Aristotle on melancholy 153
It is not certain, but neither is it impossible, that the bile ‘that is situated
in the other parts of the body’K8 1 3 ' *
#[sc.
]) is black bile, as P. Louis suggests.^52 In any case this passage confirms
the characterisation of black bile as a residue inSomn. vig. 457 a 31. This
characterisation returns several times in Aristotle’s writings on biology:
Part. an. 649 a 26 (just bile),Hist. an. 511 b 10 (which mentions both black
bile and yellow bile, together with phlegm (phlegma) and faeces (kopros);
on phlegm as aperittoma ̄ cf.Part. an. 653 a 2 ,Gen. an. 725 a 15 – 16 ,Pr.
878 b 16 andSomn. vig. 458 a 3 ). The chapter inParts of Animalsclearly
states that the residues are themselves without purpose, but that nature
sometimes uses them for a good purpose.^53 This statement is complemented
byGen. an. 724 a 4 ff., where Aristotle calls phlegm an example of those
residues which can be of benefit to the body when combined with other
substances, as opposed to the worthless residues that can even harm physical
health.
This characterisation of yellow and black bile and phlegm^54 asperittomata ̄
plays a pivotal part in the question whether Aristotle adopted the Hippo-
cratic theory of the four humours.^55 It is clear that Aristotle knew both
black and yellow bile,^56 as well as blood and phlegm. However, there is no
indication that these fluids in any combination form a kind of humoral
system similar to the theory of the four humours inOn the Nature of Man;
the only place where three are mentioned together (viz. yellow bile, black
bile and phlegm) is in the above quotedHist. an. 511 b 10 , where they are
listed as residues, together with faeces. This itself shows that it is unlikely
that Aristotle assigned them a role as important bodily fluids on which hu-
man health depends. In addition, it should be pointed out that the notion
ofperittoma ̄ does not appear in the Hippocratic Corpus and was probably
not introduced into Greek medicine until the second half of the fourth
centurybce(perhaps by Aristotle himself, or by one of his students), after
(^52) Louis ( 1956 ) 189 n. 5.
(^53) On this remark and the use of the word
, see Preus ( 1975 ) 227 – 33.
(^54) Bonitz’s claim ( 1870 ; 586 b 17 ) that Aristotle considered blood as aperittoma ̄ as well is not confirmed
by the two passages he cites (Part. an. 650 b 5 ;Gen. an. 738 a 8 ) and seems rather unlikely in view
of the statements made in the chapter (Part. an. 2. 3 ) that discusses the blood ( 650 a 34 : ‘It is evident
that blood is the ultimate nourishment for animals that have blood’; b 2 : ‘blood is present in blooded
animals for the purpose of nutrition’; b 12 : ‘blood is present for the purpose of nutrition and the
nutriment of the parts’).
(^55) See Schoner ( ̈ 1964 ) 67 .Cf.n. 10 above.
(^56) With regard to yellow bile, seePart. an. 649 b 34 ,De an. 425 b 1 andMetaph. 1044 a 19. Aristotle
uses the Hippocratic typologyphlegmatod ̄ ̄es – cholod ̄es ̄once, though not in a biological context (and
in a passage of dubious authenticity:Metaph. 981 a 12 ). This typology occasionally occurs in the
Problemata( 860 a 27 ; 860 b 15 ;cf. 862 a 28 ).