Aristotle on melancholy 167
to be an approach that Aristotle fully recognises and which he provides
with a methodological foundation; it is by no means incompatible with
the more ‘psychological’ approach demonstrated in particular in theEthics,
and Aristotle considers it rather as complementary.^90 Explaining deviations
in the domain of the psyche, whether they are valued as positive or nega-
tive, by pointing to an equally deviant physiological state can very well be
considered a consequence of Aristotle’s conviction that psyche and body
are closely connected.
7 conclusion
It has transpired that the theory ofPr. 30. 1 corresponds quite well to the
Aristotelian concept of melancholy and that there are insufficient grounds
to claim that Aristotle did not support this theory. Whether the text of
the chapter goes back to a treatise on melancholy that may have been
part of Aristotle’s lostProblemataor whether it goes back to an attempt
made by a later Peripatetic (perhaps Theophrastus)^91 to systematise the
scattered statements of the Master, will remain unknown. In any case, our
analysis of the chapter, in particular of the author’s two different objectives,
and of the prima facie disproportionate discussion of these objectives, has
shown that it ispossibleto read the text as a deliberate attempt to explain an
observation that would at first sight be unthinkable in Aristotle’s philosophy
(i.e. theperittonof melancholics in intellectual areas) – an attempt which
is achieved by means of statements on melancholy and psycho-physiology
(^90) For further examples of this consideration see Tracy ( 1969 ) 247 – 61. For the methodological basis see
De an. 403 a 3 –b 16 and Tracy ( 1969 ) 247 ff. and 224 n. 80 , as well as Sorabji ( 1974 ) 63 – 89.
(^91) No argument can be made for ascribing this theory to Theophrastus; virtually nothing is known
about the views of Theophrastus on melancholy and enthusiasm. Ascription can only be based on
the statement in 954 a 20 – 1 K A#
. -) !Land the fact
that Diogenes Laertius ( 5. 44 ) says that Theophrastus has written a treatise ‘On Melancholy’K
L>The former argument has proved to be rather weak: as Flashar ( 1962 , 671 ) must
admit, the statement is not really in line with Theophrastus’ writingDe igne. One might point to
chapter 35 , but precisely at the relevant point the text of the passage is uncertain, and even if one
accepts Gercke’s conjecture〈
3
$ !〉1 ) #0the
parallel is not very specificK L>The statement would make more sense as a reference to
a lost book on fire in theProblemata(see Flashar ( 1962 ) 671 ) or the Aristotelian treatment of heat
and fire inPart. an. 648 b 34 ff. (although the phrase !is more likely to refer to
a separate treatise; cf. Croissant ( 1932 ) 78 ). Yet even if one is prepared to accept the statement as
referring to Theophrastus’De igne, there is the possibility that the Peripatetic editor/compilator of
theProblematacollection is responsible for this, and it need not imply that the theory presented in
the chapter is originally from Theophrastus (see Flashar ( 1956 ) 45 n. 3 ). – With respect to the title
0it should be noted that the word does not appear in the text of
the chapter of theProblemata: only
% -
0
% +
0
and
3 !are mentioned. These terms correspond to Aristotle’s usage, whereas the word
reminds one either of the Hippocratic names for melancholic diseases (for instance
Airs, Waters, Places 10 , 12 ; 52 , 7 Diller) or of Theophrastus’ theory on character.