladder as the cause of all acute diseases (VS 59 A 105), and these are normally accompanied by fever. According to Nat. Horn. 15,1. 202,10 J o u . = VI 66,10 Li. most fevers come from bile. So also in pseudo-Arist. Pr. 1,6. 8 5 9 b , 5 f . ; Pr. 1,12. 8 6 0 b , 2 2 - 2 5 . This is the case for the Cnidian treatises: cf. the fevers arising from bile Morb. II 40—43. V I I 5 6 , 3 - 6 0 , 2 4 L i . 4 5 2 and the series of bilious diseases Morb. II 6 7 - 6 9 . V I I 102,4—106,9 Li. In particular bile causes burning fever, καύσος, καυσώδης (Morb. 129. 84,6 Wi. = VI 198,6 Li.; Aff. 11. V I 2 1 8 , 1 3 - 1 5 Li.; Aff. 14. VI 2 2 0 , 2 3 - 2 2 2 , 3 Li.; cf. also Acut. (Sp.) 1,1. 6 8 , 2 - 4 Joly = II 3 9 4 , 3 - 5 Li.; Epid. I l l 17,9. I 2 3 9 , 8 - 1 0 Kw. = III 128,4f. Li.; Epid. IV 2. V. 144,9 Li.; Epid. IV 9. V 148,19 Li.; Pseudo-Arist. Pr. 1,29. 8 6 2 b , 2 5 - 8 6 3 a , 5 and Gal. De plac. Hipp, et Plat. 8 , 6 , 4 4 - 4 6 . 520, 3 0 - 3 5 De Lacy = V 6 9 9 , 4 - 1 0 Kühn.) The author ascribes no specific function to the liver, apart from its distribution of bile through the gall-bladder. There is no suggestion that the liver prepares blood, which was the theory of Aristotle, and this is excluded by the author's doctrine that the heart is the reservoir (πηγή) of blood, which it derives directly from the stomach; moreover blood is produced in the stomach from the food, evidently by a process of concoction (see chapter 42). This lack of interest in the liver is perhaps a distinguishing characteristic of the author. Although the function which Aristotle gives it is not explicitly recognized in the pre-Aristotelian writings of the Collection (Alim. is post-Aristotelian: see Diller Schrift pp. 178—195) those authors were certainly aware that it had some connexion with blood. Indeed we find this awareness as early as Empedocles, who spoke of the liver rich in blood (πολυαίματον VS 31 Β 150) and even, if Simplicius' account is to be trusted, held that the stomach digests, and the liver makes blood out of, the food (VS 31 Β 61). Consistent with this is the doctrine ascribed to him by Soranus, that the embryo is nourished by sanguineous and pneumatic substance, which passes from the mother through four vessels into the embryo's liver 452

Although the lemma πυρετοί άπο χολής fevers

(coming) from

bile occurs only in the

recentiores and is not in Μ and θ (cf. Jouanna Hippocrate pp. 136f. n. 1), the presence of bile in these fevers is clear enough from the description of symptoms.

Diseases IV

285

(VS 31 A 79) 4 5 3 . V M 22. 54,16 Hbg. = 129,5 Kw. = 1632,9 Li. calls the liver full-blooded (έναιμον); and Mul. I 43. VIII 100,20 Li. (cf. Nat. Mul. 52. 111,5 Trapp = VII 394,5 Li. and Mul. I 78. VIII 196.5f. Li.) regards vomiting of blood after childbirth as a sign of injury to the liver. The vascular systems in the Collection which recognize a connexion between liver and heart (e. g. Morb. Sacr. 3 , 4 - 5 . 6 8 , 2 8 - 3 2 Gr. - VI 3 6 6 , 1 2 - 1 7 Li.) may have a similar significance. Indeed it would be strange if there was not some continuity between the view of Empedocles and that of Aristotle. In comparison with this evidence, the author's silence about the liver is striking; it would of course have spoiled the symmetry of his theory of four humours and four reservoirs. It is noteworthy that the Hippocratic writers in general made little use of the detailed knowledge of the anatomy of the liver which was certainly available through the practice of hepatoscopy. See Mani vol. I p. 16 and p. 35. 36,1 t o χωρίον . . . έπι τοϋ ήπατος: here and in chapter 33 the author studiously avoids the usual name for the gall-bladder, which was simply χολή (see Jebb on Sophocles Ant. 1010; χολή = gall-bladder in Int. 29. VII 242,24 Li. and Oss. 1. I X 168,12 Li.; but contrast Oss. 1 8 . 1 X 1 9 2 , 2 4 - 1 9 4 , 1 Li. τοϋ σπλάγχνου . . . έν φ περ ή χολή έστι the organ . . . which contains bile). To have used it would have involved a grave confusion for him, since his system requires a sharp distinction between the reservoir of a humour and the humour itself. A specific name for the gall-bladder would therefore have suited his convenience, and it is not unreasonable to infer that he is writing prior to or in ignorance of Diocles of Carystus' invention of the term χοληδόχος κύστις gall-receiving bladder (cf. δοχαΐ χολής receptacles of gall already in Euripides El. 828. Χωρίον, which is properly space, room, area, is semantically near to δοχή receptacle. The word χωρία is applied to all the reservoirs in Morb. IV 39,4. 93,18 Joly = VII 558,18 Li. and cf. the use of δέχεσθαι receive in that chapter). There was some dispute over the existence of this organ in man and in some animals (cf. Arist. PA 4,2. 676b,30 —36). Anaxagoras (VS 59 A 105) thought it was the cause of acute diseases, though it is not clear whether he thought the organ itself was universally present in man, while Philolaus (Anon. Lond. X V I I I 37—41) denied its existence, and so did Petron of Aegina (Anon. Lond. X X 16—24). But there is no echo of this controversy in the present author. The association of bile with the liver was a matter of common observation, as old as husbandry and divination. In the medical literature, bile both comes from the neighbourhood of the liver and has an adverse effect on the liver, just as phlegm both comes from the head and causes

453

Bollack h o w e v e r (vol. Ill pp. 4 4 2 f . ) thinks that it is a f t e r birth that the four vessels become implanted in the liver.

286

Commentary

diseases affecting the head. In the Cnidian treatises bile causes both icterus (Aff. 32. VI 244,8f. Li.; Int. 35. VII 2 5 2 , 1 7 - 1 9 Li.) and hepatitis (Int. 27—29); see in particular Int. 28. VII 240,10—13 Li.: hepatitis occurs mainly in the summer season. It is caused by eating beef and excessive indulgence in wine: for these are very bad for the liver during this season, and they settle most bile upon it; and Int. 48. VII 284,8—288,12 Li. Similarly Erasistratus ap. Gal. De atra bile 5. V 123,11 — 14 Kühn: icteri and inflammations of the liver testify the necessity of purging bile. In Aff. 10 one of the symptoms of phrenitis, which is caused by bile, is pain in the liver (Aff. 10. VI 216,21 f. Li.). But the most interesting passage, in connexion with Morb. IV, is Epid. II 1,10. V 82,3 — 7 Li.: a deep yellow complexion (πολύχλωρον) comes from the liver and is associated with hepatic complaints, including icterus; a dark complexion comes from the spleen, as does dropsy and icterus also. The same passage mentions the salty (άλμώδης) humour which comes from the head when it is heated by the lung. Here we have the same association of specific humours with specific organs (head: phlegm; liver: bile; spleen: water, black bile) as in Morb. IV, and the same distinction of diseases by reference to the organ which is characteristic of Cnidian medicine (cf. Morb. I V 5 1 , 4 . 1 0 9 , 5 - 7 Joly = 'VII 586,7-9 Li., and see Schöner pp.24-26). 36,1 έπήν φάγτ] και πίί] κτλ.: as an example of food and drink which are bilious, see Int. 28 quoted above (beef and wine in excess). 36,1

πικρόν ή άλλως χολώδες: cf. note on χολής, 36,1 above.

36,1 κούφον: this quality is ascribed to bile in Morb. IV 40,1. 94,13 f. Joly = VII 560,10 Li., where it is contrasted with other humour which is heavy; Morb. IV 49,3. 105,19 Joly = VII 580,5 Li. where it is also λιπαρόν oily; Morb. IV 51,3. 108,16-19 Joly = VII 584,19-21 Li. bile is the first humour separated off in a general disturbance, as opposed to ΰδρωψ which is βαρύτατον heaviest; Morb. IV 51,6. 109,26 Joly = VII 586,24f. Li. τό κοϋφον ύγρόν ( = bile) is the fuel of fever; cf. Morb. IV 52,3 112,2 Joly = VII 590,20 Li. Λιπαρόν oily in chapter 49 gives the clue: bile arises from oily substances (see note ad loc.), so that like oil it floats on the surface of other liquids. This is why it is the first to be separated off in the vortex, just as in the process of churning the fatty substance (το πΐον) rises to the surface (έπιπολής), being light (έλαφρόν: Morb. IV 51,2. 108,8-13 Joly = VII 584,13-16 Li.). Cf. Gal. In Hipp. Prog, comment. 3,35. 361,8f. Heeg = XVIII Β 287,3 f. Kühn it is in the nature of this humour to rise to the surface (έπιπολάξειν) because of its lightness (ύπο κουφότητος). For the association of κούφος and έπιπολάζειν cf. Arist. Cael. 4,5. 312b, 4f. Κοϋφος is properly that which rises, and κουφίζειν is not so much to make light as to raise. 36,1 καρδίην: cf. Morb. IV 40,1. 94,18 Joly = VII 560,13f. Li. ήντινα καρδιωγμον οι άνθρωποι καλέουσι which men call heartburn (of a pain in

Diseases IV

287

the liver) and chapter 54, where the author studiously ascribes to the liver symptoms which in the Epidemics (Epid. II 1,3 and Epid. IV 16) are described as καρδιαλγία. The children no doubt preserved a popular and archaic terminology (according to the dictionaries, English "heartburn" and French "mal du coeur" are first attested in writers influenced by Galen. I suspect popular usage may be earlier here too), which is also found in Aeschylus Ch. 183f. κάμοι προσέστη καρδία κλυδώνιον/χολής, έπαίθην δ' ώς διανταίω βέλει yea, to my heart came a surge of gall: I was smitten as with a piercing arrow, with which may be instructively compared A. 432, πολλά γοϋν θιγγάνει προς ήπαρ, where Fraenkel in fact translates touches the very heart (lit. liver)4533. Yet was this usage simply popular? For καρδία seems to have been so used by the author(s) of the Epidemics (e.g. Epid. I 13,4. II 690,15 Li.; Epid. 113,5. II 694,8 Li. where cf. Gal. In Hipp. Epid. I comment. 3,21. 136,27 Wenk. = 3,4. XVII A 272,11 f. Kühn), Prorrh. I 72. V 528,6-9 Li., Epid. V 80. V 250,3f. Li., Epid. VII 62. V 426,22 Li. inter alia; Aff. 14. VI222,1 Li. and Aff. 15. VI 222,23 Li.; Int. 35. VII 252,23 Li.; by Thucydides, in a passage in which the historian uses medical terminology with great care (Th. 2,49: but see Parry pp. 106 — 118); and perhaps even by the author himself (Mul. I 43. VIII 100,21 454 where καρδίη, as the context shows, is either the liver or the cardiac orifice; yet in Mul. II 124. VIII 266,20 Li. and Mul. II 151. VIII 326,16 Li. the word certainly has the meaning heart). Now Galen (cf. also Erotian s. v. καρδιώσσειν) says that καρδία is a homonym = (i) the orifice of the stomach (ii) the heart (Gal. De plac. Hipp, et Plat. 2,8,4-13. 158,8-160,4 De Lacy = V 274,1-275,17 Kühn, where he quotes the passage from Thucydides mentioned above), and he frequently remarks that "the ancients" used καρδία to refer to the orifice of the stomach (e. g. Gal. De san. tuenda 6,14,1. 194,30 Koch = VI 444,4 Kühn; Gal. De loc. aff. 5,6. VIII 338,13f. Kühn; and cf. the entry under καρδιαλγία in Foes' Oeconomia Hippocratis). Littre accordingly translated the passages mentioned above with "cardia". Yet it is difficult to accept Galen's explanation of the term as a homonym, since the words would not only belong to the same semantic field, but would also refer to two parts of the body in close proximity. Can we really believe that in all these passages the author was aware, and expected his readers to be aware, that when he used the word καρδίη, he meant the orifice and not the heart? Or that the author of Epid. VII 62. V 426,22 Li., when he tells us that Alcman had a terrible pain in the καρδίη, expects us to know that he means the orifice; while when in Epid. VII 28. V 400,4f. Li. the wife of Polemarchus feels a mass upon her καρδίη, we are, of course, to understand the heart (for so 453a

454

C f . further Dumortier pp. 18f. Dumortier however thinks that Aeschylus shares the scruples of Morb. IV and suggests that in Aeschylus Ch. 183f. καρδία is used 'pour indiquer la jeunesse d'Electre'! Grensemann Knidische Medizin p. 144 however excludes this part from the C-Stratum.

288

Commentary

Littre translates)? And what of the προς καρδίην οδύνη pain in the kardie of Epid. V 80. V 250,3f. Li., which was relieved by bleeding? Was it the heart or the orifice? Surely, when the Epidemics say "heart", they mean "heart" 4 5 5 . The passages in the Hippocratic texts which refer to pain etc. in the heart are, it is important to note, descriptions of symptoms (like the word καρδιαλγία heartburn, itself) and not anatomical or physiological statements: they presumably reflect the language in which these symptoms were described by the patients, and as descriptions of symptoms they are perfectly clear. The present author however is concerned with anatomy and physiology: hence his objection to the commonplace usage. For a similar interest in terminology, see Morb. Sacr. 1 7 , 1 - 5 . 86,86—94 Gr. = VI 392,4—14 Li. (discussion of the terms φρένες diaphragm and ώτα, auricles, of the heart); Cam. 4,2. 6 , 1 5 - 1 7 De. = VIII 588,23-25 Li. (against the propriety of the term μυελός for the spinal marrow); Morb. II 4. VII 10,12-12,15 Li. (against the use of the term ΰπεραιμέειν to have a surplus of blood, which must be the correct reading here: cf. Jouanna Hippocrate p. 4 6 , 1 - 1 7 [text] and p. 540 [commentary]). Deichgräber Entstehung pp. 37f. remarks that such interest is characteristic of the age of the sophists, comparing Prodicus' interest in the term φλέγμα. This is true; but it is also true that the misuse of the terms discussed leads, in the author's opinion, to serious misunderstanding in physiology and pathology. A concern over correct terminology is characteristic of a young science. 36.1 και τοϋτο είσείδομεν γινόμενον: again the language of the ίστόριον; cf. note on 35,1. Littre Hippocrate vol. VII p. 551 translates quite correctly Nous sommes temoins de ce fait. 36.2 άπό . . . γίνεται: le ventre rend plus de bile Littre Hippocrate vol. VII p. 553. Increased evacuation of bile is the immediate result of eating or drinking το χολώδες bilious substance and the next sentence goes on to explain why (γάρ). The mechanism is exactly the same as in the preceding chapter: the original humour is forced out of its reservoir by the access of 455

Professor Denys Page has also expressed some cautious doubts: see p . 100 of his article in Classical Quarterly 47. I am inclined to think that the difficulty may have arisen in consequence of Hellenistic researches in anatomy: it is unlikely that the cardiac orifice was identified as early as the Epidemics, and a passage of the poet Nicander of Colophon (2nd century B C ) quoted by Galen (Gal. De plac. Hipp, et Plat. 2,8, 10. 1 5 8 , 2 3 - 2 5 De Lacy = 2 3 8 , 1 2 - 1 5 Mueller = V 2 7 5 , 1 - 4 Kühn) ( = Nie. Alex. 2 0 - 2 2 ) in which the distinction is made in the manner of a learned gloss, suggests that it may have been a new piece of scientific knowledge such as a Hellenistic poet liked to make use of. Thus Callimachus in Hymns 3,53 ( = Dian. 53) appears to refer to Herophilus' contemporary researches on the tunics of the eye ( H . Oppermann pp. 1 4 - 2 3 ; cf. F. Solmsen Nerves p. 196 n. 61; and for the relation between the anatomist and the poet see P. M. Fraser vol. I p. 356, vol. II pp. 5 2 5 - 5 2 6 , notes 1 5 1 - 1 5 7 ) .

Diseases IV

289

fresh humour, and is then discharged through the appropriate route (cf. άποχρέμπτεται is hawked up). But in chapter 35, the explanation is put first; here it follows, in the sentence beginning with γάρ. For νηδύς = bowels, cf. e. g. Aer. 19,8. 68,18 Di. = II 72,15 Li. 36.3 διαδίόοται γάρ ές αυτό: Littre Hippocrate vol. VII p. 553 takes this as impersonal, vu les communications. But the subject may be χολή, cf. Morb. IV 38,1. 91,19 Joly = VII 554,22f. Li. and Morb. IV 38,1. 91,28f. Joly = VII 556,4f. Li. 36.4 Έ τ ε ρ α γάρ των έτερων: i. e. in the normal course of events (that is, if there is no additional access of bile, ήν δε μή έπιγένηται above) the body will discharge the bile it contains, for (γάρ) one lot of food or drink acts as a.purge (φάρμακον) to another: the substance which a man consumes will move on the substance that is already there. It is a purely mechanical process: health is maintained by the three-day digestive cycle, as is explained in Morb. IV 42,1. 96,4 Joly = VII 562,20 Li. διά τί ό άνθρωπος υγιαίνει why man is healthy, in which one lot of nourishing fluid is pushed onwards (έξωθευμένη) by the next. The author then returns ("Ringkomposition") to the abnormal condition which he has already mentioned: έπήν δέ έπιγένηται άλλη χολή when a new lot of bile arrives. 36,4 οΰτω δή: the reading of Μ is ούτω δέ και τά άλλα όκόσα σινεόμενα φάρμακα έστιν ύφ' έτέρου έτερον είσπεσόν εις την κοιλίην τή έωυτοϋ δυνάμει αίτίην έχον, τό κρατηθέν έξω και σινέεται τοΰτο which is clearly corrupt. Littre emends οΰτω δή και τά άλλα όκόσα σινεόμενά έστιν, ύφ' έτέρου έτερον έσπεσόν ές την κοιλίην, τή έωυτοϋ δυνάμει το αίτίην έχον διηθέεται έξω, και άσινές τούτο et, en general, pour tout ce qui nuit, comme I'un succede ά Γautre dans le ventre, ce qui cause du mal est filtre au dehors par sapropre vertu et devient inoffensif {Littre Hippocrate vol. VII p. 553). The chief disadvantages of Littre's reading are the loss of κρατηθέν, and the sense given to τή έωυτοϋ δυνάμει; what does it mean to say that the harmful substance is filtered out by its own power? It is pushed out. Better to read, ούτω δή και τά άλλα όκόσα σινεόμενα, φάρμακά έστιν έτερον έτέρου είσπεσόν εις τήν κοιλίην τή έωυτοϋ δυνάμει αίτίην έχον τό κρατηθέν έξωθεϊν και άσινές γίνεται τούτο (or και ού σινέεται τούτο). This gives precisely the combination of ισονομία (in κρατηθέν) with the mechanistic thrust principle (έξωθεϊν) which is so characteristic of this author's digestive theory. (For έξωθεϊν, cf. Mack, after Foes. Cornarius ap. Mack reads έξωθεν.) Joly's τό έωυτοϋ δυνάμει αίτίην έχον [τό] κρατηθέν εξωθείται has the merit of preserving κρατηθέν, but seems to me to give an improbable sense (contenant par vertu propre un principe (de maladie) Joly Morb. IV p. 90). Why should the author stress that the substance is morbific in virtue of its own power? His point in the whole passage is rather that the process is automatic (τή έωυτοϋ δυνάμει = αυτόματα, cf. the similar κατά

290

Commentary

την έωυτοϋ δύναμιν in Morb. IV 39. 93,20 Joly = V I I 558,19 Li.); this is the point he wishes to stress. Hence I prefer to take αίτίην έχον with δυνάμει rather than absolutely = materia peccans, as Ermerins does by transposing the article. Foes made a similar suggestion, but read φάρμακα as subject, not predicate. But this gives a very unlikely sense. The author is not talking of purgatives, but the normal effect of food and drink which is l i k e a purge. If the patient continues to eat normally, then in mild cases the offending material is expelled. The contents of the digestive system are being continually moved on: cf. Morb. IV 46,4. 1 0 2 , 3 - 5 Joly = V I I 574,3f. Li. a

portion of the peccant humour is thrust out of the body, being prevailed by the most recently arrived humour.

over

For the various senses of φάρμακον, see Artelt pp. 50—60. The particular sense which it has here depends of course on the interpretation of the passage, and Artelt p. 52 evidently gives it a more general meaning than "purge". But " p u r g e " is by far the most common meaning in the Collection, just as it is the only meaning in this author. 36,4

έν τούτω κτλ.: I read τ ω λόγω for the Mss. εγώ.

Chapter 37 37,1 ΰδρωπος: the word suggests having a watery appearance but the meaning of the termination -οψ/-ωψ is obscure (cf. Schwyzer vol. I p. 426 and note 4). B y far the most common use of the word is to signify the disease dropsy; but it must originally refer to the watery substance associated with that disease. Then, since the disease was extremely common, ΰδρωψ as the name of the disease tended to replace ΰδρωψ as the name of the humour. Thus in Aff. 22 the disease is ΰδρωψ, but the humour associated with it is simply ΰδωρ (Aff. 22. V I 232,22f. Li. φάρμακα . . . ύ φ ' ων ΰδωρ ή φλέγμα

καθαίρεται medicines by which the water or phlegm is purged·, cf. Aff. 36. V I 246,11 Li.; and elsewhere, where water is present in the body and is regarded as a humour, it is described as ΰδωρ (Morb. II 14. V I I 26,1 Li.; Morb. I I 1 5 . V I I 26,24 Li.; Morb. II 71. 108,11 Li.; Aph. 6,10. IV 566,2 Li.; Aph. 7,55. IV 594,5 Li.). There are however traces both in and outside the Collection of the original use: Mul. I 60. VIII 118,19 Li. ήν ΰδρωψ γένηται έν xf)σι μήτρησι (which could be equally translated if there is a dropsy in the womb and if there is water in the womb, and where the word ΰδρωψ dropsy/water, is in fact replaced by ΰδωρ water in the later edition (cf. Ilberg p. 24 n. 2); Nat. Mul. 35. 102,23 Trapp - V I I 376,23 Li., but ΰδωρ in Nat. Mul. 35. 102,16 Trapp = V I I 276,16 Li. and Nat. Mul. 35. 102,19 Trapp = VII 376,19 Li.; Morb. II 16. VII 30,4 Li. ΰδρωψ ρεΐ ύπόπυος une eau subpurulente s'ecoule Littre Hippocrate vol. V I I p. 31; Morb. Sacr. 11,4. 78,80f. Gr. = V I 382,9 Li. τον έγκέφαλον ύγρον έόντα και ΰ δ ρ ω π ο ς

Diseases IV

291

περιπλέων the brain being moist and full of hydrops (followed by ΰδωρ); Morb. Sacr. 11,6. 78,85 Gr. = VI 382,14 Li. 4 5 6 ; Arist. H A 7,9. 587a,6 (cf. note on chapter 30,12); Int. 23. VII 226,9f. Li. άφιέναι . . . τον υ δ ρ ω π α draw off the hydrops (Μ: ΰδωρ θ) but in Int. 23. VII 226,7 Li. άφεΐναι τού ϋδατος draw off the water and in Int. 47. VII 282,10 Li. ούρέει π α χ ύ όκοϊόν περ υδρωπα he pisses a thick substance like hydrops unless the reading is ΰδρωπες as given by the corrector of H ; Loc. Horn. 10. VI296,6 Li.; and in Nat. Puer. the water preceding the lochial discharge is described as ΰ δ ρ ω ψ αίματώδης Nat. Puer. 30,12. 82,15 Joly = VII 538,20 Li. The meaning of humour also lies behind the adjectives ύδρωπιώδης, ύδρωποειδής; cf. χολώδης from χολή, φλεγματώδης from φλέγμα: this is nicely illustrated in Mul. I 30 where first ύδρωποειδέα is used, and then the adjective ύδατοειδέα, which is exactly parallel to the variation between ΰδρωψ and ΰδωρ. The author has simply returned to the original, and still active, meaning of the word to describe one of his four constituent humours: ΰδρωψ is not quite water but watery substance as it is present in the body. 37,1 έλκει ό σπλήν: the relation between spleen and water might well have provided the author with a model for his whole humoral theory, since in tradition and observation water was known to be absorbed by the spleen. Water, according to Acut. 62,3. 64,3f. Joly = II 360,2f. Li. causes both spleen and liver to swell when they are inflamed. In Aer. 7,3. 34,25 — 36,1 Di. = II 26,19 Li. swamp water causes those who drink it to have enlarged spleens. According to H u m . 12. V 492,15 Li. water gives rise to the stone and splenitic cases; and the author of VM 22. 53,25—54,5 Hbg. = 128,2 — 12 Kw. = I 628,9—630,6 Li. draws attention to the shape and composition of the spleen which make it absorbent. In Loc. Horn. 24. VI 316,3 Li. for cases of swollen spleen the author prescribes a medicine which will purge the 456

O n this passage see Grensemann H p . Morb. Sacr. p. 103. Grensemann takes the opposite view, and regards the name of the humour as derived from the name of the disease; and he suggests that ΰδρωψ was first a corruption of phlegma produced by liquescence as in Morb. Sacr. 11 (cf. also perhaps Int. 12. VII 192,21 Li. φλέγματος ύδρωποειδέος hydrops-like phlegma), and subsequently (in Genit.) became an independent humour. There are really two distinct questions here: the original m e a n i n g of ΰδρωψ, and the original theory about its production. It seems to me that Grenseman is very likely right about the second question, particularly since dropsy is generally associated with phlegma (according to Int. 22. VII220, 20f. Li. water is produced by the heat in the phlegm, and this no doubt applies to Morb. Sacr. too. Cf. further Int. 24. VII 228,1 f. Li. όκόχαν ές χό ήπαρ φλέγμα έπιγένηχαι και άναλάβτι χό ή π α ρ και δι,υγρανθτ] when phlegma arrives in the liver and the liver absorbs it and becomes moist throughout)·, but on the first question it seems to me more plausible to suppose that the name of the disease ΰδρωψ is derived from the name of the substance, rather than vice versa. Cf. the expression ΰδρωψ ύποσαρκίδιος dropsy/water in the flesh in Morb. I 3. 8,4 Wi. = VI 144,5 Li., and the same phrase read in Μ and V at Acut. (Sp.) 52,1. 91,13 Joly = VII 496,10 Li., where A reads ύπο xfj σαρκί under the flesh which is adopted by Joly in his edition.

292

Commentary

water. In Mul. 130. VIII 74,6 — 11 Li. a pregnant woman with an affection of the spleen will have a watery and phlegmatic menstrual flow and in Coac. 582. V 720,2f. Li. diluted (λεπτών) urine indicates splenitic cases. However, the connexion between spleen and water can be seen most clearly in the association of dropsy (ΰδρωψ) with that organ. Dropsical and splenitic cases are commonly mentioned together: e.g. Epid. VII 20. V 392,4 Li. ύδρωπικός και σπληνώδης; cf. Epid. VII 107. V 458,2 Li.; Morb. I 7. 20,3f. Wi. = VI 152,16f. Li. flux is beneficial for ΰφύδρψ και σπληνώδει και υπό λευκού φλέγματος έχομένψ for a dropsical or splenitic case or one who has white phlegm. Aph. 3,22. IV 496,4 — 8 Li. includes splenitic, dropsical and melancholic cases among diseases prevalent in autumn; and according to Aph. 6,43. IV 574,2—4 Li. dropsy supervenes upon splenitic cases. In Epid. II 1,10. V 82,6f. Li. dropsy as well as icterus comes from the spleen, and when this is the case, the patient shows a dark complexion. In Aff. 20. VI 230,14 Li. enlarged spleen in some cases turns into dropsy, and the spleen is mentioned as one cause of dropsy Aff. 22. VI 232,16 Li. In Int. 19. 19. VII 214,5 — 13 Li. a disease arising from the vein on the left (i. e. the so-called splenitis) may turn into dropsy; although that treatise classifies several different kinds of dropsy, only one of which affects the spleen (Int. 25). Dropsy arises from the spleen in Mul. I 61. VIII122,7f. Li. where the pathology is similar to chapter 57 of the present treatise. 37.1 σπληνώδεις: these are a constitutional type, by heredity according to Morb. Sacr. 2,5. 68,15f. Gr. = VI 364,17-19 Li.; cf. Morb. II 55. VII 86,8 Li. σπληνώδης φύσει splenitic in constitution. The type is described in Aer. 7 , 3 - 6 . 34,25-36,23 Di. = II 26,19-28,21 Li.; cf. Dittmer pp. 96f. They suffer from hypertrophy of the spleen, with a consequent emaciation of the upper part of the body. These are symptoms which are elsewhere associated with dropsy, and according to Aer. the type is particularly liable to this disease, which for them is likely to be fatal. Although inherited and "natural", the condition is clearly morbid; in fact Aer. describes it as νόσημα disease (Aer. 7,4. 36,6 Di. = II 28,3 Li.). See further introductory note to chapter 55. 37.2 τοΐσιν άγγείοισιν . . . ά π ο τοΰ σπληνός: presumably the vein which was called σπληνΐτις and its attendant system. The author may be referring to something like the bleeding from the left nostril commonly associated with splenitic cases in the Epidemics. Aff. 20. VI 230,8 Li. recommends bleeding from the splenitis in splenitic cases; cf. Int. 32. VII 250,5 Li. 37,2

αλλά οι: Joly, after Ermerins. Littre's ια will not do.

37,2 ες τά κάτω: to cause the swelling of the lower limbs commonly associated with dropsy. Cf. the description in chapter 57.

Diseases IV

293

Chapter 38 In H o m e r , as one would expect, blood is primarily the fluid which is shed as a result of wounding; and indeed that may be the original meaning of the word αίμα 4 5 7 . By implication it is the carrier of life — and, one might say, of death as well, since the gods who are immortal have no blood, but ίχώρ instead. In Horn. II. Ε 341 f., the gods neither eat corn nor drink wine, therefore they are bloodless and are called immortal. Here it is also assumed that blood is the product of nutriment, an idea which is later given scientific form in the pre-Socratics and the Hippocratic Collection. That blood is the carrier of human life is graphically illustrated by the story of Odysseus' encounter with the souls of the dead in Horn. O d . λ, where it is not until they have drunk Odysseus' sacrifice of blood that the souls can recover life and consciousness. Cf. the remark in Nat. Horn. 6,1. 178,14—17 Jou. = VI 44,7—10 Li. that those who see men slaughtered, and the blood flowing out, conclude that blood is the life (ψυχήν) of man. Blood in H o m e r is also the carrier of heredity: in Horn. Ii. Ζ 211 Glaucus, after reciting his lineage, says This I claim as my family and blood (ταύτης τοι γενεής τε και α ί μ α τ ο ς εύχομαι είναι) and there are several other examples both in the Iliad and the Odyssey where αίμα = lineage. There is latent here a view about reproduction, just as in Horn. Ii. Ε 341 f. there is latent a view about nutrition. Among the pre-Socratics, Empedocles is the first philosopher in whom blood acquires the importance which it has later in the Hippocratic writers, in Aristotle, and in subsequent medicine. For Empedocles, blood is important in reproduction and embryology; it has an essential part to play in respiration; it is the substance in which the four elements are most perfectly mixed and for this reason, the blood around the heart is the agent of thought (VS 31 Β 105). When we come to the early medical writers, we have to make a distinction between blood as one of the constituent humours which are the basis of health and disease, and blood as the carrier of life, vitality and in some cases, consciousness. It is the same fluid in each case, but the two uses are very different and sometimes appear contradictory. This was inevitable, since in a theory of health as equilibrium between humours, if blood was one of these humours it could not be given greater importance than any other humour; yet the same author might hold a theory of nutrition or of embryology in which blood was the chief agent. This seems to be the case in the present group of treatises; and even if we consider Morb. IV alone, we find there the remark that nutritional fluid (which is presumably a compound of all four humour-producing substances) concocts the food in 4S7

H e r m a n n Koller pp. 149 — 155 suggests that α ί μ α originally means the shedding of blood as a result of w o u n d i n g by a missile, and that in this sense it is the result of ϊημι hurl.

294

Commentary

the stomach and makes b l o o d out of it (Morb. IV 42,2. 96,15—17 Joly = VII 564,2—4 Li.). But really the inconsistency here is no greater than in the author's embryology. There it is the mother's blood which provides the embryo's nutriment, although one would expect the other three humours to be equally necessary (contrast the doctrine of embryonic nutrition implied in chapters 11 and 17, in which all four humours contribute to the embryo's growth, with the doctrine stated in chapters 14—16, where the nutriment is blood). In the latter case, we may reasonably suspect that the author has switched, no doubt under the influence of Empedocles (cf. VS 31 Β 98), from thinking of the blood as one humour to thinking of it as a composite of humours. Confusions like this were bound to arise once Alcmaeon's theory of health as an equilibrium of opposites had come to be expressed in terms of a theory of humour, one of these humours being blood, which on grounds of tradition, of common observation, and of recent theorizing, had to be given a predominant place. Thus with the pathology of the present author, in which there may be an imbalance of blood as of any other humour, we may contrast the treatises Morb. I and II and Aff., whose pathology does n o t rest on a four-humour theory, and in which blood is given a different status from the humours bile and phlegm (for the aetiological status given to blood in Int., cf. Jouanna Hippocrate pp. 244—247 and notes). Thus the author of Morb. I I 4 criticizes those who speak of the veins being overfilled with blood (ύπεραιμείν: that this should be the reading, cf. LSJ s. v. ύπερεμέω and Jouanna's edition of the text, Jouanna Hippocrate p. 48,24; p. 50,2; and commentary p. 540). H o w can there be too much of a good thing? The truth is rather that bile and phlegm enter the veins. Cf. Morb. II41. VII 58,21 Li.: this disease befalls a man if the blood has an excess of bile, ήν ύπερχολήση το αίμα. The author's statement that the heart is the πηγή source, reservoir of blood in the body does not necessarily indicate that he adopts a different vascular system from that implied in Nat. Puer.; still less that he is writing under the influence of the Sicilian school of medicine (Wellmann Spuren p. 318). The heart is a πηγή in exactly the same sense as that in which the liver, spleen, and brain are πηγαί: reservoirs, which attract their appropriate fluid from foodstuffs and which distribute it to the rest of the body. There is no suggestion that the heart is given a more important position in relation to the vessels of the body than is given to any other of the four πηγαί. So far as the vessels are concerned, each organ may be regarded as a starting point or αρχή; and, read in the general context, the statement that the heart is the source of blood is far less striking than it sounds. In respect of the heart, the passage is more remarkable for what it does not say than for what it does. The author shows none of the detailed knowledge of the anatomy of the heart which we find in the treatise De Corde, nor of the main vessels of the heart which are mentioned in Cam. 5,2. 6,27f. De. = VIII 590,10f. Li.; the aorta and the vena cava (cf. note on παχεΐαι φλέβες below), nor of the auricles

Diseases IV

295

which are mentioned in Morb. Sacr. 17,5. 86,94 Gr. = VI 392,14 Li. Nor does he says anything about its pulsation, like Carn. 6,1. 8,12. De. = VIII 592,4 Li.: the heart and the hollow veins are in continual movement. He does not, like the author of Morb. Sacr. show any trace of the controversy about whether the heart or the brain is the seat of consciousness. Both De Corde (cf. Abel pp. 193—197 and Lonie Heart p. 152) and Carn. (cf. introductory note on chapter 13) are later than the present treatise, and there is no reason why the author should have possessed a detailed knowledge of the heart's anatomy. 38,1 ού γίνεται πόνος: this statement is made more definitely in Morb. IV 40,2. 95,2f. Joly = VII 560,24 Li., where we are told that no disease occurs in the heart. This is generally true of the Hippocratic Collection, if we except those passages discussed in chapter 36 (note on καρδίην), where later commentators saw a reference to the cardiac orifice, a view with which the present author would have agreed if he had known about it. It is certainly true of Morb. II and Int. in general, for it is striking that although these texts systematically attribute diseases to each organ, they attribute none to the heart as such (but cf. Morb. I I 5 and 20 [VII 12,17 Li. and VII 34,10 Li.] with improved texts in Jouanna Hippocrate p. 52,1—4; commentary p. 545). There are however some exceptions to the author's statement, which are cited by C. R. S. Harris, The Heart and the Vascular System in Ancient Greek Medicine from Alcmaeon to Galen, Oxford 1973 (pp. 432f.). The most interesting is Virg. 1. VIII 466,10—19 Li., since it contains precisely the kind of physiological explanation to which the author objects: suppression of menses in young girls causes the blood to run up to the heart, and through the consequent plethora the heart is numbed or stupefied (έμωρώθη). The contradiction is so precise that one suspects direct polemic. Harris points out the difficulties in identifying passages in the Collection which discuss heart disease: one of these difficulties is the belief which a particular author may have concerning the seat of consciousness, whether it is in the head or in the heart. The author gives no indication of his views, if he had any, on this matter: in this connexion it is worth noting that he says nothing whatever about the "soul", despite the many opportunities he had for mentioning it, especially in Nat. Puer. Aristotle's statement (PA 3,4. 667a,33-b,l; cf. PA 4,2. 677b,3-5) that the heart is the most delicate of organs and cannot withstand any affection is apparently in disagreement with the view of the present author. 38,1 στερεόντε γαρ χρήμα: according to Carn. 5,1. 6,25 De. = VIII 590,7 Li. it is formed from flesh which is hard (σκληρόν) and viscous. 38,1 παχεΐαι φλέβες . . . σφάγιαι: or σφαγίτιδες, already mentioned in chapter 19 (where it should be noted that there is no question of the author professing the "Sicilian" doctrine that the heart is αρχή beginning of the

296

Commentary

veins). The jugulars impressed ancient observers by their conspicuousness: Diogenes says that they appear large in the neck (VS 64 Β 6. II 64,10 Diels-Kranz); Morb. Sacr. 3,6. 68,34 G r . = VI 366,19 Li. stresses that the one on the right side at least ( i . e . the hepatitis according to that system) is κατάδηλος conspicuous·, and this is also implied by the observation in the present passage that they swell (άείρονται). They are connected with the heart in Morb. Sacr., in Diogenes (VS 64 Β 6. II 64,10 Diels-Kranz) and in Oss. 2. I X 168,18 Li., but not in Polybus (Nat. Horn. 11). N o w Diogenes speaks of those which pass into the heart as being μέγισται greatest; presumably he means the aorta and vena cava, which are recognized and named in Carn. 5,2. 6 , 2 7 f . De. = V I I I 590,10f. Li. I suspect that the σφάγιαι of the present author are an extension of, and identical with the aorta and vena cava. At least his language (έξ αυτής . . . τείνουσιν) suggests this, and also his appeal to these vessels as an explanation why any excess of sanguineous matter is immediately led away from the heart. If he is aware of these vessels, then in that case he may have a more detailed knowledge of the anatomy of the heart than he cares to tell us. 38,3

οτι δε γίνεται κτλ.: cf. note on chapters 35—38, above p. 277.

Chapter 39 This chapter falls into two parts: a description of a mechanical model for the author's theory of humoral equilibrium, and a description of the function of the four principal organs which includes a theory of pleasure and pain based on physiology. The mechanical model, which is characteristic of the author's way of thinking about a physiological process, may be regarded as the common term between Alcmaeon's abstract theory of equilibrium on the one hand, and the author's theory of four humours which are associated with four principal organs, on the other. What the model illustrates is a self-adjusting equilibrium, which corresponds to the normal or healthy state of the human body. Through the model, the author attempts to give a mechanical and anatomical value to Alcmaeon's concept. F o r the demonstrative apparatus itself, cf. chapters 17—25, where, as here, the author makes use of equipment familiar to the practising physician (cf. note on χαλκεΐα). In all three passages he gives the impression of having carefully designed the apparatus to give an illustration as exact as possible of his theory. Here, he specifies that the vessels be set up on level ground (to exclude the factor of gravity), that the pipes be made properly watertight, and that the pouring be done gradually (ήσυχη: otherwise the process cannot be clearly observed). These precautions (cf. Lloyd Polarity p. 351) suggest that he had made several attempts to set up the apparatus himself, not all of which were successful. O n the other hand, the model is not an exact replica

Diseases IV

297

of the anatomical conditions. Louis Bourgey (p. 184) remarks that the four reservoirs are not, like the four vessels, on the same level; and while in the body there are four humours, in the demonstration the author uses only one liquid. These objections, if relevant, would point to serious disparities (whether the model is regarded as a demonstration or as a genuine experiment), since it is precisely here that the model fails to demonstrate, let alone test, the two great assumptions on which the physiology is based: the principle of έλξις, attraction, and the principle of like to like. For even if he regarded the passage of water from one vessel to another as an illustration of the tendency of empty space (ευρυχωρία: cf. the use of this principle in Morb. IV 40,3. 95,3-15 Joly = VII 560,24-562,5 Li.) to become filled, he is still faced with the difficulty, of which his instructions show that he is well aware, that the principle will not work unless the vessels are all on the same plane. How then did he explain these disparities to himself? Surely the answer is that he did not, and had no need to. Bronze cauldrons are not bodily organs, nor is water humour, and they cannot be expected to behave in the same way, and in fact the language with which he describes the movement of water differs from that with which he describes the movement of humours (ρεύσεται flow, άνταποδώσειεν ρέον flow back in turn, as opposed to έπαυρίσκεσθαι draw upon, δέχεσθαι receive, διαδιδόναι distribute, and ελκειν attract). There are other things in nature which illustrate the principle of like attraction; it is not his intention to illustrate that here, but the equilibrium of a fluid in interconnected vessels. That is the intended point of the analogy, and a point which he makes quite clear in the initial sentence of the chapter. Hence he is indifferent also to the number of vessels used: three or more will do — an indifference which, if Louis Bourgey were right in his interpretation of the purpose of the demonstration, would be surprising indeed. Having shown how the πηγαί work, he then answers the implicit question about their function (at δε πηγαι αύται ει μή ήσαν κτλ. if the sources themselves did not exist Morb. IV 39,3. 93,15 Joly = VII 558,15f. Li.). The stomach, when filled, distributes its contents to the rest of the body, and vice versa; but what are the reservoirs for? Accordingly, he devotes the second half of the chapter to these. If a sound diet depended merely on quantity, there would be no need for reservoirs in his system. But since the four humoral substances are constitutive ingredients of the body, according to the author's embryology, health must consist in the proper quantitative relationship between these four ingredients. It is the function of the four reservoirs to preserve this healthy relationship by automatically adjusting any imbalance which arises through nutrition. Since there is no reason to suppose that in any parcel of nutriment there will be just the right proportion of bilious substance to phlegmatic, or sanguineous to watery, the process of correction must be continuous. This explains the nature of appetite: why it is, for example, that when we have eaten a large quantity, we

298

Commentary

may still desire a particular kind of food. It also explains why a particular kind of food will be now pleasant to us, and now unpleasant. Here the author is simply giving his own physiological form to a theory of pleasure and pain. So far as we know, this theory was first expressed by Empedocles (VS 31 A 95): Parmenides and Empedocles say that appetite (is caused) by a deficiency in nutriment.... Empedocles says that pleasure occurs by the action of likes upon likes, and in the making up of what is lacking, so that desire is the reaching after kindred substance in what lacks it. Pain is caused by contraries, for all things that differ in their composition and in the blend of the elements are hostile458. Empedocles expressed this theory in terms of his elements while our author expresses it in terms of humours; but it is the same theory, and one which is designed to answer the same question 459 . Implicit in both theories is a theory of the beneficial (το συμφέρον): since pleasure arises through the satisfaction of a physiological deficiency, pleasure is a mark (όρος) of what is beneficial or harmful. This is the gist of Democritus VS 68 Β 188: The mark of the beneficial and the harmful is pleasure, and pain (όρος συμφόρων καΐ άσυμφόρων τέρψις και άτερπίη). Gregory Vlastos who discusses this fragment 4 6 0 compares Liqu. 1,4. 165,18 Joly = VI 120,19-21 Li. and Morb. Sacr. 1 4 , 2 - 3 . 82,37-41 Gr. = VI 386,17—22 Li.: And it is with the brain above all that we think and see and distinguish the foul and the fair, the bad and the good, the pleasant and the unpleasant, distinguishing some by convention, perceiving the others by the beneficial (συμφέροντι), and by this latter distinguishing pleasures and unpleasures according to circumstance (τοϊσι καιροϊσι διαγινώσκοντες), and the same things do not please us. Cf. the language of the present passage: ουκ αν διεγινώσκομεν άτρεκέως οΰτε ο τι ήδύ έστιν οΰτε ο τι άηδές we would be unable to distinguish clearly between the pleasant and the unpleasant Morb. IV 39,3. 93,16f. Joly = VII 558,16f. Li., and έλασσον τού καιρού less than the right amount (in the circumstances) Morb. IV 39,5. 94,1 f. Joly = VII 558,26 Li. further down. The same ideas are present in both passages; from the medical point of view, the theory of pleasure, and the physiology on which that theory is based, is important because of its implications for dietetics. This may well have been Empedocles' interest also.

458 459

460

Guthrie History vol. II p. 242. It also found expression in an atomistic form: Lucretius 4,858 — 876: living things seek food because particles are continually leaving the body, through transpiration. The body thereby becomes rarefied, and its strength is undermined; the result is pain (dolor 4,866), and hence the appetite for food arises. Appetite is satisfied when the humour (umor) descends into all those parts which demand humour (4,870f.), where umor suggests the Greek ίκμάς. Vlastos Ethics pp. 5 8 6 - 5 8 9 ; see however McGibbon pp. 7 5 - 7 7 .

Diseases IV

299

39,1 τάς (άς Joly) δέ πηγάς . . . ποιεί: this sentence should make it quite clear what the purpose of the analogy is. When vessels are interconnected, and one is empty, it will be filled from those that are full. 39,1 περιίστανται (περιιστώνται Joly): the text cannot be right. A word meaning draw from is needed, probably έπαυρίσκονται (cf. Morb. IV 39,2. 92,26 Joly = VII 558,3 Li.; Morb. IV 39,3. 93,10 Joly = VII 558,11 Li.). This might have fallen out through the similarity of its ending. In that case, περιίστανται belongs to the protasis, and should be subjunctive (περιιστώνται, as Littre and Ermerins suggested), presumably meaning something like when they become empty again. But the word is odd; and it is difficult to explain how a change to the indicative occurred. Περισπώνται draw away from, if it could be used of a liquid, would give the required meaning; but the corruption would be equally difficult to explain. 39,1 χαλκεΐα: these vessels were used by physicians for the preparation of medicaments which were to be exposed to the sun: cf. Haem. 3. VI 4 3 8 , 2 2 - 2 5 Li., Ulc. 12. VI 4 1 2 , 3 - 7 Li. and Ulc. 17. VI 420,12 Li. Evidently they were bronze cauldrons of some kind, with a wide opening, and this would suit their resonance which is described in Plato Prt. 329 a. 39,1 συναρμόσας ώς κάλλιστα . . . έναρμόσας: for the language, cf. e. g. the instruction for a cauterization instrument in Haem. 6. VI 442,8f. L i . : the physician is instructed to use a tube of bronze, and into it he is to fit an iron rod so that the fit is close (σιδήριον δέ έναρμόσαι καλώς άρμόζον). The iron is to be heated, and the heat transferred through the bronze tube. Once again, there seems to be a connexion between the physician's familiarity with this kind of manipulation, and the use of the demonstrative models by the present author. 39,1 τά τρυπήματα: no-one is going to ruin a good bronze cauldron by boring holes in it; moreover the author, in a passage of careful and detailed instruction says nothing either about boring holes nor whether such holes are to be near the top or the bottom of the vessel. Yet his demonstration will not work unless the holes are at the bottom. These considerations, and the use of the article, strongly suggest that he is referring to a familiar piece of household equipment, which already has some kind of perforation in the bottom (for a tap or spigot?). Τρύπημα, to judge from the instances in LSJ, appears to mean a perforation which is a regular feature of the implement or object in question (e. g. the holes in a flute). However, I have not been able to find an example of a bronze cauldron or vessel with a tap or spigot in the bottom, except for the Chertomlyk amphora (from Scythia) 461 . This however may have had a special purpose.

461

See Strong p. 88 and plate 21.

300

Commentary

39.2 φλέβες τε γάρ: this is a perfect illustration of Temkin's remarks 462 on the way in which a humoral theory results in a speculative anatomy. Here the number and function of the veins depend upon the author's belief about the humours and the reservoirs. If these latter exist, then there must be veins to connect them. 39.3 εί γάρ το σώμα . . . εί μή ήσαν: the author's reasoning in this passage is this: "the body must draw directly from the stomach, and not merely indirectly through the reservoirs, otherwise the body will receive insufficient nutriment. (This might appear to make the reservoirs superfluous, but this is not so, because) if the reservoirs themselves did not e x i s t . . . " The reading which fits in best with this argument is αλλ' αί πηγαι μόναι ες το σώμα διεδίδοσαν, omitting the καί of Μ (for which Littre reads ή) and reading with Mack διεδίδοσαν, omitting the negative μή (Foes remarks that the translators appear to have read ές το σώμα έδίδοσαν gave to the body463). Μή is in any case incompatible with ελάσσονα and ού γάρ αν έτι είχον κτλ.: the reservoirs could hardly k e e p on supplying the body if they did not supply the body at all (I cannot see how Littre arrives at his translation of this clause). The alternative is to exclude ού γάρ άν ετι είχον κτλ.: as Ermerins did, followed by Joly; though this still leaves the contradiction in έλάσσονα 464 . 39,3 είχον . . . διεκδιδοϋσαι: would not be able to keep on supplying the body, with its nutriment. Cf. Euripides Tr. 316f. τον θανόντα πατέρα πατρίδα τε φίλαν καταστένουσ' έχεις (which surely must mean you keep up a lament for father). However, τροφήν άρκέουσαν instead of διεκδιδούσαι is tempting. 39,3

άτρεκέως: cf. chapter 28,1 and note.

39.3 δ τι ήδύ έστιν: the adjective refers here specifically to taste, as often; note that ήδονή may simply be savour (Diogenes VS 64 Β 5. II 61,14 Diels-Kranz; perhaps after Anaxagoras VS 59 Β 4. II 34,8 Diels-Kranz). 39.4 μικρότερα . . . ένδοθεν: i. e. being well inside the body, they are in a position to be affected by incoming nutriment before anything else; and being small, they are sensitive even to small amounts (on the principle of έπικράτεια). 462 463

464

Temkin Zusammenhang pp. 29—31. Calvus has: nam si corpus ventriculi humorem non hauriret, sed fontes soli corporique soli dederent . . . for if the body were not to draw upon the humour of the stomach, hut the sources alone, and these alone were to distribute it to the body . . . Similarly Cornarius in his translation, w h o nevertheless reads και . . . μή έδίδοσαν in his Greek text. The grounds for removing ού γ α ρ . . . πηγαί are presumably that it is an explanatory marginal note. But it explains nothing: it would however make sense as an explanation of the reading I have suggested.

Diseases IV

301

39.4 ερμηνεύει: cf. chapter 38,3. In the present passage it is used exactly as in Morb. Sacr. 16,6. 86,84f. Gr. = VI. 392,4 Li. διό φημι τον έγκέφαλον είναι τον έρμηνεύοντα την σύνεσιν I say it is the brain which conveys understanding. 39.5 Εί δε ποτών κτλ.: Joly's emendation is paleographically attractive and gives a good sense. 39,5 μοίρην . . . ισώσει: the language is that of ισονομία. For the idea, cf. Gland. 9. VIII 564,1—7 Li. where according to that author the intestines are not much subject to disease, because they have many glands of similar size, so that one cannot receive a greater quantity than another: there is ισότης equality among them. Chapter 40 This chapter fulfills the promise made in chapter 33, to say more about the head and the spleen, which are the most hollow (κοιλόταται) of the organs, and have the most space in them. In that chapter, the author indicated that the attractive power of the reservoirs, which is the basis of his humoral theory, is explained by the principle of void or space; the purpose of the present chapter is to describe this mechanism in greater detail, and to add a few qualifications. It and the following chapter round off the section begun in chapter 33. We are now told that three out of the four reservoirs will attract not only its cognate humour, but also each of the other humours. This is an important addition to the theory, for it indicates that the attractive principle of void or space is prior to, and stronger than, the attraction of likes. As in the articulation theory of chapter 17, there must first be a moving force before the attraction of likes can operate, for that attraction is not in itself a moving force at all. In chapter 17 the force is supplied by pneuma, i. e. the respiration of the embryo. In the present chapter the moving force is the principle of attraction by void (cf. introductory note to chapters 33 — 41), and the attraction of likes is subordinate to this. However, the author now indicates something of the means by which the attraction of likes operates. The gall-bladder will not accept any other humour than bile, because of the fineness of its attendant venous system: bile is more "rarefied" than the other humours, being κούφος light (cf. chapter 36,1 and note). This indicates that the attraction of like humours depends on the consistency of the humours, rare or dense, light or heavy, and on the size of the network of pores or vessels which are associated with each reservoir. So the theory points the way to the physiology of Erasistratus, which depends upon the relative size of the body's pores, and after him to the atomistic physiology, the particles and pores (όγκοι και πόροι), of Asclepiades of Bithynia, which were to have a long history in European medicine.

302

Commentary

The attractive power of a reservoir depends both upon its structure and upon its attendant network of vessels. Disease, so far as it is organically based, is caused (i) by a reservoir attracting too much of its cognate humour; and (ii) by a reservoir attracting other humours. To see how (i) can occur, we have to compare the author's theory of hydrostatics as it appears in chapter 51, where he gives an account of bruising. There, as a result of the void created by the blow, the expelled blood flows back in greater quantity than before, and this explains the swelling and the pain. Evidently, then, it is characteristic of a void not only to become filled but, in some circumstances, to become overfilled. The disease here is caused purely by pressure; but in the case of (ii), something like the antagonism of opposites seems to operate. A humour causes trouble by getting into the wrong place, as in the Cnidian treatises. Compare with the whole chapter VM 22, where the author distinguishes between powers, δυνάμεις, as causes of disease, and shapes, σχήματα, of organs. There some organs are hollow and gradually contract in their shape, such as the bladder, the head, and the womb, and these will tend to attract and be filled by fluids; while others, though hollow, are not contracted and will tend to receive fluid though not to attract it. Others again are porous and spongy (spleen, lung, breasts) and will absorb fluids and grow hard. 40,1 ή χολή μοϋνον: this looks like a remark made from direct observation. The author's belief is evidently not shared by Int. 29, where the gall-bladder (in a case of hepatitis) is filled with both phlegm and blood, and in consequence ruptures. 40,1

βαρυτέρην: whereas bile is κοΰφον light (chapter 36,1).

40,1 σύνηθες . . . τή χολή: this is not a further point but rather a consequence of the mechanistic reason which has preceded. The reservoir is "accustomed" to bile in the sense that it never admits any other humour: bile is its invariable and unique inhabitant. Hence it is not particularly prone to disease. 40,1 ουδεμία νοϋσος: although the author does not systematically ascribe opposite qualities to his four humours, there is a slight tendency to think in terms of opposites here. The presence of a humour in a reservoir to which it is not akin causes a conflict of opposites. 40,1 καρδιωγμόν . . . καλέουσιν: cf. chapter 36,1, note on καρδίην. Despite his disapproval of the term, the author uses the verb καρδιώσσειν suffer heartburn several times in Mul. I (Mul. I 3. VIII 22,15 Li.; Mul. I 4. VIII 26,12 Li.; Mul. I 9. VIII 38,16 Li.; Mul. I 34. VIII 80,3 Li.; Mul. I 36.VIII 86,5 Li.; Mul. I 38. VIII 92,17 Li.; Mul. I 41. VIII 100,8 Li. Except for Mul. I 36. VIII 86,5 Li. all these instances occur in Grensemann's layer

Diseases IV

303

C). Cardialgia is commonly associated with the vomiting of bile in the Collection (Epid. I 12. I 190,14-16 Kw. = II 6 3 8 , 1 - 3 Li.; Epid. Ill 17,10. Ill 130,5-8 Li.; Prog. 24. 228,If. Al. = II 1 8 2 , l l f . Li.; Morb. II 66. VII 100,10 Li.), and this is its most characteristic symptom according to Gal. De usu part. 5,4. 261,9f. H . = III 356,13f. Kühn. 40.2 τη μεν καρδίη κτλ.: cf. chapter 19,2 and 38,1 note on παχεΐαι φλέβες. 40.3 μάλιστα έπίνοσά έστι,: cf. VM 22. 53,19-21 Hbg. = I 27,16-19 Kw. = I 628,4f. Li.: the head, bladder and womb are always full of fluid from without. There is certainly a tendency in the Collection to regard the head as the seat of many diseases, presumably since phlegma is situated there; and the remark about the spleen is natural in a country where malarial diseases are rife. But what about the diseases associated with the lungs, the liver, and the kidneys in Int.? 40,3 από των φύσει έόντων from their congenital humours·, for this meaning of φύσις, cf. Genit. 3,1. 46,15 Joly = VII 474,8 Li. συμφυέας; Genit. 11,1. 52,7 Joly = VII 484,18 Li.; Nat. Puer. 15,3. 57,24 Joly = VII 494,15 Li.; Nat. Puer. 30,6. 80,13 Joly = VII 534,22 Li., andseeManettipp. 438-440. 40,3 πλείονα . . ,τοϋ καιρού: this is a consequence of their greater attractive power: cf. introductory note. 40,3 πολλή ή: more likely to be a solecism on the part of the author than a scribal error. Ermerins and Joly read πλείων.

Chapter 41 41,1 έλάσσων γίνεται: the subject on which the author has already "touched" (Morb. IV 38,3. 9 2 , 8 - 1 1 Joly = VII 556,12-14 Li.). 41,1 τέσσαρα. . . ο ϊ σ ι ν ά π ο κ α θ α ί ρ ε τ α ι ί β ο ΐ ο ο Μ υ ΐ . 19. VIII38,9 —11 Li. which shares the same general pathology as the present chapter: ήν . . . (φλέγμα) μή ύποκαθαίρηται μήτε κατά τάς ρίνας μήτε κατά την έδρην μήτε κατ' ούρήθρην if phlegm is not purged either through the nostrils or through the fundament or through the urethra. Cf. a similar remark in Acut. (Sp.) 39,1. 86,23-87,1 Joly = II 474,7-9 Li. τά δέ νοσήματα πάντα λύεται ή κατά στόμα ή κατά κοιλίην ή κατά κύστιν all these diseases are resolved either through the mouth or the belly or the bladder. Although each of the reservoirs is allotted to a particular humour, this is not the case with the passages of exit, since any humour may be discharged through any one, or more than one, of them except for ϋδρωψ (Morb. IV

304

Commentary

37,2. 90,20-24 Joly = VII 554,3-6 Li.). The number four is perhaps traditional. Cf. the interesting parallel from an Egyptian papyrus 465 . The demon causing the sickness is conjured out by the following incantation (given in Reinhard's translation): Bist du eine Dienerin ? so komme im Erbrechen: Bist du eine Vornehme? so komme in seinem Harn: Komme im Niesen (?) seiner Nase: Komme im Schweiß seiner Kleider. 41.1 νοϋσος πιέζει: the word indicates the author's mechanistic conception of disease. The disease is the humour, and it causes trouble by pressure: cf. Morb. IV 44,3. 98,14f. Joly = VII 566,21 Li. πιεζόμενων των φλεβών ύπο της πληθώρης the veins are under pressure from the surfeit. Similarly πιέζει in Int. 18 of a complaint in which the head is filled with phlegm. 41.2 τά πονέοντα: Regenbogen p. 159 notes the active use of the verb (cf. Nat. Puer. 15,1. 57,6 Joly = VII 492,23 Li.; Morb. IV 46,4. 102,6 Joly = VII 574,10 Li.; Morb. IV52,4. 112,17Joly = VII 592,8 Li.; Morb. IV52,5. 113,4f. Joly = VII 592,18f. Li.; Morb. IV 53,1. 113,8f. Joly = VII 592,22 Li.; Morb. IV 53,2. 113,21 f J o l y = VII 594,8 Li.) as a peculiarity within the Collection, paralleled only in Mul. I (cf. Mul. I 8. VIII 38,3 Li.; Mul. I 36. VIII 84,12 Li.; Mul. I 38. VIII 94,13 Li. and possibly Mul. I 8. VIII 34,15 Li.). It is one of several peculiarities which these treatises have in common.

Chapters 42-48 These chapters should be taken together, and regarded as fulfilling the rubric of chapter 32: ότι αί νοϋσοι κρίνονται έν τησιν περισσησιν ήμέρησι that diseases reach their crisis on odd days. The author takes it for granted that critical days occur on every third day (cf. introductory note on chapters 46-48), and his theory of a three-day digestive cycle is designed to account for this. At the same time, since health depends on the normal functioning of the cycle, which is described in these chapters, they also illustrate the rubric: ύπο τεύ ύγιαίνουσιν οί άνθρωποι και ύπο τεϋ νοσέουσι what causes health in men and what causes disease (chapter 53), which can only refer to chapters 42-48. Within this group of chapters, chapters 42-44 outline a theory of nutrition. This is the earliest detailed account of this important topic which we possess prior to Aristotle, although it is a topic which interested the pre-

165

Reinhard p. 319.

Diseases IV

305

Socratic philosophers generally. The author's account is unsatisfactory: it seems to be an eclectic combination of two very different approaches. O n e is the view that the end product of nutrition is blood. This view may have been popular and primitive: it is as old as H o m e r , but it was also held, apparently, by Empedocles, and it was worked out in detail by Aristotle. It is assumed elsewhere by the author himself, since he believes that the embryo is nurtured by blood (e.g. in chapter 14), and that the mother's milk is either a product of blood or is an alternative to blood, produced, like blood, from the sanguineous substance present in the stomach (chapter 21, supplemented by Mul. I 1 and 73: cf. the introductory note to chapter 21). According to this view, digestion is the process by which food in the stomach is concocted by heat and converted into blood, which then passes into the flesh and ensures the growth as well as the maintenance of the organism. However, this view is combined, not very satisfactorily, with another: according to this, the direct agent of nutrition is the nutritive moisture, or ίκμάς, which is originally present in all foodstuffs (for ίκμάς = τροφή nutriment, cf. note on chapter 33,3 της ίκμάδος). It is this ίκμάς which provides strength (Morb. IV 43,2. 97,19f. Joly = VII 566,3f. Li.), simply by remaining in the body over a certain period until it is replaced by a further quantity of ίκμάς. The former view of nutrition may be roughly described as qualitative, implying a change in substance, while the latter view, as it appears in these chapters, is quantitative, and its purpose is to account for the maintenance of an equilibrium between what is ingested and what is expelled. While it may explain how the organism is maintained, it cannot by itself account for growth or putting on condition, and this leads to an inconsistency in the author's account. However, the author attempts to reconcile these two views of nutrition by attributing a further function to the ίκμάς. As well as maintaining equilibrium in the way described, it is itself the agent of nutrition which acts on the food in the stomach, concocting it and producing b l o o d from it (Morb. IV 42,2. 9 6 , 1 5 - 1 7 Joly = VII 5 6 4 , 2 - 4 Li.). Chapter 42 The facts or assumed facts from which the author starts are that diseases reach their crises upon every third day, that the internal origin of disease is the humours, and that these are supplemented and maintained by the digestive process. But the digestive process appears to work in a cycle of two days: that is, what is eaten on one day is expelled on the next. It is the purpose of the present chapter to resolve this apparent contradiction, and the author does it by superimposing, as it were, a cycle of three days upon the two days of the apparent digestive cycle. The scheme can be represented diagrammatically:

306

jenters with food passes to stomach

evacuated |

eaten

food

evacuated

Jenters with

Jenters with food passes to stomach expelled

passes to stomach

eaten | evacuated

e tu αϊ