Version classiqueVersion mobile

Ippocrate e gli altri

 | 
Daniela Manetti
, 
Lorenzo Perilli
, 
Amneris Roselli

Parte prima. Intorno al Corpus Hippocraticum: il contesto greco

Tracing the origins of beings: cosmogony and anthropogony in On Flesh

Stavros Kouloumentas

Résumé

The author of On Flesh presents an eclectic cosmogony that reflects several theories formulated in the fifth century BC and attempts to combine it with an account about the origins of the body. After examining the cosmogonic stages, I analyse how the hot, the protagonist of the system expounded, is connected with other qualities in order to form various bodily parts. The elaborate description of the author shows that there are some norms which regulate the behaviour of opposites when they interact with each other, but it is not illuminating for crucial issues related to the anthropogony, especially the combination of bodily parts. In fact, the author seems to put forward a mechanistic explanation for the formation of human beings which can be contrasted with the Platonic creationism in the Timaeus.

Entrées d'index

Note de l’auteur

I would like to thank the British School at Athens for supporting the research presented here with a Centenary Bursary in 2016-2017, which enabled me to make a research visit to the University of Oxford (project “The Metaphysics of Entanglement” directed by Anna Marmodoro). Earlier versions of this paper have been presented at Patras, Rethymnon, Rome and Florence. I am grateful to the audiences for their valuable suggestions, as well as to Maria Michela Sassi for commenting on a draft

.

Texte intégral

  • 1 Arist. Sens. 436a17-b1, Resp. 480b22-30. The translations are mine, unless otherwise stated.
  • 2 Arist. Met. Α 2, 982a4-983a23.

1Both at the beginning and at the end of Parva Naturalia Aristotle points out that philosophy and medicine are concerned with the same issues to some extent, since the starting point of the one constitutes the end of the other and vice versa.1 The most accomplished philosophers, according to Aristotle, complete the examination of the natural world by studying living beings in order to specify the causes of health and disease, since these physiological states help them to grasp not only the functioning of the system which is responsible for life in general but also the interconnection of the beings that constitute it. Having the same desire for a full understanding of reality but attending to the psychosomatic balance, inquiring doctors examine the natural world to comprehend the phenomena pertaining to the body and the relation of the latter to the wider system that surrounds and affects it (air, water, place). The investigation into these issues is important because, as Aristotle notes in Metaphysics A, without knowledge of the “first principles” and the four causes, especially the final cause, that govern the entire natural world it is impossible to interpret adequately a specific part of it, like that studied by medicine.2

  • 3 I am following the edition of Joly (1978, p. 179-218). The title of the treatise (Περὶ σαρκῶν), al (...)
  • 4 Carn. 1 = Joly 188.2-11: ἐγὼ τὰ μέχρι τοῦ λόγου τούτου κοινῇσι γνώμῃσι χρέωμαι ἑτέρων τε τῶν ἔμπρο (...)
  • 5 By using the term “parts” I mean distinct formations that are created from the interaction between (...)
  • 6 The structure of the text can be summarised as follows: preface (Carn. 1 = Joly 188.2-11); cosmogo (...)
  • 7 As far as the other issues mentioned in the preface (the creation of human beings and other animal (...)
  • 8 DK 12 A10-11, A30; DK 60 A4; DK 68 B5.1 = Diod. Sic. Ι, 7.1-8.7. While in Anaximander the zoogony (...)
  • 9 Empedocles refers to the emergence of several organisms (daimons, human beings, animals, plants, m (...)
  • 10 Vict. I.7-10 = Joly & Byl 130.17-134.20; Nat. Puer. 12-21 = Joly 53.1-68.18.

2The author of On Flesh (De Carnibus)3 no doubt constitutes a medical theorist (as he explicitly presents himself)4 who fulfils the Aristotelian requirement for investigating issues that go beyond the narrow limits of his own field and overlap in part with the quests of philosophy. More specifically, the preface of his treatise seems to be not so different from the writings attributed to Empedocles, Anaxagoras and other figures of early Greek philosophy, since it examines how the cosmos came to be and refers to the protagonists of this complex process. However, it soon becomes clear that the author is not expounding its cosmogony as part of a systematic investigation into the cosmos that commences with its creation and then turns to its content (the primary stuffs, the celestial bodies, the gods, the living beings), but his aim is to explain how the latter emerged and in particular the parts5 that constitute human beings, the most stunning species of the animal kingdom.6 The main section of On Flesh thus concentrates on a topic that was not a key concern of pre-Platonic thinkers.7 On the one hand, the authors of treatises On Nature suppose that living beings emerged on account of material transformations (e.g. the moisture which was gradually evaporated by the sun)8 without explaining how the different parts that constitute human beings were made and joined together, with the exception of Empedocles9 who integrates his “double” zoogony into the cosmic cycle and sometimes refers to the formation of particular parts. On the other hand, the Hippocratic authors who refer to the creation of the body, like those of On Regimen and On the Nature of the Child, examine this process from the perspective of the embryonic development.10

3The aim of this paper is to point out the uniqueness of On Flesh not only regarding the topics with which it is concerned but also regarding the eclectic use of philosophical ideas it incorporates. I will first analyse the cosmogony that seems to reflect several theories formulated in the fifth century BC. I will then examine how the main agents of cosmogony, in particular the hot, are connected with other qualities in order to form various bodily parts. The elaborate description of the author shows that there are some norms which regulate the behaviour of opposites when they interact with each other, but it is not illuminating for crucial issues related to the anthropogony, especially as regards the combination of bodily parts. In fact, the author seems to put forward a mechanistic explanation for the formation of human beings which can be contrasted with the Platonic creationism in the Timaeus.

Ι. The supremacy of the hot

  • 11 On this interpretative problem see Heidel 1914, p. 178-179; Diller 1936, p. 372-373.
  • 12 Carn. 1 = Joly 188.2-11.

4As is common in the prefaces of early philosophical and scientific writings, in the introductory section the author summarises his methodology and the content of his research, tries to demonstrate his originality and clarifies his relation to those who dealt with relevant issues. Although in a former stage of his career or in the beginning of his account (depending on how we construe the first sentence)11 he drew from the theories of other thinkers, he is now attempting a different approach based on his own ideas. His main concern is the formation of bodily parts and, in this respect, he believes that it is necessary to explain how the materials of anthropogony emerged during the creation of the cosmos.12 Therefore, the author assumes that the body is part and parcel of the cosmos, and understanding the processes and the agents that are responsible for the arrangement of the whole is a necessary condition to grasp the creation of living beings.

  • 13 Carn. 2 = Joly 188.12-21.
  • 14 On the identification of the heavens with the aither see Kahn 1960, p. 140-154. Cf. Αrist. Cael. I (...)
  • 15 According to the manuscript tradition, the earth is πουλὺ κινοῦν which is emended by Heidel (1914, (...)

5The description of cosmogony commences with a survey of the present configuration of the cosmos, namely the system that was created after the rearrangement of primordial stuffs. Employing the common polarity “up” and “down” from the perspective of humans who reside in the earth, the author distinguishes three cosmic masses (earth, air, aither) that are arranged into layers. Each cosmic mass holds some “portion” of the system that they are forming: the stable basis of the cosmos is located “down”, while “up” in the οutermost region is the territory where celestial bodies rotate. Each primordial stuff (the hot, the cold, the dry, the moist) is mostly located in a layer and so attributes to it specific features.13 The uppermost layer is occupied by aither, the conventional name for the pure mass of fire which is extremely hot and encloses everything.14 The lowest part constitutes the territory of the earth, which is dry, cold and presumably dense15 and also contains a great quantity of heat distributed here and there. The air, which is moist and dense to a great extent, is found between these layers. It is not clarified to what extent the air contains heat, but this is certain inasmuch as it is located between two layers where the hot has a dominant presence. Regardless of how much heat the air contains, the air plays a double role: the exhalations deriving from the moisture of the sea and the earth are gathered in this layer while moving to the uppermost layer, and at the same time the wet and dense constitution of the air moderates the intense heat transmitted by the aither to the lowest layer.

  • 16 Following the suggestions of scholars who thought that the author adopts an Aristotelian-like cosm (...)
  • 17 DK 28 B9.
  • 18 DK B17.27-29, B26.1-2.
  • 19 DK 24 B4.
  • 20 Nat. Hom. 3-4 = Jouanna 170.8-174.10.
  • 21 On the role of opposites in early Greek philosophy and medicine see Lloyd 1964.

6The cosmic arrangement adopted by the author is uncommon for two reasons. First, he makes no reference to the sea, which is traditionally identified with the cold and the wet, and so it is difficult to argue that it also contains the hot, like the other layers.16 Second, the author is not proposing a symmetrical distribution of his opposites, like Parmenides, who refers to the equality of fire and darkness, the main antithesis of the deceptive world of humans,17 or like Empedocles, who notes that the protagonists of the cosmic cycle (Love, Strife, the four “roots”) have equal rights,18 or like thinkers with medical interests such as Alcmaeon19 and the author of On the Nature of Man20 (presumably Polybus), who believe that opposites should be balanced in the body. In fact, the author overstresses the dominant presence of the hot in all layers:21

7                        earth                    hot, cold, dry, dense (?)
                        (sea)                     (?)
                        air                        hot, moist, dense
                        heavens                hot

  • 22 Carn. 2 = Joly 188.12-14: δοκεῖ δέ μοι ὃ καλέομεν θερμόν, ἀθάνατόν τε εἶναι καὶ νοεῖν πάντα καὶ ὁρ (...)
  • 23 DK 12 B2-3; DK 22 B30; DK 64 B7-8. Cf. Hes. Th. 21; Pi. Pae. VI.50.
  • 24 DΚ 21 B24; DK 64 B3. Cf. Od. IV.379; Hes. Op. 267.
  • 25 DΚ 59 B12. Cf. Il. I.68-72 on the seer Calchas; Hes. Th. 36-40 on the Muses.
  • 26 Cf. DK 21 B23, B25; DK 22 B64-66; DΚ 59 B12; DK 64 B3-5; Vict. I.10 = Joly & Byl 134.17-20. It is (...)

8Special emphasis is laid on the features of the hot which possesses properties often attributed to principles of the Presocratic type and to Olympian gods or those related to them:22 it is immortal, like Anaximander’s infinite, Heraclitus’ fire and the air of Diogenes of Apollonia;23 it has a perfect perception and knowledge of all things, like the god of Xenophanes and the air of Diogenes of Apollonia;24 and it has a full command of the things that are present and the things that will appear in the future, like Anaxagoras’ Mind.25 Thus its power is immense and its knowledge surpasses the limits of the present configuration of the cosmos, since they extend to its entire development and to every detail pertaining to its organisation. By using this hymnic formula the author seems to mean that the hot is everywhere, provides living beings with vital power and so governs all things wisely like other “first principles”.26

ΙΙ. Τhe cosmogonic stages

9Having made clear that the hot is the protagonist of the system expounded, the author implicitly distinguishes three cosmogonic stages: (a) a precosmic period whose main feature is the rotation of primordial stuffs; (b) a transitory phase during which a great portion of the hot is removed from the centre to the periphery of the system under formation, thus creating the conditions for the stratification of primordial stuffs; and (c) the stage of the creation of the main materials of anthropogony as a result of the macrocosmic processes. The last stage signals the beginning of anthropogony which is not described in detail, since the author only focuses on the formation of certain bodily parts.

  • 27 Carn. 3 = Joly 188.22: κυκλεομένων δὲ τούτων, ὅτε συνεταράχθη.
  • 28 DK 67 A1.
  • 29 DK 59 B12. On the static condition of the precosmic mixture before the vortex started, see DK 59 A (...)
  • 30 See n. 33.

10Αdopting the common view that before the creation of the cosmos there was disorder, which has been formulated in various ways from Hesiod to Plato, the author suggests that initially “all things” (obviously the qualities mentioned later as the constituent parts of the cosmic masses) were in a state of continuous turmoil due to a large-scale vortex.27 The author has in mind a dynamic system, since the primordial stuffs move disorderly. It is not clarified, however, whether their rotation is an inherent feature of the formless matter, like the continuous movement of atoms in the void for the Atomists,28 or derives from some external agent, like Anaxagoras’ Mind that intervenes in the primordial mixture - in which the domination of the air and the aither (fire) is preventing the emergence of other things - by causing the vortex that is responsible for the separation of primordial stuffs and their progressive arrangement.29 But why cannot cosmic formations (stable mixtures of opposites) emerge at this stage of turmoil? Although On Flesh makes no reference to this crucial point, the explanation provided by the Derveni author concerning the interaction of powers that are endowed with the properties of the hot and the cold is illuminating: before the active involvement of the god in cosmic processes, fire (the principle of movement) acted without control and its excessive presence everywhere made the tiny particles of matter move excessively while they were colliding with each other; as a result, fire did not allow the air (the principle of fixation) to solidify the temporary formations created from the collisions.30 This very problem seems to be implied in On Flesh, since in the following cosmogonic stage the author describes a rearrangement of primordial stuffs.

  • 31 Carn. 2 = Joly 188.14-16: τοῦτο οὖν τὸ πλεῖστον, ὅτε ἐταράχθη πάντα, ἐξεχώρησεν ἐς τὴν ἀνωτάτω περ (...)
  • 32 DK 59 Β15.
  • 33 PDerv. cols. IX, 5-10 and XXV, 9-12. Detailed discussion in Betegh 2004, p. 224-277.

11The creation of the cosmos begins when a great portion of fire is removed to the upper region of the system under formation, thus shaping the sun and the other celestial bodies that rotate in set orbits around the centre.31 This process of partial separation of the hot from the other primordial stuffs takes place either due to the rotation that gradually removes light things (hot, dry, bright) to the periphery while heavy things (cold, moist, dark) are accumulated at the centre forming the earth, as Anaxagoras argues when he describes what happened after the initiation of the vortex,32 or is due to the hot itself, which knows that it would be appropriate to move away from the other primordial stuffs. Even if we accept the latter option, in accordance with the introductory remarks about the omniscience of the hot, the author provides no clues for its removal. It is thus reasonable to assume that the removal is not made because the hot has the desire to begin the arrangement of the cosmos but because it intends to fully dominate in a region by creating a pure layer of fire, like Zeus who resides in the aitherial realm and governs everything from this place. On the other hand, in the Derveni cosmogony it is clear that the god (identified with Zeus - his conventional name; Mind - its intellectual dimension; and the air - its physical aspect) realizes the problem caused by fire and is willing to resolve it. Thus, like a mathematician who is capable of making precise calculations, he removes a certain amount of fire to a specific distance from the other things by first shaping the sun and then creating from the surplus of fire the other celestial bodies in order to redistribute more efficiently the primordial stuff that causes excessive movement.33 The effects of the accumulation of the hot are of primary importance. Although the excessive presence of fire initially made all things move purposelessly, a great portion of fire has now been removed from the centre of the system under formation. Hence the agency of the hot is measured, because it is placed at a safe distance from the other things and allows the air to solidify the formations created from the collisions of the tiny particles of matter.

  • 34 Carn. 3 = Joly 188.23-189.1.
  • 35 Carn. 3 = Joly 189.1-3: καὶ τῷ χρόνῳ ὑπὸ τοῦ θερμοῦ ξηραινομένης τῆς γῆς, ταῦτα τὰ καταλειφθέντα π (...)

12Whereas in the Derveni cosmogony the accumulation of fire far away from the earth constitutes the key point of the narrative and the air is the element that arranges the combinations of matter, On Flesh focuses on the portion of the hot that remained in the earth after the formation of the aither. The terrestrial hot was present in different proportions in various mixtures of primordial stuffs because of the rotation that scattered it through the surface of the earth.34 While the hot was drying out the earth and interacting with other qualities, there appeared putrefactions that resembled “cloaks”, i.e. flexible materials that could be easily connected with each other and change form.35 The putrefactions were of two kinds, the fat and the glutinous, depending on how dense they were (in other words, how much they were dried out and solidified) after the changes they had underwent.

ΙΙΙ. The formation of bodily parts

  • 36 The author envisages no substantial differences between human beings and the other animals (Carn. (...)
  • 37 Vict. I.3-4 = Joly & Byl 126.5-23.
  • 38 Carn. 6 = Joly 192.21-22. The weaker part of a pair of opposites (e.g. fire and water or air, hot (...)
  • 39 Carn. 3 = Joly 189.16-18; 4 = Joly 190.26-197.1; 9 = Joly 194.13-15.

13All processes pertaining to the formation of human beings and the other animals36 are mostly attributed to the hot and the cold. A minor role is given to the dry and the moist, as well as to another pair – the fat and the glutinous – that has the properties of these qualities: the fat is thought to be hot and dry and it constitutes the material of solid parts (e.g. bones), while the glutinous is described as cold and moist and it constitutes the material of flexible parts (e.g. canals). The hot and the cold cooperate in the formation of bodily parts, like fire (the moving power that is hot and dry) and water (the nourishing power that is cold and moist) in On Regimen.37 More specifically, the hot is responsible for motion and has the tendency to enclose the other qualities and transform them qualitatively, even to dissolve them in some cases (θερμαίνειν, ἐκκαίειν, ξηραίνειν, ἐξοπτᾶν, ἐξαυαίνειν, διαλύειν, διαχεῖν), whereas the cold provides for fixation and condensation (στῆναι, πηγνύναι) and resists against the hot. Thus the cold sets a limit to the aggressive action of its opposite, even though the hot is “nourished” from its opposite38 and is often described as the “winner”39, an indication that it is the dominant quality. The hot and the cold cause different results (condensation, rarefaction, drying, moistening) depending on how long each quality is active, on what sort of material or combination of materials is acting upon and on the position (external or internal) that it holds in each mixture:

  1. The hot burns the fat when the latter is mixed with a small amount of the moist.40
  2. The hot bakes the glutinous when the latter is mixed with the cold.41
  3. The hot dries the moist.42
  4. The hot melts the cold and causes its condensation and diffusion.43
  5. The cold solidifies the glutinous.44
  6. The cold solidifies the moist when the latter is mixed with the hot.45
  • 46 Carn. 3 = Joly 189.3-189.18, 190.4-13.
  • 47 Carn. 3 = Joly 189.18-190.4.
  • 48 Carn. 4 = Joly 190.20-191.7.
  • 49 Carn. 5 = Joly 191.13-192.9.
  • 50 Carn. 7 = Joly 193.10-16.
  • 51 Carn. 8 = Joly 193.17-19.
  • 52 Carn. 9 = Joly 193.24-194.11.
  • 53 Carn. 10 = Joly 194.27-195.7.
  • 54 Carn. 11 = Joly 195.8-11.
  • 55 Carn. 12-13 = Joly 195.12-197.7. The teeth constitute a special category of bones, since the autho (...)
  • 56 Carn. 14 = Joly 197.8-16.

14These descriptions help us to distinguish between qualities that cause changes and qualities that are subject to these changes: (a) the hot acts in different ways upon all the other qualities; (b) for its part, the cold acts upon the glutinous, as well as the moist when the latter is mixed with the hot, and so is capable of transforming only qualities related to it; (c) on the other side, the fat, the glutinous, the moist and presumably the dry (to which the author refers when he describes the material constitution of the earth and the changes caused by the hot) are only subject to changes. The systematic application of these norms accounts for the formation of approximately twenty bodily parts: homogeneous structures that play a connecting role such as the bones, the sinews and the vessels;46 the pharynx, the oesophagus, the stomach, the intestines and the bladder;47 the brain from which comes the spinal cord;48 the heart and the main vessels connected with it;49 the lungs;50 the liver;51 the spleen, the kidneys and the flesh;52 the joints and the synovial fluid53. The description is completed with a set of bodily parts that grow, including the nails,54 the teeth55 and hair56, since the author believes that the interaction between qualities continues after the formation of the body.

  • 57 E.g. Carn. 4 = Joly 191.7-12; 6 = Joly 192.16-22; 8 = Joly 193.20-23.
  • 58 Carn. 5-6 = Joly 191.13-193.9.
  • 59 Carn. 3 = Joly 189.3-10; 14 = Joly 197.15-16.
  • 60 E.g. Pl. Ti. 45b2-47c4; Xen. Mem. Ι, 4.2-7; Gal. UP IV, 142 Kühn.
  • 61 DK 59 B12; DK 64 B5. Cf. Deichgräber 1933.

15Despite his effort to adduce empirical data in order to support the changes described,57 the author is not dealing with crucial issues, especially if compared to Plato in the Timaeus, the sole extant pre-Aristotelian text that describes in detail the formation of bodily parts and analyses the scope of their creation within a system governed by order. Although On Flesh provides an elaborate account of the formation of individual bodily parts and sometimes the narrative moves from the past to the present to explain their functioning and interconnection (e.g. the formation of the heart and the vessels that carry the hot and the internal air)58, it fails to explain how they were connected with each other to compose harmonious wholes such as the hand and the head. It is obvious that a sort of power that plans and supervises the complex process of anthropogony is absent from the author’s account. In fact, he often refers to the key role of accident (ἐτύγχανεν)59 and avoids explaining complex structures of the body such as the eyes that constitute the primary example of thinkers who put forward teleological theories.60 Thus the introductory remarks about the supreme knowledge of the hot are not deployed in his anthropogony and they seem to be merely a rhetorical way to extol the power of the hot in accordance with principles of the Presocratic type, like Anaxagoras’ Mind and the air of Diogenes of Apollonia.61

16It is revealing in this respect to compare the sections of On Flesh and Timaeus dealing with the formation of sinews and flesh:

  • 62 Carn. 3 = Joly 189.6-14; 9 = Joly 194.7-11.

That, on the other hand, which happened to be more gluey and to contain cold could not be burnt up on being heated or become dry, since it contained neither any fat that could be burnt up nor any moisture that, on being burnt up, could become dry; for this reason it took a form rather different from the other things and became cords and vessels [...] about flesh the explanation is the same. Cold brought what was moist to a stand-still, congealed it, and turned it into flesh, while what was gluey formed canals; in these canals there is moisture just as in the large vessels (tr. Potter).62

  • 63 Pl. Ti. 74a7-e1. Detailed discussion in Taylor 1928, p. 529-532.

Moreover, the god thought that bone as such was rather too brittle and inflexible, and also that repeatedly getting extremely hot and cold by turns would cause it to disintegrate and to destroy in short order the seed within it. This is why he contrived to make sinews and flesh. He bound all the limbs together with sinews that could contract and relax, and so enabled the body to flex about the pivots and to stretch itself out. The flesh he made as a defence against summer’s heat and as protection against winter’s cold. And, as protection against injuries, too, he made the flesh so that it would give way softly and gently to bodies like the felted coverings we wear. He made it to contain within itself a warm moisture that would come out as perspiration during summertime, when, by moistening the body on the outside, it would impart the body’s own coolness to the whole of it. And conversely in wintertime this moisture would provide an adequate defence, by means of this fire, against the frost which surrounds it and attacks it from the outside. Such were the designs of him who molded us like wax: he made a mixture using water, fire and earth, which he adjusted together, and created a compound of acid and brine, a fermented mixture which he combined with the previous mixture, and so he formed flesh, sappy and soft. The sinews he made out of a mixture of bone and unfermented flesh, to make up a single yellow stuff whose character was intermediate between them both. This is the reason the sinews came to have a stretchier and tougher character than flesh, yet softer and more moist than bone. With these the god wrapped the bones and the marrow. First he bound the bones to each other with sinews, and then he laid a shroud of flesh upon them all (tr. Zeyl).63

  • 64 Pl. Ti. 72d4-81e1.
  • 65 Pl. Ti. 73b1-e1.
  • 66 Pl. Τi. 73e1-75d5.

17The extract from On Flesh provides a good example of the anthropogony described by the author. The various mixtures of matter that resulted from the macrocosmic processes form different structures depending on the sort and the amount of qualities that constituted each mixture. Hence the properties (moisture, density, hollowness) that possess the sinews, the vessels and the flesh are due to pure mechanistic reasons. The extract of the Timaeus, on the other hand, analyses how the benevolent god shapes and joins certain parts of the body, the temporary residence of the soul, in order to create so far as possible functional beings given the immanent badness of the material available, namely the four elements created by the disorderly moving matter.64 In this case, the formation of the sinews and the flesh serves a purpose of primary importance: the protection and stability of the bones that contain the marrow, namely the reproductive material and the bodily place of the soul.65 Just as the bones protect the marrow by providing a solid covering, the sinews give flexibility to the bones and prevent their breakage while the bones are moving; and, for its part, the flesh both covers externally the aforementioned formations and moderates the rapid climatic changes that influence the body. Even seeming imperfections have a purpose. For instance, the uneven distribution of sinews and flesh in the body, which at first sight shows that the brain and the spine (the main loci of the marrow) are not protected sufficiently (in contrast with the stomach which is of lesser importance), certifies the submission of “necessity” to “reason”, since this allows the parts which are not related to sensation to receive the sensory data directly and transfer them to the brain.66 The entire process of the formation and joining of the parts is methodically designed by an intelligent creator who establishes order in every aspect of the cosmos, from the movements of the celestial bodies up to the reproduction of living beings, and acts as a skillful craftsman – sometimes as metalworker, sometimes as weaver, sometimes as architect and sometimes as modeller in wax as in this case – who strives to make his creations functional. Therefore, the sinews, the flesh and the other bodily parts were not made by accident. Rather, they were created as organs with a specific purpose and set relations in the system that they are forming, and their different functions contribute to the harmony of the whole.

  • 67 DK 31 A72, Β57-62. On Aristotle’s criticism see Phys. II, 8, 198b28-32, GC II,.6, 333a35-334a9, PA(...)
  • 68 Carn. 15-18 = Joly 197.17-200.24. The author refers to hearing, smell, vision, as well as voice wh (...)

18As far as On Flesh is concerned, the author is not interested in the process and scope of the creation of the whole, although he often refers to biological functions (respiration, nourishment, blood circulation) in his description of the formation of the parts and so considers the body as a self-regulating and well-organised system. How, then, were the parts joined in a specific way to make up the human beings and the stunning biodiversity we observe? The author presumably adopted a sort of evolutionary theory, like that attributed to Empedocles and criticised by Aristotle, who notes that the zoogony of his predecessor serves no purpose.67 The author may believe that at first only individual parts were created (as autonomous proto-organisms) which were wandering under the influence of the hot until they were joined together; then there was a random combination of different parts that entailed a wide range of non-functional (and often monster-like) formations; gradually the functional formations survived; and finally they were mixed together and produced descendants. Instead of illuminating this crucial stage of anthropogony, the author turns to the description of the senses,68 but in this case too he is not explaining how sensory data is accumulated and assessed in a coordinating centre. Rather, he tries to attribute the function of each sense to the material constitution and the structure of the respective sensory organ.

19This rapid transition reminds us of Socrates’ criticism in the Phaedo concerning the causation theories of the experts who did not explain the ultimate cause of the emergence of life:

  • 69 Pl. Phd. 96a6-b1. Cf. Jouanna 1992, p. 391-398. In Laws X Plato points out that a key feature of t (...)

For when I was young, Cebes, I was wonderfully keen on this kind of wisdom which is called enquiry into nature. It seemed to me splendid to know the causes of each thing, namely why each thing comes to be, why it perishes, and why it exists. And I was often shifting back and forth, examining these issues in the first place: do living beings grow up whenever hot and cold give rise to decay, as some said?69

20This extract, which summarises neatly a typical example of an explanation of the creation of living beings that lays emphasis on the interaction between qualities and bears similarities to the anthropogony of On Flesh, brings us to a period during which Socrates is striving in vain to find an answer to questions pertaining to physics before turning to the Forms, the eternal and stable entities that exist independent of the changing world of sensation. The failure of the philosophical systems examined by Socrates, especially that of Anaxagoras who is regarded as employing mechanistic causes to explain cosmogony, lies in the fact that they do not seek a deeper reason and rational design behind the random combinations of matter. They thus take the mechanistic causes (the “contributory causes” for Plato) as the ultimate cause for the creation of the cosmic order and living beings instead of the intelligence of the benevolent god to which these causes are subordinated and whose purpose they serve.

Conclusion

21On Flesh is a unique example of a Hippocratic treatise that bridges the quests of philosophy and medicine in the second half of the fifth century BC, a period during which the interest in human beings as living beings culminates and several questions are raised concerning the constitution and functioning of the body, as well as its relation to the cosmos. Even though the author emphatically notes that his work pertains to the field of medicine, he is deeply influenced by the attitude typical of the “inquiry into nature”. In order to answer the question of how the different parts that constitute the human beings were created, he summarises how the cosmos came to be and what sort of agents played a pivotal role. Influenced by Presocratic ideas, he gives prominence to the hot as the dominant force in cosmogony and anthropogony without, however, assigning to it a plan of creation. Hence the author promotes a mechanistic model that provides us with an example of the opposing theories, either lost or preserved fragmentarily, that Plato had in mind when he composed the Timaeus. Just as the Timaeus inspired a series of thinkers who defend the existence of divine benevolence, including Galen, who especially in On the Usefulness of the Parts provides a teleological interpretation of the construction of bodily parts, similarly the mechanistic model had ardent supporters in medical circles, as can be seen in On Flesh.

Bibliographie

Primary Sources

Deichgräber 1935 = K. Deichgräber, Hippokrates, Über Entstehung und Aufbau des menschlichen Körpers (Περὶ σαρκῶν), Leipzig, B.G. Teubner, 1935.

Diels – Kranz 1951-1952 = H. Diels and W. Kranz (eds.), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Griechisch und deutsch, vols. I-III, 6th ed., Berlin, O. Weidmann, 1951-1952.

Joly 1978 = R. Joly (ed.), Hippocrate, vol. XIII: Des lieux dans l’homme, Du système des glandes, Des fistules - Des hémorroïdes, De la vision, Des chairs, De la dentition, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1978. 

Jouanna 2002 = J. Jouanna (ed.), Hippocratis De natura hominis (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum I, 1, 3), 2nd ed., Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 2002.

Littré 1839-1861 = E. Littré (ed.), Oeuvres complètes d’Hippocraté: traduction nouvelle avec le texte grec en regard, collationné sur les manuscrits et toutes les éditions; accompagnée d’une introduction, de commentaires médicaux, de variantes et de notes philologiques; suivie d’une table générale des matières, vols. I-X, Paris, J.-B. Baillière, 1839-1861.

Potter 1995 = P. Potter (ed.), Hippocrates, vol. VIII: Places in Man, Glands, Fleshes, Prorrhetic I-II, Physician, Use of Liquids, Ulcers, Haemorrhoids, Fistulas (Loeb Classical Library 482), Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1995. 

Schiefsky 2005 = M.J. Schiefsky, Hippocrates: On Ancient Medicine. Translated with Introduction and Commentary, Leiden, Boston, Brill, 2005.


Secondary Sources

Betegh 2004 = G. Betegh, The Derveni Papyrus: Cosmology, Theology and Interpretation, Cambridge, 2004.

Betegh 2016 = G. Betegh, Archelaus on Cosmogony and the Origins of Social Constitutions, in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 51, 2016, p. 1-40.

Craik 2015 = E.M. Craik, The ‘Hippocratic’ Corpus: Content and Context, London, New York, 2015.

Deichgräber 1933 = K. Deichgräber, Hymnische Elemente in der philosophischen Prosa der Vorsokratiker, in Philologus, 88, 1933, p. 347-361.

Diller 1936 = H. Diller, Rezension Hippokrates, Über Entstehung und Aufbau des menschlichen Körpers (Περὶ σαρκῶν), in Gnomon, 12, 1936, p. 367-377. 

Heidel 1914 = W.A. Heidel, Hippocratea, I, in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 25, 1914, p. 139-203. 

Jouanna 1992 = J. Jouanna, Hippocrate, Paris, 1992. 

Kahn 1960 = C.H. Kahn, Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology, New York, 1960.

Lloyd 1964 = G.E.R. Lloyd, The Hot and the Cold, the Dry and the Wet in Greek Philosophy, in Journal of Hellenic Studies, 84, 1964, p. 92-106. 

Mourelatos 1973 = A.P.D. Mourelatos, Heraclitus, Parmenides, and the Naïve Metaphysics of Things, in E.N. Lee, A.P.D. Mourelatos and R.M. Rorty (eds.), Exegesis and Argument: Studies in Greek Philosophy Presented to Gregory Vlastos, Assen, 1973, p. 16-48. 

Spoerri 1983 = W. Spoerri, L’anthropogonie du Περὶ σαρκῶν (et Diodore, I 7, 3 s.), in F. Lasserre and P. Mudry (eds.), Formes de pensée dans la collection hippocratique. Actes du IVe Colloque International Hippocratique (Lausanne, 21-26 septembre 1981), Geneva, 1983, p. 57-70.

Taylor 1928 = A.E. Taylor, A Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, Oxford, 1928.

Notes

1 Arist. Sens. 436a17-b1, Resp. 480b22-30. The translations are mine, unless otherwise stated.

2 Arist. Met. Α 2, 982a4-983a23.

3 I am following the edition of Joly (1978, p. 179-218). The title of the treatise (Περὶ σαρκῶν), although it is attested in the surviving manuscripts, is not reflective of its content, since the author neither focuses on the fleshy parts of the body (the relevant section is limited to Carn. 9 = Joly 194.7-11) nor employs the term σάρκες to designate collectively the parts examined (Craik 2015, p. 43). For this reason some editors suggest the title On Principles (Περὶ ἀρχῶν). However, it would be better to adopt a slightly different title (Περὶ σαρκός), for the term σάρξ (in the singular) sometimes refers to the body in general (Aesch. Sept. 622; Eur. Ba. 746; Pl. Ti. 60b3-4). Thrasyllus, who divided the treatises of Democritus (many of which bear the same titles as Hippocratic treatises) into tetralogies, attributes to Democritus a lost work divided into two parts (the first dealing with the cosmos and the second with the body) and entitled On Nature book I, On the Nature of Man (or On Flesh) book II (DK 68 A33).

4 Carn. 1 = Joly 188.2-11: ἐγὼ τὰ μέχρι τοῦ λόγου τούτου κοινῇσι γνώμῃσι χρέωμαι ἑτέρων τε τῶν ἔμπροσθεν, ἀτὰρ καὶ ἐμεωυτοῦ· ἀναγκαίως γὰρ ἔχει κοινὴν ἀρχὴν ὑποθέσθαι τῇσι γνώμῃσι βουλόμενον συνθεῖναι τὸν λόγον τόνδε περὶ τῆς τέχνης τῆς ἰητρικῆς. περὶ δὲ τῶν μετεώρων οὐδὲν δέομαι λέγειν, ἢν μὴ τοσοῦτον ἐς ἄνθρωπον ἀποδείξω καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ζῷα, ὅπως ἔφυ καὶ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὅ τι ψυχή ἐστι, καὶ ὅ τι τὸ ὑγιαίνειν, καὶ ὅ τι τὸ κάμνειν, καὶ ὅ τι τὸ ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ κακὸν καὶ ἀγαθὸν, καὶ ὅθεν ἀποθνῄσκει. νῦν δὲ ἀποφαίνομαι αὐτὸς <τὰς> ἐμεωυτοῦ γνώμας. The issues περὶ μετεώρων pertain not only to the celestial bodies and phenomena but also to natural phenomena in general, since before Aristotle’s division of the cosmos into sublunary (the realm of the four elements where all sorts of change take place) and aitherial (the realm of the aither governed by eternal cyclical motion) the term μετεωρολογία and its derivatives are used collectively for all topics examined by the “inquiry into nature” (cf. VM 1 = Jouanna 119.6-7 with the comments of Schiefsky 2005, p. 137-139).

5 By using the term “parts” I mean distinct formations that are created from the interaction between qualities, are connected with each other and have specific structure, position and functioning in the system that they are forming. The author uses no particular term to define collectively these formations, unlike Empedocles who refers to μέλεα (DK 31 B62-63). It is clear, however, that the system which they are forming is self-regulating and well-organised.

6 The structure of the text can be summarised as follows: preface (Carn. 1 = Joly 188.2-11); cosmogony and the supremacy of the hot (Carn. 2-3 = Joly 188.12-189.3); the formation of bodily parts with a digression on how the embryo breathes and is nourished (Carn. 3-14 = Joly 189.3-197.16); the functioning of the senses (Carn. 15-18 = Joly 197.17-200.24); the importance of the number seven in human life (Carn. 19 = Joly 200.25-203.7).

7 As far as the other issues mentioned in the preface (the creation of human beings and other animals, the soul, health and disease, good and bad in human beings, the causes of death), apart from the very elaborate descriptions of the formation of bodily parts and some references to acute diseases, the author makes no mention of them. However, the final sentence of the author – that he will explain elsewhere the natural necessity organising everything in terms of the number seven (Carn. 17 = Joly 203.5-7) – encourages us to suppose that On Flesh was part of a series of treatises (now lost) that examined interrelated issues such as the trilogy On Generation, On the Nature of the Child and Diseases IV.

8 DK 12 A10-11, A30; DK 60 A4; DK 68 B5.1 = Diod. Sic. Ι, 7.1-8.7. While in Anaximander the zoogony supplements the cosmogony (to the extent we can judge from the extant fragments), in Archelaus and Democritus the narrative is completed with the rise of civilization. Betegh (2016) has argued that this novelty should be attributed to Archelaus.

9 Empedocles refers to the emergence of several organisms (daimons, human beings, animals, plants, monsters) and, despite the disagreements of scholars as to the protagonists and the phases of the zoogony, it is clear that Love (the cosmic power connected with harmonious combination) initially creates the blood, the flesh and the bones (DK 31 B96, B98), as well as more complex structures like the eyes (DK 31 B84), by mixing skillfully the four “roots” in various ratios.

10 Vict. I.7-10 = Joly & Byl 130.17-134.20; Nat. Puer. 12-21 = Joly 53.1-68.18.

11 On this interpretative problem see Heidel 1914, p. 178-179; Diller 1936, p. 372-373.

12 Carn. 1 = Joly 188.2-11.

13 Carn. 2 = Joly 188.12-21.

14 On the identification of the heavens with the aither see Kahn 1960, p. 140-154. Cf. Αrist. Cael. I, 3, 270b16-25; II, 1, 284a11.

15 According to the manuscript tradition, the earth is πουλὺ κινοῦν which is emended by Heidel (1914, p. 180) to πολύκενον, while Deichgräber (1935, p. 2) suggests πολὺ κινεόμενον, an emendation adopted in Joly’s edition. However, the phrase πουλὺ κινοῦν may be merely a corruption of πυκ(ι)νόν, if the author, like his contemporaries, wished to stress the density of the earth in contrast to the rarity of the air and fire around it. Cf. DK 13 A5; DK 28 A22; DK 59 B15.

16 Following the suggestions of scholars who thought that the author adopts an Aristotelian-like cosmic arrangement, Littré (1856, p. 584; cf. Deichgräber 1935, p. 2) supplements the text in order to have a reference to a fourth layer, the sea, that encloses the earth and is much moist and dense. However, this supplement does not derive from the manuscript tradition but from the Latin translation of Calvus in the sixteenth century, as noted by Diller (1936, p. 371-372), and is rightly omitted from the edition of Joly 1978, p. 188.

17 DK 28 B9.

18 DK B17.27-29, B26.1-2.

19 DK 24 B4.

20 Nat. Hom. 3-4 = Jouanna 170.8-174.10.

21 On the role of opposites in early Greek philosophy and medicine see Lloyd 1964.

22 Carn. 2 = Joly 188.12-14: δοκεῖ δέ μοι ὃ καλέομεν θερμόν, ἀθάνατόν τε εἶναι καὶ νοεῖν πάντα καὶ ὁρῆν καὶ ἀκούειν καὶ εἰδέναι πάντα καὶ τὰ ἐόντα καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα ἔσεσθαι. In Diels-Kranz the sentence is printed along with other fragments from Aristophanes, Euripides, Philemon and On Breaths and On the Sacred Disease in the chapter dealing with the influence of Diogenes of Apollonia (DK 64 C3), although it seems to echo the theories of other early philosophers too (see n. 23-26).

23 DK 12 B2-3; DK 22 B30; DK 64 B7-8. Cf. Hes. Th. 21; Pi. Pae. VI.50.

24 DΚ 21 B24; DK 64 B3. Cf. Od. IV.379; Hes. Op. 267.

25 DΚ 59 B12. Cf. Il. I.68-72 on the seer Calchas; Hes. Th. 36-40 on the Muses.

26 Cf. DK 21 B23, B25; DK 22 B64-66; DΚ 59 B12; DK 64 B3-5; Vict. I.10 = Joly & Byl 134.17-20. It is worth noting three points regarding the hot’s nature. First, it incorporates some features attributed to principles of the Presocratic type without, however, being full identified with one of them. For instance, it neither remains immobile and changeless eternally, like Xenophanes’ god (DK 21 B26), nor is transformed in various ways, like the air of Diogenes of Apollonia (DK 64 B5). Second, the author is not adopting a strict monism, like the thinkers who, according to Aristotle, attempt to reduce everything to the principle that they are proposing. Third, the author continuously refers to the “hot” instead of “fire” in contrast to Heraclitus (DK 22 B30-31, B66, B90) and the author of On Regimen (Vict. I.3-4 = Joly & Byl 126.5-23). Like other pre-Aristotelian thinkers, the author seems to conceive of the hot as “character power”, namely as “quality” and “essence” at the same time. Cf. Mourelatos 1973, p. 23-30.

27 Carn. 3 = Joly 188.22: κυκλεομένων δὲ τούτων, ὅτε συνεταράχθη.

28 DK 67 A1.

29 DK 59 B12. On the static condition of the precosmic mixture before the vortex started, see DK 59 A45. On the dominance of the air and the aither (fire) see DK 59 B1, Β4.

30 See n. 33.

31 Carn. 2 = Joly 188.14-16: τοῦτο οὖν τὸ πλεῖστον, ὅτε ἐταράχθη πάντα, ἐξεχώρησεν ἐς τὴν ἀνωτάτω περιφορήν. The separation of the earth from the heavens is often mentioned in early Greek cosmogonies, as well as in the myths of the Near East, as the necessary stage for the creation of the cosmos and livings beings. Cf. DK 31 Α49; DK 59 Β2, B15; Eur. fr. 484 Nauck.

32 DK 59 Β15.

33 PDerv. cols. IX, 5-10 and XXV, 9-12. Detailed discussion in Betegh 2004, p. 224-277.

34 Carn. 3 = Joly 188.23-189.1.

35 Carn. 3 = Joly 189.1-3: καὶ τῷ χρόνῳ ὑπὸ τοῦ θερμοῦ ξηραινομένης τῆς γῆς, ταῦτα <τὰ> καταλειφθέντα περὶ αὐτὰ σηπεδόνας ποιεῖ οἷόν περ χιτῶνας. The author’s description reminds us of the theory concerning the emergence of living beings preserved in Diodorus of Sicily that may go back to Democritus (DK 68 B5.1 = Diod. Sic. Ι, 7.1-6). See Spoerri 1983, p. 65-70.

36 The author envisages no substantial differences between human beings and the other animals (Carn. 1 = Joly 188.7-8; 6 = Joly 193.3-5; 17 = Joly 199.17-18).

37 Vict. I.3-4 = Joly & Byl 126.5-23.

38 Carn. 6 = Joly 192.21-22. The weaker part of a pair of opposites (e.g. fire and water or air, hot and cold, dry and moist) is often described as “nourishment” for the aggressive part, which cannot prevail fully for this victory would endanger both its survival and the balance of the system to which it belongs. Cf. Vict. I.3 = Joly & Byl 126.5-19; Nat. Hom. 3 = Jouanna 107.1-2; Nat. Puer. 12 = Joly 54.2-3. On the equilibrium of opposites in early Greek philosophy and medicine see Kahn 1960, p. 119-196.

39 Carn. 3 = Joly 189.16-18; 4 = Joly 190.26-197.1; 9 = Joly 194.13-15.

40 Carn. 3 = Joly 189.3-6: καὶ πολλῷ χρόνῳ θερμαινόμενον, ὅσον μὲν ἐτύγχανεν ἐκ τῆς γῆς σηπεδόνος λιπαρόν τε ἐὸν καὶ ὀλίγιστον τοῦ ὑγροῦ ἔχον, τάχιστα ἐξεκαύθη καὶ ἐγένετο ὀστέα.

41 Carn. 3 = Joly 189.6-9: ὁπόσα δὲ ἐτύγχανε κολλωδέστερα ἐόντα καὶ τοῦ ψυχροῦ μετέχοντα, ταῦτα δὲ θερμαινόμενα οὐκ ἐδύνατο ἐκκαυθῆναι, οὐδὲ ξηρὰ γενέσθαι.

42 Carn. 3 = Joly 189.9-10: οὐ γὰρ ἦν τοῦ λιπαροῦ ὡς ἐκκαυθῆναι, οὐδὲ μὴν τοῦ ὑγροῦ ὡς ἐκκαυθὲν ξηρὸν γενέσθαι.

43 Carn. 3 = Joly 189.16-18: τὸ δὲ ψυχρὸν ἐνεὸν κρατηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ θερμοῦ διελύθη καὶ ἐγένετο ὑγρόν διὰ τοῦτο.

44 Carn. 3 = Joly 190.17-19: ὅπου δὲ ἂν τὸ κολλῶδες συνίῃ τῷ ψυχρῷ ἄνευ τοῦ λιπαροῦ, οὐκ ἐθέλει ἐκκαίεσθαι, ἀλλὰ τῷ χρόνῳ θερμαινόμενον πήγνυται.

45 Carn. 8 = Joly 193.17-19: σὺν τῷ θερμῷ πολὺ τοῦ ὑγροῦ ἀπολειφθὲν ἄνευ τοῦ κολλώδεος καὶ τοῦ λιπαροῦ, ἐκράτησε τὸ ψυχρὸν τοῦ θερμοῦ, καὶ ἐπάγη.

46 Carn. 3 = Joly 189.3-189.18, 190.4-13.

47 Carn. 3 = Joly 189.18-190.4.

48 Carn. 4 = Joly 190.20-191.7.

49 Carn. 5 = Joly 191.13-192.9.

50 Carn. 7 = Joly 193.10-16.

51 Carn. 8 = Joly 193.17-19.

52 Carn. 9 = Joly 193.24-194.11.

53 Carn. 10 = Joly 194.27-195.7.

54 Carn. 11 = Joly 195.8-11.

55 Carn. 12-13 = Joly 195.12-197.7. The teeth constitute a special category of bones, since the author employs the explanatory pattern ὅμοιον ὁμοίῳ, like other early philosophers and doctors.

56 Carn. 14 = Joly 197.8-16.

57 E.g. Carn. 4 = Joly 191.7-12; 6 = Joly 192.16-22; 8 = Joly 193.20-23.

58 Carn. 5-6 = Joly 191.13-193.9.

59 Carn. 3 = Joly 189.3-10; 14 = Joly 197.15-16.

60 E.g. Pl. Ti. 45b2-47c4; Xen. Mem. Ι, 4.2-7; Gal. UP IV, 142 Kühn.

61 DK 59 B12; DK 64 B5. Cf. Deichgräber 1933.

62 Carn. 3 = Joly 189.6-14; 9 = Joly 194.7-11.

63 Pl. Ti. 74a7-e1. Detailed discussion in Taylor 1928, p. 529-532.

64 Pl. Ti. 72d4-81e1.

65 Pl. Ti. 73b1-e1.

66 Pl. Τi. 73e1-75d5.

67 DK 31 A72, Β57-62. On Aristotle’s criticism see Phys. II, 8, 198b28-32, GC II,.6, 333a35-334a9, PA Ι,1, 640a18-26.

68 Carn. 15-18 = Joly 197.17-200.24. The author refers to hearing, smell, vision, as well as voice which is often included in the senses by Hippocratic authors.

69 Pl. Phd. 96a6-b1. Cf. Jouanna 1992, p. 391-398. In Laws X Plato points out that a key feature of the materialistic theories, fiercely criticised, is that the random combinations of matter are taken as the cause of the creation of the cosmic order and living beings (Pl. Leg. 889b5-c6).

Auteur

University of Crete - skouloumentas@gmail.com

© Publications de l’École française de Rome, 2021

Licence OpenEdition Books

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search