154 Aristotle and his school
which it began to play an important part in nosology.^57 Therefore, both in
its thought and in its terminology the Aristotelian concept is such a far cry
from the Hippocratic theory of four humours that one can hardly speak of
Hippocraticinfluence.
We may conclude that the texts do not give detailed information on the
physiological basis of Aristotle’s use of the termhoi melancholikoi. Yet it
seems clear that such a concept does exist in Aristotle’s work:hoi melan-
cholikoiare melancholicsby nature(ten phusin ̄ ), that is, as a result of a
physiological constitution, which, however, is diseased and permanently in
need of a cure. It is impossible to say with certainty whether melancholics
are characterised ( 1 ) by the very presence of black bile in them (for, asPart.
an. 676 b 31 – 2 shows, not every human being has bile); ( 2 ) by the fact that
the mixture of heat and cold in them is special and abnormal (Eth. Nic. 1154
b 13 ); ( 3 ) by the fact that black bile is localised in a particular part of the
body, namely the heart (Mem. 453 a 24 ;cf.Part. an. 672 b 29 ); or ( 4 ) by the
particularly high quantity of black bile in their body (if one interpretskrasis
inEth. Nic. 1154 b 13 as a mixture of bodily fluids). This is probably due to
the fact that Aristotle pays limited attention to medical matters when he
writes in his capacity ofphusikos: he only discusses the principles of health
and disease, that is to say, the role of heat and cold in the body and the
balance between them.^58 Consistent with this method and its consequent
limitations is Aristotle’s tendency to discuss medical views on anatomy and
physiology occasionally, but without examining them systematically; any
views he considers correct are reformulated in the terminology and con-
cepts of his own philosophical system.^59 This obviously makes it even more
(^57) See Thivel ( 1965 ) 266 – 82 (in particular 271 ) and Jouanna ( 1974 ) 507 – 8. Thivel states that in Aristotle,
by contrast to the later Anonymus Londiniensis, theperittoma ̄ has not yet become a ‘principe de
maladie’. In fact, this notion can be found occasionally in theProblemata(e.g. 865 a 1 ; 884 a 23 ; 959
b 29 ), which Thivel apparently considers post-Aristotelian; however, it seems to appear as early as
inSomn. vig. 457 a 2 and inGen. an. 738 a 29. For the notion ofperittoma ̄ in Aristotle see alsoOn
Length and Shortness of Life(De longitudine et brevitate vitae) 466 b 5 – 9 and Peck’s Loeb edition of
On the Generation of Animals, lxv–lxvii, as well as Harig ( 1977 ) 81 – 7.
(^58) Cf.Sens. 436 a 17 ff.;Resp. 480 b 22 ff.;Div. somn. 463 a 5 – 7 ; see also the limiting remarks made
inLong. et brev. vitae 464 b 32 f. andPart. an. 653 a 10. [See also ch. 6 below.] Flashar ( 1962 , 318 )
writes that Aristotle states about himself that he is not a medical expert and only considers medical
questions from a philosophical or scientific point of view. However, the objection must be made
that Aristotle’s statement may well refer only to the methodical process employed in his writings on
physics (phusike philosophia ̄ , including his clearly planned but perhaps never writtenOn Health and
Disease). Aristotle may have discussed medical facts in greater detail elsewhere, for instance in the
Iatrikawhich Diogenes Laertius ( 5. 25 ) ascribes to him, or in his ownProblemata(now lost). On this
possibility see Marenghi ( 1961 ) 141 – 61 [and ch. 9 below].
(^59) A clear example of this process is Aristotle’s judgement on the use of dreams as a prognostic tool in
Div. somn. 463 a 3 – 21 , which he adopted from the ‘distinguished physicians’. For a more extensive
discussion of this passage see van der Eijk ( 1994 ) 271 – 80 [and ch. 6 below].