150 Aristotle and his school
for the reckless type. In lines 27 – 8 , the lack of self-control of melancholics
(i.e. their recklessness) is said to be easier to cure (euiatotera) than the lack
of self-control of those who deliberate but who do not act upon their de-
liberations (i.e. the weak). This corresponds to 1151 a 1 – 5 ;^40 yet the next
sentence is confusing, for Aristotle continues by saying that those who lack
self-control out of habit (ethismos) are easier to cure than those who lack
self-control by nature (ton phusik ̄ on ̄). Does this new differentiation (habit
vs. nature) correspond to the recklessness – weakness we already know? Yet
that would imply that melancholy is not a natural predisposition (as the
remark on themelancholike phusis ̄ inDiv. somn. 463 b 17 suggests) but an
attitude (hexis) acquired by habit, and that the characterisationhoi melan-
cholikoiwould not refer to the nature but to the character of the person.
But this text may in fact refer to a subcategory of the reckless type in which
melancholics are to be regarded as ‘reckless by nature’.^41 Anyhow, Aristotle’s
argumentation is not entirely clear here, and it may well be that the classi-
fication of melancholics as belonging to the second type (weakness) in the
pseudo-AristotelianGreat Ethics(Magna moralia, Mag. mor. 1203 b 1 – 2 )is
based on this passage.^42
The last occurrence of the melancholics can be found in the section that
follows (Eth. Nic. 7. 12 – 15 ), in which Aristotle discusses pleasure (hedon ̄ e ̄).
In 1154 a 26 he asks the question why physical pleasure seems more desirable
than other pleasures. The first reason he gives is that it drives away pain
(lupe ̄) and functions, as it were, as a cure against it. The second reason ( 1154
b 3 ) is that because of its intensity (sphodra) it is pursued by people who
are unable to enjoy any other pleasure and who perceive even their normal
state (in which there is neither pleasure nor pain) as painful.
(^40) Croissant’s remark ( 1932 , 41 n. 2 ) that the melancholics are categorised as the other type (astheneia)
is based on an incorrect interpretation:* < ) . % !) is a genitive
of comparison. This incorrect interpretation may also be the reason why melancholics are said to
belong to the weakness category by the author ofMag. mor. 1203 b 1 – 2 (see below).
(^41) In this respect the remark by Plato (Republic 573 c 7 – 9 ) is worth noting: the tyrant can become
‘prone to drinking, sex and melancholy either by nature, or by his activities, or by both’KB -
B
# -
B "
! )
3
!L>
(^42) ‘This type of weakness of will [i.e. recklessness,propeteia] would seem to be not altogether blame-
worthy, for it is also found in respectable people, in those who are hot and those who are naturally
giftedK (
L; the other type occurs in people who are cold and melancholic
K :
L, and these are blameworthy.’ This contradiction can only be
solved by taking into account the fluctuations in the temperature of black bile which are possible
according toPr. 954 a 14 ff. However, this offers no explanation for the prototypical use ofhoi melan-
cholikoito refer to both the reckless type inEth. Nic. 7 (which, incidentally, does not mention heat
and cold) and the weak type inMagna moralia. Dirlmeier ( 1958 , 390 ) and Flashar ( 1962 , 713 ) discuss
this issue. As the authenticity of theMagna moraliais still disputed (see for the latest debate the
works of Cooper ( 1973 ) 327 – 49 and Rowe ( 1975 ) 160 – 72 ), I will not go into this complication here
(for the possible origin of the contradiction see n. 40 above).