Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

168 Aristotle and his schoolmade by Aristotle himself. This way, the explanation of the anōmalia andthe variety of expressions of the melancholic nature serves to answer thechapter’s opening question, which at the end should not look quite so un-Aristotelian (and indeed no longer does) as at the start. In any event, asthe theory of Pr. 30.1 has proved to depend strongly on Aristotle’s ownstatements on melancholics, it has become much less isolated within thehistory of ideas.Finally, this chapter should hopefully provide a starting-point for a renewedtesting of the working hypothesis that those parts of the Problematathat have been passed on to us can be used as testimonies of Aristotle’s views,on the understanding that these passages do not contradict the authentictexts. 92 Obviously, one single piece of research does not suffice to prove thevalue of this hypothesis in general, and further study into the so far tooneglected Problemata is required.92 When examining this working hypothesis, the other scattered statements on melancholics in theProblemata should be taken into account as well (1.12; 3.25a; 4.30; 11.38; 18.1 and 7; 30.14). Theseoccurrences do not really seem to contradict the statements made by Aristotle (perhaps with theexception of 860 b 21ff., which is difficult to reconcile with Part. an. 676 b 5ff.). The characteristics ofthe melancholic mentioned are partly affirmative (4.30: strong drive for sexual intercourse), and partlysupplementary to the characteristics mentioned by Aristotle, and the physiological explanations canbe reconciled with Aristotle’s statements very well (11.38: ‘following one’s imagination’; 18.1 and7 as well as 4.30: connection with pneuma; 30.14: very strong movement of the soul). However,only an in-depth analysis of these at times very difficult passages can more clearly define the preciserelationship with Aristotle’s concept. For the moment, the brief yet valuable remarks made by Flashar(1962) 303ff. and Marenghi’s (1966) commentary on the medical problems should be noted. For arather sceptical view on the working hypothesis see Flashar (1962) 303 and 315.