Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

154 Aristotle and his schoolwhich it began to play an important part in nosology. 57 Therefore, both inits thought and in its terminology the Aristotelian concept is such a far cryfrom the Hippocratic theory of four humours that one can hardly speak ofHippocratic influence.We may conclude that the texts do not give detailed information on thephysiological basis of Aristotle’s use of the term hoi melancholikoi. Yet itseems clear that such a concept does exist in Aristotle’s work: hoi melancholikoiare melancholics by nature (tēn phusin), that is, as a result of aphysiological constitution, which, however, is diseased and permanently inneed of a cure. It is impossible to say with certainty whether melancholicsare characterised (1) by the very presence of black bile in them (for, as Part.an. 676 b 31–2 shows, not every human being has bile); (2) by the fact thatthe mixture of heat and cold in them is special and abnormal (Eth. Nic. 1154b 13); (3) by the fact that black bile is localised in a particular part of thebody, namely the heart (Mem. 453 a 24;cf.Part. an. 672 b 29); or (4) by theparticularly high quantity of black bile in their body (if one interprets krasisin Eth. Nic. 1154 b 13 as a mixture of bodily fluids). This is probably due tothe fact that Aristotle pays limited attention to medical matters when hewrites in his capacity of phusikos: he only discusses the principles of healthand disease, that is to say, the role of heat and cold in the body and thebalance between them. 58 Consistent with this method and its consequentlimitations is Aristotle’s tendency to discuss medical views on anatomy andphysiology occasionally, but without examining them systematically; anyviews he considers correct are reformulated in the terminology and conceptsof his own philosophical system. 59 This obviously makes it even more57 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, the perittōma has not yet become a ‘principe demaladie’. In fact, this notion can be found occasionally in the Problemata (e.g. 865 a 1; 884 a 23; 959b 29), which Thivel apparently considers post-Aristotelian; however, it seems to appear as early asin Somn. vig. 457 a 2 and in Gen. an. 738 a 29. For the notion of perittōma in Aristotle see also OnLength and Shortness of Life (De longitudine et brevitate vitae) 466 b 5–9 and Peck’s Loeb edition ofOn the Generation of Animals, lxv–lxvii, as well as Harig (1977) 81–7.58 Cf. Sens. 436 a 17ff.; Resp. 480 b 22ff.; Div. somn. 463 a 5–7; see also the limiting remarks madein Long. et brev. vitae 464 b 32f. and Part. 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 medicalquestions from a philosophical or scientific point of view. However, the objection must be madethat Aristotle’s statement may well refer only to the methodical process employed in his writings onphysics (phusikē philosophia, including his clearly planned but perhaps never written On Health andDisease). Aristotle may have discussed medical facts in greater detail elsewhere, for instance in theIatrika which Diogenes Laertius (5.25) ascribes to him, or in his own Problemata (now lost). On thispossibility 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 inDiv. somn. 463 a 3–21, which he adopted from the ‘distinguished physicians’. For a more extensivediscussion of this passage see van der Eijk (1994) 271–80 [and ch. 6 below].