Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

Aristotle on melancholy 167to be an approach that Aristotle fully recognises and which he provideswith a methodological foundation; it is by no means incompatible withthe more ‘psychological’ approach demonstrated in particular in the Ethics,and Aristotle considers it rather as complementary. 90 Explaining deviationsin the domain of the psyche, whether they are valued as positive or negative,by pointing to an equally deviant physiological state can very well beconsidered a consequence of Aristotle’s conviction that psyche and bodyare closely connected.7 conclusionIt has transpired that the theory of Pr. 30.1 corresponds quite well to theAristotelian concept of melancholy and that there are insufficient groundsto claim that Aristotle did not support this theory. Whether the text ofthe chapter goes back to a treatise on melancholy that may have beenpart of Aristotle’s lost Problemata or whether it goes back to an attemptmade by a later Peripatetic (perhaps Theophrastus) 91 to systematise thescattered statements of the Master, will remain unknown. In any case, ouranalysis of the chapter, in particular of the author’s two different objectives,and of the prima facie disproportionate discussion of these objectives, hasshown that it is possible to read the text as a deliberate attempt to explain anobservation that would at first sight be unthinkable in Aristotle’s philosophy(i.e. the peritton of melancholics in intellectual areas) – an attempt whichis achieved by means of statements on melancholy and psycho-physiology90 For further examples of this consideration see Tracy (1969) 247–61. For the methodological basis seeDe an. 403 a 3–b 16 and Tracy (1969) 247ff. 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 knownabout the views of Theophrastus on melancholy and enthusiasm. Ascription can only be based onthe statement in 954 a 20–1 and the factthat Diogenes Laertius (5.44) says that Theophrastus has written a treatise ‘On Melancholy’ The former argument has proved to be rather weak: as Flashar (1962, 671) mustadmit, the statement is not really in line with Theophrastus’ writing De igne. One might point tochapter 35, but precisely at the relevant point the text of the passage is uncertain, and even if oneaccepts Gercke’s conjecture 〈 〉 theparallel is not very specific The statement would make more sense as a reference toa lost book on fire in the Problemata (see Flashar (1962) 671) or the Aristotelian treatment of heatand fire in Part. an. 648 b 34ff. (although the phrase is more likely to refer toa separate treatise; cf. Croissant (1932) 78). Yet even if one is prepared to accept the statement asreferring to Theophrastus’ De igne, there is the possibility that the Peripatetic editor/compilator ofthe Problemata collection is responsible for this, and it need not imply that the theory presented inthe chapter is originally from Theophrastus (see Flashar (1956) 45 n. 3). – With respect to the title it should be noted that the word does not appear in the text ofthe chapter of the Problemata: only and are mentioned. These terms correspond to Aristotle’s usage, whereas the word reminds one either of the Hippocratic names for melancholic diseases (for instanceAirs, Waters, Places 10, 12; 52, 7 Diller) or of Theophrastus’ theory on character.