Aristotle reads Hippocrates is a fascinating title. In three words, it poses three decisive problems. What is meant by âAristotleâ, and what is the nature of the writings referred to by this name? What is meant by âHippocratesâ, a name that lingers on undefined? And what is meant by âreadingââand therefore âwritingââmedicine in classical Greece? This paper will consider certain features of Greek medical texts in the Hippocratic Corpus, especially the more technical ones, whose legacy has often been detected in âAristotleâ, as well as some distinctive features of Aristotleâs texts, especially Hist. an. We will furthermore examine Aristotleâs working method as described by himself, and consider his lost works on medicine and animals (iatrika and zoika) as listed in ancient catalogues, including their possible structure. Finally, the paper will seek to explain the âvariations within similarityâ that characterize the relationship between Aristotle and the still extant medical texts.
1 Introductory Remarks
1.1 âAristotleâ
The name âAristotleâ has different connotations. (1) The definitive Aristotleânamely, the author of works intended for publicationâbeing irrecoverably lost, we use the name to define (2) the author (or authors) of mainly records of lectures, notes and drafts gathered together and organised at a later point, sometimes by others; on the base of these extant writings, we draw conclusions and establish relations with other authors and works. (3) Later, the Aristotle of Aristotelianism passed through filters that adulterated the original contribution, as is the case of the collection of material known as Problemata, important as they are for the connections with medicine. (4) The Aristotle of the Anonymus Londiniensis, for all its relevance to our knowledge of ancient medical theories on the causes of diseases and names of medical authors, is an indirect, âdoxographicâ Aristotleâan Aristotle by hearsayârequiring a specific approach in itself. Additional information is provided by (5) the Aristotle that emerges from the titles of his works, as preserved in the three ancient indexes (Diogenes Laertius, Vita Menagiana, Ptolemy el-Gharib): here, especially as regards those works of which nothing survives, we glimpse an Aristotle in silhouette, the breadth of whose interests was matched only by Democritus.
1.2 âHippocratesâ
The second preliminary problem concerns the identity of Hippocrates, the subject of important studies and conferences in recent years.1 In this case, the issue is much simpler: Hippocrates, as an author of the treatises of the CH, does not exist. Not a single reliable element provided by the tradition can prove that a doctor named Hippocrates put his ideas or experiences into the writings we know. The two references in Plato, or the single mention by Aristotle, do not refute this matter of fact. Attributing to the father of medicine one or more of the treatises of the Corpus that bears his name is but an exercise in philological creativity and historical passion.2 All we glean from the sources is that there was a well-known non-Athenian physician, an excellent doctor with a new approach, indeed a paragonâand only presumptively a writer of medical works. From both the classical and Hellenistic periods, no single passage, no single line can reasonably be attributed to the historical âHippocratesâ. It was only at a later stage that the association of a number of works with that name-label coalesced to make a variegated reality uniformâas happened in the case of âHomerâ and others.3 That the historical Hippocrates did indeed have his own ideas about medicine is beyond doubt; that he gave them a coherent written form, and that this form is preserved in the CH, cannot be proved. Acknowledging this fact facilitates a structural analysis of the works of the CH.
Consequently, the notion of âHippocratic doctrineâ, itself the result of a posteriori reasoning, likewise reflects a process of homogenization, a quest for identity among differences. Indeed, the authoritativeness of the name âHippocratesâ, if attributed to a theoretical nucleus among many, endows it with a primacy that is not justified by historical data. Many were the doctrines at stake.
In order to understand what, of the heterogenous miscellany called Corpus Hippocraticum, can be related to âAristotleâ, one must therefore clarify what this miscellany consists of. There is no need to delve into what is commonly accepted about the multiple and irreducible typology of the writings contained in the CHâtheir differences, writings intended for physicians or the more general public, collections of clinical cases and sophistic lectures, compilations and notes. More useful for our purpose is to recall the uncertainties of chronologyâwhere a convincing case can be made for only a handful of works4â, and what I call structural uncertainties.
Such uncertainties in chronology and structure introduce a critical yet often underestimated element of instability in any attempt at establishing relationships. As to structure, it is essential to remember that there are very few worksâand these the least interesting in relation to a possible connection with Aristotle, with the sole exception of De aëribusâfor which a unitary structure and an author with a defined personality can be determined; much else, especially in the more technical fields, consists of assemblages of material from various origins, made no one knows when, from what, by whom, or for whom. We are often faced with attempts at amalgamation, with blocks of text more or less thematically related to each other, works with a catalogue-structure, occasionally supplemented, at some stage, by more or less sensible appendices.5 The repetition of the same passages in different assemblages is particularly remarkable, as e.g. in Epidemics books 5 and 7. It is typically with these kind of texts that connections with Aristotle have been identified. A list of such works, as investigated by V. Langholf and others,6 would contain at least:
-
De affectionibus
-
De anatome
-
Aphorismi
-
Coa praesagia
-
Epidemiae 5, 6, 7
-
De humoribus
-
De liquidorum usu
-
De locis in homine
-
Mochlicon
-
De morbis 1
-
De natura hominis
-
De natura muliebri
-
De ossium natura
-
Prorrheticon 1
-
Prorrheticon 2
For the incorporation of additional sections to pre-existing chapters, one can mention for instance:
but also works like
Other works like, for example, On internal affections, systematic and consistent as it is, are themselves the result of a reorganisation of catalogue material and a combination of sources.7
The list could be easily supplemented, and the useful descriptions by Craik (2015) facilitate the task.
With some important exceptions, I propose to extend and generalise Langholfâs idea that many of the authors of medical texts now classified as âHippocraticâ used to write on a single piece of writing material, i.e. they wrote a self-contained text unit on a sheet of papyrus or a tablet, which in turn may have been an excerpt either from their own earlier work or from someone elseâs text. Once copied, the boundaries existing between the original pieces of writing material (text carriers) disappeared, and can only rarely be identified today. According to Langholf, such texts might have been archive documents or files in which the scientific findings of doctors were recorded in order to be reused at a later point by someone else. Doctors acted as writers and excerptors at the same time, so that treatises might consist entirely or partially of a series of different texts, possibly written by different authors at different times.
The largest part of the works for which parallels between Aristotle and CH have been identified are technical writings, and they often fall into precisely those categories of composite works described above. Among works of the CH for which parallels have been identified in Aristotle are:
-
De aëribus aquis locis
-
Aphorismi
-
De articulis
-
De capitis vulneribus
-
De carnibus
-
Coa praesagia
-
Epidemiae 2
-
Epidemiae 5
-
Epidemiae 6
-
De flatibus
-
De glandulis
-
De humoribus
-
De internis affectionibus
-
De locis in homine
-
De morbis 1
-
De morbis 2
-
De morbis 4
-
De morbis mulierum
-
De morbo sacro
-
De natura hominis
-
De natura ossium
-
De natura pueri
-
De victu 1
-
De victu 2
especially for Aristot. Hist. an. 7:
It is no coincidence that many of these works fall into the typology that Langholf studied and are listed above.8
A partial answer to the âHippocratic problemâ lies therefore in the concept of fluidity: fluid texts that, as such, make it very difficult to ascertain stable entities, mark out identities, and look for direct contacts. What can be established is that, as far as the possible connection of the CH with âAristotleâ is concerned, a concept such as that of influence is inappropriate (see also below, 4.1 nr. 5).
1.3 Aristotle as Exegete of Hippocrates
The direct link between Aristotle and Hippocrates is an ancient one. It was Galen who created an image that was to cast a long shadow. According to Galen, Aristotle is an
Moving on, shall I now summon for you as a witness the other chorus, that of the Peripatos, which posits the principles of Hippocrates for natural science? (15) But of course I have also given evidence for this in other writings (
(Gal. Meth. Med. I.2, 14â16, 20,14â22,11 Lorusso = X.14,15â15,17 K.)δέδεικÏαί μοι δι âá¼Ïá½³ÏÏν á½ÏομνημάÏÏν ) ⦠Now, anyone who reads these writings will clearly see that Aristotle is an interpreter of Hippocratesâ reasoning on nature (á¼Î¾Î·Î³Î·Ïὴν á½Î½Ïα Ïῶν ÏεÏὶ Ïá½»ÏεÏÏ Î»Î¿Î³Î¹Ïμῶν á¼¹ÏÏοκÏá½±ÏÎ¿Ï Ï á¼ÏιÏÏοÏέλη ). (16) In particular, concerning the variety of diseases (ÏεÏὶ Ïá¿Ï Ïῶν νοÏημάÏÏν διαÏοÏá¾¶Ï ), how many and what kind (á½Ïá½¹Ïα καὶ á½Ïοία ) they are, and the symptoms as well as the causes for one and the other, it appears that Hippocrates, first among all those of whom we know anything, inaugurated this research in a correct way, and that, after him, Aristotle interpreted it more than anyone else. Those willing to read the writings I have composed (á½ÏομνήμαÏá½± μοι γεγÏαμμένα ) on each of these subjects will be informed about them as well. So that if indeed the Peripatetics sit as judges, Hippocrates will win, I think.
Galen offers here an example of his idea of medicine and philosophy in the classical age: a framework of interactions, with âHippocratesâ at its core, and with Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics and others drawing on him for both the material on which to reflect and the questions to be answered. Rather than making Aristotle a âdiscipleâ, or the heir, of Hippocrates, Galen here conceives of Hippocrates as the forerunner of Aristotle, and attributes to him Aristotelian terms and concepts such as those of cause and difference (
As the son of a physician and having grown up in a region where many practising doctors were active, it has always been assumed that Aristotle must have had some interest in medicine9 and that whoever had an interest in medicine in the fifth and fourth centuries must have been aware of the Corpus Hippocraticum and made use of it. Thus, in 1887, Franz Poschenrieder began collecting parallels between the two corpora, including the Problemata; in 1980, Simon Byl augmented this collection with much new material, drawing upon the work of Robert Joly, and emphasising with some enthusiasm the numerous examples attesting to the influence of the works of the CH on Aristotle; in 2004, C. Oser-Grote reviewed the evidence, focusing on anatomy and physiology. Although she was more cautious in her conclusions, her general approach was still comparable to that of her predecessors. A contrary stance was adopted by Wilamowitz and Carl Fredrich at the end of the 19th century, and in the 20th by David Balme in his works on Aristotle and George Sarton from the more general point of view of the historian of science:10 their rather sceptical conclusion was that Aristotle had little, if any, knowledge of the medical works later attributed to the Corpus Hippocraticum. Fredrich also argued that the comparison between Aristotle and the Corpus Hippocraticum as proposed by Poschenrieder could be accepted only in respect to the link between the first book of Problems and De Aëribus, and added: âalles übrige sind Allgemeinheiten, all the rest are generalities that Aristotle could either know himself, or see, or find in many other books as wellâ.11 We shall reconsider this aspect later.
2 Features of Medical Texts
2.1 Reading, Discussing, Sharing Knowledge: Epicrates
The third preliminary problem concerns the notion of âreadingââi.e. the way in which the ancients became aware of data, doctrines, information and theories, not only in science but also in poetry, law and any other field of knowledge; the issue also involves the way in which data, once acquired, were used and disseminated. We should set aside the modern idea of âreadingâ in the sense of perusing a comprehensive work of authorshipâa work with a beginning and an end, an internal coherence, a defined theme: books, in the modern sense. That is not, or not necessarily, what we are talking about. Conceptions found in âAristotleâ and similar to those occurring in the works of the CH in its current form do not imply a reading of those works in that form. Rather, one must look at such relationships in terms of dynamic interaction.
Reading a work, especially in the philosophical environment of ancient Athens, accompanied and complemented direct participation in oral discussion, the use of notes, memos,
A scene from a comedy by Epicrates of Ambracia conveys a vivid image of the Platonic and Aristotelian circle as a perfect context for the formation, circulation, exchange and contestation of technical knowledge. An author of the Middle Comedy, Epicrates presents a scene set in Platoâs later years, when Speusippus, Menedemus, and Aristotle himself were attending the Academy in Athens (Aristotle stayed there between 367 and 347). The lengthy fragment (fr. 10 K.-A.) portrays a group of philosophers in the Academy discussing biological classifications (in particular, how to classify a gourd within a botanical system), in front of a doctor who makes a vulgar mockery of them. Plato, Speusippus and Menedemus are on stage, and this provides evidence for a dramatic date between 360 and 349â¯BC: Epicrates looks at them with the eyes of a contemporary.
The scene enacts a dialogue between two characters. One of them has just returned from Athens, where he listened to a remarkable âacademicâ conversation while attending the Panathenaic games:14
âWhat about Platoand Speusippus and Menedemus?What are they spending time on now?What deep thought, what discourseis being explored at their establishment?Give me an insightful account of these things, if youhave come with any knowledge of them, by the Earth.âWell, I know enough to give a clear report of these things.For at the Panathenaea I saw a herd⦠of youthsin the exercise grounds of the Academy,and I heard unspeakably strange discussions!For they were attempting definitions of natural phenomena (ÏεÏὶ Î³á½°Ï Ïá½»ÏεÏÏ á¼ÏοÏιζόμενοι )and trying to differentiate (διεÏá½½Ïιζον ) the life of animalsand the nature of trees and the genuses of vegetables.And in the course of these discussions it was theâgourd,the genus of which they tried to decide (κολοκύνÏην á¼Î¾á½µÏαζον Ïá½·Î½Î¿Ï á¼ÏÏὶ Î³á½³Î½Î¿Ï Ï ).âAnd how did they define it (ὡÏá½·ÏανÏο ) and what genus (did they suppose) the plant to have? Reveal this, if you have any information!âWell, first of all, they all, without a word,just stood there and, bowing their heads,thought and thought for quite some time.Then suddenlyâwhile the (other) ladswere still bowing their heads and seeking a solutionâone said that it was a round vegetable (λάÏανόν ÏÎ¹Ï á¼Ïη ÏÏÏογγύλον εἶναι ),another: a type of grass, and a third: a tree (Ïοίαν δ âá¼Î»Î»Î¿Ï ,δένδÏον δ âá¼ÏεÏÎ¿Ï ).When hearing this, a doctorfrom the land of Sicily (ἰαÏÏá½¹Ï ÏÎ¹Ï Î£Î¹ÎºÎµÎ»á¾¶Ï á¼Ïὸ Î³á¾¶Ï )âfarted on them for talking nonsense.âSo, did they get terribly angry? Did they shout about being mocked?For that is not a fitting thing to do in such discussions!âIt did not even bother these boys.And Plato was there and quite gently,not at all upset, he ordered themagain â¦to try to define the genus,and they went on to make differentiations (διá¿ÏÎ¿Ï Î½ ).15
Four elements are of special interest for us. 1) The topic, i.e. natural sciences, and in particular an
Significantly, this fragment represents what can be considered the typical interaction between (named) philosophers and (unnamed) doctors: the philosophersâ attention is devoted to topics of natural science and classification, whereas the doctor has a more practical, and therefore critical, stance. It also indicates one of the mechanisms for the transmission of technical and theoretical knowledge, that of the public demonstration or debate, taking place before, or in parallel to, any written circulation of texts and possibly influencing the latter.
2.2 Writing: Bits of Text and Their Features
Reading is the flipside of writing, and both accompany the oral interaction portrayed by Epicrates. As to the character of written medical texts, Wesley Smith and Volker Langholf have delineated a fundamental feature of many medical works of the CH, especially the more technical ones, many of which are among those that Aristotle seems to have known. This is the so-called âcatalogue structureâ, according to which âthe author ⦠offers each item as though it is the whole of what he has to say, but then adds another which he presents in the same manner ⦠The treatise never describes its own structure, it only proceeds to present its material in surges of argument.â20
This catalogue-structure, in which one unit of text is added to another and then again, and in some cases is copied as is, in other cases modified, updated or abbreviated, can explain some features of Greek medical writings that seem to depend on the existence of separate textual units, later put together to form a treatise as we know it. Clearly distinct textual units are composed more or less methodically, and share a common topic, but are often arranged together chaotically. The fact that the same textual units are sometimes repeated in different works, in the same or in a different position, as in Epidemics V and VII, presumably implies that different tablets, or individual sheets of papyrus, were stored as such and could be used and reused individually, each time in a different context or sequence. The evidence provided by Egyptian medicine seems to confirm this (see below).
Whether the individual textual units were original compositions or copies of earlier texts is not knownâbut this is not especially relevant for our purposes. One wonders whether this way of working on medical texts is a feature peculiar to a discipline like medicine, intrinsic to its character, that induces practitioners to take notes, assemble materials, and order them in such a way as to make them readily available for consultation. In any case, the key pointâand one that helps explain a number of instances in Aristotleâis that the Greek approach (somewhat similar to the situation in Egypt) envisages that from the available material, from the individual textual units, one draws not exact copies, but re-elaborations on the basis of new data, new experiences, or even just rough copies, intended for practical use and so not requiring absolute fidelity (see below, 4.1). The individual textual unit does not have the identity-value of a work of authorship, and this, together with the anonymity that many texts certainly had from the beginning, provides an âopenâ text. This mechanism must be taken into account when considering âAristotleâ and the nature of his relationship to medical texts.
2.3 How Medicine Is Written: Authorship and the Case of Egypt
Ancient Egyptian medical papyri were often independent of each other in terms of source: one did not descend directly from the other. As Hermann Grapow and Wolfhart Westendorf put it,21 there were individual texts common to groups of papyri that could be located in a different context in different papyri. The source, a large reservoir, must have consisted of papyrus slips, on which the recipes were written down individually or in small groups. These were âcollective manuscriptsâ (as the Egyptians themselves named them: see e.g. chs. 4â103 of PapEbers) compiled from originals stored in temple libraries (the âhouses of lifeâ), each compilation under a heading (a âbook on swellingsâ, a âbook on head diseasesâ, etc.). After searching the library for texts, the compiler, possibly the doctor himself, transcribed the relevant papyrus leaves that served as intermediate carriers for the new âworkâ to be created.
Similarly in Greece, medical-biological knowledge of the fifth and fourth centuries BC appears to be the result of a phenomenon of contamination, of hybridisation. A broader construction, such as that attempted by Aristotle, could thus rest on foundations composed of elements of different origin, more or less formalised, written and oral. Anyone reading âAristotleâ and wishing to attempt to delineate precisely the identity of his sources must bear in mind that Aristotle had no interest in preserving that identity, even when he seems to have known it, with very rare exceptions (as in the case of Syennesis and Polybus).22 His method of working on extracts and quotations might also have played a role in this sense.23 A large amount of material is lost to us, preventing any generalisation; yet a work like the Anonymus Londiniensis shows that the names and ideas of many doctors were familiar to the Aristotelian circle. Still, the defining characteristic of the extant medical writings of the earliest phase, as (later) collected in the CH, remains their anonymity and the absence of any reference to âauthorsâ, even when the first person singular or plural is used. It is the very concept of authorship that seems to have become blurred to the point of disappearance; it is a structural feature of some of these texts, which cannot but influence any evaluation.24
2.4 Textual Units vs Books
The passages in the acroamatic works of Aristotle that allow a comparison with the CH seem to show that he often drew on an âUrformâ of the works that we read today in the CH, on unstructured materials, on the individual âtextual unitsâ from which those works were later put together.
I assume that Aristotle often did not quote from the âaccomplished worksâ of the physicians who had preceded him; at the time of writing, he did not have on his desk, say, De natura hominis or Diseases 2 or Epidemics. He did not read De locis in homine in order to quote from it a couple of lines. Instead, he drew on a collection of files, arranged by subject, on memos, notebooks, diagrams, as well as on excerpts taken from his reading and on notes taken from lectures he had heard and debates he had attended.
In his files, he could find, arranged by subject and sometimes in alphabetical or chronological order, the extracts he might need; in the case of poets and philosophers, these are often accompanied by names, as recommended in the first book of the Topics (see 3.4), while in the case of physicians they remain unlabelled, missing a
2.5 Some Characteristics of Textual Units
These textual units, which Aristotle may have had in front of him when working on medical issues, correspond to those individual passages which Volker Langholf has convincingly identified as the various original nuclei that, at a later point, after having been assembled together more or less casually, gave rise to some of the works within our CH. This explains, at least partially, three phenomena that are characteristic of Aristotleâs so-called âquotationsâ or âdirect referencesâ, or of the numerous alleged indirect references to Hippocratic passages:
-
The anonymity of his references to physicians (with the exception of Syennesis and Polybus, see above), parallel to the systematic anonymity of these writings throughout the whole ancient tradition;
-
The presence of more or less significant differences between the passage as quoted by Aristotle and as present in other sources (this is in fact the case in almost all passages for which a relation with the CH has been posited, including the famous description of blood vessels in Aristotle and in De natura ossium and De natura hominis);
-
The circulation of the same passage, in the same or different form, in several authors or works, as well as the presence of the same passage repeated in a different position in related works (such as Epidemics 5 and 7).26
On the first point: many works (not all: unitary works, e.g. De morbo sacro, De vetere medicina, De arte, require a different explanation) are anonymous because the individual âtextual unitsâ on which they are based were themselves anonymous, materials written by physicians or by assistants to whom the physicians dictated during their visits and activities, then collected together in archives. They were often no more than âworksheetsâ written by different persons for everyday use, not works by âauthorsâ intended for a public and therefore typically âsignedâ, as Herodotus and Thucydides did with theirs.
On the second point: it is revealing that those convinced of an âinfluenceâ of the writings of the CH on Aristotle, of a direct link between the two, of an Aristotle as reader of âourâ Hippocrates, have found that Aristotle never or almost never reproduces his âmodelâ verbatim, but reports it with variations, additions, cuts, and changes in both form and substance. Thus, âle biologiste ne copie jamais textuellement son modèleâ, and âdans tous les cas, il modifie le vocabulaire du texte original; parfois, il transforme une information médicale en la présentant sous une forme différente, celle dâune âveritéâ réciproque par exemple; souvent aussi, il résume ses lectures, les corrige ou amplifie les renseignements quâil a trouvésâ,27 or âle biologiste a nuancé lâaffirmation du médecin ⦠il nâa pas reproduit littéralement les reinsegnements hippocratiquesâ.28 Sometimes there are important terminological differences, and we read that âle biologiste adapte, en le corrigeant, un développement quâil a lu dans le traité De la generationâ.29
On the third point, see below, 4.1 nr. 7. As to Epidemics 5 and 7 and the repetition of the same or similar texts (clinical records) in different positions in the two books, the most convincing explanation follows the approach of Langholf: the clinical records are in different positions in the two books because they were based on texts written on individual tablets or sheets of papyrus that could be selected, put in a different order and copied (after some changes, if needed) according to the needs.
Based on an unproven assumptionâthat Aristotle âreadâ the works of CH as they were to appear in the following centuriesâit is claimed that he knew them in the very same form that we read them today. Linguistic and substantive differences are thus overlooked, as well as additional or missing elements, while every discrepancy is regarded as a deliberate variation. We should rather recognise that the sources had different features, or at least that the process is not as straightforward as the terms âworksâ, âinfluenceâ, or âreadingâ would suggest.
3 Aristotleâs Working Method and the Features of His Texts30
3.1 Knowledge Step by Step and Aristotleâs Historia animalium
To better understand the acroamatic Aristotle, as evidenced particularly in Hist. an. (a collection of data serving as a basis for the conceptually more elaborate works), one should keep in mind the features of the possible sources, i.e. âtextual unitsâ on medical topics, kept in repositories and archives, sometimes in sanctuaries, such as in the Egyptian House of Life.31
The type of practice we have been describing had direct consequences on style, language and syntax: doctors needed to log the information that patients provided and to preserve it for consultation in future cases. This implies a clipped and utilitarian style, including the use of abbreviations, and with no literary pretensions. We are lucky enough to have a remarkable example of this style in Epidemics 6, section 8, paragraphs 7â9, the pages âdrawn from the small tabletâ.32 There are various instances of this in the technical works of the Corpus Hippocraticum. Outside the CH, the nearest parallels are to be found in Aristotle.
The investigation thus turns into a comparison between two types of collections of cards, notesâhypomnemata in the most ancient sense of the wordâwith profound consequences for the interpretation of the relationship between Aristotle and earlier literature, his way of working, and the form in which medical writings and technical knowledge circulated during the fifth and mid-fourth century. This also has potential consequences for the use of Aristotle as an indirect witness in constituting the text of medical writings, as well as for the attribution of medical works to specific authors, such as Polybus. If the analysis proposed in this paper is correct, Polybus should be credited with the authorship not of the entire De natura hominis, but only of the part explicitly ascribed to him by Aristotleâalso considering the fact that the work is a varied conglomerate of material (see below, p. 41, Galenâs opinion on the many different textual units constituting the work).
There are many examples in the Aristotelian corpus of his peculiar way of collecting data and presenting knowledge. We have notes (
Each person individually, Aristotle writes, attains to a small part of the truth, and makes his own contribution; the many small parts must then be put together, like bricks in a building (Eth. Nic. 1.7, 1098a20â26):
For this, I think, is the proper methodâfirst to sketch the outline, and then to fill in the details (
á½ÏοÏÏ ÏῶÏαι ÏÏῶÏον ,εἶθ âá½ÏÏεÏον á¼Î½Î±Î³Ïá½±Ïαι ). But it would seem that, the outline once fairly drawn, any one can carry on the work and fit in the several items (ÏανÏá½¸Ï Îµá¼¶Î½Î±Î¹ ÏÏοαγαγεá¿Î½ καὶ διαÏθÏῶÏαι Ïá½° ÎºÎ±Î»á¿¶Ï á¼ÏονÏα Ïá¿ ÏεÏιγÏαÏá¿ ) which time reveals to us or helps us to find. And this indeed is the way in which the arts and sciences have grown; for it requires no extraordinary genius to fill up the gaps. (transl. F.H. Peters)
Knowledge is built step by step, with the contribution of many, cf. Soph. El. 183b17â20:
For in the case of all discoveries the results of previous labours (
ÏÏá½¹ÏεÏον ÏεÏονημένα ) that have been handed down from others have been advanced bit by bit (καÏá½° μέÏÎ¿Ï á¼ÏιδέδÏκεν ) by those who have taken them on.
3.2 κολλῶν Ïε καὶ á¼ÏαιÏῶν
Theophrastus, too, explicitly acknowledges the role of public collective discussions: âReading in front of an audience leads to corrections and improvements of the text (
Düring drew the following interesting conclusion on the Aristotelian corpus: âdie im Corpus erhaltenen Schriften müssen letzter Hand von den Originalmanuskripten des A. abgeschrieben worden sein, und zwar von einem Redaktor, der sich die groÃe Mühe gab, alles zu bewahren, auch das, was am Rande oder auf Zettelchen geschrieben war ⦠Dieser Redaktor ist also für die heutige Form der Lehrschriften verantwortlich. Zusätze, die in Sprache oder Form unaristotelisch sind (die z.B. Theophrast eingetragen haben könnte), kommen sehr selten vor (z.B. Cat. 11b10â16; eine Ausnahme bildet die HA, die zahlreiche nach-aristotelische Nachträge enthält).â33
3.3 How Aristotle Worked
Hypotheses about how Aristotle the naturalist used to work stretch back to antiquity. Hermann Usener34 was convinced it had to be teamwork, encouraged and guided by the Master himself, âeine groÃartige Organisation der gemeinsamen Arbeitâ, a result of the
For Aristotle, this was the case in politics and the organisation of city-states, as well as in poetic creation. His work was based on the preliminary collection of data, the above mentioned Constitutions of States on the one hand, and the registers of theatrical competitions on the other. These lists were ordered by year, and gave an account of the performances while indicating the names of who wrote what, and who staged what. The same applies to rhetoric and to lists of winners in the Pythian and Olympic games, which would later become the standardised dating system used for events in Greek history. The same happens with works on natural science as well, especially those concerning animals.
Usenerâs reconstruction was widely influential but also criticized for its naive positivism and anachronism, and must be treated with caution. But in some respects, the resulting image might not have been too far from the truth. Scholars have often wondered about the origin and structure of even the more philosophical works, as we read them today. As H. Jackson put it in his still entertaining paper on Aristotleâs lecture-room: âAre the philosophical writings of Aristotle books, or records of lectures? And if they are records of lectures, are they drafts or memoranda prepared by Aristotle himself, or summaries and notes preserved by his hearers? Now I find in Aristotleâs writings certain peculiarities which I should not expect to find either in published works or in the notes of pupils, but which lead me to think that here are Aristotleâs notes for his lectures, or, more exactly, memoranda covering the ground of the lectures which he was about to deliver ⦠Aristotle repeats himself, corrects, substitutes, adds, omits. The consequence is that his writings sometimes resemble a waste-paper basket.â These questions are familiar today, and even more so in the case of the biological writings, especially the Historia animalium. Still, it is useful to recall them for present purposes.
3.4 Aristotleâs Method: Extracts, Diagrams, Tables
The acroamatic Aristotle himself provides valuable indications about how a scientist should proceed. This is presented in a well-known passage, at the beginning of the Topics.36 After hinting that his aim was to discover a method (
One must also then gradually write down next to the opinions of each (
The method recommended by Aristotle is clear, as H. Throm summarised: âMan soll sich also einen regelrechten Zettelkasten anlegen, natürlich für praktische Verwertung.â40 The verb
A similar concept is expressed by the terms
Among the many examples of texts based on a written extract, oral testimony or âwidespread knowledgeâ, a passage from De partibus animalium (3.10, 673a10â26) may be quoted:
It is said (
ÏαÏι ) that when in war men are struck in the part around the diaphragm, they laugh on account of the heat which arises owing to the blow. This may be so; and those who assert it are more credible (á¼Î¾Î¹Î¿Ïá½·ÏÏÏν á¼ÎºÎ¿á¿¦Ïαι λεγόνÏÏν ) than those who tell the tale of how a manâs head speaks after it is cut off. Sometimes they cite Homer (á¼Ïαγόμενοι καὶ Ïὸν á½Î¼Î·Ïον ) in support, who (so they say,Î»á½³Î³Î¿Ï Ïι Î³á½±Ï ÏÎ¹Î½ÎµÏ ) was referring to this when he wrote âAs it spake, his head was mingled with the dustâ, (not âAs he spake, his head was mingled with the dustâ.) In Arcadia, this kind of thing was at one time so firmly believed (διεÏá½·ÏÏÎµÏ Ïαν ) that one of the inhabitants was actually brought into court on the strength of it. The priest of Zeus hoplosmios had been killed, but no one knew who had done it. Certain persons, however, affirmed that they had heard (á¼ÏαÏάν ÏÎ¹Î½ÎµÏ á¼ÎºÎ¿á¿¦Ïαι ) the manâs head â¦. (Transl. A.L. Peck)
3.5 Aristot. Top. 1.14 γεγÏαμμένοι λόγοι
In the above-mentioned passage of Topics (1.14, 105a34â36), in which Aristotle recommends making extracts from written texts, preparing
Andreas Beriger explains: âMan darf diese Stelle durchaus so verstehen, dass aus philosophischen Werken Exzerpte gemacht werden, die rubriziert werden, thematisch geordnetâund dadurch einen Grundstock von Meinungen garantieren, in Form einer systematischen Doxographie. Möglicherweise ist die Rubrik âÃber Lebewesenâ sogar als Beispiel für eine bestimmte
Logos is, without further specification, the speech, the public oration.
If they misrepresent us by saying that we read our speeches (
γεγÏÎ±Î¼Î¼á½³Î½Î¿Ï Ï Î»á½¹Î³Î¿Ï Ï Î»á½³Î³Î¿Î¼ÎµÎ½ ) or practise them beforehand, or that we are pleading for the sake of some reward, we must meet such accusations with irony and say with regard to the writing of speeches (ÏεÏὶ μὲν Ïá¿Ï γÏαÏá¿Ï ) that the law does not forbid a man to read out a written speech (γεγÏαμμένα λέγειν ) any more than it forbids his opponent to speak without notes (ἠγÏαÏα ); for, while it prohibits the doing of certain actions, it allows a man to make a speech in any way he likes. You must also say: âMy opponent considers that the wrongs which he has committed are so serious that he does not think I am doing justice to the accusation which I am bringing against him, unless I write out and take a long time to think over my speech (εἰ μὴ γÏá½±Ïοιμι καὶ Ïολὺν ÏÏόνον ÏκεÏαίμην ).â Such then is the way in which we must meet the misrepresentation of having written out our speech (Ïá½°Ï Ïῶν γεγÏαμμένÏν λόγÏν Î´Î¹Î±Î²Î¿Î»á½±Ï ). If our opponents declare that we learn and rehearse our speeches (λέγειν μανθάνειν καὶ μελεÏᾶν ), we shall admit it. (transl. E.S. Forster)
3.6 á½ÏαÏÏούÏÎ·Ï Ïá¿Ï á¼±ÏÏοÏá½·Î±Ï : the Availability of Data
At the beginning of the most representative example of this way of working, the Historia animalium, after concluding the methodological introduction, Aristotle reiterates the same operative principle, followed this time by hundreds of pages of examples of its application. He observes (Hist. an. 1.6, 491a6â14):
This has now been said in this way as an outline (
á½¡Ï á¼Î½ Ïá½»Ïῳ ), as a foretaste of the many things that must be considered. We shall speak of it later in detail, so as to grasp first of all the differences that exist (Ïá½°Ï á½ÏαÏÏούÏÎ±Ï Î´Î¹Î±ÏοÏá½°Ï ) and the characteristics common to all. After that one must try to discover the causes. This is how the method must be put into practice, in accordance with nature, once the results of research (á¼±ÏÏοÏία ) on individual (animals) have been made available (Îá½ÏÏ â¦Ïοιεá¿Ïθαι Ïὴν μέθοδον ,á½ÏαÏÏούÏÎ·Ï Ïá¿Ï á¼±ÏÏοÏá½·Î±Ï Ïá¿Ï ÏεÏὶ á¼ÎºÎ±ÏÏον ). From this it becomes clear on what and from what the demonstration is to be carried out.
In line with what he says in Topics, Rhetoric and elsewhere, Aristotle makes it clear at the outset of Hist. an. that his first aim is to collect data, to gather the results of his own research and that of others. His personal and original contribution will consist in organizing them according to an aetiological perspective. Aristotle is clearly referring to a collection of data on animals, descriptions put together over time as a starting point for his work, of which Hist. an. reflects the first phase, Part. an. and especially GA the highest point of conceptual development. The verb
Being a collector of notes, for Aristotle hypomnemata and historiai are not a literary genre or a kind of work, but a way of organising his work. Data are necessary âto grasp the differencesâ. When, in De generatione animalium, he moves on to survey the differences (
Ïá½¹ÏÎ±Ï Î´ âá¼ÏÎ¿Ï Ïι διαÏοÏá½°Ï á¼¢ ÏÏá½¸Ï á¼Î»Î»Î·Î»Î± Ïῶν ÏοιούÏÏν γενῶν á¼ÎºÎ±ÏÏον á¼¢ ÏÏá½¸Ï Ïá½°Ï Î¼ÎµÎ»á½·ÏÏÎ±Ï á¼Îº Ïῶν ÏεÏὶ Ïá½°Ï á¼±ÏÏοÏá½·Î±Ï á¼Î½Î±Î³ÎµÎ³ÏαμμένÏν δεῠθεÏÏεá¿Î½ . (Gen. an. 3.10, 761a10)
Such
This collection of data, as Düring has argued, can be identified with the so-called zoika, on which the excerpts on animals by Aristophanes of Byzantium and other works were based, well into the Imperial age of Rome.49 It was perhaps during this period that compilationsâwhich stretch back at least as far as Hippias and the Sophistsâbecame widespread and circulated side by side with original creation.50
3.7 Aristotleâs Zoika (and Iatrika)
In order to understand Aristotleâs relation to the medical literature of his time, one must understand certain features of his writings on animals, HA being the most important work.51 From the 112 quotations that Athenaeus, via Hellenistic intermediaries, draws from Aristotleâs works on animals, about half are taken from a
The third part of the Anonymus Londiniensis presents us with a concrete example of this way of working that was apparently familiar to the ancients. As far as we can reconstruct, the Anonymus seems to have first transcribed the material, often concise texts, that he had in front of him without aiming at exhaustiveness, and later made additions and corrections to make the content easier to understand. Such additions may at times also have been based on oral tradition, medical teaching, or debates (similar to those staged by Epicrates of Ambracia, described above), but of course also on other written sources, and some of them had notes in the margins.53
Historia animalium represents the evolution of collections of material after some such reorganisation; the zoika were apparently the starting point. Zoika is the name given to those writings (whether one or several works, or merely a collection of notes) that in Athenaeus are identified with
It is probably to the zoika, and to comparable materials such as the iatrika, that Aristotle refers when he speaks of
It is therefore a matter of collective works, of common, shared knowledgeâjust like that of the doctors, which Robin Lane Fox has recently described as a âdatabaseâ, i.e. material that continued to be expanded during Aristotleâs lifetime and afterwards, as was the Hist. an.; material that did not start from scratch but drew on what already existed, including the different types of texts, written in various formats or circulating orally, on medical topics. The Problemata, which in their current form are certainly post-Aristotelian, offer an example of how this material could grow and change: book ten, probably from the age of Strato, has been regarded as essentially an epitome of Aristotleâs zoological writings;56 I would rather say a select reorganization of Aristotleâs written material on zoology.
Categories like âoriginalâ or âauthentically Aristotelianâ have no place among these texts, just as it is pointless to search after what is authentically âHippocraticâ in the writings aggregated under the label âCorpus Hippocraticumâ.
By looking at Aristotleâs fragments, one realizes that each animal was first introduced by a name, which was followed by specific descriptive information.57 It is certain, as Düring notes, that the zoika also incorporated material from the seven zoological works of Theophrastus; indeed, this type of collection never had a first, or final, âfinished formâ to which other blocks of material could be added later, but was a work in progress from the beginning. There is no authorial identity to search for.
3.8 Zoika and iatrika in the Catalogues of Aristotleâs Writings
Support for this argument can be found in the catalogues of Aristotleâs works preserved by both Greek and Arabic sources. More than one third of these titles are certainly preparatory material and collections of notes,58 while many others, including those preserved today, are lecture notes, texts meant for internal use, reorganised notes or, as in the case of the Historia animalium, notes that served as a starting point for further elaboration. As has been observed,59 the index in Diogenes Laertius includes 550
The tradition of lists of Aristotleâs works in Greek and Arabic is intricate, and the topic has seen a resurgence of scholarly interest, including the CUF edition of Ptolemyâs Life, Testament and Catalogue.62 There is a generally sceptical attitude towards the several titles referring to medicine, which is not surprising given the inconsistencies in position of these titles in the various catalogues. The catalogues exhibit differences also as regards titles on medicine (
Several works on animals are listed in the catalogues: among them the
Then comes a writing referred to as
Indeed, contrary to the Arabic scholars of late Antiquity, Moraux considers as suspicious all testimonies referring to any medical activity by Aristotle, and writes that âtout indique donc que les
These attempts to remove the problem of the
There have also been attempts to identify the 38 books of
For Aristotle, this type of arrangement is attested in the collection of Constitutions that he and his followers assembled; it therefore suggests that here too a collection of materials had already undergone a phase of reorganisation, introducing an arrangement that is typical of a working tool as opposed to a work of authorship. This can be considered as a confirmation that this kind of workâzoika, iatrika, physika, optika, etc.âwere collections of notes for personal use. In some cases, authorsâ names would have been available; in others, probably not. The latter must have been the case with medicine and the
3.9 The Catalogues of Aristotleâs Writings: The Arabic Tradition
Arguments against the authenticity of this kind of title also take into account the position, inconsistent as it is, in which they were inserted into the list. According to most recent studies, however, especially those on the Arabic catalogue attributed to a Ptolemy, a specific interest lies in the variations between the versions of the manuscript and of Ibn al-Qifti and Ibn Abi Uṣaybiʾa. These three different drafts seem to correspond to different phases of the manuscript tradition of the works, and therefore the view that Apellicon of Teos and his library were among the ancestors of the list of Ptolemy el-Gharib also becomes an issue of further consideration.72
We can assume73 that at a certain point in history the ancients had to deal with Aristotelian writings, or collections of materials, which had become difficult to find (and this, one may add, precisely because they often were hypomnemata, unfinished âwritingsâ that did not seem worth reproducing).74 A copy had however remained in the library of Neleus, which was later rediscovered by Apellicon of Teos. The fact that Ptolemyâs catalogue differs from Andronicusâ pinakes and reflects a different stage of the story of the Peripatos, rather than implying inauthenticity and interpolated titles, often in the wrong place, instead suggests that some titles were added from one list to another when the drafter realised that something was missing: it was at this point, namely when it became possible to compare different lists, that some titles were inserted from one index into the other, and were inserted either at the end of a column or wherever space was available, and thus usually out of order.75 This apparent inconsistency cannot therefore be used to classify the works listed in the indexes as ânon-Aristotelianâ.
Primavesi sums the matter up: âPtolemaios al-Gharib führt neben vielen anderen Titeln auch nahezu sämtliche echten Schriften des uns überlieferten Corpus Aristotelicum an, wobei auch die angegebenen Buchzahlen mit denen der uns überlieferten Schriften weitgehend übereinstimmen. Im hellenistischen Verzeichnis hingegen werden diese Schriften teils gar nicht genannt, teils werden einzelne Bücher oder Büchergruppen gröÃerer Werke unseres Corpus als selbständige Schriften gezählt ⦠Das Verzeichnis des Ptolemaios al-Gharib ⦠würde dann ein Stadium der Ãberlieferung repräsentieren, in dem jene Schriften wieder zugänglich geworden warenâ. The texts that had not reached the Alexandrians became available again when the library of Neleus of Scepsis came to light: the indexes could now be supplemented and the âeditionâ of Aristotleâs works could be enriched and improved.
Finally, it should be remarked that ibn Abi Uá¹£aybiʾa lists Aristotleâs titles in a work devoted not to Aristotle but to physicians: at least in the Arab world, the image of an Aristotle with truly medical interests was not an aberrant one.76
Given Aristotleâs method of working and collecting data, as sketched above, and given the features of the written material of medical argument that was part of his corpus, as attested especially by the indexes, it is possible to form a more consistent and historically reliable picture of his use of medical sources, which themselves had the peculiarities that we previously described.
4 Aristotle and the Features of Some âHippocraticâ Texts
We have excellent examples of the way in which these medical texts originated from preliminary materials variously assembled or used. For both Aristotle and the CH, categories such as epitomes and expansions are better avoided, as well as the idea of pieces of information that are extant in one work and not yet in anotherânotions that instead are often adopted in this case of Aristotleâs use of medical material. A different perspective can help when comparing the acroamatic Aristotle and individual works of the CH, and also in the post-Aristotelian period associating, for instance, Problemata and De aëribus: it may rather be a matter of different possible versions of the same doctrine. More generally, although it cannot be excluded that in some cases there may have been an influence, the very fact that in Aristotle the coincidences with the CH usually consist of short passages, often just of a few lines, seems to corroborate this hypothesis.
Some cases, internal and external to the CH, can briefly clarify the point.77 The first book of the Problemata would require a separate analysis, because it reveals a profound familiarity with medical topics (and therefore sources) and also pays attention to those aspects of therapeutics that are often overlooked in the acroamatic Aristotle. A systematic comparison between the latter and Probl. 1, going beyond and deepening what has been done by Marenghi (1961) and Flashar (1962), among others, might throw light on the attitude of Aristotle himself, as the attitude not of a doctor but of a natural scientist who takes an approach to medicine functional to his own broader perspective. Moreover, Probl. 1 may be seen as directly based on Aristotleâs lost medical writings, as argued by R. Mayhew especially in relation to the last three chapters (55â57), which have an unusual structure and omit the initial question.78 In this paper, however, I am dealing only with the acroamatic Aristotle.
4.1 Some Examples from the CH, and the Case of Praxagoras.
1) Mochlicon. In analysing the description of bones in Fractures and Joints, Dieter Irmer once tried to clarify a difficult passage of Joints (Artitc. IV.194.3 L.) by referring to a Parallelversion offered by the first chapter of Mochlicon (4, IV.340.15 L.), a work that is thematically connected to the two major surgical works. He thought that the latter version was âteils epitomiert â¦, jedoch auch sachliche Erweiterungen enthältâ, i.e. a partial epitome with factual additions.79 This sounds quite similar to the abovementioned descriptions of Aristotleâs alleged use of Hippocratic passages (see 4.2) and to statements like âAristote a repris les informations du médecin en les amplifiantâ etc. The case of Mochlicon, however, has been correctly assessed by A. Roselli, who demonstrated that it is not a matter of direct derivation of material, but of the autonomous use and editing of a shared knowledge base, a different draft of the same doctrine, which in one case is adapted to therapeutic needs (Fract. / Joints), whereas in the other to a more general frame (Mochl.).80 This is directly applicable to a comparison of the works of the CH with the acroamatic Aristotle and the Aristotle of Aristotelianism: correspondences of various kinds, some more and some less faithful, and at the same time divergences, are often to be explained not in terms of Aristotelian reworkings of Hippocratic texts but, on the contrary, as a different use of the same textual units from a common knowledge base.
2) Attention should be drawn to two cases from De generatione animalium. The first because in it Aristotle has been seen to reproduce almost verbatim81 a passage from De natura pueri, one of the works that are most âpresentâ in Aristotleâs writings; the second because in it a shared conception between Empedocles and the Hippocratic De victu is believed to have reached Aristotle precisely by way of De victu.
2a) Gen. an. and On the nature of the child. The first case: according to some interpreters, Aristotle literally takes up the doctorâs explanation that the infant is born with its head forward âbecause the upper parts, measured from the navel upwards, are heavierâ:
Aristotle writes (Gen. an. 4.9, 777a28â31):
2b) Gen. An., Empedocles and De Victu. The second example of a direct relationship between Aristotle and Hippocrates, that of Gen. an. 5.7, 788a22â26, concerning passages already pointed out by Fredrich, Byl and others, is also significant: Aristotle is said to have adapted and transposed here an earlier theory that must have been that of Empedocles as attested by De victu 1.36 (VI.524 L. = 156,28â32 Joly-Byl).83 The theory concerns the cause of the roughness or smoothness of the voice, which is made to depend on the surface of the organ, itself rough or smooth. Of course, it is said, Aristotleâs scientific prose is not that of the author of De victu, which remains influenced by the Empedoclean vocabulary, but nevertheless it must be acknowledged that the explanation proposed by the two authors, Aristotle and the physician, is identical. Yet if the vocabulary with respect to De victu is so different as to require an explanation, what prevents us from thinking instead that Aristotle knew Empedocles directly and referred to him, Empedocles being an author whom Aristotle knows, quotes, holds in high esteem, and mentions as an example of an authoritative predecessor whose views are always worth quoting (see above, 3.4)?
3) Praxagoras. Comparable assessments were reached concerning the possible influence of the âHippocraticâ writings on Praxagoras of Cos.84 Diethard Nickel convincingly concluded that, contrary to what had previously been argued, âcritical comparison of these texts with Praxagorasâ fragments 70/71 clearly shows that there is no connection between the respective doctrines.â Although it is easy to detect common elements between Praxagoras and De morbo sacro, âthese do not prove that Praxagoras was dependent on this text, but that both Praxagoras and the author of this work were woven into a more general network of relations.â It is a matter of commonly shared ideas, of a network of relations in a shared context.
4) Gen. an. and On Airs, Waters, Places. This approach can also be applied to the example of Gen. an. 4.2, 767a30â35 and its comparison with De Aëribus. Since Aristotle states that the condition of the body depends on the weather and the food ingested, it is commonly stated he must have known ch. 1 of Aër. (a report of a medical doctrine typical of the environment called Hippocratic), although the similarity between the two texts may appear superficial, as said.85 Moreover, the words with which Aristotle continues (âbecause water is available in abundance, it is present in all foods, even solid foods, and for this reason hard and cold waters produce sterility in some cases, in others the birth of femalesâ), are taken as evidence that he has before his very eyes the treatise De Aëribus, and that in chap. 8 of this work he read that âthere is liquid in everythingâ,
This type of analysis presupposes a rather simplistic idea of the circulation of knowledge in the ancient world, as though only these two works existed and so had to be mutually related despite all variations. Moreover, even here one is forced to concede that Aristotle amplifies and develops, which is unmethodical. That being said, a writing like De Aëribus could certainly have been among the most interesting for Aristotle, and known to him, as it was presumably known to the authors of the Problemata or at least of some chapters of that work.
5) Humoral theory. The case of the theory of humours, as studied by Philip van der Eijk and Paul Demont, also offers interesting insights.87 The notion of
6) Blood vessels in Hist. an., Nat. hom. and Nat oss.: The famous case of the description of blood vessels in Aristotle Hist. An. as well as in two medical texts contained in the CH calls out for comment.89 The text is Hist. an. 3.3 (512b12â513a7), as compared to De natura hominis 11 (VI.58â60 L. = 192,15â196,5 Jouanna), while also showing a close resemblance to On the nature of bones 9 (IX.174â178 L. = 144,18â146,22). The Hippocratic texts are similar to each other, whereas Aristotle introduces several changes. Irregularities and differences are also found in the texts of the CH, and in Nat. oss. we can see repetitions, and an irregular style devoid of literary quality.
Scholars have tried to explain away these irregularities and remove the difficulties; however, it is in fact precisely these variations and difficulties that are decisive. We should enhance, not remove them: the âknapper Notizstilâ of the final part, as Althoff has defined it, presumably refers to a different unit of text added to the previous one, a text that Aristotle in turn does not add or that he simply does not have. Both an irregular miscellany such as Nat. oss. (of which chs. 11â19 circulated as a separate work entitled Vessels, and so were known to Galen), and a miscellany without coherence such as Nat. hom. (that according to Galen was composed of many textual units stitched together,90 see Comm. in Hipp. Nat. hom. XV 10 K., and above p. 41 on Polybusâ possible authorship), exemplify the case of medical works consisting of originally separate textual units, possibly used by different authors and adapted to different contexts. If this hypothesis is correct, then Aristotle does not manipulate the text of Nat. hom. and rather might have used a different version of a theory of blood vessels that circulated in a variety of forms. It would follow that Aristotle did not necessarily know and use a work like Nat. hom. in the form that would eventually be known to Galen and to ourselves.
7) The story of Aristagoras at Epidaurus. For an extant example of the circulation of the same text in similar yet different forms, on two different media (stone and papyrus), for two different audiences, the story of the miracle healing of Aristagoras of Troezen can be mentioned, as this is attested on the one hand among the inscriptions of the sanctuary of Asclepius at Epidaurus, and on the other hand in several but not substantial differences in On the nature of animals IX.33 (II cent. CE) by Aelian, who claims to have found the story in the work of the historian Hippys of Rhegium (fifth or fourth century BC).91
4.2 Anonymus Londiniensis and the âWrongâ Hippocrates
The question remains whether the Aristotle of the Anonymus Londiniensis is compatible with the others. In trying to answer, additional problems arise. The author is certainly more compatible, but still to a limited extent, with the Aristotle of Aristotelianism and the Problemata, probably because both works draw on collections of notes that were circulated and also enlarged and revised after Aristotle; but he is much less compatible with âourâ acroamatic Aristotle. The Anonymus shows a familiarity with physicians and medical theories on the causes of disease that is usually traced back to the Lyceum (the main one being the notion of perittoma, âresidueâ), but the chronological distance is considerable and, when added to the problem of the sources of the papyrus (the Menoneia? The iatrika? The Menoneia = iatrika?, or rather, as Manetti argues, not a single text but a combination of different texts?),92 it becomes even more difficult to identify information that can be traced back to Aristotle himself rather than to some undefined stage in the history of the reception of his theories.
On the other hand, according to the author of the papyrus, Aristotle had only an approximate knowledge of the figure referred to there as âHippocratesâ, so that the Anonymus himself feels the need to reassert what he believes to be the historical truth (Anon. Lond. VI 43â¯ff.). True, this may be due to the fact that the figure of Hippocrates had undergone a dramatic change in the Alexandrian age as compared to the previous century, and that the Anonymus is therefore mirroring a later state of affairsâa different image of âHippocratesââbut still, âit is very difficult to identify the Aristotelian stratification within the manipulation carried out by the Anonymusâ.93
While the Aristotelian section of the Anonymus and common sense make it difficult to believe that Aristotle was not sufficiently familiar with medicine and with contemporary or earlier physicians, the impression one has from the papyrus is that the opinions of physicians were indeed known within the Peripatetic milieu (though it is not easy to pinpoint when), but not studied in their own right. It is also worth noting that among the names mentioned in the âAristotelianâ section it is problematic (if not irrelevant) to distinguish between physicians and physiologists, and that the authors are mentioned for more general theories on disease. Moreover, it is remarkable that the doctrines that this âdoxographicâ source declares to be Hippocratesâ own correspond mainly to De natura hominisâa work that Galen dismissed as a disorderly assemblage and that Aristotle himself, at least for one section, associated with an author who was not Hippocrates (i.e., Polybus).94 Since our aim is to identify the features of Aristotleâs sources, it appears that the papyrus provides valuable information but no clarification.
5 Conclusion
5.1 âSachliche Kongruenzenâ and âSimilienstatusâ
While it is undeniable that the acroamatic Aristotle was familiar with medical doctrines, it appears that, given his outlook as a physiologos, his interest in medicine was focused on its capacity to help construct his more general ideas about causes, nature and man. Plato, too, had described Socratesâ impatience with doctors and their language, those âingenious sons of Aesculapiusâ with all their ânewfangled and monstrous strange names of diseasesâ: Socrates had heard the new terms, he had observed a process of innovation, and was convinced of their uselessness.95
No matter how attentive Aristotle was to the long tradition of observations he could refer to, what really interested him was undoubtedly the speculative synthetic perspective.96 He demotes medicine to an applied and therefore subordinate technique, equivalent to the other specialised forms of knowledge he addresses.97 It is a rare good fortune that we still have writings such as Hist. an., Metaphysics and others that exhibit the traits we have discussed so far, rather than being coherent and polished works: we can thus observe the specialist at his workbench and in the âlecture roomâ.
We can accordingly accept the cautious but conscious conclusion proposed by A. Anastassiou and D. Irmer in the Introduction to TeCH I: there are factual congruences (sachliche Kongruenzen) between the acroamatic Aristotle and the CH, just as there are, albeit fewer, with Plato. These are partly Allgemeingut der Gebildeten, common knowledge shared among the educated, whether it be anatomy or folk medicine, and partly due to common sources, given the frequent stylistic, linguistic, and sometimes even substantial distance. In short, as compared to the CH, âdie ⦠Aristotelischen Perikopen haben somit den Similienstatusâ.
I mention here only the XIII International Hippocrates Colloquium, âAncient Concepts of the Hippocraticâ (2016), especially van der Eijk (2016); see also Perilli (2009); Witt (2022). Translations of ancient texts are my own unless otherwise stated. My thanks to Philip J. van der Eijk for his insightful remarks and criticism on an earlier draft of this paper.
For a recent example, see Lane Fox (2020), Part II, and Endnotes.
For some fruitful considerations about the origin of âHippocratismâ between the IV and the III centuries BC and the construction of the Hippocratic Collection at Alexandria (including a reevaluation of the once familiar hypothesis according to which the personal library of some doctor from Cos might have constituted its original nucleus), see Manetti (2014).
See Craik (2015).
See Langholf (2004) and (1989); Smith (1983); Perilli (2009).
See Langholf (1989) 67â73.
See Craik (2015) 140.
More on this in Perilli (2024).
See van der Eijk (2022).
See Balme (1987) 16; on Hist. an. Sarton (1952) 537. Status quaestionis in BartoÅ¡ (2021) 48â¯f.
Fredrich (1899) 9 n. 4.
Vita Marciana 6 (p. 98 Düring); Blum (1991) 52, 70.
Poetics 26, 1462a11â17.
See Nesselrath (2016), Gaiser (1968) 450, nr. 6, Douglas Olson (2007) 229. Source is Athenaeus II 59 D/E.
Transl. Nesselrath, with minor changes.
Lectures at the Academy were open to the public. Key testimony is Aristot. ap. Aristoxen., Harm. elem. II p. 30â¯f. Meibom = Test. 7 Gaiser, 452, on Platoâs lectures On the Good. See also Düring (1957) 357â361.
Aristotle uses forms such as
Kassel and Austin (1986) 163 ad l.
The name of Philistion was proposed by Jaeger (1938) 9â¯f., see also Gaiser (1968) 451.
See Smith (1983), Perilli (2009), (2014), (2024).
In Langholf (1989) 64. Already Jouanna (1975) 141.
Leophanes occurs in Gen. an. 4.1, 765a25, but he seems to be a philosopher rather than a physician, since Pseudo-Plutarchâs Placita (Dox. Gr. 420,7) lists him together with other physiologoi (Empedocles, Parmenides, perhaps Hipponax, Anaxagoras, Leucippus and Democritus) for his doctrine of
On this, see below 3.4 and Perilli (2025).
Other hypotheses are of course possible: on this see van der Eijk (2012) 1503â¯f., and (2016), who instead argues that anonymity is not to be considered the norm for ancient medical writings. Still, as regards the early history of the works later merged together in the CH and their connection with Aristotle, I believe that the anonymity of textual units has played a role.
See Henrichs (2003) 210â¯f. On medicine and writing, Perilli (2009) and (2014).
Lane Fox (2020) assumes that a unitary work âlater became divided and one part of it was copied twice overâ, and split in two book-rolls (ch. 9, §â¯III). Perhaps acceptable for Epidemics 1â3, the hypothesis is unlikely for other books.
Byl (1980) 48 and 92. Similar remarks may be found in every comparison.
Byl (1980) 49.
Byl (1980) 70 and 73.
Lennox (2021) provides insightful reflections on Aristotleâs method from an epistemological perspective.
In Greece, sanctuaries were usually administered by political authorities: see Aristotle, Athenian Constitution 6. 44, 1.
See Bardong (1942); Perilli (2007) 65.
Düring (1968) 192.
Usener (1884/1914).
Strabo XVI 2,24.
See Mansfeld and Runia (2009) 158â172 (ch. 14: Problems and excerpts: Aristotelian instructions and a bit of practice). They render
Herophilusâ
Top. 1.14, 105b12â18.
Eth. Nic. 10.10, 1181b16.
Throm (1932) 69, quoted by Mansfeld and Runia (2009) 159.
More on this and on Aristotleâs passage in Perilli (2025).
Althoff (1999) 61, based on Beriger, remarks: âhier empfiehlt Aristoteles also das Literaturstudium, das mit einem gegliederten Exzerpt einhergehen soll. Wahrscheinlich ist mit dem zweiten Satz (
On diagraphe, hypographe, diagramma, paradeigma, see Lennox (2018); Keyser (1992) n. 3; Wesoly (2018); Natali (2013) 113â117. Also Jackson (1920) 193.
See Hist. an. 1.17, 497a32; 3.1, 510a11â14, a29; 4.1, 525a7â9; 6.10, 565a2â13; 6.11, 566a13â15, and Natali (2013) 114; Lennox (2018) 264.
See Natali (2013) 113.
See e.g. Post. An. 2.14, 98a1â12, and generally Rh. 2.22, 1395b31â1396b5: for any argument, one needs facts and sources following a selection by topics.
Beriger (1989) 41.
See Düring (1957) 359.
See Berger (2012).
Düring (1957) 368, goes further: âHis (sc. Aristotleâs) collection of notes was the beginning of hellenistic doxography which soon put an end to original thinking: it was replaced by compilations of doxographic notes.â This is too much; but the role of Aristotle has been well described by Mansfeld and Runia (2009, 158), in that âAristotle is not the inventor of doxography, but he certainly bequeathed it with a well-founded technical procedure, and considerably widened its scope.â
I refrain from comment on the controversial issue of the structure and authenticity of the ten books of Hist. an.
Regenbogen (1961) 274.
See Manetti (1999) 137â¯f.
So Berger (2012); already Kroll (1940).
See Düring (1966) ch. IX (Italian transl. 577).
Flashar (1962) 322. On the Problemata, see Mayhew (2015). The zoika became the source for collectors of curiosities, including Pliny. The difference between Plinyâs cabinet of curiosities and Aristotleâs work is illuminating: only in the latter (Part. an., Gen. an., but also Hist. an.) is a search for sense at stake, a systematic interpretation, with a heuristic aim, of the sheer amount of data. It is the principle of
Interesting structural similarities are in the first part of the Egyptian ophiological papyrus Pap. Brooklyn Museum n. 47.218.48 and 85.
âKlassifikatorische Vorarbeiten und Materialsammlungenâ according to Düring (1968) 326.
Düring (1968) 187.
See Witt (2022).
See Moraux (1951), Dietze-Mager (2015), Primavesi (2007), Rashed (2021).
The three catalogues are Diogenes Laertius; Vita Menagiana; Ptolemy el-Gharib, recently published in a critical edition by M. Rashed. An MA Thesis (2020) by E. Rovati at the University of Zürich also contains a translation and study of Ptolemyâs life and catalogue. See also Hein (1985).
It is not always clear whether scholarly references to iatrika in relation to the Anonymus or Problemata refer to the item with this title in Aristotleâs catalogues (D.L. 110).
Gal. In Hipp. Nat. Hom. comm. I.1 (XV 25,15â26,2 K. = Aristot. fr. 354 Gigon). See Manetti (1999) 98.
See Manetti (1999) 99.
110â¯f. Moraux adds (p. 186â¯f.): âLa présence des deux écrits apocryphes que sont le
Gigon (1987) 511. On titles of medical works in Aristotle, see also van der Eijk (2022) 106â¯ff.
In Thrasyllusâ catalogue of Democritusâ writings, mousika, physika etc. indicate the thematic titles of the sections according to which his catalogue is organised.
For Aristotleâs catalogues and this genre, see also Dorandi (2016); Blum (1991).
On alphabetical ordering, see Perilli (2017) 94â101, with bibliography. Some recently published papyrus fragments (collectively identified as P.Köln Lexikon) have significantly altered the picture as regards the age in which full alphabetical order (i.e. taking into account whole words and not only the first two or three letters) was introduced: if the proposed date of composition of the papyrus is correct, as it seems, full alphabetical order was already current in the third century BC (i.e., much before the second century ADâGalen and Harpocrationâas previously hypothesised, also by myself). See Vecchiato (2022). This is a remarkable novelty, which might have consequences also concerning the use of alphabetic ordering by Aristotle and his school.
Primavesi (2007); Dietze-Mager (2015) 158.
Following Primavesi.
See Dietze-Mager (2015) 108: âAls wahrscheinlichste Hypothese ergibt sich, daà die meisten Schriften des Aristoteles ⦠zugänglich waren ⦠Andererseits scheinen Bücher aus der Bibliothek des Aristoteles und Theophrasts in Skepsis gelagert gewesen zu sein, die erst im 1. Jh. v. Chr. wieder zum Vorschein kamen und für die Ãffentlichkeit zugänglich wurden.â
See Dietze-Mager (2015) 124.
The work is Ê¿UyÅ«n al-anbÄʾ fÄ« á¹abaqÄt al-aá¹ibbÄ, âWesentliche Nachrichten über die Klassen der Ãrzteâ; see Savage-Smith et al. (2020).
More details in Perilli (2024).
I agree with Mayhew (2015) in considering the last three chapters of Probl. 1 as âtaken from a lost medical treatise of Aristotleâ. I would not be surprised to learn that these were notes and transcriptions from medical sources that Aristotle kept in his archive for further use (as I imagine his iatrika); but this might well be a topic for a future investigation. I thank Philip van der Eijk for bringing to my attention Mayhewâs article.
Irmer (1980) 272.
Roselli (1996) 220â¯f.
See Joly (1970) 68 n. 1; Byl (1980) 87.
Byl (1980) 87.
See Fredrich (1899) 109 and 140; Joly (1960) 82.
Nickel (2005) 315 and 322. My italics.
Byl (1980) 92.
The notion of prescientific mentality is no longer acceptable.
For what follows, see van der Eijk (1990), mainly 52â¯f., and Demont (2005) 278â¯f.
âShared knowledgeâ, and interaction in a debate, is how I would also describe the relationship between Aristotleâs biological writings and earlier philosophically inclined medical tradition (e.g. Regimen, On Fleshes, On Ancient Medicine) as investigated by BartoÅ¡ (2021) 48â¯f., and (2021a), e.g. 149; also BartoÅ¡ (2010).
This description has been much studiedâe.g. Fredrich, Duminil, Grensemann, Jouanna, Althoff.
See Fredrich (1899) 13â¯f., 21â¯ff.; Craik (2015) 210â212. The fact that the work bears traces of the stitching together of several independent parts is not at odds with Galenâs idea that the first part of the work was typically Hippocratic.
See Perilli (2009) and (2023).
See above, 3.7 and 3.8. A detailed analysis of the âAristotelianâ section in Manetti (1999; on the mix of sources, see p. 105).
Manetti (1999) 120.
On this, see van der Eijk (2012) 1509. See also above, p. 61 and n. 90. The Anonymus himself (ch. XIX 2â18) mentions a doctrine of four humours/qualities that, if the reconstructions of the text are reliable, attributes to Polybus a theory similar to the one of Nat. hom. 3â4. The section on Hippocrates that the Anonymus attributes to his âAristotleâ has been said to correspond to De flatibus (whose theory âAristotleâ seems to have misunderstood), but I generally agree with those who, like L. Edelstein and G.E.R. Lloyd, are sceptical about the possibility of identifying precisely, from among the extant works, the sources of the doxographic account.
Plat. Resp. 405 d. 1â6. See Demont (2005) 276.
On Aristotle on philosophy and medicine, see van der Eijk (2022).
Vegetti-Lanza (1971) 19; van der Eijk (1995) 449â452, and (2005) 196.
References
Althoff, J. âAristoteles als Medizindoxograph.â in Ancient Histories of Medicine, ed. Ph.J. van der Eijk. Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill (1999) 57â94.
Anastassiou, A., Irmer, D. TeCH = Testimonien zum Corpus Hippocraticum, I. Nachleben der hippokratischen Schriften bis zum 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck (2006).
Balme, D. âThe place of biology in Aristotleâs philosophy.â in Philosophical issues in Aristotleâs biology, ed. A. Gotthelf and J. Lennox. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1987) 9â20.
Bardong, K. âBeiträge zur Hippokrates- und Galenforschung, I. Das kleine Notiztäfelchen des Hippokrates.â Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse VII (1942) 577â603.
BartoÅ¡, H. âAristotleâs biology and early medicine.â in The Cambridge Companion to Aristotleâs Biology, ed. S. Connell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2021) 46â63.
BartoÅ¡, H. âAristotle and his medical precursors on digestion and nutrition.â in Nutrition and nutritive soul in Aristotle and Aristotelianism, ed. G. Korobili and R. Lo Presti. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2021a), 127â152.
BartoÅ¡, H. âAristotle and his Hippocratic precursors on health and natural teleology.â Rhizai, 7 (2010) 7â27.
Berger, F. âDie Textgeschichte der Historia Animalium des Aristoteles, Aristophanes von Byzanz und die zoologische Sylloge des Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos.â Rursus, 7 (2012) (https://journals.openedition.org/rursus/766).
Beriger, A. Die aristotelische Dialektik. Ihre Darstellung in der Topik und in den Sophistischen Widerlegungen und ihre Anwendung in der Metaphysik M 1â3. Heidelberg: Winter (1989).
Blum, R. Kallimachos. The Alexandrian library and the origins of bibliography, Engl. Transl. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press (1991) (German ed. Kallimachos und die Literaturverzeichnung bei den Griechen. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Biobibliographie, Frankfurt am M.: Buchhändler-Vereinigung [1977]).
Byl, S. Recherches sur les grands traités biologiques dâAristote: sources écrites et préjugés. Bruxelles: Palais des Académies (1980).
Craik, E.M. The âHippocraticâ Corpus: Content and context. London and New York: Routledge (2015).
Crespo Saumell, J., âAristóteles y la medicina.â Asclepio, 69/1 (2017).
Dean-Jones, L., R.M. Rosen (eds.). Ancient Concepts of the Hippocratic. Proceedings of the XIIIth International Hippocrates Colloquium. Leiden-Boston: Brill (2016).
Demont, P., âAbout philosophy and humoral medicine.â in Hippocrates in context. Papers read at the XIth International Hippocrates Colloquium, ed. Ph. van der Eijk. Leiden-Boston: Brill (2005) 271â286.
Di Benedetto, V. âLa citazione di Polibo nella Historia animalium di Aristotele.â in Studi classici in onore di Q. Cataudella. Catania: Università di Catania (1972) 225â233.
Dietze-Mager, G. âAristoteles-Viten und -Schriftenkataloge: die Aristoteles-Schrift des Ptolemaios im Licht der Ãberlieferungâ. SCO, 61 (2015) 97â166.
Dorandi, T. âDiogene Laerzio e la tradizione catalogica. Liste di libri nelle Vite e opinioni dei filosofi.â Antiquorum philosophia, 7 (2013) 107â126.
Düring, I. Aristotle in the ancient biographical tradition. Göteborg: Almqvist & Wiksell (1957).
Düring, I. Aristoteles. Darstellung und Interpretation seines Denkens. Heidelberg: Winter (1966) (Italian transl. Milano: Mursia [1976]).
Düring, I. âAristoteles 18â. RE Suppl. XI, Stuttgart: Metzler (1968) 159â336.
van der Eijk, Ph.J. âAristoteles über die Melancholie.â Mnemosyne, 43 (1990) 33â72.
van der Eijk, Ph.J. âAristotle on âdistinguished physiciansâ and the medical significance of dreams.â in Ancient medicine in its socio-cultural context, eds. Ph. van der Eijk, H.F.J. Horstmanshoff, P. Schrijvers. Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi (1995) 447â459.
van der Eijk, Ph.J. Medicine and philosophy in classical antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2005).
van der Eijk, Ph.J. âTheoretical and empirical elements in Aristotleâs treatment of sleep, dreams and divination in sleep.â in Ph.J. van der Eijk, Medicine and philosophy in classical antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2005) 169â205.
van der Eijk, Ph.J. âHippocrate aristotélicien.â Comptes rendus des séances de lâAcadémie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 156/4 (2012) 1501â1522.
van der Eijk, Ph.J. âOn âHippocraticâ and âNon-Hippocraticâ Medical Writingsâ. in Ancient concepts of the Hippocratic. Proceedings of the XIIIth International Hippocrates Colloquium, eds. L. Dean-Jones, R.M. Rosen. Leiden-Boston: Brill (2016) 17â47.
van der Eijk, Ph.J. âAristotleâs biomedical project.â in Ippocrate e gli altri. Atti del XVI. Colloquio internazionale ippocratico, eds. D. Manetti, L. Perilli, A. Roselli. Rome: Ecole Française (2022) 105â132.
van der Eijk, Ph.J., and S. Francis, âAristoteles, Aristotelismus und antike Medizin.â in Antike Medizin im Schnittpunkt von Geistes- und Naturwissenschaften, Internationale Fachtagung aus Anlass des 100-jährigen Bestehens des Akademievorhabens Corpus Medicorum Graecorum / Latinorum, eds. Ch. Brockmann, W. Brunschön, O. Overwien. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter (2009) 213â223.
Flashar, H. Aristoteles. Problemata Physica. übersetzt und erläutert von H.F. Berlin: Akademie Verlag (1962).
Fredrich, K. Hippokratische Untersuchungen. Berlin: Weidmann (1899).
Gaiser, K. Platons ungeschriebene Lehre. Studien zur systematischen und geschichtlichen Begründung der Wissenschaften in der Platonischen Schule. Stuttgart: Klett (1968).
Gigon, O. Aristotelis Opera, III, Librorum deperditorum fragmenta, collegit et adnotationibus instruxit O.G. Berlin: De Gruyter (1987).
Hein, C. Definition und Einteilung der Philosophie. Von der spätantiken Einleitungsliteratur zur arabischen Enzyklopädie. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang (1985).
Henrichs, A., ââHieroi Logoiâ and âHierai Bibloiâ: The (un)written margins of the sacred in ancient Greece.â Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 101 (2003) 207â266
Irmer, D. âDie Bezeichnung der Knochen in Fract. und Art.â in Hippocratica. Actes du Colloque hippocratique de Paris, 4â9 septembre 1978, ed. M. Grmek. Paris: Ãd. du CNRS (1980) 265â283.
Jackson, H. âAristotleâs lecture-room and lectures.â The Journal of Philology, 34 (1920) 191â200.
Jaeger, W. Diokles von Karystos. Die griechische Medizin und die Schule des Aristoteles. Berlin: De Gruyter (1938).
Joly, R. ed. Hippocrate. Tome XI. De la génération. De la nature de lâenfant. Des maladies IV. Du foetus de huit mois. Texte établi et traduit par R. Joly Paris: Les Belles Lettres (1970).
Joly, R. Recherches sur le traité pseudo-hippocratique du Régime. Paris: Les Belles Lettres (1960).
Jouanna, J. âHippocrate et les Problemata dâAristote: essai de comparaison entre Airs, eaux, lieux, c. 10; Aphorismes III, 11â14 et Problemata I, 8â12 et 19â20â. in Hippokratische Medizin und antike Philosophie. Verhandlungen des VIII. Internationalen Hippokrates-Kolloquiums, eds. R. Wittern, P. Pellegrin. Hildesheim: Olms (1996) 273â294.
Jouanna, J. âLe schéma dâexposition des maladies et ses déformations dans les traités dérivés des Sentences cnidiennes.â in La collection hippocratique et son rôle dans lâhistoire de la médecine Colloque de Strasbourg (23â27 octobre 1972), eds. Bourgey, J. Jouanna, Leiden: Brill (1975) 23â27.
Kassel, R., Austin, C. (eds.). Poetae Comici Graeci, Vol. V: Damoxenus-Magnes. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter (1986).
Keyser, P.T. âA Proposed Diagram in Aristotle, EN V, 3, 1131a24âb20.â Apeiron 25 (1992) 135â144.
Kroll, W. Zur Geschichte der aristotelischen Zoologie, Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien 218/2. Wien: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky (1940).
Fox, R.L. The invention of medicine. From Homer to Hippocrates. New York: Basic Books 2020.
Langholf, V. âStructure and genesis of some Hippocratic treatises.â in Magic and rationality in ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman medicine, eds. H.F.J. Horstmanshoff, M. Stol. Leiden: Brill (2004) 219â275.
Langholf, V. Medical theories in Hippocrates. Early texts and the âEpidemicsâ. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter (1990).
Langholf, V. âBeobachtungen zur Struktur einiger Traktate des âCorpus Hippocraticumâ.â Sudhoffs Archiv 73 (1989) 64â77.
Lennox, J. âAristotle, dissection, and generation: Experience, expertise and the practices of knowing.â in Aristotleâs Generation of Animals: A critical guide, eds. A. Falcon and D. Lefebvre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2018) 249â272.
Lennox, J. Aristotle on inquiry. Erotetic frameworks and domain-specific norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2021).
Manetti, D. ââAristotleâ and the role of doxography in the Anonymus Londiniensis (PbrLibr Inv. 137)â. in Ancient histories of medicine. Essays in medical doxography and historiography in classical antiquity, ed. Ph.J. van der Eijk. Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill (1999) 95â141.
Manetti, D. ed. Anonymus Londiniensis De medicina, edidit D.M. Berlin: De Gruyter (2011).
Manetti, D. âAlle origini dellâippocratismo: fra IV e III sec.â, in Hippocrate et les hippocratismes, Actes du XIVe Colloque International Hippocratique, eds. J. Jouanna et M. Zink. Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (2014) 231â251.
Mansfeld, J., Runia, D. Aetiana. The method and intellectual context of a doxographer, vol. 2.1. Leiden-Boston: Brill (2009).
Mayhew, R. âAristotle (on fever) in Problemata I.â Apeiron 48 (2015) 176â194.
Mayhew, R. ed. The Aristotelian Problemata Physica. Philosophical and Scientific Investigations. Leiden-Boston: Brill (2015).
Moraux, P. Les listes anciennes des ouvrages dâAristote. Louvain: Ãditions Universitaires 1951.
Natali, C. Aristotle: his life and school. Princeton: Princeton University Press (2013).
Nesselrath, H.-G. âA minor but not uninteresting poet of Athenian Middle Comedy: Epicrates of Ambracia.â Logeion, 6 (2016) 231â244.
Nickel, D. âHippokratisches bei Praxagoras von Kos?â in Hippocrates in context. Papers read at the XIth International Hippocrates Colloquium, ed. Ph.J. van der Eijk. Leiden-Boston: Brill (2005) 315â324.
Olson, Douglas S. Broken Laughter. Select fragments of Greek comedy, edited with introduction, commentary, and translationOxford: Oxford University Press (2007).
Oser-Grote, C. Aristoteles und das Corpus Hippocraticum. Die Anatomie und Physiologie des Menschen. Stuttgart: Steiner (2004).
Pellegrin, P. âAristote, Hippocrate, Oedipe.â in Hippokratische Medizin und antike Philosophie. Verhandlungen des VIII. Internationalen Hippokrates-Kolloquiums, eds. R. Wittern, P. Pellegrin. Hildesheim: Olms (1996) 183â198.
Perilli, L. âConservazione dei testi e circolazione della conoscenza in Grecia.â in Biblioteche del mondo antico. Dalla tradizione orale alla cultura dellâimpero, ed. A. Andrisano. Rome: Carocci (2007) 36â71.
Perilli, L. âScrivere la medicina. La registrazione dei miracoli di Asclepio e le opere di Ippocrate.â in Antike Medizin im Schnittpunkt von Geistes- und Naturwissenschaften. Internationale Fachtagung aus Anlass des 100-jährigen Bestehens des Akademievorhabens Corpus Medicorum Graecorum / Latinorum, eds. Ch. Brockmann, W. Brunschön, O. Overwien. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter (2009) 75â120.
Perilli, L. âWriting, preserving, disseminating scientific knowledgeâ. Manuscript cultures, 5 (2014) 20â32.
Perilli, L. Galeni Vocum Hippocratis Glossarium, ed. L.P., CMG V. 13,1. Berlin: De Gruyter 2017.
Perilli, L. âEntity and identity of some Hippocratic texts.â in Proceedings of the XVIIth International Hippocrates Colloquium, ed. M. Witt (2024). Forthcoming.
Perilli, L. How Aristotle named his sources: On ÏαÏαÏημαίνεÏθαι and related terms. Wiener Studien, 138 (2025). Forthcoming.
Poschenrieder, F. Die naturwissenschaftlichen Schriften des Aristoteles in ihrem Verhältnis zu den Büchern der hippokratischen Sammlung. Bamberg: Gärtner (1887).
Primavesi, O. âEin Blick in den Stollen von Skepsis. Vier Kapitel zur frühen Ãberlieferung des Corpus Aristotelicum.â Philologus, 151 (2007) 51â77.
Rashed, M., ed. Ptolémée âal-gharÄ«bâ. Ãpître à Gallus sur la vie, le testament et les écrits dâAristote, Texte établi et traduit par M.R. Paris: Les Belles Lettres (2021).
Regenbogen, O. âBemerkungen zur HA des Aristoteles.â in Kleine Schriften, München: Beck (1961) 270â275 (formerly Studi italiani di filologia classica, 27 /28 (1956) 444â449).
Roselli, A. âá½ÏÏá½³Ïν Ïá½»ÏιÏ: le descrizioni della struttura scheletrica dellâuomo. Mutamenti di prospettiva dai trattati ippocratici (Mochlicon 1 e De locis in homine 6) ad Aristotele.â in Hippokratische Medizin und Antike Philosophie. Verhandlungen des VIII. Internationalen Hippokrates-Kolloquiums, eds. R. Wittern, P. Pellegrin. Hildesheim: Olms (1996) 217â228.
Rovati, E. Ptolemy (Early 1stâMid 2nd c. AD), On Aristotleâs Life, Testament and Writings, MA Thesis. Zürich: Universität (2020).
Sarton, G. A History of science. IâAncient science through the golden age of Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1952).
Savage-Smith, E., S. Swain, G. van Gelder, I.J. Sánchez Rojo, (eds). A Literary History of Medicine. The Ê¿UyÅ«n alanbÄʾ fÄ« á¹abaqÄt al-aá¹ibbÄʾ of Ibn AbÄ« Uá¹£aybiÊ¿ah. Leiden: Brill (2020).
Smith, W.D. âAnalytical and catalogue structure in the Corpus Hippocraticum.â in Formes de pensée dans la collection hippocratique, eds. F. Lasserre, Ph. Mudry, Genève: Droz (1983) 277â284.
Throm, H. Die Thesis: Ein Beitrag zu ihrer Entstehung und Geschichte. Paderborn: Schöningh (1932).
Usener, H. âOrganisation der wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Bilder aus der Geschichte der Wissenschaft.â PreuÃische Jahrbücher, 53 (1884) 1â25.
Vecchiato, R., Edition griechischer Papyri aus der Kölner Papyrussammlung: Ein frühhellenistisches Lexikon poetischer und dialektaler Wörter (P.Köln Lexikon). Paderborn: Brill-Schöningh (2022) (âPapyrologica Coloniensiaâ XVLI 1â2).
von Staden, H. âRupture and continuity: Hellenistic reflections on the history of medicine.â in Ancient histories of medicine. Essays in medical doxography and historiography in classical antiquity, ed. Ph.J. van der Eijk. Leiden: Brill (1999) 143â187.
Vegetti M., D. Lanza, eds. Aristotele. Opere biologiche. Torino: Utet (1971).
Wesoly, M. âLa prospettiva analitica dei sillogismi categorici e modali di Aristotele.â Peitho, 1/9 (2018) 71â99.
Witt, M., âAphorisms, Coan Prenotions and Crises. Early compilations as witnesses of a Proto-Hippocratic Corpus and of lost medical sources.â in Ippocrate e gli. Atti del XVI. Colloquio internazionale ippocratico, eds. D. Manetti, L. Perilli, A. Roselli. Rome: Ecole Française (2022) 237â266.